Apollo astronauts bizarre reaction to hoax questions

originally posted by: SyxPak
a reply to: turbonium1

Saw that video a while back and thought Sibrel on target. The late reaction from Mitchell was odd to say the least... It made my Conspiritorial/Cynical Mind flash!!...

Thanks for your input on that. Mitchell's reaction was very odd, indeed.

This brings up the question of why he would react in such a way. I believe Mitchell felt very insecure, nervous, and fearful, after he asked Sibrel to leave. That's when he threatened to sue Sibrel - immediately after asking him to leave. And when Sibrel was just about to leave, Mitchell then made the death threat to him.

Mitchell clearly is scared of what Sibrel will do with his project/film, and that's why Mitchell reacted so radically. First, he threatened to sue Sibrel if he chose to 'continue this', to wit, if he chose to continue his film. Mitchell was enraged.

Sibrel was already about to leave the house, as picked up his bag. That's when Mitchell kneed him in the butt, saying 'get out of my house'. That's what he WAS doing, so that's not why he got so mad and kneed him. Mitchell threatened to deck him 'if you don't get out of my house right now', as Sibrel was putting on his jacket. Again, that shows Mitchell wasn't angry because he wanted him to leave. Sibrel was leaving - picking up his bag, which got him a knee in the butt, and putting on his jacket, which got him a threat of getting decked.

The most extreme, bizarre reaction was, of course, when Mitchell threatened to shoot Sibrel before he leaves the property. This is obviously not said to get him off the property. He was nearly off the property, at the time. And Mitchell threatened to shoot him before he leaves the property. Shooting Sibrel on the property, would actually keep him on the property - since he'd be dead, or injured, before he could leave.

It is about trying to intimidate Sibrel, for sure. Mitchell is afraid of Sibrel's film being released.

Btw, I don't know if you believe in the landings, or in a hoax, or unsure, but I liked that you were honest in your view of the clip.

If I thought we landed on the moon, as I once did, I would look at Mitchell's reactions as inexplicably out of whack...because they are. To try and excuse Mitchell's behavior as justified is nonsense. Mitchell wasn't trying to get Sibrel to leave, he threatened to shoot him before he COULD leave!

originally posted by: turbonium1

It is about trying to intimidate Sibrel, for sure. Mitchell is afraid of Sibrel's film being released.

and NASA being NASA who would have to be watching each and every astronaut very closely as they would have first hand proof of the hoax, watched all this happen..

but even if they werent watching Mitchell, god knows why they would allow that as they would need to keep very close tabs on each and every astronaut, Mitchell was afraid of Sibrel's film being released and he would have notified the NASA goons, or even Aldrin would have.

so NASA being fully aware of Sibrel and his intentions, they continued to monitor him and when the time came they sent all their goons to silence Sibrel before he could release his "astronauts gone wild" in a mysterious but accidental house fire which just so conveneintly burnt all the footage/interviews and Sibrel's footage of which we are currently arguing over, is conveniently completely detroyed.

a reply to: turbonium1

You are welcome for My Reply. Now Thank You for your in depth response to it! I agree 100% that Mitchells response was way overboard... The 'Why' of it had hit me hard too... I could see Him being annoyed by Sibrel if it were only a matter of Yes He went to the moon and was tired of all the negatives about it... But I think He knows what some of us suspect, that He did not go...

The radiation belts are dangerous as hell to pass through, twice each, and some other things that trouble me about the whole thing... SO no, I do not think we actually went that first time. Maybe, maybe on subsequent trips, but to my knowledge we still had not addressed the radiation problem. Also the extreme heat probs on the sunlit side of the moon. Where was the steam coming from their 'AC-Cooled' back packs? Would there be any? No water dripping etc.? Would there be condensation on the inside of their visors?

I may not be the sharpest pencil in the box, but there are some oddities that I have not seen satisfactory explanations for... Later for now, Syx...

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

It is about trying to intimidate Sibrel, for sure. Mitchell is afraid of Sibrel's film being released.

and NASA being NASA who would have to be watching each and every astronaut very closely as they would have first hand proof of the hoax, watched all this happen..

but even if they werent watching Mitchell, god knows why they would allow that as they would need to keep very close tabs on each and every astronaut, Mitchell was afraid of Sibrel's film being released and he would have notified the NASA goons, or even Aldrin would have.

so NASA being fully aware of Sibrel and his intentions, they continued to monitor him and when the time came they sent all their goons to silence Sibrel before he could release his "astronauts gone wild" in a mysterious but accidental house fire which just so conveneintly burnt all the footage/interviews and Sibrel's footage of which we are currently arguing over, is conveniently completely detroyed.

First of all, the astronauts probably never mentioned this to NASA, afterwards.

Why? Because the astronauts didn't want anyone to even know about it, and especially not NASA. That's why they tried to intimidate Sibrel out of showing his film in public.

Consider what Aldrin said to Sibrel (iirc)- 'You're talking to the wrong guy. Talk to (or ask) the administrator at NASA. We were just passengers. We're just guys going on a flight..'..

So Aldrin is essentially blaming NASA's administrator for the whole thing, by saying that.

Aldrin would never tell NASA about it, that's for sure.


As for Sibrel, he had already released the footage of Apollo 11 astronauts (supposedly) halfway to the moon. NASA didn't know about the film until Sibrel had released it to the public. What could it help NASA to kill Sibrel, after his film was released? It would be worse, if anything, for NASA to kill him.

originally posted by: turbonium1

First of all, the astronauts probably never mentioned this to NASA, afterwards.

Why? Because the astronauts didn't want anyone to even know about it, and especially not NASA. That's why they tried to intimidate Sibrel out of showing his film in public.

so you are saying that the astronauts who were directly involved in the hoax are not being watched by NASA??

Consider what Aldrin said to Sibrel (iirc)- 'You're talking to the wrong guy. Talk to (or ask) the administrator at NASA. We were just passengers. We're just guys going on a flight..'..

So Aldrin is essentially blaming NASA's administrator for the whole thing, by saying that.

Aldrin would never tell NASA about it, that's for sure.

so basically you are suggesting that Aldrin had free reign on who he wants to give an interview to, NASA has no say on this at all and at any moment he is free to divulge all his secrets during the interview without NASA knowing.. ok understand!!

As for Sibrel, he had already released the footage of Apollo 11 astronauts (supposedly) halfway to the moon. NASA didn't know about the film until Sibrel had released it to the public. What could it help NASA to kill Sibrel, after his film was released? It would be worse, if anything, for NASA to kill him.

it wouldnt be worse.. because all that would have been seen was the "documentary" "a funny thing happened ...." which had alot of holes in the argument.. as soon as NASA realised he was chasing Aldrin around, boom car accident or fire destroying all the evidence never to see the light of day.. this whole argument wont exist at all.

the only argument to exist would be who killed Sibrel, and the answer would be a mysterious/freak fire/accident (which happens without causes) , so the best hoax theorists would have is it must be because of the film "a funny thing happened..." but all just mere speculation and absolutely nothing solid..

originally posted by: choos
so you are saying that the astronauts who were directly involved in the hoax are not being watched by NASA??

We can't actually prove they are being watched, but it makes sense they would. Just look at what happened to one of them after he contacted Bill Kaysing, for example.

originally posted by: choos
so basically you are suggesting that Aldrin had free reign on who he wants to give an interview to, NASA has no say on this at all and at any moment he is free to divulge all his secrets during the interview without NASA knowing.. ok understand!!

Aldrin didn't divulge any secrets about hoaxing it, though, so we'll never know what, if anything, would've happened if he had.

You can't say Aldrin wasn't watched, because he said nothing to warrant further action, anyway.

originally posted by: choos
it wouldnt be worse.. because all that would have been seen was the "documentary" "a funny thing happened ...." which had alot of holes in the argument.. as soon as NASA realised he was chasing Aldrin around, boom car accident or fire destroying all the evidence never to see the light of day.. this whole argument wont exist at all.

the only argument to exist would be who killed Sibrel, and the answer would be a mysterious/freak fire/accident (which happens without causes) , so the best hoax theorists would have is it must be because of the film "a funny thing happened..." but all just mere speculation and absolutely nothing solid..

You're assuming Sibrel wouldn't have made copies of this footage, and given it to others, before he showed it to the astronauts?

