A rebuttal to Jarrah's latest masterpiece

[nomuse]

It's pretty hard to beat the one that said; "Besides James Van Allen..."

[sts60]

I think old Patrick was the most entertaining HB when it came to moving goal posts.

The absolute master of goal post grease 'n' go was Solon, earning that title for his virtuoso performance in the Conjunctions thread.  Start with "why didn't they take a picture of a planet" and wind up asking for serial numbers of individual components or some such.  He also said he believed Apollo was real, but wound up having to impeach the crews to prop up his story.

[VQ]

I have two typo corrections. In the section 13:46, the third paragraph should end with the words, "conscious choice", not "conscience choice."

In the section 19:38, it should read "all of this is moot" not "all of this is mute."

Great work.

[Bob B.]

I have two typo corrections. In the section 13:46, the third paragraph should end with the words, "conscious choice", not "conscience choice."

In the section 19:38, it should read "all of this is moot" not "all of this is mute."

Great work.

Thanks.  Fixed it.

[smartcooky]

I think old Patrick was the most entertaining HB when it came to moving goal posts.

The absolute master of goal post grease 'n' go was Solon, earning that title for his virtuoso performance in the Conjunctions thread.  Start with "why didn't they take a picture of a planet" and wind up asking for serial numbers of individual components or some such.  He also said he believed Apollo was real, but wound up having to impeach the crews to prop up his story.

Holy Cow!! That's not moving the goal-posts; that's packing up the entire stadium and taking it to another country!!!

[Luke Pemberton]

He's posted a rebuttal to the rebuttals (I'm sure there's a Monty Python reference to be made).

He's resorted to quoting van Allen, namely 'that until a practical solution to shielding astronauts is developed then manned spaceflight is not possible unless future spacecraft fly through the polar regions.' [my paraphrase of van Allen in quotes].

I guess the rebuttal of Whitian and Renitian physics has sunk Jarrah, and he can only resort to quote mining.

[Peter B]

They ask questions that they know you wont be able to answer because no definitive answer is possible, and to draw you into the answer they want so that they can attack your answer.

I've come across this approach many times, where they ask a very specific question knowing (or at least being very sure) that you won't be able to provide something that doesn't exist, so they can have their big "a-ha!" moment.

One example is on a discussion at ATS, where the poster demanded we tell him who took a specific photograph in cislunar space.

The answer "It was one of 3 people" wasn't enough, nor was any of the time and date specific evidence that it was taken exactly where and when it was claimed to be taken. A similar approach from the same guy was "I demand to see photographs of people in the CSM in Apollo 12". The fact that TV and 16mm footage was available wasn't enough, he asked
because he knew he wouldn't get what he was asking for and thus get to do a little victory dance (a photo of a reflected camera lens was dismissed as being of some sort of robot).

It some point the phrase "So you admit..." will enter the fray, because as we all know, information that they believe supports their argument is never given, it is always "admitted".

I summarise the approach as follows:

HB: "I demand evidence"
Sane person: "You mean like this evidence?"
HB: "No, not that evidence, other evidence that doesn't make me like an idiot."

I'm not sure if it's a consolation, but I've seen a similar approach from a theologian on a fairly serious forum. The ABC Religion and Ethics page (http://www.abc.net.au/religion/) publishes articles by some fairly high profile authors - priests and academics and the like. In an article a few months ago one such theologian explained why he thought atheism was intellectually defunct: he would ask atheists to define the God they said they didn't believe in. Not one respondent gave a catechismically correct definition of God, meaning that he would cheerfully agree that he didn't believe in that version of God either...

[JayUtah]

I guess the rebuttal of Whitian and Renitian physics has sunk Jarrah, and he can only resort to quote mining.

That's all he ever did with Van Allen, except of course for the quote where Van Allen specifically calls his stuff nonsense.  They did fly through the polar regions (of the belts), and they did develop suitable shielding, as Bob et al. have shown.  If Jarrah wants to actually be a scientist about this, he's not going to get a more engraved invitation than this.

[Bob B.]

He's posted a rebuttal to the rebuttals...

I wonder if we'll see a "Radioactive Anomaly IV".

[Luke Pemberton]

That's all he ever did with Van Allen, except of course for the quote where Van Allen specifically calls his stuff nonsense.

