Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Don't mess with the Buzz

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Michael McLaughlin

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
338
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Website
www.youtube.com
As I was looking for and watching stuff about Apollo 11. I ran across this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOo6aHSY8hU

Would've loved to see this one on RED in 120 frames a second... ; - )

I remember giving a lot of the Airforce guys a lot of Sh#t when I
was going thru my Army M.I. training at Fort Devens; we were
especially merciless when they would do their physical training
for the day. Of course they were idiots for doing (what they called)
callisthenics near the army chow hall.

I guess I might want to think twice now about giving Airforce guys sh#t;
at least for the types like Buzz.


Absolutely an American hero.
 
I'm not too keen on condoning the physical stuff. On the other hand it was obnoxious enough what the guy was saying (it's one thing to propound your dumb conspiracy theories on the internet, or a TV show, but you cross a different line when you do it to the guy's face) and when he started to get up in Buzz's grill he pretty much deserved that punch.

Buzz doesn't really like the second man on the moon designation too much - he likes to say "We landed together.."

Neil took the first STEPS. Imagine if they had a problem with the hatch and never got out - would they have said they weren't the first men on the moon - I doubt it.

A more interesting thing about Neil and Buzz on the moon is that there are NO still pictures of Neil on the surface (except in the reflection on Buzz's visor ) - all of the pictures are of Buzz. Buzz has said that was just an accident of circumstance and the checklist but one has to be a little skeptical.

Neil also made one of the greatest flubbed lines on the greatest stage ever when he said "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" when he meant to say "One small step for A man..." - which, as he has said, is the only way it makes sense.
 
Michael Hastings said:
Neil also made one of the greatest flubbed lines on the greatest stage ever when he said "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" when he meant to say "One small step for A man..." - which, as he has said, is the only way it makes sense.
Click to expand...

I read something about some fellow going in and analyzing the source audio, and found that there was a pause between "step" and "man", and a crackle.

He thinks that static actually cut out the "a", part, and that Neil actually said it. I also heard Neil saying that he swore he said, "a".

Regardless, seeing as how he had been speeding through space for 4 days, going faster and further into space than any humans had ever gone before, I am willing to give him a pass on it.
 
Anyone who doesn't believe we landed one the moon is too stupid to live. You can shoot a laser at a target we left there and it bounces back. What more proof could you want?
 
obin said:
and you have hard proof of this?
Click to expand...

No, I haven't. I'm a film director not an astro-scientist!

I like a good conspiracy theory just as much as the next guy, but I haven't seen any compelling evidence that the moon landings didn't happen and think after forty years it's about time people gave those involved the respect and credit they deserve.
 
Alright, I'm just going to say this and be done with it.

1. The number of people involved in faking a moon landing would have to have been huge. The government can't cover up a blowjob effectively. The chances of keeping something like this quiet are next to 0.

2. The entire intelligence and scientific powers of the massive Soviet Union would have loved to have called bullshit on the US, and if they could have, they would. The most sophisticated science in the world besides us, had every reason in the world to discredit us and they didn't.

3. To even suggest that the moon landings were anything other than genuine requires ignoring mountains of good clean science, and believing a bunch of bullshit half truths.

OK I'm done.
 
Image proving E.T. landed:

http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/movie/et/34.jpg

Look,

As expected, the evidence I presented above was completely ignored. You have no response, merely knee jerk reactionary emotionalism/nationalism. How unexpected. How glorious your non-refutation must seem to you.

Deal with the evidence before you throw around terms like "stupid."

Crafts have landed on the moon.
That is not in dispute, and is also not what I claimed. There is a long list of logical fallacies that usually pop up, and this is the straw man.

An unmanned craft could leave a mirror reflector.

The manned flights are in dispute by several pieces of evidence, like that video. Ignoring evidence which challenges your preconception is the highest sign of intelligence, right?

Associated Press, 2 days ago:

"NASA lost moon footage, but Hollywood restores it

By SETH BORENSTEIN (AP)

WASHINGTON — NASA could put a man on the moon but didn't have the sense to keep the original video of the live TV transmission.

In an embarrassing acknowledgment, the space agency said Thursday that it must have erased the Apollo 11 moon footage years ago so that it could reuse the videotape.

But now Hollywood is coming to the rescue..."

I'm sure they are.

NASA ordered the destruction of 200,000 archive tapes. That would insure no more boo boos like the one I linked to above got released. Not helping their credibility. But, they're the US of Effing A, so they don't need no stinkin' credibility.

See the entire film, "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon" in decent quality for some interesting points.

The one point that interests me, besides the Astronauts caught red handed faking images supposedly half way to the moon (which were presented to the world as genuine, and published numerous times), is this:

a11lm.jpg


What's wrong with this picture? (Besides the fact that they never bothered to try and fake the position of the stars in any image ever taken from "the moon," as that would give away the game to nit picky astronomers).

Chew on it for a while.
 
"That's because you would have to be dumber than two sacks of broken doorknobs to be swayed by it. "

Again with the asshole comments.

There are some suspicious aspects to the landing claims. The entire program was a propaganda exercise. They had to "beat the Russians" to the moon, as per Kennedy's challenge.

They very well could have come to the conclusion that it was too risky, and a suicide mission. The loss of the astronauts would have been the worst propaganda move in US history.

The web page you cite has little proof that the humans were actually inside the craft that went to the moon, walked around and came back. The crafts were multi-vehicle, as you (should) know.

There are several pieces of evidence that look pretty odd.

