Hmm... So you're saying that Dr. Phil is guilty of denouncing a crackpot theory for the wrong reasons - not that the crackpot theory is wrong?
Perhaps this is a bit like a scientist saying "This ancient creature who crawled up from the slime was an amphibian" when he's slightly wrong, it was a proto-amphibian. But the creature still crawled up from the slime, not matter what you call it. So did your theory.
man gotta love the loons....but i gues the conspiracy story is really powerfull...easy to get sucked in to it and be blind to the facts, much like the fundie christians..
Well Jarrah, aren't you astute? This is total bullshit and Phil is too important and smart to waste his time on people like you with nothing to prove.
Love the Apollogist's comments below. Wasn't this video displaying the obvious misdirect and deceit of their zombie hero Phil Plait?
It's the Apollogists job to frame the hoax in their own way and discuss irrelevant facts when they're up against the wall.
So, keep talking about farm subsidies like you are below and do the wise thing and avoid the $100,000 challenge that you have been slapped in the face with in this video.
If I were defending your weak position, I'd keep my mouth shut too
No need for Phil to take the time... ISBN 1-85810-422-X. - Bill Kaysing claims that a manned trip to the moon would have been impossible because Van Allen radiation belts., solar flares, solar wind, CMEs and comsic rays would have killed them.
"Bill Kaysing claims that a manned trip to the moon would have been impossible because Van Allen radiation belts."
James Van Allen himself stated that the belts were lethal to humans in his articles submitted in the March 1959 issue of Scientific American and the December 1961 issue of Space World.
That's news to me. Can you quote exactly what he said? What is your source? Could he have said that they MAY be lethal? The 60s were a time of great discovery. "The Radiation Belt and Magnetosphere" is a book written in 1968 (before the lunar missions) that tried to sift through some 2500 scientific articles written just since 1960 on the topic. Anyway, humans could live for months in the van allen belts with the shielding they had on Apollo.
"The discovery is of course troubling to astronauts. Somehow the human body will have to be shielded from radiation, even on a rapid transit through the region."
"Our measurements show that the maximum radiation level as of 1959 is equivalent to between 10 and 100 roentgens per hour, depending on the still undetermined proportion of protons to electrons.
@WhiteJarrah That's the MAXIMUM radiation level, which Apollo avoided by taking a fast trajectory with a high inclination to the magnetic equator. And contrary to your misconception otherwise, the CSM provided considerable shielding in the form of a dual aluminum/stainless steel hull and phenolic heat shield. Lower atomic numbers such as H and Al are more efficient shields against charged particles.
Jarrah White is a scientific illiterate with an ax to grind.
"Because a human being exposed for two days to even 10 roentgens would have only an even chance of survival, the radiation belts obviously present an obstacle to spaceflight. Unless some practical way can be found to shield space travelers against the effects of radiation, manned space rockets can best take off through the radiation free zone over the poles"
Owing to the great penetrability of the high-energy protons therein, effective shielding is quite beyond engineering feasibility in the near future. Hence, the inner zone must be classed as an uninhabitable region of space as far as man is concerned.
a living organism cannot survive this level of radiation damage. Hence, all manned space flight must steer clear of these two belts of radiation until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts has been developed.
The command module was shielded better than the lunar module, but the shielding for the belts I was talking about was 3mm of AL, which gives a dosage of about 200 rem per month. 100 rem causes radiation sickness and 450 rem causes death in a short time, but it only took 3 days to reach the moon. They had dosimeters and all missions were under 2 rem.
The Van Allen belts aren't symmetrical, they only occur in certain regions of space. Time AND shielding are important with radiation, the astronauts really weren't in the belts for THAT long. It's a lie to think they didn't experience mild effects from the radiation, nearly all the crews reported seeing "white dots" flash in and out of existence in their vision. However, it was MILD. Like someone's pointed out to you already with mathematical fact you're just flat out wrong.
Don't expect Jarrah to have much interest in the details. Unless it's a quote he can mine to bolster his holy war on NASA, he's not interested. Distinctions having to do with shielding thickness and composition, the highly uneven distributions and energy spectra of the particles trapped in the earth's magnetic fields, Apollo flight trajectories, and so on, all devastate his thesis. So don't expect him to give them much emphasis.
The funny thing is he's right, we're both agents of the United States government sent to orchestrate a cover up by fabricating terabytes of scientific evidence able to be tested by a third party.
Yeah. Problem is, before you can test the evidence you actually have to *understand* it. And it's pretty obvious they don't understand a bit of it.
It must be sad for a self-proclaimed expert like an Apollo hoaxhead to go through life unable to tell the difference between a NASA tech report and the dialogue from a typical episode of "Star Trek". To avoid ever being "taken" he must label it all as fiction.
And the real irony? He takes JW's stuff as true on faith.
The thing that shoots these conspiracy theories out of the sky, so to speak, is the fact that the Russians and the Chinese have never said the Americans didn't land on the moon. These nations had nothing to gain from admitting that the US just made anoher technological leap and yet they fully acknowledged the American achievements. Then again, that must be the NWO, o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o. You just can't win with these guys.
Believe it or not, they have a ready answer for that too! You see, we had the Russians over a barrel in the 1970s because their grain harvests were failing, and they had to buy grain from us, so they were willing to keep quiet about our Apollo scam...
They don't seem to have a ready explanation for why the Russians STILL haven't spoken up...
You can't find reason with lunatics. They'll see what they want to see. A pretty nasty thing about the Russians is how a couple Cosmonauts were lost. It wasn't more than one or two, but they landed in China instead of Kazakhstan or wherever it was they aimed for and were kept prisoner for YEARS. Really sad.
That story about Ilyushin being kept by the Chinese doesn't seem to have a lot of support. James Oberg, who probably knows more about the Soviet era space program than anyone, says he's been unable to find any evidence for this and similar stories of lost cosmonauts.
I can't remember where I read that, but if there's no evidence for it then there's no evidence for it. It's too bad the Russians never made it to the moon as well. It would be a lot harder to disprove that way.
The Russians dropped out of the moon race a few years after Apollo 11 after a string of serious rocket failures. Then they pretended they were never in it, but after the USSR fell apart the truth got out.
So there's absolutely no question but that there was a race, and if the Soviets (or the Chinese) had any inkling that Apollo was a fraud there is absolutely no question that they would have screamed it at the world. Instead they congratulated us.
Phil Plait voiced that the problem with Apollo was that it wasn't sustainable. I'd agree with him there, it was 5% of the US budget.
We still haven't mentioned that there was close to 400,000 people working on the Apollo program.
Gotta admit, I don't like the idea of the Chinese and Russians being up there and not the EU. I'd rather the "good guys" led the way first. China has too much to answer for and Russia...well Russia's Russia. :D
@WhiteJarrah The Apollo CSM was NOT an "unshielded craft"! It had two hulls (Al and Fe) and a phenolic heatshield good at stopping charged particles.
The particle energies have a very wide range. Nearly all are weak enough to be completely stopped by the CSM structure. That, plus a trajectory that avoided the densest parts of the belts, kept the internal dose very low. The mission total dose for a typical Apollo mission was only about half a rem.
Well Jarrah, aren't you astute? This is total bullshit and Phil is too important and smart to waste his time on people like you with nothing to prove.
James Van Allen lobbied members of Congress to stop the planned exploration of space. The shielding on Apollo looks pathetic...tin foil almost. From what I understand it was not even sea level pressure to keep the walls as thin as possible. Satellites and the ISO remain below the Van Allen Belts.
James Van Allen opposed HUMAN space flight not because he thought it impossible (he didn't) but because he thought it was much less cost effective in terms of scientific return than robotic missions. And on his point he is quite probably right.
Of course the reasons for going to the moon were not entirely or even largely scientific, though it did have a scientific payoff.
Yes, he is wordy, but actually pay attention to what he's saying, look it up and you'll realise he doesn't really have a point. It's all just hidden amongst a complex use of language with no real structure. It's a sort of "shock & awe" attack on your brain.
Not when you consider that NASA turned down direct warnings from Morton Thiokol begging them not to launch in cold weather. One such engineer, Roger Boisjoly, warned NASA the night before the launch. But NASA managers were quick to shoot down these warnings.
Nasa is not incompetent. They are some of the brightest minds on the earth, and to make such a foolish mistake for no reason after spending years building and creating said mission, only to disregard completely how weather may or may not effect it, sounds even MORE ridiculous to me.
The engineers of NASA are some of the brightest minds on the Earth. However, the management did not have the same expertise as the engineers.
Neither the engineers nor the managers knew how the o-rings would act under cold weather.
The administration decided to take the risk.
That decision proved fateful.
Renowned physicist demonstrated the ignorance of the management when he did his famous "o-ring in glass of ice water" experiment right in front of them.
It was the culture at NASA that was the problem. The program had been going so well they didn't think it would be a problem. They had data that served them well for 24 launches. They brought this information forward when Challenger was on the pad with less than 24 hours to lift-off.
NASA were told to cut corners when they were building the space shuttle, the space race was already won and was being hounded as a cultural and political success story for democracy and capitalism. They were NEVER meant to be used to the degree they were. NASA knew this, and the astronauts knew this. They were pushing these craft to their limits, something was bound to go wrong eventually. Saying they took risks is one thing, but saying the did it on purpose is ludicrous.
I thjink you are miss informed and very angry my friend, the moon landing is differant from 911 and JFK..dont be confused!! The evidance is over whelming that man whent to the moon! Your obvisouly rattled like Jarrah as you know your position like others is very tenous at best!!
"The evidance is over whelming that man whent to the moon!"
And I refuted your most overwhelming evidence in Exhibit D. What do you suppose the odds were that ESA would uncover that the actual moon rocks are different to what NASA claims the astronauts collected?
Is there an abstract or paper revealing the moon rocks exposed by SMAR-T1 is different from the NASA claims?
I saw a television reporter assert this.
Would you suspect that surface constituents, even on the Earth, would be different than that what which would be found 10m below the surface?
I believe the lunar surface exhibits the inherent properties of millions of years of micrometeorite bombardment as well as cosmic and solar irradiation. Of course subsurface delineation would be different.
The SMART-1 D-CIXS instrument measured x-rays emitted when the Sun shines on the Moon, and analysed the composition of the surface.
Manuel Grande who led the the x-ray team said "D-CIXS gives us new insight into wether the samples brought back from manned missions are typical of the lunar surface or not. Where we can make comparisons with American & Russian landing sites, the agreement is good, which gives us confidence when looking at data from areas that have not been visited by humans."
"Where we can make comparisons with American & Russian landing sites, the agreement is good, which gives us confidence when looking at data from areas that have not been visited by humans."
Grande simply means that they can scan the soil composition of various places and see if two scans of two different areas match up.
You saw my video, when ESA scanned the soil it was in agreement to the samples found by the Russian sample return flights. Why was it not in agreement to the Apollo samples?
You obviously are someone who needs attention and think by perpetuating this flimsy theory you will find an audience even if its a small one!! I also think People who subscribe to your views are just as sad and miss informed as you are...GET A LIFE!
fuck you asshole. you get a LIFE. as you dont have any. moonlandings were hoax, mob killed JFK, 9/11 was inside job including oklohoma bombings. your country rulling by sick people as your are.
Jarrah Whiteyour a desperate man who is rapidly loosing the argument! You have lost on the flag waving, stars and shadows in pictures all have been debunked!! Now you have resorted to quoting people out of context from EMAILS, people who had nothing to do with the original missions way back in 1969, when will you ever learn? You must know you cannot sustain your arguments and that your position is at best tenuousman how can you keep up this charade?
You mean like the Apollo15 flag that waves when Scott runs past it
"Now you have resorted to quoting people out of context from EMAILS"
I've taken no one out of context. The only people who have taken folk out of context are Jay Windley and Phil Plait. Tell me why Plait claims that Bill Kaysing said "any kind of space travel is impossible" when there are no such statement from Kaysing and Plait knows it?
Kaysing states that the Challenger was blown up because Christa McAulliffe wouldn't keep quiet about the stars!
Totally absurd. NASA would blow up a billion dollar spacecraft and delay the program for years because McAulliffe wouldn't keep quite about the stars?
Really, Kaysing believed that?
Once again I am stupified. If NASA didn't want her on a flight they would come up with a medical excuse or something like that. No blow up a Shuttle. That's laughable.
"Would you care to explain why Phil Plait puts words in Kaysing's mouth?"
Plait, isn't he the Bad Astronomy guy? I think I heard him on the radio years ago.
I know not his motives for putting words in Kaysing's mouth, perhaps he was remiss or deceptive. Maybe he will explain this to you when you contact him.
Yes he is, in fact he's the guy who I sent the email in this video to. So far he has not responded or retracted his blatantly false statements about Kaysing and O'Leary.
Of course minutia is trivial. How about some pragmatism?
As a routine lunar observer one of my prized source books is the Cambridge Moon Atlas. 72 plates of detailed lunar topography. As noted in the book, some data for the maps was garnered from Apollo SIM Bay images. Lunar cartography is an exact science. How is it possible for NASA to deceive geographers at Univ. of British Columbia and Cambridge with counterfeit images?
Knowing orbital inclinations and altitude this would be impossible.
"How is it possible for NASA to deceive geographers at Univ. of British Columbia and Cambridge with counterfeit images?"
In case you forgot, NASA had sent their Lunar Orbiter spacecrafts to the moon in 1966 and 1967 for the sole purpose of determining what the lunar topography was like and whether or not it would be safe for spaceships to land. They mapped 99% of the moon's entire surface long before the Apollos supposedly went there.
Lunar Cartographer G. Briggs in the forward notes LO data as well as Apollo SIM images from the panoramic and 3" mapping camera. LO images were transmitted data, Apollo images were color negative film cassettes.
He notes the superiority of the Apollo 20m resolution data even in comparison to images of Orbiter 5's 20m resolution. He also notes orbital inclinations allowed for only about 10% coverage. Lunar geography is an exact science, fraudulent data would be easily exposed.
"LO images were transmitted data, Apollo images were color negative film cassettes.
He notes the superiority of the Apollo 20m resolution data even in comparison to images of Orbiter 5's 20m resolution."
They already knew what the moon's topography looked like thanks to the LO images. So all NASA would need to do is build their scale models to lookalike and then takes photos of that. Simple.
Oh come on, man! I'm and artist and model maker there is no way NASA could have passed off scale model photos as authentic images. Images have degrees of cross tracking. A scale model would have to be almost Moon sized! Even the LEM simulator lunar models were not that good. SIM Bay data also included star field reference photos as well as Lasar Altimeter data for topographic altitudes above lunar surface. Lunar cartographers at U. of B.C. and U. of Texas have reviewed SIM data for decades.
"Oh come on, man! I'm and artist and model maker there is no way NASA could have passed off scale model photos as authentic images."
I don't suppose you've seen pictures from the Langley Research Center showing scientists building gigantic and very realistic scale globes and models of the lunar surface?
Lunar Cartography is an exact science that traces its origins back to Galileo. There are Lunar Geography Institutes in Milan, Paris and Montreal as well, all independent of government agencies. Lunar Geographers are also proud founders of the Lunar and Planetary Conference. Lunar Cartographers also published a LO Photo Atlas in '71 with images garnered from US Geological Survey. These Moon "Surveyors" are above reproach and would expose any fraudulent data received from NASA.
Answer the question: I don't suppose you've seen pictures from the Langley Research Center showing scientists building gigantic and very realistic scale globes and models of the lunar surface?
Of course you understand that images will be re-imaged with stat cameras and reproduced as transparencies for evaluation. Topographic deviations will be assessed as well. No man made lunar model could ever stand up to scrutiny of the exact science of lunar cartography.
A periodical review will reveal volumes of papers and abstracts submitted for peer review by lunar geologist, plasma and particle physicist, seismoligist, cartographers, ect. with data gathered from Apollo ALSSP and SIM Bay. I don't believe by any stretch of the imagination that NASA could or would conterfeit that much data and dissminate it for analysis and review to the world wide scientific community. This is an absurd notion that does not stand up to examination.
"Of course advances in technology would make SMART-1 superior to Apollo imaging. Of course that does not marginalize geology from the Apollo era."
I'm talking about the rock and soil analysis. After scientists analyzed the plumes of moon dust shot up from SMART-1's controlled impact, they found out that the lunar material was different to the Apollo samples.
"Of course that is not a physical sample and I would not be surprised if it displayed unique characteristics."
If I was to send a probe up to the moon to analyze the soil and take a piece of soil myself and analyze it, I would expect to get the same results. Wouldn't you?
Perhaps it would be the same, but it would also be dependent on the region were samples are retrieved. Basalts are found in mare basins, lunar highlands has a preponderance of feldspar and breccias composites are common on all sites.
So much of the Moon is unexplored who knows what discoveries will be made in future missions. After the discovery of ice on the south pole who knows what unique characteristics samples may reveal.
"Perhaps it would be the same, but it would also be dependent on the region were samples are retrieved. Basalts are found in mare basins, lunar highlands has a preponderance of feldspar and breccias composites are common on all sites."
It crash landed in one of the mare basins, the lunar samples from all the mare basin landing sites were the same. Why would the mare basin site SMART1 landed in be different?
Honestly, I never reviewed the data, but I will take your word for it that it was different.
That being said, a dust plume thrown up by a high velocity impact may have unique characteristics and any ground based spectroscopic analysis I would suspect could reveal this. Once again, this is not a physical sample. Many physical samples retrieved by Apollo were different dependant on the region visited. I do not believe that SMART-1's lunar encounter exposed Apollo's visit as fraudulent.
"Many physical samples retrieved by Apollo were different dependant on the region visited."
Yes, but the samples retrieved from the same type of region shared the same characteristics. Highlands rock came from Highlands. Mare basalts came from mare regions. Because it crashed in a Mare region I'd expect the dust to have the same properties, it didn't.
I challenge you to read James Van Allen's March 1959 Scientific American article and then tell me that men actually went to the moon.
I also recommend "Prospects For Interstellar Travel" by John Mauldin, the 1963 NASA book "Astronautical Engineering & Science".
As James Van Hoften's team once said: "Cosmic rays are so dangerous and so poorly understood people are unlikely to get to Mars or even back to the moon until better ways are found to protect astronauts"
"After the discovery of ice on the south pole who knows what unique characteristics samples may reveal."
I am familiar with those news reports. Now tell me how can there be ice on the moon? After I released my film questioning Phoenix's Mars water find, certain individuals told me the near vacuum conditions of Mars drastically reduces the boiling point of water.
