Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by backinblack
So if I had of chosen a 120kg weight instead of a baseball in my original question then I would have been correct..

Actually the weight pretty much doesn't matter, as long as the orientation stays the same, time is the biggest factor.

Gravity provides a constant acceleration of all objects, so the heavier the object the more force you feel, and the more energy you have to put in for the same speed. They counterbalance each other in terms of forces.

On the other hand, gravity does not scale in time, a 1 second throw will experience only 1 second's worth of gravity force, wheras a 5 second throw of the same weight will put in 1/5th of the energy per second of the 1 second throw, but also have 5x the energy wasted in opposing gravity.

I look forward to you accusing nataylor of being unable to do basic maths too

Many of you here have probably already seen
Piers Morgan's interview with Jesse Ventura.

An interview that probably will have negative consequences for Piers in the long run.
Why, well because it was apparent his agenda was to discredit Jesse by making him look like a loon. Piers tried to disparage Jesse in various ways and one of his tricks was to entangle Jesse with... you guessed it:

14:40


The Moonlanding Conspiracy.

Jesse admitted that he did believe Neil Armstrong walked on the moon because the US had the technology to get there. But I got a feeling Jesse has doubts. But for some reason he wasn't ready to open the discussion up on that topic because probably he was not prepared with all the details. Similar how he was not versed with the whole Libya affair. And probably this is the issue with alot of people. They have their ipads, their smart phones, and they simply trust scientist.
Most will not want to go toe to toe with rocket scientists, geologists, and many in various science fields in a debate about the moon landing.
And with so many scientist assuming the landing happened, to not believe in the moon landing paints you worse than to not believe that Osama bin Laden was solely behind 911,
or Oswald was solely behind Kennedy's death.

NASA covered as many bases as possible with this particular hoax.

This is why I am impressed by JW's video series.
He comes up with information that I never expected.
And he keeps poking holes into NASA's story.

reply to post by exponent

Actually the weight pretty much doesn't matter, as long as the orientation stays the same, time is the biggest factor.
Gravity provides a constant acceleration of all objects, so the heavier the object the more force you feel, and the more energy you have to put in for the same speed. They counterbalance each other in terms of forces.
On the other hand, gravity does not scale in time, a 1 second throw will experience only 1 second's worth of gravity force, wheras a 5 second throw of the same weight will put in 1/5th of the energy per second of the 1 second throw, but also have 5x the energy wasted in opposing gravity.
I look forward to you accusing nataylor of being unable to do basic maths too

Actually it is YOU that's arguing with natayor's math..
He made it clear weight/mass does matter to vertical acceleration in lesser gravity...

I look forward to your reply..

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

So the Astronauts where there.
Who says that it wasn't handed over by one of them?
But here is the crux of the problem.
These astronauts should have been able to look at the "rock" and say, thats not one of ours.

And all this still doesn't explain how a moon rock was given to the State Dept. and then to land in the hands of Mr. Middendorf. These rocks were supposed to be UBER valuable and locked away for research. Small samples given out as presents to various countries under controlled conditions.

The Netherlands and the US are best friends.
This is ATS, I think you all know how fast media can spin "bad news" into "hey no problem here" news.

*yawn* We've circled back to this again. Rather than quote one of my own replies, here's one from jra:

I really wish people would look deeper into this, but HB's just jump on it without giving it much of a thought and think they have evidence of a hoax.

The petrified wood was NOT given to the Dutch Prime Minister by the Apollo 11 Astronauts or even by NASA themselves.

Firstly, It was a private gift from a US Ambassador to the former Dutch Prime Minister. I'd like to stress the former part. Willem Drees was no longer PM in 1969 when he was given this petrified wood.

Secondly, US ambassador gave the petrified rock to the former PM in 1969. NASA didn't give out the gift rocks to other Countries until after Apollo 17 in 1972.

Thirdly, the petrified wood was 98grams. The largest Apollo samples given to other Countries were 1.1grams and encased in clear plastic.

