MarkS
Earth
Why is it so?
Posts: 101
|
Post by MarkS on Oct 11, 2006 12:37:02 GMT -4
The natural response would be looking at the video with Sibrel and embarrassing him by explaining how stupid he was. Then what, precisely, should Aldrin have done that would demonstrate through action, words, facial expression, body language, perspiration or vocal timbre that unambiguously refutes Sibrel's fantasy? If he would have: - Denied vociferously - such could only happen if he felt great guilt and remorse, therefore Apollo was a hoax.
- Denied quietly - he would have denied it vociferously if he had really gone to the moon, so it was a hoax.
- Did not deny or confirm - it couldn't be that the hoax fantasy is so preposterous that it doesn't deserve some response, so no answer is an answer to the affirmative and it was a hoax.
- Any other answer - his handlers weren't there, so he didn't have a scripted response and therefore response 'x' is in fact corroboration of Sibrel's fantasy and Apollo was a hoax.
Would that be roughly the way you're viewing the video?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Oct 11, 2006 12:51:17 GMT -4
regardless, he was speaking gently:
Slander spoken softly is still slander.
I have evidence that shows so and so, and was explained bit by bit.
But the "explanations" and "evidence" were completely bogus. Sibrel has no understanding of science or engineering and has a track record of deception in his materials.
Americans, I guess, are no different than others when you speak gently to them.
Speaking gently to me is one thing. Doing so after lying to me to arrange an ambush, and disparaging an accomplishment for which I and so many others worked very hard, is another.
Embarrassment is in front of the public, and silencing him with appropriate answer would do it, and show ppl he is irrational
As I already pointed out, this wouldn't work. Sibrel doesn't care about being embarrassed; he's only interested in publicity - any publicity. You and I are not of that type, fortunately. But such miserable people exist.
No. In the video when he met him at office, I don't remember harrassments coming from anyone except Buzz
Perhaps this is semantics. "Harrassment" includes lies and slander, not just yelling and pushing. Even if Sibrel was not doing the latter at the time, he was engaging in the former.
it doesn't take sainthood, just a bit of common-sense dodging of a stupid video
You insist a person who devoted years and years of his life to a grand accompolishment to politely jump through the hoops set up by a known stalker, who lied his way into a meeting and proceeds to slander that person and that accomplishment. That would require what we in this country call "the patience of a saint". Besides, "common-sense dodging" involves getting rid of an intruder quickly.
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.
I see. So merely because I am not yelling, you would forgive me for accusing you of massive dishonesty and insisting that your greatest achievement was a big fraud? Because that is exactly what Sibrel has done each time he has harrassed (loudly or not) the astronauts.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Oct 11, 2006 13:48:33 GMT -4
so if I told you you this is wrong what you have done in your exm and it is just like the other student, indiccating you cheated, but I didn't tell you that you cheated, just trying to show you the paper and how it is the same, you wouldn't look at it? you would tell me only that it is unethical what I am doing?
irrelevant. Explanations were being given to him, but he wouldn't listen, just turn his face and not even try to figure out what Sibrel was telling him.
that wasn't the case. Not with that particular encounter. There was accusations of falsfying thereport, but in trying to get an answer, and swiftly, not like the first time. There was a chance for Aldrin to embarras Sibrel, not for Sibrel to get hurt since you argue he wouldn't, but to show him at least one time he erred. After doing so, you can not respond to him anymore.
Never. Common-sense dodging is not interrupting someone showing you evidence and asking you to explain them, whereby you can show him,at least for once, how stupid he is.
after explaining it for you several times, if you insist on claiming I am dishonest, I would act as Adrin. Imagine that me and you faught before, with you claiming I am a liar. Then, you came to me telling me: I have proof that you cheated in your exam. You have two papers to compare them, and I act as I Aldin, refusing to explain nothing to you, what would be your response? That I am confident I didn't cheat and doesn't have the guts to explain it to you, with you being a reporter who will show me on camera and infront of people (remmeber Buzz telling him "put off the camera"?)
Now, I see no point in continuing this discussion, having made my point clear.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Oct 11, 2006 13:51:32 GMT -4
MarkS No. Explaining it quietly, or even yelling, would make me convinced. By the way, I like the signature you quoted me by
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Oct 11, 2006 13:56:45 GMT -4
explainign his stupidity doesn't mean telling him stupid in his face. *sigh* - after ercieving bad news that I should have taken a 2 credits course that I can't register noww for the course, and my graduation would be postponed till Spring semester, I hope you understand that the last thing I have the guts to do is argue again and again for things I made clear from the beginning. I really have better things to worry about.
|
|
|
Post by HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk) on Oct 11, 2006 14:07:17 GMT -4
so if I told you you this is wrong what you have done in your exm and it is just like the other student, indiccating you cheated, but I didn't tell you that you cheated, just trying to show you the paper and how it is the same, you wouldn't look at it? you would tell me only that it is unethical what I am doing? lionking Buzz Aldrin KNEW he went to the moon - why would he waste his time looking at "evidence" from someone who was harassing him, which would prove nothing other than Sibrel's ignorance?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Oct 11, 2006 14:14:27 GMT -4
explainign his stupidity doesn't mean telling him stupid in his face. Perhaps he did just that and BS simply cut that part of the interview because it didn’t make his point. A possibility, but just speculation. The point is we don’t know the full story of the interview from the movie, just what BS presents, meaning we need more information to make a full picture. The full picture shows that BS films about Apollo are propaganda, it is a shame that you are in agreement with him.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Oct 11, 2006 15:13:37 GMT -4
so if I told you you this is wrong what you have done in your exm and it is just like the other student, indiccating you cheated, but I didn't tell you that you cheated, just trying to show you the paper and how it is the same, you wouldn't look at it? you would tell me only that it is unethical what I am doing?You have to consider the situation. If you were a known liar and serial stalker, like Sibrel, and were merely trying to stage a confrontation, like Sibrel, and I knew perfectly well that I had done my own honest work, like Aldrin, then I would not owe you to play along with your staged act. irrelevant. Explanations were being given to him, but he wouldn't listen, just turn his face and not even try to figure out what Sibrel was telling him.It is most certainly not irrelevant. Why the heck should I listen to someone spouting malicious nonsense, who is not going to consider honestly anything I say? that wasn't the case. Not with that particular encounter. There was accusations of falsfying thereport, but in trying to get an answer, and swiftly, not like the first time. There was a chance for Aldrin to embarras Sibrel, not for Sibrel to get hurt since you argue he wouldn't, but to show him at least one time he erred. After doing so, you can not respond to him anymore.But Sibrel already had a history of stalking and lying, as well as absolute cluelessness about the subject. The hostile context had already been established, but you want to give him another chance. And I have already explained that you cannot embarrass the likes of Sibrel, who desires only publicity. I'm older than you, and I live near Washington, D.C., so I am familiar with such types. Never. Common-sense dodging is not interrupting someone showing you evidence and asking you to explain them, whereby you can show him,at least for once, how stupid he is.*sigh* I don't know how to make this any more clear: such a course doesn't work with those who are not interested in objective truth and who only want publicity of any kind. after explaining it for you several times, if you insist on claiming I am dishonest, I would act as Adrin. Imagine that me and you faught before, with you claiming I am a liar. Then, you came to me telling me: I have proof that you cheated in your exam. You have two papers to compare them, and I act as I Aldin, refusing to explain nothing to you, what would be your response?My response would most likely be to effect immediate physical separation. Clearly, there would be no point in indulging your malicious stage-acting, since I knew you did not have any kind of real "evidence". That I am confident I didn't cheat and doesn't have the guts to explain it to you,Are you now saying that refusing to indulge a malicious troll like Sibrel, and to provide him with more raw material, is a result of "lack of guts", i.e., Aldrin was afraid of him? Aldrin is a former test pilot and a combat veteran. He has more "guts" than you and I put together. with you being a reporter who will show me on camera and infront of people (remmeber Buzz telling him "put off the camera"?)Sibrel is not a reporter. Moreover, the footage was only for Sibrel's use, not for public news distribution; it would only wind up appearing heavily edited for use in Sibrel's for-profit propaganda videos. I believe the gist of your argument is summed up with your statement The fact that he was so frustrated is not alright with me.It's alright with me, though. Ultimately it doesn't mean anything as evidence against (or for) Apollo. Now, I see no point in continuing this discussion, having made my point clear.I agree. Good luck with your school situation. Too bad you can't late-register for the course. Public health is your major, right?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 12, 2006 3:11:22 GMT -4
I agree with lionking. The extremely agitated response of the astronauts is revealing. I mean, even an ordinary person on the street wouldn't become so emotional in such a situation. The Apollo astronauts were said to have been picked for the Apollo missions in part because they were so emotionally stable. They were to face situations of unprecedented stress in going to the Moon.
Anger is hardly the desired response from someone being counted on to remain cool under pressure. And this situation should hardly be considered stressful, should it? To wit, if the interviewer is babbling about something one personally knows is sheer nonsense, it warrants no more of an emotional response than maybe a laugh. Sibrel is hardly some sort of psychopathic "stalker" that instantly evokes fear and terror in his ambushed "victims".
If I had truly walked on the Moon, and someone like Sibrel says I didn't, I'd just laugh. I wouldn't care if he first pretended to be documenting the genuine Moon landings, then later on said it was all a hoax. SO WHAT?
If Sibrel played me the video clip and said "this proves you faked being halfway to the Moon", I'd simply explain why he is misinterpreting the footage. After all, I was actually there - I would certainly know what we were doing at the time.
Why would I freak out, shout out more expletives than Scarface, and see red from pure rage? Only if I was instantly under intense stress. And the only way I'd be under any stress is if I was not being honest in saying that I walked on the Moon.
The reaction of the astronauts is exactly the same reaction as the people who get "busted" all the time on TV programs like "60 Minutes", when the interviewer suddenly, in the middle of the interview, plays a tape from a hidden camera for them. These people suddenly say "Stop the interview" or get up and walk out. Or they say "That's not me". And they usually become very angry.
They never do what any innocent person would do - explain how the hidden video is actually showing something completely innocent.
If those here are able to offer a possible explanation for the video, then why wouldn't the people who were actually there be able to instantly explain what was truly going on?
Of course, they don't have any time to quickly make up something like that - if it isn't true. If it was the truth, they'd maybe chuckle a bit and tell it like it happened - right away.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Oct 12, 2006 3:53:52 GMT -4
If I had truly walked on the Moon, and someone like Sibrel says I didn't, I'd just laugh. Yeah, sure, and if you just laughed no-one would think it at all suspicious. Aldrin was in a no-win situation. Whatever his reaction, an HB would find it suspicious. Look at lionking, in the posts above she changes her grounds for criticising Aldrin several times and when challenged exhibits most of the things she complains about in Aldrin's reactions. Edit to add: The quote above is from Cosmic Dave's site. Does the US Department of Geology actually exist?
|
|
|
Post by hplasm on Oct 12, 2006 4:16:34 GMT -4
Edit to add: The quote above is from Cosmic Dave's site. Does the US Department of Geology actually exist? Not as such:- The US Geological Survey would be the correct title. But hey- only scientists attend to pesky details!
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Oct 12, 2006 6:37:50 GMT -4
My oh my I didn't expect to be inciting such a flame war.
What we all need to remember is that we are not Buzz Aldrin. This argument about how he should have reacted is useless because we can only say for sure how we as individuals would have reacted. We live in an existentialist world. Experience is individually subjective. Buzz Aldrin reacted the way he did because he is Buzz Aldrin and that is how Buzz Aldrin would have reacted in that specific situation at that time.
It's silly for lionking and turbonium to think that they know how Buzz should have reacted. The argument has no rational basis. Before either one of you get all huffy, think of this: Are you Buzz Aldrin? No? Then you have no right to speak about what he should have said or not said.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Oct 12, 2006 7:45:10 GMT -4
I would concur that arguments that suggest the missions were faked based on how the astronauts react to things is silly in the extreme.
After the mountains of evidence that support the landings is reviewed, after all the claims of hoax have been debunked, for anyone to say "well, yea, but did you SEE how that astronaut was reacting to [insert event or interview here]? He knows it was all fake!", knowing darn well it is unfalsifiable and subjective, is pretty sad.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Oct 12, 2006 7:54:03 GMT -4
it wasn't a staged act. it was challenging you to explain your honesty, thus giving you the chance to show that this theatre is a failure
I should tell him once, then consider that I'll not talk to him. I had in mind discussing Aldrin's reaction, but decided at first not to do. When reynold asked me to do, I did knowing that he will not get convinced, after that, I decided- but changed my mind later- that it is better to stop the pointless discussion.
Not in front of Aldrin, where the only thing done was teasing and no attempt to explain facts.
and I have already explained it is not embarrassing Sibrel as much as explaining the fact for one time and giving justifications.
Not if I have the chance to explain something not discussed to you before, maybe you'll not have anything to answer me and I'll be shooting a goal in you, which will make me happy and more confident.
seems I misunderstood what guts is. I meant that he doesn't have the patience to explain.
the flow of speach indicates no editing
thnx God they will register me most probably for a course so I can graduate. Something relevant to this, : the teacher didn't make sure to my credits claim which made me fall into this mistake. It ws my fault also that I didn't double check for my credits. When I was told I can't now register, I WAS SO UPSET THAT MY GRADUATION WILL BE POSTPONED. hOWEVER, i DIDN'T SHOUT IN THE FACE OF THE new assisstant. I didn't tell her: it is not my mistake and as the administration made a fault with me let them fix it and I AM NOT GOING TO BEG FOR MY RIGHTS. I asked for a petition bcz I know I did nothing wrong and didn't close my mind and get stubborn: do it or else..
My Masters is in Hospital Management concentration, which belongs to Public Health.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Oct 12, 2006 7:56:59 GMT -4
on the contrary, I did the vertically opposite of what Aldrin did, explaining my point of view in spite of knowing it is pointless, when being challenged to do.
|
|