Jump to content
The Education Forum

(Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread


Evan Burton
 Share

Recommended Posts

Dave already gave you the answers, Jack.

The "fuel can" is the TGE.

a17tge2b.jpg

a17tge4b.jpg

169:21:30 Schmitt: Yeah; we'll have to...

169:21:34 Cernan: (Between the MESA and the ladder footpad) Why don't you leave that there for a minute? Okay. What did you say about the TGE, Bob?

169:21:40 Parker: Okay. We'd like to take TGE, of course, as we planned. Take it off, and we'll try and get both a grav and a bias reading. You might initiate one of them now. We'll initiate another one later on. We've got plenty of time while it's sitting on the ground there to do our thing with it.

[Jack takes another SCB to the footpad; Gene reaches to switch to his auxiliary supply of feedwater. In order to reach back, Gene brings his arm up to about chest height and slightly adjusts the lateral orientation before he swings it back. On this first attempt, he can't quite reach the switch, brings his hand forward about a foot, and then swings it back again, this time successfully getting hold of the switch.]
[Cernan - "That's not atypical. That's what you had to do to work against the stiffness in the bearings."]

169:21:57 Cernan: Stay where you are, Jack, (garbled)...

[Gene still has to get Jack's SCB off.]

169:22:00 Parker: I see where you've got a feedwater tone coming up pretty soon, Gene.

169:22:03 Cernan: (Removing Jack's PLSS SCB) Bob, I already got it and I'm in Auto (means "Aux"). Just about 30 seconds ago.

169:22:06 Parker: Okay.

169:22:11 Cernan: (Looking into Jack's SCB) Okay. How are we fixed for samples? Here's (SCB) 5, and it's about 1/2 to 3/4 full.

169:22:18 Schmitt: Well, let's dump...

169:22:20 Cernan: We've got to carry the SESC up.

169:22:22 Schmitt: ...let's dump these...

**************

169:50:45 Cernan: (To Jack) Okay, babe. Let's go to the AL(SEP)...Okay, Bob. I owe you a bias reading.

169:50:51 Parker: Okay. Or you can get it later. There's no hurry on that. And we're off to the ALSEP...

169:50:57 Cernan: (Waving into the TV) I'm going to give it to you right now.

169:50:58 Parker: Okay. Ready to copy. I presume you've a UHT out at the ALSEP, Jack.

169:51:04 Schmitt: (On his way) That's affirm.

[Gene faces southeast and shades the indicators with his hand.]

169:51:05 Cernan: 337, 417, 101; 337, 417, 101.

169:51:16 Parker: Okay. Copy that.

169:51:20 Cernan: Are you through with this (gravimeter)?

169:51:25 Parker: Roger.

[bob laughs, realizing that Gene wants to see how far he can throw the
.]

169:51:27 Cernan: (Repeating his question) Bob?

169:51:29 Parker: (Laughing) Roger. We're through with it.

169:51:30 Schmitt: (To Gene) Be kind. Be kind.

169:51:32 Cernan: Well, I love it, and I'm sure it did a good job...

169:51:35 Parker: Well, we're not through with you, Gene, so don't throw yourself too far!

169:51:40 Cernan: No, sir. I just don't want to hit old Challenger there. (Pause)

[Gene throws the gravimeter toward the southwest with a half hammer-throw motion. It lands out of sight, behind the Rover. Jim Scotti notes that the bright-blue
and its impact marks can be seen in AS17-145-
, which Gene took out his window once he and Jack were back in the cabin.]

169:51:52 Schmitt: That was unkind.

169:51:56 Cernan: You did the javelin!

169:51:59 Schmitt: That was unkind.

169:52:01 Parker: Roger, Gene. And we...

169:52:02 Cernan: I didn't throw it as far as I could have. I just...

169:52:03 Parker: ...we timed the parabola for that, and we have one excellent measurement of "g" on the Moon now.

169:52:12 Cernan: Yeah, I didn't get you a pendulum, but I don't know where I would, Bob. Okay. I'm going to have to take you out to the VIP site!