The "moon" is no more than 400 feet deep. No Apollo shots (with humans in them) ever show more than that, from any of the missions. It's quite a small moon, and the drop off allegedly due to curvature is too pronounced.

There is no evidence that the lander's massive engine fired, on the way DOWN. No evidence below the craft on the surface.

"Specification

Unit Price $ : 50.00 million. Craft.Crew Size: 2. Total Length: 6.4 m. Maximum Diameter: 4.3 m. Total Habitable Volume: 6.65 m3. Total Mass: 14,696 kg. Total Propellants: 10,523 kg. Primary Engine Thrust: 4,491 kgf. Main Engine Propellants: N2O4/UDMH. Main Engine Isp: 311 sec. Total spacecraft delta v: 4,700 m/s. Electric System: 50.00 total kWh. Electrical System: Batteries. "

http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/craft/apollolm.htm

In the 1980s the Space Shuttle went on its highest mission ever, 650 miles. News reports interviewed astronauts who saw radiation particles shooting through their eyes when they were closed.

No such similar findings were mentioned by the astronauts who allegedly went a hell of a lot higher.

Now perhaps it's all inconclusive. It's not my job to prove anything one way or the other. It's Nasa's.

Not that the apollo history matters so much today.

Rabid, vicious attacks on dissent matters today. Mindless acceptance of official pronouncements matters today.

This ain't a religious issue.
 
Joe G. said:
As expected, the evidence I presented above was completely ignored. You have no response, merely knee jerk reactionary emotionalism/nationalism. How unexpected. How glorious your non-refutation must seem to you.
Click to expand...

That's not evidence, that's a clip from a documentary. I've seen other documentaries that take the alternate view. I happen to take any claims made by a documentary with a grain of salt. And by the way I'm British, so no nationalism here and of course, no emotion!

Joe G. said:
Ignoring evidence which challenges your preconception is the highest sign of intelligence, right?
Click to expand...


I'd suggest you re-examine the facts from the mindset of someone who believes the moon landing happened, then you will no doubt find a rational explanation for each of the irregularities you suggest are evidence the landing didn't happen. Challenge your own preconceptions.
 
Joe G. said:
Rabid, vicious attacks on dissent matters today. Mindless acceptance of official pronouncements matters today.

This ain't a religious issue.
Click to expand...

My late father received a commendation from President Nixon in recognition of his work as an aerospace engineer for NASA in 1970 — while I often defer to the experts around here on photographic matters, in this instance I reserve the right to call BS on your crackpot conspiracy theories.
 
Look, Joe G. If you are actually a user of a Red you should know at least basic photographic theory so what on earth makes you think stars would show up in pictures taken in full sunlight on the moon's surface? Think about it. These photos are taken with a Haselblad using sprocketed reversal 70mm film with ASA ratings of 50 to 150. The shutter speed would have been in the range of 150th of a second with F stops of 11 or 16 (approx values). Do you really think stars would show up? Stars are orders of magnitude dimmer than the subjects in the photos. The lack of stars in these photos is actually proof of the landings, not the inverse.
Every piece of so called evidence put up by these jerks is nonsensical rubbish which can easily be blown aside by common sense and basic scientific literacy. The best I can think is perhaps you're taking the piss.
 
Peter McCully said:
Every piece of so called evidence put up by these jerks is nonsensical rubbish which can easily be blown aside by common sense and basic scientific literacy. The best I can think is perhaps you're taking the piss.
Click to expand...

Amen

I am amazed at how many people actually prefer amazing conspiracy theories to the truth.
 
wow

wow

:willy_nilly:

Yo G, back away from the ledge, I repeat back away from the ledge.

:001_smile:

I guess I could present countless facts on why we did land on the moon, but really... I am too tired to dig it all up.

But I did see this 3D rendered breakdown demystifying the weird shadow effects that some called "proof" it was all fake. Once you started panning and rotating in the 3D representation of the landing site you could instantely see how the eye could be fooled by weird parallax of hill / mound surfaces; and add in the type of lenses used etc... cake baked.

I mean... like have you ever seen the stuff coming back from the shuttle and space station (most if not all) has no stars in them. What about the rovers on Mars, or etc. etc. and so ad infinitum. Were does the conspiracy stop.

:coolgleamA: Time to take the RED pill I guess.

Personally I think you can't be serious, but you are just having fun...

...but maybe not. I checked the site you got in your profile, good stuff, I am all about exposing the greed and machinations of this onerous system that is around us. I also (believe it or not) know that parts of NASA has been corrupted by just such things, but this is because NASA has always had a divided leadership and direction (military versus civilian).

But on the moon landing, damn, I am back to "were do I begin".

Mike Hedge posted the LRO latest pics, but heck if you don't believe those, and that this is just a continuation (multi, multi decade) of a conspiracy then... I guess wait till 2018-2020 when the Chineese or Indians land there.

As for the losing erasing of the tapes... this I see as typical stupidity of a large bureaucratic system. I mean such simple things as keeping close guard of such historic tapes seems to go under blind logic; but I STATE "O-rings and large chunks of high grade foam" moving at ballistic speeds should go under "blind logic" to... of course we all know how those things ended up :sad:.

At least nobody died because of those tapes getting whacked by pure bureaucratic stupidity. I mean truely, this should be were the histrionics are directed, and deserved.

Ah Joe... no hard feelings man, we need warriors working on the fringes... 'cause you never no when something important could be
un-mooned / earthed.

This is not meant as "faint praise" or disrespect (just a little ribbing). If it wasn't for certain contrarian thinkers thru-out history, a lot of things would have been missed.

peace out
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top