A rebuttal to Jarrah's latest masterpiece

[ka9q]

I know this is not an original observation, as it's on those "crackpot checklists" I've seen occasionally, but it really does seem quite characteristic of them to persist in using incorrect or idiosyncratic terminology even after the correct and widely understood words have been explained to them.

I recently encountered one guy, who admittedly was so far gone even his fellow hoaxers disowned him, who insisted on using the word "pivot" to describe the moon's motion around the earth, going on to claim that it did not have a day-night cycle. It didn't matter how many times I explained the precise meanings of the accepted and widely used astronomical terms "rotate" and "revolve", or that a pivot is something you find in a mechanical watch, not an astronomical object.

[smartcooky]

They think they are the one-eyed man in the land of the blind, and they keep crying "Can't you see that glowing basketball-sized object right over our heads!" Instead they are the one-eyed man in the land of those with normal depth perception, who all reply, "What, the Moon? That's far away, not right overhead!"

To be fair, I think some of them (hunchbacked may be one) do appear to have something going on with their eyesight, as they seem to see things in their videos and images that just are not apparent to others. I have read comments by HB's when they have tried to point out oddities with the LM feet that, no matter how they describe it, I just can't see. Perhaps it is that they cannot interpret shadows correctly,

On the other hand it have at least the following shared personal experience that helped me to understand that even people who consider themselves very rational, skeptical and observant can be fooled by an optical illusion; not immediately understanding that nature of what they are looking at.

However, I can say from personal experience, that it is quite possible for multiple people to all observe something, and to see it as something else... all of them seeing it as the "same" something else.

Back the the 1980's I was with a group of several amateur astronomers; members of the local Astronomical Society, at their observatory in the rural south west of Canterbury, NZ. It was daytime; bright day, cloudless sky, and we were doing some maintenance on one of the out-buildings. Suddenly, our attention was caught by a loud humming sound that seemed to be coming from overhead. We all looked up at about the same time and (as we found out later when we compared our observations) all saw the same thing. It was a black, roughly oval shaped object flying overhead. The object appeared to be about the size of a house, at several hundred feet of altitude and travelling very fast from east to west, disappearing fast over a group of four metre high tree Lucernes about 20m away to our north-west. However, the impression we had of size, height and speed totally collapsed when this "object" landed in one of the tree lucernes. I was first to realise what it was and went straight inside to telephone the nearest apiarist, who soon came down to collect it.

The important thing here is that there were several of us. We were all sceptical types; amateur astronomers, all better than Joe Average when it came to making careful observations, yet we all (incorrectly) observed the same thing, a large, fast moving object at high altitude.

[ka9q]

I think optical illusions and similar phenomena of the senses are specifically excluded from the definition of a "delusion". And that's the word that best describes many of these conspiracy theories.

[smartcooky]

I think optical illusions and similar phenomena of the senses are specifically excluded from the definition of a "delusion". And that's the word that best describes many of these conspiracy theories.

I agree. In the case of hunchback et al, their delusions (IMO) can be reinforced by their inability to accurately understand what they are looking at. I recall a particular HB (can't remember whether it was on this forum or JREF) who insisted that the video of the Apollo crew weightless in the CM was shot by filling the CM with water. I looked at that video, and I couldn't understand how they thought it even looked like water.

In the case I posted earlier, it was all over in about 10 seconds. However, we all freely admitted to each other later that we were entertaining some outrageous thoughts for those 10 seconds.

[Zakalwe]

I recall a particular HB (can't remember whether it was on this forum or JREF) who insisted that the video of the Apollo crew weightless in the CM was shot by filling the CM with water. I looked at that video, and I couldn't understand how they thought it even looked like water.

That was hunchbacked too, wasn't it?

[smartcooky]

Yep. That was the one I was thinking of.

Amazingly, he shows that he clearly understands perspective can lead to parallel objects not appearing parallel in a photo...



... but cannot make the logical connection that it must also apply to shadows

[Luke Pemberton]

... but cannot make the logical connection that it must also apply to shadows

To think the CTs bought that lemon. Oh come on, really! Another bug bear, they cannot concede points when so hopelessly wrong despite clear evidence to the contrary. I can process the radiation argument as being difficult to understand which makes it a compelling argument for the uninitiated, but non-parallel shadows. That's just telling any old story to please an audience. Who is credited with non-parallel shadows, was it David Percy or Marcus Allen?

[smartcooky]

... but cannot make the logical connection that it must also apply to shadows

To think the CTs bought that lemon. Oh come one, really! Another bug bear, they cannot concede points when so hopelessly wrong despite clear evidence to the contrary. I can process the radiation argument as being difficult to understand which makes it a compelling argument for the uninitiated, but non-parallel shadows. That's just telling any old story to please an audience. Who is credited with non-parallel shadows, was it David Percy or Marcus Allen?

David Percy

Have a look at hunchbacked's comments in this, a video debunking Percy's non-parallel shadows claim.

He just can't help himself. He claims the debunker is faking the debunk. Truly sad; his level of stupid is such he fails to get something that can be verified just by going outside on a sunny day!

[Rob48]

I just wanted to say: the video in the OP is mine. Yes, the calculations are very "back of envelope" and I deliberately erred on the side of overstating the numbers at each stage. Space and radiation are not my specialist subject but I can figure out basic energy calculations!

I wonder: does Jarrah actually not understand the maths at all, or does he deliberately fiddle the calculations to get the results he wants? It's difficult to work out whether we are up against a devious mind or just a very simple one.

[Luke Pemberton]

I just wanted to say: the video in the OP is mine. Yes, the calculations are very "back of envelope" and I deliberately erred on the side of overstating the numbers at each stage. Space and radiation are not my specialist subject but I can figure out basic energy calculations!

I thought it was a fantastic rebuttal, and as you acknowledge it was a 'back of an envelope calculation.' You even deliberately understated or overstated numbers that were not in your favour. The compromises you made with the numbers were one of the rebuttal's redeeming features as it clearly showed you were not trying to hide or fiddle the numbers at all.

There is a long history of trying to lead Jarrah through the physics and math of the radiation problem. Several people have tried to take him a little further than 'it's a sea of killer radiation' and lead him to the idea of particle energy distributions, fluxes and attenuation. He cannot grasp this simple idea.

The IMDb debate is worth a read if you have time. This debate was centered on the solar radiation problem which is much more complex than the van Allen belts, but if you take a read Jarrah could not get past first base and the idea of integrated fluxes.

I was going to compile a critique of Jarrah's radiation series about 4 years ago, but I neither had the time nor the inclination to be bothered with him in the end. He's simply not prepared to learn if it means a challenge to his arguments. I'm afraid too much time has been invested in the hoax, and he's now the young (and obsessed) pretender that has taken on the crown of Kaysing and Rene. His ego will not allow him to surrender that crown. You could take him by the hand to each of the landing sites, and he'd still find a reason to deny their existence.

I seriously would not waste your time with the guy, I've been there and done that. I'm UK based, and his anger issues led to police involvement when he doc-dropped someone else in a video believing them to be me. Not bad considering he lives in Sydney.

I quickly realised that I would learn more about Apollo and the science if I spent less time urinating into the wind with the Blunder. The Apollo legacy lives on, and it has given me an incredible amount of joy. I now visit schools once a month as a volunteer, talk about Apollo and get the kids making stomp rockets. They love watching videos of the launches and astronauts on the moon.

I've learned so much about moon rocks and how they have informed the evolution of our planet, the science of retro-reflectors and how they have informed General Relativity, I have a deeper knowledge of solar physics. I have learned about the history of Apollo, the engineering of Apollo, the people that made Apollo possible, I have taken up photography, I have learned about the space programs before Apollo and the politics of the time. Apollo has renewed my interest in other areas of science too. I seriously would not waste too much time with the YouTube hoax crowd. They are a special bunch.

Well done on the video, it was good work.

[onebigmonkey]

The Apollo legacy lives on, and it has given me an incredible amount of joy. I now visit schools once a month as a volunteer, talk about Apollo and get the kids making stomp rockets. They love watching videos of the launches and astronauts on the moon.

I've learned so much about moon rocks and how they have informed the evolution of our planet, the science of retro-reflectors and how they have informed General Relativity, I have a deeper knowledge of solar physics. I have learned about the history of Apollo, the engineering of Apollo, the people that made Apollo possible, I have taken up photography, I have learned about the space programs before Apollo and the politics of the time. Apollo has renewed my interest in other areas of science too.

^^Completely this.

I joined the DIckeHeads to argue against idiots about this subject and it gave me back a fascination with something that thrilled me as  child. I've learned loads about the missions I never knew and followed some very interesting side avenues of the topic as a result. My collection of contemporary books and magazines about the missions gets ever larger (my original copy of 'Apollo over the moon: a view from orbit' is on its way from the USA as I type!) and they are much more fun than looking at them on a screen.

The more these idiots try and re-write history by refusing to learn anything, the more knowledge I gain in return.

[Bob B.]

I finally got around to watching Jarrah's video.  I normally don't watch his stuff, but I made an exception because I was doing research for an article.  I don't know why I bothered, but I made a point-by-point list of his errors.  It's a long list.

Review of Jarrah White's "Radioactive Anomaly III"

[JayUtah]

I finally got around to watching Jarrah's video.  I normally don't watch his stuff, but I made an exception because I was doing research for an article.  I don't know why I bothered, but I made a point-by-point list of his errors.  It's a long list.

Review of Jarrah White's "Radioactive Anomaly III"

Skimmed, excellent, will read in detail later.  A lot of the first stuff was what he brought up at IMDb and it went predictably nowhere as he had nothing else once his uninformed suppositions were exposed and laid aside.

[Bob B.]

A lot of the first stuff was what he brought up at IMDb and it went predictably nowhere as he had nothing else once his uninformed suppositions were exposed and laid aside.

Do you mean the stuff about Dr. Van Allen?  It amazes me that a debate even exists over those quotes.  Even if somebody was initially confused, I think it would only take a couple minutes at most to explain the context and the person would be like, "OK, that makes sense."  JW is incredibly obtuse if he still doesn't get it.

[JayUtah]

Do you mean the stuff about Dr. Van Allen?

Yes, specifically the alleged conflict between his early study of trapped radiation and his later affirmation that Apollo was genuine.

JW is incredibly obtuse if he still doesn't get it.

I don't think he wants to get it.  I've come to see that debate with some of the more obtuse-seeming hoax proponents is like science versus law.  That is, the scientific pursuit of truth comes from our side.  But in return we get "lawyerly" arguments that seek not to uncover truth, but only to trap his opponents in some semblance of meaningless contradiction, failure, or controversy.  He approaches Van Allen's later work as if he's cross examining Van Allen and treating his earlier works as some sort of deposition to which he is expected to remain absolutely faithful.  This type of conspiracy theorist is only trying to discredit a witness, not study the phenomena and facts.