Moon Landing Hoax Deathbed Confession

a reply to: InachMarbank

Basic truths??

Not so much.

Your boy got exactly what he deserved for that attempted ambush of the man.

You really ought to look into Bart a bit more closely.

a reply to: InachMarbank

So you’re telling me that if you were out to lunch with a family member, and a guy with a history of harassing you and other people for years, including lying to get into a home to demand one of them swear on a Bible, starts harassing you and won’t let you leave, you’re just going to remain perfectly calm and do nothing at all?

a reply to: InachMarbank

Yes.

Convincing grown ups of nonsense is definitely trickier.

a reply to: Xtrozero

What?? Are saying I can go buy a telescope that can zoom in well enough to see a rocket landing on the moon??

a reply to: Zaphod58

All he had to do was put his hand on the Bible and say he landed on the moon. Had he actually landed on the moon he would have done just that instead of behaving like a triggered... lunatic.

a reply to: seagull

Basic truth: Buzz Aldrin never went to the moon.

Not really interested in ad hominem attacks against Bart Sibrel. The video speaks for itself.

a reply to: InachMarbank

Why should he have to? Not everyone wants to bark like a trained seal because someone tells them to. So, again, if someone comes up to you and harasses you, and gets in your face, you’re just going to do what he says? And when he keeps coming back you’re going to keep doing what he says?

Gene Cernan and Edgar Mitchell did swear the “oath” he demanded. He lied to get into Mitchell’s home, claiming he was with the History Channel. He frequently tried to corner astronauts at public events. He told them to "swear and affirm, under penalty of eternal damnation, perjury and treason". Just because you’re considered a public figure doesn’t give someone the right to harass you and lie their way into your home and office.

a reply to: Zaphod58

If I had actually gone to the moon, and was free to tell anybody I went to the moon, yes, I would have quickly gotten Bart Sibrel off my back, by complying with his simple request.

a reply to: InachMarbank

And if that wasn’t enough? Then what? He spent years harassing astronauts, even if some swore what he wanted.

originally posted by: InachMarbank

What?? Are saying I can go buy a telescope that can zoom in well enough to see a rocket landing on the moon??

You can see all the past landings, the tire tracks, the left equipment etc, so what is your question?

a reply to: Xtrozero

You can see all that with a telescope from Earth?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Not all of them cracked under interrogation. Buzz did.

a reply to: InachMarbank

Several of the others did, but less publicly. Mitchell kicked him in the ass when he threw him out of his house.

originally posted by: InachMarbank

You can see all that with a telescope from Earth?

Kind of if you had a big enough telescope, so not practical. What we do have is that many countries have placed satellites around the moon and from them you can see the markings quite clearly as below. There is also equipment left on the moon, like in the second picture, that is still used to measure the distance of the moon with lasers.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: InachMarbank

So you’re telling me that if you were out to lunch with a family member, and a guy with a history of harassing you and other people for years, including lying to get into a home to demand one of them swear on a Bible, starts harassing you and won’t let you leave, you’re just going to remain perfectly calm and do nothing at all?

a reply to: Xtrozero

He's making an excessive amount of hand gestures and being very fidgety. Telltale signs he is lying.

a reply to: InachMarbank

Or that he’s a hand talker. I’ve talked to a lot of people that you’d say were lying because they use a lot of hand gestures when they talk. And I know they weren’t.

originally posted by: InachMarbank

He's making an excessive amount of hand gestures and being very fidgety. Telltale signs he is lying.

Really? lol He is lying when it doesn't fit your narrative, but anything else that fits means he is tell the God's honest truth?

He was also like 90 there too.

a reply to: InachMarbank

Your comments remind me of a person who will disregard what anyone says, just to get a reaction out of them, and you most likely do not believe what you are saying. Just an observation.... and why is that?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

You’re probably right! I wasn’t saying Kubrick definitely faked it, or moreover that the landing was fake; although, despite the errors in 2001 it’s still possible that the landing was produced with even more attention to detail than that movie. And at that time, or any time who else was more capable than Kubrick? But indeed ‘possible’ and ‘probable’ are different things and I’m only suggesting the former.

Btw, despite the landing being presented ‘live’ that doesn’t preclude the possibility that what was broadcast was prerecorded. It’s a trick pulled on the telly all the time with broadcasts that are categorised ‘As Live’. These are in fact recorded - usually the day before, but not exclusively. However, this isn’t advertised and the casual viewer will often assume that what they’re watching is live - happening right now. It’s a slight of hand - an omission, rather than a lie and these days presenters in chat shows sometimes allude to it to milk a laugh from the audience.

The point in my original post that I’d give more credence to is that if I were in charge at that time, locked in a PR race to the moon with the Russians - the president having committed the public’s faith to winning that race, therefore re-election dependant upon it, I’d feel an awful weight on my shoulders…

Whether sanctioned by the White House, or off the books, I’d look for a plan B in case we suffered a delay that put the Ruskies ahead. To my mind that’s either sabotaging the Russian effort, which would be incredibly complex and fraught with the danger of igniting a war, or the comparatively straight forward, less risky option of getting in a top filmmaker to fake it. As I said, at that time who was more qualified than Kubrick?

With that footage in the can as insurance NASA may well have not even needed it, making it to the lunar surface as planned. But those top brass probably slept better knowing they had that as back up just in case.

Even if the footage wasn’t used, if knowledge of that shoot via credible testimony were to escape into the public domain, it may undermine all that was gained. It would cause the public to question whether what they saw was real. Indeed it would cause the public to question if anything tptb presented was real; for example if the public learned fake moon footage was shot, might those believing 9/11 was fake be a whole lot more than just a fringe? Imo I t’d be of great concern to the brass that credible knowledge this moon shoot never leaked - no loose ends.

(A friendly reminder here that I’m speaking hypothetically 😉)

I’m not saying that what the world saw was definitely Kubrick’s work - that’s up for debate, and you’ve made your opinion clear, which is a very sound one; if Kubrick shot a version it may have indeed had gaffs that might’ve given it away if used (or perhaps not). My point is that I find it plausible that he was tasked with shooting a back up version and having done that, even if it wasn’t broadcast, forever after feared being eliminated as a loose end. It would neatly explain his shift into paranoid behaviour - behaviour that was a little inexplicable for such a pragmatic, grounded intellect (that’s very much how he comes across in his interviews).

I think in this hypothetical scenario adding the wrinkle of the higher ups liking some of Kubrick’s moon shoot so much that they couldn’t resist inserting a few choice moments into an ‘as live’ broadcast to sex it up a little is not that outrageous a proposition. But it’s just a thought, not a statement.