Guest James H. Fetzer Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 (edited) Here are some new studies for Mr. NASA (aka Evan Burton) to rebut: Edited December 27, 2011 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 (edited) The situation has passed far beyond simple absurdity into ludicrousness: Edited December 27, 2011 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 I'm not going to boost that idiot's hit count by viewing his rubbish; any assertions should be able to stated clearly. Besides, as I am sure Jim would agree, YouTube is not research (despite what a lot of the current generation seem to believe). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Over a week and no response? Should I take this as Jim being unable to summarise the claims made in the YouTube clip and explain why they should be regarded seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Well, since Jim won't do it, would anyone else like to summarise the claim(s)? I'm quite happy to answer but am not going to waste bandwidth on downloading JW rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Well, since Jim won't do it, would anyone else like to summarise the claim(s)? I'm quite happy to answer but am not going to waste bandwidth on downloading JW rubbish. I only watched one, in it he complained that some rover tracks from Apollo 15 were more visible than others in the LRO photos. I assumed it was because of difference in the soil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Well, since Jim won't do it, would anyone else like to summarise the claim(s)? I'm quite happy to answer but am not going to waste bandwidth on downloading JW rubbish. I only watched one, in it he complained that some rover tracks from Apollo 15 were more visible than others in the LRO photos. I assumed it was because of difference in the soil. That is entirely possible. We see examples of that in a few of the Apollo surface photographs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 This is very good; I encourage all to watch. It makes most excellent points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Felter Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Well, since Jim won't do it, would anyone else like to summarise the claim(s)? I'm quite happy to answer but am not going to waste bandwidth on downloading JW rubbish. I only watched one, in it he complained that some rover tracks from Apollo 15 were more visible than others in the LRO photos. I assumed it was because of difference in the soil. Or it could have been the sun angle on those tracks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now