Evan Burton
-
Posts
4,419 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Evan Burton
-
-
Why are there three threads on the same subject?
Burton issued a challenge to Fetzer to debate the White studies.
Fetzer accepted.
Now Burton pretends that Fetzer did not accept.
Now Burton wants to debate only me.
I am too busy.
Why is he afraid to debate Fetzer alone?
Jack
That's all right Jack - I know you are too frightened to debate me. That's understandable, considering the fallacious conclusions you draw.
I'm sorry Jack - where is a post from Jim Fetzer accepting?
-
Why are there three threads on the same subject?
Burton issued a challenge to Fetzer to debate the White studies.
Fetzer accepted.
Now Burton pretends that Fetzer did not accept.
Now Burton wants to debate only me.
I am too busy.
Why is he afraid to debate Fetzer alone?
Jack
I'm sorry Jack - where is a post from Jim Fetzer accepting? I don't see one here (for participants, of which you are no longer one but I'll overlook that because you were invited to be one) nor on the discussion thread. Please reply in the discussion thread and not this one.
If Jim has accepted, then let's get to it - I'm looking forward to it!
From now on, no-one except Jim, myself and the moderators may post in this thread. That includes you Jack. All Forum members are free to discuss the debate or comment in this thread.
Jim, please start with what you consider to be your best claim for Apollo being faked.
-
Len,
That forum has nothing to do with us here. If you want to discuss it, then perhaps a thread in the appropriate board would be in order: maybe Local History?
Thanks!
-
Your motivations are not being questioned, though I think your honesty is. Craig has pointed out a discrepancy between your two posts.
-
This thread is for the debate which you are afraid to participate in, and is limited to the participants.
The other thread is for discussion about the debate, and is open to all members.
-
Well, yes it can be done... but that means dragging 9-11 and Apollo posts back into the JFK section, and I am loathe to do that.
John - I'll see what I can do.
-
I thought so.
You are afraid of an open debate, no doubt because you know your "studies" will not stand up to scrutiny.
What about Jim Fetzer? He claimed I was "faking it"; has he the integrity to debate his beliefs? Same conditions as I posted before: only participants allowed to post, etc.
-
Why do you need Jim Fetzer to defend your work?
Was he an unacknowledged co-author?
Why are you afraid to have an open, civil debate with me regarding your Apollo claims?
-
-
Did you check the other threads to see if they were there?
-
http://www.megavideo.com/?d=M95PAXTZ
Penn & Teller - CAUTION: Offensive language to some.
-
No, I want to debate YOU, but Jim Fetzer accused me of "faking it" and so I want to debate him as well. You and Jim should present SEPARATE studies, making it twice as difficult for me.
After all, if I am 'faking it' then I don't stand a chance, do I?
I have also said previously that we will be the sole participants. Anyone posting in that thread other than the participants or moderators will have their posts made invisible. I would also suggest that if a non-participant posts in the thread, they be placed on moderation for the duration of the debate.
Here is a compromise:
1. Jack posts a claim.
2. I respond to the claim.
3. Jack responds to my rebuttal.
4. I respond to Jack.
5. Jim posts a claim.
6. I respond to the claim.
7. Jim responds to my rebuttal.
8. I respond to Jim.
9. Jack posts a new claim, and the cycle begins again.
This makes my job twice as difficult since I am debating two people, and we each get two posts per claim.
That's fair and even.
-
-
Exactly. Fetzer and I refuse to engage in a pointless exercise wherein personal attacks substitute for discussion.
I have stated that I will subject myself to the strictest interpretations of civility whilst giving you and Jim a far wider range.
If you or Jim believe I am making a personal attack, etc, and the moderators agree then I will subject myself to their actions without recourse; I will waive any right of reply whatsoever. If you make a complaint to the moderators then I will not attempt to defend myself.
The only condition I make is that you and / or Jim have to actually engage in a civil debate, that you have to show why your claims are correct and why my rebuttal to those claims are wrong, to discuss the claims.
How in any way could that be considered other than a fair proposal?
