Author Topic: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.  (Read 266220 times)

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
« Reply #75 on: June 17, 2012, 12:18:32 PM »
It is not really a rocket science to imagine that  to elimate dust, one could wet them or sift them for coarser grains.

And that would solve the dust problem, would it? As in, make the dust behave like dust, so it can be kicked up in fine clouds rather than huge lumps, without making finer grains as it rubs together as people walk or drive over it?
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline VincentMcConnell

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 166
    • My YouTube Channel
Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
« Reply #76 on: June 17, 2012, 12:19:28 PM »
Quote
Not a chance. It's not even his style of writing. In fairness to HWSNBN 2, he would not hide behind a sock either, he'd be quite open about his identity. HWSNBN 2 wouldn't come here anyway. That would mean answering far too many difficult questions, and exposing him for what he is. HWSNBN 2 has an alternative agenda, and its not about truth. Why come here and leave a permanent record of ignorance and damage his ulterior motives for investment in the hoax?

I didn't think it was, but someone suggested they had only heard one other person say that before. I know JW lurks these forums sometimes but I didn't think he'd create an account and then use tactics like this.
If it weren't for the absence of pages and pages and pages of data and transcript, I'd say it could be FattyDasher.

--EDITED to include a quote from previous poster--
"It looks better now, Al. What change did you make?"
"I just hit it on the top with my hammer."

-Mission Control and Alan Bean on Apollo 12 after the TV camera failed.

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
« Reply #77 on: June 17, 2012, 12:20:28 PM »
If by mentioning wetting sand you suspect that I am a sock puppet, then it is weird.

It's more than just that. It is funny that you should bring that up and use the 9/11 credibility test as well. Are you going to suggest the lurkers are watching and judging later on?
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Zakalwe

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1598
Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
« Reply #78 on: June 17, 2012, 01:01:06 PM »
Hello, my name is Advancedboy. I would like to participate in the forum by having a neutral discussion , as far as it is possible to be neutral.


Luke Pemberton< I do believe Apollo was hoaxed, no matter how supportive I am for US, my lifelong ( not that long) investigation in US car industry, aviation partly as well, consumer electronics, has been a huge disappointment. Whether I researched wing manufacturing of Boeing 787 outsourced for Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Opel car platforms used for cadillacs , or constant rebadging of import poducts under US brand names, be it Magnavox, Norelco, etc, it was constant pain to find a single core of engineering facility that would do a real engineering work of precision manufactured items at home. And that broke my heart.
 As to Apollo, and what is the hoaxers strongest argument, i don`t know. I don`t represent them, i represent myself. Each of those who believes apollo was hoaxed, has his own arguments as strongest. As to radiation , I believe it is insurmountable issue. I can`t imagine that attitude and risk of astronauts that could have taken a risk of going through van Allen`s, and still be risking their lifes to unpredictable solar flares, space radiation, defragmantation of radiation hitting spacecraft and the radiation on the lunar surface bouncing back. I do believe scientificAmerican article in those years was right, stating the approximate range of radiation, which allowed Mr. Jarrah White to calculate exact doses each astonaut would get. And I believe Van Allen was threatened to either withdraw or be silent about his radiation discoveries, although I am no privy to provide proof of such an occurence. If you go to Jarrah White`s channel , he has a lot of videos dealing with radiation, he has even updated and revisited them. And you can call me stupid, but if my life hanged at a thread, Jarrah White would be a kind of person I would trust my life, although I am not personally familiar with him. I don`t know if he will die poor or rich, or happy or not, but I know he will die honest.  Another thing that bothers me about radiation is how brave and careless the astronauts were on the moon, they didn`t care to read or report or inquire about radiation readings, or what exact dose they got from  the sun as well, or the battery meters on their lunar rover, why didn`t they report the battery levels? There are many things that beg to ask questions, even the star question. I don`t believe if they tried to hide  behind in a shadow of a large boulder, having only black sky and 7% albedo from the lunar surface, that they wouldn`t be able to film or photograph stars. At least they would be able to see Jupiter or Venus.


Blimey. The supposed neutrality didn't last long, now did it? ::) ::)
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline LunarOrbit

  • Administrator
  • Saturn
  • *****
  • Posts: 1059
    • ApolloHoax.net
Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
« Reply #79 on: June 17, 2012, 01:11:16 PM »
Moderator, if you checked the origin of my IP address, you would see that it originates from LV, which is where I come from. How could I be a sock puppet? You think I travelled to Latvia to have an argument with this forum?

You must think I'm stupid. There are these things called "proxy servers" that let you mask your location by accessing the website indirectly. You can be anywhere in the world and make it appear that you are in Latvia. Therefore, having a different IP address does not mean you are not the same person.

What convinces me of your sock-puppetry is the uniqueness of your "9/11 test" and your "wet sand" claim. Either one of those alone would be suspicious. Both of them together is obvious.

Quote
if you really wanted to check me out, you could send me an email to a post box registered in the same country,

That's as meaningless as IP addresses. There is nothing stopping someone in Japan (for example) from creating an email account in Latvia.

If you are really in Latvia, send me your actual physical address or any address that you can receive mail at (real mail, not email) and I will send you a post card. If you can tell us what I wrote on the post card I'll believe you're in Latvia.

Quote
or you could check out my name in other forums, that I am registered with, such as secretprojectsforum.co.uk, productdesignforums.com, or ATS.com. it is not that hard to do!

Also meaningless when it comes to proving you're not the same person that I've banned here. You've created multiple accounts under different names all over the internet. How does that prove anything?

This may come as a shock to you, but your aliases on the internet are not your real identity. You can have multiple identities online.

No, I haven`t been registered here before.  If I used a proxy server, or thor, I wouldn`t be able to register here again once again with the same I.P. Adress.

You wouldn't be able to register with the same IP address if I had banned it, but there is more than one proxy server in the world.

Quote
But I f I reregsitered here again, I would still have the same IP adress.

Not necessarily. In fact you would almost certainly have a different IP address every time you used the proxy server because they are not permanently assigned to you. I would have to ban the entire proxy server, not just individual IP addresses. And that's assuming you didn't use an entirely different proxy server (like I said, there is more than one).

Quote
If I was a sock puppet, then sock puppet of whom? Can I see the user name, out of curiosity.

Here are a couple...

Rocky
Rodin

...but there are almost certainly others, I just don't have time to search for them right now.

Quote
It is not really a rocket science to imagine that  to elimate dust, one could wet them or sift them for coarser grains.

Oh yeah, I forgot about the sifting. Thanks for mentioning it.

If the sand was wet, why didn't it clump up and stick to the astronauts boots? Like this:

It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth.
I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth.
I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
- Neil Armstrong (1930-2012)

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
« Reply #80 on: June 17, 2012, 01:15:07 PM »
Why the constant editing of your posts instead of new replies, advancedboy? Are you trying to make it look like people who already repsponded to the first bit you post are ignoring the rest?

As to radiation , I believe it is insurmountable issue.

Then go and learn about radiation from a proper source.

Quote
I can`t imagine that attitude and risk of astronauts that could have taken a risk of going through van Allen`s, and still be risking their lifes to unpredictable solar flares, space radiation, defragmantation of radiation hitting spacecraft and the radiation on the lunar surface bouncing back.

You know these guys were test pilots, right? They routinely, voluntarily, got into new unflown aircraft and took them up into the sky without knowing for certain if their return to Earth would be a smooth landing or a fiery death. These guys had 'Risk' with a capital R as part of their day jobs before they joined NASA. Why are the risks in NASA so much worse?

Quote
And I believe Van Allen was threatened to either withdraw or be silent about his radiation discoveries, although I am no privy to provide proof of such an occurence.

Then square your baseless supposition with the FACT that much data has been gathered on the radiation in space and NONE of it contradicts Van Allen in any way, nor suggests that Apollo was faked.

Quote
I know he will die honest.

What utter crap. Jarrah White would not know honesty if it bit him on the behind while wearing purple polka dot boxer shorts.

Quote
why didn`t they report the battery levels?

They did.

Quote
I don`t believe if they tried to hide  behind in a shadow of a large boulder, having only black sky and 7% albedo from the lunar surface, that they wouldn`t be able to film or photograph stars.

Then learn something about basic photography. They were not equipped to take pictures of the stars, and there is no reason they would be.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Andromeda

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 746
Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
« Reply #81 on: June 17, 2012, 01:17:43 PM »
Why the constant editing of your posts instead of new replies, advancedboy? Are you trying to make it look like people who already repsponded to the first bit you post are ignoring the rest?



I'd like to know that.  It's causing disruption, Rocky Advancedboy, so stop it please.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov.

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
« Reply #82 on: June 17, 2012, 01:37:21 PM »
...which allowed Mr. Jarrah White to calculate exact doses each astronaut would get.

