I have been looking at various movies suggesting that the manned Moon landings were fake.
In this age of movie magic one realizes that our senses can be fooled to perceive a non existent reality.
In respect of the Moon landing hoax stuff I suspect that one could be convinced either way so who can you trust.
Given that it is a rainy day and maybe you have little better to do if not at work or studying would you care to offer an opinion as to the landing being fact or fiction?
I have tried to find a crack in NASA's story and the only thing I find very curious is the time the various radio transmissions take to be acknowledged. Much faster than the one second plus one would expect given the distance involved.
My science may be incomplete but I thought that a radio transmission took place at C or approximately 300,000 kms per second so given that the closest the Moon gets to Earth is 363,104 km (225,622 miles), and at its furthest point, it’s 405,696 km (252,088 miles) that any transmission should have a lag of at least one second...much like the lag we have with TV interviews with folk at either end of our planet.
When one listens to the radio transmissions between the astronauts on or near the Moon lander it appears that conversations take place where there is no delay of one second (or more) and the parties seem to converse in a real time speed.
There must be a good reason why this is so but it is one of those things that makes one wonder.
It is unthinkable that the leading scientific organization in the world could be a party to the hoax suggested in some of the movies out there.
It is unthinkable that so many people could keep a secret such as a fake Moon landing to themselves however there is no "inside" leaks.
The Russians would have had a very close eye on the proceedings. If there was the slightest suspicion of anything untoward, they would have been screaming it from the tree tops.
Thanks for your interest Mike your short reply suggests you have better things to do..you lucky *****
When I posted this it was a bit of a stir to be honest but as it is raining I decided to go thru all the available footage and having done so it seems what I suggested is a fact as there is no delay in the conversations...there are many examples of what I point to... the math would suggest a delay of at least one second is mandatory yet the evidence suggests statements and replies show no delay.
Maybe radio waves travel faster thru space than we thought
Anyways as a mate just now pointed out folk will determine this on what they want to believe and any evidence one way or the other will not have any bearing on what they believe... for mine I can say I dont know as I was not on the Moon at that time and can offer no eye witness account
The Russians would have had a very close eye on the proceedings. If there was the slightest suspicion of anything untoward, they would have been screaming it from the tree tops.
Neil Armstrong would give you such a slap if he read this!
Only if there is a hint of truth in my observation one would think.
My background trained me to argue for whoever was prepared to pay the fee and from that I realize often a good case can be made for whatever one decides is the truth and so I believe in nothing at all...
There is no way you could fake all the missions and then get everyone to keep quiet about it.
When you think of all the scientists involved with moon rock samples etc. I reckon someone would have spilt the beans by now unless the CIA bumped off all non-essential personnel.
There is no way you could fake all the missions and then get everyone to keep quiet about it.
When you think of all the scientists involved with moon rock samples etc. I reckon someone would have spilt the beans by now unless the CIA bumped off all non-essential personnel.
Cheers
I agree Ric and given I think conspiracy theorists are all nuts irrespective of their evidence in support of their particular conspiracy idea I found my observation very confusing.
Irrespective of all the reasons for and against the only thing of interest to me is .....why is there no delay between questions (or statements) and the replies as our science strongly suggest there should be... the Moon is at least one light second distant which suggests when a question is asked by either NASA base or the guys up there that no delay is apparent.
Alex,
the footage doesn't have a delay because it was recorded on one side (Earth)..
Imagine, someone is at the Moon and you are talking to him. The moment he is finished (his voice reaches you), you reply to him, and that was recorded.
He keeps on talking.. you keep replying or commenting.. and so on. No visible delay between talking, sometimes even overlap would occur.
The delay (~two sec) is expected if you ask him something specific and he replays to your request. But the presence of the delay depends on context of the discussion.. Noone is really waiting for the answer to arrive, to continue with talking. Otherwise, this would have been one very in-efficient discussion.
I am very slow with keypad... So when I "talk" to someone on, say, Yahoo messenger, there is a considerable delay in individual questions/replies.. but my reply is applicable to the before-previous message from my correspondent, and vice versa.
Didn't Buzz bop someone on the nose for saying to his face he never went to the moon?
I dont follow this stuff (other than being bored today and surfing utube) but if I were him I would not be inclined to hit someone because they called me a liar...Mum always taught me not to respond to name calling with the statement "sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me" but it would be extremely hurtful to have anyone suggest a fake when you were the eye witness on the Moon and clearly knew the truth.
As I said however the absence of delay is very curious.
Yes Geoff it is too wet ... I am opposite the Drake pub right now but there is no one there other than the owner it seems....anyways I have lost interest in drinking, pool and girls.
I cant even go home cause if I do I wont get back out the drive..it is like a river with all this rain.
I'm sure this is a worthwhile debating topic for more intellectual forum members who love discussing Theory of Knowledge, albeit a little tiresome for us lesser creatures (no sarcasm intended).
I personally think this is one of those questions that requires too much energy expenditure compared to the possible reward.
now i am a bit worried about you Alex
lost interest in the drinking, pool and the girls ! you say
might i suggest that as soon as the rain eases, you get yourself into Casino to the doctors
YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT WELL
You also have to bear in mind that many of the recordings you hear in mainstream media have been edited. As an example, during the landing of Apollo 11, the radio transmissions as we hear them in documentaries etc. often go ".. Ok engine stop... Houston, Tranquility base here. The Eagle has landed."
But if you listen to the original recording, they actually said a bunch more technical stuff after "engine stop" which has been edited out of most recordings that we hear today.
Also, Amstrong's "one small step" quote is often edited. He left a long pause in the middle which is sometimes included but sometimes edited out.
Similarly, delays due to signal travel time have probably been edited out of many recordings for inclusion in documentary programs etc.
So any claim that there are inconsistencies in the delays, must be based on original (not edited) recordings.
Can you give references to the recordings you are talking about?
Alex,
the footage doesn't have a delay because it was recorded on one side (Earth)..
Imagine, someone is at the Moon and you are talking to him. The moment he is finished (his voice reaches you), you reply to him, and that was recorded.
He keeps on talking.. you keep replying or commenting.. and so on. No visible delay between talking, sometimes even overlap would occur.
The delay (~two sec) is expected if you ask him something specific and he replays to your request. But the presence of the delay depends on context of the discussion.. Noone is really waiting for the answer to arrive, to continue with talking. Otherwise, this would have been one very in-efficient discussion.
I am very slow with keypad... So when I "talk" to someone on, say, Yahoo messenger, there is a considerable delay in individual questions/replies.. but my reply is applicable to the before-previous message from my correspondent, and vice versa.
Hi Bojan thank you for your input. I am well aware of context and it is the context thing that will demonstrate the absence of delay rather than it being an illusion.
If you take the time to view the footage there are a number of examples of what I suggest which clearly show a no delay response.... I think what I point out is obvious if you take the time to look and listen ... I have been very careful not to go off half cocked and offer my observation which anyone can make ...
As I said I dont believe anything (you must know this of me by now) but in this case I am reasonably confident that my observation is reasonable... if you have the time take a look and time the delays...and take many samples...I have not seized on one example and am not offering one for folk to look at...if one is curious one can find examples and think upon it in the context of the distance transmissions had to travel...
I am not suggesting a hoax but something seems out of wack ...nothing more.
Time the delay, think of the context, take many samples and form your personal view.
You also have to bear in mind that many of the recordings you hear in mainstream media have been edited. As an example, during the landing of Apollo 11, the radio transmissions as we hear them in documentaries etc. often go ".. Ok engine stop... Houston, Tranquility base here. The Eagle has landed."
But if you listen to the original recording, they actually said a bunch more technical stuff after "engine stop" which has been edited out of most recordings that we hear today.
Also, Amstrong's "one small step" quote is often edited. He left a long pause in the middle which is sometimes included but sometimes edited out.
Similarly, delays due to signal travel time have probably been edited out of many recordings for inclusion in documentary programs etc.
So any claim that there are inconsistencies in the delays, must be based on original (not edited) recordings.
Can you give references to the recordings you are talking about?
You must be correct.
Editing is the only way I can see delay would not be present.
AS to a particular tape I wont suggest any as I would never admit to looking at some of the stuff I have looked at today for fear of being labeled the same as the nutters who put some of these things together...
However it is easy to call up footage of the landing and events surrounding the landing and rather than suggest one in particular I suggest you look ..at random..and decide from what you observe.
I am not pushing anything here but if my observation is reasonable it will be clear in any unedited footage...
If not edited the lack of delay is interesting.
I might see if NASA have footage and see what comes from that.
alex
... I am opposite the Drake pub right now but there is no one there other than the owner it seems....anyways I have lost interest in drinking, pool and girls
.
for fear of being labeled the same as the nutters who put some of these things together
