Hunchback aka inquisitivemind.

[Lunchpacked]

the truly delusional part is when he claims the water buzz has on a spoon is actually air bubbles under water.

Ah, but you see, that would work if the CM set, filled with water was actually in zero gravity.  If they had launched it into an orbit with a very high apogee, they could avoid gaps in communications coverage.  Very clever, these Zionist-Nazi fakers who did it to impress the Soviets who were totally in on it...

but it couldn't, because rockets can't work in space since they don't have anything to push against..

[ka9q]

I don't think hunch has ever weighed in on the question of rockets in space. He's smart enough to avoid our attempts to bait him into an argument with that foulmouthed Brit who does claim they can't work in space. The Brit has become rather quiet lately; as I told him, those moments of realization must get harder to suppress all the time when trying to maintain a pretense of utter non-comprehension.

But hunch has definitely gone around the bend with this latest video. As somebody said in the discussion of the Chinese spacewalk, it all looks most unlike an underwater scene. I am particularly struck by how the refractive index of the "water" has been changed to exactly match air, and how it exerts absolutely no drag on and Buzz's spinning food can. The can is even wobbling because its center of mass is offset, and the water doesn't interfere it at all.

Maybe it's not actually water but superfluid helium. Why not? Makes about as much sense.

I think I've finally had it with this guy. He is so obviously bat-insane that there's no point in even trying to reason with him anymore.

[Lunchpacked]

I don't think hunch has ever weighed in on the question of rockets in space. He's smart enough to avoid our attempts to bait him into an argument with that foulmouthed Brit who does claim they can't work in space. The Brit has become rather quiet lately; as I told him, those moments of realization must get harder to suppress all the time when trying to maintain a pretense of utter non-comprehension.

But hunch has definitely gone around the bend with this latest video. As somebody said in the discussion of the Chinese spacewalk, it all looks most unlike an underwater scene. I am particularly struck by how the refractive index of the "water" has been changed to exactly match air, and how it exerts absolutely no drag on and Buzz's spinning food can. The can is even wobbling because its center of mass is offset, and the water doesn't interfere it at all.

Maybe it's not actually water but superfluid helium. Why not? Makes about as much sense.

I think I've finally had it with this guy. He is so obviously bat-insane that there's no point in even trying to reason with him anymore.

i know hunch tends to agree qith all hoaxers, and he has agreed with the english foulmouth about the issue.. funny thing, i saw "Chewie" a couple of days ago, and he is still "bleeping" (which started after i made a goanimate video about him 1-2 months ago, having the character say words like "bleepity bleeping bleep" instead of swearing), so it seems that i have atleast reached one moonhoaxer, but not like i intended.

[gillianren]

Believe it or not, I've never seen that movie. I know I should watch it, it's considered a classic.

And it is!  We watched it in my film class.

[Noldi400]

First, what movie are we talking about?

Second. This might fit here, or it might not. I'm not sure whether it's worth starting a new thread.

Is there any circumstance that you can imagine that would lead you to believe, or even suspect, that the Apollo lunar landings were a huge, complicated hoax?  Would it even be possible to mount such a hoax?

[gillianren]

Invasion of the Body Snatchers.  Which, depending on your political slant, is generally assumed to be an allegory for Communism or conformity.  In my film class, we were instructed to come up with something else it could be an allegory for (and no Christ metaphors; too easy--and no more turning things into Star Wars, which we'd done with Mr. Smith Goes to Washington).  My group suggested Plato's Allegory of the Cave.

Second, we've talked about that one before.  Generally speaking, it would start with an explanation of how it was possible which covered everything.  Also, some real evidence of the hoax itself--the location of the giant vacuum chamber and so forth.

[Noldi400]

Oh. Duh. Yes, of course - it just didn't register. A bit of trivia: in his book Danse Macabre, Stephen King reported that Jack Finney (who wrote the original novel) stated that he had no particular political slant in mind when he wrote it - it was just intended as a scary yarn.

Hoax: that's what I've noticed as missing from, I think, every HB's claims. They pick away at what they see as anomalies or contradictions, but not one (that I've seen) has actually put together a comprehensive hypothesis (I'll not dignify it as "theory") as to just how such a hoax would be pulled off.

This is probably no surprise to anyone here, but even with no engineering or related subject in my background, when I started following the HB's a while back even their "strongest" arguments seemed childishly stupid if you have even a little knowledge of the subject matter.

[ajv]

For the past few months I've been trying to recall a scene that I'd seen or heard or read somewhere. The heroes were trying to escape the guards/police by pretending that their minds had been taken over and were now emotionless. But the woman cries out when they see a dog in danger and their escape is discovered.

It's not a famous scene but I couldn't place it: was it from Daleks - Invasion Earth or Earthsearch II or ... ?

But when Count Zero referenced "They're here already" I was reminded of the movie and recalled my forgotten scene. Thanks!

[DataCable]

The heroes were trying to escape the guards/police by pretending that their minds had been taken over and were now emotionless. But the woman cries out when they see a dog in danger and their escape is discovered.

Equilibrium comes to mind, but I think the only involvement of dogs in that one was the protagonist showing compassion for dogs which his fellow officers were about to slaughter.

[Chew]

Invasion of the Body Snatchers - Leonard Nimoy version

[carpediem]

Invasion of the Body Snatchers - Leonard Nimoy version

Except it has a dog with a man's face which discovers them. The dog isn't in danger.

[Chew]

Invasion of the Body Snatchers - Leonard Nimoy version

Except it has a dog with a man's face which discovers them. The dog isn't in danger.

Oh, right. What the Hell was I thinking?

[gillianren]

Oh. Duh. Yes, of course - it just didn't register. A bit of trivia: in his book Danse Macabre, Stephen King reported that Jack Finney (who wrote the original novel) stated that he had no particular political slant in mind when he wrote it - it was just intended as a scary yarn.

Yes, and the film teacher in my class (it was the history of the twentieth century through film, and we had one film teacher and one history teacher) wrote to Don Siegel, the director, and got much the same result.  I believe the history teacher's point in making us come up with other things it could be an allegory for was to point out that you can claim art supports pretty much any perspective, if you work at it.  My class was inclined to work at it if it amused us.

Hoax: that's what I've noticed as missing from, I think, every HB's claims. They pick away at what they see as anomalies or contradictions, but not one (that I've seen) has actually put together a comprehensive hypothesis (I'll not dignify it as "theory") as to just how such a hoax would be pulled off.

They don't have a narrative.  They don't have a story to replace the extant one.  All they have is a claim that the narrative as we know it is flawed.

This is probably no surprise to anyone here, but even with no engineering or related subject in my background, when I started following the HB's a while back even their "strongest" arguments seemed childishly stupid if you have even a little knowledge of the subject matter.

Oh, likewise.  I've always been terribly open about my failure to really get a lot of the more technical arguments.  I see long strings of numbers, and my eyes just start to glaze over.  I'm grateful that there are people for whom that is not the case, but I am assuredly not one of them.  However, I have never once found a hoax argument even a little convincing, even when I don't really understand the real-world issues which make it obviously wrong, simply because the landings' being real makes more sense than faking whatever needs to be faked.

[Chew]

Recently at a skeptics conference there was a panel discussion on conspiracy theories. Ben Radford commented that one great way to stump a CT is to ask them, "What do you think happened?"
Not 5 minutes after he said that, during Q&A, one guy stood up and said he believed 9/11 was an inside job and started a Gish Gallop. Radford interrupted him and asked... wait for it... "What do you think happened?" It was hilarious!!! Radford said exactly how to shut up a CT and this idiot stood up and opened his mouth.
The guy tried to keep galloping but Radford kept pressing him to answer the question. The guy finally paused and had to admit he didn't know.
Few things are as pathetic as someone who desperately needs advice but won't heed it. And fewer things are as pathetic as someone who can't learn from their own mistakes.

[bknight]

Warning Necro-thread revival

Some of his claims are just downright bizarre. Many, even if true, would make no sense in the context of a hoax.

Similar to He Who Shall Not Be Named, whose claims address the credibility of his critics on points that have little nor nothing to do with a hoax theory.  This is actually quite common in fringe argumentation, where opponents are running away from the common explanation rather than toward any particular one.  Hence their arguments tend to look like laundry lists of reasons not to believe some particular thing, rather than an explanation of how the data fits a new desired conclusion.

Many of his videos make it clear that he has great difficulty correctly interpreting 3-dimensional objects depicted in photographs, something that most people find intuitively easy.

Some more than others.  Spatial reasoning is a measurable trait that varies greatly from person to person.  People who want to be successful photo interpreters must develop that trait further.  Sadly there are people who don't recognize their inability to reason spatially.  Yet they profess to be experts.  Jack White is a notable example; he actually appears to reside on the low end of spatial reasoning skill, infamously unable to determine which way a Lunar Module is facing in any given photo.

It's hard to study a mental process that seems so intuitive and effortless to almost everyone.

Indeed, but it's not as transparent as all that.  We can study visual perception separately as a science, and this knowledge then informs how we interpret (and sometimes misinterpret) photographs.  The most successful photo interpreters are those that have some conscious understanding of how they might misperceive, and they take conscious steps to avoid those errors.

Sometimes I wonder if hunchbacked/inquisitivemind is actually a very elaborate and long-running practical joke, because no real, rational person could seriously believe the claims he makes. Yet he seems absolutely sincere.

I have to invoke Dunning and Kruger here.  He may be a real person, but he may not be especially rational in the sense of being able to assess his own ability and that of others.

This all occurred before my time.  sts60 brought it to my attention in a thread contained in ISF.  Anyway so who is "He Who Shall Not Be Named"?