Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: Rob48
So as not to derail this thread too much, I have started a new thread on Jarrah's revisionist tendencies in the Conspiracy Theorists forum, here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Any of his legion who wish to defend his actions, please do it over there.

Yes, please take your witch hunting over to your dead end thread. You have focussed on only one aspect of Jarrah's video... that Jarrah relied on Ralph Rene's homework. Well, Jarrah has to take the blame for that. But...

There was other content in that video that you are not addressing.

Are you familiar with spacecraftfilms?
Are you familiar with the fact that spacecraftfilms takes NASA public domain videos and then copies them to DVD and then claims a copyright on those DVD's?

Are you familiar with the fact that spacecraftfilms sells Apollo DVD's as a business for a profit? But when Apollo Reviewers do the same thing they accused of profiting from the moon hoax! Well, spacecraftfilms is profiting from the moon hoax.

Are you familiar with the fact that spacecraftfilms was created by Mark Gray in 2001, who is a former network Tv executive and his father worked on Apollo?

Rob48, are you going to defend spacecraftfilms juvenile behavior for attacking Jarrah White with DCMA's for DVD content that Mark Gray hasdcopyrights on (it's all NASA source material not subject to copyrights).

It's pretty obvious to me that spacecraftfilms is acting as a gatekeeper for NASA source materials and they are running a business from selling Apollo dvd's.

Rob48, don't let your head get too big that you caught Jarrah in a math mistake... you can't prove Apollo was real by showing Jarrah White making a math error. Do you understand how hollow your victory is now?

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

you can't prove Apollo was real by showing Jarrah White making a math error.

True. Proving Jarrah is wrong just proves that he's wrong. The fact that he tries to cover up his errors is amusing if nothing else.

On the other hand, neither you nor JW can prove that the Apollo landings didn't happen. There's plenty of evidence that they did.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
So NASA did it again. They smashed another lunar probe. Crashed on the far-side of the moon. Where nobody could confirm it. Along with LADEE went the LLCD, which was a very big deal for space communications.

I'm sure the LRO will be able to find the LADEE crater. It seems like LRO has a never ending supply of fuel with which to monitor and make maneuvers. It didn't take long for LRO to get images of China's landing site. It didn't take long for LRO to take pictures of LADEE. Lot's of self confirming business going on here, imho.

LADEE means that $250 million will net you about 100-days of lunar science orbit.

LADEE was running out of fuel and had actually exceeded its mission goals.

The LRO is actually heading towards the end of it's lifespan, and gee do you think they might have put enough fuel in there to do the job? Roughly half a tonne of its payload was fuel, and you only need small amounts to maintain orbit or make small changes to it.

Why is NASA smashing $250 million dollar lunar probes on the far-side of the moon? What is your expert opinion on that?

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Oh. I know! I know!
The same reason that Galileo crashed into Jupiter.
It had completed its mission.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter
My opinion is: what else should they do with it? Spend far more on building one that can fly home when it's finished? Or spend even more on building a second mission to go and fetch a dead satellite? Why? For scrap value?

It was always designed to be a one way mission. There was no other way to end the mission. The mission was concluded as planned. Why do you find this odd?

PS, one last mention of JW if I may, because it is relevant to your arguments in this thread. Do you agree that all his evidence is now inadmissible in your court of law, given he has proven himself dishonourable?

originally posted by: Phage

On the other hand, neither you nor JW can prove that the Apollo landings didn't happen. There's plenty of evidence that they did.

What's your best evidence Phage? Pictures? Moon rocks? Astronaut testimony? Recorded telemetry? NASA transcripts?

Can your best evidence hold up to the federal rules of evidence?
www.uscourts.gov...

It can hold up a DARN SIGHT better than unsubstantiated waffle about Nixon, and swift changing of the subject when tricky questions are asked.

Face it SJ, the hoaxers have no credibility.


PS do you or do you not want to discuss the rest of JW's latest oeuvre? You told me to take it to another thread and then you asked me loads of questions about it. Make up your mind. I'm happy to point out where the rest of his claims are equally bogus.

The copyright issue, I really don't know or care about much. I don't think it's right that anyone can claim copyright on NASA footage, but if it is considered a derivative work then the law is on their side. Morally? No they shouldn't. Just IMHO. But if people want to pay for a DVD of stuff that is freely available online, well that's their choice.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Can your best evidence hold up to the federal rules of evidence?

Better.
It can stand up to the rules of science. But, just out of curiosity, what do you think the Apollo landings have to do with federal courts?

What does yours stand up to? The rules of mindless grumbles?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter
But, just out of curiosity, what do you think the Apollo landings have to do with federal courts?

He likes to pretend that all evidence must stand up to a grand jury. We're used to it by now.

I'm more puzzled by what LADEE has to do with Apollo, to be quite honest.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Can your best evidence hold up to the federal rules of evidence?

Better.
It can stand up to the rules of science. But, just out of curiosity, what do you think the Apollo landings have to do with federal courts?

What does yours stand up to? The rules of mindless grumbles?

I think I can win this hand. Let's play poker.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Yeah. That's what I thought.
Mindless grumbles and stupid collages.

Sorry, as illustrated by that last post, what I meant to say was "He likes to pretend that all evidence must stand up to a grand jury, except for his own, which doesn't even have to be evidence: photo montages suffice."

By the way, a favourite hoaxer argument is that Armstrong and co didn't look happy enough in the post-mission press conference.

So we see the proof: astronauts not smiling means they're lying. Astronauts smiling means they're lying.

QED?

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter
Stop trying to read conspiracy into everything, SJ. It had completed its mission, they couldn't bring it back to Earth, it couldn't stay in Lunar orbit, so by a process of elimination...


However if you do want to talk conspiracies, what do you make of Jarrah's conspiracy to silence those who point out his fundamental errors? Now that is fishy.

The real conspiracy is the Mark Gray/spacecraftfilms copyright scheme to create a CIA front company, profitting from the dvd sales of NASA's Apollo public domain content.

Mark Gray is a former network tv executive and his father working on Apollo. Now that is fishy.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Yeah. That's what I thought.
Mindless grumbles and stupid collages.

I asked you directly for your best evidence. Where is it?

Would you care to take this to the debate forum? I've put out 3 debate challenges in this thread and nobody yet has accepted.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

SJ, it is impossible to debate innuendo. Whenever hoax proponents try to make their case using hard facts and figures, they fail. Even when they try to fudge the numbers to suit. There is a reason. You can't alter the laws of physics, and the laws of physics support Apollo.

Therefore you resort to vague handwaving. In what way is your photo of three "jokers" supposed to show anything about the realities of Apollo?

If you have something relevant, bring it to the table. Otherwise get back to waiting for the next instalment of Jarrah's video dairy. Spelling intended.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter
It's been provided many times. All you've done, many times, is arm wave and post silly collages.

I just jumped in because I thought it was funny that you defended JW's efforts to hide his stupid errors.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Would you care to take this to the debate forum? I've put out 3 debate challenges in this thread and nobody yet has accepted.

That's because you keep refusing to submit a debatable proposition. How about: "Richard Nixon is personally responsible for faking the Apollo missions?" Would you take that one up? Why or why not?

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Rob48, don't let your head get too big that you caught Jarrah in a math mistake... you can't prove Apollo was real by showing Jarrah White making a math error. Do you understand how hollow your victory is now?

No, you don't understand. I am not claiming that proving Jarrah and Ralph made mathematical errors proves Apollo is real. Everybody makes mistakes. But when I make a mistake like that, I fess up.

If Jarrah had said, even privately to me, "Ok, you're right, that is an error," then my opinion of him would have gone up. Not by much, but a bit. It would show he doesn't think he knows everything.

Instead, he blocks me, calls me a troll, and totally refuses to acknowledge his error. To me that suggests that he knows he is on shaky ground. I wonder if even he really believes in what he spouts any more? But he is so invested in it that he has no choice.

Again, this doesn't prove anything about Apollo itself. But it does prove a lot about the motives of the main hoax proponent de nos jours.

a reply to: Rob48

JW has been caught outright lying many times, and his response is always denial and childish name calling. He knows he is a fraud. Technically, I consider him to be just another hoaxer.

a reply to: DJW001


Many times JW admits his errors. Usually at the beginning of his next series he'll admit what he did wrong with the first. I don't see him name-calling, really ever, unless you consider the term "propagandist" slander.