Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 114

Thread: BA versus Sibrel, Round 2

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,516
    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?

  2. #2
    Guest

    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 ! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]




  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,447
    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.

  4. #4
    Guest
    And Jay picked Sibrel apart like a clock back in January (January 25):

    http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...ic=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>

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    15
    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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Clear Lake City, TX
    Posts
    9,042
    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. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

    (How do we "listen in" or get copies... tapes or transcripts?)
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
    Isaac Asimov

    Moderation will be in purple.
    Rules for Posting to This Board

  7. #7
    Guest

    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)


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    6,275
    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 **.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    200
    Do you think Bart reads this forum???

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    235
    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.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    312
    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

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,836
    BA

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

  13. #13
    Guest

    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"

    [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

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




  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    294
    Just as long as no stars are visible if the Sun's overhead. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]


    -Adam

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    3,162
    I'd be careful. According to his own resume, he's quite a movie maker

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

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    291
    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.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    3,162
    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.


  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    291
    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?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    3,162
    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.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    311
    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.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,447
    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>

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    180
    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

    [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    291

    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.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    311
    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).



  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    311
    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!".


  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,516
    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.

    [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]


  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,447
    Good luck! I strongly agree with the advice to contact Jim McDade. I think his insight would ve valuable.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    311
    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

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

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    187
    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.

    [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

    The station streams it's broadcasts over RealPlayer:

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

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

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    311
    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... [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Similar Threads

  1. Sibrel vs. The Bad Astronomer, Round 2
    By The Bad Astronomer in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 123
    Last Post: 2007-Feb-16, 09:37 PM
  2. Sibrel vs Gene', Round 1
    By genebujold in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 2005-Sep-05, 02:27 AM
  3. transcript for BA vs Bart Sibrel round 2
    By GurneyHalleck in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2003-Jan-03, 02:42 AM
  4. Transcript of BA versus Sibrel, Round 2
    By SpacedOut in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2002-Jun-13, 04:50 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: