|
Post by Kiwi on Aug 25, 2011 8:26:01 GMT -4
A couple hours after he took his first giant step on the moon, Neil took a giant leap back into the LM. I see no wires, so if it was filmed on Earth that Armstrong guy is Superman... Not only that. Note how the ever-practical, thoughtful and honourable guy thinks of the mission instead of himself and spends considerable time scraping and shaking lunar dust off his boots. None of this: Thinks -- "Now, if I just pretend to shake this stuff off and wait till Buzz isn't looking sometime between re-compress and final decompress and grab a handkerchief and wipe that lot into it, I should be able to make a mint from it if I hold off till the eighties or later and offer it for sale, along with my signature..."
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Aug 25, 2011 10:12:45 GMT -4
"Jarrah White is a soldier for the truth" - Joe Rogan
Who the heck is Joe Rogan and why should I care??
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 25, 2011 10:19:38 GMT -4
"Jarrah White is a soldier for the truth" - Joe RoganWho the heck is Joe Rogan and why should I care??
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Aug 25, 2011 12:27:09 GMT -4
"Jarrah White is a soldier for the truth" - Joe RoganWho the heck is Joe Rogan and why should I care?? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_RoganHe's been mentioned in the Bad Astronomy blog several times, but I can't seem to get onto that site right now.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Aug 25, 2011 12:56:23 GMT -4
Soldier for truth? Failed basic training more like.
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Aug 25, 2011 13:29:00 GMT -4
Interesting read! So what it boils down to is one unqualified buffoon is vouching for the credentials of another. Great Strategy there Jarrah!! Seems to fit nicely with the rest of your logic.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 25, 2011 13:46:06 GMT -4
Joe Rogan got the better of the BA in a debate many years ago on the old Penn Jillette radio show. It served as an example of why scientist should not debate hoax proponents. Rogan started on von Braun and the Nazi rocket canard to which the BA replied it was not relevant. Rogan then went on for some time about the lies the government tells and if they will lie about Nazi rockets they will lie about anything. It was down hill from there. Jilette was unable to control the debate, so Rogan simply threw so much Bart Sibrel around, there was no way to counter any of it. People like the BA, who are used to speaking with reasoning, knowledgeable and polite people don't do well against people who make a living doing stand up comedy and performance commentary.
No thinking person would have been fooled by Rogan, but his attacks are meant to attract followers by emotion, FUD and confirmation bias.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 25, 2011 14:02:44 GMT -4
I may be wrong here, but was that the radio show where the BA was listening, and decided to phone in? If I recall, Rogan brought up the HAM radio argument and the BA had to admit he did not know a lot about the technology so it was hard for him to discuss that particular facet (that's from memory). Rogan seized upon this admission, and began more or less mocking the BA, questioning his authority to commentate on moon hoax. Of course, had someone like ka9q been on that show, I'm sure that he would have turned the tables on Joe Rogan and made it quite apparent that Joe Rogan was just repeating the same old tired sound bites from the Kaysing's Bible. Even Bill Kaysing finishes his book by telling us that many minds will be needed to solve the moon hoax question, but the modern HB insists that those who refute their claims should have expertise in all the science of Apollo. I guess that is because they believe themselves to be the experts in every academic and engineering field. There's a good section at Clavius about James Collier, where Mr Collier seems to think that his appearance on community talk-radio adds to his case. Jay hones in on the merit of such shows, and their credence in the professional world. HBs seem to think that their presence on such talk radio adds weight to their cause. I see he-who-shall-not-be-named has uploaded recent interviews at his YT channel. I think that it shows one thing, and one thing only, and that is their will to have their voice heard and gain their little bit of fame. Joe Rogan giving he-who-shall-not-be-named endorsement is like Joseph Stalin eulogising Adolf Hitler for his contribution to peace, tolerance and liberal democracy. <edit: spelling, punctuation and correction to sentence.>
|
|
|
Post by Glom on Aug 25, 2011 15:31:51 GMT -4
Jay also doesn't do face-to-face debate because he knows so much about those situations favours the best blagger rather than the person who's right. If a HB with charisma can spring a new argument on an unsuspecting, socially awkward debunker, the debunker can get screwed. Only in the minutes after the engagement does the HB's argument predictably fall apart.
