Disclosure of the Moon Landing Hoax: Part 2

Thread closed for a cool down period that is unspecified, and for review of postings.

ATTENTION!

This thread is close to being shut down and left that way!

The topic of the thread is about the Apollo Moon Landings.

NOT EACH OTHER!

Nor is it about other threads.

Staff does not like making a thread look like Swiss Cheese by removing a lot of posts. Nor do we like shutting down discussion.

However, the issue is being forced in this case.

If someone makes a post that is about you and not the topic: ALERT it! Do NOT respond to it. Staff will deal with it.

The thread is now reopened. Continue to post about each other and the thread will be shut down and left that way, AND Post Bans will be handed out!

Do not reply to this thread.

originally posted by: turbonium1

To suggest it was 'not worth the trouble' is such nonsense, since...

It can't excuse away a death threat, obviously.

there wasnt a direct death threat, you know this. there was only a threat.. the same as getting a gun, there was a direct threat of sueing for defamation also however you are lumping the two together..

threatening to sue is generally for purposes of defamation, which was in mitchells own words "frankly not worth it" saying its nonsense is your version of handwaving.. wont work in this case.

the "death threat" was a threat, not a death threat.. they were asking questions to intimidate Sibrel off their property and stay off..

You've tried to excuse it as not actually being a death threat, by being not directly said to Sibrel, it cannot be taken as a genuine death threat....!!

because it isnt a death threat, ive had some guy tell me to leave a girl alone or he will cut me, should i assume it was a genuine death threat and report it??..

if you have such genuine concerns for Sibrels well being, why didnt you report it?? you have every right to report it if you feel it was a genuine threat to Sibrels life..

and obviously you do have very genuine concern for Sibrel's life since you called the situation desperate on Mitchells behalf..

You've also tried to excuse it as something we'd all do in similar circumstances, or even go beyond it, as many of us would have grabbed their guns, to make sure he gets the message!!

many Americans would have, some would even merely show their guns without pointing it at anyone..

And the message is - leave, now, or else! Right?

No, this is the message you invented. You simply choose to deny the reality...

not so much leave now or else..

more like leave now and stay away..

if you dont think this happens in the real world then i envy your bubble wrapped rainbow lollipop world.

p.s. also its quite obvious now that your "genuine" belief that Sibrel's life was in danger is well founded given that Sibrel was killed shortly after.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

The Apollo Defenders have made exaggerated claims that Sibrel is making $$$ from his movies. All of his movies are on youtube or other sites for free and he's not making the $$$ he thought he could make... so he's now a taxi driver. It just doesn't add up for me.

I for one never made exaggerate claims about his income from his films. I said he was in it for the money, not that he made any. It is Sibrel who claimed to have sent $500k making his films Where does a taxi driver get that?

If you think he's doing this out of the goodness of his criminal heart, then what's this on his page?:

Sibrel could have gotten Buzz a police record by charging him with assault. That would mean fingerprints and mug shots for Buzz Aldrin and that would have made a great story in the celebrity press. That's what Buzz is - he's a celebrity astronaut.

He tried. A judge threw it out, saying effectively that he asked for it. Even in the eyes of the law Aldrin did nothing wrong.

I think that we, you, me and the others, have all misunderstood the Sibrel story and the meaning of his work. We may be 100% totally wrong by branding Sibrel as a hoax believer. I'm starting to lean toward the idea that Sibrel isn't a hoax believer... he's a co-conspirator.

For once then we may agree: he's a liar and a fraud.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

I for one never made exaggerate claims about his income from his films. I said he was in it for the money, not that he made any. It is Sibrel who claimed to have spent $500k making his films Where does a taxi driver get that?

It wouldn't surprise me if Sibrels "book" for the IRS show that his expenses for making the film was a half million dollars, but the actual cost of the film may have been far less...

...then again, he could get creative with his bookkeeping and claim a certain amount of salary is allocated to him while making the film. What I'm saying is that part of that $500,000 could be in the books as his salary for being the filmmaker.

The Pilgrim Project actually predates the first Gemini flight, but it’s about the Apollo programme which followed it. The Soviets then hoaxed a Moon Landing, forcing the CIA/NASA to dust off their Pilgrim Project Plan.

Not to drift OT, but the Moon hoax and JFK's Zapruder film both remind me of how important and mature of a science photography and related technologies were during that period of time.

Thinking about 'if' footage can be faked, well it opens a big window when you consider at the time how optical and film systems of reconnaissance were extraordinarily sophisticated and populated with skilled technicians. This even crosses over into private sector, where movie FX were dawning. BUT what set it off for me is considering the Cronus spy satellite program. Heck, they're deorbiting film capsules to a rush development and analysis team! To think there may have been some fakery, cut-n-paste, to the Apollo record is very reasonable, if not, umm, expected.

