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

You mean besides Voyager, Pioneer, Mariner, Venera, Viking, Galileo, Cassini, New Horizons, Juno, Mars Orbiters, and the hundreds of MEO and GEO satellites that orbit Earth at this very moment? Then yes besides all of those and many more we have never sent anything farther than 400 miles out. How in the world does this country get to such a high level of scientific illiteracy? Have you ever heard of satellite TV? My god.

The real deal wrote:

Here's the deal with these two conspiracy theorists.

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.

Legit Question is a troll. Why argue with someone who has no concept of gravity and thinks a plane flying straight would continue to fly horizontal and leave Earth's atmosphere. No one is so stupid to believe that, so he is a troll.

This whole thread is a waste of time. These two idiots have no credibility.

Exactly. Well said.

And "I'm Starting To See The Light" is one of them, regardless of their earnest cries of innocence. They have almost no one left to keep trolling so the made up a "converted believer", lol - most people have figured out the never-ending point of the troll; only the truly stupid remain, thinking they will "*finally* find that *one* thing to devastate them, lol. (hint: It won't happen, It's a circular troll). The idiots will still keep thinking they will eventually find that one thing, though.

So easy to see through. It's a good troll; ensnares a lot of people.

(their reply to me will be "So you have nothing to contribute, in other words?" - which is troll-speak for, "Wait... you're supposed to spend time looking for "proof" for me! The troll only works that way!)

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.

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."

Btw, who are you addressing those questions about gravity, water seeking flatness, etc. to? You've responded to my post where I said the two posters have provided insightful info that's changed my perception of the moon landings, and I asked the hard question why we haven't gone back in 4 decades.

Maybe you need to be a little more thorough on who's post you're are responding to. There's such a thing as quote block that easily identifies the post you're talking about.

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.

Pablo Novi wrote:

5) MASSIVE WAR-SPENDING = MASSIVE UNDER-FUNDING OF HELP-PEOPLE PROGRAMS: To finance that war (in which the US Gov dropped more bombs on that tiny country than all the bombs in all of human history dropped by all armies!) two main things had to be done: a) CUT ALL SOCIAL SERVICES TO THE BONE; b) put the next generations in debt thru gargantuun budget-deficits thru US bank loans to finance the war.

I'm trying to get the angle you are working here. US income inequality was lowest during the Vietnam War. Johnson and Democrats believed in the Philips Curve during the 1960s so they were trying to generate full employment through inflation which dilutes the cost of government debt.

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.

Man Overboard wrote:

per Newsweek.

Enjoy & Discus

http://www.newsweek.com/fake-apollo-moon-landing-photo-claims-show-proof-mission-was-hoax-716221

Anyone that actually believes this is an idiot. Also probable still things the earth is flat. As i recall, Buzz Aldrin punched one of these idiots that accosted him about it. Great video.

I have worked on a few space missions, have a PhD in Physics and my publications are on a recommended reading list for many graduate programs. Human visitations to the moon have not been possible.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Man Overboard wrote:

per Newsweek.

Enjoy & Discus

http://www.newsweek.com/fake-apollo-moon-landing-photo-claims-show-proof-mission-was-hoax-716221

Anyone that actually believes this is an idiot. Also probably still thinks the earth is flat. As I recall, Buzz Aldrin punched one of these idiots that accosted him about it. Great video.

DAMN let me rephrase that (above).

PhysicalMan wrote:

I have worked on a few space missions, have a PhD in Physics and my publications are on a recommended reading list for many graduate programs. Human visitations to the moon have not been possible.

Wow...impressive. You're are probably one of the first with mainstream credentials to say anything like that. This debate is about to get very interesting.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Man Overboard wrote:

per Newsweek.

Enjoy & Discus

http://www.newsweek.com/fake-apollo-moon-landing-photo-claims-show-proof-mission-was-hoax-716221

Anyone that actually believes this is an idiot. Also probable still things the earth is flat. As i recall, Buzz Aldrin punched one of these idiots that accosted him about it. Great video.

The enlarged photo off the reflection looks like a guy wearing a hoodie with his hands in his pocket. I thought you needed to wear a spacesuit on the lunar surface? ?

I Want To Be A Space Cowboy wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Anyone that actually believes this is an idiot. Also probable still things the earth is flat. As i recall, Buzz Aldrin punched one of these idiots that accosted him about it. Great video.

The enlarged photo off the reflection looks like a guy wearing a hoodie with his hands in his pocket. I thought you needed to wear a spacesuit on the lunar surface? ?

Must also be an aspiring rapper.

PhysicalMan wrote:

I have worked on a few space missions, have a PhD in Physics and my publications are on a recommended reading list for many graduate programs. Human visitations to the moon have not been possible.

Don't tell Buzz Aldrin that, especially if you are within arms reach.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

I Want To Be A Space Cowboy wrote:

The enlarged photo off the reflection looks like a guy wearing a hoodie with his hands in his pocket. I thought you needed to wear a spacesuit on the lunar surface? ?

Must also be an aspiring rapper.

Or it could be Ron Howard on a break from the set of Happy Days.

... even if you don't agree with their convictions. Stop the ad-homonems.

please be kind and respectful... wrote:

... even if you don't agree with their convictions. Stop the ad-homonems.

Yeah right. Respect the flat Earth troll, Legit Question, who calls everyone "Globetards" in his stupid flat Earth thread and then posts more stupid trolling here.

Nice try on stepping up the trolling on this page with "expert" that just joined. Um yeah, okay.

Stupid trolley troll trolling.

Troll ain't fooling me wrote:

please be kind and respectful... wrote:

... even if you don't agree with their convictions. Stop the ad-homonems.

Yeah right. Respect the flat Earth troll, Legit Question, who calls everyone "Globetards" in his stupid flat Earth thread and then posts more stupid trolling here.

Nice try on stepping up the trolling on this page with "expert" that just joined. Um yeah, okay.

Stupid trolley troll trolling.

Are you crying?

Respect the Trolls.

MIGHT THE S-T-Y-L-E OF POSTING OF THE OPPOSING GROUPS HERE INDICATE SOMETHING ABOUT THE STRENGTHS OF THEIR/OUR POSITIONS?

Minor point, but not totally unimportant for illuminating the thinking of the "Yes, Apollo landed on the Moon" side of this debate.

It was asserted in no uncertain terms that I was the alter-ego / dupe account of Legit Question (seemingly on the sole basis of the two of us having agreement on ONE issue: our contention that NASA didn't put a man on the Moon).

Subsequent to that, I posted four things germaine to this point:

1) My suggestion to Legit Question that he stop using ad-hominems (something he seemed to have done a lot of and then agreed to avoid generally);

2) My statement that I disagree with Legit Question that humans can never get past the Van Allen Belts (I THINK but am far from sure, that in the future we'll ship up to low Earth orbit enough lead (and robotic assemblers) to build a space ship capable of getting humans safely thru the radiation challenges).

3) My statement of belief that the Flat Earther "Movement" is being manipulated by the 545 American billionaires for THEIR interests THRU an appeal to Bible-based religious fundamentalists, i.e., an all-out rejection of all things scientific.

4) My statement that I TEND to accept as fact MOST of NASA's claims EXCEPT about putting men on the Moon.

AFTER I had made those points; no one (including those who previously did so) has accused me of being Legit Question's alt-account; yet none have owned up to their incorrect assertions-as-fact. Hmmm

Contrarywise, I have, in EVERY CASE where I have been shown to have erred in any way ... I have owned up to my mistakes (i.e., "sloppiness on my part").

----

I propose to all IMPARTIAL observers of this debate that you-all OBSERVE the S-T-Y-L-E being employed by the two sides. On our, "No, NASA didn't put men on the Moon" side, we've mostly and increasingly stayed away from ad-hominems, (endless) use of the word "troll", and use of ridicule in general. Whereas the other side has pretty much CONSTANTLY used exactly those UNPRINCIPLED terms and tactics.

I propose that resorting to unprincipled means is a CLEAR sign of weakness - and, thus, INSTRUCTIVE in and of itself.

----

btw, the only possible time, that it MIGHT be alleged that I went "over-board" was the ONE time I called ONE claim as "outright lying". The author of what I criticized complained about this BUT did admit that his claim had been wrong. He/she attributed this to too-quickly-done-research of the matter (which I graciously accepted the self-criticism of) - yet, one could certainly make the case that it sure SEEMED like "outright lying" - because his/her original claim (made with 100% assurety) was that batteries were NOT used on Apollo; but instead fuel cells - which WAS dead wrong.

-----

My Point Here:

If / when one can not (at least temporarily) figure out who is right and who is wrong in a debate vis-a-vis the C-O-N-T-E-N-T, it CAN BE QUITE USEFUL to pay attention to the S-T-Y-L-E each side uses in that debate. My contention being that, while naturally the are exceptions, IN GENERAL, the side that "fights" the cleanest (guided most by higher moral principles) is the side closer to the truth; and vice-versa. After all, why resort to ad-hominems IF you've got truth on your side. (And, people should be aware, that in a "mud-slinging" contest, both / all sides tend to get smeared with the same brush - i.e., it TENDS to make both sides look bad - which is the exact opposite interest of the side defending the truth).