(Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread

[Dave Greer]

The points that are made in comparing them, including the edge of the images, which is seen from the same angle in both the footage broadcast and the "rehearsal" footage, are extremely improbable and would have been virtually impossible to replicate. Both have a similar look and a similar feel and were probably shot on the very same stage.

You must think that film directors are stupid. Impossible to recreate the same angle? I'm not sure who you're trying to kid. Any amateur film-maker with a modicum of ability could recreate the same angle.

Shot on the same stage? More on that later.

They are obviously not the same take, since the collapse of the light bar required a second take. But the author,

Ted Twietmeyer, makes many other extremely interesting observations about the crew wearing what appear to be

military uniforms and behaving in ways that would not be expected of a crew working on some kind of "spoof":

Military uniforms? Shirt, tie and trousers? This proves what exactly?

What's also interesting about this video is that during this entire rehearsal disaster, not one man who ran in to assist the astronaut/ actor ever turned his face toward the camera. None of them ever looked back in that direction, which

anyone would certainly do when taking instructions from the director who usually sits beside the camera.

Your first point about no-one looking back at the camera is simply false, as anyone can verify by just looking at the footage.

Your second point is nonsensical.

If this entire video is a fake, it's an extremely well made fake. Including the authentic spacesuit the actor playing the astronaut wears. And down to the tiniest detail, including a barely audible "Cut!" yelled by a director off-camera

moments later after the light bar came crashing down.

The spacesuit is NOT authentic. Compare the PLSS and the front of the spacesuit to the suits worn on Apollo 11. Clearly different.

Wow, fancy a spoof viral video having someone shout "Cut!" after the light bar crashes down. Such incredible attention to detail! How is this humanly possible for a mere film director?

On the subject of the light bar crashing down, if you look carefuly, you can see that this spoof is very likely 2 takes spliced together around the "flash" when the light bar crashes - check out the slightly changed posture of the actor-naut.

Having recently rented a room for a symposium in London held on 14 July 2010, http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/ I know, unlike Greer's remarks, space there does not come cheap.

You can rent a film studio for a day in London for less than £500. Of course, if you have your own facilities, there's no extra cost.

None of this could be "easily and cheaply done with materials available from any hardware store." The production has a highly professional quality about it. The idea of "reverse engineering" from some footage that was broadcast is absurd.

The only way that could be done would be if you had inside information, such as access to the stage and the props, etc.

We'll just have to differ on that one.

This is equally ridiculous. The crew appears to be in uniform, acts as if it knows what it is doing, and none of the crew looks toward the director, which cannot be by chance. If this were some friends or homeless hired off the street, then they would not be wearing uniforms, they would not know what they were doing, and some would look at the camera.

The crew act as if they know what they're doing? Of course they do! It's a spoof! The director has given them instructions on what to do! THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE. I'll concede that there may be professional actors involved, if they are on Equity rates, what, about £70 per day? If so, I'll up my budget from approx £500 to what, a couple of grand?

That may be difficult to arrange. I gather that Adam Stewart, who claimed to have created the video at the Viral Factory, died less than a year after making his moontruth video, allegedly due to food poisoning. That sounds a lot like tidying up "loose ends".

I gather he was 31. Which would make him born after 1968. So he didn't help fake any footage during the Apollo era.

That he may have actually been involved in faking the moon landing receives further support from this]:

Do explain how this supports the faking of the moon-landings, and doesn't support the making of a spoof!

Notice that the point of mine he quotes concerns motivation, but his comment addresses cost instead. My estimate was not in pounds but in dollars. He clearly does not know what he is talking about. Unless his estimate of $500 is itself meant as a spoof, he is far off the mark. It cost me more than £1,000 just to rent the room for a few hours. My estimate was clearly conservative.

Maybe they wanted to create a viral marketing campaign to show how effective it could be as a showcase for their company? Maybe it was used in UK TV commercials a few years ago for (IIRC) Rowntree Kit Kat? (Have a break, have a Kit Kat). Maybe you could already have guessed it since you know the name of the director, and the company he did the work for?

The room costs have already been discussed. You can rent a film studio in London, today, for around £350 per day. There's a lot of loose change

Notice that Greer never explains why anyone who believes the moon landings are genuine would create a fake to suggest that they were really faked.

Viral marketing possibly?

He doesn't explain why, if this was a cheap production "off the cuff" using friends or the homeless, is has such a professional quality. It has exactly the right feel and exactly the right look to have been shot on the same stage with the same crew.

So it has a professional quality. You don't need a $100,000+ budget to get a professional feel for a thirty second clip.

Consider the two hypotheses: (h1) this is an outtake from the original faking; (h2) this is the faking of someone faking the original.

If (h1) is true and this is an outtake from the original faking, which was conducting at great expense using an experienced crew and a professional director, what is the probability that the edge of the images would match, that the crew would be in uniform, that they would know what they were doing, that they would avoid looking at the director and the camera? Obviously, it would be very high.

If (h2) is true and this is the faking of someone faking the original, which was conducting on a low budget using friends or hires by Adam Stewart, what is the probability that the edge of the images would match, that the crew would be in uniform, that they would know what they were doing, that they would avoid looking at the director and the camera? Obviously, it would be extremely low.

In scientific reasoning, one hypothesis is preferable to another when the likelihood of the first -- which is equal to the probability of the evidence, if that hypothesis were true -- is greater than the likelihood of the second, given the available evidence. Since the likelihood of (h1) is very high, while that of (h2) is extremely low, as I have shown, there can be no doubt that (h1) is preferable to (h2).

This is laughable. You are missing the point entirely, that if it is a spoof (which it is), it has been deliberately created to look as if it might be real. Which means the director places his camera to give the correct angles, arranges the props in the right location etc. And where does he get his reference from? THE ORIGINAL FOOTAGE. Wow, the director did a good job, and you manage to twist this into somehow being a low probability event, as if it all happened by chance? It was DESIGNED to imitate the Apollo 11 footage.

The killer to your argument is in the spacesuit, which is clearly NOT an Apollo suit. It is, however, identical to the suit seen in this clip, of Adam Stewart, on set, during rehearsals (using a modern video camera).

Game, set and match.

[Dave Greer]

Some food for thought.

[Evan Burton]

Thanks Dave - you have done a far better job than I could have. I might make one addition, though:

Notice that Greer never explains why anyone who believes the moon landings are genuine would create a fake to suggest that they were really faked.

It was mentioned in a couple of posts: it was meant to attract the hoax believers who just accept things that agree with their view without checking any details. That's why so many hoax believers were embarrassed by claiming it as real when there was a disclaimer on that very site, saying that it was a spoof!

It's continuing to fulfil its original purpose, demonstrating how Jim's (and Jacks?) ego and / or arrogance refuses to let him just admit it was a spoof.

[Evan Burton]

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.

Sorry Jim - I took this to be the debate was over, thus the thread being open. I'm going to merge the two threads now. I consider it pointless to try and debate someone who doesn't understand the subject anyway. It's like you trying to debate me on JFK: I don't have a clue about it.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Now THIS little snippet looks to me like a nice piece of fakery staged for the purpose of implying that the original "rehearsal" footage was faked as (in Peter Dawson's immortal words) "a spoof"! I invite anyone to compare them and ask if the "rehearsal" footage has the elements of fakery of this one! It is fascinating that "the beat goes on". How blatant can it get? And when you take notice of the tremendous difference in production values -- the sharpness of the focus, the clarity of the image and the vivid colors -- it should be obvious that this footage bears no resemblance to the "rehearsal" footage. The similarity between the "rehearsal" footage and the broadcast footage, of course, was always far more comprehensive, where I think (subconsciously) I was drawn to the "edge" (where the shadow falls) because it appears to be the place where front-screen projection cuts in. Notice how Greer follows the pattern of citing only the evidence he wants to consider. Not only does it not have a similar look or feel, but not even the angle is the same! Here is what I wrote about the "rehearsal" footage:

The points that are made in comparing them, including the edge of the images, which is seen from the same angle

in both the footage broadcast and the "rehearsal" footage, are extremely improbable and would have been virtually

impossible to replicate. Both have a similar look and a similar feel and were probably shot on the very same stage.

Anyone who is taken in by this new hoax being perpetrated by David Greer -- whom I understand may be the mastermind behind the scene pulling the strings in defending the authenticity of Apollo footage and directing attacks on those, such as Duane, Jack, and I, who have the temerity to challenge them -- ought to be ashamed. This is as stunning an example of the lengths to which those who want to conceal the truth about the moon landing hoax are willing to do. And of course by "merging" the threads, it becomes practically impossible to sort out what was really going on here, which, I suppose, is the point. When they are defeated on the basis of logic and evidence, those who defile the name of reason and willing to resort to shady tactics like merging two distinct threads that should never have been merged are alleged to be justified on the basis of some flimsy ground, such as that "the debate was over", when it should have been archived like every other thread in the history of this forum. This is grotesque. For those who want a study in "plausible deniability", this is a stellar example.

The points that are made in comparing them, including the edge of the images, which is seen from the same angle in both the footage broadcast and the "rehearsal" footage, are extremely improbable and would have been virtually impossible to replicate. Both have a similar look and a similar feel and were probably shot on the very same stage.

You must think that film directors are stupid. Impossible to recreate the same angle? I'm not sure who you're trying to kid. Any amateur film-maker with a modicum of ability could recreate the same angle.

