Deep Politics Forum

Full Version: Fetzer/Burton Moon Landing Debate Finale
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Let me see if I can get this monkey off my back in relation to the posts I asked Jack to make on my behalf, namely, #152, close up of wheels on the moon rover; #153, light shadows from a nearby source; #154, diagram of front screen projection technique; #155, scene illustrating front screen projection; and #156/#157, showing the set collapse during filming of the fake moon landing. I asked Jack to post them because they offer excellent examples of the points that I want to make in my final post on this thread. This post will reflect my extreme disappointment with Evan Burton, who, in my opinion, has not been conducting a fair and impartial debate but is dominated by a political agenda. Before I do so, however, I have to explain three concepts of rationality, namely, rationality of ends, rationality of belief, and rationality of action, as follow:

(D1) rationality of ends =df the pursuit of ends is ration when they are neither logically, physically, nor historically impossible. An end is logically impossible when it cannot be attained as a matter of logic. Creating a figure that is both a circle and a square at the same time is logically impossible. An end is physically impossible when it cannot be attained because doing so would violate laws of nature. A causal process occurring faster than the speed of light is an illustration. An end is historically impossible when it cannot be attained as a matter of history. Being the first man to climb Mt. Everest (in 2010) or the second husband of Elizabeth Taylor are examples. They can't be done because they have already been done. The pursuit of ends that require resources beyond our ability would be another category of pursuing ends whose attainment is a practical impossibility.

(D2) rationality of belief =df maintaining strengths of beliefs that are appropriate to the strength of the evidence in their support and adjusting them under the influence of new evidence, new alternatives, or more adequate rules of reasoning. In another thread, Jack and I are currently disagreeing about the guilt of O.J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife, Nicole, and Ron Goldman. Blood evidence at the scene, in his Bronco, leading up to his estate and in his shower drain, which I have understood to be unrefuted, together with his paranoia about Nicole becoming involved with other men and the witness who observed him frantically trying to return to Rockingham from the vicinity of her condo are among the most important kinds of evidence that have led me to accept O.J.’s guilt. Jack has told me, however, that new evidence implicates his son, Jason, in the crime. If he is right, then, once I study it, I may have to change my mind--assuming I am rational!

(D3) rationality of action =df adopting means, methods, or techniques that are effective, efficient, or reliable for the attainment of your objectives and goals, which of course should be logically, physically, historically, and practically capable of attainment. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of rationality of action is that, in the context of politics, advertising, and propaganda, it may benefit the attainment of ends, such as manipulating a target population by disseminating false beliefs, to appear to violate rationality of belief for the sake of rationality of action, where those perpetrating such actions (to whom we might broadly refer as "agents") are basing their actions on rational beliefs about that it takes to manipulate that population, based upon their own privileged knowledge of the realities of the situation, which are beliefs that are rational but not ones widely known to the target population. They are not trading in truth but disseminating falsehoods.

I asked Jack to post those images because they illustrate my central point, which is that this is not and never was intended by Evan Burton to be a fair and impartial debate. He has insured that it will come out the way that he wants by abusing his position as both moderator and participant to GUARANTEE that his views, which parrot the official story of NASA (which, as I understand it, is an intelligence agency of the United States), in order to belittle and ridicule those, such as Jack and I, who have the nerve to contest the official account of moon landings on the ground that the evidence does not support them. I have indicated many resources that I recommend for those who want to discover the truth about these matters. That objective, however, is not going be accomplished on this forum, where Evan Burton can manipulate the situation to suit his own ends. I am not thereby alleging he is an agent of disinformation, which would violate forum rules, but rather that, like others I have discussed in the past, he acts as if he were one, a distinction some may regard as metaphysical.

