Jump to content
The Education Forum
Evan Burton

(Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread

Recommended Posts

Guest James H. Fetzer

Thanks, Jack. I figured out how to do it. I should have my post completed today or tomorrow.

Jim has asked me to copy this entire thread for offline study. He could not figure how to

do it. I tried but I cannot save it either. Can anyone here describe to me how to save

an entire thread to a computer for offline study?

Thanks!

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Let me see if I can get this monkey off my back in relation to the posts I asked Jack to make on my behalf, namely, #152, close up of wheels on the moon rover; #153, light shadows from a nearby source; #154, diagram of front screen projection technique; #155, scene illustrating front screen projection; and #156/#157, showing the set collapse during filming of the fake moon landing. I asked Jack to post them because they offer excellent examples of the points that I want to make in my final post on this thread. This post will reflect my extreme disappointment with Evan Burton, who, in my opinion, has not been conducting a fair and impartial debate but is dominated by a political agenda. Before I do so, however, I have to explain three concepts of rationality, namely, rationality of ends, rationality of belief, and rationality of action, as follow:

(D1) rationality of ends =df the pursuit of ends is ration when they are neither logically, physically, nor historically impossible. An end is logically impossible when it cannot be attained as a matter of logic. Creating a figure that is both a circle and a square at the same time is logically impossible. An end is physically impossible when it cannot be attained because doing so would violate laws of nature. A causal process occurring faster than the speed of light is an illustration. An end is historically impossible when it cannot be attained as a matter of history. Being the first man to climb Mt. Everest (in 2010) or the second husband of Elizabeth Taylor are examples. They can't be done because they have already been done. The pursuit of ends that require resources beyond our ability would be another category of pursuing ends whose attainment is a practical impossibility.

(D2) rationality of belief =df maintaining strengths of beliefs that are appropriate to the strength of the evidence in their support and adjusting them under the influence of new evidence, new alternatives, or more adequate rules of reasoning. In another thread, Jack and I are currently disagreeing about the guilt of O.J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife, Nicole, and Ron Goldman. Blood evidence at the scene, in his Bronco, leading up to his estate and in his shower drain, which I have understood to be unrefuted, together with his paranoia about Nicole becoming involved with other men and the witness who observed him frantically trying to return to Rockingham from the vicinity of her condo are among the most important kinds of evidence that have led me to accept O.J.’s guilt. Jack has told me, however, that new evidence implicates his son, Jason, in the crime. If he is right, then, once I study it, I may have to change my mind--assuming I am rational!

(D3) rationality of action =df adopting means, methods, or techniques that are effective, efficient, or reliable for the attainment of your objectives and goals, which of course should be logically, physically, historically, and practically capable of attainment. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of rationality of action is that, in the context of politics, advertising, and propaganda, it may benefit the attainment of ends, such as manipulating a target population by disseminating false beliefs, to appear to violate rationality of belief for the sake of rationality of action, where those perpetrating such actions (to whom we might broadly refer as "agents") are basing their actions on rational beliefs about that it takes to manipulate that population, based upon their own privileged knowledge of the realities of the situation, which are beliefs that are rational but not ones widely known to the target population. They are not trading in truth but disseminating falsehoods.

I asked Jack to post those images because they illustrate my central point, which is that this is not and never was intended by Evan Burton to be a fair and impartial debate. He has insured that it will come out the way that he wants by abusing his position as both moderator and participant to GUARANTEE that his views, which parrot the official story of NASA (which, as I understand it, is an intelligence agency of the United States), in order to belittle and ridicule those, such as Jack and I, who have the nerve to contest the official account of moon landings on the ground that the evidence does not support them. I have indicated many resources that I recommend for those who want to discover the truth about these matters. That objective, however, is not going be accomplished on this forum, where Evan Burton can manipulate the situation to suit his own ends. I am not thereby alleging he is an agent of disinformation, which would violate forum rules, but rather that, like others I have discussed in the past, he acts as if he were one, a distinction some may regard as metaphysical.

Exhibit 1: the missing tracks between the moon rover's wheels. In post #152, we can see that there are no tracks between the wheels of the moon rover. If the moon rover had been driven there (forward or backward), there would have been tracks. As I explained long ago, the probability of moon dust spontaneously filling in rover tracks is virtually nil. It is not impossible as a violation of laws of physics, for example, but it is incredibly improbable. I have therefore explained that the likelihood that the rover had to have been carried or hoisted into position is overwhelmingly greater than that such an improbable event should have taken place. Evan, of course, quite predictably has not waited for me to make this post but, in post #158, attacked with an ad hominem, "Waste of time - has been explained again and again and again. Just because you don't accept reality does not mean I have to try and explain it to you over and over again." But he is trading in events that are so improbable that they are virtual impossibilities, which shows the desperation of his position. Fakery is a more likely alternative.

Exhibit 2: the light casting shadows indicative of a close-at-hand source. In post #153, we see shadows cast in an Apollo 14 photograph. Officially, the only light source on the Moon came from the Sun. Light is transmitted in straight lines (which is known as the rectilinear propagation of light), however, which means that, by tracing the lines cast by the shadows back to their source, we can find where they intersect, which is the source that cast them. In this case, we are dealing with elementary geometry. There is nothing probabilistic about this and it is not a question of relative likelihoods, other than that any alternative will have a likelihood of nil. In post #159, Burton, to my astonishment, has offered a photograph of a series of posts that have oddly non-parallel shadows, which appear to me to have been created artificially by taking a panoramic photograph and converging it. The other is one in which the shadows of the trees are uneven because one (the closer) is cast across relatively flat land, the other (the further away) across land that obviously slopes. That Burton has to resort to these forms of deception is astonishing to me. The surface of the Moon as shown in post #153 is level enough that the near-at-hand light source is apparent.

