Bart Sibrel Has Been Discovered To Be An Apollo Program Fraud Perpetrator

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 4 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by bcccl
 


Did you try to do it yourself ? Slow the video down ?




posted on May, 16 2012 @ 03:17 AM
link   

The Aldrin Punches Sibrel video is a great opportunity for all of us to investigate the fraud on a grass roots level

reply to post by DelMarvel
 


I think you are discounting an obvious truth here DelMarvel. Certainly, it is hardly a "crackpot" idea. I downloaded a clean copy of the Sibrel video ASTRONAUTS GONE WILD. I played and copied the relevant segment at 25 % of the original speed. I used native slowed pitch. That is, did not engage any kind of maintain pitch program for the slowed version. Here's my version.



I'll post some other versions to show this or that as time goes on. This version is very slow. The pitch is deep. But the sound is in synch.. Aldrin punches Sibrel well before one hears the sound of the punch or hears Sibrel finish his taunt. He is struck and going well to the right before one hears the sound of the punch or "THIEF". The video is dubbed.

If you care to challenge this claim, please post your own version of this and prove me wrong here.

Apollop is fraudulent, has to be. No other reason to resort to such nonsense. Pathetic, embarrassing beyond the stars.

edit on 16-5-2012 by decisively because: fixed the link
edit on 16-5-2012 by decisively because: fixing link



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



Apollop is fraudulent, has to be. No other reason to resort to such nonsense. Pathetic, embarrassing beyond the stars.


Why? You have made no logical connection again.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 04:43 AM
link   
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"

plus.google.com...


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



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


why do they need voice overs and added impact sound??

if they wanted to keep it realistic wouldnt it be better to make it a real hit? therefore NO chance that paranoid people will over analyse a simple punch and start saying its fake? i mean its only one punch and it didnt knock anyone out? plus they can have realistic injuries from the punch instead of makeup?

and why are you so focused on the hasselblads? what kind of information exactly do you think a camera is going to give you when the film is what holds the information??

and you dont seem to understand that the sound and light of 8million pounds of thrust will hide a lightning bolt that is in clouds.
edit on 16-5-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 06:13 AM
link   
Why are none of these threads no in the Space Exploration section?

Is it because he doesn't know about that dedicated section? That shows how well he 'investigates' things.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



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,.


Incorrect; you are making a positive statement: "Apollo is a fraud." This is a positive statement in that it means that all aspects of the mission were fabricated on Earth. You have not presented any evidence that was done. You have not even succeeded in explaining how the simplest aspect of the films and videos could have been fabricated on Earth. The hammer drop and pendulum completely evaded your ability to explain. The long periods of weightlessness in the spacecraft cannot have been done on a "green screen" as the astronauts clearly interact with each other and their environment. If these were done on Earth at special facilities, you need to identify the facilities, provide physical evidence in the form of out-takes, etc, and obtain the sworn testimony of witnesses who are present. All of these things should be possible if you are correct.

Furthermore, you have asserted that the Apollo missions were a "cover" for a military expedition. When asked to explain, you grow vague. It has been pointed out to you that the Moon and Lagrange points are not suitable locations for military hardware. You should be able to prove your assertions by finding declassified documents, or at least make a cogent case that occupying the Moon makes military sense. You have yet to do that.

This is not a philosophical question, but a pragmatic one. An effort to fake the Moon missions would require a covert infrastructure and logistical organization nearly as large again as the overt one. It would leave traces. On the other hand, the "official story" has vast documentation. It does not rely on "authority." In addition to numerous first person accounts from those personally involved in the events, there are eyewitness accounts by countless others, many of whom, such as observers from the Soviet Union, were inclined not to believe the United States government. Additionally, there are ample physical artifacts that support the historicity of Apollo. The launch complex at KSC, the returned spacecraft, the Moon Rocks. All of these artifacts have been studied by engineers and scientists. To claim that they were bought or are part of the conspiracy raises the bar of proof; the vaster the conspiracy, the more complex to manage and the more chances of malcontents revealing it. Go out and find such solid evidence, rather than wasting your time with mere speculation.

Inevitably, you will fall back on a philosophical standpoint. You will reject the scientific method, you will reject both inductive and deductive logic. You will claim that unless one were present on the Moon when the astronauts stepped out, you have no epistemological, or even ontological, reason to believe that they were there. Everything else is hearsay or argument from authority. There is a philosophical term for this attitude: solipsism. It's also a psychological pathology. Sound familiar?
edit on 16-5-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



We would all like to see your video DWJ001. Load, slow, and post. What did you find ? Please share it with us.


Your video is sufficient. I see no evidence that the punch was a stage punch. Your interpretation is simply wrong.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 


There was no impact. No different from this here. Staged impact. No question the thing is dudded. Do it yourself. Show us your version.




posted on May, 16 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


but why would they risk getting caught by making a fake one? its only one punch.. why would they risk exposing themselves like this??

remember according to you they filmed hours and hours of flawless moon landing footage. yet they cant even get a simple punch right? a little bit fishy dont you think? they made everything else ultra realistic but this simple punch they decide to fake it and fake it so very poorly that an amateur conspiracist can easily expose them with cheap movie editors??



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


Is it too late in the thread to beg you to stop using the word "fony" (which is not a real word) and begin using the word "phony" which is the correct spelling for the term you are using?

Even though the moon landing hoax theories are ridiculous, your arguments hold more validity when time is taken for a simple spell check.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 

more on evidence of absence and the fallacy of not being able to "prove" a negative.



We'll get to that later, but I did hit a nerve, did I not ? I'll leave you with this as it is a "smaller" event, nevertheless, that being the lightning occurrence. If there was no lightning on 11/14/1969 at the cape , then the Apollo 12 launch was fraudulent. Fraudulent, as Tom Stafford and McDivitt would then clearly have lied about the launch's alleged strike, and NASA would then be shown to have lied as regards their fabricated photographic evidence of a bogus strike.

One very meaningful/worthwhile way to look at Apollo is to view Apollo as a collection of claimed events, large scale public lies supported by fabricated evidence for said lies/event. Those of us that do genuine research, that is, research which exposes this collection of claimed events as the lies they are/were are in no small way examining this fabricated evidence and showing in what ways, many many ways in the case of Apollo, that these pieces of evidence were made intentionally, and for want of a better term, by "bad people" to fool us.

Steven Hales wrote a great article about folks like me, guys working to provide evidence of absence;

departments.bloomu.edu...

Not that wee are unfamiliar with this in a day to day sense, but addressing the issue formally helps to highlight the fallacy in the official story advocate's tired line that the burden of proof is on our side. The mere fact that people like you DJW001 and choos and whoever else spend so much time and energy trying to counter us is proof in and of itself that our arguments have merit, and plenty plenty plenty of it. Otherwise, why spend you time ? Otherwise, I am really a kook and why should you bother spending so many precious HOURS AND HOURS of your life working to counter me ? You are motivated by the fear that our evidence of absence, because it now reaches so many will begin to crack this thing.


As pointed out in that nice little piece by Hales, one can phrase the pro official Apollo story side in negative terms;"it is not the case that Apollo 12 was not hit by lightning 11/14/1969". Which is indeed what must be done to counter the evidence that I present for the lightning;s nonoccurrence. When I present good evidence for the absence of men on the moon, your side in order to counter me , whether you acknowledge this to be the case or not are arguing; it is not the case that men did not land on the moon and so forth.

Finally, and perhaps more importantly, at least preliminarily is what our writing and so forth does to the men and perhaps a few women who did this. Regardless of your views DJW001, when Thomas Stafford reads, and he does read this stuff, perhaps not my words directly, but he learns of what we know and write nevertheless, for Mr. Stafford, this does amount to a complete proof of the lie he participated in. The irony is that our "kooky ideas" become less and less kooky, the closer to the fraud the individual was. And for the participants they are stone cold blood curdling proof. It must be horrifying for them, the way we discuss DETAILS of the deceit so openly and with great facility now.

I'll introduce a thread at some point about this subject of the "evidence of absence" as it pertains to all conspiracy theories at some point. It is an important one and should be addressed in some formal sense here, such as this forum's setting/format can allow.
edit on 16-5-2012 by decisively because: added "a"
edit on 16-5-2012 by decisively because: added "fabricated photographic", "of a bogus strike"
edit on 16-5-2012 by decisively because: added "alleged strike"
edit on 16-5-2012 by decisively because: removed "their"
edit on 16-5-2012 by decisively because: but> and, added "by"
edit on 16-5-2012 by decisively because: added "?"
edit on 16-5-2012 by decisively because: spelling



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



The mere fact that people like you DJW001 and choos and whoever else spend so much time and energy trying to counter us is proof in and of itself that our arguments have merit, and plenty plenty plenty of it.


By the same reasoning, the fact that you keep trying to counter our arguments is proof in and of itself that our arguments have merit, much, much more of it. Typical CT sophistry. You have made a positive assertion: that the Apollo program was a fraud. Now provide proof of that positive statement. Backstage pictures, shooting scripts, details of how the communications were simulated... anything. You have nothing.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



I'll introduce a thread at some point about this subject of the "evidence of absence" as it pertains to all conspiracy theories at some point.


