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.

 

Disclosure of the Moon Landing Hoax: Part 2

page: 73
17
<< 70  71  72    74  75  76 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1





I don't know why Sibrel didn't sue them,
Because he was trespassing after showing up under false pretenses and having been instructed to depart the premises. Because any judge witnessing the recording would have understood that and thrown the case out of court.




It wasn't trespassing, no police reports were filed by astronauts against Sibrel.
Now, Sibrel had video evidence of assault & battery by two astronauts. Why didn't Sibrel charge them?

Have you ever considered that they might be on the same team?




posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 01:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

Have you ever considered that they might be on the same team?


lol.. ive pitched that idea to you hoax believers for a while now..

you need to keep in mind, its you hoax believers that believe Sibrel without any reason apart from him telling hoax believers what they want to hear.. akin to religious fanatics..



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 01:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

its still not an invitation for Sibrel to mouth off after being told to leave now is it??

to make him go faster and vent off some anger..

do you think that is a good excuse for Sibrel to continue to stay on private property when he has already been asked to leave by the owner??


yes to avoid escalating the situation.. he already angered Mitchell to the point of nearly forcing him off the property.. and you think its a good idea for Sibrel to react by mouthing off??

Mitchell is the owner of the property.. he asked Sibrel to leave twice.. how many more times does it need to be said??
if you asked me to leave your property and i stayed and mouthed off at you because i didnt like the way you looked at me, are you telling me that its a good idea for me to continue provoking you?? and if you are an american most likely you would have a gun somewhere..

grabbing his arm is an invitation to stay??



Sibrel was using it as 'an invitation to stay'? So that's your excuse?

Mitchell had grabbed Sibrel's arm, which has nothing to do with delaying him leaving the house, right?

No, Sibrel stayed after he was told to leave, so Mitchell merely grabbed his arm to help in speeding up the process, not to hinder it. However, Sibrel chose to use the incident for prolonging his stay in the house.


In reality, Sibrel was trying to leave, but he was prevented from leaving by Mitchell. We know this, for an absolute fact. Mitchell grabbed Sibrel's arm while he was putting on his jacket, to leave the house, as requested by Mitchell a moment earlier.

Mitchell was preventing Sibrel from putting on his jacket, which - obviously - prevents Sibrel from leaving the house, asap. At the same time Mitchell barks at Sibrel, about how he'd better get out of his house right away, or else!

You think Mitchell was showed incredible patience, as most people would have been much less patient with Sibrel....
After all, Mitchell was continually provoked by Sibrel, who called him a liar, for his greatest lifetime achievement.
Mitchell repeatedly told Sibrel to leave his house, but he refused to leave, and kept provoking him. Sibrel was lucky to not get shot, really!


It's pure nonsense.

If Mitchell's only purpose was to get Sibrel out of his house that instant, he might say 'You better leave right now, or else!', as a last resort to get him to leave.

Preventing him from leaving at the same time, means it not just about getting him to leave the house.

And Mitchell's death threat was certainly not about getting Sibrel to leave, since he had already left the house, and was about to get in his vehicle, and drive away.


It doesn't help your case that it was not a 'direct' death threat, it is still a death threat.


Like it or not, that's the harsh reality.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 02:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: onebigmonkey

I was using the figure of 475km in good faith. It came from astronautix.
Even wikipedia is quoting the apogee of Voshkod-2 as "475 km (295 mi)"

This was a world record for the Soviets at the time, breaking their own world record,


So was the previous world record a glass ceiling as well?

I know the 475 km is widely quoted, but it turns out to be incorrect, and the actual figure is more like 500 km, give or take a few. The 'glass ceiling' appears to be rather mobile. The fact is that you were wrong.



If the Russians themselves, in this NASA translated document, say 497.7 then how could any of the other figures be correct?


You mean like 475?



Remember that the apogee is only the highest altitude recorded for ONE ORBIT. The Russians did not spend a lot of time at 300 miles. The Gemini did not spend any significant amount of time at whatever high altitudes they claimed to have reached.


Irrelevant. They either went that high or they didn't. Also incorrect - apogee is the furthest distance from Earth reached, and could have been reached several times not just once. Gemini reached higher altitudes than the Soviets did, so your glass ceiling fabrication falls apart again.


The Russians had gained so much prestige from making space records, including space altitude records. Both countries were addicted to space propaganda. Why? Why did the Russians stop making altitude records (at the now agreed limit) at 497.7km which is 309.25 miles?


There is no agreed limit. There is no glass ceiling. You fabricated it. If there is an altitude limit for humans in orbit, it belongs to Gemini, not the Soviet programme.



Were they unable to solve the radiation problem? And rather than admit they couldn't solve the radiation problem they simply stopped trying to make new altitude records?


They were unable to get a heavy lift rocket working to get them beyond orbit. Simple. The Russians had plenty of their own researchers looking at radiation in space and were quite happy that it was not an insurmountable problem.


If you will remember the lessons of the 1960's (like plausible deniability, politics of division and credibility) you would have to expect that Russians won't give us a real reason why they stopped going up in space, instead, they would "redirect efforts" to other programs and we are left to try and interpret the "why".


Or you could accept the lessons of history and get it into your skull that they were unable to get a heavy lift rocket working to get them beyond orbit, as much thanks to political divisions and a rigid adherence to dogma as to technical flaws.


"During the three-man Apollo flights before the moon trip, "
This means Apollo 7, a three-man crew, it does not mean Gemini, a two-man crew.

"astronauts will attain altitudes between 5,000 and 10,000 miles while orbiting the earth,"

So did Apollo 7 make that altitude or not?



Disingenuous dishonest questioning. You know full well they didn't, otherwise you wouldn't have asked. You also know that Apollo 9 did't either.

You also know full well that this news report covers a Gemini launch, one that broke the altitude record way beyond the Soviet one, and that predated any Apollo launches.

Plans change.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 03:08 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter



Have you ever considered that they might be on the same team?

No.
Sibrel is a jackass, for starters.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 03:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

Because he was trespassing after showing up under false pretenses and having been instructed to depart the premises. Because any judge witnessing the recording would have understood that and thrown the case out of court.



The astronauts were well-paid for the interviews, first of all.

They expected an interview about the official Apollo story, not about Apollo being a hoax.

It is within their rights to end the interview, and order them to leave the premises immediately.

But they could also have addressed the hoax claims, right? Why not, then?


Anyway, they have the right to end the interview, and order them to leave the premises.

That's what Sibrel was doing, as well. He never refused to leave the house.

Mitchell can call Sibrel foul names, which he did.

Mitchell cannot hit, kick, or knee Sibrel, though. But Mitchell did knee him.

A death threat is not allowed, either.


The only reason a judge would throw it out is because it is a famous Apollo hero, who can do no wrong.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 03:44 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

The astronauts were well-paid for the interviews, first of all.
Source?



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 04:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

But they could also have addressed the hoax claims, right? Why not, then?


You mean like swearing on the bible that he went and saying that hoax claims are nonsense? That kind of thing?



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 04:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

The astronauts were well-paid for the interviews, first of all.
Source?





Sibrel said they were paid, and offered Armstrong 5K (iirc) if he swore on the Bible, so it makes sense, but I don't know if proof of those payments exists.

Do you think they did the interviews for free? If so, what is your source?



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 04:08 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1



Sibrel said they were paid,
Oh.

but I don't know if proof of those payments exists.
Oh.


If so, what is your source?
I'm not the one making a claim.





edit on 7/4/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 04:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: turbonium1

But they could also have addressed the hoax claims, right? Why not, then?


You mean like swearing on the bible that he went and saying that hoax claims are nonsense? That kind of thing?


No, I mean directly addressing Sibrel's evidence of a hoax. That kind of thing..



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 04:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: turbonium1

But they could also have addressed the hoax claims, right? Why not, then?


You mean like swearing on the bible that he went and saying that hoax claims are nonsense? That kind of thing?


No, I mean directly addressing Sibrel's evidence of a hoax. That kind of thing..


Convicted violent criminal Sibrel didn't present any evidence. He didn't present any because he doesn't have any.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 04:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1



Sibrel said they were paid,
Oh.

but I don't know if proof of those payments exists.
Oh.


If so, what is your source?
I'm not the one making a claim.

Sibrel said they were paid, and he offered lots money for Armstrong to just swear on a Bible.

Or it means they were not paid, which would not make ANY sense, at all.


I have precedent to think it is so, with Armstrong being offered such money.


Do you doubt they were paid, or not?







edit on 4-7-2015 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 04:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Convicted violent criminal Sibrel didn't present any evidence. He didn't present any because he doesn't have any.



They had the perfect chance to prove that, too.

They couldn't refute the hoax evidence, and they were actually there at the time. You weren't there, yet claim to know better? As if...



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 04:57 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

A source was all that was asked for, not more diversionary tactics.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 05:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Convicted violent criminal Sibrel didn't present any evidence. He didn't present any because he doesn't have any.



They had the perfect chance to prove that, too.

They couldn't refute the hoax evidence, and they were actually there at the time. You weren't there, yet claim to know better? As if...



And yet you seem to be claiming that you know what happened, despite not being there. Watch the video and tell me what specific hoax 'evidence' convicted thug Sibrel presents to the astronauts?

The astronauts don't need to prove they were there because every single piece of evidence supports that fact that they were. You need to prove they weren't. You have failed to do that and will continue to fail to do that.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 05:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: turbonium1

A source was all that was asked for, not more diversionary tactics.


Like repeatedly calling Sibrel a convicted criminal thug, is a diversionary tactic?



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 05:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: turbonium1

A source was all that was asked for, not more diversionary tactics.


Like repeatedly calling Sibrel a convicted criminal thug, is a diversionary tactic?


Nope, it's a proven fact. He has a conviction for a violent offence. He was also arrested for trespassing on Armstrong's property.

I just like to remind people like you what sort of people you are holding up as a hero.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Sibrel was using it as 'an invitation to stay'? So that's your excuse?

Mitchell had grabbed Sibrel's arm, which has nothing to do with delaying him leaving the house, right?


where exactly did he grab his arm?? what are you talking about??? ive looked through it again and at no point does he grab his arm as you said.. sounds to me like you are lying again..


No, Sibrel stayed after he was told to leave, so Mitchell merely grabbed his arm to help in speeding up the process, not to hinder it. However, Sibrel chose to use the incident for prolonging his stay in the house.


first show me where Mitchell "grabs his arm" because i simply dont see it..

secondly why does Mitchell need to ask sibrel to leave twice?? and why is the time between telling him to leave about 1 min and they still have yet to leave the room??


In reality, Sibrel was trying to leave, but he was prevented from leaving by Mitchell.


the harsh reality is that you are lying.. show me where Mitchell grabbed Sibrels arm, the closest i see is the handshake..

so this "arm grabbing" business, in your world, does it occur between when Mitchell first asks Sibrel to leave and the second time??

because the only explaination you have given about Sibrel taking his fat ass time getting out is that Mitchell grabbed his arm therefore preventing him from leaving.. was Mitchell holding onto Sibrel's arm for one minute after he asked Sibrel to leave the first time??



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: turbonium1

But they could also have addressed the hoax claims, right? Why not, then?


You mean like swearing on the bible that he went and saying that hoax claims are nonsense? That kind of thing?


No, I mean directly addressing Sibrel's evidence of a hoax. That kind of thing..


it is directly addressing Sibrel's evidence..

Sibrel wanted to use evidence that astronauts wont swear on the bible that they walked on the moon.. Mitchell did..

also how do you address something like the moon landing to someone that simply doesnt understand it in the first place..
the whole reason the moon landing theories exist is because some people are just too stupid to accept the reality of it and therefore make up stories to fill the gaps in knowledge of what they know and see..

which is also why every single moon hoax theory cannot stand up to scrutiny by mere amateurs like us, let alone professionals, it is also why moon hoax theories require breaking the laws of physics..
because the stories you moon hoax theorists make up are just that made up in your own minds, of which has no comprehension of real world physics.

its like explaining how aerodynamic lift works to a preschooler wondering how planes fly.. the difference is, moon hoax theorists have a sense of self superiority and refuse to learn..



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 70  71  72    74  75  76 >>

log in

join