Just because someone claims to have witnessed an event which directly contradicts the Round Earth model he is suddenly either lieing or ignorant?...What reason would he have to lie? He's a self proclaimed RE proponent after all. Suddenly it seems as if you're the one claiming Conspiracy, Max.
Wow, that's out there. Tom, I've been reading this thread, and nowhere have I seen Max call Workover a liar, or ignorant, or even suggest such a thing. You are really overreacting and lashing out.
What has been presented, is a vague memory (which science has long since discredited as "evidence" no matter who's doing the remembering because literally anything can seem honestly vividly real to anyone). Personally, I believe Workover honestly, earnestly believes his memory, and I give him the benefit of doubt as being the most honest, morally upstanding, socially responsible, respectable person on the earth. But that has absolutely no connection whatsoever to an ability to accurately remember which phase he believes he saw the moon in however many years ago, no matter how out of place he remembers it being.
In the mid 90's (and still ongoing), thousands of upper-middle class, honest, college educated, upstanding, professional women vividly, sincerely, strongly, and honestly "remembered" being hung by their feet from chains and eviscerated by their fathers, during and after visits to their hypnotherapist. (Google: FMS.)
Doesn't mean it happened.
Edit: Actually a better google search would be "false memory syndrome". Searching "FMS" turns up Flying-Model-Simulator, Financial Management Service, Faculty of Management Studies, etc. I should have know better than that...)The next bit of evidence was two small, low-res pictures that were clearly photoshopped,
one of them admittedly so. Neither photo was necessarily (and probably not) what Workover saw, nor has he made any such claim.
As I've hinted at, I am an avid semipro photographer. I'm also an expert Photoshopper (but of course I have to get a picture into photoshop in order to manipulate it--so don't worry about our experiment together at the end of the month). Trust me, both of them are very poorly photoshopped. (Well usually people paying for photoshop are better at image manipulation than that...let's call it "PrintShopped"...) Differences in contrast, sharpness, detail clarity, color cast, and jpeg artifacts are a few dead giveaways.
And Tom--I'm really confused. Aren't you the one who says photographs cannot serve as evidence? If you are so quick to jump on two piss-poorly manipulated photos as proof, why then so hesitant to accept any one of thousands of Apollo photographs? Or satellite photos (of the wide-angle variety)? Or STS snapshots?
I'm familiar with what your arguments against NASA photos will be--my point is that it seems kind of incongruous and selective, you must admit.