|
Post by gillianren on Jan 18, 2008 17:31:36 GMT -4
Psst--Dwight, do you mean "vulture"?
I don't like to speculate on the psychological issues of people I haven't interacted with in some way, be it online or in person. But seriously, if he really thinks Jay blew up his computer via Yahoo!, that's some serious mental issues.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Jan 18, 2008 20:24:56 GMT -4
No gillianren I actually meant wultjür which is how we properly spell those vulturous vultures here in Hungary.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 18, 2008 23:06:04 GMT -4
I just waded through Jarah's Exibit C, parts 1 through 7...I'm doing my research, examining their side of the story in detail, something they don't seem capable of. Perhaps it's that their sode is so easily examined...watching some videos. The truth, unfortunately, lies in the details...copious amounts of data, engineering, science, textbooks. I was going to do a scribbling rebuttal point-by point, but was overwhelmed in the first minutes...Apollo 13 in lunar orbit, Mr Kaysing's ""red opaque gas" for LM exhaust...
He put a lot of time into this video series, but unfortunately, didn't do any homework where it matters...still screwed up on orbital mechanics for starters...
And he quoted me in it, ot showed one of my posts here...the stars in space thing...he is a master at cherrypicking quotres from his sources, but I'll bet dollars to donuts he's never, ever seen a copy of Mueller and White's Fundamentals...
alas...it's on youTube for those so inclined.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jan 19, 2008 1:13:14 GMT -4
What's the gist of his Apollo 13 claims? I dislike YouTube and I especially dislike downloading the videos of nutters, because it raises the number of downloads and thus its "popularity".
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jan 19, 2008 2:48:54 GMT -4
What's the gist of his Apollo 13 claims? I dislike YouTube and I especially dislike downloading the videos of nutters, because it raises the number of downloads and thus its "popularity". I usually can't bring myself to download such videos either. I think the most common HB theory about Apollo 13 is that it was staged because people were starting to get bored with the moon landings and NASA wanted to make things more dramatic. Of course, as Bob B. said on his site, "If NASA were faking the landings, why would they encourage greater interest and unwanted scrutiny of their actions?"
|
|
|
Post by Trinitrotoluene on Jan 19, 2008 6:27:10 GMT -4
Jarrah's claims were summarised in my video: I always show the relevant clip in my video debunks. His claims summarised were that Apollo 13 didn't have enough fuel to enter Lunar Orbit. Of course, Apollo 13 never entered Lunar Orbit as it was on a FRT, but hey don't let facts get in the way!
I've also had claims that I've hacked PC's in the past. Duane was convinced I'd hacked his more than once, and he accused a friend of mine, Brendan, of hacking his PC and changing their MSN log conversation! Lol!
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 19, 2008 11:36:24 GMT -4
Trit, your video rebuttal was wonderfully simple and to the point. When I watched Jarrah's video, with his discussion of SPS fuel consumption during the LOI and TEI burns, I had to step back and double check that I was hearing what I was hearing...that Apollo 13 did these burns (or NASA claimed they did) with the LM DPS. And what the hell is a "command capsule"!! He knows nothing of what he speaks...and uses the term "weighs" when he should be using the term "mass". It's a headbangers delight.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jan 19, 2008 15:24:22 GMT -4
What's the gist of his Apollo 13 claims? I dislike YouTube and I especially dislike downloading the videos of nutters, because it raises the number of downloads and thus its "popularity". I usually can't bring myself to download such videos either. I think the most common HB theory about Apollo 13 is that the whole accident was staged because people were starting to get bored with the moon landings and NASA wanted to make things more dramatic. Of course, as Bob B. said on his site, "If NASA were faking the landings, why would they encourage greater interest and unwanted scrutiny of their actions?" Indeed. If I were running the zoo, a life-threatening accident would have occurred on the first landing attempt. Then after the first "successful landing" anounce "OK, we succeeded, but it's obviously too dangerous to continue. Program cancelled."
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Jan 21, 2008 8:43:52 GMT -4
The only joke is Jay actually asking. I believe Jarrah's epitaph will be "My computer was hacked by JayWindley"
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Jan 21, 2008 8:59:34 GMT -4
Indeed. If I were running the zoo, Common Sense has no place in a hoax theory. It's the same problem with the LM. Why wasn't it built to convince laypersons (all scientists in the field are bribed anyway)?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 21, 2008 11:10:10 GMT -4
Indeed. If I were running the zoo, a life-threatening accident would have occurred on the first landing attempt. Then after the first "successful landing" anounce "OK, we succeeded, but it's obviously too dangerous to continue. Program cancelled." [HB] My preferred conspiracy theory for Apollo 13 was that it was NASA's attempt to get the program shutdown. By faking a near fatal accident they believed Congress would pull the plug and thereby relieve NASA of having to fake the remaining missions. Unfortunately it didn't work and NASA had to fake four more landings. One could also extend this conspiracy theory to Apollo 1. The Apollo 1 tragedy was perpetrated to get the program shutdown before they had to fake any landings. In this way NASA could blame Congress for our not making it to the Moon. © Robert A. Braeunig (just in case a conspiracy theorist tries to steal the idea) [/HB] Of course this conspiracy theory is a bunch of nonsense, but I think it makes more sense then the silly stories the real conspiracists come up with. It seems to me that NASA would be trying to get out of their predicament rather than trying to focusing greater attention on their illegal actions.
|
|
|
Post by svector on Jan 28, 2008 20:25:38 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 28, 2008 21:08:00 GMT -4
I would have to say this is an honest mistake. Sure, he messed up on the math, but really, this is nothing compared to all his other messed up theories don't you think? What Jarrah really needs is a library card.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 28, 2008 21:32:55 GMT -4
Nah, he'll just say he tossed out a ludricrous claim to see the reaction...like he did with his polar orbit (though he never followed up on his 25000mph LEO...). He needs to google "orbital mechanics"...among other things.
Oh, and reading the information would also be helpful.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 29, 2008 1:01:45 GMT -4
He needs to google "orbital mechanics"... If he did, my web page would be tops on the list. Of course, since I'm a paid government disinformation agent, it must be all lies, right? So I guess all orbital mechanics must be nothing but a big fraud. I bet even Isaac Newton is part of the conspiracy.
|
|