So how can water ice exist on the moon? It has no atmosphere. Would ice not boil away in seconds?
The second Neil Armstrong's touched the lunar surface the mission for prestige was over. Apollo's profile was now purely scientific. I believe the J missions is proof of this. As cleaver as scientist, engineers and technicians at NASA were during the Apollo era, I do not believe that the agency was capable of counterfeiting the volumes of scientific data and discoveries that has been examined and analysed by the scientific community for decades.
I would not be remiss in stating that the Lunar Missions was a unmitigated political stunt. Congress would have not funded the missions purely as an adventure or for scientific and technological advancement.
Nevertheless, I count myself among the minority that would characterize the program as a scientific advancement comparable or exceeding the Voyager, Viking or Mariner missions. Clearly the preponderance of scientific evidence
testifies to the reality of Apollos visits to the Moon.
I have begun to shift my opinion and I'll agree with you that men appear to have landed on the moon however I think its laughable in the extreme that anybody could claim that the Apollo storys are 'real'.
The reason why I asked you that question is I've been informed Apollo 11 and 12 launched and returned at least a month before it was supposed to have happened.
As for stories being real, I have read numerous accounts. Gene Krantz's ,Chris Kraft's and Max Faget's narritives reveals that activities at NASA in '68 and '69 was at a 'fevered pitch.'
I really don't understand why any source would contend that Apollo's 11 and 12 were launched at least a month ahead of schedule.
I beleive there is a "harmony" in all published accounts by the Astronauts, NASA personal and numerous first hand observers.
@rodri11tube You have never read any accounts have you rod. I have read several.
No matter, asserting a deception does not make it so, only the testimony of participents or unequivical evidence would alter the facts. So far you have nothing but a willingness to believe sperious assertions and demonstratinga lack of competence in anaylysis.
You can characterise NASA in any manner you want. That does not negate the fact that the volumes of scientific data returned by the Apollo missions is unequivical proof of the reality. The missions may have been a "space race stunt" nevertheless the essence of the program was lunar exploration.
The astronauts returned 843lbs of lunar constituent as well as deploying 26 ALSEP experiments. You can review the analysis of this data in books and papers.
@TheEntropyEpoch Ok, ok. Sorry for mention the NASA's simulation pool. Maybe that has no case and in 69' they were good people. But no, Apollo 16 used the pool.
I'm glad you have your data. I have the mines too. Like AS11-44-6591 or AS10-34-5091. They are more relevants. Do you know "Fiction", don't you?.
I don't laugh of you, but they do. I'm talking seriously. They really laugh of you and your family. So, free the world. Anytime, I'll be waiting you.
Those accounts are false or at least they are partly false and partly true because they are not permitted to tell the whole truth.
You can believe it or not. It wouldn't be the first time a space vehicle was launched prior to when it weas supposed to be. The Russians were doing it.
Well, I don't believe the accounts are false and I pointed out there is a harmony in all the narratives. If one was looking for evidence of a deception it would not be revealed in any personal narratives.
I don't understand your contention for launches not occurring when they are suppose to be. In fact I don't recall ever noticing any announcement for an Apollo launch that was altered to an earlier date. I do know there were lunar launch windows, occasional delays, and tentative scheduling.
They real Apollo 11 flight departed from Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands in a military vehicle (derivative of the X-20 DynaSoar) into low-Earth orbit, then rendevouzed with hardware launched out of the Cape.
On July 16, 1969 at approximately 7:30 am. the world witnessed live on TV with the press in attendance the Apollo 11 crew enter the transfer van and proceed to the launch pad.
There is no denying this!
Those guys were on board that Saturn V rocket at 9:32am for the launch.
The timeline testifies to that.
But you are more inclined to believe something someone made up?
I tell ya, man, there were just too many on site witnesses to substantiate this fact.
Believing something someone made up is exactly what you are doing.
Tell you what if you are so confident they took of then you get me the film from NASA of them being strapped into the Saturn V's with film of them sitting in the cabin prior to launch because do not even suggest they wouldn't have cameras in there after Apollo 1
If I recall "For All Mankind" had footage from the gantry. The networks broadcast activities for about an hour from the gantry before launch. No, I do not believe NASA had a live television camera in the CM prior to launch for what reason I do not know. Certainly not evidence of a hoax.
Man you are so spot on, I have been saying this from the beginning, the facts are there but poeple still wont have it...man landed on the moon and all thses idoits need to get a life!!
What is your source which asserts the real Apollo 11 flight departed from Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands in a military vehicle into low-Earth orbit, then rendevouzed with hardware launched out of the Cape?
"The seismic data was either from pre-arrange data tapes or fed from an unmanned craft."
I do not beleive that an unmanned craft would be capable of Seismic Profiling. Apollo 17 deployed 8 charges during lunar transverses. Later the charges were fired and signals monitored by geophones. In this case the data showed that the Tauras-Littrow Valley was a slab of basalt at least 1km thick. This and other discoveries could have been made only on the lunar surface by Astronauts.
Yes and your Apollo superhero big chief Utah can't find a publisher for his mystery "letter from Dr. O'Leary"... not even his own $50 office printer will accept it for publication....
That would be self-proclaimed aerospace engineer Jay Windley, Clavius webmaster.
"and I really don't give a damn about his letter. "
He claims that Brian O'Leary sent him a letter saying Apollo was definately real. In actually O'Leary sent no such letter and is not 100% sure that Apollo landed.
Anyone who sincerely thinks NASA blew up the Shuttle so that a civilian astronaut, who had never been into space before, wouldn't say anything about stars being visible or otherwise, has serious reality issues.
All joking aside here chaps. By all means believe Apollo was faked, or the Chinese lack the ability to open hatch doors in space. But this? So poor it's not even laughable. It's an insult to any thinkg person's intelligence.
The only persons with reality issues are those who ignore the fact that Roger Boisjoly specifically warned NASA in the months leading up and the night before the launch "Do not launch in cold weather", and NASA ignored him.
So, Greer, would you care to address Phil Plait's nasty habit of putting words in peoples mouths?
And I DARE you to quote Dr. Brian O'Lear's message to me at AH forum. "I THINK THEY DID LAND BUT AM NOT 100% SURE" go on, quote it.
Roger Boisjoly warned his own management (Morton Thiokol), who failed to adequately pass those concerns on to NASA.
And this supports the idea that NASA deliberately blew Challenger up to silence Christa McAuliffe so she wouldn't say anything about stars in space how exactly?
I'm not overly concerned with your ongoing battle with Plait and Windley. Nor am I your 'messenger bitch'. You want to quote that at AH, you go for it.
"Roger Boisjoly warned his own management (Morton Thiokol), who failed to adequately pass those concerns on to NASA."
What are you talking about? The night before the launch he, his Thiokol managers and Lawrance Mulloy of NASA held a teleconference. Boisjoly warned NASA not to launch in cold weather, and Mulloy told him to sit down and shit up.
"Nor am I your 'messenger bitch'."
Yet you quote O'Leary's "I never got in touch with Windley" message, but not his "I'm not 100% sure" message. Why?
Please explain how NASA management overlooking Boisjoly's concerns over launching in cold weather prove that NASA planned to assassinate Christa McAuliffe.
Isn't it more a damning condemnation of managers thinking they know better than engineers?
Do you seriously believe NASA allowed the launch to go ahead with the aim of killing McAuliffe, in order to stop her talking about seeing stars in space?
"Please explain how NASA management overlooking Boisjoly's concerns over launching in cold weather prove that NASA planned to assassinate Christa McAuliffe."
Up until this point NASA had always taken weather conditions during shuttle launches seriously, especially after the near fatal launch of STS-51-C. Suddenly they sing a different tune when a crew member happens to be a teacher who everyone knows refuses to be manipulated by the government. Why do you suppose that is?
So you have no evidence, you just think it odd that NASA launched against advice, so it must have been becasue there was a teacher on board who they couldn't be certain wouldn't say anything about seeing stars so they launched Challenger knowing it would blow up and kill her, several other astronauts, cost NASA billions, set their shuttle programme back years, possibly leave themselves open to litigation?
Not a very high standard of proof you're holding yourself to.
"so it must have been becasue there was a teacher on board who they couldn't be certain wouldn't say anything about seeing stars"
I've already proven that the inability to see stars whilst orbiting on the daylight side of earth is a lie. You think NASA could force this lie on her when it was known by all that she refused to be manipulated by the government?
Can you please give this "daylight stars" thing a rest? PLEASE? There is absolutely no controversy whatsoever except for the pointless artificial one the hoaxheads keep manufacturing.
The facts are extremely simple: when your eyes are adapted to daylight, stars are just too dim to see. Yes, if you take steps to dark-adapt your eyes and then look at the sky from space while protecting your eyes from the sun and bright earth you should see stars. But what's the point?
You can't just ground a fully-qualified and healthy astronaut willy nilly. And doing so with the most famous astronaut since Neil Armstrong would cause suspicion.
"Endeavour, cost $1.7 billion"
Shuttles normally cost 2.6 billion.
"It took nearly 3 years after Challenger for the next mission."
And it took more than 3 years after Columbia to get the shuttle program up and running again.
This is the stupidest and most offensive allegation since the one that the Apollo 1 astronauts were murdered.
Quick: name all the 1960s astronauts who died before flying and how they died. More than on Apollo 1, and today they're virtually unknown, unlike Grissom, White and Chaffee. Nor did their deaths attract anything close to the scrutiny that Apollo 1 did. They were far more "mundane".
Furthermore, would you care to address the issue of this video? Why does Phil Plait claim that Bill Kaysing said "any kind of space travel is impossible and they blew up Challenger to keep astronauts quiet about that", when in fact Kaysing made no such claim?
Why do you guys at AH only comment on O'Leary's "I never got in touch with Windley" statement? Why won't you talk about the fact that O'Leary told me he's not 100% sure that Apollo landed on the moon?
Because it's irrelevant to whether Apollo happened or not? It's impossible to be 100% sure about anything unless you had first hand experience. I'm 99.99% sure it happened. There you go, you can now tell everyone I'm not 100% sure Apollo happened.
"Because it's irrelevant to whether Apollo happened or not? It's impossible to be 100% sure about anything unless you had first hand experience."
That's ridiculous. In his supposed letter to Windley he states that it definitely happened. Saying that it definitely happened is the equivalent to saying that you are 100% sure that it happened.
"I'm 99.99% sure it happened."
This is new. And what makes you 0.01% unsure that Apollo happened?
"This is new. And what makes you 0.01% unsure that Apollo happened? "
I wasn't there, so there is always room for residual doubt. In the same way I can't possibly know for certain that Hillary and Tensing were the first to scale Everest, or that Trieste successfully descended Challenger Deep.
As for O'Leary's comments, do you consider it impossible that he changed his position slightly in the intervening years? From 100% sure to 99.99% sure maybe?
"I wasn't there, so there is always room for residual doubt."
So you admit that things like moon rocks, laser reflectors and radio signals are not as watertight as you guys hype about?
"As for O'Leary's comments, do you consider it impossible that he changed his position slightly in the intervening years? From 100% sure to 99.99% sure maybe?"
I asked him specifically about what he said in 2001 and what he believes now.
I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth. Judging by all the hype about these three things you all sound 100% to me. Red Zero even said he was 100% sure because of them.
Now answer my question. If O'Leary has changed his mind, should not Windley update his website so that it reflects his current opinion?
Further, if O'Leary has indeed changed his mind from 100% sure to not a 100% sure, don't you think Jay Windley should update his webpage on O'Leary so that it reflects his current opinion?
I wrote out a comment but it seems to of glitched and I lost it. :(
I bet, not $100,000 lol, that you won't get a response either. The way the Nasa propagandists act is similar to a mind controlling cult. they condescend, lie and patronise to keep their story and to attack anyone who questions the reality. Reading through their forums actually makes me feel physically sick.
I have also noticed that a lot of them approve of the use of physical violence towards others (eg. Sibrel).
I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a response Jarrah! Plait is nothing but a coward. And as you and Joe Rogan know already, the guy always reneges on his wagers. Hope he doesn't try that with a bookie. He might have to change his name to the Broken Astronomer!
Thank, Jarrah. Just like the original Apollo Fraudsters, some defenders of NASA's Apollo fiction have no moral or ethical constraints, and will peddle lies if it suits their purpose of covering-up the massive fraud perpetrated against the US taxpayer and Mankind.
Hmm... So you're saying that Dr. Phil is guilty of denouncing a crackpot theory for the wrong reasons - not that the crackpot theory is wrong?
Perhaps this is a bit like a scientist saying "This ancient creature who crawled up from the slime was an amphibian" when he's slightly wrong, it was a proto-amphibian. But the creature still crawled up from the slime, not matter what you call it. So did your theory.
OrchestrationOnline 1 month ago
Arrrrrgh the most annoying voice in the world, talking bullshit as usual.
Suicide is your best option JW. You're done :P
MoronAntidote 7 months ago
Phil Plait does not want to debate Jarrah White, because Plait was so destroyed and humiliated in his debate with Joe Rogan !
mooninquirer 8 months ago
She wouldn't shut up about the stars!! Had to kill er'...
Damn it woman shut up about the stars!
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
man gotta love the loons....but i gues the conspiracy story is really powerfull...easy to get sucked in to it and be blind to the facts, much like the fundie christians..
skunape 1 year ago
Well Jarrah, aren't you astute? This is total bullshit and Phil is too important and smart to waste his time on people like you with nothing to prove.
thehoaxbuster 1 year ago
it's sucSintly
muskier 1 year ago
Love the Apollogist's comments below. Wasn't this video displaying the obvious misdirect and deceit of their zombie hero Phil Plait?
It's the Apollogists job to frame the hoax in their own way and discuss irrelevant facts when they're up against the wall.
So, keep talking about farm subsidies like you are below and do the wise thing and avoid the $100,000 challenge that you have been slapped in the face with in this video.
If I were defending your weak position, I'd keep my mouth shut too
Broooose 2 years ago
No need for Phil to take the time... ISBN 1-85810-422-X. - Bill Kaysing claims that a manned trip to the moon would have been impossible because Van Allen radiation belts., solar flares, solar wind, CMEs and comsic rays would have killed them.
jgoemat 2 years ago
"Bill Kaysing claims that a manned trip to the moon would have been impossible because Van Allen radiation belts."
James Van Allen himself stated that the belts were lethal to humans in his articles submitted in the March 1959 issue of Scientific American and the December 1961 issue of Space World.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
That's news to me. Can you quote exactly what he said? What is your source? Could he have said that they MAY be lethal? The 60s were a time of great discovery. "The Radiation Belt and Magnetosphere" is a book written in 1968 (before the lunar missions) that tried to sift through some 2500 scientific articles written just since 1960 on the topic. Anyway, humans could live for months in the van allen belts with the shielding they had on Apollo.
jgoemat 2 years ago
In Scientific American.
"The discovery is of course troubling to astronauts. Somehow the human body will have to be shielded from radiation, even on a rapid transit through the region."
"Our measurements show that the maximum radiation level as of 1959 is equivalent to between 10 and 100 roentgens per hour, depending on the still undetermined proportion of protons to electrons.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
@WhiteJarrah That's the MAXIMUM radiation level, which Apollo avoided by taking a fast trajectory with a high inclination to the magnetic equator. And contrary to your misconception otherwise, the CSM provided considerable shielding in the form of a dual aluminum/stainless steel hull and phenolic heat shield. Lower atomic numbers such as H and Al are more efficient shields against charged particles.
Jarrah White is a scientific illiterate with an ax to grind.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
continued...
"Because a human being exposed for two days to even 10 roentgens would have only an even chance of survival, the radiation belts obviously present an obstacle to spaceflight. Unless some practical way can be found to shield space travelers against the effects of radiation, manned space rockets can best take off through the radiation free zone over the poles"
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
And in Space World
Owing to the great penetrability of the high-energy protons therein, effective shielding is quite beyond engineering feasibility in the near future. Hence, the inner zone must be classed as an uninhabitable region of space as far as man is concerned.
The outer zone is much more difficult to avoid
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
continued...
a living organism cannot survive this level of radiation damage. Hence, all manned space flight must steer clear of these two belts of radiation until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts has been developed.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
"Anyway, humans could live for months in the van allen belts with the shielding they had on Apollo."
How? Apollo was an unshielded craft and the dose rates for unshielded spacecraft are 312.5rem/hr to 11,666rem/hr.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
Where do you get your values from?
The command module was shielded better than the lunar module, but the shielding for the belts I was talking about was 3mm of AL, which gives a dosage of about 200 rem per month. 100 rem causes radiation sickness and 450 rem causes death in a short time, but it only took 3 days to reach the moon. They had dosimeters and all missions were under 2 rem.
jgoemat 2 years ago
The Van Allen belts aren't symmetrical, they only occur in certain regions of space. Time AND shielding are important with radiation, the astronauts really weren't in the belts for THAT long. It's a lie to think they didn't experience mild effects from the radiation, nearly all the crews reported seeing "white dots" flash in and out of existence in their vision. However, it was MILD. Like someone's pointed out to you already with mathematical fact you're just flat out wrong.
wearedefiant 2 years ago
Don't expect Jarrah to have much interest in the details. Unless it's a quote he can mine to bolster his holy war on NASA, he's not interested. Distinctions having to do with shielding thickness and composition, the highly uneven distributions and energy spectra of the particles trapped in the earth's magnetic fields, Apollo flight trajectories, and so on, all devastate his thesis. So don't expect him to give them much emphasis.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
The funny thing is he's right, we're both agents of the United States government sent to orchestrate a cover up by fabricating terabytes of scientific evidence able to be tested by a third party.
wearedefiant 2 years ago
Yeah. Problem is, before you can test the evidence you actually have to *understand* it. And it's pretty obvious they don't understand a bit of it.
It must be sad for a self-proclaimed expert like an Apollo hoaxhead to go through life unable to tell the difference between a NASA tech report and the dialogue from a typical episode of "Star Trek". To avoid ever being "taken" he must label it all as fiction.
And the real irony? He takes JW's stuff as true on faith.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
The thing that shoots these conspiracy theories out of the sky, so to speak, is the fact that the Russians and the Chinese have never said the Americans didn't land on the moon. These nations had nothing to gain from admitting that the US just made anoher technological leap and yet they fully acknowledged the American achievements. Then again, that must be the NWO, o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o. You just can't win with these guys.
wearedefiant 2 years ago
Believe it or not, they have a ready answer for that too! You see, we had the Russians over a barrel in the 1970s because their grain harvests were failing, and they had to buy grain from us, so they were willing to keep quiet about our Apollo scam...
They don't seem to have a ready explanation for why the Russians STILL haven't spoken up...
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
You can't find reason with lunatics. They'll see what they want to see. A pretty nasty thing about the Russians is how a couple Cosmonauts were lost. It wasn't more than one or two, but they landed in China instead of Kazakhstan or wherever it was they aimed for and were kept prisoner for YEARS. Really sad.
wearedefiant 2 years ago
That story about Ilyushin being kept by the Chinese doesn't seem to have a lot of support. James Oberg, who probably knows more about the Soviet era space program than anyone, says he's been unable to find any evidence for this and similar stories of lost cosmonauts.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
I can't remember where I read that, but if there's no evidence for it then there's no evidence for it. It's too bad the Russians never made it to the moon as well. It would be a lot harder to disprove that way.
wearedefiant 2 years ago
The Russians dropped out of the moon race a few years after Apollo 11 after a string of serious rocket failures. Then they pretended they were never in it, but after the USSR fell apart the truth got out.
So there's absolutely no question but that there was a race, and if the Soviets (or the Chinese) had any inkling that Apollo was a fraud there is absolutely no question that they would have screamed it at the world. Instead they congratulated us.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
Phil Plait voiced that the problem with Apollo was that it wasn't sustainable. I'd agree with him there, it was 5% of the US budget.
We still haven't mentioned that there was close to 400,000 people working on the Apollo program.
Gotta admit, I don't like the idea of the Chinese and Russians being up there and not the EU. I'd rather the "good guys" led the way first. China has too much to answer for and Russia...well Russia's Russia. :D
wearedefiant 2 years ago
@wearedefiant Yes, we see wires. We see Fiction.
"Great Mickey Mouse Show".
rodri11tube 1 year ago
@rodri11tube Sorry, but you DON'T have wires.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal No one claims justice for this:
/watch?v=mXpPW3ol6Xk
So, let the russians quiet. We don't need them when we have wires.
rodri11tube 1 year ago
@WhiteJarrah The Apollo CSM was NOT an "unshielded craft"! It had two hulls (Al and Fe) and a phenolic heatshield good at stopping charged particles.
The particle energies have a very wide range. Nearly all are weak enough to be completely stopped by the CSM structure. That, plus a trajectory that avoided the densest parts of the belts, kept the internal dose very low. The mission total dose for a typical Apollo mission was only about half a rem.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@WhiteJarrah
Well Jarrah, aren't you astute? This is total bullshit and Phil is too important and smart to waste his time on people like you with nothing to prove.
thehoaxbuster 1 year ago 10
James Van Allen lobbied members of Congress to stop the planned exploration of space. The shielding on Apollo looks pathetic...tin foil almost. From what I understand it was not even sea level pressure to keep the walls as thin as possible. Satellites and the ISO remain below the Van Allen Belts.
Kirlian196 2 years ago
James Van Allen opposed HUMAN space flight not because he thought it impossible (he didn't) but because he thought it was much less cost effective in terms of scientific return than robotic missions. And on his point he is quite probably right.
Of course the reasons for going to the moon were not entirely or even largely scientific, though it did have a scientific payoff.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
Seems like some idiot keeps down voting your comments mate. Thanks anyway for being an intelligent human being.
wearedefiant 2 years ago
Very good, very thorough, very accurate.. That is how you win!
anastasia2657 2 years ago
Jarrah your so wordy. You must have a very wide vocabulary.
AllyWasntHere 2 years ago
Yes, he is wordy, but actually pay attention to what he's saying, look it up and you'll realise he doesn't really have a point. It's all just hidden amongst a complex use of language with no real structure. It's a sort of "shock & awe" attack on your brain.
wearedefiant 2 years ago
The Challenger was blown up on purpose? That's kind of ridiculous... don't ya think?
potamuspeter 2 years ago
"That's kind of ridiculous... don't ya think?"
Not when you consider that NASA turned down direct warnings from Morton Thiokol begging them not to launch in cold weather. One such engineer, Roger Boisjoly, warned NASA the night before the launch. But NASA managers were quick to shoot down these warnings.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
Sounds more like incompetence in NASA rather than a plot...
potamuspeter 2 years ago
Nasa is not incompetent. They are some of the brightest minds on the earth, and to make such a foolish mistake for no reason after spending years building and creating said mission, only to disregard completely how weather may or may not effect it, sounds even MORE ridiculous to me.
avaeliuss 2 years ago
The engineers of NASA are some of the brightest minds on the Earth. However, the management did not have the same expertise as the engineers.
Neither the engineers nor the managers knew how the o-rings would act under cold weather.
The administration decided to take the risk.
That decision proved fateful.
Renowned physicist demonstrated the ignorance of the management when he did his famous "o-ring in glass of ice water" experiment right in front of them.
rm06c 2 years ago
It was the culture at NASA that was the problem. The program had been going so well they didn't think it would be a problem. They had data that served them well for 24 launches. They brought this information forward when Challenger was on the pad with less than 24 hours to lift-off.
jgoemat 2 years ago
NASA were told to cut corners when they were building the space shuttle, the space race was already won and was being hounded as a cultural and political success story for democracy and capitalism. They were NEVER meant to be used to the degree they were. NASA knew this, and the astronauts knew this. They were pushing these craft to their limits, something was bound to go wrong eventually. Saying they took risks is one thing, but saying the did it on purpose is ludicrous.
wearedefiant 2 years ago
These people that have to tell a bold face lie simply to defend an even bigger, bolder lie, should be hog tied and bull whipped.
Good job Jarrah White for exposing these lying disinformationist and propagandist.
Keep the truthin coming, buddy!
fanbutton 3 years ago
I thjink you are miss informed and very angry my friend, the moon landing is differant from 911 and JFK..dont be confused!! The evidance is over whelming that man whent to the moon! Your obvisouly rattled like Jarrah as you know your position like others is very tenous at best!!
lyniseuk 3 years ago
"The evidance is over whelming that man whent to the moon!"
And I refuted your most overwhelming evidence in Exhibit D. What do you suppose the odds were that ESA would uncover that the actual moon rocks are different to what NASA claims the astronauts collected?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
Is there an abstract or paper revealing the moon rocks exposed by SMAR-T1 is different from the NASA claims?
I saw a television reporter assert this.
Would you suspect that surface constituents, even on the Earth, would be different than that what which would be found 10m below the surface?
I believe the lunar surface exhibits the inherent properties of millions of years of micrometeorite bombardment as well as cosmic and solar irradiation. Of course subsurface delineation would be different.
TheEntropyEpoch 3 years ago
The SMART-1 D-CIXS instrument measured x-rays emitted when the Sun shines on the Moon, and analysed the composition of the surface.
Manuel Grande who led the the x-ray team said "D-CIXS gives us new insight into wether the samples brought back from manned missions are typical of the lunar surface or not. Where we can make comparisons with American & Russian landing sites, the agreement is good, which gives us confidence when looking at data from areas that have not been visited by humans."
TheEntropyEpoch 3 years ago
"Where we can make comparisons with American & Russian landing sites, the agreement is good, which gives us confidence when looking at data from areas that have not been visited by humans."
Grande simply means that they can scan the soil composition of various places and see if two scans of two different areas match up.
You saw my video, when ESA scanned the soil it was in agreement to the samples found by the Russian sample return flights. Why was it not in agreement to the Apollo samples?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
Now, would you care to address why Phil Plait has made several blatantly false statements about Bill Kaysing?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
Jarrah,
I believe ESA's Dr. Grande's statement carries much more weight than a comment made by a television reporter.
Would you agree?
TheEntropyEpoch 3 years ago
You obviously are someone who needs attention and think by perpetuating this flimsy theory you will find an audience even if its a small one!! I also think People who subscribe to your views are just as sad and miss informed as you are...GET A LIFE!
lyniseuk 3 years ago
fuck you asshole. you get a LIFE. as you dont have any. moonlandings were hoax, mob killed JFK, 9/11 was inside job including oklohoma bombings. your country rulling by sick people as your are.
fenomen01 3 years ago
Jarrah Whiteyour a desperate man who is rapidly loosing the argument! You have lost on the flag waving, stars and shadows in pictures all have been debunked!! Now you have resorted to quoting people out of context from EMAILS, people who had nothing to do with the original missions way back in 1969, when will you ever learn? You must know you cannot sustain your arguments and that your position is at best tenuousman how can you keep up this charade?
lyniseuk 3 years ago
"the flag waving"
You mean like the Apollo15 flag that waves when Scott runs past it
"Now you have resorted to quoting people out of context from EMAILS"
I've taken no one out of context. The only people who have taken folk out of context are Jay Windley and Phil Plait. Tell me why Plait claims that Bill Kaysing said "any kind of space travel is impossible" when there are no such statement from Kaysing and Plait knows it?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
notice how the nasa lovers skirt around the subject of the video
mr utah says "I know the truth and so does Dr. O'Leary"
what truth is this? that the quote is a lie? or taken out of context?
notice how he doesn't answer the question directly... lol
adiohead 3 years ago 4
Hey Jarrah! Love how you used the music here!
Djclyve 3 years ago
"Hey Jarrah! Love how you used the music here!"
Thanks, it really added to this video. :)
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
Kaysing states that the Challenger was blown up because Christa McAulliffe wouldn't keep quiet about the stars!
Totally absurd. NASA would blow up a billion dollar spacecraft and delay the program for years because McAulliffe wouldn't keep quite about the stars?
Really, Kaysing believed that?
Once again I am stupified. If NASA didn't want her on a flight they would come up with a medical excuse or something like that. No blow up a Shuttle. That's laughable.
TheEntropyEpoch 3 years ago
"Once again I am stupified. If NASA didn't want her on a flight they would come up with a medical excuse or something like that."
And hope she doesn't try to verify her medical status with another doctor and speak out if his results are not in agreement with NASA's?
Now why does Plait completely fabricate what Kaysing said as to why the vehicle was blown up?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
The lengths that CT's will go to champion their absurd notion that NASA perpetrated a hoax is stupefying. Murder?
Bill Kaysing, wasn't he the technical writer at Rocketdyne who couldn't find a publisher for his spurious little book?
And you would quote him?
TheEntropyEpoch 3 years ago
"The lengths that CT's will go to champion their absurd notion that NASA perpetrated a hoax is stupefying."
The only thing that is stupefying are the lengths propagandists will go to try and discredit their enemies.
Would you care to explain why Phil Plait puts words in Kaysing's mouth?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"Would you care to explain why Phil Plait puts words in Kaysing's mouth?"
Plait, isn't he the Bad Astronomy guy? I think I heard him on the radio years ago.
I know not his motives for putting words in Kaysing's mouth, perhaps he was remiss or deceptive. Maybe he will explain this to you when you contact him.
TheEntropyEpoch 3 years ago
"Plait, isn't he the Bad Astronomy guy?"
Yes he is, in fact he's the guy who I sent the email in this video to. So far he has not responded or retracted his blatantly false statements about Kaysing and O'Leary.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
Of course minutia is trivial. How about some pragmatism?
As a routine lunar observer one of my prized source books is the Cambridge Moon Atlas. 72 plates of detailed lunar topography. As noted in the book, some data for the maps was garnered from Apollo SIM Bay images. Lunar cartography is an exact science. How is it possible for NASA to deceive geographers at Univ. of British Columbia and Cambridge with counterfeit images?
Knowing orbital inclinations and altitude this would be impossible.
TheEntropyEpoch 3 years ago
"How is it possible for NASA to deceive geographers at Univ. of British Columbia and Cambridge with counterfeit images?"
In case you forgot, NASA had sent their Lunar Orbiter spacecrafts to the moon in 1966 and 1967 for the sole purpose of determining what the lunar topography was like and whether or not it would be safe for spaceships to land. They mapped 99% of the moon's entire surface long before the Apollos supposedly went there.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
Lunar Cartographer G. Briggs in the forward notes LO data as well as Apollo SIM images from the panoramic and 3" mapping camera. LO images were transmitted data, Apollo images were color negative film cassettes.
He notes the superiority of the Apollo 20m resolution data even in comparison to images of Orbiter 5's 20m resolution. He also notes orbital inclinations allowed for only about 10% coverage. Lunar geography is an exact science, fraudulent data would be easily exposed.
TheEntropyEpoch 3 years ago
"LO images were transmitted data, Apollo images were color negative film cassettes.
He notes the superiority of the Apollo 20m resolution data even in comparison to images of Orbiter 5's 20m resolution."
They already knew what the moon's topography looked like thanks to the LO images. So all NASA would need to do is build their scale models to lookalike and then takes photos of that. Simple.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
Oh come on, man! I'm and artist and model maker there is no way NASA could have passed off scale model photos as authentic images. Images have degrees of cross tracking. A scale model would have to be almost Moon sized! Even the LEM simulator lunar models were not that good. SIM Bay data also included star field reference photos as well as Lasar Altimeter data for topographic altitudes above lunar surface. Lunar cartographers at U. of B.C. and U. of Texas have reviewed SIM data for decades.
TheEntropyEpoch 3 years ago
"Oh come on, man! I'm and artist and model maker there is no way NASA could have passed off scale model photos as authentic images."
I don't suppose you've seen pictures from the Langley Research Center showing scientists building gigantic and very realistic scale globes and models of the lunar surface?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
Oh yes, I recall those photos with the LEM suspended over the Lunar Model. Not good enough to fool a cartagrapher though.
I've also seen the LEM simulator models as well.
TheEntropyEpoch 3 years ago
"Not good enough to fool a cartagrapher though."
I beg to differ. Even Jim Lovell described the lunar surface as looking like Plaster of Paris.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
As a routine lunar observer I agree with Jim, the Moon does look like Plaster of Paris. That does not make plaster its constituent matter.
You really believe that a scale lunar model can be good enough to deceive lunar cartographers? The very idea is nonsensical.
TheEntropyEpoch 3 years ago
"You really believe that a scale lunar model can be good enough to deceive lunar cartographers?"
Yes, because Lunar Orbiter enabled them to know what the moon looked like so they could accurately build scale models of the topography.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
Really, images obtained from a scale lunar model referencing altitude, orbital inclinations and star fields passed off as authentic is absurd.
TheEntropyEpoch 3 years ago
Lunar Cartography is an exact science that traces its origins back to Galileo. There are Lunar Geography Institutes in Milan, Paris and Montreal as well, all independent of government agencies. Lunar Geographers are also proud founders of the Lunar and Planetary Conference. Lunar Cartographers also published a LO Photo Atlas in '71 with images garnered from US Geological Survey. These Moon "Surveyors" are above reproach and would expose any fraudulent data received from NASA.
TheEntropyEpoch 3 years ago
Answer the question: I don't suppose you've seen pictures from the Langley Research Center showing scientists building gigantic and very realistic scale globes and models of the lunar surface?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
I believe these models were fabricated in the sixties.
TheEntropyEpoch 3 years ago
"I believe these models were fabricated in the sixties."
And accurately modeled off LO photos.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
Of course you understand that images will be re-imaged with stat cameras and reproduced as transparencies for evaluation. Topographic deviations will be assessed as well. No man made lunar model could ever stand up to scrutiny of the exact science of lunar cartography.
TheEntropyEpoch 3 years ago
A periodical review will reveal volumes of papers and abstracts submitted for peer review by lunar geologist, plasma and particle physicist, seismoligist, cartographers, ect. with data gathered from Apollo ALSSP and SIM Bay. I don't believe by any stretch of the imagination that NASA could or would conterfeit that much data and dissminate it for analysis and review to the world wide scientific community. This is an absurd notion that does not stand up to examination.
TheEntropyEpoch 3 years ago
"lunar geologist"
ESA's data from SMART-1 proves that actual lunar geology is different to Apollo geology.
"plasma and particle physicist,
If you want to talk about particles, why not start with the 10GeV cosmic rays?
"seismoligist"
The seismic data was either from pre-arrange data tapes or fed from an unmanned craft.
"cartographers"
They already knew what the moon looked like long before Apollo.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
Of course advances in technology would make SMART-1 superior to Apollo imaging. Of course that does not marginalize geology from the Apollo era.
TheEntropyEpoch 3 years ago
"Of course advances in technology would make SMART-1 superior to Apollo imaging. Of course that does not marginalize geology from the Apollo era."
I'm talking about the rock and soil analysis. After scientists analyzed the plumes of moon dust shot up from SMART-1's controlled impact, they found out that the lunar material was different to the Apollo samples.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
Any plumes of dust shot up from SMART-1 impact would have to be data gathered from ground based spectroscopic analysis, would it not?
Of course that is not a physical sample and I would not be surprised if it displayed unique characteristics.
TheEntropyEpoch 3 years ago
"Of course that is not a physical sample and I would not be surprised if it displayed unique characteristics."
If I was to send a probe up to the moon to analyze the soil and take a piece of soil myself and analyze it, I would expect to get the same results. Wouldn't you?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
Perhaps it would be the same, but it would also be dependent on the region were samples are retrieved. Basalts are found in mare basins, lunar highlands has a preponderance of feldspar and breccias composites are common on all sites.
So much of the Moon is unexplored who knows what discoveries will be made in future missions. After the discovery of ice on the south pole who knows what unique characteristics samples may reveal.
TheEntropyEpoch 3 years ago
"Perhaps it would be the same, but it would also be dependent on the region were samples are retrieved. Basalts are found in mare basins, lunar highlands has a preponderance of feldspar and breccias composites are common on all sites."
It crash landed in one of the mare basins, the lunar samples from all the mare basin landing sites were the same. Why would the mare basin site SMART1 landed in be different?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
Honestly, I never reviewed the data, but I will take your word for it that it was different.
That being said, a dust plume thrown up by a high velocity impact may have unique characteristics and any ground based spectroscopic analysis I would suspect could reveal this. Once again, this is not a physical sample. Many physical samples retrieved by Apollo were different dependant on the region visited. I do not believe that SMART-1's lunar encounter exposed Apollo's visit as fraudulent.
TheEntropyEpoch 3 years ago
"Many physical samples retrieved by Apollo were different dependant on the region visited."
Yes, but the samples retrieved from the same type of region shared the same characteristics. Highlands rock came from Highlands. Mare basalts came from mare regions. Because it crashed in a Mare region I'd expect the dust to have the same properties, it didn't.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
Have you read "Exploring the Moon" by David Harland? The book is a detailed narritive of the science on the lunar EVA's.
It also has a comprehensive bibliography referencing scientific papers and abstracts.
I challenge any CT to read this book and then assert that NASA perpetrated a hoax.
Other excellent books I have are "To A Rocky Moon" & "The Lunar Sourcebook" both are "hard science" books with extensive lunar surface analysis.
TheEntropyEpoch 3 years ago
I challenge you to read James Van Allen's March 1959 Scientific American article and then tell me that men actually went to the moon.
I also recommend "Prospects For Interstellar Travel" by John Mauldin, the 1963 NASA book "Astronautical Engineering & Science".
As James Van Hoften's team once said: "Cosmic rays are so dangerous and so poorly understood people are unlikely to get to Mars or even back to the moon until better ways are found to protect astronauts"
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"After the discovery of ice on the south pole who knows what unique characteristics samples may reveal."
I am familiar with those news reports. Now tell me how can there be ice on the moon? After I released my film questioning Phoenix's Mars water find, certain individuals told me the near vacuum conditions of Mars drastically reduces the boiling point of water.
So how can water ice exist on the moon? It has no atmosphere. Would ice not boil away in seconds?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
The second Neil Armstrong's touched the lunar surface the mission for prestige was over. Apollo's profile was now purely scientific. I believe the J missions is proof of this. As cleaver as scientist, engineers and technicians at NASA were during the Apollo era, I do not believe that the agency was capable of counterfeiting the volumes of scientific data and discoveries that has been examined and analysed by the scientific community for decades.
TheEntropyEpoch 3 years ago
'The second Neil Armstrong's touched the lunar surface the mission for prestige was over. Apollo's profile was now purely scientific.'
Remind me when that happened again. Month and year?
greenmagoos 3 years ago 2
I would not be remiss in stating that the Lunar Missions was a unmitigated political stunt. Congress would have not funded the missions purely as an adventure or for scientific and technological advancement.
Nevertheless, I count myself among the minority that would characterize the program as a scientific advancement comparable or exceeding the Voyager, Viking or Mariner missions. Clearly the preponderance of scientific evidence
testifies to the reality of Apollos visits to the Moon.
TheEntropyEpoch 3 years ago
I have begun to shift my opinion and I'll agree with you that men appear to have landed on the moon however I think its laughable in the extreme that anybody could claim that the Apollo storys are 'real'.
The reason why I asked you that question is I've been informed Apollo 11 and 12 launched and returned at least a month before it was supposed to have happened.
Believe it if you want or don't.
I'm not going out of my way to convince you.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
As for stories being real, I have read numerous accounts. Gene Krantz's ,Chris Kraft's and Max Faget's narritives reveals that activities at NASA in '68 and '69 was at a 'fevered pitch.'
I really don't understand why any source would contend that Apollo's 11 and 12 were launched at least a month ahead of schedule.
I beleive there is a "harmony" in all published accounts by the Astronauts, NASA personal and numerous first hand observers.
TheEntropyEpoch 3 years ago
If NASA perpetrated a hoax, why would the agency allow so many intimate participants publish accounts?
Really, if one is an associate in a deception the last thing one would do is author a detailed fictitious narritive.
I don't believe the Astronauts are the same caliber of Clifford Irving!
TheEntropyEpoch 3 years ago
@TheEntropyEpoch said: "If NASA perpetrated a hoax, why would the agency allow so many intimate participants publish accounts?".
We can see the fiction. The wires, the minatures with the insects around. So, your problems are irrelevant for us.
rodri11tube 1 year ago
@rodri11tube You have never read any accounts have you rod. I have read several.
No matter, asserting a deception does not make it so, only the testimony of participents or unequivical evidence would alter the facts. So far you have nothing but a willingness to believe sperious assertions and demonstratinga lack of competence in anaylysis.
TheEntropyEpoch 1 year ago
Comment removed
sofytab 1 year ago
@TheEntropyEpoch You look very smart ah. ja. Tell me, How does it feel to swim in the pool of NASA?. They never let us in.
rodri11tube 1 year ago
@rodri11tube Your statement has no meaning.
You can characterise NASA in any manner you want. That does not negate the fact that the volumes of scientific data returned by the Apollo missions is unequivical proof of the reality. The missions may have been a "space race stunt" nevertheless the essence of the program was lunar exploration.
The astronauts returned 843lbs of lunar constituent as well as deploying 26 ALSEP experiments. You can review the analysis of this data in books and papers.
TheEntropyEpoch 1 year ago
@rodri11tube Can you debate the specifics concerning Apollo? I can.
TheEntropyEpoch 1 year ago
@TheEntropyEpoch Ok, ok. Sorry for mention the NASA's simulation pool. Maybe that has no case and in 69' they were good people. But no, Apollo 16 used the pool.
I'm glad you have your data. I have the mines too. Like AS11-44-6591 or AS10-34-5091. They are more relevants. Do you know "Fiction", don't you?.
I don't laugh of you, but they do. I'm talking seriously. They really laugh of you and your family. So, free the world. Anytime, I'll be waiting you.
rodri11tube 1 year ago
@rodri11tube These images are not relevant to a deception, rod. Simply a light refraction on the film. A common occurrence.
Other examples are AS12-51-7544
AS12-50-7366
AS14-66-9359
AS15-96-13036 The Hasselblands were not equipped with polarizers.
You really believe "they" are laughing at me!
I must be in good company along with the dozens of authors who have written extensively on the Apollo missions.
Been to a large public library lately? Dozens of scholarly books on Apollo.
TheEntropyEpoch 1 year ago
Those accounts are false or at least they are partly false and partly true because they are not permitted to tell the whole truth.
You can believe it or not. It wouldn't be the first time a space vehicle was launched prior to when it weas supposed to be. The Russians were doing it.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
Well, I don't believe the accounts are false and I pointed out there is a harmony in all the narratives. If one was looking for evidence of a deception it would not be revealed in any personal narratives.
I don't understand your contention for launches not occurring when they are suppose to be. In fact I don't recall ever noticing any announcement for an Apollo launch that was altered to an earlier date. I do know there were lunar launch windows, occasional delays, and tentative scheduling.
TheEntropyEpoch 3 years ago
I don't have any contention.
I was told Apollo 11 and 12 had both launched and returned at least a month before schedule.
I believe my source. You can choose to believe fictionalised accounts if you wish.
Its a free world.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
What is your source for these dates?
TheEntropyEpoch 3 years ago
They didn't launch from the Cape.
They real Apollo 11 flight departed from Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands in a military vehicle (derivative of the X-20 DynaSoar) into low-Earth orbit, then rendevouzed with hardware launched out of the Cape.
So I've been told.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
"So you've been told"
On July 16, 1969 at approximately 7:30 am. the world witnessed live on TV with the press in attendance the Apollo 11 crew enter the transfer van and proceed to the launch pad.
There is no denying this!
Those guys were on board that Saturn V rocket at 9:32am for the launch.
The timeline testifies to that.
But you are more inclined to believe something someone made up?
I tell ya, man, there were just too many on site witnesses to substantiate this fact.
TheEntropyEpoch 3 years ago
Believing something someone made up is exactly what you are doing.
Tell you what if you are so confident they took of then you get me the film from NASA of them being strapped into the Saturn V's with film of them sitting in the cabin prior to launch because do not even suggest they wouldn't have cameras in there after Apollo 1
greenmagoos 3 years ago
If I recall "For All Mankind" had footage from the gantry. The networks broadcast activities for about an hour from the gantry before launch. No, I do not believe NASA had a live television camera in the CM prior to launch for what reason I do not know. Certainly not evidence of a hoax.
TheEntropyEpoch 3 years ago
Man you are so spot on, I have been saying this from the beginning, the facts are there but poeple still wont have it...man landed on the moon and all thses idoits need to get a life!!
lyniseuk 3 years ago
What is your source which asserts the real Apollo 11 flight departed from Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands in a military vehicle into low-Earth orbit, then rendevouzed with hardware launched out of the Cape?
TheEntropyEpoch 3 years ago
Magoo, you said you were told Apollo 11 and 12 had both launched and returned at least a month before schedule.
What is your source?
TheEntropyEpoch 3 years ago
"The seismic data was either from pre-arrange data tapes or fed from an unmanned craft."
I do not beleive that an unmanned craft would be capable of Seismic Profiling. Apollo 17 deployed 8 charges during lunar transverses. Later the charges were fired and signals monitored by geophones. In this case the data showed that the Tauras-Littrow Valley was a slab of basalt at least 1km thick. This and other discoveries could have been made only on the lunar surface by Astronauts.
TheEntropyEpoch 3 years ago
Yes and your Apollo superhero big chief Utah can't find a publisher for his mystery "letter from Dr. O'Leary"... not even his own $50 office printer will accept it for publication....
....mainly because it doesn't exist.
LMFAO !!!
michaelstmark 3 years ago 2
I have no idea who "big chief Utah" is and I really don't give a damn about his letter. It's just more minutia.
TheEntropyEpoch 3 years ago
"I have no idea who "big chief Utah" is"
That would be self-proclaimed aerospace engineer Jay Windley, Clavius webmaster.
"and I really don't give a damn about his letter. "
He claims that Brian O'Leary sent him a letter saying Apollo was definately real. In actually O'Leary sent no such letter and is not 100% sure that Apollo landed.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
Anyone who sincerely thinks NASA blew up the Shuttle so that a civilian astronaut, who had never been into space before, wouldn't say anything about stars being visible or otherwise, has serious reality issues.
All joking aside here chaps. By all means believe Apollo was faked, or the Chinese lack the ability to open hatch doors in space. But this? So poor it's not even laughable. It's an insult to any thinkg person's intelligence.
Give yer head a shake.
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
"has serious reality issues."
The only persons with reality issues are those who ignore the fact that Roger Boisjoly specifically warned NASA in the months leading up and the night before the launch "Do not launch in cold weather", and NASA ignored him.
So, Greer, would you care to address Phil Plait's nasty habit of putting words in peoples mouths?
And I DARE you to quote Dr. Brian O'Lear's message to me at AH forum. "I THINK THEY DID LAND BUT AM NOT 100% SURE" go on, quote it.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
Roger Boisjoly warned his own management (Morton Thiokol), who failed to adequately pass those concerns on to NASA.
And this supports the idea that NASA deliberately blew Challenger up to silence Christa McAuliffe so she wouldn't say anything about stars in space how exactly?
I'm not overly concerned with your ongoing battle with Plait and Windley. Nor am I your 'messenger bitch'. You want to quote that at AH, you go for it.
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
"Roger Boisjoly warned his own management (Morton Thiokol), who failed to adequately pass those concerns on to NASA."
What are you talking about? The night before the launch he, his Thiokol managers and Lawrance Mulloy of NASA held a teleconference. Boisjoly warned NASA not to launch in cold weather, and Mulloy told him to sit down and shit up.
"Nor am I your 'messenger bitch'."
Yet you quote O'Leary's "I never got in touch with Windley" message, but not his "I'm not 100% sure" message. Why?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
Please explain how NASA management overlooking Boisjoly's concerns over launching in cold weather prove that NASA planned to assassinate Christa McAuliffe.
Isn't it more a damning condemnation of managers thinking they know better than engineers?
Do you seriously believe NASA allowed the launch to go ahead with the aim of killing McAuliffe, in order to stop her talking about seeing stars in space?
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago 2
"Please explain how NASA management overlooking Boisjoly's concerns over launching in cold weather prove that NASA planned to assassinate Christa McAuliffe."
Up until this point NASA had always taken weather conditions during shuttle launches seriously, especially after the near fatal launch of STS-51-C. Suddenly they sing a different tune when a crew member happens to be a teacher who everyone knows refuses to be manipulated by the government. Why do you suppose that is?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
So you have no evidence, you just think it odd that NASA launched against advice, so it must have been becasue there was a teacher on board who they couldn't be certain wouldn't say anything about seeing stars so they launched Challenger knowing it would blow up and kill her, several other astronauts, cost NASA billions, set their shuttle programme back years, possibly leave themselves open to litigation?
Not a very high standard of proof you're holding yourself to.
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
"so it must have been becasue there was a teacher on board who they couldn't be certain wouldn't say anything about seeing stars"
I've already proven that the inability to see stars whilst orbiting on the daylight side of earth is a lie. You think NASA could force this lie on her when it was known by all that she refused to be manipulated by the government?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
Can you please give this "daylight stars" thing a rest? PLEASE? There is absolutely no controversy whatsoever except for the pointless artificial one the hoaxheads keep manufacturing.
The facts are extremely simple: when your eyes are adapted to daylight, stars are just too dim to see. Yes, if you take steps to dark-adapt your eyes and then look at the sky from space while protecting your eyes from the sun and bright earth you should see stars. But what's the point?
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
"several other astronauts"
As the government would call it: collateral damage.
"cost NASA billions"
Don't exaggerate. Challenger was the cheapest shuttle to run - they even built it from spare parts.
"set their shuttle programme back years"
It took less time than it took to the the program up and running again after the Columbia disaster.
"possibly leave themselves open to litigation?"
They obviously had good lawyers; Mulloy wasn't even fired.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"collateral damage"
Why not just discredit her so she couldn't fly? Simples.
"Don't exaggerate." Challengers replacement, Endeavour, cost $1.7 billion dollars.
"It took less time... "
9 shuttle missions in 1985. It took nearly 3 years after Challenger for the next mission.
Face it, your scenario is ridiculously over-complicated, un-necessary, and is pure speculation with no evidence to back it up.
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
"Why not just discredit her so she couldn't fly?"
You can't just ground a fully-qualified and healthy astronaut willy nilly. And doing so with the most famous astronaut since Neil Armstrong would cause suspicion.
"Endeavour, cost $1.7 billion"
Shuttles normally cost 2.6 billion.
"It took nearly 3 years after Challenger for the next mission."
And it took more than 3 years after Columbia to get the shuttle program up and running again.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
This is the stupidest and most offensive allegation since the one that the Apollo 1 astronauts were murdered.
Quick: name all the 1960s astronauts who died before flying and how they died. More than on Apollo 1, and today they're virtually unknown, unlike Grissom, White and Chaffee. Nor did their deaths attract anything close to the scrutiny that Apollo 1 did. They were far more "mundane".
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
Truth.
wearedefiant 2 years ago
Furthermore, would you care to address the issue of this video? Why does Phil Plait claim that Bill Kaysing said "any kind of space travel is impossible and they blew up Challenger to keep astronauts quiet about that", when in fact Kaysing made no such claim?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
Why do you guys at AH only comment on O'Leary's "I never got in touch with Windley" statement? Why won't you talk about the fact that O'Leary told me he's not 100% sure that Apollo landed on the moon?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
Because it's irrelevant to whether Apollo happened or not? It's impossible to be 100% sure about anything unless you had first hand experience. I'm 99.99% sure it happened. There you go, you can now tell everyone I'm not 100% sure Apollo happened.
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
"Because it's irrelevant to whether Apollo happened or not? It's impossible to be 100% sure about anything unless you had first hand experience."
That's ridiculous. In his supposed letter to Windley he states that it definitely happened. Saying that it definitely happened is the equivalent to saying that you are 100% sure that it happened.
"I'm 99.99% sure it happened."
This is new. And what makes you 0.01% unsure that Apollo happened?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"This is new. And what makes you 0.01% unsure that Apollo happened? "
I wasn't there, so there is always room for residual doubt. In the same way I can't possibly know for certain that Hillary and Tensing were the first to scale Everest, or that Trieste successfully descended Challenger Deep.
As for O'Leary's comments, do you consider it impossible that he changed his position slightly in the intervening years? From 100% sure to 99.99% sure maybe?
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
"I wasn't there, so there is always room for residual doubt."
So you admit that things like moon rocks, laser reflectors and radio signals are not as watertight as you guys hype about?
"As for O'Leary's comments, do you consider it impossible that he changed his position slightly in the intervening years? From 100% sure to 99.99% sure maybe?"
I asked him specifically about what he said in 2001 and what he believes now.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"So you admit that things like moon rocks, laser reflectors and radio signals are not as watertight as you guys hype about?"
Don't put words in my mouth. I said I'm 99.99% certain. Any residual doubt is because I didn't go, so how can I be 100% sure?
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
"Don't put words in my mouth."
I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth. Judging by all the hype about these three things you all sound 100% to me. Red Zero even said he was 100% sure because of them.
Now answer my question. If O'Leary has changed his mind, should not Windley update his website so that it reflects his current opinion?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
Further, if O'Leary has indeed changed his mind from 100% sure to not a 100% sure, don't you think Jay Windley should update his webpage on O'Leary so that it reflects his current opinion?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
Awesome as usual, you crazy Aussie!
LIAR Plait, LIAR Windley, LIAR Vector..... This list keeps expanding...
Will some real true researchers from the Apollogist camp please step forward, and actually debate this issue with us?
northerntruthseeker 3 years ago 7
Awesome. You've got the big brass balls to put your money where your mouth is. I can't wait to see if Phil has the balls to do the same. Nice video.
Don't be a little girl, Phil. Back up your claims!
cchlaw 3 years ago 11
I've always said that when you need to LIE to defend something, then what you're defending is a LIE.
Another great job of exposing the MANY LIES of the Apollo propangandists, Jarrah!
straydog02 3 years ago 11
Phil pLIEt's claims are sickening.
Great job Jarrah!
Yagshemash10749 3 years ago 10
Comment removed
Yagshemash10749 3 years ago
Excellent work, the door is opening wider every day mate.
realitylicker 3 years ago 11
nice vid
hstcrow 3 years ago 9
I wrote out a comment but it seems to of glitched and I lost it. :(
I bet, not $100,000 lol, that you won't get a response either. The way the Nasa propagandists act is similar to a mind controlling cult. they condescend, lie and patronise to keep their story and to attack anyone who questions the reality. Reading through their forums actually makes me feel physically sick.
I have also noticed that a lot of them approve of the use of physical violence towards others (eg. Sibrel).
adiohead 3 years ago 10
Comment removed
garleec 3 years ago
I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a response Jarrah! Plait is nothing but a coward. And as you and Joe Rogan know already, the guy always reneges on his wagers. Hope he doesn't try that with a bookie. He might have to change his name to the Broken Astronomer!
un4g1v3n1 3 years ago 8
Thank, Jarrah. Just like the original Apollo Fraudsters, some defenders of NASA's Apollo fiction have no moral or ethical constraints, and will peddle lies if it suits their purpose of covering-up the massive fraud perpetrated against the US taxpayer and Mankind.
sergemck 3 years ago 11