Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "neo"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@g-man-uz3gx
Why aren't you answering the question? You stated that it was "filmed in Hollywood" You seem very sure of yourself. Could it be, like all the rest, you are simply arrogantly and ignorantly parroting junk online conspiracy theory about a subject that you have absolutely no knowledge of whatsoever, so you just consume and regurgitate crap conspiracy videos and social media memes in the deluded belief it makes you sound informed and clever?
To address yours however, One astronaut, Don Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase and the term he used was "destroyed" not "lost". Since then, conspiracy theorists and those dimwits that parrot their quote mined 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 - the rest of the interview, 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 its 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 which are far cheaper and do not carry the risk. 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 Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a budget that is a fraction of that of Apollo.
You don't, 'lose' technology in the sense that it is forgotten, mislaid or mysteriously disappears. All the technology remained but rapidly became defunct. You lose the capability, as explained, most significantly, Pettit was referring to the heavy lift capability which was also forsaken in favour of the Space Shuttle Programme and the construction of the ISS. It is a given in engineering that it's far faster, easier, better, and cheaper to simply take the lessons learned by older programmes rather than trying recreate old equipment. There is no longer the capability to fly passengers at supersonic speeds. When civil aviation eventually returns to supersonic flight (it's been nearly a quarter of a century since the demise of Concorde), it isn't about to roll a 1960s design, featuring 1960s hardware out of the museum/hangar. Rebuilding such a complex project as Apollo on a similarly massive scale and utilising contemporary technology on a fraction of the budget of the Apollo Programme has been a long and protracted, painstaking process. Project Artemis was only approved in 2018.
Why is it even necessary to explain this?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NorbyatManeuvers This is possibly something that I find explaining most frequently to moon landing doubters. The answer lies in optical physics/angular resolution.
You would require a telescope around 200 meters in diameter to see the details of the landing sites from Earth or space. To explain why, understand that the expression of the resolution of a telescope used visually is called the Dawes limit, which tells us that the smallest angle we can resolve (in arcseconds) equals 116/D, where D is the aperture’s diameter in millimeters. If we were to train say the Hubble telescope on the Moon (for which D is 2,400 mm), we’d be able to discern surface features as small as 0.05 arcsecond. When the Moon is closest to Earth (221,000 miles away), 0.05 arcsecond equates to about 85 meters (280 feet). Not only is this insufficient to resolve a discarded flag on the Moon, but it’s not even sufficient to detect the 10-meter-wide spread of the lunar module descent stages at the six landing sites. Space telescopes such as Hubble and JW are designed to probe into the far reaches of the universe and detect objects that are trillions of times bigger and orders of magnitude brighter.
However, The Apollo 12, 14, 15 and 17 landing sites have been photographed by the LRO. In addition to this, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe has imaged the landing sites which have also been captured by India's Chadrayaan-2 orbiter which photographed the Apollo 11 Lunar Module Eagle descent stage (the orbiter's image of the Apollo landing site was released to the public on September 3, 2021). They were also confirmed by China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2. These images correspond precisely with the known selenic coordinates of the six Apollo landings.
1
-
1
-
@FierceMouse
"How many times does the science community have to lie to you before you take their information in critically?"
Known science is governed by physical laws and mathematical axioms and thereby has a voice of its own and is the ultimate arbiter. The 'scientific community' is answerable to the scientific method. Whilst of course your online conspiracy theory meanwhile is entirely honest, accurate and consistent, not in the least bit deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda? How many times do these charlatans have to lie to you "before you take their information critically"?
"Why the lie about the petrified wood given to France?"
And you can't even parrot that correctly. Case in point.
"Why are they continuously getting caught using wires and special effects?"
Who? When?
"You will listen to the organization who receives a blank check to deceive you on the cheap. They just need to give your kind pictures created from a computer and you're happy."
Nope. Science demands independent objective evidence and data.
"BTW, the term "conspiracy theorists" was created to take eyes off the CIA after they killed Kennedy. After all these years, we know this now."
This again? Really? It's the same thing gullibly consumed and regurgitated over and over and over and over again with you people. You even have a conspiracy theory about the term conspiracy theory.
Absolutely false. Completely untrue. You clearly believe anything you read on the internet, and yet have the temerity to accuse others of lacking critical capability. Were you to possess one iota of this then even at a cursory level of inspection you'd discover that the term had been in popular parlance and literature since the 19th century. In respect of the 1967 document 'Countering Criticism of the Warren Report' there is not a single sentence in the document that indicates the CIA intended to weaponise, far less introduce the term “conspiracy theory” to disqualify criticism. In fact, “conspiracy theory” in the singular is never even used in the document. “Conspiracy theories” in the plural is only used once, matter-of-factly in the third paragraph. The authors of the document deploy the term in a very casual manner and obviously do not feel the need to define it because it was not a new term but already widely used at the time to describe alternative accounts. At no time do the authors recommend using the label “conspiracy theory” to stigmatise alternative explanations of Kennedy’s assassination.
Seriously, how gullible?
To return to my original response to you - are you also of the belief that the VABs are analogous to a "microwave oven"? 🤣
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1