Did we land on the moon?

Do you believe that we landed on the moon?

  • Yes

    Votes: 81 51.6%
  • No

    Votes: 50 31.8%
  • Don't know / not sure

    Votes: 26 16.6%

  • Total voters
    157
  • Poll closed .

andy dufresne

Kingfisher

Alas this site is nothing more than Freemasonry stuff and goes on to say that satellites don't exist.

If you've ever skywatched on a clear night you can see the things with your naked eye so most credibility is lost.

But it did mention this:

Notice that “astronauts” have never turned the camera 360 degrees… because doing so would expose the studio they are filming in…

That's true! I never noticed that.
 

rotekz

Ostrich
Gold Member
Another thing I forgot to say about the space station being real is that I have the official app that tracks it. One evening last year I noticed it was about to go over Southern England so rushed outside to have a look. Sure enough I saw it pass over as a bright light, on the correct trajectory, and way too fast to be an aircraft. It was clearly an object in orbit. There was no doubt left after that.
 
There's a question you wont answer, because you have never in your life spent a moment thinking about this sort of thing. Why, if I'm perpetrating a hoax and it depends on telling people (smart people, by the way) that I'm avoiding this deadly region, why would I make up a different lie that torpedoes all of that?
Just repeating this to highlight that I was right. He wont answer it.
 
Hoax Claim: It's not possible to survive the Van Allen Belts

My reply:

(1) The VAB is a belt (two of them actually) not a shell. It's shaped like a doughnut, and the most intense radiation is in the middle of the belt. The significance of this is, not every trajectory results in an equal danger. Its not a line, and when you cross that line you take X amount of radiation. What that means is, you can't just go look up the worst possible radiation numbers and assume every astronaut experienced that amount of radiation. Here's a cutaway diagram:


Note that the middle says 2x10^8 MeV. And note also one of the outer edges that is labeled 2x10^6 MeV. The difference between 10^8 and 10^6 is a factor of 100. The inner part has 100 times more energy than the outer part.

(2) The missions (including Apollo 14) flew trajectories that avoided the areas of highest radiation. Any trajectory other than 0 degrees reduces the amount of radiation received. Here's a chart showing the TLI angles: https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-24_Translunar_Injection.htm

(3) There are different types of radiation. Source: https://www.compoundchem.com/2015/09/10/radiation/

The VAB are mostly high-energy protons (note in the image above, it says "protons per cm^2 per second" - the outer VAB is indeed electrons, but the inner belt is mostly protons). This type of radiation shows that even just paper provides some shielding against alpha particles:


Thus, the shielding on the spacecraft was able to reduce the dose the astronauts recieved.

(4) the spacecraft aren't in a circular orbit inside the belt. They go through it in an hour or so and then leave it behind.

These four factors combined mean it's possible to survive going through the VAB. Even the highest dose (apollo 14) is only 1.14 rads:



Hoax Claim: Apollo 14 flew right through the middle of the VAB!!!

My reply: No, they really didn't. They didn't go "through the middle" - they flew the same angle as every other mission, but because the VAB is also at a slight angle (because Earth's magnetic pole doesn't exactly line up with its rotational pole) they did get closer to it than other missions. That's why they experienced 1.14 rads, while other missions experienced as low as 0.16 rads.

Regardless, this is still easily survivable because of the four factors mentioned above.

The truth is, the Apollo missions actually happened, and the radiation doses are survivable. The fact that Apollo 14 experienced higher, but still survivable radiation, doesn't support the claim that the missions were fake.

Hoax Claim: But! But NASA said they went through the middle of the belts!!

My reply: I'm sorry that NASA didn't choose their words precisely enough so that you wouldn't get confused. You are implying that NASA is contradicting themselves and saying, "the VABs are dangerous" and then later saying, "no big deal" - that's a lie. You're lying when you make that claim. Here's the full context of the quote, from this report: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14mr10.htm

10.2.5 Radiation

The Lunar Module Pilot's personal radiation dosimeter failed to integrate the dosage properly after the first 24 hours of flight. To ensure that each lunar module crewman had a functional dosimeter while on the lunar surface, the Command Module Pilot transferred his unit to the Lunar Module Pilot on the fourth day of the mission. The final readings from the personal radiation dosimeters yielded net integrated (uncorrected) values of 640 and 630 millirads for the Commander and the Command Module Pilot, respectively. No value can be determined for the Lunar Module Pilot. The total radiation dose for each crewman was approximately 1.15 rads to the skin and 0.6 rad at a 5centimeter tissue depth. These doses are the largest observed on any Apollo mission; however, they are well below the threshold of detectable medical effects. The magnitudes of the radiation doses were apparently the result of two factors: (1) The translunar injection trajectory lay closer to the plane of the geomagnetic equator than that of previous flights and, therefore, the spacecraft traveled through the heart of the trapped radiation belts. (2) The space radiation background was greater than previously experienced. Whole-body gamma spectroscopy was also performed postflight on the crew and indicated no cosmic ray induced radioactivity.

This is NOT a contradiction to anything else NASA has ever said. The full quote, in context, says that yes they went through a heavier portion of the belts, but no, it didn't cause a significant problem. They still flew an angled trajectory that avoided, as much as possible, the worst part.

I'm very sorry that you're choosing to misinterpret the phrase, "traveled through the heart" to mean, "right through the middle where it's not survivable" instead of a charitable interpretation which would be, "higher radiation than other missions"

And it's very dishonest of you to ignore the entire rest of that paragraph which makes it clear this was survivable.

My Question for People Who Believe It Was a Hoax: If it's really not possible to survive the Van Allen Belts, and you were perpetrating a hoax claiming you did survive it, and you were going to do this eight times (Apollo 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17), so the data for all eight missions is entirely fake, why would you complicate things by saying, "Apollo 14 got closer than the others and experienced higher radiation"

Why not just keep things simple? If you're lying, why pile on all these mountains of data?
 
But it did mention this:

Notice that “astronauts” have never turned the camera 360 degrees… because doing so would expose the studio they are filming in…

That's true! I never noticed that.
But it's not true. And you should have googled it before believing it.

Most everything the hoax believers say is lies. Here's a whole bunch of panoramas: https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollopanoramas/

Stop being so gullible. When someone makes a claim, research it yourself.
 

andy dufresne

Kingfisher
But it's not true. And you should have googled it before believing it.

Most everything the hoax believers say is lies. Here's a whole bunch of panoramas: https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollopanoramas/

Stop being so gullible. When someone makes a claim, research it yourself.

Um....err...I just looked at everyone of those photos. Yes they're panoramas....but all are just shy of being shot with a wide angle lens and none of them at all point behind them.

Come on. You can do better.
 

typtre

Robin
Alas this site is nothing more than Freemasonry stuff and goes on to say that satellites don't exist.

If you've ever skywatched on a clear night you can see the things with your naked eye so most credibility is lost.

But it did mention this:

Notice that “astronauts” have never turned the camera 360 degrees… because doing so would expose the studio they are filming in…

That's true! I never noticed that.

Where does it say satellites do not exist? IIRC it merely states satellites never show up in NASA imagery of their satellites. It's supposed to be crowded up there...


On that other note... I've watched the sky with my eyes, yes. I have yet to see anything with a high powered telescope though...


But it's not true. And you should have googled it before believing it.

Most everything the hoax believers say is lies. Here's a whole bunch of panoramas: https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollopanoramas/

Stop being so gullible. When someone makes a claim, research it yourself.

The panoramas are stitched together from individual 70mm Hasselblad frames

So, still no 360 without edits...

5927.jpg


...and look at this image, from your link. That shadow. Awfully close to that distant horizon... How big is the moon? Larger than a tennis court?
If you stand on earth and look at the horizon, where is it? Where is it in this photograph?
Look at the astronaut. Look at the shadow again. YUUUUUGE astronaut. Tiny moon.

Pitch black background. Sun is behind. Where are the stars? But I'm sure this has already been mentioned here.

That image is a complete joke!
 

andy dufresne

Kingfisher
5927.jpg


...and look at this image, from your link. That shadow. Awfully close to that distant horizon... How big is the moon? Larger than a tennis court?
If you stand on earth and look at the horizon, where is it? Where is it in this photograph?
Look at the astronaut. Look at the shadow again. YUUUUUGE astronaut. Tiny moon.

Pitch black background. Sun is behind. Where are the stars? But I'm sure this has already been mentioned here.

That image is a complete joke!

The shadow almost touched the black velvet backdrop....almost!
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
^^^^ The stars not visible thing is actually not an anomaly, they won't show if you use the kind of shutter speed and aperture needed to take a normal picture of the lunar landscape under sunlight. The pictures are 100% fake though, for many other reasons outlined in part 4 of American Moon, watch that doc if you want to get to the bottom of the photo scam angle.
 
Last edited:

911

Peacock
Gold Member
The shadow almost touched the black velvet backdrop....almost!

the only way that horizon could be this "short" is if it was the crest of a hill. Which also raises an issue about how easy it is to land a lunar vehicle with very limited visibility on hilly terrain (in addition to it being pockmarked with craters and full of rocks...)

Here are some actual moon pictures from the recent Chinese probe, they show a "long" horizon:

20160129_TCAM-I-143_SCI_P_20131223174541_0010_A_2C_stitch.jpg.webp



56b4d8d86e97c662008b5332


Picture of the Chinese lander, taken by the probe. Notice the blast crater/concave shape of the earth under it from the reactor thrust of the lander, with the outer parts of the landing pads covered in a patch of upturned dirt.

Contrast with the clean Apollo landing pads:

lunar-module-apollo-12_2048x2048.jpeg


b26901cea359bb07cd890e4fe43f0f76.jpg
 
Last edited:

911

Peacock
Gold Member
...Hoax Claim: But! But NASA said they went through the middle of the belts!!
My reply: I'm sorry that NASA didn't choose their words precisely enough so that you wouldn't get confused. You are implying that NASA is contradicting themselves and saying, "the VABs are dangerous" and then later saying, "no big deal" - that's a lie. You're lying when you make that claim. Here's the full context of the quote, from this report: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14mr10.htm

This is NOT a contradiction to anything else NASA has ever said. The full quote, in context, says that yes they went through a heavier portion of the belts, but no, it didn't cause a significant problem. They still flew an angled trajectory that avoided, as much as possible, the worst part.

I'm very sorry that you're choosing to misinterpret the phrase, "traveled through the heart" to mean, "right through the middle where it's not survivable" instead of a charitable interpretation which would be, "higher radiation than other missions"

Once again, this is from the official Apollo 14 flight report published by NASA:

1606932396323.png

Apollo 14 traveled "right through the heart of the trapped radiation belt", quoting directly from the chart they've plotted in the official Apollo 14 flight report. Apparently, they didn't even try to minimize the radiation exposure.

Your claim of "they still flew an angled trajectory that avoided, as much as possible, the worst part" is false.
 
Last edited:
Um....err...I just looked at everyone of those photos. Yes they're panoramas....but all are just shy of being shot with a wide angle lens and none of them at all point behind them.

Come on. You can do better.
"all are just shy of being shot with a wide angle lens" - all of them are shot with the same lens, the 70-millimeter Hasselblad with a field of view (FOV) of 10.77 degrees.

"none of them at all point behind them" - that's a lie. Take this one for example: https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollopanoramas/pans/?pan=JSC2007e045376 - if you look at the far left and the far right, you'll see the same object, captured from two different angles. Note that the source frames are also listed there. Looks like 25 of them.

"You can do better." - no, you can do better. You can think about the stuff you post so that I don't have to keep correcting you. I swear, I would be so happy if just one of you would say something - literally anything - that was actually true. Say that the moon orbits the earth. Just say that, just to make my day so that I can go, "yes that's correct."
 
So, still no 360 without edits...
No idea what that gibberish is supposed to mean. I suppose it means that you have some unrealistic standard of evidence.

"How cum their ain't no 365 degras pictures huh?? Obviously it's fake!!"

Here's a 360 panorama.

"lol no, that wasn't taken with an eye phone 20 so it's fake!!"

That shadow. Awfully close to that distant horizon
I love it! You guys will say, "the surface of the moon is way too hot!!" and I'll reply, that's why the missions went to places where the sun had just risen. The sun was low in the sky and the surface temp wasn't as hot.

Then you guys will say, "why are the shadows so long??" - we already covered this. That's how shadows work when the sun is low in the sky.


If you stand on earth and look at the horizon, where is it? Where is it in this photograph?
no idea what point you're trying to make.

why do you people so often phrase your gibberish in the form of vague questions? Why can you do just a tiny bit of work for yourself instead of expecting others to do it for you? Want to know what I'd do about the shadow question if I was you? I'd look up the height of the lander and the angle of the sun at the mission location and I'd make a claim like, "assuming a level surface, here's how long the shadow should be."

We might need to go look for other pics, maps, or video to try to figure out of the surface is really level, but at least that'd be a claim. Why can't you people ever do that?

Pitch black background. Sun is behind. Where are the stars? But I'm sure this has already been mentioned here.
That's been mentioned, and laughed at by everyone with any critical thinking skills.


"if-in i kan c teh moon how cum i canT se thu stairs?? Obviously Football is fake!!"

This is how cameras work, dude.

That image is a complete joke!
Says the person literally too stupid to understand why a camera taking a picture of a bright surface (the moon or a football field) doesn't capture the stars in the sky.

If you don't understand why there are no stars, then you absolutely aren't qualified to judge the authenticity of that photo.

And let me just repeat something that you people need to learn: think THINK about what you're suggesting here. You're saying they faked the moon landing, but for some reason they couldn't put a few christmas tree lights in the background of the sound stage? Bonus! You're saying they faked the moon landing and they could have just taken a few pics and maybe carefully added stars, but no, for some reason, they choose to take (fake) thousands of images.

Why?? For the love of god, one of you people please answer this question. If you're going to perpetrate a hoax, why would bother to create this much evidence?? Why not just do Apollo 11, just get a few photos, and then say "we beat the russians and all we got was 10 photos" and stop there? Why claim to have landed six times and claim to have thousands of photos?? Why is that a better plan than just faking one landing and stopping there??
 
