Jarrah White - The Leading Expert in the Moon Hoax Debate

[globetrotter]

1) Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter
2) Lunar Laser Ranging Reflectors
3) Radar can track objects to lunar orbit

(1) Takes photos of the landing sites from an orbit of about 50km.

(2) Anyone with an easily obtained laser and telescope can verify this.

(3) Russians, Chinese, French, British and Americans all tracked the Saturn-V's because the things were huge and are a massive ICBM. No one wanted to begin a war because the 2nd stage fired. Russia was sending lunar probes in 1959 that the USA tracked. Lunar shots were annual from then to the mid-70's by Russia, USA and Japan. Mostly unmanned probes of crash or soft landings.

I tell my students that if they REALLY want to freak the Americans out, put a Chinese man on the moon.

That will mess with Americans heads in a way no one can imagine.

Less than 15 years, but Chinese under promise and over deliver to save face so this may happen much sooner.

[globetrotter]

"NASA also insinuates that they don't have the technology to go back to the moon. lol. Go figure."

They don't.

Complex engineering systems and technology do not sit around and then they can be pulled off the shelf to reuse. They behave as a living organism. If you stop using them and maintaining them they die a quick death within 6 to 18 months.

The Saturn-V rocket program was discontinued after Skylab was launched. It's cessation was why Skylab burned up after only 7 years in orbit. Solar flares were higher than normal, the atmosphere expanded and drag on the Skylab caused it to re-enter in 1979. No S-V to boost it, it burns up.

The engineers on the S-V were disbanded and all have retired or died. The expertise, systems knowledge and processes are gone, dead, lost to time.

The same is true of The Concorde. Maintenance crews are disbanded, expertise is lost, systems and processes stopped. It cannot be restarted either.

The same will be true of The Space Shuttle. Once the last one lands there will be no way to restart that program.

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.

[Winston]

Hi all,
Check out this interview with Jarrah White, the world's leading expert on the Moon Hoax Theory. It's 2 hours long but you can see how Jarrah has mastered the debate. He knows thousands of arguments both for and against the Moon Hoax Theory and seems to have memorized them all to the point where he can easily pull out the right cards that refute any opposing arguments. The guy is brilliant and when you listen to him, you will not imagine anyone who knows more about this debate than him. He's studied it more than anyone else has, considering that he has now made over 300 high quality videos about the Moon Hoax Theory since 2006, which is more than anyone ever has.

Here is his recent interview.

YouTube version:

Part 1 of 10



Download the whole interview here:

http://binnallofamerica.com/boaa051611.html

Jarrah also has a new website he is working on which he announced in the interview. It is not ready yet, but you can bookmark it for now and check back later. The URL is:

http://www.moonfaker.com

He is also a contributing editor on http://www.moonmovie.com

[odbo]

The Chinese space-walk a few years ago was the fakest thing I've ever seen. It had bubbles, they must have filmed it in water. That's what happens when there's only political motivation for scientific progress. Why do a real space-walk when you can fake it for 1% of the price and still get a propaganda victory.

[Winston]

Momopi,
I'm not joking about this. Several high powered observatories around the world, including one in Australia, claims that their telescopes now have the capability of seeing the lunar lander on the surface of the moon itself, yet they REFUSE to let anyone use it to find the lunar landing, or they can't find it.

I'm not making this up. You can email the observatory and ask them, and they will confirm it. They either cannot find the lunar lander with their telescopes, or they won't, even though they have the capability to.

What do you make of that? Doesn't that trigger off your skeptical alarm? Isn't that way fishy? It is totally fishy and inexplicable. There's no denying that.

There are probably more lies in government than you can ever imagine...

[odbo]

[Winston]

Btw, this interview with Jarrah White on Whispers Radio is better cause he presents more evidence in it rather than just discussing his personal feelings like in the new interview. If you haven't listened to it yet, here is the link:

http://www.whispersradio.com/?p=176

Also, in 2001, Fox aired a TV special called "Did we land on the moon?" which makes a lot of compelling arguments and evidence that the moon landing might have been a hoax. It is exciting and only 45 minutes long. You can see it here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1561633304#

So far, none of the Apollo defenders have truly refuted these compelling arguments. Instead, they either confuse you with pseudo techno babble, or they use insults and ad hominem attacks to call anyone who believes that the moon landings were faked, must be a nut. But Occam's Razor, which says that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, says that these overly complicated explanations to try to discredit the hoax evidence, are probably not true, whereas the simple easy-to-understand evidence pointing to a hoax are more likely to be true. Watch the documentary and see for yourself. It contains a lot of compelling points from different experts and researchers.

NASA, on the other hand, refuses to address these arguments, but instead runs away and ignores them. Logic says that if truth were on NASA's side, then they would have nothing to hide and would be glad to answer all questions fully and logically. But they don't. They'd rather ignore any skeptics or call them nutcases. But this is no surprise, for in general, the US government does NOT engage in debates with freethinkers, critical thinkers, and truth seekers who are able to think for themselves and apply real critical thinking, probably because it does not want to give credence to them, and also because it knows that it cannot win in debates with freethinkers, if the truth is not on their side.

[Winston]

Check out this FAQ about the Moon Hoax. It includes answers to questions about the moon rocks, laser reflectors, Soviets, etc.

http://www.moonmovie.com/faq.htm

[Winston]

Check out this book I found:



One Small Step? : The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth from Space

Product Description

Were the famous moon landings simulated by NASA? From the very first manned flight into orbit right up to the present day there have been serious anomalies in the official narrative of the conquest of space. Bestselling author Gerhard Wisnewski dissects the history of space travel in minute detail, beginning with the first Russian missions in the early 1960s, to the final American moon project of Apollo 17 in 1972, and onwards to the American landings planned in future. Using forensic methods of investigation, he pieces together a complex jigsaw to reveal a disturbing picture of lies, falsifications and simulations. Not only does he cast serious doubt on the possibility of humans ever having landed on the moon, but he also reveals a catalogue of untruths and propaganda in the Cold War struggle for supremacy between the Soviet Union and the USA.Wisnewski produces reams of scientific evidence that calls for a reassessment of the received wisdom regarding the history of space exploration. The true story, he suggests, has a more sinister undertone. Beneath the guise of civilian space travel the US military has been developing fearsome new equipment and weapons which are being secretly stationed in space. The aim is to militarize the orbit around the earth, with our planet and each one of us as the potential targets. It is provided with over 200 illustrations.

This user review explains eloquently why NASA decided to fake the moon missions instead of doing them for real.

5.0 out of 5 stars Best book on the Apollo program, July 16, 2009
By
Auroran (Aurora, IL USA) - See all my reviews
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: One Small Step? : The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth from Space (Paperback)

This is the best book I've encountered on the Apollo program. The author has found some interesting anomalies in the Apollo "evidence" that I have not seen elsewhere, but his main strength is his emphasis on what could be called the project management issue.

It is a matter of public record that the government built an extremely expensive, elaborate simulation facility at Langley, Virginia (home of the CIA), to mimic as far as possible the planned Apollo missions. Moreover, the author asserts that all of NASA's systems were designed to handle simulations exactly as the real thing--both simulation and reality were treated as equivalent inputs as far as all other parts of the system were concerned. Given this comprehensive simulation strategy, it would have been only "one small step" to skip the actual mission, and simply re-run the simulation as if it were real!

The author probably should have elaborated on this. For example:

After the fatal Apollo 1 disaster, Congress made clear that it would not tolerate another such tragedy, especially if due to engineering shortcuts. Yet at the same time, Congress was substantially reducing NASA's budget and losing patience with its schedule slips. From an engineer's point of view, NASA had still not solved two very hard problems: (1) to land a craft on the Moon and return it safely to earth, and then (2) to send a mammal (preferably a primate) to the Moon, subjecting it to the harsh radiation environment of deep space and the Moon's surface, then return it to earth alive and verify its good health. No ethical engineer could send humans to the Moon without first solving these two problems, and no project manager would televise a human moon landing live without first solving them.

Logically enough (in a sense), NASA project managers decided that passing off a simulation as the real thing was a less risky option than sending 3 men to their deaths on live TV.

To this day, the United States has never landed a craft on a celestial body and returned it safely to earth. Unless you believe in the "moon landings."

To this day, no one has sent a mammal into deep space or onto a celestial body, returned it to earth alive, and verified its good health. Unless you believe in the "moon landings."

Read this book, then ask yourself: What would a bureaucrat do in this situation, especially if squeezed from behind by a military-industrial-intelligence complex that tells him, "Failure is not an option"?

Some more great reviews that are helpful and informative:

5.0 out of 5 stars Those who gave this one star haven't read it., February 24, 2011
By
Paolo L. Lanzarotti "Paul Lanzarotti" (UK/USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
This review is from: One Small Step? : The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth from Space (Paperback)

Having spent the last 7 years (on and off) researching the Apollo missions I went from laughing at the conspiracy theories to being 100% certain that the moon landings never happened. The political climate at the time was very different to today and while many people in the western world take comfort in believing in mans greatest "claimed" achievement you only have to look at the evidence to figure this stuff out.

In 1969 the VW Beetle was considered a modern car. The moon is 248,000 miles away and since the last Apollo mission NASA has not traveled further than 300 miles in space. That should really say it all....yet there is so much more scientific evidence available that one does not even need to look at the ridiculous multi shadowed pictures or any of the other overwhelming amount of evidence that something was not right.

I have found that people who refuse to believe the moon landings never happened also tend to prefer not to study the evidence available instead resorting to "you're crazy" or "it's easier to send man to the moon than to fake it"

Clearly that's not true.

One small step at exposing a big lie, December 13, 2010
By
SmokeNMirrors (London) - See all my reviews
This review is from: One Small Step? : The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth from Space (Paperback)

If you are able to view events with a mind which is 30% open, by the time you have read this book you will no longer believe we went to the moon. The inconsistencies in the official story, coupled with the missing information and attempts to prevaricate and deceive, force the objective thinker to consider that the story as given simply is not complete. And an incomplete story which is sold as a definitive version of events is by its nature a deliberate deception. It really is that simple.

Gerhard Wisnewski has done a superb job of marshalling the main points of the moon landing hoax theory into an easily-readable package with plenty of illustrations and easy-to-follow language throughout, despite the translation from German and the technical subject matter. Starting in the USSR with an overview of the Russian space effort, the author necessarily devotes 80% of the remainder to the USA, with the last part an overview of the implications for the future. Thoroughly recommended.

For anyone who doubts the thesis that it was possible to hoax the Apollo missions, I challenge you to a simple test. Go to the Apollo Image Atlas (Google it), select 70mm Hasselblad, Apollo 11. Select the first magazine (N) and scroll down, after a load of shots of a supposedly ever-more-distant earth, until you get to AS11-36-5382. Look closely at the images from here to AS11-36-5399. In all of the images where the windows are visible, they all have light blue light coming through the window. How is this possible if they are halfway to the moon. Also, go to magazine S, image AS11-40-5930, and save the hi-resolution image to your PC. Open the image and create a negative; look at the rocks in the right, left and foreground of the picture. On the left, the shadow is on the right of the rocks, especially clear in negative as the shadows appear as stark white. On the right of the picture the shadows are on the left of the rocks. In the foreground the shadows run from south to north. Also, around the shadow's head there is a very obvious hot-spot from a bright light source, again this is more obvious in negative as the brightness shows up successively darker. This is conclusive proof there were multiple light sources used, such as on a studio set. On the moon when the only source of light is the sun all shadows should run parallel, and there should be no hotspots.

I urge you to read the book, then get angry at the size and audacity of the brazen con the self-styled "masters of infinity" have perpetrated upon us all. Don't forget, we (the taxpayers) pay for this. And we, or at least you the American taxpayer, are going to pay through the nose again for the announced lunar missions in (I think) 2018; missions which are, for the same reasons, impossible.

Excellent! The lunar landings are a joke., March 25, 2010
By
Architect-426 (USA) - See all my reviews
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: One Small Step? : The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth from Space (Paperback)

Excellent work and a very in depth research into the Apollo program. I actually could not put the book down until I finished. Growing up in the 60's and 70's we all took the moon landings for granted. Interesting that over 40 years later, the truth is surfacing and NASA cannot stop the surge of folks who do not believe that the lunar landings took place, or have serious doubts. Therefore they are flooding the media with "space" and potential future missions "back" to the moon and eventually to Mars. It's all propaganda as they are too embarrassed to admit their sin, and no doubt they have a "team" of folks out there trying to make people who don't believe in the lunar landings look like "fools".

There are several other scientific and engineering goofs Wisnewski and other Apollo truth seekers are missing, which truly put the nail in the coffin of this massive fraud committed by NASA. One is the engineering joke called the "LEM" designed by Grummen. The shell of this "tin can" is so thin that it would not even hold the required pressure to sustain life within the extreme vacuum of space without literally blowing to bits. There are also several design flaws in this contraption that once you see them, you know without doubt it was only a "stage prop". My personal favorite is the "moon car". NASA had to really push it here with that folding hot rod! The design flaws on that contraption are obvious as well, but it performed just "swell" on the moon...

The sad truth is we bought into the lunar landings, and are now paying dearly for this massive cover-up. Clearly, the faked lunar landings is a major "head blow" to the entire scientific community at large. And once folks realize what NASA was truly up to back in the 60's, the halls of the "scientific" world will never be the same. If they faked the moon, then they have faked Mars. Just like the lies of "monkey-to-man" evolution that were pumped into our schools back then (and still linger today), we reap what we sew. Science, or rather "science" so falsely called, is unraveling fast and many "scientists" will need to make career changes.

Some of the funniest things from the Apollo program:
-The lunar sky is pitch black as there are "no" stars visible from the moon. None.
-Michael Collins, the commander of the CM module does not remember seeing "any" stars, yet they had to navigate by the 37 navigational stars, or they would be lost in space forever.
-100% oxygen is 100% dangerous 100% of the time.
-Buzz Aldrin had 6 `beef sandwiches' packed for his trip to the "moon".
-If you look closely at the "lunar soil" or what they call "regolith", it looks just like mortar mix, and probably was.
-The Earth viewed from the moon per NASA photos is "tiny", but Earth is 4 times larger than the moon.
-ALL of their flight plans and trajectories were off. I have studied them closely and this is quite comical to say the least.
-Apollo 17 brought back a whopping 250lbs of "moon rock" but had no place to put it inside the LEM.
-NASA thought it was best to send completely different "teams" to the moon. Seriously, its not a good idea to send a pilot from the first successful "lunar landing" to safely land on the moon, which is a moving target with massive gravitational anomalies. Heaven forbid!
-Charlie Duke admits to spending more time learning "geology" (NASA was busy duping the USGS) than learning to fly the tin can called the "LEM".

Every high school student should be required to read this book. I also recommend "NASA Mooned America" by Ralph Rene. Rene also misses major engineering "errors and omissions" made by NASA.

Conclusion: The lunar landings are a pathetic joke. Lets hope the next generation won't be as gullible as we were. Moreover, lets make sure we guard ourselves from future scientific fraud.

Proof we were mooned for sure., February 23, 2009
By
S. Hottell "Connoisseur" (Aztec, NM USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: One Small Step? : The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth from Space (Paperback)

Well written, interesting, objective, and dynamite. The author shows how the Soviets and USA turned the space race into a propaganda race, and how Disney's movies influenced elected government officials to believe space travel is possible and easy. Eventual success was "necessary" to keep the tax money coming in and also makes us proud of our countries.
After reading this book, we began to research what the encyclopedias say about the temperature on the moon. Before 1979, it is listed as fluctuating between +280F and -350F. Now, moon temperature is mysteriously left out of the Van Ostrand's Encyclopedia. Reader's Digest March 2009, page 159, says NASA is trying to develop a boot that will withstand the -350F on the moon! Why can't they just wear their PF flyers like they did in the 70's?
Ask your computer what the space suits were made of in order to withstand this tremendous temperature. "Lycra, spandex, nylon." Hey, I'll just stay right here on earth!
Here's an illustration you can do at home:
The diameter of Earth is approximately 8000 miles. Use an 8 inch plate to illustrate Earth. The diameter of the Moon is approximately 2000 miles. Use a golf ball to illustrate the Moon. The distance between Earth and the Moon is about 240,000 miles. Call that 240 inches or 20 feet. Place the dish and the golf ball 20 feet apart.
Place some tiny object about 1/2 inch from the plate. That represents the International Space Station which is 250 miles away.
If you believe the Soviets told the truth about Yuri Gagarin you really need to read this book.

[Adama]

There is no question in my mind that the lunar landings are fake, for one very important reason that many people often neglect. That is Cosmic Ray Radiation that is likely instantly fatal to astronauts. There is no material known to man that can shield these rays from the Sun should they take course towards our brave astronauts. Any means of detecting these rays would be useless, because by definition they travel at the speed of light, and there'd be no time to escape.

