Fetzer/Burton Moon Landing Debate Finale

[James H. Fetzer]

Just a note to thank Jack White, Duane Damon, Tom Kellum, Peter Lemkin, Dave Guyatt, Malcolm Pryce, Charles Drago, and everyone else, including Peter Dawson, who has taken an interest in this thread. I have learned a lot from the exchange and am still learning. I also like Dave Guyatt's post #164 better than my own #163, for all of the obvious reasons. I like the DPF as a deeper and far more reflective intellectual environment than the EF, even when we occasionally disagree. So I write to wish you all HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

[Peter Dawson]

Peter,

The point I was making is that I have been actively researching complex and controversial issues for two decades and no one has laughed at me yet. So I take this to be yet another example where you simply don't know what you are talking about. I do not think you are a disinformation agent, but rather a solitary soul who has not come to grips with the limitations of his intellect.

When you acknowledged you didn't know the answers to points (8), (9), and (10), it was apparent to everyone here--with the possible exception of you--that you don't know enough to continue this exchange. While it is true that many are unwilling to debate the issue because they run the risk of ridicule by an ignorant public, that is not true of me, as I presume that you can see.

I have been tackling the task in this public forum and on the EF, where, if I were concerned about the opinions of others, I would not be defending the case for the proposition that the moon landings were a hoax. I gather the very idea transcends the boundaries of your imagination. So be it. But let us not continue to debate an issue when you are so obviously unprepared.

One additional point of logic. For the moon landings to have actually taken place, a rather large number of events have to have taken place. To show it is false, it is only necessary to expose some of them as fraudulent, not all. I offered ten points that strongly suggest the landings were faked, which you could not rebut. That suggests the evidence is on my side, not yours.

And do you not appreciate the inconsistency between observing (correctly) that arguments should stand on their own, while appealing to the absence of an organization of Scholars for Moon Truth as though it undermined those I have presented, such as (8), (9), and (10)? Those arguments, after all, seriously undermine the position you are attempting to uphold.

Enough, Peter. There is no point. But thank you for having done your best.

Jim

Arguments should stand or fall on their own merits, yes, and if there is no one prepared to even present a particular argument, then that tells us something. And in the case of the moon hoax theory, there isn't a thousand-strong group of professionals who have joined together to question the authenticity of the moon landings, as we have seen happen in the case of 9/11. And note that 9/11 is less than 10 years old, whereas the moon missions are over 40 years old.

[B](8) Do you actually believe that NASA "lost" the Moonwalking footage "back in the 1970s", which was surely the world's most precious strips of videos?[/B]

There is no large and growing group of scientists protesting the 'suspicious' nature of this loss of footage.

[B](9) Did you realize that none of the footage broadcast was actually "live" but that it was all "displayed on a monitor and re-shot by a TV camera" first?

[/B]
Yes I did, actually. There is no large and growing group of scientists protesting the 'suspicious' nature of the method used to transmit images from the moon to the earth.

[B](10) Do you realize that this means the scientific community does not have data to verify the authenticity of the flights that NASA claims to have made?

[/B]
I don't agree that that is what this means, and again, the absence of a large and growing group of scientists protesting the 'suspicious' nature of this loss of material is an indication that there likely isn't a strong case to be made that that is what this means.

What you fail to take into account is the fact that for a hoax to work a whole bagful of data would have had to have been fabricated, from thin air, and given out to scientists for analysis upon the occasion of each Apollo mission - and from that day to this, any new collection of data would stand to expose the Apollo data as being fraudulent, because to falsify data accurately, across all the areas where data was collected on the moon missions, would be akin to winning the lottery once a week for an entire year. And that is quite unlikely.

[James H. Fetzer]

Peter,

I am not writing to extend our debate, but to correct something I said that was false--or at least ambiguous. When I said no one had "laughed at me", I meant among my colleagues, which was the claim your were making. But I have most certainly encountered lots of ridicule, sarcasm, and other ad hominem attacks for my research on JFK, Wellstone, and 9/11 from certain members of the so-called "research community". Josiah Thompson , for example, for years made me the butt of his attacks for my support of the fabrication of the Zapruder film and others continue to this day. A former friend created a web site just to "debunk" my work on Wellstone. And I have been attacked many times for various aspects of my research on 9/11, including anomalies about the planes at all four of the crash sites. So I hoped you might post and give me a chance to correct the record. I have been attacked but I have persevered. So perhaps that is the more important aspect of my research. Sorry abut that. I've been assailed again and again, but I'm still here.

Jim

Peter,

The point I was making is that I have been actively researching complex and controversial issues for two decades and no one has laughed at me yet. So I take this to be yet another example where you simply don't know what you are talking about. I do not think you are a disinformation agent, but rather a solitary soul who has not come to grips with the limitations of his intellect.

When you acknowledged you didn't know the answers to points (8), (9), and (10), it was apparent to everyone here--with the possible exception of you--that you don't know enough to continue this exchange. While it is true that many are unwilling to debate the issue because they run the risk of ridicule by an ignorant public, that is not true of me, as I presume that you can see.

I have been tackling the task in this public forum and on the EF, where, if I were concerned about the opinions of others, I would not be defending the case for the proposition that the moon landings were a hoax. I gather the very idea transcends the boundaries of your imagination. So be it. But let us not continue to debate an issue when you are so obviously unprepared.

One additional point of logic. For the moon landings to have actually taken place, a rather large number of events have to have taken place. To show it is false, it is only necessary to expose some of them as fraudulent, not all. I offered ten points that strongly suggest the landings were faked, which you could not rebut. That suggests the evidence is on my side, not yours.

And do you not appreciate the inconsistency between observing (correctly) that arguments should stand on their own, while appealing to the absence of an organization of Scholars for Moon Truth as though it undermined those I have presented, such as (8), (9), and (10)? Those arguments, after all, seriously undermine the position you are attempting to uphold.

Enough, Peter. There is no point. But thank you for having done your best.

Jim

Arguments should stand or fall on their own merits, yes, and if there is no one prepared to even present a particular argument, then that tells us something. And in the case of the moon hoax theory, there isn't a thousand-strong group of professionals who have joined together to question the authenticity of the moon landings, as we have seen happen in the case of 9/11. And note that 9/11 is less than 10 years old, whereas the moon missions are over 40 years old.

[B](8) Do you actually believe that NASA "lost" the Moonwalking footage "back in the 1970s", which was surely the world's most precious strips of videos?[/B]

There is no large and growing group of scientists protesting the 'suspicious' nature of this loss of footage.

[B](9) Did you realize that none of the footage broadcast was actually "live" but that it was all "displayed on a monitor and re-shot by a TV camera" first?

[/B]
Yes I did, actually. There is no large and growing group of scientists protesting the 'suspicious' nature of the method used to transmit images from the moon to the earth.

[B](10) Do you realize that this means the scientific community does not have data to verify the authenticity of the flights that NASA claims to have made?

[/B]
I don't agree that that is what this means, and again, the absence of a large and growing group of scientists protesting the 'suspicious' nature of this loss of material is an indication that there likely isn't a strong case to be made that that is what this means.

What you fail to take into account is the fact that for a hoax to work a whole bagful of data would have had to have been fabricated, from thin air, and given out to scientists for analysis upon the occasion of each Apollo mission - and from that day to this, any new collection of data would stand to expose the Apollo data as being fraudulent, because to falsify data accurately, across all the areas where data was collected on the moon missions, would be akin to winning the lottery once a week for an entire year. And that is quite unlikely.

[David Guyatt]

I'm guessing you went public as a moon hoax proponent after you retired, and not before. Am I right, Professor Fetzer?

For the record this is an ad hom.

Because I'm sure you'd be laughed out of every university in the land - except the mail-order ones - for posting this response, at this point in time, given the information we have all been provided with on this thread.

As is this.

I hardly think it's ad hominum to point out that someone's views run counter to the vast majority of educated opinion on a given subject.

Peter, I'm just going to tackle this specific point because you don't appear to know, or wish to know, what an ad hom actually is.

Definition of Ad Hominem

Etymology:

From the Latin, "against the man"

Examples and Observations:

"The abusive ad hominem is not just a case of directing abusive language toward another person. . . . The fallacy is committed when one engages in a personal attack as a means of ignoring, discrediting, or blunting the force of another's argument.

"Although some faulty arguers may call attention to distasteful features of their opponents in order to manipulate the responses of their audience, most abusers apparently believe that such characteristics actually provide good reasons for ignoring or discrediting the arguments of those who have them. Logically, of course, the fact that any of these characteristics might fit an opponent provides no reason to ignore or discredit his or arguments or criticisms."
(T. E. Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning. Wadsworth, 2001)

Your statement that Jim Fetzer would be laughed out of every university in the land - except the mail order ones - is by absolute definition an ad hom attack. And was intended to be so. You claims of innocence not-withstanding.

