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: 299
377
<< 296  297  298    300  301  302 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 



It is good to doubt and question.
Jarrah's mission is healthy.
The people at ATS that hurl curses at him should be ashamed. The man has a valid opinion.
And he is going to a lot more effort than any of you to share his belief.

It's easy to criticise. How about coming up with an idea?


I agree that it's good to doubt and question. That's why I doubted Jarrah's claims. As I result, I put hard work into investigating his source... much harder and more rigorous work than Jarrah ever put into one of his videos. The result was this post, which reveals him to be a liar who does not really believe what he says. His "opinion" is not valid, based on his own evidence. As for his mission being healthy: as I have shown here, his mission is cynical and exploitative. His defenders should be ashamed of themselves for supporting such a misanthropic world view.


edit on 6-1-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct typo.




posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



HOW do you make the incredible leap to "melt", from thermal protection?? Do you even understand the difference?:


NASA was afraid that the descent engines would melt the LM landing gear. That is why there is gold-colored Kapton on the footpads....


No. Not "melt". Do you realize how exceedingly outrageous that is? However, this IS the hallmark of the sort of ploy attempted by "Jarrah White" in most of his screeds....


Thermal protection is there to prevent uneven heating, from various thermal directions, to include the (brief exposure) to the descent engine....which, BTW, is NOT that hot!! Not unless you're talking about directly within the engine bell nozzle. No, the landing gear struts, like everything else, had to be a compromise in being just strong enough, without over-building, and adding excess mass. Also, in case you weren't aware, there is this tendency of certain materials to EXPAND when heated....and if the heating is uneven (such as one side exposed to the infrared from direct sunlight, continuously) then some warping of components may occur. Nothing large enough to be seen directly, but enough to cause potential structural problems, due to tolerances of manufacture, etc.

I am sorry that some people simply don't have the engineering background comprehension to appreciate how things work in the real world......



...and very little of it on the space buggies and none at all on space suits worn by the astronauts on the surface of the moon.




It wasn't REQUIRED on the exterior of the LRV in all places, or outside the EVA suits!!! For both, they were in contant motion, so heating from infrared was more uniform....the EVA suits weren't solid metal. The LRV had only certain heat-sensitive areas.

Again, you have learned well at the knee of "Jarrah White" with the attempted "fallacy reasoning". What is that one called, again? I'm not sure if this is an actual one, but I'll call it the "fallacy of ridicule"......



edit on 6 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
That is why there is gold-colored Kapton on the footpads and very little of it on the space buggies and none at all on space suits worn by the astronauts on the surface of the moon


The space suits certainly did use Kapton (and Mylar, as well).

From the Apollo Experience Report - Development of the Extravehicular Mobility Unit:

Kapton used in the Integrated Thermal Micometeoroid Garment:



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Hey DJ. I must admit to not understanding much about radiation doses, but i could understand your thread on how Jarrah might have made an error.
The thing is, as even you admit, it might be a genuine mistake and I think its a bit rich you of accusing him of deliberately trying to mislead people.
Jarrah can't be that hard to contact... through youtube for example and I wonder if you have messaged him with the data you have researched and asked him for his opinions.

Otherwise you are no better than the people you accuse of decieving. As you are feeding us information (about Jarrah's motives) that are your personal beliefs. Beliefs biased towards your own agenda, whatever that is.

I think the most incredible thing about the moon is that man has never gone back.
Not only that but man has never even gone a fraction of the way there again. Why not take the shuttle on a merry juant around the moon to photograph the LM and prove once and for all that
a) USA went there
b) The radiation belts are not a problem.

When NASA recently said they need 15 years (approx) to put someone on the moon that is surely some type of admission that they don't have the technology to go there. Otherwise why the long wait?

I think there are many problems with NASA not going back to the moon or above the Van Allen belts. And until they do I will remain open minded.

So should you.

I look forward to jarrah's forthcoming videos on moon rocks (or fossilised wood).



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by manmental
Hey DJ. I must admit to not understanding much about radiation doses, but i could understand your thread on how Jarrah might have made an error.
The thing is, as even you admit, it might be a genuine mistake and I think its a bit rich you of accusing him of deliberately trying to mislead people.


The problem is that, even as FoosM has pointed out, when JW is confronted with the fact he is comparing an expected unshielded dose to a shielded dose, he responds that the Apollo craft was not shielded. From a physics standpoint, that's just plain wrong. He's made a number of such a comparisons over the course of a couple years, it seems. So he is either willfully ignorant and wishes to remain that way, or he knows he's lying. Either option doesn't help his credibility.


Originally posted by manmental
I think the most incredible thing about the moon is that man has never gone back.
Not only that but man has never even gone a fraction of the way there again. Why not take the shuttle on a merry juant around the moon to photograph the LM and prove once and for all that

It is physically impossible to send the Space Shuttle to the moon. It simply doesn't have the power to get there, nor is it designed to cope with the re-entry speeds experienced when returning from the moon.

We have, however, sent a probe to the moon (The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter), that has photographed the landing sites: Link
edit on 6-1-2011 by nataylor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 


Hiya Nat.
Its a shame the shuttle can't get to the moon.
I have seen that sorry excuse for a photo of the LM previously. I find it funny that you all can 'see' the LM in this photo. I can see blobs and compression artifacts. But hey one man's proof is another man's 'face on Mars'.

Do you have any thoughts on why man hasn't returned to the moon?



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 


You display a vast gap in knowledge of the science and engineering of the Space Program in general.

BTW, "Jarrah White" capitalizes on this general ignorance that is prevalent in society. It's how so much of his junk, in the videos gets past the masses....they simply don't have the proper education and understanding to see through all of his lies, distortions and fallacies.


I think the most incredible thing about the moon is that man has never gone back.


One reason, one word...MONEY.

Expanding on that is the general consensus that, for now, much science can still be accomplished with robots.
Far less expensive. There is no real scientific merit to "going back" with people...except to satisfy the narrow spectrum of geologists who would give their left arms for more samples, from different regions. This will all happen, eventually.

Now....you really have no idea just WHY this is impossible, with our current technology??:


Not only that but man has never even gone a fraction of the way there again. Why not take the shuttle on a merry juant around the moon to photograph the LM and prove once and for all that ...


I know...it's Hollywood's fault, because of that horrible Bruce Willis movie. And the "asteroid". Horrible, horrible and scientifically terribly inaccurate, all the way around.

AND.....there ARE PHOTOS of the Apollo components and equipment!!!

LROC photos, and even the Indian spacecraft "Chandrayaan" was able to discern the disruption of the landing sites, by the change in appearance, due to the movement on the surface foot-tracks left behind.



When NASA recently said they need 15 years (approx) to put someone on the moon that is surely some type of admission that they don't have the technology to go there.


The entire Apollo program really was nearly nine years...AND they were taking a lot more chances then...we live in a different era, one of far more abundance of caution. Plus, you have a molasses-like inertia sometimes form all the companies you have to hire, to contract with, to BUILD all the various components...to do the R&D, to test and test and test.....there is a financial incentive for them to "milk" it, too, in certain cases.


I think there are many problems with NASA not going back to the moon or above the Van Allen belts.


There is NO problem with the VABs....especially now, with more knowledge and experience, and better materials. There was NO problem then, even less now. It STILL comes back to funding, and THAT is the real issue. NO ONE wants to pay for it, not unless there were some profit potential in return. Which may be why the future for space will likely be more towards the commercialized aspects...big business.



I look forward to jarrah's forthcoming videos on moon rocks (or fossilised wood)


OH, for PETE'S sake!!!! That one instance of the petrified wood? Been covered in this thread (and elsewhere) and I don't recall if "Jarrah" lied about it....but others have, repeatedly. Did "Jarrah" make an oblique, innuendo-dropping reference to it?? Point it out, I want to know which video he did, IF he did.

AS TO the lunar samples....you said "forthcoming"......HOW will these be any different from the trash he has already produced, in past videos, where he completely misrepresented, and LIED about how "easy" it would have been to pass off Earth rocks as Lunar samples? AND, his lies about the trip to Antarctica, by Von Braun, and his ("Jarrah's") allegations that they found all the Lunar meteorites there!!! How absurd!!!

Here....this takes "Jarrah White" to the woodshed....where he belongs. WATCH, listen and learn how "Jarrah" lies, lies and lies again:










"Jarrah White" is a perspicacious hoaxer.

In the last video there...."JW" says this:

"....explorers have been finding meteorites in Antarctica since 1912....."

Phil Webb completely exposes this lie of omission.....by showing the REAL facts and numbers, the history of meteorite discoveries in Antarctica. In the years between 1912, and 1964, the Wiki article states that just "a few" meteorites were found...how many is "a few"?? Well, the Meteoritical Society has a website, with a record of ALL discoveries, and time-lines.