Shot on the same stage? More on that later.

They are obviously not the same take, since the collapse of the light bar required a second take. But the author,

Ted Twietmeyer, makes many other extremely interesting observations about the crew wearing what appear to be

military uniforms and behaving in ways that would not be expected of a crew working on some kind of "spoof":

Military uniforms? Shirt, tie and trousers? This proves what exactly?

What's also interesting about this video is that during this entire rehearsal disaster, not one man who ran in to assist the astronaut/ actor ever turned his face toward the camera. None of them ever looked back in that direction, which

anyone would certainly do when taking instructions from the director who usually sits beside the camera.

Your first point about no-one looking back at the camera is simply false, as anyone can verify by just looking at the footage.

Your second point is nonsensical.

If this entire video is a fake, it's an extremely well made fake. Including the authentic spacesuit the actor playing the astronaut wears. And down to the tiniest detail, including a barely audible "Cut!" yelled by a director off-camera

moments later after the light bar came crashing down.

The spacesuit is NOT authentic. Compare the PLSS and the front of the spacesuit to the suits worn on Apollo 11. Clearly different.

Wow, fancy a spoof viral video having someone shout "Cut!" after the light bar crashes down. Such incredible attention to detail! How is this humanly possible for a mere film director?

On the subject of the light bar crashing down, if you look carefuly, you can see that this spoof is very likely 2 takes spliced together around the "flash" when the light bar crashes - check out the slightly changed posture of the actor-naut.

Having recently rented a room for a symposium in London held on 14 July 2010, http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/ I know, unlike Greer's remarks, space there does not come cheap.

You can rent a film studio for a day in London for less than £500. Of course, if you have your own facilities, there's no extra cost.

None of this could be "easily and cheaply done with materials available from any hardware store." The production has a highly professional quality about it. The idea of "reverse engineering" from some footage that was broadcast is absurd.

The only way that could be done would be if you had inside information, such as access to the stage and the props, etc.

We'll just have to differ on that one.

This is equally ridiculous. The crew appears to be in uniform, acts as if it knows what it is doing, and none of the crew looks toward the director, which cannot be by chance. If this were some friends or homeless hired off the street, then they would not be wearing uniforms, they would not know what they were doing, and some would look at the camera.

The crew act as if they know what they're doing? Of course they do! It's a spoof! The director has given them instructions on what to do! THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE. I'll concede that there may be professional actors involved, if they are on Equity rates, what, about £70 per day? If so, I'll up my budget from approx £500 to what, a couple of grand?

That may be difficult to arrange. I gather that Adam Stewart, who claimed to have created the video at the Viral Factory, died less than a year after making his moontruth video, allegedly due to food poisoning. That sounds a lot like tidying up "loose ends".

I gather he was 31. Which would make him born after 1968. So he didn't help fake any footage during the Apollo era.

That he may have actually been involved in faking the moon landing receives further support from this]:

Do explain how this supports the faking of the moon-landings, and doesn't support the making of a spoof!

Notice that the point of mine he quotes concerns motivation, but his comment addresses cost instead. My estimate was not in pounds but in dollars. He clearly does not know what he is talking about. Unless his estimate of $500 is itself meant as a spoof, he is far off the mark. It cost me more than £1,000 just to rent the room for a few hours. My estimate was clearly conservative.

Maybe they wanted to create a viral marketing campaign to show how effective it could be as a showcase for their company? Maybe it was used in UK TV commercials a few years ago for (IIRC) Rowntree Kit Kat? (Have a break, have a Kit Kat). Maybe you could already have guessed it since you know the name of the director, and the company he did the work for?

The room costs have already been discussed. You can rent a film studio in London, today, for around £350 per day. There's a lot of loose change

Notice that Greer never explains why anyone who believes the moon landings are genuine would create a fake to suggest that they were really faked.

Viral marketing possibly?

He doesn't explain why, if this was a cheap production "off the cuff" using friends or the homeless, is has such a professional quality. It has exactly the right feel and exactly the right look to have been shot on the same stage with the same crew.

So it has a professional quality. You don't need a $100,000+ budget to get a professional feel for a thirty second clip.

Consider the two hypotheses: (h1) this is an outtake from the original faking; (h2) this is the faking of someone faking the original.

If (h1) is true and this is an outtake from the original faking, which was conducting at great expense using an experienced crew and a professional director, what is the probability that the edge of the images would match, that the crew would be in uniform, that they would know what they were doing, that they would avoid looking at the director and the camera? Obviously, it would be very high.

If (h2) is true and this is the faking of someone faking the original, which was conducting on a low budget using friends or hires by Adam Stewart, what is the probability that the edge of the images would match, that the crew would be in uniform, that they would know what they were doing, that they would avoid looking at the director and the camera? Obviously, it would be extremely low.

In scientific reasoning, one hypothesis is preferable to another when the likelihood of the first -- which is equal to the probability of the evidence, if that hypothesis were true -- is greater than the likelihood of the second, given the available evidence. Since the likelihood of (h1) is very high, while that of (h2) is extremely low, as I have shown, there can be no doubt that (h1) is preferable to (h2).

This is laughable. You are missing the point entirely, that if it is a spoof (which it is), it has been deliberately created to look as if it might be real. Which means the director places his camera to give the correct angles, arranges the props in the right location etc. And where does he get his reference from? THE ORIGINAL FOOTAGE. Wow, the director did a good job, and you manage to twist this into somehow being a low probability event, as if it all happened by chance? It was DESIGNED to imitate the Apollo 11 footage.

The killer to your argument is in the spacesuit, which is clearly NOT an Apollo suit. It is, however, identical to the suit seen in this clip, of Adam Stewart, on set, during rehearsals (using a modern video camera).

Game, set and match.

Edited November 12, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Now THIS little snippet looks to me like a nice piece of fakery staged for the purpose of implying that the original "rehearsal" footage was faked as (in Peter Dawson's immortal words) "a spoof"! I invite anyone to compare them and ask if the "rehearsal" footage has the elements of fakery of this one! It is fascinating that "the beat goes on". How blatant can it get? And when you take notice of the tremendous difference in production values -- the sharpness of the focus, the clarity of the image and the vivid colors -- it should be obvious that this footage bears no resemblance to the "rehearsal" footage. The similarity between the "rehearsal" footage and the broadcast footage, of course, was always far more comprehensive, where I think (subconsciously) I was drawn to the "edge" (where the shadow falls) because it appears to be the place where front-screen projection cuts in. Notice how Greer follows the pattern of citing only the evidence he wants to consider. Not only does it not have a similar look or feel, but not even the angle is the same! Here is what I wrote about the "rehearsal" footage:

The points that are made in comparing them, including the edge of the images, which is seen from the same angle

in both the footage broadcast and the "rehearsal" footage, are extremely improbable and would have been virtually

impossible to replicate. Both have a similar look and a similar feel and were probably shot on the very same stage.

Anyone who is taken in by this new hoax being perpetrated by David Greer -- whom I understand may be the mastermind behind the scene pulling the strings in defending the authenticity of Apollo footage and directing attacks on those, such as Duane, Jack, and I, who have the temerity to challenge them -- ought to be ashamed. This is as stunning an example of the lengths to which those who want to conceal the truth about the moon landing hoax are willing to do. And of course by "merging" the threads, it becomes practically impossible to sort out what was really going on here, which, I suppose, is the point. When they are defeated on the basis of logic and evidence, those who defile the name of reason and willing to resort to shady tactics like merging two distinct threads that should never have been merged are alleged to be justified on the basis of some flimsy ground, such as that "the debate was over", when it should have been archived like every other thread in the history of this forum. This is grotesque. For those who want a study in "plausible deniability", this is a stellar illustration.

The points that are made in comparing them, including the edge of the images, which is seen from the same angle in both the footage broadcast and the "rehearsal" footage, are extremely improbable and would have been virtually impossible to replicate. Both have a similar look and a similar feel and were probably shot on the very same stage.

You must think that film directors are stupid. Impossible to recreate the same angle? I'm not sure who you're trying to kid. Any amateur film-maker with a modicum of ability could recreate the same angle.

Shot on the same stage? More on that later.

They are obviously not the same take, since the collapse of the light bar required a second take. But the author,

Ted Twietmeyer, makes many other extremely interesting observations about the crew wearing what appear to be

military uniforms and behaving in ways that would not be expected of a crew working on some kind of "spoof":

Military uniforms? Shirt, tie and trousers? This proves what exactly?

What's also interesting about this video is that during this entire rehearsal disaster, not one man who ran in to assist the astronaut/ actor ever turned his face toward the camera. None of them ever looked back in that direction, which

anyone would certainly do when taking instructions from the director who usually sits beside the camera.

Your first point about no-one looking back at the camera is simply false, as anyone can verify by just looking at the footage.

Your second point is nonsensical.

If this entire video is a fake, it's an extremely well made fake. Including the authentic spacesuit the actor playing the astronaut wears. And down to the tiniest detail, including a barely audible "Cut!" yelled by a director off-camera

moments later after the light bar came crashing down.

The spacesuit is NOT authentic. Compare the PLSS and the front of the spacesuit to the suits worn on Apollo 11. Clearly different.

Wow, fancy a spoof viral video having someone shout "Cut!" after the light bar crashes down. Such incredible attention to detail! How is this humanly possible for a mere film director?

On the subject of the light bar crashing down, if you look carefuly, you can see that this spoof is very likely 2 takes spliced together around the "flash" when the light bar crashes - check out the slightly changed posture of the actor-naut.

Having recently rented a room for a symposium in London held on 14 July 2010, http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/ I know, unlike Greer's remarks, space there does not come cheap.

You can rent a film studio for a day in London for less than £500. Of course, if you have your own facilities, there's no extra cost.

None of this could be "easily and cheaply done with materials available from any hardware store." The production has a highly professional quality about it. The idea of "reverse engineering" from some footage that was broadcast is absurd.

The only way that could be done would be if you had inside information, such as access to the stage and the props, etc.

We'll just have to differ on that one.

This is equally ridiculous. The crew appears to be in uniform, acts as if it knows what it is doing, and none of the crew looks toward the director, which cannot be by chance. If this were some friends or homeless hired off the street, then they would not be wearing uniforms, they would not know what they were doing, and some would look at the camera.

The crew act as if they know what they're doing? Of course they do! It's a spoof! The director has given them instructions on what to do! THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE. I'll concede that there may be professional actors involved, if they are on Equity rates, what, about £70 per day? If so, I'll up my budget from approx £500 to what, a couple of grand?

That may be difficult to arrange. I gather that Adam Stewart, who claimed to have created the video at the Viral Factory, died less than a year after making his moontruth video, allegedly due to food poisoning. That sounds a lot like tidying up "loose ends".

I gather he was 31. Which would make him born after 1968. So he didn't help fake any footage during the Apollo era.

That he may have actually been involved in faking the moon landing receives further support from this]:

Do explain how this supports the faking of the moon-landings, and doesn't support the making of a spoof!

Notice that the point of mine he quotes concerns motivation, but his comment addresses cost instead. My estimate was not in pounds but in dollars. He clearly does not know what he is talking about. Unless his estimate of $500 is itself meant as a spoof, he is far off the mark. It cost me more than £1,000 just to rent the room for a few hours. My estimate was clearly conservative.

Maybe they wanted to create a viral marketing campaign to show how effective it could be as a showcase for their company? Maybe it was used in UK TV commercials a few years ago for (IIRC) Rowntree Kit Kat? (Have a break, have a Kit Kat). Maybe you could already have guessed it since you know the name of the director, and the company he did the work for?

The room costs have already been discussed. You can rent a film studio in London, today, for around £350 per day. There's a lot of loose change

Notice that Greer never explains why anyone who believes the moon landings are genuine would create a fake to suggest that they were really faked.

Viral marketing possibly?

He doesn't explain why, if this was a cheap production "off the cuff" using friends or the homeless, is has such a professional quality. It has exactly the right feel and exactly the right look to have been shot on the same stage with the same crew.

So it has a professional quality. You don't need a $100,000+ budget to get a professional feel for a thirty second clip.

Consider the two hypotheses: (h1) this is an outtake from the original faking; (h2) this is the faking of someone faking the original.

If (h1) is true and this is an outtake from the original faking, which was conducting at great expense using an experienced crew and a professional director, what is the probability that the edge of the images would match, that the crew would be in uniform, that they would know what they were doing, that they would avoid looking at the director and the camera? Obviously, it would be very high.

If (h2) is true and this is the faking of someone faking the original, which was conducting on a low budget using friends or hires by Adam Stewart, what is the probability that the edge of the images would match, that the crew would be in uniform, that they would know what they were doing, that they would avoid looking at the director and the camera? Obviously, it would be extremely low.

In scientific reasoning, one hypothesis is preferable to another when the likelihood of the first -- which is equal to the probability of the evidence, if that hypothesis were true -- is greater than the likelihood of the second, given the available evidence. Since the likelihood of (h1) is very high, while that of (h2) is extremely low, as I have shown, there can be no doubt that (h1) is preferable to (h2).

This is laughable. You are missing the point entirely, that if it is a spoof (which it is), it has been deliberately created to look as if it might be real. Which means the director places his camera to give the correct angles, arranges the props in the right location etc. And where does he get his reference from? THE ORIGINAL FOOTAGE. Wow, the director did a good job, and you manage to twist this into somehow being a low probability event, as if it all happened by chance? It was DESIGNED to imitate the Apollo 11 footage.

The killer to your argument is in the spacesuit, which is clearly NOT an Apollo suit. It is, however, identical to the suit seen in this clip, of Adam Stewart, on set, during rehearsals (using a modern video camera).

Game, set and match.

[Dave Greer]

Now THIS little snippet looks to me like a nice piece of fakery staged for the purpose of implying that the original "rehearsal" footage was faked as (in Peter Dawson's immortal words) "a spoof"! I invite anyone to compare them and ask if the "rehearsal" footage has the elements of fakery of this one!

