Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[JayUtah]

What if I am a doc that works on a daily basis with the INFLUENZA problem, know a lot about it, the DVT/PE PROBLEM as well?

But you're not.

What if decades of published research contradicts your findings? I don't need you to tell me about circulatory problems in space; I have real experts at my disposal who aren't horribly compromised by a blatant anti-mainstream bias and a complete lack of demonstrable skill. They tell me what I need to know about the human circulatory system, and they tell me what sorts of equipment and machinery might work to combat the problems of keeping the human organism healthy in microgravity.

Maybe you guys should find a real doc willing to mix it up with me here...

I've found several "real docs" willing to challenge your claims. But you steadfastly ignore the invitation to talk to them, so I don't really take your bluster seriously anymore. You're all talk. Or as we say where I grew up: "All hat and no cattle."

It's highly suspicious and very unsatisfying that you will engage with experts only where you have absolute immunity from the consequences of error. You talk big, but you risk absolutely nothing. That's the hallmark of a charlatan.

Besides, we've seen what you do with real experts who try to "mix it up with [you] here." We had two bona fide cartographers and a number of bona fide U.S. Navy navigators. They tried to correct your mistakes and debate you, but you just blustered past them. Besides, I'm a qualified engineer and you tried to bluster past my corrections to your highly inaccurate analysis of Apollo test missions. You basically told everyone that you didn't care how highly qualified I was, you were nevertheless correct and no one could rightly contradict you. So it's not hard to guess how you will treat an MD on this thread.

No -- the only option remaining to you now is a face-to-face meeting where you will be on the hook to demonstrate that there's more to you than lies and bluster. So far, there isn't -- and the world is watching.

By the way, I make a strong effort NOT to use technical terminology here in the thread.....

That's because you can't use it properly and because you keep relying on convenience sources such as Wikipedia to create the illusion of competence. If you get in too deep in the technology, you make mistakes and you know it. So you're trying to make it seem like you're "dumbing down" the discussion for us poor unwashed heathens. But no one is fooled into thinking you're the teacher and we're the students -- especially since you spend so much time telling us you need to go fill in the gaps.

You have an offer on the table to meet in person with at least two fully-qualified flight surgeons from Moffett Federal Airfield, which is a short drive down the 101 freeway from where you say you live. Kindly stop trying to make it seem like the ball is in our court.

 

[rambaldi]

I'll post them as I go along.

Why? They are still as wrong as they were when you first wrote them.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Same point I have made to Loss Leader......

Given the realities of the situation, not that it makes all that much difference to me one way or the other, it is your choice, your strategy, BUT what happens if this strategy of yours doesn't pan out? What if I am a doc that works on a daily basis with the INFLUENZA problem, know a lot about it, the DVT/PE PROBLEM as well? Those astronauts are gonna' be stranded out there naked in the cold of cislunar space without a defense. The jig will really be up then. I think it is a VERY BAD STRATEGY MYSELF on your part Tomblvd, but that is just me.

I'm going to quote my response to your earlier version of this question, which you ignored:

Nothing, because you'd still be wrong. If we could somehow bring Karl Friedrich Gauss back to life, and he proclaimed that 2 + 2 = 5, he'd still be wrong, no matter how eminent of a mathematician he was.

Maybe you guys should find a real doc willing to mix it up with me here, let us go at it with our "big words" and see what shakes out....

Jay has repeatedly offered to set up a face-to-face meeting between you and several NASA-affiliated flight surgeons. Why won't you accept the challenge if you're really so confident that you're correct?

By the way, I make a strong effort NOT to use technical terminology here in the thread.....

Undoubtedly because, as you've repeatedly demonstrated on so many different subjects, you understand very few technical terms.

 

[JayUtah]

Not sure where you guys are coming from...

From the published research. Where are you coming from besides your own uneducated supposition?

These dudes are sedentary for 10 days.

No.

They are floating, so it is not as "bad" as it would be were they sitting in a car or on an airplane for ten days.

Asked and answered. They are in microgravity. The risk factors for DVT are relatively non-existent.

That said, there is essentially no/very very very little muscle contraction for 10 days.

False. You're not familiar with the research.

What squeezes your veins?

Asked and answered. You are simply asserting that there is insufficient motor muscle activity in microgravity. The research contradicts you and you have cited no authority for your claim other than your supposition.

This point, if it is a point of yours Tomblvd or whomever, is ridiculous. Anyone SEDENTARY like this, in or out of a gravitational field

Ad hoc refinement -- argument rejected.

