jr Knowing's faked Apollo visuals

[gillianren]

I mean, seriously, I could fill the time while we wait for JR Knowing to actually answer questions in a reasonable manner by explaining exactly what Kubrick did and didn't change in The Shining, as well as why it's hardly surprising that he should have chosen it as source material and was hardly "slumming" by doing so.  Also by speculating on why he chose the location in question--or if he even did, and hired a location scout, which is a real job for a reason.  But I made the point I did for a reason--speculation about people's credits, or lack thereof, proves absolutely nothing.  You won't always find the information you're looking for about people in the film industry with the information available online.

[Von_Smith]

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!

And don't forget that at one point in the film, Danny is watching the Road Runner Show, which originally aired on CBS.  Which has Columbia in the name.

[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.

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!

And don't forget that at one point in the film, Danny is watching the Road Runner Show, which originally aired on CBS.  Which has Columbia in the name.

Brilliant.

And this is what constitutes “proof” in the conspiracist’s mind - not facts, not physical or documentary evidence, but a narrative full of symbolism and metaphor.  You got rocks?  Pffft, I have a story that doesn’t care about your stupid boring rocks.  There’s no dots to connect with rocks.

[onebigmonkey]

As I'm currently in Vietnam it's only natural that all I can hear in jr knowing's ramblings is Dennis Hopper's character in Apocalypse Now.

[BertieSlack]

As I'm currently in Vietnam it's only natural that all I can hear in jr knowing's ramblings is Dennis Hopper's character in Apocalypse Now.

Hey, man, you don't talk to the Colonel. You listen to him. The man's enlarged my mind. He's a poet warrior in the classic sense. I mean sometimes he'll... uh... well, you'll say "hello" to him, right? And he'll just walk right by you. He won't even notice you. And suddenly he'll grab you, and he'll throw you in a corner, and he'll say, "Do you know that 'if' is the middle word in life? If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you, if you can trust yourself when all men doubt you"... I mean I'm... no, I can't... I'm a little man, I'm a little man, he's... he's a great man! I should have been a pair of ragged claws scuttling across floors of silent seas....
......One through nine, no maybes, no supposes, no fractions. You can't travel in space, you can't go out into space, you know, without, like, you know, uh, with fractions - what are you going to land on - one-quarter, three-eighths? What are you going to do when you go from here to Venus or something? That's dialectic physics.

[onebigmonkey]

Simplify man, simplify

[bobdude11]

Hi Everyone,

…..
 

Kept the only relevant item from your recent rant.

Here is what I want to see:

1. Pick a picture or one particular movie you believe to be faked
2. Cite your professional experience(s), requisite qualification(s) and any and all professional certifications related to the particular field you are basing ALL of your proof on (keep in mind that folks like Jay (and others) have not received degrees, be carry, in Jay's case in particular, legally binding certifications specific to his field(s) of endeavor. Jay (and possibly others) are qualified (and can prove it) to forensically examine photographs and photographic media and make proper, provable statements on authenticity, etc. You have yet to provide this proof of your expertise to convict ANY photographic (or other media) for Apollo as fake. Belief is irrelevant, only what you can PROVE is accepted.
3. Cite the items about that particular picture or movie you believe to be fake (use all relevant scientific methodologies to prove this)
4. Include all relevant references and all relevant mathematical calculations used to arrive at your conclusion (proof WILL include math (based on some other items that have been posted elsewhere on this board - Jay posting some of it (I have not been able to locate it, but I seem to recall Apollo (and even the JFK assassination discussion) was/were involved. So, yes, you must show your work to prove you are correct).

What I do not want to see:

1. More babble around 'who might have dun it'
2. More keyboard regurgitation of long disproven theories or explanations of people you keep saying faked things (without proving they were faked)
3. Any 'evidence' without the required references and scientific investigation performed by you (using relevant professional certification(s) and experience(s))
4. Any more deviation from the question of: proof they were faked

anything else:

1. Will be ignored
2. Is wasted effort on your part
3. Pointless to read

[bknight]

<snip>

1. More babble around 'who might have dun it'
2. More keyboard regurgitation of long disproven theories or explanations of people you keep saying faked things (without proving they were faked)
3. Any 'evidence' without the required references and scientific investigation performed by you (using relevant professional certification(s) and experience(s))
4. Any more deviation from the question of: proof they were faked

anything else:

1. Will be ignored
2. Is wasted effort on your part
3. Pointless to read

Will not get by the LO meter, IMO.

[jfb]

<snip>

1. More babble around 'who might have dun it'
2. More keyboard regurgitation of long disproven theories or explanations of people you keep saying faked things (without proving they were faked)
3. Any 'evidence' without the required references and scientific investigation performed by you (using relevant professional certification(s) and experience(s))
4. Any more deviation from the question of: proof they were faked

anything else:

1. Will be ignored
2. Is wasted effort on your part
3. Pointless to read

Will not get by the LO meter, IMO.

I think LO has explicitly said that he will not let Jr post anything that does not address these specific questions.

IOW, this thread is effectively dead, and Jr is effectively banned. 

I honestly don't know if Jr is a true HB or just trolling for the lulz - Poe's law exists for a reason.  But assuming the former, it's an interesting pathology to study.  I've spent way too many decades hanging out in talk.origins, and I see many of the same patterns from vehement anti-evolutionists - allegations of conspiracy, inability to argue quantitatively (with a few notable exceptions who hyperfocus on the wrong quantity), reliance on narrative rather than facts, ignorance of basic methods, etc. 

