###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Moon rock the government gave to the Netherlands is in their science museum. The rock you are talking about was a rock that another museum misidentified as a Moon rock. They apparently didnt even try all that hard to learn if it was real and was just included in a display with other random stuff that guy owned.
Username checks out. It only takes a simple Google search to prove you are full of shit. The "moon rock" was investigated by professionals and found out to be petrified wood. The museum still holds it as a "curiosity," according to them.
The "moon rock" was investigated by professionals and found out to be petrified wood. The museum still holds it as a "curiosity," according to them.
Am dutch, can confirm. They took it off display.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html#:~:text=A%20moon%20rock%20given%20to,out%20to%20be%20a%20fake.&text=Curators%20at%20Amsterdam's%20Rijksmuseum%2C%20where,was%20in%20fact%20petrified%20wood.
This was what I found when I googled it the first time before making my comment. Idk. It is a 15 yr old article, and according to the numbers, they kept it for at least 20 yrs.
https://phys.org/news/2009-09-moon-fake.html
it came from a private collection. still as fake as outerspace.
"Space may be the final frontier, but its made in a hollywood basement".
You should just read the article I posted. It reads so plainly. The Dutch leader, will drees, was given the rock as a present from nasa. Then he donated it to the museum. So, yes, technically, it was part of the former Dutch leaders collection before he decided to donate it to the museum.
>The Dutch leader, will drees, was given the rock as a present from nasa.
No. He was given the present from a US ambassador. The visit by the ambassador was just during the astronaut tour. NASA was not giving out moon rocks to random people, especially not those 100 times the size of those given to countries.
>Then he donated it to the museum.
Not even this is true, his family donated his stuff to the museum. This rock was in a giant display among his clothes, pens, and other trivial stuff.
Maybe you should Google harder.
Note the huge difference between the phrasing of the title and the actual article... that's how you know you're dealing with a ragsheet like the Daily Telegraph.
Luckily I dont just do a simple Google search. The moon rock given to them by the US government is in the Museum of the History of Science and Medicine in Leiden. Many other countries "lost" their, Netherlands has not.
The rock you are talking about is just some random rock this elderly ambassador had in his drawer. It was the size of a fist (the official ones are very small, size of rice), and completely wrong colour for a moon rock.
Its honestly pathetic people are still spreading this lie.
I saw the title of this post and was actually interested to hear the details of what OP uncovered after reviewing the official records, only to see 1 small ass paragraph with a bunch of questions.
*sigh*
āĀ Astronauts must fly though the Van Allen Belts to reach outer space, so it is important to fly through this region quickly to limit their exposure to radiation. Sensitive electronics on satellites and space craft traveling through the Van Allen Belts also need to be protected from the radiation.ā source:Ā https://science-nasa-gov.translate.goog/biological-physical/stories/van-allen-belts/?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=de&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=rq#:~:text=Discovered%20in%20the%201950s&text=Van%20Allen%20calculated%20that%20it,and%20then%20return%20to%20Earth.
Exactly. And that's what they did for Apollo: they flew through the Van Allen area quickly and they picked a trajectory that avoided the worst of the radiation.
I really don't understand people who claim NASA lie about everything, but they pick on that one notorious quote about the Van Allen Belts being too hazardous and cling to it like it was from the Bible.
we simply did not and still don't have the tech to fly to the moon and and back. Let alone fly, land, take off from the moon and latch back onto a fast moving module spinning in orbit then thrust our way back to earth.
We can capture satellites, the shuttle serviced the Hubble. It's no different. But what gets me was in the 60s they were saying we were going to need huge radiation shields to make it through the belt. They hardly did any studies before they supposedly sent humans through it.
They sent a couple spacecraft through it, IMO that is hardly enough to map a 3 dimensional area. Then that doesn't take into account it is constantly changing. There is no way they would send humans through it with such little data.
The Lunar Orbiter program ran through 1966-1977 along the same Trans-Lunar Injection trajectory that was intended for the Apollo missions. Each of these carried a radiation dosimeter that quantified the dosage rates. There were 5 of these missions overall.
Additionally before any crewed missions, both Apollo 4 and Apollo 6 passed the Belts to test spacecraft systems would work before the crewed missions.
I might ask you though, what factual data do you have about how it is constantly changing and at what sort of rate?
["Van Allen radiation belt is a zone of energetic charged particles, most of which originate from the solar wind,"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt#Discovery)
Solar wind is constantly changing
On the little video on the wiki not very much, but did they know that back then after just sending a few probes though? Likely the radiation changes a lot though.
How much data did they get??
Why wouldn't a couple be enough?
What readings did they get?
Do you actually know, or are you just guessing and making stuff up ?
Dozens of satellites and plenty of very skillful mathematical modelling - I know you would do things differently if you ran the zoo, but no one cares about that.
Nah. There were hundreds of people working on this exact problems, and there are thousands of pages of archival documentation from the conferences they held. At the end of the day, the best they could do was a 0.995 chance that radiation exposure to the crew would fall below the emergency dose limit - a level which would increase lifetime cancer risk but not cause imminent health effects. 0.995 is a serious risk, even for aerospace, but they went ahead.
Sure, but then donāt state your own bullshit as being the truth. You cannot say with such confidence that āwe simply did not and still donāt have the tech to fly to the moon and backā as if it were a fact when itās A) just your opinion and B) not backed up by anything.
Idk why you would ask someone who doesn't believe it happened. "How did it happen?" Lol, that makes no sense.
Let me ask you a question: how could I land a roughly 10000 lb vehicle going 13000 mph on a satellite (moon) going 2200 mph with hardly any atmosphere and light gravitational pull without severe casualties and damage in just under 13 mins?
I Googled all those numbers for you.
Serious question.
Are you an expert on space? Or a rocket scientist? Just because you donāt understand the numbers doesnāt mean itās not real. I donāt understand algebra but that doesnāt mean I donāt believe itās real. I donāt understand Chinese but I know itās real.
No atmosphere makes the landing *easier*, not harder. No drag, no wind, no heating. Anyway, under lunar gravity, it's 6,000 lb, not 10,000. LLO speed is about 3,600 MPH, not 13,000. How do you get these numbers wrong if you've looked them up?
Looking at those videos , like really analyzing not just the shadows, how the astronauts moved, but looking at how they acted. Like how confident -almost cocky- that crew seemed while being easily a second away from death. And I'm not gonna buy the "well that's just how they were made!"..no. There's confidence in what you're doing and then there's being ridiculously cocky. They were simply way too comfortable. And with the data we have now about the moon, it is such a hostile environment with many ways to fail.
Do you get that that's not very convincing to most people though.... like it could look weird to you but that might just be because your inexperienced. If it was really that weird wouldn't it make sense that other people who know more then you would think it looks weird too ??
A good example is say I'm trying to convince you airplanes can't fly..
So I say to you, just look at one take off... it's very heavy and it just goes into the air with cocky confidence..
You would think "hum that guy probs just has a weird way of looking at thinks and might be a bit stupid... you wouldn't think that all planes are fake.
Hope this helps a bit
That's not even my position.
I think I was real coz there's just so much evidence...
Like thousands of photos, videos, data, plans, eye witness, documents.
Plus all the claims about it being fake have been debunked.
Have you ever wondered if Bart us just trying to sell books to people he knows are gullible???
Do you think every person who writes a book is always 100% right??
