Moon charlatan Jarrah White caught out, deletes evidence

If final proof were required that Jarrah White is a total fraud, here it is.

Good old Jarrah's latest moon hoax video is out on YouTube. In it, he presents claims, among which are that the Apollo astronauts' PLSS cooling systems would require 48 litres of water for an eight-hour moonwalk. He helpfully illustrates this by loading 24 two-litre bottles of milk into a shopping trolley. What fun!

Here's the video. All of the milk nonsense begins at around 35 minutes in.



Unfortunately, he lifted this calculation wholesale from Ralph René's book without checking it. Doubly unfortunately, Ralph René knew nothing about thermodynamics whatsoever. The true volume of water needed is just about one tenth of that, i.e. less than five litres. By a staggering coincidence, the PLSS actually carried 5.2 litres of water.

I posted a simple explanation of where ol' Ralph went wrong on this thread, and I also posted it, in a direct reply to Jarrah White, on YouTube. It starts off with manipulation of the figures and ends with a breathtaking misunderstanding of the word "efficiency" (in Ralph's world, doing more work with less energy equals lower efficiency!)

Within minutes, the entire YouTube comment thread — a thread started by Jarrah himself — had vanished. How mysterious!

Is this standard practice for Jarrah?

a reply to: Rob48

It seems as if you've angered him. I've seen your proofs but I cannot verify them because I'm too far removed from my chemistry courses in college.

He posted this:

Yet another troll blocked for falsely calling me "deceptive" and trolling Ralph Rene. A reminder to all: any troll who I find here calling me or my deceased friends "deliberately deceptive" without a shred of evidence will be blocked and reported to Youtube for harassment without warning.

I would have liked to see him refute your maths but maybe he realized his mistake, and got mad.

a reply to: cestrup

I see. Correcting basic mathematical errors is considered trolling, in Jarrah land.

Edit to add, just in case anyone thinks I am making this up:

BEFORE...


and AFTER...


Anyone tempted to believe Jarrah's nonsense: this is the way he operates. I did not make accusations "without a shred of evidence", I made them based on Ralph René's demonstrable cluelessness in thermodynamics, and Jarrah White's equal cluelessness in checking Ralph's working.

I was not offensive, I simply posted the explanation of Ralph's two most fundamental errors, but apparently for somebody as paranoid as Mr White, rebutting outright lies is considered "harrassment".

I do hope I get a message from YouTube about Jarrah's little "report" on me...


Edit: one small correction (unlike Jarrah, I can do corrections) - he has not "deleted the entire thread", it's just that I couldn't read it because he has blocked me. When I logged out of YouTube, I saw it was still there (the one starting "For anyone wondering...")

a reply to: Rob48

I just asked him why he wouldn't take the time to prove you wrong, so let's see what he has to say.

That is whether or not he actually replies back.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Thanks. Don't hold your breath.

The only thing I am slightly kicking myself about is that I suggested René's use of fudge-factors was "deliberately deceptive". (Even though they were, of course: Ralph clearly set out to prove a point, and shoehorned whichever numbers he required into his calculation. Even after grossly inflating the heat loss requirements, he still came up with a volume of water that wasn't big enough to sound ridiculous, so he added a bonus 60% at the end for luck!)

That gave him a phrase to latch onto to justify blocking me. If I had simply let the calculations speak for themselves, I am sure he would still have found a reason to delete them, but it would have been harder to justify.

a reply to: Rob48

The only thing I am slightly kicking myself about is that I suggested René's use of fudge-factors was "deliberately deceptive". That gave him a phrase to latch onto to justify blocking me. If I had simply let the calculations speak for themselves, I am sure he would still have found a reason to delete them, but it would have been harder to justify. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Just the fact that he blocked you shows he doesn't want anybody to question what he has done.

Now either he isn't sure about his findings and wants people to blindly believe him. or he is just a person that thinks he can get enough gullible people to believe him and doesn't feel he needs to back up his findings.

Either way he should at least take the time to tell you why he thinks your wrong.

Maybe it's just my bias about men walking on the moon, but those who try to make people think that the human race never got to the moon not only have it in for the human race (and want everyone to lose a little of their sense of wonder and enjoyment over this grand and ultra-historical accomplishment), but lower the overall I.Q. of the human race, which is low enough already. Idiots like this unesteemed youtube guy give stupid a bad name.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Quite agreed. The level of hypocrisy is astounding. He claims NASA is involved in some big cover-up which he is exposing, and yet his response when somebody points out an error is to COVER IT UP.

The man's a weasel.

a reply to: Rob48

I just wanted to flicker in and give you a big .

The blurb under Jarrah's video says he has been holding onto it for nearly seven years. Guess he was a bit galled that a week after he posted it someone pointed out that the maths was holed below the waterline.

On the plus side for JW, I doubt if many of his followers would have been able to understand exactly how much of a boo-boo Ralph made. Even though it's pretty fundamental: kind of the thermodynamic equivalent of putting your pants on back to front.

I addressed Rene's claims a few years back myself, working with actual heat transfer.
First here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then a revision here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


I'll be interested in seeing JW's calcs.

a reply to: Phage

Thanks for the links. I was quite sure someone else would have spotted the many flaws in this long ago. I've never read Ralph's book so this claim was new to me.
I admit I didn't go into as much depth as you did, but just eyeballing the enthalpies it was pretty obvious he was off by a factor of 10 or so. At first I even thought he might have simply dropped a decimal point, but then I saw his working!

Jarrah's video doesn't even dispute the claimed 1600 BTU/hr figure for the PLSS; he simply quotes that figure and then says RR's calculations show it couldn't be done. I doubt he even went through the maths at all: as choos on here pointed out, Ralph managed to screw up a simple conversion factor in the very first line.

But my favourite bit of "Ralphematics" is right at the end where not only does he pluck a figure of 40% efficiency out of thin air, he goes on to declare that 40% efficiency means that ~60% MORE water will be evaporated with the same amount of heat input. Quite the headscratcher, that one.

For the uninitiated, that is somewhat akin to claiming that your car is more efficient because you don't have to drive it as far to empty the tank. (It's actually even more silly than that, but you get the idea.)

Jarrah continues to delete any comments on his video that point out the glaring errors in his scientific understanding.

An example: this user "ApolloWasReal" is nothing to do with me and has not been blocked as far as I can see... Just "selectively edited" as fast as Jarrah can keep up:

ApolloWasReal
1 day ago

+JastheMace1 You are wrong; gaseous water vapor is invisible. I said this yesterday but I notice my comments have disappeared. I guess Jarrah really doesn't like simple, verifiable facts.

Surely if you are going to accuse anyone of a big cover-up then your own practices should be beyond reproach? Not deleting anything that disagrees with your little fairy tale.


Also Jarrah's "explanation" in his video description contains another howler:

Others have asked why we don't see any ice crystals shooting out of the modern shuttle EVA suits. Apparently, unlike their Apollo counterparts, a modern EVA suit recirculates its water back through the LCG, instead of ejecting it into space.

I explain why this shows that he doesn't have a clue about science here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Rob48

Any researcher, historian, or journalist worth their salt (or even the chemical formula for salt) admits their mistakes, ask for more data when their mistakes are pointed out, and publicly admits the error. This youtube fellow seems to be another breed of cat.

originally posted by: Rob48

An example: this user "ApolloWasReal" is nothing to do with me and has not been blocked as far as I can see... Just "selectively edited" as fast as Jarrah can keep up:

ApolloWasReal
1 day ago

+JastheMace1 You are wrong; gaseous water vapor is invisible. I said this yesterday but I notice my comments have disappeared. I guess Jarrah really doesn't like simple, verifiable facts.

And sure enough that user has now apparently been blocked altogether. You can see how JW has deleted all the posts by "ApolloWasReal", but left all the replies from his followers.

What a total hypocrite Jarrah is.

This is worth a bump. Jarrah has taken his mathematical cluelessness to a whole new dimension.



In his latest Meisterstück, the boy wonder calculates how much radiation those poor Apollo astronauts would have received when crossing the Van Allen belts:

48.9 J/hr x 75 kg = 3,672 Gy/hr.

A lethal dose is 10 - 20 gray, so they should have been dead within about 20 seconds!

Unfortunately, even if his figure of 48.9 joules was correct (it isn't), the calculation for working out dose is, rather obviously, to divide the energy by the mass, not multiply it.

So it should be:

48.9 J/hr ÷ 75kg = 0.652 Gy/hr. (And even that is still too high, because he appears to have screwed up the energy calculation too: I haven't bothered trawling through the rest of his maths yet...)

He is out by a factor of more than 5000. His error has been pointed out. Do you reckon he will

(a) fess up to his mistake, or

(b) delete the comments and block the "shills"?

I find it interesting how a message board supposedly devoted to conspiracy theories all too often resorts to unilaterally ripping conspiracy theories down.

Are you sure everyone here is on the same side?


XO

a reply to: XtheOwl

I don't think anyone has any problem with conspiracy theories if they are plausible. But surely ripping the obvious bunk to pieces is a good thing — it gets rid of the chaff and helps to focus on the wheat.

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: XtheOwl

I don't think anyone has any problem with conspiracy theories if they are plausible. But surely ripping the obvious bunk to pieces is a good thing — it gets rid of the chaff and helps to focus on the wheat.

The faked moon landing is plausible is it not? Just recently a NASA engineer expressed concerns about crossing the Van Allen Belt.

The only "evidence" we have of the "moon landings" is basically anecdotal from proven congenital liars.

Al the mishaps in training and then all of a sudden 6 or so perfect moon landings. That's like me designing a program in development with errors and bugs and then putting in production where it runs perfectly. There is a chance of 6 perfect runs but somehow I don't think so.

originally posted by: Macdon

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: XtheOwl

I don't think anyone has any problem with conspiracy theories if they are plausible. But surely ripping the obvious bunk to pieces is a good thing — it gets rid of the chaff and helps to focus on the wheat.

The faked moon landing is plausible is it not? Just recently a NASA engineer expressed concerns about crossing the Van Allen Belt.

Please source what you're talking about here

The only "evidence" we have of the "moon landings" is basically anecdotal from proven congenital liars.

This is not even remotely close to true. The hoax side is the one populated by nothing but proven liars

Al the mishaps in training and then all of a sudden 6 or so perfect moon landings. That's like me designing a program in development with errors and bugs and then putting in production where it runs perfectly. There is a chance of 6 perfect runs but somehow I don't think so.

You seem to be conveniently forgetting Apollo 13. Also no moon landings went perfectly, they just didn't have any mission critical failures.