|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 25, 2011 19:20:08 GMT -4
Remember the time he used ascent footage to "prove" that astronaut footpaths imaged by LRO were "faked"? LOL!Actually no, because I don't really follow his activities. I sometimes comment on them when they're brought to my attention by others (such as you've just done), and that does sound like our friend. You probably have more experience with his hogwash than I. A couple hours after he took his first giant step on the moon, Neil took a giant leap back into the LM. I see no wires, so if it was filmed on Earth that Armstrong guy is Superman.That's what finally clinched it for Brian O'Leary, the astronaut-scientist who features in so much hoax drama. When he saw this leap, he said basically, "That proves it for me." You may also have seen clips on YouTube from David Percy's epic 4-hour video What Really Happened on the Moon? Percy claimed to have personally viewed all the Apollo film and video footage. He even poses with a large tape cassette to show just how professionally he's applied his "award-winning filmmaker" skills to examining the Apollo record. Anyway, he claimed that nowhere in the record were there feats of gymnastic skill that would be expected in diminished gravity. Keep in mind this was in the late 1990s when the Apollo mission debriefings were just being declassified. While reading the debriefing, I noticed Armstrong mentioned his fantastic leap up the LM ladder, and quickly went to the video archive to verify it. Sure enough, there was Armstrong leaping 5-6 feet. When I presented this to Percy -- who at the time was still listening to his critics -- as an example he'd missed in his exhaustive survey of the Apollo video, he promptly ignored the fact that it existed and immediately launched into claims that "wires could have been used." In other words, these guys keep missing the point. When you go on record saying, "I've examined the Apollo record in depth, and therefore I can say this or that about it," and you are contradicted relatively quickly, it's hard to credible base further arguments on your expertise with the evidence. Nor can you change horses and stay credible. If you start by arguing that the record is suspicious because it lacks certain crucial details, then you can't credibly change lines of reasoning and say that the details you previously said were missing (and later shown to be there) are there only by fakery. Basically you lose credibility because you convey the impression that you're trying to discredit the record by any means possible. You're afraid of it.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 25, 2011 22:55:38 GMT -4
With all respect to Phil Plait, he would not be my first choice candidate for debating Apollo. I also admire Plait and his efforts to promote science. His activity drew me to BAUT and led to my involvement to this forum, my favorite online community. "Debating" professional loudmouths is not for everyone and is best left to people with experience and the temperament for that task. I certainly would not want to go up against Rogan's public shouting about Apollo.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Aug 26, 2011 23:51:22 GMT -4
Several of our members would have been able to turn him around. With emphasis on "several". It really is best when we can collaborate, because the hoaxers' arguments are all over the map and refuting them properly takes specialists in all those fields. While I might be the best one to rebut a point involving Apollo communications and ham operators, Bob B. might be better on rocketry and orbital mechanics, Jay on the way engineering really works in the aerospace industry, sts60 on how NASA and Mission Control actually function, and so on. Unfortunately these debates are never set up and moderated as they should be. They're usually one-on-one with the advocate for the pseudo-science side allowed to Gish-gallop all around the other guy. As in Congress, as soon as you have to explain something, even if there's a perfectly good explanation, you've already lost.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 27, 2011 10:38:03 GMT -4
Unfortunately these debates are never set up and moderated as they should be. They're usually one-on-one with the advocate for the pseudo-science side allowed to Gish-gallop all around the other guy. I find it hard to imagine that Rogan and others like him would knowingly get into a well moderated debate. He'd have to know that a discussion with rules would show his bluster as foolishness. If he were maneuvered into a debate, he would just make a mockery of it rather than participate in something that would reflect his ignorance on the topic. One difference between Rogan and JW is that Rogan is a pro. He knows when he has milked a topic for what it can give and moves on. JW is a one trick pony.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Aug 27, 2011 16:19:36 GMT -4
Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Aug 27, 2011 16:52:43 GMT -4
A couple hours after he took his first giant step on the moon, Neil took a giant leap back into the LM. I see no wires, so if it was filmed on Earth that Armstrong guy is Superman.That's what finally clinched it for Brian O'Leary, the astronaut-scientist who features in so much hoax drama. When he saw this leap, he said basically, "That proves it for me." Wasn't it Wade Frazier who said that?
