Jump to content
The Education Forum

(Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread


Evan Burton
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Oh really? That's not the impression you gave in some of your previous posts. In fact, you were quite clear:-

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.

My bolding.

You also insisted that it would be virtually impossible to recreate the set. A logical inference of this is that you believe it highly likely to be filmed on the same set as the Apollo clip.

There would have been no motive to do it at the time and recreating the set for that purpose would have been

practically impossible: recreating the lights, the angles for filming, the Moon Lander, astronaut, and all that--virtually impossible.

When Evan pointed out that it was a spoof video, you said the spoof idea was ridiculous? My bolding.

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.

You reinforced what you said on Nov 11.

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"

And again, below:-

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).

It goes on.

The idea of "reverse engineering" from some footage that was broadcast is absurd.

Now you're claiming that you were only pointing out similarities, and showing that the Apollo 11 landing COULD have been faked? Your own words say otherwise.

Changing one's mind is perfectly acceptable. Often it's accompanied by a simple admission of error. It's not usually done by falsely accusing your opponent of mis-representing your position.

Edited by Dave Greer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 752
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.)

So? They are talking about their current suit, not the Apollo suits. Even so, the suit - as stated - offers only minimal protection. The materials used and construction of the suits is detailed in numerous publications.

Nice try to distract from the claim that travel through the Van Allen Belts was impossible though. That relied on minimising exposure through trajectory, the construction of the spacecraft themselves and the radiation protocols in force.

Better luck next time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

More Fetzering....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

As many times as I have explained that we confront a dilemma and as many times as Dave Greer has distorted it, no one can

doubt that he has to resort to deliberate deception, if he is to have any case at all. Either way, this clip "proves too much". My

position has been consistent since I first addressed it. If the "rehearsal" clip is from the actual faking of the landing, then we

have direct proof of fakery; and, if it is not from the actual faking of the landing, we have proof that it could have been done.

But either it is from the actual faking of the landing or it is not; therefore, we have either direct proof of fakery or proof that

it could have been done. If Greer is right in his other claims -- which I seriously doubt! -- then it not only could have been

done but the time, effort, and expense involved would have been trivial. That, I think, is absurd, but that is Greer's position.

That is the position I have consistently maintained. How many posts can you find where I lay this out? HINT: Start with #536:

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.

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.

Oh really? That's not the impression you gave in some of your previous posts. In fact, you were quite clear:-

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.

My bolding.

You also insisted that it would be virtually impossible to recreate the set. A logical inference of this is that you believe it highly likely to be filmed on the same set as the Apollo clip.

There would have been no motive to do it at the time and recreating the set for that purpose would have been

practically impossible: recreating the lights, the angles for filming, the Moon Lander, astronaut, and all that--virtually impossible.

When Evan pointed out that it was a spoof video, you said the spoof idea was ridiculous? My bolding.

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.

You reinforced what you said on Nov 11.

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"

And again, below:-

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).

It goes on.

The idea of "reverse engineering" from some footage that was broadcast is absurd.

Now you're claiming that you were only pointing out similarities, and showing that the Apollo 11 landing COULD have been faked? Your own words say otherwise.

Changing one's mind is perfectly acceptable. Often it's accompanied by a simple admission of error. It's not usually done by falsely accusing your opponent of mis-representing your position.

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

Guest James H. Fetzer

Let me add that there is a consistent pattern to Greer's posts, which is citing only the part of the evidence of fakery where he

thinks he an create enough uncertainly to neutralize it from an argumentative point of view. That, however, is not possible in

the case of a dilemma, since either way, support for fakery follows. It might be a good idea to remind everyone that there are

other proofs that include alleged "moon landing" videos that raise questions that are not quite to easy to avoid, such as these:

From post #527: And the use of wire supports is on display in footage that

shows them reflecting light when there should be nothing there in "Moon

Landing Hoax - Wires Footage",

with Apollo 14 footage of light pings and Apollo 17 during the flag scene.

From Apollo 16 footage, we can see the use of wires to assist in walking to

simulate a low gravity field and even more strikingly when one astronaut

offers to assist another in getting up. The use of wires and slowing the

film by 50% does the job of producing effects that are analogous to those

that would actually occur on the Moon, but with glitches that give the

game away. Or take a look at "New Leaked Moon Landing Footage.

