Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by cushycrux

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..

You have put your finger precisely on the point that causes people to think that the moon landings were a hoax. Things just don't behave the way people assume they do. We live at the bottom of a gravity well surrounded by air. Everything we see is subject to friction and drag. It is natural to assume that you must keep pushing on something in order for it to move. This was Aristotle's belief, so you would be in good company. You would also assume that it takes a while to accelerate something up to speed, and a while to slow it back down. In space, there is do drag. It's pure Newtonian physics out there. If you provide an impulse, an object will instantly start moving and keep moving... whether that's in a straight line or rotation around an axis, like the LM. If you provide an exactly equal impulse in the opposite direction, it just stops. That's why the LM's movements look "unnatural." We expect it to slowly start turning then slowly grind to a stop. (Obviously, a continuous impulse results in acceleration.)

Similar misunderstandings lead to the belief that the astronauts on the surface of the Moon are moving in "slow motion." They are not. They are falling more slowly than on Earth. Horizontal motions tend to look the same as on Earth, which is why the films look so strange when you speed them up.

reply to post by turbonium

They aren't experts in photography or filmmaking - two of the fields where experts have[/] found fakery.
...

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.

Please name one photographic expert or film-maker who has found "fakery." Even Jarrah White had to use a watercolor "expert" to confirm his childish mistakes about light and shadow.

Why do you consider images "tangible?" I suggest you look up the word. Technically, the returned spacecraft and lunar rock samples are the only tangible evidence and that is precisely the realm of engineers and scientists.

Edit to correct grammar.

[edit on 2-8-2010 by DJW001]

reply to post by DJW001


TNX, but the inertia also exists in space. But I understand the time lapse argument. So let's go on to the next...

Originally posted by cushycrux

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]

No, not debunked.
You dont get what the issue is.

reply to post by FoosM


INDEED, it is YOU:

You dont get what the issue is.

This is now blatant spamming and trolling.

That Jarrah "White Noise" White video that you posted AGAIN was just put up a few posts back....by one of your cadre.

"A Confederacy of Dunces"....(great, funny book, BTW), and it describes "Jarrah White", "greenmagoos", "Arkangel4myke", and ALL the other foolish YouTube buffoons who merely repeat, ad nauseum, the SAME bunk...despite the FACT that THEY (and YOU!!!) have been repeatedly shown that their "analyses" are crap!

HOW can you, FoosMasoos, still cow-tow to your "idol" JW, when the very photos that you repeated, by quoting the poster above, show without any doubt the reality of shadows; and show without any doubt, the inane ramblings of Jarrah White are completely, ignorantly WRONG!?


Everyone else on the palnet, except for a tiny, tiny handful of miscreants, understand reality...what is the problem with comprehension?

What is the key to learning?

Certainly, for some, it isn't going to be happening here. It IS sad, though....for those people, and incredibly disturbing to contemplate the AFFECT they might have on any others who are naiive enough to believe them, without critical examination...like, for instance, in the (troubling) event that any of these "hoaxists" ever decide to have offspring, and choose to indoctrinate them with crap "beliefs", and inaccurate "science"!

reply to post by weedwhacker


THX, no more to say.
2nd...

reply to post by FoosM


Please explain what the issue is then. Jarrah's "expert" makes all kinds of assumptions concerning size, distance and so forth. What is the issue? Oh, and you know perfectly well that Youtube clip has been re-edited to include the "expert's" credentials. It's called "revisionism." Note how the sequence of "evidence" includes rebuttals of the original. These were clearly inserted into the old material in order to "strengthen" it. If NASA did this, you would be screaming bloody murder. Since JW makes a career of making misleading statements, I apologize for calling him an outright liar. He's just a charlatan. He finds a meteor sighting that occurred during the Apollo 8 time frame and implies it is Apollo 8, refuting what he obnoxiously calls the "propagandists." The very sources he quotes indicate how exciting the sighting was. It made the front page. Should that not have happened every night if it were Apollo? No, he simply ignores that and presses on, as though a single bright meteor debunks the fact that other observers tracked the craft to the Moon:

Apollo 8 was extensively tracked, owing to the great interest in the mission and the novelty of the lunar trajectory, as well as somewhat better illumination than some later missions. Many reports were collected in an article in the March 1969 issue of Sky and Telescope, "Optical Observations of Apollo 8" by Harold B. Liemon (Geo-Astrophysics Laboratory, Boeing Scientific Research Laboratories), pp. 156-160.

www.astr.ua.edu...

He then goes on ridicule the theory that the object was the re-entry of Proton 4. He points out that telemetry from Proton 4 ceased after 100 days implying that it must have re-entered then. He doesn't say that, of course, that would be lying, but he then points out that the object that was spotted re-entered 300 days after Proton's launch. He then casts some mystery over Proton 4 by showing how little information there is on the internet about it. So what? It was probably a spy satellite, how much information can he expect? Ah, but it makes him appear to be a diligent researcher and casts doubt on the identification... for no good reason. He then spews some rhetoric about satellite tracking, implying that it is so ineffective that Apollo could have been missed. Not a lie, exactly. Just deliberate misdirection. (Next time he revises his earlier videos, he might want to edit out the ridiculous pop music montages. Very hard to take anyone seriously when they do that. Stick with dramatic, ominous music like the Nibiru hoaxers.)

Edit to change "claims it is Apollo 8" to "implies it is Apollo 8. See how cunning JW is? He avoids actually lying by allowing people to follow his misdirection to its logical conclusion. Please note that I have clearly documented the change I have made in the original post. No-one can accuse me of revisionism.

[edit on 2-8-2010 by DJW001]

reply to post by cushycrux

TNX, but the inertia also exists in space.

Exactly. A given impulse overcomes the inertia and imparts a constant angular momentum. The exact opposite impulse cancels the first one out and the angular momentum goes back to zero. It looks odd because we're not used to it in our friction filled world.

Originally posted by cushycrux
reply to post by jra

 

Thanks, that's is a acceptable answer.

2nd..

Might be acceptable for you but it doesn't mean its true.
You do understand that, right?

No proof was given, only speculation.
You raised an interesting point, but have set your standards too low
to verify if your point or question has truly explained or answered.

If the situation was reversed, we would have to provide sources, statements, credentials.

In a post, a few pages back, I demonstrated how many supporters in an another forum simply accepted any answer posted as long as it supported their group think conclusions.

Surely you can be on a side of a debate, but you should be as critical, maybe even more so, towards your side, then the opposing side.

I hope that users that agree with me that the landing was a hoax, for what ever the reason, are critical towards the information I bring forth and correct me whenever they can.

I really don't see the point the arguments here. This "Young Aussie Genius" takes down information that is proven wrong to edit it because he knows that when everything is put together, the facts don't fall on his side. The bottom line is, if we continue to empower deception artists and liars like Jarrah White, the conspiracy community will have no chance of being taken seriously when we discuss actual conspiracies that have evidence behind them.

The moon hoax group, and Jarrah White, will never be fully satisfied in the answers that we provide them, no matter how grounded in fact they are. True evidence is called "disinfo", people who believe the Moon landing was real are called "government lackies", and any true evidence is just part of the "massive conspiracy". I'm fully convinced that these loons already know that the evidence points to a real Moon landing with no conspiracy at all, but they've invested so much of their reputiations into it that they will continue to lie until they hit their grave simply because they don't know how to admit that they are wrong.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by cushycrux
reply to post by jra

 

Thanks, that's is a acceptable answer.

2nd..

Might be acceptable for you but it doesn't mean its true.
You do understand that, right?

No proof was given, only speculation.
You raised an interesting point, but have set your standards too low
to verify if your point or question has truly explained or answered.

If the situation was reversed, we would have to provide sources, statements, credentials.

In a post, a few pages back, I demonstrated how many supporters in an another forum simply accepted any answer posted as long as it supported their group think conclusions.

Surely you can be on a side of a debate, but you should be as critical, maybe even more so, towards your side, then the opposing side.

I hope that users that agree with me that the landing was a hoax, for what ever the reason, are critical towards the information I bring forth and correct me whenever they can.

