Fetzer/Burton Moon Landing Debate Finale

[David Guyatt]

Okay, since we now seem to have got around to presenting and discussing evidence, I am interested to know how Peter explains the below. There are a number of matters that, on the face of it, seem inexplicable to me about the moon hoax story and this is one of them:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Histor...0976HR.jpg

And:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Histor...1933HR.jpg

And:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Histor...0979HR.jpg

I realize that this has been discussed many times before, but it has not hitherto been satisfactorily explained. So the question is how the heck can the Rover move about the Moon without leaving any tracks in these photos? There are, however, footprints in the dust around the vehicle in each case. I have seen other photos that show Rover tracks but the above ones clearly are without them.

Edit = change of duplicated link.

[David Guyatt]

The link he posted was one of two provided by me. You may not have seen it as I edited my post a couple times as I added links.

Ah, I see. So he's quite prepared to slander the Hubble scientists as well as the LRO scientist - the Hubble scientists really haven't ever pointed the Hubble at the Apollo landing sites, according to Professor Fetzer.

Peter, it wasn't "slander". It was a stated understanding. A wrong one as it turns out, as Mathew has shown.

And for the record you cannot slander a thing (the "Hubble Space Telescope"). It can only be slander if you defame a person.

You simply cannot continue to make statements like this. Your anxiety to discredit Jim Fetzer keeps leading you to utter things that only damage your case.

I wish you wouldn't.

Can we, therefore, please keep this thread free of these personal slurs and attacks in the future and stick to discussing the evidence - otherwise we're in serious danger of turning everybody else off what should be an interesting discussion (not to mention slowly transforming this forum into a replica of the bruised knuckle tactics of the EF).

PS, in the event that you haven't read our forum Rules, I am linking them now and recommend you read them carefully.

[Peter Dawson]

David, did you notice my earlier post on this thread (page 10 post 92) about the "missing rover tracks" issue?

[size=12]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.
[/SIZE]

From the photo at the link you can see that on the right surface the tyres seemed to work like a flour sieve, dusting immediately behind the tyre as they rolled along. You see how in lots of Apollo pics the boot prints and many tyre tracks seem to have a shiny surface to them? I think maybe that even if the rover tyre track is pushing a distinct channel into fairly soft ground as it rolls, the dusting that follows behind it might disperse the light hitting it and make the track quite hard to see. If something doesn't reflect much light, or reflects the light that hits it in a thousand different directions, it makes it harder to see.

Also, if you ever ride a push bike/motorbike/car on dirt tracks, you probably would have noticed that sometimes you leave an imprint behind you, but a lot of the time you don't.

Note: The pic from your first link doesn't seem to work for me, and your second link is the same as your third.

[Peter Dawson]

The link he posted was one of two provided by me. You may not have seen it as I edited my post a couple times as I added links.

Ah, I see. So he's quite prepared to slander the Hubble scientists as well as the LRO scientist - the Hubble scientists really haven't ever pointed the Hubble at the Apollo landing sites, according to Professor Fetzer.

Peter, it wasn't "slander". It was a stated understanding. A wrong one as it turns out, as Mathew has shown.

And for the record you cannot slander a thing (the "Hubble Space Telescope"). It can only be slander if you defame a person.

You simply cannot continue to make statements like this. Your anxiety to discredit Jim Fetzer keeps leading you to utter things that only damage your case.

I wish you wouldn't.

Can we, therefore, please keep this thread free of these personal slurs and attacks in the future and stick to discussing the evidence - otherwise we're in serious danger of turning everybody else off what should be an interesting discussion (not to mention slowly transforming this forum into a replica of the bruised knuckle tactics of the EF).

PS, in the event that you haven't read our forum Rules, I am linking them now and recommend you read them carefully.

Prof. Fetzer was saying in the post in question that the LRO images were "photoshop" jobs. And do you understand (given that he is still trying to suggest to us that men have never gone to the moon) that he is still at this point in time maintaining that the LRO images of Apollo sites are fakes? Who else besides the scientists who produced the LRO images are we supposed to think are responsible for the alleged photoshopping of the LRO images?

After consulting a dictionary, I see that the only mistake I made was calling his position "slanderous" as opposed to "libelous."

He also doesn't seem willing to accept that photos of the moon published by the Hubble people are true and accurate representations of what would be seen if the Hubble was trained upon the Apollo 17 landing site. I'm not claiming he's defaming the telescope, I'm pointing out that he is [well on the road to] defaming the scientists who produced the published Hubble telescope images.

