Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "Was the moon landing faked - Mythbusters" video.

Earthrise? Because it was taken by the crew of Apollo 8. Instead of making yourself look like a fool, you could have established this for yourself. Next question?
8
Why would anyone be stupid enough to listen to you or the dumb conspiracy theory that you mindlessly parrot?
6
"Simply because radiation" Fascinating. Do you have anything to add to this? For example, type, intensity, measurements and data? Or would you like some assistance with that?
6
"NASA probably threatened them". Do you even believe this yourself or were you simply trolling? Either way you are a complete buffoon.
5
"Along with all the loads of other proof that it was a big fakery" Fascinating. What "other proof" would that be? Perhaps you'd like to present your singular most compelling and conclusive example? Naturally, you'll wish to avoid the same old obligatory and predictable dumb online conspiracy theory that has been mindlessly consumed and regurgitated over and over and over and over and over again and effortlessly debunked and dismissed innumerable times. Do you have anything vaguely representative of or resembling your own thoughts and observations? "it's still surprising how all the gullible idiots" Said the believer in crap online conspiracy theory. "never mentioned that this comedic experiment had light coming over the black screens and very visible as the man was taking the picture." What? "I know that moonies cannot handle the truth and are allergic to facts" The unintentional irony at this stage is as staggering as it is hilarious. I invite you again - present your most persuasive "fact" irrefutably demonstrating that the Apollo moon landings were faked without relying upon parroting the ludicrous conspiracy theory that told you what to think. Go ahead then. "but i like kicking them in the ass anyway." You mean, hopelessly trolling the comments section of You Tube makes you feel significant, informed and clever. Reality couldn't give a rats arse about your illusory superiority which counts for nothing in the real world.
5
That's online conspiracy for you.
5
@xGHOST-117 Then why are you wasting time in the first place and making baseless comments which you are clearly unable and unwilling to defend other than beyond a quick google search that means nothing? Also, they are 'belts' since there are two with a third that is transitory. Shouldn't you have known this? You said "belt" in the singular, whilst your cut and paste response following that says "zones". If you have a shred of integrity the I'd like you to honestly ask yourself the following questions. 1/ How much do I genuinely know about the Van Allen Belts? - their shape extent and distribution? Energies and intensity? Type of radiation? 2/ What do I actually understand by alpha and beta particle radiation and shielding against it? 3/ What have I understood about the actual structure of the Command Module and the materials that it was fashioned from? 4/ What have I learnt about the trajectories flown by each of the Apollo missions and their passage through the belts? 5/ What do I know about what James Van Allen himself have to say about the belts and the Apollo missions? If the answer to these questions is nothing - which as we both know full well it is - then obtaining the answers will prevent you form humiliating yourself in the future and avoid making such a dumb and ignorant statement on a public comments section with no actual prior knowledge about the subject.
4
You're not terribly bright are you?
4
@yazzamx6380 This guy is as dim as they come.
3
Well there's always that craft called Orion that is right now perched atop a hardly insignificant or inconspicuous 321ft 70-metric-ton rocket capable of 8.4 million pounds of thrust at liftoff and carrying 154,000 pounds of payload into orbit that is currently sitting on the same pad complex that launched the Saturn Vs to the moon and awaiting its first test flight next month. Artemis 3 pledges to place mankind back on the lunar surface by 2025. This may be a tad optimistic, but when they do in this decade you will simply insist that this was faked too, retreat into your default denial coping mechanism, and brand it a hoax because that's what internet conspiracy theorists that you defer to will tell you to think.
3
And my flatulence is more real than your religion. Although granted, both are hot air.
3
@HenryDurth "the government called nasa . You do realise nasa is government" Nope, the government is not "called NASA". "the guy thinks nasa isn't a gov agency" At no stage have I made any such claim. Do you understand the difference?
3
@HenryDurth No NASA is not equivalent to the CIA, nor is it a "government". "I don't even think these are real people just ai they setup to defend nasa." there are occasions, even in the comments section of You Tube that someone floats a notion so ludicrous, or submits something that is so transcendently stupid that one is perplexed by the sheer variety of overwhelming valid counterpoints that simultaneously present themselves. In such times you find yourself left to suffocate in the overwhelming paralysis of indecisive bewilderment, like a rabbit caught in a car's headlight, which suffers for its immobility when any action would be preferable to none. Simple question - are you actually being serious?
3
@HenryDurth Correct about what? We had to point out to you that it is a government agency which is completely different. NASA is not "the government" as you falsely claimed nor is the government "called NASA". You haven't answered my question.
3
Conspiracy believers do.
3
True, true, never met him and neither have you and finally, false, the UAE is most definitely homophobic.
2
@Hangar.18 Yes, I'm interested in them. What's your excuse other than trolling?
2
@Hangar.18 The irony...was it intentional?
2
@Hangar.18 I'm in complete agreement with this video, how can I possibly be trolling it? If you mean reaction to trolling, then yes you are correct. To clarify, as the one parroting ill-informed unsubstantiated junk conspiracy theory, disinformation and ad hominem abuse, by definition the troll would be none other than yourself.
2
@jen4um What on earth are you talking about? By design, the space shuttle never had the capability to leave low earth orbit - it was impossible. Do you know why? Clearly not. During STS-31 which deployed the Hubble Space Telescope, Discovery entered an orbit of around 613 × 615 km (381 × 382 mi). At one point during the mission, Discovery briefly reached an apogee of 621 km (386 mi) which was the highest any shuttle mission reached.
2
@jen4um There was no 'space shuttle' in 1969 and it certainly didn't employ '1969 technology'. You need to understand that what you 'believe' has no bearing upon reality. The world around you doesn't work like that. Seriously, I suggest that you exercise a modicum of humility and introspection and objectively learn a bit about the history, the engineering and the science of the Apollo Programme. You are accomplishing nothing here other than your own humiliation and the replies that you are receiving are clearly completely over your head.
2
"I just typed in "moon landing hoax" Of course you did - it's called confirmation bias and is a consequence of granting internet access and a search engine to exceedingly dim people such as yourself.
2
Personal incredulity is not scepticism.
2
What do you mean "the government"? Which government? What "bullshit" would that be? Be specific.
2
@HenryDurth "NASA is a United States government agency" Correct. But it is not as you claimed "the government". They are two completely different things. You neglected to answer my question.
2
@HenryDurth Henry 'dearth' of knowledge.
2
The main hazard of the Van Allen Belts (note the plural, since there are two, with a third that is transitory), was the charged particle radiation. I'll come to that. Firstly, heat and temperature are two different things. Heat is concerned with thermal energy, whereas temperature describes molecular kinetic energy. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy, whereas temperature is a property the object exhibits and describes the motion of molecules - hence some of the ions within the VABs have been recorded at very high temperatures. "Temperature" is hypothetical and meaningless in a vacuum due to the absence of matter. Heat and temperature are two different things. Since space is essentially a vacuum there are very few of these to be excited. So temperature is essentially a measurement of how excited molecules are. The higher the temperature, the more frenzied they become and the more they bounce off each other-and this interaction between particles is what creates heat. What particles are present are spaced far apart. This is why temperature doesn't exist in a vacuum. In the absence of an atmosphere there is no convection whilst conduction is limited. Therefore the main source of thermal energy transfer is radiative heating from the sun. This is why the LM/CM stack was placed in a slow 'rotisserie' roll during its journey to the moon to evenly dissipate that heat. The internal temperature of a spacecraft will eventually reach an equilibrium where heat generated inside + heat arriving from the sun = heat radiating away through the vacuum in the form of infrared light. This is controlled through active and passive methods of thermal management. The belts consist of diffuse toroidal volumes around the Earth's equator within which radiation levels are elevated by the planet's magnetic field trapping charged particles from the sun. The inner torus is populated by energetic protons which they passed through in mere minutes and against which the hull of the CM was an effective shield. The hull of an Apollo command module rated 7 to 8 g/cm2. The craft took an hour and a half to traverse the more extensive outer torus but this region has mainly low energy electrons and so was less of a concern to mission planners. Also the inclination of the trajectory being in the plane of the Moon's orbit avoided the strongest regions of the belts near the equator.
2
Do we? How? What studio?
2
No education?
2
@Hangar.18 "in different comment sections you are reacting to undermine other people's conviction." No, I am challenging misinformation or requesting that they substantiate their claims. "Hundreds of reactions" That statement is a lie. "to force your belief on everyone" I suggest that you read you own posts. Videos across You Tube relating to Apollo are trolled by conspiracy believers such as yourself in a lame attempt "to force your belief on everyone". As explained, known science is not a question of belief and at no stage have I mentioned mine. "If you really have something definative to show,make a video about it." So that trolls such as yourself with absolutely zero knowledge of the subject could regurgitate junk rote learned conspiracy theory in the comment section? (Incidentally, you meant 'definitive'). And why does this not apply to you instead of obsessing over other people's?
1
The point of this video went so far over your head that it's currently residing somewhere in low Earth orbit.
1
@patrickharding4831 What do you mean "and"? It was clearly lost on you.
1
@patrickharding4831 It hasn't made my life difficult in any way whatsoever. It was simply an observation on the comments section of a video entertainment platform.
1
Brands people as "stupid" and "retards" and then says this: "”It's kind of funny though, you think your smarter than us conspiracy theorists." You genuinely couldn't make this up.
1
@Shu-ShuCult Shu-ShuCu*t
1
Clever lad. "Lol".
1
Shill! Joking.
1