|
Post by lukepemberton on Nov 8, 2010 17:47:13 GMT -4
That is an accurate description of someone who is delusional. No, someone delusional would believe the laws of nature are wrong. As in Coulomb's law being wrong, or Newton's law of gravitation?
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Nov 8, 2010 16:17:53 GMT -4
That is an accurate description of someone who is delusional.That sums up some of the hard core theorists in a nut shell. My sister in law does not believe it, but only because she can't grasp that someone could go that far and come back. I guess there are those that are unsure, those that are skeptical, and then the real out on the limb delusional types. No matter what you tell the latter, and how many times you tell them, they simply won't buy it. Their knowledge and mental pitcures have already made up their mind for them. The blast crater is a classic example of how HB's conjure up a mental picture of how something should be and then place their whole belief on it. 2-4-6 trinitrotoluene can't shift that belief. I agree that there are differences between those who simply can't grasp something, either emotionally or intellectually, and those like IM that maintain a false stance in the face of all reality. With your sister in law, I hope you can just avoid the subject. My sister in law and I laugh about it. When she tells me she does not believe it I start asking why with a huge smile on my face. She thinks that it is my 'You know something and are hiding it smile', when in fact I find it funny that she can't believe it. She's quite eloquent and well versed. I guess there are geunine skeptics, and that I have no issue with. It's the rabid die in the ditch 'twoofer' who turns it into a personal battle that I have issues with, often mixing their anti-government agenda with denigrating a great achievement. Often with a sprinkling of pseudo-clap-trap. I don't react well to them. I played rugby up until I was 33 and I don't tend to back down from an argument.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Nov 8, 2010 15:50:59 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Nov 8, 2010 15:45:29 GMT -4
That is an accurate description of someone who is delusional.
That sums up some of the hard core theorists in a nut shell. My sister in law does not believe it, but only because she can't grasp that someone could go that far and come back. I guess there are those that are unsure, those that are skeptical, and then the real out on the limb delusional types. No matter what you tell the latter, and how many times you tell them, they simply won't buy it. Their knowledge and mental pitcures have already made up their mind for them.
The blast crater is a classic example of how HB's conjure up a mental picture of how something should be and then place their whole belief on it. 2-4-6 trinitrotoluene can't shift that belief.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Nov 8, 2010 15:39:20 GMT -4
I recall hearing something similar. Whether it was urban myth or not I don't know. If my memory serves, it is not, but it is practicaly impossible to extract as it exists as single atoms.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Nov 8, 2010 2:59:53 GMT -4
It's plagiarism; you've just found a personal justification for it. Mr. Paraphrase is your friend. Oh well, I guess I'll burn in hell for the few sentences I copied.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Nov 7, 2010 22:19:32 GMT -4
I guess I speak for all, but your learned contributions will be missed. I wish you well. I hope you come back with 40 pages of Clavius devoted to Jarrah's videos ;D Nah. I think he should continue to ignore Jarrah. It is far more fun to watch Jarrah get obsessive over Jay's lack of attention to him. Jarrah's being saying nice things about Jay lately. I almost choked on my porridge when I heard it. Apparently Jay runs the top debunking site on the web, and therefore Jarrah would expect that if anyone had reviewed his work it would have been Jay. Jarrah seems quite miffed that when he did a search of Clavius, he only found his name once. I guess he's beginnig to realise that Mr Windely is giving him a stiff ignoring. That is beginnig to irk Master White, me thinks.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Nov 7, 2010 21:46:55 GMT -4
It's not plagiaristic if you're typing out yourself the text you're copying. ;D Thanks Bert... I agree with Gillranren that we should reference, but for my way of thinking, with a website at least, that is so people can go back to the primary source and read more. Generally, personal websites are built without personal gain in mind. It's more important in this case to ensure that people understand the context that one is referencing. Referencing material goes beyond covering one's backside for plagiarism. If I want to write website that 'Bill Kaysing worked at Rocketdyne and did (a) and did (b) and did (c)', and I find someone has already typed a paragraph to that says that, then a cut and paste into a website it is not really 1st degree plagiarism. It is more like common knowledge and I'm saving myself time. I think providing I get around to acknowledging the source at some time, then that is OK. To take the whole of Clavius, put it on my CV as my website and and claim I am an aerospace engineer is probably a step too far. As I say, in time, I will make a page that reflects where I have taken the material from. I just have not got around to that yet. So Jarrah has jumped the gun once more, and built up his argument before all the facts are there. Anyway, this has nothing to do with this thread, again... sorry...
