ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: Philthy on October 02, 2015, 11:15:03 PM
-
Hopefully I've started this in the right spot.
I mostly lurk here, and it's amazing at the group here is so knowledgeable!
Anyways.........I was wondering if anyone kept track of how many times Heiwas so called "challenge" was won?
Thanks.
Phil
-
It has never been won for two reasons:
Heiwa is the sole judge
Heiwa doesn't have the prize money.
-
Yes, I know that.
I also know that it really, actually has been.
It hasn't been because the "judge" doesn't know what he's judging.
Thanks, though.
Phil
-
It has never been won for two reasons:
Heiwa is the sole judge
Heiwa doesn't have the prize money.
Yes I have seen a thread somewhere in which he posts to someone that the challenge hasn't been made correctly or perhaps completely. None the less whether he has the money or not the goal posts will shift sufficiently so that the challenge will never be "accepted".
-
I in no way meant an "official" winner. I mean that there actually has been, but Heiwa is too damn dumb to understand that.
I know he doesn't have the money.
I know he doesn't have a clue what he talks about.
I DO know that more than one person has met his "challenge" and then he moved the goalposts.
Thanks anyway.
Phil
-
I doubt it could be added up - so many people have met the conditions of the challenge here and in numerous other places across the web.
-
I won it at least twice.
-
I won it at least twice.
Of that I'm sure. :)
-
Anyways.........I was wondering if anyone kept track of how many times Heiwas so called "challenge" was won?
Is that the million Euros one?
For reasons discussed by Gwiz, I've more chance of winning the Euro lottery, and I don't play the Euro lottery.
-
He has a very nice set of castors on the goal posts.
-
The fringe is full of such blustery claims. High-stakes rewards with impossible strings attached, promises to testify under oath in hearings that will never be set. We're used to such things being easily posed and easily forgotten. The problem is Heiwa sincerely keeps referring to his unpaid challenges as ongoing proof of the correctness and seriousness of his claims. He really does think the game he's playing has some sort of probative value.
-
Just out of curiosity, what was this challenge?
-
If you can prove any of his claims wrong, he pays you a million euros. Of course, he gets to be the judge of whether you've proved him wrong or not. So he just moves the goalposts.
-
Just out of curiosity, what was this challenge?
Here's a monster thread about it: http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0
-
Just out of curiosity, what was this challenge?
Here's a monster thread about it: http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0
Ancient history to me, but I'll look at it later today. Same length as Adrian's thread.
-
Heiwa quietly corrected some mistakes on his site that were pointed out on this forum, but it doesn't qualify as proving that he made an error if he does it on the sly.
-
Poor Heiwa. Such absolute incompetence* in the service of such a large ego, served up with such laughable whoppers as even having such "prize" money in the first place.
*For example, his utter inability to grasp conservation of kinetic energy, even when people repeatedly and patiently walked him through the problem and a number of helper examples. This is literally grade-school stuff, but this self-touted master engineer simply Could. Not. Get. It.
What's even funnier is he eventually wandered into some Internet forum of such concentrated stupidity that he actually wound up as the (relative) voice of reason and, IIRC, was banned for the crime of acknowledging some part of reality.
-
Poor Heiwa. Such absolute incompetence* in the service of such a large ego, served up with such laughable whoppers as even having such "prize" money in the first place.
*For example, his utter inability to grasp conservation of kinetic energy, even when people repeatedly and patiently walked him through the problem and a number of helper examples. This is literally grade-school stuff, but this self-touted master engineer simply Could. Not. Get. It.
What's even funnier is he eventually wandered into some Internet forum of such concentrated stupidity that he actually wound up as the (relative) voice of reason and, IIRC, was banned for the crime of acknowledging some part of reality.
He was the voice of reason???? What forum could that have been?
-
He has a very nice set of castors on the goal posts.
Nah, beavers would just chew up the poles. Now, casters could be used to make moving them easier...
Fred
-
I doubt it could be added up - so many people have met the conditions of the challenge here and in numerous other places across the web.
That's what I thought, but I also thought someone might have an idea just how many times, or at least an educated guess.
Phil
-
I won it at least twice.
Yes, you did, I remember that. Thanks for your reply.
Phil
-
Poor Heiwa. Such absolute incompetence* in the service of such a large ego, served up with such laughable whoppers as even having such "prize" money in the first place.
*For example, his utter inability to grasp conservation of kinetic energy, even when people repeatedly and patiently walked him through the problem and a number of helper examples. This is literally grade-school stuff, but this self-touted master engineer simply Could. Not. Get. It.
What's even funnier is he eventually wandered into some Internet forum of such concentrated stupidity that he actually wound up as the (relative) voice of reason and, IIRC, was banned for the crime of acknowledging some part of reality.
He was the voice of reason???? What forum could that have been?
I believe that was the cluesforum.
http://www.cluesforum.info/
He is now active at The Flat Earth Society
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=20.0
-
Poor Heiwa. Such absolute incompetence* in the service of such a large ego, served up with such laughable whoppers as even having such "prize" money in the first place.
*For example, his utter inability to grasp conservation of kinetic energy, even when people repeatedly and patiently walked him through the problem and a number of helper examples. This is literally grade-school stuff, but this self-touted master engineer simply Could. Not. Get. It.
What's even funnier is he eventually wandered into some Internet forum of such concentrated stupidity that he actually wound up as the (relative) voice of reason and, IIRC, was banned for the crime of acknowledging some part of reality.
He was the voice of reason???? What forum could that have been?
I believe that was the cluesforum.
http://www.cluesforum.info/
He is now active at The Flat Earth Society
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=20.0
He gets everywhere in his super tanker on a flat earth?? Delusional.
-
He has a very nice set of castors on the goal posts.
Nah, beavers would just chew up the poles. Now, casters could be used to make moving them easier...
Fred
Castor and Pole-ox? ;)
-
He has a very nice set of castors on the goal posts.
Nah, beavers would just chew up the poles. Now, casters could be used to make moving them easier...
Both spellings are acceptable.
-
Whew, 113 pages of denial and without admission of fault. I was impressed by ka9q conservation of energy #108 formulas, Bob B. formulas #487, the chemistry discussion #525, sts60 synopsis #965. And I thought Mr Baker, tindorman tarkus are/were have acceptance issues.
I do have one question most of the posters are still in the thread, except daggerstab, what ever happened to him/her?
-
He also posted on the Cosmoquest forum. One page 6 someone worked out the Apollo 11 fuel consumption for lunar orbit insertion using the energy balances Heiwa is so fond of. He predictably ignored it.
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?141335-Heiwa-s-thread
-
Sorry, double post.
-
He has a very nice set of castors on the goal posts.
Nah, beavers would just chew up the poles. Now, casters could be used to make moving them easier...
Both spellings are acceptable.
Threw me for a minute.
I can now put my plan for world domination back on track.
;)
-
Just out of curiosity, what was this challenge?
Here's a monster thread about it: http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0
I read all 1,681 posts, and one thing strikes me.
I'm surprised that no one here has a flesh-eating lawyer friend, who could have filed a lawsuit against Björkman for fraud, failure to pay, or any one of a few more civil charges.
It seems to me, that if the conditions of the challenge were met (and it can be shown that they were) and that the challenger read those posts (and it can) and that he responded to other posts after those (and he did) with the intent to change the conditions of the challenge) then a legitimate legal case could be made that Björkman would have to pay up, because the original challenge, and the revised challenges were satisfied, and that intentional evasion to avoid payment was undertaken by Björkman. It was noted more than once in the thread that he had committed fraud by doing so, and it makes me wonder why no one at least indicated that they were going to be filing such a suit. It would have been interesting to watch Björkman squirm, knowing that he would have to acknowledge his ignoring the responses, in a courtroom.
