View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Moon Hoax - First Mammals to orbit the moon were human

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: Moon Hoax - First Mammals to orbit the moon were human

Postby SydneyPSIder » 28 May 2013, 15:12

Arouet wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:Jarrah White has done some good analysis there, despite Arouet's frequent and convenient claims that he just doesn't trust White's observations.


It is simply misleading to suggest that all I did was conveniently repeat that I don't trust White's observations. What I did was go through a number of his videos and critically evaluate them. I found what I considered holes and unjustified conclusions and stated explicitly what my problems were (and gave credit where it was due). I'm happy for someone to tell me why my critiques were unfounded but no one has bothered.

you should send your critique or critiques in their entirety in one volume to jarrah and he will likely respond, as he responds to many critics. if you are lucky, he will even address them to the world in a youtube video. when there are inaccuracies in his analysis and they are pointed out, he has announced the corrections. none of the 'holes' that have been found have been enough to contradict the dodgy photos and films, and many strange anomalies produced by NASA that point to a hoax. such as a stereoscopic analysis of photos suggesting a backdrop and projector is being used, shimmering effects like a Scotchlite screen in photos, use of backlighting that was not available to the astronauts on the moon, problem with providing sufficient battery power in the LEM and the space suits to complete the mission and keep the astronauts cool, the command module landing in the ocean appears to be about 2 tonnes too light for its supposed contents on an analysis, meaning they were mostly empty and dropped out of a C-4, insufficient space in the modules to operate, a too narrow hatchway to transfer between modules, anomalies in one piece of film discovered by Bart Sibrel suggesting a light source outside the modules in space (or a studio), the presence of blue light and a proximate earth in one video while claiming the earth was distant and in another window (presumably a transfer on the window), clearly and laughably mismatched fake pics of rocks and lunar backgrounds in Apollo 17 pics, conflicting topography detail between Apollo pics 'on the surface' vs unmanned lunar surveyor pics of Hadley mountain, and so on and so on, as already described copiously on other threads. then there is the very strange and wrong psychology of the astranauts whenever they're quizzed about this. they never laugh incredulously and persevere with an interview or act as though they actually went, instead their mood changes at once and they immediately terminate the interview. if theyhad actually been, they would persevere with the interview and argue the case, but they never do.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24






Re: Moon Hoax - First Mammals to orbit the moon were human

Postby Arouet » 29 May 2013, 03:05

If Jarrah wants to come to this forum then I'd be delighted to discuss it with him - but I'm really not interested in chasing someone down to tell them I think they are wrong. I'm not interested in hounding people. This is friendly discussion amongst people who chose to be here.

I can't really get into the photo stuff because its really beyond me. i'm not really a visual kind of guy and even if I read arguments pro and con I don't think I'd really be able to grasp it. Case in point - that photo that Scepcop keeps on posting where he's been given credit for discovering some potential towel or something, I can't see anything amiss even with the relevant area circled. I have no idea what part we're supposed to find suspicious.

I had a lazy eye that was corrected surgerically long ago and as a result I don't have proper depth perception so that may be part of it. So I really can't have any good discussion about photos. I don't feel competent to discuss them at even an amateur level.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax - First Mammals to orbit the moon were human

Postby ProfWag » 29 May 2013, 08:53

And besides, Arouet, we've already discussed that even if the photos are faked, it doesn't mean we didn't go to the moon.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Moon Hoax - First Mammals to orbit the moon were human

Postby SydneyPSIder » 29 May 2013, 09:03

Arouet wrote:If Jarrah wants to come to this forum then I'd be delighted to discuss it with him - but I'm really not interested in chasing someone down to tell them I think they are wrong. I'm not interested in hounding people. This is friendly discussion amongst people who chose to be here.

I can't really get into the photo stuff because its really beyond me. i'm not really a visual kind of guy and even if I read arguments pro and con I don't think I'd really be able to grasp it. Case in point - that photo that Scepcop keeps on posting where he's been given credit for discovering some potential towel or something, I can't see anything amiss even with the relevant area circled. I have no idea what part we're supposed to find suspicious.

I had a lazy eye that was corrected surgerically long ago and as a result I don't have proper depth perception so that may be part of it. So I really can't have any good discussion about photos. I don't feel competent to discuss them at even an amateur level.

hmm, ok. apparently a guy recently got his 3D perception back by going to a single 3D movie!!! All the exercises set prior to that were pretty boring and didn't achieve much, but the movie kept his attention and retrained his neurons or what have you.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2012071 ... a-2d-world

If you supply links to some of your better somewhat spaced out posts on your perception of White's inaccuracies with the radiation question, I will look at them, although they were a bit TLDR originally. However, as I've repeatedly pointed out, a study of radiation levels is likely to be inconclusive due to limited research and knowledge in that area. The pseudosceps here refuse to accept the risk of an unknown level of radiation in our knowledge as a risk. i.e. to them, a risk is not a risk. that is the only argument really being made by the CTers, and indeed assumed to have been considered by NASA when deciding to fake the missions, along with the very real and likely risk and prospect of part of the engineering going wrong at any time and killing astronauts somewhere between the earth and the moon, as per the space shuttle problems we know about, and the large number of rocket failures in the 1950s US space program. So I'm not going to get all hung up on the radiation question in isolation, because no matter how many times we reiterate that it was an unknown risk and therefore a disincentive to actually going, Arouet continues to fix on it as though it was the pivotal factor, not just one factor among many. (It was a bit like deciding to cross the entire Pacific Ocean on a raft, and hoping for no storms, big waves, excessive winds or predators to get you on your way and have a safe passage -- 6 times over!) As noted many times already (sigh), other risks than solar radiation were small meteors in space and meteorites hitting the moon, punctures to space suits, failure of equipment, failure of rockets, miscalculations, etc etc. It was hard enough in the 80s and 90s just getting space shuttles into low earth orbit without incidents. Arouet now apparently has a convenient 2D disability which prevents him from studying any pics whatsoever, even pics of a too-small earth pasted into photos, a picture of a light bulb in the sun, a mathematical analysis of stereoscopic anomalies that only require an understanding of the process rather than visualisaton, etc, although 3D vision is not required for any of that and he seems perfectly adept at looking at the maths of limited knowledge of radiation levels..
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Previous

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron