Post by JayUtah on Jun 30, 2006 12:49:02 GMT -4
I have updated the review. It now reads that Dr. Jones has a "religious" belief and not a "Christian" belief. That should be accurate in any case.
I have also removed the link to the paper and explained its demise. If and when Dr. Jones decides to republish it, it will most likely be under a different URL.
To expound a bit on our review:
Dr. N.T. Jones claims to be a physicist -- a well-trained one. Apparently he expects his reader to accept his conclusions as those of an expert. Unfortunately we show grounds on which to dispute that approach. Jones simply makes too many elementary errors.
A physicist would never use the term "ionized" when he meant "ionizing". In this context they mean almost the opposite of each other. The phrase "ionized radiation" has no meaning in physics.
A physicist would know not to confuse escape velocity with orbital transfer velocity.
A physicist -- especially one trained in lasers -- wouldn't assume that a laser beam propagating 250,000 miles would retain its emitted width.
Let's put this in perspective. If someone claiming to be a well-trained doctor were asked to fix a broken clavicle, and he's down puttering around the patient's knee, we would question whether he really had the expertise he claims. So if Dr. Jones really isn't able to speak with demonstrable authority on space issues, then we can't take as expert opinion his conclusion that Apollo was fake.
The reader infers from the existence of a paper that its author purports to have done research appropriate to the paper's content. If Dr. Jones undertakes to dispute the authenticity of Apollo, the reader naturally infers that Dr. Jones knows enough about Apollo to make it a meaningful disputation.
But we find his knowledge lacking.
Dr. Jones spends considerable time disputing whether the retroreflectors actually could have worked. But he doesn't even know how they were built. That's merely one of a whole laundry list of unresearched claims Jones makes, which we chronicle in our review. Each is listed and addressed factually.
We simply find that Dr. Jones' statements are inconsistent with his claims to expertise. We ourselves are qualified to know whether Dr. Jones' claims are defensible scientifically -- he is, after all, not the only scientist in the world. Dr. Jones states up front that no matter what science says, religion must trump it if there is a disagreement. So in the first place we wonder why Dr. Jones undertakes to prove his point scientifically at all. And in the second place, since there is much wrong with his scientific proof, we must consider that he is good to his word and considers his religious belief of geocentrism his best proof of Apollo fakery.
I have also removed the link to the paper and explained its demise. If and when Dr. Jones decides to republish it, it will most likely be under a different URL.
To expound a bit on our review:
Dr. N.T. Jones claims to be a physicist -- a well-trained one. Apparently he expects his reader to accept his conclusions as those of an expert. Unfortunately we show grounds on which to dispute that approach. Jones simply makes too many elementary errors.
A physicist would never use the term "ionized" when he meant "ionizing". In this context they mean almost the opposite of each other. The phrase "ionized radiation" has no meaning in physics.
A physicist would know not to confuse escape velocity with orbital transfer velocity.
A physicist -- especially one trained in lasers -- wouldn't assume that a laser beam propagating 250,000 miles would retain its emitted width.
Let's put this in perspective. If someone claiming to be a well-trained doctor were asked to fix a broken clavicle, and he's down puttering around the patient's knee, we would question whether he really had the expertise he claims. So if Dr. Jones really isn't able to speak with demonstrable authority on space issues, then we can't take as expert opinion his conclusion that Apollo was fake.
The reader infers from the existence of a paper that its author purports to have done research appropriate to the paper's content. If Dr. Jones undertakes to dispute the authenticity of Apollo, the reader naturally infers that Dr. Jones knows enough about Apollo to make it a meaningful disputation.
But we find his knowledge lacking.
Dr. Jones spends considerable time disputing whether the retroreflectors actually could have worked. But he doesn't even know how they were built. That's merely one of a whole laundry list of unresearched claims Jones makes, which we chronicle in our review. Each is listed and addressed factually.
We simply find that Dr. Jones' statements are inconsistent with his claims to expertise. We ourselves are qualified to know whether Dr. Jones' claims are defensible scientifically -- he is, after all, not the only scientist in the world. Dr. Jones states up front that no matter what science says, religion must trump it if there is a disagreement. So in the first place we wonder why Dr. Jones undertakes to prove his point scientifically at all. And in the second place, since there is much wrong with his scientific proof, we must consider that he is good to his word and considers his religious belief of geocentrism his best proof of Apollo fakery.