Added: 2 years ago
From: WhiteJarrah
Views: 17,906
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (151)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • i am so confused

  • And how did the USSR never make a manned flight to the Moon.They shot probes and unmanned space crafts But never Manned,Why?I'm not saying we didn't go.I am saying why has no other countries tried this monumental achievement?The Russians were years ahead in Heavy Lift Technology.Again if someone reads this and knows why please tell me.Because its like after 72 the Moon didn't matter anymore.11 missions and everyone on earth was done with the MOON?Why?If for no other reason than propaganda.

  • This maybe shit but one question is always present WHY IS IT GOING TO TAKE UNTIL 2020 to go back according to Obama?Why not use the old Technology of the greatest achievement in human history.I wish someone would tell me without saying there is no reason to go back.That doesn't make sense to me.I really don't understand how that could be?Moon trips and a moon base were always taliked aboutbut never realized and after the moon landing were shelved.And please tell me why NO OTHER country went.

  • i think this video need to be reduced to one pixel, then deleted.

  • Give me a brake. The only thing you prove is your ignorance.

  • you are photoshop faker and when you talk you hear like a nerdy collegestudent :(

  • "Not particularly dark, are they?"

    NOT PARTICULARLY BRIGHT, ARE YOU?

    :)))))))))

  • Good job on this one!!

  • This video is a scandal. It is also a painful treminder of all teh incorect information given by Renault and Caysing, both deceased now, so they cannot correct their mistakes anymore.

    It is not very nice of JW to repeat all their mistakes here. Those guys are dead now, and they were always dead wrong.

  • @BjornPalmen but whas the landing fake or real??? cuz i didnt watched the vid cuz he whas talking strange

  • @0waffel0 All six landings were real. Apollo 11, Apollo12, 14, 15, 16 and 17.

  • @BjornPalmen oke thx for the information :D

  • Why did I watched this…

  • Copyrighted moonrock, hahaahaha......MoonFaker, you are excellent. Keep up the good work!!

  • Why would today's scientists gamble their reputations and carriers to protect the reputations of people who are now almost all retired or dead knowing that it's only a matter of time before someone else takes pictures as good or better?

  • Phuq you govrnmnt shills !!! Marsanomolydotcom trolls !!! Feel better now !

  • They could leave a mess like that on the lunar surface. Remember, it was a high traffic area, where several astronauts walked back and forth several times. your demonstration assumed that the tracks were left by a single astronaut making one trip.

  • ROFLMFAO!!!!

    So, let me get this straight. NASA can get Saturns up without loss...but you can spot all the mistakes they made because you have Photoshop and a mental health issue?!

    LOLOLOLOLOLOL!

  • Soooo, maybe you conspiracy theory buffs can help me out here. Apollo 11-17 never happened and it was all a hoax.... but 18, 19,and 20 did and were covered up because they found an alien space craft with a wax dummy inside.... is that right?????? Yeah, right. Nanoo nanoooo.

  • One day you'll do something worthwhile with your life, till then enjoy floggin this dead horse

  • people that think man went to the moon are americans. people who dont are not. personally i hope they didnt go, as the rocket neil and buzz buttfucked in all the way to the moon was designed by a nazi. so technically nazis put the first men on the moon. americans walked on it first. the nazis made it possible.

  • Booooooooooooogus!!!!!!!

  • Dude stop pinching your nose when you talk, you sound like a 1920's horse race commentator.

  • I am so baffled that people being able to use the internets and make films, still are so ignorant dumb idiots, its beyond me :)

  • hmm intuitive. Easy for everyone to grasp.

  • It just gets worse and worse! I would expect this from American's but not you sir!

  • As with other commenters, I have to point out that your primative photoshopping of your assumptions is not product any evidence whatsoever. The evidence in your own video shows how the falicy of your argument when discussing the trails. The surveyor analysis is just dead wrong. Again, I can see from your own video that your argument is flawed. The orientation of surveyor is the same in both photos. ::rolling my eyes::

  • Mr. White, you have a consistent pattern of comparing apples to oranges. Photos taken at a different locations, at different times or from the moon's surface are necessarily going to have a different contrast ratios. A foot trail is naturally more noticeable from different perspectives & under changing shadows. It's not like you to ignore such details...or is it?

