Jump to content
The Education Forum

(Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread


Evan Burton
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

Ever heard of "artistic licence"?

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.

The only people making a big deal out of it are you and Jack. Otherwise you wouldn't be getting Jack to post red-herrings like this:-

<IMAGE REMOVED BY MODERATOR>

I think it's time to leave this image alone and concentrate on the actual Apollo images, given that you now seem to be distancing yourself from it.

And Jack's concerns about non-exclusivity are highly appropriate, in my estimation, while this post from David Greer is not.

This thread demonstrates quite succinctly that your estimation is often way off beam. Non-exclusivity of stock image websites has about as much to do with the authenticity of the Apollo programme as the contents of my sock drawer has to do with traffic enforcement in Leamington Spa.

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 752
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Sorry, but when dealing with Apollogist trolls and their "one up", one liners, there's no reason for any of us to ever be serious.

So wadda ya think of these tire treads, Kev?

ap15-S70-53283HR.jpg

I think I like them much better than the "real" tires that went to the "real" moon on the "real" Rovers, yet rarely ever left any "real" tracks in the "real" lunar dust.

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Sorry, but when dealing with Apollogist trolls and their "one up", one liners, there's no reason for any of us to ever be serious.

So wadda ya think of these tire treads, Kev?

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/ap15-S70-53283HR.jpg

I think I like them much better than the "real" tires that went to the "real" moon on the "real" Rovers, yet rarely ever left any "real" tracks in the "real" lunar dust.

Every post of mine has been serious, every one of yours has been a joke. Who's the xxxxx here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Sorry, but when dealing with Apollogist trolls and their "one up", one liners, there's no reason for any of us to ever be serious.

So wadda ya think of these tire treads, Kev?

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/ap15-S70-53283HR.jpg

I think I like them much better than the "real" tires that went to the "real" moon on the "real" Rovers, yet rarely ever left any "real" tracks in the "real" lunar dust.

Every post of mine has been serious, every one of yours has been a joke. Who's the xxxxx here?

Well, considering the fact that you fit the description of a xxxxx to a T, with your confrontational one liners, I would have to say you are.

Not everything I post here is a joke .. I only post jokes to people who aren't worth the bother of taking seriously.. Like you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I researched the image, Jack, and contacted the photographer. I visited his website and e-mailed him. He has a message for you, by the way:

I tried to reply on the forum but it's not accepting new registrants... :(

Can you please, by means of the forum, tell Jack and all that the image was shot in the Sahara, and it was only submitted to stock agencies. Tell him nobody ever said it was public domain, and he had no right whatsoever to reproduce it on the forum, not even in a thumbnail format.

Can you please put everyone's mind at ease and tell them that those tracks are NOT Lunar Rover tracks but quad bike tracks!

...and the sneaker marks are mine :D

Regards,

Will

The only thing that is fishy here are your claims.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

This is a great triumph of research by Evan Burton! What he omitted from his discussion with the photographer and his discussion here is (1) that I found the image at fotosearch.com, not Jack; (2) that it is labeled there, "Tracks of a Moon Rover", which neither Jack nor I introduced; and (3) that it is therefore a legitimate object of study in relation to this debate. Indeed, as I explained in post #72 on the debate thread, I have been astonished that Evan himself did NOT introduce photos of rover tracks, which is what caused me to do a search of my own. I think we need a source other than this alleged photographer to know what's going on here. The background is enough like what we see in many of the "moon photos" that perhaps some of them were shot in the Sahara. It would be a perfect cover too have someone like "Will" take some of them and then, if indications of fakery, such as sneaker tracks, were discovered in them, to claims that he took them and the sneaker tracks were his. All of that could be true and this photo still be one that NASA had commissioned, where its identification as "Tracks of a Moon Rover" was the original intent, but the photo was exposed. So there is no justification for attacking Jack, who simply posted the image at my request. And it remains an object of legitimate research here regardless of Will's preferences. Indeed, we have no bona fide basis for confirming that Will is the real deal. I have asked footosearch.com to track down its origin, which I shall report when I hear back from them. And if I were taking a beating over missing moon rover tracks of the kind that Evan has been taking on the debate thread, then I would probably be desperate for a distraction that I could exaggerate for my own political purposes, which appears to me (and others, too, I do not doubt) to be precisely what is going on here.

I researched the image, Jack, and contacted the photographer. I visited his website and e-mailed him. He has a message for you, by the way:

I tried to reply on the forum but it's not accepting new registrants... :(

Can you please, by means of the forum, tell Jack and all that the image was shot in the Sahara, and it was only submitted to stock agencies. Tell him nobody ever said it was public domain, and he had no right whatsoever to reproduce it on the forum, not even in a thumbnail format.

Can you please put everyone's mind at ease and tell them that those tracks are NOT Lunar Rover tracks but quad bike tracks!

...and the sneaker marks are mine :D

Regards,

Will

The only thing that is fishy here are your claims.

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

Guest James H. Fetzer

Evan, I have repeatedly asked you to explain who removed my original post #7, which I reposted as #42,

on the debate thread. In fact, I asserted that it was you, since no one else had the motive, the means, and

the opportunity. You have protested with moral outrage that you did not do it but that available records will

show who did. Well, you have had plenty of time to check the records. So who was responsible, if not you?

If you were innocent, I would have expected to hear about it long before now. Inquiring minds want to know.

Gentlemen - do not refer to each other as trolls.

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

This is a great triumph of research by Evan Burton! What he omitted from his discussion with the photographer and his discussion here is (1) that I found the image at fotosearch.com, not Jack; (2) that it is labeled there, "Tracks of a Moon Rover", which neither Jack nor I introduced; and (3) that it is therefore a legitimate object of study in relation to this debate. Indeed, as I explained in post #72 on the debate thread, I have been astonished that Evan himself did NOT introduce photos of rover tracks, which is what caused me to do a search of my own. I think we need a source other than this alleged photographer to know what's going on here. The background is enough like what we see in many of the "moon photos" that perhaps some of them were shot in the Sahara. It would be a perfect cover too have someone like "Will" take some of them and then, if indications of fakery, such as sneaker tracks, were discovered in them, to claims that he took them and the sneaker tracks were his. All of that could be true and this photo still be one that NASA had commissioned, where its identification as "Tracks of a Moon Rover" was the original intent, but the photo was exposed. So there is no justification for attacking Jack, who simply posted the image at my request. And it remains an object of legitimate research here regardless of Will's preferences. Indeed, we have no bona fide basis for confirming that Will is the real deal. I have asked footosearch.com to track down its origin, which I shall report when I hear back from them. And if I were taking a beating over missing moon rover tracks of the kind that Evan has been taking on the debate thread, then I would probably be desperate for a distraction that I could exaggerate for my own political purposes, which appears to me (and others, too, I do not doubt) to be precisely what is going on here.

Just wondering professor, are you being even remotely serious here?

It's very clear that yout ineptitude in relation to the entire Apollo program and more specficially the lurnar surface photography is showing. Nothing about the photo in question (which you and or Jack posted illegally) other than it has TRACKS looks remotely like tha actual lunar surface photos. If you have studied them you would have been aware of that fact. To even suggest it might have been a cover photo that has now been exposed is silly in the extreme and only further cements the view of your ineptitude

As it stands you have not presented a single argument that impeaches the the lunar surface photography. Oh you have engaged in a mighty bout of furious handwaving, but your lack of "grasp" is showing clearly. Case in point, your out of hand dismissal fo discussions about the tracks a rover creates while turning and the concept of 4 wheel steering, which the lunar rovers had as "standard equipment" That you dismiss this imprortant and relevant fact as not worthy of discussion speaks mountains about your decided lack of knowlege in this case.

You can't even come to grips with a simple concept such as activity obliterating tire tracks....instead you (and those who you represent) invent, from whole cloth, an outlandish and totally illogical concept of hoisting the rover into positon. Amazing to be sure but clearly par for the Fetzer course.

Sorry professor but Jack and you are not on a "roll" but rather are being "rolled over".

Please continue.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Addressing a couple of the recent claims made about rover tracks.

1. Only single tracks being shown when there are four wheels.

Clearly the rear wheels may just run over the same line that the front wheels did. Sometimes you can see both tracks, as witnessed here.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-82-11195HR.jpg

2. Tracks not visible in between wheels.

As pointed out, astronaut activity around the rover can easily kick up enough dust, or create enough bootprints, to cover the tracks up. Sometimes the tracks are only partly covered up, as shown in this image.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-82-11200HR.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evan, I have repeatedly asked you to explain who removed my original post #7, which I reposted as #42,

on the debate thread. In fact, I asserted that it was you, since no one else had the motive, the means, and

the opportunity. You have protested with moral outrage that you did not do it but that available records will

show who did. Well, you have had plenty of time to check the records. So who was responsible, if not you?

If you were innocent, I would have expected to hear about it long before now. Inquiring minds want to know.

Gentlemen - do not refer to each other as trolls.

Jim,

I wonder why Evan won't answer your question about your deleted post?

