Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by FoosM

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."


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.

I shouldn't have to apologize for stating my opinion. You inferred that I was stating a fact and not my opinion. I made no claims of professionalism, I gave reasons for my opinion. Just because you think my reasons were too clinical does not mean I can't express myself as such. If I like or don't like something I try to express why is the best form I know how. I won't go "me likie it's shiny" or "me hate, it's stupid". I won't dumb down my posts so people won't be confused. I also shouldn't have to put an asterisk after a posting saying "this is a laymen opinion" or in the case of my math, physics, and engineering posts on other topics "this is fact based on knowledge attained during my degree studies". I post what I post, and if you misread, or read into it is not my fault if someone assumes I was speaking as an expert.

The second paragraph I am not understanding quite well.
The use of the double negative alwayse throws me.
As far as I know, I at least said, he may or may not be wrong, I can't say he is wrong or right because I can't watch his videos.
I feel I am obligated to say his videos, might be right, or they might be wrong.
Since I can't watch them I can not say without a doubt he is wrong.
That aside I don't believe the landing was a hoax, but I can't say if his videos are right or wrong.

As for your videos I will get to them later, I only jumped on to do a quick check I have other stuff to do right now.

Originally posted by DJW001
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?

Did you watch the video?
Plait was answering why the astronauts were not exposed to much radiation..
He stated they were only in the VAB for a "few minutes"..
That is an outright lie, not a figure of speech or slip of the tongue..
As I said, you guys would be all over JW for a similar lie..

He then went on to lie about the ISS and shuttle's time in the belt..
See my previous links for proof..

reply to post by backinblack

He stated they were only in the VAB for a "few minutes"..
That is an outright lie, not a figure of speech or slip of the tongue..

Let's go to the dictionary, shall we?

few

Pronunciation:/fjuː/

determiner, pronoun, & adjective
1 (a few) a small number of:
[as determiner] :
may I ask a few questions?
[as pronoun] :
I will recount a few of the stories told me
there are hundreds of applicants but only a few are selected
2 used to emphasize how small a number of people or things is:
[as determiner] :
he had few friends
[as pronoun] :
few thought to challenge these assumptions
very few of the titles have any literary merit
a club with as few as 20 members
[comparative] :
a population of fewer than two million
[as adjective] :
sewing was one of her few pleasures
[superlative] :
ask which products have the fewest complaints

Oxford Dictionary

I draw your attention to definition 2: "used to emphasize how small...." Plait was not lying, he was emphasizing how little time the astronauts spent traversing the belts. You may think that ninety minutes is a long, long, time and you are welcome to that opinion, but that does not make Plait a liar.

He then went on to lie about the ISS and shuttle's time in the belt..
See my previous links for proof..

Even at lower altitudes, due to a shift (~500 km) and tilt (~11°) of the
geomagnetic axis compared to the Earth’s rotational axis, the magnetic field is not
symmetrical in relation to the rotational axis. Therefore in the region between South
Africa and South America the inner radiation belt protrudes into lower altitudes
(2-300 km). This designated region is called the South Atlantic Anomaly
(Stassinopoulos, Staffer, 2007). The International Space Station passes the SAA in two
time windows a day and in 2-3 consecutive orbits in a time window. The time elapsed
between two time windows is approximately 8 and 16 hours respectively. When
travelling through the SAA, astronauts are exposed to trapped radiation of the inner Van
Allen belt, which shows a pronounced directionality. Although only about 5% of the
mission time on board ISS is spent in the SAA, the astronauts may collect more than
50% of their total dose during this short time period

IRPA 2010

In other words, the South Atlantic anomaly can dip as low as 200 kilometers altitude, well within the ISS's range of altitudes. Phil Plait was simply stating a fact.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack

 

He stated they were only in the VAB for a "few minutes"..
That is an outright lie, not a figure of speech or slip of the tongue..

Let's go to the dictionary, shall we?


I draw your attention to definition 2: "used to emphasize how small...." Plait was not lying, he was emphasizing how little time the astronauts spent traversing the belts. You may think that ninety minutes is a long, long, time and you are welcome to that opinion, but that does not make Plait a liar.

DJ, I still suspect you are Phil Plait...



I believe I asked you this before, I dont recall you denying it though.

At any rate, where did Plait say that a few minutes would equal to 90 minutes?
Because if you are talking about a difference between a couple hours and 90 minutes, you wouldnt say 90 minutes = a few minutes in comparison to 2 hours.

Plait said it took only a few minutes to traverse the belt. Minutes like in under 10. Rogan shocked by that comment asked how long it would take to go through 60.000 miles (or something like that), and Plait answered: I dont know, a couple of hours maybe. Then Plait emphasized that Apollo didnt go through all of the belts, hence the few minutes.

So DJ, 90 minutes is not what Plait meant by a few minutes. He meant like no time at all, under 10 minutes. Maybe 20.

reply to post by DJW001

I draw your attention to definition 2: "used to emphasize how small...." Plait was not lying, he was emphasizing how little time the astronauts spent traversing the belts. You may think that ninety minutes is a long, long, time and you are welcome to that opinion, but that does not make Plait a liar.

You guys are unbelievable hypocritical liars..

A "few minutes" is not even remotely close to one and a half hours..
He stated that "lie" to deceive the radio audience, pure and simple...
I'm pretty damn sure your highly credentialed astrophysicist would know the difference between a few minutes and an hour and a half..

If not, he ain't much of a scientist....

Just shows me what BS levels debunkers will stoop to..
Quite pathetic IMO.....

reply to post by backinblack

A "few minutes" is not even remotely close to one and a half hours..

Here's the deal: we just stole $1,400,000. Your cut is $90. That's a lot, right?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack

 

A "few minutes" is not even remotely close to one and a half hours..

Here's the deal: we just stole $1,400,000. Your cut is $90. That's a lot, right?

WTF has that got to do with the subject??

You are off your head if you think that compares to Plait's obvious deceptive lie in any way,shape or form..

It just shows me the levels you guys will stoop too and the hypocritical nature of your argument..

I'm over discussing things with people that have two standards of debate...

reply to post by FoosM

Plait said it took only a few minutes to traverse the belt. Minutes like in under 10. Rogan shocked by that comment asked how long it would take to go through 60.000 miles (or something like that), and Plait answered: I dont know, a couple of hours maybe. Then Plait emphasized that Apollo didnt go through all of the belts, hence the few minutes.

So DJ, 90 minutes is not what Plait meant by a few minutes. He meant like no time at all, under 10 minutes. Maybe 20.

Read what you just wrote. When asked to be more specific, did Plait say "under ten minutes?" No, he did not. Why are you claiming that he meant under ten minutes when he specifically said "a couple of hours?" You twist things like Jarrah "Never Forget A Slight" White. Incidentally, I am flattered that you think I am an accredited astrophysicist. I am not.

reply to post by DJW001

Why are you claiming that he meant under ten minutes when he specifically said "a couple of hours?"

No he didn't...
He NEVER mentioned 'a couple of hours" in relation to the Apollo missions..

Are you not comprehending the broadcast properly DJW??

reply to post by backinblack

WTF has that got to do with the subject??

Your claim that Phil Plait is a liar is based entirely upon his use of an extremely subjective word. How many people have been to the Moon? A lot, or a few? Is a dozen eggs a lot or a few? Is 14,000 minutes a long time? Is ninety minutes a long time? Is ninety seconds a long time? When asked, Plait attached a number to his statement, and that number was pretty honest, don't you think? He didn't pull a Jarrah and wave his hands and change the subject. Furthermore, as I have shown, his statement about the ISS was correct. Just admit that your claim that Plait is a liar was just plain wrong. You may accuse him of bias, if you wish, for minimizing what you consider to be important, but just because you disagree with his characterization doesn't make him a liar. On the other hand, when Jarrah claimed that Kovalev's data contradicted NASA's, when in fact it was in agreement, that was an outright lie. Where was your moral outrage then?

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.[10]

en.wikipedia.org...-9

Isn't that amazing..
Decades after Apollo we are still learning the true strength of the VAB..

