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: 296
377
<< 293  294  295    297  298  299 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Regarding Apollo 7/8, they were different mission lengths. Your argument regarding the measurement coincidentally being the same makes no sense unless the mission duration was not so vastly different.
Excellent point. When you look at the radiation exposure as a function of time, Apollo 8's exposure was nearly twice as high as Apollo 7.




posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith[clip for clarity]
In addition..

The source used by Jarrah White wholeheartedly supports Apollo and any short term space flight to the Moon, even though he lied in order to make it appear otherwise. Surely now that a source approved by Jarrah White supports Apollo in relation to the radiation 'problem', it no longer needs to be discussed?

Regarding Apollo 7/8, they were different mission lengths. Your argument regarding the measurement coincidentally being the same makes no sense unless the mission duration was not so vastly different.

I would love to hear some remarks from the Jarrah Supporters regarding the unsurprising revelation that Jarrah knowlingly lies and manipulates data in order to put his, by default, invalid point across. Perhaps he could work for the Government? Once this has been acknowledged we can move onto exposing the next Jarrah lie.


It is very interesting situation, AgentSmith. I was wondering why the NASA cheerleaders (in this thread) would have waited around for Jarrah White to use the EE Kovalev source material. It seems as though this "smoking gun" source material should have been well known by the NASA enthusiasts a long time ago..... like page 1 of this thread.


Has Phil Plait @ BadAstronomy ever used the same EE Kovalev source materials as cited by Jarrah White?
Has Jay Windley @ Clavius dot org ever used the same EE Kavalev source materials as cited by Jarrah White?
If the EE Kovalev source material invalidates Jarrah White's space radiation arguments - what took the 'experts' so long to refute Jarrah with the Kovalev material?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
It seems as though this "smoking gun" source material should have been well known by the NASA enthusiasts a long time ago..... like page 1 of this thread.
This "smoking gun" isn't any different than myriad other scientific papers quoted in this thread. It's just one more on the stack that all point to JW being wrong. The irony comes from the fact that JW cites a paper that specifically contradicts his hypothesis that travel to the moon was impossible. It is quite amusing to see he and his supporters hold up this paper as reliable evidence of their claims one minute, then sulk away and start questioning the veracity of the paper only after it's been pointed out that it actually refutes their beliefs.


Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
If the EE Kovalev source material invalidates Jarrah White's space radiation arguments - what took the 'experts' so long to refute Jarrah with the Kovalev material
They were too busy refuting it with the other mountains of scientific evidence, perhaps?
edit on 4-1-2011 by nataylor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Has Phil Plait @ BadAstronomy ever used the same EE Kovalev source materials as cited by Jarrah White?
Has Jay Windley @ Clavius dot org ever used the same EE Kavalev source materials as cited by Jarrah White?
If the EE Kovalev source material invalidates Jarrah White's space radiation arguments - what took the 'experts' so long to refute Jarrah with the Kovalev material?


Quite simple: Kovalev's data and conclusions are part of the accepted body of knowledge of the space radiation environment. Every time someone counters Jarrah's propaganda with the facts, Koralev's data is buried within it. Jarrah always dismisses any source of space data as "tainted" for one reason or another. By citing this specific paper and calling the conclusions he draws definitive, he is tacitly endorsing it as "untainted." As someone said, Jarrah gave it his "untainted" seal of approval. Now that we have a specific source that Jarrah himself considers legitimate, it can be entered as evidence. It shows that he is wrong, and he has no choice but to accept that or renounce his entire argument. And, since you yourself have testified that Jarrah would have read the entire thing, he knew that the paper disproved his claims, yet he used it anyway. He consciously lied. He is nothing more than a common hoaxer.
edit on 4-1-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct typo.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor
Nor does such a video prove wires.


Oh yes it does. Because we can see wires.

What kind of nonsense is that? We can see men walking on the moon, too.


What we are seeing is men walking on a moonset on Earth supported by wires.
Those are wires:

img188.imageshack.us...=1
img205.imageshack.us...=1

They are not video artifacts,
unless it can be proven otherwise.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


No, we see men walking on the moon and we see video artifacts, unless it can be proven otherwise.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



They are not video artifacts,
unless it can be proven otherwise.


Sorry FoosM, but that's not how it works. They are not wires until you offer proof that they are. If you think you can do that, please start a new thread dedicated to that topic. This thread is about Jarrah "MoonFaker Hoax" White and his propaganda. If you wish to defend his lying to you and his other supporters, please do. Remember, the title of this thread is "Young aussie genius" not "I don't understand this video image," This thread will not be derailed by your diversionary tactics.

edit on 4-1-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Jarrah White had cited the EE Kovalev data

over 2 years ago

.


MoonFaker: Radioactive Anomaly. PART 5.
WhiteJarrah | November 02, 2008
Kovalev first mentioned at 9:40 in the video



MoonFaker: Radioactive Anomaly. PART 6
WhiteJarrah | November 02, 2008



JW says at 4:09 in the video “Kovalev’s data proves NASA’s numbers to be inaccurate. And so it seems even today NASA is giving us wrong information on just how dangerous the Van Allen radiation is.”



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Jarrah White had cited the EE Kovalev data

over 2 years ago

.:lol



Which means Jarrah was lying over 2 years ago.

So what's your point?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


It's worse (more evident) than just this, when you think about it:


Which means Jarrah was lying over 2 years ago.


Surmising that "Jarrah White" is meticulous in his "research", and inferring that he therefore would have read the entire report in question, two years ago....then it is logical to assume that he knew that each and every subsequent video he made, regarding the "radiation" claims he makes....was also a lie. For TWO years' worth of videos.

That alone is bad enough....but, getting worse? Logical extension shows that wit full knowledge of his deception on the "radiation" issue, he continued to distort and lie on every other subject his "videos" tackled.

N'est pas??

That seems to be irrefutable, and undeniable....that "JW" is a liar, and provocateur in this solely for attention and/or personal gain and aggrandizement. USING the gullibility that he discovered is rampant within the "hoax believers" community --- a "community" that has gained size only recently, due to the profuse and viral nature of the InterWebz......



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
MoonFaker: Radioactive Anomaly. PART 6
WhiteJarrah | November 02, 2008


Wow, JW has been lying for two years. And he didn't even do a good job hiding it in this older instance.

He quotes a section on the South Atlantic Anomaly in Kovalev's report thusly:



Then he goes on to calculate the dosage received by the STS-109 crew in the SAA as 28.75 rem.



He talks about how this is a very high dose (comparing it to Chernobyl cleanup workers). He then goes on to cite the STS-109 Space and Life Sciences Flight Readiness report for STS-109, which only shows a the crew exposure to be 3.685 rem:



He uses this as evidence NASA isn't providing accurate information about the radiation in space.

The problem? His calculations are based on unshielded exposure. It even says so right in the sentence he quotes from Kovalev:



He's comparing unshielded numbers to the actual dose of the shielded astronauts. Those are some big, irradiated apples and oranges. Either JW doesn't understand shielding, or he's hoping his audience doesn't.
edit on 4-1-2011 by nataylor because: formatting



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



They are not video artifacts,
unless it can be proven otherwise.


Sorry FoosM, but that's not how it works. They are not wires until you offer proof that they are. If you think you can do that, please start a new thread dedicated to that topic. This thread is about Jarrah "MoonFaker Hoax" White and his propaganda. If you wish to defend his lying to you and his other supporters, please do. Remember, the title of this thread is "Young aussie genius" not "I don't understand this video image," This thread will not be derailed by your diversionary tactics.

edit on 4-1-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.


Ummm... this has to do with JW videos.
You spend more time on this thread then most people
and you haven't even seen all of his videos. Admit it.
So who are you actually debating and about what?
Whats your agenda?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

So who are you actually debating and about what?
Whats your agenda?



