We went to the moon. Get over it, you sad little shits with no education and no pride in your country. The rest of us are so sorry you feel zero inspiration to do anything better except buy a better cell phone or put another pop star on the charts. It's your world now, baby, and it will be all your fault.
It is important to realize that government conspiracies have a very short shelf life. Somebody always spills their guts, and leaks information while credited professionals in their individual capacities are brought to bear armed with difficult questions. This has never happened when it comes to the Apollo Programs (which is now 40+ years old). No reporting insiders, no death-bed confessions, no credible individuals speaking out. Just one whiny little miscreant with nothing bette to do. .
Shame on MSNBC for airing this. It's such a cheap grab for ratings by causing a ruckus. Sibrel doesn't deserve any airtime because he is so incredibly disrespectful to people yet he expects respect in turn while he continues his harassing.
China has published a set of impressive high resolution images of the moon, which show the moon in never-before-seen detail. And yes, evidence of the Apollo landing is in the shot. The images are huge, at a resolution of over seven metres, and were taken by the country's Chang'e-2 moon orbiter.
The first images of their kind, they were released by the State Administration of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defence (SASTIND) on Sunday Feb 5, 2012. Proof positive: Sibrel is a cunt
Some goofy bastard with a crappy diagram attempts to debunk the moon landing. NASA spent billions to take us to the moon, Sibrel brought a marker and a piece of paper. Once this freak Sibrel puts something in orbit around the moon that shows there is nothing at the landing areas, then he'll have my attention.
the only reason any conspiracy exists is because of a lack of evidence and questions left unanswered....its just like 911...."A plane hit the pentagon" so why not show us the video....?
Why can't Google launch a satellite to orbit the moon like Google Earth, Then you could zoom into the Serenity base site and look for vehicles and the flag? It seems to me this would give an answer 1 way or another. Even the Russians don't believe it when they laugh to themselves and state they don't have Hollywood to back them up with their space program. Orbiting the Earth behind the Van Allen Radiation belt -- YES. Going beyond the belt to the moon --NO (unless you want to fry yourself!
Any moron that disses these guys are just to stupid to realize there are people who can do things better than they can. Those same idiots can receive training to correct their Dunning-Kruger effect ;-)
Russia acquired technology from the U.S. throughout the Cold War without fear, without concern for retribution, yet is 'afraid' to spill the beans about a NASA lunar hoax?
No Stars: Due to the reflective surface of the Moon (almost 10% reflection), the light reflected off the surface will make other lights above very difficult to see. The same occurs when you are in a city area and all the light pollution makes seeing the beautiful stars in the sky difficult.
Non-Parallel shadows: Again, conspiracy theorists fail to understand science. The shadows arent parallel because it depends on the relationship of the object to the sun therefore are shadows wont be straight
-Rippling Flag: Unfortunately these ppl arent educated in physics enough to know that there is virtually no wind resistance on the moon. When Armstrong was putting the flag down in the ground, he was shaking it to get it into the. Once he stopped, the flag continues to move afterwards due to no air resistance in space so it appears to be "rippling".
There are pictures on the of Buzz, 1 hes saluting the flag,another hes looking at the camera. Both pics show the flag looks exactly the same
This guy got punched out by Buzz Aldrin bwahaha.... I'm a person that believes in the possibility of many thing. As a kid I grew up on a healthy diet of Unsolved Mysteries. Yes I do believe, in many thiing yet unexplained by science. It's strange that people would so readily condemn our visits to the moon as a hoax. Guess we'll have to wait and find out when, we finnaly get the moon colonized.... case you didn't know the chinese are already planning such a feat.
The only explanation he could come up with is, "it just completely wrong?" Can you be a bit more specific? What 's wrong with truth? Is the truth just completely wrong, like you bozos changed physics and every other branch of science to honor your fake ass agenda and to pay off Russian to cap it off? It's just too much pressure and eventually that cap under that pressure of lies that you keep feeding into it will explode and it is going to bad. It will show every lie told by you clowns...
@SicariusBarritus A Government Troll admitting his identity. You people always want proof, but it is never good enough. The moon landings even being debatable is proof enough. The truth should not be debatable at this magnitude. Nevertheless the moon landing is debatable on every level on every issue to be tagged as a HOAX. And the fact that you people make these videos to defend it, makes you more guilty of the crime. You should've left it alone but instead, you brought me here and my horde...
@SicariusBarritus If you think ten dollars a day on Youtube is a good salary, I guess that is the best you could do, go for it. No, I didn't mean money dude, I mean fake ass charisma. Politicians are corrupted and the space program is political, is it not? We started this shit to beat the Russians to the moon and this race never ended, because there is no flag that bares the Russian symbol on the moon, right or wrong? You glorify these clowns, even in their mistakes, justify that if you can...?
@SicariusBarritus ... and you would also have a Civil Service retirement!.
Take it easy on poor GT though, he is just a dumb kid running around in his backyard with a Darth Vader mask and a toy light saber who can't figure out why chicks laugh at him. He probably wears a cape his mommy sewed for him.
"Newly discovered footage" my ass. Bart Sibrel in this, and other interviews says the Command Module rehearsal footage was secret, or hidden and only he has it. Total bullshit.
This entire sequence has been available for years, unedited I might add, on Spacecraft Films' Apollo 11 DVD set.
Bart Sibrel is only interested in your $20 for his ridiculous home videos.
By the way, love his 'stick figure' drawings to help make his case. Please.
i thought sibrel laid out his points very well. i have seen the so called video, and it does seem genuinely authentic. having armstrong clearly state we are 200,000 miles out in space, looking back at the moon. they claim the video camera is filling the window as it looks back on earth from afar. then the overlay is removed from the window, the sun comes flowing back into the shot, and its clear they are in LEO and not where they claimed they were... that alone should be enough...
His charges are required to be answered. The burden has shifted to the other side, and there is no refutation made by anyone in the public arena. That says it all.
That does not make a lick of sense. Why would these tapes which show Sibrel to be fraud not be on youtube anymore? There are tons of people out there trying to dismantle the evidence being brought out by the people who do not believe we went to the moon. They have all kinds of videos on youtube. Why would they overlook this matter. Sorry, I'm not buying this business about my writing to NASA for a tape that should already be on youtube, and there is no reason to have taken it down.
@anastasia58able Actually, most people have better things to do with their time than refute ridiculous stories. Most people don't really give a shit if Sibrel convinces gullible people, they'd rather get useful things done.
And with that, I'm not replying anymore. If you're really skeptical, don't just take Sibrel's word for it, look yourself.
Are you suggesting that Bar Sibrel constructed this tape, through his own editing. What about the part in the intro that says that the tape should not be shown to the public. Did he construct that too, for you are saying it was made available to the public. Are these tapes you are talking about on youtube, or are you saying that those who are responding to people like Bart Sibrel overlooked this one and did not make it available to us?
@anastasia58able Whatever Sibrel said was fabricated. In the document I told you about, the broadcasts are labeled clearly (including the one that Sibrel omitted due to it not fitting his ideas) and you can, in fact, get copies of the footage from NASA (free if you're a journalist, there's a small fee if you are not). There used to be clips of the footage on youtube but they were taken down, you may be able to find them elsewhere though. The stuff Sibrel left out is from 30:28 GET.
Bar Sibrel used the official photos to show the anomalies that evidenced that they could not have been taken on the moon, so I do not know what you are talking about. The one tape that was sent to him from the Johnson Space Center showing the astronauts putting up a transparency on the window was the only tape that is not publicly available. However, he tells the viewer how he obtained this tape. This tape which was sent to him by mistake isalso very damning. The evidence is cumulative.
@anastasia58able If you actually read my replies and follow up on what I've told you, you'll see that ALL the tapes are publicly available, and the footage that Sibrel omits clearly shows things that he simply could not explain with his "transparency" idea, so he just left them out in order to not look bad.
Have you watched his movie? It doesn't show astronauts sticking a transparency on the window. It just shows a small image of earth from the command window - exactly what you'd expect to see.
@anastasia58able Yet Sibrel doesn't. How odd. He provides you with no sources, nothing to back his claims: you might want to think about that. Anyway, the tapes Sibel claims have "never been seen" are publically available and were broadcast live. the documentation can be viewed in the NASA Apollo 11 Post Launch Mission Operation Report (Number M-932-69-11). You can see some stills from the video here in a link I added to the video description here.
Why would the narrator think it is "whacko" when the movie made very sensible arguments and gave good evidence to show it did not happen. His calling it "whacko" seems "whacko"
@anastasia58able The movie doesn't present good evidence, and in fact distorts evidence: Sibrel omits crucial pieces of broadcast in order to make him seem more credible. He is a whacko.
