Disclosure of the Moon Landing Hoax: Part 2

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: DJW001
Was he a Japanese documentary maker?

his films have been translated into many languages ...Ergo, concordantly, certain individual propagandists have vested interests in flaunting their racism to minipulate the public, so when the hoax is disclosed it becomes discredited from further accumulated consumption ...

I suggest you apologise for this disgraceful and offensive slur.

All you're doing there is showing your absolute ignorance of the subject and just how low you are prepared to stoop in order to protect the fragile bubble around your world view: Sibrel lied by claiming he was from a Japanese TV programme.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: turbonium1

The worst example was a loony-tune Apollo astronaut who made death threats to Bart Sibrel, for merely claiming that it was a hoax.

as there is a vid of this incident - its not a good idea to lie about it - it just makes you look a bigger idiot

A person who calls someone an idiot, and/or a liar, without any evidence to support those accusations, usually ends up being one....

First of all, I did not lie. Unless you can prove I lied. Most likely, you will soon realize you have no proof. If so, it will prove YOU are the liar, by making the false accusation. So now, let's find out who lied here...

Btw - I'm well aware of the video, as I've seen it several times before. Here is a link, to prove what I've said is not a lie, in case you still don't know that yet...

www.youtube.com...

In the clip, w Sibrel has left the house, going to his vehicle. The astronaut (Ed Mitchell) and his son are also there. The cameraman is just about to place the camera inside the vehicle. Mitchell most likely thought the camera was turned off, at the time. As we know, the camera was still on, and recording both video....and audio.

Mitchell says - 'Do you want me to get a gun, Adam, and shoot them before they get out of (or out to ) the office?'

Sibrel tells him to go ahead, the camera is still running. Mitchell says nothing from that point.

Mitchell's son did speak, soon after Sibrel said the camera was running. Maybe he didn't think about that, or just assumed the camera was put away by then. Perhaps he didn't realize that video cameras will also record audio. Or he just didn't care if he was being recorded, who knows? Of course, it makes no difference what he thought, as he made this comment....

'Want to call the CIA, and have them whacked?'

Both Mitchell and his son are issuing death threats on Bart Sibrel,and his cameraman. This is not a lie. This is a fact.

Even if it was meant as a joke, it could still be considered a death threat. The person getting the death threat might think it is a real death threat, for example.

However, their death threats were not meant as harmless jokery...

We already know Mitchell was steaming mad at Sibrel, when he made the death threat.

I think Mitchell was most likely trying to intimidate Sibrel. A death threat is certainly a great way to intimidate someone, especially if it is taken seriously.

So why would he intimidate Sibrel?

Sibrel claimed the moon landings were hoaxed...? Because Sibrel said he has absolute proof of the hoax? Because Sibrel showed his film with the proof to Mitchell? Because Sibrel planned to release a new film, with the interview, sometime later on? Because Sibrel said the interview was going to be a discussion of the 'official' Apollo story, and never told him that it was really going to be about Apollo being a hoax, and was very upset that Sibrel had 'ambushed' him?

To issue death threats, which he and his son did, cannot be dismissed. It is not meant a joke, because they were obviously not all joking around here.

It was meant to be a threat, to intimidate Sibrel, that he better not release his film with the interview, or else something bad could happen to him. He might get 'whacked' by the CIA! He doesn't know if this is just a bluff, or not, either.

The whole point is Mitchell considered this was a very serious problem, and he went to very extreme measures to try and resolve the problem.


Nothing works better and faster than issuing a death threat, for solving such problems! And that's what he wanted, to solve a problem.

What is the problem, though?




You will never be able to figure this out, if you can only think of Apollo as being genuine.

You will immediately be able to figure this out, if you can also think of Apollo as being a hoax.

a reply to: turbonium1

The whole point is Mitchell considered this was a very serious problem, and he went to very extreme measures to try and resolve the problem.

Verbal "threats" are extreme?


Now, this, is extreme.

Court documents show he was arrested after another driver refused to pull out of a parking space he wanted. She was waiting for her car engine to warm up.

The arresting officer wrote, “A few moments later, the parking space in front of the victim opened up and [Sibrel] drove into it and parked.”

