|
Post by scooter on Aug 11, 2011 19:00:41 GMT -4
In that old Loose Change forum, as I recollect, Jarrah was working on ways to hide the CSM from surface observers. One was the "polar orbit"...I recollect putting a question here and getting an answer that any orbit has to have a plane with the planet's mass at the center of the plane (or something to that effect). He also suggested a 25,000mph orbit to minimize exposure. We explained that this was indeed what was done, and it resulted in the apogee of the orbit being raised to the lunar distance...with some help from the Moon itself (and all that 3 body stuff).
He is well known for changing his stories to cover his mistakes. Our posts weren't angry or mean, just correcting mistakes. He really, really doesn't like it when people do that.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Aug 7, 2011 9:37:08 GMT -4
It appears this flight series will be used to do capsule tests... an initial unmanned flight, a pad abort test, and a manned test flight (with Boeing pilots).
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Aug 5, 2011 9:08:54 GMT -4
I'm really sorry to hear that. He did have a full life.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Aug 4, 2011 20:51:45 GMT -4
Will this be the "Heavy" variant? It hasn't flown yet, has it?
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Aug 4, 2011 19:19:45 GMT -4
Would the various spectra of space radiation, and the shielding therefrom, be in the curricula? I suppose the real question would be whether he can accept a lot of his errant beliefs being dashed to bits...
If it's true about his enrollment, it could be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Aug 4, 2011 17:24:51 GMT -4
I dare him...double-dog dare him, to include some of his hoax "findings" in his class papers. I mean, he's be in a great position to teach his professor a thing or two, probably get really high marks for his insight...right? ;D
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Aug 4, 2011 9:46:50 GMT -4
4. He may not have great maths skills but he's an excellent reader and brilliant at picking out good quotes to use If he was an "excellent reader" he would read, and understand, the material from which he quote mines. This is not the sign of an excellent reader, he simply searches for phrases or lines which appear incriminating, without understanding the rest of the material on the page. And, frankly, it makes him look foolish to any but the most gullible of readers, who, coincidently, seem to be his target audience. And, while using so many experts' writings as "evidence", he never, ever, asks them that final question "so what you are saying here is that the lunar landings were impossible, correct?" That's just pure deception. And he calls US propagandists!!!
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Aug 2, 2011 23:18:47 GMT -4
amen, amen...
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Aug 1, 2011 10:17:26 GMT -4
The iMDB thread was a very telling (and educational) event. A 3rd party forum, all players came ready to present evidence. It turned into something of a "classroom", as Jarrah was gently shown where his simplistic data was wrong/misinterpreted/misunderstood. Eventually, he just "went away", apparently unable to deal with it all.
Nonetheless, he still thinks he has it all figured out, and that he knows more than anyone on the specifics. He has no humility at all, nor any objectivity.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 21, 2011 18:59:49 GMT -4
His comments were interspersed with commentary from James Burke, often to fill in the silences. [/i][/quote]Here in the US, Walter Cronkite was actually speechless. That's a very unusual state for any newscaster. [/quote] What can any human say after hearing "Houston, Tranquility Base...the Eagle has landed." Even Charlie Duke was a bit tongue tied after that statement...a moment for the ages.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 20, 2011 7:32:28 GMT -4
I would hope to see him return here, if not as a participant, then as a lurker/reader. It often seems that after a big dust up, the real discussions of the minutia get going...and that's where I learn alot.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 18, 2011 23:29:42 GMT -4
If I understand the CM design, I believe it's shape made it something of a "lifting body". Add to this was an off center CG, and apparently by slight rotation in the roll axis, they could tweak their descent rate, allowing them to do their "double dip" type reentry.
Did I get this at all right?
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 18, 2011 12:18:00 GMT -4
He must have spent all his money on last year's trips to the NASM and TAM...I've often wondered where he get's his money.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 18, 2011 11:34:37 GMT -4
Jarrah does have video skills, but unfortunately he uses the vast majority of them making his Apollo hoax videos.
Jarrah is a master of cherrypicking data from various publications, looking for those phrases that seem to incriminate NASA in a hoax, or raising questions. He won't be bothered to actually contact the authors/sources to verify that they actually agree with his twisted interpretation of their information. It's interesting in his videos, he takes video of a page, highlighting a particular phrase or paragraph that seems incriminating...and often the surrounding text gives a context which explains his "evidence".
He doesn't accept criticism or correction well, however well mannered.
He spread Ralph Rene's ashes in the surf in one of his videos, and used him as an "expert witness" in a few videos. Holds Bill Kaysing in high esteem as well.
He knows how to google. Everything he finds is seen through the hoax filtered glasses.
His enthusiasm for the hoax blinds him from reason on occasion. His polar "orbit", and his "fast" LEO orbit (25,000mph, in order to minimize chances for detection) are a couple of examples of his "shoot before aiming" mentality.
He is supremely confident in his beliefs, and if you don't agree with him, then you are a propagandist. He gets banned from almost every site he visits for debate, he just gets all twisted up and angry, and lashes out with all manner of bad behavior.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 17, 2011 14:03:08 GMT -4
I still don't know how tall the Saturn V is...various publications from NASA have it somewhere between 363 and 366 feet tall...does this "disagreement of the" data mean it's fake? Anymore than slightly conflicting accounts from the myriad of folks involved in the landings and experiments? Of course not. Now, fatty, you have made the accusation, time to tell us HOW it was "faked". Of course, you cannot, so your theory goes out the window.
When are you going to man up and take your findings over to Lick? What are you afraid of?
|
|