Gavin Stone Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Well it appears Jarrah has come back with his new production, sticks and stones (Stones lol), we all get a mention so I hope you're all thrilled . Part 1 Part 2 Part 3Obviously I will respond in due course, but it takes a while to analyse arguments, research claims etc. What I do note is he's taken a lot of material from here, infact I get the impression he spends a lot of time lurking in the shadows, so why doesn't he come forward and start posting? Hiding on youtube where you don't have to directly answer questions is bordering on cowardice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Jarrah's latest videos have less to do with examining Apollo evidence and more to do with mis-representing people's positions so he can score points over them. All while being dutifully egged on by his blinkered, merry band of sycophantic yes-men. In his Cats and Elephants video message board, he simply refuses to address the question of how an object re-entering the atmosphere while travelling in a southerly direction, could be recovered 5 hours later, 6000 miles to the north east. He hasn't bothered addressing the fact that the Perth observatory (IIRC) identified the object as Proton 4. He'd rather create a red herring about the length of time it took the West Australia newspaper to report that the object seen was indeed Proton 4. He even side-lined the "discussion" to bring up my email exchange with Jenny Heller almost a year ago! Anything but discuss questions directly pertaining to the issue itself. I wonder how many of the 25 rules of a disinformationist he's guilty of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 (edited) Thanks for posting Jarrah's new rebuttal videos ... You saved me the trouble . Hiding on youtube where you don't have to directly answer questions is bordering on cowardice. Like Jarrah said ... "Sticks and stones". ... More character assassination from Gavin and Dave ? .... Gee, what a surprise . I have already explained why Jarrah has no interest in posting on this forum ... He would rather spend his time exposing the Apollo hoax by producing his YouTube videos which thousands of people see, instead of arguing with the "propagandists" on a forum that doesn't get nearly as much exposure. Edited January 22, 2008 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Like Jarrah said ... "Sticks and stones". ... More character assassination from Gavin and Dave ? .... Gee, what a surprise . Stop being so thin-skinned Duane old boy, you're happy to accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being blind, lying fools. I have already explained why Jarrah has no interest in posting on this forum ... He would rather spend his time exposing the Apollo hoax by producing his YouTube videos which thousands of people see, instead of arguing with the "propagandists" on a forum that doesn't get nearly as much exposure. If he is so interested in the truth, why will he not answer questions directly pertaining to the evidence he has brought up on his own message board? No doubt because he realises the entire premise of the video would come tumbling down. He just changes the subject and hopes it will go away. He lied on his video about what I said about the visibility of craft in orbit, and refused to acknowledge the mistake. It was entirely transparent that all he was trying to do was make it look as if ABs were split on an issue. Gav had the guts to admit he was in error, you've done it yourself Duane: I wonder why Jarrah finds it impossible to follow suit. Easier to throw enough mud and hope some sticks no doubt! Even if he was correct that different people had a different opinion on the visibility of craft in orbit, so what? All he's done is shown that people can have a difference of opinion, even though they believe Apollo was real. But that's the crux of the matter isn't it? He isn't really interested in "the truth" - if he was, he'd have the intellectual honesty to address questions that pertain directly to the actual evidence presented, rather than avoiding uncomfortable truths and changing the subject in the hope they will go away. His current interest lies in trying to drive a wedge between people in the "pro-Apollo" camp. I do find it ironic that he is exactly what he accuses others of being: a propagandist, only for the Moon Hoax theory. Truth-seeker my foot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 If he is so interested in the truth, why will he not answer questions directly pertaining to the evidence he has brought up on his own message board? For the same reason he is not interested in posting on this forum . To use Ralph Rene's words again .... "There is no talking to those people " ...and " The best xxxx always wins the debate." In other words , it's a waste of time arguing with the "propagandists", whether it be here or on a YouTube chanel . I do find it ironic that he is exactly what he accuses others of being: a propagandist, only for the Moon Hoax theory. I thought you boys called us CT's "crackpots", "nutjobs"and "kooks" ! Truth-seeker my foot Correction: Truth seeker indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Stone Posted January 22, 2008 Author Share Posted January 22, 2008 To use Ralph Rene's words again .... "There is no talking to those people " ...and " The best xxxx always wins the debate." AKA "I don't want to debate the evidence" and "because I'm scared of hearing something I can't debunk". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 "I don't want to debate the evidence" and "because I'm scared of hearing something I can't debunk". Looks to me like Jarrah debated the evidence in your pretense of a rebuttal to his video , and debunked your "evidence" very well ... In fact, he pretty much kicked your sorry arse all over YouTube . I guess showing off for your pals by making your own YouTube "rebuttals" hasn't paid off like you hoped it would . Better luck next time . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 (edited) "I don't want to debate the evidence" and "because I'm scared of hearing something I can't debunk". Looks to me like Jarrah debated the evidence in your pretense of a rebuttal to his video , and debunked your "evidence" very well ... In fact, he pretty much kicked your sorry arse all over YouTube . I guess showing off for your pals by making your own YouTube "rebuttals" hasn't paid off like you hoped it would . Better luck next time . Really, why don't you explain in detail exactly how Jarrah debated the evidence and then "debuked it as well. I want to read it in YOUR words. Edited January 23, 2008 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Stone Posted January 23, 2008 Author Share Posted January 23, 2008 (edited) Who you kidding Craig? I can't remember the last time Duane presented any evidence. All his posts seem to consist of nowadays are insults and character assassinations; exactly what he accuses other people of! He doesn't spend any time presenting theories any more, he just runs all over youtube insulting people. He's currently posting on there about a grammar error I made while capitalising 'Physicist'. Yes, you heard that right. Duane is insulting me for a grammar error! He seems to think that a grammar error constitutes me not studying for a physical science degree. Edited January 23, 2008 by Gavin Stone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 I agree. In my opinion, Duane has been sadly lacking in being able to effectively support his views. He has said that he doesn't check his sources, and seems to display a complete disregard for any scientific method. No, he seems to rely on other people's assessments without the most basic standard of verification. If he does verify the data he posts, he does not acknowledge nor publicise the source / method of his verification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Oh - can I say once again - YouTube is NOT science. I stand ready to admit my error if anyone can provide evidence that any recognised scientific body admits a YouTube (or similar) video as sole scientific evidence of a claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 If he is so interested in the truth, why will he not answer questions directly pertaining to the evidence he has brought up on his own message board? For the same reason he is not interested in posting on this forum . I agree! He isn't interested in finding the truth - only in rubbishing Apollo and the people hwo believe it happened. Otherwise he would have no qualms whatsoever in answering a simple question: how is it possible that a craft undergoing re-entry while travelling in a southerly direction, off the West Coast of Australia, splash down 6000 miles to the north east, five hours later? He won't answer a simple question that addresses the evidence itself. Can you answer the question that he avoids like the plague? To use Ralph Rene's words again .... "There is no talking to those people " ...and " The best xxxx always wins the debate." That explains why Jarrah lied about my opinion on visibility of craft in orbi, and refused to make a simple correction when asked. Actions of a truthseeker, or actions of a xxxx? In other words , it's a waste of time arguing with the "propagandists", whether it be here or on a YouTube chanel . He isn't prepared to debate the evidence he's presented - because he knows it falls apart under anything more than superficial analysis! Which is exactly why he refuses to explain the question I posed above about Apollo 11 - he can't answer it, because to answer it honestly shows that the object that was seen could not possibly have been Apollo 11. Correction: Truth seeker indeed. Would a truth-seeker avoid asksing a simple question about the evidence, and continue to falsely mis-represent my position after they've been asked to rectify their error? Methinks not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 No, he seems to rely on other people's assessments without the most basic standard of verification. If he does verify the data he posts, he does not acknowledge nor publicise the source / method of his verification. That statement is completely untrue ... If I post an article or evidence here that are not my own words, I always provide a link to where the information came from. Speaking of "sticks and stones "... Ouchers guys ... Your post comments above are unfortunately so typical of what is posted on forums such as Apollo Hoax, BAUT, and the UM, where you actually believe that attacking the messenger will be enough to stop the message. Sorry I'm no "turboniun", but I no longer have the time to research and debate Apollo like I did a couple of years ago ....and because of the insulting tactics used by ALL of the Apollo defenders, no longer have the interest either. If you believe my method of discussing the Apollo hoax is enough reason for me not to post on this forum, then why don't you all take it up with the forums owners ? .. Who knows, you might just get lucky and manage to have me banned again . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 (edited) No, he seems to rely on other people's assessments without the most basic standard of verification. If he does verify the data he posts, he does not acknowledge nor publicise the source / method of his verification. That statement is completely untrue ... If I post an article or evidence here that are not my own words, I always provide a link to where the information came from. You misunderstand me - I'm talking about verification. For instance, if you post an article written by a physicist, talking about physics, then it would be quite understandable for you to accept that at face value. If, however, the physicist make claims that are very much against the mainstream, then you'd have to try and determine if his claims are valid or not... or at the very least, understand that the claim is contentious. If the physicist discussed mechanical engineering, you'd have to determine if they have the necessary knowledge to speak authoritatively about engineering; their expertise in physics carries no weight in the engineering field. Another example: a claim is made on the internet. You know nothing about the person making the claim, the details of the claim are outside your area of expertise, and the claim is one that is not widely accepted. Do you simply accept the claim? No; you should look at the details given, and check them out. For instance, the claim says that a report appeared in a major newspaper. You check the newspaper to see if the report did appear. That sort of thing. You just repeat what others have said without checking if the claim is valid or not (and you yourself have said you generally do not check on the veracity of claims). This is what many of us harp on about, especially when you can easily check on claims. Remember the "impossible" photographs? Why not simply try to recreate the images yourself, see if something is possible or not? That way you have confidence in what you are saying; you can say "I know this to be true because I have tried it myself!". Edited January 24, 2008 by Evan Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now