That said, I'd be more than happy to stick to discussing practical examples of alleged evidence of hoaxing from now on, because I'm well tired of the current merry-go-round we're on.

[Malcolm Pryce]

Peter Dawson

I don't wish to get into any testy exchanges, but I would be interested in your thoughts of the seeming discrepancy entitled 'a disturbing Buzz' in Jack White's Apollo analysis:

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_3.html

These are supposed to be two shots of Buzz Aldrin taken on 20 July 1969, and yet they seem to be two different people in terms of physique. (Length of arms with respect to legs for example.)

What do you make of it?

[Peter Dawson]

Peter Dawson

I don't wish to get into any testy exchanges, but I would be interested in your thoughts of the seeming discrepancy entitled 'a disturbing Buzz' in Jack White's Apollo analysis:

www.aulis.com/jackstudies_3.html

These are supposed to be two shots of Buzz Aldrin taken on 20 July 1969, and yet they seem to be two different people in terms of physique. (Length of arms with respect to legs for example.)

What do you make of it?

(For the following, when I refer to photos, unless otherwise stated I mean the photos I've given links to, not the images in Jack White's study.)

The weight on the back of the astronauts made them stoop slightly forward most of the time, and Aldrin seems to have his knees slightly bent in nearly every photo (a selection can be found here).

In JW's photo analysis, in the left hand image (image 5903), Aldrin seems to have his knees bent more than normal, and his ankles look to be bent to suit, and even though JW comments that the ground is "relatively level", it looks to me as if Aldrin is standing in a small depression, with the ground higher at his front, lower at his rear.

In the right hand picture (image 5873), Aldrin seems to have his legs straight, with his torso bent forward. That's why we see the top of his backpack.

>>First image has a long torso because he isn't bent forward, and short legs because his knees are bent. Second image has long legs because his legs aren't bent, and a short torso because he is leaning forward.


White claims that Aldrin "turned around for the second pose, while Neil walked to the other side to shoot the second pose", but looking at the high quality images, even with my wine goggles on, I can slowly figure out that from the first shot Aldrin moved forward a few body lengths, past the prong sticking out from the pad of the LM as seen in the second photo, and Armstrong stepped away some distance, bringing the wind experiment contraption into view.

Taking the shadows into account, how can JW's red dot be the same in both photos, given the movements he suggests took place between the two photos? Looking at JW's study, if Aldrin merely turned around, his shadow in the second one would nearly be on top of the red dot. But in fact his shadow moves away from the dot in the second photo.

If you really want me to put my money on the line, I'd say that the small rock to the left of Aldrin's left foot in the first photo can be seen in the second photo just to the left of the wind experiment contraption, about one third of the way from the bottom of it. So Aldrin has moved forward and turned to his right from the first to the second photos. Armstrong has moved a significant distance to his left to take the second photo.

[Charles Drago]

The penetration/disinformation strategy that is working quite nicely here at the DPF has now expanded to include the classic good cop (Lewis)/bad cop (Dawson) tactic.

How many times do you have to witness this before you recognize it as enemy action?

Have we learned nothing?

[James H. Fetzer]

If they are authentic, then the Moon landings are one of the greatest achievements of mankind; if they are not, then they are the greatest hoax. Discussion and debate over their authenticity is a matter of enormous public interest, since the taxpayers of the United States will have been massively deceived and financially exploited by the misappropriate of funds by officials of the government, presumably primarily those who work for NASA but probably also members of the National Security Counsel and the CIA, among others. This question therefore has political, legal, and moral ramifications. The officials involved in this project have the status of public figures, where the requirements for libel or for slander are very different and far more demanding than Mr. Dawson seems to be aware. It is offensive and inappropriate to suggest that a scholar such as myself is committing slander or libel by raising questions and concerns that are related to this inquiry. If I am correct -- and the weight of the evidence supports me -- then these officials have committed crimes of misappropriation of funds and other offenses under the law. This appears to be yet one more -- and especially scurrilous -- form of ad hominem attack by Mr. Dawson, which appears to me to be a violation of the rules of this forum. I recommend that such measures as may be appropriate should be imposed upon him for this latest manifestation of a pattern of misconduct.

The link he posted was one of two provided by me. You may not have seen it as I edited my post a couple times as I added links.

Ah, I see. So he's quite prepared to slander the Hubble scientists as well as the LRO scientist - the Hubble scientists really haven't ever pointed the Hubble at the Apollo landing sites, according to Professor Fetzer.

Peter, it wasn't "slander". It was a stated understanding. A wrong one as it turns out, as Mathew has shown.

And for the record you cannot slander a thing (the "Hubble Space Telescope"). It can only be slander if you defame a person.

You simply cannot continue to make statements like this. Your anxiety to discredit Jim Fetzer keeps leading you to utter things that only damage your case.

I wish you wouldn't.

Can we, therefore, please keep this thread free of these personal slurs and attacks in the future and stick to discussing the evidence - otherwise we're in serious danger of turning everybody else off what should be an interesting discussion (not to mention slowly transforming this forum into a replica of the bruised knuckle tactics of the EF).

PS, in the event that you haven't read our forum Rules, I am linking them now and recommend you read them carefully.

Prof. Fetzer was saying in the post in question that the LRO images were "photoshop" jobs. And do you understand (given that he is still trying to suggest to us that men have never gone to the moon) that he is still at this point in time maintaining that the LRO images of Apollo sites are fakes? Who else besides the scientists who produced the LRO images are we supposed to think are responsible for the alleged photoshopping of the LRO images?

After consulting a dictionary, I see that the only mistake I made was calling his position "slanderous" as opposed to "libelous."

He also doesn't seem willing to accept that photos of the moon published by the Hubble people are true and accurate representations of what would be seen if the Hubble was trained upon the Apollo 17 landing site. I'm not claiming he's defaming the telescope, I'm pointing out that he is [well on the road to] defaming the scientists who produced the published Hubble telescope images.

That said, I'd be more than happy to stick to discussing practical examples of alleged evidence of hoaxing from now on, because I'm well tired of the current merry-go-round we're on.

[The Moderators]

Peter Dawson - your post #162 contains ad hominems against another member, such as "I'm guessing you went public as a moon hoax proponent after you retired, and not before. Am I right, Professor Fetzer?"

Your post #18 in this thread began: "You are a sorry old sack of shit, Fetzer." You were warned about this at the time.

You have continued to deliver ad homs, and to engage in crude baiting, thoughout this thread.

Rules 14 and 15 of DPF state:

14. Our fundamental objective is for DPF to be an arena where research can be seriously discussed, and thoroughly refuted if appropriate, without name-calling or member abuse. It is acceptable to be robust and even dismissive of the arguments of other members, if analysis and evidence are provided. It is acceptable to state that a particular argument serves the agenda of the powerful, again if analysis and evidence are provided. However, since DPF is primarily intended as an arena where serious informed research can be developed and debated, it is not acceptable to describe another member as, for instance, an agent provocateur.

15. The deep politics forum is not an arena for the right and the left to bait each other. There are plenty of forums on the internet for keyboard warriors to call political opponents names, or to post crude propaganda.

DPF will close the membership of any poster whose rationale, as revealed through their posts, is to engage in crude political baiting, and who shows no understanding of, and no desire to learn, about deep politics.

This is, and will remain, the deep politics forum.

http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/...d.php?t=58

You have also made entirely false allegations against DPF itself, by writing: "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."


DPF encourages informed discussion and exploration of deep political matters, as described in Rule 14 above. There is no "official DPF position" on the reality or otherwise of the moon landings.

Members of DPF seek the truth about matters such as this, and that search is best encouraged by robust and honest debate. However, in this and other threads, there is absolutely no place for ad hominems or for strawmen designed to damage the integrity of this forum and its members.

Peter Dawson - you are now banned from this forum.

[David Guyatt]

I realize that Peter Dawson has now been banned, so I am only going to point out the following in order to correct any lingering doubt about his continued misrepresentation of the stated facts:

After consulting a dictionary, I see that the only mistake I made was calling his position "slanderous" as opposed to "libelous."

Jim Fetzer clearly stated in his post No. 179 that: "it is my understanding that the Hubble Space Telescope has been forbidden to look at the Moon. If that's true..."

Firstly it was an "understanding" not a statement of fact. You cannot sue someone for their "understanding" whether that "understanding" is accurate or not.

Secondly, no matter how many dictionaries you consult, you can no more libel (or, indeed, slander) a telescope than a telegraph pole - or a hatstand, or a handkerchief. Because it is a thing not a person. Ergo, the Hubble Space telescope is a thing, not a person.

To say otherwise is to willfully misrepresent Jim Fetzer's post.

End of story.