Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Watched part one of recent video ...

He asks Phil Plait about some event not really associated with the Moon Landing Hoax then accuses him of 'hand waving' for not answering the question?

I'm tired but the logic appears to be ...

Governments have done bad things ... so Moon Hoax occurred?

The same logic could be applied to ...

We have things in space ... therefore we landed on the moon

Don't know if my logic is correct right now. I think it's sleep time for me. Jarrah seems to take any tiny perceived mis-step or situation and try to turn it into something against who he is talking to. I'm not sure, I've seen this logic in debates before and it doesn't do much for me.

It's the catch-22 style of debating ... the person argues with you; omg they're arguing with me they must have an agenda! Person refuses to bother; omg they ran away I won!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by WWu777

 

WWu777....

Since you appear to be "in contact" with Mr. "White Noise" ('WN', aka "Jarrah White"), why not find out from him...

,,,WHAT HE IS AFRAID OF????

He either is afraid to come here and defend himself (unless he's using the sock name "FoosM"???), or he prefers to have others do his dirty work?? :shk:

Also....ask him about his activities on his YouTube channel. Does he Block/Edit comments on his videos that disagree with his "conclusions"?? If so, WHY??

WHAT is he afraid of???

He isn't afraid. His hands are full and he is busy making his videos, so he doesn't have time to participate in forums.

He welcomes critical questions on his channel, and answers them. He has always done that. You can see the critical questions in his videos. He shows them in his videos.

But if it gets excessive, I'm sure he may control them. With all the videos he has, it'd be very difficult for him to censor or moderate comments.

Originally posted by Pinke
Watched part one of recent video ...

He asks Phil Plait about some event not really associated with the Moon Landing Hoax then accuses him of 'hand waving' for not answering the question?

I'm tired but the logic appears to be ...

Governments have done bad things ... so Moon Hoax occurred?

The same logic could be applied to ...

We have things in space ... therefore we landed on the moon

Don't know if my logic is correct right now. I think it's sleep time for me. Jarrah seems to take any tiny perceived mis-step or situation and try to turn it into something against who he is talking to. I'm not sure, I've seen this logic in debates before and it doesn't do much for me.

It's the catch-22 style of debating ... the person argues with you; omg they're arguing with me they must have an agenda! Person refuses to bother; omg they ran away I won!

That is not Jarrah's logic. I don't even have to ask him that. You are arguing with straw mans. It is not based on one thing. It is based on the culmination of MANY things, especially the van allen radiation belt which the astronauts had NO protection from at all.

Phil Plait has been caught lying about several things, and has never apologized or recanted. This was shown in Jarrah's videos. It's a fact.

That is not Jarrah's logic. I don't even have to ask him that. You are arguing with straw mans. It is not based on one thing. It is based on the culmination of MANY things, especially the van allen radiation belt which the astronauts had NO protection from at all.

Phil Plait has been caught lying about several things, and has never apologized or recanted. This was shown in Jarrah's videos. It's a fact.

Strawmen ... hand waving ... propagandists ... all buzz words I find slightly cult like and worrying.

But no these aren't straw men. These are points brought up in this very thread by Jarrah's supporters which refused to be answered. That's the approach that I've seen in this thread, and his supporters are ultimately relevant.

X was faked. Y was faked. Give us answers. Well that works both ways.

The problem here is that whenever a person points out any problem with a theory the response 'oh but there's tonnes of evidence!' which never quite adds up 100% but usually its confusing enough for the listener that they either give up, or just can't answer everything. No one person ever could.

Then there's the whole perfection debate. People make mistakes. I do it frequently when I'm tired. Phil Plait makes mistakes I'm sure - though I don't know which times you're referencing to. Jarrah White makes mistakes. The difference is when someone on this board who doesn't believe the landing was a hoax makes a mistake it's a witch hunt and constantly referring to it. So far when a believer in the hoax makes a mistake its ... it doesn't matter! There's tonnes of evidence!

It's a horrible double standard. People throwing around these terms like straw persons and hand waving yet their debates are hardly compelling and often avoiding being nailed down on particular subjects. Look through this thread its full of this style of debating. Regardless of which side you're on it shouldn't be endorsed.

I appreciate your passion, and Phil Plait may have made errors - I doubt the man is blatantly lying. I think this is paranoia. Furthermore, the only reason Jarrah's theories are not being dissected is he picks and chooses his battles and ambushes people. If someone approached me and said 'I would like to ask you a question about dirty trick' I would be expecting them to offer me money for sex.

The final nail in this happened several pages ago. If you think Phil Plait lies, that's fine. However, Jarrah White thinks the plane that hit the twin towers had a NASA logo on the side. A Nasa logo. On the side. Of the plane. That hit the twin towers. His evidence for this is completely flimsy.

Furthermore him asking for people's money to send him to the moon? This is the very definition of distracting people during a debate. A suggested scenario ... I don't believe you exist. Give me $3000 so I can come and check!

It's not an actual point - its pin the tail on the non-existent donkey. Much like the Phil Plait conversation I saw last night, much like the fund raiser, much like his 9/11 theory.

Circular conversations will just go on and on. See:

#
Astrobrant2
3 days ago
@WhiteJarrah You are either incapable of understanding basic logic or you are deliberately lying in a typical knee-jerk attempt to protect your ridiculous claims.
In the 60s, lasers were bounced off the moon. This was well-known, yet you accused "propagandists" of trying to deny it so that you could create a strawman -- a contradiction with the Apache point demonstration. SOME systems are designed to get reflections off the surface. SOME are designed to read retro-reflectors. How dumb ARE you??

#
WhiteJarrah
3 days ago
@Astrobrant2
Quite frankly, if you want to talk about strawman arguments, why not start with the one Phil Webb created. Falsely accusing me of claiming TETR-A was used to fool the MSFN controllers when I never made any such statements.
watch?v=5q8BeB3crSs
Why not start with the strawmen your partners have created?
WhiteJarrah 3 days ago


[edit on 27-7-2010 by Pinke]

Here are some videos I'd like to see explained:





Mass hypnosis, perhaps?

Or this photograph:
www.astr.ua.edu...

Sightings of Apollo 11, and a Table Mountain photo, were reported in "Observations of Apollo 11", Sky and Telescope, November 1969, pp. 358-359. The Table Mountain 60-cm image is shown here, by courtesy of Jim Young. It is a 12-minute exposure (0512-0524 UT on 24 July, on the home stretch) with the spacecraft showing as the diagonal streak.

www.astr.ua.edu...

Massive bribery, no doubt?

How on Earth has this gone on for almost 150 pages? When I first saw this thread I figured it would be a couple of pages before it died out. I havn't read the thread but WTF guys! I've never seen anything that can't be easily explained.

Shadows don't extend in the same direction when projected onto an uneven surface. Go outside and have a look.

The apollo C rock was a hair on the photograph. The theory is retarded anyway. There are only 26 letters in the alphabet. If they labeled every rock with a letter then they would run out of letters pretty quickly. And why would you label a rock anyway? Why not just find some real rocks in your back yard instead of making prop rocks?

Even Van Allen himself and every other scientist says we can go through the Van Allen belts. What makes all these arm chair scientists think they know more about the Van Allen belts than the guy that wrote the book or any other proffessional?

Stars don't show up in the photos because of the contrast between light and dark. Play around with a camer for a few minutes and this fact will be abundantly obvious.

The flag moves because somone touched it and made it move. Why is that so hard to understand? You can see the astronaut toch it. Unless you've only seen an edited video where the astronaut touching it is cut out then I don't see how you can convince yourself that it's proof of a fake.

Did I miss anything? Did I just whip some Australian kids butt?

We went to the moon... get over it. lol

[/thread]

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
How on Earth has this gone on for almost 150 pages? When I first saw this thread I figured it would be a couple of pages before it died out. I havn't read the thread but WTF guys! I've never seen anything that can't be easily explained.

Shadows don't extend in the same direction when projected onto an uneven surface. Go outside and have a look.

The apollo C rock was a hair on the photograph. The theory is retarded anyway. There are only 26 letters in the alphabet. If they labeled every rock with a letter then they would run out of letters pretty quickly. And why would you label a rock anyway? Why not just find some real rocks in your back yard instead of making prop rocks?

Even Van Allen himself and every other scientist says we can go through the Van Allen belts. What makes all these arm chair scientists think they know more about the Van Allen belts than the guy that wrote the book or any other proffessional?

Stars don't show up in the photos because of the contrast between light and dark. Play around with a camer for a few minutes and this fact will be abundantly obvious.

The flag moves because somone touched it and made it move. Why is that so hard to understand? You can see the astronaut toch it. Unless you've only seen an edited video where the astronaut touching it is cut out then I don't see how you can convince yourself that it's proof of a fake.

Did I miss anything? Did I just whip some Australian kids butt?

We went to the moon... get over it. lol

[/thread]

Yes, you did. You could put this whole thing to rest with six dozen words. (A sonnet, perhaps?) Now it's about who gets the last word, therefore it can go on forever. It has certainly gone on ad nauseum.

Originally posted by WWu777
...especially the van allen radiation belt which the astronauts had NO protection from at all.

The Apollo CSM did have radiation shielding which minimized the radiation received by the astronauts. It's well documented. Would you like to apologize or recant your erroneous claim?

Originally posted by weedwhacker


Ok, I am back with actual data....

Ascent stage
Ascent Propulsion System (APS) engine;
(skip)....
APS propellant mass: 5,187 pounds (2,353 kg)
APS thrust: 3,500 pounds-force (16,000 N)
APS propellants: Aerozine 50 fuel / nitrogen tetroxide oxidizer
APS pressurant: two 6.4-pound (2.9 kg) helium tanks at 3,000 pounds per square inch (21 MPa)
APS specific impulse: 311 sec (3,050 N-sec/kg)
APS delta-V: 7,280 feet per second (2,220 m/s)
Thrust-to-weight ratio at liftoff: 2.124 (in lunar gravity)

Lunar Module


There you have it. The maximum available delta-v shows that a speed of 2,220 m/sec is achievable. That calculates out to 7,992 kph.


Any other questions????

I was more looking for this, but thanks

At ignition, the ascent stage rises at about 3 meters/sec2 (about 10 feet/sec2), creating a accelerating force equal to about one-third of Earth's gravity, only twice that what the astronauts were experiencing standing in the cabin. Acceleration increases gradually until cut-off, when it will have built to about two-thirds that of normal Earth gravity. After the ascent stage reaches an altitude of only 50 feet (15 meters), it pitches about 54° face down to build horizontal velocity as it climbs. Such an abrupt maneuver may be a bit disconcerting to those used to seeing launches on Earth, where the vehicle rises essentially straight up, and pitches over only gradually.

The stringent propellant management during ascent is particularly apparent here. As most of the rendezvous maneuvers are usually done in small, highly precise impulses, there is little need for the wallop the ascent engine can provide. Further, there is the concern that the given the low fuel state remaining in the ascent tanks, that a reliable engine start was possible at all.

02:01:15 PM T+124:29:15.67 LM lunar latitude = 0.73° N, longitude = 12.99° E,height = 11.5 mi (60800 ft), flight path angle = 0.28°, heading = 251.85°,speed = 3775.8 mph, pitch = 92°, apolune = 55.2 mi, perilune = 10.8 mi,CSM/LM range = 313 mi. APS shutdown

dblepost

[edit on 28-7-2010 by FoosM]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM

 

FoosM, you are flat WRONG on every post, in your pathetic attempts to "tear apart" Apollo!!

Now...your weak attempt to 'complain" about the orbital mechanics of lift-off, and acceleration for the rendezvous back on Lunar orbit??

(A measely 4,000MPH?? Tell everyone, WHY you think the spacecraft can't accelerate to that velocity...because, you ARE aware of the speeds required in EARTH orbit, aren't you? AND enroute???)

Why not read a bit:

About 215, 000 miles into the voyage, Apollo slows to a speed of around 2, 000 mph due to the decreasing but persistent effects of Earth’s gravity. As Lunar gravity begins to supercede Earth’s gravity, the vehicle begins to accelerate once again. To achieve lunar orbit insertion, Apollo must retrofire (engine facing in the direction of motion) its service module engine to slow the spacecraft to orbital velocity.

www.christa.org...

Here, from above link, is a nice graphic to help comprehension:




IF you have read anything at all about space technology, and exploration efforts that are so amazing, then how can you believe this "hoax" crap???

Are you serious?? :shk: I mean, if THAT is a question you ask, without embarrassment...because you don't do the research...then I don't know what else to say. Except, you ARE embarrassing yourself, in case you were not aware....

[edit on 27 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

reading comprehension please.
I didnt say the LM couldnt reach 4K.
I said, I dont believe that initial take off blast launched the LM to 4K.

But my red flag was the fact that the ascent launch worked as good as it did considering they had a lot of issued with it and never tested it on the moon.

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]

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

And yet you left out this paragraph:

At 17 and 19 June program reviews at Rocketdyne and Bell, respectively, Low learned that qualification tests were progressing with such excellent results (the engine had gone through 53 good tests) that an end to qualification by mid-August seemed possible.27 Success now appeared certain, but the race with the decade was becoming very close.

history.nasa.gov...

All of the systems were continually tested, dozens of times, together and separately. Further, the fact that NASA has made all of this part of the record suggests they are not trying to hide anything. Now, how do you explain this misleading post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

No I didnt leave that part out. There is a 6500 character maximum.
So stop being a paranoid and acting like everyone has an evil agenda.
I highlighted what was relevant to my first question.
What you linked doesnt in the end mean anything if they didnt test the craft in a real world situation.

Just because all the parts work, doesn't mean they will all work together.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

No the post is not misleading. I dont know why you insist it is. The link to the quote is there, and I didnt link it to you.
It wasnt even a reply to you. What you think you are the only one who thought Earth light has influence on the moon?

Because I was the only one on this board that made the assertion that the blue light you claimed is a "spotlight" was the Earth. You have just stated the reasons why the post was misleading.

You just stated the reason why you were confused

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

And yet you left out this paragraph:

At 17 and 19 June program reviews at Rocketdyne and Bell, respectively, Low learned that qualification tests were progressing with such excellent results (the engine had gone through 53 good tests) that an end to qualification by mid-August seemed possible.27 Success now appeared certain, but the race with the decade was becoming very close.

history.nasa.gov...

All of the systems were continually tested, dozens of times, together and separately. Further, the fact that NASA has made all of this part of the record suggests they are not trying to hide anything. Now, how do you explain this misleading post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

No I didnt leave that part out. There is a 6500 character maximum.
So stop being a paranoid and acting like everyone has an evil agenda.
I highlighted what was relevant to my first question.
What you linked doesnt in the end mean anything if they didnt test the craft in a real world situation.

Just because all the parts work, doesn't mean they will all work together.

Shall we take a vote?

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
How on Earth has this gone on for almost 150 pages?
....
We went to the moon... get over it. lol

EXACTLY.

In part I blame myself and the other apollo believers, for allowing the continual scattergunning of new claims when existing claims were clearly debunked yet not in any way conceded or debated.

To repeat an obvious example WWu777 claimed that the LLRV couldn't fly on earth and that it crashed the only time Neil Armstrong flew it.

That was NOT TRUE - yet he has ignored his 'error' and refused to be responsible for his misinformation ever since, instead preferring to simply introduce new claim after ridiculous claim. I'm not going to bother going back to the first errors posted by FoosM or others, as frankly I'm over this garbage. But as long as they are allowed to just run from their words, not engage in reasonable debate, not admit their errors, and introduce reams of ridiculous claims, political opinions and other distractions, threads like this become a complete waste of time.

It doesn't have to be that way, but it seems its ok with those who should know better and who could perhaps intervene...

Originally posted by WWu777
Here are some new Moonfaker videos by Jarrah White that he wanted me to tell you all about:

Re: Jarrah, look, your thread on ATS has reached 141 pages!

Thanks for keeping me up to date. I've just released my latest MoonFaker, why not post it there.

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Best wishes,
Jarrah

lets get this right:








I tell you, this series of videos reveal Phil Plait and his buddy Adam Savage as lying cowards. Well done J.W. Maybe defenders on this forum are willing to answer the questions that Plait has a hard time answering.

A wierd segway for a moment here ... and something I almost fell for yesterday ...

I saw my friend with his son this morning. His son kept asking him repetitive questions over and over again about if he could go to the local arcade. This kept up for sometime. Eventuallly, my friend accidently responded incorrectly to one of the questions and said something he didn't mean to. He was so busy answering the question the same way everytime that he just didn't think.

What ensued was a two hour drama llama session about how the boy's father had lied to him, and why did he lie to him, and how his father had to honor his word.

This story made me think. Keep asking Phil Plait or anyone repetitive questions they're bound to slip up sooner or later. It's just a knee jerk reaction. I saw the video that was posted earlier and looked at it through some scopes. Instantly I saw some issues - I knew it was pointing towards fake, so I wasn't really thinking. If I had posted my full initial thoughts of what I assumed I saw on my scopes I would have got some details wrong and someone would've said ... Pinke why you lie to us? If Pinke says this then everything she say must be brought into question!


Edit: I deleted most of this. People know what am saying and CHRLZ and fieryjaguarpaw already summed this up better than my fail ramblings ever could.

Jarrah is picking his battles, and using his communication medium to strong advantage. His words carry no more weight in a serious debate than Michael Moore's.

Furthermore I'll stop pointing it out, but I'm guessing the inconsistent parts in people's logic will go unchecked. If what WU has said is true and only Jarrah's videos matter then this thread should be closed till he shows up. Otherwise he will just pick and choose the things he wants to discuss if he chooses to address things at all!






[edit on 28-7-2010 by Pinke]

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by WWu777
...especially the van allen radiation belt which the astronauts had NO protection from at all.

The Apollo CSM did have radiation shielding which minimized the radiation received by the astronauts. It's well documented. Would you like to apologize or recant your erroneous claim?

That all depends on who you believe regarding the intensity of radiation in the VABs. And Aluminum, as shielding, creates deadly secondary radiation.
I also dont consider it well documented, I see it as NASA's Apollo storyline being constantly rehashed. And The documentation itself is also vague and lacking in specifics.

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.