Disclosure of the Moon Landing Hoax: Part 2

originally posted by: choos

the whole reason the moon landing theories exist is because some people are just too stupid to accept the reality of it and therefore make up stories to fill the gaps in knowledge of what they know and see..

The other reason is this:

$$$$$$

Some people see a chance to make a lot of money out of stupid people. Go to Convict Bart's website, see how long it takes you to find the word 'Donate'. Sibrel claims his little film cost $500k to make (I imagine that's for the benefit of the IRS) - where do you think he gets that kind of money? He's on record as claiming that the government is paying people to promote the Apollo story and paying for the webspace to discredit people like him, yet somehow he can magic up half a million dollars and no-one questions it.

It's no coincidence, in my opinion, that both Sibrel and his stable mate Jarrah are film makers first, and they have used their media skills to produce and promote a story that a section of society buys into. If you want to recoup those not inconsiderable costs, you need a willing audience.

In order to construct that story they are quite happy to lie, cherry pick from statements and pick over the bones of isolated fragments of information after taking them out of context.

Sibrel lies in 'astronauts gone wild' when he claims he 'accidentally' left the camera running at Mitchell's house, because as soon as he felt he had something he could use he mentioned that the camera was still running. He lied to gain access to astronauts. He lies when he says he was sent 'secret footage' he wasn't supposed to see because it was footage that was broadcast to journalists in full during the mission, was always freely available, and was re-broadcast on the news at the time of the mission.

His claims that the Apollo 11 crew were in LEO and that the Earth you see is just a fragment of it viewed through a circular window are absolute nonsense and fall apart the second you see the satellite images of the Earth taken at the time of the broadcast, and when you realise how often you have to change receiving station on the ground to cope with that orbit. Only a moron would continue to fall for it after they've seen the full picture.

His evidence relies solely on the fact that people will accept them without question. As soon as what he presents is questioned it disintegrates into nothing.

Turbonium can obsess all he likes about his champion getting his ass kicked by a pensioner. He can complain all he wants about the unjust treatment of his hero. It doesn't prove they didn't land on the moon.

The Apollo astronauts sell books for $$$, make paid appearances for $$$ and sell one-of-a-kind items at auction FOR MONEY $$$$$, and some even get cushy government or corporate jobs that pay $$$$$. They have been making money from that for nearly 50 years. Did you pay $$$ to shake the hand of an "moon walker"?

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Sibrel lies in 'astronauts gone wild' when he claims he 'accidentally' left the camera running at Mitchell's house,

Sibrel was not running the camera at Mitchell's house. Get your facts straight..

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
The Apollo astronauts sell books for $$$, make paid appearances for $$$ and sell one-of-a-kind items at auction FOR MONEY $$$$$, and some even get cushy government or corporate jobs that pay $$$$$. They have been making money from that for nearly 50 years. Did you pay $$$ to shake the hand of an "moon walker"?

The trouble is the CLOWNS you support try to make money by LYING about the achievements of others.

This is META. SJ quoting OBM who is replying to choos in reaction to what Turbo wrote.

a reply to: onebigmonkey Turbonium can obsess all he likes about his champion getting his ass kicked by a pensioner.

I have noticed that a lot of the Apollo Defenders here are obsessed with the violence aspect of the Sibrel videos. Defenders react wildly (like disturbed primates always do) when faced with the sight of seeing Sibrel "getting his ass kicked by a pensioner". Defenders get satisfaction in glorifying the portrayal of violence against Sibrel ... this bad behavior is found in almost every Apollo thread on the internet where Sibrel's name is mentioned.

In Apollo threads you'll find it is always there - the ADLV - the Apollo Defender Lust for Violence. I wish it would go away.

Incidentally, there are other factors that go beyond the lust for violence, like the close association to carpet bombing threads with further calls to violence against Sibrel; and by obsessively linking those threats of violence to anyone who might have reason to question the official Apollo viewpoint.

The value of the Sibrel movies is not in the entertainment value or violence, or even in the fake window shots of the earth from low earth orbit... the real value is in what he captured on his interviews... like the look on each astronaut's face when the questions get too tough.

