James H. Fetzer Wrote: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
Dr. Jim.... you've taken them ALL to the cleaners -- it's clear, Burton and Co. need fumigation. Troll fumigation comes to mind...
I'm not at all pleased that Burton merged the threads - it took the trio 5 pages of the 12 page thread to decide exactly how they would discuss things, and I don't relish the idea of sorting through 40 pages of banter to track down Fetzer's "multiple arguments" if I am to address them. So it's not at all clear that Burton hasn't done JF and JW a favour by merging the threads.
If they were serious about spreading the word about moon mission fakery, why did White present his evidence in a form such that only members of the EF have access to it? I couldn't look at the evidence White was presenting because I'm not a member there - fortunately Burton followed behind providing links to the original NASA pictures White was referring to, otherwise the discussion would have been impossible to follow. If the evidence is on White's side, why does he limit people's access to it?
As for the rest of it, I'm starting to feel like I've stepped into a twilight zone. The space suit in the two "fake" youtube clips match each other precisely. The space suits in the original Apollo 11 missions don't match the space suit in the youtube clips. The moontruth clip is a fake, and Fetzer and White's promotion of it and defense of it makes them look like buffoons. It isn't a "vendetta" for me to say so, it's just the simple, honest truth.
Either the "rehearsal" footage strongly resembles the broadcast footage or it does not. If it doesn't strongly resemble the broadcast footage, then it is not a very good "spoof", is it? You seem to be on both sides of this divide, claiming that it was (implicitly, a very good) "spoof" (since otherwise it doesn't work as a "spoof", does it?), but now insisting that it is obviously not a very good spoof. So be sure and let us know what you think when you have some idea what that is. Someone may be a buffoon, but it isn't Jack or me.
Peter Dawson Wrote:I'm not at all pleased that Burton merged the threads - it took the trio 5 pages of the 12 page thread to decide exactly how they would discuss things, and I don't relish the idea of sorting through 40 pages of banter to track down Fetzer's "multiple arguments" if I am to address them. So it's not at all clear that Burton hasn't done JF and JW a favour by merging the threads.
If they were serious about spreading the word about moon mission fakery, why did White present his evidence in a form such that only members of the EF have access to it? I couldn't look at the evidence White was presenting because I'm not a member there - fortunately Burton followed behind providing links to the original NASA pictures White was referring to, otherwise the discussion would have been impossible to follow. If the evidence is on White's side, why does he limit people's access to it?
As for the rest of it, I'm starting to feel like I've stepped into a twilight zone. The space suit in the two "fake" youtube clips match each other precisely. The space suits in the original Apollo 11 missions don't match the space suit in the youtube clips. The moontruth clip is a fake, and Fetzer and White's promotion of it and defense of it makes them look like buffoons. It isn't a "vendetta" for me to say so, it's just the simple, honest truth.
James H. Fetzer Wrote:Either the "rehearsal" footage strongly resembles the broadcast footage or it does not. If it doesn't strongly resemble the broadcast footage, then it is not a very good "spoof", is it? You seem to be on both sides of this divide, claiming that it was (implicitly, a very good) "spoof" (since otherwise it doesn't work as a "spoof", does it?), but now insisting that it is obviously not a very good spoof. So be sure and let us know what you think when you have some idea what that is. Someone may be a buffoon, but it isn't Jack or me.
Peter Dawson Wrote:I'm not at all pleased that Burton merged the threads - it took the trio 5 pages of the 12 page thread to decide exactly how they would discuss things, and I don't relish the idea of sorting through 40 pages of banter to track down Fetzer's "multiple arguments" if I am to address them. So it's not at all clear that Burton hasn't done JF and JW a favour by merging the threads.
If they were serious about spreading the word about moon mission fakery, why did White present his evidence in a form such that only members of the EF have access to it? I couldn't look at the evidence White was presenting because I'm not a member there - fortunately Burton followed behind providing links to the original NASA pictures White was referring to, otherwise the discussion would have been impossible to follow. If the evidence is on White's side, why does he limit people's access to it?
As for the rest of it, I'm starting to feel like I've stepped into a twilight zone. The space suit in the two "fake" youtube clips match each other precisely. The space suits in the original Apollo 11 missions don't match the space suit in the youtube clips. The moontruth clip is a fake, and Fetzer and White's promotion of it and defense of it makes them look like buffoons. It isn't a "vendetta" for me to say so, it's just the simple, honest truth.
Dawson is quite uninformed. ALL of my studies have been
ONLINE for several years. Burton challenged Fetzer to debate
my online studies.
Peter Dawson Wrote:I'm not at all pleased that Burton merged the threads - it took the trio 5 pages of the 12 page thread to decide exactly how they would discuss things, and I don't relish the idea of sorting through 40 pages of banter to track down Fetzer's "multiple arguments" if I am to address them. So it's not at all clear that Burton hasn't done JF and JW a favour by merging the threads.
Peter, Magda has now archived the uncontaminated EF thread HERE, which might be a help to you.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Peter Dawson Wrote:As for the rest of it, I'm starting to feel like I've stepped into a twilight zone. The space suit in the two "fake" youtube clips match each other precisely. The space suits in the original Apollo 11 missions don't match the space suit in the youtube clips.
I don't see how they can match exactly, since the weight, size, height etc of the two different "moon walkers" would be impossible to accurately quantify just by looking a a film clip. What I believe you mean is that they "look" similar?
And in this regard I dare say that there are a number of theatrical clothing outlets used by film-makers that have quantities of the same looking space suit for rent -- just as one can rent Darth Vader outfits for fancy dress parties.
A current TV advert in the UK uses what looks to me to be an identical suit for Star Wars characters R2D2 and 3CPO.
The magic of cinema...
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Peter Dawson Wrote:As for the rest of it, I'm starting to feel like I've stepped into a twilight zone. The space suit in the two "fake" youtube clips match each other precisely. The space suits in the original Apollo 11 missions don't match the space suit in the youtube clips.
I don't see how they can match exactly, since the weight, size, height etc of the two different "moon walkers" would be impossible to accurately quantify just by looking a a film clip. What I believe you mean is that they "look" similar?
And in this regard I dare say that there are a number of theatrical clothing outlets used by film-makers that have quantities of the same looking space suit for rent -- just as one can rent Darth Vader outfits for fancy dress parties.
A current TV advert in the UK uses what looks to me to be an identical suit for Star Wars characters R2D2 and 3CPO.
Forgive me but I don't see that Dave's post 557 invalidates the thrust of my post above?
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
There is a fine but all-important line between exposing the EF and engaging it.
The former is the sworn duty of all who pursue truth and justice.
The latter is tantamount to collaboration.
Charles Drago
Co-Founder, Deep Politics Forum
If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence: He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave.
-- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods
You can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity.
-- Graham Greene
![[Image: Apollo%2013%20super%20astronaut%20Tom%20Hanks.jpg?]](http://midnightoil.squarespace.com/storage/midnight-oil-09-10/Apollo%2013%20super%20astronaut%20Tom%20Hanks.jpg?)
![[Image: 3ne3md3l25O45T55R1a7kcbae862205d81cea.jpg]](http://images.craigslist.org/3ne3md3l25O45T55R1a7kcbae862205d81cea.jpg)
