|
Post by frenat on May 18, 2010 21:40:22 GMT -4
All the more reason not to watch his terrible videos, then? His annoying voice and the even more annoying voice he uses to read forum posts already does that for me. Or am I the only one that thinks he has a voice made for silent movies?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on May 19, 2010 0:48:56 GMT -4
I haven't watched a one of them yet and have seen no reason to start.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on May 19, 2010 3:19:40 GMT -4
I haven't watched a one of them yet and have seen no reason to start. Don't blame you, but I like to keep up with the claims. Mr Hagbard for example seemed to admire him, it is then a simple matter to inform Mr H of Mr W not able to present any fact coherently or for his case and sure of the ground you are on when informing the wayward believer. Not that you need to be that sure with Mr W, just that his posse tend to cling to the vids and it is handy to be knocking the same bunkum they are talking about not the other bunkum......
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on May 19, 2010 4:03:00 GMT -4
I don't know; the claims are so easily knocked down without bothering with the videos. I also firmly believe that almost any argument you can make by video can be made as well or better in text.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on May 19, 2010 4:33:27 GMT -4
Oh I would much rather it be explained in text, I think you can learn a lot from peoples words far more than a video. But I think Mr W has found a place where he is comfortable and it is unlikely he will come out (youtube is no place for any real discussion so will not have to resort to many words and he is far better than me at making vids despite the info contained being pants). If he wanted to "blow" the landing out the water and he says he has evidence and can prove it then he can publish and let the real world judge him. But he will not it would seem? So hide out in the safe under stair cupboard youtube provides.
And it makes a break for the tedious paper work I have to do.
PS. I have never tried to make a video so maybe I would be better? Who knows.
|
|
|
Post by AstroSmurf on May 19, 2010 9:03:34 GMT -4
Out of curiosity, if JSC-1A and JSC-1AF aren't comparable to real moon dust, what are they used for?
I also wonder if they've managed to make the particles jagged in the same way that moon dust particles are. That's what makes it so fantastically abrasive, so it seems to me that it would be an important factor both for testing impressibility and more practical matters such as wear and tear on surface equipment.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on May 19, 2010 9:41:57 GMT -4
Out of curiosity, if JSC-1A and JSC-1AF aren't comparable to real moon dust, what are they used for? From this PDF file. by the distributor of the simulant. The simulant is designed to approximate certain properties of lunar regolith. It is the responsibility of the experimenter to show that the simulant will actually simulate the conditions on the moon for the particular experiment. Something JW appears unable or unwilling to show.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 19, 2010 11:28:00 GMT -4
I also wonder if they've managed to make the particles jagged in the same way that moon dust particles are.Yes, although not quite to the same degree. Micrographs of the original JSC-1 show a considerably fractured appearance. This would invoke the matrixing effect under compaction that so clearly differentiates its mechanical behavior from sand.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on May 19, 2010 12:12:43 GMT -4
His annoying voice and the even more annoying voice he uses to read forum posts already does that for me. Or am I the only one that thinks he has a voice made for silent movies? No, you're far from the only one. His voice is worse than fingernails on a blackboard. I too would much prefer reading text than watching and listening to a video, especially as his are verbose and highly repetitive. I think he even counts on this reaction among rational people to limit the criticism he gets.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on May 19, 2010 12:21:58 GMT -4
Nevermind that, forget these amateur satellites in Earth's orbit! Some of which even confirm the general nature of the radiation environment in the Van Allen belts. If Apollo hoaxheads agree on anything, it's that the VA belts represented an impenetrable barrier to human space flight to the moon. This is wrong, of course, but necessary because most hoaxheads have been forced to concede that NASA had a pretty good robotic capability at the moon by the late 1960s. There's no fundamental difference between a robotic and a piloted lunar lander other than scale and the presence of a life support system, so something is needed to explain why robots could go but humans could not. So to maintain this house of cards, the hoaxheads seriously argue that NASA controls all information about the true nature of the VA belts. Anyone who knows anything about the international nature of space exploration knows how silly this is, but most people know very little. In the early 1980s I was involved in mission planning for the AMSAT-Oscar-10 ham radio satellite. It got stuck in a high radiation orbit after launch and kick motor firing in 1983. Based on my understanding of the radiation environment (courtesy NASA and JPL) and the components and construction of our spacecraft, I estimated that the RAM in the onboard computer would have a lifetime of anywhere from 1-6 years. It died after 3. I'd say that's pretty good direct confirmation that the VA belts aren't terribly stronger than the official NASA line says they are.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on May 19, 2010 12:30:06 GMT -4
If I wanted to test a set of wheels to find out if they would have good traction, I would probably want the JSC-1A, or maybe even JSC-1C (larger, even more coarse) to test for worst-case scenarios. On the other hand, the JSC-1AF would be great to test hinges, bearing seals, things like that. Jw's sycophantic posse seem to think that he could use his $350 dirt to test the lighting effects, too. Expect that he will bring back out the plastic toys he likes to play with, to "prove" that the reflection from Earth-derived volcanic particles won't provide back-fill lighting to the lander. It might be a valid test, if he included some reflective glass beads www.liquidreflector.com/Reflectiveglassbeads.htmlto accurately simulate the directional reflection. But he won't, I'm sure. Dang. Now I want some expensive dirt of my own!
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on May 19, 2010 13:15:47 GMT -4
I know Jarrah won't come out from his YouTube hiding place, where no one can properly refute him, but I don't think he should get comments any more specific from us than "if you really want to talk, come somewhere where real responses are possible."
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 19, 2010 21:33:17 GMT -4
Jw's sycophantic posse seem to think that he could use his $350 dirt to test the lighting effects, too.That will be hilarious, because we already verified with JSC and the contractor the unsuitability of the materials as optical simulants. If Jarrah simply assumes his purchased material has the correct optical properties, he will be foolishly wrong. If he chooses to attempt to measure the optical properties, I am not confident in his ability to get it right; but he is welcome to try. If he says he confirmed its suitability with any authority, he will be lying. The unsuitability of JSC- anything to represent the lunar surface optically is what prompted us to recommend that the Mythbusters mix their own optical simulant. We suggested several suitable materials. We also told them how to verify the albedo of their manufactured surface. This method was signed off by an professional engineer, a professional astronomer, and a professional cinematographer. The program shows the method being applied correctly. As usual, Jarrah doesn't seem to be proposing and defending any coherent hoax theory. He doesn't seem to have been interested in hoax proposals for quite some time; he seems typically obsessed with trying to discredit or confound his perceived enemies, whether to do so would have any bearing on the hoax claim. Dang. Now I want some expensive dirt of my own!Perhaps Jarrah will sell you the remainder of his.
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on May 20, 2010 12:10:57 GMT -4
I also firmly believe that almost any argument you can make by video can be made as well or better in text. Probably true for "real" arguments. However, someone like Jarrah who is basically repeating the same old, long explained nonsense, might find it much easier to hide his cluelessness behind nice images and a cool soundtrack (pretty much like the Hystery Channel does).
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on May 20, 2010 12:37:16 GMT -4
Probably true for "real" arguments. However, someone like Jarrah who is basically repeating the same old, long explained nonsense, might find it much easier to hide his cluelessness behind nice images and a cool soundtrack (pretty much like the Hystery Channel does). Which is why they need to stop making arguments and go back to something like This Week in History, which was a fine program when they did it right. Some of what they air now isn't bad; it just isn't history. I think it may be in part because it stopped being a mark of snobbery to watch the channel and started being a mark of snobbery to avoid television entirely.
|
|