Fetzer/Burton Moon Landing Debate Finale

[James H. Fetzer]

Well, your (h4) is my (h3). I don't see how you could possibly miss that.
Of course you are not only denying that (h2) is the case but also denying
that the missing tracks in moon rover photos, the shadows cast yielding
a close-at-hand source, the use of front-screen projection, the reflections
off the wires and the use of wires to lift an astronaut to his feet and other
evidence I have adduced have logical force, not by offering any arguments
but by simply asserting they are not persuasive to you! But unless you are
a rational agent in respect to the goal of seeking the truth (which I doubt)
or the formation of rational beliefs that are not overridden by rationality
of action (in posing as disbelieving beliefs that are more likely than any
of their alternatives), your opinion is of no consequence, which appears
to be the case. The clincher, I submit, is that you can't even admit that,
if you were right, this fakery shows how faking the moon landing could
have been done. Each time you show up, you add more nonsense to the
thread. If you have any other purpose, I doubt any of us can discern it.

Presumably, there are only three hypotheses:

(h1) this is actual footage of the moon landing;

(h2) this is actual footage of the faking of the moon landing;

(h3) this is actual footage of the faking of the faking of the moon landing.

Given that moon hoax theories find little support in the scientific establishment, I would have thought that including the hypothesis which the scientific establishment does support would have been a sensible idea - the hypothesis (which you fail to include as a possibility) that it is faked footage of a real landing.

(I see where I went wrong – not recognising that none of your three hypotheses is one the scientific establishment would favour. So (h4) is that this is mock footage of the “faking” of the real moon landing – i.e. (h4) this footage is a spoof.)

I haven’t seen any convincing evidence that the moon landings were faked – I find none of the evidence you refer to – “wires,” missing rover tracks, “faulty” shadows, etc, to be persuasive.