Exhibit 3: the diagram for front screen projection and the Apollo frame go together. In post #154 we see a diagram of how it is done and in post #155 we see an example of the technique in application. The fascinating study, "How Stanley Kubrick faked the Moon Landings", http://www.assassinationscience.com/HowKubrickFakedtheMoonLandings-1.pdf , explains the use of front-screen projection that enables are relatively small studio set--something that could fit into a hangar in the desert, for example, as "Capricorn I" suggests--and create the impression of a vast expanse in the background. I have no serious doubt that this is how the moon landing images were fabricated. And notice how, with today's digital technology, NASA just happens to have "erased" its moon landing tapes, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE56F5MK20090716 , which, of course, they are going to bring back EVEN BETTER THAN BEFORE (because they will eradicate any linger indications of the use of front-screen projection). The proof Burton requests in his post #160 is provided in the article I have cited here. Burton has to be aware of it, since it exposes the entire operation as a charade. And that NASA should erase some of the most precious footage even taken by the hand of man? If you believe that, I have some swampland in Florida that I would like to sell you.

Exhibit 4: the collapsing scaffolding in the crucial moon landing shot. In post #156, Jack attempted to upload a short film clip but was unable to do it; so in post #157, he posted instead several clips from the film. The original can be found at "Real Moon Landing in 1969",

, which Evan ridiculed in posts #161 and #162. What else could he do? And the use of wire supports is on display in footage that shows them reflecting light when there should be nothing there in "Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage",
with Apollo 14 footage of light pings and Apollo 17 during the flag scene. From Apollo 16 footage, we can see the use of wires to assist in walking to simulate a low gravity field and even more strikingly when one astronaut offers to assist another in getting up. The use of wires and slowing the film by 50% does the job of producing effects that are analogous to those that would actually occur on the Moon, but with glitches that give the game away. Or take a look at "New Leaked Moon Landing Footage. Shows Hoax.", http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vrge-8F6rw&feature=related

Exhibit 5: Burton's cavalier attitude toward the relatively innocuous photo, "Tracks of a Moon Rover". I found this image on fotosearch.com. (It shows sneaker tracks on and between the rover tracks, as Jack highlights in his post #98, which I expect Burton to purge as soon as he realizes it is there.) Burton removed it on alleged copyright grounds, which he set forth in his post #131. When I objected that there were no such "copyright violations"--which I protested vigorously in post #135 and in post #139 in response to Evan's reiteration of the necessity to obtain permission to use it--Jack posted a copy of the regulations that cover copyright conditions in post #146, which Burton deflected in post #147, but which I rebutted in post #148. At this point, it was painfully obvious to me that Evan Burton was not going to concede an inch, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Even in a matter as trivial as posting an image (which was not even taken on the Moon), he was unwilling to acknowledge that he was wrong and I was right. There was no copyright issue here. Anyone who reviewed the evidence could see that to be the case. This convinced me that, if Burton was going to be this highhanded, arbitrary, and authoritarian in a case as straightforward as this--where nothing obvious was at stake, except that I had found the photo interesting and wanted to include it--there was no point in continuing this exercise.

As though further proof were needed to show that Evan Burton has not been adhering to the standards for rational belief, in post #112, he even poses as though he were an expert on scientific reasoning, with a characterization that is obviously flawed in presuming that science can be conducted by examining a single hypothesis separately from consideration of its alternatives. Thus, according to Evan Burton,

The 'scientific method' involves the following steps:

* Ask a Question

* Do Background Research

* Construct a Hypothesis

* Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment

* Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion

* Communicate Your Results

Burton is not the only one to adopt an overly simplistic model of science, where I have taken Steven Jones to task on this point in "On the Manipulation of the 9/11 Research Community", http://twilightpines.com/images/themanipulationofthe911community.pdf , a rather more serious blunder on his part since he, unlike Burton, is a scientist and should know better. We might think that thermite was the key to understanding the destruction of the Twin Towers if we ignored alternative theories. Science requires the consideration of all of the possible explanations and of the evidence that might falsify an hypothesis as well as confirm it. In the present instance, of course, it is easy to produce evidence that appears to CONFIRM that we actually went to the Moon, even though there is other evidence that REFUTES it. If you do not consider alternative explanations, then you may be subject to pseudo-scientific accounts to "explain away" contrary evidence, as we have seen here.

I have reluctantly concluded that my interest in pursuing the truth conflicts with Evan Burton's interest in concealing it, where his role as both moderator and participant--which I have protested vigorously on this very thread--invests him with the advantages of theft over honest toil. The evidence supports the rationality of belief in moon landing fakery, for those whose objective is discovering the truth, but for those whose objective is to obfuscate it, there is no room for concessions, even about relatively trivial matters, as I have demonstrated here. He has displayed his preference for unlikely explanations over more likely ones, for physically impossible explanations over lawful ones and for even ignoring what appears to be the true alternative, not to mention embracing a hopelessly inadequate conception of scientific reasoning. As a practical matter, therefore, I have to concede that I am confronted with an unattainable goal, where my own commitment to rationality of ends precludes me from pursuing it further.

Edited by James H. Fetzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Let me see if I can get this monkey off my back in relation to the posts I asked Jack to make on my behalf, namely, #152, close up of wheels on the moon rover; #153, light shadows from a nearby source; #154, diagram of front screen projection technique; #155, scene illustrating front screen projection; and #156/#157, showing the set collapse during filming of the fake moon landing. I asked Jack to post them because they offer excellent examples of the points that I want to make in my final post on this thread. This post will reflect my extreme disappointment with Evan Burton, who, in my opinion, has not been conducting a fair and impartial debate but is dominated by a political agenda. Before I do so, however, I have to explain three concepts of rationality, namely, rationality of ends, rationality of belief, and rationality of action, as follow:

(D1) rationality of ends =df the pursuit of ends is ration when they are neither logically, physically, nor historically impossible. An end is logically impossible when it cannot be attained as a matter of logic. Creating a figure that is both a circle and a square at the same time is logically impossible. An end is physically impossible when it cannot be attained because doing so would violate laws of nature. A causal process occurring faster than the speed of light is an illustration. An end is historically impossible when it cannot be attained as a matter of history. Being the first man to climb Mt. Everest (in 2010) or the second husband of Elizabeth Taylor are examples. They can't be done because they have already been done. The pursuit of ends that require resources beyond our ability would be another category of pursuing ends whose attainment is a practical impossibility.

(D2) rationality of belief =df maintaining strengths of beliefs that are appropriate to the strength of the evidence in their support and adjusting them under the influence of new evidence, new alternatives, or more adequate rules of reasoning. In another thread, Jack and I are currently disagreeing about the guilt of O.J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife, Nicole, and Ron Goldman. Blood evidence at the scene, in his Bronco, leading up to his estate and in his shower drain, which I have understood to be unrefuted, together with his paranoia about Nicole becoming involved with other men and the witness who observed him frantically trying to return to Rockingham from the vicinity of her condo are among the most important kinds of evidence that have led me to accept O.J.’s guilt. Jack has told me, however, that new evidence implicates his son, Jason, in the crime. If he is right, then, once I study it, I may have to change my mind--assuming I am rational!

(D3) rationality of action =df adopting means, methods, or techniques that are effective, efficient, or reliable for the attainment of your objectives and goals, which of course should be logically, physically, historically, and practically capable of attainment. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of rationality of action is that, in the context of politics, advertising, and propaganda, it may benefit the attainment of ends, such as manipulating a target population by disseminating false beliefs, to appear to violate rationality of belief for the sake of rationality of action, where those perpetrating such actions (to whom we might broadly refer as "agents") are basing their actions on rational beliefs about that it takes to manipulate that population, based upon their own privileged knowledge of the realities of the situation, which are beliefs that are rational but not ones widely known to the target population. They are not trading in truth but disseminating falsehoods.

I asked Jack to post those images because they illustrate my central point, which is that this is not and never was intended by Evan Burton to be a fair and impartial debate. He has insured that it will come out the way that he wants by abusing his position as both moderator and participant to GUARANTEE that his views, which parrot the official story of NASA (which, as I understand it, is an intelligence agency of the United States), in order to belittle and ridicule those, such as Jack and I, who have the nerve to contest the official account of moon landings on the ground that the evidence does not support them. I have indicated many resources that I recommend for those who want to discover the truth about these matters. That objective, however, is not going be accomplished on this forum, where Evan Burton can manipulate the situation to suit his own ends. I am not thereby alleging he is an agent of disinformation, which would violate forum rules, but rather that, like others I have discussed in the past, he acts as if he were one, a distinction some may regard as metaphysical.

Exhibit 1: the missing tracks between the moon rover's wheels. In post #152, we can see that there are no tracks between the wheels of the moon rover. If the moon rover had been driven there (forward or backward), there would have been tracks. As I explained long ago, the probability of moon dust spontaneously filling in rover tracks is virtually nil. It is not impossible as a violation of laws of physics, for example, but it is incredibly improbable. I have therefore explained that the likelihood that the rover had to have been carried or hoisted into position is overwhelmingly greater than that such an improbable event should have taken place. Evan, of course, quite predictably has not waited for me to make this post but, in post #158, attacked with an ad hominem, "Waste of time - has been explained again and again and again. Just because you don't accept reality does not mean I have to try and explain it to you over and over again." But he is trading in events that are so improbable that they are virtual impossibilities, which shows the desperation of his position. Fakery is a more likely alternative.

Exhibit 2: the light casting shadows indicative of a close-at-hand source. In post #153, we see shadows cast in an Apollo 14 photograph. Officially, the only light source on the Moon came from the Sun. Light is transmitted in straight lines (which is known as the rectilinear propagation of light), however, which means that, by tracing the lines cast by the shadows back to their source, we can find where they intersect, which is the source that cast them. In this case, we are dealing with elementary geometry. There is nothing probabilistic about this and it is not a question of relative likelihoods, other than that any alternative will have a likelihood of nil. In post #159, Burton, to my astonishment, has offered a photograph of a series of posts that have oddly non-parallel shadows, which appear to me to have been created artificially by taking a panoramic photograph and converging it. The other is one in which the shadows of the trees are uneven because one (the closer) is cast across relatively flat land, the other (the further away) across land that obviously slopes. That Burton has to resort to these forms of deception is astonishing to me. The surface of the Moon as shown in post #153 is level enough that the near-at-hand light source is apparent.

Exhibit 3: the diagram for front screen projection and the Apollo frame go together. In post #154 we see a diagram of how it is done and in post #155 we see an example of the technique in application. The fascinating study, "How Stanley Kubrick faked the Moon Landings", http://www.assassinationscience.com/HowKubrickFakedtheMoonLandings-1.pdf , explains the use of front-screen projection that enables are relatively small studio set--something that could fit into a hangar in the desert, for example, as "Capricorn I" suggests--and create the impression of a vast expanse in the background. I have no serious doubt that this is how the moon landing images were fabricated. And notice how, with today's digital technology, NASA just happens to have "erased" its moon landing tapes, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE56F5MK20090716 , which, of course, they are going to bring back EVEN BETTER THAN BEFORE (because they will eradicate any linger indications of the use of front-screen projection). The proof Burton requests in his post #160 is provided in the article I have cited here. Burton has to be aware of it, since it exposes the entire operation as a charade. And that NASA should erase some of the most precious footage even taken by the hand of man? If you believe that, I have some swampland in Florida that I would like to sell you.

Exhibit 4: the collapsing scaffolding in the crucial moon landing shot. In post #156, Jack attempted to upload a short film clip but was unable to do it; so in post #157, he posted instead several clips from the film. The original can be found at "Real Moon Landing in 1969",

, which Evan ridiculed in posts #161 and #162. What else could he do? And the use of wire supports is on display in footage that shows them reflecting light when there should be nothing there in "Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage",
with Apollo 14 footage of light pings and Apollo 17 during the flag scene. From Apollo 16 footage, we can see the use of wires to assist in walking to simulate a low gravity field and even more strikingly when one astronaut offers to assist another in getting up. The use of wires and slowing the film by 50% does the job of producing effects that are analogous to those that would actually occur on the Moon, but with glitches that give the game away. Or take a look at "New Leaked Moon Landing Footage. Shows Hoax.", http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vrge-8F6rw&feature=related

Exhibit 5: Burton's cavalier attitude toward the relatively innocuous photo, "Tracks of a Moon Rover". I found this image on fotosearch.com. (It shows sneaker tracks on and between the rover tracks, as Jack highlights in his post #98, which I expect Burton to purge as soon as he realizes it is there.) Burton removed it on alleged copyright grounds, which he set forth in his post #131. When I objected that there were no such "copyright violations"--which I protested vigorously in post #135 and in post #139 in response to Evan's reiteration of the necessity to obtain permission to use it--Jack posted a copy of the regulations that cover copyright conditions in post #146, which Burton deflected in post #147, but which I rebutted in post #148. At this point, it was painfully obvious to me that Evan Burton was not going to concede an inch, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Even in a matter as trivial as posting an image (which was not even taken on the Moon), he was unwilling to acknowledge that he was wrong and I was right. There was no copyright issue here. Anyone who reviewed the evidence could see that to be the case. This convinced me that, if Burton was going to be this highhanded, arbitrary, and authoritarian in a case as straightforward as this--where nothing obvious was at stake, except that I had found the photo interesting and wanted to include it--there was no point in continuing this exercise.

As though further proof were needed to show that Evan Burton has not been adhering to the standards for rational belief, in post #112, he even poses as though he were an expert on scientific reasoning, with a characterization that is obviously flawed in presuming that science can be conducted by examining a single hypothesis separately from consideration of its alternatives. Thus, according to Evan Burton,

The 'scientific method' involves the following steps:

* Ask a Question

* Do Background Research

* Construct a Hypothesis

* Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment

* Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion

* Communicate Your Results

Burton is not the only one to adopt an overly simplistic model of science, where I have taken Steven Jones to task on this point in "On the Manipulation of the 9/11 Research Community", http://twilightpines.com/images/themanipulationofthe911community.pdf , a rather more serious blunder on his part since he, unlike Burton, is a scientist and should know better. We might think that thermite was the key to understanding the destruction of the Twin Towers if we ignored alternative theories. Science requires the consideration of all of the possible explanations and of the evidence that might falsify an hypothesis as well as confirm it. In the present instance, of course, it is easy to produce evidence that appears to CONFIRM that we actually went to the Moon, even though there is other evidence that REFUTES it. If you do not consider alternative explanations, then you may be subject to pseudo-scientific accounts to "explain away" contrary evidence, as we have seen here.

I have reluctantly concluded that my interest in pursuing the truth conflicts with Evan Burton's interest in concealing it, where his role as both moderator and participant--which I have protested vigorously on this very thread--invests him with the advantages of theft over honest toil. The evidence supports the rationality of belief in moon landing fakery, for those whose objective is discovering the truth, but for those whose objective is to obfuscate it, there is no room for concessions, even about relatively trivial matters, as I have demonstrated here. He has displayed his preference for unlikely explanations over more likely ones, for physically impossible explanations over lawful ones and for even ignoring what appears to be the true alternative, not to mention embracing a hopelessly inadequate conception of scientific reasoning. As a practical matter, therefore, I have to concede that I am confronted with an unattainable goal, where my own commitment to rationality of ends precludes me from pursuing it further.

Edited by James H. Fetzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Let me see if I can get this monkey off my back in relation to the posts I asked Jack to make on my behalf, namely, #152, close up of wheels on the moon rover; #153, light shadows from a nearby source; #154, diagram of front screen projection technique; #155, scene illustrating front screen projection; and #156/#157, showing the set collapse during filming of the fake moon landing. I asked Jack to post them because they offer excellent examples of the points that I want to make in my final post on this thread. This post will reflect my extreme disappointment with Evan Burton, who, in my opinion, has not been conducting a fair and impartial debate but is dominated by a political agenda. Before I do so, however, I have to explain three concepts of rationality, namely, rationality of ends, rationality of belief, and rationality of action, as follow:

(D1) rationality of ends =df the pursuit of ends is ration when they are neither logically, physically, nor historically impossible. An end is logically impossible when it cannot be attained as a matter of logic. Creating a figure that is both a circle and a square at the same time is logically impossible. An end is physically impossible when it cannot be attained because doing so would violate laws of nature. A causal process occurring faster than the speed of light is an illustration. An end is historically impossible when it cannot be attained as a matter of history. Being the first man to climb Mt. Everest (in 2010) or the second husband of Elizabeth Taylor are examples. They can't be done because they have already been done. The pursuit of ends that require resources beyond our ability would be another category of pursuing ends whose attainment is a practical impossibility.

(D2) rationality of belief =df maintaining strengths of beliefs that are appropriate to the strength of the evidence in their support and adjusting them under the influence of new evidence, new alternatives, or more adequate rules of reasoning. In another thread, Jack and I are currently disagreeing about the guilt of O.J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife, Nicole, and Ron Goldman. Blood evidence at the scene, in his Bronco, leading up to his estate and in his shower drain, which I have understood to be unrefuted, together with his paranoia about Nicole becoming involved with other men and the witness who observed him frantically trying to return to Rockingham from the vicinity of her condo are among the most important kinds of evidence that have led me to accept O.J.’s guilt. Jack has told me, however, that new evidence implicates his son, Jason, in the crime. If he is right, then, once I study it, I may have to change my mind--assuming I am rational!

(D3) rationality of action =df adopting means, methods, or techniques that are effective, efficient, or reliable for the attainment of your objectives and goals, which of course should be logically, physically, historically, and practically capable of attainment. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of rationality of action is that, in the context of politics, advertising, and propaganda, it may benefit the attainment of ends, such as manipulating a target population by disseminating false beliefs, to appear to violate rationality of belief for the sake of rationality of action, where those perpetrating such actions (to whom we might broadly refer as "agents") are basing their actions on rational beliefs about that it takes to manipulate that population, based upon their own privileged knowledge of the realities of the situation, which are beliefs that are rational but not ones widely known to the target population. They are not trading in truth but disseminating falsehoods.

