|
Post by sts60 on Oct 12, 2006 9:31:07 GMT -4
Of course, they weren't calling you a liar and a fraud and saying that your greatest accomplishment was a phony and so on, and they hadn't lied to maneuver you into a bogus interview, and they didn't have a history of lying and of stalking students...
turbonium, my response to your post above is "incorporated by reference", as we say in engineering, to all my responses to lionking. I'll sum up by saying you are simply asserting that another human being must behave a very specific way in a certain situation to satisfy you. But you have no more grounding to make such a claim than lionking did.
Your opinion that Aldrin's response was suspicious is duly noted, as was lionking's. I reject it as any sort of evidence, for reasons discussed ad nauseum above. Since none of your arguments vary materially from lionking's, I can't see the point of discussing it any further.
lionking, I'm glad you were able to get into the class so as to be able to graduate on time. Good luck in your field. My parents worked in public health so I have an interest in it from that perspective as well as from the emergency care angle.
|
|
|
Post by tofu on Oct 12, 2006 9:38:12 GMT -4
Of course, they weren't calling you a liar and a fraud In the interests of accuracy, here is an actual transcript of what was said: you are a coward, and a liar, and a thPOW - oof, ow! ief...
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Oct 12, 2006 9:53:34 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.
How can you make this kind of argument with a straight face. It is beyond silly. Once again discussions with lionking and turbonium have ground to a halt because of their inability to respond with any serious content.
|
|
|
Post by hplasm on Oct 12, 2006 9:53:52 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. Because you had been asked once, by someone who you would reasonably expect to have a right to know. Now if , say I, who you do not know, was to accost you out of the blue, and accused you of registering for your courses under false premises- not once but several times, in an obnoxious and unrelenting manner- would you act any differently? I imagine you would be nice and restrained, one or twice, but eventually- wouldn't you like to bop me one? I guarantee that you would. Eventually... >:-] Unless you are Buddhist?
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Oct 12, 2006 11:42:46 GMT -4
today they did worse than this. We agreed with the practicum responsible on a sort of literature review for this week, then to formulate some kind of outline for data gathering, then go for residency. I and other group members were spoken to with a very bad attitude. The attitude with the assistant was unbearable, but I tried to explain calmly to her that we didn't know what we should do (6 hours/day residency not including the research part, that should be in th hospital computers, and hospital computers were declared as no nos for us, and everybody is singing his own rythm). She ould interrupt and give us contact names and say she is the responsible person and did put up with us bcz we didn't know what to do. I didn't shout in her face, but when I went to my friend, I bursted. Now I tired to explain and explained calmly, but after all, this is what the residents should do, and we should do what others are doing. However, we were harrassed for things we weren't responsible for, and we explained what happened to us calmly in her face.
by the way, marks given by people are studied as part of psychology (I braught this topic before), and their behaviour is studied in context. Maybe we need a speacialist here, but not that showing a video doesn't deserve a look from Aldrin to explain.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Oct 12, 2006 12:31:19 GMT -4
But why does your behavior an a certain circumstance provide guidance to gaining objective information about Apollo based on the way Aldrin behaved in a completely different circumstance?
There is no one unique way for people to behave in any situation. We behave individually according to our knowledge and temperament. Your knowledge, temperament and history is different than Aldrin’s so your anecdote doesn’t give us any information about the validity of the Apollo program.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 12, 2006 15:48:01 GMT -4
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.[b/]
I guess all those celebrities that finally snap and yell, abuse, or attack the paparazzi that have been stalking them all have something to hide too.
You have to remember that these reactions generally aren't the first time they see Sibrel. They know who he is and he's been stalking them for years. Armstrong had to go to the police and have trespass charges taken out on him to try and get rid of him. You say you'd just laugh it off, but how many times? They might be "emotionally stable" though I'm not sure I'd have ever called any of them, besides perhaps Armstrong, that. Their job was indeed stressful and hard, and they had to handle it; it caused most of them to end up divorced from their wives. The last thing they need is a guy stalking them, setting up fake interviews, ambushing them, poking them in the chest with a bible, yelling at them and more.
How long would you let someone do that to you before you told them were to go? I tend to be a rather passive person these days, but if I had someone like Sibrel treat me like he has the Astronauts, he'd have more than one punch to worry about. I'd deck him. Everyone, no matter who, has a breaking point, Sibrel merely pushes the Astronauts beyond it and them claims that they acted suspiciously. He conveniently forgets to tell you about the fifty times he stalked them and they politely told him to bugger off.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Oct 12, 2006 19:07:22 GMT -4
Siebrel has labelled the astronauts liars, thieves, and murderers...were I them I certainly wouldn't be "laughing"...
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Oct 12, 2006 22:08:56 GMT -4
PhantomWolf said:
Of course they do. They don't do their own stunts.
Oh, the shame!
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 13, 2006 2:30:24 GMT -4
I guess all those celebrities that finally snap and yell, abuse, or attack the paparazzi that have been stalking them all have something to hide too.
No. I'm referring to the interviews with Bean, Mitchell, and others
You have to remember that these reactions generally aren't the first time they see Sibrel. They know who he is and he's been stalking them for years. Armstrong had to go to the police and have trespass charges taken out on him to try and get rid of him. You say you'd just laugh it off, but how many times? They might be "emotionally stable" though I'm not sure I'd have ever called any of them, besides perhaps Armstrong, that. Their job was indeed stressful and hard, and they had to handle it; it caused most of them to end up divorced from their wives. The last thing they need is a guy stalking them, setting up fake interviews, ambushing them, poking them in the chest with a bible, yelling at them and more.
First, I don't claim whatsoever that the reactions of the astronauts "prove" Apollo was a hoax. They do provide interesting and, IMO, curious over-reactions to someone telling them he believes they played part in a hoax.
The "Astronauts Gone WIld" interviews with Bean and Mitchell show them react angrily to Sibrel only after he begins talking about the landings being a hoax. Until then, they are calmly discussing various points with him. That's what I was referring to specifically when I said I'd just be amused if Sibrel, halfway into an interview, suddenly asserted that neither I, nor any other astronauts, had ever walked on the Moon.
Why would I get so angry and start swearing at somebody like that in this situation? It makes no sense at all.
How long would you let someone do that to you before you told them were to go? I tend to be a rather passive person these days, but if I had someone like Sibrel treat me like he has the Astronauts, he'd have more than one punch to worry about. I'd deck him. Everyone, no matter who, has a breaking point, Sibrel merely pushes the Astronauts beyond it and them claims that they acted suspiciously. He conveniently forgets to tell you about the fifty times he stalked them and they politely told him to bugger off.
As I said, I was referring to the interviews seen in "Astronauts Gone Wild". I completely agree with you on the reactions being understandable if the same guy kept hassling you over and over. But even then, if I did get angry, I would just confront him to refute his allegations once and for all.....
Sibrel plays his video for me. I go over it point by point, showing him that "____" is really " ____"; what he thinks looks like "a ____" is actually "a_____" because "_______", and so on.
Aldrin and Mitchell didn't do anything but watch the video and then get angry. Why???
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Oct 13, 2006 2:56:33 GMT -4
You actually trust Sibrel's editing of these interviews, and are willing to be led by the nose by him on how an "ordinary, innocent" person should react to circumstances described by him but unproven to have unfolded in that manner?
Just for a moment imagine how badly I could make you come out if I interviewed you several times, surprised you with trick questions, badgered you, then carefully edited only the bits I wanted to show into one video -- with my own snarky commentary over it. Come on...one talk show radio host with nothing more than a mute button can make any of his callers look like idiots. Imagine what you can do with a camera and an agenda!
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 13, 2006 3:36:25 GMT -4
What editing do you specifically think was done for deceptive purposes? That is, can you point out exactly where you believe he has (or may have) edited the footage? And what do you think he achieved with such edits that would not be accomplished without any editing?
|
|
|
Post by gonzo on Oct 13, 2006 6:57:24 GMT -4
What editing do you specifically think was done for deceptive purposes?
It is impossible to say; that's absolutely in the nature of editing. We don't see what's been taken out. We have to make a judgement based on what we know of the people involved.
For example there is a whole context in which these ambushes took place which BS isn't presenting. Clearly anything which doesn't 'fit' his argument will be edited, as is the case with ALL HBs, and BS has a specific history of.
That is, can you point out exactly where you believe he has (or may have) edited the footage?
No, and nor can you. Nor can you claim that there has been NO editing to suit BS's position.
And what do you think he achieved with such edits that would not be accomplished without any editing?
Presenting a fair and balanced picture. There is extensive evidence that BS edits his videos to do the exact opposite of presenting a fair and balanced picture. Therefore it is safe to assume that would be the purpose of any editing in this one, and indeed that such editing had in fact taken place.
Without being given the full picture we simply can't make a judgement on the people involved's behaviour. I have my own opinion, but in that I am necessarily simply speculating, as are those who say 'this doesn't make any sense; THIS is how they should have behaved'
Given a 'beauty parade' of who do you believe/ trust I certainly wouldn't be naive enough to trust anyone with the record of BS, never mind the characters/ records of the astronauts.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Oct 13, 2006 9:09:58 GMT -4
For example there is a whole context in which these ambushes took place which BS isn't presenting. Clearly anything which doesn't 'fit' his argument will be edited, as is the case with ALL HBs, and BS has a specific history of. As the HBs are so fond of saying "Why believe a proven liar?"
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Oct 13, 2006 17:14:34 GMT -4
Sibrel plays his video for me. I go over it point by point, showing him that "____" is really " ____"; what he thinks looks like "a ____" is actually "a_____" because "_______", and so on. And after Sibrel disregards your refutation and re-asserts his claims that _____ is whatever he says it is, what then?
|
|