Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

OK, I'll look at that video when I get a chance, but it may not be for a day or two. I gotta work...

ocker
...the other one that stands out to me is the early release of the mission to an Australian news Paper

Oh dear. If you check into that one, you will find that NEVER happened, and it was completely fabricated by Jarrah White. (Sorta ironic that one of his very few original thoughts would be such a disaster for him..) Jarrah White made the very embarrassing error of not being able to count days. The date he calculated was one day off the one shown - and it is trivially easy to prove that. Here you go:
www.bautforum.com...
Scroll down to 'Daggerstab's post. Beneath that post, you will find another by a familiar-sounding loudmouth (grin) who explains one of many ways you can check Jarrah's error out for yourself. Do the check - and see what an incredibly silly thing he did. Yet Jarrah has left that video up, even though he knows about the error... Go figure.

You Said (proposed by another - anyone noticing a pattern here?)
I told you it was Eric Jones you said Yes, I know that was pointed out in the video

My earlier point was that Jarrah does nothing 'new', all his stuff is plagiarised or recycled work of other apollo deniers. He is just a repackager.

well you were on a defensive straight away JM was trying to debunk Erics Suggestions for the Flag movement.
Eric was not another proposer as you put Him

I didn't claim he was a proposer, just that Jarrah continually uses other's work.

I don't really know what the big deal is to you anyways .

Check the motto of the site...

Got it?

I have thought some of his theory's were interesting he had a good case with his presentations ,Nothing wrong with that is there,I said NASA went to the Moon .

And so far, only stuff you have posted of Jarrah's is... WRONG.

The flag - rubbish.
The early date on a newspaper - he can't count.

Now maybe it will improve when I view the videos you suggest. We'll see.

I just have noticed a problem with some of the images

Yes, so you keep saying, but until this post you have not been specific about any of them. And still you just quote the videos, not the actual content you are impressed by. Ah well, at least we have the videos, so I'll get to them later.

and are not getting into a debate with you about them as they have been battered to deaf in other threads.

Again don't you see the problem there? - you say the videos are convincing, yet you don't want to talk about it, and you even (Freudian slip?) say that the claims were 'battered to death' elsewhere... gee, maybe they deserved it!

If Jarrah's claims are wrong, then they SHOULD be deBUNKed. It's as simple as that.

I had come to the same conclusion on my own without the assistance of you..And why would you find that strange?

Because one moment you are complaining about my debunking, then you are agreeing with it.

And why have you linked me with Exuberant twice with your posts

Simply because, up until now, you were *both* saying how convincing the videos (or at least some of them) were, and yet you *both* would not be drawn into naming the 'best of'.

Have I ever debated over topics with you before which included Exuberant1

No, did I say you had?

Answer NO So who ever is sending you U2Us linking me to Exuberant is a trouble maker and is how trolls get their name.

????? No-one sent me u2u's. You reckon *I* should chill...?

But I promise not to bundle you together again, ok?

I have commented on what I feel I need to, you have asked for the smoking guns as I see I have presented to you the ones I find of interest..

Took a while! But thanks, I'll get back to them later.

You seem to be pushing for trouble with your attacks which I will not be getting into and derailing this thread .

If you feel I am doing the wrong thing, just report the post.

reply to post by ocker


THAT is a very poor example to use, IF you wish to 'defend' JW.

HE isn't very smart, actually...and that woman is showing even fewer active brains cells than he.

Their "oh-so-interesting-examination" of one photo, and discussing the shadows?

SHE is a moron, is all I can say...early on, at around the 1:15 point...she mutters something about "three light sources" being necessary to explain the shadow 'anamolies'.

IF there HAD been three light sources, then THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN THREE shadows, along with their respective umbras!

Go see for yourself the effects of multiple light sources some night, by standing under a slew of streetlights in your local neighborhood.

What they, in that video segment, are NOT discussing is the anamorphic lens properties, of the camera that snapped the image.

OR, the variations in the terrain slope. THEY (the so-called "expert", and that wanker JW) haven't the slightlest clue to reality, it seems.

Here, an Earthly example, ONE light source, different shadow angles:



Another....ONE light source (called the "Sun"):



It is related to lenses, focal lengths, etc. THIS is not a photography class, but I would think that most rational adults have SEEN such examples throughout their lifetimes, and seem to sudenly (int he case of wanks like 'JW') toss that lifetime of visual experience out the window in the misguided ( yet apparently earnest ((?)) ) endeavor --- or is it a 'hobby'? --- no, more like an obsession with this bloke.

I feel a litle sorry for him, because he does himself no favors. Just makes himself look all the more foolish, with every diatribe.


[edit on 3 May 2010 by weedwhacker]

May I say, this is a more 'real world' investigation than I've seen from any ATS members including myself. (apologies to members posts I haven't seen)

Originally posted by ocker
reply to post by CHRLZ

 

Mate

Here is the image getting analyzed again her name is in the video .

[edit on 3-5-2010 by ppk55]

reply to post by ppk55


And...you buy into that nonsense?

I can only shake my head in wonderment.

Look up the idiot "David Percy" too. They seem to be a dime-a-dozen out there in La-La Land....

I'm bringing up my post again because yet again the moonfaker camp just ignored it and anything else that doesn't fit in to what you want to believe.

You have to get over these obstacles to your cause before others will begin listening to you. I'm not trying to be bigoted, I'm just telling the truth.

You guys (moonfakers) have just pushed aside the basic questions and dived head first in to what YOU want to discuss because it SUITS YOU.

Originally posted by RWM88
Laser reflector anyone?

Notice the flag only moves when someones by it and has recently just touched it?

Notice you'd have to stay in the Van Allen radiation belt for quite some time to be killed?

Notice the Soviet Union didn't blow the whistle on the hoax?

Notice different angles of shadows can be cast in different directions from one light source?

Notice the lack of stars in the background because a camera can only focus on close or far objects. Like Hubble has to wait and sit there for days staring in to space to get a picture of the heavens?

Notice the rocks brought back from the moon are still being used today to try and work out how the moon was formed?

Notice the Apollo UFO incidents?

Notice radio telescopes from around the world from different nations monitoring the Apollo missions and calculating the astronauts positions by time delay calculations through radio waves, or was Sir Patrick Moore and other great minds simply monitoring something else or perhaps they were in on it as well?

I choose to believe man went to the moon because the whole program was watched by millions and monitored officially and unoffically by enthusiasts, professionals and amateurs excited by the fact that man is going to the moon.

The US government had a hard enough time making a show with 9/11, how the hell could they make a show of the Moon whilst being watched by the whole world 50 years ago during a cold war?

If anyone would kindly answer my questions then all ears will be open.

Thanks for your time.

PS I know pictures have been edited and touched up but that is not conclusive proof we never went to the moon.

[edit on 11232009 by RWM88]

reply to post by treemanx


I watched them last night and I'm sure he took the charcoal's reflectivity into account. I remember it kind of surprised me for two reasons; one, he didn't mention the charcoal until after he had talked about the cement and I thought he had failed to consider it (like you) and two, I was surprised by how reflective charcoal is.

Everyone mentioning the photos and shadows please take a look at this videos.








Pretty much explains it all.

But you can all keep ignoring the facts...

[edit on 3-5-2010 by hateeternal]

Originally posted by Josephus23


I am pointing to what could be huge flaw in the "official storyline", and you are trying to use the same argument that I have presented to disqualify my points.

Well stop pointing at the "coulds", "woulds" and "shoulds" and show what IS. You have been schooled all over this thread and the only circle I see anyone traveling in is YOU.

First, the ONLY radiation was in the Van Allen Belts. Now I have shown that to be invalid and another answer is quickly made up to try and sell the official storyline.

YOU have invented the "deadly radiation theory" and then inserted a FALSE dichotomy of possible explanations. One of these explanations is a belief you have, that the landing is Faked.
It seems you are clinging to ONE "possible" explanation to support a hoax theory, and it is an explanation, you admit, the fundamental component "WE DON'T KNOW" if it actually exist as required by YOUR THEORY. So PROVE IT IS THERE. If your circular statement(I would have said reasoning but as there is no real reasoning involved): "deadly high nutrinokiller high killer deadly killer radiation pockets killer that we don't know exist but could exist and if they could exist it means we didn't know about them and then this means the landing is a hoax" is an unknown, why are you ignoring ALL the other evidence that supports the actual moon landing?

Good form if you are on a debate team, but bad form for all those looking for the truth.

So show us the truth, and not what you hope the truth is. You admit we don't know if what you claim actually exists. Yet you want people to entertain it as an explanation and a proof. That is bad form.

I genuinely hope that anyone who can think critically can see through this baseless answer given by Phage.

So your theory that there are deadly pockets of radiation on the moon that show that the landing is a hoax is based on what?

It is nothing but a last resort answer to the fact that my point can not be proven wrong or right.

Which makes it absolutely useless. And it has been useless for about 10 pages now.
So you admit you have no point. In fact, this is your last resort, to state that your theory to support a belief that the landing was faked can not be proven either way. What is funny is that you actually think this supports your argument. Why even inject it into the debate?
Wow, talk about a circle.

