It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 10
377
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by JameSimon
reply to post by Myrddin Wyllt
 


Great post man, we have different ways of thinking but you get my full respect. I'm a believer that we went to the moon, and some recent photos are proof. Now, is NASA telling everything they saw up there (and on mars)? Thats another subject.

one other thing. People oftenly talk about technology constrictions in 1968, but lets not forget that NASA is SEVERAL YEARS more advanced than us, mortals. And, after bringing tons (me thinks) of rocks from up there, what could we do? Yearly trips to prove that "we just can"? No.

Cheers


Thank you very much, full respect back to you, I don't think NASA told us everything by far, and if they did find anything up there, I think they definitely wouldn't tell us. If they did find something, I think there would be a world revolt, Religions would collapse into myths, we would then possibly realize that we, and our planet are pretty much insignificant in the bigger picture of the Universe and Cosmos.

"People oftenly talk about technology constrictions in 1968, but lets not forget that NASA is SEVERAL YEARS more advanced than us, mortals."

I agree completely, but as NASA and the MILITARY work virtually hand in hand, and the military are 50 years ahead of "US" (apparently), so a fair assumption would say that NASA are at least 50 years ahead technologically also, if not more! Scary when you think about it, If they can keep military secrets for decades, what else are they capable of?

Peace




posted on May, 1 2010 @ 07:51 AM
link   
A couple of comments on the OP...

Originally posted by WWu777
...against astronomers appointed by NASA to debate the moon hoaxers such as Phil Plait of www.badastronomy.com, Jay Windley, the Mythbusters program, and other "NASA Propagandists" as he calls them.

I find this a little strange. You, WWu777 portray yourself as a seeker of truth, and you decry use of tactics to misrepresent. Yes?

Then please provide your evidence that Phil Plait, Jay Windley, and the Mythbusters (??) are all "appointed by NASA". If you cannot, then the moral thing to do would be to withdraw that claim.


He looks only about 25 or so, yet he's the best debater I've ever seen.

Which debate are you referring to, precisely? You have only posted links to his Youtube videos, and he has blocked all negative comments/commenters. Did you not know that?

So please explain your use of the term 'debate'.


His arguments and reasoning are so thorough and scholarly.

As a quick example, I see he uses a balloon (that would be RUBBER) and hair or toilet paper to demonstrate static electricity effects relating to a nylon flag in a vacuum next to a spacesuit. Okayy.
He also does not realise that the presence of air (of unknown dryness) makes such comparisons useless. He also doesn't even know that static electricity can repel as well as attract.

That's pretty basic stuff he screwed up. So do you perhaps mean he is scholarly compared to *your* knowledge?


Everything he says is sourced and documented.

I'll be giving examples later that show quite the reverse, but you tell us which are the best, in your scholarly opinion.


He has documents on everything, even stuff from the 60's.

Do you realise how silly that sounds? Apollo 11 WAS back in 1969.


He even performs scientific experiments

I'm sorry to disagree, but I've only seen flawed demonstrations devoid of scientific merit. But like I said, it's your thread, so you be specific - tell us which ones you thought were the very best. Choose carefully (there's one I find particularly hilarious - I hope you choose it)...


In doing so, he has unmasked critical errors and omissions of Phil Plait, the Mythbusters, and others.


This is handwaving at its worst. BE SPECIFIC.

By the way, if you don't choose, I'll just assume the first three you posted are your favorites...



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by pezza
 


With all respect,

Your a PhD holding scientist and, say he "just does not cut it"
and I know because I have a PhD and i'm a scientist.

Why mention the PhD? Does that mean you probably right because of mentioning you have a piece of paper with writings on them? That gave you magical powers that increased your brain capacity when it was handed over to you?

if your a scientist than that's enough IF you provide some calculations he mentioned and posting them here yourself and explaining to us why he is wrong that would help.

If you can't than your post "just does not cut it" I'm a designer and I have a diploma in swimming that is the only proof that I can swim.....

[edit on 1-5-2010 by AquaTim84]

- typos - i hate dictionary autocomplete ....

[edit on 1-5-2010 by AquaTim84]

[edit on 1-5-2010 by AquaTim84]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by IconoclasticTalamasca
 


Try looking at the sun directly on Earth, your eyes will burn pretty damn quickly. The astonaut in question may not be looking at it directly. Further the astronaut seems to be facing away or side on to the sun which would reduce exposure. Third if this NASA footage was indeed fake then surely they would just go for a retake instead of letting him get it wrong!

Most importantly of all, the youtube user is referring to science fictions films for reference, seriously now, sci-fi for scientific debate.


