Were the moon landings faked

[WPLParticipant 2390]

I’m not saying that the landings did or did not happen — but I do believe that humans certainly CAN cross the Van Allen Belts. There’s an outstanding analysis of the issue here: http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm It’s somewhat technical, but not too bad.

You do get a bit of radiation dose going through the Belts, but it’s certainly nothing threatening to life. Estimated AND measured whole-body doses were around 0.1 to 1.0 rad. (For reference, the LD50 dose — where half of the people exposed will die — is usually accepted to be about 400 rad in a single exposure). Depending on where you live, you get 0.02 to 0.2 rems (basically the same as rads for this discussion) per year from natural background radiation.

[TwistParticipant]

never mind

[Big BossParticipant 4496]

blade wrote:

Ok we have all seen pictures where they have shown shadows and other things to discredit the moon landings . I beleave man did land on the moon .

But i do question with the space shuttle program why they never returned . F~~~ couldn’t they of even landed the shuttle itself on that rock .

Also if America didn’t land on the moon and not leave s~~~ behind wouldn’t you think the Chinese would be out to discredit it with having there robotic rover scanning the landing area .

Also read a book years ago called WHO BUILT THE MOON . Very intresting book .

Space shuttles carried satellites. The moon and exploration took a backsteat for government spying, corporate TV, and other more money making affairs.

Besides, if the US was faking it, the Russians would have been the first to call it out as a fraud with all the spying and radar that was taking place during the cold war. Fake moon landings don’t hold up to any real scrutiny. It is a disinfo op likely.

[MagusParticipant 424]

Space shuttle is too massive to make it to the moon and back. The F9 can carry double the mass to GEO than that big fat political cow called the Space Shuttle. Not only does it carry twice the weight to GEO it does it at 1/20th of the price. The Space Shuttle was a big mistake in almost every possible manner.

Now you would think that during the cold war the USSR would have immediately informed the whole world if we did not make it to moon. Or did not make it on any of our claims. Just as we kept tabs on every launch they did. And made it public before they did whenever they had failures.

Finally NASA has released all the landing site information and it has been visually confirmed by countless other countries. With even pictures from satellites passing by on other missions. Like here: https://astrobob.areavoices.com/2012/07/28/can-you-see-the-american-flag-on-the-moon-yes/

Anyways I guess it makes for fun forum talk.

[MACHOParticipant]

Just a thought here, there was no fancy computer back then to fake the footage.

“Computer-generated imagery (CGI) is the application of the field of computer graphics (or more specifically, 3D computer graphics) to special effects. CGI is used in films, television programs and commercials, and in printed media.”

Today we create fake footage more real than reality, we have gotten used to it and might not be thinking clearly about past events that took place where an image was everything.

You must own a better Crystal ball than I

[It’sallbsParticipant]

The space shuttle was faked as well it has jet engines.

http://www.leavemeansleave.eu

[Big BossParticipant 4496]

It’sallbs wrote:

The space shuttle was faked as well it has jet engines.

Oh really? Where’s the air intake?

[SunStormParticipant 1277]

NASA admit the Van Allen belts are an insurmountable challenge to space exploration..

Yet they weren’t an issue in 1969 huh? I guess that Woodstock acid alone was good enough to send folks to the Moon.

Too bad they lost their dealer.

http://aetherforce.com/nasa-admits-they-cannot-get-past-the-van-allen-radiation-belt/

[hmskl’dParticipant 6406]

I want to believe.

[SunStormParticipant 1277]

MACHO wrote:

Just a thought here, there was no fancy computer back then to fake the footage.

“Computer-generated imagery (CGI) is the application of the field of computer graphics (or more specifically, 3D computer graphics) to special effects. CGI is used in films, television programs and commercials, and in printed media.”

Today we create fake footage more real than reality, we have gotten used to it and might not be thinking clearly about past events that took place where an image was everything.

It was all done using enormous models. They actually still exist.

I’m tapping this on a phone but there’s a YouTube video which shows actual footage of the huge moon surface model they used for the shots of the ‘descent’.

[Anonymous 54]

Anonymous wrote:

The moon is made of cheese.

Theres holes in your theory. I guees that would make it swiss cheeses!

I am going to keep looking, with an open mind.

[Anonymous 54]

hmskl’d wrote:

I want to believe.

So do I.

Kennedy Put the pressuer on,in giveing his speach.

” We dont do these things because they are easy. We do these things because they are haaad”
We were in the cold war.

There is much to consider, much to look at.

[SamsquanchParticipant 4226]

This is my favorite response to the question:

[Anonymous 42]

^^^^He deserved it, what those guys did was far from being cowards, nobody ever felt further from the comfort of home than those guys! NO ONE!

[TwistParticipant]

Anonymous wrote:

Kennedy Put the pressuer on,in giveing his speach.

Kennedy put a man on the moon, but it took Obama to put a man in the ladies’ room.

[Anonymous 22]

I think it was faked. If they really landed on the moon, then why don’t they go there again?

[Anonymous 3]

I remember hearing how we just don’t have the technology or money to go back there again. But that always struck me as ridiculous. We have more money now, we print the stuff. And tech is way better now than it was back then.

We can’t even explore most of the deep seas right now, the pressure and everything else is actually worse in space.

I think there are a lot of lies thrown about to trick people and make them fear stuff that doesn’t really exist. The surveillance we’re under does exist, but it’s not nearly as thorough as they want us to think. The AI exists but isn’t nearly good enough to spy on and sort through all the data like they want us to think.

They just pick and choose targets instead to scare everyone else.

And those targets do include spying on stuff like this. So now if anyone did try to fake it, governments can release the actual footage, although I don’t know if they would. Admitting spying and how thorough it is could also be a weakness.

I wonder how much of this even matters. Whether Neil Armstrong walked the moon or not, does that change how gynocentric the West currently is? Does it matter to me if the government got someone on the moon, or does it matter to me more that they stay the f~~~ out of my domestic affairs and let me enjoy life?

[surfdude12Participant 4103]

Space Technology has EXPLODED since 70’s and yet NOT ONE SINGLE moon mission? Doesn’t pass the sniff test.

[Anonymous 42]

Twist wrote:

Kennedy put a man on the moon, but it took Obama to put a man in the ladies’ room.

He also scrapped the space shuttle and ended our ability to launch men into space, now we bum a ride from the Russians.

[surfdude12Participant 4103]

Anonymous wrote:

I think there are a lot of lies thrown about to trick people and make them fear stuff that doesn’t really exist. The surveillance we’re under does exist, but it’s not nearly as thorough as they want us to think. The AI exists but isn’t nearly good enough to spy on and sort through all the data like they want us to think.

I wonder how much of this even matters. Whether Neil Armstrong walked the moon or not, does that change how gynocentric the West currently is? Does it matter to me if the government got someone on the moon, or does it matter to me more that they stay the f~~~ out of my domestic affairs and let me enjoy life?

If the government is lying about one thing (whether landed on moon), how do we know they’re telling truth about another (scope of surveillance)?

[Author]

Posts