Yeah, I lost my feed and just got it back...lost it right as they were starting to discuss the radiation belts.

He can be a slippery fellow, and I think you kept him on task and didn't let him get away with changing the subject.

Good show!

Rob

Outstanding work, Phil. I'd say that "wore each other out" remark was more of a concession of defeat than BS realized he was making!

For the most part, Sibrel was generic enough to keep his words from coming back and biting him (from the limited part I heard). But it should be interesting to go through a transcript and tear it apart.

Is it over? I still can't get the radio back.

__________________
" We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard..." - John F. Kennedy
TheSpaceRace.com

The after-show comments are pumping up Phil...

Yeee-hawwwww!

:ause::

well, now they're into conspiracies...

...and having their own debate.

::snork::

"more rational, intelligent sounding..."

Bart is "off-kilter"

LunarOrbit, didn't Bart say that he finally got to meet Armstrong? That's what I thought he said. And that he asked him to swear on the Bible, which he refused to do.

Maybe I am hearing things?

One of them just said you sounded more sane [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Rob

Boy, if these radio jocks are typical of the intellectual level of our current college undergrads, I fear for our future...

I liked when Phil mentioned the Apollo 12 camera burning out and Bart said "Wasn't that convenient?" and Phil replied without skipping a heart beat "Yeah, well they pointed it at the sun on live TV...".

That made me laugh.

__________________
" We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard..." - John F. Kennedy
TheSpaceRace.com

I thought the flag issue was particulary lame. I was hoping Bart would push some of his new findings, but he seemed content to let the presenters choose the topic for discussion, which was probably a mistake.

Sibrel did claim that Armstrong refused to swear on the Bible that he walked on the moon. I'd love to hear the full story.

There was also a remark about Aldrin. Sibrel said Aldrin told him (on camera) that he (Sibrel) would be famous, which Sibrel seemed to take as meaning he was right, and which I would interpret as being a sarcastic remark directed at an annoying person who's claiming you're a fraud.

You mean all those RARE, EXCLUSIVE, NEVER SEEN BEFORE pictures that have been public domain for 30 years?

He did say he got to meet Armstrong in person last week and Armstrong refused to swear on the bible that the landings were real.

What Bart DIDN'T say was that he has crossed paths with Armstrong in the past and was arrested for it.

I don't blame Neil for not wanting to talk to Bart.

There's a good joke on one of the anti-moon hoax sites (Redzero I think) that goes something like this:

Bart calls Armstrong on the phone;

RING RING

"Hello, this is Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon. I'll be remembered for the rest of time. Who's calling?"

"This is Bart Sibrel, a nobody who wants to get rich by calling you a liar. Hopefully some of your fame will rub off on me."

Click.

"Hello, Mr. Armstrong, are you still there?"

__________________
" We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard..." - John F. Kennedy
TheSpaceRace.com

By the way, Phil, what was the setup? Were you on the phone? Were you hearing Sibrel's remarks over the phone, or on the net? I assume you weren't on site in Burlington...

RalphVanDyke: You mean all those RARE, EXCLUSIVE, NEVER SEEN BEFORE pictures that have been public domain for 30 years?

No, I meant some of the stuff he intends to show in his next video. He told me about that a while ago, but I didn't know he was successful in talking with Armstrong.

Oh boy, more convergent shadows! I can barely contain my excitement
/sarcasm

<a name="20020517.8:22"> page 20020517.8:22 aka db
On 2002-05-14 16:54, The Bad Astronomer wrote: To bd
Some {many now} years ago in this town {actually across the river}
there WAS a radio station {that would actually allow my voice on the air}
[BELIEVE WHAT YOU LIKE!] anyway durring SS#22 I would
call in and put the sound comming out of the Gravity wave detector on the Radio?
to make it science I wlould talk at -5 VU "units"
thats a real trick as the VU meter is of course at the station
these days I would insist upon only having my
voice appear on the right speaker if its an FM station .. If its AM the i guess it just don't mater

Yes, they called me in my office at work. I could hear everything over the phone, and I had multiple browser windows open in fron tof me so I could check things quickly if I needed. I only really needed to once, when I went to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal to look at the Apollo 11 image listings.

In all seriousness – can we get a transcript or a copy of the audio – I was out of the office until 11:50 and when I tried to connect their server was down. I only got to hear the Phil’s last sentence then the host’s closing comments. I would love to be able to hear the whole thing.

I asked for a tape from the station. If/when I get it, I'll make a transcript and post it. It'll be a few weeks though.

...yeah right, with Hasslebad camera [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

That's exactly what someone in the room with me said. He's a physicist who specializes in EM detection. Actually his words were, "Not with a f------g Hasselblad you can't!"

Gee, I wish I'd been here. I didn't realize Phil was going to check in here during the presentation. I was madly hammering out notes on my laptop for a latter, more detailed review.

For example, when Sibrel pointed out that perfectly clear color transmissions were made from the CM, I had the answer right away -- dish size. The CM had a big high-gain array. The LM had a piddly little one-meter dish. I could have brought that point up instantly, along with other salient facts. Darn.

I'd say that "wore each other out" remark was more of a concession of defeat than BS realized he was making!

I have to admire Phil's response: "No, I can go on for hours about this."

Sibrel was starting to repeat his "desperation" arguments toward the end: 75% of my viewers have switched sides, I found a straw-man scientist who appears irrational, etc. when those arguments had nothing to do with the points Phil had brought up.

The host picked up on that when he remarked that Sibrel seemed a bit less coherent.

Thanks.

My general impression:
Well overall I was quite suprised, I thought it went very well. By that I mean the BA got quite a good hearing & the whole thing was pretty well moderated (considering it was a small station). Overall, Sibrel just didnt cut it (but then how could he?:-)). Theres a lot of good rebuttals by Phil especially the shooting down of that 'arm of god' (Maradonna?:-)) argument. Sibrel made such a point of it & it was so easily refuted.. using his own video! Lol! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
Hope to hear the last 10 mins as me & another friend in UK got cut off at the same time as everyone else [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img]
A right bobby dazzler BA! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

__________________
N6MAA10816
Faber '62 ΔTX
Are you a Bright?

Missed the broadcast (stupid work...) Can't wait to see the transcript. Go BA!

I only really needed to once, when I went to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal to look at the Apollo 11 image listings.

Again, I should have had the foresight to open a window to Bad Astronomy. I had the Real player going and Notepad up typing as fast as I could. It didn't occur to me that the forum here would work to provide you information in real time.

I assume you were going to check about Sibrel's claim that only 20 pictures from Apollo 11 contain show astronauts. I don't know right off if that's a correct claim, but it certainly seems false. Roll 40 has something like 180 images on it. I have all the photos from Roll 40 so I'll count them at my leisure and post the results.

I would have preferred to attack the entire notion of "tourist" photography. There's Armstrong on the moon with two hours and one roll of film. "Let's see," says Armstrong. "Here I am on the moon performing lots of scientific experiments and documenting the lunar environment. What shall I take a picture of? I know, I'll take a picture of Buzz Aldrin, the guy I've been working with for 18 hours a day for the past six years, unrecognizable behind his visor."

Sibrel's comment that Armstrong "refused" to have his picture taken on the moon is pure fabrication. Not only is there the DAC footage you mention, there's a Hasselblad photo of Armstrong working at the MESA: AS11-40-5886.

It was decided to send only one surface camera in order to simplify the Apollo 11 EVA. Therefore only one astronaut at a time could take photos, and most of the time that was Armstrong. Why? Because Armstrong had more experience in photography. Since there were a lot of variables yet unknown about exposure and development of the film -- and since there was only one roll of film intended for EVA use -- they wanted their best man handling the camera most of the time.

Ironically the poignant shot of the perfect footprint on pristine lunar soil is a Buzz Aldrin photo. So, too, is the one where his foot is just being removed. It wasn't intended as art. He was supposed to take a close up picture of his footprint for soil mechanics geeks on earth. The one with his foot in it was unintentional; he accidentally triggered the shutter release.

But back to the point. Sibrel wants to believe it's suspicious that only a few Apollo 11 photos show astronauts. He implies they would want pictures of themselves on the moon, just as I have pictures of myself in front of the Eiffel Tower and Buckingham Palace and the pyramids at Giza.

It's all circular. Sibrel is thinking in the mindset that NASA carefully constructed the Apollo materials with the intent of proving to the world that they went there, against skeptical opposition. That's like the "proof of life" photos in kidnapping stories where the victim holds up today's newspaper or does some other gimmick to establish evidence. But NASA didn't plan its photography around such proof, nor can Sibrel assume they did without falling into circularity.

And his argument that Armstrong refuses to be interviewed is just blatantly false. You can read some of Armstrong's interviews here.

__________________
~AstroMike

I didn't know he was successful in talking with Armstrong.

Getting him on camera and talking with him are not the same thing.

Sibrel makes it sound like he and Armstrong sat down in the backyard and had a nice chat over a cup of coffee, whereupon Sibrel says, "Say, Neil, old chum, would you mind terribly just slipping your hand over this Bible and swearing that you walked on the moon?"

I'm pretty sure that's not what happened.

Sibrel's interviews I've seen with other astronauts that are more like papparazzi ambushes -- questions shouted over fences, etc. Since it's easy to establish that Sibrel hates Armstrong's guts, and that Armstrong has never wanted anything to do with Sibrel, I rather suspect the "face-to-face meeting" was more along the lines of Sibrel stalking Armstrong until he got him in public, then shoving a camera and a Bible in his face and demanding he take an oath.

If that's the case, Armstrong did the right thing by not cooperating with Sibrel in any way. And I suspect his "interviews" with the other five astronauts he spoke to were similar.

Sibrel wants to interpret Armstrong's refusal as an objection to stating under oath something that isn't true. It's an affirmed consequent. Sibrel doesn't consider the far more likely possibility that Armstrong simply has no wish to participate in Sibrel's activities in any way.

As far back as Dale Carnegie it's been known that the best way to get someone to help you is to make them believe it's in their best interest to do so. Are we supposed to believe that a filmmaker who has, by his own admission, spent many years and $500,000 trying to disprove the moon landings suddenly has at hear the best interests of Neil Armstrong, the man who got him arrested and fired? No, it's far more plausible to believe that Sibrel's dislike of Armstrong is alive and well, and that this whole scheme was hatched up to benefit Sibrel, not Armstrong.

And benefit him it does. It's quite likely Sibrel knew ahead of time that Armstrong and the other astronauts he contacted would blow him off without comment. By confronting them on camera with a situation where it looks like they'd be doing themselves a favor by cooperating, he can create the illusion that he gave them the opportunity to clear their names, but they refused. He can simply spin their refusal to cooperate as if it had been a refusal to accept the terms of the proposal.

Sorry, but this has ambush written all over it, and it simply reinforces the image of Sibrel as a crank.

Jay ...

I am not so sure that I can subscribe to your conclusion that Sibrel detests Armstrong. I have no doubt that Sibrel see's Armstrong as central to his theory, and as such he has pursued an interview with him for some time. If Sibrel is a Christian, as he claims he is, then Armstrong (himself recognising the truth and power of Jesus Christ) should do the honorable thing and allay his suspicions. I know it may not seem to be the honorable thing to do in your eyes, because you see Sibrel as far from worthy, but in my eyes the truth would do him (and many others) the power of good.

I know if i'd been to the moon & back i certainly wouldn't want to spend my retirement years refuting every crank that followed me around trying to p*ss all over my lifes achievment.

__________________
N6MAA10816
Faber '62 ΔTX
Are you a Bright?