|
Post by gwiz on Oct 11, 2006 5:00:23 GMT -4
|
|
MarkS
Earth
Why is it so?
Posts: 101
|
Post by MarkS on Oct 11, 2006 7:10:26 GMT -4
Actually, I was hoping for an answer to echnaton's reasonable question. Plus, the presumption of posting on this board is likely that you'll also defend and discuss what you've posted. Doing otherwise is trolling. Agreed. Yo can sense Aldrin's frustration at continually being hounded by this clown. I see what you're saying: Aldrin is showing decorum and sensibility in not casting pearls before swine. Something as ridiculous as the video doesn't warrant a response; it would be like standing up during an elementary school play and disputing the plausibility of the protagonist's motives. As in, you might have me confused with someone who cares... Man has a sense of humor if not malice. See if his security pass works after that one. I worked in a retail store with a very funny guy from Morocco. Some of the co-workers would tease him, and in mock exasperation he would get his wallet, pull out all the bills and say, 'Here's all my money. Now please get the ^%$&% out of my face.' Kinda like saying 'I just work here,' or 'We're passengers, guys on the flight.' Or maybe not like that. But seriously, are we to understand that you're proposing Aldrin's response is not one of frustration to the absurdity of the video's implication that the Apollo mission was a hoax, but a concession to the video's assertions? Your claiming, if I understand correctly, that every time Aldrin or any other astronaut gets asked these moronic questions that they must respond encyclopedically with a detailed, footnoted defense of reality as the rest of us know it? Then, I will say definitively, that the response of 'please stop wasting my time' to echnaton must mean that lionking finally rescinds her claim that Apollo was hoaxed. Otherwise, you would have responded differently and not with frustration. After all, a person who knows the truth NEVER has any irritation at being question on it repeatedly, right? I mean, that's a reasonable expectation of human nature, right?
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Oct 11, 2006 8:56:10 GMT -4
I don't say this unless there was something unclear in what I said before. Going on explaining the obvious again and again will not do anything but waste my time. Inspite of this, I responded to his answer by further explainig. As for your resorting to assumptions that Aldrin was kidding, or just frustrated by Sibrel, it is so childish and implifying to say that Aldrin, confronted by evidence that is being explained to him bit by bit and accusing him of faking the video, would respond as such. No, it is not at all nature of humans. The natural response would be looking at the video with Sibrel and embarrassing him by explaining how stupid he was. Instead, Aldrin refused to look or give explanations, resorting to attacks on Sibrel.
or his frustration by being told what he did.
No. The answer of the video would have been so outright if Aldrin new it. It would be very natural to say: are you stupid, this is the edge of the window,..whatever.
further explanations are needed. It is not similar to Aldrin's case where he is being accused of faking a video, and whereby he can explain what he did.
but seriously do you take Aldrin's lack of response to evidence being explained to him bit by bit as natural? Do you take his frustration as natural to a very "stupid" evidence?
drawing your own conclusion here is not appropriate, since I did explain my ideas previously and I believe their were clear. I, inspite of that, re-explained them. Did Aldrin do what I did?
Wrong. Human nature gets frustrated with explainin the obvious again and again
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Oct 11, 2006 9:05:32 GMT -4
drawing your own conclusion here is not appropriate, since I did explain my ideas previously and I believe their were clear. I, inspite of that, re-explained them. Did Aldrin do what I did? How do you know Aldrin didn't give an explanation that Sibrel chose to cut because it would have shown Sibrel's video for the dishonest job that it is? Quite.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Oct 11, 2006 9:11:40 GMT -4
no signs of editing the film
which means that you get frustrated when explainin what you think is obvious again and again, thus supporting my point. Thank you
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Oct 11, 2006 9:21:13 GMT -4
As for your resorting to assumptions that Aldrin was kidding, or just frustrated by Sibrel, it is so childish and implifying to say that Aldrin, confronted by evidence that is being explained to him bit by bit
But Sibrel wasn't explaining things bit by bit. He was making up a story using the time-dishonored tools of innuendo and misdirection, and he was conducting an ambush, not attempting an honest dialog.
and accusing him of faking the video, would respond as such. No, it is not at all nature of humans.
You keep making pronunciations on what are appropriate responses to this and that. But many of your ideas of human nature are wildly at odds with my direct observations, and those of many other people on this board. In particular, you have no understanding at all of how Americans think.
The natural response would be looking at the video with Sibrel and embarrassing him by explaining how stupid he was.
But Sibrel has repeatedly shown himself to be incapable of embarrassment. He is a serial stalker, proven liar, and publicity hound. It would, in fact, be unnatural to give your time and careful attention to someone who had lied to you in order to get you on camera and attack you.
Instead, Aldrin refused to look or give explanations, resorting to attacks on Sibrel.
Of course. Aldrin owed Sibrel nothing and Sibrel had lied to him and was harrassing him. Aldrin's response was perfectly normal.
You seem to think that astronauts should display saintlike patience and spend plenty of time jumping through hoops to give honest and detailed answers to those who are dishonest and abusive, like Sibrel, and who moreover are not interested in honest answers but only in publicity and footage which they can selectively edit. Your ideas of human nature, like those of margamatix's, are very strange and selective in their application.
Aldrin's response to Sibrel was indicative of nothing more than annoyance with being harrassed an abusive liar, and a desire to get rid of him quickly.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Oct 11, 2006 9:28:49 GMT -4
which means that you get frustrated when explainin what you think is obvious again and again, thus supporting my point. Thank you And that Aldrin could get equally frustrated with Sibrel, thus supporting my point. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Oct 11, 2006 9:32:16 GMT -4
The natural response would be looking at the video with Sibrel and embarrassing him by explaining how stupid he was. Some people actually have manners and don’t like to tell others that they are stupid. Sometimes it is better to let the other person just go on and provide all the proof needed.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Oct 11, 2006 9:43:59 GMT -4
He could have showed Bart is stupid without telling it in his face, but Buzz isn't that tolerant. He told him he was unethical and was harsh on him, if you watched the video. The fact that he was so frustrated is not alright with me. Bart was speaking so gently with him, and explaining very slowly. I would have probably understood his response if he was provoked by certain language, as Bart did when he punched him, telling Buzz he was a liar and a thief, but the fact that Buzz was spoken to gently and he gets so frustrated is not alright with me.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Oct 11, 2006 9:52:05 GMT -4
regardless, he was speaking gently: I have evidence that shows so and so, and was explained bit by bit.
Americans, I guess, are no different than others when you speak gently to them.
Embarrassment is in front of the public, and silencing him with appropriate answer would do it, and show ppl he is irrational
No. In the video when he met him at office, I don't remember harrassments coming from anyone except Buzz
it doesn't take sainthood, just a bit of common-sense dodging of a stupid video
Again, no harrassment, if I remember well, were told by Buzz in that particular video. If you harrassed me sometime before, and now you come to me explainimng your point swiftly, I would have forgiven you and responded rationally.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Oct 11, 2006 9:54:00 GMT -4
and you are not reading what I wrote . Aldrin could get frustrated, but could explain what e thinks is obvious, at least one time. However, he didn't explain it to Sibrel.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Oct 11, 2006 10:17:59 GMT -4
The natural response would be looking at the video with Sibrel and embarrassing him by explaining how stupid he was. He could have showed Bart is stupid without telling it in his face Make up your mind! Which should he have done, tell BS he was stupid or not? BS’s agenda is clearly apparent to those that know the facts. It is a religiously motivated conflict to him in which objective truth is not only irrelevant but non existent. Non-participation is the best way for someone who in Aldrin’s position to deal in public with people who are beyond reason. To me the propaganda aspect of the video is glairing. BS is a man that promotes conflict and divisiveness at the expense of truth and understanding. In all honesty, I can not understand why you support his actions as they seem to be in opposition to what is right for the world.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Oct 11, 2006 10:29:08 GMT -4
[Aldrin could get frustrated, but could explain what e thinks is obvious, at least one time. However, he didn't explain it to Sibrel. Once again, we've only got Sibrel's side of the story, and he has a record of dishonestly twisting the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Oct 11, 2006 11:44:11 GMT -4
This is all full of "coulds" and "shoulds". Strikes me as a case of "if I ran the zoo" ... "If I was Buzz Aldrin, this is how I would have responded to Bart Sibrel's attentions".
Clearly you are not Buzz Aldrin, and neither am I, so I wouldn not seek to pass judgement on what his attitude should be to any given individual in any given circumstance.
If it is the case that when this exchange was conducted, BS already had "form" in dealing with the Apollo astronauts, then I imagine it wouldn't matter how 'gently', or politely he put across his points.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Oct 11, 2006 11:55:00 GMT -4
Lionking, Let's say I get an appointment to interview you about some professional award or some such thing, and when I show up with my cameraman, start asking you "..so why do you abuse childern? I have irrefutable proof that you do"
Fact is that the missions only lasted a couple of weeks, and I can easily understand why, after 30 plus years, any memories may well be unclear. Details fade. If I were Aldrin, with this boor coming into MY house, I would have called the cops immediatly. The punk Siebrel used gutter tactics to capture Aldrin off balance. But, considering the stupidity of Bart, and his total ignorance of science, one must "consider the source". What is bothersome is that otherwise coherent people listen to this buffoon. And actually believe the trash he puts out, with NO fact checking or the slightest skepticism. It's a belief set you have, like a cult religion... If you only know how foolish you HBs are for following this piper wherever he leads you... Arguing a topic you know nothing about only makes you the fool... Dave PS...why doesn't BS or any of the other HBs bosses ever want to debate the subject in a factual and scientific forum? Name ONE fact that disproves Apollo...just one!
|
|