Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > The Universe / UFOs / IFOs / Crop Circles

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 30-04-2010, 04:06 PM   #1
wwu777
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 800
Likes: 6 (2 Posts)
Default Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Deb

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

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

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

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

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

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

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".
wwu777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2010, 05:17 PM   #2
mrindigo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 5,593
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Thanks for the heads up on these. They're some of the best videos I've seen regarding this topic. The author/producer is very passionate about what he's doing, and seems to go about this all very professionally despite the lack of professionalism shown toward him. I applaud him.
mrindigo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2010, 05:41 PM   #3
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,627
Likes: 595 (370 Posts)
Default

Looking forward to watching these. Thanks for the heads up.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2010, 06:04 PM   #4
wwu777
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 800
Likes: 6 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrindigo View Post
Thanks for the heads up on these. They're some of the best videos I've seen regarding this topic. The author/producer is very passionate about what he's doing, and seems to go about this all very professionally despite the lack of professionalism shown toward him. I applaud him.
Your welcome.

I'll send him the link to this thread to invite him to come here and post.

He definitely deserves more exposure. His quality of work is impeccable. He must have put thousands of hours into it. I wish his videos would be aired on PBS or Discovery Channel or something. They are that good.

Here is his new series called "Flagging the dead horse" where he deals with recent arguments from his opponents about the untouched waving flag again:


Also, in his long Exhibit D series, he deals with the standard moon rock arguments, the laser reflector arguments, and the ham radio arguments, all with scholarly citations and documents. Definitely worth watching. You'll be surprised at what he comes up with. I wonder how he finds so many documents. I could never unearth as many as he does. Here is the link to that series too:


Hope you enjoy them.
wwu777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2010, 06:14 PM   #5
dreamweaver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,882
Likes: 24 (13 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wwu777 View Post
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.
Hello Jarrah.
__________________
Congratulations, you found the secret message. Shhh!
dreamweaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2010, 07:38 PM   #6
wwu777
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 800
Likes: 6 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamweaver View Post
Hello Jarrah.
I'm not Jarrah. I can prove it. I run the website at www.debunkingskeptics.com. You can contact me through my site to verify that it's me. My pics are on there and I don't look anything like him.

Winston

Last edited by wwu777; 30-04-2010 at 07:39 PM.
wwu777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2010, 07:41 PM   #7
dreamweaver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,882
Likes: 24 (13 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wwu777 View Post
I'm not Jarrah! I can prove it. I run the website at www.debunkingskeptics.com. You can contact me through my site to verify that it's me.

Winston
OK, then why write about him in such droolingly sycophantic terms? It did look like some narcissist promoting himself in all honesty.

Let's see what the guy has to say though.
__________________
Congratulations, you found the secret message. Shhh!
dreamweaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2010, 07:47 PM   #8
dontbeafraid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,768
Likes: 2 (1 Post)
Default

Awesome. Finally the shill debunkers here will have to work.
dontbeafraid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2010, 07:58 PM   #9
dreamweaver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,882
Likes: 24 (13 Posts)
Default

Just been googling him and it seems he's the hoax believers' current hero.

It would seem that the denizens of Bautforum would strongly dispute the write-up of Jarrah that's been given here. For example, check out this thread: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....scussion/page3

It appears that Jay Windley also issued a challenge to him on that page:

"Jarrah has an invitation from me to debate on any moderated forum. He tried it for a while in IMDB (www.imdb.com) but then slunk back to YouTube after failing to bluster his way along, and after whining about "censorship" after one of his posts was removed for what I was informed was his typical foul and abusive language. Jarrah has been invited many times to attend debates and discussions arranged for him with experts in the topics he covers, such as space radiation. He has declined all such invitations. Jarrah White has no credibility or influence outside his little YouTube channel. Sorry, not impressed."

So how about it? Let's invite Jarrah and Jay here and let them slug it out. Who's up for it?
__________________
Congratulations, you found the secret message. Shhh!
dreamweaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2010, 08:02 PM   #10
judge360
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Uk North East
Posts: 939
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

So whats Jarrah trying to prove ?

Is he trying to prove NASA Never Went to the Moon ?

Or

Is He Trying to Prove that the Moon Landings were Hoaxed ?
judge360 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2010, 08:04 PM   #11
wwu777
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 800
Likes: 6 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamweaver View Post
Just been googling him and it seems he's the hoax believers' current hero.

