Disclosure of the Moon Landing Hoax: Part 2

a reply to: turbonium1

No source for that story I see.

I also see that it misses out the fact that Sibrel had been hounding Aldrin all day - it wasn't just a chance encounter in a hotel, he'd been making a nuisance of himself for much longer than that.

As for breaking the law - where is Aldrin's criminal record for that event? Please produce proof that he broke the law, because the law says he didn't.

As for thinking for myself - check the website in my signature. That's all me thinking for myself, not copying and pasting other people's nonsense.

Now, have you any independent thinking of your own to present that shows Apollo astronauts didn't walk on the moon, or are you going to continue obsessing over a convicted criminal's aberrant behaviour?

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

No source for that story I see.

I forgot to add it, now it's there. But I'll add it here too..

news.bbc.co.uk...

You seem to think I made it up, so now you know better..

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
I also see that it misses out the fact that Sibrel had been hounding Aldrin all day - it wasn't just a chance encounter in a hotel, he'd been making a nuisance of himself for much longer than that.

The authorities didn't mention any of this, so it had nothing to do with why they dropped the charges.

You can always keep on pretending it was mentioned as a reason for dropping the charges, if you like. It's not true, of course, but why would that matter to you?

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
As for breaking the law - where is Aldrin's criminal record for that event? Please produce proof that he broke the law, because the law says he didn't.

Aldrin did break the law. The authorities broke the law by saying he didn't.

This is a fact. The proof is right there to see. The law is wrong at times, and this is a prime example.

I choose the truth over what a corrupt judge says is true. You choose to accept the corrupt judge, instead.

I can live with knowing the truth is on my side. How can you live with all these lies, is what puzzles me..

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
As for thinking for myself - check the website in my signature. That's all me thinking for myself, not copying and pasting other people's nonsense.

Really?

Then please think about what would happen to you, if you were caught on film punching someone in the face, after they had called you a liar, and a coward...

What do you think would happen to you in a court of law?

This is hardly the first time someone got away with a crime because of being a famous celebrity. OJ Simpson got away with murder, which is far worse, for example.

If our laws are not applied equally, and justly, to everyone who commits a crime, then we have a really big problem.


That's why finding out the truth is so important. We all have the responsibility to determine what is true, and what is false.. It is not up to a judge to decide for us. It is up to us, not a group of big-shot judges and politicians who have slimy agendas.

originally posted by: turbonium1
The death threats were made by someone who said other people were out to kill him.

the difference between the death threat you posted and this threat is that there is no intention on following through with action at all..

there is no conspiracy to murder Sibrel at all.. you are making up lies..
like i said before if you have a genuine concern for Sibrel's health then report it to the police, you have the footage and everything you need as per your belief..

The direct threat to sue was never said to be for defamation, you made that up. Mitchell said to Sibrel "And if you continue this, and you press it.." he will sue him. That is it. He did not mention anything about defamation, or such.

and you believe that the threat to sue was to keep him quiet?? he never said that neither, you made it up.

also if they were as desperate as you said they were why didnt they sue him??

Again, defamation was never mentioned, so why say it over and over, if it's not true? Are you lying on purpose? Or is it something you imagined him saying?

i call it as i see.. it isnt my problem if you cant..

what i see is Sibrel pressing false claims upon Mitchell and Mitchell threatening to sue if he continues with it. no mention of your version neither.. are you lying on purpose?

Mitchell immediately tore up Sibrel's card, and said suing him was 'frankly not worth it".

funny.. earlier you said i made this up..

If Mitchell really believed it was "not worth it" to sue Sibrel, then why did he threaten to sue him moments earlier?

oh i see people cant change their minds now..

and as desperate as they were they never did sue or order any killings did they??

Because it was meant as a threat, to intimidate Sibrel out of continuing his project. Same as the death threat was meant, to intimidate Sibrel.

you said they were desperate also.. and here we are arguing over the very video that should never have seen the light of day because they were desperate to keep Sibrel quiet..

see your own fallacy yet?

Yes, they were simply "asking questions"!

"Want me to get my gun and shoot him, Adam, before he gets out..?"

"Wanna call the CIA and have him whacked?"

These are called death threats. They are said as questions, to each other, in front of the person. They are making death threats to Sibrel, which is hardly just "asking questions". They are meant to intimidate Sibrel, that part is true.

report it to the police.. if you have a genuine fear for Sibrel's safety you should be obliged to report it.

I've explained it in hopes of convincing you to see the truth. But only you can change yourself..

your "truth" doesnt make sense.. because you are making up what they are thinking as you go along..

the aftermath of the event, the existence of the video proves beyond all doubt that what you claim is completely false and therefore a fabrication..

originally posted by: choos
because it isnt a death threat, ive had some guy tell me to leave a girl alone or he will cut me, should i assume it was a genuine death threat and report it??..

That is entirely different. You were threatened to get cut, not get killed.

you suggesting a cut cant kill??

