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

Style indicates nothing about the strength of a position. Content indicates everything.

Go back to your critique about the Japanese SELENE.

From your extensive research, what can you tell us about your understanding of SELENE?

Given a second chance, and sufficient time to investigate further, and reflect, would you change your critique? How?

How do you think the "other side thinks" SELENE data is supposed to confirm that the NASA moon photos are genuine?

About myself, "plusser of one" has just said:

"Pablo is not a troll, but he is blinded by his disdain for America. He is a self professeded anti-capitalist, 911 "truther" who doesn't believe anything official put out by the US government. So, he believes any internet posted nonsense that supports his anti US views."

Please permit me to respond point-by-point (N.B. In the following, ALL CAPITAL LETTERS are added by me, Pablo).

A) "PABLO IS NOT A TROLL" - no I'm not. I DO wonder if any and all of those who have called me a troll will now admit that they BOTH trashed my reputation unfairly AND were just plain wrong about my motivation in participating in this debate?

-----

B) " ... he is BLINDED BY HIS DISDAIN FOR AMERICA." NO. I have absolutely NO "disdain for the MAJORITY of Americans". BUT ...There is/are MORE THAN ONE "AMERICA".

B1) THE AMERICAN SUPER-RICH: There is the America of the 545 American billionaires (with their near-total domination of America and most of the world; with their concurrent utter parasitism & degeneracy:

i) WARS / INVASIONS / COUPs-DE-TAT / SLAVERY / MASS EXTERMINATIONS: their endless wars of mass destruction (225 years out of 241 years of US existence!);

ii) POLICE / POLICE STATES: their endless use of police and police states and of spying, intimidation and torture, etc (perpetually crushing ALL labor/union movements and popular resistance movements;

iii) PROFIT GRUBBING: AND WORLD-WIDE POVERTY: their endless profit-grubbing (ALL 241 years of them getting ever-richer & more powerful; ALL 241 of THEM maintaining world-poverty);

iv) LYING, ESPECIALLY TELLING BIG LIES: their non-stop lying about anything & everything; especially their telling of Big Lies (against any that don't work for THEIR interests). possibly 10 million dead in Afghanistan, yet Afghanistan did NOT do 9/11; possibly 10 million dead in Iraq, yet Saddan Hussein fought AGAINST Al Qaida & had NO weapons of mass destruction); possibly millions of dead in Syria, yet it was NOT the Syrian Gov. which used poison-gas; 3 million dead in Korea, yet the Koreans were merely defending themselves against US Gov attempted domination; 3 million dead in Vietnam, yet the Vietnamese were merely defending themselves against US Gov attempted domination (including during the "French-"Indochina war when the US paid for 80% of the French expenses - essentially using French working people as cannon fodder for American millionaire interests); and in DOZENS AND DOZENS of other countries;

v) SEXUAL PERVERSIONS, (not much need be said NOWADAYS about this; but it has ALWAYS been the case that the ultra-rich have as SOP engaged in any and every kind of sick perversion - what else to expect of a group that ALWAYS does war, police, lies, etc.?

It is this tiny group, 1% of 1% of the 330 MILLION Americans who wreck our country AND the world;

and do it IN OUR NAME!

In sum, YES, I DO DISDAIN the 545 AMERICAN BILLIONAIRES (YOU-ALL SHOULD TOO!)

B2) THE AMERICAN "MIDDLE CLASS":There is also the "America" of the small-business owners and of the intelligentsia. This is the so-called "Middle Class"; "middle" because their interests SOMETIMES dovetail with those of the super-rich; but other times, diverge even strongly. btw, I have ABSOLUTELY NO DISDAIN for the American "middle class";

B3) THE AMERICA OF THE POOR AND WORKING PEOPLE: There is finally the "America" of the vast majority of poor and working people; whose fundamental interests (whether we realize it or not) are ALWAYS 100% opposed to: war, police, poverty, lying, perversion ... i.e. 100% opposed to the super-rich). I HAVE NO DISDAIN FOR THE POOR & WORKING PEOPLE OF THE US (AND OF THE WORLD)..

-----

C) "PABLO IS A SELF-PROFESSED ANTI-CAPITALIST": "Guilty" as charged (for the last 52 years and PROUDLY so!)