I agree with Turbo's analysis of Sibrel, in general. I strongly disagree with the ADLV and all expressions of hate speech against Bart Sibrel.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Says the guy with a LUST for NIXON

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter


or even in the fake window shots of the earth from low earth orbit.

Want to explain how that was achieved from low Earth orbit we need a good

So in your own words please explain.

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
The Apollo astronauts sell books for $$$, make paid appearances for $$$ and sell one-of-a-kind items at auction FOR MONEY $$$$$, and some even get cushy government or corporate jobs that pay $$$$$. They have been making money from that for nearly 50 years. Did you pay $$$ to shake the hand of an "moon walker"?

The trouble is the CLOWNS you support try to make money by LYING about the achievements of others.

The CIA CREEPS in the White House had the cash flow to pay off anybody to look the other way, pay offs for not asking questions, pay offs to put pressure on individuals, in the form of cost plus contracts, pay offs in the form of over time for workers, and they use pay offs to entice other CIA CREEPS (or targets) to lie about their achievements (or failures).

Heck, back in the early 1960's it took as little as $10,000 down payment to get started on the assassination of Castro. The everyday presumption that people are basically honest is dubious. People can be bought. Including astronauts.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter


Thought not just your usual BS then I see

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Says the guy with a LUST for NIXON

haha. I have been known to make a few posts with Nixon in them

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Says the guy with a LUST for NIXON

haha. I have been known to make a few posts with Nixon in them

A few that's the BIGGEST understatement so far this year.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

The value of the Sibrel movies is not in the entertainment value or violence, or even in the fake window shots of the earth from low earth orbit... the real value is in what he captured on his interviews... like the look on each astronaut's face when the questions get too tough.

I agree with Turbo's analysis of Sibrel, in general. I strongly disagree with the ADLV and all expressions of hate speech against Bart Sibrel.

does this post goes hand in hand with your earlier post??

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
It wasn't trespassing, no police reports were filed by astronauts against Sibrel.
Now, Sibrel had video evidence of assault & battery by two astronauts. Why didn't Sibrel charge them?

Have you ever considered that they might be on the same team?

if so, and if im not mistaking your intention..

that if Sibrel was working on the same team as the astronauts, his movies/books are mere fluff to distract hoax believers from other issues..

since his contentions are that the moon landings were faked, you are suggesting that the moon landings were real and the moon hoax theories are just a distraction.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: onebigmonkey

Sibrel lies in 'astronauts gone wild' when he claims he 'accidentally' left the camera running at Mitchell's house,

Sibrel was not running the camera at Mitchell's house. Get your facts straight..

He's the one in charge of the shoot, he's the one who claims it was 'accidentally' left running. He lied.

Now, care to explain LEO window shots? Thug-life champion Sibrel claims that the Earth only appears to be round because you see a small chunk of Earth through a round porthole. Do you believe that, or are you happy to accept that the satellite evidence demonstrates beyond doubt that the whole Earth is visible, and that furthermore that the Earth is portrayed accurately in terms of the weather patterns and the configuration of land, oceans and terminator for the times of the broadcasts?

You can read all about Sibrel's dishonest interpretation of the footage here

www.apollo-history-and-hoax.com...

as well as look at the satellite evidence on my site

onebigmonkey.com...

If you agree with him that the broadcasts are from LEO, can you explain the long unbroken sequences that are all channeled through one receiving station, instead of changing every 7 or 8 minutes that would be necessary in LEO?

Oh and your question about astronaut handshakes? Yes, I gladly pay the fee to attend lectures and shake hands with them. If I had the money I would be bidding for flown items and other souvenirs (which they are perfectly entitled to sell) I have, at least, made the effort to listen to their testimony in person rather than rely on second reports. This is their source of income and I don't begrudge anyone making an honest living. I don't regard moon hoax proponents like Sibrel, White, Kaysing and Rene as honest and they tell lies to suck money from the gullible.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: turbonium1

A source was all that was asked for, not more diversionary tactics.

Like repeatedly calling Sibrel a convicted criminal thug, is a diversionary tactic?

Nope, it's a proven fact. He has a conviction for a violent offence. He was also arrested for trespassing on Armstrong's property.

I just like to remind people like you what sort of people you are holding up as a hero.

I'm not holding him up as a hero. I said it was stupid of him to jump on someone's car, and that he went overboard when he went up to Aldrin and called him liar and a thief (even if it's true).

However, you hold up Mitchell as a hero, and think he is innocent in all this, which is absolute bs.

You are labelling Sibrel as a "convicted criminal thug" for jumping on someone's car.

Labelling or labeling is describing someone or something in a word or short phrase. For example, describing someone who has broken a law as a criminal.

en.wikipedia.org...

If you want to go that route, then Buzz Aldrin is a violent alcoholic thug, who suffers from mental disorders, and Ed Mitchell is a violent thug who is convinced a teenager who calls himself 'Adam Dreamhealer' cured him of cancer, and believes aliens are visiting Earth, and we've found alien bodies, and it's all being covered up by the American government.

So here are 'true descriptions' of your hero astronauts....

Violent alcoholic manic-depressive thug Buzz Aldrin. Violent tin-foil-hat weirdo thug Ed Mitchell.

Does that work for you?

originally posted by: choos

where exactly did he grab his arm?? what are you talking about??? ive looked through it again and at no point does he grab his arm as you said.. sounds to me like you are lying again..

At 8:05 in the clip, Mitchell grabs Sibrel at his right arm, while he is putting on his jacket to leave. It's very brief, but it happens. No lie.

originally posted by: choos
secondly why does Mitchell need to ask sibrel to leave twice?? and why is the time between telling him to leave about 1 min and they still have yet to leave the room??

Mitchell doesn't "need" to ask him twice.

Mitchell asks Sibrel to leave while he is putting on his jacket. Putting on a jacket is a pretty good indication that one is about to leave!

There is no "need" to ask again, while he is putting on his jacket.

That is beyond debate. And you know it.


And why does Mitchell threaten to sue Sibrel after telling him to leave? You claim Mitchell just wanted him to leave, right? How do you explain that?

I can't wait to hear that one...

originally posted by: turbonium1

At 8:05 in the clip, Mitchell grabs Sibrel at his right arm, while he is putting on his jacket to leave. It's very brief, but it happens. No lie.

he touched his elbow for barely a fraction of a second, that is not a grab..

and why are you using this as an excuse?? he had already asked Sibrel to leave twice by this time, what stopped him from leaving a minute before this "grab" right after the first time Mitchell asked him to leave?

why does it take a second time to ask him to get out before we physically see him leaving??

Mitchell doesn't "need" to ask him twice.

exactly!!!! now you are starting to get it..

Mitchel, the OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, should only need to ask Sibrel to leave ONCE.. why does he need to ask twice and why is there such a long time between asking?? your "arm grab" excuse not only doesnt fit in with what you are saying but its not even a grab..

Mitchell asks Sibrel to leave while he is putting on his jacket. Putting on a jacket is a pretty good indication that one is about to leave!

There is no "need" to ask again, while he is putting on his jacket.

That is beyond debate. And you know it.

umm watch it again.. Mitchell had to ask Sibrel to leave the premises TWICE, BEFORE Sibrel even put on his jacket..

read that carefully, BEFORE not WHILE.. so your argument again is based on lies.

also im mistaken, he asked Sibrel to leave three times..

you know had Sibrel left as quickly as he had left the second time being asked to leave on the first request.. you probably would have no footage to cry over..

And why does Mitchell threaten to sue Sibrel after telling him to leave? You claim Mitchell just wanted him to leave, right? How do you explain that?

I can't wait to hear that one...

so you believe you know exactly why Mitchell threatened to sue Sibrel?? are you Mitchell?? no?? so you making things up again??

its pretty obvious Mitchell wanted him to get out asap, i guess its not as obvious to some..

Threatening to sue Sibrel, and threatening to kill Sibrel , was really just to get Sibrel to leave the house faster.

It makes perfect sense...


Not.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Threatening to sue Sibrel, and threatening to kill Sibrel , was really just to get Sibrel to leave the house faster.

It makes perfect sense...


Not.

some americans wont ask, they will just get their guns..

originally posted by: turbonium1

However, you hold up Mitchell as a hero, and think he is innocent in all this, which is absolute bs.