Astrophysicists today in articles make quotes such as, "it is amazing how NASA did this without adequate shielding..."


http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/sci ... ions-.html


Space Radiation Hinders NASA’s Mars Ambitions
September 17, 2009 02:45 PM (Click for citation)

by Anita Gutierrez-Folch
Faced with proposed budget cuts and a need for new technologies that would protect astronauts from radiation, NASA may have to put Mars exploration on hold.


NASA’s plans to send astronauts on an exploratory mission to Mars orbit may be shelved due to the threat of radiation. A White House panel set to review NASA’s human space flight missions “suggest[ed] sending astronauts to one of Mars's moons, Phobos or Deimos,� David Shiga reports for New Scientist. But the galactic cosmic rays outside low-Earth orbit “can slice through DNA molecules when they pass through living cells,� leading to cancer, Shiga explains.

(They never conquered the radiation problem. - )

According to the summary report of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee released last week, “Mars is not an easy place to visit with existing technology and without a substantial investment of resources.� Although the report referred to Mars as “the most scientifically interesting destination in the inner solar system�—echoing the sentiments of Michael Collins and Buzz Aldrin at the 40th anniversary commemoration of the first moon landing—it concluded that Mars “is not the best first destination.�

If astronauts could reach Mars’ moons, they would be able to “use remote-controlled robots to explore the Martian surface and retrieve samples—from the planet as well as the moon itself—for later close-up study on Earth,� Shiga explains. Nevertheless, space radiation, composed mostly of protons and atomic nuclei, poses a real threat for astronauts. According to a study quoted by New Scientist in 2006, these particles actually “cause twice as much serious damage to DNA than [previously] expected,� exposing astronauts to grave risks of cancer and other diseases.

As Shiga explains, Earth’s atmosphere and magnetic field protect people on the ground—and astronauts on the International Space Station—from the harmful effects of radiation. Radiation exposure during trips to the moon is also low: The missions are short and the moon itself offers protection from particles (how does the moon do this? A magnetic field of its own??). On the other hand, planets such as Mars, located beyond low-Earth orbit, are fully exposed to galactic cosmic rays and their destructive radiation. According to calculations made by Frank Cucinotta, chief scientist for radiation studies at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, a trip to Mars orbit would not comply with NASA’s safety rules for astronauts, which “aim to keep each astronaut's lifetime risk of fatal cancer from space radiation below 3 per cent,� New Scientist reports.

[Adama]

Here's a better article:

Space.com

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology ... 50112.html

Lunar shields are necessary. Astronauts were extremely lucky.

Not like Apollo

Despite the apparent ease of past lunar exploration radiation-wise, such as NASA's successful Apollo moon landings, without adequate shielding long-term occupation of the moon and space exploration may remain out of reach, researchers said.

"A lot of people think about the Apollo astronauts, and that they didn't have much protection and were fine," Lane told SPACE.com. "But in Apollo, it was a very short mission and a lot of it was basically luck. I'm not sure how they managed to be so lucky, but I don't think you can count on luck on short missions for the future or trips to the planets."

Researchers have said that a major radiation event during the any of six Apollo moon landings could have been catastrophic to the astronauts who carried them out. But Apollo crews lived on the moon for days at most, while long-term mission will run much longer.

Radiation from galactic cosmic rays or solar particles, however, would be extremely likely to affect a long-duration stay on the moon, researchers said

In short, they still cant protect against this radiation. To me, that makes things questionable.

[Winston]

Good point Adama. I thought you didn't believe in conspiracies though?

Besides the radiation belts, if NASA today can't get people beyond 400 miles above the Earth today, then how did it get men to the moon 240,000 miles away and back in one piece? That is totally inexplicable.

Also, when the LEM launched from the moon, docking with the command module would have been virtually impossible. How did they pull that off? It was never really explained.

[Winston]

You guys should check out these new moon hoax films just uploaded to youtube. They are awesome and worth watching! I just saw them and was stunned by them.

Apollo Zero



Kubrick's Odyssey



Apollo Zero makes some great logical points about why the moon landings were improbable and unproven. It is simple to follow and understand. It makes many compelling points and explains the psychology of scientists who face career suicide if they were to ever objectively question the authenticity of the moon landings. One of its valid arguments is that "If NASA is unable to send a man or monkey more than 400 miles above the Earth today, then how would it have sent men to the Moon 240,000 miles away in the late 60's and all the way back again?"

