Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "" video.

1/ The motion appears unnatural because the footage is at 5x the speed. 2/ Simply due to the RCS. Again, since the footage is sped up, it looks odd.
6
Because you know absolutely nothing about it.
6
On the contrary, there were six manned lunar landings and twelve men in total walked on the surface of the moon. It would have been ten landings and 20 astronauts had it not have been for the aborted Apollo 13 mission and the premature cancellation of the Apollo programme. Hope this helps!
5
"Google's AI Says Moon Landing Photos/Videos Are Fake" Nope - some random Russian conspiracy theorist fed in poor quality images and it found the compression artifacts. AI is not intelligent or infallible - the old computing adage of 'garbage in garbage' out still applies. "We destroyed the technology to go back to the moon" Quote mined from Don Pettit speaking in 2017, which when placed in its intended context refers to the cancellation of Apollo and the abandonment of production, plants and tooling in addition to the heavy lift capability. "I Was SCARED To Say This To NASA...(But I said it anyway) - Smarter Every Day" Have you even bothered to watch the video? - Y'know, the entire point of it in which he's exhorting NASA to learn the lessons from their Apollo predecessors that placed man on the moon. "american moon" Massimo Mazzucco? This is a joke right? Now I know you can't be serious. "APOLLO 11 PRESS CONFERENCE" Yeah, there was a post mission press conference for the Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 moon landings too. Have you watched those, or entire 1 hour 27 minutes of Apollo 11, or simply excerpts fed to you by the online conspiracy theorists that tell you what to think? "NASA SP287 )) what made apollo a success ?2 What about it? It's the playbook for Apollo written by the engineers responsible for the manned moon landings. You're terribly dim and confused aren't you.
3
Keep your childish comments confined to your dumb conspiracy videos.
3
@lorichet "Actually, there's a long list of people who provided proof that the moon landings never happened." Then you'll have no trouble naming just one of them and presenting the singular best example of their 'proof'. You'll need to do better than the likes of opportunistic conspiracy theorists such as Sibrel, Aulis, Jarrah White, Kaysing, Popov, Rene and their ilk 🤣I absolutely guarantee that your so called "proof" is nothing new, based upon the same arguments from ignorance and I've heard it all before.
3
@kevindouglas8768 "If you need proof, I can get it for ya" You mean you can parrot junk from conspiracy videos and websites that has been debunked innumerable times about subjects that you clearly have zero understanding of whatsoever. Incidentally, it's Devon Island, not Devin - and it's in Baffin Bay, Canada, not Greenland. Seriously, why do you people do this to yourselves?
2
@josephmorin8941 "THERE IS NO LASER REFLECTOR ON THE MOON. THIS IS MORE LIES FROM NASA AND THE MEDIA. FIRSTLY, a laser would dissipate way before it finished its half million mile journey." Said no no physicist/astrophysicist ever. All practical lasers produce divergent beams. To target a retroreflector on the moon, you need a 5 to 50 watt pulsed laser at a visible or near infrared wavelength. Next you need a fair sized telescope with a tracker pointer to hit the right spot as the Earth and Moon move. If you send 10 to 50 pulses per second you can just detect a packet of 50 or so photons from each pulse. A telescope trained on the specific selenic coordinates only needs to see a single bright dot, anywhere in its field of view, that correlates with the timing of the laser pulses and/or the wavelength to confirm the presence of the reflector. Only a very small fraction of the light sent to the moon via laser beam makes its way back to the telescope, so it requires some good signal processing to detect the returning light. Part of the reason so little light returns is that the retroreflector we have on the moon is much smaller than the size of the projected laser spot. If it were a perfect retroreflector the same size as the projected beam, we could get back nearly all of the laser light but the Dawes limit prevents the necessary resolving power. The bonus of using a retro reflector is that it a returns your beam to you no matter what angle you hit it at. The trick then is simply to aim accurately enough to get some light to it. This was done by aiming a high-power laser with a professionally-sized optical telescope at the known location of the reflector. This involves either looking through the telescope by eye or with a video camera. The beams that they used spread out to about a couple of kilometers in diameter by the time they got to the moon, which is essentially the resolution of a ground-based telescope on the moon. Lasers were bounced off the surface of the moon prior to the deployment of the retroreflectors. However, although the moon looks bright to us, that's just because the sun is radiating it with so much light. The moon is gray like charcoal. It only reflects about 7% of the visible light that hits it - and albedo of 0.07 compared to say Venus, which has an albedo of 0.60. So, even the best lasers combined with the best telescopes aren't going to be effective at reflecting visible light off purely off the surface. The LLR mirrors however are highly reflective and measure with far greater accuracy. Even so, as explained, very few of the photons from the lasers aimed at those mirrors actually make it back to the telescope. There is a project called APOLLO (Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser-ranging Operation) that fires laser pulses at those mirrors and measures the returned signal to calculate extremely precisely the distance to the moon. Are you actually attempting to claim that this is fake too?
2
So the Soviets faked the US space programme? Clever lad.
2
@a.cuevas7544 "its called research.." Errr.. right. Appreciating that "research" 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? "nasa in hebrew means to deceive." Sigh, this again then. The verb נָשָׂא (/nasa/) actually means lift or carry (or marry). However, the archaic verb נָשָׁא (/nasha/) does mean 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 it is pronounced NASHAA. It is meaningless and not in use in modern Hebrew. Very simply, The National Aeronautics and Space Administration was originally founded as the The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA). Stop mindlessly parroting online conspiracy theory that's been regurgitated over and over and over again. It simply makes you look stupid.
2
@looneytoons2878 In the ludicrous piece of sensationalist fantasy fiction, the 2001 Fox TV program Did We Land on the Moon?, Scott Grissom alleged that the Apollo 1 craft was sabotaged. And yet he failed to provide any evidence in support of this. So who knows? Perhaps he is embittered and blames NASA for his Father's death? The actual cause of the tragedy is known and understood and was subject to independent enquiry.
2
@looneytoons2878 WGuss put a lemon hanging on the lunar module because he knew thay would never make it to the moon and he had a big mouth" Absolute nonsense. He placed it in the CM (not the lunar module which was nothing to do with the crew of Apollo 1), in frustration in response to the continual technical glitches that they were suffering during development. Grissom was far from being a lone voice in the desert in respect of the design flaws of the Apollo spacecraft. Many, many astronauts and Apollo personnel spoke out and concern was voiced throughout the organisation. And no, he didn't have a big mouth, he said what needed to be said. 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.” Incidentally, it's 'Gus' and I think you meant to say 'they'.
2
Are you lonely by any chance?
2
@nicnicol694 "the term conspiracy theorist was used as a PSY op by the CIA to make it into a word associated with stupidity and low IQ specifically to discredit opposition and to blur the truth." Denies being persuaded by conspiracy theory - and then regurgitates more conspiracy theory. Absolute utter nonsense - and I can tell you the origin of this false claim. The term conspiracy theory can actually be traced back to 18th century literature.
2
"ok i did not say the words haven’t been used before, The negative connotation was pushed by the CIA in the manner of which I spoke of." Conspiracy theory as a pejorative term existed before it was during the Warren Report. Individuals such as yourself only serve to perpetuate and it as a perceived term of abuse. "What do you have to go to be a jack ass for." I suggest you exercise some introspection and a degree of self-appraisal and consider your own comments first. "Are you another CIA operative? Trying to obscure the truth a little bit.?" Seriously, grow up. "So you’re denying that the CIA did use this term in this way? What would you go and try to discredit what I said for. Anyone can look it up. It comes from declassified CIA documents." But there is not a single sentence in the document that indicates the CIA intended to weaponise, let alone introduce the term “conspiracy theory” to disqualify criticism - or influence public opinion, since as you say, it was classified. In fact, “conspiracy theory” in the singular is never used in the document. “Conspiracy theories” in the plural is only used once, matter-of-factly in the third paragraph. "Just like a spook trying to pull a stunt like this." If you choose to pass off claims that are not your own over a public comments section, then don't respond with indignation when you are challenged. Stop being so precious and thin skinned. "I am not going to back down" Of course you aren't. You are a conspiracy believer and by nature incapable of challenging your own imbecilic and naive beliefs. "or be bullied into silence by you people." No one is 'bullying you'. If you post arrant nonsense over an internet comments section, don't be surprised if you are called out or asked to evidence your claims. And how you people just loath that. "The truth will come to light." You people wouldn't recognise 'truth' if it slept with your partner, stole your wallet, shot your dog, burnt your house down and slapped you round the face whilst doing it. "So go ahead and keep trying to discredit me. Its only going to strengthen what I am saying and expose your manipulation of truth." The only thing that you are achieving on here is your own humiliation. "Hahaha. I am coming for you spooks." Well quick tip, some actual evidence would help as opposed to badly parroted conspiracy theory, arguments from ignorance, personal incredulity, and complete incompetence and the attempt to compensate through gross illusory superiority.