Exhibit 1: the missing tracks between the moon rover's wheels. In post #152, we can see that there are no tracks between the wheels of the moon rover. If the moon rover had been driven there (forward or backward), there would have been tracks. As I explained long ago, the probability of moon dust spontaneously filling in rover tracks is virtually nil. It is not impossible as a violation of laws of physics, for example, but it is incredibly improbable. I have therefore explained that the likelihood that the rover had to have been carried or hoisted into position is overwhelmingly greater than that such an improbable event should have taken place. Evan, of course, quite predictably has not waited for me to make this post but, in post #158, attacked with an ad hominem, "Waste of time - has been explained again and again and again. Just because you don't accept reality does not mean I have to try and explain it to you over and over again." But he is trading in events that are so improbable that they are virtual impossibilities, which shows the desperation of his position. Fakery is a more likely alternative.

Exhibit 2: the light casting shadows indicative of a close-at-hand source. In post #153, we see shadows cast in an Apollo 14 photograph. Officially, the only light source on the Moon came from the Sun. Light is transmitted in straight lines (which is known as the rectilinear propagation of light), however, which means that, by tracing the lines cast by the shadows back to their source, we can find where they intersect, which is the source that cast them. In this case, we are dealing with elementary geometry. There is nothing probabilistic about this and it is not a question of relative likelihoods, other than that any alternative will have a likelihood of nil. In post #159, Burton, to my astonishment, has offered a photograph of a series of posts that have oddly non-parallel shadows, which appear to me to have been created artificially by taking a panoramic photograph and converging it. The other is one in which the shadows of the trees are uneven because one (the closer) is cast across relatively flat land, the other (the further away) across land that obviously slopes. That Burton has to resort to these forms of deception is astonishing to me. The surface of the Moon as shown in post #153 is level enough that the near-at-hand light source is apparent.

Exhibit 3: the diagram for front screen projection and the Apollo frame go together. In post #154 we see a diagram of how it is done and in post #155 we see an example of the technique in application. The fascinating study, "How Stanley Kubrick faked the Moon Landings", http://www.assassinationscience.com/HowK...ings-1.pdf , explains the use of front-screen projection that enables are relatively small studio set--something that could fit into a hangar in the desert, for example, as "Capricorn I" suggests--and create the impression of a vast expanse in the background. I have no serious doubt that this is how the moon landing images were fabricated. And notice how, with today's digital technology, NASA just happens to have "erased" its moon landing tapes, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE56F5MK20090716 , which, of course, they are going to bring back EVEN BETTER THAN BEFORE (because they will eradicate any linger indications of the use of front-screen projection). The proof Burton requests in his post #160 is provided in the article I have cited here. Burton has to be aware of it, since it exposes the entire operation as a charade. And that NASA should erase some of the most precious footage even taken by the hand of man? If you believe that, I have some swampland in Florida that I would like to sell you.

Exhibit 4: the collapsing scaffolding in the crucial moon landing shot. In post #156, Jack attempted to upload a short film clip but was unable to do it; so in post #157, he posted instead several clips from the film. The original can be found at "Real Moon Landing in 1969", http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgG5s28fv...re=related , which Evan ridiculed in posts #161 and #162. What else could he do? And the use of wire supports is on display in footage that shows them reflecting light when there should be nothing there in "Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage", http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLa...re=related with Apollo 14 footage of light pings and Apollo 17 during the flag scene. From Apollo 16 footage, we can see the use of wires to assist in walking to simulate a low gravity field and even more strikingly when one astronaut offers to assist another in getting up. The use of wires and slowing the film by 50% does the job of producing effects that are analogous to those that would actually occur on the Moon, but with glitches that give the game away. Or take a look at "New Leaked Moon Landing Footage. Shows Hoax.", http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vrge-8F6...re=related

Exhibit 5: Burton's cavalier attitude toward the relatively innocuous photo, "Tracks of a Moon Rover". I found this image on fotosearch.com. (It shows sneaker tracks on and between the rover tracks, as Jack highlights in his post #98, which I expect Burton to purge as soon as he realizes it is there.) Burton removed it on alleged copyright grounds, which he set forth in his post #131. When I objected that there were no such "copyright violations"--which I protested vigorously in post #135 and in post #139 in response to Evan's reiteration of the necessity to obtain permission to use it--Jack posted a copy of the regulations that cover copyright conditions in post #146, which Burton deflected in post #147, but which I rebutted in post #148. At this point, it was painfully obvious to me that Evan Burton was not going to concede an inch, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Even in a matter as trivial as posting an image (which was not even taken on the Moon), he was unwilling to acknowledge that he was wrong and I was right. There was no copyright issue here. Anyone who reviewed the evidence could see that to be the case. This convinced me that, if Burton was going to be this highhanded, arbitrary, and authoritarian in a case as straightforward as this--where nothing obvious was at stake, except that I had found the photo interesting and wanted to include it--there was no point in continuing this exercise.

As though further proof were needed to show that Evan Burton has not been adhering to the standards for rational belief, in post #112, he even poses as though he were an expert on scientific reasoning, with a characterization that is obviously flawed in presuming that science can be conducted by examining a single hypothesis separately from consideration of its alternatives. Thus, according to Evan Burton,

The 'scientific method' involves the following steps:

* Ask a Question
* Do Background Research
* Construct a Hypothesis
* Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
* Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
* Communicate Your Results


Burton is not the only one to adopt an overly simplistic model of science, where I have taken Steven Jones to task on this point in "On the Manipulation of the 9/11 Research Community", http://twilightpines.com/images/themanip...munity.pdf , a rather more serious blunder on his part since he, unlike Burton, is a scientist and should know better. We might think that thermite was the key to understanding the destruction of the Twin Towers if we ignored alternative theories. Science requires the consideration of all of the possible explanations and of the evidence that might falsify an hypothesis as well as confirm it. In the present instance, of course, it is easy to produce evidence that appears to CONFIRM that we actually went to the Moon, even though there is other evidence that REFUTES it. If you do not consider alternative explanations, then you may be subject to pseudo-scientific accounts to "explain away" contrary evidence, as we have seen here.

I have reluctantly concluded that my interest in pursuing the truth conflicts with Evan Burton's interest in concealing it, where his role as both moderator and participant--which I have protested vigorously on this very thread--invests him with the advantages of theft over honest toil. The evidence supports the rationality of belief in moon landing fakery, for those whose objective is discovering the truth, but for those whose objective is to obfuscate it, there is no room for concessions, even about relatively trivial matters, as I have demonstrated here. He has displayed his preference for unlikely explanations over more likely ones, for physically impossible explanations over lawful ones and for even ignoring what appears to be the true alternative, not to mention embracing a hopelessly inadequate conception of scientific reasoning. As a practical matter, therefore, I have to concede that I am confronted with an unattainable goal, where my own commitment to rationality of ends precludes me from pursuing it further.
Great, Jim.

Now I hope you will follow through by looking at the William Dear
documentary.

Jack
James H. Fetzer Wrote:Let me see if I can get this monkey off my back in relation to the posts I asked Jack to make on my behalf, namely, #152, close up of wheels on the moon rover; #153, light shadows from a nearby source; #154, diagram of front screen projection technique; #155, scene illustrating front screen projection; and #156/#157, showing the set collapse during filming of the fake moon landing. I asked Jack to post them because they offer excellent examples of the points that I want to make in my final post on this thread. This post will reflect my extreme disappointment with Evan Burton, who, in my opinion, has not been conducting a fair and impartial debate but is dominated by a political agenda. Before I do so, however, I have to explain three concepts of rationality, namely, rationality of ends, rationality of belief, and rationality of action, as follow:

(D1) rationality of ends =df the pursuit of ends is ration when they are neither logically, physically, nor historically impossible. An end is logically impossible when it cannot be attained as a matter of logic. Creating a figure that is both a circle and a square at the same time is logically impossible. An end is physically impossible when it cannot be attained because doing so would violate laws of nature. A causal process occurring faster than the speed of light is an illustration. An end is historically impossible when it cannot be attained as a matter of history. Being the first man to climb Mt. Everest (in 2010) or the second husband of Elizabeth Taylor are examples. They can't be done because they have already been done. The pursuit of ends that require resources beyond our ability would be another category of pursuing ends whose attainment is a practical impossibility.

