(Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread

[Jack White]

Excuse me, but the threat to put me and others discussing Apollo on moderation has had

a chilling effect on this "debate". I again second Jim's request that Burton not be allowed

to moderate those participating in this thread.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

You never answered this, Jim.

Did you contact the photographer and ask for permission?

If so, what was the result?

Thank you.

So you contacted the photographer and asked him for permission to use the image?

[Evan Burton]

Are you ready to continue, Jim?

And still never got an answer for the below.

You never answered this, Jim.

Did you contact the photographer and ask for permission?

If so, what was the result?

Thank you.

So you contacted the photographer and asked him for permission to use the image?

[Evan Burton]

Come on Jim - did you take the simple, obvious and correct step of asking the photographer to use their image? Why are you avoiding this question?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Because it doesn't matter. There is no copyright issue here, as I have previously explained. I found the image on-line and was simply commenting on it. There is no commercial aspect to any of this. You are creating yet one more distraction from dealing with the evidence, which you have not been doing from scratch. I am going to ask Jack to post five or six graphics for me, which I will discuss in explaining my position about this thread and your conduct here, which should make it clear how I assess this "debate".

Come on Jim - did you take the simple, obvious and correct step of asking the photographer to use their image? Why are you avoiding this question?

Edited October 24, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

Because it doesn't matter. There is no copyright issue here, as I have previously explained. I found the image on-line and was simply commenting on it. There is no commercial aspect to any of this. You are creating yet one more distraction from dealing with the evidence, which you have not been doing from scratch. I am going to ask Jack to post five or six graphics for me, which I will discuss in explaining my position about this thread and your conduct here, which should make it clear how I assess this "debate".

Come on Jim - did you take the simple, obvious and correct step of asking the photographer to use their image? Why are you avoiding this question?

Here are COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS I compiled for another use. They apply to the US. I do not know about other countries laws.

[Evan Burton]

It's not a debate - it's a massacre. You are just parroting Jack's claims without even understanding them, since you have little to no knowledge of the subject matter, and Jack's claim (since he refused to stand up for his own work) were demolished with ease.

Jim, you are just pulling your normal routine: bluster and accuse others, avoiding at all times actually getting into a solid debate. That image was a great example. Jack uses an image without permission, and the photographer tells us that you don't have permission to use it. Apart from the fact Jack couldn't tell the difference between quad bike tracks on a beach and LRV tracks on the lunar surface, all you had to do was contact the photographer and ask permission to use it. Your arrogance wouldn't permit you to stoop so low as to actually ask someone, though, would it? Instead more bluster, more complaints, no substance.

Go away Jim - you are a waste of my time.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

It has been obvious for some time that wasting time -- my time, in particular -- has been the objective of this whole exercise. You are so shameless that you don't even pretend to be impartial and objective by playing the joint role of participant and moderator, where recruiting someone under your thumb to pretend to be moderating doesn't cut it. I have shown that the moon landing photos have been faked, but you -- in (what appears to me to be) your assigned role as a zealot for NASA -- simply deny my proofs. I am going to make one more post to demonstrate -- conclusively, in my judgment -- that you are not playing by the rules that define rational debates. Just stand by and, after Jack has posted the exhibits I have asked him to post, I will make my case. Publishing a lot of rubbish in response to clear and convincing proofs of chicanery on the part of NASA is not a "massacre" -- except of the rules that properly define rational debates, as I shall show.

Indeed, the mediocre quality of your reasoning is displayed by your insistence that use of the image, "Tracks of a Moon Rover", is precluded here because of copyright restrictions. Jack has placed the copyright conventions in his post, where it is apparent that my use of that image clearly falls within its "fair use" provisions. The copy was made for educational purposes. The purpose of copying was for criticism, comment, and research. The amount of copying is small in relation to the original (as one photo from a series). The copying has no impact upon the market for the original. The number of copies made is only one. The work copied is factual (of some sort, which is the question). There is no commercial context and it was copied for the public good. The copying is for discussion and criticism and represents an isolated event. Burton's position on copyright is just as ill-founded as his dispute of the proofs of moon landing photo fakery I have presented.

It's not a debate - it's a massacre. You are just parroting Jack's claims without even understanding them, since you have little to no knowledge of the subject matter, and Jack's claim (since he refused to stand up for his own work) were demolished with ease.

Jim, you are just pulling your normal routine: bluster and accuse others, avoiding at all times actually getting into a solid debate. That image was a great example. Jack uses an image without permission, and the photographer tells us that you don't have permission to use it. Apart from the fact Jack couldn't tell the difference between quad bike tracks on a beach and LRV tracks on the lunar surface, all you had to do was contact the photographer and ask permission to use it. Your arrogance wouldn't permit you to stoop so low as to actually ask someone, though, would it? Instead more bluster, more complaints, no substance.

Go away Jim - you are a waste of my time.

Edited October 25, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[David G. Healy]

It's not a debate - it's a massacre. You are just parroting Jack's claims without even understanding them, since you have little to no knowledge of the subject matter, and Jack's claim (since he refused to stand up for his own work) were demolished with ease.

Jim, you are just pulling your normal routine: bluster and accuse others, avoiding at all times actually getting into a solid debate. That image was a great example. Jack uses an image without permission, and the photographer tells us that you don't have permission to use it. Apart from the fact Jack couldn't tell the difference between quad bike tracks on a beach and LRV tracks on the lunar surface, all you had to do was contact the photographer and ask permission to use it. Your arrogance wouldn't permit you to stoop so low as to actually ask someone, though, would it? Instead more bluster, more complaints, no substance.

Go away Jim - you are a waste of my time.

Got yourself caught in a buzzsaw, eh champ? Suck-it-up!

[Evan Burton]

Stop bleating Jim - you are a bore.

If you think your evidence is so strong, then present it and defend it. Stop complaining about everything; you are like a petulant child.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Stand by, Evan Burton. I have promised another post that will demonstrate that you are hypocritical and insincere or else incapable of exercising (what is know as) rationality of belief. You are very good at meaningless ad hominems and attempting to deflect the evidence of chicanery in the moon landing photos. You arguments related to copyright are so obvious you (appropriately) have no response. You have abused your position from scratch. I have promised you one more post, which will prove my point "in spades".

Stop bleating Jim - you are a bore.

If you think your evidence is so strong, then present it and defend it. Stop complaining about everything; you are like a petulant child.

Edited October 25, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Evan Burton]

I'm shaking there, boss. Bring it on.

[Jack White]

Posted at Jim's request:

Number 1

[Jack White]

Number 2:

[Jack White]

Number 3: