Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by weedwhacker


Wow! Just WOW! The lust for fame is really overpowering for some. I can see how L.RON Hubbard made himself so rich and famous -- people are idiots.

Perhaps when grown ups stop paying attention to White he will be relegated to the dustbin of the internetz like his crank mentors.

I sincerely believe that White is chasing ghosts. There is little if anything that he has presented that hasn't been successfully rebutted. How many of his theories have to be invalidated before his whole applecart is upturned?

I glad I can finally agree with you on something, weedwacker.

Here's a great example --- a "social experiment" --- as to WHY these "hoax" believers persist, against all evidence to contrary.

They are terminally GULLIBLE!!!





~~~~~
OH...and since Jarrah "White Noise" White likes to pay homage, and 'tribute', to both Bill Kaysing and Ralph Rene'...here's a bit of revelation about Ralph....to demonstrate his actual state of mind (or lack of...):



..."gas bags".... !

[edit on 1 August 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Whilst at it, let's have a go at a lesser-known "hoaxist"....Marcus Allen.

One is compelled to wonder IF Jarrah "White Noise" White happens to steal....errmmm..."borrow" inspiration from that equally daft bloke, in addition to the "king" Ralph, and his host of other court jesters.

Let's examine a sample (yuck...had to scrape it off the bottom of my shoe) of the sort of nonsense this numbskull spews:



....and, as a "social experiment", is there any wonder just HOW this crap gains hold, and is spread?


[edit on 1 August 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by turbonium


Yup, it is easy to keep a secret. Just look at the Manhattan project and how thousands knew of it and was kept secret for a long time until information was finally released to the public. Well most information that we know of anyway.

I just say this and if NASA can go back to the moon then cool. but what keeps me suspicious about we ever even went is all these damn delays and all these "increase" in funds to delay the launch even more. It took them ten years to figure out how to go to the moon. Now it seems we will never know now that the constellation project is canceled.

Originally posted by DJW001
How odd. I just went to WhiteJarrah's Youtube page to view the original Moonfaker video and it's not there. How strange. His truthfulness gets questioned and the evidence disappears. By the way, FoosM, how did you know that JW expunged the evidence and re-edited the footage into separate clips? There are over 400 postings there (if you include all the Thomas The Tank Engine clips).

I'm still waiting for you to explain how he lied in his video.

The video is right here:


thank you.

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by weedwhacker
OH, I would LOVE to tear into all of those!!!

You know what, why don't you 'tear into all of those' . All the videos are posted above.
One last thing, your posting style is uncanny, it's almost like CHRLZ is back.
Anyway, when you decide you have the guts to debunk the 5 videos above, let me know.

x

edit: can you give me an ETA of when you will 'tear into all of those' ?

edit again: for all those curious of what weedwhacker is going to tear into .. the videos are posted above

[edit on 28-7-2010 by ppk55]

Has weedwhacker torn into those yet?

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Note how the PPK character has now deviated wildly from the videos showing the falling over now he's ideas have been proven wrong, ignored a request for he's credentials or relevant experience and is now reposting videos from before in a vague attempt to change the subject to something he is more familaiar with - watching moving pictures with sound.
I think it's clear that PPK is trolling, the only other alternative cannot be stated as it would breach board T&Cs.

for your info there pal.. we don't post 'credentials ' on ATS for obvious reason, we've gone over this a million times..

hence you've completely ignored his questions and refused to answer them in any logical way ..

it's really pretty easy actually .. CAN YOU RUPTURE THE SUIT~!!! derp derp..

yea.. speaking of trolling.. i dont' see you posting anything...'credible' YET.. just slam the character and move .. right.. hey .. but you got a star for it !!

Originally posted by AgentSmith
You have avoided my question AGAIN PPK! WHAT ARE YOUR CREDENTIALS AND RELEVANT EXPERIENCE ON THE SUBJECT?

yea.. and then you're going to say .. prove it!! right ... wow.. what a ecellent contribution lvl you got..

troll troll troll..

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by ppk55
edit: I mean come on, a guy that confronts plait and the mythbusters .. what did you ever do that matches that ?

I spent an evening with Buzz Aldrin and Charlie Duke (amongst others), and actually spent several hours sat next to Buzz having dinner discussing the Moon program. I even took the opportunity to congratulate him on smacking Sibrel.
Does that qualify as 'matching' that?

no prove it !!!

2nd line ..

3rd for measure

[edit on 2-8-2010 by Komodo]

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by FoosM

If that was the case we could see spy satellites and spy aircraft all the time. I'll give you this, it probably not impossible, but you need to know where you look and you need to know what you are looking at . As well it helps if its not during the day.

It's not actually beyond the realms of an amateur at all. In fact the recent X37-B was tracked by amateurs.

Amateur Astronomers Spy on Air Force's Secret Mini Space Plane

Secret X-37B Space Plane Spotted by Amateur Skywatchers

If you search there are countless articles on this specific example. If you know what you are doing, and a surprising number of people do, it's not that hard.

Its hard to hide satellites for sure, and because we are living in more sophisticated times by sharing knowledge faster and easier and have access to tools like never before. Finding and identifying satellites are easier today.

The observers, who congregate on a Web site called Heavens-Above and a mailing list called SeeSat-L, have amassed an impressive collection of information and expertise. For two decades, they have played a high tech game of hide-and-seek with the US's National Reconnaissance Office, a secretive satellite agency. By coordinating their efforts, amateur observers in Europe, North America, and South Africa monitor satellites at different phases of their journeys and extrapolate the precise dimensions of their orbits. Astonishingly, despite the hobbyists' modest resources - most observe part-time from their balconies and backyards with equipment available at RadioShack www.wired.com...

But still, even if one would see in object in space during Apollo they wouldnt know what it was. They could assume it was a satellite.
The misdirection by NASA would be the ship is on its way to the moon.
If you trust NASA you first thought of seeing something orbit the Earth would not be "Oh, thats Apollo". NASA wasnt the only one launching objects into space, so was the Soviet Union who happened to send a moon probe around the same time.

The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), National Security Agency (NSA) and Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) have declassified the fact that a series of satellites was orbited from 1962 through 1971, designated POPPY. www.space.com...

How many of those were seen by the public?

Once the skies got crowded and the satellites began to cross one another's paths, the US started publishing the orbits of most of its military and intelligence satellites. Eberst and his colleagues monitored those and others for scientific research, trying to evaluate the densities of the upper atmosphere and to refine their understanding of Earth's shape and gravitational field. But in 1983, the US changed the rules.

That June, the Reagan administration stopped revealing most of these orbits, hoping, unsuccessfully it turned out, to hide them from the Soviets. But the decision had a conspicuous unintended consequence: It "unwittingly set a challenge to the amateur network of observers," Eberst says, "to see if they could maintain reliable orbits for these 'secret' objects."
www.wired.com...

You see, maybe you can occasionally spot them, but you got to know their orbits to reliably identify them. If Apollo changed its orbit after its Earth park and TLI, onlookers would not be able to readily find it in the sky.
Or even know what they were looking it if they did see it.

That said
MoonFaker: UFA - Unidentified Flying Apollo

The ever-growing debate as to whether the Apollo telecasts were filmed in low-earth orbit or in cislunar space continues.

In this video, rarely seen material surfaces, shedding some more light as to whether or not Apollo 11 stayed in Earth orbit for eight days.

edit for clarity and links


[edit on 2-8-2010 by FoosM]

[edit on 2-8-2010 by FoosM]

[edit on 2-8-2010 by FoosM]

Originally posted by MemoryShock
A reminder to remain on topic and to refrain from discussing the poster.

Let's keep it civil guys.

150+ pages ..and i'm STILL waiting for you to DO something about it besides.. let's keep it clean guys !

Originally posted by -PLB-
So a bunch of interwebz people, who thus far seem to lack knowledge in a about any subject dealing with Apollo, would be more clever than all those thousands of engineers and scientists that actually worked on Apollo and who were easily fooled? Doesn't that seem a but unlikely?

They aren't experts in photography or filmmaking - two of the fields where experts have[/] found fakery. Nor did they have the advantages of the 'interwebz' people, who are able to carefully study all the material with 40 years advanced technology.

The best and most tangible evidence of the moon hoax comes from the images and videos, which are not fields of expertise for the "thousands of engineers and scientists" you mention.

Originally posted by DJW001
What would you consider acceptable evidence?

Certainly far more than the tiny specks you seem to consider as acceptable evidence.

Some high-res images that show things which ARE identifiable as LM's, rovers, etc would at least be a good start towards acceptable evidence, especially if it was also confirmed with images from an independent (ie:non-NASA) source.

Originally posted by FoosM

I'm still waiting for you to explain how he lied in his video.

The video is right here:

thank you.

This woman seems to be a real expert in cinematography , lol. From 3 lightsources you will get 3 shadows...







Debunked, next argument please.

[edit on 2-8-2010 by cushycrux]

Originally posted by turbonium
They aren't experts in photography or filmmaking - two of the fields where experts have[/] found fakery. Nor did they have the advantages of the 'interwebz' people, who are able to carefully study all the material with 40 years advanced technology.

The best and most tangible evidence of the moon hoax comes from the images and videos, which are not fields of expertise for the "thousands of engineers and scientists" you mention.

And especially not the field of expertise of the hoaxers. In general, engineers and scientists are a lot harder to fool, as they know the science behind the things that happen on the video's and images. They know what is possible and what isn't. Hoaxers don't have a clue, as is shown over and over and over. There still isn't a single image put forward by the hoaxers that isn't (easily) explained. The lack of knowledge and critical thinking in the hoaxers camp is staggering.

I have a serous meant question here, I am not with the hoaxers, but this video is strange. At 4:17 the command module stops rotating abruptly, how is this possible? All motions in this video look extremely illogical physical incorrect. Please tell me what you think..




Add:
OK, It's not a model, Its a Time Lapse Video.

[edit on 2-8-2010 by cushycrux]

Originally posted by Retseh
Let's take a second here to post a list of the distinguished military test pilots and civilian scientists who have all uniformly and without a single slip-up maintained their obvious lies about walking on the Moon for the last 40 years.

What a disgusting bunch of reprobates they are:

1. Neil Armstrong
   
2. Buzz Aldrin
   
3. Pete Conrad
   
4. Alan Bean
   
5. Alan Shepard
   
6. Edgar Mitchell
   
7. David Scott
   
8. James Irwin
   
9. John Young
   
10. Charles Duke
    
11. Eugene Cernan
    
12. Harrison Schmitt
    

Yes, let's talk about them. Let's start with Alan Bean.

I'll let you decide after watching the video below whether he's telling the truth. It really starts getting interesting at about the 4 min mark. Someone should have briefed him not only in the supposed mechanics of the mission, but also in body language.

Originally posted by cushycrux
At 4:17 the command module stops rotating abruptly, how is this possible? All motions in this video look extremely illogical physical incorrect. Please tell me what you think.

That part was recorded with the 16mm DAC. It could film at various frame rates (1, 6, 12 and 24 fps), so what you're seeing is something recorded at one of the lower frame rates and being played back at a higher frame rate. So it's basically time lapsed footage.

reply to post by cushycrux


cushycrux, it isn't a model.

I believe the frame rate is sped up, in that version. Probably by the producers of that documentary --- I will have to check the original source film to be sure.

It is possible that the camera onboard the CSM was taking frames at a less-than-normal speed, thus giving the entire sequence a "speeded-up" fast-motion appearance.

~~~~~

Ah!! jra saved me some time!

Still, I'll go looky anywho....


AND, the actual info, with sourcing...for any doubters:

16-millimeter Maurer Data Acquisition Camera. Apollo 11 carried two Maurer data acquisition cameras, one on the command module and one on the lunar module. The cameras were used primarily to record engineering data and for continuous-sequence terrain photography. The CM camera had lenses of 5-mm, 10-mm, and 75-mm focal lengths; the LM camera was fitted with an 18-mm wide-angle lens.

(skip)

The Maurer camera weighed 2.8 pounds with a 130-foot film magazine attached. It had frame rates of 1, 6, and 12 fps automatic and 24 fps semiautomatic at all lens focal lengths, and shutter speeds of 1/60, 1/125, 1/500, and 1/1000 second, again, at all lens focal lengths.

www.lpi.usra.edu...



[edit on 2 August 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by jra


Thanks, that's is a acceptable answer.
2nd..