|
Post by ka9q on Jul 16, 2010 0:36:33 GMT -4
I think the Mythbusters should revisit the Apollo "hoax". Their wonderful episode should have laid it to rest, but some people just won't give up. At the recent Amazing Meeting, Australian hoax advocate Jarrah White ambushed Adam Savage with a camera to ask if he knew that two separate experiments had managed to get laser returns directly off the lunar surface before the Apollo program. Adam said he hadn't. It's all here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxzQXxo6JlMWhite is actually correct but irrelevant. And he knows it. Unable to address the real issue, he attacks a straw man. The issue is whether Apache Point, not some other laser, can receive a return from the moon without a lunar reflector. The answer to that question is 'no', just as demonstrated in the show when they shot both the Apollo 15 site and the lunar highlands. Apache Point is specifically designed to work with a reflector. Its laser pulses are far shorter and much less energetic than those in the 1962 MIT "Project LunaSee" experiment: 90 picoseconds at 115 millijoules/pulse vs half millisecond pulses carrying a whopping 50 joules each. The Apache Point laser develops an impressive-sounding peak power of 1.3 gigawatts, but only briefly; in 90 picoseconds light travels only 27 millimeters! Apache Point generates 20 pulses per second for an average power of only 0.115 * 20 = 2.3 watts. And it's average power (total energy or photon count, actually), not peak power, that determines detectability. Why such short pulses? Because MIT's goal in 1962 was just to bounce their laser off the moon to show it can be done. Apache Point regularly measures the earth-moon distance to millimeter accuracy to test a variety of scientific theories. This brings up more proof that Apache Point detected a reflector at the Apollo 15 site. The beam is kilometers wide when it reaches the moon's irregular surface, but the growing peak on the computer screen showed a very short return roughly a nanosecond wide. There must be a physically small and highly reflective object in that beam. Jarrah White has been informed of all these facts but ignores them as counter to his preferred view of the world. He produces hundreds of Youtube videos arguing that Apollo was a massive hoax. In doing so, he implicitly and falsely labels as liars many honest, hard working and accomplished engineers and scientists, such as the staff of the Apache Point Observatory. Jarrah White calls himself the "grandson of the Apollo conspiracy theory". Now he's taken on the Mythbusters. I'd love to see you accept the challenge and give him more than he bargained for.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 16, 2010 1:09:42 GMT -4
A few days ago Phil Plait "tweeted" that a Moon hoax believer was harassing him. I wonder if it was Jarrah?
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 16, 2010 1:11:38 GMT -4
At the recent Amazing Meeting, Australian hoax advocate Jarrah White ambushed Adam Savage with a camera to ask if he knew that two separate experiments had managed to get laser returns directly off the lunar surface before the Apollo program. Adam said he hadn't. Did he then poke Adam with Kaysing's book, call him a cheat and a liar, and suddenly find Mr. Savage's knuckles upside his face? If not, there's probably no point in watching the video. [ETA:] Or exactly what he bargained for... exposure on actual multi-national teebee, and not just on his walled YouTube garden. He doesn't deserve rebuttal and thus more attention, he deserves to be lost in obscurity.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 16, 2010 1:18:25 GMT -4
Jarrah is entering Bart Sibrel territory. It starts out with catching up with Adam Savage at a public event... how long until it turns into sneaking onto Neil Armstrong's private property and harassing him at 3am?
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jul 16, 2010 1:25:53 GMT -4
Just sent an email to Adam Savage letting him know that Jarrah surreptitiously shot video footage of him and is using it to further propagate the Moon Landing hoax.... Cz
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jul 16, 2010 2:14:58 GMT -4
Don't forget I have Jarrah's address if any Adam's people would like to ambush him... perhaps on the way to the shops, at a movie, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jul 16, 2010 2:31:58 GMT -4
Duly noted...
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jul 16, 2010 3:05:19 GMT -4
BTW, I'll only give out the information to the production company for the purposes of a rebuttal; individuals need not ask me for the address as I will not supply it to them.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 16, 2010 3:27:40 GMT -4
BTW, I'll only give out the information to the production company for the purposes of a rebuttal; individuals need not ask me for the address as I will not supply it to them. That's fine. I just think Adam (and his colleagues) should know that he's being used in this way, so they can decide whether to respond. It wasn't at all clear that Adam knew he was being taped; there were some "tee hee" type comments that implied Jarrah was using a hidden camera. Even in a public forum I consider that unethical. It certainly got me angry just watching it. I can understand the "just ignore him" sentiment. On the other hand, he certainly seems to be trying to provoke a reaction with this video, and I doubt this will be his last try. Jarrah has always preferred to stay in his cozy little walled garden at Youtube where he can bask in the attention of his adoring group of fans and not have to face any real opposition. I think he knows what would happen if he ever had to defend himself in a mainstream forum against people who actually know what they're talking about. I'm sure Adam Savage, like anyone in the public eye, has had to develop a pretty thick skin. Even so, it might prove very satisfying to swat one particularly annoying mosquito.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jul 16, 2010 4:06:24 GMT -4
I think when Jarrah does stuff like this, he places himself in the public domain. That means others can focus a camera on him and ask tough questions like:
- Why does Jarrah have to rejoin YouTube under various variations of his names after being banned under old names because of copyright / terms of use / etc violations?
- Why does Jarrah claim certain things about astronaut movements in low gravity, specifically involving physics, but then avoid discussing his claims with a physicist?
- Why does Jarrah make claims about radiation but then ignore rebuttals from qualified people, and why then does he avoid all contact with those people who have specific knowledge that can rebut his claims?
etc
etc
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jul 16, 2010 4:31:56 GMT -4
That's fine. I just think Adam (and his colleagues) should know that he's being used in this way, so they can decide whether to respond. Exactly... that's why I sent Adam and email with the link to the video and mentioned that he was videoed without his knowledge and that his image is now being used to propagate - albeit in an indirect way - the Hoax myth... I think its totally fair to say that Adam had NO IDEA he was being taped. Look at these screen caps: Its completely obvious that Jarrah had hidden his camera behind something. Unfortunately, I don't think Jarrah has violated any laws or statutes by covertly video taping Adam in the manner he has. Yes... very satisfying indeed... Cz
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Jul 16, 2010 4:44:57 GMT -4
The mythbusters may want to take note of this bold type by me:
"AUSTRALIAN LAW
Strict laws in Australia prohibit or restrict the covert recording of conversations whether by telephone or other methods.
Throughout Australia federal legislation prohibits intercepting (tapping, bugging) telephone conversations. It appears that this legislation does not prohibit the recording of a telephone conversation by means of a tape recorder placed next to the telephone. Nevertheless, because the law on this point is not clear, the consent of all parties to a telephone conversation should be obtained before any form of recording is made.
In all States and Territories, legislation usually prohibits using a listening device to eavesdrop on private conversations and this includes 'being wired'.
It is more complicated if you are a party to the conversation. In Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory it is generally not an offence to make the recording, unlike in New South Wales, Tasmania and Australian Capital Territory.
In South Australia, making the recording is unlawful unless it is in the course of your duty, the `public interest' defence applies, or it is for the protection of your lawful interests. 'Lawful interests' is open to some interpretation of course.
However, in all States and Territories, even if it is permissible to record the conversation, it will usually be illegal to replay the material for publication or to publish in any other way information obtained from the recording without the consent of all the parties to the conversation. If you were a party to the conversation, there is a limited `public interest' defence in Victoria, Western Australia, Queensland, South Australia and the Northern Territory, but its availability to the media is likely to be constrained by the usual suspicion shown by the courts to media `public interest' claims.
In all cases where use of a covert recording is being considered, you should first discuss the proposal with your legal advisers. The penalties for illegally recording and/or publishing interviews and conversations are severe including heavy fines and/or imprisonment.
If you perceive any loopholes, or protection, in the legal framework to justify you bugging someone, then consider the additional protection provided to the individual in Australia through our privacy law - Federal Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)
In NSW there's also the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW)"
There is the claus of public interest, but he will have to successfully argue the case in court. His wealth of videos labelling every Tom, Dick and Harry who worked on Apollo a liar, use of footage (not just SCF by the way) without clearance, and his derogatory use of voice talent will all work against him.
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jul 16, 2010 4:52:26 GMT -4
That's all fine and good for Australia, but Jarrah shot his covert video of Adam in Las Vegas. The only legislation I can find in US law deals with hidden cameras "in private". Clearly the auditorium, theatre or wherever they were was not a private place.
Cz
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Jul 16, 2010 4:58:16 GMT -4
Here is what I found for the US
"When must you get permission from everyone involved before recording?
Twelve states require the consent of every party to a phone call or conversation in order to make the recording lawful. These "two-party consent" laws have been adopted in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Although they are referred to as "two-party consent" laws, consent must be obtained from every party to a phone call or conversation if it involves more than two people. See the State Law: Recording section of this legal guide for information on state wiretapping laws."
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jul 16, 2010 5:01:45 GMT -4
|
|