Shows Hoax.",

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vrge-8F6rw&feature=related

By focusing on the "rehearsal" footage and ignoring the dilemma, Greer distracts attention from other proofs of fakery, which he

has no doubt wanted to ignore because they provide rather awkward evidence that the moon landings were indeed faked, after all.

As many times as I have explained that we confront a dilemma and as many times as Dave Greer has distorted it, no one can

doubt that he has to resort to deliberate deception, if he is to have any case at all. Either way, this clip "proves too much". My

position has been consistent since I first addressed it. If the "rehearsal" clip is from the actual faking of the landing, then we

have direct proof of fakery; and, if it is not from the actual faking of the landing, we have proof that it could have been done.

But either it is from the actual faking of the landing or it is not; therefore, we have either direct proof of fakery or proof that

it could have been done. If Greer is right in his other claims -- which I seriously doubt! -- then it not only could have been

done but the time, effort, and expense involved would have been trivial. That, I think, is absurd, but that is Greer's position.

That is the position I have consistently maintained. How many posts can you find where I lay this out? HINT: Start with #536:

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.[/i

] Edited by James H. Fetzer
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

Funny how you only choose to discuss the cheesy looking suits, which obviously don't match the official cheesy looking suits, but completely ignore the fact that some Italian guy called Paolo has also claimed to have made the moontruth video, with no mention of Adam Stewart or the Viralfactory.

I find it strange that you would ignore that evidence and also find it strange that the Viralfactory refuses to answer my questions about him and his not even mentioning them or Adam Stewart in the making of the moontruth video.

Like I said before, there's something wrong with this picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As many times as I have explained that we confront a dilemma and as many times as Dave Greer has distorted it, no one can

doubt that he has to resort to deliberate deception, if he is to have any case at all.

I directly quoted you to show that I hadn't been deceptive or mis-represented your position. You are damned by your own words, not mine.

Either way, this clip "proves too much". My position has been consistent since I first addressed it. If the "rehearsal" clip is from the actual faking of the landing, then we have direct proof of fakery;

It isn't. You can verify this by looking closely at the clip, examining things such as the suit detail. You know, those details you said were entirely beside the point?

and, if it is not from the actual faking of the landing, we have proof that it could have been done. But either it is from the actual faking of the landing or it is not; therefore, we have either direct proof of fakery or proof that it could have been done.

As I pointed out to Duane, saying something could be faked is a million miles away from proving that it actually was faked. And all we're looking at here is one small tiny piece of the mountain of evidence. The quality of the picture is poor in comparison to later missions, especially the J missions, which include much higher quality colour TV, taken from multiple locations, with real-time pans and zooms showing both foreground and background detail that match up with the Hasselblad photos that were taken. And that is just the visual data, which again is only a sub-set of the evidence for Apollo.

If Greer is right in his other claims -- which I seriously doubt! -- then it not only could have been done but the time, effort, and expense involved would have been trivial. That, I think, is absurd, but that is Greer's position.

Not trivial, but certainly not "virtually impossible", which is the position you have reiterated several times on the thread.

That is the position I have consistently maintained. How many posts can you find where I lay this out? HINT: Start with #536:

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!

Another fallacious argument. It simply shows it may be possible to fake certain aspects of ONE mission video - NOT an actual moon landing (which has far more evidence to support it), and certainly not the entire Apollo programme of moon missions (I know you didn't state that, but it needs to be pointed out).

Again, I refer you to the analogy of the conquest of Everest I mentioned to Duane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.)

So? They are talking about their current suit, not the Apollo suits. Even so, the suit - as stated - offers only minimal protection. The materials used and construction of the suits is detailed in numerous publications.

Nice try to distract from the claim that travel through the Van Allen Belts was impossible though. That relied on minimising exposure through trajectory, the construction of the spacecraft themselves and the radiation protocols in force.

Better luck next time.

If the current, modern suits provide no radiation shielding protection, then it's obvious the 40 year old Apollo suits didn't either.. So why does NASA refuse to answer questions about their spacesuits?

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.)

Better luck next time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me add that there is a consistent pattern to Greer's posts, which is citing only the part of the evidence of fakery where he thinks he an create enough uncertainly to neutralize it from an argumentative point of view. That, however, is not possible in the case of a dilemma, since either way, support for fakery follows.

There is no dilemma. You are trying to blur the distinction between could have been faked, and definitely was faked. In fact, the manner of your argument, and your form of language, are constructed in such a way as to try and deceive the reader of your posts into believing that if it could have been faked, then it almost certainly was faked. For example, your insistence that "either way, it proves too much". Why does showing how it may have been possible to fake one small, low-quality clip "prove too much"? All it proves is what may be possible: not what is likely to have happened, nor what actually happened.

It might be a good idea to remind everyone that there are other proofs that include alleged "moon landing" videos that raise questions that are not quite to easy to avoid, such as these

Those "proofs" are nothing of the sort, and have been analyzed many times on different forums.

The "ping" at 1:13 is caused by lens flare due to bright light reflecting off the PLSS blade antenna. Lens flare is a well-documented phenomenon caused by bright light entering the camera and reflecting off internal structure, lens elements etc. The brightness of the "ping" varies directly with the brightness of the reflection coming off the antenna.

The "ping " at 1:37 is discussed by Kiwi on another forum five years ago. It's likely some random video glitch, of which there are plenty of other examples in the much longer video this snippet came from.

From Apollo 16 footage, we can see the use of wires to assist in walking to

simulate a low gravity field and even more strikingly when one astronaut

offers to assist another in getting up. The use of wires and slowing the

film by 50% does the job of producing effects that are analogous to those

that would actually occur on the Moon, but with glitches that give the

game away. Or take a look at "New Leaked Moon Landing Footage.

Shows Hoax.

Again, this is not proof of fakery. It is an argument of the form "they could have done it this way, therefore they did do it this way, therefore it was faked." What glitches do you speak of? An astronaut being able to bounce lightly on his feet or toes... in 1/6th gravity?

I'm assuming you're referring to the alleged faking of the Earth though the window? Discussed, and well and truly refuted, several years ago, on various forums. Here is a very good summary of the evidence.

By focusing on the "rehearsal" footage and ignoring the dilemma, Greer distracts attention from other proofs of fakery, which he has no doubt wanted to ignore because they provide rather awkward evidence that the moon landings were indeed faked, after all.

See previous post. There is no actual dilemma, only one of your construction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

The man is a logical buffoon. One horn of the dilemma proves it was faked. The other horn proves how it could have been faked. The only blurring is in the mind of Dave Greer. There is no doubt about it--nor of the significance of the other videos I've presented. It becomes pointless to debate those, like Burton and Greer, are openly willing to violate the canons of rational belief for the sake of obfuscating and obscuring what we know about the moon landing hoax, which they desperately want to conceal from the public.

Let me add that there is a consistent pattern to Greer's posts, which is citing only the part of the evidence of fakery where he thinks he an create enough uncertainly to neutralize it from an argumentative point of view. That, however, is not possible in the case of a dilemma, since either way, support for fakery follows.

There is no dilemma. You are trying to blur the distinction between could have been faked, and definitely was faked. In fact, the manner of your argument, and your form of language, are constructed in such a way as to try and deceive the reader of your posts into believing that if it could have been faked, then it almost certainly was faked. For example, your insistence that "either way, it proves too much". Why does showing how it may have been possible to fake one small, low-quality clip "prove too much"? All it proves is what may be possible: not what is likely to have happened, nor what actually happened.

It might be a good idea to remind everyone that there are other proofs that include alleged "moon landing" videos that raise questions that are not quite to easy to avoid, such as these

Those "proofs" are nothing of the sort, and have been analyzed many times on different forums.

The "ping" at 1:13 is caused by lens flare due to bright light reflecting off the PLSS blade antenna. Lens flare is a well-documented phenomenon caused by bright light entering the camera and reflecting off internal structure, lens elements etc. The brightness of the "ping" varies directly with the brightness of the reflection coming off the antenna.

The "ping " at 1:37 is discussed by Kiwi on another forum five years ago. It's likely some random video glitch, of which there are plenty of other examples in the much longer video this snippet came from.

From Apollo 16 footage, we can see the use of wires to assist in walking to

simulate a low gravity field and even more strikingly when one astronaut

offers to assist another in getting up. The use of wires and slowing the

film by 50% does the job of producing effects that are analogous to those

that would actually occur on the Moon, but with glitches that give the

game away. Or take a look at "New Leaked Moon Landing Footage.

Shows Hoax.

Again, this is not proof of fakery. It is an argument of the form "they could have done it this way, therefore they did do it this way, therefore it was faked." What glitches do you speak of? An astronaut being able to bounce lightly on his feet or toes... in 1/6th gravity?

I'm assuming you're referring to the alleged faking of the Earth though the window? Discussed, and well and truly refuted, several years ago, on various forums. Here is a very good summary of the evidence.

By focusing on the "rehearsal" footage and ignoring the dilemma, Greer distracts attention from other proofs of fakery, which he has no doubt wanted to ignore because they provide rather awkward evidence that the moon landings were indeed faked, after all.

See previous post. There is no actual dilemma, only one of your construction.

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

Guest James H. Fetzer

Well, I have no doubt that you are more expert in dealing with fakery and fraud than am I. The whole image of the "rehearsal" footage is qualitatively and quantitatively strikingly similar to that of the footage broadcast -- which, of course, we know that NASA has erased on the obviously fabricated pretext of "saving money"! That these remarkable similarities should have been created on a different stage and with a different director and crew appears to be incredibly improbable. And most of us are unaware that, as Macolm Pryce has observed, not only did NASA erase the original moon landing tapes, but the blueprints for the lunar module were destroyed. According to http://www.clavius.org/bibcollier.html

Most people are surprised to learn that the design documentation for the lunar module amounts to a boxcar's worth for each individual spacecraft. … Grumman is an aerospace engineering firm, not a museum. It did not wish to house the hundred thousand cubic feet or so of design documentation at its expense. As an aircraft manufacturer, Grumman is already required by aviation regulations to store the documentation for each commercial aircraft it builds. If the government does not require the manufacturer to retain the documentation, there is little incentive to do so voluntarily. Only cursory material was retained for historical reference, and a few detailed items were saved by private citizens who picked them off Grumman's trash heap. But it's no great surprise to anyone who works in aerospace that the detailed documentation was destroyed.

Not only is NASA trying to "explain away" its erasure of the most historic footage in human history on the ground of "saving money" -- and when has NASA ever made a serious attempt to "save money"? -- but the even more incredible argument is given that Grumman tossed the design plans for the lunar lander on the grounds of saving space! So if we wanted to create another -- for yet another "trip to the moon" -- we would have to go through the entire deign process all over again --and at enormous expense, no doubt, in comparison to what would be the case if the designs remained. Anyone who can't see this as the destruction of evidence of proof of a crime really should join the NASA bandwagon!

As many times as I have explained that we confront a dilemma and as many times as Dave Greer has distorted it, no one can

doubt that he has to resort to deliberate deception, if he is to have any case at all.

I directly quoted you to show that I hadn't been deceptive or mis-represented your position. You are damned by your own words, not mine.

Either way, this clip "proves too much". My position has been consistent since I first addressed it. If the "rehearsal" clip is from the actual faking of the landing, then we have direct proof of fakery;

It isn't. You can verify this by looking closely at the clip, examining things such as the suit detail. You know, those details you said were entirely beside the point?

and, if it is not from the actual faking of the landing, we have proof that it could have been done. But either it is from the actual faking of the landing or it is not; therefore, we have either direct proof of fakery or proof that it could have been done.

As I pointed out to Duane, saying something could be faked is a million miles away from proving that it actually was faked. And all we're looking at here is one small tiny piece of the mountain of evidence. The quality of the picture is poor in comparison to later missions, especially the J missions, which include much higher quality colour TV, taken from multiple locations, with real-time pans and zooms showing both foreground and background detail that match up with the Hasselblad photos that were taken. And that is just the visual data, which again is only a sub-set of the evidence for Apollo.

If Greer is right in his other claims -- which I seriously doubt! -- then it not only could have been done but the time, effort, and expense involved would have been trivial. That, I think, is absurd, but that is Greer's position.

