Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "Joe Revisits the Phil Plait Moon Landing Debate w/Penn Jillette" video.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@billhair9552
"Let me ask you this- How did Nixon call the Moon from a landline?"
Newsflash...radio transmission, it's a thing!!! Bloke called Marconi, 1895, Landline + existing microwave network + patch + Deep Space Network = giant f**k off antenna dish. Why is it even necessary to explain this to someone in the 2st century?
"They never tell us the truth"
If by "they" you mean governments, then your statement is as absurd as it is demonstrably untrue. Should we trust our governments? No. Patriotism, as far as I am concerned, involves distrusting the government. Keep them in check. They are our employees...they are to represent us, yet they are frequently self-serving. But that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that our government is always up to something and yet we can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity. 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 claims of a moon landing hoax 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 lazy syllogistic fallacy.
"Area51"
What about it? What do you expect them to tell you about it given that it's a classified USAF facility? It wouldn't be very secretive if they told you what was underway now would it?
"GulfOfTonkin"
The first attack by the NVA was unquestionably genuine.
"WMD"
If you are referring to Iraq, then it's worth remembering that through the 1998 Halabja massacre, Saddam Hussein was responsible for the largest and most deadly chemical attack on a civilian population in history.
"just to name a few"
A few what?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
But they don't. You're simply told that they do.
Should we trust our governments? No. Patriotism, as far as I am concerned, involves distrusting the government. Keep them in check. They are our employees...they are to represent us, yet they are frequently self-serving. But that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that our government is always up to something and yet we can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity. 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 any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choosing, devising or consequence of personal bias/agenda should automatically be assumed to be true.
And meanwhile online conspiracy theory is entirely and unfailingly honest, accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ericrutledgebetter
"so you noticed he never gave a single shred of evidence as to why he knows they went like not a single one"
? Penn Jillette is irrelevant.The Apollo moon landings are supported by scientific, independent and third party evidence which is demonstrable, objectively verifiable and has a voice of its own. If you wish to challenge the status quo, that which is accepted and demonstrable then the burden of proof is incumbent you to overturn and falsify the established facts. Off you go - I welcome your input.
"But go ahead and keep your head in the sand."
On the contrary, you'll find that I'm not only very knowledgeable about the science, technology and history of spaceflight and the Apollo Programme, but I'll wager infinitely more informed than yourself about the origins, background, protagonists/perpetrators and claims of the junk online conspiracy theory that you unquestioningly and uncritically defer to and that I've heard parroted over and over and over and over again. Naturally, you will wish to avoid all that nonsense that has been consumed and regurgitated and comprehensively been debunked ad nauseam and innumerable times and will instead have you own thoughts and observations to bring to the table, and I invite you do to do so. Contrary to your assumption, I'm all ears.
Go ahead then, what is your singular most definitive and irrefutable conclusive and persuasive proof that the Apollo Programme was faked? I look forward to your original ideas and evidence. Go ahead.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brotherpaulv
"yes I have seen the raw footage, what you are claiming makes no sense."
Then demonstrably, you haven't as you claim seen the full original footage and you prefer instead to be duped by a proven liar and fraud and an opportunistic con artist whose target market is abject stupidity.
If you watched the full length original footage that it came from that you are clearly completely oblivious to, you'd discover several things: In the longer footage, you can see that, after a while, the camera backs away from its position where it had been up close to the window so that you can see the square corner of the window with the shape of the Earth clearly in the distance on the outside. You can tell that the Earth is on the outside because the perspective of the view changes between the window and the Earth as the camera moves. This proves several key things about the narrated story: Sibrel’s story specifically states that the camera was “at the back of the ship” and not up close to the window. The narrator makes a distinct point of this because it is important to the rest of Sibrel’s story. The narrator even insinuates that the astronauts were lying about the camera being up close to the window. The camera backing away from the window proves that this part of Sibrel’s story is a lie. Sibrel’s story specifically states that the camera was looking through the “round window.” The square corner of the window also proves that this part of Sibrel’s story is a lie. Sibrel’s story claims that the shape of the Earth was created by the “round window” (or, in some later stories, that there was a “template” of the Earth on the window that caused the “round” shape of the Earth. You actually couldn't make it up, except he did.
