The editing explanation is not relevant here. The link that sundialsvcs posted is an excerpt from the same raw footage that you posted in #268. The times for your video are approximately:

This is just a strange misunderstanding about how transmission delay works. There is no delay for ground control's response, because they are sitting ~0 light seconds away from the recording microphone and they are not going to sit still twiddling their thumbs when the message is received. There is a delay before Buzz Aldrin's response, because ground control's message has to go out, and then Aldrin's response has to come back (the video that sundialsvcs linked ends just before Aldrin's response).

I'm not going near the OT moon landing controversy which occurred in the lifetime of many here and is distinctly an American nutty thing. You seem to do it a lot. Who shot JFK? The earth is round/No it's not. The earth is warming - No it's not really, etc, etc.

It's true that certain tales were exaggerated to order in times past, and another type grew on their own, usually glorifying a local individual. What people did to witches was based on the superstitions of those kept in ignorance, and confessions under torture. It also true that inconvenient truths were silenced or erased from history like the Exodus of Israelites and the 10 plagues were erased from Egyptian history. But the facts are against the broad assertions above.

Some tales come through hundreds of years without being written rather well. Look at the Aramaic Targums which were not written, but oral translations. Vocabulary is usually lacking in a learned language, but these are sufficiently accurate to be used by Bible translators today as secondary sources.

@ business_kid - I see that you'd like to portray me (write off?) as some "typical American" but given the current bi-polar nature of "typical Americans" I assure you I don't fit that and it should be apparent even just in this thread. While I've not ever discussed "who shot JFK?" on all of LQN, and less than a handful of times anywhere, the other issues I'm using as illustration examples of jumping to conclusions with little or no real evidence... often with substantial evidence opposed. That the ones i choose contain a high percentage of US-centric topics is easy to explain. I'm American. I can't entirely escape my frame of reference, though I recall talking to you about Michael Collins, for example, though since the single highest percentage of my ancestry is Irish, maybe that too is just frame of reference. Here's another. Like Popeye said, "I yam what I yam"

I do try to be specific and direct, which reminds me, are you ever going to answer the question as to what you consider objective evidence of Global Flood? Please try to avoid anomalies that result from provincial isolation where cultures and languages use "world" to describe their local world as if it was all there is.

There is much supporting evidence for the Flood, none of which you appear to be interested in. We have genealogies, proof it was accepted as fact much later, geological evidence, etc. There is also the spread of languages from the point where the It is in the traditions of nearly every old national group.

You're asking that question in the hope that I will try, but regardless of what I say you will pour cold water on it. I have no interest in trying to convince you, because the mental cement is well set. If you provide me with objective evidence of any event in the third century BCE, and let me assess it, I might even agree with you

EDIT: I vaguely seem to remember mentioning those Flood legends before in this thread back a while. You can refer to your comments then. Cement set.

It's not surprising that there are flood stories all over the world. There were real flood events in various parts of the world that we know of. For example, the Black Sea was created very rapidly when the Mediterranean broke through what is now the Bosphorus. Previously this area had been a fertile and well farmed basin. Australian and Indonesian flood stories probably derive from the earlier loss of "Sundaland" which disappeared in the paleolithic, leaving behind a scattering of islands and peninsulas. Most of the languages spoken in South East Asia and the Pacific originated there.

But the Biblical flood story is unique in that it merges the flood with the implication of some greater catastrophe that changed human history in a more profound way. The antediluvian world described in the earlier chapters of Genesis is simply not our world at all. The geography is quite different and time flows at a much slower rate so that people live for incredibly long times. But that world (the biblical equivalent of the Australian aboriginees' dreamtime) disappears forever beneath the flood waters and when they recede, the world they lay bare is suddenly and quite definitely our world. Lifetimes shrink to believable figures within a generation or so and the sons of Noah are recognisably the ancestors of known groups of bronze age people. Soon the first ziggurat is going up in Babylonia.

I don't know what it was that happened to cause this complete dislocation but something clearly did, and the Bible is the only source for it. The closely parallel Mesopotamian story of Utnapishtim is a flood story pure and simple. It represents a mere interruption of history, with cities being rebuilt immediately afterwards on their original sites.

Not so, business_kid, I specifically stated "hard, objective evidence". Genealogies don't meet that criteria since they are subject to human frailties and agendas, not to mention ability to discern reality from fantasy, which goes double for "accepted as fact" (Truth is not a popularity contest) but geological evidence is both hard (commonly extremely slow to change and changes leave "footprints") objective. I doubt he was the first person to state it, but as I recall Carl Sagan is usually thought of as the author, but whoever did it makes great sense to anyone who has looked deeply at reality, "The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to Humanity".

That can even be said about our existence. We come into this existence without an Operator's Manual to parents who also had no manual for their own lives let alone that of their children. We all have to find our own way. I submit that much of Mythology is about that struggling learning curve.

Again not so and in this case I am rather offended that you would think that. I'm don't subscribe to Schadenfreude, let alone the seriously Evil. I do subscribe to hard won Principle, even when it hurts. I actually and sincerely wish you well. The worst part of that assessment is you thinking I have zero boundaries, that I am uninterested in discovering relative probabilities upon which to base conclusions, that I am so weak and insecure that I must put down others to raise my view of myself, having no interest in Reality. I change my views regularly, but based on evidence as I've stated repeatedly. That is the actual strength and point of the scientific method - Progress, not the illusion of certainty.

One of the reasons I ask for hard, objective evidence is because such things exist apart from anyone elses knowledge or even existence. A tree falling in the forest with no one to hear DOES make a sound since a falling tree compresses air creating a sound wave and a simple tape recorder can verify that and the reverse with falling objects in a vacuum. The conditions are real whether anyone is around to know it or not, and bears no responsibility for any one person's beliefs. It is real whether anyone tests and knows or believes it or not. Sound is vibration of a frequency our ears evolved to sense. Without air as a medium, we simply must put our ear to the ground, right?

So, I have no problem accepting that most ancient civilizations developed "world flood" myths because Man tends to begin where there is water, near rivers, lakes and seas whose levels are affected, and sometimes catastrophically by rainfall, seasonal and geographic events. I currently do have a problem with how ancients defined "world" even though it is understandable they would think "We ARE the world". They had no way of objectively knowing otherwise.

To answer your question asking me to give an example of objective evidence circa 3000 BC there are millions. How about one from ~9000BC? I'm choosing this one because it further demonstrate to progress built into the scientific method, despite anyone's comfortable beliefs. I'm talking about one example, Göbekli Tepe. Certainly there are many, many remaining questions, some of which we don't even yet know to ask, and there is considerable speculation on those we have asked BUT it does exist, was demonstrably built by homo sapiens, is radiometric dated, so far, to between 9500BC and 8000BC. The low levels of understanding are due to having only excavated what is thought to be only 5% of the site, and the not inconsiderable tyask of overthrowing deeply held convictions about Human progress. Once enough data was collected, studied, and denied or confirmed with a high degree of probability, only a few "die hards" refuse to accept our conclusions needed to be updated.

So state your geological evidence. You may be aware of the controversy recently over Graham Hancock's recent Netflix documentary "Ancient Apocalypse" and you should know I find it both fascinating and laudable that such challenging controversies can still exist. Such events and thoughts make us re-examine deep subjects. You may be aware of controversial geological support for a global flood, with which I'm not familiar and I'd be interested ion both that subject as well as a display of what you consider to be high probability.

Not that it's going to ever happen but I can speculate that if I were sitting say on an airplane seated next to Mr. Hancock, I would ask him questions to shed light on how much of his desire to make his documentary is about considering an alternative possibility, how much is surrounded by preconceived notions, and how much is because controversy often sells. I bear him no malice. I would be polite but surely he recognizes the difference between consideration and a trap. I wouldn't attempt to trap him, just one reason being he surely is smart enough to recognize such a common threat and it would color his answers if he even bothers to answer such obvious snares.

He would deserve that much respect as I think so do you, business_kid. I may well disagree and offer counter evidence but I am not out to trap you. Global is a BIG arena, relative to human lives. I strongly disagree with Flat Earthers, and in all honesty I find their views a waste of time and energy (they simply lack education) but I don't view them as wastes of space, water, food, and air. I might revise that if they still insisted the Earth is flat AFTER visiting the ISS.

Geez, I'm rambling now so I'm gonna shutup. Anyway, do what you will but it would be interesting to know your thoughts..

OK. Give me hard objective evidence for any event in the third century BCE. Something that will prove to someone like me who can be a hard doubting sceptic if he wants to be. It isn't there, is it? But, as Hazel pointed out, very strong supporting evidence is.

Failing strong objective evidence from you on any event in the 3rd century BCE please stop spamming the thread with Flood denials. If you can't prove any event that long ago (even the Flood!) your point is invalid, and frankly boring at this stage.

WTF business_kid? You consistently refuse to state what criteria you require to judge what "hard, objective evidence" means to you and then I pick existing structures that were built around an even older era than you asked for, in the 9th century BC instead of the 3rd, that are open to scholarly study, from which not only do we know for they were built by humans, utterly challenging our conclusions about Hunter-Gatherers and the Dawn of Civilization, but also glimpses into language, religious symbolism, diet, and much more. Some conclusions just go with the territory, such as knowing it was a place for large gatherings or there would be no need, especially when largely living hand-to-mouth as Hunter-Gatherers with few accumulated resources, as a hard limit on frivolity. Other conclusions are speculative until we learn more, which we surely will, but before it's discovery we didn't even know to ask the questions!

These things exist. They are hard, objective evidence anyone with the price of travel can go see, right now, in 2022. There are only so many ways to interpret their existence and every day that field is narrowed thanks to rigorous training, recovery techniques, instrumentation, so tell me what more do you need?

It is also important that there is zero hard, objective evidence refuting that Göbekli Tepe was even possible for Hunter-Gatherers to build, that they gathered or had any reason to gather, etc. Concerning "The Flood", conversely while some geological resources can be interpreted in a way that could conceivably be a result of worldwide flooding, no evidence I know of shows these floods were anything but but random, local events over thousands of years, not one massive flood all at once even in the same decade, let alone on the same day. Plus, there is still the issue of how much water exists on Earth. We have no record whatsoever that there ever was the vastly greater amount required to cover the entire Earth at all, let alone up to mountain tops.

Until YOU come up with some observable, objective evidence that can be analyzed even showing a worldwide flood is even possible, it appears as mere confirmation bias since you "have a dog in that race" that I don't. Why can't you admit, at least to yourself, that what you view as evidence is not objective but actually subjective since your sense of identity is wrapped up in it? If you could show actual evidence, for example, that there once was enough water to blanket the Earth, my acceptance of that turnaround would not alter who I am, since proving a worldwide flood occurred is not proof that "God did it". It is not my position that there is zero truth in the Christian Bible, just that much of it is merely Myth. See the difference in agendas?

Spend five minutes on YouTube listening to the recordings. Not only the ones that are still there following a search (including those on "official" websites), but also in the many which were eagerly cut and included in countless films and television specials which were produced at that time to "celebrate" the achievement. All of them reveal exactly what this six-year old heard coming from his parent's black-and-white TV: "there is no delay!"

It isn't good enough to "blame it on subsequent film or audio editors." Remember, I was personally there, and it prompted my curiosity at that time. (Remember: the transmissions were purported to be "live.") Yes, I was much too young to comprehend what it might mean, and I quickly realized that it was going nowhere for me to ask my parents questions ... although I do also remember my father quietly saying to me once, when he knew that my mother was out of earshot, "yes, I have wondered about that, too."

Now, if to support your position you want to personally "call me a liar," I actually don't mind. As long as you understand that this is exactly what you are now doing. I am an eyewitness. And, I am not alone. I have no "skin in the game."

Since I can testify personally that "this is indeed what I heard at the moment," perhaps this serves simply as another assertion that "what I heard at the moment" could not possibly have been "live." It was, rather, "made for television." From the beginning to the end.

sundialsvcs, you do realize don't you that for just one example, Saturday Nite Live, has engaged a 3 second delay with some controversial guests to edit out any indiscretions? Now while I do think NASA is basically honest, they haven't been brutally honest. For example IIRC it was more than a decade before it was revealed that the occupants of the Columbia Shuttle were alive until at least hitting the ocean. That was withheld. Do you imagine if a camera view was available in the "cockpit" they would have not edited anything? A 3 second or so delay gives the power to edit content without being obvious or interrupting the flow AND allows for clipping out pauses.

That's at least possible, right? So what's more likely a 3-5 second editing protocol (or any other mundane possibility) or a 100,000+ participant con job, participants including enemies who would have LOVED to reveal any scam? Occam's Razor, right?

BTW I also chose Göbekli Tepe because it is over the 6000 year mark thought to be a favorite of the Young Earther "literal interpretation of the Bible" Fan Club, you know just to expose that level of Anti-Science among Science-Pretenders, but could easily have chosen the Cosmic Background Radiation as hard, objective evidence at the very least dating back billions of years to the early state of our Universe.

Closer to home (depending on one's definition of "home"), a group of European scientists recently extracted DNA for Greenland soil (un-romantically from skin, feces, and urine), sequenced what they could, and determined much of it was over 2,000,000 years old. That in itself is hard evidence of something and a breakthrough to be sure if it withstands more peer review, but one claim is that the DNA reveals both plants and animals and apparently, assuming it is not falsified, Greenland 2,000,000 years ago was lush forest and meadows inhabited by mastodons, ancestors of rabbits, and numerous plants.

Your waffle in vague generalities produces no hard evidence. I do not accord dates the unquestioning authority you do, and with good reason. Even presume the date on something is correct, that doesn't prove any historical event occurred. There is no link between the age of any item, and any historical event.

Therefore I'm going to end this, which must be irritating to all on this thread. Don't ask me for objective evidence, when you cannot prove any event occurred in the third century BCE either. Secular history is vague, artifacts don't prove occurrence of any event. You don't accept the most reliable evidence for that period (3rd century BCE), so you're in the dark.

I don't think that actually makes any sense. How would you clip out multiple pauses with a fixed delay? Your delay "budget" would be reduced each time you clip out a pause.

Also, I don't think I buy that you can smoothly edit content in 3 seconds, editing video takes a long time. You can end things early if you see it's going in a "bad" direction sure, but that's not the same as editing out content "without being obvious or interrupting the flow".

Hello ntubski. I was writing in generalities about the length of time in such delays because it varies with technology and content. For example SNL introduced initially a 3 second delay after Richard Pryor "said bad words" and the producers were helpless to stop him and subsequently faced fines. Some delays can be hours and still considered "Live", such as content held back until scheduled Nightly News Time. These are called "Deferred Live". It is my understanding that recently with digital content substantial editing IS not only possible but routine. It is not necessarily the same process as editing a video since often it is a form of "streaming". The "feed" is simply interrupted. It's no heroic feat to just chop out a a chunk of delayed stream.

That said things were quite different circa 1970 and my generality of length of delay is technically unsound, but Deferred Live was already in effect for Live News coverage. You may have even witnessed a repeating (rather common in "Breaking News") that carries a label of Live even when repeated the 20th time, obviously "Live" in the broadcast world, doesn't necessarily mean "occurring right now". If anything, the label is a bit deceptive. That such quick editing has occurred for many decades is not at issue. It's verifiably real and faced with fines, some would say an essential part of doing business.

Waffle? I suppose such an interpretation is to be expected with folks who don't deal in probabilities that progress and change over time. Ultimately that is a large part of the appeal of Religion. It's immutable, "cast in stone". Regarding proof, 100% certainty is rare in everything but Mathematics. However I'd say that the Methusaleh tree's Birth Date of 2833 BC concluded by corroborating growth rings and radiometric dating is well into the 90+ percentile of "Extremely Likely", again hard objective, repeatable measurement and with no contradictions.

There is obviously no need for me to ask for objective evidence from you anymore, so I won't.