Fetzer/Burton Moon Landing Debate Finale

[James H. Fetzer]

Words are cheap. To "acknowledge a spoof" is not the same
as proving that a spoof occurred. As I have explained, there
is no good reason to suppose anyone would make a spoof of
the moon landings (given the time, effort, and expense that
would have been involved, not to mention the lack of motive).

Assume the moon landings are real. What possible motive
could drive someone, years later, to recreate the setting on
the moon with a replica of the lander, the astronaut suit, the
angles, the lighting, and all that, with a director and a crew?
Does anyone think that is a reasonable thing to have done?

But if the faking of the landing got out (because of a glitch
that could not be denied), the obvious move would be for it
to be declared to be "a spoof"! It might even be said to be
a spoof that was created on the very set where the faking of
the moon landing took place! That's an explanation I can buy.

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

The footage is an acknowledged spoof, so it has very little to do with the actual Apollo program, and can say nothing conclusive about whether the moon landings were faked or not.