Jump to content
The Education Forum

(Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread


Evan Burton
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest James H. Fetzer

Duane Daman seems to me to have captured the spirit of your enterprise exactly in

this message he sent me, where his competence seems to greatly exceed your own:

Jim,

I see that Greer is still harping on the SUITS, JIM, THE SUITS!!!

And of course Burton has now brought something you posted on another forum about

radiation, to continue his ridicule of you... The RADIATION, JIM, THE RADIATION!!!

The problem with his "expert" source for radiation, is that he's also a NASA shill just

parroting typical NASA disinformation about how "safe" the Apollo astronauts were ...

NASA's story is that the Apollo astronauts "raced through the Van Allen belts", so they

had very little radiation exposure... It's the same script on every NASA site and on every

forum where Apollo is defended... Well, not always the same script.. When NASA's shills

started defending Apollo, the alleged time for the "race through the belts" was around

4 hours... That time later morophed into about 30 minutes, and now the claim is down

to just a few minutes... Plus, if you read the letter Burton posted, it's obvious that this

guy's only real "expertise" concerns Skylab, which is located in low earth orbit.

These shills are relentless when it comes to defending the Apollo fraud... What they all

really fail to address though, is the fact that radiation beyond the magnetosphere is

much more dangerous than it is in earth orbit.

Duane

I'm going to refer to this post of Jims from another forum:

http://www.deeppolit...55&postcount=14

A forum member raises the issue of a radiation paper, and Jim attempts to dismiss the paper because he couldn't find the credentials of an author, J. Vernon Bailey. In a prior post he asks that Dr John Costella comment on the paper. Since Dr Costella is a member of this forum, I would welcome his comments on the report, BIOMEDICAL RESULTS OF APOLLO (NASA SP-368, NASA Science and Technical Information Office, 1975), specifically section II chapter 3: Radiation Protection and Instrumentation, which was authored by J. Vernon Bailey.

As always (it would seem), Jim doesn't give you all the facts (lest you be informed). He fails to mention that all material for the publication was reviewed by an editorial board. Who was on that board?

Not only was he qualified enough to be on the editorial board, he was in good company.

So, who was J. Vernon Bailey? Well, he was the Chief of the Environmental Health Branch at the Johnson Space Center, Houston.

http://ieeexplore.ie...rnumber=4328485

He co-authored NASA papers like:

APOLLO EXPERIENCE REPORT – PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION (NASA Technical Note D-7080, March 1973)

THERMOLUMINESCENT DOSIMETRY FOR THE APOLLO 16 MICROBIAL RESPONSE TO SPACE ENVIRONMENT EXPERIMENT (M191) (Johnson Space Center, May 1973)

VISUAL LIGHT FLASH OBSERVATIONS ON SKYLAB 4 (Johnson Space Center, January 1977)

RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION AND MEDICAL DOSIMETRY FOR THE SKYLAB CREWMEN (Johnson Space Center, January 1977)

Mn CARBONATES IN THE MARTIAN METEORITE NAKHLA: POSSIBLE EVIDENCE OF BRINE EVAPORATION (Johnson Space Center, 2003)

PHYSICAL DOSIMETRIC EVALUATIONS IN THE APOLLO 16 MICROBIAL RESPONSE EXPERIMENT (Johnson Space Center, January 1975)

APOLLO LIGHT FLASH INVESTIGATIONS (Johnson Space Center, July 1975)

HEAVY COSMIC-RAY EXPOSURE OF APOLLO ASTRONAUTS (Johnson Space Center, January 1975)

RADIATION PROTECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION (Johnson Space Center, July 1975)

FLUX OF HIGH-LET COSMIC-RAY PARTICLES IN MANNED SPACE FLIGHT (Johnson Space Center, January 1975)

DOSIMETRY DURING SPACE MISSIONS (Johnson Space Center, August 1976)

In addition, we find during the 98th Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association and Meetings of Related Organizations (26-30 October 1970, Convention and Exhibit Hall, Civic Center Houston, Texas), there is a presenter:

Radiation Exposure of American Astronauts. J. Vernon Bailey, Ph.D.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....00037-0001a.pdf

So, just what are your qualifications, Jim, with respect to the biomedical effects of radiation and radiation shielding effectiveness for space travel? I'll save you the trouble: NONE. Once more, you arrogantly assume you know more than others because it suits your ego.

Of course, you are going to ask my qualifications in this area; I have NONE also…. but I did contact those people who did have the qualifications and expertise, and sought guidance from them. In January 2007, I contacted Dr Richard Setlow. Dr Setlow is Senior Biophysicist Emeritus at the Brookhaven National Laboratory and a Member of the National Academy of Sciences. He is an expert in the effects of radiation on cells, and has co-authored numerous papers on space radiation. He was recently honoured for his life work:

http://www.bnl.gov/t...sp?ITEM_NO=1435

I asked:

Dear Sir,

I refer to a report which you chaired in 1996, Radiation Hazards to Crews of Interplanetary Missions. Firstly, some quick background. I am one of the many people who, on what seems like a daily basis, try to rebut arguments put forward by people who claim that the Apollo missions were faked by NASA. I have an aviation background, not physics or biological sciences.

The above report is being discussed on a forum which (despite its name) tries to dispel the myth that Apollo was somehow faked. The link to the relevant section (a discussion on space radiation) is:http://apollohoax.pr...4878798&page=12

To cut a long story short, could I ask two brief questions:

1. Was radiation / exposure data from Apollo considered (amongst other sources) when making the report's determinations?

2. Do the report's findings (in any way) support the proposition that radiation should have killed (or at least seriously harmed) astronauts on a typical 14-day Apollo lunar landing mission?

I would also ask permission to post your reply to the thread linked above.

Thank you for your time.

He replied to me:

Dear Evan,

The Committee considered all sources of radations in Space. We concluded that Solar Particle Events (SPE) would be the major source of radiation exposures supplemented by the cosmic ray background composed of many types of particles including heavy nuclei. To the best of my knowledge, all space missions carry devices to measure the radiation doses. Astronauts should not be outside of a space craft if there were an SPE. They should be shielded inside the space craft. Hence, radiation exposures for Apollo missions would be very small. Hence, I believe that radiation exposures from Apollo missions were very small, unless astronauts stayed outside during an SPE about which they would have been informed.

You could get simple, short descriptions of what is known from 2 summaries that I wrote: (1) " The U.S National Research Council's views of the radiation hazards in space" Mutation Research (1999) 430, 169-175 and (2) " The hazards of space travel" EMBO Reports (2003) 4, 1013-1016. Radiation is only one of the hazards. Microgravity is another.

Sincerely yours,

Richard Setlow

People far more qualified than you have looked at these areas, and know they are not faked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 752
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest James H. Fetzer

Here's another example of Duane's competence. I am a philosopher, not a psychologist,

but he has correctly observed that the astronauts do not act as though they are actually

deserving of the accolades that have been bestowed upon them. This is a nice example.

Jim,

I believe part of your expertise is in psychology... Have you ever seen this Neil Armstrong

interview?

Check out his awkward, nervous behavior when questioned about how many people walked

on the Moon and his choice of words to describe his "greatest achievement".

Neil replies... " No, I just don't deserve it" ... "Circumstance put me that particular ROLE".

Also notice the way he squirms, scratches his neck, scratches his ear and clicks his throat

while answering.. As you know, these are all mannerisms of a guilty person who's not being

truthful.

All of Armstrong's public behavior reeks of guilt, but none quite so obvious as in this interview.

Duane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack,

This is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the argument and make it difficult to follow.

No Jim, YOU were the one who stated the debate over, back on the 28 or so when told us all you were going to make your "last post".

