Fifty years of Apollo conspiracy theories

[ChrLzs]

What I don't quite get (well, actually, I think I do....) is that this guy let Derek fall flat on his face in a blaze of idiocy and completely untenable claims ... and Derek now feels inexplicably honour bound to not identify him....?

I can only think of one reason why that would be the case...............

 

And on a minor point - not that any of this bulldung requires further debunking, such is the 100% bunk content...

On 3/5/2019 at 10:47 PM, Derek Willis said:

No, it is saying the physics of rocket engines on the Moon make it unlikely a lander would be covered in dust.

No, it bloody well isn't.  As we've pointed out from the start, it's not just about the LM's driveby - sources of dust could (and probably did) include local or distant deposition by micro, macro, small, medium and large meteor strikes.  Once an area was 'covered' by dust and depending on the depth, later events might have created localised net increases OR decreases.  It would even be possible that a meteor strike hit a very deep/shadowed polar crater and thus sent ice particles flying, which might then melt either in transit or once deposited - a water washing..?  Prove me wrong....  When you add all the possibilities and unknowns, including the (dis)coloration issues, it is as clear as a polished solar panel that not only are you completely out of your depth, nobody could possible make a case either way.  It's just patently ridiculous to make such vacuous claims.

 

(see what i did there..) 

 

[Alchopwn]

Hands down my favorite conspiracy theory regarding the Apollo Moon Landings is that they were faked for the US Government by Stanley Kubrik, who was such a stickler for perfection he had them shot on location, and he went grossly over budget.

Edited August 9, 2019 by Alchopwn

[ChrLzs]

Then you'd love "The Dark Side of the Moon", which is where most of that originated..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Side_of_the_Moon_(mockumentary)

As you watch, just remember that it is a mockumentary and everyone (including Kubrick's wife, who plays it beautifully) is either in on the joke, or their interviews have been very cleverly edited.

It's so well done I can almost understand people getting suckered - there were a couple of notable Apollo deniers right here at UM who went down very embarrassingly in flames over that...

 

[bknight]

On 8/6/2019 at 4:02 PM, Obviousman said:

Although Derek has no control over what this mysterious "John" says or does, Derek DID hang his hat on him revealing significant revelations and thus backing up some of Derek's own theories. So, by association, he has to share in the negative connotations arising from the failure of "John" - if they exist - to produce anything.

And the calendar keeps moving, nothing from the great Apollo sleuth detractor, nor from the "Chicago newspaper that has the evidence"  Derek is a nobody that writes fiction in hopes he will become famous.  And nothing from his blockbuster book?  Although he claims to have a physicist degree he uses the science without fully understanding what he talks.   

[Obviousman]

Yep - it is now September and nothing from him at all. I understand he might not be able to say what The Mysterious John^TM had as evidence but Derek said he had his own theories / supporting material; so where is that?

Oh - I forgot: 'Buy My Book!'

[ChrLzs]

Over here, back in July:

Derek was waffling on about the process by which the free version of his book, which he promised, would be made available.

It's now September....

WHERE's THE FREE VERSION YOU PROMISED, Derek?

And for the record, I'll be absolutely happy to analyse in full detail whatever that book nominates as the 'best' evidence Derek can provide for his claim of Apollo fakery.

If it doesn't nominate the best.. I'll assume whatever they raise first is the #1 issue.  Naturally, if it can be shown that Derek's #1 is horse****, then the rest of the book will be worse than horse****...

[ChrLzs]

It's now nearly October.... paging Derek K. Willis.. Derek K. Willis, can you come to reception please?

(tap tap tap)  ... Is this thing on?

 

On 9/20/2019 at 10:18 AM, ChrLzs said:

WHERE's THE FREE VERSION YOU PROMISED, Derek?

Repeating - I'll be absolutely happy to analyse in full detail whatever that book nominates as the 'best' evidence Derek can provide for his claim of Apollo fakery.

So, Derek K. Willis (have you got this yet, search engines and robots?), when you Google yourself next and come over here, please respond.  We are trying to be helpful and throw a bit of science at your claims.  Isn't that what you want, Derek K. Willis?

As an embarrassing side issue for Derek, at that Apollo denial website he also had a lengthy rant about a 'mystery' that he claimed surrounded a fender on the Apollo 17 lunar rover.  To quote Derek K. Willis:

Quote

It is appropriate to conclude with two photographs of the exhibited makeshift fender, because they are in themselves a mystery. In the first photograph below AS17-137-20979, the details of the four spare laminated maps used to assemble the fender can be seen on the outside of the curved surface. However, in the second photograph the details of the map are on the inside of the curved surface. Perhaps the curators at the Smithsonian made a mistake and curved the maps the wrong way. It seems odd that no one took the trouble to correctly display such an important item that had been brought back from the Moon.

In fact, as usual, Derek K. Willis got it horribly wrong.  Even a quick glance at the original Apollo source images shows that what Derek thinks are 'details of the map' are in fact fingerprints and other dust marks on the blank reverse side of the maps.  If you check the Smithsonian's images of the returned/souvenired ''fender' properly you will see that the maps are exactly aligned and curved as they should be, right down to the positioning of the lines of tape that were used to make that improvised dustguard...  This is covered in glorious detail here:

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1691.0

Seriously, Derek, your research skills are woeful.  Please drop the pretence that you are anything other than a fiction writer.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

20 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

It's now nearly October.... paging Derek K. Willis.. Derek K. Willis, can you come to reception please?

(tap tap tap)  ... Is this thing on?

He is obviously still busy looking for "John Kelly". 

[bknight]

On 9/24/2019 at 7:59 PM, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

He is obviously still busy looking for "John Kelly". 

IF he really exists.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

1 hour ago, bknight said:

IF he really exists.

Are you implying that mr. Willis might be less that entirely trusthworthy ?

Say it ain't so. 

[ChrLzs]

5 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Are you implying that mr. Willis might be less that entirely trusthworthy ?

Say it ain't so. 

I'll happily accept he is trustworthy IF he comes back and fulfills the promises he made, and, perhaps more importantly, begins to acknowledge where he completely screwed the pooch.  As it is a simple and REALLY obviously glaring error, I think the one above where he didn't look closely enough at the images of the Smithsonian's improvised mudguard made out of folded maps and tape, would be the place to start.  Then we can work backwards.

And I trust he will also nominate what he feels is the very best, well-evidenced, non-subjective, indication that any of his hoaxing claims are correct.  If his chosen 'best' falls down, then it's game over.  Indeed, by default given what transpired above, it is already Game Over, unless he come up with 'the goods'.

Derek K. Willis, it's your time to shine, either as a decent honest investigator... or a flaming fireball of misinformation.