jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals

[ApolloEnthusiast]

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.

I'm sorry to be the pessimist again, I promise I'm not usually so gloomy, but I don't believe he has any specific elements.  Granted this is just my speculation, but based on my experiences with people like JR Knowing, somebody told him they were fake, and he accepted that statement based on whatever snake oil was used in his particular case. 

I believe the reason he is so evasive is because, when he's pinned down to answer a direct question, he was never given any actual facts and is forced to resort to vague approximations of whatever innuendo seemed so compelling to him.   

He is likely feeling simultaneously disappointed that nobody here responded as he did to the insinuations about the CIA creating the Apollo documentation, and smugly superior that he can clearly see things that others are simply blind to recognize.  Facts aren't necessary for someone who is able to put the pieces together with a transcendent insight.

[JayUtah]

I'm sorry to be the pessimist again, I promise I'm not usually so gloomy, but I don't believe he has any specific elements.  Granted this is just my speculation, but based on my experiences with people like JR Knowing, somebody told him they were fake, and he accepted that statement based on whatever snake oil was used in his particular case. 

That may have operated, yes.  But in one of his threads from long ago he pretended to have performed some sort of image analysis exercise to support a claim in which the evidence was Apollo photography.  He evaded any sort of attempt to determine whether his skill at detecting fakes had ever been tested, or whether he had objectively demonstrated expertise in the methods he alluded to.  So it may be true, as you suggest, that he is simply recounting what he has heard elsewhere.  I suspect that's why bknight included that as part of his question to Jr Knowing.

He is likely feeling simultaneously disappointed that nobody here responded as he did to the insinuations about the CIA creating the Apollo documentation, and smugly superior that he can clearly see things that others are simply blind to recognize.  Facts aren't necessary for someone who is able to put the pieces together with a transcendent insight.

Yes, I tend to think that's the pattern he fits into, which seems to be common among conspiracy theorists.  The notion that all "opinions" need to be respected is pretty tell-tale.

[jr Knowing]

Hi Everyone,

Gillianren, Yes there was a Bill Gibson in the military that has loosely been credited with being involved. But there is little documentation or rational why he had any involvement at the time with NASA. And with regards to Barry Coe, you stated that NASA would never go to Hollywood for one of the "documentarians". Well the son (at least he says he is) of "Hollywood's" Barry Coe says his father told him he was the producer of the Apollo 11 Documentary. Yes, apparently a 33 year old B actor from Hollywood was NASA's choice to bankroll, hire military and CIA guys, and be the one to document man's greatest achievement. Doesn't sound very logical. Does it? But what is known, and makes a lot more sense then these two guys being the chief principals, the U.S. has a history of assigning fake names to (propaganda) films. It just happened a year or so back with the film created for Trump to show the North Koreans. At first, it was credited to a LA production company called Destiny Pictures. Of course, Destiny Pictures said wtf? Then the government had to admit it was produced by the National Security Council (aka CIA).

Its funny you bring up Bob Cuff, and what he does, and who he has worked with. It is almost if you are reading my mind. Not that I think Cuff has anything to do with faking the footage but he has been around and involved with certain individuals who I believe might have been involved. You mentioned Kubrick. Of course, some have pointed to Kubrick as being the one behind the fake footage. And that he used The Shining as his confessional. I think they are on the right path but ultimately I think they are incorrect Kubrick was directly behind the Apollo fake visuals. Yes, I believe The Shining was used to tell the 'Apollo story'. But here is where I differ with everyone. They believe he remolded the King's story to his own story of being caught up in the Apollo deception. I, on the other hand, believe he is aware of the 'Apollo deception' and he is telling the story of those directly caught up in it.

So why do I believe this? It goes back to the simple reason he picked King's The Shining in the first place. As many have commented, they can find no reason why Kubrick would go 'slumming' in the pulp horror genre. And it wasn't the story. As most know, he changed virtually everything in the book. However, what he didn't change was the name of the movie. Nor did he change the name of the central "character" the mountain hotel Overlook. So did he pick this book for these names. And if so, why? He did it because these names point directly to (at least some) of the people involved. The Shining. Another word for shining?

First entry on Google
Lucas: from the Latin personal name Lucas (Greek Loukas) 'man from Lucania'. Lucania is a region of southern Italy thought to have been named in ancient times with a word meaning 'bright' or 'shining'.

Overlook. Another name for Overlook?

First entry on Google
Speilberg: habitational name from any of the various places so called, from a contracted form of Middle High German spiegel 'lookout point' + berg 'mountain', 'hill'.

(added Bonus, Kubrick's next movie Full Metal Jacket. A term he personally picked for the movie. It means the casing of a rifle bullet. Visually, does it look familiar? Saturn rocket maybe?)

Preposterous? Lets circle back to Apollo 11 Footprints on the Moon Documentary. Robert S. Scott, CIA man, second in command at the US Information Agency. Any guesses who worked under him? George Lucas. Not only was he creating Vietnam war propaganda films, he was teaching film to military personnel. This was happening from 1967 on. His wife was also CIA doing film projects. Lucas and Spielberg first met in 1968. At about the same Douglas Trumbull Kubrick's effects guy on 2001 A Space Odyssey comes back to America from England. Then there seems to be a gap until 71 or so when both put out movies.  And it is just a little after this, Spielberg and Lucas, two young and unproven directors hook up with Trumbull and his assistant John Dystra. At least that is how the story goes (Trumbull with Spielberg and Dystra with Lucas. ) Finally about 3-4 years after the missions, Kubrick was in a third rate, run down movie studio (Elstree) on the verge of bankruptcy outside of London. He was filming the Shining. Who were the only ones to be working at this studio during this time period? You guessed it. Lucas filming Star Wars. And then Spielberg with Raiders. What are the odds? Countless studios world wide and they find themselves with Kubrick. Heck, all Lucas had done was American Graffiti up to this point, yet he set up the now famous special effects shop Industrial Lights and Magic a few years prior with Dystra and others and now he is hanging with Kubrick. I would say what a small world. Wouldn't you? 

In any event, there are many things in the Shining (and elsewhere) that support my theory. I won't 'bore' you with the details. God knows I am about to be hammered into submission anyways . But a couple of tidbits if you are interested. Check out Lucas's first feature THX 1138. It came out in '71 or '72? It starts with a real Buck Rogers Trailer. Except Lucas overdubs the entire thing. Instead of him being in the 25th Century, he is in the 20th Century. Listen and watch carefully. Secondly, the pivotal scene in the Shining is when Jack is kissing the pretty woman in the bathroom and she turns into an old witch. The old witch is played by someone, according to the credits, named Billie Gibson. And like the Bill Gibson of the Apollo 11 Documentary, this is her only credit and she does not seem to exist.

I will gladly expand on any of this, otherwise my next posts will be examples of what I believe to be fake visuals (I am also trying to build an imgur library to more easily demonstrate my suppositions, please bear with me if it takes a bit of time) 

[sts60]

When are you going to return to the other thread and acknowledge your errors about the LM on the lunar surface?

[onebigmonkey]

Where is your evidence that the images were faked?  Nothing in your post above proves a damned thing other than your determination to avoid answering a question.

[ApolloEnthusiast]

But there is little documentation or rational ...

Doesn't sound very logical. Does it?

But what is known, and makes a lot more sense...

...but he has been around and involved with certain individuals who I believe might have been involved.

Of course, some have pointed to Kubrick

I think they are on the right path but ultimately I think they are incorrect

Yes, I believe The Shining was used to tell the 'Apollo story'.

I, on the other hand, believe he is ...

So why do I believe this?

As many have commented,

...they can find no reason

Any guesses who worked under him?

What are the odds?

I would say what a small world. Wouldn't you?

You have been asked for direct evidence and you responded with more gibberish.  I've excerpted the types of things you need to avoid.  Evidence won't consist of you asking what you think are provocative questions.  It won't be any of your unsupported inferences or beliefs.  Including the words "I believe" or "I think" is probably an indicator that the sentence you're writing should be discarded for the purpose of providing evidence.  Claiming what people have said or what they have found or not found without citing who these people are and where their testimony can be found is not evidence. 

In any event, there are many things in the Shining (and elsewhere) that support my theory. I won't 'bore' you with the details.

