Author Topic: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists  (Read 116566 times)

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2715
    • Clavius
Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
« Reply #390 on: April 03, 2015, 12:01:06 PM »
Why didn't I think of this? I know that a helium gas accumulator was used to damp pogo in the S-IC, so it makes sense that one could also be modulated to deliberately create it in a test.

Yep, and that's how it's tested.  Propellant pressure and flow fluctuations cause other problems such as cracks in delicate structures like flow liners.  This happened on the orbiters in the early 2000s due to unforeseen interactions between the LPFT blade tips and the propellant line walls.  We were one of the FEA contractors for that research, and it resulted in design changes to the flow liner.  But the resulting liner design has to go through rounds of qualification testing at operating temperature with the pressure fluctuating at various ranges of frequencies.

It's also how they create vibrato on a pipe organ.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2715
    • Clavius
Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
« Reply #391 on: April 03, 2015, 12:07:47 PM »
Rene's patents are small and reasonably ingenious but don't require any great scientific or mechanical knowledge.  One, for example, is a brazing torch for soldering pipe joints.  It's a tube in the shape of a shepherd's crook having several jets of flame on the inside of the hook.  It applies heat evenly to the entire circumference of the joint and, more importantly, does not direct heat at nearby structures like walls.  They're straightforward and likely born from necessity.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline geo7863

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 69
Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
« Reply #392 on: April 03, 2015, 12:16:58 PM »
I saw a programme on YT last night with Rene and Kaysing, and JayUtah too (younger than I thought you were!..either that or you've 'aged' well!) ! I have never actually seen either before and known it was them (I did see Rene on Penn & Teller's BS! a long while back but didn't know who he was back then!) They both come across as a bit dim if you ask me, anyone who seriously puts forward the 'C' rock as a viable argument is not 'all there'!

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2715
    • Clavius
Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
« Reply #393 on: April 03, 2015, 12:30:05 PM »
That program was made about 10 years ago, but also I do tend to look younger than I am.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline geo7863

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 69
Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
« Reply #394 on: April 03, 2015, 12:51:18 PM »
Jay have you ever met Rene, Kaysing, Sibrel or any of the other dyed in the wool Hoaxers in the flesh and 'debated' their views?

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1811
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
« Reply #395 on: April 03, 2015, 01:41:46 PM »
Rene's patents are small and reasonably ingenious but don't require any great scientific or mechanical knowledge.  One, for example, is a brazing torch for soldering pipe joints.  It's a tube in the shape of a shepherd's crook having several jets of flame on the inside of the hook.  It applies heat evenly to the entire circumference of the joint and, more importantly, does not direct heat at nearby structures like walls.  They're straightforward and likely born from necessity.

The other patent is a variable pitched roof bracket. As you suggest, they're hardly technology changers. It would be interesting to know the approach of the RAND corporation. I'm guessing they may have been involved in some sort of technology seeding. I'm sure that Ralph claimed that they were a CIA front.  ???
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1811
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
« Reply #396 on: April 03, 2015, 01:51:18 PM »
I did see Rene on Penn & Teller's BS! a long while back but didn't know who he was back then!

Blunder Boy has a tape recording of a phone call he had with Ralph and discusses how P&T made him out to look a bit stupid. Ralph sounded a bit deflated when Jarrah fed him this information. I'm not even sure Ralph had watched the episode given his reaction. Maybe he realised after the film crew had gone that he had been set up and was about to made to look an idiot. I think the P&T researchers were fairly ruthless and knew exactly what they'd get from Ralph.

