Jarrah White's Proton 4 claims

[Gavin Stone]

It's going to be option 'C' Craig, ignore the evidence and attack the poster instead (me) based on something irrelevant, an almost text book perfect case of the Ad Hominem logical fallacy.

Edited January 15, 2008 by Gavin Stone

[Gavin Stone]

Duanes comment on my youtube video:

"Proving that you're an immature , confrontational little geek will not win any points with your arguments here Gav .

Obviously you can't comprehend the difference between offensive and defensive attacks ... Or rather, you PRETEND not to understand the difference because of your tragic passive aggressive personality disorder.

Am I blocked yet ?

ROTF !!!"

Duane "Truth Seeker" Daman in his true light, ladies and gentleman, showing his never ending ability to not deal with the facts AT ALL!

Has Duane "Truth Seeker" Daman refused to view the evidence that would prove he is wrong? YES

Has Duane "Truth Seeker" Daman ignored every single thing presented in the video? YES

Does this make Duane "Truth Seeker" Daman hypocritical? YES

Has Duane "Truth Seeker" Daman resorted to petty insults because he can't actually debate anything factual? YES

Is this a common trait of Duane "Truth Seeker" Daman? YES

Moderators note (Burton) : Gavin - Saying someone is hypocritical is acceptable, but use of the other words is not (even if they are similar in meaning). First warning about maintaining civility.

Edited January 15, 2008 by Evan Burton

[Duane Daman]

Gavin's work is correct, Jarrah is wrong. If Gavin's work is incorrect you need to show us why.

To quote my buddy Jarrah, who knows much more about this subject than I do, and is now rebutting Gavin on his YouTube chanel ..

"I don't suppose your orbital tracking program explains how the satellite went missing for a month?"

Incidentally, you also stated that an orbiting spacecraft wouldn't have been mistook for a UFO.

Funny. What would make me happy, is your ceasing your attempts to use my copyrighted material as ammunition against me.

I don't suppose your orbital tracking program explains how the satellite went missing for a month?

So, you saw my second video, explaining why that information wasn't in the first film, and still neglected to explain why I failed to give that info in my first video.

Gavin: "Because I wrote the transcript before I watched Cats and Elephants"

Jarrrah: " So you write up scripts attacking films you've never seen? Should one trust a review in which the critic attacks a film he never saw? "

That's preposterous. Soviet secrecy doesn't alter one's ability to track a spacecraft: if the Proton 4 had been so well tracked over a period of 250 days, why did its reentry go unidentified? Need I remind you that your group claims that satellites can be tracked from launch to reentry?

What possibly would NORAD have to gain from withholding such information?

It looks to me like Aussie Jarrah White is kicking Gavin Stone's Brit arse ! ... So I'm going with the evidence supplied by "The Grandson of the Apollo Hoax " , not just another gullible defender of the "Never a Straight Answer" gang .

Edited January 15, 2008 by Duane Daman

[Craig Lamson]

Gavin's work is correct, Jarrah is wrong. If Gavin's work is incorrect you need to show us why.

To quote my buddy Jarrah, who knows much more about this subject than I do, and is now rebutting Gavin on his YouTube chanel ..

"I don't suppose your orbital tracking program explains how the satellite went missing for a month?"

Incidentally, you also stated that an orbiting spacecraft wouldn't have been mistook for a UFO.

Funny. What would make me happy, is your ceasing your attempts to use my copyrighted material as ammunition against me.

I don't suppose your orbital tracking program explains how the satellite went missing for a month?

So, you saw my second video, explaining why that information wasn't in the first film, and still neglected to explain why I failed to give that info in my first video.

Gavin: "Because I wrote the transcript before I watched Cats and Elephants"

Jarrrah: " So you write up scripts attacking films you've never seen? Should one trust a review in which the critic attacks a film he never saw? "

That's preposterous. Soviet secrecy doesn't alter one's ability to track a spacecraft: if the Proton 4 had been so well tracked over a period of 250 days, why did its reentry go unidentified? Need I remind you that your group claims that satellites can be tracked from launch to reentry?

What possibly would NORAD have to gain from withholding such information?

It looks to me like Aussie Jarrah White is kicking Gavin Stone's Brit arse ! ... So I'm going with the evidence supplied by "The Grandson of the Apollo Hoax " , not just another gullible defender of the "Never a Straight Answer" gang .

How has Jarrah kicked anything? He's not done anything but wave his hands. Get back to us when he debunks the tracking data.

So one again you are going to "believe" something because it comes from someone who shares your worldview, rather than do some actual work and find the real answer yourself? And you call others...those that actually dothe work to find the answers...sheeple! What logic!

[Gavin Stone]

It looks to me like Aussie Jarrah White is kicking Gavin Stone's Brit arse ! ... So I'm going with the evidence supplied by "The Grandson of the Apollo Hoax " , not just another gullible defender of the "Never a Straight Answer" gang .

Aussie "Jarrah White" is kicking nothing but an empty bucket and is simply hand waiving as per usual. I did not attack a film I have not seen, which is an absurd idea since I use footage from both of his videos in mine. I watched "Unidentified Flying Apollo" and then started work on my video. While I was working on the video, I noticed he had made a response to his own video, so I watched that and changed a few thing in the video. Note, and I quote myself

"He failed to show in his FIRST video"

Now stop the blatant ignorance of the real issue of the video. I have proved, incontrovertibly, that it was Proton 4 which re-entered the atmosphere to the west of Australia on July 24th 1969, showing that Jarrah's video is a sham and based on incorrect facts. What do you have to say about this?

Oh, and Jarrah, instead of hiding in the shadows lurking on this board, why don't you email the admin and register an account so you can do your hand waiving first hand instead of through a puppet like Duane.

Edited January 15, 2008 by Gavin Stone

[Duane Daman]

Your obnoxious, confrontational insults to me have been reported Gavin ... Keep up the good work and hopefully soon you will be able to enjoy being on moderation .

Oh, and don't bother to edit them like you usually do , because I copied the text in my reports .

I am no one's "puppet" ... Jarrah presented evidence that I agree with and you didn't ... It's as simple as that ... So insulting me will not change anything ... I read the discussion about this on the UM and it was obvious that you and your friends were doing what you ALWAYS do on these discussion forums ... You go along with and buy into any and all of the official explainations and stories that attempt to explain away secrets the government is determined to keep by any means necessary .

Did Jarrah prove that the bright light in the sky was the Apollo 11 craft ? ... No .... But the fact that it took over a month before the "official explaination" came out as to what it may have been, shows that it was a possible cover-up .

Most witnesses assumed it was a UFO ... So the government explaining it away as being a "lost satellite" is just par for the course .

And you call others...those that actually dothe work to find the answers...sheeple! What logic!

I didn't use those words in my post above .... Why don't you try posting the truth for a change, instead of your typical insults .

Edited January 15, 2008 by Duane Daman

[Gavin Stone]

What insults? You are posting on behalf of Jarrah because he doesn't dare show his face, for one reason or another. This makes you a puppet.

You go along with and buy into any and all of the official explainations and stories that attempt to explain away secrets the government is determined to keep by any means necessary

The orbital tracking I did of Proton 4 is the first I've seen on the web that's publicly accessible. I came to the conclusion that it was Proton 4 on my own. All the data fits to it being Proton 4.

Did Jarrah prove that the bright light in the sky was the Apollo 11 craft ? ... No .... But the fact that it took over a month before the "official explaination" came out as to what it may have been, shows that it was a possible cover-up .

Finally, we're getting somewhere. You admit that there is no evidence that it's Apollo 11. You agree with Jarrah according to yourself, so how is this (Direct Quote) "No question: Apollo 11 was in Earth orbit". It doesn't show any cover up Duane, at all. Where is the evidence of a cover up? There is no evidence that what we are seeing is Apollo 11.