Not trivial, but certainly not "virtually impossible", which is the position you have reiterated several times on the thread.

That is the position I have consistently maintained. How many posts can you find where I lay this out? HINT: Start with #536:

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!

Another fallacious argument. It simply shows it may be possible to fake certain aspects of ONE mission video - NOT an actual moon landing (which has far more evidence to support it), and certainly not the entire Apollo programme of moon missions (I know you didn't state that, but it needs to be pointed out).

Again, I refer you to the analogy of the conquest of Everest I mentioned to Duane.

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

The man is a logical buffoon. One horn of the dilemma proves it was faked.

This "horn" has already been proven to be false, so why keep raising it? Close examination of the "details" you abhor proves it. Duane knows it was a joke. You seem to be distancing yourself from that "horn" after initially embracing it (I'm assuming that's what you mean by this:"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.")

The other horn proves how it could have been faked.

How it COULD have been faked. This does not prove that it WAS faked. The photo of Tensing atop Everest COULD have been faked. That does not prove it WAS faked.

The only blurring is in the mind of Dave Greer. There is no doubt about it--nor of the significance of the other videos I've presented. It becomes pointless to debate those, like Burton and Greer, are openly willing to violate the canons of rational belief for the sake of obfuscating and obscuring what we know about the moon landing hoax, which they desperately want to conceal from the public.

You won't debate the evidence you've presented because it is weak and fundamentally flawed. It is not based on sound scientific or investigative principles, it's based on specious statements or logically unsound reasoning. I am concealing nothing from the "public", I'm revealing why, in my opinion, Apollo Deniers arguments and "evidence" are wrong. That is my firm opinion, and it's my right to exercise that opinion regardless of your bluster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's more evidence that the Apollo Moon Landings were faked... Colonel Philip Corso had top secret security clearance with the US military .. He claimed that NASA couldn't send humans into space, beyond the magnetosphere.

Question to NASA open e-mail. Colonel Philip Corso Part 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp5kyoNfRP8&feature=sub

NASA won't answer any questions about their lack of radiation shielding protection concerning their spacesuits, or their Apollo craft.. Nor will they reply to any e-mails sent by those who want to know the truth about how they allegedly sent 24 humans to the Moon and back over 40 years ago, when that can't even be technically accomplished today.

The Chinese promised to send humans to the Moon by 2020 but have had to put their manned lunar missions on hold because of their inability to protect their taikonauts against deep space radiation.. They have even gone so far as to admit that they don't know how the Americans protected their astronauts against radiation in the 1960's and 70's, during the Apollo Program.

If you combine this evidence with the obviously staged Apollo photography, it leaves little doubt that Apollo was the scam of the century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Duane's post reinforces the second horn of the dilemma: Even if it is not an out-take of the original faking, it shows how easily it could have been done in a studio! Which is another way of observing that, either way, it proves too much! And it was obviously "a lot cheaper than going to the moon" -- which the Van Allen radiation belt also appears to preclude! Excellent reasons for "faking it".

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."

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

Duane's post reinforces the second horn of the dilemma: Even if it is not an outtake of the original faking

For the umpteenth time: IT ISN'T.

it shows how easily it could have been done in a studio!

For the umpteenth, it shows how it MAY have been possible to fake one shot of one mission.

Which is another way of observing that, either way, it proves too much!

"Proves too much" is pure rhetoric. Proves too much about what? I'm asking you to be specific here, because you're referring to something that MAY have been possible, that "proves too much" about something. Please explain concisely, without resorting to rhetoric, what you mean.

And it was obviously "a lot cheaper than going to the moon"

Finally, we agree on something!

-- which the Van Allen radiation belt also appears to preclude!

Not according to any scientists who specialise in that area. For example, four Russian scientists who in the late 60s advised that flights along the lines of Zond-5 and Zond-7 were safe from a radiation point of view.

Link

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/864491/files/p484.pdf

Excellent reasons for "faking it".

Lack of oxygen at the top of Everest appears to preclude people going there! So much cheaper to fake the odd photo in a studio. (See why I don't find that argument convincing?)

Seriously, a "reason" for faking something does not prove it was faked.

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...