Well, you know, Alan Smithee has a very uneven resume.

I'm still a little unclear as to why anyone would care what Joe Rogan thinks about science. It's not unlike caring what my vet thinks about symphonic music, really. It's not that he might not know what he's talking about. It's just that there's no reason to asusme he would.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Nah. If I put my name in the title, it would be that much harder for me to remain anonymous.

__________________
Apollo unbelievers go here for immediate salvation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc

"I had a hand in Tom Morrow's kiester."
-JayUtah

"The only physical proof nasa has that they landed men on the moon is 840 lbs. of rocks"
-straydog02

I doubt anyone really would care, except that with his "celebrity" status, he's got something of a pulpit from which to preach disinformation about Apollo to a captive audience. The fewer people doing that, the better.

Also, he's been thumping his chest quite loudly about how he "bested" a bonafide astronomer in a debate about the moon landings. I and others, feel Joe needs a reality check.

In fact, I'm going over to his board right now to invite him (for the 2nd time) to come here and discuss his misgivings about the Apollo program.

__________________
Apollo unbelievers go here for immediate salvation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc

"I had a hand in Tom Morrow's kiester."
-JayUtah

"The only physical proof nasa has that they landed men on the moon is 840 lbs. of rocks"
-straydog02

Good luck with that, svector..."If" he ever comes, I'm looking forward to about 3 hours of entertainment before he grow tired of this website, or is invited to leave (and the, of course, gloat about martyrdom and persecution)

Pete

__________________
PJE

There's so much I don't know about astrophysics. I wish I had read that book by that wheelchair guy.

Also, he's been thumping his chest quite loudly about how he "bested" a bonafide astronomer in a debate about the moon landings.

Only by shouting him down and not letting him say anything. I'll bet I can beat Joe Rogan at comedy if he's tied to a chair and gagged.

I and others, feel Joe needs a reality check.

That presumes Joe Rogan wants anything to do with reality. I'll be happy to debate him as long as there's a moderator who turns off Rogan's microphone while I'm talking. I certainly don't consent to be the latest punching bag sacrificed to the maintenance of his ego.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Interesting.
Only part of Joe Rogan's post was included.

The full version? (bolded is what was left out from the previous quote)

I don't ever want to visit that forum again but it is my policy to check sources when provided.

I think it's clear that he only wishes to debate in a manner where his abilities in his career as an entertainer would be beneficial to him. I can't really blame him for that. I do find it telling that he states he's more than willing to debate but specifies the medium in which the debate must take place.

Is all that really worth the pittance you get every month from the evil gubmint?

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

merely an oversight, no CT here. I copied and pasted and must not have gotten the full quote, when I realized the quote tag was unclosed I simply typed in [/quote myself.

I believe the reason there is issue with your name Svector, is that you come out with a good argument, you clearly have knowledge on the issue and to at least Joe offer a better case than Phil did. So why not stand behind it. When you come out and practically debunk a major chunk of a CT of this magnitude and hide behind a screen name it does put your credibility into question. To then respond to it by saying you dont want it out because you are on a CT's "to do" list just makes you sound paranoid.

Its kinda like sitting on a jury to convict a mobster but your biggest witness is shrouded in sheets and speaking through something that alters their voice. You have no idea who that person is, what their motives might be or ability to judge their demeanor. It casts doubt on the entire testimony.

You should be proud of what you have done, the fact you wont publically take credit for it with your name is very suspect not just to CT's but to everyone. I believe we landed on the moon, but the fact you wont take credit for your work and hide on the internet makes me wonder what you are hiding from or what your true motives are.

I doubt that he will accept the invitation as he already denied that he has given one.

He would .. if there's "Media".. around.

"Lights , Camera, Action!"

I think he already explained that.

Facts are facts.

Meanwhile, ever hear of the witness protection program?

Oh yeah, getoverit, what's your real name, address, and phone number?

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

From what I gather, this forum doesn't take lightly to misquotes even if they're accidental.

And I didn't say I had a conspiracy theory, I pointed to something relevant to the conversation that was missing from a previous quote. And it is relevant... he's indicated how he wishes to debate SVector whereas subsequent posting still refers to inviting him into the forums to debate.

I think it's clear that he only wishes to debate in a manner where his abilities in his career as an entertainer would be beneficial to him. I can't really blame him for that.

I do. Well, I can't blame him for wanting it, but I would blame if he thought he was reasonably going to get it. If he wants to be an entertainer, good for him. I also entertain (cf. the avatar) and so I have a great deal of respect for others who do, and who are successful at it.

However, if he wants to be taken seriously in the fields of science and history, then he will have to play that game by the rules that bind its other players. He will have to compete using his ideas, not with presentation and characterization. Charisma counts for very little in the blistering crucible of informed reason.

I do find it telling that he states he's more than willing to debate but specifies the medium in which the debate must take place.

Of course. I suspect he will only consent to a "debate" in which he is allowed to browbeat and shout down his opponent, as he has been seen to do before. If that is untrue, then let him consent to a debate in which a neutral moderator can silence him when it's not his turn to speak.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

You should be proud of what you have done, the fact you wont publically take credit for it with your name is very suspect not just to CT's but to everyone.

Speak for yourself; I endorse Svector's wish to remain semi-anonymous for now. You should have seen the threatening e-mails I got when I first put up my web site. It was two years before I felt safe enough to attach my real name to it.

You don't seem to understand that some people rely on perpetuating the hoax theory as part of their livelihoods. We have already seen that they are willing to file frivolous lawsuits (Kaysing) and to border on physical assault (Sibrel) in order to generate and protect these revenue streams. You may consider this only a lark, but there are people who see what I and Svector do as serious threats to their desired way of life.

Svector has made himself copiously available both here and on YouTube to take intellectual responsibility for his creation. He has answered all comers except for a very few troublemakers. Svector has conclusively demonstrated that his anonymity is not intended to shield him from appropriate criticism. As I say on my own web site, the strength of the argument is in the strength of the ideas, not in the identity of who expresses them. The demand for his real identity seems little more than a red herring among people desperate to have anything to criticize.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Not if you're aware of the tactics of some of those in CT circles, it doesn't. Besides, science doesn't care about names. That's one of its greatest strengths, in fact. It doesn't matter who's presenting the information. What matters is the information itself. After all, Joe Rogan, or you, or I could quite easily go elsewhere and verify every single piece of information in Clavius or in Svector's video if we so chose. It would take time and effort, and I'm quite grateful to Jay and Svector for making it so that I don't have to, but I could if I did have to. Svector's real name is irrelevant to that.

Who the person is doesn't matter, particularly, if the information can be verified. This is just as true in a mob trial as it is regarding Apollo. The information matters; the person doesn't.

Why? I honestly don't understand. Honestly. If you can verify every piece of information presented, which you of course can, why do the motives of the person presenting it matter when it comes to the validity of the information? Svector should be, and probably is, proud of his work. That doesn't mean he should open himself up to the tedious bleating of Bart Sibrel.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Pittance? [evil, bellicose laughter]

Black-ops programs pay very well. Just because they don't use U.S. currency doesn't mean it's a pittance.

__________________
Apollo unbelievers go here for immediate salvation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc

"I had a hand in Tom Morrow's kiester."
-JayUtah

"The only physical proof nasa has that they landed men on the moon is 840 lbs. of rocks"
-straydog02

Why would you think it's a smart idea to list such words in a forum visited by school children wishing to learn about science, space, and astronomy?

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0....

I didn't I assumed the filter would catch them.. they didn't. I pointed it out. Think of it as a public service announcement so Phil can go add them in now.