Jump to content
The Education Forum

(Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread


Evan Burton
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 752
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest James H. Fetzer

I don't know, Kevin. Compare them with the tire image that Burton posted.

It may just be a matter of perspective. Certainly, saying that they don't at

all look like moon rover tracks is an exaggeration. Compare these tracks

with the tire that allegedly produced them. But WHY DIDN'T BURTON POST

PHOTOS OF TIRE TRACKS HIMSELF, AFTER I SUGGESTED HE DO THAT?

Any way you cut it, rover tracks that should be in many of these photos are not.

Here is what the tracks actually looked like, AS17-134-20436:

AS17-134-20436.jpg

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

I had saved the page and have restored what was post

#7 as (new) post #42. I can't believe that he did that.

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!

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mission 17

http://demilo.public.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/images17.html

Where are they too deep? Its a long shot. The tracks pixelation closeup is the same near as far. Far the tracks are at pixellation size. Near a number of pixels make up the tracks. Looks like they dropped the sothern end on the SEP, drove, letting out the cabling, set up the north SEP unit, Gene stayed there, Jack drove back in a wide turn, and took up position for the photo Gene then took.

http://demilo.public.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20436HR.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mission 17

http://demilo.public.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/images17.html

Where are they too deep? Its a long shot. The tracks pixelation closeup is the same near as far. Far the tracks are at pixellation size. Near a number of pixels make up the tracks. Looks like they dropped the sothern end on the SEP, drove, letting out the cabling, set up the north SEP unit, Gene stayed there, Jack drove back in a wide turn, and took up position for the photo Gene then took.

http://demilo.public.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20436HR.jpg

They are not too deep in that picture, the treadprints are too deep in the picture that Jack posted in the other thread. The treads on the LRV tires were almost completely flat. They were made of thin titanium strips, probably 1/16" thick. They just didn't leave a deep impression.

Do these really look like they were made by the same wheel?

treads.jpg

There are also several sneaker prints in that image that are clearly not from a EVA boot.

shoeprints.jpg

I'd be willing to bet that this image was taken on earth and is not in any way related to apollo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

An accusation has been made against me. I have e-mailed Gary and asked him to investigate. As previously agreed, I will say no more about the matter and let Gary report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since this is not the debate thread and Jim has made the complaint here, I will say this: the board has security logs, which Gary can read. They detail all the actions taken by moderators, etc. It will show, once again, just how baseless these accusations are against me. After a time I really do tire of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Well, Evan, you have displayed a propensity to delete or move posts to please

yourself. If you didn't delete it, who did? I would certainly like to know. And if it

was NOT you, then I shall extend an apology. Frankly, I can't imagine who else

would have had motive, means, and opportunity. But if I am wrong, I'm wrong.

Since this is not the debate thread and Jim has made the complaint here, I will say this: the board has security logs, which Gary can read. They detail all the actions taken by moderators, etc. It will show, once again, just how baseless these accusations are against me. After a time I really do tire of them.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is what the tracks actually looked like, AS17-134-20436:

AS17-134-20436.jpg

Thanks for posting this photo, which is one of my studies. It shows a pair of tracks which

ARE BESIDE THE ROVER, AND DO NOT LEAD TO ITS WHEELS.

Jack

Never mind the fact that there are a PAIR OF TRACKS that DO lead to the wheels.

Sheesh....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because they could never drive near previous tracks. :rolleyes:

What is apparent to me is how shallow the tracks are and how easy it might be to obscure them with footprints or kicked soil.

What I don't understand is why ANYBODY would devise a crane to move a set piece when the set piece

1. has wheels

2. is light enought to pick up

3. is shown in videos to be able to move under its own power.

Now really, is this your best evidence? You can't find tracks in photos that show lots of obvious movement of the soil from footprints so it MUST have been a crane that moved it? :lol:

I'm starting to see why some hoax believers on other forums think you are a government plant Jack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Thanks, Matt. Maybe Burton ought to hire you as his PR man. Maybe it wasn't a crane, but surely you can see there

are too many photos taken in too many situations that do not have the obvious signs that the rover was driven or rolled

to those locations. I worry that you seem to be unable to distinguish between possible but very improbable conclusions

and alternatives that provide a better explanation for the evidence and thereby earn higher degrees of logical support.

Because they could never drive near previous tracks. :rolleyes:

What is apparent to me is how shallow the tracks are and how easy it might be to obscure them with footprints or kicked soil.

What I don't understand is why ANYBODY would devise a crane to move a set piece when the set piece

1. has wheels

2. is light enought to pick up

3. is shown in videos to be able to move under its own power.

Now really, is this your best evidence? You can't find tracks in photos that show lots of obvious movement of the soil from footprints so it MUST have been a crane that moved it? :lol:

I'm starting to see why some hoax believers on other forums think you are a government plant Jack.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Matt. Maybe Burton ought to hire you as his PR man.

Burton doesn't need my help.

Maybe it wasn't a crane, but surely you can see there are too many photos taken in too many situations that do not have the obvious signs that the rover was driven or rolled to those locations.

I see that in those instances there is loose soil disturbed by footprints. I see absolutely no reason to make the illogical jump to a crane.

I worry that you seem to be unable to distinguish between possible but very improbable conclusions

and alternatives that provide a better explanation for the evidence and thereby earn higher degrees of logical support.

A crane which would be expensive, impractical and stupid and for which there is no evidence provides a better explanation than the soil was disturbed by the astronauts moving around which we KNOW they did?

Edited by Matthew Lewis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

I agree that it didn't HAVE TO BE a crane, but some mechanical or physical means were used to position the rover

for these photographs. I am a bit taken aback that you can't see that for yourself, since you appear to be a smart

guy. If you think a rover could be driven or pused into position without leaving rover tracks, you are fantasizing.

Thanks, Matt. Maybe Burton ought to hire you as his PR man.

Burton doesn't need my help.

Maybe it wasn't a crane, but surely you can see there are too many photos taken in too many situations that do not have the obvious signs that the rover was driven or rolled to those locations.

I see that in those instances there is loose soil disturbed by footprints. I see absolutely no reason to make the illogical jump to a crane.

I worry that you seem to be unable to distinguish between possible but very improbable conclusions

and alternatives that provide a better explanation for the evidence and thereby earn higher degrees of logical support.

A crane which would be expensive, impractical and stupid and for which there is no evidence provides a better explanation than the soil was disturbed by the astronauts moving around which we KNOW they did?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that it didn't HAVE TO BE a crane, but some mechanical or physical means were used to position the rover

for these photographs. I am a bit taken aback that you can't see that for yourself, since you appear to be a smart

guy. If you think a rover could be driven or pused into position without leaving rover tracks, you are fantasizing.

I NEVER said that it never left tracks. Don't put words in my mouth. I said I see soil disturbed by astronaut's movement. How is it fantasizing to speculate that tracks may have been covered up or obliterated due to activity we KNOW happened?

I am a bit taken aback (not really, I've come to expect it from you and Jack) that you make the jump in logic to "some mechanical or physical means were used to position the rover" when there is no evidence of any such postioning AND we KNOW the vehicle could move under its own power, we KNOW it was light enough to pick up by hand and we KNOW that the soil was easily kicked up and could therefore obscure some tracks. Further, I've seen it pointed out on another forum that there are partial tracks visible in some photos (partial due to footprints in the area, imagine that) and that at least one of the photos in question was taken a half hour after the rover stopped. That is a half hour of activity that might feasibly kick up loose soil.

Frankly this whole thing seems like a non-issue. Even if fake and on a set the tracks could STILL be obscured due to soil kicked up by movements of the actors. I'm just waiting for the supposed "good" evidence to be presented. But in the meantime, please continue to post the pictures of what looks like a track from tractor wheels with footprints made from sneakers that was obviously NOT taken on the Moon as your "evidence".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...