Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => General Topics => Topic started by: ToxicAvenger on December 21, 2006, 09:32:50 PM
-
in real time
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4166049933953240830&q=luna
see for yourself..
HOW???...nothing travels faster than the speed of light and it shoulda taken a few mins to go back n forth in conversation ??? i mean the moon is FAR away..... :-\ apparently signals from the moon defy Ei9nstiens general theory of relativity and travel faster than the speed of light :)
I'm sorry for punching holes in your view of reality..
quick..google NASA websites and see if you can defy newtonian physics ;)
-
LOL..........
I just watched the *live* moon landing video.
And I just can't get over how they defeated physics to have the Houston,TX/neil Armstrong conversation in real time with zero delay.
I just saw dozens of communications between men in orbit and the team on the ground. ALWAYS a 1-2 second delay between transmissions. And they're less than 100 miles apart (machine delay,etc).
Somehow, this delay is completely removed as Ground Control lands Apollo. They talk in real time, describe what's happening, etc, with zero delay
I'm all for believing the landing is real - someone just tell me how they defeated what should have been at LEAST 3 seconds with machine time and 200,000 miles distance. Anyone?
-
her Rob ...you and i are anti american...
esp since i'm ex pakistani..so you cant rreally trust me...
we r stupid conspiracy theorists....even ythe laws of physics work how NASA wants em to work dontcha know..
NASA invented physics mang..and the speed of light varies according to what NASA wants :-\
;D
o and apparently the melting point of steel varies according to what bush wants ;)
-
Brah, the goverment said it happened!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why would they lie? The goverment never tells fibbs homey!
;)
-
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=113822.0
scroll past nordic ijits comments to watch some short amazing vids..
-
I love the USA.
NASA are a bunch of thieves though. They took billions and kept crashing shit in the desert. Finally, they just decided to make a nice desert movie and cut in those who mattered to play along.
For real - can anyone tell me why there isn't a 3-second radio delay when they chat? It's like 2 guys in a bar, not 200,000+ miles apart with mechanical and resistance delay. Anyone? Come on, I want to believe it's real, but the science I've learned says otherwise.
-
They didn't bring back any cheese!? :'(
-
Sorry,
you guys can`t be that ignorant to think we never landed on the moon.
I take it you have never used anything really powerful to view the moon.
Shoeprints and a flag can easily still be seen.
-
I'm convinced that every CT buys their hallucinogens from Toxic Avendure!
-
LOL..........
I just watched the *live* moon landing video.
And I just can't get over how they defeated physics to have the Houston,TX/neil Armstrong conversation in real time with zero delay.
I just saw dozens of communications between men in orbit and the team on the ground. ALWAYS a 1-2 second delay between transmissions. And they're less than 100 miles apart (machine delay,etc).
Somehow, this delay is completely removed as Ground Control lands Apollo. They talk in real time, describe what's happening, etc, with zero delay
I'm all for believing the landing is real - someone just tell me how they defeated what should have been at LEAST 3 seconds with machine time and 200,000 miles distance. Anyone?
Speed of light is close to 200,000 miles per second. (186k miles). As almost the entire journey is in a vacuum that would be at ideal speeds as well.
-
Speed of light is close to 200,000 miles per second. (186k miles). As almost the entire journey is in a vacuum that would be at ideal speeds as well.
yeah, but all the recordings they did with spacecraft in orbit all had a 1-2 second delay. These dudes were complelety talking over each other, laughing, practically finishing each other's sentences. There are lots of fishy funny things about the landing, and I don't follow them.
But when you listen to it, and consider the distance, I dunno, it makes you wonder. They had such bad luck with all the practice missions, it was a very low-prob success mission, the whole world was watching and the USSR would have won the space race if it failed... If it was me, hell yeah, I would have faked the thing and known it was a 100% success lol...
it just messes with my head a bit. Why was there no radio delay? Just weird.
-
Speed of light is close to 200,000 miles per second. (186k miles). As almost the entire journey is in a vacuum that would be at ideal speeds as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
speed of light in a vacuum = to speed of light elesewhere
THATS RELATIVITY YA DUMBCUNT
the speed of light is always measured the same...
i do understand that for some of yall..that failed physics 101...this is beyond you..
-
you guys can`t be that ignorant to think we never landed on the moon.
did we say that ya stupid cu nt??
go to the general..and reasd the whole thread..
morons..
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
speed of light in a vacuum = to speed of light elesewhere
THATS RELATIVITY YA DUMBCUNT
the speed of light as always measured the same...
i do understand that for some of yall..that failed physics 101...this is beyond you..
Through any transparent or translucent material medium, like glass or air, it has a lower speed than in a vacuum; the ratio of c to this slower speed is called the refractive index of the medium
Looks like you're the dumb cunt :)
-
I love the USA.
NASA are a bunch of thieves though. They took billions and kept crashing shit in the desert. Finally, they just decided to make a nice desert movie and cut in those who mattered to play along.
For real - can anyone tell me why there isn't a 3-second radio delay when they chat? It's like 2 guys in a bar, not 200,000+ miles apart with mechanical and resistance delay. Anyone? Come on, I want to believe it's real, but the science I've learned says otherwise.
just a thought here....but as it was suppose to be live.... maybe they taped the footage from the moon before it was aired publicly, then edited it....as someone in the other thread pointed out it would have been embarrassing in that situation to have failed or possibly found green aliens on live tv. How would it have affected the US if the astronauts would have evaportated stepping out of the rocket onto the moon?
just food for thought no need to defy any laws of physics just pre-edit for tv time and any possible clues as to what was on the moon before the Ruskies got there??
-
As for the video, let me assure you.. that is edited and is not the live moon landing. Its quite obviously edited. You can go to the wiki page on moon landing hoax accusations which indicates that exact thing.
-
Through any transparent or translucent material medium, like glass or air, it has a lower speed than in a vacuum; the ratio of c to this slower speed is called the refractive index of the medium
Looks like you're the dumb cunt :)
NO the speed of light remains the same..what ya have is a red or blue shift..the DOPPLER EFFECT..
you sir are a DUMB ...lmao...
http://www.freemars.org/jeff/planets/Luna/Luna.htm
ok thats the distance to the moon
speed = distance/time
do the fucking math..or do you want me 2?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect
here ya go ya dumb physics failing cu nts.. :-\
-
btw..i give up....
i now know its useless to even attempt to enlighten the general population...
like these folks above..that never went to college..or paid attention in high aschool physics..
its useless.. :-\ to them..its magic.. :-\
i dont wanna be burned at the cross...
-
Toxic you have not even touched on the lighting and shadowing issues that were sent back to earth :) picturesque
-
Toxic you have not even touched on the lighting and shadowing issues that were sent back to earth :) picturesque
i dont wanna...check out my thread on the general...you'll know which one..
chek of my thread on the politics board labelled secret space..
i KNOw about the lightening and shadowing..buit useless arguing with low Iq folks.. :-\
u mean they dont know what the fucking doppler effect is..what do you want me to do..hand feed em...nahhh
-
http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=askastronomer&Number=24722&page=10&view=collapsed&sb=1&o=0&fpart=
intesrsting debate on what rocket says
doubt he has read it..
-
Call me cumb toxic, but what is this talk about the speed of light being constant through all mediums? How do you explain the refractive index then?
-
Through any transparent or translucent material medium, like glass or air, it has a lower speed than in a vacuum; the ratio of c to this slower speed is called the refractive index of the medium
Looks like you're the dumb cunt :)
right, but you're discussing a solid and the speed difference is so completely negligible it's not worth discussing. get into the difference between air and space and there's no perceivable difference. certainly not enough to slice a 3 second travel time into 1. it's like talking about the difference between sound as it travels through a clear day versus a foggy one. there's a technical difference, sure, but it's not going to be noticeable.
no opinion the moon matter, but just clarifying that.
-
Call me cumb toxic, but what is this talk about the speed of light being constant through all mediums? How do you explain the refractive index then?
we can debate the whole mitchellson and morle experiment all we want..
lets just for debate say that light DOES slow down...
THEN THE SIGNAL GOING BACK AND FORTH FROM EARTH WOULD HAVE BEEN SLOWER!!! AND HENSE MORE OF A TIME DELAY
good lord guys..i'm an ex coke addict drunk...
how come i can out think you? :-\
-
LOL..........
I just watched the *live* moon landing video.
And I just can't get over how they defeated physics to have the Houston,TX/neil Armstrong conversation in real time with zero delay.
I just saw dozens of communications between men in orbit and the team on the ground. ALWAYS a 1-2 second delay between transmissions. And they're less than 100 miles apart (machine delay,etc).
Somehow, this delay is completely removed as Ground Control lands Apollo. They talk in real time, describe what's happening, etc, with zero delay
I'm all for believing the landing is real - someone just tell me how they defeated what should have been at LEAST 3 seconds with machine time and 200,000 miles distance. Anyone?
Your answer good sir:
was reading about the supposed moon hoaxs (I'm not yet sure that they were faked) on your web site when I came across an excellent point in your arguments. You said that during the videos of the lunar landings the astronauts replied instantly to Mission Control in Houston. Yet light, radio waves, and all energies of the electromagnetic spectrum travel at roughly 186,000 miles per second, meaning the response time of the astronauts to comments made by Mission Control should have been a little over two seconds since the moon is over 200,000 miles from the Earth. Excellent point! I was stumped here for a minute, until I considered this: we're only hearing the astronauts transmission. Okay, that explanation obviously needs an explanation.
First off, like you said, NASA didn't establish a direct link with televison stations for the broadcast. Instead, the video we saw was actually filmed as it happened on the huge television screen in Mission Control, which accounts for the poor quality of the film. What does this mean? It means that the video and audio in the broadcasts of the Apollo missions were both time delayed. You didn't hear people speaking inside Mission Control, you heard their transmission to the astronauts. The audio we heard from Mission Control was actually several seconds old. In other words, the landings transmitted back to Earth video and audio feed of their landing, audio including messages from Mission Control that the astronauts had just received. To make this easier to picture, image it this way: Mission Control transmits a message to Apollo 11 on the lunar surface saying Neil and Buzz can get out of the LM and walk around (with suits on, of course.) This message travels just over a second to the moon, where Neil and Buzz receive it and reply "Finally!" This message is transmitted all the way back to Earth, where it is received and broadcast on the huge monitor in Mission Control. So you see, Mission Control spoke first and then the astronauts replied, only the audio transmitted
to us contained both messages with no time lapse in between. Confused? Don't worry, you'll get it soon. I've looked over the arguments used by believers of a moon landing hoax and they are rather solid and rooted fairly well in logic, so I can safely assume you're all pretty smart guys, so this shouldn't be to hard for you to understand. I would appreciate it if you would respond to this email with your thoughts on my explanation of this lunar quandary that is now solved (hopefully.)
http://www.apfn.net/MESSAGEBOARD/9-03-03/discussion.cgi
Edit: The US goverment is full of cokcsucking weasels and manned space flight is ridiculous, but we landed on the moon... several times.
-
we can debate the whole mitchellson and morle experiment all we want..
lets just for debate say that light DOES slow down...
THEN THE SIGNAL GOING BACK AND FORTH FROM EARTH WOULD HAVE BEEN SLOWER!!! AND HENSE MORE OF A TIME DELAY
good lord guys..i'm an ex coke addict drunk...
how come i can out think you? :-\
calm down u fucking paki I was simply asking u a question that was not relevant to the moon landing debate. And light does slow down in mediums with an index of refraction higher than 1....air measures up very close to 1 so there's really no decrease in speed.
-
Oh brother. ::)
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Radio.htm
-
we can debate the whole mitchellson and morle experiment all we want..
lets just for debate say that light DOES slow down...
THEN THE SIGNAL GOING BACK AND FORTH FROM EARTH WOULD HAVE BEEN SLOWER!!! AND HENSE MORE OF A TIME DELAY
good lord guys..i'm an ex coke addict drunk...
how come i can out think you? :-\
Hmm yeah. So what you're saying is that you got very solidly on your highhorse, only to discover you were talking shit and I was right (by the way, I apologise for my "dumb" self - only had to go through first year physics and second year electromagnetics at university), all the while continuously having to deal with the permeability of the medium.
I mean ffs, its clearly pointed out on every link you've posted that refraction causes slowing.
right, but you're discussing a solid and the speed difference is so completely negligible it's not worth discussing. get into the difference between air and space and there's no perceivable difference. certainly not enough to slice a 3 second travel time into 1. it's like talking about the difference between sound as it travels through a clear day versus a foggy one. there's a technical difference, sure, but it's not going to be noticeable.
no opinion the moon matter, but just clarifying that.
Aye, I understand that - I was just trying to make sure that 240 couldn't really come back with rebuttal. I mean more than anything the distance the light has to travel in air is negligable anyway.
-
cool. i'll check that out. This is a fun debate!
How about the radiation? Those astronauts are all 90 years old and are cancer-free. They stood on the moon in aluminum suits which an x-ray tech wouldn't be caught dead in :)
Also - their suits hung limp - they didn't swell up as the PSI should have dictated. ANy thoughts?
-
Oh brother. ::)
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Radio.htm
A voice of reason. Thank you.
-
The saggy spacesuit issue: Very simple and pretty cool actually:
17) The spacesuits are multi layer suits. The inner layer was the one providing a contained atmosphere for the astronaut. The outer layer protected the inner layer. The buckels and such were for snugging it down after donning. From Wikipedia's article on Space Suits.
All space suit designs try to minimize or eliminate this(see question #18) problem. The most common solution is to form the suit out of multiple layers. The bladder layer is a rubbery, airtight layer much like a balloon. The restraint layer goes outside the bladder, and provides a specific shape for the suit. Since the bladder layer is larger than the restraint layer, the restraint takes all of the stresses caused by the pressure of the suit. Since the bladder is not under pressure, it will not "pop" like a balloon, even if punctured. The restraint layer is shaped in such a way that bending a joint will cause pockets of fabric, called gores, to open up on the outside of the joint. This makes up for the volume lost on the inside of the joint, and keeps the suit at a constant volume. However, once the gores are opened all the way, the joint cannot be bent anymore without a considerable amount of work
-
calm down u fucking paki I was simply asking u a question that was not relevant to the moon landing debate. And light does slow down in mediums with an index of refraction higher than 1....air measures up very close to 1 so there's really no decrease in speed.
and i'm teling you NO it DOES NOT...om me and i'll look up and forward you the research...
-
Also - their suits hung limp - they didn't swell up as the PSI should have dictated. ANy thoughts?
cauase ther ws a vacuum inside the suit also! :D
-
fuck i cant find the article..it really ws compeling.. :-\
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
speed of light in a vacuum = to speed of light elesewhere
THATS RELATIVITY YA DUMBCUNT
the speed of light is always measured the same...
i do understand that for some of yall..that failed physics 101...this is beyond you..
Light slows down when it passes through a material medium, you dipshit. The Michelson-Morley experiment was designed to measure an ether drift. You obviously don't know shit about physics.
-
Light slows down when it passes through a material medium, you dipshit. The Michelson-Morley experiment was designed to measure an ether drift. You obviously don't know shit about physics.
yes yes yes..but i read some string theory stuff either on space.com or somewhere that proved that wrong..maybe the cern website..
i'll find it...
anyhow in the meantime
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=113822.0
the point of this thread being..scroll down and watch all the clips..
-
and i'm teling you NO it DOES NOT...om me and i'll look up and forward you the research...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/7/4/574e79fcd783f402f69907b6acbf7cd1.png)
You can either believe Toxicavenger or Maxwell...
Hmm...
-
Here's an easy explanation for the mentally challenged (read: ToxicAvenger).
(http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/images/radiotalk.jpg)
-
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-440410516309790842&q=nasa+ufo
hi brian...
man o man yall cant seem to demouth nasa cock..
-
yes yes yes..but i read some string theory stuff either on space.com or somewhere that proved that wrong..maybe the cern website..
i'll find it...
anyhow in the meantime
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=113822.0
the point of this thread being..scroll down and watch all the clips..
Haha, piss off. You slung the insults around and told all and sundry that were dumb girls and now you deliver your proof :)
Awesome, referencing string theory (unproven) as basis for everybody but your good self being "dumb cunts.
-
Haha, piss off. You slung the insults around and told all and sundry that were dumb girls and now you deliver your proof :)
Awesome, referencing string theory (unproven) as basis for everybody but your good self being "dumb cunts.
sorry bro...you actually BELIEVE that light travels thru space ( NO medium) and does NOT need a medium to travel..
and then changes speeds when it hits a medium...
riiight...
lol...dumbfuck... ::)
-
come on bro..
-
come on bro..
i simply do not believe that refraction has anything to do with change in the speed of light..
and i've read plenty about it...well some actually...first time ws eons ago in discover mag before it went all biology on me
meh..i'm going 2 bed...
either way...lets say since refraction causes a bend towards the normal when it goes from a less dense to a more dense medium and light slows down..
the singnal would take longer..
i'll talk to my physics buddy at catholic U tomorrow and post links to support me..k..someone send me a pm reminder..
