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: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by flightsuit
Listen, Salt-of-the-Earth,

I'm new here, and, as online communities go, I'd say ATS is one of the more judiciously moderated forums I've seen, with very high standards of conduct and, I think, very little tolerance for trolling and flame wars.

Out of respect for ATS, and a desire to be a valued contributor of ideas, I feel I should really avoid getting into it with you any further.

You are, however, clearly a person who is so filled with beliefs about things that there's no room left in your head for actual knowledge of those things.

Belief is a poor, poor substitute for knowledge, and whatever whacko, quasi-Christian, covert-racist claptrap belief system you've bought into is a poor substitute for real spirituality, patriotism, or dissent.

And now I will try to be done with you, as I came here to poke fun at Bart Sibrel, as opposed to burdening you with the knowledge that you're making yourself look hateful and silly. I'm embarrassed that I'm even stooping to the level of writing these words. So...

Good day to you, Sir.


I think he is saying something along the lines of that the True jewish religion at one point was " hijacked" and turned into something not as pure.

I've also heard that about christianity.

I would hope he is not saying all jews are bad which would be ignorant.

I can see how this may upset you, but be smart and learn from it. Maybe one day something he said might have a little truth to it that you never knew.

Don't let others get to you so easily though, it hinders your progress as a human. trust me i know i used to do it all the time.

Since you said you are new hear i will tell you that there are so many great threads with tons of good information that I would hope this one thread would not scare you away.




posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85
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.


You WOULD have to lean back to see stars, because the horizon would have too much light reflecting to show any but extremely bright stars. The farther up you look, the less light is reflected, and the dimmer stars start to show up. Another example is the first star of the night here on earth. Usually the first star to show up is either really high in the sky, or it's Venus, which is extremely bright.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
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!

Sibrel was blocking him from leaving after lying to him and tricking him into coming to the hotel. That's called holding someone captive against their clearly-expressed (and initially peaceful) will to leave - it's illegal. I'd do the same thing in his shoes, yet clearly I'm not part of any conspiracy. What you're expressing here is confirmation bias - you think the only possible reason Sibrel got punched is because Aldrin is "hiding something" because you started with that assumption.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
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.

Be shocked. There are hundred of pounds of lunar dust at the Lunar Sample Lab:
www.physorg.com...



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85
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.

Wouldn't matter. Your eyes automatically adjust to the brightest thing shining into them. They physically adjust (dialate/constrict) as well as chemically adjust (different receptors for low light and bright light/color). Since the lunar EVAs were basically like being on a dirty snowfield, your eyes would have been completely adjusted to the bright light making it impossible to see the dim stars. Venus, maybe; we can see that in daylight, but even that's difficult to do in the middle of the day. It takes about 10-15 minutes to get dark adapted, that means they would have had to lie on the backs in the shadow of a rock or LEM for several precious minutes to start to see the stars. I forget how many millions of dollars each minute of lunar EVA time cost, but it certainly didn't allow for that kind of sightseeing.

[edit on 22-3-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
Here's a good link that proves the moon landings were a hoax.
nasascam.bravehost.com...

And Bart Sibrel is the one who produced the film A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon, proving it was all a hoax, with a paper moon glued to the window, and they never left earth's orbit. His website www.moonmovie.com, captures the interview of Neal Armstrong and the other outlaw lying criminals in their first (and only) press conference after their heroic "return" from the moon when they didn't have their stories straight and some reporter asked Armstrong what the stars looked like from the moon, and Armstrong turned to his brothers in crime with a blank look and said, "Did we see any stars?" They all agreed, no stars. So Armstrong turned back and said, We didn't see any stars.

His website trailers are as good as the movie. He has several movies out, Astronauts gone wild, and others.


It was a pretty complex and well done hoax then. It put food on my families' table fr ten years while I was a boy. I visited the ALSEP lab and saw things being built by my dad. I have a folder full of pictures of his work right here. I witnessed it all first hand and ate the freakin' groceries.

But this is what happens when the schools don't do a decent job of teaching science for an entire generation. Three quarters of the Earth's population wasn't there to see it so it becomes easier than ever to say it was a fake... gag.

Reminds me of the scene in Planet of the Apes when Dr Zeus crushes the paper airplane in his hand and says, "flight is an impossibility".

[edit on 23-3-2009 by welldownbluehighway]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   
There's a pretty abundant amount of evidence out there that much of the visuals from the Apollo flights don't make any sense. The foot prints, the lack of craters under the crafts, lack of soil on the landing pods, shadow discrepancies, duplicated backdrops, backdrop lines, the appearance of wires, moving flags, video on Apollo 12 half way to the moon showing a blue atmosphere, blue marble camera tricks from in the craft, lack of visual moon artifacts, the # and quality of pictures without a view finder, no photos looking back to earth or out into space, etc.. The behavior and appearance of the astronauts is clearly unnatural. The lack of memory by them indicates brainwashing into them ideas, scenes but no details. The trigger responses they some times exposed when questioned. Their secret society ties. The very nature of the craft. The lack of vibration and engine noise of the LEM on landing. The lack of space and environment to do anything within the LEM like take off their gloves and change film. The failure of some astronauts to use the reflective visor when "on the moon". The oddity of the take off pictures of the LEM. The lack of feasibility that the camera(s) used would even work with the temperature changes and radiation. The lack of radiation marks on the film. The temperature variation demands on their suits. The complete lack of radiation shielding of the suits. etc., etc., etc.

The primary goal of the programs, in my opinion, was to seed funding form black ops programs.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 02:53 AM
link   
Yeah I heard that show. Bart Sibrel is a nut. To think that we've never made it to the Moon, and walked on it, despite all the evidence is ludicrous.

He's obviously a paranoid delusional person.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth

See, you inundate them with space movies, Star Trek, Star Wars, ET, 2001 Space Odyssy, on and on and on, and then you pull off a hokey moon landing caper and voila, the people will be ready to receive the demons and chimeras as saviors (and/or enemies for which earth must unite in a NWO) and embrace the Dark Side in unison, kill off the rest who won't go along.

[edit on 21-3-2009 by Salt of the Earth]

Except for the fact that all of the movies you quoted (except 2001) occurred AFTER the moon landings. 2001 was way ahead for its time and all other sci-fi movies were still wedded to the 50's ideas.......cheap monster B movie basically. Not exactly the material to influence us.

We won't have long to wait to find out how much of the material in the early 70's was fake. The chinese will get to the moon and find.........???? Watch this space!



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85

I think he is saying something along the lines of that the True jewish religion at one point was " hijacked" and turned into something not as pure.

I've also heard that about christianity.

I would hope he is not saying all jews are bad which would be ignorant.

I can see how this may upset you, but be smart and learn from it. Maybe one day something he said might have a little truth to it that you never knew.

Don't let others get to you so easily though, it hinders your progress as a human. trust me i know i used to do it all the time.

Since you said you are new hear i will tell you that there are so many great threads with tons of good information that I would hope this one thread would not scare you away.


Thanks for your kind words, Lucid Dreamer. I think you're being too kind to Salt-of-the-Earth, though. He sounds just like the idiot commenters with whom I sometimes spar on YouTube, bigots who are convinced "The Jews" are behind everything. It's funny how everybody says Arabs and Muslims are supposed to be persecuting us, 'cause the only anti-semitism I have ever experienced in my life has come from Americans, most of them white. Something to think about.

But anyway, back on topic:

I gotta at least give Bart Sibrel credit for publicly acknowledging that he'd provoked the astronaut into punching him, that he'd gone too far and escalated an already volatile situation. Hindsight is 20/20 of course, but it was still big of him to apologize. Most folks, if you give them a good beating, aren't going to say, "I'm sorry I made it necessary for you to give me a good beating!"



I almost like Sibrel. Yeah, he's inept and kooky, but he's trying to do his best. Maybe it's the Jew in me; always a soft spot in my heart for the underdog.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Hmm. The hoax believers modus operandi perfectly demonstrated! - post hit and run comments without a shred of backup (or common sense..).

