Jump to content
The Education Forum

(Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread


Evan Burton
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have been asked to post this on behalf of William Attard McCarthy

Dear James,

By means of these few words let me assure you that, yes, I am the real deal. If you doubt Mr. Burton (as you do seemingly do doubt everything around you), please do not hesitate to visit my website www.mccarthysphotoworks.com and contact me through the site. Let me also assure you that not only am I the real deal, but so are my attorneys. I do not take lightly to people using my images without any form of consent whatsoever. The image in question is allowed to be sold on fotosearch.com through another stock agency. (hint hint... why don't you try to search for the same image on Fotolia.com and Dreamstime.com... just to save you the hassle of waiting for fotosearch's reply about the image's origins??)

Not only have you and Jack reproduced my image without consent, but you have also went as far as to publicly show it in an altered state... messing around with it just to show those Nike Air Max sneaker marks. May I again remind you that I take copyright violation very seriously and if anything of the sort ever happens again, you will know through my attorneys how much of a "real deal" I am.

Oh, and by the way James.... yes, that image unfortunately was not shot on the moon, and was never part of some Nasa cover-up... Well, to be plainly honest with you it wasn't even shot in the Sahara! There you go, James.

The image was shot at Golden Bay Beach in Malta.... and yes, they are quad bike tracks.

Oh, moreover, the prints in the foreground (which admittedly do resemble those left behind by 70s astronauts' footwear) are in fact those left behind by Crocs... yes, Crocs.

Just as another hint... why don't you go back to the image at fotosearch.com and take a closer look at the listed keywords for the image? DO you think I would have put in keywords such as beach and sand if it was shot on the Moon?

And for clarity's sake, I have the absolute right to name my images however I please. It is my work, and I name it and describe it and keyword it as I please. In fact, I am quite amused at how easy it was to fool the likes of you and Jack with a simple photo shot on a beach! Haha, just name it Tracks of the Moon Rover...and voila'! ... we got you and Jack screaming "Conspiracy Theory" LOL

Oh, and by the way... did you possibly fail to spot the patch of dark grass at the top of the image in the background?? Is there grass on the Moon????

Au Revoir!

William Attard McCarthy

BTW, in case anyone asks, I do not know Mr McCarthy except by contact via his website regarding the image Jack posted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 752
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Jim,

If you have any doubts about the images, I suggest you follow Mr McCarthy's advice and contact him via his website listed above.

Jack,

May I suggest you do likewise and apologise for your use of his image? Unless Mr McCarthy allows otherwise, we will remove the offending image.

Evan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

If you have any doubts about the images, I suggest you follow Mr McCarthy's advice and contact him via his website listed above.

Jack,

May I suggest you do likewise and apologise for your use of his image? Unless Mr McCarthy allows otherwise, we will remove the offending image.

Evan

Evan,

The games you play here are hilarious!

I can only imagine what you must have said to that photographer to get him so riled up that he's threatening Jim and Jack with his lawyers.

I've never seen such a big deal made over nothing.

And what's even funnier, is that McCarthy's photo was titled "Tracks of the Moon Rover", and claimed to have been taken in the Sahara Desert, when it was neither .. Yet he's steamed up about it being used to promote a hoax!?!?

TOO FUNNY!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duane, copyright violation is not a joking matter.

Copyright violation might not be a laughing matter, but his letter to Jim, via you, sure is.

Especially this one sentence ... "Oh, and by the way James.... yes, that image unfortunately was not shot on the moon, and was never part of some Nasa cover-up... Well, to be plainly honest with you it wasn't even shot in the Sahara! There you go, James."

Like I said before .. TOO FUNNY!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Copyright violation might not be a laughing matter, but his letter to Jim, via you, sure is.

Especially this one sentence ... "Oh, and by the way James.... yes, that image unfortunately was not shot on the moon, and was never part of some Nasa cover-up... Well, to be plainly honest with you it wasn't even shot in the Sahara! There you go, James."

Like I said before .. TOO FUNNY!

The guy sells stock, he earns his money by selling USAGE RIGHTS to images he has produced. Jack and Jim had no valid rights to use that image in question.

As a photographer he has every right to title his work as he sees fit and to allow usage as he sees fit. He also has the right to collect damages for unlawful usage, which can be three times the usage rate plus costs. Seems a fitting course of action...

BTW Duane, I was looking for the link to your bio at the bottom of your post and can't seem to find it?????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary / Antti:

1. Am I allowed to address the plethora of new LRV images Jack posts, one post per image?

2. Am I allowed to address the three-part post by Jim, one post per part? Or am I allowed only one post to address all three posts made by Jim?

I need to have this clarified because I can respond, as it determines what my responses will be.

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of my comments are not understood because I am not diligent enough in detail and formatting. In context, to me, they make perfect sense, but in hindsight, particularly out of context, not so. I'll be more careful in the future. I'll go back to quoting and placing comments in the quotes in a diff color. There was a request that people try to quote less and I've been taking that too seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Copyright violation might not be a laughing matter, but his letter to Jim, via you, sure is.

Especially this one sentence ... "Oh, and by the way James.... yes, that image unfortunately was not shot on the moon, and was never part of some Nasa cover-up... Well, to be plainly honest with you it wasn't even shot in the Sahara! There you go, James."

Like I said before .. TOO FUNNY!

The guy sells stock, he earns his money by selling USAGE RIGHTS to images he has produced. Jack and Jim had no valid rights to use that image in question.

As a photographer he has every right to title his work as he sees fit and to allow usage as he sees fit. He also has the right to collect damages for unlawful usage, which can be three times the usage rate plus costs. Seems a fitting course of action...

BTW Duane, I was looking for the link to your bio at the bottom of your post and can't seem to find it?????

You can defend that clown until the cows come home, but I stiil find it a hoot that he titled his picture as being Tracks of a Moon Rover in the Sahara Desert, when it was neither.

Seems kinda dishonest to me.

Since you're so interested in my mising bio, maybe you can help me find it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeing as you are a friend of Jack, and considering the amount of trouble Jack could be in, I would hold my tongue regarding Mr McCarthy. He owns the copyright to the image and Jack appears to have violated the copyright in several ways (removed watermark, altered image, illegal use, no accreditation).

You should always read the terms and conditions regarding the use of images.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeing as you are a friend of Jack, and considering the amount of trouble Jack could be in, I would hold my tongue regarding Mr McCarthy. He owns the copyright to the image and Jack appears to have violated the copyright in several ways (removed watermark, altered image, illegal use, no accreditation).

You should always read the terms and conditions regarding the use of images.

Funny how you posted Mr. McCarthy's e-mail reply to you, but not your original e-mail to him .. Not that I would expect you to post what you really wrote to him anyway.

So the only one making a big deal out that picture and hoping to cause trouble for Jack, is you.

I take back what I said before .. The games you play here are not hilarious, they're pathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have investigated these posts, and as far as I can tell, both posts 7 and 42 are intact. They are posts by Jack White, neither has been deleted nor made invisible.

Regards,

Antti Hynonen

Moderator

I had saved the page and have restored what was post

#7 as (new) post #42. I can't believe that he did that.

I have just discovered that my most important post

on the debate thread--in which I outlined what I was

going to cover during the course of the debate--has

been DELETED by Evan Burton, who did not notify me

that he intended to do that and which needs to be

RESTORED. This is quite outrageous. I am willingly

participating in this debate, but Burton has, time

and time again, abused his position as MODERATOR

and PARTICIPANT to take advantage of the situation,

not only by deleting Jack's original posts about the

missing moon rover tracks but even about what I plan

to cover during the course of this debate. Stunning!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Copyright violation might not be a laughing matter, but his letter to Jim, via you, sure is.

