I remember this book when I was a kid, we knew it wasn't real even as kids. This was just what cheap publishers did back then. This book was like a comic book back then, sorry Mr. Collins.
I love these videos J. they're still fun. Right or WRONG.... Best of times eh'
The photo is clearly of Collins training in the KC 135. The point is that is was an ILLUSTRATION and not intended to be understood as an actual photo from Gemini 10! Publishers do this! It's silly than anyone would assume the '75 cover is supposed to be something real. Straw man? It's way beyond that! What if it was a pencil drawing? Would you claim that just because it's in the book, Collins drew it, himself & suggested it was a photo from the actual spaceflight?
What's with the "self-proclaimed aerospace engineer" description for Windley? The guy has his Bachelor of Science degree in engineering and he worked in aerospace for the Department of Defence. What more does one need to be an Aerospace Engineer?
Rene makes the claim that NASA and Collins claim the altered picture was taken on the Gemini mission.
Where has any official claim been made that there are ANY photos of that spacewalk?
To the contrary, NASA shows that the camera was lost, and there are NO photos of that spacewalk. Research would show that any pictures depicting the walk would be artistic license.
The text in the book does discuss the loss of the camera.
The lost camera you refer to is the one that Collins was using. He lost pictures that HE took during that spacewalk, not pictures OF HIMSELF during that spacewalk.
@WhiteJarrah Maybe that picture of Collins in the KC-135 was faked using the image from the actual space walk? Think in reverse. You can't always rule everything out.
in my new video, it show how stars are clearly visible by NASA new vid of Satrun moon flyby taken 12 july 2009!! so why not these stars were on Apollo missions??! you comment!
Quick question, how does going to college, and holding several degrees make you "self proclaimed". That's false he IS an aerospace engineer. On the other hand, Ralph Rene claimed he was a self taught engineer, which frankly doesn't mean shit. Oh yeah you spelled fifteen wrong, spell check helps make you looks a little more like you know what you're talking about.
What's really funny is that this guy was banned from YaHoo! during a debate with Jay because of his hostile behavior and vulgar language.
This was also presented with an image of Collins allegedly performing an EVA on Gemini 10, where no such photos actually exist. Turns out the conspiracy theorist doctored a goddamn photo, just like they accuse NASA of doing. The hypocrisy and irony are oh so sweet...
The strange twisty-minded behaviour of pro-Apollo mouthpieces is in itself inviting strong suspicion that there is a concerted cover-up going on in YT and the WEB. There seems to be no rational search for the truth from them, only to debunk no matter what the cost in ethics or credibility. It's though they're lashed and driven by unseen lunatic masters.
We don't need to search for the truth because we have it in our posession.
Much like as a Christian I don't spend my time looking for the promised savior, the annointed one. I believe I have found Him.
I still have not had any hoax-aholics share with me one genuine, verifiable, respected, published scientist/professor who has the respect of his/her peers come out against the landings.
the evidence is overwhelming against a landing occuring. we never went. we have no verifiable evidence tos how we went. and everything we view shows we didn't go.
The "faked photo" is, in fact, an illustration, not a photo (7:25). I don't think anyone in his right mind would believe this a photo. It's an illustration not meant to record an event in time but meant to sell a freakin' book. Duh!
That's the problem with you people - you read into EVERYTHING! Ask Mike Collins who picked his cover illustration - I guarantee it was the publisher, not NASA or COL Collins.
Before the fake Marsman hoax takes place It is time to give earth equally to all Good Honest loving people and divide government profits fairly for improving co-existence among all nations
"you have on many occasions explicitly called Jay Windley, Mark Gray, svector and myself liars"
That's because they are liars. Windley alleged Rene was offered 10,000 when he wasn't, and Windley's continuing to lie about Mauldin. Gray told his customers he was selling the complete Apollo footage when he wasn't, Liar Vector told us the 30:28 telecast was a continuous shot with no edits when it wasn't. And you misquote me on your forum.
From what I've read and experienced myself..I think what WJ is saying is that once a liar has established himself with lies...it's okay to call him a liar. Where, on the other hand, if you insinuate someone is a liar, you should, in fact, have substantial proof. This video, and others show just how much lying NASA Apollogists are willing to do to confuse, misdirect, and fool the casual investigator into the Apollo sham...
I can see looking at the comment history that people have tried for months to get you to show the text that you say proves Collins' tried to pass the doctored image off as an official mission roll photo. You refuse. Let the record be shown then, that upon repeated request, Jarrah White was unable to provide proof that the Collins' photo was purpoted to be a NASA original.
I strongly suggest you change your video lest you be labeled a liar and a fraud.
"Let the record be shown then, that upon repeated request, Jarrah White was unable to provide proof that the Collins' photo was purpoted to be a NASA original."
You are one step away from being blocked for repeated false accusations against me. Liar Vector was blocked after he accused me of lying and fabricating my evidence. I don't suppose you've seen the latest response video to this one?
What part of my accusations are false? I simply ask for the evidence to which your claim hinges on. Evidence to which you supposedly have. Tell me how I falsely accuse you by asking for evidence.
You called me a liar and a fraud, and then had the gall to misrepresent the context of this discussion at your forum. I cannot be held accountable for if you continue to ignore what I write.
No, I said that you run the risk of being called a liar and a fraud. Besides, you have on many occasions explicitly called Jay Windley, Mark Gray, svector and myself liars. You cannot punish me here for what I say on other forums. If you don't like it, contact the moderator there.
"you have on many occasions explicitly called Jay Windley, Mark Gray, svector and myself liars"
That's because they are liars. Windley alleged Rene was offered 10,000 when he wasn't, and Windley's continuing to lie about Mauldin. Gray told his customers he was selling the complete Apollo footage when he wasn't, Liar Vector told us the 30:28 telecast was a continuous shot with no edits when it wasn't. And you misquote me on your forum.
Lunar Orbit has been known to ban ABs as well as HBs. He just banned a major AB player not a month ago. He would ban me in a heartbeat if he thought I deserved it.
"He would ban me in a heartbeat if he thought I deserved it."
I can think of several reasons you deserve it.
1) Alleging I skewed the event of my Youtube ban to make myself 'out to be an unfair victim', knowing full well the material SC Films infringed me for was public property and knowing that they censored footage from their disks.
2) On multiple occasions accusing me of 'dodging the question' after you choose to ignore my repeated answers.
3) Falsely accusing me of misquoting scientists after I've quoted them correctly and given you the requested numbers. And endorsing false charges that I've never even seen the source material.
Oberg has publicly made the offer, and you informed Rene of it months ago, and still Rene hasn't decided to collect. Why? It would score major points for the HB movement, be a huge blow to the AB movement, possibly make news and probably drive up sales for his book. Why wouldn't he collect?
If Rene tried and Oberg denied, Rene could make a bit stink of it to discredit him too.
I have been having trouble posting my reply to this. Can I not submit links in comments? That actually makes sense in order to keep spam down. Here is your proof:
Go to the bautforum. Find the search field, and enter "oberg $10,000." The first and second link that come up are the threads in which Oberg publicly posted the letters he sent to Rene. If Rene did not recieve the letters they were there for him to see in public.
"Go to the bautforum. Find the search field, and enter "oberg $10,000." The first and second link that come up are the threads in which Oberg publicly posted the letters he sent to Rene."
I see no letters to Rene, only dribble text in a message board post. Where are the letters?
"If Rene did not recieve the letters they were there for him to see in public."
You mean on a forum dominated by liars that he gave up debating with years ago?
I just now checked it out and it worked fine. Here is the most relevant portion:
"You claim they have done so, and your exact words: "Why did NASA feel it necessary to fake pictures and lie to us as early as July 1966?" Please cite exactly where this lie originally occurred. Would you be willing to bet $10,000 that you can find such explicit evidence?"
"I just now checked it out and it worked fine. Here is the most relevant portion:"
You know exactly what I mean. So far, you've shown me no evidence that Oberg even sent these supposed messages to Rene, in doing so you're making me more convinced that these letters never even existed. Windley claims Oberg sends Rene reminders all the time, I highly doubt that every single message reminding him of this supposed offer over 5 years all got lost in the mail.
I call it selective distribution: invent text for a letter that never existed and post it publicly on a forum you know the person your addressing it to is not likely to read, after all: people who know Rene personally knows he doesn't use the net for anything other than hosting a website. Knowing that he's not likely to see the forum, you can allege that Rene knew of the offer and turned it down.
It must have taken a pretty sick group of minds to dream up a scheme like that.
Answer my initial question, Jarrah. Why didn't you include any images of the text in which Collins claims that the photo was an official mission roll image? Where is the supposed text?
I do not want to hear any more claims until you answer this question.
I showed the cover did I not? Which clearly depicts Collins in the same suit and all floating against the earth during his supposed spacewalk. Why do you suppose we were not told about that?
Additionally, in the film after this one, I showed the caption of the Moon Shot photograph that purports it to be Alan Shepard playing his famous golf game. Something else Windley didn't tell his readers about, or you.
The images are only half of the claim. You specifically claim there is text that purports the doctored image to be a NASA mission roll photo. Without that text, your claim has no evidence. Where is that text?
What good would text do to satisfy you? The Apollo 14 photograph seen in MoonShot has a caption claiming its a real photo, and your group denies it was ever purported to be Al Shepard taking his golf swing. In addition to the cover, the Gemini 10 photo is featured along side an official Apollo 11 photo of the lunar surface right at the beginning of the book. Your group is yet to acknowledge that fact.
If you would bother to provide the text it would qualify your claim and we could move forward. I don't think the text exists. The text is the most important part to your claim. Without it you cannot prove Collins' intent in producing the image.
Moonshot has nothing to do with Collins' book. I am uninterested in discussing that now. I want to see the text from Collins' book.
"The text is the most important part to your claim. Without it you cannot prove Collins' intent in producing the image."
If it wasn't a official photograph, why was it on display along with an official Apollo 11 photo? I'm still waiting your answer.
"Moonshot has nothing to do with Collins' book."
And yet your group doesn't mind putting it in the same category: you deny both photos were claimed to be real, even though the A14 was captioned and the G10 image was purported as one on the cover.
I don't know why it was put next to an official photograph. That's what I'm trying to find out. Unless you can PROVE there was intent to deceive, I can only make speculations.
YOU claimed there was text that supported your claim. WHERE is that text? I told you already I am uninterested in any other claims you bring up until you answer this one.
Quit stalling. I've been trying for days to get you to show me the text. SHOW ME THE TEXT.
So is ignoring my requests going to be your new tactic? You had time to dig up some radiation figure related to Van Allen but not provide for me the text you claim to have?
So, getting back to the original issue. Why didn't you include any images of the text in which Collins claims that the photo was an official mission roll image? Where is this supposed text?
You can look up any of the claims they make in any science textbook. How come an HB has never done that? If they are obviously making stuff up, it should be pretty easy to prove it.
"You can look up any of the claims they make in any science textbook. How come an HB has never done that?"
You are either incredibly ignorant or a poor researcher. Had you read Rene's book, you would have known that each and every one of his arguments were based upon a quotation from an astronaut, scientist or astronomer.
How does this answer my question? Why don't you research the actual science that these people are presenting? If person X presents scientific principle Y to explain event Z, it's a simple matter to figure out exactly what Y is to make sure X is telling the truth. You are quick to call people liars and frauds but you have no interest in proving it.
But you have yet to provide the numbers that qualify that claim. How did Maudlin come to that conclusion? A quote from a scientist does not by itself disqualify the mountains of hard evidence that claim otherwise. How do the dozens of probes sent out to other planets survive if meters of lead is required to shield them?
"How do the dozens of probes sent out to other planets survive if meters of lead is required to shield them?"
You do know that Explorer 4 only obtained its 100rem/hr readings after they shielded the Geiger counters with lead, don't you?
You propagandists are all the same: you insist that conspiracy claims are not valid because they are not supported by scientists, but when proved they are, a statement from a scientist is still not good enough.
What is your source for that claim? And where are those numbers I asked for? I already told you a quote does not qualify a scientific claim. I want the calculations made to come to that conclusion.
Not what, who. I'll give you a clue: who is the radiation belt named after?
"where are those numbers I asked for?"
Okay, you want numbers? Mauldin states that solar flares produce GeV protons in the same energy range as most cosmic particles. And I think you'll find that the majority of cosmic rays that strike earth from all sides have energies as high as 10 GeV.
What do you say about James Van Allen himself saying that the radiation belts can be safely traversed by humans?
So, how much radiation will a craft absorb by traversing the Van Allen belts in 1 hour? How much incidental radiation will a craft absorb during a 3 day translunar coast assuming no solar flares are cast?
Do you know how to distinguish between wave and particle radiation and what shielding is necessary for each?
And what experiment would that be? What were the calculations made to arrive at that conclusion? Where did you find that figure? You continue to make vague claims without backing them up. Radiation is a complex issue that can't be explained with the occasional random number.
Why don't you tell me what kind of shielding is best for particle radiation in general? You should be able to look that up pretty easily.
I did a bit of digging on the Mauldin book "Prospects for Interstellar Travel." It seems you forgot a very important part concerning the book. It deals with the prospects for INTERSTELLAR travel. I repeatedly asked for context, and I can now see why you ignored me. Mauldin was proposing a multigeneration interstellar craft that would endure radiation hazards for many years! THAT is the context for the "2 meter shielding" claims you make!
"Explorer 3 completely confirmed the results obtained by its predecessor, and it also confirmed Van Allens theory. Up to a height of 300 miles there was an gradual increase in the number of charged particles. Then up to 600 miles there was a more rapid increase. Above 600 miles the counters became jammed."
Van Allen estimated that the actual particle numbers might be anything up to 35,000 per second, which was far too high to be dealt with by any self-respecting Geiger counter."
You still have not established what the Geiger counter's capacity was, and how that translates to a human body, or how long Explorer remained in the belts, or how fast it was traveling, or anything else besides it got overloaded to tell me the belts were impossible to pass by humans.
What about all the interplanetary probes with sensitive electronics that pass through the Van Allen belts, or the ISS which routinely passes through a portion of the belts?
"Explorer I ran into a belt of intense radiation at 600 miles. The satellite carries a Geiger tube to count cosmic rays. At 684 miles the tubes registered 140 counts per second. The Geiger tubes had been knocked out by radiation too intense for them to handle. The satellites passed through radiation 35,000 counts per second. The belt may extend outward 8,000 miles. *Lead shielding would reduce the dose to a supportable level*." Time Magazine May 12, 1958
"Explorer I ran into a belt of intense radiation at 600 miles. The satellite carries a Geiger tube to count cosmic rays. At 684 miles the tubes registered 140 counts per second. The Geiger tubes had been knocked out by radiation too intense for them to handle. The satellites passed through radiation 35,000 counts per second. The belt may extend outward 8,000 miles. *Lead shielding would reduce the dose to a supportable level*." Time Magazine May 12, 1958
"Explorer I ran into a belt of intense radiation at 600 miles. The satellite carries a Geiger tube to count cosmic rays. At 684 miles the tubes registered 140 counts per second. The Geiger tubes had been knocked out by radiation too intense for them to handle. The satellites passed through radiation 35,000 counts per second. The belt may extend outward 8,000 miles. *Lead shielding would reduce the dose to a supportable level*." Time Magazine May 12, 1958
He is listed as a technical writer, which meant he did...writing. Not building, or designing, or overseeing, or anything directly related to rocketry or science.
I honestly do not know enough about him or the article you presented. You have shown me quotes but not the context in which the quotes were made. I will reserve judgement until either the context is given or I can read the entire article. I suspect you are not giving me all the information.
I am trained in photography and lighting and have read scientific papers on thermodynamics and astrophysics, and various articles on the history of Apollo and space travel in general. My research into the hoax theories is good but I will be the first to admit I have not read every website or article relevant.
Unfortunatelly for Windley, Jarrah -and some other people in America and around the world-has uncovered that his motivation is not that innocent.He is not a scientist at all.He is a well paid debunker of the truth.
Have any evidence to support that accusation? I'm actually glad when you HB's make "disinfo agent" accusations because it makes it clear to the rest of the world you are a.) desperate to ignore his debunking and b.) completely detached from reality.
Windley's "debunking" is to prop up straw-man arguments that will only confuse those who are without access to the said conspiracy theorists source material.
"b.) completely detached from reality."
We are not detached from reality, just your version of reality.
Who could possibly not be able to access CT source material if they are able to read Jay's debunking? Nearly everything the CT's have to say is online.
So, what's your evidence that Jay is a paid disinfo agent?
"Who could possibly not be able to access CT source material if they are able to read Jay's debunking? Nearly everything the CT's have to say is online."
Correction, at Clavius nearly everything a CT has to say is ignored or completely taken out of context, or quickly dismissed.
Your friend Windley is either paid or lies for the fun of it.
Seeing as how he provides a bibliography section and names all the people he gets his HB theories from, it would be pretty easy to do a google search and be able to read what they have to say.
So am I correct in saying you have no evidence Jay is a paid disinfo agent? Name a specific incident in which Jay uses bad science, and fully explain why he is wrong, and cite sources to back it up.
"Seeing as how he provides a bibliography section and names all the people he gets his HB theories from"
I believe no question that that entire section exists to alienate his readers from conspiracy theorists. In some cases he even misquotes conspiracy theorists and then mismatches theorists and arguments. He did it to me just last year in July.
I used to be an HB. I decided that I should hear both sides of the story. Each side references their rival's arguments quite a bit, so I should expect most people would be interested in reading up on both sides.
I saw the fox program when it first aired. Knowing next to nothing about the history or science involved in Apollo, I was quickly drawn in and initially convinced a hoax had been perpetrated. I began researching online, first finding pro-hoax sites that elaborated on the arguments. I noticed they referenced certain ABs, so I decided it would be best to see what they had to say.
"Name a specific incident in which Jay uses bad science"
As you wish: on his website he claims that Rene misunderstood John Mauldin's book and that his 2-meter material shield is not necessary for lunar trips. What Windley does not reveal are the passages that Rene quoted: not only did Mauldin specify that he's talking about the radiation one gets at earth distance from the sun, he compares his proposed shield with the shield our atmosphere provides.
On his website, he claimed that Kaysing left Rocketdyne prior to their work on Apollo, in actuality the development of the engines they supplied began either during or before Kaysing's career. In fact as early as 1961 NASA was launching Apollo Saturn rockets with their engines.
Could you elaborate on this? What was Mauldin's proposed shielding and for what context (long-term earth orbit, long-term interplanetary voyages, short-term translunar voyages etc.)? If you wish, just send me a link to Rene's quote.
"Solar (or star) flares of protons, an occasional and severe hazard on the way out of and into planetary systems, can give hundreds to thousands of rem over a few hours at the distance of the earth. Such doses are fatal and millions of times greater than the permitted dose"
"Cosmic particles are dangerous, come from all sides, and require at least 2 meters of solid shielding all around living organisms. Earth's atmosphere provides the equivalent of 10 meters of shielding."
"By comparison, solar flares can deliver GeV protons in the same energy range as most cosmic particles but at much higher intensities. Increase of energy accounts for most of the increased radiation danger because GeV protons or their products will penetrate several meters of material."
- John H. Mauldin, p226 Prospects For Interstellar Travel
In what context does he claim 2 meters are required? Is he talking about a permanent fixture in the allen belts or a quick back and forth trip? Where does he show the calculations he made to come up with these claims?
He specifically states that meters pf shielding is required over a few hours at earth distance from the sun. Not only does he specify what radiation he's talking about, he compare his proposed shield with the earth's atmosphere.
Mauldin himself holds a Ph,D., a masters in physics and worked for NASA during the Voyager program.
Solar flares are a problem, but fortunately they are a predictable one. The sun produces warning signs days before a major flare is let out. NASA paid close attention to the sun before launches. Also, flares are directional, and would have to be cast in a certain direction to reach a translunar craft. Apollo being a short-term mission, they never had to deal with flares. There was not a single flare during a mission that actually crossed paths with apollo.
"Solar flares are a problem, but fortunately they are a predictable one."
"In a sense, the astronauts were truly risking their lives to go to the moon because solar flares are not predictable." - Phil Plait, p162 Bad Astronomy.
For a man who gets his information from The Bad Astronomer, you don't seem to stick his his laws of physics too well.
I used bad wording, but solar flares can still be foreseen by a few days. And solar flares are still directional, and there still are no reports of solar flares that occured during apollo missions that would have jeopardized the missions.
the first link that came up when I googled "apollo 16 solar flare" was an article that specifically explains what a large solar flare would have done to the Apollo astronauts. In short: not much as long as they stayed inside their ship. Other resources stated that the Apollo 16 exposure was low (.5 rads).
I have not heard of the book. I doubt you've actually read it. I foresee more cherrypicked quotes in my future.
"I have not heard of the book. I doubt you've actually read it. I foresee more cherrypicked quotes in my future."
Guess what, I'm holding both that and Prospects right now. You've just cracked the ice, but rest assured, you've earned yourself a place in my next MoonFaker, along side Windley and Oberg. TTYL.
No. I'd rather read good books. I've heard all of Rene's arguments presented by both sides of the fence. Any argument he brought up in his book has been thoroughly discussed on the internet.
No. All the arguments brought up have either been ignored, dismissed or misrepresented all together. Here's one passage from Windley's site I find amusing, referring to 20,000 defects...
"Is that a lot? Were they crucial systems? Mr. Rene either doesn't know or doesn't wish to disclose it. This is where Mr. Rene might have benefitted from some actual engineering experience."
What Windley does not reveal on his website, is that Rene, quoting the authors of Journey to Tranquility, is referring to FAILURES in the environmental control system and also the ascent engine. Which ironically as Windley admits, is a critical system.
Why don't you talk to him about this? I don't really care enough about your unhealthy fixation on Jay, and I will not act as your surrogate in finding out the answers nor his to defend them.
After all you were obviously so impressed by his de-bunking you felt obliged to join the forum attached to his website, when you had previously been a hoax believer.
How long did it take you change your mind and become a fully subscribed moon landing believer?
Bad Astronomy was the first AB website I read. I read several pro AB sites before I got to Clavius, and by that time I had already changed my mind. Apollohoax is the forum officially connected to Clavius, but it it not Jay's forum.
I made up my mind after reading all the arguments by both sides. I was not emotionally invested in either answer when I made my mind. I will remain an AB until I find evidence that goes beyond supposition and handwaving.
If Collins' book so explicitly claims the image in question to be an original, why did you not show that in your video? All you have is Rene's unsubstantiated claim that it's in there.
Overall, this video is unimpressive. You make bold claims but you never bother to back them up with any of your visuals. Your screenshots go by too fast to actually read and you basically ask the viewer to accept your arguments without a shred of evidence.
If you want to talk about unsubstantiated claims; then why not start with the one about Oberg offering Rene $10,000, or the one about me infringing copyright by using Public Domain footage? Or how about the unsubstantiated claim that SC Films' Apollo 10 DVD contains ALL the footage from that mission?
When in fact minutes of footage were excluded. I can tell none of you liars from ApolloHoax want to touch that little detail.
Actually, why don't you address my points first instead of ignoring them and changing the subject?
You got in trouble because you used footage you ripped directly from Spacecraft Films footage (with their logo present in your videos) without asking for permission. Svector asked permission before he used the footage.
Mark Gray made it pretty clear that certain portions of the primary source had degraded and in some instances he couldn't find satisfactory secondary sources.
Did you or did you not ask Mark Gray for permission to use his footage before you made your video? What evidence can you provide to prove that you did in fact ask permission?
I don't know much about the Oberg offer, but all you can base your opinion is conjecture. Why don't you ask Oberg to provide evidence that he contacted Rene about the offer? That would be much moreconvincing than hearing Rene complain about it.
"You got in trouble because you used footage you ripped directly from Spacecraft Films footage without asking for permission."
lol, there's a good one, I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Gray was censoring material in his "complete" DVD sets, he panicked and filed infringement because he knew I proved he was a fraud. There's no need to ask to use permission to use PUBLIC DOMAIN footage.
Read up on your copyright law. You did not obtain and make your own transfer of the footage. Instead, you bought a professional transfer and used the footage without asking permission or acknowledging them in your credits. Their logo was visible in your video.
Gray's intentions have been clear. He thinks CT's are stupid and does not want them representing his product.
Read up on PUBLIC DOMAIN. Gray has no claim to NASA's footage: he sold us that public footage claiming his customers were getting ALL the footage, when he deliberately expluded the first 3minutes of Apolo 10's 47GET telecast.
"or acknowledging them in your credits." You seen the credits for Flagging The Gems lately?
That's right, meaning that you can freely request the primary sources to make your own video with no consequences. But he produced a product using those primary sources to his interpretation. He made creative decisions on how to best display these sources. His transfer of the Apollo footage belongs to him, and he can file for infringement if you use his transfer without permission.
Apollo downlinks. Color, length varies. DVD (region-free). Spacecraft Films. Digital transfers of original Apollo film and video, unedited." - Jay Windley.
Notice how he specifically states that the reels from SC Films in general, not just Apollo 11. Do you plan on lying to me all night saying that Gray never claimed his raw footage was unedited?
"blah blah blah. A little emotionally invested, are we?"
You know very well that the footage used in Liar Lunacy 5 came from an edited reel: I guess revealing that it was a jumble of clips is over-stepping the mark, but cherry-picking a misleading clip without informing your audiences it came from an edited source is okay.
Hey reynoldbot are you an Apollohoaxer dot gullible halfwit?
Why don't you post a comment on the John Mauldin thread and get lying Jay Windley to explain it PROPERLY and stop his deceitful antics. Start with asking him the direction(s) solar particles travel.
