Jump to content
The Education Forum

Moon Myth Disinformation


Recommended Posts

Guest James H. Fetzer

Everyone should consider all of the available evidence

on issues like this one. Here are my recommendations.

If you study them, then you can consult Evan Burton,

who claims that EVERY POINT they make is mistaken!

For resources on whether or not we went to the moon,

visit http://assassinationscience.com for links to these:

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.assassinationscience.com/HowKubrickFakedtheMoonLandings-1.pdf

Conspiracy Theory

Did we land on the moon?

NASA erased moon footage

http://community.livejournal.com/ontd_science/25244.html

And here are the dates, guests and topics for 3 related

interviews archived at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com:

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2009

Rich DellaRosa

The Apollo Moon Landing Hoax, Part II

FRIDAY, AUGUST 28, 2009

Rich DellaRosa

The Apollo Moon Landing Hoax, Part I

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2009

Bart Sibrel

"A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon

Jim Fetzer is my friend. So, my support of him and his work could easily be characterized as "biased" and such a characterization is probably a legitimate "ghost argument" to be advanced by those who don't know me well. But, Jim himself, and others who know us both, would refute that conclusion (in legal terms) with prejudice!

Jim is of a dying breed...a pioneer of sorts. Like Captain Kirk he goes "where no man has gone before" and he goes there in defiance of the politically correct view, in defiance of the safe place, and in defiance of the status quo. For this and many other traits, I am proud to call him my friend.

I do NOT always agree with him. His "methods" of persuasion--many times--do NOT persuade. Many times his methods are rather coarse, bitter to the taste, even offensive.

But, he is true--true to himself--to the ONLY thing he knows--and he is willing to sacrifice all for the sake of "speaking the truth" even when to do so is possibly the most unpopular undertaking imaginable. However, he is not infallible.

He sometimes is in error. Many times...but not because he took the "easy way out" -- quite the contrary. He took the HARD ROAD--the path less followed. For this alone, I call him my friend.

There is no doubt that future Fetzer endeavors will result in conflict. There is no doubt that I will remain his friend and support him. There is no doubt that I will, from time to time, disagree vehemently with him...but, NEVER will there come a day when I doubt his sincerity.

Insincerity is simply beyond his ability.

Given the last few months it's quite clear that Fetzer needs a defense. The more he exhibits himself the more embarrasing it becomes.

I think Nietzsche once wrote: "The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments."

This seems to me to emphasize exactly why Fetzer has been such a disaster for research on the Kennedy assassination. His longstanding campaign to prove the Zapruder film was altered has come up short. Why? Because the arguments he has broadcast are faulty in the extreme. In addition, his cyclical rants with respect to the Bush Administration's downing Welstone's plane with a "directed energy weapon," his endorsement of the claim that the U.S never went to the moon, his endorsement of claims that planes never hit the Twin Towers or the Pentagon and that some "directed energy weapon from space" carried out the destruction on 9/11.

If Fetzer wanted to claim that Santa Claus and his reindeer brought down the Twin Towers, I'd have no objection as long as he didn't relate it to the Kennedy assassination. There will always be kooky theories around and a surplus of wingnuts ready to embrace them. But when Fetzer speaks up about the Kennedy assassination, it embarrasses all of us who are trying to do sober, responsible historical research. His continued antics have the capacity to associate research on the Kennedy assassination with moon shot scepticism and the silliest 9/11 conspiracy theories. In addition to being really unpleasant and ugly as a Forum member, Fetzer does real harm to genuine research.

Fetzer is a hazard to navigation in this our space.

JT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Lamson put up this silly post because I had posted links to information about the moon landings,

which is not already here and is responsive to one of Tink's pointless attempts to discredit me

by alluding to events that many may believe occurred but which actually did not, including the

moon landings. I explained that in a reply to Lamson's post. So what happened to my posts? I

find this extremely disturbing, since it indicates complicity by removing posts to protect Josiah.

Everyone should consider all of the available evidence

on issues like this one. Here are my recommendations.

If you study them, then you can consult Evan Burton,

who claims that EVERY POINT they make is mistaken!

For resources on whether or not we went to the moon,

visit http://assassinationscience.com for links to these:

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.assassinationscience.com/HowKubrickFakedtheMoonLandings-1.pdf

Conspiracy Theory

Did we land on the moon?

NASA erased moon footage

http://community.livejournal.com/ontd_science/25244.html

And here are the dates, guests and topics for 3 related

interviews archived at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com:

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2009

Rich DellaRosa

The Apollo Moon Landing Hoax, Part II

FRIDAY, AUGUST 28, 2009

Rich DellaRosa

The Apollo Moon Landing Hoax, Part I

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2009

Bart Sibrel

"A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon

Everyone should consider all of the available evidence

on issues like this one. Here are my recommendations.

Polly wanna cracker?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not limited to the good Professor, nor just some Moon hoaxers. It can be found, in varying degrees, amongst almost any area of discussion where there are two opposing views.

It's normally where a person, consciously or subconsciously, realising that their point is fatally flawed and for whatever reasons are unwilling to admit it, just make the same claim over and over, ignoring anything that would threaten their belief in the claim.

Notice how the Prof just repeats the same claim - almost verbatim, I think.

Notice how he fails to acknowledge my rebuttals to each of the claims (stand fast the Apollo 15 flag; Dave will be doing that one shortly).

Notice how instead of attempting to find flaw in the rebuttals, he simply repeats the original claim.

How does it go?

"There's no place like home; there's no place like home, there's no place like home...."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Evan,

You have been abusing your position as moderator to remove posts of mine, even after I have explained

why I was posting them there. Your hostility toward me is palpable. Life is too short for me to spend

it dealing with irrational fanatics like you. You do not understand JFK, you do not understand 9/11,

and you damn sure do not understand the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax. It would be an utter waste of time.

Jim

BTW - I thought the Professor would chicken out of trying to actually argue his position in a thread, instead he relies on his repost cut & pastes as he has previously been doing.

If his Apollo position is that strong, surely he can easily debate and defeat someone who he considers lacking in Apollo knowledge.

On the other hand, if the Prof is faking.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evan,

You have been abusing your position as moderator to remove posts of mine, even after I have explained

why I was posting them there. Your hostility toward me is palpable. Life is too short for me to spend

it dealing with irrational fanatics like you. You do not understand JFK, you do not understand 9/11,

and you damn sure do not understand the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax. It would be an utter waste of time.

Jim

BTW - I thought the Professor would chicken out of trying to actually argue his position in a thread, instead he relies on his repost cut & pastes as he has previously been doing.

If his Apollo position is that strong, surely he can easily debate and defeat someone who he considers lacking in Apollo knowledge.

On the other hand, if the Prof is faking.....

The posts have been MOVED, not removed. Anyone who wishes to view them can see them here.

If you are so confident I know nothing about Apollo, why don't you try and defend the claims you so regularly parrot? Are you afraid to debate me on Apollo?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW Professor, I tend to agree it would be a waste of time since I would only further expose your ignorance in the details of the Apollo claims which you champion so.... passionately?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is Burton, Lamson and Colby that are always out of line with personal attacks. They all came here to attack my Apollo

moon hoax studies, from a vicious website called BadAstronomy.

I can remember when Burton's signature line on all his postings was LITTLE WHITE LIES...implying all my postings were lies.

All he has done ever since is harass me. There were the long episodes after he was made moderator where he repeatedly

put me on moderation for using the word CRAP.

I have a long memory. Some here do not.

Jack

To "attack" your studies? So anybody who disagrees with your theories is automatically attacking you? I guess I'm not surprised you view it like this, considering the Clavius Web site (http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/) has authoritatively refuted every single point that Moon hoax theorists like yourself believe is true.

Name a single one of my FAKE APOLLO MOON PHOTO studies which has been refuted. Here, try refuting this one:

post-667-055445800 1281290352_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Name a single one of my FAKE APOLLO MOON PHOTO studies which has been refuted. Here, try refuting this one:

Just my luck. I was about to "rate this post" positively, Jack, but that feature is no longer available! (Crap) :lol:

Woof Woof...

This from a guy who needs to draw "artifacts" in photos so that he can claim they are there.

You're a real piece of work, Lamson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is Burton, Lamson and Colby that are always out of line with personal attacks. They all came here to attack my Apollo

moon hoax studies, from a vicious website called BadAstronomy.

I can remember when Burton's signature line on all his postings was LITTLE WHITE LIES...implying all my postings were lies.

All he has done ever since is harass me. There were the long episodes after he was made moderator where he repeatedly

put me on moderation for using the word CRAP.

I have a long memory. Some here do not.

Jack

To "attack" your studies? So anybody who disagrees with your theories is automatically attacking you? I guess I'm not surprised you view it like this, considering the Clavius Web site (http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/) has authoritatively refuted every single point that Moon hoax theorists like yourself believe is true.

Name a single one of my FAKE APOLLO MOON PHOTO studies which has been refuted. Here, try refuting this one:

It's been done a couple of times, but you seem to lack the ability to look where people point.... though it is typical of your "claims". You just ignore whatever evidence refutes your "studies". I think studies is an unfair name to use, for no study has gone into them. 'Joke' would be more appropriate, since that is what they are.

You were told of the answer here, again here, and again here in 2006. Since you aren't apparently able to follow a link, I'll also repeat it in this thread... before moving all the Apollo related posts to the appropriate thread on the PC board.

************

This is a good example of why you should check things for yourself, and not take anyones sayso on things. Not Jack. Not me. Check for yourself.

If you do, you discover a couple of things.

Firstly, the visor reflection. Look at the high resolution version of AS17-134-20482.

This is what you'll see:

post-2326-014310000 1281337748_thumb.jpg

AS17-134-20482 (high resolution, cropped, annotated)

It's the reflection of the lunar surface. You can see the LM shadow clearly.

Now, Jack's other claim:

NO OTHER PHOTOS OF THE FLAG DECAL SHOW THIS BLACK PATCH

AS17-134-20488HR.jpg

AS17-134-20488

You can see the 'black patch'. It's a piece of the black material that forms the covering on some sections of the LM. This section is loose and is hanging down.

OH! And look! A reflection of an astronaut in the visor! That has to be proof it's a fake, right, because "there is nothing in the photo to create such a reflection"

AS17-140-21370HR.jpg

AS17-140-21370

Another example of the "black patch". You can see it's hanging over the top right corner of the US flag decal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...