|
Post by lukepemberton on Jun 12, 2011 15:28:15 GMT -4
So whatever is going on in the world of JW? He is awfully quiet compaed to a few years back. Ever since the Las Vegas and Sydney newspapers handed his backside back to him in a somewhat tanned fashion we just dont get the usual retasting of our breakfast bile from the misunderstood boofhead. I'm quite ambivalent about him now. I have been one of his staunchest critics, but I am beginning to think like others here, and that is we talk about him too much. On one hand I think he deserves a stiff ignoring. The biggest backside handing he got was at the IMDb when he tangled with Jay and a few others. He ran from that argument after he showed he had no clue about astrophysics and radiation, and was never seen there again. He showed he was an intellectual coward at that point. I actually urge him to carry on with his work. Each time he opens his mouth, he shows the hoax theory to be more and more absurd. Long may his idiot arguments reign. As long as he does, normal thinking people will see the idiocy as he stumbles and bumbles his way through simple science and mathematics. In fact, I think the hoax theory has been longing for someone like JW to take hold of it. Kaysing and Rene were battle hardened, and held themselves well. In fact, that was part of their attraction, they sounded convincing when put in front of a camera or microphone. JW opens his mouth and I cannot stop laughing at the 'stupid' that falls out of it. Then I think it is time he was taken on and given the attention he seeks. However, that attention would be on the pretext that he writes up his work and settled the dispute once and for all. He understands the challenge that is on the table, and that is for him to have his ideas and work reviewed by experts in their field. He's spent a lot of time making his videos, now it is time he wrote up his 'research' like every other 'researcher' and have it scrutinised viva voce. Either he does that, or he puts up and shuts up. If he believes his truth, then he'll come here and negotiate terms with those that have made the offer to review his work. Anything less is cowardice. For all the noise he makes, he certainly does not make much when it comes to actually defending his 'research.' The difficulty I have with JW now is that I feel sorry for him. I believe that this is not about Apollo for JW, it's about making up for the emotional needs that have been absent in his life. His videos provide him with a way of being popular and having a sense of belonging. Let's face it, what normal person would declare themselves the 'Grandson' of a conspiracy theory. Produce anything that contradicts his position, and he'll produce a 200 hour video series so that he can receive praise from his Internet base. He feeds off it now. It is about JW, not Apollo. I hope he can find peace within himself and rid himself of the burden around his neck. I believe he started with good intention, but now he has heard the arguments, he has no way back. It is a case of keeping up appearances now that he has dug himself in deep. That must be a terrible weight to have to carry. On another note, I went into a school last week, and through the day spoke to 200 primary school children about the Apollo moon landings. I showed the models of the CSM, LM and Saturn V, and I showed them the LRO photos, talked about the hammer-feather experiment. They were transfixed. I urge people to educate and stop battling the idiots.
|
|
|
Post by photobuster919 on Jun 13, 2011 12:21:13 GMT -4
So whatever is going on in the world of JW? He is awfully quiet compaed to a few years back. Ever since the Las Vegas and Sydney newspapers handed his backside back to him in a somewhat tanned fashion we just dont get the usual retasting of our breakfast bile from the misunderstood boofhead. He has released MoonRocks Revisited took long enough. But yeah the series is basically Jarrah rehashing everything from Exhibit D and having a batt back at Webb and others for their debunking of his material.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jun 13, 2011 13:10:02 GMT -4
But yeah the series is basically Jarrah rehashing everything from Exhibit D and having a batt back at Webb and others for their debunking of his material. I've read two of the blurbs that accompany the videos. I'm going no further with them. He's proven to me from the blurbs that he does not have a clue what he is talking about. He still thinks that compounds having a similar elemental composition means they have the same chemical composition. If he understood what oxidation state was, then he would not draw that conclusion. It's hilarious. As I say, let him carry on. He does his own debunking by opening his mouth. I beg him to come here and argue his case. Then I'll engage him. He hasn't got the guts to do that. End of argument. The guy is scientific coward, and would not last five minutes before he resorts to his foul mouthed trash talk. His arguments are best ignored, and pity extended to him. As I say, I actually feel sorry for him now.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 13, 2011 13:22:34 GMT -4
He still thinks that compounds having a similar elemental composition means they have the same chemical composition. To clarify--this means that he thinks that carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, say, are the same thing, just because they're both carbon and oxygen? I quite agree.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jun 13, 2011 14:28:14 GMT -4
To clarify--this means that he thinks that carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, say, are the same thing, just because they're both carbon and oxygen? It's a good way of describing what I was trying to explain. I will be careful, as I will be accused of claiming that he thinks that carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide are the same thing. I don't claim that. The example I would give in the case of the lunar samples is iron. I think there are only a few lunar samples that contain iron in its ferric Fe 3+ state (that means an iron atom that has lost 3 electrons). Even then, the Fe 3+ is in trace quantities. I cannot find the paper, which is really annoying, but if I recall, the traces of Fe 3+ found in one lunar sample were formed by radiation induced changes to the electron band gap in the iron atoms. Why is Fe 3+ important? Fe3+ it what we see in rust, and forms in the presence of water and other oxidants. It would form a brown-orange rock. The lunar basalts are characterised by ferrous iron (Fe2+) or elemental iron (Fe - no electron loss). This is closer to black in colour. One simply does not find rocks with such an abundance of ferrous and elemental iron on earth. One does find ferrous rocks on the Earth, but the ferrous material is usually mixed in with ferric iron, and the ferric iron is far from being trace amounts. So while the lunar rocks may have similar elements to Earth rocks, they have very different chemical properties. Of course, a certain amount of care is needed, since the argument becomes, 'Yes, but water has been found on the moon, so surely the lunar samples would contain Fe3+ iron. This proves even more that the rocks are fake, since they do not contain Fe3+ iron.' The ferric materal in earth rocks has taken years to form, with water running over the rocks, eroding the rock away and forming new material. The water on the moon has collected during post accretion, and simply would not result in changing the bulk mineralology of the rock (there are other issues why the hoax proponents water argument is duff). Does that explain it? There are many other examples of chemical differences between lunar samples and Earth samples.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 13, 2011 14:37:01 GMT -4
Yes, that makes sense. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jun 13, 2011 14:51:06 GMT -4
Yes, that makes sense. Thank you. It's a pleasure.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jun 13, 2011 18:11:28 GMT -4
He has released MoonRocks Revisited took long enough. Maybe he's been busy with this masterpiece, his new website.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jun 13, 2011 23:03:47 GMT -4
Wow, when I tried to click on that link, the mouse jumped out of my hand, wrapped the cord around my neck and tried to strangle me until I Alt+F4'ed the window. I think I will use my valuable web-surfing time elsewhere, thank you...
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jun 14, 2011 3:00:32 GMT -4
Wow, when I tried to click on that link, the mouse jumped out of my hand, wrapped the cord around my neck and tried to strangle me until I Alt+F4'ed the window. I think I will use my valuable web-surfing time elsewhere, thank you... That's really strange. My monitor starting spewing green slime, ghostly miners marched down the stairs, the dog started howling and the lights began flickering. I hit Alt + F4 and it all stopped. I have written to a geologist friend of mine to see what she thinks of his new videos. We'll see what she returns. It might take a while, since she has better things to do, but she has offered to have a look at them.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 14, 2011 8:26:28 GMT -4
It might take a while, since she has better things to do, but she has offered to have a look at them. I thought you wewre going to say "It might take a while, since she has to stop laughing and get back to me."
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jun 14, 2011 9:29:48 GMT -4
It might take a while, since she has better things to do, but she has offered to have a look at them. I thought you we were going to say "It might take a while, since she has to stop laughing and get back to me." I was tempted. I had a quick dip into one or two of his videos, and his thesis is mainly based upon the similarities between Earth and lunar samples. He does not acknowledge the subtle differences in the crystallographic and chemical properties, and how those differences are proof that the rocks formed in a vacuum, devoid of flowing water. He has also cherry picked some isotope data and declares that since the lunar rocks have similar isotope ratios for many of the lighter elements - not just oxygen - the rocks must be faked from Earth rocks. He stops at the light elements - funny that. I'd like him to come here and argue the isotope issue with me, and why he is omitting a huge segment of data that has been gathered from the isotope analysis. He better have good reason, as the isotope data is consistent with the Moon being formed from the same debris as the Earth, but with the Moon being exposed to the radiation of space over billions of years. I doubt he knows the physics of the nuclear reactions that occur, and why the lighter elements will have similar isotope ratios. His observation regarding the isotope ratio shows utter ignorance of the work he is citing, and the underlying physics that has enabled scientists to theorise how the Moon was formed. Essentially 90% of his argument is akin to declaring that an Indian and African elephant are the same, although one has different sized ears.
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jun 14, 2011 10:10:55 GMT -4
Sorry if this has been raised earlier, but I just thought I would toss in my favorite JW faux pas, namely the fact that this all started as an adult education school arts project for him to: In particular, one of his videos included (mis)use of his arts teacher as a falsified 'expert'. Her subsequent comments when she was shown what he had done, are rather embarrassing (to JW). I apologise for the link to a post of mine at ATS, but it unfolded rather comprehensively there: www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread566601/pg368#pid10655959I particularly love her slap in the face observation that: It's no wonder he gets others to push his wagon on forums - if I had done that, I too would be unwilling to show my face where I could be questioned...
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jun 14, 2011 11:32:13 GMT -4
It's interesting that Jarrah has interacted with some authorities/educated sources, usually to attempt to verify some tidbit he believes to be "incriminating". The answers are invariably out of context, misunderstood or misinterpreted by Jarrah. But he never follows up with a "so, based on this data, the Apollo missions must have been impossible, correct?"
He fears this question to these authorities from whom he so liberally cherry picks. I would challenge him on this, being the "expert" he is, he would certainly be able to dissect the response. Right?
I'd love to see an ambush interview on him...
|
|
|
Post by photobuster919 on Jun 14, 2011 13:20:08 GMT -4
It's interesting that Jarrah has interacted with some authorities/educated sources, usually to attempt to verify some tidbit he believes to be "incriminating". The answers are invariably out of context, misunderstood or misinterpreted by Jarrah. But he never follows up with a "so, based on this data, the Apollo missions must have been impossible, correct?" He fears this question to these authorities from whom he so liberally cherry picks. I would challenge him on this, being the "expert" he is, he would certainly be able to dissect the response. Right? I'd love to see an ambush interview on him... Well Jarrah did say in the Binall of America interview that his new website will have a link where people can request an interview with him for whatever reason. Maybe we could confront Jarrah himself and ask the questions directly. Just so long as we make sure to ask him about solar flares and why he won't join any forum site.
|
|