Fetzer/Burton Moon Landing Debate Finale

[Peter Lemkin]

I have downloaded the last picture and, as a personal experiment, have magnified it until it loses focus. The left crosshair is definitely eclipsed by the Rover and not washed-out by the sun. Try it yourselves. Bullshit very often beats brains (as one of my former City colleagues used to say) but seeing is believing.

It looks like another example of "washout" to me. What makes you say it isn't washout? It has a bright white object behind it, like the other examples of washout.

I've looked at it down to the pixels and its looks to me that the top of the aerial interferes with the crosshair. Whiteout can still be seen in similar sunlit elements of this and other pictures.

However, neither of us is an expert in these matters and are, therefore relying on what experience we bring to the table. Until approx. 4 years ago I considered the moon hoax theory to be nonsense. Today I lean more in favour of it, but am open to persuasion either way by force of well made arguments.

Lastly, I want to address what I regard as the unwise comment made by Peter Dawson about "one of the bad men at the other forum". I would strongly recommend that he refrain from making these sorts of sly remarks in the future. He is not at all familiar with how this forum was founded and why we went to to trouble of doing so, and should not, therefore, make judgments he does not fully understand.

Also is you point by point rebuttal of Jim Fetzer's arguments in any danger of being posted in the near future? :date:

Thought not...

I find myself in a position where if I acknowledge something Burton and/or Greer are saying over at the EF, firstly I am accused of being in league with them, secondly, of being a disinfo agent, and thirdly, of deepening suspicions of the first two upon every additional occasion I make any mention of them. And this at a time when Prof. Fetzer is posting the same posts on both forums, and I'm learning a new thing each time from B & G's responses to Fetzer's posts. They're moon mission buffs - I'm not.

I don't have any problems with Dave Greer who I got on well with at the EF. Burton, however, is not a gun you would be wise to bring to this argument - his dirty tricks and prejudice are legendary.

I seem to recall about 3 years ago that Dave made a surprising post at the EF to the effect that he had changed his mind about Jack's perspective on the moon hoax and now agreed with him. Thereafter he stopped posting on the EF moon landing thread.

Did I simply dream it? Or did Dave change his mind back again? Jack will know. Jack what say you?

Same goes for a rebuttal of Fetzer's arguments - my responses would mirror and expand upon Burton's to a large degree, and I've got good reason to believe that after any effort I go to in composing a response, someone will hop in and dismiss everything I say simply because what I say can be associated with what Burton says. It's not a matter of me being lazy, and hardly a matter of me fearing a debate, it's just that I'm not that stupid.

Well, if you're here to mostly to proselytize Evan Burton's perspective, then you're in trouble my friend. A well constructed and objective critique is the key to convincing those who's minds are open to persuasion. But your chosen mentor trails a lot of rank smelling baggage behind him that you don't seem to know about. I caution you to take caution.

As I mentioned above, Burton has gone to considerable extremes in the past to severely tick off almost everyone on this forum, including all the founding members. I'm sure he is greatly pleased with his handiwork too.

But the key to remember is this: when Burton's position is in threat, it is not unusual for him, on past performance, to have posts deleted on entirely spurious grounds (same goes to whole threads sometimes too) or to merge them to make it almost impossible to sift the wheat from the chaff. Nor is it unusual to suspend members who disagree with the EF viewpoint, or just block their IP address so they can't log on - and then innocently claim he doesn't know what's happening - that it must be a computer glitch.

There's so many stories that could be told, but I prefer not to go over this ground again.

I honestly think it would be better if you just stuck to your own guns and bring your own arguments to bear, or not bother at all. If I want to know what Burton is thinking I could always visit the EF. But frankly I never do anymore.

