Jump to content
The Education Forum

(Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread


Evan Burton
 Share

Recommended Posts

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...7/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...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 and "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 offer 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. 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 pose, as he has in the past, but to try to come to grips with my arguments, for a change!

Hilariously ridiculous. The pics that say "artists rendering" are RENDERINGS not photos. Here, this one is from the same "artist" and doesn't say "artist's rendering" on it either, it must be authentic! Just look how much they're charging for it, it must be real!

http://www.fotosearch.com/CSP183/k1838894/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 752
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just to clarify. I hold no significant opinion on the photo Kevin regards as earthbased in the prev study. My references were to the NASA image, I haven't delved into the other picture and so don't have anything much to say about it. If there are connections in what I wrote and the representation of it as providing a reason ... then that is not intentional. I basically wish to focus on images that NASA presents as authentic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides the fact that the soil looks wrong and the footprints look wrong, the track in question has a tread pattern different than every single apollo rover picture or the tires themselves. Notice the repeating pattern down the middle of the tread (highlighted green) that doesn't exist in any apollo photo or on the rover wheel:

treads2.jpg

The only thing that picture has in common with some apollo photos is that it's in black and white.

Edited by Kevin M. West
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, the number of treads when the width is the same is a dead giveaway (there, I have expressed an opinion on it.) 4 to 7 ~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides the fact that the soil looks wrong and the footprints look wrong, the track in question has a tread pattern different than every single apollo rover picture or the tires themselves. Notice the repeating pattern down the middle of the tread (highlighted green) that doesn't exist in any apollo photo or on the rover wheel:

treads2.jpg

The only thing that picture has in common with some apollo photos is that it's in black and white.

Well, at least it was in black and white until you added the green part.. The two pictures have more in common that just being in black and white.. The "moon" terrain looks very similar as well.

Maybe those tracks were made by crane that lifted the Rover onto the moonset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then ask Burton to reinstate the studies and we will see Burton refute them. Why is he afraid

to discuss the trackless rover photos?

Clearly he is not 'afraid' of your work, he has already refuted it.

The question of who is afraid falls on you.

For someone who has no time for this you sure are spending a bunch of time on it. Why is it YOU must hide behind a shill? What are YOU afraid of?

My apologies for being off topic here, but I don't believe Lamson's avatar complies with the forum's rules.

That is unless he has now morphed into a speedboat.

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides the fact that the soil looks wrong and the footprints look wrong, the track in question has a tread pattern different than every single apollo rover picture or the tires themselves. Notice the repeating pattern down the middle of the tread (highlighted green) that doesn't exist in any apollo photo or on the rover wheel:

treads2.jpg

The only thing that picture has in common with some apollo photos is that it's in black and white.

Well, at least it was in black and white until you added the green part.. The two pictures have more in common that just being in black and white.. The

"moon" terrain looks very similar as well.

Doesn't look that similar to me. The moon isn't covered in sand.

Maybe those tracks were made by crane that lifted the Rover onto the moonset.

Yes, maybe they built a different set just for that one picture, covered it in sand instead of lunar regolith, drove a crane through it, walked all over it in sneakers that didn't exist in the 60's, and then waited 40 years to release that single image through fotosearch.com. Perfectly logical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Of course, Kevin, I am citing the multiple reasons that support the inference it is (or might be) authentic as part of the official moon rover collection. The point I make, which you also ignore, is that, even if it IS NOT authentic as part of the official moon rover collection, the similarity between its background and that of other "official" photos suggests that it may have been taken at the location where all of these photos were faked. Why don't you track down where it came from and share that with us. That would be making a more constructive contribution than trying to discount my argument, when it has the form of a dilemma: IF IT IS AUTHENTIC, then . . . and IF IT IS NOT AUTHENTIC, then . . . Since EITHER it is authentic OR it is not authentic, IT FOLLOWS that either we have an outright refutation or a location where all of this chicanery may have taken place. Since you reject it as NOT AUTHENTIC, show us how smart you are by establishing where this photo was actually taken.

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...7/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...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 and "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 offer 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. 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 pose, as he has in the past, but to try to come to grips with my arguments, for a change!

Hilariously ridiculous. The pics that say "artists rendering" are RENDERINGS not photos. Here, this one is from the same "artist" and doesn't say "artist's rendering" on it either, it must be authentic! Just look how much they're charging for it, it must be real!

http://www.fotosearch.com/CSP183/k1838894/

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

Seriously? You expect me to find out where an unattributed picture of some sand was taken in order to prove it wasn't from some hypothetical moon set? Hilarious.

These are your points, let me know if I miss any.

1) It was called "mark of the moon rover" by an unknown source.

2) It's being sold for a significant amount of money

3) It's not labeled as a rendering

My responses:

1) Did NASA label the image? Has NASA ever published it anywhere? Do you have ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that the image has anything to do with NASA?

2) That site sells lots of random images for obscene amounts of money. Look around the site a bit, the price has nothing to do with the source or the historical accuracy.

3) That's because it's a photo, not a rendering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Your bona fides are starting to show. You deny it is from the moon. Well, then, where was it from? No, I was not asking you to show where a FAKE MOON PHOTO WAS TAKEN. I was asking you to EXPLAIN WHERE IT WAS TAKEN, since you insist it is NOT a fake moon photo (but rather, I take it, from some training op on Earth). Well, if it was taken from some training op on Earth, where is it? What is the location where it was taken? If that is your claim, then SUPPORT IT. Tell us where this photo was actually taken. You, Evan, and others are very good at locating official NASA numbers for other photos. How about this one? Plus I no longer think it was necessary for the rover to have moved to these locations, since the use of Photoshop or other composition software would probably have sufficed. I notice that neither you nor Greer nor other members of this "brain trust" has deigned to explain the missing tracks between the wheels of the rover. Your silence is quite telling.

Seriously? You expect me to find out where an unattributed picture of some sand was taken in order to prove it wasn't from some hypothetical moon set? Hilarious.

These are your points, let me know if I miss any.

1) It was called "mark of the moon rover" by an unknown source.

2) It's being sold for a significant amount of money

3) It's not labeled as a rendering

My responses:

1) Did NASA label the image? Has NASA ever published it anywhere? Do you have ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that the image has anything to do with NASA?

2) That site sells lots of random images for obscene amounts of money. Look around the site a bit, the price has nothing to do with the source or the historical accuracy.

3) That's because it's a photo, not a rendering.

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

Of course, Kevin, I am citing the multiple reasons that support the inference it is (or might be) authentic as part of the official moon rover collection. The point I make, which you also ignore, is that, even if it IS NOT authentic as part of the official moon rover collection, the similarity between its background and that of other "official" photos suggests that it may have been taken at the location where all of these photos were faked. Why don't you track down where it came from and share that with us. That would be making a more constructive contribution than trying to discount my argument, when it has the form of a dilemma: IF IT IS AUTHENTIC, then . . . and IF IT IS NOT AUTHENTIC, then . . . Since EITHER it is authentic OR it is not authentic, IT FOLLOWS that either we have an outright refutation or a location where all of this chicanery may have taken place. Since you reject it as NOT AUTHENTIC, show us how smart you are by establishing where this photo was actually taken.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to suppose that the image in question may be part of the official moon rover collection. It shows tyre tracks and shoe-prints in sand. The person who took the photo thought it resembled lunar rover tracks, thus the name "Mark of the Moon Rover". Fotosearch is a stock photo repository, he probably sold it to them.

Does this sound like a more or less likely scenario than the one you have proposed? Do you agree that the burden of proof for a claim such as yours should fall squarely on your shoulders to demonstrate that image is meant to be authentic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

"Absolutely no reason" when I have given four? That's a bit of a stretch, is it not? Where did it come from? Someone borrowed a moon rover and drove it across the beach at Malibu? And why does the background so strongly resemble the background in so many other "moon rover photographs" that are in the "official" collection? I think you ought to try to do better with this one. It looks too much like "authentic" moon rover photographs not to be of special interest. But thanks for offering your opinion.

Of course, Kevin, I am citing the multiple reasons that support the inference it is (or might be) authentic as part of the official moon rover collection. The point I make, which you also ignore, is that, even if it IS NOT authentic as part of the official moon rover collection, the similarity between its background and that of other "official" photos suggests that it may have been taken at the location where all of these photos were faked. Why don't you track down where it came from and share that with us. That would be making a more constructive contribution than trying to discount my argument, when it has the form of a dilemma: IF IT IS AUTHENTIC, then . . . and IF IT IS NOT AUTHENTIC, then . . . Since EITHER it is authentic OR it is not authentic, IT FOLLOWS that either we have an outright refutation or a location where all of this chicanery may have taken place. Since you reject it as NOT AUTHENTIC, show us how smart you are by establishing where this photo was actually taken.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to suppose that the image in question may be part of the official moon rover collection. It shows tyre tracks and shoe-prints in sand. The person who took the photo thought it resembled lunar rover tracks, thus the name "Mark of the Moon Rover". Fotosearch is a stock photo repository, he probably sold it to them.

Does this sound like a more or less likely scenario than the one you have proposed? Do you agree that the burden of proof for a claim such as yours should fall squarely on your shoulders to demonstrate that image is meant to be authentic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Absolutely no reason" when I have given four? That's a bit of a stretch, is it not? Where did it come from? Someone borrowed a moon rover and drove it across the beach at Malibu? And why does the background so strongly resemble the background in so many other "moon rover photographs" that are in the "official" collection? I think you ought to try to do better with this one. It looks too much like "authentic" moon rover photographs not to be of special interest. But thanks for offering your opinion.

Four reasons?

(i) that the setting looks like that of many other "official" moon rover photographs

It's a black and white photo of sand, with tyre tracks and shoe-prints. It's bound to have a superficial resemblance to some of the Apollo photos.

(ii) John Dolva has offer a counter-argument to Kevin's suggestion it was NOT taken on the moon

Here is what John said by way of clarification:-

"Just to clarify. I hold no significant opinion on the photo Kevin regards as earthbased in the prev study. My references were to the NASA image, I haven't delved into the other picture and so don't have anything much to say about it. If there are connections in what I wrote and the representation of it as providing a reason ... then that is not intentional. I basically wish to focus on images that NASA presents as authentic."

(iii) other photos offered by fotosearch are identified as "artist's renderings", for example, if they are not "official" moon landing photographs

Not all - see below. In addition, you seem to be inferring that fotosearch's naming convention is the final arbiter on the authenticity or otherwise of an image. This is not an argument that many will find convincing.

(iv) Foto Search has s price list as follows:

<snip>

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".

Incredulity isn't proof of anything. You can download hi-res images of all the Apollo photos from NASA sites for free, so why would an outlandishly high pricing policy on fotosearch (for MANY of their images) somehow point to this image being an authentic Apollo image, when you can download them all for free?

Using your logic, this image must also be a genuine Apollo photo, since fotosearch are charging up to $399.95 for a digital copy of this image.

space-shuttle-landing_~15476-64dg.jpg

http://www.fotosearch.com/CRT465/15476-64dg/

I was really hoping you could do better than that Jim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your bona fides are starting to show. You deny it is from the moon. Well, then, where was it from? No, I was not asking you to show where a FAKE MOON PHOTO WAS TAKEN. I was asking you to EXPLAIN WHERE IT WAS TAKEN, since you insist it is NOT a fake moon photo (but rather, I take it, from some training op on Earth). Well, if it was taken from some training op on Earth, where is it? What is the location where it was taken? If that is your claim, then SUPPORT IT. Tell us where this photo was actually taken. You, Evan, and others are very good at locating official NASA numbers for other photos. How about this one?

You just don't get it. It's a random picture that anyone on earth could have taken at any time. I'm not claiming it's from some training mission, I'm suggesting that it has absolutely nothing to do with apollo or nasa or anything related. Of course it has no image number from nasa. Of course no one has ever seen it before. It's just some picture of sand with tracks in it that someone sold to a stock photo company as a moon image.

Plus I no longer think it was necessary for the rover to have moved to these locations, since the use of Photoshop or other composition software would probably have sufficed. I notice that neither you nor Greer nor other members of this "brain trust" has deigned to explain the missing tracks between the wheels of the rover. Your silence is quite telling.

Photoshop? 40 years ago?

The missing tracks between the wheels are easy to explain. The astronauts had to stand between the wheels to get on and off the rover. They had to walk around the rover to use the equipment on it. They walked all over the tracks and destroyed them in the process. It's clear when you look at the other pictures from the same time, the soil around the rover, including between the wheels, is stirred up from the astronaut activity, but you can see the tracks in the areas they haven't walked yet. Like this one for example, notice how the tracks disappear right where the soil texture changes and the bootprints show up.

AS15-88-11903.jpg

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...