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: 76
17
<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Paging...



Jarrah White
Phil Plait
Bart Sibrel
John M. Logsdon
Bill Nye
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Mark Feeney
Joe Rogan
Jay Windley
Richard C. Hoagland
Marcus Allen
Jay Weidner
John Logsdon
Henrik Palmgren
Timothy Naftali
and many more that I can't think of at the moment.

But to balance that out we need about 10-13 Eurasian space experts to balance out the equations.

Edit to add: FoosM
edit on 7/9/2015 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 12:08 AM
link   
According to Walter Cronkite, Buzz Aldrin was "burning with desire to join Armstrong on the moon."


And the Nixon phone call to the Sea of Tranquility,
www.nixonlibrary.gov...

For One Priceless Moment
edit on 7/10/2015 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter


If you will admit that you exaggerated about the "Thousands." of questions I will take your one question and answer it to the best of my ability + you will have to promise that there will be no further questions after that one question.


I am not exaggerating. How about you answer the first question and then I pose another 1,999?


Does that sound equitable to you?


No, it's a question of honor now.


On a different note, Have you read John M Logsdon's book yet?


I'm reading it now. There is absolutely no doubt that Apollo 11 successfully landed on the Moon. On nearly every page, Logsdon says thinks like "flush with the success of the lunar landings, NASA wanted to turn to more ambitious projects," and "there was a need to utilize the vast industrial resources that had been created...." How can you possibly twist what he says to make it appear that the lunar landings were a hoax? (That counts as question #2)



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

oh im so glad you finally realised this.. why does it take around one minute between this first request for Sibrel to leave and the second time he asks (just before Sibrel puts on his jacket) ??

what reason does Sibrel have to stay that long because it looks like he stayed to further provoke Mitchell for a reaction..


Why does Sibrel stay "that long", as in "around one minute"? It's funny to think a minute is your idea of "long", actually.

It's quick to have all the equipment packed up in a minute, not slow..

And again, it is Mitchell who delays his leaving, as I've already explained to you, in detail.




originally posted by: choos
to stop his libel.. he came under false pretenses got an interview using fake credentials.. so basically Sibrel, who is a known liar, can manipulate the footage however he wants saying whatever he wants..


What was libelous about it? Bringing up the hoax without warning is a crime to you?



originally posted by: choos
you say its desperate, but if it was desperate why didnt Mitchell sue him?? why was the footage sold?? i thought NASA had the ability to keep thousands of people and several generations quiet for over 40 years..



It is desperate to threaten Sibrel with a lawsuit, and threaten to kill him, for sure...

Mitchell is trying to intimidate Sibrel out of showing his film in public, by making those threats to Sibrel, just before he leaves the property...

In fact, Aldrin threatens to sue Sibrel - just moments before Sibrel leaves the property....


That's their desperation, to which I'm referring...

It is not about them actually suing Sibrel, it is about threatening to sue, or to kill him - you fail to grasp this was the whole point...

NASA had no choice but to try and rebut the film after it was released in public. Sibrel was not considered a threat to NASA prior to that time. The film was released before anything was known to NASA, so killing Sibrel would make it look much worse by that point...



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Why does Sibrel stay "that long", as in "around one minute"? It's funny to think a minute is your idea of "long", actually.

It's quick to have all the equipment packed up in a minute, not slow..

And again, it is Mitchell who delays his leaving, as I've already explained to you, in detail.


and its all relative, look how quickly Sibrel leaves after the second time Mitchell asks him to leave.. and that is including your "arm grab" also, you dont see SIbrel packing any equipment, so stop using that excuse.

does Mitchell physically stop Sibrel from leaving after the first time asking him to leave?? no he doesnt.. Sibrel chose to stay and provoke Mitchell further.





What was libelous about it? Bringing up the hoax without warning is a crime to you?


oh gee i dont know, producing media that says Mitchell never landed on the moon maybe??

im not sure what "bringing up the hoax without warning is a crime" has anything to do with libel....



originally posted by: choos
you say its desperate, but if it was desperate why didnt Mitchell sue him?? why was the footage sold?? i thought NASA had the ability to keep thousands of people and several generations quiet for over 40 years..



It is desperate to threaten Sibrel with a lawsuit, and threaten to kill him, for sure...

Mitchell is trying to intimidate Sibrel out of showing his film in public, by making those threats to Sibrel, just before he leaves the property...

In fact, Aldrin threatens to sue Sibrel - just moments before Sibrel leaves the property....

you dont really understand defamation do you??

oh thats right you truly believe they never walked on the moon and that they know it, so you must believe 100% that those threats to sue must not be related to defamation..



That's their desperation, to which I'm referring...

