Just in case it gets here, a group of hoax believers have begun making public accusations that I am a "proven liar."

The basis for their accusation is this. I wrote a four-line review of Bart Sibrel's video on Amazon.com. I did this after seeing only small portions of the video, and not the entire thing. I have since withdrawn the review. I believe the review is correct, but I do not feel it is ethically justified to write a review that any reader will assume is based on the entire video.

Just a heads-up.

Jay, if I had to choose between a review you made based on the cover art of the video box, and a review made by nearly anyone else based on extensive research into the entire video, I'd go with yours.

Yes, and they are truly insane at apollohoax.com.

I'm not going back there, because it's too scary there, with those crackpots.
_________________
"The contemplation of celestial things will make man both speak and think more sublimely and magnificently when he descends to human affairs." -Marcus Cicero

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AstroMike on 2002-03-09 23:18 ]</font>

I'd go with yours.

I appreciate the vote of confidence. I stress that the substance of the review was not inaccurate, merely the implication that it was based on a full viewing of the video.

I agree with AstroMike about staying away from the apollohoax thread – I just finished reading it in its entirety – and think I’ll need to take a shower!

I didn’t put a post on that site because I’ve never posted on the site before and felt by adding my two cents I’d probably make things worse (If you’ve read the thread you know what I mean). For those of you thinking about visiting the thread – its eight pages long – be prepared to be there for a while and make sure you’ve taken your blood pressure medicine!!!

For what its worth – after reading the whole thread, its obvious that to the person(s) attacking Jay, it is far more important to win the (personal) attack on Jay than any real discussion of the truth. At least on this board, the discussions tend to be more technical in nature, and for my time, far more worthwhile. I doubt the people attacking Jay will show up here, it just isn’t the kind of forum they would frequent - and if they did, I know the BA wouldn’t put up with the kind of stuff going on in the other forum.

Off to the showers!!!

P.S. I also agree with odysseus0101 regarding my faith in Jay’s review. While Jay may not of viewed the entire video (DVD or VHS) I have read enough of his responses on this forum and the information on his own site, to know that the review he made was not done in a vacuum – it was based on a good deal of knowledge of Bart Sibrel's work and a review of enough of the video to know that Mr. Sibrel hadn’t altered his opinion. (left out of the original post…)


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SpacedOut on 2002-03-10 08:07 ]</font>

Is the review available anywhere, in some form, so we can check it out ourselves? Which threads are discussing this?

GOW – Thread is titled “ The UK reviews of "Dark Moon" ” – there is a link to a review that is supposedly by Jay, but I won’t list it here because I’m not really sure it is the one.

As I said before, I hope you’re wearing HAZMAT garb if you plan to visit the thread!

The review is still at Amazon.com under the entry for Sibrel's video, A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to the Moon. I have requested that the review be removed in order to alleviate any semblance of malice. I will resubmit the review at a later time after viewing the entire video. For those who don't feel like navigating through the Amazon, here is the review in its entirety.

I have expounded upon it at length in the ApolloHoax thread.

I know most of you believe this is an accurate review. So do I. But it is nevertheless misleading to offer my opinion on something I haven't fully seen, so I withdrew the review on principle.

The issue is simply that a group of disgruntled hoax believers who failed to prevail in a technical debate are now attempting to exact their revenge in less honorable ways. You will surely hear amplified and exaggerated versions of this story from them.

I have seen the blood and guts flying around at Apollo Hoax too.
Although I am strongly in favour that the astronauts did go to the moon I have reluctantly come down on the side of Shelock and Slime on this one.
I read the review that JayUtah put up at amazon and if you analyse it sentence by sentence there is certainly the implication that the review was intended to be for the whole programme and not just a few minutes.
JayUtah at first seemed to admit his error and is now re-evaluating his position.
I understand why such a supporter of NASA would assume the video had nothing new to offer but an assumption was not what was asked for.
All the supporters and enemies of Jay are now jumping on the bandwagon making it a pathetic spectacle.
Cant we just put it to rest with Jay apologising for his unscientific departure from the truth.

The irony is that, of course, Jay was almost completely correct in his assessment of the video. I have sat through Sibrel's painful documentary, and the only new bit in it is the "missing reel" of footage, showing the astronauts practicing for a press conference in space. Sibrel mistakes this for fakery, which is ridiculous, but then, Sibrel's case has been hashed out in grim detail in other places. Also, of course, he makes a lot of the same old arguments about no stars (though he adds a new, but no less ridiculous, twist to it) and radiation; ideas that are trivially easy to prove wrong.

Very ironic. But had it been the smoking gun it would have been curtains for Jay's "good" name.
You have actually hit the crux spot on.
Jay only saw the new Sibrel missing reel so could not possibly be justified in describing the video as 'rehashed'. I cannot see any other meaning.
Jay got lucky but that should not be his defence.
Some very childish behaviour on the part of Jonathon Ploegman by resorting to name calling has probably finished Apollo Hoax as a serious discussion board.
Now the Hoax believers will probably feel they hit a raw nerve. Perhaps they did?

I have been involved with some very long, dragged out "discussions" with various pseudoscientists on this board and others. Regulars here will remember who I mean. They go on and on, ignoring any real issues, use name calling, and claim that because they don't understand something (whatever it might be) it must be wrong.

They are irritants. They poke and poke and poke, and when you finally snap they claim victory. It is extraordinarily rare that they make a valid point.

In this case, the mistake Jay made was not in facts, but in posting a review of something he hadn't seen. Yes, that was a mistake, and I understand why he did it, but as he has already said that doesn't make things any better. The real problem, as others have already pointed out, is that the HBs can use this to their advantage, even when they are still factually wrong.

It's a losing fight sometimes. I try not to convince the True Believers, because their faith blinds them. I stay calm, rational, and phrase what I say to talk to the folks sitting on the fence. They are the ones who concern all of us. They still have a chance to see reason.

This thread at Apollohoax has turned into just the type of thing that Mr. Badastronomer has managed to keep out of this forum (and told me off a couple of times too [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] ). It started out as nothing, and has developed into an attack on Jays credibility which is totally unjustified. I believe Jay was totally justified in his review at Amazon. I've seen the film, and Jays comments are accurate. He does not imply he's seen the vid, but he knows enough about it anyway from descriptions from those who have seen it to make an informed judgement. Sometimes Jay is just too damn moral for his own good. He's removed his review just in case someone may get the wrong impression from his statements. However, which ever way you look at it, his review was spot on.

Hello John,

I see you are also getting a pasting at the moment on Apollo Hoax. I would like to correct you, as well as others of Jays defenders on that board. Without bringing it down to the level of a slanging match!

"He does not imply he's seen the vid"

He certainly did by a look at the review. After much pressure from HB's and Jay haters he sort-of retracted.

"but he knows enough about it anyway from descriptions from those who have seen it to make an informed judgement."

Very unprofessional conduct and hearsay. Jay is an educated man. He must surely know this sort of behaviour is unforgiveable.

"Sometimes Jay is just too damn moral for his own good."

Perhaps until now. Lying is not a moral value in my book.

"He's removed his review just in case someone may get the wrong impression from his statements."

Good. I congratulate him. He must now admit to deceit and trying to cover up the facts.

"However, which ever way you look at it, his review was spot on."

Thats the sort of moral value that makes my blood boil. As long as you dont get caught thats OK. I'm sorry to have to say this but for the first time the HB's get my vote.
Truth is what we should all be looking for.

I suggest we take this argument elsewhere. This is not the place to discuss a debate happening on another board. See you at Apollohoax.com

I will have to sign up there and at the moment I dont trust Admin to not delete my post or fill it with vulgarities. Goodbye John. You are right about this being a bad place to squabble.

Not at all. Jay is much smart enough not to take this crap.

No. The behavior these people have sprouted on is totally unforgiveable in my opinion.

So do you excuse David Percy or Bart Sibrel, who is much bigger liars than Jay will ever be?

No. These people must admit they do not see Percy's arguments get ripped to shreds on a discussion forum. These people are the real cowards.

Jay is interested in discovering the truth about Apollo. Percy and Sibrel are most certainly not.

The people making these accusations are just monsters. They do not want see Percy's and Sibrel's arguments get destroyed, so they target at Jay by accusing him a liar, which is completely unfair and unjust. This is something I will not stand for an innocent person.

_________________
"The contemplation of celestial things will make man both speak and think more sublimely and magnificently when he descends to human affairs." -Marcus Cicero

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AstroMike on 2002-03-10 23:08 ]</font>

Good. I congratulate him. He must now admit to deceit and trying to cover up the facts.

I am being asked to admit to sweeping allegations of wrongdoing far in excess of what I, and many others, believe was actually committed. This I will not do.

The act of writing a review, regardless of the accuracy of the content, implies that the reviewer has made a complete observation of the work under review. My act of writing a review conveyed an impression that was not true, namely that I had seen all the video. Because I do not wish to convey such a false impression, and did so inadvertently, I have removed the review.

My attackers are claiming that the review was "false", "fraudulent", and a "lie". Insofar as the review was based on what I consider reliable information about the video, I do not consider it false. Others who have seen the entire video and who have read my review agree that the content of the review substantially agrees with their opinion. I believe it to be a fair opinion based on a sufficiency of fact. That this fact did not derive from actually viewing the video itself did not seem important when I wrote the review, but I have since concluded that it is.

I do not and will not admit to deceit in this matter because deceit implies prior motive to mislead. I had no such motive, although the unfortunate and unintended outcome conveys a misleading impression.

I do not and will not admit to covering up fact. When the possibility of my review misleading readers was brought to my attention, I immediately disclosed the basis upon which I wrote the review, and what my intent had been. I solicited recommendations for a course of remedial action and as a result removed the review.

I have repeatedly and unswervingly acknowledged fault in having conveyed an inaccurate impression of authority to those who may have read my review. It is ludicrous to suppose that such an admission must necessarily slide down the slippery slope toward the utter demonization of my entire character, a goal currently being pursued vigorously by people with ulterior motives in doing so.

LOL! Talk about a tempest in a teapot!

Or a mountain out of a molehill?

Gads, I just finished reading that entire thread (up to 11 pages now), and it's the most laughable, sickening pile of slanderous and nit-picking pile of garbage I've ever seen.

The two posters who keep going at Jay act like total fools, blowing even the most minor detail way out of proportion and trying to turn it into a black mark against Jay. But when someone tries to turn the tables on them, they just twist and squirm and try to reflect the criticisms back on others. That they are only making themselves look ridiculous seems to be completely lost on them.

If it wasn't so disturbing I'd just look at it humorously. As it is, it's almost unforgivable. JayUtah, you are completely right in this regard, and you are also wise to just back out of it and let the flames die out.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

Sorry, I must be browser challenged. Do you have a direct link to the forum? Thanks.