Yes, I understand it, the question is do you, but I have a low threshold for arguing with stupid people, I'm done, let someone else take it.Pluto wrote:Do you understand all that text you posted?OK I, give. Stupid is, as stupid does.
Mirror on the Moon
Re: Mirror on the Moon
-
Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8360
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Mirror on the Moon
Going to the Moon, is much easier that the massive efforts needed to pretend that you went to the moon six times but actually did not.Pluto wrote:I believe we the human race have not yet been to the moon. The mirror on the moon left by Buzz and co is a wonderful thing to indicate that we did. Can we here discuss this and prove with our words whether a mirror is on the moon or not? Can words help us to know the truth for real about this very important thing.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 ... er-funding
What a stupid suggestion.
Re: Mirror on the Moon
"Forty years ago today, two Americans touched down on the moon and walked upon its surface. Now, NASA's trying to do it again with Constellation, an ambitious project to return humans to the moon by 2020."
The text above suggests they only went once. So it contradicts your 6 times.
http://www.space.com/7015-40-years-moon ... -hard.html
The text above suggests they only went once. So it contradicts your 6 times.
http://www.space.com/7015-40-years-moon ... -hard.html
-
GreatandWiseTrixie
- Posts: 1543
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm
Re: Mirror on the Moon
Thedoc is a lazy prik who offers nothing but stupid one-liners.Pluto wrote:Do you understand all that text you posted?OK I, give. Stupid is, as stupid does.
I'll say it. That 240p video you posted proves nothing. It's basic human psychology why Buzz Aldrin punched that little twerp. I don't know how on earth you came to the conclusion that Buzz never walked on the moon from that fuzzy 240p video showing a basic human reaction.
Re: Mirror on the Moon
Yeah, but I didn't think it just from Buzz punching the guy, it was watching the docu as a whole that made me think they didn't go.
-
GreatandWiseTrixie
- Posts: 1543
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm
Re: Mirror on the Moon
Meh, I'll watch it, but it's going to be really boring. Not to mention seeing vids in the suggested tabs section saying "LANDING SAFELY ON THE MOON SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE" How is it impossible? I don't see how putting a tin can on a rock is impossible.Pluto wrote:Yeah, but I didn't think it just from Buzz punching the guy, it was watching the docu as a whole that made me think they didn't go.
-
Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8360
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Mirror on the Moon
The text only contradicts the six times if you are a complete IDIOT.Pluto wrote:"Forty years ago today, two Americans touched down on the moon and walked upon its surface. Now, NASA's trying to do it again with Constellation, an ambitious project to return humans to the moon by 2020."
The text above suggests they only went once. So it contradicts your 6 times.
http://www.space.com/7015-40-years-moon ... -hard.html
l
-
Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8360
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Mirror on the Moon
Tell us how the faked it, and more importantly how they have managed to keep it a secret all these years.Pluto wrote:Yeah, but I didn't think it just from Buzz punching the guy, it was watching the docu as a whole that made me think they didn't go.
-
Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8360
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Mirror on the Moon
There is good reason why it is so hard to go back.
It was fucking waste of time and money.
it's already been done, and there is nothing more to learn.
It would be more economical to send a lander without people, but there is little more than dust on the moon.
It was fucking waste of time and money.
it's already been done, and there is nothing more to learn.
It would be more economical to send a lander without people, but there is little more than dust on the moon.
Re: Mirror on the Moon
https://clyp.it/2qzy4wg4Hobbes' Choice wrote:The text only contradicts the six times if you are a complete IDIOT.Pluto wrote:"Forty years ago today, two Americans touched down on the moon and walked upon its surface. Now, NASA's trying to do it again with Constellation, an ambitious project to return humans to the moon by 2020."
The text above suggests they only went once. So it contradicts your 6 times.
http://www.space.com/7015-40-years-moon ... -hard.html
l
Re: Mirror on the Moon
A movie set was created and Stanley Kubric directed it. How should I know? I'm talking about the behaviour of the astronauts. A secret is easy to keep when your life and families life depends on you keeping quiet, plus, only a few need to know that it is a pretence and these people would move in circles where creating illusions, for a public to consume, is part of the job description, it could fall under national security and thus, would be easy to square in your mind. Have you seen the reactions (in the docu) of the astronauts, and if so don't you think they seem shaken to their core somewhat?Hobbes' Choice wrote:Tell us how the faked it, and more importantly how they have managed to keep it a secret all these years.Pluto wrote:Yeah, but I didn't think it just from Buzz punching the guy, it was watching the docu as a whole that made me think they didn't go.
-
GreatandWiseTrixie
- Posts: 1543
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm
Re: Mirror on the Moon
Look, I watched your "docu". Being an expertise on magic I know all their "trix" so to speak so I will give you my honest opinion.
I could care less whether or not the moon landing is fake or real. Whoever made the documentary did not seem "honest." Your focus should not be on being "right", but just to find out the truth of the matter. If it's fake, it's fake. If it's real, it's real. Only by playing both sides can you gain new insight.
At the beginning it plays multiple clips of them denying to put their hand on the bible. This is a manipulation tactic to sucker in viewers and instill doubt early on. Since this technique is so obvious it bored me. Once I waded through the boring beginning I'll have to say the video was quite entertaining.
^The beginning where they played them refusing to swear on the bible was an act of trickery, deception. Because later on they reveal that the astronauts did in fact swear on the bible. Also, the host blatantly lies to each astronaut, telling them "Congratulations, the other six astronauts did not swear on the Bible!" He says to one astronaut "Congratulations, you are the first to swear on the Bible, the other six did not!" So how can he say "The other six did not swear on the Bible" to the other astronauts, when it shows more than 1 astronaut who swore?
More of this deception is used throughout the film. First there is a clip with Buzz handing the host a wad of money, as if to imply a bribe. But of course it is not a bribe, Buzz was handing the host his wad of money back, but the host of course deleted the clip from viewing to make it have the bribe-vibe.
The host sneakily enters Mitchell's house under false pretenses, and Mitchell get's angry. At the end someone says "Should we call the CIA to wax them?" The documentary says his son says this. But the documentary is already shown to be deceptive, so how do we know one of Mitchell's men said this?
The extra 5 minutes at the end of running was entirely unneeded, though quite comical.
The main science of the matter.
The Window scene
I don't see how this proves anything. It seems like they are at a much larger distance than Earth orbit, even at full zoom it seems farther than Earth orbit. There are some wires in the corner to create the illusion that the window is not an Apollo 11 style window. There is an apparent reflection on the window, don't see how it proves anything, the video was piss poor at explaining it. Also, it might not be a reflection on the window, but a reflection of light on the Apollo 11 exterior hull outside the window.
Inconsistent testimonies In order to prove the hoax the host interviews the astronauts, and shows their inconsistent testimonies.
One astronaut says they were "passengers". Of course the host takes this completely out of context to imply that no experiments were performed.
One astronaut says they did not go through the Van Allen Belt because it had not been discovered yet. I could blame this statement on old age senile babble, as later he talks about experiencing radiation through his eye on the moon (I thought the Van Alley belt didn't extend that far?)
The Shadows Moon hoaxers say the moon pics have no shadows, and no stars, because they are fake.
Why wouldn't the moon have shadows? The moon casts shadows from sunlight. There are no stars because the camera had a filter to block out excess sun brightness.
The Van Alley Radiation Belt
I say get dump all of the fluff, and focus on this. This seems to be the main element to solving this mystery. You should stop focusing on going around with Bible fluff and psychobabble - divert all of your energy to this. The Apollo 11 was designed to reflect excess sunlight, it is possible the materials reflected excess radiation as well, and it is possible the materials were more effective at this task than the space shuttle materials.
Technical Limitations
Side argument says the rocket would have been too small to go to the moon. Sigh...I will perform my calculations and get back to you on this little "Moon-hoax" of yours, and put more research into the "van allen radiation belt", but there are bigger and better things.
I could care less whether or not the moon landing is fake or real. Whoever made the documentary did not seem "honest." Your focus should not be on being "right", but just to find out the truth of the matter. If it's fake, it's fake. If it's real, it's real. Only by playing both sides can you gain new insight.
At the beginning it plays multiple clips of them denying to put their hand on the bible. This is a manipulation tactic to sucker in viewers and instill doubt early on. Since this technique is so obvious it bored me. Once I waded through the boring beginning I'll have to say the video was quite entertaining.
^The beginning where they played them refusing to swear on the bible was an act of trickery, deception. Because later on they reveal that the astronauts did in fact swear on the bible. Also, the host blatantly lies to each astronaut, telling them "Congratulations, the other six astronauts did not swear on the Bible!" He says to one astronaut "Congratulations, you are the first to swear on the Bible, the other six did not!" So how can he say "The other six did not swear on the Bible" to the other astronauts, when it shows more than 1 astronaut who swore?
More of this deception is used throughout the film. First there is a clip with Buzz handing the host a wad of money, as if to imply a bribe. But of course it is not a bribe, Buzz was handing the host his wad of money back, but the host of course deleted the clip from viewing to make it have the bribe-vibe.