Here are some actual moon pictures from the recent Chinese probe, they show a "long" horizon:

Do you really think I can't fo and find a photo very similar to that from apollo?

Picture of the Chinese lander, taken by the probe. Notice the blast crater
Define "blast" in the term, "blast crater"

Do you think a lot of force is required by the landing thrusters? You'd be wrong (I mean, compared to what's required on earth).

There's no "blast crater." There's loose regolith, some of which is blown away. That doesn't create a crater. In the case of apollo, they also had humans controlling it, and a surface contact probe which extended five feet from the bottom of the legs. That's what Aldrin refers to when you hear him say, "contact light, engine out" - they cut the engine at five feet from the ground, and fell the rest of the way.

What's shown in the photos is exactly what you'd expect to see under those circumstances.

If the disturbance (not a blast crater) is larger under the chinese probe, I encourage you to research how their lander worked. There are no humans aboard, I wouldn't be surprised if the computer autopilot hovered for longer, accounting for any difference you observe.
 
Once again, this is from the official Apollo 14 flight report published by NASA:
Once again, I quoted the full thing in context. And even your diagram shows the trajectory was angled upwards, just as I said, avoiding most of the belt.

More importantly, I gave you four ways the radiation was mitigated. If you are rejecting one of those ways, fine, but the radiation was still survivable.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
Do you really think I can't fo and find a photo very similar to that from apollo?


Define "blast" in the term, "blast crater"

Do you think a lot of force is required by the landing thrusters? You'd be wrong (I mean, compared to what's required on earth).

There's no "blast crater." There's loose regolith, some of which is blown away. That doesn't create a crater. In the case of apollo, they also had humans controlling it, and a surface contact probe which extended five feet from the bottom of the legs. That's what Aldrin refers to when you hear him say, "contact light, engine out" - they cut the engine at five feet from the ground, and fell the rest of the way.

What's shown in the photos is exactly what you'd expect to see under those circumstances.

If the disturbance (not a blast crater) is larger under the chinese probe, I encourage you to research how their lander worked. There are no humans aboard, I wouldn't be surprised if the computer autopilot hovered for longer, accounting for any difference you observe.

The Apollo landers' mass is 4,900kg, which is a pretty large mass even on the moon. It is roughly the equivalent of landing a vehicle the weight of a small car on earth.

The Chinese lander is only 1/4 the weight of the Apollo landers, 1,200kg vs 4,900kg, so if anything, we would expect the Apollo blast crater to be much more pronounced than the Chinese one. As well, the autopilot would hover just the right amount over the surface as it is more efficient than a manual landing, where the crew would fear touching down too fast, which could be fatal.

You're doubling, and tripling down on the Apollo 14 trajectory, which clearly went right through the thickest part of the VAB, even the flight record said so, trying to claim that there was somehow a different context than what was clearly stated and illustrated in the diagram from the flight record I've provided. That's a bit disingenuous, so I guess we're pretty much done here.
 

NickK

Woodpecker
You're saying they faked the moon landing, but for some reason they couldn't put a few christmas tree lights in the background of the sound stage?
Exactly.
The whole claim is just nonsense.

Kubrick is very meticulous in his filming. Every last detail has to be right.
But supossedly, even backed by NASA advisors, and with unlimited budget, he forgot to add in his little space movie the most obvious thing that exists in space, i.e. stars.
 

philipski

Sparrow
The Apollo landers' mass is 4,900kg, which is a pretty large mass even on the moon. It is roughly the equivalent of landing a vehicle the weight of a small car on earth.

The Chinese lander is only 1/4 the weight of the Apollo landers, 1,200kg vs 4,900kg, so if anything, we would expect the Apollo blast crater to be much more pronounced than the Chinese one. As well, the autopilot would hover just the right amount over the surface as it is more efficient than a manual landing, where the crew would fear touching down too fast, which could be fatal.

You're doubling, and tripling down on the Apollo 14 trajectory, which clearly went right through the thickest part of the VAB, even the flight record said so, trying to claim that there was somehow a different context than what was clearly stated and illustrated in the diagram from the flight record I've provided. That's a bit disingenuous, so I guess we're pretty much done here.
I suppose there’s really no way of
Knowing who among the space nerds posting all this b.s. on the Internet are govt/NASA agents and who aren’t, but they never focus on the difficulty of making films, Period. Back. In. 1969. Visual. And. Audio. Separate. Mini-Mics. Would. Need. To. Have. Been. Hidden. In. Those. Sweaty-Ass. Spacesuits.

When you begin to think of how many people in communications and broadcasting (i.e., the Media) back then would have intuitively understood this thing to be an impossible hoax by its very nature, you begin to get this sweeping sense of the corruption entwined in our country’s everyday public-life since the end of World War II or before; one we now have to pray to be temporarily relieved because of these “Covid” and Election Fraud farces.
 
Last edited:
Top