Bart Sibrel's Lies or “A Funnier Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon”

  • 13 Replies
  • 2022 Views
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Sorry, but there is no other way to out it, Bart Sibrel Lies in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon!

And this is going to be long and almost all copy-n-paste. For those that don't like that, tough!
But moon hoaxers, and there are plenty here, just mention bits and pieces as though everybody believes the errors and deception from Bart Sibrel and the earlier material from Bill Kaysing.

Even though this post is long, it still only covers a little of that film but it might be a start.

This is for those who use any of Bart Sibrel's material as their evidence for the Lunar Landing being a hoax.

Quote
Be warned, this is why I named my blog “Science Doesn’t Work That Way.” Or “A Funnier Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon.”
Eric Schwertfeger

Bart Sibrel is a well known figure in Apollo hoax claims. In recent times, he’s mostly known for getting punched by Buzz Aldrin. For the record, I don’t support assault, but given Sibrel’s approach, I can’t blame Aldrin either. However, one of his earlier claims to fame was when he created the documentary A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon. This documentary claims to contain a smoking gun that proves that the Apollo missions were faked. Mind you, you have to wait through half an hour of hype, fear mongering, insinuation, and very poorly supported arguments before you reach some highly edited snippets from the supposed leaked video.

I may get into the rest of the documentary some day, but for now, you can read critiques of the documentary at Clavius.org or thekeyboard.org.uk. (thanks for putting work into the critiques, guys). The first one is more detailed, but I think the author was getting tired of it all by the time he got to the so called smoking gun video, because he really didn’t give it the ripping it deserved. On this entry, I’m going to correct this, and focus entirely on Sibrel’s analysis of the video. I won’t link to it because that would just increase his SEO, but it’s easy to find if you look.

The narrator starts of saying talking about the “never-before-seen footage” just about 33 minutes into the documentary. The narrator states that there are three parties on the audio, these being the astronauts, ground control, and a “third confidential party.” They state that the third party tells them what to say, when to say it, and how to fake certain effects with the camera.

The narrator then mentions them talking about blocking out the other windows to prevent too much sunlight inside the capsule while they film the earth. The narrator goes on to say that the astronauts are using the inner and outer bezel of a circular window to crop the earth and make it look smaller, which is why they needed the inside of the capsule to be dark. The narrator further goes on to say that a piece of felt was added to the window to cover part of the earth to make it look like the terminator (technically the dividing point between light and dark parts of the earth, but in this case the entire dark crescent).

Then, the narrator says that Neil Armstrong falsely explains that they’re 130,000 miles away from Earth, lying because they’re still in low earth orbit. Finally, they say that the camera can’t be in the window because otherwise an astronauts arm wouln’t be able to “come between the camera and the window, as it does here.” The narrator then goes on to say that the astronaut holding the camera tries to shift to the side so that the arm is out of the way.

Where to begin? At no point in the video does the narrator say what the evidence is that the astronauts are fudging the results. Nothing is said as to why it’s assumed that they used felt for the terminator. They’re suggesting how it could be staged without showing any evidence that it was staged. What they’re doing here isn’t remotely related to anything that could be called science. They’re not presenting evidence, just making accusations. Then, they talk about Neil Armstrong lying, which he must be because it’s all fake. I’ll get back to this later.

Now, lets get back to how they were saying the shot was faked, and why it would be impossible on multiple levels to fake the shot that way. First, there isn’t a window on an Apollo capsule that fits their description. There is one window with a round bevel on the inside. However, the outside bezel for that window was trapezoidal, so they couldn’t use it to trim the earth the way they suggested.
As you can see, none of the outer window bezels are circular. The inner bezel on the hatch window is circular, which is probably where Sibrel got the idea that this would be possible.

The problems with this explanation don’t end there, however. If you’re reading my blog in order, then you remember what I said about the minimum speed required in order to stay in low earth orbit in my previous entry, Going to orbit. It might not work the way you think. The minimum speed to be in low Earth orbit is about 4.8 miles per second. Sibrel either isn’t aware of this or didn’t think through what that would mean for his hypothesis. I will estimate that the earth is taking up a 15 degree field of view in that video. That’s a rather generous estimate, as the actual math says that at the distance claimed by the astronauts, Earth would take up less than four degrees of the field of view. Now, the narrator claims that Apollo 11 was actually only a few hundred miles up. At 200 miles up, a 15 degree field of view would result in a visible width of just under 50 miles wide. Not bad, probably not enough to result in the cloud formations we see, but I won’t quibble with that. No, the issue here is getting back to the orbital velocity. At 4.8 miles a second, anything that enters one side of that 15 degree field of view would be exiting at the opposite side of the field of view less than 11 seconds later. Any movement in that video is imperceptible, so it couldn’t be Earth filmed from low Earth orbit.