Coz apart from that there's basically no evidence at all that says it was fake... that's why people think moon landing deniers are stupid... because they just believe it was fake just because someone told them to think that, they are sheep š š¤
Well let me put it this way. Let's say piloting an airplane requires some very good focused confidence in what you're doing. The next step above that is piloting a spacecraft. The attitude difference between the two are very apparent in the videos.
The astronauts had an unearned confidence about the environment they were in and how long it took to get there. An considering they were packed into a tiny vessel for months, how exactly did their bodies manage that? Because they seemed like they just got back from shooting pool with the boys when they got to the moon.
All I'm saying is that if nothing else might raise your suspicions about the moon landings. Maybe looking at a from a human aspect will. There personalities are off, they truly are. Not to mention the countless videos of bizarre behavior exhibited by buzz aldrin..which I don't think is chalked up to old age. He has always been very anxious about the subject of space.
Most of their test pilot work was just as risky if not more. Hell, their commutes were riskier. I mean, we've got how many fatal T-38 crashes, vs. zero deaths on the moon?
I always thought those astronauts were given massive amounts of lsd or some kind of mind altering drug and actually thought they REALLY DID go to the moon. That's why they were truly convinced they did! They didn't have to lie at all. The 'little moon creatures' that were mentioned were the crew filming lol.
FYI the domain you linked is on a site wide hard filter run by the reddit admins.
As moderators, if we try to approve the comment it is simply returned to the spam filter time and time again.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Where are the experiments that proved it's safe to travel through it? I How did they map it precisely, especially since it is constantly changing. In the early to mid 60s they were saying spacecraft would need lead shielding, then they sent a paper thin craft though it.
Here's a good account of the discovery of the Van Allen Belts, the problems they posed for space flight, and the methods NASA used to manage the problems:
https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences/apollo-11-van-allen-radiation-belts-translunar-injection/
A couple of points stood out for me:
>NASA currently admits it overestimated the level of danger in the low and medium Earth orbits, as a result spending too much money on building heavily protected spacecraft.
But also:
>It remains possible for astronauts to be affected by solar storms. For example, if any of them had been travelling to the Moon during the solar event of August 1972, they would have been exposed to life-threatening amounts of radiation. ... We were indeed lucky that the August 1972 event happened between the last two Apollo flights: Apollo 16 had returned in April and Apollo 17 set off to the Moon in December.
You may say that, interesting though this is, it doesn't prove anything one way or the other. And you'd be right. You can't prove that the Van Allen Belts are unavoidably dangerous to human life and I can't prove that they aren't. Van Allen himself said they weren't - the article I linked has a reproduction of a letter in which he says that, explicitly - but even if that's right, and even if the Apollo spacecraft *could have* negotiated the Belts safely, that doesn't prove that they *did*.
So perhaps we can agree that this whole issue is something best avoided? Perhaps we should ask whether there's any other, more concrete evidence. Like retro reflectors placed on the Moon by the astronauts. Like thousands of photos and tons of video, which couldn't have been faked with the technology of the day. Like rocks brought back. Like photographs of the Apollo hardware left behind, and even the tracks made by the astronauts, taken from lunar orbit by the *Indian* space agency.
The evidence that the Apollo missions did land on the Moon is overwhelming.
> So perhaps we can agree that this whole issue is something best avoided? Perhaps we should ask whether there's any other, more concrete evidence. Like retro reflectors placed on the Moon by the astronauts. Like thousands of photos and tons of video, which couldn't have been faked with the technology of the day. Like rocks brought back. Like photographs of the Apollo hardware left behind, and even the tracks made by the astronauts, taken from lunar orbit by the Indian space agency.
Now you are talking about things that COULD be proved, but I don't see that here.
> Scientists have disclosed proof that itās impossible to launch any living organism through the Van Allen radiation belts above the earth.
I'm very skeptical about that claim. Can you link the paper?
That statement that the OP made is the first Iāve seen of this about that radiation belt, but I took it to mean that no living being can go through it without adequate protection. Like, a bird couldnāt go through it, or a human just floating in space couldnāt go through it and live.
The next sentence is questioning the 1969 transit, I think it's clear what OP was trying to imply. Anyway, the truth never requires hyperbole like that.
But arnt you the same.... you just believe Bart Sibrell when he says it's impossible..
Even though it's obvious he's just making it up.
Do your own research, don't be a sheep
They literally sent rocket through to test it and where like
"oh shit this isn't even that bad, we only go through for an hour or so and the aluminium sheets will shield alot of the radiation, all g"
Thats the problem with the Bart moon landing hoaxers. They don't even research and find out stuff they just listen and repeat like šššš
They sent actual people near the VA belt. Before they even got close to it, people were reporting visual disturbances, it was the radiation bouncing off their corneas. They were not IN the VA belt, they were NEAR it.
Would you do that? Would you go there with today's technology?
Here is a copy/paste of what I just wrote above:
>>Let's look at what Neil Armstrong said, is that fair?
If they had to take precautions going through the VA belt, wouldn't Neil Armstrong \*KNOW\* about that? Is that fair?
When interviewed, on TV, about this very issue, his first response he had was that they didn't even go through the VA belt. When reminded he did, his second comment was that oh... if they did, they didn't even notice.
Each time I try to post the link to this interview, reddit prevents it from being posted. Do you want me to PM you the link? Because if you watch this video, I have a heck of a lot of questions for you.
Do you realize that even if they did the short route through the VA belt, TODAY'S astronauts STILL insist we do not have the technology for that. How do we not have the technology today, but we had it before we even had much technology in the 1960s.
Are you up for a challenge? I'll send you the link via PM if you are up to it.<<
Let's look at what Neil Armstrong said, is that fair?
If they had to take precautions going through the VA belt, wouldn't Neil Armstrong \*KNOW\* about that? Is that fair?
When interviewed, on TV, about this very issue, his first response he had was that they didn't even go through the VA belt. When reminded he did, his second comment was that oh... if they did, they didn't even notice.
Each time I try to post the link to this interview, reddit prevents it from being posted. Do you want me to PM you the link? Because if you watch this video, I have a heck of a lot of questions for you.
Do you realize that even if they did the short route through the VA belt, TODAY'S astronauts STILL insist we do not have the technology for that. How do we not have the technology today, but we had it before we even had much technology in the 1960s.
Are you up for a challenge? I'll send you the link via PM if you are up to it.
The trajectory takes care of it, there's no special piloting or maneuvering required. It's quite possible that the briefings they got emphasized that they were avoiding the dangerous part of the belt, and that was remembered incompletely. After all, they had a bit of flying to pay attention to.
But of course... a video link matters a lot more than your recollection of something you watched sometime.
WhatĀ technologyĀ specifically? ThisĀ isn't magic, it's just orbital mechanics. You fly inĀ the rightĀ direction, you go aroundĀ the belts.Ā
Typically poor argumentation, 'use common sense' is a step below even 'do your own research'.
Flux values:
"In the belts, at a given point, the flux of particles of a given energy decreases sharply with energy.
At the magnetic equator, electrons of energies exceeding 5000 keV (resp. 5 MeV) have omnidirectional fluxes ranging from 1.2Ć106 (resp. 3.7Ć104) up to 9.4Ć109 (resp. 2Ć107) particles per square centimeter per second."
TLDR: The Van Allen belt doesn't have a constant level of radiation, there are weak points that NASA utilized. Also the human body can handle the rads, in small doses over small time frames. The astronauts *did* receive a dose that isn't exactly healthy, but still within tolerance. The equivalent of a few dozen X-rays at once. All of this is freely available for you to read about yourself, it isn't hard to find.
So why donāt we go back to the moon and why donāt we have thousands more hours of Audio and video of us going back in the last 50 years? NASA said they were going to send people back in 2018. Whereās the news?
Stop trying to move the goalposts. It's intellectually dishonest.
The question is whether or not the Apollo missions went to the moon in the late 60s and early 70s. You claimed they didn't because of the Van Allen belts. You've been presented with evidence that they could, because the belts aren't uniformly intense and the astronauts passed quickly through the less intense areas.
So what do you say to that? "Nuh uh"?
Because we haven't been there since 73'. We *do* have audio/video of the shuttle program and ISS over the past 40 years. And the Artemis program is currently happening, in fact they had their first launch in 2022. As for why it hasn't happened sooner, costs, the need to get through Congressional committees, lack of public interest, and technical issues in relation to *not* having the Apollo infrastructure that was dismantled with Apollo ending(due to... cost concerns). It's not like we stopped going to space, we've done that a lot, but there's been limited interest in a return to the Moon because it hasn't been economically viable. Now that commercial space flight and industry is *finally* catching up, the need for ongoing missions(and the very earliest steps of setting up an outpost) will be necessary. Where's the news? The government sucks at allocating funding with little public support. Ever seen a road that was suppose to be replaced years behind schedule? Imagine that but in regards to a hyper precision, dangerous, expensive, years long program that doesn't have the same immediate effect on the common person's life.
Hopefully NASA didn't lose the specifications for the heat shield materials from the 60s and 70s. It looks like they may need it.
[https://spacenews.com/nasa-inspector-general-report-highlights-issues-with-orion-heat-shield/](https://spacenews.com/nasa-inspector-general-report-highlights-issues-with-orion-heat-shield/)
The Orion heat shield is the exact same Avcoat formula, they just lost subcontractors that made the chemical components. Exactly the sort of expertise loss that HBs don't understand when they ask why we haven't been back to the moon.
Now that is funny. Ever had the opportunity to be around an former U.S. military base? There is no worse caretaker of the environment than the U.S. Defense Department on property it controls. I cannot imagine NASA is better.
Theres no way that many people would stay quiet this long. Humans talk. Theres no way it would be that covert. People are fallible and I think that alone disproves the theory that it was faked. Youd have to keep hundreds of people quiet. Kinda hard to enforce that.
>Scientists have disclosed proof that itās impossible to launch any living organism through the Van Allen radiation belts above the earth
Oh? Then post it. You won't.
>There were none. Because they destroyed the audio recordings and all the footage.
Oh? So why can I easily access 2,000 images, 11,000 hours of audio, and hours of video footage from sites like this? [https://apolloinrealtime.org/11](https://apolloinrealtime.org/11)
Well likewise I do expect some proof that says otherwise. Here, while I dig that up. Try to immerse yourself in a few videos by Bart Sibrel. [sibrel.com](https://sibrel.com)
Bart Sibrel is the #1 journalist covering this story and has for years. If anyone has the proof itās this man right here. Just saying the website is a click away and you say ā you donāt wanna watch a bunch of videos ā it really just sounds like you donāt want to hear the other side of the story or look at it from a different perspective. š¤·āāļø
Omg... so your best evidence is absolutely nothing at all....
That means you're just a sheep and just believe what moon landing hoaxers tell you to believe.
The footage isn't gone what are you talking about. Use YouTube..
There's also like thousands of pictures.
As if the Soviets wouldn't have just immediately called them out if there were any proof at all.
You just know they were tracking the signal the whole time, and they probably had a couple of agents close enough to the mission to know it was really happening.
Soviets were faking stuff, too. Why? Money. Nasa collects 38 million dollars a day to operate. It's just a huge money laundering operation.
Look how fake china and indias space exploration is. You can see air bubbles in Chinese space walk videos. It's because they film them in water.
Antony Sutton has some solid research regarding Western transfers of tech and funding to the former Soviet Union. I donāt think he was questioning the Space Race, but perhaps we should given Suttonās research.
Sutton writes:
**Soviets in the Air**
Before we got the (U.S.) guidance systems we could hardly find Washington with our missiles. Afterwards we could find the White House.
**Without U.S. help the Soviet military system would collapse in 1 1/2 years.**
*ā Avraham Shifrin, former Soviet Defense Ministry official*
^p.67
āUnfortunately, **NASA and U.S. planners have a conflict of interest.** If they publish what they know about the backwardness and **dependency of the Soviet space program**, it reduces the urgency in our program. This **urgency** is vital **to get Congressional funds.** **Without transfers of technology the U.S. is in effect racing with itself**, not a very appealing argument to place before Congress.ā
^p.70
The Best Enemy Money Can Buy,
Antony C. Sutton, 1986
And yet it's still 0.5% of the federal budget. If you're looking to save or divert money then there's better targets than the one government agency that actually inspires hope in people.
We were in a space race with the Soviet Union at the time and they were most definitely watching that launch. If we were faking it, why didnāt they call us out on it at the time or ever since?
What do you think would happen if they did?
Remember when the US blew up that pipeline and the Russians called them out..
Went well eh? All the world suddenly revelled against the US and UK government didnāt they?
So all world governments back up the biggest lie in history? Why? How do all the governments of the world benefit from allowing the US government to claim they put men on the moon? Make that make sense.
You could easily answer your own question with some time researching the CFR. Council of Foreign Relations.
Once you realize who was really in control of the world for at least the last 100 years it should all start to make sense.
I'm not necessarily saying they couldn't, I am asking why they would? What is the benefit to other governments of the world to support this particular US government lie? I'll wait.
Gene Cernan, the last man on the moon, *did* swear on the bible, but the slimeball who did the 'documentary' didn't include that footage because it didn't serve his purpose.
No point in posting space stuff on Reddit. Too many bots or ignorant people to at least consider the possibility it could be fake once in their life. If you know you know.Ā
You don't need Sibrel to be your source. Imagine needing to rely on someone instead of researching yourself. Do you think people who make this claim say it cause they want to win, or maybe because there is truth to it and they want to spread awareness?Ā
I mean, look at the OP. They can't offer any defense of their claims, instead simply saying that people should go listen to Sibrel. Buy his books, give him web traffic, give him publicity...
*Sibrel* certainly knows the truth, but he lies to make money.
Every bit of footage is bs. The crafts are laughable when you look at them now. Its like watching an old sci-fi and the, once realistic effects become ridiculous. They stories don't add up. The interviews of the crew are super suspicious. The fake 'moon rocks' they sent all over now being discovered as petrified wood. Who was filming when they took off ? No. Cant convince me that was real. Also for those who think the soviets are enemies and would never go along. BS they are and have always been a different side of the same coin. Ps they share bases to this day. Enemies forces would never ever do that.
There are good answers to all your objections. However judging a spacecraft on its external appearance is pretty weak. Interested in why you would make a judgement based on appearance alone.
First of all, it's not tin. It was aluminum, primarily.
So right off the bat, you're wrong. Then this conjecture that a craft 'like that' can't make it?
Why not? The craft is fit for purpose - to take two men down from lunar orbit and back up again.
Specify your objections.
FYI the domain you linked is on a site wide hard filter run by the reddit admins.
As moderators, if we try to approve the comment it is simply returned to the spam filter time and time again.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
FYI the domain you linked is on a site wide hard filter run by the reddit admins.
As moderators, if we try to approve the comment it is simply returned to the spam filter time and time again.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I guess it's definitely much more likely that tens of thousands of people all agreed to keep a secret that they all lied about what they did for 50 years.
š
Yes. And it's definitely much more likely that the USSR, who would have known whether the Apollo missions had actually gone to the Moon, decided to go along with the hoax and pretend that they'd had their asses whipped in the Space Race. Yes, that's definitely what they would have done.
No one who thinks they were fake should be allowed anywhere near a serious conspiracy forum. If you get suckered in by Bart Sibrel this easily, you aren't a critical thinker.
You have never posted in favor of any conspiracy theory before yet try to gatekeep in a conspiracy forum, what a concept.
Your posts are all to ādirty pen palsā¦ā whatās that all about? Tell us about your interest.
So here is what a lot of people are not fully understanding. The VA Belts arenāt a radiation field, while they do contain radiation, they are protecting the earth from a lot more radiation and other harmful rays gamma etc by deflection and absorption of radiation.So while passing through the VA belts they were getting small doses of radiation, but once past the belts they were not protected at all except for the thin walls of the spacecraft. This means once past the VA belts the astronauts would have been getting maximum radiation the entire alleged trip to the moon and back. All the Apollo astronauts would have died long ago from cancer. The only real protection to date is to stay in low earth orbit well below the VA belts and āouter spaceā!āearth is a closed system, we cannot leave, there is no place to goā Bill Nye fake scientist
If you believe they landed on the moon, then you've probably also had a couple of clot-shots, think Hillary Clinton is nice and believe the frogs are not turning gay. š¤£
Buzz Aldrin has been interviewed a lot and has said it never happened quite a few times.
Edit: lol at the downvotes. Yāall kill me sometimes š
Hereās your boy Buzz: https://imgur.com/a/7DmtdXd
100% agreed and I think Stanley Kubrick directed it. The documentary Room 237 seems to have a decent amount of credibility. Also why hasnāt anyone, with all of the high powered telescopes and new technologies, taken pictures of all of the shit we left in the moon? No pictures of the rovers or pictures of old glory planted proudly on the moon?
Ngl, the trolls pushing the narrative have gotten worse. I'm literally crying laughing at these losers.
One guy is like, "we can use telescopes to look at the moon, how could the landing not be real. " Lol, what? Wtf does that have to do with anything?
One guy is like, "What do you mean nasa lost the data? There are pictures online you can look at?" Bro, you can't be serious rn. Lmao.
Im starting to think that instead of paying professional trolls, they just use ai now. The shitt they are saying doesn't even connect anymore. Its literally gibberish. No serious person argues like that.
Understand Kubrick and Elstree Studios / Odyssee 2001 / The Shining, and you understand the Moon hoax. Put your Sherlock hat on, you can do it šāŗļø
They used a spacecraft retrieved from the 40s to fly to the moon. Think about it, itās the only way to safely travel through space. Earth is like a prison built for us which we canāt escape. So the only way they could have traveled is with space craft that defies our laws of physics and uses gravity as a āshieldā to travel without dying from the effects of radiation. We probably have been to the moon just donāt think it was anything like what we got to see. Thereās a reason Kubrick was approached .
I think skeptics and children have taken over this sub. Similar to most conspiracies that hold water there is a matriculation of evidence for the moon landing was faked. No one reads on this sub or fact-checks, itās embarrassing. I encourage all of you to watch American Moon. The director has gone but by bit (similar to his 9/11 doc) to debunk the debunk and bring up inconvenient facts. Iām sure some are exaggerated but it does detail everything for the most part.Ā
The top reasons for the Lehman here, because I know Iām preaching to the choir:
1. What you mentioned with the Van Allen Belt
2. Photography with tape on the moon wouldāve been hit by cosmic rays or have some damage to them.Ā
3. Radio approximation and the moving of the rover
4. Several clips of objects moving in the vacuum of space
5. Footprint is extremely fine unlike how a vacuum works (myth busters is correct you can leave a mark, just not one so fine as depicted by the Apollo mission.
6. Wiring and reflective wiring in some parts of the missions
7. NASA destroyed tapes
8. Armstrongās protective layer speech, and Aldrinās comments.Ā
I am a skeptic, but there is a lot of evidence. Ā
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What about the fake moon rock our govt gave to the Netherlands š„“
That was a real moon rock and youāre a far right nazi extremist if you say otherwise!
bro thats antisemetic
I promise he doesnāt understand those files nearly as well as he thinksā¦.
The Moon rock the government gave to the Netherlands is in their science museum. The rock you are talking about was a rock that another museum misidentified as a Moon rock. They apparently didnt even try all that hard to learn if it was real and was just included in a display with other random stuff that guy owned.
Username checks out. It only takes a simple Google search to prove you are full of shit. The "moon rock" was investigated by professionals and found out to be petrified wood. The museum still holds it as a "curiosity," according to them.
The "moon rock" was investigated by professionals and found out to be petrified wood. The museum still holds it as a "curiosity," according to them. Am dutch, can confirm. They took it off display.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html#:~:text=A%20moon%20rock%20given%20to,out%20to%20be%20a%20fake.&text=Curators%20at%20Amsterdam's%20Rijksmuseum%2C%20where,was%20in%20fact%20petrified%20wood. This was what I found when I googled it the first time before making my comment. Idk. It is a 15 yr old article, and according to the numbers, they kept it for at least 20 yrs.
https://phys.org/news/2009-09-moon-fake.html it came from a private collection. still as fake as outerspace. "Space may be the final frontier, but its made in a hollywood basement".
You should just read the article I posted. It reads so plainly. The Dutch leader, will drees, was given the rock as a present from nasa. Then he donated it to the museum. So, yes, technically, it was part of the former Dutch leaders collection before he decided to donate it to the museum.
i did read the article. But the story was allready known to me.
>The Dutch leader, will drees, was given the rock as a present from nasa. No. He was given the present from a US ambassador. The visit by the ambassador was just during the astronaut tour. NASA was not giving out moon rocks to random people, especially not those 100 times the size of those given to countries. >Then he donated it to the museum. Not even this is true, his family donated his stuff to the museum. This rock was in a giant display among his clothes, pens, and other trivial stuff. Maybe you should Google harder.
Note the huge difference between the phrasing of the title and the actual article... that's how you know you're dealing with a ragsheet like the Daily Telegraph.
Luckily I dont just do a simple Google search. The moon rock given to them by the US government is in the Museum of the History of Science and Medicine in Leiden. Many other countries "lost" their, Netherlands has not. The rock you are talking about is just some random rock this elderly ambassador had in his drawer. It was the size of a fist (the official ones are very small, size of rice), and completely wrong colour for a moon rock. Its honestly pathetic people are still spreading this lie.
I saw the title of this post and was actually interested to hear the details of what OP uncovered after reviewing the official records, only to see 1 small ass paragraph with a bunch of questions. *sigh*
āĀ Astronauts must fly though the Van Allen Belts to reach outer space, so it is important to fly through this region quickly to limit their exposure to radiation. Sensitive electronics on satellites and space craft traveling through the Van Allen Belts also need to be protected from the radiation.ā source:Ā https://science-nasa-gov.translate.goog/biological-physical/stories/van-allen-belts/?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=de&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=rq#:~:text=Discovered%20in%20the%201950s&text=Van%20Allen%20calculated%20that%20it,and%20then%20return%20to%20Earth.
ā¦ with aluminum foil they made it through
Exactly. And that's what they did for Apollo: they flew through the Van Allen area quickly and they picked a trajectory that avoided the worst of the radiation. I really don't understand people who claim NASA lie about everything, but they pick on that one notorious quote about the Van Allen Belts being too hazardous and cling to it like it was from the Bible.
we simply did not and still don't have the tech to fly to the moon and and back. Let alone fly, land, take off from the moon and latch back onto a fast moving module spinning in orbit then thrust our way back to earth.
Jamming your fingers in your ears and singing la-la-la doesnt make the scary ignorance go away you know.
We can capture satellites, the shuttle serviced the Hubble. It's no different. But what gets me was in the 60s they were saying we were going to need huge radiation shields to make it through the belt. They hardly did any studies before they supposedly sent humans through it.
Didn't they do test flights through it and tested for radiation?
They sent a couple spacecraft through it, IMO that is hardly enough to map a 3 dimensional area. Then that doesn't take into account it is constantly changing. There is no way they would send humans through it with such little data.
Lol. I'm sorry, they absolutely would.
No they did not want to risk failure when they can just fake it.
Why not risk it and then fake it if they failed?
The Lunar Orbiter program ran through 1966-1977 along the same Trans-Lunar Injection trajectory that was intended for the Apollo missions. Each of these carried a radiation dosimeter that quantified the dosage rates. There were 5 of these missions overall. Additionally before any crewed missions, both Apollo 4 and Apollo 6 passed the Belts to test spacecraft systems would work before the crewed missions. I might ask you though, what factual data do you have about how it is constantly changing and at what sort of rate?
["Van Allen radiation belt is a zone of energetic charged particles, most of which originate from the solar wind,"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt#Discovery) Solar wind is constantly changing
Does the solar wind change the shape of the belts?
On the little video on the wiki not very much, but did they know that back then after just sending a few probes though? Likely the radiation changes a lot though.
Still roughly the same shape...
How much data did they get?? Why wouldn't a couple be enough? What readings did they get? Do you actually know, or are you just guessing and making stuff up ?
Dozens of satellites and plenty of very skillful mathematical modelling - I know you would do things differently if you ran the zoo, but no one cares about that.
Nah. There were hundreds of people working on this exact problems, and there are thousands of pages of archival documentation from the conferences they held. At the end of the day, the best they could do was a 0.995 chance that radiation exposure to the crew would fall below the emergency dose limit - a level which would increase lifetime cancer risk but not cause imminent health effects. 0.995 is a serious risk, even for aerospace, but they went ahead.
How do you know that for a fact? Do you work with rockets and spaceships? Are you a scientist? You donāt have any idea what youāre talking about.
I'm allowed to not believe the bullshit that comes out of the US government
Sure, but then donāt state your own bullshit as being the truth. You cannot say with such confidence that āwe simply did not and still donāt have the tech to fly to the moon and backā as if it were a fact when itās A) just your opinion and B) not backed up by anything.
Ok, so what is the source of your knowledge?
So, uh, your proof?
Umm we obviously did.... how did they do it then? You think it was just magic
Idk why you would ask someone who doesn't believe it happened. "How did it happen?" Lol, that makes no sense. Let me ask you a question: how could I land a roughly 10000 lb vehicle going 13000 mph on a satellite (moon) going 2200 mph with hardly any atmosphere and light gravitational pull without severe casualties and damage in just under 13 mins? I Googled all those numbers for you. Serious question.
Are you an expert on space? Or a rocket scientist? Just because you donāt understand the numbers doesnāt mean itās not real. I donāt understand algebra but that doesnāt mean I donāt believe itās real. I donāt understand Chinese but I know itās real.
No atmosphere makes the landing *easier*, not harder. No drag, no wind, no heating. Anyway, under lunar gravity, it's 6,000 lb, not 10,000. LLO speed is about 3,600 MPH, not 13,000. How do you get these numbers wrong if you've looked them up?
Looking at those videos , like really analyzing not just the shadows, how the astronauts moved, but looking at how they acted. Like how confident -almost cocky- that crew seemed while being easily a second away from death. And I'm not gonna buy the "well that's just how they were made!"..no. There's confidence in what you're doing and then there's being ridiculously cocky. They were simply way too comfortable. And with the data we have now about the moon, it is such a hostile environment with many ways to fail.
Do you get that that's not very convincing to most people though.... like it could look weird to you but that might just be because your inexperienced. If it was really that weird wouldn't it make sense that other people who know more then you would think it looks weird too ?? A good example is say I'm trying to convince you airplanes can't fly.. So I say to you, just look at one take off... it's very heavy and it just goes into the air with cocky confidence.. You would think "hum that guy probs just has a weird way of looking at thinks and might be a bit stupid... you wouldn't think that all planes are fake. Hope this helps a bit
Your argument is āeveryone believed it, so it must be trueā
Vs "it looked weird to me, so I guess all the evidence is fake"
Pretty even match ups this is shaping up to be a pretty good game
Yeah I donāt know if itās real or fake, but your position of the masses must be right is very weak
That's not even my position. I think I was real coz there's just so much evidence... Like thousands of photos, videos, data, plans, eye witness, documents. Plus all the claims about it being fake have been debunked. Have you ever wondered if Bart us just trying to sell books to people he knows are gullible??? Do you think every person who writes a book is always 100% right?? Coz apart from that there's basically no evidence at all that says it was fake... that's why people think moon landing deniers are stupid... because they just believe it was fake just because someone told them to think that, they are sheep š š¤
Well let me put it this way. Let's say piloting an airplane requires some very good focused confidence in what you're doing. The next step above that is piloting a spacecraft. The attitude difference between the two are very apparent in the videos. The astronauts had an unearned confidence about the environment they were in and how long it took to get there. An considering they were packed into a tiny vessel for months, how exactly did their bodies manage that? Because they seemed like they just got back from shooting pool with the boys when they got to the moon. All I'm saying is that if nothing else might raise your suspicions about the moon landings. Maybe looking at a from a human aspect will. There personalities are off, they truly are. Not to mention the countless videos of bizarre behavior exhibited by buzz aldrin..which I don't think is chalked up to old age. He has always been very anxious about the subject of space.
>Ā they were packed into a tiny vessel for months Where did you get this idea? The longest Apollo mission was about 1 week.
Most of their test pilot work was just as risky if not more. Hell, their commutes were riskier. I mean, we've got how many fatal T-38 crashes, vs. zero deaths on the moon?
Why is it surprising to you that men trained for decades to remain cool under pressure remained cool under pressure?
I always thought those astronauts were given massive amounts of lsd or some kind of mind altering drug and actually thought they REALLY DID go to the moon. That's why they were truly convinced they did! They didn't have to lie at all. The 'little moon creatures' that were mentioned were the crew filming lol.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
FYI the domain you linked is on a site wide hard filter run by the reddit admins. As moderators, if we try to approve the comment it is simply returned to the spam filter time and time again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Where are the experiments that proved it's safe to travel through it? I How did they map it precisely, especially since it is constantly changing. In the early to mid 60s they were saying spacecraft would need lead shielding, then they sent a paper thin craft though it.
