Comments by "w71 w72" (@gives_bad_advice) on "Free Documentary - History" channel.

  1. It's pretty easy to find the answer to that question. The hint is to know that wireless communication didn't begin with Wi-Fi. The world didn't start spinning the day Steve Jobs introduced the iPod.
    6
  2. Well, there are more than a hundred videos saying that NASA is wrong. By you're logic, if it were so ridiculous that NASA landed in the moon, no one would bother to refute it.
    6
  3. China has taken pictures of the Apollo landing sites from lunar orbit and found everything where it should be. The world's engineers and scientists have to had 50 years to produce evidence of fraud and absolutely no such evidence has been published. You've got to be a little kooky to think a charade of that magnitude and under close scrutiny could be maintained without a single whistleblower or shred of evidence to the contrary for even a week, let alone five decades.
    6
  4. ​ @michaelstillman1171 But he makes up for it with "moon rocks extremely porous" That's 100% original as far as i know.
    6
  5. Well, i would say it depends on four things: what kind of film it is, what kind of radiation it was exposed to, at what intensity, and for how long. Without knowing all those things, there's just no telling..
    6
  6. So the "techs" didn't know which way their own directional antennae were pointed? That's pretty hard to believe.
    6
  7. Thats because the Russians destroyed all the punctuation
    6
  8. It was attached to the outside of the lunar lander and was deployed when it was time.
    6
  9. They did
    6
  10. Interesting take. The moment someone questions the validity of something they must be right. Is that a fair representation of your theory here?
    6
  11. "China found no trace" I think you're making up lies.
    6
  12.  @SolarChronicle  A lot of folks seem to think that wireless communication did not exist before the mobile phone.
    6
  13. In freshman Rhetoric & Writing today we talked about perspective taking in the context of the argumentative essays they are writing. I had them write, for ten minutes, a letter to their Opposition showing this opposition that they understand their point of view. Not that they agree with them, only that they understand them--a "generous" read of the other side rather than a "critical" read. Why do such a thing? Because if one suspends critique for a bit, he can better see things through the eyes of the opposition, understand their thinking, and from there craft a more fitting, customized response which is more likely to move them from their position, if only a little bit. And that is the goal--to move them, not to beat them. I find it difficult to practice here what i preach there. But here the goal IS to beat them, or at least to beat the flaming numpties.
    6
  14. ​ @stusue9733 As soon as they start talking about buoyancy, chances are they're flat Earthers who think gravity doesn't exist.
    5
  15. "They did NOT land on the moon" Then where did they land? I don't think they took that giant rocket to the 7-11.
    5
  16. If you have a lot of unanswered questions then how can you be confident that "there's no way" they went to they moon?
    5
  17.  @therealzilch  "Since the Earth's atmosphere is more than 90% transparent to visible light, the stars seen from the Moon would look a little better than the best viewing from the Earth- not a big deal." Yeah but they couldn't take a giant telescope, like the ones on Earth, with you to the moon. I'm no astronomer, but I'd expect large Earth-based telescopes to provide much better resolution than whatever tiny thing you could fit in/on the lunar lander. And, by the way, @JR-hr8pk (not a terribly clever handle), they did point the video camera at Earth and if you're interested in finding that video on You Tube, search for "Apollo 17 station 2 view of Earth". And there's another video from "station 4."
    5
  18. There's video of the rover's deployment on YT.
    5
  19. "just a lander" You really think no one remembered that they'd need to take off again to get home? I really cannot conceive the thought process you're using here.
    5
  20. How is a cell phone going to get you to the moon?
    5
  21.  @critthought2866  " They're so cute" They're always pretty cute, especially when they get mad.
    5
  22.  @critthought2866  Even in the deepest midst of the emptiest super voids in the known universe, still there are 10 atoms in every cubic meter for a rocket to "push off of".
    5
  23. ​ @HenryDurth Yes, the sun is always the same size. I have kept my eclipse glasses handy for the past few months and i can confirm by personal experience that the disc of the sun never changes in size.
    5
  24.  @mistersimple1986  "never said i was looking for it" Then why decide it doesn't exist?
    5
  25. I heard audio of DT trying to pressure Georgia into generating 11,000 fraudulent votes for himself. Now THAT'S evidence of attempted fraud. What do you got?
