Evan Burton

Mike Kelly has Eden-Monaro, but the bell-weather electorate may not be right this time. Greens are winning big time as a lot of voters get sick of the major parties. They're even saying it could be down to postal votes!

Well, as predicted, it's going to be close.

The ABC is saying that it looks as though the Libs will gain about 17 seats - the magic number - but it is really still too early to tell. South Australia polls have closed but WA is still open for about 45 minutes.

Going to be a long night!

Anyone familiar with approach plates will appreciate this:

After all, let's face it: 382 kilograms of lunar samples returned to Earth over 6 missions. The individual mission counts were:

Apollo 11 - 22 kg

Apollo 12 - 34 kg

Apollo 14 - 43 kg

Apollo 15 - 77 kg

Apollo 16 - 95 kg

Apollo 17 - 111 kg

Can Jim or Jack show that any robotic probes were capable of returning these quantities of lunar samples? Can they show that there was any means of obtaining them except for manned exploration?

[Don Jeffries and John Geraghty are also moderators who are "conspiracy theorists". In fact, it seems that the only moderator who is not a conspiracy theorist is Evan Burton. Not much of a conspiracy is it?

My God! You mean I'm surrounded by nutters? Get me out of here!

(Very TIC!)

John B's opening post in the thread Patriot Paranoia, regarding the Top 10 Conspiracies, merged into this thread of the same subject.

And lastly, if Jim feels that I cannot be trusted then I offer the following:

For the duration of the debate I be placed into the ordinary members group, having no moderator powers, and be placed on post moderation. That way my posts must be reviewed by Gary BEFORE they are posted. It is impossible for me to break the agreement of civility, impossible for me to edit, move, delete, etc.

Let me give another example: both Jack and Jim believe that the events of 9-11 were not as been generally published, that there is involvement by persons or forces not yet acknowledged (generally believed to be either a government or some type of influential, powerful cabal). Let's say they wanted me to debate 9-11. What sort of debate would be the following?

Me: The events of 9-11 were carried out by Islamic terrorists.

Jack: Dr Jones shows evidence of thermite being used at the WTC.

Me: The 9-11 Commission Report says you're wrong.

Jim: Where? What evidence does it show to explain the trace elements?

Me: The 9-11 Commission Report says you're wrong.

etc

(edited to add - this is an illustration; it is not an invitation to derail the thread with 9-11 discussion)

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.

PM sent to Gary, to alert him to the need for a moderator:

Gary, could you please see the debate thread and decide if I am guilty of any of the charges Jim Fetzer has laid against me? Thank you.

Jack White images moved from the debate thread to the comments thread.

Images were moved from the debate thread as Jack White had declined being a participant and therefore was no longer allowed to post in the debate thread.

BTW, while we are waiting for Gary's adjudication:

Jim,

Can you point out where I agreed to YOUR terms? I specifically rejected them. I agreed to the terms that I posted: civility, moderated but a debate.

Gary,

Are any of Jim's charges valid? I submit myself to your adjudication.

So you are backing out?

Why aren't you addressing my rebuttal Jim? They are quite clear, relate to issues YOU raised (not Jack) and therefore should be able to defend:

- Quantity in excess of either recovered here on Earth or remotely recovered.

- Core samples deeper than could be obtained by robotic means.

- Particular chemical makeup specific to lunar origin.

- Zap pits indicative of lunar origin without atmospheric re-entry.

These cannot be faked. We have trained and accredited geologists all verifying this (source).

Where are your trained and accredited geologists disputing this?

That's up to Jack to provide, John, but I am happy to provide it if Jack doesn't.

BTW, I think Jack should show a little respect to the Forum owner. If he want's to refer to John Simkin, then he should refer to him as John S, John Simkin, etc. Referring to John constantly as "Simkin" is disrespectful.

Then ask Burton to reinstate the studies and we will see Burton refute them. Why is he afraid

to discuss the trackless rover photos?

They were never deleted. They are on this very thread.

Gary,

Perhaps I should not have acted in the thread, but Jack was already given the opportunity to participate and he declined. The agreement was already that one image would be discussed; Jack spammed the thread multiple images, all available at either Aulis or in their original format at The Project Apollo Archive.

The thread should be kept clear so that members can clearly follow the debate without distractions, follow ONE issue at a time, decide for themselves as to the validity of the claim, then move onto the next contentious issue rather than get a firehose of information which they have to try and decipher.

Comments from non-participants - including Jack - can be on a single thread.

And Jack should use the complaints thread, when he has a complaint, like everyone else does.

Lastly, despite my wanting to debate Jim, we have returned to all but the original format: Jack posts his image, I show why it is wrong, and Jim comments. Once again Jack does not have to defend his own work. If that is going to be the case, at least Jim should have to address my rebuttals.

Exploring Antarctica (1967)

Intrigued by exploration in space and on Earth, Dr. Von Braun

participated in an expedition to Antarctica. This photo was made

on or about January 7, 1967. To view the photograph, go to:

http://history.msfc....o/late-60s.html

A moon landing is the arrival of a spacecraft on the surface of the

Moon. This includes both manned and unmanned (robotic) missions.

The first human-made object to reach the surface of the Moon was

the Soviet Union's Luna 2 mission on September 13, 1959.[3] The

United States's Apollo 11 was the first manned mission to land on

the Moon on July 20, 1969.[4]

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Moon_landing

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.

As was already mentioned in this post, geologists (or is it selenologists?) can tell the difference. Let's look over the differences:

. . .

So Jim - this is all from qualified geologists around the world, from different countries. There are NO qualified geologists who say the samples are faked. They all agree they cannot be faked.

Are you a geologist Jim? To the best of my knowledge you are not, so I have to ask where are your geologists who disagree with what the rest of the world is saying? I'm pretty sure there are none, so you'd have to agree that all the evidence points to the samples being genuine and there is no evidence for them being faked or having been collected by Von Braun.

[/color]

Jim,

You haven't addressed the points raised:

- Quantity in excess of either recovered here on Earth or remotely recovered.

- Core samples deeper than could be obtained by robotic means.

- Particular chemical makeup specific to lunar origin.

- Zap pits indicative of lunar origin without atmospheric re-entry.

These cannot be faked. We have trained and accredited geologists all verifying this (source).

Where are your trained and accredited geologists disputing this?

I am sorry, Evan. Jack is good at posting images, I am not. This won't work if you don't allow it. Of course,

I am not surprised that you have not replied to the evidence we have posted but have deleted it!

No, they were moved off the debate thread and onto the comment thread. Nothing has been deleted.

For the THIRD time, my source was quoted in this post.

http://www.meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm

The author is Dr Randy L. Korotev, from the Dept of Earth & Planetary Sciences, Washington University, St Louis.

Dr. Randy Korotev is a lunar geochemist. He has studied lunar samples and their chemical compositions since 1969 when the Apollo 11 astronauts collected the first lunar samples on the Moon and brought them to Earth (Haskin et al., 1970). He received both his B.S. (1971) and Ph.D. (1976) degrees in chemistry from the University of Wisconsin - Madison. Since 1979 he has been at Washington University in Saint Louis, where he is a research professor. He runs a laboratory for instrumental neutron activation analysis, a technique that can determine the concentrations of 30 or more chemical elements in small samples without destroying the samples. He studied the first lunar meteorite to be recognized, ALHA 81005 (Korotev et al., 1983), and has studied most of the subsequently found lunar meteorites. He thinks that he has seen more lunar meteorites than anyone else. He was a member of the 1988-89 ANSMET team, which collected more than 870 meteorites from the Lewis Cliff and MacAlpine Hills areas of Antarctica, including lunar meteorite MAC88104/5 and martian meteorite LEW 88516. He has served on the Curation and Planning Team for Extraterrestrial Materials (CAPTEM, a NASA advisory group), the Meteorite Working Group (MWG, an NSF-NASA advisory group), and is an associate editor of the journals Meteoritics & Planetary Science and Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. He is a member and fellow of The Meteoritical Society. He’s authored and co-authored a number of scientific papers about the Moon, lunar meteorites, earthworms, aluminum foil, coal flyash, birds, and some other things.

I agree with Craig - why can't Jim link to the images on Aulis? I would be surprised if he didn't have the skills to find an image and link to it. If he is incapable of doing that, then I accept that Jack can post an image - ONE AT A TIME - for us to debate. When that has been discussed, then another can be posted.

And Jack - your images were NOT deleted. Another "inaccuracy" by you. They were moved off the debate thread and placed on the discussion thread where everyone can see.

John,

If Jack provides the image ID number, you can see standard and hi-res versions of the images from The Project Apollo Archive Image Gallery. You can also read the context of the image by finding out when it was taken etc, through the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal.

As you notice, Jack sometimes fails to provide the image ID number and often crops the images. You need to look, for yourself, at the hi-res images and ensure you see ALL the image, not just what Jack has shown you.

I can tell you the ID numbers for the ones he has shown, as he has posted these previously and we have shown them wrong previously. If you want the ID number, just ask but you may prefer to browse and try to identify the image yourself.

Evan

He's posted in the thread Jack. Another one of your mysterious claims that fail to be correct, I guess.

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.

As was already mentioned in this post, geologists (or is it selenologists?) can tell the difference. Let's look over the differences:

1. Composition. The composition of lunar samples is different to that found on Earth, due to the method of formation, microgravity, etc. They are distinctly different and cannot be re-created here on Earth:

Lunar rocks and soil contain gases (hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon) derived from the solar wind with isotope ratios different than Earth forms of the same gases. They contain crystal damage from cosmic rays. Lunar igneous rocks have crystallization ages, determined by techniques involving radioisotopes, that are older than any known Earth rocks. (Anyone who figures out how to fake that is worthy of a Nobel Prize.) It was easier and cheaper to go to the Moon and bring back some rocks then it would have been to create all these fascinating features on Earth.

Now of course, people who believe in the Moon hoax will protest and say that the rocks found by Werner Von Braun are from the Moon and therefore will match lunar composition. That's correct, but the next point is why we can tell the difference.

2. Zap pits. Most samples were simply picked up on the lunar surface. They have a distinct feature that CANNOT be re-created here on Earth: zap pits. Zap pits are microscopic depressions on the surface of surface samples, caused by bombardment from long term exposure to cosmic rays and micro-meteoroids. This distinctive feature is 'burnt off' when the meteorite has passed through the Earth's atmosphere. You've seen the effect of spacecraft re-entering the atmosphere, you may have even seen a meteor and the fiery trail it leaves as it rushes through the atmosphere. This process removes all traces of zap pits. So we know the difference between a sample that has been found on Earth and a sample collected on the lunar surface.

3. Sample quantity and types. Firstly we have the sheer volume of lunar samples returned by Apollo: 2415 samples weighing 382 kg. Perhaps they could have been gathered remotely? We know the USSR had unmanned probes that gathered samples. They did, but they only returned a total of 0.32 kg. That's right - 0.32 kg, less that one thousandth of the Apollo total! Perhaps they were samples found here on Earth (ignoring the fact that we can tell the difference because of zap pits). Again, no - only about 120 samples weighing around a total of 48 kg have ever been found. If that wasn't convincing enough, the Soviet landers only returned lunar regolith samples, soil-like and no large rocky samples like Apollo. Additionally, Apollo also returned deep core sample tubes from drilling into the lunar surface... far deeper than was possible by the remote landers of the day.

So Jim - this is all from qualified geologists around the world, from different countries. There are NO qualified geologists who say the samples are faked. They all agree they cannot be faked.

Are you a geologist Jim? To the best of my knowledge you are not, so I have to ask where are your geologists who disagree with what the rest of the world is saying? I'm pretty sure there are none, so you'd have to agree that all the evidence points to the samples being genuine and there is no evidence for them being faked or having been collected by Von Braun.