Fetzer/Burton Moon Landing Debate Finale

[James H. Fetzer]

Forgive me but I don't see that Dave's post 557 invalidates the thrust of my post above?

If you are arguing, as Fetzer and White are/were, that the 34 second "moontruth" footage is direct evidence of the faking of the Apollo 11 moon landing, then why, upon close examination, doesn't the suit in that footage visually match the suits used by Apollo 11 astronauts? Why, instead, does the suit used in the "moontruth" footage match the suit used in other footage, both of which have been claimed to have been made by Adam Stewart of The Viral Factory, 10 or so years ago?

And if you are arguing, with Fetzer and White, that the 34 second "moontruth" footage is evidence that the Apollo 11 moon landing could have been faked, then if, like Fetzer and White, you at one point maintained that the footage was genuine 1969 footage of the actual faking of the thought-to-be-real-but-actually-fake Apollo 11 moon landing - and with the footage being revealed as a spoof upon the most cursory investigation - don't you think the credibility you require to speak on the subject is by now shot to hell?

If you never agreed with Fetzer and White that the "moontruth" footage might be genuine footage of the faking of the thought-to-be-real-but-actually-fake Apollo 11 moon landing, but you still take their point that it none-the-less is evidence that the faking of the Apollo 11 moon landing is at least technically possible, then I, Sir, would give you the floor, because among those on this thread who wish to champion the idea that the moon landings were faked, you have by far the most credibility.

Sir, I do not argue that the video is real, though Jim does. I argue that
the case for it being a SPOOF is ridiculous and improbable, as Jim does.
What is the motive for anyone to go to such great lengths to concoct
such an event? It would be very expensive and require lots of manpower
and photo facilities and days of time to construct a set and build a LM,
and obtain a spacesuit, etc. etc.

So a case for spoofery must overcome motive, lots of expenditure of
money and time, and much more FOR A VIDEO FOR WHICH THERE IS
NO MARKET and which appeared mysteriously.

Nothing is done by anyone unless they have a motive for doing it.
An EXPENSIVE JOKE with no target audience does not happen without
reason.

There is a distinction between arguing that something is real and
arguing that it is ridiculous and improbable.

Jack

Strictly speaking, my position is that if it is real footage of the faking of the moon landing, then we have direct proof it was faked; and if it is not, then we have proof that faking it was entirely technically possible. While I happen to believe that it was almost certainly done on the same set using the same crew and the same director as the broadcast footage, even it I am wrong about that, we have proof that faking it was entirely possible. I also agree with Jack that there appears to have been no good reason to have taken the time, effort, and expense to fake the faking of the moon landing, when there was no financial incentive or public interest. Taken with the absence of the design and specs of the moon lander and of the moon rover, we appear to be confronting the destruction of evidence of the commission of a crime -- a massive fraud! -- that reflects what is known in the law as "consciousness of guilt" to make it harder to prove that the taxpayers of the nation were defrauded by an agency of the American government. For those of us who are studying the evidence, however, there is no serious doubt that that is precisely why they were destroyed.