It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 15
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in


posted on May, 2 2010 @ 12:12 AM
reply to post by WWu777

I bet he's a 911 truther as well

[edit on 2-5-2010 by reject]

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 12:13 AM
reply to post by Byteman

Your logic is absolutely atrocious.

I am standing up for myself due to the fact that so many posters want to say that they simply do not like me.
And continue these personal attacks.

Well guess what. I didn't come here to make friends.

I came here to deny ignorance, but apparently the ignorant do not like to be denied.

So here is your thread back.

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 12:45 AM

Originally posted by dragnet53
There was not enough lead...

A very brief reply, as I am getting tired of people who clearly haven't even *thought* about doing a little research.

1. As stated, we DO know how much radiation the astronauts were exposed to, and it was miniscule.

2. LEAD would be pretty close to the WORST possible choice for cislunar radiation protection. The astronauts DID have significant protection.

I shall leave it at that. Go do some research.

PS - Josephus, you wont get any further replies from me. You are seemingly impervious to knowledge, and when added to your longwindedness... - this thread is much less cluttered with you ignored.

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 12:52 AM

Originally posted by Myrddin Wyllt
I just watched this, and it leaves me perplexed, the first guy is a photographic expert (allegedly - not doubting him, just that I can't substantiate this), Dr David Groves, and he is convinced

Convinced, but not convincing, I'm afraid.

'Dr' Groves is no photographic expert at all (nor are those he collaborated with, and I'm happy to elaborate..). He certainly has not even a basic understanding of cislunar radiation and thermal effects.

His claims have been thoroughly dealt with here:
As an example, using x-rays and thinking they are analogous to lunar surface issues is completely wrong (& pretty embarrassing).

If you don't agree or understand any of what's there, bring it back here and I'll be happy to help.

[edit on 2-5-2010 by CHRLZ]

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 01:13 AM

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by WWu777
[the LM] couldn't perform at all on Earth. It failed when Armstrong tested it and almost nearly killed him. Luckily, he ejected in time.


Just repeating this question for WWu777.

Please do the research and answer it. How many times did the LLRV successfully fly, and how many failures were there?

I'll make it easy for you, you can just focus on the LLRV-1 (or LLRV#1), which is the one that Neil had to eject from. If you count all the flights from the entire LLRV program it gets REALLY embarrassing for your claim.

Basically, WWu777, I want to see how you handle it when you get stuff WRONG. Are you brave enough to admit your errors, and apologise for misleading people here?

And can you explain why you didn't research this subject before posting that misinformation?

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 01:23 AM
reply to post by Josephus23

EVery thread you'e participated in is exactly the same. You come in, make an absurd argument, and then attack everyone that replies to you using the internet handbook of debating: 'circular logic', 'ad hominem' etc etc

Tell ya what, i'll try and show you how absurd your argument actually is.

I contend that astronauts could not have gone to the moon because there are ancient weapons on the moon that activate via proximity sensors. Where dont know where they are, because we havent mapped them.

But bullets kill! There is no way that the astronauts could have landed on the moon and avoided those bullets, so therefore man must not have landed on the moon!

You cant refute this, because the mapping hasnt been done. And you cant use the moon landing as evidence, because that would be a cicular argument!


Thats pretty much what you are arguing. You have no facts nor figures to back you up.. You are arguing from an point of view of ignorance, and refusing to even consider any piece of evidence that is presented to you.

You have no understanding of radiation, the fact that exposure time matters regardless of the strength or type of radioactivity. There were people that went onto the roof of Chernobyl with very little protection, where the exposure to radiation was 100,000 roentgens per hour. A lethal dose is about 100 roentgens per hour for a 5 hour period. Many of these people are still alive. Is it so difficult to understand that far smaller amounts of radiation allow a much longer exposure time without long term effects?

However, I expect that you will pretty much ignore everything in this post. As you have with every other post that either disagrees with you, or demonstrates how ridiculous your "argument" actually is.

[edit on 2-5-2010 by zvezdar]

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 01:40 AM
reply to post by Josephus23

Don't give up the thread yet mate.

We're winning this one.

That is why the believers are resorting to ad hom attacks and spurious analogies - they cannot refute Jarrah's points or yours. (Have you seen a point-by-point rebuttal anywhere to Jarrah's videos, you know a real one with video named and the times cited...? nope

Keep up the good work. And keep pointing out those inconsistencies. Don't allow yourself to get drawn into an argument with someone who is just trying to suck you into an argument to ruin your focus.

*I'm going to get attacked for this post.

[edit on 2-5-2010 by Exuberant1]

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 02:00 AM
I like how everyone is missing the forest for the trees, and completely ignoring the indisputable fact that NASA is giving edited videos/photographs/audio to the public. Even the astronauts refuse to provide a reasonable explanation as to why they are involved in manipulating the public.

You don't even have to deal with the issue of a moon landing hoax. They are manipulating the evidence and not giving us the full story!

Just that in and of itself should be enough to cause enough of a public uproar to demand an answer. The skeptics themselves don't even seem to care!

