 |
|
Topic started on 11-3-2006 @ 05:56 AM by nomadrush
|
On next week's programme "March 17th" I have Bart Sibrel from moonmovie.com who believes he now has evidence to PROVE that the 1969 moon landings
were faked!
I have watched his DVD and have to admit that it is pretty convincing stuff!
Please post your questions for him in this thread and i'll try and use as many as I can in next Friday's programme.
Ross
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 11-3-2006 @ 06:11 AM by AgentSmith
|
You can tell him I had great pleasure in passing on my congratulations to Buzz Aldrin for punching him when I had dinner with him last year.
Can you also ask him why, when a member of another forum emailed him a copy of the Bible and asked him to place one hand on the monitor and type a
reply back saying he believed all the crap he comes out with, he refused to even answer? Even though he'd replied rather rudely to previous emails
pointing out his various errors.
If it's because it was such a ridiculous request, why did he think Buzz should do it?
And if not - why no reply?
Cheers.
EDIT:
Here's a serious question:
Can you also ask him if it was impossible for humans to get there due to the radiation, how did the Russians send some live animals there prior to the
Americans arriving and retrieve them alive and well?
Zond 5 was launched from a Tyazheliy Sputnik (68-076B) in earth parking orbit to make scientific studies during a lunar flyby and to return to Earth.
En route to the Moon the main stellar attitude control optical surface became contaminated and was rendered unusable. Backup sensors were used to
guide the spacecraft. On September 18, 1968, the spacecraft flew around the Moon. The closest distance was 1,950 km. High quality photographs of the
Earth were taken at a distance of 90,000 km. A biological payload of turtles, wine flies, meal worms, plants, seeds, bacteria, and other living matter
was included in the flight. Additionally, according to the Russian Academy of Sciences, in the pilot's seat was a 175 cm tall, 70 kg mannequin
containing radiation detectors. Returning to Earth another attitude control sensor failed, making the planned guided entry impossible and forcing the
spacecraft controllers to use a direct ballistic entry. On September 21, 1968, the reentry capsule entered the Earth's atmosphere, braked
aerodynamically, and deployed parachutes at 7 km. The capsule splashed down in the backup area in the Indian Ocean at 32.63 degrees S, 65.55 degrees E
and was successfully recovered, safely returning the biological payload. It was announced that the turtles (steppe tortoises) had lost about 10% of
their body weight but remained active and showed no loss of appetite. The spacecraft was planned as a precursor to crewed lunar spacecraft. It
represented the first successful Soviet circumlunar mission.
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...
[edit on 11-3-2006 by AgentSmith]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 11-3-2006 @ 06:51 AM by nomadrush
|
Thanks for the comments - I don't know Mr Sibrel other than arranging an interview with him, but it will be interesting to hear his views on
Friday
Ross
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 11-3-2006 @ 07:03 AM by MadGreebo
|
Nomad i've been dying to ask this question for years.
Could it be that they had a set of back up footage ready if the reception on the moon was less than friendly? Hence the need for the astronauts to
ummm and errr there ways through when asked questions about the moon and what the Earth looked like from the Moon? Buzz Aldrin will talk for hours
about the flight to and from, but when asked about the actual time on the moon he clams up tight!
Is this fake footage hiding some thing even more spectacular / sinister than just a fake landing?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 11-3-2006 @ 07:04 AM by nomadrush
|
I'll put the question to Mr Sibrel on Friday!
Ross
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 11-3-2006 @ 09:46 AM by AgentSmith
|
Originally posted by MadGreebo
Buzz Aldrin will talk for hours about the flight to and from, but when asked about the actual time on the moon he clams up tight!

When I spoke to him he had plenty to say, I did find him cautious but I think that can be put down to having to watch what he says in case someone
tries to twist it, mentioning no names for example.
Having the chance to speak to him for several hours, I noticed that he has the same cautious manner over any question or anything anyone says, he
chooses his words very carefully. He acted the same when I asked him what he thought of the UK, if he was enjoying his food, if he wanted a glass of
water, etc, etc as when speaking about the Moon. In fact when we got into technical areas he actually started to open up as that's his area of
expertise. He had some interesting comments regarding Zero Point Energy (which he brought up). If you want to talk about it then feel free to send me
a U2U as I don't want to hijack Ross' thread!
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 16-3-2006 @ 10:06 AM by AdamJ
|
well i do love the press conference, its hilarious and something is clearly not right.
can you ask him to be clear on what he thinks was techincally possible to have achieved, whether its possible to even get to the moon with an unmaned
space craft, or whether they could have got there but not back, or if its just not possible to land on the moon at all.
also what he thinks about the amout of time they spent there vs home much oxygen they had available in their space suits, as presumeably there was
none in the lander.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 16-3-2006 @ 12:25 PM by AgentSmith
|
 well i do love the press conference, its hilarious and something is clearly not right. 
I've met a large number of TV and film actors, and some of them are pretty shy and fidgety even one to one, let alone when in a press conference.
Bearing in mind that these guys were military personnel, not journos or even used to being on TV. They didn't even get much money, literally a few
dollars in at least some cases.
Originally posted by AdamJ
can you ask him to be clear on what he thinks was techincally possible to have achieved, whether its possible to even get to the moon with an unmaned
space craft, or whether they could have got there but not back, or if its just not possible to land on the moon at all.

Yes, let's ask the journalist what his professional scientific opinion is on the whole thing. After all, wasn't it SMR who said "No science
is needed when you have the Internet".
also what he thinks about the amout of time they spent there vs home much oxygen they had available in their space suits, as presumeably there was
none in the lander. 
