Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by manmental


Actually, I could NOT disagree more:

Its a shame as I believe Jarrah has a lot of interesting stuff to say that I don't think has been effectively debunked.

AND....his "moon rock series" will not be anything other than the usual crap, misdirection, misunderstanding of science he has demonstrated so far.

I do not understand how you can say that JW has "interesting stuff" (in relation to Apollo....his other "stuff"?? Well....).

Even the latest ("newest") ridiculous "video" by 'AWE130' (YouTube username) is just as worthless and pointless as all that has been presented by that particular bloke, as well.

manmental.....check this: The Apollo landing sites and the equipment left behind HAS BEEN IMAGED!!!.

Game over for "Jarrah White", and his ilk.

They are extinct.

Anachronisms.

Laughably ignorant, to the point (perhaps) of deserving our pity (??).

IF, on the other hand....a bloke like "Jarrah White" is knowingly perpetrating this fraud of a non-existent "hoax" in order to increase his potential personal career, then.....

....rather than "pity", he (and others doing similarly) deserve nothing other than immense SCORN and DERISION.

reply to post by exponent

I asked this to BIB (hope this is ok) a few pages back, what would you say are your biggest problems with believing in a moon mission? Feel free to list as few or as many as possible, it would be nice to get some actual discussion going on in this thread again

What we need is an index of this thread..
I don't want to bring up things that I'm sure have been discussed in detail,
but I also don't want to read through 400 pages to find the information..

reply to post by weedwhacker

Actually, I could NOT disagree more:

I'm 100% certain that everyone in this thread already knows your opinion of JW..

Spamming the same opinion over and over is not only annoying but also against T&C..

Please refrain yourself in future..

reply to post by weedwhacker


Hey Weed... agreeing to disagree is an important aspect to reasonable discussion.

I find Jarrah's findings very interesting and am yet to see independant proof that man walked on the moon.

Were you supposed to include a link in your post? I look forward to seeing an independant photo of the moon landing site with clearly identifiable features that doesn't have anything to do with NASA. please could you supply me with the link.

I guess you could also suffer from DJ's problem... jealousy of Jarrah's noteriety?

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Tough - it is my opinion about what I have observed here and elsewhere.

And right or wrong I'll accept it as your opinion..

thank you - and you know if more conspracy theorists said "I think..." or "IMO..." instead of trying to tell us what the "facts" are then there'd be a lot less agravation all around.

As you have probably realised you can disagree about interpretation in many cases, especially with inadequate information to make a solid conclusion, but when someone claims something as "fact" there's no longer room for agreeing to disagree..

We are drifting off topic so I'll leave it at that..

Yep - c ya

reply to post by exponent


Hey Exponant,

The areas that interest me the most:

1)No dust on lander feet.
2)No blast crater.
3)No dust dispersal tracks visible around stones under the lander booster (if dust blew way and stones remained we should see tracks showed this movement of materail, there are none.)
4)The fact that no-one has been close to going back.
5)The problems with van allen belts and thickness of shielding bearing in mind many solar falres occured during missions.
6)The fact that IMAX film needs shielding when in earths orbit yet all apollo films came back fine.
7)Jarrah's findings that NASA could have sent data back to earth via a lunar satellite... similar to how NASA trained the command cenntre using a satellite in earths orbit.
8)The incredible success rate of the missions compared to the many failures of shuttle missions.
9)The lack of any hubble/ telescop photos of the Lander on the moon post Apollo.
10)The fact NASA says they need years to have technology to go back to moon.
11)The cold war would have been a reason to fake the missions, and NASA was running simulations, and so the technology to make it work has been proved.
12)The laughable videos where astronauts magically levitate back into a standing position, from their knees.
13) Many strange anomalies with photos, shadows, lunar landscape, earth positions, sun positions... and myserious disappearing wands during a jump into a vehicle.
14) The very very strange video showing astronauts filming earth in their blacked out capsule... and seemingly reharsing a technique to fake a further distance to the earth, This is just weird.
15) The discrepencies in the apollo astronauts recollection about the star's visibility or lack of.
16) The very glum Apollo press conference after first moon mission... I've never seen three heroes so look so depressed and lonely. Demons going on in their minds it seems to me.
17)The fact that NASA has form with white-lies, doctoring photos and keeping secrets.
18) The dutch 'moon rock' that turned out to be fossilised wood.

To name my favourites.

Originally posted by manmental
Page 400. Wow.

May I make a constructive criticism about this thread. It has been hijacked by Foos who is bringing his own strange ideas into play most of which have had absolutely nothing to do with young Jarrah.

I haven't hijacked this thread, I've made contributions. What have you contributed on either side?
Everything moon-hoax related is related to JW moon hoax series even if the details were not particularly covered by him. JW covers, radiation, moon rocks, photo anomalies, simulations, transmissions, biographies, and much more. So my "strange ideas" are no stranger than what JW has offered up. And a few have a bit more meat than what he has presented.

And truthfully, I seriously doubt you take JW's videos seriously.
Im inclined to believe you think man has landed on the moon and you are just playing devil's advocate.

reply to post by FoosM


Foos.. no offence meant mate. We are on the same side (i think).
I have enough doubts about the apollo missions to not believe NASA.
I admit I love a good conspiracy, which this is. But I'm not playing devils advocate. See my post above yours for the very real problems I have with the missions.

I have previously said you do bring the occasional good idea into the mix... but dude, you are no way covering even similar ground as Jarrah who has realised long ago that talking about photo anomolies is pretty worthless in the great scheme of things.

Why don't you start your own post with your exclusive findings.

I don't need to remind you this post is about Jarrah White's findings... not yours.

My point was this thread is now useless to find out about Jarrah, his claims, and the attempts to debunk them.

If you must post your new ideas here at least present them well... don't just put up a photo and say .. 'whats wrong with this?' It helps no-one... not least yourself.

And this is coming from an ally.

reply to post by FoosM


Happy FoosM? You've actually managed to alienate your allies. Well done.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Happy FoosM? You've actually managed to alienate your allies. Well done.

I didn't know there were sides..

I thought everyone was more concerned with facts than sides..

Originally posted by manmental
reply to post by FoosM

 

Foos.. no offence meant mate. We are on the same side (i think).
I have enough doubts about the apollo missions to not believe NASA.
I admit I love a good conspiracy, which this is. But I'm not playing devils advocate. See my post above yours for the very real problems I have with the missions.

I have previously said you do bring the occasional good idea into the mix... but dude, you are no way covering even similar ground as Jarrah who has realised long ago that talking about photo anomolies is pretty worthless in the great scheme of things.

Why don't you start your own post with your exclusive findings.

I don't need to remind you this post is about Jarrah White's findings... not yours.

My point was this thread is now useless to find out about Jarrah, his claims, and the attempts to debunk them.

If you must post your new ideas here at least present them well... don't just put up a photo and say .. 'whats wrong with this?' It helps no-one... not least yourself.

And this is coming from an ally.

Cool, I understand where your criticism is coming from.
I'll retract my statement that you are playing 'devil's advocate'

My recent 'whats wrong with this?' post was specific to a particular poster.
I think for the most part I pack a lot of info in my posts when I present new information, or supplemental information to what JW has already presented.

As a matter of fact the particular photo in question has been used previously for such info packed posts:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And Bib also understand one of the problems in the photo:

Originally posted by backinblack

IMO the foil is not covering that thing, rover or whatever it is..
It doesn't seem to cast a shadow..

Yeah, exactly.

And I also noticed something else:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a5ebdf74449f.gif[/atsimg]

What are those white dots on the foil that the arrows are pointing to.
It must be reflections right?
If so, of what? UFO's? Ceiling lamps? Stars?


And I actually agree with JW, analyzing photos is probably one of the weakest subjects you can use to debate with for many reasons. We all have seen that out of the many subjects JW has presented, his topics on photos have probably been hammered on the most by the opposition. Isn't that right DJ

But, I must say, some photos seem to scream out for analysis:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7dc6ad8021a6.gif[/atsimg]

If I didn't go back to review the topic of photo anomalies, I wouldn't have found it.
Its power comes in its simplicity.
This isn't about shadow/light and perspective analysis.
This is a straight up "goof" !

Where the hell did the LRV sampler go?

And when you combine it with the transcripts the anomalies get magnified.

reply to post by FoosM

This is a straight up "goof" !
Where the hell did the LRV sampler go?
And when you combine it with the transcripts the anomalies get magnified.

And what is this guy doing? Why does he have two of those shovels? Where did they come from? I mean are they made in the US or China? If you can't answer that question unequivocally, it's a smoking gun that the city of Chicago doesn't exist! There can only be one correct, logical answer.

Moon Hoax propagandists are fond of taking random events out of context and inflating their importance. They pose irrelevant questions and make trivial points (that they could research for themselves) into life or death "smoking guns," I have addressed the "FoosM Indeterminacy Fallacy" here. (Funny... you didn't reply to that one either. Was that "off topic" too?)

Thank you for illustrating my point again, There were several possible explanations offered, yet you behave as though there is something inexplicable going on.

Incidentally, you still haven't responded to my critique of your methodology. Using your method, I was able to prove that a city of four million people doesn't exist. Do you think there may be some flaw in it?

reply to post by manmental


You should probably go back read the whole thread. Every single one of those points have already been completely debunked.

Ok, let's say we didn't land in the moon, so what changes in our daily lives and abroad?

Originally posted by nekomata111
Ok, let's say we didn't land in the moon, so what changes in our daily lives and abroad?

edit on 28-3-2011 by nekomata111 because: typo

Just about EVERYTHING.

Scientific hegemony will be splintered and broken, which will release an avalanche of new theories thus jump starting a new possible sustainable space race.
Trust & confidence in government would be eroded (in a good way).
The masses (especially in the US) will reevaluate their positions in life, the taxes they pay, their moral compasses.

reply to post by FoosM

Scientific hegemony will be splintered and broken, which will release an avalanche of new theories thus jump starting a new possible sustainable space race.

Rather than ask you what you mean by "scientific hegemony" or point out that there are hundreds of private companies developing their own spaceflight technologies, I'd simply like to ask if you're implying that the Van Allen Radiation belts were never more than a straw man?

reply to post by manmental


What? Really? LOL!

I guess you could also suffer from DJ's problem... jealousy of Jarrah's noteriety?

"noteriety"??

Jarrah White is about as "notable" as a tick on the arse of an obscure ape in Botswana.

NO, any notoriety that the punk may think he possesses? It is notable only in its inanity, and noisome idiocy.
What is troubling, though, is that his ignorance (and the similar traits of others like him) is able to persist, in an otherwise rational and sane world.

(Well....THAT is the root of the problem, isn't it? See my signature. I selected THAT particular quote, by Carl Sagan, on my first day of membership here. Haven't changed it since. Sadly, it CONTINUES to be the case, more and more.....ever more....).

I find that the idiocy of people like Moon "hoax" propagandists to be a symptom of the same sort of tragic decline in (mostly) United States society, as a result of failing schools' science education curricula.

NOT to single you out, but in another post I read after this one I'm responding to, with your "list"....again, those are ALL easily explained, when the person asking has the ability to comprehend the basic sciences....and is NOT prone to the rampant mis-information spewed by JW, his "mentor" Ralph Rene', and all the rest of them.


Finally....I detest charlatans. Those who intentionally "dumb down" and scam people, by taking advantage OF their ignorance. JW (if, he were actually a "genius" as claimed) can only be one of two things:

A "showman", who is doesn't believe ANY of the crap he shouts, in his ridiculous videos, OR;

NOT a "genius". Not if he is this daft to be unable to comprehend real science, by now. Not as much as he has "researched" into this.

SO, I am inclined to go with the former option: He has discovered a "path" to (what he hopes will be) some sort of "fame". Too bad, in his haste to make a "name" for himself, he doesn't realize that all hucksters, frauds and hoaxers ultimately go down in history as laughably scorned and ridiculed. His victims, too....WHEN they wake up and realize they've been had? THEY will turn....it is only a matter of time.

Boom, Bloom, Where is the Plume?

Some background worth watching:
Chemistry of Lunar Lift-Off

We re-create the chemical reaction that allowed astronauts to blast free from the Moon's gravity

&

Hypergolic Reaction


ahem... that was quite a explo- um... revealing demonstration.


The position of Apollo defenders:

Video footage of the Lunar Module's ascent from the Moon should show an exhaust plume from the engine, yet there is no visible plume.

The hoax advocates' claim that an exhaust plume should be visible is due to their experience seeing launches of such rockets as the Saturn V and the Space Shuttle, where large columns of smoke and flame are seen trailing the vehicle. Whether an exhaust plume is visible or not is mostly due to the type of propellant used. The Saturn V's first stage burned liquid oxygen (LOX) and kerosene, which produces an opaque yellow flame. The plume we see trailing the Space Shuttle comes from the solid-propellant boosters; however, if you look closely at the three main engines at the stern of the Shuttle orbiter, which burn LOX and liquid hydrogen, you will see very little flame. The Lunar Module used a propellant mixture consisting of nitrogen tetroxide and Aerozine 50 (a 50-50 mixture of hydrazine and unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine), which produces exhaust gases that are nearly invisible. This photograph [see photo] shows a close-up view of the engines of a Titan 2 missile during the launch of Gemini 11. This missile uses the same propellant as the LM - note the near invisibility of the flame. In space, the flame is even less visible as the plume expands and cools very rapidly in a vacuum.

The FOX program points out NASA illustrations showing an exhaust plume coming from the LM's ascent engine. This is a simple case of NASA taking artistic license. The illustrations are a dramatization of a LM launch and are not meant to be scientifically accurate.

Jarrah's counter


In this video Jarrah clearly shows a plume being emanated during Apollo 9.

Questions:
In comparisons to Jarrah's Apollo 9 example:
Why dont we see at least as large a plume with the LM liftoffs?
Why dont we see a constant glow?


Now if you believe the footage was faked, is there any evidence for it besides the lack
of a plume?

Were the launches done by cable?


Did a cable jerk the LM as it ascended?


They certainly had the tools and equipment:






I now want to present the following...

a plume:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3a58351423f2.gif[/atsimg]
www.hq.nasa.gov...

The S-IVB stage vents propellant during transposition and docking

Now Im assuming this was taken with the Hasselblad.
And Im wondering what setting was used to capture the escaping exhaust.

Let me also add there were three pictures:
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...

If we assume these photos were taken in a row, then we have to assume the event
could have taken no less than 3 seconds.
Thats at least three seconds a constant glow could be seen.
Or three bursts.

Three seconds we dont see during LM lift offs.
or even videos of docking:


How does that thing spin and stop on a dime?

for comparison:


Conclusion:
the lack of plume and engine glow is disturbing.


www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.braeunig.us...

Originally posted by FoosM

Questions:
In comparisons to Jarrah's Apollo 9 example:
Why dont we see at least as large a plume with the LM liftoffs?
Why dont we see a constant glow?

The plume you see is likely some unreacted propellants being expelled as the engine ignites. It's gone very quickly, and highlighted against the blackness of space. On the surface, there's no hope of seeing it against the sunlit landscape.

As for the glow, you're likely seeing the glow of the reaction inside the engine bell, not the exterior of the bell glowing. So you'll only see it if you have a view into the interior of the bell. We don't get that until the LM pitches over.

Originally posted by FoosM
I now want to present the following...

a plume:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3a58351423f2.gif[/atsimg]
www.hq.nasa.gov...

The S-IVB stage vents propellant during transposition and docking

Now Im assuming this was taken with the Hasselblad.
And Im wondering what setting was used to capture the escaping exhaust.

Let me also add there were three pictures:
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...

If we assume these photos were taken in a row, then we have to assume the event
could have taken no less than 3 seconds.
Thats at least three seconds a constant glow could be seen.
Or three bursts.

A couple problems. The excess fuel on the S-IVB was vented in an unreacted state. In other words, the engine is not firing. And the S-IVB used liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen fuel, not a hypergolic propellant.

Originally posted by FoosM

How does that thing spin and stop on a dime?

Using controled RCS burns.

Originally posted by FoosM
for comparison:

Mass of the LM ascent stage: about 4,600 kg. Mass of the shuttle orbiter: at least 92,000 kg. Also, the shuttle uses nitrogen tetroxide/monomethyl hydrazine propellant and the LM used nitrogen tetroxide/Aerozine 50.

reply to post by nataylor

The plume you see is likely some unreacted propellants being expelled as the engine ignites. It's gone very quickly, and highlighted against the blackness of space. On the surface, there's no hope of seeing it against the sunlit landscape.

Looks pretty well sunlit in that pic Nat..
The sun does not just shine on the moon...