Edited January 15, 2008 by Gavin Stone

[Evan Burton]

That's preposterous. Soviet secrecy doesn't alter one's ability to track a spacecraft: if the Proton 4 had been so well tracked over a period of 250 days, why did its reentry go unidentified? Need I remind you that your group claims that satellites can be tracked from launch to reentry?

What possibly would NORAD have to gain from withholding such information?

Jarrah is making assumptions here. There is nothing to say the de-orbit was NOT tracked... only that the information was not immediately released.

NORAD might do this (I don't know if they did; this is merely a hypothesis) because it indicates capability. It would give the Soviets (and others) an idea about how good the tracking system is, how fast they can process the information, etc. This type of information would be used militarily (Can I launch something and not have it detected? How soon can they determine something is in orbit, and with what degree of accuracy? Do they calculate de-orbit based on orbital data or can they track the object with radar? How does that relate to being able to track the launch, transit, and re-entry of something like an ICBM?).

In addition, how is the month "missing" figure calculated? Is that when the follow-up story appeared in the newspaper? If so, when did the newspaper get the information? Who supplied it and when did they get the information? What date was the request made to NORAD and when did NORAD supply the information?

The request may have been made via ordinary mail, taking some time to reach NORAD and be replied to. There was certainly teletype at some stations with links to NASA and the various tracking networks, but there is nothing to say that the request for information was made over these networks.

When these questions are answered, then we'd have a clearer picture. With respect to the "month", it's analogous to putting a DVD player in for repair. I put it in on the Monday. The following Monday I get a call saying it is ready to be picked up. Turns out the widget in the weeble circuit failed and needed to be replaced.

That repair took a week. I meet a repairman who says that is bull, and that he can do such a repair in a few hours.

Who is right? Does the repair take a week or a few hours?

Both can be right. The player gets left on the Monday. It's Tuesday afternoon before the guy looks at it. It takes an hour to determine that the widget is broken. He orders a new widget. The widget gets delivered Thursday. It's not until Friday that the repair is completed... taking only a couple of hours work. The admin staff don't ring me until the Monday. The repair only took a couple of hours but to me the process took a week.

See what I mean?

[Evan Burton]

It's a fair point: you claim there is a pro-Apollo bias here (I think you said greater numbers or something similar), so why not invite Jarrah to become a member here? Let him speak for himself, rather than you passing on messages for him?

It would help redress the imbalance that you perceive.

[Duane Daman]

When these questions are answered, then we'd have a clearer picture. With respect to the "month", it's analogous to putting a DVD player in for repair. I put it in on the Monday. The following Monday I get a call saying it is ready to be picked up. Turns out the widget in the weeble circuit failed and needed to be replaced.

You can't compare the alleged re-entry of a known satellite to a DVD player repair ... Don't be absurd .

What insults? You are posting on behalf of Jarrah because he doesn't dare show his face, for one reason or another. This makes you a puppet.

What insults ?? .. You have to be kidding me .. The post where you scratched out Duane "Truth Seeker" Daman is what would be considered passive aggressive behavior ... Something which you are a pro at on these forums ... How about let's discuss Apollo without all the obnoxious nonsense for a change okay ?

I am not a "puppet" , nor do I post on Jarrah's behalf , except when I posted a couple of his messages here, to clear up all the confusion about Ralph Rene's alleged letters from Jim Oberg .

Of course there is no proof that the bright light in the sky was the A11 craft , just as there is no proof that it was the Proton 4 satellite .

But when you think about it , something does seem rather fishy about the whole thing ... especially since it appeared in the sky the same night A11 was coming back into Earth's atmosphere ... Plus it took a month for the "professionals" to figure out what the hell it was , which is pretty strange too .

I read all of your excuses on the UM about Proton 4 and none of them sounded very convincing to me ... All you and your pals, like MID , were really doing , was character assassinating Jarrah White, as usual .

Edited January 15, 2008 by Duane Daman

[Gavin Stone]

just as there is no proof that it was the Proton 4 satellite

Only eye witness accounts, newspaper stories, NORAD tracking information and the Keplerian elements and orbital parameters for Proton 4.

But don't let this "Disinformation" get in your way; it never does!

[Duane Daman]

It's a fair point: you claim there is a pro-Apollo bias here (I think you said greater numbers or something similar), so why not invite Jarrah to become a member here? Let him speak for himself, rather than you passing on messages for him?

I asked him about joining this forum and he told me that he doesn't have the time to post here ... He much prefers researching Apollo and spending his time making YouTube videos which expose the Apollo hoax, than to argue with those he considers to be "propagandists " .

[Duane Daman]

Only eye witness accounts, newspaper stories, NORAD tracking information and the Keplerian elements and orbital parameters for Proton 4.

Eye witness accounts stated that it was a UFO .... Newspaper stories said it was a UFO .... NORAD apparently didn't know what it was , because it took them ONE MONTH to come up with a COVER STORY .

Sorry , but it re-entered Earth's atmosphere from LEO on the same day Apollo 11 did the same .... Coincidence ? ... Maybe , but I doubt it .

[Dave Greer]

When these questions are answered, then we'd have a clearer picture. With respect to the "month", it's analogous to putting a DVD player in for repair. I put it in on the Monday. The following Monday I get a call saying it is ready to be picked up. Turns out the widget in the weeble circuit failed and needed to be replaced.

You can't compare the alleged re-entry of a known satellite to a DVD player repair ... Don't be absurd .

Duane - it's called an analogy.

Of course there is no proof that the bright light in the sky was the A11 craft , just as there is no proof that it was the Proton 4 satellite .

But when you think about it , something does seem rather fishy about the whole thing ... especially since it appeared in the sky the same night A11 was coming back into Earth's atmosphere ... Plus it took a month for the "professionals" to figure out what the hell it was , which is prety strange too .

Let's look at the evidence and decide what it might have been.

1. Eye-witness reports in the newspaper.

If it was an object in orbit, why would it elicit such a response from the general public? If simply an object in orbit, would it really elicit such responses as:-

"The object could have been a satellite re-entering the earth's atmosphere"

"The most remarkable thing he had ever seen in the sky"

"A little glow about the size of a ping pong ball"

"It gave me a big fright and as soon as I got to the old coast road I stopped at the first house I saw and nearly banged the door down"

"Do you believe in flying saucers?"

Do these responses sound as if they are describing something burning up during re-entry, or a spacecraft in orbit?

2. Time of incident.

According to the newspaper reports, the object was spotted at 19:05 Western Australia time. Apollo 11 splashed down 5 hours later. If the object was re-entering the atmosphere, it can't have been Apollo 11, since re-entry takes a matter of minutes.

3. Location and direction of travel.

The object is reported as moving from North to South. Apollo 11 was recovered 6000 miles to the North East, in the Pacific ocean.

On the other hand, analysis of the orbit of Proton 4 shows that it was moving from north to south, just off the west coast of Australia, at the time of the reported sightings. The orbit of Proton 4 is also known to have decayed on the day of the eye-witness reports.

Come to your own conclusions, gentle reader.

[Evan Burton]

Only eye witness accounts, newspaper stories, NORAD tracking information and the Keplerian elements and orbital parameters for Proton 4.

Eye witness accounts stated that it was a UFO .... Newspaper stories said it was a UFO .... NORAD apparently didn't know what it was , because it took them ONE MONTH to come up with a COVER STORY .

Sorry , but it re-entered Earth's atmosphere from LEO on the same day Apollo 11 did the same .... Coincidence ? ... Maybe , but I doubt it .

Now YOU are making assumptions. Can you answer the questions I asked before?

- How is the month "missing" figure calculated? Is that when the follow-up story appeared in the newspaper?

- If so, when did the newspaper get the information?

- Who supplied the information to the newspaper and when did they (the suppliers) get the information?

- What date was the request made to NORAD and when did NORAD supply the information? By what means (mail, teletype, phone, etc)