Comments by "AM" (@AM-rd9pu) on "JRE Clips" channel.

  1. The moon landings objectively happened.
    2
  2. You’re exactly right. It would have been massively more difficult to fake it and keep it a secret for half a century than to just go.
    2
  3. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    2
  4.  @Jackofthedump  Prove it.
    2
  5.  @michaelpinkston4628  That’s just willful ignorance if you refuse to look at tangible evidence and instead blindly believe AI.
    2
  6. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened. And you don’t need to melt the structural beams to make a building collapse. They loose their structural integrity well before melting.
    1
  7.  @Alexisawesome-um5ty  Prove it
    1
  8. ⁠ @Jackofthedump  I presume that nothing will good enough for you to accept the objective fact that the moon landings happened. If you’re willing to have a good faith discussion, I’ll happily share evidence. Also, don’t forget that you’ve made a definitive claim here and the burden of proof falls on you to prove it.
    1
  9. ⁠ @Jackofthedump  Can you share the evidence that shows that?
    1
  10.  @Jackofthedump  I’m not going to do your work for you here. You made a definitive claim so the burden of proof is on you to substantiate it. I’ll gladly discus evidence, but you’re going to have to bring something to the table for that discussion to happen.
    1
  11. ⁠ @Jackofthedump  Giving a source is a start and we can work with that, but there’s no practical way for me to sift through Walsh’s catalog of books and videos and try to figure out which arguments of his you found compelling. Can you share what you think are some of Walsh’s best points and why?
    1
  12. I’ve checked out some of Walsh’s claims and so far, all of them have boiled down to appeals to incredulity. Why do you find Walsh to be a credible source? He’s a pilot, not an engineer or scientist in a relevant field. I see no qualifications that would make him knowledgeable in aerospace engineering. That context easily explains why he makes the kinds of arguments he does. He just doesn’t understand the topic and his conclusions come from ignorance. And why do you think common sense is a valid tool for analysis here? So much of engineering isn’t intuitive. For example, lead is a terrible material for spacecraft shielding. Not only is it heavy, its interactions with cosmic and solar radiation lead to secondary radiation that is even more dangerous than the radiation you’re trying to shield. High density polymers are the better choice for shielding. Do you have scientific or engineering experience that is relevant to spaceflight? From what I’ve seen, people invoke the “common sense” argument when they’re actually trying to justify “it doesn’t make sense to me, therefore it’s fake”.
    1
  13.  @michaelpinkston4628  You’re better off looking at more tangible evidence like the independent radio tracking, the samples brought back, and pictures of the landing sites from lunar satellites instead of trusting AI.
    1
  14.  @michaelpinkston4628  AI output isn’t evidence. But if you think that is “just one bit”, then could you share what else you’ve got?
    1
  15. ⁠​⁠​⁠ @michaelpinkston4628  I’m not asking you to do my research for me. I’m asking you to prove that you’ve done yours. It’s not my job to do your research for you. You’re making a claim and I’m asking you to substantiate it. And of course you default to “you believe the government” claim. The moon landings can be verified independently of the government.
    1
  16. The burden of proof falls on whoever makes the claim. Moon landing deniers need to prove themselves correct.
    1
  17.  @Jackofthedump  There are mountains of evidence all showing that the moon landings happened.
    1