-
i simply do not believe that refraction has anything to do with change in the speed of light..
and i've read plenty about it...well some actually...first time ws eons ago in discover mag before it went all biology on me
meh..i'm going 2 bed...
either way...lets say since refraction causes a bend towards the normal when it goes from a less dense to a more dense medium and light slows down..
the singnal would take longer..
i'll talk to my physics buddy at catholic U tomorrow and post links to support me..k..someone send me a pm reminder..
Look, rather than me bite back I'll just point this out. All you have to do is disprove maxwell and you'll win. I'm giving you a fantastic opportunity here. I look forward to your work. Good luck
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/7/4/574e79fcd783f402f69907b6acbf7cd1.png)
-
I dont think anyone claimed that refraction itself causes the change in speed of light or vice versa but the two can be expressed, and hence related in the index of refraction formula (c/v). Honestly, I dont know much abt this myself, though I would investigate further.. I wish I woulda paid mroe attention the last month of phy 2 when we covered optics.
-
Look, rather than me bite back I'll just point this out. All you have to do is disprove maxwell and you'll win. I'm giving you a fantastic opportunity here. I look forward to your work. Good luck
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/7/4/574e79fcd783f402f69907b6acbf7cd1.png)
sorry mate..i am not smart enough to do that...
how ever photons are maseless..and the article(s) i read about their speed not changing in a denser medium had to do what that...
anyhow...enough arguing..
go check out my thread on the general and watch the clips./.
-
My main man Maxwell. He ain't Sir Issac Newton, but he knows his numbers.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations)
My top three:
#l Archimedes of Syracuse
#2 Mr. Newton
#3 Big Al
-
alright i guess i have to concede..i looked and fucking looked..
the article ws also about how gravity varies over large distances..and speed of light remains the same..
cant fucking find it..owell..
-
no one has proven that the moon exists.
-
toxie I raped your ass on this topic 6 months ago what are you doin dude?
-
Sorry,
you guys can`t be that ignorant to think we never landed on the moon.
I take it you have never used anything really powerful to view the moon.
Shoeprints and a flag can easily still be seen.
Never thought this would ever happen but Adam is right. Get out of the house and/or your liberal cocoon, get a 560X + telescope and watch t the landing marks.. the video was edited to cut the delay fucktards...
I'll send Buzz to bitchslap you all..
Hope this helps...
Adam give me a call little bitch, we need to talk 510-870-1537
-
I am giggling at all the amateur attempts here....Keep them coming. I can`t wait to show this to some of my friends.
-
Never thought this would ever happen but Adam is right. Get out of the house and/or your liberal cocoon, get a 560X + telescope and watch t the landing marks.. the video was edited to cut the delay fucktards...
I'll send Buzz to bitchslap you all..
Hope this helps...
Adam give me a call little bitch, we need to talk 510-870-1537
You are correct.
-
I am giggling at all the amateur attempts here....Keep them coming. I can`t wait to show this to some of my friends.
Friends?!?! now this discussion is really stretching the truth slightly too much ;D
-
Never thought this would ever happen but Adam is right. Get out of the house and/or your liberal cocoon, get a 560X + telescope and watch t the landing marks.. the video was edited to cut the delay fucktards...
I'll send Buzz to bitchslap you all..
Hope this helps...
Adam give me a call little bitch, we need to talk 510-870-1537
yeah ok...You ever hear of holograms...Check it out...That is what your seeing...
-
no one has proven that the moon exists.
exactly...But some of these fuck tards actually held moon dust in 4th grade and actually thought it came from the moon...People will believe anything...
-
yeah ok...You have hear of holograms...Check it out...That is what your seeing...
"You have hear" ... "That is what your seeing"
am I wasted yet ??
-
"You have hear" ... "That is what your seeing"
am I wasted yet ??
LOL...fixed it...
-
Sorry,
you guys can`t be that ignorant to think we never landed on the moon.
I take it you have never used anything really powerful to view the moon.
Shoeprints and a flag can easily still be seen.
Bullshit. There isn't a telescope in existence that can resolve anything that small. Some of you should really stop talking out of your asses.
-
in real time
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4166049933953240830&q=luna
see for yourself..
HOW???...nothing travels faster than the speed of light and it shoulda taken a few mins to go back n forth in conversation i mean the moon is FAR away..... apparently signals from the moon defy Ei9nstiens general theory of relativity and travel faster than the speed of light
I'm sorry for punching holes in your view of reality..
quick..google NASA websites and see if you can defy newtonian physics
Hey dude, I thought I'd help you out - I hope you can understand the explanation below since you have such a "high IQ"
Radio Lag
There's no pause in the conversations between the Astronauts and those on earth. If they were on the moon, wouldn't there would be a lag just like those on earth using satellite connections?
