|
Post by dickshane on Jul 16, 2010 16:31:23 GMT -4
Usually I like the Australian accent, but I can never get past that twangy voice - so intent on it's own idiocy; so I'm afraid I didn't even watch it.
Has the scientific community really anything to fear from these attention-seeking fools?
|
|
|
Post by brotherofthemoon on Jul 16, 2010 16:36:06 GMT -4
Its completely obvious that Jarrah had hidden his camera behind something. How do we know that Jarrah didn't film Andy in close-up, and then put a black mask around the lens to make it look like he was on the other side of the room? That's what BS would say! ;D
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 16, 2010 17:33:42 GMT -4
Its completely obvious that Jarrah had hidden his camera behind something. I didn't say that. I think it likely, but I can't be sure. Plenty of others seem to think so, though. The real question is "what to do about Jarrah White"? The man has made hundreds of videos under just his "WhiteJarrah" Youtube account (393 at last count). Most but not all deal with his belief that Apollo was a massive hoax. And as "LunarOrbit" said, he is now entering Bart Sibrel territory, camera-ambushing celebrities associated with Apollo in the public eye. For a young man, he seems to draw on some remarkable resources. He lives in Australia, but some of his "Apollo hoax" videos show him in the United States, such as this one in Las Vegas and some I've seen from the National Air & Space Museum. I don't know how much time he spends producing his videos but it must be substantial. What really bothers me about Jarrah White is not so much that he spreads huge amounts of false information about the Apollo program (though that does bother me a lot) but in so doing libels and slanders the many people who worked on that program. That's much worse. Now I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say that what he does and says actually falls within the legal definitions of libel and slander, but he certainly falls into my layman's interpretation of those terms even when his victims are "public figures" under US precedent, such as New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark 1964 Supreme Court case that (properly, in my opinion) set the bar very high for a public figure to prevail in a libel case. The Sullivan case set the "actual malice" standard for such cases: the plaintiff has to show that the defendant knew his statements to be false, or acted with reckless disregard of whether they're true or false. In my opinion, at least, most of what Jarrah says falls well within these two areas though of course only an actual court trial could make that determination. But legal details aside, there's no question that what Jarrah White says is false and deliberately intended to destroy the reputations of a very large number of talented, motivated and highly accomplished scientists, engineers and others who worked on the Apollo program. He directly, repeatedly and falsely claims that these hundreds of thousands of people were either dupes of a massive conspiracy or direct, willing participants. And he does so in an attempt to puff himself into a minor celebrity among his small group of fans. Quite contemptible, actually.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Jul 16, 2010 18:16:50 GMT -4
It is just a matter of time. 'till now, people haven't had the desire to take this situation one notch further.
|
|
|
Post by astrobrant2 on Jul 16, 2010 19:20:22 GMT -4
As Lunar Orbit has intimated, Jarrah is out to promote himself by taking advantage of any opportunity he can to confront Apollo "defenders" who have some status and recognition. I don't think Adam should make any kind of public response to Jarrah's video. That is exactly what Jarrah wants. He needs to be left in obscurity.
Adam needs to be aware that Jarrah will quote-mine any response sent to him and post it in a video, which he will spin any way he wants.
Clear skies, AB2
|
|
|
Post by capricorn1 on Jul 16, 2010 19:42:38 GMT -4
It is a bit weird ambushing someone that appears to be a layman in all this.....I mean, the guy was just doing a show and reading a script wasn't he? I think that's a pretty serious simplification. Pretty serious? If it was, I stand corrected. My point was based more on what I deemed a lack of 'in depth' knowledge on the subject matter, and just an informed view of it. As his job was primarily to present a show, I would expect only cursory knowledge as necessary to do this. If you say otherwise, fine. If Adam Savage is an expert on laser refelections then he should, in my view, have had a better answer to Jarrah's ambush. THAT is why I thought his view was as a layman.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 16, 2010 19:55:06 GMT -4
It would be interesting to do an "ambush video" of Jarrah. Ask him a couple of basic questions on some Apollo details, basic orbital mechanics, heat transfer in a vaccuum. Heck, maybe shove a Bible in his face...
