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

reply to post by BellaSabre


You should load the video, slow it for yourself, and post your result.

Bottom line, why are we able to bounce high powered lazers off of the reflectors left behind?

Answer me this, and I MIGHT stop believing that the whole fake landing argument is downright stupid.

reply to post by decisively

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.

You haven't been paying due attention to all your threads. Your Apollo 12 lightning strike is dead in the water.

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by BellaSabre

 

You should load the video, slow it for yourself, and post your result.

And why would I be bothered to do that?

Originally posted by decisively
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.

Ah, at least, a brief post. The rest are all TL;DR...

But as seems to be the norm with the mythical, non-existent Team Lune' (aka decisively), WRONG.

And wrong at a level that shows complete ignorance of a rocket launch (and complete inability to even THINK about what the launch causes in the local environment). All I'll say is that there most certainly does NOT have to be local lightning forecast for a static electricity discharge into the micro-weather system created by the rocket and its ionised trail. There were in fact two separate strikes, btw.

Photo & notes about A12 lightning discharge
More detailed notes in the mission description here

Plenty more information, photos and other evidence of that strike is readily available if anyone ELSE asks - I can see facts are completely wasted on decisively.

reply to post by CHRLZ


CHRLZ, you are in the wrong thread guy. This is the Bart Sibrel thread. Drift over to the Skunk Works Apollo Thread. That is where the lightning issue is being presently debated. I welcome your challenge.

Rocket as Lightning rod is not the point of debate here, consistency in the plot is.

reply to post by CHRLZ


Just to say something in response to your post/point, no one is discounting or even debating the notion that a giant rocket may have acted as a lightning rod that day. What kicked off this recent discussion on the subject of the Apollo 12 strike was that an article was discovered by a forum member which spoke of "native lightning" being evident that day before the launch.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

As you might be aware, lightning unrelated to the rocket launch itself, we'll call it "natural lightning" here for want of a better term, was DENIED, and strongly so by NASA. they carefully checked the weather for this and would not have launched into lightning as I posted here;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So I appreciate your point, but it is unrelated to ours, and unrelated to the subject of debate presently. What is being debated is not whether a rocket might not act as a lightning rod, it is rather, if a newspaper man reported lightning crackling about the Saturn V and perhaps precipitating a bit of presidential anxiety, and if Tom Stafford saw this lightning come ripping through the air and hit the pad no less, why didn't anyone else see it, or film it ? Why didn't Stafford immediately call Houston and tell them it was lightning, had to be, he saw it ?

The story is internally incoherent and so necessarily untrue as is all of Apollo, and as such we rightfully conclude all of Apollo to be fraudulent.

How many threads have you started trying to prove all this moon-hoax rubbish?

This is the lamest one yet.

Trying to disassociate the moon hoax club from that butt-nut Sibrel, nice move.

Moon hoaxers are either deluded or mis-informed, shame on you for willfully trying to mislead people.

you should change your name to 'deceivingly'

reply to post by decisively


You're losing track of your posts. Your strategy is working against you!

reply to post by DJW001

Freeze Frames Really Bring The Scam To Light

Here is the best version of the Buzz Aldrin/Bart Sibrel staged punch yet. I loaded a clean copy of ASTRONAUTS GONE WILD into my editing software, nothing fancy, slowed the film to 50 % of the original speed. Pitch is maintained. I added 3 freeze frames. Each freeze is maintained for 4 seconds.

The first freeze occurs when Aldrin's fist is halfway to Sibrel's face. Sibrel has already said at this point, "You're a coward and a liar", but no more. One tenth of a second passes, then the next freeze frame. At that point, Sibrel has been struck and is already moving to his right. He has not said anything more, the sound of the punch has not yet been heard. Four tenths of a second now pass and during this time Sibrel moves way to the right and says "AND A". Still no punch sound. Now when the 4 seconds of the last freeze pass we finally hear the sound of the punch and then just after the word "THIEF". Take a look for yourselves.





Don't take my word for it. Try it for yourselves. Get a clean copy of the video, slow it down, add the freezes as you please, a nice feature obviously.

Sibrel cannot have been hit flush on like that, not even having finished the taunt "and a thief", only to go all the more to the right and then we hear "AND A", then the sound of the punch and then the word "THIEF".

The sound of the punch was added, and we know this because it occurs well after the punch appears to have struck Sibrel's face. It's dubbed and therefore staged, AKA FAKE. Give it a try for yourselves. An amazing find. Quite literally, an Apollo history revelation.

reply to post by seabhac-rua


seabhac-rua,

Check the freeze frame video out above, and more importantly, do this for yourself. Sibrel is nuttier than you ever imagined, as is Aldrin. Apollo gives rise to the strangest of bedfellows, no ?

reply to post by decisively


the whole video sounds and looks out of synch not just the punch.. are you sure there wasnt any troubles synching it when you slowed it down??

you havent explained why they would fake this so poorly? how come they can (according to you) film the moon landings so well, and make everything so ultra-realistic but when it comes to something so simple, they have to fake it and dubbed in sound so poorly?

it doesnt make sense.. it would have been easier and more realistic to make it a real punch. why go do something that requires more effort, money and a high chance of being caught?

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by CHRLZ

 

CHRLZ, you are in the wrong thread guy. This is the Bart Sibrel thread. Drift over to the Skunk Works Apollo Thread. That is where the lightning issue is being presently debated. I welcome your challenge.

I did QUOTE YOU, decisively - from THIS THREAD. Here's that link again, perhaps you should click and see, before offering embarrassing gaffes like that. So now you can't even keep track of your own posts? You and your 'team' [chortle] are quite the experts, aren't you.

Go on, CLICK THE LINK and see where YOU POSTED ON THIS THREAD about lightning striking A12. GO ON, any of these links will do it, not that I'm rubbing it in..

And then APOLOGISE.

As for coming to Skunk Works, no thanks - I don't spend much time here anyway, let alone at the 'lost cause' forum. But hey, you'll get a few stars over there, so knock yaself out.

Let's face it, even here or at GLP, you'll barely get anyone interested - if you want to take your matters up seriously, you need to go to a more scientific forum like BAUT, or JREF, or Apollohoax..

Oh wait.. you have, and got your claims shredded and flushed. And then got you and your sad (and obvious) sockpuppets banned for the ongoing disruptions, abuse and personal threats you made.

Anyways, now, there are enough people (that matter) here who know about your sorry history. My job is done. Cheers!

It seems to me that this is about National Pride and a feeling of superiority, than of lies and deciet. " We did it first and we are proud ! " is the battlecry. Well I guess it is hard to accept the fact that the Americans are no better than any other country in the world, for the John Doe/Jane Doe in the street, they talk like they personally built it all and flew the missions themselves, well it is hard to accept that you have been lied to all of these years and not seen through it.

As for threads about NASA hoaxes and lies, they are doomed to fail and the OPs are subjected to ridicule and gang beatings, perhaps it would be better to go underground untill a provable fact appears. Either way, I think that NASA will soon admit that they actually had to manipulate certain details of the Apollo missions, but will decline to say which parts, so that they are somehow less accountable, when they are finally rumbled.

reply to post by Qwenn

It seems to me that this is about National Pride and a feeling of superiority, than of lies and deciet. " We did it first and we are proud ! " is the battlecry. Well I guess it is hard to accept the fact that the Americans are no better than any other country in the world, for the John Doe/Jane Doe in the street, they talk like they personally built it all and flew the missions themselves, well it is hard to accept that you have been lied to all of these years and not seen through it.

National pride has nothing to do with. Most of the people who are defending the historical record aren't even American. They do it out of a sense of scientific, historical or academic integrity. You have, however, shed light on the motives of the Apollo hoax theorists. Some of them do it out of hatred towards America. Is it any wonder that Mahmoud Ahmadinajad and Cesar Chavez are vocal proponents? In tearing down the achievements of others, they feel that they are elevating themselves. Because they are an average John Doe / Jane Doe and believe they can "see through the lies," they feel superior to all the scientists and engineers who are either part of the deception or too stupid to see through it.

As for threads about NASA hoaxes and lies, they are doomed to fail and the OPs are subjected to ridicule and gang beatings, perhaps it would be better to go underground untill a provable fact appears. Either way, I think that NASA will soon admit that they actually had to manipulate certain details of the Apollo missions, but will decline to say which parts, so that they are somehow less accountable, when they are finally rumbled.

These threads are doomed to fail because the people who start them are simply not as smart as they think they are. Those who are sincere generally have "evidence" that is the result of poor understanding of basic topics like physics or photography, often coupled with poor reading comprehension. In those cases, their opponents aim to educate. Those who are insincere, such as the author of this thread, rely on cherry picking, fabrication, rhetoric and flawed logic to convince others of their deception. That is what leads to the heat; such tactics are offensive.

No-one has ever claimed that every single detail of the accepted historical narrative is completely accurate; humans are fallible and often present events as they remember them, which is different than the way they "really were." There is also great room for interpretation, Sayonara Jupiter's specialty. No-one has ever claimed that NASA does not color its activities for public consumption, either. One of decisively's threads actually revealed how NASA spun certain events in order to cover up what was really going on. Naturally, it wasn't decisively that uncovered them as his focus is on discrediting the landings, rather than getting at the truth.

reply to post by DJW001


Well, I think I have just been insulted, but it is of little importance, because I have no self inflated feeling of self importance, I am an average John Doe, I may know " people " who are considered worth knowing, but I am not one of them, so I have no delusions of grandure. I don't hate America, in fact I don't hate any country, although I do hate dishonesty, I believe in certain things, other things I doubt. I was told about 35 years ago that it was now possible to project images " onto " the sky and that it was only the beginning of things, it seems that it is now a commonly talked about thing. The questioning of the truth of the Moon landings, is not a new thing, it was very widespread even back in the day, with many people saying that they were always aware that it was not going to happen and that an alternative " plan " was going to be needed, they even talked openly about it in their lodges.

reply to post by Qwenn

I was told about 35 years ago that it was now possible to project images " onto " the sky

It's not possible to project images on the sky or the Chinese would have done it at the opening of the Olympics. The only people talking about it are people who believe the "Project Bluebeam" hoax.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Qwenn

 

I was told about 35 years ago that it was now possible to project images " onto " the sky

It's not possible to project images on the sky or the Chinese would have done it at the opening of the Olympics. The only people talking about it are people who believe the "Project Bluebeam" hoax.

Well it was an unknown topic to the general public 35 years ago when I was told, but it was a very elaborate story I was told as well, it seems that you either don't know everything, or you know more than you are letting on. You know for sure that the Apollo program was real and you also know 100% that Blue Beam is a fake, WOW, you know a lot for certain. Perhaps you can let us see the PROOF about Blue Beam which convinced you.

By the way the name Blue Beam would not have been used back then, but it is a very similar format to the way it was explained back then. Except that the way the screen is created seems different, in those days they were projecting the light waves to create the screen from Earth, but I believe that they now project this from a satalite.

Although as you say Blue Beam is fake, perhaps you would show us the proof.

reply to post by Qwenn


first im not American, i consider the moon landings a feat for humanity.

second holograms need a medium to project onto, as good as they can appear today they still need something to project onto.

third, in general, people who believe the moon hoax tend not to have a grasp on the complexities of faking such a feat. nor understand how and what engineers had to overcome in order to get to the moon.

Originally posted by choos
reply to post by Qwenn

 

first im not American, i consider the moon landings a feat for humanity.

second holograms need a medium to project onto, as good as they can appear today they still need something to project onto.

third, in general, people who believe the moon hoax tend not to have a grasp on the complexities of faking such a feat. nor understand how and what engineers had to overcome in order to get to the moon.

Oh please let me answer your Brilliantly assessed points

Firstly, I am not an American nor even a native American ( who had their lands stolen ) either, and I consider it a crime against humanity.

Secondly, I said nothing about Holograms, although they could be projected onto a sky filled with tiny metalic particles, but I was talking about light wave projections and a projected screen medium.

Thirdly, Believe me, I have a wealth of knowledge of the whole film production industry ( family in the industry ), and it would have been a very minor task to fake ALL of the Moon Missions. What a shame that the original recordings of Apollo 11 went missing for good and only a set of reprints later emerged which were not the originals, yes I even have a knowledge of the engineering past of Apollo as well, heck, even the engineers said that they would never get to the moon on the stuff that THEY built, even four weeks before the first " Landing " there were engineers saying that it would be a suicide mission to even try, the mock up LEM even would not work