PDA

View Full Version : Jarrah W. responds to Lunar Legacy



Pages : [1] 2

Svector
2007-Mar-25, 12:48 AM
In case anyone's interested, it looks like your old pal Jarrah has decided to post a rebuttal to my pro-NASA video series.

I'm not even sure I should call it a rebuttal though. He really offers up no evidence or even a premise, to contradict what's seen in the 30:28GET footage from Apollo 11. He instead seems to fixate on me. Perhaps I hit a nerve somewhere along the way. Who knows. :think:

Enjoy...

part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXD2pge9A0Y

(parts 2-6 available from his channel)

astrophotographer
2007-Mar-25, 01:23 AM
In case anyone's interested, it looks like your old pal Jarrah has decided to post a rebuttal to my pro-NASA video series.

I'm not even sure I should call it a rebuttal though. He really offers up no evidence or even a premise, to contradict what's seen in the 30:28GET footage from Apollo 11. He instead seems to fixate on me. Perhaps I hit a nerve somewhere along the way. Who knows. :think:

Enjoy...

part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXD2pge9A0Y

(parts 2-6 available from his channel)


As far as I can tell, his rebuttal has nothing to do with the important footage. Like most conspiracy nuts, they like to take small details and blow them out of proportion to support their claims. Instead of trying to answer the key points raised he just dances around it and claims victory.

Svector
2007-Mar-25, 03:15 AM
As far as I can tell, his rebuttal has nothing to do with the important footage. Like most conspiracy nuts, they like to take small details and blow them out of proportion to support their claims. Instead of trying to answer the key points raised he just dances around it and claims victory.

I kept watching it, thinking at any moment he was going to attack some aspect of the NASA footage, asserting a "fake" earth, or something along those lines, but he never did. I was actually shocked that a CT would voluntarily show this footage, since it definitely doesn't help their case for faked landings.

Apparently Jarrah doesn't mind helping the NASA cause, as long as he believes he's digging his spurs into me while doing so.

That's fine. I'm not opposed to taking one for the team. :razz:

Gorgonian
2007-Mar-25, 06:31 AM
He misinterpreted a line you said in the video and created an entire video himself trying to show how his misinterpretation of your line was untrue. His misinterpretation is also irrelevant to the issue at hand. And then he has the nerve to say BUSTED in his comments section.

Just wow.

R.A.F.
2007-Mar-25, 01:38 PM
He misinterpreted a line you said in the video and created an entire video himself trying to show how his misinterpretation of your line was untrue.

I know I'm being a "pain", but I only have dial-up (can't watch youtube videos), so could anyone elaborate on what was said about what.

Gorgonian
2007-Mar-25, 02:49 PM
Jarrah picks out when svector claims that this is a "continious shot" that "doesn't cut away" he meant that he was going to include the entire segment unedited. What svector meant was that during the original clip (and in the excerpt included in LL) there is no cut-away between the time the earth is being filmed through the window (which was being claimed as fake by transparency/pasted image) to the time when it is cut-off by the edge of the window.

Jarrah claims he caught svector lying because the entire footage is not used in this segment and goes on to loudly trumpet BUSTED! in the comments section.

JayUtah
2007-Mar-25, 02:59 PM
In other words, he's being typical Jarrah White. When I said on Yahoo that the night sky in the desert was clear and the stars were very bright, Jarrah pointed to stills taken in the same spot six hours earlier that showed clouds. Then he spent the rest of the paragraph calling me a liar, recommending legal action, questioning my parentage, and generally doing all those things for which Jarrah is justly infamous.

R.A.F.
2007-Mar-25, 03:18 PM
Thanks for the explanation, Gorgonian...:)

It helps clarify this quote from Svector...


Apparently Jarrah doesn't mind helping the NASA cause, as long as he believes he's digging his spurs into me while doing so.

JayUtah
2007-Mar-25, 03:21 PM
I was actually shocked that a CT would voluntarily show this footage, since it definitely doesn't help their case for faked landings.

Apparently Jarrah doesn't mind helping the NASA cause, as long as he believes he's digging his spurs into me while doing so.

Exactly. For many conspiracists, Jarrah especially, it's not about them being right; it's about you being wrong. It's not about making a case; it's about trashing yours. It's not about the conspiracy theory being right; it's about NASA being wrong -- specifically, about NASA being evil.

And you're not defending Apollo, you're defending NASA. And if you're doing that, you must recognize their evil and wilfully subscribe to it. That's likely why Jarrah treats with moral repugnance you and anyeone else who dares suggest Apollo wasn't fake.

When you understand that that's where Jarrah is coming from, you'll understand why he really doesn't have anywhere to go from there.

SpitfireIX
2007-Mar-25, 05:26 PM
For many conspiracists, Jarrah especially, it's not about them being right; it's about you being wrong. It's not about making a case; it's about trashing yours. It's not about the conspiracy theory being right; it's about NASA being wrong -- specifically, about NASA being evil. [emphasis original]

I think you've really hit the nail on the head here, Jay (even more squarely than usual). I've often wondered why certain conspiracists (and one in particular who shall remain nameless) continue to viciously attack peripheral elements of debunkers' cases even as their own theories are utterly demolished around them. I used to believe that this was just a smoke screen/delaying tactic, but your point makes perfect sense.

BertL
2007-Mar-25, 06:10 PM
For many conspiracists, Jarrah especially, it's not about them being right; it's about you being wrong.
Thinking back to my discussions with Jarrah, it certainly was the case.

gwiz
2007-Mar-25, 07:14 PM
For many conspiracists, Jarrah especially, it's not about them being right; it's about you being wrong.
Which is why I find Jarrah's backing for theories with no relation to physical reality so funny. Anyone remember his idea of a polar orbit?

Skyfire
2007-Mar-25, 09:00 PM
Which is why I find Jarrah's backing for theories with no relation to physical reality so funny. Anyone remember his idea of a polar orbit?

Yes, but you have to remember, in Conspiracy Theory Land, the laws of physics don't exist. Anything, including an Apollo spacecraft, can remain suspended by sheer ignorance alone!

:)

Gorgonian
2007-Mar-26, 02:25 AM
Whenever I put videos on youtube (which I only do rarely and then only to show something to a friend or group of friends) I always disable comments. I really don't have any interest in what the average youtube user thinks about my videos.

If I were to put something controversial like that up, I would definitely disable them and maybe put a link to a place like this for debate on the topic. That's just me, though.

DogsHead
2007-Mar-26, 03:08 AM
Damn! I've just realised two things.
1. Jarrah White is Australian (I thought us aussies were immune to the tinfoil syndrome)
2. I probably pushed past him as he waited breathlessly for the arrival of Daniel Craig at the red carpet do for "Casino Royale" at the state theatre. I have worked there many times and was chatting to one of my mates who was on the Audio crew whilst getting jostled by star-hungry fans; one of whom was probly Jarrah!
Just think: a judiciously placed elbow and.... no I can't even think that here, can I?
Carry on!

Svector
2007-Mar-26, 03:21 AM
Yes, but you have to remember, in Conspiracy Theory Land, the laws of physics don't exist. Anything, including an Apollo spacecraft, can remain suspended by sheer ignorance alone!

:)

Right. The latest quandary they find themselves in, is trying to figure out how they're able to watch HBO and Spank-O-Vision through their mini-dishes, when the satellites relaying the signals were obviously fried by that deadly Van Allen radiation, only a few hours after being parked right in the heart of the outer belt.

Heehee.

:whistle:

Svector
2007-Mar-26, 03:26 AM
Damn! I've just realised two things.
1. Jarrah White is Australian (I thought us aussies were immune to the tinfoil syndrome)

No offense intended, but there does appear to be a much higher percentage of Apollo hoax believers among Aussies as compared to Americans. Don't worry though. The Brits win the title hands down. They've got you by at least 8:1.


2. I probably pushed past him as he waited breathlessly for the arrival of Daniel Craig at the red carpet do for "Casino Royale" at the state theatre.

Hmmm, and you think Jarrah would've been in line? Was the film made using Legos by any chance?

Skyfire
2007-Mar-26, 09:01 AM
No offense intended, but there does appear to be a much higher percentage of Apollo hoax believers among Aussies as compared to Americans. Don't worry though. The Brits win the title hands down. They've got you by at least 8:1.

Hang on! I'm a Brit .... where's your evidence? :) (Science board and all that :) :) :) )

I have come across a couple of people who believe Apollo was a hoax, but generally speaking, most people I know seem to know (or believe) it did happen.

There was someone who seemed to find a lot of the hoax information when we first started discussing the subject, but once I began pointing out some of the actual science, and getting him to actually THINK about things, try some things, and try looking at a few photos of his own etc, he soon began to realise how amazing Apollo was. I think in some ways he is even a little jealous that I saw it all happen (I was a teenager at the time, he wasn't even born)!

Actually, thinking about those "most people" I mentioned above, maybe they just say that to save having to think too much .....

Svector
2007-Mar-26, 09:56 AM
Whenever I put videos on youtube (which I only do rarely and then only to show something to a friend or group of friends) I always disable comments. I really don't have any interest in what the average youtube user thinks about my videos.

If I were to put something controversial like that up, I would definitely disable them and maybe put a link to a place like this for debate on the topic. That's just me, though.

Where's the fun in that?

;)

Laguna
2007-Mar-26, 10:06 AM
Where's the fun in that?

;)
The fun would be that we, here, could have some fun too... ;)

Svector
2007-Mar-26, 10:20 AM
Hang on! I'm a Brit .... where's your evidence? :) (Science board and all that :) :) :) )

My evidence is only anecdotal. I'll grant you that one. I haven't seen the recent Pugh polls on the moon landings, BUT I can say that the majority of people I debate about Apollo are not American citizens, and the vast majority of that group is British for some reason. :surprised

I heard it theorized that there's an increased level of resentment in play here with people from other countries and how they view past and present U.S. achievements. That their opinions of accomplishments like Apollo are colored by recent negative events in the news. Somehow it all gets lumped together into a soup where nothing the U.S. has done or will do, can be trusted or verified.

Would you admit that it's at least likely that there's a higher percentage of people in your country who question the validity of Apollo, than in the U.S.?


I have come across a couple of people who believe Apollo was a hoax, but generally speaking, most people I know seem to know (or believe) it did happen.

In my personal life I have never run across someone who fervently believes the hoax myth. I know people who have questions, but I've usually been able to satisfy them in short order. Online it's a different story.

Perhaps there's an entire underground of closet hoax believers who only feel safe expressing their views under the cloak of online anonymity? Hard to tell.

JonClarke
2007-Mar-26, 10:57 AM
I heard it theorized that there's an increased level of resentment in play here with people from other countries and how they view past and present U.S. achievements. That their opinions of accomplishments like Apollo are colored by recent negative events in the news. Somehow it all gets lumped together into a soup where nothing the U.S. has done or will do, can be trusted or verified.

Would you admit that it's at least likely that there's a higher percentage of people in your country who question the validity of Apollo, than in the U.S.?

Can't speak for the UK but in Oz I must say that most of the serious HBers I have met are from the US. In Oz the people I have met who have expressed HB sentiments have vague recollections of something on TV or in the paper or down the pub. They are generally quite relieved to have their mids set at rest that yes, it really happened.

I suspect that thinking that HBers are more common outside the US and that they are motivated by some kind of anti-American prejudice is wishful thinking. Most people oustide the US can differentiate between their distaste for current US policies and their respect for a great achievement done "for all mankind".

Jon

Skyfire
2007-Mar-26, 11:01 AM
My evidence is only anecdotal. I'll grant you that one. I haven't seen the recent Pugh polls on the moon landings, BUT I can say that the majority of people I debate about Apollo are not American citizens, and the vast majority of that group is British for some reason. :surprised

I must say, I am quite surprised. However, I must say there is a general feeling that has been growing over here that people don't agree with much of what our government are doing in associaton with the US, particularly of course in Iraq and Afghanistan. It might be this that is leading the more vociferous ones (on the internet, at least) to question a lot more of the general achievements the US has done in the past.


I heard it theorized that there's an increased level of resentment in play here with people from other countries and how they view past and present U.S. achievements. That their opinions of accomplishments like Apollo are colored by recent negative events in the news. Somehow it all gets lumped together into a soup where nothing the U.S. has done or will do, can be trusted or verified.

Would you admit that it's at least likely that there's a higher percentage of people in your country who question the validity of Apollo, than in the U.S.?

Quite possibly, see my comment above.


In my personal life I have never run across someone who fervently believes the hoax myth. I know people who have questions, but I've usually been able to satisfy them in short order. Online it's a different story.

Same here. Once I have pointed out some basic science, got them to THINK about certain things, and sometimes referred to some general photos, suggested they try stuff themselves, they usually see it quickly.

(I just hope it isn't that they just say "yes" to make me shut up ...... :( )


Perhaps there's an entire underground of closet hoax believers who only feel safe expressing their views under the cloak of online anonymity? Hard to tell.

Yes, it's the anonymity thing. People feel they can say almost anything if the other person/people can't physically reach them ...... and we all know quite a few do it purely for attention.

I know of more than a couple of people who will argue black is white, just for the sheer enjoyment of the argument, not necessarily because they actually BELIEVE it. You put that in the context of anonymity on the iternet, and I guess that would increase by maybe a factor of 10 (sheer guess of course! :) )

JonClarke
2007-Mar-26, 11:07 AM
I heard it theorized that there's an increased level of resentment in play here with people from other countries and how they view past and present U.S. achievements. That their opinions of accomplishments like Apollo are colored by recent negative events in the news. Somehow it all gets lumped together into a soup where nothing the U.S. has done or will do, can be trusted or verified.

Would you admit that it's at least likely that there's a higher percentage of people in your country who question the validity of Apollo, than in the U.S.?

Can't speak for the UK but in Oz I must say that most of the serious HBers I have met are from the US. In Oz the people I have met who have expressed HB sentiments have vague recollections of something on TV or in the paper or down the pub. They are generally quite relieved to have their mids set at rest that yes, it really happened.

I suspect that thinking that HBers are more common outside the US and that they are motivated by some kind of anti-American prejudice is wishful thinking. Most people oustide the US can differentiate between their distaste for current US policies and their respect for a great achievement done "for all mankind".

Jon

JonClarke
2007-Mar-26, 11:22 AM
I heard it theorized that there's an increased level of resentment in play here with people from other countries and how they view past and present U.S. achievements. That their opinions of accomplishments like Apollo are colored by recent negative events in the news. Somehow it all gets lumped together into a soup where nothing the U.S. has done or will do, can be trusted or verified.

Would you admit that it's at least likely that there's a higher percentage of people in your country who question the validity of Apollo, than in the U.S.?

Can't speak for the UK but in Oz I must say that most of the serious HBers I have met are from the US. In Oz the people I have met who have expressed HB sentiments have vague recollections of something on TV or in the paper or down the pub. They are generally quite relieved to have their mids set at rest that yes, it really happened.

I suspect that thinking that HBers are more common outside the US and that they are motivated by some kind of anti-American prejudice is wishful thinking. Most people oustide the US can differentiate between their distaste for current US policies and their respect for a great achievement done "for all mankind".

Jon

Skyfire
2007-Mar-26, 11:49 AM
My evidence is only anecdotal. I'll grant you that one. I haven't seen the recent Pugh polls on the moon landings, BUT I can say that the majority of people I debate about Apollo are not American citizens, and the vast majority of that group is British for some reason. :surprised

Actually, I would be interested to know whether you have found these British people you have been debating with, more or less receptive to reasoned argument and science than any others. I am finding these days that there is less general understanding or knowledge of space related stuff, compared to when I was at school and university etc.

Or is that just the "grumpy old man" coming out, and "it wasn't like this in MY day" ....

JonClarke
2007-Mar-26, 12:06 PM
Actually, I would be interested to know whether you have found these British people you have been debating with, more or less receptive to reasoned argument and science than any others. I am finding these days that there is less general understanding or knowledge of space related stuff, compared to when I was at school and university etc.

Sadly that is true in most parts of the western world, I fear.

(Quavers) And yep, it weren't like that in my day either!

Jon

Svector
2007-Mar-26, 12:18 PM
I suspect that thinking that HBers are more common outside the US and that they are motivated by some kind of anti-American prejudice is wishful thinking. Most people oustide the US can differentiate between their distaste for current US policies and their respect for a great achievement done "for all mankind".Jon

Hmmm. That hasn't been my observation, but I admit I have no real way to prove my theory. It is interesting how most Apollo HB's eventually get around to chastising the U.S. government for other misdeeds unrelated to Apollo though. Almost universally, they will stray off into rants about Iraq, Watergate, Gitmo, 9/11 and of course any slight misstep by Bush.

I agree there are many variables in play. Maybe too many to tell with any kind of certainty exactly what the demographics look like. Maybe an extensive and carefully executed poll of some sort would answer the question, but my gut says there's a bit of "home court" bias factored into the numbers that may help to reduce the American percentages, and a bit of "America sux eggs" bias to push the foreign numbers the other way.

It's just that I never seem to engage anyone from France or South Africa or Gabon for instance. It's almost always Britain or Australia, with the occasional Dutchman thrown in. I've actually convinced a few semi-hardcore American HB's to step into the light, but never in my wildest dreams will I ever be able to convert a Brit. At least none that I've encountered to date. Jarrah W is an Aussie, but he's also in that category.

This is all silliness I realize, but I've always wondered about this apparent tilt in the playing field.

Bob B.
2007-Mar-26, 12:32 PM
I suspect that thinking that HBers are more common outside the US and that they are motivated by some kind of anti-American prejudice is wishful thinking. Most people oustide the US can differentiate between their distaste for current US policies and their respect for a great achievement done "for all mankind".
I don't entirely agree with this. I think you're talking about the majority of the world's population who are able to think rationally about things. In that case I agree with you. But I think the real hardcore hoax believers come from a small portion of the population that aren't entirely right in the head. Among this group I think anti-American prejudice is a contributing factor in at least some of the cases.

Svector
2007-Mar-26, 12:33 PM
Actually, I would be interested to know whether you have found these British people you have been debating with, more or less receptive to reasoned argument and science than any others. I am finding these days that there is less general understanding or knowledge of space related stuff, compared to when I was at school and university etc.

Or is that just the "grumpy old man" coming out, and "it wasn't like this in MY day" ....

I've found that if the HB is terminally "embedded", his country of origin doesn't really matter. They'll remain that way regardless of what evidence is forthcoming, even after being personally flown to the moon and shown the remnants. This includes those from the U.S.

Having said that, it does seem (and this is just my opinion) that Brits tend to be the ones most firmly entrenched in their beliefs that Apollo was faked.

I freely admit this perception may be completely unique to me and my particular circumstance, but it's an honest one nonetheless. I've engaged literally hundreds upon hundreds of different HB's on YT, and more recently Rogan's board, and through email. The first thing I do (out of morbid curiosity now) is check their country of origin. It just amazes me that they keep showing up as "Australia" and "UK".

I have no answers here. Only curiosity and questions. :think:

Skyfire
2007-Mar-26, 12:40 PM
Hmmm. That hasn't been my observation, but I admit I have no real way to prove my theory. It is interesting how most Apollo HB's eventually get around to chastising the U.S. government for other misdeeds unrelated to Apollo though. Almost universally, they will stray off into rants about Iraq, Watergate, Gitmo, 9/11 and of course any slight misstep by Bush.

I agree there are many variables in play. Maybe too many to tell with any kind of certainty exactly what the demographics look like. Maybe an extensive and carefully executed poll of some sort would answer the question, but my gut says there's a bit of "home court" bias factored into the numbers that may help to reduce the American percentages, and a bit of "America sux eggs" bias to push the foreign numbers the other way.

The poll sounds a great idea, but I have no idea how we could go about setting one up!


It's just that I never seem to engage anyone from France or South Africa or Gabon for instance. It's almost always Britain or Australia, with the occasional Dutchman thrown in. I've actually convinced a few semi-hardcore American HB's to step into the light, but never in my wildest dreams will I ever be able to convert a Brit. At least none that I've encountered to date. Jarrah W is an Aussie, but he's also in that category.

It is often quoted (but I don't know how true it is) that there are a far higher percentage of the British population online than most other European countries - that is as a percentage of their overall population. I THINK the Dutch follow in those stats, but please don't quote me on that! This could be the reason you see more brits than most other europeans .....

As for the Aussies, they just drink beer, and are too damn good at cricket! :) :) :)


This is all silliness I realize, but I've always wondered about this apparent tilt in the playing field.

No, not silliness, far from it. I think it would be useful to obtain this type of information somehow, but I have absolutely no idea how!

Bob B.
2007-Mar-26, 01:24 PM
Having said that, it does seem (and this is just my opinion) that Brits tend to be the ones most firmly entrenched in their beliefs that Apollo was faked.
I have also noticed what seems like a disportionally large number of British people who believe this stuff, but it is not all from the negative side. I run a web page about space technology and I tend to get a lot inquiries and comments from people in the UK. It seems to me there is just a large percentage of British people on the Internet who have an interest in space related topics, whether it be enthusiasm for space exploration or belief in the Apollo hoax. For those who hear only from the HB side, one could easily think that such belief is more common in the UK than elsewhere, but my experience tells me the HB versus non-HB sides are in about the same proportion as other countries.

BertL
2007-Mar-26, 06:07 PM
Hmmm, and you think Jarrah would've been in line? Was the film made using Legos by any chance?
I really hope the "No offense intended" also counts for this remark. There are lots of good brickfilms out there, even though they're done with LEGO bricks.

(Sorry for hijacking, but I feel it's my duty to stand up for a film category that really deserves some respect.)

Nicolas
2007-Mar-26, 06:31 PM
I for one have seen quite enough of Jarrah White to just wait and not react until he makes a correctly argumented, facts based claim not including any mispresented claims from others, or personal attacks (legal threats included).

I have been waiting for quite a few months now :). Sometimes I still wake up in the middle of the night, from a dream about his proposed apollo orbit, laughing so hard that my pillow implodes. I must say though, that was one of the argumented, non-personal claims he made, which was refreshing. Too bad it didn't take physics or history into account, in none of its versions.

Sigma_Orionis
2007-Mar-26, 07:21 PM
I must say though, that was one of the argumented, non-personal claims he made, which was refreshing. Too bad it didn't take physics or history into account, in none of its versions.

To paraphrase Arthur Balfour:

"All this contains much that is obviously rude, and much that is funny; unfortunately, what is obviously rude is not funny, and what is funny is not obviously rude."



:D

Nicolas
2007-Mar-26, 07:35 PM
In my following act, I will prove men are good at multitasking by being funny, rude AND banned in one and the same post!

:D

SpitfireIX
2007-Mar-26, 07:36 PM
In Oz the people I have met who have expressed HB sentiments have vague recollections of something on TV . . .

A Coke can? :D :D

Sigma_Orionis
2007-Mar-26, 07:59 PM
In my following act, I will prove men are good at multitasking by being funny, rude AND banned in one and the same post!

:D

Just don't try proving that Black is White, remember what happened to the last guy who tried that :lol:

Nicolas
2007-Mar-26, 08:11 PM
Mezzotinto, 1850


Sonnet: Attempting to prove that Black is White

"It has been said of many, they were quite
Prepared to prove (I do not mean in fun)
That white was really black, and black was white;
But I believe it has not yet been done.
Black (Saxon, Blac) in any way to liken
With candour may seem almost out of reach;
Yet whiten is in kindred German bleichen,
Undoubtedly identical with bleach:
This last verb's cognate adjective is bleak--
Reverting to the Saxon, bleak is blæk.*
A semivowel is, at the last squeak,
All that remains such difference wide to make--
The hostile terms of keen antithesis
Brought to an E plus ultra all but kiss!"
*Pronounced (as black was anciently written) blake

Sigma_Orionis
2007-Mar-26, 08:23 PM
Hmmm, I was referring to This Attempt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babel_fish) :D The obligatory reference to HH2G as required by the Great Publishing Houses of Ursa Minor....

Nicolas
2007-Mar-26, 08:28 PM
So his death might have been a bit less violent, but I'm quite sure the author of that 1850 sonnet is dead as well. I'm starting to see a pattern here...

Svector
2007-Mar-27, 12:51 AM
I really hope the "No offense intended" also counts for this remark. There are lots of good brickfilms out there, even though they're done with LEGO bricks.

(Sorry for hijacking, but I feel it's my duty to stand up for a film category that really deserves some respect.)

Wow, really? I just learned something Bert. Sorry, I thought that little pursuit was unique to Jarrah W.

:o

Lukas
2007-Mar-27, 01:11 AM
Was J.W.'s "idea of a polar orbit" discussed on this forum? I'm curious about it.

Grashtel
2007-Mar-27, 01:17 AM
Was J.W.'s "idea of a polar orbit" discussed on this forum? I'm curious about it.
Not really. IIRC what it was was a circular orbit keeping the CM entirely above the polar circle, which is completely impossible for an unpowered orbit (and nothing that has ever been built has the ability to maintain that sort of orbit for more than a matter of minutes).

Lukas
2007-Mar-27, 01:28 AM
Thanks for that. :) ...amusing

JonClarke
2007-Mar-27, 02:28 AM
Hmmm. That hasn't been my observation, but I admit I have no real way to prove my theory. It is interesting how most Apollo HB's eventually get around to chastising the U.S. government for other misdeeds unrelated to Apollo though. Almost universally, they will stray off into rants about Iraq, Watergate, Gitmo, 9/11 and of course any slight misstep by Bush.

I supect that most HBers outside the US were this way long before the recent unpleasantness. Mentioning recent events is simply their way of illustrating why they think the US gov. is untrustworthy. Plus of course the fact that recent US foreign policies are so widely disliked that by linking them to the hoax they might win people over. Guilt by association.

The argument is

"Apollo is a hoax and recent events show how untrustworthy the US is"

Not

"Recent events show that the US goverment must have hoaxed Apollo"


It's just that I never seem to engage anyone from France or South Africa or Gabon for instance. It's almost always Britain or Australia, with the occasional Dutchman thrown in. I've actually convinced a few semi-hardcore American HB's to step into the light, but never in my wildest dreams will I ever be able to convert a Brit. At least none that I've encountered to date. Jarrah W is an Aussie, but he's also in that category.

[Language and exposure? Australians and Britons will discuss in English, most other people won't. Plus most of the HB material - books, web sites, TV programs, are in English. The fact you have the odd person from the Netherlands may support this. Most people under the age of 50 in the Netherlands speak good English. But no everybody in the world does.

Jon

JonClarke
2007-Mar-27, 02:35 AM
I don't entirely agree with this. I think you're talking about the majority of the world's population who are able to think rationally about things. In that case I agree with you. But I think the real hardcore hoax believers come from a small portion of the population that aren't entirely right in the head. Among this group I think anti-American prejudice is a contributing factor in at least some of the cases.

Not in my experience. I have yet to meet someone who was anti American in general - or even strong opposed to recent US policies - who then said that Apollo must be a hoax.

The HBers certainly include people whose paranoia makes them a few sausages short of a BBQ. But among their tranks are perfectly normal people who just aren't interested enough or know enough about the topic to go further. They just read or saw something somewhere and have a few mental questions. Rather like people who might wonder if a certain Australian Prime Minister might in fact still be living in China.

The temptation to dismiss HBers as being motivated by genuinely anti American sentiments should, I think be rejected. It is too simplicistic and does not reflect the fact that most of the ideas originate in the US.

Jon

Jon

JonClarke
2007-Mar-27, 02:37 AM
In Oz the people I have met who have expressed HB sentiments have vague recollections of something on TV . . .

A Coke can? :D :D

Oddly enough, given the fact is was the local contribution to the mythos, no. It's the usual stuff about flags and balloons. often it is not even this specific, just the seed of FUD.

Jon

Gillianren
2007-Mar-27, 03:10 AM
The fact you have the odd person from the Netherlands may support this.

So is Nicolas "the odd person from the Netherlands"?

Oh, btw, I've met quite a few people who were openly anti-US government and convinced of the Apollo hoax; I've also met more than that who probably never thought about Apollo one way or another, but if they did, would probably be convinced it was a hoax because it was from the Evil US Government (TM).

DogsHead
2007-Mar-27, 03:23 AM
Hmmm, and you think Jarrah would've been in line? Was the film made using Legos by any chance?
I followed his youtube profile and found out he is a Bond nut, and yes; he was there at the same time I was.
I am of the opinion that Jarrah would sully the Noble Art Of Lego!
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=JarrahWhite

JonClarke
2007-Mar-27, 04:51 AM
So is Nicolas "the odd person from the Netherlands"?

Only in a statistical sense, I am sure. :)

[QUOTE=Gillianren;956951Oh, btw, I've met quite a few people who were openly anti-US government and convinced of the Apollo hoax; I've also met more than that who probably never thought about Apollo one way or another, but if they did, would probably be convinced it was a hoax because it was from the Evil US Government (TM).[/QUOTE]

They are the one's your met, I guess. But I can't say it is true of those I know.

As I see it, serious HBers are more likely to distrust any and all governments, rather than select the US government for specific attention. The US goberment gets specific mention in thios case because it is the relevant one. But HBers with respect to (to use an Australian example) the Port Arthur Massacre will be antigovernment not because it is Australia, but because its the government. Supporters of the PA HBers from the US will likewise mistrust the Australian government. Belief in the Diana cover up in the UK would show similar patterns.

I think it would be very unfortunate if people here were to end up thinking that HBs are by and large motivated by being anti American. The next level would be to dismiss all critcism of the US on the basis of "People like that probably don't even believe in Apollo." That would be a slippery slope indeed.

Jon

Svector
2007-Mar-27, 05:22 AM
The argument is

"Apollo is a hoax and recent events show how untrustworthy the US is"

Not

"Recent events show that the US goverment must have hoaxed Apollo"


Right...because HB's have never been guilty of making strawman arguments. ;)


[Language and exposure? Australians and Britons will discuss in English, most other people won't.

Really? No one from South Africa, Canada, Ireland, India, Bermuda, Barbados, Jamaica, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc, etc...is capable of discussing the Apollo hoax theory due to language constraints? Last time I checked, English was the official language in those countries, and they all had internet access. Why don't I ever seem to hear from those fine folks? Why would they sit in silence while the UK and Australia seem to be so vocal and outspoken about the "evil" U.S. gubment?


Plus most of the HB material - books, web sites, TV programs, are in English. The fact you have the odd person from the Netherlands may support this. Most people under the age of 50 in the Netherlands speak good English.

...and an even higher percentage speak it in the countries I listed, yet not a peep.

JonClarke
2007-Mar-27, 05:42 AM
Really? No one from South Africa, Canada, Ireland, India, Bermuda, Barbados, Jamaica, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc, etc...is capable of discussing the Apollo hoax theory due to language constraints? Last time I checked, English was the official language in those countries, and they all had internet access. Why don't I ever seem to hear from those fine folks? Why would they sit in silence while the UK and Australia seem to be so vocal and outspoken about the "evil" U.S. gubment?

Maybe they don't believe the Hoax? Maybe they evil program was never shown? Maybe you just haven't met them? There are many possibilities. Certainly there are HBers in Canada, Canadian friends complain about them also.

And I certainly would not say in either the UK and Australia is there a large body of people vocal and outspoken about the ""evil" U.S. gubment" with respect to Apollo. A couple in the UK, now one twep here in Oz with a couple of mentions on the internet. And that is all. Whereas there how many in the US?

Now, if you to talk about a body of people vocal and outspoken about the ""evil" U.S. gubment" regarding current events, then that would be a very different story and a very different issue.

Jon

Svector
2007-Mar-27, 05:44 AM
Not in my experience. I have yet to meet someone who was anti American in general - or even strong opposed to recent US policies - who then said that Apollo must be a hoax.


Wow. You remind me of the "Bizarro" Seinfeld episode, where they all met their exact mirror images and everything they did was completely contrary to their everyday normal routines. That's a shocking statement. Have you debated many hoax believers online?


among their tranks are perfectly normal people who just aren't interested enough or know enough about the topic to go further. They just read or saw something somewhere and have a few mental questions.

Those aren't the people I'm referring to. The "tire kickers" with only a passing interest in Apollo are indeed widespread. I'm talking about the hardcore, died-in-the-wool, embedded tick type of conspiracist. I argue that there IS a definitive geographical pattern with those HB's. I'm just unable to define why.


The temptation to dismiss HBers as being motivated by genuinely anti American sentiments should, I think be rejected.

I disagree. The evidence I've seen suggests the two to be linked.


It is too simplicistic and does not reflect the fact that most of the ideas originate in the US.

Why does a premise need to be complex to be correct? My early observations revealed what appeared to be a trend, and that trend seems to be holding up to the test of time. Perhaps my sampling pool is too small and giving me a skewed result, but I don't think so. There appears to be some force at work here that can't be explained away by ordinary randomness or "language issues".

JonClarke
2007-Mar-27, 05:54 AM
Wow. You remind me of the "Bizarro" Seinfeld episode, where they all met their exact mirror images and everything they did was completely contrary to their everyday normal routines. That's a shocking statement. Have you debated many hoax believers online?

Yes. Several just in the last month.


Those aren't the people I'm referring to. The "tire kickers" with only a passing interest in Apollo are indeed widespread. I'm talking about the hardcore, died-in-the-wool, embedded tick type of conspiracist. I argue that there IS a definitive geographical pattern with those HB's. I'm just unable to define why.

All of those I have met on line and most seen in action here and on clavius are good died in the wool made in the USA types.


I disagree. The evidence I've seen suggests the two to be linked.

Until we have survey evidence to provide objective data then we are left with outr own subjective encounters.


Why does a premise need to be complex to be correct? My early observations revealed what appeared to be a trend, and that trend seems to be holding up to the test of time. Perhaps my sampling pool is too small and giving me a skewed result, but I don't think so. There appears to be some force at work here that can't be explained away by ordinary randomness or "language issues".

The problem is other people's evidence does not match that. Now you are entitled to your own conclusions based on your experience, as I am to mine. But I would hold to those conclusions very lightly.

Jon

Added it edit: have you considered that they are just winding you up? Taking the micky is considered highly amusing in Australia and the UK, and Americans are very, very easy targets in this regard.

Gillianren
2007-Mar-27, 07:27 AM
D'you want me to list names or links, Jon?

Nicolas
2007-Mar-27, 07:55 AM
So is Nicolas "the odd person from the Netherlands"?


Not to say that I'm not an odd person, but I'm not from the Netherlands :).

AtomicDog
2007-Mar-27, 12:50 PM
Not really. IIRC what it was was a circular orbit keeping the CM entirely above the polar circle, which is completely impossible for an unpowered orbit (and nothing that has ever been built has the ability to maintain that sort of orbit for more than a matter of minutes).

I saw that diagram (was it on the old Loose Change Forum?) before he pulled it and ran away..my jaw dropped. I couldn't believe that anyone could be that absymally ignorant as to how an orbit works. If I recall correctly, White presented this "orbit" as an explanation as to how the C/SM could "hide" in LEO by constantly remaining on the dayside of the Earth; the north polar region being in 24 hour daylight at the time.

If I had known that White's "polar orbit" was to have become such a historical document in the annals of the Moon Hoax, I would have saved it for posteirity.

Bob B.
2007-Mar-27, 12:56 PM
The temptation to dismiss HBers as being motivated by genuinely anti American sentiments should, I think be rejected. It is too simplicistic and does not reflect the fact that most of the ideas originate in the US.
I find it odd that you seem to think including one more possible motivating factor among all the others is too simplistic, while categorically dismissing that factor is not simplistic. It seems to me you have it backwards.

I have definitely seen strong anti-American sentiments among the HBs I've debated. I'm certainly willing to consider the possibility there are other reasons for it, but it seems unwise to outright reject anti-Americanism as a possible contributing factor. I don't necessarily think it is a leading factor, but I do think it might provide additional motivation in some cases.

closetgeek
2007-Mar-27, 02:18 PM
It's the old Poisoning the Well, case. If you can't attack the evidence presented, the only thing left to do is attack the presenter. In this case, not so sad for Jarrah, he picked the wrong "smoking gun".

I guess no one ever told him; sometimes it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, then to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
-Abe Lincoln


On a quick side note, as I was trying to find who I was actually quoting. I stumbled upon a blog that was discussing the Fire In The Sky abduction. I found it funny that the person who has this quote was asking for backup for the assertion that it was a hoax. Is my logic flawed for thinking perhaps he should be asking for backup for the assertion that it happened?


In case anyone's interested, it looks like your old pal Jarrah has decided to post a rebuttal to my pro-NASA video series.

I'm not even sure I should call it a rebuttal though. He really offers up no evidence or even a premise, to contradict what's seen in the 30:28GET footage from Apollo 11. He instead seems to fixate on me. Perhaps I hit a nerve somewhere along the way. Who knows. :think:

Enjoy...

part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXD2pge9A0Y

(parts 2-6 available from his channel)

jrkeller
2007-Mar-27, 02:30 PM
For those looking for a poll on whether the moon landings were real or faked, here's a link (http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blpoll-moon.htm). I know the results are off, because you used to be able to vote as many times as you want.

Bob B.
2007-Mar-27, 02:58 PM
I'm surprised the "I'm not sure" category is only 1%. This tells me that the hoax phenomenon is really an anti-establishment thing rather than a debate over evidence. If there was a real debate going on there would be more confused people in the middle, but instead we are seeing people apparently willing to jump to the hoax side with little questioning.

Fazor
2007-Mar-27, 03:17 PM
Well, I certianly agree with your "anti-establishmentism" conclusion. But that's how I've always felt about most HB'ers.

I suppose I should also follow the rules and take some time to research myself instead of letting Jay do all the refuting :) Opinion only takes you so far (which isn't very far at all).

Skyfire
2007-Mar-27, 03:24 PM
For those looking for a poll on whether the moon landings were real or faked, here's a link (http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blpoll-moon.htm). I know the results are off, because you used to be able to vote as many times as you want.

78% say it happened, but 19% think it was faked. Hmmmm. I vaguely recall something about three or four years ago (I think) where I think the group that thought it was faked was about 15%. Does anyone know if this was in fact the case? If so, might this suggest there a worrying (I would probably say disappointing) trend towards conspiracy theories?

Does anyone know of any such survey/s that have been done over the last few years? It would I think make interesting reading, although whether any conclusions could be gained I would doubt, knowing the nature of many surveys, polls etc.

Thoughts anyone?

Fazor
2007-Mar-27, 03:41 PM
Those polls are done all the time. I've seen them as low as 8-9% believe they were faked to as high as 30-40%. I remember one poll claiming more than 50% for the HB-side.

Which really begs the question of who's being polled and how is the question(s) being presented. That's the classic problem with polls, and also the reason poll results should not be used as evidence. They can be helpfull tools, but not evidence.

R.A.F.
2007-Mar-27, 03:43 PM
Thoughts anyone?


...you used to be able to vote as many times as you want.

That sums it up...any results from this poll are meaningless.

Laguna
2007-Mar-27, 03:45 PM
I voted and when I tried a second vote I got "You've already voted, but here are the current totals"...

Usually information about such polls spreads fast among those who represent the radical minority. Pro Apollo People simply do not care to go there to give their vote. At least I do not.
But for HBs its a great opportunity to make their own statistics....

Ahhh. Just tried it again. You can vote again after a minute or so.
Again, the effort to return every minute to vote again is nothing I would like to do. Other more "radica minded" people might want to do so...

Skyfire
2007-Mar-27, 04:36 PM
I voted and when I tried a second vote I got "You've already voted, but here are the current totals"...

Usually information about such polls spreads fast among those who represent the radical minority. Pro Apollo People simply do not care to go there to give their vote. At least I do not.
But for HBs its a great opportunity to make their own statistics..

I have always been skeptical of any internet polls for several reasons:

1. As pointed out on some you can vote as many times as you want.
2. I would suggest that people with an interest in the subject are the only ones likely to vote, and of course, if there is an option for a conspiracy/hoax, that will probably attract proportinally more like minded people. For Apollo, many of us (on this board) probably couldn't be bothered to vote, as we know the answer.
3. Along with option 2 above, the pro-hoaxers probably actively encourage others to vote to "help their cause" ... thus they can then say "in a recent poll 73.7% of people said they believe Apollo was a hoax..."

Personally, I would be more inclined to believe a street poll (to some extent), as long as it followed full polling "rules" and the sample was at least, say, 5000 people spread across the country. However, these type of polls cost money to set up and operate. An internet poll can be done for nothing.

Well, that about sums it up. You get what you pay for ......



Ahhh. Just tried it again. You can vote again after a minute or so.
Again, the effort to return every minute to vote again is nothing I would like to do. Other more "radica minded" people might want to do so...

Well there you go. That proves a point ..... which one it proves, I will let you know later when I've made it up ...... errrr ...... worked out the results...

:) :) :)

Grashtel
2007-Mar-27, 06:43 PM
Ahhh. Just tried it again. You can vote again after a minute or so.
Again, the effort to return every minute to vote again is nothing I would like to do. Other more "radica minded" people might want to do so...
It wouldn't be hard to code up a macro to vote automagicly every minute and seriously screw the numbers, particularly if the person doing so had control of some zombied machines.

Laguna
2007-Mar-27, 07:15 PM
It wouldn't be hard to code up a macro to vote automagicly every minute and seriously screw the numbers, particularly if the person doing so had control of some zombied machines.
Ok, that would be possible, but I shrink away from blaming HBs to be criminals...

PhantomWolf
2007-Mar-27, 10:00 PM
I'd say the majority of the HB's I have "debated" with have been anti-authority and especially anti-US Government. They generally have also followed the LHO didn't act alone and that 9/11 is a coverup as well.

A lot of them have a belief that the US Government is evil and always lies. Whether they then determine that as they always lie and they say Apollo happened it must have been a lie, or if they work on the basis that Apollo would have been mankind's greatest achievement and this can't be allowed to have been done by such an evil entity, I'm not sure, but the basis of their claims often ends up being that the US Government lies about everything and anyone that supports the offical version is a US Government stooge.

Svector
2007-Mar-27, 11:46 PM
For those looking for a poll on whether the moon landings were real or faked, here's a link (http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blpoll-moon.htm). I know the results are off, because you used to be able to vote as many times as you want.

19% say faked. I'd love to see that poll broken down by geographic location.

Svector
2007-Mar-27, 11:48 PM
I'm surprised the "I'm not sure" category is only 1%. This tells me that the hoax phenomenon is really an anti-establishment thing rather than a debate over evidence. If there was a real debate going on there would be more confused people in the middle, but instead we are seeing people apparently willing to jump to the hoax side with little questioning.

Good catch. I completely agree.

It's almost like a partisan, conservative/liberal dividing line. Very little room for gray area.

Svector
2007-Mar-28, 12:07 AM
Just to get back to the original topic of the thread, I thought I'd share this latest quote from Jarrah W, last night on YT. I got a good chuckle out of it, after slapping my forehead until it was red.

As you may or may not know, I included a short clip from the Apollo 11 30:28GET TV transmission in my video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SRV7elUFjo

Long story short - my narrator says, "the shot never cuts away" (which it doesn't). Jarrah immediately claimed I had lied about it being unedited.

His rationale: The entire 24-minute 30:28 transmission contained a few edits, and I was clearly referring to the entire video, not the clip in question.

:wall:

Ok, so I asked him point blank if the "shot" I referred to in LL5 contained any edits. His hilarious reply:

JarrahWhite (2 hours ago)
"It only appears continuous in LL5 because you conveniently edited any interruptions out that would prove it wasn't a continuous shot."

To summarize: I supposedly took an edited clip, and edited it even further, to make it appear unedited.

<sigh>

I don't know what more I can do here people.

JayUtah
2007-Mar-28, 12:35 AM
Now you understand why I long ago gave up on Jarrah White.

Svector
2007-Mar-28, 02:55 AM
Now you understand why I long ago gave up on Jarrah White.

LOL.

Yeah, it appears to be a dry well.

JayUtah
2007-Mar-28, 03:59 AM
I found it funny that the person who has this quote was asking for backup for the assertion that it was a hoax. Is my logic flawed for thinking perhaps he should be asking for backup for the assertion that it happened?

It depends on the precise claims and counterclaims.

If someone claims he has been abducted by aliens in their spaceship, then he has the burden to prove that. Producing witnesses who testify to having seen it happen partly carries that burden of proof. Circumstantial or physical evidence carries another part of it. If the sum of that evidence satisfies some standard, then the claim can be considered plausible. But if there are no witnesses and no evidence, the claim can be dismissed.

But where witnesses and circumstantial or physical evidence can be explained in other ways, a claim has to show the preponderance of evidence above all other explanations. If someone says the witnesses are mistaken or lying, and that objective evidence has been faked or is inconclusive or can be variously interpreted, then he has a burden to establish his own explanation above the others. It's an affirmative defense: one that rebuts a claim by arguing that the evidence is better explained by a specific proposition other than the claim.

Svector
2007-Mar-28, 06:52 AM
Yes. Several just in the last month.

May I ask where you debate the majority of these HB's?


Until we have survey evidence to provide objective data then we are left with outr own subjective encounters.

I concur. But I seem to keep reading claims from others who have engaged these hardcore types, who support the idea that there's a common thread of anti-Americanism in play. That supports my argument that the patterns I'm seeing aren't my imagination.

All other factors being equal, do you think the current percentage of hoax believers in the UK would remain the same if the moon had six Union Jacks planted in it, instead of U.S. flags?


Added it edit: have you considered that they are just winding you up? Taking the micky is considered highly amusing in Australia and the UK, and Americans are very, very easy targets in this regard.

Implying they don't actually believe what they're arguing? If that were the case, why would they be arguing the same points against their own countrymen in many cases?

Gillianren
2007-Mar-28, 08:08 AM
The temptation to dismiss HBers as being motivated by genuinely anti American sentiments should, I think be rejected. It is too simplicistic and does not reflect the fact that most of the ideas originate in the US.

I seem to've missed this one. Why do you think living in the US means you aren't anti-US government? I assure you it's not true. Someone with whom I went to college was ordered by the voting booth ladies to move on election day '00 because he was picketing too close to the polling places. He was telling us not to vote and become tools of the Man.

Grashtel
2007-Mar-28, 09:19 AM
Ok, that would be possible, but I shrink away from blaming HBs to be criminals...
Looking at the number of votes I'm pretty sure that if anyone was fixing it they were doing it with just their machine, and I doubt that running software on your machine to mess up an online poll is illegal, not that it would be hard to just do it manually anyway (right up until they got serious RSI).

Laguna
2007-Mar-28, 09:27 AM
Looking at the number of votes I'm pretty sure that if anyone was fixing it they were doing it with just their machine, and I doubt that running software on your machine to mess up an online poll is illegal, not that it would be hard to just do it manually anyway (right up until they got serious RSI).
With criminals I referred to your mention of the usage of Bot-Nets.
Everything else falls under my "radical minded people" put more effort into their belief.

By the way. In Germany we have a law against the manipulation of IT-Systems.
The Manipulation of an online poll is the manipulation of someones database so when you take the law very strikt,
at least over here you would be considered to be a criminal. Even though I doubt that the state attorney would hunt you...

JonClarke
2007-Mar-28, 12:31 PM
May I ask where you debate the majority of these HB's?

There has been a small rush of them on the space.com forum in the last month or so.


I concur. But I seem to keep reading claims from others who have engaged these hardcore types, who support the idea that there's a common thread of anti-Americanism in play. That supports my argument that the patterns I'm seeing aren't my imagination.

I think we need to understand more clear what is meant by anti-Americanism. There are many types, and not all would correlate with belief in an Apollo hoax.

For example the recent unpleasantness means there are a lot more people about today who oppose US policies in the world. Some might call this anti-American, but I don't. I don't see why this should have any correlation with belief that Apollo was a hoax. Anymore than

Then there are those who don't really like some or all of American culture. These are the classic anti-Americans. But again, no obvious correlation with the Apollo hoax.

Lastly there are the conspiracists. This is where there is a strong correlation. IMHO. But there the hostility is towards the US government rather than towards America in general. After all, if Apollo was a conspiracy, it was an American conspiracy and therefore the US government is to blame. All governments are suspect to this mindset. The US government as the largest and strongest government in the world might bit more than its share. But it is not anti-Americanism being at the root of this, just a general paranoia.

If you are right and the Apollo HBers are becoming more common in the UK and Australia then one would expect and more general rise in other conspiracy talk. But I don't think this is the case from my observations.

Overall the conspiracist mindset seems to be a bit more prevalent in the US. Britons and Australians have their own peculiarities.


All other factors being equal, do you think the current percentage of hoax believers in the UK would remain the same if the moon had six Union Jacks planted in it, instead of U.S. flags?.

I would say it would probably much the same level.


Implying they don't actually believe what they're arguing? If that were the case, why would they be arguing the same points against their own countrymen in many cases?

Because perhaps they aren't doing so for nationalistic reasons as you seem to imply, but because they gain amusement from it. of course I am only guessing, not having seen the exchanges you are referring to.

Jon

JonClarke
2007-Mar-28, 12:35 PM
I seem to've missed this one. Why do you think living in the US means you aren't anti-US government? I assure you it's not true. Someone with whom I went to college was ordered by the voting booth ladies to move on election day '00 because he was picketing too close to the polling places. He was telling us not to vote and become tools of the Man.

I never said that. The fact that most anti-US government conspiracy mongering seem to originate in the US demonstrates the fact that there are pklenty of homegrown nutters quite nicely.

Jon

JonClarke
2007-Mar-28, 12:39 PM
I find it odd that you seem to think including one more possible motivating factor among all the others is too simplistic, while categorically dismissing that factor is not simplistic. It seems to me you have it backwards.

I have definitely seen strong anti-American sentiments among the HBs I've debated. I'm certainly willing to consider the possibility there are other reasons for it, but it seems unwise to outright reject anti-Americanism as a possible contributing factor. I don't necessarily think it is a leading factor, but I do think it might provide additional motivation in some cases.

Strongly anti-US government yes. Anti American not obviously. Most HBers come from the US and most of those promolgating the Apollo hoax are from the US.

Has there been aApollo hoax believer who took the line "I hate America therefore Apollo did not happen"? What proportion were they of the whole?

Jon

Bob B.
2007-Mar-28, 01:36 PM
Strongly anti-US government yes. Anti American not obviously.
If you are defining anti-US government as being separate from anti-American, then I might agree with you. The anti-American venom I generally hear from HBs is most definitely directed at the government and not at American culture or people. However I don't necessarily agree with your definition. Below is how one source defines anti-American:

anti-American (ŗnītÍ-e-mŤrīÓ-ken, ŗnītž-) adjective
Opposed or hostile to the government, official policies, or people of the United States.
- anīti-Amerīicanism noun

Excerpted from The American Heritageģ Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

By this definition, hostility toward the US government is anti-American. And by that definition I do believe anti-Americanism may be a contributing factor in the Apollo hoax.


Most HBers come from the US...
That may be true by shear numbers, but possibly only because of our large population. Unfortunately we don't have the statistics to know percentage-wise where most HBs reside.


...and most of those promolgating the Apollo hoax are from the US.
That is probably because the "land of opportunity" has become "the land of screw your neighbor to make a fast buck". The main promoters of the hoax are out to make a profit, nothing more. If they encourage ignorance and smear reputations along the way, that's okay by them.


Has there been aApollo hoax believer who took the line "I hate America therefore Apollo did not happen"? What proportion were they of the whole?
I don't know because I specifically try to steer away from the anti-American arguments because they're not relevant to the question of whether or not Apollo happened. I tend not to pay too much attention to the anti-American rants.

sts60
2007-Mar-28, 01:38 PM
Has there been aApollo hoax believer who took the line "I hate America therefore Apollo did not happen"?

They don't say it so obviously. But it is obviously the exact mindset of some of quite a few HBs.

Bob B.
2007-Mar-28, 01:54 PM
Has there been aApollo hoax believer who took the line "I hate America therefore Apollo did not happen"?

They don't say it so obviously. But it is obviously the exact mindset of some of quite a few HBs.

I can recall several HBs essentially saying the US government was able to pull off the hoax because the American people went along with it because of our alleged stupidity and pride. Now that certainly sounds anti-American to me by any definition.

BertL
2007-Mar-28, 02:05 PM
Well, I don't think there are any HBs out there using the "EVIL GOVERNMENT" as an argument of Apollo being faked. The "EVIL GOVERNMENT" is merely a stimulation for the HBs to believe Apollo was being faked.

Bob B.
2007-Mar-28, 02:25 PM
Well, I don't think there are any HBs out there using the "EVIL GOVERNMENT" as an argument of Apollo being faked.
We often get the guilt by association arguments like, "if they could pull off the JFK assassination they could fake the moon landings". In this case the argument can be summarized as...

* The government had JFK assassinated, therefore the government is evil.
* Since the government is evil, they therefore faked the moon landings.

This is largely the basis of Bart Sibrel's argument in his WHOTWTTM video.

JayUtah
2007-Mar-28, 02:26 PM
The Manipulation of an online poll is the manipulation of someones database so when you take the law very strikt...

But it manipulates that database only according to the mechanism specifically set up by the owner to allow anyone in the outside world to do just that. When you make a page accessible via HTTP, there is absolutely no presumption that it will be accessed only using a web browser operated by a human being. At least in an American court a site owner would have a very difficult time proving that an automated web client which exercises the advertised HTTP interface at reasonable intervals constitutes a malicious attack. Of course the intent of German law may differ...

JayUtah
2007-Mar-28, 02:51 PM
If you are defining anti-US government as being separate from anti-American, then I might agree with you.

I might too. There seem to be plenty of people in the United States who rail against the government but yet enjoy being American and would bristle at the thought of being called anti-American. In my experience that constitutes the majority of guilt-by-association arguments.

However I have heard a handful of non-Americans finally tip their hands and suggested that they are motivated by hatred of America and Americans when they question Apollo's authenticity. It doesn't seem directed only at the government, but at all "prideful" Americans.

Fazor
2007-Mar-28, 02:51 PM
There's just too many uncontrolled variables in a web poll. In the example of the Apollo Hoax poll, you say that hoax believers are more likely to spam the polls to try to prove that more people agree with thier views. But they can just as easily say that the non-HBers do the same thing. What you guys have missed is that the poll will be a representation ONLY of those who actively search for, or at least care about, space exploration. The guy that goes online to search for good bass fishing shops won't vote. The guy that is looking for information on how to fix up his hotrod won't vote. The guy that's only online for that other stuff...you know...pet grooming tips, he won't vote.

It's not a random selection of the target demographic (in this case, the US or World population based on the claims of the poll). That's important. It's something they can achieve with actually polling (such as Gallop) but not typically on the web.

JayUtah
2007-Mar-28, 03:42 PM
There's just too many uncontrolled variables in a web poll.

Agreed, which is why such polls provide no useful information.

Fazor
2007-Mar-28, 04:06 PM
There's just too many uncontrolled variables in a web poll.

Agreed, which is why such polls provide no useful information.

I'll correct you for the sake of doing so (Mainly becuase i wanted to make that same statement but knew someone would disagree, as follows)

They *can* provide some usefull information, such as polls in threads on this board. There was one asking what your age was. It gives a *general* idea of the average age of the people using BAUT. the final percentages obviously have a margin of error, but at least gives you some loose idea of what you're dealing with.

But web polls have no use when trying to prove anything, as "loose ideas" are, well, not proof and utterly useless.

JayUtah
2007-Mar-28, 04:45 PM
There was one asking what your age was. It gives a *general* idea of the average age of the people using BAUT...

Very general. Since it collects self-reported data only from those who choose to report it, a generalization of that sample to the BAUT community has a very broad statistical margin of error.

Fazor
2007-Mar-28, 06:05 PM
Yep. Like I said, I agree. I was just arguing for the sake of getting that argument out of the way with.

If I could get rid of three things in the hopes of making the average person more informed, it would be Polls, Network News, and Wikipedia. But that's just me. :)

Pip
2007-Mar-28, 06:22 PM
Thinking back to my discussions with Jarrah, it certainly was the case.

What are you talking about? A hammer OBVIOUSLY has a mass of 500 kilograms. Go back to the hardware store and check for yourself!

:p

JonClarke
2007-Mar-28, 11:14 PM
Has there been aApollo hoax believer who took the line "I hate America therefore Apollo did not happen"?

They don't say it so obviously. But it is obviously the exact mindset of some of quite a few HBs.

Again we come back to this assumption. Most anti government in general. But this does not automatically equate with anti-Americanism.

So let's have some numbers. How many Apollo HBers here have made statements that are clearly anti-American rather than anti US government?

Jon

JonClarke
2007-Mar-28, 11:21 PM
If you are defining anti-US government as being separate from anti-American, then I might agree with you.

I might too. There seem to be plenty of people in the United States who rail against the government but yet enjoy being American and would bristle at the thought of being called anti-American. In my experience that constitutes the majority of guilt-by-association arguments.

However I have heard a handful of non-Americans finally tip their hands and suggested that they are motivated by hatred of America and Americans when they question Apollo's authenticity. It doesn't seem directed only at the government, but at all "prideful" Americans.

A handful only. Any idea on what percentage this might be?

Also thinking that Americans as culture are rather full of themselves and could do well with being taken down a peg or two does not equate to being anti-American. I think that about Australians. It doesn't mean I am anti-Australian!

Jon

JayUtah
2007-Mar-29, 12:34 AM
Any idea on what percentage this might be?

Nope.

Also thinking that Americans as culture are rather full of themselves and could do well with being taken down a peg or two does not equate to being anti-American.

Why not?

Skyfire
2007-Mar-29, 12:35 AM
What are you talking about? A hammer OBVIOUSLY has a mass of 500 kilograms. Go back to the hardware store and check for yourself!

:p

I think you need to specify. Are we talking about a claw, tack, ballpein, lump, or sledge hammer? Then there are the interchangeable headed Thor hammers, geology hammers, and probably so many others I can't even think of here. I mean, you need to know what sort you are checking at the hardware store, or it could take you all day! :)

PhantomWolf
2007-Mar-29, 05:10 AM
Also thinking that Americans as culture are rather full of themselves and could do well with being taken down a peg or two does not equate to being anti-American.

Why not?

Cause it's true. ;)


I think that about Australians. It doesn't mean I am anti-Australian!

No, it means you're really a Kiwi, lol.

JonClarke
2007-Mar-29, 08:07 AM
Any idea on what percentage this might be?

Nope.

Also thinking that Americans as culture are rather full of themselves and could do well with being taken down a peg or two does not equate to being anti-American.

Why not?

Just because you can see the faults of friends and family does not mean you dislike them.

The freeness with which the charge of anti-Americanism is being bandied round makes me wonder how many people defend Apollo not as a matter of historical truth or as a great human achievement, but out of a parochial nationalism? Had it been the Russians that had reached the Moon how many people would be defending it against the HBers?

Jon

JonClarke
2007-Mar-29, 08:08 AM
Also thinking that Americans as culture are rather full of themselves and could do well with being taken down a peg or two does not equate to being anti-American.

Why not?

Cause it's true. ;)


I think that about Australians. It doesn't mean I am anti-Australian!

No, it means you're really a Kiwi, lol.

People who let their sheep wear lipstick shouldn't throw stones ;)

AtomicDog
2007-Mar-29, 12:49 PM
Just because you can see the faults of friends and family does not mean you dislike them.

The freeness with which the charge of anti-Americanism is being bandied round makes me wonder how many people defend Apollo not as a matter of historical truth or as a great human achievement, but out of a parochial nationalism? Had it been the Russians that had reached the Moon how many people would be defending it against the HBers?

Jon

If the Russians were as free with information about their lunar program as we were with ours, I would have no problem defending it against HBs.

There's a part of me that wishes they had gotten to the Moon first; the taste of ashes in our mouths would have ensured that we would not have rested until we not only had beaten them at lunar exploration, but had gone on to Mars.

Nicolas
2007-Mar-29, 01:20 PM
If the Russians were as free with information about their lunar program as we were with ours, I would have no problem defending it against HBs.

So would I. Anything that I think is correct or just is worthy of defence for me. Of course, with next to zero information given, it would be harder to know the moon lamding claims were correct than with the wealth of info given on Apollo.

I've defended Jarrah White once when he was being wildly accused of being a government disinfo agent (...), so yeah I am willing to defend anything that I think is just or correct. No matter what his ideas are, if you don't have convincing evidence that Jarrah is a disinfo agent I will defend him when being called that. Even though in the very same thread, I strongly attacked the idea he proposed (NASA putting a huge nasa logo on a plane they crashed at 9/11, yeah that makes sense).

Bob B.
2007-Mar-29, 01:28 PM
Just because you can see the faults of friends and family does not mean you dislike them.

And in many cases the faults we find in others leads to a genuine dislike.

Just exactly how do you define anti-Americanism? I've gave you a definition of anti-American several posts back, what is your definition?


The freeness with which the charge of anti-Americanism…

All I’ve said is that I think anti-Americanism may be a contributing factor in some cases and that it shouldn’t be categorically dismissed.


…is being bandied round makes me wonder how many people defend Apollo not as a matter of historical truth or as a great human achievement, but out of a parochial nationalism?

I don’t deny that I’m proud it was American to achieve this, but I honestly don’t think nationalistic pride is the reason I defend Apollo. I think I defend it more because it is anti-engineer (of which I am one). It irritates me to see and hear people denigrate one of the greatest engineering and scientific feats mankind has ever achieved, and I am appalled by the ignorance HBs spread. I can tell you honestly that I get far angrier with HBs when they start trivializing the engineering aspects of Apollo than I do by any anti-American venom they might spew. The anti-American stuff I find to be only a minor annoyance, and then mainly because it is an irrelevant distraction.


Had it been the Russians that had reached the Moon how many people would be defending it against the HBers?

I can only speak for myself … I think I would likely not be as active defending the moon landings had it been the Russians, but not for the reason you probably think. I grew up during the Apollo days and was very interested in and excited by what was happening. The impression project Apollo left on me as a young boy lead to a lifelong interest in Apollo and space exploration in general. It is that passion for the subject that has drawn me toward the Apollo hoax and motivated me to defend it. Had the Russians won the moon race it is likely my adulthood interest in the subject might not be as strong and I probably would not have been as strongly drawn to debunking the hoax theories. It wouldn’t be because of nationalism per se, but due to a shifting of interests. However, had I grown up with the same passion for the subject as I do today, I think I would defend the Russian accomplishment just as much as I do the American one.

Fazor
2007-Mar-29, 02:20 PM
Where to start?
Okay I think the whole "anti-government v.s. anti-americanism" aspect of the hoax-believers is relatively small. Granted I haven't dealt with as many of these HBers as some of you have.

If you want a better percentage of HBers, you need to focus on those who are anti-authority. These people do not trust ANYONE that has power, knowlege, or technology. Correct me if I'm wrong Jay, but my guess would be the majority of people who you have debated over the years fit into this catagory.

And don't mistake me for saying that most or all HB'ers are these uber-paranoid weirdos that hang out in thier foil-coated basements and wear sunglasses all the time to avoid the MIB brain wipe thing. Many seemingly normal people have a huge distrust and aversion to any kind of authority.

Another question for you Jay; how soon after the first moon landing did the HB thing really take hold? From what I've seen, it wasn't until the mid 70's, about the same time the anti-war movement really was taking hold. Just a thought.

CJSF
2007-Mar-29, 02:37 PM
Another question for you Jay; how soon after the first moon landing did the HB thing really take hold? From what I've seen, it wasn't until the mid 70's, about the same time the anti-war movement really was taking hold. Just a thought.

That's also pretty much after the Apollo program wound down (last landing 1972). The anti-war movement was "taking hold" throughout Apollo, and the Viet-nam war ended in the mid 1970s.


Almost all of the remaining U.S. military personnel departed after the Paris Peace Agreement of 1973, leaving behind only an embassy guard. The last American troops left the country on April 30, 1975.

So perhaps for some, there wasn't anything to rally against. Maybe attacking the Apollo record filled the void?

CJSF

Fazor
2007-Mar-29, 02:44 PM
So perhaps for some, there wasn't anything to rally against. Maybe attacking the Apollo record filled the void?
CJSF

I was thinking maybe not so much "fill the void" but more the time it took to branch out from strickly "anti-war-anti-government" to "Hey, NASA is government funded, they're evil too". [edit: not being born until '82, I can't really say, just makeing educated guesses. 'tis why I posted this guess, so you with experience can help me refine it ;))]

Besides all it would have taken to include NASA and Apollo in that movment is a single memo indicating the government was interested in what kind of millitary advantages manned space flight could provide. A big factor in any kind of technology research is "how could this help the military". Does that make the advancement of technology wrong? I could point you to some forums whos members would say a resounding "Yes!"

Bob B.
2007-Mar-29, 02:49 PM
Bill Kaysing published his book in 1974 and admittedly did so to get back at the US government for the Vietnam War.

sts60
2007-Mar-29, 02:52 PM
Again we come back to this assumption. Most anti government in general. But this does not automatically equate with anti-Americanism.

This is not an assumption. I've seen quite a few HBs who have gone on and on about how Americans are stupid and violent and are responsible for all the evils in the world and have bad breath to boot. I've also seen homegrown HBs who do not simply bash the government but also bash America in general.

Jon, I did not say, nor do I believe, that bashing the U.S. government "automatically equates" with anti-Americanism; that's an assumption on your part. I've bashed my government too - well, specific parts of and individuals inside it. (Unlike HBs, I understand that "the government" is made up of a great number of agencies and offices and individuals, with many agendas and subagendas, and is not some sort of inscrutable and indivisible monolith.)

So let's have some numbers. How many Apollo HBers here have made statements that are clearly anti-American rather than anti US government?

Can't help you there. I'm just pointing out that "quite a few" HBs are both. Not all; quite possibly not even most; but quite a few.

Fazor
2007-Mar-29, 02:55 PM
Bill Kaysing published his book in 1974 and admittedly did so to get back at the US government for the Vietnam War.

Well good, there's one example. Are my powers of inference getting more refined? Or lucky guess? Only time will tell.

Jim
2007-Mar-29, 03:05 PM
... Americans are stupid and violent and are responsible for all the evils in the world and have bad breath to boot. ...

Hey! I'm an American and I resent that. I do not have bad breath!!

Fazor
2007-Mar-29, 03:18 PM
Hey! I'm an American and I resent that. I do not have bad breath!!

I am American, and I probably have bad breath (at the moment, but mmm coffee is good).

gwiz
2007-Mar-29, 03:33 PM
Had it been the Russians that had reached the Moon how many people would be defending it against the HBers?
Me, for a start. As a Brit, I don't have the motive of patriotism for supporting Apollo, it's just a lifelong fascination with space exploration. I've frequently supported the Russians against various claims both here and over at Apollohoax, eg the idea that there were unannounced failed missions before Gagarin.

sts60
2007-Mar-29, 05:57 PM
Me too. Partly because, as an American, I approve of bold ventures of exploration. Partly because, as an engineer, I approve of good engineering (and the Russians have a proud heritage of accomplishment in aerospace).

But mostly because, if they had done it, it would be the truth. And I despise deliberate ignorance and malicious revisionism.

JayUtah
2007-Mar-29, 06:27 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong Jay, but my guess would be the majority of people who you have debated over the years fit into this catagory.

The overwhelming majority.

The interplay between expertise and control is complex in conspiracy arguments and displays a number of facets.

Authority is commonly defined in the professional and scientific world as possessing reliable and complete knowledge on a subject, acquired typically from a combination of education and experience. In that context you can establish authority in many ways.

But conspiracy theorists define authority generally as the exertion of control, usually with the connotation that the control is improperly motivated and repressive. Government is usually the easiest example.

Each definition is reasonably valid within its context, but they cannot be interchanged in discussion because they express opposite value judgments. Authority in terms of appropriate knowledge is a good thing; authority in terms of (improper) control is a bad thing. Debunkers are generally aware of the distinction and respect it. Conspiracists generally fail to distinguish types of authority, and in fact often strenuously try to blur them.

I cannot count the times I have been dismissed as a government shill. I cannot count the times my expertise has been dismissed as being the product of government-controlled education. I cannot count the number of times I have been subjected to lines of questioning calculated to determine any connection between me and government, no matter how tenuous or irrelevant.

In the larger perspective, conspiracism shares a great deal with general pseudoscience in that it is a rejection of mainstream science, not necessarily an embrace of some new idea. Conspiracists therefore reject mainstream scientific objection to their claims on the grounds that mainstream experts have no actual expertise. The encompassing proposition connects knowledge-authority with control-authority, stating that mainstream science is generally only interested in maintaining the control-authority status quo.

So while it might be helpful ideologically to distinguish anti-American from anti-American-Government, I have no evidence that this is what conspiracists do, and considerable evidence that they do exactly the opposite: blur the distinction even when it exists and is material.

Another question for you Jay; how soon after the first moon landing did the HB thing really take hold?

Bill Kaysing's book was published in 1974, but there is anecdotal evidence of hoax claims while the missions themselves were still being flown. The earliest date I have for a hoax claim of any kind is 1969.

The majority of the claims being made today cite materials produced in the 1990s, although there are many references in those materials to arguments Kaysing made in 1974.

Fazor
2007-Mar-29, 06:56 PM
That seems to confirm my suspicions; you deal with the "professional HBers" which is why I was curious to your experiences. I've pretty much only dealt with the 15-year-old internet HBers, who typically are the same ones that can be found during the day saying "You [not-so-nice adjective] cops can't tell me I'm not allowed to skate here." and "Oh yeah teach? I'd like to see you try to give me detention. My parents will sue!".

Same personality types, just different packaging. I'm not trying to stereotype anyone and say all HBers are this way or that way or whatever; there are some genuinely curious people who just get overwhelmed with the flood of bad information out there. But personality and motives need to be examined as much as any particular claim does; they are not unconnected.

JayUtah
2007-Mar-29, 07:21 PM
Just because you can see the faults of friends and family does not mean you dislike them.

Just because you identify a trait doesn't mean that it is objectively there. It may be just the tired stereotype or some other prejudice.

Just because you characterize a trait as a fault doesn't mean that characterization is objectively justified. It may simply be your different opinion at work.

If you engage an individual American from the perspective that his culture has made him "full of himself and [he] needs to be taken down a peg," then I fail to see why this doesn't constitute anti-Americanism in any useful sense of the word, and why that American should not be wary of you. If your behavior is governed in part by negative judgments then you are anti. In some cases your judgment may have merit, but it does not automatically have it simply because you believe it.

It looks like you're trying to whittle down the definition of anti-American so that nothing substantial remains. The discarded shavings are not irrelevant, nor does my experience suggest that conspiracy theorists to whom I and others apply that label respect your distinctions.

If you personally are able to divorce your value judgments defensibly from your behavior, then you deserve credit. However the conspiracy theorists I have encountered are not able to do that. Many quite demonstrably take the approach that defense of Apollo is motivated only by willing association with the U.S. government and its supposed evils.

The freeness with which the charge of anti-Americanism is being bandied round makes me wonder how many people defend Apollo not as a matter of historical truth or as a great human achievement, but out of a parochial nationalism?

Whether the charge is being thrown around freely depends on whom you mean when you say "how many people defend Apollo." Are you talking about the world at large? Or do you mean we at BAUT and similar places?

There may indeed be people who defend Apollo out of nationalistic fervor, and there may be people who thus attack it simply to refute the nationalism. But that's irrelevant in my opinion. It puts the cart before the horse. My experience is rife with attacks against Apollo from an anti-American standpoint before any nationalistic sentiment had been expressed in the defense (and indeed when none would ever come forth because the defenders are not American).

I have also heard conspiracy theorists express exactly your argument: that defending Apollo is a knee-jerk nationalistic reaction -- and this after we have laid out a meticulously factual and scientific objection to some hoax theory. Most often the anti-American arguments come after the conspiracist is cornered on the facts and wants to escape by punting to motive.

I have seen absolutely no evidence to support the contention that anti-American sentiment in conspiracism is a response to pro-American or nationalistic fervor from defenders, and indeed considerable evidence to the contrary. Conspiracists quite frequently (and wrongly) assume that nationalism is our motive. It happens so often that I have come to refer to it as their pre-scripted debate.

In the study of argumentation we observe frequently that a proponent often wrongly assumes his opponent is motivated by the converse of his own motivation, simply because his opposition is the converse of the proposition. Skilled rhetoricians -- especially politicians -- can make use of this in swaying public opinion. For example, the author of legislation to provide low-cost housing for the elderly might criticize his opponents by saying they must not care about the elderly if they oppose his bill. The critics might instead oppose the taxation policy by which the housing is to be funded, and may have sound reasons for doing so. The critics might indeed favor low-cost housing for the elderly, but disagree on the proposed means of providing it.

Had it been the Russians that had reached the Moon how many people would be defending it against the HBers?

Not a hypothetical question: Hoax believers do attack Soviet accomplishments occasionally, and I do defend the Soviet space program where the facts support the defense.

Bob B.
2007-Mar-29, 07:58 PM
It looks like you're trying to whittle down the definition of anti-American so that nothing substantial remains.

I agree, which is why I asked Jon to provide us with his definition of anti-American. He seems to have a far very narrow definition of the term than the rest of us.


In the study of argumentation we observe frequently that a proponent often wrongly assumes his opponent is motivated by the converse of his own motivation, simply because his opposition is the converse of the proposition.

This is something Iím sure many of us have seen over and over. I canít count the number of times Iíve been accused of defending Apollo simply because Iím American. (Or the number of times Iíve seen non-Americans accused of it because the HB wrongly assumed his opponent was American.) If the HB is simply projecting the opposite of his own motivation, and that opposite is pro-American nationalism, then isnít it reasonable to conclude the HB is motivated at least in part by anti-American feelings?


Not a hypothetical question: Hoax believers do attack Soviet accomplishments occasionally, and I do defend the Soviet space program where the facts support the defense.

As have I on those occasions when Iíve seen the Soviet space program wrongly attacked. I have a great deal of respect for what the Soviets accomplished.

AtomicDog
2007-Mar-29, 08:17 PM
Another question for you Jay; how soon after the first moon landing did the HB thing really take hold? From what I've seen, it wasn't until the mid 70's, about the same time the anti-war movement really was taking hold. Just a thought.

I distinctly remember a spoken-word novelty record that was played on WLAC in Nashville circa 1969-70 titled (IIRC) "We Didn't Go to the Moon".

It took the form of a radio reporter interviewing a curmudegonly old African-American man, said man giving his reasons for believing that "we didn't go to no moon" and how he felt that the hoax was accomplished.

Looking back, I feel that this record was made more in line with the feeling that a lot of Blacks had at the time (my older brother included) that going to the Moon was a waste of money, money that could have been better spent feeding the hungry and housing the poor.

JayUtah
2007-Mar-29, 08:29 PM
Partly because, as an American, I approve of bold ventures of exploration.

I agree and hasten to add that I don't believe America corners this market, either in its willingness to explore or in its ability to do it. It was my pleasure to compete against the Russians for many years as respectable and worthy contestants in the conquest of air and space, and it has been my pleasure lately to work alongside them as respectable and worthy collaborators.

I have often evangelized that meaningful, sustained exploration of the solar system will require the collected resources of all willing and able nations of the Earth. I am certainly not one to advocate retaining provincial boundaries for the sake of pride.

Partly because, as an engineer, I approve of good engineering (and the Russians have a proud heritage of accomplishment in aerospace).

I agree here too. I worked with pre- and post-glasnost Russian engineers. It would be dishonest to ignore the material differences between the American and Russian approaches, and the differences between pre- and post-glasnost approaches, but it would also be inappropriate to evaluate any Russian approach from an American position or vice versa. Each approach is successful in its domain, demonstrating that the differences are subjective.

But mostly because, if they had done it, it would be the truth. And I despise deliberate ignorance and malicious revisionism.

Engineers tend to love truth, no matter how painful, because pretty illusions usually end up hurting them more.

In some flavors of the human condition, victory comes from establishing a perception regardless of whether facts matter. You make the sale, you win the election, or you get the girl/guy. It doesn't matter whether the product works or the price is right, whether you're the best candidate, or whether a romance is healthy; to the victor go the spoils. You can beat a traffic ticket even though you were speeding. You can survive another round on American Idol even if you can't sing a note. This is the largely nondeterministic, perceptual world defined by human behavior: real, yet unreal.

But where humanity confronts the physical world, perception is irrelevant and only the facts matter. There is an objective right and wrong. As I told a marketing major once, "The thing about engineering is that when you do it wrong, the universe dope-slaps you." (Actually I used a different word for dope that's not appropriate on this forum, but the sentiment is the same.) You cannot negotiate, campaign, or plead with the laws of the universe. You can only discover them.

So engineers typically don't care who found out or accomplished something; they're more interested in how, and whether it worked.

Gillianren
2007-Mar-29, 09:38 PM
(Actually I used a different word for dope that's not appropriate on this forum, but the sentiment is the same.)

Wow, Jay. You've totally shattered my perceptions of you.

Actually, while I don't really get the science much, I'm passionate about the history. Getting the history wrong, no matter whose history it is, is wrong.

Jason Thompson
2007-Mar-29, 10:03 PM
My experience is rife with attacks against Apollo from an anti-American standpoint before any nationalistic sentiment had been expressed in the defense (and indeed when none would ever come forth because the defenders are not American).

I'd just like to flag this up, because it bears repetition and elaboration. I have frequently encountered the accusation that I am defending Apollo out of nationalistic pride, and I take great pleasure in pointing out that I have no nationalistic pride invested in the project since I am not American. In early 2004 I went further and elaborated that the only space-related achievement that I was hoping to be able to feel nationalistic pride in is in all probability currently lying in pieces in the bottom of a Martian crater.

JonClarke
2007-Mar-29, 10:35 PM
And in many cases the faults we find in others leads to a genuine dislike.

Sometimes, but not always. It depends on how tolerant and forgiving we are of others, doesn't it?


Just exactly how do you define anti-Americanism? I've gave you a definition of anti-American several posts back, what is your definition?

Sorry, I missed your definition in the post blizzard. It's a good question though, because "anti-American" is easy to say but vague to define.

I would see it as the view that America is, and has been for most of the end half of 20th century, the evil Empire. In this view the US is the major culprit or at least the prime suspect, with respect to the cold war, the international arms traffic, economic oppression, the suppression of human rights, environmental distruction, the subversion of Islam etc.

It is not be confused to with disagreeing with or disliking particular policies past or present, aspects of culture past or present, or cultural traits, past or present.


All Iíve said is that I think anti-Americanism may be a contributing factor in some cases and that it shouldnít be categorically dismissed.

I agree. But the people I know who are anti-American by my definition have far bigger issues to think about that Apollo. To such people, Apollo is at most a bread and circuses stunt.


I donít deny that Iím proud it was American to achieve this, but I honestly donít think nationalistic pride is the reason I defend Apollo. I think I defend it more because it is anti-engineer (of which I am one). It irritates me to see and hear people denigrate one of the greatest engineering and scientific feats mankind has ever achieved, and I am appalled by the ignorance HBs spread. I can tell you honestly that I get far angrier with HBs when they start trivializing the engineering aspects of Apollo than I do by any anti-American venom they might spew. The anti-American stuff I find to be only a minor annoyance, and then mainly because it is an irrelevant distraction.

That's good.


I can only speak for myself Ö I think I would likely not be as active defending the moon landings had it been the Russians, but not for the reason you probably think. I grew up during the Apollo days and was very interested in and excited by what was happening. The impression project Apollo left on me as a young boy lead to a lifelong interest in Apollo and space exploration in general. It is that passion for the subject that has drawn me toward the Apollo hoax and motivated me to defend it. Had the Russians won the moon race it is likely my adulthood interest in the subject might not be as strong and I probably would not have been as strongly drawn to debunking the hoax theories. It wouldnít be because of nationalism per se, but due to a shifting of interests. However, had I grown up with the same passion for the subject as I do today, I think I would defend the Russian accomplishment just as much as I do the American one.

Good! So would I.

Jon

JonClarke
2007-Mar-29, 10:38 PM
That's also pretty much after the Apollo program wound down (last landing 1972). The anti-war movement was "taking hold" throughout Apollo, and the Viet-nam war ended in the mid 1970s.

So perhaps for some, there wasn't anything to rally against. Maybe attacking the Apollo record filled the void?

CJSF

Unlikely. The sort of people who opposed the war had bigger issues to worry about than Apollo. They generally moved on to issues like nuclear disarmament, the environment. Kaysing is an exception.

Jon

JonClarke
2007-Mar-29, 10:40 PM
If the Russians were as free with information about their lunar program as we were with ours, I would have no problem defending it against HBs.

Whether or not they were as free with information, their achievements are just as worthy as defending as Apollo. Otherwise this becomes a conditional defence of the historical record.

Jon

JayUtah
2007-Mar-29, 10:41 PM
Wow, Jay. You've totally shattered my perceptions of you.

The white wig obviously wasn't working; I had to do something.

Getting the history wrong, no matter whose history it is, is wrong.

True. There are two components to history: occurrence and meaning. If our proposition is that the Japanese navy attacked Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, that proposition is either factually true or factually false. But the implications of that event have various interpretations, not all of which are strictly factual.

JonClarke
2007-Mar-29, 10:49 PM
Again we come back to this assumption. Most anti government in general. But this does not automatically equate with anti-Americanism.

This is not an assumption. I've seen quite a few HBs who have gone on and on about how Americans are stupid and violent and are responsible for all the evils in the world and have bad breath to boot. I've also seen homegrown HBs who do not simply bash the government but also bash America in general.

Jon, I did not say, nor do I believe, that bashing the U.S. government "automatically equates" with anti-Americanism; that's an assumption on your part. I've bashed my government too - well, specific parts of and individuals inside it. (Unlike HBs, I understand that "the government" is made up of a great number of agencies and offices and individuals, with many agendas and subagendas, and is not some sort of inscrutable and indivisible monolith.)

So let's have some numbers. How many Apollo HBers here have made statements that are clearly anti-American rather than anti US government?

Can't help you there. I'm just pointing out that "quite a few" HBs are both. Not all; quite possibly not even most; but quite a few.

And yet despite there being "quite a few" nobody here has supplied an example of a single one. To me that suggests the number is actually very small, but has been inflated by people's hypersensitivity to "anti-Americanism"

Jon

Grand_Lunar
2007-Mar-29, 11:04 PM
I followed his youtube profile and found out he is a Bond nut, and yes; he was there at the same time I was.
I am of the opinion that Jarrah would sully the Noble Art Of Lego!
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=JarrahWhite


He also seems to be anti-Mercury, judging by a picture for one of his videos.

I actually feel sorry for the guy. What makes someone act like this?

Grand_Lunar
2007-Mar-29, 11:06 PM
Not really. IIRC what it was was a circular orbit keeping the CM entirely above the polar circle, which is completely impossible for an unpowered orbit (and nothing that has ever been built has the ability to maintain that sort of orbit for more than a matter of minutes).

I remember that.

Funniest thing I saw.
To me, it clearly showed that he lacks any relevent knowledge about space exploration.

JonClarke
2007-Mar-29, 11:31 PM
It looks like you're trying to whittle down the definition of anti-American so that nothing substantial remains. The discarded shavings are not irrelevant, nor does my experience suggest that conspiracy theorists to whom I and others apply that label respect your distinctions.

Not at all. I am trying to use a definition that actually works without lumping everyone who ever disagreed with or dislikeled some aspect of US government, policy, culture, or poked fun at some characteristic as anti-American. That is simply being thin skinned. As to whether conspiracy theorists respect or even under stand the distinction, why should I let their defintions control mine>



If you personally are able to divorce your value judgments defensibly from your behavior, then you deserve credit.

I hope you are not lumping me in with anti-Americans, HBers, and conspracy theorists here.



However the conspiracy theorists I have encountered are not able to do that. Many quite demonstrably take the approach that defense of Apollo is motivated only by willing association with the U.S. government and its supposed evils.

I agree. But this does not make them anti-American. Eespecially as most come from the US. Nor does a belief that the US government has done some wrong and even outright evil things comprise anti-Americanism.


Whether the charge is being thrown around freely depends on whom you mean when you say "how many people defend Apollo." Are you talking about the world at large? Or do you mean we at BAUT and similar places?

Here of course


There may indeed be people who defend Apollo out of nationalistic fervor, and there may be people who thus attack it simply to refute the nationalism. But that's irrelevant in my opinion. It puts the cart before the horse. My experience is rife with attacks against Apollo from an anti-American standpoint before any nationalistic sentiment had been expressed in the defense (and indeed when none would ever come forth because the defenders are not American).

"Rife", yet you are not able to supply numbers.


I have also heard conspiracy theorists express exactly your argument: that defending Apollo is a knee-jerk nationalistic reaction -- and this after we have laid out a meticulously factual and scientific objection to some hoax theory. Most often the anti-American arguments come after the conspiracist is cornered on the facts and wants to escape by punting to motive.


I have seen absolutely no evidence to support the contention that anti-American sentiment in conspiracism is a response to pro-American or nationalistic fervor from defenders, and indeed considerable evidence to the contrary. Conspiracists quite frequently (and wrongly) assume that nationalism is our motive. It happens so often that I have come to refer to it as their pre-scripted debate.

And when people accuse them of anti-Americanism they give credence to such a stance. That is my point all along, that it is not a useful thing to say.


Not a hypothetical question: Hoax believers do attack Soviet accomplishments occasionally, and I do defend the Soviet space program where the facts support the defense.

That is as it should be.

Jon

JayUtah
2007-Mar-29, 11:31 PM
And yet despite there being "quite a few" nobody here has supplied an example of a single one.

How do you propose that be done exactly? I've engaged conspiracy theorists nearly daily for more than seven years. Do you really expect me to be able immediately to find you specific examples of some particular style of argumentation? Do you keep detailed records of every conversation you've ever had with conspiracists in every venue, what arguments they use, and how you and others responded to them?

To me that suggests the number is actually very small, but has been inflated by people's hypersensitivity to "anti-Americanism"

And I think you're trying to write off our observations as mere hypersensitivity.

If no one can provide you with specific numbers, you have no basis to conclude that the number is small.

Further, a number of people of various nationalities have reported that in their experience anti-Americanism recurs in various flavors in Apollo hoax arguments, often unsolicited and often unwarranted. Do you plan to incorporate that information into your hypersensitivity theory?

Bob B.
2007-Mar-29, 11:31 PM
And yet despite there being "quite a few" nobody here has supplied an example of a single one. To me that suggests the number is actually very small, but has been inflated by people's hypersensitivity to "anti-Americanism"
Speaking for myself, I don't commit these occurances to memory. I may remember an incident but not exactly what was said or who said it. Quite frankly, I don't consider the opinions of HBs or their user names worth remembering. Furthermore, I don't participate much in the Conspiracy section of this forum -- I'm more active at ApolloHoax.

Hostility toward the US government and its policies is very common; almost all HBs exhibit this tendency. By some definitions this is considered anti-American, but not by your definition. I have definitely seen examples of HBs speaking negatively about American people, but I can't recall the specific names. The later aren't as common as the anti-government types but they certainly exist. The comments I recall usually consist of stuff like how Americans are all stupid and will believe anything our government tells us, how we think we're the best in the world at everything, yada, yada, yada. Stereotyping Americans that way I consider anti-American even if you don't.

JayUtah
2007-Mar-29, 11:55 PM
As to whether conspiracy theorists respect or even under stand the distinction, why should I let their defintions control mine?

Why is your definition relevant?

I hope you are not lumping me in with anti-Americans, HBers, and conspracy theorists here.

Your statements are simply what they are. I don't need to categorize them in order to address them.

I agree. But this does not make them anti-American. Especially as most come from the US.

At least one dictionary disagrees. You have drawn a distinctive definition that simply defines your argument to be true. You seem to ignore the practical aspects of the discussion.

Nor does a belief that the US government has done some wrong and even outright evil things comprise anti-Americanism.

I don't strictly agree. If one considers only the bad things about something, one is biased. And a biased judgment is indeed inappropriately anti-. There is a difference between saying someone has done evil things and saying someone is evil. The latter is a more typical conspiracist argument.

Here of course

Are you seriously proposing that a significant motivation for us at BAUT to defend Apollo is nationalism? If so I suggest you're way out of touch with reality.

"Rife", yet you are not able to supply numbers.

Irrelevant. I am qualified to characterize my own experience. Further, you have a parade of diverse people all in substantial agreement on the prevalence of nationalist arguments and none rising to defend your demographic guesswork. Please consider that carefully.

Van Rijn
2007-Mar-30, 12:09 AM
Hostility toward the US government and its policies is very common; almost all HBs exhibit this tendency. By some definitions this is considered anti-American, but not by your definition. I have definitely seen examples of HBs speaking negatively about American people, but I can't recall the specific names. The later aren't as common as the anti-government types but they certainly exist. The comments I recall usually consist of stuff like how Americans are all stupid and will believe anything our government tells us, how we think we're the best in the world at everything, yada, yada, yada. Stereotyping Americans that way I consider anti-American even if you don't.

Yes, that is exactly the type of situation I was thinking of. I have seen HBers make references to the evil (or words to that effect) American government. Then there are statements to the effect that anyone arguing for the moon landing either is an agent employed by the American government or a stupid/clueless American. Then they might throw in their belief in other American CTs: JFK, 9/11, and so on.

I usually avoid using the term "Anti-American," but this kind of focus on America specifically is, to me, anti-American.

Van Rijn
2007-Mar-30, 12:40 AM
Not at all. I am trying to use a definition that actually works without lumping everyone who ever disagreed with or dislikeled some aspect of US government, policy, culture, or poked fun at some characteristic as anti-American. That is simply being thin skinned.


Well, sure, that would be thin-skinned. Then again, nobody here is arguing for a position that just any complaint or joke is enough to label someone anti-American. The same would be true for any other national, racial/cultural or other grouping. But obviously, there is a point where there are too many jokes, too many complaints. Also, people in the group are going to be more likely to notice when someone focuses their ire on that group.

Occam
2007-Mar-30, 12:53 AM
You see, this is the problem with irrational prejudice.
I find it much simpler to despise everyone equally and be done with it.

DogsHead
2007-Mar-30, 01:16 AM
And yet despite there being "quite a few" nobody here has supplied an example of a single one.

The only one I can think of off the top of my head, who seemed to be rabidly anti-NASA because of a mistrust of the US gubmint was the ever youtubing DAvid C. I engaged him for quite some time on his odd insistence (he's Spanish for those who don't recall) that there was no equivalent space research sources in sunny Espanola, that he could separate NASA from the US administration in this way - by confirming independent Spanish sources gathered their own data from the Apollo missions.
Ooh, I just remembered another - he was Poundland over on WOTS and he posted here briefly under a couple of IDs (IIRC). Extremely anti US Scottish guy. Oh, and Heavenly Body over at Apollohoax.

Van Rijn
2007-Mar-30, 01:26 AM
I find it much simpler to despise everyone equally and be done with it.

Aha! An anti-humanist! ;)

AtomicDog
2007-Mar-30, 01:58 AM
Whether or not they were as free with information, their achievements are just as worthy as defending as Apollo. Otherwise this becomes a conditional defence of the historical record.

Jon

By "free with their information", I meant knowing what they did. The Soviet space program was so secretive, I didn't know what a Vostok looked like until well into the seventies. It's kind of hard to defend a program when the most mundane aspects of it is a state secret. Remember, after Apollo 11 the Soviet's official line was that they weren't even trying to land a man on the moon.

How do you defend something that they themselves won't even defend?

PhantomWolf
2007-Mar-30, 03:16 AM
People who let their sheep wear lipstick shouldn't throw stones ;)

That's a mean thing to say about Tasmainians

JonClarke
2007-Mar-30, 08:52 AM
And yet despite there being "quite a few" nobody here has supplied an example of a single one.

How do you propose that be done exactly? I've engaged conspiracy theorists nearly daily for more than seven years. Do you really expect me to be able immediately to find you specific examples of some particular style of argumentation? Do you keep detailed records of every conversation you've ever had with conspiracists in every venue, what arguments they use, and how you and others responded to them?

You expect other people to supply facts when you ask them to back up a particular point.

In this particular case we have an archive on this board. So has Clavius. If your assertion is true, should should be able to quickly find quite a few examples


To me that suggests the number is actually very small, but has been inflated by people's hypersensitivity to "anti-Americanism"

And I think you're trying to write off our observations as mere hypersensitivity.

I raise it as apossibility. Given the negativity my posts have generated it would seem to be still a definoitely possibility for some.


If no one can provide you with specific numbers, you have no basis to conclude that the number is small.

Without numbers you have no basis to say it is large. If it were a large number people could eadily find examples of this attitude. The fact that they can't, or don't, does suggest that either they are unwilling to actually look or that there are so few they are hard to find.


Further, a number of people of various nationalities have reported that in their experience anti-Americanism recurs in various flavors in Apollo hoax arguments, often unsolicited and often unwarranted. Do you plan to incorporate that information into your hypersensitivity theory?

Again, numbers would help quantify this conclusion.

Jon

JonClarke
2007-Mar-30, 08:58 AM
Speaking for myself, I don't commit these occurances to memory. I may remember an incident but not exactly what was said or who said it. Quite frankly, I don't consider the opinions of HBs or their user names worth remembering. Furthermore, I don't participate much in the Conspiracy section of this forum -- I'm more active at ApolloHoax.

Neither do I, on both counts. I have better things to do with my limited grey matter for the first, and generally just lurk and learm for the second.

Hostility toward the US government and its policies is very common; almost all HBs exhibit this tendency. By some definitions this is considered anti-American, but not by your definition. I have definitely seen examples of HBs speaking negatively about American people, but I can't recall the specific names. The later aren't as common as the anti-government types but they certainly exist. The comments I recall usually consist of stuff like how Americans are all stupid and will believe anything our government tells us, how we think we're the best in the world at everything, yada, yada, yada. Stereotyping Americans that way I consider anti-American even if you don't.[/QUOTE]

Hositility towards the US government and its polcies is indeed common. But this does not equate to anti-Americanism. Some HBers are doubtless hostile to Americans in general. This is very regretable, but what is there number. How significant in this attitude to them adopting a disbelief in Apollo? That is what I am trying to find out.

Jon

Svector
2007-Mar-30, 09:16 AM
Had it been the Russians that had reached the Moon how many people would be defending it against the HBers?

I don't know, but can we assume you would still hold firm to the notion that the percentage of British HB's would remain unchanged?

JonClarke
2007-Mar-30, 09:33 AM
As to whether conspiracy theorists respect or even under stand the distinction, why should I let their defintions control mine?

Why is your definition relevant?

If by definition is not relevant that is for you to demonstrate.


[
b]I agree. But this does not make them anti-American. Especially as most come from the US.[/b]

At least one dictionary disagrees. You have drawn a distinctive definition that simply defines your argument to be true. You seem to ignore the practical aspects of the discussion.

Which dictionary?

My definition is simply a working one. My position is based on that. Ifit is correct othen I will change it. But if you are going to argue the point, please do so with evidence.


Nor does a belief that the US government has done some wrong and even outright evil things comprise anti-Americanism.

I don't strictly agree. If one considers only the bad things about something, one is biased. And a biased judgment is indeed inappropriately anti-. There is a difference between saying someone has done evil things and saying someone is evil. The latter is a more typical conspiracist argument.

In this case I would agree. This is what I was trying to convey on my definition.

[/QUOTE]Here of course

Are you seriously proposing that a significant motivation for us at BAUT to defend Apollo is nationalism? If so I suggest you're way out of touch with reality.[/QUOTE]

I hope that is not the case. But it is a legitimate caution to remind people of the dangers of dismissing Apollo HBers as being motivated by "anti-Americanism". the issue is too complex for that.


[/QUOTE]"Rife", yet you are not able to supply numbers.

Irrelevant. I am qualified to characterize my own experience. Further, you have a parade of diverse people all in substantial agreement on the prevalence of nationalist arguments and none rising to defend your demographic guesswork. Please consider that carefully.[/QUOTE]

Eentirely relevant. Despite your experience and the others you agree with you only one specific example has been provided of an Apollo HB on this board who has apparently been motivated by anti-Americanism.

Jon

Svector
2007-Mar-30, 09:35 AM
I remember that.


Originally Posted by Grashtel View Post
Not really. IIRC what it was was a circular orbit keeping the CM entirely above the polar circle, which is completely impossible for an unpowered orbit (and nothing that has ever been built has the ability to maintain that sort of orbit for more than a matter of minutes).

Funniest thing I saw.
To me, it clearly showed that he lacks any relevent knowledge about space exploration.

Given the HB's extreme disdain for actual research, I think it's likely Jarrah just read the term "polar orbit" somewhere and assumed that's what it meant.

Gillianren
2007-Mar-30, 09:40 AM
I've been loath to name names simply because it seems inappropriate to do so. However, I am specifically thinking of two of the best-known HBs to appear during my stay on this board, one of whom I think can still post here but doesn't, though he's still active at Apollohoax, and one of whom is banned from both places. And, of course, the aforementioned David C. and Heavenly Body. All four have specifically stated dislike of, well, America. Primarily the government, but also the people.

Svector
2007-Mar-30, 09:46 AM
But this does not make them anti-American. Eespecially as most come from the US.


I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that "most come from the US".

Given the earth's population of almost 7 billion vs 300 million for the U.S., combined with the fact that a few countries actually take the official position that Apollo didn't happen, how can you assume that "most" HB's come from the U.S.? Even if only 5% of the world disbelieved Apollo, that would amount to a number greater than the entire U.S. population.

Is that seriously what you're proposing, or did I misunderstand?

Jason Thompson
2007-Mar-30, 09:50 AM
You expect other people to supply facts when you ask them to back up a particular point.

In this particular case we have an archive on this board. So has Clavius. If your assertion is true, should should be able to quickly find quite a few examples

That assumes:

a) that we remember exactly who said what

b) that we remember what thread it was on

c) that we remember roughly when it happened.

d) that we remember which forum it occurred on.

In five years of debating this stuff online I have come across lots of comments that I can recall being made, but not by whom or when or even on what forum. Without that information I can't quickly search the archive to provide the evidence.

One example I can recall is a chap called Plautus over on the old Yahoo Apollo-hoax group. I can't direct you to that because that whole forum was lost in a huge cockup and all Plautus's posts have gone. I can't supply the facts to back up my statement.

But this is in many ways a different argument from others in which facts are demanded. This is a question of personal experience. If I tell you I've been to Canada and spoke to an anti-American hoax believer, what facts do you expect me to be able to produce to verify that? On what basis do you assume I could be making it up such that I even need to produce documentary evidence? Over on Apollohoax I have said on more than one occasion that I have witnessed a Harrier flying backwards and sideways. How do I prove that to someone who's never seen a harrier fly?

When facts are demanded to back up arguments they are usually argument such as 'NASA claimed six feet of lead was needed to shield a spacecraft going to the Moon' or 'the Saturn V could not do what it was supposed to do' or 'the radiation environment in space is lethal'. Facts are available, and it is reasonable to assume that someone making those claims can tell us where he heard them or how he's come to those conclusions.


If it were a large number people could eadily find examples of this attitude. The fact that they can't, or don't, does suggest that either they are unwilling to actually look or that there are so few they are hard to find.

How many posts and threads are in this forum alone? How many are on other topics? How many are really irrelevant tangents and witty comments? How many mebers does this forum have? I am active on three forums that discuss the Apollo hoax theories. A large number of examples can still be hard to find if they are buried in an absolutely vast number of posts. How many needles must be in a haystack before you can find one within a few minutes of searching?

Laguna
2007-Mar-30, 09:58 AM
The problem finding the correct post is, that the search engine only points you to the thread it might be in. Not to a specific post.
As Moon Hoax Threads are often very long, and given that you have no idea where to look for, it would take days to find what you are searching.

Bob B.
2007-Mar-30, 12:27 PM
Which dictionary?

My definition is simply a working one. My position is based on that. Ifit is correct othen I will change it. But if you are going to argue the point, please do so with evidence.

I think Jay may be referring to the definition I posted back in reply #85, which was:

anti-American (ŗnītÍ-e-mŤrīÓ-ken, ŗnītž-) adjective
Opposed or hostile to the government, official policies, or people of the United States.
- anīti-Amerīicanism noun

Excerpted from The American Heritageģ Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
_

gwiz
2007-Mar-30, 12:41 PM
I didn't know what a Vostok looked like until well into the seventies.
It was revealed at the Paris Air Show in June 1965, possibly also earlier in a Moscow museum.

Bob B.
2007-Mar-30, 12:47 PM
How many posts and threads are in this forum alone? How many are on other topics? How many are really irrelevant tangents and witty comments? How many mebers does this forum have? I am active on three forums that discuss the Apollo hoax theories. A large number of examples can still be hard to find if they are buried in an absolutely vast number of posts. How many needles must be in a haystack before you can find one within a few minutes of searching?
Also don't forget the entire ApolloHoax Forum crashed a couple years ago and years worth and thousands of posts were lost. Even if we could remember specific examples from back then, we couldn't referrence them if we wanted to because the data base no longer exists.

Bob B.
2007-Mar-30, 01:26 PM
I hope that is not the case. But it is a legitimate caution to remind people of the dangers of dismissing Apollo HBers as being motivated by "anti-Americanism". the issue is too complex for that.

I can recall no example on any of the forums in which Iím active where someone has dismissed an Apollo HB for being ďanti-AmericanĒ.* Jay, I, and all the other regulars I can think of do a very good job of sticking to the facts and addressing only the points that are specifically relevant to the Apollo hoax. I try to go out of my way to avoid all of the anti-American stuff unless it is simply to correct a provably false statement.

* Iíve dismissed some HBs after a time for being irrational, and itís certainly possible a personís irrationality may be due to a fervent hatred of the USA, but anti-Americanism is not directly the reason for the dismissal.

AtomicDog
2007-Mar-30, 02:05 PM
It was revealed at the Paris Air Show in June 1965, possibly also earlier in a Moscow museum.

Okay, count that as to me not knowing where to look, being ten years old at the time. :)

Jim
2007-Mar-30, 02:13 PM
The problem finding the correct post is, that the search engine only points you to the thread it might be in. Not to a specific post.

[digression]The Advanced Search feature allows you to specify showing either the threads or the posts that contain your search terms.[/digression... return to normal programming]

sts60
2007-Mar-30, 03:15 PM
And yet despite there being "quite a few" nobody here has supplied an example of a single one.

We hadn't gotten around to talking about specific examples. You were asking about numbers.

To me that suggests the number is actually very small, but has been inflated by people's hypersensitivity to "anti-Americanism"

Whose hypersentivity? If you are concerned with examples, feel free to provide specific examples of those of us who are hypersensitive to "anti-Americanism". I, for one, have no problem with any legitimate criticism; I don't think my nation is perfect, nor that every other nation should necessarily agree with us. For instance, I thought that whole bit about bashing the French for refusing to go along with the Iraq invasion was sheer jingoistic foolishness.

And I think you're trying to write off our observations as mere hypersensitivity.
I raise it as apossibility. Given the negativity my posts have generated it would seem to be still a definoitely possibility for some.

I haven't seen much negativity. Some people are disagreeing with you on some points, that's all. Maybe you're being hypersensitive.

Anyway, since you asked for examples - here are HBs from apollohoax who I consider anti-American:
heavenlybody (mildly - actually may be a sock puppet of lunatic)
davidc/rocky
greigdempsey
MoonMan (actually specialized in ranting about Canada beating U.S. back to the Moon, etc.)
orumdude

And here are some I don't consider especially anti-American in general:
turbonium
star/lordoftherings/lionking
20469
margamatix/spongebob
lunatic

Feel free to search the apollohoax forums for posts by these users to see what I mean.

Although there are 5 in each list, that's not meant to represent the actual percentage. I said "quite a few", and that's as far as I care to quantify it. In any case, a precise number depends on the precise meaning of the term, but the line between anti-gov't. and anti-U.S. is too fuzzy for such precision.

Dave J
2007-Mar-30, 03:32 PM
Jarrah, over at the 9/11 forum (before I got booted) was going on about how the spacecraft could be "hidden" in LEO. After explaining to him the visibility of the ISS, the speed of crossing the sky for LEO objects and such, he came up with the idea of simply increasing your orbital speed to around 25000 mph, to decrease your "exposure" time to curious skywatchers...
Which is pretty much what they did, with the (unfortunate for Jarrah) side effect of this taking them to an apoapsis of around 230,000 miles.
Oops, better put that one in the "polar orbit" file...

Jim
2007-Mar-30, 03:48 PM
But, you must admit, at 25,000mph no one would spot you in LEO.

Laguna
2007-Mar-30, 04:05 PM
Jarrah, over at the 9/11 forum (before I got booted) was going on about how the spacecraft could be "hidden" in LEO. After explaining to him the visibility of the ISS, the speed of crossing the sky for LEO objects and such, he came up with the idea of simply increasing your orbital speed to around 25000 mph, to decrease your "exposure" time to curious skywatchers...
With a rope long enough and strong enough, on one side attached to the CSM and on the other side to a pole rammed into earth... :dance:

JayUtah
2007-Mar-30, 05:45 PM
You expect other people to supply facts when you ask them to back up a particular point.

I do indeed expect people to back up their claims with appropriate evidence. However, the degree and kind of evidence to expect has to bow to practical concerns. I don't expect people to remember or locate every discussion they've ever had for the past seven years. If one person summarizes his experience a certain way, and other unrelated people who have had similar experiences give substantially similar summaries and explicitly agree with the first, I consider that sufficient evidence to make the summary credible.

You have pressed people incessantly for numbers without justifying how you expect them to be able to provide it. You cannot expect people to provide what is beyond their control to provide.

In this particular case we have an archive on this board. So has Clavius. If your assertion is true, should should be able to quickly find quite a few examples

Straw man. If my experience were limited to the present incarnations of Bad Astronomy and ApolloHoax, your expectation would make sense. But since Bad Astronomy is on its second incarnation and ApolloHoax is on its third, it doesn't. My experience comprises those boards, plus the previous Yahoo group (now inaccessible, on which the infamous Plautus Satire posted), the IMDB forums (unsearchable), personal e-mail (private), and miscellaneous other non-indexed, non-archived, inacessible sources.

The most egregious example in recent memory occurred on the Capricorn One forum at IMDB where a poster from one of the Scandinavian countries went rabidly anti-American from the get-go. Not only was it his principal argument, it was his only argument, often expressed simply as cut-and-pasted copies of his previous rants. The thread has now been deleted.

Archives allow only keyword searches. They don't allow you to search for lines of reasoning or specific tactics. It's not as if every conspiracist I accuse of being anti-American has used special keywords that let me pull up his posts in an instant. ApolloHoax's search is notoriously broken; good luck.

And I think you're trying to write off our observations as mere hypersensitivity.
I raise it as apossibility.

It's the only possibility you've suggested, and the only one you seem to be interested in considering or testing. Further, you warn everyone to remain fair without any evidence that we haven't been; that self-appointed guardianship seems based on little more than your suspicion that hypersensitivity to anti-Americanism is a significant motivator in our response to conspiracists.

Given the negativity my posts have generated it would seem to be still a definoitely possibility for some.

You have received considerable attention and disagreement, but where's the negativity?

If there is anything here for which we universally have a low tolerance, it is a poor argument. Have you considered that you are attracting attention because your argument is poor?

Without numbers you have no basis to say it is large.

Hogwash. I am perfectly qualified to characterize my own experiences because I had them. You are not qualified to characterize my experiences; you didn't have them.

Earlier you said you hoped we weren't lumping you into the hoax-believer category or anti-American category, as if you expected the benefit of the doubt. From that position of lenience you are making veiled accusations of bias. And on the other hand you refuse to grant us the same benefit of the doubt, demanding that we provide a statistical basis for a characterization that everyone but you seems to agree is credible.

If it were a large number people could eadily find examples of this attitude.

Still a straw man. That presumes the examples are available, searchable, and presentable, and that the distribution of conspiracists remains the same across them. Anti-American rants are off-topic here, so posters who make them don't last long. They are not off-topic, for example, on Apollo Hoax, but that forum in its present form is quite young. You have, nevertheless, been given examples of posters from there that I agree exhibit anti-American sentiment.

Hositility towards the US government and its polcies is indeed common. But this does not equate to anti-Americanism.

Of course it does. There is no requirement that anti-American sentiment be unjustified or based on falsehood.

The problem is not that anti-American sentiment exists, but rather that conspiracists use it illogically to argue that Apollo is false, i.e., the government that did all those dishonest and horrible things says it landed on the moon; how can you believe that?

How significant in this attitude to them adopting a disbelief in Apollo? That is what I am trying to find out.

You seem to be asking for statistical controls on anecodotal data. Among the Apollo hoax conversations I can recall in which nationalism was a topic, I can't recall a single one in which the conspiracist wasn't the one who brought it up. Whether anti-American belief motivates them to believe Apollo was hoaxed, or whether a hoax belief merely bolsters their anti-Americanism, or whether it's pure coincidence is something I can't answer.

If [my] definition is not relevant that is for you to demonstrate.

Hogwash. If you propose it, you're the one responsible for showing that it's correct, complete, and applicable. I have already given my argument anyway: those who apply the term and those to whom it has been applied don't seem to define it as you do.

Which dictionary?

The one Bob posted. You don't have to take that definition as gospel. But since the American Heritage dictionary is a popular U.S. dictionary, and since any dictionary attempts to reflect accurately the ways in which words are actually used, I'm inclined to accept it as a better reflection of what people on both sides of the debate genuinely understand by it than one you've invented for yourself here in this debate, and which seems to elude precision.

Are you seriously proposing that a significant motivation for us at BAUT to defend Apollo is nationalism? If so I suggest you're way out of touch with reality.
I hope that is not the case.

I find that evasive. I and others here have labored at great effort to establish reputations of honesty and impartiality that are valuable in our participation here, and to require that behavior from those with whom we debate. I'm going to invoke board protocol and ask you directly either to substantiate your claim for that motivation or to withdraw it explicitly. Call it hypersensitivity if you wish, but I require my impartiality to be questioned on something more substantial than insinuation.

But it is a legitimate caution to remind people of the dangers of dismissing Apollo HBers as being motivated by "anti-Americanism".

I never dismiss anyone for any motivation, stated or implied. My standard response when someone plays the nationalism card is to point out how irrelevant it is and steer the discussion back to more objective and productive territory. I don't care if someone disbelieves Apollo because he hates America, as long as he owns up to that being the real reason instead of flailing his arms wildly at anomalous photographs. Since you seem unable to find any examples of anti-American sentiment, I wonder how you're able to determine that anyone is being inappropriately dismissed because of it. Who is really being hypersensitive here?

...the issue is too complex for that.

I submit I have the complexity of that issue well in hand. When you can show that I don't, then I'll heed your warning.

Entirely relevant. Despite your experience and the others you agree with you only one specific example has been provided of an Apollo HB on this board who has apparently been motivated by anti-Americanism.

Irrelevant; our experience is not limited to this board.

Fazor
2007-Mar-30, 06:58 PM
Well, I got one example; notice that the number of CT threads have gone down since 9-11 CT's were barred as a topic here? Why do you think people were posting these CT's on this astronomy board? There's an undeniable connection there.

Fazor
2007-Mar-30, 07:09 PM
Follow up: After posting that I thought about it and felt I should explain further: what I meant was that many of our posters who are so adament about the supposed Apollo Hoax were also extreemely interested in propigating the "Evil Government 9/11" theories. They're locked but they are still available to view, you can go take a count of 9/11CT believers and match the names up with Apollo Hoax believers if you'd like to get some percentages.

Fazor
2007-Mar-30, 07:17 PM
Jeeze, bad day for Fazor. I apologize again for the machine-gun posting but my brain is all over the place today.
Without numbers you have no basis to say it is large.
Even among HB circles Jay is known as an expert on the technical aspects of the Apollo missions, and the ongoing Hoax debate. Since when is the experience/testimony of an expert no basis for a statement? It'd be nice if that were true; should I ever end up in court I could simply say, "Your honor, the testimony of that Forensic Specialist is no basis for consideration! Please dismiss!"

But as the conversation went, I seem to recall Jay saying that NOT a large percent were anti-american (just that some were). He did say, when asked by myself, that a large percent were anti-authority, but we defined that differently.

---okay i'm done for now, I promise

Gillianren
2007-Mar-30, 08:01 PM
Well, I wasn't going to name names, but since other people are . . . .


And here are some I don't consider especially anti-American in general:
turbonium
star/lordoftherings/lionking
20469
margamatix/spongebob
lunatic

I disagree with you about two of those, most particularly turbonium, who's one of the ones I was particulary thinking of. If you read his JFK tirades, you may start to see why.

SpitfireIX
2007-Mar-30, 11:06 PM
I disagree . . . most particularly [about] turbonium, who's one of the ones I was particulary thinking of.

I'll second that. I thought the same thing when I read sts60's post.

If you read his JFK tirades, you may start to see why.

It's even more obvious in his rants (http://www.bautforum.com/search.php?searchid=377382) about the Northwoods memo.

Also, it appears that turbonium is an American--he has recently referred to the US government as "our government" in a response to a post of mine on AH.

sts60
2007-Mar-31, 03:06 AM
Could be. I've never really paid attention to those threads.

SpitfireIX
2007-Apr-10, 01:13 PM
Jarrah added a new video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3Xc27-y2ms) last week that purports to "prove" that Svector edited out the edits. I had a little trouble following his argument (diatribe), but he seems to be claiming that there are two spots where seamless edits could have occurred. BTW, Phil, Jay, and Svector, I thought you ought to know, you are all liars--at least according to Jarrah. :liar::liar:

I find one of his captions very telling: "Yet no matter how many times I repeat myself the message does not sink in." :rolleyes: :wall: :boohoo:

JayUtah
2007-Apr-10, 01:45 PM
...two spots where seamless edits could have occurred.

The traditional way to show that something has been edited is to present the original source material with the allegedly removed section intact. His approach seems to be a little like pointing to a random square of sidewalk and saying, "Here's where a murder might have occurred, if there were any body or blood or anything."

BTW, Phil, Jay, and Svector, I thought you ought to know, you are all liars--at least according to Jarrah. :liar::liar:

That's old news. Apparently I'm supposed to own up to having sent the Yahoo black helicopters, or whatever, to destroy his computer when he was banned for his foul mouth. If you've spent any time talking to him, you can imagine why he doesn't need any help to destroy a computer.

AstroSmurf
2007-Apr-10, 02:35 PM
It would be interesting to know if the original video footage has enough information in the dark areas that brightening the picture up would give you a continuous view of the spacecraft interior. But I agree with Jay's view on the might-have-beens.

// AstroSmurf, who could have run over someone this morning... if he'd been driving.

Svector
2007-Apr-10, 04:01 PM
It would be interesting to know if the original video footage has enough information in the dark areas that brightening the picture up would give you a continuous view of the spacecraft interior.

There is a section between window transfers where it's very dark, but enough minor interior details such as reflections or interior lighting can be seen to prove it's a continuous shot.

JW was accusing me of placing an edit (or edits) somewhere within that segment, so I thought a good method of exposing these "mystery edits", would be to run my segment side by side with the raw footage he uploaded, and admitted was edit-free. Here's the result:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih51BSly8JY

peter eldergill
2007-Apr-10, 04:03 PM
Just out of curiosity, why does anyone care what Jarrah White's opinion is or what he has to say (besides the entertainment factor of course)

Pete

Svector
2007-Apr-10, 04:09 PM
Just out of curiosity, why does anyone care what Jarrah White's opinion is or what he has to say (besides the entertainment factor of course)

In my case he accused me of being a "bald-faced liar" in a public forum. I felt I needed to defend myself against that accusation.

I believe I've proven my point, so I can now focus on more worthy pursuits. Like putting Bart Sibrel's feet to the fire. :lol:

Jim
2007-Apr-10, 04:58 PM
Just out of curiosity, why does anyone care what Jarrah White's opinion is or what he has to say (besides the entertainment factor of course)

Pete

Well, Svector certainly has his reputation to maintain. As for the rest of us, we may not put any stock in Jarrah's claims, but there are folks who don't know any better. If they listen to him rant and hear no dissent raised, they just might think he's right.

astrophotographer
2007-Apr-10, 05:03 PM
Excellent work as always Svector. I am sure there will be a typical nonsense response but what would you expect. They (CTers) NEVER admit they could be wrong!

Svector
2007-Apr-10, 11:51 PM
Excellent work as always Svector. I am sure there will be a typical nonsense response but what would you expect. They (CTers) NEVER admit they could be wrong!

Thanks astro. Actually, Jarrah has been bleating lately about his upcoming, "Mother of All Apollo Hoax" videos, called Moonfaker Exhibit C, so we'll have to wait and see what he comes up with. No doubt it will be entertaining.

He actually had to reword a lot of his script and do some wholesale changes in the editing because of an admission I made some weeks ago that he didn't know about.

I slipped up and mentioned that the CM window had pressurized nitrogen between the outer pane and the middle pane. I meant to say it had nitrogen between the two inner panes. It seems this goof of mine was one of his giant revelations in MF C. When I broke the news that I had already admitted the mistake several weeks ago, he seemed like he wanted to cry. :cry:

JayUtah
2007-Apr-11, 12:12 AM
If there's a debunker that Jarrah White hasn't called a bald-faced liar, I'd like to meet him. And introduce him to Jarrah.

JayUtah
2007-Apr-11, 12:23 AM
It seems this goof of mine was one of his giant revelations in MF C.

Welcome to the wonderful world of Very Angry Conspiracists. Any error you make, no matter how miniscule or insignificant, becomes their banner headline. And years later you'll still hear about it. Every time you say you know what you're talking about, someone will say, "Don't forget about the nitrogen in the window fiasco."

Of course these nit-picky accusations come from people who can effortlessly make several dozen serious errors of fact and logic in a single post, and then propose to shrug them off two hours later. It's all part of that magical manipulation of the goalposts that requires the critic of a conspiracy theory to be infallible while its proponent deserves full credit if he gets just one thing right.

I earned my Bald-Faced Liar medal by asserting that the night sky in the desert was clear during our filming of the recent documentary, so that the stars were visible even though they didn't show up on photographs. Jarrah referred to the footage shot during the daylight (some 6 hours earlier) at the same location that showed some scattered clouds. Apparently in his universe weather can't change in six hours.

astrophotographer
2007-Apr-11, 01:37 AM
Welcome to the wonderful world of Very Angry Conspiracists. Any error you make, no matter how miniscule or insignificant, becomes their banner headline. And years later you'll still hear about it. Every time you say you know what you're talking about, someone will say, "Don't forget about the nitrogen in the window fiasco."


That goes for just about any discussion group associated with this kind of thing. It is a way used by the VAC's (Very angry conspiracists) to denegrate the source. If the individual arguing against the VAC has EVER made a mistake in a previous posting (no matter how small), it will be brought out as a weapon to demonstrate that the poster can not be trusted to tell the truth. Of course, the VAC never admits they are wrong (even though they have been shown to be) so this type of tactic can never be applied to them.

Gillianren
2007-Apr-11, 03:24 AM
If there's a debunker that Jarrah White hasn't called a bald-faced liar, I'd like to meet him. And introduce him to Jarrah.

How much effort d'you have to put into it to be called a debunker?

Then again, I'm a Babbling BABB Stooge, or was, before the merger.

Damien Evans
2007-Apr-11, 04:32 AM
I earned my Bald-Faced Liar medal by asserting that the night sky in the desert was clear during our filming of the recent documentary, so that the stars were visible even though they didn't show up on photographs. Jarrah referred to the footage shot during the daylight (some 6 hours earlier) at the same location that showed some scattered clouds. Apparently in his universe weather can't change in six hours.

He's Australian isn't he?

He should know that weather can change in 2 minutes, especially here in Melbourne, world capital of four seasons in one day

Then again, that might be expecting too much from someone like Jarrah

Svector
2007-Apr-11, 05:27 AM
Of course these nit-picky accusations come from people who can effortlessly make several dozen serious errors of fact and logic in a single post, and then propose to shrug them off two hours later. It's all part of that magical manipulation of the goalposts that requires the critic of a conspiracy theory to be infallible while its proponent deserves full credit if he gets just one thing right.


All too true. Some part of me wants to believe that eventually one of these HB's will have a moment of clarity where they'll suddenly realize how they create this uneven playing field for themselves, and the overall ridiculous nature of their own arguments. As time passes however, I become less and less hopeful that I'll ever witness this event.

The closest I've come is convincing a CT to admit he was in fact fooled by Jack White's South Massif crop deception. Props to ItalianoAmericano.


I earned my Bald-Faced Liar medal by asserting that the night sky in the desert was clear during our filming of the recent documentary, so that the stars were visible even though they didn't show up on photographs. Jarrah referred to the footage shot during the daylight (some 6 hours earlier) at the same location that showed some scattered clouds. Apparently in his universe weather can't change in six hours.

I heard about that. What was his rebuttal when you made him aware of the time difference?

Musashi
2007-Apr-11, 05:44 AM
Heh, rebuttal. It probably took the form of denial or ignoring.

JayUtah
2007-Apr-11, 06:46 AM
I heard about that. What was his rebuttal when you made him aware of the time difference?

He got himself banned before he could respond.

Svector
2007-Apr-11, 08:34 AM
I heard about that. What was his rebuttal when you made him aware of the time difference?

He got himself banned before he could respond.

Difficult to believe.

BertL
2007-Apr-11, 11:57 AM
He posted a new film. Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MRPBywvVNM) and part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0OhgkfnTNs). I still need to watch it, though.

It's basically more of "SVECTOR EDITED THE VIDEO!!!11"


EDIT: Also, I've tried to post this three times, and it just didn't work? Coincidence? I think not. [/paranoia]

MrClean
2007-Apr-11, 12:09 PM
No, you really don't, in fact if we all would totally ignore the fool things might get better. The more people yelling at these folks that they are being ignorant, the better they like it.

By the way, great job SVECTOR!

astrophotographer
2007-Apr-11, 02:07 PM
He posted a new film. Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MRPBywvVNM) and part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0OhgkfnTNs). I still need to watch it, though.

It's basically more of "SVECTOR EDITED THE VIDEO!!!11"


EDIT: Also, I've tried to post this three times, and it just didn't work? Coincidence? I think not. [/paranoia]

As best I can tell, he continues to plug the same nonsense. That being that svector edited part of the entire clip at the beginning and ends, which really proves NOTHING. He fails to address the fact that the video was not edited or cut while showing the earth through two different windows in the spacecraft. All he did was demonstrate that what Svector demonstrated was true! What a sad little man.

Svector
2007-Apr-12, 12:02 AM
He posted a new film. I still need to watch it, though.

It's basically more of "SVECTOR EDITED THE VIDEO!!!11"

Yeah I watched it yesterday. Same old tired argument.

I proved he wrongly accused me of editing the 30:28 footage shown in LL5 so now he's taking issue with the fact that I didn't include every second of the source footage prior to the section shown.

<yawn>

Svector
2007-Apr-12, 12:16 AM
No, you really don't, in fact if we all would totally ignore the fool things might get better. The more people yelling at these folks that they are being ignorant, the better they like it.

By the way, great job SVECTOR!

Thanks MrClean. Your point is a valid one. The HB's crave attention. Soon after they're deprived of it, they do seem to go into kind of a semi-hibernation.

As a kid, I always got a thrill out of flipping over flat rocks and watching the creepy crawlers scatter in all directions. I experienced the same exact scenario with the HB's, after I released the video. They came pouring out of the woodwork, scurrying around as if someone had poured acid in their nests.

Again, it made me smile.

Am I bad? :D

Grashtel
2007-Apr-12, 12:59 AM
Am I bad? :D
Yes, in a good way, keep doing what you do.

triplebird
2007-Jul-21, 11:59 PM
I just "met" Jarrah on another forum (the Sodor Island Forums; a Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends fan site). Since his avatar is a picture of Mr. Kaysing, and his signature reads, in part, "was Columbus crazy when they said the Earth was round?...was Kaysing crazy when he said we didn't go to the moon?" I figured this person was an Apollo HB, but I didn't realize he was one of the more (in)famous ones.

My actual encounter with him was in a thread about if you could change history, what would you change. One of his replies was to "prevent the Apollo Hoax from happening". I, thinking at the time this was simply an unenlightened kid, said there was no Apollo Hoax and suggested he look at Clavius or the BA site. I received a stern rebuff to "not shove my opinion down others' throats".

Thinking about it later, I thought that name sounded familiar. I checked this site and now see why I got the response I did...

BertL
2007-Jul-22, 10:35 AM
Heh. I first encountered Jarrah on the Brickfilms.com forums. At the time I had no idea of how well-known he was in Apollo discussions. Actually, at the time I had no idea about the whole "Apollo was a hoax" theory. I think he linked to this site (http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html), one of the most debunked websites out there.

At first I thought "hmm, he may be right...", but already I found some holes in that website. Describing the argument "stars should not be visible because the lunar surface is very bright" in a way as if it were something rediculous even though it's pure logic. Also some of the "shadows are wrong" arguments made me, well, chuckle. Not to mention the "camera was on their chest, it was impossible!" argument. So that made me reconsider Jarrah's opinion.

After that someone posted a debunking site, which explained quite thoroughly how the arguments on that website were wrong, I strongly questioned whether Jarrah was being "objective". I think I used the word "unbiased" back then, which also has a nice ring to it.

So yeah, that's more or less how I ran into this "hobby" of mine.

Dave J
2007-Jul-22, 11:20 PM
Did Jarrah ever sort out his scenario with the polar orbit/25000mph orbit, fake CM/LM enroute Moon with manned CM in Earth orbit thing? I remember he was rolling on the 9/11 Under the Bridge forum, then disappeared. I can't get on there since the "upheaval".

sts60
2007-Jul-23, 03:19 AM
I just "met" Jarrah on another forum (the Sodor Island Forums; a Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends fan site). Since his avatar is a picture of Mr. Kaysing, and his signature reads, in part, "was Columbus crazy when they said the Earth was round?..."

About as well-informed as usual. The ancient Greeks knew the Earth was round, and came up with pretty good measurements for its size, and at the time of Columbus there was little dispute over the fact. It's simply not true that Columbus had to struggle to convince people the Earth was round; they already knew it.

That unfortunate young man JW is something of a polymath - he's ignorant about a wide range of subjects.

...was Kaysing crazy when he said we didn't go to the moon?"

No. Just lying.

Eta C
2007-Jul-23, 04:41 AM
was Kaysing crazy when he said we didn't go to the moon?"

Not crazy. Not Even Wrong.

triplebird
2007-Jul-23, 02:04 PM
The ancient Greeks knew the Earth was round, and came up with pretty good measurements for its size, and at the time of Columbus there was little dispute over the fact...

Yep, it was Eratosthenes that is credited with discovering the Earth was round, by comparing shadows cast by obelisks in Alexandria and Syene--in about 240 BC.

FWIW, Jarrah's signature in full reads:

"Was Columbus crazy when they said the Earth was round?
Were Copernicus and Galileo crazy when they said the Earth revolved around the sun?
Was Harvey crazy when he said the Heart pumps blood?
Was Thayer crazy when he said he saw the Titanic breakup?
Was Kaysing crazy when he said we didn't go to the moon?"

So he's doing the usual pseudoscience job of comparing his "theories" to those of people whose theories are actually proven. And of course includes the mandatory Galileo reference. :)

gwiz
2007-Jul-23, 03:12 PM
They always leave out the real comparison:
Was Great Uncle Fred crazy when he said he was Napoleon?

Bob B.
2007-Jul-23, 03:57 PM
And of course includes the mandatory Galileo reference. :)

Weren't Galileo's ideas generally accepted by other scientists? It's my understanding it was just the church that resisted.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-23, 05:10 PM
A lot of conspiracy theories seem to contain phrases of the form, "They laughed at [person] too," with examples generally including names such as Tesla, Einstein, and Edison. My rebuttal is, "They didn't laugh at P.T. Barnum, but they should have." Now of course they didn't laugh at Edison or Einstein. They laughed a bit at Tesla, but only when he did things that were admittedly laughable. But I agree that you can only compare yourself to people whose ideas were eventually proven right if you can eventually prove your own ideas right. Being wrong is different than being wrong and then vindicated.

Galileo's biggest problem was that many of his ideas resembled those of Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake for heresy involving, among other things, "radical" cosmological ideas such as the Earth revolving. So scientsts at the time had to tread carefully. Galileo was fortunate to come from a well-known family, which prevented the Church from taking too harsh a stand against him. In fact, Galileo had negotiated somewhat with the Church as to how his ideas might be presented without overt heresy. His eventual troubles stemmed not from the ideas themselves expressed in Dialogue but in putting the Church's words fairly verbatim in the mouth of the doofus character. It wasn't so much that Galileo was talking about heliocentrism as it was that he was ridiculing the Church.

Gillianren
2007-Jul-23, 05:36 PM
Totally minor nitpick compared to what's gone before, but "breakup" is a noun. "Break up" is the verb.

triplebird
2007-Jul-23, 06:29 PM
Totally minor nitpick compared to what's gone before, but "breakup" is a noun. "Break up" is the verb.

I realize that, of course; I posted JW's sig verbatim (maybe he was referring to someone witnessing a dissolution of a relationship :) ), but to avoid future confusion, I will now include a disclaimer:

WARNING: Any grammatical and/or spelling errors in quoted post may not necessarily reflect the knowledge of grammar and/or spelling possessed by quoting poster.

:D

Donnie B.
2007-Jul-23, 08:57 PM
Actually, Eratosthenes is credited with making the first accurate measurement of the Earth's radius. The Greek scholars had pretty well concluded that the Earth was spherical even before that, using several lines of reasoning and evidence.

pzkpfw
2007-Jul-24, 01:22 AM
...Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake for heresy...

Certain persons are lucky that such a penalty isn't applied to heresay.

Gillianren
2007-Jul-24, 05:03 AM
I realize that, of course; I posted JW's sig verbatim . . . .

I know you do; I should have made it more clear on whom I was picking!

Svector
2007-Jul-24, 07:21 AM
Was Harvey crazy when he said the Heart pumps blood?
Was Thayer crazy when he said he saw the Titanic breakup?
Was Kaysing crazy when he said we didn't go to the moon?"[/i]

So he's doing the usual pseudoscience job of comparing his "theories" to those of people whose theories are actually proven.

Jarrah's logic reminds me of the funny bit Jay Leno did about Star Trek, where Kirk always gives two known premises to make you believe the phony, made-up premise:

"We all know the writings of Plato, Socrates, and of course Kremis from Rigel 7".

LOL :)

BTW, check out his new series here, where he attacks Spacecraft Films:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxGNPYZ_ptA

JonClarke
2007-Jul-24, 08:57 AM
Galileo's biggest problem was that many of his ideas resembled those of Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake for heresy involving, among other things, "radical" cosmological ideas such as the Earth revolving. So scientsts at the time had to tread carefully. Galileo was fortunate to come from a well-known family, which prevented the Church from taking too harsh a stand against him. In fact, Galileo had negotiated somewhat with the Church as to how his ideas might be presented without overt heresy. His eventual troubles stemmed not from the ideas themselves expressed in Dialogue but in putting the Church's words fairly verbatim in the mouth of the doofus character. It wasn't so much that Galileo was talking about heliocentrism as it was that he was ridiculing the Church.

Bruno was burned for his heretical ideas, not hi scientific ones. And Galileo's problem as that he rediculed a particular pope, rather than the church in general.

Jon

JayUtah
2007-Jul-24, 02:59 PM
Bruno was burned for his heretical ideas, not hi scientific ones.

Bruno indeed had many heretical ideas that had little to do with science. Because both his occultism and his heliocentrism were discussed at his trial, it's difficult to decide how much each one led to the court's decision to have him executed. But yes, it's important to remember that Bruno and Galileo weren't cut from exactly the same cloth.

History shows Bruno's fate weighed upon Galileo. Whether the comparison is valid today, it was considered valid enough in Galileo's time to make him specifically avoid doing what Bruno had done, or being seen as a Bruno protege. (cf. Lawrence Lerner, et al. "Galileo and the specter of Bruno." Scientific American v. 255 n.5 (May 1986), p. 116.)

Jason Thompson
2007-Jul-24, 03:36 PM
His eventual troubles stemmed not from the ideas themselves expressed in Dialogue but in putting the Church's words fairly verbatim in the mouth of the doofus character. It wasn't so much that Galileo was talking about heliocentrism as it was that he was ridiculing the Church.

Having recently had the good fortune to find a copy of the Dialogue I was amazed at just how much space Galileo gives over not only to ridiculing the church but anyone who disagrees with him at all. It's no wonder he offended people with that particular work. It's a shame really, because he presents some very good arguments, including some hints at relativity, but afterwards you remember more the vitriol he hurled at the people who don't share his views than the persuasive arguments he uses to show why he believes he is right.

Eta C
2007-Jul-24, 06:04 PM
Maybe Galileo should have taken a gander at the "Arrogance in scientific disciplines" thread over in the BABBling section. He certainly had no shortage of it.

Then again, our friend Jarrah certainly shows that being arrogant and being correct don't necessarily go together.

triplebird
2007-Jul-24, 07:09 PM
Well, on the other forum, Jarrah evidently complained to the admin about me correcting his view on Apollo, since I received a PM about it and warning me about posting on "controversial" subjects in future.

Oh well, guess I shouldn't mix trains and astronomy...

BTW, "Very Angry Conspiracist" fits well for Jarrah on that forum, since Thomas and Friends are referred to as "Really Useful Engines"... :)

pzkpfw
2007-Jul-24, 08:50 PM
Maybe you could make your own sig. like Jarrah's, but with the "was my Uncle Bob crazy when he said he was Napoleon?" bits in it; then just try to post (on-topic) near when Jarrah does?

If he can have controversial statements in his sig, why can't you?

(Good on you for what you did already.)

Grand_Lunar
2007-Jul-24, 10:27 PM
BTW, "Very Angry Conspiracist" fits well for Jarrah on that forum, since Thomas and Friends are referred to as "Really Useful Engines"... :)


In Jarrah's case, that'd be a perpetual motion engine. ;)

JonClarke
2007-Jul-24, 10:30 PM
Having recently had the good fortune to find a copy of the Dialogue I was amazed at just how much space Galileo gives over not only to ridiculing the church but anyone who disagrees with him at all. It's no wonder he offended people with that particular work. It's a shame really, because he presents some very good arguments, including some hints at relativity, but afterwards you remember more the vitriol he hurled at the people who don't share his views than the persuasive arguments he uses to show why he believes he is right.

