Bart Sibrel’s “Astronauts Gone Wild” Exposed

Be the 1st to vote.

Is Bart controlled opposition?

My comment: I think Bart still implies that NASA went to space, just not to the moon. He comes off looking worse than the a$$-true-nots to most viewers, which defeats the whole point of his movie, which is of course the point of controlled opposition.

No tags for this post.

19 thoughts on “Bart Sibrel’s “Astronauts Gone Wild” Exposed

  1. richard benedict

    @clueseau, thank you, sir,for your explanation of the math and the line of sight problem. You said it plain…an experiment at 250 miles line of sight with a metropolis using a telescope. i agree…to me that would do it. I understand Kansas is flat as a pancake. Any fakologists in Kansas wish to take the man up on his challenge. I think it would easy as pie to find out one way another.

  2. richard benedict

    @Clueseau and Tom,

    OK, now I am confused. First you reprove Ab for exploring the Flat Earth issue- your logic is FE is a controlled opposition operation used to discredit NASA/media fakery critics by association (DBA) ergo throw out all FE. Any unexplained questions associated with the operation are to be thrown out as well as it is Controlled Opposition.*

    Now Ab creates a post and he says Bart Sibel and his fake moon landings are controlled oppositon but we should carefully examine his accepted premises [i.e. space flight is possible] and see if we should perhaps through out all of of his embedded premises because he is controlled opposition. Clueseau and Tom say au contraire we should not throw out all of the embedded premises (or unexplained questions) because he is controlled opposition. Indeed, there may be important truths embedded in the controlled opposition operation that verify certain facts questionable facts.

    Sorry, gentlemen but I fail to understand your reasoning “Bart Sibrel’s Astronauts Gone Wild” vis a vis “Sun Clues’

    fakeologist.com/2015/10/13/sun…

    As they say in the vernacular, “no capisce”

    Meanwhile, like a Spruance class destroyer, the USS Ab Irato deftly cleaves the contentious waves thrown by the great Disinformation Sea, leaving a slew of feckless vessels foundering in the wake of its intrepid patrols.

    * According to the formula we are given for the drop below the horizon on a ball earth 50 miles x 50 x 8 inches = a drop of 1666 feet. I should not be able to see what is visible in the attached picture.

    Is there anyone out there who thinks FE is a PSYOP willing to provide me with an explanation for something I have personally witnessed? I was able to stand on the shoreline of Indiana Dunes State Park as see the Chicago skyline 50 miles away over open water.

    chicagocamping.org/chicago-cam…

    Read more: fakeologist.com/2015/10/13/sun…

    1. Clueseau

      Any unexplained questions associated with the operation are to be thrown out as well as it is Controlled Opposition.

      Not at all. The flat earth is an intentionally wrong answer to questions fakeologists were already asking. Intentionally wrong answers do not invalidate legitimate questions.

      I was able to stand on the shoreline of Indiana Dunes State Park as see the Chicago skyline 50 miles away over open water.

      You were able to see buildings over the horizon for the same reason an amateur astronomer can observe stars after they have set and before they have risen. This effect is attributed to atmospheric refraction, but the exact cause is unimportant at the moment. What matters is that it is often possible to see over the horizon somewhat.

      If the earth really were flat, you would be able to see buildings not only 50 but also 250 miles away, which you never do. If the earth were flat, the ubiquitous rooftop microwave antennas which are limited to roughly line-of-sight transmission could easily be made to communicate with receivers 500 miles away and save big money on infrastructure, but this doesn’t happen. For these reasons and many others, the flat earth is wrong.

        1. Clueseau

          Right off, the guy is lying by claiming to be an engineer and then citing the flat earther’s laughable equation for the drop of the earth’s surface with distance. No one can be an engineer and not know that y increasing with x-squared is not a circle or a sphere – really really basic stuff about which it is impossible for an actual engineer to be honestly mistaken. All told, this video is pretty standard flat-earth fakery fare.

