Comments by "Yazzam X" (@yazzamx6380) on "Motherboard"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - You said "It was the distancing language and glib replies that struck me the most. These men come across as ashamed."
That press conference occurred 3 WEEKS after they returned to Earth, where they spent those 3 WEEKS in quarantine (just to put it in context).
It was also work for the astronauts, not play, where they gave a presentation and answered serious questions from an audience that included expert scientists and engineers, i.e. those more knowledgeable in their respective fields.
So they were not ashamed, they were being professional and hence taking that press conference seriously. They were also chosen for their skills as astronauts, not for their presentation skills.
Also, 'A picture is worth a thousand words' and therefore the astronauts often didn't describe in detail what everyone there could see for themselves in the photos and video/film shown throughout that presentation that isn't captured in the press conference footage, but someone recreated it here;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz6nzutr7RU
Anyway, here's the same three Apollo 11 astronauts in quarantine BEFORE that press conference;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6P1wBNHqnU
Neil, Buzz and Michael couldn't look happier if they tried (especially Neil as it was his birthday).
And here's Neil Armstrong in front of the troops in Vietnam, where again he couldn't look happier if he tried and is clearly relishing the moment;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSKCaxx58Bg&t=385s
In what way does Neil look ashamed of so-called crimes?
So if you want to claim the moon landings were a hoax, then fine that's your opinion and your right, but the body language argument is not evidence and it doesn't hold up my friend :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - You said "I based my opinion on the clear evidence of evasive and distancing language and in particular, Neil's reaction of surprise to Collins' statement about not seeing the stars".
Now watch the following video that shows you that context actually matters, contrary to what conspiracy believers seem to think;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxnLHEpwQjM&t=276
So again, not evidence on your part, just unfounded opinions.
You added "As for your point about the poor quality filmed off a TV, how is a poor quality visual good evidence anyway?"
Because it's not the only evidence (there were 6 moon landings remember), and even then, the footage still demonstrates perfect 1/6 gravity which is impossible to achieve in a studio to this day!
And just to add to that, many people don't realise that the Apollo 11 moonwalk was actually filmed by TWO cameras, the TV camera footage that we're all familiar with and a 16mm COLOR film camera from inside the lander, set at a good frame rate for Neil's first steps, but then set to capture a frame approximately every second after that (making the reel last about 90 minutes).
You can watch both footage side by side in the following videos, take note of the TV camera with stand being moved into position by the astronaut in the first video at 34:00 onward;
Part 1: www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL_SrBMBRCc
Part 2: www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVAGjO2dtUA (The film runs out at the end of this video)
Part 3: www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0L12WjQ4co
NASA don't make a big deal out of that film footage, but the fact that it is CLEARLY taken at the same time as the poor quality TV footage (which has since been digitally remastered btw) means that any suggestion that the poor quality footage is hiding something or it's fake is effectively debunked.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - You said "You have skipped over the evidence of distancing language and Collins' comment..."
Because again that isn't evidence, that's just your personal opinion. Why are you still unable to understand that? I'm asking you for hard evidence, not personal opinion.
Besides, you are the person who thought Una Ronald was an honest witness despite her ridiculous story about seeing a coke bottle. A woman that no-one has heard of since, and 20+ YEARS later there's STILL no sign of ANYONE else seeing her mythical coke bottle or finding copies of the West Australian newspaper with the letters about a coke bottle she claimed she read a week to 10 days later!
Now if she'd stuck to claiming she saw a coke bottle then I would have put that down to either an active imagination or a blatant lie, but the fact that she THEN claimed to have read letters in that newspaper from others who saw her coke bottle means she is lying, because after 20+ years someone would have found those letters in archive copies of that newspaper by now. So those letters clearly don't exist!
So the fact that you took everything Una said on face value, saying "she comes across as frank and truthful" and hence you trusted her 100% without question, means your judgement based upon the body language and words of others is highly questionable (and that's being generous), and therefore any arguments you put forward about the body language and the words spoken by the astronauts is equally questionable and therefore lacks credibility, and hence they are irrelevant.
Therefore once again I ask you for solid hard evidence of a hoax, not your flawed and questionable opinions based upon body language and spoken language, both of which your judgement has been proven to be poor.
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - And in case you think I'm being hard on Una Ronald and yourself for believing her without question (and hence without spotting the fact that she is LYING), watch and listen to her again her from "What Happened On The Moon";
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvxw_OKQWDg&t=2960
So did you get that? She says she stayed up to watch the live telecast, hence clearly a reference to the Apollo 11 moon landing occurring at night.
She goes on to say (skipping over the waffle about the TV transmission);
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvxw_OKQWDg&t=3050
She says she saw a coke bottle kicked across the screen and she acclaimed aloud "It's a fake, it's a set up, they're not on the moon at all...".
Followed by "...they were going to broadcast the same film again in the morning and I phoned several of my friends... but they were going to watch in the morning...".
So it is CLEAR that in Australia, she says she stayed up late (i.e. night) to watch the live Apollo 11 broadcast, saw one of the astronauts kick a coke bottle across the screen, phoned several friends who said they'll watch the second telecast (i.e. the repeat) in the morning, and she watched the repeat in the morning but there was no coke bottle, and so she concludes that it was edited out.
Here's the problem: www.csiro.au/en/Research/Astronomy/Spacecraft-tracking/Apollo-11-Moon-landing
Apollo 11 landed on the moon at 6:17 am Australian time, i.e. in the morning! The astronauts did the checks they needed to do, ate and got some rest in the LM, and then over 6 HOURS LATER they had their 'moonwalk', where Neil stepped onto the moon at 12:56 pm.
As you can also see in the following, that moonwalk was the middle of the Australian day (hence many school kids in Australia watched it live in their classrooms);
www.smh.com.au/national/moon-landing-how-a-small-step-changed-sydney-siders-lives-forever-20190719-p528yv.html
Therefore Una Ronald, the "frank and truthful" person who you "assessed her as being honest" is a proven liar.
So what happened to your boast that the "Ability to discern who's lying and who's telling the truth is something innate, something most of us are born with; it's most powerful in childhood as children need to know who to trust in order to survive"? :-D
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - This discussion is effectively at an end, now that you've proven just how poor your judgement is.
You claimed to have an innate ability to tell if someone is lying, and yet despite your claimed ability you COMPLETELY failed to see that Una Ronald was lying, instead you believed her without question, calling her "frank" and "truthful" and "honest".
I've shown that Una Ronald's claim is a lie because;
a) No-one could have identified a coke bottle in the Apollo 11 TV footage.
b) No-one other than Una has ever reported seeing a coke bottle in the 20+ years since her claim was first published in David Percy's book "Dark Moon", then repeated in his hoax documentary.
c) 20+ years later, no letters from readers reporting seeing a coke bottle has been found in the West Australian newspapers as she claimed.
d) The time she specifies for the moon landing is completely WRONG for Australia! But that time matches the UK (Neil stepped onto the moon at 3:56 am UK time), which is no coincidence given that the author and documentary maker David Percy is British (along with his co-writer Mary Bennett). So clearly they didn't do their research before making up that story!
So you were completely taken in by her lies, therefore your claim and I quote "Ability to discern who's lying and who's telling the truth is something innate, something most of us are born with", is clearly something you lack, and therefore your opinions here about the astronauts are null and void.
Thanks for the discussion just the same :-)
1
-
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - Your focus on the press conference is in the context of body language and your claimed innate ability to spot liars. And I know exactly what you meant because you proceeded it with "There are "established experts" in a variety of disciplines, such as medicine, who've been spouting utter rubbish for years. A bunch of "established experts" not agreeing with me about this press conference doesn't make me conclude that I'm wrong".
In other words, you're saying "I don't care if none of the experts worldwide agree with me, I don't care how good they are, I know better!".
You then completely failed to spot that Una Ronald was blatantly lying, and therefore proving that your innate ability to spot liars is itself a lie, or to be generous, a delusion. Or to be more generous still, proving that if you can't even spot an obvious lie, then you are in no position to claim you can spot a subtle lie.
