|
Post by BertL on Jan 23, 2007 13:59:58 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 23, 2007 14:20:47 GMT -4
Oh Lordy...I got about 3 minutes into it, and had to quit for a bit. He certainly is borrowing from the other films, isn't he? The foolish shadow thing, hotspots...show me a spotlight created hotspot that doesn't destroy the primary shadow... ..."cluttering the internet"? He shows Clavius and BAUT...does he want this "clutter" shut down? I may need a big pencil for all the notes this video promises to demand. Well, will just "watch" for now...see if he ever sorted out his orbital mechanics issues from earlier.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 23, 2007 15:03:10 GMT -4
Good gravy! Jarrah's done and made a film on the moon hoax!
When I get some free time, I might look at his drivel. I hope my IQ doesn't drop a couple of points.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 23, 2007 15:26:12 GMT -4
Mine just did... All three bits basically focus on the one picture and the problem of shadow angles. Nowhere is the shape of the rock, with it's sloping lower left edge really mentioned. OK, at the end there's the Lego box and bucket thing (hope he got permissions from Mr Bowie). But he never BACKS UP!!!. Put the rock above the photographer's head shadow. The overhang on the left side of the rock is the big culprit here, giving a false sense to the shadow. We need a more accurate rock model for this experiment. Also, are the effective focal lengths in the experiment identical? "Double Dasher"...I'm going to check the original shot, the video's too fuzzy. (edit to add link: www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-136-20744.jpgThen, talking to Jenny, the expert on perspective, he doesn't discuss the rocks shape with her. Nowhere do they talk about how 3 or 4 light sources, able to create dark black shadows, would not affect each others' shadows. This is a big problem for me, and his strolling between two spotlights only goes to prove the fallacy of the argument...washout! Josh Hawthorne and Earth "glare"...this seems strange, I can't imagine the Earth, high overhead and in a partial phase, would be a glare problem...may be some context edited out here. The SpaceShip One clip...I didn't see stars in the video footage, but he mentions seeing them...hmmm. And he's in a darkened cockpit rolling slowly, where most of the Earth would be blocked by the cabin, not out on the open surface. No video images of stars...why didn't they show up? The Bowie music was fine, I was just wondering why he refused to back up...really tedious. Cute, but ineffectual, video.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 23, 2007 19:45:57 GMT -4
I placed a review on his video. It doesn't take much to know what this guy will say. I encountered his "arguements" before. No need to go through them again. I wonder what he'll say.
|
|
|
Post by james on Jan 23, 2007 22:42:58 GMT -4
Just checking it out now. Quick question, what's, "The Grandson of the Apollo Hoax Theory", all about in the title of this film? I didn't get that. I'm going to pull a heavenlybody and ask, is he related to Jack White?
This whole bit about the shadows is ridiculous, is he not aware that the shadow of the Astronaut is in a small crater? thus distorting the surrounding shadows more? Funny that he uses a very flat surface to test on, rather than some uneven terrain. Ah well... at least this was better then his all Lego production that he made re depicting the faking of the Apollo landing. That was hilariously bad.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 23, 2007 22:52:07 GMT -4
He's a "fan" of the late Bill Kaysing, often called the father of the Moon Hoax theory. He seems to wish for a closer "relationship" there. And he deeply resents Jay...obsessively so. He's just a kid trying to make a mark recycling the same old stuff, tho I really look forward to his "robot ship to the Moon, manned CSM in LEO" tale, he was getting kinda strange with it when he fell off the LC forum some time ago. He really needs to learn some basic science...just a little bit would help.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jan 24, 2007 1:40:51 GMT -4
He also could use a bit of help with the notion of "wide angle lenses." I watched Part 1 of his "effort" (or should that be "affront") and found it to be - um - substandard.
Then I went back to see what elsewhere man was up to. Still talking to himself.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 24, 2007 11:20:22 GMT -4
The only thing redeeming about the video is that it give pictures of some the web sites. like Clavius, that have the claims he is trying to rebut. An astute and curious viewer can at least Google up the sites and see the other side of the discussion. Anyone willing to do that can quickly see the flaws in the analysis presented in the video.
