Apollo astronauts bizarre reaction to hoax questions

originally posted by: choos

so when they found out that Mitchell was going to meet with a known hoax theorists who was on the right track to exposing the hoax, visiting his house for whatever purpose they decided to turn the other eye and not prepare for it at all??

think bigger.. its not a one man operation run by yourself..

What do they prepare for?

An astronaut that says he never really did go to the moon, it was all just a big hoax.

None of them said that, of course. They all insisted they went to the moon, right?

So what is the problem NASA would have, then? Acting 'too nervous' while they insist they really went to the moon, or what?

originally posted by: turbonium1

They aren't thousands of people who would have any idea about it, for starters.

there are..

they people directly filming..
the people who planned it..
every one in mission control..

For example, look at Grumman. They have all these people who work on the LM. Many people, I'd think...

So they all do specific jobs to build the LM, and they finish it, and send it off to NASA. Great, they did it!

yes great, real people built real working parts being none the wiser..

What did they do, though? They built a craft for NASA, to NASA's specs. That's it.

they built working parts to NASA specs.. get it right.

Why do you think all the Grumman people would have known it actually will work, just as NASA (told us) they had intended it to work, as an actual lunar lander?

because of testing..

you dont really know what an engineers job is do you?? you dont just get schematics and build it hoping for the best, problems occur and engineers solve it..

and NASA didnt make the schematics, they gave them a goal.

Nobody at Grumman would have a clue if it can/will actually work, just as it was intended, in fact. No way.

ummm.. you are deluded..

Grumman would have designed it from scratch based on the requirements from NASA..

So try a much smaller number who would know, and it is quite simple for NASA to ensure they keep it a secret.

first you are looking in the wrong direction..

talking about Grumman as if they were building fake things designed by NASA is completely wrong

i was referring to the people, countless people who helped film it, who designed the replica sets, who made sure that no errors were on set during filming, catering, the management, the people who planned it getting every detail meticulously accurate, everybody in mission control. etc.

all of this in a very short amount of time which would require more manpower to solve.

would easily be in the thousands..

originally posted by: turbonium1

What do they prepare for?

An astronaut that says he never really did go to the moon, it was all just a big hoax.

None of them said that, of course. They all insisted they went to the moon, right?

So what is the problem NASA would have, then? Acting 'too nervous' while they insist they really went to the moon, or what?

are you kidding yourself??

an astronaut (directly involved) is meeting with a hoax theorists that they know is definitely on "the right track" in his own house..

and you ask what do they prepare for??

you genuinely believe NASA if they faked it, would sit there and think,
oh no a huge threat to national security is meeting with an astronaut but dont worry guys we dont need to prepare the hit squad we dont need to prepare the psychology team.
we dont need to prepare anything because we know for a fact that Sibrel has nothing and only can get reactions that no one will notice, only a few hoax believers will notice.

seriously?? you really do paint NASA as incompetent to keeping the secret for over 40 years..

originally posted by: choos

thats just an achievement you are proud of..

but are you willing to defend this achievement as your own?

Sure. It's an achievement I'm willing to defend.

I couldn't have done it all alone, however, just like most achievements...and even in a (real) moon mission....

originally posted by: choos
because of testing..

you dont really know what an engineers job is do you?? you dont just get schematics and build it hoping for the best, problems occur and engineers solve it..

and NASA didnt make the schematics, they gave them a goal.

It is impossible to test the final product in the environment it is meant for. They cannot properly test the LM, since it's not possible to test the finished craft within Earth's environment. And it has many other problems, beyond that one. No go.

originally posted by: choos
i was referring to the people, countless people who helped film it, who designed the replica sets, who made sure that no errors were on set during filming, catering, the management, the people who planned it getting every detail meticulously accurate, everybody in mission control. etc.

all of this in a very short amount of time which would require more manpower to solve.

would easily be in the thousands..

It is a bit like Kubrick's 2001. A large--scale movie production...

Suppose 200 people were involved in the Apollo 'movies'.

They are told it is a simulation of the real moon landings, which are being done at the same time. That's not true, but why would they think it was all a lie?..They wouldn't. No possible reason to lie about it.

There goes most of the people involved in the films who would know about its real purpose. And not a lot of folks would be left to know the hoax, by that point..

What you need to realize is that a lunar landing is nearly perfect to use for a hoax...

Nobody can see it, in person, or even with a telescope.

They simulated all the moon landings, and did 'real' missions too. They could tell a simulation from the real thing because NASA told them when it was just a simulation, and told them when it was a real mission.

Why would NASA have ever lied about that, right?


The astronauts know, of course. Not many others would need to know it, though

originally posted by: choos

you genuinely believe NASA if they faked it, would sit there and think,
oh no a huge threat to national security is meeting with an astronaut but dont worry guys we dont need to prepare the hit squad we dont need to prepare the psychology team.
we dont need to prepare anything because we know for a fact that Sibrel has nothing and only can get reactions that no one will notice, only a few hoax believers will notice.

seriously?? you really do paint NASA as incompetent to keeping the secret for over 40 years..

The fact you didn't notice anything unusual in their reactions shows that it worked out perfectly, no?

It is only noticed by people who don't worship Apollo as an unshakable religion. They make excuses for everything which opposes their heroic Apollo gods. As we've seen it done so often, like here.

You cannot defend Mitchell's death threat, in any shape or form.

And just ignoring the whole problem doesn't make it any better, either.

So deal with it, and you'll start to understand the harsh reality.

originally posted by: turbonium1
You cannot defend Mitchell's death threat, in any shape or form.

And just ignoring the whole problem doesn't make it any better, either.

So deal with it, and you'll start to understand the harsh reality.

i dont see anything wrong with his threat..

only you do.. and in your world, trained psychologists also saw nothing wrong with the behaviour of everyone involved to consider taking further action against Sibrel.. so again, its only you.. i guess you are "special"

The fact you didn't notice anything unusual in their reactions shows that it worked out perfectly, no?

It is only noticed by people who don't worship Apollo as an unshakable religion. They make excuses for everything which opposes their heroic Apollo gods. As we've seen it done so often, like here.

so you genuinely think my made up scenario is plausible?? you didnt see the flaw in it??

so if i get you right, "people who dont worship Apollo" ie. hoax believers, are the only ones who can see the reactions of the astronauts as being blatantly obvious?

you really are arrogant to the point of delusion..

originally posted by: turbonium1
What you need to realize is that a lunar landing is nearly perfect to use for a hoax...

Nobody can see it, in person, or even with a telescope.

They simulated all the moon landings, and did 'real' missions too. They could tell a simulation from the real thing because NASA told them when it was just a simulation, and told them when it was a real mission.

so like everyone in mission control were not following a script??

so like when mission control asks an astronaut to check out certain rocks seen in live video footage they were just lucky that the live feed had the astronaut walk upto and check out that specific rock..

Why would NASA have ever lied about that, right?

The astronauts know, of course. Not many others would need to know it, though

apart from the entire mission control room.. you seem to think that mission control had no impact at all for the mission and sat back to enjoy the show..

originally posted by: turbonium1

It is impossible to test the final product in the environment it is meant for. They cannot properly test the LM, since it's not possible to test the finished craft within Earth's environment. And it has many other problems, beyond that one. No go.

they can get it close.. they have vacuum chambers.. and if it can survive standing in earth gravity in a vacuum chamber it can survive standing on the moon.. but if you honestly think that engineers dont know how to calculate stress values for different gravity situations you are seriously underestimating humans..

why do you constantly underestimate engineers?? how arrogant can you really be?

It is a bit like Kubrick's 2001. A large--scale movie production...

Suppose 200 people were involved in the Apollo 'movies'.

They are told it is a simulation of the real moon landings, which are being done at the same time. That's not true, but why would they think it was all a lie?..They wouldn't. No possible reason to lie about it.

There goes most of the people involved in the films who would know about its real purpose. And not a lot of folks would be left to know the hoax, by that point..

yea sure getting everything that accurate, getting every rock, foot print every single setting accurate to the photos every single time all of it done in a relatively short amount of time requiring huge man-power.. and best of all.. no one suspected a thing..

no one knew why they had to replicate a different gravity.. because people are dumb..

originally posted by: turbonium1

Sure. It's an achievement I'm willing to defend.

I couldn't have done it all alone, however, just like most achievements...and even in a (real) moon mission....

lies..

you previously said you wouldnt defend it..

you have previously said many many times that if you knew the other person claims were lies, you would laugh at them or ignore them..

and now you are saying you are willing to defend your achievements?? do you have double standards?

originally posted by: choos
i dont see anything wrong with his threat..

The only problem is that you can't even come up with a plausible reason to think there's nothing wrong with his threat.

You still claim Mitchell was merely 'Trying to get Sibrel to leave his property', right?

Saying that as Sibrel was at his vehicle, about to leave his property, makes sense to you, right?

You claim Mitchell threatened to shoot Sibrel before he leaves his property, because Mitchell was trying to get Sibrel to leave his property??


This all makes perfect sense to you, is that right?

originally posted by: choos
only you do.. and in your world, trained psychologists also saw nothing wrong with the behaviour of everyone involved to consider taking further action against Sibrel.. so again, its only you.. i guess you are "special"

Sorry, it is not only me...

originally posted by: SyxPak
I agree 100% that Mitchells response was way overboard...

So I guess now you'll say 'Okay, but it's only 2 of you that think his reaction was bizarre'...

originally posted by: choos
so if i get you right, "people who dont worship Apollo" ie. hoax believers, are the only ones who can see the reactions of the astronauts as being blatantly obvious?

No, I'm quite sure almost anyone can recognize their reactions are completely out of whack, under these circumstances.

But seeing it is quite different from actually acknowledging it, and accepting it, as being out of whack. That's a harsh step to take for those who believe so inherently, and are so emotionally attached, to the whole Apollo ideology.

Many people do not care about the Apollo missions, or whether or not they were real, or a hoax. They are not the least bit interested in the issue. I'd say most people don't have a lot of interest in the subject. At least, from all the people I know, I'm the only one who has any interest in it.

The others would (by and large) just assume that we HAVE landed men on the moon...because they heard about the moon landings in their schools, saw footage of it on TV's, as being the 30th/40th Anniversary of the Apollo 11 'moon landing', etc.

So they would NOT be 'hoax believers', by any measurement. If anything, they would be 'Apollo believers'...But at least, they would be about as impartial as we could find, since they don't care about the whole topic. These are the people I am talking about.

My brother doesn't care about it, either. So I showed him the clip, to see what he thought about it. He couldn't believe Mitchell's reaction. He thought Mitchell was off his rocker...that maybe he 'forgot to take his pills'!

I also showed a friend the video, and he has no interest in moon landings, either. He got a good laugh from it, especially Mitchell kicking his butt, ripping up his card and throwing it on the floor, and losing it. He thought Mitchell was in a maniacal rage.

Btw, my brother or my friend now know a bit more about the hoax argument, but they couldn't care less if we really landed on the moon or not.

Let's be honest about this - when you see Mitchell threaten to shoot Sibrel just moments before driving off in his vehicle, you surely must realize Sibrel is already leaving, right?

You must realize if Mitchell wants to shoot Sibrel before he leaves, that will not help in getting him off his property, right? It would do the opposite, in fact - Sibrel would have been killed, or critically wounded, in Mitchell's driveway! You can grasp how this makes no sense, right?

I'm sure you can. It's very simple to understand.

Admitting this, however, is something you will probably never do. So be it.

originally posted by: choos


lies..

you previously said you wouldnt defend it..

you have previously said many many times that if you knew the other person claims were lies, you would laugh at them or ignore them..

and now you are saying you are willing to defend your achievements?? do you have double standards?

No, but I think you might have a memory problem.

Please take a close look at what I told you in this very thread, just a week ago!!...

originally posted by: turbonium1
If I went to the moon, and Sibrel showed me his proof of a hoax, then I'd examine his film, to prove he's wrong, and I would be able to explain to him exactly why/how he got it wrong.

*snip*

Is there anything about this you still don't understand, or can we move along?

originally posted by: turbonium1

Is there anything about this you still don't understand, or can we move along?

but you wouldnt be talking to someone rational..

you forget that if you had walked on the moon, hoax believers would bring up irrational arguments..

so how do you go about explaining something rational to someone who is irrational?

oh and previously he did suggest that you wouldnt defend it in previous threads.. you would have laughed it off and ignored them.. you know you did..

originally posted by: turbonium1

The only problem is that you can't even come up with a plausible reason to think there's nothing wrong with his threat.

i have but you wont accept it as plausible but in my eyes its completely plausible.. if i want to get a nuisance off my property i would threaten them for sure..

and maybe even gloat afterwards to boost my ego some more..

You still claim Mitchell was merely 'Trying to get Sibrel to leave his property', right?

Saying that as Sibrel was at his vehicle, about to leave his property, makes sense to you, right?

You claim Mitchell threatened to shoot Sibrel before he leaves his property, because Mitchell was trying to get Sibrel to leave his property??

This all makes perfect sense to you, is that right?

yes it does.. i have told you multiple times..

its as simple as you not thinking its plausible because everyone in the entire world MUST act according to your beliefs.

