Evan Burton
-
Posts
4,419 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Evan Burton
-
-
But seriously Bill - you interested in hearing about some of the details? If you have no interest, then that's okay - but if you'd like to hear some of the details regarding how they built this beast I'm more than happy to give you the 50c tour!
-
-
I have long complained that Jack White makes Apollo-related claims but refuses to debate those claims with those who dispute his claims. Jim Fetzer similarly refused to debate his claims, and indeed accused me of not having an in depth knowledge of Apollo.
I believe the reason is because those parties cannot openly debate their Apollo claims without revealing the flaws in their claims or their lack of understanding regarding aspects of claims.
Therefore I have started this thread with the specific purpose of asking Jack White and / or Jim Fetzer to debate me on these claims, one-on-one.
I have arranged with Antti Hynonen (and other moderators as required) to act as adjudicators in this thread. The only people that will be allowed to post in the thread will be myself, Jack White, Jim Fetzer and the Forum moderators. Any other posts by others - regardless of their content - will be made invisible. The mods will determine if any post by any of the debating parties is against the rules, etc.
I will cease all use of moderator powers in this thread, with the exception of making invisible posts by persons other than the debate participants (Burton, White, Fetzer and mods). I will not edit or otherwise action posts made by the debate participants regardless of their content. All decisions regarding the debate will be made by the mods, and their decisions shall be full and final. The mods shall NOT include me in any discussion regarding their actions. If the mods wish to ask me a question, they shall post the question openly on the thread. The mods may consult with Jack White / Jim Fetzer privately, keeping their communications with them confidential from both myself and other Forum members.
I would also ask that the mods apply the Forum rules strictly upon myself, but allow Jack White and / or Jim Fetzer a reasonable amount of leeway in the debate.
I therefore invite Jack White and / or Jim Fetzer to present what they consider their single most compelling evidence for an 'Apollo hoax' on this thread, and I will attempt to refute it. No new 'evidence' shall be introduced unless the mods are happy that the previous issue has been properly debated or an impasse has been reached.
Will Jack or Jim participate?
-
9-11 posts have been moved to this thread.
-
I wasn't sure whether the USA actually went to the moon until I saw these photos, and now, as I can clearly see that the whole spaceship was put together with duck tape and aluminum foil, I am now certain that we went there, as American ingunity always prevails over all adversity.
BK
It's actually quite interesting (at least to me) how and why they used those materials on the LM.
Interested in hearing about it?
-
Well?
You asked for people to refute your claim, and we have. You have been proven wrong on several counts (no other images, etc). Yet you don't try to defend your claim, show why you believe we are wrong nor withdraw your erroneous claim. That's why all your Apollo claims are nothing but a joke.
Still, that is the modus operandi that we have come to expect from you: make claims, ignore evidence.
Saepe stilum vertas
-
-
BTW - I think the LIBERTY posts should also be moved, not being related to JFK. Please make your thoughts known on this thread, please.
Cheers!
-
Okay, we'll be separating the 9-11 related posts into a separate thread on the Political Conspiracies sub-forum. We'll try to make sure that only 9-11 specific posts get moved; if there is a relationship to JFK (despite their being 9-11 content) we'll leave it here. If people believe a post should be moved, then please use the 'Report Post' function and we'll consider it.
-
Thank you Glenn - You made my morning.
I have deleted earlier comments I made in response to a post by Mr. Andrews. I completely misinterpreted his post. It was stupid and bloody-minded on my part, and I am thoroughly ashamed. I sincerely apologize to Mr. Andrews.
Takes a big man to apologise, Ray. Good on you.
-
IF ONLY .... Lone Nutters had a just a semblance of honesty...
Bernie - please. Take his arguments apart but do not bring honesty into it - even if it is just a joke. Thanks.
-
No idea. Hopefully IPS can tell John what happened.
-
Greg, I do take it as an accusation. Just so everyone is totally clear:
I did nothing. I didn't 'break' anything, I didn't fix anything. If it is a glitch, then it's a glitch.
I suffer from them myself: the 'instant notification', telling me that someone has sent me a message, can take 48 hours to appear. Go figure.
-
I'm guessing that they are subscribed threads?
I don't subscribe to any myself, nor do I use the 'new content' feature.
-
It is Burton, Lamson and Colby that are always out of line with personal attacks. They all came here to attack my Apollo
moon hoax studies, from a vicious website called BadAstronomy.
I can remember when Burton's signature line on all his postings was LITTLE WHITE LIES...implying all my postings were lies.
All he has done ever since is harass me. There were the long episodes after he was made moderator where he repeatedly
put me on moderation for using the word CRAP.
I have a long memory. Some here do not.
Jack
To "attack" your studies? So anybody who disagrees with your theories is automatically attacking you? I guess I'm not surprised you view it like this, considering the Clavius Web site (http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/) has authoritatively refuted every single point that Moon hoax theorists like yourself believe is true.
Name a single one of my FAKE APOLLO MOON PHOTO studies which has been refuted. Here, try refuting this one:
It's been done a couple of times, but you seem to lack the ability to look where people point.... though it is typical of your "claims". You just ignore whatever evidence refutes your "studies". I think studies is an unfair name to use, for no study has gone into them. 'Joke' would be more appropriate, since that is what they are.
You were told of the answer here, again here, and again here in 2006. Since you aren't apparently able to follow a link, I'll also repeat it in this thread... before moving all the Apollo related posts to the appropriate thread on the PC board.
************
This is a good example of why you should check things for yourself, and not take anyones sayso on things. Not Jack. Not me. Check for yourself.
If you do, you discover a couple of things.
Firstly, the visor reflection. Look at the high resolution version of AS17-134-20482.
This is what you'll see:
AS17-134-20482 (high resolution, cropped, annotated)
It's the reflection of the lunar surface. You can see the LM shadow clearly.
Now, Jack's other claim:
NO OTHER PHOTOS OF THE FLAG DECAL SHOW THIS BLACK PATCH
AS17-134-20488
You can see the 'black patch'. It's a piece of the black material that forms the covering on some sections of the LM. This section is loose and is hanging down.
OH! And look! A reflection of an astronaut in the visor! That has to be proof it's a fake, right, because "there is nothing in the photo to create such a reflection"
AS17-140-21370
Another example of the "black patch". You can see it's hanging over the top right corner of the US flag decal.
-
Mr. Simkin has determined that JACK WHITE HAS A BAD REPUTATION and says so on my "profile".
This is a violation of forum rules that no ad hominem attacks be made on members. This should
be removed immediately!
Jack
I have never rated any member's posts. I did not even know about the feature. Evan, do you know if it is possible to disable the rating system?
Thank you, John!
It is one of Evan's tools of hate.
Jack
That's way out of line, Jack.
-
Mr. Simkin has determined that JACK WHITE HAS A BAD REPUTATION and says so on my "profile".
This is a violation of forum rules that no ad hominem attacks be made on members. This should
be removed immediately!
Jack
I have never rated any member's posts. I did not even know about the feature. Evan, do you know if it is possible to disable the rating system?
I don't know but will look. If it is possible, I'll turn it off.
-
You can give it as much or as little importance as you care to.
I pay no attention to it, myself.
-
BTW - you cannot rate your own posts.
It's what other members think of your posts.
-
It's not a personal attack, Jack. It's how others rate your posts.
-
Jack, that's other people rating your posts. Have a look at the bottom right hand corner of other people's posts. You'll see there is a + and a - button. If you think the post is good, then you can choose to rate it by giving it a +. If you disagree with the post, you can rate it with the - button. You can rate a post only once, and with only + or - 1. You can give up to 5 positive and 5 negative ratings per day. After you rate a post, you can see the total positive or negative rating, based on how members have rated that post.
As people rate your posts, you develop a 'reputation'. If most people rate your posts positively then you'll get a 'positive reputation', etc.
-
Also, I'll leave these posts here for a few hours, perhaps overnight, then move them to the appropriate Apollo thread on the PC sub-forum.
-
BTW Professor, I tend to agree it would be a waste of time since I would only further expose your ignorance in the details of the Apollo claims which you champion so.... passionately?
-
Evan,
You have been abusing your position as moderator to remove posts of mine, even after I have explained
why I was posting them there. Your hostility toward me is palpable. Life is too short for me to spend
it dealing with irrational fanatics like you. You do not understand JFK, you do not understand 9/11,
and you damn sure do not understand the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax. It would be an utter waste of time.
Jim
BTW - I thought the Professor would chicken out of trying to actually argue his position in a thread, instead he relies on his repost cut & pastes as he has previously been doing.
If his Apollo position is that strong, surely he can easily debate and defeat someone who he considers lacking in Apollo knowledge.
On the other hand, if the Prof is faking.....
The posts have been MOVED, not removed. Anyone who wishes to view them can see them here.
If you are so confident I know nothing about Apollo, why don't you try and defend the claims you so regularly parrot? Are you afraid to debate me on Apollo?
(Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread
in The Apollo Moon Landings
Posted
In this thread Jack said:
I can agree to most of the conditions, such as civility and limiting the discussion (which I already stated in the first post) but I have already debunked all your photo claims. What is the point of debating the validity of your claims if you won't respond to criticism regarding your claims, showing where they are wrong?
Jim Fetzer has posted his evidence in this thread but refuses to discuss all the errors I have pointed out in them. He also accused me of faking my expertise:
Now this was despite me telling him that I HAVE studied them all and I responded to all the claims, showing why they are baseless or wrong. If I am am faking it, why doesn't he show me up, exposing me?
Why is it that I have to try and get these two people to engage in a civil debate regarding their claims? Surely they should be eager to prove how correct they are?
Let's turn this around.
For the sake of this discussion, let's say I am what I believe you refer to as a Lone Nut person. I post on the JFK forum that it's obvious to anyone who has studied the case that Lee Harvey Oswald was responsible for the JFK assassination, and I point to both the Warren Commission and the book by Gerald Posner as supporting my position.
Naturally, there would be several people here who would passionately object and point out all the flaws, point out why I was wrong in my assertions.
I say they obviously haven't looked closely at the evidence, or are possibly some type of agitators who are here to discredit the fine people in the FBI, USSS, CIA, etc. I state that I will not discuss my findings with such people, since it would be an obvious waste of time.
Wouldn't those people who had valid concerns about my claims feel I was being evasive, not trying to support my claims?