ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: onebigmonkey on December 09, 2024, 12:44:22 AM
-
But it was filmed live +1.25 second delay at 60 frames per second North American standard. You are just idly speculating
Other than idle speculation, you have proof of this? Has anyone actors or crew stepped forward and corroborated this? No
And you are presuming that everything we saw on TV was honest/genuine. The MLH theory is that all (or most all) of the Moon footage was pre-filmed, possibly in June 1968, per this man's father's Deathbed confession, who was the Chief of Security for the Hanger in 1968 at Canon AF base, NM.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu5Z75ji3aU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu5Z75ji3aU)
Just because they say it's "live footage" - does that make it fact?
https://onebigmonkey.com/itburns/bartbs/bartsbull.html
There was no death bed confession.
Live footage makes it fact when the details in that footage could not possibly have been created anywhere but where and when it was claimed.
-
But it was filmed live +1.25 second delay at 60 frames per second North American standard. You are just idly speculating
Other than idle speculation, you have proof of this? Has anyone actors or crew stepped forward and corroborated this? No
And you are presuming that everything we saw on TV was honest/genuine. The MLH theory is that all (or most all) of the Moon footage was pre-filmed, possibly in June 1968, per this man's father's Deathbed confession, who was the Chief of Security for the Hanger in 1968 at Canon AF base, NM.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu5Z75ji3aU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu5Z75ji3aU)
Just because they say it's "live footage" - does that make it fact?
https://onebigmonkey.com/itburns/bartbs/bartsbull.html
There was no death bed confession.
Live footage makes it fact when the details in that footage could not possibly have been created anywhere but where and when it was claimed.
Brother Bart "says". I could have sworn najak said he was embarrassed by the HB trivia and wouldn't be bringing it up! Sibrel has never spotted one single thing that doesn't fall into the category of Verbal Diarrhoea.
-
Is this done to irritate? The only telemetry data lost that could have been significant was the SSTV data for Apollo 11.
Do you really think that we ONLY lost the source tapes for Apollo 11?
-
#1: I'm juggling a dozen commenters.
And you want to start more threads? If you have time for more threads you have time to respond to the questions and comments that have been directed at you in your existing threads. You will not be starting any new threads until you do.
THIS thread is stale.. We aren't talking about Flags anymore -- all has been said on this topic. All have made their closing arguments.
-
Brother Bart "says". I could have sworn najak said he was embarrassed by the HB trivia and wouldn't be bringing it up! Sibrel has never spotted one single thing that doesn't fall into the category of Verbal Diarrhoea.
You think these death-bed confessions are fictional? Liars? Delusional?
-
Brother Bart "says". I could have sworn najak said he was embarrassed by the HB trivia and wouldn't be bringing it up! Sibrel has never spotted one single thing that doesn't fall into the category of Verbal Diarrhoea.
You think these death-bed confessions are fictional? Liars? Delusional?
Yes, yes and yes. Read the link I gave you.
-
https://onebigmonkey.com/itburns/bartbs/bartsbull.html
Thanks for the coverage on this. It was very informative, and useful.
I tend to ignore just about everything said by Bart -- but this confession seemed "odd to be faked" - so I tend to think it's genuinely made. This dying man seems to believe what he is saying. You did note:
"Which is interesting given that other than his birth state of Arizona and his final resting place in Florida, there are few indications other than a property deed in Clovis that Gene lived anywhere other than Michigan."
So he did live in Clovis. His dad did confess to killing someone who was going to "leak it" -- do you think that's total fiction too?
He had 14 names -- fiction as well? It was too oddly specific.
Of course your current Apollogists beliefs MANDATE that this was fiction. But if it were brought to light that MLH is true (e.g.Aldrin officially confesses) - would you reconsider your views on this man's death confession?
-
https://onebigmonkey.com/itburns/bartbs/bartsbull.html
Thanks for the coverage on this. It was very informative, and useful.
I tend to ignore just about everything said by Bart -- but this confession seemed "odd to be faked" - so I tend to think it's genuinely made. This dying man seems to believe what he is saying. You did note:
"Which is interesting given that other than his birth state of Arizona and his final resting place in Florida, there are few indications other than a property deed in Clovis that Gene lived anywhere other than Michigan."
So he did live in Clovis. His dad did confess to killing someone who was going to "leak it" -- do you think that's total fiction too?
He had 14 names -- fiction as well? It was too oddly specific.
Of course your current Apollogists beliefs MANDATE that this was fiction. But if it were brought to light that MLH is true (e.g.Aldrin officially confesses) - would you reconsider your views on this man's death confession?
