|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Dec 17, 2010 21:26:46 GMT -4
o.k, the flag poting was not an proof of a hoax, rather undecent way of treating the audience. Imagine taping a flag today in this manner on a model LM.. it wouldn't be decent.. that's all.. but it indicates some uncaring for the mission... but it is not proof. The dreaded "taped-on flag" has reared it's ugly head at DIF. I have some questions that some of you might be able to help with. 1) The tape used for the flag was the same tape used to secure the Kapton wrapping on the descent stage. Correct? 1.5) Is there anyone who knows what formulation of adhesive this tape used? 2) The Kapton covering was installed by Grumman before shipping the LM to NASA. Was the US flag and "UNITED STATES" applied by Grumman or was that done by NASA after they took possession? 3) was there a formal "christening" ceremony for the Lunar Modules?
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Dec 18, 2010 2:55:10 GMT -4
3) was there a formal "christening" ceremony for the Lunar Modules? Let me guess: Someone is claiming that shattering a champagne bottle on it would've ripped right through the flimsy foil skin.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Dec 18, 2010 4:15:51 GMT -4
Apparently Jack doesn't even know what a camera looks like. Okay, to his credit, it is the UV camera. And even more to his credit, he asked "what is this piece of equipment?" instead of stringing out another complex theory on guesswork and ignorance.
But I recognized it, and I'm not even that familiar with the scientific gear.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Dec 18, 2010 11:09:00 GMT -4
Apparently Jack doesn't even know what a camera looks like. Okay, to his credit, it is the UV camera. And even more to his credit, he asked "what is this piece of equipment?" instead of stringing out another complex theory on guesswork and ignorance. But I recognized it, and I'm not even that familiar with the scientific gear. I figured that he knew exactly what it was and was trying to use it as a trap somehow (perhaps by claiming it was really something else or that it couldn't work as advertised) but it never panned out or at least hasn't yet.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Dec 18, 2010 18:04:54 GMT -4
Yeah, I was waiting for him to make some claims about it but decided to fact bomb him instead. Stopped him dead in is tracks.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Dec 18, 2010 20:28:59 GMT -4
He'll probably bring it up again in 6 months like nothing ever happened. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Glom on Dec 19, 2010 13:33:15 GMT -4
So is this some kind of psychiatric issue?
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Dec 19, 2010 16:51:36 GMT -4
I think it is more of a inability to ever admit he is wrong accompanied with a stubborn refusal to ever look at or acknowledge any evidence that goes against his views (which of course feeds the first part).
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 19, 2010 16:59:29 GMT -4
So is this some kind of psychiatric issue? Honestly, in some people's cases, they're just stubborn and intellectually dishonest. Frustrating but not clinical.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Dec 28, 2010 10:58:27 GMT -4
Honestly, in some people's cases, they're just stubborn and intellectually dishonest. Frustrating but not clinical. I agree, but I still can't quite figure out just what they're after. My credibility is pretty important to me, so when I make a mistake in public it's pretty embarrassing. So I just can't understand how Jack can knowingly put out that kind of garbage and simply not care what it makes people think of him.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 28, 2010 14:15:50 GMT -4
In his case, he thinks that, if you disagree, it's because They got to you. Does he believe this on a clinical level? I don't know; I try to avoid giving diagnoses, since I'm not qualified to do so. However, it does seem to me that it's what he believes. He doesn't think They're paying you, except possibly in a few extreme cases. He thinks They brainwashed everyone, and believing him is essentially coming into the light. At least that's what I gather.
|
|
|
Post by Glom on Dec 28, 2010 14:41:00 GMT -4
But what is in it psychologically for him to go to such extreme lengths to maintain his view?
Why must he believe in the hoax so badly?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 28, 2010 14:58:59 GMT -4
Good Lord, I don't know. I've never talked to the man and don't ever want to. It's quite possibly the I Have to Be Special phenomenon. Giving in would mean admitting that he wasn't possessed of special knowledge all this time.
|
|
|
Post by chew on Dec 28, 2010 14:59:46 GMT -4
Jack made a name for himself investigating the JFK assassination. He never studied a photograph without declaring it to be a fraud. He's been a folk hero to the conspiracy crowd ever since he testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations (where he got his ass handed to him in the process).
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Dec 28, 2010 17:08:51 GMT -4
Exactly. In all the conspiracies he always finds "evidence of fakery" in the images: JFK, Apollo (or perhaps all manned space programmes), 9-11, Katrina, etc. It's always the photos that have something wrong with them.
To me - who knows nothing about psychology - it seems to be a fixation which leads to, or is coupled with, a mania for imagined subterfuge and chicanery.
I think his worst aspect is regarding Apollo where he claims ALL the lunar images are faked, but then claims respect for NASA and the astronauts. Whenever people put to him that because the astronauts say the images are genuine and that they took them, if Jack is correct they must be lying, he shows an absence of fortitude and evades giving a straight answer.
|
|