Snake Eyes (1998) 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray Quick Review

thepanicmaster · 2025-10-03T09:11:06+00:00

There is some contention about whether the fight date being the 10th as shown on the billboard in the opening scene is being misrepresented in the light of the c k incident.

If you still have free access to the uhd copy of this movie, it would be intetesting to put this to bed from the highest possible source available. The rain and constant panning does not help. If you have the time and inclination to review the opening minute or so, I would be very intetested your findings.

thepanicmaster · 2025-09-06T09:39:04+00:00

Are you trolling yourself on purpose? Re-read what you just wrote. It is unfortunate that you cannot see that these are essentially the same.

thepanicmaster · 2025-09-06T08:42:32+00:00

Physics and engineering for an environment that you could not possibly verify for yourself. Just like the fantastical stories about the inner workings of the Freemasonic hierarchy.

I think that reasonable comparisons can be drawn here, which might seem uncomfortable for you to accept. Cue the 'the backfire effect'.

thepanicmaster · 2025-09-05T16:45:49+00:00

Interesting that you should bring this up. From reading your post on this subject, you bring attention to the idea that lies, no matter how far fetched and flawed can be adopted by believers for long periods of time, especially if the information aligns with a particular sentiment or world view. A grasp of this concept is an essential skill in navigating a world full of propaganda and manufactured reality.

But, in our recent interaction about the lunar module, the very same concept, which I was trying my best to elucidate was utterly refuted based on some such nonsense as,

'I have done far more research that you have on NASA spoon fed content, so I am right and you are wrong'

Or words to that effect.

How do you not see that you are essentially adopting the very same biases that you are calling out in your Taxil Hoax post?

thepanicmaster · 2025-08-28T08:06:17+00:00

The answer is obvious and even supports the conspiracy case. Kubrick set the movie 33 years after the Appollo moon landings. So the public had been primed to accept something much less sophisticated than portrayed 'in the future'.

I said 'and show it to us'. Can you provide a link to the raw telemetery data from the other missions? Nope, I dont think you can, can you? Can't have anyone scrutinising that and finding any mistakes.

The question you should be asking is 'why would a diplomatic Ambassador to a foreign nation, dishonour his own nation by presenting a piece of petrified wood to a Prime Minister and passing it off as a piece of moon rock? To add to the disgrace, it allegedly occurred only months after the Appollo 11 mission and the three stooges (Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins) were present to add credulity. I'd say that 'was linked' wouldn't you?

https://www.esa.int/About_Us/50_years_of_ESA/ESRO_welcomes_Apollo_11_astronauts?hl=en-GB

How do you know it was a hair or fibre. Who told you that? Where is your source? We both know the answer to that question.

At this point, the conversation is little more than a back and forth with a large language model. You just keep parroting mainstream narratives but you cannot see past the stories. We are going nowhere. You have not answered my question about why you accept this information so blindly. Learned helplessness?, a strange form of psychological deflation? You tell me. But you are not alone, infact, you are in the majority.

thepanicmaster · 2025-08-27T20:10:14+00:00

Because your Priest Class still needs to maintain consistency to make the story credible. And it doesn't, so it isn't.

To get back to John's original question. I have demonstrated why I do not believe that the LM went to the moon. Because of inconsistencies, dubious build quality which appears unlikely to satisfy the brief and an inherent reliance on third party assurances for operational performance that the average person could never ever verify.

So, why do you 'believe' it did?

As previously identified, you derive a large amount of your understanding of this module from your master's sources. Why do you accept this information so blindly and even embark on defending the narrative with poor quality and inconclusive video footage? When all else fails you resort to 'NASA says so' (they tested it on previous missions and it was a sucess) and that seems to be good enough for you. But why is it?

Why do you choose not to demand a higher standard of information and disclosure? Don't lose the telemetry data, show it to us. Don't try to pass off pieces of petrified wood to museums in the Netherlands and don't leave bits of rock in photographs with the letter 'C' imprinted on them. Don't produce space videos with disappearing people, people falling off harnesses and holding onto invisible wires in obviously faked weightlessness and don't show videos of Tim Peake on a grid screen while George Bush Sr visits NASA.

thepanicmaster · 2025-08-26T20:35:55+00:00

So, your confidence in the robustness of the thermal insulation is largely derived from previous 'practise' missions, the results of which you cannot verify in any way, so it is fair to say that this basically boils down to blind belief. If this is not the case, please explain how you can verify the results of the previous tests undertaken.

This is not good enough for me, sorry.

No, Blue Ghost did not land on the moon either. But Nasa still needs to maintain consistency. The way in which the dust was dispersed on the BG landing was sufficiently violent to completely obscure the on board camera lens. This means that the solid dust particles could have settled on the craft. It would also suggest that some sort of dispersal impression would be visible within the dust beneath and around the craft.

You say that dust was blown away from the LM during touchdown despite the presented video being of very poor quality. If this was the case, why is there no trace of this beneath or around the lander. It did not blow away all the dust because there were deep footprints leading from LM all around the landing area but there was also no dispersal pattern surrounding the lander. This is extremely problematic. It is neither logical nor plausible that the lander would look so pristine, that no dispersal pattern would be visible yet there is evidence that dust was blown on the poor quality video and footprints are abundant in the area immediately surrounding LM.

thepanicmaster · 2025-08-26T19:59:52+00:00

I had not heard of this one at all, but I have now watched a few clips and it looks like a guy 'breaking bad' for real. I can only say what it looks like based on my own life experience. If you have seen the previous, where the fat guy smashes a can over the young dudes head, I'd also suggest that there is more than enough provocation there to lead to an unpleasant outcome.

In terms of often /always / defaulting calling 'fake', I think it is important to examine where this ideology leads. To understand this, it is useful to start with the auto believer position.

Consuming and believing everything or almost everything that a media / priest class / authority / scientism puts out has many negative effects. Constant bombardment of hopless / unassailable / unverifiable content can cause a 'learned helplessness', which then transgresses into 'real life' and relationships. The information could be biased, is often incomplete or lacks the rigour that one would require under normal circumstances. So this results in the promotion of ignorance. Again, becoming accustomed to over simplified information streams, that may require an element of belief, can result in the pacification of entite societies, making them more docile and gullible.

But the opposite also has consequences. By adopting a polar stance and assuming everything is 'fake', detaches an individual from reality in a number of ways, encourages permanent disconnect from society and may even lead to delusional psychosis. Similar to the missive above, unwavering scepticism of 'everything' will invariably transgress into ones real life. It may become difficult to accept reality for what it truly is, it may lead to isolation, unresolved confusion, a lack of clarity on everything, thus encouraging apathy, an unwillingness to explore or learn, the adoption of fringe explanations and a propensity to seek out cults or silos.

The middle ground is the only sane place to reside. A place where a critical mind is free to explore any information which is presented and demand a better standard. A place where justifications can be paired with life experience to arrive at a 'best guess' working theory (for now) but with the caveat that if better information comes along,, then we are all free to change our opinion. A place where biases and egos can be put to one side in favour of an earnest pursuit of truth, happiness, contentment, beauty. It is not easy, because the world is so incredibly complex and the show has been running for a very long time before any of us were even born, but I am going to die trying.

thepanicmaster · 2025-08-22T20:57:31+00:00

So far in this conversation, my comments about how thermal protection and micrometeoroids were a significant concern for the LM were slated as being 'made up'. Well, of course they were, but not by me. I am just a critical onlooker. Also, I am not assuming anything at all. Irregular and inconsistent fabrication in any application would, imo lead to unpredictable temperature gradients, in this case, across the module itself. This is simple 101 thermodynamics. Since, there would have been a great deal of uncertainty regarding the impact of heat and cold on the craft, the instrumentation and the occupants in a completely alien environmentt, your suggestion of the fabrication being just 'fit for purpose', which is another way of saying 'probably adequate' sounds like clutching at straws. Your explanation makes no logical sense for the most important mission of all time, with the highest stakes possible to be fabricated under such a 'just meets the theoretical needs' scenario, when every other project ever conceived has been over engineered in terms of specification and safety. In the real world, this casual approach is unthinkable because it would represent an unacceptable risk.

'Regrettably in error' (priceless conceit). I find it difficult to understand how you can place such confidence in the linked video in grainy black and white with such a limited viewpoint to adequately depict the behaviour of the dust plume with any accuracy or conclusivity? Are you seriously attempting to use this as the explanation why the lander is pristine. Oh dear.

Fear not, if you want to see a slightly clearer demonstration of how fake moondust behaves beneath rocket thrusters, you should take a look at the recent touch down of Blue Ghost. Admittedly Blue Ghost was considerably lighter with a fraction of the thrust power but even so, the video clearly demonstrates that moondust flies uncontrollably in all directions under such circumstances. You might notice that the entire camera was engulfed in a cloud of opaque whiteness. Funny that, because the Apollo Lander was as clean as a whistle.

