Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Facefirst

 

Why is Jarrah even still dicussed here anymore? Especially after two independent third parties known as India and Japan confirmed some of the NASA landing sites?

Can you post them pics please..
The only ones I've seen are so low resolutions that it's really hard to make out anything..
They would be laughed off ATS if someone posted them as proof of life on Mars for example...

The point he is making is that we have been told the US government created a conspiracy to hoax the lunar landings. However, now we have many other countries, China, India, Japan, Russia (and the other countries of the old USSR), and the countries of the ESA who have all sent probes either to the moon or deep space, and not one of them have raised a single red flag concerning radiation or any other "show stopper" the conspiracy theorists say would keep us from getting to the moon.

So now we must believe that every country mentioned is in on the conspiracy, or things happened as they historically did.

reply to post by Tomblvd


It is astounding that someone would actually need to have that explained to them.
Yikes!
I am convinced that some posters don't really care about the truth.

Here is some evidence (I know you deniers hate the word) of 3rd party confirmation of the Apollo landing sites:

Apollo landing sites mapped by Chandrayaan

reply to post by Tomblvd


All I asked for was a link to the pics..
I questioned nothing, I made no statement..

I get that you guys are annoyed by certain posters but it's a bit harsh to treat EVERY poster in the same vein..

Smack: That post is for you also..
I just don't see what I have posted to warrant the replies I've received....

reply to post by backinblack


www.nasa.gov...
www.squidoo.com...

Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by backinblack

 

They are posted in this thread somewhere. Why don't you go find them? I don't see how it would make any difference anyway. Disciples of the church of Jarrah White don't believe in photographic evidence and they can't comprehend actual science, so "proof" is impossible.

But everyone else is supposed to take their word for it.
Somewhere someone is laughing.

edit on 21-12-2010 by Smack because: (no reason given)

Smack, you are somehow making a connection between Jarrah White and religion. You are forgetting that these exact same claims can be applied to NASA in a much more believable scenario

Church of NASA presents a scripture... it is called the Book of Apollo. This book is accepted as Gospel by every institution on the face of the planet. There are 12 Apostles in the Book of Apollo. The Church of NASA controls all the thoughts of each Apollo cult member. The True Message of NASA is that they control all the source material. Only the High Priests of Apollo are allowed to speak on the subject of Apollo with authority. Anyone else who speaketh against the Church of NASA is excommunicated from the Church. Anyone else who speaketh against the 12 Apostles in the Book of Apollo are sentenced to death by stoning them in public. All heretics against the Church of NASA will suffer ad hominems and ridicule. Those who publicly question the existence of the Church of NASA or the Book of Apollo cannot be saved and so must be purified by radioactive flamethrowers.

You equate people who listen to Jarrah White as disciples? Who are the disciples of NASA? Who are the disciples of Fox News? Who are the disciples of Myth Busters? Who are the disciples of Randi? Who are the disciples of Penn & Teller? Who are the disciples of CIA television mind control techniques?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, Smack. NASA currently has the capability to take clear pictures of the Apollo landing sites however they have chosen not to do this because it would undermine the faith of the believers who have fervently committed themselves to defending the Church of NASA at all costs.

Seems like the Church of NASA has a bigger cult than JW does. Jarrah White is just somebody who had the talent and motivation to summarize 40 years of Apollo skepticism into a massive series of videos. He is hated for it because it does not conform to the Church of NASA dogmas.

Smack, your myth about Jarrah White's disciples has been busted.

Skepticism is growing:

Question NASA the whisper is on the street people doubt Apollo put a man on the moon. It gets time that NASA comes with proof or this whisper becomes a murmur!

At the time of the first landings, opinion polls showed that overall less than five percent “doubted the moon voyage had taken place.” Fueled by conspiracy theorists of all stripes, this number has grown over time. In a 2004 poll, while overall numbers remained about the same, among Americans between 18 and 24 years old “27% expressed doubts that NASA went to the Moon,” according to pollster Mary Lynne Dittmar. Doubt is different from denial, but this represents a trend that seemed to be growing over time among those who did not witness the events.

blog.nasm.si.edu...