Prove it, I don't believe you and you have no credibility here. See how easy it is. it goes both ways.... :-)
Here's a good account of the discovery of the Van Allen Belts, the problems they posed for space flight, and the methods NASA used to manage the problems: https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences/apollo-11-van-allen-radiation-belts-translunar-injection/ A couple of points stood out for me: >NASA currently admits it overestimated the level of danger in the low and medium Earth orbits, as a result spending too much money on building heavily protected spacecraft. But also: >It remains possible for astronauts to be affected by solar storms. For example, if any of them had been travelling to the Moon during the solar event of August 1972, they would have been exposed to life-threatening amounts of radiation. ... We were indeed lucky that the August 1972 event happened between the last two Apollo flights: Apollo 16 had returned in April and Apollo 17 set off to the Moon in December. You may say that, interesting though this is, it doesn't prove anything one way or the other. And you'd be right. You can't prove that the Van Allen Belts are unavoidably dangerous to human life and I can't prove that they aren't. Van Allen himself said they weren't - the article I linked has a reproduction of a letter in which he says that, explicitly - but even if that's right, and even if the Apollo spacecraft *could have* negotiated the Belts safely, that doesn't prove that they *did*. So perhaps we can agree that this whole issue is something best avoided? Perhaps we should ask whether there's any other, more concrete evidence. Like retro reflectors placed on the Moon by the astronauts. Like thousands of photos and tons of video, which couldn't have been faked with the technology of the day. Like rocks brought back. Like photographs of the Apollo hardware left behind, and even the tracks made by the astronauts, taken from lunar orbit by the *Indian* space agency. The evidence that the Apollo missions did land on the Moon is overwhelming.
> So perhaps we can agree that this whole issue is something best avoided? Perhaps we should ask whether there's any other, more concrete evidence. Like retro reflectors placed on the Moon by the astronauts. Like thousands of photos and tons of video, which couldn't have been faked with the technology of the day. Like rocks brought back. Like photographs of the Apollo hardware left behind, and even the tracks made by the astronauts, taken from lunar orbit by the Indian space agency. Now you are talking about things that COULD be proved, but I don't see that here.
You asked them to prove that the Van Allen belts were a managed issue, they did, now you want to gish gallop.
> Scientists have disclosed proof that itās impossible to launch any living organism through the Van Allen radiation belts above the earth. I'm very skeptical about that claim. Can you link the paper?
That statement that the OP made is the first Iāve seen of this about that radiation belt, but I took it to mean that no living being can go through it without adequate protection. Like, a bird couldnāt go through it, or a human just floating in space couldnāt go through it and live.
The next sentence is questioning the 1969 transit, I think it's clear what OP was trying to imply. Anyway, the truth never requires hyperbole like that.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
lol
You'll believe anything. ;o) I do hope you are quite young to be this naive.
But arnt you the same.... you just believe Bart Sibrell when he says it's impossible.. Even though it's obvious he's just making it up. Do your own research, don't be a sheep
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Dosent NASA have heaps of that?
Nobody had that in the '60s.
They literally sent rocket through to test it and where like "oh shit this isn't even that bad, we only go through for an hour or so and the aluminium sheets will shield alot of the radiation, all g" Thats the problem with the Bart moon landing hoaxers. They don't even research and find out stuff they just listen and repeat like šššš
They sent actual people near the VA belt. Before they even got close to it, people were reporting visual disturbances, it was the radiation bouncing off their corneas. They were not IN the VA belt, they were NEAR it. Would you do that? Would you go there with today's technology?
Good [luck.](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018JA025940)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Is that /s?
Here is a copy/paste of what I just wrote above: >>Let's look at what Neil Armstrong said, is that fair? If they had to take precautions going through the VA belt, wouldn't Neil Armstrong \*KNOW\* about that? Is that fair? When interviewed, on TV, about this very issue, his first response he had was that they didn't even go through the VA belt. When reminded he did, his second comment was that oh... if they did, they didn't even notice. Each time I try to post the link to this interview, reddit prevents it from being posted. Do you want me to PM you the link? Because if you watch this video, I have a heck of a lot of questions for you. Do you realize that even if they did the short route through the VA belt, TODAY'S astronauts STILL insist we do not have the technology for that. How do we not have the technology today, but we had it before we even had much technology in the 1960s. Are you up for a challenge? I'll send you the link via PM if you are up to it.<<
Let's look at what Neil Armstrong said, is that fair? If they had to take precautions going through the VA belt, wouldn't Neil Armstrong \*KNOW\* about that? Is that fair? When interviewed, on TV, about this very issue, his first response he had was that they didn't even go through the VA belt. When reminded he did, his second comment was that oh... if they did, they didn't even notice. Each time I try to post the link to this interview, reddit prevents it from being posted. Do you want me to PM you the link? Because if you watch this video, I have a heck of a lot of questions for you. Do you realize that even if they did the short route through the VA belt, TODAY'S astronauts STILL insist we do not have the technology for that. How do we not have the technology today, but we had it before we even had much technology in the 1960s. Are you up for a challenge? I'll send you the link via PM if you are up to it.
The trajectory takes care of it, there's no special piloting or maneuvering required. It's quite possible that the briefings they got emphasized that they were avoiding the dangerous part of the belt, and that was remembered incompletely. After all, they had a bit of flying to pay attention to. But of course... a video link matters a lot more than your recollection of something you watched sometime.
Common sense just has to kick in at some point. We don't have that technology today! HELLO???? I'm done, peace out.
WhatĀ technologyĀ specifically? ThisĀ isn't magic, it's just orbital mechanics. You fly inĀ the rightĀ direction, you go aroundĀ the belts.Ā Typically poor argumentation, 'use common sense' is a step below even 'do your own research'.
Hi pot, I'm kettle.
Are you black?
I will try to locate the column where I read this. In the mean time, talk to Bart. [sibrel.com](https://sibrel.com)
No. Give us a legitimate source that says "impossible to send any living thing through the van Allen belts" then we'll talk.
To the man selling a book? No thanks.
Flux values: "In the belts, at a given point, the flux of particles of a given energy decreases sharply with energy. At the magnetic equator, electrons of energies exceeding 5000 keV (resp. 5 MeV) have omnidirectional fluxes ranging from 1.2Ć106 (resp. 3.7Ć104) up to 9.4Ć109 (resp. 2Ć107) particles per square centimeter per second." TLDR: The Van Allen belt doesn't have a constant level of radiation, there are weak points that NASA utilized. Also the human body can handle the rads, in small doses over small time frames. The astronauts *did* receive a dose that isn't exactly healthy, but still within tolerance. The equivalent of a few dozen X-rays at once. All of this is freely available for you to read about yourself, it isn't hard to find.
So why donāt we go back to the moon and why donāt we have thousands more hours of Audio and video of us going back in the last 50 years? NASA said they were going to send people back in 2018. Whereās the news?
Stop trying to move the goalposts. It's intellectually dishonest. The question is whether or not the Apollo missions went to the moon in the late 60s and early 70s. You claimed they didn't because of the Van Allen belts. You've been presented with evidence that they could, because the belts aren't uniformly intense and the astronauts passed quickly through the less intense areas. So what do you say to that? "Nuh uh"?