This is very true. That's why you can hear a lag. Radio waves travel at the speed of light, but the moon is far enough away for this to take a noticeable amount of time. Roughly 1.2 seconds. This means that an Astronaut would have to wait 2.4 seconds before getting a response from mission control.
So why can't we always hear this gap of 2.4 seconds?
All recordings of radio conversations of the Apollo missions were made on Earth. This means that we hear things as if we were standing beside the mission controller. The Astronaut's message comes in and the mission controller immediately responds. There is no lag because we are not aware of the 1.2 seconds it has taken the message to reach Earth, nor do we have to wait the 1.2 seconds it will take the response to reach the moon before we hear it.
Obviously the reverse is true if the mission controller is asking the Astronaut something. In this case we have to wait for the request to reach the Astronaut and then for the answer to get back. So it's the Astronaut's turn to experience no lag.
The recordings and transcripts of conversations with the Moon show a mixture of this; sometimes a full 2.4 second gap, sometimes none at all.
-
There is no way we landed on the moon. This is my passion. Yeah we plan to go back in 2024, but took us 6 years when kennedy proposed it.
We didn't even have a VCR back then. Beta even.
We didn't even have Calculators, NASA used a FREAKIN SLIDE RULER!
Come ON!
-
Haha, again, a big group on getbig proves what idiots they are.
Get a telescope or call one of these big interstellar telescope stations in the US and ask them. It's clearly visible.
Also, why would a recording have a time lag? The video was recorded too, you dumbasses. ;D ;D
-
Never thought this would ever happen but Adam is right. Get out of the house and/or your liberal cocoon, get a 560X + telescope and watch t the landing marks.. the video was edited to cut the delay fucktards...
I'll send Buzz to bitchslap you all..
Hope this helps...
Adam give me a call little bitch, we need to talk 510-870-1537
i never said we never went to the moon ya cun ts...
i simply sad we were sold some bullshit along with the truth..
anyhow..at least i got some of ya to watch the vids..
-
Hey dude, I thought I'd help you out - I hope you can understand the explanation below since you have such a "high IQ"
Radio Lag
There's no pause in the conversations between the Astronauts and those on earth. If they were on the moon, wouldn't there would be a lag just like those on earth using satellite connections?
This is very true. That's why you can hear a lag. Radio waves travel at the speed of light, but the moon is far enough away for this to take a noticeable amount of time. Roughly 1.2 seconds. This means that an Astronaut would have to wait 2.4 seconds before getting a response from mission control.
So why can't we always hear this gap of 2.4 seconds?
All recordings of radio conversations of the Apollo missions were made on Earth. This means that we hear things as if we were standing beside the mission controller. The Astronaut's message comes in and the mission controller immediately responds. There is no lag because we are not aware of the 1.2 seconds it has taken the message to reach Earth, nor do we have to wait the 1.2 seconds it will take the response to reach the moon before we hear it.
Obviously the reverse is true if the mission controller is asking the Astronaut something. In this case we have to wait for the request to reach the Astronaut and then for the answer to get back. So it's the Astronaut's turn to experience no lag.
The recordings and transcripts of conversations with the Moon show a mixture of this; sometimes a full 2.4 second gap, sometimes none at all.
good point...
-
moon!? haha, whaddaya guys believe in rainbows and pots of gold too?
do you believe in all the lucky charms shapes?
-
moon!? haha, whaddaya guys believe in rainbows and pots of gold too?
do you believe in all the lucky charms shapes?
this thread is not about fake moon landings though...
lol
idiot..
-
Maybe toxy had a alien probe shove straight up his ass?
-
Maybe toxy had a alien probe shove straight up his ass?
i think its cute how ya wont come straight out and ask... :)
-
i think its cute how ya wont come straight out and ask... :)
Share the knowledge the aliens have given you!!
-
Share the knowledge the aliens have given you!!
1 min video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-440410516309790842&q=ufo+nasa
-
It wasn't a live feed, people. It was edited for the time delay to make for good television.
Seriously, how can you guys be that thick?
-
It wasn't a live feed, people. It was edited for the time delay to make for good television.
Seriously, how can you guys be that thick?
I thought we were told we were watcing it live?
In that case, what was the delay between when we walked on the moon, and the American people saw it?
-
I thought we were told we were watcing it live?
In that case, what was the delay between when we walked on the moon, and the American people saw it?
Of course we were told we were watching it live -- it added to the excitment. But if you do a search, you will the find the consensus among authorities is that the actual audio recording had a noticable delay, but the "live" broadcast and subsequent documentary material edited that out and cleaned up some of the audio for clarity's sake. This was the BIGGEST feat of a generation, so it is very understandable that the media and the government wanted to present a polished piece to the nation and the world.
-
I thought we were told we were watcing it live?
In that case, what was the delay between when we walked on the moon, and the American people saw it?
some folks in germany saw the live feed..
there is a vid about there floating around..
-
This was the BIGGEST feat of a generation, .
hell..we STILL dont have the technology to match it!
-
some folks in germany saw the live feed..
i wont post any more vids..but the folks that saw the live feed saw a coke bottle get kicked out of the way..
::) ::)
sure.
-
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1138935117048624484&q=moon+landing
no blast crater under the LEM :-\
if ya dont wanna watch the whole thing...watch min 14 thru min 17
-
::) ::)
sure.
i'll find it..you dont actually see it..some ole germand lady is talking about it..
-
Of course we were told we were watching it live -- it added to the excitment. But if you do a search, you will the find the consensus among authorities is that the actual audio recording had a noticable delay, but the "live" broadcast and subsequent documentary material edited that out and cleaned up some of the audio for clarity's sake. This was the BIGGEST feat of a generation, so it is very understandable that the media and the government wanted to present a polished piece to the nation and the world.
Hard to lend credibility. We were lied to about it being live? We now know the truth because of a "consensus among authorities"?
Lots of games there. Hard to 100% believe everything they say when you explain it in such a fishy way.
-
Hard to lend credibility. We were lied to about it being live? We now know the truth because of a "consensus among authorities"?
Lots of games there. Hard to 100% believe everything they say when you explain it in such a fishy way.
Then don't believe it. Doesn't matter to me, really. I just find it fascinating that everyone on this thread is applying Occam's Razor so well. Because you saw video where there was no delay, is the simpler explanation that the whole thing was faked, or that the content you saw was edited for clarity?
Every "live" event today is on a time delay so that censors can clean up a feed. Why not in 1969?
-
Then don't believe it. Doesn't matter to me, really. I just find it fascinating that everyone on this thread is applying Occam's Razor so well. Because you saw video where there was no delay, is the simpler explanation that the whole thing was faked, or that the content you saw was edited for clarity?
Every "live" event today is on a time delay so that censors can clean up a feed. Why not in 1969?
Occums razior..the eternal escape goat..
anyhow..
i'm just saying somethings fishy...
-
Occums razior..the eternal escape goat..
anyhow..
i'm just saying somethings fishy...
Um........yea. Not really using the Razor as an "escape goat", but more a proof.
But believe what you want.
-
Then don't believe it. Doesn't matter to me, really. I just find it fascinating that everyone on this thread is applying Occam's Razor so well. Because you saw video where there was no delay, is the simpler explanation that the whole thing was faked, or that the content you saw was edited for clarity?
Every "live" event today is on a time delay so that censors can clean up a feed. Why not in 1969?
When they admit a small lie, as you say they have, to counter an airtight scientific argument disproving it, it smells funny.
What if it was proven that radiation on the moon would kill a man despite those incredibly sturdy spacesuits?
Would they suddenly admit the moonwalk was faked, but they DID land there and hang out in the spacecraft?
When parties continually adjust their version of events in order to counter new evidence/arguments, it ruins all of their credibility. (Like that duke rape accuser, changing her story to match newly released info)
-
Um........yea. Not really using the Razor as an "escape goat", but more a proof.
But believe what you want.
do you believe in the never ever ever seen mythical beast that controls the universe...i mean friggin controls the universe..
god?
where is your occums razor then eh?
-
do you believe in the never ever ever seen mythical beast that controls the universe...i mean friggin controls the universe..
god?
where is your occums razor then eh?
So let me see if I am following you -- If I say I believe in God, then my ability to rationally argue a point is shot. Is that about right? If Occum's Razor can't prove to you that God exists, then it doesn't apply to anything, right? Something like that?
Just trying to keep up.
-
So let me see if I am following you -- If I say I believe in God, then my ability to rationally argue a point is shot. Is that about right? If Occum's Razor can't prove to you that God exists, then it doesn't apply to anything, right? Something like that?
