Finally...Unequivocal Proof That the Apollo Moon Landings Were Staged on Earth

My comments interspersed, preceded by "PABLO:" and your comments preceded by: "OMW":

On my way (OMW) You said, "Meanwhile,

Did you see the link I posted on the 3rd part verifcation of the moon landings? If you did, you haven't address each & every key piece of evidence of numerous verifications occuring back then as well as now.

PABLO: First, my apologies for having failed to review your linked material - I'll look over it as soon as I can. I partially plea to: at least I've been busy posting (and very long posts) in response to SEVERAL posts questioning my facts and thinking - it's not like I'm ducking anything - just the opposite. (I do have other responsibilities in Real Life besides responding on LetsRun). I would also note, that, CONTINUOUSLY, as I make strong points in RESPONSE to challenges by pro-NASA people here; the overwhelming majority of MY points are NOT being responded to (including by the very people who challenged me - fairness is supposed to work both ways, no? In addition, I'm getting much more "shifting of the goal posts" responses than direct & honest responses.

OMW: Okay...lets play a little game here. For argument sake, lets assume the all Apollo moon landings were all faked. Here's the problem I have with this as the logic doesn't make sense, and at times is down right ludicrous. If Apollo 11 blasted off with Armstrong, Aldrin & Collins all aboard where did it go for 7 or so days? If the CM & LEM just orbited the Earth for several days, wouldn't other nation's tracking radar systems pick it up and realize there's some funny business going on with NASA? ? How about the thousands of astronomers around the world that were tracking the mission? How many orbits would the CM complete over several days before re-entry? And Armstrong, Aldrin & Collins are all going to go along with this monumental conspiracy becoming American heros on a scale of the highest magnitude for a faked accomplishment? And how do you keep them quiet? Were they getting paid-off to keep quiet? Were they monitored 24/7 by the CIA? What about the president? Was Nixon in on the skeme?

PABLO: These are all "arguments from incredulity"; i.e., YOU can't (or don't want to) believe it, so therefore it must not have happened. Haven't we all been surprised to learn things we believed the complete contrary about? AMERICANS have ZERO PROBLEM believing that every other government on Earth (EXCEPT THE US) is corrupt and/or has engaged in nasty-corrupt things. Our ONLY problem is accepting that the US Gov is no different; in fact, in its 241 years of existence, A HUMONGOUS SAMPLE SIZE, it has been at war for 225 of those years - yet the overwhelming majority of Americans believe that the US is not only a peaceful country; but THE MOST PEACEFUL country in the world.

PABLO (cont'd): In other words, there is a HUGE DISCONNECT between REALITY and what AMERICANS believe.

In THIS case of the Apollo Missions, NASA had virtually total control over the information. AND the entire world was hoping it was true - so was as gullible as it ever could be. About the observers of the world: when the "Piltdown Man" was first revealed, ALL the scientists of the world believed it for decades; until ages later it was revealed as a hoax. When THE most powerful government on the planet (the US Gov) wants to hide something (and is the only source of info) AND when, simultaneously, virtually all scientists are hoping its claims are true - the snow-job becomes quite a bit easier to pull off.

PABLO (cont'd): About Armstrong etc. Have YOU seen the interviews they gave???? These guys had just supposedly done something UNIQUE, FIRST MEN ON THE MOON (never before done, and no one would ever by "first" again). They SHOULD HAVE BEEN GLOWING with pride of accomplishment, beaming with joy - yet they HANGED THEIR HEADS (as if in shame!). During the following decades, they repeatedly avoided interviews (or were held away from being interviewed) and the few times they did speak, it was with great reticense. Talk about something making no sense! Were they "supervised" i.e., "controlled" to ensure they didn't speak the truth? Such happens as SOP all over society, especially the military-related projects (including NASA). How could such surprise you?

PABLO (cont'd): About Nixon: I'm not privy to the info he may have been given; but I would guess that he DID know. It appears clear that after the first few years, NASA realized that they could not complete JFK's mandate (by 1969) of landing men on the moon and bringing them safely back. NASA KNEW THIS because they kept missing deadlines and meeting failure after failure, particularly with the rockets themselves! Meanwhile, the whole world had been questioning American leadership - what with NASA being SEVERAL YEARS behind the Soviet space program. Nasa's choices were: admit defeat before the whole world (something TOTALLY unacceptable to the US image back then in its "life-and-death struggle-vs-communism") OR FAKE SUCCESS. I'm 99% sure they went with faking success. BUT they would have admitted this to precious few insiders, keeping everybody else, including their own scientists and the Apollo Mission contractors IN THE DARK.

OMW: So, I take it 11 was so successful in fooling the world that NASA decided to it all over again with an Apollo 12 encore? Why perform another faked moon landing when NASA already pulled off the first one with such precision? Why wouldn't Nixon announce that America accomplished it's mission with Apollo 11 and cross it off the bucket list?

PABLO: Perhaps you haven't thought this through very much or very well? The Apollo Mission Project was a HUGE CASH COW - of course, IF NASA was faking it; they would continue to do so (what military cash-cow program is ever proposed to be discontinued BY THE MILITARY? - NONE!) Besides, repeated "successes" are more convincing than just a one-time "success" (as everybody, including one would suppose, YOU, should know). Vis-a-vis the increased risks of additional missions: EVERY ORGANIZATION does "cost-benefit" analyses of its projects. Assuming NASA got away with Apollo 11; SURELY THEIR analysis would be that it would only get easier (to fool Americans and the world) with each following mission. Keep in mind that the US had BOTH: gotten its a** kicked in the space race before then AND it was getting its a** kicked in Vietnam - with millions of Americans in the streets protesting (I'm personally super-familiar with the Anti-Vietnam War Movement because I dedicated 40+ hours a week, 50+ weeks a year, 1965-1975 to helping to end that US Gov slaughter of 3 million innocent people - in fact, I became a top Anti-War Movement leader in San Diego for the last several years of that struggle - giving many speeches, traveling around the US (and Canada and Mexico), authoring many articles in leaflets, pamphlets and journals, attending endless demonstrations, etc). The Apollo Missions played a HGE role in distracting the Anti-War Movement AND the American people FROM the world-record-breaking brutality/criminality of the US Gov! (Heck, the #1 thing WE talked about at our million-strong peace marches was the Apollo successes! That's how influential the Apollo (Hoax) was. Further, whenever we announced our next mass demonstration, NASA announced its next Moon success - and the numbers of people who showed up at our demonstrations, though HUGE, were FAR LESS than we AND the US MEDIA anticipated - exactly because of the effect of the "successful" American achievements on the Moon.

OMW: And next with Apollo 13 - this makes absolutely no sense in keeping the momentum going with fake moon landings. Why would NASA send Lovell, Haise & Swigert into Earth orbit and then fake a serious malfunction with an explosion that put the world on panic for several days? Why would Lovell, Haise & Swigert go along with such a dramatic script, having to retell the story to the American people for years & years to come? Or did 13 actually try to get to moon leaving Earth's orbit and real expolsion did occur?

PABLO: Perhaps(?) you should do a bit more research yourself. Did you know that AMERICANS were already complaining about the Apollo Program during Apollo 12 - because the coverage was interrupting their regularly scheduled programming. Why? Because people had already started getting used to NASA's "perfect success rate." Why wouldn't NASA fake a "hair-raising life-and-death criisis"? Hollywood makes millions off of spectacular crises. btw, the way the Apollo 13 astronauts solved their technical crises is STRAIGHT OUT OF HOLLYWOOD (farcical). Do you actually believe their hocus-pocus about surviving so long without life-sustaining systems fuctioning; and using DUCT TAPE etc???

OMW: I could go on & on with the subsequent Apollo missions that were supposedly faked after 13 but it would be pointless since you've failed to address these issues and more importantly the 3rd party verifications presented in the link:

PABLO: I've promised to both look over and respond to your linked stuff.

fyi, I can only speak for myself; but I'm no Flat Earther; and do believe MOST of what NASA claims it as done (JUST NOT THE MOON-LANDING stuff).

I am 100% sure that the Flat Earth "Movement" was/is set up by the US Gov as a ridiculous & backwards campaign to confuse people generally (especially the religious fundamentalists with their Young Earth of 6,000 years) WHILE trying to smear all HONEST investigators of real US Gov conspiracies with the brush of "see they're just like the Flat Earthers - how ridiculous!"

Have you-all noticed how the Flat Earthers also promote religious-fundamentalist, Bible-inspired: firmament? a barely-disguised all-out attack on all things scientific?

Pablo Novi wrote:

Have you-all noticed how the Flat Earthers also promote religious-fundamentalist, Bible-inspired: firmament? a barely-disguised all-out attack on all things scientific?

Yes.

Defense contractor wrote:

Legit question wrote:

You are naive. NASA is essentially a military organization with info-classification being standard protocol when things 'fall' into national security.

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB509/

First of all, a Flat Earther calling me naive is really funny. Secondly, your post doesn't respond to my point that it would be less risky to actually try to land on the moon than to try to fake landing on the moon.

Then you have suspend belief, that NASA had the technology to fly safely through the Van Allen Belts in the 1960's and can't do it today because they "lost" the technology. Comedy.

Legit question wrote:

Defense contractor wrote:

First of all, a Flat Earther calling me naive is really funny. Secondly, your post doesn't respond to my point that it would be less risky to actually try to land on the moon than to try to fake landing on the moon.

Then you have suspend belief, that NASA had the technology to fly safely through the Van Allen Belts in the 1960's and can't do it today because they "lost" the technology. Comedy.

I will revise my remarks. You live in a fantasy world, if you believe NASA lost that technology. You are hilarious.

Legit question wrote:

Defense contractor wrote:

First of all, a Flat Earther calling me naive is really funny. Secondly, your post doesn't respond to my point that it would be less risky to actually try to land on the moon than to try to fake landing on the moon.

Then you have suspend belief, that NASA had the technology to fly safely through the Van Allen Belts in the 1960's and can't do it today because they "lost" the technology. Comedy.

Is that even a sentence, you dumbfuck? Comedy.

QUOTE:

"Independent evidence

In this section are only those observations that are completely independent of NASA—no NASA facilities were used, and there was no NASA funding. Each of the countries mentioned in this section (Soviet Union, Japan, China, and India) has its own space program, builds its own space probes which are launched on their own launch vehicles, and has its own deep space communication network.

SELENE photographsEdit

In 2008, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe obtained several photographs showing evidence of Moon landings.[1] On the left are two photos taken on the lunar surface by the Apollo 15 astronauts August 2, 1971 during EVA 3 at station 9A near Hadley Rille. On the right is a 2008 reconstruction from images taken by the SELENE terrain camera and 3D projected to the same vantage point as the surface photos. The terrain is a close match within the SELENE camera resolution of 10 metres.

AS15-82-11121: Apollo 15 Lunar Roving Vehicle

AS15-82-11122: Apollo 15 photo

3D SELENE reconstructed photo

The light-colored area of blown lunar surface dust created by the lunar module engine blast at the Apollo 15 landing site was photographed and confirmed by comparative analysis of photographs in May 2008. They correspond well to photographs taken from the Apollo 15 Command/Service Module showing a change in surface reflectivity due to the plume. This was the first visible trace of manned landings on the Moon seen from space since the close of the Apollo program.[2]"

PABLO:

What a SCREAM!

Here we have YOUR BEST "EVIDENCE" and what do we find?

1) That despite REPEATED CLAIMS by NASA, every few years, that "this time we finally have the technology / telescopes necessary to prove we were on the Moon" it was not even NASA who first provided "proof"!

2) It was ONLY in 2008 (almost FOUR DECADES LATER) that anybody supposedly actually provided "proof"!!! And not by sending men "back" to the Moon! (If it was worthwhile for Japan to send a probe in 2008,. why in the world was it not worthwhile for anybody to do so in the preceeding DECADES???

3) YET we are not presented with an ORIGINAL photo, but a "reconstructed" one - whatever that means, it certainly means that doubt should be called for vis-a-vis this "evidence". They get all the way there, but can't provide a DIRECT PHOTO???

4) WORSE, MUCH WORSE, STILL: The "reconstructed photo" does not include any actual evidence of the US Manned Moon Mission! True the photo LOOKS like the NASA photo; but isn't a tiny something or two missing????????? Like the Lunar Landing Module AND the Lunar Rover - which SHOULD BE in that very photo!!!!!

--------------

Ladies & Gentlemen (of the jury), in the face of THE BEST "EVIDENTIARY PROOF" of the "success" of the Apollo Missions, WE REST OUR CASE!

Nice work, Pablo! 12 pages in and these NASA sheep still can't win.

While you cast RIDICULE around; you MIGHT want to THINK for a moment. Of course, in English, A single word CAN BE a sentence IF the preceding sentence(s) make it obvious what point is trying to be made. This is CORRECT ENGLISH (from a life-long, 50+ years) English (ESL) teacher.

And YOU call HIM a "d*mbf*ck"???? Irony!