The change in perspective between the earth, which is clearly outside of the window glass, and the square corner of the window proves that this part of Sibrel’s story is a lie. So Bart Sibrel cut out the part of the video in which the camera backs away from the window, shows the square corner of the window, and clearly shows that the shape of the Earth is on the outside of the glass. You can clearly see that he cut this part out because the longer length video is continuous through to where the camera backs away from the window where Sibrel’s version makes a sharp cut at that point and transitions to another view. The video then transitions to a time after the interior lights of the space ship are turned on. At this point, you can see a blue glow from a window. (The CM had 5 different windows.) Sibrel’s narration at this point tries to convince you that the blue glow is not glare from the interior lights but is actually the Earth as seen from “low Earth orbit.If what you were actually looking at through that window were really “the Earth as seen from low Earth orbit,” all the features that you do see in the window would be flying past the window at nearly 18,000 miles per hour and only a couple hundred miles away. The blue glow comes up when they turn on the interior lights — just as glare appears in a window any time you turn on your interior lights at home. (It’s blue because the Apollo window glass is multiple layers of thick quartz glass with protective coatings.) Perhaps most hilariously, Bart Sibrel puts a header at the front of the video that he has inserted to the original which claims that the video which follows is some sort of “secret.” And he claims that NASA must have sent it to him by mistake. Aside from this obviously being complete horseshit, this claim is utterly hilarious because at the time of release the footage in full had been available to the public for decades. Seriously, like I siad, you couldn't make this up - only he did and fools such as yourself fall for it because you are the target audience.
a cropped earth as seen through a "porthole" window from low orbit would easily reveal the 17,500mph orbital velocity of the capsule with its changing surface features, just as we see the earth "moving" underneath the ISS from its video feeds. Instead, what we see from the Apollo 11 capsule is a static view of the whole earth, totally consistent with a viewing distance of 100,000+ miles.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ronminghelli2429
"that's crazy talk I've noticed you believers always come up with some radical excuse to try & explain what can't be explained."
Nope, that's factually correct and it's nothing whatsoever to do with me. How is tugging a lanyard to deploy an arm with a detachable camera that can be activated by pushing a button in the cabin "crazy talk"? What you meant to say is that it simply isn't what you want to hear.
"Have you ever been to see the lunar lander in person, it's like a compact geo metro, yet somehow it's carrying elaborate camera set ups, a jeep, astronauts, cases for samples, flag, golf club, etc. Yet the thing is barely big enough to hold the astronauts"
And your point about "crazy talk" was?
"elaborate camera set up"
What's so elaborate about the MESA bay Westinghouse camera and a data camera mounted in the window?
"a jeep"
You mean the lunar rovers? They were taken as part of the expanded later J Missions and folded and stowed in quadrant 1 of the LM descent stage. You can easily find the full specifications and with that, the full schematics of the lunar module had you either the will or the capability to do so. In addition to that, there is ample footage and many photographs of the loading and deployment.
"astronauts"
Yes, you'll find that was the general idea behind the design of a manned landing craft.
"cases for samples"
And?
"flag"
A folded piece of nylon and some telescopic anodised aluminium tubing and casing weighing all of 9lbs. What about it?
"golf club"
What golf club? Oh you mean the sample scoop shaft from Apollo 14 that Alan Shepherd affixed a nine iron head to? That "golf club". So what?
"Yet the thing is barely big enough to hold the astronauts but you want me to believe it's carrying capacity is that of an 18 wheeler unless they also shrink rays and reverse shrink rays impossible."
I don't want you to "believe" anything, that would be the dumb online conspiracy theory that tells you what to think. I simply suggest that you take a look at the schematics that unlike you, entire branches of science and specialist disciplines such as aerospace engineering worldwide fully understand and have no issue with. What is it that you, a random insignificant under achieving conspiracy believer and troll on the comments section of a video entertainment platform claim to know that they don't?
"I don't understand something and so it is fake" is not an argument, it is personal incredulity and appeals to ignorance concerning a subject you demonstrably have zero knowledge of whatsoever.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"the fact is, the burden of proof is on the person or persons making the extraordinary claims."
That'll be fraudulent online conspiracy theorists then and their dumb followers.
"We have a handful of witnesses and some photography that has no right to exist."
Nope - you have self-proclaimed experts, appeals to authority and ludicrous unsubstantiated claims by a community of dishonest charlatans, exploitative fraudsters and online grifters who harvest stupidity for profit. You are the target market.
"NASA admits that there was nothing done to protect or shield the cameras from the temperatures and more importantly the radiation."
Absolutely false. Why are you lying? 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. Since the moon is essentially a vacuum there are very few of these to be excited So temperature is essentially a measurement of how excited air molecules are. The higher the temperature, the more frenzied molecules become and the more they bounce off each other-and this interaction between particles is what creates heat. The surface of the moon is virtually a vacuum. There are very few particles, and what particles are present are spaced far apart. This is why temperature is meaningless. 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 - and the film was shielded from this.
Secondly, contrary to your claims, Hasselblad did significantly adapt and modify their 500EL cameras for the Apollo missions by removing the viewfinder, modifying the shutter, replacing the usual plastic black outer surface with reflective silver body, the internal plastics were removed and using special lubricants resistant to vacuum and high temperatures. They also collaborated with Zeiss to produce a custom lens for the lunar cameras. The lens couldn't be used on a regular camera because Hasselblad removed the mirror mechanism and the viewfinder, The moderate speed and low sensitivity film types that were used were well protected. In fact, the camera films were doubly protected as they were in custom built aluminium and steel magazines that were a lot thicker than the standard Hasselblad ones. Also, as explained, heat transfer is not significant in the absence of convection. X rays, which can be destructive to film vary in their energy. By way of example, a CT scanner will be 60KV, and airport baggage scanner 80KV - where in comparison the radiation produced by the sun is less than 5KV. Anything less than 10KV can't penetrate anything greater than 1mm of aluminium. 5KV can be stopped by a piece of paper. Kept within a metal container, the X rays from the sun simply weren't strong enough to damage the film. The only time that they would present a risk to film is during a solar flare/CME/SPE - and in that scenario, the main concern would have been the safety of the astronauts. The radiation dosage for a year on the moon is between 110 mSv and 380 mSv.
"I am not a scientist either"
Well no shit!
"but when I took my first commercial airplane flight when I was a teenager, I took the chance of putting my roll of film through the X-ray machine on the conveyor belt. That was a maximum of 3 feet and under a minute of radiation and it was completely destroyed - came out totally blank. But we are supposed to believe that not only did the film make it on a 250,000 mile trip through the Van Allen Radiation Belts, never mind micro meteoroids or solar flares OR the 250° temperature swing on the surface of the moon OR the fact that they must have had to remove one cartridge to replace it with another, risking further exposure but the overwhelming majority of the photos came out perfectly!"
X rays, which can be destructive to film vary in their energy. By way of example, a CT scanner will be 60KV, and airport baggage scanner 80KV - where in comparison the radiation produced by the sun is less than 5KV. Anything less than 10KV can't penetrate anything greater than 1mm of aluminium. 5KV can be stopped by a piece of paper. Kept within a metal container, the X rays from the sun simply weren't strong enough to damage the film. The only time that they would present a risk to film is during a solar flare/CME/SPE - and in that scenario, the main concern would have been the safety of the astronauts. The radiation dosage for a year on the moon is between 110 mSv and 380 mSv.
The VABs consist of charged particle radiation - largely alpha and beta radiation which was easy to shield against given the trajectory and velocity of Apollo through the sparsest regions in a very short space of time. Micro meteorites presented a hazard, hence the whipple shielding on the LEM, whilst there was a very real risk of CMEs/SPEs to the astronauts. Fortunately none occurred that would jeopardise the Apollo missions or cause harm to the astronauts.
"OR the 250° temperature swing on the surface of the moon"
Those are surface equilibrium temperatures - extremes that were never experienced during the Apollo missions. To reiterate, heat and temperature are two different things. The Apollo missions were all timed to coincide with the lunar dawn - a day on the moon is equivalent to 29.5 Earth days.
"The point is that the burden is on NASA and what we have is a handful of eye witnesses who not only didn't die on the missions from radiation or any of a number of things that could have gone wrong but the majority have gone on to live incredibly long lives."
Why should they have done? The measured radiation dosage during the Apollo missions ranged from 1 - 1.5 rems.
Continued...
1
-
"And we have NASA themselves admitting to losing evidence and in their own words "destroying evidence" (see Don Pettit). Doesn't instill a lot of faith..."
NASA erased some magnetic back up tapes of the Apollo 11 EVA which were expensive, defunct and never intended for archival use. What specifically are you referring to?
"and in their own words "destroying evidence" (see Don Pettit)."
Don Pettit said no such thing. He referred to technology. Speaking in 2017 he 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. The premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the retraction 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, 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. Deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned missions - robotic landers and probes. 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 budget that is a fraction of that of Apollo. Why is it even necessary to explain this?
"Doesn't instill a lot of faith..."
All of your baseless and il-informed contentions are parroted from mass consumed and previously regurgitated dumb scientifically illiterate online conspiracy theory. So this crap online conspiracy theory that you yourself place your "faith" in 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.
1
-
1
-
1
-
What on Earth are you talking about? It's difficult to tell due to your appalling command of basic written English, but if you are referring to the Odysseus lander (IM, not NASA), then its likely cause was that one of its six footpads either hit a rock or got caught in a crevice.
Blast crater? Are you actually serious. Even the LM which had a much larger descent engine would not have been capable of producing a crater. Why should it? It was a high tech low thrust engine. Because it was throttleable, at the point of contact it was producing a mere 2,700lbs of thrust. 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 . Being in vacuum, it immediately spread out, dropping rapidly toward zero pressure. You expect that to make a crater in solid rock?
"Bill kaysing was right all awhile. Hahahahaha."
The only thing that Bill Kaysing got right was the target market he shamelessly exploited, gullible imbeciles such as yourself.
1
-
Should we trust our governments? No. Patriotism, as far as I am concerned, involves distrusting the government. Keep them in check. They are our employees...they are to represent us, yet they are frequently self-serving. But that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that our government is always up to something and yet we can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity. 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 any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choosing, devising or consequence of personal bias/agenda should automatically be assumed to be true.
And meanwhile online conspiracy theory is entirely and unfailingly honest, accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paulsansonetti7410
"nobody that watches it still thinks we put men on the moon"
You are incorrect - anyone with a modicum of objective appraisal and even the most limited critical faculty could immediately see through this garbage, but the reason for your misconception is due to that fact that 99% of people that waste their time on this nonsense are either conspiracy believers looking for confirmation bias and reinforcement, such as yourself, or those with zero knowledge of the science, technology and history of spaceflight and the Apollo programme - again, such as yourself.
"The idea is actually quite absurd"
Your personal incredulity has no bearing upon reality.
"But thanks for your thorough, logical and factual rebuttal"
So you took umbrage to the fact that I merely emulated your own asinine comment which to remind you was this....
"America went to the moon ?
Hahaha hahaha hahaha"
It's ok for you to troll this video, but don't you people absolutely hate it when you get a taste of your own medicine?
I have watched it - several times. Like I said, assuming that you have no knowledge about the Apollo programme or the science, technology and history of spaceflight whatsoever then I can see why it seems superficially plausible. If however you do, it's immediately obvious that it is full of ridiculous assumption, inference, deception, scientific and historical inaccuracies and tenuous correlation. The producers of this know exactly what they are doing, because it is their stock in trade and there is a market for it. I knew it was farcical, but I hadn't appreciated quite how bad it actually is until watching it again recently. It's an appalling supposed 'documentary', one sided, dishonest, deceptively edited, badly researched and aims to bombard the lay audience with a farrago of falsities, erroneous claims and supposition so as to bamboozle and misinform. I was astonished by the level of inaccuracy and intentional misrepresentation. Amazingly, it even incorporates the David Percy scam. Clearly you lack the will or the capability to independently verify what you are told. You only have to look at the fact that it's made by Massimo Mazzucco, a particularly vile breed of professional con artist and a cheat. After all, nothing says trustworthy like a man that killed people for money shilling fake medical treatments.
Seriously, why don't you independently and objectively learn about the actual science, technology and history of the Apollo programme, then you won't allow yourself to fall victim to these charlatan's claims?
"Grow a brain"
Said the online conspiracy believer.
"or consume a phallus"
Like you did sucking up to a fraud like Mazzucco?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No problem whatsoever - are you genuinely interested in answers though? And why do you think that they would have fried? Who told you that? I'm going to assume that you at least know that radiation comes in different types and intensities. Incidentally, they are belts, since there are two, with a third that is transitory.
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.
When NASA commenced its lunar spaceflight program, its scientists already knew about the belts and their spatial and energy distribution. Electrons below about 1 MeV were unlikely to be dangerous, as were protons below 10 MeV. For example, a proton with an energy of 3 MeV could penetrate about 6 mm of aluminium (a typical spacecraft material) whereas one of 100 MeV could penetrate up to 40 mm. So engineers fashioned shielding that consisted of a spacecraft hull and all the instrumentation lining the walls. Further, knowing the belts’ absence above the poles, the altitude of the lower edge of the inner belt being 600 km (well above the LEO) and the location of the South Atlantic anomaly, where doses are at a high 40 mrads/day at an altitude of 210 km allowed NASA to design the Apollo translunar injection (TLI) orbit in a way that the spacecraft would avoid the belts’ most dangerous parts.
To intercept the orbit of the moon a spacecraft needs to fire its engine for a predetermined period of time. This burn adds energy to the orbit and in a process called the Hohmann transfer, propels the spaceship farther from Earth, changing its orbit from a circular orbit to an elliptical one. So during Trans Lunar Injection, the Van Allen belts were no threat to astronauts passing through them at tens of thousands of miles per hour. Early probes enabled the calculation, whilst Apollo dosimeters confirmed, that astronaut exposure from belt passage was roughly the same as a chest x-ray. Exposure for the entire trip to the moon was equivalent to from one to three mammograms, or half the annual exposure of residents of Denver CO. The inner Van Allen Belt extends typically from an altitude of 0.2 to 2 Earth radii or 620 mi to 7,500 mi) above the Earth. As I mentioned VAB are toroidal and trace the shape of the earth's magnetic field, so you need to think of the actual trajectory in terms of the three-dimensional transit. Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always around the vicinity of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the sparse edges of the Van Allen belts at high velocity and in a short space of time. They spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the inner region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. Also, alpha and beta particles are comparatively easy to shield against. You can block the former with a piece of paper.
Finally, known science is not about "belief". It has a voice of its own and is demonstrable.
Hope this helps.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1