Comments by "Yazzam X" (@yazzamx6380) on "Flat Earthers vs Scientists: Can We Trust Science? | Middle Ground" video.

Fact - If you have to lie to make your case, then you have no case :-) The Hebrew word meaning deceive is actually NASHA, pronounced as "Na-shaw". NASA in Hebrew, pronounced as "Na-Sar" or "Naw-Saw", means to lift, bear up, carry, or take, for example; (External links are blocked, so replace 😮 with . and 🖍️ with /) is😮gd🖍️Dyy9sN Quote: "The Hebrew word of the week is nasa ("to lift up, take up, carry")" Here's a few more links; is😮gd🖍️gDYJJB is😮gd🖍️0q3abY is😮gd🖍️CtWTNt Therefore the idea that NASHA is the SAME as NASA despite the added fourth letter is just a pile shiRt :-)
7
@Globeisahoax - And yet you can never state the exact version of a flat Earth you believe, making your claim null and void :-)
6
Flat Earth believers are responsible for their own stupidity. Don't make excuses for them.
6
Because you believe the Earth is flat?
5
You said "A total farce so easily seen. Stanley Kubrick did all the brilliant stage work. The largest studio in the world is owned by the Air Force. So, with that being said, what else is staged." Incorrect on many levels. To this day, no-one has EVER recreated in a studio the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour after hour of Apollo footage, where even the kicked up dust and dropped objects fall at the rate of the moon's gravity. Not even in the moon scenes in the highest budget sci-fi films (no advanced CGI existed back in 1969-1972). Even modern high budget movies like "The Martian" with its CGI effects doesn't attempt to recreate the 1/3 gravity of Mars for the surface scenes! That's because it's impossible to recreate such effects perfectly in real time on a studio/set with actors, so they typically don't bother at all for Mars and usually resort to rather poor attempts for moon scenes, where only recently have they improved such visuals thanks to CGI (which wasn't available back in the 60s/70s). Therefore if someone today successfully recreates perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence demonstrates uncut footage that matches the Apollo footage in every way (in terms of gravity, not appearance) THEN I would drop that argument straight away, because that would be proof that it is possible to create the Apollo footage here on Earth. Such proof wouldn't mean the moon landings were a hoax, only that it is possible to create the footage. But here we are around 50 years later and that still hasn't happened, i.e. no-one has demonstrated perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio because it is impossible, therefore proving the Apollo footage was filmed in the 1/6 gravity of the moon :-)
5
And you are making the mistake of lumping completely different things together, which is equally disingenuous (even if not intentional :-|). Ever since the first unmanned spacecraft were landed on the moon by the USA and USSR during the 60s, they used a combination of one main rocket engine on the craft and several thrusters spread around the craft for direction control and stability. The Lunar Module used that SAME design principle, with ONE main rocket engine and 16 thrusters around the craft for direction control and stability. The advantage is that such craft are easier to design and easier to control and manage, BUT... thrusters are a different technology to the main rocket engine(s) and so requires a separate fuel supply. Also, if a thruster fails then the craft could become unstable if the other thrusters cannot compensate. Space X tries the significantly more difficult approach of using gimbaled rocket engines to perform direction control and balance/stability. In other words, Space X rockets don't use thrusters for direction and balance, instead that task is done by gimbaled rocket engines (i.e. engines that can swivel), and so it requires computer power that was not available in the 60s and 70s. The advantage with such a design is that it uses less fuel, it's a simpler design overall and it doesn't required the addition of thrusters with their own fuel tanks. Therefore Space X landing re-useable rockets is in no way comparable to unmanned spacecraft landing on the moon over the decades, much less comparable to the Apollo LMs landing on the moon :-|
5
None of their suspicions about NASA are reasonable my friend :-)
5
@shaunsteele8244 - Great, so since you say you 'know' the Earth is flat, can you say which version of a flat Earth you believe please? 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 your comments here will be in context of that flat Earth.
5
Surely you know the Earth is a globe though, right?
