Young Aussie genius whipping NASA experts in Moon Hoax Debate!

[WWu777]

Hi all,

The whole Moon Hoax Debate, which I thought had died off long ago, has been revived by this young genius from Australia who has been kicking butt against astronomers appointed by NASA to debate the moon hoaxers such as Phil Plait of www.badastronomy.com, Jay Windley, the Mythbusters program, and other "NASA Propagandists" as he calls them.

This kid is something you have to see to believe. He calls himself Jarrah White. He looks only about 25 or so, yet he's the best debater I've ever seen. His arguments and reasoning are so thorough and scholarly. Everything he says is sourced and documented. He has documents on everything, even stuff from the 60's. He even performs scientific experiments, when he can, to back up and illustrate his argument, showing and explaining each step to the viewer. Therefore, he doesn't just make arguments, he SHOWS you the scientific facts and results through experiments right in front of you, either by him, or by others.

In doing so, he has unmasked critical errors and omissions of Phil Plait, the Mythbusters, and others. It's absolutely brilliant. I'm astounded by it. I've never seen a young guy who was so thorough and logical. His videos all look very professionally produced and his presentation is very professional as well. It's something you have to see to believe.

Here is his YouTube Channel. He has like over 300 videos now. His video series is called MoonFaker.

http://www.youtube.com/WhiteJarrah

Check out this 3 part segment where he shows an untouched flag waving on the moon, where there is no air. Then he cites the Lunar Journal's 6 speculative explanations for the moving flag and debunks them all, with simple experiments, precendents and deduction.

MoonFaker: The Flags are Alive
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr76qSQ9ZQQ

And here he shows you EXACTLY WHY the Lunar Module on the moon must have had a blast crater under it, contrary to NASA defenders' explanations to the contrary. All the math, science and documented experiments by NASA and other organizations is shown to you in full detail, in a five part video series.

MoonFaker - No Crater
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEQNZQdJFtI

In this one, he gets to the bottom of the debate about whether the "C" rock in a moon photo right next to the "C" on the ground, is an original or the same photo with the "C" airbrushed out is, and whether it is a piece of hair or a marker. By simple research and deduction, Jarrah White shows that the NASA defenders are wrong and supporting an obvious cover up.

MoonFaker - Rocks and Crocks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AQQHTjeMkA

In this funny one, he explains how in theory the astronauts should have been able to jump 14 feet in the air, according to NASA's calculations, yet the Apollo astronauts usually only jumped 20 inches off the ground, and why NASA's defenders' explanations for this do not fit.

MoonFaker - One Giant Leap
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkzTLmX3FHs

Here's another thoroughly researched one. Here he takes some famous photographs with lighting oddities and performs tedious experiments to see if NASA defenders' explanations hold up. In it, he even exposes deceit and factual errors by the Mythbusters program.

MoonFaker - Reflect on this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPni1ESWlNU

In this series, he dissects the moon rocks arguments, laser reflector arguments, and ham radio arguments

Exhibit D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8op08e5KpqY

There's more at his channel, including many videos dissecting and scrutinizing the recent LRO aerial photos of the moon, which seem to be far less accurate than even Google Earth is.

LRO Series
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=EE53A79DEDA4AD44&search_query=moonfaker+LRO+moment&rclk=pti

The only folks who won't like these videos are the establishment defenders who mistakenly believe that "authority = truth" and worship "status quo and orthodoxy" as their Lord and God, and believe that "critical thinking" can never be used against establishment or orthodoxy, only against those who would challenge it.

Remember folks, a true skeptic is willing to challenge authority and orthodoxy, and apply his critical thinking and skepticism in that direction. Those who absolutely cannot are not skeptics, they are establishment defenders. Randi, Shermer, CSICOP, the BadAstronomy.com folks, the Mythbusters, Penn and Teller, and the skeptics on my SCEPCOP forum are establishment defenders, not true skeptics.

These establishment defenders were taught in high school that "authority = truth" and therefore is never to be questioned, and that doing and believing what you're told leads to reward, while the opposite leads to punishment. They are unable to free themselves of their programming and conditioning, so in that sense, they are not "freethinkers".

[Harryprice]

MoonFaker: The Flags are Alive
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr76qSQ9ZQQ

I watched this video. He only tackles the static electricity theory of flag movement, neglecting the idea I had straight away when I saw the pics, namely that it was movement in the flagpole caused by vibration from the astronaut running nearby. His attempt to move a flag by static electricity fails because he does not charge the flag first. On the moon, with no air ions to disperse charge and with constant bombardment by the solar wind, charge should build up nicely on an insulator like a flag. Whether two statically charged objects are attracted or repulsed depends on their relative charges. Also, the lower gravity on the moon and lack of an atmosphere would allow greater movement to be produced from much smaller vibration or static electric effects compared to Earth. I think either theory will probably work to explain the flag movement but you need to reproduce the conditions realistically to test them (vacuum, microgravity, solar wind, etc). The real mystery may be why the flag didn't move more!

[Admin]

This kid is something you have to see to believe. He calls himself Jarrah White. He looks only about 25 or so, yet he's the best debater I've ever seen.

You're joking - aren't you? :huh:


He even performs scientific experiments

You mean like investigating the static hypothesis of flag movement on the moon by rubbing a balloon on his head. ;D

It was embarrassingly stupid.

[Croydon Bob]

Jarrah White's attempts at debating Phil Plait on more than one forum seem to follow a predictable pattern. "White" shows that he knows little about science and makes dumb mistakes, Plait easily runs rings around him, White has a tantrum and gets banned from the forum.

He's just another thick nutter who has kicked no butt but his own. He sticks to YouTube video because that way he can't hear the laughter of the smart people that he always gets when he ventures out into the real world.

[PaulW99]

What is so hard to believe about people going to the Moon?? It's not that far away!

[asthmatic camel]

WWu777. Could this be a certain poster who's made a nuisance of himself elsewhere as Winston Wu? I foresee a banning in the near future.

[PaulW99]

Winston, above you say

"These establishment defenders were taught in high school that "authority = truth" "

and yet in the 911 thread you appeal to authority (some supposed expert pilot) in your search for truth.

You can't have it both ways.

"The only folks who won't like these videos are the establishment defenders "
Bit of a sweeping statement, wouldn't you say? How about people who don't defend the establishment but know more about science than this kid (and you, by the looks of it).

[Matt]

Remember folks, a true skeptic is willing to challenge authority and orthodoxy, and apply his critical thinking and skepticism in that direction. Those who absolutely cannot are not skeptics, they are establishment defenders. Randi, Shermer, CSICOP, the BadAstronomy.com folks, the Mythbusters, Penn and Teller, and the skeptics on my SCEPCOP forum are establishment defenders, not true skeptics.

These establishment defenders were taught in high school that "authority = truth" and therefore is never to be questioned, and that doing and believing what you're told leads to reward, while the opposite leads to punishment. They are unable to free themselves of their programming and conditioning, so in that sense, they are not "freethinkers".

Dammit if only Randi and Phil Plait could bring themselves to question the establishment they might have something to say about chiropractors, religious privilege or those traditional family values like homophobia and racism.

[tolman]

This kid is something you have to see to believe. He calls himself Jarrah White. He looks only about 25 or so, yet he's the best debater I've ever seen.
But then you seem to think David Icke makes a lot of sense, takes your mind way up into other dimensions, and expands your consciousness.


Here is his YouTube Channel. He has like over 300 videos now. His video series is called MoonFaker.
Where should I start?
Oh, the indecision.


Here's another thoroughly researched one. Here he takes some famous photographs with lighting oddities and performs tedious experiments to see if NASA defenders' explanations hold up. In it, he even exposes deceit and factual errors by the Mythbusters program.
What, Mythbusters got something wrong?
O.M.G.!!!
Now the whole world of science and technology will shrivel and die, since everyone knows Mythbusters is the Ultimate Source of all Technical Wisdom


In this funny one, he explains how in theory the astronauts should have been able to jump 14 feet in the air, according to NASA's calculations, yet the Apollo astronauts usually only jumped 20 inches off the ground, and why NASA's defenders' explanations for this do not fit.
For my sins, I actually watched this example of his 'thorough research', where he doesn't seem to mention how light the load was in the backpacks NASA used in the few [unmeasured] tests where it wasn't simply an unloaded person in normal clothing doing the jumping.
In fact the load was a maximum of 60lbs, whereas the Apollo spacesuit was three times that weight, and would therefore necessarily make the maximum possible height attained significantly lower (roughly speaking, a load of mass equal to a person's bodyweight would halve the maximum achievable height).
Also, the NASA paper points out that to get their maximum heights of ~14ft, the normally-clothed test subjects were squatting right down to the [simulated] ground, something that astronauts couldn't possibly do in a spacesuit and which they clearly didn't do on the Moon, and the test subjects were unstable while jumping.

For all your hero's physics genius, he doesn't seem to touch on the fact that mass is a significant factor in how high someone can jump, not merely weight, since more mass means lower upwards velocity for a given propulsive force and distance, and therefore a lower maximum height.

[bryan]

In this funny one, he explains how in theory the astronauts should have been able to jump 14 feet in the air, according to NASA's calculations, yet the Apollo astronauts usually only jumped 20 inches off the ground, and why NASA's defenders' explanations for this do not fit.

MoonFaker - One Giant Leap
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkzTLmX3FHs

They didn't jump any higher than they could have done back home.

[tolman]

They didn't jump any higher than they could have done back home.
They jumped rather higher than I could jump here given the limited leg movement they showed, even if I wasn't wearing gear that had as much mass as I do.

Presumably, you're suggesting another deeply incompetent conspiracy overlooking the blindingly obvious, while arguing from your usual position of ignorance and poor logic?

[tolman]

I'm still wondering why the Alien Lizard People would need to fake a moon landing?

Wouldn't that be like Jenson Button faking a drive to the shops in a Renault Clio?

[skbuncks]

They didn't jump any higher than they could have done back home.

Next you'll be telling us that you believe Roswell really was the crash site of an alien space ship

skb