|
Post by lukepemberton on Jan 21, 2011 18:34:50 GMT -4
No, we shouldn't natter on about his math skills in a thread where the point is how he handled a meeting with Buzz. They don't matter to the thread. Jarrah the unit is not the issue. Jarrah's individual arguments are the problem. His math isn't relevant to this particular making an idiot out of himself. My view is holistic, and his maths skill serve as one example of what we are dealing with. They are not the be all and end all, I agree. I could have chosen various other examples. They would amount to the same thing. As an individual he has severe issues with comprehension, numeracy, cognitive arguments and logical reasoning. He has walked into a room and challenged a man he cannot hold a candle too - Buzz Aldrin. Personally, I think that has everything to do with this thread. As photobuster wrote: Its always a mystery to me that the one man who is addicted to the moon conspiracy more than anyone else, just uses this site to mine for quotes.He can walk into a room, bold as brass, challenge Buzz Aldrin, use video footage for more show boating; but he can't come here and defend his claims? He can't write up his work and have it reviewed? His actions with Buzz are his arguments cannot be separated. His actions with Buzz are the basis of his argument - showmanship and spin doctoring. Until he can demonstrate that he can perform basic math or science, then the rest of his idiocy is fair game, and in my opinion it deserves highlighting. It puts into context his modus operandi.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 21, 2011 18:52:55 GMT -4
Yes, but why is his MO important?
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jan 21, 2011 21:01:39 GMT -4
Yes, but why is his MO important? Why? Let's put it this way, I wouldn't walk into a room while Hawking is presenting and declare him wrong to fuel my own ego, despite the fact that I understand Einstein's field equations and can solve them for certain conditions. Firstly, I think it is a bad show to walk into a room when one can barely add up, suggest someone is a fraud based on pseudo-science, and then pump those events out for small niche with all the chest thumping of an oversize gorilla carrying Fay Wray to the top of the Empire State. If someone is prepared to conduct themselves in such a manner, then every facet of their argument and actions should be held to account to establish the validity of their case and understand the true nature of their actions. Call me a traditionalist if you wish, but I wouldn't try to hold another person to account in the way he does if I was hindered by his obvious lack of cognitive function. It lacks credibility, and is intellectually bankrupt. No one can be so wrong, and carry on like he does. So I ask myself, if there is an underlying reason for his continued delusion. In my very humble opinion, his modus operandi is not about the 'twoof', it cuts deeper. It is showmanship, and it is a prop for something missing in his life. That is why I take an holistic view and see the whole picture. The sum of his actions, not just the separate parts, define his modus operadni; and serves to demonstrate the hollow carcass that is the Apollo hoax theory. It is not I that has declared myself the Grandson of some absurd cult. If he is the flag bearer, then I am quite happy to drag up every absurdity that he represents to illustrate the fraud he is. The 400 000 people that were involved in the Apollo project mean a lot to me. The fact that they worked on a moon landing is immaterial. They could have been working on a project to explore the ocean depths. It is what they achieved collectively that stands out as an achievement, not what they actually achieved in measurable terms. Wax lyrical with me all you want, even cast philosophical lines if you wish. Bottom line is, I find everything that he and his friends stand for distasteful. If it was someone else, I would find it equally distasteful. I guess when I see someone behaving in the way he does, it rather irks me. Just call it having a passion for science and engineering, and understanding the hard work and dedication that goes into earning the right to be called a scientist. I won't go into the personal background for that, as I am sure I will sit accused of blowing my own trumpet by some quarter.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jan 22, 2011 0:20:19 GMT -4
Well said.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 22, 2011 15:25:37 GMT -4
I don't dispute that Jarrah needs to believe what he says. I don't dispute that what he says is distasteful--I'm not a scientist, but I do consider lying about history to be a sin. I dislike what he says and does. I have no opinion of him as a person, because I've never talked to him as a person, but he strikes me as intellectually dishonest and in need of enough control over a situation that he doesn't have any interest in posting anywhere he might be held to the rules of others.
But so what?
When we go on about Jarrah instead of what he says, we are doing exactly what they do. Do you understand that you can take what you wrote and rewrite it about Jay, and it will be exactly the sort of thing Jarrah himself says? This discussion is not about personality. Who he is literally does not matter for the purposes of this conversation. Not in any sense. This isn't philosophical of me. This is based on my understanding of human psychology. If you bring his math failures--and they are multitude, I'm sure--into a discussion which I'm not sure we should be having anyway about how he interacted with Buzz Aldrin, you're making the person more important than the errors. You're giving Jarrah the ammunition to say, "Look! They're so afraid of the truth that they have to talk about me instead of Apollo."
And we aren't. And we don't. From what I read in that article discussing him, I pity him. He needs to be important, and by talking about him so much, we're feeding into that. He isn't an object of pity. He's so important that all these smart people have to talk about him all the time, and of course none of them are as smart as he is. He knows that, and we let him.
Apollo isn't about personalities. It's about facts. Jarrah is wrong? Fine. Talk about where he's wrong. Consign him as a person, hoax believers as individuals, to the dustbin of history where they belong.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jan 22, 2011 19:40:35 GMT -4
One point I do like to discuss is WHY people like Jarrah are the way they are. What is it that makes an otherwise normal, intelligent person believe so fanatically and why don't they see the evidence? They completely discard logic and reason, and cling to a demonstrably false belief.
Why? Is it a mental problem?
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jan 22, 2011 20:18:15 GMT -4
One point I do like to discuss is WHY people like Jarrah are the way they are. What is it that makes an otherwise normal, intelligent person believe so fanatically and why don't they see the evidence? They completely discard logic and reason, and cling to a demonstrably false belief. Why? Is it a mental problem? That is a question I have asked several times. I think there are those who are driven by profit. There are those that are incredibly bitter and latch onto conspiracy theories to fuel some sort of 'revenge', and there are those with severe psychological problems (or emotional issues). I don't think there is a single reason why someone believes in conspiracy, whether it be the Apollo conspiracy, 9/11, chemtrails or JFK. That's why I believe that discussing the whole is important. I have yet to meet a theorist that can deal with the facts. Most avoid them, and the errors of their arguments. Therefore they should be raised and put into context of their behavior. I do not believe in political correctness or sensitivities with hard core hoax proponents. As far as I am concerned they denigrate the achievements of others, accuse others of murder and fraud, and have shown they are a public nuisance; yet none of them can form a cogent argument or articulate correct science. I was watching Channel 4's Walking on the Moon tonight, and felt sick listening to Percy, Bennet and Allen. Really, just listening to them, not one of them would put themselves up in front of someone who actually knew their onions. Getting to the bottom of their behavior, and illustrating their lack of substance with examples highlights what motivates them, and why their claims have even less substance. I'm quite hard nosed about it. I don't think it has anything to do with personality, providing it is based on fact. As far as I am concerned, Jarrah White has a record that shows he cannot perform basic math, yet feels that he can go into a room and question a man who has credentials far beyond anything White can dream of. That is showmanship, spin and bluster. It's not about the truth. In fact I would go as far to say that Jarrah White probably does not believe Apollo was hoaxed, he probably uses the hoax as a crutch for attention he lacked earlier in his life. Probably...
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jan 22, 2011 21:21:14 GMT -4
If this is the case, which might it be?
- Does not believe and actions are dishonest, for financial reward or similar?
- Does not believe and actions are similar to an internet troll, seeking attention and / or enjoys annoying others?
- Believes claims on surface but subconsciously know they are false, but carries out actions in order to gain attention, to give him a sense of self-worth?
All different possibilities of which one may be true, or part of one may be true, or none of which are true.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jan 23, 2011 5:32:31 GMT -4
I think it is largely the third, and would say that in most cases. Personally, I think a lot of kids get into it because they have come from broken backgrounds, and getting involved in the hoax gives them a sense of belonging. The Internet becomes an easy outlet to make 'friends'. That is the sort of impact the Internet is having on society, its almost like a surrogate friend for the disenfranchised.
However, I don't think the reasons for becoming involved are that hard and fast. Digging into Ralph Rene's background, he was no great 'lover' of the Internet, but that that was probably an example of paranoia manifesting itself. I certainly felt Ralph used the hoax as a crutch for his sense of self-worth. However, the bitterness of the man would suggest he wanted to strike back too. He also sold his work, so there was a certain amount of profit making. I don't think the latter drove him though. I really do think he was driven by resentment and hatred. You only have to read about his schooling experiences and his view of science to understand he was probably not a man at ease with himself, and his failures in life. There are a few individuals on YouTube who probably have severe paranoia disorders. However, that is based on a lay understanding, and showing the videos and comments to friends who are qualified in such matters. Even they would have to interview the persons to make a full assessment. So I do write that with many caveats.
There are those who are out and out profiteers. There are three good examples of people that use the moon hoax to make money. I'm not sure if I can name them here, but I think most people can guess who they are.
That's my view on why people become involved in conspiracy, and what motivates them. I'd add it is only a personal view.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 23, 2011 19:05:53 GMT -4
I think trying to find a single cause for hoax belief is foolish. Some people are in it for profit. Some are in it for attention. Some are determinedly ignorant. Some want to feel special and in the know. Some are mentally ill. I also find a lot of single-explanation explanations to be patronizing, rude, and ill-informed.
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Jan 24, 2011 8:39:24 GMT -4
Why? Is it a mental problem? For some, IMHO yes, though perhaps not bad or serious enough for medical attention. Any fraud that is as inept at lying as Jack, Jarrah & Co would be out of business...
|
|
|
Post by chew on Jan 24, 2011 9:55:51 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Jan 24, 2011 13:52:48 GMT -4
Why do hopelessly incompetent people participate in X-Factor? A Danish newspaper article in fact explained it with the Dunning-Kruger effect, which is summed up in the very first sentence of the Wikipedia entry (lack of metacognitive ability). Please have a look at this character, who participated in a preliminary audition in the Danish X-Factor. He is totally hilarious and one of the judges even leaves her seat for a cup of tee in the canteen in contempt of his performance, but the reaction from the judges and the audience doesn't seem to have any impact on his view of his abilities as a performer. I think he fits as a perfect example of the effect as described. It is not necessary to understand Danish to grasp what is going on. www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtJYOYSl9cAThis guy is not accessible by means of arguments :-)
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 24, 2011 19:53:11 GMT -4
That was pretty funny, in a sad sort of way. It takes a bit of the D-K effect to be a performer. You just have to believe you can be great even to go on stage and try.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Jan 25, 2011 5:10:23 GMT -4
Interesting you bring up X-factor theteacher, a little known fact is that one infamous Australian HB was indeed shown in audition highlights on a similar show, Australian Idol in Australia a few years back. I don't know if a recording of the appearance exists anywhere online though.
|
|