reply to post by DJW001
A quick comment on Apollo and the fallacy of the unprovability of negatives....And more on Bart Sibrel and the Apollo fraud.
Actually, that is not true DJW001. We can get into this more latter, but basically, your objection that there are no logical connections between the
things we claim demonstrate Apollo's fraudulence and the fact that astronauts did not land on the moon, amounts to the tired old line about one's not
being able to prove a negative. Your no logical connection jive amounts to saying that I cannot prove there was no lightning 11/14/1969 that struck
Apollo 12, in essence, because it is a negative,. As Apollo never happened, you are saying, despite the fact that there were no moon landings, I
cannot prove such is the case, in essence, because it is a negative,.
It would be a mistake to go way off on tangents right here, the Sibrel video stuff is so incriminatingly JUICY, but serious philosophers that study
logic/argument/rhetoric, do not agree with your position DJW001. It is simply not true that one "cannot prove a negative", one can demonstrate within
reason that something did not happen, one can provide very acceptable evidence of absence. We'll get to this in plenty of detail later, but the point
worth touching on here is that because Apollo didn't happen, because Apollo was a non-occurrence, does not mean we cannot logically link the events of
this charade, this pretended moon landing, to the grand non-occurrence that said fraud claimed. Your side, DJW001, is troubled more than ours in
terms of providing a reasonably convincing case outside the context of authority's sway.. Essentially all you have left is authority that backs the
official story. No telemetry tapes, Hasselblads tossed, and so forth. The collection of things that together would constitute a proof for Apollo's
Authenticity were conveniently discarded, left like so many phony Hasselblads on an imaginary moon so no one would examine them and cry "FRAUD !!!."
So your side has no evidence, and with patience, we continue to build a vacuum sealed case with our evidence of absence demonstrating the lie that
was, that is, Apollo.
But let's get back to Aldrin and Sibrel. Recall in Aldrin's book, MAGNIFICENT DESOLATION, he claimed Sibrel had irritated him long enough, cornered
him there at the Rodeo Drive Hotel and he lost it. Of course nothing could have been further from the truth.
Here is another version of what will undoubtedly become at some time a rather infamous video clip. I down loaded a clean version of ASTRONAUTS GONE
WILD having acquired it from Amazon. This version is slowed to 50 % original speed. No correction for pitch is made here. The pitch drops with the
slowing. I uploaded this time to Google video.
Play with this. Click on and off at the critical moment, the landing of the punch. Stop the video when Aldrin's fist hits Sibrel. Click again
incrementally. Watch as Sibrel goes well rightward and THEN you will hear the "fist strike sound", the punch sound comes well AFTER the punch has
landed, and then one hears Sibrel say "THIEF"
Contrary to DJW001's views, not to mention others, one can reasonably provide evidence of absence, In this case; the absence of a lightning strike
upon Apollo 12 11/14/1969, The absence of men having landed on the moon, the absence of a bona fide Aldrin punch on Sibrel. Certainly, this slowed
video demonstrates the latter, that Aldrin never hit Sibrel, demonstrates this was staged. And of course the only reason to stage this is to cover
for Apollo's wretched fraudulence.
A couple quick comments here. One; looks as though Aldrin takes something out of his right coat pocket just prior to pretending to hit Sibrel. Would
seem it was something that had to do with the fake punch. Also; the step daughter babbles something about suing Sibrel early on there, makes no
sense. Should have rehearsed her more.
We would all like to see your video DWJ001. Load, slow, and post. What did you find ? Please share it with us.
edit on 16-5-2012 by
decisively because: added "and the fact that astronauts did not land men on the moon"
edit on 16-5-2012 by decisively because: added
"in essence because it is a negative" X 2
edit on 16-5-2012 by decisively because: added, "does not mean we cannot logically link the
events of this charade, this pretended moon landing, to the grand non-occurrence that said fraud claimed.
edit on 16-5-2012 by
decisively because: tossed > discarded
edit on 16-5-2012 by decisively because: commas
edit on 16-5-2012 by decisively
because: here>there, spelling
edit on 16-5-2012 by decisively because: spelling