Bart's 5:1 Russian superiority claim

[margamatix]

bob said:

Margarmatix, here it is plain and simple: Do you think Bart Sibrel is trustworthy, honest, and competent? This question has nothing to do with Apollo, the moon, his 5-to-1 superiority claim, or any other claim. Simply, do you think he's trustworthy, honest, and competent?

Well I've never met him, so how could I possibly say?

I don't believe we went to the moon, but the fact that my views coincide with his on this ONE subject does not entitle me to an opinion about his personal trustworthiness.

So I wouldn't care to venture an opinion.

[Bob B.]

margamatix said:

bob said:

Margarmatix, here it is plain and simple: Do you think Bart Sibrel is trustworthy, honest, and competent? This question has nothing to do with Apollo, the moon, his 5-to-1 superiority claim, or any other claim. Simply, do you think he's trustworthy, honest, and competent?

Well I've never met him, so how could I possibly say?

I don't believe we went to the moon, but the fact that my views coincide with his on this ONE subject does not entitle me to an opinion about his personal trustworthiness.

So I wouldn't care to venture an opinion.

Since you are unable to offer an opinion regarding the man's trustworthiness, honesty, and compentence, can I then conclude you find his reliability as a source regarding Apollo and the moon landings uncertain?

[PhantomWolf]

margamatix said:

phantomwolf said:

Given the Bart Sibrel's inaccuracy about the 5:1 claim, do you find him a trustworthy, honest, and competent source?

I don't know anything about the 5-1 claim, so how can I judge anything from it?

If you are trying to say "Do you believe that man has walked on the moon?", then the answer is "No. I don't believe that man has walked on the moon".

Good grief margamatix, I've seen politicains give a straighter answer than you do. You have been told that this very thread deals with Bart's 5:1 claim, you could easily read about it, but obviously you plan on staying ignorant by avoiding it.

And no, the question was not and never was "Do you believe that man has walked on the moon?" It was and still is;

"Given Bart Sibrel 5:1 claims which the numbers don't support or even come close to supporting, do you fine him a trustworthy, honest, and competent source of information."

This is a simple yes or no, there is no trick question here. If you don't know what the 5:1 claim is, go to page one of this thread and read up on it and then come back and say "yes, you believe he is a trustworthy, honest, and competent source of information" or "no you don't find him a trustworthy, honest, and competent source ." Heck even a "I think he's reliable in some areas but not this one," would be better then the gynastics you are currently pulling to avoid giving a straight answer.

I can tell you one thing, you total inability to answer a question and your constant evasive tactics are doing your credibility no good whatsoever.

[Bob B.]

margamatix said:

I don't know anything about the 5-1 claim, so how can I judge anything from it?

But margamatix, in this thread you wrote:

margamatix said:

I read every message posted on this forum. I swear before almighty God that I read every message posted on this forum.

So how can you not know about the 5-to-1 superiority claim? We've discussed it in great detail in this thread.

[PhantomWolf]

Do we really want to go there again Bob? He claims to have read Jay's site too, but he's busy showing his ignorance of the Apollo cameras in the other thread he's hiding in too. Considering Jay goes into the cameras and their operation in some depth, I guess he accidently missed those two or three pages.

[JayUtah]

Of couse, I may be wrong, and I am willing to stand corrected, because the simple truth is that I have never seen any of Bart Sibrel's videos

Irrelevant.

You quote verbatim from his web site regarding other claims. You mention his arguments in a manner suggesting you believe they are credible, substantiated, and offer evidence challenging the authenticity of Apollo. It is disingenuous for you now to say you don't know him or have no basis upon which to judge his trustworthiness. Why then have you previously relied upon his claims (e.g., von Braun's Saturn V inconsistency, LM stability)?

But in order to get past that, we have provided you with this thread. Regardless of what you may or may not have seen or read from Sibrel, the entirety of his reasoning on the alleged 5-1 Soviet superiority in space is contained here, including the exposition of it, a conversation with him about it, and documentary evidence refuting it. You are simply being asked to read this thread and, on that basis, draw a conclusion regarding Sibrel's trustworthiness.

I agree with the others: you are being highly evasive, Margamatix. You are being asked extremely simple, straightforward questions to which you have not given a direct answer.

[sts60]

Well I've never met him, so how could I possibly say?

You've never met anybody connected with this board, but you've made it clear you regard us as some sort of apologists for a conspiracy. Yes, I know you didn't use those explicit words, no need to go off on another tangent.

You've never met, AFAIK, anybody who worked on Apollo, but you are quite willing to dismiss their competence and/or integrity, painting them as dupes who didn't know their business enough to see through the plethora of alleged technical frauds "exposed" by CTs like Sibrel, or dedicated liars who have spent decades keeping up the sham.

So "how could [you] possibly say?" Quite easily, it seems.

I don't believe we went to the moon, but the fact that my views coincide with his on this ONE subject does not entitle me to an opinion about his personal trustworthiness.

You have quoted Sibrel repeatedly on various claims, as Jay pointed out, and a number of your claims are aligned with Sibrel's regardless of where you first came up with them. We've spent considerable time pointing out his errors and misrepresentations. So you have plenty of data to form an opinion, and not just to his trustworthiness, but his competence, which is demonstrably lacking.

So I wouldn't care to venture an opinion.

Of course not. He disbelieves Apollo; you disbelieve Apollo. Why should you ever venture an opinion when we show that an Apollo denier is full of baloney?

[margamatix]

jayutah said:

You quote verbatim from his web site regarding other claims.

I drew your attention to one short piece of footage taken fron his site which quoted Wernher von Braun.

Where else do I quote from his website? Where does his website show Duke being snatched up on a wire? Where does his website draw attention that footage doubled in speed shows that the film was taken on Earth?

If you repeat a lie often enough, some people might believe it. But not many.

[LunarOrbit]

margamatix said:

I drew your attention to one short piece of footage taken fron his site which quoted Wernher von Braun.

A quote that was taken out of context.

Do you trust Sibrel or not? It's a pretty simple question.

[rocketdad]

Bart(space)Sibrel refused to swear to me that he believes his own trip. I even sent a text-file King James to make it easy. Draw your own conclusions.

[gwiz]

sts60 said:

For margamatix's convenience, I am repeating six particular claims he has posted and which have been debunked. I look forward to his acknowledging some or all of these when he has some spare time:

1. Sibrel's 5:1 superiority claim, which has been thoroughly debunked in this very thread. Does he still believe Sibrel's claim? What does he think the facts, which were not hard to dig out, say about Mr. Sibrel's competence and/or integrity?

2. margamatix's claim that there is no plausible way to cool an astronaut on the Moon. Among various responses which pointed out his fundamental failures to understand the environment, types of heat transfer involved, or insulation techniques, I gave him hard numbers indicating the suitability of cooling an astronaut via the PLSS' water sublimation technique. Does he acknowledge our refutations of his claim? If not, why, exactly?

3. margamatix's claim that the Apollo lunar orbit rendezvous was "untried" (refuted here). Does he acknowledge his error?

4. margamatix's claim that missions to the Moon should have started with unmanned craft. It is pointed out here again that many unmanned craft were sent to the Moon prior to the A11 landing. It was discussed at length here as to exactly why it made no sense to attempt an automated LM landing. Does he acknowledge the refutations of his claim, which included the opinions of practicing engineers with extensive aerospace experience? If not, why, exactly?

5. margamatix's repetition of Sibrel's claim that the Saturn had to be 266 times bigger than it actually was (refuted here). margamatix's only response was to call von Braun a "war criminal". Correct or not, that does not alter the fact that Sibrel's claim is factually incorrect. Does he (margamatix) acknowledge this? If so, what does he think this says about Sibrel's competence? If not, why not, exactly?

6. margamatix's claim that the Apollo CSM was unable to get back from the Moon itself (couldn't carry enough fuel, etc.), refuted here, with explicit numbers crunched by Bob B. Does he acknowledge the refutation? If not, why not, exactly?

Margamatix,

A lot of people here would welcome your considered response to these points. So far, all we've had is a lot of protestations about point 1, which sts60 wrongly attributed to you, and precious little to address any of the others.

[PhantomWolf]

heck gwiz, don't send him off an another tangent. It's harder to get a straight answer out of him than it is to nail jelly to the wall anyways.

[sts60]

If you repeat a lie often enough, some people might believe it. But not many.

True. That's why most people see Sibrel for the cheesy con man he is. Same goes for the other primary "hoax" proponents.

[sts60]

So, margamatix, since you admonished someone to stay on topic in another thread, I'll help you steer this one back on topic:

Given how thoroughly Sibrel's 5:1 superiority claim was refuted in this thread, using easily-available data - no trip to the library needed! - what does this say to you about Sibrel's competence and/or integrity?

That is the topic, after all. And I know how you enjoy staying on topic.

[JayUtah]

Where else do I quote from his website?

Uh, your signature used to be a direct, attributed quote from Bart Sibrel disputing the validity of the LM engineering. You specifically asked us to comment on it in Reply #34 in this thread
apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=theories&thread=1122324344&page=3

You have referenced Sibrel as someone whose opinions you think we should take seriously. It doesn't matter how many references there were. You know of him and seem to think we should address his claims at face value.

Where does his website show Duke being snatched up on a wire? Where does his website draw attention that footage doubled in speed shows that the film was taken on Earth?

Irrelevant. No one is claiming that all your arguments come from Sibrel. But the ones you do attribute to Sibrel are still in discussion.

Now will you please just answer the question?