UH-OH! More bad info for Wunder-Blunder to use!

[Dr.Acula]

Ah, I see, the good old "50-%-slow-down"-argument is still going around again.. and again.. and again 

An oldie but a goodie. 

Yepp, and most of the times good for a laugh or two 

[ka9q]

Not only that, but 50% is the wrong figure for the moon...

[JayUtah]

I know he has misrepresented my words and pasted his own interpretation to it.  Of course he never bothered to ask me for a clarification.  If I were to post a correction on YouTube he'd probably argue with me over the meaning of my own words.

You're trying to be a scientist.  He's trying to be a lawyer.

[Bob B.]

He's trying to be a lawyer.

And he's being a jackass.

[JayUtah]

Yes, in addition to his well-established incompetence and his lawyerly approach, he isn't a very emotionally balanced person.  He's mostly been an angry jerk, which is why I don't often direct my attention his way.

[Bob B.]

He's mostly been an angry jerk, which is why I don't often direct my attention his way.

Which has been my stance up until now.  As soon as this latest radiation argument has run its course, I'll hopefully get back to ignoring him.

[Luke Pemberton]

Not only that, but 50% is the wrong figure for the moon...

But the theory had always been that the filmed was slowed down with the use of wires, they just got the percentage wrong.

Do you remember the shift of goal posts?  Once the penny dropped that the new 67% film speed was further away from the physics than Percy's 50%, wires were brought into the equation to fix that problem. I recall you and I arguing with hoax proponents that Percy never said it was a 50% slow down with wires, he said it was a 50% slow down.

[beedarko]

I believe this stems from a claim about the manipulation of the film speed.  My understanding is that he slowed down a video clip by 50% and then claimed that to return to the original speed you must add 50% to the slowed-down video.  Of course you have to double the slowed-down video to return to the original speed.

I knew I had it bookmarked somewhere...

[Dr.Acula]

I knew I had it bookmarked somewhere...

Thanks for the clip. It's well done and funny. 

[AstroBrant]

Bob,

I've just solved a mystery. The reason I couldn't see Jarrah's thread on the NVIDIA video, (YouTube), is because I blocked him a long time ago. I didn't block him on my Debunx channel, though. So I can see the thread that way, but since he had blocked that account, too, that means he can't see any of my comments.

Apparently sjoeroever and Jarrah can see each other's posts, so I asked him to pass on the information about the American Scientist diagram as well as briefly what you heard from Dr. Odenwald. There's no way to know if he's gotten that information until sjoeroever tells him and he responds.

If anyone here knows they can contact Jarrah, could you please pass the information on to him about both of these issues?

[HeadLikeARock]

Bob,

I've just solved a mystery. The reason I couldn't see Jarrah's thread on the NVIDIA video, (YouTube), is because I blocked him a long time ago. I didn't block him on my Debunx channel, though. So I can see the thread that way, but since he had blocked that account, too, that means he can't see any of my comments.

Apparently sjoeroever and Jarrah can see each other's posts, so I asked him to pass on the information about the American Scientist diagram as well as briefly what you heard from Dr. Odenwald. There's no way to know if he's gotten that information until sjoeroever tells him and he responds.

If anyone here knows they can contact Jarrah, could you please pass the information on to him about both of these issues?

I've replied to him re both issues on the comments section of at least one video, not sure which one as there seems to be a certain amount of 'cross-pollination' between comments threads. He'll get a notification, whether he chooses to respond is anyone's guess. I specifically asked him to show some intellectual honesty and review his calculations (given as how he had very unfairly played that card aimed directly at Bob). He still doesn't have a source for the figure he used for flux density of 10 MeV electrons, and he clearly can't use the 10 - 100 MeV figure.

I've posted umpteen links to academic articles in the scientific literature describing the electron flux in the outer belts and he hasn't responded so far. He should be able to access any that aren't open access via his university affiliation - I can only view them because I'm studying at the Open University at the moment.

[AstroBrant]

I've replied to him re both issues on the comments section of at least one video, not sure which one as there seems to be a certain amount of 'cross-pollination' between comments threads. He'll get a notification, whether he chooses to respond is anyone's guess. I specifically asked him to show some intellectual honesty and review his calculations (given as how he had very unfairly played that card aimed directly at Bob). He still doesn't have a source for the figure he used for flux density of 10 MeV electrons, and he clearly can't use the 10 - 100 MeV figure.

I've posted umpteen links to academic articles in the scientific literature describing the electron flux in the outer belts and he hasn't responded so far. He should be able to access any that aren't open access via his university affiliation - I can only view them because I'm studying at the Open University at the moment.

Thanks for the info. Are you sure you're not blocked on his channel? Since YT has changed its system, they no longer inform you if you're blocked. Has Jarrah replied to any of your comments recently?

[Bob B.]

(given as how he had very unfairly played that card aimed directly at Bob)

What I found to be a hoot about Jarrah's claim of intellectual dishonesty was that it was patently dishonest.  He claimed his source was a NASA site that specifically covers the MAARBLE project.  The NASA site that he references in his video has absolutely nothing to do with the MAARBLE project, never mentions MAARBLE, and even predates it by about 12 years.  It's true that the information is reproduced on the MAARBLE web site, but that's not the source Jarrah referenced (plus the MAARBLE site is obviously a secondary source).

[Bob B.]

If you want to talk about intellectual cowardice, it's people like Jarrah.  I do an in depth review of his work, point out each specific error, explain why its wrong, and show how it should be correctly done.  In response he just hand waves and calls my critiques are nonsense but can't point out a single error that I've made.

(ETA)  Correction - He did try disprove my claim that 55 MeV electrons would pass through an astronaut's body, but he made a math error and failed in that endeavor.

[Luke Pemberton]

If you want to talk about intellectual cowardice, it's people like Jarrah.  I do an in depth review of his work, point out each specific error, explain why its wrong, and show how it should be correctly done.  In response he just hand waves and calls my critiques are nonsense but can't point out a single error that I've made.

A point that has been made multiple times Bob. When his errors are pointed out he simply ridicules with bare assertions that his critics' rebuttals are laughable, yet he fails to offer a single shred of evidence to the contrary. He still has to address his understanding of integral fluxes over an energy distribution, an aspect that Jay highlighted at the IMDb many years ago. That question remains unanswered, and until he addresses that question he cannot profess an expertise in this field. He simply takes worst case energies to prove his point. His double counting of energy shows he clearly lacks the most fundamental idea in physics, namely the conservation of energy. His use of the bremsstrahliung radiation is simply hideous. He hasn't the faintest idea how that equation should be applied, ergo, he does not understand the physics of particle interactions with matter. He really needs to look at the data to understand that he is using that equation out of context (for several reasons).