Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "Valuetainment"
channel.
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"So many people 60 plus might still believe that we landed on the moon because we were so young and were fooled by what we watched on tv."
You mean entire branches of science, specialist fields of expertise such as aerospace engineering worldwide, Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalists, Nobel Prize winning physicists, 10,000 public sector organisations and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet that for over half a century have no issues with the veracity of the Apollo moon landings? In short, domains, disciplines and individuals far cleverer and more informed than an impressionable, insignificant kid and random, gullible Dunning Kruger afflicted believer in dumb online conspiracy theory with zero knowledge of the subject whatsoever. And no, known science and technology is not a question of 'belief' that would be the the junk online conspiracy theory that you mindlessly consume and regurgitate.
"I'm one but now I believe it was a hoax by our government."
Right. Because the crap online conspiracy theory that you yourself "believe" is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic monetised or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is completely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
2
-
2
-
2
-
"I used to believe that we have been to the moon, I was young, naive and thought the government would never lie to us, right? Lol Now I’m older."
...You got an internet connection and fell for junk online dumb conspiracy theory instead. Of course governments lie, deceive and conspire. No one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. But simply because they do that does not then logically follow that ludicrous claims of a moon landing hoax or any other ridiculous random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choosing, devising or consequence of personal bias/agenda should automatically be assumed to be true.
"With so much technology available to us nowadays and with the advancements push us to advance more, why then, has the single most significant technological feat accomplished by us - never been duplicated!!!????"
Cost. Apollo was cancelled in 1972 due to its lack of sustainability and political and public will. It is insanely expensive to sent crewed missions to the moon. Meanwhile, Project Artemis was only approved in 2017 and has a fraction of the budget of the Apollo Programme.
Despite technological advancement in aviation, there has been no supersonic passenger service for over two decades. Concorde must have been a hoax.
"You would think, that since we went there in the 60’s, we should have been there a dozen times by now - but we haven’t. That alone should make you wonder…."
Apollo went there in the 1970s too - until the programme was prematurely cancelled by Congress.
"My grandfather believed we never went, and I used to laugh at him - now I blv he might have been right all along…."
Nope, your Grandfather was an idiot.
"Heck, how did we get that moon buggy out to the moon from the rocket ship?"
You mean the lunar module? There were three taken as part of the later J Class missions - Apollos 15, 16 and 17. It was folded and stowed in quadrant 1 of the descent stage equipment bay. You could have ascertained this for yourself as there are ample schematics that you can find in seconds, and footage of its loading and deployment on the moon. Why are you claiming that something is fake that you demonstrably have absolutely no understanding of whatsoever?
"How did the lunar module make it on its first attempt? Where was it practiced? Where are those videos?"
It was tested by Apollo 5 and Apollo 9 in Earth orbit then taken within 47,000 feet of the lunar surface during Apollo 10 by Tom Stafford and Eugene Cernan. This almost ended in disaster. Was that faked too? Again, footage is readily accessible.
"What did the lunar buggy run on? Batteries?"
Two 36-volt silver-zinc potassium hydroxide non-rechargeable batteries developed by Eagle-Picher with a charge capacity of 121 A·h each (a total of 242 A·h), yielding a range of 57 miles (92 km).
"What was its ignition source?"
Wait - you're being serious. You actually think that an internal combustion engine would be used on the moon?
2
-
2
-
@Windbend3r
"Instead of attacking this guy why don’t you attack what he’s saying."
All of Sibrel's fraudulent and fallacious claims have been comprehensively addressed and debunked. Why are you incapable of doing that for yourself instead of accusing others of confirmation bias?
"Of course you would think that I haven’t done my research but I definitely have looked at both sides because I would like to know the truth I’m not attached one way or the other"
No you haven't done any research at all. If you had even the remotest knowledge about the science, technology and the history of spaceflight and the Apollo Programme, then you'd immediately dismiss Sibrel's lies in the same way that those that do.
"Sabril‘s documentary isn’t the only one out there exposing this."
It's Sibrel, how do you expect to be taken seriously if you can't even get his name right. No one has exposed anything other than the shocking gullibility of those that believe this nonsense. Of course there are other hucksters and grifters out there - if you hadn't noticed, conspiracy theory has proved to be very lucrative for some. Most know exactly what they are doing - as does Sibrel. They harvest stupidity for profit and exploit the dim and impressionable. As such, you are the target market.
"there are very valid red flags but I don’t wanna write a book right now on all the arguments that’s what the docs are for."
Such as? Provide your singular best example. There are no valid "red flags", just the same old predictable naively consumed and regurgitated dumb conspiracy theory badly parroted by individuals such as yourself, with demonstrably zero knowledge of the subject concerned. Quick tip, a crap online conspiracy video is not a 'documentary'.
"it’s not gonna come out on the news we didn’t go to the moon"
I can assure you that if the moon landings were faked it would have been broken over half a century ago - it would have been the biggest news scoop in history. There are investigative reporters worldwide clamouring for such stories.
"you’re gonna have to look into it yourself."
And your point about confirmation bias was precisely what.
To ask you again; at what stage have you actually objectively read up on and learnt about the science, the technology and the history of the Apollo Programme. Why do you rely upon charlatans like Sibrel to tell you what to think?
"Some people aren’t that smart and then they projected onto other people because they can’t think critically."
Said the gullible believer in dumb online conspiracy theory. Think critically? Belief in conspiracy theory is the diametric opposite of critical thinking. You goons and a genuine critical faculty were separated at birth ffs.
"I can share with you the other documentary I’m talking about that’s longer and arguably better than sabrils."
Jeez, please don't tell me that you're talking about Massimo Mazucco's ludicrous 'American Moon'. Surely even you can't be that dim?
"But also, why would you not be skeptical like you heard all of those red flags and thats not even all of the inconsistencies. If something actually happened, then there would be no red flags around it. You wouldn’t be able to poke any holes in it. Why are you so attached to believe in we went?"
Known science is not a question of belief. The scientific, independent, technical and third party evidence in support of the moon landings is incontrovertible and has a voice of its own. If you genuinely understood any of this, you would realise that there are no "red flags" or "inconsistencies" - simply baseless claims, scientific illiteracy, incredulity and outright lies perpetuated by the conspiracy theorists that you mindlessly trust. Literally all of their claims can be refuted with objective and independently verifiable evidence that people like yourself are completely ignorant of or incapable of finding. Also, belief and faith in exploitative conspiracy theorists is not scepticism.
You embody everything that is wrong with internet access.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marvinmehr
Seriously, you don't have any questions at all - and you aren't remotely interested in the answers. All that you have done is badly parroted the same old, predictable gullibly consumed and regurgitated conspiracy theory that has been addressed and debunked over and over and over again about a subject that you clearly know nothing about whatsoever.
"When the ship left the moon who was video taping following the craft and zooming in and out?"
Ed Fendell at the Johnson Space Centre in Houston using the lunar rover GCTA. This was attempted with Apollo 15, but the tilt mechanism jammed. The departure of Apollo 16 was partially covered - but the rover was parked too close to the LM. The ascent of Apollo 17's Challenger upper stage was captured perfectly thought - which is what you are referring to. It was necessary to compensate for the lag in communications in order to keep it in frame.
"Also why no moon dust flying around from the propulsion system?"
Because the ascent stage was launched from the descent stage.
"Why are shadows wrong?"
They aren't. That is simply the claim of online grifters and con artists. You can observe precisely the same supposed irregularities here on Earth. If you want to be more specific I would be happy to address it for you.
"Why the flag blowing in the wind, I thought a vacuum wouldn't have wind?"
It isn't though. It moves when disturbed or when the pole was rotated by the astronauts and continues due to the conservation of momentum in a vacuum. It also moves as a consequence of the PLSS venting or in the case of Apollo 14 footage, the depressurisation of the LM.
"Van Allen belt, how is it possible for a human to go through that?"
Firstly they are 'belts' in the plural, since there are two, plus a third which is transitory. Secondly, be honest with yourself, the only reason that you've even heard of them is through the crap online conspiracy theory that tells you what to think. Thirdly, assuming you have the remotest shred of integrity then 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?
6/ What have I done to challenge my preconceptions and the claims made by online conspiracy theorists in relation to the VABs?
If the answer to these questions is nothing, then obtaining the answers will prevent you from asking such a question in the future in the complete absence of substantive knowledge.
"Camera guy waiting on moon to record astronauts walking on moon for 1st time?"
Seriously? Ask yourself if you truly believe that NASA staged a hoax of such mind boggling intricacy and complexity and upon such a vast scale, but they overlooked such a glaring and obvious error? That in over half a century entire branches of science, specialist fields and disciplines such as aerospace engineering, Nobel Prize winning physicists, Pulitzer nominated investigative journalists, private sector enterprise, opposing independent nations, and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet have failed to notice this? Meanwhile some conspiracy video on You Tube and a cretinous community of gullible believers on their nonsense have? Or could it be that they actually understand the process allowing the descent stage MESA bay to deploy and activate the Westinghouse camera that captured Armstrong's descent down the ladder and first steps and you do not? Honestly, how stupid does it get?
"I'm sure I have more questions, but you can start answering those."
I'm sure you do. Perhaps try to make some observations of your own instead of relying on dumb conspiracy theory to tell you what to think. Moreover, everything that you typed has been answered innumerable times for decades.
1
-
1
-
@marvinmehr
So you could have established all the answers to your "questions" yourself, in addition to gaining even the most fragmentary knowledge about a subject that you instead arrogantly dismiss as fake without obtaining even that. All of you so called questions have been asked over and over and over again and addressed innumerable times. Again, if you bothered to learn anything about the history, technology and the history of the Apollo Programme then you too wouldn't need to ask them.
"When the ship left the moon who was video taping following the craft and zooming in and out? Also why no moon dust flying around from the propulsion system?"
No one was 'video taping it'. The departure of Apollo 17 was captured on the GCTA mounted on the parked lunar rover and controlled on the ground by Ed Fendell in Houston. They had tried with Apollo 15 but the upward tilt mechanism failed. For Apollo 16, the rover was parked too close to capture the full ascent. However, Apollo 17 and the launch of the upper stage of Challenger was caught perfectly - although it was necessary to compensate for the delay in signal in order to time it right.
"Also why no moon dust flying around from the propulsion system?"
It was launched from the descent stage which reduced this. And yes there was dust disturbed as you can see from the footage obtained by the data camera in the LM window. Apollo 11's flag was placed too close to the landing module and was knocked over by the exhaust when Eagle left the moon.
"Why are shadows wrong?"
They aren't. They are entirely consistent with the lighting and terrain. Why are you allowing dumb online conspiracy theorists to tell you what to think?
"Why the flag blowing in the wind, I thought a vacuum wouldn't have wind?"
Again, why are you simply parroting online conspiracy theory. The flags move when disturbed by the astronauts and continue in motion due to the conservation of momentum in a vacuum. They are also affected by the PLSS venting and in the case of some footage from Apollo 14, the depressurisation of the LM.
"Van Allen belt"
They are belts, since there are two, with a third that is transitory. You can't even get that right. And let's face it, the only reason that you have heard of them in the first place is because a daft conspiracy video or social media meme told you about them.
"how is it possible for a human to go through that?"
At high velocity, in a short space of time and through the sparsest regions.
Allow me to demonstrate what I mean when I implore you to actually learn about a topic. If you have a shred of integrity then 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?
6/ What have I done to challenge my preconceptions and the claims made by online conspiracy theorists in relation to the VABs?
If the answer to these questions is nothing, then obtaining the answers will prevent you from humiliating yourself in the future and avoid asking such an ignorant question on a public comments section with no actual prior understanding of the subject. But no, "your opinion" (or rather that of ridiculous online conspiracy theorists), matters more to you.
"Camera guy waiting on moon to record astronauts walking on moon for 1st time?"
Seriously, this is about as dumb as it gets. So you believe that NASA was capable of faking something of such staggering complexity, intricacy and scale but overlooked such an obvious error? Meanwhile in over half a century, entire branches of science, specialist fields of expertise such as aerospace engineering worldwide, Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalists, Nobel Prize winning physicists, independent nations, 10,000 private sector space companies and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet failed to notice this, yet some random conspiracy believer on the comments section of You Tube did?
Use a search engine and type in lunar module descent stage, MESA bay, Westinghouse camera, Neil Armstrong's first steps.
"I'm sure I have more questions"
I'm sure you do. Perhaps you can actually listen to the answers this time?
"but you can start answering those."
I already did, on another thread. So why have you cut and pasted them again?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tedx4263
Oh Jeez.. It's the same old thing parroted over and over and over and over again with you people. Seriously, how many times?
Speaking in 2015 two years prior to the approval of Project Artemis, Terry Virts was referring to the loss of the heavy lift capability which was abandoned in 1972 with the cancellation of Apollo. When he said, "right now we only can fly in Earth orbit, that’s the farthest that we can go", he was absolutely correct. He then went on to say, referring to the development of the SLS - "this new system that we’re building is gonna allow us to go beyond and hopefully take humans into the Solar System to explore". if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place his sentence within it's full and intended context, then it's abundantly clear what he is referring to. However if you are a "feeble minded" believer in junk dumb online conspiracy theory and allow it to tell you what to think and are unable to see beyond its deceptive quote mining, you end up making a complete tit of yourself on comments sections such as these.
1
-
1
-
1