"Evan Burton cannot resist abusing his position, no matter how grotesque the outcome. There is a pattern to the debate thread, which is that Jack posts images at my request, FIRST; then I lay out my argument, SECOND; and, at that point in time, Burton has the right to respond, THIRD. Of course, someone as zealous as Burton is not going to follow even the most obvious constraints on such an exchange but blatantly violate them as he chooses. His conduct, from the beginning, has been juvenile and obsessive and manipulative. To call him a "control freak" may be too mild a characterization. I have said that I was going to make a post, which I have yet to make. I asked Jack to post five images, which he has done. He notes that he is doing so at my request, as we have done before. But, as anyone who surveys this thread can see, time after time, this man has improperly intervened and abused his position. This is disgusting conduct, but precisely what I -- and others who have to deal with him -- have come to expect from Evan Burton. Later today I shall publish my final post on this thread. P.S. Time constraints today mean that my reply may actually be posted tomorrow.

This post has been edited by James H. Fetzer: 25 October 2010 - 08:46 PM"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another example of Duane's competence. I am a philosopher, not a psychologist,

but he has correctly observed that the astronauts do not act as though they are actually

deserving of the accolades that have been bestowed upon them. This is a nice example.

Jim

You're not avoiding the suits issue are you? I've asked you to look at them several times now.

I'm guessing you've looked, realised you made an error, and want it to quietly to go away by completely changing the subject. You did indeed post a nice example of a humble man who doesn't want to receive accolades for something that was a team effort by tens of thousands of people.

Now, back to those suits. Dare you address the issue or not? Or do you need Duane to rescue you with another demonstration of his "competence"?

It's pretty simple.

(1) - Is the suit used in the "collapsing rig" and "smoke break" clip the same as seen in the "practice" clip or not?

(2) - Is the suit seen in the "collapsing rig" and "smoke break" clip clearly different to the suit seen in any of the Apollo photos, video or film?

moontruth_suit_compare.jpg

moontruth_suit_compare_2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

''Plus, if you read the letter Burton posted, it's obvious that this

guy's only real "expertise" concerns Skylab, which is located in low earth orbit''

Yeah, about Norseman from memory. I got photos to prove it.

That was 'fun' when it crashed outback.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

If Duane wants to say something then he can post himself, and have it subject to moderation. Posting on behalf of a moderated member will be considered a violation of Forum rules.

Thanks.

Now, Duane suggests that the author's expertise is only with Skylab. Now forgetting the numerous other people - including Dr Setlow - who are experts and agree that radiation was not an insurmountable problem, did Duane forget these (which were in the same post):

APOLLO EXPERIENCE REPORT – PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION (NASA Technical Note D-7080, March 1973)

THERMOLUMINESCENT DOSIMETRY FOR THE APOLLO 16 MICROBIAL RESPONSE TO SPACE ENVIRONMENT EXPERIMENT (M191) (Johnson Space Center, May 1973)

VISUAL LIGHT FLASH OBSERVATIONS ON SKYLAB 4 (Johnson Space Center, January 1977)

RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION AND MEDICAL DOSIMETRY FOR THE SKYLAB CREWMEN (Johnson Space Center, January 1977)

Mn CARBONATES IN THE MARTIAN METEORITE NAKHLA: POSSIBLE EVIDENCE OF BRINE EVAPORATION (Johnson Space Center, 2003)

PHYSICAL DOSIMETRIC EVALUATIONS IN THE APOLLO 16 MICROBIAL RESPONSE EXPERIMENT (Johnson Space Center, January 1975)

APOLLO LIGHT FLASH INVESTIGATIONS (Johnson Space Center, July 1975)

HEAVY COSMIC-RAY EXPOSURE OF APOLLO ASTRONAUTS (Johnson Space Center, January 1975)

RADIATION PROTECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION (Johnson Space Center, July 1975)

FLUX OF HIGH-LET COSMIC-RAY PARTICLES IN MANNED SPACE FLIGHT (Johnson Space Center, January 1975)

DOSIMETRY DURING SPACE MISSIONS (Johnson Space Center, August 1976)

In addition, we find during the 98th Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association and Meetings of Related Organizations (26-30 October 1970, Convention and Exhibit Hall, Civic Center Houston, Texas), there is a presenter:

Radiation Exposure of American Astronauts. J. Vernon Bailey, Ph.D.

(Bolding mine)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next, we consider if Skylab is not important because it is "only" in low-Earth orbit.

Skylab is just as important for many reasons, not least because its orbit took it through the South Atlantic Anomaly, a lower part of the Van Allen Belts and therefore the Skylab crews had GREATER exposure to the Van Allen Belts than Apollo crews.

...Because the path periodically passed through the South Atlantic anomaly, a well-known region where the Van Allen belt bends closer to the Earth, another objective was to determine whether light flashes would occur as a consequence of the many energetic particles trapped there....
...Together, the two neutron experiments have led to important conclusions for the design of future space stations. First, the flux of neutrons observed in Skylab was much too high to be attributed to solar neutrons, Earth albedo neutrons, or even neutrons induced by cosmic rays in space-station materials. The other conclusion is that the higher neutron flux must come primarily from bombardment of space-station material by trapped protons in the Van Allen belt. However, the neutrons did not pose a biological hazard to the crew, nor did they produce significant film fogging....
...Package closure south of 25° latitude also provided partial shielding from the Van Allen belt radiation, which penetrated Skylab's skin as Skylab passed through the South Atlantic anomaly...

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-404/ch5.htm

This is confirmed by the relative dosimeter readings from Apollo and Skylab crews:

raddata.jpg

raddata2.jpg

Come on - claim that Skylab, Mir and the ISS are all faked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I contacted the Viralfactory via YouTube PM a couple of days ago, but haven't heard back from them yet.. My guess is I won't, since I've asked questions they might not want to answer.

I never had any doubt that the moontruth video was a joke, but now that there's some mystery surrounding it, I wonder exactly who the joke is on?

We can either assume it was made for the reason stated by theViralfactory and Snopes, which was to fool or make fun of the hoax believers, or it could have been made to show how easy it was for NASA to stage the Apollo 11 "landing" footage in a studio.

What has me interested in this now, is the fact that the alleged maker of this video, Adam Stewart, died a year later from apparent food poisoning.. It's strange how many people having anything to do with the subject of Apollo, end up dead.

What I also find interesting is the fact that so much time and effort was devoted to this video by the apollogists when it first appeared online.. They debated it as if it proved the official Apollo 11 landing footage was real, just because there were obvious discrepancies between the official NASA footage and the moontruth clip.. But since this video was so obviously a joke, that was hardly the point.

The point is very simple, and of course Jim Fetzer made this point in his argument, though it was ignored.

The point is this.. If it was so easy (and apparently inexpensive) to make the moontruth video, which matches the Apollo 11 footage so closely (with the exception of the cheesy looking astro-actor costume of course), then the joke video only proves how easily the Apollo 11 footage could have been faked.

Another thing I find interesting about this "spoof" video, is the fact that Paolo Attivissimo claimed to have made it in 2002 also, with no mention of Adam Stewart or the Viralfactory.. His story of how and why it was made matches the Viralfactory's story, with the exception of them and Adam Stewart...

"Apollo 11 Moon Landing Footage Out-take - How Did We Do It? -

We shot on original 1960's Ikegami Tube Camera in Mount Pleasant Studios in London. The guy in the suit is an actor. The rest of the 'cast' were basically the crew, who thought the idea was very funny and wanted to be in it.

The landing craft and 'moonscapè were a set built by our art director, Richard Selway. The ladder that 'Neil' descends was made according to original blueprints that were downloaded off the Net. The rest of the set was built to match the original as closely as possible.

The moon surface was cement dust. It was disgusting. Even with the studio ventilation on full it got everywhere, and at one point there was so much of it floating round, the lights were flaring really badly.

The footage was treated in post-production to give 'Neil' his weightlessness and the ghosting effect of the original. We re-recorded and processed the soundtrack to recreate the effect of sound traveling al the way from the moon.

We think it's pretty convincing, and one thing's for damn sure - it was a lot cheaper than really going to the moon."

Paolo Attivissimo "

http://www.zeusnews.it/index.php3?ar=stampa&cod=1791&numero=904

Why go to all the trouble of using cement, when it didn't even show up in the footage? .. Why didn't Paolo give credit to Adam Stewart if he was the brain child behind this idea? .. Does this mean that Paolo is taking credit for something he didn't make, or did he really make it, and for some reason the credit for it was shifted to the late Adam Stewart?.. And where is there any sign in the video of 'Neil's' "weightlessness"?