It seems to me that you are immediately convinced by whatever crap JW comes with. In the case of the radical movement in that video, someone with a bit of critical thinking skills and a bit of knowledge would easily be able to find evidence in that very video. Can you find indicators that the time was sped up?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Please explain what the issue is then. Jarrah's "expert" makes all kinds of assumptions concerning size, distance and so forth. What is the issue? Oh, and you know perfectly well that Youtube clip has been re-edited to include the "expert's" credentials. It's called "revisionism." Note how the sequence of "evidence" includes rebuttals of the original. These were clearly inserted into the old material in order to "strengthen" it. If NASA did this, you would be screaming bloody murder. Since JW makes a career of making misleading statements, I apologize for calling him an outright liar. He's just a charlatan. He finds a meteor sighting that occurred during the Apollo 8 time frame and implies it is Apollo 8, refuting what he obnoxiously calls the "propagandists." The very sources he quotes indicate how exciting the sighting was. It made the front page. Should that not have happened every night if it were Apollo? No, he simply ignores that and presses on, as though a single bright meteor debunks the fact that other observers tracked the craft to the Moon:

Apollo 8 was extensively tracked, owing to the great interest in the mission and the novelty of the lunar trajectory, as well as somewhat better illumination than some later missions. Many reports were collected in an article in the March 1969 issue of Sky and Telescope, "Optical Observations of Apollo 8" by Harold B. Liemon (Geo-Astrophysics Laboratory, Boeing Scientific Research Laboratories), pp. 156-160.

www.astr.ua.edu...

He then goes on ridicule the theory that the object was the re-entry of Proton 4. He points out that telemetry from Proton 4 ceased after 100 days implying that it must have re-entered then. He doesn't say that, of course, that would be lying, but he then points out that the object that was spotted re-entered 300 days after Proton's launch. He then casts some mystery over Proton 4 by showing how little information there is on the internet about it. So what? It was probably a spy satellite, how much information can he expect? Ah, but it makes him appear to be a diligent researcher and casts doubt on the identification... for no good reason. He then spews some rhetoric about satellite tracking, implying that it is so ineffective that Apollo could have been missed. Not a lie, exactly. Just deliberate misdirection. (Next time he revises his earlier videos, he might want to edit out the ridiculous pop music montages. Very hard to take anyone seriously when they do that. Stick with dramatic, ominous music like the Nibiru hoaxers.)

Edit to change "claims it is Apollo 8" to "implies it is Apollo 8. See how cunning JW is? He avoids actually lying by allowing people to follow his misdirection to its logical conclusion. Please note that I have clearly documented the change I have made in the original post. No-one can accuse me of revisionism.

[edit on 2-8-2010 by DJW001]

Please provide evidence that JW edited his videos.
And Im still waiting to know what exactly JW lied about.

Regarding the mysterious object in the sky.
Is Jarrah suggesting that the object in the sky could have been the Apollo craft, why certainly. JW is biased towards the moon hoax. What he is doing is raising reasonable doubt. He provides the viewer with source information to parse through themselves and derive their own conclusions.
Now what are you conclusions?

Attacking JW does not invalidate the material he is offering. One could say by attacking him you are trying to taint the evidence in your favor. If you want to invalidate his video, you will have to prove that the object that those witnesses witnessed absolutely without a doubt could not be an Apollo space craft. Can you do that? And no, saying that they went to the moon doesnt count.

At any rate lets look at your evidence.
You are claiming that Apollo 8 was extensively tracked, or at least you linked to an article claiming that. This website is littered with spelling mistakes, so Im assuming its not some official astronomy or NASA website. Doesn't mean the information given is incorrect, but we have to be on our toes. Strange enough, it seems to be the only source for this information. Are there any other sources that dont refer back to the website?

Apollo 8 was extensively tracked, owing to the great interest in the mission and the novelty of the lunar trajectory, as well as somewhat better illumination than some later missions. Many reports were collected in an article in the March 1969 issue of Sky and Telescope, "Optical Observations of Apollo 8" by Harold B. Liemon (Geo-Astrophysics Laboratory, Boeing Scientific Research Laboratories), pp. 156-160. The technical rationale for these observations, as a more or less coordinated program, was to explore the power of optical tracking for refining spacecraft orbits.

