Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

What we see here is.......a VERY long thread that has lost its way.....has been hijacked, if you will...

This, the original title:

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!



Now, I ask all readers in the Audience.....

Does it bear ANY resemblance to these few selected posts, below???:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And this one:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


And then, member “SayonaraJupiter” says:

I have only been studying the Apollo "thing" for about 12 months.

This makes me stop and go “HUH?! ?”


So...to re-cap....original point and TOPIC is:

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!


Now.....I challenge any and all contributers so far to find some way....ANY way to show that the TOPIC here....(the “Young Aussie Genius”) has produced [color=gold]any videos that support his hypothesis AND that happen to include ANY of the topics referenced above.

The discussions have gone off into “La-La-Land” of late.....into former President Richard Nixon, and his (alleged) motivations....and, just recently, even more inexplicably.....a convoluted attempt to include the FBI, as well!!! Going back to (in one of member “FoosM's” posts) in ....1919!!!!

...... 1919 (?!?)....

OK....I can see ridiculous when it goes outside the realm of sanity, as much as the next person.

I just hope this opinion is not lost on the rest of the audience.......

reply to post by ProudBird


In all fairness, the "James Bond" gambit at least ties in with Jarrah's 007 obsession. Makes one wonder what Moon Hoax believers see in Bond. Oh, right, fantasy!

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

A Sordid History

To answer that moron aWe's question: "Where is the Baron report?"

history.nasa.gov...

Baron and his family were struck by a train after he delivered a report to Congress criticizing NASA's safety procedures in the wake of the Apollo 1 tragedy. Ninjas did not push his car in front of a train because he spilled the beans about Walt Disney. Why must you people be so ghoulish?

You didnt answer the question.

reply to post by DJW001


Yes.....yes, indeed.

Good point to spot:

In all fairness, the "James Bond" gambit at least ties in with Jarrah's 007 obsession.

One merely has to take in a few of Jarrah White's (the alleged "genius", who is TOPIC) YouTube videos to see his obsession with the myth of "James Bond", and [i"]00"7....heck a blatant RIP-OFF of the production companies that actually fronted the money, in the franchise we know as "James Bond"....

Jarrah White's childish rip-off of the one title from one of those films, is particularly telling as to his (Jarrah Whites's) true intent and goals. Failed, as they have turned out to be....yet, perhaps always (back of his mind) that one hpe for carer enhancement!!!

(Dream on, my 'Sweet Prince'.....dream on.....)

Boo Hoo.....for "Jarrah White".

Jarrah's attempt at "fame" is limited to the Internet, and specifically to YouTube. It is generally presumed that virtually (what a pun!) everything ever put on the Internet STAYS on the Internet....in perpetuity.....very, very likely.

Hence, this post.....to be (hopefully) read in some distant future....(or even today....ether way.....)

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by DJW001

 

Yes.....yes, indeed.

Good point to spot:

In all fairness, the "James Bond" gambit at least ties in with Jarrah's 007 obsession.

One merely has to take in a few of Jarrah White's (the alleged "genius", who is TOPIC) YouTube videos to see his obsession with the myth of "James Bond", and [i"]00"7....heck a blatant RIP-OFF of the production companies that actually fronted the money, in the franchise we know as "James Bond"....

Jarrah White's childish rip-off of the one title from one of those films, is particularly telling as to his (Jarrah Whites's) true intent and goals. Failed, as they have turned out to be....yet, perhaps always (back of his mind) that one hpe for carer enhancement!!!

(Dream on, my 'Sweet Prince'.....dream on.....)

Boo Hoo.....for "Jarrah White".

Jarrah's attempt at "fame" is limited to the Internet, and specifically to YouTube. It is generally presumed that virtually (what a pun!) everything ever put on the Internet STAYS on the Internet....in perpetuity.....very, very likely.

Hence, this post.....to be (hopefully) read in some distant future....(or even today....ether way.....)

Shame they recorded over the original footage.. which would have allowed us to see the later lunar landings in high resolution, how careless recording over the most important video in human history..

Would have settled this debate.

Absolute joke! There is only one picture you need to confirm the hoax..

Lunar lander feet have no dust on them, next to a footprint which proves the ground is loose.. Nobody has ever debunked this! Now join me in laughing at the 'pseudo science' explanations..

www.conspiracyclinic.com...

reply to post by mockrock

Lunar lander feet have no dust on them, next to a footprint which proves the ground is loose.. Nobody has ever debunked this! Now join me in laughing at the 'pseudo science' explanations..