Sorry, it is not only me...

sorry, you and your hoax believers.

So I guess now you'll say 'Okay, but it's only 2 of you that think his reaction was bizarre'...

no its still *only* hoax believers..

why do you think something as OBVIOUS as this can slip through trained professionals who spent the majority of their time in the study of human behaviour..

this thinking of yours bleeds arrogance.

No, I'm quite sure almost anyone can recognize their reactions are completely out of whack, under these circumstances.

again the fact that Sibrel was never hassled by any NASA goons proves your statement wrong..

you think their reactions are obvious enough that an untrained hoax believer can notice it.. whereas trained professionals wont.

Let's be honest about this - when you see Mitchell threaten to shoot Sibrel just moments before driving off in his vehicle, you surely must realize Sibrel is already leaving, right?

You must realize if Mitchell wants to shoot Sibrel before he leaves, that will not help in getting him off his property, right? It would do the opposite, in fact - Sibrel would have been killed, or critically wounded, in Mitchell's driveway! You can grasp how this makes no sense, right?

Im sure he wants to, but he wont.. just as much as i would have wanted to shoot him if he had done that to me but i wouldnt..
i dont think you have ever been in a confrontation before.. you have obviously never experienced taunting someone after a fight..

what you continually fail to understand is that not everyone acts the way YOU do.
leave your self-centered arrogance behind.. you are talking about another persons behaviour NOT YOUR OWN.

originally posted by: choos

Im sure he wants to, but he wont.. just as much as i would have wanted to shoot him if he had done that to me but i wouldnt..
i dont think you have ever been in a confrontation before.. you have obviously never experienced taunting someone after a fight..

what you continually fail to understand is that not everyone acts the way YOU do. .

I didn't say everyone acts the way I do. But you fail to understand the difference between normal reactions and abnormal reactions, like in this case.

Why would Mitchell want to shoot Sibrel? Because he 'harassed' him in his house? What did he actually do to 'harass' him? What did he say or do that would justify Mitchell wanting to actually SHOOT him?

You seem to think Mitchell had no choice but to let himself be 'harassed' in his own house? Not a chance.

And when did Mitchell begin to get so angry at Sibrel? About 2-3 minutes before Sibrel left his house.

Now, up to that point, do you think Mitchell was bound to a chair, being 'harassed' mercilessly by that evil monster, Bart Sibrel? No, he was not bound to a chair, or forced into being 'harassed' by Sibrel.

You understand that at any point, if Mitchell felt he was being 'harassed', or 'pestered'. or called a 'liar', by Sibrel, then Mitchell could said the interview was over, and told Sibrel to get out of his house? Do you understand this, because it seems you have this idea of Mitchell being 'the poor abused victim' in all this. So please get a clue...

So when Mitchell finally said the interview was over, and he asked Sibrel to leave his house, THAT is when Mitchell became a raging maniac. Not before that.

It took Sibrel about 2-3 minutes to leave Mitchell's house after he was told to leave. You have the gall to suggest that 2-3 minutes is far too long for anyone to leave. I never knew we had already invented 'Star Trek' transporter technology for instantaneous transportation of people!!

Unless you are a complete moron, you know that 2-3 minutes is a very reasonable amount of time for him to pack up his gear, and leave his house. 2-3 minutes is actually quite quick, I'd say. And it is certainly not a long time, in any sort of scenario which asks a guest to leave a house.

That's what you have to argue, though, that it IS such a long, painful, period of duress faced by your harshly abused victim, Ed Mitchell. Otherwise, you can't justify him going berserk maniac on Sibrel, like he did.

You need Sibrel to be the monster who refused to leave Mitchell's house, after he was told to leave, repeatedly, within the following 2 minutes. That damn Sibrel is harassing victim Mitchell for 2-3 minutes, and that surely justifies Mitchell's anger, and it justifies Mitchell kicking him, and it justifies Mitchell's death threat against him.

If 2-3 minutes is far too long to stay in a house, and pack up film equipment, and justify a maniacal rage, what kind of fantasy-land do you live in?

Is Sibrel supposed to leave in less than 2 minutes, or perhaps within 1 minute, after he was told to leave, because any more than 2 minutes is a good reason for kicking him, and threatening to kill him?


You are absolutely unbelievable. I cannot take you seriously.

originally posted by: turbonium1

I didn't say everyone acts the way I do. But you fail to understand the difference between normal reactions and abnormal reactions, like in this case.

you are partially right, you assumed it..

why else would you assume that their behaviour is odd?? because it is odd IN YOUR OWN NON PROFESSIONAL OPINION..

thats why you are making such a big fuss over nothing.. you assume everyone will behave according to your own personal guidelines and if they act a certain way it proves one thing and if they act another way it proves another thing..

all due to your non-professional opinion..

Why would Mitchell want to shoot Sibrel? Because he 'harassed' him in his house? What did he actually do to 'harass' him? What did he say or do that would justify Mitchell wanting to actually SHOOT him?

its quite difficult to explain to someone who has never been in a face to face confrontation..

but when you are in a heated argument with someone anger makes you WANT to do many things.. following through with it is a different story.. its something you simply wont understand since you have never been in a proper face to face confrontation.

then Mitchell could said the interview was over, and told Sibrel to get out of his house? Do you understand this, because it seems you have this idea of Mitchell being 'the poor abused victim' in all this. So please get a clue...

Mitchell did.. and immediately after told Sibrel to leave.. Sibrel chose to stall and make the situation worse.. he knew Mitchell was getting annoyed.. Sibrel chose to bait him further..

if you were on someones property and annoyed them to the point of aggression, they asked you to leave.. what would be right course of action?

a. take your time and try to provoke them
b. leave quickly without saying anything

I cannot take you seriously.

and yet here you are replying seriously..

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: InhaleExhale

what doesn't, is having such extraordinary earth shattering info and not sharing it with all people of the earth.

He shared it with the entire world, before he showed it to the astronauts.

So, now you know.

What, his first video?

Well I guess he fooled you and few others.

Seriously,

I really doubt you started your own business, you express yourself like an arrogant teen that has recently fallen into the world of conspiracies and thinks they know the inner workings of things.

Yeah when I was 21 many things caught my interest and many conspiracies used great manipulation techniques to get ignorant people hooked into believing they have been enlightened with a secret,

However with time and lot more reading from as many sources as available lead me to realize what a majority of conspiracy theories are for.



Hint,

Its not to enlighten people but to create more confusion.

You are a great example, I mean you cannot understand why a person gets angry when their greatest life achievement is said to be lie and that they themselves are a part of a hoax.


Lets say you have started a business and that is your greatest achievement like you have said

Would you be happy with someone coming along and claiming you haven't, creating a conspiracy theory that it was people behind the scenes that actually created the business you say you created and that it was a front for money laundering?

They make a youtube video showing how it could be possible and having random internet users start believing that you never really did create your business, just your name was used with you being aware and are part of some sort of criminal conspiracy.

You would be happy?

The person that did this starts calling you, following you and filming you everywhere you go and tries to interview you everywhere you go about you being liar, you would be happy?

I really couldn't care less about what you believe about the moon landings, I really don't care if it was a hoax depending on what it hoaxed for.

It just really surprises me that some internet users have such ignorance towards human nature, do people really live in their moms basement like the saying says and rarely interact with real people?

Their reactions were obviously not normal, not honest. To say they showed more patience than most would have shown in the same conditions... is a complete joke

You cannot justify MItchell's death threat to Sibrel. If it was done to get him to leave, it's not done when he is obviously about to drive away. But it's laughable when that would actually PREVENT him from leaving, in fact!!

If you want someone to leave your property, the last thing you'd ever do is threaten to shoot him when he's just about to drive off your property!!

This should be common sense, to anyone with a brain. Face it.

Common sense seem like something you lack.

Threatening to shoot someone would most likely make them never come back,

That is common sense,

Actually shooting them guarantees they never back in a way to be annoying, yes they might get buried on the property but they will never come back.

Sibrel's film cannot be taken away. Thousands have a copy of his video, in VHS, or DVD, all around the world. Millions more people that would have downloaded a copy of it via the internet, as well. And they make copies for others, too.

Its not required because its isn't proof of a hoax, it might be to you a few others.

That just shows something about those that believe something once they watch a video on YouTube, its not proof that people are easily manipulated but just a piece of evidence, then you have people like yourself that take it further and show more evidence of how people are easily manipulated.

Millions have downloaded it?

I really doubt it.


But I see how you view the world and human nature with your assumptions and "bizarro-world" understandings.

