|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 8, 2011 9:26:12 GMT -4
You'd better back that up.Indeed he had better. Rest assured I will press him to take responsibility for that claim. If he's going to defend Jarrah White, he'd better be in for a pound. However, he [Jarrah] completely ignored me and everyone else besides Jay.Which was also the case very recently at IMDb, where several people first tried to hold him accountable for his claims, then generally dismissed his continued sick obsession over me when he failed to respond. That fixation extended also to claiming I had interceded with a moderator there to remove an important post, which (I was informed) was just another of his profanity-laced invectives.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 8, 2011 9:34:44 GMT -4
Which was also the case very recently at IMDb, where several people first tried to hold him accountable for his claims, then generally dismissed his continued sick obsession over me when he failed to respond.If I recall he failed to answer many questions from other posters that had equal merit to your own. Not only an example of his sick obsession with you, but another example of his intellectual cowardice.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jul 8, 2011 10:01:05 GMT -4
Rest assured I will press him to take responsibility for that claim. Oh, as one of the participants in that 'fabricated' link, so will I!
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 8, 2011 10:06:40 GMT -4
One of the Australian posters offered to set up a meeting between Jarah and some solar physicists from all nearby university. All Jarrah had to do was show up but he refused to even acknowledge the invitation.
|
|
|
Post by carpediem on Jul 8, 2011 13:04:50 GMT -4
- Filing over 50 false copyright claims to silence those who have opposed his views and pointed out the fallacies of his arguments.
.... And Jarrah's videos were falsely flagged by youtube users who wanted him banned just because he's a conspiracy theorist. The Apollo 1, Flagging The Gems videos were flagged until Jarrah filed counter-copyright against those who got his videos banned. They are now restored to public view, so while they may be filled with lies they don't contain any abusive comments against us believers. www.youtube.com/user/kaleljordankentAn account which has actually been terminated because of Jarrah White's DMCA's. www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6xY7WFQ3OIAstrobrant2's video about Jarrah's DMCA's.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 8, 2011 17:01:03 GMT -4
For Data cable
We all lie data cable. Your comment about a liar being one who lies and if one lies then is a liar, seems to imply an insistence on the point that any person who tells a lie is a bad person, immoral, evil. But then we all are, this would make us all necessarily "liars" in the term's most pejorative sense, horrible at root, dishonest.
If you mean to imply that you never have, nor never will lie, well that is simply not credible and any argument you or anther person makes beyond that, an argument based on the premise that you data cable never lie, just doesn't work. You or anyone else for that matter cannot expect another person to believe that you have never strayed from the truth ever. It is simply not believable.
The most interesting, and helpful I might add, aspect of participating in this particular thread is to come to the realization that many forum members seem to think that if I believe Neil Armstrong participated in fraud, I must then see him as some type of horrible creep.
First of all, how is it possible for another forum member to presume to know what I should or should not think about Neil Armstrong, how I should or should not feel about his moral character? I believe it may be and probably is a character quite remarkable, in a positive sense. I believe quite literally that it would take tremendous courage and character to live as he has, assuming Apollo is fraudulent.
Secondly, why should any person be viewed as evil because they have concealed, because they have lied, based solely on the fact that for some reason the person has chosen to deceive another? For any lie to be told, there is the element of justification in its telling. If Apollo were fraudulent, would I accept Armstrong's justification assuming he was utterly forthcoming and spilled all the space beans? I believe the answer would be yes. I would imagine that I would accept his justification and view it as most reasonable. This would make the "fraud" something I could see myself participating in. Something I might imagine lots of people doing under similar circumstances. National security interest based justification comes to mind, but there are others as reasonable, understandable.
Using the straight forward cold war cliche as an example, if any of us were asked to pretend to go to the moon out of the interest of national security, I imagine many of us would go. I believe the context of Apollo was more complex, but this simple example makes my point and is helpful because we are all familiar with the example, however cliche it may be.
So for me, my take on why it is so "hard to get along" seems to be that apologists for the official story are most affected by this sense that those of us on the HB side are attacking the credibility and character of their heros. But for some of us, not an insignificant number, this is simply not the case, and for what it is worth, I also seemed to have learned that it really really bothers people here that someone like me might admire and greatly respect Neil Armstrong.
How many of the official story defenders have ever taken the time to write to Neil Armstrong? I have written to him and I am sure he did not object to what it was that I had to say.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 8, 2011 17:17:18 GMT -4
I'm actually quite sure that there are people on this board who have met Neil Armstrong. I know at least one has met Buzz Aldrin. What's your point?