Same set? Same suit?

It is fascinating that "the beat goes on". How blatant can it get? And when you take notice of the tremendous difference in production values -- the sharpness of the focus, the clarity of the image and the vivid colors -- it should be obvious that this footage bears no resemblance to the "rehearsal" footage.

It should be obvious that it was shot with a different camera, and at a slightly different camera position.

The similarity between the "rehearsal" footage and the broadcast footage, of course, was always far more comprehensive, where I think (subconsciously) I was drawn to the "edge" (where the shadow falls) because it appears to be the place where front-screen projection cuts in.

Or maybe you were subconsciously drawn to only seeing the similarities because your mind is already made up? Confirmation bias?

Notice how Greer follows the pattern of citing only the evidence he wants to consider.

I only cited evidence that was "worthy of citation" (I use the phrase in its loosest possible sense...) I mean come on... "no-one looked back at the camera". A false claim, which even if true would be utterly meaningless. Is this the best you can do?

Not only does it not have a similar look or feel, but not even the angle is the same! Here is what I wrote about the "rehearsal" footage:

Different camera, slightly different camera angle Jim. Clearly the budget stretched to 2 cameras, one modern, and one from the 60s/70s era.

The points that are made in comparing them, including the edge of the images, which is seen from the same angle

in both the footage broadcast and the "rehearsal" footage, are extremely improbable and would have been virtually

impossible to replicate. Both have a similar look and a similar feel and were probably shot on the very same stage.

Are you claiming that a director with a modicum of skill who wanted to recreate a certain feel and "camera angle" would find it virtually impossible to do? In fact, don't bother answering that question. I already know your answer.

Anyone who is taken in by this new hoax being perpetrated by David Greer -- whom I understand may be the mastermind behind the scene pulling the strings in defending the authenticity of Apollo footage and directing attacks on those, such as Duane, Jack, and I, who have the temerity to challenge them -- ought to be ashamed. This is as stunning an example of the lengths to which those who want to conceal the truth about the moon landing hoax are willing to do. And of course by "merging" the threads, it becomes practically impossible to sort out what was really going on here, which, I suppose, is the point. When they are defeated on the basis of logic and evidence, those who defile the name of reason and willing to resort to shady tactics like merging two distinct threads that should never have been merged are alleged to be justified on the basis of some flimsy ground, such as that "the debate was over", when it should have been archived like every other thread in the history of this forum. This is grotesque. For those who want a study in "plausible deniability", this is a stellar example.

The SUITS Jim! For the sake of my sanity, the SUITS! Carry on with the buffoonery and self-lampooning if you must, but please, for the love of all that's sacred... LOOK AT THE SUITS!

Fetz old boy, you're obviously not an unintelligent person. I seriously think that your sole reason for participation in this thread is to deliberately wind up people up by pretending to be dense in order to study the reaction of others. You've been rumbled!

[Jack White]

Why have these two threads been merged? This is in violation of the agreement to keep them

separate. This is a gross abuse of Burton's immoderate moderation! I object and ask that

the two threads be UNMERGED!

I have been working on a new study for Jim which he asked me to post in the debate thread.

In it, I acknowledge a flaw in a previous study which caused me to re-examine it and I found

evidence in shadows pointing to three or more lighting sources.

This merged thread abandons the debate (which Burton was losing), and makes it an

incoherent mess. I will not post this new study until the debate thread is reinstated according

to the original agreement.

I ask other moderators to OVERRULE Burton's rash action, and reinstate the debate as

a dedicated thread.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

This is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the argument and make it difficult to follow. I am

told that this is Burton's tactic when his side is losing an argument: submerge it or bury it!

I am stunned by the blatancy of the abuse of position he is demonstrating here. The Greer

argument about the details of the films seems to be entirely beside the point. There are so

many similarities that, if fakery of this degree of similarity is possible, as Greer now claims,

then the faking of the moon landings themselves must have been a piece of cake! So even

if he is right (about the details), he is wrong (about the hoax itself). And if Adam Stewart didn't

do it, obviously someone else did! This is an excellent example of focusing on the trees and

missing the forest. The striking similarities between the "rehearsal" footage and the footage

that was broadcast demonstrates that faking the moon landing would not have been difficult

and, to hear Greer tell it, not all that expensive, too boot! This latest "spoof" footage appears

to be a desperate gambit to take in the unwary. It is rubbish. Again, all this proves too much!

Jim

Why have these two threads been merged? This is in violation of the agreement to keep them

separate. This is a gross abuse of Burton's immoderate moderation! I object and ask that

the two threads be UNMERGED!

I have been working on a new study for Jim which he asked me to post in the debate thread.

In it, I acknowledge a flaw in a previous study which caused me to re-examine it and I found

evidence in shadows pointing to three or more lighting sources.

This merged thread abandons the debate (which Burton was losing), and makes it an

incoherent mess. I will not post this new study until the debate thread is reinstated according

to the original agreement.

I ask other moderators to OVERRULE Burton's rash action, and reinstate the debate as

a dedicated thread.

Jack

Edited November 12, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Evan Burton]

Look out - it's Hurricane Fetzer! Bluster away, Jim. Your arrogance is astounding and simply makes you look very foolish.

BTW, I saw a post you made on another forum about radiation and I just can't let it go unchallenged. Please repeat it here, if you wish. I'll get to that in a short while but now I must be away to buy a new BBQ for my new patio! As the Flintstones said: "Charrrrrrrrge IT!"

[Dave Greer]

The Greer

argument about the details of the films seems to be entirely beside the point.

Yeah, stuff the details, who cares about them, if it blows your argument out of the water!

Details, Schme-tails!

The SUITS, Jim! The SUITS! Please tell me you've considered the SUITS?

So even if he is right (about the details),

Did you mean the SUIT details?

he is wrong (about the hoax itself).

Ah well.

And if Adam Stewart didn't do it, obviously someone else did!

If "A" didn't do it then "B" did? Is that the depth of your argument?

This is an excellent example of focusing on the trees and

missing the forest. The striking similarities between the "rehearsal" footage and the footage

that was broadcast demonstrates that faking the moon landing would not have been difficult

and, to hear Greer tell it, not all that expensive, too boot! This latest "spoof" footage appears

to be a desperate gambit to take in the unwary. It is rubbish. Again, all this proves too much!

Jim

Jim, FFS. Don't blot your copy-book with this crap. Please. It's embarrassing.

[Evan Burton]

I'm going to refer to this post of Jims from another forum:

http://www.deeppolit...55&postcount=14

A forum member raises the issue of a radiation paper, and Jim attempts to dismiss the paper because he couldn't find the credentials of an author, J. Vernon Bailey. In a prior post he asks that Dr John Costella comment on the paper. Since Dr Costella is a member of this forum, I would welcome his comments on the report, BIOMEDICAL RESULTS OF APOLLO (NASA SP-368, NASA Science and Technical Information Office, 1975), specifically section II chapter 3: Radiation Protection and Instrumentation, which was authored by J. Vernon Bailey.

As always (it would seem), Jim doesn't give you all the facts (lest you be informed). He fails to mention that all material for the publication was reviewed by an editorial board. Who was on that board?

Not only was he qualified enough to be on the editorial board, he was in good company.

So, who was J. Vernon Bailey? Well, he was the Chief of the Environmental Health Branch at the Johnson Space Center, Houston.

http://ieeexplore.ie...rnumber=4328485

He co-authored NASA papers like:

APOLLO EXPERIENCE REPORT – PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION (NASA Technical Note D-7080, March 1973)

THERMOLUMINESCENT DOSIMETRY FOR THE APOLLO 16 MICROBIAL RESPONSE TO SPACE ENVIRONMENT EXPERIMENT (M191) (Johnson Space Center, May 1973)

VISUAL LIGHT FLASH OBSERVATIONS ON SKYLAB 4 (Johnson Space Center, January 1977)

RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION AND MEDICAL DOSIMETRY FOR THE SKYLAB CREWMEN (Johnson Space Center, January 1977)

Mn CARBONATES IN THE MARTIAN METEORITE NAKHLA: POSSIBLE EVIDENCE OF BRINE EVAPORATION (Johnson Space Center, 2003)

PHYSICAL DOSIMETRIC EVALUATIONS IN THE APOLLO 16 MICROBIAL RESPONSE EXPERIMENT (Johnson Space Center, January 1975)

APOLLO LIGHT FLASH INVESTIGATIONS (Johnson Space Center, July 1975)

HEAVY COSMIC-RAY EXPOSURE OF APOLLO ASTRONAUTS (Johnson Space Center, January 1975)

RADIATION PROTECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION (Johnson Space Center, July 1975)

FLUX OF HIGH-LET COSMIC-RAY PARTICLES IN MANNED SPACE FLIGHT (Johnson Space Center, January 1975)

DOSIMETRY DURING SPACE MISSIONS (Johnson Space Center, August 1976)

In addition, we find during the 98th Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association and Meetings of Related Organizations (26-30 October 1970, Convention and Exhibit Hall, Civic Center Houston, Texas), there is a presenter:

Radiation Exposure of American Astronauts. J. Vernon Bailey, Ph.D.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....00037-0001a.pdf

So, just what are your qualifications, Jim, with respect to the biomedical effects of radiation and radiation shielding effectiveness for space travel? I'll save you the trouble: NONE. Once more, you arrogantly assume you know more than others because it suits your ego.