RV>There's a pretty abundant amount of evidence out there
Actually, not even a skerrick. Lost of stuff latched onto by uninformed folks, but they simply reveal their lack of understanding, common sense, or any ability to do basic research.

The following items are more comprehensively covered at sites like:
www.braeunig.us...
www.clavius.org...
(Perhaps in future, Reelview, you could save us some time by going there first...)

But I'll offer quick comments for those too lazy..

RV> The foot prints
Do you mean too well-defined for dry dust? Try stepping in graphite dust, or dry clay dust, flour, or many other materials that 'cling'.
Or do you mean they are too deep compared to the lander pads? Wrong. If you do the math, the impression depths are exactly what they should be in 1/6 gravity.

RV>lack of craters under the crafts, lack of soil on the landing pods
VACUUM!! Rocket exhaust only affects the particles it 'touches'. No air disturbance, no air 'pushed', no wind currents/eddies. So much less crater under the craft - in fact exactly as was recorded. Interestingly the very small amounts of dust on the lander's footpads give perfect evidence of this - you don't get dust flicked up/over/around in an airless environment.

RV>shadow discrepancies
There are ZERO shadow discrepancies. This issue is raised by folk who have little understanding of perspective and how terrain angles will affect shadows. Mythbusters and others have shown exact replicas of the 'suspect' images.

RV>duplicated backdrops
You mean like the example where Bart Sibrel was shown to have faked the audio to make it look like a different region? If not, please post your proof.

RV>backdrop lines
You mean the stitch lines in panoramic images? If not, LINK.

RV>the appearance of wires
The antenna glints, or the JPEG artefacts that are not in the original images?

RV>moving flags
The flags clearly moved only after they were bumped, and in a vacuum would move much longer without any air to damp the motion. The motion looks quite unlike it would in an earthly environment.

RV>video on Apollo 12 half way to the moon showing a blue atmosphere
This is a new one on me - LINK?

RV>blue marble camera tricks from in the craft
Again, never heard of it.
www.ehartwell.com...
What's the beef?

RV>lack of visual moon artifacts
What on earth does than mean?

RV>the # and quality of pictures without a view finder
Have you seen the entire catalogue? They were trained in how to use the cameras, and using a waist level camera is quite easy.

RV>no photos looking back to earth or out into space
There are several, but this was not a priority and the cameras were set for lunar landscape exposure (ie DAYLIGHT). So no stars could possibly be recorded.

RV>The lack of memory by them indicates brainwashing
Unsupported, and INSULTING.

RV>Their secret society ties.
Unsupported and silly.

RV>The very nature of the craft.
An incredible design for the day, and those Saturn 5 rockets were legendary. Show me any engineer who has a problem with it.

RV>The lack of vibration and engine noise of the LEM on landing.
They were in a vacuum, and little power is req'd in 1/6g.

RV>The lack of space and environment to do anything within the LEM
It was cramped. So?

RV>The failure ..to use the reflective visor when "on the moon".
What? Why is that an issue?

RV>The oddity of the take off pictures of the LEM.
The remote-op camera that they stuffed up several times?

RV>The lack of feasibility that the camera(s) used would even work with
>the temperature changes and radiation
Film made specially, vacuum means things don't get hot quickly anyway. Radiation levels too low to be problem...

Etc, etc, etc, indeed. ALL a complete waste of time... But feel free to actually DEBATE the issues next time.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ReelView
There's a pretty abundant amount of evidence out there that much of the visuals from the Apollo flights don't make any sense. The foot prints,

Proven to be consistent with lunar regolith on MythBusters.


the lack of craters under the crafts,

Does a harrier or F-35 leave a crater? The thrust needed for final descent was much less than needed for initial deorbiting high up.


lack of soil on the landing pods,

LOL! Soil on the pods would be evidence of atmospheric billowing!


shadow discrepancies,

the terrain wasn't flat. Again, MythBusters.


duplicated backdrops,

Oh you mean these? They actually show parallax, can reveal the 3d shapes of the mountains, and prove we went. Cross your eyes until the images overlap and voila, 3d proof of the real moon:
i14.photobucket.com...


backdrop lines,

see above.


the appearance of wires,

PLSS antenna. Shows up better in full res videos rather than youtube garbage.


moving flags,

Vibrations still move through shaking flagpoles in a vacuum. MythBusters.


video on Apollo 12 half way to the moon showing a blue atmosphere, blue marble camera tricks from in the craft,

Cloud formations match weather reports, more proof we went.


lack of visual moon artifacts,

wtf?


the # and quality of pictures without a view finder,

Wide angle lenses, it's not hard to take lots of pictures when doing panoramas, and yeah, some pictures suck big time but are consequently obscure.
www.lpi.usra.edu...


no photos looking back to earth or out into space,

daylight exposures, and you're dead wrong:
moonpans.com...


The lack of vibration and engine noise of the LEM on landing.

How would you know? Their mics were directed at their mouths, not the engine.


The lack of space and environment to do anything within the LEM like take off their gloves and change film.

LOL, nonsense.


The failure of some astronauts to use the reflective visor when "on the moon".

Guess what? They're now getting cataracts; the price to pay is not instantaneous.


The oddity of the take off pictures of the LEM.

Nothing odd about it if you did the slightest fact checking.


The lack of feasibility that the camera(s) used would even work with the temperature changes and radiation.

No atmospheric convection to conduct heat means things are slow to warm or cool.


The lack of radiation marks on the film.

Prove (ie, quantify the amount) there would be enough radiation to ruin the film. Good luck.


The temperature variation demands on their suits. The complete lack of radiation shielding of the suits. etc., etc., etc.

See above.

[edit on 23-3-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
I would have enjoyed that show. I love Bart Sibrel, although I disagree with him as to why the moon hoax caper was pulled off. Bart says it was to win the Cold War. I disagree. I agree with William Cooper instead who said it was done to convince gullible people like the OP that interplanetary travel is possible.

See, you inundate them with space movies, Star Trek, Star Wars, ET, 2001 Space Odyssy, on and on and on, and then you pull off a hokey moon landing caper and voila, the people will be ready to receive the demons and chimeras as saviors (and/or enemies for which earth must unite in a NWO) and embrace the Dark Side in unison, kill off the rest who won't go along.

For people who want to live for a momentary thrill, this is dandy. For people who know there's an eternity to answer for our life here on earth, it's not so dandy and we will not take the Mark, will not worship the antichrist, and will not sit down to dinner with demons and call them our friends and "aliens" visiting from another star system to help us, or watch them be interviewed on TV by Larry King and think it's oh so wonderful.


This link www.youtube.com... is to a NASA film, where they admit the radiation is prohibitive beyond earth's atmosphere and they are trying to figure out a way to deal with it. Yet we are supposed to believe we sent men to the moon nine times in the late '60s and early '70s? Time to wake up. Another hoax, scam by our beloved government, not as audacious as 9/11, but close. They are such fakers, such stagers, the Luciferians.

[edit on 21-3-2009 by Salt of the Earth]


Now I've seen closed minded people, conspiracy theorist and complete whack jobs way out there but WOW... You've got issues buddy...




[edit on 23-3-2009 by ls1cameric]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ls1cameric
 


I would have to agree, that was the nuttiest statement so far, but what else would you expect from people who buy into Sibrel's evidence. I have an open mind and will listen to anyone's conspiracy theory reserving judgement until I've heard their arguement in it's entirety. I have to say even if this were true, Sobril has done more damage to the theories legitimacy than anything else. He sited an insider's accusation of him, who accused him of wanting only to make profit off this supposed discovery, as evidence of it's validity. Does it not seem as though he's grasping at straws here?



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 


I'm not ready to decide one way or another, but I was sitting with my grandfather watching the old B&W TV in 1969 as they were landing on the moon. My grandfather chucked and told me they had filmed this out in the desert somewhere. He refused to believe they had made it to the moon. I thought he was being old and square....behind the times(I was 14 yrs old and cool...LOL).
He pointed out that someone was outside the lander filming Armstrong as he stepped down. Hmmm? How was that done? Who filmed him?
How did the rover get there?
Are there any photos showing how the Rover was attached to the lander?
Wouldn't the massive amounts of radiation cause the astronauts that walked on the moon to age prematurely, or cause cancer?

