(Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread

[John Dolva]

The videos accompanying the transcripts are revealing in many ways, not least the acumulation of dust on lenses. I wonder if the dusting process charge the glass so it attracts oppositely charged dust? Has this been considered?

[Evan Burton]

I don't know, John. I would image the dust could become electrostaticly charged. I might see if I can find an e-mail addy and ask the people at the lunar samples lab.

Dust was certainly a problem o0n the Moon, getting into everything. Making seals and joints dust proof is one of the big challanges for long term lunar exploration; it was said that the 3 x EVAs of the latter Apollo missions pushed the suits to the limit.

[Antti Hynonen]

Hi,

The whole thread is confusing, in particular the agreed "rules".

I have here Burton's and your agreement:

-------------------------------------------

Posted 24 August 2010 - 12:46 PM, Evan Burton:

I'd be happy with:

Jack posts claim

I respond

Jim addresses my reply

I respond to Jim last post

Jim makes final comments

Next image. Jim gets last word, we each make 2 posts regarding the image. It is still important, though, that Jim addresses my rebuttal to the claim, and I address the points Jim raises in his rebuttal. We must stay on topic. Gary will decide if a participant is not adressing claims or going off topic.

--------------------------------------------

Then I have your comment to the above:

--------------------------------------------

Posted 24 August 2010 - 03:40 PM; James H. Fetzer:

This is a good plan, which I endorse. I would like to see the thread "cleaned up" as I have recommended.

The moon rock issue has not been resolved. I mentioned it in post #7, he replied in #10 and I commented

in #12. There is much more to be said on this subject, which I will bring up again in relation to the "Moon

Movie" section. Clearly, it is a crucial question. I suggest deleting the other moon rock posts as well as

those in which Evan indulges in his penchant for the use of RED and so on, which Gary can easily delete.

If Gary thinks a section of the debate has had enough attention, he can recommend that we move on and

afford an opportunity for each of us to explain why that is or why that is not a good idea. Many thanks.

When Jack has several studies I would like him to post that are related to the same issue, such as those

related to the moon rover, it would be appropriate to post them as a group to illustrate the dimensions

of the issue being addressed. The idea of only posting one image at a time is really inappropriate, since

they are evidence that is supportive of a single argument, which, in this case, is that at least some of the

rover photos appear to have been faked. If Jack has five that I would like posted, it would be ridiculous

to have him post five separate photos with five separate sequences of argumentative exchange. So that

suggestion was a bad one. Otherwise, however, I would like to begin with Jack's moon rover photographs.

------------------------------------------------

According to this, Burton gets at least 2 posts per claim.

If the rules have changed again, I refuse to moderate this mess.

Antti

[Steve Knight]

I don't know, John. I would image the dust could become electrostaticly charged. I might see if I can find an e-mail addy and ask the people at the lunar samples lab.

Dust was certainly a problem o0n the Moon, getting into everything. Making seals and joints dust proof is one of the big challanges for long term lunar exploration; it was said that the 3 x EVAs of the latter Apollo missions pushed the suits to the limit.

I have a very vague recollection from somewhere that once the astronauts got back into, and re-pressurised the LM, the dust they'd brought back in on their suits made the air smell pretty badly of burnt gunpowder. The sample containers used to store the dust for return to Earth proved insufficient, and the seals were soon broken by the glass-like granules, and so the chemical reactions that produced the "smell" were washed away by the moisture and oxygen in our atmosphere.

Let me see if I can find some stuff on this.

Edit : http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/30jan_smellofmoondust/

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/22apr_dontinhale/

It seems better decontamination procedures may be needed for future missions.

http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2005/04/67110

Similar to last.

http://www.space.com/adastra/adastra_moondust_060223.html

And another.

Edited September 14, 2010 by Steve Knight

[Evan Burton]

Thanks Steve.

I've sent an e-mail off to the lunar sample curators, but your last link seems to answer the question:

This troublesome material is every-where on the Moon's surface. The powdery grit gets into everything, jamming seals and abrading spacesuit fabric. It also readily picks up an electrostatic charge. This characteristic causes it to float or levitate off the lunar surface and stick to faceplates and camera lenses. The fine dust might even be toxic.

(My bolding)

[Dave Greer]

Well, at least you're right about one thing.

"Jack, you've detected dust on the lens", would have to be one of the most disingenuous claims you've ever made, Dave.

Neither you or Lamson seem to be able to tap dance around the faked Apollo photos as fast as you used to.

But then that does comes with age.

Duane

If you think I'm wrong about the "dust on the lens" issue, please explain why I've been disingenuous. I've shown evidence that supports my claim (several photos from the same pan showing the "artefact" in the same place relative to the frame, which is consistent with it being dust on the lens, but inconsistent with it being a light shining on a backdrop. I'll ask you nicely to please address the actual evidence I've presented, and show why that is wrong.

Thanks

[Evan Burton]

Click on image for maximum size!

NUMBER THREE.

Number three is AS17-140-21354, taken from inside the LM just prior to the third EVA. Even if you discount all the LRV tracks in the distance, you can take a look at the area behind the LRV.