And weren't they lucky that the primitive computers on board Apollo were fine when modern day tech crashes.

reply to post by DJW001

Your claim that Phil Plait is a liar is based entirely upon his use of an extremely subjective word. How many people have been to the Moon? A lot, or a few? Is a dozen eggs a lot or a few? Is 14,000 minutes a long time? Is ninety minutes a long time? Is ninety seconds a long time? When asked, Plait attached a number to his statement, and that number was pretty honest, don't you think? He didn't pull a Jarrah and wave his hands and change the subject. Furthermore, as I have shown, his statement about the ISS was correct. Just admit that your claim that Plait is a liar was just plain wrong. You may accuse him of bias, if you wish, for minimizing what you consider to be important, but just because you disagree with his characterization doesn't make him a liar. On the other hand, when Jarrah claimed that Kovalev's data contradicted NASA's, when in fact it was in agreement, that was an outright lie. Where was your moral outrage then?

There's nothing subjective about his statement..
He has been discussing the Apollo situation for years..
It was an outright lie aimed to deceive the audience..
You will just not admit to it because it diminishes the reputation of one of your heroes..

reply to post by backinblack

No he didn't...
He NEVER mentioned 'a couple of hours" in relation to the Apollo missions..

Are you not comprehending the broadcast properly DJW??

Go to 8:36. When Rogan asks Plait how long it would take to cross the 60,000 miles, Plait says: "I dunno, I'd have to calculate, a couple of hours...." It is only after he says that that he begins to use expressions like "a little while" and "a few minutes." By the way, it was over 24 hours since I first listened to the recording; he was talking about the shuttle, not the ISS. I'm surprised you haven't called me a liar for referring to the ISS.

reply to post by backinblack

And weren't they lucky that the primitive computers on board Apollo were fine when modern day tech crashes.

It's precisely because they were more primitive that they were less susceptible to the electromagnetic field!
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e23d971c4f9c.jpg[/atsimg]
Rope memory!!!

reply to post by DJW001

Go to 8:36. When Rogan asks Plait how long it would take to cross the 60,000 miles, Plait says: "I dunno, I'd have to calculate, a couple of hours....

I know that..It was you that said different..
Like I said, It had NOTHING to do with Apollo or his deceitful statement..

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack

 

And weren't they lucky that the primitive computers on board Apollo were fine when modern day tech crashes.

It's precisely because they were more primitive that they were less susceptible to the electromagnetic field!
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e23d971c4f9c.jpg[/atsimg]
Rope memory!!!

lol, You get better and better..
What are you saying?
Apollo's tech was safe because they used an abacus ??

I don't see how old computers of the Apollo era would be any less prone to radiation damage than today's..
They still had circuits and chips etc..

reply to post by backinblack

I don't see how old computers of the Apollo era would be any less prone to radiation damage than today's..

Then perhaps you need to do some research. What does this have to do with Jarrah "Never Forget A Slight" White or his nemesis Phil "Chrome Dome" Plait?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack

 

I don't see how old computers of the Apollo era would be any less prone to radiation damage than today's..

Then perhaps you need to do some research. What does this have to do with Jarrah "Never Forget A Slight" White or his nemesis Phil "Chrome Dome" Plait?

Umm I have NFI but it was YOU that brought up ancient tech..


I'm still of the "Plait the liar" belief and nothing you've said alters facts...

Originally posted by backinblack
What are you saying?
Apollo's tech was safe because they used an abacus ??

I don't see how old computers of the Apollo era would be any less prone to radiation damage than today's..
They still had circuits and chips etc..

Integrated circuits are etched on to silicon wafers (read more about it here). Over time, the features etched on these wafers have gotten smaller and smaller. This allows for more computationally powerful processors to be created, because you can fit more transistors in the same physical size. It also decreases the power requirements, because the smaller transistors take less power to operate. Currently, general purpose processors are created in a 32nm process. In 1972, the original Intel 8008 processor was created on a 10 um process. That means the features were over 300 times larger than the current 32nm process. On modern processors, an ionizing radiation particle passing through the circuit can knock enough electrons free to flip the transistor. On older, larger integrated circuits, such a small event would not be able to flip the transistor. Thus, they are less susceptible to corruption due to radiation.

reply to post by nataylor


I think I'd like a source for that opinion..

Let's not forget that NASA are usually very careful..
Their equipment, including computers would surely have additional shielding of some kind compared to standards comps..