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 8, 2011 17:25:44 GMT -4
My point is, I respect the man, Neil Armstrong, regardless, Apollo real or fraud, and my take on "why we can't get along" the substance of the animosity is that official story advocates believe we are attacking the man's character. This is not necessarily true. It certainly is not true in my case anyway. Secondly, the thought that someone like me could actually view Armstrong neutrally or oh my God!, even admire him, well that seems to rankle some people to the ever loving core. How dare I admire Neil Armstrong! That is my point.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jul 8, 2011 17:26:20 GMT -4
How many of the official story defenders have ever taken the time to write to Neil Armstrong? Eric Jones, Andrew Chaikin and James R. Hansen have interviewed Armstrong extensively. I'm fairly certain that they know more about him than you, and they believe he really flew to the Moon. Are you planning to the answer the question of why you created sock puppets here and on BAUT?
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 8, 2011 17:30:56 GMT -4
For Laurel.
I do not pretend to know Armstrong. He may believe me to be a horrible creep. This would be fine with me. God knows the man is entitled to his opinions, especially with regard to a person like myself who believes his Apollo Program to be contrived.
However, the thread here is about conflict, the nature of the conflict between HB types and official story advocates. And as regards this, the point I just made was neither you Laurel, nor any other official story advocate, may presume to speak on my behalf and tell me what I should or should not think, say, feel about another person. You Laurel, and any and all other official story advocates, are not entitled to peak on my behalf as much as you would like to it would seem. Official story advocates are not entitled to the argument that if I believe Apollo to be fraudulent then I must be disgusted with the likes of Neil Armstrong. Official story advocates are not entitled to the argument because I respect the man. My opinion. I respect him. Clear enough?
If you care to keep the discussion on topic, I will be happy to entertain your comments and respond. If you wish to discuss other matters, you are welcome to start your own thread as is any other respected forum member.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 8, 2011 17:31:00 GMT -4
Fatty, you have no credible evidence at all that would indicate any astronaut is lying about flying to the Moon. Your impressions and "if I ran the zoo" nonsense is not evidence. No evidence of a hoax, no evidence of a national security operation.
Meanwhile, the scientific community worldwide has gleaned enormous amounts of data from the samples returned from the manned flight...something robotics simply could not accomplish.
Your feigned respect for Armstrong, et al, is getting old. Believe what you want...but the facts and evidence are very much against you.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jul 8, 2011 17:31:29 GMT -4
Fattydash, why did you create all the sock puppets?
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 8, 2011 17:32:33 GMT -4
First of all, how is it possible for another forum member presume to know what I should or should not think about Neil Armstrong, how I should or should not feel about his moral character? I believe it may be and probably is a character quite remarkable, in a positive sense. I believe quite literally that it would take tremendous courage and character to live as he has, assuming Apollo is fraudulent. Secondly, why should any person be viewed as evil because they have concealed, because they have lied, based solely on the fact that for some reason the person has chosen to deceive another? So for me, my take on why it is so "hard to get along" seems to be that apologists of the official story are most affected by this sense that those of us on the HB side are attacking the credibility and character of their heros. But for some of us, not an insignificant number, this is simply not the case, and for what it is worth, I also seemed to have learned that it really really bothers people here that someone like me might admire and greatly respect Neil Armstrong. That's why you fail. Firstly you make this statement: First of all, how is it possible for another forum member presume to know what I should or should not think about Neil Armstrong, how I should or should not feel about his moral character? But simultaneously you make the assertions that the astronauts are personal heroes of the members here. Why are you objectionable when individual presumes to know what you think about Neil Armstrong, yet you are OK with making presumptions about the status with which I and others hold Armstrong et al? I'd like an answer to this question please. Firstly the astronauts are not my heroes. What I find offensive is the achievements of the scientists and engineers that you denigrate, based on nothing more than gish gallop and hand waving, not to mention a good deal of side stepping and ignoring the careful words of Bob B, Jay Utah, ka9q and others. Please make an effort to understand this point, which has been articulated to you by numerous people over the last few days. It's is not about personal status, it is about the fact that I understand the effort it takes to learn the math and physics, and the sacrifice that takes. I've done it. I have a PhD in physics, and gave up much to do that. I gave up 8 years of potential earnings, I gave up a social life, and my biggest regret is that I gave up a relationship with the woman I loved, and being with my family for many years. I put myself through untold stress and anxiety, and finished with student debt. That is why I find you repugnantly offensive and nothing more than a weight around the ankle of humanity, and everything that is decent about the good will of mankind and their endeavour to do good things. The people that inspire me are not the Apollo astronauts. The people that inspire me are my mum and dad, my family, my brothers and sisters, my friends, and the people who have had direct impact on my life, such as my maths, chemisty and physics teachers at school. I agree with Jay, you are trying to make yourself acceptable and different to other conspiracy theorists. In my eyes, you are simply another conspiracy theorist, no matter how you dress it up. You are simply another one in a long line, and make plenty of noise without backing it up with substance. Personally, I have nothing but contempt and derision for your ilk, and it concerns me that people like you are dumbing a generation with your self promotion and political agendas, all for egotistical gain. If this gets me a ban, then so be it. I'll take the rap on the knuckles from the moderator. However, it really is high time that you answered the questions posed to you. I've asked you several times. Why did the US need to fake the moon landings? What was the engineering obstacle that prevented Kennedy's public committment from being achieved?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 8, 2011 17:48:59 GMT -4