169:52:22 Parker: Okay. We're ready for that, and we'll...

169:52:24 Cernan: If you concur?

169:52:26 Parker: Okay. (Pause)

[in Houston, Experiments suggests to Flight Director Gerry Griffin that, as a result of Gene's treatment of the gravimeter, "that calls for another bias reading." Griffin replies, "You'll have to get it yourself."]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 752
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest James H. Fetzer

That's a good question, Jack. If I were working their side of the street, then I would also try to turn

"proofs" of fakery into "spoofs". This one is funny either way. Too much of it fits the official footage

to be dismissed and the "can toss" is an odd thing to do with such impressive, valuable equipment.

The NASA "truth squad" seems to amuse itself by coming up with incredibly outrageous explanations.

If readers can't figure out the moon landing hoax by now, there is not a lot more that I can do about it.

Here's a parting contribution, which Dave Greer should certainly appreciate:

Thanks Jim, I always appreciate a good laugh! :)

I'll give you some clues Jim.

The "fuel" referred to is for the RTG, NOT the rover. That's the Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator. Generated electricity for the ALSEP.

The object that the author of the video (ArcAngel4Myke) is trying to fool you into believing is a "fuel can" is the TGE - Traverse Gravimeter Experiment.

Here we have two horns of a dilemma! Either you accept that the old fox guarding the hen-house (nasty NASA), actually DID have such technology (how boringly plausible!); or you accept that they decided to build a fake rover with a petrol engine, and slosh some fuel into it, on set, while their antics were being shown on TV, then preserve it for posterity decades later on the good old World Wide Web. If you choose the first option (NASA told the truth and you got fooled by some random Youtuber), then you must sacrifice a small puppy to appease your new Masters, the Great God NASA. If you choose the second option, then readers of this thread will actually become more stupid. That's your dilemma. Kill the puppy, or increase people's stupidity.

The choice, my fine funny friend, is yours. (If I were you, I'd go for option A. Kill the puppy. OK, you have to put up with people accusing you of shilling for NASA, but on the plus side, the health and pension benefits are literally out of this world!)

At the end of the video, why does the astronaut toss the "empty can" as far away as he can?

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to

do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an

economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the

atmosphere and overcome the earth's gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon,

it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth.

Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one

ship alone, but a minimum of three -- each rocket ship would be taller than New York's

Empire State Building [almost ¼ mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the

Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons."

Wernher von Braun, the father of the Apollo space program, writing in Conquest of the Moon

I don't know for sure whether Von Braun is responsible for the quote, or whether it is completely accurate. The 1953 impression shows three authors and one editor: Wernher Von Braun (Author), Fred L. Whipple (Author), Willy Ley (Author), Cornelius Ryan (Editor). Apparently there is a copy at a library about an hour's drive from where I live: I'll be passing it in a couple of weeks, I'll see if it's open on a weekend and see if I can get a copy of the relevant passage for the sake of accuracy.

That said, I'm prepared to accept that the quote is indeed from Von Braun for the purpose of discussion.

The impression I get is that Von Braun is talking about a method of flying to the moon called Direct Ascent. This would involve flying a rocket directly from the Earth to the moon, landing the entire thing tail-first on the lunar surface, then the whole thing taking off again and returning to Earth. This would indeed require a huge rocket. There are plenty of references to "direct ascent" in the literature.

For example:-

Direct ascent was basically the method that had been pictured in science fiction novels and Hollywood movies. A massive rocket the size of a battleship would be fired directly to the moon, land and then blast off for home directly from the lunar surface. The trip would be like that of a chartered bus, moving from point A to point B and back to A again in one brute of a vehicle.

Strong feelings existed within NASA in favor of direct ascent, largely because it meant the development of a proposed giant booster named the Nova. After the engineers made their calculations, however, NASA realized that any single big rocket that had to carry and lift all the fuel necessary for leaving the Earth's gravity, braking against the moon's gravity as well as leaving it, and braking back down into the Earth's gravity again, was clearly not a realistic option-especially if the mission was to be accomplished anywhere close to President Kennedy's timetable. The development of a rocket that mammoth would just take too long, and the expense would be enormous.

Source

Direct Ascent was ruled out as a method of getting to moon early in the Apollo programme. It would simply have been too expensive, and would have taken too long a time to develop such a rocket, if indeed it was feasible. Other options were considered, Earth Orbit Rendezvous, Lunar Orbit Rendezvous, and Lunar Surface Rendezvous. Each mode has benefits and drawbacks. During the early Apollo programme, Von Braun espoused Earth Orbit Rendezvous, but even he ceded that Lunar Orbit Rendezvous was the best option for achieving the stated goal before the decade was out, also with an acceptable performance margin.

Source

Now, look at the wording in the quote attributed to Von Braun.

"It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to

do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an

economic impossibility."

It sounds to me as if, in 1953, Von Braun is saying that this launch mode would be economically impossible. He isn't saying it would be impossible to fly to the moon: he's saying it would be uneconomical to fly directly from the earth to the moon (direct ascent mode). It's also likely that the size of rocket demanded by that particular mode in 1953 may have been different to Saturn-V, powered by F1 rockets, that the Apollo moon landing used 1969-1972. Why? Without having access to the rest of the book it's difficult to be certain, so I'll speculate based on know facts.

Von Braun was involved in the development of the Redstone rocket in 1953. Its engine was a Rocketdyne North American Aviation 75-110 A-7, capable of generating 78,000 pounds of thrust at sea-level for 121 seconds (source).

Compare this to the capability of the Saturn-V with 5 x F1 engines. Each F1 engine was capable of generating 1,522,000 pounds of thrust for 165 seconds. That's a total thrust of around 7,500,000 pounds of thrust, approximately 100 times the thrust of the rocket Von Braun was working on in 1953, when he wrote his book. (Source)

Is it possible that Von Braun based his (then) hypothetical "direct ascent" rocket on the capabilities of the rocket he was working on at the time (Redstone)? Would that account for the large size, and the economical unfeasibility, of such a rocket designed using that technology?

I can't say for certain: I'm no rocket scientist. Neither can I rule it out. It seems entirely plausible, even likely, that he based his hypothetical rocket on available technology.

I hope I can track down the book so I can shed some more light.

Edited by Dave Greer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Von Braun thought that the Nova launcher, for a direct ascent, might be a little beyond their reach (though both he and his team relished a challenge and wanted to take it on). The Saturn I, on the other hand, was quite probable. The first stage was essentially a cluster of Redstone boosters tied together but using H-1 engines.

That plan would have used EOR to boost all the necessary components into earth orbit, assemble the spacecraft and fuel, then launch for the lunar mission. That's why the orbiting space station played such a part in his long range plans. He saw it as a base for workers who would assemble the components (rendezvous not being a proven concept at that time), a "waystation".

A number of Apollo veterans felt that although LOR and the Saturn V achieved the goal, Von Braun's space station would have led to a more permanent US presence in space and probably given a better framework for longer term lunar and Mars missions. I can't say they are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt Fetzer simply forgot to include the date, 1953? I wouldn't be surprised if one of the Wright brothers said flying in a heavier than air craft was impossible 16 years before they did so.

"The atomic bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert on explosives."

Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Roosevelt, March 1945.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next - the Saturn V.

BTW, if people are wondering to what I am referring to, it is the claims in a dubious Metapedia entry that Jim Fetzer has quoted here.

Once again, the author of the wiki entry demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding space-flight. A chemically powered launch vehicle has a limited capability. The lower the orbit, the more it can carry. The greater the orbit (or extra-orbital travel), the less it can carry. I invite anyone with knowledge of orbital mechanics and physics to dispute this.

The Saturn V, when launching a lunar mission, could carry a payload of about 100,000 pounds (there were variables which affected this). If the same vehicle were to launch a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) mission, then it could carry over 250,000 pounds.