Do you even know what radiation is? If it were a charged particle event, the hull of their craft would be protection enough (charged particles while dangerous are easily deflected), and during a wave radiation event, a heavy liquid would be the best shielding available. They may still get a dosage of radiation but simple physics dictates that the fuel and hull of the ship would have taken the brunt of it.
Would you care to hear what John Mauldin thinks of that? And I mean would you like to hear a direct quotation, not the words that Windley puts in his mouth.
I'm aware of the chain of events. Gray had forgotten that svector had asked permission, and after svector found his videos flagged he contacted Gray and Gray remembered.
Considering your demeanor, reputation, attitude (and from what I've heard, foul language), I'm don't blame them for not wanting to talk to you. What would you say if Oberg provided timestamped emails to Rene offering the money?
You want foul language? How about these little number from one of your lying heroes?
"You are without a doubt, the stupidist, most cowardly little girlie-man I've ever seen in my entire life. I'll bet you squat to pee don't you? I'm right aren't I? You squat, just like a girl when you have to piss." "You are a loser, a coward, a liar, and an ugly little c-u-n-t with a nappy-assed pubic hair mustache to boot."
"I'm aware of the chain of events. Gray had forgotten that svector had asked permission, and after svector found his videos flagged he contacted Gray and Gray remembered."
Please be specific in the video about where the images come from (which edition of the book, etc), and show video footage of the book (1975 edition) rather than a cropped-out image from God-knows-where.
"Please be specific in the video about where the images come from (which edition of the book, etc), and show video footage of the book (1975 edition) rather than a cropped-out image from God-knows-where."
I think greenmagoos has a bug up his ass. If there was some sort of option of finding out what comments he has posted, there would probably not be one decent one. I don't think his vocabulary exceeds one of a ten year old. If greenmagoo should read this, he will probably mark it as spam. I think if you had to post your face, email and house address everytime you posted a comment, you would have to be a lot more careful what you say.
There he goes again. I think he has OCD (google it greenmagoos, that is if your that intelligent to know their website) because he just can't stop it can he. Well if you want me, i'll be in Dubai if you want me.
jarrah, your emulation of svector's production style comes through loud and clear. were you at all aware that your fawning admiration for s-vector was so blatantly obvious ?
We all love at our office JW... after all of this is over I'm sure you would have a job here :) - Besides that...just do what your doing and good luck and see you on the other side!
I had absolutely no knowledge that Mike put Simkin's picture on his PB page ... So I was set up to be banned from the EF by Burton , and I would very much like to prove that somehow and see justice done .
"Further, I don't consider the YouTube personalities you identify to have anything to say that merits my attention. They seem to be more interested in insulting, ridiculing, and discrediting me personally than in examining Apollo history critically. If they wish me to validate their existence by my attention, let them first consent to the rules of civil debate."
Jay Windley , the spokesman for nasa disinformation says :
"I do not debate at YouTube. In my judgment its conventions do not allow useful debate. Textual comments are severely limited, blatantly insulting language is not only allowed but encouraged, and anyone's comment can be squelched."
OK, googled 'windley', I get some IT guy. Is this the one? 'plait' brought me to 'bad astronomy'. I think I hit a good one there! Thanks, I'm gonna check that one out!
Windley is the guy who made false charges against Ralph Rene. Plait is the so-called astronomer who refuses to address various issues that are devastating to his case, like Operation Dirty Trick or the Apollo 16 solar flare.
I've already told you my opinion on Rene. Plait is 'so-called' Astronomer? AND I suppose you are the REAL astronomer.
The 'Apollo 16 Solar Flare' occured after they splashed down, back on Earth. Check our facts please.
'Windley' made 'false' charges against Rene? I've seen Ralph's videos, he's a nutter, through and through! So, if 'Windley' made false charges, did it go to court? What was/were the outcome/s?
I remember this book when I was a kid, we knew it wasn't real even as kids. This was just what cheap publishers did back then. This book was like a comic book back then, sorry Mr. Collins.
I love these videos J. they're still fun. Right or WRONG.... Best of times eh'
Tweekerhead 4 months ago
RIP Rene
yourmajezty 5 months ago
Mr Rene has a potty mouth.
The photo is clearly of Collins training in the KC 135. The point is that is was an ILLUSTRATION and not intended to be understood as an actual photo from Gemini 10! Publishers do this! It's silly than anyone would assume the '75 cover is supposed to be something real. Straw man? It's way beyond that! What if it was a pencil drawing? Would you claim that just because it's in the book, Collins drew it, himself & suggested it was a photo from the actual spaceflight?
LunarTuner 1 year ago
What's with the "self-proclaimed aerospace engineer" description for Windley? The guy has his Bachelor of Science degree in engineering and he worked in aerospace for the Department of Defence. What more does one need to be an Aerospace Engineer?
LunarTuner 1 year ago
good on you for proving jay to be a liar.
beastwars 1 year ago
what do you think about nasascam
site?
MicaelaAlmodovar 2 years ago
Rene makes the claim that NASA and Collins claim the altered picture was taken on the Gemini mission.
Where has any official claim been made that there are ANY photos of that spacewalk?
To the contrary, NASA shows that the camera was lost, and there are NO photos of that spacewalk. Research would show that any pictures depicting the walk would be artistic license.
The text in the book does discuss the loss of the camera.
sc0qter 2 years ago
The lost camera you refer to is the one that Collins was using. He lost pictures that HE took during that spacewalk, not pictures OF HIMSELF during that spacewalk.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
@WhiteJarrah Maybe that picture of Collins in the KC-135 was faked using the image from the actual space walk? Think in reverse. You can't always rule everything out.
yesiamawizardjonny 1 month ago
in my new video, it show how stars are clearly visible by NASA new vid of Satrun moon flyby taken 12 july 2009!! so why not these stars were on Apollo missions??! you comment!
hadiway 2 years ago
Interesting find. It looks to me like these pictures were taken using a long exposure, as the daylight side of Enceladus is partially overexposed.
Still, at 1.14 the surface features are beginning to show. Although there are not as many stars visible there are still at least 10 stars visible.
It's important to note that Enceladus is the brightest moon in the solar system. It's albedo is 138%, next to our moon's 7%.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
Quick question, how does going to college, and holding several degrees make you "self proclaimed". That's false he IS an aerospace engineer. On the other hand, Ralph Rene claimed he was a self taught engineer, which frankly doesn't mean shit. Oh yeah you spelled fifteen wrong, spell check helps make you looks a little more like you know what you're talking about.
cml950x 2 years ago
NASA = lying pigs!
johncopey 2 years ago
Huh.
What's really funny is that this guy was banned from YaHoo! during a debate with Jay because of his hostile behavior and vulgar language.
This was also presented with an image of Collins allegedly performing an EVA on Gemini 10, where no such photos actually exist. Turns out the conspiracy theorist doctored a goddamn photo, just like they accuse NASA of doing. The hypocrisy and irony are oh so sweet...
StargodArbiter 2 years ago 4
The strange twisty-minded behaviour of pro-Apollo mouthpieces is in itself inviting strong suspicion that there is a concerted cover-up going on in YT and the WEB. There seems to be no rational search for the truth from them, only to debunk no matter what the cost in ethics or credibility. It's though they're lashed and driven by unseen lunatic masters.
sergemck 3 years ago 2
We don't need to search for the truth because we have it in our posession.
Much like as a Christian I don't spend my time looking for the promised savior, the annointed one. I believe I have found Him.
I still have not had any hoax-aholics share with me one genuine, verifiable, respected, published scientist/professor who has the respect of his/her peers come out against the landings.
Not one.
You guys entertain me. Like SpongeBob.
grayhog86 3 years ago
the evidence is overwhelming against a landing occuring. we never went. we have no verifiable evidence tos how we went. and everything we view shows we didn't go.
chekc out GIANT MOON BALL. on youtube
sforcesrcg1 3 years ago
Much ado about nothing.
The "faked photo" is, in fact, an illustration, not a photo (7:25). I don't think anyone in his right mind would believe this a photo. It's an illustration not meant to record an event in time but meant to sell a freakin' book. Duh!
