Comments by "AM" (@AM-rd9pu) on "Candace Owens" channel.

  1. A crossbar held the flag out and it waved because the astronauts moved it. Do you really think scientific experts wouldn’t have noticed an issue that glaring after half a century?
    4
  2. There were 6 moon landings. Then the government decided they don’t want to keep paying the extraordinary cost to continue sending people to the moon.
    4
  3. There are countless videos from space. Could you not be bothered to look this up first?
    4
  4.  cinereus3601  The missions were tracked via radio signals in multiple countries. They all would have to had to have been in on it.
    4
  5. You can see the space station rather easily. There are plenty of trackers online that will tell you exactly when and where to look. The flag on the moon on the other hand is much, much, much harder to see. Unsurprisingly, seeing a football field sized, reflective object from 250 miles away is a lot easier than seeing a flag that’s a couple feet across from 240,000 miles away. But, lunar satellites have seen the flags at the landing sites.
    4
  6. No, this was entirely worthless because Sibrel is a grifter and demonstrable liar.
    4
  7. It was great that she platformed a grifter and a liar?
    4
  8. Why are you thanking her for platforming a grifter and proven liar and spreading mis/ disinformation? I hope your family has the ability so see through Sibrel’s lies and calls you out for falling for a conspiracy theory.
    4
  9. Sibrel likes to avoid all the evidence that shows he’s a liar.
    4
  10. Sibrel is a grifter and proven liar. Why are you thanking him for lying to you?
    4
  11.  @BigVin6588  Do you have any idea what kind of calculations needed to be performed or what level of computing power was necessary? Also bringing up nuclear technology is silly because we figured out how to split the atom in 1932 and just a decade later, the first nuclear reactor was made. Nuclear technology predates spaceflight.
    4
  12. Nixon called Houston and the call was patched to radio signal. It’s the same technology as call in radio. Fortunately, there is nothing between the earth and moon to stop a radio signal. Radio signals were first bounced off the moon in the 1940s. It also helps when you use large antennas.
    4
  13. The “we can’t rescue astronauts” narrative is entirely fabricated. One new spacecraft had an issue and it was decided that the astronauts not take it back out of an abundance of caution. The spacecraft returned autonomously and it ended up being fine. The astronauts were safely aboard the ISS so there was no need to have them come back immediately. The plan to have them return around now was formed immediately after it was decided they wouldn’t come back on Starliner. It has simply been a matter of scheduling. A new spacecraft had to arrive with two empty seats and the astronauts had to wait until the end of the mission that was already planned to take that craft back. Also, a largely experimental rocket blowing up doesn’t mean we are incapable. While starship has blown up multiple times, SpaceX is averaging over two launches per week. The Falcon 9 has launched over 450 times with only 3 failures. Don’t let personal incredulity and cherry-picked headlines sway your views.
    4
  14. Sibrel is a grifter and a proven liar. He preys on people’s personal incredulity. The technological build up leading to the moon landings is extensively documented. They had the necessary technology.
    4
  15. You’re effectively invoking the “I’m right because you said I’m wrong” argument. Whether or not the moon landings is an objective matter, not a matter of opinion. People like Bart Sibrel are dishonest grifters and deliberately mislead people for their own personal gain. Some people lack the ability to effectively evaluate the evidence for themselves and end up falling for grifters who appeal to personal incredulity and antiestablishment biases. Some of us are here to combat the lies being told by Sibrel.
    4
  16. False fact checking? Would you like to provide evidence to refute the legitimacy of the over 800 pounds of samples brought back by the Apollo missions?
    4
  17.  @gives_bad_advice  The fact that Sibrel’s first reaction was to look at the camera and ask if they captured it shows that he was just looking for content.
    4
  18. I find it unlikely that Sibrel would agree to that. He doesn’t even allow comments in his YouTube videos. He’s not going to want to have someone who can actually push back on his claims.
    4
  19. It’s blatantly obvious that Owens did no legitimate research and completely fell for a grift. Bart Sibrel is a demonstrable liar. To put it bluntly, you fell for lies. Grifters like Bart Sibrel appeal to personal incredulity and antiestablishment biases. The reality of the situation is that the evidence clearly shows that Sibrel is lying and that the moon landings happened.
    4
  20. “Looks fishy to me” is not valid evidence against the moon landings. They stopped going because they had been there, done that, and the government didn’t want to pay for it anymore.
    4
  21. The moon is about 240,000 miles away. The signal delay is approximately 1.3 seconds each way.
    4
  22.  @molly4539  Glad you realized he’s a hack. As @paulbeardsley said, most grifters are smooth talkers. That’s how they get people to fall for the lies they peddle.
    4
  23. They used the same technology as call in radio.
    4
  24. They employed many of the best minds in science and engineering during the Apollo program. Those are the worst people to have involved if you’re hoping no one catches on. Don’t you find it weird that no scientific expert has come forward to denounce the moon landings? It’s as if they all know the moon landings can be verified.
    4
  25. Many were combat and test pilots. Regardless of your moon landing denial, they weren’t cowards.
    4
  26. Sibrel’s claims fall apart under the slightest bit of scrutiny. I really hope you don’t fall for his lies.
    4
  27. Sibrel is a grifter and proven liar. His arguments have been thoroughly debunked. Don’t listen to what he has to say about the moon landings.
    4
  28. There’s nothing in space to block a radio signal. It also helps when you use a giant antenna. There are a lot of things to block your internet or WiFi signal, especially when the antennas are tiny in comparison. The first radio signal moon bounce was performed in 1954 and ham radio operators can perform moon bounces.
    4
  29. Have you considered the possibility that the moon landings did happen and that Sibrel is just lying?
    4
  30. A camera was mounted to the outside of the lander. That why the lander takes up a large portion of the frame. Regardless of the fact that you could have easily googled this, could you not have figured that out just from watching the broadcast of Armstrong’s first steps on the moon?
    4
  31. ⁠​⁠ @ValentinKostadinov  His main point doesn’t hold its own. His central claim is that the Apollo missions never left low earth orbit. This is debunked by radio tracking. If the spacecraft was in low earth orbit, and ground stations had their antennas pointed towards the moon, they’d get a signal coming in and out on a roughly 90 minute cycle. Instead, multiple ground stations on different parts of the world all pointed their antennas towards the moon and received a continuous signal. The Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station in Australia was the primary station, but simultaneously, the Bochum Observatory in Germany picked up the same signal. Additionally, the German station only picked up the transmissions from the astronauts and not capcom, indicating that two way communications were going on. The spacecraft could not have been in low earth orbit. It would have been blatantly obvious to every tracking station. I’m an aerospace engineer and have studied the Apollo missions and spaceflight in general great deal. The evidence makes it abundantly clear that the moon landings happened. Again, Sibrel is a grifter and a proven liar who preys on his audience. This was just one debunk of his claims and there are plenty more.
    3
  32. ⁠​⁠​⁠ @ValentinKostadinov  The point was to explain how Sibrel’s core claim is patently false. There is further evidence to show that people actually landed with the Apollo missions. I can discuss that if you’d like. Also, plenty of people do deny the fact that unmanned satellites and probes have been sent to the moon.
    3
  33. How was America being fleeced? The money spent went to a litany of American contractors and paid the salaries of American people. Taxpayer money went into the economy and into the pockets of Americans working on the program.
    3
  34. ⁠ @KGTheProducer94  I hold a healthy distrust of the government like most people do. Why did you assume I was blindly believing the government? The moon landings can and have been verified independently of the government.
    3
  35.  @KGTheProducer94  It was largely dust, rocks, and craters. There is plenty of documentation on what the astronauts saw and did on the moon. And life elsewhere probably likely, but not on the moon.
    3
  36. The government does lie. Everyone knows that. The thing is that the moon landings can be verified independently of the government.
    3
  37. You’re parroting a lie. Nothing was lost.
    3
  38.  @stoneysauce  Sibrel’s arguments have been thoroughly debunked. He’s a grifter and proven liar.
    3
  39. That money went to paying 400,000 regular people and to building real hardware. The moon landings objectively happened. Sibrel is lying.
    3
  40. You’re thanking a grifter? Sibrel is a proven liar but I’m sure he appreciates your support.
    3
  41. You’re not on a list for denying the moon landings.
    3
  42. Saying “never ever” doesn’t overrule the mountains of evidence that show the moon landings happened.
    3
  43. The evidence shows otherwise.
    3
  44. They have both put robotic landers on the moon.
    3
  45. Owens clearly can’t be bothered to look up the obvious evidence that the moon landings happened. Sibrel is a grifter so he deliberately avoids that evidence.
    3
  46. The evidence makes it clear that the moon landings happened. Because Bart Sibrel is a dishonest grifter, he deliberately leaves out the context of his interaction with Aldrin. Sibrel lied to Aldrin to arrange an in person meeting under false pretenses. Sibrel then began to harass Aldrin as Aldrin tried to walk away. It was only when Sibrel backed Aldrin against a wall and got in his face, calling him a liar, a coward, and a thief that Aldrin ultimately punched Sibrel. Aldrin was a fighter pilot in the Korean War where he flew 66 missions. He earned PhD and developed orbital rendezvous techniques that made the Apollo program possible. He risked his life going to space multiple times. It should be no surprise that he didn’t take kindly to Sibrel harassing him and getting in his face. Do you think any combat veteran would respond kindly to being called a coward? So no, Sibrel didn’t just ask Aldrin a question. He harassed him and Aldrin had no interest in partaking in the stunt because he knew Sibrel would call him a liar regardless. With that context established, does that change your outlook on the encounter between Sibrel and Aldrin?
    3
  47. Guess she only had room for one moon landing denial grifter.
    3
  48. The spacecraft deliberately oriented itself to face sideways and slowly spun. This was called barbecue mode and was a form of passive heat control. Each part of the hull of the spacecraft would have even heating and cooling.
    3
  49. The moon is big and so are the craters you can see. Want to know how to verify the distance for yourself? Get a ham radio and perform a moon bounce. Time how long it takes for the signal to come back. I guarantee that it’ll show that the moon is about a quarter of a million miles away.
    3
  50.  @jif8802  Check out the video titled “Exposing the lies of Bart Sibrel” by Dave McKeegan. He goes through pretty much Sibrel’s entire appearance on Joe Rogan and demonstrates how Sibrel is lying. One of the easiest debunks of Sibrel’s claims is the fact that it would have been blatantly obvious to every tracking station if the spacecraft never left low earth orbit.
    3