Why don't we have high quality pictures of all of our equipment. Idk there are just so many ways you can prove it true but they don't do any of them. The backpacks they made would never have done what they claim. So much sussy stuff with the moon landing.
This dude saying every day there is a 50% chance so being on the moon three days means there’s a 150% chance LITERALLY MADE ME DUMBER BY HEARING IT. I’m dying inside.
Your math isn't correct. Probability is multiplicative, not additive. So it's 50% first day, 75% being hit day 1 or 2. 87.5% being hit on day 1, 2, or 3. But your point is correct.
@@fordifly1368 According to a recent NASA spokesperson they need to solve the problem of going through the Van Allen radiation belt before they can go to the moon!!!
Bad math: The calculation is not 50% + 50% + 50% = 150%. Probability is conditional. The proper calculation is 100% - 50%^3 = 87.5% chance of getting hit or rather, a 12.5% chance of not getting hit. No reason to think his 50% figure is correct either.
I'm half way through the interview and this guy is so f***ing stupid. First the flag moving slightly as the astronaut jumps past is static electricity. 2nd lead acid batteries did not power the lunar module it was a fuel cell, tanks of O2 and hydrogen. Simple things he should know. There are better arguments to be made then he is bringing.
@@JSSTygeryeah. On Sept.9 2002. I totally would've done it too. Aldrin won the self defense case cuz buddy was such a douche about everything (and didn't seek medical attention afterwards)
I don't know whether it was fake or not. The only thing I know that doesn't make sense is we've been planning to go back to the moon for a while now and it just seems damn near impossible to even get anything to land on it right. If you done something 5 or 6 times 50 years ago it should be no problem doing it now
You can literally see the shit they left behind on the moon with telescopes, there are a lot of pictures. I also think that the reason they destroyed a lot of the technology and stuff was because they didn't want the Russians to get ahold of it.
40 years ago everyone thought airliners would follow Concorde lead and air travel would be at Mach 3. How did that work out? Money speaks. Concorde was too expensive to operate and despite 27 years of operation, only had one fatal accident, but it was scrapped and despite all the advances in technology, airlines prioritised capacity over speed. The same goes for the Apollo programme. The reason it has funded, was because of the Cold War, as the Soviets started to scale back and wane, interest shifted towards profitable low orbit space technology for satellite launchs, GPS, telecommunications etc. The best rebuttal to the Moon landing was a hoax theory, was the Soviet's response. They even begrudgingly printed it in Pravda that the hated Americans had landed on the moon. So the Soviet's best scientist's accepted it as fact, despite have every reason to dismiss it.
The budget and manpower were like 50 fold higher in the 1960s, and it still took a decade. While we've always planned on going back, serious plans and money to do it are very recent events. Also, while the physics and math are the same, the technology we're going to use is astronomically (pun intended) different. This means we are basically designing, testing, and building everything from scratch.
@@bkanthack "NASA admitted in 2006 that no one could find the original video recordings of the July 20, 1969, landing. Since then, Richard Nafzger, an engineer at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, who oversaw television processing at the ground-tracking sites during the Apollo 11 mission, has been looking for them."
I saw a live talk with Neil Armstrong. Of course, someone asked him what he says when people challenge that they actually went. His answer, brilliant: He said "I don't worry about it. Someday, someone will go back, and they'll find all the crap we left up there."
It's both. They went there AND they filmed on a stage. NASA and the government needed the PR and spectacle of having great film footage for "live" broadcasts, so they ran a film stage on the side, rather than take the risk that cameras on the moon, and ALL of the other logistics, would work properly. This explanation makes the most sense to me.
Finally, an enlightened member of society. Nice to meet you. Also, there's no such thing as the Red and Blue party.. notice how our rights slowly are getting taken away.. notice how there's pics of the Clintons buddying up to Trump.. as long as we're fighting over the idiots, the more they take away.
Kept track throughout this video and can't find a single thing Bart said that was true. The closest he got was talking about Starship requiring several refuels to go to the Moon, but it's not even relevant cause Starship is a completely different launch vehicle.
@@Flat_Earth_Addy Because he gives these arguments that are REALLY EASY to refute. For me, I wish Joe would allow me to sit with him for 30 minutes and write down his best arguments for why we did not go to the moon. Then, I would spend some time on each argument and do research on the web, then I would come back a few days later and have rebuttals for each of his points. It'd be TOO EASY. Because the moon landing is a fact. My father (and mother, both) worked for General Dynamics who helped develop some of the stuff needed for the moon missions, and (when I was a kid) I saw some of it. Thousands and thousands and thousands of people that all broke the problem down into smaller tasks, and America conquered each of those different obstacles. So, it's ludricious to believe that we did not go to the moon. It's too easy to prove that we did.
So, in ways, @KyleKnickerB, is right. The more to listen to someone who is defending quite a contrary position with only arguments like HOW DID THE CAMERA MOVE WHEN SOMEONE NOT THERE TO MOVE IT? And, that's the best argument he has? Or, they DESTROYED ALL THE SCHEMATICS FOR THE EQUIPMENT or ALL THE RECORDINGS TAPES WERE DESTROYED. Well, they destroyed the schematics (probably more lost them), because I said it above. It's like keeping blueprints for the Horse and Buggy. Why keep it? Because no one is gonna build a horse and buggy anymore, and technology for NASA's equipment was outdated before it was even launched. Always, with stuff like that, it is always outdated before used, similar to Microsoft and Xbox where the consoles sold are years behind what is available in PC space -- because it takes time to get through the design phase and make millions of console, and you always do it on hardware and architecture that is already in use, so it's cheap, cheap, cheap to produce. Thus, that's why all of NASA's plans are just junk and useless, worthy of the trash bin. Maybe keep a few plans somewhere, but rest would just be scrapped or recycled. It's take campus-size facilities to store it, keep it air-conditioned, keep it guarded where people won't break-in and sleep there, etc. Basically, this stuff is so simple to defend and to understand, if you drop the conspiracies viewpoint.
You know they say all men are created equal, but you look at me and you look at Samoa Joe and you can see that statement is NOT TRUE! See, normally if you go one-on-one with another wrestler you got a 50/50 chance of winning. But I'm a genetic freak, and I'm not normal! So you got a 25% at best at beating me! And then you add Kurt Angle to the mix? Your chances of winning drastic go down. See, the three-way at Sacrifice, you got a 33 1/3 chance of winning. But I-I got a 66 2/3 chance of winning, 'cause Kurt Angle KNOOOWS he can't beat me, and he's not even gonna try. So, Samoa Joe, you take your 33 1/3 chance minus my 25% chance, and you got an 8 1/3 chance of winning at Sacrifice. But then you take my 75% chance of winning (if we was to go one on one), and then add 66 2/3 cha-percent, I got a 141 2/3 chance of winning at Sacrifice! Señor Joe, the numbers don't lie, and they spell disaster for you at Sacrifice!"
The sheer amount of fuel even 1/6 of Saturn rocket to get off the moon I mean come on the tanks would be bigger than the lunar lander easily. This is coming from a believer too.
@@ryankowalski3670 are you stupid to understand how much technology has advanced since 1972 or do you wanna go back to listening to al your music on 8 tracks because its just the same
What is he talking about, a three second delay from Atlanta to Iraq? I speak with people on the phone routinely (California > Germany & Romania) and there's no delay.
His remark about Von Braun writing that 30,000 times the fuel would be required is missing context. Calculations he's referring to were probably done long before it was decided to go with multi-stage rockets.
Bro doesn’t understand that when Werner von Braun said it would take three rockets to go to the moon, he built a three stage rocket. Dramatically reduces weight and increases Delta V.
Watch NASA’s videos on the challenges of rockets and how going past low earth orbit is impossible with them. You need links or are you capable of finding them?
@@MediaLieDetector I’m not familiar with what you are talking about feel free to send some links. I’m a freshman in aerospace engineering, I would assume you just need to reach escape velocity and have a high Delta V. Which is why it is better to have a three stage rocket. Instead of sending 6.5 million pounds to the moon you are only sending a 63,500 pound Command Service Module(including lunar lander) Each stage gets faster because the rocket loses a lot of mass and is still accelerating. Guy in video doesn’t know what he is talking about. Likely quoting Werner von Braun out of context. I bet he did say that going to the moon would require three rockets, that’s why he built a three stage rocket. The reason I believe in other conspiracies but not this one is because you would think by now there would have been an aerospace engineer that understands the equations of orbital mechanics and equations like the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation that would disprove that the Saturn V was able to go to the moon. The rocket was capable of taking men to the moon and back, therefore we did take men to the moon and back
It was so satisfying to see you unable to respond to someone you KNOW has actual knowledge on a subject you regularly try to talk down to people about. Not so easy when its not your gullible friends, is it pal? @@MediaLieDetector
@phnix6242 it can be across time. But in the right now moment or when talking about the total of something it can't be. Look at money, that can increase to over 100% growth. Over 100% things is usually a theory or digital percentage increase
The delay is IMMATERIAL, it could be 5 seconds, 5 hours, or 5 days, as long as you take the delay into account. Sibrel not understanding that simple fact sort of discredits him a lot.
yeah its like, how would they have not already figured that out? I'm pretty sure they tested/knew/understood the time delay long before that craft ever left earth.. i hear dem rocket scientist are pretty good with dem maths
We have rovers on mars rn that have 13 minutes, 48 seconds delay. NASA is not new to this concept lol. Also 3 second delay for voice around the world is just wrong. idk what "modern technologies" he is thinking of, but something as simple as discord can achieve around a 0.41 seconds even on the other side of the earth
Exaaaaactly. Like they could have tested it and practiced by timing a damn hand movement on the moons surface before liftoff even to make sure it was timed right. Common sense. This guy lacks it
You people can’t even work through the simplest of ideas in your head like a mounted camera but you think you can out think literal rocket scientists. Where did you find such confidence with such room temperature iq.
@@DukeHard you want them to call out the US and incur sanctions & Cia operations? No ones gonna speak out on the world stage like that , theres literally 0 political benefit
That’s kinda what happens when you have the ability to talk to anyone in the world. Say what you want, the man has talked to way smarter people than you.
Is it? I understand he's wrong in this case. But, if something has a 150% chance of happening, and you are able to reduce that chance by 33.33% wouldn't it still have a 100% chance? If it started at 100% that would be reduced to 66%.
It's a clear farce. Its hard to keep a huge lie like this alive. It's so funny that admittedly they couldn't pull off practice successfully, but they traveled into space to a new frontier and accomplished it flawlessly, both there and back on one tank of gas ⛽?? Haaaaaaaa
I love this argument because it’s just common sense. How arrogant do you have to believe that NASA faked the moon landing but didn’t have anyone smart enough to review the footage and see the things you saw?
@@Qrt45because like they said during this interview they never foresaw CZcams, podcasts etc… so whatever people saw on tv was all they had. No one had vcrs they couldn’t stop and rewatch over and over again to really analyze what they were looking at
@@smturchetta that’s not a good point at all…people didn’t have VCRs yet but film recorders were obviously a thing, and given the importance of the event they would have known that people could and would eventually rewatch the event. How do you think we have the ability to watch it today? Clearly it was understood that you would be able to watch it again.
1969 - Went to the moon 2024 - We lost the technology to go to the moon, but we created the iPhone, iPad, AI, V/R.....sent probes to Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto.....
Already been there 6 times, so the funding was cut. You can’t go there without a gigantic budget. It took a long time to find a cheaper way to carry humans there without that original 1960s government funding paying for everything.
@@fishrenfroeboyd7954 Learn to read...they claimed the lost the technology that they had to go to the moon meaning they lost the documentation which is absolute bullshit using today's tech it should be WAY easier to go to the moon..I call bullshit on their statement that they "lost it"
@@smturchetta correct. By the time they did the last lift off from the moon, the guy responsible for the panning said he messed up most of the previous lift off's and got it perfect on the final one.
I'm willing to bet Bart would turn down the opportunity to debate a Astronaut because he knows it would make him look bad and he would sell less books.
I’ve tried to figure this one out myself….still not super clear but I remember there being different types of fuels used to get to the moon. It’s not possible if you only used one type of fuel. You can calculate the weight and clearly that wouldn’t add up, but with alternate fuels that weigh less, makes more sense to me but I’m still not convinced 😂
It’s 1/6 earth gravity, but there is no atmosphere… also, there is no fire because there is no oxygen. Come on Joe. Must have forgot to take his alpha brain
Ive always wanted to know how fast the Command Module was orbiting the moon ie how much speed did the lander need to achieve to dock with it again and how much gas would that require? Didnt look to be carrying much.
People who think this way should pay kerbal... There's no air in space so why would you need to have your rocket burning the whole there? 8 trips to fuel your rocket? The thing that took off from the moon had a small rockets on the bottom. It only needs to lift that small capsule into orbit. There is no air on the moon and it is 1/6 the gravity. It's not crazy to think it was done.
@@devpandya1715 Yep, Elon is talking about what it will take to bring Starship to the moon and back. A skyscraper of a rocket ship, that will be 100% re-suable compared to an expendable lander where 99% of the mass of the Saturn V was expended.
Micro meteorites no, dust being kicked up from the astronaut and hitting the flag causing slight movement, yes. Also suggesting we could get astronauts to the moon but not figure out how to make a camera tilt is laughable. The fire…. Yeah there is no fire in space as there is no oxygen, that’s not how fire or engines work… good lord this guy ate paint chips as a kid.
yeah and Bart tried to sue him for it and all the witnesses for Buzz saying Bart was the aggressor got it dismissed... Im glad showed the world what an idiot this guy is
Bart Sibrel studied under Norm McDonald's new neighbor, the Professor of Logic at the University of... something. And Bart definitely does not have a dog house
Clearly a joke. Everyone knows this, but they’re really good at doing what they’re told (and they’re told to mock anyone who even brings this subject up).
What puzzled me, Neil goes down the ladder and kicks up a lot of dust with his boot. Lander coming down does nothing to the dust with its engine, 1/6 the gravity how long would it have taken for that dust to settle back down? Figure it would be something similar to a helicopter taking off or landing in a dusty environment there is a lot of debris in the air. So on the moon there is no air and low gravity that dust would have taken a very long time to settle back down.
This guy has 7.4 million subscribers. Crazy. You don’t think they would’ve thought about all these calculations and the delays when they did this? IF it’s fake?! They’re not stupid.
Yeah the USSR/Russia, and the Entire World (at least 50 other spacefaring nations) would have to be in on the hoax.. which would mean that all the wars and conflicts around the world are also fake.. (all these countries cant 'hate' each other, but then still agree to the 'space lie', someone would get fed up and expose it).. and its all for what? just so a handful of gov's can skim a fraction of a penny from their tax dollars? ..That doesn't make sense, they could easily write whatever they wanted to scam into any random defense bill and no-one would know or care.. no need to create 50+ agencies around the world with thousands of potential whistle blowers, and countless 'fake' photos for anyone to debunk at any time.. Its almost like it would actually be cheaper and easier to just do the things they say they are doing, than to risk one whistle blower exposing the whole scam..??
They have ship simulators that future cruise ship captains practice on. They are mini boats with reduced rudder and controls reaction to simulate how a full size ship reacts. It’s kinda like driving your car, when you need to make a turn you have to plan waaaaay ahead or else you’ll overshoot where you need to go. They probably had something like that
@@gatonegro187 Yea but if you have ever tried downloading anything from the internet, you would know there is LIGHT YEARS difference between downloading a movie vs a text file. Thats even with todays high tech tech. Now imagine something a human lifetime older. No way!
So much easily disproven BS here don’t even know where to start. One thing that immediately comes to mind though is that it took NASA several missions to perfect the tracking of the LM ascent due to the mentioned time delay.
Bart Sibrel studied under Norm McDonald's new neighbor, the Professor of Logic at the University of... something. And Bart definitely does not have a dog house.
Answer to Joe’s question by ChatGPT; When viewing footage of a moon lander leaving the moon, it may appear as though there is no propulsion because there is no atmosphere on the moon. Unlike on Earth, where we can see rocket exhaust and flames when a spacecraft takes off, the lack of atmosphere on the moon means there is nothing for the rocket exhaust to interact with and become visible. In reality, the moon lander does have propulsion systems that are used to lift off from the lunar surface and return to orbit. These propulsion systems generate thrust by expelling gases at high speeds, propelling the spacecraft upwards. While the lack of visible exhaust can be deceiving, rest assured that the moon lander would indeed have used its propulsion systems to leave the moon.
@@MysticWolf1223 Lol 😅 Your statement can be true for yourself! * keep believing what you want and lying to yourself!* What else is a lie? Like the earth is NOT Flat ?
@@MysticWolf1223 Do you know how many mission to the moon ? Supposedly be fake ? Answer: 6 Do you know how many people supposedly walked on the moon ? Answer: 12 Isn’t that funny that America faked moon landing over 6 times!?😅 I think they’re obsessed with this fake project, otherwise why they keep faking it!
@@cryptoesquire3168 Nothing can be trusted. However we can’t use a blank statement saying ChatGPT can’t be trusted at all. Cross-reference check can help. In this case, instead of ruling out ChatGPT response, it is better to see if what is been said can be argued or proven false. I think this explanation seems reasonable in this instance at list on this point, as I did a research on ChatGPT response and it could well be a true response to that question.
The fact that Buzz Aldrin smashed his fist through Bart’s whiny face in 2002 is one of the funniest things that has happened since the dinosaurs went extinct.
Punched him b/c he wouldn’t swear on bible that he went to moon, seems Buzz acted extremely irrational towards such a simple & easy request. Surprised such unhinged behavior coming from him, which just calls more into question….
Little man syndrome. Emotionally reactive to the point of violence because words/ideas hurt him, without even a personal insult. Feminine. Womanly. Little boy at the most masculine, if that.
Doesn't NASA put mirrors on the moon during the Apollo Moon missions so us normals can use a laser to calculate the distance between the earth and the moon? That would kind of prove that we did put something up on the moon. What was the film technology like during the same time of the moon landing. We did have some good photography on the U2 and A12, but motion photography was not the best.
A long time ago… Coworker: You know the sun is way closer than they say it is right? Me: How so? Coworker: Shiiiit, it’s hot ain’t it? This is that guy.
Joes phone: Eddie Bravo.. 23 missed calls
Dude he’s out there. XD I sympathize for sure but damn. Stick with jiu jitsu eddie
😂😂
🤣🤣🤣
👑👑👑😂😂😂
Why don't we have high quality pictures of all of our equipment. Idk there are just so many ways you can prove it true but they don't do any of them. The backpacks they made would never have done what they claim. So much sussy stuff with the moon landing.
We need Eddie Bravo on this one to look into it.
😂😂😂
😂
Eddie Bravo would simply test the camera communication timing with any movement on the moon beforehand.
😂😂😂
Eddie Bravo and Alex Jones entered the chat
Bart sounds like the Dinosaur from "Toy Story", anyone else hear it? 😂🦖
Now that you say it I can hear it
Yes!! 😂
Inconceivable
Dude can't use the joystick and jump at the same time...
bruh all I hear is Rex now.
We need Flint Dibble back on this case.
Fuck it let him run the pod from now on
Lmaooooo 😂🤣
No.... we need flint's father.... Who probably did some geo on the moon.
@@T.v.d.V is the moon even real or just an optional illusion? Who knows 🤷🏾♂️
I didn't hear one point he made his face was too punchable. Terrible representation for that side of the argument
I was tired this morning, tired this afternoon, and now tired this evening. I have a 150% chance of sleeping tonight
Bravo
Bro this is comedy, thanks for the laugh dawg 🫡
So you believe the landing was staged!?
Hmm
Except there’s no rest for the wicked. Trust me. 😎✌🏻
Sleep paralysis has entered the chat
This dude saying every day there is a 50% chance so being on the moon three days means there’s a 150% chance LITERALLY MADE ME DUMBER BY HEARING IT. I’m dying inside.
Your math isn't correct. Probability is multiplicative, not additive. So it's 50% first day, 75% being hit day 1 or 2.
87.5% being hit on day 1, 2, or 3.
But your point is correct.
@@hwhackI love it when people like you cook.
Yeah, I couldn't believe anything else that he said that involved numbers serious after that.
Amen
@@hwhack That was his point. Did you not watch the video?
The amount of thrust needed to leave the surface of the moon is equal to or greater than one queef.
Lunar queefs
I have literally cried laughing for 15 minutes over this comment.
Excuse me is a Queef and a half
A queef is 6 times more powerful on the moon.
This math check out.
For me, losing the schematics and original footage is like losing the Declaration Of Independence. It just doesn't happen by mistake.
Exactly. We’re talking about mankind’s supposed greatest achievement
@@fordifly1368 According to a recent NASA spokesperson they need to solve the problem of going through the Van Allen radiation belt before they can go to the moon!!!
There is so much wrong with NASA and the BS they have told the public.
Of course they still have them.. they’re hidden in a vault
Of course they still have them.. they’re hidden in a vault
Why does he sound like the kid that keeps teabagging me in cod
Lmfao 😂😂
That is nuts 🌰🥜
Right? I'm still goin' through therapy. {o.0}
I died
Because your KD is .6 LOL jk
Bad math: The calculation is not 50% + 50% + 50% = 150%. Probability is conditional. The proper calculation is 100% - 50%^3 = 87.5% chance of getting hit or rather, a 12.5% chance of not getting hit. No reason to think his 50% figure is correct either.
I'm not sure this fella is the brightest.
As soon as I heard him say that I came to the comments lol. What a dumbass
Jealous of your math skills.
That's correct!
@@beautybird4757It's simple math lol
Listening to him for 5min makes me realize why Buzz Aldrin socked him in the face.
This is the guy???
I came here to say i understand completely and support the actions of buzz.
I'm half way through the interview and this guy is so f***ing stupid. First the flag moving slightly as the astronaut jumps past is static electricity. 2nd lead acid batteries did not power the lunar module it was a fuel cell, tanks of O2 and hydrogen. Simple things he should know. There are better arguments to be made then he is bringing.
@@JSSTygeryeah. On Sept.9 2002. I totally would've done it too. Aldrin won the self defense case cuz buddy was such a douche about everything (and didn't seek medical attention afterwards)
He said buzz hits like a bitch
He forgot to add Kurt Angle to the mix before his calculations xD
Scott Steiner, Math.
"I GOTTA DUMB MYSELF DOWN"
🚨🚨🚨
Dude believes the moon is real.
God made the sun and the moon and the stars !
Yeah, the moons def not real. Same with high and low tides being attributed to the gravity of it. But those are probably fake too right
@@dirtykingsgaming and humans made god.
And you need to read some books or go back to school if you’re actually serious.
Next thing you’ll tell me the moon isn’t made of cheese! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I want to hear him say ‘inconceivable’ 🤣☠️
😂😂😂💀💀💀
😂😂😂🤭
Underrated comment frfr 🤭
"You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means."
@@SteveAustin-zv1nn 😂
I don't know whether it was fake or not. The only thing I know that doesn't make sense is we've been planning to go back to the moon for a while now and it just seems damn near impossible to even get anything to land on it right. If you done something 5 or 6 times 50 years ago it should be no problem doing it now
You can literally see the shit they left behind on the moon with telescopes, there are a lot of pictures.
I also think that the reason they destroyed a lot of the technology and stuff was because they didn't want the Russians to get ahold of it.
40 years ago everyone thought airliners would follow Concorde lead and air travel would be at Mach 3.
How did that work out? Money speaks. Concorde was too expensive to operate and despite 27 years of operation, only had one fatal accident, but it was scrapped and despite all the advances in technology, airlines prioritised capacity over speed.
The same goes for the Apollo programme. The reason it has funded, was because of the Cold War, as the Soviets started to scale back and wane, interest shifted towards profitable low orbit space technology for satellite launchs, GPS, telecommunications etc.
The best rebuttal to the Moon landing was a hoax theory, was the Soviet's response. They even begrudgingly printed it in Pravda that the hated Americans had landed on the moon. So the Soviet's best scientist's accepted it as fact, despite have every reason to dismiss it.
My dad had lots of sex 40 years ago. Now, i can't even get a girl hold my hand. There you go. Irrefutable refutation of your argument.
@@irisobobo Irrefutable proof.
The budget and manpower were like 50 fold higher in the 1960s, and it still took a decade. While we've always planned on going back, serious plans and money to do it are very recent events. Also, while the physics and math are the same, the technology we're going to use is astronomically (pun intended) different. This means we are basically designing, testing, and building everything from scratch.
Losing all the footage is kinda crazy after completing the biggest mission in human history
That was a lie. They have all the footage. The originals for some of the tapes were reused on later missions.
@@bkanthack "NASA admitted in 2006 that no one could find the original video recordings of the July 20, 1969, landing. Since then, Richard Nafzger, an engineer at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, who oversaw television processing at the ground-tracking sites during the Apollo 11 mission, has been looking for them."
Thank you. Because it never happened 😂
@bkanthack NASA say it themselves that they lost all the data and videos, but maybe you know something they don't
Probably sold to some ultra wealthy azzhole.
That’s not how percentages work lmao 50% a day does not equal 150%, unfortunately that initial statement completely ruins his credibility.
Yeah this guy lost any thing he to say after I heard him say that dumb shi!
Everything he said ruins his credibility
You know out of all that was said, I didn’t have a problem with that. Easy mistake to make if you aren’t a math person.
IMMEDIETLY paused and came to the comments once i heard that shit lmao
@@Aeradom2000 he certainly quotes a lot of math as evidence to his claim for someone who doesn't understand math.
I saw a live talk with Neil Armstrong. Of course, someone asked him what he says when people challenge that they actually went. His answer, brilliant: He said "I don't worry about it. Someday, someone will go back, and they'll find all the crap we left up there."
Including the reflector that's on the moon that one can point a laser to and get a beam back.
We have satellites that can see the crap we left up there
He has a lot more faith in humanity than I do.
Have we done that yet? Lol
No hes talking about actual doodoo. They took a dump on the moon. Cant fake that.@@thewarrior195
For those who stopped watching after the “150%” calculation, it doesn’t get better…
Where's CZcams's authoritative "Context" box when I really need it
Right??! The fuck, CZcams... Get it together already...
@@justinklenk don't worry I sent them a sternly worded email
lol that percentage calculation is all i needed to hear
The rest of his evidence was no better. But yeah I found myself zoning out right after he said that
I love how JR… throws the disclaimer “it looks fake, but it might be real…. I’m not an astronaut so idk” 🤣
It's oddly devoid of dust. The thrust should have kicked up a ton of dust. But I'm no moon expert so idk.
What if the majority was blown away on landing? 🤔
It’s a model on wires lol
@@bobbygetsbanned6049 they vacuumed the surface first
Yupp that's why he is a pieceof shit .. hes corrupted , he hasn't been legit since 2013
It's both. They went there AND they filmed on a stage. NASA and the government needed the PR and spectacle of having great film footage for "live" broadcasts, so they ran a film stage on the side, rather than take the risk that cameras on the moon, and ALL of the other logistics, would work properly. This explanation makes the most sense to me.
Finally, an enlightened member of society. Nice to meet you.
Also, there's no such thing as the Red and Blue party.. notice how our rights slowly are getting taken away.. notice how there's pics of the Clintons buddying up to Trump.. as long as we're fighting over the idiots, the more they take away.
You dont need to worry about the delay at all if the camera pan was just tied to a local event like the ignition
Young Jamie is going to have to visit an ophthalmologist, to correct the damage from all the eye rolling during this podcast.
I’m always fascinated by how calm and collected he is during some of the more brain dead guests and bozo comments by Joe. Guy must do yoga.
@@matthewjalovick When you're getting paid like that you would easily shut up
Exactly. He needs a raise😩😩😩
Found the liberal
The dude is like 54 years old
I bet he'd argue that Buzz Aldrin's fist never landed on his face.
Yeah but buzz still lied trust a guy named buzz 🤣🤣🤡
@@frankcastle2045Right cause all it takes to be invalid is your name 🤦♂️
Is this the guy he punched. I can see why.
@sorinsilaghi yes, same guy
☠️@@farmerdave33
Kept track throughout this video and can't find a single thing Bart said that was true. The closest he got was talking about Starship requiring several refuels to go to the Moon, but it's not even relevant cause Starship is a completely different launch vehicle.
Why would that even be the case?
Once you escape Earth's orbit, you're 90% of the way to anywhere in the solar system!
After listening to this guy I'm 150% certain the moon landing is real.
lol, same.
What?
Agreed
@@Flat_Earth_Addy Because he gives these arguments that are REALLY EASY to refute. For me, I wish Joe would allow me to sit with him for 30 minutes and write down his best arguments for why we did not go to the moon. Then, I would spend some time on each argument and do research on the web, then I would come back a few days later and have rebuttals for each of his points. It'd be TOO EASY. Because the moon landing is a fact. My father (and mother, both) worked for General Dynamics who helped develop some of the stuff needed for the moon missions, and (when I was a kid) I saw some of it. Thousands and thousands and thousands of people that all broke the problem down into smaller tasks, and America conquered each of those different obstacles. So, it's ludricious to believe that we did not go to the moon. It's too easy to prove that we did.
So, in ways, @KyleKnickerB, is right. The more to listen to someone who is defending quite a contrary position with only arguments like HOW DID THE CAMERA MOVE WHEN SOMEONE NOT THERE TO MOVE IT? And, that's the best argument he has? Or, they DESTROYED ALL THE SCHEMATICS FOR THE EQUIPMENT or ALL THE RECORDINGS TAPES WERE DESTROYED. Well, they destroyed the schematics (probably more lost them), because I said it above. It's like keeping blueprints for the Horse and Buggy. Why keep it? Because no one is gonna build a horse and buggy anymore, and technology for NASA's equipment was outdated before it was even launched. Always, with stuff like that, it is always outdated before used, similar to Microsoft and Xbox where the consoles sold are years behind what is available in PC space -- because it takes time to get through the design phase and make millions of console, and you always do it on hardware and architecture that is already in use, so it's cheap, cheap, cheap to produce. Thus, that's why all of NASA's plans are just junk and useless, worthy of the trash bin. Maybe keep a few plans somewhere, but rest would just be scrapped or recycled. It's take campus-size facilities to store it, keep it air-conditioned, keep it guarded where people won't break-in and sleep there, etc. Basically, this stuff is so simple to defend and to understand, if you drop the conspiracies viewpoint.
Dude's doing some Scott Steiner math
lolol
10/10
The numbers don’t lie. And they spell ‘disaster’ for you
What happens when adds kurt angle into to the mix?
You know they say all men are created equal, but you look at me and you look at Samoa Joe and you can see that statement is NOT TRUE! See, normally if you go one-on-one with another wrestler you got a 50/50 chance of winning. But I'm a genetic freak, and I'm not normal! So you got a 25% at best at beating me! And then you add Kurt Angle to the mix? Your chances of winning drastic go down. See, the three-way at Sacrifice, you got a 33 1/3 chance of winning. But I-I got a 66 2/3 chance of winning, 'cause Kurt Angle KNOOOWS he can't beat me, and he's not even gonna try. So, Samoa Joe, you take your 33 1/3 chance minus my 25% chance, and you got an 8 1/3 chance of winning at Sacrifice. But then you take my 75% chance of winning (if we was to go one on one), and then add 66 2/3 cha-percent, I got a 141 2/3 chance of winning at Sacrifice! Señor Joe, the numbers don't lie, and they spell disaster for you at Sacrifice!"
Back with the classic JRE topics I see 🙌😁
Its soooooo great!!! Fun Stuff
😂😂😂
Joe just goes with whatever way the wind is blowing 😂😂
There are five reflecting panels on the moon that were put up between 1969 and 71. If we never landed on the moon, I wonder how they got there? 🤔
Og jre watchers: ahhh shiii here we go again...
Ha! I was thinking the same thing.
😂 Rogan has gone from believing in the moon landing, to thinking it’s fake, to believing in it, back to thinking it’s fake.. all in
Yep
The sheer amount of fuel even 1/6 of Saturn rocket to get off the moon I mean come on the tanks would be bigger than the lunar lander easily. This is coming from a believer too.
JR definitely doesn’t believe anyone has stepped foot on the moon, clearly.
Disclaimers or not, it’s rather obvious.
3 sec delay from Atlanta to Iraq? Where did they get this dude from? He clearly doesn't understand speed of light nor distance.
And you've clearly never been to Iraq calling someone back home. There absolutely is a delay.
@@kevindflowers234 yeah but we've all skyped with people on the other side of the world with ZERO delay
@@kevindflowers234I have with almost no delay. The moon takes under 2 seconds for a radio wave to reach.
@@ryankowalski3670 are you stupid to understand how much technology has advanced since 1972 or do you wanna go back to listening to al your music on 8 tracks because its just the same
What is he talking about, a three second delay from Atlanta to Iraq? I speak with people on the phone routinely (California > Germany & Romania) and there's no delay.
I talk to my buddy in Australia (im UK) we tested the delay and it's about 1-2 seconds depending on connection. Amazing really.
His remark about Von Braun writing that 30,000 times the fuel would be required is missing context. Calculations he's referring to were probably done long before it was decided to go with multi-stage rockets.
Bro doesn’t understand that when Werner von Braun said it would take three rockets to go to the moon, he built a three stage rocket. Dramatically reduces weight and increases Delta V.
Watch NASA’s videos on the challenges of rockets and how going past low earth orbit is impossible with them.
You need links or are you capable of finding them?
@@MediaLieDetector I’m not familiar with what you are talking about feel free to send some links.
I’m a freshman in aerospace engineering, I would assume you just need to reach escape velocity and have a high Delta V. Which is why it is better to have a three stage rocket. Instead of sending 6.5 million pounds to the moon you are only sending a 63,500 pound Command Service Module(including lunar lander) Each stage gets faster because the rocket loses a lot of mass and is still accelerating.
Guy in video doesn’t know what he is talking about. Likely quoting Werner von Braun out of context. I bet he did say that going to the moon would require three rockets, that’s why he built a three stage rocket.
The reason I believe in other conspiracies but not this one is because you would think by now there would have been an aerospace engineer that understands the equations of orbital mechanics and equations like the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation that would disprove that the Saturn V was able to go to the moon.
The rocket was capable of taking men to the moon and back, therefore we did take men to the moon and back
@@MediaLieDetectorsounds like you need to do some actual research outside of your flat Earth videos
In the book he doesn't say it's for fuel. He takes inspiration from the Columbus voyage and the extra ships are for spare parts.
It was so satisfying to see you unable to respond to someone you KNOW has actual knowledge on a subject you regularly try to talk down to people about. Not so easy when its not your gullible friends, is it pal? @@MediaLieDetector
50% chance per 24 hours equals 87.5% for 3 days, not 150% lol. This guy can't even do basic math!
Nothing hs more than 100% chance
@phnix6242 it can be across time. But in the right now moment or when talking about the total of something it can't be. Look at money, that can increase to over 100% growth. Over 100% things is usually a theory or digital percentage increase
Maybe we can get him to play the lottery lol
it is still very high probability
The math aint mathing
We all have now lost 150% of our brain cells after watching this. 😂
nah that shit fake af
@@ZzLiGHTNiNGzZ if you’re special I would see how you think that.
...And that is 150% true.
Prove it. @@XxAverageJoexX
@@XEra404 get educated.. or get a telescope. There is shit left on the moon. Tard.
The delay is IMMATERIAL, it could be 5 seconds, 5 hours, or 5 days, as long as you take the delay into account. Sibrel not understanding that simple fact sort of discredits him a lot.
yeah its like, how would they have not already figured that out? I'm pretty sure they tested/knew/understood the time delay long before that craft ever left earth.. i hear dem rocket scientist are pretty good with dem maths
His voice should disqualify him
We have rovers on mars rn that have 13 minutes, 48 seconds delay. NASA is not new to this concept lol.
Also 3 second delay for voice around the world is just wrong. idk what "modern technologies" he is thinking of, but something as simple as discord can achieve around a 0.41 seconds even on the other side of the earth
He’s got that “if people are trying so hard to disprove my theory then I must be correct and it’s true” logic
Exaaaaactly. Like they could have tested it and practiced by timing a damn hand movement on the moons surface before liftoff even to make sure it was timed right. Common sense. This guy lacks it
Is the cameraman still stuck on the moon 🤔
Remote control?
You people can’t even work through the simplest of ideas in your head like a mounted camera but you think you can out think literal rocket scientists. Where did you find such confidence with such room temperature iq.
Right lol
@@smithical100 They pretend that did not exist.
Why aren't Russia, China, and India not debunking the U.S Moon landingssss?
I think that's the most important question.
@@DukeHard you want them to call out the US and incur sanctions & Cia operations? No ones gonna speak out on the world stage like that , theres literally 0 political benefit
They are in on it in order to hide Jesus.🤣
Hahaha there are 9 to 11 satellites right now shooting millions of photos of that landing site, since 1970… dumbest conspiracy ever
They are all buddies, making a show for us, and we are fcking monkeys believing in all their bs.
3:00 Hey Jamie pull that up!!!
This guy just repeats what some guy allegedly told him, no sources no evidenece. Save your time and skip this one lmao 😂
Nah I need someone to laugh at today
That’s kinda what happens when you have the ability to talk to anyone in the world. Say what you want, the man has talked to way smarter people than you.
Like you?
Who you trying to protect
@@north6star Im confused on who you are referring to lol, yea Joe has talked to alot of smart ppl. But this guy aint one of them 😭
“150% chance”. That’s a new one!
Is it? I understand he's wrong in this case. But, if something has a 150% chance of happening, and you are able to reduce that chance by 33.33% wouldn't it still have a 100% chance? If it started at 100% that would be reduced to 66%.
@@s133p3r0 You can't have more than 100% chance for something to happen, literally makes no sense.
It was good having rex from toy story on.
There were thrusters, that just didn't show up on film
I love how Neil literally explained all of these to the Joe and now he acts like he never heard that.
He’s just listening man, that’s part of what a podcast is
Joe always does that
It's a clear farce. Its hard to keep a huge lie like this alive. It's so funny that admittedly they couldn't pull off practice successfully, but they traveled into space to a new frontier and accomplished it flawlessly, both there and back on one tank of gas ⛽?? Haaaaaaaa
Small minded peoples always make sure their opinions are the loudest.
Neils a pretentious corporate shill
The only reason I suspect its real is that they would have tried harder to make it look real if they were going to fake it
I love this argument because it’s just common sense. How arrogant do you have to believe that NASA faked the moon landing but didn’t have anyone smart enough to review the footage and see the things you saw?
I mean what if this was literally just the best they could do
@@Crystal__Clearexactly
@@Qrt45because like they said during this interview they never foresaw CZcams, podcasts etc… so whatever people saw on tv was all they had. No one had vcrs they couldn’t stop and rewatch over and over again to really analyze what they were looking at
@@smturchetta that’s not a good point at all…people didn’t have VCRs yet but film recorders were obviously a thing, and given the importance of the event they would have known that people could and would eventually rewatch the event. How do you think we have the ability to watch it today? Clearly it was understood that you would be able to watch it again.
