Regardless of MIT or not. speaking about the laser they were using on the show its impossible to get a signal back, there ARE different types of lasers. Thus, saying they got a signal with another laser proves nothing. they used a single tool to shine at a bare spot and got nothing, and then shined it at a spot with the reflector and got a signal. meaning there is something up there that allowed the signal of that laser to come back.
savage and plait are petrified of jarrah, he has proven them wrong many times ... windley replied to my challenge via email, refusing to debate jarrah even when offered a reward to the winner of the debate decided by an independent panel ... the letter will appear in my book ... these guys all talk a big game yet JW steps up and they run, OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN
@pt1gard He hasn't proven anyone wrong a single time, all he has done is insulting thousands of talented people who had such kickass skills in physics and engineering that they could:
A - build and PREPARE a rocket that could withstand the radiation BEFORE they actually travelled there
B - make very careful calculations and PREPARATIONS in order to minimize the dangers
C - travel to the moon with PREPARED EQUIPMENT, then return safely using a PREPARED lander.
There's a very easy explanation for that, actually - in order to be able to even bring the rovers to the moon they would have to fold them, so they didn't take up so damn much space in the rocket - when they took them out on the moon surface they unfolded them, and therefore you won't see any tracks on some of the pictures - because the rover had just been unfolded.
Simple as that.
You can even search for "lunar rover unfold" or something if you want a verification on this.
Narr he's one of the most retarded people on the internet. Don't tie your flag to the pole of someone who can't grasp hs physics to expain the behaviour of a flag on the moon.
Jarrad you talk crap he didn tsay that at all" it accepted no reflective light" is the direct quite from your video get your facts write before making a fool of your self...
How come the Mythbusters didn't prove or disprove the "no blast crater under the moon lander" issue? Why wasn't that at the top of their list? It's the biggest piece of evidence that the moon landing might have been fake.
@deejco1 The regolith on the moon became very dense very quickly, so it was almost like landing on solid ground - also, a rocket doesn't burn any big-ass bursts of fire in a vacuum!
Who cares whether or not it is possible to bounce a laser off the moon's surface. What matters is that the reflectivity increases massively when aimed at the actual reflector.
You are clutching at straws as usual, by trying to divert the argument from evidence of a reflector. You have failed to disprove the presence of the reflector, and that's all there is to it. Arguing semantics with MythBusters is quite possibly the lamest attempt yet.
LOL! You are awesome Jarrah! You consistently own the propagandists left and right. You are one man who is becoming larger than life itself. You have ascended. When will the propagandists realize they cannot bring you down no matter how hard they try? The global awakening has begun, your messages only strengthen the Truth Movement currently underway in our world. Your intellect, logic, and technical knowledge are unsurpassed. Godspeed Jarrah!
does NASA even point the laser 2 seconds a head of where the reflector is and do they even know the spot they see is already 2 seconds old. Are they really shooting a laser at a target that is off by 15 miles due to motion and the earth moves another 3 miles during the round trip? NASA's answer is NO but it works anyway. Ok nasa when you flew to the moon did you fly to where it was going to be or did you just chase it down.
i think i will just blindly agree with any answer people come up with on this one because it goes beyond the speed of light and so physics demands certain rules must be followed and not broken. im sure for most people man walked on the moon im just sure of it. it makes us feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
@NASAvsPETE ...PETE, did you get your 1 million from the Amazing Randi yet for proving the Moon landings fake like you said you would? He's got that cool 1 million that's he's just dying to give away. Proof that the Moon landings were fake and see if Randi believes it. What have you got to lose besides your dignity? You're shit on here anyway ;)
I'm not saying that the moon landings were fake, but the fact that there is a reflector on the moon does not prove that man has been to the moon. It merely proves that there is man made equipment on the moon.
But this video suggests that the retroreflectors aren't actually on the moon, that lasers are merely bouncing off the lunar surface. That's not reasonable, and is contradicted by the evidence. There's other evidence that the retroreflectors are on the moons surface too, due to the kind and size of signal received back and the fact that no matter where you are on the earth, you get the signal back. That's what retroreflectors do. And it just so happens to occur where NASA "says" they landed.
The focus of the video was to imply that there really aren't retroreflectors on the moon at all and the mythbusters were wrong (along with showing that Jarrah wasn't "quote-mining"). Your comment didn't really interact with or relate to that, so it wasn't clear to me that you had actually watched it. My second comment related more to your specific point, regardless of whether it was directly relevant to Jarrah's video. There's insufficient reason to deny men went there.
They've been doing the laser tests with the retroreflectors for decades now (going back to the early '70s). If we could send an unmanned ship to the moon with a robot sophisticated enough to place a retroreflector on the moon (the only other way that we could have put the mirrors there), then I think we could send a manned ship. Human beings were more complex and capable of far more things than computers back then. All of this conspiracy talk is just paranoid goofiness.
"I came on board at Goldstone as the last two Apollo Moon missions were being conducted. Dick set up a ten-foot comm dish in his yard with a simple circular horn, diode mixer, and signal generator to pick up the carrier of the Apollo orbiting the Moon. It was pretty neat to hear the changing doppler as the orbiter circled behind the Moon and the signal dropped out and came back about 20-minutes later!"
“We measure to the retroreflector arrays left on the moon by the Apollo astronauts...these define very specific points of reference on the lunar surface. This is far better than measuring to the rough-and-tumble surface. We would never have any hope of measuring the lunar distance to millimeter precision without these well-defined reflectors. We aim at one reflector at a time when performing the measurement.”
physics dot ucsd dot edu/~tmurphy/apollo/basics dot html
JW, nowhere here does anyone say it's "impossible" to bounce lasers off the moon. HERE it's said, "we are getting nothing back except background light." Apache is PULSING their laser. MIT didn't. Apache COULDN'T recover photons off the bare surface with that technique.
How can Savage be lying when he wasn't aware?
Isn't this irrelevant? Retroreflectors are clearly there. Nothing in nature behaves this way--gives a 180 degree return from whatever approach.
@cadu1995 It wouldn't be the first time they F-ed up, they got the Military canopy experiment wrong, Quicksand experiment wrong (No Clay) and the phone book one, these guys aren't scientists, they're not even that intelligent He attended New York University's Tisch School of the Arts for acting for 6 months before dropping out -Jamie was is a 14 year old runaway bum. Not exactly who you want teaching Science - definately no Bill Nye thats for sure are these guys Idiots "CONFIRMED"
@hunchbacked No, you are not there bacause you are lying. Don't worry, its very common in hoaxers as that is the only way they have to show any kind of a case.
5 You reckon the jump salute was done in Gym clothes do you?
Langley produced an investigation in to the effects of Lunar gravity in the 60s-you should read it, but in summary, if you had to wear protective clothing (ie Apollo EVA suits) you could not perform as athletically as if you were wearing street clothing.
So you are dead in the water already-2 posts-that's about average for me debunking you hoaxer morons.
It seems that to call this a conspiracy would be to say that the government had already found the perfect super reflective site on the moon to tell people to test in this manner. However, where it would come under fire is the amount of reflection. This seems to indicate man-made tampering as the reflection index is so high.
@planetofthescums That obviously turns into an extreme maybe when you consider by the time we claimed it to be there and tested it, we were not running sophisticated, remote or automated launch and land systems. There would have to be a controlled burn and stabilization process to put a man-made apparatus on the moon, otherwise something that reflective would shatter with impact and velocity vectors that would distribute its piece far apart making such central reflection impossible...
Any surface can reflect back a laser theoretically, because lasers have certain amounts of power. I think one problem here, is that we do not know the Apache's wattage, or the wattages of the other experimental lasers so as to understand how much we can expect to be reflected. Also, there was no spike in laser being reflected. That's a detection issue. When compared to the retroreflector site, the change in the amount detected is what proves existence of highly reflective materials.
AS 15 88 11936 is another fake Apollo picture, but this one suggests all of you NASA propagandists talking about stars and moon surface and the "impossible to photograph them " are just idiots.
Additionally this very picture if examined by an astronomer will determine one more time beyond any doubt ,Apollo was INDEED a hoax.
Since it looks like you deny "that previously accepted scientifically accepted research" maybe you should deny the other one as well: Apollo missions were hoaxed. I would say contact me for the proof, but like the rest of your clown crew you dont deserve the evidence.....not yet anywa
- sure, StateCitizenX. If someone else said that, I wouldn't believe...
It's funny how you hoaxers accept anything that seems to fit your theory, while rejecting everything that contradicts it, even if it comes from the same source.
Spare your worthless babbling. If you have evidence for hoax, please present it.
So far, neither you nor Jarrah W. showed anything meaningful. All you could achieve was showing a guy from TV show who didn't know something...
Why would I show you? What have you done to deserve it? You goal is to get me to show you the evidence so you can concoct a seemingly reasonable response that will include; simulations, mistakes, luck or some other absurd nonsense.
Bottom line is you're done, its now only a question of 'when', not 'if'
All part of the sick game. When I have the time I will pm you their manifesto about how the past cant be proved, so basically they reinforce the fraudulent past with their nonsense, combined with nasa's tweaking of the story to respond to the more valid questions, one giant shining example to begin with,the rorschach test also knows as the LRO apollo landing site imagery.
Just how many of you guys are sockpuppets of Jarrah White? A lot of you are active during the Australian daytime...
Prove you're not.
Ah, nevermind, I'm too lazy to bother with proofs. I'll just conclude that you are all Jarrah White sockpuppets because that fits my preconceived worldview. And I'll accuse you of lying if you deny it.
From " Vanityfair" interview with Buzz Aldrin we read: Buzz Aldrin " a couple of conflicting nations on Earth doing a few stunts in space to try and outdo each one. Sending a couple of guys to the Moon and bringing them back safely? That’s a stunt! That’s not historic"
Eric Spitznagel "Well, it’s a little historic"
B.A"I don’t think so"
E.S " David Copperfield levitating over the Grand Canyon was a stunt. You walking on the Moon was crazy impressive"
Jarrah PROVED you can bounce a laser off the moon and get a return signal without manmade equipment, period end of story. What you PANs do is conflate and twist the issue,(par for the course) to bring it into some magical nanotech scientific debate of absurdity. While some may fall into your trap, others just laugh at your nonsense and feeble attempts.
@StateCitizenX Sorry, but it's not the end of the story. You haven't been paying attention: Apache Point ran a control shot before they ranged the Apollo 15 reflector. They got NO return from the lunar surface without a reflector, and that makes the earlier results with MIT's very different equipment simply irrelevant.
I think Jarrah knows this, so he continues to attack his straw man instead.
You choose to disregard the basic concept that MIT got a return from their laser ranging equipment WITHOUT a retroreflector (as well as LRO last yr) about a decade before apollo. You are downplaying the significance of this, the fact Apache point received NO return without a retroreflector is what is simply irrelevant, anyone can fire a laser anywhere and not receive a return signal, that is meaningless and only proves a negative.
@StateCitizenX You keep getting it backwards! Obviously Darth Vader could get a return off the bare lunar surface with a sufficiently powerful laser. But I'm not Darth Vader, I'm Apache Point Observatory. My puny laser can only get a return with the help of a reflector, and I've just demonstrated this fact on the lunar highlands.
And I did just get a pulse - a narrow one - from the Apollo 15 site, thus conclusively proving the existence of an artificial reflector there. Got it now?
"Jarrah PROVED you can bounce a laser off the moon and get a return signal without manmade equipment"
- really, StateCitizenX? Did Jarrah W. perform his own laser experiment?
No, he did not. He proved nothing. STOP LYING.
He referred to very different type of experiment, which compares to laser ranging technique used at Apache Point Observatory, as demonstrated in Mythbusters episode, like jackhammer compares to needle.
DIdn't have to run his own experiment, he sourced previously accepted scientifically accepted research, YOU STOP LYING. What experiments have you run to prove apollo was real? Or do you want to continue down your laser nanoreturn fantasy land of lies?
@StateCitizenX What experiments have you done to prove that World War 2 was real? Does that mean it was a complete fabrication of the history book publishers, a conspiracy to sell more books?
Like World War 2 20+ years before it, Apollo is documented historical fact. One of the best documented in history.
Not that you care but your tired WWII sidetrack is worn out. Don't worry I read your manifesto, you know about how the past cant be proven thus you are here to basically reinforce any lie you see fit to convince people of your username :)
Of course at the end of the manifesto, there is a recommended site for further 'education'.....BAUT but of course. I guess just another one of those coinkydinks like the dozens of others.
@StateCitizenX Please tell me why my WW2 analogy is invalid. Consider that many of the projects and events in WW2 were secret at the time: the Manhattan Project, the Ultra (enigma-breaking) project, the preparations for D-day, etc. Yet the details have all come out. Apollo, on the other hand, was public from the very beginning.
Please tell me why our historical records are all wrong. I wait with bated breath.
If I have to tell you WHY it's invalid then its nigh time you revoke that MENSA membership. You know why, you just want to play 'twist the content' game and show the world how eloquently you can turn literally ANY claim to your favor as per your manifesto, and my favourite part is...for further reading please visit BAUT LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hell, If I showed a reflection of non spacesuited humans coming off a piece of equipment supposedly in deep space you would twist that too.
@StateCitizenX Sorry, no dice. Bluster away, but only rational arguments based on factual evidence can carry the day. Insults and psychological projection will get you nowhere.
- which was done by MIT, not by Jarrah W., StateCitizenX.
Yes, we're talking about the same MIT which was a part of Apollo program.
Since it looks like you accept that "previously accepted scientifically accepted research". Maybe you should accept the other one as well: Apollo missions were real.
Contact MIT for confirmation. Maybe that accepted fact will finally find its way to your brain instead of Moon hoax lies.
I LOVE how you twist arguments, I have learned so much in the art of debate and I thank you, shill plait, gay windley and the rest of the crew for that.
However, I refuse to accept lies and propoganda, especially when I am in possession of direct, irrefutable evidence that says otherwise :)
Irrelevant WHO conducted the experiment, do you deny its validity simply because JW sources it? Tsk tsk tsk shill.
@StateCitizenX "Irrelevant WHO conducted the experiment"
I find this comment interesting.
Does that also go for the experiments and papers published concerning the moon rocks? Or does it automatically become propaganda and lies as soon as NASA are involved, even in the case where independent scientists have conducted experiments and/or verified claims made by NASA?
Where is the line drawn between lies, propaganda and fear vs valid research?
@ronan32 When asteroids falls through the atmosphere in high speed, they get a thick crust from the generated heat. The moon rocks do not have this, and also have no noticeable signs of it being removed. For a more in depth look at the supporting evidence, watch philwebb59's videos on the subject.
u all scream libel in 1 breath then say 'its not worth it' the next breath, which one is it? Are you cowards 2 yellowbellied to charge libel... Paraphrasing Sibrel 'Please sue me, so I can show the world how apollo was fake' Jarrah, if you get charged (it will never happen) pm me, I have evidence of fraud you can bring to court to shut the trolls up for good.
In order to stay on topic, it's quite simple. The facility used in the show Mythbusters, is incapable of detecting photons fired from it's laser when they do not hit a retroreflector.
It's perfectly possible that Adam Savage didn't know it was possible to bounce lasers off the surface of the moon, however he had no reasons and there still isn't, to doubt the facility when they said that there has to be a retroreflector in order to get a return signal.
@tiaxanderson Exactly. I also interpreted Adam and Jamie's statements during the show as referring specifically to the Apache Point laser. Or at its very broadest, any laser shown to be unable to receive a return without a reflector.
The Mythbusters are notable sticklers about conducting controls, so the need for a control here was strongly implied. And in fact they performed one that rendered Jarrah's breathless straw man completely moot.
@tiaxanderson And do not overlook the nature of the return. Although it was not verbally pointed out during the show, the time legend of the return peak growing on the screen shows that it was very brief, less than a nanosecond. This is also well documented elsewhere. Because the laser spot is kilometers wide on the moon, such a short return MUST be from a physically small (~1 m) and extremely reflective artificial object.
@ApolloWasReal Not to mention that Russet McMillan (I think you capitalize it like that at least :P) said they were getting a return on the exact wavelength and distance they expected. So it's not random background, it's photons from a laser and specifically fired by their cannon.
@tiaxanderson Yes, but you'd also expect that for a laser getting a return from the bare lunar surface.
The crucial feature of Apache Point is the demonstrated fact that it gets no detectable return from the bare lunar surface. That renders MIT's and Crimea's successes irrelevant to the demonstration proving a reflector at the A15 site.
The only alternative explanation is fakery, a libelous allegation Jarrah should be very careful about making.
After some discussions I had about the fridge on the PLSS,some very confused propagandists say that Apollo was landing there in the morning to avoid high temperatures -to protect the astronots ,but again...in the morning ,stars and planets are EASILY visible even here on Earth..!
@potrodsas What's going on here? Easy - a considerable ignorance of heat transfer in a vacuum on your part. A common affliction among Apollo conspiracy theorists.
The lunar surface doesn't heat up the instant the sun rises. The temperature slowly increases to a peak at local noon, then drops during the afternoon. Consider the geometry of the sun on the surface, and the significance of the sine of the sun's elevation angle.
I have a laser pointer in my key chain. Extending Jarrah's logic, I should be able to use my pointer to exactly replicate MIT's and Crimean Astrophysical Observitory's results.
@MMDandy What's important about Jarrah's logic is that it's utterly irrelevant. If you watched the MB show, you'll recall that the Apache Point demonstration began with a shot on the lunar highlands that didn't produce a return. Then they shot the reflector at the A15 site and got a return pulse about a nanosecond wide, consistent with an efficient, physically small reflector.
