(Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread

[Evan Burton]

Let me give another example: both Jack and Jim believe that the events of 9-11 were not as been generally published, that there is involvement by persons or forces not yet acknowledged (generally believed to be either a government or some type of influential, powerful cabal). Let's say they wanted me to debate 9-11. What sort of debate would be the following?

Me: The events of 9-11 were carried out by Islamic terrorists.

Jack: Dr Jones shows evidence of thermite being used at the WTC.

Me: The 9-11 Commission Report says you're wrong.

Jim: Where? What evidence does it show to explain the trace elements?

Me: The 9-11 Commission Report says you're wrong.

etc

(edited to add - this is an illustration; it is not an invitation to derail the thread with 9-11 discussion)

Edited August 20, 2010 by Evan Burton

[John Dolva]

I''d just like to see the debate. There will be ample opportunity for non debators to comment in a companion thread. I'm confident that Evans povs will prevail and I think it's important to lay this revision of history to rest.

[Evan Burton]

And lastly, if Jim feels that I cannot be trusted then I offer the following:

For the duration of the debate I be placed into the ordinary members group, having no moderator powers, and be placed on post moderation. That way my posts must be reviewed by Gary BEFORE they are posted. It is impossible for me to break the agreement of civility, impossible for me to edit, move, delete, etc.

[Josiah Thompson]

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.

So I guess we're only going to hear Fetzer throwing nasty names at you and not deal with any real issues. Is that how all this has worked out? If so, that's revealing in itself.

JT

[John Dolva]

I don't think Jim/Jack ever had any intention of participating knowing they'd come off the losers.

Evan has made major concesssions following their increasing demands.

Jim/Jack are now in a corner where ignoring the issue alltogether seems to be the only option.

No doubt they will spout various false foul plays to justify this.

[Evan Burton]

Well? I'm still up for a debate. A real debate, and with the restrictions placed on me as I have said.

Is Jim willing to defend his views?

[Evan Burton]

I believe you are right John.

I find it perplexing that someone like Jack, who is so passionate about this and claims the landings were fake, is not willing to defend his views.

[John Dolva]

Yes, the opportunity with massive concessions are there but the silence is deafening.

edit typo

Edited August 22, 2010 by John Dolva

[Guest Gary Loughran]

Evan - OK, I accept what you are saying - however, in order for this to be controlled (at least in terms of my moderating) there needs to be a clear end point for each debate - preferably truncated with a topic closure - else the scenario you paint is even more unavoidable. If each participant has a limit of posts, they will surely value their posts more than to waste one on 'citation please...ROFL smiley: etc. etc. ' type inanity which tends to pervade most debate on photographic anlaysis and attendant discussion.

Jim - Are you still willing to participate in the debate? This is dragging on too long - so a definitive and short response would be appreciated.

[Terry Mauro]

I believe you are right John.

I find it perplexing that someone like Jack, who is so passionate about this and claims the landings were fake, is not willing to defend his views.

I always wonder whether Jim and Jack are disputing the moon landings "or" their position is that the entire Kennedy space program was fraud? If it's the latter then I would have trouble explaining all the new technologies spun off into the economy from the work of NASA. Microwave technologies, computer technologies, etc.

How did these technologies develop if they did not originate with NASA? Where then did they come from? Government accounting would list the benefit to the overall economy at $0.12 return for every $0.01 invested in the Moon landing project. And this was said to be the result of new technological "spin offs" into the US economy from NASA.

You see a similiar result with the aborted Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) under Ronald Reagan.

For instance their was a publicly held company Surebeam Corp. out of San Diego that used SDI technologies to irradiate food borne pathogens from meat, fruit, vegetables, etc.

San Diego-based provider of electron beam food safety systems and services for the food industry

Surebeam went bankrupt in 2003 under the weight of an accounting scandal similiar to ENRON. But the technology worked.

http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-trade/food-stores/4256177-1.html

[Jack White]

I believe you are right John.

I find it perplexing that someone like Jack, who is so passionate about this and claims the landings were fake, is not willing to defend his views.

I always wonder whether Jim and Jack are disputing the moon landings "or" their position is that the entire Kennedy space program was fraud? If it's the latter then I would have trouble explaining all the new technologies spun off into the economy from the work of NASA. Microwave technologies, computer technologies, etc.