I'm willing to bet you won't; it would detract from your focus on Apollo.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Actually, I started on the piece last evening, and my friends liked it enough that they are reediting the John Aaron film they are making to include a rather detailed discussion of the notion of "evidence of absence" as a prominent feature. So you'll "see it" in a film of theirs, and an essay by me as well, a critical matter indeed, bit of a table turner, no ?

What say you when I point out NBC didn't film the lightning strike on Apollo 12 ? Tom Stafford saw it. The NASA automatic cameras shot it. NBC filmed the entire launch, camera on the launch pad the whole time too, right where Stafford saw and NASA imaged the lightning. 500,000 people were there, no one else saw it. National weather service reported no lightning. Apollo in a nutshell really.

So we do have a proof there was no lightning. We have reports by Stafford, McDivitt, Conrad, and phony pictures. Phony pictures because the numerous television crews imaging that very place in space and time, the Apollo launch pad 36 seconds after the launch, those numerous television crews imaged no lightning. Proof of forged photos, and proof of Stafford, Conrad's Mcdivitt's lying, and proof of men never having landed on the moon.
edit on 16-5-2012 by decisively because: added "right", "were", "numerous television crews", "having"
edit on 16-5-2012 by decisively because: added "of"



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Click "off and on" your space bar at the time of the Aldrin punch, nice example here in the TSD collection of vidi's on this, clear, audio being in good synch very evident, great demonstration of the dubbing as the punch sound is so crisp

reply to post by DJW001
 


Here's a version from the TSD collection on this scam; nice and clear, good synch is evident. Note the synched audio being quite good right before the punch when Aldrin says, "Will you get away from me". Click off and on your space bar here DJW001 from the time the Aldrin punch is seen to be flush against Sibrel's face on. Sibrel is way way way to the right, well hit before the dubbed punch sound is heard, and then even after that Sibrel says "THIEF", super fake. It is no different from my film above in that regard, and the synch is no better, same source so it should be, we would expect nothing else. But the author's pitch correction is a nice feature here. The voices are slowed, but pitch does not drop, it is maintained. So the punch sound on this video is nice and crisp.



I am going to try and do some this evening with freeze frames to better illustrate the scammy dubbing. It is straight forward enough. Should be evident to all by now, THOSE THAT HAVE DONE THIS BART SIBREL VIDEO EVALUATION EXERCISE FOR THEMSELVES KNOW THAT THIS THING IS WAY OUT OF CONTROL STAGED, but doing some freeze frame examples may help a few stragglers motivation wise, and get them on board here to research on their own. Don't take my word for it that Apollo is way fake, you can prove it to yourselves. I am here only to encourage the fence sitters, not to encourage them to buy into my views, but to do independent research for themselves and decide, independent of what I may say, or what NASA may say in their defense of this embarrassing deluge of revelations.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



Here's a version from the TSD collection on this scam; nice and clear, good synch is evident. Note the synched audio being quite good right before the punch when Aldrin says, "Will you get away from me". Click off and on your space bar here DJW001 from the time the Aldrin punch is seen to be flush against Sibrel's face on. Sibrel is way way way to the right, well hit before the dubbed punch sound is heard, and then even after that Sibrel says "THIEF", super fake.


How do we know that TSD has not altered the soundtrack? Note how the word thief rises in pitch... the stress of the impact can be heard in the words Sibrel's motor system was in the act of performing. Even if it was faked, why? What does this have to do with the historicity of the Moon landings? Why are you trying to impeach one of the Hoax theory's proponents? Are you trying to alienate the only two people on this thread who are taking you seriously?
edit on 16-5-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



So you'll "see it" in a film of theirs, and an essay by me as well, a critical matter indeed, bit of a table turner, no ?


If you feel the need to turn the table, it means you know you're losing. Remember, this is not about proving a negative, it is about you proving that NASA mounted an elaborate campaign to simulate the Moon landings. That is a positive assertion that is provable both in theory and in practice. You have had ten days to introduce new evidence, but you haven't been able to find any. Your original five assertions have been shown to be false or the reasoning flawed, so now you resort to semantic diversions. What's the matter? Were you planning on getting banned before your five talking points reached their expiration date?



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
I've heard about the punch, but had never seen the vid. Awesome!

Imagine working your entire life to reach that amazing pinnacle of your career and humankind's, just to have some little do-nothing twit come along and call you a coward and a liar.
Infuriating.
Way to go Buzz!



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


I believe the evidence of the absence of lightning at the cape on 11/14/1969 has been well secured. I would call that a most glad start.





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join