You prove my point further with your comment "I had already said that I wouldn't rule out she was mistaken", where you STILL can't bring yourself to admit the obvious, i.e. that Una was not mistaken, she was deliberately lying.
As I stated before, if Una had merely said she thought she saw a coke bottle during the Apollo 11 moonwalk, then YES we can say she was mistaken (she may have been half asleep, fatigued, effected by medication, saw a TV reception glitch that led to a false interpretation, and so on).
But her story is that she stayed up LATE to watched the moonwalk LIVE at NIGHT in Australia, when in fact it was the middle of the DAY in Australia (it was night in the UK).
You cannot mistake day for night, you cannot mistake watching something in the middle of the day and thinking you saw it in the middle of the night! Hence that was a lie.
She THEN claimed to have READ letters in the West Australian newspaper (7 to 10 days later as quoted in "Dark Moon") from people who wrote in to say they also saw a coke bottle kicked across the screen.
You cannot mistake reading letters in a newspaper that were never there, so that too is a lie, as I explained before.
Therefore you can look into it as much as you like, but how much investigation do you really need to hear Una say she watched it live at night and watched the repeat in the MORNING, when the link I provided proves that it was in the middle of the day in Australia?
You said "Do you swallow everything you're told just because "the experts" have told you and therefore it must be TRUE"
No, I look into the evidence presented myself WHILE being respectful to the knowledge and the experience of the experts who presented it. You should try it. What I don't do is decide that ALL the experts are wrong simply because it makes me feel superior.
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - Sure, and if you're become extremely sick tomorrow then you will avoid medical expert advice, right?
So once again all you can present is your unfounded personal opinion about the press conference, using the same attention to detail that you applied to Una Ronald and yet completely missed the fact that she was lying, where she is the ONLY proven liar here (yes, PROVEN).
Claiming "distancing language" is all in your head, so there's nothing to explain.
You've also regurgitated the same nonsense about seeing stars when the question was NOT if the astronauts could see stars, the question put to the astronauts from the late Patrick Moore was if they could see stars in the solar corona (the atmosphere of the sun) in spite of the glare!
That's a VERY specific question, and yet YOU decide Patrick Moore is asking them "Can you see stars".
So right there you prove that you are seeing and hearing what you WANT to see and hear, where you completely ignored the CONTEXT of the question because you WANT to believe in a conspiracy.
You didn't even appreciate the fact that Collins remained orbiting the moon while it was Neil and Buzz who descended to the surface and landed, hence Collins' perspective is a little different to theirs.
So before going any further, explain why you STILL don't understand that context matters, despite me providing this video for you earlier in this thread;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxnLHEpwQjM&t=276
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - What a sorry list of excuses from you, where even by your standards it's poor and desperate.
If anyone else made up such a story as evidence to support men landing on the moon, then you would have had none of it.
It would have been unacceptable to you. Fact!
Maybe this, maybe that, could be this, could be that, with absolutely ZERO evidence to support any of your claims and speculation regarding Una, much less to explain why no-one else except Una would report seeing a coke bottle after over 50 years!
So cut the (I'm sorry to say, rather cowardly) defence please and face up to the facts. Una Ronald was lying, where anyone with 'flaming common sense' can see that for themselves based upon the complete lack of ANY evidence AT ALL at ANY LEVEL to support her claims, which would have been impossible had her claims been true, and the fact that NOTHING in her story holds up is further validation for calling her a liar (sweet little old ladies can lie you know :-)).
And there's nothing to explain about Collins or the other astronauts, because by your own admission you said and I quote "It looks to me as if", in other words, this is merely YOUR opinion, not evidence.
As I asked before, present evidence, not opinion, because I'm not interested in discussing claims based upon speculation, assumptions and guesses.
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - You continue to prove my points perfectly, so thanks for that, where for some reason you seem to think it's not for Una Ronald and David Percy to prove the hoax claim made!
So Una could have said she saw dancing girls doing the can-can behind the lunar module if she wanted to, and yet you would think that's acceptable as evidence despite the fact that no-one other than Una reports seeing the dancing girls, the time of day she claimed for the live broadcast was wrong, no letters about dancing girls have ever emerged from the newspaper she claimed to have read, but other than that it's not a lie, right? 🙄
You ask me to discuss your irrelevant personal opinion, which I'm not interested in, since it's worthless and therefore pointless.
As I told you already, I'm here to discuss hard evidence, not personal opinion, so questions and observations like "So why did he say this?", "So why did he say that?", "Just look at the way he frowned at that question!", "Look at the way he shifted his weight from his left butt cheek to his right cheek, it's obvious he's lying!", etc, is of no interest to me because it's of no importance other than to the person whose opinion it is.
If you think you have real hard evidence to discuss, then fire away, but if all you've got to offer is your opinion, then I wish you all the best.
1
-
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - And the following further proves my point, where you said "Consider it in the light of what one of the witnesses says in later years regarding removing "one of truth's protective layers"".
Where you conveniently fail to quote ALL of what Neil Armstrong said nor state who he was addressing and why, hence that's dishonest cherry picking and quote mining (a popular conspiracy believer tactic)..
And you said "Consider it also in the light of what another of these witnesses (Aldrin) says in later years, when asked why we hadn't been back to the moon: "Because we didn't go there". No doubt you have some spin about context to explain this away.""
There's no spin required to address yet another example of dishonest cherry picking and quote mining.
A little girl asked Buzz and I quote "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time?". Notice the words "in such a long time". THAT was the context of the question and hence the context of Buzz Aldrin's reply to the girl, and therefore to claim the question was "why we hadn't been back to the moon" is to distort the question and answer and hence to lie.
Buzz said we haven't gone back because we haven't [gone back] (a flippant answer). He said it's his question because for YEARS he has been asking exactly the SAME question as that girl, where he also wants to know why we stopped going to the moon and he wants to know why we're not going back to the moon!
That was the point Buzz was making, but as usual conspiracy theorists deliberately twisted his words because that's what they always do, and you are happy to go along with their distortion of the facts because you're not interested in the truth.
Here's the full interview, where Buzz makes it clear that he and other men landed on the moon throughout, and you can see and hear the context of his replies to the girl, rather than the quote mining from conspiracy theorists;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4yrzYAJ58Y
That's why I say I'm not interested in that kind of discussion with you, because in EVERY conspiracy theory and alternative belief system I discuss it is packed full of hypocrites who claim they are only looking for the truth and will go and go about how governments are evil and lying etc, and yet they are more than happy to lie and spread lies themselves when those lies happen to support their own beliefs.
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - 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!
So why the quote mining all the time? If truth really is on your side, then why do you and so many hoax believers think it's justified to lie and distort the facts to make your case?
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - You said "Again you make assumptions. Did I say I was a moon hoax believer? I don't think so. I said I was a moon landing sceptic. "
Ah yes, the classic fallback of "I'm just a sceptic" where the scepticism is totally one sided, where anything from government or authorities is assumed to be a lie unless proven to be true, while everything said by conspiracy theorists are assumed to be the truth unless proven to be lies.
Real scepticism applies to all, not to one side, therefore you are not a sceptic, you are a denier and a contrarian.
Buzz Aldrin did not say we didn't go to the moon, he said we did not go to the moon in the time period specified by that little girl, i.e. in such a long time, the question he was answering. So you automatically siding with conspiracy theorists who twisted his words proves my point.
And I ignored Neil Armstrong's "'one of truth's protective layers" because that is down to personal interpretation ONLY, which I told you already I'm not interested in, where no-one other than conspiracy believers see it as being suspicious or as an admission or some nonsense like that.
If you want to know more about it, then read the following and discuss it with them;
www.quora.com/What-did-Neil-Armstrong-mean-by-%E2%80%9Ctruth%E2%80%99s-protective-layers%E2%80%9D
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1