Evan Burton

Gary - I do not want my previous posts on the matter of the lunar samples deleted; I'll just have to type them out again later.

With your permission, I'll move posts to the Moon Myth thread and then we can start afresh.

Is that okay?

I am happy with the rotating format as long as you agree to address points raised.

One last thing Jim - as has been pointed out numerous times, the posts were MOVED, not deleted. It's important to be accurate about these matters.

I've also had a soft spot for this very real approach:

Oh, I don't doubt her integrity but it's the code of conduct.

For instance, I hold shares in a company that makes military arms. If there were ANY situation involving this company in which I had any possible influence, I would have to declare it and recuse myself from any part in the decision making process.

Now i would not let my personal interests (small as they are) sway any decision i had to make but the APPEARANCE of bias has to be avoided.

I'm staying out of this for the moment, but I can get at least two people qualified in aerodynamics to show that Jim and Jack are wrong.

I am sure you would object if your posts were deleted; if Gary is happy I will move them to another thread or Gary can do it himself. I am happy with either.

I'd be happy with:

Jack posts claim

I respond

Jim addresses my reply

I respond to Jim last post

Jim makes final comments

Next image.

Jim gets last word, we each make 2 posts regarding the image. It is still important, though, that Jim addresses my rebuttal to the claim, and I address the points Jim raises in his rebuttal. We must stay on topic. Gary will decide if a participant is not adressing claims or going off topic.

I'm a Liberal voter but also dislike Turnbull, and agree with you there John.

What about the GG? Should she recuse herself? I think she has to; even the appearance of bias - which will certainly be made by one side or the other - compells her to withdraw.

The question is then: who decides? The Queen on the advice of the PM?

I've already said I want a meaningful debate (see below). I'd like you to address my rebuttals, not ignore them. If you can agree to that, then I'm agreeable.

I also point out YOU raised the moon rock issue, not I*. I believe I have sufficiently demonstrated that you can't explain all the factors which prove the samples were collected by manned lunar exploration, so I am happy to move onto your next issue. If Jack is going to post images on your behalf, let's do this properly:

- One image at a time, please.

- Image ID numbers so people can independently look at the images

- Jack is not to comment, as he is not a participant.

Gary,

That is a return to the original format Jack wanted and I rejected because it is pointless; it is not a debate. Let me foretell what will happen if I were to agree to that format:

Jack: Study #1.

Jim: Good work, Jack - I agree.

Me: But what about this, the fact that your second point is impossible, or that you have confused A with B?

Jack: Study #2.

Me: This is misidentified as shown here, and here is a reference to show why claim 2 is totally inaccurate.

Jim: Evan is wrong; Jack is right.

Jack: Study #3.

etc

etc

What's the point? Where is the debate? I am quite happy with civility - indeed it should be demanded - but what of presenting evidence, having that evidence questioned and scrutinised, Jim questioning me on my evidence, me questioning him on his?

This should be a debate where all the interested parties (and there are quite a few - have a look at the number of page views) can see all the evidence, listen to the debate, see the questions asked, etc. In order for them to decide who is right, they need to be able to see the robustness of each side's assertions and how they stand up to close examination.

I have great confidence in my assertions, am sure of their validity, and invite others to test me on them, to vigorously probe the evidence and see if it can withstand the harsh light of examination.

Shouldn't my debate opponent be willing to do the same? Wouldn't they WANT to show how strong their claims are?

THAT is what a debate is all about. What Jack proposes is a sideshow.

* - The quote from where Jim raised the issue:

The strongest reason most Americans believe that we went to the

moon is the existence of "moon rocks". As "Moon Movie" explains,

Wernher von Brauhn himself led an expedition to the Antarctic to

collect rocks dislodged from its surface by small astroids, which

were caught in Earth's gravitational field and landed on its surface.

I guess i keep track of what you say because I find you are not always reliable when it comes to recalling accurately what you said or did.

So when you made your "studies" you held one opinion then a couple of days ago you changed your mind, then today you changed your mind again?

It is a great opportunity - but methinks the powers-that-be won't risk it. A shame.

John - what do you think: with such a close call, should we go back to the polls? Do you think people would vote differently?

Not quite, Jack - you have previously claimed that the landings were faked.

Well? I'm still up for a debate. A real debate, and with the restrictions placed on me as I have said.

Is Jim willing to defend his views?

Still waiting - and the first thing I'll ask is for Jim to explain the following:

- Quantity in excess of either recovered here on Earth or remotely recovered. In three missions, the then-USSR obtained a little over 300 grams of lunar regolith. The Apollo missions returned 382 kilograms of samples. The USA and the USSR exchanged samples with themselves and other countries, ensuring there was 'independent' examination.

- Core samples different than could be obtained by robotic means. The first two USSR missions only got a few hundred grams of regolith in a spherical container. Luna 24 got back a non-rigid sample tube of about 1 cm diameter, composed of regolith. The Apollo missions had 2cm and 4 cm diameter rigid core samples, something that CANNOT be replicated by robotic means today.

- Particular chemical makeup specific to lunar origin. Specific makeup that cannot be replicated don Earth, due to the specific microgravity environment for the formation of the various samples.

- Zap pits indicative of lunar origin without atmospheric re-entry. No-one has yet found a way to 're-create' the impacts from micro-meteoroids and cosmic rays.

If I am such a 'fake', if I have nothing to support my views, why is Jim so reluctant to debate me in open forum?

Seems it is not the fictional chemtrails but a mite:

It is the migrant we cannot live without. The wild European honey bee helps to create one in every three mouthfuls we eat by pollinating plants, but some of our favourite foods are at risk because of a bee-killing mite which is ''more than likely'' to reach Australia, a new report says.

http://www.smh.com.a...0817-128ls.html

Varroa mites have killed millions of honeybees across the world. Dr Stephen Martin , a University of Sheffield expert on the varroa mite, spoke to BBC Radio Sheffield in August 2010.

http://news.bbc.co.u...000/8886387.stm

http://en.wikipedia....llapse_disorder

You know, I think the worst mistake Labor made during this campaign is sacking Rudd.

It is so undecided!

I think we can say one thing: no matter which party comes out as the winner, about half the country will be unhappy with the result.

This is going to be a very interesting time in Australian politics!

You want a republic? I haven't seen the need, myself, though I can't say I have really studied the issues. I'm not a monarchist but rather happy with the status quo. Still, if the majority want it I can't say I'm opposed to the idea.

It's looking like a hung parliament, with crucial seats going to be decided by postal votes.

That's going to be interesting, because we don't know if they will reflect the pattern we see now, or the pattern of the last few weeks before the election.

This election could be decided by the Governor-General!

Personally, I hope the Coalition get across the line. I dislike Abbott but won't risk Labor on things like Defence. If Labor get back in, we'll be having our internet censored.

I believe you are right John.

I find it perplexing that someone like Jack, who is so passionate about this and claims the landings were fake, is not willing to defend his views.

Well? I'm still up for a debate. A real debate, and with the restrictions placed on me as I have said.

Is Jim willing to defend his views?

Also to note we have our youngest elected representative: just 20 years of age.

It will be VERY interesting. Labor will have to note the swings against them.

I absolutely loved the way one of the key independents said in an interview - conducted by phone because they can't get half decent broadband - that communications was going to be a prime subject with him! Yeah!

I was surprised to see how many informal votes there were: 5.7%!

Thanks for the link John - I'm also looking at the AEC's virtual tally rook:

http://vtr.aec.gov.au/