11-11-2010, 05:49 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-11-2010, 10:01 PM by James H. Fetzer.)
As another example of Evan Burton's abuse of his position as moderator and participant, this post belongs on
the discussion thread, not the debate thread. He continues to demonstrate his fanaticism and lack of ethics to
the bitter end. We all know Burton has buddies like David Greer who will support him regardless of the evidence.
The points that are made in comparing them, including the edge of the images, which is seen from the same angle
in both the footage broadcast and the "rehearsal" footage, are extremely improbable and would have been virtually
impossible to replicate. Both have a similar look and a similar feel and were probably shot on the very same stage.
They are obviously not the same take, since the collapse of the light bar required a second take. But the author,
Ted Twietmeyer, makes many other extremely interesting observations about the crew wearing what appear to be
military uniforms and behaving in ways that would not be expected of a crew working on some kind of "spoof":
What's also interesting about this video is that during this entire rehearsal disaster, not one man who ran in to assist
the astronaut/ actor ever turned his face toward the camera. None of them ever looked back in that direction, which
anyone would certainly do when taking instructions from the director who usually sits beside the camera.
If this entire video is a fake, it's an extremely well made fake. Including the authentic spacesuit the actor playing the
astronaut wears. And down to the tiniest detail, including a barely audible "Cut!" yelled by a director off-camera
moments later after the light bar came crashing down.
As he also observes, "This rehearsal required a large crew of people and a substantial budget. Only a small portion of
the production crew was visible in this video." Having recently rented a room for a symposium in London held on 14
July 2010, http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/ I know, unlike Greer's remarks, space there does not come cheap.
Here are specific replies to David Greer's attempted rebuttals of several of my points, which I will introduce in bold.
[quote name='Dave Greer' date='11 November 2010 - 09:58 AM' timestamp='1289465899' post='211544']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' date='09 November 2010 - 09:11 PM' timestamp='1289337066' post='211407']
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.[/quote]
First, the only information you need is a copy of the Apollo 11 footage where Armstrong steps off the lander. You only need to make it look good enough to fool the layperson who won't compare it to the actual footage. If you had taken time to examine the suit detail for example, you'd realise it's not an Apollo suit. What's that ruddy great box on the front of the suit? It's not visible in any photos of Apollo suits from any Apollo missions. You only have to create a small part of the lander, which could easily and cheaply be done with materials available from any hardware store.
None of this could be "easily and cheaply done with materials available from any hardware store." The production has a
highly professional quality about it. The idea of "reverse engineering" from some footage that was broadcast is absurd.
The only way that could be done would be if you had inside information, such as access to the stage and the props, etc.
Second. Suitable location? Studio for hire? Friends barn? Hire a crew and director. Well, maybe you're the director so you're doing it for free. Maybe you have to pay half a dozen people's wages for a couple of days. Few hundred dollars/pounds at most.
This is equally ridiculous. The crew appears to be in uniform, acts as if it knows what it is doing, and none of the crew
looks toward the director, which cannot be by chance. If this were some friends or homeless hired off the street, then
they would not be wearing uniforms, they would not know what they were doing, and some would look at the camera.
Third. We can only guess at the producers motives. Unless you want to contact him directly and ask him?
That may be difficult to arrange. I gather that Adam Stewart, who claimed to have created the video at the Viral Factory,
died less than a year after making his moontruth video, allegedly due to food poisoning. That sounds a lot like tidying
up "loose ends". That he may have actually been involved in faking the moon landing receives further support from this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugHRLWf46Ck
Notice that the point of mine he quotes concerns motivation, but his comment addresses cost instead. My estimate was not in
pounds but in dollars. He clearly does not know what he is talking about. Unless his estimate of $500 is itself meant as a spoof,
he is far off the mark. It cost me more than £1,000 just to rent the room for a few hours. My estimate was clearly conservative.
[/quote]
Notice that Greer never explains why anyone who believes the moon landings are genuine would create a fake to suggest that they
were really faked. He doesn't explain why, if this was a cheap production "off the cuff" using friends or the homeless, it has such a
professional quality. It has exactly the right feel and exactly the right look to have been shot on the same stage with the same crew.
Consider the two hypotheses: (h1) this is an outtake from the original faking; (h2) this is the faking of someone faking the original.
If (h1) is true and this is an outtake from the original faking, which was conducting at great expense using an experienced crew and
a professional director, what is the probability that the edge of the images would match, that the crew would be in uniform, that they
would know what they were doing, that they would avoid looking at the director and the camera? Obviously, it would be very high.
If (h2) is true and this is the faking of someone faking the original, which was conducting on a low budget using friends or hires by
Adam Stewart, what is the probability that the edge of the images would match, that the crew would be in uniform, that they would
know what they were doing, that they would avoid looking at the director and the camera? Obviously, it would be extremely low.
In scientific reasoning, one hypothesis is preferable to another when the likelihood of the first -- which is equal to the probability
of the evidence, if that hypothesis were true -- is greater than the likelihood of the second, given the available evidence. Since the
likelihood of (h1) is very high, while that of (h2) is extremely low, as I have shown, there can be no doubt that (h1) is preferable to (h2).
The kinds of arguments that Greer is offering would be laughable but for the protective covering of Evan Burton, who continues to
abuse his position in grossly unethical and unprofessional ways. Why am I not surprised? My point remains undefeated: If it's on the
original set, as I suspect, it blows the cover on the faking of the moon landing. If not, it shows how easy it was to have faked it. QED
the discussion thread, not the debate thread. He continues to demonstrate his fanaticism and lack of ethics to
the bitter end. We all know Burton has buddies like David Greer who will support him regardless of the evidence.
The points that are made in comparing them, including the edge of the images, which is seen from the same angle
in both the footage broadcast and the "rehearsal" footage, are extremely improbable and would have been virtually
impossible to replicate. Both have a similar look and a similar feel and were probably shot on the very same stage.
They are obviously not the same take, since the collapse of the light bar required a second take. But the author,
Ted Twietmeyer, makes many other extremely interesting observations about the crew wearing what appear to be
military uniforms and behaving in ways that would not be expected of a crew working on some kind of "spoof":
What's also interesting about this video is that during this entire rehearsal disaster, not one man who ran in to assist
the astronaut/ actor ever turned his face toward the camera. None of them ever looked back in that direction, which
anyone would certainly do when taking instructions from the director who usually sits beside the camera.
If this entire video is a fake, it's an extremely well made fake. Including the authentic spacesuit the actor playing the
astronaut wears. And down to the tiniest detail, including a barely audible "Cut!" yelled by a director off-camera
moments later after the light bar came crashing down.
As he also observes, "This rehearsal required a large crew of people and a substantial budget. Only a small portion of
the production crew was visible in this video." Having recently rented a room for a symposium in London held on 14
July 2010, http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/ I know, unlike Greer's remarks, space there does not come cheap.
Here are specific replies to David Greer's attempted rebuttals of several of my points, which I will introduce in bold.
[quote name='Dave Greer' date='11 November 2010 - 09:58 AM' timestamp='1289465899' post='211544']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' date='09 November 2010 - 09:11 PM' timestamp='1289337066' post='211407']
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.[/quote]
First, the only information you need is a copy of the Apollo 11 footage where Armstrong steps off the lander. You only need to make it look good enough to fool the layperson who won't compare it to the actual footage. If you had taken time to examine the suit detail for example, you'd realise it's not an Apollo suit. What's that ruddy great box on the front of the suit? It's not visible in any photos of Apollo suits from any Apollo missions. You only have to create a small part of the lander, which could easily and cheaply be done with materials available from any hardware store.
None of this could be "easily and cheaply done with materials available from any hardware store." The production has a
highly professional quality about it. The idea of "reverse engineering" from some footage that was broadcast is absurd.
The only way that could be done would be if you had inside information, such as access to the stage and the props, etc.
Second. Suitable location? Studio for hire? Friends barn? Hire a crew and director. Well, maybe you're the director so you're doing it for free. Maybe you have to pay half a dozen people's wages for a couple of days. Few hundred dollars/pounds at most.
This is equally ridiculous. The crew appears to be in uniform, acts as if it knows what it is doing, and none of the crew
looks toward the director, which cannot be by chance. If this were some friends or homeless hired off the street, then
they would not be wearing uniforms, they would not know what they were doing, and some would look at the camera.
Third. We can only guess at the producers motives. Unless you want to contact him directly and ask him?
That may be difficult to arrange. I gather that Adam Stewart, who claimed to have created the video at the Viral Factory,
died less than a year after making his moontruth video, allegedly due to food poisoning. That sounds a lot like tidying
up "loose ends". That he may have actually been involved in faking the moon landing receives further support from this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugHRLWf46Ck
Quote:Suppose it would run $100,000, which is a conservative estimate. (I would bet it would cost many times that.) How many areYou guess at £100,000 as a very low estimate. I'm going to guess $500.
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?
Notice that the point of mine he quotes concerns motivation, but his comment addresses cost instead. My estimate was not in
pounds but in dollars. He clearly does not know what he is talking about. Unless his estimate of $500 is itself meant as a spoof,
he is far off the mark. It cost me more than £1,000 just to rent the room for a few hours. My estimate was clearly conservative.
Quote:But here is the clincher. Suppose (h3) were true and this is the faking of a video showing the faking of the moon landing? TheYou clearly haven't compared the two footages side-by-side. You also seem to be falling into the trap of "could have been faked" implies "actually was faked". In order to do that, you are deliberately taking a few seconds of poor quality video and ignoring the huge amount of other evidence, including much higher quality video and film footage.
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!
[/quote]
Notice that Greer never explains why anyone who believes the moon landings are genuine would create a fake to suggest that they
were really faked. He doesn't explain why, if this was a cheap production "off the cuff" using friends or the homeless, it has such a
professional quality. It has exactly the right feel and exactly the right look to have been shot on the same stage with the same crew.
Consider the two hypotheses: (h1) this is an outtake from the original faking; (h2) this is the faking of someone faking the original.
If (h1) is true and this is an outtake from the original faking, which was conducting at great expense using an experienced crew and
a professional director, what is the probability that the edge of the images would match, that the crew would be in uniform, that they
would know what they were doing, that they would avoid looking at the director and the camera? Obviously, it would be very high.
If (h2) is true and this is the faking of someone faking the original, which was conducting on a low budget using friends or hires by
Adam Stewart, what is the probability that the edge of the images would match, that the crew would be in uniform, that they would
know what they were doing, that they would avoid looking at the director and the camera? Obviously, it would be extremely low.
In scientific reasoning, one hypothesis is preferable to another when the likelihood of the first -- which is equal to the probability
of the evidence, if that hypothesis were true -- is greater than the likelihood of the second, given the available evidence. Since the
likelihood of (h1) is very high, while that of (h2) is extremely low, as I have shown, there can be no doubt that (h1) is preferable to (h2).
The kinds of arguments that Greer is offering would be laughable but for the protective covering of Evan Burton, who continues to
abuse his position in grossly unethical and unprofessional ways. Why am I not surprised? My point remains undefeated: If it's on the
original set, as I suspect, it blows the cover on the faking of the moon landing. If not, it shows how easy it was to have faked it. QED