Fetzer/Burton Moon Landing Debate Finale

[Peter Lemkin]

Here is another example of Burton's abuse of his position as both
moderator and participant, where I listed resources for research:

I AM RESTORING THIS POST TODAY, 3 SEPTEMBER 2010.

An even better example of Burton's abuse of his position as both
MODERATOR and PARTICIPANT is that he had covertly deleted my
most important post--originally #7 in this thread--in which I out-
lined the resources that I planned to build upon in the course of this
exchange. Today, when I went to take a look, I discovered it had been
DELETED. Fortunately, I had saved that page in my files, so I am able
to restore it. I say to Evan Burton, DO NOT DELETE MY POSTS!

Posted 16 August 2010 - 08:37 PM

The references I cited that Burton claims to have refuted--which I was
then and remain quite sure he has never even studied, at least for the
most part--are the following ten resources. I believe that any of them
offers sufficient reason to doubt that we actually went to the Moon and
that collectively they demonstrate it was virtually impossible to do so.

I include that NASA has "inadvertently" taped over the Moon landing
tapes, no doubt because, with today's digital technology, NASA can
make far better fakes than it could at the time. I especially like the
film, "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?", which offers
dozens of good reasons for doubting that it could have been done.

I am therefore perplexed by Evan Burton's insistence on "debating"
this issue. I gather he wants to "show his stuff". But insofar as the
matter has been settled, I am having a hard time mustering up any
enthusiasm for this exchange. Jack, however, has done exceptional
work on the Apollo photographs, which this thread can showcase.

So I will consult with Jack and pick some of his most interesting and
informative studies to initiate this exchange. It may be slow going,
because it is not my highest priority. But with Jack's assistance and
advice, we can start with the first link I offer below. If Evan can cope
with Jack's studies, we can move from there in the order I have given.

The strongest reason most Americans believe that we went to the
moon is the existence of "moon rocks". As "Moon Movie" explains,
Wernher von Brauhn himself led an expedition to the Antarctic to
collect rocks dislodged from its surface by small astroids, which
were caught in Earth's gravitational field and landed on its surface.

Anyone who wants to understand how easily the moon landings
could have been faked--and actually were, if these studies are
well-founded--should watch the brilliant film, "Capricorn I". If
you grasp the concept, you will appreciate how much more likely
it is that these landings were faked than that they really occurred.

New Work on
Moon Photographs

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html

Russians letting the cat
out of the bag

http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/15...9-moon-0/#

Moon Movie

http://moonmovie.com/

Top Ten Reasons Man
Did Not go to the Moon

http:///www.moonmovie.com/moonmovie/default.asp

Did Stanley Kubrick fake
the Moon Landings?

http://www.jayweidner.com/AlchemicalKubrickIIa.html

Conspiracy Theory
Did we land on the moon?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UKiyOScrIY

NASA erased moon footage

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE56F5MK20090716

INTERVIEWS ON "The Real Deal":

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com

Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Bart Sibrel
"A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon"

Friday, August 28, 2009
Rich DellaRosa
The Apollo Moon Landing Hoax, Part I

Friday, September 4, 2009
Rich DellaRosa
The Apollo Moon Landing Hoax, Part II

PLUS I add one more for good measure:

Gerhard Wisnewski, ONE SMALL STEP:
The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to
Dominate Earth From Space (2007)

As most of the old-timers and originators of the Forum can attest and long before you found you way to the EF, my friend, I was engaged in the same EB abuse of my posts - using his moderator status to close threads he didn't like [one he started!]; ruling in a biased manner on posters, depending on their point of view - not according to any Forum Rules.... I was invited to be moderator to [now I believe] be set up by Herr Walker with the silent backing of others] and shot down and removed. Remain there are your own peril...and that goes to the rest of you who still lurk there and post. :motz:

[Charles Drago]

Jack, Jim,

I am at a considerable disadvantage when evaluating the material I've attached below. Have counter-arguments been offered by qualified scientists?

CRITICAL POINT: I am NOT deferring to whatever authority accrues to the source(s) of the studies herein reproduced. Nor am I unmindful of its NASA origin (at the "JFK Mastermind's" Space Center, no less!).

Charles
_________________________________________________________

From:

BIOMEDICAL RESULTS OF APOLLO

SECTION II, CHAPTER 3
RADIATION PROTECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION

by

J. Vernon Bailey

Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

(http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm)

Radiation from Space

During a complete Apollo mission, astronauts were exposed to widely varying radiation sources. These included the Van Allen belts, cosmic rays, neutrons, and other subatomic particles created in high-energy collisions of primary particles with spacecraft materials. Spacecraft transfer from low Earth orbit to translunar coast necessitated traverse of the regions of geomagnetically trapped electrons and protons known as the Van Allen belts. When beyond these belts, the spacecraft and crewmen were continuously subjected to high-energy cosmic rays and to varying probabilities of particle bursts from the sun. In addition, the individual responsibilities of the crewmen differed, and with these, their radiation exposure. Free-space extravehicular activity, lunar surface activity and intravehicular Command and Lunar Module activity imposed varying radiation doses.

Van Allen Belts

The problem of protecting astronauts against the radiation found within the Van Allen belts was recognized before the advent of manned space flight. These two bands of trapped radiation, discovered during the Explorer I flight in 1958, consist principally of protons and high-energy electrons, a significant part of which were, at that time, debris from high-altitude tests of nuclear weapons. The simple solution to protection is to remain under the belts [below an altitude of approximately 556 km (? 300 nautical miles)] when in Earth orbit, and to traverse the belts rapidly on the way to outer space. In reality, the problem is somewhat more complex. The radiation belts vary in altitude over various parts of the Earth and are absent over the north and south magnetic poles. A particularly significant portion of the Van Allen belts is a region known as the South Atlantic anomaly (figure 1). Over the South Atlantic region, the geomagnetic field draws particles closer to the Earth than in other regions of the globe. The orbit inclination of a spacecraft determines the number of passes made per day through this region and, thus, the radiation dose.

Particles within the Van Allen belts, in spiraling around the Earth’s magnetic lines of force, display directionality. This directionality varies continuously in angular relationship to the trajectory of the spacecraft. Therefore, dosimetry instrumentation for use in the Van Allen belts had relatively omnidirectional radiation sensors so that the radiation flux would be measured accurately. The Van Allen belt dosimeter (figure 2) was designed specifically for Apollo dosimetry within these radiation belts.


Solar-Particle Radiation

No major solar-particle events occurred during an Apollo mission. Although much effort has been expended in the field of solar-event forecasting, individual eruptions from the solar surface have proved impossible to forecast. The best that can be provided is an estimate of particle dose, given visual or radio-frequency (RF) confirmation that an eruption has occurred. A system of solar-monitoring stations, the Solar Particle Alert Network (SPAN), provides a NASA-sponsored network of continuous data on solar-flare activity. SPAN consists of three multiple-frequency radio telescopes and seven optical telescopes. The network gives data for determining the severity of solar-particle events and the resultant possible radiation hazards to crewmen. After the appearance of particles is confirmed onboard a spacecraft, protective action can be taken.

In terms of hazard to crewmen in the heavy, well shielded Command Module, even one of the largest solar-particle event series on record (August 4-9, 1972) would not have caused any impairment of crewmember functions or ability of the crewmen to complete their mission safely. It is estimated that within the Command Module during this event the crewmen would have received a dose of 360 rads[*] to their skin and 35 rads to their blood-forming organs (bone and spleen). Radiation doses to crewmen while inside the thinly shielded Lunar Module or during an extravehicular activity (EVA) would be extremely serious for such a particle event. To monitor particle activity, a nuclear-particle-detection system (figure 3) was designed to have a relatively narrow acceptance angle. It measured the isotropic proton and alpha particles derived from solar-particle events.

