Comments by "Tx240" (@Texas240) on "Two Bit da Vinci"
channel.
-
322
-
29
-
19
-
13
-
11
-
10
-
6
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We did land on the moon. However, none of the media we've seen is the original footage from the moon.
I watched an interview with a NASA historian and in order explain one inconsistency, you have to break your explanation for another inconsistency, repeat in a rabid circle while your defense of the media we've seen as being actually from the moon continually discredits your previous explanations.
The simple fact is that the moon missions were part of the Cold War. The real media from moon was out of focus (the chest mounted cameras had no viewfinder), poorly lit (because the astronauts weren't any more professional photographer than your average selfie taker (bad lighting), or simply didn't survive the photons hitting the film on the trip out and back through the Van Allen belts. The cameras aren't specially insulated.
As a Cold War operation to show American scientific superiority, film thar didn't result in crystal clear, focused, and well lit media wouldn't do.
So, substitute media that WAS clear, focused, and well lit was produced to achieve the expensive goal of the Lunar missions.
Again, the goal wasn't science. Science was a by product of the actual goal, to show American scientific superiority.
So, yes, we went to the moon. But the original media, if it still exists even, has never been seen by the public because it wasn't good quality media.
1
-
1
-
@massimookissed1023 - good. Now tell me how you'd conduct an experiment with photographic film to demonstrate the existence of photons. Then, tell me what film in the astronauts used was doing on its way to the moon and back.
Here's the thing: INDIVIDUALLY, any inconsistency can be plausibly explained away. However, when you try to explain all the inconsistencies, you start contradicting yourself.
Further if your wife or girlfriend's explanation of where she was all night, has this level of inconsistency, you probably want a paternity test or, better, a divorce.
Now, since you're the astute amateur photographer, explain how pictures have the subject of the shot on front of the + marks that were etched into the lenses.
Tip, they were added in after the photo was taken. According to the guy who designed the cameras that were used, there's no way to take a photo with that camera where the + etching isn't on top of the subject of the photo.
Staying on photography, how do you create multiple shadow angles with one light source?
Moving on, moon dust, according to astronauts, "sticks to everything" to the point that it was a problem. Well, except, apparently, the lunar module's landing pads which are never seen with dust.
You could argue the lander blew the dust away and since there's no atmospher, the dust just went off into space.
Plausible, until we look at the fact that it's the lack of atmosphere and lack of electrical grounding that allows the dust to stick to everything. The plausible explanation only holds up if the astronauts didn't walk near the lander...or the picture wasn't taken on the moon.
Again, these are just a few of the inconsistencies that exist with the media presented as authentic.
My main point is that it's time to declassify the actual media captured on the moon, if it still exists, and let us see it.
People like you that closed mindedly, doggedly refuse to look at both the entire case of inconsistencies as well as the individual inconsistencies that can't reasonably be explained are preventing us from seeing the actual media, if it wasn't destroyed for Cold War "reasons of national security".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@daniellewis1789 - You're right. However, the end result is the same. The planet doesn't care what we do. If we stop emitting all carbon today AND sequester all the carbon we've emitted over the previous 200 years as remove it from the the atmosphere, the Earth's climate will continue to warm, until it begins to cool.
If human activity increases the pace of the warming...wait for it.... The cooling trend will begin sooner. Then, the climate will cool until it begins the next warming trend.
We don't have the technology to influence the things that ACTUALLY affect climate change. Those things are: the distance from the sun as we orbit in our elliptical, solar activity, the tilt of the Earth's axis, tectonic activity, volcanic activity, and extra planetary threats (asteroid impact), and all those catalysts' effect on the atmospheric and ocean currents.
If you want to stop global warming or climate change, forget about carbon, it's almost irrelevant. The planet will pull the carbon out of the air by several processes that occur when sufficient warming causes the events that will begin the cooling phase. Namely, the oceans will cool and take the carbon out of the atmosphere and then keep it out as the water turns to ice.
If you really want to prevent climate change, we're going to need terraforming technology and it will require managing the above mentioned, actual causes of climate change.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
6:10 fact check "EVs don't put carbon into the atmosphere"
This depends entirely on how their electricity was produced, aka the electric vehicle's dirty little secret.
Regardless, carbon emissions are still insignificant to climate change.
Even at zero human caused carbon emissions, the Earth (which is still currently in an ice age and colder than normal) is going to warm up for about 50,000 years and then begin cooling.
Here's more:
15,000 years ago, North America was covered by a sheet of ice. Where did the ice go??
Around 15k years ago, the ice covering North America began to melt as the Earth's climate began to warm.
This warming started about 15,000 years before humans began emmiting carbon into atmosphere.
Humans are insignificant to the planet.
We just don't live long enough to have the perspective of how little time we've been here compared to how long Earth has been here.
As individuals, we live perhaps 100 years. The average temperature of the planet will be about the same when we die as when we were born. We know what the climate is like in our very brief window of personal existence. It's difficult for us to imagine it being in a constant state of change, both warming and cooling.
The climate has warmed and cooled in cycles for 4 billion years, all without any intervention or encouragement from Man until the most recent 200 years or so.
200 years ago, before man started emitting carbon in significant amount, the Earth was in an ice age period where temperatures are cooler but warming up as Earth heads toward exiting the ice age period of the climate cycle
200 years is completely insignificant to the planet. Today, we're still in the same ice age and, even if no more carbon was emitted into the atmosphere AND all carbon that humans had emitted over the previous 200 years was sequestered and removed from the atmosphere, the Earth WOULD CONTINUE WARNING out of the current ice age.
We do not have the technology to prevent the earth from warming...or from cooling. In about 50,000 years, still in the current ice age, the planet will enter another cooling phase before again warming. It will do this several times before warming out of the current ice age.
Yup, in 50,000 years, global COOLING will be the crisis we need to "save the planet" from. Wrap your head around that if you're hoping "going green" or being "carbon nuetral" will prevent climate change.
The REAL drivers of climate change are the sun, the Earth's distance from the sun as we orbit it, Earth's tilt on its axis, geological activity in the Earth's core and up the crust, volcanic activity that will throw ash into the atmosphere, and extra planetary threats (meteor Impacts) in combination with the air and ocean currents around the planet.
We don't have the technology to affect ANY of the actual things that that cause significant change of the Earth's climate.
Yes, since man has been emitting carbon into the atmosphere, the current warning trend has increased in magnitude.
No, it doesn't matter. The Earth was going to get much warmer than it is today even if humans didn't exist AND, Earth would cool down again and repeat the cycle until the sun expands into a red giant and completely destroys the planet as the star expands outward to occupy the region Earth currently orbits at.
But, don't worry. Before that happens, Earth will its grip on the moon (which is slowly orbiting farther and farther away). That could end life on the planet as it wreaks havoc on how our ocean and atmospheric currents work combined with an increase in the planet's rotation speed (progressively shorter days) as the sun begins to push harder on the planet without the counterbalance of the moon slowing the earth's rotation.
As I said, we don't have the technology to stabilize and maintain Earth's climate.
Humans are insignificant to the planet
1
-
1
-
1