It is not about them actually suing Sibrel, it is about threatening to sue, or to kill him - you fail to grasp this was the whole point...


if they were desperate as you say, they would have followed up with sueing.. otherwise it isnt desperate, the desperate is only in your head.


NASA had no choice but to try and rebut the film after it was released in public. Sibrel was not considered a threat to NASA prior to that time. The film was released before anything was known to NASA, so killing Sibrel would make it look much worse by that point...



after?? how can you say he was not considered a threat prior to the film?? he had already released one film prior to the interviews..

car accidents happen all the time.. i guess this huge secret was just too risky for a car accident..

none of your excuses makes any sense..



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 09:31 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 09:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

they didnt sue him because he wasnt worth the trouble.. in other words, so much for your claim of him being desperate. yet again, lying.


To suggest it was 'not worth the trouble' is such nonsense, since...

It can't excuse away a death threat, obviously.

You've tried to excuse it as not actually being a death threat, by being not directly said to Sibrel, it cannot be taken as a genuine death threat....!!

You've also tried to excuse it as something we'd all do in similar circumstances, or even go beyond it, as many of us would have grabbed their guns, to make sure he gets the message!!

And the message is - leave, now, or else! Right?

No, this is the message you invented. You simply choose to deny the reality...



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1


In fact, Aldrin threatens to sue Sibrel - just moments before Sibrel leaves the property....


That's their desperation, to which I'm referring...

It is not about them actually suing Sibrel, it is about threatening to sue, or to kill him - you fail to grasp this was the whole point...

NASA had no choice but to try and rebut the film after it was released in public. Sibrel was not considered a threat to NASA prior to that time. The film was released before anything was known to NASA, so killing Sibrel would make it look much worse by that point...


He actually made 4 films about the Apollo Moon Hoax between 2001-2004. Now he's a taxi driver?

The Apollo Defenders have made exaggerated claims that Sibrel is making $$$ from his movies. All of his movies are on youtube or other sites for free and he's not making the $$$ he thought he could make... so he's now a taxi driver. It just doesn't add up for me.

Sibrel could have gotten Buzz a police record by charging him with assault. That would mean fingerprints and mug shots for Buzz Aldrin and that would have made a great story in the celebrity press. That's what Buzz is - he's a celebrity astronaut.

I think that we, you, me and the others, have all misunderstood the Sibrel story and the meaning of his work. We may be 100% totally wrong by branding Sibrel as a hoax believer. I'm starting to lean toward the idea that Sibrel isn't a hoax believer... he's a co-conspirator.



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: turbonium1


In fact, Aldrin threatens to sue Sibrel - just moments before Sibrel leaves the property....


That's their desperation, to which I'm referring...

It is not about them actually suing Sibrel, it is about threatening to sue, or to kill him - you fail to grasp this was the whole point...

NASA had no choice but to try and rebut the film after it was released in public. Sibrel was not considered a threat to NASA prior to that time. The film was released before anything was known to NASA, so killing Sibrel would make it look much worse by that point...


He actually made 4 films about the Apollo Moon Hoax between 2001-2004. Now he's a taxi driver?

The Apollo Defenders have made exaggerated claims that Sibrel is making $$$ from his movies. All of his movies are on youtube or other sites for free and he's not making the $$$ he thought he could make... so he's now a taxi driver. It just doesn't add up for me.

Sibrel could have gotten Buzz a police record by charging him with assault. That would mean fingerprints and mug shots for Buzz Aldrin and that would have made a great story in the celebrity press. That's what Buzz is - he's a celebrity astronaut.

I think that we, you, me and the others, have all misunderstood the Sibrel story and the meaning of his work. We may be 100% totally wrong by branding Sibrel as a hoax believer. I'm starting to lean toward the idea that Sibrel isn't a hoax believer... he's a co-conspirator.


Are you trying to claim he doesn't make money of moon hoax believers.


www.amazon.com...



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 10:13 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

oh gee i dont know, producing media that says Mitchell never landed on the moon maybe??


It still doesn't explain the death threat, as I've already explained to you...



originally posted by: choos
you dont really understand defamation do you??

oh thats right you truly believe they never walked on the moon and that they know it, so you must believe 100% that those threats to sue must not be related to defamation..




A death threat has nothing to do with it, obviously.



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 11:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
Are you trying to claim he doesn't make money of moon hoax believers.


www.amazon.com...


You are making an extraordinary claim by linking the Amazon page to Bart Sibrel's income. Now you need to show Bart Sibrel's income tax forms. Can you do that?

You need to show Bart's tax returns. I don't think that you can do it.

What this means to me is that you are making an extraordinary claim about Bart Sibrel's income and you can't offer proof.

What this means is I am calling your bluff.



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 11:19 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 11:23 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 11:33 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 11:44 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 11:52 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 11:53 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in

join