It would make sense he'd have made copies, and sent them to others in trust. It's what I'd have done, for sure.

Now, if NASA killed Sibrel, and the film he was about to release came out after he was killed, it would look much worse for NASA...


The issue is Mitchell and Aldrin reacting so bizarrely, to Sibrel...

originally posted by: turbonium1

We can't actually prove they are being watched, but it makes sense they would. Just look at what happened to one of them after he contacted Bill Kaysing, for example.

so like in the event of say an astronaut meeting with a known hoax theorist who had already released one hoax theory documentary and the NASA "caretakers" decided to overlook it?

going so far as to let an astronaut who walked on the moon to have an interview with the said hoax theorist in his own home, without being watched?

Mitchell was an old man already, it would be normal for the NASA goons to assume that he would have a mysterious heart attack a few hours before Sibrel arrived.

Aldrin didn't divulge any secrets about hoaxing it, though, so we'll never know what, if anything, would've happened if he had.

You can't say Aldrin wasn't watched, because he said nothing to warrant further action, anyway.

at anytime Aldrin can divulge all his secrets, it doesnt matter if he has or hasnt, what matters is that he can at anytime. if NASA waited til he has divulge his secret it would be too late to act.. what would be the point of their "silence or else threat" that you hoax believers believe that has kept everyone quiet for over 40 years?

and im not suggesting that Aldrin is not being watched because he hasnt warranted any suspicion.. im saying that if the hoax theory was true, every single person directly involved with the hoax MUST be watched at all times for the rest of their lives.

You're assuming Sibrel wouldn't have made copies of this footage, and given it to others, before he showed it to the astronauts?

It would make sense he'd have made copies, and sent them to others in trust. It's what I'd have done, for sure.

Now, if NASA killed Sibrel, and the film he was about to release came out after he was killed, it would look much worse for NASA...


The issue is Mitchell and Aldrin reacting so bizarrely, to Sibrel...

copies of something that he is still in the process of making??
Sibrel would have been known about after his first "documentary" and you think that the people behind the greatest hoax in history who have maintained the secret for over 40 years decided to overlook this?

remember his first film?? or do you want to conveniently ignore that it was released before any interview had occurred??

did Sibrel ever mention being contacted/watched/threatened constantly by unknown goons??

originally posted by: choos

copies of something that he is still in the process of making??
Sibrel would have been known about after his first "documentary" and you think that the people behind the greatest hoax in history who have maintained the secret for over 40 years decided to overlook this?

remember his first film?? or do you want to conveniently ignore that it was released before any interview had occurred??

did Sibrel ever mention being contacted/watched/threatened constantly by unknown goons??

We don't know if they watched Sibrel, or the astronauts, or not, and it doesn't matter if they did or didn't. Or if they wanted to kill Sibrel, or if they felt it could look worse to kill him, after the fact.

None of it matters.

Aldrin and Mitchell reacted to Sibrel like scared rabbits, that's the main issue you have to address....

originally posted by: turbonium1

We don't know if they watched Sibrel, or the astronauts, or not, and it doesn't matter if they did or didn't. Or if they wanted to kill Sibrel, or if they felt it could look worse to kill him, after the fact.

None of it matters.

Aldrin and Mitchell reacted to Sibrel like scared rabbits, that's the main issue you have to address....

none of it matters??

lets see now.. if what you say is true and they didnt land men on the moon and the astronauts are forced into lying about it for the rest of their lives, it would be sensible to think they are being watched.. any people they contact or talk to will need to be watched also, ESPECIALLY if that person has already made a documentary regarding exactly what they wish to hide!!

but to you that doesnt matter because all that matters is the astronauts reaction to a video of which NASA would have known the contents of but allowed to be released..

i see you painting two pictures of NASA, one incompetent one that is incapable of faking or hiding the hoaxed manned lunar landing for over 40+years and the other which is capable of doing so..

the problem is is that you want both of these organisations to exist at the same time and be one and the same.. it makes zero sense that they would let Sibrel make his second film given the power that you believe they have.. if they dont have the power that you believe they have, the secret would have been out within a few months after Apollo 11.

originally posted by: choos

none of it matters??

lets see now.. if what you say is true and they didnt land men on the moon and the astronauts are forced into lying about it for the rest of their lives, it would be sensible to think they are being watched.. any people they contact or talk to will need to be watched also, ESPECIALLY if that person has already made a documentary regarding exactly what they wish to hide!!

but to you that doesnt matter because all that matters is the astronauts reaction to a video of which NASA would have known the contents of but allowed to be released..

i see you painting two pictures of NASA, one incompetent one that is incapable of faking or hiding the hoaxed manned lunar landing for over 40+years and the other which is capable of doing so..

the problem is is that you want both of these organisations to exist at the same time and be one and the same.. it makes zero sense that they would let Sibrel make his second film given the power that you believe they have.. if they dont have the power that you believe they have, the secret would have been out within a few months after Apollo 11.

Why would NASA let Sibrel make his second film?

What does the second film have in it which NASA would want to keep such a great secret, and would have killed him for? Nothing, zilch, nada. The film has nothing in it but astronauts ranting and raving like lunatics. They look wacko, sure, but they don't say it was a hoax, or anything. Not good, but not ruinous admissions of a hoax, so they would have no worries. Not to kill him for, certainly.

NASA has the power to kill him, but no reason to, so they didn't. Easy for you to grasp the point, if you had really wanted to.


And you still have not addressed the main problem, yet again.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Why would NASA let Sibrel make his second film?

What does the second film have in it which NASA would want to keep such a great secret, and would have killed him for? Nothing, zilch, nada. The film has nothing in it but astronauts ranting and raving like lunatics. They look wacko, sure, but they don't say it was a hoax, or anything. Not good, but not ruinous admissions of a hoax, so they would have no worries. Not to kill him for, certainly.

NASA has the power to kill him, but no reason to, so they didn't. Easy for you to grasp the point, if you had really wanted to.

And you still have not addressed the main problem, yet again.

i have but you fail to see what im saying..

what you are saying now is basically that Sibrel's video have NO SUBSTANCE.. they are so far off the mark that NASA has allowed him to produce his second film without any interference at all.

why would they do that?? if you believed that Sibrel was on the mark with his theories then obviously NASA would have sent their goons to do something about it.. but nothing nada zilch..

Sibrel had free reign to interview astronauts over several months/years but was not harassed once by NASA goons.

one conclusion is that Sibrel is part of some hoax and is in collaboration with the astronauts and everything was scripted, (if you really want to believe in some grand hoax theory)

which means that this video and all its reactions have been scripted to fool gullible hoax believers into a wild goose chase. get my point yet??

so which is it?? NASA the omnipotent organisation capable of keeping the hoax secret for over 40 years or the NASA that thinks letting its astronauts to have interviews with well known hoax theorists is not a threat to one of the largest conspiracy in human history lasting 40+ year??

the other option you simply wont enjoy, because that would mean the moon landing were genuine and all the reaction were all genuine with nothing to hide and you simply dont understand them, because you know every one in the entire world must behave exactly as you would.

originally posted by: choos

what you are saying now is basically that Sibrel's video have NO SUBSTANCE.. they are so far off the mark that NASA has allowed him to produce his second film without any interference at all.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying.

Once again, so you'll hopefully get it right --

Sibrel's second film shows astronauts who react bizarrely, with sweating, nervous, intense anger, over someone who claims he has proof of the moon landings being hoaxed.

However, while the astronauts reacted so strangely, they all insisted they they went to the moon, throughout the film. None of them said it was a hoax, ever.

That's why NASA would let the film be released, because nothing was mentioned by any of the astronauts about being hoaxed. They were losing it, but they didn't admit to a hoax.

originally posted by: choos
why would they do that?? if you believed that Sibrel was on the mark with his theories then obviously NASA would have sent their goons to do something about it.. but nothing nada zilch..

Sibrel had free reign to interview astronauts over several months/years but was not harassed once by NASA goons.

Sure, for the reasons I've explained above.

originally posted by: choos
so which is it?? NASA the omnipotent organisation capable of keeping the hoax secret for over 40 years or the NASA that thinks letting its astronauts to have interviews with well known hoax theorists is not a threat to one of the largest conspiracy in human history lasting 40+ year??

NASA has the capability to keep the hoax a secret, and they have, for over 40 years. At least, they have made every effort to keep it a secret. They cannot stop people from seeing it for themselves, from their own images, footage, etc. in public view.

As I've explained, the second film has nothing in it NASA would need to kill Sibrel for. So that's why they didn't.

If the film showed all the astronauts admitting it was a hoax, and NASA allowed Sibrel to release the film in public, and didn't kill him, then you'd have a point.

Well, actually, that isn't true, You would not have a point. It would mean you have no argument at all, because it would be clear from their own admission that it was a hoax.

originally posted by: turbonium1
However, while the astronauts reacted so strangely, they all insisted they they went to the moon, throughout the film. None of them said it was a hoax, ever.

That's why NASA would let the film be released, because nothing was mentioned by any of the astronauts about being hoaxed. They were losing it, but they didn't admit to a hoax.

thats the same as no substance.. you are assuming that a multi billion dollar organisation capable of keeping the hoax a secret for more than 40 years are incapable of noticing the astronauts reactions.. the only people who would have noticed the strange reactions are hoax believers or you since you are much more observant than a multi billion dollar organisation..

dont you think its a bit risky to let Sibrel run around for several years trying to get interviews with many astronauts trying to get a confession?? your theory is suggesting that while Sibrel was running around looking for a confession that NASA was watching the entire time and decided it was not a threat at all.

if they deem Sibrel is not a threat, then obviously he is wrong with all his theories simple as that.

NASA has the capability to keep the hoax a secret, and they have, for over 40 years. At least, they have made every effort to keep it a secret. They cannot stop people from seeing it for themselves, from their own images, footage, etc. in public view.

As I've explained, the second film has nothing in it NASA would need to kill Sibrel for. So that's why they didn't.

i want you to think about what you just said here for a while.. the second film has nothing in it that would require NASA to kill Sibrel.. NASA which is a multi billion dollar organisation capable of keeping one of the largest hoax a secret for more than 40 years with nearly unlimited resources sees no reason to kill Sibrel.

but you do?

p.s. and before you say that you are saying that there is no reason to kill Sibrel, think carefully, if you think the reactions of the astronauts are a dead giveaway that Sibrel is asking the right questions then that is sufficient reason to silence Sibrel.

If the film showed all the astronauts admitting it was a hoax, and NASA allowed Sibrel to release the film in public, and didn't kill him, then you'd have a point.

you are assuming that a multi billion dollar organisation capable of keeping thousands of people silent for over 40 years are incapable of having qualified psychologists to notice the reactions that YOU have noticed..

Well, actually, that isn't true, You would not have a point. It would mean you have no argument at all, because it would be clear from their own admission that it was a hoax.

you dont get my point.. you dont get my argument.. you only know your own argument and refuse to understand anything but..

this is a hoax on the scale of keeping thousands of people silent for over 40 years.. costing billions of dollars.. they would have a vested interest to keep it a secret.. if they have a vested interest they would silence any possibility of anyone getting close to the truth (people asking the right question to the right people sort of thing).. if they silence any possibility of anyone getting close to the truth, Sibrel would be dead long before he finished his first film, as well as any prominent hoax theorist.

that entire fact that so many hoax theorist can do what they want, without any visits from shady goons proves that every single query from these hoax theorists are completely off the mark..
its either that or they are all part of the conspiracy to distract the super gifted moon hoax believers who can notice things that a multi billion dollar organisation with unlimited resources cant notice in over 40 years.

a reply to: turbonium1

You cannot make any sense of it. But it makes perfect sense, actually.

care to elaborate?

THIS is when Mitchell made his threat to shoot Sibrel.

Mitchell threatened to shoot him.....before he leaves.


This has nothing to do with getting him off the property, and you know it.

So what does it have to with?

Mitchell clearly is scared of what Sibrel will do with his project/film, and that's why Mitchell reacted so radically. First, he threatened to sue Sibrel if he chose to 'continue this', to wit, if he chose to continue his film. Mitchell was enraged.

Well in his right I would suppose,

I assume Mitchell didn't give his permission or that was his way of saying that he will take legal action if Sibrel used whatever footage he took when going there with out Mitchells consent.

The most extreme, bizarre reaction was, of course, when Mitchell threatened to shoot Sibrel before he leaves the property. This is obviously not said to get him off the property. He was nearly off the property, at the time. And Mitchell threatened to shoot him before he leaves the property. Shooting Sibrel on the property, would actually keep him on the property - since he'd be dead, or injured, before he could leave.

Not bizarre at all,

once a person get angry, in many cases the persons anger escalates, especially if whats made them angry is still present.

It is about trying to intimidate Sibrel, for sure. Mitchell is afraid of Sibrel's film being released.

He could be, because if it is and there is footage of him that he didn't approve of then he would go through legal channels to sue Sibrel.

That is pain in the behind, anything involving courts is.

To try and excuse Mitchell's behavior as justified is nonsense. Mitchell wasn't trying to get Sibrel to leave, he threatened to shoot him before he COULD leave!

Not trying to justify anything really, cant even remember if I have seen the footage, I have read about it and many other shenanigans.

However the description posed by yourself and also having a slight clue about human behavior which I think you lack shows nothing abnormal, here In Australia it would be abnormal behavior as we have different gun culture that that in the States, but being in States and being a character like Mitchel is it seem like quite a normal or expected reaction after being angered.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying.

Once again, so you'll hopefully get it right --

Sibrel's second film shows astronauts who react bizarrely, with sweating, nervous, intense anger, over someone who claims he has proof of the moon landings being hoaxed.

I get quite nervous, and anger can start show its head when I see such claims on ATS and other blogs, yet all it is illogical mumbo jumbo or a person opinion they think is proof.

If there is proof of a moon landing hoax, why hasn't it been exposed?

The conspiracy is old enough, or can there be some money made for those that claim they have proof, you know like a few more movies, a few more books, etc?

However, while the astronauts reacted so strangely, they all insisted they they went to the moon, throughout the film. None of them said it was a hoax, ever.

That's why NASA would let the film be released, because nothing was mentioned by any of the astronauts about being hoaxed. They were losing it, but they didn't admit to a hoax.

Strangely?

Whats you greatest accomplishment in life?

Lets say it was on par with walking on the moon or being in space, something only a select few of all of humanity have been privileged to do,

Know someone comes along and tells you you are liar or part of a lie,

You would be happy?

That same person does it over and over, to you and others that share your elite accomplishment, you would be happy?

As I've explained, the second film has nothing in it NASA would need to kill Sibrel for. So that's why they didn't.

Or NASA arent in business of offing people.

If the film showed all the astronauts admitting it was a hoax, and NASA allowed Sibrel to release the film in public, and didn't kill him, then you'd have a point.

Well, actually, that isn't true, You would not have a point. It would mean you have no argument at all, because it would be clear from their own admission that it was a hoax.

You sound like a very confused young person.

extremely confused seeing post this

NASA has the capability to keep the hoax a secret, and they have, for over 40 years. At least, they have made every effort to keep it a secret. They cannot stop people from seeing it for themselves, from their own images, footage, etc. in public view.

They have the capability to keep the hoax a secret yet they release footage that will expose their hoax?

Is that like the Mafia denying any involvement in a certain murder and then releasing footage and images that only the murders could have to keep it secret?


Some people do get too caught up in conspiracies that they lack critical, no, not even critical but simply minimal thinking.

originally posted by: choos

thats the same as no substance..

No, there is a significant difference between the first film and the second film. The first film shows Sibrel's proof of the hoax. Whether you or I consider it proof or not, doesn't matter, since that's the footage Sibrel claims is proof, and is the footage Sibrel shows to the Apollo astronauts. To wit, this is the only thing that NASA would need to keep secret, and to kill Sibrel for - if they knew he was going to release it, that is.

originally posted by: choos
you are assuming that a multi billion dollar organisation capable of keeping the hoax a secret for more than 40 years are incapable of noticing the astronauts reactions.. the only people who would have noticed the strange reactions are hoax believers or you since you are much more observant than a multi billion dollar organisation..

You've always claimed their reactions are perfectly understandable, given the circumstances, right?

But now, you're saying that hoax believers are not "the only people who would have noticed the strange reactions.." You say NASA would be capable of noticing their reactions.

Do you understand what you're really saying here?

You first argue that the astronauts reacted normally. Now, you say NASA would've noticed the astronauts' "strange reactions", and because their reactions are so incriminating, NASA would have killed Sibrel before he had released the film!!

So you're finally admitting their reactions were strange, after all....

originally posted by: choos
i want you to think about what you just said here for a while.. the second film has nothing in it that would require NASA to kill Sibrel.. NASA which is a multi billion dollar organisation capable of keeping one of the largest hoax a secret for more than 40 years with nearly unlimited resources sees no reason to kill Sibrel.

but you do?

p.s. and before you say that you are saying that there is no reason to kill Sibrel, think carefully, if you think the reactions of the astronauts are a dead giveaway that Sibrel is asking the right questions then that is sufficient reason to silence Sibrel.

It is a dead giveaway the astronauts are not telling the truth, but they are very afraid Sibrel has proof of their involvement in a hoax. NASA - and you - know it is a dead giveaway, but NASA - and you - also know that the astronauts never say it was a hoax, they insist that they went to the moon, and so their reactions can always be excused...


As you make excuses for it...

Why make a new thread when you could have just added to your other thread?.
I used to think it was faked untill ats bunked the conspiracy.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale

So what does it have to with?

Being afraid of what could happen to them after the film is released, primarily.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
I assume Mitchell didn't give his permission or that was his way of saying that he will take legal action if Sibrel used whatever footage he took when going there with out Mitchells consent.

No, Mitchell gave his permission, his consent. Nobody made him do it. Sibrel did not sneak into his house.
Mitchell was responsible for what he said in the interview, nobody else. What can he sue Sibrel for? Saying it was a hoax? Not telling him beforehand that the interview was going to be about the moon landings as a hoax?
There is absolutely nothing Mitchell could take legal action for, against Sibrel, that would hold up in court.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
Not bizarre at all,

once a person get angry, in many cases the persons anger escalates, especially if whats made them angry is still present.

It isn't bizarre that his anger escalates. To be so angry about Sibrel not leaving quickly enough is bizarre.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
Not trying to justify anything really, cant even remember if I have seen the footage, I have read about it and many other shenanigans.

However the description posed by yourself and also having a slight clue about human behavior which I think you lack shows nothing abnormal, here In Australia it would be abnormal behavior as we have different gun culture that that in the States, but being in States and being a character like Mitchel is it seem like quite a normal or expected reaction after being angered.

If you can't remember if you've seen the footage, how can you even know what I'm talking about? Look at the film, then you can properly speak about the issue..

It is abnormal behavior, anywhere on Earth. Australia included.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
Strangely?

Whats you greatest accomplishment in life?

Lets say it was on par with walking on the moon or being in space, something only a select few of all of humanity have been privileged to do,

Know someone comes along and tells you you are liar or part of a lie,

You would be happy?

That same person does it over and over, to you and others that share your elite accomplishment, you would be happy?

See the film, because you don't understand what happens....

Mitchell was not forced to answer any of the questions posed by Sibrel. He didn't need to answer any of Sibrel's question(s) if he didn't want to, at any time. He could stop the interview at any time, if he wanted to. He could ask Sibrel to leave his property at any time, if he wanted to.

And the moment Sibrel brought up the hoax claim, Mitchell could have ended the interview right there, and tell Sibrel to leave his property at once. At most, Mitchell would have been annoyed about what happened. He found out Sibrel was a conspiracy nut, told him to get out of his house, and he did , The End.


But that isn't what Mitchell did. He did end the interview, and told Sibrel to leave his house. THEN he became very angry at Sibrel. He called him an a**hole. He threatened to sue him. He kneed him in the butt. He threatened to deck him. And finally, he threatened to shoot him when he was just about to drive away.

It can't be excused, no matter how much you try to.

a reply to: turbonium1

I would have done the same.
If I had been ti to tge moon and some moron calls me out I would have kicked him in the nuts.
Sorry if you think this is proof of man not going to the moon well you have to do better then this tripe.

a reply to: turbonium1


Would you be happy with what I suggested?

I know you cant answer that because the likely answer would point to getting angry at such claims towards you as being something you might do, and you aren't abnormal at all are you?

It can't be excused, no matter how much you try to

I wasn't trying, just saying I understand his attitude to be normal and not really abnormal as you suggest.

Ah maybe when you grow up and get some age behind you, maybe accomplish something important as seen by others you might understand,

Maybe not.

Sorry, its just the way you express yourself sound like someone young without much life experience.

Mitchell was not forced to answer any of the questions posed by Sibrel. He didn't need to answer any of Sibrel's question(s) if he didn't want to, at any time. He could stop the interview at any time, if he wanted to. He could ask Sibrel to leave his property at any time, if he wanted to.

And the moment Sibrel brought up the hoax claim, Mitchell could have ended the interview right there, and tell Sibrel to leave his property at once. At most, Mitchell would have been annoyed about what happened. He found out Sibrel was a conspiracy nut, told him to get out of his house, and he did , The End.


But that isn't what Mitchell did. He did end the interview, and told Sibrel to leave his house. THEN he became very angry at Sibrel. He called him an a**hole. He threatened to sue him. He kneed him in the butt. He threatened to deck him. And finally, he threatened to shoot him when he was just about to drive away.

I really don't get what you are trying to say here,

He could have ended the interview but didn't, but he did end the interview?

That is how I understand you.

Are you saying that Sibrel from the beginning was open about what the interview was going to be about and Mitchel gave consent to be interviewed about the Moon landing Hoax?

Because I think Mitchel got upset due to being deceived,

That is case where legal action could be pursued.

However I don't know how honest Sibrel was, other times from reading about him he seemed to use deceptive terms to get interviews and it seems he became disliked due to his ways, punched and knee'd by a few Astronauts.


If he has evidence of a moon landing hoax, I am not sure why he would interview anyone or make movies,

Just expose it or be like so many others a charlatan pushing their own views of delusions to gain financially.

originally posted by: turbonium1

No, there is a significant difference between the first film and the second film. The first film shows Sibrel's proof of the hoax. Whether you or I consider it proof or not, doesn't matter, since that's the footage Sibrel claims is proof, and is the footage Sibrel shows to the Apollo astronauts. To wit, this is the only thing that NASA would need to keep secret, and to kill Sibrel for - if they knew he was going to release it, that is.

understand that im not comparing the first and second "videos"

you said that the second film has nothing in it that warrants NASA to do anything.. that is the same as saying the second film HAS NO SUBSTANCE

You've always claimed their reactions are perfectly understandable, given the circumstances, right?

But now, you're saying that hoax believers are not "the only people who would have noticed the strange reactions.." You say NASA would be capable of noticing their reactions.

Do you understand what you're really saying here?

You first argue that the astronauts reacted normally. Now, you say NASA would've noticed the astronauts' "strange reactions", and because their reactions are so incriminating, NASA would have killed Sibrel before he had released the film!!

So you're finally admitting their reactions were strange, after all....

you need to rethink what im saying cause you have it completely wrong..

yes i think their reactions are perfectly normal, because i am of the belief that they landed on the moon and they are being harassed by an idiot..

the difference between my belief and what my hypothetical scenario is, is that the hypothetical argument ISNT my belief.. the hypothetical argument is the one that entertains YOUR hoax argument..

im poking holes in YOUR OWN ARGUMENT.. so you want to try again??

why do you believe you can notice reactions that an organisation with unlimited resources cant??

It is a dead giveaway the astronauts are not telling the truth, but they are very afraid Sibrel has proof of their involvement in a hoax. NASA - and you - know it is a dead giveaway, but NASA - and you - also know that the astronauts never say it was a hoax, they insist that they went to the moon, and so their reactions can always be excused...

here you just said they are afraid Sibrel has proof of their involvement in a hoax..

Do you have any clue at what you just hinted at??? they are AFRAID that Sibrel has EVIDENCE OF THEIR INVOLVEMENT of the hoax.. that is enough reason to permanently silence Sibrel by coincidental accident detroying all his evidence..

but Sibrel was never harassed by NASA goons.. which proves you completely and utterly wrong.

do you get it yet?? Sibrel is the one that needs silencing.. you just gave enough reason to permanently silence Sibrel.. talk about putting your foot in your mouth.