Jump to content
The Education Forum

(Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread


Evan Burton
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 752
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

BTW, I see on another forum that as soon someone disagrees with his opinions about Apollo, that bilious blow hard Drago decides rules don't apply to him and starts insinuating that Peter Dawson is me / Len Colby / a disinformation agents / etc. How pathetic... but quite in character for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comes with the territory I suppose. To paraphrase the great Spike Milligan ''Everybody's gotta be someone''.

AFA the topic goes, hasn't enough been presented for a vote to be taken?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

NOTE TO THE READER:

This has been a fascinating exercise, which would be interminable

if Evan Burton had his way. With a little help from my friends, such

as Jack White and Duane Damon, more than enough information

has been presented for everyone to know both sides of the debate.

Jack has displayed his characteristic patience and perseverance,

and I have come to appreciate Duane's long-enduring struggle to

present his point of view in the face of enduring adversity. It has

astounded me how some persons dominate this forum and impose

their point of view by a variety of techniques, not all of which,

alas, are praiseworthy, such as by deleting posts they don't like

or even by merging threads that ought to have remained separate.

Since we have long since passed the point of diminishing returns,

as I see it, I would like to offer a few (what I hope to be) parting

reflections, even though I have no doubt others will continue on.

Perhaps the most significant lesson to derive is methodological.

The requirement of total evidence, which is the most important

condition of scientific research, maintains that reasoning must

be based upon all of the available relevant evidence. The Dave

McGowan series, "Wagging the Moondoggie", and the valuable

article in Metapedia, "Moon Hoax", in my opinion, satisfy that

requirement. I therefore recommend their study for those who

are still longing for more. As I have observed more than once

in the past, however, I do not believe that it would continue to

be productive to spend more time responding to advocates whose

main interest appears to be something other than an unbiased

interest in the truth. For those familiar with the series and

the article, please write to me directly if you have questions

I might address. Meanwhile, it's been real or, better, surreal!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah well. I guess the questions got a little too tough. You're right about one thing: it's certainly been surreal!

NOTE TO THE READER:

This has been a fascinating exercise, which would be interminable

if Evan Burton had his way. With a little help from my friends, such

as Jack White and Duane Damon, more than enough information

has been presented for everyone to know both sides of the debate.

Jack has displayed his characteristic patience and perseverance,

and I have come to appreciate Duane's long-enduring struggle to

present his point of view in the face of enduring adversity. It has

astounded me how some persons dominate this forum and impose

their point of view by a variety of techniques, not all of which,

alas, are praiseworthy, such as by deleting posts they don't like

or even by merging threads that ought to have remained separate.

Since we have long since passed the point of diminishing returns,

as I see it, I would like to offer a few (what I hope to be) parting

reflections, even though I have no doubt others will continue on.

Perhaps the most significant lesson to derive is methodological.

The requirement of total evidence, which is the most important

condition of scientific research, maintains that reasoning must

be based upon all of the available relevant evidence. The Dave

McGowan series, "Wagging the Moondoggie", and the valuable

article in Metapedia, "Moon Hoax", in my opinion, satisfy that

requirement. I therefore recommend their study for those who

are still longing for more. As I have observed more than once

in the past, however, I do not believe that it would continue to

be productive to spend more time responding to advocates whose

main interest appears to be something other than an unbiased

interest in the truth. For those familiar with the series and

the article, please write to me directly if you have questions

I might address. Meanwhile, it's been real or, better, surreal!

Edited by Dave Greer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not unexpected Dave. This is not uncommon when dealing with hoax proponents. Instead of addressing the actual issues (like proving sources which don't say what are claimed to, incorrect facts, complete fabrications, etc) it's better to bluster and throw out accusations, to cut & paste more inaccurate claims from a disreputable website, etc. Anything to cloud the issue and avoid dealing with the facts. The internet is littered with examples of this.

John,

I don't really know if a vote is necessary! icecream.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not unexpected Dave. This is not uncommon when dealing with hoax proponents. Instead of addressing the actual issues (like proving sources which don't say what are claimed to, incorrect facts, complete fabrications, etc) it's better to bluster and throw out accusations, to cut & paste more inaccurate claims from a disreputable website, etc. Anything to cloud the issue and avoid dealing with the facts. The internet is littered with examples of this.

John,

I don't really know if a vote is necessary! icecream.gif

The bizarre thing is, I expected a lot more from Jim. I didn't really know much about him previously, other than he's a scholar, well educated, and clearly an intelligent man. I actually thought that he might be approaching this with a view to analysing how people respond to poorly researched, parroted arguments, drenched in a sea of rhetoric and mangled logic.

One such example. (Paraphrasing)

The Russian samples came from the moon. They exhibit differences to Apollo samples. Therefore, the Apollo samples are fake.

He makes two assumptions here to "prove" his case. Firstly, that the Russian samples definitely came from the moon. What proof does he have of this? Secondly, he is inferring that some differences in the samples proves that they can't both have come from the same planet/moon. Does this apply to Earth samples? Do all Earth rock and soil samples exhibit exactly the same properties and chemical composition? Let's narrow this down to Russian samples, which he agrees are from the Moon (at least we agree on that much!) Here's just one example relating to a Luna-20 sample.

Major element compositions of Luna 20 glass particles

Abstract

Major element analyses of nineteen Luna 20 glass particles indicate that most of the Luna 20 glasses have Al2O3 contents greater than 21 wt.% and compositions similar to Apollo 10 and Luna 20 rocks and soils. Three of the glass particles have low Al2O3 (< 13 wt.%) and high FeO (> 18 wt.%) contents and were probably derived from one of the adjacent maria. The low glass content of the Luna 20 soil indicates that it is relatively young or less mature than most mare soils that have been studied.

What's this? Three glass particles from the very same Luna-20 sample are low in Aluminium Oxide, and high in Iron Oxide, compared to other glass particles in the very same sample! Jim would have people believe that differences in composition between Luna and Apollo samples prove that the Apollo samples are fake, yet individual particles from the SAME Luna-20 samples show a large variation in their composition. How then, can he use the argument that a difference in composition proves the Apollo samples are fake? It's a completely specious argument, that will fool no-one who actually investigates the claim in detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Here's a parting contribution, which Dave Greer should certainly appreciate:

Not unexpected Dave. This is not uncommon when dealing with hoax proponents. Instead of addressing the actual issues (like proving sources which don't say what are claimed to, incorrect facts, complete fabrications, etc) it's better to bluster and throw out accusations, to cut & paste more inaccurate claims from a disreputable website, etc. Anything to cloud the issue and avoid dealing with the facts. The internet is littered with examples of this.

John,

I don't really know if a vote is necessary! icecream.gif

The bizarre thing is, I expected a lot more from Jim. I didn't really know much about him previously, other than he's a scholar, well educated, and clearly an intelligent man. I actually thought that he might be approaching this with a view to analysing how people respond to poorly researched, parroted arguments, drenched in a sea of rhetoric and mangled logic.

One such example. (Paraphrasing)

The Russian samples came from the moon. They exhibit differences to Apollo samples. Therefore, the Apollo samples are fake.

He makes two assumptions here to "prove" his case. Firstly, that the Russian samples definitely came from the moon. What proof does he have of this? Secondly, he is inferring that some differences in the samples proves that they can't both have come from the same planet/moon. Does this apply to Earth samples? Do all Earth rock and soil samples exhibit exactly the same properties and chemical composition? Let's narrow this down to Russian samples, which he agrees are from the Moon (at least we agree on that much!) Here's just one example relating to a Luna-20 sample.

Major element compositions of Luna 20 glass particles

Abstract

Major element analyses of nineteen Luna 20 glass particles indicate that most of the Luna 20 glasses have Al2O3 contents greater than 21 wt.% and compositions similar to Apollo 10 and Luna 20 rocks and soils. Three of the glass particles have low Al2O3 (< 13 wt.%) and high FeO (> 18 wt.%) contents and were probably derived from one of the adjacent maria. The low glass content of the Luna 20 soil indicates that it is relatively young or less mature than most mare soils that have been studied.

What's this? Three glass particles from the very same Luna-20 sample are low in Aluminium Oxide, and high in Iron Oxide, compared to other glass particles in the very same sample! Jim would have people believe that differences in composition between Luna and Apollo samples prove that the Apollo samples are fake, yet individual particles from the SAME Luna-20 samples show a large variation in their composition. How then, can he use the argument that a difference in composition proves the Apollo samples are fake? It's a completely specious argument, that will fool no-one who actually investigates the claim in detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a parting contribution, which Dave Greer should certainly appreciate:

Thanks Jim, I always appreciate a good laugh! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

As a (hopefully) final illustration of the many misrepresentations

that I have encountered from the likes of Burton and Greer, my

argument was not as Greer has described it but a bit more subtle.

