Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Guest James H. Fetzer

New Proof of Moon Landing Hoax

Recommended Posts

Guest James H. Fetzer

Here are some new studies for Mr. NASA (aka Evan Burton) to rebut:

Edited by James H. Fetzer

Share this post


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

The situation has passed far beyond simple absurdity into ludicrousness:

Edited by James H. Fetzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to boost that idiot's hit count by viewing his rubbish; any assertions should be able to stated clearly.

Besides, as I am sure Jim would agree, YouTube is not research (despite what a lot of the current generation seem to believe).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over a week and no response? Should I take this as Jim being unable to summarise the claims made in the YouTube clip and explain why they should be regarded seriously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, since Jim won't do it, would anyone else like to summarise the claim(s)? I'm quite happy to answer but am not going to waste bandwidth on downloading JW rubbish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, since Jim won't do it, would anyone else like to summarise the claim(s)? I'm quite happy to answer but am not going to waste bandwidth on downloading JW rubbish.

I only watched one, in it he complained that some rover tracks from Apollo 15 were more visible than others in the LRO photos. I assumed it was because of difference in the soil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, since Jim won't do it, would anyone else like to summarise the claim(s)? I'm quite happy to answer but am not going to waste bandwidth on downloading JW rubbish.

I only watched one, in it he complained that some rover tracks from Apollo 15 were more visible than others in the LRO photos. I assumed it was because of difference in the soil.

That is entirely possible. We see examples of that in a few of the Apollo surface photographs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is very good; I encourage all to watch. It makes most excellent points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, since Jim won't do it, would anyone else like to summarise the claim(s)? I'm quite happy to answer but am not going to waste bandwidth on downloading JW rubbish.

I only watched one, in it he complained that some rover tracks from Apollo 15 were more visible than others in the LRO photos. I assumed it was because of difference in the soil.

Or it could have been the sun angle on those tracks.

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

×