It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: boymonkey74
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.
originally posted by: choos
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
originally posted by: turbonium1
It is not the same thing, as I've explained to you before.
The second film shows the Apollo astronauts' reactions to Sibrel, who claimed to have absolute, undeniable proof of the moon landings as a hoax. And then, Sibrel shows his (claimed) proof to some of them, to support his claim.
They were all nervous, in varying degrees. But they already knew some people were claiming it was a hoax, so why would it make them so nervous?
You claim it is normal to become steaming in rage, at someone who claims they didn't go to the moon, while he harasses them so much...
Even if that made sense, why would it make them nervous, before their 'normal' anger came along?!?
originally posted by: InhaleExhale
I wasn't trying, just saying I understand his attitude to be normal and not really abnormal as you suggest.
originally posted by: InhaleExhale
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,
originally posted by: choos
if it made them nervous then it would mean that Sibrel was on the right track.. it would mean that Sibrel is a threat to the US Gov/NASA..
but as you said, they chose that Sibrel was NOT a threat even though they have access to the very best human behavioral doctors in the world.. which would mean, that the video HAS NO SUBSTANCE..
I never said they were nervous, you claimed they were nervous.
the reaction im seeing is anger and the accompanying adrenaline.. you have obviously never been in a heated face to face argument where you thought it was going to end up in a fist fight..
apparently in your world getting angry when some idiot is harrassing you is not normal..
originally posted by: choos
I never said they were nervous, you claimed they were nervous.
the reaction im seeing is anger and the accompanying adrenaline.. you have obviously never been in a heated face to face argument where you thought it was going to end up in a fist fight..
apparently in your world getting angry when some idiot is harrassing you is not normal..
originally posted by: turbonium1
Sibrel said it was a hoax, and showed his proof to the astronauts.
The astronauts reply to Sibrel. They tell Sibrel that he is wrong, and say they really did land on the moon, that is an absolute fact.
After that, the astronauts would just stop the interview, and tell Sibrel to leave.
Why would they get angry, if they had really landed on the moon?
This is how people react when they are NOT telling the truth, actually.
Assume they are lying, if you can. How would they react to someone claiming to have proof they are lying?
Would they react differently than this? In what way would they react differently, exactly?..
originally posted by: turbonium1
If an idiot is in my house, I would tell him to leave my house, and that would be the end of it.
I'd let him go into his car, and he'd just drive away.
I wouldn't threaten to shoot him before he leaves my driveway...I'd have to be a complete wacko to say that!
originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: turbonium1
No you really don't understand human nature do you?.
If had been to the moon and some dick came up to my house saying I have not been I would have set my cat, dog and my fists on him.
Calling out the greatest thing the guy has done....
You appear to think this all means they have lied...it doesn't only in your own head.
originally posted by: choos
because he is harassing them calling them liars and thieves stealing taxpayers money.. he is trying to force them to say it was a hoax when it wasnt a hoax..
originally posted by: choos
assuming that they are lying they would NOT react like this.. after seeing the "evidence" that Sibrel had and was talking about they would have calmed down completely because they would know that he had absolutely nothing..
originally posted by: choos
but if you want to claim that Sibrel was on the right track, and you want to claim that the astronauts getting so angry proves they are lying, it would mean that Sibrel is TOO CLOSE TO THE TRUTH
ie. Sibrel would be dead!!
originally posted by: turbonium1
No, he only called Aldrin a liar and a thief. Nobody else.
Sibrel is "trying to force them to say it was a hoax."??! With what, a Bible? Good one, really.
As if. The assumption is they are lying. The last thing they would want to do is look at a film claimed to prove they are lying. What did Aldrin do after seeing the 'evidence'? He said 'where did you get this?' Shouldn't Aldrin say 'This is well-known footage'? Since he was, um, actually THERE! Aldrin also says the film is probably a fake. Which it isn't. That's how much Aldrin 'knows he (Sibrel) has absolutely nothing'!!
Aldrin and Mitchell don't want anything to do with the film. That's because they are lying.
Again, their reactions cannot be considered proof of anything, in a court of law. It is certainly solid corroborating evidence, however.
That is not proof, so it is not something NASA needs to kill Sibrel for. The footage was, but it was already released in the first Sibrel film. If that is not enough to sink the Apollo story, then neither are the astronauts reactions.
It is up to every single one of us to look at these films, and decide for ourselves if they show it was a hoax, or not. I believe they show it was a hoax, without a doubt. You do not. NASA knows people don't want to think it was a hoax. They count on people who don't want to think for themselves, about what is right, and what is wrong, with the official story. There is evidence in front of you, showing it is a hoax, but nothing and nobody will make you accept it is evidence. That is up to you, your conscience, and for you overcome your fears of accepting the truth.
So, how would you "understand" his death threat "to be normal"?
That's utterly absurd.
Showing proof of the hoax to the only people who claim to have done it....makes no sense to you?
It makes perfect sense, actually. But let's stick to the main issue...
Your side always says the poor, unsuspecting astronauts were 'ambushed' by Sibrell. But, in fact, it is a common practice of investigative journalism.
originally posted by: choos
oh look you are suggesting that Aldrin was looking at real hoaxed footage and knew about it.. and yet Sibrel IS STILL ALIVE you just put your foot in your mouth again without even knowing..
its ridiculous that you dont even know how a liar would react when he realises that the guy asking questions is asking completely the wrong questions.. so ill say it once again since you have trouble understanding
IF SIBREL WAS ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS HE WOULD BE CONSIDERED A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY, HE WOULD HAVE DIED A MYSTERIOUS DEATH and forgotten by history
but in reality, he was never once contacted by shady goons.
originally posted by: InhaleExhale
what doesn't, is having such extraordinary earth shattering info and not sharing it with all people of the earth.
originally posted by: turbonium1
The reactions are not proof of anything, that's what you still don't understand here!l
Sibrel asks the right questions, and if the astronauts had said it was a hoax, then NASA would have a reason to act on it beforehand. But it didn't come to that, as I've told you many times now.
Sibrel already showed his evidence to the public. That's what NASA is worried about. None of the astronauts admitted it was a hoax, so it's nothing to worry about.
That's it.
originally posted by: choos
look at you go again.. you are pretty much comparing yourself (your single self) with an unlimited resource organisation with access to the best psychological doctors the world has never heard about and you still think you found something that they missed.