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Nov 7, 2010 21:03:01 GMT -4
Any attempt to pass of others' work as your own is plagiarism, no matter your reasoning. I don't think it is that black and white personally. I'd say copying whole chunks or work from publications without reference, and then submitting it as original academic work is plagiarism, even at high school level. Taking some else's theory and selling it as your own is plagiarism. Then we get into the whole business of IPR and CR. But dragging a few sentences from websites to construct your own website is just cutting down on the hard miles, especially when one is trying to say the same thing. I'm not portraying it as my own, and I don't intend to make financial or academic gain from it. To be quite honest, if someone took a few sentences from publications of mine and put them on a website I would not cry foul, I'd be quite happy that my thoughts/views have been shared. However, if they did the same in a formal paper I'd be quite miffed. It is actually quite tiresome to reference a website too, it becomes a bit wieldy. That's is why I am saving it until the end so I can work out if I should do it by page or just have a complete section of acknowledgment. To be accused of plagiarism while one is still building the website and have not had chance to put in references/glossaries is not really fair game either. That was my point. Maybe I did not explain it so well. I guess what I am trying to say is that a little spirit and common sense needs to be adopted. As I say, I would thrilled to bits if someone was using my ideas on a personal website. I find it hard to stomach that I have been building the website in very slow time, and am accused of plagiarism before I get chance to finish it so that someone can attack me using a straw man. It just makes me despair that something I have a passion for can be rounded upon by a little oik who think 1.5 x 0.5 = 1, but glorifies a man who was a cultural vandal. A man who made money from slandering others achievements, and was not really good at that either. I guess that makes me a bad person then? Life has to be fun too... I guess we will probably agree to disagree. I'm cool with that
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Nov 7, 2010 19:04:01 GMT -4
Folks, For a variety of reasons I'm going to take another break from Apollo related activities for a few months to concentrate on some personal and professional matters. I may pop in from time to time, but please carry on in my absence. I guess I speak for all, but your learned contributions will be missed. I wish you well. I hope you come back with 40 pages of Clavius devoted to Jarrah's videos ;D
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Nov 7, 2010 17:38:35 GMT -4
... I think he wants a whole section devoted to him on Clavius ... Wouldn't it first require a note from his Mother granting us permission? That's funny. I really had to smile at JW's latest effort, which is a real attack on me. Crikey, he even had good things to say about Jay as a result, although the compliments were somewhat veiled and managed to take a swipe at me in the process. I think he referred to Clavius as the 'top debunking site on the web'. Obviously my site does not register as a top debunking site with Jarrah. That's not the intention. I bought the domain about 9 months ago, and have barely touched it. But there again, I'm not in some kind of competition with Jay. I'm a physicist, and do not have Jay's practical experience or professional knowledge in spacecraft design and the history of flight. There is simply no way I wish to try and produce another Clavius for many reasons. Jay's site does a sterling job for a start. Jay is also considered a world authority on the subject, so some oik who hasn't even touched a spacecraft component, let alone helped design a spacecraft, is hardly in a position to shadow his site. Debunking the moon hoax is best left to Jay. In fact, I'd say that Jarrah has answered his own question, and it might explain why he gets one mention at Clavius. It debunks the moon hoax not the person, and given the brown watery substance that Jarrah pushes out from his channel, I doubt it is very fitting to have pages dedicated to him at such a high quality site. It would somewhat lower the tone. If Jay were to add some Jarrah debunk pages, it would look a little like a caravan being parked on the lawn at Windsor castle. That's why I have my site, to offer a few pages to Jarrah. It is probably more fitting that an oik like me deals with him. He'll get his few pages of fame if he wants. Sadly it won't be from the person he wants it from. It's kind of my way of telling him that 'Only a handful of people and I really give you any time.' He does not see that. Apparently JW does no think I am physicist, despite holding a PhD and professional accreditation. I have also shown a psychotic hatred for Jarrah and Rene from day one. The fact that I have a passion for my subject and feel aggrieved that a charlatan like Rene has left a legacy of ignorance because he dabbled in a subject that took me 14 years to qualify in has nothing to do with it. But I guess respect for other people's hard work and achievements mean nothing to Jarrah and his ilk. When I first read this thread and saw the way IM was referring to Jay, I was quite angered. It was not rude, but certainly very patronizing. That's how I feel about Rene. And that it what my site dedicated to, not debunking the moon hoax par se. I have other plans for it too, like developing some physics pages, and there are personal and professional reasons for that. OK, I admit I have a psychotic hatred for Rene, I'll own up to that I don't feel that way towards Jarrah, and have even tried to reason with him. He just can't get past his tight wound up ball of hatred and venom. In fact, I am one of the few people who actually feel sorry for the kid. I've even dissuaded people from producing some fairly unsavory attacks about him. I have also plagiarized Clavius too, so I cannot accuse Rene of plagiarizing his ideas on relativity, despite the fact I know the subject of relativity fairly well - I taught it for several years and know where Rene got his material from, and the only way he could arrive at his conclusions. Crikey, I even recognised the words he used immediately. I was not aware that quoting from another source was plagiarism. I always thought plagiarizing was copying an idea and selling it as your own to gain benefit - as Rene did. I have a page to Bill Kaysing on my site, and robbed a few words from Clavius, Bill's own site and Wiki to save me some time. Why reinvent the wheel when the work has been done? The page to Bill is actually quite respectful. I have to add the references to the website, but that's on my to do list. Of course, Jarrah pushes out his video before I get chance, create himself straw man and poison the well. Jarrah has a skill at combining as many logical fallacies in one argument as humanly possible. I think his best is to create an conclusion from five at once. The boy does well. Rant over... sorry folks...
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Nov 7, 2010 10:14:35 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Nov 7, 2010 7:31:37 GMT -4
Jay
Quick question, but on the Clavius site you show images of hypergolic fuels burning in test chambers and in space, clearly showing the 'plasma' glow.
There is a picture of the Apollo hypergolics being tested on Earth, with the red gas being produced. I think it is the photo Kaysing refers too in his capacity as a technical expert on rocket engines.
(1) Do you know the photo I am referring too? (2) If so, then can you provide a link as for the life of me I cannot find it now I need it. (3) Is the red gas oxidation of the fuel or the oxidiser? I thought it was the N2O4, but would that mean the engine is running oxidiser rich?
Can you clarify please?
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Nov 7, 2010 7:06:00 GMT -4
I think he implies that because you have not, it is 'undebunkable.'Hilarious! He decides he's "undebunkable" because the one person to whom he's created an obsessive fixation doesn't pay him the right attention. Sorry, I'm not going to play into his increasingly pitiful cries for attention. He did a search on Clavius and found his name once, and I think he was miffed. I think he wants a whole section devoted to him on Clavius and probably feels put out that the Grandchild of the hoax theory has not quite made the same impact as others. I guess he realises now that the Great Satan Windley is ignoring him, and that is hurting. He's a funny boy.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Nov 6, 2010 19:04:41 GMT -4
Hi everyone, Here is a link to one of my web pages which indexes all LRO Narrow Angle Camera photographs of the Apollo Landing Sites which are available to date. Included are the latest images included in the recently released data volume #3. Here is the link: www.mem-tek.com/apollo/LRO_NAC_Image_Names.htmlYeah, I know. I need to add thumbnails which show you were to search in each image in order to see the Apollo landing site. It is on my to-do list. Thanks GTP. I can look at the non-Apollo areas all day, so no worries about your to do list. The LRO images really bring home what a barren but beautiful place the moon truly is.
|
|