(Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread

[Jack White]

Here is a good one not used by Jim because it is not in my Aulis studies. The dirt is soft enough to have a bootprint,

but no rover wheel tracks behind the wheels.

Jack

[Jack White]

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.]

The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal is a propaganda piece of fiction to attempt to explain the faked photos.

Jack

[Kevin M. West]

Here is a good one not used by Jim because it is not in my Aulis studies. The dirt is soft enough to have a bootprint,

but no rover wheel tracks behind the wheels.

Jack

Please give image numbers so we don't have to waste time tracking down what image you cropped that from.

Two frames later in the same roll of film:

[John Dolva]

This has been, and will continue to render this a futile exercise in a scientific sense. All of Jacks and Jims ''studies'' will be refuted, but it will never be enough for these hoaxters.

Tiny cropped material with no reference will continue to be posted and those who take the time will always find the credible refutation. This is obvious already. The ongoing obfuscation and obstruction is a farce.

The good it will serve is that serious students globally will see these myths and their promoters for what they are.

Ultimately that is the only positive result.

The missions themselves being a true history are in no need of defense.

It's no surprise that the hoaxsters circle of associates are revisionists in other fields.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

ELABORATION OF ARGUMENT 2

When Galileo turned a telescope of his own design to look at the moon, he discovered that its surface was pockmarked and irregular. This observation was a major event in the history of science, because it apparently falsified the Aristotelian distinction between the terrestrial and the celestial, where all bodies above Earth, including the moon and the stars, were supposed to be perfectly spherical and smooth. The prevailing doctrines of the Catholic Church at the time were a blend of Aristotelian cosmology with Christian theology, which meant that Galileo's discovery threatened its very integrity. The Bishops of Padua, in defense of the church, suggested that either Galileo was not actually looking at the moon or that there must be something about his telescope that distorted objects when they were viewed through it. And that was not an entirely baseless claim, since most of us have encountered funny mirrors at carnivals that make us look a mile wide and a foot tall or twelve feet tall and pencil thin! Indeed, from a logical point of view, their comments were well-founded, because unless Galileo had been looking at the moon and unless his telescope did not distort the features of objects when he viewed them, the conclusion that the moon was not perfectly spherical and smooth would not have followed.

What this means is that an hypothesis h can only be refuted by evidence e when the relevant background assumptions b and auxiliary hypotheses a that matter are also taken into account. The background assumption here would be that Galileo really was looking at the moon. The auxiliary hypothesis would be that his telescope does not distort the features of objects when they are observed by using it. Similarly, the absence of rover tracks can falsify the hypothesis that these photos were taken on the moon only on the background assumption that these are official "moon photos" and, in this case, the auxiliary assumption that our powers of observation are sufficient to the task. One of the "moon photos", which I found at fotosearch.com, for example, has tracks that appear to be too deep and well-defined to have been taken on the moon, raising questions of its "authenticity". It is a fascinating case, since, as Jack has observed, it includes sneaker prints in the dust, which, if it is an official "moon photo", blows that claim away. But, using other photos of rover tracks, we have an idea of what we are looking for and, based upon my powers of observation, even when I enhance their degree of magnification, the studies Jack has posted on my behalf display no signs of rover tracks, which suggests that they are fake.

Evan has disputed my powers of observation by hinting in post #78 that they really are there and I can't see them, even though he used arrows to show where they are to be found. So I have returned to look again at post #69, where he presents AS17-143-21924, which has faint traces of what might be rover tracks coming toward the left rear wheel from the side but none behind the rear wheels themselves; post #70, where he presents A17-140-21354 and uses arrows to identify some partial tracks that are discontinuous with the rover itself; and post #71, where he does a close-up on AS15-85-11470 in which two (more or less circular) impressions can be seen, but they do not look like rover tracks and are not in the appropriate location, even if they were. Many of the photos that Jack has posted here show "rover tracks" SOMEWHERE. The point is that those tracks are not WHERE THEY SHOULD BE IF THESE PHOTOS WERE NOT FAKE. In post #57, there is what looks like rover tracks at the lower-right-hand corner. But they are not where they should be. And the same is true of post #59, post #60, and post #62. The point of these examples, however, is no that there are NO ROVER TRACKS ANYWHERE but that, even in those cases where there are some, THEY ARE STILL NOT WHERE THEY OUGHT TO BE.

He has also implied that the tracks are ACTUALLY THERE BUT HAVE BEEN OBSCURED by being covered by dust from activities since they were created. Even his best attempt to substantiate that claim in post #70 comes off as unconvincing because, in spite of some faint impressions, they are separate and apart from the rover's wheels. What is crucial, of course, is not whether there are PHOTOS SHOWING ROVER TRACKS but that there are PHOTOS THAT DO NOT SHOW ROVER TRACKS, WHEN THEY SHOULD. The falsification of the hypothesis does not require showing that ALL of the photos can be proven to be fake but only that SOME of the photos can be proven to be fake. In relation to post #63, I was surprised that Evan did not suggest that the absence of tracks behind the rover was because it had been driven around by a circuitous route and backed into place! That would have been a classic example of an ad hoc hypothesis advanced to "save the phenomena". Just as it is possible to falsify the hypothesis that all rabbits are white by discovering a single non-white rabbit, it is possible to falsify the hypothesis that all these photos are genuine by discovering a single fake. The absence of rover tracks establishes that at least some of these photos are fake, which calls into question why it was necessary to fake them if we really went to the moon. The inconsistencies between lighting and shadows presented here provides additional powerful proof that the moon rover photographs were not the only ones that were faked.

I chose the missing rover tracks as the place to begin because their absence is telling and simple to understand. The movement of a rover across the landscape, no matter whether it was driven or pushed, would have left rover tracks as an effect of that cause. The use of a crane would not have been necessary, I concede, since, while it weighed about 480 pounds on Earth, it only weighed 80 pounds on the moon and was therefore light enough to lift and carry by several men, other means of moving it could have been used and have been more convenient. Telltale footprints in the dust could always be attributed to the "activities" of the astronauts as long as they were made by the right kind of shoes. The absence of the expected effects from the rover as their cause is therefore one line of argument based upon causal considerations. Another, however, emerges from the rectilinear path of rays of light (which is to say, that light travels in straight lines apart from its passage past strong gravitational fields, as e e cummings reminded us when he wrote, "Space being (don't remember to forget) Curved", among my favorite short poems), which is a law of nature. Laws of nature, unlike laws of society, cannot be violated, cannot be changed, and require no enforcement. If shadows are being cast in directions other than those directly away from the source of light--and, officially, there was only one source of light on the moon, which was the Sun--then these photographs, too, display proof of skullduggery of the very kind we might expect with a complex psyop to deceive the world.

Edited September 4, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Sorry. When you have an actual argument that shows what we have been arguing is false,

then it may be worth having you around. Otherwise, you are simply yapping into the wind.

This has been, and will continue to render this a futile exercise in a scientific sense. All of Jacks and Jims ''studies'' will be refuted, but it will never be enough for these hoaxters.

Tiny cropped material with no reference will continue to be posted and those who take the time will always find the credible refutation. This is obvious already. The ongoing obfuscation and obstruction is a farce.

The good it will serve is that serious students globally will see these myths and their promoters for what they are.

Ultimately that is the only positive result.

The missions themselves being a true history are in no need of defense.

It's no surprise that the hoaxsters circle of associates are revisionists in other fields.

Edited September 4, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Kevin,

It's not whether there may be rover tracks in some of these photos. It's that they are not where they should be.

I have explained this in detail in my "ELABORATION ON ARGUMENT 2". I wouldn't want you to miss it. Thanks.

Jim

Here is a good one not used by Jim because it is not in my Aulis studies. The dirt is soft enough to have a bootprint,

but no rover wheel tracks behind the wheels.

Jack

Please give image numbers so we don't have to waste time tracking down what image you cropped that from.

Two frames later in the same roll of film:

Edited September 4, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Dave Greer]

The good it will serve is that serious students globally will see these myths and their promoters for what they are.

Ultimately that is the only positive result.

I couldn't agree with you more John.

I don't post here for the benefit of Jack W (and latterly Jim F). I post in the hope that those of questioning mind will appreciate and understand both sides of the argument, and perhaps even take the time out to do some research for themselves.

I must confess though, it is worrying when someone of Jim's credentials is so easily persuaded by Jack's studies, which are either demonstrably false, or simply "appeal to belief" when there is a perfectly plausible and mundane explanation that fits very well with the "official" Apollo record.

[Kevin M. West]

Kevin,

It's not whether there may be rover tracks in some of these photos. It's that they are not where they should be.

I have explained this in detail in my "ELABORATION ON ARGUMENT 2". I wouldn't want you to miss it. Thanks.

Jim

They are where they are supposed to be. There is a pair of tracks leading towards the rover. The only place you can't see them is the soil that has been trampled by the astronauts working around the rover after it was parked. Notice how the area around the rover has a slightly darker texture and lots of footprints? You think those shallow rover tracks should still be visible after being walked all over?

[Evan Burton]

Jim and Jack refer to an image found at fotosearch and question its authenticity. That's why I always use the official images and always give the image number. Now to briefly return to the previous argument, I have demonstrated that:

- tracks being left behind the LRV depend on the surface it is travelling over; some tracks may be deeper than others, or no visible tracks may be left at all;

- the wheels of the LRV itself can throw lunar soil / dust and cover tracks;

- astronaut activity around the LRV can obliterate tracks;

- light, shadow and angle can hide tracks in photographs; and

- it makes no sense to lower into position an LRV when it could be rolled or driven into position.

Now, the next flood of images. Since Jim is relying on Jack, and Jack is using his same old discredited "studies", the ones he claimed that no-one had ever debunked, I've already addressed them a few years ago:

Light / Shadow No1

http://educationforu...indpost&p=51965

Light / Shadow No2

http://educationforu...indpost&p=55905

Light / Shadow No3

http://educationforu...indpost&p=52047

Light / Shadow No4

http://educationforu...indpost&p=51968

Light / Shadow No5

(I know I've done this one but can't find it; see below and I'll repeat the effort)

Light / Shadow No6

http://educationforu...indpost&p=52043

Okay - No5 redux. Another good example of why you need to use the hi-resolution images and not the small images Jack wants you to look at. Links to the hi-res images are:

AS11-40-5874 HIGH RESOLUTION

AS11-40-5875 HIGH RESOLUTION

Now let's have a look at what we see.

There is the "missing" shadow. A thin pole, a low camera angle, and it tends to disappear on the surface.

Edited September 6, 2010 by Evan Burton
Inserted link

[Evan Burton]

John,

Like Dave, I don't do this to try and change Jim / Jack's minds; at least for Jack it has been proven he will make his claims regardless of the evidence showing they are wrong (I'm pretty sure that is what is called delusional). I do it so lurkers will not get sucked into Jack's delusions (like Jim) and to demonstrate the tools and resources you have to use to discover the facts.

[John Dolva]

Yes, it is to that extent that this is a valuable exercise. I commend those who do take the time to do this. I'd be horrified if my children ever came home one day sprouting Jim and Jacks nonsense as fact.

When single images are presented with ref to originals I'll continue to support this commendable effort to the extent I can. The ease of refutation to this point has lessened it as a priority. The good reasons for engaging in it goes a long way to increase it.

[Evan Burton]

Yes, it is to that extent that this is a valuable exercise. I commend those who do take the time to do this. I'd be horrified if my children ever came home one day sprouting Jim and Jacks nonsense as fact.

When single images are presented with ref to originals I'll continue to support this commendable effort to the extent I can. The ease of refutation to this point has lessened it as a priority. The good reasons for engaging in it goes a long way to increase it.

The important thing to do, if your kids ever did that, would be to ask them why they accept the things as facts. Get them into things like the scientific method and critical thinking.

[John Dolva]

Yes, I agree, plus I would refer them to this debate as well, as I said its value is in itself a study of scientific method and I hope it can remain tight and continue to move in the direction of being a valuable resource for those who may come across it as an issue. For this I'm thankful, and future explorers will, imo, also be so re the efforts made here.

[Evan Burton]

I think I got it from my brother. He did two tours in Vietnam, and I still remember his words: "Always pay attention to what your teachers say, but don't accept it as fact. Check what they say, confirm what you're told and think for yourself".