The Moon Landings: fact vs fiction.

[SusanDoris]

That is absolutely brilliant Jeremy.  I will go off to bed in a bit and be chuckling all the way (was feeling a bit morose), also copied it to forward to my son who will appreciate it.  Thanks very much!

Agreed! I'd never heard of them before.

[Nearly Sane]

Agreed! I'd never heard of them before.

This is one of my favourites of their's

https://www.youtube.com/#/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0

[Sassy]

It really isn't Sassy.

But they don't say that.

Why?

The famous director...




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlqvlu_di6A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPEPRgfVlU4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSnHhZ-zO3A


http://shatteringthematrix.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2127676%3ABlogPost%3A700730&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post#.VupjwCfwqB0


http://shatteringthematrix.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2127676%3ABlogPost%3A700730&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post#.Vupj4yfwqB1


WATCH at least the first three...

[Maeght]

I've watched them and they don't amount to much. Why do you believe all the unsubstantiated claims in the first video for example? A voice over stating things with no reason to believe them. One obvious point to note is that no one interviewed actually mentions the Moon landings - so they could have been talking about anything. Despite the clever cutting together it is unconvincing.

You suggested top scientists say the moon landings are impossible - are those the best you can come up with to support that claim?

[Stranger]

I've watched them and they don't amount to much.

It's incredible what some people will believe, isn't it?

Telegraph Article: Remember when Stanley Kubrick 'faked the moon landings'?
http://tinyurl.com/z5wz9l6

[Sassy]

I've watched them and they don't amount to much. Why do you believe all the unsubstantiated claims in the first video for example? A voice over stating things with no reason to believe them. One obvious point to note is that no one interviewed actually mentions the Moon landings - so they could have been talking about anything. Despite the clever cutting together it is unconvincing.

You suggested top scientists say the moon landings are impossible - are those the best you can come up with to support that claim?

I guess the fact they could go to the moon in 1969 but not in 2016 kinda tells it like it is.

You are cherry pickers when it comes to science.

[Sassy]

It's incredible what some people will believe, isn't it?

Telegraph Article: Remember when Stanley Kubrick 'faked the moon landings'?
http://tinyurl.com/z5wz9l6

The radiation is another give away... How many died from the affect?
The suits they had then would not have kept them safe and they would have died from the affect very soon after.
Oh! Don't forget that it is your scientist who claimed it to be fake...

[Maeght]

I guess the fact they could go to the moon in 1969 but not in 2016 kinda tells it like it is.

There was the political will to go to the moon then but not now - we are now focusing on sending probes further afield. This tells us nothing about whether man went to the Moon or not.

You are cherry pickers when it comes to science.

Nonsense.

[Maeght]

The radiation is another give away... How many died from the affect?
The suits they had then would not have kept them safe and they would have died from the affect very soon after.
Oh! Don't forget that it is your scientist who claimed it to be fake...

The levels of radiation exposure that the astronauts experienced during the Apollo missions were recorded and were well below the annual limit set for people who work with radioactive materials. The levels were far from being fatal levels so it would have been a major surprise if anyone had died as a result.

[Sassy]

There was the political will to go to the moon then but not now - we are now focusing on sending probes further afield. This tells us nothing about whether man went to the Moon or not.

Can it be that you do not know the reason for the space exploration was due to?
They believe our sun will eventually die and we need to find a replacement for the earth. Hence exploration of which the moon was part of that advancement for knowledge to save life in the millions of years ahead.
I believe the fact remains they cannot afford to go to the moon now is what they are saying. Didn't know rocket fuel so expensive...

Nonsense.

Not nonsense at all... but then again you appear to know very little about the then, now.

[Sassy]

The levels of radiation exposure that the astronauts experienced during the Apollo missions were recorded and were well below the annual limit set for people who work with radioactive materials. The levels were far from being fatal levels so it would have been a major surprise if anyone had died as a result.

Again... you are not relating to the scientific knowledge by physicists of how high the levels of radiation would be and how fatal those levels actually are according to them. So the fact is according to scientist anyone traveling to moon in 1969 would have received fatal doses of radiation. The suits they wore and the spaceship would not have given them protection against such high levels of radiation. They would have died soon after returning to earth.

[Maeght]

Can it be that you do not know the reason for the space exploration was due to?

It is all part of human discovery and advancement of knowledge.

They believe our sun will eventually die

Know, not believe.

... and we need to find a replacement for the earth. Hence exploration of which the moon was part of that advancement for knowledge to save life in the millions of years ahead.

Okay - if you say so. I think there was more short term thinking going on too though.

I believe the fact remains they cannot afford to go to the moon now is what they are saying.

There isn't the political will to spend vast sums of money going to the moon at the moment. What perpose wou;d going to the moon again actually serve anyway?

Didn't know rocket fuel so expensive...

Projects to get to the moon are vastly expensive.

Not nonsense at all... but then again you appear to know very little about the then, now.

No idea what that is meant to mean.

[Maeght]

Again... you are not relating to the scientific knowledge by physicists of how high the levels of radiation would be and how fatal those levels actually are according to them. So the fact is according to scientist anyone traveling to moon in 1969 would have received fatal doses of radiation. The suits they wore and the spaceship would not have given them protection against such high levels of radiation. They would have died soon after returning to earth.

Not at all. There have been measurements made, as I said, of the leveles of radiation to which astronauts were exposed and they were well below fatal levels.  The vessel was only within the van Allen Belt for a short period and the hull of the ship did give some protection.

Which scientist are you referring to?

[Gordon]

Again... you are not relating to the scientific knowledge by physicists of how high the levels of radiation would be and how fatal those levels actually are according to them. So the fact is according to scientist anyone traveling to moon in 1969 would have received fatal doses of radiation.

Citation required. Bearing in mind though that there were undoubtedly many scientists outwith NASA who knew about radiation levels in space I doubt that NASA would get away with claiming that astronauts went to the Moon and back if scientists outwith their control could have claimed they'd have been dead from radiation.

The suits they wore and the spaceship would not have given them protection against such high levels of radiation. They would have died soon after returning to earth.

They didn't though, and from Apollo 11 both Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins are still alive and kicking.

[Shaker]

FSTDT is going to be absolutely on fire with this thread.

[Sassy]

Citation required. Bearing in mind though that there were undoubtedly many scientists outwith NASA who knew about radiation levels in space I doubt that NASA would get away with claiming that astronauts went to the Moon and back if scientists outwith their control could have claimed they'd have been dead from radiation.

None necessary, you only have to study to see the excuses made like arrangements allowing for least exposure etc.
The fact is the scientist today say the materials worn by the space crew and the vessel itself would not have protected the astronauts from the effects of the radiation.

The astronauts would have all been affected from the effects of the radiation.
Unless of course you have evidence to prove the Scientist incorrect there is none required. The fact is as science has grown and more knowledge been assessed. The modern day scientist say the moon landing impossible because of the high level of radiation.

They didn't though, and from Apollo 11 both Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins are still alive and kicking.

The fact they are still alive lays weight to the evidence they never went at all...
Because the space ship and clothes could not protect them from the levels of radiation.

[Gordon]

The modern day scientist say the moon landing impossible because of the high level of radiation.

References please.

[ProfessorDavey]

Again... you are not relating to the scientific knowledge by physicists of how high the levels of radiation would be and how fatal those levels actually are according to them. So the fact is according to scientist anyone traveling to moon in 1969 would have received fatal doses of radiation. The suits they wore and the spaceship would not have given them protection against such high levels of radiation. They would have died soon after returning to earth.

Why don't you try to learn something rather than spout conspiracy theorist drivel.

You might want to start here:

http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm

In this article the author carefully assesses theoretical radiation levels (which are likely to be of little consequence during the rapid transit through the Van Allen belt during a lunar mission, within the command module with its extensive shielding. He also helpfully gives the actual readings for all the Apollo missions - guess what - they actually measured it for the astronauts.

He also debunks the notion that Van Allen himself claimed a lunar mission would be lethal - he didn't. He suggested the radiation received by satellites that spent two years continually bombarded by the radiation and without shielding would be lethal. That isn't the same thing whatsoever.

[Maeght]

None necessary, you only have to study to see the excuses made like arrangements allowing for least exposure etc.
The fact is the scientist today say the materials worn by the space crew and the vessel itself would not have protected the astronauts from the effects of the radiation.

The astronauts would have all been affected from the effects of the radiation.
Unless of course you have evidence to prove the Scientist incorrect there is none required. The fact is as science has grown and more knowledge been assessed. The modern day scientist say the moon landing impossible because of the high level of radiation.
The fact they are still alive lays weight to the evidence they never went at all...
Because the space ship and clothes could not protect them from the levels of radiation.

Which scientists say this please. Citations needed - as requested.

[ProfessorDavey]

Which scientists say this please. Citations needed - as requested.

I doubt Sassy actually knows.

However the general conspiracy theorist world often assumes Van Allen himself made the claim, but as I've indicated that is a gross misinterpretation of what he did claim, which was effectively that were a person to spend two years directly bombarded by the highest levels of radiation within the Van Allen belt then that is likely to be lethal.

But of course the lunar missions didn't - they passed rapidly through the Van Allen belt within a highly shielded spacecraft and wearing protective space suits so their radiation exposure was very low. The highest measured levels of radiation exposure for the Apollo missions was on Apollo 14 at 1.14 rads or 0.014 Gy.  The lowest dose demonstrated to cause clinically observable changes is 25 rad or more than 20 times greater than exposure on the worst Apollo mission. Whole body lethal dose is about 400 rad.

[Bubbles]

Again... you are not relating to the scientific knowledge by physicists of how high the levels of radiation would be and how fatal those levels actually are according to them. So the fact is according to scientist anyone traveling to moon in 1969 would have received fatal doses of radiation. The suits they wore and the spaceship would not have given them protection against such high levels of radiation. They would have died soon after returning to earth.

What about astronauts on the space station?  Tim Peake?

What's protecting him?

Here is something from nasa on it

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/spacenews/factsheets/pdfs/radiation.pdf

[ProfessorDavey]

What about astronauts on the space station?  Tim Peake?

What's protecting him?

Here is something from nasa on it

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/spacenews/factsheets/pdfs/radiation.pdf

The big issue is the intense radiation zones, such as the Van Allen belt. The space station is below those so an astronaut traveling to and from and living in the space station never encounter those particularly high levels of radiation.

If you travel to the moon you do have to travel through them.

[Sassy]

References please.

Oh Please is that the reaction of a truly open mind.

If one thing the atheist are good at, it is claiming an open mind. If you have never read the works of a physicist who claimed
the moon landing to be fake then you have never really studied the evidence or writing about it.
So get your own references as open minded people like myself already did.

My Husband Directed The Fake Moon Landing Says Stanley Kubrick's Widow.

Without the scientist there are obvious proofs.

Was she a liar?  Stanley Kubrick directed from his home and he later borrowed stuff from the USA to use in a film he made.
An honest man whose life was shattered by the secret.
Who is telling the truth?

Why is the boot Neil Armstrong wore different tread to picture of the boot picture taken on the moon?

The suits weren't even the same. The one he was pictured in was not the same as the one on show which was suppose to be his. Good film makers need continuity.

DiD YOU know they lost the original footage and the moon rock they bought back in the 80's and only have the bad footage shown on the night all grainy.

If reading with an open mind you would not need me to tell you the name of the scientist.
You would know them already.

[Sassy]

Why don't you try to learn something rather than spout conspiracy theorist drivel.

You might want to start here:

http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm

In this article the author carefully assesses theoretical radiation levels (which are likely to be of little consequence during the rapid transit through the Van Allen belt during a lunar mission, within the command module with its extensive shielding. He also helpfully gives the actual readings for all the Apollo missions - guess what - they actually measured it for the astronauts.

He also debunks the notion that Van Allen himself claimed a lunar mission would be lethal - he didn't. He suggested the radiation received by satellites that spent two years continually bombarded by the radiation and without shielding would be lethal. That isn't the same thing whatsoever.

The first lunar model and suits had no protecting against the Van Allen belt.
The truth is that it would NOT KILL INSTANTLY but the overall affect means they would die some time after returning.
The problem is that there are many physicist today who believe that man never went to the moon and all equally qualified as those at Nasa.

Again we have to decided on evidence as a whole. How did the moon rocks come to have numbers on them?

How did Neil Armstrongs boots leave a different footprint to the boot he actually wore?

Today, I would have no problem believing they landed on the moon. But in 1969 I do not believe they could have done.
Nor do I believe they had the protection necessary to do it safely.

It was in Nixon's presidency and we all know what a liar and cheat he turned out to be.

What is clear they somehow lost precious footage and pictures including the moon rock in the 80's. Who puts material like that in a place it can be wiped or stolen?

[floo]

So are you saying Sass that no of space exploration has actually taken place like the landing on Mars, and it is all a big con?