Evan Burton

Moon Myth Disinformation

114 posts in this topic

The references I cited that Burton claims to have refuted--which I was

then and remain quite sure he has never even studied, at least for the

most part--are the following ten resources. I believe that any of them

offers sufficient reason to doubt that we actually went to the Moon and

that collectively they demonstrate it was virtually impossible to do so.

I include that NASA has "inadvertently" taped over the Moon landing

tapes, no doubt because, with today's digital technology, NASA can

make far better fakes than it could at the time. I especially like the

film, "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?", which offers

dozens of good reasons for doubting that it could have been done.

I am therefore perplexed by Evan Burton's insistence on "debating"

this issue. I gather he wants to "show his stuff". But insofar as the

matter has been settled, I am having a hard time mustering up any

enthusiasm for this exchange. Jack, however, has done exceptional

work on the Apollo photographs, which this thread can showcase.

So I will consult with Jack and pick some of his most interesting and

informative studies to initiate this exchange. It may be slow going,

because it is not my highest priority. But with Jack's assistance and

advice, we can start with the first link I offer below. If Evan can cope

with Jack's studies, we can move from there in the order I have given.

The strongest reason most Americans believe that we went to the

moon is the existence of "moon rocks". As "Moon Movie" explains,

Wernher von Brauhn himself led an expedition to the Antarctic to

collect rocks dislodged from its surface by small astroids, which

were caught in Earth's gravitational field and landed on its surface.

Anyone who wants to understand how easily the moon landings

could have been faked--and actually were, if these studies are

well-founded--should watch the brilliant film, "Capricorn I". If

you grasp the concept, you will appreciate how much more likely

it is that these landings were faked than that they really occurred.

New Work on

Moon Photographs

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html

Russians letting the cat

out of the bag

http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/9994_moon.html

Moon Movie

http://moonmovie.com/

Top Ten Reasons Man

Did Not go to the Moon

http://www.moonmovie.com/moonmovie/default.asp

Did Stanley Kubrick fake

the Moon Landings?

http://www.jayweidner.com/AlchemicalKubrickIIa.html

Conspiracy Theory

Did we land on the moon?

NASA erased moon footage

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE56F72920090716

INTERVIEWS ON "The Real Deal":

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Bart Sibrel

"A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon"

Friday, August 28, 2009

Rich DellaRosa

The Apollo Moon Landing Hoax, Part I

Friday, September 4, 2009

Rich DellaRosa

The Apollo Moon Landing Hoax, Part II

PLUS I add one more for good measure:

Gerhard Wisnewski, ONE SMALL STEP:

The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to

Dominate Earth From Space (2007)

In this thread Jack said:

I will agree to an Apollo discussion (not debate) with Burton only on these conditions:

1. Participation in this thread itself be LIMITED to Burton, White, and Fetzer.

2. All exchanges be civil and without personal remarks...only evidence,

3. The format consisting of the following:

....White will post one of his studies

....Burton will post his evaluation of the study

....Fetzer will respond to Burton's analysis

4. The procedure will be repeated until ALL studies are discussed.

5. A SEPARATE thread will be provided for anyone wanting to argue or debate either position.

6. Each study represents WHITE'S POSITION, so he will not comment further.

Without a LIMITED THREAD, the usual chaos would ensue with Lamson, Colby and others

tossing insults about. I want no part of such.

Those are my conditions. Take it or leave it.

Jack

I can agree to most of the conditions, such as civility and limiting the discussion (which I already stated in the first post) but I have already debunked all your photo claims. What is the point of debating the validity of your claims if you won't respond to criticism regarding your claims, showing where they are wrong?

Jim Fetzer has posted his evidence in this thread but refuses to discuss all the errors I have pointed out in them. He also accused me of faking my expertise:

Since you have never studied them and have no idea what points they make, how can you possibly know that "every one of them is wrong"? I am afraid you have overplayed your hand, Evan. You are faking it.

Now this was despite me telling him that I HAVE studied them all and I responded to all the claims, showing why they are baseless or wrong. If I am am faking it, why doesn't he show me up, exposing me?

Why is it that I have to try and get these two people to engage in a civil debate regarding their claims? Surely they should be eager to prove how correct they are?

Let's turn this around.

For the sake of this discussion, let's say I am what I believe you refer to as a Lone Nut person. I post on the JFK forum that it's obvious to anyone who has studied the case that Lee Harvey Oswald was responsible for the JFK assassination, and I point to both the Warren Commission and the book by Gerald Posner as supporting my position.

Naturally, there would be several people here who would passionately object and point out all the flaws, point out why I was wrong in my assertions.

I say they obviously haven't looked closely at the evidence, or are possibly some type of agitators who are here to discredit the fine people in the FBI, USSS, CIA, etc. I state that I will not discuss my findings with such people, since it would be an obvious waste of time.

Wouldn't those people who had valid concerns about my claims feel I was being evasive, not trying to support my claims?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The strongest reason most Americans believe that we went to the moon is the existence of "moon rocks". As "Moon Movie" explains, Wernher von Brauhn himself led an expedition to the Antarctic to collect rocks dislodged from its surface by small astroids, which were caught in Earth's gravitational field and landed on its surface.

As was already mentioned in this post, geologists (or is it selenologists?) can tell the difference. Let's look over the differences:

1. Composition. The composition of lunar samples is different to that found on Earth, due to the method of formation, microgravity, etc. They are distinctly different and cannot be re-created here on Earth:

Now of course, people who believe in the Moon hoax will protest and say that the rocks found by Werner Von Braun are from the Moon and therefore will match lunar composition. That's correct, but the next point is why we can tell the difference.

2. Zap pits. Most samples were simply picked up on the lunar surface. They have a distinct feature that CANNOT be re-created here on Earth: zap pits. Zap pits are microscopic depressions on the surface of surface samples, caused by bombardment from long term exposure to cosmic rays and micro-meteoroids. This distinctive feature is 'burnt off' when the meteorite has passed through the Earth's atmosphere. You've seen the effect of spacecraft re-entering the atmosphere, you may have even seen a meteor and the fiery trail it leaves as it rushes through the atmosphere. This process removes all traces of zap pits. So we know the difference between a sample that has been found on Earth and a sample collected on the lunar surface.

3. Sample quantity and types. Firstly we have the sheer volume of lunar samples returned by Apollo: 2415 samples weighing 382 kg. Perhaps they could have been gathered remotely? We know the USSR had unmanned probes that gathered samples. They did, but they only returned a total of 0.32 kg. That's right - 0.32 kg, less that one thousandth of the Apollo total! Perhaps they were samples found here on Earth (ignoring the fact that we can tell the difference because of zap pits). Again, no - only about 120 samples weighing around a total of 48 kg have ever been found. If that wasn't convincing enough, the Soviet landers only returned lunar regolith samples, soil-like and no large rocky samples like Apollo. Additionally, Apollo also returned deep core sample tubes from drilling into the lunar surface... far deeper than was possible by the remote landers of the day.

10075441.jpg

So Jim - this is all from qualified geologists around the world, from different countries. There are NO qualified geologists who say the samples are faked. They all agree they cannot be faked.

Are you a geologist Jim? To the best of my knowledge you are not, so I have to ask where are your geologists who disagree with what the rest of the world is saying? I'm pretty sure there are none, so you'd have to agree that all the evidence points to the samples being genuine and there is no evidence for them being faked or having been collected by Von Braun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You ask whether I am a geologist. But of course the same applies to you. WHERE DID YOU COME UP WITH THIS?

I explained in an earlier response to your hyperfrantic insistance that I should engage in this debate that you were

going to draw from government--especially NASA--repositories. The fact of the matter is that you have no idea if

any of the information presented here is even true. This is silly. YOU NEED TO CITE YOUR SOURCES, which at

least allows us to verify whether you have copied the material accurately. von Braun was gathering genuine moon

rocks. Some of the samples he collected may have been unsuitable for use, but obviously others were. They have

been presented as the "best evidence" that man went to the moon. But that appears to have been a deception. I

note that argument 1 does not apply to real moon rocks obtained from the surface of Earth. Argument 2 (about "zap

pits") is obscure but, assuming the phenomenon is real, why couldn't NASA simply fake "zap pits"? (Everything else

about the moon landing is fake, so why not "zap pits"? It sounds like it would be a piece of cake.) And argument 3

is a claim about quantity of moon rocks brought back from the moon that obviously presumes they are authentic. I

really don't have time for this if Jack is not allowed to post the images that I am asking him to post. I think you are

creating a PROCEDURAL CONTRETEMPS as a distraction from YOUR INABILITY TO COPE WITH THE EVIDENCE.

