Hunchback aka inquisitivemind.

[Count Zero]

Oh great.  Way to go.  Now he's going to think he's on-track for a Nobel Prize!

 

[Noldi400]

   

Hunchy's comments are only slightly more intelligible than electronics to me.

More?

Sad, isn't it? I'm a former Mensa member, but when I try to understand how a transistor works (for example) it's just static. My brain just isn't tuned to that frequency.
======================

if you have the time, go make a "debunk" video on one of his claims. no need to make it fancy, just make some title cards in paint, and use wevideo or something to put the pictures together in minutes. <snip> .. come on, join in on revealing hunchbackeds poor research and analysis. he might even admit he was lazy in his research.

Just for fun, I may make an attempt at that. He certainly provides plenty of fodder, and my results can't be worse than his.
======================
On the Death Of HB Support:
Although Hunchy is still kicking, I notice the Unnamable One hasn't posted anything new on the subject in 5 or 6 months. I saw this video a while back and I'm thinking maybe this guy has a point:

Maybe we've finally exceeded the limit of their attention spans.

[gillianren]

I think arguing by video, for either side, is a bad way of doing it.  I don't think there's much of a way to present a coherent point without having a lot of title cards--so many, in fact, that you might as well just write things down.  I suspect this is a generational thing, and I'm risking sounding like an old fogey.  But I do not think the ready access to recording equipment is entirely for the best.  I think it's making people lazy and sloppy.  This is why, for example, you see people's Facebook photo albums full of seventy-five identical shots of their baby.  They don't have the skill and good sense to separate out the best ones for you.

[Abaddon]

Do we actually know what the film advance time was for the Apollo version of the Hasselblad 500EL? The one without a viewfinder?

Wow, we are graced with the presence of GoneToPlaid. Weren't you the one that did the deconvolved LRO images?

Those were epic and astonishing.

I fail to see how any Apollo denier could stand up in front of those.

Welcome, and thank you for your hard work. I am off to your youtube channel. Haven't looked at them in a while, but I enjoyed them immensely.

[Tomblvd]

I think arguing by video, for either side, is a bad way of doing it.  I don't think there's much of a way to present a coherent point without having a lot of title cards--so many, in fact, that you might as well just write things down.  I suspect this is a generational thing, and I'm risking sounding like an old fogey.

I agree with you. Tremendously bad.

The problem can be seen with the innumerable videos of Jarrah White. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say that he has yet to make a video about the Moon Hoax that doesn't have at least one factual problem with it. And he just continues to produce them, like so many bowel movements, making stealth edits as he goes, never acknowledging his previous errors.

A great example of this is his "Ham radio" video. He makes a game-ending error at the very beginning, confusing the bands, or range of frequencies, that hams are licensed to broadcast in, with their ability to receive any frequency that they can set their receiver up for.  For someone even casually familiar with hams, or radio in general, it is a stunning and embarrassing error. Yet to cover his rear, he just made another video where he changes the subject and corrects the error without mentioning he got it wrong, but he doesn't bother to correct the original video. AFAIK, it is still there.

If this were being discussed in a forum, he would be unable to simply run away from an error such as that, which, of course, explains why he never ventures out from his little hovel of YouTube.

In addition, some of us had a look at his written debate skills, and it wasn't pretty. After getting beat up pretty badly by Jay on the IMDB website, he got very nasty. He seems to have a very thin skin and quite a temper.

[Lunchpacked]

I think arguing by video, for either side, is a bad way of doing it.  I don't think there's much of a way to present a coherent point without having a lot of title cards--so many, in fact, that you might as well just write things down.  I suspect this is a generational thing, and I'm risking sounding like an old fogey.  But I do not think the ready access to recording equipment is entirely for the best.  I think it's making people lazy and sloppy.  This is why, for example, you see people's Facebook photo albums full of seventy-five identical shots of their baby.  They don't have the skill and good sense to separate out the best ones for you.

you are correct, hunchbacked admittedly makes lazy researched videos, and hunchbacked says he will not even consider any ideas unless you make a video. so i find his sources, read the chapter in question and not just look at the pictures and just use his own "evidence" against him.. it has kinda worked 2 of three times i've tried, (one video he has not commented on yet.)

of course, we would be better off without these videos all together, but since they are being made, the least i can do is try to set the story straight and expose the lying hoaxers for what they are. so other people on the fence who happen to stumble across his videos gets both sides of the story, not just the hoaxers.
even with more or less no knowledge of the AGC i countered his claims and got him to admit he made errors because he relies on his own knowledge and analysis
and learned a bit more about apollo in the process.

it takes me no more than an hour or so to produce a rebuttal video, and that is with no video editing knowledge, using youtube provided tools.

i'll try my best to counter any more of his silly claims and try to set the story straight
atleast i get results from my work one removal of his vids and one approved as a reply video. i think it is rare for a hoaxer to accept a reply video from a "shill" much less remove a video and admit by his own will that it was based on lazy research. if I/we prove him wrong enough times, he might quit or realize he might actually be wrong (and pigs will fly) but to me it's worth a shot.

