You cant go to the moon with a ship made of tin can..and a computer equivalent to a calculator..If Nasa did went to the moon in 1969 then why are they using Russian rocket to go to space now... or having trouble going " back" to the moon in 2012.
I found it funny how mythbusters photoshopped the photo when they put it up against the other one (the second time the fully showed it) and it had a higher contrast... not joining either side on the debate just noticed that...
Still frame the clip at 6.12! Here the Myth-buster film-camera is EXACTLY at the opposite of the foto-camera thus should capture the same light intensity as the photocamera. This is the case right? So, then why is the astronauts' model DARK but the same model on the picture of the photo-camera is BRIGHT????
Different exposure times? Why isn't the astronauts'model in this clip at 6.12 (AND 7.20 !) as bright as the picture?? Jarrah is right here??!! I really believe so....
Interesting and not trying to doubt you but the video imply that earth is a very bright source f light due to albedo 30 or 40%. Knowing what we can see on earth on full moon would it not be possible that the famous second source of light would be the coming from Earth?
excellent video analysis of these cowboy mythbusters, glad i found a vid , thankyou for this jarrah..keep up the good work, how can people really believe we went to the moon in 1969 ...lol
Another huge significant point of contradiction resides in the fact that his Portland-cement research features ‘pavement surfaces’ and not powder-cement! Therefore irrelevant.
And due to the fact that the cement-powder it is highly divided will scatter light rather than reflect light like a smooth 'paved' surface.
One hugely significant point of contradiction to Whitejarrahs criticism regarding the albedo of the mythbusters regolith simulative mixture is that they mixed in charcoal that he fails to take into account; of which has an albedo of almost nothing that will seriously impact the quantity of light reflected.
You need to account for the reflectivity of charcoal mixed in to the concrete to accurately refute Myth Busters claims.
They stated albedo of 8%, twice as much as scientist stated and Sea of tranquiliity is a darker region than other parts. Still, they show a lesser illumination then Apollo 11 photos.
Another great piece, JW. I love the videos where you go back to the basics and cover the good ole' theories regarding photography and videos. Keep it up, I'll send you the link of my next vid thru PM. Also, if it's ok with you, I would like if I could email you my script and see if you can give it a peer-review? Thanks a lot.
I'm going way out on a limb here, and saying that powdered charcoal has a very low albedo, and that's why they chose to mix it until they got the reflectivity they wanted, by measurement. "Oh no, it's the same as the weathered cured concrete" is one of those fun confabulatory assertions from deep left field that separates the men from the boys, belief-wise. "It just is! Unless I come up with something better."
I like how your main argument was about the cement the Mythbusters used having too high of an albedo, yet you completely forget that they mixed the cement with charcoal. Way to go dumbass.
Regarding the scientist that was interviewed at 09:20...
He states that "Earth-shine" is many times brighter than "Moonshine".
Tadaa! Problem solved folks. Now we know why that astronaut was lit up in the module's shadow: Reflection from the EARTH'S surface :)
Just a thought.
PS: Quite a few major spelling mistakes in the video. That's somewhat unexpected, given the "smart" language of the narrator. The changing of "receipt" to "reciet" was my favourite ;)
if the earth is so bright as stated in the video, then no there isn't 1 light source when they were on the moon, there was 2 light sources. the Earth acted as the fill light. Go ahead and see what direction the Earth in relation to where the sun was. There's the 2 light sources. not just 1 light source on the moon as many say. That interview with the guy saying the Earth was so bright it caused a glare even said so.
Your video indicates that the 40% reflective earth provides an additional light source. However, neither you nor the Mythbusters take this into account as illumination for the ladder-descending astronaut.
simple idea why dont we use math. figure how bright the light is on the sun side calculate how much light would be reflected by the moon the 8% thing then calculate if the part in the shadow is 8% chad bro chill
I'm pretty open minded about this which is why I am watching both this and the mybusters. I will give a comment on each one of the 3 you have made. I feel that logic dictates that charcoal would make cement darker. They also do a test of the albedo and so for your argument to hold water you have to be stating they are lying. Now, perhaps they are but I do not see what they gain from this.
Why is everyone bitching? Even if the cement was weathered (charcoal), it would still be 2 or 3x brighter then what it's suppose to be.
Message me if I'm wrong, or stop bashing Jarrah.
Like Jarrah said, why don't they show the number? Or show us how they made the moondust? How can we trust them, when Jarrah clearly proves that the mythbusters are frauds?
If the powder is darker (why would it be, just because it's smaller?), prove that it's darker than paved cement. Concrete isn't bright...
@snowboarderforlyfe Being weathered has nothing to do with charcoal powder. I don't know where you got that idea. What everyone is pointing out in the comments is that the guy who made the video is so biased in his analysis that he blatantly disregarded the charcoal power part of the mixture, which obviously greatly reduced its reflectivity, as is apparent by looking at the moon dust substitute and seeing that it is obviously *much* darker than white portland cement.
didnt they say it wasnt pure whatever concrete and it was mixed with charcoal and im guessing they used a light meter to determine the 8 percent or maybe i wasnt paying attention. I think you're just jealous cuz the aussies never went to the moon and an aussie never will cuz they're all drunk.
have you guys ever thought that maybe you have been brainwashed by this guy?why not follow your own beliefs?make your own choices.dont us this teenager as a source.
You really need to stop critcising (sorry if miss spelled) the American space program your just mad your silly country hasn't even made it to the moon at this time and for that I leave you with one
The quotes from kaysing are so funny..he actually shoots himself in the foot. he says that if there is another ( artificial) light source it should be visible in the visors but isn't. This he takes as proof that there is another ( artificial ) light source. Hohoho!
But he also says that the films were unretouched. remember this was 1969 not so easy to retouch without photoshop! How about the reflections in the video parts were they put in as well with 1969 video editing programs. NO CG then! Sorry no there wasnt any way to convincingly "composite these images in '69
@WhiteJarrah Who cares? Your credibility flew out the window when you say the Albedo of the cement the Mythbusters used was too high, yet you glossed over the fact that they mixed it with CHARCOAL. Moron.
In case you didn't notice Percy also says that there was no possibility of retouching the original photos. and how did they retouch reflections in video and film ?
did you even watch the fucking video? the reflective quality can be measured and this is called an ALBIDO, the moon's albido by nasa's findings is 8% while the earths reflective albido is around 35-40%. 8% albido is the same as ASPHALT, this guy Jarrah White proves the expirement done by mythbusters was fraudulent because they didn't use the correct albido, and even then you can see in their own video they're lying to you. But ofc u would know that if u could think for urself.
evil.."this is called ALBIDO" at least have the decency to look up the correct spelling! JW's ALBEDO"experiment" is flawed in so many ways that it is laughable and is actually verging on the criminally dishonest.But you just carry on with your beliefs.
If you can kindly point out where its flawed then I might actually be bothered to continue in this pitiful conversation with your policing of peoples spelling.
Watch it again! Mythbusters used Portland cement MIXED WITH CHARCOAL and you can see it is fairly dark. About the same colour as a road, which is correct for modelling the moon.
I don't understand why anyone fails to get this. It is right there in the video.
This video is ridiculous. Did you forget the mythbusters used charcoal with the portland cement? Charcoal had an albedo of 4 % which would reduce the concauctions albedo significantly..
My pet peeve with the moon landing is who actually recorded the first step of man on the moon? Who set up the camera for the perfect photo op and the famous " One small step...." script before they even supposedly left the module. Never saw an answer for THAT but still looking. It must be freakin' magic. Too many other questions that never have been answered and probably never will. I think I will try and sell my invention "upsidaisium" to NASA. They will buy anything I hear.
the camera is equipped on the leg of the lander, you seriously need a better excuse to think the moon landing is a hoax... since both India and japan's space missions have taken photos of the Apollo landings on the moon. and the 3d maping of the land scape matches footage of the rovers.. when they "hoax" the landing they knew in advance every little hill and bump on the landing site down to every last detail? damn?! that good stage work.
Who cares if they "prove" the reflect aspect or not. It's already been proven that no life can survive in space (In the NASA suits that is) because of the radiation.
The radiation affects the humans insignificantly. If you were smart you would know the Astronauts did experience high levels of radiation and particles which penetrated their retina's causing white specs to appear in their vision.
You should actually do a little research and math before embarrassing yourself JW. Your lux is completely off (you are using about 2lx vs 32,000lx+ for the sun), reflective material of the lunar lander is grossly inaccurate, and you're lunar surface analog is completely wrong. Average moon albedo is 7% (use the rating where the pictures were taken), but it's a regolith surface while your analog is a terrestrial; i.e. you need to use a higher albedo terrestrial analog to simulate the moon surface
whitejarrah, your final result achieved at exposure of 30 seconds, as visible at 1;25 in crapisode no. 3 (watch?v=yEaZsiXkVPI) does not even come close to what could be called a "fair experiment".
Your background is UNDEREXPOSED by 2 stops (!) when compared to original photo of Buzz Aldrin.
Even with topography working for you (do you even understand what I'm talking about?), your results are far off. No wonder, the astronaut is darker.
Conclusion: your videos are pseudo-scientific joke.
re: "This film took considerably longer to finish than expected due to severe computer problems on my end. "
Well, jack... if computer technology bamboozles you, I have no doubt that concrete technology also escapes your ken. How on earth did you miss that the concrete was mixed with charcoal and that it was concrete POWDER, not set concrete (as in your data sheet).?
Sure whitejarrah... you're an expert who blames others so quickly, but answer these simple questions:
1. WHY didn't you show your light meter in your video?
2. WHY didn't you show how you actually measured albedo on that parking lot at night, when you "simulated" lunar day?
3. Do you actually know how to use light meter?
Keep making your stupid videos for all ignorant gullibles who know even less than you (I know, it's almost impossible), but don't expect others will buy your "theories".
2.they added black charcoal, which can change the albedo.put that into account.you are improperly using the scientific method.when you collect data make sure you dont just collect data that proves your point.I request that YOU create a experiment.
3.WHY in the hell would people spend millions of dollars to FAKE a lunar landing?
I didn't say you screwed up. I said you busted yourself. You did nothing here, so you couldn't screw up anything, but whitejarrah did, big time!
Mythbusters were not far off considering they didn't replicate the scenery and topography precisely, but what whitejarrah did is truly pathetic. 2 stops of exposure off, and with topography working against him, that's a "scientific" achievement! LOL!
Btw, did he show his light meter and how he measured albedo? No, he did not, but you trust him...
italiano, if what Mythbusters did is so wrong in your eyes, go to Part 4 of this GARBAGE production (watch?v=yEaZsiXkVPI) and open your eyes at 1;30 there.
Can you see what whitejarrah did there?
Are you surprised his "astronaut" is darker than in Apollo picture considering his picture has 2 stops (!) less exposure?
To make it even worse for whitejarrah, even topography angle works against him (I hope you get it).
Sorry italiano, you just busted yourself, just as whitejarrah did!
easy...you answered your own question while doing once again what you do best....discredit rather than prove.The Portland cement chart you showed is the albedo when cured...they didnt use cured Portland as viewed in the video when they sprinkled it. Additionally Jamie at 6:40 starts telling us that its a MIX!...CEMENT AND CHARCOAL not just cement. You are doing a helluva job with your research..sort of...but do some experiments on your own before attempting to debunk others work..
How many times do I have to say this? All the charcoal is gonna do is give the cement the albedo equivalent of weathered cement. And given that the powder they applied to their set looks indistinguishable from what they scooped out of the bags, I'd say it was more cement than charcoal.
And why did they not show us the numbers on the light meter?
"All the charcoal is gonna do is give the cement the albedo equivalent of weathered cement"
I now eagerly await your video demonstrating this theory. Meaning please go grab a bag of cement " ($3) charcoal ($4) and a light meter ($49.95). Simply prove your theory rather than just guess at it, as it seems from your statement. You see, its easy to pick apart other people's work rather than do any of your own.
"And why did they not show us the numbers on the light meter?"
- good question whitejarrah. I asked you similar question also some time ago.
WHY didn't YOU show us your light meter and your numbers?
Most likely, so convieniently you had NO light meter. I'm not even sure you know how to use one, because what you do there on that parking lot at night, simulating LUNAR DAY with your car light is one pseudo-scientific JOKE.
You should really take basic photography class first!
Jarrah personally I think you've been way too light in your portrayal of Vector Windley.
I would definitely have got that dude who played Gollum in Lord Of The Rings in although Tim does a grand job as it is.
Don't let these deluded halfwitts get to you Jarrah because they have no idea how idiotic and misled they really are and you wouldn't hear a peep out of them if the truth ever got out..
Tim Darby is a gifted voice actor and his voice sounds very much like Jay Windley's. It might interest you to know, that Darby is not part of the hoax movement: but he draws the line between believing in the moon landings and endorsing the smear campaigns we typically get from Windley and Plait.
You are the second propagandist to attack Darby and quite frankly I have very limited tolerance for internet trolls. Spew your usual cheapshots and gutter trash again and it won't go unpunished.
Never heard of Tim Darby, but that's my problem I guess. I was NOT attacking Darby. Another misunderstanding Jarrah. I was wondering why you used this particular voice-over.
So I 'attacked' the imitated voice of Jay Windley?
Bill Kaysing claimed that two NASA engineers admitted that the landing was
a hoax:"I received a call from a Margaret Hardin of Portland, Oregon. She said that she had met a hooker in Reno in 1970 who admitted to her that two NASA engineers told her the Moon trips were a hoax. "
Kaysing contacted Hardin directly in February 1976 and he was "shocked" when she denied knowing anything about the engineers or the hoax.
Seems even the "working" girls get pulled into the conspirosy!
I'm kind of stumped honestly, there are a couple of far better debunkers than me that still post there. I think maybe I offended someone there but not sure LOL:-p
I Just realized I'm banned from posting at Erikz's bogus lying slanderous video's as well.... Once I'm banned from Jarrah's video's I guess I'll have to create another account which is like stooping to the CT's tactics, but what the heck its the least I can do for my HERO AMERICAN ASTRONAUTS:-p I guess its fair to attack me personally with insults and everything but the kitchen sink, but I'm not allowed?!
You might say I'm here to stay, its a mission now:-)
Talking about science: WHERE are all the scientists subscribing the ideas of Jarrah and the ideas of a moonhoax? Where are the TV-networks willing to make a shocking documentary about this all?
Thats just it for me.. If there were a shred of proof someone with credibility, pier's would be all over it like flies on poop.
There are books, movies etc.. And if someone could actually prove this scientifically it would be huge.. But its not huge because it lacks that support. It lacks that support because CT claims are all scientifically debunked time and time again.
Each year an independent peer review panel evaluates new research proposals, and curators mail out about 400 lunar samples to 40 to 50 scientists worldwide.
Are all these men and women dumbasses? Are they payed by NASA to keep 'the secret' and draw convenient conclusions?
Where are all the scientists that doubt the moonlandings of Apollo?
Why is it that only a few YouTube-detectives, conspiracy-theorists and political distrusters believe in this ridiculous hoax?
I totally agree Rob. After all, if a scientist skewed results or accepted cash money to alter results they would be quickly exposed as pseudoscientists by their peer's. You just cant have multiple scientists getting one result and then ONE or TWO showing CT's being correct, it just wont happen. Either way, this is pure nonsense and largely political IMO.
Most of the rants from CT's also bash Americans for being stupid and blind. I say thats a good one coming from the ignorant CT camp!
Just read a paper on the lunar samples submitted for peer review at the Annual
Lunar and Planetary Science Conference or the Journal of Geophysical Research. Many are available online or referenced in periodicals in libraries. Collegues commonly scrutinize and question numerous assertions contended for in papers and abstracts. If there was a hoax and samples counterfeited it would be quickly exposed.
Feel free to send me those when you get them Epoch.. I get tired of scouring the internet for factual information lol...
Sadly, I keep running into this nonsense more times than not:-)
I totally agree that a real piece of scientific data pointing towards a hoax would be a bombshell and REAL science would latch onto it quickly. Science truly is the persuit of truth in that respect! No scientist would pass on it... Thanks for all of your dilligence and hard work on this subject!
I cant post on Greenmagoos video's anymore.. I dont see where I used profanity or anything anymore rude than the CT camp, LOL.. that would be impossible anyway.... I guess he had to thin the crop and I was expendadble:-p So you guys are on your own over there.
(2) The photographs and the live video from the spacecraft were definitely taken on the afternoon of July 17, 1969 and both cameras were a long, long way from low earth orbit.
Oh yes, ofcourse. NOAA was also part of the Hoax..
(1) In the first day-and-a-half of the mission there were three live television transmissions from the Apollo 11 spacecraft, which showed the earth out the window. At the same time as each of these transmissions, the astronauts also photographed the earth with the Hasselblad camera. These provide high resolution images. Guess what: the cloud patterns match.
Yea lol.. The typical "good science" of the Australian CT camp.
"Fuck you, fuck a goat.. your American hero's are liars"... LOL:-p Great factual stuff from the Aussies!
Wonder if they still torture, beat and repress the aboriginals down under? Perhaps Australians ought to worry about their own lying, torture mongoring hipocracy instead of worrying about my country.
