Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by dplum517

Obviously you were successfully brainwashed from the beginning. History is written by the victor, so there will always be biased points of view on history. Photos do represent history but if some photos are faked does that make the history true? Also I am confused at what your initial point is?? I KNOW the Apollo missions are true historical events. I am not saying the moon landing was a fake.

If you agree with the premise that the Apollo missions were true, what does the "brainwashing" entail?

And considering the Apollo missions were not a war, what "victor" is writing the history?

You have taken a well-worn meme (history is written by the victors), and turned it into an absolute truism. And it isn't.

reply to post by dplum517

Obviously you were successfully brainwashed from the beginning. History is written by the victor, so there will always be biased points of view on history.

So what winner brainwashed me? Then please explain what victor had biased interest in Apollo? NASA? Or are you saying there was a revolution during the 1960's in America that I wasn't nor the world was aware about?



I am very confused at what your trying to say.

Photos do represent history but if some photos are faked does that make the history true? Also I am confused at what your initial point is?? I KNOW the Apollo missions are true historical events. I am not saying the moon landing was a fake.

Please, could you expand further as what your stance is here?

Jarrah White podcast interview on Whispers Radio AM1600 from Nov. 12, 2008.

www.whispersradio.com...

"Tonight on Whispers we welcome Jarrah White on the show. Jarrah is a contributing editor to MoonHoax.us and argues that man has never landed on the moon. He feels there is ample evidence to prove that the landings were faked in the midst of a Cold War with the Soviet Union to prove America had technological superiority.

Here is a quick bio on Jarrah:

Jarrah White is a native of Australia who debunks the Apollo Hoax debunkers, both in forums and through film. He is a contributing editor of moonhoax.us and his videos can be found on YouTube.

Jarrah discussed not only the Apollo moon hoax but also suggested that the Challenger explosion could have been orcestrated by the government to cover-up knowledge Christa McAuliffe might reveal to the public."

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Oh...thank you. I already had the opinon that "Jarrah White" was lower than bathtub scum, but THIS clinches it....he is DEAD to me, and should be to every thinking, feeling, rational human being on Earth:

Jarrah ..... also suggested that the Challenger explosion could have been orcestrated by the government to cover-up knowledge Christa McAuliffe might reveal to the public."

Vile, nasty little man!!!

This shows, quite clearly, the levels of delusion that these types of people fall to, once they get their twisted little minds latched onto this type of "conspiracy theory".

Sick, ignorant waste of Human DNA, is "Jarrah White".

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Jarrah White podcast interview on Whispers Radio AM1600 from Nov. 12, 2008.

So it's safe to assume that you know absolutely nothing about radiation, you see JW as some sort of "genius" and you are going to continue to ignore all the questions asked of you.

Is there any reason to continue to pay attention to you?

Well my one big question relating to the moon landing hoax is simple..

If the did go to the Moon, why did they stop?
Surely now it would be so much easier with modern technology easing the weight factor.

reply to post by backinblack


This has been answered, at great length. It is public record, and easy to research, actually:

...why did they stop?

Budgets. Politics. Money. Politics. Politics. Politics.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack

 

This has been answered, at great length. It is public record, and easy to research, actually:

...why did they stop?

Budgets. Politics. Money. Politics. Politics. Politics.

Yes WW, and reasons have also been argued at great length..
They found the money to setup the ISS..And keep it operating..
But that's still my one big question...

reply to post by WWu777


Of course if just a single point raised by the author is valid, the entire moonhoax theory gains credibility and is believable.

having been a student of this hoax thing since 1989 or for bout two decades, the points raised have been floating around for quite a long time, but his presentation of the same old stuff is very good and worth watching for newbies to the subject.

My question back to the forum is simply...not "did we land" but WHY DID WE GO IN THE FIRSTPLACE?

The evidence for a truthful answer came to me only 4 years ago, and I vacated the entire debate of whether we went or not...but in the end, I am sure we did...but backup footage was filmed on terra firma.

I believe NASA went to the moon to try and save themselves and other earth rulers; since I can find NO valid scientific and astrophysic reason other than "escape from the disaster of earths pole shift or end of days".

I believe when NASA got there they found stuff and debris on the surface and had to edit out all this alien stuff laying about...which brings in Kubrik and his special camera.

The final version of the moonhoax that got to me was the depth of the footprints on the moon since there is no moisture there and the prints appear to be made here on earth, and the luner module blast crater. Having no way to reconcile this (obvious) physically impossibility, I concluded NASA lies then, now, and will never give up the truth.