I didn't mean to change the subject, but the Aldrin scuffle doesn't seem like a game-changer subject.

originally posted by: choos
there wasnt a direct death threat, you know this. there was only a threat.. the same as getting a gun, there was a direct threat of sueing for defamation also however you are lumping the two together..

There was a death threat, and you know it doesn't have to be made directly to the person to be a death threat. I've already posted an example of a genuine death threat, which was even less direct than Mitchell's (and his son's) death threats were. The death threats were made by someone who said other people were out to kill him. It was still considered to be a death threat. No different than if the threat had been made directly.

The direct threat to sue was never said to be for defamation, you made that up. Mitchell said to Sibrel "And if you continue this, and you press it.." he will sue him. That is it. He did not mention anything about defamation, or such.

originally posted by: choos
threatening to sue is generally for purposes of defamation, which was in mitchells own words "frankly not worth it" saying its nonsense is your version of handwaving.. wont work in this case.

Again, defamation was never mentioned, so why say it over and over, if it's not true? Are you lying on purpose? Or is it something you imagined him saying?

Sibrel did not want Sibrel to continue with "this", or to "press it". So that's why Mitchell threatened Sibrel with a lawsuit. But Sibrel liked the idea of Mitchell taking him to court, so he could prove his claim they hoaxed it. Sibrel gave him his card, for that reason.

Mitchell immediately tore up Sibrel's card, and said suing him was 'frankly not worth it".

If Mitchell really believed it was "not worth it" to sue Sibrel, then why did he threaten to sue him moments earlier?

Because it was meant as a threat, to intimidate Sibrel out of continuing his project. Same as the death threat was meant, to intimidate Sibrel.

originally posted by: choos
the "death threat" was a threat, not a death threat.. they were asking questions to intimidate Sibrel off their property and stay off..

Yes, they were simply "asking questions"!

"Want me to get my gun and shoot him, Adam, before he gets out..?"

"Wanna call the CIA and have him whacked?"

These are called death threats. They are said as questions, to each other, in front of the person. They are making death threats to Sibrel, which is hardly just "asking questions". They are meant to intimidate Sibrel, that part is true.

They have NOTHING to do with intimidating him off the property, that is utter nonsense. Sibrel was already out of the house, and they were putting their equipment in their vehicle. He was ALREADY LEAVING THE PROPERTY! All he hadn'tdone yet was get in the vehicle, and drive away, when Mitchell threatened to kill him.

This is clearly not to get him off the property, and you know that. It's beyond any debate.

But you can't explain it any other way, so you stick with a falsehood.

That's what is called being in denial of truth.

I've explained it in hopes of convincing you to see the truth. But only you can change yourself..

originally posted by: choos
because it isnt a death threat, ive had some guy tell me to leave a girl alone or he will cut me, should i assume it was a genuine death threat and report it??..

That is entirely different. You were threatened to get cut, not get killed. And you were given a reason why you would get cut - if you didn't leave a girl alone. Mitchell didn't give any reason for why he threatend to kill Sibrel, he already was threatening to kill him, at that point, for his own 'reasons'.

Also, of you had previously beat up the girl, or something beyond normal boundaries, then there would also have been a logical reason as to why he would threaten to cut you. That is not like Mitchell, who had made up his mind already.

If you were threatened to get cut by someone out of the blue, for no reason, right at that moment, then for sure, it would be considered a threat. And you could, and should, report the threat to the police. That isn't what you've described, however.

originally posted by: choos
if you have such genuine concerns for Sibrels well being, why didnt you report it?? you have every right to report it if you feel it was a genuine threat to Sibrels life..

and obviously you do have very genuine concern for Sibrel's life since you called the situation desperate on Mitchells behalf..

Again, you don't get it. A death threat was made, but the threat was never followed through, as we know. That doesn't mean it was not a death threat, because it was. A death threat does not have to be followed through to be considered a death threat. Nor does a death threat have to be made directly to be considered a death threat.
Do you understand these important points yet? If you don't, then it's time for you to look it up yourself... because I'm tired of explaining this over and over to you..

I didn't see the film until well after the death threat was made, so I already knew it was not a concern, because it never went through. Thus, no need to report it. But you know that, I'm sure.

originally posted by: choos
many Americans would have, some would even merely show their guns without pointing it at anyone..

Only if they were under the delusion that the person wasn't moments away from leaving their property, then they would. But if the person is about to drive away, they would not. Now, please grasp this very simple concept, already!!

originally posted by: choos
p.s. also its quite obvious now that your "genuine" belief that Sibrel's life was in danger is well founded given that Sibrel was killed shortly after.

One more time - I never had a 'genuine' belief his life was in danger. That's just you, who never stops trying to make things up for me I never said.

I certainly wouldn't expect to find anything more from you, it's just how you operate. Sad.

a reply to: Misinformation

Was there a point to this post? You seem to be discussing fictional matters rather than the Apollo missions, which are verifiable historical fact.

'Countdown' (based on 'The Pilgrim Project') is a good film - is done well. It uses Gemini mission images and photos from the 'Consolidated Lunar Atlas to show the surface.

Its depictions of Earth from the surface are, however, rubbish.

originally posted by: FlyingFox
Not to drift OT, but the Moon hoax and JFK's Zapruder film both remind me of how important and mature of a science photography and related technologies were during that period of time.

Thinking about 'if' footage can be faked, well it opens a big window when you consider at the time how optical and film systems of reconnaissance were extraordinarily sophisticated and populated with skilled technicians.

There were indeed very skilled people working out there. However as I have shown on my discussion pages on my website, the special effects technology in films and photography just was not up to the job of recreating the detail shown in Apollo imagery. In order to recreate a view of Earth from from space, you have to go to space - the only way Apollo missions could get the time and date specific photos ,16mm video and live TV images showing an entire Earth disk was to be exactly where they said they were: In space or on the lunar surface.

This even crosses over into private sector, where movie FX were dawning. BUT what set it off for me is considering the Cronus spy satellite program. Heck, they're deorbiting film capsules to a rush development and analysis team! To think there may have been some fakery, cut-n-paste, to the Apollo record is very reasonable, if not, umm, expected.

Corona was a fascinating program, but it only ever covered tiny parts of the Earth surface and not at an altitude that would have allowed it to be used to create fake Earth images.

Here's an example of several Corona passes taken during the Apollo 8 mission, identified in red on an Apollo 8 image:



The weather patterns on that image are specific to the time and date it was taken, and can be matched by satellite imagery that wasn't available when the photograph was taken (they hadn't been taken yet).

I didn't mean to change the subject, but the Aldrin scuffle doesn't seem like a game-changer subject.

It's about Apollo, it's a reasonable point to make.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

He tried. A judge threw it out, saying effectively that he asked for it. Even in the eyes of the law Aldrin did nothing wrong.

No.

Here's the details ...

Beverly Hills police investigated the incident, which occurred 9 September, but said that the charges were dropped after witnesses came forward to say that Mr Sibrel had aggressively poked Mr Aldrin with the Bible before he was punched.

news.bbc.co.uk...
The authorities didn't even look at the film, because if they had, then they would have seen what ACTUALLY happened before the punch. And they'd have to lie about something they DID NOT see, which would not work out so well.

We can clearly see on the film that Sibrel DID NOT "aggressively poke' Aldrin with a Bible, before Aldrin punched him.

However, the authorities were glad to accept these so-called "witnesses" came forward with an entirely different story. These witnesses all claimed that Sibrel 'aggressively poking' Aldrin with a Bible before the punch.

Of course, anyone who has looked at the film knows - without any doubt - that Sibrel never even touches Aldrin with his Bible before getting punched. And you know it, too.


The authorities fixed i - they gladly accepting the story given by so-called "witnesses" as true, and they deliberatly chose not to even look at the actual evidence, which is all on film.

The obvious reason the authorities chose to defy their sworn duty to uphold and abide by the law.... is because the person who did it just happens to be a world famous hero astronaut.

That's why they dropped the charges. They are so wrong for doing it, as well.


If anyone else did this, they would be found 100% guilty of assault (or battery).

Here's my question to you - Do you actually think it is legally allowed to punch someone in the face for calling you those names? Yes or no.

I hope you know the correct answer is NO.

Do you have any proof that Sibrel 'aggresively poked' Aldrin before the punch? Yes or no?

The answer is NO, right?

That is the basis of this case - whether or not Sibrel aggressively poked Aldrin before the punch.

That is the reason authorities used to drop the charges.


I am after the truth. I don't worship so-called heros who break the law, even if I thought they were heros. Sibrel broke the law when he jumped on a car, and I agree that he is guilty of that. I don't care that he and I both agree the moon landings were hoaxed. I am only interested in the truth. It is true Sibrel broke the law. It is also true Aldrin broke the law. The authorities did not want the truth, they chose to worship a hero instead of doing their sworn duty. Authorities are not gods of truth and honesty, they are human. And they sometimes be corrupt, because they are only human.


Are you aware that you have your own mind, and have the capability of finding the truth, for your own sake? Or, do you want to live with false hero worship, and lies?

I choose the former.

Unfortunately, you seem to always choose the latter.