Did We Go to the Moon or Not?

By: David John Oates
redwo...@adam.com.au

It has been a huge controversy over the past several years, even the
topic of a TV special. Did we really go to the moon or not? Did NASA
fake the moon landings? Now one Reverse Speech Practitioner, Karina
Kaiser, has come out with a set of reversals that she claims proves we
did not go to the moon. Her reversals can be seen here -http://www.reversespeechinternational.com/moonlanding.php.

It has always been the opinion of this author that we did go to the
moon, and I have not been convinced with arguments that say we did not
go. This website examined the question of whether we went to the moon
or not a couple of years ago and our results were posted here -http://www.reversespeech.com/apollo.htm.

Probably the most significant reversal we found is this one here...

"I don't accept the Bible as a [gospel of any]thing except a
historical record. But we did go to the moon. You betcha sweet ass we
went to the moon." Inevitable saga (Congruent. Confirming what he is
saying forward. Saga is a historical record, a chronology of events
and it was inevitable because mankind was destined to go to the moon.)

I interpreted this reversal as he was telling a true story and an
accurate chronology of historical events. In another example, the
reversal confirms what he is saying forwards.

"Now what that all meant I don't know, but it wasn't the kind of
radiation that gave us a problem of any kind. You could see it. You
could close your eyes and just [see these things] shoot by." You see
this (Talking about travelling through the radiation belt. A congruent
reversal indicating they did travel through the belt.)

Given these seemingly congruent reversals, I was very surprised when
Karina Kaiser came out with her results. This has prompted me to
examine her claims and her reversals closely. Here are my analysis
results of each reversal she has posted. My overall conclusion is
posted at the end of this analysis.

Reversal 1 - Karina's comments:

Walter Cronkite, US Broadcast Journalist and CBS's former Anchorman
reports live Apollo 11 lift-off:

1. Thirty-two minutes (past the) hour lift off on Apollo 11...
It sucks - what an odd thing to say....

Reversal 1 - My comments

Karina has only documented a small portion of the reversal. The whole
reversal says Apollo 11 not perfect. Ah. It sucks (click on reversal
to download mp3 file in this file and others to follow). What does he
mean by Apollo 11 is not perfect? I don't know.

Reversal 2 - Karina's

Unknown Houston speaker:

2. Apollo 11 - (this is Houston, ID check), over?
Guys, stay down the street - down the street or up in space??

Reversal 2 - My comments

I don't think this reversal is clear enough to document. "Guys" is not
clear at all, and even if it is there, it could mean anything. Houston
Space Centre is a big place, he could have been thinking about another
part of the centre.

Reversal 3 - Karina's comments

Apollo 11 to Houston July 1969

1. You never get a role from them..
Bad rapport. Can I come in? ? - Lets suppose that this conversation
between Apollo 11 & Houston took place in a recording studio. Then
this reversal might say: "I don't understand, can I come in to your
studio room (and you show me what you want me to do)."

Reversal 3 - My comments

This audio is too bad to really document and that very fact may
explain the reversal. I hear the reversal as "Bad rapport, do I come
in." This is classic radio talk, Bad rapport (the signals are bad) "do
i come in", or can you hear me? Nothing sinister in that.

Reversal 4 - Karina's comments

Buzz Aldrin Jr, Apollo 11 Astronaut:

2 . Well we shut out the sun coming in from [the other window into]
the spacecraft so...
Remember the Lie

Reversal 4 - My comments

I agree with this reversal. But what is the lie he is remembering?

Reversal 5 - Karina's comments

3. ...so ah it's blocking through a ah the ah number one window [and
there isn't any] reflective light.
Hyena paranoid

Hyena in Reverse Speech describes deceptive cunning and conniving
behaviour and indicates someone with ulterior motives who can not be
trusted.

Reversal 5 - My comments

I agree with this reversal and the Reverse Speech metaphor dictionary
definition. But what are they being deceptive about?"

Reversal 6 - Karina's comments

Apollo 11 - Neil Armstrong 20 July 1969

1.I'm at the foot of the ladder, the LM (Lunar Module) footrests are
only ah depressed in the surface about ah one or two inches although
the surface appears to be ah very very [fine grained as you get close]
to it, it's almost like powder
Joke engineered now

Reversal 6 - My comments

This reversal is too imprecise to be documented. Too many syllables
and "engineered" can be heard several different ways

Reversal 7 - Karina's comments

2. That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind
Man will spacewal(k) -This is a future tense reversal indicating
it had not taken place yet

Reversal 7 - My comments

I have been playing this reversal for years and explain it very simply
as Armstrong is expressing his hope for the future of mankind in space
as he steps onto the lunar surface. Just because I will have dinner
tomorrow doesn't mean i didn't have dinner today. The same is true for
this reversal.

Continued http://www.reversespeech.com/moonhoax.htm

Did We Go to the Moon or Not?

By: David John Oates
redwo...@adam.com.au

It has been a huge controversy over the past several years, even the
topic of a TV special. Did we really go to the moon or not? Did NASA
fake the moon landings? Now one Reverse Speech Practitioner, Karina
Kaiser, has come out with a set of reversals that she claims proves we
did not go to the moon. Her reversals can be seen here -http://www.reversespeechinternational.com/moonlanding.php.

It has always been the opinion of this author that we did go to the
moon, and I have not been convinced with arguments that say we did not
go. This website examined the question of whether we went to the moon
or not a couple of years ago and our results were posted here -http://www.reversespeech.com/apollo.htm.

Probably the most significant reversal we found is this one here...

"I don't accept the Bible as a [gospel of any]thing except a
historical record. But we did go to the moon. You betcha sweet ass we
went to the moon." Inevitable saga (Congruent. Confirming what he is
saying forward. Saga is a historical record, a chronology of events
and it was inevitable because mankind was destined to go to the moon.)

I interpreted this reversal as he was telling a true story and an
accurate chronology of historical events. In another example, the
reversal confirms what he is saying forwards.

"Now what that all meant I don't know, but it wasn't the kind of
radiation that gave us a problem of any kind. You could see it. You
could close your eyes and just [see these things] shoot by." You see
this (Talking about travelling through the radiation belt. A congruent
reversal indicating they did travel through the belt.)

Given these seemingly congruent reversals, I was very surprised when
Karina Kaiser came out with her results. This has prompted me to
examine her claims and her reversals closely. Here are my analysis
results of each reversal she has posted. My overall conclusion is
posted at the end of this analysis.

Reversal 1 - Karina's comments:

Walter Cronkite, US Broadcast Journalist and CBS's former Anchorman
reports live Apollo 11 lift-off:

1. Thirty-two minutes (past the) hour lift off on Apollo 11...
It sucks - what an odd thing to say....

Reversal 1 - My comments

Karina has only documented a small portion of the reversal. The whole
reversal says Apollo 11 not perfect. Ah. It sucks (click on reversal
to download mp3 file in this file and others to follow). What does he
mean by Apollo 11 is not perfect? I don't know.

Reversal 2 - Karina's

Unknown Houston speaker:

2. Apollo 11 - (this is Houston, ID check), over?
Guys, stay down the street - down the street or up in space??

Reversal 2 - My comments

I don't think this reversal is clear enough to document. "Guys" is not
clear at all, and even if it is there, it could mean anything. Houston
Space Centre is a big place, he could have been thinking about another
part of the centre.

Reversal 3 - Karina's comments

Apollo 11 to Houston July 1969

1. You never get a role from them..
Bad rapport. Can I come in? ? - Lets suppose that this conversation
between Apollo 11 & Houston took place in a recording studio. Then
this reversal might say: "I don't understand, can I come in to your
studio room (and you show me what you want me to do)."

Reversal 3 - My comments

This audio is too bad to really document and that very fact may
explain the reversal. I hear the reversal as "Bad rapport, do I come
in." This is classic radio talk, Bad rapport (the signals are bad) "do
i come in", or can you hear me? Nothing sinister in that.

Reversal 4 - Karina's comments

Buzz Aldrin Jr, Apollo 11 Astronaut:

2 . Well we shut out the sun coming in from [the other window into]
the spacecraft so...
Remember the Lie

Reversal 4 - My comments

I agree with this reversal. But what is the lie he is remembering?

Reversal 5 - Karina's comments

3. ...so ah it's blocking through a ah the ah number one window [and
there isn't any] reflective light.
Hyena paranoid

Hyena in Reverse Speech describes deceptive cunning and conniving
behaviour and indicates someone with ulterior motives who can not be
trusted.

Reversal 5 - My comments

I agree with this reversal and the Reverse Speech metaphor dictionary
definition. But what are they being deceptive about?"

Reversal 6 - Karina's comments

Apollo 11 - Neil Armstrong 20 July 1969

1.I'm at the foot of the ladder, the LM (Lunar Module) footrests are
only ah depressed in the surface about ah one or two inches although
the surface appears to be ah very very [fine grained as you get close]
to it, it's almost like powder
Joke engineered now

Reversal 6 - My comments

This reversal is too imprecise to be documented. Too many syllables
and "engineered" can be heard several different ways

Reversal 7 - Karina's comments

2. That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind
Man will spacewal(k) -This is a future tense reversal indicating
it had not taken place yet

Reversal 7 - My comments

I have been playing this reversal for years and explain it very simply
as Armstrong is expressing his hope for the future of mankind in space
as he steps onto the lunar surface. Just because I will have dinner
tomorrow doesn't mean i didn't have dinner today. The same is true for
this reversal.

Continuedhttp://www.reversespeech.com/moonhoax.htm

The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
objective. Congratulations on your hard work.

There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories,
energy, radiation, etc. for a moon mission despite the Ranger probes
and Surveyor soft-landers preparing the way,

and B) The people who
went to the moon, tracked the lunar spaceships, handled logistics,
etc. - including trackers in the USSR who had every motive to expose
any US deception - were all members of a grand conspiracy of which NO
paperwork and not a single verifiable witness statement has ever come
to light.

The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
objective. Congratulations on your hard work.

There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories,
energy, radiation, etc. for a moom mission despite the Ranger probes
and Surveyor soft-landers preparing the way, and B) The people who
went to the moon, tracked the lunar spaceships, handled logistics,
etc. - including trackers in the USSR who had every motive to expose
any US deception - were all members of a grand conspiracy of which NO
paperwork and not a single verifiable witness statement has ever come
to light.

On Feb 12, 2:19 pm, Matt <MattWri...@aol.com> wrote:

The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
objective. Congratulations on your hard work.

Well, I would suggest that a posting name of " Israeldid911 " rather
takes
away from any possible claim of " objectivity "...

There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories,
energy, radiation, etc. for a moon mission despite the Ranger probes
and Surveyor soft-landers preparing the way,

Don't forget the Lunar Orbiters, too. So, both direct ascent and lunar
orbital insertions were, by the time of Apollo, well understood and
practiced tasks.

and B) The people who
went to the moon, tracked the lunar spaceships, handled logistics,
etc. - including trackers in the USSR who had every motive to expose
any US deception - were all members of a grand conspiracy of which NO
paperwork and not a single verifiable witness statement has ever come
to light.

Of course. The real issue is simply whackjob nuttery, because the
folks who
screech " we never landed on the Moon ", and often enough, the same
ones
who also screech " Oswald didn't kill JFK ", and " 9/11 was a hoax ".

No facts or truth ever come from such nutjob sources.

Andre

But then you've got far better physics and replicated science proof
than NASA.  Perhaps you should share and share alike.  Why is that
such a problem?
. - Brad Guth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But then you've got far better physics and replicated science proof
than NASA. Perhaps you should share and share alike. Why is that
such a problem?
. - Brad Guth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I can't resist asking, Brad. If every planetary scientist on Earth
agrees that we have been to the Moon and that Venus is uninhabited and
uninhabitable (which they do), and you believe the opposite, do you
ever entertain the notion that YOU might be the one misinterpreting
the data?

In article
fde4bb38-9c07-4cea-8fa6-ad029531a...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,



BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 12, 1:03 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Feb 12, 2:19 pm, Matt <MattWri...@aol.com> wrote:

The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
objective. Congratulations on your hard work.

Well, I would suggest that a posting name of " Israeldid911 " rather
takes
away from any possible claim of " objectivity "...

There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories,
energy, radiation, etc. for a moon mission despite the Ranger probes
and Surveyor soft-landers preparing the way,

Don't forget the Lunar Orbiters, too. So, both direct ascent and lunar
orbital insertions were, by the time of Apollo, well understood and
practiced tasks.

and B) The people who
went to the moon, tracked the lunar spaceships, handled logistics,
etc. - including trackers in the USSR who had every motive to expose
any US deception - were all members of a grand conspiracy of which NO
paperwork and not a single verifiable witness statement has ever come
to light.

Of course. The real issue is simply whackjob nuttery, because the
folks who
screech " we never landed on the Moon ", and often enough, the same
ones
who also screech " Oswald didn't kill JFK ", and " 9/11 was a hoax ".

No facts or truth ever come from such nutjob sources.

Andre

A moon hard landing or soft impact isn't what we're talking about.

But then you've got far better physics and replicated science proof
than NASA. Perhaps you should share and share alike. Why is that
such a problem?

OK, I'll share -- not that it will do any good.

A friend and I watched, in real time, video transmitted directly from
the antenna on the lunar rover during the Apollo 17 mission. My friend
was a ham operator, and he had a 12-foot parabolic dish in his back
yard; it was pointed directly at the moon. I contributed the video
expertise necessary to demodulate the signal. The image was very noisy,
but recognizable when we saw it some time later on a network broadcast.

Also, there are some peculiar video artifacts that show up during the
launch of the lunar module for the return trip, that are very unlikely
to have been faked; nobody would have thought of it.

Isaac

In article
8f0a5661-4879-481c-9fb5-981ff45cd...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,



BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 12, 11:19 am, Matt <MattWri...@aol.com> wrote:
The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
objective. Congratulations on your hard work.

There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories,
energy, radiation, etc. for a moom mission despite the Ranger probes
and Surveyor soft-landers preparing the way, and B) The people who
went to the moon, tracked the lunar spaceships, handled logistics,
etc. - including trackers in the USSR who had every motive to expose
any US deception - were all members of a grand conspiracy of which NO
paperwork and not a single verifiable witness statement has ever come
to light.

If that's what makes yourself and of so many other pretend atheists
and mainstream status quo rusemasters happy campers, then so be it.

I guess those off-world laws of physics and of peer replicated science
simply doesn't count.

BTW, where the heck was Venus hiding from those unfiltered Kodak
moments?

Don't know much about photography, do you?

Isaac

On Feb 12, 1:03 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Feb 12, 2:19 pm, Matt <MattWri...@aol.com> wrote:

The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
objective. Congratulations on your hard work.

Well, I would suggest that a posting name of " Israeldid911 " rather
takes
away from any possible claim of " objectivity "...

There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories,
energy, radiation, etc. for a moon mission despite the Ranger probes
and Surveyor soft-landers preparing the way,

Don't forget the Lunar Orbiters, too. So, both direct ascent and lunar
orbital insertions were, by the time of Apollo, well understood and
practiced tasks.

and B) The people who
went to the moon, tracked the lunar spaceships, handled logistics,
etc. - including trackers in the USSR who had every motive to expose
any US deception - were all members of a grand conspiracy of which NO
paperwork and not a single verifiable witness statement has ever come
to light.

Of course. The real issue is simply whackjob nuttery, because the
folks who
screech " we never landed on the Moon ", and often enough, the same
ones
who also screech " Oswald didn't kill JFK ", and " 9/11 was a hoax ".

No facts or truth ever come from such nutjob sources.

Andre

A moon hard landing or soft impact isn't what we're talking about.

But then you've got far better physics and replicated science proof
than NASA. Perhaps you should share and share alike. Why is that
such a problem?

On Feb 12, 11:19 am, Matt <MattWri...@aol.com> wrote:
The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
objective. Congratulations on your hard work.

There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories,
energy, radiation, etc. for a moom mission despite the Ranger probes
and Surveyor soft-landers preparing the way, and B) The people who
went to the moon, tracked the lunar spaceships, handled logistics,
etc. - including trackers in the USSR who had every motive to expose
any US deception - were all members of a grand conspiracy of which NO
paperwork and not a single verifiable witness statement has ever come
to light.

If that's what makes yourself and of so many other pretend atheists
and mainstream status quo rusemasters happy campers, then so be it.

I guess those off-world laws of physics and of peer replicated science
simply doesn't count.

BTW, where the heck was Venus hiding from those unfiltered Kodak
moments?