jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals

[gillianren]

To be fair, Jay, my point was that his argument was full of holes even if you accepted it as relevant.  Which I specifically don't.  I, too, would quite like to know what about the imagery leads him to believe it was faked.  And again, if NASA were faking things, why fake them in a way that looks suspicious to someone as obviously a layman as JR Knowing?  Why not hire a famed documentarian, assuming JR Knowing can name a famed documentarian which I bet me a shiny new nickel he cannot?

[JayUtah]

To be fair, Jay, my point was that his argument was full of holes even if you accepted it as relevant.  Which I specifically don't.

No argument there.  "Dissenter" may have been the wrong word; apologies if you thought I was blaming you for anything.  I merely wanted to illustrate Jr Knowing's self-serving choice of direction.  He clearly, desperately, wants to talk only along lines that allow him to present his opinions and judgment as fact, in lieu of actual fact, and draw his brilliant conclusions from those.  The "soft" arguments are harder to conclusively lose, the ones that mostly involve him drawing lines through nebulous points of assumption and supposition to arrive at a masterful exposition of some conspiracy.  Not the ones that require him to actually display correct knowledge and skill.  He can argue those indefinitely without distinct resolution.  And that may be his aim.

[bknight]

Seems to me just like TROLLISH behavior, just to continue the discussion netting those that wish to offer discussion  in leu of substantive evidence.

[Von_Smith]

First entry on Google

jr. Knowing:  Somebody who's about to get moderated because he won't stay on topic or answer questions.

[jr Knowing]

Hi jfb,

Yes people often cite that photo as proof of hoax. I am not one of them. Yes he is lit up in the shadow and there is a glare of the back of his boot. But I think there are  (at least) plausible non hoax reasons for that.

Gillenren, with all due respect, Kubrick turned King’s book upside down. I don’t want to get deep into it because I will get “moderated”. But just check the first scene of Kubrick’s movie. It is not in the book. It is a 3 minute scene. Kubrick was in England (afraid of flying) but he had a crew fly over an island and mountain road in Montana. Name of the island?  Wild Goose. Name of the road? “Going to the sun” road. Apollo was the God of what? Sun. Wild goose chase means? “Hopeless pursuit of something unattainable “. What do you think he was trying to say?

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

More question marks?

Only ANSWERS can be evidence.

[JayUtah]

Yes people often cite that photo as proof of hoax. I am not one of them.

Fair enough.  We're three pages into this thread already.  When can we expect you to provide the evidence and argument that was asked for in the opening post?  Your critics have graciously clarified what it was they really wanted to see, just in case there was any confusion.  You still seem to be more interested in going down rabbit holes than in providing what was requested.

[raven]

The string board routine may work with other conspiracy theorists, but it will not work here. I am reminded Justice League Unlimited's version of The Question, only without the heroism.
"The plastic tips at the end of shoelaces are called 'aglets'. Their true purpose is sinister."
Evidence, please.

[ApolloEnthusiast]

Name of the island?  Wild Goose. Name of the road? “Going to the sun” road. Apollo was the God of what? Sun. Wild goose chase means? “Hopeless pursuit of something unattainable “. What do you think he was trying to say?

Perhaps most importantly, why do you believe that any of this, in any way, satisfies the instruction to answer either of the two questions that you were supposed to answer?

[bknight]

The string board routine may work with other conspiracy theorists, but it will not work here. I am reminded Justice League Unlimited's version of The Question, only without the heroism.
"The plastic tips at the end of shoelaces are called 'aglets'. Their true purpose is sinister."
Evidence, please.

Yes they are, but lets keep our comments on topic and not give jr an opportunity to stray further.

[gillianren]

Look, literally my whole point about the credits was that they can't be used as proof of anything.  I obviously know quite a lot more about the film industry than you do (not difficult), and I know that "but he had no other credits!" proves absolutely nothing.  IMDb pages are incomplete.  Some extremely notable people don't have Wikipedia pages for whatever reason.  So okay, NASA used people you hadn't heard of and can't find much about.  That proves nothing.  What you need for proof is actual evidence, not supposition and ignorance.  I could claim that the fact that the Overlook exterior was filmed on Mount Hood proved Kubrick was a member of the KKK, but you would, I hope, ask me for a bit more than that to prove my point.

[jfb]

Hi jfb,

Yes people often cite that photo as proof of hoax. I am not one of them. Yes he is lit up in the shadow and there is a glare of the back of his boot. But I think there are  (at least) plausible non hoax reasons for that.

Excellent.  However, you made this statement in another thread:

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).

That statement implies you believe all the imagery was faked.  If that's not the case, then it would help to know which images you think are genuine and which are not.  It would save the rest of us the time and effort of digging up images and asking "what about this one?"

So, can you provide an example of an image (just one) that you believe is faked, and what it is about that specific image that leads you to believe it was faked?  Not who faked it, or why they faked it, just why that image can not be genuine.  It will also help to specify the source of that image - more than one HB has retouched or composited genuine images to make them appear to be fakes. 

For clarity's sake, let's assume "fake" simply means "not shot on the Moon" - it could mean the photo was retouched (to hide wires or stands or similar), or is a composite of elements from different images, or was shot on a soundstage, etc. 

[LunarOrbit]

I don’t want to get deep into it because I will get “moderated”.

Ok, so I know you saw my warning, and yet you still decided to respond without answering the damn questions. I'm placing you under moderation. None of your posts will be approved until you answer these questions:

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.

After you have done that, we'll see. I feel like we're wasting our time with you, so I'm not sure it will ever be worthwhile to allow you to post. Prove me wrong.

[smartcooky]

Its been very quiet hasn't it!?

Frankly, I will be very surprised if we see jr Knowing back. LO will not approve any posts of his unless they answer the questions put to him, and I don't think he has any evidence to present - no legs to stand on.

I would be less than surprised to find him posting on other forums, telling them that he has been banned here (all the evil NASA shills at Apollohoax won't listen to his twoof!)

[onebigmonkey]

Hi jfb,

Yes people often cite that photo as proof of hoax. I am not one of them. Yes he is lit up in the shadow and there is a glare of the back of his boot. But I think there are  (at least) plausible non hoax reasons for that.

Gillenren, with all due respect, Kubrick turned King’s book upside down. I don’t want to get deep into it because I will get “moderated”. But just check the first scene of Kubrick’s movie. It is not in the book. It is a 3 minute scene. Kubrick was in England (afraid of flying) but he had a crew fly over an island and mountain road in Montana. Name of the island?  Wild Goose. Name of the road? “Going to the sun” road. Apollo was the God of what? Sun. Wild goose chase means? “Hopeless pursuit of something unattainable “. What do you think he was trying to say?

Another island nearby is called Thunderbird - that's a Saturn V. Also visible is Red Eagle mountain - the Eagle has landed! What do you think Kubrick was saying there? Joining the dots only works if you end up with a recognisable picture.  If it's an incomprehensible jumbled scrawl it means nothing.  Kubrick's interpretation of King's novel is nothing like what was intended by the author, just as your version of history is nothing like what actually happened.

I look forward to LO approving the post with your hard evidence in it rather than the fabrications of an over-active imagination that will never see the light of day.