Jump to content
The Education Forum

(Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread


Evan Burton
 Share

Recommended Posts

I guess i keep track of what you say because I find you are not always reliable when it comes to recalling accurately what you said or did.

So when you made your "studies" you held one opinion then a couple of days ago you changed your mind, then today you changed your mind again?

post-2326-095624000 1282632147_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 752
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I've already said I want a meaningful debate (see below). I'd like you to address my rebuttals, not ignore them. If you can agree to that, then I'm agreeable.

I also point out YOU raised the moon rock issue, not I*. I believe I have sufficiently demonstrated that you can't explain all the factors which prove the samples were collected by manned lunar exploration, so I am happy to move onto your next issue. If Jack is going to post images on your behalf, let's do this properly:

- One image at a time, please.

- Image ID numbers so people can independently look at the images

- Jack is not to comment, as he is not a participant.

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.

* - The quote from where Jim raised the issue:

The strongest reason most Americans believe that we went to the

moon is the existence of "moon rocks". As "Moon Movie" explains,

Wernher von Brauhn himself led an expedition to the Antarctic to

collect rocks dislodged from its surface by small astroids, which

were caught in Earth's gravitational field and landed on its surface.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gary Loughran

We're moving forward - It seems though the end point is still undefined - though there has been agreement on the need for multiple posts. Personally, I don't think this should be unlimited. Can we agree (and I know this is a little finger in the wind!) a number of posts 5, 7, 10 per person??

For folk, like me, who don't have specialist knowledge I like the idea of the image ID number accompanying photo's - this applies to all participants.

I agree, jack is not to comment - though his studies will, undoubtedly, have a text element to them. This would seem reasonable to allow.

Hopefully we can now get this started soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be happy with:

Jack posts claim

I respond

Jim addresses my reply

I respond to Jim last post

Jim makes final comments

Next image.

Jim gets last word, we each make 2 posts regarding the image. It is still important, though, that Jim addresses my rebuttal to the claim, and I address the points Jim raises in his rebuttal. We must stay on topic. Gary will decide if a participant is not adressing claims or going off topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

This is a good plan, which I endorse. I would like to see the thread "cleaned up" as I have recommended.

The moon rock issue has not been resolved. I mentioned it in post #7, he replied in #10 and I commented

in #12. There is much more to be said on this subject, which I will bring up again in relation to the "Moon

Movie" section. Clearly, it is a crucial question. I suggest deleting the other moon rock posts as well as

those in which Evan indulges in his penchant for the use of RED and so on, which Gary can easily delete.

If Gary thinks a section of the debate has had enough attention, he can recommend that we move on and

afford an opportunity for each of us to explain why that is or why that is not a good idea. Many thanks.

When Jack has several studies I would like him to post that are related to the same issue, such as those

related to the moon rover, it would be appropriate to post them as a group to illustrate the dimensions

of the issue being addressed. The idea of only posting one image at a time is really inappropriate, since

they are evidence that is supportive of a single argument, which, in this case, is that at least some of the

rover photos appear to have been faked. If Jack has five that I would like posted, it would be ridiculous

to have him post five separate photos with five separate sequences of argumentative exchange. So that

suggestion was a bad one. Otherwise, however, I would like to begin with Jack's moon rover photographs.

I'd be happy with:

Jack posts claim

I respond

Jim addresses my reply

I respond to Jim last post

Jim makes final comments

Next image.

Jim gets last word, we each make 2 posts regarding the image. It is still important, though, that Jim addresses my rebuttal to the claim, and I address the points Jim raises in his rebuttal. We must stay on topic. Gary will decide if a participant is not adressing claims or going off topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure you would object if your posts were deleted; if Gary is happy I will move them to another thread or Gary can do it himself. I am happy with either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

In your zeal to attack me, you have littered the thread with a lot of stuff that does not belong here, most of

which deals with the moon rock issue. I did not intend for that to become a "big deal" at this point in time,

since I will return to it when I discuss the "Moon Movie" evidence. I want this thread to be bereft of material

that is not part of the exchange. If you have now agreed that Jack can post material at my request, I am OK

with the sequence you suggested as a way to proceed. If Gary can clean up the thread--and you can take

your posts anywhere you want, as long as it is understood they are not part of our exchange--that's fine. I

would observe that others have had posts removed or deleted without any fanfare, but here I only want to

clear the deck to make sure no one mistakes your flurry of posts for part of the exchange. That's my view.

I am sure you would object if your posts were deleted; if Gary is happy I will move them to another thread or Gary can do it himself. I am happy with either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

The posts that, in my view, should be deleted are the following:

3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24,

25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 39, 40, 41, and 42

where the references to "moon rocks" so far are only 7, 10, 12

If Gary thinks we need anything more, let us know. Otherwise, I

think we can begin with "Topic 1: The Moon Rover Photographs",

which will be initiated by Jack posting a set of photos that he

and I agreed upon previously, which were deleted by Evan. Then

Evan can comment, I will respond, Even replies, and I conclude.

Then we move to "Topic 2: The Shadow Anomaly Photographs".

Jack will post, I will comment, Evan will reply, I will respond

and he will conclude. Then the third topic repeating the order

of Topic 1 followed by repeating the order of Topic 2 and so on.

Let me know if we all agree. Evan can create an archive of the

original thread that keeps his posts, if he wants. Many thanks!

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

I am happy with the rotating format as long as you agree to address points raised.

One last thing Jim - as has been pointed out numerous times, the posts were MOVED, not deleted. It's important to be accurate about these matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gary Loughran

How about we just delete this entire thread - save relevant agreement on the format of the debate.

Each topic under debate gets opened by Jack to title and post relevant studies. After 2-3 rounds of point counterpoint, the thread is closed. New topic for debate is started in it's own thread.

Did we get agreement that photographs in the study come with the NASA photo ID (?) or other appropriate identifier - this would be especially useful to the non-specialist (like me) when evaluating croppped photographs etc.

If agreeable, then Jack/Jim can start a new topic at their convenience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary - I do not want my previous posts on the matter of the lunar samples deleted; I'll just have to type them out again later.

With your permission, I'll move posts to the Moon Myth thread and then we can start afresh.

Is that okay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

As long as Jack agrees, then it's fine to ask for the identification of the sources of the photos

he is posting on my behalf. In the interest of even-handedness, however, I request that Evan

cite the sources of the arguments he is making. There is a HUGE REPOSITORY of counter-

arguments on NASA and other anti-moon-landing-critics sites. In relation to the film, "Conspiracy

Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?, for example, http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html offers

a vast array of rebuttals to many, though probably not all, of the arguments it presents. Evan

asks if I am a geologist, which of course I am not, without acknowledging that, to the best of

my knowledge, neither is he. His enthusiasm for undertaking this "debate" seems to be based on

the fact that he can easily "copy and paste" arguments of unknown origin from seemingly endless

sites and post them here, running me ragged in trying to figure out how to cope with them all.

I therefore request that Evan be required to acknowledge the source of his posts, so that I and

others can verify them. Otherwise, it will appear as though he personally is a vast repository of

knowledge and information about the moon landings, when he actually is engaged in the rather

--or "relatively"--thoughtless process of functioning as a look-up table and parroting what he

finds there. Indeed, some might even speculate that Evan is here at The Education Forum to make

sure that no one can post anything about the moon landing and present evidence that it is a hoax

without his response, which, well-founded or not, is intended to create sufficient doubt in the

minds of the audience that everything is believable and nothing is knowable, as E. Martin Schotz,

HISTORY WILL NOT ABSOLVE US (1996), observes, which is the actual purpose of disinformation,

not convincing us of one side or the other. Uncertainty is sufficient for the purposes intended.

In making this observation about the nature of disinformation, I am not asserting that Evan Burton

has that role. But to disabuse me of any lingering suspicions, I would like to know more about him.

That he has been so relentless about challenging me to engage in this debate bothers me quite a lot.

WHY SHOULD HE BE SO EAGER TO DEBATE? I know he wants to "show his stuff", but what is the

underlying reason? It's rather on a par with NASA having spent vast sums of taxpayer's money to

fund sites REBUTTING MOON HOAX THEORIES. Why should NASA do that? Those who are confident

that they know the truth are ordinarily not fanatical about attempting to refute alternative positions,

so why is NASA even bothering? It's comparable to the Warren Commission's decision to lock up the

evidence about the assassination of JFK for 75 years on the ground of "national security" when, if

if its report of a lone gunman were true, there is NO NATIONAL SECURITY ASPECT TO THE CASE.

By knowing more about Evan Burton, I will have a better idea of the man I am dealing with. While I

know almost nothing about him, my career is relatively easily accessible and open to the public by

means of my academic web page at http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/ and Wikipedia entry. If Evan could

provide a biographical sketch that lays out his career, that would be helpful to me. While it may

sound intrusive to make such an inquiry, I am being asked to invest considerable time and effort in

dealing with an almost endless repository of arguments and rebuttals that are to be found by means

of google, where my impression of Evan is that he is really not a scholar nor an academician, which

raises questions in my mind about why he should care whether or not I believe we went to the moon.

It bothers me because I am nearly 70, life is short, and I have doubts as to whether this is a wise

investment of my time and effort. I would therefore like to know more about the man I am "debating".

As a simple example of what bothers me, when I enter "moon rocks, zap pits" for a google search, the

first source linked is http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast23feb_2/,'>http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast23feb_2/, which says that "Moon rocks and common

sense prove Apollo astronauts really did visit the Moon". Of course, that is not really the case. It makes

multiple points about the uniqueness of moon rocks, while ignoring the crucial consideration that we

can find moon rocks on Earth that have been dislodged from the surface of the Moon, captured by Earth's

gravitational field and brought to its surface. According to "Moon Movie", Wernher von Braun himself

led an expedition to the Antarctic to gather samples found there, which he apparently did in 1967. Yet

even here whole web sites are devoted to rebutting the notion that he was there to gather moon rocks,

as http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/02files/Werner_von_Braun.html#Exploring_Antarctica . The appeal to "common sense" works both ways. After all,

if the United States was going to fake a moon landing, what could be more convincing to the mind of the

public than producing moon rocks that were found on Earth? That's simply a matter of common sense!

As Wikipedia reports, von Braun was not only "one of the leading figures in the creation of rocket technology

in Germany and the United States. He was a member of the Nazi party and a commissioned SS

officer. Wernher von Braun was said to be the preeminent rocket engineer of the 20th century." Which

means that he provides a fascinating illustration of the ad hominem fallacy, which is popular with a

certain group of members of this forum. If we assume that the Nazi party exemplifies a high degree of

political immorality, then we have an example of an expert on rocketry whose immorality as a member of

the Nazi party did not thereby discredit his technical competence. If we accept von Braun's technical

competence, then I think we have to ponder what he wrote in CONQUEST OF THE MOON (1953),

which is cited in David McGowan's "Wagging the Moondoggie", http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message913319/pg1

“It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would

require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would

have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth’s gravity and, having

traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip

to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone,

but a minimum of three … each rocket ship would be taller than New York’s Empire State Building [almost ¼

mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons.” But if that is

what it would take to reach the moon according to the world's leading rocket expert, then, common sense

will tell you, there is no way we actually made it to the moon, because none of that actually came to pass.

Even with advances in rocket technology, to common sense, the problems appear to be insuperable.

David McGowan also mentions the story about "fake Dutch moon rock", which apparently turned out to be

a piece of petrified wood. (Do a google and you will find quite a few stories about it.) Evan Burton talks about

the differences between moon rocks and earth rocks, but the only one that purports to discriminate between

moon rocks found on Earth and moon rocks found on the Moon is these "zap pits". But he does not seem to

understand that these are tiny craters that are caused by the impact of meteoroids, which, according to NASA

itself, http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast23feb_2/ , are "nearly-microscopic specks of comet dust that fly through

space at speeds often exceeding 50,000 mph -- ten times faster than a speeding bullet...", providing a photo

with the caption, "Nick-named 'Big Muley,' this 11.7 kg Moon rock was the largest returned to Earth by Apollo

astronauts. One side of Big Muley was peppered with meteoroid 'zap pits.'" Which means that not only are

moon rocks returned from the Moon going to have "zap pits" but so are moon rocks dislodged from its surface

and found on Earth. So Evan is making a specious argument, even in relation to "moon rocks", suggesting

that he really doesn't understand what he is talking about even when he's talking about his best argument.

Gary - I do not want my previous posts on the matter of the lunar samples deleted; I'll just have to type them out again later.

With your permission, I'll move posts to the Moon Myth thread and then we can start afresh.

Is that okay?

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

Guest James H. Fetzer

Jack has written to me (in a personal email),

On posting NASA photo ID numbers, I am not aware of any of my studies which lack them.

If so, it is inadvertent. PLUS, there is no REQUIREMENT that I do so. All the photos are

available on the internet, and my opponents are welcome to look them up LIKE I DID.

If some numbers are missing, is Burton going to say I fabricated the photos? He can look

them up as well as I...so this is a specious argument. Why should I do their work for

them?

If we can resolve this issue, which I presume

would be on terms favorable to Jack, then I am

willing to muddle through from this point on by

simply beginning with the first section of photos

from Jack's research and leaving the thread as it

stands. Everyone knows there have been conflicts

in getting us to this point, so let's proceed with

the first, "Jack's Apollo Photograph Studies: Part

1: The Moon Rover Photographs", where Jack posts,

Evan comments, I respond, he replies, and I close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evan has already atated he would do so if not numbered. Stop the stalling and get on with it.

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...