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

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
highwayvagrant1 now you're offended? Mate, I never claimed I was anything but (a dick). TLDR? More unoriginal content in your comment? Lol.
1
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
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
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
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
User error.
1
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
@ 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
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
Can you not call a mobile phone from a landline? What's the logic you're trying to explain?
1
>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
They're using radio waves, not light....
1
@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
@DriveSafe-CEBU And? Seven is between six and eight. What's your point?
1
"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
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
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
Truth Matters I'll take that as a no.
1
He was probably connected to somewhere with a radio transmitter, if not Houston itself.
1