Fetzer/Burton Moon Landing Debate Finale

[David Guyatt]

It's a good point Charlie and one I'm mindful of.

But all the same it is duly noted.

[James H. Fetzer]

Revisiting the forum just now, I have discovered they are still there as posts #571 and #572. So either Duane was mistaken when he told me they had been deleted or else Evan Burton reposted them. I am the least bit puzzled by Charles' remark, which has the flavor of "Either you are with us or your are against us!" I began on the EF and have only gradually become aware of the virtues of the DPF, which I am coming to appreciate more and more with each absurdity.

After I posted two emails from Duane Daman, Evan Burton deleted them, once again displaying the extent of his abuse of position and dereliction of duty. In case there is a question here, I have engaged it and in the process exposed it -- rather like keeping your friends close but your enemies closer! In any case, I think this exercise has exposed profound corruption by Evan Burton and the Education Forum:

The Education Forum: (Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread

#571 James H. Fetzer

Posted Today, 04:51 PM

Duane Daman seems to me to have captured the spirit of your enterprise exactly in
this message he sent me, where his competence seems to greatly exceed your own:

Jim,

I see that Greer is still harping on the SUITS, JIM, THE SUITS!!!

And of course Burton has now brought something you posted on another forum about
radiation, to continue his ridicule of you... The RADIATION, JIM, THE RADIATION!!!

The problem with his "expert" source for radiation, is that he's also a NASA shill just
parroting typical NASA disinformation about how "safe" the Apollo astronauts were ...
NASA's story is that the Apollo astronauts "raced through the Van Allen belts", so they
had very little radiation exposure... It's the same script on every NASA site and on every
forum where Apollo is defended... Well, not always the same script.. When NASA's shills
started defending Apollo, the alleged time for the "race through the belts" was around
4 hours... That time later morophed into about 30 minutes, and now the claim is down
to just a few minutes... Plus, if you read the letter Burton posted, it's obvious that this
guy's only real "expertise" concerns Skylab, which is located in low earth orbit.

These shills are relentless when it comes to defending the Apollo fraud... What they all
really fail to address though, is the fact that radiation beyond the magnetosphere is
much more dangerous than it is in earth orbit.

Duane

Evan Burton, on 13 November 2010 - 05:06 AM, said:
I'm going to refer to this post of Jims from another forum:

http://www.deeppolit...55&postcount=14

A forum member raises the issue of a radiation paper, and Jim attempts to dismiss the paper because he couldn't find the credentials of an author, J. Vernon Bailey. In a prior post he asks that Dr John Costella comment on the paper. Since Dr Costella is a member of this forum, I would welcome his comments on the report, BIOMEDICAL RESULTS OF APOLLO (NASA SP-368, NASA Science and Technical Information Office, 1975), specifically section II chapter 3: Radiation Protection and Instrumentation, which was authored by J. Vernon Bailey.

As always (it would seem), Jim doesn't give you all the facts (lest you be informed). He fails to mention that all material for the publication was reviewed by an editorial board. Who was on that board?

editorial board.jpg

Not only was he qualified enough to be on the editorial board, he was in good company.

So, who was J. Vernon Bailey? Well, he was the Chief of the Environmental Health Branch at the Johnson Space Center, Houston.

http://ieeexplore.ie...rnumber=4328485

He co-authored NASA papers like:

APOLLO EXPERIENCE REPORT – PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION (NASA Technical Note D-7080, March 1973)

THERMOLUMINESCENT DOSIMETRY FOR THE APOLLO 16 MICROBIAL RESPONSE TO SPACE ENVIRONMENT EXPERIMENT (M191) (Johnson Space Center, May 1973)

VISUAL LIGHT FLASH OBSERVATIONS ON SKYLAB 4 (Johnson Space Center, January 1977)

RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION AND MEDICAL DOSIMETRY FOR THE SKYLAB CREWMEN (Johnson Space Center, January 1977)

Mn CARBONATES IN THE MARTIAN METEORITE NAKHLA: POSSIBLE EVIDENCE OF BRINE EVAPORATION (Johnson Space Center, 2003)

PHYSICAL DOSIMETRIC EVALUATIONS IN THE APOLLO 16 MICROBIAL RESPONSE EXPERIMENT (Johnson Space Center, January 1975)

APOLLO LIGHT FLASH INVESTIGATIONS (Johnson Space Center, July 1975)

HEAVY COSMIC-RAY EXPOSURE OF APOLLO ASTRONAUTS (Johnson Space Center, January 1975)

RADIATION PROTECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION (Johnson Space Center, July 1975)

FLUX OF HIGH-LET COSMIC-RAY PARTICLES IN MANNED SPACE FLIGHT (Johnson Space Center, January 1975)

DOSIMETRY DURING SPACE MISSIONS (Johnson Space Center, August 1976)

In addition, we find during the 98th Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association and Meetings of Related Organizations (26-30 October 1970, Convention and Exhibit Hall, Civic Center Houston, Texas), there is a presenter:

Radiation Exposure of American Astronauts. J. Vernon Bailey, Ph.D.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....00037-0001a.pdf

So, just what are your qualifications, Jim, with respect to the biomedical effects of radiation and radiation shielding effectiveness for space travel? I'll save you the trouble: NONE. Once more, you arrogantly assume you know more than others because it suits your ego.

Of course, you are going to ask my qualifications in this area; I have NONE also…. but I did contact those people who did have the qualifications and expertise, and sought guidance from them. In January 2007, I contacted Dr Richard Setlow. Dr Setlow is Senior Biophysicist Emeritus at the Brookhaven National Laboratory and a Member of the National Academy of Sciences. He is an expert in the effects of radiation on cells, and has co-authored numerous papers on space radiation. He was recently honoured for his life work:

http://www.bnl.gov/t...sp?ITEM_NO=1435

I asked:

Dear Sir,

I refer to a report which you chaired in 1996, Radiation Hazards to Crews of Interplanetary Missions. Firstly, some quick background. I am one of the many people who, on what seems like a daily basis, try to rebut arguments put forward by people who claim that the Apollo missions were faked by NASA. I have an aviation background, not physics or biological sciences.

The above report is being discussed on a forum which (despite its name) tries to dispel the myth that Apollo was somehow faked. The link to the relevant section (a discussion on space radiation) is: http://apollohoax.pr...4878798&page=12

To cut a long story short, could I ask two brief questions:

1. Was radiation / exposure data from Apollo considered (amongst other sources) when making the report's determinations?

2. Do the report's findings (in any way) support the proposition that radiation should have killed (or at least seriously harmed) astronauts on a typical 14-day Apollo lunar landing mission?

I would also ask permission to post your reply to the thread linked above.

Thank you for your time.

He replied to me:

Dear Evan,

The Committee considered all sources of radations in Space. We concluded that Solar Particle Events (SPE) would be the major source of radiation exposures supplemented by the cosmic ray background composed of many types of particles including heavy nuclei. To the best of my knowledge, all space missions carry devices to measure the radiation doses. Astronauts should not be outside of a space craft if there were an SPE. They should be shielded inside the space craft. Hence, radiation exposures for Apollo missions would be very small. Hence, I believe that radiation exposures from Apollo missions were very small, unless astronauts stayed outside during an SPE about which they would have been informed.

You could get simple, short descriptions of what is known from 2 summaries that I wrote: (1) " The U.S National Research Council's views of the radiation hazards in space" Mutation Research (1999) 430, 169-175 and (2) " The hazards of space travel" EMBO Reports (2003) 4, 1013-1016. Radiation is only one of the hazards. Microgravity is another.

Sincerely yours,

Richard Setlow

People far more qualified than you have looked at these areas, and know they are not faked.
Reply
______________________________________________________________

#572 James H. Fetzer

Posted Today, 04:57 PM

Here's another example of Duane's competence. I am a philosopher, not a psychologist,
but he has correctly observed that the astronauts do not act as though they are actually
deserving of the accolades that have been bestowed upon them. This is a nice example.

Jim,

I believe part of your expertise is in psychology... Have you ever seen this Neil Armstrong interview?

Check out his awkward, nervous behavior when questioned about how many people walked
on the Moon and his choice of words to describe his "greatest achievement".

Neil replies... " No, I just don't deserve it" ... "Circumstance put me that particular ROLE".

