Jump to content
The Education Forum
Evan Burton

(Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread

Recommended Posts

I have long complained that Jack White makes Apollo-related claims but refuses to debate those claims with those who dispute his claims. Jim Fetzer similarly refused to debate his claims, and indeed accused me of not having an in depth knowledge of Apollo.

I believe the reason is because those parties cannot openly debate their Apollo claims without revealing the flaws in their claims or their lack of understanding regarding aspects of claims.

Therefore I have started this thread with the specific purpose of asking Jack White and / or Jim Fetzer to debate me on these claims, one-on-one.

I have arranged with Antti Hynonen (and other moderators as required) to act as adjudicators in this thread. The only people that will be allowed to post in the thread will be myself, Jack White, Jim Fetzer and the Forum moderators. Any other posts by others - regardless of their content - will be made invisible. The mods will determine if any post by any of the debating parties is against the rules, etc.

I will cease all use of moderator powers in this thread, with the exception of making invisible posts by persons other than the debate participants (Burton, White, Fetzer and mods). I will not edit or otherwise action posts made by the debate participants regardless of their content. All decisions regarding the debate will be made by the mods, and their decisions shall be full and final. The mods shall NOT include me in any discussion regarding their actions. If the mods wish to ask me a question, they shall post the question openly on the thread. The mods may consult with Jack White / Jim Fetzer privately, keeping their communications with them confidential from both myself and other Forum members.

I would also ask that the mods apply the Forum rules strictly upon myself, but allow Jack White and / or Jim Fetzer a reasonable amount of leeway in the debate.

I therefore invite Jack White and / or Jim Fetzer to present what they consider their single most compelling evidence for an 'Apollo hoax' on this thread, and I will attempt to refute it. No new 'evidence' shall be introduced unless the mods are happy that the previous issue has been properly debated or an impasse has been reached.

Will Jack or Jim participate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

White and Fetzer accept the challenge on the above terms.

Jack and Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words Jack continues to refuse to discuss rebutals of his theories. The only thing that has changed is that while he used to claim he was willing to do so he now acknowledges that he isn't. Of course Fetzer accepts a "challenge" that gives him the last word. Jack's "studies" have have already been posted here, Evan and others have already repeatedly debunked them Jack has very rarely bother to reply. What he proposes would be a pointless repetion of those threads.

I challenge Jack to show when I or David and Kevin ever "insulted" him on an Apollo thread. Craig might have done so a few times but even when didn't Jack refused to discuss his rebutals.

Edited by Len Colby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

ROFLMAO!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this will be made invisible, but, in a different 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

So, it seems we have a discussion, no?

Edited by Greg Burnham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Jack why don't you re-publish your comments about the Black Helicopters you allegedly heard deliberately cricling and dive bombing your house at the same time? Turns out it was just the lawn cutting crew with 2 large riding mowers. LMFAO. Or how about when you got a computer virus and tried to blame me for sending it right to your desktop via a public BBS message posting system? LMFAO again. Or how about Black Dog Man? Or The Green Hornet? Or the Big Blue Bug? Are you STILL insisting that we never landed on the Moon? Are you freaking serious? How can anyone take you seriously on anything? Gawd! No wonder people think JFK researchers are off the wall and beyond the pale! Are you doing this on purpose?

Maybe you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of my Apollo studies stand on their own. None have been refuted. I have nothing additional to add on any of them.

My biggest study has never even been acknowledged or challenged.

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.htm

Jack

That is blatantly untrue.

Your claim that none of your "studies" have been refuted is untrue; I did so in this thread. The fact that you do not acknowledge your errors is the whole reason I want you to engage in a debate.

Your claim that your time / motion study has never been acknowledged or challenged is untrue: it has been challenged here and here and here and here. Indeed our own Matthew Lewis has done an extensive study of this particular claim and has pointed out the myriad of flaws in Jack's calculations.

I'll invite Matthew to post in this thread regarding that specific claim, or preferably start a new thread on the PC board regarding the claim and then place a link to it here.

I've mixed up the person who did the study. It may have been Dave Greer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I assume you refuse to accept our terms of engagement?

Jack

I refuse to engage in a pointless exercise.

My reasons are detailed on the appropriate thread here.

I would ask / request that you post your reply on the appropriate thread, though if you prefer to post it here then please link the reply on that thread. It enables everyone to understand exactly what people have said and why they have decided on the decisions they have made.

Edited to add: I have detailed my reasons on the appropriate thread, but if members would like to see them repeated here then I have no objection.

Edited by Evan Burton
Added comment regarding reasons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As another person has phrased it:

So in other words, everything will go the exact same way as they've gone for years, except White now wants someone else to reply to Burton's evaluations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a person has phrased it:

So in other words, everything will go the exact same way as they've gone for years, except White now wants someone else to reply to Burton's evaluations.

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

×
×
  • Create New...