I cannot remember if it was Blunder or Ralph who said they picked the choice cuts to make him look stupid. Personally, if you're going to be interviewed by P&T, then you're either going to be involved in some magic or they're going to extract urine, and if you're Ralph Rene, you're going to look pretty stupid no matter what you say. P&T didn't really need a lot of help with cutting out the tenderloin, Ralph managed to do a good job of shooting himself in the foot by simply opening his mouth.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline Count Zero

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 339
  • Pad 39A July 14,1969
Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
« Reply #397 on: April 03, 2015, 10:02:54 PM »
How do these people actually believe 100% that so many people could actually hold such a massive lie forever! Perhaps it's because they can actually tell lies themselves simply and fluidly, as easy as breathing each breath, with no remorse, no guilt, no shame. And perhaps they perceive it to be a normal 'state of affairs' so everyone else, without fail, is a habitual (and very, very, very, accomplished) lair themselves.
I seem to remember a psychological survey that showed that conspiracy theorists were indeed more likely than average to resort to underhand methods.

It was a study by Karen M. Douglas and Robbie M. Sutton, published in the British Journal of Social Psychology.
Does it take one to know one? Endorsement of conspiracy theories is influenced by personal willingness to conspire

Here is an article about the study that summarizes it well:
One Surprising Reason People May Believe Bizarre Conspiracy Theories
"What makes one step a giant leap is all the steps before."

Offline bknight

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2484
Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
« Reply #398 on: July 17, 2015, 08:18:58 AM »
I did see Rene on Penn & Teller's BS! a long while back but didn't know who he was back then!

Blunder Boy has a tape recording of a phone call he had with Ralph and discusses how P&T made him out to look a bit stupid. Ralph sounded a bit deflated when Jarrah fed him this information. I'm not even sure Ralph had watched the episode given his reaction. Maybe he realised after the film crew had gone that he had been set up and was about to made to look an idiot. I think the P&T researchers were fairly ruthless and knew exactly what they'd get from Ralph.

I cannot remember if it was Blunder or Ralph who said they picked the choice cuts to make him look stupid. Personally, if you're going to be interviewed by P&T, then you're either going to be involved in some magic or they're going to extract urine, and if you're Ralph Rene, you're going to look pretty stupid no matter what you say. P&T didn't really need a lot of help with cutting out the tenderloin, Ralph managed to do a good job of shooting himself in the foot by simply opening his mouth.
I hadn't seen that videoed conversation, just the one involving the Apollo 1 fire, unless they were parts of the same conversation.  Rene, came across as knowing bits of facts generally associated with the fire that Jarrah appeared not to know.  After viewing that series I like you try to avoid any of his videos.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2715
    • Clavius
Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
« Reply #399 on: July 17, 2015, 06:50:45 PM »
I ignore Jarrah generally, simply because he appears to be publishing only to feed his ego.  Specifically, most conspiracy theorists tacitly write so as to portray the authors of the conventional narrative as evil and oppressive.  Hence most conspiracy rhetoric tilts quite noticeably toward that vilification.  Jarrah goes beyond that to vilify the skeptic debunkers personally.  His arguments, where he's not careful, simply devolve into "getting" his critics at all costs, regardless of whether the proffered rhetoric has anything to do with Apollo.  That approach historically signals someone trying to make his reputation at the expense of others, regardless of topic.  Witness his attacks on Adam Savage and Phil Plait.  I have given him two opportunities to debate me directly, and he ended both by foaming at the mouth so badly the moderators stepped in.  All that spells a situation made only worse by giving him attention.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline 12oh2alarm

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 60
  • This dude likes Don Martin cartoons.
Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
« Reply #400 on: July 29, 2015, 04:43:30 AM »
I have given him [Blunder] two opportunities to debate me directly, and he ended both by foaming at the mouth so badly the moderators stepped in.  All that spells a situation made only worse by giving him attention.
Is any of that available to read or hear on the 'net?

Offline Allan F

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 810
Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
« Reply #401 on: July 29, 2015, 06:30:09 AM »
I have given him [Blunder] two opportunities to debate me directly, and he ended both by foaming at the mouth so badly the moderators stepped in.  All that spells a situation made only worse by giving him attention.
Is any of that available to read or hear on the 'net?