That's what's great about the web forum format. Everyone has time to consider there responses.
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Aug 25, 2011 16:04:58 GMT -4
I may be wrong here, but was that the radio show where the BA was listening, and decided to phone in? If I recall, Rogan brought up the HAM radio argument and the BA had to admit he did not know a lot about the technology so it was hard for him to discuss that particular facet (that's from memory) ... I've listened to that particular debate on YouTube before and it made me cringe. I didn't know that was Joe Rogan (or even who he was for that matter), but it made me angry that Phil didn't have a better answer. Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful for all that Mr. Plait has done to combat the moon hoax conspiracy, but sometimes I think he needs to step up his game a bit. Even in his book, "Bad Astronomy" he mentions the Hoax Theory but it's a very short chapter. I was left with the feeling that the Hoax wan more of an afterthought to him than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 25, 2011 16:12:44 GMT -4
That's because it was . . . .
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 25, 2011 16:17:19 GMT -4
I've listened to that particular debate on YouTube before and it made me cringe. I know that feeling. The times that I have listened to radio interviews with Ralph Rene, I simply stop the interview and walk away. The ignorance is frightening. There are few people that are real experts on Apollo. Phil Plait is good at debunking the standard nonsense, but that's because his training is in physics and not engineering. When it comes to the deep engineering, then I'd turn to Jay, Bob, sts60, ka9q et al to fight the corner. I forget where the link is, but Jay highlighted at this forum how HBs think they can take a simple physics equations and resolve complex engineering problems. Their answers lead them to accusations of fakery. They fail to understand how the equation they use steps over into real life practical situations. For that, one needs to understand the assumptions that lead to the equation in the first place, and how the equation is then applied to model the real world. It takes engineers with practical real world experience of working systems to combat such arguments and put them down soundly. As Jay also points out, the likes of he-who-shall-not-be-named are not on the radar of most real world people. They are simply too busy, and see them for what they are. In that sense, the Apollo community is lucky to have Jay, Bob, sts60, ka9q et al in our corner.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 25, 2011 17:54:33 GMT -4
I may be wrong here, but was that the radio show where the BA was listening, and decided to phone in? IIRC it was a planned debate. Despite their shared interest in promoting science, I just can't imagine the BA being interested enough in Jillette's libertarian politics to be a regular listener. The show is available from iTunes but the script on the page hangs for me. The series was quite funny, I used to listen to the podcasts during lunch. itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/unofficial-penn-radio-podcast/id167164277
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 25, 2011 18:00:23 GMT -4
Of course, had someone like ka9q been on that show, I'm sure that he would have turned the tables on Joe Rogan and made it quite apparent that Joe Rogan was just repeating the same old tired sound bites from the Kaysing's Bible. Several of our members would have been able to turn him around. But it requires someone who will not stop talking until the talking is done, despite the interruptions. And a moderator the is wiling to step in when needed. There really is no "debate" in a meaningful sense of the word with professional loudmouths like Rogan. That is why scientists should not debate them.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 25, 2011 18:22:11 GMT -4
Several of our members would have been able to turn him around. I have no doubt. I know ka9q is a HAM enthusiast and has an engineering background in the domain. His name sprung to mind regarding Rogan's attack on Plait over the HAM issue. But it requires someone who will not stop talking until the talking is done, despite the interruptions. Fair point, well made. I was referring to the HAM question specifically, since this is the question where Joe Rogan made most hay. I think Phil's response could have been fielded better. Had an expert answered it, then damage limitation would have come into play. The main point I was making is that only a few have a very good knowledge of Apollo to offer rebuttals for all scenarios, and even then I'd wager a shiny pound that some of our more esteemed colleagues here sometimes need to go away before answering questions. If Phil had the necessary knowledge on HAM technology, he would not have let Joe Rogan an open door. With all respect to Phil Plait, he would not be my first choice candidate for debating Apollo. Having said that, I agree that the Plait/Rogan encounter was not a debate of any kind. I admire Phil for agreeing to take part, given that he was up against a motor mouth. I also admire Phil for the way he promotes science. I can only speak highly of his outreach activities.
|
|