Why would the astronauts be offended by a hoax...

a reply to: cestrup

I agree with your review of the value of Sibrel's videos. The real issue of it is the videotaped reactions of the astronauts. It's the closest thing we have to a cross examination that exists. 99.9% of the time astronauts are making appearances at regulated or restricted events and everything is scripted to the satisfaction of the astronaut. Sibrel has shown what the astronauts are really like when they go off the script.... Astronauts Gone Wild!

By far, the best interview is the Buzz interview, inside the office, Buzz is folding t-shirts or towels, and he says "We were passengers." That is the value of Sibrel. The next best interview is the Alan Bean with his ridiculous comments about the van Allen belts.

And I totally agree with your view that Sibrel didn't realize the potential of what he could do with the material - he blew it over & over again. It's even plausible that Sibrel was part of a psyops to discredit anyone involved in the Apollo Reviewer movement. Why? Sibrel becomes a stand-in, a straw man, for the Apollo Defender movement. They can ridicule Bart and thus transfer that ridicule onto anyone who questions Apollo.

And the Gene Cernan interview was also a good one. It would be awesome to go back in time and tell Bart "don't do it like that, don't whip out the Bible" because he could have gotten so much more better material from the astronauts.

That's one of the reasons I think Bart might be CIA contractor who did that movie to satisfy a contract with the CIA. He made himself torch bearer for Apollo Defender ad hominem attacks. His name is mud and anyone who questions the CIA/NASA/Apollo narratives will be covered in the same mud by merely mentioning his name.

If you don't think people can do strange things then you might consider the fact that famed JFk researcher Mark Lane was a legal council for Jim Jones People's Temple. Yes, that Jim Jones. So it is not implausible that Bart Sibrel could also have associations that we don't know about yet.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter
You think the CIA would contract someone to harass astronauts and provide what you seem to think is valuable "off-script" reactions? Your logic is all over the place.

First you argue that his video has merit, and in the next post you argue that he is some kind of CIA plant to make hoax believers look stupid. Which is it?


In any case, nobody needs to make hoax believers look stupid. Their arguments do that for them. Those who believe in the hoax theory don't believe Sibrel's name is mud. They're still posting his videos on YouTube more than a decade after the first made them.

If Sibrel is out there to make hoax believers look bad, where are the genuine, non-"planted" hoax believers, the ones with valid arguments that aren't stupid?

Bill Kaysing? Dead.
Ralph René? Mad and dead.
Jarrah White? See my signature.

If you looked forward to going to space your whole life, and worked towards that goal and finally did it. And millions of people call you a liar and claim it's a hoax, you would be pissed too... It's like a fireman saving a newborn a spit second before the building burn down, but people said you didn't save it and twisted the story.. It's offensive in a way. No laughing matter!

a reply to: Rob48

If Sibrel is out there to make hoax believers look bad, where are the genuine, non-"planted" hoax believers, the ones with valid arguments that aren't stupid?

When Apollo astronauts make appearances they are well executed propaganda operations, the astronaut makes a scripted presentation, there are a few pre-screened questions, that's the drill.

The only place you will see astronauts taking tough questions like this is in the Sibrel videos. And this one from Jarrah White, are there any more examples of Apollo astronauts taking tough questions? Then why don't you post them?

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

But they're not "tough questions". They are groundless accusations by an idiot who wouldn't know one end of a space capsule from the other.

It's pointless trying to reason with people who are so far adrift from reality.

As to your JW video, it isn't working for me so could you give a précis of what exactly his "tough question" was? (Why do people never give even brief summaries or quotes for people who can't/don't want to waste bandwidth on YouTube?)

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

But they're not "tough questions". They are groundless accusations by an idiot who wouldn't know one end of a space capsule from the other.

It's pointless trying to reason with people who are so far adrift from reality.

As to your JW video, it isn't working for me so could you give a précis of what exactly his "tough question" was? (Why do people never give even brief summaries or quotes for people who can't/don't want to waste bandwidth on YouTube?)

