Evan Burton Posted August 27, 2010 Author Share Posted August 27, 2010 (edited) My biography is on the Forum, and the link at the bottom of the post. You have no need to ask my personal information, since you should be addressing what I say and not who I am.... but because I still want to try and get this debate underway without further obfuscation: Officer in the Royal Australian Navy, coming up to 20 years of service. Graduate of Air Traffic Controller course and Observers course (navigator). Advanced diploma of applied science (aviation). Also 4 years as electronic mission co-ordinator on Coastwatch surveillance flights. Private pilot. Types acting as crewmember: HS748, Sea King Mk50/50A, BN-2B Islander, AC-500S AeroCommander, Reims F-406, DHC8 Dash 8. About 3500 hours experience. Served in 816 and 817 SQNs, HMA Ships SWAN, IPSWICH, BETANO, currently Staff Officer Operational Publications, and Fleet Air Arm Manager for Patriot Excalibur. Edited August 27, 2010 by Evan Burton added get to first paragraph, corrected spelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted August 27, 2010 Author Share Posted August 27, 2010 I find that offensive and demand an apology. I keep track of what you say on this Forum because you have made baseless accusations on many occasions. The picture above was brought to my attention by a person on another forum. I demand that Jack White publicly withdraw that vicious personal attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antti Hynonen Posted August 27, 2010 Share Posted August 27, 2010 Jack, reviewing your old posts and following what you have said/claimed in the past is a normal way to conduct research and participate on this forum. By doing this, another member is not "stalking you". I agree an apology is in place! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted August 27, 2010 Author Share Posted August 27, 2010 Gary, If permitted I would like to address the points raised in this post from Jim and also his subsequent post. If you disagree I will understand; I simply want to refute some of the things Jim has said. It may distract from the thread but I would bring to your attention that Jim has raised them, not I. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted August 27, 2010 Share Posted August 27, 2010 (edited) Let's see: What part of my latest post did you not understand? Everyone knows there have been conflicts in getting us to this point, so let's proceed with the first, "Jack's Apollo Photograph Studies: Part 1: The Moon Rover Photographs", where Jack posts, Evan comments, I respond, he replies, and I close. Gary, with your permission, Jack can post the five studies of the moon rover photographs I specified. But I must confess that I do not understand what John Dolva is doing posting on this thread. It is my recommendation that his posts be deleted and the posting be restricted to Jack, Evan and me. Thanks. I agree with his sentiment: LET'S GET ON WITH IT! Gary, If permitted I would like to address the points raised in this post from Jim and also his subsequent post. If you disagree I will understand; I simply want to refute some of the things Jim has said. It may distract from the thread but I would bring to your attention that Jim has raised them, not I. Thank you. Edited August 27, 2010 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 27, 2010 Share Posted August 27, 2010 Jim...I remind all that I HAVE ALREADY POSTED THE LRV STUDIES AND BURTON MOVED THEM. Let him move them back, instead of me reposting them. Jack Let's see: What part of my latest post did you not understand? Everyone knows there have been conflicts in getting us to this point, so let's proceed with the first, "Jack's Apollo Photograph Studies: Part 1: The Moon Rover Photographs", where Jack posts, Evan comments, I respond, he replies, and I close. Gary, with your permission, Jack can post the five studies of the moon rover photographs I specified. But I must confess that I do not understand what John Dolva is doing posting on this thread. It is my recommendation that his posts be deleted and the posting be restricted to Jack, Evan and me. Thanks. I agree with his sentiment: LET'S GET ON WITH IT! Gary, If permitted I would like to address the points raised in this post from Jim and also his subsequent post. If you disagree I will understand; I simply want to refute some of the things Jim has said. It may distract from the thread but I would bring to your attention that Jim has raised them, not I. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 27, 2010 Share Posted August 27, 2010 (edited) Burton became a member of the Simkin forum SPECIFICALLY TO DEBUNK STUDIES BY JACK WHITE. He admits that he came here from a website named BAD ASTRONOMY* where participants were discussing my studies posted here. His coming here specifically to confront me CONSTITUTES STALKING as I understand it. If I go to another forum to post my studies, he will follow me there. That is stalking. Before he became a moderator, in his signature line of all posting was the phrase LITTLE WHITE LIES. That is the purpose of his stalking me...to claim I am lying in all of my studies. *Lamson came here from the BadAss website at the same time. Jack (Stalking can be defined as a pattern of repeated and unwanted attention, harassment, contact, or any other course of conduct directed at a specific person) Edited August 27, 2010 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted August 27, 2010 Author Share Posted August 27, 2010 (edited) Jim, Pick the image you wish to discuss and let's start. ONE image at a time, please. Thank you. Edited August 27, 2010 by Evan Burton Added "One image..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted August 27, 2010 Author Share Posted August 27, 2010 BTW Gary - as soon as Jim posts his first image, I should be moved to the members group and placed on post moderation. Cheers, Evan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted August 28, 2010 Share Posted August 28, 2010 I posted here because others started doing so. Of course, delete my posts, or move them, or whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 28, 2010 Share Posted August 28, 2010 Jim, Pick the image you wish to discuss and let's start. ONE image at a time, please. Thank you. Why one image at at time? I posted several images needed to discuss the trackless moon rovers, to show that it was not a single photo which showed it. In fact, I have more than 15, but chose only several which demonstrate this clearly. Then you removed all of the studies. Why should YOU be able to set the rules in your favor? Under discussion are my studies which Jim is going to defend. HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO POST WHICHEVER STUDIES HE WANTS TO DISCUSS, NOT JUST ONE! Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted August 28, 2010 Share Posted August 28, 2010 This is a nice illustration that Burton is being evasive. The pattern displayed by the photos is what is most important. The tactic he is employing is called "divide and conquer", where you try to separate out the elements of a proof and address each of them as "inconclusive" individually, when "collectively" they prove the point. PLUS this would be ridiculous from the point of view of efficiency, since, in the case of the moon rover photos, where there are five, instead of having ONE exchange, we would have to have FIVE! This is such a dumb idea, it has to have been motivated by an attempt to gain rhetorical advantage and has to be rejected. Jim, Pick the image you wish to discuss and let's start. ONE image at a time, please. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted August 28, 2010 Share Posted August 28, 2010 (edited) I AM RESTORING THIS POST TODAY, 3 SEPTEMBER 2010. An even better example of Burton's abuse of his position as both MODERATOR and PARTICIPANT is that he had covertly deleted my most important post--originally #7 in this thread--in which I out- lined the resources that I planned to build upon in the course of this exchange. Today, when I went to take a look, I discovered it had been DELETED. Fortunately, I had saved that page in my files, so I am able to restore it. I say to Evan Burton, DO NOT DELETE MY POSTS! Posted 16 August 2010 - 08:37 PM The references I cited that Burton claims to have refuted--which I was then and remain quite sure he has never even studied, at least for the most part--are the following ten resources. I believe that any of them offers sufficient reason to doubt that we actually went to the Moon and that collectively they demonstrate it was virtually impossible to do so. I include that NASA has "inadvertently" taped over the Moon landing tapes, no doubt because, with today's digital technology, NASA can make far better fakes than it could at the time. I especially like the film, "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?", which offers dozens of good reasons for doubting that it could have been done. I am therefore perplexed by Evan Burton's insistence on "debating" this issue. I gather he wants to "show his stuff". But insofar as the matter has been settled, I am having a hard time mustering up any enthusiasm for this exchange. Jack, however, has done exceptional work on the Apollo photographs, which this thread can showcase. So I will consult with Jack and pick some of his most interesting and informative studies to initiate this exchange. It may be slow going, because it is not my highest priority. But with Jack's assistance and advice, we can start with the first link I offer below. If Evan can cope with Jack's studies, we can move from there in the order I have given. 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. Anyone who wants to understand how easily the moon landings could have been faked--and actually were, if these studies are well-founded--should watch the brilliant film, "Capricorn I". If you grasp the concept, you will appreciate how much more likely it is that these landings were faked than that they really occurred. New Work on Moon Photographs http://www.aulis.com...ies_index1.html Russians letting the cat out of the bag http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/15-05-2003/2809-moon-0/# Moon Movie http://moonmovie.com/ Top Ten Reasons Man Did Not go to the Moon http://www.moonmovie...vie/default.asp Did Stanley Kubrick fake the Moon Landings? http://www.jayweidne...KubrickIIa.html Conspiracy Theory Did we land on the moon? NASA erased moon footage http://uk.reuters.co...E56F72920090716 INTERVIEWS ON "The Real Deal": http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com Wednesday, August 12, 2009 Bart Sibrel "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" Friday, August 28, 2009 Rich DellaRosa The Apollo Moon Landing Hoax, Part I Friday, September 4, 2009 Rich DellaRosa The Apollo Moon Landing Hoax, Part II PLUS I add one more for good measure: Gerhard Wisnewski, ONE SMALL STEP: The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth From Space (2007) Edited September 23, 2010 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted August 28, 2010 Author Share Posted August 28, 2010 (edited) *sigh* Whatever. Just get on with it, please. ETA: If there are multiple images, I'll need to be allowed one post per image in some cases, to show the reasons each claim is wrong. Sometimes they can be dealt with as a group but sometimes each will need to be addressed seperately. I don't want to leave a loophole where people claim "...but you didn't show why they were all wrong..." Edited August 28, 2010 by Evan Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted August 30, 2010 Author Share Posted August 30, 2010 While waiting for Jim to post his first 'proof', I might ask him to prove the following statement: It's rather on a part with NASA having spent vast sums of taxpayer's money to fund sites REBUTTING MOON HOAX THEORIES. Why should NASA do that? It's quite the contrary. They wanted to commission Jim Oberg (a member here) to write about the claims but it was forced to be discontinued because of taxpayer complaints that NASA was wasting time on replying to "moon hoaxers". As far as I am aware, NASA has only spent any effort (not necessarily funds) on debunking the claims: here and here or possibly this regarding the Van Allen belts . If Jim feels they have spent "...vast sums of taxpayer's money..." I'd ask him to prove such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now