|
|
Post by twik on Dec 16, 2011 12:33:52 GMT -4
damnsod, can you link to the recording you used to determine that there was no delay? It's my understanding that there are versions out there where, to keep the show moving (so to speak), people have edited out the delays. Unless you were working from something published by NASA and verified to be unedited, you are merely showing the problems with working from unprovenanced sources found here and there on the internet.
|
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Dec 16, 2011 14:21:55 GMT -4
There Is No Time Delay... On the contrary, not only is the time delay present but it is possible to measure the orbit of the moon from variations in the time delay. www.mendeley.com/research/echoes-moon-7/My, those hoaxers were clever, how on earth did they know what details Italian schoolchildren would think to examine decades later? Of course the video he posted only has the first statement from Nixon and no replies so on that example there is no way to measure delay anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by damnsod on Dec 16, 2011 14:37:25 GMT -4
It's From The Richard Nixon Library...
Uploaded by RichardNixonLibrary on 30 Mar 2011
On July 20, 1969, the Apollo 11 mission brought the first humans to the Moon. On that day President Nixon spoke with crewmembers Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin via telephone-radio transmission.
Source: This edited presentation features film footage from the White House Staff Super 8 Film Collection and audio from the White HouseThere Are Inconsistancies, In The Time Lapse...
2.02 - 2.09 7 seconds
2.35 - 2.37 2 seconds
2.41 - 2.46 5 seconds...
Now I Understand That All Forms Of Electromagnetic Radiation Travels At The Speed Of Light, And The Distance From The Earth To The Moon Is Roughly About
245,000 miles Depending On Its Peregree...
I Beleive That In July 1969 It Was At Its Closest...
Using This Equation
D=C x T (Distance=Constant X Time}
We Get To About 1 And A Half Seconds For The Signal To Reach The Moon...
And A Further 1 And A Half Seconds To Get Back...
As You Can See The 2 Second Delay At 2.35 - 2.37 Is Impossible...!!!(***Oh Incase Anyone Picks Me Up On The Numbers,
They Are What I Consider To Be Accurate Estimates.) 
|
|
|
|
Post by twik on Dec 16, 2011 14:41:36 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by chew on Dec 16, 2011 14:46:45 GMT -4
245,000 miles Depending On Its Peregree... Is that kinda like pedigree? |
|
|
|
Post by jd on Dec 16, 2011 14:52:18 GMT -4
I do so hope you are not planning on doing a Hagbard Celine here Julie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glom on Dec 16, 2011 14:53:57 GMT -4
What are the error bars on your estimates?
|
|
|
|
Post by chew on Dec 16, 2011 14:57:36 GMT -4
As You Can See The 2 Second Delay At 2.35 - 2.37 Is Impossible...!!! That time delay is between the astronauts talking/Nixon listening and then Nixon replying. Since the recording was recorded on Earth the only time the time delay is applicable is when Nixon talks and the astronauts reply, not the other way around. Stop regurgitating the crap you read on conspiracy websites and start questioning the conspiracy nuts. They have led you to believe something that with a little independent thought on your part could have prevented you from making this ridiculously embarrassing mistake. |
|
|
|
Post by damnsod on Dec 16, 2011 15:02:33 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by chew on Dec 16, 2011 15:39:42 GMT -4
Thank you, Professor Science. Instead of posting a worthless tabulation of what you now know to be the correct word you could have exhibited some intellectual courage and simply said you didn't know how to spell "perigee" and you were too lazy to Google it. This is a science forum. Spelling counts. |
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Dec 16, 2011 15:45:40 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by jd on Dec 16, 2011 15:56:00 GMT -4
Thank you, Professor Science. Instead of posting a worthless tabulation of what you now know to be the correct word you could have exhibited some intellectual courage and simply said you didn't know how to spell "perigee" and you were too lazy to Google it. This is a science forum. Spelling counts. Thats me buggered then.  To be fair pointing out someone's spelling mistakes or sloggy grammar on an internet forum is thought of to be poor form. |
|
|
|
Post by chew on Dec 16, 2011 16:01:29 GMT -4
To be fair pointing out someone's spelling mistakes or sloggy grammar on an internet forum is thought of to be poor form. Except when an illiterate innumerate who can't think for himself is trying to garnish his nonsense with scientific sounding words he can't spell to crap on the accomplishments and sacrifices of 400,000 people then it's fair game. |
|
|
|
Post by twik on Dec 16, 2011 16:08:19 GMT -4
To be fair pointing out someone's spelling mistakes or sloggy grammar on an internet forum is thought of to be poor form. Except when an illiterate innumerate who can't think for himself is trying to garnish his nonsense with scientific sounding words he can't spell to crap on the accomplishments and sacrifices of 400,000 people then it's fair game. I agree. It's one thing to argue about use of the semicolon; it's another to expect that someone who claims to understand science can't even spell the terms of the topic he claims he's studying. It's a little like saying, "The Normans conquered England in 1966 - what? So? I'm off a few years, don't nitpick!" |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 16, 2011 16:11:19 GMT -4
To be fair pointing out someone's spelling mistakes or sloggy grammar on an internet forum is thought of to be poor form. It depends on the forum. In certain fora--like this one--it is considered poor form not to use the best spelling and grammar you can. It is important to spell technical terms and people's names correctly, so they can be looked up by other people. Correcting the spelling of that for other readers is, frankly, just polite. |
|