    The "c" rock argument is old foolishness. Strangely, it has a shadow. I can find "c" shapes all over the the moon's surface.

  • Jarrah, you need to get out more.

  • everything is proved on mythbuster!!! so this is stupid....

  • @Porsche010 and yet you left a message telling mythbusters how clever they were?lol the fact that your here proves one thing, your interested.

  • @Porsche010 mythbuster!!! PROVED than its can posible make FAKE images, so realistic.... wtf do u relally belive media... think by yourselft.

  • @Porsche010 isnt that like worship or gay love

  • moron

  • Bullshit

  • A did et baus!!

  • > Don't you think, if you can think at all, that if Apollo or LRO were faked, someone could've done that graphics 1000x better than you did?

    Use your little brain for a second at least and think about it.

    Think whitejarrah. THINK HARD!

    I give you 1*. Couldn't give less. It's not gonna change much since your cohorts or multiple personalities on YouTube take care so diligently of your "high ratings"...

  • whitejarrah,

    Those "footprints" you simulate is one of the MOST IDIOTIC presentations you've ever made.

    I know how limited your knowledge of physics and photography is, you gave a few examples too many, but if you have a functioning brain, has it ever occured to you that maybe you don't understand something about LRO photos and lunar environment?

    Maybe there are factors that you are not aware of?

    >

  • "But that was true!"

    Ha, so true that it is ILLEGAL in five or six countries to doubt ALL claims made about the holocaust. So if you were to go research the holocaust in one of those countries saying that you believe that six million people seems a little high, you would get arrested and thrown in jail.

    Is that the kind of "truth" you like Jarnoparoni?

  • Hello WhiteJarrah, I must tell you that you are an great idiot. I am a German and some assholes like you are also dont believe that Adolf Hitler dont have make crimes at the Jews people. But that was true! Also true that people went on the moon. You are a asshole!!! Regards Jarnoparoni

  • "I'm so glad you agree the astronauts took pictures of their tracks while they were on the moon. "

    You are SO-O-O reaching. Its sad.

  • GTP said, "The flagpole is way too thin for its shadow to be visible."

    Really? Let's think about that. On Earth, light is scattered by air, so a very thin pole may not cast a distinct shadow due to the scattering of light. BUT, since the photo you talk about was taken in an allegedly vacuum environment, why would the shadow, no matter how thin the pole, not be visible?

  • Here @ NASA we don't believe in anything real there will be strings attached (Wires) to make sure nothing gos wrong to any of our Astronuts. When we say Role Program we mean exactly that Role the Program complete with no launching awareness, rockets that make no noise, and no exhaust plume, and when we find out one of our own doesn't want to follow our Program we'll fill there capsule with pure Oxygen and make sure they'll never talk again! Its a great show alright dont miss it !

  • "Here's some pictures taken through the LM window." - your quote.

    I'm so glad you agree the astronauts took pictures of their tracks while they were on the moon.

  • weren't the astronauts boots about 16 inches wide...not 12cm?

  • @Timmay123456789

    16inches wide?!?!?! are you a complete tool, dumb, or just made a mistake. dinner plates aren't even 16 inches wide. computer monitors are sometimes 16 inches wide, so "your" astronauts were walking around with dinner plate sized boots, or computer monitor sized boots?? DUH

  • @six67seven

    that's why it was a question, i heard somewhere it was 16 inches, which apparently is wrong.

  • You don't know anything! You are comparing closeup photographs to photographs taken very far away. If I did the same by taking a macro shot of a pimple of your face I promise you it would look very different even a mile away. You are also trying to use a paint program to examine these when that is in NO WAY scientific. Stop trying, you are making yourself appear as a complete idiot.

  • lol, he's gone wayyyyyy past the complete idiot phase. he's now at the clinically insane phase.

  • @waffles497

    so agressive

  • @Fataris The moon landing conspiracy has been disproven time and time again using actual science, yes i will be agressive about this because it has been completely proven that we indeed went to the moon when we say we did. If anyone denies it they are CHOOSING to completely ignore evidence.

  • @waffles497 May as well save your breath, my friend, these loonies are too far gone....they simply see what they want to see, believe what they want to believe- scientific facts are merely a nuisance to them. It's amazing what empty, pathetic lives these fools have; they are to be pitied.

  • @waffles497 im as much an expert on the topic as you are, to me this is appropriate. using the tools available as opposed to your mouth as you are using, is scientific.

  • @waffles497 Yeah, J White face will change, he will get old, suffer the effects of gravity and friction, very different from what happens on the moon.

  • @waffles497 he IS a complete fool!!!!!

  • Hey dickhead, did you ever think the astronauts walked the same path over and over?

    The 2 pics of surveyor were the same, the one on the right being more clear.

    What will these fucks do when we go back in 2 years? Are they going to head for "area 51" to catch them red - handed in the "sound stages"

    We walked on the moon buddy. A couple of times. Now we are getting the solid evidence that you yourself are seeking. You remind me of a creationist debunking evolution. Blind faith is all u got.

  • Totally agree! Jarrah you are a dickhead mate... getting more desperate all the time...

  • Yes, total dickhead.

    If you look hard enough, you can find weak evidence to support anything.

  • you accounted for the size of a boot per pixel which is good.. but the boot on these suits is larger then the shoe you wear.

    also, in support of your video- they didnt walk like we do on earth.. they more hopped along spacing the prints out quite a bit.

  • Damned Jarrah... why would you point to the C-rock.. all your work for nothing!

    That thing is debunked.

  • this is so lame.. why waste so many billions of dollars when the russians already lost the space race?

    ofc they where on the moon..

  • Bizarre!

  • Thats the jittery shadow of the flag itself, not the flagpole. The flagpole is way too thin for its shadow to be visible. All of the images which the LRO team has published are raw images since they have not yet had the LRO spend time taking calibration frames. Presently they are concentrating on getting as much raw data as possible, should something go wrong with the LRO, and spend time later shooting a bunch of calibration frames.

    More...

  • Another big problem is spacecraft jitter. Its more prevalent horizontally in the LRO images, and the jitter causes small bright or dark patches to have corresponding faint bright or dark streaks next to them. The LRO team has yet to write a "dejitter" image processing algorithm to deconvolve the images in order to get rid of the horizontal blur caused by the spacecraft jitter. There also is some vertical jitter, but it is smaller in amplitude compared to the horizontal jitter.

    More...

  • Finally, the images contain very slight vertical banding. This is caused by electronic noise associated with the extremely high speed readout rate of the Kodak CCD chip. Some of the electronic noise is associated with clocking out the CCD chip itself, but most of it (the vertical banding) is associated with the electronics the LRO team designed to read the chip. Astronomical CCD camera manufacturers experience this same problem in their camera designs.

    :-)

  • Hi stalkervision,

    Check out the new Apollo 17 photo on the LRO web site. They put together a pretty neat web page for it, and labeled a ton of features in the photo. Note that you can even see a dark spot at the center of the LM descent stage. That of course is the square cavity into which the ascent stage engine bell fit.

  • These assertions are laughable. You superimpose 2 photos of moon footprints taken at nearly opposite phases of the lunar day, and EXPECT people to see an identical patern? Also, the picture of the Astronaut next to surveyor is Alan Bean, not Pete Conrad, because Conrad (as the commander) carried the chest cam. The astronaut in the photo lacks a chest cam. You've obviously eaten a lot of asparagus before you decided to take a big piss in the fountain of knowledge.

  • It turns out that several dozen moon rocks have been stolen from museums located in various countries. A few have been recovered, but most have not and are assumed to be in private collections.

  • I presume you mean the theft of a rock from a private collection that was then replaced with something that looked similar. You do know of the value of moon rock, don't you? Your not just spouting, are you? What of the other samples that have been verified?

  • Agony! You are simply showing how you, with your undoubted knob twiddleing skills, could reproduce something. That does not mean the photos were faked.

    Why o Why do you insist on suggesting these things were done 30 years before photo shop existed?

  • Pfft, pfft and...pfft.

  • either nasa has the worst switcher/director in the world or they intentionally nothing on purpose.

    later that morning, a morning show replayed the feed, but was intercut with what looked to be live video shot of the Moon from a ground based camera. Now this could have been switched by the morning show themselves, but that live feed from the ground is what we wanted to see!

  • the moon smash feed.

    stuttering zooms in the visible light.

    cut-aways to false color feed which seemed to be non-stuttering and continuous.

    grey screen for 3 sec followed by a cut to the control room which lasts 4 sec.

    cut back to the false color feed, then a flash of green for 10 sec - was that it?

    cut to craft animation decending for 15 sec.

    cut to another grey flash that fades to black for 18 sec - was that it?

    cut back to animation still decending.

    cut to control room with people clapping.

  • Stakker / VanBuren, take a look at this:

    youtube . com/user/philwebb59

    If you dare.

  • is it any surprise that the live video feed of the moon smash today showed nothing?

  • I was kinda expecting it to be very anticlimactic. Authur C Clarke once pointed out in one of his novels that frozen water at extremely cold temperatures (within 100 K of absolute zero) becomes far harder than steel. In other words, if there was a significant amount of water trapped in the soil, or even better a sheet of ice below the soil, then the essentially the booster tank would have smacked into a thick frozen steel plate. Anyway, that is my hypothesis.

  • Meant to say "hit permafrost."

  • Traces of water was documented to have been found in the moon rocks, but at the same time NASA's scientists dismissed it as being due to chamber contamination since everyone at the time just "knew" that there couldn't be any water on the moon's surface.

    Kinda like Viking on Mars. Nobody bothered to command the lander to dig deeper into the soil. Speculation is that if it had dug 4" deeper then it likely would have it permafrost.

  • this video is not new thing of many video he done and took off nasanazi pants and show us how Gays are they!......ehm.

  • Roberta,

    i am so sure, if there were not Youtube , you would spend ALL your time 24 hour x 7 days, watching T&J and animation on TV with your kids KID !!! LOL

  • Stalker, it's OFCOURSE and ASTROBRANT.

    And ofcourse you are wrong. And becoming a little nervous I noticed.

  • Very true.

  • Why is tremorhellborn allowed to post on this video ?

  • "Why is tremorhellborn allowed to post on this video ?"

    Aw shucks! Thank you! I have considered myself a threat to Jarrah for quite some time now...but then again, anyone who has successfully passed Physics 12 is also a considerable threat. Or anybody who can tell dust from sand...

  • As shown in your video, the Surveyor solar panels are mounted at 45 degree angles, allowing one of them to appear mirror bright from overhead since the sun was very low above the west horizon when LRO photographed the scene from overhead. Only one panel is reflecting sunlight. The double image of the reflection is caused by LRO spacecraft jitter. Note the side-by-side bright reflections for the LM descent stage, and note the side-by-side vertical shadow lines throughout the image as well.

  • Jarrah still doesn't get it. You can tell he is getting more and more desperate all the time.

  • Poor Jarrah. He is going to have a severe conniption when the LRO re-images the landing sites in a matter of days now, but this time from an altitude of only 50 km. And of course, over the next several months, the landing sites will be photographed again and again at different sun altitude angles. Maybe the LRO will shoot some oblique views of the landing sites as well. Imagine how cool it would be to actually see the descent stages sticking up from the surface if stereo images were taken.

  • I know! That would be so cool...

  • GTP. Re your " LRO spacecraft jitter" theory .

    That might be the case if the initial "solar panel reflection" shape is replicated by the adjacent bright area - but it isn't.

  • The shape isn't perfectly replicated since the LRO also introduces a less severe vertical jitter component to the image. Download and examine the LRO Apollo landing site images direct from the LRO web site and see for yourself. :-)

  • Well, you see it as "jitter" - and there are small elements of that in some of the images. But here I have to disagree with you about the "LM DS" having an equal amount of "image replication" as Surveyor.

    Anyone can see that it doesn't, by a long chalk.

    Therefore its a good probability there are actually two bright areas being imaged WRT Surveyor, and not a jitter artifact as you claim.

  • Later this evening or tomorrow morning I will get around to posting the original LRO Apollo 12 image along with a de-jittered and de-convolved maximum entropy image to my web page. See my profile for the link to my web page. The resolution of the latter image is noticeably better.

    :-)

  • Okay - and while you're at it don't forget to investigate why the various "LM d/s" shadows don't appear to be replicated.

    Is LRO imaging jitter selective in its effect? Is that what you're implying?

  • Where are all the degree-holding conspiracists?

  • Tremor, Do you want to meet a Degree holding conspiracy believer?

  • TH. Neither of the co-inventors of television - for example - had more than an elementary science knowledge base - but they had vision, if you PTP :-)

    Original inventive perception / lateral thinking ... and intellect... are two different things.

    You ( and the rest of your stuffy high brow clan ) cant get your heads around any fresh angle being presented by anyone without an advanced education having any merit whatsoever .

    IOW you're a stale-minded stuck- in-the-box intellectual elitist

  • GoneTo, Before going for the Jitter analysis, first find and answer how did Astronauts safely cross the deadly Van Allen Belts?Please refer the scores of scientific publications on VAB and then cite them and tell me. If they cannot cross the VAB then what is the point of analyzing and further analyzing dubious LRO photos?

  • Hi secularvoice,

    I will dig up the links I found for VAB data and send you a message. The big problem about the VABs is that each has a relatively small zone of highly concentrated radiation. That zone in each VAB has to be passed rather quickly since short intense doses of radiation are safer than prolonged doses of less intense radiation. Fortunately at 25,000 mph it only takes an hour to pass these two high danger zones.

  • You will have no relevant message to send to anyone GoneToPlaid, since there is no official crossing time and dose to be found, NASA probably "lost" them aswell.

  • Unfortunetely, depending on the Solar activity (30 major solar flares and 1455 minor ones during the missions), the radiation in the Van Allen belts is around 11 000 rads per hour. Turtle survive 15 000 rems dose, yet poor human dies after 400/500 rems in any short time (week or less). Deaths are reported after as low as 120 rems exposures. Hence it make no difference how fast you fly, 11 000 rads kill you instantly.Apollo flight journal says 10852m/s, so only 24417 mph = not even 2.star speed!

  • @trodas: "radiation in the van Allen belts is around 11 000 rads per hour"

    You are out by SIX ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.

    This is enough to kill your arguments completely.

  • GoneTo, If you need materials on Van Allen Belt radiations, I can give you (peer-reviewed publications in journals like Nature,Physical Review etc. presently I have 27 documents)just send me a proxy E-mail ID. I have made rough calculations of the transit time of the space craft and the VAB radiations based on these documents. The radiation dosage is at the level of 250 rem and not 1 rem as clavius argues.What you have told is, unfortunately, partly wrong.

  • Send me a message with links or your email. Then I will give you my email so that you can send the documents to me. I am interested in reading them. :-)

  • "how did Astronauts safely cross the deadly Van Allen Belts?"

    Why don't you become a radiologist and expose that awful lie? lol

  • GTP, awesome website! My compliments.

  • Thank you!

  • Yes Jarrah, solar panels do appear dark when viewed at angles such that sunlight reflecting off of them is not reflecting straight towards your eyes or camera. Yet solar panels appear very bright, more like a mirror, when you view them such that sunlight reflecting off of them goes towards your eyes or a camera. Go buy a cheap Radio Shack solar panel and examine its reflections in sunlight. More...

  • And another thing, do you really think that the astronauts stomped back and forth across the surface leaving perfect "Aldrin footprints" the entire time?? More likely you would see partial boot prints and scuffs along with sprays of regolith dirt, all varying in depth and width and all that would present differently depending on lighting and what angle you viewed them . It's a slick video, but it's nowhere near disproving the authenticity of the LRO photos.

  • Right on Mark. That's what I was thinking too. This video remembers me of a Tom&Jerry type footage of Bigfoot in the snow.... LOL. My children watched it a thousand times. But never came to believe in Bigfoot though.

    This video hurricanes Jawa completely:

    watch?v=9FaZuFTFkvA&feature=ch­annel_page#movie_player

  • I have to agree with the comments below.

    The video's well put together but the reasoning behind it is absurd. Far more interesting than anything the film contains is Jarrah's clear and sincere belief that he's practising scientific method and is quite blind as to why he patently is not.

  • hey make your own vid to prove the liars actually went, lmao

  • Why don't you take some of your own advice pt1gard? All your videos are simply NASA archive footage of lunar EVAs with annotations of you making the claim that astronauts are held up by wires. Real good video makng there. What a waste of youtube server space.

  • Extremely true.

  • As usual, going in with the firm belief that the evidence is false, and then trying to prove that point will just lead to the conclusion that it is in fact false. All through the video you will see just that, trying to prove something that you just can't prove. Like stamping feet on an image and trying to compare that with the real photo? Gimme a break..

  • When NASA brings out all their "big guns" to "refute" Jarrah's hoax evidence, then you can bet he's doing something right... LOL

    It's obvious that the LRO "footprint" tracks don't match the Apollo photos, as much as you would like them to.

    So what about the positon of the Surveyor compared to the A12 LM? .. Has anyone pretended to refute that evidence yet?

  • Once again Jarrah White fails to understand that lighting conditions of all the photographs he has used for comparisons are different from each other. He also does not understand a lot of regolith was disturbed, which would widen the footpath, and also present differently depeneding on the angle of lighting and angle of the photograph. BTW- he always says "we" a lot (we can conclude, we can see, etc...), who is "we"? I surely don't agree with him. It's only his opinion, not "we" the peoples.

  • Yep, Jarrah's obsessed and retarded.

  • Tremor the troll sez that Jarrah is "obsessed ad retarded".

    Flame baiting ridicule on YouTube?!?!

    Now there's something you don't see everyday !

  • "Flame baiting..."

    Well, I was pickin' for a fight...

  • Random Science Dropouts on YT. Of course they would be the ones to uncover all the secrets. HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

  • He he. Well, I like Jarrah since he is so persistent even though he is so horribly misguided by the mix of truth and outright lies presented to him by his mentors.

    Jarrah does have keen senses of observation. If only he had the advanced education to put his inherent talents to really good use. The problem is that he only focuses on what he sees as anomalies in videos and images rather than properly looking at the entire picture. This causes him to miss numerous inherently obvious facts.

  • Whoever negged stalkervision, he brings up a good point which needs a proper explanation. Solar panels are very reflective. This causes them to appear as very bright point sources compared to the surrounding terrain. Due to the wave nature of light, a very bright point source as a consequence will appear larger than it really is. For example, the Airy Disk of a 1st magnitude star through a telescope appears to be much larger than the Airy Disk of a far fainter 6th magnitude star.

  • Jarrah, the entire LRO image shows a horizontal jitter pattern due to LRO spacecraft jitter. This jitter is visible across the entire image, but you fail to mention that. Note that the shadow just above the Surveyor 3 bright spots show this image jitter as well, but that the jitter in the shadow just above the Surveyor 3 bright spots is offset by 1 pixel because the LRO camera sequentially scans horizontally.

  • Comment removed

  • 5 ***** wj !!!!

  • Time stamp 6:27..

    "On the Apollo 12 set the stagehands incorrectly positioned the Surveyer 3 prop."

    LOL

    Excellent work Jarrah!

  • Poor work. The entire image, had Jarrah bothered to show close-ups of portions of the entire image, show horizontal LRO spacecraft jitter. Stray, good to see that you are as gullible as ever. :-)

  • GoneToPlaid .. If you believe the LRO photos match the original Apollo fakes, then the gullible one is you.

  • This is it! This is the video that proves Jarrah is retarded! He's confessed to his lies in a strange way...

  • Jarrah...

    Stop!

    Your gonna teach NASA how to fake the next LRO photos better!!

  • they tried to fool the grandson of the apollo hoax theory, nice try amateurs!!!

  • Good point, they made the "footpath" a bit too dark. Most probably these "footpath" are just basic 1 pixel wide + antialiasing black lines, that are then tuned in opacity in a layer, to reach the desired darkness, but they are so desperately in need to prove they've been there, that they overdone them.

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more