You can find some of it on imdb.com - look up "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon". And look in the discussion section.
Well, it is like this: The truth doesn't need insults. Insults are the refuge of a darkened mind, a mind that refuses to open and see. Foul language can't outcompete knowledge. And knowledge is the result of education. Education is the result of the wish to know more, not less.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2715
    • Clavius
Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
« Reply #402 on: July 29, 2015, 11:11:41 AM »
You can find some of it on imdb.com - look up "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon". And look in the discussion section.

The subtext being that after his shellacking he went back and deleted many of his comments, ostensibly to make it harder to follow the discussion.  I assume that's so he could go back to his loyal fans and credibly make up whatever story he wanted to about why he abandoned the debate.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1811
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
« Reply #403 on: July 29, 2015, 12:13:39 PM »
The subtext being that after his shellacking he went back and deleted many of his comments, ostensibly to make it harder to follow the discussion.  I assume that's so he could go back to his loyal fans and credibly make up whatever story he wanted to about why he abandoned the debate.

Of course, once he comprehended the context (not content) of his shellacking, he accused you of asking an impossible question - How he could possibly correlate proton data pre-GOES (1976). I mention this every time the IMDb discussion is raised, not because my needle is stuck or because I want to raise it for the sake of raising it. I raise it as Jarrah lurks here and I want to keep reminding him:

(a) Why did it take him so long to go back and come back with his objection? (answer - because he couldn't find the answer using Google.)
(b) He would find the answer on Google if he had the knowledge (I did).
(c) How can he prove proton correlation if there is no data pre-1976 (he cannot have his cake and eat it)?
(d) Does he actually realise that proton data exist pre-1976, so why is he asking you that question?
(e) Does he actually know that one does not need a satellite to obtain proton data?
(f) When he tried an integrated dose calculation he still did not understand the concept of calculus.

He won't answer these questions, but once he does he'll just dig a deeper hole that shows his incompetence.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2715
    • Clavius
Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
« Reply #404 on: July 29, 2015, 01:11:28 PM »
Of course, once he comprehended the context (not content) of his shellacking, he accused you of asking an impossible question...

Of course, "impossible" because he couldn't figure out how to answer it.

Quote
(a) Why did it take him so long to go back and come back with his objection? (answer - because he couldn't find the answer using Google.)
(b) He would find the answer on Google if he had the knowledge (I did).

That's part of my debate philosophy.  When a proponent presents an argument that embodies a pretense to expertise, I ask questions that require knowledge, not facts.  You can Google for facts, but you can't Google for knowledge.  You either have it or you don't, and the only way to get it is to do real work in the field and make mistakes in it.  If you don't have the appropriate knowledge, then you don't get to say that everyone in the profession is wrong and you're right.  Jarrah can whine all he wants that I'm being unfair, or that his teacher didn't catch his mistakes, or that we should excuse any other situation in which his incompetence has been revealed.  But my ears are deaf to that; he's taking on the fields of astrophysics and aerospace and calling them liars, and he can expect no quarter.

Quote
(c) How can he prove proton correlation if there is no data pre-1976 (he cannot have his cake and eat it)?
(d) Does he actually realise that proton data exist pre-1976, so why is he asking you that question?
(e) Does he actually know that one does not need a satellite to obtain proton data?

As with most conspiracy theorists who attempt the science, he applies only a cargo-cult level of reasoning toward these measurements and their understanding throughout history.  For heaven's sake, we have solar emission data from the Victorian era.  His inability to determine how such things were known prior to the modern satellite measurements is simply an example of that cargo-cult mentality.  At some point people who deploy that kind of argument have to realize how feeble it will be in the real world.  I interpret Jarrah's unwillingness to defend his findings to qualified experts as his admission to that realization.

Quote
(f) When he tried an integrated dose calculation he still did not understand the concept of calculus.

And that's why it's laughable for him to claim to be studying astrophysics.  It's one thing to botch a calculus computation for some trivial reason.  It's another thing altogether to be unable to display any understanding whatsoever of what calculus is and why it's necessary to a correct understanding of the properties of the physical world.  Someone who is entirely oblivious to the concept of calculus will have no success whatsoever in the study of most physical sciences beyond the high school level.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams