|
Post by Obviousman on Jul 17, 2010 6:32:43 GMT -4
I don't want to give him any attention to further his "cause", but I do want to arrange for him to be put in front of the camera and have to answer the questions he so vigorously avoids.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 17, 2010 13:15:30 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? I think yes because it all softens people up for the conspiracy theories and irrational nonsense nonsense that can do real direct damage. if you can convince people that something as huge and well documented as the moon landings were a hoax, even just make them wonder if it might be, then it makes stuff like anti-vax that bit easier to buy into.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 17, 2010 14:45:58 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. They know a lot. They just don't script the talking to the camera, though they do work out some parts of the intro segments in advance.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jul 18, 2010 9:27:11 GMT -4
Of course he could just stop hiding behind youtube and publish where people who matter and have such knowledge would have visibility and a means to adres him in a civil way and one where he would have to react in a civil way. Ambushes and leery vids on youtube are not proof and used to I think he knew that. Now I am not so sure, especially after some of the recent howlers including jumping in a box of simulated regolith.
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Jul 25, 2010 15:33:43 GMT -4
I imagine some of you are friends with Phil Plait and Pamela Gay. Both are friends of Adam Savage. I have Pam as a Friend on Facebook but considering she has over 3,000 friends listed, the chances of her getting any message from me are slim to none.
Point is... if any of you are friends with them, maybe you should warn them that Jarrah is on the prowl. Maybe point them to some of his YouTube videos so they know what an incompetent fool they are dealing with and will also know what he looks like.
Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Jul 25, 2010 16:49:46 GMT -4
I imagine some of you are friends with Phil Plait and Pamela Gay. Both are friends of Adam Savage. I have Pam as a Friend on Facebook but considering she has over 3,000 friends listed, the chances of her getting any message from me are slim to none. Point is... if any of you are friends with them, maybe you should warn them that Jarrah is on the prowl. Maybe point them to some of his YouTube videos so they know what an incompetent fool they are dealing with and will also know what he looks like. Just a thought. I would bet when Jay consulted on their Moon hoax episode, JW came up for discussion. Still can't hurt to send a heads up tho.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 25, 2010 17:21:31 GMT -4
I would bet when Jay consulted on their Moon hoax episode, JW came up for discussion. No. No individual conspiracy authors were discussed.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 25, 2010 21:47:38 GMT -4
I imagine some of you are friends with Phil Plait and Pamela Gay. Both are friends of Adam Savage. I have Pam as a Friend on Facebook but considering she has over 3,000 friends listed, the chances of her getting any message from me are slim to none. Point is... if any of you are friends with them, maybe you should warn them that Jarrah is on the prowl. I'm pretty certain that Phil ran into Jarrah at TAM. On July 22nd Phil wrote on his blog:
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Jul 26, 2010 7:04:12 GMT -4
I would bet when Jay consulted on their Moon hoax episode, JW came up for discussion. No. No individual conspiracy authors were discussed. That surprises me given the diverse and mutually exclusive variations of the hoax theories in circulation. ETA: On second thoughts, I retract that. There would not be time enough in a 1 hour slot to cover it all.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jul 26, 2010 9:35:39 GMT -4
Honest-to-Armstrong, that's an expression I haven't heard before.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jul 26, 2010 12:51:09 GMT -4
Just been looking through his Tetra (?) video and he is railing against someone making a video and the sound level not altering when the camera is moved closer to the subject speaking. The subject he is complaining about whose level is not altering when the camera moves closer, appears to be wearing the mike. So, Sherlock, how would the sound increase in level? Or was the bloke wearing the mike, but wearing a mike that was not turned on?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 26, 2010 13:28:19 GMT -4
That surprises me given the diverse and mutually exclusive variations of the hoax theories in circulation. ETA: On second thoughts, I retract that. There would not be time enough in a 1 hour slot to cover it all. A one-hour television program contains between 46 and 48 minutes of content, the rest being commercials. You write it as four 10-12 minute acts. You're right; there simply isn't enough time in a single episode to cover all the conspiracy claims. I haven't tested this, but I suspect it wouldn't be possible in a 48-minute television program even to list all the claims, much less to address them. And predictably this is the point that many conspiracy theorists raise when dealing with Mythbusters: they didn't cover claim X, so I can ignore them altogether. The Mythbusters format lends itself only to certain forms of rebuttal -- chiefly those with a visually interesting empirical aspect. The format also imposes budget, complexity, and safety constraints. For example, they have not yet figured out how one can test the Van Allen belt claims within the show's format. Yes, a rebuttal exists; but testing it on Mythbusters isn't yet practical. We discussed many claims and potential rebuttals, but we didn't discuss the individual authors who may have written about them. The show is about claims, not authors.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 26, 2010 17:53:39 GMT -4
Just been looking through his Tetra (?) video This is a typical Jarrah White video. He drills deep into "he said, but no, she said" arguments as a way to evade the substantive issues. His ambush of Adam Savage was along the same lines.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jul 27, 2010 3:51:50 GMT -4
Just been looking through his Tetra (?) video This is a typical Jarrah White video. He drills deep into "he said, but no, she said" arguments as a way to evade the substantive issues. His ambush of Adam Savage was along the same lines. First up I spilt mic wrong. opps. I was perusing the presentations as I do on occasion and thought he was trying to dissect this guys video without examining the possible reasons for something, in this case why does the sound not increase when the camera moves closer. The subject sat in a chair with a photograph and the camera person moving the camera in instead of zooming for a closer shot and a mic clearly visible on the subjects shirt. There are a few reasons why this audio level will not alter much and most obvious is the mic pinned to the guys shirt. Post editing as well and more than one mic. One assumes the camera will also record for a decent background and mixed in. This appears not to be addressed in the video and is quite important to his claim. I should add that I have not watched all of his vids relating to this if there are more, one or two at a time and I get brain ache. Just thought his usual standards needed pointing out. Even if the editing has been done post filming off one camera mic and the personal mic was not used (sometimes they forget to take them off) then auto limiting software could be used. This again is not addressed. Or have I missed JW in a full explanation of what can happen somewhere? (might be rhetorical )
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 27, 2010 8:14:55 GMT -4
An even better question, I think, is how a video on the topic of the audio level in someone else's video is even conceivably relevant to the "question" of a supposed Apollo hoax. I mean, isn't this getting pretty far off on a tangent?
All the better to avoid having to defend some pretty outrageous claims, I think.
|
|