Just a few questions I have had since 1969 and have never been able to find answers for.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
He pointed out that someone was outside the lander filming Armstrong as he stepped down. Hmmm? How was that done? Who filmed him?


The camera was built into the landing leg. Armstrong pulled a lanyard on his way out, and it deployed the camera to take his picture.



How did the rover get there?
Are there any photos showing how the Rover was attached to the lander?


The rover folded up and was stored in the bottom of the LEM. There wasn't a rover on Apollo 11 however. They didn't use a rover until Apollo 15, 16, and 17.


The rover was transported inside the lunar modules during the last 3 Apollo missions.

www.fi.edu...


Wouldn't the massive amounts of radiation cause the astronauts that walked on the moon to age prematurely, or cause cancer?


That's why so many of the early astronauts have cataracts, cancer, and other illnesses. It took a long time for it to affect them, because they received a fairly low dose. It wasn't enough to affect them immediately, but it HAS affected them.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 


He pointed out that someone was outside the lander filming Armstrong as he stepped down. Hmmm? How was that done? Who filmed him?

Does someone have to be posted 24 hrs a day outside the space station for Nasa TV to have a new live exterior view? No. Similarly, there was a camera stored in the LEM's MESA experiment package in the quad 4 equipment bay in the descent stage. All armstrong had to do was pull a cable as he came out and the bay rotated open like a drawbrige to deploy the camera as seen in this model:
www.hq.nasa.gov...


How did the rover get there?
Are there any photos showing how the Rover was attached to the lander?

It folded into a descent stage equipment bay much the same way that the MESA package did. Again, the astronauts just had to access and pull some cables to release it. You can see video of them practicing deploying and unfolding a practice rover from a model LEM in the Spacecraft Films Apollo 17 DVD set.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Not another, we didn't go to the moon, theory! We went but the conspiracies lie in what we found there. . .
As for Sibrel. isn't he the guy who got smacked in the grid by an irate Buzz Aldrin, and had his life threatened by Edgar Michells son?



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Reading this thread from beginning I was under impression that some folks believe that Apollo 11 mission was somewhat blinded, visiting the world we don't know much, but I'm sure that most of them have no idea that landing happened 10 years after first man-made object has hit the moon surface.


Space race might force USA government to fake moon landing, but I doubt that they had to do that. They had almost unlimited supplies and resources, and only one goal, so I'm sure that they did it. It took multiple trips to first land human, so year before they landed on moon, Apollo 8 crew was first to fly and see other side of the moon with their own eyes. (or this was hoax as well
)

And for those moon dust non-sense, just check this picture. I'm sure those who doubt man on the moon know what this picture is...





[edit on 3/23/09 by vietifulJoe]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Anyone find those 2,600 boxes, or 13,000 "missing" original tapes of EVERY Apollo mission?


One giant blunder for mankind: how NASA lost moon pictures
Richard Macey
August 5, 2006

THE heart-stopping moments when Neil Armstrong took his first tentative steps onto another world are defining images of the 20th century: grainy, fuzzy, unforgettable.

But just 37 years after Apollo 11, it is feared the magnetic tapes that recorded the first moon walk - beamed to the world via three tracking stations, including Parkes's famous "Dish" - have gone missing at NASA's Goddard Space Centre in Maryland.

A desperate search has begun amid concerns the tapes will disintegrate to dust before they can be found.

It is not widely known that the Apollo 11 television broadcast from the moon was a high-quality transmission, far sharper than the blurry version relayed instantly to the world on that July day in 1969.

Among those battling to unscramble the mystery is John Sarkissian, a CSIRO scientist stationed at Parkes for a decade. "We are working on the assumption they still exist," Mr Sarkissian told the Herald.

"Your guess is a good as mine as to where they are."

Mr Sarkissian began researching the role of Parkes in Apollo 11's mission in 1997, before the movie The Dish was made. However, when he later contacted NASA colleagues to ask about the tapes, they could not be found.

Now why would anyone be suspicious that NASA faked the Apollo moon landings?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join