Charlie Duke (Legend) meets Bart Sibrel (I have nothing polite to say)

[TimberWolfAu]

So Charlie Duke, Apollo 16, was on a show with Bart Sibrel recently.

I haven't watched the whole thing yet, just skipped through a few chapters, but I have noted two things;
- Sibrel's Akers story keeps changing, now the house "burnt down". Oh, and still no evidence for the "murder" claim.
- Duke doesn't know who Sibrel is. Not really surprising, from what I remember, Duke doesn't give moon landing hoax the time of day. Isn't he the one with the quote "I walked on the moon, and no on can take that from me"?

[Obviousman]

Isn't he the one with the quote "I walked on the moon, and no on can take that from me"?

Nope, that was Gene Cernan.

[TimberWolfAu]

Isn't he the one with the quote "I walked on the moon, and no on can take that from me"?

Nope, that was Gene Cernan.

Cool, thanks. I'd had a quick search but didn't find anything.

[beedarko]

I'm shocked Sibrel had enough sac to actually subject himself to scrutiny from someone who knows the facts in a face-to-face setting.  He must've tripled his regular appearance fee. 

Looking forward to watching.

[onebigmonkey]

This is painful to watch at times - they clearly take advantage of an old man's fading memory and occasional confusion. Bart continues to make the same ridicluous claims about them being in LEO, not halfway to the moon from the Apollo 11 footage, saying that the view of Earth is from a colour photo of a satellite stuck to the window and backlit by Earthshine. There are so many gaping holes with that claim I don't have to pick another hole in it. But I will: There were no colour satellites in operation, there is no satellite showing the views it gives in operation, and there is visible rotation over the period of the broadcast. The satelites that were running provide an exact match for live TV footage. How was a colour transparancey of a live scene sent to LEO?

Jarrah (in a fb comment on it) bring sup the analysis of Apollo 16 rocks, pointing out how long it would take an Earthbound simulator to recreate the level of cosmic ray exposure. In so doing, he demonstrates that those rocks had to have come from the moon. He wants to talk to Duke about it, not sure why he thinks his copy and paste understanding of the subject would benefit from asking an astronaut, who doesn't know much about the topic, questions only an actual astrophysicist would know.

It's an ambush job for clicks. As Duke aks, a lot: "what is the point of this?". Advertising revenue Charlie. Money.

[TimberWolfAu]

Yeah, I've watched a bit, don't think I'll finish it.

Not sure what speaking Duke would do in regards to any analysis of lunar samples, Duke's not a geologist, he hasn't performed any tests or measurements with the rocks. He was given a crash course in geology to be able to identify good samples to collect, things that people back on Earth might find interesting. And as far as "recreating" Apollo samples using the accelerators Jarrah linked too, the results were isotropic (like meteorites are), if I've read the paper correctly, whilst lunar samples aren't. So if you took say a meteorite, to try and change it's appearance to a surface sample, it's the existing markers that need to be removed/erased that would be the impossible part, at least as far as I know (and a quick conversation with Randy Korotev a year or two ago now). Of course, I'm neither a geologist or a chemist, so I could be way off 

[beedarko]

This is painful to watch at times - they clearly take advantage of an old man's fading memory and occasional confusion.

That fact undoubtedly played a role in Bart's decision to participate in this "debate".  He avoids sharp, well-informed Apollo experts at all costs because he knows he'd quickly become piranha food.

Bloated coward.

[LunarOrbit 🇨🇦]

I remember interacting with Bart on a message board ran by Fox after they aired a Moon hoax program back in 2001. He hasn’t come up with any new material since then. What a pathetic loser.

[TimberWolfAu]

Speaking of Jarrah, in the same thread the "slam dunk" origin has been brought up and Jarrah's shown the highlight video.
Looks like he's been challenged on it, as it sounds like the commentator has named two basketball players who weren't in the same team until 1969. Jarrah's response was 'well the video said it was from 1962, so that's all that matters', like he can't even consider the simple point that some of the audio, or even footage, might be from outside the range noted by the video.

He hasn’t come up with any new material since then.

Well he does have his "whistleblower" footage now, but even that story keeps changing every time he tells it. First he added that the father "murdered" someone (who? no idea, who cares, stop asking questions!!!!), and now it's the house "burnt down".

[onebigmonkey]

One of the counters to Bart's completely fabricated story was the use of the term "Operarion slam dunk", and when it originated. The operarton never existed in the first place, so Jarrah dying on that hill is moot. He'd be better off examining all the other gaping holes in Sibrel's fiction.

[Jason Thompson]

I remember interacting with Bart on a message board ran by Fox after they aired a Moon hoax program back in 2001. He hasn’t come up with any new material since then. What a pathetic loser.

The sad thing is he doesn't even need any new material. Every year people come to his crap for the first time and believe it must be new or original because, if it wasn't, he wouldn't still be going on about it. They either get suckered in by it because they just don't know any better, or at least don't know where to find the rebuttals, or it appeals to them and they don't want to know any better. He can get a steady stream of attention and revenue from the same crap he's been peddling for decades because there is always someone new to find it.

How often on this board have people come along with 'new' arguments, only to be told we'd debunked them when they were still in school?

[TimberWolfAu]

One of the counters to Bart's completely fabricated story was the use of the term "Operarion slam dunk", and when it originated.

I mean I'm in agreement with the view that the footage being played may not actually be the footage for the audio being played. I've dropped some emails to both the channel, and the other channel they thanked for help, seeing if either has original sources for the time code in question.
Who know, maybe I'll get a hit and a source, and the whole thing can be put to bed. Hey, maybe we can get Oxford Dictionary updated too! Wouldn't be the first time someone from this forum has had 'official' pages/reports updated