Fetzer/Burton Moon Landing Debate Finale

[James H. Fetzer]

I can't resist commenting that Dawson commits several fallacies in posing his questions to David Guyatt. The "rehearsal" footage doesn't have to qualify as "direct evidence" to carry weight, for example, since it illustrates that faking the footage would have been technically possible. In conjunction with other indications of fakery -- the missing rover tracks, the lighting from a nearby source, the use of front-screen projection, the wires employed to make the movements of the astronauts appear to be in a weak gravitational field, and other forms of fakery -- it strongly suggest that, unlike the recent "spoof" footage, the "rehearsal" footage was serious. Moreover, for Dawson to maintain that "the most cursory investigation" shows that it was simply a spoof indicates a diminished capacity for research involving fakery of this kind. We not only do not know that Adam Stewart was involved in this but we don't even know what he may or may not have said about it, much less his reasons for doing so, if he did. Persons in far less stressful positions make false claims all the time. The presumption that Adam Stewart's saying so would make it true is simply taking for granted the conclusion he prefers, and does not show that it is true. So Dawson's arguments here, like others he has advanced, are very weak and lacking in force. Indeed, apart from these fallacies, he has very little so say. David's credibility appears to be intact.

Forgive me but 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.