(Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread

[Jack White]

Then ask Burton to reinstate the studies and we will see Burton refute them. Why is he afraid

to discuss the trackless rover photos?

[Craig Lamson]

Then ask Burton to reinstate the studies and we will see Burton refute them. Why is he afraid

to discuss the trackless rover photos?

Clearly he is not 'afraid' of your work, he has already refuted it.

The question of who is afraid falls on you.

For someone who has no time for this you sure are spending a bunch of time on it. Why is it YOU must hide behind a shill? What are YOU afraid of?

Edited August 18, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Evan Burton]

I am sorry, Evan. Jack is good at posting images, I am not. This won't work if you don't allow it. Of course,

I am not surprised that you have not replied to the evidence we have posted but have deleted it!

No, they were moved off the debate thread and onto the comment thread. Nothing has been deleted.

[Evan Burton]

Then ask Burton to reinstate the studies and we will see Burton refute them. Why is he afraid

to discuss the trackless rover photos?

They were never deleted. They are on this very thread.

[Michael Hogan]

Then ask Burton to reinstate the studies and we will see Burton refute them. Why is he afraid

to discuss the trackless rover photos?

They were never deleted. They are on this very thread.

I am sorry, Evan. Jack is good at posting images, I am not. This won't work if you don't allow it. Of course,

I am not surprised that you have not replied to the evidence we have posted but have deleted it!

No, they were moved off the debate thread and onto the comment thread. Nothing has been deleted.

"In the interest of being open & transparent, would all Mods please record any Moderator actions they take

(locking, deleting, warning, moving, etc) here. This thread is for recording the actions only, and not for discussing them. (bold added)

Access is limited to Moderators only. Unlock the thread, make your post, then lock the thread when finished."

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10873&view=findpost&p=116841

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

No, that's not good enough. I can't present my arguments without having the evidence here. This is not

acceptable. You are asking for the suppression of the premises of my argument insofar as they depend on

the presentation of the relevant photographs. Plus you are violating my understanding of the rules of our

exchange, where I post evidence, you attempt to refute it, and I respond. Then we move to the next round.

For a guy who poses as so confident of his knowledge, background, and ability, you are doing a good job

of presenting yourself as afraid of the evidence, wanting to suppress it and violating the rules of the debate.

I explained before why I was wary of engaging in an exchange with a fanatic like you. There is going to be no

end to this--even regarding this first round--if you are allowed to post your endless objections and replies.

We do it the way I understood or we don't do it at all. Everyone can draw their own inferences, but it is clear

to me that you are continuing with this distraction about moon rocks to avoid the moon rover photographs.

Life is too short. I considered this to be a waste of time from the beginning. You are proving that I was right.

And that you are prepared to continue both as MODERATOR and as PARTICIPANT is simply beyond belief.

I am sorry, Evan. Jack is good at posting images, I am not. This won't work if you don't allow it. Of course,

I am not surprised that you have not replied to the evidence we have posted but have deleted it!

No, they were moved off the debate thread and onto the comment thread. Nothing has been deleted.

Edited August 18, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

This is a fraudulent misrepresentation of the terms of the debate.

I was to make an initial argument (in the case of beginning with

Jack's studies of the moon landing photos, by asking him to post

those I designate). You were to reply and then I respond. Then

we would move to another argument (using different studies of the

moon landing photographs, for example) and repeat the sequence of

exchange. You are violating the arrangement, which you endorsed

in accepting Jack as well as me as participants who could post on

this dedicated thread. I explained long ago that I was reluctant

to engage with an obvious zealot like you, whom I expected would

be inclined to "bend the rules" for his own benefit. You have not

only "bent the rules" but removed the photo studies that were to be

my initial argument. This business about the moon rocks also shows

you are a charlatan and willing to go to extremes by not imposing

limits on your own abusive posts about it in clear violation of the

conditions that were to govern this exchange. There were to be just

three parts to each exchange: the initial argument, your response,

and my reply. THAT'S IT. Otherwise, you would continue endlessly

with crappy, carping, piddling posts precisely as you are doing here

with no end to it! I haven't the time to waste. You appear to me to

be a very dishonest person and I have no interest in continuing an

exchange where you are suppressing evidence and making repetitive

posts about the same issue. So if you wanted to vitiate the whole

exchange, then you appear to have succeeded. Lacking the courage

of your convictions, you aren't even letting me make my arguments

(by deleting my evidence) and are violating the rules (by posting

repetitively on the same point after I had replied to your original

response). This is a farce and I have no time for it. No thanks! If

you restore Jack's posts, delete your posts following my reply to

your argument about moon rocks, agree to have Gary moderate

and follow the previously agreed rules, then I will continue with this.

But otherwise not. Your lack of intellectual integrity is manifest. The

exchange has turned out to be as phony as the moon landing hoax.

Why aren't you addressing my rebuttal Jim? They are quite clear, relate to issues YOU raised (not Jack) and therefore should be able to defend:

- Quantity in excess of either recovered here on Earth or remotely recovered.

- Core samples deeper than could be obtained by robotic means.

- Particular chemical makeup specific to lunar origin.

- Zap pits indicative of lunar origin without atmospheric re-entry.

These cannot be faked. We have trained and accredited geologists all verifying this (source).

Where are your trained and accredited geologists disputing this?

[Evan Burton]

So you are backing out?

[Evan Burton]

Gary,

Are any of Jim's charges valid? I submit myself to your adjudication.

[Evan Burton]

BTW, while we are waiting for Gary's adjudication:

Jim,

Can you point out where I agreed to YOUR terms? I specifically rejected them. I agreed to the terms that I posted: civility, moderated but a debate.

[Evan Burton]

PM sent to Gary, to alert him to the need for a moderator:

Gary, could you please see the debate thread and decide if I am guilty of any of the charges Jim Fetzer has laid against me? Thank you.

[Guest Gary Loughran]

Can only Dr Fetzer and Evan post here, this would be most appreciated and it should help identify, easily, areas of agreement and dischord on the format.

I was trying to gather as much information as I can on other threads and have given up.

Instead of addressing the queries directly posed - can I suggest we clear everything down and attempt to move forward anew?

Evan, Dr Fetzer - inciting/baiting eachother won't help progress things either and I, for one, am very interested in a proper debate, with attendant civility.

I propose -

1 - Jack posts the study in an appropriately titled thread

2 - In the first instance Evan responds first.

3 - Dr Fetzer responds next.

Thread closed

Next thread started by Jack as above except -

Dr Fetzer posts first in support (I'm supposing) of the study.

Evan posts next.

Thread closed.

And so on.

Is this agreeable?

[Jack White]

Can only Dr Fetzer and Evan post here, this would be most appreciated and it should help identify, easily, areas of agreement and dischord on the format.

I was trying to gather as much information as I can on other threads and have given up.

Instead of addressing the queries directly posed - can I suggest we clear everything down and attempt to move forward anew?

Evan, Dr Fetzer - inciting/baiting eachother won't help progress things either and I, for one, am very interested in a proper debate, with attendant civility.

I propose -

1 - Jack posts the study in an appropriately titled thread

2 - In the first instance Evan responds first.

3 - Dr Fetzer responds next.

Thread closed

Next thread started by Jack as above except -

Dr Fetzer posts first in support (I'm supposing) of the study.

Evan posts next.

Thread closed.

And so on.

Is this agreeable?

Thanks, Gary. Sounds agreeable to me. I would add, without any argumentation from me, that I be allowed

to have a descriptive label when adding images, such as "THESE ARE SEVEN OF FIFTEEN STUDIES ON THIS

SUBJECT OF TRACKLESS LRVs", because in the first instance that is the case. Or, "THESE SIX STUDIES ARE

FROM MANY ON THE SUBJECT OF AUXILIARY LIGHTING". In such cases, I would NUMBER the studies for

easy reference.

Thanks for volunteering to moderate. With a fair judge, I am sure both Jim and Evan can suppress any

inclination toward personal attacks, and just stick to pertinent thoughts. You should delete or admonish

any ad homs.

I like the idea of alternating the discussion, but I suggest that both be given one round of rebuttal so

that statements cannot be left unchallenged. This format might provide interesting discussion.

Jack

[John Dolva]

It seems to me an acceptable format has been arrived at. ???. Perhaps this thread can be it for now and a new one where this process starts begin?

[Evan Burton]

Gary,

That is a return to the original format Jack wanted and I rejected because it is pointless; it is not a debate. Let me foretell what will happen if I were to agree to that format:

Jack: Study #1.

Jim: Good work, Jack - I agree.

Me: But what about this, the fact that your second point is impossible, or that you have confused A with B?

Jack: Study #2.

Me: This is misidentified as shown here, and here is a reference to show why claim 2 is totally inaccurate.

Jim: Evan is wrong; Jack is right.

Jack: Study #3.

etc

etc

What's the point? Where is the debate? I am quite happy with civility - indeed it should be demanded - but what of presenting evidence, having that evidence questioned and scrutinised, Jim questioning me on my evidence, me questioning him on his?

This should be a debate where all the interested parties (and there are quite a few - have a look at the number of page views) can see all the evidence, listen to the debate, see the questions asked, etc. In order for them to decide who is right, they need to be able to see the robustness of each side's assertions and how they stand up to close examination.

I have great confidence in my assertions, am sure of their validity, and invite others to test me on them, to vigorously probe the evidence and see if it can withstand the harsh light of examination.

Shouldn't my debate opponent be willing to do the same? Wouldn't they WANT to show how strong their claims are?

THAT is what a debate is all about. What Jack proposes is a sideshow.