Sibrel “then walked up to the victim’s car and jumped onto the hood, and then jumped up and down several times.”

The report says he caused about $1,431.33 in damage.

web.archive.org...://www.newschannel5.com/global/story.asp?s=10799169

a reply to: turbonium1

DId he get whacked by the CIA?

Where did the astronaut threaten to kill him?

Did Convicted violent criminal Sibrel lie when he gained access to his house?

Did he leave immediately when asked?

Did he lie when he claims the camera was accidentally left on?

Did Mitchell unequivocally state that he went to the moon?

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: webstra

So he didn't actually get a gun and shoot anyone? It wasn't just something to encourage an unwanted guest to GTFO then?

He was trying to intimidate Sibrel, into not releasing his footage to the public. Just like most honest people will often issue death threats, in order to suppress their interviews.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Here's how bad at lying convicted criminal Bart Sibrel is. After he is ordered to leave (and the reason he gets threatened and gets his ass kicked is because he doesn't do it) you get some text on the screen saying that the camera had been "accidentally left on". When Mitchell makes his statement convicted criminal thug Sibrel says quite clearly that he has a video camera running".

So which is it? Did he deliberately leave the camera running in the hope that he would get some more footage without the consent of the participants (who had clearly got annoyed at being called liars) or didn't he?

How do you consider it relevant to know if he did or did not leave the camera running on purpose? The camera was left on, and he knew it was on. As for the text, I think it was added on by someone else, and I also think it did not mention the camera, it said Mitchell still had his microphone attached to him.

Not that any of this even matters to the actual issue, though.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
It's really very simple, Sibrel lied to get in to Mitchell's house, he called him a liar and called his friends liars. Anyone who did that in my house would get the same, and any normal person would react in the same way.

Mitchell was paid by Sibrel for that interview, first of all.

Sibrel told Mitchell, like he told all of the Apollo astronauts, he wanted to interview them about their Apollo missions, and what was it like for them to land on the moon, etc. A genuine Apollo, in other words.

This was a complete lie, of course. He wanted to discuss Apollo as a hoax, and wanted to show them his proof of the hoax.

Do you think he would ever get a single astronaut to accept an interview if he told them it would be a discussion on how Apollo was hoaxed?? Are you kidding?!?

The only way he could ever have gotten these astronauts to accept an interview, to get in the door, is to tell them a lie, and that's the only reason he did it.

None of the astronauts will never, ever, accept any interview about Apollo being a hoax. But they will gladly talk about the official version of Apollo, if you are willing and able to pay them handsomely. And, of course, you must also pay it in full, up front, before will shall grant you the supreme honor - of being in the presence of such greatness. As long as they are talking about themselves being heroic astronauts, and are paid to say it, they'll talk about it all day1

originally posted by: onebigmonkey


So he didn't actually get a gun and shoot anyone? It wasn't just something to encourage an unwanted guest to GTFO then?

He was trying to intimidate Sibrel, into not releasing his footage to the public. Just like most honest people will often issue death threats, in order to suppress their interviews.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Here's how bad at lying convicted criminal Bart Sibrel is. After he is ordered to leave (and the reason he gets threatened and gets his ass kicked is because he doesn't do it) you get some text on the screen saying that the camera had been "accidentally left on". When Mitchell makes his statement convicted criminal thug Sibrel says quite clearly that he has a video camera running".

So which is it? Did he deliberately leave the camera running in the hope that he would get some more footage without the consent of the participants (who had clearly got annoyed at being called liars) or didn't he?

How do you consider it relevant to know if he did or did not leave the camera running on purpose? The camera was left on, and he knew it was on. As for the text, I think it was added on by someone else, and I also think it did not mention the camera, it said Mitchell still had his microphone attached to him.

Not that any of this even matters to the actual issue, though.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
It's really very simple, Sibrel lied to get in to Mitchell's house, he called him a liar and called his friends liars. Anyone who did that in my house would get the same, and any normal person would react in the same way.

Mitchell was paid by Sibrel for that interview, first of all.