I did not say the Apollo samples are fake BECAUSE they "exhibit

differences" from the Russian samples. Instead I said, correctly,

that the Russian lunar samples contain characteristic features

that would be expected to be found on the Moon, while NASA's

samples did not. For that reason, the appropriate inference to draw

is that that NASA's samples came from Earth rather than the Moon.

I am unaware of any third alternative, which supports this argument.

Dave Greer may be unable to appreciate the distinction here, but it

reflects the dividing line between accuracy and misrepresentation.

Not unexpected Dave. This is not uncommon when dealing with hoax proponents. Instead of addressing the actual issues (like proving sources which don't say what are claimed to, incorrect facts, complete fabrications, etc) it's better to bluster and throw out accusations, to cut & paste more inaccurate claims from a disreputable website, etc. Anything to cloud the issue and avoid dealing with the facts. The internet is littered with examples of this.

John,

I don't really know if a vote is necessary! icecream.gif

The bizarre thing is, I expected a lot more from Jim. I didn't really know much about him previously, other than he's a scholar, well educated, and clearly an intelligent man. I actually thought that he might be approaching this with a view to analysing how people respond to poorly researched, parroted arguments, drenched in a sea of rhetoric and mangled logic.

One such example. (Paraphrasing)

The Russian samples came from the moon. They exhibit differences to Apollo samples. Therefore, the Apollo samples are fake.

He makes two assumptions here to "prove" his case. Firstly, that the Russian samples definitely came from the moon. What proof does he have of this? Secondly, he is inferring that some differences in the samples proves that they can't both have come from the same planet/moon. Does this apply to Earth samples? Do all Earth rock and soil samples exhibit exactly the same properties and chemical composition? Let's narrow this down to Russian samples, which he agrees are from the Moon (at least we agree on that much!) Here's just one example relating to a Luna-20 sample.

Major element compositions of Luna 20 glass particles

Abstract

Major element analyses of nineteen Luna 20 glass particles indicate that most of the Luna 20 glasses have Al2O3 contents greater than 21 wt.% and compositions similar to Apollo 10 and Luna 20 rocks and soils. Three of the glass particles have low Al2O3 (< 13 wt.%) and high FeO (> 18 wt.%) contents and were probably derived from one of the adjacent maria. The low glass content of the Luna 20 soil indicates that it is relatively young or less mature than most mare soils that have been studied.

What's this? Three glass particles from the very same Luna-20 sample are low in Aluminium Oxide, and high in Iron Oxide, compared to other glass particles in the very same sample! Jim would have people believe that differences in composition between Luna and Apollo samples prove that the Apollo samples are fake, yet individual particles from the SAME Luna-20 samples show a large variation in their composition. How then, can he use the argument that a difference in composition proves the Apollo samples are fake? It's a completely specious argument, that will fool no-one who actually investigates the claim in detail.

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

As a (hopefully) final illustration of the many misrepresentations

that I have encountered from the likes of Burton and Greer, my

argument was not as Greer has described it but a bit more subtle.

I did not say the Apollo samples are fake BECAUSE they "exhibit

differences" from the Russian samples.

Really? Let's take a look at what you said yesterday shall we?

The Russian samples were from the Moon. NASA's samples were analyzed and found to be

inconsistent with known lunar samples. The NASA samples may have come from Antarctica

or a laboratory

I'm sorry Jim, but once again your own words prove you wrong.

Instead I said, correctly, that the Russian lunar samples contain characteristic features

that would be expected to be found on the Moon, while NASA's samples did not.

That's not what you said Jim! Neither is it factually correct. But hey, you're on a roll - why let your own words and actuals facts get in the way of a good conspiracy?

For example, as posted before - the abstract from one of YOUR sources that showed many similarities between Apollo and Luna samples.

1300 microprobe analyses of glasses, pyroxenes, feldspars, oxides, olivines, troilite and metal in two 0.025 g samples of the Luna 16 return were made in order to characterize the Mare Fecunditatis regolith. Pyroxenes display a very wide compositional range, extreme fractionation, and metastable crystallization. Solid solution of Ti, Al, and Cr is appreciable and most pyroxenes plot along an Al:Ti line 2:1, similar to Apollo 11 clinopyroxenes. Orthopyroxenes are very rare. Zoning in plagioclase is varied but not extensive; compositions from An 75 to An 100 are dominant. The compositional distribution is indistinguishable from Apollo 12 and 11 low-K basaltic plagioclases. No potassic feldspars were found. Ilmenite is the dominant oxide phase, with minor ulvospinel, rare chrome spinel and spinel. The latter resemble Apollo 14 pink spinels. Olivines range from Fo 75 to Fo 11 but the majority range from Fo 60 to Fo 70 thus more iron-rich than olivines from other maria. On the basis of preferred compositions, a tentative classification of glasses has been made. Twenty-three percent of the glasses are Al-rich, Fe, Cr-poor, have Ca/Al ratios similar to many Apollo 14 glasses and are considered to have a non-mare origin. Their compositions are essentially the same as that of the high Al component at all Apollo landing sites. Glasses equivalent in composition to Fra Mauro basalts (KREEP) and to granite are extremely rare. The majority of glasses, mare-derived, are substantially higher in Fe, Ti, and Cr and lower in Ca and Al. They are divisible into a major group, Fecunditatis type A basaltic glasses, with less than 5% TiO 2 , and a smaller group, Fecunditatis type B basaltic glasses, with more than 5% TiO 2 . The type A glasses are richer in Al, and lower in Fe than glasses at the Apollo 11 or 12 sites. Type B glasses are similar to the high Fe basaltic glasses from the Apollo 11 regolith. If the type A glasses reflect the characteristic basalts at the Mare Fecunditatis site, then these are intermediate in major element chemistry between Apollo 11 and 12 basalts and the aluminous non-mare basaltic rocks.

It's been nice knowing you Jim. Now, jump on to your petrol-filled rover and off you scoot! (PLEASE tell me that one was a joke!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a parting contribution, which Dave Greer should certainly appreciate:

Thanks Jim, I always appreciate a good laugh! :)

I'll give you some clues Jim.

The "fuel" referred to is for the RTG, NOT the rover. That's the Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator. Generated electricity for the ALSEP.

The object that the author of the video (ArcAngel4Myke) is trying to fool you into believing is a "fuel can" is the TGE - Traverse Gravimeter Experiment.

Here we have two horns of a dilemma! Either you accept that the old fox guarding the hen-house (nasty NASA), actually DID have such technology (how boringly plausible!); or you accept that they decided to build a fake rover with a petrol engine, and slosh some fuel into it, on set, while their antics were being shown on TV, then preserve it for posterity decades later on the good old World Wide Web. If you choose the first option (NASA told the truth and you got fooled by some random Youtuber), then you must sacrifice a small puppy to appease your new Masters, the Great God NASA. If you choose the second option, then readers of this thread will actually become more stupid. That's your dilemma. Kill the puppy, or increase people's stupidity.

The choice, my fine funny friend, is yours. (If I were you, I'd go for option A. Kill the puppy. OK, you have to put up with people accusing you of shilling for NASA, but on the plus side, the health and pension benefits are literally out of this world!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack has displayed his characteristic patience and perseverance,

and I have come to appreciate Duane's long-enduring struggle to

present his point of view in the face of enduring adversity.

Duane has been able to continuely present his point of view, the problem for Duane, is that his point of view is technically flawed.

And then we have the work of one Jack White, perhaps the most technically inept attempts at photo analysis ever seen by human beings. All those wonderful "studies" and not a single one has withstood close inspection. They simply reek of photographic imcompetence and a total lack of understanding of eventhe most basic of photogrqpahic principle.

Whats even more amazing is that you actual believe this garbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a parting contribution, which Dave Greer should certainly appreciate:

Thanks Jim, I always appreciate a good laugh! :)

I'll give you some clues Jim.

The "fuel" referred to is for the RTG, NOT the rover. That's the Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator. Generated electricity for the ALSEP.

The object that the author of the video (ArcAngel4Myke) is trying to fool you into believing is a "fuel can" is the TGE - Traverse Gravimeter Experiment.

Here we have two horns of a dilemma! Either you accept that the old fox guarding the hen-house (nasty NASA), actually DID have such technology (how boringly plausible!); or you accept that they decided to build a fake rover with a petrol engine, and slosh some fuel into it, on set, while their antics were being shown on TV, then preserve it for posterity decades later on the good old World Wide Web. If you choose the first option (NASA told the truth and you got fooled by some random Youtuber), then you must sacrifice a small puppy to appease your new Masters, the Great God NASA. If you choose the second option, then readers of this thread will actually become more stupid. That's your dilemma. Kill the puppy, or increase people's stupidity.

The choice, my fine funny friend, is yours. (If I were you, I'd go for option A. Kill the puppy. OK, you have to put up with people accusing you of shilling for NASA, but on the plus side, the health and pension benefits are literally out of this world!)

At the end of the video, why does the astronaut toss the "empty can" as far away as he can?

Jack

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...