Interesting. They are referring to orbits. Does that mean they didnt track it during its cislunar trajectory? Because if its just orbits around the Earth, well that would be unimpressive. If anybody can provide the article, please do so. Lets continue.

The first opportunity for large telescopes to view Apollo 8 en route to the moon fell to Pic di Midi

Going to the link provide its dead. So I went to Wiki and found this:

A 106-centimetre (42-inch) telescope was installed in 1963 funded by NASA, and was used to take detailed photographs of the surface of the Moon in preparation for the Apollo missions.
en.wikipedia.org...

This taints it as independent third party evidence doesn't it?
Will we have issues with the other claims?
NAVAL observatory, JPL observatory, etc doesn't look so good does it?

reply to post by FoosM

Are there any other sources that dont refer back to the website?

Yes. Just go to the library and check out the issue of Sky & Telescope footnoted on the web page. It will be in hard copy, which means it cannot be altered with a few keystrokes. Unlike things posted on the web.

Once again, you beg the question. There is no reasonable doubt to be invoked. Jarrah builds a non-case. Australians saw a meteor. What does that have to do with Apollo 8? How does that refute people who correctly point out that the CSM would be highly visible from the Earth, during a point in the Cold War when amateur astronomy and military surveillance were at their height? What does Proton 4 have to do with anything, except perhaps the meteor, which has nothing to do with Apollo 8. The burden of proof is entirely on Jarrah to prove that Apollo 8 was observed lingering in orbit. If he cannot do that, he has no case.

"Moonfaker" was done as a class assignment. It was presumably a finished piece. It has been broken up and restructured in its current Youtube form. There is documentary evidence elsewhere that it was initially presented in a different form. Unless you are in a position to document the material, you should be the one applying a bit of "reasonable doubt."

If accepting a grant from NASA "taints" the evidence, what does accepting funding from an unknown source do to the Moon Hoax propagandists? Who paid for Jarrah's trip? How can Jarrah afford the time to produce 1,200 minutes of Youtibe video? Where is the money coming from?

reply to post by Komodo


They attack FOOSM because they want to destroy his credibility on the subject. It is a classic way to stop people from believing that person.

reply to post by dragnet53


!!

They attack FOOSM because they want to destroy his credibility on the subject.

Rich. That is.

FoosMasoos has no credibility. Zero.

FossMasoos merely punks this board, on this thread...spamming it, trolling it, playing games on it. It is evident for all to see, who will care to research the posting history...or simply by scanning through the thread.

Easy enough to do, using tools that ATS provides...only back within a certain posting range, though, unfortunately. Still, ample enough to find plenty of examples.

(Hint: User Name, click "POSTS", click "IN THREAD". Compare to other posters' contributions. This way, you may scan each person's posts individually, to get a sense of pattern....)
~~~~

LO and behold!!!

On edit here...because I took my own advice, and guess what? The ONLY thread that FoosM ( aka "FossMasoos" when posting over on YouTube ) posts in here is THIS ONE!!

What a surprise....




[edit on 2 August 2010 by weedwhacker]

Working my way through this thread. Have been reading up on the Moon Hoax on braeunig and my gosh... very interesting.


Some good points being made in here. Will contribute once I've read the other 140 pages!




Regards


Leith Magon

reply to post by Leith Magon


Enjoy, hope you get to see all sides.

I've taken the liberty of providing a link to the site you mentioned in your post...so others can review that material as well....

Braeunig's Rocket and Space Technology website page.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by cushycrux
reply to post by jra

 

Thanks, that's is a acceptable answer.

2nd..

Might be acceptable for you but it doesn't mean its true.
You do understand that, right?

No proof was given, only speculation.
You raised an interesting point, but have set your standards too low
to verify if your point or question has truly explained or answered.

If the situation was reversed, we would have to provide sources, statements, credentials.

In a post, a few pages back, I demonstrated how many supporters in an another forum simply accepted any answer posted as long as it supported their group think conclusions.

Surely you can be on a side of a debate, but you should be as critical, maybe even more so, towards your side, then the opposing side.

I hope that users that agree with me that the landing was a hoax, for what ever the reason, are critical towards the information I bring forth and correct me whenever they can.

It seems to me that you are immediately convinced by whatever crap JW comes with. In the case of the radical movement in that video, someone with a bit of critical thinking skills and a bit of knowledge would easily be able to find evidence in that very video. Can you find indicators that the time was sped up?

So where is your evidence?
You are asking me to find evidence for you that time was sped up to prove what exactly?

I'll do you one better, I'll let you decide
Compare the video in question:

Apollo 11

or

Sped up or actual speed?
Now with the second video take a look at 2:00
See that flash of light?

To this docking

Sped up or actual speed?

Here is the camera was set to 12FPS

See its a bit choppy?
Astronaut also has this blue glow around him.... strange.

Now compare all those videos to this time lapse video:


So whats your conclusion? What does it all mean and prove in your words?

Oh....and before the Stanley Kubrick nonsense ever gets brought up again (for it has been a while, by now, and I sense that eventually it will be dragged out once more by the "hoaxists"...)...

...here is a nifty recent video to stop them dead in their tracks.

(Disclosure: I am a big fan of the film 2001: A Space Oddysey --- and as a person with fairly reasoned understanding of the film, and filmmaking in general, AND the REAL films/videos/stills from Apollo, I am able to also see the mistakes in this motion picture. This is also certainly true of EVERY film ever made --- some people hate to watch movies with me, for I tend to point out continuity problems, when I get bored by the subject, if it's a poor movie....)

I suggest this be watched in full screen, with sound turned up....

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Are there any other sources that dont refer back to the website?

Yes. Just go to the library and check out the issue of Sky & Telescope footnoted on the web page. It will be in hard copy, which means it cannot be altered with a few keystrokes. Unlike things posted on the web.

I dont live in a country where such a magazine exists in our libraries.
If you have access to it, and it proves your case, post it.
Quote it, we trust you. Otherwise it means nothing as evidence.

Once again, you beg the question. There is no reasonable doubt to be invoked. Jarrah builds a non-case. Australians saw a meteor.

----
Ok well you have to prove this statement if you know for a fact they all did. You make it sound like you personally spoke with all the eyewitnesses and asked them what they saw.

What does that have to do with Apollo 8? How does that refute people who correctly point out that the CSM would be highly visible from the Earth, during a point in the Cold War when amateur astronomy and military surveillance were at their height?

-----
Ok, so you choose the side where they say it would be highly visible, and not a faint star. OK. Now you will have to explain why your stance is more plausible than the other stance.

What does Proton 4 have to do with anything, except perhaps the meteor, which has nothing to do with Apollo 8. The burden of proof is entirely on Jarrah to prove that Apollo 8 was observed lingering in orbit. If he cannot do that, he has no case.

-----
I dont know, what does Proton 4 have to do with anything?
You agree with the theory or you dont? And why would there be a theory
about Proton 4 if its a meteor?

"Moonfaker" was done as a class assignment. It was presumably a finished piece. It has been broken up and restructured in its current Youtube form. There is documentary evidence elsewhere that it was initially presented in a different form. Unless you are in a position to document the material, you should be the one applying a bit of "reasonable doubt."

Is that right, you have spoken to Jarrah about what his intentions with series? Are you telling me he has been working on a class assignment since, what 2007?

If accepting a grant from NASA "taints" the evidence, what does accepting funding from an unknown source do to the Moon Hoax propagandists? Who paid for Jarrah's trip? How can Jarrah afford the time to produce 1,200 minutes of Youtibe video? Where is the money coming from?

I dont know, I dont see what you are trying to say about this.
I cant tell if you agree or you dont agree that the evidence is tainted by having NASA involved. If some unknown person funded Jarrah's trip then your point would be that Jarrah's stance on the moon landing is that it actually happened? Secondly, how do you know anything about Jarrah's financial situation? Do you have access to his accounts? Do you know how he makes his money? Do you think traveling overseas are beyond his financial means?