Proving Jarrah is a liar and a fraud.

What, is that a trick question?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Its amazing.

Apollo 15, 16, & 17 supposedly conducted deep space EVAs.
But there is barely any information about the feat.

For example A15 holds the record for distance from Earth at 196 thousand miles.
But when I try to compare that distance to 16 and 17 I cant find the numbers!
They are like afterthoughts. So how do they know A15's record wasnt broken?

And why would they risk their lives to even go after the film in the first place...



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Jarrah White had cited the EE Kovalev data

over 2 years ago

.:lol



Which means Jarrah was lying over 2 years ago.

So what's your point?


Looks like to me JW is being consistent and upfront about the numbers.
Any viewers following his series would assume, because they have no choice, of
unshielded astronauts.

Im curious.
Anybody know what type of radiation the VABs consist of
and what type of shielding is necessary for the two, sometimes three belts?

And two, when did NASA determine the safe shielding for Apollo?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM



Im curious.
Anybody know what type of radiation the VABs consist of
and what type of shielding is necessary for the two, sometimes three belts?





So as we approach page 300, Foos asks a basic question on radiation I'm pretty sure he has posted about dozens of times already on this very thread.

Foos, if you don't already know the simple answers to these questions, why were you lecturing us on radiation months ago?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Looks like to me JW is being consistent and upfront about the numbers.


consistently telling lies you mean, also he knows he is telling lies!


Any viewers following his series would assume


Anything he claims is also a lie!



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Looks like to me JW is being consistent and upfront about the numbers.
Any viewers following his series would assume, because they have no choice, of
unshielded astronauts.

Why would someone assume the astronauts on STS-109 were naked and floating in space without any craft surrounding them?

That seems like a very silly assumption to have, and a stretch for even JW to believe. Yet that must be what he thinks, as he compared the anticipated unshielded dose to the actual shielded dose and found it strange the two numbers were different.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
If the EE Kovalev source material invalidates Jarrah White's space radiation arguments - what took the 'experts' so long to refute Jarrah with the Kovalev material?


Because Jarrah has over and over again shown himself incapable of debating like an adult.

He's also a dilettante with regards to physics, mathematics and basic sciences. He comes off impressive sounding in his videos until he get's intellectually cornered by people who actually have earned degrees and real world experience in their fields.

The people who are actual experts actually have better things to do with their time than debate with an amateur who clearly has OCD and anger issues. But most importantly, the experts would much rather debate with people who actually know what they are talking about. People with training, education and experience. People who are peer reviewed in their fields. Again, qualities all of which Jarrah is not in possession of.

I've seen posts by him insulting known experts in their fields. Windley stomped Jarrah pretty hard on IMDB a while back by simply asking JW to display knowledge in a field Windley is considered very knowledgeable in.
Jarrah never answered and instead made several nasty posts that IMDB actually wound up deleting. JW could have moved on by simply answering the question but he couldn't so he threw a fit instead.

I am considered an expert in my field of work and if some unknown person outside my field is going to arrogantly debate me on a subject I've spent years of my life studying, I'm surely going to ask a few simple questions to see the depth of their understanding of said subject!!!!! And if they don't show any depth of understanding, I'm not going to waste my time! Especially if it's embellished with the type of hostile and juvenile tone Jarrah White uses. From my own experiences in my line of work, it's pretty easy to spot people who don't know what they are talking about. And the reactions of the aerospace experts to Jarrah mirror my reactions to loudmouthed amateurs in my field pretty accurately.

Anyone who values their own time is not going to waste it on a person who shows almost no knowledge of the subject they are debating.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Quick question..
I've been looking for pics of astronauts on the moon with Earth in the background..
Surprisingly there isn't many..
I actually only found two...

Does anyone have any others and can you tell me if this is a genuine or fake pic taken during apollo 11.






top topics



 
377
<< 293  294  295    297  298  299 >>

log in

join