    5
  26. " The astro-nots were in earth orbit for the whole mission(s). " Hundreds of people from dozens of countries tracked the Apollo vehicles to the moon and back. Amateurs and professional alike. Five countries have photographed the Apollo landing sites in the past 25 years. Including China. And there was no way to simulate astronauts kicking around dust in an airless 1/6 g environment on video. You've got a physics degree, so let's take that one--how do you suppose they got dust to fly around without creating clouds but to instead trace the path expected in airless microgravity. If your degree is worth anything you know that slowing down the video won't do it because slowing the video slows motion on both the x and the y axes. But if you're kicking dust around on the moon, 1/6 g does nothing to affect the x vectors, only the y. Do tell, do tell. "entertain the possibility that all these years, you might have been wrong" I am. And if you can come up with an explanation for the dust in the video, I'll entertain it honestly. And you? Are you willing to take your own advice?
    5
  27. After 50 years they haven't amounted to a hill of beans.
    5
  28.  @nunyabiz1780  "some guy did the work" I would need a little more to go on in order to find that persuasive, but, yeah, that's the sort of rigor that the Deniers have in short supply. In fact, I've never seen any. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just because i have not seen something. So if you've got it, trot it out. Article titles work.
    5
  29. They were awesome. Even the ones that didn't land were awesome. Apollo 8 holds as much or more intrigue as 11.
    5
  30.  @HenryDurth  "Don't forget the fact that the suns gravitational pull would have pulled any of the attempted missions off course" lol! It's not easy to stand out as an exceptional kook among Apollo truthers, but you have managed to do it! Good job!
    5
  31. You offer a thoughtful blend of copypasting and pure insanity. I give you 6 out of 10.
    5
  32. " they were threatened by are government if they say anything" What you have there is a speculation. Some folks confuse their speculations for conclusions.
    5
  33. Yeah, there is also a collossal profit motive and a whole raft of practical reasons to fly airplanes.
    5
  34.  @jimgalle1371  "Do not question authority .... you must be a good sheep ...." It's the ones who blindly follow the conspiracy theory leaders like Bart Sibrel who are the sheep.
    5
  35.  @adeboyegrillo3408  "The awkward looking flag that was waving for example." Does the flag ever wave when no one is standing right there next to it? As as far as "awkward." I'm not sure how you measure awkwardness, but it's not surprising at all that it looks different from what we have come to expect from flags on Earth--on the moon there's no air resistance, there's a fraction of the gravity and so the same force applied to the staff will cause greater movement in the flag. And there's a horizontal bar across the top, which flags on earth rarely have. The fact that the flag moves weirdly (awkwardly) as we've never seen one move on Earth is evidence IN FAVOR of the fact of being on the moon.
    5
  36. How many people have been ferried to and from the ISS since it was built? Take a guess.
    5
  37. You would believe him, whether he was telling the truth or not
    5
  38. And what if there is gravity? Then what?
    5
  39. They did it again five times
    5
  40. ​ @laneyljk A t.v. signal IS radiation. Light is radiation. Camera is spelled with an "e". You could do with some intellectual humility. A LOT of humility.
    5
  41. Yes, there are photos and video of Earth taken by astronauts from the surface of the moon. Why do you think they did not?
    5
  42. ​​ @tdub25  The Apollo deniers are not skeptics; a skeptic would be skeptical of Bart's claims, as well as NASA's. To be selectively skeptical is to not be a skeptic at all. To be skeptical only of the half of the story you don't like is "cynicism."
    5
  43. Then the interviewee days "if they couldn't get a simulator to work on Earth..." But it's simply not true that they couldn't get it to work. It did work and the video of it functioning well is on YT. The idea that one crash means that it was never made to work is wrong.
    5
  44. ​ @TimothyPetitpas Are you sure you didn't figuratively see the video?
    5
  45. The past matters to the future. What else can?
    5
  46. The VABs are not intense enough to hurt a human in the few hours it takes to traverse them. It's as simple as that.
    5
  47. If you think DT doesn't fabricate b.s., then you're a dupe.
    5
  48. india, japan, and china all have lunar orbiters sending back high res photos of the Apolli landing sites
    5
  49.  @nunyabiz1780  You're debunking the debunkers. Is called a debate and this is hardly the only topic debated on You Tube. There are plenty of folks out there doing the same thing with evolution and the existence of god, for instance.
    5
  50. NASA has never said it's impossible for humans to cross the VABs and that they've destroyed the technology to do so. That is why you are unable to post a quote or video title of any NASA representative saying so.
    5