My point is, I respect the man, Neil Armstrong, regardless, Apollo real or fraud, and my take on "why we can't get along" the substance of the animosity is that official story advocates believe we are attacking the man's character. This is not necessarily true. It certainly is not true in my case anyway. Secondly, the thought that someone like me could actually view Armstrong neutrally or oh my God!, even admire him, well that seems to rankle some people to the ever loving core. How dare I admire Neil Armstrong! That is my point. You know what, though? I don't believe you. Because it doesn't make sense. You are attacking his character when you say that he is, to this day, taking advantage of the privileges he's received over the years for being an Apollo astronaut. (You consistently ignore any other aspect of US spaceflight, so I don't know what you think about Mercury and Gemini.) He has steadfastly maintained that he actually walked on the Moon, and you are calling him a liar for saying it. The difference between any lies I've told (and I try to avoid telling them) and this "single" lie Neil Armstrong has, in your Bizarro world, told is that he has been living since 1969 in a world shaped by its consequences. This isn't "oh, I totally finished my homework." This would be, if it were a lie, one of the biggest lies ever told. This isn't a cover story for an undercover police officer or a spy. The point of those is that they are secret. They are only meant to fool a select number of people. What you are saying is not only that Neil Armstrong and the others told a lie, it is that they have lived a lie and are intending for that lie to stand forever. Because, in order for the hoax to be considered successful, it has to stand forever. This isn't the Manhattan Project, which just had to be secret for a while. This isn't even the Reichstag Fire, which just had to be convincing enough to give the Nazi Party the nudge they needed to completely gain power. This is literally tons of evidence, all of which must stand up to extensive scrutiny forever. People use Apollo data and technology today, and if it didn't work, they would know. If Apollo was designed to heighten the prestige of the US and it was discovered to be a hoax at any time, the prestige of the US would cease to exist. Which means that, even though they are no longer young men, those astronauts can't retire. They can't drop their cover stories and live normal lives. The lie must be so embedded in their very psyches that they can never reveal it to anyone but each other. And yet, for the most part, they're all doing fine. Buzz had some problems, but on your psych rotation, if you're a doctor, you must have learned that these things happen, especially given that Buzz realistically had no more worlds to conquer post-Apollo. I mean, how do you top that? That's only basic human psychology, which any real doctor would understand. But other than that, they're still men not merely willing but eager to share their experiences with the world. They don't get to every speaking occasion they're offered, but there isn't enough time. However, they write books, are interviewed by 60 Minutes, and give lectures. No, Neil doesn't much like talking, but it was known in advance that he was shy. After all, they weren't chosen for their skill in front of the camera but for their skill as pilots. You know, the skill which was actually important. I hold you in utter disdain, bluntly. You aren't willing or perhaps able to really read the information presented to you when it contradicts the belief you already hold, and yet you claim to work in a scientific field. You yourself have consistently lied--what's a sock puppet, after all, but a lie?--and yet you accuse others of having lived a lie for decades. You don't bother doing any technical research, because you feel your analyses of behaviour are sufficient, but you show a significant failure to grasp how human psychology works. If you should the least sign of intellectual honesty, I would cheerfully attempt to get along with you. But you've burned your bridges, and you're blaming other people for holding the match.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 8, 2011 17:57:41 GMT -4
scooter, as per my post to Laurel. You are way off topic. I obviously started this thread to discuss this particular issue outside of a context which of the facts we debate in the other threads. I see others have warmed to the merits of this approach. It would appear we are all learning about one another in a new sense.
I note Jay Utah "returned" . I do not know Jay, but see his return was a bit of a minor event, and am pleased my thread interested Jay enough to make an appearance. I mention this to suggest the thread's theme has great merit. This will be lost if this thread is allowed to fall apart and turn into just another forum where we argue points of fact.
Here in this thread, the idea is to assume the other side is entitled to their opinions however wrong or ill founded those opinions may be. Then ask yourself, "why is it that given this entitlement to opinion we tend to more than simply disagree, the debate degenerates into a forum where along with each point of fact mentioned, not infrequently there are personal attacks, whether the attacks be direct or implied".
I respect the Apollo official story advocate perspective. I see no reason to attack you or anyone else personally because you view Apollo as you do.
I had sort of given up in participating in this particular thread myself early on, but now view it differently as so many others are joining in. I like that. If this thread is going to be effective with regard to its original intention, helping us understand the dynamic of the personal conflict that so readily arises in our forum, It seems to me, of all the the threads, this is the one where it is most important to stay on topic.
|
|