He certainly has not. In any case, anyone who claims they can calculate exact doses clearly does not understand what they are talking about. Further, if Jarrah had the data to carry out the calculation, he has not intergrated the proton flux over its differential energy range and accounted for particle attenuation, so his methods are far removed from anything that an engineer of medical physicist would produce, and do not represent standard practice in the field. He has been told this several times. According to Jarrah's calculations, protons and electrons can magically pass through the CM material without losing energy.

Furthermore, Jarrah uses a rem per hour figure from a shock generated CME the 1950's, and applies this to H-alpha solar flare data. He simply multiplies the rem per hour (25 or 100 from memory for his shock CME event) by the duration of each H-alpha event during teach Apollo mission to arrive at a dose figure. This poses two problems to my knowledge. Firstly, the H-alpha event does not release protons throughout its duration (if any at all). If particles are released, this occurs during the impulsive phase of the flare when reconnection of the coronal magnetic field occurs, which is less than the time of the H-alpha prominence. Secondly, flares are highly directed events, so not all are incident on the Moon-Earth system. There is a perfectly good example of this during the MARIE mission, where a solar flare was detected by the MARIE craft, but was not detected by probes in the vicinity of the Earth-Moon system. Jarrah has been told this fact, but still assumes that all solar flares are directed at Earth.

In any case, Jarrah's use of H-alpha events is highly flawed. The main threat for astronauts are shock generated CME events. This generally occurs when the CME speed is greater than 1800 km/s, causing a spatial separation between the electron and proton components of the solar plasma, which in turn creates a high E-field that accelerates protons towards the Earth. Such an SPE event did not occur during the Apollo missions. One occurred between missions in 1972. Again, Jarrah has been told this, and simply does not understand ithe physics, or is simply fueled by his own pride and ego to correct his position. I suggest the latter.

Do you want me to carry on? I can drag up the boy wonder's bremstrahlung calculation if you really want, where he took a dimensionless number and gave it a unit of energy, while using a formula that applies to electrons with energies that are higher than than those found in the van Allen belts. Do you want to discuss that facet of his work - yes or no please?

Jarrah's view of particle interactions with matter is highly linear, and I mean that in a mathematical sense. Sadly, much of the physics that describse those interactions is derived from quantum mechanics, which is not linear. So all of Jarrah's calculations are flawed based on first principles.

As for Jarrah and his honesty, he has been asked to submit his work for review by relevent experts in the field. So far he declines, and states that his work is peer reviewed, although he will not disclose the name of his reviewer. He's been at his game for several years now. If he had any claims he would write up his claims, have it reviewed and then present his proof to the world. He's far from honest.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2012, 01:42:51 PM by Luke Pemberton »
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline Echnaton

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
« Reply #83 on: June 17, 2012, 01:42:37 PM »
I do believe Apollo was hoaxed...
I believe it is insurmountable...
I do believe scientificAmerican article...
And I believe Van Allen was threatened...
I don`t believe if they....

I believe that you don't know what you are talking about. 
The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. —Samuel Beckett

Offline frenat

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 460
Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
« Reply #84 on: June 17, 2012, 02:34:49 PM »
If by mentioning wetting sand you suspect that I am a sock puppet, then it is weird.

It's more than just that. It is funny that you should bring that up and use the 9/11 credibility test as well. Are you going to suggest the lurkers are watching and judging later on?

Or that we'll be laughed out of a debating hall?
-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
 -Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
 -There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.

Offline AtomicDog

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
« Reply #85 on: June 17, 2012, 02:45:20 PM »
Don't forget the wave blowers!
"There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death." - Isaac Asimov

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
« Reply #86 on: June 17, 2012, 02:53:39 PM »
Yeah, I found the "answer this completely irrelevant question or else I won't discuss anything with you" a bit of a giveaway myself.  LO, you might want to consider an official announcement that there was no amnesty with the changing of software or else make it a little easier for these people to get banned when they can't follow those rules.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline advancedboy

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 61
Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
« Reply #87 on: June 17, 2012, 03:14:16 PM »
Jason, coarse sand  doesn`t have that much of dust . And simply by walking over it you wouldn`t dustify or grind to dust anything, at least no to noticeable amount.
`Then learn something about basic photography. They were not equipped to take pictures of the stars, and there is no reason they would be.` Oh, there is a big reason- to validate that they were actually there, and that the positions of venus and jupiter would match the time they claimed to have been there. If the cameras could expose astronauts standing in complete shadow even being lit from the back by the sun, nothing would stop them from phtographing stars being inside a shadow.  Having trained for some time in design and sketching, I guess I know a thing or two about photography or shadows. It would be funny if they could turn the cameras all around and up pointing to the sky.
About the trained test pilots, who were not afraid because of their experience.  Well, the ejection seats and a parachute makes a huge difference in how brave a man can be.
And I edit my posts to get rid of some typos, but I still get many. Don`t you bother about that.


