Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

Thats alot of blah blah Tomblvd. If you talk the talk, then walk the walk.

See folks, he cant even bring himself to quote the video!
I mean whats that all about? How can you have an honest debate when
your opponent wont even watch or read the source materials?

What are you afraid of Tomblvd? Because your running around like a chicken who just got its head bit off from a geek.

quote the source material.

"Let's ignore what our photos have to say. Lets' ask an expert on perspective."

-Moonfaker: Exhibit A. PART 1 (8:55)

Finally... was that so hard?
So now why cant she be an expert in perspective as a fine/visual arts teacher?
Did Jarrah say anywhere in the video that she was a PHOTOGRAPHY expert?
Didn't she tell the viewers that she was a visual arts teacher who taught perspective?

So now where did Jarrah lie, or is it maybe some of you made her out to be more than what she said she was? Could that be the problem? Because I never saw her as a photo expert, but she could offer her views on perspective.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

Thats alot of blah blah Tomblvd. If you talk the talk, then walk the walk.

See folks, he cant even bring himself to quote the video!
I mean whats that all about? How can you have an honest debate when
your opponent wont even watch or read the source materials?

What are you afraid of Tomblvd? Because your running around like a chicken who just got its head bit off from a geek.

quote the source material.

"Let's ignore what our photos have to say. Lets' ask an expert on perspective."

-Moonfaker: Exhibit A. PART 1 (8:55)

Finally... was that so hard?
So now why cant she be an expert in perspective as a fine/visual arts teacher?
Did Jarrah say anywhere in the video that she was a PHOTOGRAPHY expert?
Didn't she tell the viewers that she was a visual arts teacher who taught perspective?

So now where did Jarrah lie, or is it maybe some of you made her out to be more than what she said she was? Could that be the problem? Because I never saw her as a photo expert, but she could offer her views on perspective.

You might want to consider putting wheels on those goalposts. You keep moving them like you are you may need an engine too.

-He calls her an "expert on perspective". When she admits she isn't.

-He then has his "expert" analyze a photograph. Which she admits she has no experience in.



If you are presented as an expert, and you are analyzing a photo, there is every expectation that you have the expertise to do what you are being asked to do. Jarrah knew she wasn't an expert, yet he allowed everybody to think she was.

That is about as dishonest as it gets.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Un4g1v3n1

 

Thank you for engaging the topic. You certainly posted a lot of scary statements, mostly about cosmic radiation. Deadly cosmic radiation is everywhere, including on the Earth's surface. That's just how it is. The risks of dangerous exposure do indeed increase as you have less atmospheric shielding, but clearly there were no extinction level events during the 1960's or 1970's. It was a calculated risk. As for the issue of solar radiation and the charged particles trapped in the Earth's magnetosphere, that, of course, is a different story. Shooting from the hip, I seem to recall that the inner belt is composed principally of beta particles and the outer belt of alpha particles. Perhaps you can further jog my memory... Am I totally off base here?

1. Is cosmic radiation a danger to astronauts and their ships?
2. What do you mean there was no extinction level event in the 60's or 70's?
Is that because no astronauts died? Well then that would be a circular argument.
3. What calculation was used to take the risk? Where are the numbers?

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

Thats alot of blah blah Tomblvd. If you talk the talk, then walk the walk.

See folks, he cant even bring himself to quote the video!
I mean whats that all about? How can you have an honest debate when
your opponent wont even watch or read the source materials?

What are you afraid of Tomblvd? Because your running around like a chicken who just got its head bit off from a geek.

quote the source material.

"Let's ignore what our photos have to say. Lets' ask an expert on perspective."

-Moonfaker: Exhibit A. PART 1 (8:55)

Finally... was that so hard?
So now why cant she be an expert in perspective as a fine/visual arts teacher?
Did Jarrah say anywhere in the video that she was a PHOTOGRAPHY expert?
Didn't she tell the viewers that she was a visual arts teacher who taught perspective?

So now where did Jarrah lie, or is it maybe some of you made her out to be more than what she said she was? Could that be the problem? Because I never saw her as a photo expert, but she could offer her views on perspective.

You might want to consider putting wheels on those goalposts. You keep moving them like you are you may need an engine too.

-He calls her an "expert on perspective". When she admits she isn't.

-He then has his "expert" analyze a photograph. Which she admits she has no experience in.



If you are presented as an expert, and you are analyzing a photo, there is every expectation that you have the expertise to do what you are being asked to do. Jarrah knew she wasn't an expert, yet he allowed everybody to think she was.

That is about as dishonest as it gets.

If Jarrah can so easily mislead you tom, then I can see how NASA has misled you these past 40 years.

Give it up tom, you lost. There is no story here.

As it seems that the first part of my analysis has been accepted, I'll proceed.

Here's the first statement again:
Some Apollo deniers claim that the radiation encountered during the missions would have either seriously affected or killed the astronauts.

OK, so to analyse that claim, we need to work out exactly what some of those terms mean, and define what we need to gather information about. Obviously we need to define the amounts and types of radiation that would have been encountered during all parts of the mission. We then need to gather information about whether the amounts of radiation were likely to seriously affect or kill a human being.

So, defining the next step, the information we need to address the initial claim is:

What types and amounts of radiation would the astronauts have encountered, at what times during the mission/s?

and

What types and amounts of radiation of the types defined above, would cause serious harm or death to a human?


Any objections, anything I've forgotten? I see 'unforgiven' is going to snipe from the sidelines, but hasn't yet found anything to criticise. Perhaps he will now? Go, on, be brave un4..

Also feel free to criticise the entire approach. After all, defining a problem carefully, breaking it down into the components, providing the solutions to all those components and a conclusion, is NO WAY to perform a tinfoilhat investigation...

A reminder - please remember I'm trying to keep it as FOCUSED, simple and straightforward as possible. There are obviously other ancillary claims that hang on this one, but let's focus on the big issue.

And don't worry, the citations and references will be forthcoming as we start answering the questions. First up we need to make sure the questions are the correct ones...

Originally posted by FoosM

If Jarrah can so easily mislead you tom, then I can see how NASA has misled you these past 40 years.

Give it up tom, you lost. There is no story here.

If someone is called an expert in perspective, I expect that is what she is. The fact that she isn't is a lie. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thought she was, in fact, an expert in perspective.

Get over it. He lied to you, you took it hook, line and sinker, and now you're shilling for him.

Pathetic.

Originally posted by debunky
*yawn*
Yes, "crazy horse" Schmitt opened his visor for a brief period of time, just for #s and giggles.
It wasn't a dare to look into the sun for as long as possible.
Yes, prolonged exposure could have caused some problems.
Thats why he closed it again.
And Houston told him to pretty please do so.

Your point?

Why would he have to put down the gold visor?

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

If Jarrah can so easily mislead you tom, then I can see how NASA has misled you these past 40 years.

Give it up tom, you lost. There is no story here.

If someone is called an expert in perspective, I expect that is what she is. The fact that she isn't is a lie. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thought she was, in fact, an expert in perspective.

Get over it. He lied to you, you took it hook, line and sinker, and now you're shilling for him.

Pathetic.

So you are saying she lied when she said she taught perspective?
And how is she not an expert in perspective?

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

If Jarrah can so easily mislead you tom, then I can see how NASA has misled you these past 40 years.

Give it up tom, you lost. There is no story here.

If someone is called an expert in perspective, I expect that is what she is. The fact that she isn't is a lie. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thought she was, in fact, an expert in perspective.

Get over it. He lied to you, you took it hook, line and sinker, and now you're shilling for him.

Pathetic.

So you are saying she lied when she said she taught perspective?
And how is she not an expert in perspective?

Teaching something and being an "expert" are two different things. The fact that she admits it is also important.

reply to post by FoosM

1. Is cosmic radiation a danger to astronauts and their ships?
2. What do you mean there was no extinction level event in the 60's or 70's?
Is that because no astronauts died? Well then that would be a circular argument.
3. What calculation was used to take the risk? Where are the numbers?

