Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Facefirst

 

VERY interesting observation.....I know nothing of the affliction, but will begin to look into it, and learn:

The more I read up on Asperger's syndrome, the more it sounds like Jarrah.

From my experience with friends and acquaintances in the medical profession (doctors and pilots tend to travel in similar circles, oddly...it's an income-bracket thing, sometimes) I have picked up enough to know that no MD worth his/her salt will diagnose merely from a phone call, or just an online video.....but, I suppose it may be conceivable that, with enough examples, a preliminary determination could be made, by those qualified.

Truly interesting to consider.....would explain A LOT!!!

(AND.....would tend to temper my earlier criticisms....I mean, if the bloke truly has a mental illness/handicap, it is not appropriate to ridicule......).

edit on 15 April 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)

Pure psychobabble. Weed get out.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY JARRAH!

Originally posted by FoosM

Happy Birthday Jarrah

Now back to business...

Can I sig you on that?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter




Did you pick up on Plait's obvious lie near the end??

He said the Apollo astronauts were only in the VABelt for a "Few Minutes"..

What a liar......
Any of the Plait fan club here care to deny his OBVIOUS LIE ???

BTW, he answered NO questions...Joe public hammered him IMO...

Edit: From the horses mouth..

Actually, the spaceship traveled through the belts pretty quickly, getting past them in an hour or so.

www.badastronomy.com...

Actually I hear the "hour or so" was closer to two hours but that's irrelevant...

He also said the ISS passes through the VAB often yet I don't see how and even then it's only the very edge..

They dip to 400 km over the South Atlantic Ocean, and are about 1,000 km high over the Central Pacific Ocean.

So even in South Atlantic it's lowest point is 400klms..
Now here's the average ISS altitudes, note rarely above 400klms..
Check graph at link...
www.spaceflight.esa.int...

Does Plait ever tell the truth??


Are you debunkers going to listen to the podcast and call Plait out on his "obvious lie" or are you going to just pass it off???

reply to post by backinblack

Did you pick up on Plait's obvious lie near the end??
He said the Apollo astronauts were only in the VABelt for a "Few Minutes"..

Compared to ten days, 90 minutes is "a few minutes." Gemini XII was in the inner belt for days.

BTW, he answered NO questions...Joe public hammered him IMO...

Rogan didn't ask any questions, he just ran down the usual shopping list: radiation, we haven't been back, funny shadows, astronauts acting suspiciously.... Plait was able to address the radiation issue. The rest are so vague and subjective there's little to be said, especially on the radio where it would be impossible to show how the shadows are distorted by perspective, etc.

He also said the ISS passes through the VAB often yet I don't see how and even then it's only the very edge..
They dip to 400 km over the South Atlantic Ocean, and are about 1,000 km high over the Central Pacific Ocean.

So even in South Atlantic it's lowest point is 400klms..
Now here's the average ISS altitudes, note rarely above 400klms..
Check graph at link...
www.spaceflight.esa.int...

The South Atlantic Anomaly is of great significance to astronomical satellites and other spacecraft that orbit the Earth at several hundred kilometers altitude; these orbits take satellites through the anomaly periodically, exposing them to several minutes of strong radiation, caused by the trapped protons in the inner Van Allen belt, each time. The International Space Station, orbiting with an inclination of 51.6°, requires extra shielding to deal with this problem. The Hubble Space Telescope does not take observations while passing through the SAA.[7] Astronauts are also affected by this region which is said to be the cause of peculiar 'shooting stars' seen in the visual field of astronauts.[8] Passing through the South Atlantic Anomaly is thought[9] to be the reason for the early failures of the Globalstar network's satellites.
NASA has reported that modern laptops have crashed when the space shuttle flights passed through the anomaly.

WikiPedia

Does Plait ever tell the truth??