2
@GuardianSoulkeeper Yes, typo - corrected. Thanks.
2
"Everything about nasa is a lie. Everything" Because online conspiracy theory is of course entirely 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? Righto then. "REM man on the moon song is telling." What? The song is written in memory of Andy Kaufman and contains numerous references to his career in tribute. The song's title and chorus refer to nonsensical Moon landing conspiracy theories as a parallel and satirical response to similarly daft rumors that Kaufman's death in 1984 was faked.
1
"No. Because it never came close to even reach the moon 🤣😂 highest spaceX has been is 363 miles or 585km in 2021 - MORE THAN 50 years after Apollo 🤣😂🤣 Nobody has ventured through Van Allen radiation belt starting at about 640 km." James Van Allen begged to differ.
1
That's online conspiracy theory for you I'm afraid.
1
@nicnicol694 "OK they’re poopy" Who are? What on Earth are you talking about? "First I want to say this." But that's the problem. There's a lot you people 'want to say' whilst having nothing worthwhile to say. The internet simply allows you to. It gives you a voice and a platform and makes you feel significant where you would be ignored in the real world because you clearly have zero in the way of understanding about the subjects you rail about. Judging from your channel, no one is listening anyway. "I am not claiming anything about the moon landing other than it is odd what has come to light. It just is it puts speculation on the narrative." You mean junk online conspiracy theory? Nothing has 'come to light' and there is no 'narrative' to question other than that created by opportunistic profit motivated frauds that perpetrated this nonsense. "I’m not saying it proves shit but it does put speculation on it." Take a look at your first post. Simply a rote recited list of tiresome and trite conspiracy theory and fanciful nonsense that you could routinely debunk and dismiss yourself were you to possess even a cursory understanding of the science, technology and history of Apollo. "As far as the term conspiracy theory goes, In returning to verify some specifics I came across a bunch of information that I hadn’t seen before. This is very odd because I’m very thorough but I’m human and it is apparent I made a mistake. I man enough to admit it. I know that as a human anyone can make a mistake." I admire your introspection - I commend you on that. It's very rare for conspiracy believers to appraise themselves or their sources. But as I said, in this case you really weren't that diligent before posting. This claim has been endlessly consumed, regurgitated and recycled and can all be routinely dismissed through independent verification. No different to the nonsense spouted by moon landing hoax believers - and yet you are not man enough to admit that you have been similarly taken in and hoodwinked? "Like I said it’s not often I do because I just don’t like to be wrong so I’m very thorough when I check things before I speak about them." Like your original post on this thread? "It doesnt change anything else I have stated." Of course it doesn't - you are a believer in online conspiracy theory. You haven't stated anything - simply parroted populist misconceptions and opinion over fact. "Good job pointing it out. Just dont be a dick about it if it happens agaIn. There is no need. Especially if you are correct" I suggest that you read back your own posts. When you've done that, digest the responses on here, take each one of your so called 'statements' and subject them to the same level of scrutiny.
1
@nicnicol694 How old are you? What does that even mean? and why then for someone that claims to be so thorough did you put this? 'Ok they're poopy" And yet you still haven't noticed.
1