You dumb and dumber dummies do realize that Apollo 11 was a TEST FLIGHT, right? And I'm sure you also reailze that NASA and the corrupt US government would NEVER allow the HUGE possibility of their "space race" astronots crashing and dying on the Moon, on "live TV", right?.. The LM had NEVER been flown, landed or launched in 1/6 g until Apollo 11! Armstrong repeatedly crashed it in the sims, right up to launch time, and Aldrin NEVER even test flew that death trap "flying bedstead" contraption.
If Neil Atmstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the moon they certainly didn't do it on 20/7/69 for that date was picked because of its occult star alignment significance.
Even Armstrongs alleged overfly will have had some double meaning hocus-pocus.
There could be a million reasons for the death of the Apollo 1 crew but nothing would susprise if there wasn't also some deeper darker intent behind that as well.
Jack Parsons started the nonesense and they haven't stopped.
What? the moon landings were a LIE? but the media said... nasa said.... erm they all said it was true...oh god, no... i trust the media, really... they wouldn't be a mouth piece for government agendas... they are honest, bias free and good... I mean look at 'Moneygeddon' recently... and the "swine flu" or rather the 'Aporkaypse' thats all good and true right?...haha, don't you just love the way they manipulate the populous....haha :) no i don't actually...saddens me week in week out.
Dont forget "man-made global warming" biggest paid-off climate scientist scam ever, the stupid Greens want to string anyone up as a heretic if they dare question that guff.
Fact. Global temps DROPPED by almost one degree C last year. Dont hear much on that in the media heh
Fact The Vikings were growing crops in Greenland in the 12th C it was so globally warm.
Maybe they were setting fire to too many of their longships heh Gore? lol
GW - a convenient new excuse to TAX the populace more.
Perhaps if i were a scientist i could at this from your angle, but BS does baffle brains (as the saying go's) i take it you have a more scientific grounding & belief in the moon landings than i... but for me i cannot subscribe to it, my father worked for the MOD in the UK and then later used to lecture on the Moon landings, even wrote a foreword for one of President Carter's books...i was a whole hearted believer like my father and many others, but i cannot escape my suspicions about it all.
I say its ok to doubt, its even better to debate. I cant mix "belief" with any scientific validity. Science holds more than a belief system for me because its sound and its repeatable over and over again and its pier supported.
I'm no scientist either but I do use science daily in my work and I trust it. Mathematics, Hydraulics, Chemical application, its all sound and its known..
I like science and I will support it.
CT's claims are theoretical. Apollo missions were science based missions.
"... that date was picked because of its occult star alignment significance."
Magoo, you have made some outrageous statements but this one takes the cake.
There are not "occult star alignments" Stars stay in a fixed position. Perhaps you meant planetary?
I doubt if any at NASA ever gave the occult one thought. Engineers and astronauts are generally practical and analytical and they would find discussions or beliefs in the occult utter nonsense.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
And how f$%^ing stupid are you for joining apollohoax and letting the boy scout master lie and lie and lie again, evey time he makes comments de-bunking things that have been deliberately left in Apollo media --- CLUES !!!!!!!
You are mislead in thinking that no one at NASA are into the occult. I would agree that the average joe-blow scientist is not a practicing occultist, but there is plenty of evidence suggesting that the leadership knows quite well the "mystery religions" of antiquity and they practice them to boot! I know you're going to say, "show me some proof", I'll just say Google it, because the evidence is everywhere if you'll just be open-minded enough to see it.
@n8tureboy If you are advocate that Richard Hoagland's outlandish assertion about NASA and the occult that he put forth in "Dark Mission" is valid then I believe it is you that is being misled. Naming project missions after Greek Gods is not occultish, neither is being in the Masons. It was quiet common in the fifties and sixties for some professionals to join this group which rites are no different then a college faternity.
I won't be so open minded that my brain falls out.
I'm familiar with Hoagland, but I'm not up on his theories at all. The late Bill Cooper was my catalyst into learning more about NASA's occult leanings. A Colombian Enterprise to Endeavor for the Discovery of Atlantis all Challengers will be destroyed. That's just a snippet of how they encode their religion into the space program. The #'s, launch times, landings, star-alignments,ad infinitum!
I'd guess that 75% of NASA administrators were Freemasons,etc
It's just speculation on my part. I could be all wet on that statement. I'm just extrapolating from what I've researched in other government agencies. Our government (all western governments) seem to be inundated by the 'mystery religionists', so I'll admit to guessing somewhat at the actual number.
There used to be a website dedicated to showing how every NASA activity was based upon astrological alignment. I'm not disrespecting your opinions at all.
I know it's hard to believe these "outlandish assertions", but it doesn't matter what I believe or you. Because what they believe is what really matters and they believe in the "Order of the Quest" and the 'Mariah Conquering Wind" and as Bush senior stated on numerous occasions a "New World Order" and a "Thousand Points of Light". So, you see, they're telling you what they believe, but it's up to us to decode it.
NASA is doing EXACTLY the same thing in the space program
@n8tureboy As an ardent NASA observer over the decades I find the assertion that NASA is headed by a cabal of occultist utterly absurd. Do you recall that some alledeged that Proctor and Gamble were directed by "dark forces" as well due to the logo they placed on their products?
"New World Order" is just an adage used following an event that alters the geo-political stage. Churchill used the same statement at the close of WWII.
I know it's hard for you to accept. It's hard for anyone outside of 'their' mindset to accept that things aren't as they seem. I subscribe to the conspriratorial view of history NOT the accidental view.
I'm fully aware of the P&G scandal of the 80's.
That's getting into the realm of corporate logo's and there hidden meanings..I could go on for hours about that. This "conspiracy" is not new or recent, it's been going on since the dawn of man. It is multi-generational.
@n8tureboy "I'm fully aware of the P&G scandal of the 80's."
This was no scandal, it was simply a misinterpation of the meaning of the logo employed by P&G for decades. It was exercise in ignorance and a willingness for some to believe extreme claims put forward, much like the alledge faked Apollo Missions.
I mean faking the landings now should be a breeze. With computer generated graphics and the help of Hollyweird it shouldn't be that big of deal to send "man back to the moon"?
Why hasn't ANY other country sent ANYONE to the moon.
Because they know it's impossible to go there with current technology, that's why!
China kicks our @sses in everything else these days. I would think that they would put someone on the moon just to promote the idea of technological superiority
@n8tureboy Politicians sent astronauts to the Moon. What county had the resources or the industries to do such a thing? The US did. We had giant aerospace companies which proved more than capable of designing and fabricating the componets required for the lunar program.
It's not impossiable to go to the Moon, but which politicans would comment the billions to duplicate what the US has done already?
The US/Soviet race to the Moon was totally political .
@n8tureboy JFK said "the Soviets are making us look like a second rate nation with its space triumphs. We know we have superior technology. What can we do to reclaim our prestige?" His science advisors suggested a space station. JFK said not good enough, "let's go to the moon!"
It was not hard to convince Congress to fund the program because many found the idea of a Soviet flag on the Moon before the US repugnant.
@n8tureboy Basically the Moon is an uninteresting place to most. I don't see anyone going back fo decades. It to expensive to send people there for a long term mission to explore or to gather resources such as H3.
Only a commercial endevour will send humans back. At least that's my thinking. The Chinese have an iinterest in a manned lunar program and may send astronauts,
What will they find when they get there?
Componets and science experiments left by US astronauts decades ago of course!
I really want to believe that-I really do! I want to think that man could accomplish such a feat as this, but alas, I remain in the skeptics camp: at least for now. I may change my mind some day-I reserve that right,LOL!
When I was a kid I wanted to be an astronaut by as I got older I realized that I didn't have the "right stuff" to attain that goal. My sincerest desire is that man is capable of going to other worlds, but as they say in show business-Show me the money!
I just want to say that you handle yourself with much civility. I appreciate that! You haven't yelled or engaged in ad hominem attacks and I thank you for well reasoned answers. I'll look into them and see what I can find.
@n8tureboy Fuel Cells were utilized for the CM, original specs for the LM called for them as well but with the weight issue batteries were substituted . Read Tom Kelly's "Moon Lander", he goes in depth concerning the power requirements for the LM.
The TLI occured 30+ degrees above the equator, avoiding the most intense portions of the VABs. Review the 1964 symposium on protection against space radiation. It outllies the proceedures designed by the Nation Science Foundation.
@n8tureboy Micrometeorites were a mangable risk. Radar was utilized for docking.
Ed Fenndale panned the camera at CM with remote control. This occured on 15, 16 & 17 only.
Gus Grissom did not call the Apollo Program a Lemon. He hung a lemon on the CM simulator which was replete with technical problems.
Stars can only be imaged with timed exposures. Try photographing stars at night with the same shutter speeds utilized on Apollo cameras. (1/125 & 1/250)
Thanks for sharing your favorite movie with us, dummy... It figures you would enjoy watching a couple of fools who share your same lack of intelligence.
Man please... Your CT camp is disrespectful, dishonest, teaches kids lies about their governments, bashes American hero's. I mean hell, its not even in the form of "THEORETICS" where it should be, its tauted as fact which of course is all complete nonsense.
Yea, its safe to say that while my mommy did teach me respect for the dead and the living alike, I had, and still have absolutely no respect for anything or anyone from the CT camp, especially the likes of Rene or Kaysing.
"Your CT camp is disrespectful, dishonest, teaches kids lies about their governments, bashes American hero's"
You just described what you and your pals do best , except for bashing our American "heros" of course.. What the CT 's do is to expose our American "heros" for the liars they really are.
"I had, and still have absolutely no respect for anything or anyone from the CT camp, especially the likes of Rene or Kaysing. "
Yeah, I guess it would be a tad difficult for you to show any respect for those who spent a good part of their lives blowing apart your silly Apollo fairy tale.
You cant go to the moon with a ship made of tin can..and a computer equivalent to a calculator..If Nasa did went to the moon in 1969 then why are they using Russian rocket to go to space now... or having trouble going " back" to the moon in 2012.
zero00tolerance 3 weeks ago
I found it funny how mythbusters photoshopped the photo when they put it up against the other one (the second time the fully showed it) and it had a higher contrast... not joining either side on the debate just noticed that...
AcronychalRising 1 month ago
Comment removed
AcronychalRising 1 month ago
Still frame the clip at 6.12! Here the Myth-buster film-camera is EXACTLY at the opposite of the foto-camera thus should capture the same light intensity as the photocamera. This is the case right? So, then why is the astronauts' model DARK but the same model on the picture of the photo-camera is BRIGHT????
Different exposure times? Why isn't the astronauts'model in this clip at 6.12 (AND 7.20 !) as bright as the picture?? Jarrah is right here??!! I really believe so....
Syphonaptera 3 months ago
Interesting and not trying to doubt you but the video imply that earth is a very bright source f light due to albedo 30 or 40%. Knowing what we can see on earth on full moon would it not be possible that the famous second source of light would be the coming from Earth?
MrFratet 4 months ago
excellent video analysis of these cowboy mythbusters, glad i found a vid , thankyou for this jarrah..keep up the good work, how can people really believe we went to the moon in 1969 ...lol
jamilessdodger1 6 months ago in playlist MoonFaker - Jarrah White [2008]
i thought they said they added charcoal to the mix to get the proper reading? 6:42 that would lower the albido, would it not?
yappertrap 6 months ago
Another huge significant point of contradiction resides in the fact that his Portland-cement research features ‘pavement surfaces’ and not powder-cement! Therefore irrelevant.
And due to the fact that the cement-powder it is highly divided will scatter light rather than reflect light like a smooth 'paved' surface.
Bushtailedwildcat 7 months ago
Comment removed
Bushtailedwildcat 7 months ago
One hugely significant point of contradiction to Whitejarrahs criticism regarding the albedo of the mythbusters regolith simulative mixture is that they mixed in charcoal that he fails to take into account; of which has an albedo of almost nothing that will seriously impact the quantity of light reflected.
Bushtailedwildcat 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The moon missions were faked.
politicalforum (dot) com/moon-landing/190138-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio (dot) html
Cosmored 7 months ago
If we are going to other planets, we need to learn how to live and utilize the resources of the moon.
The fact that we don't, means we have no real program to explore and exploit other planets.
So when Presidents speak of our future plans to reach across our solar system, it's simply propaganda, like the moon landing.
bpbiv31 7 months ago
You need to account for the reflectivity of charcoal mixed in to the concrete to accurately refute Myth Busters claims.
They stated albedo of 8%, twice as much as scientist stated and Sea of tranquiliity is a darker region than other parts. Still, they show a lesser illumination then Apollo 11 photos.
Accuracy is critical on all sides.
bpbiv31 7 months ago
duuude, you are stupid, think better before you post stupid "fake" video's.....
WatchandCheck 7 months ago
Another great piece, JW. I love the videos where you go back to the basics and cover the good ole' theories regarding photography and videos. Keep it up, I'll send you the link of my next vid thru PM. Also, if it's ok with you, I would like if I could email you my script and see if you can give it a peer-review? Thanks a lot.
yesiamawizardjonny 7 months ago
I'm going way out on a limb here, and saying that powdered charcoal has a very low albedo, and that's why they chose to mix it until they got the reflectivity they wanted, by measurement. "Oh no, it's the same as the weathered cured concrete" is one of those fun confabulatory assertions from deep left field that separates the men from the boys, belief-wise. "It just is! Unless I come up with something better."
murfleblurg 10 months ago
I like how your main argument was about the cement the Mythbusters used having too high of an albedo, yet you completely forget that they mixed the cement with charcoal. Way to go dumbass.
SSJ3Goku69 1 year ago
Regarding the scientist that was interviewed at 09:20...
He states that "Earth-shine" is many times brighter than "Moonshine".
Tadaa! Problem solved folks. Now we know why that astronaut was lit up in the module's shadow: Reflection from the EARTH'S surface :)
Just a thought.
PS: Quite a few major spelling mistakes in the video. That's somewhat unexpected, given the "smart" language of the narrator. The changing of "receipt" to "reciet" was my favourite ;)
VFS112 1 year ago
Comment removed
husseinbeshir1 1 year ago
Comment removed
husseinbeshir1 1 year ago
if the earth is so bright as stated in the video, then no there isn't 1 light source when they were on the moon, there was 2 light sources. the Earth acted as the fill light. Go ahead and see what direction the Earth in relation to where the sun was. There's the 2 light sources. not just 1 light source on the moon as many say. That interview with the guy saying the Earth was so bright it caused a glare even said so.
qoaa 1 year ago
The mop bastards arent very convincing & AVOID actual debate with general public.
I really dont like these guys.
brainleftme 1 year ago
Way to totally ignore the charcoal powder.
danieldeibler 1 year ago
Your video indicates that the 40% reflective earth provides an additional light source. However, neither you nor the Mythbusters take this into account as illumination for the ladder-descending astronaut.
BusterTaylor 1 year ago
simple idea why dont we use math. figure how bright the light is on the sun side calculate how much light would be reflected by the moon the 8% thing then calculate if the part in the shadow is 8% chad bro chill
Kraktur 1 year ago
"We used Portland Cement AND Charcoal Powder". Funny how you left out the charcoal powder part to make your argument...
hosaycwervo 1 year ago
I'm pretty open minded about this which is why I am watching both this and the mybusters. I will give a comment on each one of the 3 you have made. I feel that logic dictates that charcoal would make cement darker. They also do a test of the albedo and so for your argument to hold water you have to be stating they are lying. Now, perhaps they are but I do not see what they gain from this.
WillShakespeare2007 1 year ago
Why is everyone bitching? Even if the cement was weathered (charcoal), it would still be 2 or 3x brighter then what it's suppose to be.
Message me if I'm wrong, or stop bashing Jarrah.
Like Jarrah said, why don't they show the number? Or show us how they made the moondust? How can we trust them, when Jarrah clearly proves that the mythbusters are frauds?
If the powder is darker (why would it be, just because it's smaller?), prove that it's darker than paved cement. Concrete isn't bright...
snowboarderforlyfe 1 year ago
@snowboarderforlyfe Being weathered has nothing to do with charcoal powder. I don't know where you got that idea. What everyone is pointing out in the comments is that the guy who made the video is so biased in his analysis that he blatantly disregarded the charcoal power part of the mixture, which obviously greatly reduced its reflectivity, as is apparent by looking at the moon dust substitute and seeing that it is obviously *much* darker than white portland cement.
danieldeibler 1 year ago
what about the charcoal that was added?
chritopha 1 year ago
didnt they say it wasnt pure whatever concrete and it was mixed with charcoal and im guessing they used a light meter to determine the 8 percent or maybe i wasnt paying attention. I think you're just jealous cuz the aussies never went to the moon and an aussie never will cuz they're all drunk.
Kraktur 1 year ago
have you guys ever thought that maybe you have been brainwashed by this guy?why not follow your own beliefs?make your own choices.dont us this teenager as a source.
rasenganmaster2007 1 year ago
Could the earth (which near the end of this video someone says is quite bright on the moon) have been the second light source?
ThePythonicCow 1 year ago
@ThePythonicCow
yes it is.
rasenganmaster2007 1 year ago
Discovery channel, mythbusters or anything mainstream media is complete horse shit disinformation...the illuminati controls all of it
Colt2571 1 year ago
You're my new hero. You really have them reeling, Jarah!
AlienshateU 1 year ago
You really need to stop critcising (sorry if miss spelled) the American space program your just mad your silly country hasn't even made it to the moon at this time and for that I leave you with one
Star
thundergump 2 years ago
The quotes from kaysing are so funny..he actually shoots himself in the foot. he says that if there is another ( artificial) light source it should be visible in the visors but isn't. This he takes as proof that there is another ( artificial ) light source. Hohoho!
delahaye100 2 years ago
In case you weren't listening, it's concluded that the reflections in the visors were superimposed over the original image.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago 2
But he also says that the films were unretouched. remember this was 1969 not so easy to retouch without photoshop! How about the reflections in the video parts were they put in as well with 1969 video editing programs. NO CG then! Sorry no there wasnt any way to convincingly "composite these images in '69
delahaye100 2 years ago
@WhiteJarrah Who cares? Your credibility flew out the window when you say the Albedo of the cement the Mythbusters used was too high, yet you glossed over the fact that they mixed it with CHARCOAL. Moron.
SSJ3Goku69 1 year ago
In case you didn't notice Percy also says that there was no possibility of retouching the original photos. and how did they retouch reflections in video and film ?
delahaye100 2 years ago
Great video. Well done. Spreading the Muse would be spitting chips now
ManFromMelbourne 2 years ago
any one ever think that maybe the light in the visor is sun light reflected off of the surface of moon?
defiythelie 2 years ago
did you even watch the fucking video? the reflective quality can be measured and this is called an ALBIDO, the moon's albido by nasa's findings is 8% while the earths reflective albido is around 35-40%. 8% albido is the same as ASPHALT, this guy Jarrah White proves the expirement done by mythbusters was fraudulent because they didn't use the correct albido, and even then you can see in their own video they're lying to you. But ofc u would know that if u could think for urself.
evilpiggehz 2 years ago 2
evil.."this is called ALBIDO" at least have the decency to look up the correct spelling! JW's ALBEDO"experiment" is flawed in so many ways that it is laughable and is actually verging on the criminally dishonest.But you just carry on with your beliefs.
delahaye100 2 years ago
Comment removed
esotericresearcherx 2 years ago
If you can kindly point out where its flawed then I might actually be bothered to continue in this pitiful conversation with your policing of peoples spelling.
evilpiggehz 2 years ago
Watch it again! Mythbusters used Portland cement MIXED WITH CHARCOAL and you can see it is fairly dark. About the same colour as a road, which is correct for modelling the moon.
I don't understand why anyone fails to get this. It is right there in the video.
Boozyscientist 2 years ago
or u know.. have an attention span longer than 30 seconds.
evilpiggehz 2 years ago
mythbusters.... how can anyone take any yanks seriously? they're total idiots, the lot of them. 70% or 7%. it's all the same to them.
but i give the mythbuster homos some credit cuz their model was accurate down to no crater under it.
who knows, maybe this is exactly how the Apollo nazi boys did the pics, with portland cement.
tubelogin1 2 years ago
wow. your ridiculous. i was really hoping you were gonna prove something cool, but you just made a fool out of yourself. stop lying to yourself,
aarongrasso 2 years ago
Comment removed
thomashabets 2 years ago
This video is ridiculous. Did you forget the mythbusters used charcoal with the portland cement? Charcoal had an albedo of 4 % which would reduce the concauctions albedo significantly..
omfg567 2 years ago
Yes... they did conveniently forget the charcoal.
Congratulations, propagandists!!
grndslm 2 years ago
Comment removed
patientmanisme 2 years ago
My pet peeve with the moon landing is who actually recorded the first step of man on the moon? Who set up the camera for the perfect photo op and the famous " One small step...." script before they even supposedly left the module. Never saw an answer for THAT but still looking. It must be freakin' magic. Too many other questions that never have been answered and probably never will. I think I will try and sell my invention "upsidaisium" to NASA. They will buy anything I hear.
lookatthewholething 2 years ago
the camera is equipped on the leg of the lander, you seriously need a better excuse to think the moon landing is a hoax... since both India and japan's space missions have taken photos of the Apollo landings on the moon. and the 3d maping of the land scape matches footage of the rovers.. when they "hoax" the landing they knew in advance every little hill and bump on the landing site down to every last detail? damn?! that good stage work.
ccaptorchen 2 years ago
Who cares if they "prove" the reflect aspect or not. It's already been proven that no life can survive in space (In the NASA suits that is) because of the radiation.
signwearer 2 years ago
or, try some real science and facts.
nicksutherby 2 years ago
The radiation affects the humans insignificantly. If you were smart you would know the Astronauts did experience high levels of radiation and particles which penetrated their retina's causing white specs to appear in their vision.
omfg567 2 years ago
You should actually do a little research and math before embarrassing yourself JW. Your lux is completely off (you are using about 2lx vs 32,000lx+ for the sun), reflective material of the lunar lander is grossly inaccurate, and you're lunar surface analog is completely wrong. Average moon albedo is 7% (use the rating where the pictures were taken), but it's a regolith surface while your analog is a terrestrial; i.e. you need to use a higher albedo terrestrial analog to simulate the moon surface
BucyrussMarrs 2 years ago
Easy to be a critic, Bucuryss. Your own numbers were off. Still, it's a good thing trying to correct things.
Everyone, see Jarrah's Project Blackbox if you are interested of this issue. It's a simulation made after criticism to this one.
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
JW-do the Reflect experiment again
Coat the LEM with silver kitchen foil
Take,& show,lightmeter readings(use it correctly)find a surface with a 7% albedo,at night
Use a 1/2 million candlepower rechargeable torch at at least a similar angle as the sun
Use an aperture that compensates for any difference in film speed with NASA's lunar shot,if necessary
Take repeated exposures & record the shutter speed
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago
Then compare the directly lit areas with the directly lit areas on the A11 shot
Find the one where the directly lit areas correspond most closely
Compare the reflected lit areas
Then lets talk again
Until then, this reflect series, and the Black Box series, is debunked
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago
whitejarrah, your final result achieved at exposure of 30 seconds, as visible at 1;25 in crapisode no. 3 (watch?v=yEaZsiXkVPI) does not even come close to what could be called a "fair experiment".
Your background is UNDEREXPOSED by 2 stops (!) when compared to original photo of Buzz Aldrin.
Even with topography working for you (do you even understand what I'm talking about?), your results are far off. No wonder, the astronaut is darker.
Conclusion: your videos are pseudo-scientific joke.
BlisterHiker 2 years ago
re: "This film took considerably longer to finish than expected due to severe computer problems on my end. "
Well, jack... if computer technology bamboozles you, I have no doubt that concrete technology also escapes your ken. How on earth did you miss that the concrete was mixed with charcoal and that it was concrete POWDER, not set concrete (as in your data sheet).?
rhk59 2 years ago
'if computer technology bamboozles you'
Have you ever heard the term 'hard drive failure'?
'How on earth did you miss that the concrete was mixed with charcoal and that it was concrete POWDER'
Powder or set, it is still quite bright. And all charcoal does is give the equivalent of weathered cement.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
Sure whitejarrah... you're an expert who blames others so quickly, but answer these simple questions:
1. WHY didn't you show your light meter in your video?
2. WHY didn't you show how you actually measured albedo on that parking lot at night, when you "simulated" lunar day?
3. Do you actually know how to use light meter?
Keep making your stupid videos for all ignorant gullibles who know even less than you (I know, it's almost impossible), but don't expect others will buy your "theories".
BlisterHiker 2 years ago
@WhiteJarrah
1.butthurt.YOU mad?
2.they added black charcoal, which can change the albedo.put that into account.you are improperly using the scientific method.when you collect data make sure you dont just collect data that proves your point.I request that YOU create a experiment.
3.WHY in the hell would people spend millions of dollars to FAKE a lunar landing?
rasenganmaster2007 1 year ago
@rasenganmaster2007 spend millions of dollars <<
.WHY would people spend millions of dollars to FAKE !
Because the payoffs in gratuities and royalties for 40 years would be in the profit range of trillions of dollars worldwide.
Money stamps out truth, in matters of greed!
EGMAG 1 year ago
@WhiteJarrah concrete POWDER' <<
Hi Jarrah.Ya think this reflective recipe ratio was suggested by Nasa, because that is what they used on the moonstage?
EGMAG 1 year ago
I didn't say you screwed up. I said you busted yourself. You did nothing here, so you couldn't screw up anything, but whitejarrah did, big time!
Mythbusters were not far off considering they didn't replicate the scenery and topography precisely, but what whitejarrah did is truly pathetic. 2 stops of exposure off, and with topography working against him, that's a "scientific" achievement! LOL!
Btw, did he show his light meter and how he measured albedo? No, he did not, but you trust him...
BlisterHiker 2 years ago 2
both is toys ;)
xismxist 2 years ago
italiano, if what Mythbusters did is so wrong in your eyes, go to Part 4 of this GARBAGE production (watch?v=yEaZsiXkVPI) and open your eyes at 1;30 there.
Can you see what whitejarrah did there?
Are you surprised his "astronaut" is darker than in Apollo picture considering his picture has 2 stops (!) less exposure?
To make it even worse for whitejarrah, even topography angle works against him (I hope you get it).
Sorry italiano, you just busted yourself, just as whitejarrah did!
BlisterHiker 2 years ago
corr. Part 3, not 4.
BlisterHiker 2 years ago
I wonder why Hasselblad's photo was taken by Polaroid film size(NOT 5x5) in mythbusters.
tkrWkLNsQk 2 years ago
easy...you answered your own question while doing once again what you do best....discredit rather than prove.The Portland cement chart you showed is the albedo when cured...they didnt use cured Portland as viewed in the video when they sprinkled it. Additionally Jamie at 6:40 starts telling us that its a MIX!...CEMENT AND CHARCOAL not just cement. You are doing a helluva job with your research..sort of...but do some experiments on your own before attempting to debunk others work..
destin325 2 years ago
How many times do I have to say this? All the charcoal is gonna do is give the cement the albedo equivalent of weathered cement. And given that the powder they applied to their set looks indistinguishable from what they scooped out of the bags, I'd say it was more cement than charcoal.
And why did they not show us the numbers on the light meter?
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
"All the charcoal is gonna do is give the cement the albedo equivalent of weathered cement"
I now eagerly await your video demonstrating this theory. Meaning please go grab a bag of cement " ($3) charcoal ($4) and a light meter ($49.95). Simply prove your theory rather than just guess at it, as it seems from your statement. You see, its easy to pick apart other people's work rather than do any of your own.
destin325 2 years ago
"And why did they not show us the numbers on the light meter?"
- good question whitejarrah. I asked you similar question also some time ago.
WHY didn't YOU show us your light meter and your numbers?
Most likely, so convieniently you had NO light meter. I'm not even sure you know how to use one, because what you do there on that parking lot at night, simulating LUNAR DAY with your car light is one pseudo-scientific JOKE.
You should really take basic photography class first!
BlisterHiker 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
How f"£$ing stoopid do the mythbusters look attempting to de-bunk clues that aren't supposed to be de-bunked?
greenmagoos 2 years ago
Jarrah personally I think you've been way too light in your portrayal of Vector Windley.
I would definitely have got that dude who played Gollum in Lord Of The Rings in although Tim does a grand job as it is.
Don't let these deluded halfwitts get to you Jarrah because they have no idea how idiotic and misled they really are and you wouldn't hear a peep out of them if the truth ever got out..
greenmagoos 2 years ago
"Don't let these deluded halfwitts get to you Jarrah because they have no idea how idiotic and misled they really are"
- bravo greenmag! Talk more. Jarrah needs you...
I think Nikon should ban him for showing their logo in his videos!
Such extremely BAD SCIENCE is the LAST thing any camera maker would like to see done with their cameras!
Regardless of what you think about lunar hoax theory, the fact that you support someone like J.W. tells us enough about you, greenmagoos. Sorry.
BlisterHiker 2 years ago 15
@BlisterHiker yo i didn't know you are also patrolling this forum to prove your delusions hehe my my
wengsky01 1 year ago
I agree BH.
By the way Jarrah, why use a silly and a little disabled voice-over to read a claim of Jay Windley at 10:21 ?
Rob260259 2 years ago
Tim Darby is a gifted voice actor and his voice sounds very much like Jay Windley's. It might interest you to know, that Darby is not part of the hoax movement: but he draws the line between believing in the moon landings and endorsing the smear campaigns we typically get from Windley and Plait.
You are the second propagandist to attack Darby and quite frankly I have very limited tolerance for internet trolls. Spew your usual cheapshots and gutter trash again and it won't go unpunished.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
Never heard of Tim Darby, but that's my problem I guess. I was NOT attacking Darby. Another misunderstanding Jarrah. I was wondering why you used this particular voice-over.
So I 'attacked' the imitated voice of Jay Windley?
Rob260259 2 years ago
"Never heard of Tim Darby, but that's my problem I guess. I was NOT attacking Darby. "
Yet you described his voice as "silly and a little disabled".
Have you ever heard Jay Windley's voice before?
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
No Jarrah, I did not discribed HIS voice as "silly and a little disabled".
I said: "why use a silly and a little disabled voice-over?"
It's clear that your vision on things sometimes has some oddity, but you can read, do you?
No, I have not ever heard Jay Windley's voice. I only know his writing, which is damn good by the way.
Rob260259 2 years ago
'By the way Jarrah, why use a silly and a little disabled voice-over to read a claim of Jay Windley at 10:21 ?'
If that is supposed to be some underhand attempt at a personal dig you ought to be ashamed of yourself you evil wank stain.
Reap what you sow fuckwit.
greenmagoos 2 years ago
Mr White,
I think Nikon should get involved and forbid you to show their logo!
What you do with that camera, and even WORSE, what you SAY there, is the LAST thing any camera maker would like to watch!
BlisterHiker 2 years ago
Thanks Jarrah for not banning me and having the balls to let me stay even though we do not agree!
No thanks for degrading my hero's lol!
guitarplayer4real 2 years ago 2
Bill Kaysing claimed that two NASA engineers admitted that the landing was
a hoax:"I received a call from a Margaret Hardin of Portland, Oregon. She said that she had met a hooker in Reno in 1970 who admitted to her that two NASA engineers told her the Moon trips were a hoax. "
Kaysing contacted Hardin directly in February 1976 and he was "shocked" when she denied knowing anything about the engineers or the hoax.
Seems even the "working" girls get pulled into the conspirosy!
TheEntropyEpoch 2 years ago 2
So... Kaysing used and printed this erroneous information... Then only later found out that it was bogus? A full 6 years later?
So much for the integrity and ethics of the moon landing conspiracy originator:-)
guitarplayer4real 2 years ago 4
"So... Kaysing used and printed this erroneous information... Then only later found out that it was bogus? A full 6 years later?"
Funny how disinformation artists like to fuck with the one's who are trying so hard to expose the Apollo fraud, isn't it?
"So much for the integrity and ethics of the moon landing conspiracy originator:-)"
I'm sure it would be so much easier for you and the rest of the clueless Apollogists if that erroneous and rather transparent claim were really true.
straydog02 2 years ago
Now why would that be Guitar..? May be Greenmagoos is unable to handle the reality of the moonlandings by Apollo.
Rob260259 2 years ago
I'm kind of stumped honestly, there are a couple of far better debunkers than me that still post there. I think maybe I offended someone there but not sure LOL:-p
Must've been a good one!
guitarplayer4real 2 years ago
I Just realized I'm banned from posting at Erikz's bogus lying slanderous video's as well.... Once I'm banned from Jarrah's video's I guess I'll have to create another account which is like stooping to the CT's tactics, but what the heck its the least I can do for my HERO AMERICAN ASTRONAUTS:-p I guess its fair to attack me personally with insults and everything but the kitchen sink, but I'm not allowed?!
You might say I'm here to stay, its a mission now:-)
guitarplayer4real 2 years ago 2
B6gm6n, some years ago I showed one of my first cellphones to my father. He didn't understand the working, so he called the little thing a 'fake'.
Rob260259 2 years ago
Talking about science: WHERE are all the scientists subscribing the ideas of Jarrah and the ideas of a moonhoax? Where are the TV-networks willing to make a shocking documentary about this all?
Rob260259 2 years ago
Thats just it for me.. If there were a shred of proof someone with credibility, pier's would be all over it like flies on poop.
There are books, movies etc.. And if someone could actually prove this scientifically it would be huge.. But its not huge because it lacks that support. It lacks that support because CT claims are all scientifically debunked time and time again.
guitarplayer4real 2 years ago 3
Each year an independent peer review panel evaluates new research proposals, and curators mail out about 400 lunar samples to 40 to 50 scientists worldwide.
Are all these men and women dumbasses? Are they payed by NASA to keep 'the secret' and draw convenient conclusions?
Where are all the scientists that doubt the moonlandings of Apollo?
Why is it that only a few YouTube-detectives, conspiracy-theorists and political distrusters believe in this ridiculous hoax?
Rob260259 2 years ago
I totally agree Rob. After all, if a scientist skewed results or accepted cash money to alter results they would be quickly exposed as pseudoscientists by their peer's. You just cant have multiple scientists getting one result and then ONE or TWO showing CT's being correct, it just wont happen. Either way, this is pure nonsense and largely political IMO.
Most of the rants from CT's also bash Americans for being stupid and blind. I say thats a good one coming from the ignorant CT camp!
guitarplayer4real 2 years ago 2
Just read a paper on the lunar samples submitted for peer review at the Annual
Lunar and Planetary Science Conference or the Journal of Geophysical Research. Many are available online or referenced in periodicals in libraries. Collegues commonly scrutinize and question numerous assertions contended for in papers and abstracts. If there was a hoax and samples counterfeited it would be quickly exposed.
TheEntropyEpoch 2 years ago
Feel free to send me those when you get them Epoch.. I get tired of scouring the internet for factual information lol...
Sadly, I keep running into this nonsense more times than not:-)
I totally agree that a real piece of scientific data pointing towards a hoax would be a bombshell and REAL science would latch onto it quickly. Science truly is the persuit of truth in that respect! No scientist would pass on it... Thanks for all of your dilligence and hard work on this subject!
guitarplayer4real 2 years ago
I cant post on Greenmagoos video's anymore.. I dont see where I used profanity or anything anymore rude than the CT camp, LOL.. that would be impossible anyway.... I guess he had to thin the crop and I was expendadble:-p So you guys are on your own over there.
guitarplayer4real 2 years ago
(2) The photographs and the live video from the spacecraft were definitely taken on the afternoon of July 17, 1969 and both cameras were a long, long way from low earth orbit.
Oh yes, ofcourse. NOAA was also part of the Hoax..
LOL.
Rob260259 2 years ago
(1) In the first day-and-a-half of the mission there were three live television transmissions from the Apollo 11 spacecraft, which showed the earth out the window. At the same time as each of these transmissions, the astronauts also photographed the earth with the Hasselblad camera. These provide high resolution images. Guess what: the cloud patterns match.
Rob260259 2 years ago
Do you have that funny Aussie accent as well? It's a joy to listen to the word 'propagandists'.
Rob260259 2 years ago
Away and fuck an Australian goat then while orions belt is pointing at your japs eye with your trouser leg rolled up halfwit apollogist.
greenmagoos 2 years ago
Yes! That is what I mean. Always a joy and a good laugh!
Rob260259 2 years ago
Are you still here supporter of Nazi colluding freemason occult muthaF$%^ers.
Away and f"£$ a goat.
greenmagoos 2 years ago
Yea lol.. The typical "good science" of the Australian CT camp.
"Fuck you, fuck a goat.. your American hero's are liars"... LOL:-p Great factual stuff from the Aussies!
Wonder if they still torture, beat and repress the aboriginals down under? Perhaps Australians ought to worry about their own lying, torture mongoring hipocracy instead of worrying about my country.
guitarplayer4real 2 years ago 2
You are a busy man Stray. Hope that Jarrah pays enough.
Rob260259 2 years ago
You dumb and dumber dummies do realize that Apollo 11 was a TEST FLIGHT, right? And I'm sure you also reailze that NASA and the corrupt US government would NEVER allow the HUGE possibility of their "space race" astronots crashing and dying on the Moon, on "live TV", right?.. The LM had NEVER been flown, landed or launched in 1/6 g until Apollo 11! Armstrong repeatedly crashed it in the sims, right up to launch time, and Aldrin NEVER even test flew that death trap "flying bedstead" contraption.
straydog02 2 years ago
If Neil Atmstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the moon they certainly didn't do it on 20/7/69 for that date was picked because of its occult star alignment significance.
Even Armstrongs alleged overfly will have had some double meaning hocus-pocus.
There could be a million reasons for the death of the Apollo 1 crew but nothing would susprise if there wasn't also some deeper darker intent behind that as well.
Jack Parsons started the nonesense and they haven't stopped.
greenmagoos 2 years ago
What? the moon landings were a LIE? but the media said... nasa said.... erm they all said it was true...oh god, no... i trust the media, really... they wouldn't be a mouth piece for government agendas... they are honest, bias free and good... I mean look at 'Moneygeddon' recently... and the "swine flu" or rather the 'Aporkaypse' thats all good and true right?...haha, don't you just love the way they manipulate the populous....haha :) no i don't actually...saddens me week in week out.
b6gm6n 2 years ago
Dont forget "man-made global warming" biggest paid-off climate scientist scam ever, the stupid Greens want to string anyone up as a heretic if they dare question that guff.
Fact. Global temps DROPPED by almost one degree C last year. Dont hear much on that in the media heh
Fact The Vikings were growing crops in Greenland in the 12th C it was so globally warm.
Maybe they were setting fire to too many of their longships heh Gore? lol
GW - a convenient new excuse to TAX the populace more.
michaelstmark 2 years ago
What does the media have to with the science that supports and explains the Apollo missions?
What do you say to Americans who dont watch local media? What about people who read and conveniently skip the 11:00 news regularly?
Certainly you cant believe that the repeatable, verifiable sound logic of science cant be "biased" too? Science is a lie?
Not unlike you I am saddened every week as well, but it has more to do with lack of education and ignorance than it does "media lies".
guitarplayer4real 2 years ago 4
Perhaps if i were a scientist i could at this from your angle, but BS does baffle brains (as the saying go's) i take it you have a more scientific grounding & belief in the moon landings than i... but for me i cannot subscribe to it, my father worked for the MOD in the UK and then later used to lecture on the Moon landings, even wrote a foreword for one of President Carter's books...i was a whole hearted believer like my father and many others, but i cannot escape my suspicions about it all.
b6gm6n 2 years ago
I say its ok to doubt, its even better to debate. I cant mix "belief" with any scientific validity. Science holds more than a belief system for me because its sound and its repeatable over and over again and its pier supported.
I'm no scientist either but I do use science daily in my work and I trust it. Mathematics, Hydraulics, Chemical application, its all sound and its known..
I like science and I will support it.
CT's claims are theoretical. Apollo missions were science based missions.
guitarplayer4real 2 years ago 2
"... that date was picked because of its occult star alignment significance."
Magoo, you have made some outrageous statements but this one takes the cake.
There are not "occult star alignments" Stars stay in a fixed position. Perhaps you meant planetary?
I doubt if any at NASA ever gave the occult one thought. Engineers and astronauts are generally practical and analytical and they would find discussions or beliefs in the occult utter nonsense.
Parson's was just another California freak.
TheEntropyEpoch 2 years ago 9
Entropy, Magoo is losing it. Reality I mean, not his faith.
Rob260259 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Rob shut your pathetic little hole you moaning faced little weed.
greenmagoos 2 years ago
Thanks for the acknowledge Magoo.
Rob260259 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
And how f$%^ing stupid are you for joining apollohoax and letting the boy scout master lie and lie and lie again, evey time he makes comments de-bunking things that have been deliberately left in Apollo media --- CLUES !!!!!!!
greenmagoos 2 years ago
"Entropy, Magoo is losing it"
I'm not to sure if magoo ever had it to lose.
He told me that the A 11 crew were launched in June of '69 from a secret island base.
Strange they could launch a spacecraft that never made it beyond the development stage and could hold only one crew member.
TheEntropyEpoch 2 years ago 4
"I'm not sure if magoo ever had it to lose."
- ha ha ha!!! :-) I couldn't agree more Entropy!
BlisterHiker 2 years ago
@TheEntropyEpoch
You are mislead in thinking that no one at NASA are into the occult. I would agree that the average joe-blow scientist is not a practicing occultist, but there is plenty of evidence suggesting that the leadership knows quite well the "mystery religions" of antiquity and they practice them to boot! I know you're going to say, "show me some proof", I'll just say Google it, because the evidence is everywhere if you'll just be open-minded enough to see it.
n8tureboy 1 year ago
@n8tureboy If you are advocate that Richard Hoagland's outlandish assertion about NASA and the occult that he put forth in "Dark Mission" is valid then I believe it is you that is being misled. Naming project missions after Greek Gods is not occultish, neither is being in the Masons. It was quiet common in the fifties and sixties for some professionals to join this group which rites are no different then a college faternity.
I won't be so open minded that my brain falls out.
TheEntropyEpoch 1 year ago
@TheEntropyEpoch
LOL! You cracked me up.
I'm familiar with Hoagland, but I'm not up on his theories at all. The late Bill Cooper was my catalyst into learning more about NASA's occult leanings. A Colombian Enterprise to Endeavor for the Discovery of Atlantis all Challengers will be destroyed. That's just a snippet of how they encode their religion into the space program. The #'s, launch times, landings, star-alignments,ad infinitum!
I'd guess that 75% of NASA administrators were Freemasons,etc
n8tureboy 1 year ago
@n8tureboy
That's a typo. It was supposed to be the #'s not 39, etc.
n8tureboy 1 year ago
@n8tureboy
Sorry it won't let me correct it?
n8tureboy 1 year ago
@n8tureboy 75% of administrators were Freemasons. What evidence do you have for this speculation?
Is this all about Jack Parsons? NASA had a commitee that named the shuttles. This I know is a fact.
Star alignments? As an amateur astronomer I never understood what that was all about. It's just more of Hoagland's ramblings!
