12-11-2010, 05:17 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-11-2010, 05:28 PM by James H. Fetzer.)
Burton, corrupt to the bitter end, has "merged" the discussion thread and the debate thread, making it impossible to follow. Where there were 12 pages, now there are 38 -- most of which I have never even read! You have to admire the simplicity and ingenuity of creating such a morass, which has the effect of diluting and obfuscating what Jack and I were accomplishing there, which, of course, was the point. Here is the post I have just made there, where I have saved the original 12 pages. This is a very nasty guy, who has no scruples whatsoever, as Peter Lemkin, Duane Damen, and others have long known. I really did not expect he would do something so underhanded.
Posted Today, 05:06 PM
Now THIS little snippet looks to me like a nice piece of fakery staged for the purpose of implying that the original "rehearsal" footage was faked as (in Peter Dawson's immortal words) "a spoof"! I invite anyone to compare them and ask if the "rehearsal" footage has the elements of fakery of this one! It is fascinating that "the beat goes on". How blatant can it get? And when you take notice of the tremendous difference in production values -- the sharpness of the focus, the clarity of the image and the vivid colors -- it should be obvious that this footage bears no resemblance to the "rehearsal" footage. The similarity between the "rehearsal" footage and the broadcast footage, of course, was always far more comprehensive, where I think (subconsciously) I was drawn to the "edge" (where the shadow falls) because it appears to be the place where front-screen projection cuts in. Notice how Greer follows the pattern of citing only the evidence he wants to consider. Not only does it not have a similar look or feel, but not even the angle is the same! Here is what I wrote about the "rehearsal" footage:
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.
Anyone who is taken in by this new hoax being perpetrated by David Greer -- whom I understand may be the mastermind behind the scene pulling the strings in defending the authenticity of Apollo footage and directing attacks on those, such as Duane, Jack, and I, who have the temerity to challenge them -- ought to be ashamed. This is as stunning an example of the lengths to which those who want to conceal the truth about the moon landing hoax are willing to do. And of course by "merging" the threads, it becomes practically impossible to sort out what was really going on here, which, I suppose, is the point. When they are defeated on the basis of logic and evidence, those who defile the name of reason and willing to resort to shady tactics like merging two distinct threads that should never have been merged are alleged to be justified on the basis of some flimsy ground, such as that "the debate was over", when it should have been archived like every other thread in the history of this forum. This is grotesque. For those who want a study in "plausible deniability", this is a stellar illustration.
Posted Today, 05:06 PM
Now THIS little snippet looks to me like a nice piece of fakery staged for the purpose of implying that the original "rehearsal" footage was faked as (in Peter Dawson's immortal words) "a spoof"! I invite anyone to compare them and ask if the "rehearsal" footage has the elements of fakery of this one! It is fascinating that "the beat goes on". How blatant can it get? And when you take notice of the tremendous difference in production values -- the sharpness of the focus, the clarity of the image and the vivid colors -- it should be obvious that this footage bears no resemblance to the "rehearsal" footage. The similarity between the "rehearsal" footage and the broadcast footage, of course, was always far more comprehensive, where I think (subconsciously) I was drawn to the "edge" (where the shadow falls) because it appears to be the place where front-screen projection cuts in. Notice how Greer follows the pattern of citing only the evidence he wants to consider. Not only does it not have a similar look or feel, but not even the angle is the same! Here is what I wrote about the "rehearsal" footage:
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.
Anyone who is taken in by this new hoax being perpetrated by David Greer -- whom I understand may be the mastermind behind the scene pulling the strings in defending the authenticity of Apollo footage and directing attacks on those, such as Duane, Jack, and I, who have the temerity to challenge them -- ought to be ashamed. This is as stunning an example of the lengths to which those who want to conceal the truth about the moon landing hoax are willing to do. And of course by "merging" the threads, it becomes practically impossible to sort out what was really going on here, which, I suppose, is the point. When they are defeated on the basis of logic and evidence, those who defile the name of reason and willing to resort to shady tactics like merging two distinct threads that should never have been merged are alleged to be justified on the basis of some flimsy ground, such as that "the debate was over", when it should have been archived like every other thread in the history of this forum. This is grotesque. For those who want a study in "plausible deniability", this is a stellar illustration.