|
Post by laurel on Mar 10, 2009 14:57:38 GMT -4
"KC: So if somebody was doing an article on you and wanted to investigate and called Caltech today, they will say that you never worked there. "BO’L: Exactly. I received an e-mail from someone at Caltech today that said: In doing some research I have found that Brian Todd O'Leary was at Caltech as a "Visiting Associate in Planetary Science" in 1971-1972.The sender was someone named Vicki Pratt who works in the Faculty Records Office. provost.caltech.edu/contact.htmlHer e-mail address is listed on this page: cit.hr.caltech.edu/united_way_coordinators.pdf
|
|
|
Post by captain swoop on Mar 11, 2009 14:55:23 GMT -4
oops!
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Mar 13, 2009 18:51:49 GMT -4
They can stay in their fantasy world forever, for all I care. I know the truth and so does Dr. O'Leary. Sorry Jay, but I don't agree. If you head on over to youtube, Jarrah and his merry band of Ring-Tailed, Lemur Monkey followers are having a field day accusing you of lying. I think it's time you called him out on it. Actually the whole thing is pretty ridiculous. All Jarrah has as evidence is an email where he asked BOL this... "... have you ever been in contact with a Jay Windley?" BOL writes back with a one word response.. "Nope" Personally I think Jarrah is a complete ***hole! The problem is that the email makes it look as if he has concrete evidence that you never spoke with Mr. O'Leary (At least to the hoaxers). I know that some of you here are friends with Brian, but I think the person at fault here isn't Jarrah or Jay, it's Mr. O'Leary himself. First he talks with Jay, then communicates with Jarrah stating that he never spoke to you. This is after he already stated in a book that he wasn't going to discuss the Moon landings anymore??? Seems to me that Mr. O'Leary is wishy-washy at best! Grated I never met the guy, but this along with some other statements from him that others have posted in this thread makes it look (to me) like he has some trouble keeping his stories straight. If I've misinterpreted Mr. O'Leary's statements, I do apologize, but it would be great if someone could get BOL on tape stating that he DID in-fact speak with you! Then take the tape over to Jarrah and make him EAT THE THING along with a healthy does of CROW!
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 13, 2009 21:04:03 GMT -4
Sorry Jay, but I don't agree. If you head on over to youtube, Jarrah and his merry band of Ring-Tailed, Lemur Monkey followers are having a field day accusing you of lying. I think it's time you called him out on it. They'd believe him why? ETA--I am not, of course, calling Jay untrustworthy. I'm saying that, if they don't believe him now, why would they believe him if he showed up on YouTube?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 14, 2009 1:08:47 GMT -4
Brian and I have e-mailed back and forth several times this week. He does not want to be dragged back into the Moon hoax debate, and I appreciate his reasons why. As I said, I know the truth. So does Wade Frazier (who has also participated in our e-mail exchange) and so does O'Leary.
Jarrah's claim is no more concrete than mine. He claims to have been in contact with O'Leary. So do I. And he's been trying to beat this drum since 2005 when he first questioned whether my O'Leary interview was legitimate. Remember, this is the same Jarrah who insisted I had destroyed his computer remotely via Yahoo.
Let Jarrah substantiate his claim with more than a single word. I don't answer to foul-mouthed children and their sycophants.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Mar 14, 2009 3:00:11 GMT -4
As I said, I know the truth. So does Wade Frazier (who has also participated in our e-mail exchange) and so does O'Leary. . . . I don't answer to foul-mouthed children and their sycophants. Well said Sir!
|
|
|
Post by tofu on Mar 17, 2009 11:20:14 GMT -4
As a sort of side note, this is exactly why people should cryptographically sign their emails. If I was a famous person, I'd have a public key published somewhere and if I emailed you, I'd sign the email with the private key.
This would prevent people claiming they got an email from me when they didn't (because they're lying or because someone has played a trick on them - for those of you who don't know, the from-address on an email means as much as the from address on an envelope, that is to say, nothing at all. I can write any from address that I want; I can send you an email that appears to be from Jay or Obama or Santa Clause and the IP in the header wont help you very much).