Lunar Orbit. Your picture of a boot is a bit funny, . Firstly have you seen many people with such clumps after having walked near the sea, or close to the waterline of a sandy beach? You do realize, the wetter the sand the more shallow the imprint will be? When I was in Canada, I lived in Ottawa for 4 months, more specifically in suburbs of Ottawa, Place`d Orleans. I went to the local river for swimming. Quiet often actually. The place was called Petrie Island or beach  if I recall  it correctly. I was surprised that no matter how strong the wind was , the sand was not blown around and seemed quiet solid.  I asked the lifeguard and he told me they use a kind of specific glue they spray over the sand to make it cling together. At the same time I could dig it , but there would be no dust, but it seemed almost as if humid or wet.Don`t you think your boot pic is a notch exaggerated.
As to my identity. I can speak perfect Latvian and write as well, I am coherent in Russian, slightly aware of German. You can check me that way. We can talk through skype, as my registration place would indicate year registered( many years ago)  and it would be very unlikely  that I had been using a proxy server to register a secret skype account in Latvia  many years ago. Yes, you could send me a postcard, but that would take 2 weeks to get here, and about 2 weeks to get back. That is how our post works. Or I could simply make a picture of myself in my town with a paper that would say your name. I could stand next to a recognisable feature.
Luke, Jarrah chose the lowest possible radiation levels to calcualte the total dosage. Of course, astronauts were very educated, some of them stating that they have visited the moon, but not being sure if they went as far as van Allen belts. Mass negligence?
And I already told you I don`t resort to sock puppetting. That would fit more for a person voting for a Romney or Obama:))))



Offline DataCable

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
« Reply #88 on: June 17, 2012, 03:16:12 PM »
There are no high quality videos of lunar dust closeup being kicked up by astronauts.
I referred to regolith kicked up by the LRV wheels, not by astronauts.  Please explain, or better, demonstrate, how this can be done in an atmosphere without producing a persistent cloud of fine particles suspended in the air.

Quote
What we need to do is to check more videos if the sand doesn`t manage to fall faster down to the ground than the astronaut hanging on wires.
To conduct such a comparison, you would first have to present verifiable footage of astronauts hanging on wires.

Quote
Ok, I will give you a blue-ray dvd...
Is that like a Beta VHS videocassette?  There is no such thing as a Blu-Ray DVD, those are two completely different media formats.


It is not really a rocket science to imagine that  to elimate dust, one could wet them or sift them for coarser grains.
Sifting can guarantee that only particles finer than the filter size will pass through the filter.  Sifting cannot guarantee that all particles finer than the filter size will pass through the filter, or prevent coarse particles from breaking down into finer particles.

Quote
And I believe Van Allen was threatened to either withdraw or be silent about his radiation discoveries, although I am no privy to provide proof of such an occurence.
Sure worked, didn't it?

Quote
they didn`t care to read or report or inquire about [...] the battery meters on their lunar rover
Wrong.

Quote
I don`t believe if they tried to hide  behind in a shadow of a large boulder, having only black sky and 7% albedo from the lunar surface, that they wouldn`t be able to film or photograph stars.
They did photograph stars, on Apollo 16 with an ultraviolet camera.

Quote
At least they would be able to see Jupiter or Venus.
Alan Shepard possibly saw and definitely photographed Venus on Apollo 14... nine times. </Principal_Rooney>  I already bitchslapped another hoax proponent into a ragequit from the old forum with that little discovery.
Bearer of the highly coveted "I Found Venus In 9 Apollo Photos" sweatsocks.

"you data is still open for interpretation, after all a NASA employee might of wipe a booger or dropped a hair on it" - showtime

DataCable2015 A+

Offline Andromeda

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 746
Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
« Reply #89 on: June 17, 2012, 03:22:07 PM »
Oh, there is a big reason- to validate that they were actually there, and that the positions of venus and jupiter would match the time they claimed to have been there.

To validate they were there?!  They should add extra time, effort and equipment to satisfy cranks who believed they faked it?!  And then what - I know, you's come up with some other reason to doubt them.

By the way, have you seen these images?  http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html


Quote
And I edit my posts to get rid of some typos, but I still get many. Don`t you bother about that.

You are lying.  You added a huge paragraph to one post after getting several replies, as well as removed/changed complete sentences.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov.