jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals

[bknight]

In keeping with the thoughts of LO to keep subjects confined to single threads and not Gish-Gallop through explanations, I will start a new thread that began 5-6 pages ago.  Serves me right to go on vacation for 3 days.

Hi Everyone,

First off, Mako88sb asks what it will take to convince me the Apollo missions were legit. To be clear, I am not 100 percent convinced they were hoaxed. As I have pointed out in the past, I believe the visuals, ie photos and films were faked. I am confident in my mind they were faked (and I am pretty certain of who some of the individuals that were involved). But fake photos don't necessarily mean the missions were faked. My stance currently is the photos/films are fake but I am unsure whether the missions actually took place. It is a bit of a stupid stance given if the pictures were faked, odds are the missions were faked too. But I have doubts. Some of the answers on this forum, for instance, have at least shown a plausibility of some things I thought were dubious. I think what is important here, people need to respect the thoughts of others, how much you may disagree with them. As far as I know, no one has a monopoly on truth.

<snip for brevity>

You spout this but as usual, you do nothing to prove the visuals were faked, nor who you are pretty certain who did the faking.

What is your evidence of visual fakery?  What have you done in your life to provide you with the necessary skills to make the claim?  In my mind the visual story has been debunked long before I ever joined this group.  I have watched and learned not to be taken into the rabbit hole in which some CT's seem to have slipped, But regale me of your expertise in this area.

[jr Knowing]

Hi bknight,

This will take a bunch of posts to lay out my thoughts.

Lets start first with who might have been involved in creating the fake visuals. The easiest way is to start at the beginning. And that is with the Von Braun narrated Footprints on the Moon feature length Apollo 11 documentary. It was issued mere weeks after the completion of the mission and included all the (DAC) films and non public access to the mission process including Von Braun. So it stands to reason, if one believes the mission footage is fake, whoever put this documentary together, which was released a few weeks later, was more than likely involved in creating fake visuals also.

This is where it gets interesting. When you look at the film credits, the main principals behind the film do not seem to exist. Barry Coe and Bill Gibson, the producer and director have never produced or directed anything before or since. Very odd for a film documenting perhaps the greatest achievement for man ever. Bill Gibson's history seems nonexistent (although his name was famously named checked in another movie, more on that later) There was a Barry Coe actor at the time. Mainly a B actor who was known mostly as the "Mr Goodwrench Guy" in commercials. He would have been 33 years old at the time of the documentary. Interestingly, his first credited acting role was in a movie called On the Threshold of Space. (they don't make it to space) He played the communications director. Now this "Foootprints" Barry Coe is the producer telling (communicating) the story of Apollo 11. Odd again. So, in short, NASA has handed over the story of Apollo 11, with complete access to classified material, to a producer and director that don't seem to exist and have never produced or directed anything before or since.

While there seems to be no history for the producer and director, there is one principal that does have a history that can be traced. His name was Robert S. Scott and he wrote the documentary. At the time, he was second in command at the United States Information Agency. This was the propaganda arm of the CIA. Prior to that, he ran the Washington office for the CIA led Aerospace Corp. And before retiring in the mid 70's, he was in charge of audiovisuals for the entire US Defense Department. So given NASA is an independent agency, the question that arises, why is this guy involved? And for what purpose?  And if he is CIA, who are these other "nonexistent" guys working along side him. The greatest achievement for mankind, and NASA has turned over the documentation of this event to some nameless/faceless guys with a CIA guy in tow? Something doesn't add up. Here is an obit for Robert S. Scott, it lists some of his tenures

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2004/12/16/robert-s-scott-federal-aud/df45a629-5121-4644-971a-722d8d2d7d68/?noredirect=on

That's all for today. I got to sleep.

[Jason Thompson]

Hi bknight,

This will take a bunch of posts to lay out my thoughts.

Lets start first with who might have been involved in creating the fake visuals.

No, let's start with the question you were asked, which is what your evidence is that the visuals were actually faked in the first place. Trying to immediately divert the discussion to a debate on who might have done it and why is a blatantly transparent attempt to avoid getting yourself pinned into matter of fact that you have demonstrated over and over again you are incapable of actually discussiing rationally. It's the equivalent of trying to convict me by proving I have the means and motive to commit murder without showing I have actually killed anyone. That wouldn't get through a court, and your tactics won't stand up here.

I repeat the original question: what is your evidence that the visuals were faked? Not who might have done it and why, that they were in fact faked.

[onebigmonkey]

If I look at the credits of any number of films, documentary or otherwise I'm sure I could find a long list of people whose career hasn't made it to wikipedia. It proves nothing. Your case is even more weakened by the idea that the entire Apollo film and photo record were handed over to a couple of nobodies. Keep looking at the list of credits for a movie. How many names are involved. Where are those people making the fake footage?

Within days of landing on the moon images and stills from the DAC footage were widely available in the media. They contained details of Earth that can only have been taken during the mission timeline and from the locations ascribed to them. They also contained details of the lunar surface not known about prior to the landings but confirmed since. Likewise the live TV footage showing Earth can only have been done at the time of broadcast.

The question you were asked was: where is your proof that these images are not genuine? How were they achieved otherwise? What happened to all the set technicians? The grips and runners? Knowing winks and nods don't cut any ice here, we want names and numbers.

[Obviousman]

I support this: what is your EVIDENCE the images were faked?

[Von_Smith]

Hi bknight,

This will take a bunch of posts to lay out my thoughts.

Lets start first with who might have been involved in creating the fake visuals. The easiest way is to start at the beginning. And that is with the Von Braun narrated Footprints on the Moon feature length Apollo 11 documentary. It was issued mere weeks after the completion of the mission and included all the (DAC) films and non public access to the mission process including Von Braun. So it stands to reason, if one believes the mission footage is fake, whoever put this documentary together, which was released a few weeks later, was more than likely involved in creating fake visuals also.

This is where it gets interesting. When you look at the film credits, the main principals behind the film do not seem to exist. Barry Coe and Bill Gibson, the producer and director have never produced or directed anything before or since. Very odd for a film documenting perhaps the greatest achievement for man ever. Bill Gibson's history seems nonexistent (although his name was famously named checked in another movie, more on that later) There was a Barry Coe actor at the time. Mainly a B actor who was known mostly as the "Mr Goodwrench Guy" in commercials. He would have been 33 years old at the time of the documentary. Interestingly, his first credited acting role was in a movie called On the Threshold of Space. (they don't make it to space) He played the communications director. Now this "Foootprints" Barry Coe is the producer telling (communicating) the story of Apollo 11. Odd again. So, in short, NASA has handed over the story of Apollo 11, with complete access to classified material, to a producer and director that don't seem to exist and have never produced or directed anything before or since.

While there seems to be no history for the producer and director, there is one principal that does have a history that can be traced. His name was Robert S. Scott and he wrote the documentary. At the time, he was second in command at the United States Information Agency. This was the propaganda arm of the CIA. Prior to that, he ran the Washington office for the CIA led Aerospace Corp. And before retiring in the mid 70's, he was in charge of audiovisuals for the entire US Defense Department. So given NASA is an independent agency, the question that arises, why is this guy involved? And for what purpose?  And if he is CIA, who are these other "nonexistent" guys working along side him. The greatest achievement for mankind, and NASA has turned over the documentation of this event to some nameless/faceless guys with a CIA guy in tow? Something doesn't add up. Here is an obit for Robert S. Scott, it lists some of his tenures

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2004/12/16/robert-s-scott-federal-aud/df45a629-5121-4644-971a-722d8d2d7d68/?noredirect=on

That's all for today. I got to sleep.

Well, if that's all you have, then I guess you have nothing.  Nothing you say here suggests a reason to think the images from the Apollo missions were faked.

[smartcooky]

Hi bknight,

This will take a bunch of posts to lay out my thoughts.

Lets start first with who might have been involved in creating the fake visuals.

No, let's start with the question you were asked, which is what your evidence is that the visuals were actually faked in the first place. Trying to immediately divert the discussion to a debate on who might have done it and why is a blatantly transparent attempt to avoid getting yourself pinned into matter of fact that you have demonstrated over and over again you are incapable of actually discussiing rationally. It's the equivalent of trying to convict me by proving I have the means and motive to commit murder without showing I have actually killed anyone. That wouldn't get through a court, and your tactics won't stand up here.

I repeat the original question: what is your evidence that the visuals were faked? Not who might have done it and why, that they were in fact faked.

The questions bknight asked were

1. What is your evidence of visual fakery?

2. What have you done in your life to provide you with the necessary skills to make the claim?

Its time jrknowing was restricted from posting any of his other gish gallop and/or walls-o-text until he answers these two questions - directly, with no spurious BS

[jr Knowing]

Hi Smartcooky,

bknight asked me to show who did it and the visuals that were faked. He said "you do nothing to prove the visuals were faked, nor who you are pretty certain who did the faking."

Why should I get banned? I am answering what he asked. I will keep the "who did it" part brief and then move on to to the images. I will finish up the "who did it part" later today. (I can't right now). Then move to the visual evidence.

[JayUtah]

Lets start first with who might have been involved in creating the fake visuals.

No,  You start first with evidence that something was done.  Then you move on to trying to determine who did it.  If you have no evidence that a thing was done, wondering who (didn't) do it is moot.

Dead on arrival, as with all the rest of your nonsensical conspiratorial claims.

[JayUtah]

bknight asked me to show who did it and the visuals that were faked. He said "you do nothing to prove the visuals were faked, nor who you are pretty certain who did the faking."

His reference to your demonstration of the skills required to detect fakery specifically asked you to describe how you know the photos are faked.  That's not a question answered by you first making up a typical speculative story and then inferring that the results of that fantasy must somehow be evident.  I promise you that no one here is interested in listening to you babble on about who you think must have nefarious intent based on what you think their career should have looked like.

Why should I get banned? I am answering what he asked.

Nope.

None of your presentations here has risen beyond you making fantastic, opinionated claims based on your ignorance of a subject, then leveling heinous accusations when the real world fails to meet them.  You are not some great detective, or some unsung genius.  You owe us something besides incessant narcissism.

[Von_Smith]

Hi Smartcooky,

bknight asked me to show who did it and the visuals that were faked.

No, he didn't.  What he asked was:  "What is your evidence of visual fakery?  What have you done in your life to provide you with the necessary skills to make the claim?"  Nothing about who in the question.

He said "you do nothing to prove the visuals were faked, nor who you are pretty certain who did the faking."

Yes, but that is an observation, not a question.  Now that you have that clarification, will you answer the questions?

Why should I get banned? I am answering what he asked.

Demonstrably (and demonstratedly, if that's a word) false.

I will keep the "who did it" part brief and then move on to to the images. I will finish up the "who did it part" later today. (I can't right now). Then move to the visual evidence.

The "who did it" part is not part of the question.  If you wish to present yourself as answering the questions asked, you should instead drop the whodunit topic altogether and move the visual evidence right away.

[bknight]

<snip>
What is your evidence of visual fakery?  What have you done in your life to provide you with the necessary skills to make the claim?  In my mind the visual story has been debunked long before I ever joined this group.  I have watched and learned not to be taken into the rabbit hole in which some CT's seem to have slipped, But regale me of your expertise in this area.

I repeat my question and repeat those who directed you to the question.  We can discuss who and why after you prove the visuals were faked.

[gillianren]

I mean, as far as credits go, that's getting into one of my areas of expertise.  Every week, I write two columns about people in media--one about people who are alive, and one about people who have been dead for at least five years.  (https://www.the-solute.com/tag/celebrate-the-living/ and https://www.the-solute.com/tag/attention-must-be-paid/ for the curious!)  Some of the people I've written about are incredibly important yet have very little information about them available online.  Perhaps most relevant to our discussion here is one Bob Cuff.  He doesn't have a Wikipedia page; for most of the information I found about him, personally, I relied on an obituary written by his son.  I'm reasonably sure his IMDb page is complete, but of course how could I be without a ton of deep research?

Bob Cuff was a matte painter.  I wrote about him because of his work on The Princess Bride, because I was doing a stretch of people both living and dead from The Princess Bride, but he also worked with Kubrick.  And Gilliam.  And Olivier.  He worked on The Longest Day and Masque of the Red Death.  He has a staggering list of credentials.  He created miniatures, when that was what Kubrick wanted.  And if your only reference was Wikipedia, you basically wouldn't know he existed.

What's more, I have no doubt that NASA wasn't going to Hollywood for their documentarians.  They did some work with Disney, when Walt was hyping space, but that's about it.  It also takes very little research to discover that Bill Gibson was a World War II combat cameraman who, among other things, self-produced a documentary about diving to the USS Arizona that is on display at the visitor's center there.  I'll grant I'm having less luck with Barry Coe, but trying to separate him out from the Bonanza actor--or possibly proving the Bonanza actor is the one I'm looking for--is proving difficult.  On the other hand, I'm exclusively using Google and am not inclined to put too much effort into it, because it's not my silly theory.

[jfb]

Let's keep it simple - pick a single image from the Apollo archive that you think has been faked, post it here, and explain what specific elements of that specific image lead you to believe that it's fake.  Explain how you eliminated possible explanations based on exposure, lens flare, focal length, illumination, terrain, perspective, etc.

[JayUtah]

Let's keep it simple - pick a single image from the Apollo archive that you think has been faked, post it here, and explain what specific elements of that specific image lead you to believe that it's fake.  Explain how you eliminated possible explanations based on exposure, lens flare, focal length, illumination, terrain, perspective, etc.

Agreed, with two suggestions:   First, "visuals" include moving pictures, so I would argue they are also admissible.  Second, while it's important to eliminate prosaic causes for certain observations, fakery is not the default condition that holds when no prosaic cause can be proven.  Affirmative evidence of fakery should also be provided.