It is a problem bordering on the impossible to study clinically as one's study sample is so small.

You're not qualified to make this judgment. Further, you are attempting to contradict the published research without knowing what it is and without knowing its basis.

Bias displayed -- argument rejected.

Interestingly, the same considerations might not apply, or would be applied differently, to space station types...

What does the published research say?

I'll leave this discussion for a rainy day(neutrino showers bring May flowers).

Translation: even though I brought this subject up, I'm going to try to change the subject now because it's clear that others know more about it than I do.

That said, one would have expected something from the NASA docs. Quacks...

The only one displaying quackery is you. You have an offer on the table to call NASA doctors any name you want to their faces. Your assiduous avoidance of that offer proves that your name-calling is mere childish posturing. You have no real knowledge, skill, or courage.

 

[JayUtah]

Here are the most important of my early posts, pages 1-10. Pages 11-20 soon to follow and so on.

(List of Patrick's long-debunked claims snipped)

No, Patrick. Kindly do not waste everyone's time by simply repeating the past 180 pages of your evasion and bluster. All your claims have been refuted, and your endless going in circles is highly tedious.

 

[SpitfireIX]

BTW, you are not a medical doctor, please stop implying that you are.

I know it is highly illegal to do the above in the UK suppsoedly it msut be the same elswhere

Lying about being a doctor is not illegal per se in any jurisdiction in the US that I'm aware of. What is illegal is holding oneself out as a doctor when one is not (that is, claiming to be a doctor in a commerical setting, as when endorsing a product); so is practicing medicine without a license. LL might be able to expand on this.

 

[Garrison]

Here's another issue of which I'd like to hear Jay Windley's analysis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhab86KoVjU

It seems that Mythbusters deliberately didn't show the moving flag on the moon coming to a stop when the astronaut stopped moving the pole and misled viewers into thinking that it came to a stop slowly when it had in fact come to a quick stop the way it would in atmosphere.

This video exposes their fraud.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00

No, it's been explained to you before; you don't get to pick the one piece of video you misguidedly think supports your theory and ignore the rest. There are tens of hours of footage from the moon, much of it showing effect with dust and other objects that clearly show it was shot in a vacuum. If you can't address the whole body of evidence you're simply wasting your time.

 

[Andy_Ross]

How can you say the Apollo Crews were 'Sedentary'? Do you know what the word means? Do you know what tasks and workloads the crews had?

 

[BaaBaa]

The LEM crews were standing, the entire time they were onboard. Easily found out by looking at the schematics.

 

[JayUtah]

"Sedentary" describes a lifestyle, not a temporary condition. Astronauts were far from sedentary as a matter of lifestyle, and there are no short-term risk factors for DVT. As far as motor activity, all that's required is a lack of restraint or limited range of motion.

 

[Tomblvd]

These dudes are sedentary for 10 days. They are floating, so it is not as "bad" as it would be were they sitting in a car or on an airplane for ten days.

Didn't they teach you the definition of "sedentary" in Med school?

sed·en·tar·y [sed-n-ter-ee]
adjective
1. characterized by or requiring a sitting posture: a sedentary occupation.
2. accustomed to sit or rest a great deal or to take little exercise.

So tell us how "floating" is synonymous with "sedentary"?

 

[Tomblvd]

Same point I have made to Loss Leader......

Given the realities of the situation, not that it makes all that much difference to me one way or the other, it is your choice, your strategy, BUT what happens if this strategy of yours doesn't pan out? What if I am a doc that works on a daily basis with the INFLUENZA problem, know a lot about it, the DVT/PE PROBLEM as well? Those astronauts are gonna' be stranded out there naked in the cold of cislunar space without a defense. The jig will really be up then. I think it is a VERY BAD STRATEGY MYSELF on your part Tomblvd, but that is just me.

Yea, it is just you. If you are a "real" medical doctor, you are still very, very wrong about every medical issue we've discussed.

But since you are arguing that being a doctor makes you right on medical issues, are you prepared to admit that Jay and the rest are right on all the engineering issues?

Maybe you guys should find a real doc willing to mix it up with me here, let us go at it with our "big words" and see what shakes out....

I'm a "real doc". Why are you so afraid to debate a lowly dentist?

 

[Patrick1000]

Doesn't have to lift off as advertised, doesn't neet to weigh nearly as much....

Those "little white things", as you call them, are consistent with the historical record. That's not the only thing they're consistent with. On Jul 18, 2009, 2:40am, "rodionh" posted a comparison of an LRO image of the Apollo 11 landing site with a 3D recreation of same. (Link—scroll down to the time and date mentioned) The model recreated the LM, Lunar terrain, and the lighting approximating that which would be expected at the time of the LRO image. The matchup was impressive.

So, here we have a couple of things: your claim that highly modified, automated Apollo hardware went to the Moon; and an image of the landing site with hardware that matches the historical record. Let's try to reconcile them.

Pretend for a moment that LM that landed on the Moon was really so very extensively modified for military purposes. The ascent stage of that modified LM would have to lift off as advertised in order to maintain the appearance of one spacecraft (which could be tracked) taking off to meet up with another spacecraft (which could be tracked) in Lunar orbit. If it doesn't do that, the jig is up, to use your parlance.

This presents a problem, though. With the ascent stage gone, how were ongoing military operations conducted? Was it all stowed in the descent stage? Where? How much did all this gear weigh? How did it work? Was there an antenna for communication with your fantasy Lagrangian network?

Oh...and put up or shutup.

Doesn't have to lift off as advertised. First and foremost doesn't need to weigh nearly as much. Just has to be trackable, and "fly" at the requisite speed. And even that may not have been necessary. Who could track junk that far away at the time? The Soviets, the US, the Brits I believe. Who else? It is a short list. May not even need tro be trackable, as in, "whoops you missed it".

 

[Patrick1000]

As you may have read above realpaladin, an extensive list of my key posts....

Patrick... China?

As you may have read above realpaladin, an extensive list of my key posts is not allowed, understandably. It would and will run in the hundreds of posts. I would estimate more than 500 at this time.

I'll compile the list myself and the list will include link, post number and topic. The list will be sorted/organized/indexed by subject. I'll PM you the list when complete.

Perhaps more significantly, and more useful, I'll write up a little synopsis of my views on Apollo, a relatively concise presentation of Method(how they did it and how one knows it fraudulent), Motive(why they did it, outlining my speculations on the military goals/intent), Men involved(perpetrator list with a reason as to why I know the person to be a perp).

I'll set up an email just for perp contact. I'll send all the surviving perps a copy of the Chop busting synopsis and invite them to debate me here or elsewhere. I assume there will be perps I won't be able to reach for this that or the other reason and so, others, anyone, will be welcome to direct the perps to this one particular post which summarizes my charges and so forth, and my contact email as well. This way, the perps can engage me if/as they wish, and are free to communicate with forum members here as well.

Just to be clear again, anyone I have explicitly named in this thread as a perp, I would be happy to debate. Better said, I would enthusiastically welcome the opportunity to debate, providing the debate occurred at a neutral(non NASA) site and featured a neutral(as disinterested personally as possible)moderator.

 

[Patrick1000]

Substantiate it for yourselves, AND YOU SHOULD!!!!!

Note the unsubstantiated provenance of the clip.



FTFY



Irrelevant. You have zero case unless you can substantiate who doctored the clip and why. Clearly the soundtrack has been time-shifted in your clip, but merely posting it does not substantiate the elements of your charge.

Further, you were given two days plus a grace period to demonstrate your expertise on the subject of motion picture compositing, a subject you invoked to try to prove both Sibrel's and Apollo motion picture evidence to be fraudulent. You assiduously avoided yet another test of expertise, which you now fail.

We now have clear evidence of your willingness -- nay your compulsion -- to say practically anything that supports your belief, regardless of your ability to know it. Based on that, can you justify why anyone should pay you any attention whatsoever?



How so? You're the one who's always backpedaling. And you still obviously won't face Sibrel with it. Same contact-information request applies. You can tell Sibrel to his face that he's a liar and a thief. But you have to come out from hiding first.

Substantiate it for yourselves, AND YOU SHOULD!!!!!

This point is so important, everyone with an interest in Apollo Authenticity/Inauthenticity SHOULD BE DOING THIS FOR THEMSELVES. Download the Sibrel original into your computer and run it slow-mo to prove to yourself that Sibrel's own unedited film features SIBREL FIRST SEEN TO BE PUNCHED, HIS FACE IS STRUCK AND HIS WHOLE BODY MOVES, THEN THE PUNCH IS HEARD, AND THEN AND ONLY THEN, AFTER SEEING THE PUNCH/HEAD STRUCK AND BODY MOVEMENT RIGHTWARD, THEN AND ONLY THEN, AFTER HEARING THE DUBBED!!!! SOUND OF THE PUNCH, DOES ONE DISTINCTLY HEAR THE WORD "THIEF". YES!!! ONE DISTINCTLY DISTINCTLY DISTINCTLY HEARS THE WORD "THIEF".

By no means am I asking anyone to to take my word for it. I am claiming this to be the case, the FACT of the matter, and I am challenging anyone to prove me wrong by doing what I did and posting a clip that shows otherwise, AN ORIGINAL SIBREL CLIP AS I DID. AND, I am saying this point is so important that anyone with an interest in the Apollo Truth/Fraud issue MUST DO THIS FOR THEMSELVES AND TRUST NO ONE ELSE"S WORK AS TO THE RESULT AS THE MATTER IS OF FAR TOO GREAT IMPORTANCE.

You should not believe me on this point Jay, nor should anyone else. You should not be believe anyone on this point. No one should take anyone's word as to the truth in this matter as it is way too too too too important. It is the simplest proof of Apollo Inauthenticity we have, and a 13 year old can do this, obtain a Sibrel original and slow it, as every one should do it, and in so doing, PROVE APOLLO FULL ON PHONY PHONY PHONY. Phony as von Braun's metal teeth and THAT my friends is VERY PHONY. Download the clip, Sibrel's original, and run it slow-mo for yourselves and compare your reults with mine. You will find there to be no difference, and in so doing, prove to yourselves Apollo's absolute unmitigated bogusness.

I have purchased 15 copies of Sibrel's film . They will remain unopened, sealed. I have receipts for all of the different vendors from whom I made the film's purchase. I need not touch a one, not for now anyway. That is the whole idea. Too late for Sibrel to reedit this. If he tries it, I'll crucify him on the cislunar road to Golgotha. Sibrel wants to be a martyr? I'll nail his sorry heiny. Those videos, from 15 different vendors, Sibrel's OWN VIDEO PUBLICATION PROVE APOLLO INAUTHENTICITY WITH METAPHYSICAL UNMITIGATED CERTITUDE. THIS EVIDENCE IS ABSOLUTELY UNIMPEACHABLE AS IT IS SIBREL'S OWN.

This is not a game.... We have been gamed long enough , and we won't put up with it a day longer, at least those of us with integrity, Anders, fatfreddy, myself, other speakers of the truth.......

I challenge any forum member to post a Sibrel ORIGINAL clip here and prove me wrong.

Here is the Sibrel original slowed down, no other editing here, just slowed;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsdJGonxoCE&context=C31b4226ADOEgsToPDskJFhuwPEh9EF5H1JQQOSV-a

Show me your versions, your slowed or nominal speed Sibrel originals, TRY AND PROVE ME WRONG, TRY TRY TRY AND PROVE YOUR FAKE PRECIOUS APOLLO AUTHENTIC, TRY TRY TRY AND SAVE THE ASTRONAUTS RUMPS.

My find is beyond the stars sensational. Sibrel is a perp, a GRAND PERP, and as a matter of fact, ranks with the astronauts, Kranz and ARCH PERP JOHN AARON HIMSELF, as one of the "visibly" most important FRAUDSTERS. This, as opposed to a man like the Schiesser the royal SHYSTER, the phony math/trajectory/guidance man, one of the 'invisibly" important PERPS.

 

[Garrison]

Doesn't have to lift off as advertised. First and foremost doesn't need to weigh nearly as much.

SO just to be clear here, and working on your past posts, are you saying that after the military added all their toys onto the LM they then took a chainsaw to it and removed a load of unnecessary bits?

Just has to be trackable, and "fly" at the requisite speed. And even that may not have been necessary.

Well it also has to return 300 plus kilos of moon rock and lay out a series of trails consistent with the Apollo films for the LRO to photograph 30 years later. I know you would like to ignore those two elephants in the room, sorry but you can't.

Who could track junk that far away at the time? The Soviets, the US, the Brits I believe. Who else? It is a short list. May not even need tro be trackable, as in, "whoops you missed it".

So we can add deep space tracking to the list of things you don't know about. How about instead of piling on yet more inept claims you just take up JayUtah's offer?

 

[abaddon]

Doesn't have to lift off as advertised.

You claim, your burden of proof.

First and foremost doesn't need to weigh nearly as much. Just has to be trackable, and "fly" at the requisite speed. And even that may not have been necessary.

Confusing weight and mass. An elementary error.

Who could track junk that far away at the time? The Soviets, the US, the Brits I believe. Who else?

The Spanish, the Aussies, The chinese, for petes sake the Yugoslavians, the East Germans and a whole grab bag of amateurs.

It is a short list. May not even need tro be trackable, as in, "whoops you missed it".

Bzzt, wrong.

 

[abaddon]

As you may have read above realpaladin, an extensive list of my key posts is not allowed, understandably. It would and will run in the hundreds of posts. I would estimate more than 500 at this time.

Understandably, because your hypotheses have been demonstrated to be rubbish, repeatedly.

I'll compile the list myself and the list will include link, post number and topic. The list will be sorted/organized/indexed by subject. I'll PM you the list when complete.

And you will find the same cogent rebuttals waiting for you.

Perhaps more significantly, and more useful, I'll write up a little synopsis of my views on Apollo, a relatively concise presentation of Method(how they did it and how one knows it fraudulent), Motive(why they did it, outlining my speculations on the military goals/intent), Men involved(perpetrator list with a reason as to why I know the person to be a perp).

You have yet to demonstrate any conciseness. All of your hypotheses have been examined and rejected.

Your speculations are exactly that, just speculations.

A word of advice, lose the "perps" thing, it is childish.

I'll set up an email just for perp contact. I'll send all the surviving perps a copy of the Chop busting synopsis and invite them to debate me here or elsewhere. I assume there will be perps I won't be able to reach for this that or the other reason and so, others, anyone, will be welcome to direct the perps to this one particular post which summarizes my charges and so forth, and my contact email as well. This way, the perps can engage me if/as they wish, and are free to communicate with forum members here as well.

That is not what is on the table before you. You have been offered the chance to confront these people in person. You continue to evade that. Why?

Just to be clear again, anyone I have explicitly named in this thread as a perp, I would be happy to debate. Better said, I would enthusiastically welcome the opportunity to debate, providing the debate occurred at a neutral(non NASA) site and featured a neutral(as disinterested personally as possible)moderator.

You have been offered this opportunity, yet you continue to evade it. Why?

 

[nomuse]

As you may have read above realpaladin, an extensive list of my key posts is not allowed, understandably. It would and will run in the hundreds of posts. I would estimate more than 500 at this time.

A good editor could winnow that down to a couple of pages. There's a lot of chaff in your posts.

Perhaps more significantly, and more useful, I'll write up a little synopsis of my views on Apollo, a relatively concise presentation of Method(how they did it and how one knows it fraudulent), Motive(why they did it, outlining my speculations on the military goals/intent), Men involved(perpetrator list with a reason as to why I know the person to be a perp).

That would be refreshing.

Cart before horse, of course, of course. You are so far from showing Method, getting into Motive is premature and getting into Men is simply unwarranted attacks (on people you are too cowardly to address directly).

I'll set up an email just for perp contact. I'll send all the surviving perps a copy of the Chop busting synopsis and invite them to debate me here or elsewhere. I assume there will be perps I won't be able to reach for this that or the other reason and so, others, anyone, will be welcome to direct the perps to this one particular post which summarizes my charges and so forth, and my contact email as well. This way, the perps can engage me if/as they wish, and are free to communicate with forum members here as well.

Just to be clear again, anyone I have explicitly named in this thread as a perp, I would be happy to debate. Better said, I would enthusiastically welcome the opportunity to debate, providing the debate occurred at a neutral(non NASA) site and featured a neutral(as disinterested personally as possible)moderator.

I know that if I got an email or letter addressed "Dear Perp" I'd throw it out. Or maybe contact a lawyer.

This is a step in the right direction, but if you actually meant it -- if you actually had a shred of either intellectual honesty or human decency -- you would refrain from throwing around terms like "perp" and otherwise besmirching the men and women who do not currently have a way to defend themselves.

 

[abaddon]

Substantiate it for yourselves, AND YOU SHOULD!!!!!

Many of us did, and found it to be a true record of Aldrin punching out Sibrels lights. A US court ruled that Aldrin was justified. So now, you are left in the unhappy place that the US justice system must be in on the conspiracy. Good luck with that.

This point is so important, everyone with an interest in Apollo Authenticity/Inauthenticity SHOULD BE DOING THIS FOR THEMSELVES. Download the Sibrel original into your computer and run it slow-mo to prove to yourself that Sibrel's own unedited film features SIBREL FIRST SEEN TO BE PUNCHED, HIS FACE IS STRUCK AND HIS WHOLE BODY MOVES, THEN THE PUNCH IS HEARD, AND THEN AND ONLY THEN, AFTER SEEING THE PUNCH/HEAD STRUCK AND BODY MOVEMENT RIGHTWARD, THEN AND ONLY THEN, AFTER HEARING THE DUBBED!!!! SOUND OF THE PUNCH, DOES ONE DISTINCTLY HEAR THE WORD "THIEF". YES!!! ONE DISTINCTLY DISTINCTLY DISTINCTLY HEARS THE WORD "THIEF".

We did. You failed.

By no means am I asking anyone to to take my word for it. I am claiming this to be the case, the FACT of the matter, and I am challenging anyone to prove me wrong by doing what I did and posting a clip that shows otherwise, AN ORIGINAL SIBREL CLIP AS I DID. AND, I am saying this point is so important that anyone with an interest in the Apollo Truth/Fraud issue MUST DO THIS FOR THEMSELVES AND TRUST NO ONE ELSE"S WORK AS TO THE RESULT AS THE MATTER IS OF FAR TOO GREAT IMPORTANCE.

Sibrel getting his just desserts is proof of natural justice, nothing else.

You should not believe me on this point Jay, nor should anyone else. You should not be believe anyone on this point. No one should take anyone's word as to the truth in this matter as it is way too too too too important.

Least of all, your word, which has repeatedly been shown to be false in this very thread.

It is the simplest proof of Apollo Inauthenticity we have, and a 13 year old can do this, obtain a Sibrel original and slow it, as every one should do it, and in so doing, PROVE APOLLO FULL ON PHONY PHONY PHONY.

I take that to be an admission?

Phony as von Braun's metal teeth and THAT my friends is VERY PHONY. Download the clip, Sibrel's original, and run it slow-mo for yourselves and compare your reults with mine. You will find there to be no difference, and in so doing, prove to yourselves Apollo's absolute unmitigated bogusness.

What? Aldrin punching Sibrel is proof of an Apollo Hoax? Really, Patrick?

I have purchased 15 copies of Sibrel's film . They will remain unopened, sealed.
I have receipts for all of the different vendors from whom I made the film's purchase. I need not touch a one, not for now anyway. That is the whole idea.

Why? Just why would you do such a thing? And how does it add any weight to your contention? Why not 50, or 100 copies?

Too late for Sibrel to reedit this. If he tries it, I'll crucify him on the cislunar road to Golgotha. Sibrel wants to be a martyr?

Yup, he does.

I'll nail his sorry heiny.

Nope, you won't.

Those videos, from 15 different vendors, Sibrel's OWN VIDEO PUBLICATION PROVE APOLLO INAUTHENTICITY WITH METAPHYSICAL UNMITIGATED CERTITUDE. THIS EVIDENCE IS ABSOLUTELY UNIMPEACHABLE AS IT IS SIBREL'S OWN.

And?

This is not a game.... We have been gamed long enough , and we won't put up with it a day longer, at least those of us with integrity, Anders, fatfreddy, myself, other speakers of the truth.......

It is clearly a game for you. That you would hitch your wagon to Anders and fatfreddy is telling.

I challenge any forum member to post a Sibrel ORIGINAL clip here and prove me wrong.

Here is the Sibrel original slowed down, no other editing here, just slowed;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsdJGonxoCE&context=C31b4226ADOEgsToPDskJFhuwPEh9EF5H1JQQOSV-a

I will not waste my bandwidth on your argumentum ad youtubem, say what you want to say in thread.

Show me your versions, your slowed or nominal speed Sibrel originals, TRY AND PROVE ME WRONG, TRY TRY TRY AND PROVE YOUR FAKE PRECIOUS APOLLO AUTHENTIC, TRY TRY TRY AND SAVE THE ASTRONAUTS RUMPS.

Gross ad hom noted. Lack of evidence noted. Appeal to proof of a negative noted.

My find is beyond the stars sensational. Sibrel is a perp, a GRAND PERP, and as a matter of fact, ranks with the astronauts, Kranz and ARCH PERP JOHN AARON HIMSELF, as one of the "visibly" most important FRAUDSTERS. This, as opposed to a man like the Schiesser the royal SHYSTER, the phony math/trajectory/guidance man, one of the 'invisibly" important PERPS.

You have already been proven wrong on this in this very thread.