(Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Part I: Jack White's Apollo Photo Studies

Argument 2: The Shadow Inconsistencies

Many of the photos alleged to have been

taken on the moon have lighting/shadow

oddities that imply more than one source

of light, when there should have been only

one, which suggests that they were faked. I

have asked Jack to post a set of his studies.

[Jack White]

Part I: Jack White's Apollo Photo Studies

Argument 2: The Shadow Inconsistencies

Many of the photos alleged to have been

taken on the moon have lighting/shadow

oddities that imply more than one source

of light, when there should have been only

one, which suggests that they were faked. I

have asked Jack to post a set of his studies.

Jim has asked that I post THIS study of lighting/shadow inconsistencies first.

Let us refer to it as

LIGHT/SHADOW NUMBER 1

More will follow as Jim and I select them from my file.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

Gary,

Am I going to be allowed to address the LRV images before Jack posts yet more images on a different topic?

Jim,

I don't think you are even bothering to read my replies. I've pointed out track a couple of times now.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

The sequence is POST IMAGES/BASIC ARGUMENT then you comment, I reply,

you respond, I conclude. In the alternate, POST IMAGES/BASIC ARGUMENT

then I comment, you reply, I respond, you conclude. If either of us does not

reply to something the other has said, that doesn't matter. It's done when we

conclude one or the other sequence, alternating. That was our agreement.

Now for Argument 2, I am commenting first, you reply, I will respond, and

you will conclude. I do not see the tracks you claim to see. That's all. It's

done. That's why we agreed in the beginning. Otherwise, this could drag out

forever. Argument 1's over. Argument 2 has just begun. I will comment first.

Then you will see how you can say what you want to say as we move forward.

Gary,

Am I going to be allowed to address the LRV images before Jack posts yet more images on a different topic?

Jim,

I don't think you are even bothering to read my replies. I've pointed out track a couple of times now.

Edited September 4, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

The difference between your position and mine is that yours is a possible position for which there is no evidence,

while mine is a position for which there is abundant evidence. These are relatively clear-cut cases where there is

NO INDICATION OF ROVER TRACKS, not even ones partially obscured by the "activities" of those who were

in the vicinity. There would be PARTIAL TRACKS and EVIDENCE OF OBFUSCATION. But there is none. Which

means that you are offering a speculation that you cannot justify on the basis of relevant and available evidence.

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".

[Evan Burton]

Can't see them? Okay; I thought the arrow pointing to them would help.

Moving onto the next claim? Okay. If any readers want me to further disprove Jack's claims, please post in the comments thread and I'll oblige.

The sequence is POST IMAGES/BASIC ARGUMENT then you comment, I reply,

you respond, I conclude. In the alternate, POST IMAGES/BASIC ARGUMENT

then I comment, you reply, I respond, you conclude. If either of us does not

reply to something the other has said, that doesn't matter. It's done when we

conclude one or the other sequence, alternating. That was our agreement.

Now for Argument 2, I am commenting first, you reply, I will respond, and

you will conclude. I do not see the tracks you claim to see. That's all. It's

done. That's why we agreed in the beginning. Otherwise, this could drag out

forever. Argument 1's over. Argument 2 has just begun. I will comment first.

Then you will see how you can say what you want to say as we move forward.

[John Dolva]

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?

The rover tracks might have been brushed out by the cleaning lady during breaks between shots.

[Matthew Lewis]

The difference between your position and mine is that yours is a possible position for which there is no evidence,

while mine is a position for which there is abundant evidence. These are relatively clear-cut cases where there is

NO INDICATION OF ROVER TRACKS, not even ones partially obscured by the "activities" of those who were

in the vicinity. There would be PARTIAL TRACKS and EVIDENCE OF OBFUSCATION. But there is none.

Of which Evan Burton pointed out some.

Which

means that you are offering a speculation that you cannot justify on the basis of relevant and available evidence.

A hilarious statement coming from one inventing a means of moving the rover for which there is no evidence at all. At least everything I've suggested was actually seen.

[Dave Greer]

No big mystery here folks. From the ALSJ:-

122:49:13 Schmitt: That looks good. That looks good. Hold that heading.

[After letting Jack off at the SEP transmitter, Gene will re-initialize the Rover navigation system which he will use in laying out N-S and E-W tracks with the Rover wheels. He and Jack will then use these tracks as guides for laying out the four 35-meter-long arms of the SEP transmitter antenna.]

[The third line of CDR-32 calls for Gene to position the Rover so that he is pointing east. After initializing the Nav system, he is to drive east for 100 meters; then turn right to a heading of 210 and drive another 100 meters; and, finally, turn right to a heading of 360 for a drive of 200 meters north. This procedure would produce a cross of Rover tracks intersecting about 50 meters east of the SEP transmitter. Then, once Gene has the pattern laid out, Jack will carry the transmitter over to the intersection.]

[Cernan - "We came up with this during training; the Rover heading indicator let us get a very accurate layout."]

[Gene's statement that he is rolling west is open to several contradictory interpretations. One is that he has misspoken and means "east" rather than "west". A second interpretation is that Gene is going to lay out the pattern west of the transmitter, rather then east of it. A third interpretation is simply that he is going west of the transmitter before coming back alongside it, headed east, to let Jack off. I prefer the last of these.]

[Jack White]

Jim selected at random from my Aulis website five more typical examples of light/shadow problems

so they would have NASA file numbers, instead of using ones from my files which do not.

LIGHT/SHADOW NUMBER TWO

Edited September 4, 2010 by Jack White

[Jack White]

LIGHT/SHADOW NUMBER THREE

[Jack White]

LIGHT/SHADOW NUMBER FOUR

[Jack White]

LIGHT/SHADOW NUMBER FIVE

[Jack White]

LIGHT/SHADOW NUMBER SIX.

[Craig Lamson]

Thank you Jim, for your choices of Whites "lighting" studies. These will be a great illustration of the utter misunderstanding of basic perspective and lighting issues by both you and White.

Score so far, Rover tracks...

White/Fetzer 0

Burton 1