Neil Armstrong Recalls Hair-Raising Apollo Moon Landing

I suggest listening to the chatter between mission control and the astronauts. There should be at least a 2.6 second delay between a question/comment from either side and the corresponding answer - due to the speed of light. Unless, of course the broadcasts was edited later for human consumption. There are countless examples of almost instant communications from the Apollo broadcasts. 3 secs are a long time when you are talking to someone...

Perhaps we went there. Perhaps some of the photographs, films and transmissions were created on Earth for some reason.

What do I know. I wasn't there...

reply to post by Koyaanisqatsi


YES, indeed:

I suggest listening to the chatter between mission control and the astronauts. There should be at least a 2.6 second delay between a question/comment from either side and the corresponding answer - due to the speed of light.

The "round-trip" at light speed time is about 2.6 seconds.....from Earth to Moon.

However.....WHEN you listen to recordings of the events, consider where they were recorded.....(JUST think hard on that concept, OK?? I'll explain later, in other posts, it it is not clear yet).

(edit)...HERE is a visual representation:



Enjoy!!

I suggest listening to the chatter between mission control and the astronauts. There should be at least a 2.6 second delay between a question/comment from either side and the corresponding answer.

AND, indeed, there is.....IF you understand WHICH source you are listening to.

Hey!!! Ever seen a News show that is using a satellite link?? I mean a satellite in Geosynchronous orbit.....one that is at about 25,000 miles out? Ever noticed the time delay, there??

It's a bit similar......and, there are MANY instances of the same, but longer, TIME DELAY in many Apollo communications recordings that are archived.....JUST do some damn research!!!

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
There are countless examples of almost instant communications from the Apollo broadcasts.

You're listening to edited versions that have had the delays removed to be more efficient. If you listen to the original they all have the delays

the best part of apollo threads is I learn a lot about the program. if it wasn't for the hoaxers, I would never have be able to listen to the THIRD PARTY evidence of the apollo missions

Larry Baysinger, a technician for WHAS radio in Louisville, Kentucky, independently detected and recorded transmissions between Apollo 11 astronauts on the lunar surface and in the command module.[36] Recordings made by Baysinger share certain characteristics with recordings made at Bochum Observatory by Heinz Kaminski (see above), in that both Kaminski's and Baysinger's recordings do not include the capsule communicator in Houston and the associated Quindar tones heard in NASA audio and seen on NASA Apollo 11 transcripts. Kaminski and Baysinger could only hear the transmissions from the Moon, and not transmissions to the Moon from the earth.[30][37]

thanks Larry !

hey hoaxers, debunk Larry. I'm serious. go to this page if you dare. careful now, real science ahead !!!!

scroll down and listen to the audio

Originally posted by Nspekta
reply to post by PluPerfect

 

Well IMO, its obvious that you are a product of the brain-washed cold war era, and thats unfortunate. I have read books about the subject... and i still question the facts. And I'm all for you believing what you want. Its sometimes really scary to question the truth because its scary to find out that maybe what you've been made to believe your whole life is a lie, most people could not handle that reality, and i understand.

IMO you're product of modern day conspiracy-mania with a gullibility factor of ten.

You make it sound like you're being all brave and stuff for facing the big 'scary' truth that the rest of us are too timid to even think about? Get over yourself for chris'sakes! I detect an ego issue here.

You say there's more 'evidence' the we didn't go to the moon than that there is that we did? Well it's plainly obvious that you don't know what you're talking about, I mean very plainly obvious to anyone who has studied the Apollo program.

Tell me this, would any amount of evidence showing that we did go to the moon make you change your mind?I know the answer already, good luck living in la-la land.

Originally posted by captainpudding

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
There are countless examples of almost instant communications from the Apollo broadcasts.

You're listening to edited versions that have had the delays removed to be more efficient. If you listen to the original they all have the delays

then provide those original recordings in question with proof of their authenticity.

reply to post by bokonon2010


or you could just google them and research it yourself like everyone else...

reply to post by bokonon2010

then provide those original recordings in question with proof of their authenticity.

www.live365.com...

What would you consider "proof of authenticity?"

Search for: " apollo_11_oda" in the search box.

reply to post by seabhac-rua


You could show them more and more and.... even more proof and they will say it's all faked!

Even if they were taken to the Moon and shown the landing site with all the debris and module they will say it was planted there at a later date..

It's almost like brain washing - or reverse brain washing in terms of this topic. They will never believe... kinda sad and pathetic to be honest.

Part 4 of the interview is great, it was when Neil was a guest at CPA Australia gala dinner and he narrates as they show footage of the landing module coming down to the surface.

It is side by side with recent mapping footage showing the lander guidance path. As the lander was closer with a real camera the footage closest to the surface is better resolution and quality than the Google mapping footage.

Right before landing you can see the dust being kicked up and the shadow of the lander legs on the surface..

It is right at the start of part 4 on the link - here it is again

thebottomline.cpaaustralia.com.au...


This is another version with basically the same thing although this footage uses LRO mapping.



Below is Neil at the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology Hearing on NASA Human Spaceflight 22 Sep 2011 doing the same narration of the footage.




He does this again in Part 4 of the interview from the OP.

Neil Armstrong narrates his own moon landing, looks forward to getting his camera back

He sat down with CPA Australia CEO Alex Malley to talk through those final knuckle-whitening minutes when he realised Eagle's auto-pilot was trying to set them amongst a minefield of slopes and boulders.
"Those slopes are steep, the rocks are very large - the size of automobiles," he tells Mr Malley in the rare "live" commentary.


Full Article - News.com.au

Although they will say it's faked and manipulated.. blah blah...

Pfft to that!

Originally posted by Havick007
reply to post by bokonon2010

 

or you could just google them and research it yourself like everyone else...

I am not interested in your advice what should I or should not do.

If you listen to the original they all have the delays

Do you support this claim? If so, provide exactly what is requested.

reply to post by bokonon2010


Well don't ask another member to waste their time producing evidence or media that is open source and free to view on the internet..

It is rude and lazy!

Do your own homework...

If you can't find it or find out that the member was being misleading or blatantly lieing then come back and challenge them or critique them on it...

Don't be lazy!

Whether or not we landed on the moon, or saw aliens there, or whatever, I have always been bothered by one thing in particular.

"That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind"

What's the difference between "man" and "mankind" in this context?

reply to post by nateman

Whether or not we landed on the moon, or saw aliens there, or whatever, I have always been bothered by one thing in particular.

"That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind"

What's the difference between "man" and "mankind" in this context?

He meant to say "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind." In other words, the step he took as an individual was small, but the (metaphorical) step humanity took was huge.

Originally posted by nateman
Whether or not we landed on the moon, or saw aliens there, or whatever, I have always been bothered by one thing in particular.

"That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind"

What's the difference between "man" and "mankind" in this context?

There's no difference, he was giving one of the biggest one liners in human history and got nervous and flubbed it. He was supposed to say "one small step for a man"

reply to post by captainpudding


I think it turned out better that way..

mankind or "man" is just a shortened term for Human in this context.

He also talks about this line in the interview, it wasn't scripted from NASA.

Originally posted by bokonon2010

Originally posted by Havick007
reply to post by bokonon2010

 

or you could just google them and research it yourself like everyone else...

I am not interested in your advice what should I or should not do.

And that is why moon hoaxers are the way they are. Forever drifting in a sea of retardation.