Jump to content
The Education Forum

(Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread


Evan Burton
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest James H. Fetzer

REPLY TO BURTON'S FIRST RESPONSE (IN THREE PARTS)

Part 1: Evan claims to have "demonstrated" that the tracks left depend on the surface it is traveling over, that the wheels can throw lunar soil or dust and cover those tracks, that astronaut activity around the rover can obliterate tracks, that light, shadow and angle can hide tracks in photographs, and that it makes no sense to lower the rover into position when it could be rolled or driven there.

Or, as John Dolva has observed, the rover tracks might have been brushed out by the cleaning lady during breaks between shots (on the discussion thread in post #108). John, no doubt, meant this as a witty remark, but it reflects the weakness of Evan's response. He offers suggestions as to how the rover's tracks might have been obscured in some cases, but they suffer from serious weaknesses:

(1) He treats possibilities as though they were probabilities and seeks to convert them into certainties. This is analogous to the defense of the "magic bullet" theory by arguing that the shots attributed to Oswald were "possible". When you consider the relevant evidence, the theory is not only false but provably false and not even anatomically possible ("Reasoning about Assassinations").

(2) The acid test of Evan's rebuttal is the ground between the tires. There would appear to be no good reason why there are no tracks between them, when tracks would have been made whether the rover was driven or pushed into position no matter if that was forward or backward. The fact that there are no tracks between the tires in many photos, including Evan's own, proves the point.

(3) The virtually complete absence of atmosphere on the moon makes his suggestions even less plausible. Unless he wants to claim that the astronauts were crawling under the rover, the most it would be reasonable to expect from his alleged "explanations" would be the partial obfuscation of those tracks. What we have is complete absence of tracks at the place we most expect to find them.

While Evan's suggestions may sound initially plausible, that appears to be due to the psychological tendency to draw comparisons with experiences on Earth, where the wind can blow and dirt be scattered. But there is no air on the moon. What we are looking for is the most reasonable explanation for the absence of moon tracks in some of these photos. Evan, alas, has not provided one.

Since I am asking Jack to post some photos that illustrate my argument by highlighting the area between the wheels in some of these photos, including at least one that Evan has posted, I want to wait for them to appear before I turn to Part 2. Moreover, since this is Labor Day weekend and Monday is my wife's birthday, it is entirely likely that I will not be posting more until Tuesday.

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

  • Replies 752
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest James H. Fetzer

Stop abusing your role here, Burton. Have you deleted another post Jack was making on my behalf?

You gave several arguments about rover tracks in your first response to which I am in the process

of repling. We can continue talking about any previous issue that we like as long as we conform

to the pattern we agreed upon. These tacky posts from you are offensive and inexcusable. When I

have completed my three-part reply, you are entitled to post your response to any aspect of it. If

you are reading my replies, you can see that I asked Jack to post several photographs on my behalf.

Are we finished talking about the LRV or aren't we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Evan, When I noticed that my post #7 had been deleted and suggested you had done it, you protested with moral outrage to

the very idea. Well, since I asked you to inform me who had done it, if not you, what is the answer? Did you delete it or not?

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".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evan, When I noticed that my post #7 had been deleted and suggested you had done it, you protested with moral outrage to

the very idea. Well, since I asked you to inform me who had done it, if not you, what is the answer? Did you delete it or not?

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".

I asked GARY to investigate. You accused me, so it would be inappropriate to investigate myself. I know I didn't do it so have no fear. Best you approach Gary - or Antti.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just how many images are going to be posted, and just how many replies do we get? Jim has decided he will reply... in three parts (posts). White posts a few extra images because "...Jim asked me too..." and yet Jim says "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."

He's not sticking to the agreed format, and he isn't even sticking to the new format he then decides on!

I can address the new basket of claims Jack has made... if I am permitted to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

You have a lot of nerve, considering that you have violated the agreed upon format repeatedly with

these little crappy posts. You can wait until I have finished my reply to your FIRST RESPONSE (IN

THREE PARTS). There is no justification at all for your impatience. You will have the opportunity to

post whatever you like when I have completed this. You have the massive weight of NASA and the

government on your side. I am simply doing what I can. Others have warned me about your abuse

of the role of moderator, which is massively compounded when you are also a participant. I think it

is completely improper for you to continue to make disruptive posts. PLEASE CEASE AND DESIST.

Just how many images are going to be posted, and just how many replies do we get? Jim has decided he will reply... in three parts (posts). White posts a few extra images because "...Jim asked me too..." and yet Jim says "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."

He's not sticking to the agreed format, and he isn't even sticking to the new format he then decides on!

I can address the new basket of claims Jack has made... if I am permitted to do so.

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

Guest James H. Fetzer

REPLY TO BURTON'S FIRST RESPONSE (IN THREE PARTS)

Part 2. One of my colleagues at the University of Minnesota Duluth used to day, when he was confronted with an argument that defeated his position, "I take it back and assert the opposite!" Kevin West has questioned the authenticity of one of the photos of rover tracks that I have had Jack post on my behalf (on the discussion thread), "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." Remarks like these caused me to pause and question whether or not it was taken on the moon. "What image was this photo supposedly from?", he asks.

To which John Dolva has posted a very interesting reply:

"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 pixelation size. Near a number of pixels make up the tracks. Looks like they dropped the southern 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

What has stuck me in the meanwhile is that this photo, which Fotosearch.com identifies as CSPO67 k0672620 and calls "Mark of the Moon Rover", where "CSP067" stands for "Fotosearch.com" itself and "k0672620" for that specific image, has evidential value whether it was purportedly taken on the moon or not. Notice, in particular, that Kevin has acknowledged "a variety of different shoeprints in the image". So if this IS an "official moon rover photograph", as I suspect, then it demonstrates that these photos are faked.

Among my reasons for thinking so (i) that the setting looks like that of many other "official" moon rover photographs, (ii) John Dolva has offered a counter-argument to Kevin's suggestion it was NOT taken on the moon, (iii) other photos offered by Foto Search are identified as "artist's renderings", for example, if they are not "official" moon landing photographs, and (iv) Foto Search has s price list as follows:

Web Resolution

501 KB / 72 dpi / 5" x 6.7" / RGB

USD $15.00

Low Resolution

1 MB / 72 dpi / 7.1" x 9.5" / RGB

USD $20.00

Medium Resolution

10 MB / 300 dpi / 5.4" x 7.2" / RGB

USD $40.00

High Resolution

25.9 MB / 300 dpi / 8.7" x 11.6" / RGB

USD $60.00

Super High Resolution

52 MB / 300 dpi / 12.3" x 16.4" / RGB

Enhanced License USD $99.00

I can't imagine how they could be charging prices like these for an image that was NOT "an official moon rover photo from the moon". Even more importantly, however, is EITHER THE PHOTO IS FROM THE MOON OR IT IS NOT. If it is an "official" photo FROM THE MOON, then the variety of different shoe prints in the image proves that the photos are faked. But IF IT IS NOT FROM THE MOON, then the resemblance to other "moon landing" photos gives us clues about where all of these photos were faked. Either way, it matters--where Jack has posted the image (with sneaker impressions circled) in post #98.

So while Burton wants to suggest that I made a mistake, I could cast this differently, namely, as BEGINNER'S LUCK. And I am asking Jack to post an enhanced image that highlights the variety of shoe prints that are present in this image. And I would ask Evan not to evade the dilemmas I have posed! I find it fascinating that, in attempting to diminish the "Mark of a Moon Rover" photo, whose origin is not presently known, Kevin West has located others that are similar and were probably taken by the same photographer around the same time::

Kevin M. West, on 08 September 2010 - 12:14 AM, said:

Ready for a laugh? Same artist on fotosearch. Title "Desert Tracks".

http://www.fotosearc...SP067/k0672584/

http://www.fotosearc...SP067/k0673508/

Kevin may think this is a laughing matter, but Duane Daman has replied recounting an observation by Neil Armstrong that supports my conjecture that they could all have been taken at the same location:

"Armstrong: 'The surface is much like the high desert of the United States.'

"Correction: The surface IS the high desert of the United States.

"It really is difficult to tell the 'moon' and the desert apart, isn't it?

" *Edited [by Duane] to delete the word 'lunar' from Armstrong's quote ... He never said the word lunar before the word surface ... So I guess he [Neil Armstrong] really is an honest guy after all!"

Edited by James H. Fetzer
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...