(Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread

[Jack White]

Evan and his buddies on another link resort to ridicule and sarcasm to rebut the "Real Moon Landing in 1969" video clip,

http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=2906&page=23

where sarcasm and ridicule--which are varieties of ad hominem arguments--are precisely what we should expect when one

side runs out of arguments. In this case, that they are indulging in several fallacies at once makes it entirely apparent that

they have run out of intellectual resources (not that they were all that substantial to begin with). Notice, for example, how

I have presented many arguments here--perhaps as many as a dozen--but Evan picks out only one. Citing only some parts

of the evidence is the technique of politicians, editorial writers, and used-car salesmen. Technically, this is the fallacy called

"special pleading", well known to con men and shysters of all stripes. And he gains leverage by taking for granted--which

is called "begging the question"--that he is right and I must be wrong. Let's see how strong a case can be made for that.

Here is the video clip under consideration:

Presumably, there are only three hypotheses:

(h1) this is actual footage of the moon landing;

(h2) this is actual footage of the faking of the moon landing;

(h3) this is actual footage of the faking of the faking of the moon landing.

Thus, it has been alleged, "Jim Fetzer has swallowed the fake "fake moon landing" film hook, line and sinker." Presumably,

the argument is that this video was made as a "joke" to further ridicule the hoax believers as propaganda and obfuscation.

Certainly, that is a possibility that cannot be ruled out. But is it the most likely among these alternative explanations?

(h1) can safely be excluded, since if this were actual footage of the moon landing, there would be no need for scaffolding,

a film crew, and a director to ask if Neil Armstrong would like to do "another take"! So we can conclude that (h1) is false.

Notice, however, that creating a fake moon landing stage scenario would require tremendous attention to detail, which

seems to be the case here. If we ignore the collapsing scaffolding, the crew's response, and the director's question, it looks

exactly like the footage we were presented of the actual moon landing, when it was broadcast world-wide by television. So

let's ask what would be involved in creating a fake video of the (actually false) faking of the moon landing as resources.

First, you would need to have exact information about the set, including the Moon Lander, the astronaut's suits, etcetera.

Second, you would have to find a suitable location, hire a crew and director, which is going to take time and lots of money.

Third, you would have to have a powerful motive for devoting the painstaking time and expense to create a fake, fake video.

Suppose it would run $100,000, which is a conservative estimate. (I would bet it would cost many times that.) How many are

going to have the time and money to devote to creating a fake video of the (actually false) faking of the moon landing? And

why would anyone do this? We are not talking about Photoshop or other easily utilized photo faking techniques. This is on a

large scale and very detailed and precise. Moreover, why would anyone who had the time and the resources do something like

this? If you believe the moon landings are genuine, why would you create a fake video to suggest that they were really faked?

When we take the alternatives seriously and consider what would be involved in faking a fake video of a fake moon landing, the

improbability of doing something like that--with such stunning success!--becomes quite remote. The probability that something

like the collapse of the scaffolding when creating a video of the faked landing appears quite reasonable, considering the role

of mechanical or of human error in producing a result like this. And if someone who had been on the set had the conscience to

be concerned about faking the world about the moon landing, if they had access to this tape, then they might have released it.

The likelihood that this mishap occurred during the taping of a fake landing thus appears to be much higher than the likelihood

that this was instead the faking of the taping of a fake video, which means that, given the available relevant evidence, (h2)

has a higher likelihood than (h3) and is therefore preferable. The question that then arises is, do we have enough evidence to

conclude that it has "settled down", which makes (h2) acceptable in the tentative and fallible fashion of science? Given the

rest of the evidence I have presented, the answer appears to be "Yes!", which is why Evan had to resort to special pleading.

But here is the clincher. Suppose (h3) were true and this is the faking of a video showing the faking of the moon landing? The

production values are so exceptional and indistinguishable from those of the footage that was televised around the world that it

demonstrates--conclusively, in my view--that the moon landing could have been faked! Listen to the argument. This is faking of

a video of a fake moon landing that is indistinguishable from the footage NASA broadcast worldwide. But in that case it shows

that the footage broadcast could have been faked, since this footage was allegedly faked and is--apart from the glitches that

distinguish it--indistinguishable from NASA's own. If it's real, it shows the moon landing footage was faked. But even if it was

faked, it shows how the footage could have been faked, as the rest of the evidence shows. Either way, it proves too much.

Jim's reasoning seems impeccable to me. I would ask one caveat, which I have not done myself.

The "faked" frames need to be compared side by side with the "real" frames, to see whether they

indeed are a separate event, or a mishap on the "real" event set.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Not to suggest that Evan Burton is as logically challenged as Peter Dawson on the DPF, but the time, cost, and effort that would have had to have been invested to recreate a set with the same features as the (allegedly genuine) moon landing would be extraordinary. The last point I make is the most telling, namely: that those, like this guy, who insist that this is some kind of hoax itself -- not the actual purported moon landings, which, in my view, actually are a hoax, but this faking of the faking of the moon landing -- confronts a constructive dilemma.

And this is the clincher. Suppose (h3) were true and this is the faking of a video showing the faking of the moon landing. The production values are so exceptional and indistinguishable from those of the footage that was televised around the world that it demonstrates -- conclusively, in my view -- that the moon landing could have been faked! According to the hypothesis, this is faking of a video of a fake moon landing that is indistinguishable from the footage NASA broadcast worldwide. In that case it proves the broadcast could have been faked.

The footage that was allegedly faked is -- apart from those glitches that distinguish it -- indistinguishable from NASA's own. If it's real, it shows the moon landing footage was faked. But even if it was faked, it shows how the footage could have been faked, as the rest of the evidence shows. But either it is real footage of a fake landing or its faked footage of a fake landing. So either it shows that the moon landing footage was faked or how it could have been faked. Either way -- given either hypothesis (h2) or (h3) -- it proves too much.

Combined with the other evidence -- showing the use of wires, for example, to simulate the lower gravitational field of the moon, the faking of moon rover photos with no tracks between the tires, shadows cast that have to have come from a nearby light source, the use of front- screen projection, and other indications of fakery I have discussed -- the case for fakery overwhelms the case that the moon landings actually took place. That the landings were faked, given the available evidence, is vastly more likely than that man went to the moon.

Edited November 11, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Evan Burton]

I gave you enough clues. Horses, water, drink, etc. You should try to apply critical thinking to evidence, Jim. I know someone who can teach you all about it. PM me and I'll send you the details.

The spoof was produced by The Viral Factory. On the website moontruth.com, when the film was released, it had a little disclaimer saying how it was a spoof. Many moonhoaxers didn't bother to read that annoying little fact, much to their embarrassment when it was pointed out. Anyway, it's a spoof! Do you understand that? It was designed for people just like you, whose standards of credulity are questionable at best.

‘Moontruth’ Playing in to the hands of conspiracy theorists, a film was leaked to the public that supposedly proved that man had never in fact landed on the moon and that the moon landing was in fact staged in a television studio. This viral hoax led to 3,000 people, taken in by the footage, calling NASA to complain about their dishonesty in saying that they had conquered the moon.

I know you don't normally question things that agree with you, but how about contacting The Viral Factory and.... you know... asking some questions.

Surprisingly, Jack has a good idea: why don't you compare the "fake fake" film against the "real fake" film, as you would have it?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Here's an earlier study of which I have only learned tonight (thanks to Duane

Daman) which goes most of the distance toward bridging the gap between

what could have been done by way of fakery and what actually was done:

http://www.rense.com/general79/rehar.htm

If this had been some kind of rehearsal, then no doubt NASA would have

announced that it had been a "rehearsal" when this footage was found,

rather than coming up with ridiculous stories such as Evan peddles here.

I gave you enough clues. Horses, water, drink, etc. You should try to apply critical thinking to evidence, Jim. I know someone who can teach you all about it. PM me and I'll send you the details.

The spoof was produced by The Viral Factory. On the website moontruth.com, when the film was released, it had a little disclaimer saying how it was a spoof. Many moonhoaxers didn't bother to read that annoying little fact, much to their embarrassment when it was pointed out. Anyway, it's a spoof! Do you understand that? It was designed for people just like you, whose standards of credulity are questionable at best.

‘Moontruth’ Playing in to the hands of conspiracy theorists, a film was leaked to the public that supposedly proved that man had never in fact landed on the moon and that the moon landing was in fact staged in a television studio. This viral hoax led to 3,000 people, taken in by the footage, calling NASA to complain about their dishonesty in saying that they had conquered the moon.

I know you don't normally question things that agree with you, but how about contacting The Viral Factory and.... you know... asking some questions.

Surprisingly, Jack has a good idea: why don't you compare the "fake fake" film against the "real fake" film, as you would have it?

Edited November 11, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Evan Burton]

I tried. I really did. You had everything given to you.

I do notice, once again, you avoid taken the steps to confirm or deny your actions, like contacting the photographer where Jack and yourself made that other tremendous blunder.

Very telling.

[Evan Burton]

[Dave Greer]

Notice, however, that creating a fake moon landing stage scenario would require tremendous attention to detail, which

seems to be the case here. If we ignore the collapsing scaffolding, the crew's response, and the director's question, it looks

exactly like the footage we were presented of the actual moon landing, when it was broadcast world-wide by television. So

let's ask what would be involved in creating a fake video of the (actually false) faking of the moon landing as resources.

First, you would need to have exact information about the set, including the Moon Lander, the astronaut's suits, etcetera.

Second, you would have to find a suitable location, hire a crew and director, which is going to take time and lots of money.

Third, you would have to have a powerful motive for devoting the painstaking time and expense to create a fake, fake video.

First, the only information you need is a copy of the Apollo 11 footage where Armstrong steps off the lander. You only need to make it look good enough to fool the layperson who won't compare it to the actual footage. If you had taken time to examine the suit detail for example, you'd realise it's not an Apollo suit. What's that ruddy great box on the front of the suit? It's not visible in any photos of Apollo suits from any Apollo missions. You only have to create a small part of the lander, which could easily and cheaply be done with materials available from any hardware store.

Second. Suitable location? Studio for hire? Friends barn? Hire a crew and director. Well, maybe you're the director so you're doing it for free. Maybe you have to pay half a dozen people's wages for a couple of days. Few hundred dollars/pounds at most.

Third. We can only guess at the producers motives. Unless you want to contact him directly and ask him?

Suppose it would run $100,000, which is a conservative estimate. (I would bet it would cost many times that.) How many are

going to have the time and money to devote to creating a fake video of the (actually false) faking of the moon landing? And

why would anyone do this? We are not talking about Photoshop or other easily utilized photo faking techniques. This is on a

large scale and very detailed and precise. Moreover, why would anyone who had the time and the resources do something like

this? If you believe the moon landings are genuine, why would you create a fake video to suggest that they were really faked?

You guess at £100,000 as a very low estimate. I'm going to guess $500.

But here is the clincher. Suppose (h3) were true and this is the faking of a video showing the faking of the moon landing? The

production values are so exceptional and indistinguishable from those of the footage that was televised around the world that it

demonstrates--conclusively, in my view--that the moon landing could have been faked!

You clearly haven't compared the two footages side-by-side. You also seem to be falling into the trap of "could have been faked" implies "actually was faked". In order to do that, you are deliberately taking a few seconds of poor quality video and ignoring the huge amount of other evidence, including much higher quality video and film footage.

[Kevin M. West]

You also must take into account that nearly 40 years passed in between the two videos. An amateur filmmaker can do things today for free that weren't even possible 40 years ago.

ETA: Sorry just realized this is the debate thread not the discussion thread. Mods feel free to move this post (not that anyone's stuck to the debate format anyway).

Edited November 11, 2010 by Kevin M. West

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

As another example of Evan Burton's abuse of his position as moderator and participant, this post belongs on

the discussion thread, not the debate thread. He continues to demonstrate his fanaticism and lack of ethics to

the bitter end. We all know Burton has buddies like David Greer who will support him regardless of the evidence.

The points that are made in comparing them, including the edge of the images, which is seen from the same angle

in both the footage broadcast and the "rehearsal" footage, are extremely improbable and would have been virtually

impossible to replicate. Both have a similar look and a similar feel and were probably shot on the very same stage.

They are obviously not the same take, since the collapse of the light bar required a second take. But the author,

Ted Twietmeyer, makes many other extremely interesting observations about the crew wearing what appear to be

military uniforms and behaving in ways that would not be expected of a crew working on some kind of "spoof":

What's also interesting about this video is that during this entire rehearsal disaster, not one man who ran in to assist

the astronaut/ actor ever turned his face toward the camera. None of them ever looked back in that direction, which

anyone would certainly do when taking instructions from the director who usually sits beside the camera.

