Fetzer/Burton Moon Landing Debate Finale

[Jack White]

Not to suggest this man, who calls himself Peter Dawson, is logically challenged, but the time, cost, and effort that would have had to have been invested to recreate a set with the same features as the (allegedly genuine) moon landing would be extraordinary. The last point I make is the most telling, namely: that those, like this guy, who insist that this is some kind of hoax itself -- not the actual purported moon landings, which, in my view, actually are a hoax, but this faking of the faking of the moon landing -- confronts a constructive dilemma.

And this is the clincher. Suppose (h3) were true and this is the faking of a video showing the faking of the moon landing. The production values are so exceptional and indistinguishable from those of the footage that was televised around the world that it demonstrates -- conclusively, in my view -- that the moon landing could have been faked! According to the hypothesis, this is faking of a video of a fake moon landing that is indistinguishable from the footage NASA broadcast worldwide. In that case it proves the broadcast could have been faked.

Since this footage was allegedly faked and is -- apart from the glitches that distinguish it -- indistinguishable from NASA's own. If it's real, it shows the moon landing footage was faked. But even if it was faked, it shows how the footage could have been faked, as the rest of the evidence shows. But either it is real footage of a fake landing or its faked footage of a fake landing. So either it shows that the moon landing footage was faked or how it could have been faked. Either way -- given either hypothesis (h2) or (h3) -- it proves too much.

Combined with the other evidence -- showing the use of wires, for example, to simulate the lower gravitational field of the moon, the faking of moon rover photos with no tracks between the tires, shadows cast that have to have come from a nearby light source, the use of front- screen projection, and other indications of fakery I have discussed -- the case for fakery overwhelms the case that the moon landings actually took place. That the landings were faked, given the available evidence, is vastly more likely than that man went to the moon.

Excuse me for suggesting that at times Jim's academic talk
needs an interpreter. Let me try:

Jim's logic is impeccable. It may be too difficult for some to understand,
BUT WHETHER THE FILM IS REAL OR FAKE IS NOT IMPORTANT under
Jim's analysis. If it is real it proves Apollo fakery. If it is fake it proves Apollo
fakery. Am I right, Jim?

Sometimes Jim's theses are too academic. He sometimes needs his thoughts
translated into SIMPLE TALK for ordinary people like some of us. (see above)

So either way, in simple talk, Jim's argument is correct.

Jack