Fetzer/Burton Moon Landing Debate Finale

[James H. Fetzer]

I don't know what's "tender" about my sensibilities in sensing that you were suggesting I was collaborating with the enemy! For a former Marine Corps officer, that's rather strong language. I have been active at the EF far longer than I have been active here, but I have done what I can to set the record straight about whatever issues I have dealt with. I really don't understand this -- to me, seeming change in -- attitude. I take on intellectual opponents on a wide range of issues -- JFK, 9/11, Wellstone, now the moon landing hoax -- but, even when I have not trusted my opponents, I have not supposed that I was betraying the faith. I knew that I was being baited into debating this issue, but I wanted to sort it out at some point in time, and the opportunity presented itself. Jack has done so much about it and, from what I had done on my own, I was confident that we could lay out the evidence and make the case, which, in fact, we have done. I simply did not anticipate the degree of duplicity and deception that I would encounter there. Perhaps that was the least bit naive on my part, but I don't see where it deserves your censure. You may be better at sizing up liars and cheats, but I don't see why my efforts to "engage the enemy" is thereby making it stronger. For those who appreciate what's going on, it exposes their techniques and makes them more obvious to a wider audience. I feel your opprobrium, but I do not understand why you think I have done something wrong. I really don't. I'm not saying your are wrong, but I don't see why you think you are right. In my opinion, this exercise has exposed the illusion and shattered it to bits. If we don't expose their lies and duplicity, they are going to continue to take others in. Any fair and balanced person, I submit, learned from this -- not just about the moon landing hoax, but the underhanded methods of an enemy we all despise.

I am the least bit puzzled by Charles' remark, which has the flavor of "Either you are with us or your are against us!" I began on the EF and have only gradually become aware of the virtues of the DPF, which I am coming to appreciate more and more with each absurdity.

Jim,

I'm pleased to solve your puzzle.

In order to preserve the very uncertainty upon which it depends for survival, our enemy must preserve the illusion of a level playing field for the conspiracy and non-conspiracy arguments regarding events that have been demonstrated to be, to the degree of metaphysical certitude, conspiratorial in nature.

Each time we address the enemy's mouthpieces without identifying them as such and with the implicit stipulation that their positions, no matter how flawed, are honorably arrived at and represented, we aid and abet the enemy.

This entire thread is nothing other than a transparent attempt to re-infiltrate the EF's disinformation agents into the DPF. And you have been sucked into the operation hook, line, and sinker.

I am not putting forward a DPF or EF ultimatum, and you should know it. So for Christ's sake put aside your tender sensibilities and see the bigger issues. Far too often you are all too ready to be offended. What is at stake is vastly more significant than you and me and this or any other Internet venture. I couldn't care less about your history with the EF; it is irrelevant to the matters at hand.

I reiterate:

There is a fine but all-important line between exposing the EF and engaging it.

The former is the sworn duty of all who pursue truth and justice.

The latter is tantamount to collaboration.

You are engaging Burton, et al.

Charles