But it IS revealing that you STOOP to TRYING to ridicule that which is the WEAKEST of your opponent's arguments Iand it's "weak" only relatively speaking, it DOES stand on its own) - IF you had a real case to stand on. the principled thing to do would be to try to refute the BEST of your opponent's arguments.

I want to believe that America put a man on the moon but i dont. If it ever happened something went completely wrong and they covered it up with some bs or it never happened in the first place.

LQ,

Thanx (again) for the compliment. (It is an honor to post in the same thread with someone like you who has the strength-of-character to BOTH: challenge a major US Gov story & put up with the all-sided on salught of UNPRINCIPLED criticisms aimed as us Apollo debunkers.

I DO have a suggestion (nothing more than a suggestion) for you. In my 52 years of heavy-duty peace-justice activism, I've NEVER found that using ridicule of one's opponent(s) is an EFFECTIVE means of convincing OTHER PEOPLE who are either not sure and/or open to change their minds. Instead, it TENDS to push the opponent into ever-more ferocious self-defense and subjectivity and TENDS to discourage the on-lookers / observers because it comes across (in conjunction with our opponents' ferocious and unprincipled attacks) as if both/all sides are "equally" (or almost equally) unprincipled. So, my suggestion to you would be for you to refrain (as much as you can stand to) from "ad hominems" - attacking the person rather than their message.

I've been in and lived in other countries, and it can easily be seen, that n comparison with Americans, seemingly every th people is more humble / less arrogant. Asssuming ths to be the case (or even close to true) doesn't it behoove us to use EXTRA CARE (something our opponents do not do) in HOW we present our arguments? So as to give them every chance to (finally) see the flaws in their own positions (OR, as it sometimes turns out, allow them t convince us of the flaws in our positions)?

Noted. We Americans are indeed an arrogant people, very true. I will refrain from ridicule as long as the individual presents a well thought out argument. However, if an individual only replies with 100% insults, then it's fair game that I will dish it right back.

You have much more knowledge & experience about Apollo than anyone else on this thread. I consider you as THE expert on NASA. Most of the posters on this board were not even alive in the 60's. You, on the other hand experienced it as it happened. I was just a kid in 2nd or 3rd grade during Apollo 11.

Continuing on to the second and third "PROOFS" of Apollo on the Moon:

"the Moon seen from space since the close of the Apollo program.[2]

Chandrayaan-1Edit

As with SELENE, the Terrain Mapping Camera of India's Chandrayaan-1 probe did not have enough resolution to record Apollo hardware. Nevertheless, as with SELENE, Chandrayaan-1 independently recorded evidence of lighter, disturbed soil around the Apollo 15 site.[3][4]

Chang'e 2Edit

China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2, which was launched in 2010 is capable of capturing lunar surface images with a resolution of up to 1.3 metres. It claims to have spotted traces of the Apollo landings, though the relevant imagery has not been publicly identified.[5]"

MORE SCREAMS OF LAUGHTER!

1) You-all admit that, even in the late 2000s you supposedly still can't even photograph Apollo hardware. YIKES.

2) The "best" you've got s "evidence of lighter, dsiturbed soil around the Apollo 15 site." That's it???? You can NOT prove it IS the Apollo 15 site despite them having left behind quite visble evidence of their "presence"; and then you want honestly sceptical people to just accept that the disturbed soil was due to Apollo activities and not due to ANYTHING ELSE in the last 4 decades?

3) Better still: "China's second lunar probe" ... "CLAIMS" (Pablo's emphasis) ... with ZERO, INDEPENDENT, CONFIRMATION??? (Isn't the very name of this Wiki page about INDEPENDENT CONFIRMATION???) You-all fault us for doubting the word of the (ever-lying) US Gov; yet YOU don't doubt the word of the so-called "red-commie" Chinese Gov??

That's RICH! WOW!

N.B. I've now reviewed the first THREE "PROOFS" and have shown that ALL THREE are not proofs at all. (Three strikes and you're out!)

Legit question wrote:

Nice work, Pablo! 12 pages in and these NASA sheep still can't win.

Your nonsense claims, like the one you repeated again above about not being able to pass thru the Van Allen Belts have been challenged and shown false numerous times in this thread, but you keep bringing them up and pretend it's a new argument.

Well I guess that's what trolls do. But you certainly are not winning. You and your alter egos haven't convinced anyone. You have succeeded in wasting my time and others who have posted pages of facts throughout here, and the thread is back on page one, so in that sense you are winning.

Pablo Novi wrote:

While you cast RIDICULE around; you MIGHT want to THINK for a moment. Of course, in English, A single word CAN BE a sentence IF the preceding sentence(s) make it obvious what point is trying to be made. This is CORRECT ENGLISH (from a life-long, 50+ years) English (ESL) teacher.

And YOU call HIM a "d*mbf*ck"???? Irony!

But it IS revealing that you STOOP to TRYING to ridicule that which is the WEAKEST of your opponent's arguments Iand it's "weak" only relatively speaking, it DOES stand on its own) - IF you had a real case to stand on. the principled thing to do would be to try to refute the BEST of your opponent's arguments.

Cute backstory, bro. But this is the sentence that was butchered, dumb dumb:

“Then you have suspend belief, that NASA had the technology to fly safely through the Van Allen Belts in the 1960's and can't do it today because they "lost" the technology.”

Wow, thanx for taking my SUGGESTION into consideration.

About my knowledge of NASA / Apollo: I make ZERO claim to being an expert; I merely claim to being a life-long critical thinker (ever since between 1963-1967 in a high school seminary (studying to be a Catholic (Carmelite order) priest) THEY endlessly insisted we pray for the AMERICAN soldiers but NOT for the "damned commies". That scandalized me. I spoke in opposition to this pro-American Gov nonsense and was attacked in every way (short of expulsion) possible. They lowered my honor-role grades, isolated me from all my friends, continuously harrassed me. Talk about being forced to open one's eyes!

So, in 1965 I attended my first peace-justice demonstration (a Pro-Palestinian, Anti-Zionist one) and, there learned of the absolute brutality of the US Gov (vis a vis Vietnam). That afternoon I decided to dedicate ALL my free time for the rest of my life to actively seek truth and fiight for peace-justice. Prior to that, I had already become a sceptic of the JFK-hit; and soon afterwards, started doubting Apollo - and poured tons of hours into TRYING to figure it out.

btw, another very influential factor in "me becoming me" was the "Red Scare". Every single day atgrammar school, we would HIDE UNDER OUR PUNY DESKS to "protect" ourselves from the "Red Commie H-Bombs". Talk about traumatizing an entire generation! Once I began to realize that THAT had all been US Gov propaganda; my intellectual floodgates opened up for good.

An example: On 9/11, I was up in the mountains on a 5 hour solo run. I heard on my head phones about the Twin Towers. I raced home and stayed glued to the TV set. As hour passed hour, I started having a sinking feeling: something was not right; not right at all. And then my, "US Gov PROPAGANDA ALERT" went off. It was the ENDLESS REPETITION of the 2nd "plane" crash and Twin Tower "collapses" - mass American suffering was previously TABOO - not allowed on TV - yet here it was, rubbed in our faces ENDLESSLY. I asked why (remembering my previous experience from the JFK, Apollo & Anti-Vietnam War Movement activism - and it was suddenly obvious: BRAIN-WASHING OF THE MASSES thru endless repetition of a Big Lie.

That is a major accusation. Are you saying that Pablo or Rayo is me? Nope. I post as LQ and no one else. Nobody accuses Flagpole using fake handles on the political threads, he stands behind what he says and I respect him for sticking to his guns. I stand by what I write and place no faith in the NASA narrative.

As for "nonsense" claims, you still have no answer for the lack of RF delay when Houston Control spoke to the Apollo crew while they were supposedly on the Moon.

It may be hard for you to believe, but there are others who have read this thread and don't believe that we landed on the Moon. However, they are probably afraid to admit it.

I feel "damned if I do, damned if i don't" here.

What you complained about is NOT WORTHY of continued discussion (would-be bad grammar in ONE SENTENCE). On the other hand, if i don't respond, it's like admitting you are right ... so here goes ...

It was YOU (not I or LQ) who, immediately after the sentence, "Comedy." ridiculed a sentence for faulty grammar. You could have not included that and your point would have been much clearer. Given that people sometimes, in arrogance, criticize one-word "sentences"; it was completely reasonable for me to interpret what you said the way I did.

Instead of being humble and honest, and admitting YOUR mistake, you ad-hominen attack me ("dumb dumb").

Years from now, IF you read over what you've written, you'll be embarrassed at your arrogance and sectarianism.

btw, there are TONS of sentences just in this thread that are decidedly worse than this one by LQ - so why ever focus any attention on it?

Let's please TRY to keep this a civil discussion, where the focus is where it should be, on our MAJOR DIFFERENCES, ok?