MoonFaker: Australia and the Conspirators: Critique #05: Canberra

Uploaded by philwebb59 on 09.07.2010

Jarrah: Because it was NASA's radio telescopes, tracking NASA's spacecraft, it was essentially
the metaphoric equivalent to the fox guarding the hen house.
Notice the picture.
It's Parkes Observatory.
Although Jarrah acknowledges NASA's tracking stations at Goldstone and Madrid, he avoids
mention of Canberra in his Exhibit D series.
Instead, he shows Parkes Observatory and says "it was NASA's tracking telescopes, yada yada."
His statement is misleading at best.
Phil: The major flaw in this claim is the fact that Parkes was not owned or operated by NASA.
It was owned by the Australian government.
The Carnegie Corporation and the Rockefeller Foundation together funded half the construction
costs of the radio telescope and the Australian government paid for the rest.
Since it began operations in 1961, it has always been owned and operated by Australia's
government body for scientific research, CSIRO, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organisation.
Jarrah knows that.
Jarrah: Firstly, we in Australia pronounce it C S I R O, not Cicero.
It's not pronounced C S I R O, Jarrah.
It's spelled C S I R O.
It's an acronym.
In the states, we usually pronounce acronyms as if they were words.
I do thank you, Jarrah, for pointing out that unlike lazy Americans, Australians typically
spell out acronyms and don't pronounce this particular acronym, C S I R O, as Cicero.
If you really want to get nitpicky about verbalizing acronyms, then why not start "pronouncing"
NASA as the N A S A.
Jarrah: Secondly, the CSIRO has been involved with and funded by NASA since the early 1960's.
On the CSIRO's website, we learn that:
Notice that the title of this article clearly describes the relationship between CSIRO and
NASA as a partnership?
Yes, NASA contracts out work to CSIRO, but other customers or partners to CSIRO do as well.
Also, notice how Jarrah conveniently zooms in so the word "partnership" is not visible
while he reads the article.
Jarrah: CSIRO manages the Canberra Deep Space Communications Complex, one of three stations
around the world used for communicating with NASA's spacecraft, under contract to NASA.
Halleluiah, he finally said the name!
Not Parkes.
Not Australia.
Not the Australian radio telescopes.
But, Canberra, the third leg in NASA's Deep Space Network Triple Crown and practically
in Jarrah's backyard.
Regardless of Jarrah's previous nonsense, lumping all of Australia's radio telescopes
into one because they were all "working together on the same project," we have finally cut
to the chase.
There should be no more doubt in Jarrah's little mind as to which of Australia's radio
telescopes are actually owned by NASA.
He just told us - the Canberra DSN Complex!
Those are the stations with the NASA signs out front.
Thank you, Jarrah, for setting the record straight for us, once and for all.
I couldn't have done it better myself.
Jarrah: Since the early 1960s NASA has also contracted CSIRO radio telescopes to augment
its network of tracking stations for particular missions.
The operative word in this statement is "contracted."
NASA contracted for time on the CSIRO owned radio telescopes and paid for it, just like
every other paying customer or partner to CSIRO would do.
Jarrah: The first such occasion occurred in 1962, when CSIRO's 64 metre Parkes, New South
Wales (NSW), Australia, telescope was used to receive signals from the Mariner II spacecraft.
It was used again in 1965 to track Mariner IV.
And NASA was so impressed by Parkes that it became the model for all the big antennas
at Goldstone, Canberra, and Madrid, which incidentally make up NASA's DSN.
Jarrah: And further down below:
More recently, NASA has contracted with CSIRO to use the Australia Telescope Compact Array
near Narrabri NSW to track future space missions.
Parkes is owned by CSIRO and is currently operated by the Australia Telescope National
Facility, ATNF, a division of CSIRO, and is part of the constellation of radio telescopes
including the Compact Array near Narrabri and the Mopra Observatory near Coonabarabran.
Jarrah: NASA has contributed to changes to CSIRO's telescopes that benefit both space
tracking and astronomy.
With so much contribution and contract funding coming their way of NASA, we can expect Parkes
and the CSIRO to remain cooperative for some time yet.
No doubt they will remain cooperative in the future, Jarrah.
This article talks about a partnership between two companies.
That's all.
Nothing in this article even suggests that CSIRO would lie for NASA.
Jarrah: Clearly, whether owned by NASA or the CSIRO, Parkes was clearly directly
working for NASA during the Apollo days.
It was station 23 of NASA's MSFN.
So much for being independent verification.
Clearly, whether NASA contracted Parkes to support Apollo or any other missions, Parkes
Observatory is still owned by CSIRO, not by NASA.
That DOES necessarily make it an independent, non-NASA facility.
By the way, tracking stations didn't have to be part of NASA's DSN to be part of MSFN,
or the Manned Space Flight Network.
We'll cover that when we get back to critiquing his Exhibit D series.
Jarrah: That pretty much wraps up Webb's video.
The video has not even been officially released yet, but clearly, the premise of the video
is false.
It is one part straw man, and six parts fallacy of omission.
There was no straw man.
Jarrah's rhetoric could give anyone the impression that he said Parkes relayed all the moonwalk
videos (plural) to the world.
And I don't know what he considers my six fallacies of omission.
None of the three I've covered in my rebuttal had anything to do with Parkes.
Jarrah: It is most important to note, that a lot of the things already addressed in this
video were touched in my response to Phil Webb's introductory video response.
I uploaded that video on May 9.
And records show that Webb commented on that video on the very next day.
The release date of his Parkes video is May 21.
Given the fact that he commented on it and added it to his favorites, he had to have
watched the video.
This means, he uploaded his video knowing full well that its content is false.
A lot of things were addressed in his response to my introductory response?
Oh boy! Maybe I need to go back and actually watch his "fallacies" video.
Nah! The only thing I recall him really complaining about in his "conspirators" video was my
not catching his pseudo-confession regarding Goldstone.
No problem.
I'll fix that in my Parkes video before it goes public.
Everything else is still fair game.
I do apologize though, for not being able to sit through Jarrah's "fallacies" video
for much more than a minute.
It's too bad that Jarrah "stole" an unlisted video, and made blind, misleading accusations
about me without any verification whatsoever.
Jarrah would have been better off if he had just waited to catch me with my pants down
after I released the video publicly.
Fortunately for me, Jarrah suffers from premature articulation.
Jarrah: Phil Webb is outright lying to his audiences, and there are more videos on the way.
Debunk Webb's Parkes video.
That's one job taken care of.
The gloves are off.
Phil Webb is outright lying to his audiences?
Not from an unlisted video I'm not.
If the only thing Jarrah can accuse me of is misrepresenting something he said in one
video then changed later on in another video, that's not lying.
It's utter confusion.
As I have pointed out before, Jarrah makes so many incongruous, conflicting claims that
it's impossible for a mere human to keep them all straight.
So, at this point, I promise (again) not to watch any more of Jarrah's video responses
until I get my entire series posted.
Now, if you will excuse me, I've got a Parkes video to update.
Ciao moon hoax conspirators, wherever you are.