(Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread

[Len Colby]

My studies posted on the Aulis website ALL HAVE NASA NUMBERS.

My studies posted on the Aulis website are all in TIFF format.

TIFF format cannot be used on the Simkin forum. Therefore I posted here my JPG versions, which do NOT have the numbers.

To post here versions with NASA numbers I would have to search for all the TIFF files and convert them to JPG.

Untrue though you might have sent them TIFF files, the studies on Aulis are JPG's, all you would have to do is:a)post the URL's between image tags save them from the site to your computer OR c) convert the TIFF's on your computer, either way would be much less time and effort than redoing the studies as JPG's

This would serve no purpose other than to humor Burton. THE NUMBERS ARE NOT NECESSARY. The studies speak for themselves.

Jack knows better being able to see high resolution uncropped images and knowing the circumstances they were taken. Without knowing the image # there is no way to be sure the images were not altered by Jack or (more likely) the person he got them from.

I am not obligated to provide them for the convenience of others.

According to the forum rules you are

Some of the studies were

done more than ten years ago, and no study has ever been debunked by Burton or anyone else.

LOL an obvious case of Black Knight Syndrome

Explain to us how multiple light sources can cause shadows of different objects to converge but only cast 1 shadow per object?

[Len Colby]

Amazing the amount of time Jack is spending discussing a topic he insisted he didn't have time to discuss!

[Dave Greer]

My studies posted on the Aulis website ALL HAVE NASA NUMBERS.

My studies posted on the Aulis website are all in TIFF format.

TIFF format cannot be used on the Simkin forum. Therefore I posted here my JPG versions, which do NOT have the numbers.

To post here versions with NASA numbers I would have to search for all the TIFF files and convert them to JPG. This would

serve no purpose other than to humor Burton. THE NUMBERS ARE NOT NECESSARY. The studies speak for themselves. Burton

seeks to insinuate some sinister motive to the lack of numbers when there is nonesuch. The numbers on the studies are all

available at http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html so just go there and the numbers are available.

When I originally did the studies they were for my own use...not to be used for target practice by lonenutters. At that time

there was no need to put number with photos. All the images can be found at the Apollo Image Gallery. I found them

there, and so can anyone else. I am not obligated to provide them for the convenience of others. Some of the studies were

done more than ten years ago, and no study has ever been debunked by Burton or anyone else.

Jack

Jack

Don't have a cow, I was helping you out to get things moving.

I disagree when you say the numbers aren't necessary. How can anyone check the validity of your claims without access to higher resolution images, or not being able to put the images into context by looking at other photos at the same time that may show something you've missed, or by examining the video footage taken at the same time?

For example, there is a photo taken after Apollo 17 EVA3 that shows the tracks left where the rover had been at the end of EVA2. So, if they lowered it onto set by a crane for some reason at the end of EVA2, they certainly drove it away after EVA3. In fact, the EVA2 image shows tyre tracks, but they have mainly been obscured by 30 minutes of astronaut activity around the LM - activity that you can actually witness in the video footage.

Here are the remnants of the tyre tracks in AS17-140-21354.

Here is the post-EVA3 image, showing the tyre tracks exactly where the rover was parked at the end of EVA 2. Click here for hi-res version. The tyre tracks start just to the left of the horizontal thruster.

And here is the link to the EVA2 closeout videos, watch them all to see how much astronaut activity there is around the LM.

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17.clsout2.html#1471519mh

[Evan Burton]

Boy! How many things can Jack get wrong in a single post! This must be some type of record. You should see a doctor, Jack, because you are having trouble with seeing or perhaps your memory. Whatever it is, you are making big errors. The other alternative is to think you are deliberately deceiving people, and that couldn't be true, could it.

My studies posted on the Aulis website ALL HAVE NASA NUMBERS.

No, they do not. Some examples:

TIFF format cannot be used on the Simkin forum.

No, TIF is an acceptable file format.

Therefore I posted here my JPG versions, which do NOT have the numbers. To post here versions with NASA numbers I would have to search for all the TIFF files and convert them to JPG. This would serve no purpose other than to humor Burton. THE NUMBERS ARE NOT NECESSARY. The studies speak for themselves. Burton

seeks to insinuate some sinister motive to the lack of numbers when there is nonesuch. The numbers on the studies are all available at http://www.aulis.com...ies_index1.html so just go there and the numbers are available.

Excuses, excuses, Jack. Other people have asked for them, too. It called being open and honest, allowing people to examine claims for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

Some of the studies were done more than ten years ago, and no study has ever been debunked by Burton or anyone else.

Jack

Strange - contrary to what you say, the debunkings are right here on this forum:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5911

Just another "mistake" on your part Jack.

[Evan Burton]

Number Three.

Yet again, no image number. It is AS17-140-21354. If you have a look at the hi-resolution image (use link) and have a look at the area behind (left and down) of the LRV, this is what you'll see:

An excellent example showing how the tracks get obliterated by astronaut activity. The image was taken post EVA-2, at 151 hrs 23 min 55 sec Ground Elapse Time (in future posts I'll just use the format 151:23:23 GET).

[Evan Burton]

Number 5.

Again Jack fails to provide the image numbers.They are AS15-85-11470 and AS15-85-11471. have a look at them, the hi-res images available through the links. Take a look at these areas, shown below. You can see how the wheels spill dirt on the area that the track would be. You can also see that the wheels depress very little into the lunar soil, again explaining why the wheel tracks are shallow and easily covered. See the footprints, confirming the location of the wheel.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

RESPONSE TO BURTON'S 2nd REPLY

OK. So Jack posted seven photographs of the moon rover that show no tire tracks. These were posts #56, Number one, #57, Number two, #59, Number three, #60, Number four, #61, Number five (or five and six, since there are two), #62, Number six, #63, Number seven, and #64, which is a higher-resolution version of Number six. Burton has responded in #69 with the photograph of a moon rover tire, which should have left tracks in the moon dust, and another photo, AS17-143-21924, which, like the others, does not show moon rover tracks; in #70 with yet another photo, AS17-140-21354, that also does not show moon rover tracks; and again in #71 he addes two more photographs, AS15-85-11470 and AS15-85-11471. So far as I have been able to discern, however, none of these photos show rover tracks. (Moreover, I am not the first to have made this observation: see http://apolloanomalies.com/missing_tracks.htm )

In his post #69 he remarks, in relation to Jack's photo Number two, that it had been parked at this location from "about 170 hrs 01 min Ground Elapsed Time (GET) and the image was taken at about 170 hrs 19 mins GET (source). That's 18 odd minutes of activity around the LRV, when tracks can be obliterated. They were also specifically working around the rear of the LRV, removing samples and equipment for transport to Earth." So apparently we don't see moon rover tracks, not because there WERE no moon rover tracks, but because they have been OBSCURED by activity in the vicinity where they should be evident. I have enlarged his other photos and, remarkably enough, there are no indications of moon rover tracks there, either. You might have thought that Burton was arguing my case by providing more evidence.

It astounds me that Burton has not produced photos showing moon rover tracks. Jack has been preoccupied with 9/11 research, so I have done some poking around on my own to see what might be available. Some links where I have discovered photos, such as http://www.jrbassett.com/html/RNAInx08.html, where #4 and #12, for example, show faint tracks, and http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap040605.html, provides another without rover tracks, which only strengthens my case. I was becoming increasingly curious why Burton was not posting photos of rover tracks when I came across this one on the far right at http://www.fotosearch.com/photos-images/lunar-rover.html. Kevin West, however, has convinced me that it may not be a "moon photo" and offered another, AS17-134-20436. These tread impressions appear to corresponds to that of the moon rover tire, even though--oddly enough--they do not lead to the rover. I shall take it as an appropriate sample of what moon rover tracks should look like. (The one I mistook raises interesting questions of its own regarding its origins.)

Unfortunately, that only reinforces the realization that THEY SIMPLY ARE NOT THERE in any of the photographs that either Jack or Burton has posted. We can all remember the commercial, "Where's the beef?" Well, in this case, our (slightly ungrammatical) slogan could be, "Where's the tracks?" His suggestion that astronaut activity in the vicinity obscured them is woefully inadequate to the task when you consider WHAT THEY SHOULD HAVE LOOKED LIKE if they had been there. Even if the rover had been pushed into position, the tracks would have been there. But they are not there, even in the most interesting case, Number seven, where I expected an ad hoc explanation about the rover having been backed into place. But there is no reason to think that that occurred. The available relevant evidence thus supports the inference that the rover was not pushed or driven into these positions but appears to have been placed in their photographed position by some mechanical or physical means without thinking about the absence of moon rover tracks.

Edited September 4, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[John Dolva]

I had a wonderful old Norwegian friend who I occasionally had to help out with his computer. This was back in the old days. Often a simple fix was to clean his screen. There's just a certain age that we all get to when various sense organs work less efficiantly than one is used to, yet often this change is not recognised by the person it's happening to and the very human tendency is to be in some degree of denial and projection.

Priorities change too.

More things become mysterious.

I don't believe that an accusation of deliberate deception is warranted at this stage.

edit add: Also, I don't think is is productive.

Edited September 3, 2010 by John Dolva

[Kevin M. West]

Reply to a post from the debate thread:

But they are not there, even in the most interesting case, Number seven, where I expected an ad hoc explanation about the rover having been backed into place. But there is no reason to think that that occurred.

Actually, there is a very good reason to think it was backed into place. His "tracks should be here line" is in the wrong place, as you can clearly see the tracks coming in from the left of the scene (above the red arrow):

ETA: Alternatively, rather than back into place, they could have just picked up one end of the rover and turned it after driving to the rim of that crater.

Edited September 3, 2010 by Kevin M. West

[John Dolva]

I think they wisely approached the crater cautiously and did the approach, reverse move deliberately to always be in a position to avert any potentially dangerous situation as they approached the craters edge. Then dismounted et.c. and in that photo hat maneuver is just not seen because the cosmonaut's in the way. Maybe other photos will show more.

edit typo

Edited September 3, 2010 by John Dolva

[Jack White]

Jim asked me to post this for him to comment about.

<IMAGE REMOVED BY MODERATOR>

Jack

Jim asked that I change the image posted, but the forum software does not

allow DELETING an image, so I am just adding the revised image.

Edited September 14, 2010 by Evan Burton

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I have just discovered that my most important post

on the debate thread--in which I outlined what I was

going to cover during the course of the debate--has

been DELETED by Evan Burton, who did not notify me

that he intended to do that and which needs to be

RESTORED. This is quite outrageous. I am willingly

participating in this debate, but Burton has, time

and time again, abused his position as MODERATOR

and PARTICIPANT to take advantage of the situation,

not only by deleting Jack's original posts about the

missing moon rover tracks but even about what I plan

to cover during the course of this debate. Stunning!

[Kevin M. West]

Jack, what's the source of the image in this post?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

The link is given in my last post in the debate thread, http://www.fotosearch.com/photos-images/lunar-rover.html

When I first posted my response, the link worked fine. But within an hour, that specific image had gone missing.

Fortunately, I had already downloaded the whole page and sent it to Jack. Miraculously, the next time I checked,

it has been restored. Just compare what those tracks look like with the photos that are missing them--BIG TIME!

Jack, what's the source of the image in this post?

[Kevin M. West]

The link is given in my last post in the debate thread, http://www.fotosearch.com/photos-images/lunar-rover.html

When I first posted my response, the link worked fine. But within an hour, that specific image had gone missing.

Fortunately, I had already downloaded the whole page and sent it to Jack. Miraculously, the next time I checked,

it has been restored. Just compare what those tracks look like with the photos that are missing them--BIG TIME!

Jack, what's the source of the image in this post?

I ask because those don't look like rover tracks at all, the treads are way too deep and the wrong shape, and there are a variety of different shoeprints in the image.

What mission was this image supposedly from?