|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 2, 2005 17:49:41 GMT -4
I think he believes what he is saying and is very, very mistaken. He doesn't understand anything about Apollo.
I don't really care if he personally holds an opposing view than me. It's the fact that he is actively trying to push his beliefs onto other people, just like a drug dealer selling crack to children. It is also the way he stalks and harrasses the astronauts, angering them just to film their reaction. He is scum.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 2, 2005 17:53:47 GMT -4
So do you think that Sibrel believes that the Apollo missions did go to the moon but is pretending to think that they did not?
I can't know what he believes. But my opinion is that he's personally agnostic about the truth of Apollo and simply realizes there is money and fame to be had by catering to the conspiracy crowd. I believe he has been motivated to pursue this particular scam by his embarrassment with Armstrong and by his other brushes with authority (drug arrests, etc.).
I have to believe he knows his evidence doesn't add up the way he claims. That belief is based on how I have observed him respond to criticism. He is highly evasive and downright dishonest. It is also based on my study of his claims on their merits. There are parts of his "secret" footage that he didn't show in his film -- parts that directly contradict his interpretation of the rest of it. He has deliberately withheld it.
How do you want to interpret that kind of dishonesty? All it really says is that he knows his evidence is weak and that someone with real knowledge and real scholarship will see through it in an instant. The "easiest" conclusion to draw from all that is that he's found a scam he's happy with. I don't have to guess about what his personal beliefs are. They could be anything, and the scam hypothesis would still hold.
And apart from the fact that he holds an opposing view to most of you...
The mere fact that he holds an opposing view to mine is completely irrelevant. Most of the people I know have different views than I on fundamental subjects. One of my most respected and intelligent professional colleagues happens to be an arch-conservative. I am a liberal. He and I get along because I can respect his ability to support his beliefs with as dispassionate a line of reasoning as can be had in politics. We respect each other's difference of opinion because each is an intelligent opinion.
...is there any reason for the general level of personal opprobrium?
Yes. In my opinion, Sibrel knows he's fooling people. I think he's deliberately misleading the public, for his own fame and profit. I don't approve of that, even if I were sympathetic to the message. Even though I am a liberal, I don't approve of Michael Moore for example. I think he misrepresents the truth just as badly as any other conspiracy theorist. The fact that he argues for some of the same goals as I doesn't win my support.
I sense this is something you have a hard time with, Margamatix.
I don't oppose Bart Sibrel because he believes differently than I. I oppose him because he is dishonest. Similarly I don't oppose you because you believe differently than I. I oppose you because you can't come up with any good reasons for your belief. And similarly I approve of my friend not because he believes the same as I do, but because he speak intelligently and thoughtfully about his beliefs.
Conspiracy theorists are generally ideologues, and thus focused inappropriately on ideology. And so it's not surprising that they assume other people -- especially those who oppose them -- are also talking from an ideological standpoint. When it comes to Apollo I am not an ideologue; I am an engineer.
Engineering is that science where you are either right or you are out of business. It is as far from ideology as you can get. No amount of belief or government fiat will change the fundamental behavior of the universe. The culture of engineering rewards only correctness, not appeal.
This is not to say that you can only advance in the world if you think like an engineer. But it is to say that there are still people in the world for whom method and integrity are more important than the final results. I can be convinced of the exact opposite of my beliefs, but only when an appropriately argued case is made. My beliefs on Apollo are not ideological -- they are practical and well-considered.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 2, 2005 18:27:14 GMT -4
So do you think that Sibrel believes that the Apollo missions did go to the moon but is pretending to think that they did not? Or do you think he believes in what he says but is mistaken? Or what? And apart from the fact that he holds an opposing view to most of you, is there any reason for the general level of personal opprobrium? None of us can testify to what Bart Sibrel thinks, only Bart Sibrel can do that. We can only make our best judgment based on Sibrel’s actions. We know he was fired from his job for lying and we know he used false pretenses to gain access to the Apollo astronauts. We also know the film he claims to be his “smoking gun” also contains footage proving his theory wrong. However he conceals the later evidence while showing only a couple minutes of footage that he can misrepresent as evidence for a concocted hoax theory. We also know he carefully changed the wording of at least one item on his Web page so that is literally true but clearly intended to deceive the reader. These are facts, and it is far from a complete list. Whether he really believes the moon landings where real or not does not change the fact the he is intentionally deceiving people. He is selling a product based on lies. It is these reasons I don’t like Bart Sibrel, not because he believes differently than I.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 2, 2005 21:18:52 GMT -4
He isn't my major anti-Apollo source. He is at least a major source for some of your claims, and many of your claims are identical with his, whether you got the from him or not.
I also think, but don't know, Sibrel knows he's pulling a scam. What is known is that he has repeatedly lied to astronauts to set up ambush "interviews", was fired from a job for lying, and greatly misrepresents much of his evidence. He is a proven liar by any reasonable definition.
You are still dancing around the question. Please don't think I don't see what you're doing here. You're very good at it, but I will keep on asking you what Sibrel's track record of dishonesty does to his credibility in your opinion. Nothing, of course, compels you to answer, but I will keep asking.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Aug 2, 2005 22:31:36 GMT -4
G’day Margamatix
Here’s another way of looking at Apollo. You might not get a chance to personally meet astronauts (though I’m envious of the fact that three Moon walking astronauts will be in the UK shortly) but there are perhaps other ways of judging them.
Frank Borman: A lay preacher in his church, he was looking for a way to express the meaning of Apollo, because the mission he commanded (Apollo 8) would be orbiting the Moon on Christmas Eve 1968. In the end, he and his crew read from Genesis Chapter 1 at the end of a TV broadcast. Now I’m an atheist, but every time I listen to their voices reading those words, the emotion of the moment gets to me.
Buzz Aldrin: The first thing Buzz did on the Moon after Apollo 11 landed, when he had a spare moment, was to take communion. He wasn’t able to publicise the fact, because NASA was wary of further criticism from militant atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair. Also, if you look at “that” photo (the Man on the Moon photo) you’ll see that Aldrin has dust stains on his knees. I understand (though I’ve never been able to research it) that Aldrin knelt and prayed for a short time on the surface of the Moon, but was unable to say anything about it because NASA didn’t want the crew taking any risks with their mobility.
Well, he saves his left hook for people who lie in order to get an interview, then prod him continuously in the chest with a Bible and accuse him of lying. So if you look him in the eye and ask him squarely whether he walked on the Moon, I dare say you’d get a straight answer. (Though he might sigh before answering, given the number of times I bet he’s been asked.)
Jim Irwin: He had a religious experience on the Moon during Apollo 15, and afterwards founded a Ministry. In the years before his death he was involved in several expeditions to Turkey to find Noah’s Ark.
Charlie Duke: He had a religious experience after he returned to Earth from Apollo 16, and became a minister. According to Andrew Chaikin’s book “A Man on the Moon”, Duke considers his experiences on the Moon to be much less important than his ministry.
Now these men are only a portion of those who walked on the Moon (and Borman didn’t walk on the Moon either). But these are men for whom their Christianity is (or was) an integral part of their life. I find it very hard to believe that they would willingly lie for 30+ years.
But having said that, I don’t see that non-Christians, or those who hold their faith less closely than the people mentioned above, would have any more reason to lie either.
Neil Armstrong is a private man, and finds close scrutiny uncomfortable.
Alan Bean has pursued a career as an artist since leaving NASA, having found painting a useful way for expressing his experiences on the Moon. He even uses equipment which has been to the Moon to texture his paintings.
Ed Mitchell also had something of a spiritual awakening during Apollo 14. During the mission, he conducted an experiment into ESP, and after his return created the Institute of Noetic Studies, or some such. He has some ideas about the universe, life and intelligence which I think are pretty outlandish, but they appear to have been crystallised as a result of his experiences on Apollo 14.
Gene Cernan (Apollo 17) has been a proponent of continued manned exploration, as has Buzz Aldrin I think.
Jack Schmitt (Apollo 17) is a big supporter of a return to the Moon, in order to mine it for Helium-3, to be used as fuel for fusion reactors. When he spoke at a talk I attended, he candidly answered questions about his experience on the Moon.
Looking at these people, I find it very hard to work out where they could conceivably have lied about their experiences.
But it goes further. You can also talk to astronauts who didn’t travel on Apollo missions, but were Capcoms. These men spoke to the astronauts during the missions, and so were almost as familiar with the missions as the astronauts. Particularly in the later missions, the men who spoke to the astronauts on the Moon were scientist astronauts. They didn’t get to go to the Moon, but they were on Shuttle crews in the early 1980s – people like Tony England, Robert Parker and Joe Allan. If Apollo was faked, these astronauts would also know about it.