Now let's examine some things. Hundreds of thousands of people saw the Saturn V take off on numerous occasions, so there can be no doubt whatsoever that the launch vehicle worked. How much weight could it carry, though?

Let's argue that every Apollo mission was faked, and that only a nominal payload was placed aboard. This now says that EVERY flight to the Moon was faked.

What else can we see?

Well, after the Apollo lunar missions came the Skylab project. The Skylab space station was about 170,000 pounds. If the Saturn V could launch Skylab to LEO, then it could launch a lunar mission. There were three manned missions to Skylab, and it fell to Earth in July 1979 (and I saw it re-enter). If people claim the Saturn V could not lift that weight, then they must also be claiming that the Skylab missions were faked.

Now lets look at the ISS claim. Currently the ISS masses (to use the correct term) close to 830,000 pounds... over triple what the Saturn V could carry.

But wait! I hear the cry that the ISS was built in modules, not all at once! Is that correct? Yes it is, absolutely. So what were the weights of the various modules? Well they ranged from over 42,000 pounds and smaller.

This is about 20% of what the Saturn V could carry to orbit!

So was it viable to keep the Saturn V production line going? IMO - no. Yes, it was a marvellous machine but it was expensive to produce. There were many exotic materials and techniques needed. If you wanted to continue to launch lunar (or further) missions, then further use and development of the Saturn V was a great idea. Indeed, there were plans. Sadly, the US lost interest in space and so funds rapidly dried up, forcing the cancellation of Apollo 20 (Jan 1970) and then Apollo's 19 and 18 (Sep1970). Mars missions and other long range plans were to be shelved. With the budget cuts, NASA could only hope to continue with Earth orbital missions. Based on this reality, NASA was concentrating on the Space Transportation System (STS), otherwise known as the Shuttle. This was a reusable spacecraft that would significantly reduce the cost per mission as compared to the Saturn V. A very big selling point for the OMB and Congress, and one which NASA lied to get funded.

Could the Saturn V be built today? Well, yes - but it would be like recreating a B-17 bomber: outdated techniques or construction and materials. The computer systems used to control the launch vehicle were based on 1950/60s technology. To reproduce that technology is extremely expensive, and to replace it with modern day equivalents is very expensive. Overall it is just as cost efficient to built a newer, more capable launch vehicle.

Think about it: why isn't there a new Concorde, a product of the 1960s?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lastly - the quotes.

Dr Brian O'Leary - Dr O'Leary has said that in accordance with his statement, he cannot confirm the moon landings because he did not have direct evidence of them; he has said that because he cannot directly confirm the landings does not mean he believes that they are faked - just simply he, himself, cannot confirm them because he was not there. He resigned in 1968, being convinced he would never be a serious candidate for a lunar mission (thus the name of his group, the XS-11) (None of his group flew with Apollo, though some served as backup crews and many flew on the Shuttle missions; the most notable of the group is Story Musgrave).

Next, the Clinton comment: Has anyone actually asked him what he meant? Let's say he wanted to say "It was a fake!". Why hasn't he been assassinated? Many people more important, more notable, less protected have been claimed to have been "killed" for less... then why hasn't Clinton? If we believe some people, Princess Diana was killed for less.

Buzz Aldrin - Buzz is expressing his disgust that we have not returned to the Moon and beyond. Buzz clocked hoaxer Bart Sibrel for accusing him of lying about the Moon landings. Surely this asserting by the wiki people is contradictory!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buzz clocked hoaxer Bart Sibrel for accusing him of lying about the Moon landings. Surely this asserting by the wiki people is contradictory!

Maybe the viewers would like to see the real reason Buzz Aldrin punched out Bart Sibrel and how Sibrel feels about that unfortunate encounter.. They might also be interested in the fact that one of the leading Apollo defenders, Jay Windley, lied about how and why this encounter took place between Aldrin and Sibrel, in an attempt to further slander Bart Sibrel.

To quote conspiracy researcher Jarrah White;

"Previously we have exposed Clavius webmaster Jay Windley as a promoter of deliberate false charges against Bill Kaysing and Ralph René. Now we can conclusively and unequivocally prove he is a promoter of false charges against Bart Sibrel.

Let's get one thing clear: I do not endorse Bart Sibrel's actions, nor do I support Buzz Aldrin's violent reaction.

Regardless of what you think of either side, you have no need to lie about them.

Because certain propagandists can't be bothered to watch my videos the whole way through, I might as well spell it out for them.

According to Bart Sibrel, Aldrin had just finished giving an interview to a Japanese production company before the two encountered each other.

But Jay Windley has alleged that Sibrel pretended to represent a Japanese TV network to lure Aldrin to the motel. As he wrote on the Internet Movie Data Base forum: "Bart Sibrel posed as a Japanese film crew to solicit an interview with Aldrin under false pretenses. Sibrel had been stalking astronauts for years, so many of them knew who he was and would not grant him interviews directly. According to documents I viewed from the L.A. prosecutor's office, Sibrel told them his intent was to conduct an ambush interview with Aldrin in which he planned to accuse Aldrin of dishonestly taking the honorarium for the interview, and then catching his reaction on camera."

I guess Windley never counted on Buzz Aldrin telling us his side of the story.

On pages282-284 of his new book, MAGNIFICENT DESOLATION, you'll find Buzz Aldrin's testimony that not only confirms what Sibrel said, but also absolutely demolishes ANY claim of honesty made by Jay Windley.

I challenge anyone who trusts Jay Windley to answer the million dollar question that Windley is terrified to answer: How can you allege that Sibrel lured Aldrin to the motel pretending to be a Japanese company, when in fact Aldrin explicitly states in his new book that he did in fact give an interview to a Japanese production company and met up with Sibrel on his way out?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

White of course failed to provide the quote. The book can be keyword searched on Amazon. The only hit for japanese was a reference to Japanese tourists who he went on an excursion with owning GPS's on pg 242. There were no hits for, japan, sibrel or bart

http://www.amazon.com/Magnificent-Desolation-Long-Journey-Home/dp/0307463451

Link to comment
Share on other sites

White of course failed to provide the quote. The book can be keyword searched on Amazon. The only hit for japanese was a reference to Japanese tourists who he went on an excursion with owning GPS's on pg 242. There were no hits for, japan, sibrel or bart

http://www.amazon.com/Magnificent-Desolation-Long-Journey-Home/dp/0307463451

Aldrin's direct quote was read verbatum by Jarrah White and also shown in his video, which you obviously didn't watch .. If you had, you wouldn't have posted such a ridiculous reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buzz clocked hoaxer Bart Sibrel for accusing him of lying about the Moon landings. Surely this asserting by the wiki people is contradictory!

Maybe the viewers would like to see the real reason Buzz Aldrin punched out Bart Sibrel and how Sibrel feels about that unfortunate encounter.. They might also be interested in the fact that one of the leading Apollo defenders, Jay Windley, lied about how and why this encounter took place between Aldrin and Sibrel, in an attempt to further slander Bart Sibrel.

To quote conspiracy researcher Jarrah White;

"Previously we have exposed Clavius webmaster Jay Windley as a promoter of deliberate false charges against Bill Kaysing and Ralph René. Now we can conclusively and unequivocally prove he is a promoter of false charges against Bart Sibrel.

Let's get one thing clear: I do not endorse Bart Sibrel's actions, nor do I support Buzz Aldrin's violent reaction.

Regardless of what you think of either side, you have no need to lie about them.

Because certain propagandists can't be bothered to watch my videos the whole way through, I might as well spell it out for them.

According to Bart Sibrel, Aldrin had just finished giving an interview to a Japanese production company before the two encountered each other.

