Here is the original audio footage of Neil Armstrong making his famous line.
At the 15 sec mark, we hear: "Columbia, Columbia this is Houston AOS, over"
Then, after barely a 1 second pause, we hear: "Houston, Columbia on the high gain, over"
Is the second message is a direct response to the first one? There is no indication that Columbia intended that statement to be an aquisition of signal acknowlegement
Wrong. When Houston finished their transmission with the word "over" it signified that they completed their message and were waiting for an acknowledgement from Columbia. The response was much too fast and broke the laws of physics.
You are desperately holding on to your belief in NASA. Time for you to let it go- NASA lied.
This post was edited 55 seconds after it was posted.
Is the second message is a direct response to the first one? There is no indication that Columbia intended that statement to be an aquisition of signal acknowlegement
Wrong. When Houston finished their transmission with the word "over" it signified that they completed their message and were waiting for an acknowledgement from Columbia. The response was much too fast and broke the laws of physics.
You are desperately holding on to your belief in NASA. Time for you to let it go- NASA lied.
My point was that Columbia's message does not semantically follow Houston's message (i.e. does not acknowledge it or respond to it) and thus could easily have been sent prior to Columbia's receipt of Houston's AOS message. Is that correct? I am no expert in Apollo-era radio protocols
Wrong. When Houston finished their transmission with the word "over" it signified that they completed their message and were waiting for an acknowledgement from Columbia. The response was much too fast and broke the laws of physics.
You are desperately holding on to your belief in NASA. Time for you to let it go- NASA lied.
My point was that Columbia's message does not semantically follow Houston's message (i.e. does not acknowledge it or respond to it) and thus could easily have been sent prior to Columbia's receipt of Houston's AOS message. Is that correct? I am no expert in Apollo-era radio protocols
Protocols???? You are completely missing the point. Columbia's response speed broke the laws of physics. Again, RF transmission cannot exceed the speed of light. The actorNOTS were never on the moon.
My point was that Columbia's message does not semantically follow Houston's message (i.e. does not acknowledge it or respond to it) and thus could easily have been sent prior to Columbia's receipt of Houston's AOS message. Is that correct? I am no expert in Apollo-era radio protocols
Protocols???? You are completely missing the point. Columbia's response speed broke the laws of physics. Again, RF transmission cannot exceed the speed of light. The actorNOTS were never on the moon.
Again - my point is that the second message could have been sent prior to receipt of the first. There is no semantic indication that the first message is a response to the first. Surely you seen had this issue during a phone call or a zoom call. People talk over each other all the time when there is a slight delay in communication. My note about protocol is relevant because knowledge of comms protocols could shed more light on this situation - e.g. if it was standard protocol for Columbia to speak only when prompted, or if there is some sort of call-response encoded in those messages that I am missing
Only on letsrun will you have a five-and-a-half-year-old thread with some 3,000 posts on fake moon landings. Under which rocks do they find these conspiracy theorists?
I will leave you alone regarding N A S A, Columbia and radio comm. if you admit Tricky Dick lied times six.
Not one world leader, after Richard Nixon wants to send a countryman to the moon? Really? You are telling me Tricky Dick sent U.S. citizens to the moon six times?
> Nixon had to pay for Great Society Programs passed during L B J administration.
> Nixon had to pay for SE Asia Conflicts. Nixon expanded the fight to numerous SE Asian countries.
> Nixon had to pay for his Law & Order promises. See Weathermen Underground and high crime all over the nation during Nixon administration.
Heck of a lot cheaper to pay for faux moon landing documentaries than to actually pay to travel to moon six times from 1969 to 1972.
I will leave you alone regarding N A S A, Columbia and radio comm. if you admit Tricky Dick lied times six.
Not one world leader, after Richard Nixon wants to send a countryman to the moon? Really? You are telling me Tricky Dick sent U.S. citizens to the moon six times?
> Nixon had to pay for Great Society Programs passed during L B J administration.
> Nixon had to pay for SE Asia Conflicts. Nixon expanded the fight to numerous SE Asian countries.
> Nixon had to pay for his Law & Order promises. See Weathermen Underground and high crime all over the nation during Nixon administration.
Heck of a lot cheaper to pay for faux moon landing documentaries than to actually pay to travel to moon six times from 1969 to 1972.
But I don't want to be left alone regarding NASA, Columbia, and radio comm protocols. Do you agree that my points about the radio transmissions not being semantically linked are valid? If you are confident about your position, then go look for evidence supporting them. You should be able to find information on radio protocols easily. It would be an easy way to lend credence to your idea
I have little to say about Nixon or NASA funding other than that I don't see any obvious issues. If you'd like to come up with some hard numbers showing that the project makes no financial sense, then I'm down to listen. I'm also down to listen if you want to gish gallop onwards to another subject again
I often wonder if anyone on these threads actually believes that we did not land on the Moon in 1969 - 1972. Or if everyone making such claims is actually a troll. It is hard to tell sometimes.
Your indoctrination denies physics. Explain to all of us how sound travels in a vacuum.
On page 9 of this thread, I posted this (regarding RF transmission)- NASA got caught hoaxing AGAIN. Explain to us how RF travels faster than the speed of light?
There is approx a 2.6 sec delay that has never been accounted for between the ACTORnots and Houston Control.
Per NASA, the Moon is about 240,000 miles away.
RF travels at 186,282 miles/second.
240000/186282 = 1.29 seconds (represents the audio/visual transmission delay in one direction)
1.29 X 2 = 2.58 seconds (represents the delay for a two-way transmission)
Here is the original audio footage of Neil Armstrong making his famous line.
At the 15 sec mark, we hear: "Columbia, Columbia this is Houston AOS, over"
Then, after barely a 1 second pause, we hear: "Houston, Columbia on the high gain, over"
Busted!! The pause should have been 2.58 seconds at minimum. That's 1.29 seconds to go out and 1.29 seconds for it to come back, if the "actornot" replied instantly. Amazing how the laws of physics have been broken. RF cannot travel faster than the speed of light. The lack of delay means that these "actornots" were right here safe on Earth the whole time. Just more evidence that the Moon landing was faked.
NASA then, ALTERED the tapes at a later date to try to "correct" them for the audio delay...Now, why would they do that??? You NASA trolls can scream all day/night, but the laws of physics cannot be changed. The speed of light in a vacuum did not magically and suddenly speed up for the Apollo missions. NASA lied, get over it.
Every single argument claiming that Nasa faked the Moon landings has been discredited. The only science worth exploring about that is why so many deluded lunatics still continue to maintain their conspiracy theories.
"A final nail in the coffin of the Moon hoax theories is a simple instrument installed 50 years ago by Apollo 11. During their day on the Moon, Armstrong and Aldrin planted a lunar laser ranging retroreflector array on the surface. It’s still operational today, and allows us to reflect lasers off of it and measure the distance to the Moon down to the centimetre. We simply couldn’t do this if we hadn’t visited the Moon."
Why did the Soviets give up their moon landing project as soon as the Amstrong landed? Were the Soviets fooled by a Hollywood fake film as well? Did the Soviets ever claim the landing was faked?
This is exactly the same sort of weak argument I'm talking about.
What would this prove, poster? We went to the moon because the Soviets didn't? Speculating about their motives doesn't directly address the factual claim of a moon landing. (nor do downvotes, like it or not)
All those who get cocky about "deniers" offer no proof either. What they are trying to ignore, but keeps this thread going, is that the "denial" is frivolous posturing to bait them into revealing their shaky world view.
In the end, the government said it landed on the moon, you trust the government. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't, but your belief is founded significantly on either that trust, or the circumstantial claim that it couldn't have pulled off such an elaborate fake. None of us was actually there on the moon, or closely observing the journey in person.
Has anyone explained the rocket launch yet? I can get behind most aspects of the conspiracy theory, and I believe the US had multiple important incentives to convince the world they went to the moon during that specific time. But what about the launch? I’m assuming many people witnessed a large rocket take off in real time. Where would it have gone?
Has anyone explained the rocket launch yet? I can get behind most aspects of the conspiracy theory, and I believe the US had multiple important incentives to convince the world they went to the moon during that specific time. But what about the launch? I’m assuming many people witnessed a large rocket take off in real time. Where would it have gone?
Is it THAT complicated?
Before so-called moon landings, nations sent rockets hundreds of miles from Earth. It's one thing to send a rocket over three-hundred miles from surface of the Earth, it is another thing to send a rocket with live humans, 238,900 miles to the moon and back.
Any non-moon destination outside of Earth orbit would do.
But here again, we see the subtle fallacy baiting, with proof demanded of the doubters. The point quietly stands that witnesses saw a rocket launch, but didn't see first hand what happened next.
"A final nail in the coffin of the Moon hoax theories is a simple instrument installed 50 years ago by Apollo 11. During their day on the Moon, Armstrong and Aldrin planted a lunar laser ranging retroreflector array on the surface. It’s still operational today, and allows us to reflect lasers off of it and measure the distance to the Moon down to the centimetre. We simply couldn’t do this if we hadn’t visited the Moon."
Do you believe you are proving humans successfully went to the moon, 1969 to 1972?
If you were in charge of N A S A, 1958 through 1972, wouldn't it have been wise to send no living creatures to moon first? Second, send insects, third send mice or rats, fourth, send primates?
Soviets and U.S. both did 350 mile to 375 mile from surface of the Earth missions. Then, 1967, fire on launch, U.S. men died THEN we go for the 238,900 mile big prize in less than 2 years and never try again after December, 1972? Not logical.
"A final nail in the coffin of the Moon hoax theories is a simple instrument installed 50 years ago by Apollo 11. During their day on the Moon, Armstrong and Aldrin planted a lunar laser ranging retroreflector array on the surface. It’s still operational today, and allows us to reflect lasers off of it and measure the distance to the Moon down to the centimetre. We simply couldn’t do this if we hadn’t visited the Moon."
You really believe that we can shoot a laser through our atmosphere and have it scatter, hit a target that is the size of a book that is 240,000 miles away and then have it reflect back through our atmosphere and scatter again and we’ll receive it?
You really believe that we can shoot a laser through our atmosphere and have it scatter, hit a target that is the size of a book that is 240,000 miles away and then have it reflect back through our atmosphere and scatter again and we’ll receive it?
Good on you, brother. Lol
Sure. The laser obviously scatters some in the atmosphere and the beam obviously diverges on the way to the moon, but if you choose the correct laser wavelength, you only need a few photons to make it back to you to measure the pulse delay with a good SNR. Why do you think it's impossible? Please be precise.
Do you believe you are proving humans successfully went to the moon, 1969 to 1972?
If you were in charge of N A S A, 1958 through 1972, wouldn't it have been wise to send no living creatures to moon first? Second, send insects, third send mice or rats, fourth, send primates?
Soviets and U.S. both did 350 mile to 375 mile from surface of the Earth missions. Then, 1967, fire on launch, U.S. men died THEN we go for the 238,900 mile big prize in less than 2 years and never try again after December, 1972? Not logical.
Both NASA and the Soviet space program sent living organisms into various orbits of varying lengths and successfully returned them to earth. Once you do that, sending them to the moon is just more of the same. Getting living organisms into and out of the atmosphere alive is the hard part - e.g. Apollo 1. After you clear that hurdle, the main thing limiting you from going to the moon or beyond is the size of your supply closet.