          In reality, airplanes don’t need to compensate for the motion of the Earth, because the atmosphere sticks to the earth’s surface on the macro scale. Wind currents aside, the atmosphere and the land move as a unit. This faker tried a fallacy to dismiss this fact by saying there is no container around the atmosphere holding it to the earth, but offered no evidence for this claim. Something is clearly holding the atmosphere to the surface of the earth, or the high-pressure air at sea level would equalize with the low-pressure air at altitude. Whatever that something holding down the atmosphere is, call it the container. You don’t have to compensate for the rotation of the earth when taking an elevator down to street level from a high story in a building. Same thing when landing an airplane.

          Another nonsense was his fake physics about airplanes needing to nose down to fly over the earth’s curvature. A plane that keeps a constant altitude keeps a constant distance from the center of earth, so it isn’t flying up or down, it’s flying level.

          The more these flat earther’s talk, the more obvious it becomes that they are liars. You might as well watch a video by a “witness” describing how they saw planes crash into the towers on 9/11. That “witness” would be a faker just like this clown is a faker. Only the media fakery psy-op would be different.

          1. Carole ThomasCarole Thomas

            Clueseau, I believe you are on to something, but you suffer from the curse of knowledge or curse of the expert:
            hbswk.hbs.edu/item/7731.html.
            Please break down the following points:
            1
            No one can be an engineer and not know that y increasing with x-squared is not a circle or a sphere
            So what is it? What does it mean? What does “the engineer” mean and why is he wrong? In simple but explicit terms
            2
            Are you saying the atmosphere sticks to the Earth? How can we visualize this? I talked to someone whose opinion I respect and he said the same thing. The way I visualize it is the atmosphere ( on a rotating globe) is like a big marshmallow that is (somehow – gravity?) stuck to the Earth. It moves with the Earth but is a different “consistency”. That way the motion of planes does make some sense to me. Is this a metaphor that you would be happy with?
            3 Do you believe that Earth is round but stationary? Then the marshmallow metaphor would still make some sense, I guess.

            Thanks for engaging! Please declare your beliefs. Is the Earth a spinning or stationary globe?

          2. Clueseau

            Carole Thomas,

            Clueseau, I believe you are on to something, but you suffer from the curse of knowledge or curse of the expert:

            Knowing something about the subject matter is not a curse, nor is critical thinking. Inventing fake math and physics and passing them off as real is a curse, on others.

            An equation where y increases with x-squared describes a parabola, an open curve, not a closed curve like the circumference of a sphere. If the curve of the Earth were parabolic, the surface would be an inverted U-shape. The faker’s equation is just wrong in a very basic way. I suggest image searches for “sphere” and “elliptic paraboloid” to see the difference.

            It is possible the faker in this video really is an engineer and has just been hired to pass on information he knows to be false. He is working for the Flat Earth psyop to derail fakery-busting research with misdirection and lies. There is clear evidence the Flat Earth psyop was custom-made to target the work of Cluesforum, because that forum is where the main NASA-debunking research has been done. The eventual goal is to shut down all independent voices of debunking wherever they occur.

            Are you saying the atmosphere sticks to the Earth? How can we visualize this?

            Have you seen fog pile up on one side of a hill and then spill over and run down the opposite side of the hill? The fog clings to the hill as it flows, looking like a blanket of sticky cotton candy. This is one way to visualize the atmosphere stuck to the Earth.

            Marshmallow works too, though it’s a bit thick.

            Do you believe that Earth is round but stationary?

            There is no doubt the Earth is round. This is one of the few things we can prove without having to trust the “experts”, which could be why the DBA operation chose a flat Earth, specifically, to foist on us – so later they can pull the rug out.

            It also seems the Earth is rotating, though the evidence for this is more open to interpretation. Unlike the shape of the Earth question, I haven’t tried to prove the rotation question one way or the other.

            What are your beliefs in this matter?

          3. richard benedict

            @cluseau,

            Right off, the guy is lying by claiming to be an engineer and then citing the flat earther’s laughable equation for the drop of the earth’s surface with distance.

            Read more: fakeologist.com/2015/10/25/bar…

            I went to this site dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-c…

            to calculate the distance below the horizon the Chicago skyline would be in the picture I posted above. I put in the eye level at 6 ft. and the distance at 50 miles, according to the formula, the site calculates that base of the buildings should be a prodigious 1473 below the horizon. Now, if i am understanding you correctly, when i look through binoculars and see the lower levels, the image is refracted light like the star example you gave.

            I live out in the country with little light pollution and an unobstructed view of the horizon. When Venus is on the horizon the light is a funky pulsating purplish/blue and is often reported as a UFO. The image is distorted by the atmosphere. Good ol’ Chi town did not look distorted to me as I saw it and as the picture reflects.

            My question, is the math at the earth calculator site I used wrong, if so how? What formula would we use?

            Furthermore, this quote ‘This effect is attributed to atmospheric refraction, but the exact cause is unimportant at the moment.”

            Read more: fakeologist.com/2015/10/25/bar…

            I think the exact cause is important- what is it? Could it be we can not see with a telescope objects 250 miles in the distant because of atmospheric and topographical conditions?

          4. Clueseau

            @richard benedict

            I’m not finding where your site shows the math they use. The 1,473 ft. figure looks correct though. It is close to the result I calculate for vertical drop from a tangent at 50 miles. I’m guessing this calculator was put up by someone competent, which means they didn’t use Flat Earth math.

            I think the exact cause is important- what is it?

            Since I don’t think the exact cause is important, I haven’t looked into it beyond the official explanation which is atmospheric refraction. I suppose this could be wrong, but so far I haven’t had cause to doubt it. The fact that stars are also affected means this “anomalous” visibility is not due to something “amiss” with Earth’s curvature, which is the relevant point at present.

            Could it be we can not see with a telescope objects 250 miles in the distant because of atmospheric and topographical conditions?

            Obviously if topography is blocking your view of the object, you won’t be able to see it. This is the case with any shape of the Earth.

            As to the atmosphere, here’s an experiment. On a clear night, situate yourself 250 miles from a metropolis whose downtown skyline should have line-of-sight visibility from your location, on a flat Earth. Now look through your telescope in the appropriate direction to see the skyline. You won’t see it of course, but look where you think it should appear, just above the horizon. You can tell it isn’t the atmosphere blocking your view of downtown because your telescope will show you stars where the skyline would appear if the Earth were flat. So, not only is the atmosphere transparent enough to let starlight through, this light is not being blocked by any skyline. That’s because the metropolis is well beyond the curve of the Earth.

      1. Tom DalpraTom Dalpra

        As I said-

        Well, yes, we can agree that with a telescope you can see things that appear to have disappeared over the horizon to the naked eye. What ‘matters’ is why this is?

        I say perspective. You say refraction.

        I think you can, see things from a considerable distance across water. I believe there’s been sightings of land over hundreds of miles of ocean.

        Visibility or lack of, is well known at sea, of course. A lot of the time you can’t see that far across the ocean because of atmospheric conditions but on clear days you can see quite a long way.
        This simple fact of visibility at sea should answer anyone’s questions regarding the question from FE debunkers – ” if the Earth is flat, why can’t you see for hundreds of miles?”

        Ask a sailor.

        I don’t know about the behaviour of rooftop microwaves and the big money saving on infrastructure that you say is possible if they ‘could easily be made to communicate with receivers 500 miles away’ in your image of a flat plane Earth. I’m not sure. I wondered, do ‘they’ want to ‘save money’ here, or control the airwaves ? What’s the priority?

        You say ‘The flat earth is an intentionally wrong answer to questions fakeologists were already asking’ .

        Well, I was already asking the questions-
        Why does the UN flag look like a flat earth map? Was it a proposed psyOp to take us into a New Age? It looks flat across water, is it flat possibly ?
        fakeologist.com/forums/topic/c…

        At that point we’d only really had Boylan in 2012 as an agent of FE that we had looked at here on this site. We’d not bought his act. It was interesting but we’d kind of turned away from his information kinda sensing something wasn’t right. There was plenty of other things going on to look at as our minds were being opened on what seemed like a daily basis, to a whole number of new possibilities as Science, with a big ‘S’, was unraveling.

        Forward to September last year and a guy called Johan Backes came into the chat and posted a confident claim that the Earth was flat. Without leaping on it, certainly some of us were open to looking at it.

        With so much of Science ( with a big S ) unraveling before us, it seemed an appropriate question. The entire model was, and is , in question. Critical Mass, a regular poster on Cluesforum, had a site called Wild Heretic which had an active thread on ‘The Concave Earth’ ( still does as far as I know) where he posted Samuel Rowbotham’s research as supporting evidence.

        Jan Erik a trusted old regular said at the time ” is it flat, concave ? Whatever they told us, it’s probably bullshit” . We’d already got our heads around the Copernican con- we understood Sun worship – the idea of being kept spinning – we knew everything we’re told by NASA was bullshit from satellites to the ISS. Our whole model was up for question. Big time!

        To ask questions about the shape of the Earth is entirely appropriate. Aren’t we all ‘Pear Earth Skeptics?’

        ” flat earth is an intentionally wrong answer to questions fakeologists were already asking”

        Absolutely we shouldn’t leap to any conclusions and go following any personalities over the edge of a mental flat earth trap but those legitimate questions you refer to remain and I don’t think the discussion should be censored around the word ‘flat’ or ‘plane’.

        No one disagrees that atmospheric refraction occurs, just as no one disagrees that there is a law of perspective. At distance we should expect objects to disappear bottom-up behind the horizon as we see Chicago doing in Richard’s photograph. This is not discounting any refraction that may be occurring, it’s just stating a fact that what we see is consistent with what we understand about perspective.

        With a strong enough lens, we can see directly beach to beach. The ‘wall’ of water which Chicago appears to be behind, would disappear.
        ”The Earth can appear flat in optical experiments”- wickedpedia

        Yeh, it certainly appears it can. When you look at it!

        You say refraction, I say perspective. It seems obvious to me that it’s perspective, why don’t ‘they’ just admit it?
        It doesn’t mean the Earth isn’t a pear flying through space does it? Maybe it would open up a whole new conversation about perspective that it’s not deemed prudent to have is my suspicion.

        It’s just questions.

        I sometimes dunno with this subject. It feels like we’re on a gobstopper flying through a bucket of syrup. What can you do, but just say ”Sweet!’

        I’m not being sarcastic when I say, whatever it is (you know, the planet, the stars, the moon and the sun, our whole reality ) it looks pretty fantastic from my perspective.

          1. Tom DalpraTom Dalpra

            Whilst this makes sense to me, it feels like the information has been given to us by authority, at this point. ‘They’ obviously knew this already, if it’s right.
            ‘Safe Flying’, the confident soft tones wish us at the end as the Wizard opens the box and it explodes with light in this groundbreaking, it would seem, little video with 159 views at this time and Globebusters comment at the top there already. Jeranism’s gonna showcase this on tonight’s show, he tells us.

            So planes don’t fly how they told us, now? haha! Are we surprised? Good thinking brains, whoever came up with that. Funny how no one had noticed. It just shows you.

            The cutting edge of Science is on to it now though, it’s all under control. No worries.

        1. Clueseau

          I think you can, see things from a considerable distance across water. I believe there’s been sightings of land over hundreds of miles of ocean.

          If any large coastal city was visible from anything like 100 miles at sea, there would be abundant photographic evidence of this from amazed passengers on cruise ships who took selfies with a skyline in the background that shouldn’t be there. The absence of such photography exposes the flat earth hoax, like the absence of other photography exposes certain space flight hoaxes.

          And it’s not a question of atmospheric visibility, because objects in the sky can be seen behind – and thus further away than – where 100-mile distant land would appear on flat earth.

          Concerning microwave antennas, they are all over the place, in every city in the world. Their purpose is communication, data and voice. All of these systems are installed using line-of-sight between antennas, because that’s how microwaves propagate. Yet somehow these antennas are never more than about 40 miles apart, when they are on the rooftops of tallish buildings. On a flat earth, a line of sight could be thousands of miles, yet we never see microwave communication at that range, which would only require a boost in power to levels often found in other applications. The distance between relays in line-of-sight microwave networks is yet another debunker of the flat earth hoax.

          Why does the UN flag look like a flat earth map? Was it a proposed psyOp to take us into a New Age?

          Or is the flat earth part of a psy-op to take us into a dark age of ignorance and lies? Most likely the flat earth is part of a psy-op to wreck the alternative media so the MSM can resume its Apollo and 9/11-type fakery without us exposing them.

          There’s a Mars mission coming up. Maybe the flat earth DBA is preparation for that, to make fakeology a laughingstock so our ability to expose the planned Mars fakery will be minimized.

          You say refraction, I say perspective. It seems obvious to me that it’s perspective, why don’t ‘they’ just admit it?

          There is no such rule of perspective that I know of. Nor do I necessarily call it refraction. It could be something else. What I am sure of is amateur astronomers’ ability to see stars after they have set and before they have risen. So seeing objects beyond the horizon is definitely possible and, in fact, commonplace.

        2. Tom DalpraTom Dalpra

          I mention above that Critical Mass from Cluesforum runs the Wild Heretic site.
          He does not. He just told me.
          Critical Mass from Cluesforum has nothing to do with Wild Heretic.
          It’s a mistake on my part and I’m sorry for the misrepresentation.

    2. Tom DalpraTom Dalpra

      Yes, Richard Benedict you are a bit confused.

      You said – @Clueseau and Tom,
      OK, now I am confused. First you reprove Ab for exploring the Flat Earth issue- your logic is FE is a controlled opposition operation used to discredit NASA/media fakery critics by association (DBA) ergo throw out all FE.

      That isn’t my position . I do not reprove Ab for exploring the FE issue and I don’t ” throw out all FE”.
      I still very much question things and the fact ” Earth appears flat in optical experiments” is still interesting to me as I think my comments, on the thread you posted, should suggest. fakeologist.com/2015/10/13/sun…

      I’d been drawn back to the subject through looking at the Wild Heretic site , over a year ago before Mark Sargeant, Jeranism et al. See my amateur investigative thread here. –
      fakeologist.com/forums/topic/c…

      ————————————————–

      Obviously, just because we can see the Bart Sibrel stuff is controlled opposition, it doesn’t mean we went to the Moon.

      When Matt Boylan/Powerland/NASAchannel came out with his act a couple of years ago, we didn’t buy it. He seemed an agent of some sort.
      That doesn’t mean there wasn’t truth in what he was saying, though.

      I think it’s the same deal here.
      ——————————————————————-

      I like Carole Thomas’ take on that Sun Clues post regarding the whole FE caper.

      ”Yes, Tom, jokers is the right word! But it is still a cracking mystery, isn’t it? Full of clues, red herrings, bluffs and counter-bluffs, villains, heros, and suspicious characters toying with globes and frisbees. Like one giant Whodunnit, really, from the Golden Age of Detective Fiction – but with the dénoument torn out”

      At least it’s not boring is it ?

  3. Clueseau

    I think Bart still implies that NASA went to space, just not to the moon.

    This is generally the case among those who concede the moon landings were faked. It’s a much bigger step to say that space travel itself is fake, because GPS, space probes and such work just fine with Newtonian mechanics and the Copernican model. Those willing to take the “giant leap” of questioning not only NASA but orthodox physics and/or astronomy are fewer and further between.

    1. Tom DalpraTom Dalpra

      Clueseau said- ”Those willing to take the “giant leap” of questioning not only NASA but orthodox physics and/or astronomy are fewer and further between.”

      Yes, partly thanks to this type of gate-keeping from Bart Sibrel.

      Throw-in a bit of ‘CIA waxing’ (to scare-off a few more), make Buzz look like a hard man (it might help his recovery- ‘Hello, my name’s Buzz, I’m an astronaut”) , get Neil doin’ a bit of Bible promotion and ‘Bob’s your Uncle – Fanny’s your Auntie Jean’.

      There Astronauts Gone Wild was, at the birth of broadband internet when you could first upload and watch movies on line. Pre youtube this was Google video time..
      They gave us Bart Sibrel on a plate. The big guy was not to be swallowed whole.

      1. Clueseau

        Well, it’s about time Uncle Bob and Auntie showed up. Coffee and cakes were getting tepid.

        Meanwhile there’s Jay Weidner, who gives us that Apollo was faked. He even did film about how the fake was done. But we went to the moon anyway, don’t ya know…in flying saucers.

Leave a Reply