(Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread

[John Dolva]

''New moonwalk footage another big step

Judy Skatssoon, AAP September 28, 2010, 5:39 pm Never-before-seen video footage of the Apollo 11 moonwalk discovered in Australia will be shown at an awards ceremony in Sydney next week.

The footage of mission commander Neil Armstrong descending the ladder of the lunar module will be shown at the Australian Geographic Society Awards next Wednesday, Australian Geographic said in a statement obtained by AAP.

Armstrong's descent will be among highlights of the historic 1969 moonwalk to be shown at the awards, at which lunar module pilot Buzz Aldrin will be the guest of honour.

Other footage to be shown includes digitally remastered images of Armstrong's first step on the moon surface, Aldrin's descent of the ladder, the reading of the plaque and the raising of the US flag.

It is the first time the highlights reel of the restored footage will be screened.

Telescopes in remote Australia played a key role in the Apollo 11 mission, including provision of the television signal, after Armstrong decided to attempt the moonwalk early, putting the United States just beyond the horizon.

John Sarkissian - historian and astronomer in charge of the Australian side of the recordings restoration project - told AFP the unseen minutes were the "best quality of Armstrong descending the ladder".

"NASA were using the Goldstone (California) station signal, which had its settings wrong, but in the signals being received by the Australian stations you can actually see Armstrong."

"In what people have seen before you can barely see Armstrong at all, you can see something black - that was his leg.

...''

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/8030670/new-moonwalk-footage-another-big-step/

[John Dolva]

Evan, I'm trying to understand some aspects of a process of flattening the reflection. Can you say how far from the suiit you were kneeling and what camera/lens settings you used?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16393&view=findpost&p=207302

[Evan Burton]

John,

It was taken with a Fuji Finepix S5000. According to the metadata it was F2.8, ISO 200, 6mm focal length. The shutter speed is given as 1/150th sec, but the exposure time is given as 1/147th sec. Distance was about 1.5 - 2.0 metres.

[John Dolva]

Evan, I'm assuming you used the standard lens that came with the camera?

[Evan Burton]

Yep. Do you need the specs? They're in my manual.

[John Dolva]

No, that's fine. The specs are online. But, thank you. I have an image of which things are knowable, the specs of the camera et.c. and a distance. I think that's enough for now. Just one thing. Is that a crop? I'd like to locate the center of the photo?

[Evan Burton]

This, sadly, another furphy. The footage to be shown is the digitally remastered footage released by NASA last year for the Apollo 11 40th. There is no new footage, nothing is 'never before seen'. As the investigation revealed, the SSTV tapes were most likely reused for later NASA missions.

''New moonwalk footage another big step

Judy Skatssoon, AAP September 28, 2010, 5:39 pm Never-before-seen video footage of the Apollo 11 moonwalk discovered in Australia will be shown at an awards ceremony in Sydney next week.

The footage of mission commander Neil Armstrong descending the ladder of the lunar module will be shown at the Australian Geographic Society Awards next Wednesday, Australian Geographic said in a statement obtained by AAP.

Armstrong's descent will be among highlights of the historic 1969 moonwalk to be shown at the awards, at which lunar module pilot Buzz Aldrin will be the guest of honour.

Other footage to be shown includes digitally remastered images of Armstrong's first step on the moon surface, Aldrin's descent of the ladder, the reading of the plaque and the raising of the US flag.

It is the first time the highlights reel of the restored footage will be screened.

Telescopes in remote Australia played a key role in the Apollo 11 mission, including provision of the television signal, after Armstrong decided to attempt the moonwalk early, putting the United States just beyond the horizon.

John Sarkissian - historian and astronomer in charge of the Australian side of the recordings restoration project - told AFP the unseen minutes were the "best quality of Armstrong descending the ladder".

"NASA were using the Goldstone (California) station signal, which had its settings wrong, but in the signals being received by the Australian stations you can actually see Armstrong."

"In what people have seen before you can barely see Armstrong at all, you can see something black - that was his leg.

...''

http://au.news.yahoo...other-big-step/

[Evan Burton]

One was a crop, and one was trimmed a little. Here ya go John:

[John Dolva]

Thanks, mate, just what the doctor ordered.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

This is a phony argument. You are very adept as "plausible deniability". This thread must have a bona

fide moderator who does not abuse his position, as you have done repeatedly. You not only remove posts

that are part of my argument, as you have done in the past with Jack's posts and now this one of "Tracks

of a Moon Rover", but do so on (what I take to be) fraudulent grounds. I contacted fotosearch, which is

the site where I discovered the photo. They made an inquiry, contacting the source that provided it to

them, and reported back that it WAS of a moon rover but WAS NOT taken on the moon. Your source has told

a different story. The photo is not being used for commercial purposes and there is no copyright issue.

