PDA

View Full Version : BA versus Sibrel, Round 2



The Bad Astronomer
2002-May-14, 08:54 PM
Those of you who have been around a while may remember when I declined an invitation to debate Bart Sibrel on the radio. Round 1 may have been won by him by default, as I didn't participate.

Round 2 is coming in fast. I may be deabting him live on the radio on Friday morning, on a college station in Burlington, Vermont. I have already said I am in, and now I am awaiting the station manager to get back to me to let me know that Mr. Sibrel has agreed as well.

Has anyone here heard him on the radio? I have seen his "documentary", and I'll watch it again Thursday night, but I am wondering if there are certain points he likes to hammer. I assume he'll concentrate on his "forbidden video", so I'll take care if looking at that with care.

Any suggestions?

2002-May-14, 09:06 PM
You can listen to Bart Sibrel on the Laura Lee radio show at:

http://www.lauralee.com/archives/asx/032101.asx

60 minutes of pure pain ! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

JayUtah
2002-May-14, 09:22 PM
Some Sibrel uniqueness:

1. He has an almost fanatical aversion to Neil Armstrong. Consequently he likes to point out examples of astronaut behavior which he claims is evidence of their duplicity.

2. The downlink preparation footage, of course. At one point Jim McDade had the unedited tape, which you probably want to get. You may want to research the plans for Apollo 11 telecasts to get an idea of why they weren't rehearsed on the ground.

3. The cut-out hypothesis. He may also use David Percy's variant of that theory: the transparency hypothesis. The cut-out hypothesis is easy to refute, the transparency hypothesis requires more thought.

4. Allegations of Soviet pre-eminence in space. You dealt with a lot of that already for Pax in terms of launch vehicles. Sibrel has a list of early Soviet space accomplishments which he claims proves the U.S. was too far behind.

5. The TETR-A satellite hypothesis. He claims the TETR-A satellite was used during the missions to relay radio communications so that mission controllers would believe they were coming from space.

6. Constant references to "rare" and "uncirculated" photographs that he supposedly has access to, which were actually available to anyone all along. This is more of his special rhetorical flavor rather than a specific argument.

7. Apollo was simply an attempt to distract from Vietnam, especially the 1968 Tet offensive.

8. The flag waves because of immense air conditioning systems to cool the astronauts in their space suits.

These are his specific, unique arguments. Aside from these, he argues the standard shadow anomalies, radiation danger, and so forth.

2002-May-14, 09:27 PM
And Jay picked Sibrel apart like a clock back in January (January 25):

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=500&forum=3

In a Jay post from January 25, Jay writes among other things:

"When the USA Today writer refers to the crewmembers he doesn't even know as "brave astronauts" he clearly discloses his environmentally conditioned prejudice toward viewing this topic without any objectivity.

** This is pretty rich coming from Sibrel. Sibrel lost his job with the NBC affiliate in Nashville because he was arrested after harassing Neil Armstrong and trespassing on his property. If anyone can be said to harbor a prejudice either for or against the Apollo astronauts, it is Sibrel.

... he would have discovered that the "uncredentialed" affiliation I had at the time of the commencement of my investigative journalist's research was none other than NBC News.

** Bart Sibrel was a part-time weekend cameraman for the local NBC affiliate in Nashville, Tennessee. Those are his professional credentials. He doesn't have a journalism degree or anything else that would qualify him as an investigator. And he doesn't have any engineering qualifications that would enable him to evaluate the Hubble versus Apollo. "

PS: At http://www.business.uab.edu/cache/debunking.htm, Jim covers the same grounds as Jay by saying:

"As it turns out, Mr. Sibrel's moon hoax claims are not the only things questionable in this case. He is not the big time, "former NBC journalist" that he appears to be when you read through his credentials. Sibrel was in fact an hourly paid weekend cameraman for a local NBC affiliate. The unfortunate circumstances under which he lost that particular job are enlightening to those of us familiar with the story."



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Look Ma, No Hands ! Oops ... on 2002-05-14 18:24 ]</font>

The Bad Aviator
2002-May-14, 09:36 PM
On 2002-05-14 16:54, The Bad Astronomer wrote:

Any suggestions?


Say very little, for when Sibrel talks, he make himself look even more like an idiot.

A fun thing you could do is get some one to put on a black suit with dark shades and follow Sibrel around all day like a secret government agent would do.

Jim
2002-May-14, 10:12 PM
Stay calm.

Stay on topic (and make him... no scattergunning or switching subjects).

If he tries to inflate his resume, remind him of it. Ditto if he brings up Kaysing, Rene, Percy, et al.

Put him on the defensive:
* Ask him what evidence would convince him that the landings actually happened. If he says none, remind the audience that's not very open-minded of him. If he mentions something specific, you've got him because it's probably already there.
* Ask him if all the NASA evidence could be so easily faked, why has no one who claims a hoax ever bothered to do it? Where are the faked moon rocks that can be made in a microwave? Where are the faked videos and photos that can be shot on a soundstage?

Be sure to mention your "close, personal friend" Neil Armstrong early and often. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

(How do we "listen in" or get copies... tapes or transcripts?)

2002-May-14, 10:13 PM
A word of advice from Jim McDade, who has met Bart Sibrel face-to-face.

