The idea taking some photos and video from NASA (proven Video Fakery and a nazi organisation) as evidence of critical thinking is an oxymoron. Why did shuttle occupants well short of the Van Allen Belt reported a disturbing amount of radiation, why didn't the russian just fly through it or anyone else for that matter? Over simplified conclussion in my oppinion.
Very smug…but still no hard evidence…after nearly 40 years where is the quantifiable truth that shows people can travel through the VRB..there should be endless videos from astronauts all over the world doing this…. clearly there is an issue…
Smugness I can do without even trying. I would be concerned about the lack of hard evidence if that was my goal. This video is about critical thinking.
Videos and photos of the Earth from outside the VA Belts are ample proof and have been around for 40 years.
Why should there be videos from "astronauts all over the world doing this"? How many manned space programs are there? What reason would they have for traveling out that distance, if they're not going to the Moon or elsewhere?
Remember the time when u realized santa wasnt real? well thats the same thing u are going to have to do with the fake moon landings. I know cia hollywood mind control is alot stronger than the kind your parents used on you but if you really want to face reality u are going to have to break your conditioning.
@godseyeview Thanks for contributing to the conversation! White's new video brought to my attention ANOTHER flaw in his argument, so I will make a new video soon.
@godseyeview Hey that was awesome. I hope he gets more views my way because of it.But he actually didn't debunk my video. What he did was make excuses for his assumptions.
@adiohead Haven't heard from you since my response the White's video went up. Thought you might want to chime in on that since you were so keen before.
But, I understand you're probably waiting for White to put something out so you'll know what your position is.
@GreaterSapien Nope you been debunked pretty badly. h t t p : / / w w w . zamandayolculuk . com / cetinbal / FJ / f-apollo_lm . jpg just look at this magical mystery 1960s marvel of modern space technology. complete with wobbly side panels, foil and lawn chair parts. and they actually want you to believe they stuck a car on this thing too. come on man it looks like that backyard nigerian airline plane. look at how the background just abruptly ends. obviously on a set.
@godseyeview You don't realize that what you wrote here is not a valid argument do you? I mean it's cute and maybe even a little funny, but it's not actually making a proper point. It may work around your friends but not in a forum of critical discussion.
That's why I make my videos. So people can understand how arguments and evidence should be properly put forth.
@GreaterSapien Honestly, I never thought anything of the dreadlocks and you being black aside from who you are. Comes with being Dutch I guess. But I had to come up with some witty comment on a video as good as this xD
@gzenum Though I may use the word here and there, this is not a debunking channel, it's a critical thinking promotion channel. I've considered 9-11 vids, but there are SO many conspiracy theories and debunking vids that I want to make sure I can have MY unique take on the sitch.
I'm honestly not interested in JFK mostly because I'm unconvinced either way. SHOCKER! I don't fit your pre-conceived notion of me!
I'll do what I'll do, schoolyard challenges not withstanding.
@GreaterSapien Fair enough. I like your style, unique indeed. Of course moon landing wasn't a hoax. But I'm fairly positive that the official stories of JFK and 9/11 events are bogus. Just wanted to hear your point on those, that's all. Sorry for the 'harsh' tones in the previous post, didn't mean to sound disrespectful.
@gzenum Forgiven. Happens with all of us. For the record, I'm not fond of the official JFK tale either, but it doesn't interest me enough to delve into it. I'm perfectly satisfied with the story of what physically happened on 9-11, but not the story of the lead up and definitely not the aftermath of the day. The "what did we know and when did we know it?" parts and the "how did we use it?" parts.
First of all, Van Allen is making assumptions as well, it's all approximated not concrete. Van Allen only made a discovery and originally he said, "No vessel could pass through the belts, not even in a rapid transit." The radiations levels may be higher as time progresses, because these forces fluctuate constantly for various reasons. Population on earth could very well affect our planet and everything around it pertaining to radiation. So White, is right that science has no boundaries...
@GUARDIANtrooper Bull-shit, Van Allen never made a claim like that.
You're saying Dr.Van Allen didn't know you could block alpha & beta radiation with plastic, wood or aluminum? Yeah right....Why do you hoaxers make up stuff?
Oh yeah because you haven't any evidence that Apollo was a hoax...Doh!
@DUMBhead Shut up fool, it is in the March 1959 issue of Scientific America and it was televised. He said (paraphrased), no one can make it pass the belts, not even in a rapid transit. He later retracted his statement and said they made a mistake, NASA threats obviously. That's the only way NASA could do their political FAKE moon landings. Sore losers, just like you and your comrades. Why are you fighting for the so-called TRUTH at such a magnitude? TRUTH doesn't need your support, STR8 HOAX.
@GUARDIANtrooper !959?! You might wanna' update your research.There are many corporations & countries who depend on the correct data in order to keep their satellites up running.
Really think they use data from 59?
That's what's wrong with you hoaxheads,you use outdated data.
Time to broaden your research & stop lying about Dr. Van Allen.
Why do you have your ego wrapped up in this premise, just to feel like you've spotted something the rest of the world was to inept to see?
@GreaterSapien I thought I was simple enough and a very civilized individual, excluding the brutal attack of the associated Troll comrades. They conjure up lies to entice me to challenge with vulgar of such obscenity. But, recently I've changed position, forcing them to readjust their insults much higher, Tweekerhead. You seem to be a very intelligent dude. Nevertheless I don't agree with your assessments nor understand why would you challenge Jarrah, if he wasn't a threat to NASA's agenda...
@GUARDIANtrooper I'm speaking specifically of interaction between you and Tweekerhead if that wasn't clear. As I told him, try to avoid name-calling.
The very fact that you think someone must be a threat in order to have their thinking challenged is indicative of the non-critical thinking standards Hoax-believers tend to hold.
I don't think he is a threat to any "agenda" you or anyone else thinks exists. Nor am I a part of anyone's agenda. What I am is a man with a concern....
... about the lack a critical thinking in modern culture. Moon Hoax believers just happen to be a group that provides countless examples of poor critical thinking. Like creationists, hoaxies employ flawed reasoning, assumptions of fact, quote-mining, ad hominem attacks, and play on the ignorance of their audience. White's video was recommended to me and was a great example to use for my PERSONAL agenda to promote critical thinking.
@GreaterSapien I'm talking to you now... They all hate me and I really don't care. I'm on duty quest and they will not stop coming, but yet I'm stupid, LOL! Make sense out of that one... I'm not a HOAX believer, I appose the political, Cold War, Moon Landings ONLY that are declared a HOAX. How does that make me a HOAX believer, one HOAX? Critical thinking is no fulcrum to either side as evidence as your comrades suggested, it is common sense ONLY not science. Youtube is not for your personal.
@GUARDIANtrooper Man, I swear your sentence structure is impossible to decipher! Given that We are discussing 1 particular hoax theory, your 1 hoax belief makes it a Yes. Critical thinking is NOT common sense and is a foundational pillar of science.
Lastly, that last sentence. Were you going to try and tell me what YouTube is or is not for?
@GreaterSapien Critical Thinking is not science in any posture it is merely analyzing a situation and rendering your assessment. That is not science, that is a form of common knowledge. The last part was about you screening the comment section and placing your subjects in a pillory for self defense, lol! You submitted a video to entice a bunch of trolls and their adversaries and expect them not to flinch when shot? The comment sections is for opinions, not threats of blocking apparatuses...
@GreaterSapien If he's not a threat, then why bother? Jarrah is elite versus the Trolls and you support them by accepting their invitation to the challenge. You said you didn't have a lot of time, right? Do you fire a gun half cocked? Do you read the entire chapter or make assumptions from suggested bull from obvious Trolls. You have to look at those videos and understand Jarrah's agenda to understand his motives. A concern is worry, why are you worried, do you feel threaten? You're following...
@GUARDIANtrooper Forgive me if I don't respond to this entire comment, it's a bit disjointed. But what I want you to understand is my video isn't about White. It's using White as a good example of poor thinking. I AM worried that the lack of critical thinking is a dangerous trend in American culture. I am not worried about White. He is just a springboard. If YOU understood MY agenda, you would understand my motives.
@GreaterSapien I understand your motives, but why Jarrah? You don't attack science with critical thinking if you don't understand the study of the subject, that's no springboard, that's an insult. Me..., I'm insulted by what NASA wanting me to inherit, their LIE, after extensive studies. What these clowns don't know is, I was in love with NASA, met Buzz Aldrin and wanted to be just like him. But that LIE called to me. I came and I was hurt. This is my answer and it is loaded with questions...
@GUARDIANtrooper Did you not read my reason for using White in my previous post. I used White because it had several great example of bad thinking processes in it.
I understand the science White is speaking on. I understand it very well. But one doesn't need to know the science to see he was positing unsupported assumptions as facts. When in 1 part of the vid he quotes something as "possible" and later claims it as definite, it's obvious he's making errors.
@GUARDIANtrooper I don't know why my targeting White's video is so touchy for you, but I don't care about White, he 's just another video maker to me.
I will tell you what I've told others, I'm not trying to convince anyone the landing happened. What I'm saying is, if the landing was faked, you have to have better evidence to prove it. Every single shred of "evidence" I have seen/heard has been fatally flawed. Every. Bit.
@GreaterSapien That is exactly what I wanted you to say. You don't have to know science to see unsupported assumptions as facts. Is that not LIKE pure common sense? Now, look at it from my perspective. Do I need a degree to see a HOAX? If what you say about Jarrah is so simple, then why can't you see the anomalies in the FAKE moon landings with the same techniques? If you don't have to be a scientist to analyze and pinpoint a problem with your expertise why can't I, in the same perspective?