__________

[*]Radiation absorbed dose. Corresponds to absorption of watts (100 ergs) per gram of any medicine.

[James H. Fetzer]

I have invited John P. Costella, who has a Ph.D. in physics with electromagnetism as his area of specialization, to comment. In relation to the point at which J. Vernon Bailey addresses the issue most directly in the final paragraph, which I quote here, namely:

In terms of hazard to crewmen in the heavy, well shielded Command Module, even one of the largest solar-particle event series on record (August 4-9, 1972) would not have caused any impairment of crewmember functions or ability of the crewmen to complete their mission safely. It is estimated that within the Command Module during this event the crewmen would have received a dose of 360 rads
[*] to their skin and 35 rads to their blood-forming organs (bone and spleen).

the use of the subjunctive (as to what would have happened as opposed to what did) combined with ESTIMATES about the exposure they would have received when THEY SHOULD KNOW THE EXPOSURE THEY DID RECEIVE suggests to me that this is pure bunk.

[James H. Fetzer]

And when I attempt to access background and credentials of
this guy, there is basically none available, which is very odd:

http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/personn..._index=369

Vernon J. Bailey

Experiment: + Radiation Protection and Instrumentation (AP003)
Role: Principal Investigator
Degree: Not available
Institution: NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) , Houston , Texas

Experiment Performed On: + Apollo 7 + Apollo 8 + Apollo 9 + Apollo 10 + Apollo 11
+ Apollo 12 + Apollo 13 + Apollo 14 + Apollo 15 + Apollo 16 + Apollo 17

Other Experiment Participation:
+ Apollo Light Flash Investigations (AP009)
Experiment Performed On: + Apollo 14 + Apollo 15 + Apollo 16 + Apollo 17
Role: Co-Investigator
Degree: Not available
Institution: NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) , Houston , Texas

+ Radiological Protection and Medical Dosimetry for the Skylab Crew (SKYRAD)
Experiment Performed On: + Skylab 2 + Skylab 3 + Skylab 4
Role: Principal Investigator
Degree: Not available
Institution: NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) , Houston , Texas

+ Visual Light Flash Phenomena (M106)
Experiment Performed On: + Skylab 4
Role: Co-Investigator
Degree: Not available
Institution: NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) , Houston , Texas

[Charles Drago]

Thanks, Jim.

I respect Dr. Costella's work (to which I was introduced by you), and I look forward to learning more.

Charles

[Charles Drago]

And when I attempt to access background and credentials of this guy, there is basically none available, which is very odd[.]

Add to your c.v. the honorary title "Master of Understatement."

[James H. Fetzer]

Evan and his buddies on another link resort to ridicule and sarcasm to rebut the "Real Moon Landing in 1969" video clip,

http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cg...06&page=23

where sarcasm and ridicule--which are varieties of ad hominem arguments--are precisely what we should expect when one
side runs out of arguments. In this case, that they are indulging in several fallacies at once makes it entirely apparent that
they have run out of intellectual resources (not that they were all that substantial to begin with). Notice, for example, how
I have presented many arguments here--perhaps as many as a dozen--but Evan picks out only one. Citing only some parts
of the evidence is the technique of politicians, editorial writers, and used-car salesmen. Technically, this is the fallacy called
"special pleading", well known to con men and shysters of all stripes. And he gains leverage by taking for granted--which
is called "begging the question"--that he is right and I must be wrong. Let's see how strong a case can be made for that.

Here is the video clip under consideration:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgG5s28fvM8

Presumably, there are only three hypotheses:

(h1) this is actual footage of the moon landing;

(h2) this is actual footage of the faking of the moon landing;

(h3) this is actual footage of the faking of the faking of the moon landing.

Thus, it has been alleged, "Jim Fetzer has swallowed the fake "fake moon landing" film hook, line and sinker." Presumably,
the argument is that this video was made as a "joke" to further ridicule the hoax believers as propaganda and obfuscation.
Certainly, that is a possibility that cannot be ruled out. But is it the most likely among these alternative explanations?

(h1) can safely be excluded, since if this were actual footage of the moon landing, there would be no need for scaffolding,
a film crew, and a director to ask if Neil Armstrong would like to do "another take"! So we can conclude that (h1) is false.

Notice, however, that creating a fake moon landing stage scenario would require tremendous attention to detail, which
seems to be the case here. If we ignore the collapsing scaffolding, the crew's response, and the director's question, it looks
exactly like the footage we were presented of the actual moon landing, when it was broadcast world-wide by television. So
let's ask what would be involved in creating a fake video of the (actually false) faking of the moon landing as resources.

First, you would need to have exact information about the set, including the Moon Lander, the astronaut's suits, etcetera.

Second, you would have to find a suitable location, hire a crew and director, which is going to take time and lots of money.

Third, you would have to have a powerful motive for devoting the painstaking time and expense to create a fake, fake video.

Suppose it would run $100,000, which is a conservative estimate. (I would bet it would cost many times that.) How many are
going to have the time and money to devote to creating a fake video of the (actually false) faking of the moon landing? And
why would anyone do this? We are not talking about Photoshop or other easily utilized photo faking techniques. This is on a
large scale and very detailed and precise. Moreover, why would anyone who had the time and the resources do something like
this? If you believe the moon landings are genuine, why would you create a fake video to suggest that they were really faked?

When we take the alternatives seriously and consider what would be involved in faking a fake video of a fake moon landing, the
improbability of doing something like that--with such stunning success!--becomes quite remote. The probability that something
like the collapse of the scaffolding when creating a video of the faked landing appears quite reasonable, considering the role
of mechanical or of human error in producing a result like this. And if someone who had been on the set had the conscience to
be concerned about faking the world about the moon landing, if they had access to this tape, then they might have released it.

The likelihood that this mishap occurred during the taping of a fake landing thus appears to be much higher than the likelihood
that this was instead the faking of the taping of a fake video, which means that, given the available relevant evidence, (h2)
has a higher likelihood than (h3) and is therefore preferable. The question that then arises is, do we have enough evidence to
conclude that it has "settled down", which makes (h2) acceptable in the tentative and fallible fashion of science? Given the
rest of the evidence I have presented, the answer appears to be "Yes!", which is why Evan had to resort to special pleading.

But here is the clincher. Suppose (h3) were true and this is the faking of a video showing the faking of the moon landing? The
production values are so exceptional and indistinguishable from those of the footage that was televised around the world that it
demonstrates--conclusively, in my view--that the moon landing could have been faked! Listen to the argument. This is faking of
a video of a fake moon landing that is indistinguishable from the footage NASA broadcast worldwide. But in that case it shows
that the footage broadcast could have been faked, since this footage was allegedly faked and is--apart from the glitches that
distinguish it--indistinguishable from NASA's own. If it's real, it shows the moon landing footage was faked. But even if it was
faked, it shows how the footage could have been faked, as the rest of the evidence shows. Either way, it proves too much.

[Peter Dawson]

You are a sorry old sack of shit, Fetzer. You and Judy Wood make a good pair.

Jim Fetzer: “I must say I think we’re finding out Judy, what happened on 9/11. I’m just blown away by your work. This is the most fascinating development in the history of the study of 9/11… I’m going to make a wild guess Judy; I’m going to presume that these [directed energy] beams had to be located in Building 7?”

Judy Wood: “Nope. I don’t think so.”

Fetzer: “Planes?”

Judy Wood: “No… I think it’s very likely it’s in orbit.”

Fetzer: “Oh Really?? Oh ho ho ho ho! Oh Judy. Oh my, oh my, oh my. This is huge… this is huge Judy.”

[Magda Hassan]

Peter, we have no problem with disagreeing viewpoints but please don't attack the person but feel free to attack the ideas if you think they are wrong. And they can often be.

[Peter Dawson]

No worries, Magda.