Sibrel told Mitchell, like he told all of the Apollo astronauts, he wanted to interview them about their Apollo missions, and what was it like for them to land on the moon, etc. A genuine Apollo, in other words.

This was a complete lie, of course. He wanted to discuss Apollo as a hoax, and wanted to show them his proof of the hoax.

Do you think he would ever get a single astronaut to accept an interview if he told them it would be a discussion on how Apollo was hoaxed?? Are you kidding?!?

The only way he could ever have gotten these astronauts to accept an interview, to get in the door, is to tell them a lie, and that's the only reason he did it.

None of the astronauts will never, ever, accept any interview about Apollo being a hoax. But they will gladly talk about the official version of Apollo, if you are willing and able to pay them handsomely. And, of course, you must also pay it in full, up front, before will shall grant you the supreme honor - of being in the presence of such greatness. As long as they are talking about themselves being heroic astronauts, and are paid to say it, they'll talk about it all day1

originally posted by: turbonium1

He was trying to intimidate Sibrel, into not releasing his footage to the public. Just like most honest people will often issue death threats, in order to suppress their interviews.

Where does he say that? Is right after he tries to get him off his property, only I must have missed the part where he says "don't you dare release this footage to the publiuc".

Evidence is not an option.

How do you consider it relevant to know if he did or did not leave the camera running on purpose? The camera was left on, and he knew it was on. As for the text, I think it was added on by someone else, and I also think it did not mention the camera, it said Mitchell still had his microphone attached to him.

Not that any of this even matters to the actual issue, though.

It's relevant because Sibrel lies about it. He claims in the subtitle that it was accidentally left on, but clearly states that he has a camera running. Sibrel is a liar.

Mitchell was paid by Sibrel for that interview, first of all.

Sibrel told Mitchell, like he told all of the Apollo astronauts, he wanted to interview them about their Apollo missions, and what was it like for them to land on the moon, etc. A genuine Apollo, in other words.

This was a complete lie, of course. He wanted to discuss Apollo as a hoax, and wanted to show them his proof of the hoax.

Nope. Sibrel claimed he was doing a program for Japanese schoolchildren about Apollo. This was a lie to gain access to astronaut's private homes.

Do you think he would ever get a single astronaut to accept an interview if he told them it would be a discussion on how Apollo was hoaxed?? Are you kidding?!?

The only way he could ever have gotten these astronauts to accept an interview, to get in the door, is to tell them a lie, and that's the only reason he did it.

None of the astronauts will never, ever, accept any interview about Apollo being a hoax.

Because it is not a hoax.

But they will gladly talk about the official version of Apollo, if you are willing and able to pay them handsomely. And, of course, you must also pay it in full, up front, before will shall grant you the supreme honor - of being in the presence of such greatness. As long as they are talking about themselves being heroic astronauts, and are paid to say it, they'll talk about it all day1

Do you give your time up for free? I don't discuss my work outside work for nothing.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

The whole point is Mitchell considered this was a very serious problem, and he went to very extreme measures to try and resolve the problem.

Verbal "threats" are extreme?

Threatening to kill someone is clearly extreme, yes indeed.

That's exactly what Mitchell and his son did, in fact.

originally posted by: Phage

Now, this, is extreme.

Court documents show he was arrested after another driver refused to pull out of a parking space he wanted. She was waiting for her car engine to warm up.

The arresting officer wrote, “A few moments later, the parking space in front of the victim opened up and [Sibrel] drove into it and parked.”

Sibrel “then walked up to the victim’s car and jumped onto the hood, and then jumped up and down several times.”

The report says he caused about $1,431.33 in damage.

web.archive.org...://www.newschannel5.com/global/story.asp?s=10799169

Are you kidding? It is not even close to making a death threat, in any way.

It is stupid behavior, yes, but it is not an extreme. This kind of stupid thing happens all the time, at bars, and concerts, at campus parties, and so on. I've seen it many times before, my own brother used to love jumping up and down on cars when he got totally loaded, at bars. I've seen a few of my stupid school friends do it, and a whole lot worse too.

It is a common thing, for many people seem to want to act stupid, especially in their teens and early 20's

originally posted by: turbonium1

That's exactly what Mitchell and his son did, in fact.

Where exactly do they do that? In fact? The actual words?

Are you kidding? It is not even close to making a death threat, in any way.

It is stupid behavior, yes, but it is not an extreme. This kind of stupid thing happens all the time, at bars, and concerts, at campus parties, and so on. I've seen it many times before, my own brother used to love jumping up and down on cars when he got totally loaded, at bars. I've seen a few of my stupid school friends do it, and a whole lot worse too.

It is a common thing, for many people seem to want to act stupid, especially in their teens and early 20's

How old was convicted violent criminal Bart Sibrel when he did this?

a reply to: turbonium1

what you are not understanding is the difference between a threat and actual actions carried out..

also the difference between your brother and Bart Sibrel was that Bart was jumping up and down on a car out of anger and not to mention he was 45 years old.. not some teen acting stupid..

The only way he could ever have gotten these astronauts to accept an interview, to get in the door, is to tell them a lie, and that's the only reason he did it.

and there you go, you just proved to yourself that Bart Sibrel entered private property under false pretenses.. and when asked to leave, refused.

that makes him a trespasser.. some trespassers are not as lucky as Bart Sibrel and often do get shot in America.

a reply to: amicktd

got a link ? i've never seen that, anyways for arguement sake, can sat images not be altered ?

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Where does he say that? Is right after he tries to get him off his property, only I must have missed the part where he says "don't you dare release this footage to the publiuc".

Sibrel was already out of Mitchell's house, and about to get into his vehicle, and drive away, at the time Mitchell and his son made those death threats. You think it's a normal, common sense thing to make death threats on people that are in their houses? Have you ever heard of anyone who resorts to death threats for a guest because nothing else will work. So they refuse to leave your house, so then you threaten to blast their brains out with a shotgun!!

Sure. Happens all the time.

Mitchell threatens to kill Sibrel "before he leaves". If you really believe Mitchell was trying to get Sibrel off his property, then killing him before he is just about to leave his property is not exactly the best way to do it. However, it would be ideal, if Mitchell was trying to KEEP him on his property

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
It's relevant because Sibrel lies about it. He claims in the subtitle that it was accidentally left on, but clearly states that he has a camera running. Sibrel is a liar.

Why would he want to lie about it? Just so you can call him a liar? He would gain nothing from doing it deliberately. If it actually is on his original clip, which you need to prove it is, then I'll continue on this point. If it exists, it is likely to just be a mistake.

What proof do you have it is a lie, and not a mistake? Show me the evidence of it being a deliberate lie, if you claim it is. If not, then it is you who is lying. Let's find out...

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Nope. Sibrel claimed he was doing a program for Japanese schoolchildren about Apollo. This was a lie to gain access to astronaut's private homes.

No, this was a lie to get interviews with the astronauts. Why do you think he wanted to get into their homes?

I get it! He wanted access to their homes, so when an astronaut goes off to the bathroom, Sibrel can quickly start shuffling through all their drawers, to look for some 'top secret' Apollo documents about the hoax. The astronauts usually like to hide their secret documents under their socks, in the top drawer of a dresser, located in the master bedroom....or so I've heard

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Because it is not a hoax.

So they don't talk to them if they think it's a hoax, because it is not a hoax. Sure, that's it!

If I landed on the moon, or orbited the earth, or climbed everest, there would be some people who didn't believe I did it. They think that I hoaxed it. They also say they have proof I hoaxed it. And they want to pay me a few thousand bucks for a discussion of whether or not I did it, or hoaxed it.

That is the first person I would want to talk to, in an interview. I would want nothing more than to set the record straight. I would know I did it, and I could prove I did it. I could also show he is mistaken about his proof of a hoax, as well, and point out why.

It is nonsense that someone who ACTUALLY landed on the moon would never want to talk with someone who disputes them, a person who claims to have proof it was a hoax.

Someone who did NOT land on the moon would never talk to people about their claims of it being a hoax, however.

originally posted by: choos
what you are not understanding is the difference between a threat and actual actions carried out..

I do understand it.

I also understand why Mitchell would be making a death threat..

You do not understand it, clearly.

originally posted by: choos
also the difference between your brother and Bart Sibrel was that Bart was jumping up and down on a car out of anger and not to mention he was 45 years old.. not some teen acting stupid..

The act itself is common, not extreme. And it is also done by 45 year olds, who are angry about something, which is also stupid. Anyway, the point is that you can't even compare it to making a death threat

originally posted by: choos
and there you go, you just proved to yourself that Bart Sibrel entered private property under false pretenses.. and when asked to leave, refused.

that makes him a trespasser.. some trespassers are not as lucky as Bart Sibrel and often do get shot in America.

He was invited into his house, and he left his house later on.

Trespassing is entering a home unlawfully, without being invited to enter a home, and sometimes in crimes committed on a property.

Now you know he was not a trespasser...


I cannot believe you are actually trying to justify a death threat!

originally posted by: turbonium1

I do understand it.

I also understand why Mitchell would be making a death threat..

You do not understand it, clearly.

sibrel was trespassing.. most Americans would give death threats to trespassers all the time, some wont even give a fair warning..

The act itself is common, not extreme. And it is also done by 45 year olds, who are angry about something, which is also stupid. Anyway, the point is that you can't even compare it to making a death threat

Sibrel lied his way into private property, Sibrel tries to spread lies. Sibrel had been asked to leave private property but refuses.

and yes he is angry about something.. he is angry at some guy calling one of his greatest personal achievement a complete lie.. all his hard work and effort, and some uneducated guy who needs to lie to make his money off of someone elses work, wants to stamp on all of it..

you obviously dont understand the pride that these test pilots have.

so sibrel can get angry and take action, but astronauts are not allowed to get angry? know the difference?? one is just talk the other is not.

He was invited into his house, and he left his house later on.

first invited under false pretenses and when asked to leave he didnt leave immediately.

Trespassing is entering a home unlawfully, without being invited to enter a home, and sometimes in crimes committed on a property.

Now you know he was not a trespasser...

he entered under false pretenses.. doesnt matter how you colour it he was trespassing..

once they worked out he wasnt who he said he was, and asked him to leave, he was trespassing on private property.

I cannot believe you are actually trying to justify a death threat!

why dont you goto a texans home and stay there and refuse to leave?? if you believe what you say then they wont threaten you at all.

Does it even need to be asked how Sibril would probably react to an a**hat stalker with a video camera inside his apartment?

a reply to: choos

You don't stay in my house if I ask you to leave or if you do be leaving with the coroner to the morgue.

a reply to: turbonium1

Or maybe he realized that the man in his home was Bart Sibrel. A man known for stalking astronauts as well as having mental instabilities and violent tendencies and became concerned for his safety?

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: choos

You don't stay in my house if I ask you to leave or if you do be leaving with the coroner to the morgue.

Sorry pal, you aint gonna make no references to coroners or morgues in an Apollo thread.

This is not a JFK thread!!

Unless you wanna talk about the Apollo 1 fire, coroners and morgues are a very limited subject. Take another drink of whatever it is you are drinking and get back to me dragon!

Apollo Defenders eventually have to admit the facts... Nixon's Apollo is the best, most accurate narrative.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

The whole point is Mitchell considered this was a very serious problem, and he went to very extreme measures to try and resolve the problem.

Verbal "threats" are extreme?


Now, this, is extreme.

Court documents show he was arrested after another driver refused to pull out of a parking space he wanted. She was waiting for her car engine to warm up.

The arresting officer wrote, “A few moments later, the parking space in front of the victim opened up and [Sibrel] drove into it and parked.”

Sibrel “then walked up to the victim’s car and jumped onto the hood, and then jumped up and down several times.”

The report says he caused about $1,431.33 in damage.

web.archive.org...://www.newschannel5.com/global/story.asp?s=10799169

You guys are making a big point about nothing. What are you doing? Attacking the messenger.

You may discredit Sibrel all you want! You could even make a career out of it!

Did Bart Sibrel play the role of a "wacko Christian taxi driver"? I hope some of you Apollo Reviewers are mature enough to understand the implications of what I am considering... what if... Bart Sibrel was just playing a role?