Comments by "Yazzam X" (@yazzamx6380) on "Motherboard"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
@onepalproductions - That's a straw man argument and hence completely irrelevant.
Here's how I know men landed on the moon.
In the 50 years since the first moon landing, top scientists worldwide from fields such as physics (and astrophysics), rocket science, geology (and astrogeology), computing, chemistry, engineering, astronomy, electronics, and much more, have examined and verified ALL Apollo evidence, including scientists who dislike the USA and nations who would have given anything to prove it was a hoax (where their scientists would have been national heroes if they proved a hoax with verifiable evidence).
No scientist from ANY nation has ever announced finding fake Apollo evidence within his/her field of expertise, and no scientist from ANY nation has EVER said the missions were impossible (or even improbable) based upon evidence within his/her field of expertise .
In other words, if the Apollo evidence is more than good enough for the world's best scientists and the world's best engineers in the relevant fields of science and engineering that they're EXPERTS in for 50 years, then it's more than good enough for me.
And since you would probably reject any evidence that comes from NASA, how about 3rd party evidence of the moon landings?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
And don't reject that because it's Wikipedia, since the original sources for all that information can be found in the Citations and References sections at the bottom of the page.
So in what way has that got anything to do with 9/11?
2
-
2
-
@onepalproductions - So, back to the moon landings, you said "I studied 3 semesters of astronomy at university in the 90s. My personal belief is it is most likely we went to the moon, but doubtful they would share the actual footage with us."
Here's the problem with your argument...
To this day, not even the highest budget sci-fi movies or sci-fi TV series have ever recreated in a studio the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour upon hour of Apollo footage, where even the dust and objects fall down at the rate of the moon's gravity. Even CGI today doesn't look quite right (CGI often looks a bit 'off', especially when modelling people).
When the popular hoax believer's claims of slow motion or wires are used, we get amusing results like this;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6BXaGEuqxo&t=247
Gee, that looks so realistic doesn't it? No-one would ever guess that was slow motion, right? ;-)
So the problem is, until someone can demonstrate perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence prove it can be done, then any claims that the Apollo footage was faked in a studio will remain unfounded.
That proves the Apollo footage was filmed in an environment with 1/6 gravity and no air, and the only location that fits that description is the moon, hence proving the footage shows astronauts on the moon.
If someone successfully recreates perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence demonstrates their own uncut footage that matches the Apollo footage in every way (in terms of gravity) THEN I would drop that argument straight away, because that person/team has PROVEN it IS possible to fake the Apollo footage.
Such proof wouldn't mean the moon landings were fake, but it would mean it is possible to fake the footage seen. But that has never happened.
And btw, I've been an amateur astronomer for over 30 years, so I'm not new to this subject either.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2