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

29 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

Did who retract what?

See my previous post for answers to your other points.

Did JayUtah retract his mistake immediately on Apollohoax, or did he not? It's a simple question. Why is it difficult for you to answer? Is your excuse going to be that you have "taken it under legal advisement"? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

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

Probably will for the comedy value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Abaddonire said:

Did JayUtah retract his mistake immediately on Apollohoax, or did he not? It's a simple question. Why is it difficult for you to answer? Is your excuse going to be that you have "taken it under legal advisement"? 

I already said in my post that you quoted - Jay apologized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

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.

I have to be pedantic with these things. Someone down the line will quote you as saying I have photographs, and demand that I post them on UM. Just like people repeat other people's claims that the evidence is "mine".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 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.

Oh, It is illegal to mistake two strangers with the same name who both happen to publish on amazon? Why was I not informed of this new law? If there is this new law that honest mistakes are illegal, why are you not in court for breaking it repeatedly? Are you now claiming that your mistakes are not honest and thus not covered by this law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Abaddonire said:

Oh, It is illegal to mistake two strangers with the same name who both happen to publish on amazon? Why was I not informed of this new law? If there is this new law that honest mistakes are illegal, why are you not in court for breaking it repeatedly? Are you now claiming that your mistakes are not honest and thus not covered by this law?

Jay was referring to a book with the same title as one of my books. It had nothing to do with people with the same names, or whatever it is you are saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Derek Willis said:

I have to be pedantic with these things. Someone down the line will quote you as saying I have photographs, and demand that I post them on UM. Just like people repeat other people's claims that the evidence is "mine".

Nope. You are claiming to have seen photographs. Nobody believes you. 

Without any photographs, why would anyone in their right mind believe you?

If I claimed to have seen photographs of the pope getting down with Ayotallah whoever it is now in a kasbah in Iran, would you just believe me? Bet you wouldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

I have to be pedantic with these things. Someone down the line will quote you as saying I have photographs, and demand that I post them on UM. Just like people repeat other people's claims that the evidence is "mine".

I understand. So, why did you start down this slippery slope anyway?  Why not just wait until you have the information and have verified it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Desertrat56 said:

I understand. So, why did you start down this slippery slope anyway?  Why not just wait until you have the information and have verified it?

As far as I was concerned, the information is verified. I have seen the documents and the photographs. Verification for other people is a different matter, and that is what I believed was going to happen last Saturday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Derek Willis said:

Jay was referring to a book with the same title as one of my books. It had nothing to do with people with the same names, or whatever it is you are saying.

Way to miss the point. An honest mistake was made and swiftly retracted. Your problem is the effect that will have on sales of your book? 

Let's try a different angle, one you cannot claim plausible deniability for. Exactly how may pre-sales have you? Be careful. I can check. I haven't yet, because your skit is so risible, but I will if I must.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Derek Willis said:

As far as I was concerned, the information is verified. I have seen the documents and the photographs. Verification for other people is a different matter, and that is what I believed was going to happen last Saturday.

Well, Probably time to regroup. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Abaddonire said:

Way to miss the point. An honest mistake was made and swiftly retracted. Your problem is the effect that will have on sales of your book? 

Let's try a different angle, one you cannot claim plausible deniability for. Exactly how may pre-sales have you? Be careful. I can check. I haven't yet, because your skit is so risible, but I will if I must.

 

I am not talking about pre-sales on Amazon. I am referring to people who made purchases via PayPal, and will then be gifted copies of the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to have to give it a rest until the morning. It is after midnight on this side of the Atlantic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Derek Willis said:

As far as I was concerned, the information is verified.

 I have seen the documents and the photographs. Verification for other people is a different matter, and that is what I believed was going to happen last Saturday.

I have no way to measure your gullibility factor, but thus far, evidence suggests it is pretty extreme.

Let's be honest here. You were unaware that the dozens of publicity shots the media published were not the extent of the Apollo photographic record which extends to countless thousands of photographs.

You were not aware of the data in depth that exists about everything Apollo so you were swizzed into believing that public information was somehow a revelation of a secret.

All of this data has been PD for decades. You have nothing new. Tough luck for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

I am not talking about pre-sales on Amazon. I am referring to people who made purchases via PayPal, and will then be gifted copies of the book.

Ok.  nitpicking your language, if they purchased it you aren't gifting it, you are completing a transaction.  Why do you use those words?  Are they donating to the cost of publishing your book or are they financiers who expect something?  Or did they purchase something else and the book comes with it as a gift? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

I am not talking about pre-sales on Amazon. I am referring to people who made purchases via PayPal, and will then be gifted copies of the book.

That is not a gift and you just stated that you are in this for the money.

Sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this all ended up exactly as predicted, there was never any doubt really.  The only mysteries left are why Derek is still pursuing this if not for money and why would anyone buy his "book" when the promised reveal disappeared into the same black hole all woo evidence does?

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

I too am shocked. You know what really persuaded me John Kelly is telling the truth? A few weeks back bknight was adamantly and repeatedly saying no changes were made to the software of the LM's guidance computer after Apollo 11 and Apollo 12. He even demanded I come up with some evidence to prove changes had been made. Then, lo and behold, in # 932 he links to a paper describing that is exactly what was done!

????  So wait... let me get this totally straight.  Someone is wrong on the Internet, about a minor issue... and THAT persuaded you that JK was being truthful?

SERIOUSLY???  What kind of world do you live in, and which star do your orbit...?  HOW, exactly, does that affect whether or not some stranger is suckering you?  I asked earlier if you had learnt any lessons, but you still think that one person's belief is some sort of a replacement for proper analysis? :td:

13 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

Funny how the problem is exactly what John Kelly described to me. I am sure bknight might want to look up some of the other papers in the public domain, for instance the ones that describe the "castellation". This refers to the graph of the "jerking" variations in the descent engine's thrust. The worry was that the engine would begin a similar process to the "pogo effect" that plagued rockets in the early days.

Anyway, I will leave it to bknight to look into all that. That said, after the no-show in Houston, I wouldn't blame him if he didn't want to waste his time.

????   Neither would Iwhat exactly is the point here?  More Gish Galloping is all I see...

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

21 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Ok.  nitpicking your language, if they purchased it you aren't gifting it, you are completing a transaction.  Why do you use those words?  Are they donating to the cost of publishing your book or are they financiers who expect something?  Or did they purchase something else and the book comes with it as a gift? 

I'll make a final post before lights out.

Yes. They purchased a short synopsis of the book because the full manuscript wasn't finished. They will then be gifted the actual book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Abaddonire said:

That is not a gift and you just stated that you are in this for the money.

Sad.

If you bothered to read my other posts you will see that I said I will be donating to charity any surplus beyond the production/marketing costs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

Can I correct a misunderstanding - or is it a miss-truth. The evidence isn't "mine". The evidence is John Kelly's. 

YOU brought it here, and apparently did so without even a shred of application of any actual scrutiny.  Too much or too little dust on the Surveyor?  Save me.

 

And yes, sorry dear readers, I'm going to go through every bit of drivel Derek has now 'added' (subtracted is more like it) to the thread, so as to point out what appears to be a complete lack of logic, and a complete unwillingness to admit (multiple) errors and take some dam responsibility for his posts.

Note that I'm doing this because in the past Derek has been a useful contributor to UM and shown that he understood the principles of science.  I do not understand why he has completely abandoned them here - I'd like to see the old Derek return...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

What I wrote was this:

"No, at this point I am not going to accept your apology."

It was a very polite apology for a minor misunderstanding.  You should have.

8 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

Your incorrect statements may have damaged the future sales potential of any or all of my books, and damaged my reputation. I am going to contact my publisher and request their legal department advise me on this. In the meanwhile I think it best if I cease posting on ApolloHoax.net. I have no idea what the situation is regarding a forum publishing what could amount to a defamatory statement. So, to everyone else: I will not be posting again until this matter is settled."

But that didn't happen did it?  Time to commit, Derek - you are now posting ... so the matter must have been settled, right?  Why not just clear the air and admit you didn't even talk to lawyers you are not taking any further action..

8 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

Seeking legal advice on a situation is a long way from bringing a lawsuit. Yet you claim that is what I am doing. Like I said, perhaps you were having some fun. Or if you weren't having some fun, I wonder how it was you can claim I am "in constant communication" with my lawyer. 

Well, you weren't posting, so we assumed (justifiably) you were "not posting until the matter was settled" - clearly implying ongoing lawyer contact...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Derek Willis said:

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.

WTH???  So, for those who pre-paid... for their money, they get their copy a bit earlier...  and then you will release it for free, at least partly because it is missing significant content.  Wow.

 

You don't feel guilty about that, at all, Derek?   If I was one of those suckers, I'd be talkin' to my lawyers. <_<

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

5 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

WTH???  So, for those who pre-paid... for their money, they get their copy a bit earlier...  and then you will release it for free, at least partly because it is missing significant content.  Wow.

 

You don't feel guilty about that, at all, Derek?   If I was one of those suckers, I'd be talkin' to my lawyers. <_<

 

This is the point. Willis is not gifting anyone anything. For pre-orders, Willis has their money already, or at minimum, a pending credit card transaction, or so he claims. He won't even provide evidence of that despite that such would violate no confidences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

I am not claiming I have photographs.

Okay, to sum up: you have no evidence and everything is hearsay.

LOL. I hate to burst your balloon but for many of us here, this ain't our first rodeo. We have had experience with people who think they can pull off a fast one.

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.