Now, so far, everything that I’ve mentioned was also covered in the Clavius breakdown, though they didn’t break down the math to show just how fast the world would be flying past that window. It’s also possible that Sibrel wasn’t aware of these facts as they’re not widely known. There’s three more points that the Clavius breakdown didn’t cover, however, and two of them aren't at all small.

First, the one small part. The narrator says that the “third party” voice is telling the astronauts what to say, when, and how to use the camera to achieve the intended fraud. Well, having watched the video, if the voice actually said all that, why did they edit it out? Seriously, watch the video again, the voice never told anyone what to say or how to use the camera. If they had video of that, it needed to be included.

Next is the part about the astronaut’s arm. If their description about what was happening was accurate, then the portion of the earth revealed through the window would have shifted when the camera was moved so that the “arm” didn’t obstruct the view. Think about it, if the “Earth” in the video is just a portion of the Earth visible through the window, then shifting the camera to the side would have meant that the portion of the Earth that was visible would have shifted. There was no shift in the video, so the explanation dies another death. However, this death is a little different. The previous issues would have only been noticeable if Sibrel had bothered to have his hypothesis checked by someone that knew the actual science behind this. This, however, is basic geometry, and indicates that Sibrel didn’t bother applying any critical thinking skills to his hypothesis, giving credence to this whole thing being less than intellectually honest. NOTE: I need to make a diagram of this and insert it here to visually show what I’m talking about.

If you’re starting to feel annoyed at Sibrel, it’s about to get worse. You see, contrary to his claims, this video has been released to the public since before he made his documentary. Youtuber GreaterSapien managed to line up parts of the “smoking gun” video with the actual publicly released video. It shows that Sibrel edited the footage, inserting parts of other videos to achieve his video. And it gets even worse. In the original, unedited footage, it shows the astronauts move from one window to another window to shoot the Earth from a different point of view. As they pull back from the window, you can see that the window they were filming out of wasn’t even the window with the round inner bezel, but was one of the rectangular windows. There is no way Sibrel edited this out without seeing it, meaning that he knew at the time he made the documentary that they hadn’t filmed that footage out of a round window. And because I like to provide evidence when I make accusations:

The only thing left of the smoking gun video is the “third party” voice that doesn’t do most of what the narrator claims it’s doing, and without an actual fake video recording, is quite likely what NASA presented it as, a TV station coordinating with the astronauts to record some video with the astronauts doing a little voice work for the video. To assume it’s anything other than that is to use the hypothesis that the Apollo missions were faked as your assumption to try to prove that the Apollo missions were faked. That would be what’s referred to as circular reasoning. Don’t try it in school, kids, you will get marked down for it.

So, where does this leave the video? You’d think that it started with the narrator making accusations without explaining what evidence they based this accusation on, there wouldn't be much room to go down from there. You’d be wrong. If you paid for the video (Sibrel sells DVDs of it on his web site and on Amazon, and is probably his motive for faking the video), congratulations, you just paid for fraudulently presented conspiracy theory fanfic, and I feel guilty calling it that because it’s an insult to fanfic.

Regardless, this means that the smoking gun video at the very least completely fails to prove that they faked the shot and that Sibrel either wasn’t capable or wasn’t willing to apply any level of critical thinking to his hypothesis. At worst, it shows that Sibrel knew that his claim was totally fake to begin with. As for the rest of the video, I’ll do that some other time, but basically, every part of it has been refuted. Someone even took the same type of camera that was used on the surface of the moon and took shots showing all the strange shadow effects that conspiracy advocates insist are impossible. I’ll include that link when I cover the rest of this video.

I may not look down on people that buy into the theories, but Sibrel manages to be an exception, and that’s ignoring the fact that he probably deliberately edited the video knowing that his hypothesis was wrong. For that kind of intellectual dishonesty, I can’t find any sympathy.

