Deep Politics Forum

Peter Dawson Wrote:

James H. Fetzer Wrote:You are so eager to try to demonstrate that you are not an idiot that you
post without reading. I elaborated a few points, where the word "simply"
is missing from the first quote and the entire second paragraph from the
second. I don't know where you grew up or what kind of mind you think
you possess, but anyone who would not regard THE VIDEO YOU CLAIM
TO BE FAKED as evidence that A VIDEO OF THE LANDING COULD BE
FAKED must be missing a few screws. I am sure that you and Burton
are doing your best to try to figure out how to deceive those who are
following these threads with more of your nonsense. No one's buying.

Obviously you edited your posts after I had copied them to use in my own post.

Regarding your entire second paragraph:
Assume the moon landings are real. What possible motive
could drive someone, years later, to recreate the setting on
the moon with a replica of the lander, the astronaut suit, the
angles, the lighting, and all that, with a director and a crew?
Does anyone think that is a reasonable thing to have done?

As I said above, the footage was produced in large part to mock those who believe that the moon landings were faked. And no doubt to sucker in a few others who had never thought the moon landings might have been faked. For people who like to mock, succeeding to convince people that their mock footage is real is reason enough to attempt such a thing.

As for your claim that the spoof footage is evidence that the footage of the moon landings could have been faked, even without the spoof footage, I'd be willing to concede that it would be possible to fake the footage of the moon landings. But the footage of the landings is one small part of the whole of the Apollo moon missions, and a very small part, so there is still a lot of ground to cover in terms of proving that everything else about he missions could have been faked. And then there is the large gulf between demonstrating that something could have been faked, and demonstrating that something actually was faked.

Who are these people who were so fervent TO MOCK Fetzer that they
went to all the trouble and expense of shooting a video like this?

Saying they did it to mock researchers is an admission that someone
with lots of money and clout may have been responsible.

Jack

Charles Drago Wrote:I'm going to regret this.

HYPOTHESIS: Detectable fakery of moon landing photography was created and disseminated to launch (pun intended) conspiracy theories designed to A) reinforce the "nothing can be known for certain" foundation upon which contemporary socio-political power and academic inquiry is partially but significantly based; B) further Balkanize an already fractured deep political research community; and C) assault American exceptionalism and thus taint all other inquiries into historical conspiracies in general and the JFK conspiracy in particular.

ALL-IMPORTANT STIPULATION: The hypothetical fakery and larger operation of which it is the key component would be effective whether or not actual Apollo moon landings happened.

SCENARIO I -- The Apollo landings took place as advertised. A number of legitimate photos are quickly doctored so as to indicate fakery and thus support the "uncertainty conspiracy" herein hypothesized.

SCENARIO II -- The Apollo landings never took place. Flawless AND detectable faked photographs were created to support the "uncertainty conspiracy" herein hypothesized.

PRECEDENTS: The Zapruder Film; the so-called (by me, at any rate) Doppelganger Gambit.

DISCLAIMIER: I'm not prepared to go to the wall with the hypothesis herein presented. Yet.

I agree with the gist of your hypothesis, although I believe most of the flaws detected in moon mission photos are easily explained, and therefore aren't flaws at all. Regarding the small number that aren't easily explained, I'm not going to take the word of the hoax-believers over the word of the scientific establishment, if only because the former are still clinging to easily dismissed evidence to support their case, and that ain't at all cool.

What made me start to think along the lines you are suggesting is seeing Bart Sibrels movie, where one after the other the retired astronauts put themselves in compromising positions so that Sibrel could easily depict them as having been caught out by him. As if some Masonic order from on high was given to them to co-operate with Sibrel in making themselves look like shonky fakes.

Edit to add:

If they genuinely were fakers trying to hide the fact that the moon landings were faked, Sibrel would have been cut off after one or two interviews, or more likely not have been able to interview even one of them. Instead he gained access to 5 or so of them.

James H. Fetzer Wrote:Notice that Greer never explains why anyone who believes the moon landings are genuine would create a fake to suggest that they
were really faked. He doesn't explain why, if this was a cheap production "off the cuff" using friends or the homeless, it has such a
professional quality. It has exactly the right feel and exactly the right look to have been shot on the same stage with the same crew.

Consider the two hypotheses: (h1) this is an outtake from the original faking; (h2) this is the faking of someone faking the original.

If (h1) is true and this is an outtake from the original faking, which was conducting at great expense using an experienced crew and
a professional director, what is the probability that the edge of the images would match, that the crew would be in uniform, that they
would know what they were doing, that they would avoid looking at the director and the camera? Obviously, it would be very high.

If (h2) is true and this is the faking of someone faking the original, which was conducting on a low budget using friends or hires by
Adam Stewart, what is the probability that the edge of the images would match, that the crew would be in uniform, that they would
know what they were doing, that they would avoid looking at the director and the camera? Obviously, it would be extremely low.

In scientific reasoning, one hypothesis is preferable to another when the likelihood of the first -- which is equal to the probability
of the evidence, if that hypothesis were true -- is greater than the likelihood of the second, given the available evidence. Since the
likelihood of (h1) is very high, while that of (h2) is extremely low, as I have shown, there can be no doubt that (h1) is preferable to (h2).

The kinds of arguments that Greer is offering would be laughable but for the protective covering of Evan Burton, who continues to
abuse his position in grossly unethical and unprofessional ways. Why am I not surprised? My point remains undefeated: If it's on the
original set, as I suspect, it blows the cover on the faking of the moon landing. If not, it shows how easy it was to have faked it. QED

It's hard to know whether to continue taking your arguments seriously, because, of course, the easiest thing in the world for the spoof film makers to do is have the crew that invade the set dress in "military style" outfits instead of early 90s street fashion. Similarly it would be easy to fairly precisely match the angles of the scenery and whatnot (although to my eyes, they didn't do a good job of matching the ladder rail of the landing unit with the kind used in the original).

And the director would just have to direct the actors in the spoof to not look towards the camera, and then the actors in the spoof would not look towards the camera - it would be easy.

Jack White Wrote:I have seen no definitive acknowledged proof of spoofery. Even if
true, it might be disinformation. Your saying something does not
make it true.
Jack

Quote:
Who are these people who were so fervent TO MOCK Fetzer that they
went to all the trouble and expense of shooting a video like this?

Saying they did it to mock researchers is an admission that someone
with lots of money and clout may have been responsible.

Jack

See what a serious threat Jack and Jim are to the credibility of the entire JFK research community, and the entire 9/11 research community?

Are you untroubled by this situation, Jack, where the abandon with which you monitor and censor your own thoughts brings the whole JFK and 9/11 truth communities into disrepute?

This guy either doesn't understand scientific reasoning or he is
deliberately circumventing it. Not only has he failed to come to
grips with the multiple arguments I have presenting--including
the missing moon rover tracks, the near-at-hand light source,
the use of front-screen projection, the multiple indications the
videos were faked, including the reflections of light from wires
that are lifting to create the impression of the lower gravity of
the moon, which has several manifestations--but he focuses
attention exclusively on the case where the thinks he has the
best chance of obfuscating evidence and distracting attention.

So he is committing multiple fallacies, including the selective
use of evidence (as "special pleading") and ignoring the weight
of the evidence (it is far more probable that there are no tracks
because it was not driven there than that astronauts' activity or
the spontaneous motion of moon dust particles obscured them),
not to mention the multiple indications of the use of front-screen
projection. He seems to think that by fantasizing explanations in
relation to "rehearsal" footage, he can somehow escape the task
of dealing with all of the evidence. This attitude, alas, violates a
fundamental principle of scientific reasoning, which is known as
the requirement of total evidence, which demands that reasoning
in science be based upon all of the available relevant evidence.

The one who is violating that requirement is Peter Dawson, not
Jack White or Jim Fetzer. And, of course, he does so for rather
strong reasons, from his point of view. The demonstration of
the light source as near-at-hand, for example, is based on the
rectilinear propagation of light and elementary geometry. As a
consequence that follows by deductive reasoning from laws of
physics, it provides as definitive a proof as is possible regarding
empirical phenomena. If he were worth his salt, he would admit
that no one, including himself, can demonstrate that this proof is
unsound--unless, of course, the photograph is not from the set of
those alleged to have been taken on the moon, which it was not.
So I offer this as a test of Dawson's ability to reason scientifically.

These deceptions appear to be closely related, since the edge of
the images in the "rehearsal" footage appears to be the place at
which front-screen projection would begin in the footage that was
broadcast. Those with a serious interest should read the article,
"How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Moon Landings", which is here:
http://www.assassinationscience.com/HowK...ings-1.pdf Once
you begin to appreciate how the pieces of this puzzle fit together,
it is no longer surprising that there would be mistakes like those
Jack and Duane, among others, have discovered and I've reported.
This was a clever hoax with multiple benefits, politically, technically,
and financially, which exhibits all the virtues of theft over honest toil.

Peter Dawson Wrote:

Jack White Wrote:I have seen no definitive acknowledged proof of spoofery. Even if
true, it might be disinformation. Your saying something does not
make it true.
Jack

Quote:
Who are these people who were so fervent TO MOCK Fetzer that they
went to all the trouble and expense of shooting a video like this?

Saying they did it to mock researchers is an admission that someone
with lots of money and clout may have been responsible.

Jack

See what a serious threat Jack and Jim are to the credibility of the entire JFK research community, and the entire 9/11 research community?

Are you untroubled by this situation, Jack, where the abandon with which you monitor and censor your own thoughts brings the whole JFK and 9/11 truth communities into disrepute?

James H. Fetzer Wrote:This guy either doesn't understand scientific reasoning or he is
deliberately circumventing it. Not only has he failed to come to
grips with the multiple arguments I have presenting--including
the missing moon rover tracks, the near-at-hand light source,
the use of front-screen projection, the multiple indications the
videos were faked, including the reflections of light from wires
that are lifting to create the impression of the lower gravity of
the moon, which has several manifestations--but he focuses
attention exclusively on the case where the thinks he has the
best chance of obfuscating evidence and distracting attention.

So he is committing multiple fallacies, including the selective
use of evidence (as "special pleading") and ignoring the weight
of the evidence (it is far more probable that there are no tracks
between the rover's wheels because it was not driven there than
that the spontaneous motion of dust particles obscured them),
not to mention the multiple indications of the use of front-screen
projection. He seems to think that by fantasizing explanations in
relation to "rehearsal" footage, he can somehow escape the task
of dealing with all of the evidence. This attitude, alas, violates a
fundamental principle of scientific reasoning, which is known as
the requirement of total evidence, which demands that reasoning
in science be based upon all of the available relevant evidence.

The one who is violating that requirement is Peter Dawson, not
Jack White or Jim Fetzer. And, of course, he does so for rather
strong reasons, from his point of view. The demonstration of
the light source as near-at-hand, for example, is based on the
rectilinear propagation of light and elementary geometry. As a
consequence that follows by deductive reasoning from laws of
physics, it provides as definitive a proof as is possible regarding
empirical phenomena. If he were worth his salt, he would admit
that no one, including himself, can demonstrate that this proof is
unsound--unless, of course, the photograph is not from the set of
those alleged to have been taken on the moon, which it was not.
So I offer this as a test of Dawson's ability to reason scientifically.

These deceptions appear to be closely related, since the edge of
the images in the "rehearsal" footage appears to be the place at
which front-screen projection would begin in the footage that was
broadcast. Those with a serious interest should read the article,
"How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Moon Landings", which is here:
http://www.assassinationscience.com/HowK...ings-1.pdf Once
you begin to appreciate how the pieces of this puzzle fit together,
it is no longer surprising that there would be mistakes like those
Jack and Duane, among others, have discovered and I've reported.
This was a clever hoax with multiple benefits, politically, technically,
and financially, which exhibits all the virtues of theft over honest toil.

Please respond to the posts Evan Burton has made at the EF which challenge your theories about the moon landings. There are plenty of challenges you have left unaddressed over there. There is no point to discussing any additional material on this thread until you satisfactorily address the material already on the table...unless of course the point is for you to continue to avoid addressing the claims which challenge your theories.

Peter Dawson Wrote:Regarding the small number that aren't easily explained, I'm not going to take the word of the hoax-believers over the word of the scientific establishment, if only because the former are still clinging to easily dismissed evidence to support their case, and that ain't at all cool.

This is fatally flawed reasoning on your part insofar as the "scientific establishment" you implicitly endorse and even champion -- like all establishments -- is far more often than not guilty of precisely the sin which you accuse "hoax-believers" of commiting.

I give you the Single Bullet Theory and the NAA "proofs" of the JFK lone nut hypothesis.

For starters.

I don't know you by your deep political work other than what you've posted here, and I mean to cast no personal aspersions. I simply note for the record that your posts on this thread fit a pattern a sophistic arguments and ad hominem attacks directed at Jack White and Jim Fetzer by known disinformation agents and propagandists here and elsewhere.

For your information, Jack White's contributions to the quests for truth and justice in the JFK case are among the most important to be offered in the long, storied history of Kennedy assassination researchers.

Jim Fetzer -- with whom I often and at times strenuously disagree -- has shown himself to be a man and scholar of principle and an impassioned warrior for the truth.

You write that you "agree with the gist of [my] hypothesis". By all means please elaborate on your agreement. All of us over the years have had to establish our deep political bona fides, and I eagerly await your presentation of your portfolio.

Make no mistake: Until you do so, your "sack of shit" and "threats" characterizations of widely respected and learned men will be accepted as nothing more or less than enemy action.

I have replied appropriately to him there, but you have not done
so to me here. This is a separate forum. So put up or shut up!

Peter Dawson Wrote:

James H. Fetzer Wrote:This guy either doesn't understand scientific reasoning or he is
deliberately circumventing it. Not only has he failed to come to
grips with the multiple arguments I have presenting--including
the missing moon rover tracks, the near-at-hand light source,
the use of front-screen projection, the multiple indications the
videos were faked, including the reflections of light from wires
that are lifting to create the impression of the lower gravity of
the moon, which has several manifestations--but he focuses
attention exclusively on the case where the thinks he has the
best chance of obfuscating evidence and distracting attention.

So he is committing multiple fallacies, including the selective
use of evidence (as "special pleading") and ignoring the weight
of the evidence (it is far more probable that there are no tracks
between the rover's wheels because it was not driven there than
that the spontaneous motion of dust particles obscured them),
not to mention the multiple indications of the use of front-screen
projection. He seems to think that by fantasizing explanations in
relation to "rehearsal" footage, he can somehow escape the task
of dealing with all of the evidence. This attitude, alas, violates a
fundamental principle of scientific reasoning, which is known as
the requirement of total evidence, which demands that reasoning
in science be based upon all of the available relevant evidence.

The one who is violating that requirement is Peter Dawson, not
Jack White or Jim Fetzer. And, of course, he does so for rather
strong reasons, from his point of view. The demonstration of
the light source as near-at-hand, for example, is based on the
rectilinear propagation of light and elementary geometry. As a
consequence that follows by deductive reasoning from laws of
physics, it provides as definitive a proof as is possible regarding
empirical phenomena. If he were worth his salt, he would admit
that no one, including himself, can demonstrate that this proof is
unsound--unless, of course, the photograph is not from the set of
those alleged to have been taken on the moon, which it was not.
So I offer this as a test of Dawson's ability to reason scientifically.

These deceptions appear to be closely related, since the edge of
the images in the "rehearsal" footage appears to be the place at
which front-screen projection would begin in the footage that was
broadcast. Those with a serious interest should read the article,
"How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Moon Landings", which is here:
http://www.assassinationscience.com/HowK...ings-1.pdf Once
you begin to appreciate how the pieces of this puzzle fit together,
it is no longer surprising that there would be mistakes like those
Jack and Duane, among others, have discovered and I've reported.
This was a clever hoax with multiple benefits, politically, technically,
and financially, which exhibits all the virtues of theft over honest toil.

Please respond to the posts Evan Burton has made at the EF which challenge your theories about the moon landings. There are plenty of challenges you have left unaddressed over there. There is no point to discussing any additional material on this thread until you satisfactorily address the material already on the table...unless of course the point is for you to continue to avoid addressing the claims which challenge your theories.

Withdrawn temporarily.

Jack

Peter Dawson Wrote:Please respond to the posts Evan Burton has made at the EF which challenge your theories about the moon landings. There are plenty of challenges you have left unaddressed over there. There is no point to discussing any additional material on this thread until you satisfactorily address the material already on the table...unless of course the point is for you to continue to avoid addressing the claims which challenge your theories.

I can't resist: Houston, we have a problem.

A strong-arm effort to get Jim Fetzer to engage on this forum one of the EF's better known disinformation agents just about gives away "Dawson's" game.

This stinks, ladies and gentlemen. It stinks of a set-up engineered to infiltrate into this forum -- albeit by proxy -- the hideous likes of Burton.

Who's next? "Colby"? Andy 9-Iron?

These poseurs and their masters cannot tolerate the fact that they are regularly exposed on and permanently banned from the Deep Politics Forum. So they constantly search for back doors (I suspect that 9-Iron is particularly adept at rear entries).

Hence the arrival of "Dawson?"

Know this action for what it truly is.