I asked Jack to post those images because they illustrate my central point, which is that this is not and never was intended by Evan Burton to be a fair and impartial debate. He has insured that it will come out the way that he wants by abusing his position as both moderator and participant to GUARANTEE that his views, which parrot the official story of NASA (which, as I understand it, is an intelligence agency of the United States), in order to belittle and ridicule those, such as Jack and I, who have the nerve to contest the official account of moon landings on the ground that the evidence does not support them. I have indicated many resources that I recommend for those who want to discover the truth about these matters. That objective, however, is not going be accomplished on this forum, where Evan Burton can manipulate the situation to suit his own ends. I am not thereby alleging he is an agent of disinformation, which would violate forum rules, but rather that, like others I have discussed in the past, he acts as if he were one, a distinction some may regard as metaphysical.

Exhibit 1: the missing tracks between the moon rover's wheels. In post #152, we can see that there are no tracks between the wheels of the moon rover. If the moon rover had been driven there (forward or backward), there would have been tracks. As I explained long ago, the probability of moon dust spontaneously filling in rover tracks is virtually nil. It is not impossible as a violation of laws of physics, for example, but it is incredibly improbable. I have therefore explained that the likelihood that the rover had to have been carried or hoisted into position is overwhelmingly greater than that such an improbable event should have taken place. Evan, of course, quite predictably has not waited for me to make this post but, in post #158, attacked with an ad hominem, "Waste of time - has been explained again and again and again. Just because you don't accept reality does not mean I have to try and explain it to you over and over again." But he is trading in events that are so improbable that they are virtual impossibilities, which shows the desperation of his position. Fakery is a more likely alternative.

Exhibit 2: the light casting shadows indicative of a close-at-hand source. In post #153, we see shadows cast in an Apollo 14 photograph. Officially, the only light source on the Moon came from the Sun. Light is transmitted in straight lines (which is known as the rectilinear propagation of light), however, which means that, by tracing the lines cast by the shadows back to their source, we can find where they intersect, which is the source that cast them. In this case, we are dealing with elementary geometry. There is nothing probabilistic about this and it is not a question of relative likelihoods, other than that any alternative will have a likelihood of nil. In post #159, Burton, to my astonishment, has offered a photograph of a series of posts that have oddly non-parallel shadows, which appear to me to have been created artificially by taking a panoramic photograph and converging it. The other is one in which the shadows of the trees are uneven because one (the closer) is cast across relatively flat land, the other (the further away) across land that obviously slopes. That Burton has to resort to these forms of deception is astonishing to me. The surface of the Moon as shown in post #153 is level enough that the near-at-hand light source is apparent.

Exhibit 3: the diagram for front screen projection and the Apollo frame go together. In post #154 we see a diagram of how it is done and in post #155 we see an example of the technique in application. The fascinating study, "How Stanley Kubrick faked the Moon Landings", http://www.assassinationscience.com/HowKubrickFakedtheMoonLandings-1.pdf , explains the use of front-screen projection that enables are relatively small studio set--something that could fit into a hangar in the desert, for example, as "Capricorn I" suggests--and create the impression of a vast expanse in the background. I have no serious doubt that this is how the moon landing images were fabricated. And notice how, with today's digital technology, NASA just happens to have "erased" its moon landing tapes, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE56F5MK20090716 , which, of course, they are going to bring back EVEN BETTER THAN BEFORE (because they will eradicate any linger indications of the use of front-screen projection). The proof Burton requests in his post #160 is provided in the article I have cited here. Burton has to be aware of it, since it exposes the entire operation as a charade. And that NASA should erase some of the most precious footage even taken by the hand of man? If you believe that, I have some swampland in Florida that I would like to sell you.

Exhibit 4: the collapsing scaffolding in the crucial moon landing shot. In post #156, Jack attempted to upload a short film clip but was unable to do it; so in post #157, he posted instead several clips from the film. The original can be found at "Real Moon Landing in 1969",

, which Evan ridiculed in posts #161 and #162. What else could he do? And the use of wire supports is on display in footage that shows them reflecting light when there should be nothing there in "Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage",
with Apollo 14 footage of light pings and Apollo 17 during the flag scene. From Apollo 16 footage, we can see the use of wires to assist in walking to simulate a low gravity field and even more strikingly when one astronaut offers to assist another in getting up. The use of wires and slowing the film by 50% does the job of producing effects that are analogous to those that would actually occur on the Moon, but with glitches that give the game away. Or take a look at "New Leaked Moon Landing Footage. Shows Hoax.", http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vrge-8F6rw&feature=related

Exhibit 5: Burton's cavalier attitude toward the relatively innocuous photo, "Tracks of a Moon Rover". I found this image on fotosearch.com. (It shows sneaker tracks on and between the rover tracks, as Jack highlights in his post #98, which I expect Burton to purge as soon as he realizes it is there.) Burton removed it on alleged copyright grounds, which he set forth in his post #131. When I objected that there were no such "copyright violations"--which I protested vigorously in post #135 and in post #139 in response to Evan's reiteration of the necessity to obtain permission to use it--Jack posted a copy of the regulations that cover copyright conditions in post #146, which Burton deflected in post #147, but which I rebutted in post #148. At this point, it was painfully obvious to me that Evan Burton was not going to concede an inch, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Even in a matter as trivial as posting an image (which was not even taken on the Moon), he was unwilling to acknowledge that he was wrong and I was right. There was no copyright issue here. Anyone who reviewed the evidence could see that to be the case. This convinced me that, if Burton was going to be this highhanded, arbitrary, and authoritarian in a case as straightforward as this--where nothing obvious was at stake, except that I had found the photo interesting and wanted to include it--there was no point in continuing this exercise.

As though further proof were needed to show that Evan Burton has not been adhering to the standards for rational belief, in post #112, he even poses as though he were an expert on scientific reasoning, with a characterization that is obviously flawed in presuming that science can be conducted by examining a single hypothesis separately from consideration of its alternatives. Thus, according to Evan Burton,

The 'scientific method' involves the following steps:

* Ask a Question

* Do Background Research

* Construct a Hypothesis

* Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment

* Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion

* Communicate Your Results

Burton is not the only one to adopt an overly simplistic model of science, where I have taken Steven Jones to task on this point in "On the Manipulation of the 9/11 Research Community", http://twilightpines.com/images/themanipulationofthe911community.pdf , a rather more serious blunder on his part since he, unlike Burton, is a scientist and should know better. We might think that thermite was the key to understanding the destruction of the Twin Towers if we ignored alternative theories. Science requires the consideration of all of the possible explanations and of the evidence that might falsify an hypothesis as well as confirm it. In the present instance, of course, it is easy to produce evidence that appears to CONFIRM that we actually went to the Moon, even though there is other evidence that REFUTES it. If you do not consider alternative explanations, then you may be subject to pseudo-scientific accounts to "explain away" contrary evidence, as we have seen here.

I have reluctantly concluded that my interest in pursuing the truth conflicts with Evan Burton's interest in concealing it, where his role as both moderator and participant--which I have protested vigorously on this very thread--invests him with the advantages of theft over honest toil. The evidence supports the rationality of belief in moon landing fakery, for those whose objective is discovering the truth, but for those whose objective is to obfuscate it, there is no room for concessions, even about relatively trivial matters, as I have demonstrated here. He has displayed his preference for unlikely explanations over more likely ones, for physically impossible explanations over lawful ones and for even ignoring what appears to be the true alternative, not to mention embracing a hopelessly inadequate conception of scientific reasoning. As a practical matter, therefore, I have to concede that I am confronted with an unattainable goal, where my own commitment to rationality of ends precludes me from pursuing it further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL! You believe that the footage is REAL? You didn't read how the producers made it for fun? As a joke?

Wow - you'll any old junk as proof... as long as it supports your view.

That alone proves just how ridiculous you and Jack are. Seriously - here are the details:

Yes, the clip is fake. It was shot in a studio in London in spring 2002. It was based on an idea by director Adam Stewart, who was a space exploration nut. He had read the conspiracy theory sites and decided he wanted to make a spoof based on the idea that the Apollo 11 moonlanding was faked.

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/moonhoax.asp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since Jim has made his last posr is a vote to be considered.

If so, how should it be worded?

Shuld it be a vote on a number of issues?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(D1) rationality of ends =df the pursuit of ends is ration when they are neither logically, physically, nor historically impossible. An end is logically impossible when it cannot be attained as a matter of logic. Creating a figure that is both a circle and a square at the same time is logically impossible.

Logically impossible? Sir, I give you the Square-Circle-Triangle!

Heck, haven't you heard of cylinders, either? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(D1) rationality of ends =df the pursuit of ends is ration when they are neither logically, physically, nor historically impossible. An end is logically impossible when it cannot be attained as a matter of logic. Creating a figure that is both a circle and a square at the same time is logically impossible.

Logically impossible? Sir, I give you the Square-Circle-Triangle!

Heck, haven't you heard of cylinders, either? :P

Very clever, but a non-sequitur. A circle and square are two dimensional. The animation is three dimensional, and "appears to be"

a circle, square and triangle ONLY when viewed as two dimensional, as the creator of the animation shows each time at the

appropriate rotation.

Thanks for the animation. A mensa-type puzzle.

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Evan and his buddies on another link resort to ridicule and sarcasm to rebut the "Real Moon Landing in 1969" video clip,

http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=2906&page=23

where sarcasm and ridicule--which are varieties of ad hominem arguments--are precisely what we should expect when one

side runs out of arguments. In this case, that they are indulging in several fallacies at once makes it entirely apparent that

they have run out of intellectual resources (not that they were all that substantial to begin with). Notice, for example, how

I have presented many arguments here--perhaps as many as a dozen--but Evan picks out only one. Citing only some parts

of the evidence is the technique of politicians, editorial writers, and used-car salesmen. Technically, this is the fallacy called

"special pleading", well known to con men and shysters of all stripes. And he gains leverage by taking for granted--which

is called "begging the question"--that he is right and I must be wrong. Let's see how strong a case can be made for that.

Here is the video clip under consideration:

Presumably, there are only three hypotheses:

(h1) this is actual footage of the moon landing;

(h2) this is actual footage of the faking of the moon landing;

(h3) this is actual footage of the faking of the faking of the moon landing.

Thus, it has been alleged, "Jim Fetzer has swallowed the fake "fake moon landing" film hook, line and sinker." Presumably,

the argument is that this video was made as a "joke" to further ridicule the hoax believers as propaganda and obfuscation.

Certainly, that is a possibility that cannot be ruled out. But is it the most likely among these alternative explanations?

(h1) can safely be excluded, since if this were actual footage of the moon landing, there would be no need for scaffolding,

a film crew, and a director to ask if Neil Armstrong would like to do "another take"! So we can conclude that (h1) is false.

Notice, however, that creating a fake moon landing stage scenario would require tremendous attention to detail, which

seems to be the case here. If we ignore the collapsing scaffolding, the crew's response, and the director's question, it looks

exactly like the footage we were presented of the actual moon landing, when it was broadcast world-wide by television. So

let's ask what would be involved in creating a fake video of the (actually false) faking of the moon landing as resources.

First, you would need to have exact information about the set, including the Moon Lander, the astronaut's suits, etcetera.

Second, you would have to find a suitable location, hire a crew and director, which is going to take time and lots of money.

Third, you would have to have a powerful motive for devoting the painstaking time and expense to create a fake, fake video.

Suppose it would run $100,000, which is a conservative estimate. (I would bet it would cost many times that.) How many are

going to have the time and money to devote to creating a fake video of the (actually false) faking of the moon landing? And

why would anyone do this? We are not talking about Photoshop or other easily utilized photo faking techniques. This is on a

large scale and very detailed and precise. Moreover, why would anyone who had the time and the resources do something like

this? If you believe the moon landings are genuine, why would you create a fake video to suggest that they were really faked?

When we take the alternatives seriously and consider what would be involved in faking a fake video of a fake moon landing, the

improbability of doing something like that--with such stunning success!--becomes quite remote. The probability that something

like the collapse of the scaffolding when creating a video of the faked landing appears quite reasonable, considering the role

of mechanical or of human error in producing a result like this. And if someone who had been on the set had the conscience to

be concerned about faking the world about the moon landing, if they had access to this tape, then they might have released it.

The likelihood that this mishap occurred during the taping of a fake landing thus appears to be much higher than the likelihood

that this was instead the faking of the taping of a fake video, which means that, given the available relevant evidence, (h2)

has a higher likelihood than (h3) and is therefore preferable. The question that then arises is, do we have enough evidence to

conclude that it has "settled down", which makes (h2) acceptable in the tentative and fallible fashion of science? Given the

rest of the evidence I have presented, the answer appears to be "Yes!", which is why Evan had to resort to special pleading.

But here is the clincher. Suppose (h3) were true and this is the faking of a video showing the faking of the moon landing? The

production values are so exceptional and indistinguishable from those of the footage that was televised around the world that it

demonstrates--conclusively, in my view--that the moon landing could have been faked! Listen to the argument. This is faking of

a video of a fake moon landing that is indistinguishable from the footage NASA broadcast worldwide. But in that case it shows

that the footage broadcast could have been faked, since this footage was allegedly faked and is--apart from the glitches that

distinguish it--indistinguishable from NASA's own. If it's real, it shows the moon landing footage was faked. But even if it was

faked, it shows how the footage could have been faked, as the rest of the evidence shows. Either way, it proves too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Evan and his buddies on another link resort to ridicule and sarcasm to rebut the "Real Moon Landing in 1969" video clip,

http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=2906&page=23

where sarcasm and ridicule--which are varieties of ad hominem arguments--are precisely what we should expect when one

side runs out of arguments. In this case, that they are indulging in several fallacies at once makes it entirely apparent that

they have run out of intellectual resources (not that they were all that substantial to begin with). Notice, for example, how

I have presented many arguments here--perhaps as many as a dozen--but Evan picks out only one. Citing only some parts

of the evidence is the technique of politicians, editorial writers, and used-car salesmen. Technically, this is the fallacy called

"special pleading", well known to con men and shysters of all stripes. And he gains leverage by taking for granted--which

is called "begging the question"--that he is right and I must be wrong. Let's see how strong a case can be made for that.

Here is the video clip under consideration:

Presumably, there are only three hypotheses:

(h1) this is actual footage of the moon landing;

(h2) this is actual footage of the faking of the moon landing;

(h3) this is actual footage of the faking of the faking of the moon landing.

Thus, it has been alleged, "Jim Fetzer has swallowed the fake "fake moon landing" film hook, line and sinker." Presumably,

the argument is that this video was made as a "joke" to further ridicule the hoax believers as propaganda and obfuscation.

Certainly, that is a possibility that cannot be ruled out. But is it the most likely among these alternative explanations?

(h1) can safely be excluded, since if this were actual footage of the moon landing, there would be no need for scaffolding,

a film crew, and a director to ask if Neil Armstrong would like to do "another take"! So we can conclude that (h1) is false.

Notice, however, that creating a fake moon landing stage scenario would require tremendous attention to detail, which

seems to be the case here. If we ignore the collapsing scaffolding, the crew's response, and the director's question, it looks

exactly like the footage we were presented of the actual moon landing, when it was broadcast world-wide by television. So

let's ask what would be involved in creating a fake video of the (actually false) faking of the moon landing as resources.

First, you would need to have exact information about the set, including the Moon Lander, the astronaut's suits, etcetera.

Second, you would have to find a suitable location, hire a crew and director, which is going to take time and lots of money.

Third, you would have to have a powerful motive for devoting the painstaking time and expense to create a fake, fake video.

Suppose it would run $100,000, which is a conservative estimate. (I would bet it would cost many times that.) How many are

going to have the time and money to devote to creating a fake video of the (actually false) faking of the moon landing? And

why would anyone do this? We are not talking about Photoshop or other easily utilized photo faking techniques. This is on a

large scale and very detailed and precise. Moreover, why would anyone who had the time and the resources do something like

this? If you believe the moon landings are genuine, why would you create a fake video to suggest that they were really faked?

When we take the alternatives seriously and consider what would be involved in faking a fake video of a fake moon landing, the

improbability of doing something like that--with such stunning success!--becomes quite remote. The probability that something

like the collapse of the scaffolding when creating a video of the faked landing appears quite reasonable, considering the role

of mechanical or of human error in producing a result like this. And if someone who had been on the set had the conscience to

be concerned about faking the world about the moon landing, if they had access to this tape, then they might have released it.

The likelihood that this mishap occurred during the taping of a fake landing thus appears to be much higher than the likelihood

that this was instead the faking of the taping of a fake video, which means that, given the available relevant evidence, (h2)

has a higher likelihood than (h3) and is therefore preferable. The question that then arises is, do we have enough evidence to

conclude that it has "settled down", which makes (h2) acceptable in the tentative and fallible fashion of science? Given the

rest of the evidence I have presented, the answer appears to be "Yes!", which is why Evan had to resort to special pleading.

