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

1 hour ago, Derek Willis said:

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.  

That is your opinion, I speculated in error.  Nothing was made up, and you feel no need to answer, my responses will go unanswered.  I told you once that I will not be buying nor reading your fantasy notions concerning Apollo as you have given proof 

,just idle incorrect willfully ignorant theories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

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.  

Were you not in error about July 20th?

Speaking of which, have you asked "~John Kelly" why nothing happened? What was his excuse?

Are you suing "John Kelly" for trashing your reputation? 

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

On 5/26/2019 at 8:41 AM, Derek Willis said:

If it is the case, then isn't it very convenient there are no photographs of the side of Surveyor 3 facing away from the LM? The astronauts spent half an hour investigating and photographing the lander, but didn't take any of the shots that could provide evidence - or at least circumstantial evidence - that the dust was blown on by the LM as it flew past.

I was looking for something else and happened upon this claim from Derek. "There are no photographs of the side of Surveyor 3 facing away from the LM"

Interesting claim, given that there are such photographs. For the nerds, start with AS12-48-7133 and onward.

So what can we deduce? Either Derek did not know about those. In which case he is ignorant.

Or Derek did know and lied about it.

Either way, Derek's reputation takes another hit.

Derek will likely ask me how I know those photographs are of the side of Surveyor facing away from the LM. Easy. The LM is in the background. 

So now I have to ask Derek. How come you were apparently unaware of those photographs? What does your ignorance of the Apollo photographic record do to your credibility?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Abaddonire said:

Were you not in error about July 20th?

Speaking of which, have you asked "~John Kelly" why nothing happened? What was his excuse?

Are you suing "John Kelly" for trashing your reputation? 

No, I wasn't in error because I accepted there was a risk something could go wrong.

Yes, I have been in touch with him. No, I am not going to provide details of a private conversation - at least, not yet.

I don't consider he trashed my reputation - like I said, there was a risk something could go wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Derek Willis said:

No, I wasn't in error because I accepted there was a risk something could go wrong.

Yes, I have been in touch with him. No, I am not going to provide details of a private conversation - at least, not yet.

I don't consider he trashed my reputation - like I said, there was a risk something could go wrong.

Presumably, you will be releasing your book for free next April 1st and something will go wrong then as well.

Colour me unimpressed.

Tell me something else. If you never promoted your book, how would anyone know about it so that they could pre-order it anyway? Psychic powers?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Abaddonire said:

Presumably, you will be releasing your book for free next April 1st and something will go wrong then as well.

Colour me unimpressed.

Tell me something else. If you never promoted your book, how would anyone know about it so that they could pre-order it anyway? Psychic powers?

 

No, not psychic powers. The book is mentioned at the end of one of the articles in Aulis Online.

You know, all this was covered way back in the thread. Why not read through it before wasting time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Derek Willis said:

No, not psychic powers. The book is mentioned at the end of one of the articles in Aulis Online.

You know, all this was covered way back in the thread. Why not read through it before wasting time.

So your book was mentioned on social media and you then accepted paypal transactions for pre-orders?

That is exactly commercial promotion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Abaddonire said:

So your book was mentioned on social media and you then accepted paypal transactions for pre-orders?

That is exactly commercial promotion.

No, the book was mentioned at the end of one of the articles on Aulis Online. There may well have been a mention on social media - if there was, I'm not aware of that. People contacted me as a consequence of reading the article. Why do yo keep projecting what you want to believe about the history of the book, rather than accepting the actual history. Earlier you were trying to tell me why I write books. What is your problem with this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you glossing over your claim about the photographs?

Come on Derek. What is this? After all, you claimed it doesn't exist

 

AS12-48-7133.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Derek Willis said:

No, the book was mentioned at the end of one of the articles on Aulis Online. There may well have been a mention on social media - if there was, I'm not aware of that. People contacted me as a consequence of reading the article. Why do yo keep projecting what you want to believe about the history of the book, rather than accepting the actual history. Earlier you were trying to tell me why I write books. What is your problem with this?

Sigh. That was someone else. Personally, I happen to agree that you are in it for personal gain but it could as easily be ego stroking.

Now how about you deal with the photographs you claim do not exist. Please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Abaddonire said:

Are you glossing over your claim about the photographs?

Come on Derek. What is this? After all, you claimed it doesn't exist

 

AS12-48-7133.jpg

No, I am attempting to answer the rather silly questions you keep asking.

With reference to the Surveyor, I was referring to the side opposite when the LM flew past. The reason for that is because dust was allegedly blown on when the LM was flying past. The side in question is the one that can't be seen in the photograph you provided - incidentally, this is the same photograph in my article.

I couldn't find any photographs of that side. Perhaps they exist, but I couldn't find any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

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. 

And again you weasel out of answering a very straightforward question.

You're a troll Derek, and a poor one at that. My opinion is that you couldn't lie straight in bed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Derek Willis said:

No, I am attempting to answer the rather silly questions you keep asking.

With reference to the Surveyor, I was referring to the side opposite when the LM flew past. The reason for that is because dust was allegedly blown on when the LM was flying past. The side in question is the one that can't be seen in the photograph you provided - incidentally, this is the same photograph in my article.

I couldn't find any photographs of that side. Perhaps they exist, but I couldn't find any.

Which side, Derek? Because you asked for the side away from the LM and I gave you those. No that squeaking sound is the wheels on the goalposts that you are so rapidly moving. So exactly which side do you want?

These two sides?

AS12-48-7136.jpg.414a5b3685ee7526d65b2cba630d797b.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Abaddonire said:

Sigh. That was someone else. Personally, I happen to agree that you are in it for personal gain but it could as easily be ego stroking.

Now how about you deal with the photographs you claim do not exist. Please.

In # 1057 you wrote:

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

Was that not you trying to tell me why I write books?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Abaddonire said:

Which side, Derek? Because you asked for the side away from the LM and I gave you those. No that squeaking sound is the wheels on the goalposts that you are so rapidly moving. So exactly which side do you want?

These two sides?

AS12-48-7136.jpg.414a5b3685ee7526d65b2cba630d797b.jpg

 

You really should read the whole context instead of picking out a single sentence. Take a look at the map either in my article or somewhere back in the thread.

Like I say, look into it properly before wasting time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Derek Willis said:

In # 1057 you wrote:

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

Was that not you trying to tell me why I write books?

 

It's called opinion, Derek. It's allowed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Abaddonire said:

It's called opinion, Derek. It's allowed.

 

Well I would say my opinion of why I write carries more weight than yours, wouldn't you.?

 

3 minutes ago, Abaddonire said:

How about this side?

 

AS12-48-7125.jpg

That is the same side as is already shown, taken from a different angle. You can tell by the big box poking out and the cylindrical object underneath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours 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, 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)."

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

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.  

I realize you don't consider yourself to be in error, most all HBs don't.  But like all HBs you offer no evidence to support a hoax, in your case it is a few of your "observations", but theses aren't evidence just speculation on your part all inclusive in the logical fallacies you provide.  You say I'm in error and yes there are errors made by myself.  I started learning in depth details/fact concerning Apollo in earnest about four years ago, I know a vast amount more than I knew four years ago and I am still learning the memo from Bill Tindall concerning the program language changes between A12 and A13, whether this is the memo you saw in "John's " possession or not does not prove anything more than there were changes made but not to enable the computer to be able to land as "John" either described to you or you believe that to be the smoking gun of the AGC.  You fail to understand what/why the changes were made, namely to make it easier an =d safer to land the LM.  That is just one specific point that both you and "John" are incorrect.

This post would be quite lengthy if I dug back through to post all of your errors, but you have a lot and you fail to recognize them(like most all HBs).  I see Abaddonire has posted another.  You really fail miserably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Abaddonire said:

Or this side. Which side is missing, Derek?

AS12-48-7121.jpg

Same side. Look at the what side the scoop is on.

Like I say, I am sure photos must exist, but I have yet to fins one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

Well I would say my opinion of why I write carries more weight than yours, wouldn't you.?

 

That is the same side as is already shown, taken from a different angle. You can tell by the big box poking out and the cylindrical object underneath.

No. It actually isn't. Add 3-D spatial reasoning to your truck of fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

Same side. Look at the what side the scoop is on.

Like I say, I am sure photos must exist, but I have yet to fins one.

From the side directly opposite the scoop.

 

AS12-48-7138.jpg

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.