Addendum: I’d just like to thank Del de la Haye for finding a link to the original footage that Sibrel used to edit together his “smoking gun” video.

From: “A Funnier Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon.” Eric Schwertfeger

If anyone likes to bring up other things like, the van Allen belts, moon rocks, the waving flag, the silent ascent rocket, the thermosphere and other points - bring it on.

But I won't listen to subjective ideas or those that take a few words out of context.

In closing:
  • If you insist that the Lunar Landings were faked make sure that your own facts are correct and not fake facts from Bill Kaysing or Bart Sibrel.

  • Please realise that many of the arguments used by both Bill Kaysing and Bart Sibrel rely on information from space missions and they certainly believe in the reality of LEO satellites. Remember that Bill Kaysing had earlier worked for Rocketdyne!

  • And even if the Lunar Missions could be proved a hoax - what effect does that have on the shape of the earth? Most proponents, even dutchy, give reasons for that that have nothing to do with the flat~Globe question.

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Bart Sibrel's Lies or “A Funnier Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon”
« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2018, 05:23:50 AM »
There’s one person constantly bringing Bart Sibrell and his ‘funny moon ways docu’  ::) into the Apollo discussion.
Is it a tinfoil hat ?, Is it a moonhoaxer ?, Is it a crackpot ? , Is it a cospiratard ?

No it’s the Australiam copy paste wizard rabinoz..... here to safe humanity from the dark powers of anti scientism.
Who am i to stop your monologue about your favorite moon docu that somehow shows the evil threats we’re all facing.... ;D

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Bart Sibrel's Lies or “A Funnier Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon”
« Reply #2 on: September 17, 2018, 05:57:39 AM »
There’s one person constantly bringing Bart Sibrell and his ‘funny moon ways docu’  ::) into the Apollo discussion.
Is it a tinfoil hat ?, Is it a moonhoaxer ?, Is it a crackpot ? , Is it a cospiratard ?

No it’s the Australiam copy paste wizard rabinoz..... here to safe humanity from the dark powers of anti scientism.
Who am i to stop your monologue about your favorite moon docu that somehow shows the evil threats we’re all facing.... ;D
Why do you bother answering then? I guess you've no answers for the obvious lies!

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Bart Sibrel's Lies or “A Funnier Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon”
« Reply #3 on: September 17, 2018, 10:10:42 AM »
There’s one person constantly bringing Bart Sibrell and his ‘funny moon ways docu’  ::) into the Apollo discussion.
Is it a tinfoil hat ?, Is it a moonhoaxer ?, Is it a crackpot ? , Is it a cospiratard ?

No it’s the Australiam copy paste wizard rabinoz..... here to safe humanity from the dark powers of anti scientism.
Who am i to stop your monologue about your favorite moon docu that somehow shows the evil threats we’re all facing.... ;D
Why do you bother answering then? I guess you've no answers for the obvious lies!
Answering ? As if that would make any difference whatsoever  !!

astronaut A
Looking through the capsule’s window halfway to the moon describes what he sees as DEEP BLACK. Sure he can see some stars especcially through the optics,..... but all things considered DEEP BLACK is the best summery of what he sees outside his window when gazing into the black void of the vacuum of space.

astronaut B
Looking through the capsule’s window halfway to the moon describes what he sees as an enlightening experience that even contributed to a whole new understanding (more spiritual) about the universe.
He sees ten times numerous and brighter stars compared to the darkest of nights on earth.
And it was simply achieved by looking outside the capsule’s window without any optics.

Everyone knows that there is no atmosphere in space to scatter the sun’s light through the atmosphere so that all starlight is blocked out by the sun like on a earth during the day.
So not only the sun is an extremely bright object in the vacuum, but so are the stars.
If the sun is not directly in view of an astronaut looking outside the capsule’s window halfway to the moon in cislunar space, the testimonies should be much more alligned than what was claimed by Edgar Mitchell vs Neil Armstrong.

But the lying NASA bandwagon keeps repeating that it was explained to me many times, using situations and examples about changing circomstances of light (like on earth ) in a desperate attempt to allign the opposite claims by the two astronauts when looking outside the capsule’s window.

But noooooo of course you are to stubborn and have way to much pride to acknowledge that there is something terribly wrong with the claims of both astronauts.
So please mister .... as long as you deny these facts and ignore them you shouldn’t talk about deceit and honesty ever again !

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Bart Sibrel's Lies or “A Funnier Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon”
« Reply #4 on: September 17, 2018, 07:12:49 PM »
There’s one person constantly bringing Bart Sibrell and his ‘funny moon ways docu’  ::) into the Apollo discussion.
Is it a tinfoil hat ?, Is it a moonhoaxer ?, Is it a crackpot ? , Is it a cospiratard ?

No it’s the Australiam copy paste wizard rabinoz..... here to safe humanity from the dark powers of anti scientism.
Who am i to stop your monologue about your favorite moon docu that somehow shows the evil threats we’re all facing.... ;D
Why do you bother answering then? I guess you've no answers for the obvious lies!
Answering ? As if that would make any difference whatsoever  !!

astronaut A
Looking through the capsule’s window halfway to the moon describes what he sees as DEEP BLACK. Sure he can see some stars especcially through the optics,..... but all things considered DEEP BLACK is the best summery of what he sees outside his window when gazing into the black void of the vacuum of space.
Why do you refuse to accept that both the human eye and camera must adjust from a brightly lit situation (eg sunlight streaming into the capsule) to see stars.
The difference in brightness between a direct sunlit scene and a night scene even on earth is almost unbelievable.
Bright sunlight is about 111,000 lux   and typical night on earth is about 0.002 lux including "air glow".
Like it or not (and believe it or not) it takes time for the human eye to adapt.
If you won't believe me read some copy-n-paste!
Quote
Adaptation (eye)
The human eye can function from very dark to very bright levels of light; its sensing capabilities reach across nine orders of magnitude. This means that the brightest and the darkest light signal that the eye can sense are a factor of roughly 1,000,000,000 apart. However, in any given moment of time, the eye can only sense a contrast ratio of 1,000. What enables the wider reach is that the eye adapts its definition of what is black.

The eye takes approximately 20–30 minutes to fully adapt from bright sunlight to complete darkness and becomes 10,000 to 1,000,000 times more sensitive than at full daylight. In this process, the eye's perception of color changes as well (this is called the Purkinje effect). However, it takes approximately five minutes for the eye to adapt from darkness to bright sunlight. This is due to cones obtaining more sensitivity when first entering the dark for the first five minutes but the rods taking over after five or more minutes. Cone cells are able to regain maximum retinal sensitivity in 9–10 minutes of darkness whereas rods require 30–45 minutes to do so.
You have never experienced a fast transition from bright sunlight to night conditions.
The most might have been from a brightly lit room (say 100 lux) to a dark night - a vast difference.

So "astronaut A, Looking through the capsule’s window halfway to the moon describes what he sees as DEEP BLACK" no problem!

Quote from: dutchy
astronaut B
Looking through the capsule’s window halfway to the moon describes what he sees as an enlightening experience that even contributed to a whole new understanding (more spiritual) about the universe.
He sees ten times numerous and brighter stars compared to the darkest of nights on earth.
And it was simply achieved by looking outside the capsule’s window without any optics.

Everyone knows that there is no atmosphere in space to scatter the sun’s light through the atmosphere so that all starlight is blocked out by the sun like on a earth during the day.
So not only the sun is an extremely bright object in the vacuum, but so are the stars.
The sun and stars in space near earth are not much brighter than they are on earth!
They are a little brighter than the sun or stars are when overhead. Excuse the copy-n-paste but I haven't been in space and neither have you!
Quote
The solar flux is about 1000 W/m2 on Earth and about 1300 W/m2 in space.
And likewise stars are only a little brighter in space.

BUT they both seem much brighter (possible 10 times - it's quite subjective) because "space" is such a deep velvety black - so I've read!


So astronaut B, "Looking through the capsule’s window halfway to the moon describes what he sees as an enlightening experience that even contributed to a whole new understanding (more spiritual) about the universe."

I see no problem!

Quote from: dutchy
If the sun is not directly in view of an astronaut looking outside the capsule’s window halfway to the moon in cislunar space, the testimonies should be much more alligned than what was claimed by Edgar Mitchell vs Neil Armstrong.
No no no! It is quite subjective and totally dependent of one's adaptation to the conditions and you refuse to face this obvious fact!

Quote from: dutchy
But the lying NASA bandwagon keeps repeating that it was explained to me many times,
It takes a dedicated NASAphobe to always use emotive language like lying NASA.
And Bart Sibrel goes presents a long tedious irrelevant emotive softening up at the start of his "A Funny Thing . . . .".

Quote from: dutchy
using situations and examples about changing circomstances of light (like on earth) in a desperate attempt to allign the opposite claims by the two astronauts when looking outside the capsule’s window.
There is no "desperate attempt to allign the opposite claims".
Just a rational explanation and "changing circumstances of light (like on earth)" are much more extreme in space - or so I've read.

Yes! It has been explained to you numerous times and two people could look out the same window at the same time and see the stars quite differently.

It all depends of their prior conditions. Full adaption from a bright sunlit situation to total darkness might take 45 minutes!

Quote from: dutchy
But noooooo of course you are to stubborn and have way to much pride to acknowledge that there is something terribly wrong with the claims of both astronauts.
There is nothing "terribly wrong with the claims of both astronauts"!

Quote from: dutchy
So please mister .... as long as you deny these facts and ignore them you shouldn’t talk about deceit and honesty ever again !
I am not denying any facts at all. I believe that I see the situation as it is.

Look, NASA has lots and lots of very smart people, far smarter than you or me.
If they wanted to fool you they would never have released all this information with flaws that people like Bill Kaysing and Bart Sibrel could so easily detect.

You complain about my bringing Bill Kaysing and Bart Sibrel into the discussion.
They are the source of the "physical evidence" that this thread (my thread) is intended to cover. If you don't like it butt out!

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Bart Sibrel's Lies or “A Funnier Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon”
« Reply #5 on: September 18, 2018, 04:44:11 AM »
Why do you refuse to accept that both the human eye and camera must adjust from a brightly lit situation (eg sunlight streaming into the capsule) to see stars.
The difference in brightness between a direct sunlit scene and a night scene even on earth is almost unbelievable.
Bright sunlight is about 111,000 lux   and typical night on earth is about 0.002 lux including "air glow".
Like it or not (and believe it or not) it takes time for the human eye to adapt.
And more rubbish to avoid the obvious.....
Again....i am not talking about those occasions where they had direct sunlight hitting the capsule's window..
I am solely adressing the vast majority of the flight with no direct sunlight hitting the capsule's window.
And to say it once more....without an atmosphere the sun cannot scatter through the vacuum of space and whenever the sunray's cannot hit the capsule's window directly the vacuum of space cannot be ''washed out'' by sunlight....not in the slightest, because you need molecules to scatter the sunlight around.

What does Buzz Aldrin report ?
Aldrin: Houston, Apollo 11. We've got the continent of Africa right facing toward us right now, and of course, everything's getting smaller and smaller as time goes on. The Mediterranean is completely clear. The Sun looks like it's about to set around Madagascar. The equatorial belt of Africa stands out quite clearly. We're seeing a dark green or a muddy colored green, compared to the sandier colors of the southern tip of Africa and, of course, the Sahara northern coast of Africa. There's a rather remarkable cloud that appears in the vicinity of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Absolutely clear that from the window view in Apollo 11 the sun did not shine directly into the capsule (was in the opposite direction) , but reflected from earth ...therefor the continents were clearly visible .

So when earth gets smaller and smaller along their journey to the moon (as Buzz claimed) i see no reason whatsoever to also see all the stars in their beauty.
The millions of stars that scatter their light against the capsule's window directly that is....
That is what Edgar Mitchell claims he saw.... and althaugh i believe he is a lying bastard in general, at least his claims make much more sence than the total silence on behave of the Apollo 11 crew.
Yes they saw some stars occasionally...preferable through the optics, but they should have seen millions of stars like Edgar Mitchell the moment the sun rays could not directly hit the capsule's window and the earth was getting far away in the background.

No such reports have been made by the Apollo 11 crew....to the contrary......

I will keep repeating myself althaugh i'm shure your next attempt of deliberate evasive manouvres is forthcoming.
I probably get a lecture about something totally irrelevant that explains something about the properties of light (on earth !! ) ....again  ::) ::) ::) ::)
« Last Edit: September 18, 2018, 04:46:38 AM by dutchy »

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Bart Sibrel's Lies or “A Funnier Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon”
« Reply #6 on: September 18, 2018, 05:07:02 AM »
That is what Edgar Mitchell claims he saw.... and althaugh i believe he is a lying bastard in general, at least his claims make much more sence than the total silence on behave of the Apollo 11 crew.
Yes they saw some stars occasionally...preferable through the optics, but they should have seen millions of stars like Edgar Mitchell the moment the sun rays could not directly hit the capsule's window and the earth was getting far away in the background.
How do you know that "the sun rays could not directly hit" one of "the capsule's windows". The capsule did not have just one window:

Please count the windows!
You weren't there and neither was I so neither of us know the exact orientation of the spacecraft.
You automatically assume that because you or I can't explain every little detail to your satisfaction someone is lying.

Now, this thread is about the points raised in the OP about “A Funnier Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon”.
If you want to address that, fine but if you want a discussion about who said what after the even, go and make your own thread.

So yes, you'll get a short lecture: Once you start talking about, "i believe he is a lying bastard in general" - goodbye.

Re: Bart Sibrel's Lies or “A Funnier Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon”
« Reply #7 on: September 18, 2018, 06:57:38 AM »
Why do you refuse to accept that both the human eye and camera must adjust from a brightly lit situation (eg sunlight streaming into the capsule) to see stars.
The difference in brightness between a direct sunlit scene and a night scene even on earth is almost unbelievable.
Bright sunlight is about 111,000 lux   and typical night on earth is about 0.002 lux including "air glow".
Like it or not (and believe it or not) it takes time for the human eye to adapt.
And more rubbish to avoid the obvious.....
Again....i am not talking about those occasions where they had direct sunlight hitting the capsule's window..
I am solely adressing the vast majority of the flight with no direct sunlight hitting the capsule's window.

How do you know the orientation of the spacecraft with respect to the sun when those comments were made? Do you realize the cabin was equipped with artificial lights so the cabin interior could be lit even when even when no sunlight was coming in through the windows? Have you ever looked at the stars through the window of a normally-illuminated room at night? How many can you see?

You're just speculating.

Quote
And to say it once more....without an atmosphere the sun cannot scatter through the vacuum of space and whenever the sunray's cannot hit the capsule's window directly the vacuum of space cannot be ''washed out'' by sunlight....not in the slightest, because you need molecules to scatter the sunlight around.

This is true, but to say it once more, human eyes are not as sensitive while, and soon after, being exposed to relatively bright light. Starlight is very dim - even in space - compared with sufficient light to comfortably read by.

Quote
What does Buzz Aldrin report ?
Aldrin: Houston, Apollo 11. We've got the continent of Africa right facing toward us right now, and of course, everything's getting smaller and smaller as time goes on. The Mediterranean is completely clear. The Sun looks like it's about to set around Madagascar. The equatorial belt of Africa stands out quite clearly. We're seeing a dark green or a muddy colored green, compared to the sandier colors of the southern tip of Africa and, of course, the Sahara northern coast of Africa. There's a rather remarkable cloud that appears in the vicinity of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Absolutely clear that from the window view in Apollo 11 the sun did not shine directly into the capsule (was in the opposite direction) , but reflected from earth ...therefor the continents were clearly visible .

You have no rational basis for that conclusion. The only things we can tell for sure about the relative positions of earth, sun, and spacecraft  from the transcription is that the earth was visible through at least one window, and that the sun was not in the opposite direction as earth, since if the sun were in the opposite direction, the earth would be full and there would be no terminator, which was near Madagascar.

Quote
So when earth gets smaller and smaller along their journey to the moon (as Buzz claimed) i see no reason whatsoever to also see all the stars in their beauty.

Whether you see a reason or not is irrelevant. It's obvious that you ignore reasons that easily explain what you consider a discrepancy.

Quote
The millions of stars that scatter their light against the capsule's window directly that is....
That is what Edgar Mitchell claims he saw.... and althaugh i believe he is a lying bastard in general, at least his claims make much more sence than the total silence on behave of the Apollo 11 crew.
Yes they saw some stars occasionally...preferable through the optics, but they should have seen millions of stars like Edgar Mitchell the moment the sun rays could not directly hit the capsule's window and the earth was getting far away in the background.

No such reports have been made by the Apollo 11 crew....to the contrary......

I'm still waiting for a more complete description of the lighting conditions in the capsule before and during Mr. Mitchell's observation and how they compare with the other reports. Until you know that, you are just guessing about what you think should be possible.

Quote
I will keep repeating myself althaugh i'm shure your next attempt of deliberate evasive manouvres is forthcoming.

Instead of just repeating yourself, please try to determine the relevant, but omitted, facts. If nothing else, look outside at the stars on a dark, clear night from inside a room with the lights on, then turn the lights off and see how the number of stars you can see changes over the next several minutes.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Bart Sibrel's Lies or “A Funnier Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon”
« Reply #8 on: September 18, 2018, 07:34:59 AM »
As for the need of an atmosphere to wash out starlight ... it doesn’t matter. The only thing that does is how an observer’s eyes or camera react to light. Diafragma much?

If I shine a big spotlight in your face, you won’t be able to see the tiny one I’m holding in the other hand. Even in a vacuum.

Be gentle

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Bart Sibrel's Lies or “A Funnier Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon”
« Reply #9 on: September 19, 2018, 08:55:48 AM »

In closing:
  • If you insist that the Lunar Landings were faked make sure that your own facts are correct and not fake facts from Bill Kaysing or Bart Sibrel.
If you know they are real then state your facts and not just being subjective.
Either that or stay like you are but don't try and tell others to give you facts that you cannot verify yourself, other than the reliance on the subjective material.
It's speculation from both ends but you are simply using mass opinion based on official storylines to back up something that you legitimately cannot verify as a truth.

Quote from: rabinoz

Please realise that many of the arguments used by both Bill Kaysing and Bart Sibrel rely on information from space missions and they certainly believe in the reality of LEO satellites. Remember that Bill Kaysing had earlier worked for Rocketdyne!
I personally don't accept what Sibrel or Kaysing says on the whole.
There's a lot of stuff they and others say that creates a massive water muddying for conspiracy theorists, just as people adhering to the official storylines muddy the waters.

The key to it all is in gathering everything together and sifting through all of it from the official narrative to the questions about it all.
From that it's about taking enough snippets to argue what each person believes to be closer to a potential reality.
It's all about literally allowing logic to enter into the mix whilst trying to ensure that your own mind takes in its own unbiased matters at hand, otherwise things get lost fairly quickly in the quagmire.


Quote from: rabinoz
And even if the Lunar Missions could be proved a hoax - what effect does that have on the shape of the earth? Most proponents, even dutchy, give reasons for that that have nothing to do with the flat~Globe question.

If the so called lunar missions were actually proved to be a hoax then it flings the entire so called space programs and every other official program into the truth or lie mix and actually adds massive credence to conspiracy theories actually being closer to conspiracy facts.[/list]

*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: Bart Sibrel's Lies or “A Funnier Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon”
« Reply #10 on: September 19, 2018, 09:11:48 AM »
And if they can NOT be proven a hoax, (which they have not), then this entire flat Earth idea is just pure bullshit. (It is).
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

Re: Bart Sibrel's Lies or “A Funnier Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon”
« Reply #11 on: September 19, 2018, 09:53:11 AM »
Quote from: rabinoz
And even if the Lunar Missions could be proved a hoax - what effect does that have on the shape of the earth? Most proponents, even dutchy, give reasons for that that have nothing to do with the flat~Globe question.

If the so called lunar missions were actually proved to be a hoax then it flings the entire so called space programs and every other official program into the truth or lie mix and actually adds massive credence to conspiracy theories actually being closer to conspiracy facts.

If. Hypothetically, even if the moon landings were conclusively demonstrated to have been faked, that still doesn't mean that all space programs, run by many countries and enterprises, are being faked.

There is plainly visible evidence - even to you, if you will look - that satellites are more than 100 miles above the surface of the earth, almost always much higher than that - and travel in accurately-predictable tracks. Lacking any plausible explanations for what they are other than objects orbiting the spherical earth, space programs, as described, must exist to put them there.

However, there is no credible evidence at all that the moon landings were faked, none. All of the postulated "inconsistancies" or "anomalies" in the data have been well and thoroughly debunked. Meanwhile, there is much independently corroborated evidence that they were not faked. Your conditional ("if") clause fails, so your point is moot.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Bart Sibrel's Lies or “A Funnier Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon”
« Reply #12 on: September 19, 2018, 02:59:44 PM »
In closing:
If you insist that the Lunar Landings were faked make sure that your own facts are correct and not fake facts from Bill Kaysing or Bart Sibrel.
If you know they are real then state your facts and not just being subjective.
Either that or stay like you are but don't try and tell others to give you facts that you cannot verify yourself, other than the reliance on the subjective material.
It's speculation from both ends but you are simply using mass opinion based on official storylines to back up something that you legitimately cannot verify as a truth.
There's far too much to even summarise but you can read it yourself:
Third party evidence:
Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings
How Do We Know The Moon Landing Really Happened?
How to See All Six Apollo Moon Landing Sites
11 Proofs That The Apollo Moon Landings Were NOT Fake, Humans have been to the Moon.

Then the technology did not exist in 1969 to fake the days long continuous TV broadcast. It was probably not originally generated on film but on interlaced video.
And there is no possibility of the continuous low gravity broadcasts being generated on earth - short segments of a rough approximation might have been possible.
Why Faking the Moon Landing Was Impossible
MOON HOAX: 'It wasn't possible' - expert's verdict on lunar landings
“Moon Hoax Not”: Short Film Explains Why It Was Impossible to Fake the Moon Landing - Dutchy does like the "lighting guy", tough!

There's no point in any more because I am fully aware that contrary evidence only hardens a conspiracy theorist's resolve.
But do a Google search on "photos apollo landing sites" and have a look.
And finally for those interested, this site might prove valuable: Moon Base Clavius

Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: rabinoz
Please realise that many of the arguments used by both Bill Kaysing and Bart Sibrel rely on information from space missions and they certainly believe in the reality of LEO satellites. Remember that Bill Kaysing had earlier worked for Rocketdyne!
I personally don't accept what Sibrel or Kaysing says on the whole.
There's a lot of stuff they and others say that creates a massive water muddying for conspiracy theorists, just as people adhering to the official storylines muddy the waters.
OK, YOU say that "There's a lot of stuff they and others say that creates a massive water muddying for conspiracy theorists" - show me good hard evidence.

So sure, muddying of the waters is all that most Lunar Landing Hoaxers can do really.

Quote from: sceptimatic
The key to it all is in gathering everything together and sifting through all of it from the official narrative to the questions about it all.
From that it's about taking enough snippets to argue what each person believes to be closer to a potential reality.
It's all about literally allowing logic to enter into the mix whilst trying to ensure that your own mind takes in its own unbiased matters at hand, otherwise things get lost fairly quickly in the quagmire.
And the unbiased logic, to most people, leads to the conclusion that the lunar landings were genuine.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: rabinoz
And even if the Lunar Missions could be proved a hoax - what effect does that have on the shape of the earth? Most proponents, even dutchy, give reasons for that that have nothing to do with the flat~Globe question.

If the so called lunar missions were actually proved to be a hoax then it flings the entire so called space programs and every other official program into the truth or lie mix and actually adds massive credence to conspiracy theories actually being closer to conspiracy facts.
No it doesn't.
Most lunar hoaxers still believe in space missions in general. It is only the fringe dwellers like flat-earthers that deny the possibility of all space missions.

Some like Anders Björkman (Heiwa) refuse any crewed missions and anything above LEO - because HE cannot understand it.
Others and probably most, including Bill Kaysing and Bart Sibrel believe that crewed missions to LEO, like the ISS, are real and use evidence from than against the manned lunar missions.

And even if you managed to prove the even space missions were impossible you've really proven nothing about the shape and motion of the earth.
The Globe has been the accepted shape of the earth in most western countries fro well over two millennia.
The Heliocentric Solar System was accepted in the few decades after Copernicus and finally by Kepler's time that was close enough to calculate quite well the motion of the planets.
The care and precision of these early astronomical observations is truly amazing.
After Neptune was first observed in 1846 an astronomer went back over Galileo's astronomical notes and found that Galileo had observed Neptune with his little telescope but had not recognised it as a planet.

Whether you believe it or not, it's all written in the stars, including our sun - and the moon!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Bart Sibrel's Lies or “A Funnier Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon”
« Reply #13 on: September 20, 2018, 01:23:07 AM »
;D No-one can escape the tentacles of bureaucracy ;D.