BS's money back guarantee

[lenbrazil]

On his site it says "...satisfaction is guaranteed or your money back. Returns are accepted for any reason within 30 days of purchase..."

Does he honor this? Has anybody out there bought a copy and returned it or know someone who has?

If he does honor the guarantee I would order his crap just to send it back.

If he doesn't could he be subject to Federal mail and wire fraud charges? I'm not sure - it might simply be considered breech of contract or the value might be too low.

Len

[echnaton]

As tempting as this is (and it is particularly tempting for BS), purchasing merchandise with the intention of retuning it just to cause the seller financial harm has some ethical dimensions that you may want to consider.

[lenbrazil]

You mean less ethical than BS?

It says "...Returns are accepted for any reason ..." and "...satisfaction is guaranteed or your money back...".

If I order it and it manages to convince me I won't return it but since he is a lying #@% [seminal fluid] bag I am not sure he would honor his word.

By offering such a guarantee for a product that almost certainly knows is BS he opens him self up to this.

As to feeling guilty about causing financial harm to BS does he have any compunctions about causing financial harm to the suckers he sells crap to, Should an undercover cop feel guilty about lying to gangsters because it cause them financial or other harm?

echnaton said:

As tempting as this is (and it is particularly tempting for BS), purchasing merchandise with the intention of retuning it just to cause the seller financial harm has some ethical dimensions that you may want to consider.

[sts60]

I suppose not. But we're not law enforcement officials, and Sibrel is not breaking laws merely by offering his junk for sale - despite the fact that some of it is not just wrong, but deliberately so.

The proper way to deal with the Sibrels of this world is to hold them up to exposure and well-deserved ridicule. Don't sink to his level.

[Al Johnston]

The Buzz method has its attractions ;D

[lenbrazil]

I don't think I be sinking to his level. when I'm back in the US I'll buy his DVD. IF it convinces me (OK there is only one chance in billions and billions [ask Carl Segan might have said] that that will happen) I'll keep it.

How can I properly denounce his "movie" if I haven't seen it? Obviously some of the people who gave AFTHOTWTTM 1 star ratings on Amazon did not see it. Like the reviewer who said that BS said the astronauts taped a CARDBOARD photo of the Earth to the window.

Len

sts60 said:

I suppose not. But we're not law enforcement officials, and Sibrel is not breaking laws merely by offering his junk for sale - despite the fact that some of it is not just wrong, but deliberately so.

The proper way to deal with the Sibrels of this world is to hold them up to exposure and well-deserved ridicule. Don't sink to his level.

[JayUtah]

Technically Sibrel may be committing fraud. He bills his NASA footage as "exclusive," implying that the only way you can get to see it is by buying his video. That's not true.

[drjohn]

It does say, "


WE GUARANTEE THAT OUR VIDEOS WILL PROVE THE ABSURDITY OF NASA'S CLAIMS OR YOUR MONEY BACK. "

So I'd like to see the proof. I'm sure there isn't any. Which show would you buy,

A funny thing . . .

Or

Astronauts Gone Wild?

[lenbrazil]

If it says that, then anyone using my tactic would morally be in the clear, no one could argue that doing so would be acting in bad faith.

My original question remains unanswered. Does anybody know of a case when he has give someone their money back?

Worse for me than being out the $ 30 would having it go to that cheap con artist.

[rocketdad]

If you look at his site deeply enough he suggests it will take 14 days to get to you. Do you have thirty days from date of order or receipt? The site is unclear, but I suspect most people don't bother, and figure they're out of luck with shipping time. That, and people who see thru the muck don't bother ordering.

I emailed him I was ALREADY dissatisfied with his video, so we might as well save the time and hassle of sending checks back and forth, he should just send me the video with a SASE for return. Somewhere around there he stopped responding to my heckling.

[margamatix]

Why don't you order a video, view it with an open mind, and then decide if you want your money back?

I tell you what- if he refuses to refund your money, then I will buy the video for what you paid for it, and re-imburse your postage.


So what are you waiting for?

[rocketdad]

I'm not waiting for anything, I have other things to do with 30 bucks, like launch Estes rockets with my kids.

I viewed his website with an open mind and it flipped me out with half-truths, innuendo, guesses and COMPLETE LACK OF LOGIC to the arguments. I'm still mad, that's why I'm here, fighting the War on Ignorance.

I have no desire to watch his video at all, even out of morbid curiosity. Just the intro to his website was enough to get me riled up -- I don't have to even look up Dr. von Braun's 1953 book to know the reference was incomplete and misleading. Dr. vB was unsure what method was best to pursue, staging or single-vehicle. Keep in mind that dr. vB had come up thru his local rocketry club before college, and probably had a prejudice against the hassle and failure-risk of multi-stage rockets. Also, he was an engineer, pure and simple, and the "best" solutions are frequently not the cheapest. Brute-force single-object is freqently an attractive solution that eliminates system interfaces and multiplications of error and hassle.

Dr. von Braun also originally sketched something quite like the final LM, only gargantuan, three times as tall, with cargo delivery capability for extended-stay missions. He also wrote the quoted book in 1953, before a single piece of the final Apollo-Saturn system had been designed. He was a ROCKET scientist, he wanted to build REALLY big rockets. NASA wanted to do the job with whatever money they managed to get. Very different motivation.

I can accept, without looking it up, the BS claim that a rocket would have to be 266 times bigger than a Saturn V to fly to the moon and back. That's why they designed the Saturn/Apollo solution INSTEAD, it's actually doable. The Apollo flies back and forth, the Saturn burns up like a Chinese firework, after it does JUST ONE JOB: Get the load off the ground.

Belief is not knowledge. Knowledge is not belief.

Go buy an Estes rocket and see what happens. They're cheap and fun. Do the math on your flight results, then scale it up, try to put Sputnik in orbit on paper. Rocket science isn't magic, it's just really complicated. I'm just a carpenter, but even I can understand it if I try.

[margamatix]

rocketdad said:

The Apollo flies back and forth, the Saturn burns up like a Chinese firework, after it does JUST ONE JOB: Get the load off the ground.

.

OK, now think about the return journey from the moon.

However the vehicles are configured or coupled, a certain amount of energy would be required to escape the moon's gravity.

Since the moon has one-sixth of Earth's gravity, Earth's gravity would not begin to assist the craft until it was over 40,000 miles away from the moon.

Look at the Command Module and compare it with the Saturn launcher.

Do you really think that this machine could have travelled 40,000 miles from moon orbit?

Come to that, do you really think the Lunar Module could have popped up 70 miles to meet it?

And could have met it and coupled with it without incident, despite the completely untried nature of such a manoeuvre?

Do you really think that a mission to the moon would not have commenced with an unmanned craft?

Do you really think that six missions to the moon could have taken place without loss of life?

Please think about it before you reply.

[JayUtah]

Do you really think that this machine could have travelled 40,000 miles from moon orbit?

Begging the question.

Come to that, do you really think the Lunar Module could have popped up 70 miles to meet it?

Begging the question.

And could have met it and coupled with it without incident, despite the completely untried nature of such a manoeuvre?

Everything is untried until it's tried for the first time. That is the nature of flight test. Apollo 11 was the final test flight for the manned rendezvous scenario, the previous two being Apollo 9 and Apollo 10.

Do you really think that a mission to the moon would not have commenced with an unmanned craft?

Not a full mission; that would be a much harder problem. Building something that can do a complicated task entirely by itself or via remote control is enormously more difficult than building something meant to be operated by a skilled human operator.

Basic functionality tests were conducted unmanned with both command and lunar modules.

Do you really think that six missions to the moon could have taken place without loss of life?

Begging the question.

Please think about it before you reply.

Please think before you ask. There is no point to your simply asking us to agree with your ignorant disbelief.

[margamatix]

jayutah said:

Begging the question.

.

Why do you always say this when you have no sensible reply?