I get you, but would you have to be facing the sun to receive radiation burns in almost zero atmosphere? From what I gathered, there is also radiation on the surface of the Moon. People have gotten sunburns and retinal damage on a cloudy day on earth. The damage would be greater on the moon, especially with no protection on the face.

I understand he used sci-fi, but that is not the issue. It was explained by scientists at NASA that visor was needed to block out the solar radiation, yet two astronauts are don't have them down. One for almost an hour. Schmidt is actually in the sun which is why they told him to pull it down.

ETA: just read Phage's post concerning the construction of the visor. If there are multiple layers, then I can understand why the dosage would be low even though it appears that the entire visor is up. Thanks.

[edit on 5/1/10 by IconoclasticTalamasca]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by AquaTim84
reply to post by pezza
 


With all respect,

Your a PhD holding scientist and, say he "just does not cut it"
and I know because I have a PhD and i'm a scientist.

Why mention the PdD? Does that mean you probably right because of mentioning you have a piece of paper with writings on them? That gave you magical powers that increased your brain capacity when it was handed over to you?

if your a scientist than that's enough IF you provide some calculations he mentioned and posting them here yourself and explaining to us why he is wrong that would help.

If you can't than your post "just does not cut it" I'm a designer and I have a diploma in swimming that is the only proof that I can swim.....

[edit on 1-5-2010 by AquaTim84]

- typos - i hate dictionary autocomplete ....

[edit on 1-5-2010 by AquaTim84]



I dont mean any offence, but I do this stuff (as in R&D) 24/7 . Have done for a fairly long time. To my trained eye the content in these videos isnt even pseudo science, it is satire.

Why does my opinion count? I am a reviewer on several peer reviewed scientific journals, one having an impact factor of 4.0. So I see alot of submitted work of varying quality.

Based on the first couple of videos I would put this in the "youve got to be kidding me" category



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Based on the first couple of videos I would put this in the "youve got to be kidding me" category...

...I understand where you are coming from, but wouldn't it be fair for the other members on this thread to give us an example so we can think for our selves that what you say is true in your professional opinion?

We can't simply go ahead and believe what you are saying. But if it's so obvious to you that it is not even close to pseudo science than could you please give us some examples?

Kinds regards,





[edit on 1-5-2010 by AquaTim84]

[edit on 1-5-2010 by AquaTim84]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


What this amazing guy says agrees with what the editor of NEXUS magazine said during his interview with Theo Chalmers on EDGE MEDIA TV.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by AquaTim84
Based on the first couple of videos I would put this in the "youve got to be kidding me" category...

...I understand where you are coming from, but wouldn't it be fair for the other members on this thread to give us an example so we can think for our selves that what you say is true in your professional opinion?

We can't simply go ahead and believe what you are saying. But if it's so obvious to you that it is not even close to pseudo science than could you please give us some examples?

Kinds regards,





[edit on 1-5-2010 by AquaTim84]

[edit on 1-5-2010 by AquaTim84]


im not sure where to start.

best advice for the author is to open with a stronger video. Because his argument is fairly weak in the first one. So much so I was compelled to actually post a reply to this thread. And i have posted maybe only 5 or 6 times since i registered in 2007 too.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by pezza

Originally posted by AquaTim84
Based on the first couple of videos I would put this in the "youve got to be kidding me" category...

...I understand where you are coming from, but wouldn't it be fair for the other members on this thread to give us an example so we can think for our selves that what you say is true in your professional opinion?

We can't simply go ahead and believe what you are saying. But if it's so obvious to you that it is not even close to pseudo science than could you please give us some examples?

Kinds regards,





[edit on 1-5-2010 by AquaTim84]

[edit on 1-5-2010 by AquaTim84]


im not sure where to start.

best advice for the author is to open with a stronger video. Because his argument is fairly weak in the first one. So much so I was compelled to actually post a reply to this thread. And i have posted maybe only 5 or 6 times since i registered in 2007 too.


Yet you still don't state any argument that he's in the "are you kidding me category", If he needs to open with a strong video, changing the soundtrack would do that if I take your argument literally.

So please, I'll ask you once again. Use your scientific approach on one piece of his film that is easily proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is hoaxing everyone.

The stronger opening video can't be something you based your claims on that it's all bogus.

- typo's-

[edit on 1-5-2010 by AquaTim84]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok

If we didnt land why did soviet Russia not speak up ?


This is one of the main points in support of the moon landing really.
Most would say, "Why?".

Well, the simply fact, is that at this time, the Soviets had fully penetrated into the highest levels of the American intelligence community, and this is known by the spies who were eventually caught and sent to trial, etc. (let alone those who were not caught).

If we faked the moon landing, the Kremlin would have known it, and they would have fried our butts internationally.... Initially, they were winning the space race, but this was an utter defeat for them. If it was phony, they would have crucified us...

I'd like to see how the kid refutes the fact that we STILL use the mirrors installed during one of the Apollo missions, to make laser measurements from... I suppose we had sophisticated robotics back then? (that would HAVE to be the counter argument)...

Ridiculous.


Maybe the cold war was just a show


Sounds like you've got a topic for the really "out there" forum in the making, right there....


[edit on 30-4-2010 by Gazrok]


That is an old argument. Yeah it's a valid one. But it's not a smoking gun argument like the Van Allen Radiation Belts, the faked photos, faked footage of Apollo 10 of the Earth in the window, etc.

But it is outnumbered by the many counterarguments on the other side, such as:

- Why didn't the Soviets reach the moon first if it was possible and they were ahead? Especially since they calculated that there was no way to get a man safely through the radiation belt, and also enough fuel to return him.

- Why didn't the Soviets or any other country go to the moon since 1972? Not doing so would be like no one going to the Americas for 40 years after Columbus' voyage in 1492.

- Why can't we go back to the moon today? They keep making excuses.

Etc. Etc.

Those questions are just as valid.

Jarrah dealt with your question in his Exhibit D series, starting from part 7. Look it up on youtube.

Finally, you should note that not all whistleblowers make it into the mainstream media. For example, Kevin Ryan blew the whistle on NIST and their cheating on the computer model to try to validate the official fire explanation for the collapse of Building 7. Yet he is only featured in 9/11 documentaries, not on CNN or ABC.

Former FBI Chief Ted Gunderson is a whistleblower of many horrible crimes of the government. Yet he doesn't get on CNN either.

Likewise, if the Soviets blew the whistle, you'd not likely hear about it on CNN either. Most of the world's news does not get on CNN. Only a very very very tiny fraction of it does, the parts that the elite want you to hear.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
A charismatic Kid repeats the same tired arguments that have been beat to death. That sums it up.

What is the point other than he is a media hound and he has a few fans here?

He could at least come up with something original if he's going to have a fan club don't you think?



He does not repeat the same arguments. He has many new ones, all sourced and documented. Watch more of his videos and you will see.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Has 'Jarrah' ever posted here? Either way, may I offer another direct challenge...

Jarrah White, come on over to ATS and debate your claims.



That is laughable.

A single post on an internet forum does not equate to any sort of direct challenge. That you think it does is somewhat humourous
(I'm not slagging you, alot of people issue 'internet challenges' of the sort you just made)

You are stating that you are challenging him and talking a good show but unless you actually contact him directly then you are not challenging him - you are just acting like you are.

Email him or write him a letter.

But don't do what you just did. It is disingenuous.

*If you don't contact Jarrah directly and he doesn't respond to your post, are you going to pretend like he has been ignoring you? Then perhaps cite your post on the ninth page of a thread on a forum with tens of thousands of threads as proof that your challenge has gone ignored?





Oberg did something like this with Ralph Rene.


Edit:

Here is one of the Videos Jarrah made about Oberg's claim that he bet Rene $10,000:




*As of this video, there was no evidence that Oberg actually sent Rene a letter containing the offer of $10 000 if Rene could produce substantiation that the frontispiece on Carrying the fire was intended as a depiction of the Gemini 10 Collins EVA.

Duane Damon of the Education Forum (where Oberg was posting at the time) even offered Oberg $10 000 if he could validate his claims that he periodically reminded Rene of this by repeating the offer. That's right he offered him (Oberg) and Easy $10 000 for proof that he actually sent such letters to Rene.

Oberg has thus far not produced such proof or collected the monies offered - But at least he was there when the offer was made:








Oh, And here is an earlier video about that fiasco:








[edit on 1-5-2010 by Exuberant1]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

You know the strange thing? Tons of the moon attempt hardware was scrapped and engineers are scouring old tech to see how they overcame certain problems. This is to save them having to think it through a second time. We could of course fund them to research it a second time but that seems stupid.


That's a dumb explanation that makes no sense. If they overcame problems in going to the moon, it would be fully documented. FULLY.

Jarrah also would like you to see his "Flagging the Gems" series. He considers it his best presentation of the evidence:

www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
So much scattergunning... The classic tinfoil approach.

Me, I prefer to look at individual claims, and then carefully examine them PROPERLY.


It's worth noting that Jarrah White began a debate on IMDB, and then ran away when he was defeated on every point by Jay Windley.


Here is what Jarrah said about that:


I believe that someone is referring to the IMDB incident. I did no such thing. When I continued to ask Windley some questions that he repeatedly dodged, the administrators at the IMDB forum became rather trigger-happy and started deleting my messages. This is discussed in Part 3 of my video series "MoonFaker: The Punch Heard All Around The World". See attached.

www.youtube.com...


Incidentally, I wouldn't quote Windley, who has hoaxed letters from Astronaut Brian O'Leary, which Jarrah exposed here:

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Can you trust a hoaxer himself?



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Perhaps Jarrah is on ATS, but every time he posts he gets shot down in flames. He clearly prefers single sided discourse to debate. He also seems to have a lot of time on his hands to do his research. Why isn't he working on something useful?



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Interestingly enough, the LM was hailed as one of the crowning achievements of the Apollo program, as it performed essentially flawlessly in every mission. It was an absolute tribute to Grumman's engineering abilities.


Are you kidding? It couldn't perform at all on Earth. It failed when Armstrong tested it and almost nearly killed him. Luckily, he ejected in time.

So how could it perform flawlessly on the moon, which might have been staged?



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I don't care what any of you sceptics say, this guy is onto it. Having fixed beliefs is like carrying a hypnotic programme - being hypnotised into believing the onion is a delicious apple overrides the reality that it is still an onion. This guys analysis, coupled with all the books and lots of other information available on the web, in my eyes proves beyond any reasonable doubt that we are being lied to by the hypnotist - NASA.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


Really? Just post any old nonsense, and expect to get away with it? (Like this "White Jarrah" guy???)


Are you kidding? It couldn't perform at all on Earth. It failed when Armstrong tested it and almost nearly killed him. Luckily, he ejected in time.


This was your response, in the discussion about the LM. Correct?

'WWu" --- how can I tell you this politely?

The LM was NEVER TESTED ON EARTH!


Oh, but, but....yes, I know, you are actually (not so very accurately) referring to the LLRV.



en.wikipedia.org...



In December 1966 vehicle No. 1 was shipped to Houston, followed by No. 2 in January 1967, within weeks of its first flight. Modifications already made to No. 2 had given the pilot a three-axis side control stick and a more restrictive cockpit view, both features of the real Lunar Module that would later be flown by the astronauts down to the moon's surface.

... In December 1967, the first of the LLTVs joined the LLRVs to eventually make up the five-vehicle training and simulator fleet.

In all, NASA built five LM trainers of this type. During training flights at Ellington AFB near Houston, Texas, three of the five vehicles were destroyed in crashes. Two were an early version called the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle or LLRV. Neil Armstrong was flying LLRV-1 on May 6, 1968 when it went out of control. He ejected safely and the vehicle crashed. A later version was called the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle or LLTV and three were built. Two of these were lost in crashes on December 8, 1968 (piloted by Joe Algranti) and January 29, 1971 (piloted by Stuart Present). The other pilots also ejected safely from the crashing LLTV's.



They had FIVE of them, of various designs. For TWO YEARS!!!

And they trained often, for many, many many hours.

Try getting your facts correct. At least then somebody has to, since that YouTube crank can't (or won't).



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
What if we're all wrong? What if NASA told the truth and lied at the same time? Purely speculation of course, but imagine that we did in fact go to the moon, but that NASA has lied to us about almost everything.

Buzz Aldrin is supposed to have contacted NASA from the moon about some objects he saw while there: www.ufocasebook.com...

I have even read somewhere that the moon has somewhat of an atmosphere, and that one can walk around without a suit. Also that the moon slightly wobbles in and out of sunlight creating seasons in this little strip of wobble.

I'm very unintelligent when it comes to this stuff, but it's hard to tell what's real and who's fake when there are so many claims about so many things


Here is an entirely new scenario for us to ponder. Nothing we are taught about the moon is the truth. You can survive without the use of a suit, as there is an atmosphere, and in that strip we just talked about, there might just be some plant life. We already have bases on the moon and mars, either above or below the surface, and these are human-alien operated. There exists an entire mining operation on the lunar surface. There are more than one ALIEN base on more than one off the moons of Jupiter/Saturn.

Sounds silly, but why not? Also keep in mind that our moon is the only moon that faces the same direction as it orbits its planet. Why is that? Hope this at least adds to the excitement of this thread. S&F btw.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Roost
 



I have even read somewhere that the moon has somewhat of an atmosphere, and that one can walk around without a suit.


:face/palm:

That would be one of the baloney tales put out by John Lear. He likes to spin the yarns.

It is in the same category as a Human-like civilization Venus ( complete with cities, forests, and green oceans (!)
Yeah, right... )

Almost anything, no matter how crazy or "out there" that is put up on the Internet, and some people will come along and swallow it whole, lately.

I fear for the Human race sometimes....



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join