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: 429
377
<< 426  427  428    430  431  432 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


You've really just proven my point, and I don't think I have much else to say.

You're using a tiny instance of an event to try and make a mountain out of a mole hill to use against your opponents. Say you're right, it's utterly meaningless. Say you're wrong, it's utterly meaningless. You could build a machine to get inside Phil's . and 100% prove that he misleads to win at debates. So he's proud, arrogant, and takes advantage of people to sound more convincing.

So hypothetically both Jarrah and Phil deliberately distort reality to make themselves more convincing, and Weedwhacker, in your mind, won't admit that? So what???

If the moon landing didn't happen then its impossible to do with our current levels of science which means a handful of simple (yet possibly slightly inconvenient) experiments will prove the whole thing wrong. Einstein thought modern science had some things wrong and he got out there and did meaningful tests to prove it. He didn't sit around pointing out the problems with other people's opinions, he introduced his own facts.

Ask yourself why isn't anyone who strongly believes in this issue performing those experiments? Why instead is it some sort of documentary circus chasing people around and asking them left field questions?

The answer is probably right in front of you in this discussion; this thread for some persons has never been about proving the moon landing never happened, its been about proving that everyone else is either wrong, or doesn't have the information to explain it all in one giant go.




posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


So hypothetically both Jarrah and Phil deliberately distort reality to make themselves more convincing, and Weedwhacker, in your mind, won't admit that? So what???


That I can agree with...
I've called out both sides of this debate..
It's a shame others only call out when it suits..



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Pinke
 


So hypothetically both Jarrah and Phil deliberately distort reality to make themselves more convincing, and Weedwhacker, in your mind, won't admit that? So what???


That I can agree with...
I've called out both sides of this debate..
It's a shame others only call out when it suits..


I don't think the chearleaders are yet above ignorance BB

And yes...i think Plait is a deceiver and an outragious liar*.

:-):-):-)

* thanks ww for this discuss-tactic



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 03:32 AM
link   
Show me ONE single accredited scientist that supports Jarrah's claims.

O N E .

There are THOUSANDS of respected astrophysicists, rocket scientists, exogeologists and astronomers in the the world and not a single one has come forth to support Jarrah White's claims?

Not one?

Not a single one?

That's a big surprise.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Facefirst
 


Show me ONE single accredited scientist that supports Jarrah's claims.


For the second time,
What does "accredited" have to do with "scientist" ??


scientist [ˈsaɪəntɪst]
n
a person who studies or practises any of the sciences or who uses scientific methods

www.thefreedictionary.com...

A scientist does NOT need a piece of paper...



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst
Show me ONE single accredited scientist that supports Jarrah's claims.

O N E .

There are THOUSANDS of respected astrophysicists, rocket scientists, exogeologists and astronomers in the the world and not a single one has come forth to support Jarrah White's claims?

Not one?

Not a single one?

That's a big surprise.



Man, dont you think you should let people react first?

Here's two:

Alexander Popov — Russian doctor of physical-mathematical sciences
William L. Brian — a nuclear engineer



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


NEW thread to show that "Jarrah White" is full of hot air, bluster, and possibly not all that sane:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Only a narcissist with delusions of his own self-worth would not be able to realize the reality of Apollo back then, in view of the fact that all of that groundwork done, and knowledge and experience acquired, will be invaluable "shoulders" to stand on for what's to come in future.

To ignore the very truth that plans to go back are ongoing, and inevitable....despite the nonsense claims of its "impossibility" by ignorant fools like "JW" is the epitome of arrogant delusion....






edit on 20 April 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



The TRUE, regular and demonstratively proven liar is JARRAH WHITE! (Remember him??? The so-called "Young Aussie genius" that is the topic of this thread???)


Whatever you say weed..
If JW made that same "slip" we'd see a half page rant from you about his "outright lies" and "deception"..

But it's plait so it's just a slip..
Yeah, about that...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You see that post? It's Jarrah stating something that isn't true. He highlighted the relevant portion, and zoomed in, and still somehow got it wrong. He gave the number for unshielded radiation, and anything at all, such as the hull of the spacecraft, would've reduced the radiation dosage.

The only two ways he could've gotten it wrong is if he were a)incompetent, or b)lying.

Naturally, SayonaraJupiter dodged the question, focusing on how the Debunkers apparently knew all this from two years back, which has absolutely no relevance to whether it is right or wrong. I'm not sure why when the DBs knew about this stuff would be relevant to anything in particular, actually, since we're talking about a landing that happened over 40 years ago.

And then there's the usual tactics of out-and-out denial, illogic, and moving goalposts from your friend and mine FoosM.

My point being, when Jarrah is unquestionably wrong about something that he purportedly researched in depth, it's ignored, or brushed off as a mistake. When Phil, speaking ex tempore, makes an ambiguous statement that could be interpreted in multiple fashions, you brand him a liar.

You yourself are guilty of the double standard you're accusing the debunkers of.

Unless, of course, you're saying that when Jarrah got that fact about radiation wrong, he was lying.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



William L. Brian — a nuclear engineer


Nice try, but wrong:


Brian, a nuclear engineer, states his belief that the Moon landings actually did take place, unlike many other Moon landing hoax theorists, but that information acquired during the landings has been covered up and or suppressed.

WikiPedia

As an engineer, he affirms the moon landings' reality; he simply has a different political agenda to espouse.

We have already discussed Popov on this thread before, but we might as well hash through it again:


Dr Alexander Ivanovich Popov (b. 1943) is a Russian senior research associate, doctor of physical-mathematical sciences, and author of more than 100 scientific works and inventions in the fields of laser optics and spectroscopy.[208]
Helped by more than forty volunteers, most of which with scientific degrees,[209] he wrote the book "Americans on the Moon" (2009).[210][211] In it, Popov placed the burden of proof on NASA,[209] and denied all Moon landing evidence, dividing it to five groups:
Visual (photo, film and video) material that can successfully be made on Earth, in cinema studios.
Obvious counterfeits and fakes, when visual material from ordinary space flights on Earth orbit is presented as Moon material.
Space photos, attributed to the astronauts but which by that time could already be made and were made by space robots, including American ones.
Devices on Moon (e.g., light reflectors)—by that time both American and Soviet automatic "messengers" had sent on Moon several tens of similar devices.
Unfounded, unprovable claims, e.g., for about 400 kg of soil, overwhelming part of which NASA keeps safe and gives only grams for checking.
Thus he concluded that the NASA claims on Moon landings are left unproven, and pursuant to science rules, in the absence of trustworthy evidence, the event, in this case the American Moon landings and their loops around the Moon, cannot be considered real, that is, having taken place.[13] He also confirmed Pokrovsky's results for the speed of the Saturn V at S-IC staging time (see above).[212][213] Popov accused the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee of trading the 1970s Détente for covering up the US Moon hoax and stopping the Soviet Moon programme.[214]

Your "fair and balanced" source.

First, let us acknowledge Popov's credentials: he is indeed an expert on lasers. He is not an expert on rocketry, lunar geology, photography, special effects or historical methodology. This latter is obvious because he placed the burden of proof on NASA, then promptly decided that no evidence that NASA could possibly provide would be considered acceptable.


Visual (photo, film and video) material that can successfully be made on Earth, in cinema studios.


In other words, just because it is possible to create convincing photographs on Earth, no photographic material is acceptable. Popov believes this relieves him of the burden of proving they were staged. It does not. In a court of law, NASA would be considered the defendant and Popov the prosecution. NASA remains innocent of falsifying the evidence until Popov can prove otherwise.


Obvious counterfeits and fakes, when visual material from ordinary space flights on Earth orbit is presented as Moon material.


Then Popov covers his bases by allowing for the possibility that the missions did fly, but were staged in orbit? Why does he do this? Because the lengthy video transmissions sent back live from the trans lunar coast cannot possibly have been produced on Earth; the special effects technology simply does not exist. Period. Therefore, Popov plugs the loop-hole in his first flawed premise by allowing for the inevitability that spacecraft were launched and transmissions sent back to Earth. (Note how quickly even he acknowledges his argument is crumbling.)


Space photos, attributed to the astronauts but which by that time could already be made and were made by space robots, including American ones.


Yet another attempt to plug an obvious loop-hole! Photographs of the Earth taken by the astronauts have been compared to the actual weather patterns on the day they were taken. Popov is now attempting to find a way of acknowledging this without conceding that the astronauts were actually present. Remember, the burden of proof is on Popov to prove that the spacecraft launched to the Moon had no astronauts in them. (By the way, this can be done in principle... he simply makes no attempt to do so.)


Devices on Moon (e.g., light reflectors)—by that time both American and Soviet automatic "messengers" had sent on Moon several tens of similar devices.


Which does not prove that some of them weren't placed there by hand. Incidentally, the fact that their location was known so precisely before the lasers attempted to spot them suggests that the craft that placed them there were under a high degree of control; the were piloted, unlike the lunakhods, which took some searching for.


Unfounded, unprovable claims, e.g., for about 400 kg of soil, overwhelming part of which NASA keeps safe and gives only grams for checking.


Has he ever actually asked to see it? Has he ever made a formal request to borrow some? Saying "unfounded and unprovable" neither makes something unfounded or unprovable.


Thus he concluded that the NASA claims on Moon landings are left unproven, and pursuant to science rules, in the absence of trustworthy evidence, the event, in this case the American Moon landings and their loops around the Moon, cannot be considered real, that is, having taken place


Except, as pointed out many, many times, we are discussing history. Apollo was not an experiment, but an engineering project. No-one has to build a second Eiffel Tower to prove it was built. All of the technology techniques developed for the Apollo Project are still in use: rockets, spacesuits, computers... in fact, thanks to the research dollars put into these items and techniques, they have improved. Apollo built the Golden Gate Bridge, and now the same engineering principles are being used to build smaller bridges everywhere.


He also confirmed Pokrovsky's results for the speed of the Saturn V at S-IC staging time (see above).


Which was itself nonsensical. Pokrovsky slowed film of the launch down, then concluded it was not accelerating fast enough?


Popov accused the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee of trading the 1970s Détente for covering up the US Moon hoax and stopping the Soviet Moon programme.


And that, friends, is the core of Popov's case; he has a political ax to grind with the old Politiburo, just as Bill Kaysing had an ax to grind with his former employers.
edit on 20-4-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



William L. Brian — a nuclear engineer


Nice try, but wrong:


Brian, a nuclear engineer, states his belief that the Moon landings actually did take place, unlike many other Moon landing hoax theorists, but that information acquired during the landings has been covered up and or suppressed.

WikiPedia

As an engineer, he affirms the moon landings' reality; he simply has a different political agenda to espouse.

We have already discussed Popov on this thread before, but we might as well hash through it again:


Popov is a scientist in every sense of the word.
And that is what I was addressing- show one scientist.
So no, I was not wrong.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



And that is what I was addressing- show one scientist.
So no, I was not wrong.


I was referring to William L. Brian, who actually does believe we went to the Moon. As for producing the one scientist requested by Facefirst, you are correct. Have a star. The general point, however, is that objections to the historical record are generally made by professionals when those professionals have a political agenda. None of them objects to the engineering principles or scientific data, just the fact that the US made them look bad.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 



My point being, when Jarrah is unquestionably wrong about something that he purportedly researched in depth, it's ignored, or brushed off as a mistake. When Phil, speaking ex tempore, makes an ambiguous statement that could be interpreted in multiple fashions, you brand him a liar.


If JW lies, call him out as you do..
If Phil Plait lies, do the same...

Plait's statement was in NO way ambiguous..
It was obvious and deliberate in the context of his entire talk.
So yes, I call a liar a liar.

I wasn't involved with the radiation debate or JW'S probable lies..
If you notice above you will see that I agreed with Pinke that Plait ans JW probably both spin the truth..
I don't spare JW...



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 


A brand new poster today that goes back 40 pages into a very old thread..
Interesting.



If JW lied, call him out..
edit on 20-4-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 000063
 



My point being, when Jarrah is unquestionably wrong about something that he purportedly researched in depth, it's ignored, or brushed off as a mistake. When Phil, speaking ex tempore, makes an ambiguous statement that could be interpreted in multiple fashions, you brand him a liar.


If JW lies, call him out as you do..
If Phil Plait lies, do the same...
I never said JW was a liar. I said he was either a liar or incompetent. I would like to elaborate that he would have to be massively the latter, to make such a critical mistake. Both options have a highly damaging effect on his credibility. I like Hanlon's Razor, which says to prefer an explanation of stupidity over malice.

In other words, we have a guy who somehow misreads a page multiple times, even highlights a segment of it that directly contradicts his claim, yet wants us to believe that he's smarter than all the engineers and scientists who have verified the Apollo evidence.


Plait's statement was in NO way ambiguous..
It was obvious and deliberate in the context of his entire talk.
So yes, I call a liar a liar.
So JW is, by the same argument, a liar too. Good to know. Hear that, FoosM? BiB says JW is a liar. I personally just think that's one of two possibilities, neither of which paint him as a "genius".


I wasn't involved with the radiation debate or JW'S probable lies..
If you notice above you will see that I agreed with Pinke that Plait ans JW probably both spin the truth..
I don't spare JW...
Okay.


A brand new poster today that goes back 40 pages into a very old thread..
Interesting.
I've read maybe a hundred pages of this thread, out of my own interest. I like learning things.

I remembered, when your post bought up double standards, that one particular page, where HBs were bending over forwards and backwards to excuse or downplay the error. It was page 392. You'll note that it was actually page 296. I had remembered it wrong.


Anyway, back into lurk mode.
edit on 20-4-2011 by 000063 because: Numerical error.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 000063
 



My point being, when Jarrah is unquestionably wrong about something that he purportedly researched in depth, it's ignored, or brushed off as a mistake. When Phil, speaking ex tempore, makes an ambiguous statement that could be interpreted in multiple fashions, you brand him a liar.


If JW lies, call him out as you do..
If Phil Plait lies, do the same...
I never said JW was a liar. I said he was either a liar or incompetent. I would like to elaborate that he would have to be massively the latter, to make such a critical mistake. Both options have a highly damaging effect on his credibility. I like Hanlon's Razor, which says to prefer an explanation of stupidity over malice.


Or maybe the third option is that he was correct.
His point, and my point, has been that the shielding of the CM, LM, and astronauts were worthless against the radiation of the belts, solar wind, solar flares, CME's, and God knows what else swirling out there.

An example, we always are told that Alpha radiation is not something to be worried about because it cannot penetrate skin, not even paper. But guess what, it can kill, do you know how?



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Polonium 210 poisoning of course....sheesh.......why with the silly leading question?!



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by FoosM
 


Polonium 210 poisoning of course....sheesh.......why with the silly leading question?!


but how...



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


FFS why can't you believers freakin jsut tell us what amazing revelation you are keeping to yourselves instead of playing 20-freakin'-questions??!!

WTF is wrong with you??


How can you be poisoned by polonium? well you can ingest it, you can have it injected, you an breathe it, maybe it can be applied as a topical cream to penetrate the skin - go on then - tell us what you've "discovered"....



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by FoosM
 


FFS why can't you believers freakin jsut tell us what amazing revelation you are keeping to yourselves instead of playing 20-freakin'-questions??!!

WTF is wrong with you??


How can you be poisoned by polonium? well you can ingest it, you can have it injected, you an breathe it, maybe it can be applied as a topical cream to penetrate the skin - go on then - tell us what you've "discovered"....



I asked one question, and it actually wasn't directed to you.
But thanks for begrudgingly providing the answer,
Indeed, particles of alpha radiation can be breathed in.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Indeed, particles of alpha radiation can be breathed in.


Yes, if it somehow miraculously manages to work it's way through 3mm of aluminum.
Here we go again.




top topics



 
377
<< 426  427  428    430  431  432 >>

log in

join