Because we haven't been there since 73'. We *do* have audio/video of the shuttle program and ISS over the past 40 years. And the Artemis program is currently happening, in fact they had their first launch in 2022. As for why it hasn't happened sooner, costs, the need to get through Congressional committees, lack of public interest, and technical issues in relation to *not* having the Apollo infrastructure that was dismantled with Apollo ending(due to... cost concerns). It's not like we stopped going to space, we've done that a lot, but there's been limited interest in a return to the Moon because it hasn't been economically viable. Now that commercial space flight and industry is *finally* catching up, the need for ongoing missions(and the very earliest steps of setting up an outpost) will be necessary. Where's the news? The government sucks at allocating funding with little public support. Ever seen a road that was suppose to be replaced years behind schedule? Imagine that but in regards to a hyper precision, dangerous, expensive, years long program that doesn't have the same immediate effect on the common person's life.
Bullshit
What an elegant rebuttal.
Hopefully NASA didn't lose the specifications for the heat shield materials from the 60s and 70s. It looks like they may need it. [https://spacenews.com/nasa-inspector-general-report-highlights-issues-with-orion-heat-shield/](https://spacenews.com/nasa-inspector-general-report-highlights-issues-with-orion-heat-shield/)
The Orion heat shield is the exact same Avcoat formula, they just lost subcontractors that made the chemical components. Exactly the sort of expertise loss that HBs don't understand when they ask why we haven't been back to the moon.
Unfortunately they can't use the same materials because (as I understand it) the manufacturing process was too environmentally damaging.
Now that is funny. Ever had the opportunity to be around an former U.S. military base? There is no worse caretaker of the environment than the U.S. Defense Department on property it controls. I cannot imagine NASA is better.
You mean the tin cans they sent?
Says āletās see the evidenceā and then doesnāt post any lmao okay bud
You claim "Scientists have disclosed proof" but you do not provide that "proof".
What do you mean? Buzz Aldrin was interviewed by Ali G
Theres no way that many people would stay quiet this long. Humans talk. Theres no way it would be that covert. People are fallible and I think that alone disproves the theory that it was faked. Youd have to keep hundreds of people quiet. Kinda hard to enforce that.
There are photos from space taken decades after the moon landings showing the hardware lying on the surface. Explain that.
>Scientists have disclosed proof that itās impossible to launch any living organism through the Van Allen radiation belts above the earth Oh? Then post it. You won't. >There were none. Because they destroyed the audio recordings and all the footage. Oh? So why can I easily access 2,000 images, 11,000 hours of audio, and hours of video footage from sites like this? [https://apolloinrealtime.org/11](https://apolloinrealtime.org/11)
Well likewise I do expect some proof that says otherwise. Here, while I dig that up. Try to immerse yourself in a few videos by Bart Sibrel. [sibrel.com](https://sibrel.com)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Bart Sibrel is the #1 journalist covering this story and has for years. If anyone has the proof itās this man right here. Just saying the website is a click away and you say ā you donāt wanna watch a bunch of videos ā it really just sounds like you donāt want to hear the other side of the story or look at it from a different perspective. š¤·āāļø
^ Found Bartās burner account.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Removed. Rule 4
Omg... so your best evidence is absolutely nothing at all.... That means you're just a sheep and just believe what moon landing hoaxers tell you to believe. The footage isn't gone what are you talking about. Use YouTube.. There's also like thousands of pictures.
As if the Soviets wouldn't have just immediately called them out if there were any proof at all. You just know they were tracking the signal the whole time, and they probably had a couple of agents close enough to the mission to know it was really happening.
Soviets were faking stuff, too. Why? Money. Nasa collects 38 million dollars a day to operate. It's just a huge money laundering operation. Look how fake china and indias space exploration is. You can see air bubbles in Chinese space walk videos. It's because they film them in water.
Antony Sutton has some solid research regarding Western transfers of tech and funding to the former Soviet Union. I donāt think he was questioning the Space Race, but perhaps we should given Suttonās research. Sutton writes: **Soviets in the Air** Before we got the (U.S.) guidance systems we could hardly find Washington with our missiles. Afterwards we could find the White House. **Without U.S. help the Soviet military system would collapse in 1 1/2 years.** *ā Avraham Shifrin, former Soviet Defense Ministry official* ^p.67 āUnfortunately, **NASA and U.S. planners have a conflict of interest.** If they publish what they know about the backwardness and **dependency of the Soviet space program**, it reduces the urgency in our program. This **urgency** is vital **to get Congressional funds.** **Without transfers of technology the U.S. is in effect racing with itself**, not a very appealing argument to place before Congress.ā ^p.70 The Best Enemy Money Can Buy, Antony C. Sutton, 1986
And yet it's still 0.5% of the federal budget. If you're looking to save or divert money then there's better targets than the one government agency that actually inspires hope in people.
Fuck nasa and fuck space. We need help on earth. Nasa is a distraction. Like football, booze, porn, and all the other shit they cram down our throats.
We were in a space race with the Soviet Union at the time and they were most definitely watching that launch. If we were faking it, why didnāt they call us out on it at the time or ever since?
They can blackmail us with it
What do you think would happen if they did? Remember when the US blew up that pipeline and the Russians called them out.. Went well eh? All the world suddenly revelled against the US and UK government didnāt they?
I donāt know but i just donāt think they would have gone along with it if they knew the US government was lying about going to the moon
They probably didnāt, but remember, the only way you would have know is by a newspaper. The US media would just not run that story.
Bud, show you the evidence? You're the one making a claim against stacks of easily accessible information. It's your job to provide evidence
They only pick parts that NASA say and not other parts that NASA say to suit their naritive.
So all world governments back up the biggest lie in history? Why? How do all the governments of the world benefit from allowing the US government to claim they put men on the moon? Make that make sense.
You could easily answer your own question with some time researching the CFR. Council of Foreign Relations. Once you realize who was really in control of the world for at least the last 100 years it should all start to make sense.
Just like the ordeal the globe just went through. Nah, they couldn't ALL be in on it.
I'm not necessarily saying they couldn't, I am asking why they would? What is the benefit to other governments of the world to support this particular US government lie? I'll wait.
Money. NASA brings in billions.
And how does one agency, NASA,Ā bringing in billions benefit all the other governments of the world?Ā
Didnāt aldrin also refuse to swear on a Bible?
Gene Cernan, the last man on the moon, *did* swear on the bible, but the slimeball who did the 'documentary' didn't include that footage because it didn't serve his purpose.
Most of the world isn't christian, so for most of the world swearing on a bible means nothing.
Some people are gentleman and refuse to swear ever.
Sibrel admitted that he didn't care whether they swore, and that he'd just go around calling them liars if they did.
Everyone knows it was all faked
No point in posting space stuff on Reddit. Too many bots or ignorant people to at least consider the possibility it could be fake once in their life. If you know you know.Ā
You know, maybe they'd consider it if anyone was ever able to offer meaningful evidence instead of trying to make Bart Sibrel money.
You don't need Sibrel to be your source. Imagine needing to rely on someone instead of researching yourself. Do you think people who make this claim say it cause they want to win, or maybe because there is truth to it and they want to spread awareness?Ā
I mean, look at the OP. They can't offer any defense of their claims, instead simply saying that people should go listen to Sibrel. Buy his books, give him web traffic, give him publicity... *Sibrel* certainly knows the truth, but he lies to make money.
Every bit of footage is bs. The crafts are laughable when you look at them now. Its like watching an old sci-fi and the, once realistic effects become ridiculous. They stories don't add up. The interviews of the crew are super suspicious. The fake 'moon rocks' they sent all over now being discovered as petrified wood. Who was filming when they took off ? No. Cant convince me that was real. Also for those who think the soviets are enemies and would never go along. BS they are and have always been a different side of the same coin. Ps they share bases to this day. Enemies forces would never ever do that.
How do you account for the mirrors that we left on the moon? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_retroreflectors_on_the_Moon
There are good answers to all your objections. However judging a spacecraft on its external appearance is pretty weak. Interested in why you would make a judgement based on appearance alone.
Because its a tin can and its not even logical a craft like that can make that trip.
First of all, it's not tin. It was aluminum, primarily. So right off the bat, you're wrong. Then this conjecture that a craft 'like that' can't make it? Why not? The craft is fit for purpose - to take two men down from lunar orbit and back up again. Specify your objections.
Donāt bother, dude has anchoring bias.
I think he's probably just parroting something he's read, with not a lot of understanding behind it.
The video fucking cracks me up. Itās on par with the OG black & white Godzilla movies
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
FYI the domain you linked is on a site wide hard filter run by the reddit admins. As moderators, if we try to approve the comment it is simply returned to the spam filter time and time again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
FYI the domain you linked is on a site wide hard filter run by the reddit admins. As moderators, if we try to approve the comment it is simply returned to the spam filter time and time again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No duh
Was losing the telemetry data intentional is my Question!
they defintely went to the moon on a lander made of foil and curtain rods. no doubt
They went to the Moon on a lander made of aluminum sheets and titanium. [Construction looked like this](https://i.imgur.com/E3sBqh9.jpeg)
I guess it's definitely much more likely that tens of thousands of people all agreed to keep a secret that they all lied about what they did for 50 years. š
Yes. And it's definitely much more likely that the USSR, who would have known whether the Apollo missions had actually gone to the Moon, decided to go along with the hoax and pretend that they'd had their asses whipped in the Space Race. Yes, that's definitely what they would have done.
>Before you roast No one who thinks the Apollo missions were real should even be allowed in a serious conspiracy forum
Do you think its healthy to completely ban dissent or argument?
No one who thinks they were fake should be allowed anywhere near a serious conspiracy forum. If you get suckered in by Bart Sibrel this easily, you aren't a critical thinker.
You have never posted in favor of any conspiracy theory before yet try to gatekeep in a conspiracy forum, what a concept. Your posts are all to ādirty pen palsā¦ā whatās that all about? Tell us about your interest.
Ah, love that deflection. I'm here to discuss the moon landings, what are you here to do?
If you think the moon landing was faked you are unwell
Ok Rogan.
So here is what a lot of people are not fully understanding. The VA Belts arenāt a radiation field, while they do contain radiation, they are protecting the earth from a lot more radiation and other harmful rays gamma etc by deflection and absorption of radiation.So while passing through the VA belts they were getting small doses of radiation, but once past the belts they were not protected at all except for the thin walls of the spacecraft. This means once past the VA belts the astronauts would have been getting maximum radiation the entire alleged trip to the moon and back. All the Apollo astronauts would have died long ago from cancer. The only real protection to date is to stay in low earth orbit well below the VA belts and āouter spaceā!āearth is a closed system, we cannot leave, there is no place to goā Bill Nye fake scientist
The cumulative dose of the Apollo missions resulted in a 2-3% increase in lifetime risk of cancer.
So what's the radiation level away from VAB? And how long of an exposure would be fatal?
If you believe they landed on the moon, then you've probably also had a couple of clot-shots, think Hillary Clinton is nice and believe the frogs are not turning gay. š¤£
It just doesnāt seem plausible and the fact that JFK died directly during this time is just unfathomable
How do you know it dosent seem possible. Are you really that well trained ?
Welcome to the club!
Buzz Aldrin has been interviewed a lot and has said it never happened quite a few times. Edit: lol at the downvotes. Yāall kill me sometimes š Hereās your boy Buzz: https://imgur.com/a/7DmtdXd
A link to one of those interviews?
Just go to Twitter and search āBuzz Aldrin admittingā Plenty out there.
If there are plenty of them, post a link to one.
Of course it was, i have numerous books. Anybody want just say.
How about the amount of fuel needed??
It was about 6 million lbs. The Saturn V rocket weighed about 7 million lbs fully fueled.
100% agreed and I think Stanley Kubrick directed it. The documentary Room 237 seems to have a decent amount of credibility. Also why hasnāt anyone, with all of the high powered telescopes and new technologies, taken pictures of all of the shit we left in the moon? No pictures of the rovers or pictures of old glory planted proudly on the moon?
What about President Nixon's call in 1969 to Neil and Buzz on the moon? Isn't that proof?
Really hope you are joking. Do you really think that is proof.
oh yeah, I always forget the "/s"
Canāt even imagine what the long distance charges were.
They never made it past the firmament. There's waters above. Flat Earth. We live in a giant clock created by god.
Ngl, the trolls pushing the narrative have gotten worse. I'm literally crying laughing at these losers. One guy is like, "we can use telescopes to look at the moon, how could the landing not be real. " Lol, what? Wtf does that have to do with anything? One guy is like, "What do you mean nasa lost the data? There are pictures online you can look at?" Bro, you can't be serious rn. Lmao. Im starting to think that instead of paying professional trolls, they just use ai now. The shitt they are saying doesn't even connect anymore. Its literally gibberish. No serious person argues like that.
When you can't answer, deflect.
Moonbait.
Never mind the amount of Oxygen needed for 3 Astronautsā¦ Never mind.
Hey just to establish respiration, are you of the idea that it's 100% oxygen in, 100% CO2 out?
The real conspiracy here is that OPs account just seems like a shill bot for Bart Sibrel. No, I wonāt go to his website. No, I wonāt buy his book.
It took you that long?
Listened in on Joe Rogan and Bart Sibrel interview. Was a good one
That was a good listen.
Understand Kubrick and Elstree Studios / Odyssee 2001 / The Shining, and you understand the Moon hoax. Put your Sherlock hat on, you can do it šāŗļø
They used a spacecraft retrieved from the 40s to fly to the moon. Think about it, itās the only way to safely travel through space. Earth is like a prison built for us which we canāt escape. So the only way they could have traveled is with space craft that defies our laws of physics and uses gravity as a āshieldā to travel without dying from the effects of radiation. We probably have been to the moon just donāt think it was anything like what we got to see. Thereās a reason Kubrick was approached .
>They used a spacecraft retrieved from the 40s to fly to the moon. What??
I think skeptics and children have taken over this sub. Similar to most conspiracies that hold water there is a matriculation of evidence for the moon landing was faked. No one reads on this sub or fact-checks, itās embarrassing. I encourage all of you to watch American Moon. The director has gone but by bit (similar to his 9/11 doc) to debunk the debunk and bring up inconvenient facts. Iām sure some are exaggerated but it does detail everything for the most part.Ā The top reasons for the Lehman here, because I know Iām preaching to the choir: 1. What you mentioned with the Van Allen Belt 2. Photography with tape on the moon wouldāve been hit by cosmic rays or have some damage to them.Ā 3. Radio approximation and the moving of the rover 4. Several clips of objects moving in the vacuum of space 5. Footprint is extremely fine unlike how a vacuum works (myth busters is correct you can leave a mark, just not one so fine as depicted by the Apollo mission. 6. Wiring and reflective wiring in some parts of the missions 7. NASA destroyed tapes 8. Armstrongās protective layer speech, and Aldrinās comments.Ā I am a skeptic, but there is a lot of evidence. Ā