Fetzer/Burton Moon Landing Debate Finale

[Peter Dawson]

I'm guessing you went public as a moon hoax proponent after you retired, and not before. Am I right, Professor Fetzer?

For the record this is an ad hom.

Because I'm sure you'd be laughed out of every university in the land - except the mail-order ones - for posting this response, at this point in time, given the information we have all been provided with on this thread.

As is this.

I hardly think it's ad hominum to point out that someone's views run counter to the vast majority of educated opinion on a given subject.

And doubly so for the way you presented easily confirmed fake footage to us earlier on, as if it might be serious evidence that the missions were faked.

Please provide the post number in which Jim Fetzer posted this link rather than expect everyone to scroll through and find it.

It was in the opening post of this thread, and is introduced again for discussion in post 17 on page 2.

The best evidence I have that the moon landings happened as claimed is the fact that, with just a small amount of pertinent information, the majority of hoax claims can easily be dismissed.

That is not evidence. It is an opinion.

An "opinion" backed up by startling examples. See below.

It takes a certain level of dishonesty, or stupidity, for the moon hoax community to persist in presenting newcomers with arguments which have already been debunked.

More ad homs, albeit generalized rather than directed at a specific personality.

On this very thread, in the opening post and then repeated again soon afterwards, in attempting to support his view the author in all seriousness provided us with "evidence" which turned out to be, at best, a humorous skit, and at worst, an openly acknowledged piss-take of the whole phenomenon of the moon hoax conspiracy theory. Then he proceeded to fail to ever acknowledge that the youtube clip he provided as evidence was a spoof. This is either dishonest behaviour, or the result of stupidity - I don't see any other options for it.

I'm not one to bow to authority for the sake of it, but on this issue I'll throw my lot in with a bunch of elite mathematicians, physicists and chemists any day, rather than follow a bunch of clumsy/incompetent/dishonest/disgruntled websurfers.

But you've already admitted that your preferred experts are Evan Burton and others in the EF - none of whom fit your own criteria for what constitutes an "elite" professional. A rather curious myopic double standard it seems to be?

I admitted that Evan Burton and others at the EF are keener amateurs than I am. I'd much rather have a highly qualified scientist who is well versed on the moon hoax debate posting on that or this forum. It is not a myopic double standard of mine that no such knowledgeable person posts here.

40 years on, tell me why exactly is there no Physicists and Mathematicians for Moon Hoax Truth dot com around?

Is this a genuine question or a cocked-up one?

Reading it straight, the implication limits it to "moon hoax truth.com", not the moon hoax theory per se. Is that your intention or was it intended to be a trick question in the time honoured EF manner. There is no "www.moonhoaxtruth.com" website - not that I can see anyway.

Have you heard of "Architects And Engineers For 9/11 Truth"? They advocate for the further investigation into the events of 9/11 because, in their professional opinion, they think something fishy went on, and that the official story of 9/11 isn't the true story. The point I was trying to make was that there doesn't seem to be any equivalent voluntary organisation of qualified professionals who think something fishy went on with the moon landings. At least not a group numbering in the thousands, like AE911.

That there is no such equivalent group is to me tell-tale evidence that the entire moon hoax theory sits on shakey ground.