1. Yes. It is also a danger to life on Earth.
2. You have honestly never heard the expression "extinction event?" I suggest you look it up before you embarrass yourself further.
3. Here's a start for you:

history.nasa.gov...

Edit to fix link.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by DJW001]

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

If Jarrah can so easily mislead you tom, then I can see how NASA has misled you these past 40 years.

Give it up tom, you lost. There is no story here.

If someone is called an expert in perspective, I expect that is what she is. The fact that she isn't is a lie. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thought she was, in fact, an expert in perspective.

Get over it. He lied to you, you took it hook, line and sinker, and now you're shilling for him.

Pathetic.

So you are saying she lied when she said she taught perspective?
And how is she not an expert in perspective?

Teaching something and being an "expert" are two different things. The fact that she admits it is also important.

Where does she say she is not an expert in perspectives?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

1. Is cosmic radiation a danger to astronauts and their ships?
2. What do you mean there was no extinction level event in the 60's or 70's?
Is that because no astronauts died? Well then that would be a circular argument.
3. What calculation was used to take the risk? Where are the numbers?

1. Yes. It is also a danger to life on Earth.
2. You have honestly never heard the expression "extinction event?" I suggest you look it up before you embarrass yourself further.
3. Here's a start for you:

history.nasa.gov...

Edit to fix link.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by DJW001]

Just answer the question and explain how it relates to Apollo.

reply to post by FoosM

Just answer the question and explain how it relates to Apollo.

I answered all three, didn't I?

Edit to add quote.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by DJW001]

Originally posted by FoosM

Where does she say she is not an expert in perspectives?

I'm just going to keep posting her quote. I realize it has no chance of penetrating your ego, but it will be useful to those who may question JW's sincerity.

He required footage of a so called ‘expert’ to support the story line he wished to persue, and as a teacher (at the coledge at that time) he asked if I would be willing to do the interview for his assignment.

I agreed as he did not have access to a ‘real authority’.

The reality is that I am not even a professional photographer,

the interesting thing is that when a person is portrayed as an expert on film, people tend to believe it (I am a fine arts teacher)

.

What would be useful to you would be to get an analysis done by a true optical / physics specialist who could factor in things like: lense distortion, surface refraction, light angle, light source distance, surface curvature etc.

She takes the time to marvel at the fact that if you are "portrayed as an expert on film", people believe it. In that statement alone she admits she is indeed NOT an expert.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Just answer the question and explain how it relates to Apollo.

I answered all three, didn't I?

Edit to add quote.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by DJW001]

You obviously haven't been paying attention today. Foos is "extra thick" today.
You're going to have to spell everything out in very, very small words.

Tomblvd is a star wanting troll, so don't feed the troll.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
Tomblvd is a star wanting troll, so don't feed the troll.

Still waiting for proof of that "camera burning" radiation, Agent.

You going to let us in on it?

Why do I have the feeling this will eventually require the necessity of hand puppets?
Edit to add: Second line: I know some wicked puppeteers!

[edit on 31-5-2010 by DJW001]

reply to post by Tomblvd


if it's not glaringly obvious in the vid that you didn't watch .. why should I bother LOL .. wow..

reply to post by ppk55


thx ppk55, yea.. I was about to post this very same thing, he's all hot air with no back up sources. but.. as he and a few other NEVER viewed the entire vid.. and what I posted from Wiki.. derp .. wow..

I've pretty much iggied chilerz since he either answers a question with a question or doesn't provide any sources either .. or.. both.. so yea..

and yea.. IT IS ABOUT YOU TUBE videos !!!!!! why repeat the same thing over and over again since JW tells it like it is?!!! and wouldn't this be relevant to the thread being that's it's all about NASA and NASA on YOU TUBE? LOL Not only that, but, sound, visual effects together help retain and speed up the learning process. (but i'll stop their since i'll get flamed for not sourcing my sources LOL)

but.. yea.. Start for ya .. keep the vids rolling baby !!!