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 02:21 AM
For the flag to move prior to the astronaut passing it, I can only conclude it as static electricity.

The flag and the suit had similar charges which would create opposing forces.

James makes the assumption that one, the suit, may be charged. I will guess that the flag and the suit have similar charges and those charges were strong enough to repel the flag so it would move.

If it was air.. the flag would have moved after the astronaut moved past it and not before.

This is my theory.


posted on May, 2 2010 @ 02:39 AM
Jarrah White? Genius? Whipping NASA?! Ha! Yeah right. It's more like the other way around. His videos are just rehashes of old claims that have been debunked countless times.

I encourage those of you who have watched these videos, to do some research on your own. Do NOT take these videos at face value. He gets some of the simplest things wrong. His idea of a "polar orbit" is hilarious to say the least.

What would be even better is if Jarrah White himself could come here and debate the subject. But that's highly unlikely I know.

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 02:42 AM
reply to post by Exuberant1

Winning? LMAO
What are you winning?
Do you get a prize?
By what metric are you winning?

Anyways, falsely accusing people of using circular logic is it's own kind of attack. And guess who started Your hero Josephus.

Maybe if your real lucky, one of us might provide a point by point on the videos. That's not me though, at least not this close to bedtime.

Josephus' own links refute him, the one dealing with Lunar surface radiation clearly states that radiation isn't a problem short-term. He keeps ignoring that fact, like it will just go away, but it won't.

The video maker's points have been refuted time and again. I admit, the jumping on the moon idea is a bit new to me. But I'm sure it's as incorrect as the rest of the videos.

I wasn't even talking about Josephus, before he decided to claim that I was wrong about So you might want to reevaluate who is trying to argue with who.

Anyways, that's all from me for now.

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 02:49 AM

Originally posted by Byteman
Maybe if your real lucky, one of us might provide a point by point on the videos. That's not me though, at least not this close to bedtime.

I don't believe any such rebuttal will be forthcoming from you.

Maybe you'll give it your best shot. Or maybe you'll make excuses as to why you can't do it.

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 02:50 AM
Here's a 'quick' review, annotations & timings included, of the first video that the OP posted.

0:00 to 0:30
Irrelevant and indescribably kitsch intro sequence. Presumably intended to liken his abilities to that of James Bond - sadly he doesn't realise that JB is fictional and was neither a scientist or a particularly good investigator. Hmm, maybe there is a comparison to be made.

Anyway, enough ad hominem, on to the actual content..

0:30 to 1:35
Irrelevant references to Bill Kaysing (a widely discredited Apollo Denier) and William Brian (who?). Mr Brian apparently was the first to notice a flag wobbled, but he didn't know why. Oh, but he did believe we went to the moon..

1:35 to 1:40
JW gives an 'example' of flag movement, yet I can see no significant movement whatsoever. Anyone esle? Maybe I'll do a proper frame analysis later.

1:40 to 1:45
JW gives a second 'example. *Again* I can see no flag movement, but clearly the *camera* moves...

1:45 to 2:05
JW gives an example from Apollo 16 where the astronaut is unfurling/handling the flag. He repeats a small sequence where the astronaut's hand can CLEARLY be seen moving against the lower part of the flag and the bottom of the flag gets flicked upwards. It appears JW was 'unaware' there might have been some stiffening material along the lower edge of the flag...

But wait a minute, was Jarrah REALLY unaware of that???

Here's a link to the full clip (something I don't think Jarrah wants you to see) - it's not all that big (RealMovie format, sorry - see below*):
Take a look for yourself, from about 2/3 of the way through, as he struggles to get that flag to cooperate. The fact that there is stiffening material at the bottom seems pretty obvious. Yet Jarrah deliberately omitted all that from his careful selection. Why is that, do you think?

Then he shows us his attempts to recreate the effect, and of course it's not going to happen without that stiffening strip.

2:30 to 3:35
JW shows the Apollo 15 video where the flag wobbles slightly as astronaut Dave Scott passes by. Much repetition and dramatic music.

3:35 to 5:40
Incomprehensible, unprofessional and irrelevant ad hominem attacks on posters with contradictory opinions. Frankly, this sort of garbage shows what type of person he is. Ever seen that sort of childish behavior in a real scientific demonstration? UNbelievable...

5:40 to 6:50
JW presents the possible reasons (proposed by another - anyone noticing a pattern here?) for the movement, namely:
1. The astronaut brushed the pole and/or flag.
2. He kicked dirt against the pole
3. His foot 'pushed' a mound of regolith in such a way that it moved the pole
4. The vibration of his boots moved the pole and/or set up a resonance.
5. A static charge effect caused the flag to be attracted and/or repelled
6. There was an emission (eg from a pressure valve) on the astronauts suit or PLSS that impinged on the flag.

Note that these are not verbatim, and I've added some other possibilities (there is in fact at least one more..). Static electricity is certainly not my favorite, but I'll leave that for later in the thread... I'm not sure why he chose it to start with.

6:50 to 7:25
JW returns to making further ad hominem attacks - this stuff is extremely tiresome.

7:25 -
Temporarily (i hope) ignoring all other possible explanations, JW now does a demonstration of how static would affect the flag. NOTE:

1. I'll admit I have no degree in triboelectrics (additions/corrections are welcome), but my understanding of static electricity is that this type of attraction or repulsion can only happen if there is a medium to allow the charges to 'pull' or 'push' on each other. While there are minute traces of gases and other 'stuff' near the lunar surface, it is effectively a vacuum. So static attraction/repulsion will only happen if the charged materials touch.

2. He does NOT make any attempt to use matching materials. Static effects vary dramatically in different materials, from extreme positive to extreme negative. Eg:
Note the value range in the 'Affinity' column: +60 to -190. Arbitrarily picking materials means his 'results' are completely useless.

3. He doesn't seem to realise that static effects aren't always attractive.

4. He makes no comment about the conditions for his 'demo' - if the air was humid, the static charge would dissipate rapidly.

In summary, what a complete waste of time.

Funnily enough, I don't think the flag wobble had anything to do with static either. It just goes to show that you can come to the right conclusion using all the wrong methods.

So, all up, this really is a superb example of how this type of youtuber deceives and misleads, relying on the fact that most of his audience are not very science literate.

He uses fancy graphics, titles and music to give the impression of professionalism (when it's just the software choices he makes..).

He uses very brief snippets to mislead, like his comments that the flag moves when it is the camera (1:40).

He deliberately omits information, like the earlier part of the Apollo 16 video that shows the stiffening material that explains the later flag movement where the bottom flicks upwards. (1:55)

He does not provide links or citations, trying to ensure that lazy viewers will not CHECK his sources and see the full context.

He uses completely inappropriate 'analogies' and 'demonstrations' that prove nothing of use, and do not contain a single shred of decent methodology, (eg where are his definitions, assumptions, error ranges, explanation of choices of materials, provisos?) (1:55 & 7:35)

And of course he just plagiarised all his points from others anyway, ignoring previous deBUNKings. It would be nice to see an original thought - he couldn't think of any *other* reasons for the flag movement? - you know, the other 5 possible reasons that he is probably hoping his viewer has now forgotten about?

Anyway, feel free to debate the points above, but please come armed with knowledge and references.

(* May I recommend 'Real Alternative' if you want to play RM's without all the associated bloatware... dunno if it works with Vista/7, sorry)

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:17 AM
reply to post by CHRLZ

That wasn't a very good rebuttal.

And you know that.

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:32 AM

Originally posted by Exuberant1
That wasn't a very good rebuttal.
And you know that.

I'll let the *informed* audience decide.

In the meantime, here's a radical, way out suggestion.. TELL ME WHERE I AM WRONG.

I know that's not the way you operate, preferring to post content-free stuff as you have just done.

That way, of course, nobody can argue with you, and you can avoid that really scary stuff where you have to show your knowledge, and risk being caught out when you don't...

Go on, be brave.

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:36 AM

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by Exuberant1
That wasn't a very good rebuttal.
And you know that.

I'll let the *informed* audience decide.

Good idea. Let the audience decide whether you have been able to rebut Jarrah White's points.

I await your next rebuttal of a Jarrah White video.

*So have you bothered to contact Jarrah to issue your direct challenge, or does your direct challenge to him still only consist of a post on ATS?

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:46 AM

Originally posted by Exuberant1
I await your next rebuttal of a Jarrah White video.

Compared to YOUR contribution, it seems others are doing a lot more work than you are prepared to, and yet you are happy to ask for more.

Me, I'd be ashamed to make a comment like that, after showing I was unwilling to engage in the debate.

And I note you weren't brave enough to nominate your favorite. It is TERRIFYING to be specific, isn't it..

*So have you bothered to contact Jarrah to issue your direct challenge, or does your direct challenge to him still only consist of a post on ATS?

I've used exactly the same method that Jarrah does, when he issues challenges.

Live by the sword...

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:54 AM

Originally posted by CHRLZ

I've used exactly the same method that Jarrah does, when he issues challenges.

So you have not contacted Jarrah directly yet you say you issued a 'direct challenge.'

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

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

Perhaps if you weren't so disingenuous, more people would be willing to engage you in discussion.

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 04:01 AM

Originally posted by Exuberant1
That wasn't a very good rebuttal.

So you say it wasn't a good rebuttal, yet you give absolutely no reason for that.

Perhaps if you weren't so disingenuous, more people would be willing to engage you in discussion.

I'll be ignoring further posts that are not addressing the topic of the thread.

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 04:20 AM
I was re-watching one of the Moonfaker videos called Ham Sandwich... when I came across this little tidbit concerning the laws that any radio hams who heard anything from the Apollo missions had to obey.

*So even if some ham actually heard the Apollo missions still in orbit faking the whole thing, they'd go to jail for telling anyone. Heck if they didn't have permission (or if what they disclosed wasn't already public) then those hams would go to jail for telling anyone what they heard about the mission - even if it did go to the moon as we were told.... How about that.

new topics

top topics

<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in