When speaking off the cuff, he can get vague about numbers. Note that at points he says things like: "I would have to calculate that, but...." Plait never finds it necessary to fabricate the way Jarrah does. Remember, all of Jarrah's videos are carefully scripted. When he lies or cherry picks, it is intentional. Not one statement that Plait made in this discussion was false; at best he may have understated the amount of time it took to pass completely through the ERB.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Everyone in that video looked drugged or hypnotized. Clearly, they were paid to pretend they are Jarrah's friends, or possibly brainwashed. They should have been the happiest people on Earth, and yet they looked dazed and confused. I call hoax!

reply to post by DJW001


Give it a rest mate..
He said Apollo was only in the belt for a "few minutes"..
A lie, yes or no ???
Scrap the theatrics please...

Plait was able to address the radiation issue.

Yep, by lying about the length of time Apollo spent in it and lying about the time the ISS spends in it..
That's really addressing it

Sad how you let Plait get away with obvious lies yet ridicule JW..

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by FoosM

Happy Birthday Jarrah

Now back to business...

Can I sig you on that?

For those who have a problem listening to JW.
This VO might be more pleasant.
Not only that, this video is a good summary of the many
issues that hoax proponents like JW have brought up.

Originally posted by FoosM

I made a statement about a segment of society for comparing statements you made in your post about JW.

You think being called a psychologist is an insult? Should I have said psychiatrist instead?

If you want to disagree with me, go after my points instead of attacking the person.

I did.

Better yet explain why JW is wrong.

Whats the difference?

Oh this is rich.
You THINK we landed on the moon... so you are no sure.
But those who THINK that we didnt are full of BS. Why? Because they are not sure?
Then, are you not actually saying that what you think is also BS?

So you say you cant watch his videos, you say he might have credible theories, yet you
say the videos you have seen are hot air?

 
(1) You made a statement about politics as if it were a fact, but bust me saying I was saying facts when I wasn't I was saying my opinion. You can't make an off comment statement about politics as if it is fact then ridicule me for saying my own opinion. You can't have it both ways, either we both get to say our opinion, or neither does.
(2) I don't thing being called a psychologist is an insult exactly, it is the implication that my opinions merit no worth unless I am a psychologist. It's as if my opinion wasn't good enough because you inferred it was too "clinical" or whatever you thought.
(3) You didn't you didn't point out how my assumptions of him were wrong, you just kept on commenting on how I was wrong in different forms.
(4) So instead of explaining why I am wrong and my assessment of JW is wrong you deflect and say prove JW is wrong. You're just going "neannier neannier neannier" again. As for why JW is wrong, all I can do is point to the myriad of videos out there showing how moon hoaxers are wrong.
(5) The difference goes back to my second paragraph here, you were implying that my opinion isn't good enough unless I am trained in psychology. Plain and simple.
(6) I think we landed on the moon. I did not say I think we did not land, if I was not clear let me restate my opinion better. I think we landed on the moon, I do think however this will not be settled until we go back or send other probes. The evidence that we have is not conclusive enough to say we did to those who believe in the hoax. I think the evidence is enough, but there will alwayse be dissenters, and dissent is an easier road than proving something. There will alwayse be something for someone to say "no no no, this is why..."
(7) I can't watch his videos, I tired watching 3 different ones but I could not do it. The reason why I say he might have credible theories is because I have not seen all of his theories, I can't watch the videos. So to be honest I have to give him the benefit and say his theories might be good, because I can't watch them, I won't know if they are good or not.
(8) As for hot air, of the 3 videos I tried to watch he started them with(in my opinion) hot air before he got to his theories.
(9) Like I said dissent is easy, you can easily go "but but but" to all of my posts forever. That is not productive. If you want to address my dislikes of him and his videos and why I should watch them (IE a debate to convince me) go right ahead. Filling your posts with saying "your wrong" or this and that, without actually trying to convince me is not a proper debate.
(10) Attacking the poster, and deflecting points someone raises as to why they do or don't like something. Convincing someone else of something different from their initial belief is hard. One is more satisfying for everyone involved. Just think about that.

To backinblack:
(1) I am here because even if I don't believe the landing was a hoax, the topic interests me. There are people out there who believe and this topic is full of their ideas. As to the initial videos in question, I couldn't watch them because they grated against me. I posted for two reasons, one to convince other people not to watch them, and two to see if someone could change my mind into watching them. I am alwayse open to a change in ideas, so far though I have not seen anyone willing to actually debate, just posters annoyed that I dare think differently.

(2) In the end I am just someone who believes we landed on the moon, but am interested in the hoax theories from an intellectual point of view. I find learning enjoyable; most of what I have seen here though is almost religious adherence to the hoax belief. Any dissenters are "yelled" at for lack of a better term instead of talked to as intellectuals and explained why they may or may not be wrong.

reply to post by Pigraphia

I find learning enjoyable; most of what I have seen here though is almost religious adherence to the hoax belief. Any dissenters are "yelled" at for lack of a better term instead of talked to as intellectuals and explained why they may or may not be wrong.

Oddly I find it the other way around..
Take my last posts pointing out obvious lies by Plait..

They were just brushed off with NO answer...

Hey guys it looks like some new space radiation research just dropped in. Check this out. But I couldn't find the actual 14 page report online just the abstract. I guess it's not available on pdf yet.

Source: ntrs.nasa.gov...

Title: Full Mission Astronaut Radiation Exposure Assessments for Long Duration Lunar Surface Missions
No Digital Version Available: Go to Tips on Ordering
Author: Adamczyk, Anne; Clowdsley, Martha; Qualls, Garry; Blattnig, Steve; Lee, Kerry; Fry, Dan; Stoffle, Nicholas; Simonsen, Lisa; Slaba, Tony; Walker, Steven; Zapp, Edward
Abstract: Risk to astronauts due to ionizing radiation exposure is a primary
Collection: NASA
NASA Center: Johnson Space Center; Langley Research Center
Publication Date: March 5, 2011
Publication Year: 2011
Document ID: 20110008537
Subject Category: SPACE RADIATION
Report/Patent Number: NF1676L-11014
Contract/Grant/Task Number: WBS 651549.02.07.01
Publication Information: Number of pages = 14
ISBN: 978-1-4244-3888-4/
Language: English
Meeting Information: 2011 IEEE Aerospace Conference; 5-12 Mar. 2011; Big Sky, MT; United States
Subject Terms: ASTRONAUTS; CANCER; EXPOSURE; EXTRAVEHICULAR ACTIVITY; GALACTIC COSMIC RAYS; IONIZING RADIATION; LOW EARTH ORBITS; LUNAR SURFACE; POSITION (LOCATION); RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIATION SHIELDING; RISK; SOLAR CORPUSCULAR RADIATION; SOLAR FLARES; SOLAR STORMS
Accessibility: Unclassified; Publicly available; Unlimited; Copyright
Document Source: Other Sources
Updated/Added to NTRS: Apr 08, 2011

Originally posted by FoosM

This series was Produced by JARRAH WHITE.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Does Plait ever tell the truth??


Are you debunkers going to listen to the podcast and call Plait out on his "obvious lie" or are you going to just pass it off???

edit on 16-4-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)

reply to post by backinblack


In regard to the Jillette/Plait/Rogan podcast...I would not go so far as to say that Plait lied outright. He knows that he represents the establishment - he is unable to deviate from the mythology. Plus, it was not that kind of "winner takes all" kind of conversation. There was no finality about it. Although quoting Plait from that podcast (like you did) is totally fair game

It is always up to the listeners to decide who was more convincing. I believe that listeners could make up their own minds. I believe that readers of this thread could make up their own minds. I'm not here to call people liars or beat them down for their beliefs. That's just plain rudeness.

Jarrah is not a liar and I submit neither is Phil Plait a liar. I am convinced that both believe in what they say is true. Jarrah is producing a stream of information that these NASA cheerleaders don't like and they can't stand for it so they align themselves against it... like a dutchboy plugging a leak in a dam with his finger. The worldview of the NASA zombies is very simple : eat brains!

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


YES he is....the proof has been presented in this thread:

Jarrah is not a liar.....

Get over it.....the "Apollo Hoax" is dead. It was always nonsense, and intelligent people can see "Jarrah White" for the pathetic and needy attention-seeker that he is.


Since at least 1986 the prospect of viable nuclear fusion, using Helium 3 (He3) has been seriously discussed. The Moon happens to have much more than the Earth....it's expensive, yes....to go and extract it, but it will likely become necessary, some day.

The RUSSIANS are mounting plans....(the USA has missed the boat....shooting their wad on the waste in the Middle East...what a shame).....

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Harrison Schmitt, Apollo 17 (Yes, HE DID!!! Yes, WE did!!!):




WAKE UP!!!

Very smart people are seriously contemplating this, and THEY know that Apollo was real.....

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Everyone in that video looked drugged or hypnotized. Clearly, they were paid to pretend they are Jarrah's friends, or possibly brainwashed. They should have been the happiest people on Earth, and yet they looked dazed and confused. I call hoax!

The astronauts in this video look drugged or hypnotized. Clearly, they were trained to pretend that they landed on the moon because they were brainwashed. They should have been the hapopiest people on Earth but at the Apollo 11 interview they looked dazed and confused. I call hoax!

Not another pointless debate about the moon landings! All the people who believe they landed on the moon raise their hands and say 'AYE', all the others grow up

reply to post by weedwhacker


Yet I just posted 100% proof that Plait lies but I don't hear a whimper from you..

Then I guess he agrees with you so lying is OK..

Originally posted by Pigraphia

(1) You made a statement about politics as if it were a fact, but bust me saying I was saying facts when I wasn't I was saying my opinion. You can't make an off comment statement about politics as if it is fact then ridicule me for saying my own opinion. You can't have it both ways, either we both get to say our opinion, or neither does.

What I stated about people's behavior towards politics & politicians is a fact.

(2) I don't thing being called a psychologist is an insult exactly, it is the implication that my opinions merit no worth unless I am a psychologist. It's as if my opinion wasn't good enough because you inferred it was too "clinical" or whatever you thought.

You stated your assessment of JW's personality as a fact.
Therefore, we readers would have to assume that you know him personally or you have training to do so based solely on his videos. Or you could have misspoke. Which is why I raised the question. All you had to say is, "sorry, I didnt mean to come across like I was making a professional diagnosis."

(3) You didn't you didn't point out how my assumptions of him were wrong, you just kept on commenting on how I was wrong in different forms.
(4) So instead of explaining why I am wrong and my assessment of JW is wrong you deflect and say prove JW is wrong. You're just going "neannier neannier neannier" again. As for why JW is wrong, all I can do is point to the myriad of videos out there showing how moon hoaxers are wrong.

How do you know that the videos that you are pointing are not wrong themselves?
JW, to the disappointment to many hoax proponents, uses much of his time countering the so called debunking video's. Have you seen any of them? NVM, I know the answer to that.

(6) I think we landed on the moon. I did not say I think we did not land, if I was not clear let me restate my opinion better. I think we landed on the moon, I do think however this will not be settled until we go back or send other probes. The evidence that we have is not conclusive enough to say we did to those who believe in the hoax. I think the evidence is enough, but there will alwayse be dissenters, and dissent is an easier road than proving something. There will alwayse be something for someone to say "no no no, this is why..."
(7) I can't watch his videos, I tired watching 3 different ones but I could not do it. The reason why I say he might have credible theories is because I have not seen all of his theories, I can't watch the videos. So to be honest I have to give him the benefit and say his theories might be good, because I can't watch them, I won't know if they are good or not.

Thanks for clearing up where you stand.
I supplied you with optional videos to look at. And we are curious what you think.
I will do one more:




Lets go through some of the topics of the video

@ 1:00 Radiation.
Here they give a summary of the issue of radiation.
JW took this topic and ran with it. Probably one of his most convincing series.
In this video they talk about the "dangers" and "risks" but they dont say that
flares or SPE's occurred during any of the missions. Guess what, in this thread we prove that they did.
It goes further talking about Van Allen Belts, but more notably the impossibility of regular old kodak film being able to withstand the radiation on the surface of the moon and in Space without lead shielding.

@ 22:30 Life Support
This was a big topic for Ralph Rene.
His main point, where is the venting of steam or even ice crystals from the PLSS?
And did the PLSS have the capacity to even support astronauts as they did?

@ 24:47 Saturn V
All about the Nazi Werner von Braun and other Nazi's.
How the Fritz Lang film looks so similar to NASA's presentation and design of Apollo (also addressed in this thread)

@ 44:00 First Man in Space
Basically discussing how the Soviets also lied and stretched the truth about their accomplishments and disasters. And how top level persons in the USSR & US had been basically cahoots with each other.

@ 52:12 Faking the record.
Now here we get to see the "grandfather" of the conspiracy hoax, Bill Kaysing. And I must say, whenever I see him talk and explain things, he comes off very credible. He starts off with the failures of the F1 rocket. Then Bill Wood points out the black smoke coming from the Apollo rocket launches, looks different from other rocket launches with similar propellants, and states what we basically have is a large flame for show. Then they go into the LM.

@59:00 Kaysing discusses the LM's engine. A discussion we had here on this thread not too long ago. What he says: After ignition of the hypergolic fuels they create a "DARK RED OPAQUE GAS". We see an image of this in the documentary. Now notice, Kaysing didnt say anything about not seeing a flame, he is simply talking about the gas that would be expelled due to the ignition of the fuels. This gas, red or otherwise, we do not see during the lift off of the LM! Later @ 1:03:50 Kaysing explains why NASA didnt produce a crater under the LM, when there should have been one. Kaysing reminds us that in order to maintain lift, the main jet still had to support the heavy LM. And the only way to do that was to have it focused or centralized not spread.



Counter argument:

The lunar lander's ascent engine used Aerozine 50, a trade name for a half-and-half mixture of hydrazine and unsymmetric dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) developed for the Titan 2.

Some conspiracists point out that the film of the lunar module ascending from the lunar surface to meet the command module doesn't show any visible exhaust products. That's because by the time it comes into view of the command module the engine has stopped firing. Just as a baseball thrown upward will continue to rise after it has left the propulsive effect of your hand, the lunar module continues to rise after its engine stops firing. Unlike space ships in the movies, real spacecraft don't have to fire their engines continuously in order to make headway.

www.xmission.com...


Lets take a look at a TITAN 2 launch:



What does the announcer say between :50 to about 1:05?

Some more examples:


Here is a Titan lift off with a dummy 2nd stage.


Who would have known if it wasn't mentioned!

reply to post by backinblack

Oddly I find it the other way around..
Take my last posts pointing out obvious lies by Plait..

They were just brushed off with NO answer...

But I did answer: The Apollo missions lasted over 14000 minutes. They spent perhaps 180 minutes traversing the ERBs. Is 180 minutes a very long time compared to 14000 minutes? Is it a lie to characterize this amount as "a few minutes" in the course of a conversation? Now, please point out all of the other lies Plait makes in this conversation. You keep using the plural, so I assume there are others. What are they?

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Facefirst

 

Whatever as well.
Show me a single credentialed scientist or astrophysicist that backs Jarrah's claims.
If it was all a big lie, don't you think even one, just one, single scientist would back him?
Nope, not one in THE ENTIRE WORLD.
Jarrah has even show himself incapable of basic math never mind astrophysics.

Not sure where this came from..
I was discussing Plait being scared to face JW one on one, though he's more than happy to ridicule him from the safety of a youtube clip..

I'll look into the scientist/astrophysicist bit...

But you do know the definition of a scientist does NOT mention credentials or any pieces of paper right??

All Jarrah does is make Youtube videos and accuse Nasa of murder and lies!
And he can't debate in real time because he doesn't know what he's talking about.
His ass-whooping, ummm, I mean debate with Jay Windley showed that to be very apparent.

Credentialed means being qualified (ie: trained!) and recognized in one's field of expertise. Training, something of which Jarrah doesn't have and something he could use a lot of.

Jarrah doesn't even understand how the peer reviewer process works! Or of he does, he's lying.
He has an anonymous peer reviewer? He accuses NASA of lying and hiding things but expects us to take his claim on nothing but good faith? Hypocrite.

If he's so confident in his findings, why doesn't he have his work independently reviewed in a peer review?
He won't. He's nothing but hot air and knows he would be very quickly reduced to a bad joke when confronted by experts.

And by the way, Van Allen said Apollo was real. Let me get this straight, Nasa fooled Van Allen, one of the brightest scientists of the 20th century but they can't fool some kid with a youtube account?

Pure bunk.

reply to post by FoosM

What I stated about people's behavior towards politics & politicians is a fact.

Was this the statement you consider a "fact?"

Thats the problem with politics today, everybody wants to vote for mr. or mrs. popularity and not mr. or mrs. content.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Democracy is such a nuisance, isn't it? Why can't people just shut up and let geniuses like Jarrah tell them what to do?

You stated your assessment of JW's personality as a fact.
Therefore, we readers would have to assume that you know him personally or you have training to do so based solely on his videos.

So you must agree that statements like this are absolute rubbish:

Every time I see that video I cringe.
Guilty Guilty Guilty
Everything about their body language screams lies.
Its like they just had gotten into a big fight back stage.
I recall watching the TV show "LIE TO ME" and they had a picture of Neil at the press conference as if to say Neil lied.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

JW, to the disappointment to many hoax proponents, uses much of his time countering the so called debunking video's. Have you seen any of them? NVM, I know the answer to that.

Jarrah "Never Forget A Slight" White spends an inordinate amount of time hurling personal innuendo at people who point out his lies and deceptions. He also spends a great deal of time rationalizing and justifying himself. He treats every analysis of his videos as a personal attack. That is not an opinion; everyone can see that.

Lets go through some of the topics of the video

@ 1:00 Radiation.
Here they give a summary of the issue of radiation.
JW took this topic and ran with it. Probably one of his most convincing series.

Not only thoroughly debunked on this thread already, but it provided proof positive that Jarrah consciously lies.]

In this video they talk about the "dangers" and "risks" but they dont say that
flares or SPE's occurred during any of the missions. Guess what, in this thread we prove that they did

No, you did not. (Readers just joining this thread are encouraged to follow the preceding link and read on from there.)

It goes further talking about Van Allen Belts, but more notably the impossibility of regular old kodak film being able to withstand the radiation on the surface of the moon and in Space without lead shielding.

Was it regular old Kodak film?

Each film magazine would typically yield 160 color and 200 black and white pictures on special film. Kodak was asked by NASA to develop thin new films with special emulsions.

NASA

@ 22:30 Life Support
This was a big topic for Ralph Rene.

Yes, we all remember Ralph Renee, don't we?

His main point, where is the venting of steam or even ice crystals from the PLSS?
And did the PLSS have the capacity to even support astronauts as they did?

Look up the word "sublimation." In any event, we've already discussed this topic at length on this thread.

@ 24:47 Saturn V
All about the Nazi Werner von Braun and other Nazi's.

Speaking of "Nazis," check this site out! the Metapedia crowd just love Jarrah!

How the Fritz Lang film looks so similar to NASA's presentation and design of Apollo (also addressed in this thread)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3e1e9d03d2e7.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e3b46a2654fd.jpg[/atsimg]

Yep, dead ringers.

@ 44:00 First Man in Space
Basically discussing how the Soviets also lied and stretched the truth about their accomplishments and disasters. And how top level persons in the USSR & US had been basically cahoots with each other.

The soviet failures are now a matter of public record; the American ones have always been a matter of public record:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f51d6fc7473e.gif[/atsimg]

I'll address the rest of these "issues" later, when I have more time.