Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 292
377
<< 289  290  291    293  294  295 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
I read the first part of your analysis of JW's video.
But I find it rife with misinterpretations.
I'm also curious why you use words and phrases like:
demanded
outright lies
attack

Anyway, so the first part of your analysis has to do with JW's analysis of Van Allen's comments.

You correctly state that:


I don't see any contradictions, do you? But then, Jarrah didn't exactly say there were.


Ok... so what is the problem?



Nothing like a little selective quoting. Here is the entire relevant statement:




I don't see any contradictions, do you? But then, Jarrah didn't exactly say there were. To convey that impression, he allows others to speak for Professor Van Allen.




posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Can't wait for part two.


Happy to oblige.

In the first part of this analysis, I critiqued Jarrah's use of propaganda techniques to tar people who disagree with him and mesmerize his viewers into accepting his claims without engaging their facilities for critical thinking. Jarrah wisely avoids making direct statements, preferring innuendo and rhetorical questions. After all, if you don't make a definite statement, you can't be proven wrong, right? Well, Jarrah made a statement that really threw me for a loop: actual data showed the radiation levels were prohibitive. The reader should ask themselves how they personally reacted to this bombshell. Did you jump up and cheer because your white knight had finally vanquished the forces of evil? Did you decide to visit a few other websites to get a more "balanced" view? Or were you skeptical? A skeptic is someone who seeks out the facts for themselves.

As a skeptic, I wanted to know where that table came from, and what data was used to compile it. After all, if Jarrah's figures were correct, the industry standard of 2500 rem per year for a satellite with 2mm of aluminum shielding was way off: the dataset completely contradicted all those sputniks, explorers and raccoons, er, rockoons. Jarrah flashed this on the screen:



A bit hard to read, perhaps by intent. The paper is: "Radiation Protection During Space Flight" by E. E. Kovalev. I wanted to read that paper for myself, to see why that chart showed such anomalously high readings for the astronauts. A quick search using a name brand search engine revealed that the paper was downloadable online from Elsevier for $32.50... a bit much for a book I was only going to read once. The university library down the street from me was closed for the winter vacation. How could I get at the contents of that paper?

One of the great things about genuine researchers is that they document their work. If they quote a source, they provide a footnote that allows one to track that source down and see the cited material in context. That source then provides references to its sources, and so on, all they way down the line. The beautiful part about it is that the process can be followed in reverse. I searched for papers that cited Kovalev's work in the hope of finding his data "through the back door. That's how I found this:



Before proceeding I should point out 1 sievert (Sv) equals 100 rem. The rem is considered an old and unfashionable unit these days. This is important because newer works will give their measurements in Sv. An author citing an older work would probably convert the units so they match the units used in the more recent work. In this paper, I found the following table:



Compare it to the table from Jarrah's video:



Except for the exact wording of the table's title (which was translated from Russian to Czech to English) and the units used, this is clearly an exact citation of Kovalev's original paper.



Yep, it checks. But what's this?



No shield?! I didn't hear Jarrah say anything about the dose the astronauts would get if they weren't shielded, did you? In order to prove his "radiation argument," Jarrah had to calculate the dose they would have received if they were floating in the radiation belts stark raving naked! If they were floating up there naked, they would have much more pressing concerns than radiation. Hm, perhaps this was an honest mistake... after all the table Jarrah showed us didn't mention that the readings were for an unshielded craft. The problem is, this paper by Frantiszek Spurny contains a second table, identical in format to the first:



This table shows the dosage received inside a spacecraft with "shields," ie, "walls" one millimeter thick! It is obvious that both tables come from Kovalev's original paper. If Jarrah had the original paper in his possession and has actually read it as he would have us believe, he consciously chose to suppress the table showing the dosages in a spacecraft with much thinner walls than the Apollo. Why? Let's repeat Jarrah's calculations using this data:

390 rem/day = 16.25 rem/ hour

Using Professor Van Allen's estimate of two hours out and two hours back gives us a total dosage of 65 rem, well below the dreaded LD50 of 450 rem. Now bear in mind that, contrary to Jarrah's repeated insinuations, the CSM had walls much thicker than 1mm. More like 1.25 centimeters, ten times the thickness of the shielding in the table, reducing the dosage by a factor of ten, yielding a total exposure of 6.5 rem. This is very close to the 1% guesstimate that Professor Van Allen made in the e-mail Jarrah cites. The actual exposure would have been much less because we assumed that the maximum value extended throughout the radiation belts.