If this entire video is a fake, it's an extremely well made fake. Including the authentic spacesuit the actor playing the

astronaut wears. And down to the tiniest detail, including a barely audible "Cut!" yelled by a director off-camera

moments later after the light bar came crashing down.

As he also observes, "This rehearsal required a large crew of people and a substantial budget. Only a small portion of

the production crew was visible in this video." Having recently rented a room for a symposium in London held on 14

July 2010, http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/ I know, unlike Greer's remarks, space there does not come cheap.

Here are specific replies to David Greer's attempted rebuttals of several of my points, which I will introduce in bold.

Notice, however, that creating a fake moon landing stage scenario would require tremendous attention to detail, which

seems to be the case here. If we ignore the collapsing scaffolding, the crew's response, and the director's question, it looks

exactly like the footage we were presented of the actual moon landing, when it was broadcast world-wide by television. So

let's ask what would be involved in creating a fake video of the (actually false) faking of the moon landing as resources.

First, you would need to have exact information about the set, including the Moon Lander, the astronaut's suits, etcetera.

Second, you would have to find a suitable location, hire a crew and director, which is going to take time and lots of money.

Third, you would have to have a powerful motive for devoting the painstaking time and expense to create a fake, fake video.

First, the only information you need is a copy of the Apollo 11 footage where Armstrong steps off the lander. You only need to make it look good enough to fool the layperson who won't compare it to the actual footage. If you had taken time to examine the suit detail for example, you'd realise it's not an Apollo suit. What's that ruddy great box on the front of the suit? It's not visible in any photos of Apollo suits from any Apollo missions. You only have to create a small part of the lander, which could easily and cheaply be done with materials available from any hardware store.

None of this could be "easily and cheaply done with materials available from any hardware store." The production has a

highly professional quality about it. The idea of "reverse engineering" from some footage that was broadcast is absurd.

The only way that could be done would be if you had inside information, such as access to the stage and the props, etc.

Second. Suitable location? Studio for hire? Friends barn? Hire a crew and director. Well, maybe you're the director so you're doing it for free. Maybe you have to pay half a dozen people's wages for a couple of days. Few hundred dollars/pounds at most.

This is equally ridiculous. The crew appears to be in uniform, acts as if it knows what it is doing, and none of the crew

looks toward the director, which cannot be by chance. If this were some friends or homeless hired off the street, then

they would not be wearing uniforms, they would not know what they were doing, and some would look at the camera.

Third. We can only guess at the producers motives. Unless you want to contact him directly and ask him?

That may be difficult to arrange. I gather that Adam Stewart, who claimed to have created the video at the Viral Factory,

died less than a year after making his moontruth video, allegedly due to food poisoning. That sounds a lot like tidying

up "loose ends". That he may have actually been involved in faking the moon landing receives further support from this:

Suppose it would run $100,000, which is a conservative estimate. (I would bet it would cost many times that.) How many are

going to have the time and money to devote to creating a fake video of the (actually false) faking of the moon landing? And

why would anyone do this? We are not talking about Photoshop or other easily utilized photo faking techniques. This is on a

large scale and very detailed and precise. Moreover, why would anyone who had the time and the resources do something like

this? If you believe the moon landings are genuine, why would you create a fake video to suggest that they were really faked?

You guess at £100,000 as a very low estimate. I'm going to guess $500.

Notice that the point of mine he quotes concerns motivation, but his comment addresses cost instead. My estimate was not in

pounds but in dollars. He clearly does not know what he is talking about. Unless his estimate of $500 is itself meant as a spoof,

he is far off the mark. It cost me more than £1,000 just to rent the room for a few hours. My estimate was clearly conservative.

But here is the clincher. Suppose (h3) were true and this is the faking of a video showing the faking of the moon landing? The

production values are so exceptional and indistinguishable from those of the footage that was televised around the world that it

demonstrates--conclusively, in my view--that the moon landing could have been faked!

You clearly haven't compared the two footages side-by-side. You also seem to be falling into the trap of "could have been faked" implies "actually was faked". In order to do that, you are deliberately taking a few seconds of poor quality video and ignoring the huge amount of other evidence, including much higher quality video and film footage.

Notice that Greer never explains why anyone who believes the moon landings are genuine would create a fake to suggest that they

were really faked. He doesn't explain why, if this was a cheap production "off the cuff" using friends or the homeless, it has such a

professional quality. It has exactly the right feel and exactly the right look to have been shot on the same stage with the same crew.

Consider the two hypotheses: (h1) this is an outtake from the original faking; (h2) this is the faking of someone faking the original.

If (h1) is true and this is an outtake from the original faking, which was conducting at great expense using an experienced crew and

a professional director, what is the probability that the edge of the images would match, that the crew would be in uniform, that they

would know what they were doing, that they would avoid looking at the director and the camera? Obviously, it would be very high.

If (h2) is true and this is the faking of someone faking the original, which was conducting on a low budget using friends or hires by

Adam Stewart, what is the probability that the edge of the images would match, that the crew would be in uniform, that they would

know what they were doing, that they would avoid looking at the director and the camera? Obviously, it would be extremely low.

In scientific reasoning, one hypothesis is preferable to another when the likelihood of the first -- which is equal to the probability

of the evidence, if that hypothesis were true -- is greater than the likelihood of the second, given the available evidence. Since the

likelihood of (h1) is very high, while that of (h2) is extremely low, as I have shown, there can be no doubt that (h1) is preferable to (h2).

The kinds of arguments that Greer is offering would be laughable but for the protective covering of Evan Burton, who continues to

abuse his position in grossly unethical and unprofessional ways. Why am I not surprised? My point remains undefeated: If it's on

the original set, as it appears to be, it blows the faking of the moon landing. If not, it shows how easy it was to have faked it. QED

Edited November 11, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

Notice, however, that creating a fake moon landing stage scenario would require tremendous attention to detail, which

seems to be the case here. If we ignore the collapsing scaffolding, the crew's response, and the director's question, it looks

exactly like the footage we were presented of the actual moon landing, when it was broadcast world-wide by television. So

let's ask what would be involved in creating a fake video of the (actually false) faking of the moon landing as resources.

First, you would need to have exact information about the set, including the Moon Lander, the astronaut's suits, etcetera.

Second, you would have to find a suitable location, hire a crew and director, which is going to take time and lots of money.

Third, you would have to have a powerful motive for devoting the painstaking time and expense to create a fake, fake video.

First, the only information you need is a copy of the Apollo 11 footage where Armstrong steps off the lander. You only need to make it look good enough to fool the layperson who won't compare it to the actual footage. If you had taken time to examine the suit detail for example, you'd realise it's not an Apollo suit. What's that ruddy great box on the front of the suit? It's not visible in any photos of Apollo suits from any Apollo missions. You only have to create a small part of the lander, which could easily and cheaply be done with materials available from any hardware store.

Second. Suitable location? Studio for hire? Friends barn? Hire a crew and director. Well, maybe you're the director so you're doing it for free. Maybe you have to pay half a dozen people's wages for a couple of days. Few hundred dollars/pounds at most.

Third. We can only guess at the producers motives. Unless you want to contact him directly and ask him?

Suppose it would run $100,000, which is a conservative estimate. (I would bet it would cost many times that.) How many are

going to have the time and money to devote to creating a fake video of the (actually false) faking of the moon landing? And

why would anyone do this? We are not talking about Photoshop or other easily utilized photo faking techniques. This is on a

large scale and very detailed and precise. Moreover, why would anyone who had the time and the resources do something like

this? If you believe the moon landings are genuine, why would you create a fake video to suggest that they were really faked?

You guess at £100,000 as a very low estimate. I'm going to guess $500.

But here is the clincher. Suppose (h3) were true and this is the faking of a video showing the faking of the moon landing? The

production values are so exceptional and indistinguishable from those of the footage that was televised around the world that it

demonstrates--conclusively, in my view--that the moon landing could have been faked!

You clearly haven't compared the two footages side-by-side. You also seem to be falling into the trap of "could have been faked" implies "actually was faked". In order to do that, you are deliberately taking a few seconds of poor quality video and ignoring the huge amount of other evidence, including much higher quality video and film footage.

This thread is limited to Fetzer, Burton and White. I ask that Greer and West postings be removed.

Jack

[Jack White]

You also must take into account that nearly 40 years passed in between the two videos. An amateur filmmaker can do things today for free that weren't even possible 40 years ago.

ETA: Sorry just realized this is the debate thread not the discussion thread. Mods feel free to move this post (not that anyone's stuck to the debate format anyway).

This thread is limited to Fetzer, Burton and White. I ask that Greer and West postings be removed.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

EVAN: LET THEM STAND, SINCE I'VE ALREADY REPLIED TO GREER

AND THEY ILLUSTRATE YOUR ABUSE OF YOUR POSITION.

BUT LET'S HAVE NO MORE OF THIS NONSENSE.

You also must take into account that nearly 40 years passed in between the two videos. An amateur filmmaker can do things today for free that weren't even possible 40 years ago.

ETA: Sorry just realized this is the debate thread not the discussion thread. Mods feel free to move this post (not that anyone's stuck to the debate format anyway).

This thread is limited to Fetzer, Burton and White. I ask that Greer and West postings be removed.

Jack

Edited November 11, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Kevin M. West]

EVAN: LET THEM STAND, SINCE I'VE ALREADY REPLIED TO GREER

AND THEY ILLUSTRATE YOUR ABUSE OF YOUR POSITION.

BUT LET'S HAVE NO MORE OF THIS NONSENSE.

How do comments by someone else when Evan isn't here illustrate anything about his moderation style?

[Dave Greer]

As another example of Evan Burton's abuse of his position as moderator and participant, this post belongs on

the discussion thread, not the debate thread. He continues to demonstrate his fanaticism and lack of ethics to

the bitter end. We all know Burton has buddies like David Greer who will support him regardless of the evidence.

You've been cross posting on both threads, I replied to the wrong one. Whoop-de-doo, I posted on the wrong thread. Mods, feel free to move my post to the other thread. I'll continue my response there.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

As another example of Evan Burton's abuse of his position as moderator and participant, this post belongs on

the discussion thread, not the debate thread. He continues to demonstrate his fanaticism and lack of ethics to

the bitter end. We all know Burton has buddies like David Greer who will support him regardless of the evidence.

The points that are made in comparing them, including the edge of the images, which is seen from the same angle

in both the footage broadcast and the "rehearsal" footage, are extremely improbable and would have been virtually

impossible to replicate. Both have a similar look and a similar feel and were probably shot on the very same stage.

They are obviously not the same take, since the collapse of the light bar required a second take. But the author,

Ted Twietmeyer, makes many other extremely interesting observations about the crew wearing what appear to be

military uniforms and behaving in ways that would not be expected of a crew working on some kind of "spoof":

What's also interesting about this video is that during this entire rehearsal disaster, not one man who ran in to assist

the astronaut/ actor ever turned his face toward the camera. None of them ever looked back in that direction, which

anyone would certainly do when taking instructions from the director who usually sits beside the camera.

If this entire video is a fake, it's an extremely well made fake. Including the authentic spacesuit the actor playing the

astronaut wears. And down to the tiniest detail, including a barely audible "Cut!" yelled by a director off-camera

moments later after the light bar came crashing down.

As he also observes, "This rehearsal required a large crew of people and a substantial budget. Only a small portion of

the production crew was visible in this video." Having recently rented a room for a symposium in London held on 14

July 2010, http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/ I know, unlike Greer's remarks, space there does not come cheap.

Here are specific replies to David Greer's attempted rebuttals of several of my points, which I will introduce in bold.

Notice, however, that creating a fake moon landing stage scenario would require tremendous attention to detail, which

seems to be the case here. If we ignore the collapsing scaffolding, the crew's response, and the director's question, it looks

exactly like the footage we were presented of the actual moon landing, when it was broadcast world-wide by television. So

let's ask what would be involved in creating a fake video of the (actually false) faking of the moon landing as resources.

First, you would need to have exact information about the set, including the Moon Lander, the astronaut's suits, etcetera.

Second, you would have to find a suitable location, hire a crew and director, which is going to take time and lots of money.

Third, you would have to have a powerful motive for devoting the painstaking time and expense to create a fake, fake video.

First, the only information you need is a copy of the Apollo 11 footage where Armstrong steps off the lander. You only need to make it look good enough to fool the layperson who won't compare it to the actual footage. If you had taken time to examine the suit detail for example, you'd realise it's not an Apollo suit. What's that ruddy great box on the front of the suit? It's not visible in any photos of Apollo suits from any Apollo missions. You only have to create a small part of the lander, which could easily and cheaply be done with materials available from any hardware store.

