Jump to content
The Education Forum

(Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread


Evan Burton
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Evan, I can not see why not. This thread was for you and Fetzer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 752
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

OK...NUMBER ONE (separate numbered post for each study)

Click on image for maximum size!

Once again Jack fails to give an image number, making it harder for independent researchers (one wonders why he does that). The image number is AS17-137-20979.

Jack answered his own question here. Footprints. As before, there has been activity around the LRV, including attaching sample bags and causing lots of dust.

The image was taken at about 143:46:34 GET. The LRV had been parked since about 142:43:37 GET - nearly an hour. During that time there has been extensive activity at the rear of the LRV, including removing dust using brushes:

142:45:21 Parker: And, 17. Jack, we'd like you to check the SEP for us. I suspect we'll have to turn it off and open the mirrors and dust them.

[The SEP receiver/recorder on the back of the Rover has been overheating.]

**********

142:46:47 Parker: Roger. Let's turn off the (SEP) power and the recorder, open the blankets, and dust it.

142:46:57 Schmitt: Power's off; blankets are open; and, Gene, you'll have to dust it.

142:47:05 Cernan: I'll get it. I've got a lot of dusting to do here, Jack.

***********

143:18:19 Schmitt: Well, I'm getting it from this way, and they like that. Did we kick any dirt in under there?

[soil kicked under the overhang will contaminate any shadowed samples. One of the aims of collecting these samples is to look at the influence of solar wind exposure on the relative abundances of various elements and, of course, an admixture of unshadowed soil would, of course, muddle the analysis.]
[Cernan - "In the suit, shuffling around, you're not the most agile person in the world and, if you're not careful, you'll kick dust onto a pristine surface that you want to sample. When you're working, you're not necessarily watching how you're walking. You're not necessarily clumsy, but it's like waddling around in some big, old, fat galoshes and you just naturally disturb a lot of the surface in the area where you're working."]

***********

It's exactly the same reasons as given before. Footprints and activity covering tracks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

re post 102 debate thread

I think the rover took an S path.

I think there are tread marks visible (inset and rear right wheel)

I think given the mesh wheels and the thin tread strips) in many instances it will be hard to see treads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

I have been informed that you, Evan Burton, have deleted a post by Jack White that demonstrated you were

wrong about a matter of importance, which has been replaced by another despicable post by Craig Lamson.

I demand that Jack's post be restored and that you be removed from moderating any thread connected with

the moon landing debate! If this report is correct, then your conduct is truly disgusting, dishonest and corrupt.

I take it you are justifying your action on the basis of uncertainty about copyright. but your actions are so very

questionable that this debate is destined to be a failure if you are not replaced as its moderator. Surely there is

SOMEONE who can handle this instead of you. I asked for this before, but it has not happened. Let it happen NOW!

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.

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

Guest James H. Fetzer

Antti,

This is ridiculous. Let him make his replies within the format agreed upon. This is going to string it out

interminably. I explained how he should do it. A single-reply to my three-part post, which itself has its own

three parts. This is making a mockery of the exchange. This is making it look like a Burton bulletin-board.

He is not entitled to fifteen or more replies to my argument. Kindly rescind your permission and ask him

to conform to the agreed-upon format. He can make fifteen or more entries inside of his response, but not

as separate replies. I had already explained this to him. He is now no longer replying to me, but to Jack.

This is a blatant effort to obfuscate the fact that he has no response to my analysis of the evidence. I have

pointed out that the ground between the wheels is too smooth and uniform, displaying no signs of covering

up tracks; but he is using this technique as a way of concealing that his only reply is, "Yes, they did! Yes,

they did!", adding fabricated conversations that, if they occurred at all, occurred on Earth, where all these

shenanigans took place. And you are allowing him to get away with this! That is unbelievable. He can debate me

or drop it entirely! If he can't respond to his obligation to reply to my arguments, he has forfeited the debate!

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.

Evan, I can not see why not. This thread was for you and Fetzer.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
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?

Yeah, I guess it wasn't very kind of me to call that photographer a clown, even if his letter to Burton was a scream!

btw, Craig, I was very sorry to read about your need to declare bankruptcy .. It must have been quite a blow to a hot shot, egotistical photographer like yourself, to know that your financial assets are only worth a fraction of your debts.

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been informed that you, Evan Burton, have deleted a post by Jack White that demonstrated you were

wrong about a matter of importance, which has been replaced by another despicable post by Craig Lamson.

I demand that Jack's post be restored and that you be removed from moderating any thread connected with

the moon landing debate! If this report is correct, then your conduct is truly disgusting, dishonest and corrupt.

I take it you are justifying your action on the basis of uncertainty about copyright. but your actions are so very

questionable that this debate is destined to be a failure if you are not replaced as its moderator. Surely there is

SOMEONE who can handle this instead of you. I asked for this before, but it has not happened. Let it happen NOW!

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.

Jim,

Unfortunately, every time moderator Burton's dishonesty is exposed, he has the power to delete any evidence of it.

I was hoping when I returned to this forum that these type of disingenuous mind games would still not be taking place.

I see now that was just wishful thinking on my part, as some things never change.

Edited by Duane Daman
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?

Yeah, I guess it wasn't very kind of me to call that photographer a clown, even if his letter to Burton was a scream!

btw, Craig, I was very sorry to read about your need to declare bankruptcy .. It must have been quite a blow to a hot shot, egotistical photographer like yourself, to know that your financial assets are only worth a fraction of your debts.

Hey Duane, business is business and sometimes you need to regroup. My industry took a really big hit. But thanks so much for your concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Likely to no avail, I have responded to Burton's removal of one of my

messages. He claims I am guilty of copyright infringement. If that

be the case, why did he remove the entire message instead of just

the photo?

Here is the complaint I posted. I charge that Burton improperly

removed the ENTIRE message, instead of just the part which

he thinks is improper:

"In a locked message above, Burton admits to removing

one of my postings.

I request that my posting be restored without any portion

which is considered a copyright violation, with a mention

of what was removed. I expect a reply why this cannot

be done. Surely the entire posting did not constitute

a copyright violation, since I originated all of the text.

Jack"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Likely to no avail, I have responded to Burton's removal of one of my

messages. He claims I am guilty of copyright infringement. If that

be the case, why did he remove the entire message instead of just

the photo?

Here is the complaint I posted. I charge that Burton improperly

removed the ENTIRE message, instead of just the part which

he thinks is improper:

"In a locked message above, Burton admits to removing

one of my postings.

I request that my posting be restored without any portion

which is considered a copyright violation, with a mention

of what was removed. I expect a reply why this cannot

be done. Surely the entire posting did not constitute

a copyright violation, since I originated all of the text.

Jack"

If you read the moderator actions thread, he says he unapproved (not deleted, just not visible) posts (multiple, not just yours) until the issue of copyright could be determined. He did not accuse you of copyright violation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Likely to no avail, I have responded to Burton's removal of one of my

messages. He claims I am guilty of copyright infringement. If that

be the case, why did he remove the entire message instead of just

the photo?

Here is the complaint I posted. I charge that Burton improperly

removed the ENTIRE message, instead of just the part which

he thinks is improper:

"In a locked message above, Burton admits to removing

one of my postings.

I request that my posting be restored without any portion

which is considered a copyright violation, with a mention

of what was removed. I expect a reply why this cannot

be done. Surely the entire posting did not constitute

a copyright violation, since I originated all of the text.

Jack"

If you read the moderator actions thread, he says he unapproved (not deleted, just not visible) posts (multiple, not just yours) until the issue of copyright could be determined. He did not accuse you of copyright violation.

He should remove ONLY the parts of the message he deems unsuitable, stating why.

He should RESTORE THE REMAINDER of the deleted message.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been informed that you, Evan Burton, have deleted a post by Jack White that demonstrated you were

wrong about a matter of importance, which has been replaced by another despicable post by Craig Lamson.

I demand that Jack's post be restored and that you be removed from moderating any thread connected with

the moon landing debate! If this report is correct, then your conduct is truly disgusting, dishonest and corrupt.

I take it you are justifying your action on the basis of uncertainty about copyright. but your actions are so very

questionable that this debate is destined to be a failure if you are not replaced as its moderator. Surely there is

SOMEONE who can handle this instead of you. I asked for this before, but it has not happened. Let it happen NOW!

Exactly what part of any of my posts are "despicable"? Beside the fact that this is nothing more than a personal attack, forbidden by the forum rules, it is also untrue. I demand a retraction and an apology from James Fetzer, and or moderation.

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...