Najak potpourri

[najak]

We don't have continuous footage. We have an edit, then a leading question from Sibrel without context.

Do you think "out far enough" is more likely to relate to Skylab or Apollo?

For sake of "logic skills" assessment - I'd like to get a definitive answer from all of you -- Can we be sure if Bean is talking about Apollo here? (and that Bean was truly unaware that A12 went through the Van Allen)

[Mag40]

We don't have continuous footage. We have an edit, then a leading question from Sibrel without context.


Do you think "out far enough" is more likely to relate to Skylab or Apollo?

For sake of "logic skills" assessment - I'd like to get a definitive answer from all of you -- Can we be sure if Bean is talking about Apollo here? (and that Bean was truly unaware that A12 went through the Van Allen)

He withdraws his claim and still persists! I personally couldn't care less. The astronauts were not involved in the trajectory, it's a stinking straw man.

I do not trust anything Sibrel does. Even his voice overs. He is a moron and a liar.

[Jason Thompson]

For sake of "logic skills" assessment - I'd like to get a definitive answer from all of you -- Can we be sure if Bean is talking about Apollo here? (and that Bean was truly unaware that A12 went through the Van Allen)

I thought you were OK with dropping this point? And yet here you are still labouring it.

If Sibrel is presenting anything, I'd be heavily disinclined to trust it. The man is a known liar and grifter. His ONLY interest is in making a name for himself and getting paid. He does not care about truth, as I have concluded from direct interaction with him.

And, once again, Bean (whom I have also had the pleasure of meeting) was the LMP for Apollo 12. None of his actual responsibilities required knowing a damn thing about the van Allen belt, since the time in it (bypassing the most intense regions anyway) was such a small part of the mission requiring no special measures, and it certainly wouldn't have counted as a memorable part of the mission when asked about it decades later. It is a straw man argument.

[najak]

I thought you were OK with dropping this point? And yet here you are still labouring it.

The point I am lingering on is the "nature of this piece of evidence".  It appears to me that most Apollogists have resorted to dismissing this evidence as "he wasn't talking about Apollo" or even "Sibrel may have manufactured/spliced it all together magically to make it appear as a continuous footage" (for the parts that actually look like continuous footage).

So am asking as a test..  See how the people of this forum digest this evidence.

I'm NOT belaboring the "meaning of Bean not knowing anything about Van Allen" - -that's separate, and out of scope.

I just want to see how the Apollogists here digest this specific piece of evidence.

[Mag40]

So am asking as a test..  See how the people of this forum digest this evidence.

You mean you think nobody here has seen this, like 20 years ago? It's been covered numerous times by the endless supply of HB Bingo posters.