I hold him up as a hero for landing on the moon, and I admire him for kicking Sibrel's ass. His innocence comes from the fact that convicted criminal thug and serial stalker and trespasser Sibrel lied to gain access to Mitchell's house.

You are labelling Sibrel as a "convicted criminal thug" for jumping on someone's car.

Yes. And a liar too.

Labelling or labeling is describing someone or something in a word or short phrase. For example, describing someone who has broken a law as a criminal.

en.wikipedia.org...

The google-fu is strong with this one.

If you want to go that route, then Buzz Aldrin is a violent alcoholic thug, who suffers from mental disorders, and Ed Mitchell is a violent thug who is convinced a teenager who calls himself 'Adam Dreamhealer' cured him of cancer, and believes aliens are visiting Earth, and we've found alien bodies, and it's all being covered up by the American government.

So here are 'true descriptions' of your hero astronauts....

Violent alcoholic manic-depressive thug Buzz Aldrin. Violent tin-foil-hat weirdo thug Ed Mitchell.

Does that work for you?

Works just fine. Aldrin's alcoholism and depression are things he has acknowledged publicly. Sibrel has never acknowledged that he is a liar and a fraud publicly. Aldrin hasn't been convicted of anything, quite the opposite - a US judge threw out Sibrel's claim and argued that there was no case to answer. In other words Sibrel asked for it and got it.

Likewise Mitchell hasn't been convicted of anything, neither has Sibrel sought to charge him with any offence which to me says he knows he would be counter-sued for trespass and fraud.

Don't make the mistake that because I know, and can prove, that Mitchell walked on the moon that I don't think his personal and spiritual beliefs are off the scale. 'Adam Dreamhealer' is Adam McLeod, who calls himself a dreamhealer, which is another word for fraudulent quack. Mitchell claims to have been cured of a cancer by quack McLeod, but you'd be hard pressed to find a doctor who diagnosed the cancer in the first place.

Got any proof that Aldrin or Mitchell didn't walk on the moon? No? Get back to me when you have.

originally posted by: choos

so you believe you know exactly why Mitchell threatened to sue Sibrel?? are you Mitchell?? no?? so you making things up again??

No, I asked YOU why Mitchell threatened to sue Sibrel.

After Mitchell first asks Sibrel to leave, he said...

"And if you continue this, and you press it, I will personally take you to court!"

Mitchell is threatening to sue Sibrel, so again, I ask, why would he do this?

This is AFTER Mitchell asked Sibrel to leave his house. This certainly is not something Mitchell said to get him out of the house. It has nothing to do with getting him to leave faster.

So you "need" to explain why Mitchell would threaten Sibrel. You cannot ignore it.


What would Mitchell want so desperately for Sibrel to not "continue" with?

The only thing Sibrel was doing at the time was questioning Mitchell about the hoax. That is the only thing Mitchell would have threatened Sibrel to not "continue" with, or to "press"..

What other possible thing would Mitchell not want Sibrel to "continue" with?

In fact, this is exact same reason Buzz Aldrin threatened to sue Sibrel, as well....

www.youtube.com...

At 8:21 in the clip, Aldrin says to Sibrel...

"If you show this publicly, you're open for a lawsuit. Okay?"


"If you continue this', and if you press it...". "If you show this publicly....".


Both Mitchell and Aldrin threaten to sue Sibrel if he goes public with it.

So the question is - what would they be so afraid of?

Sibrel tells several Apollo astronauts he has evidence proving they did not go to the moon. But, only two of those Apollo astronauts (afaik) are shown footage Sibrel claims to be evidence of a hoax.

The only two are... Mitchell and Aldrin. The same two astronauts who threaten to sue Sibrel if he continues/ goes public with his film.


I think this is an important clue, to help understand what is going on.


You see, there should be no reason for any of the Apollo astronauts to worry about being on a hoax film. They all laugh about these people who think they didn't go to the moon, and say it's all bs.

Two of them are shown a film claimed to prove the hoax, and they still say the idea of being a hoax is bs.

Except they clearly do not act like it is bs.

This time, they are not laughing it off. They are angry, and worried, and afraid.

We know they don't change their story when seeing the film, but they worry about the film being proof of a hoax, and if it is shown in public, they are associated with that proof, as we know they watched it, and lied about it.