(Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread

[Dave Greer]

Of course, this is not the first time Jarrah has lied about Jay Windley, of whom Jarrah has a very twisted and unhealthy obsession

That statement is not only the height of hypocrisy, but almost too funny for words, considering the type of constant character assassination, ridicule and lies Windley and his apollogist pals spew about Jarrah White (among other conspiracy researchers ) on forums like BAUT and apollohoax.net.

Here's an e-mail reply from Jarrah, hopefully clearing up any misunderstanding about who lied about what.

Well, that certainly cleared up what Jarrah White thinks, but I don't think it clears up any possible misunderstandings about who lied about what.

Jarrah White says I'm clutching at straws claiming that the interview was conducted under false pretences. Surely the one thing that can't be open to debate is whether the interview was conducted under false pretences or not? Regardless of whether the Japanese TV was fake, or whether they were a real TV company, the interview with Aldrin clearly went beyond the bounds of why he thought he was there (to discuss bona fide space subjects). He didn't know he was going to be shown the TV segment about hoaxes and asked to comment on it. Neither did he know that Bart Sibrel was going to be brought on as a "mystery guest". Come on! This wasn't some long-lost brother was being brought on for a tearful reunion. It was a man who was prepared to publicly call Aldrin a xxxx, coward and thief. Do you really think Aldrin would have agreed to the interview on those terms? I sincerely doubt it.

Look at this comment by Jarrah.

If you watch the video, you'll notice that shortly after Sibrel's crew encounters Aldrin, a second camera crew approaches and begins filming. These secondary crew members are clearly of Asian appearance. It seems to me that the Japanese caught up with Aldrin downstairs and saw the opportunity to get the surprise meeting on film after all.

That's a possibility. However, the "Japanese" TV company were outside the building, which raises the interesting question of how they managed to follow Aldrin out of the room without him seeing them (or at least commenting on it in his book), and rushing down the staircase and going outside to get ready for the encounter with Sibrel. Unlikely, but not impossible. What of Sibrel's motivation for being there? He wanted to accuse Aldrin of theft for taking $2000 for talking about landing on the moon when he hadn't (more evidence of Sibrel's involvement since he knew Aldrin's fee).

Also from Jarrah.

Once again, Jay Windley claimed that there never was a Japanese film crew. He claimed that Sibrel invented the story and lured Aldrin to the motel pretending to represent some non-existent Japanese TV company. Windley went as far as claiming that he read documents from the LA prosecutor's that "confirm" this.

I'm not clear where Jarrah gets the information to support the last sentence in this quote, maybe you can help me out, or get him to clear this up? He shows Windley's statement that he has seen documents from the LA prosecutors office, which stated that Sibrel's intent was to conduct an ambush interview. That bit seems to make sense, since it refers to Sibrel's motivation for being there, which is quite clear from the video footage in and outside the hotel, and also in his radio interview of 2004. I can't see where he (Windley) has stated that he has seen documents from the LA Prosecutors office that confirm there never was a Japanese film crew: that seems to be Windley's opinion based on the evidence.

This whole episode seems to boil down to a semantic battle over whether Windley was correct in saying Bart Sibrel posed as a Japanese TV crew, or whether should have said Sibrel conspired with them (as I stated earlier). In either case, it seems bit churlish to make making a three-part video to try and brand Windley a xxxx over such a semantic point.

I think we need to clear up Jarrah's confusion over this question he posed to Windley in the video:-

"How can you allege that Sibrel lured Aldrin to the hotel, pretending to be a Japanese company, when in fact Aldrin explicitly states that he did indeed give an interview to a Japanese production company, and merely met up with Sibrel on his way out?"

(First, look at what Jarrah says. "Aldrin explicitly states that he did indeed give an interview to a Japanese production company". Aldrin didn't say that. He said it was a "Far Eastern TV Network". Does this mean Jarrah is guilty of lying? Of course not. It just means that he got his quote wrong, even though he charcterised it by saying Aldrin was explicit. Why, then, make so much out of Windley saying "Sibrel posed as", rather than "Sibrel conspired with"?)

Back to the question (above) itself. It should be quite clear the two things are not mutually incompatible. It's basically Scenario 2 from my previous post. If true, it shows that the deception worked, because Aldrin didn't rumble the fact that Sibrel had set the whole thing up. Maybe he had other things on his mind, like trying to cross the road while Sibrel was blocking his way and hurling accusations at him.

Seriously, I'm at a loss as to why Jarrah is making such an issue over this.

[Evan Burton]

Seriously, I'm at a loss as to why Jarrah is making such an issue over this.

Simply because of Jarrah's obsession with Jay.

[Duane Daman]

Seriously, I'm at a loss as to why Jarrah is making such an issue over this.

Simply because of Jarrah's obsession with Jay.

Maybe it's his way of getting back at Windley, whose obsession with, character assassinations of, and lies about Jarrah White, are not normal.

The bottom line is this.. A Japanese TV company wanted to interview Aldrin about the hoax evidence, by featuring one of the leading conspircy researchers, Bart Sibrel.. They were hoping for a sit down, face to face interview between Aldrin and Sibrel, in hopes of discussing the hoax evidence.

Unfortunately, before they, or Sibrel, could have that interview, Aldrin saw where the interview was leading, and like a coward, stopped the interivew and ran away.. Ran away just like several other Apollo astronauts, who never answer the hoax questions, and when they do, never get their stories straight.

Here's one of many examples of an Apollo astronaut telling a conflicting story with another Apollo astronuaut.

In this documentary Aron Ranen set out to prove that Apollo landed on the Moon but could NOT do it.. In this final segment of his documentary, Apollo 17 astronaut Gene Cernan completely contradicts the Apollo 11 story of how Neil Armstrong shut off the descent engine AFTER the LM landed.. Sorry boys, but you can't have it both ways .. You can't change your story to cover for the fact that none of the Apollo craft left any landing craters, or any evidence at all of landing on the lunar surface in the bogus Apollo photography.

And this is only one example of conflicting Apollo astronaut stories .. The list is endless.

* edited to clarify who Gene Cernan is.

Edited November 26, 2010 by Duane Daman

[Evan Burton]

I see that the DPF has promptly banned Peter Dawson for not following the party line. Sure, okay for blowhard Drago to accuse him of all sorts of rubbish but if someone dares to disagree, they'll get given the bum's rush quick smart.

[Evan Burton]

Maybe it's his way of getting back at Windley, whose obsession with, character assassinations of, and lies about Jarrah White, are not normal.

Help us along and point out all the instances where this has been done. After all, Jarrah only rates the barest of quotes by Windley on his website, Clavius.org:

What you're doing to Bill Kaysing is nothing more than character assassination. [Jarrah White]

No. If this debate were about Bill Kaysing, Chronicler of the Southwest, then we would have praise for him, or at least be agnostic to his efforts. If this were about Bill Kaysing, Champion of the Veteran, then we would definitely praise and eulogize him. If this were about Bill Kaysing, Cat Lover, then we would sympathize with his efforts undertaken in retirement at his own expense.

Unfortunately this is about the Bill Kaysing who alleges that the moon landings were hoaxed, and who claims to have scientifically and factually defensible arguments to support that allegation. And unfortunately it is upon those grounds, not his value as a human being, that we propose to contest his claims. Where he exercises indefensible reason, scholarly rigor requires that we identify it as such. Where he inflates his credentials, a devotion to the truth requires us to investigate further. Where he asserts unverifiable fact, intellectual honesty requires us to question it.

Here our devotion is to the truth. If the reader desires to praise Kaysing for whatever reason, we offer this site.

http://www.clavius.org/kaysing.html

[Evan Burton]

http://tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/apollo-hoax/message/224

http://ralphrenewaswrongmate.com/web_images/jarrah_virus_upload.png

http://ralphrenewaswrongmate.com/index.php?p=1_16_Jarrah-White

Jarrah is just a poor soul with mental issues, seeking recognition. He's not worth even responding to.

[Dave Greer]

In this documentary Aron Ranen set out to prove that Apollo landed on the Moon but could NOT do it.. In this final segment of his documentary, Apollo 17 astronaut Gene Cernan completely contradicts the Apollo 11 story of how Neil Armstrong shut off the descent engine AFTER the LM landed.. Sorry boys, but you can't have it both ways .. You can't change your story to cover for the fact that none of the Apollo craft left any landing craters, or any evidence at all of landing on the lunar surface in the bogus Apollo photography.

I have to pull you up on the "no evidence at all of landing on the lunar surface" claim. There are plenty of photos taken under the LM after landing on most of the Apollo missions which clearly show evidence of scouring, as shown by the radial striations.

Take a look at AS11-40-5921 for example. There are similar images from most of the other missions.

The issue of when the descent engine was switched off is an interesting one, I'll have a look at it when I get some free time next week.

[Evan Burton]

You read too much into things, Duane. I suspect it is because you are trying to look for evidence to support your opinion and so therefore have to lower the bar a fair way. IMO, Gene is referring to the fact the same technique was used (I would like to see exactly to what question he was answering, and how it was phrased). The concerns about a rock flying up and contacting the the engine bell was quite correct.

Apollo 11

102:45:40 Aldrin: Contact Light.

[At least one of the probes hanging from three of the footpads has touched the surface. Each of them is 67 inches (1.73 meters) long. The ladder strut doesn't have a probe. Buzz made the call at 20:17:40 GMT/UTC on 20 July 1969.]

[Aldrin - "We asked that they take it off."]

[Journal Contributor Harald Kucharek notes that Apollo 11 photo

S69-32396

, taken on 4 April 1969, shows Eagle with a probe attached to the

plus-Z

footpad. This indicates that the probe was removed after that date. The probe attachment is highlighted in a

detail

.]

[Apollo 11 photograph AS11-40-

5921

shows the area under the Descent Stage. A gouge mark made by the probe hanging down from the

minus-Y

(south) footpad is directly under the engine bell, a graphic demonstration that the spacecraft was drifitng left during the final seconds.]

[Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "We continued to touchdown with a slight left translation. I couldn't precisely determine (the moment of) touchdown. Buzz called lunar contact, but I never saw the lunar contact lights."]

[Aldrin, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "I called contact light."]

[Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "I'm sure you did, but I didn't hear it, nor did I see it."]

102:45:43 Armstrong (on-board): Shutdown

102:45:44 Aldrin: Okay. Engine Stop.

[Neil had planned to shut the engine down when the contact light came on, but didn't manage to do it.] [Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "I heard Buzz say something about contact, and I was spring-loaded to the stop engine position, but I really don't know...whether the engine-off signal was before (footpad) contact. In any event, the engine shutdown was not very high above the surface."]

[Armstrong - "We actually had the engine running until touchdown. Not that that was intended, necessarily. It was a very gentle touchdown. It was hard to tell when we were on."]

[Aldrin - "You wouldn't describe it as 'rock' (as in, 'dropping like a rock'). It was a sensation of settling."]

[some of the other crews shut down 'in the air' (meaning 'prior to touchdown') and had a noticeable bump when they hit.]

[Aldrin - (Joking) "Well, they didn't want to jump so far to the ladder."]

[Readers should note that, although the Moon has no atmosphere, many of the astronauts used expression like 'in the air' to mean 'off the ground' and, after some thought, I have decided to follow their usage.]

http://history.nasa....11.landing.html

Apollo 17

113:01:58 Schmitt: Contact. (Pause)

[The current time is about 1956 UTC 11 December 1972.]

[Journal Contributor Jim Scotti writes, "I once asked Gene Cernan what sort of sounds he had heard as he landed on the Moon, hoping to get answers to these kinds of questions - how loud the thrusters were, could he hear the descent engine, what about pumps and switches and anything else. What he said was rather different than what I was expecting. He said that what he heard in the moments after landing was... silence! You see, before landing, he was so engrossed in the activity that he heard Jack calling out numbers and the occasional call from Houston and everything else blended into the background because he was so focused on the task of landing. At touchdown, however, the spacecraft fell silent and mission control was staying quiet to try not to interfere with what they expected was the final moments of touchdown. And Gene added: 'And the guy standing next to me was struck silent staring out the window looking at the surface and he sure wasn't saying anything!' So Gene noticed the silence. Cool perspective! It fit exactly the kind of answer that I would have hoped for, even though it wasn't the kind of details I had hoped for, but it did a really great job of putting me in his boots at the CDR station in the LM just after landing at Taurus-Littrow."]

113:02:03 Schmitt: (Reading a checklist) Stop, push. Engine stop; Engine Arm; Proceed; Command Override, Off; Mode Control, Att(itude) Hold; PGNS, Auto.

113:02:11 Cernan: Okay, Houston. The Challenger has landed!

113:02:15 Fullerton: Roger, Challenger. That's super.

113:02:17 Schmitt: Okay, Parker valves...

[schmitt - "Parker valves (also know as the isolation valves or shut-off valves) controlled the RCS thrusters - the fuel and oxidizer - and there was always some concern that they might close at landing, just because of the little bit of shock. So the procedure was to go through and cycle (close and open) every one of them. There were, I don't know, sixteen of them on the wall in front of me and, while Gene was getting all excited, I was cycling switches."]

113:02:23 Cernan: (Responding to Fullerton) Boy, you bet it is, Gordo. (To Jack) Boy, when you said shut down, I shut down and we dropped, didn't we?

113:02:28 Schmitt: Yes, sir! But we is here.

113:02:30 Cernan: Man, is we here.

http://history.nasa....17.landing.html

You might also like to read a thread I started about the LM landing heights:

http://www.collectsp...TML/001189.html

[Duane Daman]

I see you only posted the clavius link .. What about apollohoax.net and BAUT, where Windley, you and the other disingenuous apollogists character assassinate Jarrah White constantly? .. And then you wonder why he replied in kind.. Priceless!

You also cut off the text in the second link you posted.. Did Jarrah write something you didn't want anyone here to see?

Okay, enough about the apollogist's sick obsession with Jarrah .. Let's discuss why Gene Cernan told a bold face lie about Armstrong allegedly landing the Apollo 11 LM exactly the way he did on Apollo 17.

