Fetzer/Burton Moon Landing Debate Finale

[David Guyatt]

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.

Peter, I'm just going to tackle this specific point because you don't appear to know, or wish to know, what an ad hom actually is.

Definition of Ad Hominem

Etymology:

From the Latin, "against the man"

Examples and Observations:

"The abusive ad hominem is not just a case of directing abusive language toward another person. . . . The fallacy is committed when one engages in a personal attack as a means of ignoring, discrediting, or blunting the force of another's argument.

"Although some faulty arguers may call attention to distasteful features of their opponents in order to manipulate the responses of their audience, most abusers apparently believe that such characteristics actually provide good reasons for ignoring or discrediting the arguments of those who have them. Logically, of course, the fact that any of these characteristics might fit an opponent provides no reason to ignore or discredit his or arguments or criticisms."
(T. E. Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning. Wadsworth, 2001)

Your statement that Jim Fetzer would be laughed out of every university in the land - except the mail order ones - is by absolute definition an ad hom attack. And was intended to be so. You claims of innocence not-withstanding.

You also have yet to establish in any way, that the vast majority of "educated opinion" run counter to moon hoax proponents. Indeed, it would be impossible to do so without taking a very large sample of thoughts from educated people. Have you done this? No, of course not. In other words you are simply using a well known device to load your words with an authority they do not have. It's a lazy and dishonest technique.

Moving along. In your post No. 169 to Charlie you say:

None of the agenda of a forum like the DFP is compromised by having moon mission believers among its members, that I can see, but I would put it to you that the general agenda of a place like the DPF is clearly at risk of being compromised if belief that the missions were faked becomes a prerequisite to being considered above suspicion at this place - to say nothing of the prospect of it becoming a prerequisite to remaining a member here.

I for one would much like to see a moon mission believer here, presenting evidence and sound arguments in support of their views - rather than simply reiterating their opinions, or else rolling up their sleeves to engage in yet more verbal punch up.

And since a few posters here have already stated that they are open to persuasion on the subject by sound reasoning and good evidence - myself included - and since there is a daily audience of hundreds who do not post -I think your comments about the DPF being compromised by there being a "prerequisite" for missions fakers, to be yet another example of your penchant for diversion, mud-slinging and fact "avoidance".

Based on your posts exhibited in this thread to date, the only thing the DPF is "at risk of" is becoming a permanent sounding board for your personal vendetta and vexaciousness.