That's the problem with you people - you read into EVERYTHING! Ask Mike Collins who picked his cover illustration - I guarantee it was the publisher, not NASA or COL Collins.
grayhog86 3 years ago 3
wish there was more of ralph on youtube
ThEpErsOnLiGHts 3 years ago 3
Ditto!
un4g1v3n1 3 years ago
Jarrah. One question. Did you use the Spacecraftfilms logo and other specific text graphics from said company in your video that was removed?
fuerhoaxficker 4 years ago
It is time to give earth equally to all Good Honest loving people and divide government profits fairly for improving co-existence among all nations
EGMAG 4 years ago
Before the fake Marsman hoax takes place It is time to give earth equally to all Good Honest loving people and divide government profits fairly for improving co-existence among all nations
EGMAG 4 years ago
"you have on many occasions explicitly called Jay Windley, Mark Gray, svector and myself liars"
That's because they are liars. Windley alleged Rene was offered 10,000 when he wasn't, and Windley's continuing to lie about Mauldin. Gray told his customers he was selling the complete Apollo footage when he wasn't, Liar Vector told us the 30:28 telecast was a continuous shot with no edits when it wasn't. And you misquote me on your forum.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
So it's okay if you call someone a liar but not okay for me to even insinuate it?
reynoldbot 4 years ago
From what I've read and experienced myself..I think what WJ is saying is that once a liar has established himself with lies...it's okay to call him a liar. Where, on the other hand, if you insinuate someone is a liar, you should, in fact, have substantial proof. This video, and others show just how much lying NASA Apollogists are willing to do to confuse, misdirect, and fool the casual investigator into the Apollo sham...
un4g1v3n1 3 years ago 2
I can see looking at the comment history that people have tried for months to get you to show the text that you say proves Collins' tried to pass the doctored image off as an official mission roll photo. You refuse. Let the record be shown then, that upon repeated request, Jarrah White was unable to provide proof that the Collins' photo was purpoted to be a NASA original.
I strongly suggest you change your video lest you be labeled a liar and a fraud.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
"Let the record be shown then, that upon repeated request, Jarrah White was unable to provide proof that the Collins' photo was purpoted to be a NASA original."
You are one step away from being blocked for repeated false accusations against me. Liar Vector was blocked after he accused me of lying and fabricating my evidence. I don't suppose you've seen the latest response video to this one?
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
What part of my accusations are false? I simply ask for the evidence to which your claim hinges on. Evidence to which you supposedly have. Tell me how I falsely accuse you by asking for evidence.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
You called me a liar and a fraud, and then had the gall to misrepresent the context of this discussion at your forum. I cannot be held accountable for if you continue to ignore what I write.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
No, I said that you run the risk of being called a liar and a fraud. Besides, you have on many occasions explicitly called Jay Windley, Mark Gray, svector and myself liars. You cannot punish me here for what I say on other forums. If you don't like it, contact the moderator there.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
"You cannot punish me here for what I say on other forums. If you don't like it,contact the moderator there."
You mean the moderator who happily joins in with these lies and character attacks?
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
"you have on many occasions explicitly called Jay Windley, Mark Gray, svector and myself liars"
That's because they are liars. Windley alleged Rene was offered 10,000 when he wasn't, and Windley's continuing to lie about Mauldin. Gray told his customers he was selling the complete Apollo footage when he wasn't, Liar Vector told us the 30:28 telecast was a continuous shot with no edits when it wasn't. And you misquote me on your forum.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
Lunar Orbit has been known to ban ABs as well as HBs. He just banned a major AB player not a month ago. He would ban me in a heartbeat if he thought I deserved it.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
"He would ban me in a heartbeat if he thought I deserved it."
I can think of several reasons you deserve it.
1) Alleging I skewed the event of my Youtube ban to make myself 'out to be an unfair victim', knowing full well the material SC Films infringed me for was public property and knowing that they censored footage from their disks.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
2) On multiple occasions accusing me of 'dodging the question' after you choose to ignore my repeated answers.
3) Falsely accusing me of misquoting scientists after I've quoted them correctly and given you the requested numbers. And endorsing false charges that I've never even seen the source material.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
Windley's up to his old tricks again I see.
"James Oberg offered Ralph Rene $10,000 for exactly that evidence. Rene has so far been unable to collect on that offer. - Jay Windley"
lol, oh really, Jay?
"He never offered me dick for nothing, right away we went to war, I wouldn't take no shit from him." - Rene
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
Oberg has publicly made the offer, and you informed Rene of it months ago, and still Rene hasn't decided to collect. Why? It would score major points for the HB movement, be a huge blow to the AB movement, possibly make news and probably drive up sales for his book. Why wouldn't he collect?
If Rene tried and Oberg denied, Rene could make a bit stink of it to discredit him too.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
"Oberg has publicly made the offer,"
I'm still waiting for proof of such an offer.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
I have been having trouble posting my reply to this. Can I not submit links in comments? That actually makes sense in order to keep spam down. Here is your proof:
Go to the bautforum. Find the search field, and enter "oberg $10,000." The first and second link that come up are the threads in which Oberg publicly posted the letters he sent to Rene. If Rene did not recieve the letters they were there for him to see in public.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
"Go to the bautforum. Find the search field, and enter "oberg $10,000." The first and second link that come up are the threads in which Oberg publicly posted the letters he sent to Rene."
I see no letters to Rene, only dribble text in a message board post. Where are the letters?
"If Rene did not recieve the letters they were there for him to see in public."
You mean on a forum dominated by liars that he gave up debating with years ago?
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
I just now checked it out and it worked fine. Here is the most relevant portion:
"You claim they have done so, and your exact words: "Why did NASA feel it necessary to fake pictures and lie to us as early as July 1966?" Please cite exactly where this lie originally occurred. Would you be willing to bet $10,000 that you can find such explicit evidence?"
reynoldbot 4 years ago
"I just now checked it out and it worked fine. Here is the most relevant portion:"
You know exactly what I mean. So far, you've shown me no evidence that Oberg even sent these supposed messages to Rene, in doing so you're making me more convinced that these letters never even existed. Windley claims Oberg sends Rene reminders all the time, I highly doubt that every single message reminding him of this supposed offer over 5 years all got lost in the mail.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
Like it or not, bautforum is a public forum and I just proved to you where and when Oberg publicly offered Rene the $10,000.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
I call it selective distribution: invent text for a letter that never existed and post it publicly on a forum you know the person your addressing it to is not likely to read, after all: people who know Rene personally knows he doesn't use the net for anything other than hosting a website. Knowing that he's not likely to see the forum, you can allege that Rene knew of the offer and turned it down.
It must have taken a pretty sick group of minds to dream up a scheme like that.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
The posts are marked as February 2003
reynoldbot 4 years ago
"Oberg has publicly made the offer"
Where and when did Oberg publicly make this offer?
greenmagoos 4 years ago
Answer my initial question, Jarrah. Why didn't you include any images of the text in which Collins claims that the photo was an official mission roll image? Where is the supposed text?
I do not want to hear any more claims until you answer this question.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
I showed the cover did I not? Which clearly depicts Collins in the same suit and all floating against the earth during his supposed spacewalk. Why do you suppose we were not told about that?
Additionally, in the film after this one, I showed the caption of the Moon Shot photograph that purports it to be Alan Shepard playing his famous golf game. Something else Windley didn't tell his readers about, or you.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
The images are only half of the claim. You specifically claim there is text that purports the doctored image to be a NASA mission roll photo. Without that text, your claim has no evidence. Where is that text?
Where is that text?
reynoldbot 4 years ago
"Without that text, your claim has no evidence"
What good would text do to satisfy you? The Apollo 14 photograph seen in MoonShot has a caption claiming its a real photo, and your group denies it was ever purported to be Al Shepard taking his golf swing. In addition to the cover, the Gemini 10 photo is featured along side an official Apollo 11 photo of the lunar surface right at the beginning of the book. Your group is yet to acknowledge that fact.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
If you would bother to provide the text it would qualify your claim and we could move forward. I don't think the text exists. The text is the most important part to your claim. Without it you cannot prove Collins' intent in producing the image.
Moonshot has nothing to do with Collins' book. I am uninterested in discussing that now. I want to see the text from Collins' book.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
"The text is the most important part to your claim. Without it you cannot prove Collins' intent in producing the image."
If it wasn't a official photograph, why was it on display along with an official Apollo 11 photo? I'm still waiting your answer.
"Moonshot has nothing to do with Collins' book."
And yet your group doesn't mind putting it in the same category: you deny both photos were claimed to be real, even though the A14 was captioned and the G10 image was purported as one on the cover.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
I don't know why it was put next to an official photograph. That's what I'm trying to find out. Unless you can PROVE there was intent to deceive, I can only make speculations.
YOU claimed there was text that supported your claim. WHERE is that text? I told you already I am uninterested in any other claims you bring up until you answer this one.
Quit stalling. I've been trying for days to get you to show me the text. SHOW ME THE TEXT.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
So is ignoring my requests going to be your new tactic? You had time to dig up some radiation figure related to Van Allen but not provide for me the text you claim to have?
reynoldbot 4 years ago
So, getting back to the original issue. Why didn't you include any images of the text in which Collins claims that the photo was an official mission roll image? Where is this supposed text?
reynoldbot 4 years ago
You can look up any of the claims they make in any science textbook. How come an HB has never done that? If they are obviously making stuff up, it should be pretty easy to prove it.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
"You can look up any of the claims they make in any science textbook. How come an HB has never done that?"
You are either incredibly ignorant or a poor researcher. Had you read Rene's book, you would have known that each and every one of his arguments were based upon a quotation from an astronaut, scientist or astronomer.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
How does this answer my question? Why don't you research the actual science that these people are presenting? If person X presents scientific principle Y to explain event Z, it's a simple matter to figure out exactly what Y is to make sure X is telling the truth. You are quick to call people liars and frauds but you have no interest in proving it.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
"You are quick to call people liars and frauds but you have no interest in proving it."
Rene quoted a scientist who specifically states you need 2-meters of shielding over a few hours at earth distance from the sun.
Would it not be a lie to say that the scientist in question was not proposing this shield for that kind of exposure?
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
But you have yet to provide the numbers that qualify that claim. How did Maudlin come to that conclusion? A quote from a scientist does not by itself disqualify the mountains of hard evidence that claim otherwise. How do the dozens of probes sent out to other planets survive if meters of lead is required to shield them?
reynoldbot 4 years ago
"How do the dozens of probes sent out to other planets survive if meters of lead is required to shield them?"
You do know that Explorer 4 only obtained its 100rem/hr readings after they shielded the Geiger counters with lead, don't you?
You propagandists are all the same: you insist that conspiracy claims are not valid because they are not supported by scientists, but when proved they are, a statement from a scientist is still not good enough.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
What is your source for that claim? And where are those numbers I asked for? I already told you a quote does not qualify a scientific claim. I want the calculations made to come to that conclusion.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
"What is your source for that claim?"
Not what, who. I'll give you a clue: who is the radiation belt named after?
"where are those numbers I asked for?"
Okay, you want numbers? Mauldin states that solar flares produce GeV protons in the same energy range as most cosmic particles. And I think you'll find that the majority of cosmic rays that strike earth from all sides have energies as high as 10 GeV.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
What do you say about James Van Allen himself saying that the radiation belts can be safely traversed by humans?
So, how much radiation will a craft absorb by traversing the Van Allen belts in 1 hour? How much incidental radiation will a craft absorb during a 3 day translunar coast assuming no solar flares are cast?
Do you know how to distinguish between wave and particle radiation and what shielding is necessary for each?
One number is not exactly a calculation.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
"What do you say about James Van Allen himself saying that the radiation belts can be safely traversed by humans?"
You tell me: why would Van Allen safe they were safe when his own experiments proved that an hour trip in those belts would be 100rem/hr?
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
And what experiment would that be? What were the calculations made to arrive at that conclusion? Where did you find that figure? You continue to make vague claims without backing them up. Radiation is a complex issue that can't be explained with the occasional random number.
Why don't you tell me what kind of shielding is best for particle radiation in general? You should be able to look that up pretty easily.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
I did a bit of digging on the Mauldin book "Prospects for Interstellar Travel." It seems you forgot a very important part concerning the book. It deals with the prospects for INTERSTELLAR travel. I repeatedly asked for context, and I can now see why you ignored me. Mauldin was proposing a multigeneration interstellar craft that would endure radiation hazards for many years! THAT is the context for the "2 meter shielding" claims you make!
reynoldbot 4 years ago
"Explorer 3 completely confirmed the results obtained by its predecessor, and it also confirmed Van Allens theory. Up to a height of 300 miles there was an gradual increase in the number of charged particles. Then up to 600 miles there was a more rapid increase. Above 600 miles the counters became jammed."
greenmagoos 4 years ago
Van Allen estimated that the actual particle numbers might be anything up to 35,000 per second, which was far too high to be dealt with by any self-respecting Geiger counter."
Space- Patrick Moore 1972
greenmagoos 4 years ago
You still have not established what the Geiger counter's capacity was, and how that translates to a human body, or how long Explorer remained in the belts, or how fast it was traveling, or anything else besides it got overloaded to tell me the belts were impossible to pass by humans.
What about all the interplanetary probes with sensitive electronics that pass through the Van Allen belts, or the ISS which routinely passes through a portion of the belts?
reynoldbot 4 years ago
"Explorer I ran into a belt of intense radiation at 600 miles. The satellite carries a Geiger tube to count cosmic rays. At 684 miles the tubes registered 140 counts per second. The Geiger tubes had been knocked out by radiation too intense for them to handle. The satellites passed through radiation 35,000 counts per second. The belt may extend outward 8,000 miles. *Lead shielding would reduce the dose to a supportable level*." Time Magazine May 12, 1958
greenmagoos 4 years ago
"Explorer I ran into a belt of intense radiation at 600 miles. The satellite carries a Geiger tube to count cosmic rays. At 684 miles the tubes registered 140 counts per second. The Geiger tubes had been knocked out by radiation too intense for them to handle. The satellites passed through radiation 35,000 counts per second. The belt may extend outward 8,000 miles. *Lead shielding would reduce the dose to a supportable level*." Time Magazine May 12, 1958
greenmagoos 4 years ago
"Explorer I ran into a belt of intense radiation at 600 miles. The satellite carries a Geiger tube to count cosmic rays. At 684 miles the tubes registered 140 counts per second. The Geiger tubes had been knocked out by radiation too intense for them to handle. The satellites passed through radiation 35,000 counts per second. The belt may extend outward 8,000 miles. *Lead shielding would reduce the dose to a supportable level*." Time Magazine May 12, 1958
greenmagoos 4 years ago
Exactly what was the operational radiation capacity of the Geiger tube?
reynoldbot 4 years ago
Do you honestly believe Kaysing had anything to do with building the rocketry? Last I heard his job was on the order of file clerk.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
"Do you honestly believe Kaysing had anything to do with building the rocketry? Last I heard his job was on the order of file clerk."
And which slanderous site did you read about Kaysing? Clavius? Red Zeros?
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
He is listed as a technical writer, which meant he did...writing. Not building, or designing, or overseeing, or anything directly related to rocketry or science.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
Have you read Kaysing's book?
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
reynoldbot falls silent as he suddenly realises Jay Windley is making a monkey out of him and his pals at apollohoax.
greenmagoos 4 years ago
actually it's because I have a life with obligations and responsibilities. Maybe you should try it sometime.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
"actually it's because I have a life with obligations and responsibilities. Maybe you should try it sometime."
Whats that you say about John Mauldin Phd?
Nothing!
greenmagoos 4 years ago
I honestly do not know enough about him or the article you presented. You have shown me quotes but not the context in which the quotes were made. I will reserve judgement until either the context is given or I can read the entire article. I suspect you are not giving me all the information.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
Well ones thing for sure you won't read anything about him at Moon Base Clavius or Apollohoax because Jay Windley decided a Phd had no relevance.
Perhaps you should have carried out some proper research you might have stayed a hoax believer instead of joining Windleys fan club
greenmagoos 4 years ago
I am trained in photography and lighting and have read scientific papers on thermodynamics and astrophysics, and various articles on the history of Apollo and space travel in general. My research into the hoax theories is good but I will be the first to admit I have not read every website or article relevant.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
Unfortunatelly for Windley, Jarrah -and some other people in America and around the world-has uncovered that his motivation is not that innocent.He is not a scientist at all.He is a well paid debunker of the truth.
Proselenean 4 years ago
Have any evidence to support that accusation? I'm actually glad when you HB's make "disinfo agent" accusations because it makes it clear to the rest of the world you are a.) desperate to ignore his debunking and b.) completely detached from reality.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
"a.) desperate to ignore his debunking"
Windley's "debunking" is to prop up straw-man arguments that will only confuse those who are without access to the said conspiracy theorists source material.
"b.) completely detached from reality."
We are not detached from reality, just your version of reality.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
Who could possibly not be able to access CT source material if they are able to read Jay's debunking? Nearly everything the CT's have to say is online.
So, what's your evidence that Jay is a paid disinfo agent?
reynoldbot 4 years ago
"Who could possibly not be able to access CT source material if they are able to read Jay's debunking? Nearly everything the CT's have to say is online."
Correction, at Clavius nearly everything a CT has to say is ignored or completely taken out of context, or quickly dismissed.
Your friend Windley is either paid or lies for the fun of it.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
Seeing as how he provides a bibliography section and names all the people he gets his HB theories from, it would be pretty easy to do a google search and be able to read what they have to say.
So am I correct in saying you have no evidence Jay is a paid disinfo agent? Name a specific incident in which Jay uses bad science, and fully explain why he is wrong, and cite sources to back it up.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
"Seeing as how he provides a bibliography section and names all the people he gets his HB theories from"
I believe no question that that entire section exists to alienate his readers from conspiracy theorists. In some cases he even misquotes conspiracy theorists and then mismatches theorists and arguments. He did it to me just last year in July.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
That doesn't change the fact that at any moment somebody reading his site could check out the works of any of the HB's he is referencing.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
Casual reader: Hmmm, lets see what this site says about this guy.
[i]Clavius slanders the conspiracy theorist[/i]
Casual reader: Ahhh... Should go hear their side of the story? After reading that I think I'll pass.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
I used to be an HB. I decided that I should hear both sides of the story. Each side references their rival's arguments quite a bit, so I should expect most people would be interested in reading up on both sides.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
"I used to be an HB."
Really? And just what got you to start doubting the missions?
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
I saw the fox program when it first aired. Knowing next to nothing about the history or science involved in Apollo, I was quickly drawn in and initially convinced a hoax had been perpetrated. I began researching online, first finding pro-hoax sites that elaborated on the arguments. I noticed they referenced certain ABs, so I decided it would be best to see what they had to say.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
"Name a specific incident in which Jay uses bad science"
As you wish: on his website he claims that Rene misunderstood John Mauldin's book and that his 2-meter material shield is not necessary for lunar trips. What Windley does not reveal are the passages that Rene quoted: not only did Mauldin specify that he's talking about the radiation one gets at earth distance from the sun, he compares his proposed shield with the shield our atmosphere provides.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
On his website, he claimed that Kaysing left Rocketdyne prior to their work on Apollo, in actuality the development of the engines they supplied began either during or before Kaysing's career. In fact as early as 1961 NASA was launching Apollo Saturn rockets with their engines.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
Could you elaborate on this? What was Mauldin's proposed shielding and for what context (long-term earth orbit, long-term interplanetary voyages, short-term translunar voyages etc.)? If you wish, just send me a link to Rene's quote.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
"Solar (or star) flares of protons, an occasional and severe hazard on the way out of and into planetary systems, can give hundreds to thousands of rem over a few hours at the distance of the earth. Such doses are fatal and millions of times greater than the permitted dose"
"Cosmic particles are dangerous, come from all sides, and require at least 2 meters of solid shielding all around living organisms. Earth's atmosphere provides the equivalent of 10 meters of shielding."
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
"By comparison, solar flares can deliver GeV protons in the same energy range as most cosmic particles but at much higher intensities. Increase of energy accounts for most of the increased radiation danger because GeV protons or their products will penetrate several meters of material."
- John H. Mauldin, p226 Prospects For Interstellar Travel
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
In what context does he claim 2 meters are required? Is he talking about a permanent fixture in the allen belts or a quick back and forth trip? Where does he show the calculations he made to come up with these claims?
reynoldbot 4 years ago
He specifically states that meters pf shielding is required over a few hours at earth distance from the sun. Not only does he specify what radiation he's talking about, he compare his proposed shield with the earth's atmosphere.
Mauldin himself holds a Ph,D., a masters in physics and worked for NASA during the Voyager program.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
Solar flares are a problem, but fortunately they are a predictable one. The sun produces warning signs days before a major flare is let out. NASA paid close attention to the sun before launches. Also, flares are directional, and would have to be cast in a certain direction to reach a translunar craft. Apollo being a short-term mission, they never had to deal with flares. There was not a single flare during a mission that actually crossed paths with apollo.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
"Solar flares are a problem, but fortunately they are a predictable one."
"In a sense, the astronauts were truly risking their lives to go to the moon because solar flares are not predictable." - Phil Plait, p162 Bad Astronomy.
For a man who gets his information from The Bad Astronomer, you don't seem to stick his his laws of physics too well.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
I used bad wording, but solar flares can still be foreseen by a few days. And solar flares are still directional, and there still are no reports of solar flares that occured during apollo missions that would have jeopardized the missions.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
"and there still are no reports of solar flares that occured during apollo missions that would have jeopardized the missions."
April 17, 1972. Ever heard of that flare?
Have you also heard of the book "Astronautical Engineering & Science"?
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
the first link that came up when I googled "apollo 16 solar flare" was an article that specifically explains what a large solar flare would have done to the Apollo astronauts. In short: not much as long as they stayed inside their ship. Other resources stated that the Apollo 16 exposure was low (.5 rads).
I have not heard of the book. I doubt you've actually read it. I foresee more cherrypicked quotes in my future.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
"I have not heard of the book. I doubt you've actually read it. I foresee more cherrypicked quotes in my future."
Guess what, I'm holding both that and Prospects right now. You've just cracked the ice, but rest assured, you've earned yourself a place in my next MoonFaker, along side Windley and Oberg. TTYL.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
One more thing: you never did check out my newer video did you? The one in which I hold the 1975 edition on screen. Guess not.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
Seeing as you don't know the quote Rene used, am I correct in saying that you've never read his book?
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
No. I'd rather read good books. I've heard all of Rene's arguments presented by both sides of the fence. Any argument he brought up in his book has been thoroughly discussed on the internet.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
No. All the arguments brought up have either been ignored, dismissed or misrepresented all together. Here's one passage from Windley's site I find amusing, referring to 20,000 defects...
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
"Is that a lot? Were they crucial systems? Mr. Rene either doesn't know or doesn't wish to disclose it. This is where Mr. Rene might have benefitted from some actual engineering experience."
What Windley does not reveal on his website, is that Rene, quoting the authors of Journey to Tranquility, is referring to FAILURES in the environmental control system and also the ascent engine. Which ironically as Windley admits, is a critical system.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
Why don't you talk to him about this? I don't really care enough about your unhealthy fixation on Jay, and I will not act as your surrogate in finding out the answers nor his to defend them.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
Why don't you ask him yourself?
After all you were obviously so impressed by his de-bunking you felt obliged to join the forum attached to his website, when you had previously been a hoax believer.
How long did it take you change your mind and become a fully subscribed moon landing believer?
greenmagoos 4 years ago
Bad Astronomy was the first AB website I read. I read several pro AB sites before I got to Clavius, and by that time I had already changed my mind. Apollohoax is the forum officially connected to Clavius, but it it not Jay's forum.
I made up my mind after reading all the arguments by both sides. I was not emotionally invested in either answer when I made my mind. I will remain an AB until I find evidence that goes beyond supposition and handwaving.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
James Oberg " If and when solar flares happened Apollo Astro-nots just had to turn the CSM towards the Sun and the fuel would have shielded them "
Ha bloody ha.
greenmagoos 4 years ago
If Collins' book so explicitly claims the image in question to be an original, why did you not show that in your video? All you have is Rene's unsubstantiated claim that it's in there.
Overall, this video is unimpressive. You make bold claims but you never bother to back them up with any of your visuals. Your screenshots go by too fast to actually read and you basically ask the viewer to accept your arguments without a shred of evidence.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
If you want to talk about unsubstantiated claims; then why not start with the one about Oberg offering Rene $10,000, or the one about me infringing copyright by using Public Domain footage? Or how about the unsubstantiated claim that SC Films' Apollo 10 DVD contains ALL the footage from that mission?
When in fact minutes of footage were excluded. I can tell none of you liars from ApolloHoax want to touch that little detail.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
Actually, why don't you address my points first instead of ignoring them and changing the subject?
You got in trouble because you used footage you ripped directly from Spacecraft Films footage (with their logo present in your videos) without asking for permission. Svector asked permission before he used the footage.
Mark Gray made it pretty clear that certain portions of the primary source had degraded and in some instances he couldn't find satisfactory secondary sources.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
"Actually, why don't you address my points first instead of ignoring them and changing the subject?"
I'll address your points when you address mine without lying to me or lying about me.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
Did you or did you not ask Mark Gray for permission to use his footage before you made your video? What evidence can you provide to prove that you did in fact ask permission?
reynoldbot 4 years ago
"Svector asked permission before he used the footage."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
No he didn't.
greenmagoos 4 years ago
According to both svector and Mark Gray, he did in fact ask permission an entire year before you snitched on him and his videos were flagged.
What evidence do you have that svector did NOT ask permission to use Gray's footage? Or are you just speculating?
reynoldbot 4 years ago
"According to both svector and Mark Gray, he did in fact ask permission an entire year before"
It's called backpedaling, look it up in the dictionary.
"What evidence do you have that svector did NOT ask permission to use Gray's footage?"
