|
Post by Vincent McConnell on Aug 10, 2011 15:58:30 GMT -4
A big question I have for the members of this forum, while I wait for my other thread to get some response, concerns Jarrah White.
Several of the posts that people give, give a round-about allusion to him as "That Certain Someone"
Obviously, his series and channel are not secretive with his name. He refers to his opponents by their names and has put his identity out there for 5 years.
It's not an insult to those who are truly AGAINST him, but why does nobody mention him directly? Like it's taboo or something?? I could never understand that.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 10, 2011 17:56:42 GMT -4
I don't know what posts you are referring to but it sounds like a humorously dismissive way of alluding to him.
There was a thread on the old BABB that ranked all the hoax proponents as various villains in The Lord of the Rings. It was a bit of nerdy fun.
|
|
|
Post by photobuster919 on Aug 10, 2011 18:09:23 GMT -4
Several of the posts that people give, give a round-about allusion to him as "That Certain Someone" Obviously, his series and channel are not secretive with his name. He refers to his opponents by their names and has put his identity out there for 5 years. It's not an insult to those who are truly AGAINST him, but why does nobody mention him directly? Like it's taboo or something?? I could never understand that. I don't think it should be a taboo to talk about Jarrah. Users on this forum have recently decided Jarrah is "he who should not be mentioned" because Jarrah is talked about over and over again. And yes we talk about Jarrah to death on this forum. Only search his name and you will find countless threads written about him. Even if you don't you will see discussions about JW popping up everywhere in all the other threads. But the reason Jarrah is talked about so much in here is because there is nothing else really to talk about. This site's sole purpose is to convince people that men landed on the moon and disprove the arguments put forward by conspiracy theorists. You've said it yourself Jarrah is pretty much the only hoaxer left who is still making hoax claims regarding Apollo. If Jarrah suddenly turned around and admitted he was a supporter of Apollo, this forum would die in a flash. There would be no one else to talk about, no more HB's and no more conspiracy theories. But as you've said yourself the hoax theory is dying and Jarrah will soon stop hoaxing. When Jarrah stops hoaxing (Eg producing MoonFaker videos) the conspiracy theory will die and this forum will die out. he's 31 years old now. It won't be long until he won't be hoaxing anymore. And when Jarrah stops hoaxing, the theory just dies... That's the way it is. In a nutshell
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 10, 2011 18:09:34 GMT -4
... but why does nobody mention him directly? Like it's taboo or something?? I could never understand that. Many people here choose to ignore him, and rightly so. I am weaker when his name his mentioned, and that is my eternal sin. I'll explain why. When I first found the hoax community at YouTube, I made some comments and tired to discuss things in a friendly way. I was met by a hail of bullets and venom. I began sharing a few PMs with 'Apollo' believers and heard some fairly unsavory stories about a few of the HBers. There was one story where an HBer tried to get someone the sack from work. He actually tracked the other person down at work. Then there was the case of svector being accused of sexual acts with children by some of the HBers. As I got further into their community I thought it best to withdraw from the debate. I then stepped back with a new YT account, and again met the same venom. In the end I was also accused of sexual acts toward children. That was like a red rag to a bull with me. I admit, in the end I gave back as good as I got, and it proved Jarrah and his friends could dish it, but they couldn't take it. That is fact. As I have mentioned in a previous thread, I am quite an abrasive character in life when riled. I used to play front row rugby union which is fairly confrontational, albeit in a controlled way. I stand at 6' 3" and am about 240 lbs when fit. I'm not one to back down. Given my previous experiences with him and his attack dogs, when Jarrah and his friends are discussed here I find it hard not to get involved in that discussion. If the admin was to write my report card I think it would read. 'Luke is a good listener, but he needs to step back and count to ten when Jarrah's name is mentioned.'So, most sensible people choose to ignore him. I'm probably the opposite, to my detriment. As a side note, I think this is the reason why your appearance at YouTube alarmed people. It was not so much about your beliefs, it was simply that you seemed to be taken under his wing and he is NOT the role model you need in life. I've always said this - if anyone wishes to be skeptical about Apollo then that is fine. It is about asking questions in the right way. If you still do not believe the answers then that is an individual choice. There is no Apollo Hoax movement, you either believe they went or you do not. There's no point directing venom at people under some banner of hate with a pseudo-political agenda. If JW and his friends want to be treated with credibility and respect, then they need to show sincerity and honesty toward those principles and begin by having an open debate. Not hiding themselves at YouTube accusing others of illegal acts without evidence, or slandering people of good standing (Jay being the main example). The way you got suckered into their world was shocking. It is a world of hatred and utter contempt, and I think people were concerned for you to be involved in such an enterprise at your age. Believe me, I was party to some private exchanges and there was real concern expressed for you and your welfare. Controlled and well mannered skepticism is not a bad thing. In fact, most scientists are skeptics by nature. ka9q has written here a few times about how scientists are rarely happy with their own work, and often their own worst critics. The HBers will tell you that scientists just tow the party line, and it is they that are the real skeptics and critical thinkers. They are not. Try reading about Einstein and Dirac, and you'll see real critical thinking at work. ka9q's words resonate strongly with me. I have a PhD in physics, and when I look back at my thesis now I think how it could be written differently, or how I could have taken more data to check my conclusions, or whether my new ideas were consistent, or if I had missed a piece of literature that was key. I am very proud of my PhD, since it was may aim to study at that level from an early age. But I'm not happy with it. It could be better, even though I know that I met the grade. If you choose to go back to believing the hoax theory, then I hope you can do it as a true skeptic and not as a conspiracy theorist. Skepticism is OK, conspiracism is not. I hope you understand the difference. I will respect someone that is skeptical about Apollo and is prepared to have honest debate and ask valid questions. I have nothing but contempt for conspiracism.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 11, 2011 0:04:52 GMT -4
Science shouldn't be about personalities. It doesn't matter who makes an argument. It matters what the quality of the argument is.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Aug 11, 2011 2:52:09 GMT -4
He's an idiot; that's why I don't talk about him.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 11, 2011 4:47:20 GMT -4
Science shouldn't be about personalities. It doesn't matter who makes an argument. It matters what the quality of the argument is. You're right Gillianren. I have a succumbed again where Jarrah is concerned. My frustration floweth over.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Aug 13, 2011 20:33:42 GMT -4
Long ago in BAUT, there was a poster who was not only vehemently a hoax proponent, but would, it is rumoured, show up in any thread in which his name was mentioned within a couple of posts. So, that poster (apparently not Jarrah) was known on BAUT as "He Who Should Not Be Named".
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Aug 13, 2011 21:05:15 GMT -4
This site's sole purpose is to convince people that men landed on the moon and disprove the arguments put forward by conspiracy theorists. I think it's more than that. Obviously, hoax claim debunking is a large part of this site. But there's another section titled The Reality of Apollo. I've learned a great deal while debunking hoax claims, not just about Apollo but about science, engineering and space travel in general. And I've also met some interesting people. Otherwise there'd be no point.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Aug 13, 2011 21:14:32 GMT -4
Skepticism is OK, conspiracism is not. I hope you understand the difference. I will respect someone that is skeptical about Apollo and is prepared to have honest debate and ask valid questions. I have nothing but contempt for conspiracism. I think you can boil it down to a very simple test: A sincere skeptic, like any scholar, asks questions to learn their answers. Conspiracists, and other pseudo-intellectuals like creationists, use questions as weapons. It's really that simple.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 13, 2011 21:57:27 GMT -4
Long ago in BAUT, there was a poster who was not only vehemently a hoax proponent, but would, it is rumoured, show up in any thread in which his name was mentioned within a couple of posts. So, that poster (apparently not Jarrah) was known on BAUT as "He Who Should Not Be Named". I believe you meant piper, who IIRC would blow up lunar surface pictures to truly epic scales and then identify huge artificial structures, spaceships, etc. By "surface pictures" I don't mean pictures taken from orbit; I mean pictures taken by the astronauts already on the surface. ETA: so there'd be a vast city next to, say, Alan Bean's boot. It's been so long that I think it's safe to say the name.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 14, 2011 10:56:07 GMT -4
There's a blast from the past. Didn't he also "enhance" images by looking at them on his monitor through a magnifying glass?
|
|
|
Post by coelacanth on Aug 14, 2011 11:38:44 GMT -4
Long ago in BAUT, there was a poster who was not only vehemently a hoax proponent, but would, it is rumoured, show up in any thread in which his name was mentioned within a couple of posts. So, that poster (apparently not Jarrah) was known on BAUT as "He Who Should Not Be Named". I believe you meant piper, who IIRC would blow up lunar surface pictures to truly epic scales and then identify huge artificial structures, spaceships, etc. By "surface pictures" I don't mean pictures taken from orbit; I mean pictures taken by the astronauts already on the surface. ETA: so there'd be a vast city next to, say, Alan Bean's boot. It's been so long that I think it's safe to say the name. Little Bonsai cities, eh. No such person listed in the BAUT membership roster, but there is a reference somewhere to such a person at a predecessor site.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 14, 2011 17:41:42 GMT -4
I believe you meant piper, who IIRC would blow up lunar surface pictures to truly epic scales and then identify huge artificial structures, spaceships, etc. By "surface pictures" I don't mean pictures taken from orbit; I mean pictures taken by the astronauts already on the surface. ETA: so there'd be a vast city next to, say, Alan Bean's boot. It's been so long that I think it's safe to say the name. Little Bonsai cities, eh. No such person listed in the BAUT membership roster, but there is a reference somewhere to such a person at a predecessor site. Yeah he was on the BABB (I really miss that place, BAUT just got too big for me. And no-one point out that I now post a lot on JREF.)
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 14, 2011 17:48:09 GMT -4
Conspiracists, and other pseudo-intellectuals like creationists, use questions as weapons. I'm not so sure that the moon hoax proponents I have had the displeasure of interacting with actually ask questions. They usually want to force their view upon me, and then call me all the names under the sun since I won't subscribe to their world view. Most I have shared time with are too wrapped up in their own ego, have anger problems, or suffer with some form of delusion. Some have a combination of all of these traits.
|
|