It says he has a property in Clovis, that is not the same as living there.
His dad did not make a death bed confession. It never happened. He wasn't even head of security there, just a sergeant. Bart's story is just that: a story. Like the rest of his autobiography, it's a work of fiction.
No astronaut will ever come out and make any such confession, because those astronauts went to the moon.
-
His dad did confess to killing someone who was going to "leak it" -- do you think that's total fiction too?
Could you provide the time stamp in the Akers video where he makes this claim? I can't recall hearing this from any source except Sibrel directly.
-
Do you really think that we ONLY lost the source tapes for Apollo 11?
What have you got?
Telemetry that was of any use was recorded on multiple forms of media and went into a whole barrage of reports. The only thing useful was as said by JayUtah, the Apollo 13 data. The only thing that would be useful now is the SSTV from Apollo that could have stopped the ghosting and improved the picture.
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2010.0
Tell me something and see if you can engage the logical part of your brain without HB bias.
NASA didn't even need to tell the world about this. None of these tapes were readable without enormously expensive specialist readers. HBs are certainly never going to do anything with them.
HBs actually claim as part of the process to "dupe" the whole room in Mission Control, that somebody faked the whole mission telemetry and fed it into the system. They cite NASA doing a dry run for Apollo landing with setup telemetry. So a rather stupidly contradictory claim.
-
#1: His dad did not make a death bed confession. It never happened. He wasn't even head of security there, just a sergeant. Bart's story is just that: a story. Like the rest of his autobiography, it's a work of fiction.
#2: No astronaut will ever come out and make any such confession, because those astronauts went to the moon.
#1: Bart is a story teller for sure. But this dead guy, seems authentic.
Clovis checks out -- odd to own a home and not live in it - but this is your assumption...?
You showed a pic from 1943 -- 25 yrs before the alleged filming of A11/12. <-- you High integrity website should say this.
As of 1968, they had planes there, but no hangers?
For A11/12 - the hanger size would relatively small. A12 - conveniently had no video camera to carry around... so that would have made this one easier.
The 14 names are oddly specific.
"Chief of Security for a Hangar -- isn't a HUGE title.... It just means "hey Staff Sergeant, you've been put in charge of security for this hangar"
I don't see the gain for this dead guy... don't see HIS motive to lie.
#2: If Aldrin confesses, would you accept it, or call him senile?
-
Clovis checks out -- odd to own a home and not live in it
Odd to own a home and not live in it? Seriously? You know what a landlord is, right?
A12 - conveniently had no video camera to carry around... so that would have made this one easier.
Quite a jump there. Apollo 12 did have a TV camera. Why do you think it didn't?
I don't see the gain for this dead guy... don't see HIS motive to lie.
First, if the story was told by Bart Sibrel, the original guy doesn't need a motive since it's questionable if he even made this confession in the first place. Bart is a serial liar and known for being far more interested in making a name for himself and making money than in anything resembling the truth (and that is a conclusion I have partly based on my own direct communication with the man, just in case you think I'm just parroting a line here). Second, money is a pretty good motivator, especially for some anonymous guy on the periphery who maybe just wants a bit of notoriety.
#2: If Aldrin confesses, would you accept it, or call him senile?
IF he makes such a confession, it still doesn't topple the huge mountain of evidence that Apollo happened as described. It would be a far more plausible notion that he made such a confession 'for shits and giggles' than that it carried any evidentiary weight.
-
#1: His dad did not make a death bed confession. It never happened. He wasn't even head of security there, just a sergeant. Bart's story is just that: a story. Like the rest of his autobiography, it's a work of fiction.
#2: No astronaut will ever come out and make any such confession, because those astronauts went to the moon.
#1: Bart is a story teller for sure. But this dead guy, seems authentic.
"seems"
Based on?
Clovis checks out -- odd to own a home and not live in it - but this is your assumption...?
But not unusual.
You showed a pic from 1943 -- 25 yrs before the alleged filming of A11/12. <-- you High integrity website should say this.
The list of people with editorial control over my website is very short. You are not on it. I make no claim that the images shown represent the base in 1968. There is one lower down the page that is much more contemporary. Use that.
As of 1968, they had planes there, but no hangers?
Who said they had no hangars. Go to the 1965 image. There are lots. Which is the one they used to supposedly film Apollo?
For A11/12 - the hanger size would relatively small. A12 - conveniently had no video camera to carry around... so that would have made this one easier.
Which hangar is the one? Define how big it needs to be.
The 14 names are oddly specific.