I have to admit, I've not been following this thread until today. David G. speaks the truth about EB. I am one of the 'honored' here to have had his IP blocked [after summary dismissal as member and moderator without cause, explanation or ability to redress any hinted - as none were really made - accusations]. Others here have had some or all of the aforementioned. It wasn't EB who done me in [it was a now-fired (they say retired) #2], but he did contact me some months after and claimed to try to solve the IP problem - then told me no IP's were blocked in the Czech Republic [where I am - one of the finks over there outed me here]; and then that no IPs were blocked, at all. Well, I knew that was an untruth and tested it by changing my IP [problematic, but possible on my computer] and voila - I could see the EF. I can't keep the 'other IP' however for reasons I care not to go into here, so outside of the one or two peeks just to prove his lie, I can't see the EF. anymore. Anyone even mentioning my name will be banned there and every one of my 5350 posts were disappeared. I'm slowly gathering them, using special software that really takes a loooong time; and then will make a separate webpage of them all to show the world what hypocrites the EF is made up of - right up to the top. You can be sure many of them are following this thread....but they find no problem with my not being able to look at their forum; having committed no crimes or infractions - only having objected and tried to defend myself from the heavy handed actions of the now 'retired' #2. But I digress, and steer you away from primary subject of the thread...but seeing EBs name made my blood boil....his last email to me was that I was persona non grate....ditto to you buddy....just wait until I have all my 'lost' posts up and how they will make a few over there look!!:rock: Jim, I know you asked me for some materials of substance, but I'm doing battle with local devils at the moment and will get around to them when I can. As to the actual Moon subject, I've always been agnostic, and truthfully have not put much energy into it. I would have thought if they never went the USSR would have gladly provided the world proof and had good technical means - though would have had a hard time with the Western Media on account of being the USSR and their own lies....but the USG has certainly proven they can be [when it sets its mind to it] match anyone or any nation for deception. Maybe they only went there once, or less than the number of times they claim. I really dunno. I know however that EB is now listed as an administrator at EF and is likely even more heavy handed with the kinds of slight-o-hand David just described than when he was the head moderator...a position, best I can figure, he carved out for himself. He, and his crew, will attack like pittbulls those that claim the moon photos are hoaxes. 9-11 is another of his pet loves for his pittbulls. I'll bow out and let the wrestling and masochism continue. Personally, I don't know why anyone would long battle EB on his own turf in a fixed game, when he doesn't play fair. IMHO. Oh, he will seem to for the short to medium term; then change the rules or move the goal posts, if not remove or lock the thread.

[Peter Dawson]

As I have observed elsewhere, if I were working their side of the street, then I would also try to turn
"proofs" of fakery into "spoofs". This one is funny either way. Too much of it fits the official footage
to be dismissed and the "can toss" is an odd thing to do with such impressive, valuable equipment.
The NASA "truth squad" seems to amuse itself by coming up with incredibly outrageous explanations.

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

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. 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.

...follow Dave Guyatt and my suggestion that you present your best case for moon landings.

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.

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

Also, since we're setting assignments, why don't you check over your figures, and get back to us with an estimate of how high a fairly athletic 40 year old male should be able to jump, fully suited up in an Apollo outfit, on the surface of the moon?

[James H. Fetzer]

You ask when I first became interested in the moon landing hoax. Well, I have had a half-dozen or more links about it on my pubic issues site at http://assassinationscience.com for quite a few years. You insinuate that I waited to pursue it until after I retired in June 2006. In the meanwhile, however, I was dealing with JFK, publishing Assassination Science (1998), Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000), and The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003), which I regarded as more pressing at the time.

I produced a 4.5 hour lecture series, "JFK: The Assassination, the Cover-Up, and Beyond" (1994) and chaired or co-chaired four national conferences (Minneapolis 1999, Dallas 2000, Dallas 2001, and Duluth 2003). In addition, I conducted research on the plane crash that took the life of U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone, publishing ten columns about it beginning in 2002, culminating with the book, American Assassination (2004), co-authored with Don "Four Arrows" Jacobs.

I continued my research with John P. Costella, which resulted on our study, "The NTSB Failed Wellstone" (2005), which Michael Ruppert published in his "From the Wilderness" newsletter. Along with statements I presented at the National Press Club when we released the book two years to the day of his death, it is archived, along with those original ten columns and a large number of other articles on a wide range of issues, which you can access at the link I have already provided.

You can also google "Reasoning about Assassinations", which I gave at Cambridge and published in a peer-reviewed international journal (2005-06). I was also publishing books and articles in my areas of philosophical research in the philosophy of science and related areas, which you can access at my academic web site, http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/ Since I only had three books when I came to Duluth and have just published my 29th, I produced 26 more between 1987 and 2010.

That I have only begun to address the moon hoax, therefore, has nothing to do with any concerns of mine about confronting criticism from my colleagues, where the issues I have been addressing are also complex and controversial, including founding Scholars for 9/11 Truth in 2005. I was encouraged to take it up at this point in time because Evan Burton invited me to engage him in a debate about it--and I was naive enough to take him up on it in the false belief that it would be fairly moderated by him.

While I was insistent about creating rules for the debate that he assured me he would follow, that did not happen. He deleted posts, violated agreements and perpetrated various abuses during the course of the exchange. While I have less background than he with respect to the available resources, I have done what I can to explain why the moon landing appears to have been an elaborate hoax, which was perpetrated for military and political reasons.

In raising questions like this about me, you are engaging in an ad hominem attack. And in pursuing one argument to the exclusion of the totality of the evidence, you are committing the special pleading fallacy. I spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning so my students would know better. Frankly, you are continuing to demonstrate that, when it come to reasoning, you are out of the loop, where the score you earned on the quiz seems to be an accurate indication of your level of knowledge and ability.

This is an extremely revealing response to my "kind and gentle" critique of your position. In a nutshell, while you claim that "with just a small amount of pertinent information, the majority of hoax claims can easily be dismissed", your performance here demonstrates that this is not the case. I have invited you to present your "best case", but instead you claim that I make appeals to authority while making them yourself instead of presenting evidence. I am sorry, but that is not about to impress anyone. I hope you can do better.

As I have observed elsewhere, if I were working their side of the street, then I would also try to turn
"proofs" of fakery into "spoofs". This one is funny either way. Too much of it fits the official footage
to be dismissed and the "can toss" is an odd thing to do with such impressive, valuable equipment.
The NASA "truth squad" seems to amuse itself by coming up with incredibly outrageous explanations.

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

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. 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.

...follow Dave Guyatt and my suggestion that you present your best case for moon landings.

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.

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

Also, since we're setting assignments, why don't you check over your figures, and get back to us with an estimate of how high a fairly athletic 40 year old male should be able to jump, fully suited up in an Apollo outfit, on the surface of the moon?

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[Charles Drago]

"Dawson" has now earned his quotation marks/inverted commas.

Great job, David.

May I cast my informal vote for his formal exposure on and banishment from the Deep Politics Forum?

All of us who can claim EF "veteran" status are all too familiar with the attack technique utilized by "Dawson." He/she/they have burrowed into this site far enough, I think.

I implore you to send "Dawson" packing -- AND to join with me in a full expsoure of what is revealed by his "sack of shit" to "I'm guessing" spectrum of ad homs.

Hint, everyone: "Colby" at the EF, who/which in my considered, expert judgement is a false identity utilized by multiple enemy posters, exposed itself, among many ways, through its posts inconsistent language and literary qualities. I outed "him." "He" ran. But not, alas, far enough.

The multiple personality known as "Dawson" apparently is the EF Burton's Aussie neighbor -- and the similarities don't end there. "Dawson's" posts seem to be a hybrid of the literary and attack styles of Burton and another EF enemy/fool (a hermaphroditic product photographer who should be just tickled when he/she reads this) who focuses on the moon landing hoax discussions.

What their masters have accomplished is quite disconcerting: In "Dawson" they have found a way past the DPF's anti-disinformation firewall and, for all intents and purposes, infiltrated this site.

[David Guyatt]

Charlie, having now fully retired I no longer have a vote, but if I did I think on balance I might now gradually be leaning closer towards your position. But probably not just yet, I think.

Every critter needs an appropriate period of time to dig themselves into a hole from which they cannot escape.

And in fairness I no longer have to wrestle with these concerns, or make these judgment calls.

But I do know that those who do, will act with tolerance, patience and fairness - whatever happens.

But then I'm their biggest fan.

[Peter Dawson]

You ask when I first became interested in the moon landing hoax. Well, I have had a half-dozen or more links about it on my pubic issues site at http://assassinationscience.com for quite a few years. You insinuate that I waited to pursue it until after I retired in June 2006. In the meanwhile, however, I was dealing with JFK, publishing Assassination Science (1998), Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000), and The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003), which I regarded as more pressing at the time.

I produced a 4.5 hour lecture series, "JFK: The Assassination, the Cover-Up, and Beyond" (1994) and chaired or co-chaired four national conferences (Minneapolis 1999, Dallas 2000, Dallas 2001, and Duluth 2003). In addition, I conducted research on the plane crash that took the life of U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone, publishing ten columns about it beginning in 2002, culminating with the book, American Assassination (2004), co-authored with Don "Four Arrows" Jacobs.

I continued my research with John P. Costella, which resulted on our study, "The NTSB Failed Wellstone" (2005), which Michael Ruppert published in his "From the Wilderness" newsletter. Along with statements I presented at the National Press Club when we released the book two years to the day of his death, it is archived, along with those original ten columns and a large number of other articles on a wide range of issues, which you can access at the link I have already provided.

You can also google "Reasoning about Assassinations", which I gave at Cambridge and published in a peer-reviewed international journal (2005-06). I was also publishing books and articles in my areas of philosophical research in the philosophy of science and related areas, which you can access at my academic web site, http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/ Since I only had three books when I came to Duluth and have just published my 29th, I produced 26 more between 1987 and 2010.

That I have only begun to address the moon hoax, therefore, has nothing to do with any concerns of mine about confronting criticism from my colleagues, where the issues I have been addressing are also complex and controversial, including founding Scholars for 9/11 Truth in 2005. I was encouraged to take it up at this point in time because Evan Burton invited me to engage him in a debate about it--and I was naive enough to take him up on it in the false belief that it would be fairly moderated by him.

While I was insistent about creating rules for the debate that he assured me he would follow, that did not happen. He deleted posts, violated agreements and perpetrated various abuses during the course of the exchange. While I have less background than he with respect to the available resources, I have done what I can to explain why the moon landing appears to have been an elaborate hoax, which was perpetrated for military and political reasons.

I wasn't insinuating anything - I was stating plainly and clearly that you would be laughed out of your place of employment had you become known as a moon hoax advocate while working there.

In raising questions like this about me, you are engaging in an ad hominem attack. And in pursuing one argument to the exclusion of the totality of the evidence, you are committing the special pleading fallacy. I spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning so my students would know better. Frankly, you are continuing to demonstrate that, when it come to reasoning, you are out of the loop, where the score you earned on the quiz seems to be an accurate indication of your level of knowledge and ability.

By making mention of the many books you've written on topics quite unrelated to the moon landings, it appears that you are the one doing the special pleading. If you think your opinions deserve special consideration because of your background, and mine don't because I lack an equivalent backround, then in actual fact you are the one making an ad hominum attack against me. What does the number of books you've written, or the number of years you've spent teaching, have to do with the matter at hand? Shouldn't arguments stand or fall on their merits?

This is an extremely revealing response to my "kind and gentle" critique of your position. In a nutshell, while you claim that "with just a small amount of pertinent information, the majority of hoax claims can easily be dismissed", your performance here demonstrates that this is not the case. I have invited you to present your "best case", but instead you claim that I make appeals to authority while making them yourself instead of presenting evidence. I am sorry, but that is not about to impress anyone. I hope you can do better.

I didn't read much of your kind and gentle critique, due to the condescending literary device you housed it in. You need to realise that your status as a former lecturer cannot count for much in this situation, and also, that I am not your student.

I have provided you with an outline of my "best case," as you asked, and you predictably disagree with it. No surprises there. I also asked you to provide us with an estimate of how high an astronaut should be able to jump on the moon. Why I asked is that the 'jump height' issue is as good a place as any to start for me to demonstrate in detail the general thrust of my "best case." I can use a different example if you wish.

[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.

[Peter Dawson]

"Dawson" has now earned his quotation marks/inverted commas.

Great job, David.

May I cast my informal vote for his formal exposure on and banishment from the Deep Politics Forum?

All of us who can claim EF "veteran" status are all too familiar with the attack technique utilized by "Dawson." He/she/they have burrowed into this site far enough, I think.

I implore you to send "Dawson" packing -- AND to join with me in a full expsoure of what is revealed by his "sack of shit" to "I'm guessing" spectrum of ad homs.

Hint, everyone: "Colby" at the EF, who/which in my considered, expert judgement is a false identity utilized by multiple enemy posters, exposed itself, among many ways, through its posts inconsistent language and literary qualities. I outed "him." "He" ran. But not, alas, far enough.

The multiple personality known as "Dawson" apparently is the EF Burton's Aussie neighbor -- and the similarities don't end there. "Dawson's" posts seem to be a hybrid of the literary and attack styles of Burton and another EF enemy/fool (a hermaphroditic product photographer who should be just tickled when he/she reads this) who focuses on the moon landing hoax discussions.

What their masters have accomplished is quite disconcerting: In "Dawson" they have found a way past the DPF's anti-disinformation firewall and, for all intents and purposes, infiltrated this site.

Charles, I hardly know what to say. It's a big world, and I have nothing to do with anyone over at the EF. Most of the world still believes that the landings really happened, so it shouldn't be that surprising that you should find some people over at the EF, and some people here, who believe that they really happened. That doesn't make us conspirators.

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.

[James H. Fetzer]

Peter,

The point I was making is that I have been actively researching complex and controversial issues for two decades and no one has laughed at me yet. So I take this to be yet another example where you simply don't know what you are talking about. I do not think you are a disinformation agent, but rather a solitary soul who has not come to grips with the limitations of his intellect.

When you acknowledged you didn't know the answers to points (8), (9), and (10), it was apparent to everyone here--with the possible exception of you--that you don't know enough to continue this exchange. While it is true that many are unwilling to debate the issue because they run the risk of ridicule by an ignorant public, that is not true of me, as I presume that you can see.

I have been tackling the task in this public forum and on the EF, where, if I were concerned about the opinions of others, I would not be defending the case for the proposition that the moon landings were a hoax. I gather the very idea transcends the boundaries of your imagination. So be it. But let us not continue to debate an issue when you are so obviously unprepared.

One additional point of logic. For the moon landings to have actually taken place, a rather large number of events have to have taken place. To show it is false, it is only necessary to expose some of them as fraudulent, not all. I offered ten points that strongly suggest the landings were faked, which you could not rebut. That suggests the evidence is on my side, not yours.

And do you not appreciate the inconsistency between observing (correctly) that arguments should stand on their own, while appealing to the absence of an organization of Scholars for Moon Truth as though it undermined those I have presented, such as (8), (9), and (10)? Those arguments, after all, seriously undermine the position you are attempting to uphold.

Enough, Peter. There is no point. But thank you for having done your best.

Jim

You ask when I first became interested in the moon landing hoax. Well, I have had a half-dozen or more links about it on my pubic issues site at http://assassinationscience.com for quite a few years. You insinuate that I waited to pursue it until after I retired in June 2006. In the meanwhile, however, I was dealing with JFK, publishing Assassination Science (1998), Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000), and The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003), which I regarded as more pressing at the time.

I produced a 4.5 hour lecture series, "JFK: The Assassination, the Cover-Up, and Beyond" (1994) and chaired or co-chaired four national conferences (Minneapolis 1999, Dallas 2000, Dallas 2001, and Duluth 2003). In addition, I conducted research on the plane crash that took the life of U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone, publishing ten columns about it beginning in 2002, culminating with the book, American Assassination (2004), co-authored with Don "Four Arrows" Jacobs.

I continued my research with John P. Costella, which resulted on our study, "The NTSB Failed Wellstone" (2005), which Michael Ruppert published in his "From the Wilderness" newsletter. Along with statements I presented at the National Press Club when we released the book two years to the day of his death, it is archived, along with those original ten columns and a large number of other articles on a wide range of issues, which you can access at the link I have already provided.

You can also google "Reasoning about Assassinations", which I gave at Cambridge and published in a peer-reviewed international journal (2005-06). I was also publishing books and articles in my areas of philosophical research in the philosophy of science and related areas, which you can access at my academic web site, http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/ Since I only had three books when I came to Duluth and have just published my 29th, I produced 26 more between 1987 and 2010.

That I have only begun to address the moon hoax, therefore, has nothing to do with any concerns of mine about confronting criticism from my colleagues, where the issues I have been addressing are also complex and controversial, including founding Scholars for 9/11 Truth in 2005. I was encouraged to take it up at this point in time because Evan Burton invited me to engage him in a debate about it--and I was naive enough to take him up on it in the false belief that it would be fairly moderated by him.

While I was insistent about creating rules for the debate that he assured me he would follow, that did not happen. He deleted posts, violated agreements and perpetrated various abuses during the course of the exchange. While I have less background than he with respect to the available resources, I have done what I can to explain why the moon landing appears to have been an elaborate hoax, which was perpetrated for military and political reasons.

I wasn't insinuating anything - I was stating plainly and clearly that you would be laughed out of your place of employment had you become known as a moon hoax advocate while working there.

In raising questions like this about me, you are engaging in an ad hominem attack. And in pursuing one argument to the exclusion of the totality of the evidence, you are committing the special pleading fallacy. I spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning so my students would know better. Frankly, you are continuing to demonstrate that, when it come to reasoning, you are out of the loop, where the score you earned on the quiz seems to be an accurate indication of your level of knowledge and ability.

By making mention of the many books you've written on topics quite unrelated to the moon landings, it appears that you are the one doing the special pleading. If you think your opinions deserve special consideration because of your background, and mine don't because I lack an equivalent backround, then in actual fact you are the one making an ad hominum attack against me. What does the number of books you've written, or the number of years you've spent teaching, have to do with the matter at hand? Shouldn't arguments stand or fall on their merits?

This is an extremely revealing response to my "kind and gentle" critique of your position. In a nutshell, while you claim that "with just a small amount of pertinent information, the majority of hoax claims can easily be dismissed", your performance here demonstrates that this is not the case. I have invited you to present your "best case", but instead you claim that I make appeals to authority while making them yourself instead of presenting evidence. I am sorry, but that is not about to impress anyone. I hope you can do better.

I didn't read much of your kind and gentle critique, due to the condescending literary device you housed it in. You need to realise that your status as a former lecturer cannot count for much in this situation, and also, that I am not your student.

I have provided you with an outline of my "best case," as you asked, and you predictably disagree with it. No surprises there. I also asked you to provide us with an estimate of how high an astronaut should be able to jump on the moon. Why I asked is that the 'jump height' issue is as good a place as any to start for me demonstrate in detail the general thrust of my "best case." I can use a different example if you wish.