This is why scientists conduct controls, but why would Jarrah know or care about science?
On the mythbusters program an unsuspected viewer is told that only a retro reflector placed by human hand could possibly return the laser beam.
The information of possibility to return the beam from anything really and even the moon surface ,is purposely hidden by Adam .
But in here he is exposed , unorganised ,and spieled the beans and tried to blame others.If you accuse methods used (like calling Sibrel a stalker) you lose.
A research reporter can be only judged by the result of his effort.
@potrodsas He said he didn't know it was possible.
The results of Sibrel's effort is angering someone so much he got punched in the face. I say sad result for sad research reporter.
The facility used in the show is incapable of detecting a return signal from it's laser unless it's reflected by something that acts like a retroreflector (like a retroreflector).
I will agree that Adam Savage's wording is poorly chosen but his results are solid.
@potrodsas Thank you for your honest answer. You've made the same mistake as Jarrah. Perhaps you forgot that before the Apache Point Observatory shot the Apollo 15 site they shot the lunar highlands and got no return.
That negative control shot rendered all other lasers irrelevant. APACHE POINT could not receive a return without a reflector, so its positive return at A15 confirmed the presence of a reflector.
@straydog02 No one said the reflectors were, by themselves, proof positive of a manned landing. The MB even said "man-made equipment". (So why did Jarrah fight this so fiercely?)
But if that's your claim, then you must provide a complete alternative story of how they got there. Specific launches, equipment type and times. Simply waving your hands and saying "they COULD have..." is pretty lame.
And there's still no reason to doubt ANY Apollo photo. Sorry.
@straydog02 Oh hey, while I have you...any reaction to the 1958 TIME article directly quoting Van Allen as saying the belts weren't a "death zone"? That the dose rate would be remarkably close to what it actually was on Apollo?
So much for all your claims. Not that I'd ever expect you to give up in the face of overwhelming facts.
Dr. Van Allen's initial scientific findings showed that the radiaition in the belts was so intense that it couldn't even be measured on their geiger counters... So unless you can show me an exact quote from the 1958 TIME article of him claiming "the belts weren't a death zone", I will have to assume that you're lying .. again.
It was only after Van Allen was forced to be a NASA team player that he went along with the Apollo fairy tale of sending 27 humans to the Moon.
@straydog02 Then you must have missed it. Time Magazine, May 12, 1958: "The radiation zone is by no means a "death belt" that will keep humans from reaching space, but it might do some damage to men who live for a long time in a satellite. Van Allen figured that the radiation level inside the satellite might reach about 0.06 roentgens per hour. At this rate a man would receive in five hours his maximum weekly permissible dose of 0.3 roentgens."
So if you don't mind, I'll take Dr. Van Allen's interpretation of his experimental results over yours, thank you. Especially since his estimates came remarkably close to the actual measurements made during the Apollo missions.
There you have it. You built your entire house of cards on your misinterpretation of Van Allen's original results, and this blows it away. If NASA could send robots to the moon, they could send humans because radiation wasn't a problem. Case closed.
I see AWR owned you again, straydog02, but I will add something anyway.
Van Allen's early opinion regarding radiation belts was regarding visions of long term missions, in particular manned orbital station located in the radiation zone.
.
Also, don't try to show you can multiply 9x3. There were 9 missions to the Moon, each with 3 astronauts, but total of 24 men, not 27, went there.
I you actually do some research, you will find out why.
"I see AWR owned you again, straydog02, but I will add something anyway."
The only thing AWR owned is the title of being one of NASA's top trolls.
"Also, don't try to show you can multiply 9x3. There were 9 missions to the Moon, each with 3 astronauts, but total of 24 men, not 27, went there."
Actually, no men ever went there and 9 x 3 does equal 27, but I did forget that some of the missions used the same men.. so 24 clowns it was, who pretended to go to the Moon.
"Van Allen's early opinion regarding radiation belts was regarding visions of long term missions, in particular manned orbital station located in the radiation zone."
Van Allen's early scientific findings were about the lethal amount of radiation in the belts surrounding Earth .. It had nothing to do with any visions of long term missions.
Please get some new material .. Your lame propaganda is so boring.
I always get some new material, because I always learn.
Instead of giving anyone any advice, please hit the Wikipedia or something like that and learn basic facts about history of space exploration first. You showed your utter ignorance yesterday again.
Also, present one scientific publication which confirms that traverse through the belts lasting couple of hours should be deadly or life-threatening to astronauts.
Title, author(s), date published and specific quote, please.
In 2002, NASA granted $15,000 to James Oberg for a commission to write a point-by-point rebuttal of the hoax claims. NASA subsequently canceled the commission later in the year, in the face of complaints that the book would dignify the accusations.In November 2002 Peter Jennings said: "NASA is going to spend a lot of money trying to prove that they did indeed land men on the Moon."...
@potrodsas So, what would you have done? I can see both arguments: Answer the nutjobs and risk dignifying them with a response? Or ignore them and make it seem to people who don't know better that you're hiding something?
The nutjobs wouldn't be satisfied either way, just as they weren't satisfied by the LRO imagery. It's a religion with them; facts and logic aren't important.
A real space exploration of this magnitude, would have never been doubted ,it would have been the crown of all achievements ,and live in status of near religion , not to mention it would NEVER fall to these pathetic "debunks" for ever and ever.
So if they hire "debunks" publicly ,one can only imagine what they doing privately.
Have you ever thought why NASA never attempted to sue the" theorists"at all?
@potrodsas I agree, there's no reason to doubt an exploration of this magnitude. And indeed it wasn't for some time, save for a few obvious loonies that the news media occasionally made fun of. But time passed, US science education continued to slide into the toilet, and a few actual government scandals appeared to make people doubt the government.
Thanks to the 1st amendment, the government can't sue for libel. But individuals can. I doubt they consider it worthwhile.
@potrodsas Have you been paying attention? Japan, China and India have all flown recent lunar orbiters. None match LRO's resolution, but the Japanese at least are confident they confirmed Apollo artifacts and imagery.
As for school children, I was one during the Apollo landings and I certainly had no trouble agreeing that it was real. So does everybody else who've actually studied the returns and the documentation.
Just why is it so difficult to accept that they went?
Who the fuck would trust on mythbusters anyway in something like this, if they could show evidence that Apollo never happend would they really let the show be broadcasted worldwide? How redicilous.
Lol you don't think there is quite a difference between NG and Fox + mythbusters did "scientific" tests which failed anyway, and the Fox series was mostly about pictures and video clips and it had the NASA spokesman trying to feed shit. None controls what can be posted on the internet. You watch some of these videos "Moon landing was fake" the comments are like "hoaxtards ofc US went to the moon there is video of it". I mean fk it if you are too retarted to think yourself then go ahead.
@chvyant Have you actually watched that Fox "special"?
Out of curiosity, which Mythbusters' experiments would you said "failed"? And why?
As for thinking for yourself...please cite one piece of "evidence" of Apollo fakery that you didn't get from another hoaxhead. Surely if it's that obvious you must be able to come up with something original, yes?
@potrodsas That "stagehand" claim is plain delusional nonsense. It's a black & white image, Cernan's visor was badly scratched and dirtied, and he's standing in the corner of a wide angle image. And you can even see the full shadow of Schmitt's PLSS on the surface!
Is it possible for a scientific expedition that is primarily based on photography to put 27 people(3 people at a time)for a period of 2000 hours(3 months)in outer space to bring 32000 images,but NOT to bring ONE single image comparable to astronomical data to prove the location of these 27 people at any time?
@potrodsas What expedition are you talking about? Can't be Apollo since they brought back quite a few such photographs.
The Apollo 16 UV photography you know about. Have you looked at the Apollo 15 solar corona photography yet?
And let's not forget quite a few photographs of the moon, in closeup and from lunar orbit. After all, that was what they came to explore, wasn't it? Many even have the earth in the background.
"That "stagehand" claim is plain delusional nonsense."
No, it's a fact that the "astronaut" reflected in Cernan's visor was not wearing a PLSS, not facing in the correct direction to have taken Cernan's picture, and his "shadow" was even facing in the wrong direction to be his.
"Cernan's visor was badly scratched and dirtied, and he's standing in the corner of a wide angle image"
Other shills use "pixel size" as the excuse for the PLSS-less reflected image. LOL
@straydog02 How many times are we going to go over this? I'm not the only one who's done the geometry and shown that the reflected image is perfectly consistent with Jack Schmitt standing in his PGA, with his PLSS and OPS on his back. You can even see his complete shadow on the ground.
It's also important to remember that many Hasselblad pictures were taken with the camera in the astronaut's hand. It didn't have to be clipped to his RCU.
"It's also important to remember that many Hasselblad pictures were taken with the camera in the astronaut's hand. It didn't have to be clipped to his RCU."