Between 1912 and 1964, a total of FOUR meteorites were found in Antarctica!!! BUT, the way "JW" phrases it, and innuendo-drops, he attempts to (LIE) and leave a very different impression. He LIES! It is is modus operandi, throughout his joke of a video series of an "Apollo hoax".....

(Go to about 2:10, in that last PhilWebb59 video, for the discussion I've just outlined above....).




edit on 6 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 


A gift for you, since you may not have seen what has been done with the LROC imges, with proper enhancing.


I have seen that sorry excuse for a photo of the LM previously. I find it funny that you all can 'see' the LM in this photo...




Pay note to the description, on the YouTube channel...under the video. And his/her use of the method called "deconvolution":


All Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter images were deconvolved and enhanced in order to show the landing site with a remarkable level of detail.....

.....Photo resolution, expressed in either feet or meters per pixel in my video merely is the photo's image scale when my video is viewed at 1280x720 HD resolution and is not the inherent maximum resolution of the deconvolved LRO photos. The maximum inherent resolution achieved so far in any of my deconvolved and enhanced LRO photos is approximately 0.35 meters per pixel. Horizontal and vertical surface coverage for any photo can be calculated by multiplying 1280 or 720 by the stated resolution. Thus 0.5 feet per pixel, when multiplied by 1280 and 720, yields photo coverage of 640 feet horizontally by 360 feet vertically.





edit on 6 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by manmental
reply to post by nataylor
 


Hiya Nat.
Its a shame the shuttle can't get to the moon.
I have seen that sorry excuse for a photo of the LM previously. I find it funny that you all can 'see' the LM in this photo. I can see blobs and compression artifacts. But hey one man's proof is another man's 'face on Mars'.

Comparing those photos to ones we have of the area from the Apollo missions, we can clearly see things line up. There are no other such "footpaths" visible anywhere else on the moon, so we know these areas to be something unique. We know where the Apollo landing sites were. We know these photos were taken in the same areas. So it would be a heck of a coincidence if those were just rocks that just happen to line up perfectly with the locations of the equipment and the disturbed soil from the Apollo missions.


Originally posted by manmental
Do you have any thoughts on why man hasn't returned to the moon?
Money. It's expensive to send people to the moon. Back in the Apollo era, NASA's budget peaked at 4.41% of the total federal budget, a whopping $34 billion dollars in today's money. And almost all of NASA's efforts were focused on the Apollo project. Now NASA's budget is just 0.6% of the federal budget, with a total of $17 billion spread across a much larger number of projects and initiatives.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


hiya Weed,
I apologise that my knowledge is less than yours. I however have a more open mind that you. And I consider that far more important in these troblesome times we live in.

"Money". I don't think that is a very good reason why man hasn't been back to the moon I'm afraid.
Billions upon billions are spent each year by governments on projects, some that never see the light of day, so to say they can't afford to go is silly.

Surely if NASA spent 9 years and developed the technology to go the moon with a computer smaller than those in a typical mobile phone then they have done the expensive leg work/ testing etc.
So now it should be a simple case of follow the blueprints. The materials would be far cheaper now and so I don't see money as being a good reason not to go.

Mankind has always sought to repeat great feats... like climbing Everest, or building the fastest car. Many of these feats demand vast ammounts of money and the return is based on 'being the best/ fastest/ smallest etc'. man constantly tries to beat its achivements, and the kudos of doing so is reward enough for countries and governments and individuals. many lives have beeen lost attempting these feats and some, myself included, would say that human lives are worth more than money, and yet we still try, and people die. For what reason? To be the best.

Going back to the moon would appeal to every major nation and the kudos in doing so, with sponsership and commercial interests, could easily pay for the mission, utilizing, as I have said, all the valueable data from NASA on how its to be done.

So if you really believe money is the only reason then fair enough.

Is money also the reason why no conclusive photos of the LM on the lunar surface exist?

You must admit the fossilised wood/moon-rock story was a PR disaster and not great for NASA. I only mentioned it to get someone's goat. It worked. I would be interested in reading more about this... did you say it was covered in this epic thread? Because as you say my knowledge is lacking so help me learn.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Genuine thanks for the enhanced Youtube video.
I take enhanced youtube videos with a pinch of salt, but this is good evidence of a ship on the moon.
I guess some might say that many unmanned ships have been sent to the moon successfully, some have even brought back moon rocks I believe.
Others might say that NASA has a history of doctoring photographs.

Its still a crude photo of the LM given the fact its 2011 and man can do almost anything. But taking decent close up photos of man's crowning achievement not being one of them.

Out of interest Weed, Nat and DJ. Do any of you think there is a possibility that NASA faked some of the Lunar photographs on a set? Or the possibility that many of the classic images have been tampered with to enhance them?



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by manmental
reply to post by DJW001
 


Hey DJ. I must admit to not understanding much about radiation doses, but i could understand your thread on how Jarrah might have made an error.
The thing is, as even you admit, it might be a genuine mistake and I think its a bit rich you of accusing him of deliberately trying to mislead people.



Jarrah makes a lot of errors. At some point it goes from being "error-prone" to being outright dishonest.

Here is one of his earlier videos:

Moonfaker: Exhibit A part2




Here is a thread that shows, and links to evidence that the person Jarrah uses in the video is actually his teacher, who he uses as a "perspective expert" because he can't find anyone else to do it. It is a complete deception, yet the video is still available on Youtube with no correction or apology.

Here is the e-mail from the woman in the video:




Hi Dave,



What really fascinates me, is the amount of interest that conspiracy theories re: the moon landing generates.

Movies, documentaries etc it is a fascinating phenomena in itself.

You should take into consideration the background to Jarrah’s work, he made this documentary as one of his class assignments, as such students have to create a piece with little or no resources at their disposal. Jarrah is particularly interested in things technical, and based most of his works that particular year, around the concept that the lunar landing was faked. He required footage of a so called ‘expert’ to support the story line he wished to persue, and as a teacher (at the coledge at that time) he asked if I would be willing to do the interview for his assignment. I agreed as he did not have access to a ‘real authority’. The reality is that I am not even a professional photographer, the interesting thing is that when a person is portrayed as an expert on film, people tend to believe it (I am a fine arts teacher).

What would be useful to you would be to get an analysis done by a true optical / physics specialist who could factor in things like: lense distortion, surface refraction, light angle, light source distance, surface curvature etc. I am sure that your is evidence that a similar photo can be taken with one light source that is equivatent [sic], can mount an argument to disprove Jarrah’s but it would require a specific type of lens, which is claimed not to be the lens used by Nasa for these photos.

Regards Jenny

edit on 6-1-2011 by Tomblvd because: added e-mail



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by manmental
reply to post by DJW001
 


Hey DJ. I must admit to not understanding much about radiation doses, but i could understand your thread on how Jarrah might have made an error.
The thing is, as even you admit, it might be a genuine mistake and I think its a bit rich you of accusing him of deliberately trying to mislead people.



Jarrah makes a lot of errors. At some point it goes from being "error-prone" to being outright dishonest.

Here is one of his earlier videos:

Moonfaker: Exhibit A part2





Im still amazed at how you hang on to this nonsense.
The lady introduces herself and she says that she teaches perspective.

How in the world was JW being dishonest?



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


Im still amazed at how you hang on to this nonsense.
The lady introduces herself and she says that she teaches perspective.

How in the world was JW being dishonest?


From Heller's own words:




You should take into consideration the background to Jarrah’s work, he made this documentary as one of his class assignments, as such students have to create a piece with little or no resources at their disposal. Jarrah is particularly interested in things technical, and based most of his works that particular year, around the concept that the lunar landing was faked. He required footage of a so called ‘expert’ to support the story line he wished to persue, and as a teacher (at the coledge at that time) he asked if I would be willing to do the interview for his assignment. I agreed as he did not have access to a ‘real authority’. The reality is that I am not even a professional photographer, the interesting thing is that when a person is portrayed as an expert on film, people tend to believe it (I am a fine arts teacher).


He then goes on to use her "analysis" to prove the photograph was a fake. That is the basic defintion of being dishonest. He passed her off as an "expert" when even she admits she isn't.

And we keep "hangng on" to this because it is by far the best example of JW being a fraud.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I notice Mr. White won't touch that video. All the hoaxers seem intent on avoiding it for some reason. It's been posted 3 times now and they act like it's holy water or something.
Personally I can't get enough of it. I've probably watched it 5 times now.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Since someone mentioned, in apparent "awe" of "Jarrah White"s 'forthcoming' (??) videos on the Lunar samples.....

('forthcoming' in quotes since he's done this already, as I pointed out with rebuttal videos earlier)...

....and mentioning these 'forthcoming' videos seemed to be a bit of an effort to deflect from the obvious catching of "Jarrah" in the many radiation-related lies and distortions....

...well, sticking with the Lunar samples again, here is another spot-on rebuttal video. To address what was another "Jarrah" target..... of all things, the USSR!! Targeting and accusing them of subterfuge....but, oh ironies of ironies!!!

In accusing the Soviets of faking their Luna mission return samples (all 105 grams) "Jarrah" suggests that they....and get this!...."scraped" it off of......THE Apollo 11 and 12 rocks!!!

The very rocks that, in other versions of his "videos" he claims didn't even come from the Moon!

(Honestly....the guy lies so often, he doesn't even realize how many times he contradicts himself....):




'Jarrah White': "....if this is what they did, then it is no wonder why the American and Russian samples would be identical.....".

Except.....They are NOT "identical", 'Jarrah'!!!


Once again, the kid just makes stuff up as he goes along. What started out, initially, as his "school project".....has ballooned into this travesty of nonsense??

Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the "Internet Age of Bread and Circuses"......

edit on 6 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


Hi Tom,
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

Ok.. so Jarrah embellishes a few details, for whatever reasons (i don't approve in this case)... but who doesn't? I work in the film industry where white lying is standard and everybody embellishes everything.

Hey, I bet NASA even embellishes stuff... like doctoring its photos to make them nicer.

Picking on this point, with his teacher, and using this as a basis for the claim that he is dishonest in everything he does is going a stretch too far in my opinion.

That is like me saying... 'NASA doctored one photo therefore they are all doctored."

Admit it... the guy makes some good points. I'll admit that he makes some seroius flawed points too. But all in all he gives good ground to doubt some of the official NASA stuff about their missions. In my mind.

I was wondering Tom... do think there is a possibility that NASA either staged some of their lunar photos or enhanced them?
edit on 6-1-2011 by manmental because: spelling



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by manmental

Hi Tom,
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

Ok.. so Jarrah embellishes a few details, for whatever reasons (i don't approve in this case)... but who doesn't? I work in the film industry where white lying is standard and everybody embellishes everything.


I don't in situations where I'm accusing someone else of lying.


Hey, I bet NASA even embellishes stuff... like doctoring its photos to make them nicer.


There are plenty of edited Apollo pictures, but they are identified as such.


Picking on this point, with his teacher, and using this as a basis for the claim that he is dishonest in everything he does is going a stretch too far in my opinion.


It isn't just this one point.

If you would bother to read this thread you would see that he traffics in dishonesty. Most of his videos have quotes taken out of text or other errors and omissions that conveniently prove his point. We've already demonstrated two on the past few pages alone.


That is like me saying... 'NASA doctored one photo therefore they are all doctored."


If you could prove NASA "doctored" a picture without making note of the fact, you would have reason to question the lot. But I have yet to see any compelling proof of a doctored photo.


Admit it... the guy makes some good points. I'll admit that he makes some seroius flawed points too. But all in all he gives good ground to doubt some of the official NASA stuff about their missions. In my mind.


I have yet to see one valid point he's ever made. Perhaps you can tell us what you think is his strongest point?


I was wondering Tom... do think there is a possibility that NASA either staged some of their lunar photos or enhanced them?


No. Not as archived in places such as ALSJ. However you can find plenty of "enhanced" apollo photos that aren't of NASA's domain.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Hey Weed,
The video you posted, about the soviet moon rocks, and Jarrah's speculation that the Russians could have scraped stuff off the Apollo rocks... brilliant!

Because... If you actually listened to the very first words, Jarrah says..
"Let's just speculate for a moment here..."

He is speculating... not stating.

And, just because he says the Russians may have scraped samples of Apollo moon rocks isn't an admission on his part that the Apollo moon rocks were collected by men on the moon.

That is a massive difference.

The things you hurl at Jarrah about misleading and misquoting are the exact same things you employ to discredit the man. Swings and roundabouts.

And I still have an open mind and am loving it!

PS Do you think their is a possibility that NASA either faked lunar photographs or doctored their classic photos of moon missions? It's a generic, general question. Do you consider that a possibility?



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by manmental
reply to post by nataylor
 


Hiya Nat.
Its a shame the shuttle can't get to the moon.
I have seen that sorry excuse for a photo of the LM previously. I find it funny that you all can 'see' the LM in this photo. I can see blobs and compression artifacts. But hey one man's proof is another man's 'face on Mars'.

Do you have any thoughts on why man hasn't returned to the moon?


Other nations such as India and Japan have confirmed some of the NASA landing sites.
Why would they lie?



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 296  297  298    300  301  302 >>

log in

join