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.

 

Bart Sibrel on Coast To Coast AM last night: Wow! Just... Wow!

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by wylekat
 


Records lost equate to achievements never fulfilled.

Maybe my example was shortsighted. How about in terms of citizenship status. Or highschool educational qualifications. Etc. Etc.

I don't have my social security card handy. Doesn't change the fact that I was born in Arkansas.
Etc. Etc.

Eh, nevermind. At this point there isn't much to add to this discussion.

Never was to begin with, I suppose.



[edit on 22-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]




posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Excuse me, but if you had done the SLIGHTEST research into Bart Sibrel you would see that what he does is NOT what any accepted journalist does. He is the only "journalist" that has restraining orders against him. Did you bother to even READ how he got Buzz Aldrin there? He LIED to him to lure him to the hotel, so he could DEMAND that he swear on a bible that he was on the moon. He lies his way into NASA, he follows astronauts around wherever they go harassing them, and if they won't grant an interview, he trespasses onto their property and tries to ambush them. That is NOT journalism.


Yeah, this is what people do who are investigating the Mafia or other unsavory types. You have to use subterfuge. It's called "investigative journalism." Kind of like how Alex Jones snuck into Bohemian Grove with hidden cameras.

Another group called We Are Change does this kind of thing also, confronts the public figures in their blatant lies and misdeeds and does so publicly, and films the whole encounter and then publishes it on You Tube.

Somebody has to do it. Thank God for people like Sibrel who care about the truth and determined to expose it. A little truth puts out a whole lot of light in this dark world we live in, full of lies and deceit and fairy tales about aliens visiting us from Mars or another planet, people wanting so much to believe they turn their back on God, worship aliens and pseudoscience instead.

Pretty sad.

Sibrel is the hero. Not the astroNOTs with their silly aprons with the Jolly Roger. I understand Neal Armstrong's apron is displayed in some Masonic Lodge someplace along with a picture of him wearing it on the moon.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Original Moon Landing Film Lost

www.washingtontimes.com...

I guess you can file this under "Lost In Space".


Yeah, just like they also 'lost' all the plans for how to build the contraptions they claim went to the moon.

NASA has more lame excuses than Tyson has chickens for all the anomalies. But bottom line, when you take a look at the overall evidence, NASA looks like a bad magic show where the lady getting cut in half stuck her feet out in both halves.

Wizard of Oz with a cardboard lunar lander, complete with scotch tape and gold foil and roofing paper. They could at least have used metal on their hokey fakey stage prop.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 


comparing aldrin to the mafia... sick. You know, people who are wiling to show some common decency and ask honest questions politely do not need to lie, cheat, and hold astronauts captive. As a christian, i would have expected you to condemn sibrel's sinful actions. And what did he get out of his trap? Nothing but a bloody nose.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 07:03 AM
link   
I believe the truth about the Apollo missions will prove to be somewhere in between the extremes of today. Yes, American men walked on the (real) moon, but the technology used to get there is in whatever part undisclosed (i.e. the secret space program), and I suppose it's possible that SOME shots were faked. How, for instance, would they have been able to fit that very large and heavy rover, even collapsed, inside the small, fairly lightweight LM? There are good questions-mysteries about the official story, but not enough to discount the basic truth of the astronauts' lunar presence.

IMO the best evidence of a genuine lunar landscape are Armstrong's (Apollo 11) COLOR photos. The scenery is too deep and there's no COLOR of landscape like it anywhere on Earth; or that can be reproduced here.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 07:48 AM
link   
@Salt of the earth:

Lets assume for a moment buzz aldrin is a luciferian and lier. What problem would he have to swear on the bible? As a luciferian he doesnt value that book, does he?
But i think i recall hearing somewhere that swearing on the bible is something mr. God said you shouldnt do. ever. So him refusing to swear is actually showing that he is indeed christian. (Not sure about that)

Anyway to stick with his lie easiest course of action would be to lie once more. Whats the bible to a luciferian?

Other than that your main argument for a moon hoax is that you dont like the looks of the LEM?

@watchzeitgeistnow:
You asked how the spacesuits would have protected the astronauts from the sun in 0 gravity? Pretty much the same as under 1g, 2g, 3g, 19.6g. etc...



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 


comparing aldrin to the mafia... sick. You know, people who are wiling to show some common decency and ask honest questions politely do not need to lie, cheat, and hold astronauts captive. As a christian, i would have expected you to condemn sibrel's sinful actions. And what did he get out of his trap? Nothing but a bloody nose.


Have you ever watched the clip of Alex Jones confronting David Gergen on his membership in Bohemian Grove?

Believe you me, when these pikers are held to public shame for their unspeakable lies and wicked deeds, they would like to kill you. Aldren's punching out Sibrel is evidence of his guilt and anger at being confronted with his fraud on humanity, which is why Sibrel includes it in his film Astronots gone wild!

The worst nightmare these people have, the Luciferians, is that the populace would wake up and realize just who they are, nothing but pirates who love death and the Jolly Roger, who love lies and trickery and stealing. They are all scared to death that the people will wake up and find out about them, and they fear us, which is why the War on Terror is against us, the ordinary citizen here at home, because they are TERRIFIED OF US.

[edit on 22-3-2009 by Salt of the Earth]



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dean Goldberry
I believe the truth about the Apollo missions will prove to be somewhere in between the extremes of today.


I agree dude, somewhere in between. Although you can answer questions like the rover issue just by looking up the information in wiki. The space articles are some of wikis best. And seeing some of these things in person is always nice because you get a much more clear sense for the scale.

I do think it's pretty obvious we have had a real public space program and that it did go to the moon, but they also faked photos and footage for propaganda purposes, as well as edited a lot more than a trivial amount of actual footage for secrecy purposes. It suggests a parallel, secret program, who knows how much more advanced.

The case that we could never have done any of it seems to be based on poor understanding of radiation and magnetic fields and their effects on people. It's true that this is an area NASA studies carefully as part of their program for advancing human space exploration. The long duration medical data from the ISS is one of the big reasons for it. On the other hand, that doesn't mean there is nothing that can be done to avoid being cooked in space on your short duration visit.

Being cooked in reentry was the bigger problem in the early days. Google "Lost Cosmonauts" and you can even hear the recordings of some Italian amateurs who had a hobby of following the Soviet space program. They have audio of an unacknowledged female cosmonaut dieing from an early failure at heat shielding(also, evidence of two pre-Yuri Gagarin failures, one fatal).

The point is, the heat shields are basically thick slabs of nonreactive matter, and that also is great for protecting against radiation. If you have seen an orbiter up close, you know how big they are. A little umbrella protects you from the sun, a little plastic door protects you from a microwave oven. Space shuttles are like a giant cave or brick you ride inside.

Solve the heat shield problem and you've probably solved most of the exposure problem, at least enough to begin to study the effects of short duration space work like most space exploration so far.

You're more exposed on a high altitude flight because you don't have a vehicle with massive heat shielding. You're probably more exposed in any conventional building that is not underground compared to anything less than an ISS visit.

Space suits are similarly a lot more complicated and a lot more protection than people might think. Also, the exposure time is quite limited. Space weather has always been a concern for space walks, but again a space suit is a lot more protection than an umbrella. Just wiki search 'space suit.'

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

People also don't quite get how radiation damage works. They don't realize that the human body is constantly repairing radiation damage. On the scale of a life time, your repair teams are destined to lose, but zero exposure is not a requirement for space exploration or living in general.

And remember where most of the medical and a lot of the engineering data that helped the US win the space race came from. The Nazis. I wouldn't be surprised if the first 20th century man to die in space was some unknown gypsy or Jewish person strapped to a V2, sent up just to see how long they'd live. Remember that our public achievements in space were purchased at serious cost and some of the people who had to pay the price had no say in the matter.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
This "NasaScam" website that keeps being referenced is nothing but a load of crap. I want to see where these photos are referenced to the location that is said they are taken from. The photo they said is not available IS available, and location 6 and 9 are directly across from eacthother giving them the same background. You can clearly see the different angles the pictures are taken from giving the same background. With that said...Wheres the original pictures from the NASA website that says that those pictures were taken from those locations.

BTW..The footprint theory has been debunked to death (wich is on that site). Beach sand and moon DUST is totally different.


Ill paste my other post from another hoax thread as well..


Originally posted by Lombardy Inn
I suggest everyone watch the MythBusters moon landing special.

Parts 1 - 5

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...


They debunk the major issues the conspiracy theorists have, and as far as i know, they are the only one that have done this. Part 5 is most convincing IMO.

SO....We went to the moon, landed on it, walked on it, drove on it, took pictures it, filmed it, And it was so unbelievable....Some people dont believe it.



Remember, if they were to FILM a hoax....these guys would be able to pull it off. But can they? NO, They cant....Because we went there.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Here is the Coast To coast am show with Bart Sibrel and Ian Punnet!

media.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
[edit on 22-3-2009 by son of PC]



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Sibrel is a certified wacko with a complete lack of any technical knowledge...

Go here to learn about all the silly hoax theories...

www.badastronomy.com...

Also, I lived in Bethpage, Long Island, New York in the 1960's right next to the Grumman Corporation who designed and built the LEM... I knew/know many of the engineers who worked on that program... It was and still is the real deal and one of the greatest engineering achievements in human history... We landed men on the moon, get over it... It's such a a shame we can't do it again...



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Note:

Other Members are not the Topic here..

Your attention is needed please...

Semper



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lombardy Inn


BTW..The footprint theory has been debunked to death (wich is on that site). Beach sand and moon DUST is totally different.



Hmm. Did any of the astroNOTs bring back any of that moon dust? I mean they brought back literally tons of rocks. Did they bring back a little bag or two of the so-called "moon dust?"

I'll be shocked if they did.

As to the NASAscam website, did you check out all the pages, the Disney Studio, all that? Every page is a treasure trove. I like the one with the cat poop. Seems the cats really liked whatever they used at the stage set for "moon dust."


[edit on 22-3-2009 by Salt of the Earth]



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth

Originally posted by Lombardy Inn


BTW..The footprint theory has been debunked to death (wich is on that site). Beach sand and moon DUST is totally different.



Hmm. Did any of the astroNOTs bring back any of that moon dust? I mean they brought back literally tons of rocks. Did they bring back a little bag or two of the so-called "moon dust?"

I'll be shocked if they did.

As to the NASAscam website, did you check out all the pages, the Disney Studio, all that? Every page is a treasure trove. I like the one with the cat poop. Seems the cats really liked whatever they used at the stage set for "moon dust."


[edit on 22-3-2009 by Salt of the Earth]


YES, they did bring back "moon dust"... Read this...

science.nasa.gov...



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Thanks Zap for this post, for reasons like this I flagged you as my friend long ago. I appreciate your comment too, I was ready to close out of this thread forever until I read your comments.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by GTORick
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 


I can't believe people still think the Moon landing was a hoax. I suppose the Space Shuttle is a hoax too? Satellites too? Delta IVs? Titans? The ISS? The Mars rover? Don't disparage Neil Armstrong and crew. Thet had major stones to do what they did.

OP, I agree a little more background information on Sibrel would be good.



I'm pretty sure both are true. It is never one or the other but both in order to ensure things go their way.

They did go to the moon. They also faked going to the moon.

What the people viewed and saw was a mix of both .


They showed us what they could of the real moon so that it was believable and real, but they faked other stuff because they couldn't/ did not want to tell us everything.

They must have had prior knowledge of what they would have to hide before hand.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
Unmanned satellites orbiting the earth is a whole lot different than sending three men to the moon in a module (ever see how tiny that thing is in the Space Museum) to land on the moon with a contraption with spider legs and gold foil (ever really take a look at that thing) and do it with no prior study or research or testing and do it six times? Yet now NASA releases films of it's preparatory studies of radiation to see if they can possibly get a moon landing of some sort going by 2020? Huh? Can you connect any dots here?


That certainly couldn't have anything to do with the length of time they're planning on staying on the moon when they go back now could it. Apollo stayed on the moon for a couple of days, where the next missions will start out with 7 days on the moon, eventually increasing that to six weeks, until there's a permanent presence on the moon.

Apollo 11-14 were H missions, meaning they were on the moon for just long enough to accomplish a couple of moonwalks. Apollo 15-17 were J missions and were on the moon a total of almost 3 days.

Apollo 11 was on the moon for a total of 21 hours an 36 minutes. Apollo 15 was on the moon for about 67 hours. Both of those are short term stays that they were able to predict the radiation exposure for fairly accurately. Now we're talking 7 days, which will have a much higher radiation exposure.

This is something that people that believe the hoax always like to point out without actually looking into the differences between Apollo and the 2020 missions.


While the initial lunar journeys under the new program would place astronauts on the lunar surface for a maximum of seven days, future expeditions could last up to six months, akin to flights now conducted by space station astronauts, Griffin said.

NASA's Apollo program landed two astronauts on the lunar surface while a third orbited the Moon. Under the space agency's new plan, all four astronauts would make the lunar descent and explore the surface.

"So we get at least double the amount of time [on the Moon] with seven-day missions and four times the amount of lunar surface crew hours," Griffin said, comparing the planned lunar missions to their Apollo predecessors.

Also unlike the Apollo flights, which were largely confined to the Moon's equatorial regions, CEV missions could reach any point on the Moon that promised interesting science, Griffin said.

www.space.com...

As for no stars how many times have you stood under a bright streetlight and looked at stars? Kinda hard to see them isn't it. The reflectivity of the moon made it extremely difficult to see stars, added to the fact that they couldn't exactly end backwards to look up at the stars while they were busy working.

[edit on 3/21/2009 by Zaphod58]



True on eveything except well..On the moon with supposedly no atmosphere, you wouldn't need to bend backwards and look up in the sky to see space......You could look in any direction ( except ground ) and see space and stars.

Never thought of the moons reflectivity though. good comment.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth

Originally posted by OKCBtard

Could you start bringing fourth some evidence that the moon landings were actually faked instead of sitting there trying to discredit the brave people who pretty much flew to the moon in a shanty P.O.S. while not knowing what exactly to expect?


Oh, like this?
nasascam.bravehost.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>



Great link............Wow.......going to be reading that stuff all night but yea def gives some credibility to the faked landing theory and in good detail too.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join