Of course, you are going to ask my qualifications in this area; I have NONE also…. but I did contact those people who did have the qualifications and expertise, and sought guidance from them. In January 2007, I contacted Dr Richard Setlow. Dr Setlow is Senior Biophysicist Emeritus at the Brookhaven National Laboratory and a Member of the National Academy of Sciences. He is an expert in the effects of radiation on cells, and has co-authored numerous papers on space radiation. He was recently honoured for his life work:

http://www.bnl.gov/t...sp?ITEM_NO=1435

I asked:

Dear Sir,

I refer to a report which you chaired in 1996, Radiation Hazards to Crews of Interplanetary Missions. Firstly, some quick background. I am one of the many people who, on what seems like a daily basis, try to rebut arguments put forward by people who claim that the Apollo missions were faked by NASA. I have an aviation background, not physics or biological sciences.

The above report is being discussed on a forum which (despite its name) tries to dispel the myth that Apollo was somehow faked. The link to the relevant section (a discussion on space radiation) is:http://apollohoax.pr...4878798&page=12

To cut a long story short, could I ask two brief questions:

1. Was radiation / exposure data from Apollo considered (amongst other sources) when making the report's determinations?

2. Do the report's findings (in any way) support the proposition that radiation should have killed (or at least seriously harmed) astronauts on a typical 14-day Apollo lunar landing mission?

I would also ask permission to post your reply to the thread linked above.

Thank you for your time.

He replied to me:

Dear Evan,

The Committee considered all sources of radations in Space. We concluded that Solar Particle Events (SPE) would be the major source of radiation exposures supplemented by the cosmic ray background composed of many types of particles including heavy nuclei. To the best of my knowledge, all space missions carry devices to measure the radiation doses. Astronauts should not be outside of a space craft if there were an SPE. They should be shielded inside the space craft. Hence, radiation exposures for Apollo missions would be very small. Hence, I believe that radiation exposures from Apollo missions were very small, unless astronauts stayed outside during an SPE about which they would have been informed.

You could get simple, short descriptions of what is known from 2 summaries that I wrote: (1) " The U.S National Research Council's views of the radiation hazards in space" Mutation Research (1999) 430, 169-175 and (2) " The hazards of space travel" EMBO Reports (2003) 4, 1013-1016. Radiation is only one of the hazards. Microgravity is another.

Sincerely yours,

Richard Setlow

People far more qualified than you have looked at these areas, and know they are not faked.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

This latest video shows us what a "spoof" video would have looked like. It is an obvious fake.

The "rehearsal" video is completely different and highly comparable to the broadcast footage. I

don't grasp what you think you are accomplishing with phony arguments about this, when everyone

can compare them for themselves. The "rehearsal" footage has qualities and features which are

completely comparable to the broadcast footage. The "spoof" footage does not. Case closed.

The Greer

argument about the details of the films seems to be entirely beside the point.

Yeah, stuff the details, who cares about them, if it blows your argument out of the water!

Details, Schme-tails!

The SUITS, Jim! The SUITS! Please tell me you've considered the SUITS?

So even if he is right (about the details),

Did you mean the SUIT details?

he is wrong (about the hoax itself).

Ah well.

And if Adam Stewart didn't do it, obviously someone else did!

If "A" didn't do it then "B" did? Is that the depth of your argument?

This is an excellent example of focusing on the trees and

missing the forest. The striking similarities between the "rehearsal" footage and the footage

that was broadcast demonstrates that faking the moon landing would not have been difficult

and, to hear Greer tell it, not all that expensive, too boot! This latest "spoof" footage appears

to be a desperate gambit to take in the unwary. It is rubbish. Again, all this proves too much!

Jim

Jim, FFS. Don't blot your copy-book with this crap. Please. It's embarrassing.

[John Dolva]

'' Last post'', ''Case closed'' - ok, what about a vote?

Edited November 13, 2010 by John Dolva

[Dave Greer]

This latest video shows us what a "spoof" video would have looked like. It is an obvious fake.

The "rehearsal" video is completely different and highly comparable to the broadcast footage. I

don't grasp what you think you are accomplishing with phony arguments about this, when everyone

can compare them for themselves. The "rehearsal" footage has qualities and features which are

completely comparable to the broadcast footage. The "spoof" footage does not. Case closed.

Jim, please. Pretty please. With a cherry on top.

Look at the space-suit in the "collapsing light rig" clip. Compare it to the suit in the "rehearsal" clip. Now compare both of them to the Apollo suits. The suit in the first two is the same, and noticeably different from the Apollo suit.