Post by tkw251070 on Oct 3, 2009 10:06:15 GMT -4
Jarrah White is new to me. Does he predate or postdate Bart?
Jarrah White. Where to start? He calls himself the Grandson of the Moon Hoax theory. Bill Kaysing is considered the Grandfather, and Jarrah has taken up the lineage as the Grandson. Jarrah became friends with late Ralph Rene, another advocate of the theory. To give you some idea of the intellectual giant Ralph Rene is, take a look at his website.
www.ralphrene.com/
Jarrah has taken the moon hoax theory and rebranded it on YouTube. He has a small band of devote followers. I'd say about 20 or 30 desperadoes. Which is not a bad strike rate given there are 6 billion people on the planet. His little band of followers also act as his attack dogs. The comment sections in his videos are a gutter. Go and take a look at some of the comments, and you'll see the sort of individuals that are attracted to his product.
He has added no startling new revelations or evidence. He has simply taken the same old rubbish Kaysing and others peddled, and used YouTube as his medium. This often includes videos of badly thought out experiments to prove the landings were a hoax, all of which have glaring errors, are based on crude assumptions and carried out in conditions that are not comparable to the moon. He has no concept of the scientific method, substituting it for cherry picking, bluster and spin that would make most politicians look shabby.
As for his analysis and understanding of science, it leaves a lot to be desired. The classic Jarrah error is the unforgettable 150% of 0.5 is 1.
One element of the hoax theory is that the footage was shot on Earth and then slowed down 50% to represent the effect of lower lunar gravity. The theory being, if the Apollo footage is doubled in speed then it should look like the astronaut is in Earth gravity. Jarrah sped up a section of original Apollo footage by 150% to demonstrate this theory, and broadcast it on YouTube.
One problem. 150% of 0.5 is not 1. It took Jarrah some to admit his error, and once he did he was not gracious about it, claiming it was a mistake made by others and he did not realise how his video editing suite recognised imported films as having 100% speed - regardless of whether they were slowed down from the original. He has been lampooned at YouTube for this.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRw6hwvCp0k
It's not the really the error that is the problem, it was a simple (but dumb) mistake. How did Jarrah get around this when others seized upon his error? As before, he sped up the Apollo footage by 150%, rendered it, and imported it back into his video software. He then slowed it down to 67% and compared it with the original Apollo footage, concluding that it looked like the Apollo footage. This implies that the Apollo footage is filmed on Earth and slowed down to 67%.
He completely changed the numbers and applied the same 'it looks like argument' to comply with his hoax theory. At the same time he showed that if you take a film, speed it up by a factor n, and then slow it down by a factor n, it looks the same. Of course, this has been explained to him, but he can't see his circular argument.
Some other notable howlers (not in any particular order):
- Comparing rocket engine tests in Earth atmosphere with the LM descent stage (rocket argument).
- Interpreting the decibel scale as a linear scale.
- Silicon oxide is a triatomic gas.
- Jarrah's polar orbit. A satellite carrying out tight circuits above one of the Earth's poles.
- Failing to apply Galileo's principle of free falling objects correctly.
- His belief that all solar flares are significant proton events.
- Pi is 3.146, refusing to accept the accepted version.
- Pronouncing San Jose as San Joes, and Don Quixote as Don Quicks-Oat.
- Assigning a number to the day of the year depends on how it is counted. (Standard practice is to assign Jan 1st as Day 1). Not in Jarrah's world. Jan 1st is day zero.
- Jarrah's 500 kg hammer.
- Taking the negative of a UV image and comparing it with an image taken in the visible spectrum.
- Stating that X-rays are particles (I'm not talking about wave-particle duality issues either.)
There are plenty more, believe me. These are just a few that come to mind, and I will modify the post as I recall more. Don't even bother to debate him. He is an hard core hoax theorist, and you'll be wasting your time. Life is short. Don't waste it on Jarrah White and his cohorts.
TK