why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?

[RAF]

Jarrah White postulates...

Ok, here's the thing....no one here cares a damn about Jarrah, and what he has to say. If he would like to come here and discuss this, that would be fine....but otherwise, no more Jarrah garbage, ok?

If you have something original that YOU want to say, then say it.

[Chew]

Copy and paste this where you want to break up a quote:

[/quote]




[quote]

[Abaddon]

Jarrah White postulates...

Ok, here's the thing....no one here cares a damn about Jarrah, and what he has to say. If he would like to come here and discuss this, that would be fine....but otherwise, no more Jarrah garbage, ok?

If you have something original that YOU want to say, then say it.

Seconded.

[Mag40]

2.45x???  That is way faster than Jarrah shows in his video and therefore its obviously based on fraudulent information.  It is clearly a pathetically clumsy attempt to try and prove that Hoax believers are all mistaken fools, yet you post a link to it here as though it were factual?  And you have the cheek to call Jarrah a liar!

Learn how to use the quote function...your replies are jumbled!

I seem to have confused you with physics. The second of those videos.... shows the lunar regolith falling with correct gravity for Earth. This is produced by a direct correlation between the two gravity freefall speeds equating to the  √(9.8/1.62). That is 2.45. It doesn't matter what the silly Jarrah White claims....it is untenable and hopelessly wrong....whether you have the mind power to understand the example or not.

You sidestepped the first video again.....showing both your ATS claim, and the very fraudulent David Percy being wrong and deliberately so.

[Zakalwe]

When are we going to return to the LM can't make rendezvous without a super-accurate position? Or, indeed, Bormans poop???

[JayUtah]

It is a selection of ad-hominem attacks on his opponents...

...which is typical of him.  While I'm aware of the content of his videos, I generally ignore them as I would any other childish drivel.  He has attempted since 2004 to engage me, and until recently (where he seems to have moved on to other interests) was almost fanatical in his attempts to get my attention.

He contacted me by email a few years ago demanding answers to some questions he had come up with.  I told him I would not debate him in private, since that would give him an opportunity to misrepresent what might have been said in private.  I told him I would debate him only in public, only in a moderated forum.  His vulgar meltdown at Yahoo! in 2004 is still available to be seen, and led to his banning from there -- this is why I insisted on third-party moderation:  Jarrah must be babysat in order to keep his debates civil.

Several weeks passed.  One day he showed up unannounced at the IMDb forum for Bart Sibrel's film and asked if I considered that an appropriate forum.  I agreed, and a debate lasting several weeks ensued.  It is still available for anyone to read.  He became stumped on the subject of space radiation, and couldn't answer any of my questions.  I tend to ask questions that cannot be answered simply by Googling for relevant facts; the answers require a deep understanding of the relevant fields, which Jarrah could not display.  One day he wrote a post liberally peppered with the verbal abuse for which he had become so justly infamous.  I saw it.  I did not report it, but evidently someone did because it was removed a short time later.  Jarrah knows exactly why it was removed, because later that day he posted the same post with the offending abuse removed.

This didn't stop him, however, from abandoning the debate and claiming dishonestly that the moderators were censoring him.  He used that lie as an excuse not to have to continue the debate.  It's too bad that many other readers of the debate saw his vulgar, abusive post and perhaps maybe even saved it.  (I didn't have the foresight to do so.)  But that is how Jarrah approaches the process.  He uses one excuse after another not to be accountable to his critics, while at the same time submitting them to the most vile commentary.  Many of his videos make no hoax-related point; they're just "Get Jay at all costs" rants.

I have no use for him.  He debates like a child and he is largely under my radar.

[JayUtah]

Jarrah White postulates...

Do you have any claims that are not simply regurgitating someone else in whom you've put faith?

Unless you're willing to stand in his place here and present his findings as if they were your own and defend them as if your own credibility is at stake, then I have no interest in your expressions of belief in others.

[Mag40]

Jarrah White postulates that the speed is 66% of Earth....whilst isolating a 3 second clip to reinforce his claim....and you just contradicted your previous claim when it is shown to be rubbish.

Did you even watch his video?...Because that is not what it states!  He clearly states the original Apollo footage was slowed down by 33%, which is 66% of its ORIGINAL SPEED.

Yes....I watched his video. Exactly what I said...he postulates that the Apollo footage is 66% of Earth. Your head scratching responses hardly help your credibility. Is this a sock identity hiding exercise

[smartcooky]

We're up to nearly 20 posts. I reckon we're due for a wee bout of "flouncy flouncy" any time now.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

We're up to nearly 20 posts. I reckon we're due for a wee bout of "flouncy flouncy" any time now.

The Professor (ha!) stopped showing up on the Who's Online page about 10 minutes ago. Stealth flounce anyone?

[smartcooky]

We're up to nearly 20 posts. I reckon we're due for a wee bout of "flouncy flouncy" any time now.

The Professor (ha!) stopped showing up on the Who's Online page about 10 minutes ago. Stealth flounce anyone?

Well, I reckon we have been quite privileged here for the last few days.

First we had an engineer who was probably a truck driver, who wasn't really an engineer

Now we have a Professor who is probably a truck driver, who..........

[raven]

Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

[gillianren]

Let me be perfectly honest.  I haven't ever seen a Jarrah White video.  Nor do I intend to.

Why not?  Well, first of all, I hardly ever visit YouTube for any reason.  I spend my days watching full-length movies, not hanging about watching shorts.  That's a personal thing, but I don't think it's unreasonable.

Second, I think videos are a bad way of having a scientific discussion.  In fact, I think they're a worse way of presenting information than in writing.  This is not to say that I don't watch documentaries.  I think there are some very good ones.  However, i think what the most powerful documentaries do best is influence your emotions, not stir your intellect.  Yes, all right.  Some of Jarrah's points would benefit from brief video clips, if he were right--the notorious "wires" garbage, for example.  However, if you want to have an actual conversation, YouTube is the worst place to have it.  If Jarrah really felt capable of convincing us, he would do it here or on a similar forum--in text.  His videos don't impress me as an intellectual exercise.

[ka9q]

Yes, Youtube has a lot of garbage. But don't toss out the baby with the bathwater; there are some real gems if you look long enough.

There are several excellent science-oriented channels, particularly those by Brady Haran at the University of Nottingham in the UK. He has periodicvideos on chemistry, sixtysymbols on physics and astronomy, numberphile on mathematics, and several others. Each clip is anywhere from 5 to 10 minutes long and includes an interview or lab visit with one or a few members of the faculty on some particular topic of interest. They're really quite good.

[ka9q]

For the record, here's why 246% is the correct ratio for speeding up video shot on the moon to make free-falling objects appear as if they were on earth.

The acceleration of earth gravity is about 9.81 m/s². For the moon, it's about 1.62 m/s²; the ratio is very close to 6:1. If you drop an object from height s in a gravity field with acceleration a the time until it hits the ground is

t = sqrt(2s/a)

So if you drop something from a height of 1m on the moon, it will hit the ground in

t = sqrt(2/1.62) = 1.11 s.

If you drop something from 1m on the earth, it will hit the ground in

t = sqrt(2/9.8) = 0.452 s

The ratio of these two times is 2.46:1, or 246%. The reciprocal is 0.41:1 or 41%. This is the only ratio that properly depicts lunar free-fall in a video or film actually shot in earth gravity. Problem is, this changes the speed of every movement, including limb movements not affected by gravity. Those movements would have to be conducted at 246% of normal speed to appear correctly when slowed down to simulate lunar free fall. Good luck finding normal-looking actors who can move like that for hours at a time.