Comments by "andrew worth" (@andrewworth7574) on "Candace Owens" channel.

  1. Yeah, they probably don't even know how to spell sciense.
    3
  2. There have been many, many interviews with astronauts describing the details of their experiences on the moon. What we have never seen is Sibrel being interviewed by, or having a debate with, someone who has a deep understanding of the missions and is able to challenge his claims. Candace was just his lap dog in this interview.
    3
  3. @chermainemadison2729  what heat in what atmosphere?
    3
  4. @chermainemadison2729  who's been killed on sight there?
    3
  5. Are you open to Sibrel lying to you?
    3
  6.  @angelinalouis4356  China intends to get men to the moon in the next few years, so does the US. SpaceX has dropped the cost to orbit to a tenth of what it used to be, China is copying SpaceX's reusablity. You truly are desperate to create rationalizations to support your beliefs.
    3
  7. ​@wakinglife7065 can believe you fell for the snake oil salesman's con.
    3
  8. Personally, I prefer interviewers who challenge the interviewees' narrative. Candace, in this discussion, was like a loyal puppy.
    3
  9. Yes, the other astronauts and all the wives knew that there were 6 Apollo missions that landed on the moon.
    3
  10. There are excellent debunkings of Sibrel's claims, perhaps you should see them before reaching conclusions. I suggest Dave McKeegan, also Humans of Earth/Gempanda.
    3
  11. Yep, and Sibrel's fooled a lot of people.
    3
  12. Everyday Astronaut has a new video up on the topic. The Truth About The Moon Landings.
    3
  13. Sibrel never offers evidence to support his claims. Anonymous witnesses? Yes. Falsehoods? Yes. All of his claims are easily refuted.
    3
  14. Sibrel is a grifter, none of his claims hold up to scrutiny.
    3
  15.  @backinmyrightmind  sorry that facts upset you.
    3
  16. ​@mohx2847 you don't answer such simple questions because there are no answers that don't contradict FE. FEer's can't even offer a distance to the Sun, they ignore the question, as no figure for that distance is possible on the FE, any figure is contradicted by observation.
    2
  17. ​ @AL-sb9ch what's fake are Sibrel's claims, he avoids interviews with people knowledgeable enough to point out his lies.
    2
  18. His flight from the CIA was a flight of fantasy, along with most of everything else he claims.
    2
  19. Owens and Sibrel are disgusting, slandering the astronauts with zero evidence supporting their lies against those men.
    2
  20. Trump ain't that crazy.
    2
  21. No one who has studied the Van Allen Belts says that they were impassable for the Apollo astronauts.
    2
  22. Yeah, sure, a global conspiracy with a billion people in on it. SMH
    2
  23.  @BTFREEDOM1776  what evidence do you offer to support your claim?
    2
  24. @berntyson3641  no evidence? So your belief is faith-based.
    2
  25. @berntyson3641  well, I've more respect for flat earthers who say their belief is faith based and leave it at that, than flat earthers who try to argue the evidence, including by using misrepresentations of basic science.
    2
  26. Not visible from Earth because of the distance, but the existence of the landing sites has been confirmed by lunar orbiters from several countries.
    2
  27. "Power was provided by two 36-volt silver-zinc potassium hydroxide non-rechargeable batteries with a capacity of 121 amp-hr." They were rated for a distance on the moon of about 57 miles. The rovers were powered by 4 electric motors each of a quarter horsepower, designed top speed was 8.5mph.
    2
  28. @annaheart7731  there is no one who has studied the Van Allen Belts who says that they were impassable for the Apollo astronauts.
    2
  29. @Lostartsradio  seen your interview, you have no knowledge, and in fact you are a cheerleader for Sibrel's claims.
    2
  30.  @Lostartsradio  so my position stands. Sibrel never does interviews with people with the background and knowledge to challenge his claims.
    2
  31. ​ @Lostartsradio the comments you deleted were all pointing out false claims Sibrel made, point by point, throughout the first 20 minutes of your interview with him, which is why there were about 20 comments. You had the option of addressing my points, I would have read every rebuttal you offered. You offered none.
    2
  32. ​ @Lostartsradio one other point, I'm not a government employee, I never have been. For most of my life I've been self-employed, I'm on the right politically, though not the conservative right, and I'm not an American. So, as with your take on Sibrel's claims, you're keeping your perfect record of being consistently wrong. The certainty you possess, with an absence of knowledge, is a symptom of excessive levels of hubris.
    2
  33. You reversed what he actually said, the flights appear to be curved on a flat map, but are straight lines on a globe.
    2
  34. Yep, many times.
    2
  35. @dfkuz  the net of enchantment catching people is the one spun by Sibrel and a few others. You must have incredible respect for the government if you think it could pull off such a deception, keep it secret for 70 years, and deceive/get the cooperation of all the other governments in the world.
    2
  36. @dfkuz  the reality is that the Apollo 11 crew were serious people who handled their difficult jobs better than they handled dealing with people. They were more introverted than you understand.
    2
  37. @dfkuz  not like Bart, Bart loves to spin a good story.
    2
  38. @bapyongukgukguk2352  much as they lost the technology to build late 1960's Ford's. There's not a factory anywhere that could start building 1960's Ford pickups again, not without year's of preparation - and it'll never happen because the automobile technology has moved on. Ditto Saturn V's and space technology.
    2
  39. @robymaru03  there was a space of 400 years between European discovery of Antarctica and the first group to winter over, and there are still no permanent inhabitants.
    2
  40. Sibrel lies, he has said that he will not debate anyone with the knowledge to challenge his claims. His claims are easily refuted. Name any of his claims and I'll point out why it's false.
    2
  41. Perhaps you should look at videos debunking Sibrel's claims. I suggest Dave McKeegan.
    2
  42. Sibrel likes to quote Twain "it's easier to fuul people than to convince them that they have been fuuled." Sibrel doesn't go on to explain that he's the one doing the fuuling.
    2
  43. Fire away, I'll answer all of your questions.
    2
  44. @SolarChronicle  on Strictly Speaking with Bob Frantz. About 4 and a half minutes in. He offers the excuse that debating people other than the likes of Charles Duke (who's now 89), would be beneath him.
    2
  45. @elitaiglesias117  its easy to create shadows that appear at different angles. Go out side, stand with your back to the Sun, and hold your arms above your head in a "Y". The shadows of your arms will be diverging, so at different angles. If you have shadows on a surface that isn't dead flat the angles of the shadows will appear to be all over the place. Evidence of multiple light sources is multiple shadows from the same object.
    2
  46. Buzz Aldrin, not Armstrong.
    2
  47. ​ @ashleighmiller4101 he avoids debating people with the knowledge to challenge his falsehoods. There are no claims he makes that I can't refute with better evidence.
    2
  48. ​@randyschissler5791 careful, he probably thinks that Capricorn 1 was a documentary.
    2
  49.  @briantitchener4829  I've seen Jarrah White's claims, they're nonsense.
    2
  50.  @briantitchener4829  one example was that he had a co-conspiracy theorist on claiming some photos were impossible without multiple light sources. But you or I can set up a similar arrangement of rocks to reproduce the observed shadows with only the Sun as a light source. Try it sometime, I have, so have others.
    2