One more point, your headlights aren't coming from the same direction as in the real photos. So this and the other points I've talked about in the other parts disprove this video series.
You easily claim that Mythbusters and others don't do their experiments in the same conditions as it was on the lunar surface, but yet you yourself fail to do so also.
@thesoulhack hey jarrah you clearly proved the myth busters wrong but you are fighting a losing battle because people will always come up with the most absurd arguments....the thing i hate about this country is that the government know that most of us are gullible, and that in the eyes of sheeple they can do no wrong.....i believe we went to the moon but i dont believe the footage shown to the public back in the 60's is real...its the same with 911 people cant handle the truth
he haven't proved anything by doing all of his experiments wrong. You are just as gullible as anyone could be on the opposite side haven't you noticed? At least I'm trying to have a discussion and stated solid points that Jarrah has done wrong in his experiments. You on the other hand, haven't put forward any own thinking whatsoever and just are just a sheep on the opposite side. Bäähhh!
@thesoulhack yo dude yes his experiment is flawed but it doesnt matter how much light you use the results will be the same.because the albedo of the asphalt or moondust will stay the same.. a brighter light will only create darker shadows which will then require a even higher albedo of the asphalt or moondust to produce a higher reflectivity to illuminate the astronaut. so his experiment is not spot on but the point he is making is clear. the moonlanding footage is 100 percent hollywood
this video should be shown in American school, o the new Generation will not live blind and be lied by bunch of non sense freak brain NASA, and to add Myth and other to defend What shame nasa did with Apollo program. WAKE UP!
There was a big reflector in the vicinity used. It's called the lunar soil. Miles and miles around the landing spot. That was sufficient for indirect light. There was another one present in the very near vicinity: the PHOTOGRAPHER, Neil Armstrong. In his bright white moonsuit.
You state the Moon's reflective index as 0.07. OK. You say the 'Asphalt' has the same, right!
Well your experiment is flawed because the Moon's index 0.07 is in a vacuum. (Much sharper & brighter as there is no air to diffuse the reflected light).
But you are performing your experiment in AIR in OUR atmosphere which includes pollution, which will affect the result of your own experiment.
@MaskelynMage "Anyone who believes a car headlight and lego model on a highway at night is a perfect substitute for real lunar conitions are already a lost cause.. " lol as opposed to mythbusters and guys in the desert using terrain that has a much higher reflective quality than the surface of the moon??? okay, stay ignorant
"Is this video series a joke or what?".... What a ridiculous comment indeed!
Why not actually take the time to look at this series with a clear mind, instead of one polluted by years of NASA propaganda?
Just open your eyes and your mind to the possibility that it was faked. Once you are able to fathom that idea, then maybe you will come back with a better comment.
"Brilliant" author of this video has got no clue about conditions on the Moon and role of topography either. He does not understand the role of sunlight angle also.
Recreating conditions from sun-lit Lunar surface on his "ashfelt" at night is a JOKE. Yet he criticizes others who did that way, way better than him.
His videos are all about pseudo-science and manipulation. NOTHING MORE.
You can't possibly be serious about using this experiment as proof that the Apollo photos were faked. On the moon, there is a much brighter light source (the sun), which illuminates a much greater surface area than your single headlight did (which you stated was on high beam, so most of the light wasn't directed downwards anyway!).
Not only is your lightsource less bright than the sun, the main problem is it wasn't illuminating enough of the asphalt to make the comparison worthwhile.
guitarplayer4real, you are just another in a long line of propagandists who will spout out your own pseudo science.
Why not actually look at the evidence rather than spout out your comments based on your own pride...
Is it that you too cannot fathom the idea that what NASA sold to the world was a bunch of lies? You are demonstrating clearly how pride is a powerful emotion.
Why not go over to the "I love Apollo" sites? Others like yourself are waiting for you there!
I just watched all 4 parts in full with ears and eyes wide open and I have to say I 110% agree with everything mentioned in this great FACT filled film.
MAN DID NOT SET FOOT ON THE MOON AND THEY NEVER WILL.
Why some might ask? well the answer is simple----> Van Allen radiation belt! ;)
KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK WHO EVER MADE THIS FINE FILM. :)
Yes, scream your nonsense to the world and expose your true lack of intelligence. You either buy Bill Kaysing and Sibrels concocted stories of which they are not qualified to speak, or you accept mainstream science accepted around the globe. Ask anyone of science but dont come here, are you insane too?
Learn how to research and compile information and come back and tell me you still "BELIEVE IN" this pseudo science:-p
At the time of making NASA just thought they'll slip through, cause they were sure that technology won't evolve like it did during the 90s and people will simply forget this until more modern techno is available.
They knew that all those 'dramatic' shots with astronauts will excite the world more than a shadowy ones, so they chose to create more drama for the people, knowing that most won't care about it anyway..
For that time, they did a nice job, for modern days, not so much.
'Moon landings' at this point are basically a public secret.Everyone realises that NASA fucked up (NASA themselves do know it as well), but because of the fact that we were being told for 40 years that we did land on the moon, people simply cannot put it out of their heads.
This is a very simple aspect of human nature, once you get used to something, it is extremely hard to shatter the already established information..
Regarding your point about his backpack not being illuminated about 1 minute into the video, perhaps it's because there's no lunar surface above him? You know, where the light would have to be coming from? And where fill lights would be placed?
I hate to tell you, but your experiments were performed in horrid and unrealistic conditions. Mythbusters carried out theirs far more accurately.
"Regarding your point about his backpack not being illuminated about 1 minute into the video, perhaps it's because there's no lunar surface above him? You know, where the light would have to be coming from? And where fill lights would be placed?"
His backpack is in the same position as Aldrin when he stepped into the ladder. If it is indeed reflected light I would expect there to be the same results.
You're not comparing the same things as I am there. Doesn't matter anyway, same sort of scenario. The back of Aldrin's backpack in the ladder picture is darker than the rest of him, which is again consistent with a light source below him, where the moon's surface is, not with a light source above him, where studio lighting would be placed.
"You're not comparing the same things as I am there."
Yes I am. You're talking about AS12-46-6820, right? Look at Aldrin and Bean in their respective photos - they are both leaning slightly forward so you would expect them to be equally lit.
The only way to get an object as lit as Aldrin, without the aid of fill-lights or reflectors, would be to use a surface with a much higher albedo than the moon's 0.07.
Two different pictures taken in two different circumstances. There's other things that need to be taken into account, such as the angle of the sun in each picture.
The transit of the sun on the moon over a 31hr period is barely noticible. The picture of Bean in the LM shadow, his portrait photo and AS12-46-6820 were all taken under the same lighting conditions. You'd expect to get the same results.
Hmm... suppose that's probably true. There's still plenty of reasons why they wouldn't have exactly the same brightness, but I suspect it's more to do with the presence of the lunar module in the one of Bean. There's not as stark a contrast between the side of him facing the sun and the side of him away from the sun.
Great production as always. Though why didn't you take your car to a mechanic or something beforehand and ask them for a better way to cover up or disable that one headlight than using Ducttape I'm sure anything would have been easier than cleaning off the ductape off of it .
"Though why didn't you take your car to a mechanic or something beforehand and ask them for a better way to cover up or disable that one headlight than using Ducttape I'm sure anything would have been easier than cleaning off the ductape off of it ."
Heh, thanks for the tip; I'll keep that in mind for next time. :)
Yes it just goes to show the power of entertainment on most human minds. They will belive anything they are told if it comes with enough flashing lights between the Diet Coke commercials.
Wow, so simple for Jay Windley to have known that desert albedo is MUCH greater than the moon's. I verified this with different sources than you did with a simple GOOGLE search in under 2 mins. Which means Windley is either deceptive or completely incompetent.
Jarrah, regarding the extra reflectivity on Bean, what about "Earth shine?"
MrTerrificII 2 weeks ago in playlist MoonFaker - Jarrah White [2008]
great choice for the music for the ending credits
TheGrotesqueReality 1 year ago
mythbusters=pwned
wardydave 1 year ago
you are good....i must say ...keep up the brilliant work....
drmanmohanss 1 year ago
One more point, your headlights aren't coming from the same direction as in the real photos. So this and the other points I've talked about in the other parts disprove this video series.
You easily claim that Mythbusters and others don't do their experiments in the same conditions as it was on the lunar surface, but yet you yourself fail to do so also.
thesoulhack 1 year ago
@thesoulhack hey jarrah you clearly proved the myth busters wrong but you are fighting a losing battle because people will always come up with the most absurd arguments....the thing i hate about this country is that the government know that most of us are gullible, and that in the eyes of sheeple they can do no wrong.....i believe we went to the moon but i dont believe the footage shown to the public back in the 60's is real...its the same with 911 people cant handle the truth
therealistone2003 1 year ago
@therealistone2003
he haven't proved anything by doing all of his experiments wrong. You are just as gullible as anyone could be on the opposite side haven't you noticed? At least I'm trying to have a discussion and stated solid points that Jarrah has done wrong in his experiments. You on the other hand, haven't put forward any own thinking whatsoever and just are just a sheep on the opposite side. Bäähhh!
thesoulhack 1 year ago 2
@thesoulhack yo dude yes his experiment is flawed but it doesnt matter how much light you use the results will be the same.because the albedo of the asphalt or moondust will stay the same.. a brighter light will only create darker shadows which will then require a even higher albedo of the asphalt or moondust to produce a higher reflectivity to illuminate the astronaut. so his experiment is not spot on but the point he is making is clear. the moonlanding footage is 100 percent hollywood
therealistone2003 1 year ago
There's a mountain of evidence the moon landings were faked...ignorant morons continue to suck NASAs cock
Colt2571 1 year ago
this proved another fact: the mythbusters are annoying.
muskie1976 1 year ago
The white suit, worn by the other astronot might be enough, or was that already ruled out?
His right sleeve?
Even so, it would be an almost impossible shot with a chest mounted camera. All of them would be. So, where are all the bad shots?
950horsepower 1 year ago
this video should be shown in American school, o the new Generation will not live blind and be lied by bunch of non sense freak brain NASA, and to add Myth and other to defend What shame nasa did with Apollo program. WAKE UP!
hadiway 2 years ago 5
This video really needs to be seen by more people, I am so glad you put those myth buster propagandist fucks in their place.
evilpiggehz 2 years ago
1:10 Can't have it both ways, either its all reflecting an' bright all the time or its not.
Earth may be shining, adding light.
That would not be only sometimes.
4:26 in part one shows a lit up astronaut yes?
So why is this not true for the Lander Module?
Does this "busted" myth only work on people in space suits? Some photographers wonder how can film withstand 180 degrees of temperature.
GnosticNinja 2 years ago
There was a big reflector in the vicinity used. It's called the lunar soil. Miles and miles around the landing spot. That was sufficient for indirect light. There was another one present in the very near vicinity: the PHOTOGRAPHER, Neil Armstrong. In his bright white moonsuit.
Rob260259 2 years ago
The albedo of the moon is extremely low and would have done very little fill in whatsoever. Bright space suit as fill? No...
bwanawanna1 2 years ago 2
Mr White's video proves nothing!
We see reflected sunlight 240,000 miles here easily, sometimes during the day right!
Ergo, the surface is reflective.
Why is this fact so hard for Mr White et all, to comprehend?
jmjmartin 2 years ago
As usual Jarrah, a superbly produced video (Some of the best on youtube!), but your conclusions are flawed.
Like with all surfaces, the moons surface is naturally varied, therefore different locations will reflect differently.
Exposure settings: The cameras had automatic exposure, which will have altered from shot to shot.............................................
jmjmartin 2 years ago
....................................
You state the Moon's reflective index as 0.07. OK. You say the 'Asphalt' has the same, right!
Well your experiment is flawed because the Moon's index 0.07 is in a vacuum. (Much sharper & brighter as there is no air to diffuse the reflected light).
But you are performing your experiment in AIR in OUR atmosphere which includes pollution, which will affect the result of your own experiment.
jmjmartin 2 years ago 4
I don't think lack of air would make any difference. Fact is it doesn't matter what White does in his experiment its not good enough for you.
If the surface is so reflective then explain why its not good enough to fill in dark areas of rocks?
daro2096 2 years ago
I gave up making comments about the enthusiastic, but utterly clueless Mr White months ago...
Anyone who believes a car headlight and lego model on a highway at night is a perfect substitute for real lunar conitions are already a lost cause..
Here is a quote for anyone with intelligence enough to accept it...
It come from the press of Joseph Dunninger mindreader
"For those who believe, No explanation is nessecary...For those that do no, None will suffice!!!
I think this fits us all :-)
MaskelynMage 2 years ago
@MaskelynMage "Anyone who believes a car headlight and lego model on a highway at night is a perfect substitute for real lunar conitions are already a lost cause.. " lol as opposed to mythbusters and guys in the desert using terrain that has a much higher reflective quality than the surface of the moon??? okay, stay ignorant
Colt2571 1 year ago
@Colt2571 Hi
Never mentioned the Mythbusters dude!
Ignorant??
The Moon's surface is mostly silica, which is waaay more reflective in a vacuum than asphalt/ sand is in our atmosphere!