Cernan claims to have shut off the LM engine BEFORE landing, to let it freefall to the surface, while Armstrong shut off the engine AFTER the LM allegedly soft landed on the surface .. It appears that Cernan is covering for the fact that none of the Apollo photos show any evidence of dust on the LM pads, much less any type of blast craters beneath the descent engine.. What ever happened to NASA being afraid the blast craters might be so deep that the LMs might fall into them?

Cernan also claimed to be able to see stars while on the lunar surface, by standing in the LM's shadow, while Armstrong claimed that he couldn't see any stars from the surface without looking through the optics, while astronomer Phil Plait claims that stars can easily be seen from the Moon, just by looking up at them .. No "LM shadow" or "optics" are necessary.

Many of the Apollo astronaut's "moon" trip stories contradict each other .. None of the Apollo astronauts will sit down with any of the conspiracy researchers for face to face interviews, which is the reason Bart Sibrel felt the need to use the tactics he did, to try to get an interview with Aldrin.

If the Apollo astronauts have nothing to hide and are being truthful about landing on the Moon, then why pull the plug on interviews that ask hoax questions? .. I would think they would want to debunk the "conspiracy nuts" and the hoax evidence, for all the world to see.. But instead, they run away from them and their questions.

There would be no reason for the Apollo astronauts to run away like a pack of cowards and refuse to answer certain questions, if Apollo happened as advertised.

[Evan Burton]

I see you only posted the clavius link .. What about apollohoax.net and BAUT, where Windley, you and the other disingenuous apollogists character assassinate Jarrah White constantly? .. And then you wonder why he replied in kind.. Priceless!

You actually WANT them brought up? Well, okay. But remember: we are talking about Jarrah and his obsession with Jay, and how Jay treats Jarrah. I have no problem admitting I have zero respect for Jarrah, but we are talking about Jay.

http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1109

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446557/board/nest/133905495?c=1

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/103611-Jarrah-White-fan

Here's where we prove Jarrah lies and misrepresents:

http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=2564

http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=2321

http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=2757

This is a good example of Jay's vicious attacks on Jarrah:

I've seen in this thread that Jay issued a challenge for Jarrah to debate him on any moderated forum.

I should clarify: those are the terms under which I agree to debate Jarrah directly, should he wish it. It isn't so much a challenge, since I really don't pay much attention to Jarrah's videos.

Here's the background.

About a year ago Jarrah contacted me by e-mail and presented a list of questions he wanted to debate -- in e-mail. One of those was the now-infamous question regarding Brian O'Leary, but there were others. I told Jarrah that I do not debate in private. That is not a limitation reserved for him; it has been my policy for quite a number of years for both ideological and practical reasons. Practical in the sense that I do not wish to repeat myself in endless private debates. Ideological in the sense that I don't wish the debate to be represented elsewhere in "he said, she said" fashion. Let the debate be in public where any and all can see exactly what was said. And Jarrah's handling of email subsequently has borne out my wisdom. He has tried hard to spin up the hypothesis that I lied about my correspondence with O'Leary. However, the fact remains that a well-known associate of O'Leary, Wade Frazier, witnessed our correspondence and stands ready to confirm it. To date, Jarrah refuses to contact him or even to acknowledge the evidence. Hence I don't trust him -- or anyone -- to fairly represent a private conversation in public.

Now I appreciate that the DI forum is obviously a woo woo forum but I assure you that the moderators there are generally sensible and fair-minded.

We seem to differ on what constitutes fair and sensible moderation.

What I require from moderation is preventing the debate, and Jarrah's contribution in particular, from devolving into the mudslinging and irrelevancy for which he is so justly infamous. Although he says he has reformed since 2004, his most recent attempt (2009) still required moderator intervention to deal with his abusive temper. Jarrah still hasn't substantiated that he is capable of adult debate without supervision, hence I require that supervision as a condition of my participation.

In a long-running debate at IMDB (in which, ironically, our fanboy Wwu777 subsequently participated), Jarrah suddenly arrived and asked if IMDB constituted a suitable forum. Naturally it did, since I have posted there for many years. He presented the same questions there that he had in private e-mail, and we began to debate them individually. Jarrah has since abandoned that debate, but the point I wanted to make was that IMDB enforces basic rules against personal attacks, abuse, and so forth.

What I further desire from moderation is the enforcement of a meaningful debate. What I mean by that is some means to keep Jarrah (and everyone, for that matter -- even myself) from sidestepping, evading, changing the subject, and generally employing other debate tricks that distract from testing the ideas at hand. IMDB doesn't enforce that, but BAUT certainly does. So does ApolloHoax, to a lesser extent. And in the IMDB debate Jarrah indeed tried desperately to change the subject when it became apparent he was not able to display sufficient understanding of solar physics. While no moderator held him accountable for his claims still on the table, the other readers made it pretty clear they wanted him to stay on topic. I believe that's why he fled.

Yes, it does seem especially pedantic. But in years of watching hoax theorists and other pseudoscientists debate, I've seen how distraction and evasion plays a big part. Those proponents create a semblance of credibility through artfully dodging and weaving. That's not what the truth is about. Seeking the truth means presenting ideas that endure the worst and most withering assault your critics can manage, not one that dodges every test. There are many of us here who undergo examination in the form of peer review, design review, or other formal tests of strength. We are used to such rigor. The hoax theorists are not, nor do they want to be.

So I'm wondering if anyone here is willing to take up the gauntlet if Jarrah does show up?

That would depend on the the nature of the forum. As I implied, I don't consider David Icke's forum to be especially moderated.

The other issue that arises is the personal nature of debate with Jarrah. Put bluntly, he has an unhealthy personal fixation on me, Phil Plait, and perhaps upon others. This comes to the fore in his materials, and in those of his colleagues, as deeply abusive personal attacks and arguments that have nothing to do with the Apollo hoax theory but are instead simply aimed at making me and others seem generally dishonest and foolish.

Toward that end, as much of his handwaving seems directed at the notion "Jay Windley is a proven xxxx!!!" as toward any particular hoax theory. In other words, even if Jarrah's accusations were true on some point, and I were wrong, it would not affect any Apollo hoax claim; it's simply ad hominem. So it seems wise to approach such a debate cautiously, until the proponent decides what he's actually trying to prove.

Many conspiracy proponents, likely including Wwu777, envision some sort of gladatorial combat where two champions enter the arena and only one will triumph. That's not how the intellectual process works. Jarrah debated at IMDB largely ignoring the questions and comments of others and fixating only on my contribution. That is sad, because others brought up important points and deserved to have their questions addressed. And the same would likely occur in a subsequent debate involving Jarrah. The debate over hoax theories is a test of ideas, not of personal skill. This is what many hoax claimants don't understand. It's not a matter of vindicating the "genius Aussie" as some sort of superior litigant, besting all comers. It's a matter of whether his ideas stand up to scrutiny by all interested parties. Yes, many of these proponents chafe under what seems to be an outnumbering of critics. And that's how academic and professional reviews occur in the real world, so my advice to them is to suck it up and quit complaining.

It's just that one guy is presenting one side of the argument and claiming that the skeptics are afraid of this Jarrah.

I dismiss it as saber-rattling, which is why Wwu777 seems to be posting only to sympathetic audiences. Jarrah tried to debate outside the protection of YouTube, failed, and ran. And any who read that debate will see where Jarrah was offered specific invitations to present his findings to qualified professionals for endorsement, and he ignored the invitations entirely. As far as I'm concerned, Jarrah can resume that debate where it left off any time he wishes. I should also add that Wwu777 himself opened a number of threads in the IMDB forum, was roundly refuted, and never made any followup posts. It's clear to me who's hiding.

You also cut off the text in the second link you posted.. Did Jarrah write something you didn't want anyone here to see?

The second link was an image - is that what you meant? I've tracked the post to a quote of Jarrah's, but I can't find the original. Please note that this is Jarrah posting, quoting himself, so this is not made up.

In September 2005, I had joined the Apollo Hoax Yahoo Group under false pretenses, thinking it was a forum where one could civilly debate the moon hoax theories. But after seeing Jay Windley was already there, it quickly became apparent that I had actually signed up to a group dominated by the vultures who get some kind of perverted pleasure out of character attacking intellectuals and misrepresenting their arguments. Jay Windley is the worst offender. He had gained notoriety through both his Clavius website and his deceptive Hasselblad experiments on the pro-NASA documentary The Truth Behind The Moon Landings (Windley appears in MoonFaker A, for those who don't know him). I had been outraged for years, and seeing as I had already joined I gave him a piece of my mind. Windley responded and tried to have a go at me, twisting my words and taking them out of context even though my original message was there and in context! I replied, and at the end I rightfully called him 'a xxxx and a coward and a propagandist.' He replied again, getting nastier than before, I spent the next month writing a rebuttal to it. But when I posted the message in October the same year, surprisingly it wasn't uploaded, instead I awoke the next day to find my membership on Yahoo wiped and all my James Bond Junior fan clubs deleted.

I had to start my groups from scratch, and rejoined all the groups I was a member of. But when I repeatedly tried to upload my message, the mods never uploaded them but the messages attacking myself were given the go ahead. The mods even contacted me directly, saying that the context of my message was bullxxxx and that's why it wasn't uploaded. When I ask them to validate such a statement, I was promptly given a virus and I had to go offline for the next three days whilst my computer was being repaired.

When I got the computer up and running, I continued my line of questioning, which immediately resulted in myself getting banned from the Yahoo Group.

I always suspected Windley was behind this, as he had everything to gain from my silence.

Almost a year later I was at the Loose Change forum, and I posted a link to this animation I made about the moon hoax.

<video link removed>

A user directed me to Jay Windley's website, to which I responded thoroughly, focusing in particular on his misrepresentation of Bill Kaysing's character. This is when Windley began changing arguments and started attacking me over BAUT and ApolloHoax.net, in his saving face, he even attributed a argument of mine to Bart Sibrel to make it look as though Sibrel was self-contradicting himself. He even had the gall to invite me to join BAUT and debate with him in a civilized manner. What is this? He wants me to debate with him civilly at a place where all the active users make cheapshots and insults?

Here are some examples they said about the users who post at the Loose Change Forum.

http://forums.joerogan.net/showthread.php?page=5&t=56457

also: http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=138828&postcount=107

Notice this line in particular:

"A user directed me to Jay Windley's website, to which I responded thoroughly, focusing in particular on his misrepresentation of Bill Kaysing's character. "

Notice that the Clavius website does not have a forum per se, but directs you to the ApolloHoax forum. But did Jarrah ever post on the ApolloHoax forum? Have a search for it. Go back through the Wayback machibe in case it was deleted without trace.

DON'T TRUST ME - SEARCH FOR IT YOURSELF.

Okay, enough about the apollogist's sick obsession with Jarrah .. Let's discuss why Gene Cernan told a bold face lie about Armstrong allegedly landing the Apollo 11 LM exactly the way he did on Apollo 17.

Cernan claims to have shut off the LM engine BEFORE landing, to let it freefall to the surface, while Armstrong shut off the engine AFTER the LM allegedly soft landed on the surface .. It appears that Cernan is covering for the fact that none of the Apollo photos show any evidence of dust on the LM pads, much less any type of blast craters beneath the descent engine.. What ever happened to NASA being afraid the blast craters might be so deep that the LMs might fall into them?

Now let's examine this one again, but firstly: you have said "Gene Cernan told a bold face lie". So if I find that you, for instance, have said one thing about an area in which you are passionate about, and then a couple of years later (never mind nearly 40 years) said something completely different about it, then would that mean that you told a bold face lie? I am not accusing you of this, mind you - I just want to ascertain the conditions upon which you would say that someone (including yourself) would have to meet in order to have told a bold face lie. So, if you did this, would you apply the label to yourself?

Next, did you read any of the replies, look at any of the images? The ones where you see evidence of a "rocket blast"? The explanations about dust on the footpads? I know you have regarding the last, but for whatever reasons you have chosen to ignore them.

Lastly, could you please show any NASA documents which talk about "...being afraid the blast craters might be so deep that the LMs might fall into them..."? Note the use of the words "blast craters"; craters have always been of concern, but not "blast craters". Since you are talking about the landing and engines and dust, you must be talking about a "blast crater" being caused by the DPS.

Cernan also claimed to be able to see stars while on the lunar surface, by standing in the LM's shadow, while Armstrong claimed that he couldn't see any stars from the surface without looking through the optics, while astronomer Phil Plait claims that stars can easily be seen from the Moon, just by looking up at them .. No "LM shadow" or "optics" are necessary.

What he actually said was: "If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day."

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

And his statement is absolutely correct. Your eyes, like the iris of a camera, would need to adapt to the conditions:

"To take a picture of a bright object with a bright background, you need to set the exposure time to be fast, and close down the aperture setting too; that's like the pupil in your eye constricting to let less light in when you walk outside on a sunny day. So the picture you take is set for bright objects. Stars are faint objects! In the fast exposure, they simply do not have time to register on the film. It has nothing to do with the sky being black or the lack of air, it's just a matter of exposure time. If you were to go outside here on Earth on the darkest night imaginable and take a picture with the exact same camera settings the astronauts used, you won't see any stars!"

Many of the Apollo astronaut's "moon" trip stories contradict each other .. None of the Apollo astronauts will sit down with any of the conspiracy researchers for face to face interviews, which is the reason Bart Sibrel felt the need to use the tactics he did, to try to get an interview with Aldrin.

So if a camera crew and interviewer asked you for an interview to discuss claims that you are a paedophile, or a drug dealer, or perhaps that you had been totally untruthful in saying that you had been involved in the antiques trade or having been a part time musician, despite there being recording of you playing or having records of you attending antique actions, buying and selling antiques, etc, you would gladly accept an interview? Would you accept an interview where you were a public figure and people were going to call you a xxxx to your face?

If the Apollo astronauts have nothing to hide and are being truthful about landing on the Moon, then why pull the plug on interviews that ask hoax questions? .. I would think they would want to debunk the "conspiracy nuts" and the hoax evidence, for all the world to see.. But instead, they run away from them and their questions.

But your own posts contradict that! You yourself posted a video where a conspiracy theorist asked them about moon hoax claims. There are a multitude of interviews where the astronauts talk about moon hoax claims. Ask me for a list of them - please!

There would be no reason for the Apollo astronauts to run away like a pack of cowards and refuse to answer certain questions, if Apollo happened as advertised.

[Evan Burton]

BTW, let's just get something clear here.

Every single astronaut who has flown a lunar mission claims they went to the Moon. Those who were CMPs say they orbited the Moon, those who were LMPs or CMPs (caveat for Apollos 8 and 10, which were lunar missions but did not land), stick by their experiences on / around the Moon.

So Duane - you therefore must say that every single one of these people is a xxxx, claiming they walked on / orbited the Moon (especially since you have said that Gene Cernan is a bald faced xxxx).

Yes or no, please.

[Evan Burton]

Now let's get back to correcting the errors regarding the Moon landings. BTW Jim, Jack, Duane, I should remind you that these are accepted as fact. Thousands - if not millions - of scientists of various specialities around the world have no problems with them... and saying "they must be lying" does not count unless you can PROVE they are lying. Opinion is not fact, despite the efforts of Jim to convince you otherwise.

Lest we lose track of the reasons for faking the Apollo landings, here is a thoughtful review of our history at the time.

Wagging the Moondoggie

By Dave McGowan

July 2000

Adolf Hitler knew a little bit about the fine art of lying. In Mein Kampf, he wrote that: "If you're going to tell a lie, make sure it's a really <DELETED BY MODERATOR> big one." OK, my German's not that great so that may not be an exact translation, but it captures the gist of what the future Fuhrer was saying.

He went on to explain that this was so because everyone in their everyday lives tells little lies, and so they fully expect others to do so as well (which is why, by the way, you should never lie about getting <DELETED BY MODERATOR> from an intern). But most people do not expect anyone to tell a real whopper. You know, the kind of brazen, outlandish lie that is just too absurd to actually be a lie.

The kind of lie that is so over-the-top that no one would dare to utter it if it wasn't in fact the truth. That is the type of lie, according to Hitler, that will fool the great masses of people, even when the lie is so transparently thin that it couldn't possibly stand up to any kind of critical analysis by anyone actually exercising their brain rather than just blindly accepting the legitimacy of the big lie.

Well, that's nice but yet again there is no PROOF. I can make a similar claim that people who sell books and make radio programmes about the JFK lie, the 9-11 lie, the Apollo lie, etc... are all following exactly the same principle! The problem is that rational, thinking beings want to have proof supplied to them. Anyone can tell a whopper, but you need proof that they did so before treating them as such. Imagine a justice system built on the principles that Jim and others apply: they look guilty, so they must be guilty!

Edited to add: well, lets face it, the situation already exists - there is already a great example of how people can be convicted without evidence and how eager those who cry "freedom" are the first to point the finger at others, demanding their culling. I think they would be wise to read Arthur Miller's "The Crucible" and re-examine their actions.

[Duane Daman]

Smoke and mirrors doesn't even begin to describe the type of tactics you use to defend your lost cause.. but thanks for posting the DPF link.. I didn't realize how much I missed the ex members of the EF until now..

http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4948&page=22

The second link you posted was NOT an image.. It was text written by Jarrah White that looked to be cut off for some reason.

http://ralphrenewaswrongmate.com/web_images/jarrah_virus_upload.png

As for the constant character assassinations of Jarrah White, posted by you and your Apollo defending pals on apollohoax.net, all I can say is that the garbage you all spew about him there is as transparent as the rest of the tactics you use to defend the Apollo fraud.

Let the evidence about Jay Windley vs. Jarrah White speak for itself.

And here's an e-mail from Jarrah White to propagandist Phil Plait.

And finally, this is the type of TRASH that ALL conspiracy researchers have to endure while attempting to expose the Apollo fraud.

This would not be necessary if Apollo happened as advertised.

As for this statement...

There are a multitude of interviews where the astronauts talk about moon hoax claims. Ask me for a list of them - please!

Please show me a list of interviews where any of the Apollo astronauts willingly sat down to conduct face to face interviews with any of the conspiracy researchers.. This does not include NASA propaganda documentaries where NASA controlled what could be discussed, or where the astronauts stated their opinions of the hoax evidence.

As for Gene Cernan's claims of how he allegedly landed the Apollo 17 LM on the Moon, it's obvious to anyone not wearing Apollogist blinders, that he completely contradicted the Apollo 11 story of how Armstrong allegedly landed the LM, while at the same time claiming that they both landed it the same way... A bold faced lie, or an inability to get their stories straight? .. Either way, it's a lie.