After all, ALL of the above horrors (war, police states, poverty, spying-and-lying, perversion) are ALL the direct result of capitalism!

-----

D) "PABLO IS A SELF-PROFESSED '9/11 TRUTHER'": "Guilty" as charged (more than 50% of the people of NYC, 60% of Canada and 80% of the world BELIEVE that USAma Bin Laden / Al Qaida did NOT do 9/11; but instead, that the US Gov did it. Ergo, there is NOTHING to be ashamed of for believing the truth that 9/11 was: An INSIDE JOB (By Americans (& Others); A FALSE FLAG (Blamed On Arabs/Muslims); and A BIG LIE (With Cover-Up). [It'd be totally off-topic HERE to explain WHY I am a 9/11 Truther - but I've started posting in a separate LR thread on this subject - I encourage all-interested to check that thread out - especially since I started posting there, since last month.)

-----

E) "PABLO DOESN'T BELIEVE ANYTHING OFFICIAL PUT OUT BY THE US GOV": Mostly "guilty" as charged. I don't doubt the "news" when they claim the US President, The Dumpster, has a cold; or met with such and such a world-leader; or that he accuses the Killery's of anti-Americanism (or THEY accuse him); or any number of SECONDARY, relatively UN-important things. I ONLY don't believe IMPORTANT US Gov ANNOUNCEMENTS. They ARE ALWAYS, at best, little truths to cover up bigger lies OR at worst, complete deceptions to manipulate the unsuspecting public.

-----

F) " PABLO BELIEVES ANY INTERNET ANTI-US NONSENSE": "So, he believes any internet posted nonsense that supports his anti US views." NO! Far from it! I do NOT believe the vast majority of the stuff I read / see on the Internet; including the vast majority of the Anti-US stuff. Instead, I CRITICALLY analyze everything I run across; and judge EACH CLAIM on ITS merits / de-merits. There are 100s of "Conspiracy Theories" that I REJECT. Examples:

Reptilians

UFOs

FLAT EARTH

RussiaGate

"The 'Jooz' / Jews / Israel Dominate the US Gov"

Global Warming (WHEN blamed on the majority of average people; I DO think that the there is a TEMPORARY DANGER of Global-Warming DUE TO THE DELIBERATE ACTIONS OF THE SUPER-RICH who ARE using CHEMTRAILS; and THEY PLUS MASSIVE POLLUTION FROM FACTORIES and mass-produced products (which COULD be, but are NOT, environmentally-friendly).

OTOH,

I'm SURE that the JFK-hit was a US Gov conspiracy (multiple-shooters, aimed at changing major US Gov policies).

I'm SURE that Al Qaida does not even exist (it translates as "The List" - it WAS a US Gov list of ITS Mujahadeen fighters against Russia in Afghanistan - the perpetuance of this MYTH is so that the US Gov continues to have a super-convenient BOOGEY-MAN, a pretext for ever more: wars, police and poverty (THEIR War OF Terror Against The World's Vast Majority).

-----

OVERALL, "The real deal", you are DEAD WRONG about MOST of what you accuse me of; and where you are somewhat correct; it's either because you just got lucky (when flinging around so many false accusations, you're almost bound to get a couple correctly) OR because you are deliberately EXAGGERATING.

-----

Thanx "The real deal" for giving me the opportunity to explain my views on things.

The tone is less than civil because this "discussion" was already had on another thread and eventually people got upset at the troll for not acknowledging all the points that picked apart his argument and continuing to spout bad science. So now everyone is just making fun of you for wasting your time.

Bang Zoom to the moon, you say,

"Style indicates nothing about the strength of a position. Content indicates everything."

NO; style CAN DEFINITELY indicate SOMETHING about the relative strengths-of-position of opposing sides in a debate. BECAUSE the side defending the truth has EVERY reason to take the most principled path possible; while the side opposing the truth can not, by definition, stand on its on position and MUST resort to un-principled tactics. EVERY MATURE ADULT KNOWS THIS FROM EXPERIENCE! (for example, Why is it that bullies resort to the style of intimidation while their victims don't??)

"Content indicates everything." NO. It TENDS to be far more important than style; but STYLE, as I showed above, is not at all unimportant and DOES OFTEN indicate quite a bit. (For example, in this very thread, the side claiming that NASA did NOT put men on the Moon has, especially since I suggested to Legit Question that he refrain from ad-hominems, has used a CLEAN SYTLE: while the side claiming that NASA DID put men on the Moon, has consistently filled their posts with ad-hminems and other ridicule. That SHOULD DEFINITELY TELL US SOMETHING! Again, it is NOT the MAIN THNG; but it is not nothing either.

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

About the Japanese SELENE:

I spent literally HOURS yesterday first writing an in-depth critique of the SELENE "evidence" linked to earlier in this thread; and then trying to get it posted. (Ask wejo; I emailed him repeatedly trying to solve this; then I emailed "letsrun (dot) com".) As soon as I stop having problems with the LR filters for that particular post - it'll appear.

PLEASE KEEP AN EYE OUT FOR IT!

I've been a member of LR for perhaps a couple of years; but didn't post much until the last 2-3 weeks.

I had no idea that there was a previous thread on this subject.

"Everyone" is untrue; there are a few who support my/our position (or at least acknowledge that I/we've made some good points worthy of being thought-thru. The number of "por-Moon-Landing" posters I've seen since joining this discussion is NOT overwhelmingly larger than the number of those who are not.

Naturally, I also don't agree with you that I'm wasting time. IN ALL OF HISTORY, originally-minority views have ONLY won out after long hard struggle. 100% once believed the Sun revolved around the Earth - yet it was ever-so-worth it for the helio-centrists to keep up the just struggle for the truth.

Besides, I've repeatedly said that I am NOT 100% sure that NASA didn't get men to the Moon; I'm COMPLETELY OPEN to being convinced that I'm wrong (it would be far from the first time I've been wrong about something I THOUGHT I was right about - that comes inevitably with being h_man.

Btw, I don't think that the initial post in this thread is correct - I do NOT find that photo "Unequivocal Proof That the Apollo Moon Landings Were Staged on Earth"

CORRECTION:

Someone earlier in this thread insisted I respond to a link where supposedly it was proved by independent (non-US Gov) scources that man went to the Moon. Part of that linked article was about the Japanese SELENE stuff. I DID respond in detail to the first several would-be proofs. I stated then, and repeat now, that those "proofs" utterly failed. No one has responded to that post of mine.

Otoh, my would-be post that I just referred to is Not re: SELENE; but about the Popular Sci article about the Van Allen Belts. I still can't YET get that by the LR filters - despite it NOT having any "inappropriate language" in it.

Troll ain't fooling me wrote:

Again that flat Earth troll tries to keep the thread alive. Tell us again about "water seeking flatness" and planes flying horizontally out of the atmosphere, and how there really isn't gravity because Earth is a disc always moving upward.

You have no credibility.

Again, you make a baseless claim. If the mod(s) were to do an IP check and I would welcome one, that post was not from me.

I haven't read the thread, but the fact that such a ludicrous title goes to 18 pages speaks volumes about LR MB.

PhysicalMan wrote:

The Earth's magnetosphere protects us (and near orbiters) from the Solar Wind. The Moon has no magnetosphere and thus has no protection. There is no existing technology that could protect humans in space beyond the Earth's environs.

That post was not from me. This thread has more than two who don't believe that we ever put a man on the Moon.

Hazycosmicjive wrote:

I haven't read the thread, but the fact that such a ludicrous title goes to 18 pages speaks volumes about LR MB.

Did you see "PhysicalMan's" post? He said said he's a PhD in physics who says he worked on a few missions, and that human visitstions to the moon are NOT possible.

This is probably why with the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11 coming up 2019, there are NO plans to go back to the moon for a commemorative voyage.

Is a post with good style and no content, or even worse, wrong content, better than posts with bad style, but strong content? (BTW, name calling posts generally have little to no content. They are NOT attempting to argue an opposite position, like we sent men to the moon, but rather implying that there is no debate, and, that you have other motives for prolonging an argument that was dead on arrival.) I'm looking forward to your posts on SELENE, and what if anything, you would change about your initial response, and if it contains any of the personal introspection that you promised.

poster of slightly off-topic threads wrote:

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/wife-of-apollo-15-astronaut-claims-her-husband-was-raped-on-the-moon/

Now that's a weird story. Btw, James Irwin had heart problems and died while out on a run back in 1991 at only age 61.

try honesty wrote:

The tone is less than civil because this "discussion" was already had on another thread and eventually people got upset at the troll for not acknowledging all the points that picked apart his argument and continuing to spout bad science. So now everyone is just making fun of you for wasting your time.

Bad science? I don't think so when there's a scientist posting who says he's worked on a few missions and humans can not land on the moon.

Consider this: If the moon landings were faked it wouldn't be the first time we were duped by the government and it certainly won't be the last.

foxy loxy wrote:

Bad science? I don't think so when there's a scientist posting who says he's worked on a few missions and humans can not land on the moon.

The "scientist" is one of the trolls. As you are likely to be as well.

Give it up, you idiots. Pathetic what you will do to keep the troll going.

christ you guys are pathetic wrote:

The "scientist" is one of the trolls. As you are likely to be as well.

Give it up, you idiots. Pathetic what you will do to keep the troll going.

You're being a wiseguy with this ad naseum "troll" crap. How many times do I have to post this? Pay attention:

Using the word "troll" is getting old these days. Troll is pretentious way of saying, "I don't like your comments so I'll call you a troll."

So, this is the day & age we live in now, i.e. everyone is a "troll" that has a difference of opinion on a subject. I disagree with your training program - you're a "troll." I disagree with your diet - you're a "troll." I don't like your political stance - you're a "troll." You believe the moon landings were fake...you're a "troll"...and on...and on...and on....

POPULAR SCIENCE ARTICLE ON VAN ALLEN BELTS: MUCH MORE "POPULAR" THAN "SCIENTIFIC":

https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts#page-4

N.B. Someone in this tread posted this link (my apologies for not acknowledging the original poster of the link).

EXCERPTS:

PART A: THE ACTUAL SCIENCE IN THIS ARTICLE:

"There was no shortage of threats facing Apollo astronauts on missions to the Moon. Like radiation. Specifically, the DENSE RADIATION ENVIRONMENT of the Van Allen belts that surround our planet. "

(emphasis, CAPITALIZATION, added by PABLO)

"Cosmic ray equipment on board Explorer 1 registered nearly no radiation in the region Van Allen had anticipated to be high in radiation. Unconvinced the data was accurate, Van Allen offered another explanation for the low cosmic ray count: the low reading was false and the instruments were actually SATURATED with particles trapped in the Earth’s magnetic field. Instruments on board the Explorer 3 satellite confirmed Van Allen’s hunch in March of 1958."

(MY emphasis)

"It would be IMPRACTICABLE TO SHIELD ASTRONAUTS AGAINST THE HIGH RADIATION ENVIRONMENT of the inner Van Allen belt, they said, but a moderate amount of protection could feasibly protect a crew from the outer van Allen belt."

(MY emphasis)

"They needed to know everything they could before routing a crew through this DANGEROUSLY HEAVY RADIATION ENVIRONMENT."

(MY emphasis; are you noticing how many times the words "highly/dangerous" are repeated? Yet when it came time for the actual Apollo Missions to the Moon; POOF!

][cont'd]

[cont'd]

PART 2 (of 4)

"In July of 1962, Van Allen himself addressed the American Rocket Society on radiation and Apollo. The protons of the inner Van Allen belt, he said, could be a SERIOUS HAZARD for extended manned missions [like Apollo]. But, he went on, it MIGHT BE POSSIBLE to clear out that radiation by detonating a nuclear payload in the vicinity. "

(MY emphasis)

Van Allen's suggested solution: try to "... clear out that radiation..." BUT, the subsequent attempt did NOT clear out that "serious hazard ... of dangerously heavy radiation ..."; [INSTEAD it added lots more!] "... made the radiation problem much worse.")

"(By 1969, the high-energy electrons injected into the lower Van Allen belt by the Starfish Prime event had decayed to one-twelfth of its post-test peak intensity.)”

(PABLO: 1/12th of the PEAK of a "much worse rad. problem"! is STILL a MAJOR PROBLEM!)

"It might seem FOOLHARDY in hindsight for NASA to have accepted the risks of send astronauts through the Van Allen belts without extra protection, but it was a minor risk in the scheme of the mission."

(MY emphasis; " ... foolish ..." Ya think???)

"Over the course of the lunar missions, astronauts were exposed to doses lower than the yearly 5 rem average experienced by workers with the Atomic Energy Commission who regularly deal with radioactive materials. "

(PABLO: So, compared to the very workers whose job it is to experience THE MOST dangerous levels of radiation (but who are covered in protective material, regularly and thoroughly washed off, etc), the astronauts received slightly lower does than the AVERAGE one - meaning they received HIGHER DOSES than many of the people MOST exposed to dangerous levels of radiation; while being forced to remain covered with that killer stuff & forced to wait several days for any attempt to scrub it off! How reassuring!)

"but a moderate amount of protection COULD FEASIBLY PROTECT a crew from the outer van Allen belt."

(MY emphasis; So there was no system in place to adequately protect the astronauts from the HEAVY rad. in the Lower Belts; but, PRE-SUPPOSING a “mod. amount of “protection” of 3 layers of aluminum foil???, they MIGHT (but with no guarantee at all) be protected from the less-dangerous Outer Belts. How comforting!)

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

[cont'd]

[cont'd]

PART 3 (of 4)

PART B: THE (for) POPULAR (-consumption; but "feel-good", NON-) SCIENTIFIC PARTS:

"Moon or Bust"

(PABLO: How romantic sounding, how brave, how thrilling! How little SCIENCE)

"But even with Starfish Prime, additional research into the Van Allen belts determined they weren’t a deal breaker for missions to the Moon. "

(PABLO: And we should take YOUR WORD, Popular Science, about THEIR WORD (NASA), for this??? Where's the ACTUAL DATA? ON WHAT ACTUAL SCIENCE IS ALL THIS BASED?)

"By February of 1964, NASA was confident that Apollo crews would be passing through the belts fast enough that the spacecraft’s skin and all the instrumentation lining the walls would be enough protection."

(PABLO: How "reassuring"; NOT! NASA was "confident"? Wasn’t NASA “confident” EVERY TIME they ran one of their Apollo tests? Why would they run EXPENSIVE tests if they weren’t “confident”? How many of those tests didn’t turn out so well??? Answer: MOST OF THEM! And, “confidence” based on what SCIENCE? And what's this poppycock of "all the instrumentation lining the walls" being enough protection??? Was that instrumentation SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED as dual-purpose stuff so that they could carry out their regular function AND provide such ADEQUATE PROTECTION? )

"To monitor radiation exposure during the flights, Apollo crews carried dosimeters on board their spacecraft and on their persons. And these readings confirmed NASA had made a good choice."

(PABLO: Again, how comforting. NASA and Pop. Science provide ZERO DATA; but we should rest assured, that the same NASA which had REPEATEDLY failed experiment after experiment, THIS TIME, supposedly ... actually 6-7 TIMES ... these times they "made a good choice." SURE, whatever you say NOT-BACKED by any scientific data whatsoever. How convenient - you mention scientific data when it SUPPORTS your claims; but absolutely do NOT provide it when it doesn't!)

"And in no case did any astronaut experience any debilitating medical or biological effects. "

(PABLO: And isn’t it extremely well-known and acknowledged by the world-wide scientific community that most radiation damage takes lots of time, usually decades, before the symptoms of harm finally start appearing?)

“At the end of the program, the agency determined that its astronauts had avoided the large radiation doses many feared would ground flights to the Moon. "

(PABLO: This is a logically-flawed statement. a) We should take NASA’s unverified OPINION? b) AFTER THE FACT, they “determined” what supposedly could have grounded flights BEFORE THEN???

Popular Science ends their "masterpiece":

"And beside, the Apollo astronauts were former test pilots. Flying to the Moon, radiation exposure included, was still a safer day at the office than putting an experimental aircraft through its paces in the skies above Edwards Air Force Base."

(PABLO: How “cute”! This is THE BEST argument you can end such an article with??? That, compared to their incredibly dangerous test-piloting, the Moon Missions were safer. For all we know (or are informed about) they MIGHT HAVE BEEN SAFER; and still been the SECOND MOST DANGEROUS endeavors, only exceeded by those test-flights; in other words, INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS, UNETHICALLY DANGEROUS for NASA to expose them to. We’ve been told that various Cosmonauts died – we can “imagine” they were happy to do so due to their knowledge that space-flight testing was “safer” than experimental-aircraft testing!)

[cont'd]