Flat-Earth

[MeditationSync]

I never said we didn't land on the moon but the footage provided to us "the public" has never sat right with me. So if the footage doesn't smell right on it's face plus the excuses for loss of tapes, technology changes, data loss, plus nasa's very owns suspicious statements.

@nickrulercreator
We have probably been to the Moon and most likely Mars by now in a secret space program of some sort but it's also possible everything they have showed us was a high quality hoax on the world at the time. The possible reasoning behind this could have been to trick the Russians into thinking we had gotten into space sooner than them?

I'm not pretending I know it all, these are obviously just my suspicions but the entire thing stinks.

Flat Earth on the other hand is just pathetic.

 

[nickrulercreator]

I never said we didn't land on the moon but the footage provided to us "the public" has never sat right with me.

Would you mind explaining what doesn't sit right? I'm sure it boils down to a few possibilities that can easily be explained.

So if the footage doesn't smell right on it's face plus the excuses for loss of tapes, technology changes, data loss, plus nasa's very owns suspicious statements.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

We have probably been to the Moon and most likely Mars by now in a secret space program of some sort

That'd actually be pretty difficult to hide. First, the size of the rocket necessary to even launch the spacecraft(s) to go to the Moon or Mars is insane. Look at the Saturn V: 363 feet tall. It broke 200 decibels when lifting off and could be heard for MILES. Apollo 4 even shattered windows and shook buildings miles away, and I read somewhere (I'll find where) that the launch was even registered on seismometers in New York. I mean, to even put the Saturn V together required the massive Vehicle Assembly Building, and anything comparable in size, or any rocket rolling out of it, would be instantly noticeable to the public. It also needs a launch pad that no one could see, even though it would have to be just as big as the rocket. Then you have the number of people that need to construct it. It took thousands upon thousands of people to design and build the Saturn V, and a mission to the Moon or Mars would need similar numbers of people, along with the people required to build the spacecraft itself. They'd know that this wasn't going to be a public mission as it wasn't ever reported in the news, so they'd need to keep it quiet. That'd break out almost instantly. Lastly you'd need to hide both the launch, and the spacecraft(s) from amateur, independent trackers. The launch would be especially difficult, and the spacecraft would probably be noticed very soon by anyone looking into the sky. It'd be one of the brightest objects in the night sky before leaving Earth, and if someone decided to track the spacecraft as it left Earth, they'd easily be able to find out where it was going and report a "mysterious object" heading to the Moon or Mars.

but it's also possible everything they have showed us was a high quality hoax on the world at the time.

That'd also be extremely difficult, almost to the point of impossible.

The possible reasoning behind this could have been to trick the Russians into thinking we had gotten into space sooner than them?

Well the Russians were tracking each Apollo mission to the Moon, so if something seemed fishy they'd report it to the world. Also, why even fake it to the Russians and the world? Why not just go? What's so impossible about just going to the Moon, whats the need for faking it?

And, if we faked it, why didn't the Russians? What stopped them?

Flat Earth on the other hand is just pathetic.

Agreed.

 

[titorite]

OK but on all pictures the rocket nozzle is practilly a foot from the moon surface and your saying their was no displacement of moon dust because of reasons. ……

Nixon and moon patrol had an instant phone connection and fuck the disantance because reasons.


We landed on the moon because we say so and that could not of been faked to prove our superiority to the Russians becucase reasons....




Fuck logic.... we have reasons..


van allen radiation belts and high altititude telemetry be damed reasons.


Ya gotta grow up and get real at some point.

 

[titorite]

No... no you dont get to play devils advocet . Not on this..... biggest achievement of mankind.... man walks on the moon... biggest deal ever.... OPPSISE WE RECORDED OVER IT BECAUSE 29 CENTS Per FOOT OF MAGNETIC TAPE IS TOO EXPENSIVE..


No..... bullshit.... get real.

 

[Cirrus]

OPPSISE WE RECORDED OVER IT BECAUSE 29 CENTS Per FOOT OF MAGNETIC TAPE IS TOO EXPENSIVE..

Unless there was something on the HD version of the tapes that the US didn't want the world to see. Easier to play dumb and "record over the tapes" while keeping the real deal hidden.

 

[TimeFlipper]

Are you guys aware that Russia might have faked the first man in space, Yuri Gagarin?
The Americans knew about that fake, but made a pact with the Russians that they would never uncover their lie, provided that the Russians kept quiet about the Americans faked Moon Landing.....Yuri Gagarin died in a MiG-15 aeroplane accident, along with his training instructor, on March27th 1968...(rumours had circulated that the aircraft was shot down by a Russian ground to air missile..unsubstantiated)..

The Russians and the Americans both knew that the radiation levels within the Van Allen Belt, and far beyond it was full of lethal radiation..
On July 20th 1969 the lethal Sun Spot radiation activity was approaching its highest level ever...In 2009, the 40th anniversary of the faked Moon landing, we had visitor in the UK, a typical NASA representative and others who went around the world trying to convince everybody that the Moon Landing was real...

That NASA rep even gave details of the "special radiation shield" that was supposed to be on the front of the Lunar craft, which turned out to be according to the NASA gob-shite, nothing more than layers of epoxy resin, which could never be a shield for radiation..

During the so called three day trip to the Moon, and because of the very high radiation levels, radio contact would have been sporadically interfered with which would have resulted in rapid signal fadings...Everybody is aware of the almost "perfect" highly stable radio communications between Huston and the Lunar Craft ..I suggest you move forward to 3:05 minutes on the video clip...enjoy..

 

[nickrulercreator]

OK but on all pictures the rocket nozzle is practilly a foot from the moon surface and your saying their was no displacement of moon dust because of reasons. ……

If.. you know.. read what I wrote, you'd know it's not because of "reasons." The LM's descent engine cut off a few feet above the surface (to be precise, it was 7'2", or 2.2m according to this manual from NASA. It was not a foot above when it cut off.

You'd also know that I never said there was no displacement of moon dust. I emphasized multiple times that the dust would be, and was, blown away. I only showed that the LM's engine was never powerful enough to make a crater, even if it was a foot above the surface.

Nixon and moon patrol had an instant phone connection and fuck the disantance because reasons.

How does radio work? Hmmm. Maybe Nixon's phone was patched up to NASA so that he could use their antenna.

Actually that's exactly what happened. NASA simply put Nixon on one end, and the Astronauts on the other, and they talked through a 64-meter dish antenna.

We landed on the moon because we say so and that could not of been faked to prove our superiority to the Russians becucase reasons....

Again, not "reasons." Read what I wrote, don't ignore it.

Also, if we faked it to prove our superiority, why not just actually land to prove our superiority. We had the rocket (Saturn V), there's no reason we couldn't go.

Fuck logic.... we have reasons..

You're funny. Honestly, you're really not seeing this at all, are you? Not only have you not provided ONE source for anything you've claimed, that's all you've been doing, making claims. I can show why your claims are wrong with such simple logic, but nope, that's not good enough for you.

van allen radiation belts

They were never an issue. If you want a brief, non-detailed, really poor explanation, here you go:

The type of radiation in the belts is particle radiation. This means that high-energy subatomic particles made up the belts, specifically electrons and high-energy protons in the inner belt, and high-energy electrons in the outer belt. Now, the Apollo spacecraft had shielding. The aluminum hull of the Command module acted as a barrier and protected the astronauts from this radiation. The high-energy protons were simply too large to enter the CM. The electrons in both belts were able to pass into the CM, but the radiation wasn't high basically due to the time spent in the belts and path taken by the spacecraft.

Time: The astronauts never spent anymore than 4 hours total inside the belts (both on the way to, and back from, the moon). Most of this was in the outer belt, and about 25-30 min in the inner belt. The inner belt is the more dangerous one, but since a far shorter time was spent in it, the amount of radiation received is next to nothing.

Path: The spacecraft did not go directly through the most intense parts of the belts. Like a real belt, the VA belts are not surrounding all of Earth. They look like donuts around the planet, with the most intense parts having (very little) inclination compared to the equator. This is a cross section of the belts with the Apollo spacecraft's path overtop:

As you can see, the path never touched the most intense areas of the belts. The spacecraft went around it, hitting the low-intensity areas.

