PDA

View Full Version : EXPOSED: Bart Sibrel is Caught Cheating



Svector
2007-May-23, 09:37 AM
I watched a new YT video from moon hoax proponent, Bart Sibrel about a week ago. Immediately I suspected something wasn't right.

Watch it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nljLljAGfak

He's accusing NASA of accidentally using the same studio set and props, to film two EVA's that were supposedly two miles apart, during Apollo 16.

The only problem for Mr. Sibrel is that I possess the raw NASA footage from Apollo 16. In comparing the raw footage with Sibrel's, it became clear that he created a blatant forgery with his video entitled, "The Rocks Cry Out: Apollo 16 Anomaly".

Here's the exposé:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX7UKH3_xuA

How long before Bart Sibrel:

1. pulls his video in an attempt at damage control

and/or

2. files a copyright infringement complaint with YouTube in an attempt to silence me

???

Watch them now, while you still can, and witness the conspiracy crowd's preeminent moon hoax champion as he twists the dials and knobs of his editing software, in a desperate attempt to keep his cash cow alive.

:silenced:

Serenitude
2007-May-23, 09:58 AM
I'm voting for a DMCA "pull" order almost immediately.

Nicolas
2007-May-23, 10:25 AM
I may be mistaken, but wasn't this footage in some documentary where it got mislabeled? So that would mean that it was not Sibrel who originally pasted the two together, but somebody else and Sibrel is merely parroting an error in a documentary, which he could have found had he actually watched the original footage.

I believe the same thing is on ufos-aliens (of all places...) in picture format.

This really is an example of a documentary error starting to get a life of its own, many CT's jumping on the bandwagon and none of them checking the original footage. Including Sibrel.

The only thing being pointed out here is an error in after processing, not an error in events, so not a hoax.

Nicolas
2007-May-23, 11:32 AM
I've looked it up. It is indeed on ufos-aliens.

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
(about 60-70% down)

The error originally was made in the (serious) Apollo documentary "Apollo: one giant leap for mankind". ufos-aliens picked it up. They even found out -or were told- it was an error in the documentary and say so on their site. Now of course they find it suspicious NASA can make an error (added to the obvious flaw in reasoning, just how much was nasa involved in that documentary?).

So the argument originates from an error in a documentary. ufos-aliens picks it up, then recognizes the error (doesn't drop the hoax charges, but at least recognizes the same rocks are not evidence of studio filming). And now Sibrel suddenly has forgotten all about it being an error and presents it again as hoax evidence of studio filming?

Anthem for Hoax Arguments:

Up up up and down
Turn turn turn around
round round roundabout
and over again.

teiresias84
2007-May-23, 12:46 PM
I love the bit in Bart's footage of the astronauts walking down the hill with the dust settling almost instantly - the truth is right there!

Of course, if NASA really was faking, why on earth (!) would they create an Apollo 16 (or another other moon mission after 11)? Just for fun? Wouldn't that be counter-productive to the whole "keeping it secret thing"?

Nice work Svector. Even if Sibrel got the footage stright from the aforementioned documentary, you still show that a quick check against the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal and the raw spacecraftfilms footage would reveal whose error it was.

Bob B.
2007-May-23, 01:03 PM
This same "anomaly" also appeared in the infamous Fox program six years ago.

JayUtah
2007-May-23, 01:37 PM
This is an old accusation.

It first appeared in James Collier's Was It Only a Paper Moon?. A large portion of that video is Collier commenting on a series of 30-minute documentary films produced by AV Films of Houston, Texas. The clip in question comes from the film Nothing So Hidden.

While AV Films obtained significant material from NASA, NASA does not claim that the films are an authoritative depiction of the missions, nor that all that can be claimed or implied about them represents a NASA claim. Editors at AV Films simply strung together some clips randomly.

The raw footage, which has been widely available since the late 1980s, shows the two clips in proper sequence. Sibrel, Collier, and others simply prefer to propagate AV Films' error as if NASA intended that to be the official record of the missions.

Yes, Sibrel has not only been caught cheating (i.e., using secondary materials to make claims that apply only to primary material), but also plagiarizing (i.e., from Collier).

If he's going to play the copyright game, then I suggest you file against him for plagiarizing Was It Only a Paper Moon?

SpitfireIX
2007-May-23, 01:42 PM
If he's going to play the copyright game, then I suggest you file against himWas It Only a Paper Moon? for plagiarizing

Does anyone know whether YouTube requires the person making a claim of copyright infringement to have standing (i.e., to be the actual copyright holder or the copyright holder's agent) before they will remove a video?

Fazor
2007-May-23, 02:04 PM
Does anyone know whether YouTube requires the person making a claim of copyright infringement to have standing (i.e., to be the actual copyright holder or the copyright holder's agent) before they will remove a video?

No, the tool is there so the viewer can report material he/she recognizes as copyrited/stolen material. You couldn't win any damages, but you can flag it so that YT will look into whether or not it needs to be removed. But in a case like this, it's Bart's work that includes work that (may have) been used without permission. [Edit: my point is it's not really a YT concern, more a concern of the origonal author v. bart's work. and that might not even be the case, read on:]

I don't know Bart, but he seems like the type of person that would knowingly use something that was admitted to be a non-NASA related error, claim that it supports his ideas, then bury the citation in the fine print. He may very well know the origins of the error, but why should he care? It's making him money.

That's my speculative take on it anyway.

Grand_Lunar
2007-May-23, 07:03 PM
Too bad he disabled his comments. I'd love to give him a word or two.

Good work, Svector.

Oh, who or what does the voice for the narration?

Kesh
2007-May-23, 07:08 PM
If he's going to play the copyright game, then I suggest you file against himWas It Only a Paper Moon? for plagiarizing

Does anyone know whether YouTube requires the person making a claim of copyright infringement to have standing (i.e., to be the actual copyright holder or the copyright holder's agent) before they will remove a video?

If someone makes a DMCA claim that their copyrighted material is being illegally shown on YouTube, then YT yanks it. The person who posted it can then request it be put back up as non-infringing.

Here's the fun part: if the first party makes a second DMCA takedown request, and they are not the actual copyright holder, then they are in violation of the DMCA and can be held liable.

Nicolas
2007-May-23, 07:12 PM
Good work, Svector.

Oh, who or what does the voice for the narration?

It's a what. The technologie has improved quite a lot compared to voice computers I used some years ago.

Svector
2007-May-23, 09:33 PM
This is an old accusation.

It first appeared in James Collier's Was It Only a Paper Moon?. A large portion of that video is Collier commenting on a series of 30-minute documentary films produced by AV Films of Houston, Texas. The clip in question comes from the film Nothing So Hidden.


Yes, Dave Greer found that for me earlier today. I've since amended the description of the video to reflect that Sibrel wasn't the original editor, even though he did add his own graphics, and was wholly complicit in the propagation of a false premise derived from an apparently innocuous error.


While AV Films obtained significant material from NASA, NASA does not claim that the films are an authoritative depiction of the missions, nor that all that can be claimed or implied about them represents a NASA claim. Editors at AV Films simply strung together some clips randomly.

Yes, someone innocently "stringing clips together randomly" no doubt plays right into the hands of "documentarians" like Sibrel.


The raw footage, which has been widely available since the late 1980s, shows the two clips in proper sequence. Sibrel, Collier, and others simply prefer to propagate AV Films' error as if NASA intended that to be the official record of the missions.

Yes, Sibrel has not only been caught cheating (i.e., using secondary materials to make claims that apply only to primary material), but also plagiarizing (i.e., from Collier).

If he's going to play the copyright game, then I suggest you file against him for plagiarizing Was It Only a Paper Moon?

As I told Dave this morning, I will retract my accusation that he was the original editor, but I'm not ready to forgive him of wrongdoing. Promoting a known error as something factual deserves just as much blame as purposely creating the error yourself.

Also, I can almost guarantee we'll see no such retraction from Bart Sibrel regarding the accuracy of the claim he's promoting.

Svector
2007-May-23, 09:37 PM
Too bad he disabled his comments. I'd love to give him a word or two.

Good work, Svector.

Oh, who or what does the voice for the narration?

Thanks GL. It's Phil 01101001 from Lunar Legacy. I pulled him out of retirement partly due to public demand, and partly because I just missed him.

:lol:

Sticks
2007-May-23, 09:47 PM
A side point here, according to my settings on YouTube all videos have to be no longer than 10 minutes, yet Svector's is 10 Mins 15 seconds. How do you get around the 10 minute limit?

