Fetzer/Burton Moon Landing Debate Finale

[James H. Fetzer]

If they are authentic, then the Moon landings are one of the greatest achievements of mankind; if they are not, then they are the greatest hoax. Discussion and debate over their authenticity is a matter of enormous public interest, since the taxpayers of the United States will have been massively deceived and financially exploited by the misappropriate of funds by officials of the government, presumably primarily those who work for NASA but probably also members of the National Security Counsel and the CIA, among others. This question therefore has political, legal, and moral ramifications. The officials involved in this project have the status of public figures, where the requirements for libel or for slander are very different and far more demanding than Mr. Dawson seems to be aware. It is offensive and inappropriate to suggest that a scholar such as myself is committing slander or libel by raising questions and concerns that are related to this inquiry. If I am correct -- and the weight of the evidence supports me -- then these officials have committed crimes of misappropriation of funds and other offenses under the law. This appears to be yet one more -- and especially scurrilous -- form of ad hominem attack by Mr. Dawson, which appears to me to be a violation of the rules of this forum. I recommend that such measures as may be appropriate should be imposed upon him for this latest manifestation of a pattern of misconduct.

The link he posted was one of two provided by me. You may not have seen it as I edited my post a couple times as I added links.

Ah, I see. So he's quite prepared to slander the Hubble scientists as well as the LRO scientist - the Hubble scientists really haven't ever pointed the Hubble at the Apollo landing sites, according to Professor Fetzer.

Peter, it wasn't "slander". It was a stated understanding. A wrong one as it turns out, as Mathew has shown.

And for the record you cannot slander a thing (the "Hubble Space Telescope"). It can only be slander if you defame a person.

You simply cannot continue to make statements like this. Your anxiety to discredit Jim Fetzer keeps leading you to utter things that only damage your case.

I wish you wouldn't.

Can we, therefore, please keep this thread free of these personal slurs and attacks in the future and stick to discussing the evidence - otherwise we're in serious danger of turning everybody else off what should be an interesting discussion (not to mention slowly transforming this forum into a replica of the bruised knuckle tactics of the EF).

PS, in the event that you haven't read our forum Rules, I am linking them now and recommend you read them carefully.

Prof. Fetzer was saying in the post in question that the LRO images were "photoshop" jobs. And do you understand (given that he is still trying to suggest to us that men have never gone to the moon) that he is still at this point in time maintaining that the LRO images of Apollo sites are fakes? Who else besides the scientists who produced the LRO images are we supposed to think are responsible for the alleged photoshopping of the LRO images?

After consulting a dictionary, I see that the only mistake I made was calling his position "slanderous" as opposed to "libelous."

He also doesn't seem willing to accept that photos of the moon published by the Hubble people are true and accurate representations of what would be seen if the Hubble was trained upon the Apollo 17 landing site. I'm not claiming he's defaming the telescope, I'm pointing out that he is [well on the road to] defaming the scientists who produced the published Hubble telescope images.

That said, I'd be more than happy to stick to discussing practical examples of alleged evidence of hoaxing from now on, because I'm well tired of the current merry-go-round we're on.