Kubrick's Odyssey is like a mind blowing thriller. In it, Jay Weidner shows many compelling clues that Stanley Kubrick left us in his film "The Shining" that tell the story of how he faked the Apollo moon landing footage and the turmoil he went through in his personal life when he made the deal with the US government that he regretted. That might sound crazy, but when you watch the clues unravel, your jaw will drop and you will be hooked. Whether you believe it or not, you will find it gripping and suspenseful. It is a masterpiece and has gotten rave reviews.

On Amazon.com, a reviewer wrote:

"5.0 out of 5 stars OMG! Your mind will be BLOWN! Kubrick was a genius, and so is Weidner!, April 16, 2011
By
PAPERCROSS - See all my reviews
This review is from: Kubrick's Odyssey: Secrets Hidden in the Films (DVD)
This movie totally changed my mind on so many levels. The information is staggering. .

If you'd like to be broken out of the Matrix and see how far down the rabbit hole goes, buy this film and watch it three times at least? I am going to show this one to my friends to freak them out.

And another thing,
To see my favorite movie, "The Shining," taken apart and exposed as a series of secret messages from the director to the viewing audience was nothing less than brilliant, not to mention genius.
Multiple viewings are required to get all the info in this powerhouse of a documentary, it's super rich with great theories, visual evidence, and aha moments.
Every kubrick fan should own this film. I want the other two films to come out, NOW!?

The final word.....Awesome! "

Also, check out these interviews with Jay Weidner, producer of "Kubrick's Odyssey". They are mind blowing and way deep down the rabbit hole. What he says about Kubrick, Saturn, and the secrets of the elite will leave your jaw dropping, whether you believe them or not. They are very entertaining interviews and got me hooked. Totally out there.

[Winston]

You guys have got to see this one. Here is the one hour press conference after Apollo 11 returned to Earth. In it, you can obviously see the sadness and guilt on the faces of Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin as they speak before reporters. It's undeniable. They are obviously uncomfortable and depressed. Nearly every comment on YouTube below the video noticed the obvious. As one comment said, these astronauts must have been under enormous pressure to go along with the hoax, because after what happened with the Apollo One fire, they knew that the consequences of non-compliance was death. So they had no choice but to go along with the charade.

[Winston]

You guys have got to see this one. Here is the one hour press conference after Apollo 11 returned to Earth. In it, you can obviously see the sadness and guilt on the faces of Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin as they speak before reporters. It's undeniable. They are obviously uncomfortable and depressed. Nearly every comment on YouTube below the video noticed the obvious. As one comment said, these astronauts must have been under enormous pressure to go along with the hoax, because after what happened with the Apollo One fire, they knew that the consequences of non-compliance was death. So they had no choice but to go along with the charade.

A wise intuitive down to earth woman I know had this to say about the press conference:

OK, I watched the first half of the press conference but since I can't see the supposed pictures that they must be looking at, so it's hard to even know wtf they're talking about and I lost interest very quickly. As far as their demeanor, I will say that I find it rather odd, considering the supposed accomplishment and experience that these men had just had. The guy on the left just keeps fumbling with his papers with very little facial expression or emotion. The middle guy at least seems to crack a smile or looks as if he's recalling something. The guy on the right... he just sits there and looks to his left (I guess this is a screen with pics that don't show on the video) as if he's paying attention.

It's not at all what I would expect from 3 very well trained men in the military. They're body posture is even a bit sloppy for someone in the military, let alone men in front of TV cameras. It also seems totally unscripted but I can't tell. Either that or it's totally scripted and the guy in the middle is having some difficulty keeping with the script without constantly having to recall every word.

I also found it unusual that they didn't call it a "mission" in the begining when talking about it. The choice of terminology is not what I would have expected, nor is their lack of proud body posture.

I'd say that something isn't as it should be here but I couldn't tell you what it is beyond the above few particulars what it might be.

Remember what Jay Weidner said? It's very key.

"Nothing in technology works right the first time. Anyone who works in technology knows that. To believe that the first manned mission to the moon going 240,000 miles to the moon and back without a glitch on the first attempt is absolutely absurd."

That says it all.