Jarrah was asking buzz about petrified wood and they didn't like that question.

see my own started thread : Moonstone 'Rijksmuseum' seems Fake !

a reply to: Rob48

Can you show us any astronauts taking tough questions in the last 42 years? If you google Jarrah White Buzz Aldrin you will fin d the video in question. Jarrah's video also explains the process of gaining entrance to the Buzz Aldrin event. What that process shows is that you need pre approval to attend the question & answer sessions.... these sessions with Apollo astronauts are screened in advance.

Take the fact into consideration, the screening process is a series of administrative hoops that would discourage most hecklers and Apollo heathens. Even the Q&A sessions are scripted events, soft ball questions and the like.

Can you show us some other videos of Apollo astronauts taking tough questions? Maybe not!

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Are you talking about this occasion?

It was the space conspiracy theorist Jarrah White, who quizzed Aldrin on whether he knowingly gave a piece of petrified wood - which until last year was thought to be moon rock - to the former Dutch Prime Minister Willem Drees shortly after the Apollo 11 voyage in 1969. ''Petrified wood? Well, that doesn't sound like it came from the moon,'' Aldrin responded, before suggesting the sample was switched sometime after 1969. ''What happens to that display once it is presented to somebody isn't the responsibility of the United States, and it certainly isn't the responsibility of the crew that gave it to them.''

Sounds to me like Jarrah asked a question, and Aldrin answered it.

And of course, as usual, Jarrah's "tough question" is based on a misconception.

The "moon rock" in question was not anything to do with Aldrin. It was not given to Drees by Aldrin, but by the US ambassador to the Netherlands at the time, John William Middendorf II. It should have been pretty clear that it wasn't a moon rock sample, given that it weighed 89 grams (over three ounces!), while the genuine "goodwill samples" given out to other countries typically weigh about 0.05 grams, and occasionally up to about 1 gram.

It was quite clearly a misunderstanding and a case of Chinese whispers. The Netherlands has two sets of genuine moon rock samples, from Apollo 11 and Apollo 17. This sample was nothing to do with them.

The U.S. ambassador gave Drees the rock during an Oct. 9, 1969 visit by the Apollo 11 astronauts to the Netherlands. Drees's grandson, also named Willem, told the AP his grandfather had been out of office for more than a decade and was nearly deaf and blind in 1969, though his mind was still sharp. [NB: Drees was born in 1886]

"My guess is that he did not hear well what was said," said the grandson. "He may have formed his own idea about what it was."

The family never thought to question the story before donating the rock, to which it had not attached great importance or monetary value.

Source: usatoday30.usatoday.com...

A hitherto-unknown three-ounce moon rock would certainly have "great importance and monetary value"!

So, another "gotcha" bites the dust.

originally posted by: webstra

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

But they're not "tough questions". They are groundless accusations by an idiot who wouldn't know one end of a space capsule from the other.

It's pointless trying to reason with people who are so far adrift from reality.

As to your JW video, it isn't working for me so could you give a précis of what exactly his "tough question" was? (Why do people never give even brief summaries or quotes for people who can't/don't want to waste bandwidth on YouTube?)

Jarrah was asking buzz about petrified wood and they didn't like that question.

see my own started thread : Moonstone 'Rijksmuseum' seems Fake !

Posted in August 2009. So you knew it was misunderstanding almost five years ago. Why was Jarrah still pestering Aldrin about it in October 2010, more than 13 months after the story had been cleared up? Apparently he doesn't keep up with current affairs very well!

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

I never understood the "bible" segment either. It seemed to be a bit of a cop-out when he had these guys with their backs against the wall. Especially, if someone weren't a devout Christian and didn't perceive any ramifications of lying on the good book. All of the astronauts were distraught, when outside their friendly confines. He was asking about the moon. Not about them being pedophiles or cheating on their wives, the moon. This should be something they would be proud to talk about and educate - if someone were not in the know. I thought all of their reactions were priceless.

I don't think he's a CIA operative or part of a psyop. I could be wrong because those will go to levels I don't comprehend. I think, due to the media control - his name is mud. And you're right - he's easy for the taking these days..

a reply to: cestrup

He did not have their backs to any kind of wall, he was accusing them of lying about the greatest event of their lives and one of the greatest scientific achievements of all time. And you wonder why they had the effrontery to be upset???

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter
All of the astronauts were distraught, when outside their friendly confines.

Ed Mitchell didn't seem "distraught". Listen to what he said:

I won't pursue this. All this attempt to say the Apollo programme was fake is just sheer nonsense. And you can talk about this until hell freezes over, and you're wrong.

That pretty much sums it up. He knew that he wouldn't be able to reason with Sibrel, who had tricked his way in under false pretences. He told him what was what, i.e. that he was talking nonsense, and then told him in no uncertain terms to get the hell out of his house. And why not. There's only so many times you can keep telling somebody they are wrong.

originally posted by: cestrup
I think, due to the media control - his name is mud. And you're right - he's easy for the taking these days..

The reason his name is mud is nothing to do with media control. It is because he peddles complete lies. Simple as that. You even admitted yourself that his "Funny Thing" video misrepresents the footage.

a reply to: Rob48


"You even admitted yourself that his "Funny Thing" video misrepresents the footage."

I admitted he left some aspects out. I still believe they're in LEO. He could have just been cutting footage to highlight others because of time constraints. I don't know. Or, like you say - he could be deliberately doing this to drive his point home. I don't claim to know exactly what people are doing. Even with this OP - I'm merely offering my opinion and each post that contradicts my opinion could be right.

And Rob48, you had to be disappointed with the lack of knowledge displayed by these men. If they were to tallk to you like that in a thread on Apollo - you'd be forced to correct their mistakes or lose your integrity

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

I was at a public event with David Scott and Harrison Schmitt, as well as at a book store speaking appearance of Buzz Adrin's, and there were no pre-screening of attendees or of questions at either. So "wrong" (short burst on the horn) on the "Screening Meter".

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Rob48

And Rob48, you had to be disappointed with the lack of knowledge displayed by these men. If they were to tallk to you like that in a thread on Apollo - you'd be forced to correct their mistakes or lose your integrity

These are men in their seventies or even eighties talking about events that happened 40 years ago - and often about aspects that weren't really of great concern to them.

To take just one example: why should Alan Bean know about the Van Allen belts? The crew's job was to fly the spacecraft and carry out their mission. It wasn't their job to know the ins and outs of the radiation belts. They trusted the back-room engineers to worry about that stuff, and to design the mission accordingly. Which they did.

Of course they knew that there was radiation in space. Every crew member wore a radiation dosimeter, so they could hardly be unaware of it. But they knew that they had huge numbers of extremely capable scientists and engineers working out the technical details. If they were given a flight plan to follow, they knew damn well that they could trust it.

Buzz Aldrin said "we were just passengers". Obviously there's an element of pilot faux-modesty there and he's not being entirely serious, but there is also an element of truth. The crew were just the crew. They didn't design the thing.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Please watch the video then. Quit with this emotional-appealing nonsense. We know what team you're on and you've posted basically the same EXACT post, mulitple times in this thread. We understand that astronauts are untouchable and Sibrel is a dirtbag to you.

a reply to: cestrup

this is there life mate, i too would be pissed if someone i invited into my home started saying i was a lier and a cheat

a reply to: haven123

Can you point to one time, in this video - where Sibrel goes into someone's home and starts calling them names? Not the Aldrin video - that is a dead horse. Show me who starts calling names first. Thanks!

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Please watch the video then. Quit with this emotional-appealing nonsense. We know what team you're on and you've posted basically the same EXACT post, mulitple times in this thread. We understand that astronauts are untouchable and Sibrel is a dirtbag to you.

I'm sorry, 'team'? 'Emotional-appealing nonsense'? What nonsense would that be then? I'm not saying that the astronauts are untouchable but I do think that Sibrel is an idiot. Why do people peddle this conspiracy rubbish about there being a moon landing hoax?