Jump to content
The Education Forum

Fetzer-Burton Apollo debate


Jack White
 Share

Recommended Posts

Regarding FETZER/BURTON APOLLO DEBATE thread started on JFK and moved

to Conspiracies Forum...

Simkin and all moderators:

Burton is acting both as participant and moderator on this thread, ruling

that I will be put on moderation if I continue to post Apollo studies for

Burton and Fetzer to discuss. This is DESPICABLE. Burton should be

censured for this outrageous behavior. He is baffled by the studies I posted,

so he deleted them and threatened me. Outrageous!

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Jack,

It is obvious to me that Burton could not even cope with the first argument I was making based upon your Apollo

moon photograph studies. So he has created a huge distraction so others will not notice that he has been caught

with his pants down. This is a sad commentary on Evan Burton and on this forum, if it is not promptly corrected.

Jim

Posted today, 04:08 PM:

You ask whether I am a geologist. But of course the same applies to you. WHERE DID YOU COME UP WITH THIS?

I explained in an earlier response to your hyperfrantic insistance that I should engage in this debate that you were

going to draw from government--especially NASA--repositories. The fact of the matter is that you have no idea if

any of the information presented here is even true. This is silly. YOU NEED TO CITE YOUR SOURCES, which at

least allows us to verify whether you have copied the material accurately. von Braun was gathering genuine moon

rocks. Some of the samples he collected may have been unsuitable for use, but obviously others were. They have

been presented as the "best evidence" that man went to the moon. But that appears to have been a deception. I

note that argument 1 does not apply to real moon rocks obtained from the surface of Earth. Argument 2 (about "zap

pits") is obscure but, assuming the phenomenon is real, why couldn't NASA simply fake "zap pits"? (Everything else

about the moon landing is fake, so why not "zap pits"? It sounds like it would be a piece of cake.) And argument 3

is a claim about quantity of moon rocks brought back from the moon that obviously presumes they are authentic. I

really don't have time for this if Jack is not allowed to post the images that I am asking him to post. I think you are

creating a PROCEDURAL CONTRETEMPS as a distraction from YOUR INABILITY TO COPE WITH THE EVIDENCE.

Either Jack is allowed to post the images that I am asking him to post or this exchange is over. It's that simple.

And that you should be functioning as MODERATOR when you are a PARTICIPANT is a blatant conflict of interest.

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.

As was already mentioned in this post, geologists (or is it selenologists?) can tell the difference. Let's look over the differences:

1. Composition. The composition of lunar samples is different to that found on Earth, due to the method of formation, microgravity, etc. They are distinctly different and cannot be re-created here on Earth:

Now of course, people who believe in the Moon hoax will protest and say that the rocks found by Werner Von Braun are from the Moon and therefore will match lunar composition. That's correct, but the next point is why we can tell the difference.

2. Zap pits. Most samples were simply picked up on the lunar surface. They have a distinct feature that CANNOT be re-created here on Earth: zap pits. Zap pits are microscopic depressions on the surface of surface samples, caused by bombardment from long term exposure to cosmic rays and micro-meteoroids. This distinctive feature is 'burnt off' when the meteorite has passed through the Earth's atmosphere. You've seen the effect of spacecraft re-entering the atmosphere, you may have even seen a meteor and the fiery trail it leaves as it rushes through the atmosphere. This process removes all traces of zap pits. So we know the difference between a sample that has been found on Earth and a sample collected on the lunar surface.

3. Sample quantity and types. Firstly we have the sheer volume of lunar samples returned by Apollo: 2415 samples weighing 382 kg. Perhaps they could have been gathered remotely? We know the USSR had unmanned probes that gathered samples. They did, but they only returned a total of 0.32 kg. That's right - 0.32 kg, less that one thousandth of the Apollo total! Perhaps they were samples found here on Earth (ignoring the fact that we can tell the difference because of zap pits). Again, no - only about 120 samples weighing around a total of 48 kg have ever been found. If that wasn't convincing enough, the Soviet landers only returned lunar regolith samples, soil-like and no large rocky samples like Apollo. Additionally, Apollo also returned deep core sample tubes from drilling into the lunar surface... far deeper than was possible by the remote landers of the day.

10075441.jpg

So Jim - this is all from qualified geologists around the world, from different countries. There are NO qualified geologists who say the samples are faked. They all agree they cannot be faked.

Are you a geologist Jim? To the best of my knowledge you are not, so I have to ask where are your geologists who disagree with what the rest of the world is saying? I'm pretty sure there are none, so you'd have to agree that all the evidence points to the samples being genuine and there is no evidence for them being faked or having been collected by Von Braun.

Regarding FETZER/BURTON APOLLO DEBATE thread started on JFK and moved

to Conspiracies Forum...

Simkin and all moderators:

Burton is acting both as participant and moderator on this thread, ruling

that I will be put on moderation if I continue to post Apollo studies for

Burton and Fetzer to discuss. This is DESPICABLE. Burton should be

censured for this outrageous behavior. He is baffled by the studies I posted,

so he deleted them and threatened me. Outrageous!

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the THIRD time, my source was quoted in this post.

http://www.meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm

The author is Dr Randy L. Korotev, from the Dept of Earth & Planetary Sciences, Washington University, St Louis.

Dr. Randy Korotev is a lunar geochemist. He has studied lunar samples and their chemical compositions since 1969 when the Apollo 11 astronauts collected the first lunar samples on the Moon and brought them to Earth (Haskin et al., 1970). He received both his B.S. (1971) and Ph.D. (1976) degrees in chemistry from the University of Wisconsin - Madison. Since 1979 he has been at Washington University in Saint Louis, where he is a research professor. He runs a laboratory for instrumental neutron activation analysis, a technique that can determine the concentrations of 30 or more chemical elements in small samples without destroying the samples. He studied the first lunar meteorite to be recognized, ALHA 81005 (Korotev et al., 1983), and has studied most of the subsequently found lunar meteorites. He thinks that he has seen more lunar meteorites than anyone else. He was a member of the 1988-89 ANSMET team, which collected more than 870 meteorites from the Lewis Cliff and MacAlpine Hills areas of Antarctica, including lunar meteorite MAC88104/5 and martian meteorite LEW 88516. He has served on the Curation and Planning Team for Extraterrestrial Materials (CAPTEM, a NASA advisory group), the Meteorite Working Group (MWG, an NSF-NASA advisory group), and is an associate editor of the journals Meteoritics & Planetary Science and Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. He is a member and fellow of The Meteoritical Society. He’s authored and co-authored a number of scientific papers about the Moon, lunar meteorites, earthworms, aluminum foil, coal flyash, birds, and some other things.
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...