I don’t know, I think it is entirely possible that Sibrel believes the stuff he’s peddling – or at least the overall premise. I think it’s possible he really thinks we didn’t go, and that he’s justified in using any means necessary, including lying, rude behavior, stalking, insults, etc, to “get the truth out”. Maybe he is just a publicity hound and it’s all a game to him, but I can’t rule out that he’s self-deluded and thinks to some extent he’s a “truth warrior”.

He already has passed his genes on so he wouldn’t qualify.

It’s his critical thinking and clearly valid concepts that will get him sat on by an elephant IMMEDIATELY after arguing that elephants cannot sit down.

BTW, I’ve met Buzz Aldrin on more than a few occasions and have nothing but utter respect for him and every other member of the Apollo team, first to last. So if what I wrote came off as anything other than a bit of funny irreverence on my part, then I must not have expressed it clearly enough

Hey, c’mon, I think calling Buzz Neil’s sidekick downplays the role of the Lunar Module Pilot a bit too much. True, Neil was the mission’s Commander, but Buzz had to become a total expert on all of the LM’s systems, on the lunar orbital rendezvous with the CM, the docking procedure, and had to deal with anything that went wrong with the LM while Neil was piloting it.

“That’s one small…. *urk*”

As far as Buzz popping this rude twerp in the face, all I can say is that Bob Heinlein would have approved, and that’s all the justification you need.
Great job, Phil.

But it was a great show, Bart Sibrel was on a few weeks ago and I didn’t believe a thing he said … plus his credibility went down as soon as he started insulting call-in listeners and talking over anyone who disagreed.

Quite appropriate title

Good job man, that Bart Sibrel fellow is a complete mental case.

A professtion film producer and photographer?

After he said that line about shadows all being parralell, being a photographer myself, i went outside and looked. Held up two broom handels. And sure enough the shadows followed the terrain. Additionally and even more import, if one was tilted just slight and the other not, I could get radically varying angels on the shadows. Had one pointing about 25 degrees into the other.

My advise in the future when debating people is when they start answering questions with a question, to put a stop to it immediately. It’s a blanant form of evasion (lieing). Bart did that almost continually and I so -wished- to call in, and reach through the phone to throttle him for it.

Actually, the next time he brings up the NASA connection, remind him that he said, “NASA was duped by the government,” too. If that is the case, in his mind, why would NASA grants be of any value to the debate? He wants it both ways…..

You KNOW he’ll bring it up again

That’s classic.

It’s always difficult to explain scientific evidence in response to a bunch of “quotable quips” and semi-plausible pseudoscience. Often the real explanation is much more complicated than just saying, “well… it COULD have happened that way.”

I did find it interesting that Bart relies so heavily in “personal testimony” while at the same time he immediately discounts the personal testimony of anyone who disagrees with his position.

He uses his “testimony” argument both to imply that he must be right because Neil Armstrong would not “swear on the bible” and also in accusing you of being unreasonable because you would not accept the “sworn testimony” of astronauts that it never happened… sworn testimony which he, of course, cannot produce, but it gives him a chance to call you “closed minded.”

Interesting to learn that no one has ever actually climbed Mt. Everest because Bart hasn’t been there. I hope he’s been to Hawaii… otherwise I might not exist.

sheesh

You could throw him to the moon, he’d see the remains and go “Yea well GOVERNMENT ADDED THEM MUCH AFTER BY UNMANNED MISSIONS! It’s all to make you BELIEVE!”