If one creates a visual on the audio of this nonsense, the PUNCH's sound precedes that of "THIEF", and there are other audiometric facts which confirm this as bogus...
Patrick, before you get all wound up...
Yes, it's obvious that
your version of the clip has time-shifted audio. But you're making insinuations regarding who may have edited it and why. When you just download something randomly off the internet, as you seem to have done here, you have absolutely no information about what may have been done to it along the way.
So instead of trying to beat people over the head with the fact that the film has been doctored, try to find out who doctored your clip and why. Then and only then you
might have a case. Until you do that, you're just charging at windmills.
God that thing is stupid....
Your opinion of what would constitute a "properly" set up ambush interview is noted -- and disregarded as irrelevant. After eight months haven't you figured out that no one agrees with your arbitrary opinions? Do you have that little respect for your audience? I mean the non sock puppet audience?
That said, the strongest evidence against Sibrel is simply the implausibility of his story.
Yes, I agree that Sibrel's story is implausible. So is yours. Most conspiracy theorists have completely implausible stories. Your argument here begs the question that conspiracy theories are evidently sensible. In fact they're largely considered to be bogus from the get-go. As both I and Sts60 have told you, conspiracy theorists don't even appear on the radar among the appropriately qualified professionals.
You get
less respect, though. Sibrel is at least willing to go out and talk to the people he's accusing, under his real name and against his real-life reputation. You haven't shown that you're willing to lift a finger beyond sitting at your computer, Googling, and slinging CAPS-riddled rants. You haven't demonstrated anything beyond what a bored teenager could accomplish.
What makes you think you can credibly pass judgment on anyone, even other conspiracy theorists? As far as level of effort, you rank pretty far down. You write prodigiously, but you commit the same errors and evasions over and over again. It grows tedious.
Is one expected to believe that HE, SIBREL, WOULD BELIEVE HIMSELF THAT NASA WOULD RELEASE TO HIM A CONFIDENTIAL VIDEO OF THE APOLLO 11 ASTRONAUTS IN PRETEND CISLUNAR SPACE?
You misrepresent Sibrel. He believes he was given the video by mistake, that it was something he was not supposed to see.
Now of course he's mistaken. He misinterpreted a preface slug and thought he was seeing film that wasn't supposed to be circulated outside of NASA. To further compound his error, he didn't realize that a large portion of what he had in hand was the 30-minute live telecast; he's that incompetent with the source material.
However, incompetence with the source material is a hallmark of conspiracy theories -- your incompetence especially. You can't say that Sibrel is a shill because his claims about the source materials are not credible. The fact that escapes you is that
your claims about the source material are equally nonsensical. Someone can just as easily say, "Are we really supposed to believe Patrick1000 when he says that NASA released medical or engineering reports to the public that are scientifically indefensible?"
The same arguments you offer for Sibrel being a shill can be applied equally or more so to you. You're just too arrogant to see that.
Physician, heal thyself.
Ditto for Mitchell, Bean, Cernan.
No, I spoke to Mitchell directly. A portion of Sibrel's interview with him was essentially cordial. Then when Sibrel attempted to spring his trap, Mitchell kicked him out of his house. As in planted his foot squarely upon Sibrel's posterior, in the most literal sense. You don't see that in Sibrel's video. Guess why?
You fell for Karel. You're apparently also falling for Sibrel. Don't you realize what can be accomplished by careful editing? That's all Sibrel's tactics are: clever editing tricks. I went into them at length when I reviewed Sibrel's film, and gave examples of them. There were even more in Karel's documentary that you linked to above. But you cherry-picked out what you wanted to present and ignored the rest, even the part that explains why you fall for Sibrel too.
No, Patrick, you aren't a film critic. You can't demonstrate even the slightest correct knowledge about film technniques. It's the latest in a very long line of things you've failed at.
Any genuine self rspecting astronaut would...
Begging the question. You do not get to make rules for astronauts.
The whole thing is silly beyond belief.
Who cares? Are you really so desperate for attention that you're stooping to claiming
other conspiracy theorists are also hoaxes?
Why bother? You've already admitted you don't know anything about video production. Why should the world care what you think? I can go subject myself to any number of uninformed blowhards down at the coffee shop near the Utah Film Society headquarters. I've seen Sundance Film Festival groupies who can demonstrate better knowledge of film than you. Why don't I just listen to them instead?
Besides, we all know that your promise of more detail isn't worth anything. Your idea of "more detail" is simply lengthier and more caps-riddled rants that say nothing except how great you are. The details we all want and are asking for, such as
- computations proving that PTFE and aluminum will not ignite and combust under the Apollo 13 conditions
- analysis of Appendix F of the Cortright report
- substantiation that you have made contact with the people you accuse
- any verifiable professional or academic credential
- contact information so that you can accuse people in person
never appear in any form. You promise much, but deliver nothing. That's why Sibrel, for all his faults and malice, deserves so much more respect than you.
