Comments by "Yazzam X" (@yazzamx6380) on "Motherboard" channel.

  1.  @jdg2921  - You can't claim something is easy to fake when NO-ONE in 50 years has been able to do it. Objects on the moon fall 2.46 times slower than they do on Earth, so to make the dust on Earth fall at the rate of the moon's gravity would require the footage to be slowed down by 2.46 times. FACT. But here's the problem, people falling in the slow motion footage will ALREADY be matching the 1/6 gravity of the moon, so adding a harness would NOW make them fall SLOWER than the moon's gravity! Also, no harnesses are EVER seen no matter how close the astronauts get to the camera in ANY Apollo footage. There was no such thing as hidden line removal back then, nor were there such invisible wires capable of carrying their weight.
    1
  2.  @jdg2921  - Also, if what you said was true about slow motion, then by speeding up the Apollo footage 2.46 times, that should restore the footage back to 'normal' (i.e. the original speed). Now look at some of the Apollo footage sped up by 2.46 times on my channel and you'll see it doesn't work, therefore the Apollo footage is NOT slow motion :-)
    1
  3.  @jdg2921  - Regarding the reflection you spoke of, that's the sun reflecting off the RADIO ANTENNA my friend. That's the antenna that allowed the astronauts to communicate. You not knowing that was the radio antenna is perfectly acceptable, since you are not an expert, but can you really justify the authors of hoax books and the makers of hoax documentaries for not knowing and hence for claiming they are harness wires? Those guys claim to be experts remember. So what does that tell you? If you're not convinced, then please watch the following where you'll see many example photos of the radio antenna on top of the backpack (PLSS); www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc7FLQR92eg
    1
  4.  @jdg2921  - Saying something looks like this or that is not evidence. I've seen footage here on Earth that looks like someone was on a wire when they were not, where someone looks like they're moving in slow motion when they're not. We can speed up footage of people walking on the street and find examples where they appear normal (eg. slow walkers). The point is, if you take cherry picked clips you can often see what you want to see, or see things you weren't expecting. But that doesn't mean your assumptions are correct, especially when you haven't seen the footage before and after the clip you're watching :-|
    1
  5.  @jdg2921  - You asked again "So whats your reason for them doing 6 missions in 3 years, but not going back ever since? outta curiosity" I only delayed in answering that question because I wanted to address the other points first. But I'm happy to address it now if you're ready :-)
    1
  6.  @jdg2921  - (Sorry, received no notification again :-|) To get people to the moon requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in HISTORY, where the USA achieved that with the massively expensive Saturn V rocket. But to make it possible, Congress increased NASA's budget by several times what they receive today to allow them to build, maintain and launch rockets/craft like the Saturn V. Look at NASA's budget over the years and you'll see what made the Apollo moon landings possible and why it ended for NASA; upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/NASA-Budget-Federal.svg Once Congress knew the USSR couldn't get their 'moon rocket' to work and therefore couldn't send their cosmonauts to the moon, they withdrew ALL THE EXTRA FUNDING, and so NASA couldn't afford to build any more Saturn V rockets and Apollo missions 18 to 20 had to be cancelled, as were NASA's other plans, such as a moon base!
    1
  7.  @jdg2921  - So as far as Congress was concerned, Apollo had achieved it's political goal of beating the USSR to the moon, therefore they saw it as "mission accomplished" and therefore they ended it. Apollo was NEVER about science and exploration for Congress, it was ALL about politics. Now look up NASA/Boeing's SLS rocket due to launch this year. By building upon existing technology and spreading the costs over many years, they have created a rocket that has the size and power of the Saturn V rocket, and hence the SLS rocket will take the Orion space capsule around the moon and back to Earth on its debut launch.
    1
  8.  @jdg2921  - In 2024, the SLS rocket is again scheduled to take Orion around the moon and back to Earth, but this time with a crew of astronauts on board. NASA originally planned to build a lander to take astronauts from lunar orbit to the surface of the moon in 2028, but the Trump administration are pushing to bring that forward to 2024. A risky move, so lets see what happens. So the rocket is the KEY to getting people to the moon, and the USA will have that rocket technology back again soon.
    1
  9.  @jdg2921  - Thanks, but again, "It looks odd to me" is not evidence :-) So I'll leave you with this video (last 5 minutes or so), which points out the false assumptions made by many watching this press conference who jump to false conclusions because they either didn't listen properly or didn't understand what was being said; www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxnLHEpwQjM&t=277
    1
  10. ​ @jdg2921  - Come on my friend, don't fall for the conspiracy theorist distortion of "destroyed technology" :-) Is the Saturn V rocket destroyed, or can we find one in a museum? Is the Lunar Module destroyed or can we find one in a museum? Is the Apollo Command Module destroyed or can we find one in a museum? What about the Lunar Rover and other Apollo hardware, are they destroyed or can we find them in museums? How are those craft any more 'destroyed' than say the Space Shuttle or even Concorde? 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 services that built, maintained, launched/flew them are all gone). If we want that technology back, then we will rebuild it using MODERN technology and MODERN techniques. Hence the SLS rocket due to launch this year which is as large and as powerful as the Saturn V rocket it replaces, and the Orion space capsule which is larger and more sophisticated than the Apollo Command Module it replaces.
    1
  11.  @jdg2921  - After all, in future when an airline company decides to develop a supersonic passenger plane, they're not going to dust off the old Concorde plans and use/copy that 'destroyed technology', instead they will take what we've learnt from Concorde and design a completely new supersonic passenger airplane from scratch. The same applies to space technology. Now do you see how easy it is for conspiracy theorists to sow the seeds of doubt and then stand back to watch it grow? :-D
    1
  12.  @melliw2804  - Do you mean when they met the president on the day they went into quarantine? Why should they still be hyped up 3 WEEKS later during in a press conference which was about giving a presentation and then answering questions from experts? That is, the press conference was WORK for the astronauts, not play.
    1
  13.  @melliw2804  - And I'm saying you're seeing what you want to see :-) There's nothing about the astronaut's behavior in this press conference that is any different to their behavior in previous press conferences, and yet people like yourself never bother to look back to see if anything has changed, you just assume based upon one moment in time :-|
    1
  14.  @melliw2804  - You described yourself perfectly, where instead of offering any evidence of a hoax you resort to the old classic and weak conspiracy believer argument of "He/She/That looks strange/weird to me!" :-)
    1
  15.  @melliw2804  - Present solid hard evidence instead of your personal.opinion and then we can talk.
    1
  16.  @melliw2804  - Great, so you should be able to list the long established and respected experts in NLP who agree with you after watching the same footage? After all, you can't possibly be so arrogant to think that you are seeing something that all those established NLP experts have missed themselves, right? :-)
    1
  17.  @melliw2804  - You described yourself perfectly, but I'm still waiting for your list of established NLP experts who agree with you (with proof of course :-)).
    1
  18.  Psilocybe Cubensis   - And I've seen pre-flight conferences where they are not smiling when discussing serious points, therefore your argument is simplistic. So there is no stark difference, which is why NO body language expert from ANY nation over the last FIFTY+ years has EVER reported seeing anything wrong in the Apollo press conference, since they understand that context matters, whereas conspiracy believers do not :-) And it is ridiculous to claim that all established body language experts from nations that have no reason to support the USA over the last 50+ years would be concerned about losing credibility by stating their expert opinions of that press conference, so again a simplistic argument from you that doesn't hold up :-|
    1
  19.  @Nate012  - You bumped this old thread for that? :-) In that case, can you say which version of a flat Earth you believe please? A brief summary in your own words would suffice. I ask because there are many versions to choose from, i.e. dome or no dome? Edge (finite plane) or no edge (infinite plane)? More land and seas beyond the ice wall? Pillars or no pillars? Gravity or no gravity? Globe sun and moon or flat sun and moon? Rahu and Ketu, or just the moon? etc. Once you say which flat Earth you mean, then any comments you make about that topic will be in context of your flat Earth :-)
    1
  20. State what information you think they're holding back please.
    1
  21.  @3y35poihjpn  - But just saying they are lying doesn't make it so, just as flat Earth believers saying the Earth is flat doesn't make it so :-) Here's some third party evidence of the moon landings, so are they all lying too? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings And yes, it's Wiki, but ALL the sources for that information can be found in the Citations and References sections at the bottom of that page!
    1
  22.  @3y35poihjpn  - Which proves you haven't even read that Wiki page, otherwise you would have understood what third party means (how can you think, for example, that a Grammar School and the Soviet Union could be working for NASA?). Just the fact that you didn't understand that third party means sources that have absolutely nothing to do with NASA says it all, i.e. proves you WANT to believe in a hoax and hence you're not really interested in 'mere' details like evidence/proof 🙄
    1
  23.  @wildboar7473  - Says the flat Earth believer who still refuses to tell us more about his flat Earth :-) So 3y35poihjpn, are you a flat Earth believer too like Wild Boar, or do you merely think that certain space missions are fake?
    1
  24.  @3y35poihjpn  - You said "Looool you ask to be proved wrong, you are proved wrong, you have a hissy fit". Don't be childish please, engage in this debate like an adult. You said "in 30 years when NASA come out saying they faked the moon landings you are gonna feel really stupid bro" Almost exactly the same words I read from hoax believers like you 30 years ago, and I'm still waiting :-) You said to Wild Boar "Thank you, someone who uses logic and reasoning" Oh, so you are a flat Earth believer, how interesting :-)
    1
  25.  @3y35poihjpn  - And you are holding back humanity with your sheer ignorance son. Thank you for proving my points so perfectly :-)
    1
  26. So you've learned nothing since you were 10 years old?
    1
  27. Nope. Next? :-)
    1
  28. Men landed on the moon 6 times from 1969 to 1972. Get over it :-)
    1
  29.  @tw3ntythr337  - Says the flat Earth believer :-)
    1
  30. ???? What are you referring to exactly?