While we are on the subject of Apollo 8

Question NASA Apollo 8 : This video is evidence that Dr James van Allen was "convinced" in 1968 that the Apollo 8 crew Would be "fried". 11 years after Dr van Allen had discovered the belts in 1958. Apollo 8 crew,Frank Borman, James Lovell and William Anders.

Apollo 8 was planned as a orbital mission, but it was the fear of the Russian spaceship Zond 5 that made NASA change Apollo 8 into a Lunar mission. Zond 5 was launched September 1968.

Originally posted by Facefirst
reply to post by backinblack

 

www.nasa.gov...
www.squidoo.com...

Thanks for that
Appreciated..

reply to post by FoosM


If true, I didn't know they changed Apollo 8 from an Earth orbital mission to a Moon orbital mission with only 4 months notice.
Quite a feat of planning for 1968...

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, Smack. NASA currently has the capability to take clear pictures of the Apollo landing sites however they have chosen not to do this because it would undermine the faith of the believers who have fervently committed themselves to defending the Church of NASA at all costs.

Made me think of the following I just read.

In August 1835, the penny paper reported the "findings" of the British astronomer Sir John Herschel. In a six-part series, reporter Richard Adams Locke wrote that the scientist, using a huge custom-built telescope in a planetarium at the Cape of Good Hope (at the southern tip of Africa), had spotted many spectacular species on the moon. Among them: horned bears, tailless beavers, and 4-foot-tall ape-like creatures with thick beards and large wings. Locke referred to them as "bat-men." Actually, there were plenty of bat-women too, and the two sexes engaged freely in behavior that Locke declined to describe - it would have been "improper" on earth.

Herschel was a legitimate, respected scientist who remained unaware of his fictional discoveries for months. When word of Locke's elaborate yarn reached him, he reportedly laughed and tried to expose the hoax - to little avail.

www.wired.com...

"A lie goes around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on." -- Mark Twain

And NASA used "live" TV to broadcast their "accomplishments" around the world.

reply to post by FoosM

And NASA used "live" TV to broadcast their "accomplishments" around the world

No they didn't...
2nd

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by Facefirst
reply to post by backinblack

 

www.nasa.gov...
www.squidoo.com...

Thanks for that

Appreciated..

Here is my problem with the footprints:




etc..

Why didnt the lift-offs effect the terrain and erased some of the footprints?

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
NASA currently has the capability to take clear pictures of the Apollo landing sites however they have chosen not to do this

Can you explain this further? Exactly what capability are you talking about?

And why do you find the LROC images lacking?

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by FoosM

 

And NASA used "live" TV to broadcast their "accomplishments" around the world

No they didn't...
2nd

I've been meaning to ask...
what does 2nd or Second line mean?

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
NASA currently has the capability to take clear pictures of the Apollo landing sites however they have chosen not to do this

Can you explain this further? Exactly what capability are you talking about?

And why do you find the LROC images lacking?

I think he means they have better cameras..
The pics shown are too low resolution to zoom in and see anything in detail..

Like I stated..
If I posted them pics to prove ancient artifacts on Mars I would be laughed at and ridiculed..
That's a fact..

reply to post by FoosM

I've been meaning to ask...
what does 2nd or Second line mean?

T&C states "no one line posts" so people do that to sidetrack the automated warning..

3nd

reply to post by FoosM


So, Foosm? Any critique of Nat's work? Any problem with his math? (I must confess I didn't check it myself but it seems to be in the right ball park so I'd definitely give him an A for effort.) Are his assumptions flawed? Do you have data to suggest that the equations he used are not supported by the latest research? Well?

In keeping with the decision tree which FoosM still doesn't seem to have worked out, here is an exact accounting of FoosM's original contribution to the thread in lieu of responding to Nat's "radiation argument" killing thread:

Skepticism is growing:
While we are on the subject of Apollo 8
Made me think of the following I just read.
"A lie goes around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on." -- Mark Twain
And NASA used "live" TV to broadcast their "accomplishments" around the world.
Here is my problem with the footprints:
etc..
Why didnt the lift-offs effect the terrain and erased some of the footprints?

I've been meaning to ask...
what does 2nd or Second line mean?

Oddly enough, with poetry like that, you might qualify to serve as Secretary of Defense under a Republican administration!

BTW, if you bother to read the T&C you would understand the reason for the "Second Line Rule."