The quote straight from the horse's mouth.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
I don't know much about the Oberg offer, but all you can base your opinion is conjecture. Why don't you ask Oberg to provide evidence that he contacted Rene about the offer? That would be much moreconvincing than hearing Rene complain about it.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
"You got in trouble because you used footage you ripped directly from Spacecraft Films footage without asking for permission."
lol, there's a good one, I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Gray was censoring material in his "complete" DVD sets, he panicked and filed infringement because he knew I proved he was a fraud. There's no need to ask to use permission to use PUBLIC DOMAIN footage.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
Read up on your copyright law. You did not obtain and make your own transfer of the footage. Instead, you bought a professional transfer and used the footage without asking permission or acknowledging them in your credits. Their logo was visible in your video.
Gray's intentions have been clear. He thinks CT's are stupid and does not want them representing his product.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
"Read up on your copyright law."
Read up on PUBLIC DOMAIN. Gray has no claim to NASA's footage: he sold us that public footage claiming his customers were getting ALL the footage, when he deliberately expluded the first 3minutes of Apolo 10's 47GET telecast.
"or acknowledging them in your credits." You seen the credits for Flagging The Gems lately?
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
That's right, meaning that you can freely request the primary sources to make your own video with no consequences. But he produced a product using those primary sources to his interpretation. He made creative decisions on how to best display these sources. His transfer of the Apollo footage belongs to him, and he can file for infringement if you use his transfer without permission.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
You can spare me the dribble, you're boring me.
"DOCUMENTARY AND RAW FOOTAGE
Apollo downlinks. Color, length varies. DVD (region-free). Spacecraft Films. Digital transfers of original Apollo film and video, unedited." - Jay Windley.
Notice how he specifically states that the reels from SC Films in general, not just Apollo 11. Do you plan on lying to me all night saying that Gray never claimed his raw footage was unedited?
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
"He thinks CT's are stupid and does not want them representing his product."
Oh that's right, he'd rather let proven liars exploits misleading clips from edited videos that he sells.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
blah blah blah. A little emotionally invested, are we?
reynoldbot 4 years ago
"blah blah blah. A little emotionally invested, are we?"
You know very well that the footage used in Liar Lunacy 5 came from an edited reel: I guess revealing that it was a jumble of clips is over-stepping the mark, but cherry-picking a misleading clip without informing your audiences it came from an edited source is okay.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
Hey reynoldbot are you an Apollohoaxer dot gullible halfwit?
Why don't you post a comment on the John Mauldin thread and get lying Jay Windley to explain it PROPERLY and stop his deceitful antics. Start with asking him the direction(s) solar particles travel.
greenmagoos 4 years ago
Oh good, Jarrah's lapdog is here. What took you so long? You're usually yapping and snarling at Jarrah's critics much faster than that.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
Do you even know what radiation is? If it were a charged particle event, the hull of their craft would be protection enough (charged particles while dangerous are easily deflected), and during a wave radiation event, a heavy liquid would be the best shielding available. They may still get a dosage of radiation but simple physics dictates that the fuel and hull of the ship would have taken the brunt of it.
reynoldbot 4 years ago
Would you care to hear what John Mauldin thinks of that? And I mean would you like to hear a direct quotation, not the words that Windley puts in his mouth.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
"Svector asked permission before he used the footage."
lol 'Thanks's for pointing out the copyright infringement of Svector, I've flagged those for removal' - Mark Gray.
"Why don't you ask Oberg to provide evidence that he contacted Rene about the offer?"
Talking to Oberg, Windley, Plait and all your other lying heroes is like trying to get information from a brickwall.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
I'm aware of the chain of events. Gray had forgotten that svector had asked permission, and after svector found his videos flagged he contacted Gray and Gray remembered.
Considering your demeanor, reputation, attitude (and from what I've heard, foul language), I'm don't blame them for not wanting to talk to you. What would you say if Oberg provided timestamped emails to Rene offering the money?
reynoldbot 4 years ago
You want foul language? How about these little number from one of your lying heroes?
"You are without a doubt, the stupidist, most cowardly little girlie-man I've ever seen in my entire life. I'll bet you squat to pee don't you? I'm right aren't I? You squat, just like a girl when you have to piss." "You are a loser, a coward, a liar, and an ugly little c-u-n-t with a nappy-assed pubic hair mustache to boot."
- all penned by Liar Vector on April 7 2007
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
How about this one, Plait's referral to Rene's site: "better be sitting down when you read it, and preferably not have anything in your stomach"
You want to talk about gutter trash, why not start with your friends?
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
"What would you say if Oberg provided timestamped emails to Rene offering the money?"
Windley and Oberg have had two months to prove their innocence, they haven't lifted a finger.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
"I'm aware of the chain of events. Gray had forgotten that svector had asked permission, and after svector found his videos flagged he contacted Gray and Gray remembered."
Snork!
greenmagoos 4 years ago
Please be specific in the video about where the images come from (which edition of the book, etc), and show video footage of the book (1975 edition) rather than a cropped-out image from God-knows-where.
matthew871 4 years ago
"Please be specific in the video about where the images come from (which edition of the book, etc), and show video footage of the book (1975 edition) rather than a cropped-out image from God-knows-where."
Request granted.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
I think greenmagoos has a bug up his ass. If there was some sort of option of finding out what comments he has posted, there would probably not be one decent one. I don't think his vocabulary exceeds one of a ten year old. If greenmagoo should read this, he will probably mark it as spam. I think if you had to post your face, email and house address everytime you posted a comment, you would have to be a lot more careful what you say.
simloan1 4 years ago
You'll get my foot up your ass simloan1 and a clip round the lugs.
greenmagoos 4 years ago
There he goes again. I think he has OCD (google it greenmagoos, that is if your that intelligent to know their website) because he just can't stop it can he. Well if you want me, i'll be in Dubai if you want me.
simloan1 4 years ago 2
jarrah, your emulation of svector's production style comes through loud and clear. were you at all aware that your fawning admiration for s-vector was so blatantly obvious ?
eryan550 4 years ago
And its blatantly obvious Svector (roll up get your critically aclaimed lunatic legacy DVD's here) is masquerading as eryan550.
greenmagoos 4 years ago
it's Interesting how i comment on jarrahs video and greenmango immediately responds each time. Hmmmmm
you both use the same editing sofware, you both seem to have the same dvds from spacefilms, you both use the same odd little catch phrases ...
why do you feel the need to "masquerade" as this greenmango character jarrah? its pretty clear you are both the same person
eryan550 4 years ago
Nah your wrong dickhead. I'm a lot nastier than Jarrah.
greenmagoos 4 years ago
Cheers mate! I knew there was a reason I liked Austrailians. Good work.
afewgoodclips 4 years ago
We all love at our office JW... after all of this is over I'm sure you would have a job here :) - Besides that...just do what your doing and good luck and see you on the other side!
b6gm6n 4 years ago
I had absolutely no knowledge that Mike put Simkin's picture on his PB page ... So I was set up to be banned from the EF by Burton , and I would very much like to prove that somehow and see justice done .
straydog02 4 years ago
Jay's words of profound wisdom continued here :
"Further, I don't consider the YouTube personalities you identify to have anything to say that merits my attention. They seem to be more interested in insulting, ridiculing, and discrediting me personally than in examining Apollo history critically. If they wish me to validate their existence by my attention, let them first consent to the rules of civil debate."
Is that guy a pussy or what ? TOO FUNNY !
straydog02 4 years ago
Oh wait .. This quote is even funnier !
Jay Windley , the spokesman for nasa disinformation says :
"I do not debate at YouTube. In my judgment its conventions do not allow useful debate. Textual comments are severely limited, blatantly insulting language is not only allowed but encouraged, and anyone's comment can be squelched."
Right .
straydog02 4 years ago
Jarrah, historical flare data found at:
ftp(dot)ngdc(dot)noaa(dot)gov
720409 and 720428 were the only flares logged in April 1972.
767Captain 4 years ago
OK, googled 'windley', I get some IT guy. Is this the one? 'plait' brought me to 'bad astronomy'. I think I hit a good one there! Thanks, I'm gonna check that one out!
767Captain 4 years ago
Windley is the guy who made false charges against Ralph Rene. Plait is the so-called astronomer who refuses to address various issues that are devastating to his case, like Operation Dirty Trick or the Apollo 16 solar flare.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
I've already told you my opinion on Rene. Plait is 'so-called' Astronomer? AND I suppose you are the REAL astronomer.
The 'Apollo 16 Solar Flare' occured after they splashed down, back on Earth. Check our facts please.
'Windley' made 'false' charges against Rene? I've seen Ralph's videos, he's a nutter, through and through! So, if 'Windley' made false charges, did it go to court? What was/were the outcome/s?
767Captain 4 years ago
April 17 is during the mission, not after splashdown.
Have you even watched this video the whole way through?
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
Jarrah, keep debunking the liars Windley and Plait