As with everything Apollo, there is definately something wrong with this picture.. There's no doubt the video is a joke, but a joke on whom?.. But regardless of who the joke was on, I definately agree with Paolo on this...

"We think it's pretty convincing, and one thing's for damn sure - it was a lot cheaper than really going to the moon."

Yes it was.. Or as one YouTube user so aptly commented ..

"This video isn't real. It was created only to show that the Moon landings could have been shot in a studio."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Well, strictly speaking, I was not posting them on behalf of Duane. I liked them and wanted to post them because they make excellent points very clearly. So I posted them with his permission. I recommend reading them more than once because they make important points extremely clearly. Not to accent the obvious, but Even Burton has repeatedly violated the terms of this debate, as set forth in his first post:

I will cease all use of moderator powers in this thread, with the exception of making invisible posts by persons other than the debate participants (Burton, White, Fetzer and mods). I will not edit or otherwise action posts made by the debate participants regardless of their content. All decisions regarding the debate will be made by the mods, and their decisions shall be full and final. The mods shall NOT include me in any discussion regarding their actions. If the mods wish to ask me a question, they shall post the question openly on the thread. The mods may consult with Jack White / Jim Fetzer privately, keeping their communications with them confidential from both myself and other Forum members.

So it appears to me to be the height of hypocrisy to allege that Duane has been violating forum rules when Evan Burton has repeatedly violated these. For Evan Burton, however, that is simply par for the course.

Jim,

If Duane wants to say something then he can post himself, and have it subject to moderation. Posting on behalf of a moderated member will be considered a violation of Forum rules.

Thanks.

Now, Duane suggests that the author's expertise is only with Skylab. Now forgetting the numerous other people - including Dr Setlow - who are experts and agree that radiation was not an insurmountable problem, did Duane forget these (which were in the same post):

APOLLO EXPERIENCE REPORT – PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION (NASA Technical Note D-7080, March 1973)

THERMOLUMINESCENT DOSIMETRY FOR THE APOLLO 16 MICROBIAL RESPONSE TO SPACE ENVIRONMENT EXPERIMENT (M191) (Johnson Space Center, May 1973)

VISUAL LIGHT FLASH OBSERVATIONS ON SKYLAB 4 (Johnson Space Center, January 1977)

RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION AND MEDICAL DOSIMETRY FOR THE SKYLAB CREWMEN (Johnson Space Center, January 1977)

Mn CARBONATES IN THE MARTIAN METEORITE NAKHLA: POSSIBLE EVIDENCE OF BRINE EVAPORATION (Johnson Space Center, 2003)

PHYSICAL DOSIMETRIC EVALUATIONS IN THE APOLLO 16 MICROBIAL RESPONSE EXPERIMENT (Johnson Space Center, January 1975)

APOLLO LIGHT FLASH INVESTIGATIONS (Johnson Space Center, July 1975)

HEAVY COSMIC-RAY EXPOSURE OF APOLLO ASTRONAUTS (Johnson Space Center, January 1975)

RADIATION PROTECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION (Johnson Space Center, July 1975)

FLUX OF HIGH-LET COSMIC-RAY PARTICLES IN MANNED SPACE FLIGHT (Johnson Space Center, January 1975)

DOSIMETRY DURING SPACE MISSIONS (Johnson Space Center, August 1976)

In addition, we find during the 98th Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association and Meetings of Related Organizations (26-30 October 1970, Convention and Exhibit Hall, Civic Center Houston, Texas), there is a presenter:

Radiation Exposure of American Astronauts. J. Vernon Bailey, Ph.D.

(Bolding mine)

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

In doing some reseach on Burton's radiation source, Dr. Setlow, I found this interesting article about the type of radiation in the Van Allen belts and NASA's inability to protect their astronauts against it with their current spacesuits.. Spacesuits that are 40 years more advanced than those used during Apollo.

"The Earth's Radiation Belts

The Earth's radiation belts (the Van Allen belts, discovered in 1958) consist of the inner and outer ion belts and the inner and outer electron belts. In general, the belts roughly conform to the geomagnetic field, peaking in altitude over the magnetic equator and projecting downward at high latitudes. Thus, at the magnetic poles, the belts are at their thinnest. Of interest, the belts come closest to Earth over a region known as the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA); it is estimated that satellites and astronauts in LEO can accumulate 2% to 5% of their total radiation exposure from passage through this area. Indeed, trapped ions from the inner belt and electrons in the outer belt pose the greatest hazard to satellites and astronauts in LEO because these particles can obtain energies capable of penetrating matter to significant depths. Finally, it is important to note that the outer electron belt can vary in intensity over time as a function of the solar wind, with electron energies increasing by several orders of magnitude during an intense flux of electrons called a "highly relativistic electron (HRE) event." Highly relativistic electrons are, unfortunately, transient and difficult to predict. These are of concern to space travelers because electron energies during such events can exceed the energy threshold that is necessary to penetrate a space-suited astronaut during an extravehicular activity (EVA). Despite repeated requests, the study authors have been unable to confirm a specific number from NASA for the level of radiation protection in grams per cubic centimeter (the standard unit for radiation shielding) provided by their current space suit. (However, several experts associated with NASA have said that, for all practical purposes, the space suit provides no radiation shielding protection whatsoever.)

http://cme.medscape.com/viewarticle/569962

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found these YouTube clips interesting.

This one shows that NASA has no intention of sending any manned missions beyond low earth orbit.

They are using the excuse of politics, by blaming the current president for their inability to lift a payload of radiation protection that would keep humans alive beyond low earth orbit and also on the Moon.

The president rightly pulled the plug on the Constellation Program, also known as "Apollo on steroids", because it was a complete technical failure that was eating up billions of American taxpayer dollars.

"He (the president) didn't close the gap.. He made the gap eternal."

Question NASA Low Earth Orbit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01cA6cjUiKE&feature=sub

And here's a real beaut .. This one shows Apollo astronauts making fun of Dr. James Van Allen because he claimed that the Van Allen belts would fry any astro-NOT that tried to travel through them.

What makes this especially interesting, is that NASA (via their shills) have always claimed that Dr. Van Allen claimed that the belts were not dangerous to humans .. They even parade out quotes from Dr. Van Allen to support their disinformation.

I've always found it highly strange that Dr. Van Allen contradicted his original findings (while also claiming he never contradicted any of his original findings) about the deadly radiation in the belts, just to go along with the official Apollo record.

I believe he was strongly persuaded to be a NASA team player, most likely for "national security" reasons.

Check out how Frank Borman of Apollo 8 makes fun the late Dr. Van Allen.

This goes along with the mentaility of " failure is not an option", even if it means that NASA has to lie and make fun of renowned scientists, to "not" fail.

Question NASA Apollo 8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_JzBkgdX8Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to have conveniently forgotten that the debate is over, since you withdrew. That is when I merged the threads and am resuming my duties with respect to the thread.

Just more Fetzering...

Well, strictly speaking, I was not posting them on behalf of Duane. I liked them and wanted to post them because they make excellent points very clearly. So I posted them with his permission. I recommend reading them more than once because they make important points extremely clearly. Not to accent the obvious, but Even Burton has repeatedly violated the terms of this debate, as set forth in his first post:

I will cease all use of moderator powers in this thread, with the exception of making invisible posts by persons other than the debate participants (Burton, White, Fetzer and mods). I will not edit or otherwise action posts made by the debate participants regardless of their content. All decisions regarding the debate will be made by the mods, and their decisions shall be full and final. The mods shall NOT include me in any discussion regarding their actions. If the mods wish to ask me a question, they shall post the question openly on the thread. The mods may consult with Jack White / Jim Fetzer privately, keeping their communications with them confidential from both myself and other Forum members.

So it appears to me to be the height of hypocrisy to allege that Duane has been violating forum rules when Evan Burton has repeatedly violated these. For Evan Burton, however, that is simply par for the course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

A lot of people have your number, Burton, and trashing a thread you don't like is one of your familiar moves. It should have been preserved intact, like the vast majority of other threads on this forum. It was a corrupt act but entirely consistent of what the world has become accustomed from you.