Here's another diagram:

A spacecraft in the belts with 3mm of aluminum shielding receives about 25 Sieverts of radiation per year, most from the inner belt. The Apollo CM had a minimum of .75 inches of aluminum, or 19mm of aluminum (.5 in at minimum for outer wall, .25 in for inner wall). This provide far more shielding. ADDITIONALLY, the 25 Sv is per YEAR. They stayed in the belts for 4 hours, just a tiny, tiny fraction of the full year of exposure. The mission also bypassed the inner belt (almost completely), so that reduces the amount of radiation received even more.

Now, if you want a VERY well-done explanation with tons of detail and math that goes into the belts far better than I ever could, check these out:

Apollo and the Van Allen Belts - this one i highly recommend you read, seriously. Don't skip it, it provides extremely valuable insight into how radiation affected the astronauts. It's well-written, well-researched, and does an excellent job of explaining why the belts weren't a problem.

Radioactive Anomaly III

Clavius: Environment - radiation and the van allen belts

Oh, and another good explanation of why there can't be a blast crater:

Lunar Module Blast Crater

and high altititude telemetry be damed reasons.

What? What's the issue with the telemetry communications at the time? We were sending spacecraft to Mars and Venus, and had sent plenty of unmanned missions to the Moon before Apollo. What problem was there with the telemetry in Apollo missions?

Ya gotta grow up and get real at some point.

Nah, you need to stop making baseless claims.

No... no you dont get to play devils advocet . Not on this..... biggest achievement of mankind.... man walks on the moon... biggest deal ever.... OPPSISE WE RECORDED OVER IT BECAUSE 29 CENTS Per FOOT OF MAGNETIC TAPE IS TOO EXPENSIVE..


No..... bullshit.... get real.

How does this prove if the missions were real or not? Also, lots of the data still exists. This isn't really a very thing to argue on.

 

[nickrulercreator]

Unless there was something on the HD version of the tapes that the US didn't want the world to see. Easier to play dumb and "record over the tapes" while keeping the real deal hidden.

Why keep the tapes at all, then? Why not immediately destroy them, rather than wait 10 years? Hell, why even make them in the first place if you're going to put stuff on there that no one can see ever?

 

[Mayhem]

@ nickrulercreator

Did you do debating in high school.

Sounds like you like a personal touch why dont you get a nickrulercreator thread and exalt there.

As some others do hahahs

 

[nickrulercreator]

Are you guys aware that Russia might have faked the first man in space, Yuri Gagarin?
The Americans knew about that fake, but made a pact with the Russians that they would never uncover their lie, provided that the Russians kept quiet about the Americans faked Moon Landing.....Yuri Gagarin died in a MiG-15 aeroplane accident, along with his training instructor, on March27th 1968...(rumours had circulated that the aircraft was shot down by a Russian ground to air missile..unsubstantiated)..

Any evidence for any of this, besides Gagarin's well-documented crash?

The Russians and the Americans both knew that the radiation levels within the Van Allen Belt, and far beyond it was full of lethal radiation..

Only if you stay in the most intense areas of the belts for a few weeks, especially the inner belt. Apollo missed the inner belt almost entirely, and stayed in the weaker points of the belts for no more than 4 hours each mission.

On July 20th 1969 the lethal Sun Spot radiation activity was approaching its highest level ever

Highest... ever? I'd love to see a source for that one. While solar cycle 20 was hitting its peak in November, 1968, it hardly posed a threat.

That NASA rep even gave details of the "special radiation shield" that was supposed to be on the front of the Lunar craft, which turned out to be according to the NASA gob-shite, nothing more than layers of epoxy resin, which could never be a shield for radiation..

Nope, not true. Either the NASA rep got it wrong, or you weren't paying good enough attention. The CM consisted of, at a minimum, .75 inches of Aluminum. The LM consisted of a thick hull of solid aluminum wrapped in very thin layers of aluminized mylar. This was enough shielding from the radiation in space.

During the so called three day trip to the Moon, and because of the very high radiation levels, radio contact would have been sporadically interfered with which would have resulted in rapid signal fadings...

Radiation levels weren't ever high. If this was the case, constant communication with GPS satellites wouldn't be possible. Where are your sources for all these claims??