Also notice the way he squirms, scratches his neck, scratches his ear and clicks his throat
while answering.. As you know, these are all mannerisms of a guilty person who's not being
truthful.

All of Armstrong's public behavior reeks of guilt, but none quite so obvious as in this interview.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqzbnSymE2w


Duane

6 User(s) are reading this topic
2 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users

James H. Fetzer, Dave Greer

Time Now: Nov 13 2010 04:59 PM

[James H. Fetzer]

As Magda mentioned to me in relation to the first page of this EF thread, Evan Burton has violated his own stipulations:

I will cease all use of moderator powers in this thread, with the exception of making invisible posts by persons other than the debate participants (Burton, White, Fetzer and mods). I will not edit or otherwise action posts made by the debate participants regardless of their content. All decisions regarding the debate will be made by the mods, and their decisions shall be full and final. The mods shall NOT include me in any discussion regarding their actions. If the mods wish to ask me a question, they shall post the question openly on the thread. The mods may consult with Jack White / Jim Fetzer privately, keeping their communications with them confidential from both myself and other Forum members.

The rest of the pages will be up tomorrow. In the interests of transparency and freedom of speech and all that :lollypop:

[Peter Dawson]

Forgive me but I don't see that Dave's post 557 invalidates the thrust of my post above?

If you are arguing, as Fetzer and White are/were, that the 34 second "moontruth" footage is direct evidence of the faking of the Apollo 11 moon landing, then why, upon close examination, doesn't the suit in that footage visually match the suits used by Apollo 11 astronauts? Why, instead, does the suit used in the "moontruth" footage match the suit used in other footage, both of which have been claimed to have been made by Adam Stewart of The Viral Factory, 10 or so years ago?

And if you are arguing, with Fetzer and White, that the 34 second "moontruth" footage is evidence that the Apollo 11 moon landing could have been faked, then if, like Fetzer and White, you at one point maintained that the footage was genuine 1969 footage of the actual faking of the thought-to-be-real-but-actually-fake Apollo 11 moon landing - and with the footage being revealed as a spoof upon the most cursory investigation - don't you think the credibility you require to speak on the subject is by now shot to hell?

If you never agreed with Fetzer and White that the "moontruth" footage might be genuine footage of the faking of the thought-to-be-real-but-actually-fake Apollo 11 moon landing, but you still take their point that it none-the-less is evidence that the faking of the Apollo 11 moon landing is at least technically possible, then I, Sir, would give you the floor, because among those on this thread who wish to champion the idea that the moon landings were faked, you have by far the most credibility.

[James H. Fetzer]

I can't resist commenting that Dawson commits several fallacies in posing his questions to David Guyatt. The "rehearsal" footage doesn't have to qualify as "direct evidence" to carry weight, for example, since it illustrates that faking the footage would have been technically possible. In conjunction with other indications of fakery -- the missing rover tracks, the lighting from a nearby source, the use of front-screen projection, the wires employed to make the movements of the astronauts appear to be in a weak gravitational field, and other forms of fakery -- it strongly suggest that, unlike the recent "spoof" footage, the "rehearsal" footage was serious. Moreover, for Dawson to maintain that "the most cursory investigation" shows that it was simply a spoof indicates a diminished capacity for research involving fakery of this kind. We not only do not know that Adam Stewart was involved in this but we don't even know what he may or may not have said about it, much less his reasons for doing so, if he did. Persons in far less stressful positions make false claims all the time. The presumption that Adam Stewart's saying so would make it true is simply taking for granted the conclusion he prefers, and does not show that it is true. So Dawson's arguments here, like others he has advanced, are very weak and lacking in force. Indeed, apart from these fallacies, he has very little so say. David's credibility appears to be intact.

Forgive me but don't see that Dave's post 557 invalidates the thrust of my post above?

If you are arguing, as Fetzer and White are/were, that the 34 second "moontruth" footage is direct evidence of the faking of the Apollo 11 moon landing, then why, upon close examination, doesn't the suit in that footage visually match the suits used by Apollo 11 astronauts? Why, instead, does the suit used in the "moontruth" footage match the suit used in other footage, both of which have been claimed to have been made by Adam Stewart of The Viral Factory, 10 or so years ago.

And if you are arguing, with Fetzer and White, that the 34 second "moontruth" footage is evidence that the Apollo 11 moon landing could have been faked, then if, like Fetzer and White, you at one point maintained that the footage was genuine 1969 footage of the actual faking of the thought-to-be-real-but-actually-fake Apollo 11 moon landing - and with the footage being revealed as a spoof upon the most cursory investigation - don't you think the credibility you require to speak on the subject is by now shot to hell?

If you never agreed with Fetzer and White that the "moontruth" footage might be genuine footage of the faking of the thought-to-be-real-but-actually-fake Apollo 11 moon landing, but you still take their point that it none-the-less is evidence that the faking of the Apollo 11 moon landing is at least technically possible, then I, Sir, would give you the floor, because among those on this thread who wish to champion the idea that the moon landings were faked, you have by far the most credibility.

[Charles Drago]

I am the least bit puzzled by Charles' remark, which has the flavor of "Either you are with us or your are against us!" I began on the EF and have only gradually become aware of the virtues of the DPF, which I am coming to appreciate more and more with each absurdity.

Jim,

I'm pleased to solve your puzzle.

In order to preserve the very uncertainty upon which it depends for survival, our enemy must preserve the illusion of a level playing field for the conspiracy and non-conspiracy arguments regarding events that have been demonstrated to be, to the degree of metaphysical certitude, conspiratorial in nature.

Each time we address the enemy's mouthpieces without identifying them as such and with the implicit stipulation that their positions, no matter how flawed, are honorably arrived at and represented, we aid and abet the enemy.

This entire thread is nothing other than a transparent attempt to re-infiltrate the EF's disinformation agents into the DPF. And you have been sucked into the operation hook, line, and sinker.

I am not putting forward a DPF or EF ultimatum, and you should know it. So for Christ's sake put aside your tender sensibilities and see the bigger issues. Far too often you are all too ready to be offended. What is at stake is vastly more significant than you and me and this or any other Internet venture. I couldn't care less about your history with the EF; it is irrelevant to the matters at hand.

I reiterate:

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.

You are engaging Burton, et al.

Charles

[James H. Fetzer]

I don't know what's "tender" about my sensibilities in sensing that you were suggesting I was collaborating with the enemy! For a former Marine Corps officer, that's rather strong language. I have been active at the EF far longer than I have been active here, but I have done what I can to set the record straight about whatever issues I have dealt with. I really don't understand this -- to me, seeming change in -- attitude. I take on intellectual opponents on a wide range of issues -- JFK, 9/11, Wellstone, now the moon landing hoax -- but, even when I have not trusted my opponents, I have not supposed that I was betraying the faith. I knew that I was being baited into debating this issue, but I wanted to sort it out at some point in time, and the opportunity presented itself. Jack has done so much about it and, from what I had done on my own, I was confident that we could lay out the evidence and make the case, which, in fact, we have done. I simply did not anticipate the degree of duplicity and deception that I would encounter there. Perhaps that was the least bit naive on my part, but I don't see where it deserves your censure. You may be better at sizing up liars and cheats, but I don't see why my efforts to "engage the enemy" is thereby making it stronger. For those who appreciate what's going on, it exposes their techniques and makes them more obvious to a wider audience. I feel your opprobrium, but I do not understand why you think I have done something wrong. I really don't. I'm not saying your are wrong, but I don't see why you think you are right. In my opinion, this exercise has exposed the illusion and shattered it to bits. If we don't expose their lies and duplicity, they are going to continue to take others in. Any fair and balanced person, I submit, learned from this -- not just about the moon landing hoax, but the underhanded methods of an enemy we all despise.

I am the least bit puzzled by Charles' remark, which has the flavor of "Either you are with us or your are against us!" I began on the EF and have only gradually become aware of the virtues of the DPF, which I am coming to appreciate more and more with each absurdity.

Jim,

I'm pleased to solve your puzzle.

In order to preserve the very uncertainty upon which it depends for survival, our enemy must preserve the illusion of a level playing field for the conspiracy and non-conspiracy arguments regarding events that have been demonstrated to be, to the degree of metaphysical certitude, conspiratorial in nature.

Each time we address the enemy's mouthpieces without identifying them as such and with the implicit stipulation that their positions, no matter how flawed, are honorably arrived at and represented, we aid and abet the enemy.

This entire thread is nothing other than a transparent attempt to re-infiltrate the EF's disinformation agents into the DPF. And you have been sucked into the operation hook, line, and sinker.

I am not putting forward a DPF or EF ultimatum, and you should know it. So for Christ's sake put aside your tender sensibilities and see the bigger issues. Far too often you are all too ready to be offended. What is at stake is vastly more significant than you and me and this or any other Internet venture. I couldn't care less about your history with the EF; it is irrelevant to the matters at hand.

I reiterate:

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.

You are engaging Burton, et al.

Charles

[David Guyatt]

Peter, Magda has now posted the balance of the "merged" EF thread, so you are now able to proceed with your point by point analysis, which I'm interested in reading...

[Peter Dawson]

Peter, Magda has now posted the balance of the "merged" EF thread, so you are now able to proceed with your point by point analysis, which I'm interested in reading...

It's sleep-time in my part of the world, David, so I'll leave you with a few pages to visit, if you're interested, until I get a chance to respond (I've done little towards preparing the response which I have offered to give, due to the state of bemusement I find myself in, on account of the effect the debate has had on me thus far):

http://www.xenophilia.com/zb0003a.htm

And here the 2007 Japanese Probe Kaguya reproduces the landcape depicted in the Apollo 15 and 17 missions (half way down the page).

[David Guyatt]

Going back over this thread I saw that Jim Fetzer had linked the following story:

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

Moon landing tapes got erased, NASA admits

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor
WASHINGTON | Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:49pm EDT
(Reuters) - The original recordings of the first humans landing on the moon 40 years ago were erased and re-used, but newly restored copies of the original broadcast look even better, NASA officials said on Thursday.

NASA released the first glimpses of a complete digital make-over of the original landing footage that clarifies the blurry and grainy images of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walking on the surface of the moon.

The full set of recordings, being cleaned up by Burbank, California-based Lowry Digital, will be released in September. The preview is available at http://www.nasa.gov.

NASA admitted in 2006 that no one could find the original video recordings of the July 20, 1969, landing.

Since then, Richard Nafzger, an engineer at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, who oversaw television processing at the ground-tracking sites during the Apollo 11 mission, has been looking for them.

The good news is he found where they went. The bad news is they were part of a batch of 200,000 tapes that were degaussed -- magnetically erased -- and re-used to save money.

"The goal was live TV," Nafzger told a news conference.

"We should have had a historian running around saying 'I don't care if you are ever going to use them -- we are going to keep them'," he said.

They found good copies in the archives of CBS news and some recordings called kinescopes found in film vaults at Johnson Space Center.

Lowry, best known for restoring old Hollywood films, has been digitizing these along with some other bits and pieces to make a new rendering of the original landing.

Nafzger does not worry that using a Hollywood-based company might fuel the fire of conspiracy theorists who believe the entire lunar program that landed people on the moon six times between 1969 and 1972 was staged on a movie set or secret military base.

"This company is restoring historic video. It mattered not to me where the company was from," Nafzger said.

"The conspiracy theorists are going to believe what they are going to believe," added Lowry Digital Chief Operating Officer Mike Inchalik.

And there may be some unofficial copies of the original broadcast out there somewhere that were taken from a NASA video switching center in Sydney, Australia, the space agency said. Nafzger said someone else in Sydney made recordings too.

"These tapes are not in the system," Nafzger said. "We are certainly open to finding them."

In view of the uniquely historic importance of these tapes, I am deeply suspicious of the claim that "the original recordings of the first humans landing on the moon 40 years ago were erased and re-used" to save money.

This to me has the stink of skunk all over it. "Loosing" such footage would be in-credible enough in itself, but erasing it and then re-using it is simply not believable imo.

This "poor us" NASA hang-out is problematical. I feel sure that the tapes had a unique value and therefore would have had serious collectors lining up by the score to bid for them in an open auction - and would have paid an awful lot of money for them as unique collectibles -- in fact a great deal more money than the value of the bare tape itself.

This argument is akin to NASA arguing to "degausse" a rare Rembrandt or a Van Gogh in order to save money so that they could reuse the canvas?

Are they kidding me?

There is no logic or common sense in this claim.

Frankly I don't buy it.