Edited December 1, 2010 by Kathy Beckett

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

This is typical of the quality of thought of Evan Burton. There are not "millions" of scientists who have no problem with the moon landings. First, there are not millions of scientists across the disciplines world-wide. Hundreds of thousands, possibly, but not millions. Second, the vast majority of those hundreds of thousands of scientists have never considered the moon landings or ever looked at the kinds of evidence that Jack, Duane, and I--not to mention Dave McGowan--have advanced. Third, if they had, I have no doubt that their conclusions would be the same as ours, namely: that the moon landings were staged for political purposes. And, of course, most of the small percentage who have considered the question seriously and come to the same conclusion are not therefore going to "go public" with their findings, for a host of reasons, including funding from the federal government, lack of enthusiasm for being made the butt of attacks, sarcasm, and ridicule, just as been the case here. When you don't have the evidence, there are not a lot of alternatives. So once again Burton has offered a sloppy and indefensible argument with the intention of providing some modicum of proof that he is right and we are wrong. That it won't fly from scratch indicates the poverty of his resources, where he's scraping the barrel's bottom.

Now let's get back to correcting the errors regarding the Moon landings. BTW Jim, Jack, Duane, I should remind you that these are accepted as fact. Thousands - if not millions - of scientists of various specialities around the world have no problems with them... and saying "they must be lying" does not count unless you can PROVE they are lying. Opinion is not fact, despite the efforts of Jim to convince you otherwise.

Lest we lose track of the reasons for faking the Apollo landings, here is a thoughtful review of our history at the time.

Wagging the Moondoggie

By Dave McGowan

July 2000

Adolf Hitler knew a little bit about the fine art of lying. In Mein Kampf, he wrote that: "If you're going to tell a lie, make sure it's a really <DELETED BY MODERATOR> big one." OK, my German's not that great so that may not be an exact translation, but it captures the gist of what the future Fuhrer was saying.

He went on to explain that this was so because everyone in their everyday lives tells little lies, and so they fully expect others to do so as well (which is why, by the way, you should never lie about getting <DELETED BY MODERATOR> from an intern). But most people do not expect anyone to tell a real whopper. You know, the kind of brazen, outlandish lie that is just too absurd to actually be a lie.

The kind of lie that is so over-the-top that no one would dare to utter it if it wasn't in fact the truth. That is the type of lie, according to Hitler, that will fool the great masses of people, even when the lie is so transparently thin that it couldn't possibly stand up to any kind of critical analysis by anyone actually exercising their brain rather than just blindly accepting the legitimacy of the big lie.

Well, that's nice but yet again there is no PROOF. I can make a similar claim that people who sell books and make radio programmes about the JFK lie, the 9-11 lie, the Apollo lie, etc... are all following exactly the same principle! The problem is that rational, thinking beings want to have proof supplied to them. Anyone can tell a whopper, but you need proof that they did so before treating them as such. Imagine a justice system built on the principles that Jim and others apply: they look guilty, so they must be guilty!

Edited to add: well, lets face it, the situation already exists - there is already a great example of how people can be convicted without evidence and how eager those who cry "freedom" are the first to point the finger at others, demanding their culling. I think they would be wise to read Arthur Miller's "The Crucible" and re-examine their actions.

[Dave Greer]

And finally, this is the type of TRASH that ALL conspiracy researchers have to endure while attempting to expose the Apollo fraud.

The Apollo hoax theories do have an uncanny ability to polarize opinion, and sadly some people on either side take it too far. Jarrah White's obsession with Jay Windley for example. Or SVector's personal attack on Sibrel in the opening sequences to his otherwise excellent series debuning his claims re Apollo TV fakery.

Incredibly, a hoax believer hacked my EF account and posted messages under my name saying I believed Jack White was right after all! Amazing the depths some people will stoop to to try and discredit someone who has a different opinion to them.

The point I'm making is, the kind of behaviour you're referring to isn't exactly one-sided, is it?

As for Gene Cernan's claims of how he allegedly landed the Apollo 17 LM on the Moon, it's obvious to anyone not wearing Apollogist blinders, that he completely contradicted the Apollo 11 story of how Armstrong allegedly landed the LM, while at the same time claiming that they both landed it the same way... A bold faced lie, or an inability to get their stories straight? .. Either way, it's a lie.

Well, it may be a lie, or there may be a mundane explanation. I've done some quick digging, this is what I've found so far.

When Armstrong was on his final approach, the LM was drifting to the left about 1.5 feet/second. Because of that, he didn't want to cut the engine until after touchdown. All the other missions cut their engines after contact (i.e. the probe had touched the surface), but before the landing pads themselves had touched the surface. According to Cernan, one of the reasons they cut the engine above the surface was to prevent the possibility of some kind of blow-back into the engine bell. Whether that was a consideration during Apollo 11 or not I don't know. I'll do some research and try and find out.