But Jay Windley has alleged that Sibrel pretended to represent a Japanese TV network to lure Aldrin to the motel. As he wrote on the Internet Movie Data Base forum: "Bart Sibrel posed as a Japanese film crew to solicit an interview with Aldrin under false pretenses. Sibrel had been stalking astronauts for years, so many of them knew who he was and would not grant him interviews directly. According to documents I viewed from the L.A. prosecutor's office, Sibrel told them his intent was to conduct an ambush interview with Aldrin in which he planned to accuse Aldrin of dishonestly taking the honorarium for the interview, and then catching his reaction on camera."

I guess Windley never counted on Buzz Aldrin telling us his side of the story.

On pages282-284 of his new book, MAGNIFICENT DESOLATION, you'll find Buzz Aldrin's testimony that not only confirms what Sibrel said, but also absolutely demolishes ANY claim of honesty made by Jay Windley.

I challenge anyone who trusts Jay Windley to answer the million dollar question that Windley is terrified to answer: How can you allege that Sibrel lured Aldrin to the motel pretending to be a Japanese company, when in fact Aldrin explicitly states in his new book that he did in fact give an interview to a Japanese production company and met up with Sibrel on his way out?"

I remember trying to discuss this with Jarrah White in the comments section (my pseudonym is HeadLikeARock). Matters become a lot clearer if you listen to what Sibrel says to the doorman when he (the doorman) gets involved in the altercation. Timestamps refer to "Part 1" of the videos.

9:34

Aldrin "Will you tell him to get out of here?"

Doorman "This is a hotel..."

Sibrel "We paid"

9:48

Sibrel "We just paid, we're at the Penthouse suite (?) up there"

Let's just reiterate that. Sibrel admits on camera, to the Doorman (who is intervening on Aldrin's behalf), that he ( or his production company, not an unreasonable inference to draw from his statement at 9:48), paid for the penthouse suite (which is where the interview had just taken place).

If Sibrel paid for the room as he claims, then is it unreasonable to assume that he knew who was in there, since he must have invited them (if indeed they were a genuine Japanese TV crew)? Is it unreasonable to assume that either he was in cahoots with them, or he set the whole thing up in order to lure Aldrin there under false pretences, knowing he would never be granted an interview himself? Is it unreasonable to assume that this duplicity eluded Aldrin, who didn't know the Japanese TV company and Sibrel were in cahoots?

Jarrah White himself makes a surprising admission in the comments section.

At the end of the interview, the Japanese were gonna bring Sibrel on as a surprise guest for Aldrin. Sibrel saw this as an opportunity to ask him to swear on the bible and so he brought his own camera crew along. When Aldrin quit the interview early, that didn't go ahead.

And so Sibrel ended up meeting him in the lobby.

As I see it, we have two plausible scenarios that fit the evidence I've seen.

Scenario 1

The Japanese TV company was real. Sibrel was working with them on an ambush interview of Aldrin, and paid for the room. He was planning to go in part way through the interview, and ask Aldrin to swear on the Bible that he really went to the moon (or make some such reference as the moon landings being faked).

Scenario 2

Sibrel paid for the room, and hired a crew to pose as a Japanese TV company to get Aldrin there under false pretences. He was planning to go in part way through the interview and ask Aldrin to swear on the Bible that he really went to the moon (or make some such reference as the moon landings being faked).

Either way, Sibrel's plan failed when Aldrin figured there was something wrong with the direction the interview was taking, and left early. This forced Sibrel's hand, hence the confrontation in the lobby.

Do either of the above scenarios contradict Aldrin's comment that he gave an interview with a Japanese TV company and met up with Sibrel on the way out? It certainly fits with Scenario 1. It also fits with Scenario 2, given that Aldrin wouldn't necessarily have known that the Japanese TV company were paid for by Sibrel.

How about Windley's claim?

"Bart Sibrel posed as a Japanese film crew to solicit an interview with Aldrin under false pretenses."

It fits very well with Scenario 2. How about Scenario 1? Well, it seems to me to be a matter of semantics arguing about whether Sibrel posed as a Japanese TV company, or conspired with them to invite Aldrin to an interview in a room Sibrel paid for, without letting Aldrin know that Sibrel had paid for the room and would be making an appearance. The deceit was all on Sibrel's part.

