Gavin Stone Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Jarrah's Video: My New Landing Apollo video: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=R6koNryx9ow I wonder if he will retract his claims? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 I really dislike youtube unless I have to use it. What the gist of his claim, and your rebuttal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 (edited) Jarrah's Video: My New Landing Apollo video: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=R6koNryx9ow I wonder if he will retract his claims? Looks to me like you're the one who has retracted some of your claims judging by what you posted on YouTube this evening . Quoting Gavin "BTW, I am not revoking my claim that it's Proton 4, I am revoking my claim that Apollo 11 would have been barely noticeable, because given the amount of things orbiting in 69, it would have been out of the norm for something that bright to be seen. " "It wouldn't have been readily identifiable though, but it WOULD have been visible as Apollo if it would have been tracked through a telescope/optics etc. I therefore revoke my claim, as it's based on faulty logic and bad science. Gavin Stone " An Apollo apologist ADMITTING that he made a MISTAKE !?!?!? How convienant, now that you know your prior hype about Apollo 11 not being seen in LEO is complete nonsense . Edited January 15, 2008 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Stone Posted January 15, 2008 Author Share Posted January 15, 2008 (edited) A Conspiracy Theorist knowingly ignoring the content of the video, and instead focussing on one small INCONSEQUENTIAL thing? It can't be! Unlike some I will admit when I am in error. How about dealing with the content of the video Duane? If you think that me admitting Apollo 11 would be be noticeable in the sky means that it was actually Apollo 11 in LEO over Australia, you are even more buried in your deep hatred of NASA and the government that I originally though. So come on Duane, address the facts for a change. Download orbitron, get the Keplerian data elements, put the time in, and calculate the trajectory. Tell me what happens. Edited January 15, 2008 by Gavin Stone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 (edited) you are even more buried in your deep hatred of NASA and the government that I originally though It's FALSE statements and uncalled for comments like that one which shows how little you know about me, or anyone else who wants to expose government lies , conspiracies and cover-ups . How about stop being a parrot for lying disinformation agents like your mentor Jay Windley and try posting something original for a change ? Edited January 15, 2008 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Duane No-one tears a strip off you for admitting being in error, how about extending the same courtesy to others when the ball is on the other foot? Looking at the evidence in the video itself, Jarrah's claim holds less water than a Lithuanian crack-whore's fishnets. What the eye-witnesses described was nothing like a craft in orbit, but very much like a craft burning up during re-entry. They all claimed it was travelling from north to south, which ties in nicely with the known decay of Proton 4. Apollo 11 was recovered 5 hours later, 6000 miles to the north east. The only comeback that Jarrah has, is "Why did it take a month for it to be identified as Proton 4?" Methinks he's grasping at straws because he knows the facts don't support his conclusion. He would have more credibility doing the decent thing and admitting his error, rather than flailing around trying to prop up an untenable position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 I'm thinking that part of the reason for the delay may have been Soviet secrecy regarding launches / orbital data, and the reluctance of NORAD to release / confirm orbital data. At that time, such information may have been considered classified for an initial period (i.e. "embargoed"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Stone Posted January 15, 2008 Author Share Posted January 15, 2008 you are even more buried in your deep hatred of NASA and the government that I originally though It's FALSE statements and uncalled for comments like that one which shows how little you know about me, or anyone else who wants to expose government lies , conspiracies and cover-ups . How about stop being a parrot for lying disinformation agents like your mentor Jay Windley and try posting something original for a change ? So then, Duane "Truth Seeker" Daman; have you plotted the orbital elements yet? It's quite easy. A simple yes or no will suffice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 you are even more buried in your deep hatred of NASA and the government that I originally though It's FALSE statements and uncalled for comments like that one which shows how little you know about me, or anyone else who wants to expose government lies , conspiracies and cover-ups . How about stop being a parrot for lying disinformation agents like your mentor Jay Windley and try posting something original for a change ? So then, Duane "Truth Seeker" Daman; have you plotted the orbital elements yet? It's quite easy. A simple yes or no will suffice. Good luck, I'm still wating for him to take a few photographs to check a claim..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Stone Posted January 15, 2008 Author Share Posted January 15, 2008 you are even more buried in your deep hatred of NASA and the government that I originally though It's FALSE statements and uncalled for comments like that one which shows how little you know about me, or anyone else who wants to expose government lies , conspiracies and cover-ups . How about stop being a parrot for lying disinformation agents like your mentor Jay Windley and try posting something original for a change ? So then, Duane "Truth Seeker" Daman; have you plotted the orbital elements yet? It's quite easy. A simple yes or no will suffice. Good luck, I'm still wating for him to take a few photographs to check a claim..... Don't hold your breath, lol! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 So then, Duane "Truth Seeker" Daman; have you plotted the orbital elements yet? It's quite easy. A simple yes or no will suffice. No . I leave that kind of thing in more capable hands , such as yours ... You know , the guy who first thought the Apollo 11 CM would NOT have been visible in LEO and then decided that it WOULD have very visible , so he could pretend to debunk Jarrah White's video evidence of the Apollo 11 CM showing up where it shouldn't have been, before the A11 crew pretended to fly it in from the Moon . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 I leave that kind of thing in more capable hands , such as yours ... So are you saying that you accept and find no fault with Gavins work and admit that Jarrah was incorrect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 I leave that kind of thing in more capable hands , such as yours ... So are you saying that you accept and find no fault with Gavins work and admit that Jarrah was incorrect? Quoting my post OUT OF CONTEXT is pretty silly , don't you think ? Why not quote the part after that , which was the point. "You know , the guy who first thought the Apollo 11 CM would NOT have been visible in LEO and then decided that it WOULD have very visible , so he could pretend to debunk Jarrah White's video evidence of the Apollo 11 CM showing up where it shouldn't have been, before the A11 crew pretended to fly it in from the Moon . " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Stone Posted January 15, 2008 Author Share Posted January 15, 2008 (edited) the guy who first thought the Apollo 11 CM would NOT have been visible in LEO I have never once said that the Apollo 11 CM would not have been visible in LEO, that is an outright lie. So let me get this straight, just so we're on the same wavelength (hell who am I kidding you will never be on my wavelength but we can pretend). 1) You agree with Jarrah's video. 2) You agree with the contention that Apollo 11 was in Earth orbit and it was seen over Australia on July 24th 1969 3) You, Duane "Truth Seeker Only looks at evidence when it's in his favour" Daman refuse to investigate and research something before you go off on one of your patented rambles about how Apollo is fake and we are all sheep. I won't even go into the fact that one of Jarrahs videos suggests that the CM was dropped out of plane by the way, because that really would make him look silly wouldn't it! Edited January 15, 2008 by Gavin Stone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 I leave that kind of thing in more capable hands , such as yours ... So are you saying that you accept and find no fault with Gavins work and admit that Jarrah was incorrect? Quoting my post OUT OF CONTEXT is pretty silly , don't you think ? Why not quote the part after that , which was the point. "You know , the guy who first thought the Apollo 11 CM would NOT have been visible in LEO and then decided that it WOULD have very visible , so he could pretend to debunk Jarrah White's video evidence of the Apollo 11 CM showing up where it shouldn't have been, before the A11 crew pretended to fly it in from the Moon . " Why, the original post is there for everyone to see. You still have not answered the question. If you want us to consider the last part of your quote the answer, you are contradicting yourself as the first part of your quote implies that Gavins work is correct. So which is it? If Gavin's work is correct, Jarrah is wrong. If Gavin's work is incorrect you need to show us why. Whats it going to be Duane? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now