Here we go again. Go back to this post and work your way forward:
Page 93

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by mockrock

 

Lunar lander feet have no dust on them, next to a footprint which proves the ground is loose.. Nobody has ever debunked this! Now join me in laughing at the 'pseudo science' explanations..

Here we go again. Go back to this post and work your way forward:
Page 93

*reviews posts*

Like the man said, "Nobody has ever debunked this!"
I will now join him in laughing at the 'pseudo science' explanations

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by mockrock

 

Lunar lander feet have no dust on them, next to a footprint which proves the ground is loose.. Nobody has ever debunked this! Now join me in laughing at the 'pseudo science' explanations..

Here we go again. Go back to this post and work your way forward:
Page 93

*reviews posts*

Like the man said, "Nobody has ever debunked this!"
I will now join him in laughing at the 'pseudo science' explanations

It IS quite funny, really, when somebody points out something that they obviously haven't got a clue about and then demands for it to be "debunked". The term explained nicely would be far more fitting.
How about exchanging 'Ignorance resolving' or simply 'educating' for the term debunking? Or maybe something like 'go read a book you moron'....or that would be too harsh?

Originally posted by seabhac-rua

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by mockrock

 

Lunar lander feet have no dust on them, next to a footprint which proves the ground is loose.. Nobody has ever debunked this! Now join me in laughing at the 'pseudo science' explanations..

Here we go again. Go back to this post and work your way forward:
Page 93

*reviews posts*

Like the man said, "Nobody has ever debunked this!"
I will now join him in laughing at the 'pseudo science' explanations

It IS quite funny, really, when somebody points out something that they obviously haven't got a clue about and then demands for it to be "debunked". The term explained nicely would be far more fitting.
How about exchanging 'Ignorance resolving' or simply 'educating' for the term debunking? Or maybe something like 'go read a book you moron'....or that would be too harsh?

Nope, I guess you didnt have an answer for those spic&span landing pads either.
And I dont think reading a Grisham or King novel will bring any of us closer to an explanation other than...
the LMs are fake, and the pictures were made in a studio on Earth.

Fact is, Apollo defenders cannot come to a consensus regarding when the engines were shut off.
Did they drop the LMs with engines off ? Or did they land the LMs with engines on?

If they dropped the LM's, how far above the ground was that? And if it was a few feet, did that not put stress on the astronaut's legs, since they were standing? Do we hear the astronauts exhale when they landed?

So many inconsistencies with this story that Apollo defenders routinely make a point to bypass.

reply to post by FoosM



Err that is the worse explanation for no dust being on the feet I have heard to date.. The simplest explanations are usually the best.. and that is just fiction.

This mysterious heavy dust.. would not produce a foot print that deep.. heavy/dense.


So one of two explanations the footprint is false or the lander did not land.

Come on tell us what you really know.

And here finally the conclusive proof.. if this mysterious dust does not gather on Lunar lander feet..

Then why does NASA claim in this article that it clings to everything..

"But, after every moonwalk (or "EVA"), they would tramp the stuff back inside the lander. Moondust was incredibly clingy, sticking to boots, gloves and other exposed surfaces. No matter how hard they tried to brush their suits before re-entering the cabin, some dust (and sometimes a lot of dust) made its way inside."

science.nasa.gov...

So we are assuming an astronaut creates less of a disturbance to dust than the Lunar lander.. and whilst it clung to every bit of an astronaut.. not s spec on the Lander.

Gamer over amigos ! Come on give the Astronauts their chance to tell this incredible story, they carry a heavy burden and these guys need to have peace.

reply to post by FoosM

Inconsistencies indeed Foos, but not evidence, not at all.
There are a myriad of little things you could point out about the landing, that, for the suspecting hoax-believing-sleuth, would need to be explained away. These events are quite unique in the fact they cannot be replicated, the sites themselves cannot be visited(yet), the witnesses are now getting on a bit, the film footage is not of the best quality....and on and on. I'm sure you will agree that these are the perfect breeding conditions for a grand conspiracy. This particular conspiracy is kept alive by nit-picking at such inconsistencies, to which when/if an explanation is proffered for one, another inconsistency is found and prodded....ad nauseam. But they remain inconsistencies not evidence, that is all.

Originally posted by mockrock
reply to post by FoosM

 

Err that is the worse explanation for no dust being on the feet I have heard to date.. The simplest explanations are usually the best.. and that is just fiction.

This mysterious heavy dust.. would not produce a foot print that deep.. heavy/dense.


So one of two explanations the footprint is false or the lander did not land.

Come on tell us what you really know.

And here finally the conclusive proof.. if this mysterious dust does not gather on Lunar lander feet..

Then why does NASA claim in this article that it clings to everything..

"But, after every moonwalk (or "EVA"), they would tramp the stuff back inside the lander. Moondust was incredibly clingy, sticking to boots, gloves and other exposed surfaces. No matter how hard they tried to brush their suits before re-entering the cabin, some dust (and sometimes a lot of dust) made its way inside."

science.nasa.gov...

So we are assuming an astronaut creates less of a disturbance to dust than the Lunar lander.. and whilst it clung to every bit of an astronaut.. not s spec on the Lander.

Gamer over amigos ! Come on give the Astronauts their chance to tell this incredible story, they carry a heavy burden and these guys need to have peace.

edit on 11-11-2011 by mockrock because: (no reason given)

No there would be no inconsistencies if the landings were real. You only get bloopers in staged pieces.. If the moon landings were real, we would have made greater progress in space.

The American Dream is the real hoax, great swindles which exploit the vulnerable ignorant masses..

reply to post by mockrock


BS.

Surprising and unexpected things happen all the time. Science is always stumbling upon unforeseen actualities.

If the moon landings were real what? Read a history book.

The American Dream has nothing to do with this thread. Open your eyes.

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by mockrock

 

BS.

Surprising and unexpected things happen all the time. Science is always stumbling upon unforeseen actualities.

Stating BS is not an argument, that is an admission of failure and a convenient way to try to start a bad tempered exchange which all the debunkers resort to after failure..

Now about that 'clingy' dust and lander feet.. any solutions?

Originally posted by mockrock

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by mockrock

 

BS.

Surprising and unexpected things happen all the time. Science is always stumbling upon unforeseen actualities.

Stating BS is not an argument, that is an admission of failure and a convenient way to try to start a bad tempered exchange which all the debunkers resort to after failure..

Now about that 'clingy' dust and lander feet.. any solutions?

The only explanation that would satisfy your insatiable curiosity and razor sharp detective skills would be an over zealous janitor at the CIA funded Kubrick Moon set.

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by mockrock

 

BS.

Surprising and unexpected things happen all the time. Science is always stumbling upon unforeseen actualities.

If the moon landings were real what? Read a history book.

The American Dream has nothing to do with this thread. Open your eyes.

edit on 11-11-2011 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)

History is written by the victors..

Originally posted by seabhac-rua

Originally posted by mockrock

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by mockrock

 

BS.

Surprising and unexpected things happen all the time. Science is always stumbling upon unforeseen actualities.

Stating BS is not an argument, that is an admission of failure and a convenient way to try to start a bad tempered exchange which all the debunkers resort to after failure..

Now about that 'clingy' dust and lander feet.. any solutions?

The only explanation that would satisfy your insatiable curiosity and razor sharp detective skills would be an over zealous janitor at the CIA funded Kubrick Moon set.

No I just want an explanation for the Lunar lander feet and 'clingy dust' conundrum.. I will settle for that.

But if you have the number for that janitor?

Originally posted by mockrock

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by mockrock

 

BS.

Surprising and unexpected things happen all the time. Science is always stumbling upon unforeseen actualities.

If the moon landings were real what? Read a history book.

The American Dream has nothing to do with this thread. Open your eyes.

edit on 11-11-2011 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)

History is written by the victors..

So the Soviets just looked on and said "it was all a hoax.....so what....pass the vodka"?

Originally posted by mockrock

But if you have the number for that janitor?

edit on 11-11-2011 by mockrock because: (no reason given)

Well, where is he?? Oh yeah he and his entire family stumbled and fell into the path of an oncoming 30 piece marching brass band at the astronauts homecoming parade, none of them made it. COINCIDENCE??????

Originally posted by seabhac-rua

Originally posted by mockrock

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by mockrock

 

BS.

Surprising and unexpected things happen all the time. Science is always stumbling upon unforeseen actualities.

If the moon landings were real what? Read a history book.

The American Dream has nothing to do with this thread. Open your eyes.

edit on 11-11-2011 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)

History is written by the victors..

So the Soviets just looked on and said "it was all a hoax.....so what....pass the vodka"?

Both sides had something to hide.. and were trapped into a mutual deterrent. By the time the Soviets realized, the US had faked the mission, the U.S had gained damaging info on the Soviet missions. This being that the Soviets were the first nation to lose a man in space, so both had information on the other which trapped them into a nondisclosure agreement.