(Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread

[Evan Burton]

I thought so.

You are afraid of an open debate, no doubt because you know your "studies" will not stand up to scrutiny.

What about Jim Fetzer? He claimed I was "faking it"; has he the integrity to debate his beliefs? Same conditions as I posted before: only participants allowed to post, etc.

[Craig Lamson]

What has changed? I have become very busy with my new interest, running a history forum with

nearly 80 members; I have produced over 2000 studies of Fort Worth history, which can be seen

at:

http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/oldftw/oldftw.htm

I have no time to waste on people like Lamson, Burton and Colby. They are meaningless diversions.

Jack

Your position changed in 2 months? It should be noted that when you posted you would discuss your work TWO MONTHS ago, you failed to live up to your word then. What excuse are you going make up for that?

[Jack White]

"Motivations of posters are not to be questioned." Shall I report this to the moderator?

[Jack White]

Motivations of posters are not to be questioned.

...and why are there so many threads on this subject when one would do?

[Evan Burton]

This thread is for the debate which you are afraid to participate in, and is limited to the participants.

The other thread is for discussion about the debate, and is open to all members.

[Evan Burton]

Your motivations are not being questioned, though I think your honesty is. Craig has pointed out a discrepancy between your two posts.

[Len Colby]

What has changed? I have become very busy with my new interest, running a history forum with

nearly 80 members; I have produced over 2000 studies of Fort Worth history, which can be seen

at:

http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/oldftw/oldftw.htm

I have no time to waste on people like Lamson, Burton and Colby. They are meaningless diversions.

Jack

Gee Jack a forum with 80 members? Strange running a forum with about 2000 members does not seem to have left John or Andy, both of whom have jobs, without time to respond here and the person you are too busy to respond to also has a (full time?) job is the most active administrator of the same 2000 member forum. And just where is this supposed forum? There was no sign of one on the linked page.

That site can’t explain why you are suddenly too busy since June 7

1) It was “LAST UPDATED: 18 July 2010”

2) It appears little changed since April 8, 2008 the last time the Internet Archive cached a copy

http://web.archive.org/web/20080405215323/http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/oldftw/oldftw.htm

3) It has been around since at least Jan. 5 2006

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/oldftw/oldftw.htm

[Jack White]

Why are there three threads on the same subject?

Burton issued a challenge to Fetzer to debate the White studies.

Fetzer accepted.

Now Burton pretends that Fetzer did not accept.

Now Burton wants to debate only me.

I am too busy.

Why is he afraid to debate Fetzer alone?

Jack

[Evan Burton]

Len,

That forum has nothing to do with us here. If you want to discuss it, then perhaps a thread in the appropriate board would be in order: maybe Local History?

Thanks!

[Evan Burton]

Why are there three threads on the same subject?

Burton issued a challenge to Fetzer to debate the White studies.

Fetzer accepted.

Now Burton pretends that Fetzer did not accept.

Now Burton wants to debate only me.

I am too busy.

Why is he afraid to debate Fetzer alone?

Jack

I'm sorry Jack - where is a post from Jim Fetzer accepting? I don't see one here (for participants, of which you are no longer one but I'll overlook that because you were invited to be one) nor on the discussion thread. Please reply in the discussion thread and not this one.

If Jim has accepted, then let's get to it - I'm looking forward to it!

From now on, no-one except Jim, myself and the moderators may post in this thread. That includes you Jack. All Forum members are free to discuss the debate or comment in this thread.

Jim, please start with what you consider to be your best claim for Apollo being faked.

[Evan Burton]

Why are there three threads on the same subject?

Burton issued a challenge to Fetzer to debate the White studies.

Fetzer accepted.

Now Burton pretends that Fetzer did not accept.

Now Burton wants to debate only me.

I am too busy.

Why is he afraid to debate Fetzer alone?

Jack

That's all right Jack - I know you are too frightened to debate me. That's understandable, considering the fallacious conclusions you draw.

I'm sorry Jack - where is a post from Jim Fetzer accepting?

[Jack White]

Why are there three threads on the same subject?

Burton issued a challenge to Fetzer to debate the White studies.

Fetzer accepted.

Now Burton pretends that Fetzer did not accept.

Now Burton wants to debate only me.

I am too busy.

Why is he afraid to debate Fetzer alone?

Jack

I'm sorry Jack - where is a post from Jim Fetzer accepting? I don't see one here (for participants, of which you are no longer one but I'll overlook that because you were invited to be one) nor on the discussion thread. Please reply in the discussion thread and not this one.

If Jim has accepted, then let's get to it - I'm looking forward to it!

From now on, no-one except Jim, myself and the moderators may post in this thread. That includes you Jack. All Forum members are free to discuss the debate or comment in this thread.

Jim, please start with what you consider to be your best claim for Apollo being faked.

I was going to post the studies for Jim, since I have them all and he does not. Jim does not wish to post the images.

He and I discussed this by email. He said the only way he would participate would be on a closed thread.

I am not interested in making comments...only posting the images. He will tell me which study he wishes to discuss,

and I will post the image.

I have not been able to contact Jim for about a week; he may be on vacation.

Jack

Edited August 16, 2010 by Jack White

[Jack White]

I have heard from Jim. It will take several days to go through the several hundred studies

to pick several to discuss. We will get back to you when the studies have been selected.

He wants me to post the studies, you to post your discussion, and then he will reply to

any points you raise; then the next study will be posted. I will not do anything except

post the image, if you will arrange that.

Jack

[Kathleen Collins]

I don't know if this question is appropriate to this thread. If it isn't I'm sorry.

There's been a film on youtube.com about the Moon landing. This film says that Richard Nixon asked NASA to go to the moon in 1969 and they told him they could not yet. The main problem was the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Nixon then asked the director of 2001, A Space Odyssey, to fake a moon landing, as the people in the US had suffered so much through the sixties and needed something to be proud of. Also Kennedy had predicted that we'd be on the moon by the end of the decade.

This director, Stanley Kubrik of England, agreed to creating footage of the men on the moon -- in the studio. In their training we've seen how astronauts could hang in air inside their ship because of no gravity. Yet the 2 men who landed on the moon weren't reacting to gravity, as anyone can see. Outside the space module, they were jumping! You can see a cord on one of their shoulders as they pretended to be affected by gravity. Michael Collins remained inside the vehicle. When they went through a long debriefing after arriving home, they held a press conference. Michael Collins blurted, "You could see how many times I tripped over the TV cables." Buzz Aldrin then mentioned they had a "scientific camera" to try to cover Collins' gaffe. It was the most dismal conference.

So what I mean to ask: Did we land on the moon in July 20,1969 or no? Was it coincidence that Chappaquiddick occurred 2 days earlier?

Kathy C

[Jack White]

Jim has advised me to start with the TRACKLESS rovers (LRVs). I post first this image,

to be followed by several others showing the same thing. After Evan's comments, Jim

will reply.

Jack