The Moon Hoaxer BUSTED!

[imitator]

VETTED takes apart the showdown between Apollo legend Charlie Duke and moon-landing denier Bart Sibrel, as seen on the Danny Jones Podcast.

Sibrel is calked out for using manipulated and out-of-context clips... essentially cutting footage until it says what he wants, not what’s true. The moment the real context is added back, the entire argument falls apart.

Context is everything. Take it away and suddenly perfectly normal astronaut quotes become "evidence" that NASA secretly filmed in someone’s basement.




In my opinion... Bart talks about the Moon landing like the Moon is his ex... he is still obsessed, still rewriting the story, and still convinced it never happened.  

The full interview on the Danny Jones Podcast: 
NASA Apollo Astronaut Finally Faces Off Against #1 Moon Landing Skeptic
https://youtu.be/kMn6sI4X66s?si=ae_UzSbOM8W0C71

[Maxmars]

It's actually kind of funny....

Every since 'way back when' upon first discussing the entire matter with all manner of people...

I would opine about how some of these 'productions' about the moon happened to be a disingenuously constructed, and or poorly argued mess that would fall apart because they use the same bullshit "convincing" tactics as the "big boys do."

Of course the like-minded are pleased and convinced... they are being affirmed....

But if it takes slick editorial tactics, and specious logic to get there... (I would say) you are not really making a case... especially if it is destined to be de- and re-constructed... and certainly here at DI - no one can just 'expect' bullshit to fly.

Also... note how the trope is put-down is "moon-landing" denial... automatically thrusting any questions into the "science denial" PR ploy.

I have often struggled from this vantage point.

My complaints have nothing to do with with assertion whether we went or didn't go to the moon.

My assertion is that we wouldn't know if we had... a complete multi-national obfuscation process was applied to it in fear of the "Soviet" threat.  All the information the public looked for was scrubbed... sanitized... and 
covers were crafted and put in place, official records of one of the the most significant steps in human history were "seized" and subsequently claimed "lost."  --- (like the technological ability to "go back to the moon.")

That was the "disclosure" I argued we deserved... but now anyone asking such questions is called an "anti-science ignoramus"... 

It's kind of irritating.

[Oldcarpy2]

It's actually kind of funny....

Every since 'way back when' upon first discussing the entire matter with all manner of people...

I would opine about how some of these 'productions' about the moon happened to be a disingenuously constructed, and or poorly argued mess that would fall apart because they use the same bullshit "convincing" tactics as the "big boys do."

Of course the like-minded are pleased and convinced... they are being affirmed....

But if it takes slick editorial tactics, and specious logic to get there... (I would say) you are not really making a case... especially if it is destined to be de- and re-constructed... and certainly here at DI - no one can just 'expect' bullshit to fly.

Also... note how the trope is put-down is "moon-landing" denial... automatically thrusting any questions into the "science denial" PR ploy.

I have often struggled from this vantage point.

My complaints have nothing to do with with assertion whether we went or didn't go to the moon.

My assertion is that we wouldn't know if we had... a complete multi-national obfuscation process was applied to it in fear of the "Soviet" threat.  All the information the public looked for was scrubbed... sanitized... and 
covers were crafted and put in place, official records of one of the the most significant steps in human history were "seized" and subsequently claimed "lost."  --- (like the technological ability to "go back to the moon.")

That was the "disclosure" I argued we deserved... but now anyone asking such questions is called an "anti-science ignoramus"... 

It's kind of irritating.

Ah... I remember the "Young Aussie Genius Whipping NASA" thread on ATS.

Turned out, he wasn't much of a genius.....

[WallFlowerActive]

Ah... I remember the "Young Aussie Genius Whipping NASA" thread on ATS.

Turned out, he wasn't much of a genius.....

That’s the strange part of certain groups.  Especially flat earthers that don’t believe in space at all where they think it’s impossible to put object is orbit.  They go on about being so smart and people believing what they are told.  Then you point out certain facts like the distance to the moon verified with radar and bouncing shortwave radio signals off the moon.  And point out they literally believe and parrot lies they were told by certain talking heads, then the debate goes into a &hit show.

[Maxmars]

Ah... I remember the "Young Aussie Genius Whipping NASA" thread on ATS.

Turned out, he wasn't much of a genius.....

I agree.... "clever" would have been a less biased word.

It never takes a "genius" to breach a giant disorganized feeding frenzy.

In those days, numerous "contractors" flooded the project...
and not all for the lofty goal... some for the haul... some to LARP secret agent, apparently.

[Oldcarpy2]

I agree.... "clever" would have been a less biased word.

It never takes a "genius" to breach a giant disorganized feeding frenzy.

In those days, numerous "contractors" flooded the project...
and not all for the lofty goal... some for the haul... some to LARP secret agent, apparently.

I wouldn't call him "clever".

He was pretty much easily debunked.

As are most Moon Hoaxers and Flat Earthers.

[andy06shake]

The Apollo 11 landing in 1969 is one of the most thoroughly recorded events in human history.

These poor sods just want to be heard and feel special, imho 

Hence, the reason they choose to contest the facts.

[Maxmars]

I wouldn't call him "clever".

He was pretty much easily debunked.

As are most Moon Hoaxers and Flat Earthers.

In true conspiratorial form...

That he was 'easily' debunked may have been the actual point of the coverage.

For all we know, others, not so 'discoverable' also exist... maybe 'officially' unaddressed in 
the 'record'... so much is.

Of course, I can't argue the image... it's bad... amplifiable bad...

Crazy that.