Fetzer/Burton Moon Landing Debate Finale

[Peter Dawson]

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

It's hard to know whether to continue taking your arguments seriously, because, of course, the easiest thing in the world for the spoof film makers to do is have the crew that invade the set dress in "military style" outfits instead of early 90s street fashion. Similarly it would be easy to fairly precisely match the angles of the scenery and whatnot (although to my eyes, they didn't do a good job of matching the ladder rail of the landing unit with the kind used in the original).

And the director would just have to direct the actors in the spoof to not look towards the camera, and then the actors in the spoof would not look towards the camera - it would be easy.