LoP Guest  Wrote:

Whats funny (to myself that is) when you play with these moon landing detractors, they become little children trying to rise above the "logic" of what has been presented..

They are Fun toys to play with (IMO)...

For instance, I had some idiot trying to convince me we did not go to the moon, dragging up old archive photos, and pointing to light and shadow incongruities (not realizing how light works in an environment with "no atmosphere" BTW.. ) ..

So I was getting rather "guilty" pleasure in destroying this persons illogical thinking, by pointing out the flaws in their arguments (we all have our flaws.. ), even going as far as using Photoshop to pull out tiny details by simple color and light alterations, to show where they are "wrong" (guess the idiot didn't think I could use the internet as well as they could )...

What I got out of this, is that it is a mental sickness with them, like so many before them (such as esteemed scientists of notoriety, mathematicians who have invested 30 years or more in a concept not realized, suddenly being proven wrong)

It is a sickness of the mind, that comes out as rage, disbelief, anger, frustration, and hopelessness, leading to the final act of salvation "Total ignorance" of the data presented to them, a self serving salvation mode of operation, as they are too delicate in psychological behavior patterns to deal with the "truth"...

Truth is like sucking on the most tart lemon ever made, while a lie is the sweetest tasting thing one can ever have the pleasure of eating, and really great lies, are aware that all lies need a grain of truth to make it a balanced taste of "sweet & sour" (to use as an example... )

We have gone to the moon, "possibly" are still going under black project guises, but to say that we did not, is ignorance plain and simple...

The real argument, mr strawman, is that the Apollo program vehicles did not go to the moon, nor could they have with a living cargo.

Of course humans have been to the moon. But not in tinfoil "space capsules" launched on top of big firecrackers.

LoP Guest  Wrote:

Whats funny (to myself that is) when you play with these moon landing detractors, they become little children trying to rise above the "logic" of what has been presented..

They are Fun toys to play with (IMO)...

For instance, I had some idiot trying to convince me we did not go to the moon, dragging up old archive photos, and pointing to light and shadow incongruities (not realizing how light works in an environment with "no atmosphere" BTW.. ) ..

So I was getting rather "guilty" pleasure in destroying this persons illogical thinking, by pointing out the flaws in their arguments (we all have our flaws.. ), even going as far as using Photoshop to pull out tiny details by simple color and light alterations, to show where they are "wrong" (guess the idiot didn't think I could use the internet as well as they could )...

What I got out of this, is that it is a mental sickness with them, like so many before them (such as esteemed scientists of notoriety, mathematicians who have invested 30 years or more in a concept not realized, suddenly being proven wrong)

It is a sickness of the mind, that comes out as rage, disbelief, anger, frustration, and hopelessness, leading to the final act of salvation "Total ignorance" of the data presented to them, a self serving salvation mode of operation, as they are too delicate in psychological behavior patterns to deal with the "truth"...

Truth is like sucking on the most tart lemon ever made, while a lie is the sweetest tasting thing one can ever have the pleasure of eating, and really great lies, are aware that all lies need a grain of truth to make it a balanced taste of "sweet & sour" (to use as an example... )

We have gone to the moon, "possibly" are still going under black project guises, but to say that we did not, is ignorance plain and simple...

The real argument, mr strawman, is that the Apollo program vehicles did not go to the moon, nor could they have with a living cargo.

Of course humans have been to the moon. But not in tinfoil "space capsules" launched on top of big firecrackers.

Christians ask, is there anybody out there in space? My Bible says, no.

The real argument, mr strawman, is that the Apollo program vehicles did not go to the moon, nor could they have with a living cargo.
Of course humans have been to the moon. But not in tinfoil "space capsules" launched on top of big firecrackers.

Care to tell us why not a single manned mission since the Apollo program has even tried to pass through the Van Allen belt?

Care to explain why it takes a modern day unmanned moon probe three months to get there, but the Apollo boys were there and back in less than two weeks?

Care to explain why ham radio operators were picking up broadcasts from the lunar orbiter when it was supposedly on the other side of the moon?

Again what does Dr. Van Allen say about the Van Allen belts being impenetrable barriers for human space flight?

How NASA Fabricated Moon Landing Images
The following photos show blood vessels on the moon?

This really bears repeating:

link to image: http://imgupld.lunaticoutpost.com/graphi...899711.jpg

No wonder its so easy to manipulate people. Correllation =\= Causation Mechanisms describe events, end of story.

None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.

[size=medium]How NASA Faked Moon Landing Images, Part II

mstra  Wrote:

The real argument, mr strawman, is that the Apollo program vehicles did not go to the moon, nor could they have with a living cargo.
Of course humans have been to the moon. But not in tinfoil "space capsules" launched on top of big firecrackers.

This really bears repeating:

link to image: http://imgupld.lunaticoutpost.com/graphi...899711.jpg




mstra  Wrote:

Care to tell us why not a single manned mission since the Apollo program has even tried to pass through the Van Allen belt?

http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html Please read through that before
you step in it deeper. Or don't. Your choice.



mstra  Wrote:

Care to explain why it takes a modern day unmanned moon probe three months to get there, but the Apollo boys were there and back in less than two weeks?

They used gravity assistance rather than gigantic liquid fueled
rockets. Couldn't you tell the difference or are you just too lazy
to think about it?




mstra  Wrote:

Care to explain why ham radio operators were picking up broadcasts from the lunar orbiter when it was supposedly on the other side of the moon?

And where is that assertion coming from? It's the first time I've
ever heard that claim. I know a HAM who listened to the broadcasts
in real time when they happened. None of it was encrypted either.

DrPostman  Wrote:

mstra  Wrote:

The real argument, mr strawman, is that the Apollo program vehicles did not go to the moon, nor could they have with a living cargo.
Of course humans have been to the moon. But not in tinfoil "space capsules" launched on top of big firecrackers.

This really bears repeating:

link to image: http://imgupld.lunaticoutpost.com/graphi...899711.jpg




mstra  Wrote:

Care to tell us why not a single manned mission since the Apollo program has even tried to pass through the Van Allen belt?

http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html Please read through that before
you step in it deeper. Or don't. Your choice.



mstra  Wrote:

Care to explain why it takes a modern day unmanned moon probe three months to get there, but the Apollo boys were there and back in less than two weeks?

They used gravity assistance rather than gigantic liquid fueled
rockets. Couldn't you tell the difference or are you just too lazy
to think about it?




mstra  Wrote:

Care to explain why ham radio operators were picking up broadcasts from the lunar orbiter when it was supposedly on the other side of the moon?

And where is that assertion coming from? It's the first time I've
ever heard that claim. I know a HAM who listened to the broadcasts
in real time when they happened. None of it was encrypted either.

Y'know, postman, I don't like you. Never have, since I first saw your establishment butt-licking postings at GLP. Mostly I find you boring as hell, other times you are annoying like a whiny dog. Across the board, you have nothing to say that is either worthwhile or original, and never have. Not that I have seen.

There was a time in my life, long ago, when I thought that "being smart" was being able to quote from or point to what the establishment had decided was "the truth" or "the facts". I got over that by the time I reached my late teens. You never have. You have only one argument, pointing to establishment dogma as authority. "This person says so, and they are an authority, according to establishment media, and everyone who matters agrees." That's it, your only argument. Your only other tactic is to try to mock anyone who doesn't worship consensus and authority.

I am not impressed nor even affected by an argument that rests on nothing except the inane repetition of consensus and the citing of those designated by the establishment as authorities.

You might as well hang a sign around your neck saying "whatever is pronounced by those the media tells us are the experts, or is agreed upon by the establishment, is the truth". It would save you time.

You did not explain or answer any of my questions above. But I will go ahead and answer one of yours. It was Galen Hieronymus, and he came to the wrong conclusion as to why.

Y'know, postman, I don't like you. Never have, since I first saw your establishment butt-licking postings at GLP. Mostly I find you boring as hell, other times you are annoying like a whiny dog. Across the board, you have nothing to say that is either worthwhile or original, and never have. Not that I have seen.

There was a time in my life, long ago, when I thought that "being smart" was being able to quote from or point to what the establishment had decided was "the truth" or "the facts". I got over that by the time I reached my late teens. You never have. You have only one argument, pointing to establishment dogma as authority. "This person says so, and they are an authority, according to establishment media, and everyone who matters agrees." That's it, your only argument. Your only other tactic is to try to mock anyone who doesn't worship consensus and authority.

I am not impressed nor even affected by an argument that rests on nothing except the inane repetition of consensus and the citing of those designated by the establishment as authorities.

You might as well hang a sign around your neck saying "whatever is pronounced by those the media tells us are the experts, or is agreed upon by the establishment, is the truth". It would save you time.

You did not explain or answer any of my questions above. But I will go ahead and answer one of yours. It was Galen Hieronymus, and he came to the wrong conclusion as to why.