Fetzer/Burton Moon Landing Debate Finale

[James H. Fetzer]

To the best of my knowledge, I have never heard of Peter Dawson. This is from an interview on 11 November 2006, when I was first becoming acquainted with the research of Judy Wood, Ph.D., a former mechanical engineer from Clemson University who has earned degrees in structural engineering, engineering mechanics, and materials science, which are the most relevant disciplines for understanding what happened to the Twin Towers. She has done more to establish the effects of the attacks on the World Trade Center than anyone else engaged in 9/11 research, as those who visit her web site, http://drjudywood.com, will discover.

I am convinced that the most widely accepted position about 9/11--that the towers were taken down with thermite/thermate/nano-thermite--is almost certainly wrong, since thermite is an incendiary, not an explosive. For thermite to become explosive, it would have to be combined with an explosive, which is also true of toothpaste. I therefore encourage the study of alternative explanations, including the possible use of third or fourth generation nukes (mico or mini), lasers, masers, and other forms of directed energy weapons. See, for example, "An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11", http://911scholars.ning.com, for an outline of my argument.

Coming up with new hypotheses is the most difficult part of science and, as the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, I was impressed that she was "thinking outside of the box", an ability that Peter Dawson apparently lacks. This man comes across as a completely conventional thinker who has, I would surmise, never had an original thought in his life. But, even more importantly, why is he offering an ad hominem attack related to an old interview about 9/11 in relation to my work about the faking of the moon landings? He had to dredge down pretty far to come up with this, not to mention that he offers no reason to think that I--or Judy Wood, for that matter--am wrong!

This is what I would expect of a mediocre mind. I had become aware of their existence years before in conducting research on the plane crash that killed Sen. Paul Wellstone, which appears to have been done using a DEW to overwhelm the electrical system, take out all computerized systems and switch the props to "idle", which caused them to lose forward thrust. At the time, I discovered that the Directed Energy Society was having its 8th annual conference in Hawaii that year. These weapons can be land-based, air-borne, or space-based, including being reflected by mirrors on satellites, which had been done as early as 1996.

So her work was not that far-out even then and certainly is less so today for those interested in the science of 9/11, as Peter Dawson obviously is not. For those interested in more on AMERICAN ASSASSINATION (2004), my book on Wellstone's death and the probable use of a directed-energy weapon in that case, visit http://assassinationscience.com and the later study, "The NIST Failed Wellstone", http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww...tone.shtml which I co-authored with John P. Costella. Michael Ruppert, incidentally, arrived at similar conclusions in his book, CROSSING THE RUBICON (2004). It is far more difficult to figure out what has happened in cases like these if you use methods and techniques whose very existence is not known to the public.

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.”

[Peter Lemkin]

While my point here is NOT to discredit Wood...I think some of her research and ideas warrant further investigation, but to tell you that nanothermite IS an explosive and also will cut through steel [just was the mad Dr. Stranglove ordered]!

[James H. Fetzer]

Peter, This is a most interesting question, about which I am currently engaged in research. Explosives derive their explosive force from the rapid expansion of gases. Water, for example, expands 1,200 times in volume when it is transformed from liquid to steam. There is no proof of which I am aware that even nano-thermite possesses any explosive properties other than those that may derive from its size as small particulate matter. If you know more about this, then I would be very glad if you would share it with me. Much of the evidence of its use is fake. Many thanks! Jim

While my point here is NOT to discredit Wood...I think some of her research and ideas warrant further investigation, but to tell you that nanothermite IS an explosive and also will cut through steel [just was the mad Dr. Stranglove ordered]!

[Charles Drago]

When they appear, they offer platitudes and sympathies.

These are the "smart" weapons, oh so precisely targeted.

Then, almost inevitably, they shit their pants.

Messrs. Fetzer and White suffer their abuses most commonly.

Only the fools are fooled.

[James H. Fetzer]

Posted Today, 06:25 PM

Well, one of us is a joke. The idea of faking a video about faking the landing to
throw off critics strikes me as rather bizarre. There would have been no motive
to do it at the time and recreating the set for that purpose would have been
practically impossible: recreating the lights, the angles for filming, the Moon
Lander, astronaut, and all that--virtually impossible. It would be useful for most
of the world to consider the case for fakery here, since logic and the evidence
support it. This appears to be one of the greatest hoaxes in human history.

View Post

Evan Burton, on 10 November 2010 - 08:40 AM, said:

LOL! You have become the biggest joke on the internet. Here's a clue for you:
this will probably go viral in a factory.

Do try to not just accept something because it suits your views.

[Peter Dawson]

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

Otherwise known as a spoof.

