Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by CHRLZ


Everybody in your eyes it seems always busted if they are a moonhoax believer.

This thread needs to be locked. It is like trying to argue with a brink wall on each side. I know my view point won't change because I know our government has lied from the RMS Lusitania to Global Warming.

I think Jarrah White's performed more real world investigation than anyone here including myself.

It's hard to criticise if you haven't taken the effort to do the same.
Everyone can be an arm chair critic.

Who here has payed $300 or so to import moon dust replicant and conduct their own test ? ... crickets ....

reply to post by ppk55

I think Jarrah White's performed more real world investigation than anyone here including myself.

Huh? Made me laugh so hard, if I'd been drinking milk it'd come out my nose...

"JW" is a piker, merely copying the same baloney that many, many others have instigated --- ALL wrong, each and every time.

A perrenial 'joke' hardly describes him adequately....

However, in fairness to the kid....now that CHRLZ has uncovered the salient fact that 'JW' embarked on this endeavour as part of a "school project", well....makes things all much, much more clear.

Guess we chalk up yet another failure of a country's school system...so sad he wasn't corrected along the way. EVEN WORSE, he might actually believe the nonsense he posts! What a shame.....


[edit on 20 May 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by dragnet53
reply to post by CHRLZ

 

Everybody in your eyes it seems always busted if they are a moonhoax believer.

This thread needs to be locked. It is like trying to argue with a brink wall on each side. I know my view point won't change because I know our government has lied from the RMS Lusitania to Global Warming.

since ya didnt answer I'd like to ask again:
How did NASA manage to fake lunar landscapes that would match up 100% with data from JAXA, 40 years later?
Or did JAXA just pretend to send a probe, and actually made their models according to ancient NASA fotos?

reply to post by debunky


JAXA couldn't image the Apollo landers - even if they were there.

reply to post by Exuberant1


So, what's your point? Or, just flapping some more?

So, JAXA didn't have the incredible resolution, down to a few meters, necessary to image the Apollo equipment? So what?

This way, they also can't see my vacation home up there, either.

Not talking about pics of the landing sites.

Left: JAXA data
Right: Apollo

Isnt it time for you to randomly declare victory again?

Edit to add: You got a vacation home up there? Cool! Can I come visit you one weekend?

[edit on 20-5-2010 by debunky]

reply to post by debunky

Can I come visit you one weekend?

Sure. BYOS. And crackers....Moon is made of cheese, already.

I'll bring the 'Tang' (tm).

(There is a slight added fee, everyone chips in, for the O2 supply in the habitat, ...sorry. That stuff don't come cheap, have to import it, ya know).

Originally posted by ppk55
I think Jarrah White's performed more real world investigation than anyone here including myself.

And you would think wrong, unless you consider producing spurious videos to support only a certain point of view "investigation".

It's hard to criticise if you haven't taken the effort to do the same.
Everyone can be an arm chair critic.

I don't understand you here, but given the immense amount of photographic experience on this thread, we aren't "arm chair" critics. The only way you become proficient in photography is to actually do it.

I've been debating the moon hoax online since the Fox Special first aired in 2001. So please don't lecture me on who is entitiled to debate the moon hoax.

Who here has payed $300 or so to import moon dust replicant and conduct their own test ? ... crickets ....

If I had, I would certainly bought regolith with the proper particle size, unlike your hero, the schoolboy Jarrah.

Originally posted by ppk55
I think Jarrah White's performed more real world investigation than anyone here including myself.

It's hard to criticise if you haven't taken the effort to do the same.
Everyone can be an arm chair critic.

Who here has payed $300 or so to import moon dust replicant and conduct their own test ? ... crickets ....

Well if you get a spare $300 why dont you take yourself and JW on a photography course then he wouldn't spout so much BS.

I would say anyone like myself and a few others on here who have been into photography since the 1970's are expert enough to quote on so called photographic evidence since we learned the craft on manual cameras NO auto exposure NO autofocus SO do you honestly think JW is better qualified

Once he has put in 30+ years then you can quote him

[edit on 20-5-2010 by wmd_2008]

reply to post by CHRLZ


Let's not loose CHRLZ's find too quickly shall we? After all we are here to discuss Jarrah and his videos.
I especially like this bit in the Email from Jarrah's 'expert' Jenny:

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).
educationforum.ipbhost.com...

I especially like the bit in bold.

Jarrah made his videos as a school project and admittedly embellished the truth to prove his 'point'.
The bit I like even more is that now his followers will dismiss this statement from his unwitting partner in crime, or teacher maybe we should say, yet if someone from the Apollo program were to admit anything like this they would be crawling all over it like lice.
Goes to prove what I've said in the past, anyone can come along and stick a video together and as long as they talk in an authorative manner (the old deep throated monotone is usually best) then people will believe it. As long as it is not 'official' in any way of course.
Quality find CHRLZ

Originally posted by Iwasas
Goes to prove what I've said in the past, anyone can come along and stick a video together and as long as they talk in an authorative manner (the old deep throated monotone is usually best) then people will believe it. As long as it is not 'official' in any way of course.