You have repeatedly not followed our agreed upon format for this debate. I have asked you to consolidate

your responses into a single post, so they are not spread out like an ordinary thread. You have not only

strung them out but even posted links to arguments that appear elsewhere, which means that they are not

even present on the thread but only for those who want to pursue the links you provide. That is lazy and

disrespectful. This thread is intended to include all the arguments that are being presented RIGHT HERE,

ON THE THREAD. But of course it is simpler for you to create a situation that is more difficult for me

and for others who may have an interest in pursuing these things to follow. KINDLY CEASE AND DESIST!

Moreover, it have notice that you are non-responsive to my arguments. In relation to the moon rover tracks,

you have made no response to my point that it is extremely improbable that the space between the wheels is

neat and tidy, displaying no tracks, by reasserting the argument I have already presented--and by offering

up another photograph of an Earth-based vehicle that has no tracks, which appears to be defending yourself

against an argument about photographic fakery by presenting another faked photograph! And when I point out

the rectilinear propagation of light and that the suits worn by the astronauts are crinkly and most unlikely

to focus light to reflect it as shown, you instead merely claim that that is the explanation, when it's not.

Now I am willing to proceed with this exchange and to elaborate in greater detail, but there is no point if

you are going to continue to throw your weight around and make arbitrary decisions about what does and does

not appear here. The "Tracks of a Moon Rover" is a perfect example, where you have removed it when it has,

in my view, considerable interest, for more than one reason. We are not trafficking in this photo. We are

not marketing it. We are simply discussing it. It already appears on a web site where it is accessible to

the public. Your argument is specious. Repost the photo and replace yourself as moderator and I will make

further posts until I conclude that your unscrupulous conduct not longer merits participation. Let me know

when you have been replaced by a serious, firm but even-handed substitute moderator and I'll return to this.

Jim,

The photographer themselves said it was from a quad bike and taken at Golden Bay Beach in Malta.

Did you or Jack contact the photographer, as I suggested, and ask for permission to use the image? You were given their website address which had their e-mail address at the top.

That is the only portion where I have acted as a moderator in this thread, as we did not want to risk the Forum being accused of copyright violation.

[Antti Hynonen]

Replying to bolded section below.

I do not agree that Burton should limit his number of replies to a number less than those posted by White & Fetzer. Judging from posts from page 8&9 thus far, Burton has not posted significantly more than Fetzer&White together.

I see no need to moderate this thread at this time.

Antti

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

This is a phony argument. You are very adept as "plausible deniability". This thread must have a bona

fide moderator who does not abuse his position, as you have done repeatedly. You not only remove posts

that are part of my argument, as you have done in the past with Jack's posts and now this one of "Tracks

of a Moon Rover", but do so on (what I take to be) fraudulent grounds. I contacted fotosearch, which is

the site where I discovered the photo. They made an inquiry, contacting the source that provided it to

them, and reported back that it WAS of a moon rover but WAS NOT taken on the moon. Your source has told

a different story. The photo is not being used for commercial purposes and there is no copyright issue.

You have repeatedly not followed our agreed upon format for this debate. I have asked you to consolidate

your responses into a single post, so they are not spread out like an ordinary thread. You have not only

strung them out but even posted links to arguments that appear elsewhere, which means that they are not

even present on the thread but only for those who want to pursue the links you provide. That is lazy and

disrespectful. This thread is intended to include all the arguments that are being presented RIGHT HERE,

ON THE THREAD. But of course it is simpler for you to create a situation that is more difficult for me

and for others who may have an interest in pursuing these things to follow. KINDLY CEASE AND DESIST!

Moreover, it have notice that you are non-responsive to my arguments. In relation to the moon rover tracks,

you have made no response to my point that it is extremely improbable that the space between the wheels is

neat and tidy, displaying no tracks, by reasserting the argument I have already presented--and by offering

up another photograph of an Earth-based vehicle that has no tracks, which appears to be defending yourself

against an argument about photographic fakery by presenting another faked photograph! And when I point out

the rectilinear propagation of light and that the suits worn by the astronauts are crinkly and most unlikely

to focus light to reflect it as shown, you instead merely claim that that is the explanation, when it's not.

Now I am willing to proceed with this exchange and to elaborate in greater detail, but there is no point if

you are going to continue to throw your weight around and make arbitrary decisions about what does and does

not appear here. The "Tracks of a Moon Rover" is a perfect example, where you have removed it when it has,

in my view, considerable interest, for more than one reason. We are not trafficking in this photo. We are

not marketing it. We are simply discussing it. It already appears on a web site where it is accessible to

the public. Your argument is specious. Repost the photo and replace yourself as moderator and I will make

further posts until I conclude that your unscrupulous conduct not longer merits participation. Let me know

when you have been replaced by a serious, firm but even-handed substitute moderator and I'll return to this.

Jim,

The photographer themselves said it was from a quad bike and taken at Golden Bay Beach in Malta.

Did you or Jack contact the photographer, as I suggested, and ask for permission to use the image? You were given their website address which had their e-mail address at the top.

That is the only portion where I have acted as a moderator in this thread, as we did not want to risk the Forum being accused of copyright violation.

[Evan Burton]

Jim,

I'm waiting for your rebuttals, or happy to move on to your next set of claims if ready.

[Evan Burton]

This is a phony argument. You are very adept as "plausible deniability". This thread must have a bona

fide moderator who does not abuse his position, as you have done repeatedly. You not only remove posts

that are part of my argument, as you have done in the past with Jack's posts and now this one of "Tracks

of a Moon Rover", but do so on (what I take to be) fraudulent grounds. I contacted fotosearch, which is

the site where I discovered the photo. They made an inquiry, contacting the source that provided it to

them, and reported back that it WAS of a moon rover but WAS NOT taken on the moon. Your source has told

a different story. The photo is not being used for commercial purposes and there is no copyright issue.

Jim,

I also contacted Fotosearch and they told me a slightly different story. They told me that:

The information that was relayed from the publisher was, "Tire tracks imprinted in the Sahara desert sands - resemblance to lunar rover tracks."

I think you didn't properly read the reply that was sent to you. Also remember that I also contacted the photographer directly, and they confirm they never said that it was LRV tracks.

Anyway - what's the point? They were NOT LRV tracks, were NOT taken on the Moon, have never claimed to be of either a LRV, taken on the Moon, nor from NASA (except for Jack), so it has no bearing on this debate.

Edited to add: BTW, the person I contacted at Fotosearch.com was Mr Jay Treichel.

Edited October 8, 2010 by Evan Burton
Added Fotosearch contact

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jay is the same person who called me to explain that the publisher (?) had told him that it was a

photo of moon rover tracks but taken in the Sahara, not on the moon. Certainly, the fact that it

(fotosearch) was marketing it with the heading, "Tracks of a Moon Rover", supports my take on this

over yours. I don't like your repeated abuse of your position. It was my post, which Jack had put

up at my request. Yet you removed it without even consulting me. That is offensive. STOP IT! As

I have already explained, there is no copyright issue here. So I request that you repost it for me.

Family and medical and other projects have kept me away from the thread, but I'll be back shortly.

This is a phony argument. You are very adept as "plausible deniability". This thread must have a bona

fide moderator who does not abuse his position, as you have done repeatedly. You not only remove posts

that are part of my argument, as you have done in the past with Jack's posts and now this one of "Tracks

of a Moon Rover", but do so on (what I take to be) fraudulent grounds. I contacted fotosearch, which is

the site where I discovered the photo. They made an inquiry, contacting the source that provided it to

them, and reported back that it WAS of a moon rover but WAS NOT taken on the moon. Your source has told

a different story. The photo is not being used for commercial purposes and there is no copyright issue.

Jim,

I also contacted Fotosearch and they told me a slightly different story. They told me that:

The information that was relayed from the publisher was, "Tire tracks imprinted in the Sahara desert sands - resemblance to lunar rover tracks."

I think you didn't properly read the reply that was sent to you. Also remember that I also contacted the photographer directly, and they confirm they never said that it was LRV tracks.

Anyway - what's the point? They were NOT LRV tracks, were NOT taken on the Moon, have never claimed to be of either a LRV, taken on the Moon, nor from NASA (except for Jack), so it has no bearing on this debate.

Edited to add: BTW, the person I contacted at Fotosearch.com was Mr Jay Treichel.

Edited October 8, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Evan Burton]

So you contacted the photographer and asked him for permission to use the image?