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Aug 28, 2011 17:16:59 GMT -4
A couple hours after he took his first giant step on the moon, Neil took a giant leap back into the LM. I see no wires, so if it was filmed on Earth that Armstrong guy is Superman.That's what finally clinched it for Brian O'Leary, the astronaut-scientist who features in so much hoax drama. When he saw this leap, he said basically, "That proves it for me." Wasn't it Wade Frazier who said that? "I still find it amazing the footage of Armstrong’s leap was never mentioned in all the long years of debates. I must have seen it live in 1969, as did many millions of other people, but it was a forgotten feat. This evidence sealed it for me. Neil Armstrong performed that leap on the moon." Citation from www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#paydirt
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Aug 29, 2011 5:30:12 GMT -4
Wait, how tall is the LM ladder? Because it looks like someone wearing eighty pounds of space suit made a standing leap of six or seven feet look easy. I don't know many specialist athletes that could manage the in terrestrial gravity wearing nothing more restrictive/massive than a leotard...sure the high jump world record is something like eight feet but that's using a run-up and the Fosbury Flop technique.
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Aug 29, 2011 7:35:34 GMT -4
Wait, how tall is the LM ladder? Because it looks like someone wearing eighty pounds of space suit made a standing leap of six or seven feet look easy. I don't know many specialist athletes that could manage the in terrestrial gravity wearing nothing more restrictive/massive than a leotard...sure the high jump world record is something like eight feet but that's using a run-up and the Fosbury Flop technique. A bad analogy is like ..a screwdriver made of jelly D'ya think having both hands on the ladder rails might make a teeny difference? Did you bother to follow the link and download the movie to look at what happened? It's very poor quality, but you can tell what he did.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 29, 2011 13:30:57 GMT -4
Wasn't it Wade Frazier who said that? Yes, but quoting O'Leary. O'Leary and I spoke at greater length about it during our correspondence.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Sept 26, 2011 15:38:25 GMT -4
eeeee gads, someone (maybe himself) is trying to get a wiki entry (looks like it is being considered for deletion an input required?). What a farce it looks like.
And he has the rights now to some of Ralph Rene fables and will not profit from any sales, all proceeds will go to future experiments and....
wait a minute..
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Sept 28, 2011 8:46:48 GMT -4
Wait, how tall is the LM ladder?... Umm.. Randombloke - just curious why you never returned to this thread..? You have posted elsewhere on this forum since. Have you given any thought to the situation, studied the video? Do you withdraw the claim? If not, I trust you are prepared to discuss and defend it.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Sept 28, 2011 9:06:38 GMT -4
Do you withdraw the claim? I'm confused here, what do you think he was claiming?
|
|
|
Post by nightfever on Oct 24, 2011 23:54:27 GMT -4
Hi, I happen to be a friend of Jarrah on both FB and YT, and even though I believe in most aspects of the Apollo story, he seems like a sincere, decent guy who is passionate about a variety of things, and without people like him, we wouldn't even have forums like this. I'm not telling people not to criticize him, I'm just giving my experiences with him, all of which have been very positive.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Oct 25, 2011 5:37:37 GMT -4
A sincere, decent person would not angrily block anyone and everyone who challenges his claims.
A sincere, decent person would not issue dozens and dozens of DMCA takedown claims and openly admit that they were for reasons other than alleged copyright infringement, which constitutes an open admission of perjury.
A sincere, decent person would not label hundreds of thousands of talented, motivated and hardworking engineers, scientists and technicians as frauds, gullible fools or both.
A sincere, decent person would not constantly misrepresent the facts to fit a preconceived narrative designed to bring him fame. He would not stalk those who have become well known by revealing his misrepresentations, clearly miffed that they're garnering publicity that he sees as "rightly" his.
Above all, a sincere, decent person would be sincerely interested in the truth. He would be his own worst critic. He would not hesitate to withdraw an argument once he or someone else showed it to be wrong. He would not be constantly trying to one-up or "pwn" people he classifies as personal enemies simply because they disagree with and refute his stated ideas.
So far the evidence simply does not show that Jarrah is a sincere, decent person.
|
|