Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by ppk55
reply to post by DJW001

 

So you don't want to talk about operation 'dirty trick' that's in Jarrah's video above either ?

I would love to discuss it. Please provide a summary of it in your own words. I freely admit I have no intention of ever watching the video. Why should I reward him with channel views after its been made so abundantly clear that he is a charlatan? Provide a transcript or point by point summary and I will be happy to examine it.

Well you don't seem to want to talk about your credentials and experience PPK? How many times do you have to be asked?
It's pretty clear that at least several members here must have some sort of experience or qualifications in physics and engineering. Funnily enough none of them are hoax believers.
Please enlighten us with the source of your expertise, oh wait... is that what you're doing when you post more of Jarrah's videos? Is that a coy way of saying that they are your qualifications/experience?
Touche! You had me there, all this time I thought you were trying to divert away from the question but you were answering it all along.

Edit to Add:

You do realise that by having NO experience or knowledge of the matter at hand you do more harm than good? You are all mouthpieces for one man (in this specific thread's case), ironically it reminds me of the Matrix scene with lots of Agent Smiths. You give the illusion of being many when infact you are few. You all have you're particular icon, Sibrel, Jarrah, etc. But all you do is repeat without understanding. You are few that pretend to be many metaphorically speaking.
That's where we're different you see, people like us form our own opinions and actually have at least some understanding of the topic at hand. People like you grasp onto a concept, in this case that man never went to the Moon, and then use the media supplied by a very small number of people to put forward your (their) argument. It's a sort of pyramid selling scheme almost, collecting people as it goes along with the only beneficiaries being the few at the top.
The mindset is explained quite easily, not being able or bothered to achieve academically but still having the common human need of being successful and 'special', you take hold of a flimsy premise that in your mind elevates you morally and intellectually above hundreds of thousands of others by convincing yourself they were all duped and you can see through it all. You elevate yourself above everyone at NASA, above every physicist, astronomer, astronaut and every single member of the public that was 'duped' by convincing yourself that your fantasy is real and you are so very clever for being one of the 'enlightened few' that isn't a 'dumb sheep'.
I do kind of understand it, after college and being young I was bored and couldn't be bothered with Uni but eventually I grew up enough to realise I wasn't going to get anywhere near where I want to be and I needed to sort myself out. Luckily I had enough education and a deep enough level of understanding not to fall into the trap so many have of believing hokum like this. Instead I invest my time as an undergraduate in Physics and look forward to moving onto a masters in the realtively near future. It's not too late for you, you can invest your time in something useful too, for every hour you waste watching Jarrah's fantasy channel you could be learning something. I guarantee once you grasp even a basic understanding of the concepts at work you'll look back and have a good laugh too like we all do now.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by AgentSmith]

So long as posting random questions seems to be acceptable here, check this out:

Kaysing died in 2005, but not before grabbing the attention of Sibrel, a Nashville, Tennessee, filmmaker who has since become the most visible proponent of the Apollo hoax theories. With funding from an anonymous donor, Sibrel wrote and directed a 47-minute documentary in 2001 that reiterated many of the now-familiar hoax arguments.

www.cnn.com...

Who was Sibrel's mysterious "anonymous donor?" Who is funding these attacks on common sense? Is anyone on this board receiving anonymous contributions? And, to veer this squarely on topic: Is Jarrah White receiving funds from this anonymous donor? He seems to do nothing all day but make Youtube videos and post on Pravda.com. Who is supporting him? How can he afford to travel to confront people, as he himself has documented. What mysterious benefactor is bankrolling Jarrah White?"
Edit to correct formatting.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by DJW001]

Ooh! Imagine if they both did have the same anonymous donor. It would be even closer to my Pyramid scheme comparison I made above than even I imagined! Now there is a conspiracy!

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Ooh! Imagine if they both did have the same anonymous donor. It would be even closer to my Pyramid scheme comparison I made above than even I imagined! Now there is a conspiracy!

Yes... it gets curiouser and curiouser:

Jarrah White is widely regarded in our community, along with David Percy, as the most thorough MLH researcher of our day. Through his tireless efforts, discoveries which would have been forever lost in NASA's "memory hole" are brought to the surface and exposed in the light of truth. These discoveries, some old and many new, are made available to us through Jarrah's video documentary series....

