Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > The Universe / UFOs / IFOs / Crop Circles

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-05-2010, 02:37 PM   #41
wwu777
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 800
Likes: 6 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
WWU777 you should take off your conspiracy specs and look at the facts.
Just as an example, the C-rock, I mean come on?!! Have you actually looked at the original photograph? NO. It has no marks at all, this is a print from another machine that had a small hair or something on the glass. I repeat just for you - THE ORIGINAL has no C on it, making it a CROCK of poo.

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...-107-17446.jpg

Now please just for once acknowledge an in your face debunk. Is the C-rock real? Or are you going to argue that THIS photograph is the fake, somehow touched up in the 70's?

'Aussie genius' I think not.
You obviously didn't watch Jarrah's video "Moonfaker: Rocks and Crocks". At the end of it, he goes to the library and finds a book from 1969 that shows the C rock, proving that the C rock photo is the original. Go watch the video again for the exact publication. And stop parroting old arguments that are already debunked.
wwu777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 02:46 PM   #42
wwu777
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 800
Likes: 6 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
There are moon rocks, because we landed on the moon. The static nature of science is not relevant.
The moon rocks argument is addressed here in this video series:


Please watch it.

Jarrah also would like you to see his "Flagging the Gems" series. He considers it his best presentation of the evidence:

wwu777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 02:47 PM   #43
manxboz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Taking another break from the forum!
Posts: 6,841
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
I actually meant to say 'non-static nature of science' in reply to your point, but thanks for pointing it out to me.

I wondered how long it would be before insults started flying.

The nature of this thread says it was a hoax, I am saying otherwise. Isn't that the nature of discussions?

Incidentally, after 40 years, our non-static science - so vastly advanced compared to then, still supports the evidence that we went.
If you take muppet as an insult you must still be at school, i called you muppet as you made a silly mistake and was playing, hence the face. so the nature of this thread is it's a hoax but your saying otherwise? hang on, thought you were on the whole hoaxing side? now i'm confuzzled
__________________
Finland = FUNland


Spellbounds promise to stop posting Webbot predictions
manxboz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 03:15 PM   #44
elton
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,867
Likes: 24 (16 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by size_of_light View Post
I've got no fixed belief sysytem here. They went to the moon. They didn't. The argument bounces back and forth.

But when somebody gives us rubbery figures like this, you have to wonder if half the argument isn't being propped up by NASA apologists fiddling the books alongside their space agency heroes.

I want to know how he arrived at '20 inches sounds about right 'when the outcome of his calculation was 54 inches.
The reason he said that is because 54 inches is a maximum but the real number would be less because they could not flex their knees so much due to the suit restrictions.

Anyway, Jarrah Whites calculation of 14 feet is complete nonsense. But of course this can be conveniently ignored by those clowns on this site.

Bring on Jarrah to a moderated debate! Please!
elton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 03:19 PM   #45
elton
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,867
Likes: 24 (16 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wwu777 View Post
You obviously didn't watch Jarrah's video "Moonfaker: Rocks and Crocks". At the end of it, he goes to the library and finds a book from 1969 that shows the C rock, proving that the C rock photo is the original. Go watch the video again for the exact publication. And stop parroting old arguments that are already debunked.
You are either Jarrah or sitting in the same room as him doing real time shilling. Luckily for you the fools on this site will believe the nonsense you post on YouTube.
elton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 03:28 PM   #46
dreamweaver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,882
Likes: 24 (13 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wwu777 View Post
I asked Jarrah about the IMDB forum incident you referred to. Here is his response:
Winston, I've now seen Jarrah's Youtube channel and I've also seen your post on his page telling him how you've opened up threads on his behalf on here and on ATS. So I do acknowledge that you are indeed not Jarrah. Apologies for my earlier insinuation that you were him.

So tell me, why are you acting as Jarrah's intermediary? If Jarrah has something to say, he's a big boy and he can come here to speak for himself.

I'm not interested in "video responses" or megaphone diplomacy via Youtube either. I find such videos are invariably long, subjective, biased waffle and I can't be arsed to sit through them. Just give me a précis of the facts, URLs, book titles etc. Thanks.
__________________
Congratulations, you found the secret message. Shhh!
dreamweaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 03:30 PM   #47
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wwu777 View Post
You obviously didn't watch Jarrah's video "Moonfaker: Rocks and Crocks". At the end of it, he goes to the library and finds a book from 1969 that shows the C rock, proving that the C rock photo is the original. Go watch the video again for the exact publication. And stop parroting old arguments that are already debunked.
OMG, you actually see the original photograph, without the C, you then use some dumb argument about a book to say the C rock is true?! Verily you are Jarrah or his love child.

Oh yes it is the original. It comes from an unbroken sequence of film from the camera magazine. As for parroting, that is what you are doing about some ridiculous stage prop argument.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 03:36 PM   #48
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by manxboz View Post
If you take muppet as an insult you must still be at school, i called you muppet as you made a silly mistake and was playing, hence the face. so the nature of this thread is it's a hoax but your saying otherwise? hang on, thought you were on the whole hoaxing side? now i'm confuzzled
You have read my comments and you think I am on the hoax argument, and you are confused about it? Is that what they call a really silly mistake?

Just to unconfuse you - They landed on the moon. There is not one single piece of evidence to say otherwise that stands up to scientific argument.

I think Jarrah is an idiot.

He is afraid to face Jay in a public forum and that is a fact.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 03:41 PM   #49
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by size_of_light View Post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efzYblYVUFk

Stillframe at 0:47 and you'll see it's possible to bend your knees and jump in these suits.

The pressurisation and design makes it more difficult to bend at the knee, but it's not impossible - it just requires more effort. Wouldn't that resistance then give you more of an upward boost when the leg is re-extended again? I don't know. Do you?

So I don't see how the 54 inch figure can be accurately reduced at this point by a factor of 2 - 3 times - by you or her - based on a number of unknown variables.
Who said it was impossible to bend the knees? Not me.
Difficult yes, awkward yes.

The point is, Jarrah quotes these jumps made without knee bends, and then spouts 14 feet arguments. Tabea_blumenschein's original post pointed out the two heights, knees bent and restricted (guess).

I have agreed that the factor between knees bent jump and not is about a factor of 2-3.

I just did it in my front room. No bend just under a foot. Bent knees 2 and a bit.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 03:42 PM   #50
elton
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,867
Likes: 24 (16 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post

He is afraid to face Jay in a public forum and that is a fact.
Jarrah doesn't need to face Jay. Anybody with a bit of knowledge can make him look like the clown he is.

Which reminds me - where is Bart Sibrel these days? He seems to have gone quiet after his road rage problems.
elton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 03:55 PM   #51
martg
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,041
Likes: 7 (5 Posts)
Default

looks interesting, I don't have time to watch now but bookmarked
thanks wwu777
martg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 04:00 PM   #52
dreamweaver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,882
Likes: 24 (13 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elton View Post
Jarrah doesn't need to face Jay. Anybody with a bit of knowledge can make him look like the clown he is.

Which reminds me - where is Bart Sibrel these days? He seems to have gone quiet after his road rage problems.
He's "resigned", apparently...

http://apollohoax.proboards.com/inde...5&page=1#74391
__________________
Congratulations, you found the secret message. Shhh!
dreamweaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 04:02 PM   #53
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,627
Likes: 595 (370 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
The point is, Jarrah quotes these jumps made without knee bends, and then spouts 14 feet arguments. Tabea_blumenschein's original post pointed out the two heights, knees bent and restricted (guess).
Can you point out for me where this guy referred to the jumps as made without knee bends in the quote she used, or if he did that elsewhere, where Tabea_blumenschein pointed out the two heights, knees bent and restricted, in her post below?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tabea_blumenschein View Post
Let's take one of Jarrah's claims at random and see if it passes the smell test.

On Earth, the average person can jump about 2 feet into the air, or about 0.6 meters. We can estimate the initial upward velocity as the feet are leaving the floor thus:

v = sqrt(2gs)

Where g = 9.8 m/s^2 and s = 0.6 meters, or the maximum height of the leap. The answer you get is:

v = 3.43 m/s

What we'd like to know is about how much kinetic energy you can give yourself as you push off the floor.

KE = 1/2 * m * v^2

If we assume the person has a mass of m = 70 kg, then the kinetic energy "on takeoff" is:

KE = 412 joules

We assume your legs can do the same amount of work whilst propelling you upward on the Moon. HOWEVER you're weighing a heavy suit, and the mass of you plus the suit is 180 kg (about 400 pounds). Local gravity on the Moon's surface is g = 1.63 m/s^2. So we can estimate your upward velocity "on takeoff" from the Lunar surface to be:

v = sqrt(2 * KE / m)

v = 2.14 m/s

And the maximum height you'd reach? We can calculate that as follows:

s = v^2 / 2g

s = 1.4 meters (or a bit more than 4 1/2 feet)

Jarrah's figure of 14 feet is off by a factor of 3.


I just checked the numbers, and to jump 14 feet off the Lunar surface requires an initial upward velocity of about 3.73 m/s. Compare this with the "takeoff velocity" I calculated for someone on Earth and you'll see that the two numbers are very close (I got 3.43 m/s on Earth, assuming the vertical leap will reach a height of 2 feet). Based on that, it appears that the "14 foot leap" estimate neglects the fact that the person will be wearing a space suit which increases his or her mass greatly. I suspect that this is Jarrah's carelessness because I wouldn't expect NASA to make such an elementary mistake.

No doubt someone at the BAUTForums has already nailed Jarrah on this.


EDIT: Just wanted to point out that those space suits seriously limit mobility, which means the actual jumps wouldn't be nearly as high as what I estimated above. I'd say that based on my calculations, 20 inches or so sounds just about right.

Last edited by size_of_light; 01-05-2010 at 04:49 PM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 04:04 PM   #54
manxboz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Taking another break from the forum!
Posts: 6,841
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
You have read my comments and you think I am on the hoax argument, and you are confused about it? Is that what they call a really silly mistake?

Just to unconfuse you - They landed on the moon. There is not one single piece of evidence to say otherwise that stands up to scientific argument.

I think Jarrah is an idiot.

He is afraid to face Jay in a public forum and that is a fact.
then I do aploygise, and it is me that is the muppet
__________________
Finland = FUNland


Spellbounds promise to stop posting Webbot predictions
manxboz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 04:10 PM   #55
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,627
Likes: 595 (370 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elton View Post
The reason he said that is because 54 inches is a maximum but the real number would be less because they could not flex their knees so much due to the suit restrictions.
See the clip I posted earlier. I see an astronaut getting a pretty decent knee-bend action going there. Wouldn't the pressurisation of the suit then cause a spring-action when he straightened his legs and leapt up off the ground, a little like a bouncing castle effect? How do you factor that sort of thing into these equations to reliably say you can downgrade the height by a factor of 2 or 3?

Quote:
Originally Posted by elton View Post
Anyway, Jarrah Whites calculation of 14 feet is complete nonsense. But of course this can be conveniently ignored by those clowns on this site.
According to the tabea blumenschein calculation, he's off by a factor of 3. But she reached a figure of 54 inches, and taking into account the fact that astronauts can bend their knees and jump, her calculation is off from NASA's by (almost) a factor of 3 as well.

Last edited by size_of_light; 01-05-2010 at 04:11 PM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 06:06 PM   #56
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Can you point out for me where this guy referred to the jumps as made without knee bends in the quote she used, or if he did that elsewhere, where Tabea_blumenschein pointed out the two heights, knees bent and restricted, in her post below?
Nope. This guy/her/Tabea_blumenschein can clarify that that is what they meant. If my basic assumption is incorrect, I will eat Bart Sibrel's shorts (or not - wrong Bart).
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 06:19 PM   #57
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,627
Likes: 595 (370 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Nope. This guy/her/Tabea_blumenschein can clarify that that is what they meant. If my basic assumption is incorrect, I will eat Bart Sibrel's shorts (or not - wrong Bart).
It goes to show how assumptions can give way to false impressions and create confusion on both sides and result in a complete mess that leads away from the truth.

To be honest, in the context of the big picture and how this relates to black ops programs and probable extraterrestrial contact going back 50 years or more, I think the debate is about as important as arguing whether or not Osama Bin Laden wore a fake beard.

Last edited by size_of_light; 01-05-2010 at 06:19 PM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 07:41 PM   #58
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by size_of_light View Post
It goes to show how assumptions can give way to false impressions and create confusion on both sides and result in a complete mess that leads away from the truth.

To be honest, in the context of the big picture and how this relates to black ops programs and probable extraterrestrial contact going back 50 years or more, I think the debate is about as important as arguing whether or not Osama Bin Laden wore a fake beard.
Look, I don't wish to labour the point, but restrictions pertaining to jumping invlove easy bending of the knees. It is an OBVIOUS assumption. It does not give way to a false impression. A false impression of what? I am not confused at all and it does not lead away from the truth in any way.

The big picture is not being discussed, only little ones on each thread. Someone makes a contention that I feel is utter cobblers, I feel compelled to answer it, regardless of how important it is.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 12:00 AM   #59
truthseeker512
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: near/on/in/under a Pyramid (no hills)
Posts: 1,484
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
There are moon rocks, because we landed on the moon.
Fake dutch moon rock

A treasured piece at the Dutch national museum - a supposed moon rock from the first manned lunar landing - is nothing more than petrified wood, curators say.

In the times we are living through right now, entertaining this whole moon landing hoax should be a breeze.
we gotta deal with fake planes, chemtrails and microchipped hybrids these days .

Last edited by truthseeker512; 02-05-2010 at 12:24 AM.
truthseeker512 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 12:15 AM   #60
777equals666
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 369
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Jarrah White's videos are well documented, investigate in a unbiased manner and presented intelligently. Impressive I'd say! I have read JayUtah's post on BAUT forum in the past, many of them at that, and he comes off very pessimistic. In fact, I would go as far as saying he comes off straight arrogant and pompous to any person whose comments don't support the official NASA version to the "Apollo Story". I am sold that JayUtah is just a front man for NASA with all the obvious lies Jarrah presented on film. Jarrah presents original post and blogs from comments made directly by JayUtah and if you have half a brain you can see that Jay will say anything to throw a person off from further researching this subject. JayUtah shares what we call "paid" intelligent nonsense....
777equals666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:50 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.