Jump to content
The Education Forum

(Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread


Evan Burton
 Share

Recommended Posts

My biography is on the Forum, and the link at the bottom of the post. You have no need to ask my personal information, since you should be addressing what I say and not who I am.... but because I still want to try and get this debate underway without further obfuscation:

Officer in the Royal Australian Navy, coming up to 20 years of service. Graduate of Air Traffic Controller course and Observers course (navigator). Advanced diploma of applied science (aviation). Also 4 years as electronic mission co-ordinator on Coastwatch surveillance flights. Private pilot. Types acting as crewmember: HS748, Sea King Mk50/50A, BN-2B Islander, AC-500S AeroCommander, Reims F-406, DHC8 Dash 8. About 3500 hours experience. Served in 816 and 817 SQNs, HMA Ships SWAN, IPSWICH, BETANO, currently Staff Officer Operational Publications, and Fleet Air Arm Manager for Patriot Excalibur.

Edited by Evan Burton
added get to first paragraph, corrected spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 752
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I find that offensive and demand an apology. I keep track of what you say on this Forum because you have made baseless accusations on many occasions.

The picture above was brought to my attention by a person on another forum.

I demand that Jack White publicly withdraw that vicious personal attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack, reviewing your old posts and following what you have said/claimed in the past is a normal way to conduct research and participate on this forum.

By doing this, another member is not "stalking you".

I agree an apology is in place!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary,

If permitted I would like to address the points raised in this post from Jim and also his subsequent post. If you disagree I will understand; I simply want to refute some of the things Jim has said. It may distract from the thread but I would bring to your attention that Jim has raised them, not I.

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Let's see: What part of my latest post did you not

understand? 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.

Gary, with your permission, Jack can post the five

studies of the moon rover photographs I specified.

But I must confess that I do not understand what

John Dolva is doing posting on this thread. It is

my recommendation that his posts be deleted and the

posting be restricted to Jack, Evan and me. Thanks.

I agree with his sentiment: LET'S GET ON WITH IT!

Gary,

If permitted I would like to address the points raised in this post from Jim and also his subsequent post. If you disagree I will understand; I simply want to refute some of the things Jim has said. It may distract from the thread but I would bring to your attention that Jim has raised them, not I.

Thank you.

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

Jim...I remind all that I HAVE ALREADY POSTED THE LRV STUDIES AND BURTON MOVED THEM. Let him move them back,

instead of me reposting them.

Jack

Let's see: What part of my latest post did you not

understand? 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.

Gary, with your permission, Jack can post the five

studies of the moon rover photographs I specified.

But I must confess that I do not understand what

John Dolva is doing posting on this thread. It is

my recommendation that his posts be deleted and the

posting be restricted to Jack, Evan and me. Thanks.

I agree with his sentiment: LET'S GET ON WITH IT!

Gary,

If permitted I would like to address the points raised in this post from Jim and also his subsequent post. If you disagree I will understand; I simply want to refute some of the things Jim has said. It may distract from the thread but I would bring to your attention that Jim has raised them, not I.

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Burton became a member of the Simkin forum SPECIFICALLY TO DEBUNK STUDIES

BY JACK WHITE. He admits that he came here from a website named BAD ASTRONOMY*

where participants were discussing my studies posted here. His coming here specifically

to confront me CONSTITUTES STALKING as I understand it. If I go to another forum to

post my studies, he will follow me there. That is stalking. Before he became a moderator,

in his signature line of all posting was the phrase LITTLE WHITE LIES. That is the

purpose of his stalking me...to claim I am lying in all of my studies.

*Lamson came here from the BadAss website at the same time.

Jack

(Stalking can be defined as a pattern of repeated and unwanted attention, harassment,

contact, or any other course of conduct directed at a specific person)

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

Pick the image you wish to discuss and let's start.

ONE image at a time, please.

Thank you.

Edited by Evan Burton
Added "One image..."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted here because others started doing so. Of course, delete my posts, or move them, or whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

Pick the image you wish to discuss and let's start.

ONE image at a time, please.

Thank you.

Why one image at at time? I posted several images needed to discuss the trackless moon rovers, to show

that it was not a single photo which showed it. In fact, I have more than 15, but chose only several which

demonstrate this clearly. Then you removed all of the studies. Why should YOU be able to set the rules

in your favor? Under discussion are my studies which Jim is going to defend. HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED

TO POST WHICHEVER STUDIES HE WANTS TO DISCUSS, NOT JUST ONE!

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

This is a nice illustration that Burton is being evasive. The pattern displayed by the photos

is what is most important. The tactic he is employing is called "divide and conquer", where

you try to separate out the elements of a proof and address each of them as "inconclusive"

individually, when "collectively" they prove the point. PLUS this would be ridiculous from

the point of view of efficiency, since, in the case of the moon rover photos, where there are

five, instead of having ONE exchange, we would have to have FIVE! This is such a dumb idea,

it has to have been motivated by an attempt to gain rhetorical advantage and has to be rejected.

Jim,

Pick the image you wish to discuss and let's start.

ONE image at a time, please.

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

I AM RESTORING THIS POST TODAY, 3 SEPTEMBER 2010.

An even better example of Burton's abuse of his position as both

MODERATOR and PARTICIPANT is that he had covertly deleted my

most important post--originally #7 in this thread--in which I out-

lined the resources that I planned to build upon in the course of this

exchange. Today, when I went to take a look, I discovered it had been

DELETED. Fortunately, I had saved that page in my files, so I am able

to restore it. I say to Evan Burton, DO NOT DELETE MY POSTS!

Posted 16 August 2010 - 08:37 PM

The references I cited that Burton claims to have refuted--which I was

then and remain quite sure he has never even studied, at least for the

most part--are the following ten resources. I believe that any of them

offers sufficient reason to doubt that we actually went to the Moon and

that collectively they demonstrate it was virtually impossible to do so.

I include that NASA has "inadvertently" taped over the Moon landing

tapes, no doubt because, with today's digital technology, NASA can

make far better fakes than it could at the time. I especially like the

film, "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?", which offers

dozens of good reasons for doubting that it could have been done.

I am therefore perplexed by Evan Burton's insistence on "debating"

this issue. I gather he wants to "show his stuff". But insofar as the

matter has been settled, I am having a hard time mustering up any

enthusiasm for this exchange. Jack, however, has done exceptional

work on the Apollo photographs, which this thread can showcase.

So I will consult with Jack and pick some of his most interesting and

informative studies to initiate this exchange. It may be slow going,

because it is not my highest priority. But with Jack's assistance and

advice, we can start with the first link I offer below. If Evan can cope

with Jack's studies, we can move from there in the order I have given.

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.

Anyone who wants to understand how easily the moon landings

could have been faked--and actually were, if these studies are

well-founded--should watch the brilliant film, "Capricorn I". If

you grasp the concept, you will appreciate how much more likely

it is that these landings were faked than that they really occurred.

New Work on

Moon Photographs

http://www.aulis.com...ies_index1.html

Russians letting the cat

out of the bag

http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/15-05-2003/2809-moon-0/#

Moon Movie

http://moonmovie.com/

Top Ten Reasons Man

Did Not go to the Moon

http://www.moonmovie...vie/default.asp

Did Stanley Kubrick fake

the Moon Landings?

http://www.jayweidne...KubrickIIa.html

Conspiracy Theory

Did we land on the moon?

NASA erased moon footage

http://uk.reuters.co...E56F72920090716

INTERVIEWS ON "The Real Deal":

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Bart Sibrel

"A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon"

Friday, August 28, 2009

Rich DellaRosa

The Apollo Moon Landing Hoax, Part I

Friday, September 4, 2009

Rich DellaRosa

The Apollo Moon Landing Hoax, Part II

PLUS I add one more for good measure:

Gerhard Wisnewski, ONE SMALL STEP:

The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to

Dominate Earth From Space (2007)

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

*sigh*

Whatever. Just get on with it, please.

ETA: If there are multiple images, I'll need to be allowed one post per image in some cases, to show the reasons each claim is wrong. Sometimes they can be dealt with as a group but sometimes each will need to be addressed seperately. I don't want to leave a loophole where people claim "...but you didn't show why they were all wrong..."

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While waiting for Jim to post his first 'proof', I might ask him to prove the following statement:

It's rather on a part with NASA having spent vast sums of taxpayer's money to fund sites REBUTTING MOON HOAX THEORIES. Why should NASA do that?

It's quite the contrary. They wanted to commission Jim Oberg (a member here) to write about the claims but it was forced to be discontinued because of taxpayer complaints that NASA was wasting time on replying to "moon hoaxers". As far as I am aware, NASA has only spent any effort (not necessarily funds) on debunking the claims: here and here or possibly this regarding the Van Allen belts . If Jim feels they have spent "...vast sums of taxpayer's money..." I'd ask him to prove such.

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...