Reverse Speech & The Apollo Moon Controversy

[ISRAELDid911]

Did We Go to the Moon or Not?

By: David John Oates
[email protected]

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

 

[Shuttle King]

Did We Go to the Moon

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

If you mean did the made-for-tv "apollo-men-to-the-moon" astronaughts
pretend to go all the way to the Moon and back not once but six times
during the hippie-era, nearly *four decades* ago (practically covered-
wagon times by today's standards), in a long-since exposed, primitive
cold-war propaganda hoax, a thoroughly scrutinized hoax that only the
die-hard Atheists still believe was actually men going all the way to
the Moon and back when Tricky Dicky was President, then the answer is
unequivocally Yes: Atheists took the "blue pill" and woke up in their
beds believing whatever they wanted to believe, even though it was an
illusion to the extent NASA depicted living men above low-earth orbit,
you know, the limit of where their low-earth orbit shuttles fly today.

Armageddon Cometh,
Daniel Joseph Min
http://www.angelfire.com/moon2/danieljosephmin/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBR7OfLZljD7YrHM/nEQJ/gwCgzlq+X7UwNWt98cH3KPFIImyOeX0AoKdu
onLeCLwZx07J1pRxjcQnrK4+
=2Pni
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum]

oh, man; got me to answer a thread by some B*z*,
who goes by "Israeldid911;" congradulation!

how many folks have noticed,
the tiny snippets of reversed-speech that are offered
as a psychometric, are really the same
as a Rorshach Test?... on the wayside,
is "Apollo Eleven" a reverse-speech palindrome?

I mean, this was obvious when that Australian dude
with the pronounced lisp gave his presentations
on Fart Smell Ghost-to-Ghost BC, complete
with ridiculous readings of OJ at trial.

or, like the Bible Code, just set your computer
to find what ever prediction *ex post facto*
that you want to find, except for "[we're going to get]
Rabin Assassinated." well, I don't know if
"speech analysis" is able to do that, these days.

I don't blame anyone who was not alive in '69,
for not believing in the moonlanding; I mean,
it hardly matters, since LBJ and Nixon ... I mean,
sir Henry of Kiss.Ass. and George Schulz,
took the space program down, in favor
of a God-am "shuttle."

I might add, only that dumb-ass Face on Mars guy
got an Academy Award; no Apollo personnel!

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

thus:
oh, you wanted me to "retain,"
what I'd never seen, before. back at you:
you are giving an *explanation*
of the mathematical formalism of E et al
in GR, not any equivalence with "Newton's" law,
which was only an algebraization
of Kepler's orbital constraints,
that Newton stole from Hook, the first president
of the Royal Society; it's been the secular religion
of the British since that time --
for the next time!

anyway, yours is similar to Descartes' notion, but
you've got a long way to go,
in actually forcing it to fit the data;
firstly, you've got to actually find the data --
for the next time!

umpteenth time, GR's space-time was patterned after Newton's
gravitational inverse square law. The actual CAUSE of Mercury's
precession is its running into ether of a density that also matches
the inverse square law! And the ether is rotating as the Sun
rotates. So that is like a sort of whirlpool
of ether that will speed up Mercury enough
to account for the precession.

thus:
it is somewhat more recondite,
to use the diameter = one;
thus, circumference & area are just pi. then,
you still have to "explain,"
why the volume is pi/6....
anyway, the fact that
the area of the great circle is a quarter
of the sphere's, shows, it's (somehow) tetrahedral,
a la Buckafka Fullofitarians.

thus quoth:
These gravitational redshift objects
are evenly distributed throughout the universe.
Quasar's are compact objects
about one light week in diameter. The close ones'
redshifts are mostly from their gravitation.

--Dick Cheeny, National Treasure:
Run, Trickier Dick -- Run for Indy superVeep!...
Al Gore, Best Actor, Occidental Dino Awards!

 

[Marshall]

It has been a huge controversy over the past several years, even the
topic of a TV special. Did we really go to the new world or not? Did
Spain fake the North America landings?


http://xkcd.com/202/

Did We Go to the Moon or Not?

It has been a huge controversy over the past several years,

No it hasn't.


Marshall

 

[[email protected]]

It has been a huge controversy over the past several years, even the
topic of a TV special. Did we really go to the new world or not?

What you mean "we", Kemosabe?

Did Spain fake the North America landings?

MY ancestors were Vikings.

 

[Paul Burke]

MY ancestors were Vikings.

They just blew it, scared off by a few skraelings.

 

[Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum]

incidentally, I did not see the colorcoded snippets on the URL,
only the ASCII that was pasted in here, but
it only makes it seem much more conclusively to be an insnipid joke,
the snippets were so snippy!

must be a pass-nofail IQ test, and/or
the OP is selling that dictionary of polysyallabic retronyms,
one click at a time.

thus:
the little second-root sign -- it has nothing
to do in particular with a tetragon -- was visible on this
dumbterminal.

anyway, this is just a variation on "knight's moves" in chess,
where 2ndroot(r) = 2ndroot((2ndpower(1) + 2ndpower(2)) ...
see Wildflower's Rational Trig?

the interesting thing is that not all r are possible moves,
which I uncovered empirically using graphpaper,
working on Buckystuff; at least, the first missing r.

so, using the distances between the centers of the tetragons
on hte m by n chessboard, which "pythagorean" "sums of two squares"
moves
will get you from one corner to another corner?

this is related to the Waterflower polyhedra, of course;
when I did my little experiment, I wasn't thinking of the shape of it,
quite in that way.

thus:
it is somewhat more recondite,
to use the diameter = one;
thus, circumference & area are just pi. then,
you still have to "explain,"
why the volume is pi/6....
anyway, the fact that
the area of the great circle is a quarter
of the sphere's, shows, it's (somehow) tetrahedral,
a la Buckafka Fullofitarians.

thus quoth:
These gravitational redshift objects
are evenly distributed throughout the universe.
Quasar's are compact objects
about one light week in diameter. The close ones'
redshifts are mostly from their gravitation.

--Dick Cheeny, National Treasure:
Run, Trickier Dick -- Run for Indy superVeep!...
Al Gore, Best Actor, Occidental Dino Awards!