Comments by "" (@TheTopMostDog) on "AT&T Tech Channel" channel.

  1. You can't get a signal when camping because there's shit between you and the tower. Signals go a very long way when pointing them out into space. How do you think radio telescopes work? Radiowaves are extremely long ranged... Lol.
    35
  2. There's a delay in the video...? Every response from them is 6-8 seconds after what he says. Including the salute at the end. And yes, the radio transmitter was inside the suit.
    25
  3.  @flatearthreality8683  /cough/ prove it? I can grab a gyroscope and measure the fifteen degrees of rotation per hour. I can take a car for a drive and measure the coast of my continent to compare with maps. I can fire radio waves at the moon to measure its distance with known and also provable velocities. If the Earth is flat, what causes cyclones and hurricanes in the north and south hemisphere to rotate opposite directions? If the Earth is flat then where does the sun go when it sets over the horizon? If the Earth is flat then what causes the seasons? If the earth is flat, then what's your explanation for the sky being blue? If you want to be taken seriously then you need to be able to provide at least SOME theories that are explainable with your model of the planet. Simply saying it doesn't make it so. Prove it or sit down, because you're not going have my attention while you present yourself like a moron. If you can't prove it, then ask yourself why the hell you believe it.
    18
  4.  @Bmetalful  they used repeaters. There were 3 men on the mission, one stayed in moon orbit, the other two landed. The orbiting craft repeated the signal from the lander to other terrestrial satellites, to base, then they repeated it to the phone. It's really not complicated- we've used satellites for many decades. I understand you might have forgotten about their existence, but that's precisely why you shouldn't be in the business of hypothesis. Edit; Stop hanging around with idiots, they will rub off on you- in fact that's a good life philosophy; you become your peers. Whether they're stupid, reckless, racists, depressed- you will be affected by them, by proximity. Surround yourself with smart, happy, healthy, wealthy people and you will benefit from their aura.
    16
  5. Yeah, totally not possible to call a mobile phone from a corded phone, lol. *eyeroll
    14
  6. Huge brainfart Saying "I'll see you on Thursday... Unless you crash and burn to death" might have not gone over too well.
    14
  7. It's as if the government has technology before teh masses do, hmm?
    12
  8. You can call a mobile phone from a landline. You can even call someone on a satellite phone if you know their number. Same deal, here; they just had really early examples of the technology, which required relays.
    11
  9. cough, radio, cough
    11
  10. Well no shit it was scripted, as was everything else that was broadcast...
    10
  11. Tens of DU That was background chatter, not an astronaut replying. Watch for his salute
    10
  12.  @flatearthreality8683  What's not to believe? Not one single person has disproved it with actual science. Just a bunch of idiots who don't know math or technology, but think they know everything
    10
  13. People can believe this because it happened. The ones who say it's fake are the ones who have zero scientific evidence to support that theory, because they don't actually understand science.
    8
  14. I'm fairly certain infrared sensors were readily available for those with the money to purchase them.
    8
  15. 7200ms, give or take. About as long as it usually takes.
    8
  16. They're replying to his previous statement...
    8
  17. China footage you're talking about is from underwater training, mistranslated. Photos from the moon with no stars is simply a matter of exposure. They're standing in direct sunlight. Can you see the stars during the day on Earth? Do satellites exist? Hello, can you hear me? I live in rural Australia with only a satellite phone and satellite internet connection. There is no mobile reception here. You idiots have been spoon fed this shit from other idiots on the internet and instead of even playing devils advocate to debate with them, you just smile and nod, then go on preaching the same shit to others. The information is flawed. It has been flawed since the first time it was uttered. The only reason it took off is because there was no one in that room knowledgeable enough to shut the stupid theory down.
    6
  18.  @carlton4824  why the hell would you think that we can't repeat an analogue signal? That's literally what traditional radio repeaters are. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeater#Analog_repeater
    6
  19. ​ @ghettoninja82  Yeah, they make perfect sense to me after researching just a little about each thing. Firstly, we didn't "lose the technology". The publication that originally posted that ludicrous headline had an interview with someone from NASA where they were forced to clarify that they only couldn't 'reproduce' the things they used back then because moulds and things were sold off or destroyed - meaning anything new would have to be made from scratch, and ultimately be different. They can't recreate what they used to get to the moon, but they absolutely still can go to the moon. There's a new space race starting to go to the moon right now, in fact. Several countries are interested in mining it for precious metals, and articles about it said they are looking to begin next few years. "In 2018, NASA announced plans to return astronauts to the Moon by 2024 to pave the way for eventual journeys to Mars in conjunction with private companies." The reason Hubble's photos are artificially coloured are because the photos generated are comprised of colours that we cannot physically see. Infrared and ultraviolet lenses let the telescope perceive things that are not visible to the naked eye - and we don't know what those colours actually look like, hence the artificial colouring. The telescope CAN take coloured photos in the same way that a modern DSLR can, in R G and B spectrums, then combine them to generate the image in 'normal' colour - but they're often showing us things that aren't visible with the RGB filters alone.
