Author Topic: Brother Bart claims omission from documentary due to "newly discovered" evidence  (Read 10092 times)

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1959
Seriously, the producers at Zig Zag Productions complained because so few conspiracy theorists agreed to appear.  They called me about two months before productions and read off a list of names they were shopping, and asked me if there were any more they should consider.  They said they really tried hard to get David Percy and/or Mary Bennett, but they explicitly declined.  Sibrel was on the list, but they said he asked for too much money so they dropped him.  The only people they could get were Rene and Kaysing.  From what these various producers told me, Sibrel won't lift a finger without at least a four-figure check.  And he demands license fees for the use of any of his material.  So the only reason Sibrel's material doesn't get included in various documentaries is because he wants more money than the producers are willing to pay.

I thought Rene and Kaysing were both dead.
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Offline ajv

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 52
I thought Rene and Kaysing were both dead.

But cheap!

Offline Dr_Orpheus

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 76
I thought Rene and Kaysing were both dead.

But cheap!

They were that way when still alive.  Why would being dead change anything?

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
I thought Rene and Kaysing were both dead.

Not when the National Geographic program was made in 2003.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
The best part is, even if he claims that the above clip is fake, it still means he needs a new explanation for how exactly it was allegedly faked.

If I recall correctly, he claims it was newly faked and inserted into the film library they now hand out, whereas the package they gave out when he got his didn't include that.

Two problems with that.  First, Sibrel's duplicitous editing isn't limited to just that one case.  We can cite a number of examples from his film where he simply edited away the parts of the record that contradicted his claims.

Second, there is a prominent example of pre-existing complete Apollo footage.  While Sibrel was still in high school, geologist Larry Haskin (WUSTL) obtained the whole Apollo video library from NASA and made VHS copies of it, including Apollo 11 and the clip Sibrel said didn't exist until NASA needed to discredit him.  Copies of the Haskin tapes are rare, but they confirm Sibrel is mistaken about the smoking gun clip that proves his dishonest editing.

Comments disabled on his video, maybe so no one actually involved with the production could call him on his crap.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams