Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Ah....HaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!

Keep in mind that Buzz has minders (CIA handlers).

CIA? "handlers"? (You mean those guys with the blue gloves at airport security? NO, they are TSA, not CIA.....)

"CIA handlers"?......you might want to loosen that tin foil hat, mate.

"CIA handlers"....ah....HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!

_______
I am interested in learning whether paranoia is classed as a particular symptom in the psychiatric medical references....oh, good, right at my fingertips. I just Googled:

Is+paranoia+a+mental+illness?

...and, of course:

Good ole', reliable Wiki

Sure enough, we might be able to do some armchair diagnoses of "Jarrah White", now?

(I know, I know....not the proper way to conduct such examinations, nor to make a diagnosis. BUT, would be interesting to compare notes, and look for clues in his behavior, compared to the medical information on other individuals, as a standard).

Originally posted by Pinke
m.smh.com.au/national/the-diary/security-we-have-a-problem-20101005-166a5.html

Sydney paper article is above. Jarrah seriously blows this out of proportion for his own gain. I don't see any reference to his removal. If that's a hit piece the PTB seem to be made of rainbows.

edit on 8-4-2011 by Pinke because: (no reason given)

Blown out of proportion?
You ask one simple relevant question during a Q&A and somebody
writes a disparaging article about it; providing the public with your full name and calling you an interloper
when you were invited?

Im sure if that happened to any of us we would be just as shocked and angry about it.

And by the way... was JW wearing a "fedora" ?

reply to post by FoosM

I mean, how could Buzz not know about the whole dutch fake moon rock fiasco?
He should have had a good explanation for it.
Im sure JW wasnt the only one who asked him about it.

Why should Aldrin know anything at all about something he had nothing to do with? Let's see what the story actually says:

The museum acquired the rock after the death of former prime minister Willem Dreesman in 1988.
Dreesman received it as a private gift in 1969 from then-U.S. ambassador J. William Middendorf who accompanied the Apollo 11 astronauts on a visit to The Netherlands after the first moon landing.
Mr Middendorf told how the rock came from the U.S. State Department, but couldn't recall the exact details.

Daily Mail

Does that say "Buzz Aldrin presented the Dutch Prime Minister on behalf of NASA?" No.

J. William Middendorf, the former American ambassador to the Netherlands, made the presentation to Mr Drees and the rock was then donated to the Rijksmuseum after his death in 1988.

The Telegraph

Well?

The U.S. ambassador gave Drees the rock during an Oct. 9, 1969 visit by the Apollo 11 astronauts to the Netherlands. Drees's grandson, also named Willem, told the AP his grandfather had been out of office for more than a decade and was nearly deaf and blind in 1969, though his mind was still sharp.

"My guess is that he did not hear well what was said," said the grandson. "He may have formed his own idea about what it was."

USA Today

Buzz Aldrin had nothing to do with that private gift. Jarrah White has supposedly dedicated his entire life to researching the Apollo project; how could he possibly not know the real story? Given that, why would he expect Aldrin even to have heard about? What sort of answer could he possibly have expected? He had the rare opportunity to ask one of the Apollo astronauts any question he wanted, based on his years of "research," and he chose to ask a question about something completely irrelevant. Jarrah was "invited" to the press conference under false pretenses, deliberately tried to embarrass the guest of honor, then sulked when he was treated like the obnoxious brat he is. He probably forced himself on the reporter and insisted she mention him in the coverage of the event, providing the correct spelling of his name and home town! Think about it.

reply to post by DJW001


So is this part not true then?

t was the space conspiracy theorist Jarrah White, who quizzed Aldrin on whether he knowingly gave a piece of petrified wood - which until last year was thought to be moon rock - to the former Dutch Prime Minister Willem Drees shortly after the Apollo 11 voyage in 1969. ''Petrified wood? Well, that doesn't sound like it came from the moon,'' Aldrin responded, before suggesting the sample was switched sometime after 1969. ''What happens to that display once it is presented to somebody isn't the responsibility of the United States, and it certainly isn't the responsibility of the crew that gave it to them.'' That's that then.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Well actually this should go to skunk works. Or better yet [Hoax] as it has been prooved several times that JW has twisted facts or outright lied in his videos.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Jarrah's questions might have sounded "too dangerous" for Buzz's CIA handler. Hence the immediate need for a newspaper HIT PIECE on Jarrah White.