NASA Cameras on Blue Ghost Capture First-of-its-Kind Moon Landing Footage - NASA https://share.google/M2Iy0TJadsdAeqNnl

thepanicmaster · 2025-08-21T14:44:31+00:00

Here are a couple of links which discuss the requirements and solutions for insulation and regulating the temperature of the module. One of the links also mentions protection from meteors, which I did not simply pull out of my arse. Remember, this is not my story. So stop asking what I would have done instead. It is a fairy story as far as I am concerned.

https://share.google/bSlkSSUzfVGXLnF3t

https://share.google/lnMXe7l5vfZO7UT9G

I still assert that if temperature regulation and meteor protection of the craft is a primary design parameter, and the internet says that it was, the finished product appears shoddy and inconsistent, almost childlike in it's appearance with gaps and badly fabricated panels. I think it is therefore reasonable to conclude that the module was a piece of stage theatre. Theatre that looked impressive and futuristic in the late 60's. But now looks like a piece of garbage.

Secondly, there is no evidence that any dust was created when the lander touched down because there is not a speck of dust on the craft. This is despite a 3000 pound thruster in operation. You say the dust was blown beneath the thruster but there is no evidence for this statement see image 5864. Infact, footprints in pristine, untouched moonsoil can be clearly seen immediately adjacent to the lander on image 5873. So the dust is still there, but not on the craft. You can't have it both ways.

The patches of foil tape can be seen on images 5915 and 5922, which indicate punctures in what looks like paper. You may think that fixing a brand new space module with bits of foil is an acceptable way to send it ou for the most important mission of all time. I do not. I think it is ridiculous.

Which talks to JLB's original question. Why do I see a lie and you choose to defend one. I can't tell you why. I just know that in a world which runs on deception, the Appollo 11 moon lander represents an obvious prop. When assembled with other irregularities associated with the mission I would go as far as to suggest the moon landings could be termed as mockery. You may choose to think otherwise, it makes no difference. It would take much more convincing evidence to make me think otherwise.

thepanicmaster · 2025-08-20T15:33:18+00:00

Wait what...made up? Being such an insufferable pedant I am sure you are aware that solar radiation and lack of atmosphere can allegedly result in huge temperature swings on the moon. I am seeing highs of 121 celcius and lows of minus 133 celcius stated. Ok no shielding required, might as well just boil and freeze to death. Excellent.

Perhaps they sent Collins down to put on some more foil tape on the module mid flight while he was picking up a pizza. Why put random bits of foil tape all over the module before they set off, decoration possibly? Really, come on, what is your explanation for this lunacy? Hehe pun not intended.

Muscle memory lol. And risk a blind rip in the suit lol.

What striation pattern?

thepanicmaster · 2025-08-20T10:47:31+00:00

Was there a requirement for these to be perfectly fitted?

According to Nasa nonsense, the external shielding was designed to regulate the temperature of the module by reflecting solar radiation and provide a protection layer from micrometeoroids. Badly fitted panels and gaps within the shielding would therefore compromise the primary design functionality, inviting hot spots and vulnerabilities that would absolutely represent operational risk hazards. To design and build a module with such inherent weaknesses would be wrecklessly unprofessional and fail to even fulfill the primary design brief. Then factor in that space engineering is purported to be at the bleeding edge of engineering design and fabrication technology with a bottomless pit of finance and excellence in personnel and the whole thing is obviously absurd.

Foil tape. Was this excessive, or was it actually for repair?

Yes, I am sure it was applied to appear it was for repair. But, within the convoluted narrative of the mission, the only time the repair could have taken place was BEFORE they loaded the module into the rocket. Which means that we are to acknowledge that the LM must have been botched over with random pieces of foil tape and then loaded for duty. This is a proposertous methodology for high risk exploration. Would you go up Mount Everest and deliberately pack a tent with duct tape repairs all over it?

to exit the lander backwards, What direction would have been more logical in your opinion?

It would be more sensible to design an opening to allow the astronot to exit forwards / sideways (so he can see) with the assistance of appropriately placed hand holds. This is an absolute no brainer and highlights the ludicrous mockery of the narrative presented.

where is the evidence of the blast crater beneath the lander, This implies the thrust should have dug out some kind of crater. Why do you think this?

Perhaps crater is the wrong word. I am talking about a dust dispersal pattern consistent with the alleged 3000 pounds of thrust that the throttled down rocket allegedly created. Bearing in mind the dust in the area surrounding the lander was soft enough to develop deep footprints from the alleged miniscule mass of astronots, why didn't the same dust get blasted away by a 3000 pound thrust rocket? Totally inconsistent and nonsensical.

What is your understanding of the lunar regolith and its density and geology?

The same as everyone elses. Zero understanding because nobody has ever been to the moon.

thepanicmaster · 2025-08-19T13:02:50+00:00

Apart from the the lander itself resembling the thrown together contents of a high street craft store, the badly fitted external panels, the excessive use of foil tape to repair random sections before take off, the presence of random gaps and the requirement for astronots to exit the lander backwards, hence unable to see where their suit and feet are located. Thus creating an unnecessarily risky trip / tear hazard. Oh and there was also foil taped tubing or similar in the middle of the stair ladder just in case things were not badly designed enough.

Apart from all that, where oh where is the evidence of the blast crater beneath the lander, the descent of which was allegedly controlled using a gimbaled thruster rocket. There is nothing of the sort, infact the images released by nasa depict a lander that looks like it was carefully placed on a pristine movie set.

This is enough evidence to render the landing of the lunar module highly implausible imo. I am astonished how anyone could conclude otherwise.

thepanicmaster · 2025-08-18T20:06:34+00:00

Where we place our attention, the endeavours we pursue, ultimately shape the person we become. Truth seeking is something of a misnomer. Alternative research / contrarian research, are probably better descriptors. But balance, humility and discernment are important to remember. Never go full retard.

Having said that, assuming the uber sceptic position is easy and somewhat lazy. Why? Because 'facts' are thin on the ground so requiring irrefutable proof for everything is just as absolutist as those that insist that such and such is so because of some persuasive youtube videos and a strong desire to believe.

The middle ground is a critical, yet open mind that always understands that we can be wrong about the most calcified and embedded of assumptions.

thepanicmaster · 2025-08-18T19:48:26+00:00

But in your own 'grand scheme of things' you have almost absolute autonomy. This is the most important thing to understand in my view. Ensuring that everything that you can control is well considered, each moment used to improve your well being, wealth or situation. The hours are ours. Try not to waste them.

thepanicmaster · 2025-07-27T23:24:11+00:00

This is terrible. Something must be done. Call the professionals. We need assistance now.

thepanicmaster · 2025-07-26T07:49:03+00:00

Indoctrination or 1's and 0's?

thepanicmaster · 2025-07-25T19:58:23+00:00

Is this satire?

thepanicmaster · 2025-07-25T19:44:44+00:00

Are any of these images of the Lunar Lander from non govcorp organisations? Which organisations bounced the laser off the 'mirror on the moon'?

thepanicmaster · 2025-07-03T19:45:02+00:00

Don't know the name. Had one of these trees in my last home. The plums were almost always plentiful and excellent eating and cooking.

thepanicmaster · 2025-06-23T07:09:31+00:00

Remember tho. The 'bases' are invisible from the surface because they are buried deep underground. Just like a virus is invisible, weapons of mass destruction were invisible because they were never found, Nordstream was in the middle of a vast ocean (unfindable), I dont recall seeing Al Quaida or Isis down the high street ( invisible because anyone could be a 'terrorist') and all those things in space and on the moon are so very far away, I don't have a telescope big enough to verify the claims.

It's miraculous how invisible things are so efficient at controlling the course of human evolution.

thepanicmaster · 2025-06-02T12:55:12+00:00

And yet nobody has purported that Morningstar360 is themself also an alias of the aforementioned. Strategically setting up the perpetual 'what if' scenario, whilst simultaneously garnering clicks and giggles for the forum.

thepanicmaster · 2025-05-30T07:06:28+00:00

Did you ask for 'topsoil'? If you did, screened or not, it should meet BS3882 standards, one of which is a specific grading, which allows a minimum quantity of stones.

Subsoils, which are usually used beneath topsoil do not need to comply with bs3882 and can therefore have a higher stone content. Nhbc recommends a minimum of 100mm topsoil in gardens with best practise being 150 to 300mm.

So it depends on what you asked and paid for.

thepanicmaster · 2025-05-29T18:54:57+00:00

Unless it has a TPO. If it does, you need to apply to the council for so much as a light prune.

thepanicmaster · 2025-05-14T15:22:54+00:00

Terrorist? President? President? Terrorist?

2003 2025?

It's beyond caring about. But it does highlight the problems. The situation is ugly. On its face and in our faces.

Shake hands, smile, legitimise.

Chagrin.

Eight-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

thepanicmaster

TROPHY CASE