Belief in Apollo hoax conspiracy could grow

[Derek Willis]

30 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Given the last few posts where Derek reveals he doesn't get numerology and probability (it's now a long list of stuff) and also invokes aliens and cool sounding stars, and also the fact that the ONLY book currently available from Derek K. Willis is a science fiction tale (that involves,  oh so coincidentally, an Apollo mission conspiracy).... does anyone smell a very long winded (and extremely putrid) troll?

Unsurprisingly, that book (which is, of course, not called 'Howard Hughes Knew My Father') has not exactly received accolades, just the usual 2-3 self-arranged reviews that every failure has..  I shall not dignify it with a name or link (not that it would matter - this trainwreck is OVER).

ChrLzs, it isn't like you to be so unobservant. Firstly, there are THREE books currently available from Derek K. Wills, and not only ONE as you claim. Perhaps you need to look harder. Secondly, of course none of the books are called "Howard Hughes Knew My Father" because as I point out in # 1031 I am rather busy right now writing that book. Writers tend not to publish books until they have finished writing them.

As for the reviews - well, I write for fun rather than having ambitions of winning Nobel Prizes or retiring to Monte Carlo. By the way, alas no one can self-arrange reviews these days. Amazon track everything and omit anything that seems "fishy". If you happen to have sent an obscure tweet to someone way back, Amazon are on to it. We amateur writers saw our piles of "friends and family" five star reviews disappear a few months back.

 

[Habitat]

It seems, from a little reading, that Alderbaran is a HOT destination, but awfully lonely out there for Howie.

[ChrLzs]

Quote

I thought it hadn't been published?  https://www.amazon.com/Faking-Apollo-Fifty-Years-Secrecy-ebook/dp/B07VH8BFX7/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=derek+willis&qid=1563921570&s=gateway&sr=8-1

Hmm.  Is that the newly revised and redacted edition, you know, the one without the gannet* lies and misinformation provided by John Kelly?  Anyways, how long until you release the free copy, Derek?  I see you haven't answered any of my extremely rude (but to the point) questions about the morality of what you have done here....

And isn't it interesting that "John" provided his stuff to Derek only, natch - I mean, DW was such an obvious choice {/sarcasm}.  No successful books, an occasional poster to this forum, no relevant scientific expertise, no research background, and no history whatsoever of being an Apollo enthusiast or denier. 

Yes, "John", who else would have the level of gullible required, and be so incredibly credible credulous?

 

Quote

ChrLzs, it isn't like you to be so unobservant.

Yes, it is.  I don't waste reams of time hunting down MISINFORMATION or helping spammers and the gullible spread their stupidity.

Quote

Firstly, there are THREE books currently available from Derek K. Wills, and not only ONE as you claim. Perhaps you need to look harder.

I'll pass.

Quote

Secondly, of course none of the books are called "Howard Hughes Knew My Father" because as I point out in # 1031 I am rather busy right now writing that book. Writers tend not to publish books until they have finished writing them.

Yes, of course, I should have known that, as I read minds.

Quote

As for the reviews - well, I write for fun

Just as well.  That pretty much explains this entire troll.

Quote

By the way, alas no one can self-arrange reviews these days.

No, sweetie, of course you can't.  There is absolutely no way, Uhuh, Nope, Nada, Zilch...  You couldn't possibly ask a friend to buy your book, and of course you would never just pay them to do it.  Just for fun, you know.  And yes, Amazon knows all about everyone's friends and family, even when they have different names..........  and as they see such behavior, their huge machine moves in and eradicates all cheating........  right Derz..?

Derek, you truly are the ultimate poster boy for gullible.  But please don't expect others to be likewise.

Quote

We amateur writers saw our piles of "friends and family" five star reviews disappear a few months back.

So, you admit you've done it in the past... some honesty for a change...

 

Now, what's a word for something worse than a trainwreck?

 

 

* Pls forgive Monty Python reference... just trying to inject some humor to make this dreck worthwhile...

 

Edited July 24, 2019 by ChrLzs

[Abaddonire]

On 7/23/2019 at 4:15 PM, Derek Willis said:

We did go the the Moon. Is someone here saying we never went to the Moon?

Equivocation. Did men go to the moon, in your opinion? Not with robots or probes, actual men.

 

Pony up quick, Derek, your Conspiracy of the Gaps is shrinking around your feet.

[Derek Willis]

50 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Hmm.  Is that the newly revised and redacted edition, you know, the one without the gannet* lies and misinformation provided by John Kelly?  Anyways, how long until you release the free copy, Derek?  I see you haven't answered any of my extremely rude (but to the point) questions about the morality of what you have done here....

And isn't it interesting that "John" provided his stuff to Derek only, natch - I mean, DW was such an obvious choice {/sarcasm}.  No successful books, an occasional poster to this forum, no relevant scientific expertise, no research background, and no history whatsoever of being an Apollo enthusiast or denier. 

Yes, "John", who else would have the level of gullible required, and be so incredibly credible credulous?

 

Yes, it is.  I don't waste reams of time hunting down MISINFORMATION or helping spammers and the gullible spread their stupidity.

I'll pass.

Yes, of course, I should have known that, as I read minds.

Just as well.  That pretty much explains this entire troll.

No, sweetie, of course you can't.  There is absolutely no way, Uhuh, Nope, Nada, Zilch...  You couldn't possibly ask a friend to buy your book, and of course you would never just pay them to do it.  Just for fun, you know.  And yes, Amazon knows all about everyone's friends and family, even when they have different names..........  and as they see such behavior, their huge machine moves in and eradicates all cheating........  right Derz..?

Derek, you truly are the ultimate poster boy for gullible.  But please don't expect others to be likewise.

So, you admit you've done it in the past... some honesty for a change...

 

Now, what's a word for something worse than a trainwreck?

 

 

* Pls forgive Monty Python reference... just trying to inject some humor to make this dreck worthwhile...

 

The free edition on a website will come out after the paperback. It was the paperback edition that people pre-ordered, and like I said earlier I have a moral duty to let them read the book before I make it freely available. I am currently having the manuscript reformatted.

By the way, which were your questions on morality? I seem to have missed them.

Most people who write do so for fun. The odds of achieving success are so remote, it would be a bit silly to start out by believing best-sellers and glittering prizes are just around the corner.

You will note that I wrote: "We amateur writers saw our piles of 'friends and family' five star reviews disappear a few months back." I did not write: "We amateur writers saw our piles of self-arranged 'family and friends' five star reviews disappear a few months back." I didn't write that because I have never self-arranged any reviews. However, friends and family just can't seem to help themselves from thinking they are helping a writer by giving five star reviews.

So you had better be careful you don't defame me! I understand Jay is married to a lawyer. I might ask him if his spouse will represent me.

I actually think what Amazon are doing is a good thing because glowing reviews that are obviously from a friend or family member have the opposite effect to generating sales.

I wasn't the only person who John Kelly contacted. He contacted other people - on both sides of the debate - but if they choose not to publicize that, then it is their business.

Anyway, it is late again in the UK so tomorrow I will respond to any response you might make.  

Edited July 24, 2019 by Derek Willis
I duplicated a word

[Derek Willis]

2 minutes ago, Abaddonire said:

Equivocation. Did men go to the moon, in your opinion? Not with robots or probes, actual men.

 

Pony up quick, Derek, your Conspiracy of the Gaps is shrinking around your feet.

Yes, actual men went to the Moon.

[Abaddonire]

Just now, Derek Willis said:

The free edition on a website will come out after the paperback. It was the paperback edition that people pre-ordered, and like I said earlier I have a moral duty to let them read the book before I make it freely available. I am currently having the manuscript reformatted.

No. I have worked in the print game for years. That is not what you are doing. Last minute panicky edits? Sure.

Just now, Derek Willis said:

By the way, which were your questions on morality? I seem to have missed them.

Failure to read noted.

Just now, Derek Willis said:

Most people who write do so for fun. The odds of achieving success are so remote, it would be a bit silly to start out by believing best-sellers and glittering prizes are just around the corner.

Nope. You write baloney for fun because you at some level understand that nobody will buy it so it does not matter what you write.

