|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 12, 2010 18:55:44 GMT -4
BTW did JW hold Jay responsible for the SMH report (what with him being our king and all - though I didn't vote for him)? Because by gum, if he didn't, he should have! Darned amatuer conspiracy theorist. If Jarrah owned a cat, and it got run over tomorrow, he would somehow blame Jay for the feline's demise. Despite the fact that the two JWs cannot be separated much further by geography. [Note to Jarrah : That's called sarcasm - you might want to learn the meaning of the term and how to identify it] Ah well, I'm going to bed. I've had my entertainment for the day.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 12, 2010 14:57:23 GMT -4
I see Jarrah's video is up. www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbEYMVQ1ETADoes he understand that the SMH article was satirical. The title gives it away. I read it as being a satire of the moon hoax conspiracy movement, depicting the people that move in its shadows as self appointed guardians of truth, seeing themselves as martyrs to gullible masses, gate crashing to get themselves heard - when really, they don't. In fact, the take home message is they are free to express themselves and the freedom JW was granted is portrayed using ironic barbs that there were minders that intervened, that JW was an interloper, and he caused a stir. The whole article just reflects how lame conspiracy theorists are and just how damn boring they have become. I see JW's favorite attack mutt (StrayDog02) has left this lovely comment: The LYING PROPAGANDISTS on apollohoax*net are having a field day with this particular smear campaign against you.
Too bad the LIARS who engage in the character assassinations of you on that cesspit of a forum are too dense to comprehend that their continued lies and ridicule of you, only prove how frightened they are of the evidence you present. Evidence they can only "debunk" with ridicule and lies..Their pretense of you being the bad guy is not only absurd but completely transparent.Frightened of the evidence... I'm going to the gym before the laughing drains all my energy.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 11, 2010 23:43:16 GMT -4
I really do despair for the future of the human race. Many of the theories and ideas are simple laziness or dishonest researching. I don't agree. Many, if not most, of those theories are simply lack of common sense or not being able to look out of the window (eg. the shadow argumentation). In my opinion, the VAB argument is one of the few, where research on the topic is necessary. All the remaining ones can be sorted out with just looking around (shadows, ...) respectively doing some simple experiments (flag lit from both sides, reflections in helmet, ...) respectively using common sense (bringing the rover onto the set, ...) But lets face it. The originator of the hoax theories are not interested in 'the truth'. They are interested in getting attention or (I hate to say that) in making money. Plain and simple. This is a fair point, and I agree some hoax theorists lack common sense or are simply unable to see the wood for their particular tree. It takes all sorts I guess. However, I have experienced those who are clearly dishonest. Jarrah White and a band of his hard core followers are good examples of dishonesty; changing previous stories to suit, shifting the goal posts and ignoring well reasoned evidence and arguments. Their modus operandi is beyond a simple lack of common sense and missing the obvious.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 10, 2010 19:21:03 GMT -4
I really do despair for the future of the human race. Many of the theories and ideas are simple laziness or dishonest researching.
It's a bit like Rene and all the excuses he made about academics not replying to his theories. All he had to do was go and ask a high school physics teacher, and most of his folly could have been answered quite simply. In this example, it is a simple case of joining a board and asking why what is observed occurs. Oh but no, the decision is to willfully denigrate the achievements of others through shear ignorance and ego. What makes this example so ludicrous is that it is just made up nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 10, 2010 18:31:21 GMT -4
Can an HB provide one plausible explanation for how to shoot hours upon hours of video footage in an Earth environment and make all the dust kicked up by astronauts, the rover, all the objects thrown, dropped, etc etc etc look like it was filmed in a 1/6 g vacuum environment on the moon? Firstly, welcome to the board. No they cannot. It's a very good question. I think this is the most deceitful part of the 'research' they put forward. They concentrate on the John Young jump salute. If they were to apply their various theories on how much the film was slowed down with any rigor or honesty, then there are segments of footage where the film would have to be slowed down to 41% speed to replicate lunar g. Yet at the same time, they quote a 67% playback speed. Of course, they run when this is pointed out to them.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 9, 2010 10:39:16 GMT -4
I wonder at the real intent at getting loot off people for an endeavor never likely to see the light of day. In the UK we call it a scam. Personally, I think it is a scam. At the moment he's not raising enough for it to be truly profitable though. He could barely afford food bills with what he is raising. Personally I think he is trying to recoup money for his ventures abroad and expenditure on his bucket of JSC-1A. Once he has done this, it will be the last we hear of it. I really think it is time he put his money where his mouth is, and offered up his work for review. As I said, it won't withstand contact. His contact with Jay at IMDb and some of the exchanges I have had with him show he's not got a clue when it comes to real detail of particle interactions with matter. In both these forays he has left the debate banging on about how he is answered the questions put to him and is fed up of playing silly games. I understand the sentiment that we speak too much about him. He is certainly taking a stiff ignoring at YouTube by some of the Apollo defenders. I see less of them are commenting on his videos. Personally, I feel with his recent episodes of stalking and his apparent push to widen his appeal, it's time that he is asked to defend his claims more openly so the absurdity of his arguments can be exposed and placed on record. Jarrah is too yellow to even contemplate this.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 8, 2010 18:05:21 GMT -4
I would ask him when is going to put up for peer review. Is that even possible??? Scientist and Engineers are Jarrah's peers about as much as a common house cat is a peer with full-grown lions roaming the plains of the Serengeti. I'd make this bet with Jarrah.... Submit your "research" (if we dare refer to it as that) to any qualified Scientist, Geologist or Engineer. I'll personally give you a $100 bill for every minute the said expert lasts without laughing out load and/or using phrases such as "WTF is this... Is this a Joke??" While we're at it... I'll add an additional $100 a minute under the same conditions for qualified review of Grandpa Rene's RESEARCH as well. I will personally contribute $200 to Jarrah's fly to the moon fund if he writes up his radiation research and submits it to an independent panel that is mutually agreed to by both parties. I would care to bet that it will be Jarrah who stalls and finds excuses why the 'propagandists' are choosing particular members of such a panel. He'll always have an excuse. He simply does not have the b*lls to do it, as he knows it will not survive contact. He's fast showing he is an empty vessel. His stalking, obsession and hiding at YouTube show it is all a front. I like the idea of having Grandpa Rene's RESEARCH reviewed as well. Rene's 'work' was inherited by S Rourke and is still sold on the Internet. S Rourke filed a Copyright claim against a YouTube user for quoting from 'NASA mooned America' and linking to a pdf link on the web in the video info bar. I find it so funny (and a tad ironic) that the discoveries of Rene are sold for profit, whereas those of Newton and Einstein are freely available for all. I guess the real motive behind the work is profit, and is certainly not about new knowledge and rewriting the laws of physics. Further, when Jarrah has been asked why Rene referred to academics as 'gas bags', he claims that Rene only referred to academics that did not respond to his work as gas bags, as though this is justification for the label. By that argument, one would have thought that Jarrah and his friends would be pushing Rene's work for free so that his legacy can be verified and finally written into the annals of science. Showing to the world how Rene the pariah, shunned by the academic community, was indeed a true genius. No, instead, they push his shoddy pamphlets for profit and bad mouth those who have finally taken time to explain why he was wrong. Odd really, given that Rene accused those who did not pay much attention to his theories as gas bags. Seems Jarrah and his friends want it both ways. Defend Rene for calling the academic community gas bags because they did not review his work, and bad mouth those who actually did the very thing Rene wanted... to look at his work. By the same token, when one asks Jarrah to have his work reviewed there is silence. It simply is not a level playing field. The grandchild wants to have his cake and eat it when it comes to any sort of review.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 8, 2010 13:17:46 GMT -4
I would ask him when is going to put up for peer review. I've asked him that very question and he did not answer. It is a question he avoids like the plague. Rather than try and raise $200 000 000 for his fly by, maybe he should write up his radiation research and put it up for peer review with respected journals. It won't cost that much. He lurks here... so come on Jarrah, join this forum and answer this simple question. 'When will you submit you radiation research for peer review with experts in the field of spacecraft design engineers, health physics and solar physicists?' Let me guess. He won't. He won't debate it like an adult. Not in any civil manner anyway. He certainly won't get his toes wet by coming here, and he is certainly too yellow to put his work forward for review and report back the comments.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 7, 2010 15:01:44 GMT -4
This is part of Jarrah's reply.
The story says Aldrin told the Diary I was an ‘‘attention seeker’’. If asking a legitimate question is attention-seeking then every other person present must also have been attention seeking. That is absurd and preposterous.
As usual his logic and social awareness is impeccable. It seems Buzz was invited to speak at the Australian Geographic Society Awards. Now, call me stupid, but this implies an award ceremony, an event to celebrate achievement. Regardless of one's views, Jarrah's actions are inappropriate behaviour as he has made himself to be bigger than the event with his line of question. Jarrah clearly had no respect for the event, the audience or the organisers, and certainly no respect for any recipient of awards. The problem is, he fails to understand such things.
He has clearly gone to push his agenda. I wonder if he would have turned up if it was someone else? So yes, he was attention seeking.
The problem : Jarrah sits outside normal social behaviour and norms and he cannot see this.
In any case, the question was not legitimate, as the rock was not presented by Buzz Aldrin. Jarrah's question, much like his moon hoax nonsense, is based on little research and little adherence to gathering the facts.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 7, 2010 0:33:19 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 10, 2010 21:09:35 GMT -4
Are they talking solely about the ballistic motion, or is it the aforementioned biomechanics that look better at 67% speed? The conspiracy theorists are talking about the ballistic motion. Slow the Mythbusters film down to 67% and it matches with John Young. Reading through this thread, I think the number can be easily explained. I'm just waiting on a member here to confirm my understanding.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 10, 2010 18:59:58 GMT -4
Blackstar summarised the Apollo Moon rock evidence very well. Where is that summary. It would be interesting to read. I really enjoy lunar geology, it's right up my street. It would be nice to learn new things. It's an amazing subject. PhilWebb59 produced a rebuttal to the 'fake rocks' argument at YouTube. His channel is PhilWebb59. Each video is titled so you can dip into the part of interest. It's worth a look.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 10, 2010 12:39:37 GMT -4
I understand the bio-mechanics will be different, but that didn't seem to be Rodin's argument. He seemed to be saying that use of a wire rig would result in a noticeable difference in the jumping up speed and the descent speed. To my mind, a good rig won't give a perceptible difference over such a short jump, and without a high-speed camera. On the bio-mechanics, I hope I did not appear to patronise. I was answering your question from an overall perspective of fullness. While you understand the bio-mechanics issue, and so do most people here, in my opinion the fullness of the rebuttal should be presented for prosperity, accuracy and completeness. I felt it was valid part to the question, and a useful adjunct to your question. I have to admit, I'm sort of struggling with the second part of your question. What is a 'good' rig? I'd say no matter how well one designs a rig, there will be shortcomings with the response of that rig. If I recall, Mythbusters reproduced the John young salute as best as they could, weighting Adam Savage at 1/6 of his weight. The hoax theorists claim that when the Mythbusters footage is slowed down by 67% then it matches John Young's salute jump. I think the crux to this argument, is not just to focus on the claim of the rig (and it's quality), but the film speed reduction factors the conspiracy theorists describe, as well as the bio-mechanics. The rebuttal should be holistic. That's my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 10, 2010 11:38:51 GMT -4
Thank you guys, I see now how the upward and downward velocity should match on the moon. Now that raises the question - since Rodin said a difference in speed would prove a wire rig was at work, why would a wire rig work any differently than an unassisted jump? Isn't the wire rig just tied to weights that reduce the weight of the person in the rig? If so, then there shouldn't be any difference, should there? From the pure physics, the difference will depend on the rig. From the bio-mechanics, stark differences. The rig would be required to simulate gravity all the way up and all the way down to ensure a faithful replication of lunar ballistic motion. There are going to be points for a rig assisted trajectory where this simply won't happen. I'd say the apex of the jump is going to be the part that is most telling. I'd suggest that at this point, a rigged astronaut will experience g that is somewhere between full-g and lunar-g as the rig takes times respond to a change in direction. Remember, the rig will be providing a force that is based on the elastic properties of the wires and the inertial/gravitational properties of the rig. These will take time to respond to changes in direction of the astronaut at the apex. Gravity does not need that time (not over those distances anyway), as it continually provides a downward force. From the bio-mechanics, those parts of the astronaut and his suit that are not connected to 'wires' are going to have to overcome gravity at 1 g. So, there are going to be parts of the astronaut that are working against Earth g, as well as full Earth g acting on the suit. The result is a jerky motion. I'll sit cyber-corrected if necessary. Also, I hope that answer reflects your question.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 10, 2010 10:43:56 GMT -4
Gillianren I believe the Bad Astronomer refers to some research about public belief in the Apollo Hoax in his article about the Fox Apollo TV show on the original Bad Astronomy web-site. The 6% figure tickles my memory. The 6% tickles my memory too. Although I understand it depends on age group. For instance, I have given talks on the hoax to older audiences. I usually do a quick show of hands to see who believes and who does not. I've had one or two hands up so far. While not a definitive poll, I'd like to do the same talk to younger audiences, say 6th formers (UK pre-Uni). I bet a shiny coin that the response to a straw poll would be different. My point is this. When I was 16-20, the JFK thing was a huge talking point here in the UK. Most people then discover the opposite sex, partying and other hobbies; growing out of conspiracy. There are a few that stick and they become the hard core or profiteers. I really don't think that conspiracy is top of the agenda as people get older. It's just something they have an opinion on when asked. I don't get hung up on the figures. I just look at people around me, and for a large proportion of people, it's about surviving. Conspiracy does not play a huge role in most people's lives once they get into adulthood. That's my two cents worth.
|
|