@hunchbacked I see, so in order to perpetuate the hoax, incorrect technical documentation is written and published and eventually uploaded to the internet. I find this ridiculous, and conclude the more likely and logical explanation is that you lack the capability to understand it.
41 years and no-one else has made a goddamn peep about anything being wrong with the stuff, then hunchbacked the genius rolls into town. I'm sorry, but you lack credibility.
@krisdevalle Keep in mind that hunchbacked, who claims to be a computer expert and to have worked on missile guidance systems, can't even figure out that logic gate inputs can process analog signals just as easily as digital signals since all the logic gate cares about is whether the signal input is either high (above a specific voltage threshold) or low (below a specific voltage threshold). He concluded that analog signals going into digital logic gates is "proof" that the AGC couldn't work!
@GoneToPlaid The audacity of these people just staggers me. Hunchbacked has basically announced that he is the genius investigative reporter who has cracked the entire thing open, based on documents freely available for decades.
The logic is just so broken; as if this masterful hoax, having fooled other spacefaring nations, is so shot full of holes some armchair expert can just merrily skip in and find glaring inconsistencies. What a twat.
@hunchbacked Every single Apollo video that you have made which someone chose to respond to has been debunked. I even proved you were wrong on one of them to the point where you finally had to admit it. What do you consider to be your best evidence? I'll debunk that, too.
I can give you that you debunked me on one point, and GTP has found some.
But the fact that all my videos have been debunked is a preposterous lie; it is completely wrong; most of my points have not been debunked, and the apollogists lack the technical competences to debunk me.
I am going to make more and more technical videos, and you will be totally unable to debunk them.
@hunchbacked I shouldn't have made such a general comment, as I have not seen all your videos and all the videos responses to them. Instead, let me say that every critical response that I *have* seen has exposed your errors.
I think I can debunk just about anything you make. You know why? Because you're wrong. We went to the moon. I don't think I've seen any hoax claim that requires advanced technical competence to debunk except radiation. It only takes intelligence. So what's your best?
@hunchbacked True. Some technical competence would be required for that. It would also be necessary for you to present the evidence in a way that someone else could see and evaluate. Any claim you make which can be judged for its merit is one that can clearly be observed.
Anyone could generate some meaningless and/or unverifiable stream of technobabble. It is easily debunked by just asking them to SHOW the evidence and PROVE its relevance.
What IS your claim about the computer and circuitry?
@hunchbacked In the meantime, what evidence have you presented or can you present in a video which you think can't be debunked? I'm not talking about just making some claim but actually showing the evidence you believe was faked.
Well it might happen that it could be the converse which would be confirmed.
And I can tell you one thing: If the converse is effectively confirmed, if there is a clear confirmation that there is no Apollo lander on the moon, neither equipment left by the astronauts, I won't mock at those who were convinced Apollo was real and called me an idiot for not believing it; I'll just feel sorry for them.
@hunchbacked It's the fact you are confined to spouting your theories on youtube, a video sharing site that is not moderated, that is mockworthy. That you have, so far, failed to present your theories or findings in any forum that matters, or where your work can be examined, that makes it worthy of mockery. You are the equivalent of the crazy man yelling on the corner until you put your work up for review. With real programmers, engineers, etc. Until then, you're a ripe target.
Find an aerospace engineer who backs up your claims. Right now you're some punk just blithering on about what you think you know, with little to no credibility.
Come up with some real fucking evidence. Pointing with disbelief is just not going to cut it, champ.
Oh you are probaby talking about these ridiculous little tests made at little speed and low altitude!
The LEM had to start with a horizontal velocity of 6000km/h at an altitude of 100Km, and it had to arrive on the lunar ground with both horizontal and vertical velocities nullified!
Who knows how many more dangerous places like that, but hidden from view, are there. There is a lot of work ahead of us before we start building tourist resorts on the Moon :-)
@BlisterHiker I just found this really neat Kaguya/SELENE Terrain Camera digital terrain model of the Marius Pit and the associated lava tube. watch?v=SVGjQ4MP6k4
@hunchbacked
"I'm constantly doing research."
The only thing you are constantly repeating is "I do not understand it, so it must be fake".
Rob260259 9 months ago
@hunchbacked Your reading of the LM technical documentation might eventually lead you to spell its name correctly... but I doubt it.
mercatormac 9 months ago
@mercatormac
doubt what you want, you are still on the delusional side
hunchbacked 9 months ago
Didn't we discover one of these on Mars, too?
Astrobrant2 9 months ago
@hunchbacked I see, so in order to perpetuate the hoax, incorrect technical documentation is written and published and eventually uploaded to the internet. I find this ridiculous, and conclude the more likely and logical explanation is that you lack the capability to understand it.
41 years and no-one else has made a goddamn peep about anything being wrong with the stuff, then hunchbacked the genius rolls into town. I'm sorry, but you lack credibility.
krisdevalle 10 months ago
@krisdevalle Keep in mind that hunchbacked, who claims to be a computer expert and to have worked on missile guidance systems, can't even figure out that logic gate inputs can process analog signals just as easily as digital signals since all the logic gate cares about is whether the signal input is either high (above a specific voltage threshold) or low (below a specific voltage threshold). He concluded that analog signals going into digital logic gates is "proof" that the AGC couldn't work!
GoneToPlaid 10 months ago
@GoneToPlaid The audacity of these people just staggers me. Hunchbacked has basically announced that he is the genius investigative reporter who has cracked the entire thing open, based on documents freely available for decades.
The logic is just so broken; as if this masterful hoax, having fooled other spacefaring nations, is so shot full of holes some armchair expert can just merrily skip in and find glaring inconsistencies. What a twat.
krisdevalle 10 months ago
@krisdevalle
The documentation I have studied is from NASA.