TheEntropyEpoch 1 year ago
@TheEntropyEpoch
It's just speculation on my part. I could be all wet on that statement. I'm just extrapolating from what I've researched in other government agencies. Our government (all western governments) seem to be inundated by the 'mystery religionists', so I'll admit to guessing somewhat at the actual number.
There used to be a website dedicated to showing how every NASA activity was based upon astrological alignment. I'm not disrespecting your opinions at all.
n8tureboy 1 year ago
@n8tureboy
cont.....
I know it's hard to believe these "outlandish assertions", but it doesn't matter what I believe or you. Because what they believe is what really matters and they believe in the "Order of the Quest" and the 'Mariah Conquering Wind" and as Bush senior stated on numerous occasions a "New World Order" and a "Thousand Points of Light". So, you see, they're telling you what they believe, but it's up to us to decode it.
NASA is doing EXACTLY the same thing in the space program
n8tureboy 1 year ago
@n8tureboy As an ardent NASA observer over the decades I find the assertion that NASA is headed by a cabal of occultist utterly absurd. Do you recall that some alledeged that Proctor and Gamble were directed by "dark forces" as well due to the logo they placed on their products?
"New World Order" is just an adage used following an event that alters the geo-political stage. Churchill used the same statement at the close of WWII.
TheEntropyEpoch 1 year ago
@TheEntropyEpoch
I know it's hard for you to accept. It's hard for anyone outside of 'their' mindset to accept that things aren't as they seem. I subscribe to the conspriratorial view of history NOT the accidental view.
I'm fully aware of the P&G scandal of the 80's.
That's getting into the realm of corporate logo's and there hidden meanings..I could go on for hours about that. This "conspiracy" is not new or recent, it's been going on since the dawn of man. It is multi-generational.
n8tureboy 1 year ago
@n8tureboy "I'm fully aware of the P&G scandal of the 80's."
This was no scandal, it was simply a misinterpation of the meaning of the logo employed by P&G for decades. It was exercise in ignorance and a willingness for some to believe extreme claims put forward, much like the alledge faked Apollo Missions.
TheEntropyEpoch 1 year ago
@TheEntropyEpoch
Okay. Here's some of the things I have issue with:
1) batteries to power the heat and air-conditioning systems for the LM and the Lunar Orbiter?
2) Van Allen Radiation Belts?
3) Why did the POTUS state that it would take years(2025?) to return. I mean, come on, shouldn't take that long to re-tool should it?
4) Extreme heat/cold of the space vacuum? How did they heat/cool the suits effectively.
5) Micro-meteorites and the threat of collision
6) Computing power for re-dock?
n8tureboy 1 year ago
@n8tureboy
cont,...
7) Who panned the camera on LM lift-off?
8) Gus Grissoms anomalous death after having called the Apollo program a big lemon and having threatened to call a press-conference to expose as such!
9) No stars apparent in any photo's taken anywhere?
ad infinitum.
There's just to many technological and engineering problems to overcome for this to be feasible in my mind.
Burden of proof is on NASA and they haven't convinced me yet.
I'm still waiting for them to return.
n8tureboy 1 year ago
@n8tureboy
cont,...
I mean faking the landings now should be a breeze. With computer generated graphics and the help of Hollyweird it shouldn't be that big of deal to send "man back to the moon"?
Why hasn't ANY other country sent ANYONE to the moon.
Because they know it's impossible to go there with current technology, that's why!
China kicks our @sses in everything else these days. I would think that they would put someone on the moon just to promote the idea of technological superiority
n8tureboy 1 year ago
@n8tureboy Politicians sent astronauts to the Moon. What county had the resources or the industries to do such a thing? The US did. We had giant aerospace companies which proved more than capable of designing and fabricating the componets required for the lunar program.
It's not impossiable to go to the Moon, but which politicans would comment the billions to duplicate what the US has done already?
The US/Soviet race to the Moon was totally political .
TheEntropyEpoch 1 year ago
@n8tureboy JFK said "the Soviets are making us look like a second rate nation with its space triumphs. We know we have superior technology. What can we do to reclaim our prestige?" His science advisors suggested a space station. JFK said not good enough, "let's go to the moon!"
It was not hard to convince Congress to fund the program because many found the idea of a Soviet flag on the Moon before the US repugnant.
TheEntropyEpoch 1 year ago
@n8tureboy Basically the Moon is an uninteresting place to most. I don't see anyone going back fo decades. It to expensive to send people there for a long term mission to explore or to gather resources such as H3.
Only a commercial endevour will send humans back. At least that's my thinking. The Chinese have an iinterest in a manned lunar program and may send astronauts,
What will they find when they get there?
Componets and science experiments left by US astronauts decades ago of course!
TheEntropyEpoch 1 year ago
@TheEntropyEpoch
I really want to believe that-I really do! I want to think that man could accomplish such a feat as this, but alas, I remain in the skeptics camp: at least for now. I may change my mind some day-I reserve that right,LOL!
When I was a kid I wanted to be an astronaut by as I got older I realized that I didn't have the "right stuff" to attain that goal. My sincerest desire is that man is capable of going to other worlds, but as they say in show business-Show me the money!
n8tureboy 1 year ago
@n8tureboy
EntropyEpoch,
I just want to say that you handle yourself with much civility. I appreciate that! You haven't yelled or engaged in ad hominem attacks and I thank you for well reasoned answers. I'll look into them and see what I can find.
Caveat Emptor!
n8tureboy 1 year ago
@n8tureboy Fuel Cells were utilized for the CM, original specs for the LM called for them as well but with the weight issue batteries were substituted . Read Tom Kelly's "Moon Lander", he goes in depth concerning the power requirements for the LM.
The TLI occured 30+ degrees above the equator, avoiding the most intense portions of the VABs. Review the 1964 symposium on protection against space radiation. It outllies the proceedures designed by the Nation Science Foundation.
TheEntropyEpoch 1 year ago
@n8tureboy Micrometeorites were a mangable risk. Radar was utilized for docking.
Ed Fenndale panned the camera at CM with remote control. This occured on 15, 16 & 17 only.
Gus Grissom did not call the Apollo Program a Lemon. He hung a lemon on the CM simulator which was replete with technical problems.
Stars can only be imaged with timed exposures. Try photographing stars at night with the same shutter speeds utilized on Apollo cameras. (1/125 & 1/250)
TheEntropyEpoch 1 year ago
people have to earn respect, some go through their lives doing the opposite!
delahaye100 2 years ago
Remember 1994?
Dumb and Dumber.
Rob260259 2 years ago
"Remember 1994?
Dumb and Dumber"
Thanks for sharing your favorite movie with us, dummy... It figures you would enjoy watching a couple of fools who share your same lack of intelligence.
straydog02 2 years ago
2009: Stray & Green
Rob260259 2 years ago
Comment removed
greenmagoos 2 years ago
2009: Rob260259 & wacky new age occultist Scientology muthafuckers like Jack Parsons.
greenmagoos 2 years ago
Away and fuck a goat while orions belt is pointing at your japs eye with your trouser leg rolled up.
greenmagoos 2 years ago
"This web site is dedicated to you.."
Go away then Spamdog02
Rob260259 2 years ago
Wow, Spunkdog gets angry and lashes out:-p So atypical of a CT.
Gotta love it!
clavius (dot) org
I hope Rene and Kaysing are having a nice day, their legacy of lies and deciept ought to make their families proud:-p
guitarplayer4real 2 years ago
"I hope Rene and Kaysing are having a nice day, their legacy of lies and deciept ought to make their families proud:-p "
I guess your mommy never taught you that's it's impolite to speak ill of the dead... No surprise there.. None of you lying spooks have any manners.
straydog02 2 years ago
Man please... Your CT camp is disrespectful, dishonest, teaches kids lies about their governments, bashes American hero's. I mean hell, its not even in the form of "THEORETICS" where it should be, its tauted as fact which of course is all complete nonsense.
Yea, its safe to say that while my mommy did teach me respect for the dead and the living alike, I had, and still have absolutely no respect for anything or anyone from the CT camp, especially the likes of Rene or Kaysing.
guitarplayer4real 2 years ago 2
"Your CT camp is disrespectful, dishonest, teaches kids lies about their governments, bashes American hero's"
You just described what you and your pals do best , except for bashing our American "heros" of course.. What the CT 's do is to expose our American "heros" for the liars they really are.
straydog02 2 years ago
"I had, and still have absolutely no respect for anything or anyone from the CT camp, especially the likes of Rene or Kaysing. "
Yeah, I guess it would be a tad difficult for you to show any respect for those who spent a good part of their lives blowing apart your silly Apollo fairy tale.
straydog02 2 years ago
"Go away then Spamdog02"
Fuck off, spook.
straydog02 2 years ago