The host sneakily enters Mitchell's house under false pretenses, and Mitchell get's angry. At the end someone says "Should we call the CIA to wax them?" The documentary says his son says this. But the documentary is already shown to be deceptive, so how do we know one of Mitchell's men said this?
The extra 5 minutes at the end of running was entirely unneeded, though quite comical.
The main science of the matter.
The Window scene
I don't see how this proves anything. It seems like they are at a much larger distance than Earth orbit, even at full zoom it seems farther than Earth orbit. There are some wires in the corner to create the illusion that the window is not an Apollo 11 style window. There is an apparent reflection on the window, don't see how it proves anything, the video was piss poor at explaining it. Also, it might not be a reflection on the window, but a reflection of light on the Apollo 11 exterior hull outside the window.
Inconsistent testimonies In order to prove the hoax the host interviews the astronauts, and shows their inconsistent testimonies.
One astronaut says they were "passengers". Of course the host takes this completely out of context to imply that no experiments were performed.
One astronaut says they did not go through the Van Allen Belt because it had not been discovered yet. I could blame this statement on old age senile babble, as later he talks about experiencing radiation through his eye on the moon (I thought the Van Alley belt didn't extend that far?)
The Shadows Moon hoaxers say the moon pics have no shadows, and no stars, because they are fake.
Why wouldn't the moon have shadows? The moon casts shadows from sunlight. There are no stars because the camera had a filter to block out excess sun brightness.
The Van Alley Radiation Belt
I say get dump all of the fluff, and focus on this. This seems to be the main element to solving this mystery. You should stop focusing on going around with Bible fluff and psychobabble - divert all of your energy to this. The Apollo 11 was designed to reflect excess sunlight, it is possible the materials reflected excess radiation as well, and it is possible the materials were more effective at this task than the space shuttle materials.
Technical Limitations
Side argument says the rocket would have been too small to go to the moon. Sigh...I will perform my calculations and get back to you on this little "Moon-hoax" of yours, and put more research into the "van allen radiation belt", but there are bigger and better things.
-
GreatandWiseTrixie
- Posts: 1543
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm
Re: Mirror on the Moon
Okay I've seen enough.
The documentary you provided wasn't that good, but I've watched another.
The landing on the moon - BULLSHIT.
The documentary you provided wasn't that good, but I've watched another.
The landing on the moon - BULLSHIT.
Re: Mirror on the Moon
GreatandWiseTrixie,
Thanks for your post and for watching it.
I agree, those tricks to sucker-in the viewer are there, but of course the guy wants people to be engaged and stay with it. This is something generic to most moving pictures today. The swearing on the bible is a great bit, as if this would mean anything, perhaps it still does. But this, and other, as you say, deceptions, pale into insignificance when confronted with the astronauts' reactions. For me they are odd, and don't fit with men who've been to the moon. The astronaut with the dog, seems very perplexed, as he shouts for his dog to be quiet, while he thinks.
Don't watch anymore now, it will ruin your health.
Thanks for your post and for watching it.
I agree, those tricks to sucker-in the viewer are there, but of course the guy wants people to be engaged and stay with it. This is something generic to most moving pictures today. The swearing on the bible is a great bit, as if this would mean anything, perhaps it still does. But this, and other, as you say, deceptions, pale into insignificance when confronted with the astronauts' reactions. For me they are odd, and don't fit with men who've been to the moon. The astronaut with the dog, seems very perplexed, as he shouts for his dog to be quiet, while he thinks.
Don't watch anymore now, it will ruin your health.
-
GreatandWiseTrixie
- Posts: 1543
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm
Re: Mirror on the Moon
No I'm well aware of the too many tabs thing where chain watching youtube videos can drain your energy and cause headaches.Pluto wrote:GreatandWiseTrixie,
Thanks for your post and for watching it.
I agree, those tricks to sucker-in the viewer are there, but of course the guy wants people to be engaged and stay with it. This is something generic to most moving pictures today. The swearing on the bible is a great bit, as if this would mean anything, perhaps it still does. But this, and other, as you say, deceptions, pale into insignificance when confronted with the astronauts' reactions. For me they are odd, and don't fit with men who've been to the moon. The astronaut with the dog, seems very perplexed, as he shouts for his dog to be quiet, while he thinks.
Don't watch anymore now, it will ruin your health.
I watched another documentary which was better in my opinion, and my firm verdict is the moon landing is - LAUGHABLY FAKE.
I will explain in a bit for thedoc and Hobbes' Choice to understand, as they are lagging behind.
PS, the dog thing doesn't prove anything, but I suspect the dog sensed his master's nervousness, and in turn, the master suspected his dog's nervousness.