Conclusive Proof the Moon Landings were Faked

[onebigmonkey]

You haven't supplied a link to the news report where you claim it says they differ from surface samples.

The article you did link to makes no such claim.

[smartcooky]

Why won't he answer?

I'm an admitted rookie on all of this.   Although I've covered a breadth of things, my deeper focus has been mostly on Newtonian physics, because this is an area of professional experience for me, as well as they seem to break this Physics many times -- provably.   So when I hear Apollogists say "We've debunked ALL MLH Claims" -- I'm simply challenging that statement.  And for me, when they Break Physics - this is very meaningful.

===
Here's my response to the above:

This ESA reference only mentions cross-comparing SMART-1's D-CIXS data with the Soviet samples, not the Apollo samples.

When SMART-1 crashed into the lunar surface and kicked up dust plumes for analysis with ground-based radio telescopes, ABC News in Hobart who were covering Mt Pleasant Observatory's observation of the crash reported that "the probe has uncovered minerals different to the rocks gathered on the surface during moon rocks."

It should also be noted that the Soviet lunar samples differ from the Apollo samples. Whereas the Apollo samples contain up to 6,000ppm of water and ferric iron oxide associated with that water (the Apollo 16 rocks contain the most ferric iron), the Luna 16 and 20 contain none of this. Only Luna 24 contains 1,000ppm of water and it was found by drilling ~1.5meters under the lunar surface.

===
At this point, I'm working on the physics parts in depth, creating a 3D real-time Physics simulation as we speak..  so I will be engaging less rampantly here for a while as I do this work.

This is nothing but gish gallop and obfuscatory word salad.

You haven't answered any of Mag40's questions

NOTE:
LunarOrbit must be getting very close to putting you on moderated status, where you won't be able get any post approved unless it contains satisfactory answers to questions you have been asked. If you don't want that happening, I suggest you start either answering questions, or admitting (unconditionally) that you cannot.   
 

[Mag40]

To my knowledge, the deepest Apollo samples were attributed to depths of 3meters. ESA estimated the SMART-1 crater depth to be only 1m deep. So shallower than the Apollo drill samples. Therefore, there should be no discrepancy in mineralogy.

Explain why that is? Probably best you forget about this subject, the absolute real irrefutable proof of a landing.

[najak]

NOTE:
LunarOrbit must be getting very close to putting you on moderated status, where you won't be able get any post approved unless it contains satisfactory answers to questions you have been asked. If you don't want that happening, I suggest you start either answering questions, or admitting (unconditionally) that you cannot.

Is Jarrah White banned from posting here?  When it comes to geology, I'm only relying on his answers.  This isn't MY THING.

So if you want to discuss this deeper, allow Jarrah to make a new thread, and discuss it fully and completely.  This is how forums are designed, to have threads that are not splintered, but remain narrow in scope.   For each off-topic item you want to discuss, create a thread.  And let Jarrah post/answer - and he just might.

I, however, am only prepared to post on the things that are my specific domain knowledge.

So for things that are off-topic - "I can't adequately answer at this time, if ever" is a fine way to categorize me, for these side topics.

I've agreed to withdraw my assertions that "Apparently Broken/unexplained Physics" does NOT equate to "we didn't land men on the moon" - because THAT is a much bigger court case. 

I am presenting proofs that I find to be compelling evidence, and want to find out what is the "best rebuttal for each".

I started out believing MOST MLH claims - but have dropped 90% of them as "dumb things to claim as proof", because they are stretched or omitting key points.  I'm trying to discover, of all the MLH claims, which ones are the strongest.

I have more of these to present, for scrutiny.

[smartcooky]

NOTE:
LunarOrbit must be getting very close to putting you on moderated status, where you won't be able get any post approved unless it contains satisfactory answers to questions you have been asked. If you don't want that happening, I suggest you start either answering questions, or admitting (unconditionally) that you cannot.

Is Jarrah White banned from posting here?  When it comes to geology, I'm only relying on his answers.  This isn't MY THING.

So if you want to discuss this deeper, allow Jarrah to make a new thread, and discuss it fully and completely.  This is how forums are designed, to have threads that are not splintered, but remain narrow in scope.   For each off-topic item you want to discuss, create a thread.  And let Jarrah post/answer - and he just might.

I, however, am only prepared to post on the things that are my specific domain knowledge.

So for things that are off-topic - "I can't adequately answer at this time, if ever" is a fine way to categorize me, for these side topics.

I've agreed to withdraw my assertions that "Apparently Broken/unexplained Physics" does NOT equate to "we didn't land men on the moon" - because THAT is a much bigger court case. 

I am presenting proofs that I find to be compelling evidence, and want to find out what is the "best rebuttal for each".

I started out believing MOST MLH claims - but have dropped 90% of them as "dumb things to claim as proof", because they are stretched or omitting key points.  I'm trying to discover, of all the MLH claims, which ones are the strongest.