1969 - Went to the moon
2024 - We lost the technology to go to the moon, but we created the iPhone, iPad, AI, V/R.....sent probes to Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto.....
We had 6 different moon landings
@@chrischan9318 What the F does that have to do with his statement? NOTHING.
Already been there 6 times, so the funding was cut. You can’t go there without a gigantic budget. It took a long time to find a cheaper way to carry humans there without that original 1960s government funding paying for everything.
@@fishrenfroeboyd7954 Learn to read...they claimed the lost the technology that they had to go to the moon meaning they lost the documentation which is absolute bullshit using today's tech it should be WAY easier to go to the moon..I call bullshit on their statement that they "lost it"
You can't find men with big enough balls to do it these days!
It sounds like Joe is snorting Zyn off screen 😂
Lolz
Is the camera actually panning up or is the shot a wide shot and it’s been zoomed in in post?
I think it’s panning because they said they messed up the timing of it panning on a few of the prior attempts
@@smturchetta correct. By the time they did the last lift off from the moon, the guy responsible for the panning said he messed up most of the previous lift off's and got it perfect on the final one.
How did the camera pan up as it's leaving?
I'm willing to bet Bart would turn down the opportunity to debate a Astronaut because he knows it would make him look bad and he would sell less books.
Is it ten years ago on JRE? LOL
They've done studies you know; 50% of the time it works 150% of the time.
“It’s called Steelman, it’s illegal in 5 countries. There’s bits of real ivermectin in every bottle.”
People would definitively go skydiving if the chute had a 87% chance of failing and they would definitely succeed the first time.
@@s133p3r0 XD
I’ve tried to figure this one out myself….still not super clear but I remember there being different types of fuels used to get to the moon. It’s not possible if you only used one type of fuel. You can calculate the weight and clearly that wouldn’t add up, but with alternate fuels that weigh less, makes more sense to me but I’m still not convinced 😂
Why was Rogan breathing like he just blew a fat line this whole pod?
It’s 1/6 earth gravity, but there is no atmosphere… also, there is no fire because there is no oxygen. Come on Joe. Must have forgot to take his alpha brain
With that analogy stars cannot burn cuz theres no air.
Um, stars don't actually burn. It's energy released nuclear fusion.
@@swedensbestrapper nuclear fusion and combustion are far and away two different things.
@@drtomintucson exactly
@@swedensbestrapperthere's no logic in your statement lol
Back at it like a crack addict
Are we back in the 90s?
🤣😂🥹😩😭😭🙃🤪
Ive always wanted to know how fast the Command Module was orbiting the moon ie how much speed did the lander need to achieve to dock with it again and how much gas would that require? Didnt look to be carrying much.
3 second delay? I have spoken to people all over the world with no delay. Is he talking about using Radio waves?
JRE been fire this last week
People who think this way should pay kerbal...
There's no air in space so why would you need to have your rocket burning the whole there? 8 trips to fuel your rocket?
The thing that took off from the moon had a small rockets on the bottom. It only needs to lift that small capsule into orbit. There is no air on the moon and it is 1/6 the gravity.
It's not crazy to think it was done.
Yeah plus isn't Elon saying this because of the payloads they would be bringing
@@devpandya1715 yea
@@devpandya1715 Yep, Elon is talking about what it will take to bring Starship to the moon and back. A skyscraper of a rocket ship, that will be 100% re-suable compared to an expendable lander where 99% of the mass of the Saturn V was expended.
Micro meteorites no, dust being kicked up from the astronaut and hitting the flag causing slight movement, yes. Also suggesting we could get astronauts to the moon but not figure out how to make a camera tilt is laughable. The fire…. Yeah there is no fire in space as there is no oxygen, that’s not how fire or engines work… good lord this guy ate paint chips as a kid.
it's not about figuring out how to make the camera tilt, it's about whether it's worth the added weight to do so
Plasma of the sun and the fire of the earth are all plasma phenomena , and pure vacuum is incoherent in Relativity metric system
The first 10 minutes of Astronauts Gone Wild is hilarious
Anytime you start a sentence with " I guess you could guess" u shouldn't be talking about space travel.😂😂😂
Didn’t Jamie say that
Is that the guy Buzz Aldrin cracked? Lmaooo
Oh damn is it? He aged badly lol
@@RYTF5 I was going to say, I could've sworn this dude used to look way different lol
Yes, same guy
yeah and Bart tried to sue him for it and all the witnesses for Buzz saying Bart was the aggressor got it dismissed... Im glad showed the world what an idiot this guy is
Bart Sibrel studied under Norm McDonald's new neighbor, the Professor of Logic at the University of... something. And Bart definitely does not have a dog house
How much wattage is needed to broadcast how far?
Look up radial and axial dissipation too.
@@Razehell42 Look up "big ass recievers".
@@Razehell42 Doesn't it depend on wavelength?
I wanted to hear about the AI... Is the portion of this episode where they talk about AI on CZcams somewhere?
"If the Moon missions are real, then anyone who says otherwise is an idiot." Only true thing he said the whole interview.
Nope
ignorance for you must be your favorite ,well keep going !
The only real thing is that every astronuat that went to the moon was as a Freemason 💀💀
Because challenging things Is being an idiot.... Read yourself first
12 people lied bout it? All NASA employees lied bout it? Can't we see rover tracks by hubble.how come Russia n China didn't call bs
“150 percent chance”
Clearly a joke. Everyone knows this, but they’re really good at doing what they’re told (and they’re told to mock anyone who even brings this subject up).
Nothing about his body language or delivery indicates that was a joke. You're literally the only person that thinks that.
Is this a repeat? I feel like we’ve had joes take on this. A few times…
What puzzled me, Neil goes down the ladder and kicks up a lot of dust with his boot. Lander coming down does nothing to the dust with its engine, 1/6 the gravity how long would it have taken for that dust to settle back down? Figure it would be something similar to a helicopter taking off or landing in a dusty environment there is a lot of debris in the air. So on the moon there is no air and low gravity that dust would have taken a very long time to settle back down.
This guy has 7.4 million subscribers. Crazy. You don’t think they would’ve thought about all these calculations and the delays when they did this? IF it’s fake?! They’re not stupid.
Yeah the USSR/Russia, and the Entire World (at least 50 other spacefaring nations) would have to be in on the hoax.. which would mean that all the wars and conflicts around the world are also fake.. (all these countries cant 'hate' each other, but then still agree to the 'space lie', someone would get fed up and expose it).. and its all for what? just so a handful of gov's can skim a fraction of a penny from their tax dollars?
..That doesn't make sense, they could easily write whatever they wanted to scam into any random defense bill and no-one would know or care.. no need to create 50+ agencies around the world with thousands of potential whistle blowers, and countless 'fake' photos for anyone to debunk at any time..
Its almost like it would actually be cheaper and easier to just do the things they say they are doing, than to risk one whistle blower exposing the whole scam..??
Trueee
Fake
subscribers means very little now days.. you can buy them with bots.. how many views does his videos get thats the question.
Rich people do stupid things all the time. The cyber truck fiasco for example.
When you let people that live in their moms basement get on JRE
Exactly lol
Geaux Tigers.
Answer his argument then instead of insulting him. How did Nixon talk to the Astronauts on the moon with zero delay? I bet you're triple boosted.
Let me ask, why is he stupid to you yet believe what you're taught at school as fact
@@Dmaj089 why do I believe someone with a PHD over this guy??? Is that a serious question 🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️
They have ship simulators that future cruise ship captains practice on. They are mini boats with reduced rudder and controls reaction to simulate how a full size ship reacts. It’s kinda like driving your car, when you need to make a turn you have to plan waaaaay ahead or else you’ll overshoot where you need to go. They probably had something like that
500,000 people worked on Apollo missions. They all stayed quiet. Sure. This guy is a buffoon.
Jamie pull up that video of the bear on the spaceship!
Yeah, they beamed a video with a perfect signal from the moon to American TVs in real time in 1969.
Bro. We STILL get data from Voyager 1 that was launched in 1977 and is outside the heliosphere. Stop it.
@@wealthedgedata. Not video.
Exactly.
@@joneconomidis2125 and what is video? data?
@@gatonegro187 Yea but if you have ever tried downloading anything from the internet, you would know there is LIGHT YEARS difference between downloading a movie vs a text file.
Thats even with todays high tech tech.
Now imagine something a human lifetime older.
No way!
I've been "on the fence" about the moon landing for years, but this guy convinced me!
Joe, c’mon already. So many more important things to use your platform to discuss.
Where's my boy Eddie Bravo when you need him?
Hes looking into it.
1:57 Joe just having a little bump for himself😂🎉😅
Nice catch! 👃🍬
😂🫵🏾
Woah, The Cable Guy really let himself go.
So much easily disproven BS here don’t even know where to start. One thing that immediately comes to mind though is that it took NASA several missions to perfect the tracking of the LM ascent due to the mentioned time delay.
This conversation still happening in 2024. 🙄
Shouldnt stop Ever.
And still the greatest conspiracy today. Should still be talked about in 3024
Should've been happening from day one. The truth needs to be known once and for all that the government cannot be trusted.
It looks like a firecracker went off to separate them on the launch.
Yea lack of oxygen makes things you know… not burn the same as on earth. 😉
@@arekay21 , lack of oxygen? They’ve shown the American 🇺🇸 blowing in the wind on the moon. 😂
i like video where astronaut is using tape on the moon to repair something and looks like he is just on earth
Bart Sibrel studied under Norm McDonald's new neighbor, the Professor of Logic at the University of... something. And Bart definitely does not have a dog house.
Answer to Joe’s question by ChatGPT;
When viewing footage of a moon lander leaving the moon, it may appear as though there is no propulsion because there is no atmosphere on the moon. Unlike on Earth, where we can see rocket exhaust and flames when a spacecraft takes off, the lack of atmosphere on the moon means there is nothing for the rocket exhaust to interact with and become visible.
In reality, the moon lander does have propulsion systems that are used to lift off from the lunar surface and return to orbit. These propulsion systems generate thrust by expelling gases at high speeds, propelling the spacecraft upwards. While the lack of visible exhaust can be deceiving, rest assured that the moon lander would indeed have used its propulsion systems to leave the moon.
Keep believing what you want and lying to yourself 🙄
@@MysticWolf1223
Lol 😅 Your statement can be true for yourself!
* keep believing what you want and lying to yourself!*
What else is a lie? Like the earth is NOT Flat ?
@@MysticWolf1223
Do you know how many mission to the moon ? Supposedly be fake ?
Answer: 6
Do you know how many people supposedly walked on the moon ?
Answer: 12
Isn’t that funny that America faked moon landing over 6 times!?😅 I think they’re obsessed with this fake project, otherwise why they keep faking it!
ChatGPT is no better than TV, I have some oceanfront property in Montana if you believe that….
@@cryptoesquire3168
Nothing can be trusted.
However we can’t use a blank statement saying ChatGPT can’t be trusted at all.
Cross-reference check can help.
In this case, instead of ruling out ChatGPT response, it is better to see if what is been said can be argued or proven false.
I think this explanation seems reasonable in this instance at list on this point, as I did a research on ChatGPT response and it could well be a true response to that question.
The fact that Buzz Aldrin smashed his fist through Bart’s whiny face in 2002 is one of the funniest things that has happened since the dinosaurs went extinct.
Punched him b/c he wouldn’t swear on bible that he went to moon, seems Buzz acted extremely irrational towards such a simple & easy request. Surprised such unhinged behavior coming from him, which just calls more into question….
@@cryptoesquire3168you forgot to mention that this guy lured aldrin into his hotel room under false pretenses and harassed him
@@alen2773”false pretenses” that’s ironic
Little man syndrome. Emotionally reactive to the point of violence because words/ideas hurt him, without even a personal insult. Feminine. Womanly. Little boy at the most masculine, if that.
Womanly and feminine to be that emotionally reactive about words or ideas without any personal insult added
I agree with this guy. 150%
Doesn't NASA put mirrors on the moon during the Apollo Moon missions so us normals can use a laser to calculate the distance between the earth and the moon? That would kind of prove that we did put something up on the moon. What was the film technology like during the same time of the moon landing. We did have some good photography on the U2 and A12, but motion photography was not the best.
Us normals dont have 200k for the gear that can bounce of those retroreflectors.
He sounds like Scott Steiner doing math 😂
SUFFERING SUCCOTASH!!!!
😂
Haven't heard that phrase since Looney Tunes lol
Thuffering thuccotash
Inconceivable!
Really how much thrust would you need to get off the ground in 1/6 gravity of earth how ever would you find that out joe
This is prime time JRE
Conor McGregor KOs Chandler by shoulder strikes to the leg in round 2. You heard it here first.
I’m here for it bruh.
😂😂😂
😂😂
A long time ago…
Coworker: You know the sun is way closer than they say it is right?
Me: How so?
Coworker: Shiiiit, it’s hot ain’t it?
This is that guy.