It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 293
377
<< 290  291  292    294  295  296 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

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




What does that have to do with VABs?
Isnt this about radiation outside the VABs?
JW was specifically talking about VABs.

If thats the case, are you not now quote mining?
Or misleading the readers?

Since we dont have the document.
Whats a SSR flare?




posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Jarrah clearly states:

"Given that the maximum doses of radiation one can receive before dying is 500 REM, that means the astronauts would receive 1333 REM or 2.6 times the lethal dose in the belts alone. Hopefully this puts the 30 degree inclination trajectory argument to rest."



The astronauts would never receive that dose and he knows it because it was clear in his reference material this was unshielded. However he presents the information stating that is the dose the Astronauts would have recieved and therefore they could not possibly have carried out the stated journey.
The reference material contains a lot of information that supports Apollo, yet he completely ignores this? Why is this?

Jarrah is a proven liar and a fraud, you're doing yourself no favors by continually trying to defend him or lie on his behalf.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Now, who would be foolish enough to assume otherwise?



Apparently JW is foolish enough to assume otherwise. He argues that at a 30 degree inclination, the astronauts would have received 1333 rem, which he concludes would be a deadly dose. However, that number is based on the dosage with no shielding (not even clothes). So why is he coming to the conclusion that it would be deadly, as he gives no information on what the actual dosage received by the astronauts would be with shielding.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Oh come now Foos, you like going on about how 'dangerous' it was for Apollo to be operating during Solar maximum. I know how you keep worrying about the past safety of the Apollo astronauts operating at the time they did, I simply used an information source that has the Jarrah White stamp of approval to show you that there's no need to be, so no need for you or anyone else to bring it up again


SSR stands for 'Solar Space Radiation'.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Provided proof for Apollo?


This thread has never been about "providing proof for Apollo." This thread has always been about Jarrah White and his shameless hoax... now definitively proven. Incidentally, I find it odd that you used the phrase "making a mountain out of a mole-hill," given that Jarrah uses his inability to comprehend how shadows form as "proof."



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
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.


Looks like we will have to out you as either somebody who doesnt pay attention to the details or someone who doesnt value the truth.



3:55 Detractor:
"Thats why the Apollo missions where designed to skirt around the worst parts of the Van Allen Belts..."


Response by JW:

4:08
"The idea that one can avoid the radiation of the VABs simply by steering around them... seems to have gained popularity within the propagandists crowd... so it worthwhile spending some time with this one..."

And then he goes to discuss the dose rate of the inclinations.
Thats all, he didn't say anything about shielding.

He discusses shielding in a later video.
If you want to challenge that, be our guests.
But dont pretend like you caught him on something.
I mean, if that makes you think you have proved Apollo missions
have occurred, because JW didnt specify the shielding, well I say thats some low standards.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


And once again as you seem to be having problems paying attention:

Jarrah clearly states:

"Given that the maximum doses of radiation one can receive before dying is 500 REM, that means the astronauts would receive 1333 REM or 2.6 times the lethal dose in the belts alone. Hopefully this puts the 30 degree inclination trajectory argument to rest."



Why is he telling his viewers the Astronauts will receive this dose? Answer the question, now.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   
I just had to LOL at the delicious irony of this statement:



"Looks like we will have to out you as either somebody who doesnt pay attention to the details or someone who doesnt value the truth." — FoosM


Howls of laughter ensued....



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Provided proof for Apollo?


This thread has never been about "providing proof for Apollo."


Well you are relegated in providing proof because as it stands, the Apollo Program has been outed as a hoax.
And this is due to JW's (and others) tireless efforts in tearing holes in basically every aspect of Apollo that proponents cite as proof. There is nothing left.

Now you guys are jumping on insignificant aspects on the body of his work and trying to muddy the waters with it. Sorry, its not going to fly. I mean if you think about it, its one young guy facing the propaganda machine of the USGOV and NASA and he's giving them a run for their money.

You've got a long way to go before you beat or discredit JW.
There is just too many points that he brought forward.
He can afford to lose a point or two.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Well you are relegated in providing proof because as it stands, the Apollo Program has been outed as a hoax.
And this is due to JW's (and others) tireless efforts in tearing holes in basically every aspect of Apollo that proponents cite as proof. There is nothing left.


The title of this thread is "Young aussie genius whipping NASA,etc." It is not about proving the accuracy of historical records, it is about exposing Jarrah White as a fraud and hoaxer. It is Jarrah White who has been outed. You are correct, however: there is nothing left. Whatever credibility JW had is gone. There is no longer any reason for this thread.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

The title of this thread is "Young aussie genius whipping NASA,etc." It is not about proving the accuracy of historical records, it is about exposing Jarrah White as a fraud and hoaxer.


And there it is ladies and gentlemen.
These people are not interested in the truth, they are interested in attacking anyone who
touches the validity of the Apollo space program. And their sights are on JW.
If anything DJ this thread should have been about acknowledging JW's genius.

This is why a normal debate discussing the evidence and not the messenger of the evidence was never possible. I wouldn't be surprised if NASA has hired guns out to discredit anyone who doesn't go along with the "program". I've noticed various techniques used to do so. And on the Apollo hoax websites, they even discuss how this is done. Don't be fooled by their tactics.

They know JW is about to release more videos, and they are desperate to poison the well now so that when these videos come out, they can quickly discredit them before even taking the time to watch the videos and reviewing the evidence. There are at least 3 to 4 subjects worth discussing that JW has brought to the table in his last 9 videos. As you can see, they barely get touched.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Holy logical fallacy. To expose a person who is a fraud and a known hoaxer is by definition being "interested in the truth" as you say it.
for that.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


If you haven't been able, yet, to figure it our for yourself....