4
Michnasss, here is Isaiah 40:22 (referred to in this video) from various bibles; King James: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..." Douay-Rheims: "It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth..." New American Standard 1977 Bible: "It is He who sits above the vault of the earth..." That's because the Hebrew word being translated by those bibles means "a circle, sphere, used of the arch or vault of the sky" (Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon). (Replies with links are blocked here, so just change 😮 to . and 🖍️ to /) tiny😮cc🖍️jjwmuz So circle, globe and vault have ALL been used for Isaiah 40:22 by various bibles, and therefore those who claim the Bible is a flat Earth book are lying to themselves and to others.
4
@leevy6753 - Concorde first flew in 1969, a passenger plane that could take 100 people across the Atlantic at TWICE the speed of sound. Today's passenger planes can't even reach the speed of sound, so by your logic Concorde must have been a lie, right? :-) Hence I find it interesting that people like you can understand why Concorde reached a point where it was not sustainable and yet you find it 'impossible' to understand why the massively expensive Saturn V rocket was not sustainable. Therefore Concorde is lost technology. The Space Shuttle is lost technology. The Saturn V rocket is lost technology. And so on, where all those craft and more will never go into service again. The next supersonic passenger plane will mean that technology has returned. The next 'Space Shuttle' like craft will mean that technology has returned. The SLS rocket means that technology has returned. So yes, lets see how it goes :-)
4
@TheRealSpencerMarks - True :-D Have a great Christmas my friend :-)
3
@Globeisahoax - Well flat Earth trolls rarely debate those who tear their arguments apart. Thanks for the admission :-)
3
@flatearthisahoax4030 - Agreed :-) But just a heads up, your reply is not showing up in this thread due to a YT problem which started a few weeks ago. Hence I can see your reply in my notifier window but not in the thread. Hence I've been using another browser without signing in to check the threads to see if my replies are getting through. It's hit or miss.
3
@SheaLaVie - So given that you're someone who believes the Earth is flat and that you've been chosen to know that, which flat Earth are you talking about exactly? In other words, can you say which version of a flat Earth you believe please? 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 your comments here will be in context of that flat Earth.
3
@Globeisahoax - Then please demonstrate how to use that flat Earth model with a spotlight sun to accurately predict sunrise and sunset times for any location on Earth for any day.
3
@leevy6753 - I appreciated your honesty and the fact that you're willing to shift your position depending on new information, including information you've researched yourself. Therefore I cannot criticise that, I can only applaud it, so thanks for the reply, it made such a change reading it. So all I can add here is... lets wait and see, especially when the SLS launches soon. All the best and thanks for the discussion, I enjoyed it 👍
2
@Globeisahoax - You mean this map where the distances are wrong when interpreted as a flat map of the Earth? Ext links are blocked, but I'm sure even you can work out the link below; ibbDOTco/0qxN86n
2
@leevy6753 - You said to Daniel "Let me know when we have rhe technology to "make it back"" Look up the soon to be launched SLS rocket, which is slightly more powerful that the Saturn V rocket that took men to the moon, where on its debut launch will take the Orion space capsule to the moon and back. Assuming all goes well, then in 2024/2025 the SLS rocket will again take the Orion space capsule to the moon and back, but this time with a crew of astronauts on board. So isn't that the USA having the technology back again thanks to the rocket?
2
@Globeisahoax - Gas pressure inside an enclosed system is the same everywhere within that system, unless an external force acts upon the gas molecules. In our atmosphere, we see gas pressure falling with altitude, therefore proving it's not an enclosed system. Any questions? :-)
2
@leevy6753 - You said " I accept I could be wrong but I'll start considering that when we have current technology that can do so" Look up the SLS rocket which has just reached the launch pad for the first time (search online for: SLS Launch Pad and READ the reports). Anyway, instead of focussing on what you don't understand, try focussing on what you can understand, such as budget. Have a look at NASA's budget over the years and tell me if you can see what made the moon landings possible and what brought the moon landings to an end; (External links are blocked, so replace DOT with . and SLASH with /) tinyDOTccSLASHh0rpuz So, did you spot it? :-)
2
You cared enough to reply ;-)
2
@SheaLaVie - You said "yes and the same internet that is helping to bring those people who have been committing crimes against humanity to Justice!!" Then go ahead and give me some examples in reference to your flat Earth beliefs. No excuses please, since you are the person who made the claim :-)
2
All you've proven here is just how easy it is for conspiracy theorists to manipulate people like yourself into believing anything, which is exactly why some go as far as being convinced that the Earth is flat. Watch the following debunking about the question of seeing stars in that SAME press conference to see how you were manipulated; (Some links are blocked, so replace DOT with . and SLASH with /) isDOTgdSLASH64fSD6 So was it really that difficult?
2
Done many times in numerous ways, but flat Earth believers refuse to listen :-)
2
@msa7933 - Exactly, since his/her mission online is to troll, not to debate :-/
2
@leevy6753 - You said "I did. Because having this discussion led me to asking google different questions..." That's great, that's the right thing to do. You said "passenger super sonic flight technology still exists so that analogy isn't flying......haha..see what i did there" I did see, but your claim just isn't taking off (see what I did there? ;-)) For the original order of Saturn V rockets in the 60s, 18 Saturn V rockets were built (15 flight ready, 3 for ground testing). NASA launched 12 of those 15 flight ready Saturn V rockets, leaving three completely intact in aeronautical/space museums today! So the original Saturn V rocket technology still exists today in aeronautical/science museums, therefore how is that any more 'lost' than Concorde technology in aeronautical/space museums today? The same goes for the Apollo craft which can all be found in aeronautical/space museums today. See the point? :-)
1
@leevy6753 - Did you delete your last reply to me? It's no problem if you had, it's just that I'm not going to reply when others can't read what I'm replying to, so I just wanted to check first.
1
@leevy6753 - You said "supersonic flight is still possible." Yes, but not still possible for carrying 100 PEOPLE on board, just as rocket flights to the moon are still possible but not for carry 45 tons of craft with people inside. So you saying "The technology for passenger supersonic flight is still available" misses the point, since we don't currently have LARGE supersonic aircraft in service like Concorde and we don't currently have LARGE rockets in service like the Saturn V. Concorde existed. The Saturn V rocket existed. Not being in service today doesn't mean they didn't exist. But again, that will all change if the soon to be launched SLS rocket is a success, just as it will change for passenger flights when a new supersonic passenger plane goes into service. Surely you can now understand the point being made :-)
1
@leevy6753 - You said "We are lightyears ahead of old technology..." Not all technology. Rocket engine technology has barely changed since the rockets of the 60s/70s, where we still use the same basic technology to propel rockets into space. Had rocket propulsion seen a revolution like aircraft propulsion, where we went from propellers to jet engines, then space travel today would have been very different. Imagine what the air industry would have been like today had the jet engine never been invented and hence we still relied upon propellers. Think about all the jet based aircraft that would have never existed. So the claim that going into space much less the moon should be easier today because of advancements in technology is rather naïve, because the main technology required to get us into space, i.e. rocket engines, has NOT advanced like other technologies, it has remained more or less the same, with the only difference being greater reliability and efficiency. Until there's a revolution in propulsion technology for getting us into space, then progress in manned space flight will remain slow in comparisons to other fields of engineering and technology.
1
@Globeisahoax - In other words, you have zero counter arguments to the points I've made here, and so you felt your only option was to attack. Classic :-D
1
The same internet that wouldn't exist had it not been for science, and hence the same internet that has allowed us to post these same messages for people all over the world to read. So I'm not really sure of the point you're making here, especially when there's no achievement that flat Earth theorists can offer as examples of how they've enhanced/improved the world we live in :-|
1
@Globeisahoax - You've been asked "What flat earth map?", so I'd like to see it too. I hope you're not thinking of the same Gleason Map seen in the thumbnail of the video on your channel, the same map that Gleason himself said in his patent was a projection from a GLOBE of the Earth, and where Gleason referred to the Earth as having TWO poles in that patent, hence both contradicting your flat Earth claims :-) So present your flat Earth map please, since it can't be the Gleason map according to Gleason himself.
1
@Globeisahoax - In other words you can't provide any 'flat Earth map' besides the Gleason map, the map that Gleason himself said was a projection from a globe of the Earth. Thanks for clearing that up :-)
1