PDA

View Full Version : Jarrah White fan



arch stanton
2010-Apr-30, 08:48 PM
Hi guys, long time lurker here.

I'm just letting you know that someone calling himself wwu777 has started a thread on the David Icke forum claiming his hero Jarrah White has 'owned' people such as Jay, Phil and others on the moon hoax theories. His thread is rather laughably called Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=114539). :lol:

He also says he will invite Jarrah himself along. I've seen in this thread that Jay issued a challenge for Jarrah to debate him on any moderated forum. Now I appreciate that the DI forum is obviously a woo woo forum but I assure you that the moderators there are generally sensible and fair-minded. So I'm wondering if anyone here is willing to take up the gauntlet if Jarrah does show up?

I hope this isn't seen as "stirring". It's just that one guy is presenting one side of the argument and claiming that the skeptics are afraid of this Jarrah. I just think it's only right that you guys at least know these claims are being made.

captain swoop
2010-Apr-30, 10:29 PM
Didn't you die in the Civil War?

LaurelHS
2010-Apr-30, 10:36 PM
Hi guys, long time lurker here.

I'm just letting you know that someone calling himself wwu777 has started a thread on the David Icke forum claiming his hero Jarrah White has 'owned' people such as Jay, Phil and others on the moon hoax theories. His thread is rather laughably called Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=114539). :lol:

He also says he will invite Jarrah himself along. I've seen in this thread that Jay issued a challenge for Jarrah to debate him on any moderated forum. Now I appreciate that the DI forum is obviously a woo woo forum but I assure you that the moderators there are generally sensible and fair-minded. So I'm wondering if anyone here is willing to take up the gauntlet if Jarrah does show up?

I hope this isn't seen as "stirring". It's just that one guy is presenting one side of the argument and claiming that the skeptics are afraid of this Jarrah. I just think it's only right that you guys at least know these claims are being made.
Jarrah did have a brief debate with Jay on an IMDB thread, but he abandoned it after a short time (Jarrah, not Jay). Someone with the name of Wwu777 posts on that board occasionally as well; they post a long-debunked claim, get debunked, ignore the debunking, and then show up later to post another long-debunked claim.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446557/board/flat/133905495?p=1

I don't know if that link will work because you might have to be an IMDB member to read the thread, I'm not sure. But anyway, they did have a debate.

JayUtah
2010-May-01, 12:41 AM
...

Hi guys, long time lurker here.

Hi!

I'm just letting you know that someone calling himself wwu777 has started a thread on the David Icke forum claiming his hero Jarrah White has 'owned' people such as Jay, Phil and others on the moon hoax theories.

Both Jarrah and Wwu777 had their heads handed to them on the IMDB board, in a debate that Jarrah himself started and then abandoned. If Jarrah wants to talk to me directly, he knows how. As for Wwu777 himself, I'm not interested in debating people who present themselves as little more than Jarrah White fanboys. If they have something original to say, then they know where to find me. It's not as if I'm in hiding.

R.A.F.
2010-May-01, 01:34 AM
...someone calling himself wwu777 has started a thread on the David Icke forum claiming his hero Jarrah White has 'owned' people such as Jay, Phil and others on the moon hoax theories.

Haven't seen that on this board...I wonder why Jarrah can't come here to debate his Apollo hoax ideas??

Halcyon Dayz
2010-May-01, 05:04 AM
Hi guys, long time lurker here.

I'm just letting you know that someone calling himself wwu777 has started a thread on the David Icke forum claiming his hero Jarrah White has 'owned' people such as Jay, Phil and others on the moon hoax theories. His thread is rather laughably called Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=114539). :lol:
wuwu777 crossposted the exact same thing on abovetopsecret and godlikeproductions.

Very busy fanboi that.

Geo Kaplan
2010-May-01, 07:06 AM
wuwu777 crossposted the exact same thing on abovetopsecret and godlikeproductions.

Very busy fanboi that.

In hastily reading your post, I mistook "crossposted" as "composted."

Paul Beardsley
2010-May-01, 07:15 AM
I'm just letting you know that someone calling himself wwu777 has started a thread on the David Icke forum claiming his hero Jarrah White has 'owned' people such as Jay, Phil and others on the moon hoax theories. His thread is rather laughably called Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=114539). :lol:

Hi arch stanton. Welcome to BAUT!

I had a quick look at the site. I take it you're dreamweaver?

I also had a look at the "genius's" first video - the one about the flag that moved during the Apollo 15 mission when Scott walked past it. A few things struck me about it:

A whole 30 seconds (of a 9 minute 39 second video) is devoted to the "genius" posing about pretending to be James Bond. I think you have to sit through this in all his videos.

White attempts a "scientific" investigation. This consists of rubbing a balloon on his hair and holding it near a flag he has set up. The flag is not drawn towards the balloon, thus "proving" the Apollo 15 flag was not drawn towards a statically charged Scott. But no indication is given as to whether the flag in the video is made of the same material as the one on the moon.

White further argues that if static electricity was the correct explanation, the flag would have been pulled towards Scott initially, not away, ignoring the possibility that the flag itself might have had a like charge.

Whilst granting that static electricity probably isn't the explanation, White chooses to ignore the other five possible explanations listed.

White goes on to run past his "laboratory conditions" flag several times, demonstrating that the breeze he makes causes the flag to move. However, he fails to note that the flag on the moon continues to swing for some time, whereas the flag on Earth is quickly damped down by something - air, perhaps?

In conclusion, then - interesting for a quick look, but I think I'll leave the Eicke people to their alternate (ive to) reality.

Skyfire
2010-May-01, 01:17 PM
In hastily reading your post, I mistook "crossposted" as "composted."

Funny thing that! The words 'minds', 'great', 'alike' and 'think' seem to spring to mind! (although whether mine is 'great' is debatable!)

R.A.F.
2010-May-01, 04:03 PM
...I appreciate that the DI forum is obviously a woo woo forum but I assure you that the moderators there are generally sensible and fair-minded.

While this might be true, I've just read a really disgusting post in that thread. If that kind of behavior is allowed, then I see no reason why anyone here would want to post there.

JayUtah
2010-May-01, 04:16 PM
While this might be true, I've just read a really disgusting post in that thread. If that kind of behavior is allowed, then I see no reason why anyone here would want to post there.

The whole point of moderation is to keep Jarrah's foul mouth and abrasive personality in check. Apparently he posted one of his characteristically foul posts to IMDB during our debate. I didn't get to read it before the moderators deleted it, but those who did summarized its tone. And naturally Jarrah got up in arms about "censorship."

I haven't read the David Icke thread so I don't know or care what they're saying over there. But yes, if they can't manage a civil debate then I have no interest. I have a low tolerance for puerility.

ToSeek
2010-May-01, 05:22 PM
Posts moved from this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/102596) since they're on a separate topic. If any of these posts belong on the original thread, or vice versa, please report them.

Gillianren
2010-May-01, 06:53 PM
It's funny to me how some people expect to be chased all over the internet to discuss something. We had someone over on Apollo Hoax a bit ago who complained about the moderation, which is much looser than here, and demanded that, if we wanted to talk to him, we go to some other forum to do so. What's the point? They know where we hang out, and if they want to talk to us, isn't it their job to come looking? I have yet to find anyone who argues for Apollo who cares enough about any HB to go tracking them down and demand a debate.

LaurelHS
2010-May-01, 07:11 PM
It's funny to me how some people expect to be chased all over the internet to discuss something. We had someone over on Apollo Hoax a bit ago who complained about the moderation, which is much looser than here, and demanded that, if we wanted to talk to him, we go to some other forum to do so. What's the point? They know where we hang out, and if they want to talk to us, isn't it there job to come looking? I have yet to find anyone who argues for Apollo who cares enough about any HB to go tracking them down and demand a debate.

If you're thinking about the same user I am, they wanted everyone to go to another forum that you couldn't even read unless you were registered. They said the other forum was "more open," but that didn't really make sense because anyone can read Apollo Hoax without registering (registration is only required to post). This kind of thing gives new meaning to the legal expression "forum shopping."

Garrison
2010-May-01, 07:49 PM
It's funny to me how some people expect to be chased all over the internet to discuss something. We had someone over on Apollo Hoax a bit ago who complained about the moderation, which is much looser than here, and demanded that, if we wanted to talk to him, we go to some other forum to do so. What's the point? They know where we hang out, and if they want to talk to us, isn't it there job to come looking? I have yet to find anyone who argues for Apollo who cares enough about any HB to go tracking them down and demand a debate.

I remember that person, kept complaining about the moderation even though no action had been taken against them and none of their posts had been touched.

Donnie B.
2010-May-01, 08:33 PM
It was a case of preemptive well-poisoning.

And I want an "I corrected Gillianren's grammar" T-shirt (should be "their", not "there").

[Maybe that T-shirt should spell it "grammer" for the ironic touch.]

CJSF
2010-May-01, 09:18 PM
...isn't it there job to come looking? I have yet to find anyone who argues for Apollo who cares enough about any HB to go tracking them down and demand a debate.

Did you mean "their?" Do I get a shirt? :)
CJSF

***blast.. beaten to it!***

Gillianren
2010-May-01, 09:29 PM
Yes, thank you both. I'll fix it. I blame the moderate depression combined with an antibiotic that makes me nauseated unless I eat every time I take it, when eating in the morning also makes me feel a little ill.

kleindoofy
2010-May-01, 09:31 PM
... I have yet to find anyone who argues for Apollo who cares enough about any HB to go tracking them down and demand a debate.
It's the crackpots who feel the need to be missionaries.

The truth doesn't have to be sold door to door. No matter how much garbage is loaded onto it, it always comes out clean in the end and sells itself without having to be advertized.

And it's free.

Btw, I think a "debate" isn't what they want. Real debates are two sided.

Tomblvd
2010-May-01, 09:41 PM
There is nothing Jarrah White wants to do less than discuss the Apollo Hoax on any forum where he can be questioned directly. "Argument by Youtube" is the favorite mode of debate by those who cannot easily answer questions asked of them. They can merely wait for things to die down, then post another video, ignoring the original topic.

The only thing worse is using Youtube videos as your primary means of debate, as wwu777 does. I have yet to see an original thought come from him/her, only "well, look at this video then".

Argument via youtube should be banned.

vonmazur
2010-May-01, 09:46 PM
Guys: The one nice thing about working in a Gun Shop is, we can refuse to sell a weapon for any reason, without recourse....Lately we had a 911/Moon Landing Conspiracy/Alex Jones/David Icke/NWO etc... guys wander in....It was fun to examine him like a Jesuit Inquisitor, and refuse to sell.....I just told him to take it up with the BATF&E, and be sure to bring all the materials he showed me with him....Under the 1986 revision to the 1968 law, dealers may refuse for any reason, but we have to be able to come up with something if necessary....I made notes....

Dale

LaurelHS
2010-May-01, 09:51 PM
Yes, thank you both. I'll fix it. I blame the moderate depression combined with an antibiotic that makes me nauseated unless I eat every time I take it, when eating in the morning also makes me feel a little ill.

I hope you feel better soon. Nausea is a common side effect of antibiotics, but it's certainly unpleasant.

Grashtel
2010-May-01, 10:10 PM
Argument via youtube should be banned.
Well it is for BAUT, unfortunately the various conspiracy loons tend not to manage to stick around for very long.

Tomblvd
2010-May-01, 10:19 PM
Well it is for BAUT, unfortunately the various conspiracy loons tend not to manage to stick around for very long.

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of being codified. Perhaps included in the list of logical fallacies.

Argumentum ad Youtubus

Heh, I'm claiming that one.

kleindoofy
2010-May-01, 10:40 PM
... Argumentum ad Youtubus

Heh, I'm claiming that one.
Then Argumentum ad Youtubum, please. ;)

Jim
2010-May-01, 10:48 PM
Yes, thank you both. I'll fix it. I blame the moderate ...

Y'know, I just hate it when Members try to blame all their problems on the Moderators. It's not because of anything we...

Oh. Uh. Never mind.

Tomblvd
2010-May-01, 11:31 PM
Then Argumentum ad Youtubum, please. ;)

I knew somebody would come along and correct my declensions.

You aren't a nun, are you?

Nah, you didn't smack me on the back of my head....

aerovoid
2010-May-02, 03:29 AM
Hi guys, long time lurker here.
His thread is rather laughably called Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=114539). :lol:

WWu777 has started a thread with the exact same name on ATS.com here (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread566601/pg1). I find it sad how many people are gobbling this stuff up, thinking it's great.

I guess Jarrah is desperate for attention and got his biggest fan to spam some forums

Bozola
2010-May-02, 05:07 AM
Moderator : retards fast nutrons and contains their bozon emissions when they decay.

Bozola
2010-May-02, 05:16 AM
I guess Jarrah is desperate for attention and got his biggest fan to spam some forums

There's no such thing as bad publicity when you've got something to sell/promote...

Gillianren
2010-May-02, 07:44 AM
Y'know, I just hate it when Members try to blame all their problems on the Moderators. It's not because of anything we...

Oh. Uh. Never mind.

Why do you think I don't want to be one?

I have just over a week left on the antibiotics. It's my refill, which puts me at over a month on the things, but even though I'm pretty much feeling better, I'm not going to stop taking them until I'm out.

tusenfem
2010-May-02, 12:14 PM
Okay, until the defenders of this conspiracy join the board, I see little use in this thread, discussing what is happening on another board.
Until then, case closed.

Swift
2010-May-02, 10:09 PM
After some discussion among the moderators, we will reopen this thread. However, I will point out the specific wording from the Advice for Conspiracy Theory Supporters (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/86593-Advice-for-Conspiracy-Theory-Supporters)

11. The CT forum may also be used for the critical analysis of websites that advocate specific astronomy and space related conspiracies. Such discussions should be limited to the specific claims of those websites and the scientific arguments against those claims. Such discussions are not an excuse to bash the claimants of such conspiracies.
The key things are specific claims, critical analysis, and not just bashing. If this isn't followed, the thread will be closed again.

JayUtah
2010-May-03, 02:01 AM
...

I've seen in this thread that Jay issued a challenge for Jarrah to debate him on any moderated forum.

I should clarify: those are the terms under which I agree to debate Jarrah directly, should he wish it. It isn't so much a challenge, since I really don't pay much attention to Jarrah's videos.

Here's the background.

About a year ago Jarrah contacted me by e-mail and presented a list of questions he wanted to debate -- in e-mail. One of those was the now-infamous question regarding Brian O'Leary, but there were others. I told Jarrah that I do not debate in private. That is not a limitation reserved for him; it has been my policy for quite a number of years for both ideological and practical reasons. Practical in the sense that I do not wish to repeat myself in endless private debates. Ideological in the sense that I don't wish the debate to be represented elsewhere in "he said, she said" fashion. Let the debate be in public where any and all can see exactly what was said. And Jarrah's handling of email subsequently has borne out my wisdom. He has tried hard to spin up the hypothesis that I lied about my correspondence with O'Leary. However, the fact remains that a well-known associate of O'Leary, Wade Frazier, witnessed our correspondence and stands ready to confirm it. To date, Jarrah refuses to contact him or even to acknowledge the evidence. Hence I don't trust him -- or anyone -- to fairly represent a private conversation in public.

Now I appreciate that the DI forum is obviously a woo woo forum but I assure you that the moderators there are generally sensible and fair-minded.

We seem to differ on what constitutes fair and sensible moderation.

What I require from moderation is preventing the debate, and Jarrah's contribution in particular, from devolving into the mudslinging and irrelevancy for which he is so justly infamous. Although he says he has reformed since 2004, his most recent attempt (2009) still required moderator intervention to deal with his abusive temper. Jarrah still hasn't substantiated that he is capable of adult debate without supervision, hence I require that supervision as a condition of my participation.

In a long-running debate at IMDB (in which, ironically, our fanboy Wwu777 subsequently participated), Jarrah suddenly arrived and asked if IMDB constituted a suitable forum. Naturally it did, since I have posted there for many years. He presented the same questions there that he had in private e-mail, and we began to debate them individually. Jarrah has since abandoned that debate, but the point I wanted to make was that IMDB enforces basic rules against personal attacks, abuse, and so forth.

What I further desire from moderation is the enforcement of a meaningful debate. What I mean by that is some means to keep Jarrah (and everyone, for that matter -- even myself) from sidestepping, evading, changing the subject, and generally employing other debate tricks that distract from testing the ideas at hand. IMDB doesn't enforce that, but BAUT certainly does. So does ApolloHoax, to a lesser extent. And in the IMDB debate Jarrah indeed tried desperately to change the subject when it became apparent he was not able to display sufficient understanding of solar physics. While no moderator held him accountable for his claims still on the table, the other readers made it pretty clear they wanted him to stay on topic. I believe that's why he fled.

Yes, it does seem especially pedantic. But in years of watching hoax theorists and other pseudoscientists debate, I've seen how distraction and evasion plays a big part. Those proponents create a semblance of credibility through artfully dodging and weaving. That's not what the truth is about. Seeking the truth means presenting ideas that endure the worst and most withering assault your critics can manage, not one that dodges every test. There are many of us here who undergo examination in the form of peer review, design review, or other formal tests of strength. We are used to such rigor. The hoax theorists are not, nor do they want to be.

So I'm wondering if anyone here is willing to take up the gauntlet if Jarrah does show up?

That would depend on the the nature of the forum. As I implied, I don't consider David Icke's forum to be especially moderated.

The other issue that arises is the personal nature of debate with Jarrah. Put bluntly, he has an unhealthy personal fixation on me, Phil Plait, and perhaps upon others. This comes to the fore in his materials, and in those of his colleagues, as deeply abusive personal attacks and arguments that have nothing to do with the Apollo hoax theory but are instead simply aimed at making me and others seem generally dishonest and foolish.

Toward that end, as much of his handwaving seems directed at the notion "Jay Windley is a proven liar!!!" as toward any particular hoax theory. In other words, even if Jarrah's accusations were true on some point, and I were wrong, it would not affect any Apollo hoax claim; it's simply ad hominem. So it seems wise to approach such a debate cautiously, until the proponent decides what he's actually trying to prove.

Many conspiracy proponents, likely including Wwu777, envision some sort of gladatorial combat where two champions enter the arena and only one will triumph. That's not how the intellectual process works. Jarrah debated at IMDB largely ignoring the questions and comments of others and fixating only on my contribution. That is sad, because others brought up important points and deserved to have their questions addressed. And the same would likely occur in a subsequent debate involving Jarrah. The debate over hoax theories is a test of ideas, not of personal skill. This is what many hoax claimants don't understand. It's not a matter of vindicating the "genius Aussie" as some sort of superior litigant, besting all comers. It's a matter of whether his ideas stand up to scrutiny by all interested parties. Yes, many of these proponents chafe under what seems to be an outnumbering of critics. And that's how academic and professional reviews occur in the real world, so my advice to them is to suck it up and quit complaining.

It's just that one guy is presenting one side of the argument and claiming that the skeptics are afraid of this Jarrah.

I dismiss it as saber-rattling, which is why Wwu777 seems to be posting only to sympathetic audiences. Jarrah tried to debate outside the protection of YouTube, failed, and ran. And any who read that debate will see where Jarrah was offered specific invitations to present his findings to qualified professionals for endorsement, and he ignored the invitations entirely. As far as I'm concerned, Jarrah can resume that debate where it left off any time he wishes. I should also add that Wwu777 himself opened a number of threads in the IMDB forum, was roundly refuted, and never made any followup posts. It's clear to me who's hiding.

JayUtah
2010-May-03, 02:11 AM
The key things are specific claims, critical analysis, and not just bashing. If this isn't followed, the thread will be closed again.

I want to explicitly acknowledge this warning in light of my lengthy post above. I had wanted to write this for a couple of days but was prevented by circumstances and then by the closure of the thread. It seemed appropriate to brief arch stanton and others similarly situated on the context of my interactions with Jarrah White and his advocates.

I have attempted to phrase my lengthy remarks as a critical analysis of the arguments and techniques employed by Jarrah, by Wwu777, and by the archetypical conspiracy theorists that they represent. That is, I hope it doesn't come across as bashing. It is difficult to separate ad hominem argumentation from an analysis of a proponent's performance in debate. And it often seems fruitless to debate by means of meta-debate. However I believe what I have presented is important to understand. It speaks to the propriety of debate under various circumstances and how those contribute to the discernment of truth.

R.A.F.
2010-May-03, 03:03 AM
I have attempted to phrase my lengthy remarks as a critical analysis of the arguments and techniques employed by Jarrah, by Wwu777, and by the archetypical conspiracy theorists that they represent. That is, I hope it doesn't come across as bashing.

Speaking for myself, I would say no...it doesn't come across as bashing. Jarrah will never debate you here, or on any forum where he would be held accountable for what he says...the very nature of his "arguments" precludes it.

Although there is that little evil part of me that would love to see you "hand him his hat." :)

Swift
2010-May-03, 03:41 AM
<snip>
I want to explicitly acknowledge this warning in light of my lengthy post above. I had wanted to write this for a couple of days but was prevented by circumstances and then by the closure of the thread. It seemed appropriate to brief arch stanton and others similarly situated on the context of my interactions with Jarrah White and his advocates.

I have attempted to phrase my lengthy remarks as a critical analysis of the arguments and techniques employed by Jarrah, by Wwu777, and by the archetypical conspiracy theorists that they represent. That is, I hope it doesn't come across as bashing.
Speaking as a moderator of this forum, I have no problem with what you wrote and I think it a good summary of the situation.

Glom
2010-May-03, 11:00 AM
Where are these imdb "debates"?

ineluki
2010-May-03, 11:55 AM
Where are these imdb "debates"?

IMDB= Internet Movie Database
They have message boards for each movie, and those movies that deal with spaceflight seem to attract Hoaxers like Horse dung attract flies.

One example:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112384/board?p=1

JayUtah
2010-May-03, 02:57 PM
Where are these imdb "debates"?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446557/board

Glom
2010-May-03, 08:51 PM
Yuk! Why is imdb using forum software that is older than the AGC?

R.A.F.
2010-May-03, 09:38 PM
Put bluntly, he has an unhealthy personal fixation on me, Phil Plait, and perhaps upon others.

Boy, you ain't kiddin'...I went to the link you provided...Jarrah seems to answer any question by insulting you and Phil...

It's almost like he thinks that if he can "better" you and Phil, then the Moon landings didn't happen.

Obviousman
2010-May-06, 08:21 AM
And any who read that debate will see where Jarrah was offered specific invitations to present his findings to qualified professionals for endorsement, and he ignored the invitations entirely.

Let me give further support to that statement. I live in the same area as Jarrah. I offered Jarrah a chance to present his 'evidence' regarding radiation and physics to qualified personnel in the field, in a public forum where both parties could film and verify what went on.

He steadfastly ignored the invitation.

Jarrah does not like open debate, especially with people qualified to question his erroneous statements.

Sardonicone
2010-May-09, 03:31 PM
The old "If I can tire you out, I can either get you to go away or say I'm right...either way, I win" method of arguing.

Tomblvd
2010-May-13, 11:27 PM
Let me give further support to that statement. I live in the same area as Jarrah. I offered Jarrah a chance to present his 'evidence' regarding radiation and physics to qualified personnel in the field, in a public forum where both parties could film and verify what went on.

He steadfastly ignored the invitation.

Jarrah does not like open debate, especially with people qualified to question his erroneous statements.

Do you know what this guy does for a living? What is his background?

Considering he has over 300 videos on youtube, I have a hard time believing he keeps a normal job.

Bozola
2010-May-14, 04:06 AM
Do you know what this guy does for a living? What is his background?

Considering he has over 300 videos on youtube, I have a hard time believing he keeps a normal job.

It doesn't really matter who or what he is. He could be the smartest and most successful person in the world. He could be a super genius. But...it doesn't matter because his argument is crap. I think Kleindoofy's sig says it all: "aquire vitam".

Obviousman
2010-May-14, 07:10 AM
Do you know what this guy does for a living? What is his background?

Considering he has over 300 videos on youtube, I have a hard time believing he keeps a normal job.

This information can be found if one wishes to find it.

It is not appropriate to reveal such information without good cause.

We can address his faulty arguments, and we can address his reticent behaviour, but his lifestyle does not play a part in those arguments.

Tomblvd
2010-May-15, 11:55 PM
This information can be found if one wishes to find it.

It is not appropriate to reveal such information without good cause.

We can address his faulty arguments, and we can address his reticent behaviour, but his lifestyle does not play a part in those arguments.

My deepest and most profound apologize to anyone I may have offended. I truly didn't intend to do anything inappropriate.

I guess since the question has been asked of him, in relation to his qualifications for making these videos, I assumed that asking the question was acceptable.

Once again, sorry.

Obviousman
2010-May-16, 02:56 AM
No problems - no offence taken.

NASTA
2010-Jul-11, 01:26 PM
jay how many more times do you wish to be proven wrong. there are so many false statements on your website its hard to know where to start as well as the fact you have accused people of saying and doing things they did not and after it was proved you were wrong you failed to apologize to the people involved. i dont blame jarrah for not wanting to debate you here because this site is full of one eyed fools who cant see past the end of their own nose.
you even tried to get the wank busters to help you prove the landings were not a fake but their tests were so poor a child could have done a better job. just one of their stuff ups was the pointing of a laser at the moon which according to them only reflected back when aimed at the retro reflector but the LRO nasa sent to the moon mapped it by bouncing a laser of it. so they were wrong and that was just one mistake they made and they made quite a few.
unlike you and DR phil i dont claim to be an expert but even a non expert can see that most of what you 2 say is utter rubbish and as fake as the moon missions them self. i have quite a few times on your own web site seen you use insults to refer to certain people and yet you have the hide to have a go at others for doing the same, you act like a spoiled little kid who doesn't get his own way.
both you jay windley and phil plait have both lied on numerous occasions yet you seem to think your right on everything, however making up lies does not make you right it just makes you look stupid.
i am more than happy to debate the fake moon landings with you.

Tedward
2010-Jul-11, 01:32 PM
i am more than happy to debate the fake moon landings with you.

Snip.

I, as well as many others on here, would like to see the evidence of the fake.

Over to you.

peter eldergill
2010-Jul-11, 01:35 PM
you even tried to get the wank busters to help you

Childish much?

Dave J
2010-Jul-11, 01:51 PM
Pretty serious accusations there, NASTA. Can you provide some specific examples or evidence?

One eyed fools? I'll start the popcorn...

NASTA
2010-Jul-11, 01:58 PM
Childish much?

sorry but i refer to them as that because they are just that.
i cant remember how many times i have seen them stuff up different things they call myths.
in australia if you keep doing something and making mistakes constantly people will call you a [language].
so nothing childish about it i am just stating the truth and not only that after i made them aware of their mistakes on there own site a few years ago i was banned and all my posts were removed which in my book makes them that.
they couldn't handle being proved wrong on their own site.
i am not here to talk about them anyway i am here to debate jay not any of you other trolls who just jump on a band wagon.

NASTA
2010-Jul-11, 01:59 PM
Pretty serious accusations there, NASTA. Can you provide some specific examples or evidence?

One eyed fools? I'll start the popcorn...

go and read jays website its all there in black and white, so there is nothing for me to prove on that point.

Tedward
2010-Jul-11, 02:07 PM
Ah. OK. You are after a target for some reason and cannot provide any evidence? Go on, give it a go, please don't go down the route of death by mod. I find it interesting to see the reasons why people think it is a hoax and more importantly in their own words. I think this gives much more of an insight than looking at videos. I also like to think the hoaxes through, see the other side of the coin.

So, you will not or cannot enlighten me?

tusenfem
2010-Jul-11, 02:11 PM
jay how many more times do you wish to be proven wrong. there are so many false statements on your website its hard to know where to start as well as the fact you have accused people of saying and doing things they did not and after it was proved you were wrong you failed to apologize to the people involved. i dont blame jarrah for not wanting to debate you here because this site is full of one eyed fools who cant see past the end of their own nose.


This kind of attitude is not going to get you very far, NASTA. Stop this right here, debate the topic and not the people on the board. More of this kind of replies will get you an infraction.

NASTA
2010-Jul-11, 02:17 PM
Ah. OK. You are after a target for some reason and cannot provide any evidence? Go on, give it a go, please don't go down the route of death by mod. I find it interesting to see the reasons why people think it is a hoax and more importantly in their own words. I think this gives much more of an insight than looking at videos. I also like to think the hoaxes through, see the other side of the coin.

So, you will not or cannot enlighten me?

sorry i thought you were talking about what jay said and i thought go and look for it your self and dont be lazy.lol
however it seems you were talking about the moon hoax.
when jay comes in and has something to say i will respond then.

tusenfem
2010-Jul-11, 02:17 PM
sorry but i refer to them as that because they are just that ******s.



Hiding words as *s, or using words that the board software automatically turns into *s is not allowed and you are to edit your posts when such happens.
Please read the rules of the board (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=564845) and STAY POLITE at any time.
No personal attacks, discuss the topic not the persons.

Tedward
2010-Jul-11, 02:20 PM
Why be selective? Please give everyone the benefit of your interpretation of the hoax. I am all ears as Dumbo said to the crow. Well, eye's as it is a forum that appears on a screen. I suspect it is the same as been trawled through before. What is it this time, shadows? Radiation? Computers?

NASTA
2010-Jul-11, 02:29 PM
This kind of attitude is not going to get you very far, NASTA. Stop this right here, debate the topic and not the people on the board. More of this kind of replies will get you an infraction.


sorry you dont like what i said but that is the reason why he wont come here and i dont blame him.
from the posts i have seen on here it is hard to find anyone who has an open mind on the subject and keeping that in mind i would say my above statement is quite apt.
how ever if i see proof to the contrary i will retract my above statement.
now as for threatening to ban someone here to debate the faked moon landings when that is what you wanted it will look like you are trying to keep a one eyed view going.
that decision is yours but if you cant handle a bit of truth how can you be expected to be considered a fair site to have such a debate on as a lot of you have claimed this is.

NASTA
2010-Jul-11, 02:33 PM
Hiding words as *s, or using words that the board software automatically turns into *s is not allowed and you are to edit your posts when such happens.
Please read the rules of the board (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=564845) and STAY POLITE at any time.
No personal attacks, discuss the topic not the persons.


sorry i didnt know it had done that but i have fixed it.

Tedward
2010-Jul-11, 02:48 PM
Can't handle a bit of truth you say? Its rarer than an England world cup winning squad at the moment. What is this truth you speak of so I can see what it is you refer to?

NASTA
2010-Jul-11, 03:06 PM
Can't handle a bit of truth you say? Its rarer than an England world cup winning squad at the moment. What is this truth you speak of so I can see what it is you refer to?

i was refering to when i called people one eyed.lol

Tedward
2010-Jul-11, 03:13 PM
i was refering to when i called people one eyed.lol
So? Start debating. I say they landed and I strongly suspect you say they did not. The premiss of your argument is? No need to be confrontational about it, just state your side of the argument. People will mull it over then reply.
So, radiation? Shadows? Go on, give us a clue.

NASTA
2010-Jul-11, 03:16 PM
So? Start debating. I say they landed and I strongly suspect you say they did not. The premiss of your argument is? No need to be confrontational about it, just state your side of the argument. People will mull it over then reply.
So, radiation? Shadows? Go on, give us a clue.

there are many things of which those 2 are included.

Tedward
2010-Jul-11, 03:19 PM
Start with one, any one. Go on, dive in. Feel free, promise the water is warm.

moog
2010-Jul-11, 03:20 PM
there are many things of which those 2 are included.

Please provide evidence for your claim... making an actual specific claim would be nice as well.

NASTA
2010-Jul-11, 03:22 PM
Please provide evidence for your claim... making an actual specific claim would be nice as well.

i haven't actually made any claims yet other than phil and jay have lied before and that proof is on jays website.
i want you to prove to me it was real.

moog
2010-Jul-11, 03:26 PM
i haven't actually made any claims yet other than phil and jay have lied before and that proof is on jays website.

Please point out this 'proof'.


i want you to prove to me it was real.

I don't care if you believe 'it' is real at all.

Tedward
2010-Jul-11, 03:27 PM
i haven't actually made any claims yet other than phil and jay have lied before and that proof is on jays website.
i want you to prove to me it was real.

No, you prove it was fake. I have all year. Take your time.

R.A.F.
2010-Jul-11, 03:34 PM
sorry you dont like what i said but that is the reason why he wont come here and i dont blame him.i

He won't come here because he won't be allowed to "act out"?

R.A.F.
2010-Jul-11, 03:38 PM
i haven't actually made any claims yet other than phil and jay have lied before and that proof is on jays website.

If you are going to claim that Jay and Phil are liars, you're going to have to do better than say "It's on Jays site", in other words, please give specific examples of these "lies"or withdraw that claim.


i want you to prove to me it was real.

Ever heard of the "burden of proof"?

NASTA
2010-Jul-11, 03:40 PM
come on you guys have all the proof it was real but you cant provide any, i find that quite amusing at the least.
you guys are supposed to be all the experts that have all the answers, thats why i am here to get answers to my questions but you are all hiding instead of being forth coming with your evidence.
your not afraid it will get picked apart are you.

NASTA
2010-Jul-11, 03:43 PM
If you are going to claim that Jay and Phil are liars, you're going to have to do better than say "It's on Jays site", in other words, please give specific examples of these "lies"or withdraw that claim.



Ever heard of the "burden of proof"?

jay has even admitted to me in a convo he was wrong even though he had been saying the same thing for years. in my book thats a lie because he knew all along he was wrong.

JayUtah
2010-Jul-11, 03:46 PM
...

there are so many false statements on your website its hard to know where to start

Start by citing three of them, including the URLs at which they appear. That is a direct question.

as well as the fact you have accused people of saying and doing things they did not

Present your evidence that I have done so.

i dont blame jarrah for not wanting to debate you here...

Then explain why he arrived at IMDB challenging me to a debate which he then abandoned after a mere few weeks when it was apparent to all involved that he could not make headway. The problem is not that BAUT is biased, the problem is that Jarrah is unable to make his arguments fly in the real world where he cannot control the means by which others would hold him accountable.

you even tried to get the wank busters to help you prove the landings were not a fake...

False. They contacted me. They had already been planning such an episode, and since I am a recognized expert on the subject they naturally solicited my expertise.

but the LRO nasa sent to the moon mapped it by bouncing a laser of it.

Apples and oranges. The workings of the LRO and LRRRs are well documented in the professional literature. I suggest you familiarize yourself with their key differences before you propose that the Mythbusters simply bounced the laser of the naked lunar surface from 400,000 km away.

unlike you and DR phil i dont claim to be an expert...

You clearly are not, and that lack of expertise has already led you wonder why the LM was designed the way it was. Doesn't it strike you as odd that all the qualified experts are the opposite side of the debate from you?

but even a non expert can see that most of what you 2 say is utter rubbish...

Really? The layman simply "knows" that the experts are wrong. Explain how that works.

i have quite a few times on your own web site seen you use insults to refer to certain people...

Give the URLs of three such occurrences from www.clavius.org.

both you jay windley and phil plait have both lied on numerous occasions...

Cite three such occurrences.

yet you seem to think your right on everything

I believe I am right on the topics I choose to discuss and to support with verifiable facts and with my own appropriate expertise. As you can easily see, I certainly don't consider myself infallible or above challenge.

i am more than happy to debate the fake moon landings with you.

Then begin by supplying specific evidence for your accusations I have identified above. That is a direct request for support, and you will be compelled to provide it or withdraw the accusations. Time to put up or shut up.

Tedward
2010-Jul-11, 03:46 PM
come on you guys have all the proof it was real but you cant provide any, i find that quite amusing at the least.
you guys are supposed to be all the experts that have all the answers, thats why i am here to get answers to my questions but you are all hiding instead of being forth coming with your evidence.
your not afraid it will get picked apart are you.

Then present a bit that says it was an issue. This is easy, you have even hinted at a few I have mentioned for you. So, what is it to be? Or, as I suspect, you cannot.


Ask the question, stop pussy footing around like a date on prom night looking for the first dance.

JayUtah
2010-Jul-11, 03:48 PM
...

jay has even admitted to me in a convo he was wrong...

Please provide a link to this conversation.

R.A.F.
2010-Jul-11, 03:54 PM
come on you guys have all the proof it was real but you cant provide any, i find that quite amusing at the least.

I find your continued attempts to shift the burden of proof most telling. Will you be presenting any evidence that the Moon landings were hoaxed, or are you just going to keep "arguing about arguing"??

Garrison
2010-Jul-11, 04:01 PM
come on you guys have all the proof it was real but you cant provide any, i find that quite amusing at the least.
you guys are supposed to be all the experts that have all the answers, thats why i am here to get answers to my questions but you are all hiding instead of being forth coming with your evidence.
your not afraid it will get picked apart are you.

Just flip through the pages here in the CT section, every objection to the reality of the moon landings has been raised and refuted, usually several times over. Why should anyone go through it all again because you can't be bothered to do a bit of reading? I'm sure however that if you choose to post your reasons for not accepting the reality of Apollo there will be those tireless souls who brace themselves to go through it one more time, or more poetically; 'once more unto the breach dear friends'...:)

peter eldergill
2010-Jul-11, 04:09 PM
So far a whole lot of nothing...

R.A.F.
2010-Jul-11, 04:24 PM
So far a whole lot of nothing...

...on 3 different threads...that's about 2, too many. :)

Walternate
2010-Jul-11, 04:39 PM
How come HBs always manage to gabble on for so long without actually saying anything? I would be fascinated to hear your arguments NASTA, please provide them complete with your calculations and workings as appropiate.

frenat
2010-Jul-11, 04:43 PM
come on you guys have all the proof it was real but you cant provide any, i find that quite amusing at the least.
you guys are supposed to be all the experts that have all the answers, thats why i am here to get answers to my questions but you are all hiding instead of being forth coming with your evidence.
your not afraid it will get picked apart are you.
Then ask some questions already. All we've seen so far is a lot of bluster.