    6
  20. Would it be more believable if his phone had an antenna?
    5
  21. They're just replying to what he said earlier. He then hangs up without them saying anything in response (but us with the video feed can see that the astronaut salutes (approx 7 seconds after the end of the conversation).
    5
  22.  @zapbranigan5099  Dude I'm not even American, I couldn't care less about NASA You can't convince a man of science with emotion; despite all the words you said, none of them were scientific. If you want to convince anybody, you need to show EVIDENCE. Flat Earther societies have poured money into experiments to try and prove the existence of the flat Earth, and yet the best arguments any of them have is still rhetorical questions and emotion. If you want to win me over, try answering my earlier questions, which were NOT rhetorical. We have explanations for all of those with existing science, and if you want to change the basis of those, then you need to propose replacement theories, and prove their existence with evidence. I'm callous because I'm debating with people who LIE.
    5
  23. cough, radio, cough
    5
  24. Prove it.
    4
  25. Hahaha what the fuck? Stupidity knows no bounds. You can easily call a mobile device from a landline. What, you think Wifi internet is a different network to that of your computer? Signal drops out on your mobile under a bridge because the bridge is literally blocking the reception. With open skies, transmission to a satellite for redirection is a feat accomplished well before man walked on the moon. This is nothing special. "The Earth spins, was it night at the time this call was made?" Why would it have to be? For starters, the moon isn't always on the opposite side of the Earth from the sun. The moon appears in the daytime sky many times a month. Regardless, it's called satellites, numbnuts. I swear you people don't do any research whatsoever, and have IQs of below 100. You have the internet so you're able to band togehter and encourage eachothers stupidity. 2017 and it's only getting worse...
    3
  26. Somebody buy this kid a dictionary. Scripted is not the same thing as pre-recorded, nor does it in any way mean 'unedited' or 'fake'.
    3
  27. darrell glover I guess you've never heard of radio
    3
  28. What's the area code for Houston?
    3
  29. The problem, regardless of whether it was real or fake, is that the people here claiming that it was fake are providing "evidence" which is absolute bullshit; they think it proves something only because they're retarded. "Hurr I don't get cell reception while camping" yes well do you own a satellite phone? You think if Joe Bacon, IQ 75, really has a chance at providing real evidence, even hypothetical evidence in the form of a theory, wouldn't have already been beaten to it by somebody far smarter than he? I mean c'mon. Most of the people in these comments don't even have the most rudimentary understanding of science, NOR technology, nor are able to even make a Google search to learn about something. It's a pointless argument, debating with a potato. Edit; I've wasted countless hours just asking one simple question: what is your evidence? I usually get replies like "uh look it up"because these people can't even regurgitate the nonsense religion they'll preach. And when someone provides something, and you explain why that's wrong, they actually try to dispute the facts you've presented, because it's easier to look stupid than it is to man up and correct your mistakes, and maybe learn something.
    3
  30. OH SNAP
    3
  31. "They would need a series of satellites or beacons along the way to the moon to be able to communicate. NASA is full of shit!" This is wrong. Radio signals travel an extremely long way. Radio telescopes exist to view things billions of times farther away than the moon is from Earth...
    2
  32. Are you implying we did not have radio in 1969? ... I don't know what to say to that. You need to do more reading? Dude, just because my local radio station does not have enough juice for you to hear them on your car radio doesn't mean I can't call you and hold my handset to the speaker in order for you to hear it live.
    2
  33. You're right, it takes longer than 5 seconds to receive a response. 2:11 - his thank-you takes over 7 seconds. 2:51 - his salute begins 7 seconds after the last words spoken by the president. They show it extremely clearly in the video.
    2
  34. Hey, unintelligent know-it-all internet user, number four million nine hundred and thirty two thousand and fifty one, those "so-called satellites" are not responsible for your cell phone reception, which actually comes from towers which are blocked by your "hills outside the city". Doesn't it all make sense now?
    2
  35. Hahah, why would Nixon wait 4 seconds? It's being recorded from where he's sitting, the delay is real, not fabricated. That's why he doesn't sit there like an idiot after they finish talking.
    2
  36. Clearly somebody here doesn't know how to count to 7... 2:10 You can count the silence between 2:13 and 2:20
    2
  37.  @Ant88889  Contradicted myself ... how? Of course I think man-made satellites are real. They give me an internet connection, satellite television, global positioning on my mobile phone, and I can see them passing overhead in the night sky. What kind of dumb question is that? The reason there isn't uninterrupted mobile phone reception is because our handsets can't possibly SEND a signal to the satellites without a dish and a decent amount of power.
    1
  38.  @VulcanJedi2006  It's not always line of sight, which is why we don't get reception to the dark side of the moon. As the moon orbits, it goes to the far side, which is when we need to broadcast across the satellite network. These days, there are under water cables between countries, but we still utilize satellites as well, for things like satellite internet, phones, television, positioning systems, and much else. I'm not sure why you're skeptical about anything I said. I haven't cited anything because there's literally millions of things available that support whatever I said, including the existence of satellites, and the loss of reception due to obstruction and interference - it's physics 101.
    1
  39.  @VulcanJedi2006  There's 6-8 seconds delay in this very video... What do you mean we can't use it anymore? We use radio repeaters literally everywhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_repeater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_radio_repeater This is not arcane technology, dude. Your mobile phone uses them to get reception. You turn on your car radio, and are probably hearing noise coming from a radio repeater. If you have ever used a CB or handheld radio, you can choose to turn on repeating instructions for towers to repeat your signal, or not.
    1
  40. I like to think they're just mocking it, but I'm pretty sure they're dead serious. I've had run-ins with these people before.
    1
  41. Lucy Olesnicki Google it yourself? Literally thousands of photos. You can go and see decommissioned and prototype ones in museums. If you watch the space x live streams, you can even watch them deploy modern satellites in space... What more do you want? Spoon feeding?
    1
  42. TheOneWith TheEyeOfTruth It's painful to witness these people. And yet en masse they have had the power to lynch the scientists discovering the truth. What a scary notion that they're now more self supporting than ever because of social media and the internet.
    1
  43.  Happy 2 Trigger You  Yeah my first phone in the early 90s had a briefcase with a long line antenna. We kept it as a car phone
    1
  44. highwayvagrant1 The only truth here is that religion is successful because a large portion of the human race are gullible idiots, who accept gospel over evidence. Maybe it's some desire to be a part of a minority, or to fit in, or just perhaps be a follower instead of a leader. I do not know, understand nor do I really care. A decade or two more and commercial space flight will be a thing and flat earthers can eat their own words. I don't know which faction of morons any given individual participating in these comment threads belongs to, all I know is that trying to play chess with a pigeon only results in bird shit on the chessboard.
    1
  45. Why? You could use some wisdom. Logic, too. Maybe some IQ as well. Not chromosomes, though; you already have too many of those. While you're in the business of acquiring things, how about getting some evidence, also?
    1
  46. I didn't expect you to feel bad about being called stupid and wrong; probably used to it. Maybe you should listen to others, instead of disregarding everything you're told. ...Actually, why didn't you react the same to the idiot who convinced you of the shit you currently spout? You'd be in a lot better place if you had.
    1
  47. You really don't have another word for my comments, do you? If you have a scroll, you'll see I've actually replied to many of the top comment threads. The problem is, when someone's arguing without providing proof, there's actually no real need to debate with them; their argument is so easily retorted that it's almost not worth the time (let someone else do it). That, and they are often so irrational in their beliefs that they think they are winning a debate by providing lots of opinions, and no evidence - case in point, yourself. Am I getting through to you, or is this still wittering? Honestly, if you want to disregard what I'm saying, go ahead, I don't really care - it doesn't make you any less wrong, though.
    1
  48. You want me to provide evidence of phonecalls to the moon?.... Uh, the video you're commenting on? Just because you don't understand the technology involved doesn't mean it's not scientifically and historically plausible. So far, your attempts to debunk it have included entirely false information and premises, uninformed opinions, and nothing else. I don't know whether this footage was pre-recorded, scripted or simply dubbed over; and I'm willing to admit that I don't actually know for a fact that this was done live- or even done at all, but alas there is a video right here that seems to provide some evidence to the contrary. That's infinitely more evidence than you've provided so far, which I have already previously called you out on. Just like the nonsense you're regurgitating, you'd rather copy me and ask for evidence than have any kind of original thought. Also, I think you're confusing caring with being entertained. As disappointing as this conversation might be, you're a good laugh.
    1
  49. @highwayvagrant1 TLDR
    1
  50. Both, probably. You can't play chess with a pigeon; no matter what move you make, it'll just knock pieces over and shit on the chessboard.
    1
  51. I'm sorry you feel that it was a "shit" thing to say, but it was meant as a blatant insult toward you so I also don't wholly blame you for feeling that way. Don't even try to act as if what you've posted thus far was anything resembling an original thought. I guess your username wasn't even original, hence the added integer at the end.
    1
  52. highwayvagrant1 now you're offended? Mate, I never claimed I was anything but (a dick). TLDR? More unoriginal content in your comment? Lol.
    1
  53. Man, the first time I read it, I couldn't be arsed. The second time, I got no more than a line or so in before posting the comment about TLDR. Big surprise, I lied. You're just either too stupid or too childish to have a debate with, and you're not worth my energy. Having now read earlier comments (before I necroed this argument without a _trigger_warning_), I realise why I stopped responding to you in the first place. If you won't accept the statement "you're wrong" then all I can offer is that I disagree with everything you say. And no, you cannot convince me otherwise. Why? Does it really matter? Let it go. Quit flogging a dead horse.
    1
  54. If there was a lack of response, why are you replying? Very well, let me break down your painful wall of text: By saying "I'm going to use your points to fuel my argument" you're merely confirming you actually have no idea what I said... Yes, I don't know whether or not there was acting involved to adhere to a script, nor whether the footage was even related to the phone call in any way. ... However I have since changed my opinion on this, as you can see him salute at the end of the video, in response to the final words of the call. This happens 6 to 8 seconds after the final words, which is the same length of delay as prior responses in this very video. ... I did not say that this isn't evidence to support that they legitimately did have a conversation, as it clearly is just that. "If prerecording is a possibility it cannot be disregarded as evidence". "Possibilities" do not equate "evidence". How can you even begin to defend that statement? It's plausible that you have brain damage based on your demonstrated level of intellect, therefore it must be true? I guess so! "The phone conversation aired to millions on television as if it was real - you concede it might not have been live" Dude, just because something isn't aired live does not mean it wasn't recorded live. There's no evidence supporting the theory that this conversation was pieced together from completely irrelevant snippets of anything - and if it's because it's their way of making a fake, WHY WOULD THEY BOTHER? They could just be on a set next door, they don't NEED to go to all that trouble! If it wasn't broadcast instantly, live, then that's just one more thing supporting that they actually did it for real. ...Regardless, this is me acknowledging possibility again, which I just above clarified how stupid it is to try and use this as an argument. If possibilities meant what you're trying to claim they mean, you'd win every single lotto ticket you buy. That's idiotic. "The evidence that it did not happen is the absence of evidence that it did." Hahahaha, you're a moron. I countered your entire wall of text with a simple sentence [it took all that to say only one thing?]. See above re- lotto for my response. Also, this video is some evidence supporting that it happened. There's currently no evidence opposing that it happened. From my count, that's 1 in favor, 0 against... Opinions don't count. Try again? If you think anything I said in any way helps you fight the good fight then you're either completely delusional, or you have no understanding of what it is I even said.
    1
  55. I had to address every point of your comment. To think I left half of the redundant stuff out, and you STILL think it was tedious. I can't help what I'm given to work with. Make statements all you want about what's proven and who's an idiot for believing what, nothing has changed. Evidence to support it happened: 1. Evidence against: Still 0. Provide something substantial if you want to convince me you're doing anything productive, here. EDIT: I love your comment about the 'normal telephone', as if it would need to be 'abnormal' in order to work. Just proved you're one of the morons who think that wireless internet is a different network to the copper one... which is also allegedly different to satellite - all of which are different again to fiber optic. It's all the same signal, lol.
    1
  56. Or you could just stop replying. I have no interest in following you elsewhere to continue calling you dumb. My bet is you want the last word, though.
    1
  57. User error.
    1
  58. highwayvagrant1 I called it with the 'has to have the last word'. Look at what this debate has degraded into... It's like arguing with a seven year old. Still 1 to 0 mate.
    1
  59. @ Huge brainfart Last I looked, it still doesn't, lol- and neither does your car, but that doesn't stop you from making a call or listening to the radio, now does it?
    1
  60. You don't dial a number with radio transmissions. Have you never heard of a CB or HAM radio? It's similar technology. He is connected to Houston, who are relaying their link via radio to the moon...
    1
  61. Can you not call a mobile phone from a landline? What's the logic you're trying to explain?
    1
  62. >nothing wrong with calling a wireless device with a landline. >everything wrong with claiming there's no delay; the video clearly shows 7 seconds delay >perfect reception ... did you not watch the same video as me?
    1
  63. They're using radio waves, not light....
    1
  64.  @Ant88889  More drivel, mate. You don't understand an of what you are talking about. Tv/video signals are just radio waves- why do you think they can't go that far? There's no reason for you to believe this, and it is false. Power is required to push signals through interference and noise; in space - the vacuum, there is little to get in the way, and squelching out noise is much easier due to the distance from Earth. Also, they used repeaters. Other considerations? Oxygen, they used carbon scrubbers, or similar. Not hard Food, why is this confusing? They had MREs. I don't know what you're talking about regarding a vacuum, but you go on to talk about the Benz, which is something that happens when you're exposed to overpressure and then get air in your blood. This is not applicable to space at all, as they aren't going above 1 earth's atmo. Traveling at speed means nothing. Acceleration is what exerts gforces, and they specifically had to remain within the safe range. Again, you talk about the vacuum, but they were never exposed to the vacuum, hence they are still alive? That's why they wear suits and are inside a pod... There have been multiple incidents where people have actually DIED on reentry because of the failure of the insulation that protects them from heat. Idk how you don't know about this if you've done ANY research whatsoever. Alas, you appear just like all the others that I was talking about. Zero research, zero evidence. Just open ended questions and claims with nothing to back it up. Just because YOU couldn't answer those questions doesn't mean the answer doesn't exist. Don't be a fucking sheep, think for yourself. Edit: don't even just believe me, doubt everything you read and do some fact checking. Don't read blogs, look for sources of information that aren't signed by a person at the bottom, trying to get credit. Be your own leader, don't follow others.
    1
  65.  @DriveSafe-CEBU  And? Seven is between six and eight. What's your point?
    1
  66. "NASA does not know how to go to the moon now. NASA said they lost the technology" So I've been told. I don't believe it. Show me where they said it or I'll continue to consider it just a fabrication of word of mouth. Just because they may not have the original recording does not mean that what we've seen isn't a 100% accurate copy. The source footage did kinda have to go through a lot...
    1
  67. Riiight... So... * deep breath * Your entire argument is based on a video of a giggling girl reading out-of-context stuff from multiple uncited documents (and media articles? ...totally reliable), laughing about "they intentionally overwrote the tape" (not the original recording tape; just the original AIRED footage) after just reading aloud that it was an unfortunate accident (clearly not the brightest individual - not unlike the idiot who actually overwrote it, if that even happened; they don't know!) and blatantly fails to understand that in the process of using the technology (including rockets, landers and other single-use devices) they were damaged and spent beyond repair or reuse and would be extremely costly to rebuild from scratch, not to mention the technology itself was superseded decades ago (from an interview which still does not contain your quote "NASA does not know how to go to the moon now" - with a man who is not a spokesman for NASA, mind you, who worded it extremely poorly - which she fails to quote in context yet again), especially difficult to finance without the support of the public, let alone to pointlessly send someone back to a completely desolate location for no better reason than to satisfy morons of the internet? Why? You'd just say they faked it all over again, anyway! And this is your trump card? ...Good luck with that.
    1
  68. It says in the very video you linked that he is an astronaut. They showed a grand total of three lines from him (albeit repeated four times), then abruptly cut the footage short. I'm willing to listen to what you have to say, just provide me with some kind supporting evidence. I'm not some idiot bandwagon sheep who believes everything he reads on the internet, I'm skeptical about every claim regardless of who it comes from, NASA included. Now just give me the proof that convinced you that all of this is fake and I'll agree with you. Or don't you have anything?
    1
  69. Truth Matters I'll take that as a no.
    1
  70. He was probably connected to somewhere with a radio transmitter, if not Houston itself.
    1