How did these technologies develop if they did not originate with NASA? Where then did they come from? Government accounting would list the benefit to the overall economy at $0.12 return for every $0.01 invested in the Moon landing project. And this was said to be the result of new technological "spin offs" into the US economy from NASA.

You see a similiar result with the aborted Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) under Ronald Reagan.

For instance their was a publicly held company Surebeam Corp. out of San Diego that used SDI technologies to irradiate food borne pathogens from meat, fruit, vegetables, etc.

San Diego-based provider of electron beam food safety systems and services for the food industry

Surebeam went bankrupt in 2003 under the weight of an accounting scandal similiar to ENRON. But the technology worked.

http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-trade/food-stores/4256177-1.html

Terry...you are clearly not up to speed on this by your statement...

"I always wonder whether Jim and Jack are disputing the moon landings "or" their position is that the entire Kennedy space program was fraud?"

You have not visited my Apollo studies at:

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.htm

WHAT I DISPUTE IS THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE APOLLO PHOTOS. PERIOD. I do question "why were the photos faked?"

Jim disputes that both the photos and the missions were authentic, in well documented reasoning.

There is no reason for you to "WONDER" when both Jim and I have clearly stated what our opinions are.

Jack

Edited August 23, 2010 by Jack White

[Evan Burton]

Not quite, Jack - you have previously claimed that the landings were faked.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Gary,

I thought my posts #16 and #18 were easy to understand. Your format is what I had thought we were

doing. I present an argument based upon the sources that I have previously identified in post #7.

Since I was beginning with Jack's photo studies, I asked him to post a sample of those about the

missing tracks of the moon rover. He posted them, but Burton moved them. That is not acceptable.

How can anyone make sense of my argument if some of my premises are missing? If I cannot have

Jack post his studies on the thread devoted to this "debate", then it is pointless. That's how I see it.

Strictly speaking, by the way, the moon rock observation was not part of the argument YET. I plan

to introduce in when I discuss "Moon Movie". I didn't quite expect the torrent of posts from Evan

about them. #10 was fine, to which I replied in #12. I think all the rest of those about the moon rocks

should be removed with the understanding that, when I turn to "Moon Movie", I will reintroduce the

issue. So the posts that should be removed include my own #13 and most of those thereafter. Even's

onslaught, repeated and badgering posts exemplify why I am really not enthusiastic about this exchange.

Otherwise, your outline should work. I post an argument, Burton--who claims to be an "expert" while

I do not--posts his rebuttal. Then I comment on it and we move to the next argument. Although there

is no fixed upper bound on the number of arguments, I am not interested in prolonging specific points.

I have a half-dozen or so based on Jack's studies, then I will move to the article in PRAVDA, and so

forth. Right now, this thread is cluttered with tripe from Burton. I would appreciate it if the thread can

be "cleaned up" by removing posts such as #8, #9, #14, and many others. Let me have your thoughts.

Jim

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?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Yes. I think we can label each section as "Topic 1: The Moon Rover", then signal the transition to "Topic 2: The Shadow Conflict", and so forth. I am willing to change the order, as you have proposed, and even extend the discussion by one more response from each of us, if that would facilitate agreement. But I need to have the right for Jack to post on my behalf at my direction. And that will include during later states of the exchange. I am not good at it and need his assistance to make this work out right. Is that agreeable?

quote name='Gary Loughran' date='22 August 2010 - 02:12 PM' timestamp='1282479171' post='203027']

Evan - OK, I accept what you are saying - however, in order for this to be controlled (at least in terms of my moderating) there needs to be a clear end point for each debate - preferably truncated with a topic closure - else the scenario you paint is even more unavoidable. If each participant has a limit of posts, they will surely value their posts more than to waste one on 'citation please...ROFL smiley: etc. etc. ' type inanity which tends to pervade most debate on photographic anlaysis and attendant discussion.

Jim - Are you still willing to participate in the debate? This is dragging on too long - so a definitive and short response would be appreciated.

Edited August 23, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

Not quite, Jack - you have previously claimed that the landings were faked.

My position NOW and WHEN I MADE MY STUDIES is that it is not provable that men went to the moon.

My position NOW and WHEN I MADE MY STUDIES is that the photography is impossible.

My position NOW and WHEN I MADE MY STUDIES is that there must be a reason why the photos were faked.

My position NOW and WHEN I MADE MY STUDIES is that speculation to explain the fakery does not constitute a position.

Any other position you attribute to me is immaterial at this point. Why do you keep records of what I may have said

in the past?

Jack