Why would the astronauts be offended by a hoax...

Yes, nothing funnier than people insinuating that your lifes work was a hoax and never happened.

I dunno, I personally wouldnt love it.

I sincerely believe the moon landings were real. Even if you don't believe that, you don't know for sure.

Every time I see this video I see a jackass disgracing an american hero.

a reply to: Rob48

Yes, Bart Sibrel thinks that by travelling 240,000 miles to the moon, you will see different constellations than you will on Earth.

He may be pondering that somehow, someday one would be able to calculate the postion of such constellations and how they'd be perceived from that exact spot of the photo, on the moon. I don't believe he meant you'd be able to see anything much different, just that they were left out because someone could have proven the missions false by how hard it would be to replicate all the sta'rs positioning in the photos/video

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: cestrup

Anger is a WEAKNESS. Anger results when you have lost reason and given up.

No. Anger is a perfectly valid response to being deceived. Anger is a perfectly valid response to being called a coward, liar, and thief.

Seconded. Very loudly.

This Sibrel guy is the poster child for stupid. So having them swear on a bible will make a person tell the truth is he actually that dumb? He does know that politicians swear on the bible when they take office right? Somebody needs to tell that bum to get a real job and leave heroes alone.

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Rob48

Yes, Bart Sibrel thinks that by travelling 240,000 miles to the moon, you will see different constellations than you will on Earth.

He may be pondering that somehow, someday one would be able to calculate the postion of such constellations and how they'd be perceived from that exact spot of the photo, on the moon. I don't believe he meant you'd be able to see anything much different, just that they were left out because someone could have proven the missions false by how hard it would be to replicate all the sta'rs positioning in the photos/video

You don't understand very much about constellations, do you?

a reply to: cestrup

you have never had a reason to dedicate your life towards something passionately have you? or do you just lack real emotions? i can't comprehend why it's so hard for you to get it, why don't you understand something so basic? have you given up on the future and forgotten how to feel properly? i don't get you or your lack of understanding at all.

and anger is not weakness when it's justified, feeling nothing towards attacks against your life's work and your pride is what real weakness is, that's just cowardice with a facade of calm and control, no real human being never feels extreme emotion and any who claim otherwise are either liars, cowards or mentally disturbed.

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Rob48

Yes, Bart Sibrel thinks that by travelling 240,000 miles to the moon, you will see different constellations than you will on Earth.

He may be pondering that somehow, someday one would be able to calculate the postion of such constellations and how they'd be perceived from that exact spot of the photo, on the moon. I don't believe he meant you'd be able to see anything much different, just that they were left out because someone could have proven the missions false by how hard it would be to replicate all the sta'rs positioning in the photos/video

The astronauts navigated to the moon using stars. I think they knew where the stars are relative to the moon!

And anyway that's not what Sibrel said. He said they would have had to fake constellations that "might one day prove non-existent".

a reply to: namehere

You must not understand confidence. An insecure person would react in anger. How DO YOU not understand this? Why would you care what other's thought if YOU KNEW the truth? What more could this be other than two things: They're insecure of their accomplishments or insecure because they're lying.

Let's look at athletes. They get plenty of press. They also dedicate their life to their craft. Many, when presented with the truth - like a poor performance - either stay calm and take responsibility or act irrational - even when basically being trolled by a rude reporter. Whom do you respect more? The athletes that get angry or stay composed?

a reply to: cestrup

Many, when presented with the truth - like a poor performance - either stay calm and take responsibility or act irrational - even when basically being trolled by a rude reporter.

You see the difference?
Sibrel presented no truth. He approached the men aggressively or under false pretenses.

a reply to: Phage

Nice catch and lol.

Okay - well say Kobe is on the press table. Some reporter just starts asking about an alleged affair - one which never happened - and Kobe reacts:

Would he gain respect for acting angry? Or would he me much better off to remain calm and answer the man in a profession manner. This even after alleged other affairs. Which one would exclaim "guilty!" more in your book?

a reply to: cestrup

Would he gain respect for acting angry?

No. Nor would he lose it. Most people would understand why he would be angry about being falsely accused.

a reply to: cestrup

There is a huge difference between an athlete being interviewed after a poor performance and owning up to a crappy game and some idiot ambushing people under false pretenses decades after the fact. How can YOU not see that? Since youre so hung up on "confidence" and its psychological implications, how much confidence does Sibrel have in his own inane hypothesis if he has to utilize subversive methods to get any face time with the Apollo Astronauts? If you have to lie, that to me is indicative of a serious underlying issue much more prominent than seem elder statesmen getting angry over being told their entire life and identity is a lie and a hoax. One is sneaky and deceptive while the other is a legitimate reaction to someone lying their way into your home and then ambushing you after you have been gracious enough to invite them into your abode or even worse, ambushing them in the street and thinking you will receive a gracious response and being surprised when they want nothing to do with you.

One thing's for sure - touched a sacred cow here. Lesson learned and these resulting posts answer my original questions. Thanks!

a reply to: peter vlar

If you have to lie, that to me is indicative of a serious underlying issue much more prominent than seem elder statesmen getting angry over being told their entire life and identity is a lie and a hoax.

Okay - so Dateline was wrong in "How To Catch a Predator" because they "lied" to the online monsters to get them caught. I think your logic is wrong in this one but that's my opinion.

a reply to: cestrup

This is some of the finest goal post moving I've seen in a thread in quite a while. Now the Apollo astronauts are the equivalent of pedophiles? Interesting dynamic you're bringing to the table here but Ill bite.

One main difference that I see is that the alleged pedophiles had already tried to initiate contact with a minor via a honeypot trap. Can you show me an instance where one of the Apollo astronauts secretly and unbeknownst to himself, admitted in a private Internet chat room that they never went to the moon? Because that essentially is the intimation you are presenting with that corelary.

It's interesting that you seem to think any duplicitous action that could present the Apollo astronauts in a negative light is fair game yet any statement that had a negative connotation on your hero is automatically questionable. So much for exploring preponderance of evidence and seeing where the evidence actually takes you as opposed to enacting a self fulfilling prophecy. To each their own I guess.

BTW. You never answered my question about Sibrel's level of confidence if he has to resort to insincere measures in order to get face time with his intended victims. D you feel that his shady nature exudes confidence?

a reply to: peter vlar

Good point on the chatrooms. So I wasn't intentionally moving goalposts. Just illustrating why Sibrel had to deceive to conduct his project. That is all and why it sometimes benefits certain outcomes. I was never trying to compare an astronaut to a pedo.

originally posted by: cestrup


One thing's for sure - touched a sacred cow here. Lesson learned and these resulting posts answer my original questions. Thanks!

I did not watch the video, but what should every reaction be so that it would not seem like they are lying to you? I am just guessing the video is pro-Sibrel.

My Father-in-Law worked for Lockheed and NASA during Gemini and Apollo. He was a very smart man and only worked on small portions of all of the things that needed to be done for those missions. His life was not at stake if something went wrong, but I know he would not have been very happy if someone told him it was faked and we didn't put men on the Moon. I am positive he would have reacted with anger. Maybe he was a big old fat liar.

I doubt that was the case though.