Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 39

Thread: Did NASA land Men on the Moon?

  1. #11
    Administrator Ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,074
    Thanks
    995
    Thanked 1,257 Times in 744 Posts

    Re: Did NASA land Men on the Moon?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zook_e_Pi View Post
    Mythbusters is vacillating, making excuse after excuse as to why they haven't done a show on it yet although there have been many many requests.
    Really...C'mon Zook, of course the producers and the zionist media monsters are never going to allow such a show...I guess the boys could demand the making, testing and fact finding mission for a show but you and I both know that would be career suicide...
    Ross
    ***Fred Coleman, Founding Partner, Beloved Friend***
    who passed away 11/10/2016
    Rest in Peace
    ***

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Ross For This Useful Post:

    Zook_e_Pi (06-29-2017)

  3. #12
    Senior Member Zook_e_Pi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On the way to Tiperary (via shortcut through the Tum Tum trees)
    Posts
    1,118
    Thanks
    1,340
    Thanked 1,277 Times in 688 Posts

    Re: Did NASA land Men on the Moon?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ross View Post
    I absolutely disagree Zook. The Mythbusters are doing science. They ask questions (the Myths), formulate hypotheses, make predictions, perform experiments, and draw conclusions. Sometimes they revisit myths when new questions present themselves using revised technique to obtain better answers.

    Granted it's a TV show for entertainment and some 'myths' are design purely for that factor, entertainment,
    However, fairly often they indeed embark on some serious questions, and you're very far off the mark stating "It is not about observable facts"

    Above vid is exactly that, observable facts drawing evidence based conclusions. Now lets be honest here...the anomalies put forth in this video have shown very clearly that most folk have no idea wtf they are on about...such as shadow casting, vacuum of space and totally overlook the fact that anyone can look at the laser retro-reflector data.
    We'll have to agree to disagree. Mythbusters is simply entertainment. The dearth of science is palpable. I will show one youtube episode, let's call it, Exhibit A, as proof of lack of scientific method. Mind you, in the sundry Mytbusters episodes, there are scientific principles employed here and there, but scientific principles in themselves do not make science ... that requires scientific method. Without further ado, here's Exhibit A:



    Clearly, retro-reflectors are an example of a scientific principle being employed. Fair enough. But already we see junk method being employed when the bald guy(Jamie??) remarks @1:20min: "These guys have the tools we need to put the final nail in the coffin on the Moon Landing hoax."

    Whoa ... scientific method doesn't bluster with grand conclusions ahead of the experiment, but even after testing, it only eliminates one element from the preponderance of contentious elements. By contrast, entertainment techniques do indeed bluster, and without shame. Further on, we have top doc and good Phd, Dr. Russet McMillan, already slanting the discussion in favor of the establishment by calling those who question the Moon Landing events, as crazy people. Not science, but an example of mob mentality in the brewing.

    @2:25 min. "We're firing on the order of some 200 quadrillion photons per laser pulse at that reflector." The only thing that comes to mind is that if they can locate the retroreflector with that kind of precision, why not send an unmanned probe to the Moon with a high-definition camera and take snaps of said retroreflector, of the American flag, and of other artifacts from the Apollo missions? We've sent an unmanned probe to Mars, which is much farther away ... and have received beautiful images of the Martian surface for our efforts. So why not the Moon, which is only 240,000 miles away? Another point, even with the known location of Apollo 15, it would still be like looking for a needle in a haystack in trying to locate the retroreflector. Did Dr. McMillan already spend multitude of hours locating the proverbial needle before the Mythbsters arrived, or did she in the moment point a precision instrument into a haystack on the first try and locate the needle? In short, how do we trust Dr. McMillan? Science is about reproducing results, not offering doctrines. Are we supposed to take Dr. McMillan at her word that the spike she offers us is in fact a retroreflector signal? I, for one, would like to see other independent scientists/astrophysicists reproduce the results claimed by Dr. McMillan. That would make it science for me. One entertainment show. One biased scientist. Lots of impressing looking hardware. That's not science. That's appealing the consequent.

    But here's the coup de grace. Even if there are retroreflectors on the Moon (placed by man) ... that still does not infer that man visited the Moon. As I alluded to the Mars land rover mission, Man has the ability to send unmanned probes to the surface of any nearby planet or satellite body. In fact, the expected order of exploration into the cosmic unknown is unmanned first, then manned. So retroreflectors cold easily have been sent to the moon via an unmanned mission, not necessarily a manned Apollo mission. That dispels the notion that because retroreflectors are there on the Moon, that man must have visited the Moon to place them there. Which then begs the question: what was the purpose of the Mythbusters episode if not to further entrench the establishment perspective on the purported Moon landings? Certainly, science was not involved ... due in no small part to at least one significant faulty premise.


    I have offered up a far stronger argument based on testing than those who offer none, from a testing point of view. And I have only concentrated on the anomalous topics within this thread.
    I believe I have adequately refuted your argument, Ross. I would also add that neither retroreflectors nor flag movements nor light shadows are a portion of my list of anomalies. Sometimes I wonder if these weak anomalies are being advanced by the establishment to control the opposition and confuse the evidence of the provable strong anomalies, e.g. no stars in the lunar sky, observable strings hoisting up the astronauts to help simulate Moon walking, the attempted deception by the Apollo astronauts when they tried to pretend that the Earth was some 100,000+ miles away when in fact it was only a few hundred miles up in near Earth orbit, etc.


    Did Man go to the Moon? I can't tell you that with certainty...but I can tell you shadow angles do cast differing degrees from the one light source.

    I can tell you, manipulated force within a vacuum (flag) does indeed produce an on going movement and more so than in normal conditions.

    I can tell you that footprints can be formed within a vacuum of space and there is a retro reflector on the surface, with precise coordinates that can be dialed up and reflected back to Earth...
    All the above are examples of weak anomalies. The same thing has happened with 9/11/2001 research ... the establishment has sent down many shills charged with the task of confusing the hard evidence (e.g. thermite cutting charges and nanothermite explosives) with demonstrably weak "evidence" (e.g. mini-nukes, energy beams, jet fuel, etc).

    To wit, expect the designed pollution of the hard evidence with weak evidence, the latter to distract research and make unsuspecting researchers look silly.

    That said, there is room for agreement in the agnostic stance. I, too, am unsure about the Moon landings. But I definitely will say that we are being lied to by NASA, and that includes the Moon landings. Did they happen? My best guess is there are far too many strong anomalies to believe that the events were real. Still, I can't rule it out. Not with limited public access to the archives.

    If I were allowed a conjectural point, the space race was a top priority in the sixties ... so the appearance of success would have been just as valuable as success itself. Which begs the question, how much did the space race factor in and manifest as strong anomalies?

    Pax
    Last edited by Zook_e_Pi; 06-29-2017 at 10:55 PM.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Zook_e_Pi For This Useful Post:

    Harley (07-01-2017)

  5. #13
    Senior Member Zook_e_Pi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On the way to Tiperary (via shortcut through the Tum Tum trees)
    Posts
    1,118
    Thanks
    1,340
    Thanked 1,277 Times in 688 Posts

    Re: Did NASA land Men on the Moon?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ross View Post
    Really...C'mon Zook, of course the producers and the zionist media monsters are never going to allow such a show...I guess the boys could demand the making, testing and fact finding mission for a show but you and I both know that would be career suicide...
    Well, Ross, the answer is self-evident. A real scientific show cannot afford to contemplate the possibility of career suicide; it must forge ahead with science, whatever the consequences.

    That fact, in itself, reduces Mythbusters to nothing more fancy than an establishment entertainment show. Nothing wrong with that. Just so long as we remember that the level of science contained in Mythbusters is not the level of science that is capable of solving such mysteries as the Man, the Moon, and the Landing.


    Pax
    Last edited by Zook_e_Pi; 06-29-2017 at 10:51 PM.

  6. #14
    Administrator Ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,074
    Thanks
    995
    Thanked 1,257 Times in 744 Posts

    Re: Did NASA land Men on the Moon?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zook_e_Pi View Post
    Well, Ross, the answer is self-evident. A real scientific show cannot afford to contemplate the possibility of career suicide; it must forge ahead with science, whatever the consequences.
    Very well, Zook.

    I have explained my position clearly and have not said at anytime the Moon landings were actual or a hoax. I have offered up experimentation using scientific method concerning the 3 aforementioned anomalous conspiracies that have been hammed on about for some 50 odd years...

    I will again say...I am satisfied with the findings.

    1, Light shadow angle does alter from differing perspectives.
    2, Movement within a vacuum does infact move for some time after the fact
    3, The Astronauts movements were accurately inline with zero G experiment opposed to experimental faking of movements as one would do in a studio/fake setup.

    The point to this thread was this...as old as these conspiracies are, they are debunked inasfar as being able to use them as evidence that the landing were fake.
    Ross
    ***Fred Coleman, Founding Partner, Beloved Friend***
    who passed away 11/10/2016
    Rest in Peace
    ***

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Ross For This Useful Post:

    Harley (07-01-2017)

  8. #15
    Senior Member Adam Bomm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,622
    Thanks
    2,169
    Thanked 1,099 Times in 809 Posts

    Re: Did NASA land Men on the Moon?

    With that laser you might burn a hole in the Flag but not likely get a return signal save from the moon surface itself. I did wonder about finding the location so accurately.

    "At the Moon's surface, the beam is about 6.5 kilometers-7.0 kilometers (4.0 mi) wide"

    Retroreflector size = 105 x 65 cm in size

    The thing that got me was the astronaut righting himself when he fell. That looked totally weird. But if he just did a 'pushup' and then righted himself in the vacuum it would create the same effect.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Adam Bomm For This Useful Post:

    Harley (07-01-2017)

  10. #16
    Senior Member Zook_e_Pi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On the way to Tiperary (via shortcut through the Tum Tum trees)
    Posts
    1,118
    Thanks
    1,340
    Thanked 1,277 Times in 688 Posts

    Re: Did NASA land Men on the Moon?



    The video speaks for itself. I just want to make one remark. @5:00 to 6:00 min ... Nixon says to go ahead with the (Kubrick) studio photoshoots and video footage, e.g. as a backup just in case the actual attempt to land a man on the Moon fails (as suggested by Alexander Haig). This implies that the space race was too important for America to lose (i.e. to allow failure in any U.S attempt to land a man on the Moon was not an option).

    What can we infer from Nixon's remarks?

    Well, it's possible that NASA was indeed planning to land a man on the Moon. It also means that by 1969, they were still not ready to execute that plan. So they definitely faked Apollo 11 on the studio set for Space 2001. Subsequent to the Kubrick filming, did NASA succeed in landing Armstrong, which then would have eliminated the need to release the fake footage? That doesn't appear to be the case, because if NASA was anywhere near capable of a manned Moon landing mission at that point, the whole discussion in the White House - a discussion among desperate men seeking a desperate goal - wouldn't have taken place. So if they didn't have the ability to succeed, then what we actually saw on the live feeds at the time was the Kubrick fake footage.

    Question begs, did NASA then fake all the remaining Apollo missions? Or did they buy enough time with Apollo 11 fakery to actually develop the capacity to land a man on the Moon? That's still not satisfactorily understood by me, at last according to my research.


    Paxm
    ps: A side observation about the Nixon meeting with Haig, Kissinger, Rumsfeld, Eagleburger, Helms. Excepting the secretary, the men in the room were all prepared to attain the ends at any cost. Alas, the ends justifies the means is a sociopath's maxim.
    Last edited by Zook_e_Pi; 07-01-2017 at 05:07 AM.

  11. #17
    Senior Member Zook_e_Pi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On the way to Tiperary (via shortcut through the Tum Tum trees)
    Posts
    1,118
    Thanks
    1,340
    Thanked 1,277 Times in 688 Posts

    Re: Did NASA land Men on the Moon?

    You can't fake a confession when the essence of it rips at your soul ...



    ... and you can't keep good men from confessing, sooner or later, in one form or another.

    Neil Armstrong and Stanley Kubrick initially did wrong ... but then rode their consciences back to the stables of humanity on white steeds of righteousness ... stopping frequently to drown their heads in watering holes along the way. Kudos to the consciences of both men. IMO.


    Pax
    Last edited by Zook_e_Pi; 07-01-2017 at 05:48 AM.

  12. #18
    Administrator Ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,074
    Thanks
    995
    Thanked 1,257 Times in 744 Posts

    Re: Did NASA land Men on the Moon?

    and you can't keep good men from confessing, sooner or later, in one form or another.
    Nice try there Zook but you've failed in doing due diligence when trying to find evidence that the Landings were fake.

    Neither of us can categorically prove they did or didn't. We can only work through the evidence available and I have offered up super compelling evidence as posted above in my posts.

    Your offer of Kubrick admitting he staged the event is poor investigation and another example of using Utube as evidence... a sucker a second can be found trawling through You-Tube stating it as evidence...

    I offer you this...

    While there are various edits of this infamous (and fake) interview circulating on YouTube, the videos all originated with a new film from T. Patrick Murray titled Shooting Kubrick. Murray claimed on the Shooting Kubrick web site that he was granted unprecedented access to interview the director in May 1999, which would have been quite an impressive feat since Kubrick had passed away two months earlier:

    Although the date could be a simple typographical error, that was not the only questionable aspect of the interview. The man being interviewed simply doesn’t look or sound like Stanley Kubrick when compared to a video of the real Kubrick accepting the D.W. Griffith Award in 1997:



    A spokesman for Kubrick’s widow also proclaimed that “The interview is a lie, Stanley Kubrick has never been interviewed by T.Patrick Murray the whole story is made up, fraudulent and untrue.”

    T. Patrick Murray has not admitted that his interview with Stanley Kubrick is a hoax, but he certainly is banking the mystery’s driving interest in his project:
    So far, Murray has not publicly commented on his documentary, and on whether it was intended as a deliberate hoax or as more of a mockumentary/joke.
    Last edited by Ross; 07-01-2017 at 03:00 PM.
    Ross
    ***Fred Coleman, Founding Partner, Beloved Friend***
    who passed away 11/10/2016
    Rest in Peace
    ***

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ross For This Useful Post:

    Harley (07-01-2017),Zook_e_Pi (07-01-2017)

  14. #19
    Senior Member Adam Bomm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,622
    Thanks
    2,169
    Thanked 1,099 Times in 809 Posts

    Re: Did NASA land Men on the Moon?

    Another ForWhatever Its Worth. I worked with a number of the flight controllers that claimed they worked the consoles during the Apollo Missions. Were they lying to me?

    Buzz Aldrin like a number of the astronauts that had been on missions had psycho issues...they were just not the same after their missions...It was too overwhelming to see the Earth, Moon, and Starts from the perspective of space.

    The mission engineers are never fully ready until the politics and the astronauts start pushing then there is no stopping going forward. It's ass backwards


    hey ross, that would have been my 1st question: Is that really Kubrick? Pretty good point, there...
    Last edited by Adam Bomm; 07-01-2017 at 05:20 PM.

  15. #20
    Senior Member Zook_e_Pi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On the way to Tiperary (via shortcut through the Tum Tum trees)
    Posts
    1,118
    Thanks
    1,340
    Thanked 1,277 Times in 688 Posts

    Re: Did NASA land Men on the Moon?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ross View Post
    Nice try there Zook but you've failed in doing due diligence when trying to find evidence that the Landings were fake.

    Neither of us can categorically prove they did or didn't. We can only work through the evidence available and I have offered up super compelling evidence as posted above in my posts.

    Your offer of Kubrick admitting he staged the event is poor investigation and another example of using Utube as evidence... a sucker a second can be found trawling through You-Tube stating it as evidence...

    I offer you this...



    So far, Murray has not publicly commented on his documentary, and on whether it was intended as a deliberate hoax or as more of a mockumentary/joke.
    There's no "try" here, Ross ... except perhaps an attempt to find the truth.

    Here are some outtakes from that alleged Kubrick interview:


    Although the man looks and sounds very much like Kubrick, the outtakes reveal something else. So I will remove the said documentary/mockumentary/parody from my list of preponderance. Thanks, Ross, for exposing the Murray video for me. Truthseeking is almost always a collective effort, even though we think it may be individualistic.

    That said, the video before that (e.g. the Nixon meeting) ... is authentic.

    Kubrick was solicited by Nixon and his cadre of advisors to film a fake Moon landing on the Space 2001 movie set in the UK.

    So what gives?

    My best guess is that Murray's fake Kubrick video is an attempt at attacking the hard evidence with junk evidence. The actual evidence points to Kubrick's involvement with NASA in faking the Moon landings. So what better way to attack this evidence than to fake a video about an admission by Kubrick (using an actor) about fake Moon landings? After all, if they can immerse Kubrick himself in a tub of deception ... then Kubrick's association with the Nixon White House would also be immersed in that deception. And people would stop believing in things Kubrick, because of all the attending deception ... things including the fact of staged Moon landings on the Space 2001 film set in a British studio.



    Pax

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Zook_e_Pi For This Useful Post:

    Ross (07-01-2017)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •