Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.
Has Jarrah ever posted on this site? What do you folks think of Jarrah's information on the Apollo Moon Hoax? Has Jarrah ever engaged in ad hominem attacks on anyone? I have watched his "Moonfaker" videos on You-tube. It appears that Jarrah has been quite thorough in his research. Again, please let me know what you think.
The first problem with the claim is that there is physical evidence on the lunar surface proving we were in fact there.
Secondly, we just landed another rover on Mars that was not damaged in any way by all the stuff these idiots love to say make the trips impossible.
Thirdly, and this one's a bit personal, I know no less than 3 engineers that worked on the Saturn project, one of whom has actual parts to real space craft (NASA junk) in his warehouse. I've seen it and I know far too much based on casual conversations and incidental discoveries of things in their homes, all of which support the reality of the lunar flights.
The majority of the fools wanting to make the "fake landing" argument have NEVER contacted the key players around the project and what interviews they do have aren't just composed of low-level engineers & "scientists" the material (conversation) is creatively edited so as to allude to certain conclusion (old trick, used all the time in Political mud tossing).
The FACT is that we did land on the moon and in roughly 15-20 years from now, (provided we've not destroyed the world by then) we WILL land a team on Mars.
Rather than looking at such hyperbole, go to the freaking source and learn first hand what's really happening. Talk to the million & billionaires that are throwing money into space flight (commercial passenger ventures) solely for the race of getting to the moon and making real estate claims, mining rights, etc. Such people & corporations don't through that kind of money at something that hasn't been proven to be viable. Any fool with half a brain should be able to understand this basic fact when it comes to business venture, so screw the pseudo-science claims made by these idiots and look at the biggest catalyst known to modern man -- GREED! Look at where the money is going, by which companies and individuals and what their goals are within the next 15-25 years or less.
None of these conspiracy nut jobs ever include this side of the facts and if they did, they wouldn't be able to explain it away.
Thanks, Craig. I appreciate your candor. However, I do not understand why you engage in ad hominem attacks by calling those who question the Apollo record as fools, idiots or nut jobs? This is why I asked if Jarrah White has ever taken to belittling people who do not agree with his premise. You can sure bet the farm that if Jarrah is found to engage in such behavior than I know his argument is unsound.
belittling people may not be polite, but it has no bearing on the actual argument itself.
Hi Arouet, I'm not sure what point of view you are coming from?
You wrote: "You can sure bet the farm that if Jarrah is found to engage in such behavior than I know his argument is unsound." That's not a valid argument. Whether or not he insults people who disagree with him has little to do with whether his arguments are sound.
Depends on how you look at it, but Jarrah has tried to confront Phil Plait and Buzz Aldrin in what I would consider inappropriate.
However, I agree with arouet, whether or not Jarrah has attacked others is irrelevant. There are simply too many pieces of evidence that suggest we did make it to the moon, not the least of which is there are far too many witness and to my knowledge, none of them have ever said that we didn't go.
Hi Arouet & ProfWag,
To clarify when I mean engaging in ad hominem attacks, I mean the vicious variety that attacks a person personally. Yes, passions can run high and it sometimes gets the better of a person. In my humblest opinion, people who stoop to this level have lost the argument and brings motive into question other than the information at hand. Agreed, nobody likes to be confronted with guerrilla tactics. Bart Sebril did this with the Apollo astronauts and admitted he was wrong especially with Buzz Aldrin by calling him a liar and so forth. However, I disagree with Jarrah White's case. Jarrah, according to him, paid just like everyone else to see Plait, Aldrin and so forth. He asked pointed questions and was not disrespectful.
Maybe, but I don't follow the guy enough to know if he's disrespectful or not. Looking at his credentials and then watching him try to prove the moon landing was a hoax by using Leggos and car headlights, I pretty much formed my opinion of his arguments. We now have photos taken from Japanese satellites that show the landing sites and the only way he can dismiss them is by saying that Japan's space agency is in on the landing hoax as well. Not very substantial if you ask me...
Jarrah White does a nice job picking apart the Japanese space agency photos. You can watch this on moonfaker.com if your interested.
Misha, I understood your argument - I just disagreed with you. When people insult others they are rude - but that doesn't mean that their arguments are unsound. Neither does someone being polite mean that their arguments are sound. There are nice people and jerks - both of whom are capable of being sound or unsound in their arguments.
Fair enough, Arouet. However, an argument's soundness is often dedicated to its presentation. That presentation if it is sound does not have to resort to ad hominem attacks whatsoever. I do understand your point, though.
Ad Hominem is appropriate if used correctly. Craig first attacked the argument then questioned the authority and expertise of Jarrah. Since Jarrah is neither an expert or authority on the subject of the Moon landings it is fair to question his level of intelligence on this specific subject as Craig rightly did.
"Ad Hominem is not fallacious if the attack goes to the credibility of the argument. For instance, the argument may depend on its presenter's claim that he's an expert. (That is, the Ad Hominem is undermining an Argument From Authority.) Trial judges allow this category of attacks."
More on the subject of Ad Hominem appropriate and inappropriate usage.
Source Oxford Dictionary:
Definition of ad hominem
adverb & adjective
1(of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.
attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain: vicious ad hominem attacks
2relating to or associated with a particular person: [as adverb]: the office was created ad hominem for Fenton [as adjective]: an ad hominem response
late 16th century: Latin, literally 'to the person'
Definition of AD HOMINEM
: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
Origin of AD HOMINEM
New Latin, literally, to the person
First Known Use: 1598
The Oxford Dictionary is an authoritative source on definitions. No qualms there. It however does not go into the subtleties of when an ad hom is appropriate and not.
You mean to tell us that after reading the quote and link you still don't comprehend when an ad hom is and is not appropriate ?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests