(Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread

[Kevin M. West]

Which mission was that from Jack?

You tell us. You are the expert.

None of them, it's clearly not an Apollo image. Have you been paying any attention to this thread so far?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

I think you are making an excellent point. I also caught a mental lapse in which I presumed the rover only weighted 80 pounds, which would be true on the moon but is false on Earth. So I have corrected my mistake. The missing multiple tracks seems to me to be an important additional proof. Some photos of rover tracks show them, but others clearly do not. And the explanations you are getting in response are not worth taking seriously. Thanks for making another astute observation! I think we are on a roll!

Jim

When the wheels are in line, the trailing wheels would obiterate the tracks from the leading wheels as they make their own tracks. There are photos that show the multiple tracks when the rover turns.

That would be true ONLY if the rover always drove in a perfectly STRAIGHT line.

When going in a curved line or a turn, the trailing wheel would not track the front wheel exactly.

Some curved paths show no such widening of the doubled tracks.

Edited September 9, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Evan Burton]

Come on Jack - which mission is it from? Astound us all. Bust this hoax wide open by simply showing us which mission this was from. You know, the image number. You do have that, don't you?

Or are you trying to pass off a fake as being a genuine Apollo image? All it takes is the image number to confirm if it is or isn't.

Why would someone be so reluctant to identify an image unless they were trying to hide something?

[Evan Burton]

On a roll? With Jack misrepresenting Apollo images? I think not, Jim, I think not.

[Evan Burton]

The reason Jack won't answer is because the image is not from Apollo. It was taken in the Sahara Desert by William Attard McCarthy.

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-2516461/stock-photo-tyre-tracks-imprinted-in-the-sahara-desert-sands.html

The only person who made it out to be taken on the Moon ("Which astronaut wore sneakers") is Jack White.

That's a horrible deception you have attempted to pull on people Jack. Do you have rights to copy that image? Do you have rights to alter it and purport it to be something other that what it is?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Evan,

The only problem with this attack on Jack is that you have your facts wrong. I am the one who found this image at fotosearch.com, as I have explained in my posts. You must not be reading them very carefully or you would know that, since I have made it completely clear. I found the photo, which was identified as "Marks of a Moon Rover". Why it was misidentified is beyond me, but I even drove to Foto Search, which is located near Milwaukee, on Tuesday to make inquiries about its origin. I expect that the research Foto Search is doing for me will confirm your find. I don't think there is anything wrong with Jack posting images at my request, even if I make a mistake here and there in the process. If I am wrong about this, then I am wrong, which I will be glad to acknowledge. But photos like this are suggestive of where others may have been taken on Earth. I presume that, when you are ready, you are going to reply to my response to your first reply, since I have now completed my three-part response. Be sure to include this point in your reply on the debate thread, however, because posts here about the debate are not, strictly speaking, part of it.

Jim

The reason Jack won't answer is because the image is not from Apollo. It was taken in the Sahara Desert by William Attard McCarthy.

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-2516461/stock-photo-tyre-tracks-imprinted-in-the-sahara-desert-sands.html

The only person who made it out to be taken on the Moon ("Which astronaut wore sneakers") is Jack White.

That's a horrible deception you have attempted to pull on people Jack. Do you have rights to copy that image? Do you have rights to alter it and purport it to be something other that what it is?

Edited September 9, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

Jim...it would be simple for such a photo to be sold (or planted) to a stock photo agency

with false information. I am curious as to why an ATTORNEY was in the Sahara photographing

what appears to be LRV tracks. Could the attorney's claim of authorship be related to covering up

an embarrassing NASA photo? An attorney could be a cutout acting for a third party. The copyright

can only be held by the actual photographer. NASA photos are public domain and not copyrightable.

I believe it is important to gather the history of this photo at each of the two agencies selling

the image, and the dates of acquisition.

Jack

PS. I note that these are two separate photo agencies. Odd, such things are nearly always

EXCLUSIVE. The two images are cropped differently. One has a watermarked logo and

the other does not. One agency identifies the image as the moon, the other the Sahara.

How did Burton come up with the Sahara identification? Something is fishy here.

Edited September 9, 2010 by Jack White

[Dave Greer]

Jim...it would be simple for such a photo to be sold (or planted) to a stock photo agency

with false information.

I am curious as to why an ATTORNEY was in the Sahara photographing

what appears to be LRV tracks. Could the attorney's claim of authorship be related to covering up

an embarrassing NASA photo? An attorney could be a cutout acting for a third party. The copyright

can only be held by the actual photographer. NASA photos are public domain and not copyrightable.

I believe it is important to gather the history of this photo at each of the two agencies selling

the image, and the dates of acquisition.

Jack

PS. I note that these are two separate photo agencies. Odd, such things are nearly always

EXCLUSIVE. The two images are cropped differently. One has a watermarked logo and

the other does not. One agency identifies the image as the moon, the other the Sahara.

How did Burton come up with the Sahara identification? Something is fishy here.

The guy who took the photo is a photographer.

Here's his website.

Here's his email address.

The photo is claimed to have been taken in the Sahara. The appearance of the shoe-prints supports this (they aren't anywhere near as distinct as the Apollo photos). Examination of the tyre tracks clearly shows they are not the same as the LRV tracks.

The only people on the face of the planet claiming this image might be part of the Apollo photography are Jack and Jim, or Jack or Jim, I don't know who made the claim first and care even less. This whole episode is an exercise in futility and desperation. Critical thinking skills, who needs them? If the photographer had decided to label his image "Mark of the Martian Rover", no doubt you'd be inferring that NASA have already started faking images for a manned trip to Mars in thirty years time, and this one was released early by a whistle-blower.

I know it's a long shot, but maybe, just maybe, this photo was actually taken by the person who claims to have taken it, in the Sahara desert? Who'd a thunked it...

Edited September 9, 2010 by Dave Greer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Except, of course, that fotosearch.com has it listed with the title, "Marks of a Moon Rover"! I

can't believe the incompetence of some of those posting here, who want to make a big deal of

having found a photo that looks a lot like it was in the "moon landing" collection but probably

is not, even though I have explained exactly where I found it. And Jack's concerns about non-

exclusivity are highly appropriate, in my estimation, while this post from David Greer is not.

Jim...it would be simple for such a photo to be sold (or planted) to a stock photo agency

with false information.

I am curious as to why an ATTORNEY was in the Sahara photographing

what appears to be LRV tracks. Could the attorney's claim of authorship be related to covering up

an embarrassing NASA photo? An attorney could be a cutout acting for a third party. The copyright

can only be held by the actual photographer. NASA photos are public domain and not copyrightable.

I believe it is important to gather the history of this photo at each of the two agencies selling

the image, and the dates of acquisition.

Jack

PS. I note that these are two separate photo agencies. Odd, such things are nearly always

EXCLUSIVE. The two images are cropped differently. One has a watermarked logo and

the other does not. One agency identifies the image as the moon, the other the Sahara.

How did Burton come up with the Sahara identification? Something is fishy here.

The guy who took the photo is a photographer.

Here's his website.

Here's his email address.

The photo is claimed to have been taken in the Sahara. The appearance of the shoe-prints supports this (they aren't anywhere near as distinct as the Apollo photos). Examination of the tyre tracks clearly shows they are not the same as the LRV tracks.

The only people on the face of the planet claiming this image might be part of the Apollo photography are Jack and Jim, or Jack or Jim, I don't know who made the claim first and care even less. This whole episode is an exercise in futility and desperation. Critical thinking skills, who needs them? If the photographer had decided to label his image "Mark of the Martian Rover", no doubt you'd be inferring that NASA have already started faking images for a manned trip to Mars in thirty years time, and this one was released early by a whistle-blower.

I know it's a long shot, but maybe, just maybe, this photo was actually taken by the person who claims to have taken it, in the Sahara desert? Who'd a thunked it...

[Jack White]

I have retraced my steps in this study and now cannot imagine where I got the idea that the

photographer was an attorney. I thought Burton had said it, but he did not. Maybe it was

because the middle name of the photographer was Attard.

I obviously was wrong. But it was six a.m. when I read this and was not wide awake yet, I

suppose. I do not claim 100 percent accuracy.

But it is still odd that a photographer would sell the same image to two different stock

photo agencies with two DIFFERENT captions.

Jack

Edited September 9, 2010 by Jack White

[Kevin M. West]

Is it odd that a photographer would want to double his profit on an image?

What would be odd would be NASA trying to sell that single image when the rest of the collection is freely available at much higher resolution.

[Duane Daman]

Check out the tires on these babies .. Maybe that desert photo really is an official Apollo photo .. It just wasn't taken on the "moon".

[Kevin M. West]

Tread pattern on those tires doesn't match the tracks.

[Duane Daman]

Tread pattern on those tires doesn't match the tracks.

No kidding Sherlock.. How long did it take you to figure that one out? .. So subtle humor really does go right over your head.

Yep, you never fail to disappoint.

[Kevin M. West]

Tread pattern on those tires doesn't match the tracks.

No kidding Sherlock.. How long did it take you to figure that one out? .. So subtle humor really does go right over your head.

Yep, you never fail to disappoint.

Sorry, but when dealing with your conspiracy theorist friends, they are usually serious when it seems like they must be kidding.