ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: Luke Pemberton on March 02, 2014, 07:31:50 AM
-
Has anyone had the experience of debating the moon hoax and seeing Godwin's law invoked?
I'm wondering just how many moon hoaxers believe the moon hoax simply because of Wernher von Braun and his relationship with the Nazis. It is an uneasy relationship for many, but do some moon hoax believers see the moon hoax as a platform to attack NASA's employment of an ex-Nazi?
{EDIT: Extra word removed}
-
I've seen the nazi card pulled a lot of times, but not being the reason for hoax belief. It is just used as another "nail in the coffin" to discredit NASA. Not that the people using the nazi-argument has any real understanding of the nationalsocialism concept. Which was a ethnocentric stance - taken to the extreme.
-
Quite a few times. "Von Braun was a Nazi, therefore MOON HOAX! ! !" is the general chain of 'logic' I see.
-
Anybody run into a Flat-Earther? I just stumbled on one. Not even Sibrel, René or That Down-Under-Guy is that far gone.
-
No, but I did run into a geocentricist. Eventually, I had to give up.
-
We regularly get the "Nazi-therefore-Conspiracy" argument at JREF. I usually give the culprit this....
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/JREF/MikeGodwin%20Award.png)
-
Anybody run into a Flat-Earther? I just stumbled on one. Not even Sibrel, René or That Down-Under-Guy is that far gone.
I've seen a few flat-Earthers. They usually fall into the "rockets won't work in space" crowd.
But after watching the latest video this week from "Mr. Down-Under"..... I'm pretty sure he is that gone. He's actually said that he wanted to wait on publishing his latest on Chang'e 3 because, get this...... he didn't want to tip off the Chinese that he was watching them.
I've seen the Nazi connection invoked countless times. It's a tactic employed to get an emotional response. That same tactic was used in the first 20 minutes of Sibrel's video.
While I do not by any means condone Von Braun's WWII activities or labor methods, I do think he was absolutely necessary to the success of the US Space program and the advancement of space travel overall.
-
But after watching the latest video this week from "Mr. Down-Under"..... I'm pretty sure he is that gone. He's actually said that he wanted to wait on publishing his latest on Chang'e 3 because, get this...... he didn't want to tip off the Chinese that he was watching them.
That is bloody hilarious. Talk about being full of his own self-importance.
I doubt if anyone in the Chinese space programme has ever even heard of Jarrah White.
-
But after watching the latest video this week from "Mr. Down-Under"..... I'm pretty sure he is that gone. He's actually said that he wanted to wait on publishing his latest on Chang'e 3 because, get this...... he didn't want to tip off the Chinese that he was watching them.
That is bloody hilarious. Talk about being full of his own self-importance.
I doubt if anyone in the Chinese space programme has ever even heard of Jarrah White.
It actually gets better. At the end of the video, he says; (paraphrasing here)
"Excuse me, I now have to go focus on solving the radiation problem and getting men on the moon for real."
-
But after watching the latest video this week from "Mr. Down-Under"..... I'm pretty sure he is that gone.
I was sure he was "that gone" when he first showed up, in around 2004. His initial offering was ... distinctive.
-
"Excuse me, I now have to go focus on solving the radiation problem and getting men on the moon for real."
I hope he's learned a lot more about radiation since his disastrous fumbling-around at IMDb. Or is he still trying to tell people that the foul-mouthed post the moderators deleted was "really " his brilliant rebuttal that I had to pull strings to have removed?
-
Has anyone had the experience of debating the moon hoax and seeing Godwin's law invoked?
I'm wondering just how many moon hoaxers believe the moon hoax simply because of Wernher von Braun and his relationship with the Nazis. It is an uneasy relationship for many, but do some moon hoax believers see the moon hoax as a platform to attack NASA's employment of an ex-Nazi?
{EDIT: Extra word removed}
I don't think mere invocation of Nazism is what Godwin's Law is about. The gist of Godwin is that the proponent invokes Nazism as a red herring. Since there is a legitimate connection between Apollo and Nazism, you have to look at the argument and see whether it invokes the actual Nazi connection through Von Braun and his colleagues, or whether it is the typical Godwinian flight off the handle.
I don't recall any true Godwin's Law invocations. The guy who probably tries to get the most mileage out of the Nazi connection is filmmaker Aaron Ranen. He doesn't go as far as claiming a hoax, but he makes a big to-do about anti-Semitism and anti-Black racism in NASA and casting vague aspersions. And there might be a point: look at how much of the Apollo project was set in the Deep South of the 1960s. That's not a very un-racist environment, despite all one's noble efforts in other areas.
I've only run into one flat-Earther, and it was a short conversation since, when he learned my profession, he basically called me a bald-faced liar and fraud.
I review Neville Jones here: http://www.clavius.org/bibjones.html . He's a geocentrist.
-
"Excuse me, I now have to go focus on solving the radiation problem and getting men on the moon for real."
I hope he's learned a lot more about radiation since his disastrous fumbling-around at IMDb. Or is he still trying to tell people that the foul-mouthed post the moderators deleted was "really " his brilliant rebuttal that I had to pull strings to have removed?
Are you referring to the rebuttal where he seemed to suddenly not understand how numbers worked?
After having watched his last two videos and I'm pretty sure his infallible research methods and magnanimous, bordering on saintly, manners are still alive & well.
He now insinuates that the Chinese space program is faked but declares that the Chang'e 3 soil analysis proves the Apollo missions were faked. Can't have it both ways......
-
I don't recall any true Godwin's Law invocations. The guy who probably tries to get the most mileage out of the Nazi connection is filmmaker Aaron Ranen. He doesn't go as far as claiming a hoax, but he makes a big to-do about anti-Semitism and anti-Black racism in NASA and casting vague aspersions. And there might be a point: look at how much of the Apollo project was set in the Deep South of the 1960s. That's not a very un-racist environment, despite all one's noble efforts in other areas.
One of the most (possibly unintentionally) telling points in Ranen's film, I thought, was that even NASA Technician Bob Tooley, an African-American and the target of open racism, was very clear that the Apollo project was genuine, even though, in his words, "I would be the first person to expose them people".
-
I don't think mere invocation of Nazism is what Godwin's Law is about. The gist of Godwin is that the proponent invokes Nazism as a red herring. Since there is a legitimate connection between Apollo and Nazism, you have to look at the argument and see whether it invokes the actual Nazi connection through Von Braun and his colleagues, or whether it is the typical Godwinian flight off the handle.
Thanks for clarifying Godwin's law. I usually encounter invocation of the Nazi connection through von Braun and his colleagues. This connection is used to attack those that 'defend' Apollo, but how quickly the other party resorts to general accusations of 'Nazi loving scum' or politely challenges my moral stance because of von Braun's labour methods depends.
I've only run into one flat-Earther, and it was a short conversation since, when he learned my profession, he basically called me a bald-faced liar and fraud.
You're used to that though? ;D
-
He's actually said that he wanted to wait on publishing his latest on Chang'e 3 because, get this...... he didn't want to tip off the Chinese that he was watching them.
I'm gobsmacked. I haven't paid much attention to the moon hoax for three years now as I have been extremely busy with a new job, but I can't work out whether to laugh or feel sympathetic for him. I'm edging on sympathy as there is clearly something awry if he genuinely believes the Chinese are concerned about him.
-
I can never quite tell what they're trying to say with the von Braun/Nazi card. There's certainly plenty of room for different opinions on von Braun's moral culpability for his actions during the Nazi regime. But what that has to do with his ability to build working rockets completely escapes me.
I'd be tempted to say that having had all their other arguments busted they're simply pushing random emotional buttons in sheer desperation. But that would imply their other arguments made somewhat more sense -- and they don't.
-
He's actually said that he wanted to wait on publishing his latest on Chang'e 3 because, get this...... he didn't want to tip off the Chinese that he was watching them.
I'm gobsmacked. I haven't paid much attention to the moon hoax for three years now as I have been extremely busy with a new job, but I can't work out whether to laugh or feel sympathetic for him. I'm edging on sympathy as there is clearly something awry if he genuinely believes the Chinese are concerned about him.
I'm in the same boat. Methinks delusions of scientific grandeur exist in that brain.
I'm am amazed sometimes how that certain conspiracy theorist can just all of a sudden become an expert in any given field at any given time. His work is like a wreck on the freeway and I sometimes can't help intellectually rubber-necking.
His "anonymous peer reviewer" video in particular had me staring at my monitor like a goat staring at thunder. There were far too many contradictions to calculate at once and my brain temporarily had a 1202 alarm.
-
I can never quite tell what they're trying to say with the von Braun/Nazi card. There's certainly plenty of room for different opinions on von Braun's moral culpability for his actions during the Nazi regime. But what that has to do with his ability to build working rockets completely escapes me.
I'd be tempted to say that having had all their other arguments busted they're simply pushing random emotional buttons in sheer desperation. But that would imply their other arguments made somewhat more sense -- and they don't.
You've just said what I was trying to say, but I said it really badly. Despite my own moral compass being severely challenged by von Braun's involvement, the argument has nothing to do with the ability to build working rockets. It stinks of desperation. I really dislike having the argument invoked because I feel forced to defend von Braun's past rather than address dubious claims made against 400 000 people.
-
I'm amazed sometimes how that certain conspiracy theorist can just all of a sudden become an expert in any given field at any given time.
Yup, experts in geology, radiation, orbital mechanics, flight control and communications, laser ranging, photo analysis, physics, mathematics, chemistry, biology, engineering (several branches of), manufacturing techniques, rocketry, stage productions, photography... any others want to add to the list, feel free. ;D
{EDIT: Correct error to spelling.}
-
...computers, medicine, weather...
-
. . . film special effects . . . .
-
I can never quite tell what they're trying to say with the von Braun/Nazi card. There's certainly plenty of room for different opinions on von Braun's moral culpability for his actions during the Nazi regime. But what that has to do with his ability to build working rockets completely escapes me.
I'd be tempted to say that having had all their other arguments busted they're simply pushing random emotional buttons in sheer desperation. But that would imply their other arguments made somewhat more sense -- and they don't.
Remember, there is never coherence with these guys. They don't think they have to make a self-consistent sets of arguments. As far as they're concerned, the only logic required is: something dodgy => hoax.
-
I can never quite tell what they're trying to say with the von Braun/Nazi card. There's certainly plenty of room for different opinions on von Braun's moral culpability for his actions during the Nazi regime. But what that has to do with his ability to build working rockets completely escapes me.
I'd be tempted to say that having had all their other arguments busted they're simply pushing random emotional buttons in sheer desperation. But that would imply their other arguments made somewhat more sense -- and they don't.
Remember, there is never coherence with these guys. They don't think they have to make a self-consistent sets of arguments. As far as they're concerned, the only logic required is: something dodgy => hoax.
It doesn't even have to be dodgy. "I don't understand therefore hoax" seem to suffice for many of them
-
I just like how folks will hassle Nasa for having Braun, claim the Soviets were ahead of the U.S. anyway; and happily ignore that they got them a few German scientists (and V2's) also. (Yes, Korolev was Russian, but still, it all seems unbalanced.)
-
I just like how folks will hassle Nasa for having Braun, claim the Soviets were ahead of the U.S. anyway; and happily ignore that they got them a few German scientists (and V2's) also. (Yes, Korolev was Russian, but still, it all seems unbalanced.)
People tend to be fairly ignorant about Soviet space efforts. Most people probably don't even know who Korolev even was.
One little fact I find funny is when conspiracy theorists make a big fuss about the camera tilting up by remote control on Apollo 17, when the Soviets were driving an entire rover on the moon 2 years before.
-
I can never quite tell what they're trying to say with the von Braun/Nazi card. There's certainly plenty of room for different opinions on von Braun's moral culpability for his actions during the Nazi regime. But what that has to do with his ability to build working rockets completely escapes me.
I'd be tempted to say that having had all their other arguments busted they're simply pushing random emotional buttons in sheer desperation. But that would imply their other arguments made somewhat more sense -- and they don't.
Remember, there is never coherence with these guys. They don't think they have to make a self-consistent sets of arguments. As far as they're concerned, the only logic required is: something dodgy => hoax.
It doesn't even have to be dodgy. "I don't understand therefore hoax" seem to suffice for many of them
Critical thinking is kryptonite to a hoaxer.
-
I can never quite tell what they're trying to say with the von Braun/Nazi card. There's certainly plenty of room for different opinions on von Braun's moral culpability for his actions during the Nazi regime. But what that has to do with his ability to build working rockets completely escapes me.
I'd be tempted to say that having had all their other arguments busted they're simply pushing random emotional buttons in sheer desperation. But that would imply their other arguments made somewhat more sense -- and they don't.
Remember, there is never coherence with these guys. They don't think they have to make a self-consistent sets of arguments. As far as they're concerned, the only logic required is: something dodgy => hoax.
It doesn't even have to be dodgy. "I don't understand therefore hoax" seem to suffice for many of them
Of course, when I saw dodgy I mean dodgy to them mostly since employing the services of someone who may have been a Nazi war criminal is the only thing that is dodgy in any form.
-
I can never quite tell what they're trying to say with the von Braun/Nazi card. There's certainly plenty of room for different opinions on von Braun's moral culpability for his actions during the Nazi regime. But what that has to do with his ability to build working rockets completely escapes me.
Because the theme of the hoax theory is evil, not competence. Arguments that the space program wasn't competent to get men to the Moon is subsidiary to the argument that they were evil for faking it. Ad hominem arguments against Wernher von Braun aren't meant to impeach his competence as an engineer, but rather to frame NASA in evil by emphasizing von Braun's Nazi past and NASA's blind eye toward it.
-
But after watching the latest video this week from "Mr. Down-Under."
That video appears to have been taken down by a DMCA claim from Vincent McConnell again. It would appear that Vincent has claimed rights to a NASA photo so that Jarrah's video has been pulled. I never thought I would rush to the defence of Jarrah White, but Vincent really must stop making false claims against Jarrah.
While I loath and detest everything that Jarrah represents, and find most of his actions reprehensible, he has a right to free speech. It would be better if Jarrah was served his humble pie by those he attacks or by the rightful owners of the material he uses without permission. Sadly the former is unlikely because Jarrah is intellectually dishonest.
Vincent's attacks are only serving to give Jarrah more ammunition to fire across the bows of his 'opponents.'
-
I agree there. Jarrah has done the same detestable thing many times, but two wrongs don't make a right, even if three lefts do.
-
How does Vincent claim a NASA photo as his? I didn't think he was even American. Don't YouTube check such things?
-
How does Vincent claim a NASA photo as his? I didn't think he was even American. Don't YouTube check such things?
I confident Vincent is American. When he first arrived on the scene as a hoax theorist, he made it quite public that he wanted to join the USMC. I assume that one has to be a US citizen to join the USMC. I'm not sure if bilateral agreements exist between Canada and the US though, so I might be wrong.
As an aside, he might be Canadian for all I know. While some American accents are obvious American accents, and I am confident a person is of American origin from their accent, I cannot firmly say that a person is Canadian based on their accent. Forgive me, I'm from the UK. :)
-
Some Canadian accents are quite distinctive. They sound like someone from Bristol trying to do a bad American accent.
-
How does Vincent claim a NASA photo as his? I didn't think he was even American. Don't YouTube check such things?
From what I understand, evidently not. They seem to respond to such claims before (if ever) checking into whether they are legitimate or not.
-
How does Vincent claim a NASA photo as his? I didn't think he was even American. Don't YouTube check such things?
From what I understand, evidently not. They seem to respond to such claims before (if ever) checking into whether they are legitimate or not.
That's a recipe for major trollage. I mean technically Jarrah has been defamed in this case. He could legitimately sue.
Somehow, Vincent has made Jarrah White a legitimate plaintiff. That is stunning ineptitude.
-
How does Vincent claim a NASA photo as his? I didn't think he was even American. Don't YouTube check such things?
From what I understand, evidently not. They seem to respond to such claims before (if ever) checking into whether they are legitimate or not.
That's a recipe for major trollage. I mean technically Jarrah has been defamed in this case. He could legitimately sue.
Somehow, Vincent has made Jarrah White a legitimate plaintiff. That is stunning ineptitude.
I think the legal waters would quickly get muddy, once all the he-said/he-said got started. Vincent is responding (in a grossly juvenile way) to JW getting his account terminated with DMCA claims, which Jarrah sprays around like birdshot.
Of course, Vincent did promptly vow - ON VIDEO - to file "all sorts of fraudulent terms of service and DMCAs", so he pretty well shot himself in the foot as far as any legal actions go. Golly gee, Vincent, ever hear of the First Rule of Fight Club?
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt353/jarvisn/double-facepalm1_zps9b854ad7.jpg)
I know less than nothing about how a legal battle between two individuals literally on opposite sides of the Earth would work, but it seems as if it would be a hellishly expensive undertaking, especially to sue a kid (Vincent) who probably doesn't own much more than the clothes on his back.
.
-
Please excuse my ignorance in this case, but does one actually have to be the owner of a copyright in order to complain about a breach? In legal terms, anyone can report a crime;
If I see a person breaking into my neighbour's house, I can report it to the police
If I see a person in possession of something that I know was stolen from someone else, I can report that to the police
Why could I not simply establish who was the copyright holder of a particular photo or video on youtube, and complain to them that the user was not the copyright holder, and did not have permission to use the said photo or video?
-
Please excuse my ignorance in this case, but does one actually have to be the owner of a copyright in order to complain about a breach? In legal terms, anyone can report a crime;
I think Jay has posted on this subject before, but I can't remember the thread. I'm sure this debate came up over Jarrah versus Mark Gray.
-
Sounds like Vincent is God's way of balancing Jarrah then.
-
Sounds like Vincent is God's way of balancing Jarrah then.
Note to self: Do not read Glom's replies while eating breakfast. Makes a mess of laptop.
-
The Nazi connection is an old one that anti-NASA/anti-Apollo/whatevers go on about. Didn't Patrick Moore get quite agitated when defending Von Braun?
-
Didn't Patrick Moore get quite agitated when defending Von Braun?
Patrick Moore's fiancee died in a German air raid so I imagine that was very difficult for him.
-
Please excuse my ignorance in this case, but does one actually have to be the owner of a copyright in order to complain about a breach? In legal terms, anyone can report a crime;
If I see a person breaking into my neighbour's house, I can report it to the police
If I see a person in possession of something that I know was stolen from someone else, I can report that to the police
Yes and no. DMCA is different than witnessing a crime. For one, copyright violation generally is a civil matter and it is my understanding that some specific interest in the infringed material is required to legitimately make a take down request. OTOH, Google is acting to legally protect itself from a broad based claim of ignoring copyright infringement that could have site wide repercussions for YouTube. They take a shoot first and ask questions later approach to take downs. It is a mess that leaves us all at potential risk for legal costs for things we do that were perfectly OK before the DMCA.
-
Didn't Patrick Moore get quite agitated when defending Von Braun?
Patrick Moore's fiancee died in a German air raid so I imagine that was very difficult for him.
His deep hatred of Germany and it's people (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9238579/The-only-good-Kraut-is-a-dead-Kraut-Sir-Patrick-Moore-says.html) is fairly well known.
Whilst Sir Patrick Moore was deeply respected for his contribution to astronomy and to the spreading of science to the general public (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sky_at_Night) I personally found many of his views and political leanings to be distasteful (putting it mildly) and reeked of a bitter, narrow-minded man unable to move on with his life.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1411100/Sir-Patrick-attacked-over-racist-comments.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore#Activism_and_political_beliefs
As this blog (http://thethoughtstash.wordpress.com/2012/12/09/sir-patrick-moore-yes-it-is-ok-to-admire-the-work-but-not-the-worker/) puts it "It's OK to admire the work, but not the worker"
-
I personally found many of his views and political leanings to be distasteful (putting it mildly) and reeked of a bitter, narrow-minded man unable to move on with his life.
True enough. His politics were all over the place and clearly the result of pain and anger rather than any deeper reasoning. Although he always struck me as being one of those, perhaps uniquely English, old bigots who could hold terrible views about certain groups of people whilst being unfailingly polite to individual representatives of said groups.
-
Yes and no. DMCA is different than witnessing a crime. For one, copyright violation generally is a civil matter and it is my understanding that some specific interest in the infringed material is required to legitimately make a take down request. OTOH, Google is acting to legally protect itself from a broad based claim of ignoring copyright infringement that could have site wide repercussions for YouTube. They take a shoot first and ask questions later approach to take downs. It is a mess that leaves us all at potential risk for legal costs for things we do that were perfectly OK before the DMCA.
That makes sense and is consistent with my memory of a previous discussion. The point about Google acting to protect itself is interesting. If Vincent were to file a DMCA on material that does not belong to him, such as BBC material Jarrah uses, is it possible that YouTube could examine a counter claim from Jarrah but still keep the video down if they assess it to be in violation of the BBC's copyright? As you point out, they wish to protect themselves.
-
Yes and no. DMCA is different than witnessing a crime. For one, copyright violation generally is a civil matter and it is my understanding that some specific interest in the infringed material is required to legitimately make a take down request. OTOH, Google is acting to legally protect itself from a broad based claim of ignoring copyright infringement that could have site wide repercussions for YouTube. They take a shoot first and ask questions later approach to take downs. It is a mess that leaves us all at potential risk for legal costs for things we do that were perfectly OK before the DMCA.
That makes sense and is consistent with my memory of a previous discussion. The point about Google acting to protect itself is interesting. If Vincent were to file a DMCA on material that does not belong to him, such as BBC material Jarrah uses, is it possible that YouTube could examine a counter claim from Jarrah but still keep the video down if they assess it to be in violation of the BBC's copyright? As you point out, they wish to protect themselves.
Good answers. Thanks
So in the case of youtube (Google) Vincent is going to be able to act with impunity, because even of he doesn't own the copyright, youtube are going to take the safe route and take it down. Then, even if White makes a counter-claim, he has no standing because he is not the copyright holder either, so the disputed material is likely to stay down.
-
It's still dirty pool, and I don't like it one bit. It only adds fuel to the claims that Apollo Nutters are dishonest shills. I've always felt that if we are to defend Apollo successfully we must be Caesar's wife; above reproach. Engaging in such low and, in this case, illegal tactics is reprehensible in my opinion.
-
Then, even if White makes a counter-claim, he has no standing because he is not the copyright holder either, so the disputed material is likely to stay down.
Not as yet. I understand that all of White's counter claims have been successful, which I am pleased about because Vincent is acting in an irresponsible manner.
-
Yes and no. DMCA is different than witnessing a crime. For one, copyright violation generally is a civil matter and it is my understanding that some specific interest in the infringed material is required to legitimately make a take down request. OTOH, Google is acting to legally protect itself from a broad based claim of ignoring copyright infringement that could have site wide repercussions for YouTube. They take a shoot first and ask questions later approach to take downs. It is a mess that leaves us all at potential risk for legal costs for things we do that were perfectly OK before the DMCA.
That makes sense and is consistent with my memory of a previous discussion. The point about Google acting to protect itself is interesting. If Vincent were to file a DMCA on material that does not belong to him, such as BBC material Jarrah uses, is it possible that YouTube could examine a counter claim from Jarrah but still keep the video down if they assess it to be in violation of the BBC's copyright? As you point out, they wish to protect themselves.
Good answers. Thanks
So in the case of youtube (Google) Vincent is going to be able to act with impunity, because even of he doesn't own the copyright, youtube are going to take the safe route and take it down. Then, even if White makes a counter-claim, he has no standing because he is not the copyright holder either, so the disputed material is likely to stay down.
Yes and no, I think. Jarrah can get Vincent's account terminated - VC's yesiamawizardjohnny YT account is shut down with the message "This account has been terminated due to repeated or severe violations of our Community Guidelines and/or claims of copyright infringement.", but I honestly don't pay enough attention to those two to know whether that's his current account.
JW has a long history of throwing copyright violation accusations at anyone who shows a portion of one of his videos in order to debunk it - which, as I understand it, a Fair Use of the material - which has led to more than one of these DCMA feuds. I can't applaud Vincent's tactics or judgment, but I can't work up any sympathy for JW either.
In fairness, I guess I should admit that I probably couldn't generate much sympathy if a meteor fell on him either - although his ego is so inflated it would probably just bounce off (he refrained from commenting about Chang'e 3 because he didn't want the Chinese government to know he was keeping an eye on them? Really? Really?!)
-
It only adds fuel to the claims that Apollo Nutters are dishonest shills.
Precisely. All the hoax sites and videos in the world will never change the fact that 12 men walked on the moon because of the enterprise of 400 000 people. Leaving the hoax material out there only shows the contradictions of their claims. The more claims they make, the more inconsistent their story becomes. White's videos are now a litany of contradictions and errors that he's actually done the hoax theory more harm than good. That takes some doing given the quality of Bill and Ralph's pamphlets. Vincent is pouring fuel on the fire with his actions.
-
Has anyone been in contact with Vincent since he stopped posting Here?
-
Has anyone been in contact with Vincent since he stopped posting Here?
He's disappeared into the shadows since his proclamation 'I will file all sorts of fraudulent DMCA and TOS violations.' I don't think that many were in contact with him the first place. He can be a bit of a firebrand, but that's just youthful inexperience so I can forgive him for that. Most contacts were tugs on the reins. I hope Vincent is reading this and ceases his DMCA campaign for several reasons.
-
Please excuse my ignorance in this case, but does one actually have to be the owner of a copyright in order to complain about a breach? In legal terms, anyone can report a crime;
I think Jay has posted on this subject before, but I can't remember the thread. I'm sure this debate came up over Jarrah versus Mark Gray.
Anyone can report a crime, but it is actionable only by a designated officer of the court. A private citizen cannot bring criminal action or compel the state beyond its normal charge of duty to prosecute a crime.
Conversely in a tort, only the injured party himself has standing to bring suit. A bystander, for example, cannot sue you for negligence because he saw someone slip and fall on your icy front porch. Nor can the children of a deceased author sue for defamation if a critic libels him post mortem.
Copyright is one of those that is actionable under civil law for most cases, but under criminal law for egregious violations. In order to commit a criminal violation of copyright law, the infringement has to be willful and for the purpose of commercial gain, among other things. Infringement per se is not inherently criminal.
-
In order to commit a criminal violation of copyright law, the infringement has to be willful and for the purpose of commercial gain, among other things.
Pirating a pre-release demo of a film for instance? It is probably the same in the US as here in the UK, where films are released to the British Board of Film Classification, film critics and other parties for various promotional reasons. These often find their way into the public domain as pirate copies and are sold at profit. That is certainly a criminal case of copyright infringement. I certainly know from cinema visits that recording a film on video equipment is criminal, the warnings are there for all to see before the certificate is shown and the film rolls.
-
He now insinuates that the Chinese space program is faked but declares that the Chang'e 3 soil analysis proves the Apollo missions were faked. Can't have it both ways......
Nice theory, but unfortunately my experience with conspiraholics is different. They will believe anything that goes against a "official" view, without any check if there are any contradictions between the claimed scenarios.
-
Nor can the children of a deceased author sue for defamation if a critic libels him post mortem.
I believe that when there is an estate that exists as a legal entity, in the case of a major author such as Heinlein or Steinbeck, the estate itself has standing to bring legal action. Or am I remembering incorrectly?
-
Nice theory, but unfortunately my experience with conspiraholics is different. They will believe anything that goes against a "official" view, without any check if there are any contradictions between the claimed scenarios.
My favourite must be from an ardent hoax devotee who claimed the astronauts would not have traversed the van Allen belts alive, while simultaneously arguing on another thread that Apollo 8 astronauts had to cover up seeing UFOs when they were orbiting the moon.
-
Nor can the children of a deceased author sue for defamation if a critic libels him post mortem.
I believe that when there is an estate that exists as a legal entity, in the case of a major author such as Heinlein or Steinbeck, the estate itself has standing to bring legal action. Or am I remembering incorrectly?
An interesting article on Tolkien's estate, albeit the Daily Mail.
Tolkien estate sues (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-513905/Tolkien-estate-sues-Lord-Rings-film-studio-75m.html)
-
My favourite must be from an ardent hoax devotee who claimed the astronauts would not have traversed the van Allen belts alive, while simultaneously arguing on another thread that Apollo 8 astronauts had to cover up seeing UFOs when they were orbiting the moon.
Ow, my brain. Got any links?
-
My favourite must be from an ardent hoax devotee who claimed the astronauts would not have traversed the van Allen belts alive, while simultaneously arguing on another thread that Apollo 8 astronauts had to cover up seeing UFOs when they were orbiting the moon.
Ow, my brain. Got any links?
I can't remember where it was, it is one of those where you 'have to take my word for it.' I know the forum runs on the principle of documented evidence and not hear say, so apologies for anecdotal evidence. The two opposing claims did have me double take, and then face palm.
-
Nor can the children of a deceased author sue for defamation if a critic libels him post mortem.
I believe that when there is an estate that exists as a legal entity, in the case of a major author such as Heinlein or Steinbeck, the estate itself has standing to bring legal action. Or am I remembering incorrectly?
An interesting article on Tolkien's estate, albeit the Daily Mail.
Tolkien estate sues (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-513905/Tolkien-estate-sues-Lord-Rings-film-studio-75m.html)
This must be a very old article
"They also want a court order allowing the Tolkien estate to withdraw New Line's rights to film the trilogy's prequel, The Hobbit.
Peter Jackson, who directed The Fellowship of the Rings, The Two Towers and The Return of the King, has already agreed to act as executive producer on the new project.
It was expected to be released in two films between 2010 and 2011."
Erm, they're a bit late, methinks!
-
I know there was some brouhaha back in the day for TSR for using Ents, Balrogs and Hobbits initially, which were changed to Treants, Balor and Halflings in later editions and iterations of D&D .
-
These often find their way into the public domain as pirate copies and are sold at profit. That is certainly a criminal case of copyright infringement.
Yes. My involvement with the Utah Film Society and the Sundance Film Festival grants me early-screening privileges for most feature films. For example, last week I was invited to a private screening of Kevin Costner's new film Draft Day (surprisingly watchable for someone who doesn't like either sports movies or Costner). Cell phones and any cameras are collected at the door, and there is a sheriff's deputy present.
Technically, merely recording the screening is not criminal in the U.S. since the "commercial gain" element of the crime is unsatisfied. But the way the cases work out, recording a screening of an unreleased film is prima facie evidence of intent to gainfully distribute, which puts you on the hook for "attempt to..." offenses. In most U.S. states, for any criminal offense X, you can be charged with "attempt to commit X," which is one degree lesser an offense than the original. So the technicality rarely holds, and legislatures and courts in the U.S. come down particularly hard on copyright violation.
-
I believe that when there is an estate that exists as a legal entity, in the case of a major author such as Heinlein or Steinbeck, the estate itself has standing to bring legal action. Or am I remembering incorrectly?
For torts against property, yes. For torts against a person, no. Copyright is a transferable right and can be vested in the estate of the deceased according to the laws that govern that particular property, and the laws that govern estates. Administering the intangible property of the estate is just as straightforward as its chattels and real property. Use of Tolkien's intellectual property is governed by intellectual property law and administered by his estate executors. Tolkien's personal reputation became moot the moment he died, so his estate cannot effectively sue if someone, for example, were to call Tolkien an irrepressible womanizer.
Early on, He Who Shall Not Be Named threated to sue me for defaming Bill Kaysing, and later (I was informed) for defaming Ralph Rene. A third party does not have standing to sue for personal defamation, and under U.S. law it is not possible to defame a dead person. (Both men named above were deceased at the time.)
-
Tolkien's personal reputation became moot the moment he died, so his estate cannot effectively sue if someone, for example, were to call Tolkien an irrepressible womanizer.
While in Oxford friends and I used to frequent the public house 'The Eagle and Child' where the inklings used to meet. It is not a place I would associate with an irrepressible womanizer.
Early on, He Who Shall Not Be Named threated to sue me for defaming Bill Kaysing, and later (I was informed) for defaming Ralph Rene.
Really? Wow!
A third party does not have standing to sue for personal defamation, and under U.S. law it is not possible to defame a dead person. (Both men named above were deceased at the time.)
How can anyone fail to understand that you cannot sue for defamation on behalf of someone else, especially if they are dead. Even without standing and law, what chance would an Australian have of suing a US citizen for defamation of another US citizen? The whole scenario is crazy.
-
Besides of course the oft repeated contradiction of them trying to run screaming to the very establishment they accuse of such dastardly behaviour.
-
It is not a place I would associate with an irrepressible womanizer.
Indeed, which would make such an accusation especially onerous and possibly malicious.
How can anyone fail to understand that you cannot sue for defamation on behalf of someone else, especially if they are dead.
Legally it makes sense. But emotionally we would like it to be possible, say in the case of a loved one. How many of us would stand idly by and let strangers impugn our memory of, say, a dear departed parent, with falsehoods and insinuations. We would naturally want to compel him to stop.
Now consider the mindset of someone inappropriately enamoured with his hero hoax authors. The same emotion might apply.
-
Now consider the mindset of someone inappropriately enamoured with his hero hoax authors. The same emotion might apply.
That's an interesting point and has been raised outside this forum. If one goes after the arguments of Rene or Kaysing then He Who Shall Not Be Name and others raise hackles. I have spoken to friends who practice human psychology and psychiatry, and while they insist they would need to meet said persons to make a formal diagnosis, they have offered pointers that possibly explain why they are inappropriately enamored to hoax authors they have never met. I do not wish to start speculation about individuals, so it is better left as a general comment. In short, it is not healthy or natural, and I guess producing over 500 videos on the subject speaks volumes.
-
Now consider the mindset of someone inappropriately enamoured with his hero hoax authors. The same emotion might apply.
That's an interesting point and has been raised outside this forum. If one goes after the arguments of Rene or Kaysing then He Who Shall Not Be Name and others raise hackles. I have spoken to friends who practice human psychology and psychiatry, and while they insist they would need to meet said persons to make a formal diagnosis, they have offered pointers that possibly explain why they are inappropriately enamored to hoax authors they have never met. I do not wish to start speculation about individuals, so it is better left as a general comment. In short, it is not healthy or natural, and I guess producing over 500 videos on the subject speaks volumes.
Speaking entirely hypothetically, of course, it might be somewhat different if the person taking offense had, if not met, at least had some telephone conversations with the individual being allegedly 'maligned', thereby possibly establishing in their mind a personal relationship. Such as one might see with (just to use a totally random example pulled out of thin air) a grandson. Hypothetically. ::)
-
Now consider the mindset of someone inappropriately enamoured with his hero hoax authors. The same emotion might apply.
That's an interesting point and has been raised outside this forum. If one goes after the arguments of Rene or Kaysing then He Who Shall Not Be Name and others raise hackles. I have spoken to friends who practice human psychology and psychiatry, and while they insist they would need to meet said persons to make a formal diagnosis, they have offered pointers that possibly explain why they are inappropriately enamored to hoax authors they have never met. I do not wish to start speculation about individuals, so it is better left as a general comment. In short, it is not healthy or natural, and I guess producing over 500 videos on the subject speaks volumes.
I am reminded of a quote from the original series of Star Trek...
Spock: I need your advice.
McCoy: Then I need a drink.
Spock: There are many aspects of human irrationality I do not yet comprehend. Obsession, for one - the persistent, single-minded fixation on one idea.
-
The behaviour reminds me of
people fans reacting to criticism of the subject of their fandom, be it book authors, comic artists, pop stars or sport teams. It's not unique or restricted to CTs. I don't know about "healthy", but given its prevalence, it looks quite natural to me. :)