@GUARDIANtrooper Critical thinking goes beyond common sense. Common sense are the basic things everyone knows (common), critical thinking is a skill that helps you know what questions to ask.
Common sense makes people say "the motion of the astronauts are just a slow motion camera speed." Critical thinking asks if so why aren't all motions slowed at the same rate? Common sense says we should see stars, but critical thinking asks how filtering sunlight affects star perception...
@GreaterSapien If Critical Thinking is knowing what questions to ask, who are the questions referred to? You are analyzing on a higher level and Critical Thinking starts with common sense like most things in life. Common sense makes you see things that are out of place to be questioned. It is not questioning, it is analyzing. Questions come after analyzation. You are claiming Critical Thinking symbiotic of all branches of science to rest your agenda upon it, making you a theorist like any other.
@GUARDIANtrooper I'm not saying you CAN'T, I'm saying you HAVEN'T SHOWN IT. I'm saying it COULD BE POSSIBLE the landings were faked, but to date I have not seen anything, ANY THING, that withstands critical judgment.
Do you have something that you believe meets that test? An example of something that SHOULD be observed but WAS NOT or should NOT be observed but WAS? Just one. If so I'd love to hear it.
@GreaterSapien Those pictures that our so-called probe is sending back billions of miles away with no relay flawlessly for years doesn't make you a little bit skeptic? But yet the ISS has soooo many problems. If we can create Star Wars planets props with tabletops, what do you think NASA can do with unlimited funding? Look at the videos about wire assistance. If you can't see those guys were dangling, you need to change your profession. I can't make right out of that, it look so phony, WOW...
@GUARDIANtrooper Sigh, Voyager has a BIG antenna and a fairly unique frequency. You don't see the difference of sophistication required for a space station and a radio transmitter? Star Wars looked fake. Seen the wire videos. They're garbage.
@GUARDIANtrooper Jarrah is not a threat, he's a joke. He's trying to attach himself to the greatest technological achievement of the 20th century, and he wasn't even born when those 12 men walked on the Moon. Jarrah's critical analysis is flawed, it's emotionally biased, a cultural vandal is all he is.
@Tweekerhead I wasn't born either, but I inherited that LIE and I don't want it in my generation. You can go back in time and love it, you won't love it here debating on it with idiots you suggested us to be. If the moon landings were real, go watch the real videos, enjoy them and leave Jarrah to his flaws. If you can't do that, then Jarrah must be a threat to you and or the rest of your clan. You can't change me, so why do you bother? Go play with your little rocket if I'm no threat, LMAO!!!
@GUARDIANtrooper I already told you Jarrah is a joke to people who actually think for themselves. The only lie you "inherited" is the one propagated by FOX TV for entertainment or from Jarrah's many flawed videos.
Take the name of Jarrah's series here my MAN GS totally dismantled, "Radioactive Anomaly" .. radioactive?
There's nothing 'radioactive' about the Van Allen Belts. Radioactive & radiation are two different things, but Jarrah doesn't know that.
One thing that gets me about the Apollo Hoax Theory, is that - on the one hand - NASA are said to have spared no expense in creating the perfect hoax (six times).
BUT...
They somehow allowed a series of schoolboy errors to slip through (no stars / blast crater, etc., ad nauseum); which are so obvious, that they can be easily seen by unqualified laymen, with no scientific education.
And that's before we get to how they silenced a workforce of 400,000, some of whom were probably KGB agents...
@1000fantomas Good question, I have no idea what you're talking about now. "Dissent car?" Oh, did you mean decent car? What does that have to do–? Ah, forget it.
@GreaterSapien there was no decent car in '60 so how they could build anything else . False .Lies .Cold War propaganda. USA = 1st place USSR = 2nd place.
@1000fantomas "No decent car" is factually incorrect and wholly your opinion. I guess you think we didn't have satellite technology either? So, what you're saying is, they couldn't make a decent car, but they were able to fake a moon landing so well that NO ONE has been able to disprove it in 40+ years.
@1000fantomas "False .Lies .Cold War propaganda. USA = 1st place USSR = 2nd place" Yes, that's why the USSR independently confirmed the tracking of the Apollo missions. F- for critical thinking :(
My man, the fastest planes in the world was created in the late 50' early 60's, take the Lockheed SR-71 maiden voyage in what...63'-64'(?), it still holds the record for the highest velocity achieved.
Look up some of the stuff that was out there from Lockheed to Northrup.
@1000fantomas You are conflating easily affordable consumer technology to the best scientific instrumentation and engineering produceable on a very high budget for a singular mission of high value. Tell me, can you afford your own personal polymerase-chain reaction machine? Or fMRI? Since there is no 'decent' one available on the consumer-level market today, they must not exist.
Finding faults or discrepancies in JW's videos does not prove that NASA was able to land men safely on the moon. So, where is your critical thinking of the claims made by NASA regarding their Apollo program?
@FoosMasoos my goal is not to prove NASA was successful in their mission, just to point out that, so far all evidence I've seen to the contrary has been flawed enough to be disqualified. Since I have not come across anything from NASA that has set of my critical thinking alarms, I haven't done anything on NASA. I don't go looking for Moon issues to speak on. This started as a response to a close friend's suggestion and now hoax "evidence" comes to me.
@FoosMasoos Sure, if it is photo evidence that I CAN look into. That is, it's something I can personally look up and not a digital file that you have the only copy of, so the source can't be confirmed and blah blah...
Put together a video presentation or a blog post with high quality images and your explanation.
I'm not downloading files from random anonymous people. I'm sure you understand.
@FoosMasoos The burden of proof is on those making the outlandish claims to establish their explanation or theory of how the moon landings were fake. What GreaterSapien has done here in this particular video is tackle one type of claim for why it is supposedly impossible to go to the moon. Clearly, the original maker of the video under scrutiny has utterly failed at making his case. But since it was a claim that the belts made it 'impossible', it should be all the proof the hoax pushers need.
No, landing men on the moon is a claim that must be considered outlandish since it was never possible before, and its not possible now. Its a claim never repeated. 9 years from now, If China claims to have landed men on one of Jupiter's moons, would you at face value believe them?
@FoosMasoos No, the claim is only outlandish to you. It is not outlandish to the vast majority of the scientific community. Tell me, why aren't there hundreds of astrophysicists and engineers (or experts in whatever you think makes it 'impossible') up in arms protesting the claim that we went to the moon? It is in fact the claim that it is 'impossible' that must be demonstrated. It hasn't. The assertion is supported only by cherry picking, special pleading and illiterate reading of science.
Those thousands of engineers, experts, etc, should have been able to replicate the claim by now after 40 years. Why did the USSR not attempt it? Just because the US claimed to be first? Nonsense. The USSR could have 1-uped the US by placing permanent bases for example. Burden of proof is on NASA and the US.
@FoosMasoos Why replicate? It wasn't an 'experiment' to prove a theory. It wasn't 'can we go to the moon?' They knew we could and they wanted to in order to study it. It is difficult and expensive. Why would they make a pointless return trip just to satiate the doubts of conspiracy nuts? It is rather presumptuous of you to think the USSR would mount a mission solely to 'one-up' the US. They aren't 5 year olds. Further, they never accused the US of faking it since they could track the module...
@FoosMasoos themselves. Funny how they could have busted the US but didn't. Tell me, of what use are permanent bases on a desolate moon? The focus is on a manned mission to Mars in the future, though I'm sure once it happens you'll cry hoax again.
As for providing critical analysis, that has already been done to death. Every single hoax claim has been dealt with. Not a single credible claim or argument exists. Why do you expect me to do your homework for you, in YouTube comments no less?
@FoosMasoos And no, I wouldn't take China's claims 'at face value', nor do I take NASAs. It's not like they just came out and said "we went to the moon". They have provided a plethora of evidence in support. You strike me as someone who will never believe men went to the moon until you go there yourself. And even then, you'll probably claim it still couldn't happen in 1969. Let us know when you have new evidence that hasn't been exposed as BS, thanks. I'll be waiting, probably a long time.
'I wouldn't take China's claims 'at face value', nor do I take NASAs"
Well obviously you do because you have provided no critical analysis of the proof presented. All you keep saying they have proof, but I dont hear you explain how their evidence is actual proof.
@FoosMasoos Your are right, but it does show that the reasons Moon hoax belivers cite as evidence to prove that man did not go to the moon is scienifically flawed, JW actually shoots down his own argument, how dumb is that? I have not seen any NASA claims that shoot NASA in the foot......good video GreaterSapian, well done.
@pt1gard i am literately only 14 years old and all the things he says are scientific and civil and why the people like you have to be so uncivilised to get you're point across so can you for the sake of this video be civil or is that to hard
@pt1gard You apparently didn't notice or care about my request to keep things civil in the comments. I have removed comments that I feel cross the line. It has nothing to
@GreaterSapien .. its all good, now do me this favor, since your insight is powerful on the moon ... call lee rogers any night 9-12 CST monday-friday at this number and debate him on the apollo etc; he is aching for people like you to phone in, he wont insult you either ... we would all love to see how bright you are .... Call In Lines: 1-866-841-1065 .... Local: 512-904-8014 ... please do it, you do realize all the shills I have given such offers to have never done it. BE THEIR HERO! :)
@pt1gard That people you've challenged to go on the show have never done it means nothing. See my comments about "debating" Jarrah White for the reasons I won't be calling in. How about this: You point me to the VERY BEST piece of evidence you've come across. A video with a specific bit of evidence (not "watch all of 'Video X', it's all there"), a podcast that discusses a certain fact . A blog post. Whatever. One single bit of perfect proof. Send it to me. I'll do a video on it.
@pt1gard I'm removing your posts that are offensive name calling. I wrote that I would in the video.
But for those who are interested, he basically called me a coward for not wanting to jump through his hoops.
I try to answer as many comments as I can as a courtesy to those who have been generous enough to watch my videos and comments, PT. 1 min here and there is very different than committing to watching/debunking 2 hrs of ignorant ramblings.
@pt1gard So now you've resorted to sending me offensive name calling direct messages. I have simple rules that I spell out at the end of every video. Keep a civil tone or the comments get dumped. If you want to make personal and offensive attacks in this thread, make a video. Show your face. Do not hide behind the shield of anonymity and spew garbage. Those are the actions of a true coward.
@1000fantomas He is not trying to prove we went to the moon, he is simply showing that evidence cited by moon hoax believers to support their belief is flawed.
anyone who offers me Radioactive Anomaly as proof. I never spent very much time with the radiation argument, and have focused my pro-apollo efforts elsewhere. This is excellent though. Thank you for posting.
Jarrah White is a friend of mine and he and I disagree on the Moon Landings. I'm glad you responded to his Radioactive Anomaly video. He has referred it to many people who are curious about Apollo in an attempt to help convince them that Apollo was faked.
The video sounds very scientific, and most small brained impressionable children would not understand what he's talking about. But because he has facts and says Apollo was faked, they will believe him. I will recommend this to (cont'd.)
@pt1gard Yes, yes we get it, you are the barely literate shill of the secret, shadowy organization that is responsible for all of those things. You get your check in the mail from them every week. If you don't remember it, it's because they used their mind control to erase your memory of them.
As far as I have observed, conspiracies is like an addiction. Once you going it gets harder and harder to stop. You really get redrawal symptoms when you stay away from these conspiracy sites.
And the IQ levels goes down the deeper they get into the conspiracy.
@obaeyens Indeed. The quick and easy "inside knowledge" offered by conspiracy theories may seem more appealing than the rigours of study; but it's a dark path to follow. Eventually you wind up seeing conspiracies everywhere and blaming the Government for every little thing that goes wrong with your life and society.
Hoax believers may think they have liberated their minds, but in fact they have only bound them with non-existent fears, which border on the superstitious.
Once in a while I tell them to think outside the box, expand their mind for the possibility that all conspiracy idiots are real idiots. And that all conspiracy theories are the real lairs.
Thank you for making and posting this video; unfortunately I feel you may have wasted your time. As you can see from pt1gard's post, the stock response of the hoax believer is simply to accuse you of being a shill, or a government agent.
Even if you took the hoax believers to the Moon and showed them the landing sites, they'd still claim that they were "built by robots in the 90s" or some other such nonsense - such is the strength of the delusion under which they lead their sad, empty lives.
@GlowWorm1962 I know what you mean, but I don't think it to be a waste of time because I'm not trying to convince the Hoaxies; They're lost to us. But there are a lot of young people out here looking for info because they heard something for someone and their minds are more open to critical thinking. It's to them, my son, goddaughter, nieces and nephews, and the future thinkers out there they these are for.
@GlowWorm1962 Even the exchanges in the comments serve as a great illustration of the difference between critical thinking and cynicism and conjecture, which is the only reason I engage them as long as I do.
@GreaterSapien You are right, of course. The Apollo Hoax Conspiracy is a form of cultural cancer - one that may never be completely cured, but which may (nay, must) at least be managed and prevented from spreading unchecked; through reason, open discussion and education.
I am not worried about the apollo hoaxers, I am far more worried about the domesday clips that is massive around. These people terrorizes kids by telling that they will lose their parents.The danger is a twofold. They act like a wolves pack, and they tell you that you are going to die. Unlike the moon-landing hoaxers
The hoaxers are way beyond any help. However these clips help people to understand who crazy these believer are and might spark an interest in real science.
Youtube is run by crazy people, let's take back the power with real education.
@GlowWorm1962 ... wtf ru talking this clown admitted he didnt even watch it all, I guess he's too bust boning up in his narcissism and thesaurus.... he has zero expertise and admits the gov lies about tons of things, then feebly emails me saying HEY BISEXUAL OBAMA ADMITTED THE WMD ... well, duuuuuuuuh, dumbshit, they were caught redhanded and powell is a weasel ... I guess once again the only thing the gov doesnt lie about is the cia owned NASA ... YOU GUYS MAKE ME SICK, wanna be intellectual
what bores you, the truth the gov lies about everything ... you are nothing but a shill ... uss liberty, nurse nayirah, colin powell wmd, vaccines ... would you come on the radio if I set it up and debate JW on the Apollo fraud .... gawd, you sound like a character chapelle would mock ... you're really revolting slumming with the shills ... Jarrah is a genius, you don't know shit and admittedly didnt even watch it all
@pt1gard First off, except for "vaccines" (which is just a word with no context in your post (vaccines what? finish the thought, man!)) I would bet I'm on "your side" on all those other lies ("uss liberty...").
"Gov lies about everything"? So when Obama's people say there were no WMD are THEY lying about that? Really? Everything?
Chapelle can mock anybody, but he would more likely mock someone who uses the phrase "Jarrah is a genius" ...
... And NO I wouldn't debate White on this subject for several reasons.
1. Debating Conspiracy Theorists elevates them and lowers me.
2. CT's are not limited by FACTS so there is no way to prepare to counter random "evidence" "quotes" "studies" or "data" that a CT might pull out of thin air. Which, honestly, would just make me look stupid even if the CT "facts" were gibberish.
3. I have a life. Seriously. Son. Wife. Job. All more important than deluded Moon Hoaxies.
@pt1gard And we are supposed to believe that YOU're are not a shill? How do we know that you're not part of the conspiracy to undermine western civilization?
I want to point out something very obvious that the moon hoaxers try to avoid.
We talk about the radiation "belt". Yes a belt like a big radiation donut. A donut has 2 huge holes at the poles. Once can completely avoid the radiation belt by going over it if they were really that dangerous.
@obaeyens Yes. But though there are holes at the poles, traveling that way is really inefficient, so we plot a course that passes through the less intense portions of the belt, yet allow us to use the earth's rotation as a boost.
Yes I agree, but I just wanted to show that if radiation was really that dangerous they would have gone through the poles. Since it was not that dangerous they went through the belts requiring less fuel.
Hi. I don't think we've bumped into each other before. I like your video and your style. Very good points.
Yes, like most conspiracy theorists, Jarrah is very slippery and tortures quotes and data to fit his bias. Sometimes, as you point out, the sharp eye can actually catch him debunking himself. And many of his arguments are non-sequiturs, which can often be masked by his over-confident style.
Good video and very well stated. Jarrah White is evidently some self absorbed fool, thinking he is smarter than all those scientists that acknowledged the Moon landings. The VARb contain enough dangerous particles to kill a man, if he would stay there for a long period of time. Thirty straight days would have killed a crew. Apollo went through the belts in 90 mins.
STOP right there! at @6:57 you say ---- > "as you can see, white is clearly stating here that the satelites and atronuts are capable of avoiding dangerous exposure in the van alen belts".
what such an disingenuous statement! White never said that....hes repeating an article to prove the satelite orbiting distance (HE NOT STATING ATRONUTS MADE IT THROUGH). and in Part 2 of that clip he explains that.
@yourmajezty What he is doing is quoting an authority to use in refutation of an opponent, which at the same time contradicts his whole theory. Maybe he wishes to not be attached to the statement. If so he should detach himself from it, as he uses it, or find a quote that only says satellites get through w/o mentioning astros. Or was that not possible?
This is further proof that there are ways of presenting evidence and he's not very good at it. This is not to say that he's not capable of (...)
(…) putting information together. But structuring an argument that is solid in a scientific manner is not his strong suit.
I understand that this stuff is A RELIGION to you and just like with religious people, I have no desire to convert you. You're happy in your world of conspiracies. My videos are for people who are actually interested in critical thinking, not those who like to be part of a club people who know about all the secrets.
@GreaterSapien critical thinking is talking a sound bit and not listening to the entire clip? thats critical thinking? hahaha. you must watch FOX news.
@yourmajezty You still haven't shown a spot that I skipped that had info that would change the meaning of his statements. Please do that. Seriously. DO IT.
People have access to the unedited vid and I don't hide that I'm skipping, so they can see for themselves. I'm also trying to keep the length down of the vids so trimming is a requirement. If you think I should have just played the entire video, well, sorry, it's not my video to do that. If you think I intentionally did not show evidence(...)
(…) from a later video that would support him in this video, you're wrong. I state up front I only watched the first video. I don't like watching these things. They suck.
And I'm sorry, I know you want these vids to be great, scientific, critical achievements. But they're not.
Please have something of substance in your next contribution to this discussion.
@GreaterSapien "as you can see, white is clearly stating here that the satelites and atronuts are capable of avoiding dangerous exposure in the van alen belts". <------ that statement (along with many others) is disingenuous, because you trying to give the appearence that Jarrah is stating that astronuts can get through and above the van allen radiation belts. THATS FALSE. hes reading from an article. in part 2 of that video series, he makes that clear (anyone can go check for themselves).
@yourmajezty Obviously, you feel it would be better if I had stated, " As you can see, White is clearly putting forth as evidence that satellites and astronauts are capable of avoiding..." But in no way does that change the fact that he put it forth as evidence.
Yes, I know he CONSTANTLY says that astros can't do it, yet he puts forth evidence that says they can and do. That's my point; It was a very shoddy thing to do. That's not how you structure evidence.
(...) have to have that in there. This was his attempt to disprove the point of an emailer that was not worthy of discussion, but in his need to engage in these personal battles, he strayed from his point and put an expert on the stand that was against him. That's not good critical thinking. But you can't see that. Because you NEED this to be true.
You obviously can't see that he doesn't use reliable sources to pin his points on. He uses CNN web articles up against NASA statements (...)
as if they have the same gravity. (Hint: They are not) You can't claim a contradiction exists when your sources are not reliable. You can't see that he makes statements of fact that come from NOWHERE. Which is why you haven't mentioned any facts but are focusing on my word usage.
Why do you avoid the fact that he discards the range of energy levels in the VA belts and imposes the Peak on the whole? Makes possibilities into facts? Takes gossamer threads and pronounces them solid beams? (...)
@kennjohnsen All conspiracists use that same line. "Someday the truth will come out," is the security blanket they wrap themselves in every night to make them feel better. It's right there with "someday you'll die and know God is real." What you don't get is that I'm not telling you what to believe and showing that if you think the Landings were fake, you can't use these "facts" as evidence. Again, DO BETTER.
You are definitely rediculing the critics, and say the reason is that you are a thinker, in other words the critics are stupid. So I certainly can use these fact against you, when it's proved it was a hoax/scam, and I will, you can't cover up this scam forever. And I say to all, notice your face, till it's payback time.
@kennjohnsen No, Kenn, I'm ridiculing the EVIDENCE the critics are trying to use. In other words, I think their evidence is wrong. You don't have to be stupid to be wrong or to follow a non-critical thinking path. I say smoking is stupid, but people who smoke aren't necessarily stupid, they are just doing a stupid thing.
And stop with the "payback time" thing. That IS stupid. You gonna come to my house and say "nyah nyah"? Please.
I wonder how can it be that you crooks knows all about space radiation, when James van Hoften and National Research Council says that space radiation is poorly understood ? and that they cannot send men up in outer space before a protection is found ? it would violate the current requirements NASA has ?
@kennjohnsen Crooks? Nice. The snarky answer would be to say "because they're wrong" but the best answer would be to say that the only time I've heard JvH speak of such things was him speaking of long space flights to places like Mars, which would be years of exposure, which is a very different thing than going to the Moon. Try not to cherry-pick the information and experts that fit your point of view. DO BETTER.
@yourmajezty Actually, I showed all parts of the first video that had information pertinent to his claim.1 reason I show the whole video including FFWDs is so people can see when things have been skipped and can check if it's important. I defy you to find where I've skipped portions of the video that would change my assertions.
Well done, my friend. I have seen a couple of his videos, and found similar selective reasonings. He seems to use tactics that remind me of an immature used-car salesman - exaggerates what little he actualy knows, is deceptive about the rest, then pouts when someone points out the fact there is no engine in the car. I can't watch any more of his garbage without feeling physically ill.
Much of Jarrah's content is solely dedicated to discrediting his opponents and others who bother to speak out against the moon hoax. That's why anyone who directly challenges his claims are liars and propagandists to him - Because if they aren't the worst thing in the world, no one would really ever take him seriously.
I wouldn't be surprised if he tried to get this removed, or made a video response.
GREAT! Jarrah calls himself "The Grandson of the Apollo Hoax Theory" (having inherited Ralph Rene's writings). He's on a mission, but bypasses fine details that engineers, astronomers, astrophysicists & biophysicists use to do amazing things. He errs at the foundation, but continues to build his long, verbose, boring monstrosities.
WARNING! He doesn't like his material used against him. He has several guys filing false DMCA claims against him. He may do more than whine if he gets wind of this.
The idea taking some photos and video from NASA (proven Video Fakery and a nazi organisation) as evidence of critical thinking is an oxymoron. Why did shuttle occupants well short of the Van Allen Belt reported a disturbing amount of radiation, why didn't the russian just fly through it or anyone else for that matter? Over simplified conclussion in my oppinion.
dcrowe66 4 days ago
@dcrowe66
That last sentence describe all your other sentences perfectly.
Thank you for summarizing yourself for us.
GreaterSapien 4 days ago
Very smug…but still no hard evidence…after nearly 40 years where is the quantifiable truth that shows people can travel through the VRB..there should be endless videos from astronauts all over the world doing this…. clearly there is an issue…
dcrowe66 6 days ago
@dcrowe66
Smugness I can do without even trying. I would be concerned about the lack of hard evidence if that was my goal. This video is about critical thinking.
Videos and photos of the Earth from outside the VA Belts are ample proof and have been around for 40 years.
Why should there be videos from "astronauts all over the world doing this"? How many manned space programs are there? What reason would they have for traveling out that distance, if they're not going to the Moon or elsewhere?
GreaterSapien 6 days ago
Many pro apollo socks here helping you along, laughable..
astronazi2 1 month ago
@astronazi2 That may be true, I don't know and don't concern myself with such things. I hold my position well on my own.
GreaterSapien 1 month ago
Excellent analysis. Keep up the good work!
HeadLikeARock 1 month ago
the NJ Jarah White's use of your work makes you credible and interesting, rather than discredit that he thickly expects. sub
AtheistCitizen 1 month ago
@AtheistCitizen ...and the channel had eerily familiar users, even those new the me this week..
AtheistCitizen 1 month ago
I Have Never been To A Vid With 100% Positive comments.. Lol Are You Screening Comments Just Asking
BooMStikin 1 month ago
@BooMStikin 100% positive? How far did you read? What is your standard of positive?
No, I don't screen out comments unless they are offensive. Those are deleted.
GreaterSapien 1 month ago
Remember the time when u realized santa wasnt real? well thats the same thing u are going to have to do with the fake moon landings. I know cia hollywood mind control is alot stronger than the kind your parents used on you but if you really want to face reality u are going to have to break your conditioning.
godseyeview 1 month ago
@godseyeview Thanks for contributing to the conversation! White's new video brought to my attention ANOTHER flaw in his argument, so I will make a new video soon.
GreaterSapien 1 month ago
White debunks your video! watch?v=_MXI6-xF38s you lose!
godseyeview 1 month ago
@godseyeview Hey that was awesome. I hope he gets more views my way because of it.But he actually didn't debunk my video. What he did was make excuses for his assumptions.
GreaterSapien 1 month ago
Comment removed
godseyeview 1 month ago
@GreaterSapien
He certainly did debunked you, and pointed out your lack of critical thinking.
adiohead 1 month ago
@adiohead No. I'll have a video out within 24 hours. You'll see he did no such thing. You'll deny it, but I'll show it.
GreaterSapien 1 month ago
@adiohead Haven't heard from you since my response the White's video went up. Thought you might want to chime in on that since you were so keen before.
But, I understand you're probably waiting for White to put something out so you'll know what your position is.
GreaterSapien 1 month ago
@GreaterSapien
"But, I understand you're probably waiting for White to put something out so you'll know what your position is."
No, I'm afraid you are wrong again.
adiohead 1 month ago
@adiohead
Make some 'more' videos Adiohead. Youre channel is a bit empty. Very representative for your contributions though...
Rob260259 1 month ago
total fail dude.
flytomars2012 1 month ago
@flytomars2012 Yep. White failed. Thanks for noticing.
GreaterSapien 1 month ago
@GreaterSapien Nope you been debunked pretty badly. h t t p : / / w w w . zamandayolculuk . com / cetinbal / FJ / f-apollo_lm . jpg just look at this magical mystery 1960s marvel of modern space technology. complete with wobbly side panels, foil and lawn chair parts. and they actually want you to believe they stuck a car on this thing too. come on man it looks like that backyard nigerian airline plane. look at how the background just abruptly ends. obviously on a set.
godseyeview 1 month ago
@godseyeview You don't realize that what you wrote here is not a valid argument do you? I mean it's cute and maybe even a little funny, but it's not actually making a proper point. It may work around your friends but not in a forum of critical discussion.
That's why I make my videos. So people can understand how arguments and evidence should be properly put forth.
GreaterSapien 1 month ago
Great Video!...Has White commented? You should debunk all his videos!
bcrumpty 1 month ago
@bcrumpty He just did. I'll reply soon.
GreaterSapien 1 month ago
5 minutes in and i lost interest.... sorry man. maybe get to the good part earlier?
choppersilver 1 month ago
@choppersilver Some things are linear. That's the way it goes.
GreaterSapien 1 month ago
Great response to JW's nonsense. I will check out the rest of your videos now. Subscribed!
rawmonkno1 2 months ago
Alright, let's see what this black dude with dreadlocks can do
*8 minutes and 3 seconds pass*
I salute you for a job well done.
*subs*
tiaxanderson 2 months ago
@tiaxanderson Ha! Thanks for giving me a shot and the kind words.
GreaterSapien 2 months ago
@GreaterSapien Honestly, I never thought anything of the dreadlocks and you being black aside from who you are. Comes with being Dutch I guess. But I had to come up with some witty comment on a video as good as this xD
tiaxanderson 2 months ago
@tiaxanderson Wit appreciated!
GreaterSapien 2 months ago
Debunk the 9/11 conspiracy , would love to hear what you have to say about that one :p
Or if that's hard you can go with JFK , that should be easy for you.
But of course, that's not going to happen.
gzenum 2 months ago
@gzenum Though I may use the word here and there, this is not a debunking channel, it's a critical thinking promotion channel. I've considered 9-11 vids, but there are SO many conspiracy theories and debunking vids that I want to make sure I can have MY unique take on the sitch.
I'm honestly not interested in JFK mostly because I'm unconvinced either way. SHOCKER! I don't fit your pre-conceived notion of me!
I'll do what I'll do, schoolyard challenges not withstanding.
GreaterSapien 2 months ago
@GreaterSapien Fair enough. I like your style, unique indeed. Of course moon landing wasn't a hoax. But I'm fairly positive that the official stories of JFK and 9/11 events are bogus. Just wanted to hear your point on those, that's all. Sorry for the 'harsh' tones in the previous post, didn't mean to sound disrespectful.
gzenum 2 months ago
@gzenum Forgiven. Happens with all of us. For the record, I'm not fond of the official JFK tale either, but it doesn't interest me enough to delve into it. I'm perfectly satisfied with the story of what physically happened on 9-11, but not the story of the lead up and definitely not the aftermath of the day. The "what did we know and when did we know it?" parts and the "how did we use it?" parts.
GreaterSapien 2 months ago
First of all, Van Allen is making assumptions as well, it's all approximated not concrete. Van Allen only made a discovery and originally he said, "No vessel could pass through the belts, not even in a rapid transit." The radiations levels may be higher as time progresses, because these forces fluctuate constantly for various reasons. Population on earth could very well affect our planet and everything around it pertaining to radiation. So White, is right that science has no boundaries...
GUARDIANtrooper 2 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper Bull-shit, Van Allen never made a claim like that.
You're saying Dr.Van Allen didn't know you could block alpha & beta radiation with plastic, wood or aluminum? Yeah right....Why do you hoaxers make up stuff?
Oh yeah because you haven't any evidence that Apollo was a hoax...Doh!
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@DUMBhead Shut up fool, it is in the March 1959 issue of Scientific America and it was televised. He said (paraphrased), no one can make it pass the belts, not even in a rapid transit. He later retracted his statement and said they made a mistake, NASA threats obviously. That's the only way NASA could do their political FAKE moon landings. Sore losers, just like you and your comrades. Why are you fighting for the so-called TRUTH at such a magnitude? TRUTH doesn't need your support, STR8 HOAX.
GUARDIANtrooper 2 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper !959?! You might wanna' update your research.There are many corporations & countries who depend on the correct data in order to keep their satellites up running.
Really think they use data from 59?
That's what's wrong with you hoaxheads,you use outdated data.
Time to broaden your research & stop lying about Dr. Van Allen.
Why do you have your ego wrapped up in this premise, just to feel like you've spotted something the rest of the world was to inept to see?
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
Comment removed
GUARDIANtrooper 2 months ago 2
@buttholesnooper The trajectory for Apollo11 flew thru' omnidirectional flux protons of 100MeV / 10³particles/cm²-sec.
If you want me to give you the g/cm² rating equivalent for the shielding I will.
Grow up before your crystallize your belief system, you might feel like a fool someday when you're lookin' back, son.
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead Let's try to avoid namecalling.
GreaterSapien 2 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper Tone down the rhetoric and stick to a civil discussion.
GreaterSapien 2 months ago
@GreaterSapien I thought I was simple enough and a very civilized individual, excluding the brutal attack of the associated Troll comrades. They conjure up lies to entice me to challenge with vulgar of such obscenity. But, recently I've changed position, forcing them to readjust their insults much higher, Tweekerhead. You seem to be a very intelligent dude. Nevertheless I don't agree with your assessments nor understand why would you challenge Jarrah, if he wasn't a threat to NASA's agenda...
GUARDIANtrooper 2 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper I'm speaking specifically of interaction between you and Tweekerhead if that wasn't clear. As I told him, try to avoid name-calling.
The very fact that you think someone must be a threat in order to have their thinking challenged is indicative of the non-critical thinking standards Hoax-believers tend to hold.
I don't think he is a threat to any "agenda" you or anyone else thinks exists. Nor am I a part of anyone's agenda. What I am is a man with a concern....
GreaterSapien 2 months ago
... about the lack a critical thinking in modern culture. Moon Hoax believers just happen to be a group that provides countless examples of poor critical thinking. Like creationists, hoaxies employ flawed reasoning, assumptions of fact, quote-mining, ad hominem attacks, and play on the ignorance of their audience. White's video was recommended to me and was a great example to use for my PERSONAL agenda to promote critical thinking.
GreaterSapien 2 months ago
@GreaterSapien I'm talking to you now... They all hate me and I really don't care. I'm on duty quest and they will not stop coming, but yet I'm stupid, LOL! Make sense out of that one... I'm not a HOAX believer, I appose the political, Cold War, Moon Landings ONLY that are declared a HOAX. How does that make me a HOAX believer, one HOAX? Critical thinking is no fulcrum to either side as evidence as your comrades suggested, it is common sense ONLY not science. Youtube is not for your personal.
GUARDIANtrooper 2 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper Man, I swear your sentence structure is impossible to decipher! Given that We are discussing 1 particular hoax theory, your 1 hoax belief makes it a Yes. Critical thinking is NOT common sense and is a foundational pillar of science.
Lastly, that last sentence. Were you going to try and tell me what YouTube is or is not for?
GreaterSapien 2 months ago
@GreaterSapien Critical Thinking is not science in any posture it is merely analyzing a situation and rendering your assessment. That is not science, that is a form of common knowledge. The last part was about you screening the comment section and placing your subjects in a pillory for self defense, lol! You submitted a video to entice a bunch of trolls and their adversaries and expect them not to flinch when shot? The comment sections is for opinions, not threats of blocking apparatuses...
GUARDIANtrooper 2 months ago
@GreaterSapien If he's not a threat, then why bother? Jarrah is elite versus the Trolls and you support them by accepting their invitation to the challenge. You said you didn't have a lot of time, right? Do you fire a gun half cocked? Do you read the entire chapter or make assumptions from suggested bull from obvious Trolls. You have to look at those videos and understand Jarrah's agenda to understand his motives. A concern is worry, why are you worried, do you feel threaten? You're following...
GUARDIANtrooper 2 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper Forgive me if I don't respond to this entire comment, it's a bit disjointed. But what I want you to understand is my video isn't about White. It's using White as a good example of poor thinking. I AM worried that the lack of critical thinking is a dangerous trend in American culture. I am not worried about White. He is just a springboard. If YOU understood MY agenda, you would understand my motives.
GreaterSapien 2 months ago
@GreaterSapien I understand your motives, but why Jarrah? You don't attack science with critical thinking if you don't understand the study of the subject, that's no springboard, that's an insult. Me..., I'm insulted by what NASA wanting me to inherit, their LIE, after extensive studies. What these clowns don't know is, I was in love with NASA, met Buzz Aldrin and wanted to be just like him. But that LIE called to me. I came and I was hurt. This is my answer and it is loaded with questions...
GUARDIANtrooper 2 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper Did you not read my reason for using White in my previous post. I used White because it had several great example of bad thinking processes in it.
I understand the science White is speaking on. I understand it very well. But one doesn't need to know the science to see he was positing unsupported assumptions as facts. When in 1 part of the vid he quotes something as "possible" and later claims it as definite, it's obvious he's making errors.
GreaterSapien 2 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper I don't know why my targeting White's video is so touchy for you, but I don't care about White, he 's just another video maker to me.
I will tell you what I've told others, I'm not trying to convince anyone the landing happened. What I'm saying is, if the landing was faked, you have to have better evidence to prove it. Every single shred of "evidence" I have seen/heard has been fatally flawed. Every. Bit.
What I'm saying is: DO BETTER.
GreaterSapien 2 months ago
@GreaterSapien That is exactly what I wanted you to say. You don't have to know science to see unsupported assumptions as facts. Is that not LIKE pure common sense? Now, look at it from my perspective. Do I need a degree to see a HOAX? If what you say about Jarrah is so simple, then why can't you see the anomalies in the FAKE moon landings with the same techniques? If you don't have to be a scientist to analyze and pinpoint a problem with your expertise why can't I, in the same perspective?
GUARDIANtrooper 2 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper Critical thinking goes beyond common sense. Common sense are the basic things everyone knows (common), critical thinking is a skill that helps you know what questions to ask.
Common sense makes people say "the motion of the astronauts are just a slow motion camera speed." Critical thinking asks if so why aren't all motions slowed at the same rate? Common sense says we should see stars, but critical thinking asks how filtering sunlight affects star perception...
GreaterSapien 2 months ago
@GreaterSapien If Critical Thinking is knowing what questions to ask, who are the questions referred to? You are analyzing on a higher level and Critical Thinking starts with common sense like most things in life. Common sense makes you see things that are out of place to be questioned. It is not questioning, it is analyzing. Questions come after analyzation. You are claiming Critical Thinking symbiotic of all branches of science to rest your agenda upon it, making you a theorist like any other.
GUARDIANtrooper 2 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper So you're admitting now that critical thinking is more than common sense. Good for you.
My word was foundational not symbiotic.
I have no idea if you think you're insulting me or not. And I don't care.
Bored now.
GreaterSapien 2 months ago
@GreaterSapien ................
GUARDIANtrooper 2 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper I'm not saying you CAN'T, I'm saying you HAVEN'T SHOWN IT. I'm saying it COULD BE POSSIBLE the landings were faked, but to date I have not seen anything, ANY THING, that withstands critical judgment.