NASTA
2010-Jul-11, 05:02 PM
jay has even admitted to me in a convo he was wrong...

Please provide a link to this conversation.

it was on this site jay. it wasnt that long ago but i cant remember the thread.
go and find it your self.

NASTA
2010-Jul-11, 05:03 PM
Then ask some questions already. All we've seen so far is a lot of bluster.

ok here is a question for you all.
you may not think it has anything to do with this but it does so here goes.

are the pics on google earth of the moon and mars fake or for real.

peter eldergill
2010-Jul-11, 05:04 PM
So you call someone a liar and then tell them to provide their own evidence for you?

Yegads you are funny

LotusExcelle
2010-Jul-11, 05:12 PM
ok here is a question for you all.
you may not think it has anything to do with this but it does so here goes.

are the pics on google earth of the moon and mars fake or for real.

I recommend starting a different thread if you want to pursue that subject.

NASTA
2010-Jul-11, 05:19 PM
I recommend starting a different thread if you want to pursue that subject.

why it has to do with the moon missions so it is in the right section.

is it that you dont know or you dont want to say its a very simple question i thought you would all be able to answer.

LaurelHS
2010-Jul-11, 05:21 PM
The images on Google Moon are from Clementine.
http://www.google.com/moon/about.html

R.A.F.
2010-Jul-11, 05:22 PM
it was on this site jay. it wasnt that long ago but i cant remember the thread.
go and find it your self.

YOU stated that, in conversation, Jay admitted he was wrong, and you want Jay to find where that conversation was?

If you can't be "bothered" to back up your own assertions, then why should anyone take you seriously? Do you really think we haven't seen these type of "games" before?

Strange
2010-Jul-11, 05:26 PM
it was on this site jay. it wasnt that long ago but i cant remember the thread.
go and find it your self.

Wow. Jay admitted he was wrong about something. And, in your mind, does that make verything else he says false? If anything, I would think it would increase his credibility - some people have a hard time admitting they are wrong or have made a mistake (are you happy to admit that foil can stop radiation now, BTW).

captain swoop
2010-Jul-11, 05:42 PM
it was on this site jay. it wasnt that long ago but i cant remember the thread.
go and find it your self.

If you make a claim you are obliged to support it or withdraw the claim. Please read the rules for posting in the Conspiracy Forum, they are linked at the bottom of this post.

NASTA
2010-Jul-11, 05:49 PM
If you make a claim you are obliged to support it or withdraw the claim. Please read the rules for posting in the Conspiracy Forum, they are linked at the bottom of this post.

how about giving someone time to do it.
jay knows what he said anyway so i will not retract it just like he has never retracted any of his wrong statements even after he was proved wrong.
yep the mods here are real fair its the third one now to come into a thread and spew the same (junk) at me.
i'll get to it when i can as i said i would.

captain swoop
2010-Jul-11, 05:51 PM
OK three warnings about your language and behaviour in the thread is enough. Fourth time gets you an infraction.

NASTA
2010-Jul-11, 05:52 PM
The images on Google Moon are from Clementine.
http://www.google.com/moon/about.html

so that means they are real in your opinion and you should be able to see anything that is on the surface of the moon.
is that correct.

LaurelHS
2010-Jul-11, 05:55 PM
so that means they are real in your opinion and you should be able to see anything that is on the surface of the moon.
is that correct.

That's not what I said. The resolution of Clementine wasn't enough to show the Apollo hardware if that's where you're going with this. You need to look at the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter images (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/revisited/index.html) to see the LM descent stages, astronaut footpaths etc.

Garrison
2010-Jul-11, 05:56 PM
so that means they are real in your opinion and you should be able to see anything that is on the surface of the moon.
is that correct.

No it means that you can see anything on that moon that Selene had the resolution to see. It's resolution was I believe 20m per pixel so anything smaller than that would be effectively invisible, so no it couldn't have seen the Apollo hardware.

ETA: Okay sorry about that, no idea where I got Selene from instead of Clementine there but the principle remains the same.

captain swoop
2010-Jul-11, 06:08 PM
NASTA has accumulated a few infractions for his recent posts and will be taking a short rest to think about it.

Gillianren
2010-Jul-11, 07:58 PM
so that means they are real in your opinion and you should be able to see anything that is on the surface of the moon.
is that correct.

Okay, I realize NASTA is taking a little break right now, but I'd like to explore this if I may.

Google has started doing street-level pictures, which is how I know that my mom has really changed the landscaping on our front yard. However, while you can see Mom's front door on Google Earth, you can't see mine. At least, not the last time I looked. They only have pictures from the street itself, and I live in the middle of an apartment complex. Does this mean the picture of Mom's house isn't real? Of course not! It just means that the pictures aren't displayed in a way which makes my front door visible in them. At that, it still probably wouldn't be, because there's bushes and a carport in front of the landing. The pictures do what they're designed to and not what they aren't. They show what they're taken of. And, heck, if Mom or my younger sister had left a book on the front porch, you still wouldn't be able to see what they were reading--or probably even that it was there--because the resolution isn't good enough.

Van Rijn
2010-Jul-12, 04:03 AM
ETA: Okay sorry about that, no idea where I got Selene from instead of Clementine there but the principle remains the same.

Perhaps you were thinking of the Japanese SELENE/Kaguya mission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SELENE)?

Tom Servo
2010-Jul-12, 06:43 AM
Nasta,

I looked over Jay's site and I could not find any lies.
The evidence looks in favor of Nasa.

Could you please provide a link to some of these lies.

Grashtel
2010-Jul-12, 09:45 AM
so that means they are real in your opinion and you should be able to see anything that is on the surface of the moon.
is that correct.
Ok, lets give that supposition a little test with an Earth based picture. In this Google Maps (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?t=h&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=52.634027,-1.132638&spn=0.000378,0.000862&z=21) image of an area in the centre of the city where I live you can see a "maze" that is one of the the streets made out of coloured bricks (it is the square thing near the centre of the image), some of those bricks including the one that makes up the large square in the middle of it have names written on them in letter a couple of inches high. Given that the picture is real and therefore by your logic you should be able to see anything in it can you tell me what the names carved into the central block are? If you can't tell me what the names are then please explain why you can't despite your claims to the contrary? (and if you doubt that the names are real I can provide closeups which show some of them)

R.A.F.
2010-Jul-12, 02:50 PM
Nasta,

I looked over Jay's site and I could not find any lies.
The evidence looks in favor of Nasa.

Could you please provide a link to some of these lies.

When NASTA returns, this should be the first question he is required to answer...in my opinion. :)

Gillianren
2010-Jul-12, 05:23 PM
That's one I think he has a legal obligation to provide, if he's going to make a serious accusation like that.

Garrison
2010-Jul-12, 06:48 PM
Perhaps you were thinking of the Japanese SELENE/Kaguya mission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SELENE)?

Not even that clever, I was so intent on looking at the resolution that I didn't realize Google had thrown up a Selene link because of my choice of search terms, such is the risk of high speed googling. :)

JayUtah
2010-Jul-12, 11:31 PM
...
...

go and find it your self.

Um, no. You're the one making the accusation. If you can't provide any evidence of it, then retract it.

how about giving someone time to do it.

It's customary to provide the evidence at the time the accusation is made. You're already on borrowed time. I didn't press my request earlier because it appeared that you were busy in the other threads. Now that you have turned your attention back to this thread I expect you to provide your evidence immediately.

jay knows what he said anyway...

No, I have no idea what you're talking about. Kindly do not assume that those whom you accuse somehow "secretly" know that the accusations are true. Please provide the evidence immediately.

...just like he has never retracted any of his wrong statements even after he was proved wrong.

You haven't provided any examples of this alleged behavior, as you were asked to do.

i'll get to it when i can as i said i would.

That's not good enough. You have leveled a whole slew of accusations at me personally and at my major work. You have been asked repeatedly to substantiate those accusations. Sorry, but in the real world you don't get to make the accusations in short order and then supply the evidence only when it's convenient for you to do so.

Since the only material points you've made in this thread are accusations against my individual work, I may request that the moderators require you to substantiate those accusations in your first post to this thread upon your return.

PetersCreek
2010-Jul-12, 11:52 PM
Since the only material points you've made in this thread are accusations against my individual work, I may request that the moderators require you to substantiate those accusations in your first post to this thread upon your return.

I'll make it official. NASTA, in your very next post to this thread, either substantiate or withdraw the accusations you have made here. You should certainly know the rules of this forum by now. You should be prepared to support your assertions at the time you make them. If you are not so prepared, the fault is yours and yours alone. If your next post here does not meet the requirements of this warning, you will receive an infraction that may result in another suspension.

NASTA
2010-Dec-08, 08:04 AM
he lied about ralph rene being offered 10 grand for a copy of a book he had by some reporter who's name i cannot remember.
this was a lie.
jarrah white even rang ralph rene about this and in a taped interview in jarrahs vids he said it was [language] and he would have taken his money had he have offered it but no such offer ever took place.
there is your proof.
if you want to see the vid go to jarrahs channel on you tube its there.

Geo Kaplan
2010-Dec-08, 08:16 AM
he lied about ralph rene being offered 10 grand for a copy of a book he had by some reporter who's name i cannot remember.
this was a lie.
jarrah white even rang ralph rene about this and in a taped interview in jarrahs vids he said it was [language] and he would have taken his money had he have offered it but no such offer ever took place.
there is your proof.
if you want to see the vid go to jarrahs channel on you tube its there.

After 5 months, this is all you come up with? What happened to evidence for the many accusations you made (such as those summarized in post #76)? An uncharitable soul might infer from your silence that you've already presented your best -- bupkes.

Van Rijn
2010-Dec-08, 08:54 AM
he lied about ralph rene being offered 10 grand for a copy of a book he had by some reporter who's name i cannot remember.


He lied about something you can't remember? Seriously? That's your claim?

How about doing a bit of research and find a verifiable reference to whatever Jay is supposed to have said, then demonstrate whatever evidence you have that you think indicates he knowingly said something that was wrong?



jarrah white even rang ralph rene about this and in a taped interview in jarrahs vids he said it was [language] and he would have taken his money had he have offered it but no such offer ever took place.
there is your proof.
if you want to see the vid go to jarrahs channel on you tube its there.

Which video? And approximately where in the video is this subject discussed?

So, I take it you are not claiming that Jay lied about the actual events on the moon, or the science and technology behind the space missions?

Obviousman
2010-Dec-08, 09:10 AM
I'm sorry, but your "evidence" is just another accusation? I think it is quite simple: show where this happened, by linking to a post, a blog, a website, etc, where you show:

a) Where Jay says what you claim; and

b) Evidence that proves what you claim Jay said is actually wrong.

Is it really that hard to do? Or are you simply stalling because no such event took place?

Swift
2010-Dec-08, 02:24 PM
I'll make it official. NASTA, in your very next post to this thread, either substantiate or withdraw the accusations you have made here. You should certainly know the rules of this forum by now. You should be prepared to support your assertions at the time you make them. If you are not so prepared, the fault is yours and yours alone. If your next post here does not meet the requirements of this warning, you will receive an infraction that may result in another suspension.

he lied about ralph rene being offered 10 grand for a copy of a book he had by some reporter who's name i cannot remember.
this was a lie.
jarrah white even rang ralph rene about this and in a taped interview in jarrahs vids he said it was [language] and he would have taken his money had he have offered it but no such offer ever took place.
there is your proof.
if you want to see the vid go to jarrahs channel on you tube its there.
NASTA,

The very last post in this thread, and the one just before your latest (both quoted above) told you to withdraw or substantiate your accusations. Instead you make more accusations. You will either learn to follow our rules and the instructions of the moderators here, or you won't post any longer.

Alan G. Archer
2010-Dec-12, 12:16 PM
he lied about ralph rene being offered 10 grand for a copy of a book he had by some reporter who's name i cannot remember.
this was a lie.
jarrah white even rang ralph rene about this and in a taped interview in jarrahs vids he said it was [language] and he would have taken his money had he have offered it but no such offer ever took place.
there is your proof.
if you want to see the vid go to jarrahs channel on you tube its there.

Welcome to BAUT, NASTA.

There are at least two BAUT threads concerning this issue:

1. "Letter to Rene re Gemini-10 EVA Image (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/3438-Letter-to-Rene-re-Gemini-10-EVA-Image)" (Jan. 30, 2003)
2. "Second Letter to Ralph René (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/3748-Second-Letter-to-Ralph-René)" (Feb. 22, 2003)

Methinks your Argumentum ad Youtubus is Jarrah White's "MoonFaker: Radioactive Anomaly. PART 2. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNP828YIUQo)" The relevant segment in this 10˝ minute video is at time index 05:12 - 06:22. (René's potty-mouthed telephone interview excerpt is at 06:12 - 06:22.)