Especially this one sentence ... "Oh, and by the way James.... yes, that image unfortunately was not shot on the moon, and was never part of some Nasa cover-up... Well, to be plainly honest with you it wasn't even shot in the Sahara! There you go, James."

Like I said before .. TOO FUNNY!

The guy sells stock, he earns his money by selling USAGE RIGHTS to images he has produced. Jack and Jim had no valid rights to use that image in question.

As a photographer he has every right to title his work as he sees fit and to allow usage as he sees fit. He also has the right to collect damages for unlawful usage, which can be three times the usage rate plus costs. Seems a fitting course of action...

BTW Duane, I was looking for the link to your bio at the bottom of your post and can't seem to find it?????

You can defend that clown until the cows come home, but I stiil find it a hoot that he titled his picture as being Tracks of a Moon Rover in the Sahara Desert, when it was neither.

Seems kinda dishonest to me.

Since you're so interested in my mising bio, maybe you can help me find it.

Whats dishonest? He titled an ARTISTIC image. He titled and keyworded to image to GENERATE SALES. In case you missed it he earn money by selling USAGE RIGHTS to his artistinc efforts.

He has every right to title his artwork anything he pleases. He is not producing historical material nor is he recording the news. He is creating ART. That implies ARTISTIC LICENCE.

And YOU are calling HIM a clown?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeing as you are a friend of Jack, and considering the amount of trouble Jack could be in, I would hold my tongue regarding Mr McCarthy. He owns the copyright to the image and Jack appears to have violated the copyright in several ways (removed watermark, altered image, illegal use, no accreditation).

You should always read the terms and conditions regarding the use of images.

Funny how you posted Mr. McCarthy's e-mail reply to you, but not your original e-mail to him .. Not that I would expect you to post what you really wrote to him anyway.

So the only one making a big deal out that picture and hoping to cause trouble for Jack, is you.

I take back what I said before .. The games you play here are not hilarious, they're pathetic.

I have done none of the things alleged by Burton. I posted an image that Dr. Fetzer found on a stock photo website

of images for sale. I removed no watermark. I did not alter the image. The original caption on the image said it

showed "moon rover tracks". The accreditation was attached with the image the first time it was posted. Everything

Burton says is demonstrably false. Burton then came up with a DIFFERENT stock photo using the same image,

which was cropped differently and had a watermark, plus the name of an alleged photographer, who claimed to

be in the Sahara Desert taking photos of "dune buggy tracks in the sand". It would be interesting to see the

rest of the photo shoot, as well as client records of just who sent this photographer to Africa to take photos

of dune buggy tracks in sand. Who paid for this extravagant photo shoot, and how was it used? There is something

very peculiar going on with this photo.

Here is the stock photo Jim asked me to post OF AN IMAGE ALREADY AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET to the general

public. I did nothing but repost it...without cropping or any alteration. It is credited to FOTOSEARCH, a stock

photo company. It has no watermark. It is freely available to ANYONE on the internet. It was advertised as

"MOON ROVER TRACKS". It said nothing about dune buggies or the Sahara Desert. It did not credit any photographer.

Burton's accusations are unscrupulous and false, and I think moderators should take notice.

<IMAGE REMOVED BY MODERATOR>

Notice should also be taken of the FAIR USE provisions of US copyright laws. Among the uses exempted are

RESEARCH and EDUCATIONAL, as well as NON-PROFIT.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Evan,

Just make a three-part response to my three-part rebuttal. You can include anything in it you want that relates

to the content of my argument. As a matter of formatting, don't create a long run of separate posts. Just do as

I have done and provide a response to each of my three parts. Surely you could have figured it out on your own!

Jim

Gary / Antti:

1. Am I allowed to address the plethora of new LRV images Jack posts, one post per image?

2. Am I allowed to address the three-part post by Jim, one post per part? Or am I allowed only one post to address all three posts made by Jim?

I need to have this clarified because I can respond, as it determines what my responses will be.

Thank you.

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...