You also have yet to establish in any way, that the vast majority of "educated opinion" run counter to moon hoax proponents. Indeed, it would be impossible to do so without taking a very large sample of thoughts from educated people. Have you done this? No, of course not. In other words you are simply using a well known device to load your words with an authority they do not have. It's a lazy and dishonest technique.

Moving along. In your post No. 169 to Charlie you say:

None of the agenda of a forum like the DFP is compromised by having moon mission believers among its members, that I can see, but I would put it to you that the general agenda of a place like the DPF is clearly at risk of being compromised if belief that the missions were faked becomes a prerequisite to being considered above suspicion at this place - to say nothing of the prospect of it becoming a prerequisite to remaining a member here.

I for one would much like to see a moon mission believer here, presenting evidence and sound arguments in support of their views - rather than simply reiterating their opinions, or else rolling up their sleeves to engage in yet more verbal punch up.

And since a few posters here have already stated that they are open to persuasion on the subject by sound reasoning and good evidence - myself included - and since there is a daily audience of hundreds who do not post -I think your comments about the DPF being compromised by there being a "prerequisite" for missions fakers, to be yet another example of your penchant for diversion, mud-slinging and fact "avoidance".

Based on your posts exhibited in this thread to date, the only thing the DPF is "at risk of" is becoming a permanent sounding board for your personal vendetta and vexaciousness.

[Charles Drago]

Moving along. In your post No. 169 to Charlie you say:

None of the agenda of a forum like the DFP is compromised by having moon mission believers among its members, that I can see, but I would put it to you that the general agenda of a place like the DPF is clearly at risk of being compromised if belief that the missions were faked becomes a prerequisite to being considered above suspicion at this place - to say nothing of the prospect of it becoming a prerequisite to remaining a member here.

David, et al,

These characters can't help but give themselves away every time they take cyber-pen to cyber-paper.

I never stated, wrote, or implied -- on this forum or anyplace else -- that belief in Apollo fakery is a "prerequisite to being considered above suspicion."

"Dawson" is engaging in a classic strawman game -- which is precisely what his ilk do when cornered. At the EF, for example, this tactic is routinely employed by "Colby" and Burton (the latter, by the way, avoids incarceration in quotation marks/inverted commas because, unlike the Bozo from Brazil, he has sufficient command of the language to paraphrase his orders).

I too am no longer in a position to influence the DPF directly. But as a co-founder of this extraordanary site, like you I remain protective of its integrity and mission.

And so once again I state for the record that, in my considered and expert judgement, "Dawson" is a disinformation agent sent by our shared enemy to aid in the infiltration of our Deep Politics Forum by the likes of Burton and otherwise to penetrate and disrupt this site and its operation.

[Charles Drago]

Just a note to thank Jack White, Duane Damon, Tom Kellum, Peter Lemkin, Dave Guyatt, Malcolm Pryce, Charles Drago, and everyone else, including Peter Dawson, who has taken an interest in this thread. I have learned a lot from the exchange and am still learning. I also like Dave Guyatt's post #164 better than my own #163, for all of the obvious reasons. I like the DPF as a deeper and far more reflective intellectual environment than the EF, even when we occasionally disagree. So I write to wish you all HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

Jim, Jack, Peter, David, and Additional DPF Co-Founders and Friends,

I second Jim's sentiments as expressed above. And I am grateful to him for the benefits of his insight and scholarship especially as they manifest during our spirited disagreements.

And so, as Americans celebrate the invasion of this continent and, by extension, the literal and cultural genocides of its native inhabitants, I thank all of you for your comraderie, courage, and strength.

Best,

Charles

[James H. Fetzer]

Peter,

Ask yourself, for serious scientists to become involved, they need data. Since NASA has taken steps to insure that there is no data, it takes a very special kind of scientist to become involved. The case is murky, messy, and politically loaded. Few scientists are going to be willing to run the kinds of risks involved from being assailed for contesting the moon hoax.

Those who are familiar with the Van Allen Radiation Belt, however, are in the category of knowing that the moon landing story has to be a fraud, but so many receive funding from the government and want to stay out of controversies, especially politically loaded like this, they are unlikely to speak the truth. That is not commendable, but it's how things are, alas!

Serious scientists who do become involved, however, would reach the same conclusion after studying the case as it has been laid out here, namely: that the weight of the evidence supports the occurrence of a massive deception. The points I quote that Dave McGowan makes in (8), (9), and (10), moreover, may also explain why more scientists are not involved.

It is another fallacy, by the way, known as the appeal to popular sentiments, to reason from "Most people believe X" to the conclusion "X is true". Most people have (at one time or another) believed that Earth is flat, that a lone gunman killed Lincoln (JFK, RFK, or MLK), that we were justified in invading Iraq and Afghanistan, or that man really did go to the moon.

If you could disabuse yourself of the invocation of various fallacies, such as the straw man (by offering an exaggerated version of my position to make it easier to attack), the ad hominen (by attacking me instead of my arguments), special pleading (by citing only evidence faborable to your side), and popular sentiments, you might be able to sort all of this out.

It would have been great to have had you as a student in one of my courses on critical thinking, because you would have been less likely--far less likely, I would conjecture--to commit fallacies like these. This thus has aspects of a tutorial, where I would like to believe you are going to become a more critical thinker as a consequence. But I admit that I could be wrong.

Jim

Peter,

The point I was making is that I have been actively researching complex and controversial issues for two decades and no one has laughed at me yet. So I take this to be yet another example where you simply don't know what you are talking about. I do not think you are a disinformation agent, but rather a solitary soul who has not come to grips with the limitations of his intellect.

When you acknowledged you didn't know the answers to points (8), (9), and (10), it was apparent to everyone here--with the possible exception of you--that you don't know enough to continue this exchange. While it is true that many are unwilling to debate the issue because they run the risk of ridicule by an ignorant public, that is not true of me, as I presume that you can see.

I have been tackling the task in this public forum and on the EF, where, if I were concerned about the opinions of others, I would not be defending the case for the proposition that the moon landings were a hoax. I gather the very idea transcends the boundaries of your imagination. So be it. But let us not continue to debate an issue when you are so obviously unprepared.

One additional point of logic. For the moon landings to have actually taken place, a rather large number of events have to have taken place. To show it is false, it is only necessary to expose some of them as fraudulent, not all. I offered ten points that strongly suggest the landings were faked, which you could not rebut. That suggests the evidence is on my side, not yours.

And do you not appreciate the inconsistency between observing (correctly) that arguments should stand on their own, while appealing to the absence of an organization of Scholars for Moon Truth as though it undermined those I have presented, such as (8), (9), and (10)? Those arguments, after all, seriously undermine the position you are attempting to uphold.

Enough, Peter. There is no point. But thank you for having done your best.

Jim

Arguments should stand or fall on their own merits, yes, and if there is no one prepared to even present a particular argument, then that tells us something. And in the case of the moon hoax theory, there isn't a thousand-strong group of professionals who have joined together to question the authenticity of the moon landings, as we have seen happen in the case of 9/11. And note that 9/11 is less than 10 years old, whereas the moon missions are over 40 years old.

[B](8) Do you actually believe that NASA "lost" the Moonwalking footage "back in the 1970s", which was surely the world's most precious strips of videos?[/B]

There is no large and growing group of scientists protesting the 'suspicious' nature of this loss of footage.

[B](9) Did you realize that none of the footage broadcast was actually "live" but that it was all "displayed on a monitor and re-shot by a TV camera" first?

[/B]
Yes I did, actually. There is no large and growing group of scientists protesting the 'suspicious' nature of the method used to transmit images from the moon to the earth.

[B](10) Do you realize that this means the scientific community does not have data to verify the authenticity of the flights that NASA claims to have made?

[/B]
I don't agree that that is what this means, and again, the absence of a large and growing group of scientists protesting the 'suspicious' nature of this loss of material is an indication that there likely isn't a strong case to be made that that is what this means.

What you fail to take into account is the fact that for a hoax to work a whole bagful of data would have had to have been fabricated, from thin air, and given out to scientists for analysis upon the occasion of each Apollo mission - and from that day to this, any new collection of data would stand to expose the Apollo data as being fraudulent, because to falsify data accurately, across all the areas where data was collected on the moon missions, would be akin to winning the lottery once a week for an entire year. And that is quite unlikely.

[Peter Dawson]

Hoaxers wonder, if the Apollo landings were real, why can't they get any high quality images of artifacts left behind from the missions. I don't know exactly why, but at a guess, it must be easy to get funding for a high quality satellite to orbit the earth, for decades, returning very high quality images to the owners of the satellite, but in the case of the moon, it would only be a one off project, with no real market for it except to allay the doubts of the doubters.

That is, the high quality satellite they send to the moon is necessarily a disposable item, after it has done its initial survey, but a satellite orbiting the earth can be used much more readily for generating profits, and due to the changing nature of the earth compared to the moon, its cost can be defrayed over a much longer period of time.

But anyway, someone has recently made a compilation of Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter images showing the Apollo 11 landing site, which I thought might be of interest:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul87ieOZpaQ

Note the footprint trails from the LM to the large crater.

From the youtube notes:

See stunning ultra close-up views of the Apollo 11 landing site. All Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter images were deconvolved and enhanced in order to show the landing site with a remarkable level of detail. The large crater to the right of the Apollo 11 LM descent stage is Little West Crater. Lunar north is up in all photos. Distance scales are accurate to approximately 2 percent or better.

It is funny that there are those who believe that the moon landings were a hoax. The plethora of archived data and Apollo era documents, video footage, photographs, and moon rocks which have been thoroughly examined by scientists around the world, makes it absolutely impossible that the moon landings could have been hoaxed. And now, 40 years later, the LRO photographs of the Apollo landing sites prove that the moon landings were in fact real.

Notes about how the photos were aligned relative to one another:

All images were initially aligned relative to LRO photo M116161085R since this particular photo featured the least amount of distortion. In other words, the LRO was basically looking nearly straight down at the Apollo 11 landing site when photo M116161085R was taken and the landing site is close to the vertical axis of the image. All photos were then registered with M116161085R by aligning the LM's +Y footpad (the north footpad) in each photo atop of the +Y footpad in photo M116161085R. Next, all photos were rotated as necessary about the +Y footpad in order to achieve rotational alignment using small features located west of the +Y footpad. This type of rotational alignment method is necessary since some photos may be slightly skewed depending on the look-down angles of the LRO when it photographed the landing site. Next, the images were independently scaled in the horizontal and vertical axes in order to get the image scales to exactly match photo M116161085R. This was necessary due to the somewhat varying look-down angles as mentioned above. A second iteration of the above procedures was done in order to fine tweak the registration of all photos relative to photo M116161085R. Finally, north-up orientation was calibrated based on the azimuth bearing of the setting sun as seen in the final sunset photo M117338434R. The setting sun, at the moment photo M117338434R was taken, was on a bearing of 269°47' relative to the LM. It was then easy to measure the bearing of the plume deflector shadows in photo M117338434R and then adjust the rotation of all of the stacked photos such that lunar north is straight up.

A note about the resolutions described in my video:

Photo resolution, expressed in either feet or meters per pixel in my video merely is the photo's image scale when my video is viewed at 1280x720 HD resolution and is not the inherent maximum resolution of the deconvolved LRO photos. The maximum inherent resolution achieved so far in any of my deconvolved and enhanced LRO photos is approximately 0.35 meters per pixel. Horizontal and vertical surface coverage for any photo can be calculated by multiplying 1280 or 720 by the stated resolution. Thus 0.5 feet per pixel, when multiplied by 1280 and 720, yields photo coverage of 640 feet horizontally by 360 feet vertically.

[James H. Fetzer]

Tom Lehrer used to sing about the wonderful things they were doing with plastics nowadays. Today its with digital technology. They could have Neil and Buzz sontering about the surface of the Moon if they wanted to. It is my understanding that the Hubble Space Telescope has been forbidden to look at the Moon. If that's true, I can imagine only one reason, which is that it would expose the stunning hoax NASA has perpetrated on the world.

[Matthew Lewis]

Tom Lehrer used to sing about the wonderful things they were doing with plastics nowadays. Today its with digital technology. They could have Neil and Buzz sontering about the surface of the Moon if they wanted to. It is my understanding that the Hubble Space Telescope has been forbidden to look at the Moon. If that's true, I can imagine only one reason, which is that it would expose the stunning hoax NASA has perpetrated on the world.

The Hubble telescope is not forbidden to look at the Moon. It has done so in the past.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/sola..._moon.html
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive...es/1999/14
It does not however have the resolution to make out anything smaller than a football field. A telescope on Earth or in orbit would have to have an objective mirror over 100 feet across to make out objects left on the Moon. The Hubble's mirror is just over 2 meters.
Look up the Dawes limit for more info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawes'_limit
http://www.astro.shoregalaxy.com/index_010.htm
The Hubble gets the impressive pictures it gets because the objects it focuses on very large. They are also very faint. The Hubble has the ability, because it is in orbit, to focus on one point far longer than any terrestrial based scope enabling it to see very faint distant galaxies better. It also does not have to deal with light pollution. There are bigger scopes on Earth with better resolution at the distance of the Moon but still none big enough to resolve objects on the Moon.