Fetzer/Burton Moon Landing Debate Finale

[James H. Fetzer]

This guy either doesn't understand scientific reasoning or he is
deliberately circumventing it. Not only has he failed to come to
grips with the multiple arguments I have presenting--including
the missing moon rover tracks, the near-at-hand light source,
the use of front-screen projection, the multiple indications the
videos were faked, including the reflections of light from wires
that are lifting to create the impression of the lower gravity of
the moon, which has several manifestations--but he focuses
attention exclusively on the case where the thinks he has the
best chance of obfuscating evidence and distracting attention.

So he is committing multiple fallacies, including the selective
use of evidence (as "special pleading") and ignoring the weight
of the evidence (it is far more probable that there are no tracks
because it was not driven there than that astronauts' activity or
the spontaneous motion of moon dust particles obscured them),
not to mention the multiple indications of the use of front-screen
projection. He seems to think that by fantasizing explanations in
relation to "rehearsal" footage, he can somehow escape the task
of dealing with all of the evidence. This attitude, alas, violates a
fundamental principle of scientific reasoning, which is known as
the requirement of total evidence, which demands that reasoning
in science be based upon all of the available relevant evidence.

The one who is violating that requirement is Peter Dawson, not
Jack White or Jim Fetzer. And, of course, he does so for rather
strong reasons, from his point of view. The demonstration of
the light source as near-at-hand, for example, is based on the
rectilinear propagation of light and elementary geometry. As a
consequence that follows by deductive reasoning from laws of
physics, it provides as definitive a proof as is possible regarding
empirical phenomena. If he were worth his salt, he would admit
that no one, including himself, can demonstrate that this proof is
unsound--unless, of course, the photograph is not from the set of
those alleged to have been taken on the moon, which it was not.
So I offer this as a test of Dawson's ability to reason scientifically.

These deceptions appear to be closely related, since the edge of
the images in the "rehearsal" footage appears to be the place at
which front-screen projection would begin in the footage that was
broadcast. Those with a serious interest should read the article,
"How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Moon Landings", which is here:
http://www.assassinationscience.com/HowK...ings-1.pdf Once
you begin to appreciate how the pieces of this puzzle fit together,
it is no longer surprising that there would be mistakes like those
Jack and Duane, among others, have discovered and I've reported.
This was a clever hoax with multiple benefits, politically, technically,
and financially, which exhibits all the virtues of theft over honest toil.

I have seen no definitive acknowledged proof of spoofery. Even if
true, it might be disinformation. Your saying something does not
make it true.
Jack

Who are these people who were so fervent TO MOCK Fetzer that they
went to all the trouble and expense of shooting a video like this?

Saying they did it to mock researchers is an admission that someone
with lots of money and clout may have been responsible.

Jack

See what a serious threat Jack and Jim are to the credibility of the entire JFK research community, and the entire 9/11 research community?

Are you untroubled by this situation, Jack, where the abandon with which you monitor and censor your own thoughts brings the whole JFK and 9/11 truth communities into disrepute?