[Peter B]

<snip>

1. More babble around 'who might have dun it'
2. More keyboard regurgitation of long disproven theories or explanations of people you keep saying faked things (without proving they were faked)
3. Any 'evidence' without the required references and scientific investigation performed by you (using relevant professional certification(s) and experience(s))
4. Any more deviation from the question of: proof they were faked

anything else:

1. Will be ignored
2. Is wasted effort on your part
3. Pointless to read

Will not get by the LO meter, IMO.

I think LO has explicitly said that he will not let Jr post anything that does not address these specific questions.

IOW, this thread is effectively dead, and Jr is effectively banned. 

I honestly don't know if Jr is a true HB or just trolling for the lulz - Poe's law exists for a reason.  But assuming the former, it's an interesting pathology to study.  I've spent way too many decades hanging out in talk.origins, and I see many of the same patterns from vehement anti-evolutionists - allegations of conspiracy, inability to argue quantitatively (with a few notable exceptions who hyperfocus on the wrong quantity), reliance on narrative rather than facts, ignorance of basic methods, etc.

With the greatest of respect, I wouldn't dismiss narrative, as long as it's tied to the facts. After all, Apollo is a historical event which can be told as a narrative.

In fact, in my experience one way to show the silliness of various conspiracy theories is to ask the theory's proponent for a narrative - after all, if Apollo was faked then it must have followed some day-by-day process which can be rendered as a narrative. The thing is, though, it usually doesn't take long for them to contradict themselves or invoke some technology way in advance of what NASA had access to.

[NthBrick]

<snip>

1. More babble around 'who might have dun it'
2. More keyboard regurgitation of long disproven theories or explanations of people you keep saying faked things (without proving they were faked)
3. Any 'evidence' without the required references and scientific investigation performed by you (using relevant professional certification(s) and experience(s))
4. Any more deviation from the question of: proof they were faked

anything else:

1. Will be ignored
2. Is wasted effort on your part
3. Pointless to read

Will not get by the LO meter, IMO.

I think LO has explicitly said that he will not let Jr post anything that does not address these specific questions.

IOW, this thread is effectively dead, and Jr is effectively banned. 

I honestly don't know if Jr is a true HB or just trolling for the lulz - Poe's law exists for a reason.  But assuming the former, it's an interesting pathology to study.  I've spent way too many decades hanging out in talk.origins, and I see many of the same patterns from vehement anti-evolutionists - allegations of conspiracy, inability to argue quantitatively (with a few notable exceptions who hyperfocus on the wrong quantity), reliance on narrative rather than facts, ignorance of basic methods, etc.

This certainly seems to be a pattern amongst people who buy into the moon landing hoax. They'll post some ridiculous claim or narrative that gets shot to pieces (if sometimes requiring a fairly lengthy discussion of why it's wrong), but will then steadfastly refuse to answer any questions put to them or actually defend their claims/narrative against the rebuttals. And, of course, then deflections and obfuscations commence.

Alternatively, there's the idea of demanding some "one single proof", knowing full well ahead of time that such proof does not exist, hence attempting to appear reasonable while a priori rejecting the moon landings. Case in point, I had somebody recently say to me that NASA should have left something up on the moon that could be seen from Earth as proof. Of course, anyone with half a brain knows that the amount of material needed to create something visible from Earth on the moon would be enormous and far in excess of the Saturn V's capabilities, but logic be darned that guy claimed he would only accept that. He welched on the conversation pretty quickly when I started pressing him on the details and feasibility of this proposal, though, bringing us back to the "not answering questions" part.

[Allan F]

I had one argueing for the Apollo missions firing off a flare, so people on Earth could see they were there. Had to be a nuclear-powered flare, the size of the Tsar Bomba to be seen from Earth.

[gillianren]

In fact, in my experience one way to show the silliness of various conspiracy theories is to ask the theory's proponent for a narrative - after all, if Apollo was faked then it must have followed some day-by-day process which can be rendered as a narrative. The thing is, though, it usually doesn't take long for them to contradict themselves or invoke some technology way in advance of what NASA had access to.

Indeed.  I've been reading an oral history, and while it's true there are some contradictions, those are obviously there because different people had different perspectives on events and because human memory is fallible.  Was the item in question a newspaper or a script?  Was it thrown or slammed onto a desk?  Was it thrown at a wall or at someone?  It depends on whom you ask.  But the narrative as a whole holds steady, and it's possible to get a good overall view of what happened on that show in those years by reading the book, even if you never watched the show.

Crucially, hoax believers never have a narrative that holds together that well.  They can never explain the evidence other than easily disproved claims about enormous vacuum chambers and the Nevada desert and so forth, and they certainly can't explain the physical evidence, like the rock and soil samples, in a way that makes sense.  They can't explain how "only a few people would've had to have known" but there were people faking all that.  They can't put it all together in a story, which surely ought to be easier than having the numbers they don't have, either.

[rocketman]

I had one argueing for the Apollo missions firing off a flare, so people on Earth could see they were there. Had to be a nuclear-powered flare, the size of the Tsar Bomba to be seen from Earth.

While on the moon?   

I'm not sure what that would prove anyway.  How could one tell there was a person there, that it wasn't an unmanned nuclear tipped rocket fired at the moon?

[bknight]

I had one argueing for the Apollo missions firing off a flare, so people on Earth could see they were there. Had to be a nuclear-powered flare, the size of the Tsar Bomba to be seen from Earth.

While on the moon?   

I'm not sure what that would prove anyway.  How could one tell there was a person there, that it wasn't an unmanned nuclear tipped rocket fired at the moon?

You're assuming that CTs are logical.