![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,767
- Location
- Auckland
Be thankful you have one to smash.
So the moon landing was faked!
- Thread starter LateX'Dog
- Start date
Be thankful you have one to smash.
Were there any 'impossible transmission delays'? I know CT'ers are fond of pointing to edited audio and trying to use it as proof!
As someone sad enough to have read the transcripts of the ground-to-capsule communications for all the Apollo flights, I have to say that I don't recall any instance where the communication times looked wildly out (the transcripts have timestamps next to each transmission).
Take this one for example - link. That's the transcript of the Apollo 13 mission from launch to bobbing around in the Pacific. At the start of the mission, there's little to no delay (as you'd expect). As they travel out, the delay gets longer. Seems perfectly consistent to me.
(And yes, I know. NASA published it, therefore FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE. Spare me.)
Page 167 of the PDF (160 in the transcript itself) is where things turn to worms, by the way! A large bang, a Main B undervolt, and a future Hollywood movie is born.
What was impossible about the transmission delays? The moon is a bit less than a light second away off the top of my head, isn't it?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 28 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 52,812
- Location
- Tamworth, UK
See videos under point 9.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
nearly. The moon is around 240,000 miles from Earth (it varies of course depending on it's current orbit) and the speed of light is 186,282 per second so you are looking at just over 1 second (1.3 seconds) for a one-way trip at the speed of light. But don't forget this is a two way trip, the radio waves are sent out, meet the spacecraft and then are sent back so actually you'd expect 2.6 second delay from the moon.
Currently about 3 mins into that first video under your point #9. The guy who made the video refers to an exchange between Houston and Michael Collins (who was orbiting the Moon in the CSM while Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were on the lunar surface). He says that Collins' reply came down the line too quick to have come from lunar orbit. On the transcript (page 392 in the PDF) that exchange takes several seconds, not the 1.07 that your Youtuber seems to think. Houston calls up at 4 days, 14 hours, 9 minutes and 18 seconds mission elapsed time, the reply comes down the line at 4 days, 14 hours, 9 minutes and 25 seconds MET.
Now, I'm just a gullible soul
p) and I ain't no mathematician, but even I can work out that the difference between 4:14:9:18 MET and 4:14:9:25 MET is rather more than 1.07 seconds!
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,432
Currently about 3 mins into that first video under your point #9. The guy who made the video refers to an exchange between Houston and Michael Collins (who was orbiting the Moon in the CSM while Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were on the lunar surface). He says that Collins' reply came down the line too quick to have come from lunar orbit. On the transcript (page 392 in the PDF) that exchange takes several seconds, not the 1.07 that your Youtuber seems to think. Houston calls up at 4 days, 14 hours, 9 minutes and 18 seconds mission elapsed time, the reply comes down the line at 4 days, 14 hours, 9 minutes and 25 seconds MET.
Now, I'm just a gullible soul
Wouldn't radio waves only travel at the speed of light in a vacuum and thus have slower time leaving our atmosphere and then back in etc. There is also some delay expected with processing etc.
Gotcha. I had the 240,000 figure down as Kilometres in my head, and the SoL as 300,000km/sec.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
His point about expecting a 2.5 second delay would only be true of thing that happened instantly, so like a radio wave being sent out and coming back or a text message received notification.
However when your method of communication itself also involves time that has to be taken into consideration which he doesn't seem to have done.
To be honest I find the arguments presented in those poorly constructed Youtube video hard to follow but if I'm right, his argument is based on the incorrect assumption there should be a gap of 2.5 seconds between the end of the operator speaking and the start of the astronaut's reply.
Two things, firstly the time it takes to say something hasn't been considered. Most sentences take longer than 1.25 seconds to say, so in reality the astronaut will start hearing the message before the operator has finished speaking back on Earth. Now unlike on TV where you see interviews over satellite with people with media training to specifically wait to make sure one person has finished before the other answers (causing that noticeable delay), the astronauts conversation were more colloquial, between colleagues so once they had the gist of the sentence they would start replying immediately as if on the telephone.
So if I said from NASA HQ "Great guys, we've got you on screen", the astronauts would likely hear 'great guys..." whilst I'm still saying the rest of the sentence, from which one may reply "no problem" which he would physically be saying at the same time I'm still saying "got you on screen" hence when it comes back there would be little delay between the me saying "on screen" and "no problem" coming back.
Secondly, do we know these recordings are made from only the recording equipment on the ground? Because if you took the audio recording on the ground of the operators, then took the recording of the astronauts mics recorded on the moon and laid them over each other, the gap would only be 1.25 seconds between the start of each communication, not 2.5 as he claims.
Last edited:
The difference between the speed of light in a vacuum vs air is negligible to say the least. Roughly 300,000km/s in space, and about 290,910km/s in air (only 90km/s slower.
The atmosphere delay would add approximately one fifth of a millionth of a second (0.0000002 seconds) to the signal time. Even modern digital audio recording only samples 48,000 times a second, so even zooming down to individual samples in Cubase (or other DAW software), you wouldn't see a difference.
The SoL is slightly slower in copper wire, but as a pie in the sky guess, you're looking at no more than a millionth of a second delay in signal processing.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 3,779
- Location
- Wales
Wow. I wasn't implying that extra gas was needed to make up for a lack of atmosphere, lol. That is child like thinking!
Hahahah! I like it.I was saying that, if you apply conservation of momentum to the craft and to the propellant expelled to slow it down, then either the mass or speed of the propellant expelled would have to be significant to nullify the momentum of the craft relative to the moon.
I conceed that the dust would fall straight back down on the moon or maybe escape. But consider that astronauts look like they are bouncing in slow motion due to the lack of mavity and can also probably jump much higher with ease.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 3,779
- Location
- Wales
What was I saying earlier? I can't be bothered to check. I am just thinking that a decent amount of dust would be cleared. Not implying a crater.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 3,779
- Location
- Wales
The most compelling evidence to refute that the moon landings were faked in my view is the sheer amount of people who would have been involved, physicists, investigative journalists swarming around, etc - there's just no way all these minds would have been fooled, or that no one would have found out or breathed a word. Utter nonsense.
As for the radio transmissions, as already posted, go read the transcripts. It's more stupid youtube videos. It's yet another one which has been debunked a million times. For a weeks research you got most of the info from the same place, was hopping you would actually post something new.
What makes you think that?
Moon = thin layer of regolith over solid rock
Moon = no atmosphere
Moon = 1/6th mavity
Put those three together and you don't get large dust movement at all. There's nothing to compound the affect of the rocket (no atmosphere), low mavity means low thrust, thin layer means not much dust anyway.
What makes you think that?
Moon = thin layer of regolith over solid rock
Moon = no atmosphere
Moon = 1/6th mavity
Put those three together and you don't get large dust movement at all. There's nothing to compound the affect of the rocket (no atmosphere), low mavity means low thrust, thin layer means not much dust anyway.
Last edited:
Then how do you explain all the home equipment at the time used by various people like you and me all around the world picking up the broadcast signal's from beyond the Van Allen belt? There had to be people in the ships to speak and respond to questions and anyone with a HAM radio which was common at the time could pinpoint the position of the spaceship and listen in. There is just no way to fake that. Most of those people had no link to NASA as they are people like you and me.
EDIT:
To quote amateur radio-astronomer which are people like you and me from the 1960’s.
“Its “beam” or “field of view” was such that, once pointed at the Moon, it could be let go for a little while, but pretty soon it would have to be reaimed because the motions of the Earth and Moon caused the Moon to drift out of the antenna’s field and the signal to be lost. In fact, this was one piece of evidence that the Apollo 11 signals the receiver picked up were indeed from the Moon — if the antenna was not kept aimed at the Moon, the signal disappeared. Baysinger’s wife and daughter watched the Apollo 11 landing on TV while Baysinger and Rutherford listened via Baysinger’s equipment. The signal on the home-built equipment came through approximately 5-10 seconds earlier than the signal on TV. It was noisy, but you could hear what was going on.”
This was confirmed by many home people using home equipment. Due to the massive amount of people who did this from lots of places around Earth all people with no link to NASA there is no way the Moon Landing could be fake.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,660
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
I love the CT where the Russians were also fooled.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 3,779
- Location
- Wales
Dodgy thinking from assuming the craft wouldn't have slowed down it's approach long before touching down at the surface tbh. So with no need for huge blasts of propellant you're right. And even with a huge blast you still wouldn't get "clouds" or even visibly well defined "patch" on the surface. If the dust was 'suspended' for slightly longer in the air due to the weaker mavity the lack of density would mean it would disseminate very quickly and pretty soon after it hits the floor anyway (or escapes).
Last edited:
Just watched video number 9, and I can't find anything wrong with any of the audio recordings.
There are many cases of Capcom asking a long winded question, and the astronauts replying to the first part. You can quite clearly make out the pause in the 1st example when the astronaut realises Capcom is still talking, he shuts up, waits to hear the finished question, and then answers with the expected time delay - it's as plain as day.
If conspiracy theorists can only pull a handful of examples of Houston and the astronauts talking over each other out of the best part of A THOUSAND HOURS of recordings, then again, just how many straws are they clutching at.
More to the point, Apollo is taught on astrophysics and "rocket science" university courses the world over. Surely SOMEONE might have realised they were fake by now if even a tiny shred of evidence pointed to an inconsistency somewhere along the line... But nope!