What CIA handlers?

If Aldrin’s minders were at the conference, I wasn't aware of it. No one tried to stop me doing anything.

-- Jarrah White

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by DJW001

 

So is this part not true then?

t was the space conspiracy theorist Jarrah White, who quizzed Aldrin on whether he knowingly gave a piece of petrified wood - which until last year was thought to be moon rock - to the former Dutch Prime Minister Willem Drees shortly after the Apollo 11 voyage in 1969. ''Petrified wood? Well, that doesn't sound like it came from the moon,'' Aldrin responded, before suggesting the sample was switched sometime after 1969. ''What happens to that display once it is presented to somebody isn't the responsibility of the United States, and it certainly isn't the responsibility of the crew that gave it to them.'' That's that then.

I see you are trying to twist Aldrin's off the cuff comment about something that happened forty years earlier to make it appear that he was involved in presenting the petrified wood to the Prime Minister. It is clear that what he meant was that once the crew returned the rocks to Earth, they really had nothing further to do with them. If you want to claim that Aldrin personally presented the alleged "moon rock" to the PM, it is now your responsibility to dig up a Dutch newspaper report from the time proving it. Any further posts of yours on this matter will be ignored until you provide some kind of evidence.

reply to post by DJW001


I'm not twisting anything..
I posted a statement of what someone said was spoken...

You're the one doing the twisting...
Then again I note you feel the need to bring up other threads and call me a troll..
Good work mate..

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

A proposal to:
1. Move this thread Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate! from General Conspiracies to Conspiracy Theorists.
2. Jarrah White has gained sufficient notoriety on the internet, on forums, on YouTube.
3. 3rd party independant verification has taken place. To wit "space conspiracy theorist Jarrah White".
Source m.smh.com.au...

Is there a second to this MOTION of ACTION?

1. There has been ample evidence presented on this thread to move it to [HOAX]

2. Jarrah White has such a small internet footprint that the editors of WikiPedia had not even heard of him.

I just reverted an edit by 124.168.114.217 that added Jarrah White to the list of hoax proponents. The addition was too ad hominem to stand as written, but it raises the question - is he notable enough to be added to the article? I know we're more at the point where we would like to shorten it. Jminthorne (talk) 06:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I was going to whithold judgement on the addition of "Jarrah White" to the proponents section, but it was reverted already anyway. Still, I copy edited what what attempted to be added, so here it is:
Jarrah White, a South Sydney, Australia, based YouTube user who claims to be the Grandson of Bill Kaysing[[[en.wikipedia.org...:Cite_web Cite web| url=][en.wikipedia.org...:Cite_web www.youtube.com...][en.wikipedia.org...:Cite_web | accessdate=][[[en.wikipedia.org...:1_September_2009 #dateformat:1 September 2009]]]| title=Bill Kaysing The Service Engineer| first=Jarrah| last=White| publisher=[[[en.wikipedia.org... YouTube]]]]][[[en.wikipedia.org...:RS? RS?]]]. White claims that he will apologies to the Apollo Astronauts on behalf of Kaysing, should the proposed conspiracy be disproved. White strenuously defends his position, and has produced numerous videos presenting spurious evidence to support the theory of a hoax. White also supports the Ralph Rene position regarding "Gaddy's Pi". [[[en.wikipedia.org...:Cite_web Cite web| url=][en.wikipedia.org...:Cite_web www.youtube.com...][en.wikipedia.org...:Cite_web | accessdate=][[[en.wikipedia.org...:1_September_2009 #dateformat:1 September 2009]]]| title=Squaring the Circle with Gaddy's Pi | first=Jarrah| last=White| publisher=[[[en.wikipedia.org... YouTube]]]]][[[en.wikipedia.org...:RS? RS?]]]
Without third party coverage of any of this, I don't see it as being particularly important to add myself.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 06:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree, there must by third-party coverage of this, anybody can get on youtube and say whatever they want, it's the same as citing a blog post, unless there is some special reason to think it is relevent it probably doesn't need to be added. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Anybody CAN get on youtube, but I doubt anyone, as a private individual, has such a well-written and produced body of work on this subject as Mr. White. Whether you agree or disagree with him, the effort is notable and should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.177.134.118 (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
His YouTube account here shows 640 subscribers which is a fair number. Does that count as verification of notability? Man with two legs (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Not really, no. There's a guideline at Wikipedia:Notability. Independent, third party coverage is what's really important.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 16:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiPedia

3. It is pathetic that Jarrah's name has only appeared in print once, and that in an article that portrays him creating a public nuisance. Perhaps if he stopped making silly YouTube videos and actually tried to write a book, he might make more of a name for himself.

I second PsyOps motion to move this to [HOAX].

Today I have a few announcements to make. Firstly, another $20 has generously been donated towards my fund raise. Special thanks goes out to Mathew Johnson for the donation.

Secondly, with only one film left to finish, my MoonFaker Moon Rocks Revisited series should be out in a matter of weeks.

Thirdly, I am proud to say that my counter-notifications against Mark Gray of Spacecraft Films have been successful. As some of you may already know, he has filed eight fraudulent DMCA copyright infringement claims against my videos, which were made from public domain NASA stock footage. Six of these takedowns resulted in the termination of my original account. The six uploads in question proved that the Apollo 10 telecasts were faked and that pieces of existing Apollo 10 footage were absent from the so-called "complete" DVD set sold by Spacecraft Films. The other two showed that the earth view from the Apollo 11 30:28GET telecast, which propagandists have flogged over and over, was in fact a cut away shot from an edited reel of video - despite claims by propagandists that it was a continuous shot with no edits!

Gray has also filed additional takedowns on other users, like greenmagoos who merely uploaded the Apollo 15 flag ceremony.

It is now clear to Youtube that Gray's DMCA takedowns were bogus and thus the two videos he flagged on this account were reinstated.

Isn't it funny. Propagandists and proven con-artists can file bogus DMCA copyright infringement claims against conspiracy theorists, or even threaten them with DMCA takedowns after the said CT exposed that the trolls were vandalizing Wikipedia or censoring existing footage from public view. The propagandists will gloat about how the conspiracy theorist supposedly used "copyrighted material" to "defame" its owner, all the while knowing full well that the material was public domain.

But when the propagandists actually DO use copyrighted material to defame the owner, who happens to be a conspiracy theorist, and that owner retaliates; watch how quick the trolls are to allege that the conspiracy theorist's flagging was fraudulent. Watch how quick they are to falsely flag videos as inappropriate and make videos about it. Watch how quick they are to create sock-puppet accounts to mirror these libelous videos to try and swamp their opponents out of the game, and flood their opponents' videos with hateful comments and sock-puppet voting. This behaviour is devoid of the moon hoax subject, immature and the is the very definition of hypocrisy.

As of April 8th 2011, the total amount of funds raised is $349.07US.

Get ready Apollo defenders, JW is about to drop the HAMMER!

Apollo Defenders retaliate:

Wow! In just about 40minutes alone, this video has gone from 26 likes & 36 dislikes, to 26 likes & 50 dislikes! Some of these dislikes came moments apart from one another. Yes, I've caught them in the act with my handy screen capture.

We're clearly dealing with someone with way too much time on their hands and a lot of sock-puppet accounts.

WhiteJarrah 12 hours ago

Wow - you got some serious thumbs down here Jarrah! - your work is attracting and upsetting the critics! - A very succesful and capable man told me many years ago (when I told him most everybody thought I was a cool guy) 'well you need to work harder and make sure your better than the rest if you want to succeed - when most people dislike what you do and how you do it, you will know your efforts are finally starting to pay-off!'. - idiots don't attract critics on this scale!

TREACLE97 2 hours ago

What are Apollo defenders afraid of?


www.youtube.com...

reply to post by FoosM

Apollo Defenders retaliate:

@qubolo

Jarrah has insulted many, many people in the past. For Jarrah to cry cyberbullying makes him a hypocrite.

smogmontser

what an attention seeking drama queen. Jarrah, you are a hypocrite of the worst kind.

smogmontser


@markjh2005

" You do realise that some people have large subscriber bases and put out bulletins, just like you do, alerting large amounts of people to what you are up to?"

Is that what you do mark? Let's take a look shall we?

Astrobrant2 LukeQuixoteofSanJose Rob260259 mercatormac and of course sicko imposter stalkenvision

Have you voted with all of your sockpuppet accounts yet? I'm sure you have much more up your trolling sleeves!

What is it that Jarrah is UP TO?

Jarrah the tv transmissions might be pulic domain but they are only available on those dvd sets. Not downloadable on lineas far as I know? If you hadn't also included the Spacecraft Films logos giving the details of the tv transmissions he probaby wouldn't have attempted to remove them because they are supposed to be public domain. Please go back to actually investigating the moon landings and stop removing other peoples videos if they upset you. It doesn't look good!

greenmagoos

www.youtube.com...

Just wanted to make sure the coverage here was fair and balanced. By the way, is RanMa in the public domain?

Apollo doesnt answer questions, it brings up problems...

Not too long ago a thread was made entitled :
Strange Facts You (Probably) Never Knew About the Moon[

After hundreds of years of detailed observation and study, our closest companion in the vast universe, Earth’s moon, remains an enigma. Six moon landings and hundreds of experiments have resulted in more questions being asked than answered. Among them:

Lets take a look at some of them:

1. Moon’s Age: The moon is far older than previously expected. Maybe even older than the Earth or the Sun. The oldest age for the Earth is estimated to be 4.6 billion years old; moon rocks were dated at 5.3 billion years old, and the dust upon which they were resting was at least another billion years older.

2. Rock’s Origin: The chemical composition of the dust upon which the rocks sat differed remarkably from the rocks themselves, contrary to accepted theories that the dust resulted from weathering and breakup of the rocks themselves. The rocks had to have come from somewhere else.

3. Heavier Elements on Surface: Normal planetary composition results in heavier elements in the core and lighter materials at the surface; not so with the moon. According to Wilson, "The abundance of refractory elements like titanium in the surface areas is so pronounced that several geologists proposed the refractory compounds were brought to the moon’s surface in great quantity in some unknown way. They don’t know how, but that it was done cannot be questioned." (Emphasis added).

5. Magnetic Rocks: Moon rocks were magnetized. This is odd because there is no magnetic field on the moon itself. This could not have originated from a "close call" with Earth—such an encounter would have ripped the moon apart.

11. Unusual Metals: The moon’s crust is much harder than presumed. Remember the extreme difficulty the astronauts encountered when they tried to drill into the maria? Surprise! The maria is composed primarily illeminite, a mineral containing large amounts of titanium, the same metal used to fabricate the hulls of deep-diving submarines and the skin of the SR-71 "Blackbird". Uranium 236 and neptunium 237 (elements not found in nature on Earth) were discovered in lunar rocks, as were rustproof iron particles.

JW addresses these in his series

4. Water Vapor: On March 7, 1971, lunar instruments placed by the astronauts recorded a vapor cloud of water passing across the surface of the moon. The cloud lasted 14 hours and covered an area of about 100 square miles.

What!?
Well indeed that was the case:

The Apollo 14 Suprathermal Ion Detector Experiment observed a series of bursts of 48.6 eV water vapor ions at the lunar surface during a 14-h period on March 7, 1971. The maximum flux observed was 108 ions cm–2 s–1 sr–1. These ions were also observed at Apollo 12, 183 km to the west. Evaluation of specific artificial sources including the Apollo missions and the Russian Lunokhod leads to the conclusion that the water vapor did not come from a man-made source. Natural sources exogenous to the Moon such as comets and the solar wind are also found to be inadequate to explain the observed fluxes. Consequently, these water vapor ions appear to be of lunar origin.

www.springerlink.com...

12. Moon’s Origin: Before the astronauts’ moon rocks conclusively disproved the theory, the moon was believed to have originated when a chunk of Earth broke off eons ago (who knows from where?). Another theory was that the moon was created from leftover "space dust" remaining after the Earth was created. Analysis of the composition of moon rocks disproved this theory also. Another popular theory is that the moon was somehow "captured" by the Earth’s gravitational attraction. But no evidence exists to support this theory. Isaac Asimov, stated, "It’s too big to have been captured by the Earth. The chances of such a capture having been effected and the moon then having taken up nearly circular orbit around our Earth are too small to make such an eventuality credible."

So now what are we left with?

Of all these theories, the impact theory fits best with all the data that has thus far been accumulated about the Moon. Future lunar exploration, especially that which will determine global bulk composition of the Moon, should help scientists settle this issue.

I thought Apollo should have settled it. No?

10. Moon Echoes: On November 20, 1969, the Apollo 12 crew jettisoned the lunar module ascent stage causing it to crash onto the moon. The LM’s impact (about 40 miles from the Apollo 12 landing site) created an artificial moonquake with startling characteristics—the moon reverberated like a bell for more than an hour. This phenomenon was repeated with Apollo 13 (intentionally commanding the third stage to impact the moon), with even more startling results. Seismic instruments recorded that the reverberations lasted for three hours and twenty minutes and traveled to a depth of twenty-five miles, leading to the conclusion that the moon has an unusually light—or even no—core.

So does it have a core or not? And how do you explain a planetoid with no core?

15. Spaceship Moon: As outrageous as the Moon-Is-a-Spaceship Theory is, all of the above items are resolved if one assumes that the moon is a gigantic extraterrestrial craft, brought here eons ago by intelligent beings. This is the only theory that is supported by all of the data, and there are no data that contradict this theory.

Oh, I see!

reply to post by FoosM

Not too long ago a thread was made entitled :
Strange Facts You (Probably) Never Knew About the Moon[

Except that none of them are actually facts. Allow me to be lazy and simply repost this from that thread:

reply to post by DontProbeMeBro


Wow. Over 111 stars and you can't even read the original post. At the risk of straying into copyright waters, I will address the points raised at this website.

The oldest age for the Earth is estimated to be 4.6 billion years old; moon rocks were dated at 5.3 billion years old, and the dust upon which they were resting was at least another billion years older.

The oldest rocks found on the surface of the Earth are estimated to be about 4 billion years old. As Weed pointed out, this is due to the fact that the Earth is geologically active. Rock is recycled. These processes do not seem to be occurring on the Moon, so older rock is preserved.

The chemical composition of the dust upon which the rocks sat differed remarkably from the rocks themselves, contrary to accepted theories that the dust resulted from weathering and breakup of the rocks themselves

Much of the dust simply settled onto the Moon from space. It has no atmosphere to shield it from micrometeoroids.

"The abundance of refractory elements like titanium in the surface areas is so pronounced that several geologists proposed the refractory compounds were brought to the moon’s surface in great quantity in some unknown way."

I can only find this statement on webpages that plagiarize the article that the OP plagiarized.

On March 7, 1971, lunar instruments placed by the astronauts recorded a vapor cloud of water passing across the surface of the moon.

True, It may have been water associated with the lunar mission itself. The Apollo lunar surface water event revisited.

Moon rocks were magnetized

They contain iron. The solar wind emits a constant stream of electrons. Moving electrons create magnetism.

No Volcanoes

Yes, volcanoes. The Moon does not have plate tectonics like the Earth, but there is ample evidence that historically, hot material from below has erupted onto the surface.

Moon Mascons

Caused by material of greater density. They need not be artificial.

Seismic Activity: Hundreds of "moonquakes" are recorded each year that cannot be attributed to meteor strikes.

Why not?

In November, 1958, Soviet astronomer Nikolay A. Kozyrev of the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory photographed a gaseous eruption of the moon near the crater Alphonsus.

"Transient Lunar Phenomena" like this have been observed, quite literally, forever. They are one reason why scientists think that lunar volcanism may still be occurring.

Hollow Moon: The moon’s mean density is 3.34 gm/cm3 (3.34 times an equal volume of water) whereas the Earth’s is 5.5. What does this mean? In 1962, NASA scientist Dr. Gordon MacDonald stated...

1962? The person who wrote this is grasping at anything. The Moon is less dense because it does not have a nickel-iron core like the Earth; it is solid "rock."

I could go on, but the list is lengthy... and misinformed.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Not too long ago a thread was made entitled :
Strange Facts You (Probably) Never Knew About the Moon[

Except that none of them are actually facts. Allow me to be lazy and simply repost this from that thread:

Umm... actually there are facts, you just posted explanations for the facts.
So all you are doing is offering confirming

reply to post by FoosM


I TOO have read that thread....the entire premise of those alleged "facts" about the Moon?

Based on a host of horrible misconceptions, and science being skewered.....to be left bleeding in agony, and left to die.

Shame that logic and science gets trampled by ignorance.....so often.....

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Buzz summarily dismissed his involvement in the Netherlands Anomoly. That should be the end of the article.

