Disclosure of the Moon Landing Hoax: Part 2

a reply to: turbonium1

Yep.

Works for me - I have no sympathy whatsoever for him, and he got exactly what he deserved. Some would argue he got off lightly.

Oh, and no-one threatened to kill him - you can play around with what you think amount to legal definitions and semantics but no-one directly threatened his life. If they did, convicted thug Sibrel could have taken them to court. He didn't. Why is that?

Here's Mitchell's account:

"Sibrel faked his way into my home with false History Channel credentials for an interview. After about 3-4 minutes, he popped the bible question. Realizing who he was, I maintained my cool enough to swear on his bible, then ended the interview and tossed him out of the house, with a boot in his rear."

Now, do you have any evidence that the Apollo missions didn't happen apart from Astronauts swearing on the bible that they did?

As if swearing on a story book makes any difference to whether somebody tells the truth or not.

originally posted by: turbonium1

Mitchell "continued to talk" to Sibrel, really means....

Mitchell continued to provoke Sibrel, by first calling him a foul name, and then threatening to sue him if he tried pressing the issue ...

its still not an invitation for Sibrel to mouth off after being told to leave now is it??

Can you show where in the video Sibrel continually calls Mitchell a liar?

go watch the video,

wait wait.. you want me to think that Sibrel believes that Mitchell is telling the truth about him walking on the moon??? you sure you want to do that??

Next - if Mitchell was just trying to get Sibrel out of his house immediately, why would he continue to talk with Sibrel?

to make him go faster and vent off some anger..

do you think that is a good excuse for Sibrel to continue to stay on private property when he has already been asked to leave by the owner??

Mitchell's comments were meant to be ignored by Sibrel, as you see it?

yes to avoid escalating the situation.. he already angered Mitchell to the point of nearly forcing him off the property.. and you think its a good idea for Sibrel to react by mouthing off??

And Sibrel was to blame for not leaving when Mitchell grabbed his arm, while telling him 'once again' to leave his house, right?

Mitchell is the owner of the property.. he asked Sibrel to leave twice.. how many more times does it need to be said??
if you asked me to leave your property and i stayed and mouthed off at you because i didnt like the way you looked at me, are you telling me that its a good idea for me to continue provoking you?? and if you are an american most likely you would have a gun somewhere..

If Mitchell wanted Sibrel out of the house immediately, he would not continue to talk to Sibrel, knowing it will get a response. Nor would Mitchell have grabbed his arm, which prevented him from leaving the house, asap.

yea you are sort of correct.. if Mitchell wanted Sibrel out of his house the smart thing would be to ask him to leave and get his gun.

...so you have Mitchell, who wanted the nut-job out of his house at once, which is a normal response. Mitchell told him repeatedly to leave, and the nut-job refused to leave, while provoking him more and more! Mitchell had to respond with a knee, and a death threat, before he could finally get this nut-job out of his house. Right?

thats what im saying, although the right way to do it would be to ask him to leave and to get his gun.. this is america after all..

Mitchell was talking to Sibrel, who should not have replied to him because he had been told to leave, just a split second earlier. But he refused to leave, and continued to provoke Mitchell.

This is how you want it, but it's certainly not the reality....

Grabbing his arm does not help him to leave the house asap, and you know it.

grabbing his arm is an invitation to stay??

You have it backwards, as I've explained above.

as i said above, if i was in your house and you asked me to leave and i didnt like the way you said it, is it an invitation to stay longer and argue with you??

Nor do you.

My argument still stands, anyway.

how exactly.. the footage doesnt show the build up to asking Sibrel to leave.. the footage doesnt show Sibrel leaving the house.. you are of the opinion that everything happened just as shown and the cuts were only a split second or so and nothing important happened..

but we all know how Sibrel likes to manipulate footage and cut footage that doesnt support his claims..

Mitchell's death threat came after Sibrel left the house, just about to drive away.

It clearly has nothing to do with getting him to leave the property, by that time.

The only reason is to try and intimidate Sibrel, of course.

Nothing else makes sense.

You can't admit to it, that's the real problem.

on Mitchells driveway.. still his property..

is it ok for my dog to take a dump on your driveway?

a reply to: choos

is it ok for my dog to take a dump on your driveway?

So dog poop proves Apollo now?

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: choos

is it ok for my dog to take a dump on your driveway?

So dog poop proves Apollo now?

So a picture of Dick Nixon rolling up his sleeves disproves it now?

a reply to: choos
is it ok for my dog to take a dump on your driveway?

obviously the propagandists are ratcheting up their crusade ,,, they do not want the moon hoax disclosure to move forward & they've admitted as much.

the propagandists constructs are inconsistent, lack cohesiveness and frequently contradict themselves with their incoherent
conjecture, undermining the very believability of their propaganda campaign and rendering their adjoining arguments completely irrelevant ...

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: choos

is it ok for my dog to take a dump on your driveway?

So dog poop proves Apollo now?

every single time the evidence hoax believers have given trying to convince people of the moon landing hoax amounts to dog poo..

which is still more evidence than what you have contributed to the moon landing hoax, since all you do is revise history with innuendo.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: choos

is it ok for my dog to take a dump on your driveway?

So dog poop proves Apollo now?

every single time the evidence hoax believers have given trying to convince people of the moon landing hoax amounts to dog poo..

which is still more evidence than what you have contributed to the moon landing hoax, since all you do is revise history with innuendo.

Hey choos can I ask you a quick question. What is the Russian space altitude record and what year did they do that?

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: choos

is it ok for my dog to take a dump on your driveway?

So dog poop proves Apollo now?

So a picture of Dick Nixon rolling up his sleeves disproves it now?

Let me make this perfectly clear you are off topic talking about my avatar. I'll admit that I was off topic talking about dog poop. That does not mean I was wrong in talking about dog poop because it was in response to choos and choos needed an answer about dog poop. Now we have in this thread a lot of dog poop from Apollo Defenders what we need is an ordinance, a strict one, making it illegal to drop Apollo dog poop in the thread.

This will have to be a great bi-partisan effort, the Defenders and Reviewers and the extremist Hoaxers will have to all agree that there will be no more dog poop in an Apollo Disclosure Thread.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

How about we make an agreement that we don't dishonestly edit things to try and make them say things that aren't actually what is in original documents, and that we always provide links?



The article you quote discusses how Gemini 11 will make a new altitude record.

news.google.com...

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

Hey choos can I ask you a quick question. What is the Russian space altitude record and what year did they do that?

475km in 1965

what will happen if that mission went to 500km??

if you think that is the absolute limit for Russians what makes you think that Russians are biologically different to Americans?

another quick question right back at you, what is your personal altitude record and what year did you do that in roughly?

originally posted by: choos

what will happen if that mission went to 500km??

According to one source it did:

books.google.co.uk... wad2H0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wDiWVbyGGcit7AaLxYKoAw&ved=0CCYQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=voskhod%202%20orbital%20parameters&f=false

Other sources also give figures different to the 475 km usually cited.

Perhaps the two most significant ones are the figures reported by the press conference and articles on Pravda:

www.flightglobal.com...

and a translation of a Soviet technical article:

archive.org...

of 495 km and 497.7 km respectively.

This page gives an unsourced figure of 498 km

www.spacefacts.de...

So the Soviets, according to their own figures, broke their own mythical glass ceiling.

And another one: My copy of 'Soviets in Space' by Peter Smolders (1973) gives the apogee at 497.7 km.

a reply to: choos
what will happen if that mission went to 500km??

a reply to: onebigmonkey
Other sources also give figures cited different

so once again the propagandists have just validated the legitimacy of the glass ceiling with their lack of cohesiveness ...

a reply to: Misinformation

There is no glass ceiling, it is a complete fabrication based on a fallacy.

That fallacy just became untenable given that the figure touted by the person who made it up turns out to incorrect.

It turned out to be incorrect because I didn't trust SJ to get his facts straight and checked for myself.

You should try that.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Oh, and no-one threatened to kill him - you can play around with what you think amount to legal definitions and semantics but no-one directly threatened his life. If they did, convicted thug Sibrel could have taken them to court. He didn't. Why is that?

They did threaten to kill him, no doubt about it.

A threat doesn't have to be directly to the person, as I've already explained in detail.

You're the only one trying to play around with semantics here, not me. The legal definition is clear, and it cannot be debated, no matter how you wish to twist it.

And Sibrel could have taken them to court for it, if he wanted to..

I don't know why Sibrel didn't sue them, but he could have, and it doesn't change the fact it was done.

a reply to: turbonium1

I don't know why Sibrel didn't sue them,

Because he was trespassing after showing up under false pretenses and having been instructed to depart the premises. Because any judge witnessing the recording would have understood that and thrown the case out of court.

originally posted by: turbonium1

And Sibrel could have taken them to court for it, if he wanted to..

I don't know why Sibrel didn't sue them, but he could have, and it doesn't change the fact it was done.

why dont you know??

you seem to know what all the astronauts are thinking based on their actions..

yet when SIbrel doesnt do what you would have expected him to do.. its a case of "i dont know"

a reply to: onebigmonkey

I was using the figure of 475km in good faith. It came from astronautix.
Even wikipedia is quoting the apogee of Voshkod-2 as "475 km (295 mi)"

This was a world record for the Soviets at the time, breaking their own world record,

D. Viktorov

Translation of "V Otkrytom Kosmose — Ustroystvo Korablya "Voskhod-2",
Aviats|p.ya i Kosmonav^lka, Vol. 48, pp 17-19, 1965

Abridged versions of two official doctmients issued by the USSR
Federation of Aviation Sports in connection with the orbital flight
of the Soviet cosmonauts Belyayev and Leonov on Mar, 18,1965.

The documents are (1) a statement on the maximimi distance of movements
of Leonov outside the spacecraft, and (2) a report containing a
comprehensive description of the design, instrumentation, and
operation of the spacecraft (Voskhod-2)

The International Aviation Federation (lAF) has advised the Avia- /17
tion Federation of the USSR that the outstanding achievements of the Soviet
cosmonauts P.I. Belyayev and A. A. Leonov have set a definite world record.

The altitude of the orbital flight was 497.7 kilometers. The previous
record (408 kilometers) also belonged to the Soviet cosmonauts. Source archive.org...

If the Russians themselves, in this NASA translated document, say 497.7 then how could any of the other figures be correct?

Remember that the apogee is only the highest altitude recorded for ONE ORBIT. The Russians did not spend a lot of time at 300 miles. The Gemini did not spend any significant amount of time at whatever high altitudes they claimed to have reached.

Remember that the Russians had the lead in big boosters for a LONG LONG TIME. Ike knew it. Nixon knew it. JFK knew it. Webb knew it. von Braun knew it. Nixon was still claiming that USA was No.2 in 1968, before he won the election.

The Russians had gained so much prestige from making space records, including space altitude records. Both countries were addicted to space propaganda. Why? Why did the Russians stop making altitude records (at the now agreed limit) at 497.7km which is 309.25 miles?

Were they unable to solve the radiation problem? And rather than admit they couldn't solve the radiation problem they simply stopped trying to make new altitude records?

If you will remember the lessons of the 1960's (like plausible deniability, politics of division and credibility) you would have to expect that Russians won't give us a real reason why they stopped going up in space, instead, they would "redirect efforts" to other programs and we are left to try and interpret the "why".

Now let's go back to NASA's twisted word games...


"During the three-man Apollo flights before the moon trip, "
This means Apollo 7, a three-man crew, it does not mean Gemini, a two-man crew.

"astronauts will attain altitudes between 5,000 and 10,000 miles while orbiting the earth,"

So did Apollo 7 make that altitude or not?