Jarrah White - The Leading Expert in the Moon Hoax Debate

[Winston]

Check this out. Jarrah White's new website is up and running! It has an intro too.

http://www.moonfaker.com/

Here is his extensive FAQ page that answers key questions about the moon hoax with scientific factual precision and logic.

http://www.moonfaker.com/faqs.html

Interviews with Jarrah White that you can download:

http://www.moonfaker.com/interviews.html

Here are some funny comic strips from his site.





Jarrah's YouTube Channel:

http://www.youtube.com/WhiteJarrah

[Winston]

Unexplainable questions:

1. The moon has about 1/6 the Earth's gravity. So how come the astronauts in the Apollo footage were moving so slowly and couldn't jump very high? Shouldn't they be moving faster than if they were on Earth and be able to jump much higher as well?

2. NASA today cannot put a man safely in space above 1000 miles from the Earth's surface. So how could it have sent men 240,000 miles to the moon six times with no casualties? It doesn't make sense.

3. How could that little LEM possibly have enough fuel to go 240,000 miles to the moon and all the way back? A 747 airliner doesn't even have a fraction of the fuel that would be required, and the LEM is barely the size of two standard cars! WTF? NASA has never explained that. All it said was "The LEM had enough fuel" and the sheep take it as gospel truth and fact. So dumb. It's like NASA's words create fact and reality and authority=truth. Big major fallacy. Even if it could get to the moon by a miracle, there is no way it could ever go all the way back to Earth. Werner von Braun, former Nazi and NASA's chief rocket scientist, said in his book "Conquest of the Moon" (1953) that the rocket to the moon would have to be taller than the Empire State Building! Yet the LEM is about the size of two cars?! WTF?

4. When the top half of the lunar module blasted off from the moon's surface (with no exhaust), how did it re-dock with the command module orbiting the moon, which was moving at about 4,000 mph? NASA has never really explained that. The chances of docking with it were astronomical. And if they missed the dock, they were dead meat. Plus, in the footage of the lunar module's ascent from the moon, the camera pans up as it ascends. Who was panning the camera on the surface? Or was it remote controlled? Very odd and conspicuous.

5. If we had gone to the moon, there would be flights there everyday now, and moon bases as well. That's how history goes. It's simple logic. So the fact that we haven't gone in 40 years is very suspicious indeed, to any rational thinker with common sense, not the sheep who consider themselves rational but take on faith anything they are told by official sources.

Of course NASA has its convenient copout explanations for not returning to the moon - too expensive, not necessary, no motivation, etc. But the problem is that the pro-Apollo believers harbor the logical fallacy that whatever NASA says MUST be the truth. This is the "authority = truth fallacy". The problem with this is that words are easy and cheap. Anyone can give any convenient excuse for anything. For example, a woman can refuse sex with her husband with the excuse that she has a headache, but that doesn't mean that it's the real reason. Likewise, a woman can turn down a date by saying that she is "busy" or "needs time to herself" as a polite excuse to mask the real reason - that she is not attracted to him. Anyone can make excuses, but that doesn't mean that the excuse is the full truth and that nothing is hidden. Those who commit this fallacy are biased. They badly WANT the moon landing to be real, so they will only see what they want to see, and be unable to examine the evidence objectively without bias.

[Winston]

Interview with Jarrah White, the world's leading expert on the Apollo Moon Hoax Theory, on Truth News Radio in Australia.



Jarrah is a master in point by point debate. He is so good that NASA's hired debunker, Phil Plait, ran away from him in fear at the Amazing Meeting in Las Vegas (see Jarrah's YouTube Channel below for proof on video).

At that meeting, Jarrah also shamed Mythbuster Adam Savage, of the Discovery Channel, by pointing out his botched experiments on Mythbusters. Since Savage was an actor, not a debater or scientist or intellectual, he became overwhelmed and bowed out, admitting that he was just an entertainer.

During an interview with Astronaut Buzz Aldrin, who allegedly walked on the moon, Jarrah appeared and asked Buzz why the moon rock that they gave to the Queen of Holland turned out to be a fake, which was reported on the news. He had no answer, was embarrassed and politely avoided the topic. You can see the video of this embarrassing moment on Jarrah's YouTube Channel (linked below)

Obviously, media celebrities are all about image. They are not intellectuals or truth seekers. That's why when confronted by genuine intellectual truth seekers, such as Jarrah White, they are outmatched and run away in fear.

The stupid media should stop giving all their expensive overpriced air time to stupid people, and instead give more airtime to intellectuals with more substantive and important things to say, such as Jarrah White and me.

Watch Jarrah's YouTube Channel to see proof of the above and hundreds of moon hoax videos, at:
http://www.youtube.com/WhiteJarrah

Visit Jarrah's website at:
http://www.moonfaker.com

If you have any questions about the Moon Hoax, see Jarrah's FAQ page at:
http://www.moonfaker.com/faqs.html

[The_Hero_of_Men]

Even after reading all of this, part of me can not believe that the moon landings were bogus. I always thought the technology needed to fake a moon landing (on THAT level) had to be very advanced... Or am I incorrect in saying that to fake the moon landings, the technology that is required has to be pretty damn advanced...

[Billy]

1. Who cares
2. That is something whicht the soviets had to prove and they failed.


Btw. was the A-Bombing of Japan real? I don´t believe it. Do A-Bombs exist? Then why didn´t the Americans use it against Vietnam? It´s foolish to sacrifice 100.000 soldiers when you can do something about it.

[Winston]

1. Who cares
2. That is something whicht the soviets had to prove and they failed.


Btw. was the A-Bombing of Japan real? I don´t believe it. Do A-Bombs exist? Then why didn´t the Americans use it against Vietnam? It´s foolish to sacrifice 100.000 soldiers when you can do something about it.

Based on the facts that Jarrah has uncovered, it is likely that the US failed as well. The evidence against it is overwhelming. The Soviets were way ahead in the space race. Why did the director of NASA resign just before the moon landing? Why would he quit just before the biggest moment of his life?

The Vietnam War was meant to be sustained, not won.

[Winston]

Even after reading all of this, part of me can not believe that the moon landings were bogus. I always thought the technology needed to fake a moon landing (on THAT level) had to be very advanced... Or am I incorrect in saying that to fake the moon landings, the technology that is required has to be pretty damn advanced...

Why? They can reproduce it in a movie studio easily. Have you seen the film "Capricorn One (1979)"? They made the film very grainy and blurry to hide out details.

Do you think it's easy for a craft the size of one automobile, to go 240,000 miles to the moon and back, a total of 480,000 miles, on the FIRST try and succeed without a glitch? It doesn't even have enough fuel. Would your car have enough fuel to go that far?

There are way too many suspicious things about the moon landing. There's no conclusive proof that it happened. People just assume that if everyone believes it, then it must be true, and that no one would lie about something that big.

Astronomers say their telescopes have the technology now to see the lunar lander on the moon. However, they refuse to let anyone try it for some odd reason.

See the Fox Special on the Moon Hoax debate. It's pretty good and exciting.



Also, see the film "Apollo Zero". It has many great points as well.

[Winston]

Here Jarrah confronts Astronaut Buzz Aldrin about why the moon rock he gave to the Queen of Holland turned out to be a fake piece of petrified wood. Aldrin had no explanation and tried to avoid the topic. What do you make of that?



Also, see this press conference with the Apollo 11 crew. As you can see, they look guilty and reluctant all throughout the interview. Very fishy isn't it?

[The_Hero_of_Men]

Unless that ship was powered by some unknown fuel source, like the Chaos Emeralds, then there truly is no way. Even with a power source like that, the first attempt at a machine would NOT be perfect.

[Winston]

Unless that ship was powered by some unknown fuel source, like the Chaos Emeralds, then there truly is no way. Even with a power source like that, the first attempt at a machine would NOT be perfect.

Exactly. And even if their ship just glided through space without using any jet thrusters, still, to glide to a target 240,000 miles away and all the way back on the first attempt without a problem, is highly improbable. Nothing that complicated works on the first try. Most likely, NASA decided that it was better to fake it than try it for real and let the world see three Astronauts get killed. If that happened, NASA would have been done for.

Another improbable thing is that when the LEM blasted off the moon and docked with the command module orbiting the moon, well that command module was moving at 4,000mph. To dock with something moving that fast is very improbable as well. And they would only have a limited time to do it too, lest they be lost in space forever.

If they did go to the moon, then NASA isn't telling us something. Either way, they must be hiding something.

It's also odd that they would go six times and never again after that. That's like Columbus discovering the new world, being succeeded by 5 more voyages, and then all European ships never sailing to the Americas ever again. No way. They must be covering up something. The only question is, what?

[The_Hero_of_Men]

Do you even know what the 7 Chaos Emeralds are?

[Winston]

Do you even know what the 7 Chaos Emeralds are?

No I'm not an RPG or MMORPG player. Why? What does that have to do with this?

[The_Hero_of_Men]

Do you even know what the 7 Chaos Emeralds are?

No I'm not an RPG or MMORPG player. Why? What does that have to do with this?

The Chaos Emeralds, from the world of Sonic the Hedgehog, are gems of infinite power. Dr. Robotnik has used them to power some of his machines. That is why I mentioned that "unless NASA used the Chaos Emeralds to power that craft, there is no way it could have made that trip". They're basically an infinite source of energy.

On another note, let's just say that the circumference of Earth is 10,000 miles. The distance between Earth and the moon... The craft would have to circle the globe at least 20 times to equal the distance of that between Earth and the moon.

[chileanueva]

In the near future, Starbucks, McDonalds, and Panda Express will be found on the lunar surface. USA! USA! USA!

Or the Chinese will get there first and set up a Chinese take-out.

[FireEater]

We will have to begin again from scratch, with new tech, systems, engineers and knowledge. If we are lucky some old guys will be around to lend a hand. Chances are that they won't be alive or that the collective group wisdom will be lost.

That's the part that makes me the saddest -whether NASA's been yanking our collective chain, or whether they've been telling the truth, it's going to be tough getting things going again. Not to say it was ever truly easy, but without the original minds to help things along who knows how long a second (first) moon landing could take?

Unless that ship was powered by some unknown fuel source, like the Chaos Emeralds

That gave me a laugh though.