Sibrel's latest BS.

[Bob B.]

As you may know, one of Bart Sibrel top 10 reasons why man never walked on the moon was that Neil Armstrong allegedly refuses to give interviews. In light of Armstrong's recent appearance on 60 Minutes, Sibrel has apparently decided the 'no interview' lie is no longer convincing. As such, in his on going effort to swindle people out of their hard earned money, Sibrel has modified his Web page to include a new misrepresentation. Item #6 on the list now says,

"Neil Armstrong, the first man to supposedly walk on the moon, recently granted an interview to 60 Minutes. Ed Bradley said, "You sometimes seems uncomfortable with your celebrity, that you’d rather not have all of this attention." Armstong (sic) replied, "No, I just don’t deserve it." Collins refuses to be interviewed. Aldrin, who granted an interview, threatened to sue us if we showed it to anyone."

Of course anyone who saw the interview knows that Armstrong continued to explain what he meant by that comment. Armstrong explained that he was not handpicked to be the first man on the moon; he was only selected to be commander of that one mission and, as things played out, he fell in line to be the one to take that first step. He said circumstances put him in that position, nothing more.

Armstrong came across in the interview as nothing more than a very humble man, which in my opinion makes him an even more extraordinary individual.

[BertL]

Sometimes you just wonder how 'unfair' it is, that Bart Sibrel is making money out of this.

[Retrograde]

bertls said:

Sometimes you just wonder how 'unfair' it is, that Bart Sibrel is making money out of this.

In general, I can certainly respect the separation of fools from their money, but in this case it does seem rather fradulent...

[lonewulf]

Well, you have to realize, some people probably bought into Sibrel's film because they were curious, for one reason or another (whether they intended to be for or against it). Those people that were indeed "fooled" by the movie, then come out and tell their friends about it and what it showed him. His friends might get curious, and buy into the movie... even if you get one out of 10,000 converts, that equates to hundreds of thousands (I think) in the US.

[Retrograde]

lonewulf said:

even if you get one out of 10,000 converts, that equates to hundreds of thousands (I think) in the US.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars, or people? If people, the US is a big country, but it's not that big...

[lonewulf]

Well, tens of thousands of people, or thousands of people, but a lot of money still.

[gwiz]

Over on Yahoo's Apollo hoax thread, Bart's alter ego ds14441 has just posted a very long piece attempting to counter accusations that his Russian 5:1 claim was a lie. In the course of this he makes many dubious or downright wrong statements about the history of the US and Soviet programs pre-Apollo. Curiously, there is nowhere any mention of actual manhours in space or how a 5:1 advantage could be calculated.

[agingjb]

I know nothing of United States law, but, if it covers such things, surely Bart Sibrel's assertions are defamatory of Neil Armstrong (and rather a lot of other people) and libellous.

I remember many years ago the US Justice Department commencing a suit (in this case against IBM). Surely the allegation that the moon landings were faked is, amongst many other things, contrary to the interests of the United States, and therefore, if also capable of legal challenge, worthy of the attention of the legal representatives of the Executive

[JayUtah]

Over on Yahoo's Apollo hoax thread, Bart's alter ego ds14441 has just posted a very long piece...

It's Mark Farrell's Pravda piece. Just when you thought you couldn't find someone more ignorant than Sibrel, along comes Farrell.

Curiously, there is nowhere any mention of actual manhours in space or how a 5:1 advantage could be calculated.

Of course; he's just muddying the waters.

Normally conspiracists are smart enough to keep their arguments so general that they can't be tested meaningfully and can be reinterpreted in subtle ways to get around refutations.

Sibrel screwed up big-time on this one. Obviously the "five-to-one" claim is quantitative: the Soviets are alleged to have five of something where the U.S. has only one. You can't support that kind of argument with a qualitative comparison.

The claim is specifically that the Soviets had a 5-1 advantage over the U.S. in manned hours in space. That's a very unambiguous, specific claim. And no doubt that was true at one time. But the question is for how long it was true. And when Sibrel was questioned about that, he made a specific further allegation: that it included Project Gemini.

We know this not to be true. At the end of Gemini the U.S. had a 3-1 advantage over the Soviets in manned hours in space. That's a matter of fairly objective and uncontested record.

So Sibrel commits to a specific metric, a specific value for it, and the specific conditions under which it is alleged to be true. And predictably the facts outweigh him.

When confronted, Sibrel's arms waved wildly enough almost for him to take flight himself. He can't remember the source, can't direct anyone to it, and now can't "remember" whether it included Gemini or not. Too bad he committed to the claim before knowing what cards the other guy held.

It's not as if he can easily back down on this one. If the facts show that there was a steady, aggressive buildup to Apollo, he can't argue that it just suspiciously appeared out of nowhere. And since he really isn't at home with direct evidence, the innuendo associated with the "suspicious" arising of Apollo is really all he's got left.

[JayUtah]

I know nothing of United States law, but, if it covers such things, surely Bart Sibrel's assertions are defamatory of Neil Armstrong (and rather a lot of other people) and libellous.

Well, I know only slightly more about U.S. law, but under the law defamation is quite difficult to prove. Further, when the subject of defamation is a public figure, the standard of proof is higher. Public figures like Neil Armstrong are expected to have a thicker skin when it comes to people talking about them.

This is not to say that a case against Sibrel can't be made -- and perhaps also a case for fraud. But we all realize that this is what Sibrel wants most. He wants to have his day in court and rail against NASA, the astronauts, and the Evil Gubmint even if it means he has to lose his shirt to do it.

People like Sibrel do not fear jail or penalty. They fear obscurity and irrelevancy. Nothing is a worse punishment to Sibrel than to ignore him. There really are people who can't live without publicity, and even bad publicity satisfies that craving.

These people have been called "cultural vandals". Unable to make any lasting mark on society for themselves, they content themselves to defile and destroy the accomplishments of others, if only to be attached to them briefly.

[agingjb]

Well Jay I accept your analysis, and I can only commend you for your patience and persistence in dealing with something which I find totally pernicious. I hope you retain your strength of purpose, and can only hope that eventually there is some resolution that delivers a just reward to those who wilfully deny one of humanity's great achievements and the heroism of people who (and I'm hard to please) I can absolutely admire.

[Bob B.]

Sibrel screwed up big-time on this one. Obviously the "five-to-one" claim is quantitative: the Soviets are alleged to have five of something where the U.S. has only one. You can't support that kind of argument with a qualitative comparison.

Sibrel has made other quantitative claims as well, such as the introduction to his Web page claiming that the Saturn V wasn’t large enough to send Apollo to the moon. In one of the other threads around here I performed the calculations that showed otherwise. Unfortunately these kinds of mathematical proofs usually make the layman’s eyes glaze over. If they are determined to believe what Bart Sibrel says, then they’ll likely claim we're just government shills trying to pull the wool over their eyes with a bunch of meaningless techno-babble.

The nice thing about the 5-to-1 claim is that it doesn’t require any special math or science knowledge to disprove. All that is needed is the ability to add.

[ottawan]

Spreading disinformation for profit seems to be the hallmark of Sibrel's career. I know that most of the people who witnessed Apollo give no credence to his claims which begs the question in my mind, what is the average age of a "hoax believer"?

Has anyone ever tried to figure this out?

I am of the opinion that the vast, and I mean VAST majority of them were not even born at the time of the landings.

It's a shame that someone's BS can profit from youthful ignorance.

Mind you, as P.T. Barnum loved to say, "A fool and his money are soon parted".

[JayUtah]

No formal poll has been taken, but the informal studies don't seem to show a correlation between age and propensity to believe an Apollo hoax theory. There is, of course, youthful ignorance, but there also seems to be middle-aged and senior ignorance.

[Retrograde]

jayutah said:

This is not to say that a case against Sibrel can't be made -- and perhaps also a case for fraud.

Not a lawyer, but if I understand these things right, an action for fraud would have to be brought by one of his customers. And from those we get through here, they seem to think they got the genuine article...

That's got to be a great business. You sell your customers crap, and they are happy buying crap, and will fight to the bitter end against anyone who points out that they got ripped off...

N