[Tom Bishop]

How does Round Earth Theory explain the fact that the astronauts on the moon were communicating with Huston faster than the speed of light?

[Tom Bishop]

Pt 2.

[Hoppy]

As a former RE'er, I never considered this or any other (facts)  about space travel. I just assumed NASA was a scientific agency, and was telling the truth. This fact of voice transmissions should at the very least raise questions of moonlandings in RET ways of thinking. How can an impossible feat be explained away, yet again?

[Rama Set]

As a former RE'er, I never considered this or any other (facts)  about space travel. I just assumed NASA was a scientific agency, and was telling the truth. This fact of voice transmissions should at the very least raise questions of moonlandings in RET ways of thinking. How can an impossible feat be explained away, yet again?

Whether or not it is impossible is the real question.  I remember having this debate with Tom, and from my research I could never see, from any time-stamped communication, that any astronaut responded within the theoretical delay time with a response that could only be an answer to the immediately preceding NASA communication.  The sound was all recorded at mission control, so you would expect and see responses with no delay to astronauts communications.

It is also possible that some recordings have had the delay edited out for listenability.

From what I can tell this is a case of Tom assuming that anything an astronaut says immediately after a mission control communication can only be a response to the immediately preceding communication.  I do not think that is the case, and would need to be directed to a specific exchange, with time stamps, in order to accurately assess them.

[garygreen]

These videos are awful.  I can't believe anyone would take them at face value.

I dunno what audio source he used, but I found two sources: 1) mp3 rip of Restored Apollo 11 EVA from the NASA Youtube channel; and 2) Audio file 175-AAA from this archive.  To my understanding, these both are the air-to-ground broadcasts as they would have been heard from Houston.

I used the most recent version of Audacity (free and open-source) to clip the audio down to the segment relevant to the first example given in the first video.  The two clips were identical, so I'll just display the one from the NASA Youtube video:



I count nearly four whole seconds between the end of Houston's sentence (black) and the response from the Moon (red).  I have no idea how the OP's video arrived at its figure of 1 second.***  Since it lacks the echo found in my sources, I assume he used an audio source that had already been edited.  Because he's an idiot.

The echo is interesting, though.  It sounds like the word "scene."  Guess what word is coming from Houston precisely 2.5 seconds prior...  This is damning not only because it indicates that the communications delays were real, but also because it leads to absurdities in the hoax narrative.  It proves, if Apollo 11 was faked, that NASA was aware of the need to simulate communications delays and was clever enough to do it.  How was NASA able to so obviously blunder a problem of which they were aware and clearly knew how to solve?  And isn't the hoax narrative that these are the voices of actors reading from a script?  How could such mistakes even happen in that scenario?

Ultimately the huge mistake that most of these analyses make is in assuming, as the author of these videos explicitly does, that astronauts will always wait to respond to Houston until Houston has finished its sentence or stopped speaking.  This assumption is totally unfounded and completely unreasonable.

Here's the clip I made.
https://soundcloud.com/garygreen-1/restored-apollo-11-eva

*** I literally just realized that what he's doing is counting the time from the end of the word "scene" to the beginning of the echo.  THE VIDEO ITSELF RECOGNIZES THAT IT IS AN ECHO OF THE WORD "SCENE."  Which, again, follows Houston's use of the word 2.5 seconds after the fact.
 

[garygreen]

After watching the second video and making at least an attempt at genuine scrutiny and skepticism (what's your excuse, Tom?), I am even more convinced that the communication delays were real.  All that the author is doing is finding especially confusing clips where two people are interrupting and talking over one another and interpreting it in a way that 'proves' his argument.  Confusion, interruption, and talking-over are not at all what I'd expect to hear from actors reading a script.  It's exactly what I'd expect to hear from two people talking on full duplex radios with a time delay.  Do you not see the literally beautiful irony here?

Video 2, example 1

I took the mp3 audio from this NASA archive and made this clip.



Cernan is speaking when Houston interrupts to say they have a picture.  2.5 seconds after the end of the word "Hey" is Cernan's "Yeah?"  2.5 seconds after the end of Houston's sentence is the beginning of Cernan's "Beautiful, babe."  This is exactly what I would expect to hear from someone who just got interrupted over a full duplex operation with a time delay of 2.5 seconds.  It is not what I'd expect from actors reading a script.

The video author asserts that Cernan's "Yeah?" is actually, "You have?"  This isn't entirely unreasonable since NASA's own transcripts record Cernan as saying "You have?  Beautiful, babe."  After listening to the audio myself, I think he's saying "yeah?" in response to being interrupted by Houston.

Video 2, example 3 or 4 or whatever

I ripped the audio from the MPEG from this NASA archive and made this clip.



Cernan's first "Yeah" follows the end Houston's first sentence by nearly three seconds.  Cernan's sentence stops when he hears Houston's second sentence in the middle of his own.  You can even hear Houston's echo in the audio!  As expected, the echo is heard just a little more than 2.5 seconds after it was said by Houston.

I just don't see where the 'FTL' communication is happening.  I've examined three of his examples so far and found exactly what I would expect from full duplex radios on a 2.5 second delay.  His examples, if anything, directly contradict the hoax narrative.

[Tom Bishop]

Did you watch the video? At the beginning of the first video the author criticizes that NASA has been going through the videos hosted on their site and adding in pauses where none previously existed. That is why the audio the author is playing is different than the audio on NASA's website.

But they missed this one: Download this clip (129MB) https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v.1692526.mpg

Listen to the last 15 seconds of that clip. Schmitt says "No, we emptied those into 5" immediately after Huston asks the question.

A negative answer of "No" cannot be given until the question is asked. How did the astronaut know what Huston was going to ask before they asked it? If the audio was being recorded at mission control there should have been a pause of at least 2.5 seconds before we hear the astronaut's reply.

Expect to see this video edited in the next couple of years. NASA likes to let the sensation die down and then go back and edit their mistakes (ie. the "C" rock).

[garygreen]

Did you watch the video?

Is that a joke?

At the beginning of the first video the author criticizes that NASA has been going through the videos hosted on their site and adding in pauses where none previously existed. That is why the audio the author is playing is different than the audio on NASA's website.

He merely asserts that without any sources, citations, or warrants.  Perhaps that's good enough for you, but I'm skeptical.  I've already demonstrated that we ought not take him at his word.

But they missed this one: Download this clip (129MB) https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v.1692526.mpg

Listen to the last 15 seconds of that clip. Schmitt says "No, we emptied those into 5" immediately after Huston asks the question.

A negative answer of "No" cannot be given until the question is asked. How did the astronaut know what Huston was going to ask before they asked it? If the audio was being recorded at mission control there should have been a pause of at least 2.5 seconds before we hear the astronaut's reply.

Expect to see this video edited in the next couple of years. NASA likes to let the sensation die down and then go back and edit their mistakes (ie. the "C" rock).

Tom, you are a beautiful, beautiful snowflake.

As I mentioned already, these arguments rest entirely on the unwarranted and unreasonable assumption that the astronaut will always wait to speak until Houston has finished speaking entirely.  I see no reason why this should be true.  Interruption, confusion, and talking-over are regular features of face-to-face conversations, let alone a conversation with people who are on the Moon.

Without this assumption, the audio sounds exactly as we should expect it to.  I took the NASA audio and made this clip. 



I'm getting better at the diagrams, no?  As you can see, there's plenty of time between the end of Houston's first sentence and the beginning of Cernan's response.  Cernan started to speak when he heard the end of the first sentence.  Then as he spoke he heard more words coming from Houston and stopped speaking to hear them before finally completing his sentence.  The exchange is confused because of the communication delay.  Once again you can even hear the echos from Houston interrupting him! 

To find out if that actually makes sense, I silenced the audio for the 2.5 seconds preceding Cernan's response, producing this clip.  I don't hear anything 'impossible' about this exchange.  Houston tells Cernan that container 3 has lunar samples in it on the rover.  Cernan responds that they were already emptied into container 5.