[ka9q]

I absolutely agree; video is the worst format for this sort of thing. Hunchbacked's videos are all basically just (ugh) Powerpoint presentations with music and a very clumsy user interface for changing slides. I can't stand having text shown to me at a rate I can't easily control.

This sort of thing would be far better expressed in a good old fashioned text article, perhaps updated to the Internet era by being written in HTML with embedded pictures and links to relevant audio clips.

One funny thing about Hunchbacked's videos is that most have some sort of classical music soundtrack that actually isn't half bad, but a few have tripped the automated Youtube copyrighted music detector and gotten them censored. Hunchbacked, being the ultra-paranoid soul he is, thinks they specifically went after him because of his anti-Apollo views; I don't think we were ever able to explain that the Youtube machinery is automated. Like most deniers, he just doesn't want to accept that he just isn't that important. Look at how they're all still convinced that NASA pays us to spar with them; 'paid NASA shill' has become one of their favorite epithets.

[JayUtah]

I'm really surprised at that. My understanding of his video was that he based his figures on the total number of wires available for bits.

Think of it as the number of digits on your odometer.  Older ones had only five digits plus tenths, unable therefore to accurately register distances greater than 100,000 whole units.  While you knew whether your car had "rolled over" (i.e., had overflowed the odometer), the device itself couldn't register it; 134,432.6 miles registered the same as 34,432.6 miles.  Newer odometers have six digits plus tenths.  Adding just one more digit allowed for an order of magnitude greater capacity.

Each additional wire on the computers "bus" adds another digit, effectively increasing the largest number that the signals on the bus can represent -- by collectively considering wires with voltage on them as 1s and wires with no voltage as zeros.  That largest number limits the size of memory that can be addressed -- the number of memory "words" the computer can keep track of.  Each word of the computer memory is numbered.  And to retrieve the contents of that word, the processor turns wires on or off on the bus to correspond to the number of the desired word, then asks the memory system to respond.  The memory reads the pattern of on-off voltage on the wires and interprets it as the binary number of the word it should retrieve.  The more wires, the more bits (binary digits), and the more bits the higher the maximum number of memory locations.

Unfortunately the AGC did not use a "flat" memory architecture.  It employed a "bank" strategy where the same memory address numbers could refer to different physical memory banks.  Consequently an additional step was needed in the processor to set the proper bank.  For example, memory address 261 could refer to one word in one bank for one purpose, and a completely different word in a completely separate bank for another purpose.  Using this method the number of wires in the bus could be kept small, yet still address a large amount of memory.

Hunchbacked really doesn't understand computers, so he doesn't really understand what's going on in the AGC.  To understand how the banking was implemented in the physical wires, you really do need to be an expert.  If you recall, I addressed his computer questions at length on the previous forum.  It was obvious that he really didn't understand much beyond the Intel personal computer architecture, and wrongly believed that every computer must have to work substantially the same.

[JayUtah]

I absolutely agree; video is the worst format for this sort of thing.

I also agree.  And his insistence to consider only responses submitted in video form is obviously a ploy to discourage critics from responding.  I can write and edit several forum posts in the space of a coffee break.  I'm not about to spend an hour making a video that's simply a recitation of the important text.

This sort of thing would be far better expressed in a good old fashioned text article, perhaps updated to the Internet era by being written in HTML with embedded pictures and links to relevant audio clips.

You mean like this? 

[JayUtah]

And he [Jarrah] just continues to produce them, like so many bowel movements, making stealth edits as he goes, never acknowledging his previous errors.

This is one of the many things that convince me he knows he's wrong and is just out to see how much attention he can get.  And it's also the difference between my colleagues and his:  mine have a contest going to see if they can catch me in an error.  His simply stroke his ego.

In addition, some of us had a look at his written debate skills, and it wasn't pretty. After getting beat up pretty badly by Jay on the IMDB website, he got very nasty. He seems to have a very thin skin and quite a temper.

Indeed he does.

The whole IMDb episode began when Jarrah tried to get me to answer his latest questions via personal email.  I told him my well-known and longstanding policy that I do not debate in private, and will debate only in public with a third-party moderator enforcing decorum.  And I bluntly told him that the moderation condition applied especially to him, given his longstanding obsession and prior track record.  (His initial rampage in 2004 on Yahoo! Groups is still carefully preserved.)  He was so insistent that he should be excepted from those requirements that I finally had to blacklist his email.

He showed up to IMDb unannounced and unsolicited and proposed that venue as the neutrally-moderated forum for our debate.  IMDb was his idea, not mine.  So it's highly disingenuous of him to stomp off saying that he was treated unfairly there.  He chose the judge and jury, so if they condemn him then that's his problem.  And yes, he was moderated there for his typical temper and foul language.  He posted a cleaned-up version of the same post later that day, so there's no question he knows exactly why his earlier post was removed.  It most certainly wasn't that it contained killer testimony that was redacted to save me from embarrassment.  He proved amply why moderation was needed in his case.

[JayUtah]

it must be aggrevating that an aerospace engineer from the finest aerospace engineering school in all of france, is easily stumped by a guy with little formal education beyond "normal school runs"

Yeah, does anyone actually still believe he's an engineer?  He isn't.  There is no way someone with his deplorable lack of understanding could survive as a professional engineer.  Based on his rudimentary knowledge of computers I venture that he's an IT tech or something, probably having once aspired to engineering but then having subsequently failed for obvious reasons.

Someone who trusts his own knowledge and analysis to present it without review clearly hasn't spent much time in an actual engineering context.

[nomuse]

Heh.

A few years back I was at a Thanksgiving dinner with my dad and some of his old circle.  Dad's an EE and that's as "soft" as this group got...mech engineers, civic engineers; a whole bunch of crop-hair button-shirt hardnoses.  And one of the younger people at the party, when pressed as to where they worked these days, replied "Software engineer." 

I think even the turkey froze.

[Lunchpacked]

it must be aggrevating that an aerospace engineer from the finest aerospace engineering school in all of france, is easily stumped by a guy with little formal education beyond "normal school runs"

Yeah, does anyone actually still believe he's an engineer?  He isn't.  There is no way someone with his deplorable lack of understanding could survive as a professional engineer.  Based on his rudimentary knowledge of computers I venture that he's an IT tech or something, probably having once aspired to engineering but then having subsequently failed for obvious reasons.

Someone who trusts his own knowledge and analysis to present it without review clearly hasn't spent much time in an actual engineering context.

I actually do believe that hunchbaked has decreased vision or blindness on one eye.. his way of describing perspective seems like it has been tought from a book, not experienced..

[cjameshuff]

now he's claiming i'm right, but only in theory, implying that it would not work practically.

...theory and practice are generally rather closely related in computer science. Memory addressing is not an exception...if it works, it works.

I haven't dug into his argument in detail, why does he think there needs to be more wires? Does he think each word needs a separate external conductor? Or that the number of addressable locations increases linearly with the number of connectors?

I actually do believe that hunchbaked has decreased vision or blindness on one eye.. his way of describing perspective seems like it has been tought from a book, not experienced..

Lack of stereo vision doesn't mean he doesn't experience perspective. Avoiding perspective would require an "eye" larger than everything in sight. It sounds like a cognitive defect to me.

I have noticed that many hoax proponents appear to have such incredibly poor spatial reasoning skills that I wonder how they manage to feed themselves, however. I've seen them stymied by things as simple as determining which of two overlapping objects is in front of the other.

[Lunchpacked]

now he's claiming i'm right, but only in theory, implying that it would not work practically.

...theory and practice are generally rather closely related in computer science. Memory addressing is not an exception...if it works, it works.

I haven't dug into his argument in detail, why does he think there needs to be more wires? Does he think each word needs a separate external conductor? Or that the number of addressable locations increases linearly with the number of connectors?

I actually do believe that hunchbaked has decreased vision or blindness on one eye.. his way of describing perspective seems like it has been tought from a book, not experienced..

Lack of stereo vision doesn't mean he doesn't experience perspective. Avoiding perspective would require an "eye" larger than everything in sight. It sounds like a cognitive defect to me.

I have noticed that many hoax proponents appear to have such incredibly poor spatial reasoning skills that I wonder how they manage to feed themselves, however. I've seen them stymied by things as simple as determining which of two overlapping objects is in front of the other.

you should see hunchbacked photshop the things into the "right" position. there was one incident with a crater in two photos taken with a slight change in perspective, he moved the crater, and the comparison was WAY off any normal perpective. and just one crater mind you, all the others around it that clearly moves consistenlty with normal perspective were untouched. they can find errors in the smallest details, but things right infront of their noses is ignored?

I'd like to see how deep they can dig themselves in the hoax lies..
i suspect it would results in something like this: