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

reply to post by Qwenn


how is it a crime against humanity?

metallic particles would be unreliable in reflecting a consistent image there would be shiny spots every now and than. and in daylight? might even be see through.

oh ok.. so how did they manage to film the dust behaviour?? did they shoot it in a super large vacuum sound stage several hundred metres in width?

and the lowered gravity i suppose they done that on the vomit comet with more advanced video editing software than we have today?

how about the time constraints? involved with the editing of footage? video editing technology constraints?

who was the director?

also whats the purpose of building this and this

the complexities of building even a fake one of these is hard enough, but they made a working one. also where did the astronauts hide considering all the amateur ham radio operators around the world? how did they hide from the russians?

You are very adept at derailing any thread which questions NASA, so I will not get misdirected by pointless waffle, the Moonwalks were filmed between four and eight weeks BEFORE they ever " Left the ground " depending on which mission we are talking about, and NO they were not filmed in the same location/studio, well not all of them anyway.

reply to post by Qwenn

You are very adept at derailing any thread which questions NASA, so I will not get misdirected by pointless waffle, the Moonwalks were filmed between four and eight weeks BEFORE they ever " Left the ground " depending on which mission we are talking about, and NO they were not filmed in the same location/studio, well not all of them anyway.

You clearly have very specific information. Please disclose your source.

reply to post by Qwenn


4-8 weeks before they left the ground?? you know they have hours and hours of footage per mission..

how do they produce it all in such high detail and edit out errors and stage crew in 4-8 weeks? it took kubrick 4 years to finish 2001: a space odessey. thats 142-162mins, and there are errors in that.

www.youtube.com...

one scene.. cant be done with an atmosphere present.. so if its not done in a gigantic vacuum chamber than they have to constantly change sites for filming for other footage that covers alot of ground, and spend time setting up each inidividual scenes. you have family in the filming industry how do they film such accurate footage so quickly and so well?


p.s. im not derailing, you derailed the thread, this thread is about bart sibrel.. plus im just asking you questions that you should know since it was so simple to fake it.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Qwenn

 

You are very adept at derailing any thread which questions NASA, so I will not get misdirected by pointless waffle, the Moonwalks were filmed between four and eight weeks BEFORE they ever " Left the ground " depending on which mission we are talking about, and NO they were not filmed in the same location/studio, well not all of them anyway.

You clearly have very specific information. Please disclose your source.

You too say you have very specific knowledge to the authenticity of your beliefs, yet YOU fail to ever back up your beliefs with anything other than opinion. You have not provided your proof by giving sources, how can you honestly expect anyone else to do what you refuse to do. Show and tell is a game for all, not just one.

reply to post by Qwenn

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.

How would your family members feel if they were not allowed to put their most important work in their resumé? Seriously, ask them. After WWII, directors and other film industry professionals would boast about having worked for the OSS.

To some people loyalty, patriotism, duty, etc are a way of life, even today, although back then, if you were asked to lie for your country, you somehow assumed that you were in a very small minority and that you were needed to win the space race, even if it was only with a public show off. So although you could not mention any work on a resume, you were still rewarded with an unlimited supply of work.

reply to post by Qwenn


"

To some people loyalty, patriotism, duty, etc are a way of life, even today, although back then, if you were asked to lie for your country, you somehow assumed that you were in a very small minority and that you were needed to win the space race, even if it was only with a public show off. So although you could not mention any work on a resume, you were still rewarded with an unlimited supply of work.

So you're not actually going to ask someone in the industry about how they would feel. Why not?

Remember what I said about show and tell ?

You provide the proof that Apollo is real & Blue Beam is fake, and I will gladly send a few e-mails !

reply to post by Qwenn


www.hq.nasa.gov...

no idea what blue beam is


unless this is it:
rationalwiki.org...

Project Blue Beam is a conspiracy theory that claims that NASA is attempting to implement a New Age religion with the Antichrist at its head and start a New World Order, via a technologically-simulated Second Coming.

is that the premise of bluebeam?

I think it's time someone here BACKED UP their handwaving.

Firstly..

Oh please let me answer your Brilliantly assessed points

May I suggest that if you don't like being insulted, that you drop the 'Sarcastic' comments.

NASA will soon admit that they actually had to manipulate certain details of the Apollo missions

Could you please be specific - when and why will they do that?
And which 'certain details', in your educated opinion, are the most obviously faked? Please give your very best evidence.

BTW, JAXA, Chandrayaan and LRO say HI (do you know what they are?).

The questioning of the truth of the Moon landings, is not a new thing, it was very widespread even back in the day

Very widespread? Then please cite some evidence for this, remembering that I was alive and kicking at the time of the Apollo missions...

I have a wealth of knowledge of the whole film production industry ( family in the industry )

Why would having family in the industry give you a wealth of knowledge? Anyway, that is just an unsupported claim on the Interweb - but you can back it up below...

and it would have been a very minor task to fake ALL of the Moon Missions.

Really? That's quite a claim. So, let's be quite specific about just ONE small bit of footage. Here is some quite well known transferred-from-16mm-film footage (it is available in quite high definition):

Using your 'wealth of knowledge', please outline the following:
- what challenges would there be to 'fake' this (along with all the other footage and imagery that shows the activities and scenery from different angles)? Feel free to discuss the differences in technology available in 1969 versus today.
- where would this have been done, and what type of lighting system was in use to give the effects shown?
- what materials would have been necessary?

That last question may seem odd, but If you watch the footage carefully and have the knowledge you claim, you will know exactly why I am asking those specific questions...

Anyway, show this to your expert family by all means. I'll give it a couple of days, and then I'll come back and give my answers (the correct ones). I trust you will beat me to it and your answers are correct and comprehensive, and will also back up your claim that "it would have been a very minor task".

If not, then I think we may have reason to question the existence of that 'wealth of knowledge', and can give your claims the credence they deserve...

BTW, you DO realise that there was much more than film footage to fake, don't you? There are other issues that are at least as difficult, or worse. Know much about geology? Radio communications? And that's just the start.

Damn ! I have been caught out, you are right, I know nothing about anything, I won't speak again. I could spend time in a " passing " contest with you, but life is too short to waste playing ping pong posts, these Apollo threads always end up with someone getting hurt, it will never change when there is a vested interest at stake. The funny thing is, we would not even been arguing the toss if NASA had come clean at the end of 2011 as they were planning to do, perhaps they have had the pressure removed, who knows.

P.S. I don't mind being insulted, I have no ego to dent, as for sarcastic comments, I consider it humour !

Originally posted by decisively
...i would suggest you take a look at the even slower video i just posted and explain to ats reader group why you do not hear the sound of the punch until sibrel is listing so far to the right that it is not funny..

I don't think you hear the noise of the punch at all. What there is some much movement going on after the punch that the sound you here after Sibrel lists could be a myriad of things rather than the sound of the punch landing. It could have been the sound of movement made by the guy holding the microphone (the sound didn't seem "distant" enough to have been the sound of the punch itself).

Also, we never see where the punch lands. It may not have gotten Sibrel in the mouth at all
-- it's hard to tell, but it could have even just been a glancing blow to the side of his face, and seemingly without a lot of force, therefore he could have easily have gotten out the word "thief" without much problem....and if it was just a glancing blow, that would explain why we didn't hear it.

Originally posted by Qwenn
Damn ! I have been caught out, you are right, I know nothing about anything, I won't speak again. I could spend time in a " passing " contest with you, but life is too short to waste playing ping pong posts, these Apollo threads always end up with someone getting hurt, it will never change when there is a vested interest at stake. The funny thing is, we would not even been arguing the toss if NASA had come clean at the end of 2011 as they were planning to do, perhaps they have had the pressure removed, who knows.

P.S. I don't mind being insulted, I have no ego to dent, as for sarcastic comments, I consider it humour !

Complete and utter backdown and refusal to even address a single point I raised, noted. Addition of more completely unsubstantiated claims also noted. I'm noticing a trend.

And of course you have run away because 'life is too short'. It's absolutely not because you have been caught out of your depth, oh no. Life, for you, is just long enough to post unsupported claims and then .. run for it.

And that approach is how all of mankind's best achievements (like Apollo) were done, by people who make silly proclamations and then disappear.

Oh, wait, no it wasn't...

I'll be back later to happily explain exactly what are the problems that would be encountered in faking just that one single piece of footage. There are several that would be very difficult, and at least two that are simply impossible...

You see, my life isn't too short - as I believe the truth is more important than fast running in the opposite direction...

Originally posted by Qwenn
... and it would have been a very minor task to fake ALL of the Moon Missions.

A very minor task to fake it all? I think not. Please ask your family members how one can fake 1/6th gravity and in a vacuum environment here on Earth. I have yet to see any other movie come close to succeeding at doing this.

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

Could you please provide a citation for this? In all the years that I've studied the Apollo missions, I have never seen any of the engineers make such claims.

reply to post by decisively

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

Exactly. Consistency. Why would NASA and Bart Sibrel collude together? You have yet to explain yourself.

Originally posted by Qwenn
...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

The LEM was very difficult to design and build, and there WERE tremendous challenges to overcome, and space travel is inherently dangerous (that's why the first astronauts were test pilots), but they overcame all of the obstacles, and they did build it, and it worked..

If you've never seen the TV documentary "Moon Machines", I strongly suggest you do. This superb documentary series dealt with the designing, testing, and building the Apollo Program hardware, and included many interviews with the actual engineers and technicians involved in those programs.

All of the episodes are available on YouTube, and I included the episode on the Lunar Module in the links below (in three parts). Besides the Lunar Module, there are episodes on the Saturn V Launch Vehicle, Command Module, Navigation Computer/Software, Space Suits, and the Lunar Rover. From time-to-time, the Discovery Channel or Science Channel will air these again, usually in the morning.


As I mentioned above, here is the episode on the Lunar module (in 3 parts):

Originally posted by decisively
. . .
if you do this you see that Aldrin punches Sibrel before sibrel finishes talking and you cannot talk with buzz aldrins fist in your mouth and you can easily discover that the video is dubbed

now there is only one reason and one reason only to dub this video is dubbed and that is apollo is phony and it has to be
. . .

So you have one of two possibilities here: Either one of the greatest events of human history with mountains of irrefutable proof is fake OR cab driver/felon/religious nut Bart Sibrel is a crappy film maker and didn't properly synchronise the video and audio in his unintentionally hilarious little film. If you completely throw all logic and common sense out the window you may have a point.

Still waiting for decisively to explain why Aldrin and Sibrel would collude with one another. Talk about a contradiction in the story!

Gee Whizz,

This has to be the wakiest post yet,








Edit, to add for comparison AS11/10075245 ,





NOOA satellite image July 16th 1969, superimposed over resized Apollo 11 Earth picture, AS11/10075245.jpg (the Earth globe) July 16th 1969 and at least 33,000 miles out, not exactly local space. They fit perfectly, including the remains of hurricane Bernice. Was there any point in turning back?

Don't forget that Apollo 8 was just as daring, except for an actual landing and their pictures are there for all to see too. Ol' 'Smashed in the face' is a total nutter, he even shot himself in the foot with his Apollo 11 documentary, as it shows the filmed sequence of the astronauts taking the Earth picture!