Moon charlatan Jarrah White caught out, deletes evidence

originally posted by: XtheOwl
I find it interesting how a message board supposedly devoted to conspiracy theories all too often resorts to unilaterally ripping conspiracy theories down.

Are you sure everyone here is on the same side?


XO

Believing in a conspiracy theory while ignoring all information, data and evidence which contradicts it is NOT conspiracy theory, it's delusion.

We have a problem here with people thinking that any claim can be made about anything and no evidence can possibly be presented to challenge that belief, and if you do then you must be a "shill".

Here, have this and lighten up:

Damn, replied when I should have edited

a reply to: Rocker2013

I personally think White provides a great deal of detail backing up his claims. He's not ignoring "information, data, and evidence", but providing us with research that often contradicts the recorded history of the Apollo moon landings.

I personally do not know what happened on these landings. I have read about them and studied them for years, and the more I read, the less I think I know for certain.

1. There is evidence that they happened as recorded by history.
2. There is evidence that they did happen, but structures from advanced civilizations were found, so that aspect was covered up.
3. There is evidence that some aspects of the landings were staged.
4. There is evidence that all of the landings were staged.
5. There is evidence that not only did the landings happen, but that the US and Soviets conducted at least 2 additional covert missions to the Moon after Apollo 17.

I don't know what the answer is, but I do think White raises some well-researched, intriguing claims.


XO

originally posted by: XtheOwl
a reply to: Rocker2013

I personally think White provides a great deal of detail backing up his claims.

You seem to have missed the part where he's a proven liar, fraud and certified moron who deletes any comments that point out his blatant lies.

a reply to: captainpudding

Prove he's a liar. Prove he doesn't believe what he touts. Look, he's prone to mistakes and sometimes, I've seen faults in his logic too but you have to take it easy on the accusations without proof. It's unfair, and to the unbiased reader who hopefully has a little chunk of common sense, your demeaning posts may actually draw positive attention towards Jarrah. Your posts reeks of hate. Don't hate the player, hate the game (the game being no replication/nor independant verification of Apollo since 1972)

a reply to: bobbypurify

Well, I mean the OP clearly shows Jarrah lying. There's also that time where he got his teacher to act in one of his videos then claimed she was a photography expert. But you may be right, and he's not intentionally lying and he's just like most hoax believers and is just copy/pasting things he doesn't understand and therefore doesn't realise the people he's parroting (Ralph Rene) for example were also rather stupid and very dishonest. As for no independent verification . . . what would you consider independent verification since you seem to think other countries and non-NASA sources don't count.

a reply to: bobbypurify

Prove he's a liar.

This has been done numerous times in a single, lengthy thread. Here are my favorite proofs that he knows he is not telling the truth:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: captainpudding

I see such a herd-mentality around these parts. Speak out against something patriotic and opposition are allowed to use terms like "stupid", "liar", and that all hoax believers are parrots that don't understand science and such. Seems like a lot of puffery. Come on over to my thread. I've brought some interesting anomalies in the photographic record and to the narrative, so have others. Feel free to enjoy the discussion but I've urged posters there to refrain from petty name-calling and such.

As far as verification, no, outside of LRO there's not a single photo of anything other than graphics of landscapes. LRO photos were promised to be "the smoking gun" and instead they were poor resolution, no matter how you slice it, and the Apollo remnants are simple pixels.

Off topic, but is this guy stuck in the 70's living in his mom's basement or something? Odd person.

a reply to: DJW001

I see nothing of lying. I see faults in his logic which doesn't mean he's lying. And that silly book sure did make an attempt to use that pictures as a space walk but was probably smart enough not to caption it, as it's deceiving and someday they would be called out. I put fault on the book.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

His voice and choice of hair-style/clothing kind of threw me off at first. In our neck of the woods (SW Michigan), he'd be classified as a "dork". But, I like his videos and he must be doing something right because people go to lengths to discredit him, on even the most minute detail, and use defamatory terms against him all the time. And it's allowed! He's done a great job of pointing out how the Pro-Apollo side use seedy tactics to push agenda as well. Now, I believe Apollo was a hoax but there's also a lot of BS from the Hoax side. I've seen it and it's deliberate. But not all. I choose what I want to believe through independant study.

a reply to: bobbypurify

I see nothing of lying. I see faults in his logic which doesn't mean he's lying. And that silly book sure did make an attempt to use that pictures as a space walk but was probably smart enough not to caption it, as it's deceiving and someday they would be called out. I put fault on the book.

Did you read the posts? Kovolev clearly states the 2 mm of aluminum shielding (the thickness of an average spacecraft's hull) would be sufficient to protect astronauts for a full day in the ERBs. Jarrah knew this conclusion perfectly well, then did a calculation using Kovalev's data to show the exposure a naked astronaut would receive. That was a deliberate falsehood. As for the Gemini photograph, the publishers of the book never stated it was an actual photograph of a spacewalk, and all of the documentation of the mission agrees that the camera was lost in space, therefore no photographs survive. Alleging that NASA claimed the photographs were real is a flat out lie.

Jarrah White is a congenital liar, who now claims to be studying astrophysics at University yet cannot do High School level physics calculations. Brilliant.

a reply to: bobbypurify

By your logic, the fact that Jarrah spends so much time trying to discredit NASA and using derogatory terms to describe people who believe NASA must mean that NASA is telling the truth!

originally posted by: XtheOwl
I find it interesting how a message board supposedly devoted to conspiracy theories all too often resorts to unilaterally ripping conspiracy theories down.

Are you sure everyone here is on the same side?


XO

There may in fact be conspiracies out there. But not everything is a conspiracy and the moon landings are not one of them. Moon hoax conspiracy theorists are delusional misanthropic sociopaths like that turd Buzz Aldrin decked when he was 80 something.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Off topic, but is this guy stuck in the 70's living in his mom's basement or something? Odd person.

Yes. He does not seem to be allowed to drive, either!

Double post.

a reply to: DJW001

DJ, please. We both know the pro-apollo side has done more name calling. That's not to say Jarrah is a saint, either.

As to the radiation data, I'll need to look into that more. Maybe you're right...

a reply to: bobbypurify

DJ, please. We both know the pro-apollo side has done more name calling. That's not to say Jarrah is a saint, either

Really? Maybe you need to read this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Jarrah White has earned the scorn that is poured on him.

As to the radiation data, I'll need to look into that more. Maybe you're right...

Yes, look in to the radiation data. Jarrah did and found he had to lie about it.

a reply to: DJW001

Haha, Jarrah White lives in your brain, and rent free I might add. Those quotes, other than the Windley insult, are quite knit-picky and seem to rely on your interpretation of them. And there's only 5 or so to choose from. Why don't you do yourself a favour and go to one of his YouTube videos and see how many insults he receives in the comment section, and from prominent pro-apollo posters!

Dealing in name-calling is immature, I'm guilty of it sometimes but it's something I'm trying to correct. It adds nothing but instead exposes an agenda you have for discrediting an indvidual, rather cheaply.

Your posts that expose his faults are fine - but the name-calling is really uncalled for.

a reply to: bobbypurify

Haha, Jarrah White lives in your brain, and rent free I might add.

If Jarrah dwells in some part of my anatomy, it is certainly not my brain!

Those quotes, other than the Windley insult, are quite knit-picky and seem to rely on your interpretation of them.

What part of telling an astrophysicist that he is not qualified to drive a garbage truck do you feel is nit-picky? Or saying that a noted science journalist is ignorant? Did you actually read what Jarrah wrote? It was a lengthy, viscious ad hominem attack. Whenever anyone points out Jarrah's lies and/or mistakes, he does not correct himself or refute the counter-argument, he accuses his critics of being shills, propagandists or worse.

And there's only 5 or so to choose from. Why don't you do yourself a favour and go to one of his YouTube videos and see how many insults he receives in the comment section, and from prominent pro-apollo posters!

You are confusing pointing out the fact that someone is indeed ignorant of the subject matter one is discussing with being insulting. Jarrah is ignorant, and covers his ignorance with lies. That is not an insult, it is a statement of observable fact.

Dealing in name-calling is immature, I'm guilty of it sometimes but it's something I'm trying to correct. It adds nothing but instead exposes an agenda you have for discrediting an indvidual, rather cheaply.

Where do I engage in name calling? When I said Jarrah is a liar, I provided two examples of his lies. How many more instances would you like to see? I am not interested in discrediting Jarrah as an individual; his own behavior does that. I am merely interested in correcting his false assertions.

Your posts that expose his faults are fine - but the name-calling is really uncalled for.

So it is okay for Jarrah to call someone who corrects his math a "vandal," but when I show that Jarrah is, by definition, a liar, that is name calling?