My personal favorite was his drawing lines on the photo that Jay was holding in his hand in the documentary. The photo was at an angle to the camera taping the scene, yet White draws lines on the image of the photo of a still frame from the video as if it was the original photo. Never mind that he presents no reason to believe he has any skills at photo analysis.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 24, 2007 11:50:10 GMT -4
Unfortunately people who fail to recognize that David Percy has no photographic analysis skills will also fail to recognize that Jarrah White has no photographic analysis skills. It's the blind cheerfully leading, and being led by, the equally cheerful blind. Drawing lines on a photograph of a photograph as if that somehow indicates meaningful direction in the original scene is doubly misguided.
I have no intention of getting into any kind of pissing match with Jarrah White because all he ever wants to do is piss. He lasted a grand total of 48 hours at Yahoo before the entire group membership tired of his vitriol and told him to get lost. And for some reason he obsesses over me as if I'm his favorite toilet.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 24, 2007 12:00:37 GMT -4
He lasted a grand total of 48 hours at Yahoo before the entire group membership tired of his vitriol and told him to get lost.
Just to add to that, apart from the normal CT rhetoric, we got tired of his constant goalpost shifting (he said he would only accept a video statement by James Van Allen that the VA belts would not preclude a manned lunar flight, and even then he'd be willing to bet there was a guy off camera holdig a gun to Dr van Allen's head forcing him to make the statement, and that he'd bet that either Zond 5 never went round the Moon or that the animals inside it all died and were replaced by healthy specimens before release to the public). But more than that we got tired of being utterly ignored. The only person he directed any comment or reply to was Jay, regardless of who else responded to his points. Even the title of his first post was directed at 'Mr Jay (delusional) Windley'....
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 24, 2007 12:34:11 GMT -4
I remember saying how breathtaking the stars were that night in the desert once we shut off the 18 kW brute and cracked a few brewskies before heading back to L.A. That was the night Mars was nearest the Earth, and it was a prominent red spot up there in the sky. Jarrah screamed "Liar!!!!!" (I may have the number of exclamation points wrongZ) and argued that the daylight stills "clearly" showed clouds. As if the weather can't possibly have changed in the intervening six hours! Also, was it Jarrah or Interdimensional Warrior who accused me of destroying his computer remotely via his Yahoo hookup?
My experience with people who are motivated by blind, irrational hatred of an individual is simply to sit back and wait for the inevitable self-destruction. Trying to get a foot in that debate would be like pouring gasoline on a fire. The only question in my mind is whether his self-destruction will be with a bang or a whimper.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 24, 2007 12:36:28 GMT -4
Even on that refuge of the vitriolic, the Loose Change forum, he didn't last long, though in that case he probably retreated in embarrassment after his "polar orbit" howler.
For those that missed it, he produced a nice diagram showing how Apollo communications were faked with a satellite in polar orbit. Unfortunately, this theory only worked because he thought a polar orbit meant that the satellite stayed more or less above the Arctic Circle.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jan 24, 2007 13:00:40 GMT -4
Also, was it Jarrah or Interdimensional Warrior who accused me of destroying his computer remotely via his Yahoo hookup? Jarrah. He brought it up in a discussion, I linked to an explanation on radiation on Clavius. Three times. I hope he doesn't mind me posting his film here. Anyways, he knows how to contact me, through e-mail!
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 24, 2007 13:12:06 GMT -4
Even on that refuge of the vitriolic, the Loose Change forum, he didn't last long, though in that case he probably retreated in embarrassment after his "polar orbit" howler. For those that missed it, he produced a nice diagram showing how Apollo communications were faked with a satellite in polar orbit. Unfortunately, this theory only worked because he thought a polar orbit meant that the satellite stayed more or less above the Arctic Circle. Yeah, and his plan to avoid detection of the LEO CSM by accellerating to a 25000mph orbit speed...I tried to link him to a couple of basic orbital mechanics sites, but kinda doubt he bothered to visit them. Nah, I guess it's more "fun" just to make snide, ignorant claims...science is just Sooo boring...
|
|