And then you can talk to the crews of the post-Apollo, pre-Shuttle missions. The crew of the first Skylab mission included Apollo 12 commander Pete Conrad. You could talk to his crewmates Paul Weitz and Jo Kerwin. Likewise, the second Skylab crew was commanded by the other Apollo 12 moon walker Alan Bean. His crewmates were Jack Lousma and Owen Garriott. Seeing as they spent, respectively, 28 and 56 days in space, so would have had plenty of opportunity to talk about a Moon hoax.
So, in summary, there are a lot of astronauts you could talk to about the Moon hoax, and I doubt many would be willing to lie for NASA.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 2, 2005 23:04:05 GMT -4
So do you think that Sibrel believes that the Apollo missions did go to the moon but is pretending to think that they did not? Or do you think he believes in what he says but is mistaken? Or what? And apart from the fact that he holds an opposing view to most of you, is there any reason for the general level of personal opprobrium? While your comments here have in some cases directly mirrored Sibrel’s, these threads have had a cordial tone. So it is no the holding of other beliefs that caused such dislike for the man. Rather it is his persistent actions to spread lies (and they are lies when he says them) and besmirch the reputations of men that I hold in esteem for their skills, bravery, and dedication that generate my dislike for the man.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 3, 2005 4:25:42 GMT -4
He isn't my major anti-Apollo source Please don't think I don't see what you're doing here. You're very good at it, but I will keep on asking you what Sibrel's track record of dishonesty does to his credibility in your opinion. Nothing, of course, compels you to answer, but I will keep asking. Good at what? I have found repeated statements here about Sibrel's dishonesty, but despite searching, the only vague reference to this is that he once referred to someone as a NASA employee, when he was in fact a NASA contractor. If you could point me in the direction of further details, I will gladly check them out. As for lying to lure an astronaut into an interview, isn't this what all investigative journalists do? Not that I approve of that, I don't. But those in the UK will recognise it as straightforward "Roger Cook" stuff. Finally, he is only one person out of many who do not believe in this ridiculous charade, and not a major or even a substantial source to me. But then I think I've said that already.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 3, 2005 4:27:00 GMT -4
just like a drug dealer selling crack to children. Oh, please!
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Aug 3, 2005 4:44:25 GMT -4
Hmm, a 30 second Google search also popped up this example of how Bart Sibrel misrepresented the astronauts in his "documentary": www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Bart%20Sibrel.htmNot to mention that that in that very same film he claims to include "secret footage" not meant to be available to the public which blows the hoax wide open, only for that footage to prove to be a short editted clip from the Apollo 11 archive, widely available on the web and elsewhere ever since 1969. And that is just off the top of my head, knowing very little about the guy. The story also goes that he was fired from a job with NBC for trespassing on Neil Armstrong's property after NA refused him an interview. And that Ed Mitchell agreed to an interview when BS (good initials for him) claimed he was from the Discovery Channel (which he wasn't), only to then pull the whole hoax thing on him. Yup, all good clean fun, really.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 3, 2005 5:02:59 GMT -4
Would you describe that as a neutral page, or one in which the author has already decided his or her views?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 3, 2005 7:03:53 GMT -4
It looks to me like a page in which someone took a good look at Sibrel's actions and methods.
You seem to acknowledge that Sibrel has repeatedly lied to astronauts to set up his ambush "interviews". Someone else doing the same sort of thing does not get Sibrel off the hook. He is a proven, serial liar in his chosen occupation. What does that do to his credibility?
He was fired from his job at a TV station in Nashville for stalking Armstrong. (Not for lying about his credentials, as I said earlier; he started that lie after he was fired.) What does that do to his credibility?
Will you kindly answer the question? You have indicated that personal sincerity is very important to your possible belief that Apollo happened (swearing on the Bible, looking you in the eye, etc.)
So what does Sibrel's record of lying and stalking do to his credibility in your eyes?
