Fetzer/Burton Moon Landing Debate Finale

[Peter Dawson]

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.

I don't know anything about Evan Burton except from the posts of his I've read on the two current moon hoax threads at EF. I've looked at a few JFK threads over there, but they aren't registering any new members at present, and you need to be a member to view attached material, and to post, etc, so I don't spend much time there as a result.

So the upshot is, I don't even know what kind of incorrect conclusion you're about to make about my motives - just that it would be incorrect.

Since he wishes me to, I'll respond to Prof. Fetzer's "multiple arguments" when time permits. There does appear to be a need for all this to be laid out and patiently sorted through, point by point.

[Peter Presland]

I am convinced that the most widely accepted position about 9/11--that the towers were taken down with thermite/thermate/nano-thermite--is almost certainly wrong, since thermite is an incendiary, not an explosive. For thermite to become explosive, it would have to be combined with an explosive, which is also true of toothpaste. I therefore encourage the study of alternative explanations, including the possible use of third or fourth generation nukes (mico or mini), lasers, masers, and other forms of directed energy weapons. See, for example, "An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11", http://911scholars.ning.com, for an outline of my argument.

This is a fascinating thread on many levels and the parts focusing on 9/11 detail probably deserve to be separate. But here goes anyway, since the above paragraph defines an issue of major importance to 9/11 truth:

The following is from Denis Rancourt's "Activist Teacher" blog. He is another academic pilloried for his allegedly anti-semitic views which are unrelated to 9/11. Nevertheless his positions on Zionism and Canadian politics generally have secured my attention and respect:

I was asked by 911 Truth movement researcher and radio host Kevin Barrett to debate Niels Harrit about nanothermite in WTC dust. I agreed and a two-hour live debate was held on November 9th, [URL="http://noliesradio.org/archives/25022"]HERE.
[/URL]
In preparation I read the 2009 paper of Harrit et al. (Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2, 2009, 7-31). I found many scientific errors and concluded that the editorial and/or peer review had been done very poorly. I tried to address some of my concerns with Harrit during the radio interview. Those concerns which I had time to express were mostly confirmed rather than alleviated.

Many members of the 911 Truth movement use an "appeal to authority" argument in advancing Harrit's paper as "peer reviewed" and Harrit himself as a scientific authority with relevant expertise. Anyone using "appeal to authority" arguments must expect that the authority in question can be questioned.

Even more boldly, some 911 Truthers, including Kevin Barrett, advance that since the Harrit paper has not formally been contested in any peer reviewed scientific article then its methods and conclusions must be valid. I don't know the name for this particular sophistry but I know that many papers on important topics are wrong, believed to be wrong, and are never contested. This relates more to the social careerism of science than anything else.

I accept that the 911 Truth movement is an important societal movement and for that reason I decided to help clean up some of this crap.

I wrote an expert critical peer review of the Harrit paper [URL="http://climateguy.blogspot.com/2010/11/peer-review-of-harrit-et-al-on-911-cant.html"]HERE.
[/URL]
Harrit was immediately informed and has not yet provided any substantive response.

There are a lot of very bad peer reviewed articles out there but it is so unusual for an editor of a peer review scientific journal to allow tenuous and extreme claims and elaborate suggestions that do not follow from the data that I decide next to contact the Editor in Chief of the journal.

Here is what I sent the Editor in Chief on November 10th:

Professor Lucio Frydman
Department of Chemical Physics,
The Weizmann Institute of Sciences

Editor in Chief,
Open Chemical Physics Journal

Re: Peer review concerns, Harrit et al., OCPJ 2, 2009, 7-31, "nanothermite in WTC dust"

Dear Editor Frydman,

As an expert in the relevant areas, I have written a criticism of the above-cited paper that was printed in your journal.

I have posted my report publicly on the web here:
http://climateguy.blogspot.com/2010/11/p...-cant.html

My report is also critical of your journal in this matter.

On the face of it, it appears that the peer review process for this article was significantly flawed, to the point of professional irresponsibility or worse. This, in a matter of vital public and political interest.

Please clarify your journal's peer review of this article, the number of reviewers, their relevant expertizes, whether any changes were requested, etc. You will understand that the article is of such substandard quality as to give rise to serious questions about its review. What was your own involvement in accepting this article it its final form?

Please indicate when you will be able to respond.

Sincerely,
Denis G. Rancourt
Former professor, University of Ottawa
Ottawa, Canada


This was the former editor's immediate response:

From: Lucio Frydman
Date: Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:46 AM
Subject: Editorial concern, Open Chemical Physics Journal, possible fraudulent peer review
To: Denis Rancourt <>
Cc: The Open Chemical Physics Journal , Shehzad , Editorial

Dear Prof. Rancourt

What you describe is indeed very worrisome indeed. To be frank, however, I should clarify to you two points that will probably derive this discussion through alternative channels

1) I was not editor of the journal at the time the manuscript you refer to was received and processed. I was not involved in its handling, and in no way do i agree with its conclusions. In fact i do not even know how the paper's peer reviewing was handled - or if it was reviewed at all. The journal never wanted to disclosed this matter to me

2) What may be even worse - noone seems to be at the helm of this Journal. Months ago -simply after becoming acquainted with the article you mention, its possible misshandling, etc- i submitted my immediate resignation as editor to the open chemical physics journal. As you can see from the email below, my letter of resignation was received and acknowledged. However, i still appear as the journal's editor - in fact i'm still receiving manuscripts to handle (which i naturally ignore).

To be frank, noone seems to be at the helm of this floundering ship...

I am hereby using the opportunity to copy the journal managers and publishers both of your concerns, as well as my renewed request that they officially and finally relieve me from any duties and/or relationship in connection to this journal

I hope this clarifies your concerns - at least in what they relate to my role in this sad story

Sincerely
Lucio Frydman

Denis is NOT a committed "9/11 was an inside job" man - he's sort of getting there slowly - but his disciplined scepticism is healthy - VERY healthy IMO

Seems to me that "Truthers" are investing just a tad too much in the nano-thermite issue and risk riding for a nasty fall. I agree with Jim on this: other - ostensibly fantastic alternatives tick more of the evidence boxes than 'nano-thermite' as the primary demolition method.

[Peter Dawson]

I'm glad we didn't waste much time taking Fetzer and White seriously about the Moontruth.com footage. As Dave Greer says: Game, set and match.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIsvkz_QG...r_embedded


http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....393&st=555

Does anybody still want me to address Fetzer's "multiple arguments" one by one?

[Charles Drago]

This manic focus on Jack White and Jim Fetzer adds to the stink permeating the "Dawson" operation.

If I were a betting man, I'd wager that "Dawson" and Burton don't live more than a thousand klicks apart. Fellow Aussies. Just a gut feeling, is all.

G'day.

[James H. Fetzer]

Now THIS little snippet looks to me like a nice piece of fakery staged for the purpose of implying that the original "rehearsal" footage was faked as (in Peter Dawson's immortal words) "a spoof"! I invite anyone to compare them and ask if the "rehearsal" footage has the elements of fakery of this one! It is fascinating that "the beat goes on". How blatant can it get? And when you take notice of the tremendous difference in production values -- the sharpness of the focus, the clarity of the image and the vivid colors -- it should be obvious that this footage bears no resemblance to the "rehearsal" footage. Dawson ought to be ashamed for falling for another hoax being perpetrated by David Greer, whom I understand may be the mastermind behind the scene pulling the strings in defending the authenticity of Apollo footage and directing attacks on those, such as Duane, Jack, and I, who have the temerity to challenge them.

I'm glad we didn't waste much time taking Fetzer and White seriously about the Moontruth.com footage. As Dave Greer says: Game, set and match.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIsvkz_QG...r_embedded


http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....393&st=555

Does anybody still want me to address Fetzer's "multiple arguments" one by one?

[James H. Fetzer]

Peter,

Thank you for this excellent post! I am just beginning to draft an article on thermite/thermate/nano or otherwise and I greatly appreciate this post. If you liked what I said there, you might also want to take a good look at a much longer piece of mine, http://twilightpines.com/images/themanip...munity.pdf , transcribed from a radio program I did when my guest didn't show.