Aren't they just. You'd need to ask Bart why he fabricated the list.
"Chief of Security for a Hangar -- isn't a HUGE title.... It just means "hey Staff Sergeant, you've been put in charge of security for this hangar"
That isn't the claim being made. The claim is that he was chief of base security.
I don't see the gain for this dead guy... don't see HIS motive to lie.
Follow Bart's money.
#2: If Aldrin confesses, would you accept it, or call him senile?
Moot point. It won 't happen because he went to the moon.
-
"Chief of Security for a Hangar -- isn't a HUGE title.... It just means "hey Staff Sergeant, you've been put in charge of security for this hangar"
You appear to be the only one claiming he was "chief of security for a hanger" (why would individual hangers need a specific security chief?)
From Bart Sibrel's 'Moon Man' (my personal copy);
"This original direct eyewitness of the Apollo deception, now deceased, was the Chief of Security at the United States military base where the staged Apollo 11 Moon landing was secretly filmed."
"This Air Force Military Police Chief..."
"Below are fifteen names of visitors that the Chief of Security at Cannon Air Force Base..."
" The names are listed below in the exact same order as they originally appeared on the list that I received from the Chief of Security at Cannon Air Force Base."
"When the Chief of Security of Cannon Air Force Base saw the..."
Given how many times Sibrel had to repeat it, I wonder if he's trying to convince his readers, or himself.
I did like this part though;
"They threatened his life, and the lives of his family, if he ever spoke to me again." So, naturally, what does Sibrel do...... why he contacts people in the FBI and government, you know, those people who if they found out, would kill Akers and family.
"In order to protect this individual, I notified the FBI, a United States Senator [who Bart? Why wont you tell us? Is it so we can't check your claims?] on the Intelligence Committee, and the White House Press Secretary."
-
THIS thread is stale.. We aren't talking about Flags anymore -- all has been said on this topic. All have made their closing arguments.
You have left questions/comments unanswered. And I'm talking about all of your threads, not just this one.
-
"Chief of Security for a Hangar -- isn't a HUGE title.... It just means "hey Staff Sergeant, you've been put in charge of security for this hangar"
From Bart Sibrel's 'Moon Man' (my personal copy);...
Sibrel majorly lacks integrity, and I HATE IT.
I see now that "Chief of Security" was Sibrel's addition! Thank you for pointing this out... and see "no Socratic method" needed.
He was just "military police" is the true claim here, right?
I find this video credible... oddly unmotivated by gain/notoriety, and oddly specific. The details he does give seem corroborated.
-
You have left questions/comments unanswered. And I'm talking about all of your threads, not just this one.
Please enumerate these questions - as I've answered all that I've seen.
If people still want answer - they can step forward .. as I INVITED THEM TO DO.
You are running this show like the Salem Witch Trials.. with bias/prejudice from a seat of authority.
-
You showed a pic from 1943 -- 25 yrs before the alleged filming of A11/12. <-- you High integrity website should say this.
The list of people with editorial control over my website is very short. You are not on it. I make no claim that the images shown represent the base in 1968. There is one lower down the page that is much more contemporary. Use that.
Your claim is clearly deceptive saying: "So, Cannon AFB. Here it is:" If it's a dated photo, it should say the date.. Especially since it's from 25 years EARLIER..
I assume one of your goals in presentation is genuine integrity. If that's not important to you -- leave it as it is.
I see you debunking Rasa/etc -- seems like you did a thorough job.
But for A11, they showed no lift-off. Hi-rise not needed. A smaller hangar would have sufficed.
Do you think you've proved that "there was no medium-sized hangar there in 1968?"
Of the claims made specifically by the son of Gene Akers - which of his claims do you think you've proven to be false?
-
You showed a pic from 1943 -- 25 yrs before the alleged filming of A11/12. <-- you High integrity website should say this.
The list of people with editorial control over my website is very short. You are not on it. I make no claim that the images shown represent the base in 1968. There is one lower down the page that is much more contemporary. Use that.
Your claim is clearly deceptive saying: "So, Cannon AFB. Here it is:" If it's a dated photo, it should say the date.. Especially since it's from 25 years EARLIER..
I assume one of your goals in presentation is genuine integrity. If that's not important to you -- leave it as it is.
I see you debunking Rasa/etc -- seems like you did a thorough job.
But for A11, they showed no lift-off. Hi-rise not needed. A smaller hangar would have sufficed.
Do you think you've proved that "there was no medium-sized hangar there in 1968?"
Of the claims made specifically by the son of Gene Akers - which of his claims do you think you've proven to be false?
Did anyone spot the objectivity. It's Brother Bart and the HBs love him. No need for real evidence, some old git reading a script and they're all hooked. TBFDU mirrored this video.
-
Did anyone spot the objectivity. It's Brother Bart and the HBs love him. No need for real evidence, some old git reading a script and they're all hooked. TBFDU mirrored this video.
There are not a lot of people that I like LESS than Bart.
-
Did anyone spot the objectivity. It's Brother Bart and the HBs love him. No need for real evidence, some old git reading a script and they're all hooked. TBFDU mirrored this video.
There are not a lot of people that I like LESS than Bart.
Nobody believes you. You do not walk the walk.
-
Nobody believes you. You do not walk the walk.
The only thing Bart provided for MLH was the following:
1. The Astronaut in-depth interviews. Alan Bean's interview was especially informative, indicating:
a. Bean, who was on the only Apollo mission to fly back through the worst parts of Van Allen - yet he didn't even know what they were, or that he'd gone through Van Allen!
b. He gave a good first hand account of NASA's response to Apollo 1, and the 500-page report by Baron, indicating the abundant issues beneath the covers... they accelerated development by almost 50%... while cutting budget. They all said "You can't do that! That's Crazy!" -- this is true. Magically, everything just "fell into place" for all of it.
2. The Gene Akers confession tape. Although Bart pollutes it with his own low-integrity commentary - I believe the man who created this tape was sincere, and believed he was being honest. And I don't see reason to believe he was delusional, or exaggerating (at least not my much).
===
In the beginning of my journey, within the first few weeks, I thought "Bart was IT" -- as the internet results lead me to believe (on purpose). Because if you want to "hurt MLH" -- you lead those who'd dare to question Apollo to BART -- and he'll make them into fools. I was disappointed from the get-go.
I wrote Bart to ask him for his "best MLH argument" and he sends me back a photo of "Parallel shadows" saying "see they should be parallel!"... I sent the photo back to him with Pixel measurements showing "NOT even THIS photo you sent me has parallel shadows!"...
After all these years, Bart's favorite argument is STILL "converging shadows!"... Yeeesh. This was "the Moon Man???" The best MLH had to offer... disappointing.
I searched further, and not until I spent money and bought a book did I find the "Good materials"... the stuff that Google nor YT would allow me to find (without knowing them by name). But Google would show me Bart -- Bart might as well be on NASA's payroll - his overall impact works for the good of NASA. Is he really this dumb, or maybe he's secretly paid by NASA to pretend to be this dumb... We may never know.
I don't like Bart. And after I corrected his "parallel shadows" - he stopped responding. He didn't take it well.
-
You showed a pic from 1943 -- 25 yrs before the alleged filming of A11/12. <-- you High integrity website should say this.
The list of people with editorial control over my website is very short. You are not on it. I make no claim that the images shown represent the base in 1968. There is one lower down the page that is much more contemporary. Use that.
Your claim is clearly deceptive saying: "So, Cannon AFB. Here it is:" If it's a dated photo, it should say the date.. Especially since it's from 25 years EARLIER..
It is not deceptive. It is Canon AFB.
I assume one of your goals in presentation is genuine integrity. If that's not important to you -- leave it as it is
My goal is to debunk moon hoax claims. I do it as I see fit. If I felt your opinion mattered, I'd change it.
I see you debunking Rasa/etc -- seems like you did a thorough job.
Rasa is an idiot.
But for A11, they showed no lift-off. Hi-rise not needed. A smaller hangar would have sufficed.
How small?
Do you think you've proved that "there was no medium-sized hangar there in 1968?"
Where did I claim there was no hangar? There's a picture there from 1965, point out the one they used.
Of the claims made specifically by the son of Gene Akers - which of his claims do you think you've proven to be false?
That his father witnessed them faking the moon landings. I don't actually need to prove them false, ypu need to prove them to be true. There is not one shred of evidence that supports that other than hearsay and the fabrications of a grifting self publicist.
-
Nobody believes you. You do not walk the walk.
The only thing Bart provided for MLH was the following:
1. The Astronaut in-depth interviews. Alan Bean's interview was especially informative, indicating:
a. Bean, who was on the only Apollo mission to fly back through the worst parts of Van Allen - yet he didn't even know what they were, or that he'd gone through Van Allen!
b. He gave a good first hand account of NASA's response to Apollo 1, and the 500-page report by Baron, indicating the abundant issues beneath the covers... they accelerated development by almost 50%... while cutting budget. They all said "You can't do that! That's Crazy!" -- this is true. Magically, everything just "fell into place" for all of it.
2. The Gene Akers confession tape. Although Bart pollutes it with his own low-integrity commentary - I believe the man who created this tape was sincere, and believed he was being honest. And I don't see reason to believe he was delusional, or exaggerating (at least not my much).
===
In the beginning of my journey, within the first few weeks, I thought "Bart was IT" -- as the internet results lead me to believe (on purpose). Because if you want to "hurt MLH" -- you lead those who'd dare to question Apollo to BART -- and he'll make them into fools. I was disappointed from the get-go.
I wrote Bart to ask him for his "best MLH argument" and he sends me back a photo of "Parallel shadows" saying "see they should be parallel!"... I sent the photo back to him with Pixel measurements showing "NOT even THIS photo you sent me has parallel shadows!"...
After all these years, Bart's favorite argument is STILL "converging shadows!"... Yeeesh. This was "the Moon Man???" The best MLH had to offer... disappointing.
I searched further, and not until I spent money and bought a book did I find the "Good materials"... the stuff that Google nor YT would allow me to find (without knowing them by name). But Google would show me Bart -- Bart might as well be on NASA's payroll - his overall impact works for the good of NASA. Is he really this dumb, or maybe he's secretly paid by NASA to pretend to be this dumb... We may never know.
I don't like Bart. And after I corrected his "parallel shadows" - he stopped responding. He didn't take it well.
Bart may have presented Bean was discussing Apollo, but that doesn't mean Bean was.
The Akers 'confession' is unsupported hearsay propped up by a grifting self-publicist selling a book.
Sibrel has repeatedly shown himself to be dishonest and woefully ill-informed. If he told me the sky was blue, I'd go check.
-
The only thing Bart provided for MLH was the following:
1. The Astronaut in-depth interviews. Alan Bean's interview was especially informative, indicating:
a. Bean, who was on the only Apollo mission to fly back through the worst parts of Van Allen - yet he didn't even know what they were, or that he'd gone through Van Allen!
Why would any of the astronauts have needed to know any details about the belts? I could see maybe Apollo 8 and 10 having to keep track of dose readings during the traverse, but once they came back with acceptable dose readings, then the VAB would be well down the list of things the astronauts would need to be concerned with. And for Bean's Apollo 12, well by his flight, three others had already been through the VAB, so again, it would have been very far down the list of concerns. Maybe, at best, NASA might have said 'don't EVA during this period', but considering only Apollo's 15 through 17 needed an EVA mid-flight, and this was on the way back from the moon, there wouldn't have been any concern in this area either.
-
#1: It is not deceptive. It is Canon AFB.
#2: Where did I claim there was no hangar? There's a picture there from 1965, point out the one they used.
#3: There is not one shred of evidence that supports that other than hearsay and the fabrications of a grifting self publicist.
#1: In the context of trying to show the context that "there's no hangar here" - for you to show a picture saying "here is the pic!" - without stating "this is from 25 yrs prior" is very deceptive. So sure, you can "choose to use deception" - that's fine. But then stop criticizing Bart for his similar lack of integrity. If I were an Apollogist, seeing you employ this manner of purposed deception, would upset me. If you need deception to prove your point -- this makes you look guilty.
#2: You seemed to be saying "no way -- there's no hangar here" as the gist of your point. If you are admitting there could have been a hangar of sufficient size, you never say this. It looks to me like all of your efforts are to say the opposite. For A11 - a 50' tall Hangar may suffice, perhaps with dimensions 150' x 200'? Your 1965 picture is from ~5 miles away - and doesn't have enough resolution to see a 40' hanger from that distance.
#3: The evidence is this man's testimony, and that what he reports lines up with his life. And it doesn't seem like something manufactured by Bart, who wouldn't have had the patience to wait for some random guy to die 20 years later... Bart's Moon Man text shows Bart's style of exaggeration/skewing reality. And it doesn't match this tape, nor the grossly delayed timing.
The other evidence exists too, such as "8 flag movements unexplained", "Apollo 12's Rendezvous with Flinging Dish ending in pendulum", and perhaps (soon to be established) "3 lunar launches that were too fast." and perhaps "The dust keeps falling to fast." And the "SEQ pendulum is 13% too fast."
And I have more - but y'all are scared to let me post new threads to cover it, as it messes with your current Apollogetic beliefs.
-
Bart may have presented Bean was discussing Apollo, but that doesn't mean Bean was.
Bean was MOST DEFINITELY talking about Van Allen. Relisten to the interview, and see if you can legitimately squirm out of it.
And Van Allen was a huge deal, until suddenly "it wasn't" ... and now "it's a big deal again". I find it implausible that one of the 3 men to have gone through the very worst part of Van Allen - doesn't EVEN KNOW HE WENT THROUGH IT. Perhaps the qualifications for being an Astronaut had less to do with "being smart" and more to do with "can we trust you with national secrets?"
@TimberWolfAU - this response applies to your last comment as well. It's very odd that the man who went through the worst of it, has no clue what they even are.
-
Bean was MOST DEFINITELY talking about Van Allen. Relisten to the interview, and see if you can legitimately squirm out of it.
But was he talking about Apollo?
-
It's very odd that the man who went through the worst of it, has no clue what they even are.[/b]
Since it had no bearing whatsoever on his piloting the craft to the Moon, nor what the bulk of his mission actually entailed, no it's not. You don't burden people doing complex tasks with a need to remember irrelevant details, and when you're learning complex tasks you don't focus on the things you hear about that have no bearing on the task at hand. You certainly don't expect them to remember those details decades later.
This is such a boring and oft-repeated argument. You are bringing nothing new here.
-
It's very odd that the man who went through the worst of it, has no clue what they even are.
The worst of what? This is whack-a-mole HB Bingo crap!
http://apolloproject.com/sp-4029/Apollo_18-24_Translunar_Injection.htm
Like all routes, the traverses were inclined orbits going through weaker areas of the belts. The ground track of the pre-TLI shows how the stack would have left LEO and moved into the elliptical intercept orbit for the Moon.
-
This is such a boring and oft-repeated argument. You are bringing nothing new here.
I'm OK with dropping this point. It's OUT OF SCOPE for my focus to discuss "did we leave earth's orbit". My focus is solely upon the question of "what proof is there that we didn't land men on the moon?" Just the landing part. That's it.
I only mentioned this in context of Bart -- to give him credit for obtaining this admission by Bean that he didn't have a clue about Van Allen - which is ironic given that he went through the worst of ANY OTHER MISSION. It's suspicious that "it was a HUGE DEAL" starting out -- off-the-charts radiation, and talked about repeatedly.
In what year did all of concerns dissipate? So much so that the first humans, Apollo 8, didn't even mention these belts anywhere in the transcripts or reports.
So I find this suspicious, but out of scope for my focus. At this time, I'm NOT making any claims that "we didn't send men into orbit around the moon."
-
The worst of what? This is whack-a-mole HB Bingo crap!
I believe your video might be "misinformation" -- I believe the Apollo reports themselves say something far different than what mainstream pseudo-science is telling us now... it doesn't map back to the Apollo reports. The Apollogist Influencers are feeding this crap, and people are repeating it...
So you might want to fact check this.
As for me -- it's out of my scope. This isn't a CLAIM that I'm making. My theses are not hinged upon whether or not we left Earth Orbit.
-
But was he talking about Apollo?
Please watch the interview and tell me what you conclude.
https://youtu.be/Qr6Vcvl0OeU?t=817 (https://youtu.be/Qr6Vcvl0OeU?t=817)
-
@TimberWolfAU - this response applies to your last comment as well. It's very odd that the man who went through the worst of it, has no clue what they even are.
As the LMP for Apollo 12, what bearing did the VAB have on Bean's duties and responsibilities? I say none.
-
The worst of what? This is whack-a-mole HB Bingo crap!
I believe your video might be "misinformation"
Nope. I even showed you a link showing the orbital inclination! Here is a page with the ground track:
https://www.heavens-above.com/orbit.aspx?satid=04225
(https://www.heavens-above.com/orbitdisplay.aspx?icon=default&width=250&height=250&mode=A&satid=4225)
I believe the Apollo reports themselves say something far different than what mainstream pseudo-science is telling us now
What utter bollocks.
it doesn't map back to the Apollo reports.
OK, this is where you back that lie up.
The Apollogist Influencers are feeding this crap, and people are repeating it.
I am not an Apollogist and nobody on this forum is either. Nothing about this is crap.
So you might want to fact check this.
Already done so. You are so far out of your depth you don't even know it.
As for me -- it's out of my scope. This isn't a CLAIM that I'm making. My theses are not hinged upon whether or not we left Earth Orbit.
Yet you still have the HB Bingo lies to spout. Withdraw your lie about "went through the worst of it".
But was he talking about Apollo?
Please watch the interview and tell me what you conclude.
https://youtu.be/Qr6Vcvl0OeU?t=817 (https://youtu.be/Qr6Vcvl0OeU?t=817)
Nobody cares. It's a colostomy bag of a strawman.
-
Please watch the interview and tell me what you conclude.
I know the interview; that is why I was asking you. Where is he asking about Apollo?
-
So much so that the first humans, Apollo 8, didn't even mention these belts anywhere in the transcripts or reports.
Really?
From the Apollo 8 transcript;
Apollo Control here. And we're 5 hours, 9 minutes into the flight and we, as you heard the crew record, the S-IVB is doing its propulsive vent. Now we should see a pretty dramatic separation between the two vehicles. The S-IVB will remain on a path which will take it essentially, if you consider the Moon straight ahead of you for analogy purposes, it will take the S-IVB to the right of the Moon while the spacecraft will veer into the left and slightly ahead of the Moon. Earlier in that conversation you heard Anders reporting his PRD readings. That's the Personal Radiation Dosimeter, and perhaps another dosimeter and they were down on the negligible range as we anticipated they'd be, although the crew at this point has passed through probably the thickest portion of the van Allen radiation belt as it departs the Earth. It'll continue to go through some residual background radiation on out to about 40,000 miles. The - That's the new position in this flight, the flight controller named radiation has been instituted because of our passage through the belt. And at this point we've heard nothing from him which is about what we expected to do. At 5 hours, 10 minutes into the flight; this is Apollo Control, Houston.
Over the next few hours, Frank Borman would get increasingly unwell, with some concern amongst the doctors on the ground that it was from radiation, or the Asian Flu. Today, Borman's sickness is attributed to Space Adaption Syndrome.
-
I know the interview; that is why I was asking you. Where is he asking about Apollo?
Before I answer, I'd like to know your conclusion. Is he talking about Apollo here? I think yes, clearly.
-
Really?.... Over the next few hours, Frank Borman would get increasingly unwell, with some concern amongst the doctors on the ground that it was from radiation, or the Asian Flu. Today, Borman's sickness is attributed to Space Adaption Syndrome.
Thank you for the correction. This is "out of my scope of proof" and simply recounted a statement from American Moon - which clearly has some integrity issues. Massimo made this claim. Thank you for correcting it. I'll never make this erroneous claim again.
-
Please watch the interview and tell me what you conclude.
https://youtu.be/Qr6Vcvl0OeU?t=817 (https://youtu.be/Qr6Vcvl0OeU?t=817)
Got an unedited version? Right before they talk about the VAB (13:40) there's a cut, but Bean is still talking, what was cut?
Sibrel gets so many basic details wrong, time and time again, that anything he shares should be taken with a bag of salt.
-
Yet you still have the HB Bingo lies to spout. Withdraw your lie about "went through the worst of it".
I'll withdraw my statement. For this stuff here, I'm only parroting from others. If I ever decide to attack the LOE MLH claims, I will research these in detail. For now, it's simply out of scope, and so I withdraw ALL claims to do with Van Allen.
I only brought this up, in context of Sibrel, who is the one who gave us these interviews. And I do think it's notable that Bean didn't know about Van Allen. I thought the "return trip" is where A12 went very close to equatorial.... Is this untrue?
-
Got an unedited version? Right before they talk about the VAB (13:40) there's a cut, but Bean is still talking, what was cut?
Sibrel gets so many basic details wrong, time and time again, that anything he shares should be taken with a bag of salt.
I'd love the unedited version. I agree that "cuts" are always suspicious, and especially from Sibrel.
From the continuous footage we have, what are your conclusions about Bean and his awareness of VAB for A12?
-
Before I answer, I'd like to know your conclusion. Is he talking about Apollo here? I think yes, clearly.
I don't think he is.
-
From the continuous footage we have, what are your conclusions about Bean and his awareness of VAB for A12?
You'd like me to repeat myself? Ok.
As the LMP for Apollo 12, what bearing did the VAB have on Bean's duties and responsibilities? I say none.
And;
Why would any of the astronauts have needed to know any details about the belts? I could see maybe Apollo 8 and maybe 10 having to keep track of dose readings during the traverse, but once they came back with acceptable dose readings, then the VAB would be well down the list of things the astronauts would need to be concerned with. And for Bean's Apollo 12, well by his flight, three others had already been through the VAB, so again, it would have been very far down the list of concerns. Maybe, at best, NASA might have said 'don't EVA during this period', but considering only Apollo's 15 through 17 needed an EVA mid-flight, and this was on the way back from the moon, there wouldn't have been any concern in this area either.
-
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?
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I'll add this here as a response to this post:
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2016.msg59021#msg59021
so as not to divert the original thread.
Najak, your post suggests that your disillusionment with Apollo stems entirely from "gee, it looks kinda funny". Lunatics murdering someone doesn't look the way you think they should. Rockets don't do what you think they should, all based on half an understanding of rocket science and the actual rockets and the word of people who also don't understand them. I'm not a rocket scientist. I'm not going to comment on how they behaved. It's a good policy to adopt when the complexity of a subject is beyond you.
Believe it or not, your enemy's enemy is not your friend. Your distrust of one source of information does not automatically make people who also don't like that source correct. Just because an aspect of authority has been dishonest, it doesn't mean everyone is. You're happy to believe that vested interests will lie and misrepresent facts to protect those interests - this is exactly true of the moon hoax claim, all dressed up with a massive dose of confirmation bias, which is a far bigger suppressor of information and truth than any efforts you believe Google makes.
As for Baron, ask yourself how come you've heard of him. It's not because a whistleblower told you about him. Ask yourself why you think he submitted a 500 page report, and not the two documents amounting to much less than that, one of which is available.
https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/barron.html
We know what was in the reports he submitted: a list of failings and allegations of safety breaches at a NASA contractor. Not NASA. Not the DoD.
The DoD, incidentally, had nothing to do with Apollo other than being a primary source of personnel for crews. There was a grudging cooperation between the two agencies, overseen by committees to exchange information and knowledge, but the DoD very much did not like having to share its intel and tech with NASA, and NASA didn't like the DoD interfering with their projects. They mostly went their own way and dealt with each other when they had to. You don't like the idea that all of a sudden the USA and USSR was cooperating in space. Could it be that this was part of a wider effort to make relations with Moscow a little less antagonistic? Nixon liked what it did for his reputation, just as his extending the hand of frienship to China made him look good. Apollo-Soyuz coincided with the SALT talks. Any inference that there were other motives behind it, such as agreeing not to blow the whistle on Apollo, is just paranoid and delusional.
You've decided on a version of reality, and despite your protestations to the contrary you'll reject anything that doesn't fit it. You've repeatedly implied that people here are hiding behind claims of scientific validity and adhering to a belief out of almost blind religious fath. You're exactly the same. I don't make any claim that Apollo happened because "science says so", I make it because every single piece of evidence I've seen is internally and externally consistent with recorded history - including evidence where I'm pretty much the only one looking at it.
If your motives are as honourable as you claim, drop the soapbox posturing and actually look at the information you're given here and that's available elsewhere. Stop trying to crowbar maths and science into things that don't need it and where the methodology doesn't work. Ask yourself whether what you're suggesting must be happening in order for your version of events to be correct are just far too improbable.
-
I'm NOT belaboring the "meaning of Bean not knowing anything about Van Allen" - -that's separate, and out of scope.
Alan Bean was CAPCOM during the Gemini 11 mission in 1966. That mission raised its apogee to 850 miles and scraped the underside of the VAB. Bean can be heard discussing this with the crew (which included his future Apollo 12 commander, Pete Conrad). So we have documentary evidence that Bean knew where the VAB started. Is that 'out of scope'?
But, as others have pointed out, he didn't need to know.
And, as others have pointed out, Bart Sibrel has been caught deceptively editing other Apollo media.
-
I'm NOT belaboring the "meaning of Bean not knowing anything about Van Allen" - -that's separate, and out of scope.
Alan Bean was CAPCOM during the Gemini 11 mission in 1966. That mission raised its apogee to 850 miles and scraped the underside of the VAB. Bean can be heard discussing this with the crew (which included his future Apollo 12 commander, Pete Conrad). So we have documentary evidence that Bean knew where the VAB started. Is that 'out of scope'?
But, as others have pointed out, he didn't need to know.
And, as others have pointed out, Bart Sibrel has been caught deceptively editing other Apollo media.
Agreed anything Sibrel publishes has been highly edited. That footage was inserted from a different interview to make Bean look "silly". Another more infamous video was Astronauts Gone Wild IIRC, where he inserts various footages, where Sibrel asked each astronaut to swear on the Bible that they landed on the Moon. He includes those that either refused to swear or had issues with the swearing, the best was when Edgar Mitchell told him to get out of his house and then kicked Sibrel in the ass. But what he "forgot" to include were the astronauts that agreed to swear on the Bible that they landed on the Moon, Gene Cernan comes to mind as one of those folks.
ETA: Changed spelling of one word.
-
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?
Here he is talking about Skylab. His manner of describing "out far enough" is in keeping with his discussions in the crew debriefs for Skylab SL-3, and personal discussions with me.