Agree. It would have been more accurate of me to say he has fully engaged reverse. He offered some maths, it's been picked to pieces and all that is left is his original tried and tested quote mine. In my opinion it is an appeal to his fans. It's a desperate act to seek attention and preserve his ego after another math fail. His latest offering shows he has taken several backward steps and has nothing more than 'but van Allen said...'

I really wouldn't be able to live with myself if I had failed quite so miserably, and so many times.

They did fly through the polar regions (of the belts), and they did develop suitable shielding, as Bob et al. have shown.

Which is the very point he misses.

If Jarrah wants to actually be a scientist about this, he's not going to get a more engraved invitation than this.

Agree. He's not a scientist, which you, I and all those at this board know. That's why he won't write up his work and have it reviewed by experts. That's why he has various videos about the same topic and various video addendum. His errors are highlighted, he skulks off, does a bit more data/quote mining and releases amended versions. In real science, such research is dismissed.

[Luke Pemberton]

I wonder if we'll see a "Radioactive Anomaly IV".

Maybe he'll call it A New Hope.

[ka9q]

Ooh, and when he claimed to have done the 'necessary calculations' in his video to speed up Apollo video to make it 'back' to Earth gravity.

And got the wrong number.

[ka9q]

I've come across this approach many times, where they ask a very specific question knowing (or at least being very sure) that you won't be able to provide something that doesn't exist, so they can have their big "a-ha!" moment.

Archetypical example: the missing "master tapes" of Apollo 11.

Never mind that they didn't even know the tapes existed prior to their reading the story of the unsuccessful search for them.

Never mind that they don't know how they were made, why they were made, or that they were never played back, yet everyone still saw the EVA -- which kinda defeats their use of the term "master tapes". A more accurate term would be "backup tapes", as they were made solely in case a scan converter failed. That didn't happen.

Never mind that not even NASA could foresee that new technology would someday make these tapes useful in making a better quality video of the EVA. They're NASA, so they should be able to accurately predict the future for at least 5 decades.

Never mind the extraordinarily abundant record of the Apollo 11 mission, and those that followed, including direct video recordings from the greatly improved TV cameras on those missions (after a much less lossy conversion from field sequential color to NTSC). No, that was all faked.  Why? Because it exists. Those tapes -- only those tapes -- contained The Truth. Why? Only because the hoaxers know they know longer exist. No other reason.

[smartcooky]

Archetypical example: the missing "master tapes" of Apollo 11.

Never mind that they didn't even know the tapes existed prior to their reading the story of the unsuccessful search for them.

How about that NASA eh!?

Perpetrates the most complex. the most brilliant and the most outrageous hoax of all time, and then intentionally publishes big, obvious clues to what they have done.

Go Figure!

Never mind the extraordinarily abundant record of the Apollo 11 mission, and those that followed, including direct video recordings from the greatly improved TV cameras on those missions (after a much less lossy conversion from field sequential color to NTSC). No, that was all faked.  Why? Because it exists. Those tapes -- only those tapes -- contained The Truth. Why? Only because the hoaxers know they know longer exist. No other reason.

And if they were ever to be discovered, you just KNOW what conspritards like the Blunder will say. "Oh, those aren't the actual missing tapes, they are just new ones that have been faked!"

[ka9q]

Perpetrates the most complex. the most brilliant and the most outrageous hoax of all time, and then intentionally publishes big, obvious clues to what they have done.

Big and obvious only to those smart enough to see them. I.e., the hoaxers. Everyone else is blind or a shill.

And if they were ever to be discovered, you just KNOW what conspritards like the Blunder will say. "Oh, those aren't the actual missing tapes, they are just new ones that have been faked!"

The search report seemed pretty confident that the tapes were recycled in the early 1980s. New planetary missions were producing a lot of data, but the fresh tapes NASA had acquired were defective. This forced a choice between sacrificing the Apollo 11 backup tapes or losing a lot of new mission data. And it was still too early to foresee that the information on the Apollo tapes could someday be decoded directly by the average person's PC to display a superior picture to the ubiquitous scan converted NTSC tapes of the event.

It really is a shame. I'm pretty familiar with the LOIRP -- the Lunar Orbiter Image Recovery Project -- that digitized the (still existing) tapes of the raw downlink signals from the Lunar Orbiter spacecraft in the 1960s. The results are vastly superior to the optically printed images that were the only viewable versions for over four decades. They could easily have done the same thing with the Apollo 11 video. I toured their lab last month; they did an amazing amount of work on a shoestring budget. In an old McDonald's, even. (cue rhyme).