21 September 2009

So who disagrees with Jarrah?

1. Replying to Jarrah's claims that films of 1/6G training and NASA's own documents regarding such training, when compared to film of the astronauts on the lunar surface, 'prove' that the lunar films are 'faked'.

"Thanks also for the URL to the youtube video. The speaker is very ignorant of basic physics, and contradicts himself a few times (in the sense of Physics)."

Dr Karl Kruszelnicki
Julius Sumner Miller Fellow,
The Science Foundation for Physics,
School of Physics,
The University of Sydney

2. Replying to Jarrah and his claims about the Apollo 1 fire:

"Guys like this idiot Jarrah White are a dime-a-dozen and no matter what we say, they are not going to change their mind."

Mr Stephen Clemmons
Apollo 1 Pad Technician (North American Aviation),
Present on Level 7 during AS-204 fire, 27 JAN 67

3. Replying to claims that radiation or solar flares would have killed Apollo astronauts:

"...all space missions carry devices to measure the radiation doses. Astronauts should not be outside of a space craft if there were an SPE. They should be shielded inside the space craft. Hence, radiation exposures for Apollo missions would be very small. Hence, I believe that radiation exposures from Apollo missions were very small, unless astronauts stayed outside during an SPE about which they would have been informed..."

Richard B. Setlow
Senior Biophysicist Emeritus,
Member of the National Academy of Sciences,
Brookhaven National Laboratory

4. Claims that the MOCR flight controllers could have been fooled by a simulation instead of a real flight:

"The simulations were good but far from being perfect and they always required some kluges that Pete Klapach or others had to fix each time we ran a simulation. The data flow paths were different and sequencing of data from the tracking sites, pre-processed into 2.4 kbps or I believe later 4.8 kbps bit streams. We did elaborate checkouts of these paths from the bird to a spot on our displays or event lights. The tracking sites knew where their antennas were pointed and when they had data, etc, etc. These questioners must think that we are stupid (hundreds of us that is); the data was recorded, archived and analyzed by dozens of engineers. Don't they know that it was US who conducted simulations, so we would be fooling ourselves?"

Sy Liebergot
Apollo Flight Controller / EECOM

6 comments:

  1. Jay Windley is being discussed on this thread.
    http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=125628
    www (dot) davidicke (dot) com/forum/showthread (dot) php?t=125628

    I think it's pretty clear that Jay Windley knows that Apollo was a hoax.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There is a common underlying reason why credentialed scientists knowingly support the moon hoax lie. My brother is a top research scientist with a PhD from Yale. This brother sticks by the official lie despite my regular habit of rubbing his nose in truth... and I guarantee he knows the truth. All these guys know the truth. You do not get PhD's from top schools for being stupid. They also know their Federal grants for research would quickly end if they were ever to reveal the massive governmental corruption as exemplified by Apollo.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Based on your extraodinary grasp of deductive logic and your epistemological limitations, Allison, it comes as a great relief to me that there is no danger you will be contributing to the nation's intellectual legacy.

    -- David Hume.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Scientists do not know shit about nothing. They are the same breed as monks were and do not care about nature or truth. They only want a high position in whatever career they persue. They would be the first to swear that they saw a witch summoning the devil if that would benefit them in any way.

    --anonymous physics student

    ReplyDelete
  5. I love how the first 2 'scientist' rebuttals offer no counter-evidence other than insults.

    That is fantastic debate, right there. [roll eyes]

    ReplyDelete