|
Post by lukepemberton on Jan 7, 2012 15:05:43 GMT -4
Vince, you're a young man, you believe the moon landings were real now, so take my advice: stop wasting you time with old Jarrah videos and divert your efforts spending some time working toward your goals in life. You'll thank me in the end. You are at a point in your life where your education is make or break, so put some time into that.
Jarrah has been debunked time and time again. He's going to his grave believing the hoax, and to be quite honest I don't really care that he's wasting his life any more. I care more that he's attracting people into his world of stupid, and brining them down. Most of his audience have problems, look at some of the comments left on his videos.
Jarrah has spat venom across the internet, he deserves the various labels he has now attracted. I really hope he wakes up and realises what he is wearing now, and just what a loathsome little oik people are beginning to think he is. Sadly he's going the same way as Ralph and Bill. His epitaph will be a sorry one to read. 'Here lies Jarrah White, another idiot that wasted his life on conspiracy theories.' He's trying to sell some Earth globes that he used for one of his videos. The marketing ploy being that 'you have a chance to own a globe that was used during a MoonFaker production.' That is how sad he has become.
Think about it Vince.
Best wishes, and I hope it's all going well for you and the USMC.
Luke
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 28, 2011 5:54:38 GMT -4
Mmmm... one phrase springs to mind when reading this reignited thread.
"Jay Windley takes Jarrah to task at the IMDb."
That thread really should be the line drawn under Jarrah. He demonstrated his worth, and it wasn't very much when confronted with someone who knew what they were talking about. Jarrah has read a few fanciful papers on radiation, a few websites and a few 'children's' books on space, and he considers himself an expert. I asked him to list secondary particles dangerous to man. He included neutrinos in that that list. Says it all really. He has not got a clue, and never will have one.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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 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 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 lukepemberton on Aug 25, 2011 4:55:42 GMT -4
Remember the time he used ascent footage to "prove" that astronaut footpaths imaged by LRO were "faked"? LOL! Yes, our friend does enjoy circular reasoning. It reminds me of the times when I have carried out some disgusting proof in physics, and substituted a new term to reduce variables. Forgetting where I am with the proof, I forget that I have already used the expression I am substituing previously in the proof. The terms fall out rapidly, and it all looks goods, until one is left with 1 = 1. Damn that circular reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 25, 2011 3:43:00 GMT -4
Off topic, but it was fun that Neil Armstrong had a little dig at the HBs last night when speaking at the Sydney Convention Centre. What, you mean the same Neil Armstrong that never speaks in public out of shame for the lie he has to protect? That Neil Armstrong? I wish I had been there to see Neil rip on the crazies. Now that would have been funny.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 24, 2011 12:18:54 GMT -4
Interesting that our friend dismisses as "fakes" images that are taken with a system known to have the ability to do so, and accepts as genuine the attempts to image it with a different system whose capability is less sure -- but only when it continues to fail. Interesting, but not surprising. The HBs primary interest is to keep the hoax theory going. Without it they have no method of making money or cannot seek their Andy Warhol moment. Our friend's actions are dishonest, yet he pays no regard for those he slanders and vilifies. I find his modus operandi offensive now.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 24, 2011 10:08:44 GMT -4
Given that he doubled a number by multiplying it by 1.5 and rectified his mistake by showing that 1 =1, I think it is fair to say that he-who-should-not-be-named eliminated himself as a commentator or expert on science. There is no more debate with him. He clearly does not want to defend his work in moderated debate or by viva voce. The bottom line is that the guy is an rambling bafoon who has discredited himself numerous times.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 21, 2011 15:36:55 GMT -4
Yes, I saw that. If that is what he spent several months working on then he really does need to take a look at his life. He clearly has not learned a thing from his IMDb foray and what constitutes a proton event, or how shock driven SPE events differ from impulsive flare events. It is now willful ignorance on his part, and that is disingenuous. He clearly does not want to learn the truth, but sell his warped version of it. He calls us propagandists. <edit: grammar/punctuation>
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 21, 2011 7:25:11 GMT -4
I watched the first episode. The show is quite a bit like Fry and Laurie. A few really clever skits and some good running gags with a lot of silliness in between. I'll have to watch some more of it. You might enjoy the little Britain sketches that deal with Bing Gordon, the 8th man on the moon. Here Bing deals with the difficulty of being known as the 8th man. Here Bing deals with a conspiracy theorist, which I think is a pardoy of Sibrel's work.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 20, 2011 12:06:15 GMT -4
Pretty good. I've never heard of theme before but the sketch reminded me on the old Fry and Laurie shows. Are the shows similar? Fry and Laurie were Cambridge Footlights. Mitchell and Webb were also Footlights. The latter were probably influenced by the former. The Footlights, while performing serious plays, are also known for skittish material.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 19, 2011 13:06:25 GMT -4
Unlimited tests - no thank you. Too much of a drag, for both players and spectators. Having a time or run limit puts just enough pressure on the teams to make them stretch themselves and do their utmost - makes for much better cricket. It would only be for the final of the proposed test championship. I think if they want a result in the final, they simply set it to the number of overs normally set for a test match. If they lose a day of rain, they simply play add an extra day. If it is a draw after 5 full days of play, then the title is shared. To be honest, in the modern era, 5 full days normally yields a result. The ICC could also ensure that the pitch is a result pithc, and not the dead sponges we are seeing around the world. To be quite honest I am against having a test championship anway. It would mean we play Australia on a more regular basis, and the Ashes would lose their magic.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 19, 2011 3:19:53 GMT -4
Thanks all. Nicely explained dwight.
|
|