Also, of you had previously beat up the girl, or something beyond normal boundaries, then there would also have been a logical reason as to why he would threaten to cut you. That is not like Mitchell, who had made up his mind already.

its amazing how you make things up all willy nilly, filling in blanks with your lies.. no one said anything about beating up girls..

If you were threatened to get cut by someone out of the blue, for no reason, right at that moment, then for sure, it would be considered a threat. And you could, and should, report the threat to the police. That isn't what you've described, however.

oh you are playing lawyer now too?? do you understand my situation more than myself?

Again, you don't get it. A death threat was made, but the threat was never followed through, as we know. That doesn't mean it was not a death threat, because it was. A death threat does not have to be followed through to be considered a death threat. Nor does a death threat have to be made directly to be considered a death threat.
Do you understand these important points yet? If you don't, then it's time for you to look it up yourself... because I'm tired of explaining this over and over to you..

fully, what you described is that Mitchell and his son made an empty threat.. doesnt help you though..

you claimed they were desperate.. this is NASA we are talking about.. you know the same NASA that has kept several thousand people quiet for over 40 years??

I didn't see the film until well after the death threat was made, so I already knew it was not a concern, because it never went through. Thus, no need to report it. But you know that, I'm sure.

oh no, you tripped over yourself.. you said they were desperate.. now you know its not a concern, so why are you making such a big fuss over it?? also earlier you were suggesting that people cannot change their minds but i see you have here..

Only if they were under the delusion that the person wasn't moments away from leaving their property, then they would. But if the person is about to drive away, they would not. Now, please grasp this very simple concept, already!!

did Mitchell grab his gun?? did he call the CIA?? no, they were empty threats to get him off the property and stay away.. a concept you cant comprehend.

One more time - I never had a 'genuine' belief his life was in danger. That's just you, who never stops trying to make things up for me I never said.

you are the one claiming that Mitchell was desperate, you are the one saying that Mitchell grabbed Sibrel's arm stopping him from leaving, you are the one failing to acknowledge that Mitchell needs to order Sibrel to leave his property twice in about a one minute period.. you are also the one assuming if i had beat up a girl previously when there was no mention of beating a girl up.. not to mention the engraved placard.. and other stuff i cant remember at the moment.

you have continually demonstrated that you like to make things up to fill in the holes as you see fit..

you claimed Mitchell was desperate, if you believed they were desperate then you should have a genuine belief that Sibrels life is in danger, otherwise you wouldnt call the situation desperate.. so was Mitchell Desperate or not??

a reply to: turbonium1

The authorities didn't mention any of this, so it had nothing to do with why they dropped the charges.

Correction: the BBC did not mention it. They did mention this however:

Beverly Hills police investigated the incident, which occurred 9 September, but said that the charges were dropped after witnesses came forward to say that Mr Sibrel had aggressively poked Mr Aldrin with the Bible before he was punched.

Your own source.

In the United States, verbally abusing someone is assault. Physically poking someone is battery. Sibrel committed assault and battery, and is lucky he was not shot in self defense.

originally posted by: turbonium1


I forgot to add it, now it's there. But I'll add it here too..

news.bbc.co.uk...

You seem to think I made it up, so now you know better..

Nope, just good manners to provide a source.

The authorities didn't mention any of this, so it had nothing to do with why they dropped the charges.

You can always keep on pretending it was mentioned as a reason for dropping the charges, if you like. It's not true, of course, but why would that matter to you?

Nope, I never claimed that, I am providing the context that was missing. The reason they dropped the charges was because Aldrin was provoked on the spot and Sibrel asked for what he got. The fact that convicted thug Sibrel had been provoking him all day just makes it worse. Sibrel even claims to have written to Aldrin to apologise for his rudeness, that's how in the wrong he was.

web.archive.org...://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/20/skeptic-spreads-word-of-folly/?page=2

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Aldrin did break the law. The authorities broke the law by saying he didn't.

You don't know how this works do you? No charges were filed, no conviction was made.

This is a fact. The proof is right there to see. The law is wrong at times, and this is a prime example.

Like the laws of trespass?

I choose the truth over what a corrupt judge says is true. You choose to accept the corrupt judge, instead.

No, you're picking and choosing what you believe in it suits you. It's OK for someone to lie to someone, trespass on their property, film without their consent and call them liars and thieves, but apparently it's not OK for someone to react to that.

I can live with knowing the truth is on my side. How can you live with all these lies, is what puzzles me..

Truth is not on your side. The Hoax claims are a lie. Prove they are true: prove Apollo astronauts did not land on the moon.

Really?

Then please think about what would happen to you, if you were caught on film punching someone in the face, after they had called you a liar, and a coward...

What do you think would happen to you in a court of law?

So you admit Sibrel provoked him? If they had followed me round all day, lied to get me into a hotel under false pretenses, repeatedly called me a liar and a thief, would not get out of my way, refuse to leave me alone, what do you think would happen? Sibrel was intent on provoking a reaction, that is absolutely clear from the number of times he insisted that the camera keep rolling and to ask if they got the punch on film, just like he did with Mitchell. He got a reaction, I hope it hurt.

This also has nothing to do with the point I made: I have an entire website full of independent research into Apollo that completely vindicates the landings and everything the Apollo programme did.

Do you have any independent thinking or research of your own to prove me wrong?

originally posted by: choos
did he call the CIA??

The CIA comment was, in my view, mocking Sibrel's conspiracy mindset.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: FlyingFox

The weather patterns on that image are specific to the time and date it was taken, and can be matched by satellite imagery that wasn't available when the photograph was taken (they hadn't been taken yet).

Hard to argue with that.

The weather patterns on that image are specific to the time and date it was taken, and can be matched by satellite imagery that wasn't available when the photograph was taken (they hadn't been taken yet).

edit on 12-7-2015 by FlyingFox because: freedom

a reply to: Misinformation

Once again no source from you, but there's a very similar article in the El Paso Times from July 22nd 1969.

www.newspapers.com...

See? That's how you post a link. Not difficult is it.

All you've done is post an article that says what many people have said throughout this thread, myself included: that Nixon just rode on the coat-tails of Apollo for personal and political advantage.

Nowhere in that article, published alongside reports of the impending splashdown of Apollo 11, does it say anything about Apollo being faked.

The reason for this is because Apollo astronauts walked on the surface of the moon.

Anytime you feel like providing actual evidence to the contrary you just go ahead and do that.

a reply to: Misinformation

one has to wonder who no one opposed to US interests at the time denounced the apollo program as an alledged hoax ?

a reply to: onebigmonkey

All you've done is post an article that says what many people have said throughout this thread, myself included: that Nixon just rode on the coat-tails of Apollo for personal and political advantage.

No, you are of course completely wrong because you haven't read the new book by Logsdon.

Logsdon said that Nixon's space legacy locked NASA to low earth orbit for 40+ years - and he is correct in saying that because it is true.

Why are you ignoring the new Logsdon book which proves that Nixon was in control of the Apollo narratives???

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: onebigmonkey

All you've done is post an article that says what many people have said throughout this thread, myself included: that Nixon just rode on the coat-tails of Apollo for personal and political advantage.

No, you are of course completely wrong because you haven't read the new book by Logsdon.

I'm wrong because I haven't read a book you like?

No.

Logsdon said that Nixon's space legacy locked NASA to low earth orbit for 40+ years - and he is correct in saying that because it is true.

My statement and this one are not mutually exclusive. I have already said, as have others in this thread, that Nixon was happy to take the credit for Apollo but equally happy to kill off something that was always JFK's legacy.

Why are you ignoring the new Logsdon book which proves that Nixon was in control of the Apollo narratives???

Are you familiar with the chorus of "Killing in the name of"?

a reply to: onebigmonkey

I'm wrong because I haven't read a book you like?

Logsdon is not the book I like --- it is the book you are avoiding.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: onebigmonkey

I'm wrong because I haven't read a book you like?

Logsdon is not the book I like --- it is the book you are avoiding.

Then stop acting like his agent.

I have better things to spend my money on than a book covering someone I don't care about and a topic that doesn't interest me. Of course if there is anything in the book that proves Apollo astronauts didn't walk on the moon then you might want to post that here, as that would actually be on topic.

Otherwise discussions about political motivations do not prove that Apollo astronauts did not walk on the moon.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

ok - some simple questions :

1 - does logsdon offer any evidence that undermines the veracity of the apollo program

1b - if yes - what is it?

1c - if no - why are you obsessed with logsdons book ?

2 - you claim logsdons book " prooves " that :

Nixon was in control of the Apollo narratives

so what ????

3 you claim , logsdon said :

[quotr]Nixon's space legacy locked NASA to low earth orbit for 40+ years

so what ??????????????

how do 2 & 3 falsify the appollo program ?

a reply to: _

a reply to: Misinformation

again - more crap that adds nothing to the thread .

NOTHING in that article falsifies the apollo programs manned moon landings

does it ????

thats the problem with the current " crop " of hoax believers

just to look at what i consider the key sentence from that article :

when i expect us to be back on the moon

john logsdon .

there you have it - logsdon accepts that 6 apollo missions put men on the moon

which leaves the question for the ATS member that is obsessed with loggsdons book

why dont you accept logsdons confirmation that apollo went to the moon ???????????????

a reply to: ignorant_ape
just to look at what i consider the key sentence

Logsdons publications are sufficiently audacious in preventing conflict with established propagandists institutions and their
compromised vassals. Comprehension of Logsdons provided analysis is contingent upon the readers cognitive abilities too decipher the intricacies inherent with the intrinsic propagandists constituent ...

a reply to: Misinformation

I can see by your comically excessive use of a thesaurus to compose your posts that you are not being serious and are simply trolling.

If you really don't care about the issue (as evidenced by your ridiculously flippant posting style), then why do you bother?