Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 18, 2011 10:29:10 GMT -4
People here talk a lot about Jarrah White but I have to admit I really know little about him. From what I’ve seen, he seems like an arrogant youth who is in way over his head trying to make a bunch of noise about things he knows little about. What few videos I’ve seen have mostly been rants with little substance. I’m not particularly fond of YouTube and I certainly find Jarrah not worthy of my time.
That being said, I am curious just what Jarrah White believes about the hoax theory and what he proclaims. For instance, if I were asked about Ralph Rene, I could give a dozen bullet points that summarizes Rene’s beliefs and signature claims about the alleged hoax. So, what does Jarrah believe? What key points are at the heart of his arguments? What is his shtick? It’s my understanding Jarrah is a discipline of Ralph Rene, so I assume he professes many of the things Rene promoted. Is Jarrah’s work mainly repeating the claims of others or has added anything that is uniquely his?
I’m just curious, so if somebody can sum up Jarrah White for me I’d appreciate it. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 18, 2011 11:07:32 GMT -4
I’m just curious, so if somebody can sum up Jarrah White for me I’d appreciate it. Basically, take the same bullets points that you'd have for Bart Sibrel, Ralph Rene, Bill Kaysing and David Percy; and you'd have a list of what Jarrah believes. How he puts it together in his videos? Well, that's for you to discover by yourself Bob. It's very hard to explain, but it involves some whizzy graphics, lots of annoying music and a whole lot of cherry picking and quote mining. He leads with the tag line that he verifies much of what Bill and Ralph said by conducting experiments and theorising with information he has collected. All of it is error ridden. For example, he claims that zap pits could have been created by firing pellets at rocks, using a gun for firing aluminium at targets. He presented no evidence for the gun or process. It was then explained to him that while such a gun exisits, the pellets would have to be the same bore as the gun, otherwise they would not make it to the end of the barrel. Ignoring this, he claimed that his detractors had provided him with evidence for the gun, and it could have been used to fake zap pits by firing micrometeorites collected in the upper atmosphere. Does that make sense to read? I recently posted a list of some of Jarrah's errors. Most are from memory. However, it appears the gig is not paying, and he's resorted to asking for donations to produce his films. Essentially, he has started e-begging.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 18, 2011 11:34:37 GMT -4
Jarrah does have video skills, but unfortunately he uses the vast majority of them making his Apollo hoax videos.
Jarrah is a master of cherrypicking data from various publications, looking for those phrases that seem to incriminate NASA in a hoax, or raising questions. He won't be bothered to actually contact the authors/sources to verify that they actually agree with his twisted interpretation of their information. It's interesting in his videos, he takes video of a page, highlighting a particular phrase or paragraph that seems incriminating...and often the surrounding text gives a context which explains his "evidence".
He doesn't accept criticism or correction well, however well mannered.
He spread Ralph Rene's ashes in the surf in one of his videos, and used him as an "expert witness" in a few videos. Holds Bill Kaysing in high esteem as well.
He knows how to google. Everything he finds is seen through the hoax filtered glasses.
His enthusiasm for the hoax blinds him from reason on occasion. His polar "orbit", and his "fast" LEO orbit (25,000mph, in order to minimize chances for detection) are a couple of examples of his "shoot before aiming" mentality.
He is supremely confident in his beliefs, and if you don't agree with him, then you are a propagandist. He gets banned from almost every site he visits for debate, he just gets all twisted up and angry, and lashes out with all manner of bad behavior.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 18, 2011 11:54:27 GMT -4
Basically, take the same bullets points that you'd have for Bart Sibrel, Ralph Rene, Bill Kaysing and David Percy; and you'd have a list of what Jarrah believes. It sounds like he's never met a moon hoax claim he didn’t like. Must I? I've seen a little bit and I understand what you mean about the quote mining. For instance, he took a quote of mine from my web page and twisted it to claim I admitted something I never said. He just totally didn't get the point I was making. So would I be correct in saying that he hasn't really added anything new to the story? That his primary purposes is to prop up the claims made by Kaysing, Rene, and others? What I can tell from the little bit I've seen, Jarrah seems to spend a lot of time trying to debunk the debunkers. A consequence, I suppose, of him defending the long since discredited claims of his predecessors. I saw that post and found it interesting. Didn’t I remember reading somewhere that Jarrah forked out several hundred dollars to buy some lunar soil simulant? It seems the kid needs to prioritize his spending a little better.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 18, 2011 11:58:02 GMT -4
Jarrah is a master of cherrypicking data from various publications, looking for those phrases that seem to incriminate NASA in a hoax, or raising questions. He won't be bothered to actually contact the authors/sources to verify that they actually agree with his twisted interpretation of their information. It's interesting in his videos, he takes video of a page, highlighting a particular phrase or paragraph that seems incriminating...and often the surrounding text gives a context which explains his "evidence". I've seen what you're talking about. In fact, as I stated in my previous post, he did it with one of my quotes.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 18, 2011 12:12:23 GMT -4
