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

The Earth takes 24 hours to rotate ONCE. The hour hand on a 12 hour analog watch rotates twice in 24 hours, and yet how fast is the hour hand moving when you look at it? :-)
1
That's because landing people on the moon requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in history. Back then, the USA built the spacecraft and the massively expensive Saturn V rocket (thanks to Congress increasing NASA's budget by up to 9 TIMES normal) for that purpose and it worked like a dream, hence they were able to use it to send their astronauts to the moon, but the cost meant it wasn't sustainable. In contrast, the USSR/Russia built the massively expensive N1-L3 rocket, but unfortunately it was a nightmare, it blew up during every test launch and so the USSR didn't have a rocket to send their cosmonauts to the moon. Therefore they eventually had to cancel their manned moon landing program. China became only the third nation to build rockets capable of sending people into space in 2003, thanks to help from Russia, hence they're getting there with their space program but are still a long way off from building their own Saturn V size rocket. Now look up NASA's massive SLS rocket which is as large as the Saturn V and slightly more powerful and is due to launch later this year, where it will take the Orion space capsule to the moon and back to Earth. The same SLS rocket is scheduled to take a crew of astronauts inside the Orion space capsule to the moon in 2024.
1
What do you believe we haven't been told :-)
1
Nope. It's impossible to fake the Apollo footage here on Earth. Next? :-)
1
So you believe the USSR were either stupid or in on the hoax?
1
@hermanschweizer9717 - So according to you, the USSR with their brilliant scientists and engineers who had their own advanced space program together with tracking technology (the USSR landed several unmanned craft on the moon in the 60s and they landed a spacecraft on Venus in 1970) were ALL too stupid and ALL too blind to spot a blatant hoax by the USA. More so, the USSR were too dumb to spot exactly the SAME HOAX of sending men to the moon NINE TIMES IN A ROW from 1968 to 1972, with six of those missions landing on the moon. It's either that or you believe the USSR were in on a hoax against themselves :-)
1
@hermanschweizer9717 - To highlight my point further, the USSR landed two remotely controlled car-size rovers on the moon in 1970 and 1973 called Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2 (look it up please). Both rovers had TV cameras and radio antennas, and hence that allowed Lunokhod 2 to be driven 37 km across the lunar surface over a period of 4 months under remote control (thanks to the TV broadcast); (Replace DOT with . and SLASH with /) tinyDOTccSLASHfsykuz So if the USSR had even the slightest suspicion of a fake, no matter how small, then they could have landed a Lunokhod rover at ANY of the Apollo landing sites at ANY time and explored it themselves to be sure, broadcasting the TV images back to Earth, and there would have been nothing that anyone could have done to stop them. But they never did that because the USSR knew 100% that the USA had successfully landed men on the moon. Think about that please :-)
1
@hermanschweizer9717 - Unlike you I provide link to support my point, whereas you can only provide incredulity :-)
1
@hermanschweizer9717 - I'm still waiting for your evidence to support your ignorant claims :-) You said "the world knows astronauts can not travel into deep space." How extremely pompous of you. In EVERY official poll carried out around the world asking people if they believed the moon landings were a hoax, only a small MINORITY of people said it was a hoax (the highest I've found is Russia at 27% for obvious reasons :-)), hence the vast majority said men landed on the moon. So if only a small minority believe the moon landings were a hoax, then only a fraction of that small minority would think astronauts can not travel into deep space. Therefore for you to claim "the world knows" it's impossible is laughable.
1
@hermanschweizer9717 - You cried " You have not shown any concrete evidence, all you are providing is rhetoric and no solid data." Again, I have provided evidence here and you have provided ZERO evidence, so less of the hypocrisy please. If you want 'concrete evidence' then state EXACTLY what YOU would accept as concrete evidence, and explain why you would consider it concrete evidence. Remember, the evidence you ask for must be evidence that other hoax believers cannot just dismiss as fake, a lie
1
@hermanschweizer9717 - You said "it is easy to fool somebody,put much harder to convince them they been fooled!" Correct, which is why so many people are fooled by conspiracy theories :-)
1
@hermanschweizer9717 - Likewise :-)
1
???