And that is too big of an anomaly for me to accept.

What anomaly are you talking about? The one that you state can neither be confirmed or denied, that we don't know about, the one you have accepted from a video and injected, and offered as an argument to debate a specific claim relating to the moon landing?

See persistence of motion.

Yes, but lets define what is actually is persisting in motion. Ignorance.
And lets define the direction that your persistent ignorance has been traveling for well over 10 pages, Circles.

reply to post by hateeternal


"hateeternal", you richly deserve a HUGE round of APPLAUSE for this post!



Thanks, much, for finding and pulling those videos together.

Says a lot, as the saying goes....

I still don't see how anonymous posts / "research" can compare to this.
At least this guy took the time to get out of the house and interview respected professionals.

Before commenting, have you done this ?? I haven't and I admit it.






[edit on 3-5-2010 by ppk55]

reply to post by ppk55



did what?? go talk to my elementary school art teacher...??

reply to post by hateeternal


I have to (repeatedly) bow down to your expertise at finding (and I do NOT envy your task) those YouTube videos that soundly, and devastingly TROUNCE the pathetic attempts by such users as "White Jarrah" and his 'counterpart', "greenmagoos" (over in the UK) to continually spew garbage and nonsense about Apollo.

I have, (in my YT account name) been 'blocked' by most of them, from posting...because THEY do NOT WANT any dissent, or any rational thinking, invading their little delusional 'world', apparently. I am sure I am not alone in this experience.

Thanks be to ATS for letting this all air out (so to speak).

OUT of the collection of VERY good catches, up above (scroll up, please, dear readers) I repeat one that I found MOST useful, and implore EVERYONE who bothers to read this thread, take the time to view it, in its entirety...



IF ONLY I could be as clear and concise, as that YT poster!

Sigh...I try, I try..



[edit on 3 May 2010 by weedwhacker]

Hey wheedwacker, um have you ventured outside of your house to do this ?

So many online experts, yet I'm waiting for one to get out and do this ...
I include myself in this and at least prepared to admit it)

edit:



[edit on 3-5-2010 by ppk55]

reply to post by ppk55


Huh?

Not getting it yet?

THIS is yet, thanks to the un-ending efforts of another ATSer, another GREAT YouTube video.

(Hope you can watch it in its entirety...)



It COMPLETELY blows away the "White Jarrah" baloney....quite clearly, and succinctly, in under ten minutes.

reply to post by weedwhacker


they'll all still need a "drawing".

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Huh?
Not getting it yet?

I don't think you're getting me. This guy went out and interviewed a professional. You posted a link, to a youtube video, done by someone else.

Who's at least a little bit credible here ? At least I have admitted I haven't done the same. Will you ?

Here's the link


Mod Removal of Unnecessary Quote.

Two or three times with the same video, is quite enough
Mod Note: Review This Link: How To Quote

[edit on 3-5-2010 by ppk55]


[edit on 5/3/2010 by semperfortis]

reply to post by ppk55


OK...am going to analyze that video....

So FAR....I get her saying (as part of how she introduces herself)..

"I am Jenny Hiller, and I am a visual arts teacher at...."

....and that this point, maybe it's her accent, but I don't quite catch the "University", or "facility" that she mentions....

reply to post by weedwhacker


oh, poo!

Semper has edited...well..."conversationist interruptus"?

I have lost my train. Of thought.

Will try again....

[edit on 3 May 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by fockewulf190

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by fockewulf190

 

You cannot see the Apollo landers in any of that probe's images.

Deal with it.

*Jarrah White also addresses the Chandrayaan issues in his video series.


I'm sure a smart fella like you can find the right videos. Watch them or don't.

So you believe the Indians are in the tank also, giving NASA some extra cover up for the grand cover up in exchange for some scientific scooby snacks or whatever.

Tom Hanks starred in the Illuminati. Maybe he´ll do "Moonfaker" for his next flick. Gotta be a comedy though, but he´s done some of that.

[edit on 2-5-2010 by fockewulf190]

Maybe it would help if we were shown the pictures from Chandrayaan featuring the LM, like I asked you before.

Is this to much to ask, should we just take their, and your word for it?

This guy went out and interviewed a professional.

Who's at least a little bit credible here ?

What does that have to do with credibility????

The lady claims to be a teacher... but credibility is something she lacks...
That Picture "analysis is a joke, of course, just see the video I and weedwhacker just posted.



[edit on 3-5-2010 by hateeternal]