Of course, I understand that nobody really would have done this, because it simply wouldn't be worth the effort, but at the very least, a realistic threat of litigation might have forced him to acknowledge the correct responses in some way. Wishful thinking on my part, I suppose, but if I had been around then, I likely would have threatened such litigation. I know a couple of flesh-eating lawyers...
-
That would require anybody to actually think his challenge is real.
-
I'm surprised that no one here has a flesh-eating lawyer friend, who could have filed a lawsuit against Björkman for fraud, failure to pay, or any one of a few more civil charges.
A plaintiff would be hard pressed to show actionable fraud.
If a plaintiff said he believed, after all that discussion, that Björkman really had a million euros, and upon that belief consented to enter a contest in which it was clearly stated that Björkman's sole judgment would constitute the criteria for a payout of that million euros, then that speaks rather poorly for the plaintiff's judgment. Reliance on the promise must be reasonable, which means the promise itself has to be at least plausible on its face.
Most importantly, the plaintiff has to show actual harm from the defendant's fraud that leaves him worse off than he was before. Björkman's failure to pay me a handsome sum doesn't leave me worse off. Assuming the offer were credible and I had met the conditions, and I had then -- for example -- incurred some financial liability that I had planned to pay off with the proceeds of his offer, then I would have a cause of action. There has to be a "taking" aspect in order for fraud to arise.
-
I'm surprised that no one here has a flesh-eating lawyer friend, who could have filed a lawsuit against Björkman for fraud, failure to pay, or any one of a few more civil charges.
A plaintiff would be hard pressed to show actionable fraud.
If a plaintiff said he believed, after all that discussion, that Björkman really had a million euros, and upon that belief consented to enter a contest in which it was clearly stated that Björkman's sole judgment would constitute the criteria for a payout of that million euros, then that speaks rather poorly for the plaintiff's judgment. Reliance on the promise must be reasonable, which means the promise itself has to be at least plausible on its face.
Most importantly, the plaintiff has to show actual harm from the defendant's fraud that leaves him worse off than he was before. Björkman's failure to pay me a handsome sum doesn't leave me worse off. Assuming the offer were credible and I had met the conditions, and I had then -- for example -- incurred some financial liability that I had planned to pay off with the proceeds of his offer, then I would have a cause of action. There has to be a "taking" aspect in order for fraud to arise.
It pains me to disagree with someone who is so knowledgeable, but according to my lawyer friend, a plaintiff doesn't have to "believe" there was a reasonable offer made. There doesn't have to be a reasonable anything on the part of a plaintiff, just that the defendant made the claim repeatedly. A court only has look to see that an offer was made, that conditions were met and changed, and accurate responses provided. The offer being made, accurate responses being given, and the goalposts being moved are what's actionable. The fact that you weren't harmed by not being paid, is also irrelevant. You had standing, because the claim was made, you legitimately responded to it, and had your response ignored. Of course, the only people who legitimately have standing would be those who actually offered legitimate calculations. The promise doesn't have to be "reasonable" it just has to exist.
Remember, this is a society where someone sued a fast food joint and won because the coffee was too hot. A reasonable person would expect coffee to be hot. That was deemed irrelevant in the final case. The temperature of the coffee was the salient point.
The only way that you would have had to "show harm" is if you'd gone to France to collect. Since you didn't, and you presumably aren't suing in a French court, it wouldn't matter. If his attorney had objected with "but you didn't honestly believe that you could collect" your attorney could have responded with "irrelevant" and the court would almost certainly have had to agree.
-
It's been a long, long time, but wasn't Ishkabibble's argument the same one made by the kid that sued Pepsi over not actually awarding him a Harrier as a prize? Didn't Pepsi have to settle even though the prize itself was clearly ridiculous?
ETA: turns out my memory is faulty. PepsiCo was sued, but it was tossed by a judge and tossed again on appeal. The crux was that it was clearly ridiculous for the company to offer an award for $700k when the value was in excess of $23 million.
There's more to Judge Woods' opinion here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.
So, now I'm a bit conflicted - is Heiwa's offer frivolous, as PepsiCo 's was, or would it be considered boa ride? Also, right or wrong, the PesiCo case meets Jay's test to an extent - the plaintiff did write a check for $700k to buy the face value of the reward points Pepsi said were needed to get the plane.
-
Remember, this is a society where someone sued a fast food joint and won because the coffee was too hot. A reasonable person would expect coffee to be hot. That was deemed irrelevant in the final case. The temperature of the coffee was the salient point.
That's in no small part because a reasonable person would not expect coffee to be hot enough to cause the level of burns she had. If you've got a stronger stomach than I, you can see the pictures of the skin grafts. Check out the documentary Hot Coffee to see how maligned that woman has been relative to her actual suit.
-
That's in no small part because a reasonable person would not expect coffee to be hot enough to cause the level of burns she had.
Correct. We studied this case. There's a lot about it that's not commonly reported. It's often characterized cynically as a frivolous lawsuit, when in fact the plaintiff had a great deal of merit.
-
The crux was that it was clearly ridiculous for the company to offer an award for $700k when the value was in excess of $23 million.
Yes, that's the essence of reasonable reliance as typically constructed. But it's a many splendored thing, especially from state to state. Without a detailed discussion with your lawyer friend I would have a hard time disputing him. I can only speak with some understanding of Utah law, which construes fraud according to nine elements, of which elements 6 through 8 describe our doctrine of reasonable reliance. An abbreviated construction of it resides in all our jury instructions that pertain to misrepresentation.
Element 6 requires the plaintiff to act reasonably and in ignorance of the falsity of the claim. The half-dozen or so cases that shape our doctrine, as well as our federal circuit, require due diligence from the plaintiff if a reasonable person would find the offer suspicious on its face; the ignorance in that case can't be reckless or willful. But our founding ruling is Jardine v. Brunswick (yes, the bowling people):
The one who complains of being injured by such a false representation cannot heedlessly accept as true whatever is told him, but has the duty of exercising such degree of care to protect his own interests as would be exercised by an ordinary, reasonable and prudent person under the circumstances; and if he fails to do so, is precluded from holding someone else to account for the consequences of his own neglect.
In the Pepsico case, in addition to the disparity of buy-in cost and the value of the prize, a reasonable person would also have questioned giving a military jet to a civilian. This should have led the plaintiff to research the purported contract further before committing a substantial sum of money. He had the duty to do so, at least in Utah.
In Heiwa's case, the amount of money offered and the relative obscurity of the claimant should have led a reasonable person to inquire further about the legitimacy of the offer. And the record shows that his critics did indeed undertake such an inquiry, and that the results would be objectively unsatisfactory: Heiwa offered no evidence that he was capable of producing such a sum. The enforceability of the contract and other elements of its validity would also be subject.
So, now I'm a bit conflicted - is Heiwa's offer frivolous, as PepsiCo 's was, or would it be considered boa ride?
As my law teachers point out, that would be for a jury to decide. But most of it would be moot for other reasons, since the award becomes payable only if the terms of the contract are met. The terms (amended) say Heiwa is the sole judge of whether he has been proven wrong. That precludes any sort of "natural meaning" argument. His actions becomes fraud only if Heiwa agrees he has been proven wrong and then subsequently fails to pay. If the terms are not accepted, or he doesn't agree he has been proven wrong, then no award is payable.
I can go into Utah case law for the other elements of fraud, but -- as I say -- it's probably moot.
...the plaintiff did write a check for $700k to buy the face value of the reward points Pepsi said were needed to get the plane.
That satisfies elements 7 and 8 under our law, which requires the plaintiff actually to have done something to demonstrate reliance upon the promise. That may be what your lawyer friend means when he says belief is irrelevant.
-
You can't get blood out of a rock.
-
You can't get blood out of a rock.
[Utah law]
You wouldn't necessarily be entitled to blood. Claims sounding in tort (fraud) entitle you only to damages, after which you could attempt to petition for disgorgement of the million euros. But you'd fail. That is, if you proved Heiwa defrauded you, you could recover only for the amount you lost, not the amount that was promised (Cardon v. Jean Brown Research). Claims sounding in contract (breach) can recover for covenanted benefits, provided the contract is enforceable. He would be liable for a million euros, but (at least in the U.S.) the common remedy is to declare bankruptcy and discharge the liability.
-
You can't get blood out of a rock.
[Utah law]
You wouldn't necessarily be entitled to blood. Claims sounding in tort (fraud) entitle you only to damages, after which you could attempt to petition for disgorgement of the million euros. But you'd fail. That is, if you proved Heiwa defrauded you, you could recover only for the amount you lost, not the amount that was promised (Cardon v. Jean Brown Research). Claims sounding in contract (breach) can recover for covenanted benefits, provided the contract is enforceable. He would be liable for a million euros, but (at least in the U.S.) the common remedy is to declare bankruptcy and discharge the liability.
Precisely why you can't get blood out of a rock, even if he had he money.
Perhaps I should change that to it would be easier to get blood out of a rock
Edit changed my thought
-
Actually, Jay, I was only remembering the Pepsi case (no pun intended). I think it was bknight that spoke to a lawyer.
And for those wondering, a "boa ride" is iOS 9's translation of "bona fide". Although (channeling Michael Weatherly here) "boa ride" might be a cool turn of phrase...
-
What exactly was his 'challenge' again? I've clean forgotten. Of course, Conspiracy theorists "challenges" tend to be like insurance sold by Daffy Duck (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fool_Coverage): there's always one more baby zebra.
-
Actually, Jay, I was only remembering the Pepsi case (no pun intended). I think it was bknight that spoke to a lawyer.
And for those wondering, a "boa ride" is iOS 9's translation of "bona fide". Although (channeling Michael Weatherly here) "boa ride" might be a cool turn of phrase...
Not I, avoiding lawyers is a daily goal for me. :)
-
Well, I guess everyone's an expert at everything here.
I can only go by what I've been told, since I'm not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Sorry I brought it up.
-
Not I, avoiding lawyers is a daily goal for me. :)
Sadly not all of us can be so lucky. But apologies all round to everyone to whom I've misattributed remarks.
-
I can only go by what I've been told, since I'm not a lawyer...
As can I. However, I often work with lawyers in many capacities and it has behooved me to seek as much of a legal education as I can in order to be effective in that work. You should never be sorry for raising an objection you sincerely believe is founded in fact.
-
Not I, avoiding lawyers is a daily goal for me. :)
Sadly not all of us can be so lucky. But apologies all round to everyone to whom I've misattributed remarks.
Oh I've had my share of legal shenanigans in my career. I could amuse you with a couple of hours of experience.
-
What exactly was his 'challenge' again? I've clean forgotten.
He would pay a million euros to anyone who could prove him wrong. But he is the sole judge of whether a contestant has succeeded in that proof.
Of course, Conspiracy theorists "challenges" tend to be like insurance sold by Daffy Duck (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fool_Coverage): there's always one more baby zebra.
Indeed. The legal and practical enforceability of that challenge is dubious, but has generated some interesting (if mostly off-topic) coffeehouse discussion.
-
Ah, thank you. :)
-
Not I, avoiding lawyers is a daily goal for me. :)
I've got a good friend who's a lawyer. She even gave me the most thoughtful baby shower gift--a medical power of attorney, so Graham makes my medical decisions in case of an emergency, not my mother.
-
What exactly was his 'challenge' again? I've clean forgotten.
He would pay a million euros to anyone who could prove him wrong.
At this point, I've forgotten what claim of his was to be proved wrong. He has made so many dubious claims and they are so vague.
-
What exactly was his 'challenge' again? I've clean forgotten.
He would pay a million euros to anyone who could prove him wrong.
At this point, I've forgotten what claim of his was to be proved wrong. He has made so many dubious claims and they are so vague.
I believe that the main one was fuel usage/availability especially into lunar orbit and landing/ascent. But there may have been additions. Not been to the web site after one visit there could have been changes.