....are desperate to poison the well now so that when these videos come out, they can quickly discredit....



JW discredits himself!!! With each attempt. But, you are right about one thing....there is a smell of "desperation", and it comes from him....take a look at how MANY crap videos he feels compelled to "produce"....and his tactics of constant dodging, weaving and going on the passive/aggressive/defensive.

ALL the while, with innuendo, misdirection, and outright cheating and lying.

He is a psychological mess, at this point. His ego won't allow him to view the world with any sanity, anymore.

Your "hero"?? >snort< and >guffaw



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Happy new year everyone !

I will be interested to see if JW posts a response video to this. He usually does.

What concerns me more is this post by DJW ...


Originally posted by DJW001
I have presented strong evidence that Jarrah White has willfully presented material that he knew beforehand was simply false.


Um, how can you accuse someone of the very act you just committed ...


Originally posted by DJW001
Using a technique beloved by propagandists and "main stream media," he keeps the camera moving around so that the viewer cannot read it for themselves.



Well, let's have a look for ourselves at JW's video and see how long that email is actually displayed on screen for. I counted the graphic in question static for at least 50 seconds. Starts at 1.26.



It clearly shows a 50 second still frame of the email. How is it that "the viewer cannot read it for themselves". I don't see the camera "moving around". You lied.

It is obvious you did not watch the entire video, let alone the entire series.
Pot, kettle. DJW.

Then we arrive at this ...


Originally posted by weedwhacker
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.


I'm glad you brought this up ... I've just come across this video that involves the 'mythbusters'.



Now in case you forgot, JW has already busted them twice. Catching them out lying about laser ranging the moon was one, and then there was the video in which JW confronts Adam Savage in Las Vegas about their inadequate testing of the slow motion and wires.

It's ironic that in trying to produce a video that debunked the wires footage, the 'mythbusters' inadvertently revealed an old copy of this footage that hasn't been 'restored'.

You are unlikely to find these flashes of wires on any of the newly restored video. There is a reason they are 'restoring' them.

I would suggest these flashes of wires were so fleeting, they passed the final check that allowed them to be published.


Originally posted by Smack
Continuing this absurd thread is counterproductive.


You may like to stop discussing these issues, and you are welcome to do that.
As for others, there's so, so much more to discuss in 2011.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55I would suggest these flashes of wires were so fleeting, they passed the final check that allowed them to be published.


I would suggest it's something to do with the camera.

If you watch that video, you'll see there are two little spots that flash well before the supposed "strings." The following animation shows the frame where those spots are visible. They are then highlighted in red. I then draw green lines from edges of the frame to these spots. The camera zooms in when the "strings" flash, so I take that frame and scale it down (to 86.95% of it's original size), to match the zoom level in the first frame, and reposition the frame with the "strings" so the terrain matches up with the frame with the flashes. Then I scale down the green lines to the same size (86.95%) and put those on top. You can clearly see the "strings" are in the exact same locations with respect to the edges of the frame, a very curious thing if they are attached to the astronauts who have moved with respect to the edges of the frame.




posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by ppk55I would suggest these flashes of wires were so fleeting, they passed the final check that allowed them to be published.


I would suggest it's something to do with the camera.

If you watch that video, you'll see there are two little spots that flash well before the supposed "strings." The following animation shows the frame where those spots are visible. They are then highlighted in red. I then draw green lines from edges of the frame to these spots. The camera zooms in when the "strings" flash, so I take that frame and scale it down (to 86.95% of it's original size), to match the zoom level in the first frame, and reposition the frame with the "strings" so the terrain matches up with the frame with the flashes. Then I scale down the green lines to the same size (86.95%) and put those on top. You can clearly see the "strings" are in the exact same locations with respect to the edges of the frame, a very curious thing if they are attached to the astronauts who have moved with respect to the edges of the frame.



So what caused the effect?
If not strings, what was it.?
They were definitly on the fim..



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
So what caused the effect?
If not strings, what was it.?
They were definitly on the fim..


Well, technically "film" isn't involved here, unless we're talking about some later processing. That footage was from the Lunar TV Surface Camera, mounted on the LRV and being remotely controlled. Wether the effect was in the original transmission, we can't be sure. But the effect is in the same place with respect to the frame, and not with the respect to the astronauts, I'm quite certain whatever it is exists on the camera lens, sensors, or happened in future processing, and it was nothing physical in front of the lens.

It very much resembles the kind of blooming you get from digital cameras where the light is so bright it overloads the sensor:



The video tubes used on the TV cameras would be susceptible to overload as well. As to what would cause the overload, I don't know what it is, but it's something that would be internal to the camera.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 



But the effect is in the same place with respect to the frame, and not with the respect to the astronauts, I'm quite certain whatever it is exists on the camera lens, sensors, or happened in future processing, and it was nothing physical in front of the lens.


It's not in the same place with respect to the frame.
It doesn't however move left as much as the astronauts, but it DOES move..

So still now sure what it is...



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
It's not in the same place with respect to the frame.
It doesn't however move left as much as the astronauts, but it DOES move..

Care to explain how you conclude it's not in the same place? My animation shows how it is.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by backinblack
It's not in the same place with respect to the frame.
It doesn't however move left as much as the astronauts, but it DOES move..

Care to explain how you conclude it's not in the same place? My animation shows how it is.


Well, none of the background moves.
I just held my mouse on your spots and the move..



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 290  291  292    294  295  296 >>

log in

join