It would seem that the denizens of Bautforum would strongly dispute the write-up of Jarrah that's been given here. For example, check out this thread: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....scussion/page3

It appears that Jay Windley also issued a challenge to him on that page:

"Jarrah has an invitation from me to debate on any moderated forum. He tried it for a while in IMDB (www.imdb.com) but then slunk back to YouTube after failing to bluster his way along, and after whining about "censorship" after one of his posts was removed for what I was informed was his typical foul and abusive language. Jarrah has been invited many times to attend debates and discussions arranged for him with experts in the topics he covers, such as space radiation. He has declined all such invitations. Jarrah White has no credibility or influence outside his little YouTube channel. Sorry, not impressed."

So how about it? Let's invite Jarrah and Jay here and let them slug it out. Who's up for it?
You should not take Jay Windley's word for it. He has been exposed for faking/hoaxing a letter from Astronaut Brian O'Leary, which O'Leary said he never wrote. Yet Windley refuses to apologize for the hoax. He runs away from Jarrah every time he loses.

Here is the video that exposes Jay Windley hoaxing a letter from Astronaut Brian O'Leary:



Here is an open letter to Jay Windley which he ran away from:


Please watch these videos before commenting. Research BOTH sides before talking please. Jarrah owns Windley. Windley is the one running away.

Here also, Jarrah exposes some lies by Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy Site, which Plait ran away from and refuses to apologize for:


WATCH them please! Or else you will be misrepresenting things.

Last edited by wwu777; 30-04-2010 at 08:05 PM.
wwu777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2010, 08:07 PM   #12
wwu777
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 800
Likes: 6 (2 Posts)
Default

Also, why did Neil Armstrong lie about not being able to see any stars? Look here:


Start at 6:00 for the clip of Armstrong saying that you can't see stars on the moon!
wwu777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2010, 08:11 PM   #13
dreamweaver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,882
Likes: 24 (13 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wwu777 View Post
You should not take Jay Windley's word for it. He has been exposed for faking/hoaxing a letter from Astronaut Brian O'Leary, which O'Leary said he never wrote. Yet Windley refuses to apologize for the hoax. He runs away from Jarrah every time he loses.
Yeah, I can see that you believe Jarrah's yadda yadda yadda about himself. But clearly his opponents say the opposite and you're only presenting your hero's side of the story.

So how about taking up Jay's challenge to debate on a moderated forum? This is a moderated forum. You bring Jarrah over and I'll go on Bautforum and ask Jay or any of the others to come on and debate with him. Deal?
__________________
Congratulations, you found the secret message. Shhh!

Last edited by dreamweaver; 30-04-2010 at 08:11 PM.
dreamweaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2010, 10:28 PM   #14
manxboz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Taking another break from the forum!
Posts: 6,841
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamweaver View Post
Yeah, I can see that you believe Jarrah's yadda yadda yadda about himself. But clearly his opponents say the opposite and you're only presenting your hero's side of the story.

So how about taking up Jay's challenge to debate on a moderated forum? This is a moderated forum. You bring Jarrah over and I'll go on Bautforum and ask Jay or any of the others to come on and debate with him. Deal?
Now that sounds fun
__________________
Finland = FUNland


Spellbounds promise to stop posting Webbot predictions
manxboz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2010, 10:47 PM   #15
jackdaw
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: IF this is the people's voice...keep it.
Posts: 1,613
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Ha ha ha! Jay Windley on David Icke forums??? This I've got to see.

Won't happen though.
jackdaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 12:25 AM   #16
dreamweaver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,882
Likes: 24 (13 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdaw View Post
Ha ha ha! Jay Windley on David Icke forums??? This I've got to see.

Won't happen though.
You may be right. I've signed up to bautforum and brought it to their attention but had no response as yet.

As I have no posting history there, it does admittedly look like I'm stirring, so it probably won't happen. Would be good to watch though.

I'm unlikely to take this Jarrah guy on myself if he shows up because I am not a working scientist or engineer like Windley and I am not familiar with Jarrah's material anyway. I'd much rather see a written précis of his arguments than sit through hours of video presentations.
__________________
Congratulations, you found the secret message. Shhh!

Last edited by dreamweaver; 01-05-2010 at 12:39 AM.
dreamweaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 07:14 AM   #17
tabea_blumenschein
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 984
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Let's take one of Jarrah's claims at random and see if it passes the smell test.

Quote:
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.
On Earth, the average person can jump about 2 feet into the air, or about 0.6 meters. We can estimate the initial upward velocity as the feet are leaving the floor thus:

v = sqrt(2gs)

Where g = 9.8 m/s^2 and s = 0.6 meters, or the maximum height of the leap. The answer you get is:

v = 3.43 m/s

What we'd like to know is about how much kinetic energy you can give yourself as you push off the floor.

KE = 1/2 * m * v^2

If we assume the person has a mass of m = 70 kg, then the kinetic energy "on takeoff" is:

KE = 412 joules

We assume your legs can do the same amount of work whilst propelling you upward on the Moon. HOWEVER you're weighing a heavy suit, and the mass of you plus the suit is 180 kg (about 400 pounds). Local gravity on the Moon's surface is g = 1.63 m/s^2. So we can estimate your upward velocity "on takeoff" from the Lunar surface to be:

v = sqrt(2 * KE / m)

v = 2.14 m/s

And the maximum height you'd reach? We can calculate that as follows:

s = v^2 / 2g

s = 1.4 meters (or a bit more than 4 1/2 feet)

Jarrah's figure of 14 feet is off by a factor of 3.


I just checked the numbers, and to jump 14 feet off the Lunar surface requires an initial upward velocity of about 3.73 m/s. Compare this with the "takeoff velocity" I calculated for someone on Earth and you'll see that the two numbers are very close (I got 3.43 m/s on Earth, assuming the vertical leap will reach a height of 2 feet). Based on that, it appears that the "14 foot leap" estimate neglects the fact that the person will be wearing a space suit which increases his or her mass greatly. I suspect that this is Jarrah's carelessness because I wouldn't expect NASA to make such an elementary mistake.

No doubt someone at the BAUTForums has already nailed Jarrah on this.


EDIT: Just wanted to point out that those space suits seriously limit mobility, which means the actual jumps wouldn't be nearly as high as what I estimated above. I'd say that based on my calculations, 20 inches or so sounds just about right.
__________________
De mortuis nil nisi bonum; of the living speak nothing but evil.

- Heinrich Heine

Last edited by tabea_blumenschein; 01-05-2010 at 07:22 AM.
tabea_blumenschein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 07:57 AM   #18
elton
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,867
Likes: 24 (16 Posts)
Default

lol

This I can't wait to see!

If it is Jarrah White he will get hammered, as usual.

Maybe he will make some money out of it though, which is his intent anyway.

www.clavius.org
elton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 08:37 AM   #19
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,627
Likes: 595 (370 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tabea_blumenschein View Post
EDIT: Just wanted to point out that those space suits seriously limit mobility, which means the actual jumps wouldn't be nearly as high as what I estimated above. I'd say that based on my calculations, 20 inches or so sounds just about right.
You calculated 4 1/2 feet right in front of our eyes.

So why did you then mysteriously manage to downgrade it from 54 inches to 20 inches behind closed doors?

Excuse the langauge but a spade is a spade and you seriously just came off there as a sucker of NASA's cock.

Last edited by size_of_light; 01-05-2010 at 08:56 AM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 08:44 AM   #20
jackdaw
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: IF this is the people's voice...keep it.
Posts: 1,613
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elton View Post
lol

This I can't wait to see!

If it is Jarrah White he will get hammered, as usual.

Maybe he will make some money out of it though, which is his intent anyway.

www.clavius.org

Oh no...not another Clavius promoter...

On the other hand, Bautforum is a good web site but (IMO) for the sneery, imperious, patronising, condescending and completely obnoxious Windley ("Jay Utah"). It's actually sickening to see how his lieutenants constantly suck up to him like so many piglets clamouring after mummy. In some threads, the eager-to-agree fawning followers sound like they'd relish nothing more in life than than to pull down his pants and s**k his c**k.

They should drop the Conspiracy section and just focus on what it was created for - an astronomy/astrophysics forum. WTF is it in there for except to ridicule hoaxers and 'prove' nothing about Apollo was faked?
jackdaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:19 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.