You seem to have conveniently forgotten that the debate is over, since you withdrew. That is when I merged the threads and am resuming my duties with respect to the thread.

Just more Fetzering...

Well, strictly speaking, I was not posting them on behalf of Duane. I liked them and wanted to post them because they make excellent points very clearly. So I posted them with his permission. I recommend reading them more than once because they make important points extremely clearly. Not to accent the obvious, but Even Burton has repeatedly violated the terms of this debate, as set forth in his first post:

I will cease all use of moderator powers in this thread, with the exception of making invisible posts by persons other than the debate participants (Burton, White, Fetzer and mods). I will not edit or otherwise action posts made by the debate participants regardless of their content. All decisions regarding the debate will be made by the mods, and their decisions shall be full and final. The mods shall NOT include me in any discussion regarding their actions. If the mods wish to ask me a question, they shall post the question openly on the thread. The mods may consult with Jack White / Jim Fetzer privately, keeping their communications with them confidential from both myself and other Forum members.

So it appears to me to be the height of hypocrisy to allege that Duane has been violating forum rules when Evan Burton has repeatedly violated these. For Evan Burton, however, that is simply par for the course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

This is a nice example of the straw man argument, which exaggerates someone's position to make

it easier to attack. I do not insist that this WAS the actual faking of the moon landing -- which

it is realistic enough to have actually been, as I have explained in other posts -- but that, when

it is compared with the footage broadcast, it is strikingly similar and demonstrates that the landing

footage COULD HAVE BEEN FAKED. Indeed, by your own account, it would not have been costly

or difficult to do that, which regard as quite dubious for the "rehearsal" footage, which closely

resembles the broadcast footage, but is certainly true if this new "spoof" footage. What I like

about the "spoof" footage, therefore, is that is provides such a nice contrast with the "rehearsal"

footage that it becomes obvious that the "rehearsal" footage was serious and the "spoof" was not.

It is one more -- but very important! -- piece of evidence that supports moon landing fakery. It

was my impression I had already addressed this question, but I'm glad to revisit it on your behalf.

Here's another example of Duane's competence. I am a philosopher, not a psychologist,

but he has correctly observed that the astronauts do not act as though they are actually

deserving of the accolades that have been bestowed upon them. This is a nice example.

Jim

You're not avoiding the suits issue are you? I've asked you to look at them several times now.

I'm guessing you've looked, realised you made an error, and want it to quietly to go away by completely changing the subject. You did indeed post a nice example of a humble man who doesn't want to receive accolades for something that was a team effort by tens of thousands of people.

Now, back to those suits. Dare you address the issue or not? Or do you need Duane to rescue you with another demonstration of his "competence"?

It's pretty simple.

(1) - Is the suit used in the "collapsing rig" and "smoke break" clip the same as seen in the "practice" clip or not?

(2) - Is the suit seen in the "collapsing rig" and "smoke break" clip clearly different to the suit seen in any of the Apollo photos, video or film?

moontruth_suit_compare.jpg

moontruth_suit_compare_2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never had any doubt that the moontruth video was a joke, but now that there's some mystery surrounding it, I wonder exactly who the joke is on?

We can either assume it was made for the reason stated by theViralfactory and Snopes, which was to fool or make fun of the hoax believers, or it could have been made to show how easy it was for NASA to stage the Apollo 11 "landing" footage in a studio.

Well spotted Duane! Hopefully the good Mr Fetzer will cotton on eventually... even if he refuses to look at the suits!

If it was so easy (and apparently inexpensive) to make the moontruth video, which matches the Apollo 11 footage so closely (with the exception of the cheesy looking astro-actor costume of course), then the joke video only proves how easily the Apollo 11 footage could have been faked.

Accent on could have been faked. Not was faked. It wouldn't be too hard to fake this image of Norgay Tensing on top of Everest either - which would prove how easily the photos from that expedition could have been faked. But it wouldn't get me any closer to proving that Edmond Hillary never climbed Everest, would it?

tenzing-norgay-on-everest-summit.jpg

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...