Svector
2007-May-23, 10:35 PM
A side point here, according to my settings on YouTube all videos have to be no longer than 10 minutes, yet Svector's is 10 Mins 15 seconds. How do you get around the 10 minute limit?

Apparently their filtering method isn't precise down to the second. I've seen a few other videos in this range, but generally never more than about 10:40 or so.

In the old days, directors could upload videos of any length, but YT has since changed that policy to this new "rough 10 minute rule".

SpitfireIX
2007-May-24, 04:59 AM
In the old days, directors could upload videos of any length, but YT has since changed that policy to this new "rough 10 minute rule".

I was wondering about that, as I've seen a few over 10:00 (16 minutes was the longest). Evidently they were grandfathered in.

BertL
2007-May-24, 05:00 AM
The '10 minute' thing isn't a moderated rule (anymore?). It is more of a guideline to how long things should be. As long as the file you upload is under 100MB you're fine.

Svector
2007-May-24, 06:10 AM
In the old days, directors could upload videos of any length, but YT has since changed that policy to this new "rough 10 minute rule".

I was wondering about that, as I've seen a few over 10:00 (16 minutes was the longest). Evidently they were grandfathered in.

Yeah, I think YT gave some special consideration to original directors. I'm not real clear on what their privileges are, but I became one after the change, so I'm limited to videos shorter than 10, give or take a minute.

Svector
2007-May-24, 06:15 AM
The '10 minute' thing isn't a moderated rule (anymore?). It is more of a guideline to how long things should be. As long as the file you upload is under 100MB you're fine.

Do you know that for a fact? Their FAQ page still says this:

"All videos uploaded to YouTube have a 100MB file size limit. The longer the video is, the more compression will be required to fit it into that size. For that reason, most videos on YouTube are under five minutes long and there is a 10-minute length limit for all videos."

http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=55743&topic=10527

This was the crux of the argument I had with Jarrah about a month back. Now you too?

:p

Kesh
2007-May-24, 03:12 PM
There used to be a program folks could sign up for as "directors" that gave them more leeway about the 10 minute rule, so they could post their short films. That has gone away.

JayUtah
2007-May-24, 04:07 PM
My guess is that this is meant to help combat the unlawful submission of materials protected by copyright; YouTube has run afoul of that recently. If you can only submit 10 minutes of something, it makes a mess out of, say, full-length 48-minute television shows that would have to be posted in parts.

Woody-
2007-May-24, 04:51 PM
"All videos uploaded to YouTube have a 100MB file size limit. The longer the video is, the more compression will be required to fit it into that size. For that reason, most videos on YouTube are under five minutes long and there is a 10-minute length limit for all videos."

This requirement is a joke anyway, I have seen several full length tv shows posted in multiple ten minute or less segments. Its not rocket science to split up a video file.

BertL
2007-May-24, 05:29 PM
Do you know that for a fact? Their FAQ page still says this:

"All videos uploaded to YouTube have a 100MB file size limit. The longer the video is, the more compression will be required to fit it into that size. For that reason, most videos on YouTube are under five minutes long and there is a 10-minute length limit for all videos."

http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=55743&topic=10527

This was the crux of the argument I had with Jarrah about a month back. Now you too?

:p
It's not what I know, it's what I expect. If the guidelines say "there are two restrictions: maximum of 10 minutes, maximum of 100MB" and the maximum of 10 minutes is not true, I expect the maximum of 100MB to be the only restriction. Or, if you're less optimistic, you could say the restriction on a 100MB max isn't there as well. :)

JayUtah
2007-May-24, 05:31 PM
Its not rocket science to split up a video file.

No, but it's annoying to both poster and viewer. Maybe annoying enough not to bother.

Svector
2007-May-24, 11:38 PM
It's not what I know, it's what I expect. If the guidelines say "there are two restrictions: maximum of 10 minutes, maximum of 100MB" and the maximum of 10 minutes is not true, I expect the maximum of 100MB to be the only restriction. Or, if you're less optimistic, you could say the restriction on a 100MB max isn't there as well. :)

I haven't tested it recently, but about a month back I made a test upload of a clip just over 11 minutes long. It was rejected for length. I'm assuming this limit is still in place, unless you know something I don't.

I believe the 100mb size limit is enforced. It appears the 10 minute limit isn't quite as tightly governed.

Svector
2007-May-25, 12:30 PM
Thanks for all your input. Here is the updated video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX7UKH3_xuA