Intéressant cet article, je ne connaissais pas du tout la genèse de cette théorie de la « non-visite de la Lune ». A réutiliser plus tard, dans un futur article sur l'Encyclopédie consacré à ce complot !
Herbert West a écrit:
Les entendez-vous, les gros sabots du créationnisme ?
Aux USA, l'intégrisme religieux (plutôt que le créationnisme au sens strict) n'est jamais très très loin dans les théories du complot, sauf celles qui évoluent dans la branche « ickesienne » (les illuminati au service des reptiliens-annunakis pour l'asservissement de l'humanité) qui sont plutôt en général agnostiques ou s'acoquinent avec le New-Age. Même si bien entendu, il y a des passerelles et des liens profonds entre toutes ces branches de conspirationnisme.
C'est nettement moins le cas en France, j'ai l'impression, où on l'a essentiellement du conspirationnisme agnostique ou New-Age.
EDIT : sur sa page Youtube, Bert Sibrel s'est exprimé sur son altercation avec Buzz Aldrin, et on peut dire que ce n'est pas la honte et l'humilité qui l'étouffent :
Citer:
Although Aldrin committed assault on national television, his cronies in the Beverly Hills police department refused to act upon their sworn duty to arrest him for violently breaking the law. The district attorney of Beverly Hills had this to say of the incident, "We are not going to arrest Edwin Aldrin for criminal assault, even though we know he is guilty of it. He is above the law because he is a "national hero" ".
What a sad state of affairs that America's "heroes" are not only unrepentant bold-faced liars, they are openly permitted to violently attack their countrymen for exposing their crimes through their constitutional right of freedom of speech. Obviously, there is one set of laws for government employees, and another set of laws for the citizens.
Sibrel: "If I really walked on the moon, I would find it hysterically funny that someone thought otherwise. I would swear on a stack of Bibles to attest to it. Saying I did not walk on the moon, if indeed I really did, would be as harmful to me as throwing a feather at me. Why on earth would I get mad for someone throwing a feather at me? If, on the other hand, I had gotten away with a crime for decades, and a journalist was exposing it to the world, I would indeed be very angry."
"It amazes me how many people, who call themselves "patriotic Americans", endorse violence against someone for expressing their constitutional right of freedom of speech, just because someone disagrees with what they say."
"Most people do not understand that we had just paid Aldrin $2000 an hour for an interview about something that he did not do. I was not "stalking him", as some who were not there have falsely accused, I was part of a video production crew which had a scheduled interview with him, which he had happily agreed to for a profitable sum of money."
"I did not wake up that day deciding to call Aldrin a liar, coward, and thief for taking money for something he did not do out of fear of losing his ill-gained reputation, nor did he wake up that day intending to punch me for exposing these crimes. It was just one of those things that got heated up under the circumstances."
"As I meagerly attempt to be a Christian, and it was shown to me later in the scriptures not to rebuke an older man harshly (1st Timothy 5:1), nor to swear an oath to anything (Matthew 5:33 - 5:37 & James 5:12), I may have taken a different approach today with such unfolding enlightenment. Nevertheless, the film stands as a good record for future generations, who will undoubtedly know the Truth about the "moon missions".
"They cannot go to the moon today, five decades later, and admit that the earliest "return" will likely be at least seventy years after the "first time", so how on earth could they go to the moon on their very first attempt with 1960's technology? This is absurd. If it was so easy to go to the moon in the 1960's, there would be bases there by now.
What a sad state of affairs that America's "heroes" are not only unrepentant bold-faced liars, they are openly permitted to violently attack their countrymen for exposing their crimes through their constitutional right of freedom of speech. Obviously, there is one set of laws for government employees, and another set of laws for the citizens.
Sibrel: "If I really walked on the moon, I would find it hysterically funny that someone thought otherwise. I would swear on a stack of Bibles to attest to it. Saying I did not walk on the moon, if indeed I really did, would be as harmful to me as throwing a feather at me. Why on earth would I get mad for someone throwing a feather at me? If, on the other hand, I had gotten away with a crime for decades, and a journalist was exposing it to the world, I would indeed be very angry."
"It amazes me how many people, who call themselves "patriotic Americans", endorse violence against someone for expressing their constitutional right of freedom of speech, just because someone disagrees with what they say."
"Most people do not understand that we had just paid Aldrin $2000 an hour for an interview about something that he did not do. I was not "stalking him", as some who were not there have falsely accused, I was part of a video production crew which had a scheduled interview with him, which he had happily agreed to for a profitable sum of money."
"I did not wake up that day deciding to call Aldrin a liar, coward, and thief for taking money for something he did not do out of fear of losing his ill-gained reputation, nor did he wake up that day intending to punch me for exposing these crimes. It was just one of those things that got heated up under the circumstances."
"As I meagerly attempt to be a Christian, and it was shown to me later in the scriptures not to rebuke an older man harshly (1st Timothy 5:1), nor to swear an oath to anything (Matthew 5:33 - 5:37 & James 5:12), I may have taken a different approach today with such unfolding enlightenment. Nevertheless, the film stands as a good record for future generations, who will undoubtedly know the Truth about the "moon missions".
"They cannot go to the moon today, five decades later, and admit that the earliest "return" will likely be at least seventy years after the "first time", so how on earth could they go to the moon on their very first attempt with 1960's technology? This is absurd. If it was so easy to go to the moon in the 1960's, there would be bases there by now.
) ... sans négliger bien sûr une bonne grosse dose de paresse intellectuelle ...