Do you have something that you believe meets that test? An example of something that SHOULD be observed but WAS NOT or should NOT be observed but WAS? Just one. If so I'd love to hear it.
GreaterSapien 2 months ago
@GreaterSapien Those pictures that our so-called probe is sending back billions of miles away with no relay flawlessly for years doesn't make you a little bit skeptic? But yet the ISS has soooo many problems. If we can create Star Wars planets props with tabletops, what do you think NASA can do with unlimited funding? Look at the videos about wire assistance. If you can't see those guys were dangling, you need to change your profession. I can't make right out of that, it look so phony, WOW...
GUARDIANtrooper 2 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper Sigh, Voyager has a BIG antenna and a fairly unique frequency. You don't see the difference of sophistication required for a space station and a radio transmitter? Star Wars looked fake. Seen the wire videos. They're garbage.
GreaterSapien 2 months ago
@GreaterSapien Hey GS, great piece. Sorry to see that Jarrah's legion of 8th grade lemmings has descended on your post...
hibob418 1 month ago
@GUARDIANtrooper Jarrah is not a threat, he's a joke. He's trying to attach himself to the greatest technological achievement of the 20th century, and he wasn't even born when those 12 men walked on the Moon. Jarrah's critical analysis is flawed, it's emotionally biased, a cultural vandal is all he is.
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead I wasn't born either, but I inherited that LIE and I don't want it in my generation. You can go back in time and love it, you won't love it here debating on it with idiots you suggested us to be. If the moon landings were real, go watch the real videos, enjoy them and leave Jarrah to his flaws. If you can't do that, then Jarrah must be a threat to you and or the rest of your clan. You can't change me, so why do you bother? Go play with your little rocket if I'm no threat, LMAO!!!
GUARDIANtrooper 2 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper I already told you Jarrah is a joke to people who actually think for themselves. The only lie you "inherited" is the one propagated by FOX TV for entertainment or from Jarrah's many flawed videos.
Take the name of Jarrah's series here my MAN GS totally dismantled, "Radioactive Anomaly" .. radioactive?
There's nothing 'radioactive' about the Van Allen Belts. Radioactive & radiation are two different things, but Jarrah doesn't know that.
Stay in the dark-ages.
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
One thing that gets me about the Apollo Hoax Theory, is that - on the one hand - NASA are said to have spared no expense in creating the perfect hoax (six times).
BUT...
They somehow allowed a series of schoolboy errors to slip through (no stars / blast crater, etc., ad nauseum); which are so obvious, that they can be easily seen by unqualified laymen, with no scientific education.
And that's before we get to how they silenced a workforce of 400,000, some of whom were probably KGB agents...
GlowWorm1962 2 months ago
I don't care anymore. They did not go. Period.
P.S it's my opinion of course.Science has nothing to do with it at all. No dissent car in '60 so what are we talking about.
1000fantomas 2 months ago
@1000fantomas Good question, I have no idea what you're talking about now. "Dissent car?" Oh, did you mean decent car? What does that have to do–? Ah, forget it.
But thanks anyway, for adding to the discussion!
GreaterSapien 2 months ago
@GreaterSapien there was no decent car in '60 so how they could build anything else . False .Lies .Cold War propaganda. USA = 1st place USSR = 2nd place.
1000fantomas 2 months ago
@1000fantomas "No decent car" is factually incorrect and wholly your opinion. I guess you think we didn't have satellite technology either? So, what you're saying is, they couldn't make a decent car, but they were able to fake a moon landing so well that NO ONE has been able to disprove it in 40+ years.
Okay, then. Take care then.
GreaterSapien 2 months ago
@1000fantomas "False .Lies .Cold War propaganda. USA = 1st place USSR = 2nd place" Yes, that's why the USSR independently confirmed the tracking of the Apollo missions. F- for critical thinking :(
ianman6 2 months ago
@1000fantomas Excuse me J.W. if I may but' in.
My man, the fastest planes in the world was created in the late 50' early 60's, take the Lockheed SR-71 maiden voyage in what...63'-64'(?), it still holds the record for the highest velocity achieved.
Look up some of the stuff that was out there from Lockheed to Northrup.
The 60's was the Bomb dude.
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@1000fantomas You are conflating easily affordable consumer technology to the best scientific instrumentation and engineering produceable on a very high budget for a singular mission of high value. Tell me, can you afford your own personal polymerase-chain reaction machine? Or fMRI? Since there is no 'decent' one available on the consumer-level market today, they must not exist.
ianman6 2 months ago
JW's video defeats itself!! LOL Welcome to the world of JW
I love this guy!
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead As a man who's initials are also JW, I've always lived in the "world of JW."
Thanks for joining in the discussion.
GreaterSapien 2 months ago
@GreaterSapien I'll refer to Jarrah as something else then...LOL
Great to have you in the Apollo believer's camp, your logic is undeniable, for the lack of a better word.
Awesome man just awesome...
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
Critical thinking....
Finding faults or discrepancies in JW's videos does not prove that NASA was able to land men safely on the moon. So, where is your critical thinking of the claims made by NASA regarding their Apollo program?
FoosMasoos 3 months ago
@FoosMasoos my goal is not to prove NASA was successful in their mission, just to point out that, so far all evidence I've seen to the contrary has been flawed enough to be disqualified. Since I have not come across anything from NASA that has set of my critical thinking alarms, I haven't done anything on NASA. I don't go looking for Moon issues to speak on. This started as a response to a close friend's suggestion and now hoax "evidence" comes to me.
GreaterSapien 3 months ago
@GreaterSapien
Lets say if I presented photo evidence, would you look into it?
FoosMasoos 2 months ago
@FoosMasoos Sure, if it is photo evidence that I CAN look into. That is, it's something I can personally look up and not a digital file that you have the only copy of, so the source can't be confirmed and blah blah...
Put together a video presentation or a blog post with high quality images and your explanation.
I'm not downloading files from random anonymous people. I'm sure you understand.
I look forward to it.
GreaterSapien 2 months ago
@FoosMasoos The burden of proof is on those making the outlandish claims to establish their explanation or theory of how the moon landings were fake. What GreaterSapien has done here in this particular video is tackle one type of claim for why it is supposedly impossible to go to the moon. Clearly, the original maker of the video under scrutiny has utterly failed at making his case. But since it was a claim that the belts made it 'impossible', it should be all the proof the hoax pushers need.
ianman6 3 months ago
@ianman6
No, landing men on the moon is a claim that must be considered outlandish since it was never possible before, and its not possible now. Its a claim never repeated. 9 years from now, If China claims to have landed men on one of Jupiter's moons, would you at face value believe them?
FoosMasoos 2 months ago
@FoosMasoos No, the claim is only outlandish to you. It is not outlandish to the vast majority of the scientific community. Tell me, why aren't there hundreds of astrophysicists and engineers (or experts in whatever you think makes it 'impossible') up in arms protesting the claim that we went to the moon? It is in fact the claim that it is 'impossible' that must be demonstrated. It hasn't. The assertion is supported only by cherry picking, special pleading and illiterate reading of science.
ianman6 2 months ago
@ianman6
Those thousands of engineers, experts, etc, should have been able to replicate the claim by now after 40 years. Why did the USSR not attempt it? Just because the US claimed to be first? Nonsense. The USSR could have 1-uped the US by placing permanent bases for example. Burden of proof is on NASA and the US.
FoosMasoos 2 months ago
@FoosMasoos Why replicate? It wasn't an 'experiment' to prove a theory. It wasn't 'can we go to the moon?' They knew we could and they wanted to in order to study it. It is difficult and expensive. Why would they make a pointless return trip just to satiate the doubts of conspiracy nuts? It is rather presumptuous of you to think the USSR would mount a mission solely to 'one-up' the US. They aren't 5 year olds. Further, they never accused the US of faking it since they could track the module...
ianman6 2 months ago
@FoosMasoos themselves. Funny how they could have busted the US but didn't. Tell me, of what use are permanent bases on a desolate moon? The focus is on a manned mission to Mars in the future, though I'm sure once it happens you'll cry hoax again.
As for providing critical analysis, that has already been done to death. Every single hoax claim has been dealt with. Not a single credible claim or argument exists. Why do you expect me to do your homework for you, in YouTube comments no less?
ianman6 2 months ago
@FoosMasoos And no, I wouldn't take China's claims 'at face value', nor do I take NASAs. It's not like they just came out and said "we went to the moon". They have provided a plethora of evidence in support. You strike me as someone who will never believe men went to the moon until you go there yourself. And even then, you'll probably claim it still couldn't happen in 1969. Let us know when you have new evidence that hasn't been exposed as BS, thanks. I'll be waiting, probably a long time.
ianman6 2 months ago
@ianman6
'I wouldn't take China's claims 'at face value', nor do I take NASAs"
Well obviously you do because you have provided no critical analysis of the proof presented. All you keep saying they have proof, but I dont hear you explain how their evidence is actual proof.
FoosMasoos 2 months ago
Comment removed
musicbruv 2 months ago
@FoosMasoos Your are right, but it does show that the reasons Moon hoax belivers cite as evidence to prove that man did not go to the moon is scienifically flawed, JW actually shoots down his own argument, how dumb is that? I have not seen any NASA claims that shoot NASA in the foot......good video GreaterSapian, well done.
musicbruv 2 months ago
Damn dude, you have such a radio voice, lol.