-
I don't think any posts have been deleted, but would have to review the thread. It has gone on for so long I cannot say for certain what has happened. I would imagine that most missing posts have been made invisible rather than deleted. I know I rarely delete any posts; if need be I make them invisible. That allows other mods to determine if I have made the correct decision (and correct it).
-
Stephen has not had the time to do it, so I'll start.
As B.A. Copeland has said, this is too an important subject to be broken up into this and that. People ahould know that if they look in the 9-11 thread they'll find the information (pro or con) that they are looking for.
-
No problems here. After a while, I might merge it with the challenge thread if no-one minds.
-
One wonders if this thread should be open at all!
-
Jim,
What credence do you place on this claim?
-
As a person has phrased it:
So in other words, everything will go the exact same way as they've gone for years, except White now wants someone else to reply to Burton's evaluations. -
As another person has phrased it:
So in other words, everything will go the exact same way as they've gone for years, except White now wants someone else to reply to Burton's evaluations. -
So I assume you refuse to accept our terms of engagement?
Jack
I refuse to engage in a pointless exercise.
My reasons are detailed on the appropriate thread here.
I would ask / request that you post your reply on the appropriate thread, though if you prefer to post it here then please link the reply on that thread. It enables everyone to understand exactly what people have said and why they have decided on the decisions they have made.
Edited to add: I have detailed my reasons on the appropriate thread, but if members would like to see them repeated here then I have no objection.
-
You guessed right; I find the whole history so fascinating and simply love to share it.
Apparently the SIMSUPs (Simulation Supervisor) were notorious for getting into every little detail of the systems and looking for ways to exploit them. In the words of one SIMSUP:
"In order to ensure they make a safe landing on the Moon, here we have to do everything in our power to try and kill them"
You mentioned Apollo 13? It was during SIMs that they developed the procedures for the LM "lifeboat" option.
Some might remember the 1201 / 1202 programme alarms during the Apollo 11 landing. The "We're go on that Flight!" call came because people in the back rooms of Mission Control (called the SPAN - Spacecraft Analysis room) remembered that a sim had been run with this very programme alarm and the controllers had called an abort. In the debrief, the SIMSUPs told them that they could have continued the landing as long as the alarms were not continuous.
It's very conceivable that if it were not for the SIMSUPs, Apollo 11 may have been an abort and the first man to step on the Moon would have been a gap-toothed sailor named Pete Conrad.
-
All of my Apollo studies stand on their own. None have been refuted. I have nothing additional to add on any of them.
My biggest study has never even been acknowledged or challenged.
http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.htm
Jack
That is blatantly untrue.
Your claim that none of your "studies" have been refuted is untrue; I did so in this thread. The fact that you do not acknowledge your errors is the whole reason I want you to engage in a debate.
Your claim that your time / motion study has never been acknowledged or challenged is untrue: it has been challenged here and here and here and here. Indeed our own Matthew Lewis has done an extensive study of this particular claim and has pointed out the myriad of flaws in Jack's calculations.
I'll invite Matthew to post in this thread regarding that specific claim, or preferably start a new thread on the PC board regarding the claim and then place a link to it here.
I've mixed up the person who did the study. It may have been Dave Greer?
Moon Myth Disinformation
in The Apollo Moon Landings
Posted
Are you going to admit you were wrong with your "No other photos of the flag decal show this black patch" claim? There have been what... 10, 15 other examples shown to you.
And your latest claim - or should I say the same old claims recycled again and again and again, ignoring that they have been proven wrong.
That one was addressed here, but yet again I'll repeat it:
Firstly, despite being told more than four years ago, Jack has mislabeled the image on the left. It is AS17-140-21370. Let's have a look at it. (Hi-resolution available here)
(AS17-140-21370)
Notice how there are sun flares in the image, and the direction of the sun.
The other image ID is correct.
(AS17-134-20469; hi-resolution available here)
In this image, again notice the sun flare, and the direction of the sun.
The "fill" lighting is has been explained before - it's the light reflected off the astronaut's EMU suit. The EMU is white, and is designed to reflect light (to aid in cooling). This has been demonstrated in numerous Apollo images and the effect demonstrated by people in this forum.