@MisterMatthewRoberts The moon most certainly does spin on its axis! The rate of spin just matches the earths, making the apparent spin zero, If the moon truly didn't spin, we would see opposite sides of it from opposite sides of earth.
The moon is also not hollow: no large object like it could be, as the force of gravity would collapse it. Probes of the moon have determined it has a solid core.
The moon was likely created during a collision event in earth's past.
sending a sonic resonance off the surface of the moon creates a "ping" sound rather than a thud, which proves its hollowness. The earth is hollow as well as mars and jupiter. Planets created with material ejected from a star have hollow interiors. The moon facs the same position to the Earth ALL THE TIME, leaving one side in complete darkness.
@MisterMatthewRoberts The moon isn't your wall, you can't rap it with your knuckles and find the studs (and I mean you, specifically). No planets or stars are hollow, gravity doesn't work that way - dense material will always condense at the center of a mass. Dropping sand in a fishbowl won't cause a hollow tube inside.
If the moon wasn't spinning on its axis, we would see the opposite side as it orbited around the earth. Grab a couple golfballs and try it out!
This might sound like a dumb question; but can't we look at the moons serfice with a telescope to see artifacts that were left behind (including the flag)?
@mdstalla It's not a dumb question. But the answer is no: the moon is really, really, really far away. A quarter of a million miles away. The maximum resolution of the Hubble Telescope, if you pointed it at the moon, would be about 300 feet, which means you'd barely be able to discern a football stadium.
A telescope would have to be huge to see anything small on the moon, and couldn't do it from earth because of our atmosphere. Something that big would be too expensive to send into orbit either
Mr. Kaysing received his Bachelor of Arts in English in 1949 from the University of Southern California. Those are his academic credentials. He worked for Rocketdyne chiefly as a writer and a librarian.
I have found a film of him at Rocketdyne circa 61'.
Sicanus, I am not sure how many ways I can say that Nasa claims to have first found no water and now all the rocks are JUST LIKE Earth rocks...WITH WATER IN THEM!!!!!!!!!! You just keep cherry picking and inventing things. I wish you would stop posting, make sure you leave my info on Dave's site up front though.
@MrTommYYZ If you actually read instead of skimming headlines, you'd find that no water was found in the lunar basalt -- hydroxide was found. Besides that, I'm sure you recall the lunar impacter sent a few months ago -- its purpose was to find water under the lunar surface.
The entire point of science is to find new evidence, revise theory, and move forward. If it was a conspiracy, NASA would not have let independent researchers look at anything. They would not "backtrack".
@MrTommYYZ Furthermore, your assertation that the rocks are exactly like terrestrial rocks is demonstrably wrong.
If you read the article in nature you're talking about (Lunar apatite with terrestrial volatile abundances), you'll see the composition of the lunar rocks remains exactly as foreign as ever. You are the one who is cherry-picking.
Again, to anyone who cares to know the true story behind the Moon landings, please research Wagging the Moon Doggie by Dave McGowan on his website A Center For An Informed America. Sicanus will continue to propose a question to me after each post which has ZERO to do with the information stated. Don't fall for the scam, reasearch for YOURSELF not on some govt information store.
@MrTommYYZ My comments have all been valid. I'm not the one who has resorted to name calling and accusations of working for the government in some paranoid delusion of reality.
@spacehopperballs The astronauts passed through the belts very quickly and were protected by the hull of the shuttle. The time they chose to launch coincided with the weaker area of the belt, so that they had minimal exposure as well.
@spacehopperballs How is it a coincidence? It's just a fact, there haven't been any more extraterrestrial manned missions since then.
The radiation from the belt is only dangerous in continued exposure. The Apollo astronauts were in and out in about 30 minutes, if I remember correctly. Their dose of radiation was about 2 rem/20 mSv, nowhere near a dangerous amount because of the timing of the mission.
@MrTommYYZ So, wait, there's not supposed to be water one minute, and now there's supposed to be? Seems you just say whatever you can to make yourself seem correct.
@SicariusBarritus No Momo, moon rocks are not susposed to have water, this fact was stated by Nasa upon examination of the fake moon rocks. Since Nasa has recently allowed people to examine what they claim to be Moon rocks, and have found water, they are now back stepping.
So you're getting irate over NASA accepting independent review, reviewing their findings, and making them public and part of the official record? That's how science is supposed to work. That proves they aren't lying, they're accepting what the evidence shows, regardless of who provides it, so long as it's valid.
@SicariusBarritus No, Momo, I am saying that Nasa said it had examined the moon rocks and they had no water, because there was no atmosphere on the moon and the rocks would be different that Earth rocks because of the vast amount of water on Earth. So, after Nasa says there is no water on the moon, nor in the rocks because they have examined them, NOW since the fake moon rocks have proved to be fake they are saying there is now water on the moon and in the rocks, not what you said.
@MrTommYYZ The difference is that I can prove that Sibrel has faked his "evidence." If you read the NASA Apollo 11 Post Launch Mission Operation Report Number M-932-69-11, you'll see that the astronauts made 3 transmissions, not two as Sibrel claims. If you watch the transmission that Sibrel does not include in his movie, you can see plainly that there were no transparancies or any such thing, and that the view of earth was merely blocked by the edge of the window.
@MrTommYYZ You will also be able to see the earth shrinking in the distance, yet retaining its shape and texturing. The only way to shrink a transparancy would be to zoom out, but the camera remains at a static zoom the whole time in the transmission Sibrel omits.
I think the topic at hand is pretty clear. The moon landings were faked and NASA has ZERO reason for attempting a return.
As McGowan states, this conspirasy has a time limit. The truth will come out about this when people actually do make it to the moon. You can block me if you wish. now you don't have to read Dave McGowan, which you were not going to do anyway. Its easier to just be a good tax paying American and ignore the guy behind the curtain.
Yeah, it's oh so clever to ask one thing, not get any satisfaction, so ask another, then another, until you are so off topic no one knows what the hell you where going on about in the first place. Then throw in a few "shill" insults for good measure. That's how idiots like you work, and it's not half obvious. You asked me a single question, I answered it, but you weren't satisfied and possibly annoyed because someone did answer you and showed your sheer ignorance for what it is. Blocked.
I don't fight, I get people like you to talk them self into a corner as you just have. Again, you are not able to answer the questions I have put forth. Is "Oxygen Thief" the new thing you guys have on the drawing board? "tin foil hat" does not work because no one wears them. Ok, you have an opinion, state it as such, not as total fact. Leave that to me.
I have an excuse, I dont have a job right now and care about opening peoples eyes to the fact that they have been lied to about pretty much everything since they were kids. Mark, who has a great job, has plenty of time to pick at guys like me. Curious. Maybe it is a free lance thing, he submits his posts to the govt and they pay him that way.
@MrTommYYZ I didn't pick the fight, you started it with your "compressed air" nonsense.
Don't you dare make this about me. At least I am employed and don't have chip on my shoulder, or a mind so filled with conspiratorial crap that I can't carry out a rational discussion, or someone that will swallow information from a single source and consider it fact.
Think of it this way, which would be an easier thing to fake, Chris Angel floating above a hotel in Vegas or the moon landings. Well the landings happened only in a place that we are able to watch on TV.
I will admit I have not viewed Bart's info. On the surface he appears to be a fake. Why ask a guy who would have to had lied his whole life, to swear on a bible? That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. If he could lie to the country he can't lie on a bible? Of course he could.
Confusing the issue with the possibility that everything could have worked as NASA said it did it all they do. Look at the obvious, why have we not been back? Because it cost too much? We went all those times, during a hot AND a cold war, with not such a great ecconomy, ALL WITH A DISPOSABLE CRAFT EACH TIME!!!! Because there is nothing further to be learned on the moon? What a crock, the US govt would put a military base on the sun it it was possible.
Oh yes the magic suits, that some how are able to heat and cool so quickly, not to mention how they were able to sheild themselves for the millions of meteorites (small specks of dust that fly through space and the lunar surface) that were present.
@markjh2005 You can Ignore the facts at Dave Mcgowans site, which is where I am getting my info, ignore it just as everyone like you does. How much do you get paid to keep supporting the lie?
@MrTommYYZ Did I say I was ignoring it? No, you assumed it. Just as you assume that everything Dave Mcgowan says is correct. I am more than willing to read what he says someday. Doesn't mean I have to instantly swallow his story whole and ignore everthing I have learnt through my own studies.
@MrTommYYZ Sorry to disapoint you, but I have am already gainfully employed within the aviation industry as an engineer in the field of avionics, so the new world order will have to wait a little im afraid.
I would suggest that research from one single source is not balanced or objective, or very healthy for that matter.
@markjh2005 Yes Mark, it is stupid to just blindly accepting one source. This is why I choose not to believe in NASA. You think what everyone saw on the magic box was real and live? IT WAS NOT EVEN LIVE!!!!!! IT was a recording, yet it was SOLD to the American public. Its all lies.
@MrTommYYZ As a side note: unless you don't think humans have been in space at all -- the suits used by modern astronauts are much the same as the suits used for the moon landings. They face the same challenges -- heating and cooling.
@MrTommYYZ The suits have a water cycling system built in for cooling, which is all they needed to do: contrary to what you might think, it's actually rather hot on the surface of the moon during daylight - up to 240 F. The water cycling system was designed to keep the astronauts cool -- at night, they would return to the lander to keep warm. Gravity would deal with any micrometeorites on the moon just as it does here on Earth, the chances of getting hit would be just as microscopic.
@SicariusBarritus Thank you for proving my point, it is rather hot on the moon, but when you have a magic suit that you can just say does what it does it makes it real easy. Its a lie. And when the moon has no atmosphere, as Earth's does, such flying debris would be a constant death problem to deal with, not to mention the dust which would be EVERYWHERE, especially the camera lens. Again, go to McGowan's site if you want the truth, not these guys posting on youtube who obviously work for someone
@MrTommYYZ The suit doesn't need to be magic to have a liquid cooling system, the principle is the same as on earth - it's why the suits are quite bulky. The moon may have no atmosphere but it still has plenty of gravity - things wouldn't just stay up in the air, they would fall down, and if you do some math vis a vis the surface area of the moon vs the surface area of an astronaut, the chances of them being hit is astronomical from above.
@MrTommYYZ The LEM and the landing craft? I think you mean command module and LEM. On the lunar surface, the astronauts used diapers, which would of been thrown out with other rubbish prior to leaving the surface. Within the CM they used a suction/tube system to remove waste which was then vented into space, a practice no longer done as it creates dangerous debris in low earth orbit due to ice crystals.
@MrTommYYZ The astronauts had diaper-like devices that attached to their suits, which they disposed of in a container on-board the lander. If they're heroes for nothing else, they're at least heroes for pooping in a bag so far from Earth!
@spacehopperballs Once you're already a few hundred miles away from earth, it's not extraordinarily difficult (as long as you brought enough fuel with you) to head right on to the moon. It's just a matter of pressing the gas pedal for a while, as it were. What's the problem?
Yet today 40 years later with all the leap and bounds of technology - they are messing around in the Shuttle a fraction of an inch away from the football and you are supposed to believe the only time a man has been more than a fraction of an inch away from the football was the Apollo missions. Go figure
@spacehopperballs It wasn't a priority to go back to the moon. The shuttle was designed so that it could easily enter space, return, and be reused. The primary purpose was micro-gravity research, not lunar study. Rockets like the Apollo missions were designed to be disposable and travel long distances. Different technologies for different purposes.
@spacehopperballs agreed. It is absurd no one has gone out from low earth orbit, however, considering the mindboggling amount of money it takes to get out of low earth orbit and more pressing issues here on the planet, I think I would rather have the scientific minds of the planet focused on solving issues here on Earth.
@markjh2005 Mark, this is not an excuse. I am not sure what planet you are living on but we are not very concerned with "Pressing issues" AGAIN< the military would put a base on every planet if it was possible to get there. You admit it is absurd, why can't you go the extra few feet and admit AT LEAST that it is POSSIBLE we never went and the whole this was a virus of the television age.
@MrTommYYZ So you would rather waste hundreds of billions of dollars putting a few humans back on the moon to prove a point to satisfy a fat hick like yourself that plays guitar poorly in the middle of a dirt bowl when most of what we have learned from Apollo can be applied to do the same thing robotically for a fifth of the cost and without risk to human life??
@markjh2005 See...see what he is doing? This is what they do. They do not want to talk about the Moon or the facts, then they would lose. Instead it is the way of the govt coward to turn the attention to me. Yes, its all about me. I am asking NASA to go to the moon to prove it to me. Yes, I play the guitar as a hobby, man where do I get off? You got nothing Mark.
@MrTommYYZ Who are "they"?? NASA have as much as you want to sit down and understand all on the internet as you could possibly fathom. And you want them to draw you a mud map???
If you cant bring yourself to read and try to understand the technology behind what NASA used in Apollo, then don't ask me to spoon feed it to you like a child.
@MrTommYYZ "Instead it is the way of the govt coward to turn the attention to me. Yes, its all about me."
Yes, it does appear to be all about you. I can see that you like to spam videos and channels. You appear to like filling the screen with your writing.
I made a comment, a long time ago. It was my opinion. I stand by it. Bart Sibrel was and is an oxygen thief , for many reasons. It doesnt mean I then have to go and justify the entire space race for for your benefit.Pick your fight elsewhere
@spacehopperballs Rocket fuel is exceedingly expensive, and shuttles are not designed for anything other than LEO. Going back to the moon requires an entirely new space program, since the current one was not designed for it.
@spacehopperballs If you are wanting to leave low earth orbit then you would have to go somewhere other than thousand mile orbit. What would you achieve at a thousand miles that you could not achieve in LEO? And why go for that if it served no purpose? It is a very expensive exercise to get to space at all. In all honesty I myself would prefer seeing the money being spent on things down here.
@spacehopperballs from what I understand, if you were to park yourself inside the area of the VAB's (theres two "belts",with a space in between) a human and/or machine would be affected by an accumulated dose over time. That sounds fair. If you were to plot a trajectory that passes you through the thinner area of the belts (they are not spherical but torus in shape) in the least amount of time ( hours) you can decrease the accumulative dose to survivable levels, which is what happened.
@markjh2005 (cont') Over the last 30 years NASA has locked itself into the idea of a space station, especially since it has obligations international partners to get it finished. That leaves little funding left over to commit to the huge expense of exploring the Moon or Mars when it has committed the great majority of funding to the ISS and is now struggling with waning enthusiasm to fund more projects. NASA has lost its impetus due to its commitment and problems with the shuttle and the ISS.
@spacehopperballs As for why humans have not gone through it since, I dont believe its as sinister reason as you make out. NASA had a choice with its cutback in funding and decided to go with building a space station in LEO-Skylab. The shuttle program was designed to compliment Skylab by ferrying components to Skylab in LEO, but due to problems with Skylab and delays in the shuttle program Skylab was lost and NASA then spent the next 30 years starting from scratch rebuilding to get the ISS.
i just saw Bill Ny the science guy interviewed on this and he ended it with this quote, "Are all those sailors lying then that saw the astronauts come back to the earth hitting the ocean?" when clearly the argument is that the shuttle went in to space in our earth's orbit, then coming back when it was so called "time" to come back. Bill Ny also said he watched the videos on the arguments of the hoax believers. I now believe we did not go to the moon
@LightsOutNukeWinter, the USSR, UK & France tracked each Apollo launch. The Soviets tracked each mission to the moon and back (more or less) using a variety of technologies like radar, telescopes and voice. Otherwise, anyone tracking earth orbits obviously noticed that the spacecraft no longer appeared in low earth orbit. At that point, they either did a translunar insertion burn (as was also recorded) or they did a reentry. It must have been a burn, since the reentry was days later.
@LunarTuner The USSR also had to contact the astronauts to warn them of a probe they had lost control of in lunar orbit. I believe Armstrong had to make some adjustments to their course on this information -- which would have been quite impossible to receive if they weren't in the location that the USSR believed they were in.
Just like Fox News (I call it "POX" News) and members of the Republic Tea Party, they are quick to call someone a "nut", "wacko", or "crazy conspiracy person". They spend most of time name-calling, not debating. The man from NASA was shooting blanks.; he had very little evidence. The newsman was very biased. Why? I saw Bart Sibrel's documentary, the astronauts faked the shots of a distant Earth. Please watch Bart Sibrel's documentary here on You-Tube or
And did you watch any of the refutes to Bart Sibrels movie? Did you look up any of the pages and pages that tackle each point he makes and identify his errors mistakes and outright ignorance? You cant stick to one side of the story.
There is nothing Sibrel has said here or anywhere else that hasnt already been refuted.
@scriptbird Bart Sibrel's "evidence" is that the image of earth disappears behind a window. How exactly is that evidence of anything? It's called perspective. Nevermind the fact that the "exclusive" footage Sibrel has is publicly obtainable from NASA, and he conveniently skips over transmission documents so that, out of context, they appear to fit his idea.
Buzz,Neil=Badass Sibrel= kinda' of a pudgy soft foo foo guy that couldn't do anything dificult if his life depended on it. Go shopping Barty Go shoppping!
Even after PBS exposed him as a slave using nazi I still think he was smart. It was Von Braun that said they would have to hide in caves most the time to avoid micro meterorites at thousands of miles per hour and possible solar flares. Science, a ton of "dust/rocks" outside low-med earth orbit a hostile place with radiation etc I think.
Borat Sibrel gets his paycheck by lying to fools. I don't think he is bonkers. He KNOWS what he's doing. He is polluting our culture's knowledge base. He is instrumental in making our society more stupid and making people mistrust science. And he's doing all this for a BUCK!
@AnonymousElektron It's facetious to assume both sides are equally valid. Would you expect equal time and respect to be given to, say, someone claiming the earth is flat vs someone who can just show a picture of a round earth from orbit? Creationism vs. Evolution? Germ Theory vs. Demon Theory? It's all the same idea.
@ItalianoAmericano Actually we do have photos of the apollo 11 landing sites, they were just taken in late 2009. I'm sure this will not persuade you that we landed on the moon (even though the picture shows the apollo 11 lander and footprints), just to clear it up for people who didn't know. But, just like any good true believer conspiracy theorist, you will discount this evidence I am sure of it. That is the convenient thing about conspiracy theories, you can discount any bit of evidence.
i hope this interview asshole was murdered, set on fire, tortured by pakistanis, al qaeda had his head cut off, or Buzz blew his head off, or now he is being used as a bitch in jail somewhere. whats his home address? even I went to the moon ! all i needed was a 1987 nissan with air conditioning and firecrackers !
Bart says he'd bet his life on it being a hoax. Can I please be the one to shave his ankle and throw the switch on this loser? He's not an expert on anything, he's a fucking cab driver. 9 Apollo missions to the moon, 6 successful landings, 12 guys walked. Enough.
Ha ha ha.... he brings a DRAWING? Someone who passionately wants to disprove something and gets their "big chance" to do it on national TV, instead of bringing photos or any other type of hard evidence proving their case, brings a DOODLE. That and a whole lot of hot air.
We went to the moon. Get over it, you sad little shits with no education and no pride in your country. The rest of us are so sorry you feel zero inspiration to do anything better except buy a better cell phone or put another pop star on the charts. It's your world now, baby, and it will be all your fault.
TheAdultChild101 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It is important to realize that government conspiracies have a very short shelf life. Somebody always spills their guts, and leaks information while credited professionals in their individual capacities are brought to bear armed with difficult questions. This has never happened when it comes to the Apollo Programs (which is now 40+ years old). No reporting insiders, no death-bed confessions, no credible individuals speaking out. Just one whiny little miscreant with nothing bette to do. .
TheAdultChild101 6 days ago
Shame on MSNBC for airing this. It's such a cheap grab for ratings by causing a ruckus. Sibrel doesn't deserve any airtime because he is so incredibly disrespectful to people yet he expects respect in turn while he continues his harassing.
askii3 1 week ago
What does Bart Sibrel have a degree in?
He is trying to argue against some of the brightest sparks in all of astrophysics, he is brainless.
xLingyy 1 week ago
@xLingyy Bart Sibrel has a 'degree' in cab driving and an unofficial 'degree' in sucking cock in the back of his cab.
TheAdultChild101 1 day ago
Abrams is BIAS
western culture is out of its middle ages long time ago
long live free mind
0to62 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
China has published a set of impressive high resolution images of the moon, which show the moon in never-before-seen detail. And yes, evidence of the Apollo landing is in the shot. The images are huge, at a resolution of over seven metres, and were taken by the country's Chang'e-2 moon orbiter.
The first images of their kind, they were released by the State Administration of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defence (SASTIND) on Sunday Feb 5, 2012. Proof positive: Sibrel is a cunt
Silberdachs 3 weeks ago
Some goofy bastard with a crappy diagram attempts to debunk the moon landing. NASA spent billions to take us to the moon, Sibrel brought a marker and a piece of paper. Once this freak Sibrel puts something in orbit around the moon that shows there is nothing at the landing areas, then he'll have my attention.
Deltaworks23 1 month ago
the only reason any conspiracy exists is because of a lack of evidence and questions left unanswered....its just like 911...."A plane hit the pentagon" so why not show us the video....?
lumpfish99 1 month ago
Why can't Google launch a satellite to orbit the moon like Google Earth, Then you could zoom into the Serenity base site and look for vehicles and the flag? It seems to me this would give an answer 1 way or another. Even the Russians don't believe it when they laugh to themselves and state they don't have Hollywood to back them up with their space program. Orbiting the Earth behind the Van Allen Radiation belt -- YES. Going beyond the belt to the moon --NO (unless you want to fry yourself!
asalamulekum 2 months ago
Buzz has a PhD and was an ACE in Korea.
Any moron that disses these guys are just to stupid to realize there are people who can do things better than they can. Those same idiots can receive training to correct their Dunning-Kruger effect ;-)
Tweekerhead 5 months ago
@andymack7 faggot
ch1ldpr3d3t0r 5 months ago
Russia acquired technology from the U.S. throughout the Cold War without fear, without concern for retribution, yet is 'afraid' to spill the beans about a NASA lunar hoax?
Planetar17 5 months ago
No Stars: Due to the reflective surface of the Moon (almost 10% reflection), the light reflected off the surface will make other lights above very difficult to see. The same occurs when you are in a city area and all the light pollution makes seeing the beautiful stars in the sky difficult.
Non-Parallel shadows: Again, conspiracy theorists fail to understand science. The shadows arent parallel because it depends on the relationship of the object to the sun therefore are shadows wont be straight
fifaplayer10 7 months ago
-Rippling Flag: Unfortunately these ppl arent educated in physics enough to know that there is virtually no wind resistance on the moon. When Armstrong was putting the flag down in the ground, he was shaking it to get it into the. Once he stopped, the flag continues to move afterwards due to no air resistance in space so it appears to be "rippling".
There are pictures on the of Buzz, 1 hes saluting the flag,another hes looking at the camera. Both pics show the flag looks exactly the same
fifaplayer10 7 months ago
This guy got punched out by Buzz Aldrin bwahaha.... I'm a person that believes in the possibility of many thing. As a kid I grew up on a healthy diet of Unsolved Mysteries. Yes I do believe, in many thiing yet unexplained by science. It's strange that people would so readily condemn our visits to the moon as a hoax. Guess we'll have to wait and find out when, we finnaly get the moon colonized.... case you didn't know the chinese are already planning such a feat.
llikwidsound 8 months ago
The only explanation he could come up with is, "it just completely wrong?" Can you be a bit more specific? What 's wrong with truth? Is the truth just completely wrong, like you bozos changed physics and every other branch of science to honor your fake ass agenda and to pay off Russian to cap it off? It's just too much pressure and eventually that cap under that pressure of lies that you keep feeding into it will explode and it is going to bad. It will show every lie told by you clowns...
GUARDIANtrooper 8 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper Really? We changed physics? That's quite a feat. And very very simple for you to prove... so do it.
SicariusBarritus 8 months ago 3
@SicariusBarritus A Government Troll admitting his identity. You people always want proof, but it is never good enough. The moon landings even being debatable is proof enough. The truth should not be debatable at this magnitude. Nevertheless the moon landing is debatable on every level on every issue to be tagged as a HOAX. And the fact that you people make these videos to defend it, makes you more guilty of the crime. You should've left it alone but instead, you brought me here and my horde...
GUARDIANtrooper 8 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper Really, you're stooping to calling me a government troll? I sure wish I was, I'd probably get a good salary.
SicariusBarritus 8 months ago 2
@SicariusBarritus If you think ten dollars a day on Youtube is a good salary, I guess that is the best you could do, go for it. No, I didn't mean money dude, I mean fake ass charisma. Politicians are corrupted and the space program is political, is it not? We started this shit to beat the Russians to the moon and this race never ended, because there is no flag that bares the Russian symbol on the moon, right or wrong? You glorify these clowns, even in their mistakes, justify that if you can...?
GUARDIANtrooper 7 months ago
@SicariusBarritus ... and you would also have a Civil Service retirement!.
Take it easy on poor GT though, he is just a dumb kid running around in his backyard with a Darth Vader mask and a toy light saber who can't figure out why chicks laugh at him. He probably wears a cape his mommy sewed for him.
edmfw 5 months ago
"Newly discovered footage" my ass. Bart Sibrel in this, and other interviews says the Command Module rehearsal footage was secret, or hidden and only he has it. Total bullshit.
This entire sequence has been available for years, unedited I might add, on Spacecraft Films' Apollo 11 DVD set.
Bart Sibrel is only interested in your $20 for his ridiculous home videos.
By the way, love his 'stick figure' drawings to help make his case. Please.
hibob418 9 months ago
I wonder if Sibrel also believes Obama wasn't born in the United States.
nucleardeath07 9 months ago
people like sibrel should be executed
KingSaint 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@laurelindo
Gag on my cock
Triviaguy99 10 months ago
@2053tee Yeah right, you think people are so stupid as to buy this lie?
You are not the first conspiracy theorist to make up a story in order to sound more believable.
Laurelindo 10 months ago
Plait = Proven Liar
xismxist 10 months ago
Bart Sibrel= Loser
MegaJamesUsa 11 months ago 2
@2053tee So your dad told you that the moon landing was faked, but not that racism is wrong?
SicariusBarritus 11 months ago 3
i thought sibrel laid out his points very well. i have seen the so called video, and it does seem genuinely authentic. having armstrong clearly state we are 200,000 miles out in space, looking back at the moon. they claim the video camera is filling the window as it looks back on earth from afar. then the overlay is removed from the window, the sun comes flowing back into the shot, and its clear they are in LEO and not where they claimed they were... that alone should be enough...
scottson2 1 year ago
@scottson2
wow sibrel can tell you anything and you'll swallow it like a fag
TheJomogogo 1 year ago
A true skeptic investigates the unexplained, he doesn't explain the uninvestigated.
rustyglock212 1 year ago
His charges are required to be answered. The burden has shifted to the other side, and there is no refutation made by anyone in the public arena. That says it all.
anastasia58able 1 year ago
That does not make a lick of sense. Why would these tapes which show Sibrel to be fraud not be on youtube anymore? There are tons of people out there trying to dismantle the evidence being brought out by the people who do not believe we went to the moon. They have all kinds of videos on youtube. Why would they overlook this matter. Sorry, I'm not buying this business about my writing to NASA for a tape that should already be on youtube, and there is no reason to have taken it down.
anastasia58able 1 year ago
@anastasia58able Actually, most people have better things to do with their time than refute ridiculous stories. Most people don't really give a shit if Sibrel convinces gullible people, they'd rather get useful things done.
And with that, I'm not replying anymore. If you're really skeptical, don't just take Sibrel's word for it, look yourself.
SicariusBarritus 1 year ago
Are you suggesting that Bar Sibrel constructed this tape, through his own editing. What about the part in the intro that says that the tape should not be shown to the public. Did he construct that too, for you are saying it was made available to the public. Are these tapes you are talking about on youtube, or are you saying that those who are responding to people like Bart Sibrel overlooked this one and did not make it available to us?
anastasia58able 1 year ago
@anastasia58able Whatever Sibrel said was fabricated. In the document I told you about, the broadcasts are labeled clearly (including the one that Sibrel omitted due to it not fitting his ideas) and you can, in fact, get copies of the footage from NASA (free if you're a journalist, there's a small fee if you are not). There used to be clips of the footage on youtube but they were taken down, you may be able to find them elsewhere though. The stuff Sibrel left out is from 30:28 GET.
SicariusBarritus 1 year ago
The tape has an intro that says it was NOT available to the public. Why would it be? It's very damning.
anastasia58able 1 year ago
@anastasia58able Sibrel lied. And it's not damning, if you watch the parts Sibrel omits. That's my point.
SicariusBarritus 1 year ago
Bar Sibrel used the official photos to show the anomalies that evidenced that they could not have been taken on the moon, so I do not know what you are talking about. The one tape that was sent to him from the Johnson Space Center showing the astronauts putting up a transparency on the window was the only tape that is not publicly available. However, he tells the viewer how he obtained this tape. This tape which was sent to him by mistake isalso very damning. The evidence is cumulative.
anastasia58able 1 year ago
@anastasia58able If you actually read my replies and follow up on what I've told you, you'll see that ALL the tapes are publicly available, and the footage that Sibrel omits clearly shows things that he simply could not explain with his "transparency" idea, so he just left them out in order to not look bad.
Have you watched his movie? It doesn't show astronauts sticking a transparency on the window. It just shows a small image of earth from the command window - exactly what you'd expect to see.
SicariusBarritus 1 year ago
You would have to be more specific to persuade me.
anastasia58able 1 year ago
@anastasia58able Yet Sibrel doesn't. How odd. He provides you with no sources, nothing to back his claims: you might want to think about that. Anyway, the tapes Sibel claims have "never been seen" are publically available and were broadcast live. the documentation can be viewed in the NASA Apollo 11 Post Launch Mission Operation Report (Number M-932-69-11). You can see some stills from the video here in a link I added to the video description here.
SicariusBarritus 1 year ago
Why would the narrator think it is "whacko" when the movie made very sensible arguments and gave good evidence to show it did not happen. His calling it "whacko" seems "whacko"
anastasia58able 1 year ago
@anastasia58able The movie doesn't present good evidence, and in fact distorts evidence: Sibrel omits crucial pieces of broadcast in order to make him seem more credible. He is a whacko.
SicariusBarritus 1 year ago
@SicariusBarritus
What is distorted? and what is omitted
anastasia58able 1 year ago
@anastasia58able Sibrel leaves out footage, to put it simply.
SicariusBarritus 1 year ago
The moon is a...ah..merry christmas
MisterMatthewRoberts 1 year ago
The moon was driven into this galaxy eons ago.
Hollow: Yes
Only known object in space that does not spin on its axis: Yes
It's a Draconian star ship for those with a truly open mind
MisterMatthewRoberts 1 year ago
@MisterMatthewRoberts The moon most certainly does spin on its axis! The rate of spin just matches the earths, making the apparent spin zero, If the moon truly didn't spin, we would see opposite sides of it from opposite sides of earth.
The moon is also not hollow: no large object like it could be, as the force of gravity would collapse it. Probes of the moon have determined it has a solid core.
The moon was likely created during a collision event in earth's past.
SicariusBarritus 1 year ago
@SicariusBarritus
sending a sonic resonance off the surface of the moon creates a "ping" sound rather than a thud, which proves its hollowness. The earth is hollow as well as mars and jupiter. Planets created with material ejected from a star have hollow interiors. The moon facs the same position to the Earth ALL THE TIME, leaving one side in complete darkness.
MisterMatthewRoberts 1 year ago
@MisterMatthewRoberts The moon isn't your wall, you can't rap it with your knuckles and find the studs (and I mean you, specifically). No planets or stars are hollow, gravity doesn't work that way - dense material will always condense at the center of a mass. Dropping sand in a fishbowl won't cause a hollow tube inside.
If the moon wasn't spinning on its axis, we would see the opposite side as it orbited around the earth. Grab a couple golfballs and try it out!
SicariusBarritus 1 year ago
This might sound like a dumb question; but can't we look at the moons serfice with a telescope to see artifacts that were left behind (including the flag)?
mdstalla 1 year ago
@mdstalla It's not a dumb question. But the answer is no: the moon is really, really, really far away. A quarter of a million miles away. The maximum resolution of the Hubble Telescope, if you pointed it at the moon, would be about 300 feet, which means you'd barely be able to discern a football stadium.
A telescope would have to be huge to see anything small on the moon, and couldn't do it from earth because of our atmosphere. Something that big would be too expensive to send into orbit either
SicariusBarritus 1 year ago
WHY?.... W H Y dos NASA give a shit, if it's not true? If it's just bullshit?
I dont fucking get it...
hcvang 1 year ago
"I dont know the details, but it still sounds nutso to me"
Good to know american journalists are intelligent, then(!)
ffs... what a numbnuts.
hcvang 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Mr. Kaysing received his Bachelor of Arts in English in 1949 from the University of Southern California. Those are his academic credentials. He worked for Rocketdyne chiefly as a writer and a librarian.
I have found a film of him at Rocketdyne circa 61'.
watch?v=3bS32-6jMXw
I believe it is absolutely 100% real.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
Sicanus, I am not sure how many ways I can say that Nasa claims to have first found no water and now all the rocks are JUST LIKE Earth rocks...WITH WATER IN THEM!!!!!!!!!! You just keep cherry picking and inventing things. I wish you would stop posting, make sure you leave my info on Dave's site up front though.
MrTommYYZ 1 year ago
@MrTommYYZ If you actually read instead of skimming headlines, you'd find that no water was found in the lunar basalt -- hydroxide was found. Besides that, I'm sure you recall the lunar impacter sent a few months ago -- its purpose was to find water under the lunar surface.
The entire point of science is to find new evidence, revise theory, and move forward. If it was a conspiracy, NASA would not have let independent researchers look at anything. They would not "backtrack".
SicariusBarritus 1 year ago
@MrTommYYZ Furthermore, your assertation that the rocks are exactly like terrestrial rocks is demonstrably wrong.
If you read the article in nature you're talking about (Lunar apatite with terrestrial volatile abundances), you'll see the composition of the lunar rocks remains exactly as foreign as ever. You are the one who is cherry-picking.
SicariusBarritus 1 year ago
Again, to anyone who cares to know the true story behind the Moon landings, please research Wagging the Moon Doggie by Dave McGowan on his website A Center For An Informed America. Sicanus will continue to propose a question to me after each post which has ZERO to do with the information stated. Don't fall for the scam, reasearch for YOURSELF not on some govt information store.
MrTommYYZ 1 year ago
@MrTommYYZ My comments have all been valid. I'm not the one who has resorted to name calling and accusations of working for the government in some paranoid delusion of reality.
SicariusBarritus 1 year ago
At miles 1000 up you would be in the Van Allen Belts
Van Allen predicted they would be lethal
Funny how the only time man claims to have been above the belts was on on the apollo missions and not even one time since.....
I find that very hard to believe
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs The astronauts passed through the belts very quickly and were protected by the hull of the shuttle. The time they chose to launch coincided with the weaker area of the belt, so that they had minimal exposure as well.
SicariusBarritus 1 year ago
@SicariusBarritus Why not try - they weren't at the firing squad for long and some of the marksmen had bad eye sight - thats why they survive.
So you are saying its just a coincidence that the apollo missions are the only time man has went through the belts?
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs How is it a coincidence? It's just a fact, there haven't been any more extraterrestrial manned missions since then.
The radiation from the belt is only dangerous in continued exposure. The Apollo astronauts were in and out in about 30 minutes, if I remember correctly. Their dose of radiation was about 2 rem/20 mSv, nowhere near a dangerous amount because of the timing of the mission.
SicariusBarritus 1 year ago
on the moon faker part D vid below:
At the 6:40 mark on this vid you will hear how the Moon rocks are devoid of water.
MrTommYYZ 1 year ago
@MrTommYYZ So, wait, there's not supposed to be water one minute, and now there's supposed to be? Seems you just say whatever you can to make yourself seem correct.
SicariusBarritus 1 year ago
@SicariusBarritus No Momo, moon rocks are not susposed to have water, this fact was stated by Nasa upon examination of the fake moon rocks. Since Nasa has recently allowed people to examine what they claim to be Moon rocks, and have found water, they are now back stepping.
MrTommYYZ 1 year ago
@MrTommYYZ Momo?
So you're getting irate over NASA accepting independent review, reviewing their findings, and making them public and part of the official record? That's how science is supposed to work. That proves they aren't lying, they're accepting what the evidence shows, regardless of who provides it, so long as it's valid.
SicariusBarritus 1 year ago
@SicariusBarritus No, Momo, I am saying that Nasa said it had examined the moon rocks and they had no water, because there was no atmosphere on the moon and the rocks would be different that Earth rocks because of the vast amount of water on Earth. So, after Nasa says there is no water on the moon, nor in the rocks because they have examined them, NOW since the fake moon rocks have proved to be fake they are saying there is now water on the moon and in the rocks, not what you said.
MrTommYYZ 1 year ago
@MrTommYYZ So then instead of covering it up, they're accepting independent review. Doesn't sound like a conspiracy to me.
I'm not going to reply to any more of your comments if you're going to keep calling me names, either. I've been nothing but civil to you.
SicariusBarritus 1 year ago
Oh I can post now. I was not able to for some time. I wonder if posting on this shills wall had anything to do with that?
Sicanus, I am not talking about Sibrel, I think he is a joke. I am talking about how the moon landings were faked.
Hey why is there moon in the moon rocks? There should be no water in moon rocks but there is....in all of them tested. They are fake.
MrTommYYZ 1 year ago
@MrTommYYZ You were flagged as spam, not by me. If I'm a shill, I really hope the US gov't will pay for Canadian student loans.
This thread is about Sibrel, but whatever.
There's water on the moon. There's water everywhere, it's the second most common molecule in the universe.
SicariusBarritus 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the moonfaker part D vid below:
At the 6:40 mark on this vid you will hear how the Moon rocks are devoid of water.
MrTommYYZ 1 year ago
testing
MrTommYYZ 1 year ago
"If you call any possible evidence against your position fake, then there's really no point in saying anything, is there?"
Now you are catching on....man that took forever.
MrTommYYZ 1 year ago
@MrTommYYZ The difference is that I can prove that Sibrel has faked his "evidence." If you read the NASA Apollo 11 Post Launch Mission Operation Report Number M-932-69-11, you'll see that the astronauts made 3 transmissions, not two as Sibrel claims. If you watch the transmission that Sibrel does not include in his movie, you can see plainly that there were no transparancies or any such thing, and that the view of earth was merely blocked by the edge of the window.
SicariusBarritus 1 year ago
@MrTommYYZ You will also be able to see the earth shrinking in the distance, yet retaining its shape and texturing. The only way to shrink a transparancy would be to zoom out, but the camera remains at a static zoom the whole time in the transmission Sibrel omits.
SicariusBarritus 1 year ago
And Mark you again could not be more wrong. I am getting satisfaction in spades from this.
MrTommYYZ 1 year ago
I think the topic at hand is pretty clear. The moon landings were faked and NASA has ZERO reason for attempting a return.
As McGowan states, this conspirasy has a time limit. The truth will come out about this when people actually do make it to the moon. You can block me if you wish. now you don't have to read Dave McGowan, which you were not going to do anyway. Its easier to just be a good tax paying American and ignore the guy behind the curtain.
MrTommYYZ 1 year ago
@MrTommYYZ The Japanese have sent a probe to the moon and returned pictures of the Apollo site. So...time limit up?
SicariusBarritus 1 year ago
@SicariusBarritus You are talking about the blurry photo of white specks? I could have made such a photo. That proves nothing.
I love how you quote the photo and don't post a link to it. I would not either as anyone can see, viewing it proves nothing.
MrTommYYZ 1 year ago
@MrTommYYZ If you call any possible evidence against your position fake, then there's really no point in saying anything, is there?
SicariusBarritus 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SicariusBarritus "If you call any possible evidence against your position fake, then there's really no point in saying anything, is there?"
Now you are catching on....jeesh.....that took forever.
MrTommYYZ 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SicariusBarritus "If you call any possible evidence against your position fake, then there's really no point in saying anything, is there?"
Now you are catching on......man that took forever.
MrTommYYZ 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SicariusBarritus " If you call any possible evidence against your position fake, then there's really no point in saying anything, is there?"
Now you are catching on...man that took forever.
MrTommYYZ 1 year ago
Yeah, it's oh so clever to ask one thing, not get any satisfaction, so ask another, then another, until you are so off topic no one knows what the hell you where going on about in the first place. Then throw in a few "shill" insults for good measure. That's how idiots like you work, and it's not half obvious. You asked me a single question, I answered it, but you weren't satisfied and possibly annoyed because someone did answer you and showed your sheer ignorance for what it is. Blocked.
markjh2005 1 year ago
I don't fight, I get people like you to talk them self into a corner as you just have. Again, you are not able to answer the questions I have put forth. Is "Oxygen Thief" the new thing you guys have on the drawing board? "tin foil hat" does not work because no one wears them. Ok, you have an opinion, state it as such, not as total fact. Leave that to me.
MrTommYYZ 1 year ago
I have an excuse, I dont have a job right now and care about opening peoples eyes to the fact that they have been lied to about pretty much everything since they were kids. Mark, who has a great job, has plenty of time to pick at guys like me. Curious. Maybe it is a free lance thing, he submits his posts to the govt and they pay him that way.
MrTommYYZ 1 year ago
@MrTommYYZ I didn't pick the fight, you started it with your "compressed air" nonsense.
Don't you dare make this about me. At least I am employed and don't have chip on my shoulder, or a mind so filled with conspiratorial crap that I can't carry out a rational discussion, or someone that will swallow information from a single source and consider it fact.
markjh2005 1 year ago
Think of it this way, which would be an easier thing to fake, Chris Angel floating above a hotel in Vegas or the moon landings. Well the landings happened only in a place that we are able to watch on TV.
Its the same thing.
MrTommYYZ 1 year ago
I will admit I have not viewed Bart's info. On the surface he appears to be a fake. Why ask a guy who would have to had lied his whole life, to swear on a bible? That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. If he could lie to the country he can't lie on a bible? Of course he could.
MrTommYYZ 1 year ago
Confusing the issue with the possibility that everything could have worked as NASA said it did it all they do. Look at the obvious, why have we not been back? Because it cost too much? We went all those times, during a hot AND a cold war, with not such a great ecconomy, ALL WITH A DISPOSABLE CRAFT EACH TIME!!!! Because there is nothing further to be learned on the moon? What a crock, the US govt would put a military base on the sun it it was possible.
MrTommYYZ 1 year ago
Oh yes the magic suits, that some how are able to heat and cool so quickly, not to mention how they were able to sheild themselves for the millions of meteorites (small specks of dust that fly through space and the lunar surface) that were present.
MrTommYYZ 1 year ago
@MrTommYYZ Well, if you are not going to do any research and educate yourself, then you are no worse than Bart Sibrel; an oxygen thief.
markjh2005 1 year ago
@markjh2005 You can Ignore the facts at Dave Mcgowans site, which is where I am getting my info, ignore it just as everyone like you does. How much do you get paid to keep supporting the lie?
MrTommYYZ 1 year ago
@MrTommYYZ Did I say I was ignoring it? No, you assumed it. Just as you assume that everything Dave Mcgowan says is correct. I am more than willing to read what he says someday. Doesn't mean I have to instantly swallow his story whole and ignore everthing I have learnt through my own studies.
markjh2005 1 year ago
@markjh2005 Well then go read it like I did. And yes you were ignoring it as I posted it as my source and you then claimed I have done zero research.
See, they can teach you the Karl Rove tricks but they won't work on the truth. Get a real job you New World Order lackey.
MrTommYYZ 1 year ago
@MrTommYYZ Sorry to disapoint you, but I have am already gainfully employed within the aviation industry as an engineer in the field of avionics, so the new world order will have to wait a little im afraid.
I would suggest that research from one single source is not balanced or objective, or very healthy for that matter.
markjh2005 1 year ago
@markjh2005 Yes Mark, it is stupid to just blindly accepting one source. This is why I choose not to believe in NASA. You think what everyone saw on the magic box was real and live? IT WAS NOT EVEN LIVE!!!!!! IT was a recording, yet it was SOLD to the American public. Its all lies.
MrTommYYZ 1 year ago
@MrTommYYZ As a side note: unless you don't think humans have been in space at all -- the suits used by modern astronauts are much the same as the suits used for the moon landings. They face the same challenges -- heating and cooling.
SicariusBarritus 1 year ago
@MrTommYYZ The suits have a water cycling system built in for cooling, which is all they needed to do: contrary to what you might think, it's actually rather hot on the surface of the moon during daylight - up to 240 F. The water cycling system was designed to keep the astronauts cool -- at night, they would return to the lander to keep warm. Gravity would deal with any micrometeorites on the moon just as it does here on Earth, the chances of getting hit would be just as microscopic.
SicariusBarritus 1 year ago
@SicariusBarritus Thank you for proving my point, it is rather hot on the moon, but when you have a magic suit that you can just say does what it does it makes it real easy. Its a lie. And when the moon has no atmosphere, as Earth's does, such flying debris would be a constant death problem to deal with, not to mention the dust which would be EVERYWHERE, especially the camera lens. Again, go to McGowan's site if you want the truth, not these guys posting on youtube who obviously work for someone
MrTommYYZ 1 year ago
@MrTommYYZ The suit doesn't need to be magic to have a liquid cooling system, the principle is the same as on earth - it's why the suits are quite bulky. The moon may have no atmosphere but it still has plenty of gravity - things wouldn't just stay up in the air, they would fall down, and if you do some math vis a vis the surface area of the moon vs the surface area of an astronaut, the chances of them being hit is astronomical from above.
SicariusBarritus 1 year ago
And where is the can on the LEM and the landing craft? Who took the first crap on the moons surface?
MrTommYYZ 1 year ago
@MrTommYYZ The LEM and the landing craft? I think you mean command module and LEM. On the lunar surface, the astronauts used diapers, which would of been thrown out with other rubbish prior to leaving the surface. Within the CM they used a suction/tube system to remove waste which was then vented into space, a practice no longer done as it creates dangerous debris in low earth orbit due to ice crystals.
markjh2005 1 year ago
@markjh2005 I am referring to the DAYS spent on the moon surface. Lot of pressure is needed in those magic suits huh? Diapers? Yeah right. Total lie.
MrTommYYZ 1 year ago
@MrTommYYZ Nope, just 5.6 psi.
markjh2005 1 year ago
@MrTommYYZ The astronauts had diaper-like devices that attached to their suits, which they disposed of in a container on-board the lander. If they're heroes for nothing else, they're at least heroes for pooping in a bag so far from Earth!
SicariusBarritus 1 year ago
Any one with reasonable intellect knows the apollo missions were faked
Its just to tall a tale for that time and alslo the only time anyone has claimed man has been anymore than a few hundred miles away from earth
Go figure
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs Once you're already a few hundred miles away from earth, it's not extraordinarily difficult (as long as you brought enough fuel with you) to head right on to the moon. It's just a matter of pressing the gas pedal for a while, as it were. What's the problem?
SicariusBarritus 1 year ago
Yet today 40 years later with all the leap and bounds of technology - they are messing around in the Shuttle a fraction of an inch away from the football and you are supposed to believe the only time a man has been more than a fraction of an inch away from the football was the Apollo missions. Go figure
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs It wasn't a priority to go back to the moon. The shuttle was designed so that it could easily enter space, return, and be reused. The primary purpose was micro-gravity research, not lunar study. Rockets like the Apollo missions were designed to be disposable and travel long distances. Different technologies for different purposes.
SicariusBarritus 1 year ago
@SicariusBarritus So in the history of NASA the only time man has been above low orbit is the apollo missions - like not even 1000 miles
so its 239000 and 300?
Kind of absurd not to go even 1000 miles away 40 years later
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs agreed. It is absurd no one has gone out from low earth orbit, however, considering the mindboggling amount of money it takes to get out of low earth orbit and more pressing issues here on the planet, I think I would rather have the scientific minds of the planet focused on solving issues here on Earth.
markjh2005 1 year ago
@markjh2005 Mark, this is not an excuse. I am not sure what planet you are living on but we are not very concerned with "Pressing issues" AGAIN< the military would put a base on every planet if it was possible to get there. You admit it is absurd, why can't you go the extra few feet and admit AT LEAST that it is POSSIBLE we never went and the whole this was a virus of the television age.
MrTommYYZ 1 year ago
@MrTommYYZ So you would rather waste hundreds of billions of dollars putting a few humans back on the moon to prove a point to satisfy a fat hick like yourself that plays guitar poorly in the middle of a dirt bowl when most of what we have learned from Apollo can be applied to do the same thing robotically for a fifth of the cost and without risk to human life??
You surely do overrate yourself, oxygen thief.
markjh2005 1 year ago
@markjh2005 See...see what he is doing? This is what they do. They do not want to talk about the Moon or the facts, then they would lose. Instead it is the way of the govt coward to turn the attention to me. Yes, its all about me. I am asking NASA to go to the moon to prove it to me. Yes, I play the guitar as a hobby, man where do I get off? You got nothing Mark.
MrTommYYZ 1 year ago
@MrTommYYZ Who are "they"?? NASA have as much as you want to sit down and understand all on the internet as you could possibly fathom. And you want them to draw you a mud map???
If you cant bring yourself to read and try to understand the technology behind what NASA used in Apollo, then don't ask me to spoon feed it to you like a child.
markjh2005 1 year ago
@MrTommYYZ "Instead it is the way of the govt coward to turn the attention to me. Yes, its all about me."
Yes, it does appear to be all about you. I can see that you like to spam videos and channels. You appear to like filling the screen with your writing.
I made a comment, a long time ago. It was my opinion. I stand by it. Bart Sibrel was and is an oxygen thief , for many reasons. It doesnt mean I then have to go and justify the entire space race for for your benefit.Pick your fight elsewhere
markjh2005 1 year ago
@markjh2005 Sorry - The old money thing doesn't work this time.
How would it be a mind boggling amount of money to put a man a thousand miles above the earth instead of 300?
He would still be in Orbit
The answer is obvious
He wouldn't survive
then once that is clear
Its obvious Apollo was bollocks
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs Rocket fuel is exceedingly expensive, and shuttles are not designed for anything other than LEO. Going back to the moon requires an entirely new space program, since the current one was not designed for it.
SicariusBarritus 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs If you are wanting to leave low earth orbit then you would have to go somewhere other than thousand mile orbit. What would you achieve at a thousand miles that you could not achieve in LEO? And why go for that if it served no purpose? It is a very expensive exercise to get to space at all. In all honesty I myself would prefer seeing the money being spent on things down here.
markjh2005 1 year ago
@markjh2005
At miles 1000 up you would be in the Van Allen Belts
Van Allen predicted they would be lethal
Funny how the only time man claims to have been above the belts was on on the apollo missions and not even one time since.....
I find that very hard to believe.
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs from what I understand, if you were to park yourself inside the area of the VAB's (theres two "belts",with a space in between) a human and/or machine would be affected by an accumulated dose over time. That sounds fair. If you were to plot a trajectory that passes you through the thinner area of the belts (they are not spherical but torus in shape) in the least amount of time ( hours) you can decrease the accumulative dose to survivable levels, which is what happened.
markjh2005 1 year ago
@markjh2005 (cont') Over the last 30 years NASA has locked itself into the idea of a space station, especially since it has obligations international partners to get it finished. That leaves little funding left over to commit to the huge expense of exploring the Moon or Mars when it has committed the great majority of funding to the ISS and is now struggling with waning enthusiasm to fund more projects. NASA has lost its impetus due to its commitment and problems with the shuttle and the ISS.
markjh2005 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs As for why humans have not gone through it since, I dont believe its as sinister reason as you make out. NASA had a choice with its cutback in funding and decided to go with building a space station in LEO-Skylab. The shuttle program was designed to compliment Skylab by ferrying components to Skylab in LEO, but due to problems with Skylab and delays in the shuttle program Skylab was lost and NASA then spent the next 30 years starting from scratch rebuilding to get the ISS.
markjh2005 1 year ago
@2:26 "Supposebly"
DrunkDog 1 year ago
i just saw Bill Ny the science guy interviewed on this and he ended it with this quote, "Are all those sailors lying then that saw the astronauts come back to the earth hitting the ocean?" when clearly the argument is that the shuttle went in to space in our earth's orbit, then coming back when it was so called "time" to come back. Bill Ny also said he watched the videos on the arguments of the hoax believers. I now believe we did not go to the moon
LightsOutNukeWinter 1 year ago
@LightsOutNukeWinter, the USSR, UK & France tracked each Apollo launch. The Soviets tracked each mission to the moon and back (more or less) using a variety of technologies like radar, telescopes and voice. Otherwise, anyone tracking earth orbits obviously noticed that the spacecraft no longer appeared in low earth orbit. At that point, they either did a translunar insertion burn (as was also recorded) or they did a reentry. It must have been a burn, since the reentry was days later.
LunarTuner 1 year ago
@LunarTuner The USSR also had to contact the astronauts to warn them of a probe they had lost control of in lunar orbit. I believe Armstrong had to make some adjustments to their course on this information -- which would have been quite impossible to receive if they weren't in the location that the USSR believed they were in.
SicariusBarritus 1 year ago
@SicariusBarritus
LunarTuner 1 year ago
"go Buzz" hahahahaha xD
apo5 1 year ago
Just like Fox News (I call it "POX" News) and members of the Republic Tea Party, they are quick to call someone a "nut", "wacko", or "crazy conspiracy person". They spend most of time name-calling, not debating. The man from NASA was shooting blanks.; he had very little evidence. The newsman was very biased. Why? I saw Bart Sibrel's documentary, the astronauts faked the shots of a distant Earth. Please watch Bart Sibrel's documentary here on You-Tube or
on his website.
scriptbird 1 year ago
@scriptbird
And did you watch any of the refutes to Bart Sibrels movie? Did you look up any of the pages and pages that tackle each point he makes and identify his errors mistakes and outright ignorance? You cant stick to one side of the story.
There is nothing Sibrel has said here or anywhere else that hasnt already been refuted.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@scriptbird Bart Sibrel's "evidence" is that the image of earth disappears behind a window. How exactly is that evidence of anything? It's called perspective. Nevermind the fact that the "exclusive" footage Sibrel has is publicly obtainable from NASA, and he conveniently skips over transmission documents so that, out of context, they appear to fit his idea.
SicariusBarritus 1 year ago
Comment removed
scriptbird 1 year ago
Buzz,Neil=Badass Sibrel= kinda' of a pudgy soft foo foo guy that couldn't do anything dificult if his life depended on it. Go shopping Barty Go shoppping!
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
Even after PBS exposed him as a slave using nazi I still think he was smart. It was Von Braun that said they would have to hide in caves most the time to avoid micro meterorites at thousands of miles per hour and possible solar flares. Science, a ton of "dust/rocks" outside low-med earth orbit a hostile place with radiation etc I think.
STEVEDIGIBOYtv 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
4:44 @"I would bet my life on it." LOLOL
DekuScrub3 1 year ago
Comment removed
DekuScrub3 1 year ago
Comment removed
DekuScrub3 1 year ago
Im going to fucking beat the shit out of sibrel
Blastbox4 1 year ago
Professor Farnsworth writing on a napkin again?
Get back to the smell-o-scope!
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago 2
Borat Sibrel gets his paycheck by lying to fools. I don't think he is bonkers. He KNOWS what he's doing. He is polluting our culture's knowledge base. He is instrumental in making our society more stupid and making people mistrust science. And he's doing all this for a BUCK!
satweavers 1 year ago
Typical of the mainstream media not even trying to entertain both sides of the argument.
Openly calling his guest a "whacko"
They're not even trying to be objective and they didn't even touch the diagram of that investigative reporter Bart Sibrel
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
@AnonymousElektron It's facetious to assume both sides are equally valid. Would you expect equal time and respect to be given to, say, someone claiming the earth is flat vs someone who can just show a picture of a round earth from orbit? Creationism vs. Evolution? Germ Theory vs. Demon Theory? It's all the same idea.
SicariusBarritus 1 year ago
@ItalianoAmericano Actually we do have photos of the apollo 11 landing sites, they were just taken in late 2009. I'm sure this will not persuade you that we landed on the moon (even though the picture shows the apollo 11 lander and footprints), just to clear it up for people who didn't know. But, just like any good true believer conspiracy theorist, you will discount this evidence I am sure of it. That is the convenient thing about conspiracy theories, you can discount any bit of evidence.
ajhick2 1 year ago
i hope this interview asshole was murdered, set on fire, tortured by pakistanis, al qaeda had his head cut off, or Buzz blew his head off, or now he is being used as a bitch in jail somewhere. whats his home address? even I went to the moon ! all i needed was a 1987 nissan with air conditioning and firecrackers !
kagoshimadavid 1 year ago
So much fun to watch Bart get beat down by Buzz Aldrin.
thedemoboy 1 year ago
They gave this airtime? No wonder MSNBC is in the toilet.
BTW, greatest "government conspiracy" for the retards out there: taxes.
Triethylborane 1 year ago
Conspiracy theories started about the same time the drug culture started... coincidence?
shaftshaft 1 year ago
Bart says he'd bet his life on it being a hoax. Can I please be the one to shave his ankle and throw the switch on this loser? He's not an expert on anything, he's a fucking cab driver. 9 Apollo missions to the moon, 6 successful landings, 12 guys walked. Enough.
hibob418 1 year ago
If the moon landings were a HOAX, don't you think Russia, our enemy at the time, would expose us?
steviesoco 1 year ago 2
Ha ha ha.... he brings a DRAWING? Someone who passionately wants to disprove something and gets their "big chance" to do it on national TV, instead of bringing photos or any other type of hard evidence proving their case, brings a DOODLE. That and a whole lot of hot air.
ArchieLovesMe 1 year ago
I love the Abram's Go Buzz! at 1:36
Grant691 1 year ago
I love the Abram's Go Buzz! at 1:36
Grant691 1 year ago
Sibrel's a God-boy douchebag and deserved that right hook.
PressAltF4OrElse 2 years ago
bart sibrel is a douche. hes goin to hell for sure
9movierox 2 years ago 2
MSNBS shouldn't be acknowledging this nutjob
emhmark5 2 years ago 2
It was good for the world to see how this astronauts fist has more honour than bart sibrel's entire being.
DZA720 2 years ago