None of this could be "easily and cheaply done with materials available from any hardware store." The production has a

highly professional quality about it. The idea of "reverse engineering" from some footage that was broadcast is absurd.

The only way that could be done would be if you had inside information, such as access to the stage and the props, etc.

Second. Suitable location? Studio for hire? Friends barn? Hire a crew and director. Well, maybe you're the director so you're doing it for free. Maybe you have to pay half a dozen people's wages for a couple of days. Few hundred dollars/pounds at most.

This is equally ridiculous. The crew appears to be in uniform, acts as if it knows what it is doing, and none of the crew

looks toward the director, which cannot be by chance. If this were some friends or homeless hired off the street, then

they would not be wearing uniforms, they would not know what they were doing, and some would look at the camera.

Third. We can only guess at the producers motives. Unless you want to contact him directly and ask him?

That may be difficult to arrange. I gather that Adam Stewart, who claimed to have created the video at the Viral Factory,

died less than a year after making his moontruth video, allegedly due to food poisoning. That sounds a lot like tidying

up "loose ends". That he may have actually been involved in faking the moon landing receives further support from this:

Suppose it would run $100,000, which is a conservative estimate. (I would bet it would cost many times that.) How many are

going to have the time and money to devote to creating a fake video of the (actually false) faking of the moon landing? And

why would anyone do this? We are not talking about Photoshop or other easily utilized photo faking techniques. This is on a

large scale and very detailed and precise. Moreover, why would anyone who had the time and the resources do something like

this? If you believe the moon landings are genuine, why would you create a fake video to suggest that they were really faked?

You guess at £100,000 as a very low estimate. I'm going to guess $500.

Notice that the point of mine he quotes concerns motivation, but his comment addresses cost instead. My estimate was not in

pounds but in dollars. He clearly does not know what he is talking about. Unless his estimate of $500 is itself meant as a spoof,

he is far off the mark. It cost me more than £1,000 just to rent the room for a few hours. My estimate was clearly conservative.

But here is the clincher. Suppose (h3) were true and this is the faking of a video showing the faking of the moon landing? The

production values are so exceptional and indistinguishable from those of the footage that was televised around the world that it

demonstrates--conclusively, in my view--that the moon landing could have been faked!

You clearly haven't compared the two footages side-by-side. You also seem to be falling into the trap of "could have been faked" implies "actually was faked". In order to do that, you are deliberately taking a few seconds of poor quality video and ignoring the huge amount of other evidence, including much higher quality video and film footage.

Notice that Greer never explains why anyone who believes the moon landings are genuine would create a fake to suggest that they

were really faked. He doesn't explain why, if this was a cheap production "off the cuff" using friends or the homeless, it has such a

professional quality. It has exactly the right feel and exactly the right look to have been shot on the same stage with the same crew.

Consider the two hypotheses: (h1) this is an outtake from the original faking; (h2) this is the faking of someone faking the original.

If (h1) is true and this is an outtake from the original faking, which was conducting at great expense using an experienced crew and

a professional director, what is the probability that the edge of the images would match, that the crew would be in uniform, that they

would know what they were doing, that they would avoid looking at the director and the camera? Obviously, it would be very high.

If (h2) is true and this is the faking of someone faking the original, which was conducting on a low budget using friends or hires by

Adam Stewart, what is the probability that the edge of the images would match, that the crew would be in uniform, that they would

know what they were doing, that they would avoid looking at the director and the camera? Obviously, it would be extremely low.

In scientific reasoning, one hypothesis is preferable to another when the likelihood of the first -- which is equal to the probability

of the evidence, if that hypothesis were true -- is greater than the likelihood of the second, given the available evidence. Since the

likelihood of (h1) is very high, while that of (h2) is extremely low, as I have shown, there can be no doubt that (h1) is preferable to (h2).

The kinds of arguments that Greer is offering would be laughable but for the protective covering of Evan Burton, who continues to

abuse his position in grossly unethical and unprofessional ways. Why am I not surprised? My point remains undefeated: If it's on

the original set, as it appears to be, it blows the faking of the moon landing. If not, it shows how easy it was to have faked it. QED