Wrong. There was oxygen in the lander, you can read all about the lander and the whole of Apollo here:
www.hq.nasa.gov...
If you're especially interested in the Lunar module, you can download the electrical schematics here for a start, in PDF format (it's 26mb
though):
www.hq.nasa.gov...
The operation manuals etc are here:
www.hq.nasa.gov...
I'd advise going in through the main link I posted at the top though, as the site uses frames and you'll miss the menu if you use the above link.
The PLSS (Portable Life Support System), that' s the backpack thing with the vital systems in  , had fresh batteries before every EVA and was
recharged from the Lunar Module's main system. It's all on the site I linked you too, let me know if you have any questions.
[edit on 16-3-2006 by AgentSmith]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 16-3-2006 @ 12:37 PM by Burgess
|
Can you ask him how, if the moon landings were fake, they managed to set up the Lunar
laser ranging experiment
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 16-3-2006 @ 12:57 PM by AdamJ
|
even after agent smiths informative post, could you still ask him what his opinion on that his if you get a chance, im interested in hearing what he
says.
AS, you dont fool me mate, something isnt right there.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 16-3-2006 @ 01:00 PM by AgentSmith
|
Can you also ask Mr Sibrel why not only did the Russians not say anything, but also why there would be an article on a Russian space website all about
how they intercepted the signals? Please remind Mr Sibrel that the true position can be estimated using triangulation, so there is no chance they were
beamed from a satellite or ground station without the true origin being noticed.
www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru...
Translation can be done using Babelfish here:
babelfish.altavista.com...
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 16-3-2006 @ 01:06 PM by AgentSmith
|
Originally posted by AdamJ
AS, you dont fool me mate, something isnt right there. 
In what way? Being interesting in psychology, having met some of them myself and spending many hours with them to see how they behave and seeing how
other people behave in front of camera as well I don't really see anything unusual. Can you clarify? I might have missed something.
When I've been on TV I usually get nervous and act in a similar way even when talking about something I know about, camera's have that effect on
people. And look how loud and obnoxious I am on here, and trust me - I'm the same in real life too.
I was in a conference with some Cosmonauts the same weekend and they sat there looking shifty, fiddling, looking at each other the whole time? What
were they hiding? lol
You might think they look like they're on the spot, but they were..
EDIT
If it's any consolation, I have always thought they are hiding something and after some of the things that came up in conversation I'm even
more sure. But it's not that they didn't go, it's what they arn't telling us about what they saw. You'll find that probably has a lot to do with
the secrecy and nervousness.
[edit on 16-3-2006 by AgentSmith]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 16-3-2006 @ 01:21 PM by AdamJ
|
im interested in psychology also. I wonder why if this is the offical press conference, and the only one given? why these people do not look a little
bit more exited and animated after their incredible experience.
being in front of a camera and the press makes you nervous, but not in my opinion if you have just done something utterly incredible and walked on the
moon, after an expereince like that i can only imagine a press conference being a breeze.
Its not just nervousness, there are loads of things wrong with their behaviour, though i dont know words for them all.
something isnt right there, thats a fact to me. what it is can only be speculated upon.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 16-3-2006 @ 01:39 PM by AgentSmith
|
Fair enough! I guess I may be biased because of what I believe, or want to believe. I can't force you to see things my way and it wouldn't be right
to try and do so anyway! It's not you I have a niggle with anyway....
I seem to have demolished the thread, if you'd like to talk to me in U2U, and if there are any questions you would like to put to me then please feel
more than welcome.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 17-3-2006 @ 08:12 PM by nomadrush
|
I managed to put a few of your questions to Bart Sibrel tonight and if you missed the show, be sure to tune into the repeat on Wednesday night for the
repeat.
I will try to get the podcast up over the weekend if time permits.
Ross
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 27-3-2006 @ 08:58 PM by aelphaeis_mangarae
|
Bart Sibrel is a moron.
And BTW I am someone who believes that the moon landing may of been faked.
All the evidence he presents is weak, he needs to talk about real issues.
He is just someone that wants to believe the moon landing was faked.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 29-3-2006 @ 02:21 PM by j1mb0
|
Further to what MadGreebo had to say about Buzz clamming up when talking about his time on the moon,
A while ago on 'This Morning' ( a U.K. breakfast program), Lionel Richie the singer was on.
Phillip Schofield ( the presenter) was asking him about his friendship with the astronaught Buzz Aldrin, and about him landing on the moon.
Lionel Richie said he asked Buzz plenty of times if it was real and not fake, and Buzz said he did go to the moon and that he 'saw things' and
would'nt embellish on that at all.
Doubt Lionel would lie on national t.v., and the singer is adamant that Buzz is no liar.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 29-3-2006 @ 03:04 PM by AgentSmith
|
I've had dinner with Buzz (as I love to keep saying - but who wouldn't who loves space exploration like I do?  ) and I knew he had been to
the Moon. I also went away even more certain he saw/knows more than he will ever say, don't expect me to elaborate
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 29-3-2006 @ 07:04 PM by Vitalij
|
Man has never stepped on the moon. The moon possesses certain properties. If a human had stepped on a lunar surface (regardless of what kind of
space suit he is wearing), the lunar "energetic fingerprint" from this contact would certainly be here, on the Earth. But it's not here, and has
never been. There's no point to deceive people.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 29-3-2006 @ 07:20 PM by Kruel
|
Wha???  Vitalij, can explain a little more?
Having researched plenty of the evidence for and against the moon landings... well there seems to both be proof FOR and AGAINST it! I think the
theory that they did go, but filmed a version for the public is the most likely. I mean there are certain things in those moon videos that just
scream fake.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |