Comments on: Mooning St. Louis, denouement

By: Doug

Doug — Tue, 30 May 2006 20:47:01 +0000

“I donâ€™t buy that light source explanation nor do I accept the picture as definitive proof.”

I suggest walk on the railroad tracks until you catch the converged end on the horizon. If you hear a loud whistling noise, this is normal just ignore it.

By: Bandicoot

Bandicoot — Fri, 26 May 2006 09:05:06 +0000

I am a Science/Physics teacher at a High School in New Zealand. We get this crap tainting our television too, and every time they show that same ole ‘documentary’ about how it was all fake, I know I don’t have to plan the next couple of days’ lessons; they’re taken up explaining why all the hoaxists’ arguments are demonstrably wrong. And I’ve noticed that the people who are most easily converted by this bollocks are either looking for a fight with me, or they’re 13 years old.

Obviously I didn’t hear your radio segment, but good work, Phil. Love your work and your website. I aspire to be more like you.

By: Dwightster

Dwightster — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 10:15:48 +0000

@Stacy: http://www.honeysucklecreek.net explains the reasons for poorer video on Apollo 11. By Apollo 15 Noise reduction and signal filtering resulted in what was known as near broadcast quality. (ie full 525 30 fps video). You can also see at the above website some shots and video made off the high resolution monitors at the tracking station. Indeed, the video was much clearer than the kinescoped 16mm archive which has remained NASA’s official version.

Bart religiously pulls out the thoroughly debunked parallel shaadows argument time and time again. I am a professional videographer, transmission controller and recording engineer who has work in the USA, UK, Germany, Poland and Australia, and I can categorically state that convergence is apparent in every day photos. Much to the chagrin of BS who really ought to know better.

By: astronowanabe

astronowanabe — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 09:21:10 +0000

have to agree prolly a wash.
unless there is strictly fair airtime enforced
(and set debate protocol…Q.->A.)
Perhaps a mute button for his mike that prevented him from gibbering when questions (or answers) wern’t going the way he wanted.

Unfortunatly many people are swayed by the display,
if you are a little weak on thinking or being educated then
The person who is more aggressive is the side to be on right or wrong if you want to be on the side that apears to be winning.
On that level you were not rude enough, but is that really a battle you want to win?

I would argue against accepting venues that tolerate
showmanship over content because the medium is the message
and when you argue with fools it can get hard to tell who is who.

By: Douglas in Philly

Douglas in Philly — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 17:35:35 +0000

I, for one, am glad you went on the radio show. I just happened upon your website, and started reading about Sibrel, et al. I think it’s important for people to present the viewpoint you did, because if not, young people will be more likely to believe his idiotic viewpoint.

By: Skeptic

Skeptic — Mon, 06 Mar 2006 16:41:44 +0000

I donâ€™t buy that light source explanation nor do I accept the picture as definitive proof. There is a gaping flaw! How do I know that the effect you are showing is not due to the effect of another additional and common light source such as a street light? Fortunately, this is something that I can and will test. The result of this test will affect the credibility of your other points. (Iâ€™ll get back to you.)

And I’m sorry, but I just cannot get past how many years it took NASA to explain the waving flag. I don’t know what happened. Perhaps the first moon landing was staged, perhaps not – but one thing I do know from a lifetime of experience – when someone takes that long to answer a simple question – THEY ARE HIDING SOMETHING.

Consider all the grand lies, the propaganda, and the elaborately staged events that (thanks to the internet) we now know for a FACT that our gov’t has carried out over the years (and as a matter of routine).

Consider that we were in a â€œcold warâ€ and in a race to claim the first moon landing from our declared bitter enemies.

I also don’t like the over-used “tin-foil” hat conspiracy defense. If you dispute someone’s position then make you case without bringing their sanity into question. This â€œad hominemâ€ attack needs to stop. Can we all agree on that?

Consider all this and you realize that it very well could have been faked.

BTW: I have a 180IQ, I am perfectly sane, I am a die hard James Randi Fan and a stone cold atheist AND I am not convinced by your argument.

By: Aaron Gosnell

Aaron Gosnell — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 01:54:40 +0000

Personally,I think that Bart Sibrel’s initials are entirely appropriate:BS!!!Those are my thoughts.No obscenity offended.