Hunchback aka inquisitivemind.

[mako88sb]

I've went through the threads in the archives about this character and as I suspected, his arguments and supposed education that he's hoodwinked some mindless minions on youtube with did not withstand the scrutiny of people who actually understand the science and engineering involved with the space program. I pointed this out to him and of course he's in the right, you guys are wrong but his opponents were in greater number so he left you to your ignorance. Seeing as a lot of the arguments dealt with basic fundamentals I suggested he round up some former and current colleagues to help him out instead of hiding out at youtube. I asked him what was more important, having his ego massaged by  his band of bozos or coming back here to prove he's not the fraud that he's been made out to be. I must of hit a nerve because he's no longer responding to me.

What I was wondering if it would be possible to move his postings from the archive and make it a sticky on the new site? I got pretty fed up with him when someone pointed out that the actions of the astronauts seem pretty genuine and consistent for guys who would be experiencing a great and challenging new adventure. His response was that the only reasonable explanation is that they where drugged and/or under mind control to be so thoroughly convinced that the lunar landings where real.  I won't be able to stop him from posting and making nonsensical videos but I sure as heck want to point out every chance I get that he's probably a fraud. I've made a couple posts telling people they see his handiwork here by searching the archives but it would be much easier if they could see it on the new forum. Thanks!

[gillianren]

The reason the archives exist is that it's a royal pain to transfer things from them.

[mako88sb]

Yeah, I was afraid of that but figured it couldn't hurt to ask. I realize it's pretty hopeless trying to convince some of these nuts they are wasting their time with this nonsense but for those who are sitting on the fence, I'd hate to seem them swayed by Hunches fancy but fundamentally flawed videos.

[mako88sb]

I recall somebody asking about his credentials but I'm not sure if he gave any kind of satisfying reply. I noticed he posted this almost a year ago at youtube:

[Chew]

I recall somebody asking about his credentials but I'm not sure if he gave any kind of satisfying reply. I noticed he posted this almost a year ago at youtube:

34 seconds in: "It means I entered this school in 1973, that is only two years after the last Apollo mission."

This is exactly the kind of hard-hitting research and fact-checking we've come to expect from hunchbacked.

[Luke Pemberton]

I sure do wish I had entered that school. You automatically get a university degree without having to pass an exam (2:21). That would have saved me a lot of bother. What a fool I have been. What a fool...

[Echnaton]

It really doesn't matter where he went to school, what he did in the military or where he worked.  What matters is if he can back his claims up with something other than his own authority.  Unless, that is, if he wants to stayed walled up in his own little corner of YouTube.  If that is the case, he is irreverent.  So let him stew in his own juices over there and commune with the like minded.

[ka9q]

I think you mean irrelevant. But he's an atheist, so I guess he's irreverent too.

Hunchbacked is an utter enigma. I've been sparring with him for years and I still can't figure out what makes him tick. He's a fascinating study.

Most of the time he seems perfectly sincere. Most Apollo deniers respond to the demolition of their arguments by swiftly and permanently banning the offender. Hunchbacked rarely bans anyone, and never for any length of time. About the only way to get him really mad is to accuse him of insincerity or dishonesty.

Yet there are also times when his arguments are so blatantly biased, misleading and just plain wrong that it's almost impossible to accept that he isn't aware of it and doing it deliberately. So I still can't figure him out.

[Trebor]

One of the first videos he did he used the 'Earthrise' sequence from Apollo 8 to show that those images were not taken from the lunar surface.
After that I really can not take him at all seriously.

[Echnaton]

I think you mean irrelevant.

Yes.  Since the editing time limit was set for two hours, my spelling check/proof reading error count is going up.   Particularity for posts made in haste before moving on to other topics. 

[ka9q]

Some of his claims are just downright bizarre. Many, even if true, would make no sense in the context of a hoax. It's just the usual denier's collection of "anomalies" that are somehow supposed to mean something.

A while ago he showed a picture of an Apollo CSM taken through the LM rendezvous window just before docking after lunar ascent. He objected to the fact that we could not see the side of the service module except for part of a thruster quad. The reason was obvious: the camera was very close to the CSM's X (longitudinal) axis, i.e., within the radius of the CSM, so from simple perspective one could not see the exterior of the (opaque) SM.

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.

I'm reminded of something that Bellcore's Bob Lucky said back in the 1980s about artificial intelligence: it was just a matter of time before a computer became the world's chess champion, but we still don't know how to program a computer to walk into a room and merely find a chessboard -- something that any 5 year old (sighted) child with average intelligence can do quite easily. It demonstrates just how vastly different computers and human brains are in the way they operate.

It's hard to study a mental process that seems so intuitive and effortless to almost everyone. But maybe there are a few people who lack this natural ability, and they may someday help us understand how it works in the rest of us.

Another Hunchbacked gem has him claiming that the famous hammer and feather demonstration on Apollo 15 was faked; the hammer's fall (which really took place in earth gravity, naturally) was retarded to simulate lunar gravity by sliding down a blanket on the front of the MESA. I tried to point out that a) Scott is standing in front of the MESA and b) the hammer falls in front of Scott; ergo the hammer must fall well in front of the MESA -- to no avail.

It's almost as if his mind can interpret a perfectly ordinary scene as though it were an M.C. Escher painting of an impossible scene that actually exists. Or something.

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 know people often object to performing armchair psychiatry over the net, but it's very tempting.

[raven]

One of the first videos he did he used the 'Earthrise' sequence from Apollo 8 to show that those images were not taken from the lunar surface.
After that I really can not take him at all seriously.

Ow, ow, ow.
I think that just made my head meat implode.

[Luke Pemberton]

A while ago he showed a picture of an Apollo CSM taken through the LM rendezvous window just before docking after lunar ascent. He objected to the fact that we could not see the side of the service module except for part of a thruster quad. The reason was obvious: the camera was very close to the CSM's X (longitudinal) axis, i.e., within the radius of the CSM, so from simple perspective one could not see the exterior of the (opaque) SM.

This issue perplexes me somewhat. Almost every photo is argued as being evidence of a hoax now, but if they were produced on Earth they would still appear the same way. Most photographic claims are leaving me with the question 'and so what?'

The hoax theory is becoming more a more torturous and complex. In a way, it is a good thing, because it actually blows itself apart, particularly as most sane people can see that how more and more ridiculous it is becoming when the theorists argue over every minute detail they can find.

[JayUtah]

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.

[Luke Pemberton]

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.

I understand that the raison d'etre for this stance is that if his critics credibility is scrupulous over some minute detail, then how can they be trusted on Apollo. I am convinced that this stance has origins in Ralph Rene's propaganda argument that He Who Shall Not Be Named bought into. However, if one asks Who Shall Not Be Named about Ralph's alternative theories and whether Ralph has the credibility to comment on Apollo, when Ralph hadn't the faintest idea how to use the laws and theories of physics; He Who Shall Not Be Named cries foul and argues that Ralph's theories may have been wrong (in some cases), but it does not mean he was wrong about Apollo.