Jim

I am convinced that the most widely accepted position about 9/11--that the towers were taken down with thermite/thermate/nano-thermite--is almost certainly wrong, since thermite is an incendiary, not an explosive. For thermite to become explosive, it would have to be combined with an explosive, which is also true of toothpaste. I therefore encourage the study of alternative explanations, including the possible use of third or fourth generation nukes (mico or mini), lasers, masers, and other forms of directed energy weapons. See, for example, "An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11", http://911scholars.ning.com, for an outline of my argument.

This is a fascinating thread on many levels and the parts focusing on 9/11 detail probably deserve to be separate. But here goes anyway, since the above paragraph defines an issue of major importance to 9/11 truth:

The following is from Denis Rancourt's "Activist Teacher" blog. He is another academic pilloried for his allegedly anti-semitic views which are unrelated to 9/11. Nevertheless his positions on Zionism and Canadian politics generally have secured my attention and respect:

I was asked by 911 Truth movement researcher and radio host Kevin Barrett to debate Niels Harrit about nanothermite in WTC dust. I agreed and a two-hour live debate was held on November 9th, [URL="http://noliesradio.org/archives/25022"]HERE.
[/URL]
In preparation I read the 2009 paper of Harrit et al. (Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2, 2009, 7-31). I found many scientific errors and concluded that the editorial and/or peer review had been done very poorly. I tried to address some of my concerns with Harrit during the radio interview. Those concerns which I had time to express were mostly confirmed rather than alleviated.

Many members of the 911 Truth movement use an "appeal to authority" argument in advancing Harrit's paper as "peer reviewed" and Harrit himself as a scientific authority with relevant expertise. Anyone using "appeal to authority" arguments must expect that the authority in question can be questioned.

Even more boldly, some 911 Truthers, including Kevin Barrett, advance that since the Harrit paper has not formally been contested in any peer reviewed scientific article then its methods and conclusions must be valid. I don't know the name for this particular sophistry but I know that many papers on important topics are wrong, believed to be wrong, and are never contested. This relates more to the social careerism of science than anything else.

I accept that the 911 Truth movement is an important societal movement and for that reason I decided to help clean up some of this crap.

I wrote an expert critical peer review of the Harrit paper [URL="http://climateguy.blogspot.com/2010/11/peer-review-of-harrit-et-al-on-911-cant.html"]HERE.
[/URL]
Harrit was immediately informed and has not yet provided any substantive response.

There are a lot of very bad peer reviewed articles out there but it is so unusual for an editor of a peer review scientific journal to allow tenuous and extreme claims and elaborate suggestions that do not follow from the data that I decide next to contact the Editor in Chief of the journal.

Here is what I sent the Editor in Chief on November 10th:

Professor Lucio Frydman
Department of Chemical Physics,
The Weizmann Institute of Sciences

Editor in Chief,
Open Chemical Physics Journal

Re: Peer review concerns, Harrit et al., OCPJ 2, 2009, 7-31, "nanothermite in WTC dust"

Dear Editor Frydman,

As an expert in the relevant areas, I have written a criticism of the above-cited paper that was printed in your journal.

I have posted my report publicly on the web here:
http://climateguy.blogspot.com/2010/11/p...-cant.html

My report is also critical of your journal in this matter.

On the face of it, it appears that the peer review process for this article was significantly flawed, to the point of professional irresponsibility or worse. This, in a matter of vital public and political interest.

Please clarify your journal's peer review of this article, the number of reviewers, their relevant expertizes, whether any changes were requested, etc. You will understand that the article is of such substandard quality as to give rise to serious questions about its review. What was your own involvement in accepting this article it its final form?

Please indicate when you will be able to respond.

Sincerely,
Denis G. Rancourt
Former professor, University of Ottawa
Ottawa, Canada


This was the former editor's immediate response:

From: Lucio Frydman
Date: Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:46 AM
Subject: Editorial concern, Open Chemical Physics Journal, possible fraudulent peer review
To: Denis Rancourt <>
Cc: The Open Chemical Physics Journal , Shehzad , Editorial

Dear Prof. Rancourt

What you describe is indeed very worrisome indeed. To be frank, however, I should clarify to you two points that will probably derive this discussion through alternative channels

1) I was not editor of the journal at the time the manuscript you refer to was received and processed. I was not involved in its handling, and in no way do i agree with its conclusions. In fact i do not even know how the paper's peer reviewing was handled - or if it was reviewed at all. The journal never wanted to disclosed this matter to me

2) What may be even worse - noone seems to be at the helm of this Journal. Months ago -simply after becoming acquainted with the article you mention, its possible misshandling, etc- i submitted my immediate resignation as editor to the open chemical physics journal. As you can see from the email below, my letter of resignation was received and acknowledged. However, i still appear as the journal's editor - in fact i'm still receiving manuscripts to handle (which i naturally ignore).

To be frank, noone seems to be at the helm of this floundering ship...

I am hereby using the opportunity to copy the journal managers and publishers both of your concerns, as well as my renewed request that they officially and finally relieve me from any duties and/or relationship in connection to this journal

I hope this clarifies your concerns - at least in what they relate to my role in this sad story

Sincerely
Lucio Frydman

Denis is NOT a committed "9/11 was an inside job" man - he's sort of getting there slowly - but his disciplined scepticism is healthy - VERY healthy IMO

Seems to me that "Truthers" are investing just a tad too much in the nano-thermite issue and risk riding for a nasty fall. I agree with Jim on this: other - ostensibly fantastic alternatives tick more of the evidence boxes than 'nano-thermite' as the primary demolition method.

[James H. Fetzer]

Burton, corrupt to the bitter end, has "merged" the discussion thread and the debate thread, making it impossible to follow. Where there were 12 pages, now there are 38 -- most of which I have never even read! You have to admire the simplicity and ingenuity of creating such a morass, which has the effect of diluting and obfuscating what Jack and I were accomplishing there, which, of course, was the point. Here is the post I have just made there, where I have saved the original 12 pages. This is a very nasty guy, who has no scruples whatsoever, as Peter Lemkin, Duane Damen, and others have long known. I really did not expect he would do something so underhanded.

Posted Today, 05:06 PM

Now THIS little snippet looks to me like a nice piece of fakery staged for the purpose of implying that the original "rehearsal" footage was faked as (in Peter Dawson's immortal words) "a spoof"! I invite anyone to compare them and ask if the "rehearsal" footage has the elements of fakery of this one! It is fascinating that "the beat goes on". How blatant can it get? And when you take notice of the tremendous difference in production values -- the sharpness of the focus, the clarity of the image and the vivid colors -- it should be obvious that this footage bears no resemblance to the "rehearsal" footage. The similarity between the "rehearsal" footage and the broadcast footage, of course, was always far more comprehensive, where I think (subconsciously) I was drawn to the "edge" (where the shadow falls) because it appears to be the place where front-screen projection cuts in. Notice how Greer follows the pattern of citing only the evidence he wants to consider. Not only does it not have a similar look or feel, but not even the angle is the same! Here is what I wrote about the "rehearsal" footage:

The points that are made in comparing them, including the edge of the images, which is seen from the same angle
in both the footage broadcast and the "rehearsal" footage, are extremely improbable and would have been virtually
impossible to replicate. Both have a similar look and a similar feel and were probably shot on the very same stage.

Anyone who is taken in by this new hoax being perpetrated by David Greer -- whom I understand may be the mastermind behind the scene pulling the strings in defending the authenticity of Apollo footage and directing attacks on those, such as Duane, Jack, and I, who have the temerity to challenge them -- ought to be ashamed. This is as stunning an example of the lengths to which those who want to conceal the truth about the moon landing hoax are willing to do. And of course by "merging" the threads, it becomes practically impossible to sort out what was really going on here, which, I suppose, is the point. When they are defeated on the basis of logic and evidence, those who defile the name of reason and willing to resort to shady tactics like merging two distinct threads that should never have been merged are alleged to be justified on the basis of some flimsy ground, such as that "the debate was over", when it should have been archived like every other thread in the history of this forum. This is grotesque. For those who want a study in "plausible deniability", this is a stellar illustration.

[Peter Lemkin]

Burton, corrupt to the bitter end, has "merged" the discussion thread and the debate thread, making it impossible to follow. Where there were 12 pages, now there are 38 -- most of which I have never even read! You have to admire the simplicity and ingenuity of creating such a morass, which has the effect of diluting and obfuscating what Jack and I were accomplishing there, which, of course, was the point. Here is the post I have just made there, where I have saved the original 12 pages. This is a very nasty guy, who has no scruples whatsoever, as Peter Lemkin, Duane Damen, and others have long known. I really did not expect he would do something so underhanded.

Oh, you don't think he'd do something so underhanded...how many hours do you have to read....? Also, somewhere I think I saw someone, maybe you, post you didn't know the details of his Aussie and USA intel / military connections...perhaps I should elaborate what I know.....that he is #2 Administrator on the EF should give all of you who still post there more than pause to reflect if you should.....or if you must...please post a protest to his presence and give the reasons. At this point, JS alone is reason enough not to be a party to that once fairly noble site. EB makes it a no-brainer if you seek the truth without heavy-handed ego and psyop/mockingbird flak. IMO.

[David Guyatt]

Peter Dawson said:

I'm glad we didn't waste much time taking Fetzer and White seriously about the Moontruth.com footage. As Dave Greer says: Game, set and match.

Game, set & match? The two "fake" films very obviously are not one and the same.

I ask myself what is the purpose of trying to compare one film with the other? The only reason for trying to do so, it seems to me, is to damage James Fetzer's reputation using entirely deceitful means.

Speaking personally I find this distasteful.

James Fetzer said:

Burton, corrupt to the bitter end, has "merged" the discussion thread and the debate thread, making it impossible to follow. Where there were 12 pages, now there are 38 -- most of which I have never even read!

Merging different threads to obfuscate the development of an important thread is a classic technique employed by Evan (and other EF "moderators" too) over the years. In my past experience of the EF this usually happens when 'his' side of the argument begins falter and fray at the edges.

If all else fails the thread simply gets "set to invisibility" - to use the Burton-ism for deletion.

Under such sly and dishonest restrictions, why it is that anyone of an objective and independent mind continues to frequent that place bewilders me.

[James H. Fetzer]

This fellow Greer is accenting difference in detail between the "rehearsal" footage and the
footage shown. But there similarities far outweigh their differences, as I seek to explain.

Posted Today, 09:40 PM

Jack,

This is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the argument and make it difficult to follow. I am
told that this is Burton's tactic when his side is losing an argument: submerge it or bury it!
I am stunned by the blatancy of the abuse of position he is demonstrating here. The Greer
argument about the details of the films seems to be entirely beside the point. There are so
many similarities that, if fakery of this degree of similarity is possible, as Greer now claims,
then the faking of the moon landings themselves must have been a piece of cake! So even
if he is right (about the details), he is wrong (about the hoax itself). And if Adam Stewart didn't
do it, obviously someone else did! This is an excellent example of focusing on the trees and
missing the forest. The striking similarities between the "rehearsal" footage and the footage
that was broadcast demonstrates that faking the moon landing would not have been difficult
and, to hear Greer tell it, not all that expensive, too boot! This latest "spoof" footage appears
to be a desperate gambit to take in the unwary. It is rubbish. Again, all this proves too much!

Jim

Jack White, on 12 November 2010 - 09:05 PM, said:

Why have these two threads been merged? This is in violation of the agreement to keep them
separate. This is a gross abuse of Burton's immoderate moderation! I object and ask that
the two threads be UNMERGED!

I have been working on a new study for Jim which he asked me to post in the debate thread.
In it, I acknowledge a flaw in a previous study which caused me to re-examine it and I found
evidence in shadows pointing to three or more lighting sources.

This merged thread abandons the debate (which Burton was losing), and makes it an
incoherent mess. I will not post this new study until the debate thread is reinstated according
to the original agreement.

I ask other moderators to OVERRULE Burton's rash action, and reinstate the debate as
a dedicated thread.

Jack