So looking at these facts, it's clear that there was no attempt by anyone to purposely pass this off as a Moon rock. To me it seems it was the museum that acquired some of Drees possessions that misidentified the rock and didn't bother to check to see if it really was a Moon rock or not.

That was back on page 211.

More recently, of course, we've had this, courtesy of facefirst:

That was on page 383.

edit on 6-4-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.

Jarrah White actually asked Buzz about the Netherlands anomoly.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Jarrah White actually asked Buzz about the Netherlands anomoly.

This is exactly what I mean, just suggesting a hint of a conspiracy will bring out the attack dogs.
Amazing. Its clear they have something to hide.

Originally posted by FoosM
This is exactly what I mean, just suggesting a hint of a conspiracy will bring out the attack dogs.
Amazing. Its clear they have something to hide.

What attack dogs? Buzz gave a perfectly reasonable and calm response to Jarrah. Jarrah's question wasn't even factually correct. I don't believe any of the Apollo 11 astronauts gave the US ambassador the piece of petrified wood to give to the former PM. The commemorative plaque for sure, but not the 'rock'.

It's amazing that HB's cling on to what is basically a non issue. The simple fact that NASA only gave out Lunar samples to other Countries after Apollo 17 in 1972. Or the fact that the samples were small (0.5g to 1.1g) and encased in a clear plastic, unlike the piece of petrified wood which was not in plastic and weighed 98g.

There is nothing to hide. To me, it seems quite likely that it was a mistake on part of the Museum.

The only 'attack dogs' I see in that video is the Australian newspaper that wrote a very inaccurate article. But what do they have to do with supposed "cover up"?

reply to post by FoosM

This is why I am impressed by JW's video series.

Only a tiny minority of uneducated, and clueless individuals are in that same category...of being "impressed" by JW's nonsense.

He comes up with information that I never expected.

Yes....because he takes FACTS and then LIES about them, by interpreting in ways that have you (apparently) completely fooled. After he does that he compounds his lies with outright off-the-wall claims, and then provides no backing up for them....instead, he dupes his audience with open-ended innuendo dropping....

And he keeps poking holes into NASA's story.

Nope. Not one "hole". EVERY claim in every video where you think JW is "Duh, Winning" (soon to be [color=gold]® by Charlie Sheen, so using freely until that time) against NASA, he is easily shown to be wrong, or lying......

Each And Every Time


Just TWO videos that clearly display JW is a bloody idiot (or, a willful, crafty LIAR):






JW is also a YouTube BULLY of the worst kind!!

I have to ask the JW "fans" out there.....do you support bullies? Do you think that someone who has the "truth" on his side needs to resort to yet more chicanery and trickery, by abusing the DCMA by making false accusations against other YouTubers? Using the YouTube "rules" in a childish, petulant way as he is proven to have done?

Is THIS a "role model" that you wish to get behind? Don't believe me? Here --- a video rundown of the circumstances, to date. STAY TUNED, as you will see and hear, here below, this is NOT OVER YET!:






(Side tangential note....anyone with some time under their belts at UTube may know of a similar precedent....a [now] former, and VERY prolific nonsense peddler there, "VenomFangX" [IIRC] who was adamantly posting "proofs" against evolution. Long story short.....his tactics, against those who also posted rebuttals to his videos, were very, very similar to the pattern of JW. "VenomFangX" is no longer.......).

reply to post by weedwhacker


Can I get some facts or debate with that rant?

You post nothing weed..
Maybe you should try one day..

Originally posted by jra

The only 'attack dogs' I see in that video is the Australian newspaper that wrote a very inaccurate article. But what do they have to do with supposed "cover up"?

Who do you think I was talking about?
Somebody had to decide that that particular question, which was reasonable, necessitated an attack piece in the paper!

Originally posted by backinblack
Actually it is YOU that's arguing with natayor's math..
He made it clear weight/mass does matter to vertical acceleration in lesser gravity...

I look forward to your reply..

I fear you still do not understand my point. In a constant time throw, the mass increase is offset by the gravity force increase, the proportion of energy used remains the same.

In a longer throw, more energy is consumed, and so time is the controlling factor in the energy distribution.

I'll PM nataylor to get him to come agree with me if you like, suits me just fine.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM

 

(Side tangential note....anyone with some time under their belts at UTube may know of a similar precedent....a [now] former, and VERY prolific nonsense peddler there, "VenomFangX" [IIRC] who was adamantly posting "proofs" against evolution. Long story short.....his tactics, against those who also posted rebuttals to his videos, were very, very similar to the pattern of JW. "VenomFangX" is no longer.......).

edit on 8 April 2011 by weedwhacker because: of my Tiger Blood[color=gold]®

I'm familiar with that YouTuber called VenomFangX. (I don't subscribe to him but I subscribe to a few of his rivals.) What are you trying to say Weed? That YouTube's embattled creationist loonybin loudmouth (real name Shawn Karon of Thornhill, Ontario, Canada) gave up his home, moved to Oz, changed his name, had plastic surgery, acquired an authentic Aussie accent and started making Apollo hoax videos for several years now?

Now who is making stuff up??? VenomFangX has uploaded recent videos. VenomFang doesn't have the same "video editing style" as Jarrah. I think Weed been smokin something to see any correllation between one channel and another channel on YouTube.

Weed, your hoax correllation between VenomFangX and Jarrah White has been busted.

1 second on Google.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by jra

The only 'attack dogs' I see in that video is the Australian newspaper that wrote a very inaccurate article. But what do they have to do with supposed "cover up"?

Who do you think I was talking about?
Somebody had to decide that that particular question, which was reasonable, necessitated an attack piece in the paper!

Jarrah's questions might have sounded "too dangerous" for Buzz's CIA handler. Hence the immediate need for a newspaper HIT PIECE on Jarrah White.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by jra

The only 'attack dogs' I see in that video is the Australian newspaper that wrote a very inaccurate article. But what do they have to do with supposed "cover up"?

Who do you think I was talking about?
Somebody had to decide that that particular question, which was reasonable, necessitated an attack piece in the paper!

Jarrah's questions might have sounded "too dangerous" for Buzz's CIA handler. Hence the immediate need for a newspaper HIT PIECE on Jarrah White.

Exactly.
I mean, how could Buzz not know about the whole dutch fake moon rock fiasco?
He should have had a good explanation for it.
Im sure JW wasnt the only one who asked him about it.

Not only that, he could have been more curious about it if he really didnt know about it.

reply to post by backinblack


Odd thing to say.....the FACTS are in the post.

Can I get some facts or debate with that rant?

Is that post to much reminiscent of some OTHER ATS member's style, sometimes? Why single that one out, based solely (I presume) on who posted it....and IGNORE the many, many, many, many, many similar such styles of posts, by "He-Who-Shall_Not-Be-Named"??

I am sensing a bias........

....oh, and did I mention....the FACTS are in the post (yes, admittedly, I allowed "YouTube" to present them for me....I mean, why write it out, when it is there to HEAR?).

m.smh.com.au/national/the-diary/security-we-have-a-problem-20101005-166a5.html

Sydney paper article is above. Jarrah seriously blows this out of proportion for his own gain. I don't see any reference to his removal. If that's a hit piece the PTB seem to be made of rainbows.

Anatomy of a CIA HIT PIECE. Security, we have a problem
Jacqueline Maley and Leesha McKenny October 06, 2010
Source link m.smh.com.au...

THE astronaut Buzz Aldrin has stepped onto the moon and moonwalked on Dancing With The Stars. But it was his minders who made one giant leap- to stop an interloper - at his Sydney media conference yesterday. All had been going well at the Sofitel Wentworth before his appearance as guest of honour at the Australian Geographic Society Awards tonight until a bloke down the front in a fedora asked a question.

Keep in mind that Buzz has minders (CIA handlers).

It was the space conspiracy theorist Jarrah White, who quizzed Aldrin on whether he knowingly gave a piece of petrified wood - which until last year was thought to be moon rock - to the former Dutch Prime Minister Willem Drees shortly after the Apollo 11 voyage in 1969. ''Petrified wood? Well, that doesn't sound like it came from the moon,'' Aldrin responded, before suggesting the sample was switched sometime after 1969. ''What happens to that display once it is presented to somebody isn't the responsibility of the United States, and it certainly isn't the responsibility of the crew that gave it to them.'' That's that then.

Buzz summarily dismissed his involvement in the Netherlands Anomoly. That should be the end of the article.

Or, it was for the rest of the conference. All further questions - on the greatest feats of the 20th century, on his heroes - were gently put to Aldrin by people associated with the society. ''You accepted my planned question very well,'' Aldrin joked in response to one.

Keep in mind that Buzz has minders (CIA handlers) who hand out pre-planned questions to the society members, like in a TV script or in the Apollo transcripts.

But the octogenarian, who later dismissed White to Diary as an attention seeker, has proved adept at handling his kind before - punching the amateur space hoax filmmaker Bart Sibrel in the face for ambushing him and calling him ''a coward, and a liar, and a thief'' in 2002. And while on the topic of space hoaxes, Aldrin had some revelations about Michael Jackson's famous dance move. ''That's not the way you're going to walk around the moon - backwards,'' he said.

It is within this last section where the minders go above & beyond and pull the trigger on this HIT PIECE. Please note how the concept of the Sydney Morning Herald Diary, a stupid social gossip column, changes from snarky reportage in the beginning to clear antagonism and character assassination in the end. Please note the use of violent imagery, ambushing asides and quoting outside sources whom have nothing to do with the Buzz Aldrin conference, for example, why should the SMH quote Bart Sibrel ''a coward, and a liar, and a thief'' in this article if not to add drama to it that did not exist in the first place?

Finally, the SMH Diary is a drama & gossip column with no journalistic integrity. Look at the SMH Diary itself and you can see that this is the case. It is the perfect place to drop a HIT PIECE on Jarrah White because nobody is going to fact-check a gossip column! Case in point "The Cleo Bachelor of the Year will be announced April 20."

Jarrah was within his rights to submit his response and to have his response published right below the article and on the same page. m.smh.com.au...

That is that.

I humbly propose a MOTION of ACTION to my esteemed friends and colleagues and fellow constituents of this thread and to the Moderators. If there be any objections let them be pure, frank and concise.

A proposal to:
1. Move this thread Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate! from General Conspiracies to Conspiracy Theorists.
2. Jarrah White has gained sufficient notoriety on the internet, on forums, on YouTube.
3. 3rd party independant verification has taken place. To wit "space conspiracy theorist Jarrah White".
Source m.smh.com.au...

Is there a second to this MOTION of ACTION?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack

 

Odd thing to say.....the FACTS are in the post.

Can I get some facts or debate with that rant?

Is that post to much reminiscent of some OTHER ATS member's style, sometimes? Why single that one out, based solely (I presume) on who posted it....and IGNORE the many, many, many, many, many similar such styles of posts, by "He-Who-Shall_Not-Be-Named"??

I am sensing a bias........

....oh, and did I mention....the FACTS are in the post (yes, admittedly, I allowed "YouTube" to present them for me....I mean, why write it out, when it is there to HEAR?).

offtopic: totally sigged that one I am sensing a bias........

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Anatomy of a CIA HIT PIECE.

Except there was zero CIA involvement, just JW, a raving loon who has no understanding of physics or how things actually work.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Anatomy of a CIA HIT PIECE.

Except there was zero CIA involvement, just JW, a raving loon who has no understanding of physics or how things actually work.

How would you know there was no CIA involvement?
You work for the CIA?