Just now, Derek Willis said:

You will note that I wrote: "We amateur writers saw our piles of 'friends and family' five star reviews disappear a few months back." I did not write: "We amateur writers saw our piles of self-arranged 'family and friends' five star reviews disappear a few months back." I didn't write that because I have have never self-arranged any reviews. However, friends and family just can't seem to help themselves from thinking they are helping a writer by giving five star reviews.

By which you admit that you had friends and family reviews.

Just now, Derek Willis said:

So you had better be careful you don't defame me! I understand Jay is married to a lawyer. I might ask him if his spouse will represent me.

Rather lame. You claimed to be consulting your publishers lawyers. What was their response? I am almost certain I could guess.

Just now, Derek Willis said:

I actually think what Amazon are doing is a good thing because glowing reviews that are obviously from a friend or family member have the opposite effect to generating sales.

Congratulations sherlock. Although you also admitted that you want to maximise sales, so you have admitted you are in it for the money. Point taken.

Just now, Derek Willis said:

I wasn't the only person who John Kelly contacted. He contacted other people - on both sides of the debate - but if they choose not to publicize that, then it is their business.

But you chose to fail to publicise it as well. Should "John Kelly" sue you? You failed to live up to your promises. Should you sue him? He failed to live up to his promises. Are there any among you that actually have lived up to your promises? I am aware of none.

Just now, Derek Willis said:

Anyway, it is late again in the UK so tomorrow I will respond to any response you might make.  

Whenever you like, you already burned any cred with the no show four days ago. Good luck with that.

[Abaddonire]

14 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

Yes, actual men went to the Moon.

Then your moon hoax crap is actual crap. Thank you for the honest admission. We are done here.

 

 

ETA: Except for one small question. If you are content that actual men walked on the actual moon, why are you publishing on Aulis which claims it never happened at all, ever?

 

Don't you find that just a little strange? 

Edited July 24, 2019 by Abaddonire

[ChrLzs]

5 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

By the way, which were your questions on morality? I seem to have missed them.

Really???????  here you go...

Quote

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. 

and 

Quote

Any lessons learnt?

I'm sure you will remember the context...

And this isn't a question, but how about you get brave and defend it anyway:

Quote

Like Merc, I find it deeply insulting that deniers denigrate the achievements of others, and I have to suspect that it is because they have nothing in their own lives to be proud of..

And answer THIS while you're at it:

Quote

Derek: In fact, I received an email from an aerospace engineer - or at least he claims to be an aerospace engineer - who said that whilst he doesn't agree with what I am saying about Apollo, he finds it bizarre that anyone would claim that someone who designs jet engines or wings knows little about fluid dynamics.

Chrlzs: I call bull****.  Quote that email here in full - and feel free to remove any identifying features

Why did you not fully quote that email, Derek???? - this had nothing to do with 'John Kelly'.  Are you making this up as you go along?

5 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

So you had better be careful you don't defame me!

  Did you know that here in Oz, we have a simple rule - you can't defame someone when you tell the truth...  So cease this childish whining.

 

5 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

I wasn't the only person who John Kelly contacted. He contacted other people - on both sides of the debate - but if they choose not to publicize that, then it is their business.

Well, who wouldn't believe you.....   Do your stories EVER include evidence or support?  I'm guessing that is what 'john' told you?  Have you not yet spotted that his word is worthless and he duped you?

5 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

Anyway, it is late again in the UK so tomorrow I will respond to any response you might make.  

If you answer nothing else, how about you declare which, of all the topics no doubt comprehensively covered in your 'Faking Apollo' book, is the best evidence in your opinion?  Don't give me a list, just commit to the very best of whatever smokin' guns you think you have..  Then I (and no doubt others) will see what your expertise level is and we'll be delighted to thoroughly, publicly, scientifically analyse the claim.

That must surely be what you want, right?  The chance to show that your opinion is worth posting?

Hint 1 - choose wisely.

Hint 2. - make sure it is a topic (and underlying disciplines) that you know REALLY well.

Hint 3 - if you don't wish to commit, that's OK, but then I'll assume the first thing mentioned in your book is the 'best'.  Can't be fairer...

And don't forget, you've promised to release the book for free - so let us know when that happens.  I'll set some reminders.....

[Obviousman]

6 hours ago, Abaddonire said:

Equivocation. Did men go to the moon, in your opinion? Not with robots or probes, actual men.

 

Pony up quick, Derek, your Conspiracy of the Gaps is shrinking around your feet.

Can I modify that? @Derek Willis in your opinion, did the Apollo missions happen as recorded in history (e.g. mission reports, etc)? Apollos 7 through 17, landing on 11, 12, and 14 through 17, etc? No hoaxes, no misdirection, no substitutions, no fake images, no lies, etc? Personnel as listed landed on the Moon on the dates claimed, walked on the lunar surface for the periods indicated, using the published equipment, no alien technology, no help from little green men, etc?

Edited July 25, 2019 by Obviousman

[ChrLzs]

Just as an aside, the Amazon links still show that Derek is happily claiming that his book is filled with content and proof from John Kelly....

To verify this, click on 'Read more' where it gives the description on this page:
https://www.amazon.com/Faking-Apollo-Fifty-Years-Secrecy-ebook/dp/B07VH8BFX7/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=derek+willis&qid=1563921570&s=gateway&sr=8-1

Here's a sample of what Derek is advertising on that page:

Quote

Then in 2018 Derek came across something about Apollo 17 that didn’t make sense. According to NASA’s official record, astronaut Gene Cernan removed one of the wheel fenders....
... One person in particular – who Derek calls “John Kelly” – provided some astounding information. According to NASA’s own record, the Apollo 17 spacecraft didn’t have enough propellant to return to Earth. Kelly then demonstrated how photographs from the earlier Apollo 12 mission were taken inside a studio, and not on the Moon.
... This information resulted in Aulis Online publishing Derek’s second article...
... John Kelly described why the first two Moon landings had to be faked. Problems with the Lunar Module’s guidance computer meant ...
... John Kelly provided details of the “Apollo Simulation Project” – a secret plan involving the former Nazi rocket scientist Werner von Braun, the CIA, and the reclusive billionaire Howard Hughes... Kelly provided compelling information on how the faked “Moon Movies” were produced – and for the first time revealed the location of the studio where they were filmed.
... “Faking Apollo” reproduces everything John Kelly told Derek K. Willis. The crucial point is Kelly’s explanation of how the Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 spacecraft travelled to the Moon. However, the landings had to be faked because it was too dangerous to risk the astronauts’ lives...
... “Faking Apollo” ends on two explosively controversial points. Firstly, by exposing how a CIA “legacy department” has been covering-up fifty years of secrecy. Secondly, by revealing why the Apollo 17 Moon landing was faked. The real mission of Apollo 17 – known as “Dark Apollo” – had nothing to do with going to the Moon.

Now, from what Derek says here at UM, I'd have to say that the vast majority of that list is either NOT in the book, or is to be removed.  So is that a FALSE description of the book, or are those 'lucky' first readers going to get a completely different version, filled with nothing but a lame story about a fender mixup and too much/too little dust on Surveyor III.. ?  Maybe, Derek, you should check with your lawyers and see what they think about what you are doing?

So, Derek - is that Amazon's fault, or is it up to the author to change their pages?  I don't know, but I think it's time Derek took a bit of responsibility for all this.  If this was me, after an embarrassing debacle like this, I'd be making dam sure that the content on the Amazon page actually agreed with what I was spruiking at a public forum.  Even more so if I was asking money for the book.....

May I respectfully suggest, Derek, that you or Amazon have some 'splaining' to do.  Mostly you...

 

PS - I'm thinking about writing a book - about the worst of the Apollo deniers and their tactics...

[Derek Willis]

8 hours ago, Abaddonire said:

No. I have worked in the print game for years. That is not what you are doing. Last minute panicky edits? Sure.

Failure to read noted.

Nope. You write baloney for fun because you at some level understand that nobody will buy it so it does not matter what you write.

By which you admit that you had friends and family reviews.

Rather lame. You claimed to be consulting your publishers lawyers. What was their response? I am almost certain I could guess.

Congratulations sherlock. Although you also admitted that you want to maximise sales, so you have admitted you are in it for the money. Point taken.

But you chose to fail to publicise it as well. Should "John Kelly" sue you? You failed to live up to your promises. Should you sue him? He failed to live up to his promises. Are there any among you that actually have lived up to your promises? I am aware of none.

Whenever you like, you already burned any cred with the no show four days ago. Good luck with that.

So working in the print game somehow gives you a definitive knowledge of what I am actually doing? I am doing exactly what I said I am doing, and not what you imagine I am doing.

I did read what ChrLzs wrote. What I read was that he made a spurious claim, and then asked if I feel guilty about it.

Again you seem to somehow know a great deal about why I write books.

Family and friends did make reviews, but I didn't solicit them.

I'm not really going to ask Jay to ask his spouse to represent me ... that was a joke.

Of course I want to maximize sales - but like I said way back, any income beyond the costs of production and marketing will be donated to charity.

John Kelly laid down no conditions - so why the hell would he want to sue me for anything?

Like I said in a previous post, people seem to think I have some influence - for instance over what was supposed to happen in Houston. I don't.  

Edited July 25, 2019 by Derek Willis
Missed out a word

[Derek Willis]

2 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Really???????  here you go...

and 

I'm sure you will remember the context...

And this isn't a question, but how about you get brave and defend it anyway:

And answer THIS while you're at it:

Why did you not fully quote that email, Derek???? - this had nothing to do with 'John Kelly'.  Are you making this up as you go along?

  Did you know that here in Oz, we have a simple rule - you can't defame someone when you tell the truth...  So cease this childish whining.

 

Well, who wouldn't believe you.....   Do your stories EVER include evidence or support?  I'm guessing that is what 'john' told you?  Have you not yet spotted that his word is worthless and he duped you?

If you answer nothing else, how about you declare which, of all the topics no doubt comprehensively covered in your 'Faking Apollo' book, is the best evidence in your opinion?  Don't give me a list, just commit to the very best of whatever smokin' guns you think you have..  Then I (and no doubt others) will see what your expertise level is and we'll be delighted to thoroughly, publicly, scientifically analyse the claim.

That must surely be what you want, right?  The chance to show that your opinion is worth posting?

Hint 1 - choose wisely.

Hint 2. - make sure it is a topic (and underlying disciplines) that you know REALLY well.

Hint 3 - if you don't wish to commit, that's OK, but then I'll assume the first thing mentioned in your book is the 'best'.  Can't be fairer...

And don't forget, you've promised to release the book for free - so let us know when that happens.  I'll set some reminders.....

Like I said in a previous email, I was contacted by someone who wanted to pre-order the book. Other people did the same. Is that against the law? I did not solicit pre-orders. Even I had of, is that against the law?

You don't know what is in the book, yet you use that as a basis to question whether or not I feel guilty.

I had - and still have - no intention of fully quoting an email I received from someone. If people send me emails and then see that I am reproducing them on a forum - despite redacting any identifying features - people will soon stop sending me emails.

I wasn't being serious about suing you - does the winter down under freeze the brain cells that normally process irony?

The evidence is presented in my book - either purchase a copy, or wait for the free edition. The choice is your's.

Edit: Despite what you claim I am claiming, Project Apollo was an incredible achievement. NASA and everybody involved put men on the Moon. It doesn't get much better than that!

Edited July 25, 2019 by Derek Willis
Used the wrong tense of a word

[Derek Willis]

56 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Just as an aside, the Amazon links still show that Derek is happily claiming that his book is filled with content and proof from John Kelly....

To verify this, click on 'Read more' where it gives the description on this page:
https://www.amazon.com/Faking-Apollo-Fifty-Years-Secrecy-ebook/dp/B07VH8BFX7/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=derek+willis&qid=1563921570&s=gateway&sr=8-1

Here's a sample of what Derek is advertising on that page:

Now, from what Derek says here at UM, I'd have to say that the vast majority of that list is either NOT in the book, or is to be removed.  So is that a FALSE description of the book, or are those 'lucky' first readers going to get a completely different version, filled with nothing but a lame story about a fender mixup and too much/too little dust on Surveyor III.. ?  Maybe, Derek, you should check with your lawyers and see what they think about what you are doing?

So, Derek - is that Amazon's fault, or is it up to the author to change their pages?  I don't know, but I think it's time Derek took a bit of responsibility for all this.  If this was me, after an embarrassing debacle like this, I'd be making dam sure that the content on the Amazon page actually agreed with what I was spruiking at a public forum.  Even more so if I was asking money for the book.....

May I respectfully suggest, Derek, that you or Amazon have some 'splaining' to do.  Mostly you...

 

PS - I'm thinking about writing a book - about the worst of the Apollo deniers and their tactics...

Again, how do you know what is in the book?

Unless you have secretly bought a copy but won't admit it! (That is another joke.)

The book describes what I was told by John Kelly, and the evidence he showed me.

Why is it a false description of the book?

[Obviousman]

2 hours ago, Obviousman said:

Can I modify that? @Derek Willis in your opinion, did the Apollo missions happen as recorded in history (e.g. mission reports, etc)? Apollos 7 through 17, landing on 11, 12, and 14 through 17, etc? No hoaxes, no misdirection, no substitutions, no fake images, no lies, etc? Personnel as listed landed on the Moon on the dates claimed, walked on the lunar surface for the periods indicated, using the published equipment, no alien technology, no help from little green men, etc?

Sorry to be pedantic Derek, but could you answer my question as per above?

Many thanks.

[Peter B]

11 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

The free edition on a website will come out after the paperback. It was the paperback edition that people pre-ordered, and like I said earlier I have a moral duty to let them read the book before I make it freely available. I am currently having the manuscript reformatted.

By the way, which were your questions on morality? I seem to have missed them.

Most people who write do so for fun. The odds of achieving success are so remote, it would be a bit silly to start out by believing best-sellers and glittering prizes are just around the corner.

You will note that I wrote: "We amateur writers saw our piles of 'friends and family' five star reviews disappear a few months back." I did not write: "We amateur writers saw our piles of self-arranged 'family and friends' five star reviews disappear a few months back." I didn't write that because I have never self-arranged any reviews. However, friends and family just can't seem to help themselves from thinking they are helping a writer by giving five star reviews.

So you had better be careful you don't defame me! I understand Jay is married to a lawyer. I might ask him if his spouse will represent me.

I actually think what Amazon are doing is a good thing because glowing reviews that are obviously from a friend or family member have the opposite effect to generating sales.

I wasn't the only person who John Kelly contacted. He contacted other people - on both sides of the debate - but if they choose not to publicize that, then it is their business.

Anyway, it is late again in the UK so tomorrow I will respond to any response you might make.  

Wow, you really do have a thing about defamation, don't you.

When you hypothetically spoke to the company lawyers about Jay's potential defamation of you, did you hypothetically mention my potential defamation of you? Or was your post about that just another of your little jokes?

[bknight]

2 hours ago, Obviousman said:

Sorry to be pedantic Derek, but could you answer my question as per above?

Many thanks.

I agree, so Derek what is your belief on A8-A17.  I'm not interested in what "John" believes just what you believe.

[Derek Willis]

3 hours ago, Peter B said:

Wow, you really do have a thing about defamation, don't you.

When you hypothetically spoke to the company lawyers about Jay's potential defamation of you, did you hypothetically mention my potential defamation of you? Or was your post about that just another of your little jokes?

No, sorry to disappoint you but I didn't mention you. Nor did I specifically mention Jay. Here - again - is what I wrote on ApolloHoax:

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

I have highlighted the nature of the query I made. You seem to be forgetting that the claim I was actually bringing a case against Jay was invented here on UM, as was the claim that I was constantly in touch with my lawyers.

[Derek Willis]

2 hours ago, bknight said:

I agree, so Derek what is your belief on A8-A17.  I'm not interested in what "John" believes just what you believe.

You can either trawl through this thread, or read my book.

What I believe is irrelevant. What matters is whether people feel the evidence presented demonstrates not all the Apollo missions were as history records them.

[Derek Willis]

5 hours ago, Obviousman said:

Sorry to be pedantic Derek, but could you answer my question as per above?

Many thanks.

I would say again, my opinion is not at issue here. What is at issue is whether the evidence demonstrates if the Apollo 11, 12 and 17 landings were genuine. I will though, happily say that no aliens or little green men were in any way involved with Project Apollo. 

[Derek Willis]

I think what would be best is if we continue the conversation after people have read my book - if that is what they chose to do. It really is silly just now because people are claiming to know what is or isn't in the book without having read it. In due course the free version will be online.

[bknight]

28 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

You can either trawl through this thread, or read my book.

What I believe is irrelevant. What matters is whether people feel the evidence presented demonstrates not all the Apollo missions were as history records them.

Well we have beat to death A12, which you are totally incorrect whether you can determine the amount of dust on the Surveyor and how it got there, as that is irrelevant to the landing of the LM.  As for your continued belief that the astronauts discovered that the S3 was totally covered in your timeline, bring up the "if I ran the zoo" logical fallacy.  

I do believe that you have A17 as a fake and that is because you don't understand how Harrison didn't know/realize that a fender was returned, again "if I ran the zoo" fallacy rings true here..

No I'm not wasting my time in which to go back through 40+ pages to find your beliefs.  No the evidence has not proven that either A12 or A17 were faked.  Your evidence is non existent.  So what else is there concerning Apollo not waiting for your book, just give us a Readers Digest.

Oh I see A11 ha joined your fantasy.

Edited July 25, 2019 by bknight
A11

[Derek Willis]

22 minutes ago, bknight said:

Well we have beat to death A12, which you are totally incorrect whether you can determine the amount of dust on the Surveyor and how it got there, as that is irrelevant to the landing of the LM.  As for your continued belief that the astronauts discovered that the S3 was totally covered in your timeline, bring up the "if I ran the zoo" logical fallacy.  

I do believe that you have A17 as a fake and that is because you don't understand how Harrison didn't know/realize that a fender was returned, again "if I ran the zoo" fallacy rings true here..

No I'm not wasting my time in which to go back through 40+ pages to find your beliefs.  No the evidence has not proven that either A12 or A17 were faked.  Your evidence is non existent.  So what else is there concerning Apollo not waiting for your book, just give us a Readers Digest.

Oh I see A11 ha joined your fantasy.

bknight, how can I take seriously anything said by someone who had to admit they had made up something about me? For the record, here is your retraction:

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

That said, I am interested to know why it was you were under the impression I was bringing a case against Jay. Where did you get that notion? Did someone here on UM suggest that, and you then repeated what they said? Or did that falsity also simply come off the top of your head?

Edit: for the record this is what you wrote in # 957:

"I doubt that he will show up and defend, seeing as how he is in constant communications with his lawyer concerning his lawsuit with Jay Windley (JayUtah)."

 

 

Edited July 25, 2019 by Derek Willis

[bknight]

3 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

bknight, how can I take seriously anything said by someone who had to admit they had made up something about me? For the record, he is your retraction:

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

That said, I am interested to know why it was you were under the impression I was bringing a case against Jay. Where did you get that notion? Did someone here on UM suggest that, and you then repeated what they said? Or did that falsity also simply come off the top of your head? 

 

You didn't answer my questions but that is uaual for you.  Yes I did make an assumption but I have the guts to admit my error, where you haven't.

Why should anyone read your fantasyland ideas when you haven't presented any evidence proving them?  Answer my questions please.

[Derek Willis]

1 minute ago, bknight said:

You didn't answer my questions but that is uaual for you.  Yes I did make an assumption but I have the guts to admit my error, where you haven't.

Why should anyone read your fantasyland ideas when you haven't presented any evidence proving them?  Answer my questions please.

I don't consider I am in error. Like I have said, my opinion isn't relevant here - what matters is whether the evidence in my book supports the claim that not everything about Project Apollo is as the record states. I will come back and debate after people have read my book, if that is what they choose to do.

By the way, you didn't make an error - you made something up. One thing I did learn from the lawyers is that claiming a defamatory statement was made in error isn't a defense. If that was how it worked, no defamation cases would ever need to go to court. All someone would have to say is: "Sorry, but when I said such and such a politician was embezzling public money, I was mistaken." But that is by the by. So can I take it you made up the whole thing re. your statement in # 957? You don't have to answer that. If you are okay with people knowing you make things up, then that is your business.