Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Polite Mod Request

Hi People,


Lets keep it focussed on the post and not the posters please...

On topic, civil, leaving out the personal side comments etc etc.



Thanks people.

reply to post by backinblack


nataylor,
backinblack beat me to it but I basically concur with what backinblack just said. The NASA/Apollo official storyline has been accepted by all institutions as scripture (a "script"), there are ultra-religious overtones to the presentation of that story. The debate follows a sure and predictable path. In the end, we can believe the source and accept the interpretation -- or we can doubt the source and deny the interpretation -- or we can stay in the gray areas which are not so quick to get fudged up in fundamentalist thinking. I prefer to remain open minded whilst still engaging in some question/answer about the subject.

My personal skepticism of NASA source material is not a new argument, it is an old argument...

IF NASA were technologically capable of sending 6 manned ships to the moon in 1968-1972 yet they are conveniently unable to take reasonably clear pictures of the landing ships on the surface of the moon. NASA instead points specifically to digital blobs on digital pictures taken (40 years after the fact)... pictures that have been digitally screened by those who are employed or contracted by NASA.... .... and their attitude is "take it or leave it."

I just leave it.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Can I just make it clear that I am not a believer in the moon hoax..
I think it's an interesting theory worthy of debate..
I have an open mind and WILL just point out things I see as wrong..

Originally posted by DJW001
Before you rapidly change the subject, you didn't think I would let this one slip by, did you? Here's what your source actually says:

1968 December 4 - .
Soviets judge that Apollo 8 has only a 25% chance of success. - . Nation: USSR. Related Persons: Johnson, Lyndon. Program: Apollo. Flight: Apollo 8; Soyuz 7K-L1 mission 1. The State Commission investigating Gagarin's crash publishes it report. It found that pilot error put the aircraft into a critical situation. Kamanin judges that the Apollo 8 mission is only being flown to give US President Lyndon Johnson a triumph before he leaves office. He judges the mission has only a 25% chance of success.

Why does he conclude that? Further along the same page:

Seems pretty self-explanatory to me.

Here's where the "radiation is too dangerous" meme comes in. The Soviet lunar landing effort was in disarray. They had several competing teams working on a variety of different schemes and lacked a powerful enough booster to do the single launch technique used by NASA. When it became obvious that they would be unable even to place a single cosmonaut in lunar orbit in time to beat the Americans, they opted for propaganda:

1968 December 30 - Meeting of the VPK Military-Industrial Commission to discuss how to beat the Americans to the lunar landing [edit for brevity, DJW001

Keldysh proposed that further work on the L1 be abandoned, and Proton boosters instead be used to launch the Ye-8-5 lunar soil return robot spacecraft being developed by Babakin. Babakin had been accelerating this programme since the beginning of 1968 with the support of Keldysh, even though it would only return around 100 g of lunar soil...

This doesn't mean that radiation wasn't a problem.
It does call in question if the Saturn 5 could do what NASA claimed.

Originally posted by backinblack

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..

Did you scroll down the sites I sent? On one photo you can actually see the lander's landing gear as well as various objects around the landing sites.

Also, this is a little different of a situation than life on Mars. NASA made it publicly known where the landing sites were. The other nations looked at some of those sites and saw objects and geographic disturbances.
There's is waaay too much of a coincidence for that data to be discarded.

reply to post by FoosM

This doesn't mean that radiation wasn't a problem.
It does call in question if the Saturn 5 could do what NASA claimed.

No, but the source you cited in no way supports any of the statements in your post. It was completely irrelevant. Why did you use it? Oh yes, because you couldn't find anything that did support your statement. Now, once again, where do you see the flaw in nat's calculations? Your entire "radiation argument" hangs in the balance.

It is clear that the Soviets introduced the radiation whisper campaign in an attempt to undermine NASA's credibility among those unable or unwilling to understand the facts of the matter. It is a sad reflection on the state of education that it continues to propagate, led by people who twist and distort things for their own personal satisfaction. Bill Kaysing was a bitter, vengeful man who sought revenge for being forced to retire when his drug addiction interfered with his work. Others were motivated by explicitly religious beliefs. Only Jarrah White knows why he has chosen to carry the banner first raised by Soviet apparatchiks in an attempt to deflect attention from their own failure.

As for the Saturn V and its ability to perform, I would never expect you to believe anything that comes from NASA... so here is a YouTube vid (and YouTube never lies, so saith the Divine Jarrah) showing the Saturn at work, taken by people who were really there when it actually lifted off. Independent historical witnesses, as it were:

Note that this is a different witness than I called the last time this came up. And yes, being present when the Saturn roars to life and climbs into the sky has been described as a "religious experience," no faith or belief required.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Well, I'd dispute backinblack's claim they have a better camera. There certainly isn't a better camera in lunar orbit. The LROC images are exactly at the scale we'd expect from a device with its specifications.

Would it be possible to build a better camera? Sure, I guess so. But the instruments used on these missions are designed to meet the scientific goals. A 50 cm/pixel resolution is certainly good enough to be used to evaluate landing areas of future missions. Given that the HiRISE camera used on the MRO cost $70 million alone, I can see why they would choose not to include such a device just to get what amounts to marginally better images.

As for the claim that similar images would be unacceptable to prove ancient artifacts on Mars, I disagree with the entire notion. That's comparing apples and oranges. The images we have here don't exist in a proverbial vacuum. We can compare the LROC image's to those taken during the missions and see how they match up. That's far different than claiming something new, unverified, and without previous evidence existing. And I'd argue that even if you looked at the LROC images without ever knowing about Apollo, you could determine there was something unique about those images of the landing sites compared to the rest of the lunar surface.

Click the image to view the whole thing:

As for the whole religion thing, well... I prefer to argue facts, not allegory.

Nice black pixels for the flag.

I think te top of de flag was in full shadow ?

reply to post by webstra


Here's a link to a photo and article about a "High Sun" image of the Apollo 16 landing site, taken by LROC. First, the description:

High sun causes white and metallic artifacts left on the surface by Young and Duke to stand out in high contrast as they reflect the noon-day sun back at LROC. The Apollo 16 astronauts churned up the lunar soil (regolith) as they moved about exploring the moon, and this disturbed material shows up as dark lines and patches. Since the astronauts spent a fair amount of time around the Lunar Module during their three extra-vehicular activities, the bright lunar module appears to have a dark halo. The same dark halo appears around the parked rover.

www.physorg.com...

Very quick answer ww

9/11 made me think....after seeing all the evidence, we never went there.

Sorry ww, i don't believe the lies anymore.

When you magnify the 'flag' you see an L-shaped thing with an extra black dot on the crossing of the L.

The line should be linear I think.

reply to post by webstra


The black pixels you're seeing is the shadow cast by the flag. In that picture, the sun is at an elevation of 62 degrees. So we'd expect, on a level surface, shadows to be about 54% the length of the height of the item casting the shadow. The flags were about 3 feet (91 cm) tall (just the flag, not counting the flagpole). So we'd expect it to cast a shadow right around 49 cm long. And as the resolving power of the LROC at that altitude is about 50 cm/pixel, we'd expect to see something that about one pixel. And that's just what we see.

reply to post by webstra


The flagpole shadow is to too narrow to be resolved itself, so it and the lightness of the surrounding soil is blended together to get some pixels that are not as black as pure shadow, but not as light as the soil. Same for the short part of the L. The width of the flag is not quite wide enough for two pixels, so one gets blended with the surface. That's why we have some dark gray pixels and a single black pixel, which is the portion of the flag big enough to cast a shadow 50 cm by 50 cm.

this threat is getting larger and larger.

I have a smile on my face..thanks to the genius....

reply to post by webstra


Well....we certainly would love to see your evidence, for believing the [gag] "genius".

Have you actually read through all of this thread yet?? Researched the shady connections of Jarrah White? And his possible ulterior motives, in taking this "stance", and flooding the Internet with his garbage?

You really should do some due diligence, and investigate the "source"....that would be "Jarrah"....

Originally posted by webstra
this threat is getting larger and larger.

I have a smile on my face..thanks to the genius....

Oh, thanks to the "genius", we've been laughing for months.

People reading this thread, without preconcieved notions, will be introduced to the real Jarrah White. Like the one that invented an expert for one of his videos and has yet to correct or apologize for it.

Jarrah White Pretends His Teacher is a "Perspective Expert"

An email from Jarrah's teacher:

You should take into consideration the background to Jarrah’s work, he made this documentary as one of his class assignments, as such students have to create a piece with little or no resources at their disposal. Jarrah is particularly interested in things technical, and based most of his works that particular year, around the concept that the lunar landing was faked. He required footage of a so called ‘expert’ to support the story line he wished to persue, and as a teacher (at the coledge at that time) he asked if I would be willing to do the interview for his assignment. I agreed as he did not have access to a ‘real authority’. The reality is that I am not even a professional photographer, the interesting thing is that when a person is portrayed as an expert on film, people tend to believe it (I am a fine arts teacher).

We can post more inanities like this for days......

This hoax is busted. I mean really busted.
Jarrah White should start looking for a job right now.



THE END!

Originally posted by Smack
This hoax is busted. I mean really busted.
Jarrah White should start looking for a job right now.

THE END!

lol, seriously...There are many good posters here to debunk this stuff but this??

I don't think ANY serious researcher would accept " enhanced " images as proof of anything..

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by Smack
This hoax is busted. I mean really busted.
Jarrah White should start looking for a job right now.

THE END!

lol, seriously...There are many good posters here to debunk this stuff but this??

I don't think ANY serious researcher would accept " enhanced " images as proof of anything..

What kind of enhancement technique is being used? Can you describe the technique used and where else you might find it being used? Can you name it? Did you know that this same technique is used in a variety of ways in many scientific disciplines? No? You didn't know that, did you? Do you understand how it works? No, you don't, do you? Math is not your thing, is it? Science is not your thing either, is it? No, I didn't think so.

For someone that doesn't believe in the hoax theory, you sure are quick to put yourself in their camp.

reply to post by Smack

What kind of enhancement technique is being used? Can you describe the technique used and where else you might find it being used? Can you name it? Did you know that this same technique is used in a variety of ways in many scientific disciplines? No? You didn't know that, did you? Do you understand how it works? No, you don't, do you? Math is not your thing, is it? Science is not your thing either, is it? No, I didn't think so.

For someone that doesn't believe in the hoax theory, you sure are quick to put yourself in their camp

lol, you do go on a bit though you know NOTHING about me, so don't pretend you do..

The vid you posted is honest enough to state that it is " enhanced "...
It didn't come from me, it's clearly written at the start of the vid....

So maybe my SKILL'S of observations are better than yours as you obviously hadn't seen the disclaimer..

Now, rant away..