There is nothing in the Shining (or elsewhere) that will support your theory, however, if there were, the details are exactly what is required of you.  Try again and don't include any of the types of things that I pulled out for you above.

Include only verifiable facts and refrain from adding any of your interpretation to those facts.  If you have no verifiable facts, then you have no evidence.

[smartcooky]

Hi Everyone,

{Irrelevant Gish gallop snipped}

This is not how Apollohoax.net works. You're not on Godlike Productions, or Above Top Secret or any of the other tinfoil hat conspiracy theory echo chambers now. You're posting on a forum where claims have to be backed up with evidence, and extraordinary claims have to be backed up with extraordinary evidence, and where persistent failure to do so will get you cut off at the knees.

Thus far, you have spectacularly failed to back up any of your claims with a single piece of evidence. You have waffled, bluffed and blustered your way around answering direct, relevant questions, using gish-gallop and walls of text to do so. This approach will get you nowhere, because no-one here is fooled by it - we've all seen it all before. 

Now, answer the questions....

► What is your best evidence that any part of the Apollo photographic record was faked?

► What are you qualifications or experiences or unique skills that you consider allow you to make these determinations?

Everything else you post will either be ignored or treated like this post until you answer these questions.

[Jason Thompson]

Irrelevant waffle, jr. Answer the question asked. What is your evidence that the Apollo visuals were faked.

For clarity here, evidence is not something that looks odd to you, or seems weird, or might indicate something fishy. There are many things in this world that 'look odd' but that's because the world, as much as you may wish it to, is under no obligation to make intuitive sense. Evidence means something incontestably factual about the visual that can ONLY be the result of faking it. And for further clarity, you will be expected to back up your conclusion it was faked with something more than your own personal incredulity and ignorance.

[Donnie B.]

Gillianren, Yes there was a Bill Gibson in the military that has loosely been credited with being involved. But there is little documentation or rational why he had any involvement at the time with NASA.

FWIW, I have ordered a copy of the Bill Gibson (auto)biography, No Film In My Camera.  The description of the book mentions that he was a consultant to NASA for the Apollo photography, but I won't be able to give any further details until the snail arrives sometime next week.  Still, that fact alone goes pretty far to explain his involvement with the Footprints On the Moon doco.

[bknight]

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?

Your continued soapbox commentary does not answer those questions.

[gillianren]

Wow.  You don't even know the specific differences between The Shining in the book and the movie.  Well done.  For the record, Kubrick did not change "just about everything."  Quite a lot was left the same.  What did get changed is something I can rant about for a very, very long time--I prefer the book--but almost the entire framework remains the same as well many of the details.

[JayUtah]

Surprise, surprise.  All the respondents -- including the original poster -- except for one dismiss Jr Knowing's irrelevant conspiratorial screed and clarify that what they wanted all along was evidence in the form of the visuals in question accompanied by an argument or analysis for the conclusion they had been faked, as claimed.  And surprise, surprise:  Jr Knowing latches onto the sole dissenter and writes an even longer, even more convoluted, even less relevant wall of screed (which I have no intention of reading).

So much for being respectful to his critics.

[LunarOrbit]

Now, answer the questions....

► What is your best evidence that any part of the Apollo photographic record was faked?

► What are you qualifications or experiences or unique skills that you consider allow you to make these determinations?

Everything else you post will either be ignored or treated like this post until you answer these questions.

Ok, Jr Knowing, here's the deal. Answer those specific questions or I will place you under moderation and your posts will require my approval before appearing in the forum.

[onebigmonkey]

OK let's just go with it. Let's assume that NASA hired a couple of military operatives in the pay of the CIA to produce Apollo documentaries. Let's assume they managed to make the films and then just vanish into obscurity.

What's in the images that is fake?

[jfb]

Okay, obviously we're going to have to do it the hard way.

The following image has often been cited by numerous HBs as "proof" that the lunar surface images were shot on a soundstage instead of the Moon:



Jr. Knowing, do you agree with that assessment?  If so, please explain what it is about the image itself that leads you to think that.  Please limit your discussion to the image itself, not about who may have shot it, or where it may have been shot, or reasons why it may have been shot,  etc.  Why could this image not have been shot on the Moon?