23 August 2009

What is this all about?

An Australian named Jarrah White believes the Apollo moon landings were faked. He makes little YouTube videos trying to support this belief. He's formed these beliefs because he is a layman and has made incorrect assumptions in certain areas, has incorrectly interpreted complex data and follows an incorrect scientific method: he starts with a conclusion and looks for evidence to support it, rather than examining all the evidence and then letting it lead to a conclusion.

One of his latest videos proposes that the Apollo 1 fire, which occurred 27 JAN 67 and killed astronauts Grissom, White and Chaffee on the launchpad, was a deliberate act by NASA. In other words, NASA murdered the astronauts.

He has posted a number of claims / questions regarding this tragic event, but replying on that page I am limited to 500 characters and can only reply (post) about 3 times per day.

This is NOT Jarrah's restriction; it is a restriction by YouTube.

Therefore I have created this blog to respond to his claims, where it is possible to properly quote documents, provide links to external sources, show images, etc.

Sooo, this blog is really just directed at Jarrah White. But you can read it to, if you like!

11 comments:

  1. Apollo 1 died in space 24 hours before the accident on a covert military mission. The csm 'tests' was set up for all 'training' apollo crews 'in case' of accidents and the conspiracy is nothing more than a disinformation exercise to pump out more half truths and creat suspicioun about the moon.

    The person who set this blog up is a brainwashed apollogist cult following moron

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yet Jarrah just debunked every one of Sofa King's erroneous claims, just like he does with all of the brainwashed Apollogist fools who spew programmed NASA disinformation 24/7 on every forum where the Apollo Hoax is argued.

    All the maker of blog has done is to post NASA's self serving version of the Apollo 1 fire, instead of bringing anything original to the discussion .. I don't know why Jarrah even bothers to reply to such obvious propaganda.

    btw, the need for this blog, in the hopes of proving Jarrah wrong, only proves how frightened the Apollogist sheep are of him and his research.

    Duane Daman

    ReplyDelete
  4. The mere fact that this dimwit created this blog is evidence that those who still support, and believe in Apollo have lost the last of their credibility, and common sense.

    Give 'em hell Jarrah. It's a less fictional place then the moonset was!

    ReplyDelete
  5. The mere fact that this dimwit bothers to debate a dimwith like Jarrah just gives more ego stroke to Jarrah.

    Shame on both of you dimwits. Go find something else to do with your time.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What is NASA had used an Oxygen-Nitrogen mix and the flow regulator had broken and flooded the capsule with 100% nitrogen? The astronauts would have suffocated without ever knowing anything was wrong.

    The reason that the space program is inherently dangerous is that there often is NO right answer to a safety question. One decision creates one hazard, deciding the other way eliminates that hazard while creating another. For example, a hatch that opens outward instead of inward eliminates the danger of the crew being unable to open it in a fire (as happened with Apollo 1), but creates additional danger of accidentally blowing open during spaceflight (due to the pressurized interior and vacuum on the outside).

    The world is just not as simple as people like Jarrah think it is. Manned spaceflight certainly isn't so simple.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What is NASA had used an Oxygen-Nitrogen mix and the flow regulator had broken and flooded the capsule with 100% nitrogen? The astronauts would have suffocated without ever knowing anything was wrong.

    The reason that the space program is inherently dangerous is that there often is NO right answer to a safety question. One decision creates one hazard, deciding the other way eliminates that hazard while creating another.


    The two-gas mixture is generally considered the safer option over the single-gas system. The problem with the former is not so much keeping it regulated. The shuttle, ISS, MIR and all Russian space craft have used the two-gas system and the regulator works fine. The problem with the two gas-system is maintaining the pressure.

    The shuttle and Soyus capsules contain a sea-level nitrogen oxygen atmosphere with ease because they have thick, strong walls to contain it. But thick strong walls adds to the overall weight, and thus a more powerful booster is required to lift it.

    The Russian manned spacecraft have always been able to contain a nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere because they had the mighty R-7 to lift it. Lacking such a powerful rocket, the US had to make do with lightweight capsules like Mercury, Gemini and Apollo which could only contain a single-gas atmosphere at low pressure.

    The US had to wait for the shuttle to have the luxury of the two-gas system.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The US had to wait for the shuttle to have the luxury of the two-gas system.

    There are other considerations as well, especially when there are to be many Spacewalks. Because suits are still operated at the lower pressure, astronauts on the shuttle and ISS have to undergo a depressurisation and purge to remove the nitrogen from their blood before they can do a space walk. This is to help prevent the bends, something that any recreational diver is familiar with. Gemini and Apollo were both going to involve the rapid depressurisation of craft and so a mixed system would have been a negative to getting the job done effectively, efficiently, and safely, just as much as having to carry the extra tank, compressed gas, tubing, equipment to run a two gas system and the need to make the capsules thicker and thus heavier. In space flight, weight is cost, bigger rockets, more fuel. A pure oxygen system was the better solution to the problem, not a lack of a "luxury" just as using tape was a better solution to attaching some items to the LM rather than using a screw or a rivet.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jarrah 'has shit for brains' WhiteSeptember 21, 2009 at 8:56 AM

    Nice to see un4g1v3n1 and Straydog02 here. Jarrah White's faithful attack dogs. It's the blind leading the blind.

    ReplyDelete
  10. What exactly is Jarrah White's educational pedigree and his current employment status? His specious and amateurish scientific claims are offensive and shrill.

    ReplyDelete