Lets say millions have downloaded it and thousands have hard copies they bought, what percentage do you think deleted it because they thought its nonsense, what percentage were on the fence and looked further into it, what percentage do you think believed without a doubt that what watched was a revelation?

originally posted by: choos

why else would you assume that their behaviour is odd?? because it is odd IN YOUR OWN NON PROFESSIONAL OPINION..

thats why you are making such a big fuss over nothing.. you assume everyone will behave according to your own personal guidelines and if they act a certain way it proves one thing and if they act another way it proves another thing..

all due to your non-professional opinion..

As it is not odd in YOUR NON-PROFESSIONAL OPINION!!

You assume everyone will behave like this, as a non-professional opinion.

So we would have to defer to the experts, regarding this matter. But, since we have no experts on hand, we must look at their documents instead, which discuss the issue.

I'm going to show you what a few of these experts say in another post....it's most interesting.

Why would Mitchell want to shoot Sibrel? Because he 'harassed' him in his house? What did he actually do to 'harass' him? What did he say or do that would justify Mitchell wanting to actually SHOOT him?

originally posted by: choos
its quite difficult to explain to someone who has never been in a face to face confrontation..

but when you are in a heated argument with someone anger makes you WANT to do many things.. following through with it is a different story.. its something you simply wont understand since you have never been in a proper face to face confrontation.

You don't know diddly squat about me, and my experiences. Don't go bleating crapola about what I've done, or about what I have not done. Because you have absolutely no clue.

Why would you consider this to be a heated argument, anyway? That takes both parties to become 'heated', in an argument, or discussion....

The only one who boils over here...is Mitchell. Sibrel is calm throughout, even as Mitchell starts to go completely out of control. So where, specifically, do you see Sibrel get angry at Mitchell? Or even irate?

This is how it unfolded....

Mitchell says the interview is over.

Then, Sibrel puts his hand out to Mitchell, and thanks him for doing the interview.

Mitchell shakes Sibrel's hand.

At that point, Mitchell then continues - he says that 'It was not a pleasure. and I think you're (Sibrel) a-hole. Now please get your ass out of my house.'

Sibrel then says 'Okay, fine, we're leaving.'

Mitchell continues 'You came here under false pretences. And if you press this, and continue with it, I will personally take you to court.'

Sibrel replies to that, 'I really hope you do take me to court, in fact I encourage you to do so. Here's my card with my contact information' Sibrel hands Mitchell his card.

Mitchell tears it up and throws the pieces to the floor, in front of Sibrel. Mitchell says 'Frankly, you're not worth it. Now get the hell out of here.'

Mitchell going nuts is clearly his own doing, because Sibrel has done nothing to provoke it. Unless you think handing him his card is something to get angry about. The only reason Sibrel even gave him his card is because Mitchell had just told Sibrel he would sue him. Sibrel handed him the card, so Mitchell could proceed with the lawsuit

Sibrel has not done anything to Mitchell that would be grounds for a lawsuit. Sibrel can continue his film as he chooses to, and Mitchell has nothing to do with it. Mitchell said what he wanted to say, in the interview. He was not forced to say or do anything within the piece. He chose to do the interview, he chose to say everything he said in the interview, and he chose when to stop the interview, and he chose to ask Sibrel when to leave his house.

originally posted by: choos
Mitchell did.. and immediately after told Sibrel to leave.. Sibrel chose to stall and make the situation worse.. he knew Mitchell was getting annoyed.. Sibrel chose to bait him further..

You are delusional. Sibrel did not stall. Sibrel simply gave Mitchell his card, in response to Mitchell's threat to sue Sibrel. Mitchell started it when he made his threat to sue Sibrel. I guess in your topsy-turvy world, Sibrel is making the situation worse because he had the audacity to give Mitchell his card, in order to help Mitchell go through with his threat (to sue him)?!?

originally posted by: choos
if you were on someones property and annoyed them to the point of aggression, they asked you to leave.. what would be right course of action?

a. take your time and try to provoke them
b. leave quickly without saying anything

I would leave quickly, like Sibrel did. I would respond to his threat to sue me, if I wanted him to sue me. Like Sibrel did. I'd give him my contact information so he could proceed with his lawsuit, like Sibrel did. And then I would leave.

What do you think Sibrel did to 'stall'? Sibrel only handed Mitchell his card, for the lawsuit Mitchell threatened him with. You think Sibrel is provoking Mitchell into his rage by giving him his card? That's absurd! You think Sibrel was stalling by giving him his card? That's equally absurd!

Mitchell was baiting Sibrel, start to finish. Mitchell called Sibrel an a-hole. That is Sibrel's fault, of course. He said it was a hoax, how dare he?

Spin it any way you want, nothing makes it normal behavior.