Maybe when Jdub reaches puberty I'll be able to listen to a bit more of his tripe. Right now, I can't handle his voice for more than a few minutes at a time.

[edit on 5/20/2010 by Phage]

Geez, this thread sure got quiet.

But that's what you get for blindly following someone you know nothing about.

I just have to laugh looking back at the title of this thread:

"Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!"

which needs an addendum:

"and his teacher is SO PROUD!"

Originally posted by CHRLZ
...you are unlikely to have a beginners clue about any of that...

...I have worked in the science, engineering and research fields for many years - and that sort of thing is just not on. Even in the most basic engineering workshop, you'd be out the door in five seconds....

...With such a clearly demonstrated COMPLETE lack of knowledge of even the most basic aspects of that one issue, how is it that you come here and post such junk? Do you expect others to educate you? Frankly, you look as if you just jumped onto the first conspiracy site you saw, and fell for it hook line and sinker...

...Clearly, no relevant experience whatsoever...

...It's NOT a good look...

I wish you were an expert at manners rather than photography. Why wasn't your post deleted as an off-topic time-waster since I was the whole point of your post was to say your are smart and I am stupid? Perhaps it just hasn't been reported yet.

If you spent all the effort you made trying to figure out my level of education and bragging about your own into explaining why shadows in the photo in question can have such a sharp shadow angle disparity, you'd have done something besides waste everyone's time.

I think you are wrong and that perhaps there is no explanation for the shadow angle disparity besides the photo being faked. But I'm not allowed to say that because I don't have your seal of approval to speak, correct?

Since I say "maybe the photo is faked" I must be clumped into a group of Apollo hoax believers and written off, because there can be no middle ground. I'm not allowed to be on middle ground. Correct? I've said several times that I don't have a strong opinion on the issue several times, MEANING I'M STILL DECIDING, yet a number of people like you have told me I'm a hoax supporter. So you must know me better than I do because you are the expert and you get to pigeon-hole me. Correct?

Is it so impossible to discuss ONLY THE EVIDENCE? Is it?

reply to post by truthquest


Huh?

...perhaps there is no explanation for the shadow angle disparity besides the photo being faked.

Guess you haven't read all of the excellent posts...

Might've skipped right over this one, since it isn't displayed in the thread...clicky click the linky link, please:



Good, huh?!?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hmmmm....odd, that. But, good odd! Pops up in the thread...sweeeeeeet!

[edit on 20 May 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
but you didnt touch the tire tracks issue on either photo

I don't see any issue in either photo.

How about we look at a higher res version first of all.

AS15-86-11602

I see patches of tire tracks with footprints having covered over parts of them. So what's the problem with that exactly? The area around the LM, over the course of 3 EVA's, is going to see a lot of action. No footprint or tire track is going to remain undisturbed for very long during there stay.

And with AS16-110-18006. I'm not sure if its already been mentioned, but they picked up the rover and moved it. Thus the tracks why the tracks are not aligned with the wheels.

Yes as I recall I mentioned it.
But lets get back to that black spot first.

I recalled seeing in some photos 2 black spots, not only that, but I remember seeing smaller black specks around the black spots. Now funny enough, the same photo we are discussing has this issue:

small:


you can especially see it near the bottom splotch

large


This is why its not a notch. For what purpose?

remember those streak that i mentioned?
Why is it the same in these photos?

reply to post by truthquest


Well the reasons why the shadows are the way they are were explained you even tried to prove the single light source was wrong to only end up proving YOURSELF wrong.

Many people here have told you of their photographic know how but what happens if it conflicts with what you want to believe you ignore the facts given.

The shadow problems are caused by the terrain have a look at this video to see the effect of slope terrain and colour on a shadow!

www.youtube.com...

Never mind the Shadows.
Ignore 1000s of earth fotos with a single light source with shadows showing the exact same behaviour.

Just explain how NASA managed to fake moon landscapes matching up perfectly with JAXA data, not to be collected for 40 years.

Ohhh ohhh... FoosM is here!
Please, pretty, pretty please do tell:
Was von Braun in on it?
And what was this dream he was trying to realize?

[edit on 20-5-2010 by debunky]

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Oh, and it appears I was beaten to it.. Here's an image from a 'pericynthion', from the unexplained mysteries forum.



A masterpiece, if you ask me.

'Truthquest' and 'letthe..', what say you? Care to measure the angles?

Why not try in your own lounge room? Preferably use sun rays rather than a spot lamp, though.

If anyone thinks that photo is similar to the apollo photo they are blind.
Those angles are not the same. Furthermore, that rock is also further away than the Apollo rock in question.

But more importantly, its not only really the rock that is a problem.
Its actually that sole boot print above the crosshair left of the rock that screams impossible. The shadows actually go toward the astronot even though its higher up!



And what about those three rocks close to the astros head on the right side.
Also pointing right at him! How? Fake!

Originally posted by FoosM


Yes as I recall I mentioned it.
But lets get back to that black spot first.

Other than changing the subject from Jarrah's "perspective expert", what does that notch have to do with the moon hoax? Are we now to the point where anything that you don't understand suddenly becomes "proof" of the hoax?