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 3, 2005 7:37:54 GMT -4
While your comments here have in some cases directly mirrored Sibrel’s, these threads have had a cordial tone. Well, I would hope so. Debating differences in a frank and adult manner is what I enjoy, not flaming, or trolling, or slanging matches, but I would have to say that everybody here has been unfailingly polite and patient with me too. Long may it continue. I will have to look into the methods used by Sibrel to gain interviews with astronauts before I can comment on that, as I am sure you will understand. Any urls relating to this will be welcome, although, as I have stated before, Sibrel is only one source among very many. What is Aulis' reason for their stance on the Moon Hoax? The same as Sibrel? And what about Keysing? I gather he is fairly knowledgeable in the field of rocketry. Are they all simply snake-oil salesmen? I will repeat- I don't believe it happened, and that within a very short time-frame, it will be admitted that it didn't. That is my honest and genuine belief, and I have no financial or other vested interest in it. If you manage to prove to me that I am wrong, I will accept that I am wrong. Nobody here has done that yet.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Aug 3, 2005 7:59:10 GMT -4
What is Aulis' reason for their stance on the Moon Hoax? The same as Sibrel? And what about Keysing? I gather he is fairly knowledgeable in the field of rocketry. Are they all simply snake-oil salesmen? Link to a post of Jay's, on the Bad Astronomy BB: (bolding mine) Here is another one:
|
|
|
Post by skinbath on Aug 3, 2005 8:31:32 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 3, 2005 9:11:28 GMT -4
What is Aulis' reason for their stance on the Moon Hoax? The same as Sibrel?
We cannot be sure about any particular individual's exact motivations. A desire for notoriety, financial gain, even a sincere desire to expose an perceived wrong are some of the explanations.
One thing common to all the conspiracy proponents is a very poor track record of discussing their claims in open fora, a tendency to repeat claims that even they have acknowledeged are wrong, and highly selective use of evidence. This speaks poorly of their honesty.
And what about Keysing? I gather he is fairly knowledgeable in the field of rocketry. Are they all simply snake-oil salesmen? The answer to your last question is yes. Their arguments are uniformly unsupportable. The only arguments that have not been conclusively refuted are claims that essentially go "someone was about to say something" before they died. No matter how ridiculous such a claim is, you can't physically disprove something like that.
For instance, your great-great-grandmother was about to tell my great-great-grandfather all about her affair with the king of Spain before she died. Can you prove me wrong?
As for Kaysing, no, he was not particularly knowledgeable about rocketry. He was a technical writer with an English-major background. However, most of his claims don't have to do with specifics of rocketry. He claims, for instance, that Challenger was intentionally destroyed by NASA because teacher Christa MacAuliffe was about to "reveal" that you could see stars in space.
Now think about that. Never mind that astronauts, including Apollo astrounauts, have talked about seeing stars in space, when they were suitably shaded and dark-adapted. Never mind that Apollo 16 brought a UV telescope to the Moon to look at stars. Never mind that NASA routinely downlinks payload-bay camera video during shuttle crew sleep periods which show stars in the sky during the eclipse portions of orbits. He is saying that NASA actually blew up a national asset, imperilling the very future of the Shuttle program, to silence a single person.
That's what kind of nonsense Kaysing spouted. The rest are no better.
I will repeat- I don't believe it happened, and that within a very short time-frame, it will be admitted that it didn't.
Yep. And my offer to bet you ten thousand, or a thousand, or a hundred, or ten dollars U.S. still stands. I'll also accept a case of Guiness Stout, thank you very much.
You will live a hopefully long and happy life, and then pass on, without your belief ever coming true.
That is my honest and genuine belief, and I have no financial or other vested interest in it.
Your belief is incorrect, but I take you at your word.
I also spend my own time discussing this and have no book or video to sell. I suppose you could say I have an indirect vested interest in it, although it's not clear how an Apollo hoax would affect what I do now, which has mostly to do with unmanned space exploration. But I could get another job.
If you manage to prove to me that I am wrong, I will accept that I am wrong. Nobody here has done that yet.
We've pointed you towards mountains of evidence, including extremely detailed descriptions of Apollo technology and operations.
We've dismantled every one of your arguments, in great detail. You haven't really responded to any of our refutations.
We've impeached the credibility of your sources. You haven't gone very far in following that up, and my impression is that you're not especially interested in doing so.
We've pointed you toward public sessions in which you could do the one thing which you say would make you believe Apollo happened. You don't seem too interested in following that up, either. Of course, you'd have to travel a little and spend a few pounds (Euros, I guess). But then again, you have proposed no alternative, objective means of falsifying your claims.
I don't think, if you believed that World War II never happened, that we could "prove" you wrong. You seem firmly wedded to your belief, and I do not think any amount of rational discussion or objective evidence can lead you to sincerely question it.
|
|