I have more of these to present, for scrutiny.

Non sequitur. Your reply is unrelated to my post.

No, The Blunder is not banned from here, but he knows that if he does post here will be handed his arse... again (in the same way you are being handed yours) by people who KNOW this subject inside out, back to front and upside down. Credibility is not like a boomerang.... if you throw it away, it ain't coming back - you'll have to go get it yourself. When you keep running away from questions, when you keep hand-waving facts, and when you keep ignoring counter-claims, you throw away your credibility.

You are obviously new to this, and are unaware of the history, but The Blunder has been handed his arse by Jay and others a number of times previously in other debates. That's why he spat the dummy, took his toys and ran away.

Jarrah White is an intellectual coward. He has been challenged to live debates many times, and has always turned them down. Why? Because he knows he's on very shaky ground with his moon hoax grift, so he needs to control the process, and can't do anything to control a live debate... there is no opportunity to delete or rewrite posts when he gets found out. He's only interested in having written debates on platforms that allow him to control the process, and since that won't be allowed here, he is too afraid to come here.

[najak]

You are obviously new to this, and are unaware of the history, but The Blunder has been handed his arse by Jay and others a number of times previously in other debates. That's why he spat the dummy, took his toys and ran away.

I've witnessed firsthand the treatment you give MLH here, and the basis upon which you think someone was "handed their arse".

When it comes to geology questions - I defer to Jarrah.  I don't base my own beliefs about MLH on the geology (not yet, at least).

It seems many here confuse "not AGREEING with logic" equates to "running away from facts".

Or that "identifying something as out-of-scope for the current thesis of a thread" is "running".

Every thread is not "the whole MLH/Apollogist" argument.  Each thread is a specific piece.  In examining evidence, you take each piece as it comes in.

I've already agreed NOT to claim "because this piece of evidence remains unexplained" that this means "therefore we didn't land on the moon".  I've conceded to NOT draw this conclusion.

If you have issues with anything directly related to my specific posts - lets keep those discussions scoped to the right thread accordingly.

[Mag40]

I've witnessed firsthand the treatment you give MLH here, and the basis upon which you think someone was "handed their arse".

First hand? You come in here with obnoxious and snide remarks, offer some meaningless apology then continue with your posturing - you may be getting less than "bestest friend" replies but so what! You don't know what you are doing.

When it comes to geology questions - I defer to Jarrah.

Why's that?

It seems many here confuse "not AGREEING with logic" equates to "running away from facts".

Bollocks. I equate it to you running away from a whole host of things that you cannot explain and resort to dumb obfuscation.

Every thread is not "the whole MLH/Apollogist" argument.

As stated - the former is "the eejit pulling his teeth out with a door" the latter the "professor of dentistry". Don't you dare suggest the two "opponents" are equal here. There's a reason we have a Bingo Card and it could be double that size.

[najak]

Don't you dare suggest the two "opponents" are equal here.

And THIS sums up the whole mode of this forum -- "don't you DARE..."

I was presumed an idiot and guilty from the moment I said "I believe we didn't land men on the moon."  From that point forward, this forum has generally operated like a Salem Witch Trial, from where I'm sitting.

[Mag40]

And THIS sums up the whole mode of this forum -- "don't you DARE..."

Nope. It sums up a frustrated individual. You make sweeping generalisations without cause. It's also 100% accurate and that's with 100% integrity. You don't get to suggest the two "sides" are balanced in what they present.

I was presumed an idiot and guilty from the moment I said "I believe we didn't land men on the moon."  From that point forward, this forum has generally operated like a Salem Witch Trial, from where I'm sitting.

Quit with the whingeing and answer posts properly. I posted a half dozen of your snide remarks I can fetch another dozen if you wish.

[onebigmonkey]

Don't you dare suggest the two "opponents" are equal here.

And THIS sums up the whole mode of this forum -- "don't you DARE..."

I was presumed an idiot and guilty from the moment I said "I believe we didn't land men on the moon."  From that point forward, this forum has generally operated like a Salem Witch Trial, from where I'm sitting.

What you did was turn up here with obsequious (and frankly a little creepy) begging for engagement whilst simultaneously claiming your intellectual superiority. You've shed real tiny baby tears over how horrid we've been to you poor brave little soldier while calling people here liars and dishonest.

You've dipped liberally into the logical fallacies grab bag when you could have been doing some actual research.

You've claimed expertise you don't have, are obviously ill-informed about really basic things, and copied material from other sources (without referencing them) in an effort to sound look you understand a topic when you clearly don't.

Your modus operandi is one that's been displayed here many times, and it impresses no-one.

[najak]

#1: You've shed real tiny baby tears over how horrid we've been to you poor brave little soldier while calling people here liars and dishonest.

My "Salem Witch Trial" analogy is with regards to the "Administrative Powers" - "do this, this, and that - or we'll ban you.  You cannot raise any more topics.  You cannot conclude this thread until you CONCEDE (as anything but concession will always be viewed as "ignoring facts")."

All of this done by "force of admin powers".  That's what made the Salem Witch Trials horrid - before the trials they were outcast, shunned...  that's not what I'm talking about.  I'm talking about the Administrative powers being exerted unevenly - with bias.

It's also similar to the "Central Park 5" treatment by the cops - kept in interrogation until they made their predetermined confession.  They couldn't be done, until they did.

I get that EVERYONE ELSE here is biased against me.  No tears or gripes about that.  Not one bit.

The gripe is only that in order to continue posting well-researched theses, I have to concede that my prior ones are FAILED.

Then the admin made up a "Scarlet Letter" style "Report Card" just for me... where, like the Salem Magistrates - he alone got to decide what my grades were -- stuck to the top of this supposedly "non-echo-chamber unbiased forum".  This report card should be removed -- as it employs administrative powers of Bias.

My first four points were well researched... and the debate here helped them to mature.  But now, the topics are stale.  Everyone has gotten to address these narrow theses completely.  And I've promised to represent these counter arguments in the associated documents for my own readers to see.

I've asked everyone and anyone to give me their final "summation" for me to include in my document, to properly close these out.  A Trial ends with "Closing statements", and that's the point we've reached with 3 of these.   "Launch Too Fast" is still moving now, with NEW information being presented -- and IN SCOPE.   The other 3 need to be paused, until someone has something NEW to bring to the debate.

I wish I could undo how I started out, and eliminate those verbal insults.  It was inappropriate and unconstructive.  I've tolerated a LOT of ongoing insults, and think I've paid my dues by now - regarding the "pay back for how you started out".

[najak]

Your modus operandi is one that's been displayed here many times, and it impresses no-one.

In short, I fully appreciate those who are coming here to debate Apollo (with exception for the continuance of repeated points, to no end or benefit).  I am thankful for you, and the others.  I hold you in high regard, even though I don't agree with your Human Moon Landing conclusions.

I'm not here to impress - just to find truth by examining in detail, both sides of the debate for each piece of "MLH Evidence" which seems compelling to me, based on my own research and analysis.

[jfb]

Why won't he answer?

I'm an admitted rookie on all of this.   

I'll say it again -- you spent an afternoon skimming through "Chess for Dummies" and are now convinced you could beat Kasparov in less than 20 moves.  You don't know what you don't know, and son, you don't know a lot. 

You're arguing with subject matter experts in fields of aerospace engineering, telecommunications, geology, photography, computer programming, etc., but somehow your 10 minutes of skimming the internet gives you an advantage over decades of study and practice.

[najak]

No, The Blunder is not banned from here, but he knows that if he does post here will be handed his arse... again (in the same way you are being handed yours) by people who KNOW this subject inside out, back to front and upside down. Credibility is not like a boomerang.... if you throw it away, it ain't coming back - you'll have to go get it yourself. When you keep running away from questions, when you keep hand-waving facts, and when you keep ignoring counter-claims, you throw away your credibility.

Your continued use of "Blunder" gives this forum the appearance of being "back in high school".  I don't know past Jarrah, but Jarrah today seems to show more maturity, intelligence, and civility than you.  You are left holding this bag, stuck in high school.

Jarrah's article here seems representative of his work, and also alludes the "dishonest propagandist" nature of Clavius and Bad Astronomy.  Granted Clavius "introduces it without being so disingenuous" (e.g. calling Gemini's orbit "Deep into the Van Allen Belts") simply gives the wrong connotation.. given that per the Van Allen Belts, which would be considered VERY SHALLOW with low radiation compared to the heart.  But then Bad Astronomy runs with it and claims "and STAYED THERE".    The total time Gemini spent in these belts was well under an hour, right?

So I'm finding more intelligence and fact-checked statements coming from Jarrah, vs. here.

https://www.aulis.com/j_white_10.htm

Check it out and see if you can muster an honest assessment.

==

Jarrah White is an intellectual coward. He has been challenged to live debates many times, and has always turned them down.

And yet, we have this video debate in which Jarrah White debated an ASTRONAUT, and said debate was hosted by Danielle Roosa - daughter of Apollo 14 astronaut Stu Roosa.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNup94ewxk8

Jarrah seemed to handle himself well in that debate, as also indicated by the comments.

[Jarrah] is only interested in having written debates on platforms that allow him to control the process, and since that won't be allowed here, he is too afraid to come here.

Written debates are more meaningful, as it permits the responses to be more well-thought-out, researched, and sourced -- vs. witty off-the-cuff responses done in the moment.  The written debates are more meaningful, by far.  This is intellectual debate, not WWF.

[najak]

You're arguing with subject matter experts in fields of aerospace engineering, telecommunications, geology, photography, computer programming, etc., but somehow your 10 minutes of skimming the internet gives you an advantage over decades of study and practice.

You've grossly mischaracterized my research and analysis, and the veracity of the theses, some of which still stand strong.