Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

The real conspiracy is the Mark Gray/spacecraftfilms copyright scheme to create a CIA front company, profitting from the dvd sales of NASA's Apollo public domain content.

Mark Gray is a former network tv executive and his father working on Apollo. Now that is fishy.

Take it up with Mark Gray - it's easy to get in touch www.spacecraftfilms.com...

If you don't I'll pass on your comments to him, seeing as you think he's somehow involved in something vague or other.

As far as I can tell Spacecraft films do not claim copyright on NASA material. What they quite rightly claim copyright on is the material that they sell. If I copied a set of DVDs made by them and tried to sell it, what do you think would happen?

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: DJW001


Many times JW admits his errors. Usually at the beginning of his next series he'll admit what he did wrong with the first. I don't see him name-calling, really ever, unless you consider the term "propagandist" slander.

He called me a troll and claims to have reported me to YouTube for harassment. Is that really the action of a man who has made an honest mistake? If he is so open to admitting his error then why did he take down the post in which I pointed it out?

I've made mistakes on this thread and several other threads, on this message board alone. When somebody points them out (or if I spot them myself) I admit them and correct them. Jarrah just throws his toys out of the pram. Or should I say his milk bottles out of the shopping cart.

a reply to: Rob48



I think he took offense to you disrespecting his deceased friend - or maybe he was just upset that you called him out (possibly both). I don't think he handled it well yesterday and used anger rather than rationale. Good job finding the errors in Rene's maths, but, as you stated yesterday - we could have possibly seen a more humble response or some sort of retort but you gave him an excuse to act the way he did when you slandered Rene.

a reply to: cestrup

My words regarding RR were this: "The solar and electrical gains were already included in the 1600 BTU/hr figure, so why did he begin by adding them back in again? Answer: because he was being deliberately deceptive."

Yes, my point would have been made just as well without the second sentence, so mea culpa, but hardly the slander of the century.

Anyway, in this thread let me go back to tackling the claims, not the man. Jarrah's "explanation" in his video description contains another howler:

Others have asked why we don't see any ice crystals shooting out of the modern shuttle EVA suits. Apparently, unlike their Apollo counterparts, a modern EVA suit recirculates its water back through the LCG, instead of ejecting it into space.

Again, wrong wrong wrong. He seems to be getting confused between the condensate water (from the astronaut's breath and sweat), which is recirculated, and the cooling water, which is not and cannot be. The shuttle PLSS carries 4.5 litres of expendable water for cooling. See this reference, for example. Both suits emit several litres of liquid water equivalent (as vapour) during a long EVA. If you could see it venting from the Apollo suits, you would see it from the shuttle ones too.

You simply cannot get a net cooling effect by starting and ending with the same volume of coolant water. That would be a thermodynamic "free lunch" and they don't exist. This is not like a car radiator leaking heat into the atmosphere. The water has to evaporate and be lost into space in order to carry the heat away. That is the fundamental mechanism of cooling, and this claim just illustrates once more that he does not grasp how the physics of it works. He claims to have been studying this stuff for years. This time last week I couldn't have told you what a PLSS was without looking it up, and yet I already know more about how it works than him!

Where did Jarrah get this idea? Notice that word "apparently", which is shorthand for "Here's something I read somewhere". He gives a link to Wikipedia, and the Wikipedia page is badly written. First rule of Wiki, Jarrah: go to the original sources!

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Would you care to take this to the debate forum? I've put out 3 debate challenges in this thread and nobody yet has accepted.

That's because you keep refusing to submit a debatable proposition. How about: "Richard Nixon is personally responsible for faking the Apollo missions?" Would you take that one up? Why or why not?

My debate offer has been out there since page 215 of this thread.

I'll give YOU the advantage of selecting the specific topic, I will give YOU the advantage of selecting/recruiting 2 moderators, I will give YOU the advantage of going first. How does that sound to you, DJW?

Before we go any further in the negotiations would you be willing to change the word 'personally' to 'ultimately'? Or, delete the word 'personally'' entirely?

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Would you care to take this to the debate forum? I've put out 3 debate challenges in this thread and nobody yet has accepted.

That's because you keep refusing to submit a debatable proposition. How about: "Richard Nixon is personally responsible for faking the Apollo missions?" Would you take that one up? Why or why not?

My debate offer has been out there since page 215 of this thread.

I'll give YOU the advantage of selecting the specific topic, I will give YOU the advantage of selecting/recruiting 2 moderators, I will give YOU the advantage of going first. How does that sound to you, DJW?

Before we go any further in the negotiations would you be willing to change the word 'personally' to 'ultimately'? Or, delete the word 'personally'' entirely?

I wouldnt care cant speak for him but ill do it no problem pick a day.

originally posted by: dragonridr

I wouldnt care cant speak for him but ill do it no problem pick a day.

Neither one of us have 'fighter' status.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: dragonridr

I wouldnt care cant speak for him but ill do it no problem pick a day.

Neither one of us have 'fighter' status.

Its not hard to get fighter status you just ask.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: dragonridr

I wouldnt care cant speak for him but ill do it no problem pick a day.

Neither one of us have 'fighter' status.

Its not hard to get fighter status you just ask.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I put in my request. Maybe we can do it in the next week or so.... after we settle the terms.

originally posted by: Rob48

He called me a troll

Boohoo. I have been called a troll 8 times in a single post. It happened in this thread. And I didn't report it. You know why? Because I have the skin of an elephant mixed with a rhino and a crocodile.

Does spacecraftfilms routinely file DCMA's or did they target Jarrah White for some reason?

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

Boohoo. I have been called a troll 8 times in a single post. It happened in this thread. And I didn't report it. You know why? Because I have the skin of an elephant mixed with a rhino and a crocodile.

Does spacecraftfilms routinely file DCMA's or did they target Jarrah White for some reason?

we call you a troll because you are a troll and you know it and enjoy it..

but regarding jarrah, he is wrong with this claim, and has clearly just taken rene's word as absolute authority without even checking and has no intention on correcting the mistake..
which shows everyone that he is knowingly peddling false information, dis-info agent maybe?..

you know that Jarrah White also likes to throw the DCMA's around against people who make youtube videos to de-bunk his claims??

so what im seeing here is jarrah white purposefully pushing false information to lamens hoping to "razzle dazzle" them with large falsified numbers that they wouldnt understand..

a reply to: choos

we call you a troll because you are a troll and you know it and enjoy it..

Every Apollo thread deserves to have a historical component added to it. Let me remind you how the Apollo propaganda "moon landing" missions are exclusive to and occur entirely within the context of the Richard Nixon administration.



The Apollo "moon" landings have never been independently confirmed by a demonstrated ability to reproduce the same results. That's what science requires. And you are not a scientist if you cannot comprehend the scientific method.

When you can show independent verification of the NASA claims then you can claim to have a scientific advantage. All of your evidence leads back to NASA. So NASA is confirming NASA is not scientific at all.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

Every Apollo thread deserves to have a historical component added to it. Let me remind you how the Apollo propaganda "moon landing" missions are exclusive to and occur entirely within the context of the Richard Nixon administration.

what about from 61-69???

p.s. there was no Richard Nixon administration prior to 69 also..

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

The Apollo "moon" landings have never been independently confirmed by a demonstrated ability to reproduce the same results. That's what science requires. And you are not a scientist if you cannot comprehend the scientific method.

Back to your favorite fallacy, I see. The Moon landings are an historical event, and therefore need to be examined as history, not a science experiment. You are neither an historian nor a scientist, or you would understand the difference. Historians base their conclusions on documentation, testimony (which you have called a "fallacy" in your ignorance) and physical evidence, all of which prove the reality of the Moon landings beyond a shadow of a doubt. As for the scientific requirement of repeatability, every single technical aspect of the missions has been repeated by other nations and, soon, private corporations.

When you can show independent verification of the NASA claims then you can claim to have a scientific advantage. All of your evidence leads back to NASA. So NASA is confirming NASA is not scientific at all.

Your insistence on applying the standards of physical science to historical science is absurd. It is like claiming that the First World War cannot possibly happen because all the accounts were written by people who claimed to have participated, and therefore cannot be trusted, and, since none of them are alive to take lie detector tests, their testimony is something you consider to be a fallacy.

a reply to: DJW001

Your insistence on applying the standards of physical science to historical science is absurd. It is like claiming that the First World War cannot possibly happen because all the accounts were written by people who claimed to have participated, and therefore cannot be trusted, and, since none of them are alive to take lie detector tests, their testimony is something you consider to be a fallacy.

Not to mention, extending SJ's argument, that it would not be possible to recreate the First World War today.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: Rob48

He called me a troll

Boohoo. I have been called a troll 8 times in a single post. It happened in this thread. And I didn't report it. You know why? Because I have the skin of an elephant mixed with a rhino and a crocodile.

Does spacecraftfilms routinely file DCMA's or did they target Jarrah White for some reason?

I raised that because you said Jarrah doesn't do name-calling. That, like Jarrah's entire premise, is rubbish. Him calling me a troll doesn't hurt me: I just quoted it to prove the hypocrisy.

And even when he doesn't block people outright he removes their comments if they show up his nonsense pseudoscience:

ApolloWasReal
1 day ago

+JastheMace1 You are wrong; gaseous water vapor is invisible. I said this yesterday but I notice my comments have disappeared. I guess Jarrah really doesn't like simple, verifiable facts.

Using your own argument: Does Jarrah White routinely delete inoffensive comments or did he target "ApolloWasReal" for some reason?

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

Every Apollo thread deserves to have a historical component added to it. Let me remind you how the Apollo propaganda "moon landing" missions are exclusive to and occur entirely within the context of the Richard Nixon administration.

There is a historical component to Apollo. It's called 'Mercury' and 'Gemini', and continues through to 'Skylab' and 'Apollo-Soyuz'.

Your call for a debate is based on a false premise. In order to prove Nixon's involvement in faking Apollo, you first need to prove Apollo was fake. So far your evidence for that is pretty much solely based on Nixon being president. Circular argument. It was not fake, all the evidence suggesting it is fake is fallacious, all the evidence supporting it is completely consistent in its entirety.

a reply to: DJW001

As for the scientific requirement of repeatability, every single technical aspect of the missions has been repeated by other nations and, soon, private corporations.

There is a technical aspect to the missions of landing a 2-man machine on the moon, dumping their garbage off, taking some pictures and then launching from the moon. Please tell us what other nations have repeated these technical aspects.

originally posted by: Rob48

Not to mention, extending SJ's argument, that it would not be possible to recreate the First World War today.

Thank you so much for extending my argument into outrageous conclusions. Card stacking and Transfer seem to be the modus operandi for Apollo Defenders.

a reply to: onebigmonkey
Your call for a debate is based on a false premise.

Well you did charge me (p.215) with trying to dictate the debate so this is what I offered you (p.215):

I'll give YOU the advantage of selecting the specific topic, I will give YOU the advantage of selecting/recruiting 2 moderators, I will give YOU the advantage of going first. How does that sound to you.