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

  1. 7
  2. 6
  3. 6
  4. 5
  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
  6. 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
  7. 5
  8. 5
  9. 4
  10. 4
  11. 4
  12. 3
  13. 3
  14. 3
  15. 3
  16. 3
  17. 2
  18. 2
  19. 2
  20. 2
  21. 2
  22. 2
  23. 2
  24. 2
  25. 2
  26. 2
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1