Just trying to keep up.
religious folks usually dont like it when the tables r turned ;D
-
religious folks usually dont like it when the tables r turned ;D
Not taking offense, just trying to follow the logic.
And it should be noted that you aren't doing anything to press the other side of the argument, but instead are resorting to attacks on credibility.
You wouldn't be in politics, would you?
-
Not taking offense, just trying to follow the logic.
And it should be noted that you aren't doing anything to press the other side of the argument, but instead are resorting to attacks on credibility.
You wouldn't be in politics, would you?
lol i'm just fucking with ya mang..i do recommend that ya go watch the vi i posted on the politics board
"secret space"
i'd like to hear your opinion on it..on that thread..
right now u r giving me opinions based on your understanding BEFORE you see the evidence i provide..
-
lol i'm just fucking with ya mang..i do recommend that ya go watch the vi i posted on the politics board
"secret space"
i'd like to hear your opinion on it..on that thread..
right now u r giving me opinions based on your understanding BEFORE you see the evidence i provide..
I refuse to hear anything else you have to say.
And I want everyone here to know that ToxicAvenger kicks puppies and pees on toilet seats.
;)
-
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6692952930996256219&q=ufo+the+greatest+story+ever+denied
here it is..
-
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6692952930996256219&q=ufo+the+greatest+story+ever+denied
here it is..
Link isn't working :(
-
Link isn't working :(
its working for me mang...try opening it fropm explorer..but before ya open it..
go to tools" and "internet options" and then "del files"
should work then
-
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=nasa+ufo
is that does not work..watch part 1 and 2 of evidence..in your spare time...
it'll certainly make ya think since all the footage is NASA shuttle camera footage
-
Keeps saying it can't find the server. Of course, it could just be this Iraqi connection.
-
Keeps saying it can't find the server. Of course, it could just be this Iraqi connection.
u r in Iraq..well no shit mang!
how about this
-
oo and remember..meteors only glow when they hit the earth atmpsphere..due to friction..
-
oo also..most of these objects can only be seen by the UV cameras..
not visible in 'visible light' or infra red..
-
u r in Iraq..well no shit mang!
how about this
Same thing. Well, I hope I get to check it out sometime. Sounds interesting. In the meantime, I will maintain my position, but I'm tiring of the argument.
-
Same thing. Well, I hope I get to check it out sometime. Sounds interesting. In the meantime, I will maintain my position, but I'm tiring of the argument.
track down your wide area network guy and beat him upside the head...
the bastard has that shit blocked on your border router..... >:(
ask him to unblock your particular IP... >:(
-
the bastard has that shit blocked on your border router..... >:(
google video blocked. hahahah!
they don't want the military people seeing the ONE HUNDRED movies showing us complicity in the 911 attacks lol...
-
google video blocked. hahahah!
they don't want the military people seeing the ONE HUNDRED movies showing us complicity in the 911 attacks lol...
So much for freedoms.. People in support of the war whine so much about freedoms, but have no problems with site restrictions, wire tapping etc. ::)
-
who was the member who was laughing last week when I said the military blocks websites they disagree with? It was commonly reported earlier this year. Prison planet linked it, but I think it was AP originally. I think it was headhunter 6 who said "they don't block anything".
-
who was the member who was laughing last week when I said the military blocks websites they disagree with? It was commonly reported earlier this year. Prison planet linked it, but I think it was AP originally. I think it was headhunter 6 who said "they don't block anything".
i could send him a script..he just has to find the particular router..and then be able to watch all the vids he wants..
however i'm sure he'd get canned and the feds woul;d show up at my house..
-
and seriously, even though i believe it's bullshit reasons behind the war, it's just not good for soldiers in the field to be learning all the shit about an inside job that we see here in the USA. Might get them killed to be doubting their mission when out there getting shot at, might fuck up their future if they just decide they wanna go home.
hopefully, they'll come home, realize the system of govt accountability in this nation is broken and they shed blood for lies, and they'll run for office, we'll vote for them, and they'll fix the system. I want these troops home safe and sound, and I'd vote for any of them who eventually chose to run, to make the country a safer and better place by fixing the governmental abuses.
-
jeff is a getbig icon..hope he gets back safe.
-
Any site with media streaming is blocked here. >:(
-
Any site with media streaming is blocked here. >:(
it was either brix or headhunter. one of them mocked the idea that any content is blocked.