Fetzer/Burton Moon Landing Debate Finale

[Peter Dawson]

(I wrote the following just before the footage was introduced which made it clear to any reasonable observer that the moontruth footage is a recently made spoof, not a 1969 original.)

INTRODUCTION

At the outset I’d just like to say, even if I did become convinced that the moon landings were faked, it is something I’d keep strictly quarantined from my views about the JFK assassination and 9/11. I’m quite happy to have it known that I don’t believe the official story about the JFK murder and 9/11, and I’m willing to defend my views about these matters, and would welcome the opportunity to do so before a public audience. The murder of JFK and the attacks on 9/11/01 were crimes which led directly to far greater crimes, and it is of the utmost importance that the original crimes be addressed in the public sphere so that corrective action can be taken.

It is far less obvious to me that the (alleged) hoaxing of the moon landings has led directly to greater crimes of the order that the JFK assassination and 9/11 have. And the simple fact is that, having investigated all three, JFK and 9/11 strike me, and I’m not alone, as being obvious cases of the wider public having an inaccurate appreciation of what actually transpired – and an inaccurate appreciation which led and continues to lead to more injustice and suffering each and every day. Whereas in the case of the moon landings hoaxes, if it were true, it was never obviously a case of the public being deceived – for after looking in depth into the matter, I am still yet to be convinced that the landings were faked – and the only immediate consequences of the exposure of these alleged hoaxes would seem to be a harsh blow to the pride of the world’s only remaining superpower.

The crimes of the JFK assassination and 9/11 make the alleged crime of the hoaxing of the moon landings either insignificant or redundant as far as the consequences for the nations of the world are concerned, and with the moon landings hoaxes, a stigma is attached which makes the proponents of such conspiracy theories look like lunatics, simply due to the fact that it is very hard to marshall evidence in support of such theories (obviously, otherwise a collective of inquiring minds would long ago have put the matter to rest), so in that sense, it is a fight that a prudent person would avoid putting their dog in.

Obviously Jack White and James H Fetzer would disagree with me on this point.

Now let’s move on to the points where I don’t buy much of the evidence that White and Fetzer cite, and where this instills in me an unwillingness to trust their judgment at all on this matter, even in cases which cause me to have remaining doubts about the official Apollo missions story.

[Peter Dawson]

ISSUE #1

There seems to be a pattern to the claims made about the hoaxing of the moon landings. The temperature issue is a good example. The claim is that “the temperature on the moon ranges from 250 degrees in full sun, to -180 degrees in full shade – how the heck could any 1960s technology protect a fragile human being from those sort of temperatures?” But, as I only found out recently, the story is that the moon’s day lasts for 2 weeks, as does its night (corresponding to the 28 days between each full moon), and the 250 degree figure is reached after the sun has been shining on the same spot for 7 or more full days, and the coolest temperature is reached deep in the lunar night. The full story is that the missions were planned so that they always landed on a spot that was experiencing “early morning,” so the truth is they never had to endure anywhere near the -180 to 250 degree changes in temperature.

So the pattern is, particular details are swooped upon and taken completely out of context in order to make the moon missions appear entirely unlikely.

*

The first claims Jack White presents are to do with the “missing” rover tyre tracks. Some pictures have tyre tracks, but a lot don’t. Burton shows a picture which suggests the mechanism by which the rover “covers its own tracks” – the mesh of the tyres picks up and then drops material behind it.

Do we believe it?

Well surely, if the landings were faked, there would have been a lot of thinking gone into “continuity” issues – making sure they don’t show things that couldn’t have happened if the missions were genuine, making sure one scene captured on film didn’t contradict any other scene. So you would think, if they were doing these scenes on some sound stage, that tracks for the rover would be high on the list of things to make sure were present in the images released to the public. You would think that every scene with the rover in it would have rover tracks, and astronaut footprints, and nothing else. You would think that it would be more than just one person’s job to make sure they didn’t mess up the details of the fakery. Is it believable that they could release so many photos which seem to be impossible given that they fail to have the tracks that any reasonable person would assume would be present?

To me this is another case of the “common sense” view being revealed to be hyperbole once the details of the situation are fully examined. (Common sense tells you that man can't withstand -180 to 250 degree temperature swings given only 1960s space suit technology!) Yes, the lunar rover should leave tyre tracks. No, not all pictures of the lunar rover show tyre tracks. Rash conclusion: The moon landings were faked!!! The actual truth once the details are taken into account: The tyres of the rover proved to be surprisingly suited to redistributing dust they picked up so that it effectively covered its tracks in many instances.

[Jack White]

(I wrote the following just before the footage was introduced which made it clear to any reasonable observer that the moontruth footage is a recently made spoof, not a 1969 original.)

INTRODUCTION

At the outset I’d just like to say, even if I did become convinced that the moon landings were faked, it is something I’d keep strictly quarantined from my views about the JFK assassination and 9/11. I’m quite happy to have it known that I don’t believe the official story about the JFK murder and 9/11, and I’m willing to defend my views about these matters, and would welcome the opportunity to do so before a public audience. The murder of JFK and the attacks on 9/11/01 were crimes which led directly to far greater crimes, and it is of the utmost importance that the original crimes be addressed in the public sphere so that corrective action can be taken.

It is far less obvious to me that the (alleged) hoaxing of the moon landings has led directly to greater crimes of the order that the JFK assassination and 9/11 have. And the simple fact is that, having investigated all three, JFK and 9/11 strike me, and I’m not alone, as being obvious cases of the wider public having an inaccurate appreciation of what actually transpired – and an inaccurate appreciation which led and continues to lead to more injustice and suffering each and every day. Whereas in the case of the moon landings hoaxes, if it were true, it was never obviously a case of the public being deceived – for after looking in depth into the matter, I am still yet to be convinced that the landings were faked – and the only immediate consequences of the exposure of these alleged hoaxes would seem to be a harsh blow to the pride of the world’s only remaining superpower.

The crimes of the JFK assassination and 9/11 make the alleged crime of the hoaxing of the moon landings either insignificant or redundant as far as the consequences for the nations of the world are concerned, and with the moon landings hoaxes, a stigma is attached which makes the proponents of such conspiracy theories look like lunatics, simply due to the fact that it is very hard to marshall evidence in support of such theories (obviously, otherwise a collective of inquiring minds would long ago have put the matter to rest), so in that sense, it is a fight that a prudent person would avoid putting their dog in.

Obviously Jack White and James H Fetzer would disagree with me on this point.

Now let’s move on to the points where I don’t buy much of the evidence that White and Fetzer cite, and where this instills in me an unwillingness to trust their judgment at all on this matter, even in cases which cause me to have remaining doubts about the official Apollo missions story.

Please cite specific evidence which causes you doubt. ALL of my
studies are at

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.htm

Please cite studies you find incorrect. Jim and I will refute them
if they are supported by evidence, or admit we are wrong if you
submit contrary PROOF.

We disagree that the moon hoax is insignificant. NASA, which
was complicit in the hoax, still exists and still is spending millions
on secret projects.

To digress...please tell me the purpose of space shuttle orbit
missions. Please tell me what the purpose of the international
space subject is. Please tell me why six identical Apollo missions
were "sent to the moon" to do and redo and redo and redo the
exact same operations.

Jack

[Peter Dawson]

Please cite specific evidence which causes you doubt. ALL of my
studies are at

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.htm

Please cite studies you find incorrect. Jim and I will refute them
if they are supported by evidence, or admit we are wrong if you
submit contrary PROOF.

We disagree that the moon hoax is insignificant. NASA, which
was complicit in the hoax, still exists and still is spending millions
on secret projects.

To digress...please tell me the purpose of space shuttle orbit
missions. Please tell me what the purpose of the international
space subject is. Please tell me why six identical Apollo missions
were "sent to the moon" to do and redo and redo and redo the
exact same operations.

Jack

Start here, Jack.

[James H. Fetzer]

Jack has done so much good work and the thread has run so long that I hope Dawson will concentrate on the arguments that have already been presented. There are, of course, many more. A 2003 article from pravda.com, http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/15...9-moon-0/# , for example, raises quite a few issues that undermine American claims to have traveled to the moon. Radiation was only one of the reasons the Soviets did not try to send a man to the moon, but there were many others.

This article provides an inventory of excellent reasons for doubting that our own astronauts made it there, which may explain why President Obama has cancelled plans for a return to the moon, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8489097.stm He was probably appalled to discover that the whole moon landing business had been a hoax that was undertaken as a PR stunt to show we were keeping up with the Soviets! Some reasons for skepticism presented there Dawson may want to address:

(1) Even people ignorant of space technologies understand that then-level of technological and electronic development wouldn't allow to perform complicated space maneuvers connected with docking and undocking of the Apollo carrier rocket that was separated from the module with people inside it. What is more, return back of the carrier rocket was also quite a problem. The Apollo onboard computers performed even poorer than present-day calculators.

(2) The possibility of human survival in open space was also called into question. Did a space suit made of rubber and cloth in the 1960s protect people on the Moon, the planet having no atmospheric layers and magnetic fields? Could it protect from high radiation? The temperature of 250 Fahrenheit degrees below zero would immediately kill humans in such suits. But it was reported that none of the astronauts was even affected with radiation sickness.

(3) Former NASA staffer Bill Kaysing, the author of the book "NASA Never Landed a Man on the Moon", confessed that even the Agency itself considered the possibility of man's landing on the Moon was 0.0017% at that period (which was practically nothing!). It is not ruled out that Americans did fly to the Moon, but didn't advance further than its orbit. Robots did the rest of the work.

(4) However, it is also unlikely that 382 kilograms of Moon soil could be delivered to the Earth after three expeditions (Soviet Moon research vehicles brought just 0.3 kg), because additional kilograms of burden are risky for a rocket. The rest of the Moon expedition simulation was just a political trick, shooting made in pavilions that at the same time allowed the USA to spare billions of dollars. This version resembles the movie Capricorn-1. Probably, the movie was made with a view to rehabilitate America for its big lies.

(5) When the Apollo-Moon module system was studied more carefully, it became clear that two astronauts in space suits couldn't find room in the module, not to mention the Moon robot that couldn't be placed there even non-assembled. What is more, astronauts couldn't squeeze through a narrow tunnel between the space ship and the module. In fact, an exit hatch opens inward, not outside as the legendary documentary demonstrates.

(6) The documentary was probably shot in a cargo bay of a swooping supersonic airplane to create an effect of weightlessness. It is strange but not a single star could be seen on the pictures of the Moon flight. Stars are even brighter in space than as seen from the Earth. Instead, there was blue light streaming into the illuminators of the space ship, at the time when it is known that open space is absolutely black.

(7) Apollo landing was also strange: running of the engine didn't move a single stone or a speck of dust on the Moon surface. After that, the module settled on a flat surface. Pressure of a jet engine would inevitably make a crater on the place of landing while braking. As is know, the Moon gravitation makes up 1/6 of the Earth gravitation. A cloud of dust thrown from under the Apollo wheels should have been six times higher than depicted on the photos.

(8) As for the shadows that astronauts and their apparatuses cast on the Moon, they were of different length and direction, at the time when it is known that the Sun is the only source of light on the Moon. It may also seem strange that not a single picture of the Earth as seen from the Moon was made during the expedition. Movements of the astronauts looked as if the film was slowly played. It was obvious that jumping and moving was very difficult for the astronauts, but the jumping amplitude was very small. Even school children know that a man weighing 160 kilograms on the Earth would weight only 27 kg on the Moon, which would made him jump like a grasshopper.

Some of these tend to explain why the design plans for the moon lander and the moor rover no longer exist, not to mention why NASA would have had to erase its original footage lest anyone take a close look and discern the use of front-screen projection and other problems that have been noted in the course of this thread. The explanations given -- that NASA was trying to save money by reusing old tapes and that Grumann did not have room for the designs of these incredibly expensive space vehicles -- defy belief. I take for granted that Dawson not only accepts them but will defend them.

[quote name='Duane Daman' date='14 November 2010 - 11:44 PM' timestamp='1289774690' post='211805']
Here's more evidence that the Apollo Moon Landings were faked... Colonel Philip Corso had top secret security clearance with the US military .. He claimed that NASA couldn't send humans into space, beyond the magnetosphere.

Question to NASA open e-mail. Colonel Philip Corso Part 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp5kyoNfRP8&feature=sub

NASA won't answer any questions about their lack of radiation shielding protection concerning their spacesuits, or their Apollo craft.. Nor will they reply to any e-mails sent by those who want to know the truth about how they allegedly sent 24 humans to the Moon and back over 40 years ago, when that can't even be technically accomplished today.

The Chinese promised to send humans to the Moon by 2020 but have had to put their manned lunar missions on hold because of their inability to protect their taikonauts against deep space radiation.. They have even gone so far as to admit that they don't know how the Americans protected their astronauts against radiation in the 1960's and 70's, during the Apollo Program.

If you combine this evidence with the obviously staged Apollo photography, it leaves little doubt that Apollo was the scam of the century.
[/quote]

Please cite specific evidence which causes you doubt. ALL of my
studies are at

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.htm

Please cite studies you find incorrect. Jim and I will refute them
if they are supported by evidence, or admit we are wrong if you
submit contrary PROOF.

We disagree that the moon hoax is insignificant. NASA, which
was complicit in the hoax, still exists and still is spending millions
on secret projects.

To digress...please tell me the purpose of space shuttle orbit
missions. Please tell me what the purpose of the international
space subject is. Please tell me why six identical Apollo missions
were "sent to the moon" to do and redo and redo and redo the
exact same operations.

Jack

Start here, Jack.

[Peter Dawson]

Jack has done so much good work and the thread has run so long that I hope Dawson will concentrate on the arguments that have already been presented.

Why don't you concentrate on the arguments that have already been presented? You make a post which apparently is in response to a post I made, yet the only connection you make to the material I discuss in my post is to repeat the furphy that the astronauts had to endure temperatures 250 degrees below zero.

Why do you "hope Dawson will concentrate on the arguments that have already been presented" and then proceed to present a long list of entirely unreferenced claims about the moon missions?

[James H. Fetzer]

Why don't you quote more of the paragraph, which makes my point obvious? I response like yours makes no sense for anyone who reads what I wrote, as presumably you have done:

Jack has done so much good work and the thread has run so long that I hope Dawson will concentrate on the arguments that have already been presented. There are, of course, many more.

Incidentally, you would think that, in framing the patsy for JFK, they would give a lot of thought to the weapon they planted on him. But the one they used cannot have fired the bullets that killed JFK.

You would think they would make sure their patsy was in the right place at the right time. But Oswald was observed in and around the lunchroom at 11:50 AM, at Noon, at 12:15 PM and as late as 12:25 PM by coworkers.

And within 90 secs, he was confronted by a motorcycle officer who held him in his sights until Roy Truly, his supervisor, explained that he worked there. And Marina would later observed that Lee admired JFK.

So the man the Warren Commission fingered for the crime had neither the means, the motive, or the opportunity to have killed him. So much for your style of reasoning about these things. I hope you can do better!

Jack has done so much good work and the thread has run so long that I hope Dawson will concentrate on the arguments that have already been presented.

Why don't you concentrate on the arguments that have already been presented? You make a post which apparently is in response to a post I made, yet the only connection you make to the material I discuss in my post is to repeat the furphy that the astronauts had to endure temperatures 250 degrees below zero.

Why do you "hope Dawson will concentrate on the arguments that have already been presented" and then proceed to present a long list of entirely unreferenced claims about the moon missions?

[Jack White]

Jim...you need to remove this sentence AS WRITTEN.

It may also seem strange that not a single picture of the Earth as seen from the Moon was made during the expedition.

Photos of the earth ALLEGED to have been made from the moon do exist.
Some of my studies show that these photos have been ADDED. I will try
to find and post an example.

Jack

[Jack White]

Study showing pasted in earth photo.

Jack

[Peter Dawson]

Study showing pasted in earth photo.

Jack

Have you shown this study to anyone in order to have your findings confirmed, Jack?