If you have a different scenario to either of the ones I've postulated above (that fits the available evidence), please bring it to the thread. I'd appreciate your comments on the 2 scenarios I've posited above, and what specific points about either of them is contradicted by the evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why doesn't Jarrah present evidence by getting the company that did the interview to speak up? They should be able to confirm Jarrah's take on events. On the other hand, if you read the pages Duane has indicated (282-284 in the softback copy) you'll find it supports the scenarios Dave mentions, particularly scenario 2.

Of course, this is not the first time Jarrah has lied about Jay Windley, of whom Jarrah has a very twisted and unhealthy obsession. For instance, there were the claims about what Brian O'Leary said the Jay in e-mails. Even when Brian's associates confirmed the conversation, Jarrah still claimed Jay lied and tried yet again to manipulate the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, this is not the first time Jarrah has lied about Jay Windley, of whom Jarrah has a very twisted and unhealthy obsession

That statement is not only the height of hypocrisy, but almost too funny for words, considering the type of constant character assassination, ridicule and lies Windley and his apollogist pals spew about Jarrah White (among other conspiracy researchers ) on forums like BAUT and apollohoax.net.

Here's an e-mail reply from Jarrah, hopefully clearing up any misunderstanding about who lied about what.

"Actually, Daune,

Windley didn't claim that Sibrel was part of the Japanese crew. He claimed that there never was a Japanese crew. Windley claimed that Sibrel lured Aldrin to the motel, pretending to be a Japanese production company, so that he could ambush him in the lobby. This is totally false and is what I was responding to.

I just had a look at the message that Greer posted. For some time now, he has been pointing to Sibrel's choice of wording as "proof" that the interview was conducted over false pretenses. This is clutching at straws.

Many months ago, Greer had been asking how Sibrel knew Aldrin was going to be at the motel. Sibrel has stated on radio shows that he was invited to the motel by the Japanese. Because the Japanese had planned on addressing the hoax subject in their documentary, they were hoping that they could have Aldrin debate with a conspiracy theorist. And so Sibrel was invited as a surprise guest, kinda like how they bring out surprise guests on The Is Your Life talk shows. Because Aldrin quit the interview early, the sit down encounter never took place.

From what I understand, Sibrel had his own camera crew accompany him to the hotel.

If you watch the video, you'll notice that shortly after Sibrel's crew encounters Aldrin, a second camera crew approaches and begins filming. These secondary crew members are clearly of Asian appearance. It seems to me that the Japanese caught up with Aldrin downstairs and saw the opportunity to get the surprise meeting on film after all.

Anyways, the Japanese crew are clearly present when the motel guard shows up. Sibrel's "we paid for the penthouse" was probably in regard to the presence of all all three parties (himself, Aldrin and the Japanese). In other words, when the doorman showed up and questioned Sibrel, Sibrel obviously said "we" as the party who actually paid for the penthouse and invited him and Aldrin to the motel was in his presence.

Let me give you an analogy. Let's suppose a friend invites me and a few others to an all-paid-for trip to the bowling alley. When we get to the alley, one of the staff members asks me personally regarding reservation or whatever. Even though I was only invited and didn't have to pay for anything, because the question was directed to me I'd probably say "yeah, we booked a lane under so and so". It's human nature.

Once again, Jay Windley claimed that there never was a Japanese film crew. He claimed that Sibrel invented the story and lured Aldrin to the motel pretending to represent some non-existent Japanese TV company. Windley went as far as claiming that he read documents from the LA prosecutor's that "confirm" this. Aldrin clearly admits in his book that the Japanese company did indeed exist.

Hope this clears up any misunderstandings. My communications with Greer can be found in the comments of my video if you would like to see them.

That's all from me for now. It's nearly 3am down here and I'm too tired to type anymore.

Night night,

Jarrah"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...