In your opinion, but it wouldn't be news to them if they didn't have something to frame it with.

It is within this last section where the minders go above & beyond and pull the trigger on this HIT PIECE. Please note how the concept of the Sydney Morning Herald Diary, a stupid social gossip column, changes from snarky reportage in the beginning to clear antagonism and character assassination in the end.

Finally, the SMH Diary is a drama & gossip column with no journalistic integrity. Look at the SMH Diary itself and you can see that this is the case. It is the perfect place to drop a HIT PIECE on Jarrah White because nobody is going to fact-check a gossip column!

Case in point "The Cleo Bachelor of the Year will be announced April 20."

Putting the term HIT PIECE in capital letters doesn't really help your case, it just makes the letters bigger.

The statements you've made here actually go against the point you're trying to make. It's a gossip column. How else are they going to frame the article??? They can't exactly discuss Aldrin's choice of loafers and pimp cane, so its absolutely going to be about Jarrah White.

It's completely the wrong place to put a 'hit piece' about Jarrah because it's a gossip column. No one takes it seriously. Furthermore, if you're going to run a hit piece on someone why would you let them reply?

It's just standard media nonsense, and the problems you're suggesting have less to do with the CIA and more to do with the state of world media. Jarrah White conspiracy theorist confronts Alrdrin? News. Cricket player sends sexy txts? Give it front page.

Few years ago I was hit by a car near my office. The media showed up, asked me a handful of questions, then I walked back to my office after an ambulance person said I could leave. Next day there was an article in the paper saying I'd been hit by a car and rushed to hospital with serious back problems.

Welcome to the media.

Originally posted by Pinke
Few years ago I was hit by a car near my office. The media showed up, asked me a handful of questions, then I walked back to my office after an ambulance person said I could leave. Next day there was an article in the paper saying I'd been hit by a car and rushed to hospital with serious back problems.

Welcome to the media.

Pinke I'm not picking on you here specifically. I'd like to use your situation to make a point here about the anatomy of a hit piece.

1. Did you jump in front of the car because you are an attention seeking interloper?
2.It was reported in the media that you went to hospital but now you say otherwise? Did you lie to the media?
3.Where was your minder when the car ambushed you?
4.When you refused hospital treatment because you are Amish, like the killer who killed 25 school children in the Amish School a few years ago, are you now bringing up this hit & run incident to get attention and sympathy?
5.I understand when you say Welcome to the Media but would YOU accept a newspaper hit piece against YOU that characterized YOU as an attention seeking interloper and compared YOU to an Amish killer? No, you would not. I wouldn't accept it either.

Now imagine that YOU are Buzz Aldrin and you fly to Syndey Australia with an entourage (who pays them?) and the way these public appearances (big word: conferences) work is that Buzz's "minders" hands out the pre-planned questions to the audience and Buzz answers them. Like a script. Buzz collects a paycheck and his minders put the money in the bank which funds more appearances and more scripted questions and more paychecks.

Poor Buzz. His "minders" are dragging him all over the world to exploit him for money & travel benefits. He can't deal with unknown questions because he might accidentally give the wrong answers hence the pre-planned questionnaires... which he even joked about. He JOKED about it!

But you know what? Buzz was mentally agile in his verbal response to Jarrah. Buzz instantly understood the implication of the question and he understood that he was on the record and he understood that it was not on the script of pre-planned questions.

And now thanks to Jarrah White we have Buzz Aldrin's answer to the Netherlands Anomoly on video and it is now a part of the historical record.

THANKS JARRAH

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Buzz's "minders" hands out the pre-planned questions to the audience and Buzz answers them. Like a script.

Why is it that believers that man landing on the moon was a hoax have to constantly make things up and tell lies? No pre planned questions were handed out, so why do you claim that they were?

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Buzz's "minders" hands out the pre-planned questions to the audience and Buzz answers them. Like a script.

Why is it that believers that man landing on the moon was a hoax have to constantly make things up and tell lies? No pre planned questions were handed out, so why do you claim that they were?

Oh yes they were.

Or, it was for the rest of the conference. All further questions - on the greatest feats of the 20th century, on his heroes - were gently put to Aldrin by people associated with the society. ''You accepted my planned question very well,'' Aldrin joked in response to one.

Source m.smh.com.au...