In the video series to the right, you will hear a private phone conversation between Jarrah and one of the first MLH researchers, Ralph Rene'. Kaying influenced Rene', who in turn inadvertingly challenged skeptic Jim Collier. Before his death, Rene' gave much of his research materials to Jarrah. Jarrah is now hoping to produce the first documentary film based on Ralph's MLH Book.

www.moonhoax.us...

Yes very interesting, the site's a hoot too! I love the bit where they imply that the Mars rovers don't exist and we can't possibly have landed anything there LOL!
Even if you forget everything else, it's actually relatively simple to receive the signals from the spacecraft. You can't decode it but it's irrelevant in proving that there is a craft there and it's transmitting.
A nice strong carrier from Mars Express here:

www.uhf-satcom.com...

A faint but detectable signal from the Phoenix lander here:

www.uhf-satcom.com...

Some more here:

www.uhf-satcom.com...

All receivable by ordinary people with the necessary technical knowledge and a modest equipment setup. Probably beyond the scope of a HB though to be honest.

reply to post by FoosM

I dont recall Kaysing ever attacking, or personally addressing any issues towards Plait...

Probably because he died in 2005, and badastronomy.com wasn't started until 2008.
en.wikipedia.org...
www.badastronomy.com...

As for why some people may take offense at Mr. Kaysing:

Kaysing also claimed that NASA staged both the Apollo 1 fire and the Challenger accident, deliberately murdering the astronauts on board. He suggested that NASA might have learned that these astronauts were about to expose the conspiracy and needed to guarantee their silence. A vocal advocate of conspiracy theories, Kaysing believed there is a high level conspiracy involving the Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Reserve (not a government agency), Internal Revenue Service and other government agencies to brain wash the American public, poison their food supply and control the media. [7] He also implied that the death of NASA safety inspector Thomas Ronald Baron in a traffic accident with a train a week after he testified before the United States Congress, and the disappearance of his 500-page report, was not an accident.

en.wikipedia.org...

Those are a lot of serious and offensive charges to make without any evidence.

Edit to add: It has been brought to my attention that badastronomy.com was actually started in 2005. I was mislead by the copyright information on the bottom of the page. I apologize for the error. Nevertheless, the point is that Kaysing never had the opportunity to weave Plait personally into his paranoid theories.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by DJW001]

reply to post by AgentSmith

Well you don't seem to want to talk about your credentials and experience PPK? How many times do you have to be asked?

Why do you believe his bona fides are required for you to answer the arguments presented?
I still believe that Apollo was genuine, if for no other reason than I have never seen any sign of deception from the great men that were involved, but your attitude is not helping the case.
Do I need to present my bona fides because I believe? What you are doing is deflecting and derailing this thread. Address the arguments, not the man or kindly go away. You aren't helping.
Mr. White demonstrates the arrogance and ineptitude of his detractors if nothing else. He raises perfectly valid questions and so-called experts only strengthen his case by acting like complete asses.

reply to post by DJW001

I freely admit I have no intention of ever watching the video.

Then why are you here? That is the kind of asshattery that makes Mr. White's case for him. You won't even take the time to understand the arguments, rather you attack the man. Ad-hominem attacks are a sure fire way to hand your opponent a victory. Stop being so arrogant and use your brain.
Either you guys can answer the arguments or you can't.

As far as I can tell, White makes his points by revealing the arrogance and bias of his detractors. You've just made his case again. Surely intelligent people like yourself can be a little more creative.

reply to post by Smack

A fair point. (Removes asshat.)

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Smack


Yes I see your point, but to be fair they tend to do this themselves too. In previous pages where their arguments are refuted they refuse to comment or present their own arguments. This makes further efforts to put forward arguments seem pointless and enthusiasm for doing so wanes. However two wrongs don't make a right and you are absolutely correct that having the attitude I am showing does no favours. Unfortunately it is an aspect of my personality and I clearly suffer from being exceptionally arrogant and a bit of a *****. I apologise for causing offence to you, as you are clearly a switched on and logical individual so by default do not irritate me. Not that I expect you to care what my opinon of you is and I'm 100% sure you don't.


[edit on 28-7-2010 by AgentSmith]

A reminder to remain on topic and to refrain from discussing the poster.

Let's keep it civil guys.

reply to post by AgentSmith


Many folks visiting this post (like myself) probably don't know half what you know on this subject.
I am eager to read intelligent, well-informed, decisive arguments that cast doubt on White's arguments. That is all that is required.
If you are looking for a concession from White or his followers, you will be waiting a very long time. Arguments like this are won in the minds of the readers.

Originally posted by DJW001

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

So you are just going to ignore the hundreds, nay. thousands of people who watched the Apollo missions lift off....
Edit to correct typos...

[edit on 28-7-2010 by DJW001]

Launching a rocket into LEO does not prove they went afterwards to the moon. Dont forget, Apollo went into an orbit around the Earth below the VABs.

And objects in LEO are readily visible to the naked eye. Why did no-one see it? If the Soviets spotted it, they would have screamed bloody murder.

If that was the case we could see spy satellites and spy aircraft all the time. I'll give you this, it probably not impossible, but you need to know where you look and you need to know what you are looking at . As well it helps if its not during the day.

It could very well be that they simply let the rocket fall back to Earth. Maybe it had a human payload, maybe it didnt. If it did, the CSM would have been separated, its also a smaller object to identify.

Originally posted by DJW001

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Some of you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill.
I mean if this is the only thing to get Jarrah on, then well the case
for Apollo is on thin ice

WHAT? The only case for the historicity of the Apollo program is that Jarrah White lied about the credentials of one of his experts in one of his videos?

Please explain how Jarrah lied. I mean really, point out the actual lie.

Here's one you weren't expecting:

Speaking of correcting matters, you should tell that Jarrah person he has got things backward in that silly moonfaker clip.

He says that Jay Windley is a "self-proclaimed aerospace engineer". This is actually wrong, since Jay actually holds aerospace engineering qualifications and works in aerospace engineering. I think what Jarrah (I wanna be 007) White meant to say was Ralph Rene is a self-proclaimed... something, since he is self-taught in the 'academic' matters such as physics, engineering, etc. Rene does not hold any academic qualifications.

References:

ralphrene.com...

en.wikipedia....wiki...

educationforum.ipbhost.com...

No need to repeat how he used his art teacher as an expert on photography. Jarrah does tend to stretch the truth.

No, I didnt expect that.
I expected you to tell me how Jarrah lied in his video.
I mean the actual lie, the quote. Its on record, it must be easy to find.

Originally posted by DJW001
So long as posting random questions seems to be acceptable here, check this out:

Kaysing died in 2005, but not before grabbing the attention of Sibrel, a Nashville, Tennessee, filmmaker who has since become the most visible proponent of the Apollo hoax theories. With funding from an anonymous donor, Sibrel wrote and directed a 47-minute documentary in 2001 that reiterated many of the now-familiar hoax arguments.

www.cnn.com...

Who was Sibrel's mysterious "anonymous donor?" Who is funding these attacks on common sense? Is anyone on this board receiving anonymous contributions? And, to veer this squarely on topic: Is Jarrah White receiving funds from this anonymous donor? He seems to do nothing all day but make Youtube videos and post on Pravda.com. Who is supporting him? How can he afford to travel to confront people, as he himself has documented. What mysterious benefactor is bankrolling Jarrah White?"
Edit to correct formatting.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by DJW001]

I dont know, is it some government conspiracy?
I actually wondered if Jarrah was an agent for the TPTB to introduce
the moon hoax via the new media to prepare the public for an official announcement that the landings were a hoax.

Originally posted by FoosM

If that was the case we could see spy satellites and spy aircraft all the time. I'll give you this, it probably not impossible, but you need to know where you look and you need to know what you are looking at . As well it helps if its not during the day.

It's not actually beyond the realms of an amateur at all. In fact the recent X37-B was tracked by amateurs.

Amateur Astronomers Spy on Air Force's Secret Mini Space Plane

Secret X-37B Space Plane Spotted by Amateur Skywatchers

If you search there are countless articles on this specific example. If you know what you are doing, and a surprising number of people do, it's not that hard.

Response to: www.abovetopsecret.com...

And other stuff.

Stuck record time. >.<

The things you haven't answered to are the 180 degrees of logic and in correct understandings of light, as well as the list of film makers and professionals which agree with you that the moon landing was faked. Nothing was left open, none of it was speculation, it was just wrong. According to your logic about Phil Plait this kills your credibility.

Operation Dirty Trick/Operation Northwoods has been used for everything from 9/11 up, down and around. It's not even that compelling since it didn't happen. The logic leap ... Evil people sometimes do evil things therefore moonlanding = fake and NASA killed people. Logic = failure. This doesn't work. It does not = evidence. Plait's thoughts on the issues are meaningless - you could classify this as made of straw since they change nothing about the debate. The debate is not 'Phil Plait is a liar' the debate is about the moon landing. Very pointless. No one here has quoted Phil Plait for sometime anyway.

Same answer for the rest of the question Foos. If you believe a single mistake or mislogic 'kills' someones credibility then you have none. Furthermore, even if Phil Plait doesn't have full credibility it doesn't alter the moon landing records.

Astronauts falling on the moon ... So, Jarrah complains they can't jump 14 feet and do back flips and now persons complain that they fall over? Seems no one can be happy.

And Jarrah lies in the same way that Michael Moore lies in his documentaries. You can't sue Michael Moore for lying, but that's only because his lies aren't the equiv of 'you're a unicorn'. They're weaving unrelated events together to make them look a certain way which they're clearly not, but it seems convincing on first viewing.

As for the solar flares - I've said time and again I won't jump two feeted into certain debates. NASA saw there was risks, saw there would be warnings of solar flares, and took the risks. There isn't much else to say except this was sometime ago. I recall some of the safety procedures and methods of doing things 100 years ago seem crazy by our standards today. Early nuclear reactors used to use a person with a bucket of water standing on a cage as a fail safe mechanism and people have died from keeping radioactive material as desk ornaments. I'm not at all surprised that people take risks and they pay off. Clearly you'll now say 'wow but no one died!' ... but really from what I've read that chances are not that high.

My mind was made up long before seeing Jarrah's videos. Jarrah's videos filled in the blanks that I had, namely, why the trip is impossible. It was his radiation series that stood out for me. Other videos ranged from weak to strong. Particularly photos and videos are difficult to make cases for because we dont know what technology was used to fake it. That would be like showing AVATAR to viewers in 1980 ...

If you're saying that his videos about lighting are weak, then I completely agree. He was met with evidence which clearly didn't support his debate and resorted to an F-bomb. It's nothing to do with the techniques used to make the moon landing its to do with the lack of understanding of the sun by both him, and his 'expert'.

By the looks of the evidence presented by Jarrah himself in that video the tools used to fake the moon landing were a moon and a sun.

I don't see any admission by Jarrah or further research by him regarding this therefore his credibility is called into question?

I respect your opinion, but I would suggest a better champion.



[edit on 28-7-2010 by Pinke]

reply to post by FoosM

If that was the case we could see spy satellites and spy aircraft all the time. I'll give you this, it probably not impossible, but you need to know where you look and you need to know what you are looking at . As well it helps if its not during the day.

It could very well be that they simply let the rocket fall back to Earth. Maybe it had a human payload, maybe it didnt. If it did, the CSM would have been separated, its also a smaller object to identify.

We do see spy satellites all the time. Some groups compile ephemerids of them to time their secretive activities. If Apollo were in orbit the whole time, someone would have spotted it and its orbit calculated. Then everyone on Earth would know when and where to look.

If it fell to Earth, well the SIVB is pretty big, someone would have noticed... particularly the fleets of Russian "fishing trawlers" that dogged the mission every step of the way. Besides, a lot of people were able to track it besides NASA. Here's a partial list:

A compilation of sightings appeared in "Observations of Apollo 11", Sky and Telescope, November 1969, pp. 358–359.
The Bochum Observatory director (Professor Heinz Kaminski) was able to provide confirmation of events and data independent of both the Russian and U.S. space agencies.[25]
Larry Baysinger, a technician for WHAS radio in Louisville, Kentucky, independently detected and recorded transmissions between Apollo 11 astronauts on the lunar surface and in the command module.[31] Recordings made by Baysinger share certain characteristics with recordings made at Bochum Observatory by Heinz Kaminski (see above), in that both Kaminski's and Baysinger's recordings do not include Capcom in Houston and the associated Quindar tones heard in NASA audio and seen on NASA Apollo 11 transcripts. Kaminski and Baysinger could only hear the transmissions from the Moon, and not transmissions to the Moon from Earth.[25][32]

en.wikipedia.org...

I'll get back to your other question when I have access to a computer with sound.