Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Jarrah "MoonFaker" White - Revival of the classic Moon Hoax debate

page: 1
14

log in

join

posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   
I'm seeking to revive the moon hoax debate (and Jarrah White's information, in particular) for several reasons:

1) His body of work is still the best I've seen, here or anywhere.
(if someone else disagrees, well then, that's another perk: to broaden our scope on the subject)

2) As far as I can tell through ATS search, it was the most viewed Moon-Hoax topic on ATS - therefor participation by old members and new, alike, might be better. (377 Flags, and 671 Pages):
Orignally Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

3) It's been almost 2 years since the original thread was closed ('pending Staff review'), whereas:
- a) we can no longer comment or debate there, anymore but more importantly...
- b) who knows how many new members - particularly, who hold this topic in high regard - haven't had the benefit of participating in this debate?


I've spent some time perusing his official site, moonfaker.com, which is meant to supplement his YouTube Channel. (both awesome, and packed with information)

I thought the best place to kick off our [new] discussion, might be discussing his FAQ, which is insanely large, but halfway down the page we get:



Q: What is the most compelling evidence that the moon missions were faked?

A: Jarrah can nail it down to three pieces of evidence.


First, as demonstrated by James VAN ALLEN [BELTS]' own findings, the radiation belts that surround earth would have been lethal to astronauts10, 11. It began in 1952 when James Van Allen & his team at the University of Iowa began launching Geiger counters into space aboard rockoons. Although these did not have enough lift to get into orbit, these experiments were able to detect radiation levels higher than what Van Allen had expected. Later in the late 50s and early 60s, his Geiger counters were carried aloft by the Explorer satellites and Pioneer space probes. Each time the spacecrafts entered the radiation belts, the Geiger counters would become continuously busy. They encountered protons and electrons with fluxes of 40,000 particles per square centimetre per second and average energies ranging between 1-100 MeV.

Before Van Allen began shielding his Geiger counters with a millimetre of lead, the instruments detected radiation with a dose rate equivalent of 312.5rad/hr to 11,666rad/hr for the outer belt and inner belt respectively [Fig-2]12. These instruments quickly became jammed by the radiation. Even to this day, the belts are so severe that satellites must operate outside the belts: geostationary satellites operating beyond the end of the outer belt (but still within the protection of the magnetosphere) and GPS satellites operating in the gap between the two belts. Meanwhile low earth orbit satellites like the Hubble must shut down some of their instruments during South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) transit. Even after Van Allen shielded his Geiger counters with lead, the results were still equivalent to 10-100rad/hr. He concluded that effective shielding of astronauts was beyond engineering feasibility available at the time, that even a rapid transit through the belts would be hazardous, and that for these reasons the two belts must be classed as an uninhabitable region of space that all manned space flight must steer clear of.

Even if we discount the Van Allen belt, there are still other dangers to consider. The sun constantly bombards the earth-moon system with solar flares. Regardless of whether these flares deliver x-rays or protons, or are minor or major, both are a hazard to humans. A major flare delivers in excess of 100rad/hr, a minor flare can deliver 25rad/hr depending on how many centimetres of water shielding is used. The minor flares of May 10th and July 15th 1958 for example, would have required 31gm/cm2 of water just to bring their dose rates down to 25rad/hr [Fig-3]. The Apollo capsule, with its aluminium honeycomb hull and outer epoxy resin ablator, was rated at 3gm/cm2 on the walls and 8gm/cm2 on the aft heatshield. The thicker portion of the spacecraft walls would bring the dose rate of such flares down to around 1,000rem/hr. The records show that 1400 of these minor flares occurred over all nine moon flights (Tables 1 & 2). NOAA’s Comprehensive Flare Index for Major flares, also reveals that thirty of the major ones took place during the Apollo missions. By any definition, these astronauts should have been as dead as spam in a can.


The second smoking gun is the fact that the APOLLO 10 TELECASTS were proven to have been pre-filmed and edited together. After every space mission, NASA releases a ground-to-air communications transcript covering everything the crew and capsule communicators (Capcoms) said during the flight. The company Spacecraft Films sells what they claim is complete and unedited television transmissions and 16mm reels from the Apollo missions. Jarrah purchased the Apollo 10 DVD set and compared the in-flight videos with the transcript. To his astonishment, Jarrah found numerous occasions in which the views of earth and even interior shots would cut from one angle to another and yet the audio would remain perfectly synchronized to the video with no signs of interruption when the video cut. So we know that the astronauts didn’t simply cut the camera and then begin rolling moments later.

The Apollo astronauts had only the one television camera hooked up to the S-band antenna, so these broadcasts should be one continuous shot with no edits – as per the false claims made by propagandists. Because these edits only take place during post production, not whilst the video is being recorded, it would not have been possible to cut and paste LIVE video. The only logical conclusion is that the views of earth were pre-filmed, edited together, and then sandwiched between the interior shots with the ground-to-air communications dubbing the video regardless of the edits. Transitions from these fake views of earth videos to interior scenes were pulled off by conveniently cutting the camera or blacking the scene from interior to exterior and vice versa, in one circumstance Eugene Cernan went as far as putting a piece of paper in front of the camera lens during this switch from exterior to interior!

By comparing the videos with the transcript, Jarrah also discovered that there were sections of video missing from the “complete” Spacecraft Films DVD set. Jarrah knows these missing pieces of video exist, because in the transcript the Capcom confirms that the MSFN was ‘receiving’ them. For reasons unknown, Spacecraft Films omitted minutes of footage from Apollo 10 and then sold their DVD set to the world as “complete & unedited.”

After Jarrah released his video covering this, ironically titled “Flagging The Gems”, Mark Gray of Spacecraft Films flagged it for copyright infringement and had the video pulled along with Jarrah’s entire Youtube account. Gray’s copyright claims are fraudulent and thus he is guilty of perjury, because NASA’s in flight telecasts are PUBLIC DOMAIN. They are not copyrighted.




[Continued below]
edit on 9/17/2013 by SquirrelNutz because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   
[continuing]


The third piece of evidence that the Apollo missions were faked is the fact that the MOON ROCKS actually on the moon later turned out to be different to the ones the astronauts supposedly collected.

Apollo samples have a chemistry that can be matched fairly closely with terrestrial basalts and eucrites, a basaltic meteorite [Fig-4]. The same is true for the mineralogy: “The minerals found in JSC-1 (lunar regolith simulant), plagioclase, pyroxene, olivine, ilmenite, and chromite, are also characteristic of many lunar basalts and mare soils (Figure 5). The compositional ranges of these lunar minerals generally overlap the ranges of their terrestrial counterparts.” Apollo samples and earth rocks have oxygen18 to oxygen17 ratios of around 5:3 per mil. Although Eucrites are generally slightly less than this, there have been exceptions in which their oxygen isotope ratios are the same as earth (DaG 872 being a good example [Fig-5, 6]).
The three groups of rock are as identical as three of a kind.
Additionally, some scientists such as John O’Keefe have also noticed similarities between lunar glasses and tektites, leading to theories that tektites are lunar in origin, not terrestrial13 (Table 3 & 4).

Because of the similarities in age, chemistry, mineralogy and oxygen isotope ratios, as well as the alleged lack of water in Apollo samples, this has led William Hartman to believe that the moon was formed when a mars-sized planet collided with the earth. All water was vaporized in the impact and the moon formed out of the terrestrial debris knocked off into space. To account for the similarities between Apollo samples and eucrites, some such as Ruzicka et al have proposed that the mars-sized planet had a eucritic composition14.

Clearly, NASA’s Apollo samples are a combination of terrestrial basalts, eucrites and tektites. Terrestrial basalts are plentiful, but the advantage of Eucrites is that they show signs of solar and cosmic radiation, which is absent in earth rocks. Things like ‘zap pits’ (micrometeoroid impacts) can be added by firing projectiles from high-speed multi-stage gas guns which existed at the time. To hide the fact that these Eucrites fell through the atmosphere, the first millimetre was chipped away to remove the fusion crust (the outer burned layer due to atmospheric entry). Contrary to what propagandists claim, removing of this layer will not subsequently remove a large portion of helium3 or other solar wind induced isotopes, because solar wind penetrates a few millimetres into the rock– not 1 micrometre as the propagandists claim. And while chipping away the fusion crust may leave traces of themselves in the rock, these tools are little different to the tools used by NASA to chip the samples into the tiny sugar-cubed pieces that they send to geologists. In short, if a geologist found traces of these tools, he/she would be unable to tell whether they got there through chipping off fusion crust or by chipping free the sub-sample from its parent body.




Keep in mind, in many places the text is actualy hypertext, linking additional sources or data, so after reading here, check there, if it seems like some critical dat/support might be missing.

I would LOVE for any veteran members involved in that original discussion, to promote the portions of that original debate or new findings they may have come across since then.

I'd also like to know - if anyone has made it this far - who HAS NOT ever even heard of this guy BUT also believes there are some holes in NASA's claims.

Thanks, everyone.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Crap - did I even put this in the right forum?



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   
I think I would have put it under "Space Exploration", but no biggie. The mods will move it if need be.

On topic:

Now you've gone and done it...


Seriously. I've read some of this guys stuff, and I remember that thread. Quite interesting. He makes a decent case it seems. I don't believe the moon landing was a hoax at this point, but I think some of the footage might very well have been faked for whatever reason. It will be interesting to see this re-hashed here at ATS.
edit on 9/17/2013 by Klassified because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   
That's typically been my position on the matter.

That we did get there, of course, but that - some of - the purported evidence of this magnificent feat were either fabricated or RE-created in order to complete the narrative.

Why the need?



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Good post, raising points I've still not seen convincingly debunked.....Looking forward to the inevitable attempts.

+S&F



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


The Van Allen Belts would have been a problem if they had been in the thickest part of them.

It's funny how everyone talks about him saying how dangerous they are, but ignore him saying short, fast passes through them could quite easily be done safely.

Or how everyone that says this ignores the fact that the belts are not evenly distributed either in location or in thickness.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 

My own thoughts have been, equipment failure, some of what they were doing was classified, or maybe they didn't want the public to see some of what was actually found up there. Whatever that may have been. The imagination could run wild there, I suppose.

If they were to have found anything artificial up there, policy would have dictated non-disclosure. "The world can't handle the truth." So it becomes necessary to fill the gaps. Especially if they found a lot.

Though it could just as easily have been a host of other reasons. Whatever the case, Jarrah has come the closest to convincing me things just aren't quite right with the official video and story.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Ok I will throw my hat in. I don't think we went there - at all.
Nope, nada. Flame on. I get it you can think I'm a kook - my opinion is based on working around military air craft for 22 years and to be honest I just don't think we had the technology 5 years before the pocket calculator went main stream to put guys on the surface of the moon, my issues aren't the photos, the belts, etc, it is the simple technology of the time - it causes me to have to suspend just too much disbelief. I did some excellent reading on a site recently about this, the guy calls his series of blogs "wagging the moondoggie" - he is excellent at putting his theory together and humorous for those who care to spend the time reading his posts. Sorry I don't know how to embed, google is your friend.

As for how we kept it a secret - again years in the military and I have witnessed how guys on one side of the base don't have any idea what is going on the other side. Hate to hurt feelings with that statement but its true. Social conditioning and human psychology help keep the mythology alive. Human beings love their mythology and we are incredibly easy to distract and control.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


Showbiz might be one reason, the Apollo 10 dvd's is a good example. I mean the guy talks about that as if crucial to anything when it's not. More than that, there are publications with 'sexed up' Moon surface pictures without caveat, there are Moon surface pictures 'sexed up' by NASA and/or afilliates, with backgrounds blacked out in a hugely rudimentary fashion by today's standards.
I have always said the same as you, WTF did they do that, and still continue to do that, it is silly, but it does not make the guy right Et Al. You could even apply the same logic to say, NASA covering up what is actually on the Moon, as many have and frankly, is a much more logical scenario if you want to go that way.
I stick with the 35mm picture of Earth that could only have been taken on the day from deep space, and verified by the near Earth satellite.
In edit, I should say the last paragraph refers to Apollo 11, and the NOOA satellite of the day.
edit on 17-9-2013 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 08:34 PM
link   

LittleBirdSaid
Ok I will throw my hat in. I don't think we went there - at all.
Nope, nada. Flame on. I get it you can think I'm a kook - my opinion is based on working around military air craft for 22 years and to be honest I just don't think we had the technology 5 years before the pocket calculator went main stream to put guys on the surface of the moon, my issues aren't the photos, the belts, etc, it is the simple technology of the time - it causes me to have to suspend just too much disbelief. I did some excellent reading on a site recently about this, the guy calls his series of blogs "wagging the moondoggie" - he is excellent at putting his theory together and humorous for those who care to spend the time reading his posts. Sorry I don't know how to embed, google is your friend.

As for how we kept it a secret - again years in the military and I have witnessed how guys on one side of the base don't have any idea what is going on the other side. Hate to hurt feelings with that statement but its true. Social conditioning and human psychology help keep the mythology alive. Human beings love their mythology and we are incredibly easy to distract and control.


Sorry, I entirely disagree with that point of view, at least in the case of Apollo 11, and they are the guys that took the picture of a whole Earth hemisphere, only possible from deep space, well into the Van Allen belt or even out of it. That picture is incontrovertable, unless you think it is was a painting.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 09:32 PM
link   
The problem with Jarrah is that the person fails to have any rock solid point 99.99% of the time, and a thread discussing Jarrah's theories simply hops from topic to topic without bringing any of the discussion to a solid or useful conclusion. It's like having an essay topic ... Plato. Theories of. Discuss. It needs to be narrowed down to individual discussions or its a waste of time.

The other issue is Jarrah's research style. A lot of it is Texas sharpshooter fallacy or just plain vague deductive logic.

Take the discussion of Spacecraft films for example ... Jarrah doesn't really address the separation of audio and video feeds or any publicly available information, but simply states what Jarrah thinks is possible and reasonable. Much like the radiation argument, Jarrah's argument is easier to understand because its simplistic whilst de-constructing it takes valuable unappreciated time and isn't accessible to the average lay person.

The same can be said about the scientists and other sources taken wholesale out of context, and the journal articles about long term moon missions being applied to comparatively brief landings.

If you treat an issue which is accusing people of murder and fraud as a high school debate, then you're going to get high school results and that's what Jarrah essentially does by not conceding points or going more in depth with his research.

A simple easy example. Jarrah, as far as I know, stands by his shadow analysis. Autodesk provide free access to 3D software for students called 3DS Max. There is available survey data from the moon which can and has been transformed into 3D models. There are little 3D astronaut men and lander models available for free to make it extra swanky. We have the ability to measure light sources and accurately model light in these programs.

Dump swanky astronaut person on the moon, put Earth and sun nearby, model materials correctly, use the appropriate accurate renderer ... prove your point! Receive money.

If Jarrah doesn't have the skills to do this, a $500 kick starter and the borrowing of a post graduate physics student will be more than enough to sort out the maths and hire the software operator.

Instead Jarrah is trying to buy a ticket to be launched to the moon for millions of dollars. WHY?!



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Great stuff...
His work does take away from the fact that the real space program (William Coopers work) placed people on the moon and Mars with advanced tech... and that the real Astronauts were pissed off about when they saw that they were made fools of too..;

He really got a bee under alot of the shills with Nasa... to everyone's amusement.. ;

Alot of that radiation was made by US Nuke tests.... which was covered up.... of course the Mil never would make a mistake like making atmospheric blasts which would radiate the upper atmosphere for thousands of years... nah...



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


The Van Allen Belts would have been a problem if they had been in the thickest part of them.

It's funny how everyone talks about him saying how dangerous they are, but ignore him saying short, fast passes through them could quite easily be done safely.

Or how everyone that says this ignores the fact that the belts are not evenly distributed either in location or in thickness.


Could they have detected the thickness back in the 60's and navigated through the thin areas with their technology?

I honestly dont know.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by greavsie1971
 


Excellent question.



(to what I thought was a good counterpoint)



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by greavsie1971
 


They identified and mapped the belts early in the space program. They didn't have super accurate maps but certainly good enough to plot a course through.

Even if they didn't, notice the other part...short, fast trips. The ISS and previously the shuttles occasionally nudged into the Belts and they were all fine.





new topics

top topics



 
14

log in

join