ApolloHoax.net

Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: bknight on September 10, 2019, 06:09:44 PM

Title: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: bknight on September 10, 2019, 06:09:44 PM
In keeping with the thoughts of LO to keep subjects confined to single threads and not Gish-Gallop through explanations, I will start a new thread that began 5-6 pages ago.  Serves me right to go on vacation for 3 days.

Hi Everyone,

First off, Mako88sb asks what it will take to convince me the Apollo missions were legit. To be clear, I am not 100 percent convinced they were hoaxed. As I have pointed out in the past, I believe the visuals, ie photos and films were faked. I am confident in my mind they were faked (and I am pretty certain of who some of the individuals that were involved). But fake photos don't necessarily mean the missions were faked. My stance currently is the photos/films are fake but I am unsure whether the missions actually took place. It is a bit of a stupid stance given if the pictures were faked, odds are the missions were faked too. But I have doubts. Some of the answers on this forum, for instance, have at least shown a plausibility of some things I thought were dubious. I think what is important here, people need to respect the thoughts of others, how much you may disagree with them. As far as I know, no one has a monopoly on truth.

<snip for brevity>

You spout this but as usual, you do nothing to prove the visuals were faked, nor who you are pretty certain who did the faking.

What is your evidence of visual fakery?  What have you done in your life to provide you with the necessary skills to make the claim?  In my mind the visual story has been debunked long before I ever joined this group.  I have watched and learned not to be taken into the rabbit hole in which some CT's seem to have slipped, But regale me of your expertise in this area.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: jr Knowing on September 11, 2019, 12:13:08 AM
Hi bknight,

This will take a bunch of posts to lay out my thoughts.

Lets start first with who might have been involved in creating the fake visuals. The easiest way is to start at the beginning. And that is with the Von Braun narrated Footprints on the Moon feature length Apollo 11 documentary. It was issued mere weeks after the completion of the mission and included all the (DAC) films and non public access to the mission process including Von Braun. So it stands to reason, if one believes the mission footage is fake, whoever put this documentary together, which was released a few weeks later, was more than likely involved in creating fake visuals also.

This is where it gets interesting. When you look at the film credits, the main principals behind the film do not seem to exist. Barry Coe and Bill Gibson, the producer and director have never produced or directed anything before or since. Very odd for a film documenting perhaps the greatest achievement for man ever. Bill Gibson's history seems nonexistent (although his name was famously named checked in another movie, more on that later) There was a Barry Coe actor at the time. Mainly a B actor who was known mostly as the "Mr Goodwrench Guy" in commercials. He would have been 33 years old at the time of the documentary. Interestingly, his first credited acting role was in a movie called On the Threshold of Space. (they don't make it to space) He played the communications director. Now this "Foootprints" Barry Coe is the producer telling (communicating) the story of Apollo 11. Odd again. So, in short, NASA has handed over the story of Apollo 11, with complete access to classified material, to a producer and director that don't seem to exist and have never produced or directed anything before or since.

While there seems to be no history for the producer and director, there is one principal that does have a history that can be traced. His name was Robert S. Scott and he wrote the documentary. At the time, he was second in command at the United States Information Agency. This was the propaganda arm of the CIA. Prior to that, he ran the Washington office for the CIA led Aerospace Corp. And before retiring in the mid 70's, he was in charge of audiovisuals for the entire US Defense Department. So given NASA is an independent agency, the question that arises, why is this guy involved? And for what purpose?  And if he is CIA, who are these other "nonexistent" guys working along side him. The greatest achievement for mankind, and NASA has turned over the documentation of this event to some nameless/faceless guys with a CIA guy in tow? Something doesn't add up. Here is an obit for Robert S. Scott, it lists some of his tenures

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2004/12/16/robert-s-scott-federal-aud/df45a629-5121-4644-971a-722d8d2d7d68/?noredirect=on

That's all for today. I got to sleep.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: Jason Thompson on September 11, 2019, 01:54:48 AM
Hi bknight,

This will take a bunch of posts to lay out my thoughts.

Lets start first with who might have been involved in creating the fake visuals.

No, let's start with the question you were asked, which is what your evidence is that the visuals were actually faked in the first place. Trying to immediately divert the discussion to a debate on who might have done it and why is a blatantly transparent attempt to avoid getting yourself pinned into matter of fact that you have demonstrated over and over again you are incapable of actually discussiing rationally. It's the equivalent of trying to convict me by proving I have the means and motive to commit murder without showing I have actually killed anyone. That wouldn't get through a court, and your tactics won't stand up here.

I repeat the original question: what is your evidence that the visuals were faked? Not who might have done it and why, that they were in fact faked.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: onebigmonkey on September 11, 2019, 03:08:55 AM
If I look at the credits of any number of films, documentary or otherwise I'm sure I could find a long list of people whose career hasn't made it to wikipedia. It proves nothing. Your case is even more weakened by the idea that the entire Apollo film and photo record were handed over to a couple of nobodies. Keep looking at the list of credits for a movie. How many names are involved. Where are those people making the fake footage?

Within days of landing on the moon images and stills from the DAC footage were widely available in the media. They contained details of Earth that can only have been taken during the mission timeline and from the locations ascribed to them. They also contained details of the lunar surface not known about prior to the landings but confirmed since. Likewise the live TV footage showing Earth can only have been done at the time of broadcast.

The question you were asked was: where is your proof that these images are not genuine? How were they achieved otherwise? What happened to all the set technicians? The grips and runners? Knowing winks and nods don't cut any ice here, we want names and numbers.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: Obviousman on September 11, 2019, 06:02:41 AM
I support this: what is your EVIDENCE the images were faked?
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: Von_Smith on September 11, 2019, 07:39:07 AM
Hi bknight,

This will take a bunch of posts to lay out my thoughts.

Lets start first with who might have been involved in creating the fake visuals. The easiest way is to start at the beginning. And that is with the Von Braun narrated Footprints on the Moon feature length Apollo 11 documentary. It was issued mere weeks after the completion of the mission and included all the (DAC) films and non public access to the mission process including Von Braun. So it stands to reason, if one believes the mission footage is fake, whoever put this documentary together, which was released a few weeks later, was more than likely involved in creating fake visuals also.

This is where it gets interesting. When you look at the film credits, the main principals behind the film do not seem to exist. Barry Coe and Bill Gibson, the producer and director have never produced or directed anything before or since. Very odd for a film documenting perhaps the greatest achievement for man ever. Bill Gibson's history seems nonexistent (although his name was famously named checked in another movie, more on that later) There was a Barry Coe actor at the time. Mainly a B actor who was known mostly as the "Mr Goodwrench Guy" in commercials. He would have been 33 years old at the time of the documentary. Interestingly, his first credited acting role was in a movie called On the Threshold of Space. (they don't make it to space) He played the communications director. Now this "Foootprints" Barry Coe is the producer telling (communicating) the story of Apollo 11. Odd again. So, in short, NASA has handed over the story of Apollo 11, with complete access to classified material, to a producer and director that don't seem to exist and have never produced or directed anything before or since.

While there seems to be no history for the producer and director, there is one principal that does have a history that can be traced. His name was Robert S. Scott and he wrote the documentary. At the time, he was second in command at the United States Information Agency. This was the propaganda arm of the CIA. Prior to that, he ran the Washington office for the CIA led Aerospace Corp. And before retiring in the mid 70's, he was in charge of audiovisuals for the entire US Defense Department. So given NASA is an independent agency, the question that arises, why is this guy involved? And for what purpose?  And if he is CIA, who are these other "nonexistent" guys working along side him. The greatest achievement for mankind, and NASA has turned over the documentation of this event to some nameless/faceless guys with a CIA guy in tow? Something doesn't add up. Here is an obit for Robert S. Scott, it lists some of his tenures

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2004/12/16/robert-s-scott-federal-aud/df45a629-5121-4644-971a-722d8d2d7d68/?noredirect=on

That's all for today. I got to sleep.


Well, if that's all you have, then I guess you have nothing.  Nothing you say here suggests a reason to think the images from the Apollo missions were faked.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: smartcooky on September 11, 2019, 07:40:28 AM
Hi bknight,

This will take a bunch of posts to lay out my thoughts.

Lets start first with who might have been involved in creating the fake visuals.

No, let's start with the question you were asked, which is what your evidence is that the visuals were actually faked in the first place. Trying to immediately divert the discussion to a debate on who might have done it and why is a blatantly transparent attempt to avoid getting yourself pinned into matter of fact that you have demonstrated over and over again you are incapable of actually discussiing rationally. It's the equivalent of trying to convict me by proving I have the means and motive to commit murder without showing I have actually killed anyone. That wouldn't get through a court, and your tactics won't stand up here.

I repeat the original question: what is your evidence that the visuals were faked? Not who might have done it and why, that they were in fact faked.

The questions bknight asked were

1. What is your evidence of visual fakery?

2. What have you done in your life to provide you with the necessary skills to make the claim?

Its time jrknowing was restricted from posting any of his other gish gallop and/or walls-o-text until he answers these two questions - directly, with no spurious BS
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: jr Knowing on September 11, 2019, 09:27:45 AM
Hi Smartcooky,

bknight asked me to show who did it and the visuals that were faked. He said "you do nothing to prove the visuals were faked, nor who you are pretty certain who did the faking."

Why should I get banned? I am answering what he asked. I will keep the "who did it" part brief and then move on to to the images. I will finish up the "who did it part" later today. (I can't right now). Then move to the visual evidence.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: JayUtah on September 11, 2019, 09:29:39 AM
Lets start first with who might have been involved in creating the fake visuals.

No,  You start first with evidence that something was done.  Then you move on to trying to determine who did it.  If you have no evidence that a thing was done, wondering who (didn't) do it is moot.

Dead on arrival, as with all the rest of your nonsensical conspiratorial claims.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: JayUtah on September 11, 2019, 09:36:23 AM
bknight asked me to show who did it and the visuals that were faked. He said "you do nothing to prove the visuals were faked, nor who you are pretty certain who did the faking."

His reference to your demonstration of the skills required to detect fakery specifically asked you to describe how you know the photos are faked.  That's not a question answered by you first making up a typical speculative story and then inferring that the results of that fantasy must somehow be evident.  I promise you that no one here is interested in listening to you babble on about who you think must have nefarious intent based on what you think their career should have looked like.

Quote
Why should I get banned? I am answering what he asked.

Nope.

None of your presentations here has risen beyond you making fantastic, opinionated claims based on your ignorance of a subject, then leveling heinous accusations when the real world fails to meet them.  You are not some great detective, or some unsung genius.  You owe us something besides incessant narcissism.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: Von_Smith on September 11, 2019, 09:58:28 AM
Hi Smartcooky,

bknight asked me to show who did it and the visuals that were faked.

No, he didn't.  What he asked was:  "What is your evidence of visual fakery?  What have you done in your life to provide you with the necessary skills to make the claim?"  Nothing about who in the question.

Quote
He said "you do nothing to prove the visuals were faked, nor who you are pretty certain who did the faking."

Yes, but that is an observation, not a question.  Now that you have that clarification, will you answer the questions?

Quote
Why should I get banned? I am answering what he asked.

Demonstrably (and demonstratedly, if that's a word) false.

Quote
I will keep the "who did it" part brief and then move on to to the images. I will finish up the "who did it part" later today. (I can't right now). Then move to the visual evidence.

The "who did it" part is not part of the question.  If you wish to present yourself as answering the questions asked, you should instead drop the whodunit topic altogether and move the visual evidence right away.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: bknight on September 11, 2019, 10:37:04 AM
<snip>
What is your evidence of visual fakery?  What have you done in your life to provide you with the necessary skills to make the claim?  In my mind the visual story has been debunked long before I ever joined this group.  I have watched and learned not to be taken into the rabbit hole in which some CT's seem to have slipped, But regale me of your expertise in this area.

I repeat my question and repeat those who directed you to the question.  We can discuss who and why after you prove the visuals were faked.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: gillianren on September 11, 2019, 11:19:42 AM
I mean, as far as credits go, that's getting into one of my areas of expertise.  Every week, I write two columns about people in media--one about people who are alive, and one about people who have been dead for at least five years.  (https://www.the-solute.com/tag/celebrate-the-living/ and https://www.the-solute.com/tag/attention-must-be-paid/ for the curious!)  Some of the people I've written about are incredibly important yet have very little information about them available online.  Perhaps most relevant to our discussion here is one Bob Cuff.  He doesn't have a Wikipedia page; for most of the information I found about him, personally, I relied on an obituary written by his son.  I'm reasonably sure his IMDb page is complete, but of course how could I be without a ton of deep research?

Bob Cuff was a matte painter.  I wrote about him because of his work on The Princess Bride, because I was doing a stretch of people both living and dead from The Princess Bride, but he also worked with Kubrick.  And Gilliam.  And Olivier.  He worked on The Longest Day and Masque of the Red Death.  He has a staggering list of credentials.  He created miniatures, when that was what Kubrick wanted.  And if your only reference was Wikipedia, you basically wouldn't know he existed.

What's more, I have no doubt that NASA wasn't going to Hollywood for their documentarians.  They did some work with Disney, when Walt was hyping space, but that's about it.  It also takes very little research to discover that Bill Gibson was a World War II combat cameraman who, among other things, self-produced a documentary about diving to the USS Arizona that is on display at the visitor's center there.  I'll grant I'm having less luck with Barry Coe, but trying to separate him out from the Bonanza actor--or possibly proving the Bonanza actor is the one I'm looking for--is proving difficult.  On the other hand, I'm exclusively using Google and am not inclined to put too much effort into it, because it's not my silly theory.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: jfb on September 11, 2019, 01:02:54 PM
Let's keep it simple - pick a single image from the Apollo archive that you think has been faked, post it here, and explain what specific elements of that specific image lead you to believe that it's fake.  Explain how you eliminated possible explanations based on exposure, lens flare, focal length, illumination, terrain, perspective, etc.

Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: JayUtah on September 11, 2019, 01:20:38 PM
Let's keep it simple - pick a single image from the Apollo archive that you think has been faked, post it here, and explain what specific elements of that specific image lead you to believe that it's fake.  Explain how you eliminated possible explanations based on exposure, lens flare, focal length, illumination, terrain, perspective, etc.

Agreed, with two suggestions:   First, "visuals" include moving pictures, so I would argue they are also admissible.  Second, while it's important to eliminate prosaic causes for certain observations, fakery is not the default condition that holds when no prosaic cause can be proven.  Affirmative evidence of fakery should also be provided.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: ApolloEnthusiast on September 11, 2019, 01:38:47 PM
Let's keep it simple - pick a single image from the Apollo archive that you think has been faked, post it here, and explain what specific elements of that specific image lead you to believe that it's fake.  Explain how you eliminated possible explanations based on exposure, lens flare, focal length, illumination, terrain, perspective, etc.
I'm sorry to be the pessimist again, I promise I'm not usually so gloomy, but I don't believe he has any specific elements.  Granted this is just my speculation, but based on my experiences with people like JR Knowing, somebody told him they were fake, and he accepted that statement based on whatever snake oil was used in his particular case. 

I believe the reason he is so evasive is because, when he's pinned down to answer a direct question, he was never given any actual facts and is forced to resort to vague approximations of whatever innuendo seemed so compelling to him.   

He is likely feeling simultaneously disappointed that nobody here responded as he did to the insinuations about the CIA creating the Apollo documentation, and smugly superior that he can clearly see things that others are simply blind to recognize.  Facts aren't necessary for someone who is able to put the pieces together with a transcendent insight.

Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: JayUtah on September 11, 2019, 01:49:31 PM
I'm sorry to be the pessimist again, I promise I'm not usually so gloomy, but I don't believe he has any specific elements.  Granted this is just my speculation, but based on my experiences with people like JR Knowing, somebody told him they were fake, and he accepted that statement based on whatever snake oil was used in his particular case. 

That may have operated, yes.  But in one of his threads from long ago he pretended to have performed some sort of image analysis exercise to support a claim in which the evidence was Apollo photography.  He evaded any sort of attempt to determine whether his skill at detecting fakes had ever been tested, or whether he had objectively demonstrated expertise in the methods he alluded to.  So it may be true, as you suggest, that he is simply recounting what he has heard elsewhere.  I suspect that's why bknight included that as part of his question to Jr Knowing.

Quote
He is likely feeling simultaneously disappointed that nobody here responded as he did to the insinuations about the CIA creating the Apollo documentation, and smugly superior that he can clearly see things that others are simply blind to recognize.  Facts aren't necessary for someone who is able to put the pieces together with a transcendent insight.

Yes, I tend to think that's the pattern he fits into, which seems to be common among conspiracy theorists.  The notion that all "opinions" need to be respected is pretty tell-tale.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: jr Knowing on September 12, 2019, 01:39:26 AM
Hi Everyone,

Gillianren, Yes there was a Bill Gibson in the military that has loosely been credited with being involved. But there is little documentation or rational why he had any involvement at the time with NASA. And with regards to Barry Coe, you stated that NASA would never go to Hollywood for one of the "documentarians". Well the son (at least he says he is) of "Hollywood's" Barry Coe says his father told him he was the producer of the Apollo 11 Documentary. Yes, apparently a 33 year old B actor from Hollywood was NASA's choice to bankroll, hire military and CIA guys, and be the one to document man's greatest achievement. Doesn't sound very logical. Does it? But what is known, and makes a lot more sense then these two guys being the chief principals, the U.S. has a history of assigning fake names to (propaganda) films. It just happened a year or so back with the film created for Trump to show the North Koreans. At first, it was credited to a LA production company called Destiny Pictures. Of course, Destiny Pictures said wtf? Then the government had to admit it was produced by the National Security Council (aka CIA).

Its funny you bring up Bob Cuff, and what he does, and who he has worked with. It is almost if you are reading my mind. Not that I think Cuff has anything to do with faking the footage but he has been around and involved with certain individuals who I believe might have been involved. You mentioned Kubrick. Of course, some have pointed to Kubrick as being the one behind the fake footage. And that he used The Shining as his confessional. I think they are on the right path but ultimately I think they are incorrect Kubrick was directly behind the Apollo fake visuals. Yes, I believe The Shining was used to tell the 'Apollo story'. But here is where I differ with everyone. They believe he remolded the King's story to his own story of being caught up in the Apollo deception. I, on the other hand, believe he is aware of the 'Apollo deception' and he is telling the story of those directly caught up in it.

So why do I believe this? It goes back to the simple reason he picked King's The Shining in the first place. As many have commented, they can find no reason why Kubrick would go 'slumming' in the pulp horror genre. And it wasn't the story. As most know, he changed virtually everything in the book. However, what he didn't change was the name of the movie. Nor did he change the name of the central "character" the mountain hotel Overlook. So did he pick this book for these names. And if so, why? He did it because these names point directly to (at least some) of the people involved. The Shining. Another word for shining?

First entry on Google
Lucas: from the Latin personal name Lucas (Greek Loukas) 'man from Lucania'. Lucania is a region of southern Italy thought to have been named in ancient times with a word meaning 'bright' or 'shining'.

Overlook. Another name for Overlook?

First entry on Google
Speilberg: habitational name from any of the various places so called, from a contracted form of Middle High German spiegel 'lookout point' + berg 'mountain', 'hill'.

(added Bonus, Kubrick's next movie Full Metal Jacket. A term he personally picked for the movie. It means the casing of a rifle bullet. Visually, does it look familiar? Saturn rocket maybe?)

Preposterous? Lets circle back to Apollo 11 Footprints on the Moon Documentary. Robert S. Scott, CIA man, second in command at the US Information Agency. Any guesses who worked under him? George Lucas. Not only was he creating Vietnam war propaganda films, he was teaching film to military personnel. This was happening from 1967 on. His wife was also CIA doing film projects. Lucas and Spielberg first met in 1968. At about the same Douglas Trumbull Kubrick's effects guy on 2001 A Space Odyssey comes back to America from England. Then there seems to be a gap until 71 or so when both put out movies.  And it is just a little after this, Spielberg and Lucas, two young and unproven directors hook up with Trumbull and his assistant John Dystra. At least that is how the story goes (Trumbull with Spielberg and Dystra with Lucas. ) Finally about 3-4 years after the missions, Kubrick was in a third rate, run down movie studio (Elstree) on the verge of bankruptcy outside of London. He was filming the Shining. Who were the only ones to be working at this studio during this time period? You guessed it. Lucas filming Star Wars. And then Spielberg with Raiders. What are the odds? Countless studios world wide and they find themselves with Kubrick. Heck, all Lucas had done was American Graffiti up to this point, yet he set up the now famous special effects shop Industrial Lights and Magic a few years prior with Dystra and others and now he is hanging with Kubrick. I would say what a small world. Wouldn't you? 

In any event, there are many things in the Shining (and elsewhere) that support my theory. I won't 'bore' you with the details. God knows I am about to be hammered into submission anyways :) . But a couple of tidbits if you are interested. Check out Lucas's first feature THX 1138. It came out in '71 or '72? It starts with a real Buck Rogers Trailer. Except Lucas overdubs the entire thing. Instead of him being in the 25th Century, he is in the 20th Century. Listen and watch carefully. Secondly, the pivotal scene in the Shining is when Jack is kissing the pretty woman in the bathroom and she turns into an old witch. The old witch is played by someone, according to the credits, named Billie Gibson. And like the Bill Gibson of the Apollo 11 Documentary, this is her only credit and she does not seem to exist.

I will gladly expand on any of this, otherwise my next posts will be examples of what I believe to be fake visuals (I am also trying to build an imgur library to more easily demonstrate my suppositions, please bear with me if it takes a bit of time) 
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: sts60 on September 12, 2019, 02:15:09 AM
When are you going to return to the other thread and acknowledge your errors about the LM on the lunar surface?
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: onebigmonkey on September 12, 2019, 05:02:59 AM
Where is your evidence that the images were faked?  Nothing in your post above proves a damned thing other than your determination to avoid answering a question.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: ApolloEnthusiast on September 12, 2019, 06:20:47 AM
But there is little documentation or rational ...
Quote
Doesn't sound very logical. Does it?
Quote
But what is known, and makes a lot more sense...
Quote
...but he has been around and involved with certain individuals who I believe might have been involved.
Quote
Of course, some have pointed to Kubrick
Quote
I think they are on the right path but ultimately I think they are incorrect
Quote
Yes, I believe The Shining was used to tell the 'Apollo story'.
Quote
I, on the other hand, believe he is ...
Quote
So why do I believe this?
Quote
As many have commented,
Quote
...they can find no reason
Quote
Any guesses who worked under him?
Quote
What are the odds?
Quote
I would say what a small world. Wouldn't you?

You have been asked for direct evidence and you responded with more gibberish.  I've excerpted the types of things you need to avoid.  Evidence won't consist of you asking what you think are provocative questions.  It won't be any of your unsupported inferences or beliefs.  Including the words "I believe" or "I think" is probably an indicator that the sentence you're writing should be discarded for the purpose of providing evidence.  Claiming what people have said or what they have found or not found without citing who these people are and where their testimony can be found is not evidence. 

Quote
In any event, there are many things in the Shining (and elsewhere) that support my theory. I won't 'bore' you with the details.
There is nothing in the Shining (or elsewhere) that will support your theory, however, if there were, the details are exactly what is required of you.  Try again and don't include any of the types of things that I pulled out for you above.

Include only verifiable facts and refrain from adding any of your interpretation to those facts.  If you have no verifiable facts, then you have no evidence.



Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: smartcooky on September 12, 2019, 06:22:05 AM
Hi Everyone,

{Irrelevant Gish gallop snipped}




This is not how Apollohoax.net works. You're not on Godlike Productions, or Above Top Secret or any of the other tinfoil hat conspiracy theory echo chambers now. You're posting on a forum where claims have to be backed up with evidence, and extraordinary claims have to be backed up with extraordinary evidence, and where persistent failure to do so will get you cut off at the knees.

Thus far, you have spectacularly failed to back up any of your claims with a single piece of evidence. You have waffled, bluffed and blustered your way around answering direct, relevant questions, using gish-gallop and walls of text to do so. This approach will get you nowhere, because no-one here is fooled by it - we've all seen it all before. 

Now, answer the questions....

► What is your best evidence that any part of the Apollo photographic record was faked?

► What are you qualifications or experiences or unique skills that you consider allow you to make these determinations?

Everything else you post will either be ignored or treated like this post until you answer these questions.


Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: Jason Thompson on September 12, 2019, 07:35:36 AM
Irrelevant waffle, jr. Answer the question asked. What is your evidence that the Apollo visuals were faked.

For clarity here, evidence is not something that looks odd to you, or seems weird, or might indicate something fishy. There are many things in this world that 'look odd' but that's because the world, as much as you may wish it to, is under no obligation to make intuitive sense. Evidence means something incontestably factual about the visual that can ONLY be the result of faking it. And for further clarity, you will be expected to back up your conclusion it was faked with something more than your own personal incredulity and ignorance.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: Donnie B. on September 12, 2019, 07:58:26 AM
Gillianren, Yes there was a Bill Gibson in the military that has loosely been credited with being involved. But there is little documentation or rational why he had any involvement at the time with NASA.

FWIW, I have ordered a copy of the Bill Gibson (auto)biography, No Film In My Camera.  The description of the book mentions that he was a consultant to NASA for the Apollo photography, but I won't be able to give any further details until the snail arrives sometime next week.  Still, that fact alone goes pretty far to explain his involvement with the Footprints On the Moon doco.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: bknight on September 12, 2019, 08:20:19 AM

What is your evidence of visual fakery?  What have you done in your life to provide you with the necessary skills to make the claim?

Your continued soapbox commentary does not answer those questions.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: gillianren on September 12, 2019, 10:05:39 AM
Wow.  You don't even know the specific differences between The Shining in the book and the movie.  Well done.  For the record, Kubrick did not change "just about everything."  Quite a lot was left the same.  What did get changed is something I can rant about for a very, very long time--I prefer the book--but almost the entire framework remains the same as well many of the details.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: JayUtah on September 12, 2019, 10:36:58 AM
Surprise, surprise.  All the respondents -- including the original poster -- except for one dismiss Jr Knowing's irrelevant conspiratorial screed and clarify that what they wanted all along was evidence in the form of the visuals in question accompanied by an argument or analysis for the conclusion they had been faked, as claimed.  And surprise, surprise:  Jr Knowing latches onto the sole dissenter and writes an even longer, even more convoluted, even less relevant wall of screed (which I have no intention of reading).

So much for being respectful to his critics.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: LunarOrbit on September 12, 2019, 10:42:17 AM
Now, answer the questions....

► What is your best evidence that any part of the Apollo photographic record was faked?

► What are you qualifications or experiences or unique skills that you consider allow you to make these determinations?

Everything else you post will either be ignored or treated like this post until you answer these questions.

Ok, Jr Knowing, here's the deal. Answer those specific questions or I will place you under moderation and your posts will require my approval before appearing in the forum.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: onebigmonkey on September 12, 2019, 10:42:40 AM
OK let's just go with it. Let's assume that NASA hired a couple of military operatives in the pay of the CIA to produce Apollo documentaries. Let's assume they managed to make the films and then just vanish into obscurity.

What's in the images that is fake?
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: jfb on September 12, 2019, 10:53:42 AM
Okay, obviously we're going to have to do it the hard way.

The following image has often been cited by numerous HBs as "proof" that the lunar surface images were shot on a soundstage instead of the Moon:

(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5866.jpg)

Jr. Knowing, do you agree with that assessment?  If so, please explain what it is about the image itself that leads you to think that.  Please limit your discussion to the image itself, not about who may have shot it, or where it may have been shot, or reasons why it may have been shot,  etc.  Why could this image not have been shot on the Moon? 
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: gillianren on September 12, 2019, 11:00:42 AM
To be fair, Jay, my point was that his argument was full of holes even if you accepted it as relevant.  Which I specifically don't.  I, too, would quite like to know what about the imagery leads him to believe it was faked.  And again, if NASA were faking things, why fake them in a way that looks suspicious to someone as obviously a layman as JR Knowing?  Why not hire a famed documentarian, assuming JR Knowing can name a famed documentarian which I bet me a shiny new nickel he cannot?
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: JayUtah on September 12, 2019, 11:24:08 AM
To be fair, Jay, my point was that his argument was full of holes even if you accepted it as relevant.  Which I specifically don't.

No argument there.  "Dissenter" may have been the wrong word; apologies if you thought I was blaming you for anything.  I merely wanted to illustrate Jr Knowing's self-serving choice of direction.  He clearly, desperately, wants to talk only along lines that allow him to present his opinions and judgment as fact, in lieu of actual fact, and draw his brilliant conclusions from those.  The "soft" arguments are harder to conclusively lose, the ones that mostly involve him drawing lines through nebulous points of assumption and supposition to arrive at a masterful exposition of some conspiracy.  Not the ones that require him to actually display correct knowledge and skill.  He can argue those indefinitely without distinct resolution.  And that may be his aim.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: bknight on September 12, 2019, 11:35:37 AM
Seems to me just like TROLLISH behavior, just to continue the discussion netting those that wish to offer discussion  in leu of substantive evidence.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: Von_Smith on September 12, 2019, 11:35:47 AM
First entry on Google

jr. Knowing:  Somebody who's about to get moderated because he won't stay on topic or answer questions.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: jr Knowing on September 12, 2019, 12:57:11 PM
Hi jfb,

Yes people often cite that photo as proof of hoax. I am not one of them. Yes he is lit up in the shadow and there is a glare of the back of his boot. But I think there are  (at least) plausible non hoax reasons for that.

Gillenren, with all due respect, Kubrick turned King’s book upside down. I don’t want to get deep into it because I will get “moderated”. But just check the first scene of Kubrick’s movie. It is not in the book. It is a 3 minute scene. Kubrick was in England (afraid of flying) but he had a crew fly over an island and mountain road in Montana. Name of the island?  Wild Goose. Name of the road? “Going to the sun” road. Apollo was the God of what? Sun. Wild goose chase means? “Hopeless pursuit of something unattainable “. What do you think he was trying to say?
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: Halcyon Dayz, FCD on September 12, 2019, 01:08:27 PM
More question marks?

Only ANSWERS can be evidence.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: JayUtah on September 12, 2019, 01:18:23 PM
Yes people often cite that photo as proof of hoax. I am not one of them.

Fair enough.  We're three pages into this thread already.  When can we expect you to provide the evidence and argument that was asked for in the opening post?  Your critics have graciously clarified what it was they really wanted to see, just in case there was any confusion.  You still seem to be more interested in going down rabbit holes than in providing what was requested.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: raven on September 12, 2019, 01:19:04 PM
The string board routine may work with other conspiracy theorists, but it will not work here. I am reminded Justice League Unlimited's version of The Question, only without the heroism.
"The plastic tips at the end of shoelaces are called 'aglets'. Their true purpose is sinister."
Evidence, please.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: ApolloEnthusiast on September 12, 2019, 01:24:14 PM
Name of the island?  Wild Goose. Name of the road? “Going to the sun” road. Apollo was the God of what? Sun. Wild goose chase means? “Hopeless pursuit of something unattainable “. What do you think he was trying to say?
Perhaps most importantly, why do you believe that any of this, in any way, satisfies the instruction to answer either of the two questions that you were supposed to answer?
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: bknight on September 12, 2019, 01:24:53 PM
The string board routine may work with other conspiracy theorists, but it will not work here. I am reminded Justice League Unlimited's version of The Question, only without the heroism.
"The plastic tips at the end of shoelaces are called 'aglets'. Their true purpose is sinister."
Evidence, please.

Yes they are, but lets keep our comments on topic and not give jr an opportunity to stray further.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: gillianren on September 12, 2019, 01:35:47 PM
Look, literally my whole point about the credits was that they can't be used as proof of anything.  I obviously know quite a lot more about the film industry than you do (not difficult), and I know that "but he had no other credits!" proves absolutely nothing.  IMDb pages are incomplete.  Some extremely notable people don't have Wikipedia pages for whatever reason.  So okay, NASA used people you hadn't heard of and can't find much about.  That proves nothing.  What you need for proof is actual evidence, not supposition and ignorance.  I could claim that the fact that the Overlook exterior was filmed on Mount Hood proved Kubrick was a member of the KKK, but you would, I hope, ask me for a bit more than that to prove my point.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: jfb on September 12, 2019, 01:55:45 PM
Hi jfb,

Yes people often cite that photo as proof of hoax. I am not one of them. Yes he is lit up in the shadow and there is a glare of the back of his boot. But I think there are  (at least) plausible non hoax reasons for that.

Excellent.  However, you made this statement in another thread:

As I have pointed out in the past, I believe the visuals, ie photos and films were faked. I am confident in my mind they were faked (and I am pretty certain of who some of the individuals that were involved).

That statement implies you believe all the imagery was faked.  If that's not the case, then it would help to know which images you think are genuine and which are not.  It would save the rest of us the time and effort of digging up images and asking "what about this one?"

So, can you provide an example of an image (just one) that you believe is faked, and what it is about that specific image that leads you to believe it was faked?  Not who faked it, or why they faked it, just why that image can not be genuine.  It will also help to specify the source of that image - more than one HB has retouched or composited genuine images to make them appear to be fakes. 

For clarity's sake, let's assume "fake" simply means "not shot on the Moon" - it could mean the photo was retouched (to hide wires or stands or similar), or is a composite of elements from different images, or was shot on a soundstage, etc. 
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: LunarOrbit on September 12, 2019, 03:05:19 PM
I don’t want to get deep into it because I will get “moderated”.

Ok, so I know you saw my warning, and yet you still decided to respond without answering the damn questions. I'm placing you under moderation. None of your posts will be approved until you answer these questions:

Now, answer the questions....

► What is your best evidence that any part of the Apollo photographic record was faked?

► What are you qualifications or experiences or unique skills that you consider allow you to make these determinations?

Everything else you post will either be ignored or treated like this post until you answer these questions.


After you have done that, we'll see. I feel like we're wasting our time with you, so I'm not sure it will ever be worthwhile to allow you to post. Prove me wrong.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: smartcooky on September 13, 2019, 08:36:46 PM
Its been very quiet hasn't it!?

Frankly, I will be very surprised if we see jr Knowing back. LO will not approve any posts of his unless they answer the questions put to him, and I don't think he has any evidence to present - no legs to stand on.

I would be less than surprised to find him posting on other forums, telling them that he has been banned here (all the evil NASA shills at Apollohoax won't listen to his twoof!)
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: onebigmonkey on September 13, 2019, 10:39:09 PM
Hi jfb,

Yes people often cite that photo as proof of hoax. I am not one of them. Yes he is lit up in the shadow and there is a glare of the back of his boot. But I think there are  (at least) plausible non hoax reasons for that.

Gillenren, with all due respect, Kubrick turned King’s book upside down. I don’t want to get deep into it because I will get “moderated”. But just check the first scene of Kubrick’s movie. It is not in the book. It is a 3 minute scene. Kubrick was in England (afraid of flying) but he had a crew fly over an island and mountain road in Montana. Name of the island?  Wild Goose. Name of the road? “Going to the sun” road. Apollo was the God of what? Sun. Wild goose chase means? “Hopeless pursuit of something unattainable “. What do you think he was trying to say?

Another island nearby is called Thunderbird - that's a Saturn V. Also visible is Red Eagle mountain - the Eagle has landed! What do you think Kubrick was saying there? Joining the dots only works if you end up with a recognisable picture.  If it's an incomprehensible jumbled scrawl it means nothing.  Kubrick's interpretation of King's novel is nothing like what was intended by the author, just as your version of history is nothing like what actually happened.

I look forward to LO approving the post with your hard evidence in it rather than the fabrications of an over-active imagination that will never see the light of day.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: gillianren on September 14, 2019, 10:48:13 AM
I mean, seriously, I could fill the time while we wait for JR Knowing to actually answer questions in a reasonable manner by explaining exactly what Kubrick did and didn't change in The Shining, as well as why it's hardly surprising that he should have chosen it as source material and was hardly "slumming" by doing so.  Also by speculating on why he chose the location in question--or if he even did, and hired a location scout, which is a real job for a reason.  But I made the point I did for a reason--speculation about people's credits, or lack thereof, proves absolutely nothing.  You won't always find the information you're looking for about people in the film industry with the information available online.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: Von_Smith on September 14, 2019, 07:18:13 PM
Hi jfb,

Yes people often cite that photo as proof of hoax. I am not one of them. Yes he is lit up in the shadow and there is a glare of the back of his boot. But I think there are  (at least) plausible non hoax reasons for that.

Gillenren, with all due respect, Kubrick turned King’s book upside down. I don’t want to get deep into it because I will get “moderated”. But just check the first scene of Kubrick’s movie. It is not in the book. It is a 3 minute scene. Kubrick was in England (afraid of flying) but he had a crew fly over an island and mountain road in Montana. Name of the island?  Wild Goose. Name of the road? “Going to the sun” road. Apollo was the God of what? Sun. Wild goose chase means? “Hopeless pursuit of something unattainable “. What do you think he was trying to say?

Another island nearby is called Thunderbird - that's a Saturn V. Also visible is Red Eagle mountain - the Eagle has landed!

And don't forget that at one point in the film, Danny is watching the Road Runner Show, which originally aired on CBS.  Which has Columbia in the name.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: jfb on September 14, 2019, 11:46:19 PM
Hi jfb,

Yes people often cite that photo as proof of hoax. I am not one of them. Yes he is lit up in the shadow and there is a glare of the back of his boot. But I think there are  (at least) plausible non hoax reasons for that.

Gillenren, with all due respect, Kubrick turned King’s book upside down. I don’t want to get deep into it because I will get “moderated”. But just check the first scene of Kubrick’s movie. It is not in the book. It is a 3 minute scene. Kubrick was in England (afraid of flying) but he had a crew fly over an island and mountain road in Montana. Name of the island?  Wild Goose. Name of the road? “Going to the sun” road. Apollo was the God of what? Sun. Wild goose chase means? “Hopeless pursuit of something unattainable “. What do you think he was trying to say?

Another island nearby is called Thunderbird - that's a Saturn V. Also visible is Red Eagle mountain - the Eagle has landed!

And don't forget that at one point in the film, Danny is watching the Road Runner Show, which originally aired on CBS.  Which has Columbia in the name.

Brilliant.

And this is what constitutes “proof” in the conspiracist’s mind - not facts, not physical or documentary evidence, but a narrative full of symbolism and metaphor.  You got rocks?  Pffft, I have a story that doesn’t care about your stupid boring rocks.  There’s no dots to connect with rocks.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: onebigmonkey on September 15, 2019, 12:05:02 AM
As I'm currently in Vietnam it's only natural that all I can hear in jr knowing's ramblings is Dennis Hopper's character in Apocalypse Now.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: BertieSlack on September 15, 2019, 01:41:07 AM
As I'm currently in Vietnam it's only natural that all I can hear in jr knowing's ramblings is Dennis Hopper's character in Apocalypse Now.

Hey, man, you don't talk to the Colonel. You listen to him. The man's enlarged my mind. He's a poet warrior in the classic sense. I mean sometimes he'll... uh... well, you'll say "hello" to him, right? And he'll just walk right by you. He won't even notice you. And suddenly he'll grab you, and he'll throw you in a corner, and he'll say, "Do you know that 'if' is the middle word in life? If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you, if you can trust yourself when all men doubt you"... I mean I'm... no, I can't... I'm a little man, I'm a little man, he's... he's a great man! I should have been a pair of ragged claws scuttling across floors of silent seas....
......One through nine, no maybes, no supposes, no fractions. You can't travel in space, you can't go out into space, you know, without, like, you know, uh, with fractions - what are you going to land on - one-quarter, three-eighths? What are you going to do when you go from here to Venus or something? That's dialectic physics.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: onebigmonkey on September 15, 2019, 05:06:18 AM
Simplify man, simplify :D
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: bobdude11 on September 16, 2019, 02:49:41 PM
Hi Everyone,

…..
 

Kept the only relevant item from your recent rant.

Here is what I want to see:

1. Pick a picture or one particular movie you believe to be faked
2. Cite your professional experience(s), requisite qualification(s) and any and all professional certifications related to the particular field you are basing ALL of your proof on (keep in mind that folks like Jay (and others) have not received degrees, be carry, in Jay's case in particular, legally binding certifications specific to his field(s) of endeavor. Jay (and possibly others) are qualified (and can prove it) to forensically examine photographs and photographic media and make proper, provable statements on authenticity, etc. You have yet to provide this proof of your expertise to convict ANY photographic (or other media) for Apollo as fake. Belief is irrelevant, only what you can PROVE is accepted.
3. Cite the items about that particular picture or movie you believe to be fake (use all relevant scientific methodologies to prove this)
4. Include all relevant references and all relevant mathematical calculations used to arrive at your conclusion (proof WILL include math (based on some other items that have been posted elsewhere on this board - Jay posting some of it (I have not been able to locate it, but I seem to recall Apollo (and even the JFK assassination discussion) was/were involved. So, yes, you must show your work to prove you are correct).

What I do not want to see:

1. More babble around 'who might have dun it'
2. More keyboard regurgitation of long disproven theories or explanations of people you keep saying faked things (without proving they were faked)
3. Any 'evidence' without the required references and scientific investigation performed by you (using relevant professional certification(s) and experience(s))
4. Any more deviation from the question of: proof they were faked

anything else:

1. Will be ignored
2. Is wasted effort on your part
3. Pointless to read
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: bknight on September 16, 2019, 04:47:36 PM
<snip>

1. More babble around 'who might have dun it'
2. More keyboard regurgitation of long disproven theories or explanations of people you keep saying faked things (without proving they were faked)
3. Any 'evidence' without the required references and scientific investigation performed by you (using relevant professional certification(s) and experience(s))
4. Any more deviation from the question of: proof they were faked

anything else:

1. Will be ignored
2. Is wasted effort on your part
3. Pointless to read

Will not get by the LO meter, IMO.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: jfb on September 16, 2019, 05:21:47 PM
<snip>

1. More babble around 'who might have dun it'
2. More keyboard regurgitation of long disproven theories or explanations of people you keep saying faked things (without proving they were faked)
3. Any 'evidence' without the required references and scientific investigation performed by you (using relevant professional certification(s) and experience(s))
4. Any more deviation from the question of: proof they were faked

anything else:

1. Will be ignored
2. Is wasted effort on your part
3. Pointless to read

Will not get by the LO meter, IMO.

I think LO has explicitly said that he will not let Jr post anything that does not address these specific questions.

IOW, this thread is effectively dead, and Jr is effectively banned. 

I honestly don't know if Jr is a true HB or just trolling for the lulz - Poe's law exists for a reason.  But assuming the former, it's an interesting pathology to study.  I've spent way too many decades hanging out in talk.origins, and I see many of the same patterns from vehement anti-evolutionists - allegations of conspiracy, inability to argue quantitatively (with a few notable exceptions who hyperfocus on the wrong quantity), reliance on narrative rather than facts, ignorance of basic methods, etc. 
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: Peter B on September 16, 2019, 08:15:58 PM
<snip>

1. More babble around 'who might have dun it'
2. More keyboard regurgitation of long disproven theories or explanations of people you keep saying faked things (without proving they were faked)
3. Any 'evidence' without the required references and scientific investigation performed by you (using relevant professional certification(s) and experience(s))
4. Any more deviation from the question of: proof they were faked

anything else:

1. Will be ignored
2. Is wasted effort on your part
3. Pointless to read

Will not get by the LO meter, IMO.

I think LO has explicitly said that he will not let Jr post anything that does not address these specific questions.

IOW, this thread is effectively dead, and Jr is effectively banned. 

I honestly don't know if Jr is a true HB or just trolling for the lulz - Poe's law exists for a reason.  But assuming the former, it's an interesting pathology to study.  I've spent way too many decades hanging out in talk.origins, and I see many of the same patterns from vehement anti-evolutionists - allegations of conspiracy, inability to argue quantitatively (with a few notable exceptions who hyperfocus on the wrong quantity), reliance on narrative rather than facts, ignorance of basic methods, etc.

With the greatest of respect, I wouldn't dismiss narrative, as long as it's tied to the facts. After all, Apollo is a historical event which can be told as a narrative.

In fact, in my experience one way to show the silliness of various conspiracy theories is to ask the theory's proponent for a narrative - after all, if Apollo was faked then it must have followed some day-by-day process which can be rendered as a narrative. The thing is, though, it usually doesn't take long for them to contradict themselves or invoke some technology way in advance of what NASA had access to.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: NthBrick on September 16, 2019, 10:39:12 PM
<snip>

1. More babble around 'who might have dun it'
2. More keyboard regurgitation of long disproven theories or explanations of people you keep saying faked things (without proving they were faked)
3. Any 'evidence' without the required references and scientific investigation performed by you (using relevant professional certification(s) and experience(s))
4. Any more deviation from the question of: proof they were faked

anything else:

1. Will be ignored
2. Is wasted effort on your part
3. Pointless to read

Will not get by the LO meter, IMO.

I think LO has explicitly said that he will not let Jr post anything that does not address these specific questions.

IOW, this thread is effectively dead, and Jr is effectively banned. 

I honestly don't know if Jr is a true HB or just trolling for the lulz - Poe's law exists for a reason.  But assuming the former, it's an interesting pathology to study.  I've spent way too many decades hanging out in talk.origins, and I see many of the same patterns from vehement anti-evolutionists - allegations of conspiracy, inability to argue quantitatively (with a few notable exceptions who hyperfocus on the wrong quantity), reliance on narrative rather than facts, ignorance of basic methods, etc.
This certainly seems to be a pattern amongst people who buy into the moon landing hoax. They'll post some ridiculous claim or narrative that gets shot to pieces (if sometimes requiring a fairly lengthy discussion of why it's wrong), but will then steadfastly refuse to answer any questions put to them or actually defend their claims/narrative against the rebuttals. And, of course, then deflections and obfuscations commence.

Alternatively, there's the idea of demanding some "one single proof", knowing full well ahead of time that such proof does not exist, hence attempting to appear reasonable while a priori rejecting the moon landings. Case in point, I had somebody recently say to me that NASA should have left something up on the moon that could be seen from Earth as proof. Of course, anyone with half a brain knows that the amount of material needed to create something visible from Earth on the moon would be enormous and far in excess of the Saturn V's capabilities, but logic be darned that guy claimed he would only accept that. He welched on the conversation pretty quickly when I started pressing him on the details and feasibility of this proposal, though, bringing us back to the "not answering questions" part.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: Allan F on September 17, 2019, 02:31:14 AM
I had one argueing for the Apollo missions firing off a flare, so people on Earth could see they were there. Had to be a nuclear-powered flare, the size of the Tsar Bomba to be seen from Earth.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: gillianren on September 17, 2019, 11:18:04 AM
In fact, in my experience one way to show the silliness of various conspiracy theories is to ask the theory's proponent for a narrative - after all, if Apollo was faked then it must have followed some day-by-day process which can be rendered as a narrative. The thing is, though, it usually doesn't take long for them to contradict themselves or invoke some technology way in advance of what NASA had access to.

Indeed.  I've been reading an oral history, and while it's true there are some contradictions, those are obviously there because different people had different perspectives on events and because human memory is fallible.  Was the item in question a newspaper or a script?  Was it thrown or slammed onto a desk?  Was it thrown at a wall or at someone?  It depends on whom you ask.  But the narrative as a whole holds steady, and it's possible to get a good overall view of what happened on that show in those years by reading the book, even if you never watched the show.

Crucially, hoax believers never have a narrative that holds together that well.  They can never explain the evidence other than easily disproved claims about enormous vacuum chambers and the Nevada desert and so forth, and they certainly can't explain the physical evidence, like the rock and soil samples, in a way that makes sense.  They can't explain how "only a few people would've had to have known" but there were people faking all that.  They can't put it all together in a story, which surely ought to be easier than having the numbers they don't have, either.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: rocketman on September 17, 2019, 03:34:23 PM
I had one argueing for the Apollo missions firing off a flare, so people on Earth could see they were there. Had to be a nuclear-powered flare, the size of the Tsar Bomba to be seen from Earth.

While on the moon?   :o

I'm not sure what that would prove anyway.  How could one tell there was a person there, that it wasn't an unmanned nuclear tipped rocket fired at the moon?
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: bknight on September 17, 2019, 04:08:59 PM
I had one argueing for the Apollo missions firing off a flare, so people on Earth could see they were there. Had to be a nuclear-powered flare, the size of the Tsar Bomba to be seen from Earth.

While on the moon?   :o

I'm not sure what that would prove anyway.  How could one tell there was a person there, that it wasn't an unmanned nuclear tipped rocket fired at the moon?
You're assuming that CTs are logical.  ::)
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: VQ on September 18, 2019, 09:06:50 AM
While on the moon?   :o

I'm not sure what that would prove anyway.  How could one tell there was a person there, that it wasn't an unmanned nuclear tipped rocket fired at the moon?

Which we actually considered doing a decade earlier.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_A119 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_A119)
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: ineluki on September 18, 2019, 10:28:29 AM
And don't forget that at one point in the film, Danny is watching the Road Runner Show,

There are no roads on the moon - another hint...
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: Abaddon on September 18, 2019, 05:24:36 PM
And don't forget that at one point in the film, Danny is watching the Road Runner Show,

There are no roads on the moon - another hint...

Not to mention the "Acme" company has no branches there...
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: NthBrick on September 18, 2019, 08:38:19 PM
Its been very quiet hasn't it!?

Frankly, I will be very surprised if we see jr Knowing back. LO will not approve any posts of his unless they answer the questions put to him, and I don't think he has any evidence to present - no legs to stand on.

I would be less than surprised to find him posting on other forums, telling them that he has been banned here (all the evil NASA shills at Apollohoax won't listen to his twoof!)
Guess it's time to hibernate until 1) jr knowing bucks up and starts actually answering some questions, 2) cambo makes his inglorious return, or 3) some new HBs decides they want to embarrass themselves. Ah well, at least there's the "The Reality of Apollo" subreddit. By the way, is anybody else aware that Michael Collins has an Instagram account? It's been really cool following along with him posting various Apollo 11-related things and adding his own commentary.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: Peter B on September 19, 2019, 05:34:16 AM
Its been very quiet hasn't it!?

Frankly, I will be very surprised if we see jr Knowing back. LO will not approve any posts of his unless they answer the questions put to him, and I don't think he has any evidence to present - no legs to stand on.

I would be less than surprised to find him posting on other forums, telling them that he has been banned here (all the evil NASA shills at Apollohoax won't listen to his twoof!)
Guess it's time to hibernate until 1) jr knowing bucks up and starts actually answering some questions, 2) cambo makes his inglorious return, or 3) some new HBs decides they want to embarrass themselves. Ah well, at least there's the "The Reality of Apollo" subreddit. By the way, is anybody else aware that Michael Collins has an Instagram account? It's been really cool following along with him posting various Apollo 11-related things and adding his own commentary.

You could always come over to the Unexplained Mysteries forum. There are a couple of vaguely Apollo-hoax related threads active there ATM.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: bknight on September 19, 2019, 08:46:03 AM
Its been very quiet hasn't it!?

Frankly, I will be very surprised if we see jr Knowing back. LO will not approve any posts of his unless they answer the questions put to him, and I don't think he has any evidence to present - no legs to stand on.

I would be less than surprised to find him posting on other forums, telling them that he has been banned here (all the evil NASA shills at Apollohoax won't listen to his twoof!)
Guess it's time to hibernate until 1) jr knowing bucks up and starts actually answering some questions, 2) cambo makes his inglorious return, or 3) some new HBs decides they want to embarrass themselves. Ah well, at least there's the "The Reality of Apollo" subreddit. By the way, is anybody else aware that Michael Collins has an Instagram account? It's been really cool following along with him posting various Apollo 11-related things and adding his own commentary.

You could always come over to the Unexplained Mysteries forum. There are a couple of vaguely Apollo-hoax related threads active there ATM.

Still?  I haven't visited since Derek stopped posting nonsense about A12.  I may go and have a look today.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: gillianren on September 19, 2019, 11:01:49 AM
Delightfully, I am dealing with an idiot on Facebook right now who doesn't understand how art works.  A friend posted a link to an astonishingly beautiful photo gallery of someone who takes a thousand pictures over the course of a day and blends them into one image, and this guy is insisting that images like this are why people fall for photo manipulation in the media.  I suppose I have encountered HBs who would fall for them and need the "this is digitally manipulated" watermark this guy is insisting should appear on the picture with both a sunrise and a sunset in a single location.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: JayUtah on September 19, 2019, 02:19:24 PM
Lots of good discussion happening in Jr Knowing's absence.  And I agree that absence stands a good chance of becoming permanent.  I think he wants a minimally responsive audience that will praise him for his cleverness.  He doesn't appear to want, or be capable of, an actual debate.  So this may not be the forum for him.

On the issue of the narrative, I agree that a narrative is not categorically inappropriate.  It's just unacceptable at this stage of the presentation, and in the manner Jr wants to employ it.  The intellectual process suggests we should form a parsimonious narrative to explain observations.  Then, based on what that narrative implies, we should look for other evidence that the narrative is either true or false.  Naturally the observations that the narrative was formulated to explain cannot be that evidence; that would be circular reasoning.  Testing the narrative requires other observations.  In science we develop those observations via empiricism and deduction.  In history we have to go back to what the record offers us.

A narrative that has no particular observations to explain fails the test of parsimony.  A narrative whose bottom line is that the Apollo visuals were faked is fairly subverted by an inability to show any actual signs of fakery in the visuals themselves.  Charitably, we can say the observations Jr wishes to explain are the perceived irregularities in the production record and the purported Easter eggs in others' work.  Then identifying the visual artifacts of fakery could be considered evidence that confirms that narrative.  There is simply no way of telling the story Jr wants to tell without, at some point, identifying what parts of the visuals are supposed to be fake.

What's happening here instead is what happens a lot in fringe argumentation.  We get a narrative instead of evidence.  We're supposed to be impressed by the claimant's ability to pick through the outlying data and draw an intriguing alternative narrative that skips most of the evidence.  As others have pointed out, if it's shown that someone has the motive and opportunity to murder his mother-in-law, none of the clever narrative that comes out of those suppositions matters if the mother-in-law is still very much alive.  It may be possible -- even advantageous -- to do a thing, but on that basis alone you can't assert that it was done.

If you believe, as I do, that the purpose of a conspiracy theory is not to find the truth, but to prolong the debate as long as needed, then you see the utility of Jr's approach.  His narrative centers around premises that can never be tested, never be concluded, and which in some cases boil down simply to differences of opinion.  What information can we expect to be public regarding someone's employment?  What was this or that filmmaker thinking when shooting a scene?  To what degree should we expect evidence to be consistent and complete?  As long as those are the questions, instead of which actual visuals are fake and why, then the debate never ends and the conspiracy claims keep a semblance of relevance.

On the question of professional qualifications, I'm willing to grant a fair amount of leeway.  It's probably more accurate to say that a technical argument for fakery should be able to appeal to a professional.  That requirement is a little less ad hominem than it might otherwise come across.  It comes down to the correctness and sophistication of the argument itself.  But to make such an argument requires expertise that is generally beyond the layman's ken.  What we definitely don't want is a qualification that stops at, "I have a copy of Photoshop and I have wiggled the sliders."  Such software is the tool in the same way that the chisel is the tool in sculpture.  Owning the chisel doesn't make you Michelangelo.

In this day and age, we grant also that people can and should self-educate.  But the question of adjudication arises.  I've said many times that head of mechanical engineering in a place where I once worked did not have a degree in engineering.  But his hobby was designing and building race car engines from scratch and winning with them on the track.  This is a test in lieu of a degree or a license for actual expertise and ability.  So long as one can demonstrate expertise, we don't have to inquire deeply into a formal background of education and professional practice.  But we need more than just the claimant's assurances or assumptions of his own competence, more than just ad hoc Googling.

To avoid tests of his claims, Jr Knowing has tried to shame the notion of attacking someone's opinion.  All opinions have to be respected, it is claimed, especially if you disagree with them.  But that's not really true.  An opinion should get only as much respect as it deserves.  And to further hide his ignorance, Jr has asked facetiously whether only professional opinions should be respected.  In many cases, yes -- especially if the opinion is to play a role as evidence and the circumstances suggest specialized understanding.  An opinion deserves respect only to the extent it is based on complete and correct information, and only insofar as it makes reasonable inferences.  Opinions predicated on ignorance and soiled by bias don't deserve as much respect.

Jr doesn't really heed the difference between an opinion and an allegation of fact.  How the aerospace industry regards legacy designs, for example, is a matter of historical and ongoing fact.  Assertions made one way or another are either true or false according to those facts.  No amount of labeling those beliefs "opinions" makes them so, or entitles them to any respect if they contradict facts.  Not knowing the facts doesn't entitle you to substitute for them with imagination.  In contrast, whether the aerospace industry is prudent to treat legacy designs the way it does is a matter of opinion.  And as with all opinions that touch on specialized knowledge and the fruits of experience, opinions well informed from those sources deserve more respect than those that work from imagination.  An opinion doesn't have merit simply because it exists.

Very often we hear things such as, "It's my opinion that the Apollo visuals are faked."  As stated, it's an expression of judgment.  Now whether the visuals really are fake is still a matter of objective fact.  It's not a question that has no good answer, or no right-or-wrong answers.  The merit of that judgment hinges on the preparation behind it.  What gives an expert's judgment evidentiary power is not some title or scrap of paper, but the ability to describe in correct detail the principles, sciences, observations, and experiences that lead to that judgment in conclusion.  "They just look fake to me," is not persuasive.  The expert is an expert because he can speak at length why they look fake.  And those explanations will make sense to other people who possess the same specialized knowledge and have had similar experience.,

So yes, the explanation given for fakery should be of sufficient quality and quantity to appeal to a professional, even if the claimant himself is not nominally a professional.  And a simpler argument comes to the fore:  if the claimant thinks a professional might reject his argument, then why make it at all?  It's obviously not something the real world would respect.  It's just someone piddling around on the internet, to no great effect.  This is why a better explanation for Jr Knowing's performance is ego reinforcement, not a study of history.  He's unwilling to mount an argument that survives outside his own mind.

Unless Jr Knowing actually presents the visuals and tells us what specifically about them identifies them as fake, we probably will never know what's going on in his head.  What others have presented really runs the gamut.  Many of them allude to things for which we have formal techniques such as photogrammetry.  And none of the claimants know anything about them.  They make up their own techniques as they go, which are rarely validated to show that they address authenticity.  Others refer to stagecraft techniques they insist could have been employed.  Well executed stagecraft works because it mimics closely what we see in nature.  What we expect from good stagecraft is what we expect from nature.

And on and on.  We can't test the evidence until the claimant presents it.  We apply gatekeeper criteria in the form of relevant qualifications to reject arguments based on the usual ignorance of such things as parallax, stage lighting, photographic exposure, JPEG artifacts, etc.  And then we listen carefully to the narrative presented to account for the alleged anomalies and try differential deducting reasoning to see if the record supports one narrative or another better.  There is no evidence in mere imaginative storytelling, no matter how clever or dripping with detail.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: jfb on September 19, 2019, 04:12:31 PM
Delightfully, I am dealing with an idiot on Facebook right now who doesn't understand how art works.  A friend posted a link to an astonishingly beautiful photo gallery of someone who takes a thousand pictures over the course of a day and blends them into one image, and this guy is insisting that images like this are why people fall for photo manipulation in the media.  I suppose I have encountered HBs who would fall for them and need the "this is digitally manipulated" watermark this guy is insisting should appear on the picture with both a sunrise and a sunset in a single location.

There was that video that a woman posted to YouTube showing a rainbow in her sprinkler, and that was evidence of The Government doing something nefarious to our water, because water simply doesn't do that.

It's like, had she never seen a sprinkler on a sunny day?  Ever?  In her entire life? 

You have to wonder how many people are just bullshitting to be edgy, how many of them suffer from a legitimate mental illness (which I think is the case for sprinkler woman), and how many of them are just genuinely that confused/naive/ignorant.  And how people in that last group get along in the world.  At least few of them must have jobs, must be able to navigate the outside world on a daily basis, and yet...

For giggles, while we're waiting for Jr to come back with answers to bknight's original questions (I know, work with me here), here's an image IZRAUL linked in his short-lived thread:

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Tqng2upUJk-sfAolX-5P0RWbh_ZxlRQKMidQYRTwAjSstRUT8L6_0cXMtFU08j82qW_RY9yuAAoK67ZHwySOuBmaaCX8JLuqpJe1ERlfMRyJfaE0Pekv-IlX4DAXP8BoAYxqz7wfscWX66KxHWVaxbTRRu5L6yERKrW1Zr_eM9fCGNejYFnuogizFzz6wiE1gfYVHtmGaHAnMbwkoJNlJAR0_B7wU5sYSIFiR1SW3TfCj7xPHk5kqIqywyJJJoAkJjH9rDCXIDfdu_RSnGV4uMFBpfjpN5OrYD3vSa3b0tN9f74OUhRfeu1wN5qXz6_a7ebhebG5gYUNDkquay_0O5IB6mLHLWqkB0uOii-dbJM71MXMXMhX-MW8Qxibt7t8xvREBDZ5sUIlrn6WKvWJsrvAXZhahsu6TZ4UbpIQAmh40eSLUnEMAB1qlqkI1MmyWq_lVd30JmclVThFqKMQk9ZCVu2CJT9Q1IOj8k5VHzGUV-1rWPezhMHqrrwg6_EGIMI2vC8W7pxTbfwjMckJQhg9BTpXtIIYQBWbsmdxZ7JW2WpDy6rkbCO5DqE2kEe7dNrc2uWL0WE5PlUJdn9D6JhDpaL3hLhzRhekdU2r6daPfCbfOJ8yEeulZnwnyUlaZQqZzCIa5xJvV3I5XfrSMdWmMPZkBQAgsNqxPwQ97_XyP4cSSaAuFT_X3i4_SVaRx-NxTG0pMqjF9DKa4gjX5AUBYn1A185_yWWQ8LN38LdFI9g=w770-h487-no)

Now, you and I see a panorama made up of multiple prints laid over each other, with some bonus lens flare in several of them from pointing toward the sun (but not at the sun, which would result in a detail-free white blob and nothing else). 

IZRAUL (or whoever originally posted it) sees studio lights.  Or 3 suns.

Edgy?  Crazy?  Dumb as the proverbial stump?  It bothers me that I can't tell anymore. 
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: bknight on September 19, 2019, 04:57:50 PM
Delightfully, I am dealing with an idiot on Facebook right now who doesn't understand how art works.  A friend posted a link to an astonishingly beautiful photo gallery of someone who takes a thousand pictures over the course of a day and blends them into one image, and this guy is insisting that images like this are why people fall for photo manipulation in the media.  I suppose I have encountered HBs who would fall for them and need the "this is digitally manipulated" watermark this guy is insisting should appear on the picture with both a sunrise and a sunset in a single location.

There was that video that a woman posted to YouTube showing a rainbow in her sprinkler, and that was evidence of The Government doing something nefarious to our water, because water simply doesn't do that.

It's like, had she never seen a sprinkler on a sunny day?  Ever?  In her entire life? 

You have to wonder how many people are just bullshitting to be edgy, how many of them suffer from a legitimate mental illness (which I think is the case for sprinkler woman), and how many of them are just genuinely that confused/naive/ignorant.  And how people in that last group get along in the world.  At least few of them must have jobs, must be able to navigate the outside world on a daily basis, and yet...

For giggles, while we're waiting for Jr to come back with answers to bknight's original questions (I know, work with me here), here's an image IZRAUL linked in his short-lived thread:

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Tqng2upUJk-sfAolX-5P0RWbh_ZxlRQKMidQYRTwAjSstRUT8L6_0cXMtFU08j82qW_RY9yuAAoK67ZHwySOuBmaaCX8JLuqpJe1ERlfMRyJfaE0Pekv-IlX4DAXP8BoAYxqz7wfscWX66KxHWVaxbTRRu5L6yERKrW1Zr_eM9fCGNejYFnuogizFzz6wiE1gfYVHtmGaHAnMbwkoJNlJAR0_B7wU5sYSIFiR1SW3TfCj7xPHk5kqIqywyJJJoAkJjH9rDCXIDfdu_RSnGV4uMFBpfjpN5OrYD3vSa3b0tN9f74OUhRfeu1wN5qXz6_a7ebhebG5gYUNDkquay_0O5IB6mLHLWqkB0uOii-dbJM71MXMXMhX-MW8Qxibt7t8xvREBDZ5sUIlrn6WKvWJsrvAXZhahsu6TZ4UbpIQAmh40eSLUnEMAB1qlqkI1MmyWq_lVd30JmclVThFqKMQk9ZCVu2CJT9Q1IOj8k5VHzGUV-1rWPezhMHqrrwg6_EGIMI2vC8W7pxTbfwjMckJQhg9BTpXtIIYQBWbsmdxZ7JW2WpDy6rkbCO5DqE2kEe7dNrc2uWL0WE5PlUJdn9D6JhDpaL3hLhzRhekdU2r6daPfCbfOJ8yEeulZnwnyUlaZQqZzCIa5xJvV3I5XfrSMdWmMPZkBQAgsNqxPwQ97_XyP4cSSaAuFT_X3i4_SVaRx-NxTG0pMqjF9DKa4gjX5AUBYn1A185_yWWQ8LN38LdFI9g=w770-h487-no)

Now, you and I see a panorama made up of multiple prints laid over each other, with some bonus lens flare in several of them from pointing toward the sun (but not at the sun, which would result in a detail-free white blob and nothing else). 

IZRAUL (or whoever originally posted it) sees studio lights.  Or 3 suns.

Edgy?  Crazy?  Dumb as the proverbial stump?  It bothers me that I can't tell anymore.

I can't remember whether it was BertieSlack or , Phil Webb or, Astrobrant2 that did a debunking of a video by my "favorite" Marcus Allen concerning the same image.  Although Marcus noted that the image was a composite, the "lights" had a different angle of flaring.  It was most amusing to see Marcus taken down. 
On second thought it may have been another individual that used a previous M.A. YT and made one for himself, but it definitely was M.A. speaking.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: AtomicDog on September 19, 2019, 05:31:47 PM
Its been very quiet hasn't it!?

Frankly, I will be very surprised if we see jr Knowing back. LO will not approve any posts of his unless they answer the questions put to him, and I don't think he has any evidence to present - no legs to stand on.

I would be less than surprised to find him posting on other forums, telling them that he has been banned here (all the evil NASA shills at Apollohoax won't listen to his twoof!)
Guess it's time to hibernate until 1) jr knowing bucks up and starts actually answering some questions, 2) cambo makes his inglorious return, or 3) some new HBs decides they want to embarrass themselves. Ah well, at least there's the "The Reality of Apollo" subreddit. By the way, is anybody else aware that Michael Collins has an Instagram account? It's been really cool following along with him posting various Apollo 11-related things and adding his own commentary.

You could always come over to the Unexplained Mysteries forum. There are a couple of vaguely Apollo-hoax related threads active there ATM.

I paid those threads a visit. I have no patience for such an obvious troll.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: Jason Thompson on September 19, 2019, 05:54:57 PM
As others have pointed out, if it's shown that someone has the motive and opportunity to murder his mother-in-law, none of the clever narrative that comes out of those suppositions matters if the mother-in-law is still very much alive.

I used to use the example of murdering my wife, until she joined this forum and noticed how often I used the example and asked if she should be concerned...

Quote
In this day and age, we grant also that people can and should self-educate.

This is where most of my knowledge of spaceflight, history, engineering and Apollo has come from. And frankly, while it is always easier to educate oneself in a subject that one is interested in, it wasn't hard work to do so. Jr and others like him should have no difficulty in educating themselves to a similar standard. Instead they demonstrate a near patholigical wish to avoid doing so, which (as far as I can see) leads only to the conclusion that they are not interested in the actual truth, only in perpetuating the conspiracy theory and their own self-created image as a shrewd, 'woke' individual not taken in my 'the man'. Or that they are only interested in yanking the chains of those who are educated in some attempt to make themselves feel relevant.

Quote
To avoid tests of his claims, Jr Knowing has tried to shame the notion of attacking someone's opinion.  All opinions have to be respected, it is claimed, especially if you disagree with them.  But that's not really true.  An opinion should get only as much respect as it deserves.

See my signature line below for my favourite simple take on this concept. :)

Quote
Not knowing the facts doesn't entitle you to substitute for them with imagination.

As Dara O'Briain said in the same show I pinched the quote for my signature in:

"'Ooh, science doesn't know everything!' Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop. But just because it doesn't know everything doesn't mean you get to fill in the gap with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you!"

Quote
We can't test the evidence until the claimant presents it.

And another thing we've seen from JR and his ilk is them triumphantly slapping down some piece of 'evidence' while also making it blatantly obvious they have not understood it or even read it. Witness JR's memo about LM stability, presented as 'evidence' because it mentions LM instability, but utterly failing to serve as evidence in favour of his arguments by actually detailing precise circumstances under which the instability arises and then giving instructions on how to overcome it. Going back further, how about Timfinch's use of Apollo radiation data to prove Apollo radiation data was fake?

Evidence only works if examined dispassionately. Looking for evidence to support a predetermined conclusion is the usual tactic of the conspiracy theorist. It's such a shame that they can't even get that right....
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: gillianren on September 20, 2019, 10:58:44 AM
I used to use the example of murdering my wife, until she joined this forum and noticed how often I used the example and asked if she should be concerned...

I used to have some quite nice conversations with her, too.  Personally, I used the example of my mother; for one thing, the closest thing I have to a mother-in-law is now dead, and for another, murdering my partner would actually be disadvantageous in a long series of ways and everyone knows it.

I also tend to use the example of "what I've taught Simon" for things that HBs and other CTs should be capable of learning.  Simon is aware that "I like pizza" is an opinion that gets respected and "I don't think I have to get ready for school" is not!
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: smartcooky on September 20, 2019, 03:34:13 PM
To avoid tests of his claims, Jr Knowing has tried to shame the notion of attacking someone's opinion.  All opinions have to be respected, it is claimed, especially if you disagree with them.  But that's not really true.  An opinion should get only as much respect as it deserves.  And to further hide his ignorance, Jr has asked facetiously whether only professional opinions should be respected.  In many cases, yes -- especially if the opinion is to play a role as evidence and the circumstances suggest specialized understanding.  An opinion deserves respect only to the extent it is based on complete and correct information, and only insofar as it makes reasonable inferences.  Opinions predicated on ignorance and soiled by bias don't deserve as much respect.

....there's a notion that everyone's opinion is valid, My arse! A bloke who's a professor of dentistry for 40 years does not have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"
- Dara O'Briain

If you want to see where this quote comes from, here it is... (WARNING: Course Language)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDYba0m6ztE
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: JayUtah on September 20, 2019, 04:30:06 PM
I used to use the example of murdering my wife, until she joined this forum and noticed how often I used the example and asked if she should be concerned...

The mother-in-law might be a better target for that sort of rhetoric.  But it still builds on the stereotype of the mother-in-law as an odious tyrant.  Better to change the rhetoric to avoid crimes against persons.  But crimes against chattels rarely engender enough indignance to operate the rhetoric effectively.  If we change the charge to larceny, my neighbor can argue that I had the motive and opportunity to steal his car, did so, but then returned it to his driveway such that its absence was never observed.  Death is a watershed event that offers an indisputable corpus delicti.  So our rhetoric is necessarily tasteless.

Quote
This is where most of my knowledge of spaceflight, history, engineering and Apollo has come from. And frankly, while it is always easier to educate oneself in a subject that one is interested in, it wasn't hard work to do so. Jr and others like him should have no difficulty in educating themselves to a similar standard.

Indeed it's becoming less excusable these days not to be at least minimally informed on subjects that come up in conversation.  Even someone with no prior knowledge of space exploration should be able to answer in seconds questions like, "Who was the commander of Apollo 15?"  To some extent we see Jr Knowing availing himself of this.  When introduced to concepts like free-body dynamics, fluid dynamics, and radiant heat transfer, he Googles enough to be able to say belatedly, "Yes, I understand those things, as evidenced by a few buzzwords I'm going to regurgitate from Wikipedia."  As you note below, the effort goes no further than to stave off proximate accusations of ignorance.  Regardless of when he learned about the existence of those fields of knowledge, he doesn't try to reconcile it with his prior claims.

Self-education has its limits.  The advantage of formal education or professional experience is that they incorporate a test of proficiency.  One doesn't get a degree unless one demonstrates mastery of the material through proctored exams.  Success in the marketplace is difficult without some demonstration of competence.  Learning by just reading or viewing a discussion is too shallow for every purpose.  But not every legitimate purpose needs depth.  If I just want to understand some person's literary analysis of an author's work, I may need only a cursory understanding of the techniques those analysts employ.  I used to photograph ballet students as a paying gig.  I need to know a little bit about how dancers are trained in order to do that effectively.  But I don't need to be a teacher myself, or an expert dancer.  I don't need formal, adjudicated training.  But neither would I pass myself off as having more than an interested layman's understanding of ballet.

For the past several years I've engaged more in the world of motion picture production design.  I have a wealth of experience in theatrical stage design, but I don't do it for a living.  But the people I'm working with have specialized in production design and construction for their entire careers.  Naturally I defer to their expertise and wisdom, and to their recollections and interpretations of the history of that field.  Similarly the regulars here who are prodigiously self-taught in space science and engineering engage with the professional practitioners here to hone their understanding.  There are things that just can't be Googled for, read in books, or seen in videos.

These are all essentially defensible purposes and commensurate levels of knowledge.  On the other hand, if you propose to dispute ongoing or historical practice in the field, to question the status quo or the conventional wisdom, or anything of that degree of controversy, I would recommend preparation beyond self-education.  If I want to criticize someone's ballet pedagogy, I might need more than self-taught Ballet 101 to back that up.  If I want to cry fraud over some Broadway set design, I might want to consider that my expertise doesn't include design and building in the specialized environment of New York.  If I say that Bo Welch is a talentless hack, he would rightly say that my opinion lacks substance.  Granted, disagreement per se isn't invariably the province of bona fide experts.  But the amount of actual expertise you need, in my view, increases with the percentage of practicing experts you disagree with.

In a nutshell (pun intended), the number of credentialed aerospace engineers who dispute the authenticity of Apollo are so few we can almost name them individually.  To credibly dispute something so widely depended on in the field requires more than skimming the Wikipedia article on fluid dynamics or radiant heat transfer.  And most of us are reasonable people who know the limits of our understanding and remain safely within them.  Conspiracy theorists, the kind who formulate them to play up their own imagined strengths, aren't as introspective.

Quote
Instead they demonstrate a near patholigical wish to avoid doing so, which (as far as I can see) leads only to the conclusion that they are not interested in the actual truth, only in perpetuating the conspiracy theory and their own self-created image as a shrewd, 'woke' individual not taken in my 'the man'.

I agree.  They appear to work from the premise that they've already arrived.  Often the argument is framed to emphasize "different thinking."  It's not how much you know about the topic that matters, but what kind of knowledge it is.  It's a roundabout argument in favor of intuitive belief over book learning.  That argument is most sharply defined in the holistic medicine sphere.  Often you hear practitioners say they have a natural gift of healing while licensed medicine requires trial-and-error science to approximate their success.  In Apollo terms, the argument relies upon intuitive understanding of free-body dynamics, fluid mechanics, advanced manufacturing, etc. which is naturally superior. The rest of us have to rely on ad hoc foibles to get there.

Quote
Or that they are only interested in yanking the chains of those who are educated in some attempt to make themselves feel relevant.

We don't really talk about this much.  How much of these individual interactions are just nerd-baiting?  In the 21st century, STEM types are not as stigmatized and marginal as they were a generation ago.  So nerd-baiting isn't as credible a motivation as it may have once been.  There is also the dynamic of the failed STEM student/practitioner getting back at those who succeeded.  I guess if we're surveying the personality types and behavioral patterns, we should at least list everything.  Bill Kaysing spilled the beans.  He let it slip in a radio interview that he wrote his book in order to embarrass the U.S. government over its treatment of veterans.  Not really an attack on the educated, of course, but still a clear signal of an ulterior motive.

Quote
And another thing we've seen from JR and his ilk is them triumphantly slapping down some piece of 'evidence' while also making it blatantly obvious they have not understood it or even read it. Witness JR's memo about LM stability, presented as 'evidence' because it mentions LM instability....

That tactic almost always comes across as cargo-cult reasoning.  The worst examples of it come from the anti-science religionists.  They are coached to present certain canned responses or canned references in response to scientific allegations, but without any inherent understanding of what they mean.  It may be sensationalist garbage like "Scientific Misconduct Among Evolutionary Biologists," but those ploys work more than they should.  The maxim, "If you're explaining, you're losing," applies.  The claimant is mostly following advice of the form, "When a scientists says this, you respond with this -- just trust me."    But it isn't always so head-in-the-sand.  The claimant may accept full well that he doesn't understand what he's quoting.  He proceeds anyway from one of three premises:  (1) his critics are as untutored as he, (2) the critic is on the hook to explain it regardless, or (3) the science is a farce.

The memo Jr produced alludes to the math that describes free-body dynamics -- how things move and rotate when unconstrained and unattached to anything.  But in keeping with the "different thinking" hypothesis, he might say that mathematics is a crutch.  To someone who thinks he understands intuitively how freely rotating objects behave, any accelerated spacecraft might obviously be unstable.  He's not conversant with the math because he doesn't need to be in order to "know" the truth.  But it's not as if some pompous bloke raised a finger pontifically and declared, "Behold my mathematics; thus shall free bodies hereafter behave."  It's not prescriptive; it's descriptive.  We created the math to quantify how we observe freely rotating bodies to behave.  Similarly Newton didn't invent calculus to torment STEM students.  He invented it because he needed it in order to accurately describe how the quantifiable properties of the world were observed to behave..  It's attractive to believe that mathematical notation is a world all its own, detached from reality.  In fact, when used in practical science, it's merely the descriptive language.  It takes some effort to understand it.  But it's not some esoteric nonsense that can be safely ignored.

Some people do have an intuitive understanding of free-body dynamics.  We call them such things as pilots and acrobats.  And we reward them with praise and money for their demonstrated skill.  Intuition is not unreliable if it is adjudicated intuition.  Untested intuition is what we reject, especially when it contradicts the formal description of the observations.  A pilot struggling to recover an errant craft is not solving Euler angles in his head.  But that math is operative in what he's doing.  Successful intuition must closely parallel the effects of the formalism.

Quote
Evidence only works if examined dispassionately. Looking for evidence to support a predetermined conclusion is the usual tactic of the conspiracy theorist.

The dynamics of debate make it seem like we're doing that too.  Someone says, "This indicates that this photo was staged."  The answer, "But this is how that would be expected on the Moon." opens the door to the proposition that we too are just emphasizing the evidence that supports a predetermined conclusion that Apollo was real, to the exclusion of other possibilities and other evidence.  It's not always clear in our rebuttals that we're taking all claims into consideration and all evidence, and arriving at what we think is the best reasoned, most parsimonious answer.

Consider the claim that some photos show a ridge in the near background that marks a sharp boundary with the distant background.  They point out that there's a theatrical set design technique that uses this principle to create the illusion of depth.  This, they say, supports the idea that it was shot on a stage with limited space available.  The predictable rebuttal leaps to mind:  the stage illusion works because that's how nature works.  Hence the observation is also consistent with the proposition that it was really shot on the Moon.  It behooves us to take the extra step to say we're not just playing turnabout.  We're evaluating all the claims and evidence and showing why one explanation is considerably more parsimonious than the other.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: BertieSlack on September 21, 2019, 02:55:42 AM
I can't remember whether it was BertieSlack or , Phil Webb or, Astrobrant2 that did a debunking of a video by my "favorite" Marcus Allen concerning the same image. 

It was Astrobrant2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coMGccvTK6g

Absolute demolition.

BlisterHiker did one too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3nCWYdL1O4
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: bknight on September 21, 2019, 08:43:32 AM
I can't remember whether it was BertieSlack or , Phil Webb or, Astrobrant2 that did a debunking of a video by my "favorite" Marcus Allen concerning the same image. 

It was Astrobrant2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coMGccvTK6g

Absolute demolition.

BlisterHiker did one too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3nCWYdL1O4

Thanks for refreshing my memory and for giving me another one as I had not seen the BlisterHiker one versus hunchbacked.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: MBDK on September 22, 2019, 05:04:34 AM
In a nutshell (pun intended), the number of credentialed aerospace engineers who dispute the authenticity of Apollo are so few we can almost name them individually. 
This surprises me.  I wasn't aware of ANY credentialed aerospace engineer that disputes the Apollo missions in any manner.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: JayUtah on September 22, 2019, 12:19:58 PM
This surprises me.  I wasn't aware of ANY credentialed aerospace engineer that disputes the Apollo missions in any manner.

I had Hunchbacked in mind.  There is also Anders Lindman, but I don't think he specialized in aerospace.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: bknight on September 22, 2019, 12:31:18 PM
This surprises me.  I wasn't aware of ANY credentialed aerospace engineer that disputes the Apollo missions in any manner.

I had Hunchbacked in mind.  There is also Anders Lindman, but I don't think he specialized in aerospace.

Ah yes, the chronically myopic engineer.  I'm ashamed to call him a brethren engineer, but I guess he views making money over performing correct engineer analysis.  :o
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: Allan F on September 22, 2019, 02:34:35 PM
Did we ever determine if hunchbacked is a real degree-holding engineer?
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: bknight on September 22, 2019, 02:55:46 PM
Did we ever determine if hunchbacked is a real degree-holding engineer?

There is a degree that indicated that, but I have since lost the pc so I can't show it.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: bknight on September 22, 2019, 05:02:35 PM
I found it here.
http://www.angelfire.com/moon2/xpascal/Diplomes/DiplomeOriginal.jpg

https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1393.30
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: JayUtah on September 22, 2019, 09:39:08 PM
I found it here.
http://www.angelfire.com/moon2/xpascal/Diplomes/DiplomeOriginal.jpg

https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1393.30

Good threads; thanks.  Those were the names I had in mind.  I didn't recall how we decided on Hunchbacked, so I erred on the side of caution.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: benparry on September 23, 2019, 04:06:27 AM
Did we ever determine if hunchbacked is a real degree-holding engineer?

Whatever he is currently he is spilling nonsense all over a lot of Facebook groups.

Allan is he still on the one we used to chat on
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: Zakalwe on September 23, 2019, 04:07:40 AM
There is also Anders Lindman, but I don't think he specialized in aerospace.

Did you mean Anders Björkman, aka "Heiwa"?
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: Allan F on September 23, 2019, 06:48:24 AM
Did we ever determine if hunchbacked is a real degree-holding engineer?

Whatever he is currently he is spilling nonsense all over a lot of Facebook groups.

Allan is he still on the one we used to chat on

Yes, I know. I've been irritating him for some time there, showing him videos which exposes his fails.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: benparry on September 23, 2019, 07:51:51 AM
Did we ever determine if hunchbacked is a real degree-holding engineer?

Whatever he is currently he is spilling nonsense all over a lot of Facebook groups.

Allan is he still on the one we used to chat on

Yes, I know. I've been irritating him for some time there, showing him videos which exposes his fails.

let me guess he hasn't changed his mind. I saw one the other day called 'How i debunked clavius'. I assume Jay has seen that one !!
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: bknight on September 23, 2019, 09:54:07 AM
"let me guess he hasn't changed his mind. I saw one the other day called 'How i debunked clavius'. I assume Jay has seen that one !!"
From my experience, Jay doesn't watch any YT.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: benparry on September 23, 2019, 11:03:49 AM
"let me guess he hasn't changed his mind. I saw one the other day called 'How i debunked clavius'. I assume Jay has seen that one !!"
From my experience, Jay doesn't watch any YT.

probably best :)
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: bknight on September 23, 2019, 12:31:33 PM
Did we ever determine if hunchbacked is a real degree-holding engineer?

Whatever he is currently he is spilling nonsense all over a lot of Facebook groups.

Allan is he still on the one we used to chat on

I quite FB, so I'll take you guys information.  He has been very quite on Quora though.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: Allan F on September 23, 2019, 03:10:00 PM


let me guess he hasn't changed his mind.

Of course not. It would be the same as cutting an arm or a leg off for him. He has invested so much of his self and his sense of identity in the hoaxworld, he can't quit even if he tried.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: bknight on September 23, 2019, 03:30:23 PM


let me guess he hasn't changed his mind.

Of course not. It would be the same as cutting an arm or a leg off for him. He has invested so much of his self and his sense of identity in the hoaxworld, he can't quit even if he tried.
He posted this being critical of the blunder a couple of months ago.  I guess attempting to "bring him back into the hard core HB's.".   I may/may not have watched it, but it wasn't interesting enough for me to remember.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBudKXfSKmk
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: bknight on September 23, 2019, 03:32:21 PM
I suggest getting back on target with jr.  I posted a link to a hunch backed thread in post yesterday evening.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: benparry on September 24, 2019, 03:05:33 AM
From what i've read he won't be back will he !!
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: bknight on September 24, 2019, 07:02:14 AM
From what i've read he won't be back will he !!

Doubtful since his beliefs got whacked 7 years ago.  :)
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: Abaddon on September 24, 2019, 06:03:21 PM
From what i've read he won't be back will he !!
AFAIK, he can return whenever he likes if he answers the pending questions. Even with a concession, if he has nothing else.

Seems he just doesn't want to.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: JayUtah on September 24, 2019, 07:09:59 PM
I would venture to guess that the experience Jr Knowing wishes to have is not the customary experience here.  So if he does return and does pass the gatekeeper criteria, it will be with a barely eligible response.  Then as soon as possible, he will start doing what he has been doing up until now, which is essentially preaching from a pulpit.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: LunarOrbit on September 24, 2019, 08:12:36 PM
From what i've read he won't be back will he !!
I've been informed by Jr. that his response to the questions is imminent. But we'll see...

Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk

Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: Jason Thompson on September 29, 2019, 01:10:31 PM
I've been informed by Jr. that his response to the questions is imminent. But we'll see...

The response requested is always 'imminent' We've heard that before. The difference is that now nothing that JR tries to write that isn't this 'imminent' response isn't getting through moderation, so he can't deflect attention and then claim we're tying him up with the other discussion he is trying to have. It is therefore unlikely that any such reponse will ever materialise.

But here's the thing about this: the question is literally 'what evidence led you to believe the pictures are fake', and anyone who has reached that conclusion by any rational means should already have that evidence and response to hand, because it would necessarily have come before the conclusion. There should not be any 'imminence' or delay or need for obfuscation to the response. Anyone making a claim should be able to answer that basic question without hesitation. That JR has not responded, even when pressed by moderation to do so, suggests he doesn't have that answer, which indicates only that his claim is not one he reached by any actual objective examination of evidence that he can present to an audience.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: MBDK on September 29, 2019, 01:31:38 PM
But here's the thing about this: the question is literally 'what evidence led you to believe the pictures are fake', and anyone who has reached that conclusion by any rational means should already have that evidence and response to hand, because it would necessarily have come before the conclusion. There should not be any 'imminence' or delay or need for obfuscation to the response. Anyone making a claim should be able to answer that basic question without hesitation. That JR has not responded, even when pressed by moderation to do so, suggests he doesn't have that answer, which indicates only that his claim is not one he reached by any actual objective examination of evidence that he can present to an audience.
Logically well stated.  He also seems to hold a different definition of "imminent" than I do.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: JayUtah on September 29, 2019, 01:57:10 PM
Well stated, everyone.  If someone can't immediately state the evidence that led them to that conclusion, it means the conclusion was not based on evidence.  And that means it is not likely to be unseated by contrary evidence.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: NthBrick on October 06, 2019, 09:35:46 PM
From what i've read he won't be back will he !!
I've been informed by Jr. that his response to the questions is imminent. But we'll see...

Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
Huh. Either he's not answering the questions and hence not getting through moderation, or his idea of "imminent" comes from the crazy guys on the street holding "the end is nigh!" signs.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: Dalhousie on October 20, 2019, 05:59:20 PM
From what i've read he won't be back will he !!
I've been informed by Jr. that his response to the questions is imminent. But we'll see...

Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
Huh. Either he's not answering the questions and hence not getting through moderation, or his idea of "imminent" comes from the crazy guys on the street holding "the end is nigh!" signs.

You meant the extinction rebellion folks gluing themselves to roads?
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: NthBrick on October 21, 2019, 12:50:41 AM
From what i've read he won't be back will he !!
I've been informed by Jr. that his response to the questions is imminent. But we'll see...

Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
Huh. Either he's not answering the questions and hence not getting through moderation, or his idea of "imminent" comes from the crazy guys on the street holding "the end is nigh!" signs.

You meant the extinction rebellion folks gluing themselves to roads?
My thoughts were a little more on hardcore street preachers and/or the hecklers you find outside any fair, sports game, etc. Alternatively, flat earthers and hoax nuts who keep moving the goalposts for the "imminent" reveal of the round earth/moon landing deception that's never going to happen.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: jfb on October 21, 2019, 11:35:43 AM
From what i've read he won't be back will he !!
I've been informed by Jr. that his response to the questions is imminent. But we'll see...

Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
Huh. Either he's not answering the questions and hence not getting through moderation, or his idea of "imminent" comes from the crazy guys on the street holding "the end is nigh!" signs.

I'm sure he's busily answering questions, just not the ones being asked, so they're not making it through the LO filter.

The question he wants to answer is "who faked the moon landings and why" (Kubrick, $$$$).  He's more than ready to answer that question.  I'm sure he's written entire volumes in response to that question. 

He most emphatically does not want to answer the question "how do you know these images were faked (retouched, composited, shot on a soundstage, etc.)?" because that requires actual work, not spinning yarns out of pure fantasy. 
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: NthBrick on October 21, 2019, 09:32:56 PM
From what i've read he won't be back will he !!
I've been informed by Jr. that his response to the questions is imminent. But we'll see...

Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
Huh. Either he's not answering the questions and hence not getting through moderation, or his idea of "imminent" comes from the crazy guys on the street holding "the end is nigh!" signs.

I'm sure he's busily answering questions, just not the ones being asked, so they're not making it through the LO filter.

The question he wants to answer is "who faked the moon landings and why" (Kubrick, $$$$).  He's more than ready to answer that question.  I'm sure he's written entire volumes in response to that question. 

He most emphatically does not want to answer the question "how do you know these images were faked (retouched, composited, shot on a soundstage, etc.)?" because that requires actual work, not spinning yarns out of pure fantasy.
In short, he's put his conclusions before his evidence. A tale as old as time.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: Zakalwe on October 22, 2019, 05:16:17 AM

I'm sure he's busily answering questions, just not the ones being asked, so they're not making it through the LO filter.

Given that he's not been on the board since September 23 I doubt.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: gillianren on October 22, 2019, 11:11:18 AM
What I suppose a lot of HBs don't realize is that, when we ask why the landings were faked, we don't mean what they think we mean.  What we mean is "why didn't they just really go?"  Because that is actually a reasonable question.  Okay, if they couldn't go, I'm sure you can come up with all sorts of reasons they would have faked it instead, though of course they don't hold up on the grounds of other people would find out, but whatever.  However, what we are looking for is also more than just "searing radiation hell."  We're looking for something that's actually been worked out, with scientific rigor, that will hold up as to why it theoretically would have been impossible for NASA to actually just send a rocket to the Moon.

Of course, if they were capable of working that out--and let's acknowledge here that I'm certainly not--they'd also be able to work out that they're wrong and that it was entirely possible.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: Abaddon on November 06, 2019, 05:27:13 PM
I wonder if LO can tell us if JR even made the attempt. Just idly curious, LO is certainly free to tell me to MYOB.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: raven on November 06, 2019, 06:08:54 PM
I wonder if LO can tell us if JR even made the attempt. Just idly curious, LO is certainly free to tell me to MYOB.
He hasn't even been active since (as of this post) late September 2019, (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=2052) so I have my doubts of him making his big, mind blowing, announcement any time soon.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: NthBrick on November 07, 2019, 07:54:16 PM
I wonder if LO can tell us if JR even made the attempt. Just idly curious, LO is certainly free to tell me to MYOB.
He hasn't even been active since (as of this post) late September 2019, (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=2052) so I have my doubts of him making his big, mind blowing, announcement any time soon.
Oh well, guess we'll just have to wait another fifty years for "the truth" about Apollo to come out...
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: LunarOrbit on November 07, 2019, 08:51:40 PM
I wonder if LO can tell us if JR even made the attempt. Just idly curious, LO is certainly free to tell me to MYOB.

No, he just never bothered. On September 22nd he asked me to create a new thread for his response so that it wouldn't be "buried in someone else's thread". He said he wanted to explain why he believes "the Apollo photos are suspect in a clear concise manner" and in "a new and unique take on the subject". I told him no, there was no need for a new thread so he'd have to post his responses in this one. He never responded. I guess he expected me to play his game and didn't like that I wouldn't.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: Jason Thompson on November 08, 2019, 07:42:18 AM
Because he wanted to do what he always did: treat a new thread like a new start, pretend no other thread exists, so he can direct it down another tangent and pretend he has never been asked any other questions. I would surmise that his first post would have been a wall of text that we'd pick apart and then he could focus on the bits he wants to, ignore the rest, and complain that we are swamping him with questions he can't possibly address all of. He never wanted to discuss the actual evidence, only ever the inferences and supposed motives.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: Zakalwe on November 08, 2019, 08:57:56 AM
Like the majority of hoax nuts he is nothing more than an intellectual coward. He's emotionally wedded to his stance and his ego relies on having "special knowledge" and as such, is too damn cowardly to admit that he is both wrong and unwilling to learn.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: bknight on November 08, 2019, 10:22:20 AM
I wonder if LO can tell us if JR even made the attempt. Just idly curious, LO is certainly free to tell me to MYOB.

No, he just never bothered. On September 22nd he asked me to create a new thread for his response so that it wouldn't be "buried in someone else's thread". He said he wanted to explain why he believes "the Apollo photos are suspect in a clear concise manner" and in "a new and unique take on the subject". I told him no, there was no need for a new thread so he'd have to post his responses in this one. He never responded. I guess he expected me to play his game and didn't like that I wouldn't.

Kudos to you. :)
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: LunarOrbit on November 08, 2019, 11:22:17 AM
Because he wanted to do what he always did: treat a new thread like a new start, pretend no other thread exists, so he can direct it down another tangent and pretend he has never been asked any other questions.

Exactly. Someone who came across his new thread would be unaware that he was avoiding questions asked in this thread, so it didn't make sense to me to start a new thread. He just wanted to lure me into starting yet another thread in the hopes that he'd answer the questions, but all we'd get from him is more unsupported nonsense.

It is in his best interests to answer the questions in the same thread where they were asked so that anyone who only reads this thread will see his answers. Anyone that didn't see his new thread would think he couldn't answer the questions and flounced... which is exactly where we are at today anyway.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: jfb on November 08, 2019, 11:33:35 AM
I wonder if LO can tell us if JR even made the attempt. Just idly curious, LO is certainly free to tell me to MYOB.

No, he just never bothered. On September 22nd he asked me to create a new thread for his response so that it wouldn't be "buried in someone else's thread". He said he wanted to explain why he believes "the Apollo photos are suspect in a clear concise manner" and in "a new and unique take on the subject". I told him no, there was no need for a new thread so he'd have to post his responses in this one. He never responded. I guess he expected me to play his game and didn't like that I wouldn't.

 I honestly believe Jr couldn't be "clear and concise" if his life depended on it.  Everything needs to be told in terms of a story, with heroes and villains and stakes (which is what I meant by "narrative").  It can't simply be a matter of "this doesn't look right to me because these shadows don't line up like I expect", it has to be "NASA faked the visual record because reasons." 

IOW, he can't tell you why an image looks fake to him because it's not about the images themselves, it's about the reason they must be fake. 

As for "new and unique" - well, probably not here
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: JayUtah on November 08, 2019, 06:23:45 PM
He just wanted to lure me into starting yet another thread...

Your appropriate refusal gives him a flimsy pretext to believe or argue that he's the victim of bias and heavy-handed moderation.  That way he can still tell himself he's an unsung genius who's being persecuted for his beliefs.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: gillianren on November 09, 2019, 11:29:46 AM
I'll admit to being slightly tempted to start a new thread myself in off-topic to discuss the differences between book and movie of The Shining, especially since I just read Doctor Sleep, because that was yet another place he was wrong.  But I've held off.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: bknight on November 09, 2019, 11:43:11 AM
I'll admit to being slightly tempted to start a new thread myself in off-topic to discuss the differences between book and movie of The Shining, especially since I just read Doctor Sleep, because that was yet another place he was wrong.  But I've held off.

he as in Jr.?
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: Abaddon on November 10, 2019, 07:09:00 AM
I wonder if LO can tell us if JR even made the attempt. Just idly curious, LO is certainly free to tell me to MYOB.

No, he just never bothered. On September 22nd he asked me to create a new thread for his response so that it wouldn't be "buried in someone else's thread". He said he wanted to explain why he believes "the Apollo photos are suspect in a clear concise manner" and in "a new and unique take on the subject". I told him no, there was no need for a new thread so he'd have to post his responses in this one. He never responded. I guess he expected me to play his game and didn't like that I wouldn't.
Fair enough. I guess he just wanted the "badge of honour" of having his notions oppressed.

It's possible he is reading this while not logged in.  If so, I hope it is plain to him that he has impressed nobody.
Title: Re: jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals
Post by: gillianren on November 10, 2019, 10:44:21 AM
I'll admit to being slightly tempted to start a new thread myself in off-topic to discuss the differences between book and movie of The Shining, especially since I just read Doctor Sleep, because that was yet another place he was wrong.  But I've held off.

he as in Jr.?

Yeah.  I don't know as much about Apollo as most of you, but man can I go for pages about The Shining.