Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

That is not what Gibbonum asked for.

The "source" of that image. The booklet that is the cover that is displaying that image.

THAT.

I do not have access to the "source" of that image. Neither do you. But if you go over to Google and type in
"Biomedical results of Apollo" I'm sure that you can find a couple of different versions of it which are filed on official government servers.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Once you finally accept the truth (the CIA controlling every aspect of Apollo photography) you can then move forward to understand that it really is a small group of determined men ( a conspiracy ).

But you have not supplied any evidence that the CIA controlled any aspect of the Apollo photography!

This is no different than the small group of determined men who were determined to have a war in South East Asia. And they convinced the President to go on TV telling Americans that a couple of North Vietnamese PT boats in the Gulf of Tonkin posed a grave and serious threat to freedom™ and democracy™ and the American way of life™.

Ding ding ding! You said the magic word: "Gulf of Tonkin!" You collect $100 and get to move on to the final round, where you will be competing against Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf.

Originally posted by DJW001

But you have not supplied any evidence that the CIA controlled any aspect of the Apollo photography!

We talked to the Navy. “No, we can’t give you that.” So we knew that we had to wait. “We can improve the balance, and we can tell you a little more about how do you develop it. We’ll send a guy from Kodak to work with you in the photo lab in the processing.” He came and he helped with the photo processing, I would be standing there at the end with Noel [T.] Lamar, who was the head of the photo lab then, and Dick [Richard W.] Underwood was the photo man at NASA. He was from the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] but joined NASA.

Farouk El-Baz, oral history, Source www.jsc.nasa.gov...

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

I do not have access to the "source" of that image. Neither do you.

"Biomedical Results of Apollo" cover image

Table of Contents, by Section

Heck of a lot of "fake" [cough, cough] data in there......


Also, it is NASA publication SP-368 (as seen on the cover, top left corner). Available at Amazon.com:

www.amazon.com...

Originally posted by DJW001

This is no different than the small group of determined men who were determined to have a war in South East Asia. And they convinced the President to go on TV telling Americans that a couple of North Vietnamese PT boats in the Gulf of Tonkin posed a grave and serious threat to freedom™ and democracy™ and the American way of life™.

Ding ding ding! You said the magic word: "Gulf of Tonkin!" You collect $100 and get to move on to the final round, where you will be competing against Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf.

DJW you are so totally blind in this one area (Gulf of Tonkin) you do not understand the capacity of these people to exaggerate a claim and then manipulate the American people using the propaganda medium of TV. If they lied about this in 1964 the same small group of determined men have no problem making up exaggerated claims about landing on the moon 5 years later.

Everybody know that Webb Quit NASA because America was #2.

Originally posted by ProudBird
Heck of a lot of "fake" [cough, cough] data in there......

Also, it is NASA publication SP-368 (as seen on the cover, top left corner). Available at Amazon.com:

www.amazon.com...

If the cover of the book is "enhanced", "tinted", "cropped" then the contents of the book may also be "enhanced", "tinted" and "cropped".

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Thanks for the Photo's photo reference. But I was referring to the photo you posted of the Biomedical Results of APOLLO. Thanks

Originally posted by Gibborium
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Thanks for the Photo's photo reference. But I was referring to the photo you posted of the Biomedical Results of APOLLO. Thanks

There are at least 2 versions of that booklet cover on official government servers if you Google search on that. ProudBird has already found some.

Here is the "light blue tint" history.nasa.gov...
Here is the "heavy blue tint" lsda.jsc.nasa.gov...

Compare the booklet cover of NASA publication SP-368 with the actual NASA photo AS15-86-11603HR.
Extra mountain range on the top left of the image.

Originally posted by Hesher
I remember thinking why isnt anyone digging with small spade...

You mean like this?

take camera look around or do anything that makes it look like moon, and no crappy 10sec shots of someone jumping is not it.

The Apollo missions were not recorded in little 10 second clips. For some of the missions, the live video goes on for hours straight. Apollo 11's EVA goes on for over 2 hours uncut, Apollo 14's EVA 1 goes on for almost 5 hours from what I can tell. Apollo's 15 - 17 had to turn off the video camera's when driving to different geology stations, but you'd still get around 40 minutes of uncut live video from some of those stations.

I'd suggest you go to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. They have all the live video there.

I remember taking better pics with my 20$ camera and thinking why didnt they buy one of these?

Perhaps you haven't been to a site that has good quality scans of the Apollo photos. The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal also has a good collection of the photos. I'd suggest you take a look through those as well. The camera's they used were medium format film camera's. They used 70mm film. Your $20 camera wouldn't even compare. A digital equivalent to these medium format camera's would be in the 30 - 40 mega-pixel range.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

No, what you have done is prove that one NASA photographic expert once worked in intelligence as a photo-interpreter. You have also provided excellent evidence that the Department of Defense screened photos from orbit to make sure that they did not compromise national security. Everything else has been insinuation, peppered liberally with inflammatory catch phrases like "rabid anti-communist."

The main point, however, is that you still haven't learned how to do propaganda right. As I pointed out earlier, if you have to explain a propaganda image, it's a failure. It should be simple, evocative and self explanatory. Here, I made this one just for you. Feel free to use it:

Much better, don't you think?

No that is a stunningly crappy job of cut & paste. Did you have clearance to fabricate images for NASA?

Thanks for adding the color tags! Every time you repeat my phrase rabid anti-communist you are helping me with my Red propaganda.

If you are thinking about defecting over to our side I believe that now would be a good time to do that

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

If you are thinking about defecting over to our side I believe that now would be a good time to do that

Perhaps. What "side" is that?

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by JohnnySasaki

Just because we have undeniable proof that we landed on the moon, does not change the fact that it is still a theory to some uneducated people.

And sure, you are allowed to believe that you're a Mermaid if you want to, but I also reserve the right to call you an idiot.

And if you come back and say you never said you were a mermaid, I might have an aneurysm.

Please enjoy your aneurysm.

Well I asked "Just say what you really believe!" but all you delivered were disparaging remarks. Frankly, you do not make a good ambassador for NASA because you completely forgot to show us your undeniable evidence.

Please explain to us how the sky is blue in this NASA publication.

Thank you for finally giving the references so that a blue sky on the moon can be explained. As you can see by this quote, you asked that very question, "Please explain to us how the sky is blue in this NASA publication". I gave the answer here. And, Wiki has a good quick read on off set printing.

A lot of offset printing is done in single colors. This gives a color appearance, which can be more appealing, with a minimal cost. When printing in multiple colors, it requires multiple passes, or multiple syncronized in line offset printers which greatly adds to the cost.

Of course, NASA wants to make things appealing to the general public with a minimal cost. I have not researched who made the decision for this color cover, but it is a common practice to use one color offset printing. To lead someone to think that this is the color of an original scan is deceitful at the least and goes against your credibility.

Here is the original scan on NASA's own website of A15-86-11603. Of course the official photo does not contain any blue sky.

So please use your cover picture in the proper manner and try not to continue to propagate misinformation.

reply to post by ProudBird


Thank you for your diligence in finding these pages. I already had the references, but this was an exercise to get SayonaraJupiter to provide his own references. While I am not accusing SayonaraJupiter of any wrong doing, this is a ploy in debate to give your argument without references to keep your opponent busy trying to find what you are using, usually to hide misinformation.

reply to post by Gibborium


Well that's a nice lecture. Now can you lecture me about the EXTRA MOUNTAIN RANGE found at the top left quadrant of the booklet cover? That's not a printing defect either.

Here is the "light blue tint" history.nasa.gov...
Here is the "heavy blue tint" lsda.jsc.nasa.gov...
NASA photo AS15-86-11603HR. spaceflight.nasa.gov...

Hi-Res version spaceflight.nasa.gov...

SJ may have actually found the very first faked apollo image. Well not that big of a fake but anyway. I'm still wanting to see a proper source of that book cover cause the whole blue tint bothers me.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

If you are thinking about defecting over to our side I believe that now would be a good time to do that

Perhaps. What "side" is that?

The winning side.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter




Joe Rogan? ON "Jarrah White's" side??

Errmmm....ummmmm......pretty much the definition of damning with faint praise? Or, it takes one to know one??

Haven't stopped by ole Joe's site for many years....wonder if he's still as out of it as always? Or...and get this....is all a......(shhhhhhhh!)...is it all an act, maybe? Just a little bit maybe??

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Joe Rogan? ON "Jarrah White's" side??

Errmmm....ummmmm......pretty much the definition of damning with faint praise? Or, it takes one to know one??

Haven't stopped by ole Joe's site for many years....wonder if he's still as out of it as always? Or...and get this....is all a......(shhhhhhhh!)...is it all an act, maybe? Just a little bit maybe??

Joe Rogan K-O'd Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer, if you haven't heard the debate it's over here. Rogan essentially argues from the Jarrah White perspective. Phil Plait does a surprisingly bad job of debating his side.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


I know of that already.....it's a bit old, innit?? Yes, on YouTube it was just posted a year ago....any chance you recall when it was actually recorded?

The actual facts and details of the exchange can be addressed point-by-point....but, not appropriate to do it here. This thread is about Jarrah White.

How about finding an example of Jarrah White going toe-to-toe with any scientist of any sort...and winning?

(I'll wager you have one in mind, so we will see....)

Of course, we can partly address Joe Rogan tangentially, since he and Jarrah White are mentioned in the title of this video:

reply to post by ProudBird


Jarrah makes excellent documentaries. I can't imagine any scientist wanting to debate him!!