Fetzer/Burton Moon Landing Debate Finale

[David Guyatt]

I have downloaded the last picture and, as a personal experiment, have magnified it until it loses focus. The left crosshair is definitely eclipsed by the Rover and not washed-out by the sun. Try it yourselves. Bullshit very often beats brains (as one of my former City colleagues used to say) but seeing is believing.

It looks like another example of "washout" to me. What makes you say it isn't washout? It has a bright white object behind it, like the other examples of washout.

I've looked at it down to the pixels and its looks to me that the top of the aerial interferes with the crosshair. Whiteout can still be seen in similar sunlit elements of this and other pictures.

However, neither of us is an expert in these matters and are, therefore relying on what experience we bring to the table. Until approx. 4 years ago I considered the moon hoax theory to be nonsense. Today I lean more in favour of it, but am open to persuasion either way by force of well made arguments.

Lastly, I want to address what I regard as the unwise comment made by Peter Dawson about "one of the bad men at the other forum". I would strongly recommend that he refrain from making these sorts of sly remarks in the future. He is not at all familiar with how this forum was founded and why we went to to trouble of doing so, and should not, therefore, make judgments he does not fully understand.

Also is you point by point rebuttal of Jim Fetzer's arguments in any danger of being posted in the near future? :date:

Thought not...

I find myself in a position where if I acknowledge something Burton and/or Greer are saying over at the EF, firstly I am accused of being in league with them, secondly, of being a disinfo agent, and thirdly, of deepening suspicions of the first two upon every additional occasion I make any mention of them. And this at a time when Prof. Fetzer is posting the same posts on both forums, and I'm learning a new thing each time from B & G's responses to Fetzer's posts. They're moon mission buffs - I'm not.

I don't have any problems with Dave Greer who I got on well with at the EF. Burton, however, is not a gun you would be wise to bring to this argument - his dirty tricks and prejudice are legendary.

I seem to recall about 3 years ago that Dave made a surprising post at the EF to the effect that he had changed his mind about Jack's perspective on the moon hoax and now agreed with him. Thereafter he stopped posting on the EF moon landing thread.

Did I simply dream it? Or did Dave change his mind back again? Jack will know. Jack what say you?

Same goes for a rebuttal of Fetzer's arguments - my responses would mirror and expand upon Burton's to a large degree, and I've got good reason to believe that after any effort I go to in composing a response, someone will hop in and dismiss everything I say simply because what I say can be associated with what Burton says. It's not a matter of me being lazy, and hardly a matter of me fearing a debate, it's just that I'm not that stupid.

Well, if you're here to mostly to proselytize Evan Burton's perspective, then you're in trouble my friend. A well constructed and objective critique is the key to convincing those who's minds are open to persuasion. But your chosen mentor trails a lot of rank smelling baggage behind him that you don't seem to know about. I caution you to take caution.

As I mentioned above, Burton has gone to considerable extremes in the past to severely tick off almost everyone on this forum, including all the founding members. I'm sure he is greatly pleased with his handiwork too.

But the key to remember is this: when Burton's position is in threat, it is not unusual for him, on past performance, to have posts deleted on entirely spurious grounds (same goes to whole threads sometimes too) or to merge them to make it almost impossible to sift the wheat from the chaff. Nor is it unusual to suspend members who disagree with the EF viewpoint, or just block their IP address so they can't log on - and then innocently claim he doesn't know what's happening - that it must be a computer glitch.

There's so many stories that could be told, but I prefer not to go over this ground again.

I honestly think it would be better if you just stuck to your own guns and bring your own arguments to bear, or not bother at all. If I want to know what Burton is thinking I could always visit the EF. But frankly I never do anymore.