Either Jack is allowed to post the images that I am asking him to post or this exchange is over. It's that simple.

And that you should be functioning as MODERATOR when you are a PARTICIPANT is a blatant conflict of interest.

The strongest reason most Americans believe that we went to the moon is the existence of "moon rocks". As "Moon Movie" explains, Wernher von Brauhn himself led an expedition to the Antarctic to collect rocks dislodged from its surface by small astroids, which were caught in Earth's gravitational field and landed on its surface.

As was already mentioned in this post, geologists (or is it selenologists?) can tell the difference. Let's look over the differences:

1. Composition. The composition of lunar samples is different to that found on Earth, due to the method of formation, microgravity, etc. They are distinctly different and cannot be re-created here on Earth:

Now of course, people who believe in the Moon hoax will protest and say that the rocks found by Werner Von Braun are from the Moon and therefore will match lunar composition. That's correct, but the next point is why we can tell the difference.

2. Zap pits. Most samples were simply picked up on the lunar surface. They have a distinct feature that CANNOT be re-created here on Earth: zap pits. Zap pits are microscopic depressions on the surface of surface samples, caused by bombardment from long term exposure to cosmic rays and micro-meteoroids. This distinctive feature is 'burnt off' when the meteorite has passed through the Earth's atmosphere. You've seen the effect of spacecraft re-entering the atmosphere, you may have even seen a meteor and the fiery trail it leaves as it rushes through the atmosphere. This process removes all traces of zap pits. So we know the difference between a sample that has been found on Earth and a sample collected on the lunar surface.

3. Sample quantity and types. Firstly we have the sheer volume of lunar samples returned by Apollo: 2415 samples weighing 382 kg. Perhaps they could have been gathered remotely? We know the USSR had unmanned probes that gathered samples. They did, but they only returned a total of 0.32 kg. That's right - 0.32 kg, less that one thousandth of the Apollo total! Perhaps they were samples found here on Earth (ignoring the fact that we can tell the difference because of zap pits). Again, no - only about 120 samples weighing around a total of 48 kg have ever been found. If that wasn't convincing enough, the Soviet landers only returned lunar regolith samples, soil-like and no large rocky samples like Apollo. Additionally, Apollo also returned deep core sample tubes from drilling into the lunar surface... far deeper than was possible by the remote landers of the day.

10075441.jpg

So Jim - this is all from qualified geologists around the world, from different countries. There are NO qualified geologists who say the samples are faked. They all agree they cannot be faked.

Are you a geologist Jim? To the best of my knowledge you are not, so I have to ask where are your geologists who disagree with what the rest of the world is saying? I'm pretty sure there are none, so you'd have to agree that all the evidence points to the samples being genuine and there is no evidence for them being faked or having been collected by Von Braun.

Edited by James H. Fetzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exploring Antarctica (1967)

Intrigued by exploration in space and on Earth, Dr. Von Braun

participated in an expedition to Antarctica. This photo was made

on or about January 7, 1967. To view the photograph, go to:

http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/vonbraun/photo/late-60s.html

A moon landing is the arrival of a spacecraft on the surface of the

Moon. This includes both manned and unmanned (robotic) missions.

The first human-made object to reach the surface of the Moon was

the Soviet Union's Luna 2 mission on September 13, 1959.[3] The

United States's Apollo 11 was the first manned mission to land on

the Moon on July 20, 1969.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing

The strongest reason most Americans believe that we went to the moon is the existence of "moon rocks". As "Moon Movie" explains, Wernher von Brauhn himself led an expedition to the Antarctic to collect rocks dislodged from its surface by small astroids, which were caught in Earth's gravitational field and landed on its surface.

As was already mentioned in this post, geologists (or is it selenologists?) can tell the difference. Let's look over the differences:

. . .

So Jim - this is all from qualified geologists around the world, from different countries. There are NO qualified geologists who say the samples are faked. They all agree they cannot be faked.

Are you a geologist Jim? To the best of my knowledge you are not, so I have to ask where are your geologists who disagree with what the rest of the world is saying? I'm pretty sure there are none, so you'd have to agree that all the evidence points to the samples being genuine and there is no evidence for them being faked or having been collected by Von Braun.

[/color]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exploring Antarctica (1967)

Intrigued by exploration in space and on Earth, Dr. Von Braun

participated in an expedition to Antarctica. This photo was made

on or about January 7, 1967. To view the photograph, go to:

http://history.msfc....o/late-60s.html

A moon landing is the arrival of a spacecraft on the surface of the

Moon. This includes both manned and unmanned (robotic) missions.

The first human-made object to reach the surface of the Moon was

the Soviet Union's Luna 2 mission on September 13, 1959.[3] The

United States's Apollo 11 was the first manned mission to land on

the Moon on July 20, 1969.[4]

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Moon_landing

The strongest reason most Americans believe that we went to the moon is the existence of "moon rocks". As "Moon Movie" explains, Wernher von Brauhn himself led an expedition to the Antarctic to collect rocks dislodged from its surface by small astroids, which were caught in Earth's gravitational field and landed on its surface.

As was already mentioned in this post, geologists (or is it selenologists?) can tell the difference. Let's look over the differences:

. . .

So Jim - this is all from qualified geologists around the world, from different countries. There are NO qualified geologists who say the samples are faked. They all agree they cannot be faked.

Are you a geologist Jim? To the best of my knowledge you are not, so I have to ask where are your geologists who disagree with what the rest of the world is saying? I'm pretty sure there are none, so you'd have to agree that all the evidence points to the samples being genuine and there is no evidence for them being faked or having been collected by Von Braun.

[/color]

Jim,

You haven't addressed the points raised:

- Quantity in excess of either recovered here on Earth or remotely recovered.

- Core samples deeper than could be obtained by robotic means.

- Particular chemical makeup specific to lunar origin.

- Zap pits indicative of lunar origin without atmospheric re-entry.

These cannot be faked. We have trained and accredited geologists all verifying this (source).

Where are your trained and accredited geologists disputing this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why aren't you addressing my rebuttal Jim? They are quite clear, relate to issues YOU raised (not Jack) and therefore should be able to defend:

- Quantity in excess of either recovered here on Earth or remotely recovered.

- Core samples deeper than could be obtained by robotic means.

- Particular chemical makeup specific to lunar origin.

- Zap pits indicative of lunar origin without atmospheric re-entry.

These cannot be faked. We have trained and accredited geologists all verifying this (source).

Where are your trained and accredited geologists disputing this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After all, let's face it: 382 kilograms of lunar samples returned to Earth over 6 missions. The individual mission counts were:

Apollo 11 - 22 kg

Apollo 12 - 34 kg

Apollo 14 - 43 kg

Apollo 15 - 77 kg

Apollo 16 - 95 kg

Apollo 17 - 111 kg

Can Jim or Jack show that any robotic probes were capable of returning these quantities of lunar samples? Can they show that there was any means of obtaining them except for manned exploration?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well? I'm still up for a debate. A real debate, and with the restrictions placed on me as I have said.

Is Jim willing to defend his views?

Still waiting - and the first thing I'll ask is for Jim to explain the following:

- Quantity in excess of either recovered here on Earth or remotely recovered. In three missions, the then-USSR obtained a little over 300 grams of lunar regolith. The Apollo missions returned 382 kilograms of samples. The USA and the USSR exchanged samples with themselves and other countries, ensuring there was 'independent' examination.

- Core samples different than could be obtained by robotic means. The first two USSR missions only got a few hundred grams of regolith in a spherical container. Luna 24 got back a non-rigid sample tube of about 1 cm diameter, composed of regolith. The Apollo missions had 2cm and 4 cm diameter rigid core samples, something that CANNOT be replicated by robotic means today.

- Particular chemical makeup specific to lunar origin. Specific makeup that cannot be replicated don Earth, due to the specific microgravity environment for the formation of the various samples.

- Zap pits indicative of lunar origin without atmospheric re-entry. No-one has yet found a way to 're-create' the impacts from micro-meteoroids and cosmic rays.

If I am such a 'fake', if I have nothing to support my views, why is Jim so reluctant to debate me in open forum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2010 at 0:28 AM, Evan Burton said:

No, the people who claim the photographic record of the lunar landings have been fabricated have been conclusively proven wrong. No doubt at all. ALL the claims have been proven false - but that won't stop those same people making the claims and fooling the laymen.

Great thread.

Personally?  I believe that we couldn't possibly have gone to the moon because it's obviously made of green cheese and the spaceship would have gotten stuck there.

--  Tommy :sun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now