Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "Voice of America"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dalton-jon-f5791
"We are talking about motive means and opportunity to fake it and we don't know if the actual means for the descent existed for that mission but we do know there was a huge motive to do it and to do it before the Russians, which leaves the door open for fraud. There was a strong motive for fraud and that's undeniable."
No, there wasn't - there was a strong motivation to actually place a man on the moon. Faking it would have been impossible, not to mention keeping it a secret for over half a century.
"I don't mind discussing this with anyone except those blinded by pride and in a form of intellectual exclusivity which confines their rationale to points which support their world view. whilst we are all somewhat guilty of this as human beings we can refrain from insult or snark in an effort to come to the truth."
You just described online conspiracy believers to a tee.
"Also this,, The Russian space administration subjected the Apollo 11 photos to an AI analysis this past year and found them to be fraudulent. If you are of a mind that discounts this as Putin propaganda then perhaps link me to a stateside AI analysis which confirms them as real."
This again - really? No they didn't, that was a Russian conspiracy theorist.
AI is not intelligent, it cannot reliably distinguish true from false. for example, if you feed low-resolution, compressed scans of Apollo photos to Google AI together with flawed instructions as one grifter in Russia did, it will find the compression artefacts. It's the old computing adage of garbage in garbage out. It then got seized upon by other conspiracy theorists, circulated on social media memes and lapped up and regurgitated by the gullible believers in this nonsense always eager to parrot confirmation bias without having any understanding whatsoever of the subject that they wish to brand as fake. I have never, repeat never, encountered a moon landing conspiracy believer that is knowledgeable about the science and technology of space exploration or the history of the Apollo Programme. It's all the same old obligatory, prescriptive rote learned conspiracy theory that tells them what to think and say.
Last December AI provided Meteo-France with a forecast of 28° for Strasbourg as it was opening its Christmas market. This is just on example of some of the aberrations that are being thrown up by its reliance upon its new automated AI system. In fact disquiet over the replacement of meteorologists by artificial intelligence and the demonstrable decline in accuracy have resulted in industrial action and a legal case.
The scientific/technological and third party evidence in support of the moon landings however is incontrovertible.
What's your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"What about that moon rock given to holland and turnes out to be wood"
What about it? The supposed rock was a private gift to former prime minister Willem Drees Jr in 1969. Drees had been out of office for 11 years, but was considered an elder statesman. When Drees died in 1988, the 'rock' was donated by his family to the Rijksmuseum without verification, and having been briefly exhibited was kept in storage for two decades until it was later discovered to the curator's great embarrassment to have been petrified wood. It had nothing to do with NASA or the US government. The Goodwill rocks given by NASA to the Dutch government are accounted for in other Dutch museums throughout the Netherlands and encased in Lucite as were all moon rocks officially distributed around the world as gifts. You could have established this for yourself but I guess it's easier to parrot the same old dumb conspiracy theory off junk social media.
"no crater off jet engines"
Jet engines? On the moon? Is this actually serious? The rocket descent engine on the Lunar Module was throttleable and was only producing around 2,700lbs of thrust at the point of touchdown. This was sufficient to pick up dust and blast it laterally, but the surface of the moon is solid rock beneath. The nozzle had a diameter of 59 inches which meant that equates to 11 psi chamber pressure and having an area of 2,700 square inches even at full power, the pressure of gas leaving the engine bell was only 0.037 PSI. Moreover, if you do want to mention jet engines, in comparison the 24,000 lb thrust of a Harrier jump-jet, does not make a crater when it lands - even on grass!
"no stars"
There are no stars visible in the footage and photographs on the surface of the moon due to aperture and exposure settings and the fact that it was the lunar daytime.
"astronauts on wires jumping to there feet from face down position"
Nope - wrong again. Propelling themselves upwards in 1/6th gravity. Incidentally, you needed to employ the determiner their as opposed to the adverb, there.
"in all the missions not one astronaut thought to take a picture of earth not one"
Another demonstrable falsehood. There are multiple images of the Earth captured in the Apollo footage and film, from cislunar space, lunar orbit and the surface of the moon.
"all photos of space are cgi nasa admits"
CGI in the 1950s, 60s and 70s? Why are you lying? NASA have 'admitted not such thing. They use composites and colour enhancement which is completely different.
"it goes on and on"
No, let me help you here. What goes on and on are imbecilic gullible conspiracy believers simply because you fools are ignored in the real world whilst the internet gives you a platform to air your lack of education, ill-informed stupidity and scientific illiteracy.
Mate, you are absolutely clueless. If you think that your naively consumed and regurgitated conspiracy theory about subjects that you demonstrably know nothing whatsoever about makes you sound informed and clever, you need to understand that all you are accomplishing is your own humiliation. It may make you feel relevant and special but since you can barely compose a coherent cogent sentence, I suggest that you have more pressing concerns to attend to.
1
-
1
-
You Tube was facing imminent brand damage for propping up and nurturing online conspiracy theory. If you hadn't noticed, this is a profiteering racket attracting unscrupulous grifters and con artists. When you have sick people exploiting and making money out of the Sandy Hook shootings and the eventual serious ramifications that unfolded through QAnon then there is a serious problem and the lame argument that this stuff is "a bit of fun" or "harmless" is complete nonsense. Wait - you regard Alex Jones/Infowars as "in-depth"? Is this actually serious? If justification was ever needed for your 'choice' to be taken away from you.
I actually don't believe that it should. The issue is with the advent of the internet, not only do we have exploitative agenda driven opportunistic individuals harvesting the gullible and stupid, because that is their target market. We also have extremely dumb people availed with online access that don't know how to us it responsibly and have zero will or capability to independently verify the disinformation that they are fed, which the becomes misinformation where people would rather believe what they read on social media or regard Reddit as 'research', as opposed to actually learning about the topic itself. The internet has given every radical, extremist, nutjob and imbecile that would ordinarily be condemned and dismissed in the real world a platform and a voice - and idiots tend to shout the loudest. Free speech is the noose by which these fools eventually hang themselves, and I live in a forlorn hope that we have reached, or at least are approaching “peak bullshit”, when younger generations, who have grown up with the internet, can see through the twisted morass of nonsense they see online, having been inoculated against it through early exposure. The internet should be edifying and illuminating but where it can support and education, it certainly doesn't substitute or supplant for one.
If you wish to cherry pick and prop-up your preconceptions, a search engine will do that in seconds. All of the material that you mention can be found though a cursory search on Google - and guess who owns You Tube genius?
If you are missing your confirmation bias that much, then you always have alt-right conspiracy sites such as 'Rumble; and 'Odysee' or DuckDuckGo to reinforce your agenda and beliefs.
1
-
@highcard3027
"I'm still curious how they got through the Van Allen Radiation Belt."
They are belts since there are two, with a third that is transitory. Why are you "curious" about something that you clearly know absolutely nothing about and have only heard of by virtue of crap online conspiracy theory?
How about you 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 perhaps obtaining the answers will sate your supposed curiosity? But let's be honest here - you aren't curious at all, otherwise you would have done so yourself instead of relying upon what dumb online conspiracy theory tells you to think.
"Then there is Buzz, and Armstrongs comments."
What comments? Can I suggest that you contextualise them instead of consuming online quote mined nonsense like a gullible moron? Incidentally, you mean "there are" not "there is" and 'Armstrong's needed apostrophising as such.
"2 died from "Accidents" after criticizing NASA"
No, wrong again. The Apollo 1 crew (Grissom, White and Chaffee), perished in a ground test due to the 100% oxygen rich atmosphere being ignited by a stray spark and the new capsule being full of flammables and an internal opening hatch which they were unable to escape through due to the cabin pressure. Hundreds of employees criticised the programme, Grissom was not alone - and many were far more vocal that he was. Indeed, a major redesign of the spacecraft was already in progress and NASA’s post-accident report stated openly that “deficiencies in design, manufacture, installation, rework and quality control existed in the electrical wiring... No design features for fire protection were incorporated... Non-certified equipment items were installed in the Command Module at time of test.”
"In Hebrew, Nasa means To Decieve"
No it doesn't. The Hebrew letter shin ש (the "s" in nasa) represents two different phonemes: 's' and 'sh' . The two are distinguished by a dot above the left-hand side of the letter for 's' (rendering the letter as "sin") and above the right-hand side for 'sh' (rendering the letter as "shin"). The letter shin has a dot on the right side indicating that the letter is pronounced "sh" and therefore rendering the word "nasha", not "nasa." Therefore, it is "nä·shä'. The letter s in nasa (dot above the left side of the letter) is pronounced like the s in side and means to "lift up". There is a rare verb in the Bible - “השׁיא” which means to deceive, but it’s pronounced HEY-SHEE. The verb ”נשׁא” as it appears in the dictionary does not appear even once in the Bible, and anyway as explained, it is pronounced NASHAA. It is completely not in use in modern Hebrew, and it is so rare that 99% of Hebrew speakers won’t even this verb exists.
Incidentally - it's 'deceive' not 'decieve'.
"Do your Own Digging. Or,,,Just believe the MSM Fake News lol"
Because the dumb online conspiracy horseshit that you have just moronically and naively parroted 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 entirely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then. Clever lad!
1
-
@pvn2474
We can talk now. Perhaps you we can commence with precisely how the SW, SEP, PSE, ASE, HFE, CPLEE and in particular, the LPME got on the lunar surface? In your own time, when you're ready.
Appreciating that "doing your homework" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
1
-
So you declare something to be fake but then have questions? Sounds to me as though you aren't remotely interested in the answers.
1/ Cost. Manned missions to the moon are exorbitantly and to some, prohibitively expensive. This is precisely why the Apollo Programme was terminated prematurely in 1972. Nixon never liked it, it wasn't his brainchild and due to the lack of public and political will the unsustainable funding necessary to continue to send crewed missions to the moon was immediately cut and with it, the heavy lift capability abandoned. Nixon's baby was the commercial promise of the space shuttle, which in the event never delivered in terms of costing/returns or launch cadence. After which, the emphasis shifted to the construction of the ISS. Neither place a man on the moon. Similarly other space faring nations have favoured unmanned deep space exploration which is far, far cheaper and entails less risk. Crewed missions have also focussed upon low Earth orbit and duration over exploration.
2/ What on Earth are you talking about? Space X have conducted multiple missions delivering crews and payloads to space utilising the reusable Falcon boosters on the Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy. Are you confusing this with Starship?
Lading a craft with substantially less mass in the absence of an atmosphere and in 1/6th gravity is a completely different proposition to landing a rocket booster on Earth. Yes, the LM was tested prior to Apollo 11 - both the ascent and the descent stages. Apollo 5 carried out the first validation, Apollo 9 was crewed whilst as part of Apollo 10 - the dress rehearsal - Stafford and Cernan descended to within 60,000ft of the lunar surface. The LLTV was also instrumental in the training of the astronauts as was the simulator in which crews amasses hundreds of hours.
the USSR's Luna 16 was the first robotic mission to land on the Moon, collect samples of dust and rock, and return those samples to Earth. This was followed by Luna 20, Luna 23, Luna 24. This amounts to 226.1 grams (0.5 lbs)whilst the Chinese have returned almost 4 lbs. This is the entirety of samples brought back by unmanned missions throughout the history of space travel. In contrast, Apollo returned 382 kgs (a third of a ton) of moon rock in the space of three and a half years - something that could only have been accomplished in such a short space of time by manned landings. Incidentally, seven rovers have been historically successfully placed on the moon.
'Belief' and personal incredulity has no bearing upon demonstrable reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@X.B.T.O
The lunar sample building at Johnson Space Center is the chief repository for all the Apollo samples. This is where pristine lunar samples are prepared for shipment to scientists and educators. Nearly 400 samples are distributed each year for research and teaching projects - so this is ongoing and you can look into this yourself.
There are hundreds of peer reviewed publications over the last half a century that you could search for yourself. More recently, "Fresh look at Apollo Moon rocks reveals Solar System secrets" Witze, A (2019) Published in 'Nature' - a four star paper published in a Q1 journal which has an impact of 100. There's a very innovative project pioneered by researchers at the University of Chicago using atom probe tomography to analyse grains of sample 71501 from Apollo 17. The PI is geophysicist Jennika Greer, the paper is titled 'Atom probe tomography of space-weathered lunar ilmenite grain surfaces' and was published in 2020. To this day, Apollo samples are continuing to be analysed by geologists to provide important clues into the origin and evolution of the Moon. Planetary scientists at The Open University in the UK are at the forefront of much of the current work, and have been producing a microscope collection of over 550 rocks collected during the Apollo missions. You may also wish to look into the work of planetary scientist Erica Jarin who has specialised in the understanding of explosive volcanic deposits on the lunar surface which is why her work was based upon samples returned from Apollo 15 and 17.
As explained, after lunar rocks arrived on Earth, geochemists the world over analysed them for isotopes that decay over well-understood timescales and found that the moon samples were far older than most terrestrial rocks—between three billion and 4.5 billion years old. One of the first to receive these was the BRGM laboratory in France, the geoscience initiative affiliated with the French Geological Survery and one of the independent institutions selected across the world to take part in studying the components of various lunar samples. One of the world's authorities is Andrew Tindle a British geochemist who has conducted studies of the lunar mineralogy and petrology of Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16 Rocks.
All such sample studies are authenticated by the field of geology. So what are you going to suggest next, that NASA has managed to dupe or collectively co opted and coerced an entire branch of science for over half a century?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@romeolarenzo3929
"It cost india a mere 75 million dollars to recently land on the moon. Are you seriously suggesting we can’t afford it"
No it cost India 75 million to place an unmanned lander on the moon, which is not what we are discussing here. Furthermore, the entire programme cost in the region of of $2.6 billion. And no, that was simply a strawman fallacy on your part - I did not say anything of the sort. To reiterate, Apollo was cancelled in 1972 due to the retraction of funding because Congress wasn't willing to pay for it anymore. The allocation of budget was diverted to low Earth orbit, the shuttle programme and the construction of the ISS, whilst deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned probes and landers that are substantially cheaper and carry far less risk. Crewed missions to the moon are far, far more expensive in part because they require a heavy lift capability. Although the Constellation Programme produced Orion, Project Artemis was only approved in 2018 at a fraction of the funding of Apollo.
"Apparently we accidentally destroyed the tech , but how do you accidentally destroy 25 billion worth of research and development."
Actually most of the technology still survives. This stems from one astronaut, Don Pettit, who speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase. Since then, conspiracy theorists and those that parrot their nonsense have obsessively fixated upon it because that's what they do. However, 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. Again, the premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the cessation of funding from congress and the lack of political and public will, resulted in the abandonment of the specific expertise, the tooling, the production processes, the plants and most significantly, the heavy lift capability that sent crewed missions to the moon. Emphasis was placed instead on low Earth orbit, primarily, and as I mentioned, the development of the Space Shuttle which promised much, but failed to deliver in terms of it's commercial and financial returns and launch cadence. The other huge project was obviously the construction of the ISS. Neither of which send man to the surface of the moon. Pettit was speaking prior to the approval of Project Artemis that will return man to the surface of the moon. The technology of Apollo is old and obsolete but since much of the hardware remains, you can understand that his use of the word 'destroyed' was metaphorical. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a piecemeal budget compared to Apollo.
"I’m saying this all respectfully"
I understand and you have my appreciation for that.
"it just doesn’t add up at all."
It really does if you learn about the science, technology and history of spaceflight/Apollo as opposed to listening to junk online conspiracy theory.
"I’m sure there’s a reason to why we are known as the empire of lies."
All governments conspire and have a history of deception. No one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. But simply because they do that does not then logically follow that suggestions of a faked moon landing or any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choosing, devising or consequence of personal bias/agenda should automatically be assumed to be true. A syllogistic logical fallacy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bigfist255
No it is not 'bull'. The deployment of the Apollo retroreflectors enabled far more precise measurements to be undertaken. Also, if you are claiming that they were placed there by unmanned landers, you then need to explain the ALSEP experimental packages that by design were conceived to exploit the benefits of manned deployment and thus could only be assembled, cabled and configured an astronaut. Go ahead explain the presence of the SW, SEP, PSE, ASE, HFE, CPLEE and in particular, the LPME.
"the Greek mathemation measured the distance in 270bc"
Aristarchus of Samos (310-230 B.C) devised a novel method of finding the moon's distance, by careful observation of a lunar eclipse. However these and subsequent measurements were approximate and have nothing to do with the increased accuracy yielded by the Apollo retroreflectors. Why is it even necessary to explain this?
What's a 'Mathamation'? Oh, you mean mathematician you utter dimwit.
"but you keep believing the propaganda."
Because of course the online conspiracy theory that you mindlessly regurgitate 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 entirely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then. Carry on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Photos prove nothing"
Actually, they prove a lot, particularly when they would have been impossible to fake.
"equipment can be placed with un manned craft."
It depends upon the equipment. The retroreflectors for example allow for greater accuracy than those placed by the Soviet Union, since they were deployed and aligned manually. Please feel free how the SW, SEP, PSE, ASE, HFE, CPLEE and in particular, the LPME were "placed with an unmanned craft" and provide the details of the latter.
"Just because someone says there's lots of proof means nothing, talk is cheap"
It isn't about what "someone says". The scientific, technical, historical, independent and third party evidence in support of the Apollo moon landings that you are clearly oblivious to, is manifest, axiomatic and has a voice of its own.
The Apollo Programme is the most detailed and documented engineering projects of such scale and complexity in history. It was completely transparent - which is why it was infiltrated by the Soviets. For over half a century entire branches of science, specialist disciplines and fields of expertise worldwide have forensically scrutinised every mission profile, every schematic, specification down to sensors, rivets, nuts, bolts, switches and circuit breakers and the history and technology of the Programme has been exhaustively examined through thousands of books, journal publications/academic papers, technical authorships and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet.
Today, we have dumb online grifters selling horseshit to gullible conspiracy theory believers with zero knowledge of the subject that think a social media meme substitutes for the education that eluded them. Just because "they say" it was fake, that does not mean that it is. Talk is cheap.
1