Think about all this for a moment. Using a Czech intermediary, I have tracked down Jarrah White's original Russian data and used it to confirm a statement that Jarrah was trying to discredit. He has been caught in the act of perpetrating a lie.

By the way, this paper also debunks the "Russians didn't go to the Moon because they were afraid of radiation" myth:



"Remark: Russian limits higher." What else would you expect from a country that didn't see the need for a containment vessel at Chernobyl, and that sent seamen into the Kursk's reactor wearing asbestos suits?

Returning to the issue at hand, I have presented strong evidence that Jarrah White has willfully presented material that he knew beforehand was simply false. I submit that Jarrah White's "MoonFaker" videos are by any reasonable definition a HOAX, and humbly suggest that this thread be moved to the proper forum.

Happy New Year, everyone!!!
edit on 31-12-2010 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct typos and polish style.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Hurrah!!!!


I submit that Jarrah White's "MoonFaker" videos are by any reasonable definition a HOAX, and humbly suggest that this thread be moved to the proper forum.



Notwithstanding the OTHER rather inconvenient truth for "Jarrah White"...and for FoosM, ppk55, Exuberant1 and, lastly, SayonaraJupiter (et al)...........


PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE, irrefutable and undeniable, of the Apollo landing sites, the activities there, and the existence of the equipment and hardware that was left there.


The PHOTO EVIDENCE, so cavalierly dismissed by the above mentioned, and many others? Their last, sordid and tissue-thin shred of desperate "argument" left was the "radiation" issue.


Out of the roughly ~six-billion Human beings alive on this planet, currently....not all of them have access to the sort of knowledge and understanding of those events of history, forty+ years ago now. However, out of the informed and educated people of the "Western" world (to include Russia, and the former Soviet Republic nations as well), and the vast majority of sophisticated "westernized" Chinese citizens, I would dare say that only a handful of individuals are deluded into the "Apollo Hoax" meme.

Percentage-wise, may be on a par with those who stay stuck in the "Flat Earth" nonsense, and beliefs in Elves and Leprechauns in Ireland. Perhaps, there are more Holocaust Deniers than exist Apollo "Hoax Believers". The great thing is, those who are so seriously misinformed, on any number of topics, will always have the capacity to learn, if only they would make the simple effort........


In the inimitable words of Phil Webb, in his video series sign-off: "Goodnight, Moon hoax believers, wherever you are......"
(And, "Ciao").

edit on 31 December 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Very nice work! One really has to question the motives of someone that is constantly proven to lie time and time again in order to put their point across.
It was bad enough he had his school teacher act out a part as an 'expert' for one of his videos, but even to this day he is still falsifying evidence to put forward his argument. It's extremely sad when you see someone like this conning decent people under the guise of 'truth' in order to satisfy their ego and wallet.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Can't wait for part two.


Happy to oblige.



Very, very well done!

I tried to post a link to this at Jarrah's youtube site, but even though I'm logged in, it won't accept my post.

What's up with that? Does he only allow his fans to post?



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE, irrefutable and undeniable, of the Apollo landing sites, the activities there, and the existence of the equipment and hardware that was left there.

The PHOTO EVIDENCE, so cavalierly dismissed by the above mentioned, and many others? Their last, sordid and tissue-thin shred of desperate "argument" left was the "radiation" issue.



Photos. Photos. Did you mean the NASA photos that were screened by the CIA/NPIC?


NASA had an agreement with the US intelligence community that dated from the beginning of the Gemini program. All astronaut photographs of the Earth would first be reviewed by the National Photographic Interpretation Center in Building 213 in the Washington, DC Navy Yard. NPIC (pronounced “en-pick”) was an organization managed by the CIA that interpreted satellite and aerial photography. Source www.thespacereview.com...


NASA's own history page doesn't mention anything about having an agreement with CIA/NPIC.

Astronaut Still Photography During Apollo - From December 1968 to December 1972, twenty-seven astronauts traveled to the Moon and twelve walked upon its surface. There were nine voyages across the quarter million miles. The treasures of Apollo included the samples of the lunar surface and the photographs the astronauts took. Source history.nasa.gov...