Thanks once again for debunking your own lame arguments Phil... The ONLY way that PLSS-less reflected "astronaut" could have possibly taken that phony photo was if he was holding the camera on his left side, facing Cernan .. Yet his suppossed shadow clearily shows the camera attached to his chest.... OOPS again!
Elaborating somewhat, it would be possible for a shadow to show that the camera wasn't attached to his chest. But it can't prove that it was. It can only show that the camera was somewhere along the line between the sun and its shadow.
All this is academic because the PLSS shadow is clearly visible on the ground. And if you're going to special-plead that the photo was altered, then you can't use it to argue anything at all.
This logical and credible "proof" does not prove anything more than MBs didn't know something, as they were referring to technique of precise laser ranging used at Apache Point Observatory.
@BlisterHiker Yes. One doesn't have to look further to see what JW and his sycophants are all about. It's all about Jarrah White.
Jarrah's obviously beyond upset that Mythbusters devastated the hoax myth, and seriously annoyed that Adam, like so many successful technical people, is such an Apollo fan. So now Jarrah's determined to "pwn" Adam by showing that he didn't know something completely irrelevant to the Apache Point Observatory's proof that an artificial reflector sits on the moon.
"Yes. One doesn't have to look further to see what JW and his sycophants are all about. It's all about Jarrah White."
Wrong again. This is not all about Jarrah. It's all about the Apollo Hoax / scam / fraud.
"Jarrah's obviously beyond upset that Mythbusters devastated the hoax myth blah blah blah "
Yet the only one who looks upset in this video is "Mythbuster" Adam.. The only thing the "Mythbsters" devastated with their lame experiments is their own credibility.
A small amount of research reveals that MIT used a 50 joule laser in 1962 but the Apache Point uses a 115 millijoule laser.
davewatcher 3 days ago
Regardless of MIT or not. speaking about the laser they were using on the show its impossible to get a signal back, there ARE different types of lasers. Thus, saying they got a signal with another laser proves nothing. they used a single tool to shine at a bare spot and got nothing, and then shined it at a spot with the reflector and got a signal. meaning there is something up there that allowed the signal of that laser to come back.
TheForlornDreams 2 weeks ago
JarrahWhite, how does it feel to know that you won some pathetic little squabble while BADLY losing the war? LOL!
LedWhisky69 1 month ago
@LedWhisky69
Gosh, you guys are way too serious.
idan111 1 month ago
savage and plait are petrified of jarrah, he has proven them wrong many times ... windley replied to my challenge via email, refusing to debate jarrah even when offered a reward to the winner of the debate decided by an independent panel ... the letter will appear in my book ... these guys all talk a big game yet JW steps up and they run, OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN
pt1gard 3 months ago
@pt1gard He hasn't proven anyone wrong a single time, all he has done is insulting thousands of talented people who had such kickass skills in physics and engineering that they could:
A - build and PREPARE a rocket that could withstand the radiation BEFORE they actually travelled there
B - make very careful calculations and PREPARATIONS in order to minimize the dangers
C - travel to the moon with PREPARED EQUIPMENT, then return safely using a PREPARED lander.
Laurelindo 2 months ago
@Laurelindo ... jw is a genius and you are in denial, simple as that ... can you show me the tracks in as 17-137-20979? thanks :)
pt1gard 2 months ago
@pt1gard Oh, that?
There's a very easy explanation for that, actually - in order to be able to even bring the rovers to the moon they would have to fold them, so they didn't take up so damn much space in the rocket - when they took them out on the moon surface they unfolded them, and therefore you won't see any tracks on some of the pictures - because the rover had just been unfolded.
Simple as that.
You can even search for "lunar rover unfold" or something if you want a verification on this.
Laurelindo 2 months ago
@pt1gard
Narr he's one of the most retarded people on the internet. Don't tie your flag to the pole of someone who can't grasp hs physics to expain the behaviour of a flag on the moon.
MoronAntidote 1 month ago
@MoronAntidote ... sock puppet shill who wont come out and debate me on the radio like all the rest lmfao!!
pt1gard 1 month ago
@pt1gard
Cowardly fuckwit who won't even debate on YouTube 'lmfao'.
Step up kid.
MoronAntidote 1 month ago
@MoronAntidote ... lmao, disprove my colette video, doofus, you cant, it handcuffed tard and the rest, get inline to be owned :)
pt1gard 1 month ago
@pt1gard
Again, but this time in english.........
MoronAntidote 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
watch?feature=fvwp&NR=1&v=gKE0b4a9cX8 .... watch the last 3 mins, how the nauts were wired
pt1gard 3 months ago
Jarrad you talk crap he didn tsay that at all" it accepted no reflective light" is the direct quite from your video get your facts write before making a fool of your self...
olofssonwarren 8 months ago
Not just that. Due to the distance of the moon from Earth, the radius of the laser beam when arriving to the moon would be about 2 KM wide.
johnnyone9 8 months ago
How come the Mythbusters didn't prove or disprove the "no blast crater under the moon lander" issue? Why wasn't that at the top of their list? It's the biggest piece of evidence that the moon landing might have been fake.
deejco1 8 months ago
@deejco1 The regolith on the moon became very dense very quickly, so it was almost like landing on solid ground - also, a rocket doesn't burn any big-ass bursts of fire in a vacuum!
Laurelindo 2 months ago
Who cares whether or not it is possible to bounce a laser off the moon's surface. What matters is that the reflectivity increases massively when aimed at the actual reflector.
You are clutching at straws as usual, by trying to divert the argument from evidence of a reflector. You have failed to disprove the presence of the reflector, and that's all there is to it. Arguing semantics with MythBusters is quite possibly the lamest attempt yet.
You believe NASA. It's all just about attention.
MoronAntidote 9 months ago
LOL! You are awesome Jarrah! You consistently own the propagandists left and right. You are one man who is becoming larger than life itself. You have ascended. When will the propagandists realize they cannot bring you down no matter how hard they try? The global awakening has begun, your messages only strengthen the Truth Movement currently underway in our world. Your intellect, logic, and technical knowledge are unsurpassed. Godspeed Jarrah!
IshmaelKipling 10 months ago
mars probe does not mean man has landed on mars .
baddadada100 10 months ago
does NASA even point the laser 2 seconds a head of where the reflector is and do they even know the spot they see is already 2 seconds old. Are they really shooting a laser at a target that is off by 15 miles due to motion and the earth moves another 3 miles during the round trip? NASA's answer is NO but it works anyway. Ok nasa when you flew to the moon did you fly to where it was going to be or did you just chase it down.
datzfast 11 months ago
i think i will just blindly agree with any answer people come up with on this one because it goes beyond the speed of light and so physics demands certain rules must be followed and not broken. im sure for most people man walked on the moon im just sure of it. it makes us feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
datzfast 11 months ago
@NASAvsPETE ...PETE, did you get your 1 million from the Amazing Randi yet for proving the Moon landings fake like you said you would? He's got that cool 1 million that's he's just dying to give away. Proof that the Moon landings were fake and see if Randi believes it. What have you got to lose besides your dignity? You're shit on here anyway ;)
teddysalad65 11 months ago
Is this parody? I hope so.
sKepptiksowat 11 months ago
@sKepptiksowat
It would be a great TV series for trolls
mrgreebly 9 months ago
Jarrah - good vid - but what's with all the OTT music?
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
I'm not saying that the moon landings were fake, but the fact that there is a reflector on the moon does not prove that man has been to the moon. It merely proves that there is man made equipment on the moon.
OurBackToTheDark 1 year ago
But this video suggests that the retroreflectors aren't actually on the moon, that lasers are merely bouncing off the lunar surface. That's not reasonable, and is contradicted by the evidence. There's other evidence that the retroreflectors are on the moons surface too, due to the kind and size of signal received back and the fact that no matter where you are on the earth, you get the signal back. That's what retroreflectors do. And it just so happens to occur where NASA "says" they landed.
RosyG99 1 year ago
@RosyG99 Why are you explaining to me what the video suggests? I know what it suggests. I have watched it.
OurBackToTheDark 1 year ago
@OurBackToTheDark
The focus of the video was to imply that there really aren't retroreflectors on the moon at all and the mythbusters were wrong (along with showing that Jarrah wasn't "quote-mining"). Your comment didn't really interact with or relate to that, so it wasn't clear to me that you had actually watched it. My second comment related more to your specific point, regardless of whether it was directly relevant to Jarrah's video. There's insufficient reason to deny men went there.
RosyG99 1 year ago
@OurBackToTheDark
They've been doing the laser tests with the retroreflectors for decades now (going back to the early '70s). If we could send an unmanned ship to the moon with a robot sophisticated enough to place a retroreflector on the moon (the only other way that we could have put the mirrors there), then I think we could send a manned ship. Human beings were more complex and capable of far more things than computers back then. All of this conspiracy talk is just paranoid goofiness.
RosyG99 1 year ago
"I came on board at Goldstone as the last two Apollo Moon missions were being conducted. Dick set up a ten-foot comm dish in his yard with a simple circular horn, diode mixer, and signal generator to pick up the carrier of the Apollo orbiting the Moon. It was pretty neat to hear the changing doppler as the orbiter circled behind the Moon and the signal dropped out and came back about 20-minutes later!"
three w's dot kl7uw dot com/mw3456 dot htm
Just coincidence? Paid off by NASA? :-/
RosyG99 1 year ago
“We measure to the retroreflector arrays left on the moon by the Apollo astronauts...these define very specific points of reference on the lunar surface. This is far better than measuring to the rough-and-tumble surface. We would never have any hope of measuring the lunar distance to millimeter precision without these well-defined reflectors. We aim at one reflector at a time when performing the measurement.”
physics dot ucsd dot edu/~tmurphy/apollo/basics dot html
RosyG99 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Am I the only one that thought they (NASA) could also just edit the program that runs the laser?
if ($target_coords == $Apollo15) $Sig_Str *= 14;
One line of code is all that would be required to fake out America, in theory.
Justwannalogon 1 year ago
Comment removed
Justwannalogon 1 year ago
@wen790 yes the mythbuster morons were paid a hefty amount by the US Criminal government
to spread propaganda on TV and pretend the Fake moon landings were real
2nasafakedit 1 year ago
JW, nowhere here does anyone say it's "impossible" to bounce lasers off the moon. HERE it's said, "we are getting nothing back except background light." Apache is PULSING their laser. MIT didn't. Apache COULDN'T recover photons off the bare surface with that technique.
How can Savage be lying when he wasn't aware?
Isn't this irrelevant? Retroreflectors are clearly there. Nothing in nature behaves this way--gives a 180 degree return from whatever approach.
Q: Was Savage knowingly videotaped?
LunarTuner 1 year ago
@LunarTuner It is obvious he was not aware he was being taped.
planetofthescums 1 year ago
:37 If we point a laser at the moon & get a signal back DOES NOT PROVE THAT WE WERE THERE ASSHOLE.
WHY are so many MYTHBUSTERS arguments so fucking WRONG to begin with?
Many of their premises are 100% WRONG to begin with -SHEER STUPIDITY.
fucking tv special effects assholes.
cadu1995 1 year ago
@cadu1995 It wouldn't be the first time they F-ed up, they got the Military canopy experiment wrong, Quicksand experiment wrong (No Clay) and the phone book one, these guys aren't scientists, they're not even that intelligent He attended New York University's Tisch School of the Arts for acting for 6 months before dropping out -Jamie was is a 14 year old runaway bum. Not exactly who you want teaching Science - definately no Bill Nye thats for sure are these guys Idiots "CONFIRMED"
Cougar139tweak 1 year ago
Mythbusters are the lowest form of propaganda jew scum alive
2nasafakedit 1 year ago
@2nasafakedit
Astrobant2 is a sicko
great video jarrah
2nasafakedit 1 year ago
@2nasafakedit Jarrah White IS THE MAN!! Not like those other assholes astrobrandt et alia.
cadu1995 1 year ago
@cadu1995 yes jarrah has integrity and brains
2nasafakedit 1 year ago
Good job Jarrah. I hope you mass expose these liars.
MyNameBaboo 1 year ago
Television clown Adam Savage didn't know the russians placed reflectors on the moon? What a fucking surprise...
fuckalot3000 1 year ago
Owned
Igentenos 1 year ago
The mythical retroreflectors, another big lie of NASA!
hunchbacked 1 year ago
Great work!! keep it up
garhwalijoshi 1 year ago
FUCK YOU
gmanmchugh 1 year ago
Yah, but seriously.
JW shows that he KNOWS that lasers WERE bounced off the moon pre Apollo.
But does he KNOW how much stronger the reflkections were when aimed at the Apollo hardware, compared to the regolith?
EItther he doesn't, in which case he is as badly informed as the MB team he belittles, OR
he DOES, and he's being a little shit for not mentioning it.
snakehipsohoolihan 1 year ago
@snakehipsohoolihan
The retroreflectors on the moon are Russian.
We have reasons to believe Russians had send retroreflectors on to the moon.
We can safely assume NASA could have done the same but it is irrelevant
And one more thing.
Overall there are no scientific verifiable evidence of a man trip to the moon but on contrary 100s of absolute and conclusive proofs it was a hoax.
If anyone ever go to the moon he will be able to jump-salute his fucking flag from a height of 150cm, not 30cm.
potrodsas 1 year ago
@potrodsas
1-The Russian reflectors are Russian (duh), the US reflectors are US-you may care to read up about the LRO locating the lost Lunokhod reflector
2-SO you believe the Russians, but not the Americans-sounds like you are just plain old politically motivated
3-Irrelevant?Why?Because it suits you to dismiss something with no proof?
4-Scientific study in to Apollo results is ongoing, and NO investigation has EVER suggested the Apollo evidence is fake
snakehipsohoolihan 1 year ago
@snakehipsohoolihan
No investigation says it's a hoax?
I have personally led a computer and electronic investigation of Apollo, and the result was: HOAX!
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked Who published your results, after peer review?
Why are you not on the cover of Life magazine, or National Geographic, or even hosting a TV series about your proof?
Oh wait, you are just lying.
Grow up.
snakehipsohoolihan 1 year ago
@snakehipsohoolihan
Why?
Because People want the dream to continue, that's why!
hunchbacked 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hunchbacked No, you are not there bacause you are lying. Don't worry, its very common in hoaxers as that is the only way they have to show any kind of a case.
snakehipsohoolihan 1 year ago
@potrodsas
5 You reckon the jump salute was done in Gym clothes do you?
Langley produced an investigation in to the effects of Lunar gravity in the 60s-you should read it, but in summary, if you had to wear protective clothing (ie Apollo EVA suits) you could not perform as athletically as if you were wearing street clothing.
So you are dead in the water already-2 posts-that's about average for me debunking you hoaxer morons.
snakehipsohoolihan 1 year ago
It seems that to call this a conspiracy would be to say that the government had already found the perfect super reflective site on the moon to tell people to test in this manner. However, where it would come under fire is the amount of reflection. This seems to indicate man-made tampering as the reflection index is so high.
makingnamesux1 1 year ago
@makingnamesux1 Um, the man-made thingy could be on the moon without people ever being there. Obviously.
planetofthescums 1 year ago
@planetofthescums That obviously turns into an extreme maybe when you consider by the time we claimed it to be there and tested it, we were not running sophisticated, remote or automated launch and land systems. There would have to be a controlled burn and stabilization process to put a man-made apparatus on the moon, otherwise something that reflective would shatter with impact and velocity vectors that would distribute its piece far apart making such central reflection impossible...
makingnamesux 1 year ago
@makingnamesux Simply being reflective does not mean it is going to shatter.
planetofthescums 1 year ago
Any surface can reflect back a laser theoretically, because lasers have certain amounts of power. I think one problem here, is that we do not know the Apache's wattage, or the wattages of the other experimental lasers so as to understand how much we can expect to be reflected. Also, there was no spike in laser being reflected. That's a detection issue. When compared to the retroreflector site, the change in the amount detected is what proves existence of highly reflective materials.
makingnamesux1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AS 15 88 11936 is another fake Apollo picture, but this one suggests all of you NASA propagandists talking about stars and moon surface and the "impossible to photograph them " are just idiots.
Additionally this very picture if examined by an astronomer will determine one more time beyond any doubt ,Apollo was INDEED a hoax.
potrodsas 1 year ago
lol that guy should'nt be making statements about things if he dose not have all the facts but why would he bother he is paid to keep the lie up.
chazjohn46 1 year ago
Astronot M.Collins said he was taking pictures through the left window ,pictures through the right window at the time he was flying his vehicle.
watch?v=e2q6zqGqtCI
If you accept a pathetic liar like that,you don't deserve anything in life.
potrodsas 1 year ago
VINDICATION!!!
unregisturd 1 year ago
awesome , keep it up jarrah
harooni22 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lol that was classic at the end
Mythbuster Spastics
Nasa Paid Propaganda Pimps
nasafakedit 1 year ago
Nasa's Nazi Motto
"if we cant make it
WE FAKE IT"
nasafakedit 1 year ago
@BlisterHiker
Since it looks like you deny "that previously accepted scientifically accepted research" maybe you should deny the other one as well: Apollo missions were hoaxed. I would say contact me for the proof, but like the rest of your clown crew you dont deserve the evidence.....not yet anywa
StateCitizenX 1 year ago
"Apollo missions were hoaxed"
- sure, StateCitizenX. If someone else said that, I wouldn't believe...
It's funny how you hoaxers accept anything that seems to fit your theory, while rejecting everything that contradicts it, even if it comes from the same source.
Spare your worthless babbling. If you have evidence for hoax, please present it.
So far, neither you nor Jarrah W. showed anything meaningful. All you could achieve was showing a guy from TV show who didn't know something...
BlisterHiker 1 year ago
@BlisterHiker the 10 year old shill propaganda scum
copy pasting nasa nazi propaganda all over youtube
for $10 a day
Lol you are a moron kid with zero content
nasafakedit 1 year ago
@BlisterHiker
Why would I show you? What have you done to deserve it? You goal is to get me to show you the evidence so you can concoct a seemingly reasonable response that will include; simulations, mistakes, luck or some other absurd nonsense.
Bottom line is you're done, its now only a question of 'when', not 'if'
:)
StateCitizenX 1 year ago
@StateCitizenX lol blister is a 12 year old copy pasting trolling waste of oxygen
nasafakedit 1 year ago
@StateCitizenX have you noticed how blister the punk is unable to argue about anything that has factual content
nasafakedit 1 year ago
@nasafakedit
All part of the sick game. When I have the time I will pm you their manifesto about how the past cant be proved, so basically they reinforce the fraudulent past with their nonsense, combined with nasa's tweaking of the story to respond to the more valid questions, one giant shining example to begin with,the rorschach test also knows as the LRO apollo landing site imagery.
Keep up the good work nasafakedit, JW et al.
StateCitizenX 1 year ago
@StateCitizenX many thanx
look forward to the pm
nasafakedit 1 year ago
Just how many of you guys are sockpuppets of Jarrah White? A lot of you are active during the Australian daytime...
Prove you're not.
Ah, nevermind, I'm too lazy to bother with proofs. I'll just conclude that you are all Jarrah White sockpuppets because that fits my preconceived worldview. And I'll accuse you of lying if you deny it.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
From " Vanityfair" interview with Buzz Aldrin we read: Buzz Aldrin " a couple of conflicting nations on Earth doing a few stunts in space to try and outdo each one. Sending a couple of guys to the Moon and bringing them back safely? That’s a stunt! That’s not historic"
Eric Spitznagel "Well, it’s a little historic"
B.A"I don’t think so"
E.S " David Copperfield levitating over the Grand Canyon was a stunt. You walking on the Moon was crazy impressive"
B.A"It was a stunt".....
potrodsas 1 year ago
Jarrah PROVED you can bounce a laser off the moon and get a return signal without manmade equipment, period end of story. What you PANs do is conflate and twist the issue,(par for the course) to bring it into some magical nanotech scientific debate of absurdity. While some may fall into your trap, others just laugh at your nonsense and feeble attempts.
StateCitizenX 1 year ago
@StateCitizenX Sorry, but it's not the end of the story. You haven't been paying attention: Apache Point ran a control shot before they ranged the Apollo 15 reflector. They got NO return from the lunar surface without a reflector, and that makes the earlier results with MIT's very different equipment simply irrelevant.
I think Jarrah knows this, so he continues to attack his straw man instead.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
You choose to disregard the basic concept that MIT got a return from their laser ranging equipment WITHOUT a retroreflector (as well as LRO last yr) about a decade before apollo. You are downplaying the significance of this, the fact Apache point received NO return without a retroreflector is what is simply irrelevant, anyone can fire a laser anywhere and not receive a return signal, that is meaningless and only proves a negative.
StateCitizenX 1 year ago
@StateCitizenX You keep getting it backwards! Obviously Darth Vader could get a return off the bare lunar surface with a sufficiently powerful laser. But I'm not Darth Vader, I'm Apache Point Observatory. My puny laser can only get a return with the help of a reflector, and I've just demonstrated this fact on the lunar highlands.
And I did just get a pulse - a narrow one - from the Apollo 15 site, thus conclusively proving the existence of an artificial reflector there. Got it now?
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
"Jarrah PROVED you can bounce a laser off the moon and get a return signal without manmade equipment"
- really, StateCitizenX? Did Jarrah W. perform his own laser experiment?
No, he did not. He proved nothing. STOP LYING.
He referred to very different type of experiment, which compares to laser ranging technique used at Apache Point Observatory, as demonstrated in Mythbusters episode, like jackhammer compares to needle.
BlisterHiker 1 year ago
@BlisterHiker
DIdn't have to run his own experiment, he sourced previously accepted scientifically accepted research, YOU STOP LYING. What experiments have you run to prove apollo was real? Or do you want to continue down your laser nanoreturn fantasy land of lies?
StateCitizenX 1 year ago
@StateCitizenX What experiments have you done to prove that World War 2 was real? Does that mean it was a complete fabrication of the history book publishers, a conspiracy to sell more books?
Like World War 2 20+ years before it, Apollo is documented historical fact. One of the best documented in history.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
Not that you care but your tired WWII sidetrack is worn out. Don't worry I read your manifesto, you know about how the past cant be proven thus you are here to basically reinforce any lie you see fit to convince people of your username :)
Of course at the end of the manifesto, there is a recommended site for further 'education'.....BAUT but of course. I guess just another one of those coinkydinks like the dozens of others.
StateCitizenX 1 year ago
@StateCitizenX Please tell me why my WW2 analogy is invalid. Consider that many of the projects and events in WW2 were secret at the time: the Manhattan Project, the Ultra (enigma-breaking) project, the preparations for D-day, etc. Yet the details have all come out. Apollo, on the other hand, was public from the very beginning.
Please tell me why our historical records are all wrong. I wait with bated breath.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
If I have to tell you WHY it's invalid then its nigh time you revoke that MENSA membership. You know why, you just want to play 'twist the content' game and show the world how eloquently you can turn literally ANY claim to your favor as per your manifesto, and my favourite part is...for further reading please visit BAUT LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hell, If I showed a reflection of non spacesuited humans coming off a piece of equipment supposedly in deep space you would twist that too.
StateCitizenX 1 year ago
@StateCitizenX Sorry, no dice. Bluster away, but only rational arguments based on factual evidence can carry the day. Insults and psychological projection will get you nowhere.
So yes, you have to tell me why it's invalid
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
"he sourced previously accepted scientifically accepted research"
- which was done by MIT, not by Jarrah W., StateCitizenX.
Yes, we're talking about the same MIT which was a part of Apollo program.
Since it looks like you accept that "previously accepted scientifically accepted research". Maybe you should accept the other one as well: Apollo missions were real.
Contact MIT for confirmation. Maybe that accepted fact will finally find its way to your brain instead of Moon hoax lies.
BlisterHiker 1 year ago
@BlisterHiker
I LOVE how you twist arguments, I have learned so much in the art of debate and I thank you, shill plait, gay windley and the rest of the crew for that.
However, I refuse to accept lies and propoganda, especially when I am in possession of direct, irrefutable evidence that says otherwise :)
Irrelevant WHO conducted the experiment, do you deny its validity simply because JW sources it? Tsk tsk tsk shill.
StateCitizenX 1 year ago
@StateCitizenX "Irrelevant WHO conducted the experiment"
I find this comment interesting.
Does that also go for the experiments and papers published concerning the moon rocks? Or does it automatically become propaganda and lies as soon as NASA are involved, even in the case where independent scientists have conducted experiments and/or verified claims made by NASA?
Where is the line drawn between lies, propaganda and fear vs valid research?
rawmonkno1 1 year ago
@rawmonkno1
what proof do you have that they are moon rocks? astroids drop to earth everyday
ronan32 1 year ago
@ronan32 When asteroids falls through the atmosphere in high speed, they get a thick crust from the generated heat. The moon rocks do not have this, and also have no noticeable signs of it being removed. For a more in depth look at the supporting evidence, watch philwebb59's videos on the subject.
rawmonkno1 1 year ago
u all scream libel in 1 breath then say 'its not worth it' the next breath, which one is it? Are you cowards 2 yellowbellied to charge libel... Paraphrasing Sibrel 'Please sue me, so I can show the world how apollo was fake' Jarrah, if you get charged (it will never happen) pm me, I have evidence of fraud you can bring to court to shut the trolls up for good.
StateCitizenX 1 year ago
In 2002 ,NASA granted $15,000 to James Oberg for a commission to write a point-by-point rebuttal of the hoax claims.
Peter Jennings said" NASA is going to spend a lot of tax payer's money trying to prove that they did indeed landed on the moon" ...
potrodsas 1 year ago
In order to stay on topic, it's quite simple. The facility used in the show Mythbusters, is incapable of detecting photons fired from it's laser when they do not hit a retroreflector.
It's perfectly possible that Adam Savage didn't know it was possible to bounce lasers off the surface of the moon, however he had no reasons and there still isn't, to doubt the facility when they said that there has to be a retroreflector in order to get a return signal.
tiaxanderson 1 year ago
@tiaxanderson Exactly. I also interpreted Adam and Jamie's statements during the show as referring specifically to the Apache Point laser. Or at its very broadest, any laser shown to be unable to receive a return without a reflector.
The Mythbusters are notable sticklers about conducting controls, so the need for a control here was strongly implied. And in fact they performed one that rendered Jarrah's breathless straw man completely moot.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@tiaxanderson And do not overlook the nature of the return. Although it was not verbally pointed out during the show, the time legend of the return peak growing on the screen shows that it was very brief, less than a nanosecond. This is also well documented elsewhere. Because the laser spot is kilometers wide on the moon, such a short return MUST be from a physically small (~1 m) and extremely reflective artificial object.
MIT got no such return.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal Not to mention that Russet McMillan (I think you capitalize it like that at least :P) said they were getting a return on the exact wavelength and distance they expected. So it's not random background, it's photons from a laser and specifically fired by their cannon.
tiaxanderson 1 year ago
@tiaxanderson Yes, but you'd also expect that for a laser getting a return from the bare lunar surface.
The crucial feature of Apache Point is the demonstrated fact that it gets no detectable return from the bare lunar surface. That renders MIT's and Crimea's successes irrelevant to the demonstration proving a reflector at the A15 site.
The only alternative explanation is fakery, a libelous allegation Jarrah should be very careful about making.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
After some discussions I had about the fridge on the PLSS,some very confused propagandists say that Apollo was landing there in the morning to avoid high temperatures -to protect the astronots ,but again...in the morning ,stars and planets are EASILY visible even here on Earth..!
What;s going on in here?
potrodsas 1 year ago
@potrodsas What's going on here? Easy - a considerable ignorance of heat transfer in a vacuum on your part. A common affliction among Apollo conspiracy theorists.
The lunar surface doesn't heat up the instant the sun rises. The temperature slowly increases to a peak at local noon, then drops during the afternoon. Consider the geometry of the sun on the surface, and the significance of the sine of the sun's elevation angle.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
I have a laser pointer in my key chain. Extending Jarrah's logic, I should be able to use my pointer to exactly replicate MIT's and Crimean Astrophysical Observitory's results.
MMDandy 1 year ago
@MMDandy What's important about Jarrah's logic is that it's utterly irrelevant. If you watched the MB show, you'll recall that the Apache Point demonstration began with a shot on the lunar highlands that didn't produce a return. Then they shot the reflector at the A15 site and got a return pulse about a nanosecond wide, consistent with an efficient, physically small reflector.
This is why scientists conduct controls, but why would Jarrah know or care about science?
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
Yea whatever..
potrodsas 1 year ago
@potrodsas So tell me. Are you with Jarrah on this one? Do you care whether the question Jarrah ambushed Adam with at TAM was even relevant?
Or are you only interested in seeing Adam embarrassed and "pwned" on tape as payback for the Mythbusters program on Apollo?
Are you sure you aren't Jarrah himself, operating under a sock puppet?
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
ApolloWasHoax
I watched the propaganda program of the 'mythbusters' and I think it is a disgrace dressed up in school boy humor.
I fail to see what you are trying to 'accuse' Jarrah here at a moment everybody else congratulates him.
I understand that in your sick mentality and paramilitary environment "secrecy"is so good that it's god worshiped.
But not in the free world as we need true.
For me if UN wasn't a muppet organisation naturally it would have order an investigation on the Apollo hoax.
potrodsas 1 year ago
@potrodsas Are you done? Now that you've finished your little personal political rant, would you care to actually answer my question?
Do you care whether the question that Jarrah ambushed Adam with is at all relevant?
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
On the mythbusters program an unsuspected viewer is told that only a retro reflector placed by human hand could possibly return the laser beam.
The information of possibility to return the beam from anything really and even the moon surface ,is purposely hidden by Adam .
But in here he is exposed , unorganised ,and spieled the beans and tried to blame others.If you accuse methods used (like calling Sibrel a stalker) you lose.
A research reporter can be only judged by the result of his effort.
potrodsas 1 year ago
@potrodsas He said he didn't know it was possible.
The results of Sibrel's effort is angering someone so much he got punched in the face. I say sad result for sad research reporter.
The facility used in the show is incapable of detecting a return signal from it's laser unless it's reflected by something that acts like a retroreflector (like a retroreflector).
I will agree that Adam Savage's wording is poorly chosen but his results are solid.
tiaxanderson 1 year ago
@potrodsas Thank you for your honest answer. You've made the same mistake as Jarrah. Perhaps you forgot that before the Apache Point Observatory shot the Apollo 15 site they shot the lunar highlands and got no return.
That negative control shot rendered all other lasers irrelevant. APACHE POINT could not receive a return without a reflector, so its positive return at A15 confirmed the presence of a reflector.
Do you understand now?
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
"APACHE POINT could not receive a return without a reflector, so its positive return at A15 confirmed the presence of a reflector.
Do you understand now?"
But unfortunately for you and the rest of the trolls, laser reflectors are not proof of manned landings.
Do you understand now?
Do you also understand that your lame excuses for the PLSS-less reflected "astronaut" in Cernan's visor are nothing but Apollogist nonsense?
The Apollo photos are fake.. Deal with it.
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02 No one said the reflectors were, by themselves, proof positive of a manned landing. The MB even said "man-made equipment". (So why did Jarrah fight this so fiercely?)
But if that's your claim, then you must provide a complete alternative story of how they got there. Specific launches, equipment type and times. Simply waving your hands and saying "they COULD have..." is pretty lame.
And there's still no reason to doubt ANY Apollo photo. Sorry.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@straydog02 Oh hey, while I have you...any reaction to the 1958 TIME article directly quoting Van Allen as saying the belts weren't a "death zone"? That the dose rate would be remarkably close to what it actually was on Apollo?
So much for all your claims. Not that I'd ever expect you to give up in the face of overwhelming facts.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
Dr. Van Allen's initial scientific findings showed that the radiaition in the belts was so intense that it couldn't even be measured on their geiger counters... So unless you can show me an exact quote from the 1958 TIME article of him claiming "the belts weren't a death zone", I will have to assume that you're lying .. again.
It was only after Van Allen was forced to be a NASA team player that he went along with the Apollo fairy tale of sending 27 humans to the Moon.
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02 Then you must have missed it. Time Magazine, May 12, 1958: "The radiation zone is by no means a "death belt" that will keep humans from reaching space, but it might do some damage to men who live for a long time in a satellite. Van Allen figured that the radiation level inside the satellite might reach about 0.06 roentgens per hour. At this rate a man would receive in five hours his maximum weekly permissible dose of 0.3 roentgens."
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
So if you don't mind, I'll take Dr. Van Allen's interpretation of his experimental results over yours, thank you. Especially since his estimates came remarkably close to the actual measurements made during the Apollo missions.
There you have it. You built your entire house of cards on your misinterpretation of Van Allen's original results, and this blows it away. If NASA could send robots to the moon, they could send humans because radiation wasn't a problem. Case closed.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
I see AWR owned you again, straydog02, but I will add something anyway.
Van Allen's early opinion regarding radiation belts was regarding visions of long term missions, in particular manned orbital station located in the radiation zone.
.
Also, don't try to show you can multiply 9x3. There were 9 missions to the Moon, each with 3 astronauts, but total of 24 men, not 27, went there.
I you actually do some research, you will find out why.
BlisterHiker 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BlisterHiker
"I see AWR owned you again, straydog02, but I will add something anyway."
The only thing AWR owned is the title of being one of NASA's top trolls.
"Also, don't try to show you can multiply 9x3. There were 9 missions to the Moon, each with 3 astronauts, but total of 24 men, not 27, went there."
Actually, no men ever went there and 9 x 3 does equal 27, but I did forget that some of the missions used the same men.. so 24 clowns it was, who pretended to go to the Moon.
straydog02 1 year ago
@BlisterHiker
"Van Allen's early opinion regarding radiation belts was regarding visions of long term missions, in particular manned orbital station located in the radiation zone."
Van Allen's early scientific findings were about the lethal amount of radiation in the belts surrounding Earth .. It had nothing to do with any visions of long term missions.
Please get some new material .. Your lame propaganda is so boring.
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02
I always get some new material, because I always learn.
Instead of giving anyone any advice, please hit the Wikipedia or something like that and learn basic facts about history of space exploration first. You showed your utter ignorance yesterday again.
Also, present one scientific publication which confirms that traverse through the belts lasting couple of hours should be deadly or life-threatening to astronauts.
Title, author(s), date published and specific quote, please.
BlisterHiker 1 year ago
@BlisterHiker the shill propaganda retard kid
40,00 miles of cosmic radiation in aluminium space suits
lol retard good one
nasafakedit 1 year ago
Ass-trobrant give it up, Nasa lied to us
harooni22 1 year ago
@harooni22
lol! Ass-troll-brant .
potrodsas 1 year ago
In 2002, NASA granted $15,000 to James Oberg for a commission to write a point-by-point rebuttal of the hoax claims. NASA subsequently canceled the commission later in the year, in the face of complaints that the book would dignify the accusations.In November 2002 Peter Jennings said: "NASA is going to spend a lot of money trying to prove that they did indeed land men on the Moon."...
potrodsas 1 year ago
@potrodsas So, what would you have done? I can see both arguments: Answer the nutjobs and risk dignifying them with a response? Or ignore them and make it seem to people who don't know better that you're hiding something?
The nutjobs wouldn't be satisfied either way, just as they weren't satisfied by the LRO imagery. It's a religion with them; facts and logic aren't important.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasHoax
Look.
A real space exploration of this magnitude, would have never been doubted ,it would have been the crown of all achievements ,and live in status of near religion , not to mention it would NEVER fall to these pathetic "debunks" for ever and ever.
So if they hire "debunks" publicly ,one can only imagine what they doing privately.
Have you ever thought why NASA never attempted to sue the" theorists"at all?
potrodsas 1 year ago
@potrodsas I agree, there's no reason to doubt an exploration of this magnitude. And indeed it wasn't for some time, save for a few obvious loonies that the news media occasionally made fun of. But time passed, US science education continued to slide into the toilet, and a few actual government scandals appeared to make people doubt the government.
Thanks to the 1st amendment, the government can't sue for libel. But individuals can. I doubt they consider it worthwhile.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
Lol! are you a school child? Which "exploration" are YOU you are " agree" about?
Not the Apollo hoaxlanding for sure.
As for the legal part of it ,the Apollo scambags are lucky they are protected behind CIA ,the US Gov,,and other criminal organisations.
But some day ,not later than 10 years from now,an investigation will be launched . After some not NASA photographic orbiter WILL go there .
potrodsas 1 year ago
@potrodsas Have you been paying attention? Japan, China and India have all flown recent lunar orbiters. None match LRO's resolution, but the Japanese at least are confident they confirmed Apollo artifacts and imagery.
As for school children, I was one during the Apollo landings and I certainly had no trouble agreeing that it was real. So does everybody else who've actually studied the returns and the documentation.
Just why is it so difficult to accept that they went?
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
It seems these busy (in other things)astronots still managed to take about 1185 pictures each ...
Tsk tsk tsk some output there...
potrodsas 1 year ago
Comment removed
potrodsas 1 year ago
I have uploaded a video showing how easy it is to photograph the stars,
Click on my user name.
potrodsas 1 year ago
@potrodsas
Astrobant2 is a govt stooge
he is too retarded to be a govt informant
so he TRolls youtube as a propaganda feces
for $10 a day
nasafakedit 1 year ago
@nasafakedit
I know him yes.
His father was in the Apollo Program (also known as Operation Scissors)and he was a van driver carrying the fridge with the lemonades in the desert.
potrodsas 1 year ago
@potrodsas LMAO
i do not know why jarrah allows astrobant2s moronic comments to be ontop of the comment page, its absurd
nasafakedit 1 year ago
@potrodsas So what? Have you shown how to photograph the earth in ultraviolet against a background of hot UV stars that weren't known at the time?
And if you think it's so easy to photograph stars, why make such a big deal about them not appearing in Apollo Hasselblad photos?
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
Who the fuck would trust on mythbusters anyway in something like this, if they could show evidence that Apollo never happend would they really let the show be broadcasted worldwide? How redicilous.
chvyant 1 year ago
@chvyant "They" let Fox show that program on the supposed Apollo "hoax".
"They" let Jarrah White publish hundreds of YT videos.
"They" let Bill Kaysing and Ralph Rene publish their tracts.
So why wouldn't "they" let the Mythbusters show evidence for the supposed Apollo "hoax" -- if it existed?
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
Lol you don't think there is quite a difference between NG and Fox + mythbusters did "scientific" tests which failed anyway, and the Fox series was mostly about pictures and video clips and it had the NASA spokesman trying to feed shit. None controls what can be posted on the internet. You watch some of these videos "Moon landing was fake" the comments are like "hoaxtards ofc US went to the moon there is video of it". I mean fk it if you are too retarted to think yourself then go ahead.
chvyant 1 year ago
@chvyant Have you actually watched that Fox "special"?
Out of curiosity, which Mythbusters' experiments would you said "failed"? And why?
As for thinking for yourself...please cite one piece of "evidence" of Apollo fakery that you didn't get from another hoaxhead. Surely if it's that obvious you must be able to come up with something original, yes?
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
They never sent astronauts on the Moon.
They send magicians.
watch?v=xLanUT5ldrQ
potrodsas 1 year ago
@potrodsas That "stagehand" claim is plain delusional nonsense. It's a black & white image, Cernan's visor was badly scratched and dirtied, and he's standing in the corner of a wide angle image. And you can even see the full shadow of Schmitt's PLSS on the surface!
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
I'll put you in front of a question.
Please answer with yes ,or no.
Is it possible for a scientific expedition that is primarily based on photography to put 27 people(3 people at a time)for a period of 2000 hours(3 months)in outer space to bring 32000 images,but NOT to bring ONE single image comparable to astronomical data to prove the location of these 27 people at any time?
Yes or not?
potrodsas 1 year ago
@potrodsas What expedition are you talking about? Can't be Apollo since they brought back quite a few such photographs.
The Apollo 16 UV photography you know about. Have you looked at the Apollo 15 solar corona photography yet?
And let's not forget quite a few photographs of the moon, in closeup and from lunar orbit. After all, that was what they came to explore, wasn't it? Many even have the earth in the background.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
"That "stagehand" claim is plain delusional nonsense."
No, it's a fact that the "astronaut" reflected in Cernan's visor was not wearing a PLSS, not facing in the correct direction to have taken Cernan's picture, and his "shadow" was even facing in the wrong direction to be his.
"Cernan's visor was badly scratched and dirtied, and he's standing in the corner of a wide angle image"
Other shills use "pixel size" as the excuse for the PLSS-less reflected image. LOL
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02 How many times are we going to go over this? I'm not the only one who's done the geometry and shown that the reflected image is perfectly consistent with Jack Schmitt standing in his PGA, with his PLSS and OPS on his back. You can even see his complete shadow on the ground.
It's also important to remember that many Hasselblad pictures were taken with the camera in the astronaut's hand. It didn't have to be clipped to his RCU.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
"It's also important to remember that many Hasselblad pictures were taken with the camera in the astronaut's hand. It didn't have to be clipped to his RCU."
Thanks once again for debunking your own lame arguments Phil... The ONLY way that PLSS-less reflected "astronaut" could have possibly taken that phony photo was if he was holding the camera on his left side, facing Cernan .. Yet his suppossed shadow clearily shows the camera attached to his chest.... OOPS again!
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02 How can a shadow show whether or not the camera was attached to his chest? It's a two-dimensional projection, remember?
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
Elaborating somewhat, it would be possible for a shadow to show that the camera wasn't attached to his chest. But it can't prove that it was. It can only show that the camera was somewhere along the line between the sun and its shadow.
All this is academic because the PLSS shadow is clearly visible on the ground. And if you're going to special-plead that the photo was altered, then you can't use it to argue anything at all.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@svecter
haha- like your style svecter. What happened to your videos?
greenmagoos 1 year ago
WhiteJarrah,
Could you kindly block the user "nasafakedit"?
See his extremely offensive comments below.
It may be hard for you since he is clearly on your side, but if you don't block that spammer, you will prove your double standards.
BlisterHiker 1 year ago
Fantastic, but no. It will not silence the Apaullogists for this is logical and credible proof which Apaullogists do not accept. XD
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole,
This logical and credible "proof" does not prove anything more than MBs didn't know something, as they were referring to technique of precise laser ranging used at Apache Point Observatory.
BlisterHiker 1 year ago
@BlisterHiker Yes. One doesn't have to look further to see what JW and his sycophants are all about. It's all about Jarrah White.
Jarrah's obviously beyond upset that Mythbusters devastated the hoax myth, and seriously annoyed that Adam, like so many successful technical people, is such an Apollo fan. So now Jarrah's determined to "pwn" Adam by showing that he didn't know something completely irrelevant to the Apache Point Observatory's proof that an artificial reflector sits on the moon.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
"Yes. One doesn't have to look further to see what JW and his sycophants are all about. It's all about Jarrah White."
Wrong again. This is not all about Jarrah. It's all about the Apollo Hoax / scam / fraud.
"Jarrah's obviously beyond upset that Mythbusters devastated the hoax myth blah blah blah "
Yet the only one who looks upset in this video is "Mythbuster" Adam.. The only thing the "Mythbsters" devastated with their lame experiments is their own credibility.
straydog02 1 year ago
@imnazhole nasa faked 6 moon landings
blisterhiker is lying scum
a troll
nasafakedit 1 year ago
@nasafakedit Shout it from the mountain tops brother!! XD
imnazhole 1 year ago