I've seen a little bit and I understand what you mean about the quote mining. For instance, he took a quote of mine from my web page and twisted it to claim I admitted something I never said. He just totally didn't get the point I was making. He did the same to me over some maths/physics he produced. I pointed out that was solving an equilibrium force with two degrees of freedom in his solution. It's a long story, but I showed that the only way for solving the problem with one degree of freedom was to vary material density. He then claimed that I actually thought the density of a material can be physically changed at will. He completely missed my point about the mathematical behaviour of the problem he was setting up. I was actually trying to explain that what he was trying to solve actually implied one would have to physically change density - hence his argument was flawed. He used my argument against me. He simply turns round arguments that he does not understand by omitting the parts that do not please him, and then repackaging it as further proof of his original claim (or how his 'opponents' are stupid, liars or worse). The zap pit example I described above is a good one. Personally, I should have given him a clean berth when I discovered that he had accused another person of being a pedophile for the innocent use of a song in a video. On one hand I think he is a ball of hate and venom, and deserves everything that he has coming to him with interest. On the other hand I ask myself what makes him that way, and understand that it is not his fault. I actually have pity for him now. I might even contribute to his e-begging if it helps keep food in his tummy. I'd hate to see someone go hungry.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 18, 2011 12:18:00 GMT -4
He must have spent all his money on last year's trips to the NASM and TAM...I've often wondered where he get's his money.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 18, 2011 12:23:05 GMT -4
He must have spent all his money on last year's trips to the NASM and TAM...I've often wondered where he get's his money. I just simply wonder where Jarrah's concerned
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 18, 2011 12:24:28 GMT -4
I've seen a little bit and I understand what you mean about the quote mining. For instance, he took a quote of mine from my web page and twisted it to claim I admitted something I never said. He just totally didn't get the point I was making. Can you link to the video and the part on your webpage?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 18, 2011 13:01:42 GMT -4
Must I? No. If he doesn't have the intellectual courage to come here, why should we go to him?
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 18, 2011 13:12:11 GMT -4
Must I? No. If he doesn't have the intellectual courage to come here, why should we go to him? Absolutely on the money Gillianren. Although I was being tongue in cheek with Bob initially. ;D
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jul 18, 2011 13:20:56 GMT -4
How he puts it together in his videos? It's very hard to explain, but it involves some whizzy graphics, lots of annoying music and a whole lot of cherry picking and quote mining. Don't forget the annoying voice. You'd think by now he'd learn to get somebody else to narrate his videos.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 18, 2011 13:50:01 GMT -4
I've seen a little bit and I understand what you mean about the quote mining. For instance, he took a quote of mine from my web page and twisted it to claim I admitted something I never said. He just totally didn't get the point I was making. Can you link to the video and the part on your webpage? I no longer know where the video is as I didn’t bother to save the link. (It was something I just happened to stumble across during a Google search.) It had something to do with the TETR-A satellite. The quote on my web page is from my response to Bart Sibrel’s claim that TETR-A was used to simulate transmissions from the Apollo spacecraft. The exact quote is a follows: “The flight controllers in the Mission Control Center (MCC) read only what was on their computer screens and wouldn't have known where the data came from. Thus, it can be argued the MCC flight controllers could be fooled by simulated data, but a satellite would not have been necessary to do it.”My quote is to a very specific claim by Sibrel that the data streamed into MCC from the TETR-A satellite. My point is that if one wants to argue the flight controllers could be fooled by simulated data than that’s a separate issue that can be debated, but one doesn’t need to evoke the use of a satellite to do it as Sibrel has done. Jarrah’s interpretation: I’ve admitted the flight controllers could be fooled by simulate data.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 18, 2011 13:58:17 GMT -4
My quote is to a very specific claim by Sibrel that the data streamed into MCC from the TETR-A satellite. My point is that if one wants to argue the flight controllers could be fooled by simulated data than that’s a separate issue that can be debated, but one doesn’t need to evoke the use of a satellite to do it as Sibrel has done. Jarrah’s interpretation: I’ve admitted the flight controllers could be fooled by simulate data. I know the argument in question. It's a bit like the zap pit argument. Jarrah: Zap pits can be faked by firing pellets a high-velocity gun, but I cannot prove it, or where the gun was located. Fred: Such a gun exists at A, but it cannot be used to fire pellets because of X,Y and Z. Jarrah: (Ignoring X,Y and Z) Ah, you've just proven to me that the gun exists, and therefore the technology existed for NASA to fake zap pits. Therefore I was correct after all. That's about the sophistication of his arguments. It's a bit like the Fattydash thread. It goes around in circles.
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Jul 18, 2011 13:58:30 GMT -4
...I've often wondered where he get's his money. I think it's called "Mommy"
|
|