Comments by "Yazzam X" (@yazzamx6380) on "Joe Rogan on the Moon Landing Conspiracy" video.

  1.  @anthonyferguson4218  - And to finish what I was saying before... Secondly, since you would reject evidence from NASA, here's some 3rd party evidence; is😮gd🔧hxWYJ7 {Some replies with links are blocked, So just change 😮 to . and 🔧 to /} Yes it's wiki, but ALL the sources for that info can be found at the bottom of the page. Any questions? :-)
    2
  2. And here's a quote about China's lunar orbiter that took high resolution photographs of the surface of the moon; "In fact the maps are detailed enough that Chinese scientists were able to detect traces of the Apollo landers, said Yan Jun, chief application scientist for China’s lunar exploration project." So facts do matter my friend :-)
    2
  3. NASA does NOT mean "to deceive" in Hebrew, and so the irony of your comment is amusing :-) The Hebrew word NASHA means "to deceive", whereas NASA means "to lift up, take up, carry".
    2
  4. In other words, conspiracy theorists told you nasha is the same as nasa, which is like saying you stepped in shirt ;-)
    2
  5. No wire, just low gravity and help from the other astronaut.
    2
  6.  @Ed_Aylward  - You said "Moon landing debunked. End of discussion, unless there are any challengers? Didn't think so." Instead of being rather arrogant in assuming you've spotted something that the world's experts have all missed, why not take a few moments to consider that maybe, just maybe, you are missing something here? :-) Simply put, you are WRONG because you have jumped to conclusions without a) Checking the evidence carefully, and b) Considering other explanations. So yes I am challenging your claim, where hopefully once you see your error you will realize how and why people are so easily caught out by the claims of conspiracy theorists. Shall I continue? ...
    2
  7. What you choose to believe or don't believe doesn't change the facts :-)
    2
  8. We know it's real already, nothing to find out :-|
    1
  9. The USA and USSR first sent men into space in 1961, so by your logic shouldn't the general public have access to low Earth orbit by now if people have been in space since then? Where are the low Earth orbit hotels and tours? :-) But when you say "Earth is enclosed", then that's complete nonsense, where I've only seen flat Earth believers making such a claim. So are you a flat Earth believer? If not, then explain what you mean please.
    1
  10. Do you really want the answers to those questions, or have you made up your mind in advance? :-)
    1
  11. Putting aside the fact you don't know what lost technology means, isn't the recent Artemis 1 that featured the record breaking SLS rocket and the Orion space capsule (designed to carry FOUR astronauts) that recently returned from a 25 day mission to the moon and back to Earth... an example of the USA rebuilding the technology that was lost? And isn't the manned Artemis 2 mission set for late next year another example of that technology? If not, then please explain what you think 'lost technology' means :-)
    1
  12. Actually 12 men have :-)
    1
  13.  @notallowed337  - Your denial doesn't change the fact that 12 men walked on the moon, just as flat Earth believers denying the Earth is a globe doesn't change the fact that the Earth is a globe :-)
    1
  14.  @notallowed337  - I explained what cosmologists mean by a flat universe in your other thread, therefore there's no need to repeat it here except to say that cosmologists don't mean flat as in the shape of a SURFACE, as we do when we say flat, they are talking about flatness all 3 dimensional space. And again, just saying something doesn't make it so. Someone can come here and say 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but it doesn't make them right if they keep repeating it, instead they need to present EVIDENCE to support their claim and be prepared to discuss the evidence. So perhaps you can select just ONE piece of evidence that you consider to be the BEST evidence that the moon landings were a hoax and we can discuss it here. If choosing just one piece of evidence is too difficult, then present your top three BEST pieces of evidence (i.e. you best 3 hoax claims). I believe that's a fair request to make :-)
    1
  15.  @notallowed337  - No problem, and thanks but no need to apologise, when I said "there's no need to repeat it here" I was actually referring to myself, not to you, but I didn't quite word it right :-)
    1
  16. Actually yes, it is proven.
    1
  17.  @anthonyferguson4218  - Firstly, space officially starts 100 km up, that's 62 miles up (Google Search: The Kármán line). The ISS orbits 250 miles up. Last time I checked, 250 miles was higher than 62 miles., hence anything higher than 62 miles up is in space.
    1
  18.  @anthonyferguson4218  - Earth's orbit is still space you idiot :-) All satellites orbiting Earth are in space. Beyond Earth's orbit used to be called deep space, but now deep space is typically used for distances beyond the moon.
    1
  19. Nope. Next? :-) And since you're a flat Earth believer, can you say which version of a flat Earth you believe please? I ask because there are many versions to choose from, i.e. you say there's a dome but 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.
    1
  20. All the original footage is available from Apollo 11 to Apollo 17! You can find practically ALL that footage uploaded to YT over the years. The only footage lost is NASA's BACKUP of the SAME Apollo 11 moonwalk that we've all seen already, a BACKUP that was only made in case the live TV broadcast didn't work. And the makers of the world's largest telescopes say we would need a telescope with a mirror 200 meters in diameter to see the Apollo craft on the moon from Earth. The largest mirrors in today's telescopes are only 10 meters wide, hence far too small.
    1
  21. Ever heard of the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter? Look for videos about it.
    1
  22. Quote and source please :-)
    1
  23. There were 6 moon landings where we have ALL the photographs (nearly 15000 taken by the astronauts from Apollo 11 to 17) available to view online and ALL the hour after hour after hour of video and film footage (most uploaded to YT over the years) and ALL the data. So your argument is false :-)
    1
  24. Notice the sound of crickets to your question :-)
    1
  25. Look up USSR's Luna 16, Luna 20 and Luna 24 missions launched in 1970, 1972 and 1976 that travel to the surface of the moon, collected a tiny amount of moon dust samples, and then returned those samples back to Earth for analysis. Those were all two-stage spacecraft that stood about 12 feet height and weighed around 6 tons. So if the USSR could achieve that with unmanned spacecraft during the Apollo years, why wouldn't the same be possible for the significantly larger and more powerful Apollo spacecraft and rockets? :-)
    1
  26. Yes, and your point is? You're not a flat Earth believer, are you? :-) If you are, then just say so!
    1
  27. You said "There more evidence that we didn't go to the moon that evidence that we did." Nope. That's no different to the nonsense we get from flat Earth believers who tell me there's more evidence of the Earth being flat than being a globe. You said "Anyone that believes they made a call from the moon to the white house should be put down like an old dog" So lets break this down; (a) Mission control were in constant contact with the astronaut thanks to their communication system using radio dishes the size of buildings, and (b) Nixon made a phone call to mission control. So you're saying you can't think of a way to connect (a) to (b) to allow the president to speak to the astronauts? Really? :-)
    1
  28.  @mfdoom1898  - In other words, no real answerfrom you :-)
    1
  29. Got there thanks to the world's most powerful rocket at that time, the Saturn V. Look up the recent Artemis 1 mission that featured the record breaking SLS rocket and the Orion space capsule (designed to carry FOUR astronauts) that recently returned from a 25 day mission to the moon and back to Earth. The manned Artemis 2 mission to the moon and back is set for late next year. Anyway, men first reached the south pole in 1911/1912 but didn't return until 1956, that's 44 years later! Men first reached the lowest point in earth's ocean, the Mariana Trench, in 1960 but didn't return until 2012, that's 52 years later! Therefore no going back to the most difficult to reach locations for decades is nothing new, and therefore there's no connection between the frequency of an event and the validity of that event.
    1
  30. The USA sent men to the moon 9 times from 1968 to 1972. Get over it ;-)
    1
  31. Wrong, no data was lost, only conspiracy theorists make that claim knowing that others would believe them without question :-|
    1
  32. Except Joe changed his mind a few years later.
    1
  33. Yep, that's exactly what happened :-)
    1
  34. 👍👍👍
    1
  35. It is impossible to fake in a studio the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour after hour of Apollo footage, unless that studio was on the moon :-)
    1
  36. The USA sent men to the moon 9 times from 1968 to 1972, announcing each mission to the world and so everyone was ready to see what happens. So given that the USSR back then had an advanced space program capable of tracking spacecraft to the moon and beyond, how could they be tricked by fake missions to the moon EVERY TIME? I could understand once if the first mission date was not made public and so the USSR were not prepared, but 9 times?
    1
  37. Exactly!
    1
  38. People (in general) are easily manipulated, and hence where once it required cu|t leaders to be very charismatic and impressive and patient to convince the people around them to follow their made up beliefs, the internet has given such 'leaders' access to millions of potential followers.
    1
  39. As a result, conspiracy videos have resulted in certain people believing they're much smarter than they actually are, where they cannot see they're being manipulated :-|
    1
  40. Proof of the moon landings is not about what any government says, and so it has nothing to do with government lies. So Joe is correct. Besides, for some reason conspiracy believers seem to think conspiracy theorists are angels who can never be wrong, can never make mistakes and can never lie.
    1
  41. Depends on what you mean by "saw". Did we 'see' Yuri Gargarin become the first person to go into space and become the first person to orbit the Earth, or do we know it happened from all the evidence? :-)
    1
  42. ???
    1
  43. No, the little girl was asking why we haven't gone BACK to the moon in such a long time, and therefore the context of Buzz Aldrin's answer was the moment AFTER Apollo 17 to the day of her question, for which we hadn't gone. As usual conspiracy theorists like to distort what people say knowing that others (like yourself) would fall for it :-|
    1
  44. What is there to discuss? If you're wearing a wetsuit and then you put on a coat and zip it up, would that coat change the function of the wetsuit? :-)
    1
  45.  @mfdoom1898  - It would not blow apart, hence proving you've done ZERO research into spacesuits.
    1
  46.  @mfdoom1898  - Just like today's spacesuits, the Apollo spacesuits has multiple layers (over a dozen main layers in fact!). Where the first layer was their underwear, following by a liquid-cooling layer, and then a reinforced pressure bladder to create what you see here, the Pressure Garment; (External links are blocked here, so just change 😮 to . and 🖍️ to /) tiny😮cc🖍️ph3muz THAT is what kept the astronauts alive, where the layers on top of that suit (including the white teflon outer layer) was there to protect that 'inner suit' and hence protect the astronaut, therefore those outer layers were NOT pressurized. They also had an over helmet (one helmet worn over the other) and over boots (for use on the lunar surface). So facts matter my friend, you should try it :-)
    1
  47. To get men to the moon Congress increased NASA's funding to a peak of 9 TIMES their annual budget, and once Congress decided the political goal of beating the USSR to the moon was achieved they withdrew the extra funding and so NASA's annual budget was back to normal and Apollo missions 18 to 20 had to be cancelled (despite NASA's plans). Are you saying NASA should have still been able to send men to the moon despite no longer having the funding or the permission to do so? :-|
    1
  48. Except it doesn't show that because all such videos have been debunked :-) If the video clip was on YT then you would only need to give the NAME of that video if you can't post the link. So name the video please, and name the site if it's not YT.
    1
  49. Because you believe the Earth is flat?
    1
  50.  @nemesisxxprime  - Cut the BS my friend :-) If you're going to make such a claim then YOU need to present evidence to support YOUR claim here. It's not good enough to tell others to find your evidence for you. So let me address your false claim; It takes 1.3 seconds for the radio signal to travel from the Earth to the moon, hence that's 2.6 seconds there and back (radio signals travel at the speed of light). Because the audio is recorded here on Earth, mission control can (and do) respond immediately to the astronauts, hence we hear no delay! It's only when mission control says something to the astronauts that there will be a delay, because what mission control says will take 1.3 seconds to reach the moon and the astronaut's reply will take 1.3 seconds to return, so a total delay of 2.6 seconds minimum. Therefore if you listen to original Apollo communication (not from documentaries because they sometimes edit out the delays), you will notice no delay when mission control responds directly to something the astronauts say, but there's at least a 2.6 second delay when the astronauts respond directly to something mission control says. If you disagree, then please present your example of a less than 2 second delay where it should have been more. Be specific please.
    1
  51.  @nemesisxxprime  - Except I did respond (so stop being dishonest). You claimed a less than 2 second delay and I pointed out that your claim is false, where I asked you for a specific example. You have given your claimed example but it's verbal only, there's no link, why is that? YouTube videos can be posted here without problems. External links are blocked, but you can easily get around that by replacing . with the word DOT and / with the word SLASH. Claiming NASA added delays later is you making it up as you go along to fit your beliefs (i.e. more dishonesty). So present a link to your claimed ORIGINAL recording here with a less than 2 second delay in the response. No more excuses please :-)
    1
  52.  @nemesisxxprime  - You said "how can I link you to a REFERENCE VIDEO used in the scientific community as the reference and raw unedited tapes?" Nice try, but I HAVE ALL THE SPACECRAFT FILMS APOLLO DVD BOXSETS that you speak of, up to APOLLO 17! (Do the capital letters help btw? :-)). I bought them long ago, over a period of about a year second hand on eBay, hence got the entire series for a fraction of the cost (buying only a few direct from Spacecraft Films to complete the set). Much of the Apollo footage uploaded to YT were ripped directly from those Spacecraft Film DVDs, so I would know immediately if any of the footage has been tampered in any way. You gave a claimed example of less than a 2 second response, so STATE your exact source if it wasn't YouTube. If YOU own the appropriate Spacecraft Films DVD boxset and hence that is what you're referring to (since that is what you're implying here), then name the boxset and name the disk number and chapter title. So yes my friend, I own and have watched ALL the raw unedited footage/audio in ALL of the Spacecraft Films Apollo DVDs, therefore there can be no more excuses from you, so please state your exact source and details here as I've requested (but hey, nice try :-)).
    1
  53.  @nemesisxxprime  - You said "The question in reference was however from mission control to the astronaut asking if they were headed to the dune crater I believe." Great, and once I've had the opportunity to listen I'll get back to you (including an extra step that few people bother to take :-)).
    1
  54.  @nemesisxxprime  - You said "another instance was when Houston said.." Great, so present that example too (i.e. exact timestamp and location). There's no rush since I know it's coming, therefore whenever you can is fine by me (hours, days, whatever), and I'll respond as soon as I can too.
    1
  55. Completely different use of the word flat. And hence no, the Earth could not be flat, it is 100% a globe.
    1
  56.  @notallowed337  - Scientist have looked for evidence of the space of our universe being the same in all directions, or distorted in some way. If they found the universe is distorted (i.e. curved) then they would seek to work out the extent and structure of the curvature. But no such evidence of curvature has been found, instead the universe is observed to be uniform in every direction, and THAT is what they mean by flat. That is, cosmologists are referring to flat in the 3 dimensions (time being the 4th dimension), they don't mean flat in 2 dimensions. Hence the word 'flat' shouldn't be taken literally in this respect. It takes time to get your head around it, but the key take away is that when cosmologists say 'flat' then mean it in a purely mathematical way, they don't mean flat as in everyday language.
    1
  57. The only people who claim the Van Allen belts are a problem to pass through in a few hours are conspiracy theorists who have never sent anything into space themselves, and individuals like yourself who believe those conspiracy theorists without question :-|
    1
  58. Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions; Dr Van Allen quote 1: "A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week." In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year). If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks. Dr Van Allen quote 2: "The outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage, a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights." In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation to the moon and back wasn't a problem either. So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but they are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
    1
  59. You said "mist of the crap was filmed in Area 51, Nevada" Wrong my friend. 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 (remember, 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 advanced CGI, which again wasn't available back in the 60s/70s. Therefore if someone 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, THEN I would drop that argument straight away, because that would be proof that it is possible to fake the Apollo footage here on Earth. Such proof wouldn't mean the moon landings were a hoax, only that it is possible to fake the footage. Until then it remains a fact that the footage was filmed in an environment with no air and 1/6 gravity, and hence that environment was the moon :-)
    1
  60. Nothing was faked.
    1
  61. Exactly, well said :-)
    1
  62. And funding for the Apollo missions peaked at the equivalent of 9 TIMES that amount of funding to make it happen. That's the difference!
    1
  63. You said "its because the vacum of space kill them very fast but no one wants you to know that but everyone in the line of work know of it ," You do know that low Earth orbit is a vacuum too, right? :-) So you're saying no-one has ever been into space?
    1
  64.  @carlosgutierrez-ek1oc  - Nope, no animals died in space because it's a vacuum, those that died did so for other reasons, such as spacecraft failure, the rest survived, just as the first men sent into space was in 1961 by both the USSR (Yuri Gagarin) and the USA (Ed White) survived without any problems.
    1
  65.  @carlosgutierrez-ek1oc  - I must have missed it but where did I say anything about CARING for the animals? I merely stated the fact that no animals died for the reasons you claim, where many came back from the vacuum of space alive and well and lived out the rest of their lives as normal. So when you claim "living things die as soon as they leave the last atmosphere" then clearly you never heard of USSR's Zond program during the late 60s and early 70s where they sent various lifeforms to the moon and back to study the effects of radiation on living things, and ALL came back alive EXCEPT those on the missions where the spacecraft itself failed (well duh :-)).
    1
  66. Come now, according to hoax believers, common sense and keen observation is not allowed :-)
    1
  67. Firstly, the USA sent men to the moon 9 TIMES from 1968 to 1972, with 6 of those missions landing on the moon. Secondly, it is impossible to fake in a studio the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour after hour or Apollo footage :-)
    1
  68. None of the footage is fake.
    1
  69. Van Allen belt radiation consists of high energy electrons which is a problem for modern electronics, it has ZERO effect upon film. Also, it is impossible to fake Apollo footage in a studio, unless that studio is on the moon :-)
    1
  70.  @MM-ig1iv  - You said "...impossible space suits and fit into them INSIDE the lunar module" Nope. A completely false claim.
    1
  71. Not you or me, but the USA sent men to the moon 9 times from 1968 to 1972 :-)
    1
  72. Exactly, well said :-)
    1