(D2) rationality of belief =df maintaining strengths of beliefs that are appropriate to the strength of the evidence in their support and adjusting them under the influence of new evidence, new alternatives, or more adequate rules of reasoning. In another thread, Jack and I are currently disagreeing about the guilt of O.J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife, Nicole, and Ron Goldman. Blood evidence at the scene, in his Bronco, leading up to his estate and in his shower drain, which I have understood to be unrefuted, together with his paranoia about Nicole becoming involved with other men and the witness who observed him frantically trying to return to Rockingham from the vicinity of her condo are among the most important kinds of evidence that have led me to accept O.J.’s guilt. Jack has told me, however, that new evidence implicates his son, Jason, in the crime. If he is right, then, once I study it, I may have to change my mind--assuming I am rational!

(D3) rationality of action =df adopting means, methods, or techniques that are effective, efficient, or reliable for the attainment of your objectives and goals, which of course should be logically, physically, historically, and practically capable of attainment. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of rationality of action is that, in the context of politics, advertising, and propaganda, it may benefit the attainment of ends, such as manipulating a target population by disseminating false beliefs, to appear to violate rationality of belief for the sake of rationality of action, where those perpetrating such actions (to whom we might broadly refer as "agents") are basing their actions on rational beliefs about that it takes to manipulate that population, based upon their own privileged knowledge of the realities of the situation, which are beliefs that are rational but not ones widely known to the target population. They are not trading in truth but disseminating falsehoods.

I asked Jack to post those images because they illustrate my central point, which is that this is not and never was intended by Evan Burton to be a fair and impartial debate. He has insured that it will come out the way that he wants by abusing his position as both moderator and participant to GUARANTEE that his views, which parrot the official story of NASA (which, as I understand it, is an intelligence agency of the United States), in order to belittle and ridicule those, such as Jack and I, who have the nerve to contest the official account of moon landings on the ground that the evidence does not support them. I have indicated many resources that I recommend for those who want to discover the truth about these matters. That objective, however, is not going be accomplished on this forum, where Evan Burton can manipulate the situation to suit his own ends. I am not thereby alleging he is an agent of disinformation, which would violate forum rules, but rather that, like others I have discussed in the past, he acts as if he were one, a distinction some may regard as metaphysical.

Exhibit 1: the missing tracks between the moon rover's wheels. In post #152, we can see that there are no tracks between the wheels of the moon rover. If the moon rover had been driven there (forward or backward), there would have been tracks. As I explained long ago, the probability of moon dust spontaneously filling in rover tracks is virtually nil. It is not impossible as a violation of laws of physics, for example, but it is incredibly improbable. I have therefore explained that the likelihood that the rover had to have been carried or hoisted into position is overwhelmingly greater than that such an improbable event should have taken place. Evan, of course, quite predictably has not waited for me to make this post but, in post #158, attacked with an ad hominem, "Waste of time - has been explained again and again and again. Just because you don't accept reality does not mean I have to try and explain it to you over and over again." But he is trading in events that are so improbable that they are virtual impossibilities, which shows the desperation of his position. Fakery is a more likely alternative.

Exhibit 2: the light casting shadows indicative of a close-at-hand source. In post #153, we see shadows cast in an Apollo 14 photograph. Officially, the only light source on the Moon came from the Sun. Light is transmitted in straight lines (which is known as the rectilinear propagation of light), however, which means that, by tracing the lines cast by the shadows back to their source, we can find where they intersect, which is the source that cast them. In this case, we are dealing with elementary geometry. There is nothing probabilistic about this and it is not a question of relative likelihoods, other than that any alternative will have a likelihood of nil. In post #159, Burton, to my astonishment, has offered a photograph of a series of posts that have oddly non-parallel shadows, which appear to me to have been created artificially by taking a panoramic photograph and converging it. The other is one in which the shadows of the trees are uneven because one (the closer) is cast across relatively flat land, the other (the further away) across land that obviously slopes. That Burton has to resort to these forms of deception is astonishing to me. The surface of the Moon as shown in post #153 is level enough that the near-at-hand light source is apparent.

Exhibit 3: the diagram for front screen projection and the Apollo frame go together. In post #154 we see a diagram of how it is done and in post #155 we see an example of the technique in application. The fascinating study, "How Stanley Kubrick faked the Moon Landings", http://www.assassinationscience.com/HowK...ings-1.pdf , explains the use of front-screen projection that enables are relatively small studio set--something that could fit into a hangar in the desert, for example, as "Capricorn I" suggests--and create the impression of a vast expanse in the background. I have no serious doubt that this is how the moon landing images were fabricated. And notice how, with today's digital technology, NASA just happens to have "erased" its moon landing tapes, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE56F5MK20090716 , which, of course, they are going to bring back EVEN BETTER THAN BEFORE (because they will eradicate any linger indications of the use of front-screen projection). The proof Burton requests in his post #160 is provided in the article I have cited here. Burton has to be aware of it, since it exposes the entire operation as a charade. And rhR NASA should erase some of the most precious footage even taken by the hand of man? If you believe that, I have some swampland in Florida that I would like to sell you.

Exhibit 4: the collapsing scaffolding in the crucial moon landing shot. In post #156, Jack attempted to upload a short film clip but was unable to do it; so in post #157, he posted instead several clips from the film. The original can be found at "Real Moon Landing in 1969", http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgG5s28fv...re=related , which Evan ridiculed in posts #161 and #162. What else could he do? And the use of wire supports is on display in footage that shows them reflecting light when there should be nothing there in "Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage", http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLa...re=related with Apollo 14 footage of light pings and Apollo 17 during the flag scene. From Apollo 16 footage, we can see the use of wires to assist in walking to simulate a low gravity field and even more strikingly when one astronaut offers to assist another in getting up. The use of wires and slowing the film by 50% does the job of producing effects that are analogous to those that would actually occur on the Moon, but with glitches that give the game away. Or take a look at "New Leaked Moon Landing Footage. Shows Hoax.", http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vrge-8F6...re=related

Exhibit 5: Burton's cavalier attitude toward the relatively innocuous photo, "Tracks of a Moon Rover". I found this image on fotosearch.com. (It shows sneaker tracks on and between the rover tracks, as Jack highlights in his post #98, which I expect Burton to purge as soon as he realizes it is there.) Burton removed it on alleged copyright grounds, which he set forth in his post #131. When I objected that there were no such "copyright violations"--which I protested vigorously in post #135 and in post #139 in response to Evan's reiteration of the necessity to obtain permission to use it--Jack posted a copy of the regulations that cover copyright conditions in post #146, which Burton deflected in post #147, but which I rebutted in post #148. At this point, it was painfully obvious to me that Evan Burton was not going to concede an inch, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Even in a matter as trivial as posting an image (which was not even taken on the Moon), he was unwilling to acknowledge that he was wrong and I was right. There was no copyright issue here. Anyone who reviewed the evidence could see that to be the case. This convinced me that, if Burton was going to be this highhanded, arbitrary, and authoritarian in a case as straightforward as this--where nothing obvious was at stake, except that I had found the photo interesting and wanted to include it--there was no point in continuing this exercise.

As though further proof were needed to show that Evan Burton has not been adhering to the standards for rational belief, in post #112, he even poses as though he were an expert on scientific reasoning, with a characterization that is obviously flawed in presuming that science can be conducted by examining a single hypothesis separately from consideration of its alternatives. Thus, according to Evan Burton,

The 'scientific method' involves the following steps:

* Ask a Question
* Do Background Research
* Construct a Hypothesis
* Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
* Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
* Communicate Your Results


Burton is not the only one to adopt an overly simplistic model of science, where I have taken Steven Jones to task on this point in "On the Manipulation of the 9/11 Research Community", http://twilightpines.com/images/themanip...munity.pdf , a rather more serious blunder on his part since he, unlike Burton, is a scientist and should know better. We might think that thermite was the key to understanding the destruction of the Twin Towers if we ignored alternative theories. Science requires the consideration of all of the possible explanations and of the evidence that might falsify an hypothesis as well as confirm it. In the present instance, of course, it is easy to produce evidence that appears to CONFIRM that we actually went to the Moon, even though there is other evidence that REFUTES it. If you do not consider alternative explanations, then you may be subject to pseudo-scientific accounts to "explain away" contrary evidence, as we have seen here.

I have reluctantly concluded that my interest in pursuing the truth conflicts with Evan Burton's interest in concealing it, where his role as both moderator and participant--which I have protested vigorously on this very thread--invests him with the advantages of theft over honest toil. The evidence supports the rationality of belief in moon landing fakery, for those whose objective is discovering the truth, but for those whose objective is to obfuscate it, there is no room for concessions, even about relatively trivial matters, as I have demonstrated here. He has displayed his preference for unlikely explanations over more likely ones, for physically impossible explanations over lawful ones and for even ignoring what appears to be the true alternative, not to mention embracing a hopelessly inadequate conception of scientific reasoning. As a practical matter, therefore, I have to concede that I am confronted with an unattainable goal, where my own commitment to rationality of ends precludes me from pursuing it further.

Now you have some idea why I was removed as moderator and Burton was promoted not only from moderator but to number two administrator....:rock:
Quote:this is not and never was intended by Evan Burton to be a fair and impartial debate. He has insured that it will come out the way that he wants by abusing his position as both moderator and participant to GUARANTEE that his views, which parrot the official story of NASA (which, as I understand it, is an intelligence agency of the United States), in order to belittle and ridicule those, such as Jack and I, who have the nerve to contest the official account of moon landings on the ground that the evidence does not support them.

Such tricks are Evan's bread and butter in my experience, Jim. The words "fair & partial" and "Evan Burton" should never appear in the same paragraph.
Well, knock me over with a feather. Pass me my smelling salts please. :rofl:
Jim, Jack, et al,

I remain agnostic regarding the faked moon landing theory not because I doubt that NASA is an intel tool or that so monstrous an operation could be mounted by, among others, exceptional Americans.

Rather, once again I lean toward a negative-A, negative-B third alternative, expressed in the form of a "yes" answer to the query, "Did we land on the moon or were the Apollo landings faked?".

ITEM -- If endless conspiracy theories are viewed by deep political forces as critical components in their Endless Doubt control strategy, then it would have served their darkest purposes to create fake evidence supporting the faked landings theories -- even if the landings took place exactly as advertised.

ITEM -- If conspiracy theories in general ever threaten to challenge party lines to the extent that the people begin to lift the curtains, then what better way to demonize the lifters than by producing fatally flawed evidence for faked moon landings, exposing the flaws, and fatally tainting all conspiracy theories in the process?

ITEM -- If alternative propulsion methods (regardless of their earthly and/or other-worldly origins) have taken mankind to the moon and perhaps well beyond. then it would continue to serve the agendas of those who control the secret monopoly on such technology to create the Apollo operation in all of its devilish complexity.

Take your pick. Or not, dear Horatio.
Charles,

And if it were physically impossible to have conducted moon landings, would that be enough to convince you? The Van Allen radiation belt, for example, would seem to pose an insurmountable obstacle to travel to the moon without incurring death. I find it intriguing that the Wikipedia entry on "Van Allen Radiation Belt", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt includes the following paragraph:

Missions beyond low earth orbit leave the protection of the geomagnetic field, and transit the Van Allen belts. Thus they may need to be shielded against exposure to cosmic rays, Van Allen radiation, or solar flares. The region between two to four earth radii lies between the two radiation belts and is sometimes referred to as the "safe zone".[10][11]

There are quite a few videos about it, including "Van Allen Radiation Belt", http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyl1LsB7Xr8, "NASA's Radiation Problem", http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKB5u_VTt...ature=fvwp, and others. Even better is "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on The Moon?", http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UKiyOScrIY , among the best explanations why the moon landings appear to be a hoax.

Jim
Here is another example of Burton's abuse of his position as both
moderator and participant, where I listed resources for research:

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/jackstudies_index1.html

Russians letting the cat
out of the bag

http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/15...9-moon-0/#

Moon Movie

http://moonmovie.com/

Top Ten Reasons Man
Did Not go to the Moon

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

Did Stanley Kubrick fake
the Moon Landings?

http://www.jayweidner.com/AlchemicalKubrickIIa.html

Conspiracy Theory
Did we land on the moon?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UKiyOScrIY

NASA erased moon footage

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE56F5MK20090716

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)
Jim,

The non-survivable radiation belt argument seems, to this layman, strong.

Are you able to offer for review (or at least provide links to) whatever counter-arguments have been posited by NASA and/or other "mainstream" scientific sources?

At first blush, this aspect of the controversy seems open to relatively easy resolution by addressing the following:

-- The types of radiation through which trans-lunar vehicles must pass.

-- The effective shielding, if any, installed on the human-carrying components of the Apollo spacecraft.

-- Survivable limits of human exposure.

-- Elapsed time of human exposure.

I am obliged to stipulate that exposure of a moon landing hoax would fit quite neatly into my world view. Which is all the more reason why I wish to move cautiously toward such a conclusion.

Jack, you may once again opine that I am overly cautious when examining conspiracy evidence. You may be right. But I'd remind one and all that I have lead -- or at least been one of the leaders of -- the charge to expose and utterly reject false debate on JFK and related deep political conspiracies and to recognize that we are at war with the bastards. While my profile has not been as high as those of others similarly disposed, the record of my endeavors in these areas may be traced back to the earliest Lancer conferences and "The Third Decade."

Jim and Jack, I'd like your views on the ITEMs I've posted above.

Charles
Charles Drago Wrote:Jim,

The non-survivable radiation belt argument seems, to this layman, strong.

Are you able to offer for review (or at least provide links to) whatever counter-arguments have been posited by NASA and/or other "mainstream" scientific sources?

At first blush, this aspect of the controversy seems open to relatively easy resolution by addressing the following:

-- The types of radiation through which trans-lunar vehicles must pass.

-- The effective shielding, if any, installed on the human-carrying components of the Apollo spacecraft.

-- Survivable limits of human exposure.

-- Elapsed time of human exposure.

I am obliged to stipulate that exposure of a moon landing hoax would fit quite neatly into my world view. Which is all the more reason why I wish to move cautiously toward such a conclusion.

Jack, you may once again opine that I am overly cautious when examining conspiracy evidence. You may be right. But I'd remind one and all that I have lead -- or at least been one of the leaders of -- the charge to expose and utterly reject false debate on JFK and related deep political conspiracies and to recognize that we are at war with the bastards. While my profile has not been as high as those of others similarly disposed, the record of my endeavors in these areas may be traced back to the earliest Lancer conferences and "The Third Decade."

Jim and Jack, I'd like your views on the ITEMs I've posted above.

Charles

Charles...have to leave for a doctor appointment right now,
but to answer one of your questions:

THERE WAS NO SHIELDING OF ANY KIND FOR THE ASTRONAUTS
EITHER IN TRANSIT NOR IN THEIR SPACE SUITS.

Gotta go. More later.

Jack