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.

[onebigmonkey]

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.

[BertieSlack]

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.

[bknight]

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.

[dwight]

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.