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: 424
377
<< 421  422  423    425  426  427 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Do you think that military surveillance/spy satellites are better or worse than what Google Earth provides to the public?


Much, much worse. I can actually go onto street view mode and see the missing rubber strip on my old car at eye level.


Provide proof that the USGOV's spy satellites are worse than what Google provides to the public.
And if it worse, why are we spending so much tax money on it?




posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Do you think that military surveillance/spy satellites are better or worse than what Google Earth provides to the public?


Much, much worse. I can actually go onto street view mode and see the missing rubber strip on my old car at eye level.


Provide proof that the USGOV's spy satellites are worse than what Google provides to the public.
And if it worse, why are we spending so much tax money on it?


Do you honestly believe that it's possible to take street view level photographs from space? Google provides the public with photographs taken on the ground. If the imagery from spy satellites is so detailed, why does the military need UAVs for surveillance? Has it ever occurred to you that the United States government wants you to think it has super powers it doesn't really have? What does this have to do with Jarrah White anyway?



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   


New Jarrah update.

Go Jarrah. Bring it on son.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


I tried after I stopped watching the give me money.

He comes off as a whining child and I just can't shoot myself enough to watch them.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


You miss read my entire comment.
I know there is no requirement to donate.

I am saying all he comes off as to me; is a little child pouting and holding his breath for donations.
I can't take him serious.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Pigraphia
 


Well mate, the world is full of people begging for donations..
Right up to the most powerful man in the world..
The President of the US expects to raise $1 billion dollars for a frikin election campaign !!!

I can't think of a more unworthy cause than promoting a politician but there ya go



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


It was his entire tone and the way he came off.
It seemed like he was saying he was entitled to the money because the people with it have enough to waste any way.
No he didn't say those exact words, that was just the general tone I got from it.

As for political campaigns, I never donate to them I only donate to charities, mostly I donate time instead of money.
Pointing out that other people ask for donations for pointless/ wasted things is akin to saying two wrongs make a right.

Like I said, its the tone I get from his donation vids, it makes him seem like a child.
As for his theory videos, they just don't come off as credible to me.

I go back to my original post, he might be right, but as long as he is delivering the message I will never find out because I can't stand him.
He needs a better front man.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by manmental


New Jarrah update.

Go Jarrah. Bring it on son.



In the video the donator brings up an interesting point.
By what method did Apollo reenter into Earth's atmosphere?

He said the Soviets used the skip method:



Skip reentry is a reentry technique involving one or more successive "skips" off the atmosphere to achieve greater entry range or to slow the spacecraft before final entry, which helps to dissipate the huge amount of heat that is usually generated on faster descents. The range modulation made possible by skip entry allows a spacecraft to reach a wider landing area, or to reach a designated landing point from a wider range of possible entry times, which is especially important in abort situations. Like aerocapture, skip reentry requires precise guidance. An overly shallow entry angle will result in the spacecraft retaining too much of its velocity, possibly escaping into space permanently if this is more than escape velocity. An overly steep entry, on the other hand, results in more intense heating and stress that could exceed the design limits of the spacecraft, potentially destroying it.



Skip entry was first imagined in the 1930s, when a suborbital skipping trajectory was planned for the German Silbervogel bomber, which never flew. The technique was used by the Zond series of circumlunar spacecraft, which planned for one skip before landing. Zond 5, 6, 7 and 8 made successful skip entries. The Apollo Command Module, when returning from the moon, was capable of a one-skip entry. The Orion spacecraft crew module will be capable of skip entry, to allow targeting the landing site from a greater variety of abort trajectories.



Guidance of a skip trajectory can be tricky due to trajectory sensitivity. The Apollo Skip Guidance(1) was engineered, but never utilized in a manned mission. More recent work relies on advances in computing technology to compute a trajectory onboard the vehicle


So it appears Apollo didn't use it. What did they do?


Astronaut-carrying spacecraft to date, including the Apollo capsules, have used direct-entry trajectories for their returns home, Horowitz said.

"Normally when you come back to Earth you hit the atmosphere and you just, whoosh, go in," he said. "You can get a lot more flexibility in picking your landing site if you can hit the [Earth's atmosphere], skip out a little bit, and then re-hit the Earth."

