|
Post by margamatix on Jul 25, 2005 16:45:44 GMT -4
I read that in the USA there is a researcher who has repeatedly tried to get Apollo astronauts to swear on the Bible that they have been to the moon, but they all refuse to do it, is this true?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 25, 2005 17:10:04 GMT -4
You're speaking of Bart W. Sibrel, a tabloid filmmaker.
He is well-known to the astronauts and has made more or less a career out of trying to call them liars. His method is to lure the astronauts into an interview under false pretenses (e.g., saying he's from Discovery Channel, etc.) and then trapping them on camera trying to get them to swear on the Bible that they walked on the moon. Since Sibrel does not accept -- under any circumstances -- the possibility that the astronauts are telling the truth, what they do makes little difference. If they swear (which some did), then he can say they're going to hell for swearing a lie on the Bible. (Sibrel is a fundamentalist Christian.) If they refuse (which some did because they know who he is and what he does), then he can claim they're unwilling to swear a lie on the Bible. It's a no-win situation, and that's why Sibrel has no credibility. He's just a paparazzo with an obsession against Neil Armstrong, who got Sibrel fired for stalking him.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 25, 2005 17:13:53 GMT -4
How many were prepared to swear an oath on the Bible and how many weren't?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 25, 2005 17:17:56 GMT -4
It doesn't matter. Sibrel set it up so that he can lambast the astronauts no matter what they say, so most of them simply told him to get lost. They know who Sibrel is and what he does. (That's why he has to lure them into interviews by deception.) They've been screwed over by him before.
Sibrel has it set up so that he can attribute some motive to the astronauts when they refuse to cooperate with him. He can say they're afraid to swear an oath, when in fact they just don't want to have anything whatsoever to do with him.
If you want to know, why don't you simply buy Sibrel's video: "Astronauts Gone Wild".
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 25, 2005 17:25:08 GMT -4
How many were prepared to swear an oath on the Bible and how many weren't? What does it matter, it's irrelevant. If somebody lied their way into my home and called me a fraud, I'd throw them out on their butt in two seconds. I certainly wouldn't capitulate to their demands and I doubt many people would. The fact that some astronauts refused to swear on the bible says nothing other than the fact they have little patience for someone like Bart Sibrel.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 25, 2005 17:29:44 GMT -4
It does. How many astronauts were prepared to swear on the Bible that they had been to the moon? I would be prepared to swear on the Bible that having examined as much evidence as possible and having believed in the Apollo landings for all of my life, that I genuinely no longer believe that men have been to the moon. Would you be prepared to swear on the Bible that you genuinely believe that men have? Would you be prepared to swear on the Bible that you genuinely believe that those who raise the sceptical viewpoint as I do are simply "paranoid delusionalists"?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 25, 2005 17:36:22 GMT -4
The question is not whether astronauts are willing to swear on the Bible, but whether they are willing to do anything that would benefit Bart Sibrel.
You are falling directly into Sibrel's rhetorical trap. He has confounded the question of whether the astronauts are honorable men with the question of whether they trust him['/i] and will cooperate. The average viewer doesn't know that the astronauts are well aware of Bart Sibrel and his stunts. Viewers believe that the astronauts have no knowledge of Sibrel and that the only reason why they would refuse to cooperate with him is that they're hiding something.
So we don't know how many astronauts are willing to swear on the Bible that they walked on the moon, because the question actually posed to them was whether they would cooperate with Sibrel.
|
|
|
Post by gdwarf on Jul 25, 2005 18:13:16 GMT -4
I have very little doubt that many of the astronauts would swear on the bible, but imagine this scenario: You discover the cure for cancer, get some fame for it, and retire into a peaceful life. One day you get a call from the Discovery channel, they want to interview you about your amazing accomplishment. You agree and head down to the studio, next thing you know the host pulls out a bible and starts yelling at you, he calls you a liar, claims that you never cured cancer, does everything short of slapping you across the face. He then pulls out a bible, still calling you every name in the book, and demands that you swear on it. If you do he continues to yell at you and says you're going to hell, he then never shows the footage to anyone, if you say 'I've had enough of this' and leave he calls you a liar, states that you weren't prepared to swear it, and shows the tape to everyone.
Now, you can see why that question is useless, should an astronaut swear it won't matter at all, and we'll never know, should he get fed up and leave then Bart tells everyone.
Rather then base your opinion on Bart Sibrel attempting to get others to swear, base it on the evidence, and before you trust the evidence from Bart, or Jack, or any other, look at the other side of the issue. The posters here will be more then happy to address any questions you may have or any 'proof' that the landings were faked.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 25, 2005 18:16:50 GMT -4
How many astronauts were prepared to swear on the Bible that they had been to the moon?
Unknown, because the prerequisite question is whether they were willing to cooperate at all with Bart Sibrel.
I would be prepared to swear on the Bible that having examined as much evidence as possible...
You haven't examined as much evidence as possible. If I have to explain GET to you, that means you haven't seen even the merest fraction of Apollo video, and have likely never seen any official Apollo timelines or references.
The amount of evidence pertaining to Apollo is truly mountainous, and I have yet to see a conspiracy theorist who has even scratched a portion of the surface of it.
Have you been trained in engineering, photography, astrophysics, and the other sciences that pertain to the Apollo record? It's one thing to have examined it, but largely useless if one lacks the appropriate foundation for interpreting it. For example, I am a professional engineer. I am also a sometimes-professional photographer and lighting designer. I have training in photographic analysis, but most important I have training in physics and engineering. None of the conspiracy theorists do.
...and having believed in the Apollo landings for all of my life, that I genuinely no longer believe that men have been to the moon.
Good for you. How many other conspiracy theories would you be willing to swear biblically on believing?
Would you be prepared to swear on the Bible that you genuinely believe that men have?
Yes, but that's a different order of belief, of course, than that desired from the astronauts. They would have been asked to testify to something they personally saw or did. I can certainly swear on the Bible that I believe their claims, but swearing that you believe someone else's claims is largely useless.
Would you be prepared to swear on the Bible that you genuinely believe that those who raise the sceptical viewpoint as I do are simply "paranoid delusionalists"?
No. But that doesn't mean I think you're right or that your accusations have merit. You're trying to make a straw man here.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 25, 2005 18:18:27 GMT -4
I have very little doubt that many of the astronauts would swear on the bible, but imagine this scenario: You discover the cure for cancer, get some fame for it, and retire into a peaceful life. One day you get a call from the Discovery channel, they want to interview you about your amazing accomplishment. You agree and head down to the studio, next thing you know the host pulls out a bible and starts yelling at you, he calls you a liar, claims that you never cured cancer, does everything short of slapping you across the face. He then pulls out a bible, still calling you every name in the book, and demands that you swear on it. If you do he continues to yell at you and says you're going to hell, he then never shows the footage to anyone, if you say 'I've had enough of this' and leave he calls you a liar, states that you weren't prepared to swear it, and shows the tape to everyone. Now, you can see why that question is useless, should an astronaut swear it won't matter at all, and we'll never know, should he get fed up and leave then Bart tells everyone. Rather then base your opinion on Bart Sibrel attempting to get others to swear, base it on the evidence, and before you trust the evidence from Bart, or Jack, or any other, look at the other side of the issue. The posters here will be more then happy to address any questions you may have or any 'proof' that the landings were faked. All right, but would *you* swear on the Bible that you genuinely believe that doubters have no basis whatsoever for their suspicion and are simply delusional?
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 25, 2005 18:22:44 GMT -4
. If I have to explain GET to you, You didn't.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 25, 2005 18:32:33 GMT -4
All right, but would *you* swear on the Bible that you genuinely believe that doubters have no basis whatsoever for their suspicion and are simply delusional?
False dilemma. You propose only two outcomes: that the "doubters" have good basis for their suspicion, or that they are "delusional". There are additional possibilities. Bart Sibrel, for example, is neither correct nor delusional: he's deliberately deceptive.
You're trying to corner us into either admitting that you have a point, or else putting an offensive label on you. There are other possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 25, 2005 18:35:31 GMT -4
I asked for a GET reference to your clip. You said you'd given the URL and implied that should be sufficient.
Whether you understand what GET means in the context of the Apollo record is a small detail. The larger question is your claim to have examined all the evidence. I know people who have studied Apollo for more than 30 years and who would never claim encyclopedic knowledge of it. I'm simply disputing your claim that you have studied enough of the Apollo record in order to have drawn a well-supported conclusion regarding its authenticity.
|
|
|
Post by gdwarf on Jul 25, 2005 18:49:39 GMT -4
I have very little doubt that many of the astronauts would swear on the bible, but imagine this scenario: You discover the cure for cancer, get some fame for it, and retire into a peaceful life. One day you get a call from the Discovery channel, they want to interview you about your amazing accomplishment. You agree and head down to the studio, next thing you know the host pulls out a bible and starts yelling at you, he calls you a liar, claims that you never cured cancer, does everything short of slapping you across the face. He then pulls out a bible, still calling you every name in the book, and demands that you swear on it. If you do he continues to yell at you and says you're going to hell, he then never shows the footage to anyone, if you say 'I've had enough of this' and leave he calls you a liar, states that you weren't prepared to swear it, and shows the tape to everyone. Now, you can see why that question is useless, should an astronaut swear it won't matter at all, and we'll never know, should he get fed up and leave then Bart tells everyone. Rather then base your opinion on Bart Sibrel attempting to get others to swear, base it on the evidence, and before you trust the evidence from Bart, or Jack, or any other, look at the other side of the issue. The posters here will be more then happy to address any questions you may have or any 'proof' that the landings were faked. All right, but would *you* swear on the Bible that you genuinely believe that doubters have no basis whatsoever for their suspicion and are simply delusional? As Jay Utah said that's an unfair question. If asked to swear on the Bible (And I am a fully confirmed Presbyterian) I would say this: "I swear that I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that Man has landed and walked on the moon." I need not mention Bart or any others in that. I don't think that many of the hoax believers are delusional, some are (Such as the ones that feel that aliens have taken over members of this board and are lying to hide the truth) but the majority either don't look at all of the evidence, like to believe in conspiracies, are trying to make a fast buck (As undoubtedly many of the people who spread the claims of a Hoax are, Is it not Bart who claims to have spent thousands on his movies that really, at most, could've cost him very little and then charges people large amounts of money to view his tapes which are mostly heavily edited stock footage that he dubs over? If not then I appologise, but many 'woo woos' will reveal a little bit of their ideas on their website, and will ask you to buy the tapes to get more info. I fyou question them about their evidence they tell you to buy the tapes. etc.). Of course, there are probably other reasons, and I have no idea if you fit into any of those categories, but I must agree with Jay, you cannot examine all the Apollo evidence. Finally, I'd like you to read what I typed again, you still seem to put a lot of stock in them not swearing on the Bible, well read my post again, and honestly think about it. How would you feel? And what would you think about people calling you a liar based on that very one-sided evidence? Edit: I notice you called Sibrel a reasercher, I mean no offence to the man, but what he does cannot be called reaserch, in reaserch you examine a series of findings a draw a conclusion, Sibrel draws a conclusion and then goes about looking for a few small facts that match it, ignoring all the other ones.
|
|
|
Post by skinbath on Jul 25, 2005 19:47:46 GMT -4
May I add;- Involving the Bible in anything is "iffy",and involves many levels of presumption etc.It also assumes one man believes the same as another.More importantly,when did swearing on the Bible ever guarantee a truthful answer?Your word is either accepted or it isn`t. Asking questions is,in general,a good thing.Because someone doubts does not make them delusional,but I suspect,many people would probably not even question the authenticity of the space missions were it not for the likes of those who misrepresent and that`s the worst thing about this hoax stuff.Those who put forward these theories portray them selves as equals in these fields and they`re plainly not.They may well have more money though! Does NASA ever respond to the hoaxers theories/assertions?
|
|