Najak potpourri

[najak]

"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.

[najak]

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.

[najak]

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?

[Mag40]

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.

[najak]

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.

[Mag40]

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.

[najak]

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.

[onebigmonkey]

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.

[onebigmonkey]

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.

[TimberWolfAu]

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.

[najak]

#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.

[najak]

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.

[Miss Vocalcord]

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?

[Jason Thompson]

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.

[Mag40]

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.