Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by Pinke

Moving this thread into theorists would no more legitimize Jarrah White than leaving him here.

I guess it's impossible to legitimize a conspiracy theorist in everyone's eyes until their theory is proven..

I came late to this thread and do not wish to ask questions I know have previously been addressed.
An index would therefore be good..
I could see if any questions I had have been answered 100%..

People tend to hold on their belief so hard sometimes, so small things that shakes their bubble is tossed out of the window in fear of be called something bad these days..

reply to post by backinblack


Its been brought up. PMs have been exchanged. No one is interested in an index/contents being created it seems.

By legitimized I mean as a theorist like say David Icke for example.

Jarrah isn't really a theorist though. He has one theory that he has done a lot of work on, and a few other opinions that he hasn't worked on. (Including the theory that NASA built the planes which hit the world trade center though he may have since abandoned this opinion). His impact out of his limited YouTube impact and a handful of people who discuss him on this forum seems to be quite debatable.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Pinke

 

Moving this thread into theorists would no more legitimize Jarrah White than leaving him here.

I guess it's impossible to legitimize a conspiracy theorist in everyone's eyes until their theory is proven..

I came late to this thread and do not wish to ask questions I know have previously been addressed.
An index would therefore be good..
I could see if any questions I had have been answered 100%..

I was thinking of putting one together in the next couple of weeks.
Probably after JW presents his moon rocks compendium.

google Earth pictures at lower altitudes are taken by planes,

Originally posted by wells
google Earth pictures at lower altitudes are taken by planes,

Do you think that military surveillance/spy satellites are better or worse than what Google Earth provides to the public?

reply to post by FoosM

Do you think that military surveillance/spy satellites are better or worse than what Google Earth provides to the public?

Much, much worse. I can actually go onto street view mode and see the missing rubber strip on my old car at eye level.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by wells
google Earth pictures at lower altitudes are taken by planes,

Do you think that military surveillance/spy satellites are better or worse than what Google Earth provides to the public?

How would anyone possibly know that?
The Government even limits what resolution commercial operators are allowed to show..

There's no way of knowing what current resolution military is capable of..

reply to post by backinblack


Of course there is - get a job viewing it!!

Sheesh.....

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by backinblack

 

Of course there is - get a job viewing it!!
Sheesh.....

Cool, so you have a job viewing and can tell us the resolution they achieve ??
That's if your not held to secrecy

reply to post by backinblack


Hmm.....I thought I was dealing with reasonable reading skills here.

Sorry

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by backinblack

 

Hmm.....I thought I was dealing with reasonable reading skills here.

Sorry

I read fine but how does that answer a question to the others in the thread..??
It doesn't..

reply to post by backinblack



What question?

You said there was no way of knowing what the resolution of military satelites was, I pointed out that there is a way - get a job looking at the results. It's a trivial answer, but it is also a true one - someone has to be checking them.....

Then you said I had such a job so could I tell you what it (the resolution) is.

There's no question there because your statement is wrong - I never said I had such a job, so I think your reading skills are substadard - sorry about that.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by backinblack

 

What question?
You said there was no way of knowing what the resolution of military satelites was, I pointed out that there is a way - get a job looking at the results. It's a trivial answer, but it is also a true one - someone has to be checking them.....
Then you said I had such a job so could I tell you what it (the resolution) is.
There's no question there because your statement is wrong - I never said I had such a job, so I think your reading skills are substadard - sorry about that.

Reading skills are fine..
My problem was that I assumed you were actually trying to add something to the debate.
Obviously you were just throwing in a hypothetical situation for fun..

Some background reading on photo interpretation in the 1960's from Master of the Surveillance Image Dino Brugioni. Interesting stuff to say the least.

www.pbs.org...

Who is Dino Brugioni?

One of the founding officers of the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC), which got its start in 1955, Brugioni brought his skills to bear on numerous international crises during his three and a half decades with the CIA.

Choice quote for FoosM:

NOVA: If we've got these spy planes like the U-2 back in the '60s taking great photographs, why do you need satellites?

Brugioni: Well, the very first satellite mission that we flew captured a million square miles of Soviet territory. That was as much as 24 U-2 missions had captured in the Soviet Union over four years. So in one day, we got more film than all of the U-2 missions put together. One day.

NOVA: That satellite was Corona?

Brugioni: Yes.

This is a top CIA/NPIC guy. 30 years. This interview is chock full of interesting juicy bits of tasty morsels

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by backinblack

 

What question?

You said there was no way of knowing what the resolution of military satelites was, I pointed out that there is a way - get a job looking at the results. It's a trivial answer, but it is also a true one - someone has to be checking them.....

Then you said I had such a job so could I tell you what it (the resolution) is.

There's no question there because your statement is wrong - I never said I had such a job, so I think your reading skills are substadard - sorry about that.

The spooks do that job you know. And they had a good hard look at all Apollo mission photos before it was released to the public. That's why we get a lot of flag shots and jumping astronauts and closeups of footprints. All shots that could be easily cooked up in the world's finest spook photo lab. Later we got blowups in picture books from LIFE magazine and such. Still later NASA started printing their own books from possibly different sets of negatives. Even later NASA began digitizing history. Did they do it from the originals or 2nd gen? Did they contract that work? What do I see over at ALSJ? What do I see but lot's of digitally remastered pure black space. Literally nothing there but pure black pixels.

Anybody here ever seen a certified genuine Apollo negative? I know Buzz sold some 2nd gen at auction a few years ago.

I tried watching two videos and I just can't.

The video that launches on his profile page just sounds like a whining kid going "but, tommy gets a lolly pop"
He says that since many people have money to spare his request for donations is reasonable.
As if their success entitles him to get what he wants because he wants it.
He even vaguely touches upon how the people he mentions should donate to him because they are able to.
Saying that they should be doing so because they want space travel, hinting that they don't because they don't believe it's possible.


He mentions that arguments against his donation request are circular, then launches into an explanation that in no way shows people are using circular reasoning against him.
They may very well be, but I can not take him seriously when he says "A is happening to me" then talks about "topic B"
It just comes across as a little kid moving from point to point randomly in hopes of distracting the "parent" audience enough to get his way.

He does not come across as a credible advocate of his cause.
He seems like a little kid who wants his way and will hold his breath to get it.
He should get it because he is entitled to other peoples money.

Even if some of his theories are credible; which I doubt by his approach and tone I will never know.
I won't know because I can not give myself the lobotomy required to listen to his whining.

reply to post by Pigraphia


So anywhere during your short view did you see that it was a "requirement" to donate before you could watch???

No, I don't think you did..It's free..

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

And they had a good hard look at all Apollo mission photos before it was released to the public.

Let's have a proper source for this statement before we examine the rest of your fantasy.

Even later NASA began digitizing history. Did they do it from the originals or 2nd gen? Did they contract that work? What do I see over at ALSJ?

The answers to all of these questions are a matter of public record. Please look them up for yourself... they do not support the case you are trying to make.

Originally posted by Pigraphia
I tried watching two videos and I just can't.

Even if some of his theories are credible; which I doubt by his approach and tone I will never know.
I won't know because I can not give myself the lobotomy required to listen to his whining.

Why didnt you just watch the videos on his theories?