    1
  31. ​ @jaimealfaro200  - You really should stick to subjects you understand. You said " I am not referring to low orbit temperatures, but to temperatures in the sun and in the shade at moon surface." https://www.collinsaerospace.com/en/what-we-do/Space/Space-Suits Quote: "The EMU needs to control temperature fluctuations ranging from -250 degrees F to +250 degrees F every 90 minutes" Did you understand that? Their spacesuit, or EMU (Extravehicular Mobility Unit) has to cope with temperature fluctuations of -250 F to 250 F in low Earth orbit as a spacecraft takes 90 minutes to orbit the Earth! So again, here is Ed White during a spacewalk with a FILM camera out in those same temperature conditions; https://i.stack.imgur.com/3Igh3.png Therefore go ahead and provide the Kodak film specs for temperatures in AIR.
    1
  32.  @jaimealfaro200  - You said "No atmosphere, no Van Allen radiation belts protecting you. Low orbit temperature swings are also big, though, not so big as between shadows and sunlight in the moon" There's no atmosphere to protect astronauts in low Earth orbit (LEO) and the Van Allen belts offers NO protection either. Instead the Van Allen belts are particles from the sun trapped within Earth's magnetic field, where it is Earth's magnetic field (magnetosphere) that offers us some protection from cosmic rays (deflects about 1/3 from LEO) and offers some protection from the rare solar storms, but ZERO protection from the electromagnetic radiation from the sun. So the main radiation of concern are cosmic rays, when in LEO the body of the Earth itself blocks out about 1/3 of the cosmic rays, and so cosmic ray radiation in LEO is about 1/3 the level of deep space. On the moon's surface, the surface of the moon itself blocks out about 1/2 the cosmic rays, and so cosmic ray radiation on the moon's surface is a fraction higher than LEO. So overall, radiation levels on the moon's surface are only a little higher than radiation levels in LEO (i.e. mostly cosmic rays), and therefore your made up claim that "Radiation in low orbit is also way lower than at lunar surface" is completely false. Next? :-)
    1
  33.  @jaimealfaro200  - Happy new year to you too :-) But I think it's time for you to present links to support your claims, because merely saying something doesn't make it so, where you are expressing the classic mindset of taking what you don't know to the extreme. So for some reason, you "know" heat would transfer to the insides of the camera in seconds (despite the insides being a VACUUM, the cameras are not air tight). For some reason, you "know" the radiation is at such a level that the film would turn white in 10 seconds. So links please. I provided you with the following photo for a reason; https://i.stack.imgur.com/3Igh3.png That photo alone proves everything you're claiming here is wrong, and I've explained why in this thread already.
    1
  34.  @jaimealfaro200  - You said "if you look in the oposite direction from the sun, you would see more stars than you can see here on Earth. You should stick to the subjects you understand." As a practicing amateur astronomer for around 30 years with a huge interest in all space related topics, including space travel, I do know what I'm taking about son, whereas you don't (look up 'Dunning-Kruger' that you're a good example of). Here's a few quotes about when we can and cannot see stars, from Apollo 11 astronaut Michael Collins' 1974 book "Carry the Fire: An Astronaut's Journey" - [When in orbit around the earth], quote: "...Out from behind the shadow of the earth, we are into the constant sunlight...Towards the sun, nothing can be seen but its blinding disk, whereas down-sun there is simply a black void. The stars are there, but they cannot be seen because, with sunlight flooding the spacecraft, the pupil of the eye involuntarily contracts, and the light from the stars is too dim to compete with the reflected sunlight, as both enter the eye through the tiny aperture formed by the contracted pupil. No, to see the stars, the pupil must be allowed to relax, to open wide enough to let the starlight form a visible image on the retina, and that can be done only by blocking out the sunlight...". [When in the shadow of the Earth during his Gemini mission], quote: "My God, the stars are everywhere: above me on all sides, even below me somewhat, down there next to that obscure horizon. The stars are bright and they are steady. Of course I know that a star's twinkle is created by the atmosphere, and I have seen twinkle-less stars before in a planetarium, but this is different; this is no simulation, this is the best view of the universe that a human has ever had... My only complaint is that the protective coatings of my visor do not allow an even more spectacular look at the stars." [When entering the shadow of the moon], quote: "...To add to the dramatic effect, we find we can see the stars again. We are in the shadow of the moon now, in darkness for the first time in three days, and the elusive stars have reappeared as if called especially for this occasion...". [With Neil and Buzz on the surface and whilst in the shadow of the moon], quote: "...Outside my window I can see stars - and that is all. Where I know the moon to be, there is simply a black void; the moon's presence is defined solely by the absence of stars". That is consistent with everything we've heard from Neil and Buzz and other astronauts ever since people first went into space. Which part of what Michael Collins says about seeing stars do you still not understand?
    1
  35. ​ @jaimealfaro200  - Now try LISTENING to the question; Patrick Moore asked at 47:25 and I quote "And secondly, when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?" Again, "see the stars in the solar corona" and "in spite of the glare?" Some think he may have asked "could you actually see the stars and the solar corona in spite of the glare?" but the result is the same. So to paraphrase, the question was NOT "could you see stars?", the question was "could you see stars when the glare of the sun was in your eyes?". THAT is what Patrick wanted to know. Go ahead listen PROPERLY to the question asked at 47:25 and then ask yourself what caused you to mishear it :-)
    1
  36. Nope. Next? :-)
    1
  37.  @asifhashimov3202  - You said "We are talking about the radiation from which you can't even protect yourself with a thick layer of lead, which is the best protection, by the way," Wrong boy, lead is the WORSE material which is why it is NEVER used to protect people from cosmic rays in LEO. When cosmic rays hit the hull of a spacecraft, it produces a spray of secondary radiation (mostly x-rays) which effects the astronauts. Therefore to reduce that secondary radiation they use lighter and hence less dense metals like aluminum and pack the hull with other materials to help absorb the radiation. So go ahead and post a link to any manned or unmanned spacecraft that used lead for protection from radiation (I'll save you the time, no such craft exists!)
    1
  38.  @asifhashimov3202  - You cried "Who will take that heavy lead onto the Moon for them? You?" And I explain why lead is NEVER used to protect ANY spacecraft in space EVER, no matter how far they travel (including the Voyager craft that have now left our solar system). I also explain that the 2 meter protection claim was taken from a book talking about keeping people safe who will live their ENTIRE LIVES inside a spaceship to the stars (i.e. born, grow up, have kids, die). You said "If you can believe such shit, there is no sense in arguing with you" The title of that book is REFERRED TO in some the Apollo hoax books! And you will find hoax believers quoting the title of that book (that they've never read) on forums! So before shooting off your mouth about what you don't know, try doing some research first :-)
    1
  39.  @asifhashimov3202  - You said " In the low orbit astroNUTS are protected by the magnetic field and Van Allen belts, you baby child." Try reading. I've already explain that the Van Allen belts are just particles trapped in Earth's magnetic field, and I explained that Earth's magnetic field only deflects away about 1/3 of the cosmic rays and protects against RARE solar storms (where no such storm occurred during any Apollo mission). Next? :-)
    1
  40.  @asifhashimov3202  - You cried "And please, don't write back. I am getting sick with your stupid arguments." You're just comedy gold kid, therefore you will have to accept my replies whether you like it or not :-)
    1
  41.  @tw3ntythr337  - Says the flat Earth believer who lacks the 'balls' to admit it here :-)
    1
  42.  @papalegba6759  - So Tw3nty Thr33 must be a chatbot according to you :-) You are a coward who accuses EVERYONE of being shills or chatbots or whatever and 'threaten' to mute them just because you can't accept anyone disagreeing with you. Talk about a lack of backbone :-)
    1
  43.  @papalegba6759  - You said "go to 'sort by' on comments" Sure, you do that, and then explain why you're pretending not to notice "Tw3nty Thr33", the person I was replying to! Do the same for many years over this thread and pretend you don't see that from people like "Wild Boar". The hypocrisy of weak people like you is amazing sometimes :-)
    1
  44.  @joe-mama429  - www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxnLHEpwQjM&t=277 Hence they are very clear about seeing stars, you just couldn't be bothered to listen to the question properly, whereas the astronauts did listen.
    1
  45.  @papalegba6759  - The 'chatbot', 'shill', 'paid by NASA', 'government agent' etc claims are cowardly tactics, used by those who want to give themselves an excuse to ignore someone jut because that person debunks their claims. So please act like the man you're support to be in your profile pic, don't act like a boy, don't act like a coward. Is that clear? If that is clear, then if you believe I'm wrong, then make your case.
    1
  46. Obviously you've never watched the moon scenes in "2001" :-)
    1
  47. 🙄
    1
  48. Nope. Next? :-)
    1
  49.  @tw3ntythr337  - Says the flat Earth believer who lacks the 'balls' to admit it here :-)
    1
  50.  @papalegba6759  - Says the coward who can't face being challenged by people and so he has to pretend others are chatbots. Classic (btw, copy and paste is really easy, as you've shown yourself :-)). Clearly I really hurt you in that other thread last month. Explain why it's wrong to target a flat Earth believer?
    1