Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 56

Thread: Minor error on Clavius

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,835
    JayUtah

    I noted a tiny error on your site in the section dealing with rocket thrust and the LM engine leaving craters:

    Early on you describe 1 pound as 2.2 kilograms. Elsewhere you got the conversions right.

    (If yer can't trust 'im on this, yer can't trust 'im on anythin'!) [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

    Seriously, though, a very good site.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,442
    Yes, that's on the "to do" list, along with a few other broken conversions between English and SI. Some of the Clavius authors (cough, Jay, cough) are under the delusion they can do metric conversions in their heads on the fly as they write.

    To quote Grampa Simpson, "My car gets forty rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I like it."

    At Clavius we tend to alternate between producing new material and revising and correcting old material. We're coming to the end of a "new material" phase.


    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-04-08 10:10 ]</font>

  3. #3
    Minor error on Clavius.

    And the rest... [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    556
    On 2002-04-08 11:49, Slime (Silky Smooth) wrote:
    Minor error on Clavius.

    And the rest... [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
    What's wrong with the rest? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img] Clavius is far better than Percy's and Sibrel's garbage. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]

  5. #5
    AstroMike:

    Ethics?
    I've just purchased a PC capture card and will put up Baron's tortured facial expressions for Jay to ponder and include in his web site.
    But you know I wont be happy until Jay drops the pluralised astronaut(s), as he is only able to put up one 'real' astronaut for support.


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    556
    On 2002-04-08 12:41, Slime (Silky Smooth) wrote:
    Ethics?
    I don't understand what ethics have to do with this.

    I've just purchased a PC capture card and will put up Baron's tortured facial expressions for Jay to ponder and include in his web site.
    Baron's tortured facial expressions? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img]

    But you know I wont be happy until Jay drops the pluralised astronaut(s), as he is only able to put up one 'real' astronaut for support.
    Actually, no I don't. I'm not sure what page on his site you're refering to. The only "real" astronaut I've heard that supports Jay's site is Brian O'Leary.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,442
    Just so everyone knows, Slime is one of the instigators of the unfounded character assassination attempt on me at ApolloHoax, and who tried to do the same here under various other pseudonyms before being rebuked by the Bad Astronomer. His mention of ethics is a veiled reference to that issue.

    will put up Baron's tortured facial expressions for Jay to ponder and include in his web site.

    Baron's "tortured facial expressions" are irrelevant. I deal with Baron's qualifications, his testimony, and the reaction to it -- not what paranoid fantasies can be read "interpretively" into video captures.

    The hoax crowd is unwilling to deal with Baron's evidence dispassionately. They are firmly convinced he is some kind of martyr, and interpret everything according to that mindset. Every word that came out of his mouth is hailed as God's truth regarding the state of Apollo in 1966. I prefer to test his statements.

    But you know I wont be happy until Jay drops the pluralised astronaut(s)

    I have rewritten the mission statement to be independent of the numbers and types of experts that contribute to my site. I don't know why you're being so pedantic about such a minor detail. Is it because you haven't been able to deal intelligently with the substance of the site?

    I prefer my original wording because it is important that our readers understand that our site contains information validated by practicing professionals.

    And I don't believe for a minute you are now satisfied. The validation of your existence seems to be harrassing me, so you'll simply find some other irrelevant, petty detail to spend three days arguing over.

    he is only able to put up one 'real' astronaut for support.

    I have named one astronaut who has provided substantial assistance.

    Now do you have any substantive arguments regarding the moon hoax theory, or are you simply going to delve into another string of personal attacks against me until you're banned?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    556
    Jay, I love the new "rocks" section at Clavius. Way to go! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

    The only insignificant nitpick I have with it is that you spelled mineralogy "minerology". Sorry that I have to be such a stickler. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,442
    So am I unethical, or just a poor speller?

  10. #10
    Just so everyone knows, Slime is one of the instigators of the unfounded character assassination attempt on me at ApolloHoax, and who tried to do the same here under various other pseudonyms before being rebuked by the Bad Astronomer.

    That is such a reworking of history that I hardly recognised Slime in that description.
    I have never had any rebuke from BA (to my knowledge). He once deleted a post of mine, closed 'your' Ad hominem thread but no conversation between us has ever taken place.
    'Other pseudonyms' is a metaphor for your paranoia. As for unfounded character assassination, the thread in question is available to anyone who wants it.
    Ad rem and not ad hominem as indicated.
    Anyone can email me at adam_sheppard@yahoo.com for the thread in question.

    Baron's "tortured facial expressions" are irrelevant. I deal with Baron's qualifications, his testimony, and the reaction to it -- not what paranoid fantasies can be read "interpretively" into video captures.

    Even if you wish to ignore his rabbit-trapped-in-the-headlights terror, his aural testimony stating to the TV news crews that both he and his wife were being threatened to keep quiet, might just be relevant enough to mention on such an unbiased and fair web site as Clavius.
    Sadly Baron cant respond, so your hypothesising as to authenticity of miraculously found 500 page reports is irrelevant.
    Like a judge, I put more weight on truth spoken first hand, than on partial documentation which may very well be fraudulent.

    I have rewritten the mission statement to be independent of the numbers and types of experts that contribute to my site.

    Thats much better. I will now go past the front page and digest what other little gems are there. I'll get back to you.

    Now do you have any substantive arguments regarding the moon hoax theory, or are you simply going to delve into another string of personal attacks against me until you're banned?

    Please dont suggest I ought to be banned. Even if BA is a friend and co-debunker, I think he and not you should make the decision. Without prompting!

    AstroMike:

    Baron's tortured facial expressions?

    I'd have uploaded it already but I'm having problems with WinXP drivers for my capture card. Just in case you missed it, the short monochrome clip in question comes from a British version of the Fox video. Perhaps it is unique to my shores.
    Jay seems to have a blank spot regarding the footage, even though he states he saw the Fox video!

  11. #11
    So am I unethical, or just a poor speller?

    Utilising my vast knowledge of logic, you actually could be both. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    556
    On 2002-04-08 15:20, Slime (Silky Smooth) wrote:
    'Other pseudonyms' is a metaphor for your paranoia.
    Not really. Can you explain to me how "Lord Brompton" and "FYI" are two different people? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

    I'm surprised that the BA has not deleted this thread yet.

  13. #13
    Can you explain to me how "Lord Brompton" and "FYI" are two different people?

    I cant. They might even be the same for all I know. All I will say is neither of them was me. You can call me a liar if you wish. BA may have the IP addresses on record. Perhaps they may even be from different countries/continents.

    I'm surprised that the BA has not deleted this thread yet.

    He will if this reopens old wounds/threads.
    I possess a thick skin and consequently no one on this planet could offend me.
    If I've offended anyone here tonight I'd be mighty surprised, but certainly not sorry for plain speaking.
    I stand by all I have written here.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,516
    I close threads, delete them, or delete people from the database if and when I decide their posts are not polite.

    This thread has the potential for any and all of that. Have a care.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,442
    I have never had any rebuke from BA (to my knowledge).

    I'm talking about all the nicknames you've used here, not just the current one.

    As for unfounded character assassination, the thread in question is available to anyone who wants it.

    Most here have already read it and condemned you as a crackpot because of it.

    Sadly Baron cant respond, so your hypothesising as to authenticity of miraculously found 500 page reports is irrelevant.

    I have not made any claim to have discovered Baron's lengthier manuscript. I have not made any claims to know the details of that manuscript. I have merely noted the nature of the discussion undertaken by people who had read it or otherwise knew of its contents. I consulted a lawyer of my acquaintance on the likely interpretation of that discussion. You're quite free to make a different interpretation, but you are not free to misrepresent mine without consequences.

    Like a judge, I put more weight on truth spoken first hand, than on partial documentation which may very well be fraudulent.

    "Truth" spoken first hand? Mr. Baron was rebuked -- rebuked -- by a congressional committee for testifying to something he should have known was patently untrue. Eyewitness testimony is not universally preferred over other types of evidence. Further, testimony which simply reports what someone else saw is hearsay and inadmissible.

    The documents upon which I have based my opinion are the records of the United States Congress, whose authenticity is beyond dispute.

    As for Baron's alleged contribution to the Fox program, I have seen the program twice, took detailed notes on it, and recall no such statement from Baron. And neither, yet, has anyone else. As I said, I may have missed it (though not likely), I have no doubt you have seen such footage, and I promised you many times I would respond to such footage when you saw fit to present it.

    You seem to be getting much more rhetorical mileage out of my reaction than out of Baron's. Is your motive to discuss the hoax theory, or just continue to foolishly attempt to make me look bad?

    I will now go past the front page and digest what other little gems are there. I'll get back to you.

    Rest assured I have not been impressed with anything you have offered as "criticism" so far, it tending to be pedantic efforts to make yourself seem knowledgeable by making others look bad in contrast, and so I shall not be overly concerned with what you might have to say in the future.

    I think he and not you should make the decision.

    And rest assured he will, with or without any suggestion from me. My statement is a warning to you, not a suggestion to the webmaster. He has already indicated his intolerance of your style of debate, and the other readers here have already indicated their disgust with it.

    In short, I believe my interpretation of Thomas Baron's contribution to the Apollo 1 investigation is plausible and adequately supported by fact, although I agree it may not be the only interpretation available. I have promised to respond to any additional information you brought to the table. I cannot see what more I can do to accommodate your participation.

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-04-08 17:13 ]</font>

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,516
    I reiterate: watch your tempers here.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,254
    Havn't we been here before? Watch this one, BA.
    Adam, please remember that Jay's site Clavius is Jay's opinion and is presented as such. He presents his opinion, the reasons for that opinion, and leaves us to make up our own minds. HB's on the other hand force their 'facts' down our throats, with statments like 'you'd have to be a fool not to see this', or my favourite from WHOTM?, 'Many intelligently thinking people are already doubting the authenticity of the Apollo record'. A simple 'I don't believe a word of it' would suffice, and Jay could then say 'fair do's, have a nice life'. But nooooooo.
    Leave it alone guys, we've been there and done that. It's not pretty and in also not very useful. It just leaves a nasty taste, and also a nasty hole in the once mighty apollohoax.com forum.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    226
    Jay: Mr. Baron was rebuked -- rebuked -- by a congressional committee for testifying to something he should have known was patently untrue.

    Why should he have known? Holmburg was a liar, in my opinion.

    And Baron got rebuked by a single committee member (Mr. Hechler) for bringing this new information forward. Recall that Mr. Wydler was actually prepared to take a more objective view regarding the information he had to offer.

    But here too, you are long overdue a reply to the appropriate thread. I will try and finish that shortly.

  19. #19
    I'm talking about all the nicknames you've used here, not just the current one.

    Proof Please? These accusations seem to be growing stronger than when you were at ApolloHoax. Have you further evidence you would like to contribute?

    Most here have already read it and condemned you as a crackpot because of it.

    I dont seek popularity, just the truth. You always misjudge my motives and fears.

    I have not made any claim to have discovered Baron's lengthier manuscript.

    And I never said you did.

    I have not made any claims to know the details of that manuscript.

    I should hope not, unless you parked Baron's family saloon that fateful night. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

    I have merely noted the nature of the discussion undertaken by people who had read it or otherwise knew of its contents.

    Who 'say' they knew its contents would be more to the point.

    Mr. Baron was rebuked -- rebuked -- by a congressional committee for testifying to something he should have known was patently untrue.

    A rebuke often means a cover-up! Congressional committees dont impress me Jay. I've yet to meet a politician with a spine. If you would care to name one from the US, I'll write to him/her and test this.
    BTW Did Baron have a chance to respond to the charges?
    One knock for yes, two knocks for no. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]
    I see Karamoon has responded to your assertions. Who am I to argue with him?

    The documents upon which I have based my opinion are the records of the United States Congress, whose authenticity is beyond dispute.

    LOL. After the JFK cover-up, I'm astounded that anyone would cite the US Congress as a stamp of authenticity.
    I'm still getting over the Iran Contra shambles, where the constitution was conveniently swept aside by all parties.

    As for Baron's alleged contribution to the Fox program, I have seen the program twice, took detailed notes on it, and recall no such statement from Baron.

    Censored by the US media perhaps? I'm not surprised. Will post as quick as humanly possible.

    You seem to be getting much more rhetorical mileage out of my reaction than out of Baron's. Is your motive to discuss the hoax theory, or just continue to foolishly attempt to make me look bad?

    Only you are reacting and looking bad. Calm down and take the odd criticisms occassionally.
    If you are sure of your position, you should be strong enough.

    I will heed BA's comments and try to soften my prose, as the truth I am about to reveal must get out.

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Slime (Silky Smooth) on 2002-04-08 18:14 ]</font>

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,254
    Leave it alone, guys.

  21. #21
    JohnWitts:

    Clavius is not just Jays site. In this very thread today he has implied there are others working on it. Unless the term 'we at Clavius' denotes a royal we.

    Havent you begun to fill the 'hole' at ApolloHoax in yet. You have my files right?


  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,442
    Havn't we been here before?

    I have no wish to repeat the mudslinging that decimated the ApolloHoax forum. But I don't mind talking about Thomas Baron. I'd rather not rehash the discussion we just had. But Slime is talking about additional evidence.

    The readers here do not have the benefit of my prior discussion with Slime, wherein he claimed additional information was available on Thomas Baron, and I promised to incorporate it into my opinion once I was able to see and hear it. I don't think that qualifies as deliberately avoiding contrary evidence.

    Adam, please remember that Jay's site Clavius is Jay's opinion and is presented as such.

    Yes and no. Certain portions of it are fairly indisputable. Others, like the Thomas Baron treatment, are based largely on interpretation. As I mentioned to Karamoon elsewhere, my feelings on Thomas Baron are open to change, given appropriate evidence.

    I don't believe Thomas Baron is necessarily a big player in the Apollo 1 investigation and recovery. Conspiracy theorists do. So in order to be as encyclopedic as I can, I have to address Baron.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,254
    No, I can't find them. The folder keeps coming up empty. Besides, all the piccies are no longer there. Plus, there was 30 odd pages of topis, each with varying numbers of posts, some themselves running into numerous pages. I for one am very ...... off for having all that stuff lost. It's taken a lot of us a lot of time to build up that archive of arguments, and now it's gone. It's no better than burning all the books, in my opinion. Don't let the same thing happen here.
    [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img]

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,442
    Just to clarify, Clavius is solely mine in a legal sense. In an editorial sense most of the opinions are mine, but not all that you read there is stuff I have written personally. Others' contributions range from having directly written segments of articles to providing information, spontaneously or upon request, which serve as background for the articles.

  25. #25
    JohnWitts:

    I just looked at my Yahoo! Briefcase and youre right. Yahoo or the CIA deleted them.
    If you would like to open up a couple of Yahoo! email accounts I will post them there. I dont trust my briefcase to stay up long.

    5,196,351 bytes for the forum files. (uncompressed 85,738,093 bytes)

    9,088,149 bytes for the rest.
    (uncompressed 9,521,571 bytes)

    Alternatively speak to Jay or Jon Ploegman. I think they probably have em.

    Addendum: I may have misunderstood you John.
    The missing piccies (not yours) are external links to nasa sites etc. Once the forum texts and embedded code are properly resubmitted the pics will load in automatically.
    Nothing has been lost since late February 2002.

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Slime (Silky Smooth) on 2002-04-08 18:59 ]</font>

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,254
    I should be getting ADSL later this week, if it works! Maybe I'll try it then?

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    291
    On 2002-04-08 11:49, Slime (Silky Smooth) wrote:
    Minor error on Clavius.

    And the rest... [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
    Since I've been gone for a while, could you point me in the direction of your discussion of the errors of Clavius? Having read it I can't believe there are very many.

    I'd like to see what you have.

  28. #28
    JohnWitts:

    I updated my last post on page 1.
    See the addendum and cheer up!

  29. #29
    Tom:

    Jays knows of my problems with Clavius as they have been well stated. Jay has corrected one serious anomaly and in the interest of BA's aching finger hovering over the 'ban' button I am happy to let it rest there.
    For the time being!

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,442
    Why should he have known?

    Because the Thompson commission had already made public those details.

    Holmburg was a liar, in my opinion.

    And in my opinion he was not.

    And Baron got rebuked by a single committee member (Mr. Hechler) for bringing this new information forward.

    One member, granted. However, it was not "new" information -- it was information that was known to be false, yet Baron testified to it under oath. Mr. Hechler is certainly pedantic about the spelling of Deke Slayton's name, but he is quite correct, legally, in rejecting Baron's lack of discernment.

    Recall that Mr. Wydler was actually prepared to take a more objective view regarding the information he had to offer.

    Baron obviously didn't want to be cut off at the knees again for giving hearsay. Mr. Wydler assured him it would be okay in this case. Clearly the committee can choose to disregard hearsay evidence.

    Mr. Hechler's objection was not necessarily that Mr. Baron have given hearsay evidence, but that he had given hearsay evidence already known to be untrue. The issue speaks to Mr. Baron's ability to discern fact from rumor.

    But here too, you are long overdue a reply to the appropriate thread.

    As I usually say: no rush. I know you're not going anywhere.

Similar Threads

  1. Getting Error Messages In Error.
    By BigDon in forum Forum Introductions and Feedback
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2011-Aug-25, 02:16 AM
  2. Clavius
    By paul f. campbell in forum Astrophotography
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2009-May-21, 10:27 PM
  3. Death from the skies: A minor error
    By Loren Pechtel in forum Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2009-Mar-22, 04:07 AM
  4. Clavius and More
    By 67champ in forum Astrophotography
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2008-Apr-18, 05:25 PM
  5. Clavius
    By paul f. campbell in forum Astrophotography
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2007-Jul-08, 12:26 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: