Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Belief in Apollo hoax conspiracy could grow


UM-Bot

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

# 957 - which you posted yesterday.

I retract the inference that you were/are in constant communication your lawyers as it was pure and incorrect speculation on my part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

I wasn't making any kind of threat. I pointed out that I was seeking legal advice.

For the record, the issue over on ApolloHoax was that Jay mixed up one of my books with someone else's book. Hence, he made potentially defamatory statements based on the other person's book. He apologized, but I wanted to know the legal position before I decided how to proceed. That was all there was to it - until people on UM started claiming I am actually in the process of bringing a legal case against Jay.

And Jay answered you with a lengthy post, but you had indicated you would not post further to bring a perhaps rebuttal of his thoughts.  As Merc14  do share  similar thoughts on what the publisher's legal department thoughts might have been on your request.  Of course that speculates that you did in fact contact the publisher in this matter.  What was their conclusion?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bknight said:

I retract the inference that you were/are in constant communication your lawyers as it was pure and incorrect speculation on my part.

Like I said, my assumption was that you were having a bit of fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bknight said:

And Jay answered you with a lengthy post, but you had indicated you would not post further to bring a perhaps rebuttal of his thoughts.  As Merc14  do share  similar thoughts on what the publisher's legal department thoughts might have been on your request.  Of course that speculates that you did in fact contact the publisher in this matter.  What was their conclusion?

Well, I am not a lawyer. But what I do know is that it is unwise to share the legal advice given by a lawyer.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

Like I said, my assumption was that you were having a bit of fun.

Derek you should realize by now that I'm passionate with matters concerning Apollo and people who publish, in any form, what they believe to be a hoax.  I don't know everything about Apollo with the exception of the mission were conducted as the records indicate.  It infuriates me when people as yourself publish anything that indicates Apollo was a hoax(in part or as a whole).  That being said I don't have fun with you, I very serious with my posts although at times I write prior to thinking out my whole thoughts. I  believe you do  a disservice to history(and the casual reader that may read your thoughts)  with publishing anything concerning an Apollo hoax.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2019 at 6:00 AM, skliss said:

And this is a big indicator.....someone would have talked by now if it had been a hoax.  

400,000 people worked on the Apollo 11 mission

The full triumph of Apollo 11 doesn’t just belong to the astronauts. It also includes the 400,000 people that supported the mission across the country, mainly at Johnson Space Center in Houston and Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida.

Young college graduates flocked to NASA after Kennedy’s 1961 speech.

During Apollo 11, everyone who could possibly be needed or called upon during the mission was in a room at Cape Canaveral or Houston. They each had a specific task. And they all wanted to be there. They jockeyed for places to plug in their headsets and sat on steps.

“It was a can-do attitude,” said Bostick, the flight dynamics team leader. “We were very sober and somber in what we were doing. We took it very seriously. We worked very hard. But at the same time it was fun, we really didn’t think of it as a job, even though we were working 12 hours a day at least, six days a week. We didn’t understand the magnitude of what we were doing.”

https://fox40.com/2019/07/20/11-things-to-know-about-the-historic-apollo-11-mission/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

Well, I am not a lawyer. But what I do know is that it is unwise to share the legal advice given by a lawyer.

I'll take this to mean you never contacted any lawyer of any kind.    Can I ask if you still believe the scenario John Kelly is suggesting is real and nothing more than another hoax?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

I'll take this to mean you never contacted any lawyer of any kind.    Can I ask if you still believe the scenario John Kelly is suggesting is real and nothing more than another hoax?

You can take it to mean whatever you wish. As for John Kelly, no I do not believe the scenario he is suggesting is a hoax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

You can take it to mean whatever you wish. As for John Kelly, no I do not believe the scenario he is suggesting is a hoax.

However, you don't possess the documents for anybody else to determine the credibility of them.  For all the rest of us it nothing more than hearsay.  And with your inclination that you have shown, no I don't have any reason to believe you.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. You said you had seen the evidence so why don't you tell us - as has been asked multiple times - instead of saying 'wait for the 50th' or give cryptic answers?

2. You said that the "evidence" had been submitted to a newspaper; which newspaper, which reporter and when? I'd like to independently verify that.

3. You keep saying "...you'll have to read my book.." and you say it is in the course of being published now. If you are not making money from it - as you claim - and you are going to make text copies freely available, why not give us the details right now?

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Obviousman said:

1. You said you had seen the evidence so why don't you tell us - as has been asked multiple times - instead of saying 'wait for the 50th' or give cryptic answers?

2. You said that the "evidence" had been submitted to a newspaper; which newspaper, which reporter and when? I'd like to independently verify that.

3. You keep saying "...you'll have to read my book.." and you say it is in the course of being published now. If you are not making money from it - as you claim - and you are going to make text copies freely available, why not give us the details right now?

 

I think Derrick is gone.  But you make good points that have been made to him before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

I think Derrick is gone.  But you make good points that have been made to him before.

Gone to the Dark Side for sure.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

I wasn't making any kind of threat. I pointed out that I was seeking legal advice.

For the record, the issue over on ApolloHoax was that Jay mixed up one of my books with someone else's book. Hence, he made potentially defamatory statements based on the other person's book. He apologized, but I wanted to know the legal position before I decided how to proceed. That was all there was to it - until people on UM started claiming I am actually in the process of bringing a legal case against Jay.

Did he retract that or did he not? Simple yes or no question right there for you.

Have you produced your "evidence" or not. Simple yes or no question right there for you.

If no, then why not?

Can we contact this "Chicago Newspaper" to verify that your, kelly's claims have been recieved at all. Simple yes or no question again.

If not, why not? We would not be seeking the content of the claims, just the means to verify that you had contacted some media outlet and made your case, whatever it is.

 

Or are you, instead, going to attempt to invent a conspiracy of media silence about the evidence that you/kelly never intended to present anyway?

###Your credibility is already trashed by your own reticence. Nobody made you do that, you did it yourself. And here you are making imaginary excuses.

 

So I tell you what. With a guarantee of confidentiality, I will call your media contact. The secrets of your explosive revelations will remain sacrosanct. I wont even discuss the content of your claims. I will simply verify the outlines of the narrative baloney you have been claiming already.

But we already know what you are going to do in the face of such a good faith claim, don't we?

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

You can take it to mean whatever you wish. As for John Kelly, no I do not believe the scenario he is suggesting is a hoax.

Really, then I take it to mean you are daft enough to believe in little green me in Area 51. Is that OK?

Why should anyone believe anything this "john kelly" might say? He hasn't said anything.

Edited by Abaddonire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Obviousman said:

1. You said you had seen the evidence so why don't you tell us - as has been asked multiple times - instead of saying 'wait for the 50th' or give cryptic answers?

2. You said that the "evidence" had been submitted to a newspaper; which newspaper, which reporter and when? I'd like to independently verify that.

3. You keep saying "...you'll have to read my book.." and you say it is in the course of being published now. If you are not making money from it - as you claim - and you are going to make text copies freely available, why not give us the details right now?

 

Some of you seem to be under the impression that I have some sort of influence over the situation. For instance, on a number of occasions the evidence has been referred to as being "mine". It is not. Similarly, the arrangement John Kelly came to with the newspaper has nothing to do with me. I am not acting on his behalf or have any kind of involvement in the agreement. I know which paper it is because I spoke to a reporter. However, until I find out what is going on I am not going to name the paper. I know very little about the details of what was agreed to, other than what I was told about the planned media conference in Houston. I don't know why this didn't happen, other than the speculation I made in a previous post.

As for what I saw during my visit to Chicago, I have mentioned various documents. I also mentioned I had seen photographs taken inside the hangar at Hughes Airport. I also saw other photographs which I didn't mention. Believe me, more than any of you I was hoping everything would be in the public domain by now!

As for my book, a significant number of people were willing to take what I have been saying on trust and they placed pre-orders. I have a moral duty to let those people read what is inside before I make the text freely available on a website.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Abaddonire said:

Did he retract that or did he not? Simple yes or no question right there for you.

Have you produced your "evidence" or not. Simple yes or no question right there for you.

If no, then why not?

Can we contact this "Chicago Newspaper" to verify that your, kelly's claims have been recieved at all. Simple yes or no question again.

If not, why not? We would not be seeking the content of the claims, just the means to verify that you had contacted some media outlet and made your case, whatever it is.

 

Or are you, instead, going to attempt to invent a conspiracy of media silence about the evidence that you/kelly never intended to present anyway?

###Your credibility is already trashed by your own reticence. Nobody made you do that, you did it yourself. And here you are making imaginary excuses.

 

So I tell you what. With a guarantee of confidentiality, I will call your media contact. The secrets of your explosive revelations will remain sacrosanct. I wont even discuss the content of your claims. I will simply verify the outlines of the narrative baloney you have been claiming already.

But we already know what you are going to do in the face of such a good faith claim, don't we?

Did who retract what?

See my previous post for answers to your other points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

Some of you seem to be under the impression that I have some sort of influence over the situation. For instance, on a number of occasions the evidence has been referred to as being "mine". It is not. Similarly, the arrangement John Kelly came to with the newspaper has nothing to do with me. I am not acting on his behalf or have any kind of involvement in the agreement. I know which paper it is because I spoke to a reporter. However, until I find out what is going on I am not going to name the paper. I know very little about the details of what was agreed to, other than what I was told about the planned media conference in Houston. I don't know why this didn't happen, other than the speculation I made in a previous post.

As for what I saw during my visit to Chicago, I have mentioned various documents. I also mentioned I had seen photographs taken inside the hangar at Hughes Airport. I also saw other photographs which I didn't mention. Believe me, more than any of you I was hoping everything would be in the public domain by now!

As for my book, a significant number of people were willing to take what I have been saying on trust and they placed pre-orders. I have a moral duty to let those people read what is inside before I make the text freely available on a website.

Therein lies the problem, your information is second hand at best or made up, and none of it is verifiable, nor believable.  Just because you "mention documents" and claim to have photographs has no meaning until you show us something.  Like that 411 Missing author Paleides guy you have nothing real, just something intangible for sale as far as I can tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Desertrat56 said:

Therein lies the problem, your information is second hand at best or made up, and none of it is verifiable, nor believable.  Just because you "mention documents" and claim to have photographs has no meaning until you show us something.  Like that 411 Missing author Paleides guy you have nothing real, just something intangible for sale as far as I can tell.

I am not claiming I have photographs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Derek Willis said:

Some of you seem to be under the impression that I have some sort of influence over the situation. For instance, on a number of occasions the evidence has been referred to as being "mine". It is not. Similarly, the arrangement John Kelly came to with the newspaper has nothing to do with me. I am not acting on his behalf or have any kind of involvement in the agreement. I know which paper it is because I spoke to a reporter. However, until I find out what is going on I am not going to name the paper. I know very little about the details of what was agreed to, other than what I was told about the planned media conference in Houston. I don't know why this didn't happen, other than the speculation I made in a previous post.

As for what I saw during my visit to Chicago, I have mentioned various documents. I also mentioned I had seen photographs taken inside the hangar at Hughes Airport. I also saw other photographs which I didn't mention. Believe me, more than any of you I was hoping everything would be in the public domain by now!

As for my book, a significant number of people were willing to take what I have been saying on trust and they placed pre-orders. I have a moral duty to let those people read what is inside before I make the text freely available on a website.

You do have influence over the "situation". You could identify the media outlet an journalist involved. That violates nothing. 

We know they are not your claims, they are "john kelly's". So what?

We know you claim to have no control over "john kelly" nobody has mad that claim. yet.

You are directly involved in the claim, however, because you are actively promoting it.

As for your claim that plausible denial gives you some sort of shield, NO JUST NO.

As for your claim that a conference was booked in Houston, at what venue was that?

As for your speculation, that is useless for any purpose. I could speculate that you are "john kelly". Would that make it true?

You claim you saw various douments in Chicago. You have produced not a single one.

You mention the Hughes hanger. Are you unaware that this is a CT piece of baloney long abandoned as nonsense? How did that happen? Did you do no research at all?

You say you have seen "other" photos. Are we to simply take your word for that? Why should we trust you of all people? We have caught you out already, remember?

Why should we read your book? It will have nothing new.

A bunch of "pre-orders" for which you have no evidence? Why should anyone care? Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy anyway.

And as for "moral duty", we all have a moral duty to be honest. Try you best. You need some practice.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

You can take it to mean whatever you wish. As for John Kelly, no I do not believe the scenario he is suggesting is a hoax.

OK Derek, I feel a bit sad for you, the man is an obvious fraud but hey, maybe you make a few bucks off the saps willing to buy your book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

Did who retract what?

See my previous post for answers to your other points.

Read it.

Not a single answer, just excuses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

I am not claiming I have photographs.

Oh, excuse me, you said you had seen photographs.  Yeah, that's a big difference, but irrelevant in my opinion as it does nothing to prove that you are not making it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

I am as disappointed as all of you.

Any lessons learnt?

Quote

I am also very surprised.

I think i can speak for almost everyone on this thread - we are not surprised at all.

Quote

I am surprised because for the past few weeks John Kelly's evidence has been in the hands of a well-known Chicago newspaper. I know this because I spoke to one of the reporters.

Name the reporter.  If not, I'd love to know why - reporters love publicity, even if it's about how something went horribly wrong - it's all news...  So pony up, which paper, which reporter..?

Quote

The plan, so I understand, was to hold a media conference on 20th July at a hotel in Houston, not too far from the Johnson Space Center.

So where were the notices/ads?  Interestingly, I think I saw some of this online, but I'll have to go back, as I can't see a trace of it now.

How about naming 'John Kelly' now, given there's not much reason for you to be loyal, is there...

Quote

But nothing materialized. I have no idea why a newspaper would back off from revealing the scoop of the century.

I do..  And, I'm surprised you 'have no idea'.  Why not just use the usual tinfoil excuse of "they got to him.."

Only problem is that then, you have to explain why this dufus didn't just release the material at multiple locations right from the get go.  There's no way the MIB can shut down internet postings.

Quote

In who's interest would it be to suppress the truth? Perhaps some of you have suggestions?

Those who would make money off the gullible...  It's truly that simple.  I suspect what happened was that your friend (if he isn't you...) was bitterly disappointed that there wasn't a groundswell of apollo denial, and realised that he was going to make b*****-all money - perhaps by the fact that few people had signed up for his 'seminar'..

Quote

I deliberately held back from publishing my book "Faking Apollo" until after 20th July. I did so because I didn't want to be accused of exploiting the situation. I am, though, now in the process of publishing the book. Like I said, the proceeds beyond the production/marketing costs will be donated to charity. Also, I will be making the text freely available via a website.

I'll await the link with interest.  At that time, if your book doesn't make it clear, I'll be asking you to nominate your best 'evidence', and I'll be delighted to analyse that in absolute detail and with a fine tooth comb, working from first principles and using the Scientific Method.  If your best falls down.... well, the inference is pretty obvious.

Quote

I do have a clue to what might have happened. ChrLzs pointed out in an earlier post how people who believe in the Moon Landing Conspiracy Theory seem to be very quiet. You would think this would be the best time ever to garner publicity. So that got me thinking. Are they being quiet? Or are the media not willing to run stories?

That's hilarious!!  It couldn't just be that the Apollo denial has been recognised for the tripe that it is.  Let me explain this in two short, easy to understand sentences..

1. The documentation of Apollo, even tho' it happened 50 years ago and involved many sub-contractors, is incredibly comprehensive.  Virtually every detail is covered, explained, understandable and verifiable.

2. EVERY single bit of misinformation or misunderstood 'evidence' raised by Apollo deniers, has been clarified, rebutted, and explained in detail by those familiar with the missions, and those with the necessary background (ie folks with a knowledge of physics, photography, space science, behavior of low/zero gravity, orbital mechanics, why, even behavior of dust in a vacuum/low g...

Given those two facts, the only folks left denying Apollo, are frankly, either a few snags short of a barbeque, those who don't care but want to try to make a buck out of it, or trolls.  It's over.

Quote

About a week before the launch of Apollo 11 I rang round a few UK media outlets in the UK, starting with the BBC. Not one of them was interested. It was almost as though they were all dutifully reading from the same hymn sheet.

You've really shown your true colors, Derek.  :ph34r: Keep looking over your shoulder, I think they might be after you next... (cue Twilight Zone music).

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Abaddonire said:

Why should we read your book? It will have nothing new.

You don't have to read it if you don't wish to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

OK Derek, I feel a bit sad for you, the man is an obvious fraud but hey, maybe you make a few bucks off the saps willing to buy your book.

I have said all along that I have no intention of making a cent out of the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.