Comments by "Yazzam X" (@yazzamx6380) on "Motherboard"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Just the fact you fell for the dishonest twisting of Buzz Aldrin's reply to that little girl says it all.
If like other hoax believers you feel that 'truth' is on your side, then why the need to lie and/or to spread lies? How is it justified to lie?
For example, the claim that NASA means to decieve in Hebrew is also a lie, and yet here you are spreading that lie without question.
Btw, please state which version of a flat Earth you believe in please since there are many, i.e. dome or no dome, edge or no edge, flat sun and moon or globe sun and moon, pillars or no pillars, gravity or no gravity, etc. :-)
2
-
2
-
@elisereneekouloukas301 - And just to highlight my point further;
Transcript:
Little girl: "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time?"
Buzz: "That's not an eight year old's question, that's MY question, I want to know. But I think I know, 'cause we didn't, go there [in such a long time] and, and that's the way it happened, and if it didn't happen it's nice to know why it didn't happen so, in the future if we want to keep doing something we need to know why something stopped in the past that we wanted to keep it going ... um... Money
...
...is a good thing. If you want to buy new things, new rockets, instead of keep doing the same thing over, then it's going to cost more money and other things need more money too, so having achieved what the president wanted us to do, and then what thousands, millions of people in America and millions of people around the world...."
A rather convoluted answer? Yes! Buzz saying they didn't land on the moon? No!
Now tell me which version of a flat Earth that you believe in please :-)
2
-
@elisereneekouloukas301 - No, my friend, my bracketed insert is the CONTEXT of his reply.
The question was not "Why has nobody been to the moon?" for which you can claim Buzz was saying "cause we didn't, go there [to the moon]"
The question was "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time?" for which Buzz's was saying "cause we didn't, go there [to the moon in such a long time]".
And just seconds later he said "in the future if we want to keep doing something we need to know why something stopped in the past"
You can't keep doing something you've never done, you can't stop doing something unless you're already doing it.
He went on to say a few more seconds later "so having achieved what the president wanted us to do, and then what thousands, millions of people in America and millions of people around the world"
In other words, having achieved the mission of landing on the moon.
So you cannot pretend the context of a question doesn't relate to the answer given, otherwise you are resorting to quote mining and cherry picking, which as I said before is a dishonest tactic of conspiracy believers.
2
-
2
-
@elisereneekouloukas301 - Again, that is not my context, it is THE context set by the question asked. Hence no reporter or journalist WORLDWIDE took that to mean Buzz was admitting we've never been to the moon, because reporters and journalists have high levels of 'linguistic intelligence', something that many conspiracy believers appear to lack :-)
And don't resort to playing the childish "victim" act please. YOU posted that comment on this PUBLIC forum claiming the Earth is flat and hence ALL space missions are a lie. No-one made you do it, no-one forced you, and therefore you MUST expect others to question and challenge your claims.
If you're not prepared to defend the beliefs you state, then don't post your beliefs online. It's as simple as that.
And it doesn't matter if millions of people claim "2+2=5", that doesn't stop the answer being "4", so don't point to what others say as if that makes you right please, especially when the majority of those same people you highlighted are NOT flat Earth believers! :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@narajuna - The LM was a two part spacecraft, with the Ascent stage stacked on top of the Descent stage, each with their own rocket engine and fuel tank(s), for a GOOD reason as follows...
If anything went wrong and it was certain the LM was going to crash, then the abort procedure could be activated immediately to turn the Ascent stage into an escape capsule, where it would detach and fire it's rocket engine to return the astronauts to the orbiting CSM spacecraft.
That was the point of Apollo 10, where the astronauts flew the LM down to around 8 miles above the lunar surface and then activated the abort procedure, returning the Ascent stage back to the CSM in orbit, leaving the Descent stage to fall until it crashed onto the moon, i.e. they tested the abort procedure before going for a landing in the next mission.
So during Apollo 11, mission control were not "about to turn blue" because they thought the astronauts were moments away from being killed due to low fuel in the Descent stage, they held their breath because they knew they were just seconds away from Neil activating the abort procedure instead of landing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@stillperfectgenerations5852 - You said "Just watch this!"
Don't take the cowards way out by hiding behind a 1 hour video.
I've proven that your claims are laughable nonsense, because if you think Operation Fishbowl is an attempt to get through the mythical firmament dome as other flat Earth believers claim (using nuclear warheads), then with a rocket taking a nuclear warhead up to 250 miles altitude means;
a) The claimed firmament dome must only be about 250 miles high north of the equator and hence it is WELL BELOW the sun and the moon which are claimed to be circling the Earth 3000 miles up at that SAME location at certain times of the year.
ALL flat Earth models place the dome ABOVE the sun and the moon, none of them place the sun and moon more than 10 TIMES higher than the dome! And...
b) It must be possible to send craft up to 250 miles despite flat Earth theorists claiming it's impossible because space is a hoax.
If space is a hoax and hence nothing can go 62 miles or higher, then how was it possible for Starfish Prime to reach an altitude of 250 miles during Operation Fishbowl? And...
c) If the firmament dome is above the sun and moon as claimed, then if it's possible for a rocket to reach the dome then that means it's possible for a rocket to reach the moon and the sun.
So which ever way you look at if, Operation Fishbowl contradicts EVERY flat Earth model out there, and therefore you should be here saying Operation Fishbowl is a hoax.
Instead, by claiming Operation Fishbowl was real, then you are saying the flat Earth models are wrong (and I still don't know why you even mentioned Operation Dominic with its maximum altitude of just under 15,000 feet).
So make up you mind kid, either Operation Fishbowl is true or your flat Earth is true, it can't be both :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
@CarlosSanchez-uc4cd - No they didn't my friend, and you're exaggerating a hoax claim :-)
Hoax believers refers to Von Braun's 1953 book "Conquest of the moon" (which I own) where he does indeed talk about a rocket the size of the Empire State Building to get people to the moon and back.
* BUT* Von Braun was talking about single stage rockets only!
That's the popular type of rocket seen in 1950s sci-fi B movies and comic books, where that ONE rocket launches from earth, flies to the moon, lands on the moon, the astronauts have their little 'adventure', the survivors return to the rocket (after conveniently destroying the alien's world), launches from the moon, flies back to Earth, and then lands on Earth in the SAME rocket they started with, ready to be refueled for the next mission.
Von Braun was making the point that such a rocket would not be possible due to the massive size and weight needed to carry the fuel required to make it to the moon and back, therefore OTHER methods are required.
Hence Apollo used MULTI-STAGE rockets, where once a stage burns through all of its fuel, it is then discarded to save WEIGHT. As a result, there is less and less of the rocket/craft remaining throughout the mission, until the only part that is left is the Command Module that lands in the sea with the astronauts on board.
2
-
@CarlosSanchez-uc4cd - The Saturn V rocket and the Space Shuttle and Concorde will never go into service again, that technology is destroyed (i.e. the infrastructure and the services that built, maintained, launched/flew them are all gone!).
That is what was meant by destroying the technology.
Hence just like the Space Shuttle and Concorde, we can find the Saturn V rocket, the Lunar Module, the Command Module, Lunar Rovers etc, in space and aeronautical museums.
The Space Shuttle will never fly again, therefore Apollo technology is as "destroyed" as the Space Shuttle and Concorde.
If we want that technology back, then we will rebuild it using MODERN technology and MODERN techniques.
Hence NASA's SLS rocket which is due to launch this year, where it is as large and as powerful as the Saturn V rocket it replaces, where it will take the Orion space capsule around the moon and back to Earth as a test (second test in space for Orion).
In 2024, the SLS rocket will send astronauts on a mission around the moon inside Orion.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ssrmy1782 - That's a rather simplistic assumption on your part.
Prior to Kennedy's announcement in 1961 for sending men to the moon (which caught the USSR by surprise), scientists in both the USA and USSR expected to be able to send people to the moon in about 20 YEARS.
In other words, on their current budgets, they expected a slow development that would result in a SUSTAINABLE manned moon program.
Instead, Kennedy's race to do it in less than 10 years (despite its success) resulted in an UNSUSTAINABLE manned moon program.
The USSR were forced to compete with the USA in a race that they didn't want, especially the military who saw it as a complete waste of time and money. They wanted rocket engines developed for use in missiles, and so their "moon rocket" was built using smaller rocket engines as a compromise to the military, resulting in the over complicated N1-L3 rocket that never worked.
So with the failure of the N1 the USSR has two choices, either start AGAIN by developing massive rocket engines like the Saturn 5 F-1 engines to build a rocket capable of taking cosmonauts to the moon, which would mean a Soviet moon landing nearer the end of the 70s, or change direction and focus on space stations for the long term and more reliable but smaller rocket engines.
The USSR sensibly choose the latter, since there was nothing to be gained by being second to land on the moon 10 years after the USA with a manned moon program that was not sustainable.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@thomashall9182 - As correctly stated, that rock was given to William Drees by the US ambassador to commemorate the astronaut's visit to the Netherlands;
media3.s-nbcnews.com/j/ap/97a493bc-80a7-4af8-bd49-d6f1c24f68b3.grid-6x2.jpg
That's a photo of the unprotected rock and the description that came with it. So where does it say that rock is from the moon?
ALL the moon rocks given out by NASA as gifts to nations were encased in resin (Lucite) to preserve them, where they were also catalogued and mounted on a plaque. NASA NEVER gave out valuable moon rocks unprotected where they would be exposed to air, water, sweat, coffee spills, micro-organisms, etc.
The museum were warned in 2006 that the rock was highly unlikely to be from the moon because it was given to William Drees just 3 months after Apollo 11 (NASA gave out moon rocks as gifts 1 YEAR after Apollo 11), but they ignored the warning and displayed it as a moon rock.
3 years later that warning was proven to be correct when a visiting geologist saw the rock and IMMEDIATELY knew it can't be from the moon and informed the museum.
The moon rocks given to the Dutch are actually in the Boerhaave museum (in storage), as reported here before the petrified rock story broke in 2009;
youtube.com/watch?v=xNMnPkQZNjk
And remember, that was 2009, 11 YEARS ago, so if NASA were giving out fake rocks then wouldn't you expect more 'fake' moon rocks to have been discovered by now? :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2