|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 7, 2011 18:13:58 GMT -4
I am not a fool, that link is completely fabricated.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 7, 2011 18:26:40 GMT -4
Yahoo groups is fabricated? Really? the whole thread?
Not really...that's just the dark side of Mr White...no fabrication necessary.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 7, 2011 18:47:43 GMT -4
And you can back that statement up right?
How can you affect that which does not exist?
Getting along implies that both sides argument have merit, if you don't doubt the moon landings then you have to conclude that the HB's are either deluded or being willfully misleading, how exactly would you propose people get along?
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 7, 2011 18:53:20 GMT -4
Any chance HB types and official story types might be able to do the debate thing, the back and forth thing, sans the personal stuff, the name calling? This is a serious question. Am I viewed as so out there that it is impossible to simply argue with me and let the personal stuff go? Do I appear so crazy that it is virtually impossible not to call me names? You have a history of generating sock puppets so you can pretend to have a whole group of supporters on your side while ignoring pertinent questions. You aren't viewed as being 'so out there', simply as rather underhanded and evasive.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jul 7, 2011 20:17:40 GMT -4
Look, if this were a debate about whether the Beatles or Stones were better, people could "get along" by recognizing that it's all subjective.
But this is a matter of *fact*. According to most HB's, there is a massive conspiracy not just to promote a false story that we landed on the Moon, but to control the media, the educational system, the legal system, for nefarious purposes. If that's true, that's of vital importance to know. If it's false, spreading the belief is a corruption on the body politic.
There's not a lot of space to 'get along" between those lines.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 7, 2011 20:21:05 GMT -4
I am not a fool, that link is completely fabricated. I am Jay Windley. I was there for the conversation and you were not. That link points to an entirely accurate and valid record of Jarrah White's posts to Yahoo. Substantiate your claim of fabrication or withdraw it. ...I still believe that both sides should "get along" as the OP puts it.Then explain Jarrah's behavior.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jul 7, 2011 20:49:14 GMT -4
I am not a fool, that link is completely fabricated. Well, there's part of the problem. You have great faith in Jarrah, enough that you accuse a fellow poster of forging a link simply to slander him. Not a lot of room to 'get along" there.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 7, 2011 21:39:08 GMT -4
I am not a fool, that link is completely fabricated. In all his videos I have never heard Jarrah speaking along these lines. You mean the article that begins "Dear Jay (Delusional) Windley"? Do you believe that the real Jarrah White is speaking in the subsequent discussion? If so, why didn't he renounce this first message if it wasn't his? I haven't followed Jarrah White as closely as some on this list -- something about his voice makes his videos too painful to watch -- but his comments in that thread seem completely in character for the person who produced the Youtube videos with his name on them that I've seen.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 7, 2011 21:53:43 GMT -4
But this is a matter of *fact*. According to most HB's, there is a massive conspiracy not just to promote a false story that we landed on the Moon, but to control the media, the educational system, the legal system, for nefarious purposes. If that's true, that's of vital importance to know. If it's false, spreading the belief is a corruption on the body politic. You're quite right, this is an objective question of fact with objectively correct and incorrect answers. Furthermore, to falsely accuse someone of participating in a fraud is considered in many legal jurisdictions as a proper cause of action for a libel or slander lawsuit. And I think no one will disagree that the Apollo "moon hoax", if true, would be among the biggest frauds in human history. Now I personally think that the libel and slander laws ought to be drawn extremely narrowly even if they allow a great deal of libel against people I personally admire and respect. I believe very strongly in freedom of speech and the press. At the same time, it's well within my free speech rights to speak out against claims I consider ill-founded. In fact, when the claims fall in my field of professional and technical expertise I consider it my duty to speak out. "Free speech" simply gives everyone the right to express unpopular opinions and even incorrect facts without being punished by the government. It does not give anyone the right to force others to listen or to agree, or to be free of criticism. If moon hoax advocates don't like having their ideas criticized, then they should do their homework and get their facts straight before they speak or write them.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 7, 2011 22:13:40 GMT -4
fattydash:
If you are going to make statements that denigrate the greatest achievements of thousands of people and call them liars (or worse) then you should expect people to be offended and angry. I honestly don't understand your stance that "they're liars but I don't consider them bad people". It's totally contradictory.
You have also been disrespectful of the people here by repeatedly side stepping questions. And on top of that you've been dishonest by creating sock puppet accounts. What's your reason for that, doctor?
So don't expect a whole lot of sympathy for the few minor insults that people here direct your way.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 7, 2011 22:28:29 GMT -4
I am not a fool, that link is completely fabricated. You're going to have to back that claim up, photobuster. That's a serious accusation and I'm not going to let it slip by.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 7, 2011 22:45:44 GMT -4
Sorry that Jay had to make a return under such miserable conditions. I trust the unsubstantiated accusation will be retracted, which would be the right thing to do...in the name of "getting along". It's the intelligent, civil thing to do, don't you think?
photo919, the premise of the hoax theory demands that the astronauts, and untold thousands of others, lied about the Apollo program. This alone starts any discussion on a very adversarial footing, ill suited to "getting along". Whereas the position of the HBs is that the "Apollo people" are scoundrels, liars, murderers, government operatives, etc, our position is that the HBs are simply wrong in their beliefs. And, yes, there are some hoax proponents who deserve special scorn for not only unfounded claims, but their specific criminal accusations. There is no "getting along" with such individuals.
"Simply wrong"...this might involve something as simple as misunderstanding or misreading something...a perfectly understandable situation, considering the technical complexity of the endeavor. But so many are blindly driven to disprove the legacy of Apollo that they go to great pains to find an "apparent" disconnect in the evidence to try to prove their point.
This involves many techniques..."cherrypicking" is a favorite, finding one small statement that seems to contradict another, or the official account. HBs often find quotes, sometimes even interview experts and get "sound bite" statements that seem to make a trip to the Moon impossible. Without exception, when interviewing these experts and gathering their "data", they never ask the real question..."so, based on what you're saying, the Apollo landings were impossible, correct?" Because the answer would be no. This dishonest process is typical...they usually extract quotes completely out of context. Sometimes understanding the context of a comment requires research. But they never ask their sources the real question. Why not? What are they afraid of? It's obvious they know exactly what they are doing.
They prey on those who have no understanding of the complex technicalities, and depend on the readers' ignorance, relying on the likelyhood that their audience won't be bothered to actually do some work to investigate things more thoroughly, maybe learn some science and physics. It's a sad commentary on today's "I want it NOW" culture. Apollo cannot be understood with a bullet points presentation. The hoaxers depend on this shallow mentality, and their many impatient HB followers just follow along.
So, "getting along"...there is no "middle ground" in this debate. One side is right and the other side is wrong. We can remain civil, often with moderator "encouragement", but this is a devisive subject, and the discussion will be vigorous, and sometimes very heated.
...and that's how I see it...
Dave
eta...
"Playing Dumb with their Eyes" "Lost Bird Proves Apollo Inauthenticity" "Medical Concern Proves Apollo Bogus" and finally... "Can't We All Get Along"
the defense rests, your Honor...
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 8, 2011 3:12:10 GMT -4
Saying someone lied and calling someone a liar are 2 different things. I have trouble understanding why I should view Neil Armstrong as this terrible, awful person. Astronauts are like spies, both operate secretly.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 8, 2011 3:25:04 GMT -4
Saying someone lied and calling someone a liar are 2 different things. No they are not. If you were to say I lied, then you are explicitly accusing me of being a liar; and I would demand proof that I have lied or ask you to retract your accusation. Stop being so absurd to the point of being deliberately controversial. It's not remotely funny or intelligent. I have trouble understanding why I should view Neil Armstrong as this terrible, awful person. Astronauts are like spies, both operate secretly. I believe that you're just trying to get a rise out of people now. You've been asked a whole series of questions and failed to answer a large proportion of them. If you are a doctor, and you find me wounded, then please let me die. The thought of you working on me scares me.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jul 8, 2011 4:05:27 GMT -4
Saying someone lied and calling someone a liar are 2 different things. I have trouble understanding why I should view Neil Armstrong as this terrible, awful person. Astronauts are like spies, both operate secretly. How so, secretly that is?
|
|