ApolloHoax.net

Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on January 31, 2013, 06:50:51 PM

Title: YouTube Madness
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on January 31, 2013, 06:50:51 PM
An often observed and lamented fact around these parts is the raging inferno of stupidity often concerning the "Apollo Hoax" on YouTube.

I've come across a right jaw dropper in a discussion thread concerning Mythbusters, which I thought I'd share:

Quote
White color is no defence against intense IR rays in a vacuum. Just as with radiation on Earth, there is not much difference in wearing white or black on a hot summer's day.

This is so dumb, surely the person who posted it must know it's not true. But then again....  :o

Anyone else got anything to share?
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: JayUtah on January 31, 2013, 07:06:13 PM
Gives new meaning to, "The Stupid -- It Burns!"
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on January 31, 2013, 07:09:10 PM
Jay, you can probably answer this - What colour was the external casing of the Hassleblad cameras used on the Lunar Surface? Were they polished aluminium or silver reflective, or were they painted white? I'm sure it was the latter former.

Edit: meant former. Need to pay more attention when I'm posting.
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: ka9q on January 31, 2013, 07:40:24 PM
I'm not Jay, but I think I can answer this. The cameras appear to have had a flat aluminum finish, not white paint.

The two numbers you really want are absorptance (α), the fraction of incoming visible and near-IR light (from the sun) that is absorbed and converted into heat, and emittance (ε), the efficiency of the surface in radiating thermally in the far IR. The ratio of the two, among other things, control the equlibrium temperature in sunlight.

This explains apparent paradoxes like polished metals getting very hot in the sun. Although they have very low absorptance, their emittances are even lower so what little heat they absorb, they hold. If you want to make a solar heat collector, you still want the blackest possible surface.

When you want to isolate a surface thermally from the environment, as you usually do on the moon because of the large changes between shade and sun, you generally want low values for both α and ε -- hence the metallic finishes on the cameras.


Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on January 31, 2013, 07:45:53 PM
Ka9q, thanks for your reply. Some moron on YouTube reckons they were painted white and wanted to check before I called bullshit.
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: ka9q on January 31, 2013, 07:57:58 PM
This kind of thing is easy to check; just look up the historical photos:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_17/images/hasselblad_lg.gif

You can estimate the absorptance by just looking, but the emittance has to be measured or analyzed. Quite a few spacecraft materials have very different values of α and ε, precisely to give the thermal designer control over heat flows and equilibrium temperatures.

Most ordinary materials, metals excepted, have fairly high emittances regardless of how they look in visible light. Even white paints. Human skin, regardless of color, has a very high emittance meaning it is almost perfectly black at far IR and an almost perfect thermal radiator. An average adult human radiates about 1 kW of thermal heat while generating only 100-200W at rest, which is why we get so cold in the desert at night without good clothing even when the wind is calm.

Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Noldi400 on January 31, 2013, 08:06:33 PM
Ka9q, thanks for your reply. Some moron on YouTube reckons they were painted white and wanted to check before I called bullshit.
Here's a pic of some guy demonstrating the controls on one of the Apollo Hassies that wasn't flown:

(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt353/jarvisn/JayMoonSet_zps3e255ffc.jpg)

It's pretty clearly a brushed metal finish, not a painted one.
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on January 31, 2013, 08:08:59 PM
I wanted to check with the people who know™, because you don't just provide the bare facts, you also give helpful associated information. Thanks.
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: JayUtah on January 31, 2013, 08:29:10 PM
Here's a pic of some guy demonstrating the controls on one of the Apollo Hassies that wasn't flown:

Wow that guy has incredibly bad hair.  Why do they let people like that on TV?

Quote
It's pretty clearly a brushed metal finish, not a painted one.

There's a slightly fuzzy close-up at the top of this page.  http://www.clavius.org/techsuit.html

Is it brushed aluminum?  No, not exactly.  Is it a coating?  Yes.  Is it white?  No, it's aluminum-based.  If the finish were entirely intact, the entire body would look like it were brushed aluminum.  But in this photo you can see where the finish has been worn away at the edges.  It looks very much like the aluminized coating on a Thermos bottle, but with a very much smaller "grain."
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Abaddon on January 31, 2013, 09:00:10 PM
 
Wow that guy has incredibly bad hair.  Why do they let people like that on TV?

Yeah, I hate that guy, always going on as though he knows anything.   ;D
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: ka9q on January 31, 2013, 09:07:33 PM
How did that actor in the suit avoid overheating and suffocation?
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on January 31, 2013, 09:13:19 PM
How did that actor in the suit avoid overheating and suffocation?

NASA's magic?
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: JayUtah on January 31, 2013, 09:16:18 PM
How did that actor in the suit avoid overheating and suffocation?

(http://www.clavius.org/img/ollie-coke.jpg)

It was nighttime and therefore reasonably cool.  These are the suits made for From the Earth to the Moon, by Global Effects who sent their designer to help wrangle them.  The PLSS is empty except for a small 12-volt battery and a fan assembly that feeds air through the oxygen hoses.  The fishbowl helmet was not used; only the LEVA, loosely fitted over his head.

Still by the end of the shoot (ca. 3:30 AM) Ollie was pretty worn out.  Also the metal helmet ring seal cuts into your clavicles something fierce.  Between takes the Global Effects technician stood behind him and lifted it to take the weight off.
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: JayUtah on January 31, 2013, 09:17:31 PM
Wow that guy has incredibly bad hair.  Why do they let people like that on TV?

Yeah, I hate that guy, always going on as though he knows anything.   ;D

  8)
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on January 31, 2013, 09:34:13 PM
I see Jay continues to recieve his NASA disinformation paycheque. I read that on abovetopsecret.com.

:)
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Not Myself on January 31, 2013, 10:05:00 PM
Wow that guy has incredibly bad hair.  Why do they let people like that on TV?

Would you prefer something like this instead?

(http://cosmoquest.org/forum/customavatars/avatar114_1.gif)
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Philthy on January 31, 2013, 11:07:59 PM
The episode with Mr. Windley in it made me remember when thinking of radio DJ's on how you imagine what they look like. They NEVER match the "mind picture." Well, once it happened, the radio DJ I met in Denver was just a foxy as her voice.

Shuts up now.

Phil
Title: YouTube Madness
Post by: Sus_pilot on February 01, 2013, 12:31:33 AM
The episode with Mr. Windley in it made me remember when thinking of radio DJ's on how you imagine what they look like. They NEVER match the "mind picture." Well, once it happened, the radio DJ I met in Denver was just a foxy as her voice.

Shuts up now.

Phil

[Derail] There was once a tower controller at an airport that I frequent that sounded just like Reba McIntire. When I took a student up for a tower tour, said controller sure didn't look like Reba...  [/Derail]
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 01, 2013, 12:52:58 AM
[derails down an even more obscure side track]

You'd need to be a long time listener to BBC Radio 4, but trust me, news and shipping forecast reader Charlotte Green does not sound like this.

(http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2012/09/CharlotteGreen460.jpg)

[/Switches points back to thread]
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: gillianren on February 01, 2013, 01:08:12 AM
Wow that guy has incredibly bad hair.  Why do they let people like that on TV?

Would you prefer something like this instead?

(http://cosmoquest.org/forum/customavatars/avatar114_1.gif)


My friends and I have long and complex theories about that wig . . . .
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Al Johnston on February 01, 2013, 05:43:25 AM
Wig? It's clearly shaving foam...
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: JayUtah on February 01, 2013, 11:32:53 AM
Would you prefer something like this instead?
(http://cosmoquest.org/forum/customavatars/avatar114_1.gif)

Oh yes.  Those founding fathers had fabulous wigs.  Too bad you can't see the rest of the costume.
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: JayUtah on February 01, 2013, 11:44:57 AM
My friends and I have long and complex theories about that wig . . . .

No theory needed.  It's a publicity photo from a production of 1776 at a regional theater in which I played the Loyalist George Read.  Read had the honor of being the only signer of the Declaration of Independence who voted against it.  The costumer for this production put all the Loyalists in white wigs so that the "Cool Considerate Men" number would have a distinctive visual.  I have performed in four productions for this theater, and am on their creative staff as well for property, set, and technical design.

<shamelessplug> https://tickets.halecentretheatre.org/Online/ </shamelessplug>

This is no slouch of a theater.  It's Utah's highest-selling ticketed venue of any kind.  We have an automated programmable Scala Inc. stage.  So fun to play with!
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: sts60 on February 01, 2013, 11:48:40 AM
This is no slouch of a theater.  It's Utah's highest-selling ticketed venue of any kind.  We have an automated programmable Scala Inc. stage.  So fun to play with!
And suitable for faking lunar EVAs, natch!  I knew you NASA disinformationists would slip up eventually. 

I admit, it was pretty clever making us think you were faking it in Nevada when actually you were faking it in another Four Corners state - naturally, the only one I've never been in...
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Not Myself on February 01, 2013, 12:03:49 PM
No theory needed.  It's a publicity photo from a production of 1776 at a regional theater in which I played the Loyalist George Read.  Read had the honor of being the only signer of the Declaration of Independence who voted against it.  The costumer for this production put all the Loyalists in white wigs so that the "Cool Considerate Men" number would have a distinctive visual.  I have performed in four productions for this theater, and am on their creative staff as well for property, set, and technical design.

I figured that was just how you dressed.

<shamelessplug> https://tickets.halecentretheatre.org/Online/ </shamelessplug>

This is no slouch of a theater.  It's Utah's highest-selling ticketed venue of any kind.  We have an automated programmable Scala Inc. stage.  So fun to play with!

Next time I've got a few days to haul a$$ to the other side of the world, I'll be sure to stop in!
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Not Myself on February 01, 2013, 12:04:38 PM
I admit, it was pretty clever making us think you were faking it in Nevada when actually you were faking it in another Four Corners state - naturally, the only one I've never been in...

I've been in it.  The state is real.
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Hal on February 01, 2013, 12:35:06 PM
My friends and I have long and complex theories about that wig . . . .

No theory needed.  It's a publicity photo from a production of 1776 at a regional theater in which I played the Loyalist George Read.  Read had the honor of being the only signer of the Declaration of Independence who voted against it.  The costumer for this production put all the Loyalists in white wigs so that the "Cool Considerate Men" number would have a distinctive visual.  I have performed in four productions for this theater, and am on their creative staff as well for property, set, and technical design.

<shamelessplug> https://tickets.halecentretheatre.org/Online/ </shamelessplug>

This is no slouch of a theater.  It's Utah's highest-selling ticketed venue of any kind.  We have an automated programmable Scala Inc. stage.  So fun to play with!

I once played Thomas Jefferson in 1776.  Shaved my beard, but I refused to bleach and dye my hair.
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: gillianren on February 01, 2013, 01:02:56 PM
No theory needed.

No, but they're more fun.  I've long known the truth, but that hasn't stopped me.

In all seriousness, it's a great show, and I watch it every July.  This year, I may be using it to distract myself at a stressful time!
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: JayUtah on February 01, 2013, 01:04:28 PM
I once played Thomas Jefferson in 1776.  Shaved my beard, but I refused to bleach and dye my hair.

We have a huge in-house costume and wig shop.  These days we very often opt to have the actor keep his own hair and just use an appropriate wig.  And yes, anyone who visits the Salt Lake City area can hit me up for a backstage tour.
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: JayUtah on February 01, 2013, 01:30:43 PM
Photos of recent productions.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/halecentretheatre/sets/
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Donnie B. on February 01, 2013, 05:25:28 PM
I've been in all four-corners states... at the same time.

Although I seem to remember hearing that the marker is actually misplaced and not at the intersection at all (inexpert application of a theodolite, maybe?)  In which case I've been in all four states but not at the same time.  But obviously could never perform a successful rocket launch from that spot... ;)
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Noldi400 on February 01, 2013, 05:57:09 PM
Hey, wait a minute.......

(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt353/jarvisn/JayMoonSet_zps3e255ffc.jpg)

WHERE ARE THE STARS?!?!?

FAKE!  FAAAAAAAAKE!!!!!!
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Echnaton on February 01, 2013, 07:21:17 PM
Here is my favorite photo of Jay Lightyear.

(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/6710559/Other%20Files/JayLightyear.png)
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Echnaton on February 01, 2013, 07:29:43 PM
I've been in all four-corners states... at the same time.

Although I seem to remember hearing that the marker is actually misplaced and not at the intersection at all (inexpert application of a theodolite, maybe?)  In which case I've been in all four states but not at the same time.  But obviously could never perform a successful rocket launch from that spot... ;)

My GPS showed the actual border to be a small distance away where the terrain was much more difficult.  If that is true, then the place is more of a tourist trap than it appears.  Maybe it keeps them from having to pay sales tax in four states.  OTOH, Google shows the border to be very near the monument, and who can argue to the font of all wisdom?
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Not Myself on February 01, 2013, 07:36:33 PM
Here is my favorite photo of Jay Lightyear.

(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/6710559/Other%20Files/JayLightyear.png)

Well that's a fake.  The wind that's blowing the flag isn't affecting his hair.
Title: YouTube Madness
Post by: Sus_pilot on February 01, 2013, 09:55:34 PM
I once played Thomas Jefferson in 1776.  Shaved my beard, but I refused to bleach and dye my hair.

We have a huge in-house costume and wig shop.  These days we very often opt to have the actor keep his own hair and just use an appropriate wig.  And yes, anyone who visits the Salt Lake City area can hit me up for a backstage tour.
Y'know, I work for a, um, small railroad that has a regional headquarters there.  Sounds like it may be time to go visit...
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Noldi400 on February 27, 2013, 06:40:54 PM
Quite possibly the most reasonable and convincing pro-conspiracy video ever.  I think they may have persuaded me.

Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: smartcooky on February 27, 2013, 08:49:20 PM
Undoubtedly one of the best Apollo Hoax pisstakes I have ever seen!
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: pzkpfw on February 27, 2013, 09:20:49 PM
That was genius, thank you.
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Tanalia on February 27, 2013, 10:12:13 PM
More coherent than most HBs.
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: gillianren on February 28, 2013, 01:23:43 AM
My favourite part (yes, I actually watched it; shocking, I know) is that every single clip/picture is either "rare" or "never before seen."  Even the bit from Apollo 13.  It even got Graham's attention!
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Noldi400 on February 28, 2013, 02:08:36 AM
I loved the line  "Also, the fact that I am speaking authoritatively and with a British accent means that our proof is scientifically irrefutable."

Kudos to the author of this; I think he managed to get in a poke at pretty much every catch phrase and buzzword they use, and with all the logic of the typical HB.
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Andromeda on February 28, 2013, 04:10:40 AM
I giggled throughout that... right up until "The letter 'O' being the first vowel in the word 'model'", at which point I howled with laughter and startled one of the pets.

That video was awesome.

(And this post was written in a British accent)
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: raven on February 28, 2013, 04:35:33 AM
Ooh, I was wondering where that video was. I remember seen it years ago, but it's not an easy one to search for without being deluged with apparently genuine moon hoax theory videos.
It's not obvious by the name or description that it's parody. God's own irony indeed.
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: ka9q on February 28, 2013, 04:49:57 AM
Although I seem to remember hearing that the marker is actually misplaced and not at the intersection at all (inexpert application of a theodolite, maybe?)
The question of the exact location of state borders is actually a pretty interesting one. They were traditionally defined by lines of latitude and longitude (four  corners being the classic example) but it's my understanding (and I'm not a lawyer) that the legal border is wherever the traditional markers have been placed.

This actually matters a lot for the casinos on the southeast shore of Lake Tahoe.

When you give geographic coordinates, to be precise you also have to give the map datum (coordinate system) in which they're defined. There are actually many, as prior to the GPS age every country had their own, and they were sometimes revised. GPS forced the issue; it's global (that's what the G means) so naturally it (or more accurately the US DoD, which runs GPS) had to define its own datum as a compromise to all the others. That's WGS-84, the World Geodetic Survey, 1984 version, last updated in 2010 I think. Before that  there was WGS-72, and a bunch of others. GPS receivers can usually be set to a number of datums, but nearly all default to WGS-84. So when someone gives you coordinates that's almost certainly what they refer to. And they're often quite different from the "traditional" coordinates used in many areas.

Because of the worldwide popularity of GPS, WGS-84 has become the defacto standard in most other countries so their users have to be very careful when using local maps drawn in a different datum. For example, if you've ever visited the Royal Greenwich Observatory in England, you'll discover that the true (i.e., WGS-84) prime meridian isn't on any of the lines on the observatory wall that the tourists pose next to for pictures. It actually runs through the park a hundred meters or so to the east of the building. When I was last there I lined up some garbage cans on it so I could get my own, proper souvenir photo.

The other datum that Americans are likely to run into is NAD-27 (North American Datum 1927) which is what all those nice USGS topographic maps are drawn in. NAD-27 and WGS-84 can differ by hundreds of meters (I think) in some parts of the country, so the distinction does matter. Now you can see the wisdom of defining state borders by traditional markers rather than the currently popular geodetic datum...

There are formulas and webpages to perform the conversions, such as on the FCC website. They maintain some of their licensee and antenna databases in WGS-84 and others in NAD-27, all to make life more interesting.
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Echnaton on February 28, 2013, 05:17:28 PM
The different datum from the survey and my GPS could have accounted for my reading of not being at the exact location if the state boundaries were just put on the WGS-84 maps by lat and long numbers.
Title: YouTube Madness
Post by: Sus_pilot on March 01, 2013, 12:01:09 AM
This issue never occurred to me before.  As a pilot and instrument flight instructor, this has proven to be fascinating.  Digging into it, it appears that the FAA uses WGS84 as the standard, per this document: 

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/8260.48.pdf

Having everyone on the same standard is clearly critical, as flying an RNAV WAAS approach to the runway (OK, down to 200 feet AGL) in instrument conditions is no time to be a couple of feet off.

Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Chew on March 01, 2013, 12:16:59 AM
This issue never occurred to me before.  As a pilot and instrument flight instructor, this has proven to be fascinating. 

Please tell me you're not a commercial airline pilot!

A lot of nautical charts are in non-WGS datum. Most GPS receivers have multiple datums to choose from but occasionally you come across a chart with a funky datum that is not in the receiver, like the Rome 1950 datum is not in the standard US Navy GPS receiver. Plotting a position requires manually adjusting the GPS position.
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Noldi400 on March 01, 2013, 12:44:04 AM
To add to the confusion, for anyone who had to interact with the US Forest Service - this was true some years ago, anyway - they had their own map coordinate system. If you had a GPS locator (they were new and expensive then) you had to get a lat/long and then do a conversion to get their coordinates.
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Obviousman on March 01, 2013, 01:40:34 AM
Everthing we use is in WGS84. To be honest, 10 - 15 years ago it didn't matter too much; we relied on visual nav and NAVAIDS... but today? GPS plays a major role.
Title: YouTube Madness
Post by: Sus_pilot on March 01, 2013, 06:50:52 AM
This issue never occurred to me before.  As a pilot and instrument flight instructor, this has proven to be fascinating. 

Please tell me you're not a commercial airline pilot!

A lot of nautical charts are in non-WGS datum. Most GPS receivers have multiple datums to choose from but occasionally you come across a chart with a funky datum that is not in the receiver, like the Rome 1950 datum is not in the standard US Navy GPS receiver. Plotting a position requires manually adjusting the GPS position.

I don't think a lot of ATP's would have thought about it either.  It's the receiver adhering to a standard, which was selected by the FAA. I just never thought about the possibility of there being multiple standards available.  This is just good Technicolor for ground school.

ETA:  What's really amazing is running a product like ForeFlight on an iPad, especially with an external antenna.  Even though it's not certified for primary IFR navigation, I can zoom into a sectional, terminal, or IFR en route chart or approach plate to the point where the font on the charts almost becomes the same size as the position indicator and it's all dead on.  ForeFlight claims 5 meter accuracy, and I can't doubt that; when using the airport diagrams to taxi, what I see directly in front of me sure matches where the airplane icon is on the drawing.
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: RAF on March 01, 2013, 10:58:19 AM
Quite possibly the most reasonable and convincing pro-conspiracy video ever.

A wonderful parody...completely captures the spirit of a HB youtube vid.

I'd just love to hear JW read this script. :)
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: JayUtah on March 01, 2013, 11:57:27 AM
The video is actually a pretty close parody of Bart Sibrel's A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon.  At one time Sibrel belonged to a very conservative Fundamentalist church, which might explain why the first part of his film has such a religious flavor.
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: ka9q on March 01, 2013, 07:56:14 PM
I'd just love to hear JW read this script. :)
And the fact that I'm speaking authoritatively and with an Australian accent...

Nah, just doesn't work.
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Noldi400 on March 01, 2013, 07:57:17 PM
The video is actually a pretty close parody of Bart Sibrel's A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon.  At one time Sibrel belonged to a very conservative Fundamentalist church, which might explain why the first part of his film has such a religious flavor.
I haven't seen it in a while - wasn't it Sibrel's film that had a long sequence of tear-jerking images with a voiceover about the wasted money? Which, of course, had absolutely nothing to do with the validity of his claims, just a generic Appeal To Emotion.

I did especially love the repeated "never before seen footage" bits.  I always thought Sibrel's peak was his claim that someone at NASA "accidentally" sent him a secret tape. How can you top that?
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: gillianren on March 01, 2013, 09:22:48 PM
I did especially love the repeated "never before seen footage" bits.

As I said, best use of it was right before the clip from Apollo 13.  Can we get the never-before-seen footage of the two Oscars it won?
Title: YouTube Madness
Post by: Sus_pilot on March 01, 2013, 11:40:49 PM
OK, help.  I've either missed the link a hundred times, or there's a bit of inside humor/knowledge that I don't have (I'll pay the membership dues at the next meeting - honest!):  Which YT video?
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Count Zero on March 01, 2013, 11:44:06 PM
Reply #36 on page 3 of this thread.
Title: YouTube Madness
Post by: Sus_pilot on March 02, 2013, 03:34:35 AM
Reply #36 on page 3 of this thread.

In Tapatalk, that imbedded stream isn't visible. Just the text, so it looked like Noldi was responding to something up-thread.  It wasn't till your post prompted me to open it in Safari that I saw it. Thanks!
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: JayUtah on March 02, 2013, 10:26:07 AM
I haven't seen it in a while - wasn't it Sibrel's film that had a long sequence of tear-jerking images with a voiceover about the wasted money?

Yes, about 20 minutes of the 40-minute film was emotional baiting.  The hubris of man in the face of God, etc.  He did use the Titanic, and also the Tower of Babel.  Probably the most egregious emotional terrorism was the intercut of the Apollo 11 launch sequences with photographs of starving children.

Quote
I always thought Sibrel's peak was his claim that someone at NASA "accidentally" sent him a secret tape. How can you top that?

By assaulting Buzz Aldrin and getting hit the face for it.
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Noldi400 on March 02, 2013, 02:40:35 PM
Reply #36 on page 3 of this thread.

In Tapatalk, that imbedded stream isn't visible. Just the text, so it looked like Noldi was responding to something up-thread.  It wasn't till your post prompted me to open it in Safari that I saw it. Thanks!

I wasn't aware of that - henceforth, if I imbed a video I'll include the link also. Thanks for the heads-up.

By assaulting Buzz Aldrin and getting hit the face for it.

Or, like Kaysing, sue Jim Lovell for slander for calling Kaysing whacky.  I read somewhere that Kaysing was going to act as his own attorney. That's a trial I would have paid to see.
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: JayUtah on March 02, 2013, 03:54:12 PM
Or, like Kaysing, sue Jim Lovell for slander for calling Kaysing whacky.  I read somewhere that Kaysing was going to act as his own attorney. That's a trial I would have paid to see.
If only.  It was dismissed with prejudice before it went to trial.
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Noldi400 on March 09, 2013, 08:32:31 PM
This week's standout in the Denies-Established-Science category, of the ones I've dealt with, is CNN911Fakes, who dismissed the concept of the partial pressure of gasses (Dalton's Law) - which he had apparently never heard of until I tried to explain to him why 4 psi of oxygen is a life sustaining atmosphere.

I'll leave off the lead-up and skip straight to the fun part.

CNN911Fakes:

The truth is, any ambient air molecule, regardless of kind, is pushing on your skin at the same pressure as all the rest of the ambient air molecules.

To say that the oxygen pressure at sea level is 3 psi because oxygen makes up 21% of the ambient air is what is twisted and just plain wrong. Every oxygen molecule pressing against you is being pressed there by all of the rest of the ambient air molecules.


Of course, this is also one of the same guys who insists that rockets can't work in space because they have a "big honking hole" at the back, so the vacuum of space would suck the propellants out before they could ignite.

The burn......
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Donnie B. on March 09, 2013, 09:09:38 PM
"Blown out, actually, Sir." :)
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: ka9q on March 10, 2013, 11:22:31 AM
Does he also think that technical diving is a hoax?
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Noldi400 on March 10, 2013, 01:27:26 PM
Does he also think that technical diving is a hoax?

I think you've dealt with this guy before - he always pretends to misunderstand what you say and twists it around. We did take a little side foray on the subject of SCUBA diving; he thought that if breathing pure oxygen (I pointed out that the astronauts pre-oxygenated before their flights) prevented the bends, SCUBA divers should use pure oxygen.  I mentioned that some diving rigs do use pure oxygen or exotic oxy mixes, but that they were complex, expensive, and require specialized training to use safely.  He pretended not to understand why there would be a difference between low-pressure and high-pressure (underwater) environments.   :o

"Blown out, actually, Sir." :)

Hey, I doesn't make 'em up, I just reports 'em.  His actual argument is that Boyle's Law means that any gas injected into the combustion chamber would instantaneously expand into the "infinite vacuum" of space before it could ignite.
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: AtomicDog on March 10, 2013, 01:36:56 PM
"Blown out, actually, Sir." :)


Data?
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Noldi400 on March 10, 2013, 01:38:47 PM
"Blown out, actually, Sir." :)
Data?

Yes, Captain?
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: smartcooky on March 10, 2013, 03:04:41 PM
This week's standout in the Denies-Established-Science category, of the ones I've dealt with, is CNN911Fakes, who dismissed the concept of the partial pressure of gasses (Dalton's Law) - which he had apparently never heard of until I tried to explain to him why 4 psi of oxygen is a life sustaining atmosphere.

I'll leave off the lead-up and skip straight to the fun part.

CNN911Fakes:

The truth is, any ambient air molecule, regardless of kind, is pushing on your skin at the same pressure as all the rest of the ambient air molecules.

To say that the oxygen pressure at sea level is 3 psi because oxygen makes up 21% of the ambient air is what is twisted and just plain wrong. Every oxygen molecule pressing against you is being pressed there by all of the rest of the ambient air molecules.


Of course, this is also one of the same guys who insists that rockets can't work in space because they have a "big honking hole" at the back, so the vacuum of space would suck the propellants out before they could ignite.

The burn......

If that was posted at JREF, it would be an instant nominee and potential winner for a Stundie Award
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Count Zero on March 10, 2013, 09:12:45 PM
It doesn't have to be posted at JREF to qualify for a JREF Stundie.  Simply post the quote and provide a link to the original in this month's Stundie thread to make the nomination official.
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Noldi400 on March 10, 2013, 09:47:40 PM
It doesn't have to be posted at JREF to qualify for a JREF Stundie.  Simply post the quote and provide a link to the original in this month's Stundie thread to make the nomination official.
Good idea. I'll do that.
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Chew on March 10, 2013, 09:55:38 PM
It doesn't have to be posted at JREF to qualify for a JREF Stundie.  Simply post the quote and provide a link to the original in this month's Stundie thread to make the nomination official.

True dat. The previous two months winners came from this forum!
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: ka9q on March 10, 2013, 11:14:21 PM
Oh yes, as you know I am quite familiar with CNN911Fakes. I'm also familiar with Chev4206, who has to be the most deliberately offensive Youtube user of all time. In fact, they are so similar that I'm not sure they're not sock puppets of the same person. However CNN911Fakes seems slightly more gracious at times.

I hadn't seen your discussion with him on diving mixtures. Pure oxygen is actually quite toxic at high pressures, above about 2 atm or so. So while it is useful in helping N2 outgas from your body, it cannot be safely used below a depth of about 9 m. Its partial pressure must be limited, which at greater depths can only be done by adding diluent gases such as N2, He and even H2.

This was not understood by the WW2 German divers who were breathing pure O2. The British divers defending Gibraltar made use of this fact by taking their German opponents down until they went into convulsions. Apparently this property of pressurized oxygen was a tightly held British secret during the war.

Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Dalhousie on March 11, 2013, 07:38:33 AM

This was not understood by the WW2 German divers who were breathing pure O2. The British divers defending Gibraltar made use of this fact by taking their German opponents down until they went into convulsions. Apparently this property of pressurized oxygen was a tightly held British secret during the war.

Oxygen toxicity was well known by everyone before WW2.  . You can read this the books by Costeau or HaasEveryone took what today would be considered uacceptable risks with it.  The problem is at times you can go very deep with it - 15, 20 m, even more, and the next day you can't.  Even the 2 atmosphere pp limit about 2% of the population can't tolerate, according to a clearance diver I was chatting to today..

German frogman never attacked Gibraltar, these attacks were carried by the the Italian navy, using equipment much more advanced that that of the RN (until it was copied).

Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: frenat on March 11, 2013, 09:26:42 AM
It doesn't have to be posted at JREF to qualify for a JREF Stundie.  Simply post the quote and provide a link to the original in this month's Stundie thread to make the nomination official.

True dat. The previous two months winners came from this forum!
And there have been previous winners from the David Icke Stundie Mining forum (that's what I call it anyway) and GLP.
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Noldi400 on March 11, 2013, 11:10:18 AM
Oh yes, as you know I am quite familiar with CNN911Fakes. I'm also familiar with Chev4206, who has to be the most deliberately offensive Youtube user of all time. In fact, they are so similar that I'm not sure they're not sock puppets of the same person. However CNN911Fakes seems slightly more gracious at times.

I hadn't seen your discussion with him on diving mixtures. Pure oxygen is actually quite toxic at high pressures, above about 2 atm or so. So while it is useful in helping N2 outgas from your body, it cannot be safely used below a depth of about 9 m. Its partial pressure must be limited, which at greater depths can only be done by adding diluent gases such as N2, He and even H2.

This was not understood by the WW2 German divers who were breathing pure O2. The British divers defending Gibraltar made use of this fact by taking their German opponents down until they went into convulsions. Apparently this property of pressurized oxygen was a tightly held British secret during the war.

The comments are in Hunchy's Moon Hoax Yes vid.

I told CNNetc that some diving rigs do use pure oxygen but they're expensive, complex, and require specialized training to use safely. I didn't even bother going into the computerized rigs that adjust the partial pressures of an oxygen-nitrogen-helium mix according to depth, since he denied even the concept of partial pressures.

It is surprising how quickly oxygen becomes toxic at increased pressures. Back when I was doing sport & rescue diving I never went below about 100 ft (3 atm absolute) which is well within limits for air but would almost certainly kill you as dead as a hammer in short order if you were breathing pure oxygen.

I even told CNN that he didn't have to take my word, he could just call his local hospital and talk to any respiratory therapist - they would tell him the same thing about partial pressures, but he did his usual thing of ignoring that in favor of twisting what I told him and, IMO, deliberately pretending not to understand what I was saying. I eventually got bored with him and dropped it; I can only argue with a fencepost for so long before dozing off.

That's interesting about the German/British divers. I hadn't heard that.
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: ka9q on March 11, 2013, 12:12:16 PM
German frogman never attacked Gibraltar, these attacks were carried by the the Italian navy, using equipment much more advanced that that of the RN (until it was copied).
Now I'm going to have to go back and check that reference. It seemed pretty specific.
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Abaddon on March 11, 2013, 03:25:44 PM
It doesn't have to be posted at JREF to qualify for a JREF Stundie.  Simply post the quote and provide a link to the original in this month's Stundie thread to make the nomination official.
Good idea. I'll do that.
I posted links for both. In future simply post links as text like "h t t p:// etc" with spaces. Someone over there will fix em.

ETA: Well until you can post your own.
Title: Re: YouTube Madness
Post by: Dalhousie on March 12, 2013, 04:15:34 AM
German frogman never attacked Gibraltar, these attacks were carried by the the Italian navy, using equipment much more advanced that that of the RN (until it was copied).
Now I'm going to have to go back and check that reference. It seemed pretty specific.

Italian divers were the most advanced and successful in WW-II. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decima_Flottiglia_MAS#Chronicle_of_operations

The Germanys came relatively late to the concept and their operations were later and smaller scale.

Always happy to have contrary info though!