It is in the Apollo Journal, and other documents originally from NASA.
I find it strange NASA would lput false documents on its own site!
hunchbacked 10 months ago
@hunchbacked When some credible peers review your findings and support them, get back to us, huh?
krisdevalle 10 months ago
@krisdevalle
I haven't submitted my works to any scientific review yet.
Nobody has said me my works were good, but nobody has said me they were incorrect either.
hunchbacked 10 months ago
@hunchbacked Every single Apollo video that you have made which someone chose to respond to has been debunked. I even proved you were wrong on one of them to the point where you finally had to admit it. What do you consider to be your best evidence? I'll debunk that, too.
Astrobrant2 9 months ago
@Astrobrant2
I can give you that you debunked me on one point, and GTP has found some.
But the fact that all my videos have been debunked is a preposterous lie; it is completely wrong; most of my points have not been debunked, and the apollogists lack the technical competences to debunk me.
I am going to make more and more technical videos, and you will be totally unable to debunk them.
hunchbacked 9 months ago
@hunchbacked I shouldn't have made such a general comment, as I have not seen all your videos and all the videos responses to them. Instead, let me say that every critical response that I *have* seen has exposed your errors.
I think I can debunk just about anything you make. You know why? Because you're wrong. We went to the moon. I don't think I've seen any hoax claim that requires advanced technical competence to debunk except radiation. It only takes intelligence. So what's your best?
Astrobrant2 9 months ago
@Astrobrant2
There are hoax claims about the computer and electronic circuitry which do require technical competence!
If you think you can debunk anything, you overestimate yourself.
hunchbacked 9 months ago
@hunchbacked True. Some technical competence would be required for that. It would also be necessary for you to present the evidence in a way that someone else could see and evaluate. Any claim you make which can be judged for its merit is one that can clearly be observed.
Anyone could generate some meaningless and/or unverifiable stream of technobabble. It is easily debunked by just asking them to SHOW the evidence and PROVE its relevance.
What IS your claim about the computer and circuitry?
Astrobrant2 9 months ago
@Astrobrant2
It has not been debunked, and sooner or later I'll present it to a scientific review.
hunchbacked 9 months ago
@hunchbacked In the meantime, what evidence have you presented or can you present in a video which you think can't be debunked? I'm not talking about just making some claim but actually showing the evidence you believe was faked.
Astrobrant2 9 months ago
@Astrobrant2
Although I concede Gonetoplaid has found some valid points, most of his debunking is incorrect and shows his ignorance of perspective.
And each time I have realized I had made a misinterpretation, a new analysis allowed me to find the real incoherency which has never been debunked.
hunchbacked 9 months ago
@Astrobrant2
Rawmonkno has tried to debunk my videos on the Apollo computer, but his counter videos are worth nothing for he has royally ignored most of my points.
He has even tried to invent a new syntax to justify the weird Apollo program, but this syntax is inconsistent and could not be practically used.
hunchbacked 9 months ago
@hunchbacked Make it sooner, because everyone thinks you're just full of shit, and we will be delighted to see that truly confirmed.
krisdevalle 9 months ago
@krisdevalle
Well it might happen that it could be the converse which would be confirmed.
And I can tell you one thing: If the converse is effectively confirmed, if there is a clear confirmation that there is no Apollo lander on the moon, neither equipment left by the astronauts, I won't mock at those who were convinced Apollo was real and called me an idiot for not believing it; I'll just feel sorry for them.
hunchbacked 9 months ago
@hunchbacked It's the fact you are confined to spouting your theories on youtube, a video sharing site that is not moderated, that is mockworthy. That you have, so far, failed to present your theories or findings in any forum that matters, or where your work can be examined, that makes it worthy of mockery. You are the equivalent of the crazy man yelling on the corner until you put your work up for review. With real programmers, engineers, etc. Until then, you're a ripe target.
krisdevalle 9 months ago
@krisdevalle
You are totally right on this point.
hunchbacked 9 months ago
@hunchbacked I find this all highly dubious. The lander itself was extensively tested in Earth orbit. We know it works.
krisdevalle 9 months ago
@krisdevalle
It was tested?
How?
When?
hunchbacked 9 months ago
@hunchbacked Apollo 9.
Find an aerospace engineer who backs up your claims. Right now you're some punk just blithering on about what you think you know, with little to no credibility.
Come up with some real fucking evidence. Pointing with disbelief is just not going to cut it, champ.
krisdevalle 9 months ago
@hunchbacked
Oh you are probaby talking about these ridiculous little tests made at little speed and low altitude!
The LEM had to start with a horizontal velocity of 6000km/h at an altitude of 100Km, and it had to arrive on the lunar ground with both horizontal and vertical velocities nullified!
Where are the tests which prove it could make it?
hunchbacked 9 months ago
@GoneToPlaid
"serve as a good location for a long term lunar base"
Exactly. Simonsen et al (1997) - "Behind various thicknesses of lunar regolith". The MARS report on my describes it as well.
Awesome video again GTP.
Rob260259 10 months ago
@Rob260259
type: "on my channel..."
Rob260259 10 months ago
@Rob260259
typos!
:-)
Rob260259 10 months ago
It almost feels like flying over on an airplane.
Who knows how many more dangerous places like that, but hidden from view, are there. There is a lot of work ahead of us before we start building tourist resorts on the Moon :-)
A+ grade video.
BlisterHiker 10 months ago
@BlisterHiker I just found this really neat Kaguya/SELENE Terrain Camera digital terrain model of the Marius Pit and the associated lava tube. watch?v=SVGjQ4MP6k4
GoneToPlaid 10 months ago