Why is this bit of science so hard for you all to grasp???
I love Jarrah's videos! But his science is below that of a 1st grader!
You'll tell me also, 3000 Americans involved in the Apollo missions, can keep their mouths shut? Naaa
You'd rather believe Kaising...A drunken librarian & Jarrah.
Sheesh!!
MaskelynMage 1 year ago
The hassablad cameras were manual exposure.
bwanawanna1 2 years ago 2
No viewfinder and no way to tell how long. No tripod either.
daro2096 2 years ago
Or perhaps the other astronaut's bright white suit is acting as a reflector in the close up photo?
What a wonderful obvious point...
One of the most sensible explanations on this entire subject.
jmjmartin 2 years ago
"Is this video series a joke or what?".... What a ridiculous comment indeed!
Why not actually take the time to look at this series with a clear mind, instead of one polluted by years of NASA propaganda?
Just open your eyes and your mind to the possibility that it was faked. Once you are able to fathom that idea, then maybe you will come back with a better comment.
northerntruthseeker 2 years ago
Is this video series a joke or what?
Tuboapollo 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Is this video series a joke or what?"
- Tuboapollo, the best joke about that is that it's not a joke. whitejarrah is 100% serious making all those crapisodes.
BlisterHiker 2 years ago
"Brilliant" author of this video has got no clue about conditions on the Moon and role of topography either. He does not understand the role of sunlight angle also.
Recreating conditions from sun-lit Lunar surface on his "ashfelt" at night is a JOKE. Yet he criticizes others who did that way, way better than him.
His videos are all about pseudo-science and manipulation. NOTHING MORE.
BlisterHiker 2 years ago 3
excellent work.
horror11 2 years ago
You can't possibly be serious about using this experiment as proof that the Apollo photos were faked. On the moon, there is a much brighter light source (the sun), which illuminates a much greater surface area than your single headlight did (which you stated was on high beam, so most of the light wasn't directed downwards anyway!).
Not only is your lightsource less bright than the sun, the main problem is it wasn't illuminating enough of the asphalt to make the comparison worthwhile.
HeadLikeARock 2 years ago 3
and phil plait's example uses a desk lamp. ;)
adiohead 2 years ago
@adiohead And grass or sand. Plait is a dumbass.
yesiamawizardjonny 11 months ago
guitarplayer4real, you are just another in a long line of propagandists who will spout out your own pseudo science.
Why not actually look at the evidence rather than spout out your comments based on your own pride...
Is it that you too cannot fathom the idea that what NASA sold to the world was a bunch of lies? You are demonstrating clearly how pride is a powerful emotion.
Why not go over to the "I love Apollo" sites? Others like yourself are waiting for you there!
northerntruthseeker 2 years ago 2
Bill Kaysing, originator of the moon landing hoax theory and author of
"We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle, also wrote these fine literary pieces.
Eat Well for 99 Cents a Meal
The Senior Citizen's Survival Manual
The 99 Cent a Meal Cookbook
Bill Kaysing's Freedom Encyclopedia
Fell's Beginner's Guide to Motorcycling
Eat Well on a Dollar a Day
yea, I'm a believer:-p
Sibrel is even worse with his nonsense. no real scientist will look twice, why do you?
guitarplayer4real 2 years ago
I just watched all 4 parts in full with ears and eyes wide open and I have to say I 110% agree with everything mentioned in this great FACT filled film.
MAN DID NOT SET FOOT ON THE MOON AND THEY NEVER WILL.
Why some might ask? well the answer is simple----> Van Allen radiation belt! ;)
KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK WHO EVER MADE THIS FINE FILM. :)
Brad22386 2 years ago
Yes, scream your nonsense to the world and expose your true lack of intelligence. You either buy Bill Kaysing and Sibrels concocted stories of which they are not qualified to speak, or you accept mainstream science accepted around the globe. Ask anyone of science but dont come here, are you insane too?
Learn how to research and compile information and come back and tell me you still "BELIEVE IN" this pseudo science:-p
guitarplayer4real 2 years ago
Comment removed
Brad22386 2 years ago
At the time of making NASA just thought they'll slip through, cause they were sure that technology won't evolve like it did during the 90s and people will simply forget this until more modern techno is available.
They knew that all those 'dramatic' shots with astronauts will excite the world more than a shadowy ones, so they chose to create more drama for the people, knowing that most won't care about it anyway..
For that time, they did a nice job, for modern days, not so much.
ModeLTU 2 years ago
'Moon landings' at this point are basically a public secret.Everyone realises that NASA fucked up (NASA themselves do know it as well), but because of the fact that we were being told for 40 years that we did land on the moon, people simply cannot put it out of their heads.
This is a very simple aspect of human nature, once you get used to something, it is extremely hard to shatter the already established information..
ModeLTU 2 years ago
Regarding your point about his backpack not being illuminated about 1 minute into the video, perhaps it's because there's no lunar surface above him? You know, where the light would have to be coming from? And where fill lights would be placed?
I hate to tell you, but your experiments were performed in horrid and unrealistic conditions. Mythbusters carried out theirs far more accurately.
Waniou137 2 years ago
"Regarding your point about his backpack not being illuminated about 1 minute into the video, perhaps it's because there's no lunar surface above him? You know, where the light would have to be coming from? And where fill lights would be placed?"
His backpack is in the same position as Aldrin when he stepped into the ladder. If it is indeed reflected light I would expect there to be the same results.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
You're not comparing the same things as I am there. Doesn't matter anyway, same sort of scenario. The back of Aldrin's backpack in the ladder picture is darker than the rest of him, which is again consistent with a light source below him, where the moon's surface is, not with a light source above him, where studio lighting would be placed.
Waniou137 2 years ago
"You're not comparing the same things as I am there."
Yes I am. You're talking about AS12-46-6820, right? Look at Aldrin and Bean in their respective photos - they are both leaning slightly forward so you would expect them to be equally lit.
The only way to get an object as lit as Aldrin, without the aid of fill-lights or reflectors, would be to use a surface with a much higher albedo than the moon's 0.07.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
Two different pictures taken in two different circumstances. There's other things that need to be taken into account, such as the angle of the sun in each picture.
Waniou137 2 years ago
"such as the angle of the sun in each picture."
The transit of the sun on the moon over a 31hr period is barely noticible. The picture of Bean in the LM shadow, his portrait photo and AS12-46-6820 were all taken under the same lighting conditions. You'd expect to get the same results.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
Hmm... suppose that's probably true. There's still plenty of reasons why they wouldn't have exactly the same brightness, but I suspect it's more to do with the presence of the lunar module in the one of Bean. There's not as stark a contrast between the side of him facing the sun and the side of him away from the sun.
Waniou137 2 years ago
Jarrah you're my hero!
libidowolf 3 years ago 6
Great production as always. Though why didn't you take your car to a mechanic or something beforehand and ask them for a better way to cover up or disable that one headlight than using Ducttape I'm sure anything would have been easier than cleaning off the ductape off of it .
spacewizard1 3 years ago 6
"Though why didn't you take your car to a mechanic or something beforehand and ask them for a better way to cover up or disable that one headlight than using Ducttape I'm sure anything would have been easier than cleaning off the ductape off of it ."
Heh, thanks for the tip; I'll keep that in mind for next time. :)
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
SUPERB
Magnifico
Exellent/ Exellente
awsome
muy bien.
n1 = Nice one
GoooOOOOooD
komitas1979 3 years ago 5
i found it amazing that they tagged their video with your name Jarrah! they're scared of you :D
if i win the lottery i'll happily fund you to make a feature docu-film about it.
adiohead 3 years ago 14
"if i win the lottery i'll happily fund you to make a feature docu-film about it."
Why thanks, I really appreciate that. :)
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
simply amazing.
libidowolf 3 years ago 6
Al Bean is standing in front of a screen in the photo beside the lm on the moonset
greenmagoos 3 years ago 10
Thanks Jarrah! Brilliant as usual!
But there's a lot, A LOT of people who just say :"Yeah! Yeah! I saw the Mythbusters and they proved Apollo DID happen! Period! So shut up!".
Ignorance is bliss?
Keep fighting for the truth!
Yagshemash10749 3 years ago 6
Yes it just goes to show the power of entertainment on most human minds. They will belive anything they are told if it comes with enough flashing lights between the Diet Coke commercials.
arareflux 3 years ago 7
Thanks JW... i would like to suggest that the show 'myth busters' be renamed to 'bullshit enhancers' (sorry for the bad language) :)
b6gm6n 3 years ago 7
Wow, so simple for Jay Windley to have known that desert albedo is MUCH greater than the moon's. I verified this with different sources than you did with a simple GOOGLE search in under 2 mins. Which means Windley is either deceptive or completely incompetent.
Thanks for pointing this out.
cchlaw 3 years ago 8