|
Post by dwight on Oct 12, 2010 17:02:44 GMT -4
gillianren, my take on the matter is that according to them you are a LIAR because you dare commit the heinous crime - punishable by an eternity in the firey flames of hell - by agreeing Apollo happened as NASA (boo hiss) said it did. Of all the heinous things in this world to do, that is the most heinous of heinous.
BTW did JW hold Jay responsible for the SMH report (what with him being our king and all - though I didn't vote for him)? Because by gum, if he didn't, he should have! Darned amatuer conspiracy theorist.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Oct 12, 2010 17:27:14 GMT -4
Jarrah is just embarrassing. It's really painful to watch his videos. They're cringe-inducing. I can't think of any other words to use.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 12, 2010 18:55:44 GMT -4
BTW did JW hold Jay responsible for the SMH report (what with him being our king and all - though I didn't vote for him)? Because by gum, if he didn't, he should have! Darned amatuer conspiracy theorist. If Jarrah owned a cat, and it got run over tomorrow, he would somehow blame Jay for the feline's demise. Despite the fact that the two JWs cannot be separated much further by geography. [Note to Jarrah : That's called sarcasm - you might want to learn the meaning of the term and how to identify it] Ah well, I'm going to bed. I've had my entertainment for the day.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 12, 2010 20:53:35 GMT -4
gillianren, my take on the matter is that according to them you are a LIAR because you dare commit the heinous crime - punishable by an eternity in the firey flames of hell - by agreeing Apollo happened as NASA (boo hiss) said it did. Of all the heinous things in this world to do, that is the most heinous of heinous. The funny thing to me is that, in a way, I agree with them. I mean, obviously, I don't think being wrong and lying are the same thing. I don't think they're right about Apollo. And so forth. However, I do think that lying about history is a pretty serious sin. If you know something and willingly conspire to prevent other people from knowing the truth about whatever-it-is, that's flatly wrong. If I were lying about the Apollo program on the scale some people would have to be, that would be a grave sin indeed.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 13, 2010 12:15:50 GMT -4
Naturally I had nothing whatsoever to do with the "SMH report" (I don't even know what that is) or any other piece written by third parties discussing Jarrah's behavior. Aside from a few comments here and there (such as this one) I pretty much ignore Jarrah. I don't watch his videos. I don't read whatever he may be writing at YouTube or elsewhere. I really don't consider him or his followers worth my time. The only argument of his that I've felt worth addressing directly is whether I'm assassinating Bill Kaysing's character by objecting to his hoax claims.
Since 2004 Jarrah has had an unhealthy fixation on me personally, fueled by largely imaginary wrongs I have somehow committed against him or his mentors. That obsession has led him in the past to devote as much effort to irrelevant anti-Jay arguments as to arguments having to do with Apollo. Clearly Jarrah's approach is severely clouded by personal hatred, which appears to be shared by some of his followers such as Duane Damon. And I believe this is likely the root cause of their routine banishment from polite society.
As far as whether I'm responsible for the actions of the entire hoax-debunking community, I think the absurdity of that insinuation speaks for itself. But my alleged hegemony seems to be part and parcel of the alternate reality from which these conspiracy theories spring. There seems little I can do to alleviate that suspicion, since it's based on no evidence.
It is unfortunate that elements of the real world consider Jarrah to be a buffoon. But that is not my doing; it's his. If he spent more time in the real world instead of inside his walled garden at YouTube, he might acquire a healthier perspective for how his claims are received by more reasonable, well-informed people. The typical reaction I hear from people who encounter Jarrah's videos for the first time is, "Wow, is this guy for real?"
Yes, lying about history such as to give people the wrong impression of people, places, and events is a serious sin. But in terms of Apollo, the evidence speaks volumes in favor of authenticity. That raises the question whether Jarrah is painting and accurate picture of history, or whether he's misrepresenting it deliberately in order to become a public figure and follow in the footsteps of his mentors Ralph René and Bill Kaysing. Stalking the Mythbusters and the Apollo crews and hurling invective from the relative safety of YouTube, while avoiding a generally thorough and rigorous examination of his claims by qualified practitioners and scholars, doesn't portray someone who believes himself to be honest about his claims.
And no, being wrong and lying are not the same thing. When Jarrah commits whopping errors of misunderstanding and ignorance, he begs the world to excuse them as "honest mistakes." However in Jarrah's mind his critics are incapable of honest mistakes. Whenever he catches one of them in an error (whether real or one of his fanciful manufacture), it's automatically a "lie." Someone who enters the debate with the presumption that his critics are despicable liars (and then works so hard to make that seem true) doesn't deserve serious attention.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Oct 13, 2010 13:52:05 GMT -4
Well said Jay. BTW SMH is the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper. Now, I realise you just said you are not all-powerful, but is there any chance you could turn up the temperature in Germany by about 10 degrees celcius?
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 13, 2010 20:07:32 GMT -4
A very measured and well worded response from Jay, which led me to a perculiar thought.
Seeing the Grandchild flounder as Buzz walked out of the room, it occurred to me that 'hurling invective from the relative safety of YouTube' underlines just what an empty vessel he is. At least Sibrel had the courage of his conviction and had the guts to call Buzz a coward and liar. While I don't agree with Bart's behavior, in some strange way, I now have more respect for Bart than I do Jarrah. It's a relative thing before people launch into me, as I have none for Bart Sibrel, that is for sure. My brain is haggled after listening to the miner rescue on BBC for most of the night. It's 31 now, and time to go to bed...
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Oct 14, 2010 2:28:32 GMT -4
To be honest I have not watched this one. Did he wimp out then with the rock/tree/thingy? No digging questions on the radiation? No questions on the ability of dishes to receive one frequency only?
Might have a titter later.
|
|
Topher
Venus
I'm in yo' planet, abducting yo' farmers.
Posts: 31
|
Post by Topher on Oct 15, 2010 1:56:44 GMT -4
To be honest I have not watched this one. Did he wimp out then with the rock/tree/thingy? No digging questions on the radiation? No questions on the ability of dishes to receive one frequency only? Might have a titter later. He asks one question, and then is cut off by someone else asking questions. At the end of the video, you see him trying and failing to get Aldrin's attention as he's leaving. The last part is pretty funny, as he doesn't assert any real effort into trying to get Buzz's attention, as if he's too shy or scared to piss him off or even get his attention.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 15, 2010 13:47:58 GMT -4
Buzz is the astronaut I'm least inclined to piss off.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 15, 2010 14:45:53 GMT -4
Buzz is the astronaut I'm least inclined to piss off. Me too. He's an octogenarian and I'm a not quite 40, 6' 3" rugby player tipping in at around 240 lbs - but I'd not like that parting shot he landed on Sibrel. I'm not a violent person, but I admit a little part of me was wishing he had made it number 2 - just a little part of me.
|
|
|
Post by galaxy on Oct 16, 2010 12:00:56 GMT -4
Apparently the moron can't even ask a legitimate question. While all 3 Apollo 11 astronaut's names were on the presentation card that came with the "rock" that was given to Drees, it was Ambassador Middendorf who presented the rock in the first place. There is nothing anywhere (that I can find, at least) that states that Neil, Buzz or Mike were there at the presentation. Cz It was supposed to be a rock from the moon. So this is a clear proof of fake. Like it or not.
|
|
|
Post by Cavorite on Oct 16, 2010 12:10:23 GMT -4
Somehow I doubt we'll see a second post from Mr Seagull. Either that, or death by mod within 48 hours.
|
|
|
Post by Daggerstab on Oct 16, 2010 12:10:27 GMT -4
It was supposed to be a rock from the moon. So this is a clear proof of fake. Like it or not. No, it was not supposed to be a moon rock. It was mislabeled later by someone who misinterpreted the label. Moon dust samples that were given away after Apollo 11 look like this: www.collectspace.com/resources/moonrocks_apollo11.htmlNote that they are all very small pieces (0.05 grams), encased in plastic. At the time there was a very small amount of moon rock samples. So, why would someone present a much bigger sample to only one country?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Oct 16, 2010 12:50:01 GMT -4
It was supposed to be a rock from the moon. So this is a clear proof of fake. Like it or not. I think you suffer from a lack of imagination. You've got it in your head that the only possible explanation for this is that NASA (or whoever) intentionally deceived the former Dutch Prime Minister. But I can think of all sorts of ways that a piece of petrified wood could become mislabeled over the course of 40 years. For example: 1. The Moon sample is presented to the Dutch Prime Minister 2. The sample is given to the museum, who put it on display. 3. Years later the museum decides to renovate and items are placed into temporary storage. 4. While moving some geology exhibits a careless worker accidentally mixes up the moon rock and petrified wood. No one notices the mistake until last year. Simple. It doesn't involved any criminal behaviour, just a clumsy museum worker who doesn't want to get into trouble. For all we know, the actual lunar sample is located in a storage crate labeled "petrified wood". So I ask you, galaxy, what evidence do you have that your explanation is right and mine is wrong?
|
|