Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by backinblack

So light sources would be more visible on the moon, more direct?

No. Certain wavelengths reach the lunar surface that would be absorbed by Earth's atmosphere. That is why they brought an ultraviolet telescope; ultraviolet light is absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, but it reaches the lunar surface nearly unimpeded.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Yeah I did say that, and as far as I see
without any break in the record = unbroken video footage
So whats the problem?

The transcriptions of the flight communications are also eyewitness records,

How is that "eyewitness" records?
That sounds to me more like "ear witness"
I dont know how you can determine someone is on the moon by listening.
For all we know the tran-scripts can simply be a "script"

yet now you are back pedalling and demanding video.

I asked for video from the GET GO.

Even if every instant were recorded on video, they would need to change the tape from time to time. You would argue that the changing of the tape means that it was not continuous and invalidates the tapes as evidence. In other words, you are setting an impossible standard.

What does that have to do with an unbroken record?
Lets stay on topic.

I dont even know why you are arguing it.
This discussion started from:
Here is a picture of a launch pad, here is a picture of a reentry vehicle.
Therefore it must have gone to the moon.

No. Because unless you can provide unbroken record of that object leaving the Earth going to the moon and back, it could have been switched during any particular phase in the mission.

So, I asked for an unbroken video record of the mission to prove that it did happen.
Nobody has been able to provide that.
Fact. There is no unbroken video record of the missions, therefore the original post argument fails.

Lets move on please.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack

 

So light sources would be more visible on the moon, more direct?

No. Certain wavelengths reach the lunar surface that would be absorbed by Earth's atmosphere. That is why they brought an ultraviolet telescope; ultraviolet light is absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, but it reaches the lunar surface nearly unimpeded.

second line

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack

 

So light sources would be more visible on the moon, more direct?

No. Certain wavelengths reach the lunar surface that would be absorbed by Earth's atmosphere. That is why they brought an ultraviolet telescope; ultraviolet light is absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, but it reaches the lunar surface nearly unimpeded.

second line

What don't you understand this time?

reply to post by FoosM

So, I asked for an unbroken video record of the mission to prove that it did happen.
Nobody has been able to provide that.
Fact. There is no unbroken video record of the missions, therefore the original post argument fails.

Fact: there is an enormous amount of documentation which you simply reject, time and again. You keep bringing up specious arguments in the hopes that gullible people will find them persuasive. No one needs to "prove" that history happened. You, however, need to prove that the mountains of documentation is false and provide concrete evidence that your so far unsupported assertions are true. You've had nearly a year in this forum to do so and have failed.

Lets move on please.

Just as soon as you explain why you don't think that all the unmanned Apollo flights don't account for the relative accuracy of the manned flight's re-entry.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
How could the astronauts cope with such bright light? How could the Hasselblad's cope with such overwhelming reflective brightness?

Exactly the same way they cope with a sunny day on earth - why do you think the light would be different?

Try actually stopping and thinking about what you post.

Im going to start playing devil's advocate.
Im quite surprised that many Apollo believers dont have better questions to stump
us debunkers. And frankly, we need hard questions to get to the truth of this conspiracy.

So if I were an Apollo supporter in debate with a non hoax advocate I would ask the following question:

Why the footprints?

Fact is moon dust should not contain any moisture right?
So did we even expect that the Astronauts would leave footprints?
If so provide a source,

If not, couldn't NASA then get away with not having the astronauts leaving behind footprints?
Why go through all that trouble to fake the footprints?
You would have to make sure that all the photos and videos matched.
Thats a lot of work and leaves room for continuity mistakes.

So hoax advocates, provide a good reason why the footprints in the photos were necessary for the hoax.
And or provide evidence that the footprints were faked.



vs

By the way... JW's next video installment is almost ready for prime-time.

Today I downloaded a docu from the science channel about moon machines. This program discussed the research and development of the various machines needed for the moonlanding.

Because it seems that more and more people are starting to belief that the moonlandings were a hoax it looks that NASA or the US government is using this documatairy as an offensive weapon against the disbelievers.

What struck me in this docu are those thousends and thousends of hard working and dedicated people all believing that they contributed in bringing those few men on the moon. The once young and now old enigineers interviewed for this program are still emotional when their work is discussed for this program.

What I am trying to say is that it is hard to belief that the landings are a hoax after watching this docu and I must not think of the disappointment and maybe in some cases anger that will get hold of these people when they will find out that all their sweat and tears were used for a scam in the end.

I really hope that some day the definite truth will come out and will end the contriversy on this particular subject.

reply to post by zatara


????

You get it correct here:

....it is hard to belief that the landings are a hoax after watching this docu....

Exactly true. It is IMPOSSIBLE to believe in a "hoax", as there is absolutely NO evidence for one. Those people weren't stupid, and wouldn't have been "fooled".


But, did you make a 180-degree turn in logic, next?:

... and I must not think of the disappointment and maybe in some cases anger that will get hold of these people when they will find out that all their sweat and tears were used for a scam in the end...

IF you mean the "hoax-pushers" who are belittling these accomplishments, then....yes. I can see a valid reason for much anger at those people, for perpetuating this ridiculous nonsense.....the "hoax" scam.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Yeah,...yeah....just follow the red line and you will understand.

Originally posted by FoosM
By the way... JW's next video installment is almost ready for prime-time.

Is he going to rub some more balloons on his head? Run past a flag in his bedroom again? Hurl insults at Jay Windley?

I enclosed a link where Jarrah tells Windley that he's barely qualified to drive a garbage truck.... that's funny, Windley builds satellites for a living...... what are Jarrah's qualifications and experience with space? NONE.

Both times Jarrah tried to debate Windley, Jarrah got his head handed back to him.
That's why he won't do any debating outside of youtube anymore. What a loser.

Read for yourself:
tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com...
www.imdb.com...

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack

 

So light sources would be more visible on the moon, more direct?

No. Certain wavelengths reach the lunar surface that would be absorbed by Earth's atmosphere. That is why they brought an ultraviolet telescope; ultraviolet light is absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, but it reaches the lunar surface nearly unimpeded.

Thanks for the replies..
I know they planned the missions with the position of the sun in mind..
I guess due to light,heat and radiation issues..

Originally posted by zatara
Today I downloaded a docu from the science channel about moon machines. This program discussed the research and development of the various machines needed for the moonlanding.

Because it seems that more and more people are starting to belief that the moonlandings were a hoax it looks that NASA or the US government is using this documatairy as an offensive weapon against the disbelievers.

NASA has definitely been trying to address the growing belief in the conspiracy.

Mythbusters was a clear indication of that, as well as the other various media stunts.
I would even say that LRO etc was also a stunt.

Considering the various number of probes that were already surveying the moon, why couldnt NASA simply
land a craft? I mean what did they do... crash one! Well crashing is easy, landing is hard.

Why not land a craft in one of the craters to find water? To find signs of life?
What are we wasting our tax dollars on?

Originally posted by Facefirst

I enclosed a link where Jarrah tells Windley that he's barely qualified to drive a garbage truck.... that's funny, Windley builds satellites for a living...... what are Jarrah's qualifications and experience with space? NONE.

Just because one builds satellites for a living, doesn't qualify them for driving and operating a garbage truck.

Both times Jarrah tried to debate Windley, Jarrah got his head handed back to him.
That's why he won't do any debating outside of youtube anymore. What a loser.

Oh really?
Provide some evidence.
And no, we dont want to peruse through a lengthy forum.
Quote the key issues where JW lost the debate on a moon landing subject
so we can debate it here.

Originally posted by Facefirst

Read for yourself:
tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com...
www.imdb.com...

Never in a million years I would've thought that someday I defend something JW does. However from that imdb link I read this part by Jay Windley:

I have informed you several times in no uncertain terms that you do not have my permission to publish my private e-mails to you. Yet in flagrant, malicious disregard of the law you continue to do so. You seem to consider yourself above the law

That is blatant bs. First of all private emails are private in the sense that any outsider accessing or releasing them without permission is guilty of a crime. However if the recipent or the sender decides to do so that does not apply. Second copyright emails? As in as a creative work. That's just pure hogwash.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
That is blatant bs. First of all private emails are private in the sense that any outsider accessing or releasing them without permission is guilty of a crime. However if the recipent or the sender decides to do so that does not apply. Second copyright emails? As in as a creative work.

That's just pure hogwash.

I'd have to ask the obvious question - are you a lawyer? And I don't understand your 'Second copyright emails?' comment...?

It's not 'bs' or 'hogwash' - have a good long read here - it's an excellent summary:
arborlaw.biz...

So, JW wrong again...

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by PsykoOps
That is blatant bs. First of all private emails are private in the sense that any outsider accessing or releasing them without permission is guilty of a crime. However if the recipent or the sender decides to do so that does not apply. Second copyright emails? As in as a creative work.

That's just pure hogwash.

I'd have to ask the obvious question - are you a lawyer? And I don't understand your 'Second copyright emails?' comment...?
It's not 'bs' or 'hogwash' - have a good long read here - it's an excellent summary:
arborlaw.biz...
So, JW wrong again...

No, that's an opinion from a blogger who actually agrees the law sees it JW's way but disagrees with that..

Turning to the email forwarding issue — email is processed and accessed through a mail software application that makes forwarding automated and extremely easy in a one-step process (ie, taking a received email and ‘sending it on’ to another party). Many legal and IT professionals argue that everyone who uses email, accepts that this function exists, and is an inherent part of the way the email system architecture is designed — and that there is therefore an ‘implied license’ for anyone to forward email anywhere and everywhere they see fit.

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by PsykoOps
That is blatant bs. First of all private emails are private in the sense that any outsider accessing or releasing them without permission is guilty of a crime. However if the recipent or the sender decides to do so that does not apply. Second copyright emails? As in as a creative work.

That's just pure hogwash.

I'd have to ask the obvious question - are you a lawyer? And I don't understand your 'Second copyright emails?' comment...?
It's not 'bs' or 'hogwash' - have a good long read here - it's an excellent summary:
arborlaw.biz...
So, JW wrong again...

No, that's an opinion from a blogger who actually agrees the law sees it JW's way but disagrees with that..

Turning to the email forwarding issue — email is processed and accessed through a mail software application that makes forwarding automated and extremely easy in a one-step process (ie, taking a received email and ‘sending it on’ to another party). Many legal and IT professionals argue that everyone who uses email, accepts that this function exists, and is an inherent part of the way the email system architecture is designed — and that there is therefore an ‘implied license’ for anyone to forward email anywhere and everywhere they see fit.

This reply is to nobody in particular-

I must have missed the relevance here.
Under which jurisdiction was a law broken?
Does JW live in the US?
Did Windley knowingly send an email to a person that could potentially share it with the public via videos or
other means?
And, what does this have to do with the moonlandings?
This is more of an ethics issue.
Im curious what aspects Windley and JW debated over regarding the moon landings
and who scored more points.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
How could the astronauts cope with such bright light? How could the Hasselblad's cope with such overwhelming reflective brightness?

Exactly the same way they cope with a sunny day on earth - why do you think the light would be different?

Try actually stopping and thinking about what you post.

How is the light the same?
We dont wear gold visors on Earth.