|
|
Post by Vincent McConnell on Jul 13, 2011 21:20:03 GMT -4
Sigh. All of the work to prepare a video, and you didn't even write a script you could copy here? I found the video annoying to watch, and I'd prefer to see the arguments in writing. As would most people with an analytical inclination. The script is at my other house. I will post it tonight. Sound good? |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 13, 2011 21:40:22 GMT -4
Jarrah White's helping me smooth out two errors I made. I'm sorry to hear that. |
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 13, 2011 21:47:24 GMT -4
Yes...I would think if you were trying for accuracy, you'd make sure to carefully vet any contribution from Jarrah.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vincent McConnell on Jul 13, 2011 21:49:26 GMT -4
Yes...I would think if you were trying for accuracy, you'd make sure to carefully vet any contribution from Jarrah. Ok. Thanks again for insulting my friends... gotta love this website. |
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 13, 2011 21:50:53 GMT -4
That was not an ad hom, and it was not meant as an insult to you or anyone you know. It was made as a statement of fact; Jarrah has erred in the past, significantly and often. He is not a trusted source.
|
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jul 13, 2011 21:51:07 GMT -4
What did you expect, Vincent? Did you think Jarrah was highly regarded here?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vincent McConnell on Jul 13, 2011 21:57:39 GMT -4
What did you expect, Vincent? Did you think Jarrah was highly regarded here? I expected a more unbias discussion about the moon landing hoax. Not a question of personally discussing people's credibility. Jarrah White has been doing a good job. In fact, pro-Apollo people have spent more time trashing him than proving the moon landings. It's like some of the people on youtube. They make more video responses to me than prove moon landings. Case in Point. AstroBrant2. Dalek14Mc GlowWorm1962 In fact, accounts have been created to trash on me... www.youtube.com/yesiamaf**ktardjonny. (is only one) Here's one for Jarrah White. www.youtube.com/jarrahwhine. See... People hate us more than they hate the hoax theory itself. |
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 13, 2011 22:02:36 GMT -4
What did you expect, Vincent? Did you think Jarrah was highly regarded here? I expected a more unbias discussion about the moon landing hoax. Not a question of personally discussing people's credibility. Jarrah White has been doing a good job. In fact, pro-Apollo people have spent more time trashing him than proving the moon landings. It's like some of the people on youtube. They make more video responses to me than prove moon landings. Case in Point. AstroBrant2. Dalek14Mc GlowWorm1962 In fact, accounts have been created to trash on me... www.youtube.com/yesiamaf**ktardjonny. (is only one) Here's one for Jarrah White. www.youtube.com/jarrahwhine. See... People hate us more than they hate the hoax theory itself. Is it so difficult to understand the concept of Primary Source versus Secondary (or Tertiary?) All we are saying, is why would you get your "facts" from Jarrah when you can look them up yourself? We say the same thing here. DON'T trust what anyone here says (even Jay!) Look it up in primary sources. Check the facts. If you can't understand that... |
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 13, 2011 22:27:50 GMT -4
I expected a more unbias discussion about the moon landing hoax. Put something forward and you will get a discussion, a few videos doesn't cut it among serious people. Make you case in text and numbers and you will get the discussion you are asking for. It's up to you, but don't be surprised if the responses are numerous and severe. |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 13, 2011 22:29:25 GMT -4
... than proving the moon landings. No one can prove the moon landings any more than they can prove any other historical event. Authenticity can't be proven, fraud can. If someone claims fraud it is up to them to prove it. Authenticity must stand as the default when attempts to prove fraud fail. |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 13, 2011 22:31:31 GMT -4
Not a question of personally discussing people's credibility. Jarrah White has been doing a good job. But that's just it. His lack of credibility exists exclusively because that statement isn't true, and if you're trusting him as a source of information, you're getting faulty information. I don't care if he's your friend. I care that you get the best source of information out there, and Jarrah really, really isn't it. He has shown a consistent failure to understand literally every aspect of Apollo he's discussed thus far. |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 13, 2011 23:24:53 GMT -4
My biggest thing is to see what kind of counter-arguments anyone here can offer and what fellow hoaxers think of the analysis. Anything that can be fixed, I'd like more opinions. One thing I tell you right now that is flat out wrong is the part about the flap on the top of the backpack. It is most definitely visible in the video if you look close enough. Look at the jump at around 1:25 in your video and it can be seen flopping around. I'd also take out the part where you refer to David Percy because his claims about wires has long ago been debunked. What Percy claims to be wires are either glints of the antennas or defects in the kinescope. If you think there are wires, you better come up with your own proof because right now there is none. I'm not going to comment on stuff like whether or not the video looks natural when sped up because that's entirely subjective. I find those type of arguments pointless. Regarding the rest of it, we need to see your detailed analysis and computations. Your video is essentially just telling us to take your word for it. That's not good enough. |
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 13, 2011 23:38:30 GMT -4
I expected a more unbias discussion about the moon landing hoax. We aren't going to give the hoax theory any more validity than it deserves... which is none. If you held the belief that "ice is hot" then you wouldn't find much support for that because you'd be wrong. Why would we even pretend your belief was worthy of consideration? The evidence overwhelmingly supports Apollo being real. We aren't going to act like the hoax theory is credible if it isn't. Why isn't Jarrah's credibility a fair topic of discussion? He's accusing thousands of people of lying and calling into question the reality of a major historical event... determining his credibility is therefore necessary. No one should automatically take his word for anything. |
|
|
|
Post by Vincent McConnell on Jul 14, 2011 0:17:21 GMT -4
I expected a more unbias discussion about the moon landing hoax. We aren't going to give the hoax theory any more validity than it deserves... which is none. If you held the belief that "ice is hot" then you wouldn't find much support for that because you'd be wrong. Why would we even pretend your belief was worthy of consideration? The evidence overwhelmingly supports Apollo being real. We aren't going to act like the hoax theory is credible if it isn't. Why isn't Jarrah's credibility a fair topic of discussion? He's accusing thousands of people of lying and calling into question the reality of a major historical event... determining his credibility is therefore necessary. No one should automatically take his word for anything. The problem is: He's right... |
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jul 14, 2011 2:48:51 GMT -4
Maybe you can argue in a way other than YouTube videos? Youtube is the easiest way for me to put out hoax videos and arguments. -Vincent McConnell Youtube is handy for certain things. It can allow you to show what a great holiday you had or old clips from air shows and so on. On the flipside you can selectively put an argument across, unfortunately the selective method is akin to party political broadcasts, and everyone knows they are made for effect, same for this subject. Edited for effect (echo) and arguments in this medium do not beat a good verbal work out. I find that someone putting it (argument) into words convey a far greater understanding or lack thereof of the topic. Use videos as a tool but understand the limitations. |
|