Whether we went there or not, WHY did we go in the first place? If the truth of this is to save a few select earthlings who are now rulers here on earth and ride out cataclysms in a safe place, then I am very angry indeed since these folks are wealthy enough to build and lift off their own spacecraft...Oh wait...they are now doing just that in New Mexico...funny huh?

What's with this patronising use of ''the kid'' in reference to Mr.White in so many posts in this thread.

Show some respect, you'd swear he was a teenager or something, he's an adult.



On topic:

Here is where he met Buzz Aldrin:

wn.com...

Originally posted by backinblack
They found the money to setup the ISS..And keep it operating..

Yes, they (NASA and the other contributing space agencies) can afford to keep the ISS operating. They however can not afford to do both the ISS and manned missions to the Moon. Not with the budget NASA gets anyway. The ISS and the Shuttle do take a decent portion of it. The rest gets eaten up by all the other projects. Just take a look at NASA's budget and how it's all divided up.

And I don't think going to the Moon would necessarily be any easier today, but we could certainly do it better (if given adequate funding)

reply to post by jra

And I don't think going to the Moon would necessarily be any easier today, but we could certainly do it better.

Why wouldn't it be easier?
We have better rockets, better computers, lighter materials and more knowledge of space..
It should be much easier..

reply to post by backinblack


The ISS? Chicken feed, in comparison to a re-vamped manned Lunar mission, in terms of overall expenditures.

AND, it is a joint venture...NASA bears the majority burden of course, but others contribute. Also, take note at not only the SLOW pace of its development (meaning, costs spread out, over many years) but costs and physics involved to loft into LEO are far more economical, than to get a payload up to escape velocity.
Manned missions by necessity, are heavier than robots, or satellites. To provide all the life-support functions, and for safety of the crew. Here is an article, specific to the ISS, and some discussion of future:

The International Space Station was a joint venture in the 1990s between Europe, Russia, Japan, and the United States. It was as symbolic as it was functional. While the ISS does not retain the lure of its former glory days and the U.S. space programs do not captivate the public’s imagination, the endeavor is still a significant diplomatic and research operation. The NASA 2009 Report about International Space Station Science reveals that:

"Advances in the fight against food poisoning, new methods for delivering medicine to cancer cells, and better materials for future spacecraft are among the results published in a NASA report detailing scientific research accomplishments made aboard the International Space Station during its first eight years."

Despite the ISS’s continued relevance, its existence may be jeopardized by President Obama’s elimination of the Constellation program. While President Obama’s space station plan may be for private enterprises to provide crew, those private enterprises certainly lack the capability and may lack the profit incentive to reach that goal. It took the United States and Russia several years and disasters to hone their expertise. China has made incredible leaps within a short amount of time, but its achievements reflect the strong state support it receives. While there are many private entrepreneurs, none have successfully tested a flight yet. As noted in the previous blog posting, the U.S. must currently rely on its petulant international partner, Russia, to reach the ISS.

www.judicialwatch.org...


Actually, the Space Shuttle was developed with the intent of staying within the sharply reduced budgets, post-Apollo. Didn't quite work out that way....you should look into the tremendous cost overruns, there.

Back to Apollo, for a moment....you also need to consider the era, and the state of the world, especially the civil unrest in the United States, in 1970. Take a stroll down "History Lane".

A congressional election year, was 1970. Nixon was no real fan of the space program, he had a "war" to "fight"----That mess known as "VIETNAM". Very expensive, that disaster was..... In any case, despite some of the hoopla surrounding the accomplishment, post Apollo 11? The American public were getting restless, again...there had been constant dissatisfaction, amongst some Congressmen, from their constituents, about the cost of Apollo. This is in the historical records, too.

It all came to a head, rather abruptly. In January, 1970!! Apollo 20 was chopped, first. Later, the launches of 18 and 19 were cancelled. The stupidity,and shortsightedness, though...? MOST of the hardware was in production, either already built, or nearly finished...so, THAT cost was already spent. It would have been only a relatively small amount of extra funding, to complete the last three missions. BTW, that was all that were envisioned, in the Apollo program.

Here, this Scientific American article sums it up, nicely. Better than I can.....

Here's anther take, and an informative article:

.....some policy makers questioned the wisdom of continuing to place astronauts at risk. Apollo 11 had humbled the Soviets on the technological prestige front of the Cold War; future landings would do little to enhance prestige, they argued, but a single lost crew could erase much of what the U.S. had gained by being first on the moon.

In addition, President Richard Nixon's Office of Management and Budget was eager to rein in Federal expenditures. The U.S. was spending roughly the entire $25-billion cost of the Apollo Program every 10 weeks to wage war in Indochina. Though NASA's budget had fallen to only about $4 billion by 1970, it still constituted a highly visible and vulnerable target for additional cuts.
beyondapollo.blogspot.com...

Of course...other than getting more geographical (selenological) samples, from different locations, the last three Apollos could do little more science, really. So, they weren't a great loss, from the scientific aspect. The nine men who didn't get to fly, though...they were disappointed. Including Jim Lovell....since his Apollo 13 flight, he was hoping to get Apollo 18, I believe. Imagine how disappointed HE (and the others) were, getting that close, having the emergency and abort....then, hoping for a second flight...and have the rug pulled out.

What about post-Apollo? You know, there were a LOT of ideas, but no real concrete plans, serious plans, that I know of, or remember reading about. Vague ideas, mostly...I guess some thought a base might get built, but I think a lot of people realized that the budget strings could get cut, too easily. It would be terribly expensive, to continue, AND to provision and maintain a base, too! They could see the writing on the wall.

Really, the future for space exploration seems will have to be profit-driven. Corporations, finding a way to (eventually) make money, grow industries, mine resources (and sell them), etc.

Anyway, an article I found about (proposals) floating around, as Apollo was on track...stuff that never left the ground....here's a snippet:

history.nasa.gov...

reply to post by weedwhacker


WOW..jra said the same in a couple of lines..
Lucky for you ATS doesn't charge by the line..

reply to post by pmexplorer

Show some respect, you'd swear he was a teenager or something, he's an adult.

He "deserves" NO respect...not after hearing about his comment, from 2008, regarding the Space Shuttle Challenger. Vile, thoughtless and arrogantly ignorant comment.

AND, he is a "kid"....even in his early twenties. Eighteen, to twenty-one. Three years. Or, twenty-two, etc. He hasn't comported himself as an adult, in his research, nor resulting "videos".

Besides, in addition to the disgusting allegations about Challenger, it has been demonstrated that he LIED, when passing off his university instructor as a "photographic expert"!! You really should review the thread, more closely....OR, perhaps it's time for someone to post a "Thread In Review"?? Sounds like a good idea.....a compilation of ALL the rebuttals to this failure.

reply to post by dplum517

Brainwashing:
brain·wash·ing (brnwshng, -wôshng)
n.
1. Intensive, forcible indoctrination, usually political or religious, aimed at destroying a person's basic convictions and attitudes and replacing them with an alternative set of fixed beliefs.
2. The application of a concentrated means of persuasion, such as an advertising campaign or repeated suggestion, in order to develop a specific belief or motivation.

Reality:
re·al·i·ty (r-l-t)
n. pl. re·al·i·ties
1. The quality or state of being actual or true.
2. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: "the weight of history and political realities" (Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.)
3. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.
4. That which exists objectively and in fact: Your observations do not seem to be about reality.
adj.
Relating to or being a genre of television or film in which a storyline is created by editing footage of people interacting or competing with one another in unscripted, unrehearsed situations.

reply to post by pmexplorer


What is it that you think JW has done to earn our respect?
I respect the hard work and dedication of the brave men and women that served this country, and put men on the moon.
Should I respect someone that wants to take a giant dump on that?
I think not.

reply to post by EdWard54


"

I believe NASA went to the moon to try and save themselves and other earth rulers; since I can find NO valid scientific and astrophysic reason other than "escape from the disaster of earths pole shift or end of days". "

I can't say that I blame them. There is a sea of stupid here on Earth. I often dream of escaping.
Maybe they have other interests, different than your own. Perhaps they saw something worth while in going to the moon, something that you've overlooked.
Sometimes grown ups do things that children do not understand.

reply to post by backinblack

"

If the did go to the Moon, why did they stop?
Surely now it would be so much easier with modern technology easing the weight factor."

Maybe they've moved past that step and on to bigger and better things? Maybe there is something you don't know, because you make assumptions instead of doing your own research?
en.wikipedia.org...

Progress: It ain't cheap and it ain't as easy as you think.

reply to post by weedwhacker

perhaps it's time for someone to post a "Thread In Review"

I thought about it. I even started an outline for it. I decided it would be wasted effort, as it would be of no benefit to anyone but us.
Even if it were possible to bring them out of Plato's cave, they would still reject reality.

And even as somewhat of a conspiracy theorist myself, I take offense at that JW challenger nonsense. Absolute horse manure.

reply to post by backinblack

Why wouldn't it be easier?
We have better rockets, better computers, lighter materials and more knowledge of space..
It should be much easier..

Because the Moon is still roughly the same distance away (slightly further, actually), the force of gravity remains the same, the deadly radiation in space has not diminished... the problem remains exactly the same. There have been major advances in electronics: you could probably squeeze an extra astronaut into the space freed up by using microchip processors and so forth, but then you'd have to feed him or her and provide them with food, oxygen and other amenities. Materials science hasn't done much to improve upon aluminium as the principal construction material, although a nano-carbon foam in the right places might shave a few kilos off the overall weight. The rocket fuels of the era pretty much hit the ceiling for usable exothermic reactions... if only people didn't have all these hang-ups about using nuclear bombs as a propellant! In other words, replicating the Apollo missions would cost roughly the same as the originals, and this in a political environment where people are rioting in the streets because they object to their tax dollars saving other peoples' lives. Ironically, the next phase of lunar exploration will be even more expensive, because it will require establishing a lunar GPS system, constructing re-usable vehicles that can only function in the vacuum of space, and finding ways of shielding human beings from protracted exposure to the deadly wind that blows from our life giving Sun. The "Why Didn't We Go Back?" argument of Moon Hoax believers only carries weight in Fantasyland.

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Jarrah White podcast interview on Whispers Radio AM1600 from Nov. 12, 2008.

So it's safe to assume that you know absolutely nothing about radiation, you see JW as some sort of "genius" and you are going to continue to ignore all the questions asked of you.

Is there any reason to continue to pay attention to you?

Theoretical science < applied science.

That is why various space agencies are doing real science now, 40 years after Apollo. Radiation Protection Studies of International Space Station Extravehicular Activity Space Suits. Source citeseerx.ist.psu.edu...

I think it's splendid for NASA/ESA and other ISS partners are finally getting the radiation data from experiments that did not exist prior to the launch of Apollo 8.

As for your remarks about avoiding questions.. and not knowing anything about radiation.. I do know this much :
theoretical laboratory experiments using Monte Carlo simulations are only 1/3 of the science. The other 2/3 of science is to test the hypothesis, observe & record the phenomenon, analyze the data and publish all the findings.

"Devices to monitor radiation flew on the Apollo spacecraft and most successive vehicles. However, they only recorded radiation and how it affected the surface of the skin. Fred's abilities are the first that provide a clear picture of the radiation dose and how the human body's organs absorb it." Source : www.nasa.gov...

"Matroshka will measure the radiation doses that astronauts face during spacewalks. Surprisingly,these are still not well known. Knowing the doses suffered by sensitive body organs is crucial for assessing the hazards from cosmic radiation.
The Phantom is designed of natural bone and material equivalent to human tissue.Lowerdensity material simulates the lungs.The Phantom is sliced into layers 25mm thick and stacked around a mandrel for stability.The slices carry most of the sensors to measure the radiation doses at organ sites such as stomach, lungs,kidney,colon and eyes.In addition,the Matroshka will help to make spacewalks safer for astronauts ..."
Source : www.esa.int...

Think of the turtles. Skepticism. Get some.

Originally posted by pmexplorer
On topic:

Here is where he met Buzz Aldrin:

wn.com...

Posted in this thread already a few times (like most things).

Sayonara, from your source:

The data collected helps scientists determine how the body reacts to and shields its internal organs from radiation. Scientists can modify Fred's reading to specific heights and weights of individual astronauts to know how much radiation each person can tolerate. Knowing this information will be helpful as longer and longer duration space flights are planned.

It doesn't surprise me that with new technology we can do experiments such as this. We have better computers and can store more data. Of course we're going to want to go into more detail about radiation. We don't fully understand *anything* technically. Not to the deepest level anyway. We know enough about radiation from science but also from stupidity. There are numerous cases of persons exposing themselves to large amounts of radiation or continued amounts from using radioactive material as desk ornaments or, in some tragic cases, toys.

Notice the key point is on longer duration space missions which has always been the problem with space exploration. You can be skeptical about anything in the way you're doing it ... understanding radiation enough to take a risk, and understanding it in depth are two very different things. We've understood and explored many things in history without submitting them to long term human testing.

Really, to be honestly skeptical about this topic though you would require much more in depth research. You would have to understand the different types of radiation, how they occur, why they occur etc ... Someone's dot-to-dot opinions on a turtle and a mannequin named Fred are not enough to make me seriously consider that any of this is a problem.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

As for your remarks about avoiding questions.. and not knowing anything about radiation.. I do know this much :
theoretical laboratory experiments using Monte Carlo simulations are only 1/3 of the science. The other 2/3 of science is to test the hypothesis, observe & record the phenomenon, analyze the data and publish all the findings.

So putting living tissue through the rigors of actual spaceflight isn't doing real science? Sending human volunteers on a trip to the Moon and monitoring their health for the rest of their lives is only theoretical? Harsh reality: get a dose of it.