Galileo had a real genius for offending people unneccessarily. It's also worth remembering that be was a controversial figure for 25 years on a purely academic level before the church finally got involved.

Jon

jt-3d
2007-Jul-24, 10:58 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxGNPYZ_ptA[/url]

I can see his point though. I thought Spacecraft Films sold raw footage but why did the camera cut in the middle of a sentence? It's not something I'd base a conspiracy theory on but do they edit the videos?

I'm not playing CT here, just wondering if that was raw or edited and if raw, how was the cut done. I only watched it once and could maybe figure it out myself if I watched it a few times but you wouldn't want me to watch a Jarrah video more than once, would you? :)

triplebird
2007-Jul-25, 12:59 AM
In Jarrah's case, that'd be a perpetual motion engine. ;)

With a NASA logo. And it flew into the Pentagon on 9/11 :D

I've read more on Jarrah since my encounter with him. I didn't realize JW was a short-film animator and that's what he as part of his credentials to "prove" the Apollo missions were faked. Makes more sense why he's on Sodor Island Forums (SIF) though, he evidently makes films with Thomas the Tank Engine figures.

As ardent of a CT believer that he is, it makes me wonder why he ran to an admin because I rebutted his beliefs, instead of calling me a bald-faced liar or something. Unless his friends over at SIF don't know that side of him, and he wants to keep it that wa.


Here's the post, in all it's glory, that caused the havoc:


[I would go back in time and] Prevent the Apollo Hoax


There was no Apollo Hoax. Kaysing's so-called "proof" has been scientifically debunked over and over and over--have a look at http://www.clavius.org, or perhaps http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html for some enlightenment.

The only thing that needed to be prevented was Kaysing et al. publishing their rediculous claims.

And to answer the question in your sig file, yes, Kaysing was crazy when he said we didn't go to the moon.

(ok, so that last paragraph about Kaysing being crazy may have been too harsh, I admit...)

I responded to SIF's admin, explaining I wasn't trying to cause trouble, but just was pointing out that the Apollo landings are accepted as fact and pointing Jarrah towards some information about them if he was interested.

The admin responded to me, saying "...Personally, I find it refreshing to have a worthy counter argument at long last, particularly from someone such as yourself who has knowledge on the moon landings...and there's good scope for a solid debate"

So, I'm not the mean Pro-Apollo Nutter(tm) Jarrah made me out to be.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-25, 05:15 AM
Spacecraft Films has never claimed to provide unedited raw footage. The producer Mark Gray does not abridge the footage without clearly noting that he has done so, but at the same time he does not provide, for example, duplicate copies of kinescopes and videotape for the same shot. And he switches between them, at times, if one source is clearly of higher quality for long enough.

The attacks on Spacecraft Films are a straw man, no different than attacking other secondary sources, which David Percy (for example) has done. Spacecraft Films is a very good secondary source, but it is still secondary and never purports to be otherwise.

Svector
2007-Jul-25, 06:05 AM
I can see his point though. I thought Spacecraft Films sold raw footage but why did the camera cut in the middle of a sentence? It's not something I'd base a conspiracy theory on but do they edit the videos?

I'm not playing CT here, just wondering if that was raw or edited and if raw, how was the cut done. I only watched it once and could maybe figure it out myself if I watched it a few times but you wouldn't want me to watch a Jarrah video more than once, would you? :)

Taking into account the varying quality and completeness of the original source material, it's fairly easy to understand why SC Films would be unable to provide every single second of that material as an uninterrupted stream on their DVDs. In many cases the receiving stations encountered signal loss and dropouts which would no doubt account for many of the edits. In other cases, redundant or poor quality footage may have been omitted for reasons like time constraints.

Only in the minds of the most paranoid CTs, would any of this have relevance or meaning with regard to a conspiracy. It really does give new meaning to the phrase "grasping at straws".

Maksutov
2007-Jul-25, 07:16 AM
Giordano Bruno, a member of my pantheon of heroes.

Why do I get the impression sometimes that some members here pine for the good old days when freethinkers, persons with new ideas, and scientists could be burned for heresy?

Meanwhile Jarrah continues to be a source of much entertainment. But as an engineer and scientist, I won't be putting out calls for him to be stuck to a stake and cremated.

[loud crashing dissonance]


No one expects the right to free speech!

jt-3d
2007-Jul-25, 11:57 AM
Okay, jay and svector, I was misinformed then. no foul. Let me just call my buddy Jarrah. I'm sure he'll understand.

In the mean time, why didn't space guys take some pictures of the stars from the moonz so that we'd be sure that they went there for all mankind and stuff? All they had to do was lean against the LeM and hold the shutter open and then they could have proved that they were there. Those picxures of the space guys don't count. What we all want is those totally different star pictures from the moonz. :)

Svector
2007-Jul-25, 01:05 PM
Okay, jay and svector, I was misinformed then. no foul. Let me just call my buddy Jarrah. I'm sure he'll understand.

LOL, yeah. Me too. :liar:



In the mean time, why didn't space guys take some pictures of the stars from the moonz so that we'd be sure that they went there for all mankind and stuff? All they had to do was lean against the LeM and hold the shutter open

Heh, some HBs actually believe it'd be that simple.

"Tripod? We don't need no steeenking tripod! Just set it to 15 seconds and hold your breath, Neil. You'll be fine!"

:lol:

Nicolas
2007-Jul-25, 01:33 PM
I'd like to see a non-tripod (or other static object disconnected from humans) pic with expoure over 15 seconds that is remotely sharp :)

I fail more or less all the time to make a sharp handheld pic at exposures over 1 second, and anything beyond 0.3 becomes really difficult. (I have to click on the camera to take a pic)

Swift
2007-Jul-25, 03:34 PM
Taking into account the varying quality and completeness of the original source material, it's fairly easy to understand why SC Films would be unable to provide every single second of that material as an uninterrupted stream on their DVDs. In many cases the receiving stations encountered signal loss and dropouts which would no doubt account for many of the edits. In other cases, redundant or poor quality footage may have been omitted for reasons like time constraints.

Only in the minds of the most paranoid CTs, would any of this have relevance or meaning with regard to a conspiracy. It really does give new meaning to the phrase "grasping at straws".
In some ways, the gaps and variability of the quality of the source material proves that it wasn't faked. If we had a continuous stream of perfect quality film from all missions, now that would be suspicious (I'm only half kidding).

Svector
2007-Jul-25, 03:37 PM
I'd like to see a non-tripod (or other static object disconnected from humans) pic with expoure over 15 seconds that is remotely sharp :)

It's possible for a human to take a perfectly sharp handheld photograph with an exposure of 15 seconds or even longer. Unfortunately they need to be deceased. The second complication is somehow convincing them to trip the shutter.

:whistle:

Van Rijn
2007-Jul-25, 09:12 PM
Okay, jay and svector, I was misinformed then. no foul. Let me just call my buddy Jarrah. I'm sure he'll understand.

In the mean time, why didn't space guys take some pictures of the stars from the moonz so that we'd be sure that they went there for all mankind and stuff? All they had to do was lean against the LeM and hold the shutter open and then they could have proved that they were there. Those picxures of the space guys don't count. What we all want is those totally different star pictures from the moonz. :)

That sort of thing really points out the knowledge gap. We know that the Earth in its orbit moves the distance between the Earth and Moon in a few hours, and we know just how far away the stars are. Tell that to some of these guys, and I really do think all they hear is "blah-blah" - they simply don't understand the concepts.

Dwight
2007-Jul-26, 12:26 AM
The material on Mark's DVDs comes from three known sources: NASA video tape, NASA kinescope, and on the odd occassion Commercial Network videotape. Notably on the DVDs at certain points there is a definite cut in the footage. It always occurs on kinescoped material. Image transform conducted the videotape to kinescope transfers in the early 1970's after the Apollo missions. Due to National Archive requirements, no videotape material was eligible to be stored there, and so the material was transferred to 16mm. Additionally it was at the time a possibly more robust storage medium.

The easiest way to figure eaxctly how long the dropouts are would be to listen to mission audio and cross reference to the video material. In all cases that I can determine the dropouts are due to redundant material during camera movement, weak signal, or the lens cap covering the lens.

Jarrah fails to realise that the SCF DVDs are not, as Jay points out, a primary source. They are an excellent secondary source. Using multiple source material for covering tape dropout, 2" banding problems, and whathaveyou. He also crosses mid downlink between videotape and kinescope. Perfectly acceptable within the industry, and has been utilised on other "restoration" projects. One can argue that Mark's work is restoration, as he compiles this material into a linear timeline format from a variety of seperate archive facilities. Considering all that, the DVDs are truly remarkable.

The other thing Jarrah obviously fails to realise is that he has blatantly infringed copyright. Using copyrighted material to "prove" point blank that the maker of that copyrighted product is evil, is not going to help him on either a personal level, nor a legal one.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-26, 12:34 AM
I know Showtime won't take too kindly to his use of excerpts from Penn and Teller's show whose title Shall Not Be Named.

Dwight
2007-Jul-26, 12:37 AM
Penn and Teller's show is called "Voldemort"?

Svector
2007-Jul-26, 12:48 AM
The material on Mark's DVDs comes from three known sources: NASA video tape, NASA kinescope, and on the odd occassion Commercial Network videotape.

Mark has found Jarrah's video, and is now explaining things to him in his channel, at part 6.

Grand_Lunar
2007-Jul-26, 12:48 AM
I know Showtime won't take too kindly to his use of excerpts from Penn and Teller's show whose title Shall Not Be Named.

Whoa, I'd like to see Penn's reaction to THAT. :)

JeDi
2007-Jul-26, 01:09 AM
I'd like to see a non-tripod (or other static object disconnected from humans) pic with expoure over 15 seconds that is remotely sharp :)
The patterns registered on such astro pics could give rise to a whole lot of ATM "theories".

But, on the other hand, since specific tremor paths could allow conclusions regarding the medical condition of the photographer it would have to be classified as private medical data. :think: (just spinning thoughts :))

JeDi
2007-Jul-26, 01:11 AM
We know that the Earth in its orbit moves the distance between the Earth and Moon in a few hours, and we know just how far away the stars are. Tell that to some of these guys, and I really do think all they hear is "blah-blah" - they simply don't understand the concepts.
Lack of understanding is only half of the issue (if it is not a conscious lie), the lacking will to understand is the other half. For people with insufficient knowledge but an open mind a drawing will help. From there they can (possibly with our support) check the details. But the hardcore HB crowd (be it originators, faithful believers, wishful thinkers, ...) will refuse to think about it or look into the matters.

Dave J
2007-Jul-26, 02:25 AM
I watched his "Gem" video, and don't get his point. Bunches of video in the CM, Instruments, view of the LM, Mike running, and the Earth in the window.
Do dropouts or breaks in the video somehow prove a hoax?
And, why was it hoaxed, Jarrah? What made the trip impossible? (this requires some technical knowledge of the program and the space environment...we know where he stands there...).He'll never go technical again after his fiasco at the "Under the bridge" forum at the 9/11 site.

Nicolas
2007-Jul-26, 08:33 AM
The patterns registered on such astro pics could give rise to a whole lot of ATM "theories".

But, on the other hand, since specific tremor paths could allow conclusions regarding the medical condition of the photographer it would have to be classified as private medical data. :think: (just spinning thoughts :))

Only someone who actually tried photographing stars or other point sources handheld with huge exposure times can truly appreciate this, and it's all so true! :D :D

Nicolas
2007-Jul-26, 08:38 AM
I watched his "Gem" video, and don't get his point. Bunches of video in the CM, Instruments, view of the LM, Mike running, and the Earth in the window.
Do dropouts or breaks in the video somehow prove a hoax?
And, why was it hoaxed, Jarrah? What made the trip impossible? (this requires some technical knowledge of the program and the space environment...we know where he stands there...).He'll never go technical again after his fiasco at the "Under the bridge" forum at the 9/11 site.

If he'd have to quit everything after a fiasco, he wouldn't be doing much. (neither would I, but anyway :))

technical claims on Apollo (I think of the polar orbit and the hammer mass), logical claims on 9/11 (I think of the huge NASA logo on a plane NASA secretly uses), some more personal stuff which I won't go into here even though he made it public himself... I have to give him that he has some skills for making stop motion films though.

But I wouldn't expect a coherent theory from Jarrah. But who needs that, because "all we need to show is that something is fishy"

Well, from that reasoning, all we have to show is 1 single piece of landing evidence that is not debunked to make the landings real. But you don't buy that, do you? Why the bias?

Arguments are only as strong to make a case as the story that connects them, and in the hoax "theories" (hence not worthy of that word) there is no connection.

Dave J
2007-Jul-26, 08:33 PM
I was over at the AH Yahoo groups site...I guess the "new" iteration.
I read the whole dang thing...seemed a pretty civil site till 28 Sept 05, when this Jarrah White character came roaring in, guns blazing.
Basic question...was this his first introduction to the community? All I can say is that Jay has a saint's patience (proven many times since)...this fellow deserves no mercy...a Physics grad with his incredible ignorance of orbital mechanics. He is one very angry guy.
That was a real exercise in forehead smacking...wow.
I really wish he had the intestinal fortitude to a) show up here, and b) actually back up his claims with something other than bluff and bluster (oh yeah, he did, and couldn't...nevermind, completely understandable)
Folks over there need a Nobel Peace Prize nomination...like a bunch of infinitely patient Tibetan monks...

JayUtah
2007-Jul-26, 08:40 PM
The Yahoo group was where I first encountered him. He started off with a lengthy tirade against me personally and went downhill from there. He lasted all of about 48 hours there before Yahoo banned him.

Dave J
2007-Jul-26, 09:36 PM
The Yahoo group was where I first encountered him. He started off with a lengthy tirade against me personally and went downhill from there. He lasted all of about 48 hours there before Yahoo banned him.
Ok, that was probably the one...I was reading the thread, mostly civilized, then this "new guy" (used his name) showed up, really tee'd of with you...calling you lots of nasty stuff. I was kinda back on my heels at this seemingly unprovoked hatred. He's in a class by himself...I pretty well understand the situation now.
You musta hit a nerve critiquing his "grandfather"...
You are the gentleman, Jay...

Svector
2007-Jul-26, 11:28 PM
The Yahoo group was where I first encountered him. He started off with a lengthy tirade against me personally and went downhill from there. He lasted all of about 48 hours there before Yahoo banned him.

Is this all preserved for posterity? I never thought to dig through the archives and read it until now. Didn't something happen where all the content was lost, or was that at another site?

Dave J
2007-Jul-26, 11:41 PM
Is this all preserved for posterity? I never thought to dig through the archives and read it until now. Didn't something happen where all the content was lost, or was that at another site?

What I found started on 28Sep05, and was over a few days later...just a handful of posts by the noted individual, but full of rage.
I don't know when that board "lost it's memory" but it appears to be after it returned to functionality.
I have the feeling Jay knows how Buzz felt, just totally ambushed out of the blue, never seen the likes of it.

Svector
2007-Jul-26, 11:58 PM
What I found started on 28Sep05, and was over a few days later...just a handful of posts by the noted individual, but full of rage.
I don't know when that board "lost it's memory" but it appears to be after it returned to functionality.
I have the feeling Jay knows how Buzz felt, just totally ambushed out of the blue, never seen the likes of it.

Found it!

{sound of popcorn popping}

Svector
2007-Jul-27, 12:15 AM
Oh my Lord.

I'm only a few paragraphs in, and the level of ignorance displayed is already overwhelming.

Essentially:

The LM sat in the sun for several hours, which means the interior would've gotten very hot, which means the flagpole stowed inside would've gotten very hot, which means the aluminum would've stiffened, which means it could not have oscillated once released by the astronauts.

W o w.

Ufonaut99
2007-Jul-27, 12:36 AM
I responded to SIF's admin, explaining I wasn't trying to cause trouble, but just was pointing out that the Apollo landings are accepted as fact and pointing Jarrah towards some information about them if he was interested.

The admin responded to me, saying "...Personally, I find it refreshing to have a worthy counter argument at long last, particularly from someone such as yourself who has knowledge on the moon landings...and there's good scope for a solid debate"

So, I'm not the mean Pro-Apollo Nutter(tm) Jarrah made me out to be.

Hey, since Jarrah trusts SIF, and SIF appear both open to a debate and are willing to enforce good manners, why not suggest SIF have a moon-debate thread where Jarrah can politely defend his position?

Laguna
2007-Jul-28, 04:46 PM
[...]where Jarrah can politely defend his position?
I guess he will the day hell freezes.

Grand_Lunar
2007-Jul-30, 02:21 PM
I guess he will the day hell freezes.


This place? (http://www.hell2u.com/)

In the photo gallery, they have a couple of photos of that day. :D

Dwight
2007-Aug-03, 02:38 PM
Attention everyone, Jarrah White is now known as White Jarrah on YouTube. That way he can side-step his copyright-infringement-induced-account-suspension. Boy is he ANGRY! How dare anyone tell him he cant rip off their copyright protected material?

BertL
2007-Aug-03, 03:01 PM
Attention everyone, Jarrah White is now known as White Jarrah on YouTube.
That actually sounds kinda racist. :neutral:

triplebird
2007-Aug-04, 12:19 AM
Well, it appears JW is offended by this thread, since there's a rant about it (and me) over on SIF, which I present below, in three parts:

(Part I: How we wronged Jarrah)


"...now I have a message for a certain somebody. Triplebird, I know you are a member of Phil Plaitís Bad Astronomy forum, and I know none of you guys are interested in intelligent debate: youíd all would much rather try and pin peopleís misquotes about the weight of a hammer against them as though they meant what they misspoke, or try and hold against me ridiculous notions of spaceships orbiting the North Pole in a tight circular formation, which I simply made up on the spot to get your lying friends to confirm the implausibility of the Saturn V carrying out Dr. James Van Allenís proposal of getting past the radiation belts...I can tell that none of you pricks want to own up to the fact that my belief in that preposterous ďpolar-orbitĒ hearsay is purely a figment of your imaginations, youíd all would much rather cling to it as ammunition against me as though it were a confession to murder."



(Part II: The personal attack on me, plus my responses)


"Since you took the time to mock my signature and make it the subject of ridicule at the Bad Astronomy forums, I am tempted to enlighten you on the fact that the F-1 was a combustion-instability prone piece of junk that at the end of the day, von Braun had to build on the HOPE it would work, and I got the records to prove it!1 But I wonít, because Iíve given you all the time Iím gonna give you. When people like you go as far as denying that the Saturn V was part of the Apollo program2, in their efforts to try and discredit the man in my signature who stated in his book 'THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY AND I WAS IN ON IT',3 there really is no point in giving my time of day to you guys."

1 Enlighten me about the F-1, then. Or don't you want to be asked to show that proof?

2 :confused: When did I, or any of us, say the Saturn V wasn't part of the Apollo Program?

3 The man that was little more than a librarian, and left Rocketdyne before the F-1/Saturn V was built.



(Part III: A message for JayUtah and Dr. Plait, per Jarrah's request)


"you can go and pass the following onto Liar Windley, Liar Plait, and all your other lying heroes from your forum. You can tell them, that I said: they can all go **** themselves, and the same goes for you."



Very Angry Conspiracist about sums Jarrah up, I surmise from this. Since this wasn't posted on here directly, I have to ask, was Jarrah banned from BAUT or is he just afraid to post here?