It might be a good idea for you to back up every word you post here, just in case some of your other posts go "missing", for reasons yet to be explained by any of the moderators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evan, I have repeatedly asked you to explain who removed my original post #7, which I reposted as #42,

on the debate thread. In fact, I asserted that it was you, since no one else had the motive, the means, and

the opportunity. You have protested with moral outrage that you did not do it but that available records will

show who did. Well, you have had plenty of time to check the records. So who was responsible, if not you?

If you were innocent, I would have expected to hear about it long before now. Inquiring minds want to know.

Gentlemen - do not refer to each other as trolls.

Jim,

I wonder why Evan won't answer your question about your deleted post?

It might be a good idea for you to back up every word you post here, just in case some of your other posts go "missing", for reasons yet to be explained by any of the moderators.

Evan already answered, he said it wasn't him and you should ask the forum admins so you get the answer from an unbiased source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evan, I have repeatedly asked you to explain who removed my original post #7, which I reposted as #42,

on the debate thread. In fact, I asserted that it was you, since no one else had the motive, the means, and

the opportunity. You have protested with moral outrage that you did not do it but that available records will

show who did. Well, you have had plenty of time to check the records. So who was responsible, if not you?

If you were innocent, I would have expected to hear about it long before now. Inquiring minds want to know.

And I have already told you that it is inappropriate for me to investigate it and that I asked Gary to investigate - publicly. Ask Gary or Antti to answer your question, not me, since I should not be involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

I received a response from Foto Search this morning, who informed me that he had contacted the publisher of the photograph, "Marks of a Moon Rover", who has learned from the photographer that this is a recreation of the imprint of moon rover tracks but which were created in the Sahara Desert. What intrigues me about this in relation to what Evan has posted is that, if he received the same explanation from the photographer that I have received from the photographer via the publisher via Foto Search, then he left out the part about this being "a simulation" by creating rover tracks in the desert. According to Foto Search, even though they were not made on the moon, these are supposed to be genuine "rover tracks".

This is a great triumph of research by Evan Burton! What he omitted from his discussion with the photographer and his discussion here is (1) that I found the image at fotosearch.com, not Jack; (2) that it is labeled there, "Tracks of a Moon Rover", which neither Jack nor I introduced; and (3) that it is therefore a legitimate object of study in relation to this debate. Indeed, as I explained in post #72 on the debate thread, I have been astonished that Evan himself did NOT introduce photos of rover tracks, which is what caused me to do a search of my own. I think we need a source other than this alleged photographer to know what's going on here. The background is enough like what we see in many of the "moon photos" that perhaps some of them were shot in the Sahara. It would be a perfect cover too have someone like "Will" take some of them and then, if indications of fakery, such as sneaker tracks, were discovered in them, to claims that he took them and the sneaker tracks were his. All of that could be true and this photo still be one that NASA had commissioned, where its identification as "Tracks of a Moon Rover" was the original intent, but the photo was exposed. So there is no justification for attacking Jack, who simply posted the image at my request. And it remains an object of legitimate research here regardless of Will's preferences. Indeed, we have no bona fide basis for confirming that Will is the real deal. I have asked footosearch.com to track down its origin, which I shall report when I hear back from them. And if I were taking a beating over missing moon rover tracks of the kind that Evan has been taking on the debate thread, then I would probably be desperate for a distraction that I could exaggerate for my own political purposes, which appears to me (and others, too, I do not doubt) to be precisely what is going on here.

I researched the image, Jack, and contacted the photographer. I visited his website and e-mailed him. He has a message for you, by the way:

I tried to reply on the forum but it's not accepting new registrants... :(

Can you please, by means of the forum, tell Jack and all that the image was shot in the Sahara, and it was only submitted to stock agencies. Tell him nobody ever said it was public domain, and he had no right whatsoever to reproduce it on the forum, not even in a thumbnail format.

Can you please put everyone's mind at ease and tell them that those tracks are NOT Lunar Rover tracks but quad bike tracks!

...and the sneaker marks are mine :D

Regards,

Will

The only thing that is fishy here are your claims.

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

Guest James H. Fetzer

OK. I will ask Gary or John about this. Are you aware that I completed my three-part response two days ago?

Evan, I have repeatedly asked you to explain who removed my original post #7, which I reposted as #42,

on the debate thread. In fact, I asserted that it was you, since no one else had the motive, the means, and

the opportunity. You have protested with moral outrage that you did not do it but that available records will

show who did. Well, you have had plenty of time to check the records. So who was responsible, if not you?

If you were innocent, I would have expected to hear about it long before now. Inquiring minds want to know.

And I have already told you that it is inappropriate for me to investigate it and that I asked Gary to investigate - publicly. Ask Gary or Antti to answer your question, not me, since I should not be involved.

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...