Conveniently, NASA does not mention of any agreement with the CIA or NPIC. According to this document NPC and NASA were still in agreement as of 1973. Source www.gwu.edu...

NASA & CIA are operating together...

"In his paper, Brothers in Arms: The CIA and the American Civilian Space Program, 1958-1968, Dwayne Day, an independent U.S. policy expert, ... Day observes that NASA and the CIA had a close relationship in the early formative years of the agency. After all, NASA played a key role in advancing American propaganda. "As such it was simply another means of countering the communist threat to American interests," he explains.

U-2 cover-up

The CIA-NASA relationship was not simply a one-way street, Day points out. In 1960, the spy organization sought to receive something from NASA.

The downing of Gary Powers U-2 spy plane within the Soviet Union was first billed as an off-course NASA research craft. CIA operatives quickly painted a fictitious serial number and NASA tail band on a U-2, rolling it over from a secret desert locale onto the main part of Edwards Air Force Base in California. This was done as part of a media campaign to counter Soviet allegations of U.S. wrong doing.

But as the Soviet Union let it be known that wreckage, a healthy pilot, and U-2-taken high-altitude images were in their possession, NASA was caught in an embarrassing lie, exposed as a front for the CIA, Day explains. Source www.space.com...


It is not hard to make connections between NASA & CIA. And once you add up NASA, Apollo and CIA together it becomes just another big propaganda "win" for the 1960's era Military Industrial Complex. These are the same people who gave you "Duck & Cover". These are the forces which gave you Bay of Pigs, the Viet Nam war and Apollo. These are the same forces that spent US$1 Trillion building up nuclear weapons arsenals. I think you may have seriously underestimated the lengths that they would go to produce a propaganda victory on television.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 




Watching "Jarrah White" being destroyed, and "hoist on his own petard", as it were, here on ATS?

Worth the price of admission.


THIS sentence? (...at this stage in the game...):


Photos. Photos. Did you mean the NASA photos that were screened by the CIA/NPIC?


Priceless!!



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   
As I stated emphatically before - THE END!

I also request this thread be tossed into the dustbin of ATS history or otherwise consigned to the flames of HOAX.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Don't stop believing, Weedwhacker
And good luck to you all in 2011



Prior to being nominated as NASA Administrator, Griffin was serving as Space Department Head at Johns Hopkins University's Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Md. He was previously President and Chief Operating Officer of In-Q-Tel, Inc., and also served in several positions within Orbital Sciences Corporation, Dulles, Va., including Chief Executive Officer of Orbital's Magellan Systems division and General Manager of the Space Systems Group. Source www.nasa.gov...



Bush Names CIA VC To Head NASA

The White House said Friday that President Bush has named a former venture capitalists to the head of NASA. Michael D. Griffin, former President and COO of In-Q-Tel, the venture capital arm of the CIA, was named by the White House Friday as Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Griffin is current head of the Space Department at the John Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, and has also served as Chief Engineer at NASA and Deputy for Technology at the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization. In-Q-Tel has invested in Southern California firms Language Weaver and Softlinx, among other firms targeted for their development of technologies considered important for natioanl security interests. The move comes on the heels of the resignation of NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe in December. Source www.socaltech.com...#



In-Q-Tel History
Throughout its lifetime, the CIA has operated at the cutting edge of science and technology. From the U-2 spy plane to the CORONA satellite, CIA's "wizards of Langley" earned a reputation for bold innovation and risk taking, working in advance of the private sector and other branches of government. Much of CIA's technology success was a result of identifying gaps and opportunities. Source www.iqt.org...


edit on 1/1/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: fix tag



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


The title of this thread is "Young Aussie genius..." Technically, your post is way off topic. If you think you are on to something, begin a new thread, please.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Can't wait for part two.


Happy to oblige.

In the first part of this analysis, I critiqued Jarrah's use of propaganda techniques to tar people who disagree with him and mesmerize his viewers into accepting his claims without engaging their facilities for critical thinking. Jarrah wisely avoids making direct statements, preferring innuendo and rhetorical questions. After all, if you don't make a definite statement, you can't be proven wrong, right? Well, Jarrah made a statement that really threw me for a loop: actual data showed the radiation levels were prohibitive. The reader should ask themselves how they personally reacted to this bombshell. Did you jump up and cheer because your white knight had finally vanquished the forces of evil? Did you decide to visit a few other websites to get a more "balanced" view? Or were you skeptical? A skeptic is someone who seeks out the facts for themselves.

*snip*



where are your
sources?



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 02:03 AM
link   
Unlike proven liar and hoaxer jarrah white, he has linked to the paper in question within his post. I would recommend reading it again, carefully.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 02:48 AM
link   
I found you can download the entire paper in question referenced by confirmed hoaxer and fraudster Jarrah White from the ASMA website. This costs $20, but is $20 well spent in my opinion in proving that the boy is a liar and a fraud.
Usually material that has to be subscribed to or paid for would not be referenced, but as JW has referenced this himself I see no other choice.

It can be sourced for a fee here:

www.asma.org...

The table used by Jarrah in his video, in context can be seen in the extract below:



Note the use of the phrase 'these values apply when the shielding is absent'.
As you suspected and as we all already really knew, you were absolutely correct DJW, I don't think anyone can sensibly even try to argue that Jarrah has somehow made a mistake and simply has to accept he is a liar and a fraud.

Edit to add:

Personally I especially like this chart and extract, I wonder why Jarrah didn't include it?



Oh I see now, it supports Apollo and isn't capable of being manipulated to deceive readers/viewers. That's probably why. Note that it shows the probabilities of specified dose equivalents being exceeded during Solar Maximum with a shield inferior to Apollo's and that the risk is shown to be clearly more than acceptable.

It's really weird, because the more I read the document that Jarrah quote mined the more it seems to provide data supporting Apollo. I wonder why he didn't quote in context or even quote information like the chart above? Mmmmm. Most odd...

I would like to thank Jarrah though for referencing this document, it is truly a great source of evidence supporting Apollo, how ironic!
edit on 1-1-2011 by AgentSmith because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by AgentSmith
 





I wonder why he didn't quote in context or even quote information like the chart above? Mmmmm. Most odd...


Because, as the self-anointed disciple of Ralph René and Bill Kaysing, he is also a liar and a fraud.
edit on 1-1-2011 by Smack because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
In view of the confirmation, here in the thread, of what every other thinking, reasoning and sane adult (and most children) already knew of "Jarrah White's" deceptions, outright manipulations and lies.....or just straight-laced delusions? Whichever is the case, it is pertinent to remind everyone of the man who "Jarrah" seems to have revered, and been most inspired by:

Ralph Rene'

"Eccentric" is a generous label to apply to that man --- there are a fair number of less-polite descriptions that come to mind. Now, whilst Ralph is most prominently featured in the kids' "videos", "Jarrah" also tends to refer to himself as the "Grandson" of the hoax conspiracy....and that "Grandfather" is generally considered to be Bill Kaysing. I guess that would make Ralph Rene' the equivalent of the crazy great-uncle?

Anyway, Bill Kaysing's claim to "fame" arose, primarily, based on a sort of a bet -- well, more like a challenge. He was dared, by a friend or two, to come up with the most outrageous thing he could, in order to see if he could get attention.

"Hey, why not say that the Apollo program was a hoax?", they suggested. And, ladies and gentlemen, the rest is history. Because, once you set that seed in the soil, fertilize and water it properly, you can coax it to grow, as you wish....as long as you keep the crap ---er, I mean, fertilizer--- coming regularly, and in great quantities.

BTW --- that same "formula" can work in just about any field, any topic. Try it for yourself...if you get creative enough, you too can spin facts, withhold and distort, do whatever you need to and you will ALWAYS find someone gullible enough to buy it. It's about packaging, and marketing. Anyone old enough to remember the Pet Rock fad, from the 1970s? Sheesh, they still make Chia Pets!!!



Back to Ralph Rene' --- as the "inspiration" for "Jarrah White", since knowing this as part of the genesis of "Jarrah's" crusade, it makes all of his actions come into context.

A video about Ralph, (with homage to "Jarrah") in two parts, I have found.

(I recommend the videos are more comfortably viewed, rather than listened to....I was not particularly fond of the soundtrack choice, but it may appeal to a younger set, seems to be geared in that direction. But, I'm not a video critic, just a personal opinion here):

Ralph Rene Was Wrong Part 1 version 2.0

...and.... (Part 2 includes sound bites from the Penn & Teller show titled Bull....#, and their episode that exposed the Apollo "hoax" nonsense. SO, foul language):

Ralph Rene Was Wrong Part 2..C-Rock: Crockery & Crackpottery

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh, and one more linky-dinky:

RalphReneWasWrongMate.com
edit on 1 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


You're right, the sound track did suck. But the videos were entertaining.

So, stick a fork in it. I think this thread is done - or I am done with it.
After DJW's brilliant post, there is nothing left of the "Jarrah White is a genius" myth.
Jarrah White is a proven fraud. Continuing this absurd thread is counterproductive.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



where are your
sources?


As AgentSmith has helpfully pointed out, they are linked and quoted in full in the post. More importantly, I explain my methodology and present my reasoning in a coherent fashion. I provided tangible evidence and constructed an argument that resulted in definitive proof. Compare the approach of a Jarrah White, who spews random, unrelated factoids and then waves his hands asking purely rhetorical questions.

I have repeatedly said throughout this thread, what I most object to is not Jarrah White's ridiculous hypothesis; he is welcome to believe that the Moon landings were a hoax (although I have now shown strong evidence that he believes otherwise and is himself the perpetrator of the hoax), that the Earth is flat, that Jesus is coming back in a flying saucer... belief is belief and everyone is entitled to take the leap of faith of their own choice. What I most object to is his substitution of rhetoric for reason, appeal to ignorance over sound methodology. If he claimed that the angel Gabriel came to him in a dream and told him that he would win the lottery, I wouldn't mind. There would be no objective way to discount that experience. Even if he didn't win the lottery today, he might tomorrow. What rankles me is that Jarrah attacks several well established bodies of knowledge with a complete and total lack of respect for the tools necessary to understand them.

In my post, I used an airtight methodology used by historians (and detectives, intelligence analysts and others) to follow a trail of evidence, and used reason to arrive at the truth. An independent researcher, AgentSmith (
)was able to confirm my conclusion by finding the actual paper: That is the mark of a sound methodology; anyone who applies it will get similar results, and its results can be confirmed by others and future discoveries.

This methodology has limits, which I acknowledged: either Jarrah read the original paper and therefore knew he was deliberately lying, or he did not. Applying the method to this either/or proposition leads to a further question to examine: if Jarrah did not read the original paper who supplied him with the cherry picked data and why?

If this thread is not moved to [HOAX] but remains in the "General Conspiracies" forum, it will consist of the application of sound methodology to Jarrahs hoax videos in an attempt to discover who his "sources" are.
edit on 1-1-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Ive been reading the latest posts made by
Apollo defenders.
And somehow they have convinced themselves that
they have what?

Debunked?
Caught Jarrah in a lie?
Provided proof for Apollo?

Im not quite sure why they are patting themselves on the back.
All DJ did was point out that the information JW was providing
were numbers based on an unshielded craft.
I would say he was pointing out the obvious.

Now, who would be foolish enough to assume otherwise?
What shielding were we supposed to assume the numbers were
based on? The first thing you would have to assume is no shielding
because none was provided! I dont recall hearing JW stating the
the numbers were based any kind of shielding.

Basically DJ, et al have made a mountain out of a mole hill.
Talk about hand waving.
The only reason JW was using that information was to specifically
point out that the trajectory the Apollo craft supposedly orbited was
not the trajectory one would use to minimize the radiation hazard.
On the contrary, it was a hot zone.

Now if you have an issue with that, then say so.
LOL.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



The only reason JW was using that information was to specifically
point out that the trajectory the Apollo craft supposedly orbited was
not the trajectory one would use to minimize the radiation hazard.
On the contrary, it was a hot zone.


Wrong. Why would he calculate the unshielded dose if he had the shielded dose available? The point of his video was not to demonstrate it was a "hot zone." None of his detractors ever said that it wasn't. It is ironic that in a video ostensibly proving that he doesn't cherrypickcherrypickcherrypickcherrypick he couldn't resist the temptation to cherry pick, thus exposing him for the liar he is. Go ahead, try to defend him, rationalize his underhanded propagandistic techniques, but as I promised, Jarrah August has no clothes. Just like the astronauts in his "calculation."



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
I think you need to rewatch proven hoaxer Jarrah White's video again Foos...






top topics



 
377
<< 289  290  291    293  294  295 >>

log in

join