The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Tom Bishop on February 24, 2015, 11:10:05 AM
-
How does Round Earth Theory explain the fact that the astronauts on the moon were communicating with Huston faster than the speed of light?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbNzSMLf-sw
-
Pt 2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3e0o4DObF4
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 (http://youtu.be/S9HdPi9Ikhk?t=48m20s) from the NASA Youtube channel; and 2) Audio file 175-AAA (https://archive.org/details/Apollo11Audio) 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:
(http://i.imgur.com/avKb19j.png)
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.
(http://i.imgur.com/XrRGRF9.png)
-
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 (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17.alsepoff.html#1181422) and made this clip (https://soundcloud.com/garygreen-1/apollo-17-eva).
(http://i.imgur.com/7OCsyOV.png)
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 (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17trans.html) 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 (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17.sta2.html#1424834) and made this clip (https://soundcloud.com/garygreen-1/apollo17pt2).
(http://i.imgur.com/hzAPSAK.png)
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.
-
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).
-
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. (https://soundcloud.com/garygreen-1/apollo17pt3)
(http://i.imgur.com/F2U34sa.png)
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. (https://soundcloud.com/garygreen-1/apollo17pt3edit) 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.
-
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".
-
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.
-
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: (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17.clsout3.html#1692526)
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.
-
"If you have any, yeah, some of those today" is the question.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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 HoaxTM is the only possible explanation.
-
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_procedure) 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 HoaxTM 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.
-
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?
-
I was very surprised to see this one go by un-challenged.
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.
incorrect. There are many ways to determine the speed of each vehicle up to and including weather or not one was stationary. Just like the case of the radio delays of this thread; the entire scene has to be investigated. Skidmarks, vector of the debris, magnitude of the distance of the debris, damage to each vehicle in magnitude and orientation, the surface it happened on, the condition of the occupants of each vehicle, what safety systems were deployed, was there any video..... I could go on but I think you get it.
In the case of your car collision example: Finding a tire or piece of vehicle debris in an unexpected location does not tell the whole story. That is why the investigation must be thorough and the conclusion must be derived from the evidence. In fact the peice of debris thought to be in an unexpected location (in this case the claim being made about communication times) can be accounted for when the whole picture is put together just like the analysis of the audio performed by gg in this thread.
The flatists (making the claims) should put together a comprehensive investigation about these communication issues where the body of evidence supports their claim. Until then we can stick with the already well known facts about the moon missions, the globular nature of the earth, and our ever expanding/refining understanding of the universe around us.
Sorry Pizza brother, your argument does not hold up here.
-
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.
It seems like you are intentionally missing the point that conversations with built in delays can still have people talking over one another, just as in no delay conversations. Gary Green's assertion that humans will behave like humans seems to be a good one.
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_procedure) which is unique to this format of communication (which is why I'm not interested in any false analogies to other means of communication).
A protocol that is not strictly adhered to as evidenced by many of the transcripts posted here. It does not appear to be relevant to the parts that Gary analyzed.
Yes, I've already posted a NASA transcript to support this assertion.
So you did. Apologies.
I do not find it plausible, nor backed up. It is based on unsubstantiated assertions which entirely ignore standard protocol.
Whether or not they are following standard protocol has nothing to do with the flow of conversation and whether or not it can make sense in the context of a delayed conversation with over-lapping/interrupting communication. This whole protocol thread feels more and more like a strawman.
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.
Nonsensical? That is pretty specious. Gary never said face-to-face communication was the same, another strawman, he said people are the same, and people interrupt each other at the best of times, with no delay and full body language cuing.
In the segments he posted, very little of the protocol you mention is observed, and so in the absence this, it makes sense that people would display common behaviors.
-
PP, I take the crux of your argument to be that Apollo-Houston communications would never be disordered both because they would follow strict protocols, and because efficiency of communication is of paramount importance. Is this correct?
I merely disagree with your assertion that this must always be true. It probably was true quite often. I imagine that there were plenty of times when it was vitally important that strict communication protocols were required. But, that doesn't preclude or diminish the plausibility of there being half a dozen 10-second moments among the literally hundreds of hours of recorded communications when Apollo and Houston spoke more casually.
Recall that Apollo radios worked like cell phones do today. Their operations were identical: voice-activated circuits with full duplex operation. The astronauts were basically on a phone call for 200 consecutive hours. That there would be moments among those 200 hours where the astronauts spoke on their radios in the manner in which we speak on our voice-activated, full duplex radios today is hardly implausible. To me, anyway.
That, by the way, is why I drew the analogy to face-to-face conversation. Apollo radios work like cell phones. Cell phones are voice-activated, full duplex radios that emulate face-to-face conversation. People have disorderly conversations on cell phones all the time, even under ideal conditions. I don't see what the big problem is with my analogy. I don't really get how that's so incredibly absurd that you would accuse me of being dishonest or whatever it is you were trying to say. Lighten up.
Also what RS said. Regardless of medium, humans communication is often disorderly, even when trying not to be, and even under ideal conditions. It's not hard for me to imagine that, even if everyone was trying to adhere strictly to protocol for the duration of the, again, nearly 200-hour-long mission, then there would still be accidents and lapses and mistakes every now and again.
But why speak in generalities? Let's talk about the last clip that I posted, the one about the containers. Tell me why you think it isn't possible or plausible that, in my final clip, Cernan or Schmitt or whomever it was couldn't have been responding to the first sentence that came from Houston? 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 or implausible?
-
PP, I take the crux of your argument to be that Apollo-Houston communications would never be disordered both because they would follow strict protocols, and because efficiency of communication is of paramount importance. Is this correct?
For the most part. I'd consider this to be the default state, and would expect both solid evidence and a rational explanation for any claims that it wasn't followed.
I merely disagree with your assertion that this must always be true. It probably was true quite often. I imagine that there were plenty of times when it was vitally important that strict communication protocols were required. But, that doesn't preclude or diminish the plausibility of there being half a dozen 10-second moments among the literally hundreds of hours of recorded communications when Apollo and Houston spoke more casually.
It's not about plausibility of protocol being occasionally ignored. It's about the assertion that someone has gone and done the exact opposite of protocol at the exact time it happened to be convenient for your argument. That is a claim that shouldn't be made lightly, and is simply unacceptable as a throwaway explanation for anomalies in the recording.
But why speak in generalities? Let's talk about the last clip that I posted, the one about the containers. Tell me why you think it isn't possible or plausible that, in my final clip, Cernan or Schmitt or whomever it was couldn't have been responding to the first sentence that came from Houston? 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 or implausible?
As Tom pointed out, in this scenario there is a message that's being outright ignored. That seems highly unlikely. Tom's explanation, in which all questions are answered is simply more consistent with the flow of conversation, and the only address it's received so far is "if you insist."
In the segments he posted, very little of the protocol you mention is observed, and so in the absence this, it makes sense that people would display common behaviors.
No, it makes very little sense that they would suddenly forget all of radiocommunications training and stop being aware of transmission delays just because they switched to a slightly more casual mode of conversation for a brief moment, only to return to being aware of it later during the mission.
incorrect. <Irrelevant rant snipped>
The flatists (making the claims) should put together a comprehensive investigation about these communication issues where the body of evidence supports their claim. Until then we can stick with the already well known facts about the moon missions, the globular nature of the earth, and our ever expanding/refining understanding of the universe around us.
You could do that, but then what the heck are you doing on this forum? You have come here to confront us. We're quite happy here without you. If you want to convince us of anything, you're going to have to do the heavy-lifting, regardless of whether you think that's fair/just/scientific/fun-fun-goody-feels.
-
No, it makes very little sense that they would suddenly forget all of radiocommunications training and stop being aware of transmission delays just because they switched to a slightly more casual mode of conversation for a brief moment, only to return to being aware of it later during the mission.
You think that people behave optimally all the time? That they never forget or set aside protocol or training based on an emotional state or circumstance? Sorry this strikes me as incredibly naive.
The captain of the Costa Concordia obviously abandoned protocol when he steered too close to rocks, doctors commit malpractice, there are thousands of negligence cases every year. People often abandon training, protocol, decorum, etc... and you insisting that it is "nonsensical" that an astronaut would do so seems an extremely weak objection, especially when you examine the transcripts GG presented and see that none of the protocol you cited is present. In the transcripts GG analyzed, they say "yes" and "no" rather than "affirmative" and "negative", they do not say "over". Your assertion does not appear to have the ubiquity you want it to.
Why don't you pull up a section of audio that is steeped in protocol and if GG has time, he can analyze that to see if it properly accounts for the time delay. It seems the simplest way to settle this dispute.
-
You think that people behave optimally all the time? That they never forget or set aside protocol or training based on an emotional state or circumstance? Sorry this strikes me as incredibly naive.
You keep trying so hard to hyperbolise my statement. No, of course it doesn't happen all the time. However, the fact that it could happen in rare circumstances does nothing to substantiate your claim that it did happen. That is something you have yet to show any evidence for, instead of expecting us to take it at face value.
Why don't you pull up a section of audio that is steeped in protocol and if GG has time, he can analyze that to see if it properly accounts for the time delay. It seems the simplest way to settle this dispute.
"The glaring anomaly you've already found is too hard to defend, so please find another glaring anomaly and maybe then we'll talk."
No, I'm not gonna do that. NASA don't make mistakes this big often enough for me to bet on the fact that I'd even find another one quite as extreme, and then you'd probably say that "Oh well, they were pretty close to speaking in order here, so that's fine, right?" We're not going to let this goalpost shifting process even begin.
-
You think that people behave optimally all the time? That they never forget or set aside protocol or training based on an emotional state or circumstance? Sorry this strikes me as incredibly naive.
You keep trying so hard to hyperbolise my statement. No, of course it doesn't happen all the time. However, the fact that it could happen in rare circumstances does nothing to substantiate your claim that it did happen. That is something you have yet to show any evidence for, instead of expecting us to take it at face value.
But it did happen. In the transcripts and audio presented in the OP. It seems like you either did not check out that material or are ignoring it.
"The glaring anomaly you've already found is too hard to defend, so please find another glaring anomaly and maybe then we'll talk."
Feel better?
No, I'm not gonna do that. NASA don't make mistakes this big often enough for me to bet on the fact that I'd even find another one quite as extreme, and then you'd probably say that "Oh well, they were pretty close to speaking in order here, so that's fine, right?" We're not going to let this goalpost shifting process even begin.
Ok. It is pretty obvious that your whole straw man about protocol is done. You don't want to address the obvious lack of protocol in the material being discussed and even gave you a chance to discuss material that would align with claim, but you are too defensive to see that. You call it moving the goalposts, but the standard is still, "Can the transcripts make sense in the context of human communication when considering a 2.5s transmission delay on one end." That is the goalpost that Gary set, more or less, if he wants to elaborate, he will, and tha is not changing. I am merely proposing to render discussions of protocol moot by presenting a case where it is indisputable that protocol is being followed. However, it seems like spinning wheels at this point, so I will leave it in Gary's capable hands.
-
If all you're going to do is keep trying to derail this discussion with annoying accusations, then yes, please be done and leave it in the hands of someone more capable.
Unless you have any *evidence* to your claims, shoo. And no, saying "if you're not seeing it then you obviously haven't looked" over and over does not constitute evidence.
-
If all you're going to do is keep trying to derail this discussion with annoying accusations, then yes, please be done and leave it in the hands of someone more capable.
Unless you have any *evidence* to your claims, shoo. And no, saying "if you're not seeing it then you obviously haven't looked" over and over does not constitute evidence.
You have not even addressed the substance of the OP and you accuse me of derailing. Nice one. I have continually tried to bring it back to the material submitted in the OP and Gary's analysis. if that is derailing to you, then we should end it and I am taking the glassware.
-
You have not even addressed the substance of the OP
Indeed. I have addressed a direct response to the OP.
and you accuse me of derailing. Nice one.
I disagree. It is not nice, and I would like to ask you to stop.*
I have continually tried to bring it back to the material submitted in the OP and Gary's analysis.
No, you have continually tried to bring it to your interpretation of the material, and shift the goalposts away from proving any of the claims regarding radiocommunications, which you expect us to take for granted because they happen to be convenient to you.
if that is derailing to you, then we should end it and I am taking the glassware.
Thanks, bye.
* - for the record, since I am deeply involved in this discussion, this request is made only on behalf of myself as a poster, and does not in any way constitute moderation
-
No, you have continually tried to bring it to your interpretation of the material,
Funny how debates work.
and shift the goalposts away from proving any of the claims regarding radiocommunications, which you expect us to take for granted because they happen to be convenient to you.
If you completely disregard what I have been saying, then you might be right.
It still stands that the transcripts Gary analyses make sense in a context of people communicating and responding to one another in an interrupting and slightly disorganized fashion. The objection that astronauts follow protocol and so Gary's interpretation is improbable rings false because nothing in the transcript indicates that protocol is being followed so it is not an appropriate evaluator of their behavior.
I would be happy to see someone challenge the intelligibility of Gary's interpreted transcript, to show specifically where the flaws are rather than mounting a vague challenge.
-
If you completely disregard what I have been saying, then you might be right.
Feel free to back this up. Otherwise, please do what we've both been hinting at for so long and just leave the discussion to the big boys already.
I would be happy to see someone challenge the intelligibility of Gary's interpreted transcript, to show specifically where the flaws are rather than mounting a vague challenge.
Okay, let's bring you up to speed: Gary posts an interpretation, Tom challenges it, pinpointing a specific sentence that's being seemingly ignored. The RE crowd dismisses that because reasons and feels. We're already challenging it, and it's a very specific challenge, too. Now we're just waiting for you to leave and stop muddying the waters so we can talk about it, or to start discussing it instead of trying to shift the focus away.
-
Well go on big boy. I can't wait to see the thrilling conclusion to your compelling and incisive argument. I am sure your cutting insight will shake the halls of power.
But as long as you post arguments, I will rebut, as is my wont, so don't wait for me to go anywhere.
-
Okay, I shall await your rebuttal, then.
-
tl;dr overview of the debate as I see it so far:
- Tom offers a reductio ad absurdum proof. He says that the premise that Apollo was real leads to an absurdity demonstrated by the tapes: Apollo/Houston must have sent/received information faster than light can travel, and nothing travels faster than light. The burden of proving both the validity and soundness of the argument is with the OP and its defenders.
- I argue that the proof is unsound because it makes the unreasonable assumption that Apollo/Houston would never interrupt one another. If interruption is allowed, then there is no demonstration of information traveling faster than light.
- PP says that I have to prove that they would ever interrupt one another.
- I disagree that I should have to prove that they would have, but only that they (reasonably) could have. Even so, I have articulated multiple reasons why they would have: full duplex radios, ample opportunity for mistakes/errors/poor judgement, relative importance of other factors (like time) over efficiency, lack of supporting evidence that Apollo communications should have been highly ordered, just to name a few. I have yet to hear why these claims are unreasonable.
PP, I take the crux of your argument to be that Apollo-Houston communications would never be disordered both because they would follow strict protocols, and because efficiency of communication is of paramount importance. Is this correct?
For the most part. I'd consider this to be the default state, and would expect both solid evidence and a rational explanation for any claims that it wasn't followed.
I mostly agree, but I think you have the same obligation to provide both solid evidence and a rational explanation for your claims that Apollo radio comms followed strict protocols and that efficiency was of paramount importance. The one and only source you've provided to that end is a total dog-shit Wikipedia page that says both, "needs additional citations for verification," and "Some elements of voice procedure are understood across many applications, but significant variations exist." I think that without actually credible sources that speak directly to the way Apollo communications specifically were organized, then you're just asserting that your interpretation must be the correct one to the exclusion of all other equally plausible interpretations. I'm unconvinced. I've already provided you with several perfectly reasonable explanations for why, even if those are default states, there were likely exceptions. I take your argument to be not that those things couldn't happen, but that they wouldn't happen. You need evidence to support that claim, otherwise it's just an argument from personal incredulity.
Your 'source' also doesn't have a single word to say about not cutting anyone off, or the timing of messages, or anything even remotely related. The kinds of signaling protocols you're describing are only useful for half-duplex radios, because if you can't send and receive at the same time. If you start talking before the other person finishes, then neither of you will hear what the other is saying, and you won't even know that messages were sent. The same isn't true for full duplex radios. You can send and receive simultaneously.
I merely disagree with your assertion that this must always be true. It probably was true quite often. I imagine that there were plenty of times when it was vitally important that strict communication protocols were required. But, that doesn't preclude or diminish the plausibility of there being half a dozen 10-second moments among the literally hundreds of hours of recorded communications when Apollo and Houston spoke more casually.
It's not about plausibility of protocol being occasionally ignored. It's about the assertion that someone has gone and done the exact opposite of protocol at the exact time it happened to be convenient for your argument. That is a claim that shouldn't be made lightly, and is simply unacceptable as a throwaway explanation for anomalies in the recording.
Or it's a mistake. Humans often make mistakes. The longer we do something, the greater the probability of making a mistake. Mistakes are very often temporary. Every single thing you've said about their radio comms could be true and these recordings can still easily be explained as momentary lapses in judgement. Since there are hundreds of hours of dialogue, it's not just possible, it's unsurprising. In fact, it would be shocking if there weren't. Remember, the circuits were voice-activated, not button-operated, so a mistake is as easy as talking.
Or they simply didn't have strict signaling protocols because they were on full duplex radios and could rely on quindar tones whenever efficiency was paramount.
Or there were simply blocks of time where none of those things were all that important, like in the container recording when they're just sorting things around them. Not exactly a tense moment. Thinking about the mission timeline, I'd actually expect this to be most of the time. The astronauts were highly autonomous. Other than when actually piloting the capsules, landing, taking off, burns, maneuvers, etc, I'm struggling to think of why it would be so important to them to not interrupt one another. And, I can think of a good reason not to: time. It's one of their most limited resources, and it makes sense to me that one would be willing to forgo efficiency in favor of rate. Efficiency simply wasn't always paramount.
But why speak in generalities? Let's talk about the last clip that I posted, the one about the containers. Tell me why you think it isn't possible or plausible that, in my final clip, Cernan or Schmitt or whomever it was couldn't have been responding to the first sentence that came from Houston? 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 or implausible?
As Tom pointed out, in this scenario there is a message that's being outright ignored. That seems highly unlikely. Tom's explanation, in which all questions are answered is simply more consistent with the flow of conversation, and the only address it's received so far is "if you insist."
I dunno what else I can say to him if he's merely going to insist that "If you have any, yeah, some of those today" is a question. I don't buy it, I don't think he's asking a question, and I think he's merely finishing his thought. You merely insist that it's highly unlikely that Cernan would ignore a message. That's just an argument from personal incredulity. You both ignore the most important factor, that you can hear the the echo of Houston interrupting Cernan in the delayed transmission. You can hear these echos in all of them.
I understand Houston to be stating that SCB-3 with the Rover samples in it is on the Rover. Cernan/Schmitt corrects him mid-sentence, either because he was in a hurry, or because he made a mistake for any number of reasons, or because he just didn't think it was a big deal to interrupt Houston (maybe he was in a bad mood), or because Parker fucked Cernan's wife and Cernan hates that little shit, or because pick any number of perfectly reasonable explanations. How is that illogical or impossible or implausible?
-
Firstly, it is blatantly absurd that the astronauts would interrupt Huston in the manner described.
Secondly, according to the recording the Astronaut responds "No" immediately after Huston asks the question, as if they were right next to each other in real-time. It is against all odds that the Astronauts would interrupt Huston and then Huston would happen ask a question with the exact length, down to millisecond accuracy, that the delay takes for the Astronaut's reponse to get to earth. How is this incredible coincidence explained?
-
No explanation is needed, NASA can not tell a lie.
-
Firstly, it is blatantly absurd that the astronauts would interrupt Huston in the manner described.
What's so absurd about interrupting someone when they're talking, especially when there's a significant delay built into the conversation? ???
-
Firstly, it is blatantly absurd that the astronauts would interrupt Huston in the manner described.
If you insist. I've already provided you with several reasons for why they would.
Secondly, according to the recording the Astronaut responds "No" immediately after Huston asks the question, as if they were right next to each other in real-time. It is against all odds that the Astronauts would interrupt Huston and then Huston would happen ask a question with the exact length, down to millisecond accuracy, that the delay takes for the Astronaut's reponse to get to earth. How is this incredible coincidence explained?
As I've mentioned before, I do not believe that Parker is asking a question. "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," doesn't sound at all like a question to me. It doesn't sound like a question to me when I listen to the audio (here it is again (https://soundcloud.com/garygreen-1/apollo17pt3)). It certainly isn't inflected like one.
I interpret Parker's statement like this: "I understand. Also, the thing with the rover samples in it is on the rover if you have any samples...Oh yeah, you do have some samples today."
I'm sure that's "blatantly absurd," but it makes sense to my enfeebled, sheeple brain.
-
Gary, why would highly trained astronauts in the middle of a mission which has to go absolutely perfectly, with little room for error, randomly interrupt mission control? Interrupting people on Earth is rude, but interrupting people on the moon seems downright suicidal to me.
-
Gary, why would highly trained astronauts in the middle of a mission which has to go absolutely perfectly, with little room for error, randomly interrupt mission control? Interrupting people on Earth is rude, but interrupting people on the moon seems downright suicidal to me.
There's plenty of room for error when all you're doing is putting boxes away. That's what they're discussing in the clip in question.
You're assuming that every moment of the mission required flawless communication to keep the astronauts alive. Other than lunar descent and ascent, I can't think of anything the astronauts did on the Moon that would even benefit from flawless communication with Houston. They were highly autonomous. They set up some experiments. They walked around. They drove in a buggy. They got in and out of the LEM. What, in your opinion, did they do on the Moon that would require communication with Houston to go "absolutely perfectly"? Since I'm really only offering my own incredulity at this point, it's a serious question.
-
As I've mentioned before, I do not believe that Parker is asking a question. "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," doesn't sound at all like a question to me. It doesn't sound like a question to me when I listen to the audio (here it is again (https://soundcloud.com/garygreen-1/apollo17pt3)). It certainly isn't inflected like one.
I interpret Parker's statement like this: "I understand. Also, the thing with the rover samples in it is on the rover if you have any samples...Oh yeah, you do have some samples today."
I'm sure that's "blatantly absurd," but it makes sense to my enfeebled, sheeple brain.
Yes, but why is does the response Huston gives after, according to you when the astronaut interrupted them, perfectly match up with the delay, down to millisecond accuracy? Huston speaks a full sentence: ""If you have any, yeah, some of those today" and then the astronaut immediately replies "No, we emptied those into 5." Why is Huston's question spot on in length? One would think that the sentences would overlap, or there would be a gap in speech, but the astronaut responds immediately as if in the next room on a telephone call. It seems astronomical that Houston would happen to fill up the delay time with a sentence that is perfect in length and context.
-
Yes, but why is does the response Huston gives after, according to you when the astronaut interrupted them, perfectly match up with the delay, down to millisecond accuracy? Huston speaks a full sentence: ""If you have any, yeah, some of those today" and then the astronaut immediately replies "No, we emptied those into 5." Why is Huston's question spot on in length? One would think that the sentences would overlap, or there would be a gap in speech, but the astronaut responds immediately as if in the next room on a telephone call. It seems astronomical that Houston would happen to fill up the delay time with a sentence that is perfect in length and context.
I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. I'm probably misunderstanding you. What are the two things that are exactly the same length "down to the millisecond accuracy"?
To my listening, the two sentences do overlap. Schmitt doesn't reply, "No, we emptied those into 5." Did you listen to the audio clip? He replies, "No we...we em...we emptied those into 5." In the pauses you can distinctly hear Parker's voice.
-
Yes, but why is does the response Huston gives after, according to you when the astronaut interrupted them, perfectly match up with the delay, down to millisecond accuracy? Huston speaks a full sentence: ""If you have any, yeah, some of those today" and then the astronaut immediately replies "No, we emptied those into 5." Why is Huston's question spot on in length? One would think that the sentences would overlap, or there would be a gap in speech, but the astronaut responds immediately as if in the next room on a telephone call. It seems astronomical that Houston would happen to fill up the delay time with a sentence that is perfect in length and context.
I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. I'm probably misunderstanding you. What are the two things that are exactly the same length "down to the millisecond accuracy"?
To my listening, the two sentences do overlap. Schmitt doesn't reply, "No, we emptied those into 5." Did you listen to the audio clip? He replies, "No we...we em...we emptied those into 5." In the pauses you can distinctly hear Parker's voice.
If the Astronaut really interrupt huston, it seems odd that huston filled in the delay gap with a question of perfect length, to which an immediate answer of "No" was given. You would think that it could have been a shorter question, or a longer one, or not even a question at all, but the length of the question Huston asked just happened to be the correct length to which an answer was immediately given by the delayed astronauts interrupting huston midspeech.
-
Yes, but why is does the response Huston gives after, according to you when the astronaut interrupted them, perfectly match up with the delay, down to millisecond accuracy? Huston speaks a full sentence: ""If you have any, yeah, some of those today" and then the astronaut immediately replies "No, we emptied those into 5." Why is Huston's question spot on in length? One would think that the sentences would overlap, or there would be a gap in speech, but the astronaut responds immediately as if in the next room on a telephone call. It seems astronomical that Houston would happen to fill up the delay time with a sentence that is perfect in length and context.
I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. I'm probably misunderstanding you. What are the two things that are exactly the same length "down to the millisecond accuracy"?
To my listening, the two sentences do overlap. Schmitt doesn't reply, "No, we emptied those into 5." Did you listen to the audio clip? He replies, "No we...we em...we emptied those into 5." In the pauses you can distinctly hear Parker's voice.
If the Astronaut really interrupt huston, it seems odd that huston filled in the delay gap with a question of perfect length, to which an immediate answer of "No" was given. You would think that it could have been a shorter question, or a longer one, or not even a question at all, but the length of the question Huston asked just happened to be the correct length to which an answer was immediately given by the delayed astronauts interrupting huston midspeech.
So since you're seen a black swan, you know that that there are no white swans, right?
(Black swan <=> rare coincidence of overlaying communications matching up; White swan <=> regularly observed and documented, and predicted delay.)
LRN2LOGIC (Oh, and it's "Houston", as in the Texan city.)
-
If the Astronaut really interrupt huston, it seems odd that huston filled in the delay gap with a question of perfect length, to which an immediate answer of "No" was given. You would think that it could have been a shorter question, or a longer one, or not even a question at all, but the length of the question Huston asked just happened to be the correct length to which an answer was immediately given by the delayed astronauts interrupting huston midspeech.
Are you really asking me to explain why a sentence uttered in 1972 by someone I've never met was not shorter or longer or different? I don't have any idea.
-
I am pointing out that your explanation requires an unbelievable coincidence. What are the chances that the question would be the exact length necessary for an immediate answer, as if they were on a telephone call in the same building?
-
I am pointing out that your explanation requires an unbelievable coincidence. What are the chances that the question would be the exact length necessary for an immediate answer, as if they were on a telephone call in the same building?
You are assuming it is unbelievable and extraordinary because that is how you feel about it. Do you have any hard data on how likely or unlikely it is?
-
I am pointing out that your explanation requires an unbelievable coincidence. What are the chances that the question would be the exact length necessary for an immediate answer, as if they were on a telephone call in the same building?
Your personal incredulity is not persuasive to me.
Why was a sentence as long as it was and not longer or shorter or different? I don't have any idea.
What are the odds of a sentence fragment being approximately 2.5 seconds in length? Probably not 'unbelievable' or 'astronomical.'
I have question for you: why doesn't Schmitt reply, "No, we emptied those into 5"? Why does he reply, "No we...we em...we emptied those into 5." You claim that they sound as if they're on a telephone call. So why doesn't Schmitt reply as if he's on a telephone call? If it was a telephone call, then I would expect the audio to sound like this: https://soundcloud.com/garygreen-1/apollo17pt3edit2
-
Since the recordings in question were recorded on earth, has anyone wondered what the conversation would have sounded like to the astronauts on the moon with the delays going the other way?
-
This is so reminiscent of the scenario in Capricorn One where a technician discovered that ground control was receiving the crew's messages before the radio transmissions containing those messages actually arrived.
After work when he was shooting billiards with Elliot Gould who was very drunk, he told him about it. As soon as he mentioned the discrepancy, Elliot Gould said "I just sobered up."
@33 minutes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P6tKKUovQQ
-
Remember the mixed pot of emotions they are going through. They did it, they are actually on the moon! They can't mess up this setup, we'll die. They have a speech prepared about me being stuck on the moon forever.
200 hours of that.
-
I realize this thread is old, but I happened upon something germane to the topic just recently.
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/mission_trans/AS08_TEC.PDF
This Apollo 8 transcript contains two references to the communications delays: one at 04 10 59 38, and another at 04 19 44 46. In the first, Cap Com remarks that they need to account for the delay to synchronize something; in the second, Bill Anders specifically mentions that he can hear his own echo on a delay.
You can hear Anders say this himself in an audio recording here. (https://archive.org/details/Apollo8) It's recording number 38 at the 1:00 minute mark. The recording also speaks to the fact Apollo communications were highly disordered at times.