[Tom Bishop]

Except your bastardization cut out the question the astro-not was replying to. Right after that part where you cut off huston, huston asks a question, to which the answer is immediately "No".

[Rama Set]

Except your bastardization cut out the question the astro-not was replying to. Right after that part where you cut off huston, huston asks a question, to which the answer is immediately "No".

You are assuming that he could only say "no" to the question immediately preceding the response, rather than, and as has been pointed out numerous times, responding to an even earlier portion of the conversation that is more in line with the time delay.

[garygreen]

Except your bastardization cut out the question the astro-not was replying to. Right after that part where you cut off huston, huston asks a question, to which the answer is immediately "No".

If you insist.  I don't hear a question in the unedited audio clip, and neither does the NASA transcript:

169:27:43 Parker: ...remember, I want inventories of the stuff as it comes off the Rover and where you put it over there by the footpad, so we can help you keep track of it.
169:27:50 Schmitt: (Going to the ladder with SCB-5) Okay. We've got the big bag...ah...bag 7, bag 5, bag 4 at the footpad.
169:28:09 Parker: Copy that. We've also got SCB-3 with the Rover samples in it on the Rover, if you have any...yeah, you have some of those today.
169:28:15 Schmitt: No, we emptied those into 5.

I don't hear a question in the audio, I don't see one in the transcript, and it doesn't make sense to me in the context of the dialogue that Houston was asking a question.  I understand Houston to be stating that SCB-3 with the Rover samples in it is on the Rover.  Cernan/Schmitt corrects him.  How is that illogical or impossible?

As RS points out, you're just asserting without warrant that a question was asked and that Cernan/Schmitt could only have been responding to that question and not the prior statement.  You don't even make an attempt to explain why it must be the case.

[Tom Bishop]

"If you have any, yeah, some of those today" is the question.

[Pete Svarrior]

Interruption, confusion, and talking-over are regular features of face-to-face conversations, let alone a conversation with people who are on the Moon.

Face-to-face conversation is entirely irrelevant here. Communication over walkie-talkies is much more applicable. Over.

[markjo]

Interruption, confusion, and talking-over are regular features of face-to-face conversations, let alone a conversation with people who are on the Moon.

Face-to-face conversation is entirely irrelevant here. Communication over walkie-talkies is much more applicable. Over.

Not quite.  Walkie-talkies are a push-to-talk system while the astronauts were using a talk-to-talk system which makes such overlaps much more likely.  I could be wrong, but I don't think that you ever hear anyone say "over" when they're done talking during any space mission.

[Pete Svarrior]

I could be wrong, but I don't think that you ever hear anyone say "over" when they're done talking during any space mission.

A cursory search for "over." through http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/mission_trans/AS17_TEC.PDF returns 522 results. Some will understandably be false positives, but there are plenty of entirely unambiguous ones.

The difference in communication over radio and face-to-face communication has nothing to do with push-to-talk versus talk to talk, and everything to do with avoiding the extreme detriments of ignoring transmission delays where transmission delays cannot be ignored. Except, of course, when there are no exception delays to begin with.

[garygreen]

"If you have any, yeah, some of those today" is the question.

If you insist.

Interruption, confusion, and talking-over are regular features of face-to-face conversations, let alone a conversation with people who are on the Moon.

Face-to-face conversation is entirely irrelevant here. Communication over walkie-talkies is much more applicable. Over.

My point was that disorder (especially interruptions) is a regular feature of communication even under ideal conditions.  I expect disorder to be a regular feature of communication with people on the moon. 

The clips provided by the OP are evidence of 'FTL' communication only if one accepts the unreasonable assumption that such disorder could never occur.  I'm saying not only that it could occur, but also that it would.  A lot.  And that the clips I made are actually excellent evidence of that happening.

[Pete Svarrior]

The clips provided by the OP are evidence of 'FTL' communication only if one accepts the unreasonable assumption that such disorder could never occur.

If a two cars are damaged in such a fashion that you could establish that they crashed into one another at a relative speed of 120mph, it is only evidence of the fact that neither of the cars was stationary if a single car moving at 120mph could never occur. Alternatively, we can bury this strawman and agree that just because an extremely unlikely scenario could hypothetically occur, it is not a likely explanation for what's being observed.

I'm saying not only that it could occur, but also that it would.  A lot.

It wouldn't. That's simply not how humans communicate via radio. Especially so when effective communication is crucial. You specifically had to refer to face-to-face communication because you hoped that you could unfairly conflate the two modes of conversation and make your case seem legitimate.

And that the clips I made are actually excellent evidence of that happening.

The Bible says that the Bible is true, therefore the Bible is true.

[Rama Set]

Alternatively, we can bury this strawman and agree that just because an extremely unlikely scenario

People talking over one another is far from an unlikely scenario.  It it witnessed extremely frequently, including in analogous conversations, like talk shows done with one panel member live via satellite, for example ESPNs "First Take". 

could hypothetically occur, it is not a likely explanation for what's being observed.

Why isn't it likely in your opinion?

It wouldn't. That's simply not how humans communicate via radio. Especially so when effective communication is crucial.

Do you have some sort of citation or expertise to support this assertion?  Otherwise you are doing what you just dismissed in Gary Green's post.

You specifically had to refer to face-to-face communication because you hoped that you could unfairly conflate the two modes of conversation and make your case seem legitimate.

The Bible says that the Bible is true, therefore the Bible is true.

Gary has presented a plausible scenario that can explain what is being heard, backed up by demonstrations of his scenario.  I hope you find this more compelling than Tom claiming that NASA is erasing all evidence because "internet guy said so, so it must be true", and that Conspiracy Hoax^TM is the only possible explanation.

[Pete Svarrior]

People talking over one another is far from an unlikely scenario.  It it witnessed extremely frequently, including in analogous conversations, like talk shows done with one panel member live via satellite, for example ESPNs "First Take".

Teleconferencing is very different in nature from radio communications. If anything, this is something that's analogous to face-to-face conversation, because that's exactly what it's meant to emulate.

Why isn't it likely in your opinion?

Because it's standard protocol in radiocommunications to wait for one party to finish before speaking back. This often (but not always) is signified by each party saying "over" at the end of transmission (and I've already showed that this was allegedly commonplace in the Apollo missions). This is standard protocol which is unique to this format of communication (which is why I'm not interested in any false analogies to other means of communication).

Do you have some sort of citation or expertise to support this assertion?  Otherwise you are doing what you just dismissed in Gary Green's post.

Yes, I've already posted a NASA transcript to support this assertion.

Gary has presented a plausible scenario that can explain what is being heard, backed up by demonstrations of his scenario.

I do not find it plausible, nor backed up. It is based on unsubstantiated assertions which entirely ignore standard protocol.

I hope you find this more compelling than Tom claiming that NASA is erasing all evidence because "internet guy said so, so it must be true", and that Conspiracy Hoax^TM is the only possible explanation.

I am not addressing Tom's claims at all, merely pointing out the nonsensical assertions made by Gary. Trying to discredit my standpoint by conflating my views with Tom's (which may or may not be valid - I haven't looked into them) is a move that's unsurprisingly similar to the attempts at saying that radiocommunications is the same as face-to-face conversations made in this thread.

[markjo]

People talking over one another is far from an unlikely scenario.  It it witnessed extremely frequently, including in analogous conversations, like talk shows done with one panel member live via satellite, for example ESPNs "First Take".

Teleconferencing is very different in nature from radio communications. If anything, this is something that's analogous to face-to-face conversation, because that's exactly what it's meant to emulate.

Are you seriously proposing that an earth to moon radio radio conversation with a built in 1.25 second delay each way is closer to a face-to-face conversation with no delay than a teleconference with a small built in delay each way?