But here is the clincher. Suppose (h3) were true and this is the faking of a video showing the faking of the moon landing? The

production values are so exceptional and indistinguishable from those of the footage that was televised around the world that it

demonstrates--conclusively, in my view--that the moon landing could have been faked! Listen to the argument. This is faking of

a video of a fake moon landing that is indistinguishable from the footage NASA broadcast worldwide. But in that case it shows

that the footage broadcast could have been faked, since this footage was allegedly faked and is--apart from the glitches that

distinguish it--indistinguishable from NASA's own. If it's real, it shows the moon landing footage was faked. But even if it was

faked, it shows how the footage could have been faked, as the rest of the evidence shows. Either way, it proves too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exhibit 1: the missing tracks between the moon rover's wheels. In post #152, we can see that there are no tracks between the wheels of the moon rover. If the moon rover had been driven there (forward or backward), there would have been tracks. As I explained long ago, the probability of moon dust spontaneously filling in rover tracks is virtually nil. It is not impossible as a violation of laws of physics, for example, but it is incredibly improbable. I have therefore explained that the likelihood that the rover had to have been carried or hoisted into position is overwhelmingly greater than that such an improbable event should have taken place.

Why do you choose to ignore other factors? Such as astronaut activity around the rover? This has been proven beyond doubt to produce both boot-prints, which can cover tracks, and also kicked up dust, which can also cover up tracks. There is plenty of documented evidence, both photographic and video, that supports this.

In this particular image, you may have failed to notice the rover tracks leading up to the rover, also visible in AS17-134-20436. Would you have us believe that NASA drove the rover up to a certain point, then lifted it up with a hoist, and moved it forward a few feet so the rear wheels coincided with where the tracks finished?

Or is a more likely scenario that the tracks inbetween the wheels were obscured by astronaut bootprints and kicked up dust - a simple, benign and plausible phenomenon that has many provable examples in the Apollo record?

Exhibit 2: the light casting shadows indicative of a close-at-hand source. In post #153, we see shadows cast in an Apollo 14 photograph. Officially, the only light source on the Moon came from the Sun. Light is transmitted in straight lines (which is known as the rectilinear propagation of light), however, which means that, by tracing the lines cast by the shadows back to their source, we can find where they intersect, which is the source that cast them. In this case, we are dealing with elementary geometry. There is nothing probabilistic about this and it is not a question of relative likelihoods, other than that any alternative will have a likelihood of nil. In post #159, Burton, to my astonishment, has offered a photograph of a series of posts that have oddly non-parallel shadows, which appear to me to have been created artificially by taking a panoramic photograph and converging it.

This is just an indicator of your inability to understand perspective and how it affects the appearance of parallel lines. Take an example that should be easy for you to understand, railway tracks. I hope you agree that they are parallel. I hope you also agree that they appear to converge in this image:-

http://www.nma.gov.au/shared/libraries/images/exhibitions/looking_around/royal_flying_doctor_service/new_railway_tracks_heading_north_400/files/5386/ASPRFDS07.jpg

If you agree so far, then you must agree that two lines that are clearly parallel can appear to converge dependent on the viewing angle (i.e. perspective). Please explain why this does not apply to shadows.

Looking at the image Jack has "analysed", his methodology is bogus. This has been pointed out to him several times. It's a technique that has been used to fool laypeople at least since Percy started his Aulis investigation, possibly longer.

For example, take the horizontal line he has drawn. What is this meant to represent? If he is trying to figure out where the light source is, then he must draw a straight line from a point on a shadow, to a point on an object that cast that part of the shadow. If there is a single light source, then any lines drawn using this method should intersect at a point that corresponds to the origin of the light source. Here's an Earth-bound example to show what I mean. You can clearly make out which part of the tip of each shadow corresponds to which part of the fence. Drawing straight lines between these points should create an intersection where the light source is - this will either be in the image itself, or outside.

vpa_1.jpg?t=1289346900

Using the same methodology on the Apollo image in question (rough and ready):-

as14-68-9487-vpa.jpg

Jack's analysis fails because it is fundamentally flawed.

The other is one in which the shadows of the trees are uneven because one (the closer) is cast across relatively flat land, the other (the further away) across land that obviously slopes. That Burton has to resort to these forms of deception is astonishing to me. The surface of the Moon as shown in post #153 is level enough that the near-at-hand light source is apparent.

There is no deception by Evan, only a failure to understand by you. Using the method prescribed above will eliminate the need for a flat surface, (providing you can accurately determine which part of an object causes which part of a shadow).

Exhibit 3: the diagram for front screen projection and the Apollo frame go together. In post #154 we see a diagram of how it is done and in post #155 we see an example of the technique in application. The fascinating study, "How Stanley Kubrick faked the Moon Landings", http://www.assassinationscience.com/HowKubrickFakedtheMoonLandings-1.pdf , explains the use of front-screen projection that enables are relatively small studio set--something that could fit into a hangar in the desert, for example, as "Capricorn I" suggests--and create the impression of a vast expanse in the background. I have no serious doubt that this is how the moon landing images were fabricated.

Please explain how this is proof that front-screen projection was used to fake the Apollo images. Drawing a yellow line across a local horizon, calling the bottom half "studio set" and the top half "projected background" does not constitute proof. Was the image linked below faked using the same method? Does the mere act of declaring it a fake, and having "no serious doubt that that this is how they faked the images of Interstate 80 West", give my argument any credence whatsoever? Clearly not. So why does it have credence in declaring Apollo images faked?

http://www.aaroads.com/west/nevada080/i-080_wb_exit_158_01.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL! You have become the biggest joke on the internet. Here's a clue for you: this will probably go viral in a factory.

Do try to not just accept something because it suits your views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Well, one of us is a joke. The idea of faking a video about faking the landing to

throw off critics strikes me as rather bizarre. There would have been no motive

to do it at the time and recreating the set for that purpose would have been

practically impossible: recreating the lights, the angles for filming, the Moon

Lander, astronaut, and all that--virtually impossible. It would be useful for most

of the world to consider the case for fakery here, since logic and the evidence

support it. This appears to be one of the greatest hoaxes in human history.

LOL! You have become the biggest joke on the internet. Here's a clue for you: this will probably go viral in a factory.

Do try to not just accept something because it suits your views.

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...