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
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Abaddonire said:

Not really. He was a private individual, sure. But he was doing speaking tours pretty much up until his death.

I can only quote from Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Armstrong

Public profile

255px-Neil_Armstong_1999.jpg
 
Armstrong in 1999

Armstrong's family described him as a "reluctant American hero".[175][176][177] He kept a low profile later in his life, leading to the belief that he was a recluse.[178][179] Recalling Armstrong's humility, John Glenn, the first American to orbit Earth, told CNN: "[Armstrong] didn't feel that he should be out huckstering himself. He was a humble person, and that's the way he remained after his lunar flight, as well as before."[180] Armstrong turned down most requests for interviews and public appearances. Michael Collins said in his book Carrying the Fire that when Armstrong moved to a dairy farm to become a college professor, it was like he "retreated to his castle and pulled up the drawbridge". Armstrong found this amusing, and said, "...those of us that live out in the hinterlands think that people that live inside the Beltway are the ones that have the problems."

Andrew Chaikin says in A Man on the Moon that Armstrong kept a low profile but was not a recluse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got an Idea. Let them go to where the lunar landers supposedly touched down. Prove they aren't there. Then they can say "Ha, told you so!"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll repost this here just because it's worth it.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waiting patiently for Derek to re-appear with his amazing "Apollo hoax" evidence......

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Obviousman said:

Waiting patiently for Derek to re-appear with his amazing "Apollo hoax" evidence......

Actually he needs to disprove 6 Apollo missions. They went from Apollo 11 through Apollo 17. Apollo 13 had to be aborted as anyone who's seen the movie knows. The others all landed on the moon. That makes a total of 12 men who have walked on the moon.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/12379/12-men-who-walked-moon

Edited by susieice
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Obviousman said:

Waiting patiently for Derek to re-appear with his amazing "Apollo hoax" evidence......

I do hope you aren't holding your breath in the anticipation.:)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well as I sit at the pc on 21 Jul 2019, I find no huge revelation from "John" proving that Apollo was a hoax, nor did I find any astronaut claiming that he was involved in a hoax.  So it seems that Derek has failed once again.  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).  This was predicted by so many, all but Derek.  I'll say again what a willfully ignorant person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/20/2019 at 7:10 AM, Obviousman said:

Waiting patiently for Derek to re-appear with his amazing "Apollo hoax" evidence......

If he is honest, he will reappear and acknowledge the utter fail. Otherwise, he will hide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of us elephants are not going to forget your earlier statements, Derek...  <_<

This is merely the start of a process of dredging I am planning to undertake, where I'll be addressing all of the 'claims' (term used very loosely) that you have excreted both here and at Apollohoax.net....

On 08/05/2019 at 1:04 AM, Derek Willis said:

If you had asked me that question a few months ago I would have said that Apollo 12 was absolutely not faked.

And a few months ago, you'd have been right.  Now, however:

  • you are wrong
  • have been shown to be wrong
  • when asked for simple quantification/qualification of your claim, supplied nothing but handwaves that just show your ignorance of lunar conditions
     
Quote

Since talking with John Kelly and looking at some of the documents he is in possession of, I would now say I don't know.

It's now 22 July.  This cowardly copout is so far beyond its Use By date that it stinks.

Quote

After I have finished my investigation - and taken on board the input from people such as yourself - I will give you a more definitive answer.

Well, that didn't even begin to happen, either here or at Apollohoax.  You have done nothing but whine about being attacked, despite being given a polite hearing, and have not in any way qualified or quantified your handwaved opinions - instead demanding others do your work for you, and offering this lame excuse about the claims not being yours.  Not yours?  Then don't adopt them as your own and bring them here.

BTW, I'm actually really hoping that 'John' comes good with all this 'new evidence' of fakery - apparently it even includes details of how they set up the hangar where they allegedly faked the lunar footage - I'll be especially interested in the lighting they used and how they did the 1/6 gravity effects....  (be careful Derek / 'John' - I'm setting you up.....)  :D  As they say hereabouts - Come in, Spinner...

Quote

I know you aren't going to be satisfied with this.

Correct.  Even Angry.  Annoyed.  Disappointed.  And deeply insulted (on behalf of all those who actually put in the work to get *every* Apollo crew to the Moon and back - OK, so one lot didn't land..)... 

Quote

You ask for a yes or no answer - I can't do that right now.

It's now more than 2 months later.....

Quote

And before you ask, no I can't post any of the documents John Kelly has. He intends to wait until July 20th before releasing them online and to the media. 

Oh, right.  DW, have you noticed it's now July 22nd?  Are you going to just scurry off, or do you have the cojones to admit you were wrong and out of your depth?  Don't blame John Kelly - you were the one suckered, and you brought it here.

Now let me tell you what happens next..  I'll happily sit back for a while (maybe you're on summer holidays?) and see if you have the courage to return.

Then (and I'll happily admit I'll be plagiarising oops I mean standing on the shoulders of others like Jason Thompson and Jay Windley et al... but also bringing in some new stuff..) I'll be selecting some prime examples of your postings to demolish, as well as compiling a very comprehensive refutation of your 'article'.  To be harsh, your article is so empty of any actual science, that's not going to be all that hard.... but hey, as an avid supporter of the Scientific Method, I think it's time you need to have the principles pointed out to you.  By applying those principles to that god-awful article maybe you might even learn something, and thus avoid repeats of this debacle...

I can but hope...

 

Anyway, let's give Derek / 'John' a few days.  Maybe I just missed the media releases for the 'Big Launch'?  Maybe it just got swamped by all the excellent documentaries on Apollo over the past week - they were great, and ... well... if they mentioned them at all, they were not kind to the tiny remaining cadre of Apollo Deniers... it seems they are now firmly in the same bucket as flat-earthers.

So, over to you Derek...  BTW, how's the Jay Windley case coming along? :D:D:D

 

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am as disappointed as all of you. I am also very surprised. 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. 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. But nothing materialized. I have no idea why a newspaper would back off from revealing the scoop of the century. In who's interest would it be to suppress the truth? Perhaps some of you have suggestions?

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 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? 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.       

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No big revelation. I'm shocked. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

No big revelation. I'm shocked. :rolleyes:

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!

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, yeah - my dog ate my homework. Who would have guessed?

 

I won my bet though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/20/2019 at 7:10 AM, Obviousman said:

Waiting patiently for Derek to re-appear with his amazing "Apollo hoax" evidence......

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, bknight said:

Well as I sit at the pc on 21 Jul 2019, I find no huge revelation from "John" proving that Apollo was a hoax, nor did I find any astronaut claiming that he was involved in a hoax.  So it seems that Derek has failed once again.  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).  This was predicted by so many, all but Derek.  I'll say again what a willfully ignorant person.

Which "lawsuit" are you referring to? This is what I wrote on ApolloHoax:

"I am going to contact my publisher and request their legal department advise me on this."

How has my statement become exaggerated into claims that I am actually bringing a lawsuit?

You don't have to answer that. Perhaps you were just having a bit of fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 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!

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.

Sorry you are shocked but no one else here is because this is how these little yarns have been ending since Apollo 11 landed.  As far as the LM's guidance system is was never, as John explained, incapable of landing  the craft, it just had room for improvement as did many Apollo systems over the lifetime of the program. Lastly, legit news media don't want to talk about your discoveries because they have been proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, to be delusions that very few still believe,

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 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!

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.

Yes I found a memo that one of the subroutines was changed, however that change did not nullify A11 and A12 from landing, nor A8 & A10 from orbiting the Moon, it just nulled out horizontal velocities automatically making the landing EASIER for the pilots.  You still don't get it, probably you are lost and will never see the light again.  You know why the Chicago newspaper didn't want to expose the "Truth"?  It probably was because  they undertook a investigation of the papers to see if they had any validity, which they don't.  Therefore nothing was published.  We all tried to tell you that "John" didn't have anything that had already been debunked.

I am man enough to admit to errors, too bad you aren't.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

Which "lawsuit" are you referring to? This is what I wrote on ApolloHoax:

"I am going to contact my publisher and request their legal department advise me on this."

How has my statement become exaggerated into claims that I am actually bringing a lawsuit?

You don't have to answer that. Perhaps you were just having a bit of fun.

Why would you wish the legal department to look into the matter if it was anything other than advising on a lawsuit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, bknight said:

Why would you wish the legal department to look into the matter if it was anything other than advising on a lawsuit?

What I wrote was this:

"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."

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

What I wrote was this:

"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."

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. 

I'm not aware that I indicated you were in constant communication with a lawyer, could you post where I said this.  I need to be accurate.  No, seeking legal advise is not a long way from brining a lawsuit, but rather seeking information whether a lawsuit might be winnable, if the facts where as you represented them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

What I wrote was this:

"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."

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. 

A threat is a threat and that is exactly what you were doing when you made hat statement, threatening people on a forum who were rightfully challenging your ridiculous (proven ridiculous now) Apollo hoax claims.  I for one, would love to know what response the "publisher's legal department" gave your query, if in fact there ever was a query or even a publisher?  I am guessing crickets and tumbleweeds at best, "Don't waste our time." at worst.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, bknight said:

I'm not aware that I indicated you were in constant communication with a lawyer, could you post where I said this.  I need to be accurate.  No, seeking legal advise is not a long way from brining a lawsuit, but rather seeking information whether a lawsuit might be winnable, if the facts where as you represented them.

# 957 - which you posted yesterday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

A threat is a threat and that is exactly what you were doing when you made hat statement, threatening people on a forum who were rightfully challenging your ridiculous (proven ridiculous now) Apollo hoax claims.  I for one, would love to know what response the "publisher's legal department" gave your query, if in fact there ever was a query or even a publisher?  I am guessing crickets and tumbleweeds at best, "Don't waste our time." at worst.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.