If you can be so easily taken in by such an obvious spoof, then you're not a person who is fit to be leading the debate in any of the areas you currently circulate in - JFK assassination, 9/11 investigation, etc. That you show not a hint of embarrassment about the matter, or indeed any recognition that the circumstances call for a modicum of professional embarrassment, is further evidence that your judgment in this matter is faulty.

And there is an instance in your recent past of a similarly glaringly faulty lapse in judgment. The one thing the truth movement sorely needs to build is credibility, and the credibility of the entire movement is lost in an instant when the leaders of the movement suffer the kinds of lapses in judgment that you have.

[James H. Fetzer]

Not to suggest this man, who calls himself Peter Dawson, is logically challenged, but the time, cost, and effort that would have had to have been invested to recreate a set with the same features as the (allegedly genuine) moon landing would be extraordinary. The last point I make is the most telling, namely: that those, like this guy, who insist that this is some kind of hoax itself -- not the actual purported moon landings, which, in my view, actually are a hoax, but this faking of the faking of the moon landing -- confronts a constructive dilemma.

And this 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! According to the hypothesis, this is faking of a video of a fake moon landing that is indistinguishable from the footage NASA broadcast worldwide. In that case it proves the broadcast could have been faked.

The footage that was allegedly faked is -- apart from those 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. But either it is real footage of a fake landing or its faked footage of a fake landing. So either it shows that the moon landing footage was faked or how it could have been faked. Either way -- given either hypothesis (h2) or (h3) -- it proves too much.

Combined with the other evidence -- showing the use of wires, for example, to simulate the lower gravitational field of the moon, the faking of moon rover photos with no tracks between the tires, shadows cast that have to have come from a nearby light source, the use of front- screen projection, and other indications of fakery I have discussed -- the case for fakery overwhelms the case that the moon landings actually took place. That the landings were faked, given the available evidence, is vastly more likely than that man went to the moon.

[Jack White]

Not to suggest this man, who calls himself Peter Dawson, is logically challenged, but the time, cost, and effort that would have had to have been invested to recreate a set with the same features as the (allegedly genuine) moon landing would be extraordinary. The last point I make is the most telling, namely: that those, like this guy, who insist that this is some kind of hoax itself -- not the actual purported moon landings, which, in my view, actually are a hoax, but this faking of the faking of the moon landing -- confronts a constructive dilemma.

And this 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! According to the hypothesis, this is faking of a video of a fake moon landing that is indistinguishable from the footage NASA broadcast worldwide. In that case it proves the 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. But either it is real footage of a fake landing or its faked footage of a fake landing. So either it shows that the moon landing footage was faked or how it could have been faked. Either way -- given either hypothesis (h2) or (h3) -- it proves too much.

Combined with the other evidence -- showing the use of wires, for example, to simulate the lower gravitational field of the moon, the faking of moon rover photos with no tracks between the tires, shadows cast that have to have come from a nearby light source, the use of front- screen projection, and other indications of fakery I have discussed -- the case for fakery overwhelms the case that the moon landings actually took place. That the landings were faked, given the available evidence, is vastly more likely than that man went to the moon.

Excuse me for suggesting that at times Jim's academic talk
needs an interpreter. Let me try:

Jim's logic is impeccable. It may be too difficult for some to understand,
BUT WHETHER THE FILM IS REAL OR FAKE IS NOT IMPORTANT under
Jim's analysis. If it is real it proves Apollo fakery. If it is fake it proves Apollo
fakery. Am I right, Jim?

Sometimes Jim's theses are too academic. He sometimes needs his thoughts
translated into SIMPLE TALK for ordinary people like some of us. (see above)

So either way, in simple talk, Jim's argument is correct.

Jack

[Peter Dawson]

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.

Given that moon hoax theories find little support in the scientific establishment, I would have thought that including the hypothesis which the scientific establishment does support would have been a sensible idea - the hypothesis (which you fail to include as a possibility) that it is faked footage of a real landing.


(I see where I went wrong – not recognising that none of your three hypotheses is one the scientific establishment would favour. So (h4) is that this is mock footage of the “faking” of the real moon landing – i.e. (h4) this footage is a spoof.)

I haven’t seen any convincing evidence that the moon landings were faked – I find none of the evidence you refer to – “wires,” missing rover tracks, “faulty” shadows, etc, to be persuasive.

[James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

Basically. If it is real, it proves Apollo fakery directly. If it is fake, it
proves that Apollo fakery could have been done--where the rest of the
evidence makes it obvious that it was faked and now we can see how.

And, even if they are not identical (when you compare the footage
broadcast with this footage), they are close enough. PLUS, bear in
mind, THEY HAD TO DO ANOTHER TAKE. So minor differences are likely.

Jim