|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 9, 2011 21:22:04 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. I've stated before and I will state it no more. Jarrah previously had a bad obsession with (and hate campaign against) Windley but we've thought him at this stage how badly it affected his credibility. I don't doubt the moon landings, but I still believe that both sides should "get along" as the OP puts it. The fact that I have locked the "Can We Get Along" thread doesn't let you off the hook for the claim that the Yahoo discussion was fabricated, Photobuster. You are still required to substantiate your claim or retract it with an apology.
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Jul 10, 2011 14:01:37 GMT -4
Thanks for posting the link. I have heard of this discussion between Jay and Jarrah but have never seen it before. Now that I have, all I can say is that Jarrah strikes me as even far less educated (and far more arrogant) than I had previously thought. To be fair, I know this discussion took place in 2005 and I think his current crop of videos are *slightly* less combative in nature, so it seems he has matured a tad. That being said, I don't think his knowledge in these subjects has increased much and his arrogance has waned little if at all. This is evidenced by his more recent discussion with Jay on the IMDB forums.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 10, 2011 16:35:14 GMT -4
As of my debate with Jarrah on IMDb, I don't feel much has changed. He still obsesses over me and still makes it a point to argue that I'm wrong on this or that point, regardless of whether that point relates to the hoax theory. An IMDb administrator had to delete one of his posts. It was gone before I signed in to read it, but I'm told it was a late example of more Jarrah-style name-calling and insults. Predictably Jarrah accused me of being in cahoots with the IMDb administration. His paranoia is alive and well.
His understanding of solar physics certainly has not improved in 5 years. He has refined his claims only by adding the outdated quotes from James Van Allen and adding some cherry-picked items from observatories. He is still largely unable to distinguish x-rays from solar particles and describe their prevalence, properties, correlation, and effects accurately. And his evasion of the invitation to present his findings to qualified solar physicists suggests he knows his knowledge won't pass muster. His general unwillingness to present his claims to any but a sympathetic audience whose response he can control simply doesn't bode well for his forthrightness and honesty.
Thanks are due to LunarOrbit for keeping this issue at the fore.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 10, 2011 16:54:32 GMT -4
His understanding of solar physics certainly has not improved in 5 years. He has refined his claims only by adding the outdated quotes from James Van Allen and adding some cherry-picked items from observatories. He is still largely unable to distinguish x-rays from solar particles and describe their prevalence, properties, correlation, and effects accurately. Actually Jay, I think he got the message about the correlation between H-alpha flares and proton events. He simply went away and devised a new argument to cover up his error ridden tracks. For my way of thinking, the answer is quite simple. He writes up his work and presents it for review. After all, he's been 'researching' for several years now. Most PhD students submit within that time. Of course, he sits outside the bounds of normal science, and thinks that he can carry on ad infinitum. Personally, I feel he can't be that confident about his case if he cannot submit it to experts in their field. Either that, or he has an alterior motive, and then it is not about the 'truth' he says he seeks.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Jul 10, 2011 16:59:21 GMT -4
I recall the day on yahoogroups quite well when Jarrah exploded on the scene. Count me in as a witness to the fact that that link is in absolutely no way fabricated. In fact the post can be found on the apollo hoax group and searched all the way back to '05. He posted a few more times IIRC after that before discovering Youtube.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 10, 2011 17:17:17 GMT -4
Thanks are due to LunarOrbit for keeping this issue at the fore. You're welcome, Jay. I actually needed a gentle reminder from Jason Thompson though... I didn't forget about Photobusters accusation, just that he made it in that thread. Baseless accusations have become one of my biggest pet peeves, so you can count on me to hold people accountable for them, especially when they are made against members of the forum.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 10, 2011 17:58:53 GMT -4
Actually Jay, I think he got the message about the correlation between H-alpha and proton events.Yes, I believe you. I was speaking in the context of the IMDb conversation, in which he implicitly maintained the correlation between H-alpha emissions and proton ejection. However I recall someone telling me later he had produced a video in which he had stepped away from it. So my poor recollection of some hearsay suggests that yes, he did take a different approach eventually. Personally, I feel he can't be that confident about his case if he cannot submit it to experts in their field.Indeed. As you note, PhD students would be expected to defend a proposal within their first or second year, and the dissertation itself within another couple of years. And at the rate Jarrah produces videos, I imagine he devotes as much resource to his hoax claims as a PhD student does to his original research. For him to have gone 5 years or more without soliciting a verifiable confirmation of his claims is suspicious. Of course he states in his thread linked above that he already had the necessary understanding. So it may be misleading to presume Jarrah recognizes any need for independent verification beyond the lip-service level. I believe back in November he claimed to have received an endorsement from a professional physicist, but I don't recall that this was ever made specific enough to verify. One of the questions he always evaded at IMDb was whether the experts he quoted agreed with his overall conclusion that Apollo was faked. There was one gentleman at one of the U.S. national observation organizations whom Jarrah cited as authority that the H-alpha measurements equated to a "significance" or a "hazard." I pressed Jarrah to say whether this man had endorsed his hoax claim, and I was never given an answer. I heard Jarrah later said that this expert, if so interrogated, would simply toe the party line and reject any hoax claim. It's fundamentally dishonest to use that man's authority without also his expertise. "So if my understanding of your information is correct, Apollo must have been a hoax, right?" And this would give the source an opportunity to say, "No, you've misunderstood an important point." Jarrah relies on his own flawed understanding instead. So when someone says the measurements indicate "significance" (which is a precise technical term in solar physics), Jarrah interprets that as "significant" (in the plain English sense) for Apollo operations. And he attributes that deduction wrongly to his witness. ...then it is not about the 'truth' he says he seeks.At this point Jarrah considers himself the foremost hoax theorist, which means he has far too much emotionally invested in the hoax theory. He must press on now at all costs, repairing his reputation as best he can.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 10, 2011 18:13:08 GMT -4
Yes, I believe you. I was speaking in the context of the IMDb conversation, in which he implicitly maintained the correlation between H-alpha emissions and proton ejection...I think we are talking about the same thing, unless I misinterpreted your first post. I was also speaking in context of the IMBd. My understanding is that he now argues that it does not matter if protons are released by H-alpha flares since flares also emit x-rays which are equally as damaging as protons. His second line of argument is that you were asking for proton data during the Apollo period (1969-1972). He claims that the GOES data only covers dates after 1976, so it was an impossible question to answer. He the draws a crazy analogy, saying that it would be like him trying to predict weather in 2005 using data from 2010. By your logic hurricane Katrina would have been harmless. Of course, none of this prevents him using proton data from before 1976. In fact, core to his case is a solar proton event from the late 1950s. Anyway, it's good to see you around these parts again. I hope all is well.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 10, 2011 19:07:32 GMT -4
...it does not matter if protons are released by H-alpha flares since flares also emit x-rays which are equally as damaging as protons.Yes, I seem to recall he made that argument in the thread and ignored what people were saying about quality factors, etc. I think he also failed to connect his previous handwaving about secondary radiation (which occurs from particle absorption) with his newfound claims that x-rays alone were the threat. His second line of argument is that you were asking for proton data during the Apollo period (1969-1972).Of course I asked for no such thing. He presented H-alpha measurements as if they predicted particle events. He ignored the papers I cited showing that significant particle events occurred at a much lower rate (ca. 6 per annum) than significant H-alpha events. To the normally thoughtful person, this would suggest that one cannot predict particle events if one knows only H-alpha data, but he didn't draw that conclusion. Then when he finally presented particle-event data, I told him it would be a good idea to see whether there was a significant correlation between the particle data and the H-alpha data for the dates that were common to both data sets. He didn't understand how to do that or why such a correlation would be useful. The usefulness, of course, would be to determine whether one could use H-alpha readings (which he had for the Apollo period) to deduce that a particle event had also occurred (which data he did not directly know for the Apollo period). That is what he had started out the argument doing, and now he finally had the data in hand to determine whether that method had been valid all along. Of course it wasn't valid, but Jarrah couldn't be led to that conclusion. He insisted all along (and apparently still insists) that he could draw no conclusion without the proton data from the period in question. In fact the conclusion he could have easily drawn is that H-alpha emissions during Apollo missions did not necessary signal proton ejections for those same periods. The notion that I kept asking him for proton data from the Apollo period is entirely false. The conversation is still on record at IMDb, and one can verify that I never asked any such thing. Jarrah's misrepresentation is evidently part of what he's doing to save face. No, the question only ever was whether the data Jarrah had in hand supported the line of reasoning he'd been using all along.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 10, 2011 19:42:17 GMT -4
One of the questions he always evaded at IMDb was whether the experts he quoted agreed with his overall conclusion that Apollo was faked. I've noticed you doing this. I've adopted this question myself because I think it homes right in on the dishonesty of his approach. Because... Exactly. Jarrah never asks that question because he knows exactly what the answer would be -- and it's not the one he would want to hear.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 11, 2011 4:28:46 GMT -4
One of the questions he always evaded at IMDb was whether the experts he quoted agreed with his overall conclusion that Apollo was faked. I've noticed you doing this. I've adopted this question myself because I think it homes right in on the dishonesty of his approach. Because... Exactly. Jarrah never asks that question because he knows exactly what the answer would be -- and it's not the one he would want to hear. A good example that Jay picked up on at the IMBd was Mauldin. Mauldin's writings rely upon the authenticity of the Apollo missions, yet Jarrah and other CTers quote from Mauldin's book to support their case. It is a dishonest tactic, and I think it is also quite shameful. I'll keep saying it, but it is time he wrote up his work and submitted it for review. He's been doing it long enough. If he wants to cite from scientists that are prepared to submit their findings for scrutiny, then he should show them due respect rather than misquote them from his YT channel. If he wants to challenge their findings, then he should give them the opportunity to speak back. It does make me grimace when he reads from papers, proclaiming 'samples returned from Apollo X have shown A', and then he declares proof of his theory. Of course, he'll claim that he won't get past the scientific cabal, since for nefarious reasons they are all in on the hoax and would not want to rock the boat.
|
|
|
Post by photobuster919 on Jul 12, 2011 19:25:08 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. I've stated before and I will state it no more. Jarrah previously had a bad obsession with (and hate campaign against) Windley but we've thought him at this stage how badly it affected his credibility. I don't doubt the moon landings, but I still believe that both sides should "get along" as the OP puts it. The fact that I have locked the "Can We Get Along" thread doesn't let you off the hook for the claim that the Yahoo discussion was fabricated, Photobuster. You are still required to substantiate your claim or retract it with an apology. My sincerest apologies. I have looked at some previous posts by the same user and after noticing a pattern I can emphatically say it was Jarrah writing in that link. I will not make that claim again as I know I was wrong initially to say it was written by someone pretending to be Jarrah.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 12, 2011 19:47:31 GMT -4
Good for you; thanks for clearing that up.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 12, 2011 19:53:32 GMT -4
Thank you, Photobuster.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 13, 2011 0:21:37 GMT -4
My sincerest apologies. I have looked at some previous posts by the same user and after noticing a pattern I can emphatically say it was Jarrah writing in that link. I will not make that claim again as I know I was wrong initially to say it was written by someone pretending to be Jarrah. It takes a lot of courage to publically say sorry. People here will respect you for doing so. I for one do.
|
|