ChadSmith1452 3 months ago
@pt1gard i am literately only 14 years old and all the things he says are scientific and civil and why the people like you have to be so uncivilised to get you're point across so can you for the sake of this video be civil or is that to hard
MrLeigh1997 3 months ago
@pt1gard You apparently didn't notice or care about my request to keep things civil in the comments. I have removed comments that I feel cross the line. It has nothing to
GreaterSapien 3 months ago
@GreaterSapien .. its all good, now do me this favor, since your insight is powerful on the moon ... call lee rogers any night 9-12 CST monday-friday at this number and debate him on the apollo etc; he is aching for people like you to phone in, he wont insult you either ... we would all love to see how bright you are .... Call In Lines: 1-866-841-1065 .... Local: 512-904-8014 ... please do it, you do realize all the shills I have given such offers to have never done it. BE THEIR HERO! :)
pt1gard 3 months ago
@pt1gard That people you've challenged to go on the show have never done it means nothing. See my comments about "debating" Jarrah White for the reasons I won't be calling in. How about this: You point me to the VERY BEST piece of evidence you've come across. A video with a specific bit of evidence (not "watch all of 'Video X', it's all there"), a podcast that discusses a certain fact . A blog post. Whatever. One single bit of perfect proof. Send it to me. I'll do a video on it.
GreaterSapien 3 months ago
@pt1gard I'm removing your posts that are offensive name calling. I wrote that I would in the video.
But for those who are interested, he basically called me a coward for not wanting to jump through his hoops.
I try to answer as many comments as I can as a courtesy to those who have been generous enough to watch my videos and comments, PT. 1 min here and there is very different than committing to watching/debunking 2 hrs of ignorant ramblings.
GreaterSapien 3 months ago
@pt1gard So now you've resorted to sending me offensive name calling direct messages. I have simple rules that I spell out at the end of every video. Keep a civil tone or the comments get dumped. If you want to make personal and offensive attacks in this thread, make a video. Show your face. Do not hide behind the shield of anonymity and spew garbage. Those are the actions of a true coward.
GreaterSapien 3 months ago 9
@GreaterSapien
What are You trying to proof.That they went to the moon.Did You go there with them ? How You can be so sure that all of this ever happen.
U just believed.Nothing else.Just believed.
1000fantomas 3 months ago
@1000fantomas Thanks for the deep, cogent insight.
GreaterSapien 3 months ago
@1000fantomas He is not trying to prove we went to the moon, he is simply showing that evidence cited by moon hoax believers to support their belief is flawed.
musicbruv 2 months ago
anyone who offers me Radioactive Anomaly as proof. I never spent very much time with the radiation argument, and have focused my pro-apollo efforts elsewhere. This is excellent though. Thank you for posting.
yesiamawizardjonny 3 months ago
Jarrah White is a friend of mine and he and I disagree on the Moon Landings. I'm glad you responded to his Radioactive Anomaly video. He has referred it to many people who are curious about Apollo in an attempt to help convince them that Apollo was faked.
The video sounds very scientific, and most small brained impressionable children would not understand what he's talking about. But because he has facts and says Apollo was faked, they will believe him. I will recommend this to (cont'd.)
yesiamawizardjonny 3 months ago
@pt1gard why do you have to swear to get you,re point across see no one else is swearing so why are you ?
MrLeigh1997 3 months ago
@MrLeigh1997 ... why do you give a shit??? these shills started it way back when, so i dont listen to a damn word bc they are lying nasa scum
pt1gard 3 months ago
@pt1gard i doubt there scum if they are the smartest people to ever live no offence but you,re more scum then them
MrLeigh1997 3 months ago
@pt1gard This thread is getting bogged down with name-calling. Please stick to cogent critiques. Thanks.
GreaterSapien 3 months ago
@pt1gard Yes, yes we get it, you are the barely literate shill of the secret, shadowy organization that is responsible for all of those things. You get your check in the mail from them every week. If you don't remember it, it's because they used their mind control to erase your memory of them.
TheGreatSparky 3 months ago
@TheGreatSparky I know you're not being particularly offensive, but if you could refrain from encouraging name-calling that would be great. Thanks!
GreaterSapien 3 months ago
As far as I have observed, conspiracies is like an addiction. Once you going it gets harder and harder to stop. You really get redrawal symptoms when you stay away from these conspiracy sites.
And the IQ levels goes down the deeper they get into the conspiracy.
obaeyens 3 months ago
@obaeyens Indeed. The quick and easy "inside knowledge" offered by conspiracy theories may seem more appealing than the rigours of study; but it's a dark path to follow. Eventually you wind up seeing conspiracies everywhere and blaming the Government for every little thing that goes wrong with your life and society.
Hoax believers may think they have liberated their minds, but in fact they have only bound them with non-existent fears, which border on the superstitious.
I pity them. Sometimes.
GlowWorm1962 3 months ago in playlist GlowWorm1962's favourites
@GlowWorm1962
Once in a while I tell them to think outside the box, expand their mind for the possibility that all conspiracy idiots are real idiots. And that all conspiracy theories are the real lairs.
obaeyens 3 months ago
Thank you for making and posting this video; unfortunately I feel you may have wasted your time. As you can see from pt1gard's post, the stock response of the hoax believer is simply to accuse you of being a shill, or a government agent.
Even if you took the hoax believers to the Moon and showed them the landing sites, they'd still claim that they were "built by robots in the 90s" or some other such nonsense - such is the strength of the delusion under which they lead their sad, empty lives.
GlowWorm1962 3 months ago
@GlowWorm1962 I know what you mean, but I don't think it to be a waste of time because I'm not trying to convince the Hoaxies; They're lost to us. But there are a lot of young people out here looking for info because they heard something for someone and their minds are more open to critical thinking. It's to them, my son, goddaughter, nieces and nephews, and the future thinkers out there they these are for.
GreaterSapien 3 months ago
@GlowWorm1962 Even the exchanges in the comments serve as a great illustration of the difference between critical thinking and cynicism and conjecture, which is the only reason I engage them as long as I do.
Thanks for the support!
GreaterSapien 3 months ago
@GreaterSapien You are right, of course. The Apollo Hoax Conspiracy is a form of cultural cancer - one that may never be completely cured, but which may (nay, must) at least be managed and prevented from spreading unchecked; through reason, open discussion and education.
GlowWorm1962 3 months ago
@GlowWorm1962
Cancer, I never though of that word.
I am not worried about the apollo hoaxers, I am far more worried about the domesday clips that is massive around. These people terrorizes kids by telling that they will lose their parents.The danger is a twofold. They act like a wolves pack, and they tell you that you are going to die. Unlike the moon-landing hoaxers
obaeyens 3 months ago
@GlowWorm1962
The hoaxers are way beyond any help. However these clips help people to understand who crazy these believer are and might spark an interest in real science.
Youtube is run by crazy people, let's take back the power with real education.
obaeyens 3 months ago
@GlowWorm1962 ... wtf ru talking this clown admitted he didnt even watch it all, I guess he's too bust boning up in his narcissism and thesaurus.... he has zero expertise and admits the gov lies about tons of things, then feebly emails me saying HEY BISEXUAL OBAMA ADMITTED THE WMD ... well, duuuuuuuuh, dumbshit, they were caught redhanded and powell is a weasel ... I guess once again the only thing the gov doesnt lie about is the cia owned NASA ... YOU GUYS MAKE ME SICK, wanna be intellectual
pt1gard 3 months ago
@pt1gard Which "clown" feebly emailed you? It's hard to keep your aimless name calling straight. If you are referring to me, then you would be lying.
GreaterSapien 3 months ago
what bores you, the truth the gov lies about everything ... you are nothing but a shill ... uss liberty, nurse nayirah, colin powell wmd, vaccines ... would you come on the radio if I set it up and debate JW on the Apollo fraud .... gawd, you sound like a character chapelle would mock ... you're really revolting slumming with the shills ... Jarrah is a genius, you don't know shit and admittedly didnt even watch it all
pt1gard 3 months ago
@pt1gard First off, except for "vaccines" (which is just a word with no context in your post (vaccines what? finish the thought, man!)) I would bet I'm on "your side" on all those other lies ("uss liberty...").
"Gov lies about everything"? So when Obama's people say there were no WMD are THEY lying about that? Really? Everything?
Chapelle can mock anybody, but he would more likely mock someone who uses the phrase "Jarrah is a genius" ...
GreaterSapien 3 months ago
@pt1gard
... And NO I wouldn't debate White on this subject for several reasons.
1. Debating Conspiracy Theorists elevates them and lowers me.
2. CT's are not limited by FACTS so there is no way to prepare to counter random "evidence" "quotes" "studies" or "data" that a CT might pull out of thin air. Which, honestly, would just make me look stupid even if the CT "facts" were gibberish.
3. I have a life. Seriously. Son. Wife. Job. All more important than deluded Moon Hoaxies.
GreaterSapien 3 months ago
@pt1gard And we are supposed to believe that YOU're are not a shill? How do we know that you're not part of the conspiracy to undermine western civilization?
TheGreatSparky 3 months ago
I want to point out something very obvious that the moon hoaxers try to avoid.
We talk about the radiation "belt". Yes a belt like a big radiation donut. A donut has 2 huge holes at the poles. Once can completely avoid the radiation belt by going over it if they were really that dangerous.
obaeyens 4 months ago
@obaeyens Yes. But though there are holes at the poles, traveling that way is really inefficient, so we plot a course that passes through the less intense portions of the belt, yet allow us to use the earth's rotation as a boost.
GreaterSapien 3 months ago
@GreaterSapien
Yes I agree, but I just wanted to show that if radiation was really that dangerous they would have gone through the poles. Since it was not that dangerous they went through the belts requiring less fuel.
obaeyens 3 months ago
@obaeyens I knew YOU knew that, but I figured I head off the attackers.
Thanks for the support!
GreaterSapien 3 months ago
Hi. I don't think we've bumped into each other before. I like your video and your style. Very good points.
Yes, like most conspiracy theorists, Jarrah is very slippery and tortures quotes and data to fit his bias. Sometimes, as you point out, the sharp eye can actually catch him debunking himself. And many of his arguments are non-sequiturs, which can often be masked by his over-confident style.
Thumbed up, favorited, subbed, and friended.
Astrobrant2 4 months ago 2
Good video and very well stated. Jarrah White is evidently some self absorbed fool, thinking he is smarter than all those scientists that acknowledged the Moon landings. The VARb contain enough dangerous particles to kill a man, if he would stay there for a long period of time. Thirty straight days would have killed a crew. Apollo went through the belts in 90 mins.
Rob260259 4 months ago
@Rob260259 Facts like that don't hinder the Conspiracists. To them space is a deadly hellstorm from the moment you break atmo to the orbit of Pluto.
GreaterSapien 3 months ago
STOP right there! at @6:57 you say ---- > "as you can see, white is clearly stating here that the satelites and atronuts are capable of avoiding dangerous exposure in the van alen belts".
what such an disingenuous statement! White never said that....hes repeating an article to prove the satelite orbiting distance (HE NOT STATING ATRONUTS MADE IT THROUGH). and in Part 2 of that clip he explains that.
GREAT JOB DEBUNKING YOURSELF!
yourmajezty 5 months ago
@yourmajezty What he is doing is quoting an authority to use in refutation of an opponent, which at the same time contradicts his whole theory. Maybe he wishes to not be attached to the statement. If so he should detach himself from it, as he uses it, or find a quote that only says satellites get through w/o mentioning astros. Or was that not possible?
This is further proof that there are ways of presenting evidence and he's not very good at it. This is not to say that he's not capable of (...)
GreaterSapien 5 months ago
(…) putting information together. But structuring an argument that is solid in a scientific manner is not his strong suit.
I understand that this stuff is A RELIGION to you and just like with religious people, I have no desire to convert you. You're happy in your world of conspiracies. My videos are for people who are actually interested in critical thinking, not those who like to be part of a club people who know about all the secrets.
Take care.
GreaterSapien 5 months ago
@GreaterSapien critical thinking is talking a sound bit and not listening to the entire clip? thats critical thinking? hahaha. you must watch FOX news.
yourmajezty 5 months ago
@yourmajezty You still haven't shown a spot that I skipped that had info that would change the meaning of his statements. Please do that. Seriously. DO IT.
People have access to the unedited vid and I don't hide that I'm skipping, so they can see for themselves. I'm also trying to keep the length down of the vids so trimming is a requirement. If you think I should have just played the entire video, well, sorry, it's not my video to do that. If you think I intentionally did not show evidence(...)
GreaterSapien 5 months ago
(…) from a later video that would support him in this video, you're wrong. I state up front I only watched the first video. I don't like watching these things. They suck.
And I'm sorry, I know you want these vids to be great, scientific, critical achievements. But they're not.
Please have something of substance in your next contribution to this discussion.
GreaterSapien 5 months ago
@GreaterSapien "as you can see, white is clearly stating here that the satelites and atronuts are capable of avoiding dangerous exposure in the van alen belts". <------ that statement (along with many others) is disingenuous, because you trying to give the appearence that Jarrah is stating that astronuts can get through and above the van allen radiation belts. THATS FALSE. hes reading from an article. in part 2 of that video series, he makes that clear (anyone can go check for themselves).
yourmajezty 5 months ago
@yourmajezty Obviously, you feel it would be better if I had stated, " As you can see, White is clearly putting forth as evidence that satellites and astronauts are capable of avoiding..." But in no way does that change the fact that he put it forth as evidence.
Yes, I know he CONSTANTLY says that astros can't do it, yet he puts forth evidence that says they can and do. That's my point; It was a very shoddy thing to do. That's not how you structure evidence.
Here's the thing, he didn't (...)
GreaterSapien 5 months ago
(...) have to have that in there. This was his attempt to disprove the point of an emailer that was not worthy of discussion, but in his need to engage in these personal battles, he strayed from his point and put an expert on the stand that was against him. That's not good critical thinking. But you can't see that. Because you NEED this to be true.
You obviously can't see that he doesn't use reliable sources to pin his points on. He uses CNN web articles up against NASA statements (...)
GreaterSapien 5 months ago
as if they have the same gravity. (Hint: They are not) You can't claim a contradiction exists when your sources are not reliable. You can't see that he makes statements of fact that come from NOWHERE. Which is why you haven't mentioned any facts but are focusing on my word usage.
Why do you avoid the fact that he discards the range of energy levels in the VA belts and imposes the Peak on the whole? Makes possibilities into facts? Takes gossamer threads and pronounces them solid beams? (...)
GreaterSapien 5 months ago
(...)
Because you're a believer and you probably don't even see it.
GreaterSapien 5 months ago
@GreaterSapien
Critical thinker, you are not even an thinker.
kennjohnsen 5 months ago
@kennjohnsen Yeah... Flat insults, fall even flatter with typos.
GreaterSapien 5 months ago
@GreaterSapien
A thinker.
kennjohnsen 5 months ago
@kennjohnsen Yes I am. Thank you.
GreaterSapien 5 months ago
@GreaterSapien
Don't worry, someday it will be proved that no one have been on the Moon, then it's payback time.
kennjohnsen 5 months ago
@kennjohnsen All conspiracists use that same line. "Someday the truth will come out," is the security blanket they wrap themselves in every night to make them feel better. It's right there with "someday you'll die and know God is real." What you don't get is that I'm not telling you what to believe and showing that if you think the Landings were fake, you can't use these "facts" as evidence. Again, DO BETTER.
GreaterSapien 5 months ago
@GreaterSapien
You are definitely rediculing the critics, and say the reason is that you are a thinker, in other words the critics are stupid. So I certainly can use these fact against you, when it's proved it was a hoax/scam, and I will, you can't cover up this scam forever. And I say to all, notice your face, till it's payback time.
kennjohnsen 5 months ago
@kennjohnsen No, Kenn, I'm ridiculing the EVIDENCE the critics are trying to use. In other words, I think their evidence is wrong. You don't have to be stupid to be wrong or to follow a non-critical thinking path. I say smoking is stupid, but people who smoke aren't necessarily stupid, they are just doing a stupid thing.
And stop with the "payback time" thing. That IS stupid. You gonna come to my house and say "nyah nyah"? Please.
GreaterSapien 5 months ago
@GreaterSapien
Well then, as I say we will have to wait till the day it's proved no one has been on the moon, and no I am not saying nyah...nyah.
kennjohnsen 5 months ago
@GreaterSapien
I wonder how can it be that you crooks knows all about space radiation, when James van Hoften and National Research Council says that space radiation is poorly understood ? and that they cannot send men up in outer space before a protection is found ? it would violate the current requirements NASA has ?
kennjohnsen 5 months ago
@kennjohnsen Crooks? Nice. The snarky answer would be to say "because they're wrong" but the best answer would be to say that the only time I've heard JvH speak of such things was him speaking of long space flights to places like Mars, which would be years of exposure, which is a very different thing than going to the Moon. Try not to cherry-pick the information and experts that fit your point of view. DO BETTER.
GreaterSapien 5 months ago
WOOOOOOOW. i was the one asking you to debate Jarrah, and you failed miserably.
this was like watching a FOX news broadcast. you picked certain clips and sound bits without showing the entire information.
you talk with certainty as if you know for 100% they went to the moon. NOTHING IS CERTAIN!
yourmajezty 5 months ago
@yourmajezty Actually, I showed all parts of the first video that had information pertinent to his claim.1 reason I show the whole video including FFWDs is so people can see when things have been skipped and can check if it's important. I defy you to find where I've skipped portions of the video that would change my assertions.
GreaterSapien 5 months ago
Well done, my friend. I have seen a couple of his videos, and found similar selective reasonings. He seems to use tactics that remind me of an immature used-car salesman - exaggerates what little he actualy knows, is deceptive about the rest, then pouts when someone points out the fact there is no engine in the car. I can't watch any more of his garbage without feeling physically ill.
Keep up the good work.
Monkeyboysdontknow 6 months ago
Much of Jarrah's content is solely dedicated to discrediting his opponents and others who bother to speak out against the moon hoax. That's why anyone who directly challenges his claims are liars and propagandists to him - Because if they aren't the worst thing in the world, no one would really ever take him seriously.
I wouldn't be surprised if he tried to get this removed, or made a video response.
Zeta39Reticuli 6 months ago
Fantastic video. Bravo!
Cougar333 6 months ago
GREAT! Jarrah calls himself "The Grandson of the Apollo Hoax Theory" (having inherited Ralph Rene's writings). He's on a mission, but bypasses fine details that engineers, astronomers, astrophysicists & biophysicists use to do amazing things. He errs at the foundation, but continues to build his long, verbose, boring monstrosities.
WARNING! He doesn't like his material used against him. He has several guys filing false DMCA claims against him. He may do more than whine if he gets wind of this.
LunarTuner 6 months ago