He's quite good at what he does...twisting carefully selected bits from books, videos, and papers to convey an appearance of credibility to his beliefs. And he calls us "propagandists"...wow.
But his whole premise is based on misrepresenting the evidence. He's just an intellectual coward, afraid to face his "peers" in an honest discussion of the real evidence and science (the IMDB discussion on radiation should be required reading). His (undeserved) haughty demeanor doesn't help. He's incredibly tiresome.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 16, 2010 19:56:17 GMT -4
Usually I like the Australian accent, but I can never get past that twangy voice - so intent on it's own idiocy; so I'm afraid I didn't even watch it. Same here! I have quite a few Aussie colleagues and I love to visit the place - but I'd rather listen to fingernails on a chalkboard than Jarrah White's voice. There's just something about that grating tone...so smug...so pompous...and so utterly clueless...
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 16, 2010 20:14:42 GMT -4
Adam needs to be aware that Jarrah will quote-mine any response sent to him and post it in a video, which he will spin any way he wants Sure. And I understand. But I still can't help but rub my hands at the prospect of Adam making some sort of reply that draws on his considerably greater resources: his research staff, his producers, and most of all his sense of humor. I've noticed that crackpots and conspiracy theorists invariably share a number of traits. Obsessiveness is obviously one. But haven't you noticed that they rarely exhibit any real sense of humor? I don't really count their bitterly sarcastic put-downs of their opponents; I'm thinking more of the kind of gentle playfulness and self-deprecating humor common to intelligent, self-confident people. Adam Savage is an excellent example of what the crackpots lack. Though I'm sure it's a very consciously honed part of his on-screen persona, he probably draws it from his own personality. Jamie Hyneman invited him to join Mythbusters precisely because he knew he needed someone to contrast sharply with his own personality. It's unlikely that the show would have succeeded without the entertainment value of the "double act" they play with each other.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 16, 2010 20:53:24 GMT -4
...and if the MBs reply, then Jarrah will just do his namedropping thing..."ooohhh, look, I'm famous...that's me he's talking about...". He actually thinks he's smarter than everybody, and is oh so happy to spread his knowledge (like SRBs separate from the shuttle stack in a hard, soundless vaccuum...good grief!).
I think they should ignore him...let these videos that show the real science do the talking.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 16, 2010 21:05:45 GMT -4
Well, they could respond without mentioning him by name. They often start a myth by saying "viewers have told us...", so Jarrah could be lumped in with a group. For all we know other viewers have said the same thing as Jarrah.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 16, 2010 22:42:51 GMT -4
In the sense of "underestimating the intelligence and knowledge base of a couple of professionals." My understanding is that Adam, at least, is as much an educated amateur as quite a lot of people around here. Probably more so than I am. The thing is, his job is not primarily to present a show. That, to me, indicates that he just kind of stands there and talks. His job, as I see it, is to show that science is fun and interesting. This includes doing his own experimentation, which goes beyond just presenting a show. Do I claim he's an expert at laser reflectors? Oh, no. No, I don't. However, "just presenting a show" is not an accurate summary of what he does. As it happens, I myself was tangentially involved in the early discussions of doing just such an episode years before they actually did it (they were shopping around for ideas on the fan board, of which I was a member at the time), and even though this was before the science got as well-demonstrated as it is now, they were still looking to experiment, not just make claims. And remember, even in the beginning, they did most of the experimentation themselves.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 17, 2010 1:00:31 GMT -4
I'd note that from what I have heard, Mythbusters doesn't use a script either, they have a rough idea of what they plan to say and do, and then go from the cuff.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 17, 2010 4:01:30 GMT -4
Their making-of stuff seems to confirm that.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 17, 2010 5:56:57 GMT -4
They seem to do a lot of stuff off the cuff, but sometimes I think they know much more than they let on. A lot of myths can be easily dispatched with elementary physics and math that they (or their researchers) almost certainly have already worked out, if for no reason than to satisfy their insurance company.
But they go ahead and do the experiments anyway as if they don't know what will happen. Especially when they include explosions, crashes or gunfire.
The closest anybody recently came to letting the cat out of the bag was during the "plane on the conveyor belt" episode. Jamie commented to the camera that he couldn't believe they were actually having to test such a stupid myth.
|
|