The first thing you'll notice is the footprints - lots of them, obliterating most traces of tracks.... but wait! What's this?

Let's take a closer look:

LRV tracks... just where they should be.

[Evan Burton]

Number 4:

The image is AS15-88-11901, taken at the LRV's final resting place, and part of a pan sequence. If we look at other images taken to the left of the LRV, what do we see?

Look to the right of the LRV:

More tracks.

I'll stop belabouring the point and not worry about the rest of the LRV images. What Jack and Jim are doing with all these LRV claims are anomaly hunting.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Antti,

No, they haven't changed. But we agreed to alternate who goes first so that we also alternate with

respect to who goes last. In all cases, I establish the subject, which in the beginning revolves about

Jack's studies. On the first argument, Evan commented, I replied, he responded, and I finished. So

far so good. On the next round, I comment, Evan replies, I respond, and he finishes. That is where

we are at this stage. But reread the last paragraph regarding the grouping of photos and responses:

When Jack has several studies I would like him to post that are related to the same issue, such as those

related to the moon rover, it would be appropriate to post them as a group to illustrate the dimensions

of the issue being addressed. The idea of only posting one image at a time is really inappropriate, since

they are evidence that is supportive of a single argument, which, in this case, is that at least some of the

rover photos appear to have been faked. If Jack has five that I would like posted, it would be ridiculous

to have him post five separate photos with five separate sequences of argumentative exchange. So that

suggestion was a bad one. Otherwise, however, I would like to begin with Jack's moon rover photographs.

This is where Even was being coy with you. He asked if he could make separate posts to each of Jack's

photos. That not only strings things out too much and makes it more difficult to follow but changes the

complexion of the debate, since he is then DEBATING JACK, NOT DEBATING ME. He should be following

the rules as explain in this paragraph and REPLYING TO ME WITH REFERENCE TO THE IMAGES THAT I

CITE. He is welcome to make multiple points within his response, but it must be a single (even if multi-part)

response to my single (even if multi-part) reply. That's the only complaint I am lodging. When you said

he could make individual posts about Jack's individual images, you may not have realized it at the time,

but you were violating the rules of the debate as outlined in the above paragraph. Just ask him to take

off his series of individual replies to Jack and instead create a single reply to me, even if it has many parts.

Thanks very much for getting back to me. I appreciate that you are taking the time to moderate our debate.

Jim

Hi,

The whole thread is confusing, in particular the agreed "rules".

I have here Burton's and your agreement:

-------------------------------------------

Posted 24 August 2010 - 12:46 PM, Evan Burton:

I'd be happy with:

Jack posts claim

I respond

Jim addresses my reply

I respond to Jim last post

Jim makes final comments

Next image. Jim gets last word, we each make 2 posts regarding the image. It is still important, though, that Jim addresses my rebuttal to the claim, and I address the points Jim raises in his rebuttal. We must stay on topic. Gary will decide if a participant is not adressing claims or going off topic.

--------------------------------------------

Then I have your comment to the above:

--------------------------------------------

Posted 24 August 2010 - 03:40 PM; James H. Fetzer:

This is a good plan, which I endorse. I would like to see the thread "cleaned up" as I have recommended.

The moon rock issue has not been resolved. I mentioned it in post #7, he replied in #10 and I commented

in #12. There is much more to be said on this subject, which I will bring up again in relation to the "Moon

Movie" section. Clearly, it is a crucial question. I suggest deleting the other moon rock posts as well as

those in which Evan indulges in his penchant for the use of RED and so on, which Gary can easily delete.

If Gary thinks a section of the debate has had enough attention, he can recommend that we move on and

afford an opportunity for each of us to explain why that is or why that is not a good idea. Many thanks.

When Jack has several studies I would like him to post that are related to the same issue, such as those

related to the moon rover, it would be appropriate to post them as a group to illustrate the dimensions

of the issue being addressed. The idea of only posting one image at a time is really inappropriate, since

they are evidence that is supportive of a single argument, which, in this case, is that at least some of the

rover photos appear to have been faked. If Jack has five that I would like posted, it would be ridiculous

to have him post five separate photos with five separate sequences of argumentative exchange. So that

suggestion was a bad one. Otherwise, however, I would like to begin with Jack's moon rover photographs.

------------------------------------------------

According to this, Burton gets at least 2 posts per claim.

If the rules have changed again, I refuse to moderate this mess.

Antti

Edited September 14, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Kevin M. West]

This is where Even was being coy with you. He asked if he could make separate posts to each of Jack's

photos. That not only strings things out too much and makes it more difficult to follow but changes the

complexion of the debate, since he is then DEBATING JACK, NOT DEBATING ME.

Of course he is debating Jack, Jack is posting more than just images, he's posting images with arguments included. If Jack would post just the images, and you the arguments, then it would be fair for Evan to only respond to you. But that isn't what is happening.

[Duane Daman]

Well, at least you're right about one thing.

"Jack, you've detected dust on the lens", would have to be one of the most disingenuous claims you've ever made, Dave.

Neither you or Lamson seem to be able to tap dance around the faked Apollo photos as fast as you used to.

But then that does comes with age.

Duane

If you think I'm wrong about the "dust on the lens" issue, please explain why I've been disingenuous. I've shown evidence that supports my claim (several photos from the same pan showing the "artefact" in the same place relative to the frame, which is consistent with it being dust on the lens, but inconsistent with it being a light shining on a backdrop. I'll ask you nicely to please address the actual evidence I've presented, and show why that is wrong.

Thanks

Dave,

Your "dust on the lens" excuse has been used for almost every single anomaly found in the faked Apollo photos.. I thought you would have been able to come up with a better mundane excuse than that, considering all the time you spend pretending to disprove all of the Apollo Hoax evidence on every forum where this subject is discussed.

[Craig Lamson]

Well, at least you're right about one thing.

"Jack, you've detected dust on the lens", would have to be one of the most disingenuous claims you've ever made, Dave.

Neither you or Lamson seem to be able to tap dance around the faked Apollo photos as fast as you used to.

But then that does comes with age.

Duane

If you think I'm wrong about the "dust on the lens" issue, please explain why I've been disingenuous. I've shown evidence that supports my claim (several photos from the same pan showing the "artefact" in the same place relative to the frame, which is consistent with it being dust on the lens, but inconsistent with it being a light shining on a backdrop. I'll ask you nicely to please address the actual evidence I've presented, and show why that is wrong.

Thanks

Dave,

Your "dust on the lens" excuse has been used for almost every single anomaly found in the faked Apollo photos.. I thought you would have been able to come up with a better mundane excuse than that, considering all the time you spend pretending to disprove all of the Apollo Hoax evidence on every forum where this subject is discussed.

Duane, instead of pounding insults out from your keyboard, why not...for a change...do something to prove your point. You say Dust is not the cause, then how about some empirical evidence to back up your flying fingers? A few years ago I did the test of dust on the lens and found the same results as the Apollo photos. WHY DON'T YOU try it and post the results? Or is that too much trouble?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Evan,

Surely even you can appreciate that, as a participant in our "debate", you should not be moderating either the

debate thread or the discussion thread. Ask John to appoint someone in your stead to fulfill those roles with

respect to both threads. If we have a moderator for the debate thread, he should moderate this one as well.

Jim

Jim,

You have made repeated personal attacks on members. These are to cease or the moderating team will consider disciplinary action.

[Dave Greer]

Dave,

Your "dust on the lens" excuse has been used for almost every single anomaly found in the faked Apollo photos.. I thought you would have been able to come up with a better mundane excuse than that, considering all the time you spend pretending to disprove all of the Apollo Hoax evidence on every forum where this subject is discussed.

I still don't understand why that explanation is wrong. I've presented evidence supporting the claim, surely if I'm wrong you can show me why the evidence I've supplied is flawed, and why Jack's theory of a poorly lit back-drop fits the evidence better, rather than mundane dust on lens?

Hopefully this will demonstrate what I mean. (In the lower set of images, the grey area indicates the location of where the lighter area would be, obviously it wouldn't be solid grey).

If you disagree, what exactly do you disagree with? That dust can't get on the lens? That it wouldn't affect the image in the way seen (if so, why?) Or something else?

I'm just seeking clarification as to why you think dust on the lens doesn't explain the smudge artefact, but a poorly lit backdrop does.

Cheers

[Duane Daman]

Dave,

Your "dust on the lens" excuse has been used for almost every single anomaly found in the faked Apollo photos.. I thought you would have been able to come up with a better mundane excuse than that, considering all the time you spend pretending to disprove all of the Apollo Hoax evidence on every forum where this subject is discussed.

I still don't understand why that explanation is wrong. I've presented evidence supporting the claim, surely if I'm wrong you can show me why the evidence I've supplied is flawed, and why Jack's theory of a poorly lit back-drop fits the evidence better, rather than mundane dust on lens?

Hopefully this will demonstrate what I mean. (In the lower set of images, the grey area indicates the location of where the lighter area would be, obviously it wouldn't be solid grey).

If you disagree, what exactly do you disagree with? That dust can't get on the lens? That it wouldn't affect the image in the way seen (if so, why?) Or something else?

I'm just seeking clarification as to why you think dust on the lens doesn't explain the smudge artefact, but a poorly lit backdrop does.

Cheers

When Jack adjusted the contrast on this photo, stars should have been visible in the "lunar" sky, instead of a round spot of light, similar to that of a spotlight on a set.

If "dust on the lens" were really causing this photographic anomaly, then that same "dust" would be evident on more than just this one ( or possibly a few other) photo .. Since dust (whether lunar or simulated by NASA ) seemed to be covering everything, then all of the Apollo photos would show the "dust on the lens" problem, instead of just this one, or posibly a few others, where this particular anomaly has occured.

That's why your typical Apollogists excuses of "dust on the lens", or "compression artifacts", or "pixel size", or "cropped images" or

"smudges on the visors" are nothing but lame attempts to explain away the MULTITUDE of ANOMALIES found in the official Apollo photographic record.

Cheers

Edited September 14, 2010 by Duane Daman