At http://www.business.uab.edu/cache/debunking.htm, Jim McDade writes:

"Bart stridently stated that, "Neil Armstrong is a liar!", when I tried to describe Neil's well known verbal hesitancy and reserved personality. Neil Armstrong is a very modest man who served in combat for his country during the Korean Conflict. Neil has never accepted a dollar to use his status as a great explorer to sell, Buick’s, shampoo, or exercise equipment. He is one of the most moral men I have ever met. Bart's accusation that Neil Armstrong is the kind of man who would betray his country and the entire world enraged me more than any of the other outrageous charges that he leveled."

So be prepared, Phil, that Bart may try to throw you off balance by saying something extreme like the above about Neil Armstrong or some of the other astronauts.

You may also want to contact Jim for possible tips on dealing with Bart face-to-face.

This is his email:

moonshot@uab.edu

(from:

http://www.business.uab.edu/cache/Defaultb.htm)

Donnie B.
2002-May-14, 11:11 PM
Good luck, Phil! I'm sure you'll do better than I would... I couldn't possibly keep my temper in the face of someone like **.

infocusinc
2002-May-14, 11:18 PM
Do you think Bart reads this forum???

Conrad
2002-May-14, 11:37 PM
Oh pleeeease Mister Producer, get Bart onto that show with Phil! and have someone tape and transcribe it!

Seriously, I doubt whether Mr SB will accept the invitation. Being shown up as a duplicitious liar to an audience can often offend.

Ian R
2002-May-15, 12:23 AM
BA,

Here's an article written by Bart in response to a piece by Michael Medved in the USA Today:

http://www.apollohoax.com/usatoday.htm

Peter B
2002-May-15, 12:55 AM
BA

Ask him how many Congressional opponents of NASA believe the Moon landings were hoaxed.

2002-May-15, 01:20 AM
An image comes to mind ....

The image of Phil Skywalker in his tiny X-wing fighter racing across the surface of Bart The Death Star.

And then we hear the voice of the old Jedi, Jay-Wan Kenobi, saying:

"Remember, Phil: Science will be with you ... Always"

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Hmmm ! I wonder if all this Star Wars hype isn´t affecting me too much these days ! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Firefox
2002-May-15, 01:31 AM
Just as long as no stars are visible if the Sun's overhead. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif


-Adam

jrkeller
2002-May-15, 04:29 AM
I'd be careful. According to his own resume, he's quite a movie maker

http://www.moonmovie.com/about.html

Tomblvd
2002-May-15, 12:30 PM
BA, I'd use his own web site against him. He has "The Top Ten Reasons Why No Man Has Ever Set Foot on the Moon". As you and others have pointed out, those reasons are very weak.



I'd spend time going through those with the idea that "if those are your BEST reasons, you really don't have much". Some of them, the USSR's superiority, Nixon, "rediscovered lost footage" of the flag waving (an out-and-out lie), "rare, uncirculated photographs" (another lie), and the "10,000 pounds" of thrust digging a hole, are all topics you can easily discuss without visual aids.



And since people can go to his website and see that it is he who calls these reasons "top ten", it puts the ball in his court.

jrkeller
2002-May-15, 12:34 PM
Seriously,

I think you should talk about the moon rocks and that no geologist has said that they are terrestrial. If the oven thing pops up ask him how that is possible. I have a good background in this area (solidification from a melt) and I don't see how it is possible. You need high pressures and temperatures to make the samples, and I think it would be extremely difficult to fake the aging process. I've also done a pretty extensive search of the Internet and haven't found a thing on oven baked rocks.

Maybe the real question to ask is how that thousands and thousands of technical people at NASA and elsewhere (non-NASA folks) have never questioned the moon landings, but a few people with no real backgrounds suddenly can prove it is a fake.

Tomblvd
2002-May-15, 12:44 PM
On 2002-05-14 16:54, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
Those of you who have been around a while may remember when I declined an invitation to debate Bart Sibrel on the radio. Round 1 may have been won by him by default, as I didn't participate.




If I recall correctly, this invitation was in conjunction with Clyde Lewis' radio show. Those of us who spent time "debating" Clyde and his minion(s) on his website (Johnno was one) all agreed that it was a very smart move. Truly a no-win situation.



Lewis is a grade A nutcase. I wonder what happened to him?

jrkeller
2002-May-15, 12:45 PM
If you go to the other posting

Why didn't NASA offer the same explanations as this site?

there is an excellent statement about the moon hoax and seeing stars in the background.

That is when we see Christiane Amanpour on CNN live from whereever at night or any other report at night we don't see stars in the bakcground.

LunarOrbit
2002-May-15, 03:19 PM
On 2002-05-15 08:44, Tomblvd wrote:

Lewis is a grade A nutcase. I wonder what happened to him?


I was debating Clyde for about a year (as KJJ1975) until he banned me last month. He's still as nutty as ever (more so since 9/11). He claims objects seen in pictures of the WTC on 9/11 are UFO's, but they're clearly seagulls.

His show is on the verge of cancelation (again). Last spring he was canceled but another radio station picked him up. But recently his main sponser dropped out.

JayUtah
2002-May-15, 03:40 PM
He has "The Top Ten Reasons Why No Man Has Ever Set Foot on the Moon". As you and others have pointed out, those reasons are very weak.

<shamelessplug>
See http://www.clavius.org/bibsibrel.hmtl
</shamelessplug>

amstrad
2002-May-15, 03:57 PM
On 2002-05-15 11:40, JayUtah wrote:
He has "The Top Ten Reasons Why No Man Has Ever Set Foot on the Moon". As you and others have pointed out, those reasons are very weak.

<shamelessplug>
See http://www.clavius.org/bibsibrel.hmtl
</shamelessplug>



or this even:

http://www.clavius.org/bibsibrel.html

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Tomblvd
2002-May-15, 05:50 PM
I was debating Clyde for about a year (as KJJ1975) until he banned me last month. He's still as nutty as ever (more so since 9/11). He claims objects seen in pictures of the WTC on 9/11 are UFO's, but they're clearly seagulls.

Has he been discussing the Apollo hoax? I went to his forum a few months ago and I didn't see anything on the lunar hoax section. It's a shame, I had a great time tearing him apart and then reading his rambling, "woe is me" replies.




His show is on the verge of cancelation (again). Last spring he was canceled but another radio station picked him up. But recently his main sponser dropped out.


I was still posting over there when he got cancelled the first time. His posts REALLY got entertaining at that point in time.

LunarOrbit
2002-May-15, 07:07 PM
Clyde Lewis stopped talking about the moon hoax for a while, I think he finally got tired of being wrong all the time. But after I was banned he started talking about it on the radio again.

Now Clyde talks mostly about "synchronisities" (sp?)... which is just a big word for "coincidences" in my opinion. He's fond of numbers like 222, 444, and of course 666. Whenever those numbers show up in the news (ie. 222 people killed in an earthquake) he makes a big deal out of it.

One of the things they were talking about in the forum before I was banned was the theory that a plane didn't really crash into the Pentagon on 9/11 (never mind all the eye witnesses, it was a mass halucination).

LunarOrbit
2002-May-15, 07:16 PM
Phil, I think the best thing you could do would be to ask Bart how Apollo avoided detection by radar (or even the naked eye) if it really stayed in low Earth orbit instead of going to the moon. That was a big part of his movie so if he can't answer that question he'll look like a fool (which we all know he is).

Also ask him what experiments he has done to determine how deadly the Van Allen Belt is. Is he relying on other people's information? How can he be sure their information is correct if he hasn't done his own experiments?

I doubt he'll take part in the radio show, he knows he can't debate someone like you and win. But if he does the show I bet he'll resort to comments like "just buy my video, all the answers you seek are in it!".

The Bad Astronomer
2002-May-16, 04:29 AM
Well, it's on. I got an email from the radio station: I'll be chatting with Bart Sibrel on Friday, on FM 90.1 WRUV in Burlington, VT. I'll try to get a tape of it when it's done.

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

JayUtah
2002-May-16, 04:32 AM
Good luck! I strongly agree with the advice to contact Jim McDade. I think his insight would ve valuable.

LunarOrbit
2002-May-16, 04:45 AM
I found the station's website, and you can listen online.

http://www.uvm.edu/~wruv/listen.html

You'll need RealPlayer though.

What time is the big debate?

_________________
Kel Jones
www.thespacerace.com (http://www.thespacerace.com)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: LunarOrbit on 2002-05-16 00:47 ]</font>

pvtpylot
2002-May-16, 04:55 AM
On 2002-05-16 00:29, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
Well, it's on. I got an email from the radio station: I'll be chatting with Bart Sibrel on Friday, on FM 90.1 WRUV in Burlington, VT. I'll try to get a tape of it when it's done.

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif



The station streams it's broadcasts over RealPlayer:

http://www.uvm.edu/~wruv/listen.html

I'll be tuning in! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

LunarOrbit
2002-May-16, 05:08 AM
Jay,

I just went to your review of Sibrels Top 10 (which is very good BTW) and I noticed a typo... at the top of the page it says "Bob" Sibrels Top Ten. Bob is a good name though... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

JayUtah
2002-May-16, 05:14 AM
Gad, what was I smoking? I was just in there editing today. I've done two major revisions of that page, and missed it both times.

Now accepting applications for proofreader ...

pvtpylot
2002-May-16, 05:14 AM
On 2002-05-16 00:45, LunarOrbit wrote:
I found the station's website, and you can listen online.

http://www.uvm.edu/~wruv/listen.html

You'll need RealPlayer though.

What time is the big debate?

I knew I should have pressed "Submit" before wandering off to use the can! I'll beat ya with the relevent URL next time, though. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

odysseus0101
2002-May-16, 03:35 PM
Now accepting applications for proofreader ...


I had no trouble airbrushing all the stagehands and lighting equipment out of the Apollo photographs, so I think I'm qualified to be your proofreader.

The Bad Astronomer
2002-May-16, 04:00 PM
The segemnt about the Moon will be on at 11:00 a.m. Eastern time (8 Pacific). I'll send out an "emergency" newsletter today with info to listen in. Hopefully we won't crash their server!

informant
2002-May-16, 09:46 PM
Good luck, BA.

Karamoon
2002-May-16, 10:27 PM
Eastern time. Hm, that's 5 hours behind GMT, right?

4:00PM then.

Andrew
2002-May-17, 10:29 AM
England is currently one hour ahead of GMT Karamoon. We're on GMT in the winter.
EDT(EST?Whichever one it currently is over there) is curently GMT-4:00.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Andrew on 2002-05-17 06:34 ]</font>

Roy Batty
2002-May-17, 10:47 AM
Just to allay any confusion, Eastern time is also on summer time so its currently 4 hours behind GMT, however the shows still 4pm in the UK (I hope!) /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

The Bad Astronomer
2002-May-17, 03:17 PM
We're on now!

Roy Batty
2002-May-17, 03:28 PM
i know, i'm listening, i'm listening! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

LunarOrbit
2002-May-17, 03:29 PM
Go Phil! Go Phil! Woohoo! You're kickin' butt.

LunarOrbit
2002-May-17, 03:33 PM
I think an astronomer knows a thing or two about light! LOL

Tom
2002-May-17, 03:38 PM
No color camera? They wanted to make sure the picture got back, rather than use "unproven" technology. EEEEDEEEEOOTTTS!

LunarOrbit
2002-May-17, 03:44 PM
Arghh... the colour video was on film and wasn't seen until they got back to Earth and developed it. All live video was black & white.

The Bad Astronomer
2002-May-17, 03:46 PM
How am I doing so far?

Tom
2002-May-17, 03:48 PM
On 2002-05-17 11:46, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
How am I doing so far?



I think he's got you right where you want him!

Roy Batty
2002-May-17, 03:48 PM
Why no pictures of the stars when 'we can see deeper into the universe than ever before' ... yeah right, with Hasslebad camera /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Donnie B.
2002-May-17, 03:51 PM
Good job, Phil, but my feed just got cut off and I can't seem to reconnect. Did we crash their server?

RalphVanDyke
2002-May-17, 03:53 PM
I've been lurking here for awhile, but I had to register for the sole purpose of saying, "Wow, you really made a fool of him."

My take so far:
*Bart says something*
BA: That is completely wrong
*Bart gets completely flustered*
Repeat x5

Did anyone else just lose feed?

LunarOrbit
2002-May-17, 03:54 PM
I lost my feed too. Darn, just when Phil was going to explain the Van Allen Belt.

I've taken notes... I'm going to send Bart an email later.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: LunarOrbit on 2002-05-17 11:55 ]</font>

Karamoon
2002-May-17, 03:54 PM
The CIA have just napalmed the transmitter!

4-Lom
2002-May-17, 03:55 PM
I just lost the feed too! Just when they where going to talk about radiation belts, one area where Sibrel could have *really* shown his ignorance.
Well done BA! But oh man so much to dissect...can anyone provide a transcript?

Donnie B.
2002-May-17, 03:56 PM
Ah, it's back...

I found it somewhat interesting that Sibrel made a point of his conversion to Christianity as part of his "how I got into this conspiracy stuff" spiel. What does that have to do with anything? Does he have a creationist motivation?

SpacedOut
2002-May-17, 03:56 PM
On 2002-05-17 11:54, Karamoon wrote:
The CIA have just napalmed the transmitter!

Actually - it was the HB's!!!

RalphVanDyke
2002-May-17, 03:56 PM
We need one of those super powerful antennas NASA uses to transmit color video from the moon.

LunarOrbit
2002-May-17, 03:57 PM
I really thought Barts claim that the astronauts should have taken pictures of the stars funny... I think the Hubble telescope is just a wee bit stronger than the cameras the astronauts carried.

Karamoon
2002-May-17, 03:57 PM
Neil Armstrong refused to swear on the Holy Bible that he went to the moon?

Discuss.

Art Vandelay
2002-May-17, 03:58 PM
Is there any chance a recording will be available at some point? I can get the feed cause of our stupid firewall.

Donnie B.
2002-May-17, 04:00 PM
By the way, this is fun... real-time commentary on real-time events...

Sibrel says "We wore each other out"... Ha ha! Speak for yourself!

LunarOrbit
2002-May-17, 04:00 PM
Neil Armstrong refused to say ANYTHING to Bart. Even acknowledging Barts existance would have helped Bart in some way, so I think Armstrong was better off not saying anything.

One good Sibrel quote from the beginning of the show: "I'm a liar, everyone is a liar."

Donnie B.
2002-May-17, 04:02 PM
Outstanding work, Phil. I'd say that "wore each other out" remark was more of a concession of defeat than ** realized he was making!

Hale_Bopp
2002-May-17, 04:02 PM
Yeah, I lost my feed and just got it back...lost it right as they were starting to discuss the radiation belts.

He can be a slippery fellow, and I think you kept him on task and didn't let him get away with changing the subject.

Good show!

Rob

Tomblvd
2002-May-17, 04:03 PM
For the most part, Sibrel was generic enough to keep his words from coming back and biting him (from the limited part I heard). But it should be interesting to go through a transcript and tear it apart.

LunarOrbit
2002-May-17, 04:04 PM
Is it over? I still can't get the radio back.

Tom
2002-May-17, 04:05 PM
The after-show comments are pumping up Phil...

Yeee-hawwwww!

::pause::

well, now they're into conspiracies...

...and having their own debate.

::snork::

"more rational, intelligent sounding..."

Bart is "off-kilter"

Hale_Bopp
2002-May-17, 04:06 PM
One of them just said you sounded more sane /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Rob

Karamoon
2002-May-17, 04:06 PM
LunarOrbit, didn't Bart say that he finally got to meet Armstrong? That's what I thought he said. And that he asked him to swear on the Bible, which he refused to do.

Maybe I am hearing things?

Donnie B.
2002-May-17, 04:08 PM
Boy, if these radio jocks are typical of the intellectual level of our current college undergrads, I fear for our future...

LunarOrbit
2002-May-17, 04:09 PM
I liked when Phil mentioned the Apollo 12 camera burning out and Bart said "Wasn't that convenient?" and Phil replied without skipping a heart beat "Yeah, well they pointed it at the sun on live TV...".

That made me laugh.

Karamoon
2002-May-17, 04:11 PM
I thought the flag issue was particulary lame. I was hoping Bart would push some of his new findings, but he seemed content to let the presenters choose the topic for discussion, which was probably a mistake.

Donnie B.
2002-May-17, 04:15 PM
Sibrel did claim that Armstrong refused to swear on the Bible that he walked on the moon. I'd love to hear the full story.

There was also a remark about Aldrin. Sibrel said Aldrin told him (on camera) that he (Sibrel) would be famous, which Sibrel seemed to take as meaning he was right, and which I would interpret as being a sarcastic remark directed at an annoying person who's claiming you're a fraud.

RalphVanDyke
2002-May-17, 04:16 PM
On 2002-05-17 12:11, Karamoon wrote:
I was hoping Bart would push some of his new findings.....

You mean all those RARE, EXCLUSIVE, NEVER SEEN BEFORE pictures that have been public domain for 30 years?

Donnie B.
2002-May-17, 04:18 PM
By the way, Phil, what was the setup? Were you on the phone? Were you hearing Sibrel's remarks over the phone, or on the net? I assume you weren't on site in Burlington...

LunarOrbit
2002-May-17, 04:18 PM
On 2002-05-17 12:06, Karamoon wrote:
LunarOrbit, didn't Bart say that he finally got to meet Armstrong? That's what I thought he said. And that he asked him to swear on the Bible, which he refused to do.

Maybe I am hearing things?


He did say he got to meet Armstrong in person last week and Armstrong refused to swear on the bible that the landings were real.

What Bart DIDN'T say was that he has crossed paths with Armstrong in the past and was arrested for it.

I don't blame Neil for not wanting to talk to Bart.

There's a good joke on one of the anti-moon hoax sites (Redzero I think) that goes something like this:

Bart calls Armstrong on the phone;

RING RING

"Hello, this is Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon. I'll be remembered for the rest of time. Who's calling?"

"This is Bart Sibrel, a nobody who wants to get rich by calling you a liar. Hopefully some of your fame will rub off on me."

Click.

"Hello, Mr. Armstrong, are you still there?"

Karamoon
2002-May-17, 04:20 PM
RalphVanDyke: You mean all those RARE, EXCLUSIVE, NEVER SEEN BEFORE pictures that have been public domain for 30 years?

No, I meant some of the stuff he intends to show in his next video. He told me about that a while ago, but I didn't know he was successful in talking with Armstrong.

RalphVanDyke
2002-May-17, 04:22 PM
On 2002-05-17 12:20, Karamoon wrote:
No, I meant some of the stuff he intends to show in his next video. He told me about that a while ago, but I didn't know he was successful in talking with Armstrong.


Oh boy, more convergent shadows! I can barely contain my excitement
/sarcasm

2002-May-17, 04:30 PM
<a name="20020517.8:22"> page 20020517.8:22 aka db
On 2002-05-14 16:54, The Bad Astronomer wrote: To bd
Some {many now} years ago in this town {actually across the river}
there WAS a radio station {that would actually allow my voice on the air}
[BELIEVE WHAT YOU LIKE!] anyway durring SS#22 I would
call in and put the sound comming out of the Gravity wave detector on the Radio?
to make it science I wlould talk at -5 VU "units"
thats a real trick as the VU meter is of course at the station
these days I would insist upon only having my
voice appear on the right speaker if its an FM station .. If its AM the i guess it just don't mater

The Bad Astronomer
2002-May-17, 04:33 PM
On 2002-05-17 12:18, Donnie B. wrote:
By the way, Phil, what was the setup? Were you on the phone?


Yes, they called me in my office at work. I could hear everything over the phone, and I had multiple browser windows open in fron tof me so I could check things quickly if I needed. I only really needed to once, when I went to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal to look at the Apollo 11 image listings.

SpacedOut
2002-May-17, 04:41 PM
In all seriousness – can we get a transcript or a copy of the audio – I was out of the office until 11:50 and when I tried to connect their server was down. I only got to hear the Phil’s last sentence then the host’s closing comments. I would love to be able to hear the whole thing.

The Bad Astronomer
2002-May-17, 04:45 PM
I asked for a tape from the station. If/when I get it, I'll make a transcript and post it. It'll be a few weeks though.

JayUtah
2002-May-17, 04:58 PM
...yeah right, with Hasslebad camera /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

That's exactly what someone in the room with me said. He's a physicist who specializes in EM detection. Actually his words were, "Not with a f------g Hasselblad you can't!"

Gee, I wish I'd been here. I didn't realize Phil was going to check in here during the presentation. I was madly hammering out notes on my laptop for a latter, more detailed review.

For example, when Sibrel pointed out that perfectly clear color transmissions were made from the CM, I had the answer right away -- dish size. The CM had a big high-gain array. The LM had a piddly little one-meter dish. I could have brought that point up instantly, along with other salient facts. Darn.

JayUtah
2002-May-17, 05:05 PM
I'd say that "wore each other out" remark was more of a concession of defeat than ** realized he was making!

I have to admire Phil's response: "No, I can go on for hours about this."

Sibrel was starting to repeat his "desperation" arguments toward the end: 75% of my viewers have switched sides, I found a straw-man scientist who appears irrational, etc. when those arguments had nothing to do with the points Phil had brought up.

The host picked up on that when he remarked that Sibrel seemed a bit less coherent.

SpacedOut
2002-May-17, 05:05 PM
On 2002-05-17 12:45, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
I asked for a tape from the station. If/when I get it, I'll make a transcript and post it. It'll be a few weeks though.


Thanks.

Roy Batty
2002-May-17, 05:09 PM
My general impression:
Well overall I was quite suprised, I thought it went very well. By that I mean the BA got quite a good hearing & the whole thing was pretty well moderated (considering it was a small station). Overall, Sibrel just didnt cut it (but then how could he?:-)). Theres a lot of good rebuttals by Phil especially the shooting down of that 'arm of god' (Maradonna?:-)) argument. Sibrel made such a point of it & it was so easily refuted.. using his own video! Lol! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif
Hope to hear the last 10 mins as me & another friend in UK got cut off at the same time as everyone else /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif
A right bobby dazzler BA! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Darkwing
2002-May-17, 05:17 PM
Missed the broadcast (stupid work...) Can't wait to see the transcript. Go BA!

JayUtah
2002-May-17, 05:30 PM
I only really needed to once, when I went to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal to look at the Apollo 11 image listings.

Again, I should have had the foresight to open a window to Bad Astronomy. I had the Real player going and Notepad up typing as fast as I could. It didn't occur to me that the forum here would work to provide you information in real time.

I assume you were going to check about Sibrel's claim that only 20 pictures from Apollo 11 contain show astronauts. I don't know right off if that's a correct claim, but it certainly seems false. Roll 40 has something like 180 images on it. I have all the photos from Roll 40 so I'll count them at my leisure and post the results.

I would have preferred to attack the entire notion of "tourist" photography. There's Armstrong on the moon with two hours and one roll of film. "Let's see," says Armstrong. "Here I am on the moon performing lots of scientific experiments and documenting the lunar environment. What shall I take a picture of? I know, I'll take a picture of Buzz Aldrin, the guy I've been working with for 18 hours a day for the past six years, unrecognizable behind his visor."

Sibrel's comment that Armstrong "refused" to have his picture taken on the moon is pure fabrication. Not only is there the DAC footage you mention, there's a Hasselblad photo of Armstrong working at the MESA: AS11-40-5886.

It was decided to send only one surface camera in order to simplify the Apollo 11 EVA. Therefore only one astronaut at a time could take photos, and most of the time that was Armstrong. Why? Because Armstrong had more experience in photography. Since there were a lot of variables yet unknown about exposure and development of the film -- and since there was only one roll of film intended for EVA use -- they wanted their best man handling the camera most of the time.

Ironically the poignant shot of the perfect footprint on pristine lunar soil is a Buzz Aldrin photo. So, too, is the one where his foot is just being removed. It wasn't intended as art. He was supposed to take a close up picture of his footprint for soil mechanics geeks on earth. The one with his foot in it was unintentional; he accidentally triggered the shutter release.

But back to the point. Sibrel wants to believe it's suspicious that only a few Apollo 11 photos show astronauts. He implies they would want pictures of themselves on the moon, just as I have pictures of myself in front of the Eiffel Tower and Buckingham Palace and the pyramids at Giza.

It's all circular. Sibrel is thinking in the mindset that NASA carefully constructed the Apollo materials with the intent of proving to the world that they went there, against skeptical opposition. That's like the "proof of life" photos in kidnapping stories where the victim holds up today's newspaper or does some other gimmick to establish evidence. But NASA didn't plan its photography around such proof, nor can Sibrel assume they did without falling into circularity.

AstroMike
2002-May-17, 05:43 PM
And his argument that Armstrong refuses to be interviewed is just blatantly false. You can read some of Armstrong's interviews here (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/ap11ann/comments.htm).

JayUtah
2002-May-17, 05:54 PM
I didn't know he was successful in talking with Armstrong.

Getting him on camera and talking with him are not the same thing.

Sibrel makes it sound like he and Armstrong sat down in the backyard and had a nice chat over a cup of coffee, whereupon Sibrel says, "Say, Neil, old chum, would you mind terribly just slipping your hand over this Bible and swearing that you walked on the moon?"

I'm pretty sure that's not what happened.

Sibrel's interviews I've seen with other astronauts that are more like papparazzi ambushes -- questions shouted over fences, etc. Since it's easy to establish that Sibrel hates Armstrong's guts, and that Armstrong has never wanted anything to do with Sibrel, I rather suspect the "face-to-face meeting" was more along the lines of Sibrel stalking Armstrong until he got him in public, then shoving a camera and a Bible in his face and demanding he take an oath.

If that's the case, Armstrong did the right thing by not cooperating with Sibrel in any way. And I suspect his "interviews" with the other five astronauts he spoke to were similar.

Sibrel wants to interpret Armstrong's refusal as an objection to stating under oath something that isn't true. It's an affirmed consequent. Sibrel doesn't consider the far more likely possibility that Armstrong simply has no wish to participate in Sibrel's activities in any way.

As far back as Dale Carnegie it's been known that the best way to get someone to help you is to make them believe it's in their best interest to do so. Are we supposed to believe that a filmmaker who has, by his own admission, spent many years and $500,000 trying to disprove the moon landings suddenly has at hear the best interests of Neil Armstrong, the man who got him arrested and fired? No, it's far more plausible to believe that Sibrel's dislike of Armstrong is alive and well, and that this whole scheme was hatched up to benefit Sibrel, not Armstrong.

And benefit him it does. It's quite likely Sibrel knew ahead of time that Armstrong and the other astronauts he contacted would blow him off without comment. By confronting them on camera with a situation where it looks like they'd be doing themselves a favor by cooperating, he can create the illusion that he gave them the opportunity to clear their names, but they refused. He can simply spin their refusal to cooperate as if it had been a refusal to accept the terms of the proposal.

Sorry, but this has ambush written all over it, and it simply reinforces the image of Sibrel as a crank.

Karamoon
2002-May-17, 06:12 PM
Jay ...

I am not so sure that I can subscribe to your conclusion that Sibrel detests Armstrong. I have no doubt that Sibrel see's Armstrong as central to his theory, and as such he has pursued an interview with him for some time. If Sibrel is a Christian, as he claims he is, then Armstrong (himself recognising the truth and power of Jesus Christ) should do the honorable thing and allay his suspicions. I know it may not seem to be the honorable thing to do in your eyes, because you see Sibrel as far from worthy, but in my eyes the truth would do him (and many others) the power of good.

Roy Batty
2002-May-17, 06:57 PM
I know if i'd been to the moon & back i certainly wouldn't want to spend my retirement years refuting every crank that followed me around trying to p*ss all over my lifes achievment.

JayUtah
2002-May-17, 06:58 PM
I am not so sure that I can subscribe to your conclusion that Sibrel detests Armstrong.

I suggest you go read Jim McDade's information from people who know Sibrel personally. I think it's much easier to make a case that Sibrel does not like Armstrong than a case that Sibrel has Armstrong's welfare at heart.

If Sibrel is a Christian, as he claims he is, then Armstrong (himself recognising the truth and power of Jesus Christ) should do the honorable thing...

Oh, please. You of all people should be able to distinguish between what something is being made to look like, and what it really is. This has nothing to do with the power of Jesus Christ or doing the honorable thing.

You expect Armstrong to have taken the scenario at face value and have believed Sibrel was offering him a golden opportunity. Armstrong knows exactly who Bart Sibrel is and what he does for a living. What possible reason would Armstrong have for trusting a man who has labored for years to portray him as a liar and a fraud, with the flimsiest of evidence?

Good grief, we've known since Troy that accepting gifts from one's enemies is foolish.

...and allay his suspicions.

"Suspicions"? Sibrel's mind is made up, by his own admission. There's nothing to allay. Therefore there's no advantage to acquiesce to his wishes. Do you really think that if Armstrong had sworn on the Bible to have walked on the moon, that Sibrel would just walk away from the whole hoax issue? Come on, Karamoon, you're smarter than that.

but in my eyes the truth would do him (and many others) the power of good.

Neil Armstrong does not need Bart Sibrel in order to make a statement either way. In fact, Sibrel desperately needs Armstrong. Armstrong's cooperation with Sibrel can only benefit Sibrel, and they both know that. Hence the ambush, hence the setup.

Roy Batty
2002-May-17, 07:06 PM
As always Jay Utah, you say it better
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

SpacedOut
2002-May-17, 07:16 PM
On 2002-05-17 15:06, Roy Batty wrote:
As always Jay Utah, you say it better
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


Maybe - but your post, Roy, probably is much closer to what Armstrong thinks every time Sibrel's name comes up. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Valiant Dancer
2002-May-17, 08:20 PM
On 2002-05-17 12:04, LunarOrbit wrote:
Is it over? I still can't get the radio back.



The internet connection I have was down from 2 am to 11 am CST.

WAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

I look forward to the transcript.

johnwitts
2002-May-17, 09:34 PM
Didn't anyone record it, like on tape or minidisc? I was at work so there was no chance. I nearly left my computer running all day with my video recorder recording the audio, but I figured it would run out of tape half way through. Somebody must have done a recording?

DaveC
2002-May-17, 10:20 PM
I missed it too, John - darned work interferes with important stuff. I'm hoping BA is able to get a copy of the tape to load on this site.

LunarOrbit
2002-May-17, 10:37 PM
I almost ran a cable from the "out" port on my sound card to the microphone jack on my stereo, but the only audio tape I could find was one I didn't want to record over. I don't think I have enough hard drive space to record an hour long show either.

Besides, it wouldn't have worked since I lost the feed before the show was over.

Karamoon
2002-May-17, 10:44 PM
johnwitts: Didn't anyone record it?

I may have done. I'm not sure. Hm, let's see if I can remember..

http://www.night-sun.co.uk/audio/bart_sibrel.mp3

johnwitts
2002-May-17, 11:17 PM
Yes, very good Karamoon. Now, the rest of it?

Not that I'm ungrateful... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Karamoon
2002-May-17, 11:49 PM
I haven't got it all. There was a problem with the connection, see. Everything was running smoothly and I was recording just fine until the words "net congestion" popped up on RealPlayer. So after a few moments of unsuccessfully trying to reconnect I decided to save what I had, which in itself took longer than it should have as I inadvertently saved the output file as the highest quality possible (56 kBit/s, 24,000 Hz, Stereo). Then I regained my connection but was unable to record, then I lost the connection and so I just gave up. I managed to tune back in shortly before the hour mark was up, just as Phil seized upon the chance to score one last point against Bart, by rejecting what amounted to be a verbal handshake and instead pretending to be cool as a cucumber.

JayUtah
2002-May-18, 12:27 AM
just as Phil seized upon the chance to score one last point against Bart, by rejecting what amounted to be a verbal handshake

I forgot, was that before or after Sibrel implied Phil was just a NASA stooge?

Karamoon
2002-May-18, 12:48 AM
Ah, well I must have missed that part.

To be honest, I didn't think they were going to make the broadcast at all, what with all the messing about at the beginning of the broadcast: "Just hold on a second. Hello.. Hello.. Are you there?.. HIGH PITCHED SOUND.. HELLO?.."

In fact, after listening to about 10 seconds of Zombie Death Metal I thought I had tuned in to the wrong show!

The Bad Astronomer
2002-May-18, 12:51 AM
On 2002-05-17 19:49, Karamoon wrote:
just as Phil seized upon the chance to score one last point against Bart, by rejecting what amounted to be a verbal handshake and instead pretending to be cool as a cucumber.


Do you mean when he said we were both frazzled by this? That is hardly a reconciliation.

I know you may think the Moon landings were faked, Karamoon, but don't let that cloud your judgement about what happened on the air. I wasn't pretending to be cool, I was simply stating that I would be happy to debate him all day long, if need be. There was no pretending at all on my part.

Karamoon
2002-May-18, 12:58 AM
TBA: I wasn't pretending to be cool, I was simply stating that I would be happy to debate him all day long, if need be.

Fair enough. It just sounded like the perfect opportunity to deliver an uppercut, which you dully did.

JayUtah
2002-May-18, 01:11 AM
To be honest, I didn't think they were going to make the broadcast at all, what with all the messing about at the beginning of the broadcast:

Me too. I'm not sure, but it looks like WRUV is a radio station operated in conjunction with a university. That means it's run by college students and terribly underfunded.

In fact, after listening to about 10 seconds of Zombie Death Metal I thought I had tuned in to the wrong show!

I'm glad we can both laugh about that. I was thinking, "Uh-oh, what has Phil gotten himself into?"

Phil, did you hear the eerie music they were playing faintly in the background? I guess they got a good deal on the broadcast rights for the X-files soundtrack.

The Bad Astronomer
2002-May-18, 02:43 AM
I didn't hear much. I was listening on RealPlayer for a while before the show started, but then they called me and I had to kill it. All I heard were Sibrel and the host.

2002-May-18, 08:51 AM
<a name="20020518.12:46"> page 20020518.12:46 aka MP3
On 2002-05-17 18:44, Karamoon wrote: To; My MIDI driver {Mini}




http://www.night-sun.co.uk/audio/bart_sibrel.mp3

OK I downloaded ? BART .MP3 30888 0518
thirty eight eight eight? havn't a clue as to how many seconds ok picoseconds? Now what?

Conrad
2002-May-19, 12:01 AM
On 2002-05-17 20:58, Karamoon wrote:
TBA: I wasn't pretending to be cool, I was simply stating that I would be happy to debate him all day long, if need be.

Fair enough. It just sounded like the perfect opportunity to deliver an uppercut, which you dully did.


I hope you mean "Duly", Kara, me old mucker. If this debate has been anything, it certainly hasn't been *dull*.

If I possessed any conscience at all, I'd even feel sorry for Bart, getting trounced by
the BA.
But I haven't, so I won't! Heh heh heh!
Here's waiting for that transcript...

JayUtah
2002-May-22, 04:16 AM
Ed Mitchell on being "interviewed" by Bart Sibrel: "Just this week, I encountered a renegade TV crew, masquerading as bonefide press that attempted to trick me into looking at some bogus film footage and acknowledging Apollo was a fake."

The Bad Astronomer
2002-May-22, 05:17 AM
Jay, where'd you hear that? Maybe I should try to give Mr. Mitchell a buzz and let him know what happened last Friday. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

SpacedOut
2002-May-22, 10:31 AM
BA – go to Ed Mitchel’s web (http://www.edmitchellapollo14.com/index.htm) page. It is in his EDM Discussion group – his response to “Doubting Thomas” on May 17, 2002. While EDM seems to view the universe from a non-mainstream point of view, I’ve found his discussions on Apollo and space flight very frank and well thought out.

In this response he expresses in no uncertain terms that he thinks the whole Apollo hoax phenomenon is ridiculous.



I can almost feel pity for such ignorant misguided "flat earth" thinkers.

2002-May-22, 02:51 PM
<a name="20020522.6:46"> page 20020522.6:46 aka Page 5
On 2002-05-22 06:31, SpacedOut wrote: To: Page 5


In this response he expresses in no uncertain terms that he thinks the whole Apollo hoax phenomenon is ridiculous.
HUb' SA`s 6:48 A.M. May 22, 2002
ad Astronomy Bulletin Board - View Topic (p13 of 13)
ious Page [74]1 | [75]2 | [76]3 | [77]4 | 5 )

JayUtah
2002-May-22, 03:14 PM
SpacedOut gave the URL. I posted a followup briefly describing your encounter with Sibrel. I'm sure he'd love to hear more directly from you.

2002-May-22, 03:19 PM
BEING DENSE [YES] May 23, 2002 5:32 A.M.
{um I sort of skipped this on first pass}
2: int 13 (CD 13) and {reading the HARD DRIVE} Parameters?
3: yes, Yes, YES this was still in the DENSE form
a this time today [](){} AND yes I consider
this to be the least stable of the Group
AND OF COURSE i'll be studing was to repackage
[()]({}) by using inclosed links {oh my}
May 24, 2002 5:03 A.M. still grouped 3 together as "DENSE"
pic (p15 of 16)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HUb' on 2002-05-24 09:06 ]</font>