And of course, it would also allow people to verify that they received an email from me, and that they've published it unaltered.
|
|
|
Post by svector on Mar 19, 2009 4:05:00 GMT -4
Jarrah's quick to label others as cowards and liars. It's quite revealing how he makes those careless accusations while lacking the courage to come here himself and engage in proper debate. It should be obvious to any fair-minded observer who the real coward is.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 19, 2009 11:41:33 GMT -4
And we know that Jarrah reads this forum in order to mine it for statements. His lack of interactive participation in it is strictly voluntary. (His lack of participation in other public forums appears to be enforced: he was banned, for example, from Yahoo.) He has lately been trying to get me to debate him via e-mail. Naturally I refused: any who have followed my work all these years know that is my long-standing policy not to do that. In ethical terms, a moderated public debate keeps both sides honest and civil. In practical terms, such a posture means I have to answer the same questions over and over in private.
I don't watch Jarrah's videos. When he and his followers are willing to emerge from their walled garden and submit to the rigors and consequences of public discourse, then perhaps they will be taken seriously.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Mar 19, 2009 15:42:01 GMT -4
Question: Does openly calling someone a liar on a media platform viewed by millions around the world still fall under the clause of "fair use" ergo critique? Also, does the use of copyrighted material on the same platform in a total combined time of well over 2 hours constitute "fair use" or would said copyright holder have solid ground to persue litigation?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 19, 2009 17:10:35 GMT -4
Over two hours of copyrighted material would probably constitute litigation worthiness, but you'd have to ask a lawyer.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 19, 2009 18:00:56 GMT -4
Question: Does openly calling someone a liar on a media platform viewed by millions around the world still fall under the clause of "fair use" ergo critique? Also, does the use of copyrighted material on the same platform in a total combined time of well over 2 hours constitute "fair use" or would said copyright holder have solid ground to persue litigation? Criticism as defined for Title 17 (the U.S. copyright law, for you non-Americans) doesn't discuss the original content or effect of the criticism. One can call the author of a work a liar without quoting from it, so copyright law doesn't really apply. "Fair Use" allows reproduction of a published work for various purposes. For criticism and review, the general standard is a "brief passage." For purposes of education, the general standard is one principal division (e.g., a chapter from a book) or 10% of the total work, whichever is less. (What is being done on YouTube does not qualify as educational.) A jury decides in each case whether the amount quoted rises to the level of infringement.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Mar 20, 2009 2:32:16 GMT -4
So essentially, as far as the law goes, people who are using copyrighted DVD rips, and using such footage to call the makers of the sets "liars" and those who are creating video after video insinuating real, living people are also "liars" and posting said videos on YT are opening themselves up for some potentially expensive litigation?
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Mar 20, 2009 2:54:43 GMT -4
Though others may disagree, I don't really concern myself with his copyright violations. That happens thousands of time a day, I think. What gets me is Jarrah's refusal to debate Jay on a moderated, neutral ground.
In my opinion, Jarrah is well aware that his claims will not stand up to scrutiny and he relies on some nice pictures and flashy graphics. I admit that his videos are well produced visually, but their technical content is woefully lacking (as a well qualified physicist has remarked; if you have read the comment on YouTube, I know who the person is and to call them - what was it, a doofus? - is so wrong. The physicist is nationally - and possibly internationally - recognised and have decided they will wade into the debate; they are writing their latest book - nearly 30 so far by count - before jumping into the waters).
Jarrah is well aware his claims will wilt if put to professional area peer review; he relies on his "goon squad" of straydog2 et al to frighten off people. If he has to play on a moderated, level playing field he knows he will lose and thus avoids the condition.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Mar 20, 2009 5:44:11 GMT -4
It has gone "all out back slapping". Interesting the way it kicked off all of a sudden. Someone upset him with comments on Mr Rene or work in progress reaching a culmination?
Re peer review, means coming out of the comfort zone that is youchube. Might get challenged and shown up.
|
|