1
@buillbogger5768 - You didn't answer my questions, so your opinion is effectively null and void, but you have a right to express your opinion just the same :-) Besides, the temperature range in low Earth orbit is -250 F in the shade to 250 F in the sun, THE SAME AS ON THE MOON, so by your argument that temperature range must mean all those manned missions by the USSR and USA and more recently China in low Earth orbit since the 60s (especially spacewalks) are all a lie too. Is that what you're claiming here? If so, then explain your reasons please. You know nothing about the types of radiation in space and how it effects us in the short and long term, therefore you are in no position to claim anything about what radiation would do to astronauts under any circumstances. All you're offering here are arguments from incredulity, i.e. what you're really saying here is "I don't understand it therefore it must be a lie" :-)
1
@buillbogger5768 - You said "he space station is 200 in day 200 in night this is delth with in 2010 on with insulation, thermal coatings, heaters and heat pipes..." During the 60s, BOTH the USA and USSR kept astronauts alive in low Earth orbit for days and even up to a few weeks, inside craft that were SMALLER than the Apollo craft, in the -250 F to 250 F temperature conditions of space. Therefore your temperature arguments (i.e. your excuses) are null and void :-) And when you make laughably false claims like "the moon is 11 time earths diameter closer/further from the sun so same temp no convection?" you effectively prove my point, since that's as ridiculous as someone claiming if we climb to the top of a tree then the sun will feel hotter than when we are on the ground :-D Men went to the moon 9 times from 1968 to 1972, landing on the surface during 6 of those missions, get over it ;-)
1
Nope. Next? :-)
1
Men landed on the moon 6 times from 1969 to 1972, where the proof has nothing to do with what any government or media says. Get over it :-)
1
@hermanschweizer9717 - No, stupidity is making claims that you can't support, claims that you only believe because either a) Believing in such conspiracies makes you feel special, or b) You don't understand the science and engineering involved. Or both :-) The key point is, men landing on the moon has NOTHING to do with what any government or media says, and so the fact that you put this down to "lying corrupt politicians" says it all :-|
1
@hermanschweizer9717 - You said "And as you can see we don’t have the technology to go to the moon over 50 years later." Actually we do. Landing people on the moon requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in history. Back then, the USA built the spacecraft and the massively expensive Saturn V rocket (thanks to Congress increasing NASA's budget by up to 9 TIMES normal) for that purpose and it worked like a dream, hence they were able to use it to send their astronauts to the moon, but the cost meant it wasn't sustainable. In contrast, the USSR/Russia built the massively expensive N1-L3 rocket, but unfortunately it was a nightmare, it blew up during every test launch and so the USSR didn't have a rocket to send their cosmonauts to the moon. Therefore they eventually had to cancel their manned moon landing program. China became only the third nation to build rockets capable of sending people into space in 2003, thanks to help from Russia, hence they're getting there with their space program but are still a long way off from building their own Saturn V size rocket. Now look up NASA's massive SLS rocket which is as large as the Saturn V and slightly more powerful and is due to launch later this February, where it will take the Orion space capsule to the moon and back to Earth. The same SLS rocket is scheduled to take a crew of astronauts inside the Orion space capsule to the moon in 2023/2024.
1
@hermanschweizer9717 - You said "It was a dark chapter in American history and Stanley Kubrick did a outstanding job directing the big lye." To this day, no pre-CGI science fiction film or TV series has ever recreated the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour upon hour of Apollo footage where even the dust and objects falls down at the rate of the moon's gravity. Even CGI today doesn't look quite right (CGI often looks a bit 'off', especially when modelling people). The Stanley Kubrick claim is nonsense on a number of levels, where the only reason some mention Stanley Kubrick is because of "2001: A Space Odyssey", and yet the moon scenes in that movie are packed full of errors, including schoolboy errors, that we never EVER see in Apollo footage, for example; (Links are blocked, so replace DOT with . and SLASH with /) Part 1 tinyDOTccSLASH3iykuz Part 3 tinyDOTccSLASH5iykuz As you can see in part 2, "2001" never attempts to recreate 1/6 gravity for 'astronauts' on the surface, instead they just got their actors to walk carefully and precisely, as if they had lead in their boots :-)
1
@hermanschweizer9717 - Also, none of the Apollo footage is artistically directed, it was just a matter of aim the camera and film it! So why would Kubrick be needed? Surely if anyone was needed it would have been Douglas Trumbull, the special effects expert behind "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" and "Blade Runner" and "Star Trek: The motion picture", etc. And yet conspiracy believers never ever mention Douglas Trumbull, only Stanley Kubrick for flawed reasons. Until someone can present a scene that recreates every movement we see in Apollo footage using the technology of the 60s and 70s, i.e. recreates perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio, then the claim that the Apollo footage was faked on Earth is nonsense :-)
1
@hermanschweizer9717 - You said "you make all those statements with absolutely no concrete evidence" A laughable comment coming from you, someone who has provided zero evidence to support your claims, and someone who has provided ZERO counter arguments to the points I made in my last two replies :-) Unlike you, I have actually provided links here by making an effort to get around the YT restrictions, showing you how it could be done. So go ahead and point out what I've said here without concrete evidence, making sure you provide evidence yourself.
1
@hermanschweizer9717 - And going back to the footage; Even the most 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). When the popular hoax theorists claims of slow motion or wires are used, we get amusing results like this; (Replies with links are blocked here, so just change DOT to . and SLASH to /) tinyDOTccSLASHe9jjuz Gee, that looks so realistic doesn't it? No-one would ever guess that was slow motion and wires, right? ;-) Therefore if someone successfully recreates perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence demonstrates uncut fake 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 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
Nope. Next? :-)
1
@KH4L0Dz - You said "You are treating the words of the scientists as definitive even if that lies You believe in their words as Muslim for thier words 🤣" No my friend, unlike yourself I and many others actually listen to experts and work on trying to understand the science and engineering involved. But you don't need science to debunk the conspiracy claims, only simple observation, for example, the Apollo footage. To this day, no-one has EVER recreated perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio 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 the most 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).
1
@KH4L0Dz - When the popular hoax theorists claims of slow motion or wires are used, we get amusing results like this; (Replies with links are blocked here, so just change 😮 to . and 🖍️ to /) tiny😮cc🖍️e9jjuz Gee, that looks so realistic doesn't it? No-one would ever guess that was slow motion, right? ;-) Therefore until someone successfully demonstrates perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio, 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 itself.
1
@xpez9694 - You said "i understand all of the conspiracy claims and I am not on the side of conspiracy theorist. I am just commenting on what I see in the video." Fair enough :-) You said "There is also the video of the mics picking up noise of them banging on metal with tools that you can hear through their mics" I'm more than happy to debunk that here if you'd like :-)
1
@xpez9694 - You said "yes tell me all about if you have the time.. i would like to hear what people say to debunk that." Here's the video featuring the claimed hammering sounds, but rather than just a few cherry picked seconds, several minutes are available here to avoid the cherry picking we see in conspiracy videos. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JVtzVN3ncg The hammering starts at 2:07 and ends at 2:56, but notice the complete lack of any so-called hammering sounds for most of the times he hits the core sampler! At 2:08 we do hear two 'knocking' sounds, but we also hear EXACTLY the same two 'knocking' sounds at 5:04 (as revealed on the two links below); youtu.be/5JVtzVN3ncg?t=128 youtu.be/5JVtzVN3ncg?t=304 At 2:21, we hear the 3 'knocking' sounds that the hoax claim focuses on and one sound at 2:27, but again, the rest is completely silent, therefore just like the sounds at 2:08 and 5:04 it has nothing to do with sound traveling through air as claimed. If we really were hearing the sound of the astronaut hammering the core sampler into the lunar surface, then we should hear a knocking sound for EVERY hit, not silence for most of the 49 seconds of hammering! Watch and listen to that FULL clip from 2:00 to 3:00 and notice that the few 'knocking' sounds heard are out of sync with the hammer, and there's no sound at all for most of the hammering. And again, notice that the same double knocking sound heard at 2:08 is also heard at 5:04 :-) The point is, throughout Apollo footage we hear all kinds of random noises from time to time, especially clicks and pops, and sometimes sounds from the astronauts breathing out heavily when they're doing something strenuous (like hammering), where hammer strikes can also travel through the suit and sometimes be picked up by the mic, but for 99.99% of the time no-one cares or even notices all those sounds in Apollo footage. However, the moment such a noise happens to coincide with something we see on screen (which must happen by the law of averages) then conspiracy theorists immediately pounce upon it to claim we're hearing sound traveling through air. The Apollo hammer hoax claim is a perfect example of that. I hope that helped :-)
1
@rockethead7 - At last! Thanks my friend :-D
1
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTeM4ZqEKR4
1
That's to be expected due to the way cameras work. For example; Google Image search; Full Moon Photography Where are the stars? Google Image search; Full Moon Selfie Where are the stars? Google Image search; Telescope Mars Where are the stars? Google Image search; Full Moon Sports Stadium Where are the stars? Google Image search; Moon Airplane Photography Where are the stars? The camera exposure settings required to capture brightly lit objects (clearly and in focus) is too fast to capture the stars at the same time, hence the examples above. That's why we also don't see any stars in the background of photos and videos of astronauts in low Earth orbit. I hope that helps :-)
1
So you think the Russians were stupid?
1