MoonFaker: Australia and the Conspirators: Critique #01: Peer Review


Uploaded by philwebb59 on 01.07.2010

Transcript:
Jarrah: Beginning in early May, Phil Webb began releasing response videos to my earlier
video, "MoonFaker: Exhibit D."
The films he’s released thus far are selective and misleading to put mildly.
And I will be addressing them all thoroughly in due time.
Selective and misleading?
Each of my videos focuses on a specific claim or a small set of related claims.
And my discussion of each claim tends to stay on subject.
I don’t jump all over the place like Jarrah usually does, if that’s what he means by
“selective.”
Jarrah: For now, there is one I can discuss.
Interestingly he has not even publically released it yet.
On May 26, 2010, one of my friends on YouTube managed to dig up the link to one of his upcoming
videos.
I find it interesting that there is only one video that he’s prepared to discuss, one
that he had to “dig up the link to.”
At the time he had discovered my unlisted video, I had publicly released my first seven
videos critiquing his Exhibit D series that he is yet unable to challenge.
Jarrah: It seems on May 21, Webb released his video on the Australian tracking stations.
The video is currently not publically available on his site.
I’m not trying to nitpick at everything that Jarrah said here, but the title page
to my video clearly states that it was about Parkes, not about the “Australian tracking
stations” in general, but Parkes.
Not NASA’s tracking stations in Goldstone, Canberra or Madrid, but Australian owned Parkes.
Not ham radio operators, but Parkes.
Parkes.
Parkes. Parkes.
Parkes. Parkes. Parkes.
Jarrah: I can only guess that he produces these videos and then releases them to his
friends in advance.
Oh well, might as well catch him with his pants down.
So, he caught me with my pants down?
First off, the pre-released version of my Parkes video was not private.
If the video were private then young Jarrah would never had gotten his hands on it to
begin with.
As Jarrah very well knows, private videos are only available to up to twenty-five YouTube
accounts that you designate.
Before May 13, 2010, YouTube only had two video options, public and private.
But on that Thursday, YouTube introduced the unlisted video option.
It’s basically the same as Public, except that as Jarrah’s “friend” pointed out,
the video doesn’t show up in public lists or search results.
It doesn’t even get attached to your personal channel or the browse page.
It’s like having an unlisted telephone number.
If you have the link, you can view it.
Otherwise you should never know it’s there.
So, on May 21, 2010, a celebratory date in my life, I posted my Parkes video with the
new unlisted option and the experiment began.
The people I had invited to view the video all watched it between May 21st and May 23rd.
Then, thanks to one of Jarrah’s sock puppet accounts, or one of his little troll buddies
maybe, who was actively dumpster-diving on other peoples accounts, my video had a second
flurry of activity over a five day period starting May 26, and half of the unique YouTube
accounts that viewed my video over those five days were from Australia.
That’s right Jarrah.
I was watching you, watch my video.
That sounds like a Johnny Depp movie doesn’t it?
It’s like watching someone look in your bedroom window when they don’t know you’re
at home.
My Parkes video had 99 hits within 12 days of when I put it up, more than many of my
publicly released videos in that much time, and double the usual number of my privately
posted videos.
The fact that Jarrah was able to post a four part rebuttal on May 29th, only three days
after he was “first told” about my video, means that Jarrah has way too much time on
his hands to pump out YouTube videos.
Of course, how could he pass up an opportunity to “catch me with my pants down?”
So what was Jarrah able to uncover in his four-part rebuttal to a non-public video?
Phil: Honeysuckle Creek turned off their receiver about a minute after Parkes came online.
Jarrah: Sorry to interrupt, but there is no record that Honeysuckle Creek switched off
their receiving equipment after Parkes supposedly picked up the signal.
Allegedly, Honeysuckle Creek continued to receive videos even after Parkes came online,
including the videos of the Apollo 11 crew dumping their used portable life support systems
down the ladder.
In fact, Honeysuckle Creek Engineer, Ed von Renouard, recorded the supposed live feed
off the monitors, using his home movie camera.
I want to thank Jarrah for catching this particular mistake that I made in the prerelease of my
Parkes video.
As my intent is to make my publicly released videos factual, I appreciate his input and
I will correct my video before I release it.
I have found that pre-releasing my videos for peer review has helped tremendously in
catching rather embarrassing mistakes like this before making them public.
According to the list I’ve kept, seven of the videos I’ve released publically, so
far, originally contained errors that were caught during review.
This happens when you use Wikipedia and other Internet sources as your primary references,
as I have.
For example, In Critique #5, I originally used what I thought was an image of Mount
Everest that I found during a Google search.
It was nice to have a geographer in my peer group, who immediately identify the image
as the Matterhorn and I was able to correct my video before making it public.
Don’t get me wrong.
The Internet is full of useful information.
But sometimes, that info is mislabeled.
As desperate as Jarrah is to discredit my work, he would have had a field day over my
making such a simple mistake as putting up the wrong mountain.
I understand that Jarrah will probably call “foul” for changing my video, insinuating
that doing so makes me dishonest in some small way, but I beg to differ.
Jarrah viewed a draft copy of my Parkes video.
If it were ready for prime time, then I would have already released it publicly.
The truth is that scientists and engineers normally perform scholarly peer reviews of
their work before publication.
When dealing with facts, it’s relatively easy for others to check your work.
Hey guys!
Did I do the math right?
Did I start with the correct equations?
Did I apply the proper scientific principles to the problem?
Is my order of events accurate?
Did I get my facts right?
Is performing a peer review the same as cheating?
Jarrah might look at it that way.
Since his videos don’t deal with verifiable facts, it would be difficult for him to perform
a similar exercise with his cohorts.
What could Jarrah’s “peer group” really check?
Hey guys!
Did I do a great job of misrepresenting the facts or what?
Did I adequately ignore the multitude of glaring facts that contradict my claims?
Did I sufficiently misquote my token expert or do you think I could make him sound even
more stupid?
Even though some of Jarrah’s buds claim to be degreed experts in their respective
fields, they apparently don’t possess the basic skills required to critically evaluate
Jarrah’s work.
At least, he doesn’t appear to trust them to do that.
And since his claims are founded in nothing more than half-truths and innuendo at best,
any appraisal of his claims made by his followers would ultimately result in their discovery
of the truth, which wouldn’t help Jarrah’s case at all.
In this respect, Jarrah is truly on-his-own.
I will touch on some of the other points that Jarrah makes in his “Australia and the Conspirators”
videos before continuing with my Critique of his Exhibit D series.
Ciao moon hoax conspirators, wherever you are.