|
Post by lordoftherings on Nov 19, 2005 6:26:19 GMT -4
Anything from the NASAScam site should be taken with a rather large grain of salt, his Apollo knowledge is worse than Moon Man's. But what you quote just sems to make him right that Neil mumbles is is under stress! quote author=phantomwolf board=theories thread=1132228662 post=1132368856]As to Neil's uncomfortableness with speaking, he suffers from something a lot of people do, anxiety and a fear of public speaking. He always has, and as such he does seem, and is, uncomfortable in the spotlight, and he always has been. His body language is a result of being uncomfortable in public situations, not with being uncomfortable in what he's saying. Here's a passage from the book "A Fire on the Moon" which was written about Apollo 11.This is the author's view of Armstrong at a preflight press briefing. "So the conference dragged on. While the focus of the attention was naturally on Armstrong for commanding the flight, he seemed in the begining to be the least at ease. He spoke with long pauses, he searched for words. When words came out, their ordinary content made the wait seem excessive. He minted no phrases. 'We are here' ... a pause .... 'to be able to talk about this attempt' ... a real pause, as if the next experience were ineffable but with patience would yet be captured ... 'because of the success of four previous Apollo command flights' ... pause as if to pick up something he had left out ... 'and a number of unmanned flights.' A shy smile. 'Each of these flights' - he was more woden than young Robert Taylor, young Don Ameche, young Randolph Scott - 'contributed in a great way' ... deprecatory smile ... 'to this flight.' As a speaker he was all but limp - still it did not leave him unremarkable. Certainly the knowledge that he was an astronaut restored his stature, yet even if he had been a junior executive accepting an award, Armstrong would have presented a quality that was arresting, for he was extraordinarily remote. He was simply not like other men. He would have been more extraordinary in fact if he had just been a salesman making a modest inept dull little speech, for then one would be forced to wonder how he had ever gotten his job, how he could sell even one item, how in fact he could get out of bed in the morning.A Fire on the Moon, Norman Mailer. pg 25-26[/quote] If he is under stress or just lying is to be determined by professional ppl. Me and you have no slightest gumption on how to judge. End of story.
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Nov 19, 2005 6:48:27 GMT -4
Oh, so I can back a 65-year old man against a wall in front of his family, put my hand on his chest and push him while yelling at him...? I don't know where you practice law, but around here I'd be in serious trouble. If that's a crime then why was the reporter charged..? Because it's not a crime even where you live. Assault is, even where you live.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Nov 19, 2005 7:05:37 GMT -4
That IS considered assault where I live. And that's what I'd be charged with.
|
|
|
Post by Tanalia on Nov 19, 2005 7:39:34 GMT -4
I imagine Buzz didn't press charges because he would have had to spend a lot of time dealing with the fool in court.
And please stop referring to him as "the reporter" -- he was nothing of the sort.
|
|
|
Post by tofu on Nov 19, 2005 10:48:57 GMT -4
put my hand on his chest and push him it's not a crime even where you live. It's a crime where YOU live. Here is an excerpt from a Canadian law site: www.durham.edu.on.ca/oxfordtutor/lawtutor/definitions.html" BatteryIntentional physical contact that is harmful or offensive to the other person" hmm. Interesting that you didn't know this, given your past claims with regard to law. Is there anything that you actually do know?
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Nov 19, 2005 13:20:52 GMT -4
Tofu, why do you have to get offensive? keep it cool man
|
|
lonewulf
Earth
Humanistic Cyborg
Posts: 244
|
Post by lonewulf on Nov 19, 2005 13:31:26 GMT -4
Claiming that Buzz is automatically lying because he defended himself isn't offensive? He was harrassed, called a liar and a thief, by a man who shoved a microphone into his face -- you expect us to believe that that automatically makes him a liar -- and then you're surprised when we "get offensive"? Buzz Aldrin went to the moon; he risked his life. He spent a long time learning and training for one pivotal moment; a moment that was the greatest moment in our nation's history. He went to the moon and came back; he saw the stars without an atmosphere; he braved all that danger. A single solar flare, and they would've been cooked. He did all that, accomplished all that, just to get it shoved into his face that he's a "liar and a thief". I might also add that the same person who did that also believes that NASA killed off astronauts; so not only are they trying to drag his reputation through the mud, but also the reputation of NASA, making them out to be nothing more than murderers. "Why do you have to get offensive?" indeed. Also, Sibrel is not a reporter. Nor does he have a license to be a reporter. He is a "Hoax Believer" that goes out of his way to make money off his baloney. He takes the footage of the astronauts, voices over it, and then sells it for a ridiculous amount of money, compared to the amount of "effort' he put into it; if you can call it that. You're willing to immediately disbelieve anything NASA says, when it makes its information freely available, but then you believe someone who obviously is just in it to make a buck. I'm not even going to bother about Moon Man supposedly knowing anything about law. That horse is so dead and so beaten, I can't recognize it anymore.
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Nov 19, 2005 13:41:38 GMT -4
Claiming that Buzz is automatically lying because he defended himself isn't offensive? He was harrassed, called a liar and a thief, by a man who shoved a microphone into his face -- you expect us to believe that that automatically makes him a liar -- and then you're surprised when we "get offensive"?. What if he is what Sibrel calls him? However, offense is not a good choice. . Not everyone has to believe this . Again. maybe they did all this. I don't agree with the way Sibrel acted however. Anybody who acts as such, including you guys, should be condemned. . Yes, indeed. .
|
|
lonewulf
Earth
Humanistic Cyborg
Posts: 244
|
Post by lonewulf on Nov 19, 2005 13:52:08 GMT -4
What if he is what Sibrel calls him? However, offense is not a good choice.
And what if Sibrel is what I call him - a money-grubbing man that's willing to stalk and harrass some of this nation's greatest men for fortune? What then? . Not everyone has to believe this
Right, because the world ONLY runs by personal belief; facts and logic have nothing to do with it, right? And it doesn't matter who you insult, attack, harrass, are offensive to, or troll? As long as you BELIEVE it, then it's justifiable.
Again. maybe they did all this. I don't agree with the way Sibrel acted however. Anybody who acts as such, including you guys, should be condemned.
Then we at least agree on something.
For a person who spent 500000 dollars , it is his right to get payed back.
500,000 dollars for what? Be specific; what exactly did he pay for? (I'm asking because I really don't know what Sibrel paid for)
It is your choice.
Darn right it's my choice. Moon Man's assertions that he knows anything about law -- Canadian or otherwise -- and his assertions that he knows how to carry out an argument -- legal or otherwise -- have already been debunked so many times, it's not even funny.
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Nov 19, 2005 14:04:32 GMT -4
What if he is what Sibrel calls him? However, offense is not a good choice. And what if Sibrel is what I call him - a money-grubbing man that's willing to stalk and harrass some of this nation's greatest men for fortune? What then? It goes on an endless cycle. If any of them is wrong, he should be punished. I think Imade my point clear that offense from anyone is wrong. . Not everyone has to believe this Right, because the world ONLY runs by personal belief; facts and logic have nothing to do with it, right? [/quote] Wrong. I started threads on what is my logic Wrong again. i disgree with Bart's behaviour, even if I say what if the astronauts are lying. Again. maybe they did all this. I don't agree with the way Sibrel acted however. Anybody who acts as such, including you guys, should be condemned. You didn't seem to condemn your friend, but to defend him. For a person who spent 500000 dollars , it is his right to get payed back. . To produce the movie, as he said. Visit his site www.moonmovie.com/moonmovie/default.asp?ID=8Quote" Q: If A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon is such Earth-shattering evidence, why are you selling it instead of offering it for free? A: The film is Earth-shattering evidence, indeed. The fact is that investors put up five hundred thousand dollars to produce the film, and they would like to recoup a little of it. This is simply the concept of exchange; when someone does work to provide you with something of value, you compensate them when you receive benefit from that work. Thirty bucks for a half a million dollar film is not bad, if you ask me. (The lie cost every citizen $800--the truth... $30.)"
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Nov 19, 2005 14:09:12 GMT -4
30c and it would be rip-off ;D
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Nov 19, 2005 14:12:07 GMT -4
Speaking of Buzz, did Margamatix ever end up going to Autographica? That certainly would be pursuit of the truth if he did. For something that important I'd certainly make the effort.
|
|
lonewulf
Earth
Humanistic Cyborg
Posts: 244
|
Post by lonewulf on Nov 19, 2005 14:21:11 GMT -4
It goes on an endless cycle. If any of them is wrong, he should be punished. But as long as people cling to the propaganda set out by Sibrel, he'll never be punished. I think Imade my point clear that offense from anyone is wrong. Yes, you did, yet you defend Moon Man, despite all of his claims, contentions, and willful ignorance. Wrong. I started threads on what is my logic Because I'm a nice guy, I won't launch into this with an insult. However, what has your logic shown? What has your logic disproved? There is an incredible amount of evidence pointing to the moon landings being real; all the supposed "evidence" to the contrary is nitpicking, based on ignorance, and usually made by people without a heavy education -- and usually based on conspiracy sites. Wrong again. i disgree with Bart's behaviour, even if I say what if the astronauts are lying. Yeah, true. I'll give you that. You didn't seem to condemn your friend, but to defend him. Why should I condemn him? He's calling MoonMan out on his claims. Throughout the course of argument on BAUT, Moon Man claimed to be a lawyer. He referred to himself as a lawyer a few times. Then, he said he doesn't do lawyering, but legal work, in Canada. Then, he claims to have set forth a precedent so strong, a law was made that affects Canada and the US. Nevermind the fact that he never goes into details, never explains the law, nor explains what firm he works for -- or what business he works for. He makes a lot of claims, but never backs it up. If I did something like that, I should be called out on it, even if the resulting "calling out" is rather harsh and insulting. Maybe then i'll learn not to do it again; for Moon Man, however, I doubt his abilities to learn. I'm not going to bother talking about cost and production; I'm not experienced in that matter, so I shouldn't go into something I have little skill with. (You know, like how Moon Man does).
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Nov 19, 2005 14:33:18 GMT -4
Listen lonewulf although I am a girl and girls speak so much, I don't have the guts to reply to every single point. No I don't defend everypoint made by moon man, yet my defence was against offense. You should have condemned your friend bcz he was offensive. Other reasons you can support him with, but not this. Don't write back please thus forcing me to continue a debate for nothing.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Nov 19, 2005 14:42:43 GMT -4
I believe the high cost of production was due to licensing the Zapruda film. Considering the NASA archives are free (not including dubbing) the 500K amount seems like way to much for a documentary style video. A production of Bart Sibrels type could be made for 30K. Dubbing costs from 2" to digital Beta or SP Beta are approximately 40 dollars an hour. The more dubbing made the cheaper the overall bill would be. A good reference point would be the Spacecraftfilms people, as they have transferred an large amount of NASA material.
|
|