Horowitz said the direct-entry technique used on Apollo required NASA to carefully select the date of return in order to have some control over the stretch of ocean where the capsule would splash down.

NASA wants Orion to routinely land on terra firma inside the United States, preferably within the same landing zone it uses for trips back from the international space station or other low-Earth orbit destinations.




So two things just popped up. NASA doesn't like to land in the water anymore, why? Who knows. And it doesn't sound like they really had a lot of control where the CM would land. Remember our previous discussion on the accuracy of the splashdowns?

www.space.com...
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pigraphia

I go back to my original post, he might be right, but as long as he is delivering the message I will never find out because I can't stand him.
He needs a better front man.


Thats the problem with politics today, everybody wants to vote for mr. or mrs. popularity and not mr. or mrs. content. If the information that is being supplied is beneficial, thought provoking, truth disseminating, I dont care what tone a person has who is providing it. I will pay attention and listen. As long as I can understand JW, then his voice is of no concern.

If you prefer videos without the VO, try
awe130 or ArcAngel4Myke



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Pigraphia
 


I'm not particularly found of JW's voice either..

And the voice they use for reading from articles is like dragging your nails on a blackboard..

But I watch for the content, not the theatrics..



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Do you think that military surveillance/spy satellites are better or worse than what Google Earth provides to the public?


Much, much worse. I can actually go onto street view mode and see the missing rubber strip on my old car at eye level.


Provide proof that the USGOV's spy satellites are worse than what Google provides to the public.
And if it worse, why are we spending so much tax money on it?


Do you honestly believe that it's possible to take street view level photographs from space? Google provides the public with photographs taken on the ground. ?


The discussion was concerning satellite imagery vs using Airplanes. Why bring up street view level photography?



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


The discussion was concerning satellite imagery vs using Airplanes. Why bring up street view level photography?


It is a pretty silly comparison..Just a deflection IMO..
I mean if that were the case they may as well kill all the spy satellites and just use people like me with 8mp camera phones..


Though I'm pretty sure Google street view and myself would find it difficult to get into certain locations..



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



The discussion was concerning satellite imagery vs using Airplanes. Why bring up street view level photography?


Because this is what you said:


Do you think that military surveillance/spy satellites are better or worse than what Google Earth provides to the public?


Google provides the public with images drawn from many sources. The large scale imagery comes from satellites like NASA's LandSats, the street view images are taken by special vans and the images in between come from airplanes and helicopters. Again, what does any of this have to do with Jarrah, other than reminding me what an idiot he makes of himself when an airplane flies over his house?



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



.... the street view images are taken by special vans ....


And, rental cars. The Google people fly to locations with their equipment, and attach it to rental cars. Like, this example:



See? It clamps on, like a bike rack or ski holder....to the roof, adaptable. (Saw my first example in a hotel parking lot, years ago. Always wondered how they did it....).

You can see the "Google" logo on the placard stuck on the door. Guess it didn't impress that motorcycle cop, much.

(Maybe he didn't like the unflattering photo of his wife on Kalakaua Avenue, in Waikiki? OR....got caught in a compromising position???)



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Pigraphia
 


No.....you are being far too generous:


I go back to my original post, he might be right....


The "he" is, of course, "Jarrah White". And, no....he is not "right". Not even a "might be"....there is no question about it.

And, your instincts regarding him, his attitude and mien, are spot on.


What is incredibly hard to understand is is "supporters" who see nothing at all wrong with this BOGUS "fly me to the moon" crap!

??? $200,000,000 ??? Why that figure, precisely? With what hardware? AND, since JW is constantly flapping his gums about how "deadly" the "radiation" is....then, are we to assume he wants this money to simply commit suicide? HE is claiming the radiation hazards made Apollo "impossible".....

....and none of his fans see this contradiction? His lies? His utter disregard for facts? And his disdain and lack of respect, even, for his "legions".....he is insulting the intelligence of anyone who has the misfortune of seeing his tripe videos......



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Pigraphia
 

??? $200,000,000 ??? Why that figure, precisely? With what hardware? AND, since JW is constantly flapping his gums about how "deadly" the "radiation" is....then, are we to assume he wants this money to simply commit suicide? HE is claiming the radiation hazards made Apollo "impossible".....

....and none of his fans see this contradiction? His lies? His utter disregard for facts? And his disdain and lack of respect, even, for his "legions".....he is insulting the intelligence of anyone who has the misfortune of seeing his tripe videos......




I have to agree. He actually states that he's taking contributions to his, and I quote: "my own death by cislunar radiation." And he also refers to it as his noble cause.

If he truly believes it's impossible to go to the moon, why bother trying to go in the first place? Why try to raise the funds? He keeps quoting a 1958 article from Van Allen claiming the radiation was a problem, yet seems to ignore or downplay Van Allen's later statements that Apollo did happen. Cherry picking at it's finest.

The whole fund-raiser sounds and feels more like a ploy for attention.

Seeing how many times White has been shown not to be able to properly interpret or understand scientific data, this is now turning into watching a train wreck ala' Jerry Springer.

99% of what I have seen White present are his speculative opinions that he ignorantly proclaims as fact in his videos. Also much is the "he said, she said" type of arguments. Nothing to do with science, more to do with semantics and ego. I watched his "gems" series yesterday and it was an headache inducing exercise in idiocy.
White made assumptions left and right with no concrete proof provided whatsoever. Just his opinions.

Scientific data speaks for itself and I seriously think if the numbers didn't add up and the physics seemed off, many reputable scientists would have spoken up by now. Any scientist worth their salt is going to want to correct faulty data.

I'm all for healthy skepticism, but circular reasoning coupled with faulty research as shown by White is intolerable as well as an insult to the thousands of scientists who put their lives and expertise into the Apollo program.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



The discussion was concerning satellite imagery vs using Airplanes. Why bring up street view level photography?


Because this is what you said:


Do you think that military surveillance/spy satellites are better or worse than what Google Earth provides to the public?



Yes, is response to this statement!



google Earth pictures at lower altitudes are taken by planes,


Please pay closer attention when entering into conversations.
Thanks


Whats this have to do with JW?
Well he and many others have a hard time believing that current technology cannot take better pictures of the LM and other items left on the moon. Especially considering the moon is well lit, and lacks atmosphere.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Well he and many others have a hard time believing that current technology cannot take better pictures of the LM and other items left on the moon. Especially considering the moon is well lit, and lacks atmosphere.


Do you have anything but incredulity to back that up?

Quite a lot of the variables for calculating this sort of thing are known, I imagine there are probably excellent details available for the LRO in fact.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst
I have to agree. He actually states that he's taking contributions to his, and I quote: "my own death by cislunar radiation." And he also refers to it as his noble cause.

If he truly believes it's impossible to go to the moon, why bother trying to go in the first place? Why try to raise the funds? He keeps quoting a 1958 article from Van Allen claiming the radiation was a problem, yet seems to ignore or downplay Van Allen's later statements that Apollo did happen. Cherry picking at it's finest.

The whole fund-raiser sounds and feels more like a ploy for attention.


The line I made bold sums it up, better than I did.

I really think his entire page is a cry for attention.

His statements of his noble cause is to elevate himself above everyone else.
He wants attention, and he also seems to want to appear as a maryter(sp).



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Thats the problem with politics today, everybody wants to vote for mr. or mrs. popularity and not mr. or mrs. content.


This isn't even in the same realm of politics.
This is an attention starved person acting like a child.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, it isn't just his voice that bothers me, it is the tone IE he is acting like a spoiled child.
If it was just the actual voice, I could possibly at least hear him out, the same as a professor who drones on because the content is worth it.
I wouldn't sit through a class where the professor acted like a child.
Going back to your political correlation people won't pay attention to content that comes from someone acting "childish", or "a-holeish" or any other number of negative tones.
Why?
When those tones are taken they remove credibility from the content.
That is the basis of effective communication, to me he is unable to effectively communicate his ideas because his tone takes away from his credibility.

Even in terms of writing a proper tone is needed to communicate effectively.
In a lab report if the information is not presented in a coherent way it will be ignored or glossed over.

His failure to communicate isn't societies fault of not being able to center in on content.
The fault lies with the author.
Even going back to your political point, it is not the voters fault to not being able to pick out the content.
It's the politicians fault for failing to communicate properly.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 421  422  423    425  426  427 >>

log in

join