Moon Landing Hoax! NASA Unwittingly Reveals Van Allen Radiation Belts Prohibit Human Spaceflight. (2min vid incl)

Since Neil Armstrong, the first man on the moon, passed away a few days ago, I thought I’d post the following NASA article which was released about 10 hrs ago.

The following is a comment with the username  un4g1v3n1

“NASA is still seeking to develop technology to safeguard humans for spaceflight into radiation-laden space within and beyond the Van Allen Radiation belts, and the protection provided by our magnetosphere.”

“Until that technology is available, our exploits into space will continue to be well below the beginning of radiation belts so intense, Van Allen called them a SEA of DEADLY RADIATION. What we know from the effects of radiation on Earth teaches us that Apollo was nothing more than mere FANTASY.” (end of comment by username un4g1v3n1)

According to the you tube vid below, every space ship, whether Russian or American with humans aboard, beginning in 1961 to the present, all have maintained altitudes of one thousand miles well below the Van Allen Radiation Belts. The only space craft to go through the 25,000 miles of those belts was the Apollo.

Question: If it’s NOT possible to presently pass through these deadly radiation belts, how was it possible for the Apollo to pass through and land on the moon without any danger to the astronauts in 1969? They didn’t have the technology to do so, as the following article seems to indicate. (do you notice anything wrong with that pic?)

Here’s the NASA article.

AFP      Aug.30, 2012

NASA launched two satellites into space on Thursday to explore the belts of radioactive particles orbiting the Earth, in a mission that is the first of its kind.

The twin spacecraft will spend the next two years exploring the so-called Van Allen belt that is filled with highly-charged particles and at times poses a danger to communications, GPS satellites and even human spaceflight.

“Scientists will learn in unprecedented detail how the radiation belts are populated with charged particles, what causes them to change and how these processes affect the upper reaches of the atmosphere around Earth,” said John Grunsfeld, associate administrator for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate.

“The information collected from these probes will benefit the public by allowing us to better protect our satellites and understand how space weather affects communications and technology on Earth.”

The satellites — buttressed with protective plating — blasted into orbit from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida aboard an Atlas V 401 rocket.

NASA’s latest mission comes just weeks after the space agency landed its $2.5 billion Mars Science Laboratory and Curiosity rover on the surface of the Red Planet, breaking new ground in US-led exploration of an alien world.


Here’s a link to the 10 min version of the vid below which is titled “greatest proof man didn’t land on the moon”.

About ron abbass

Because of my last name, there are some who might think I'm a Muslim. I'm an older student of the bible and I regard myself as Christian-other. That is, I was baptized in a Torah-keeping assembly. I'm one who tries his best to follow Yayshua, the Messiah (Christ) by keeping the commandments, the dietary laws, the weekly Sabbath and the annual Sabbaths (Holy Days) instituted and ordained by the great I AM, the Creator-God of Israel. I reject the holidays and festivals invented by the Roman church. Truth-seeking is my present passion. Presently, I do a lot of research into the World Wars, the mass media, the Holocaust, Zionism, Health Issues, 9/11 and the power brokers who are behind the New World Order that is gradually being established mainly in the Western Nations. Many prognosticators (prophets) both secular and religious are warning us that we are living "On the Eve of Destruction" - the last days. There's a very good chance a nuclear tsunami will eventually visit many nations. Peace and blessings to all who love the truth and hate the lies.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

769 Responses to Moon Landing Hoax! NASA Unwittingly Reveals Van Allen Radiation Belts Prohibit Human Spaceflight. (2min vid incl)

  1. I agree there is compelling evidence leading one to subscribe to the hoax theory, there’s just as compelling evidence leading them in the other direction.

    • ron abbass says:

      Hi David! Thanks for your comment. After reviewing the evidence presented by many experts, I’m convinced that the Moon Landing was indeed a Hollywood production. The Van Allen radiation belts is the most compelling evidence that humans, presently, do not have the technology to allow them to travel to the moon or to another planet.

      Thanks again, David and peace and blessings to you and yours!

      • Your article contains cherry-picked statements from an article that is focused on LONG-TERM (several months and more) manned space flights. The Apollo missions lasted only a little more than a week. The fact that you are ignorant about the reality of the Apollo missions is evident in your face-palmingly absurd acceptance of whatever hogwash is presented to support your ludicrous claim, regardless of its lack of legitimate reference(s), logic, or proper science. If there is/are any specific question(s) you have about the Van Allen belts, in association with Apollo, I will be glad to attempt to answer.

        Also, as far as NASA doing more research in the magnetosphere (which is the ACTUAL cause of the belts), that is how science works. The Earth’s oceans are dangerous, and still being studied in depth, but that doesn’t make them impassible. Science does NOT know everything. That is why it doesn’t quit.

      • john says:

        I believe it was Stanley Kubrick who did the production for the “moon walk” and he was in fear of his life ever afterwards, to the point of borderline insanity. So says his wife. Watch this

      • Don Austen says:

        There was no one named Stanley Kubrick. The name is an anagram for Blacks in Turkey. The moon landing was a hoax created by a small group of Moors for Project Othello, designed to distract the West from the impending crisis in the Middle East. In fact, Neil Armstrong is just an anagram for “later mornings” which is when the supposed launches took place. One small step for man. One giant leap for mankind was code for “The World Trade Center is the next target.” The small step is building 7. The giant leap is referring to the two towers. Furthermore Osama bin Ladin is actually none other than Jesus, who, as we know, was resurrected and has walked the earth all these years. This is His plan for the end of days.

        And if you believe that pile of rubbish, you are dumber than dumb.

      • Peter J. Lord says:

        I’ve been calling it crap since I was 12 years old (1983). Back then, the library wasn’t as censored as the internet is today. Many articles, pictures, audio & video recordings of cosmonaut(s) returning with fatal radiation burns to see back then.

        I have another avenue for you to consider: the money. For NASA to have a craft able to safely bring man to the moon and back, then a contractor designed and manufactured it. If this is the case, then there would be at least ONE patent granted sometime in the mid to late 1960s to an entity/person and that entity/person would have made an enormous amount of money. Good luck!

      • ron abbass says:

        Hi Peter! Thanks for your comments – much appreciated. I agree “crap” for sure! Peter, I don’t think one contractor designed and manufactured a moon craft and patented it. NASA’s own people would have designed it. However, it’s food for thought. Peace and blessings to you and yours, Peter!

    • colin bath says:

      I watched a documentary on Netflix about this very issue. It discussed the radiation belts and numerous other things, including photos with strange shadows. I continue to attempt to find someone who will confirm how Apollo got through the radiation belts, but find only answers in the negative.

      Just as we now find that President JFK was not killed as reported, one wonders how much history has been made up to fortify someone’s or a group’s goals. Look at the Mormons with golden plates and papyrus that are fake, Catholicism hiding it’s clergy’s heinous crimes, the Bush family’s connection to Hitler, all now proven. If you’re afraid of accepting the truth, don’t go looking for it. There are still billions of other sheep out there who will believe everything their leaders tell them. But once you experience a real incident where you find those same leaders have lied, you will never blindly accept anything again.

      It’s not the truth I fear. It’s the people who won’t question what other humans tell them. We have all lied, some much more than others, to protect our own positions. Remember, first the church said the earth was flat, then many iterations of false maps later, we discovered what it’s really about. If you are unwilling to question other human animals, you have no right to criticize those who do.

      • ron abbass says:

        Hi Colin! Thanks for your comments __much appreciated. I wholeheartedly agree with you @ “It’s not the truth I fear. It’s the people who won’t question what other humans tell them”! It’s my contention that it is the mass media, which is controlled by power brokers from a particular “tribe”, who are responsible for most of the dis-info and propaganda that is presented as “history” and as “current events”.

        Thanks again, Colin. Peace and blessings to you and yours.

      • aaron says:

        Wait… someone found the Mormons’ gold plates and they were fake??? Do tell. Was it really fools gold or real gold but a make believe story? And since we are on the topic of crazy stories what about the burning bush, that seems a little far fetched to me or the parting of the read sea? Or what about a young lad challenging a giant with his sling shot, a little far fetched if you ask a doubter like me. And what about the great flood that wiped out the entire world’s population but one man who apparently made a lucky guess to prepare for such an event or was told by God himself. Or what about that so called Hebrew prophet that would heal the dead and cause the lame to walk? What about the story his followers wrote about this same prophet rising from the dead after 3 days. Have scientists figured that one out yet? Man…this history is tough stuff. One could argue the past is about has difficult to figure out as the future. Believing has never been the problem it has always been the lack of belief. If there really is a creator of a beautiful planet like the one we live on, surely he can clear of the confusion, James 1:27 is a good place to start.

      • ron abbass says:

        Hi aaron! Thanks for your comments __much appreciated. There IS a Creator, and he will eventually make all things new. However, before that time comes, we are to clear up the confusion in our own lives. One has free will to seek the Creator and his determined will, or to reject altogether, the Creator, and his will. James is talking about “pure religion”. Most “religions” have some truth and lots of lies, customs, rituals and man-made doctrines.

        Thanks again, aaron. Peace and blessings to you and yours.

      • Zero-11 says:

        There is no connection between the Bush family and Hitler, this is Jewish Bullshit. Btw. Earth is not a Planet, there is no infinite universe.

      • AngelFire says:

        The “truth” to these “leaders” is just “a lie that is hidden”!

      • ron abbass says:

        Hi AngelFire! Thanks so much for your observations and comments — much appreciated. Peace and blessings to you and yours.

      • 1dogma1 says:

        Thank you for your comment. Have you had it out with Steve yet? A couple people are quite fond of his dedication to being right. Regards, Meeks.

      • hsaive says:

        Some of the brightest people I talk to know the Apollo mission was an “inside job”. They won’t discuss it unless you bring it up. Looking at all the documentaries and books should convince any reasonable person to be very skeptical — especially considering we have everything military and strategical to gain by going back to the moon…but mum’s the word and Mars is the big distraction. ….Notice how little Mars news is in the media. I suspect something’s up.

      • simphiwe says:

        beautiful. thanks man for your words.

      • S.L. Bolton says:

        Very well said. I could not agree more!

      • jamengulfer says:

        You can’t find someone who will confirm how Apollo got through the radiation belts? Well let me be the first to enlighten you! I’ve posted this elsewhere in this comment section, but I thought it would also be relevant here:

        The Van Allen belts are actually quite small in latitude. They only span roughly 20 degrees in both directions from the equator. The trajectory of the Apollo missions was at 30% to the equator, so they only passed through at worse, the outer layers of the belts. They aren’t a spherical shield around the earth that is untraversable by anyone. If you think of it in 3 dimensions, they’re like two thin donuts around the equator.

        Also, most of the nasties in the belts are high energy protons. The protons in the Van Allen belt tend to have an energy level of around 30MeV (Mega electron volts). 3mm of aluminium can protect against all protons with an energy level of 25MeV, and the aluminium hull on the Apollo command module was at least twice this thickness, allowing it to shield up to 50MeV, well enough to block out the radiation at the middle of the belts, let alone the edges the craft passed through.

        The lower Van Allen belt is the one with all the nasty proton radiation and is the most deadly. It’s also the thinnest, at 5000km. When the Apollo mission flew through the first belt, it did so at a bit over 10km per second. With a quick calculation, you find that they spent at most, 8 minutes in the least deadly part of the belt along with adequate radiation shielding.

        So what about the upper belt? That one is more expansive and more difficult to avoid. The problem is, the radiation found there is beta radiation in the form of high energy electrons. This also happens to be shielded by 3mm of aluminium, which we have already established to be overprovided for by the Apollo craft.

        I honestly want to hear your thoughts on this, because I would be delighted if you could prove me wrong.

      • christoph says:

        Colin, I believe we are at a point in history where everything we have been told as “fact” has to be revisited. My problem with the lunar landings is the Van Allen belt, which NASA admitted are a problem, but also the landing and take off of the lunar modules and docking with the command modules. There was one test with the lunar lander here on earth and it nearly cost Armstrong his life. They then used it in 6 successful landings and takeoffs. …people need to use critical thinking…The lunar module looks like a mock up and its “user manual” was half the size of my first car user manual ,a 1980 ford escort!!..the plans/schematics of the Saturn 5 have been destroyed!!. This is the only rocket that would get us to the moon (supposedly)….why would they do that??..Gus Grissom reportedly hung a lemon on a coat hanger on the Apollo simulator. He then died…or was assassinated. Watch the first ever news conference given by these guys after doing the greatest achievement by mankind…….do they look triumphant and sincere?. Recent events with NASA show that they are NOT considering a moon base and all those perfect landings and takeoffs 40 years ago mean nothing. Mark Twain said it is easier to fool a man that to explain to that man he was fooled…or somat like that.
        I have seen the evidence Richard Hoagland has presented to state that the Apollo missions found ancient giant structures on the moon. He has done this by analysing the actual footage and using photo shop to reveal giant structures hidden in the background of the astronauts. I just believe these “structures” are the sound stage used to film the landings.

        To jamengulfer, if you know how to get through the radiation belts, go tell NASA and you should get a healthy paying job.

      • Warner says:

        Official Nasa video where they say they need to research how to safely get humans pass the Van Allen belt as in they don’t have a method as of yet meaning they didn’t have it back then. It also states that it is unsafe for humans to pass through it right now.

      • You can very simply find someone who will confirm exactly that–me. Apollo astronauts got through the Van Allen belts by flying through a low-flux area in a very short amount of time–they were exposed to this radiation for about a half an hour, total, and their craft was constructed so that it blocked out 99.99% of the harmful radiation, anyway. Either you are unskilled with a search engine or are choosing to pretend that you cannot find the information. Try this, type “Moon Landing Hoax Debunked” into your search engine and see what happens. Read the results. Educate yourself.

      • dalila rodriguez says:

        If possible would you mind sharing with me the name of the document that is on Netflix? I am interested in this particular subject and it would be very helpful if you could give me the name of that document.

    • Mihail says:

      I am amazed that you as a Christian did not read the oldest article of all time: Genesis 3 ,23,24 There is your answer to our quarantine on earth…

    • I tried to find all the experiments done with animals into the Van Allen belts and found the amount of crashes they had with things going wrong was quite alarming. If they had at least a 90% success rate with animals going up and returning with no adverse effects then fine send a human unfortunately I can’t find one mention of an animal experiment where a Monkey, Mice ,Dog,Cat or any living thing going into it staying for a few hours or more and coming back, all experiments I could find were done well below the VABs. If they weren’t game to send animals into them why would you send humans with no animal trials. Maybe those Astronuts were expendable and the Government didn’t give a damn so long as they were the first human carcasses to get there. Even the Shuttles never went into the VABs the highest they ever went was 380 miles. If the VABs are no problem then a shuttle voyage into them for a few hours to some proper tests would be the best way I can see to take all the mystery away and then be just facts.

      • Dan M says:

        Well, here’s another great example of someone making assumptions about stuff they haven’t really researched.

        You ask for evidence to prove something you *think* happened, but never did. You clearly have very little knowledge about both the Van Allen belts and the Apollo missions. There are no experiments with animals surviving for hours in the belts because it’s completely irrelevant to what they were achieving. The astronauts didn’t spend hours in the belts. They spent 5 minutes *maximum*. The belts form a donut-ish shape around the equator, not a sphere around the planet. The Apollo missions launched at a trajectory that let them go through the very edge of the belts.

        The hull of their vessel was plenty enough to shield themselves from the radiation. The Van Allen belts are made up of fast moving protons, so they collide with solid objects, especially dense objects like the metallic exterior of a spacecraft.

        The tests and experiments you ask for are right in front of you in the form of the Apollo missions.

        The more you actually look into the science and facts behind what you’re questioning, the more you realise that your questioning doesn’t make any sense.

  2. willie says:

    I think so many people believe in conspiracy theories because there is an excitement about such theories. The truth can seem boring in comparison. The idea that the moon landings could be a hoax is surely though the most ridiculous of all such alleged conspiracies. The evidence that the Apollo program DID land men on the moon is overwhelming. 40+ years on and still no-one who was involved with the Apollo program has come forward to say it was a hoax. Ever worse for the hoax believers, we now have evidence from non-NASA sources that the landing sites on the moon are real. No doubt though these people will claim that those behind these images are also in on conspiracy. Sad and pathetic really. We should take pride in one of the most extraordinary achievement of mankind instead of being so daft!

    • ron abbass says:

      Hi Willie! Thanks for your comment. I believe NASA and their admission that the Van Allen Belts, at this particular juncture, prevent human travel to the moon or other planets. If you participated in a massive lie that was foisted upon the public, would you come forward and confess?

      In any case, Willie, I do thank you for your comments. Peace to you and yours.

      • Phil says:

        Cant believe so many people still think the landings on the moon are false. There are so many articles about the Van Allen Belt, The radiation they were exposed to for 1hr was not enough to do them any real harm. It mentioned they would have to be in the belt for 3 months to endure any harm.
        Now if you want a good conspiracy theory what about humans being the children of visiting aliens, much more evidence around to support this.

      • ron abbass says:

        Hiya Phil! Thanks for your observations – much appreciated. However, I’m convinced that no American astronaut walked on the moon, nor of the outlandish fairytale that we humans are the children of aliens. 🙂

        Nonetheless, thanks again Phil! Peace and blessings to you and yours.

      • First, and this is really important: Three people can keep a secret–as long as two of them are dead. Look that one up, I think you’ll agree that the speaker is relevant.

        Second, you are making an assumption based on ignorance (forgive the word, it is correct here) of what radiation is and how it works. No where in the article you posted does it say that the radiation is deadly to humans. It doesn’t speak to it at all. It simply states that they are measuring the radiation in greater detail. This does not ‘prove’ anything like what you claim it does, nor are they leaking information that we haven’t known about for years. Van Allen himself wrote several articles about the radiation (after all, it IS named after him for a reason), and concluded that extended exposure would be not good for humans, unless there was a way to shield them from the radiation. Note “EXTENDED EXPOSURE.” We’re talking days, maybe weeks here–not minutes. Apollo Astronauts were exposed for about a half hour in total, and they took a path through the belt (BELT not SPHERE) so as to clip the outer edge and reduce their exposure. Their ship was made of stainless steel and designed well beyond the specifications needed to deal with fluxes present >.5 MeV, and with some very easy sleuthing you can work out for yourself that the Apollo spacecraft were capable of blocking 99.99% of all harmful radiation not only from the Van Allen belts, but from the sun and cosmic rays, as well. Higher energy particles, such as those seen with a solar flare, would have been deadly, but the Van Allen belts presented no problem. It would be like trying to avoid a sunburn by going to the beach with an umbrella and wearing three layers of white Burka–that’s how much shielding they brought with them. Overkill much shielding.

        I have a degree in aviation science, and have worked as an astronomy and space expert with the local planetarium here where I live. I study all the planetary sciences because I love them, I love space travel, exploring, etc. To see someone so nice (you are, you know, and your comments reflect it) repeating this hogwash hurts me, personally.

        Therefore, I am going to leave you with a basic truth about science, and apply them to what you are doing here.

        Science is not about believing something so much that you find evidence to prove it is true. It is not about that at all. For some reason people seem to think it is, though, and treat their own theories in much the same way–as truth that only needs a few facts to support it as such. Worse, people will come up with long words that sound good, logic that makes no sense, and other devices specifically designed to fool others into making it appear that the speaker/writer knows what they are talking about–the results of this technique are called pseudoscience, or science that sounds good, but is not actual science. This includes omitting information and using quotes out of context–a favorite ruse of the conspiracy crowd.

        In fact, most people don’t even understand the word ‘Theory’ as it applies to science. In general use, a theory is a guess about how something is. As in, I have a theory as to how the vase got broken. However, in science, a theory is NOT a guess. In science, we start with a question, then formulate a hypothesis. We test the hypothesis. Sometimes we learn something unexpected, leading to more questions. Sometimes a hypothesis seems to be true–especially after earlier versions of it have been proven false. Then it becomes almost like a game among scientists, with many of them trying to find ways to poke holes in the hypothesis and deflate it. When a hypothesis holds up–usually for many years–to this sort of rigorous testing, it becomes a Theory. We no longer use the word ‘Law,’ as in Law of Gravity. Because even though the hypothesis has undergone rigorous testing and peer-review, it might still need correcting and shouldn’t be taken as the end of knowledge on the subject.

        Science is not TRUTH. Science is Probability. When science says something works a certain way, we are not saying this is a truth, we are saying that to the best of our knowledge, and through rigorous testing and observation, we have decided that, for now, at a high probability, this is how said thing works.

        Science is willing to change its mind. Newton was a genius. He invented calculus to solve the problem of planetary motion. However, his model had flaws, and we knew it. Then, along came Einstein. Einstein corrected those flaws with his own model, and science changed its mind about fundamental workings of the universe. Einstein’s relativity in turn has some flaws…

        All that said, perpetuating the ‘moon landing hoax’ on a public that generally doesn’t understand science, using pseudoscience and deception to prove a hypothesis that has already been disproved, is just plain bad science.

        You are a good guy. I can tell. I like to see the good guys win. You aren’t winning with this hoax theory stuff.

      • ron abbass says:

        Aloha Michael! Thanks for your impressive commentary which indicates you believe humans landed on the moon. Questions: Why after 50 years, astronauts/scientists haven’t returned to the moon and set up a base or colony? Why are they planning to colonize Mars instead of the moon? A moon base was NASA’s plan from the start. Wouldn’t it make more sense to build a moon base first, and from there, launch a Mars-colonizing-mission?

        I’m no scientist, nor am I a student of science. However, logic, critical thought, common sense and NASA’s admission that the Van Allen Belts prohibit human space travel and require more investigation into “this sea of deadly radiation”, lead me to conclude a moon landing hoax. Question: Didn’t they solve the Van Allen problem in the 60’s?

        For my part, these simple facts tell me that no man has landed on the moon, nor will NASA, or any other space agency, be able to colonize Mars with their present technology.

        Thanks again Michael. Peace and blessings to you and yours.

      • myth buster says:

        Why colonize Mars rather than the Moon? Because it’s easier. Despite the fact that the Moon is much closer, Mars is far more hospitable to colonization. The lack of atmosphere and extreme temperatures on the Moon mean that any water that was on or near the surface of the Moon has long since boiled off and escaped into space. If there is any water on the Moon, it’s deep underground, and we wouldn’t even know where to look. Furthermore, night lasts nearly two weeks on the Moon, whereas Martian days are only a few minutes longer than Earth days. You can see the problem in trying to use solar energy to power a colony through a two-week night, yet that is precisely what a lunar colony would depend on, given the amount of fuel required to launch things out of Earth’s gravity well. Mars has CO2 and extractable water; we’d have to bring everything we need to the Moon.


      • jason twist says:

        one point about this clip,, notice the background,, its completely flat,, no bumps,, hills,, mountains,, or craters !!! i find it hard to believe that the moons surface is totally flat?

      • Bravo says:

        The first five seconds proves this video was a lie. What did he throw on the ground underneath the tripod? Why didn’t it float?

      • Wow guys–Jason the horizon is a lot closer, and so you don’t see as many features off in the distance because they are below the horizon. Also, even looking at the still of the video without playing it I can see that the land is not flat. There is a pronounced saddle just to the right and behind the LEM, and a huge boulder in the distance.

        Bravo–if than indeed is your real name 🙂 — it didn’t float because the moon has gravity. 1/6th the gravity of the earth.

        And finally, Jason, welcome to the last bastion of hope for this conspiracy theory: the Van Allen Radiation belts. How Apollo astronauts got through them is easily explained, though I doubt you would believe me because I would have to refer to science, and you clearly don’t know much about it. I’ll keep it simple. It’s a belt. Not a sphere. They flew mostly around it, avoiding most of the radiation. Second off, the radiation isn’t as bad as most conspiracy sites will try to tell you–you can look this information up yourself. In fact, the radiation present in the Van Allen belts is easily shielded for even with late sixties technology–and in fact, was. Third, the danger of the radiation that Van Allen outlined in his articles, the same articles that are usually taken out of context by conspiracy theorists, were about prolonged, (days and weeks) exposure, not minutes, which is how fast the Apollo Astronauts got through the part of the belt they skirted–about fifteen minutes each way. Plus, he was referring to unshielded effects. Apollo used so much shielding it was like wearing three burkas with sunscreen underneath to the beach.

        Again, I doubt you are going to believe me even though I am myself a credible source. Try this: type “Moon landing hoax debunked” into your search engine and read the results.

        You are running around assuming that there is a mysterious ‘them’ that is out to get you. You are assuming that there was a need to lie about this. You are assuming that tens of thousands of people are capable of adhering to a strict secrecy policy, when one of your own heroes (I assume), Edward Snowden, was only one of hundreds and violated everything in order to out the truth because he felt it morally right.

        And then you call someone else moronic for disagreeing with you, when you’ve failed to see how twisted your logic is.

    • jason twist says:

      willie,, explain to us then how they got thru the van allen belts? just becuase a lie is 40 years old doesnt make it now thruth,, if you can explain,, clearly,,how they did it,, ill listen,, but unless you got something credible to say,,then its just ur uneducated moronic opinion and thats not what this topic is about.
      plus,, you dont believe that the government would,,lie,,to its ppls,,do you? surely not,,no polititions always tell the truth,,right,, they wouldnt lie about something ,, that had such a huge benifitial effect for themselves,,would they? wake up mate. ppl are assholes,,self absorbed and iggnorant,, a person will do just about anything to further their own goals. lying,, thats childs play,, mass murder for profit,, now,, thats a bit more serious.

      • ron abbass says:

        Hi Jason! Thanks for both of your observations! I couldn’t agree more with you. Lies and deceptions are the order of the day.

        Peace and blessings to you and yours, Jason!

      • Mike Anthony says:

        Took the words out of my mouth. We can’t even FOIA the original moon landing films because they’re missing.

      • hsaive says:

        Alleged Moon rocks out of touch and out of sight. Insurance fraud in 2002 is likely how can we tell a moon rock from a meteorite? This from Wikipedia…..

        “The main repository for the Apollo moon rocks is the Lunar Sample Laboratory Facility at the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. For safe keeping, there is also a smaller collection stored at White Sands Test Facility in Las Cruces, New Mexico. Most of the rocks are stored in nitrogen to keep them free of moisture. They are only handled indirectly, using special tools.

        Moon rocks collected during the course of lunar exploration are currently considered priceless. In 1993, three small fragments from Luna 16, weighing 0.2 g, were sold for US$ 442,500. In 2002, a safe, containing minute samples of lunar and Martian material, was stolen from the Lunar Sample Building. The samples were recovered; in 2003, during the court case, NASA estimated the value of these samples at about $1 million for 285 g (10 oz) of material.

        Naturally transported moon rocks (in the form of lunar meteorites), although expensive, are widely sold and traded among private collectors.”

    • AngelFire says:

      Hey willie

      Recent evidence shows that President Kennedy was shot with a high calibre bullet. Since the rifle that was said to be Lee Harvey Oswald’s was low calibre how can you accept that he was the “lone” gunman. Further, the Zapruder film has been shown to have been massively edited. One only has to look at the bystanders when Kennedy is being shot to see how the film had been tampered with, as they are looking up the street and not at the president.

      Even more new evidence with better technology of the Zapruder film shows Present Kennedy was first shot in the throat (as he reaches for his neck with both hands). That bullet came from the front. Also the autopsy doctors state taht there was a massive hole in the back of Kennedy’s head indicating he was shot from the front and not the back. And of course anyone stupid enough to believe in the “magic bullet” theory are themselves believers in conspiracy theories since the “magic bullet” theory defies all physics!

    • Truthy1 says:

      Can you provide 1 source for a satellite or telescopic image taken from Earth that shows one iota of evidence of a landing ? Nobody else can either ! There supposedly are two large Rovers and landing pods still there right ! Job One: Redundancy/safety ? Why didn’t NASA fly a dog or monkey to the moon first to make sure it could be done? Not even an orbit ! Why are we still the only visitors to the moon? Hmmm… it is easier to fool people than it is to tell them they have been fooled. Cognitive Dissonance,Normalcy Bias and Insulated Ignorance are far easier to fall for without Faithful pursuit of the Truth. If you honestly seek the truth it will be revealed to you.Keep up your research on Van Allen belts and the 1962 nuclear war head tests on it.

      • ron abbass says:

        Hi Truthy1 Thanks for your insightful comments and thought-provoking questions. I wholeheartedly agree with them. Peace and blessings to you and yours, Truthy1. 🙂

      • hsaive says:

        We have telescopes that can spot earth-like planets in another galaxy but the tin-foil American Flag on the moon remains out of range?

      • Tim says:

        Why go to the moon again. The expense is just not worth it. What is there to find that would make it a worthwhile venture? We use science to disprove science. Really? What kind of proof would you need to accept that they landed on the moon? Or is there no such proof that you could except?

      • ron abbass says:

        Hi Tim! Thanks for your comments and questions — much appreciated. Your questions have been answered in many of those who commented on this post. Take care, Tim and peace and blessings to you and yours.

      • hsaive says:

        If Neil DeGrasse Tyson (New Al Gore) says we went to the Moon…then we went to the moon! Right? (grin)

      • 1dogma1 says:

        They found another belt a few months back, because of the probes.( Does this mean the supposed trajectory of 30° will change? The more new things we discover, the more you have to wonder. I wonder what’s in between the 2nd & 3rd belt!!!?? Stanley Kubrick route?

      • 1dogma1 says:

        Whoever doesn’t think there is any good reason for going back to the moon, have you heard of “Helium 3?” The moon is covered with it. It could be an awesome contributer for alternate energy. Do some research, nasa did and found a 3rd belt. Facts are still being furnished & I think this blog will be here to see the end result.

      • Chris Carter says:

        Apollo 10 went into lunar orbit in a dress rehearsal for the Apollo 11 mission – didn’t you know that Truthy1? Also, google ‘LROC’ and you’ll see plenty of images of all 6 of the Apollo mission’s landing sites, which include the equipment left behind, and the Lunar Module descent stage. This is all the proof you need that the Apollo missions were NOT faked.

    • Crabby Abbey says:

      What proof do you have that they happened? How did all of the original films of it get destroyed? Why can’t NASA explain how humans were protected from radiation. If you are believing the government and not the scientists, I’m sorry but you are a fool. It’s like climate change – 99% of the scientists are not wrong. Turn off Fox and start reading outside the American echo chamber of lies.

      • ron abbass says:

        Hi Crabby Abbey! 🙂 Thanks for your bang-on and witty comments — much appreciated. I especially liked your spot on observation @ “Turn off Fox and start reading outside the American echo chamber of lies.” 🙂

        Thanks again, Abbey. Peace and blessings to you and yours.

    • Eyeswideopen says:

      Ever wonder why they called the black box the TEL-LIE-VISION? Just a few letters moved around to stop the sheep barring when bored……….Some people are so brain trained by this thing that they actually think the actors are really NOT acting!

      Capricorn ONE (1 Goat ) is a good film to watch to get the feel of how things turn out for real!

    • so why did china land a rover exactly where nazi liars claimed to have landed and scouted every square foot and found not a trace.

      • jamengulfer says:

        Wow, you quickly jumped from “How come no talks about China and the rover they landed exactly where usa said they did and found not ansingle foot print that is enough bullshit assclowns” to “so why did china land a rover exactly where nazi liars claimed to have landed and scouted every square foot and found not a trace. fucken liars die in hell scum eat shit and die in fucken hell”. That’s a bit much, don’t you think?

        Also I don’t see how you’re getting so angry over something that never happened. The only Chinese moon landing happened in the North of the Mare Imbrium crater whilst the only other manned mission in the area (Apollo 15) landed in the South East.

        Also, if you’re saying that what you state is true, you must obviously believe that the Chinese space agency were able to navigate through the Van Allen Belts. Other people in this thread have argued that delicate electronics would be fried by the radiation. If the Chinese could do it, why wouldn’t anyone else be able to do it?

  3. Not Willie says:

    @ Rob Abbass
    Willie is a shill, you idiot!!!

    • ron abbass says:

      Hi Willie NOT! Thanks for your comment. Please note my name is not “Rob”. Are you sure your comment was meant for the above topic? Methinks you’ve been drinking too much dumb-whoopass! 🙂 Happy New Year, Willie-NOT!

  4. Engineer says:

    The article you cite says that Van Allen Belt activity affects human spaceflight “at times” which does not imply that they are always deadly. The video you embedded notes that no manned space mission has ventured into or through the belts “except the moon missions” and cites no source other than CNN. And the flashes of light seen by the shuttle astronauts? Also reported by every man sent to the moon, which even by your logic, is positive proof that these men did go to the moon.

    Here’s something you may not have thought about: given that the Saturn V contained enough fuel to take 100,000 pounds into orbit ~400,000 km above the earth’s surface, where else could it have gone but the moon?

    • ron abbass says:

      Hi Engineer! Thanks for your comment. Was Saturn V manned? If it wasn’t manned then it certainly could have travelled thru the Van Allen Belts.

      Why hasn’t NASA gone back to the moon, if they went there in 1969? Answer: It was a Hollywood production! 🙂 Do some research, since you don’t even believe NASA’s own admission that the Van Belts, presently, prohibit human space travel.

      Thanks again, Engineer for taking the time to comment__much appreciated. Peace!

    • AngelFire says:

      Hey Engineer

      You are reasoning with false logic. You are stating that… because the Saturn V rocket could contain or did contain the fuel… that is proof that they went to the moon.

      That is really very dumb. It is not proof of anything. Coming from an Engineer? Did they not teach you logic?

  5. John says:

    Not only do I believe the Van Allen belts would most probably prevent safe passage for astronauts, how were all the intricate on board calculations made with no more than a 64K computer? Once NASA understood early on that reaching the moon was impossible they simply decided to fake it. This saved face against the Soviets and provided decades of guaranteed job security for the employees involved. Never trust the government without verifiable evidence!

    • ron abbass says:

      Hi John! Thanks for your sound and insightful observations __much appreciated. Peace to you and yours.

    • Zero-11 says:

      The USA and the Soviet Union were never enemies, also Yuri Gagarin was never in Space. In the Stratosphere under the Van Allen Belt but not in Space.

      • ron abbass says:

        Hi Zero! Thanks for your observations. You could be right re “USA and Soviet were never enemies”. However, that may not be the case today. I agree with you re: no astronauts passed through the Van Allen Belt __all were under that radiation belt.

        Thanks again, Zero! Peace and blessings to you and yours.

    • Mike Chambers says:

      I’m not arguing that we went to the moon, I think it was not possible… but I just want to say that computer technology wouldn’t have been a prohibiting factor. 64 KB of memory space on a computer was always easily expandable via bankswitching. If you really wanted, you could use many gigabytes of RAM on a small 8 or 16 bit computer using that technique.

      • ron abbass says:

        Hi Mike! Thanks for your comments re the memory space on a computer and the great question you posed -ie- Don’t you think they would have discovered this belt as Apollo flights passed through it? IMO, Apollo didn’t pass thru any Van Allen Belt.

        Thanks again, Mike. Peace and blessings to you and yours.

      • Klaas Heitinga says:

        I’m sorry, but an 8 or 16 bit computer cannot even *address* “gigabytes” of memory, let alone work with it.

    • AngelFire says:

      Hey John

      Your reasoning on this is as bad as Engineer’s. You would need to prove that the computer’s could not calculate what was needed.

      The real questions are 2 fold. How could the Apollo ships pass through the belts and the Astronauts survive and is there real proof that artifacts remain on the “landing sites” on the moon. There are claims now that there are new pictures revealing the artifacts. These photographs need to be examined from their source to see if these are fakes. They may very well be. It would be better if the proof was video and not pictures (which are easier to fake.)

      • Shaz T says:

        I’ve seen the photos, google does better! see a website (not mine) called and look for a RichPlanet interview re: Apollo to see them. a movie called Apollo Zero is a gem. NASA film of fakery inside an Apollo capsule did it for me, on top of the belt! Once you are free from believing this, no gold plates or fake papyrus, or government sponsored propaganda will fool you again. Critical thinking, logic and rationale are the keys to the truth, and freedom. peace!

    • hsaive says:

      Outside of the thousands of examples that the Moon landings were faked, It’s very important to zoom out our thinking to ask why neither the US or any other country/corporation has RETURNED to the moon to establish a critically important and valuable base of operations for future manned space travel.

      There is a reason why this question is never asked in the Media, by NASA or in Space journals. There is a reason all of our space experiments are stuck running on a near earth orbit space station in micro-gravity instead of a developed, sophisticated and inhabited lunar site with enough gravity to function at a higher level.

      Those LROC images might look impressive to a novice, but too many of us know NASA can re-write history with photoshop and science fraud.

  6. Andy Klokweiss says:

    No, people believe in rational (not conspiracy) theories because they can see the ‘official’ explanation offered is clearly a load of illogical bullsh*t. Official channels like to use the words ‘conspiracy theory’ to denigrate the suspicions as they are left with no other defence when logic prevails.

    That’s why so-called conspiracy theories don’t actually exist for everything. Only for those matters for which the official “propaganda” is so obviously smoke and mirrors.

    Don’t be so gullible, willie.

    • AngelFire says:

      Hey Andy

      What people also need to be aware of is that “mainstream media” is controlled now by 6 corporations some of which receive massive funding from the government. Any institution that receives funding can only be defined as a propaganda medium. Thus any media reporting that is funded by government can no longer be considered objective and thus reputable.

      • Shaz T says:

        Hi AngelFire, You have the ownership of media fact correct, but the rest is a little more complex. Governments are now puppets of the Corporate World Order, that’s why it hardly matters what ‘party,’ only that they are put in place for a reason. Public money is absolutely being handed over to private corps. And governmental departments write the news and distribute it. Diversions are plenty; fear, poverty and ‘austerity’ keep the masses from standing up for each other and against the powerful and evil ruling class. I really hope a wake-up call will be sent forth, loud and clear, all the way through space, and that we will come together in peace and prosperity. regards, Shaz

  7. silly says:

    silly Nasa. it should have saved the taxpayers’ money as this study is totally unnecessary. Nasa should just ask the apollo-believers who claim that the radiation belts are totally harmless if you can fly through them in an hour

    • Eyeswideopen says:

      Is this the reason Yashua said to all of us who would listen: “The truth will set you free!” We need to be free from this Satanic propaganda that keep the sheep in a state of mind slavery to the lies of this world……………..Space travel is not only expensive but it kills people and animals through tests so sever that many just can’t live normally afterward………..Neil Armstrong was one who had to face the rest of his life to speak the lie that he’d actually walked on the moon…………….Tell a lie or die! Poor man may he now rest in peace!

      • ron abbass says:

        Hi Eyeswideopen! Thank you for both your comments and insights — much appreciated. I agree re: .Neil Armstrong was one who had to face the rest of his life to speak the lie that he’d actually walked on the moon That was the main reason why he stayed out of the public eye.

        Thanks again Eyeswideopen. Peace and blessings to you and yours.

  8. Carla says:

    ” She said that when Jasmine feels a little tired, she will ask her mom innocently, “Can I have some
    of my ‘baby food. A bone scan report dated 28 August 2006, confirmed “no evidence of MDP avid skeletal metastasis. Patients are anesthetized or sedated as body temperature is increased to 107-108F.

  9. Eoin the physicist says:

    Alright, the extremely simple answer as to how the astronauts made it safely through the van allen radiation belts is that the spent very little time in these belts, if you do the calculations, going at the minimum speed of the spacecraft necessary to escape the earths pull and get into the moons gravitational pull, as well as factoring in the gravitational pull of both objects into your calcuations, and then couple this with how radioactive the belts are, you would see that the aircraft would travel through the belts in roughly 1-2 hours each, and this exposed them to ~2 rems (a unit used to measure the radiation a human is exposed to) each way. Seeing as leading medical research suggests that about 350 rems is the borderline limit, the risk to the astronauts is minimal from the van allen belts, at least in comparison to the other risks they faced, and of course, this risk would not kill them immediately, but would at most result in developing cancer at a later stage in life. RADIATION CAN NOT KILL IMMEDIATELY! IF IT COULD, WE WOULD ALL BE DEAD NOW DUE TO RADIATION FROM THE SUN!
    And as to the current studies, in terms surviving of passing through the van allen belts, this is primarily about how we can safeguard astronauts who make repeated journeys through the belts and would thus be at a much higher risk of developing cancer.
    And no, I am not some mindless sheep who has simply accepted what the government has told me, I am a physicist who has done the relevant research and the calculations and knows that passing through the van allen belts will not cause death to anyone.

    • ron abbass says:

      Hi Eoin! Thanks for your in-depth observations! However, your calulations do not gel with NSA’s. I’m inclined to believe the so-called moon landings were all Hollywood.

      At any rate, Eoin, I appreciate your comments. Thanks again and peace and blessings to you and yours.

      • Eoin the physicist says:

        Where exactly can I find these calculations by NSA? I would be most interested to know in
        what way they differ from mine.
        I did not state that the fact humans can pass through the Van Allen belts was proof that man was on the moon, I simply mentioned the fact that if man did go to the moon, the existences of these belts would not kill the astronauts.
        Personally, I do believe man went to the moon, there is overwhelming evidence to support this, but I do accept your right to deny it, if you so choose.

      • craig says:

        Many times on this comments board have you had a logical explanation and yet you debunk it with “Hollywood” or ” Van Allen Belt” you have also had the radiation REM explained to you, 350 REM is dangerous and 5 is what was experienced going through the Van Allen belt. These figures have been proven in everyday science as radiation is all around us. you are very disrespectful of Neil Armstrong and his family, you call yourself a man of faith but devote your blog to bringing down the memory of 3 astronauts. They will be remembered and you will not because you are a nobody! Neil Armstrong didn’t want the limelight, he wasn’t a celebrity, he was just an astronaut doing his job. What proof would you need? I believe that even if you went to the moon yourself, you would still try and dismiss it as an area 51 film set. Final Point, yes the van allen belt is deadly for prolonged periods of time but it can be passed by humans at the right trajectory and with speed.

      • Michael S says:

        Good work Ron! Great to see your civility and wishes to both those in agreeance with you (us) and to those who oppose!


        …I’m under the impression that it’s the Earth’s magnetoshere that sheilds us from the Sun’s radiation, -hence the very existence of the Van Allen Belts. That’s the reason why we’re not all dead! I would’ve thought a pyhsicist would’ve understood that!

      • jamengulfer says:

        The thing is, Physicists *do* understand radiation and thus don’t believe the conspiracy theories about ‘radiation’ and the Van Allen Belts. This is because those theories are based off of an inherently flawed understanding of the science they are based on.

        It is indeed the Earth’s magnetic field that shields us from long term exposure and solar flares. However, Eoin was right. ‘Radiation’ isn’t some scary instant-death thing, it comes in different types and different strengths. Fun fact! The radiation in the Van Allen belts is fundamentally completely different to the radiation emitted by nuclear waste.

        We would certainly all die if we did not have our magnetic field, as we would be constantly bombarded with various types of radiation and our atmosphere would be whisked away by fast moving solar emissions.

        However, we would all die because this radiation would be over many many years and all over the planet, because we aren’t all surrounded by metal shielding all of the time.

        The Apollo astronauts ventured out into space for a few days at most and were surrounded by lots of shielding. In fact, they did suffer a slightly increased radiation dose even then, but not much more than we get on Earth anyway. There was the knowledge that if an unpredictable (but unlikely) solar flare was to happen during the mission, the astronauts would have likely died, but that was a risk they were willing to take.

    • ben harper says:

      Physicist… that’s funny! Stick a mouse in your microwave oven, turn it to “high”, then get ready for a show. The radiation present in the VA belt is stronger than man can produce, by a factor of 5….

      • ron abbass says:

        Hi Ben! Thanks for your comment re the mouse and microwave oven __much appreciated. Peace and blessings to you and yours.

      • Zubs says:

        This one I have to comment on- the lack of science being used to claim the moon landing were fake is bizarre irony. I’ve read explanations again and again about how we couldn’t have made it to the moon; and then clear rational explanations of how we could have. The moon landing deniers use a mouse in a microwave as an example? Come on. At least pretend to have an argument based in rational scientific discourse.

      • christoph says:

        Think about it….we now with the ISS are able to go 400 km but over 50 years ago we went over 370,00 one way….no glitches (ignore Apollo 13!), landed , played golf, jumped around but NOT as we were told, no photos of the stars, no craters……and Neil Armstrong , I believe in his last public appearance, stating that Wilbur Wright said “the only bird that speaks is the parrot…and it doesnt fly very well”…..huh!
        We live in a world of pure corruption and lies…the moon landing myth they cannot abandon…the fake moon rocks (which most have disappeared) , astronauts being caught out with questioning…it goes on.

        Jack White and others basically pulled the photos apart and showed they were a hoax and the only thing giving this lie any legs is people’s belief systems…..the propaganda was so good its just like a religion and people refuse to use critical thinking and any little tale told “to debunk” the debunkers is accepted as confirmation we went.

        Nothing about Apollo adds up…the deaths, which some are still a sore point, the non use of the lunar module UNTIL on the moon, the non use of the lunar landing rockets UNTIL on the moon…the lost blueprints, lost telemetry, lost original footage….the list goes on.
        …I am truly amazed people think we went…..but like any religion, its hard to destroy.

    • AngelFire says:

      Hey Eoin the physicist

      If the Van Allen belt poses such little risk to health then why is NASA so concerned about the risk now?

      And why was the risk not addressed back in the 60’s? Why was the discussion of this radiation and potential death to the atronauts never discussed? Why did Neil Armstrong cry when the subject was brought up a few years ago? I eman he could have said.. “it really didn’t affect us because….” but instead he just cried! That seems more of an indication that he was involved in some kind of hoax.

    • Mike Anthony says:

      What about after passing through the Van Allen Belts. And also the lack of stars from any lunar mission pictures, or blast craters from the lunar module when the footprints were deeply imprinted right next to it? What kind of thrust engines were on the lunar module considering the vacuum of space?

      • ron abbass says:

        Hi Mike! Thanks for your bang on comments — much appreciated. I wholeheartedly agree with your observations — the moon landing was a Hollywood production. And as you noted, NASA supposedly “LOST” their original footage of the so-called “first man on the moon” –Neil Armstrong, who remained out of the public eye soon after participating in one of the grandest deceptions of the past 100yrs.

        Thanks again Mike! Peace and blessings to you and yours.

      • 1dogma1 says:

        Ron, Thanks to your site (voice of reason) & personal insight (scientific). Are you familiar with the Stanley Kubrick doc. about the moon landings? Good stuff! Do you recommend any 911 reading? Peace 2 you & yours 2!

      • ron abbass says:

        Thank you 1dogma for your compliment –I do appreciate it. Yes, I viewed Stanley Kubrick doc sometime ago. There is a ton of info on 911. If you want a video that demonstrates who were the real culprits behind the 911 false flag, I’d recommend “911 Missing Links” and/or “911 All the proof you need”

        Take good care, 1dogma. Cheers to you and yours.

      • Chris Carter says:

        Why would any stars be visible in the Apollo mission pictures? The cameras used were set to 1/250th of a second shutter speeds due to the bright daytime conditions, rendering the capture of any stars on film impossible. It seems your knowledge of even basic photography is woefully lacking.

  10. ron abbass says:

    Hi Eoin! Instead of “calculations”, I should have stated “obervations/comments”.

    Here’s what is stated in the link in my post regarding NASA’s comments on the Van Allen Belt

    QUOTE: “NASA launched two satellites into space on Thursday to explore the belts of radioactive particles orbiting the Earth, in a mission that is the first of its kind.

    The twin spacecraft will spend the next two years exploring the so-called Van Allen belt that is filled with highly-charged particles and at times poses a danger to communications, GPS satellites and even human spaceflight.” (end of quote)

    Eoin, note that NASA admits they just launched FOR THE FIRST TIME, two satellites to explore the Van Allen belts.

    How in the heck did they know all about the Van Allen belts in the 60’s when they didn’t “explore” them to determine their effects on space flight.

    Eoin, again, I am convinced no man set foot on the moon. At the time of the first so-called man-moon-landing (Neil Armstrong), the Russians, the very next day, said it was a hoax.

    Peace out, bro!

    • AngelFire says:

      Hey Ron

      Why did Neil Armstrong cry when the subject of passing through the VAn Allen belt was brought up a couple of years ago?

      • ron abbass says:

        Hi AngelFire! Here’s my answer to your question re Armstrong cried when Van Allen Belt was brought up. His conscience was pricked, that is, he knew the moon landing was a Big Fat Lie and that was the reason he kept out of the public lime light for the rest of his life. Just my opinion, Angelfire. Peace! 🙂

  11. Stevieb says:

    I like your style….God Bless You

  12. ron abbass says:

    Hi Stevieb! Thanks for the blessing. God BLess you, also! 🙂

  13. moonlandingswerefaked says:

    We did NOT go to the moon, though we probably could now with the back engineered alien craft the government is operating in secret.. If we are to be convinced we did go to the moon, the overwhelming evidence proving we didn’t go (couldn’t have gone) must be adequately and satisfactorily refuted. Anyone visiting D;C. simply must go to the Air and Space Museum. My wife and I were in stitches of uncontrollable laughter the last time we visited! All you have to do is look at those flimsy Halloween costumes, that Lem go-kart piece of junk and all the other kit that looked like someone had just picked it up from Goodwill! Then you check out all the reasons why it was impossible including temperatures on the moon that would kill a man in seconds. Don’t even dream about that space suit’s cooling system keeping you alive with 4 liters of water including what you had to drink! It’s can get close to 300 F on the moon! I’ts the kind of heat we use for baking! A couple just died hiking in AZ today in dangerous 106F. Do you really think they would have survived 3 times that temperature with a flimsy 1960s era suit with some AC in it?! I was in Palm Springs a couple years ago and thought I was going to die while driving in 120 F heat. My AC literally stopped working in that temperature. It’s a modern VW Jetta with doors far more insulating than Apollo craft. They couldn’t have handled that heat in the craft so forget about being outdoors in those suits fully exposed. Just use yours brains people. The oligarchs that control the show are depending on us not thinking, not looking up at the night sky. I suspect iPhones were created so we’d all become less aware of our environment. The aliens could literally take over the world with us all looking down and ignoring them! Seriously. We have become a dangerously inhuman country. Just in time for the aliens to take over.Personally, I’m all for it. I’d much rather have a more intelligent race controlling the world than all the bankers, oil companies and war mongers running the show now. Anything’s got to be better, eh?

    • ron abbass says:

      Hi Soul! Thanks for your perceptive and informative comments __much appreciated. Peace and blessings to you and yours.

    • AngelFire says:

      Hey moonlandingswerefaked

      It is really difficult to know what is true. It is coming out that the Nazi’s had tested manned “flying saucers” in February 1945. Maybe the Nazi’s went to the moon. Who knows… but been one of 12 kids who have seen a flying saucer hovering above me, in the 60’s, from no more than 200 feet away and seeing it zoom off, I believe someone has the technology to go to the moon and has long since dealt with the Van Allen radiation. Just not NASA.

    • Chris Carter says:

      Your ‘heat’ argument holds no water. The ‘heat’ on the moon is the surface temperature, not the temperature of objects above it. Also, you don’t seem to realize that in a vacuum, heat transfer is completely different to that in earth’s atmosphere. You need to do some more research to alleviate yourself of your ignorance.

  14. John Hucul says:

    If those spacesuits were as great as nasa says they are why don’t we use em to clean up 3 mile island or chernobyl…. probably because they are not what they say they are ….

    • ron abbass says:

      Hi John! 🙂 Thanks for a very insightful and thought-provoking observations. A superb question! 🙂 I am convinced the moon landing as presented to the public was a hoax. The very day after Armstrong was supposedly to have set foot on the moon, I recall the Russians stating that it was a hoax.

      Thanks again, John. Peace and blessings to you and yours.

  15. Jenny says:

    Just a thought, how did the aliens get through the van allen belts?

    • ron abbass says:

      Hi Jenny! Thanks for your comment-question which is an interesting one. If “aliens” are able to travel throughout our solar system and/or galaxy then I’m sure they would have solved the problem of the Van Allan Belts. Or, they may not be flesh, blood and bone as we are and the belts wouldn’t have any effect on them. 🙂

      Thanks again, Jenny. Peace and blessings to you and yours.

    • AngelFire says:

      What aliens? You mean the Nazi’s who developed flying saucer technology back in the early 1940’s? The same Nazi’s who had developed atomic bombs and gave one to the US so that Hitler, Boremann and others, including Hammler the head of the Nazi secret weapons projects and Mueller the head of the Gestapo, could leave Germany and live in Argentina? There is proof Boremann cashed checks in 1967. And proof Germany sent weapons grade uranium that the US received to use in one of 2 bombs dropped on Japan.

  16. Mike Chambers says:

    There is also a third Van Allen radiation belt which NASA discovered this year, then four weeks later they conveniently said “Oh, it’s not there anymore it was destroyed by a huge solar flare.” after they realized the implication this would have on the moon hoax.

    Don’t you think they would have discovered this belt as Apollo flights passed through it?

  17. GuitarMan says:

    The perpetrators of the moon landing hoax because they are full of hoaxes…..

    ~ Jews don’t work, they steal everything they have from us Real Israelites and other Races !!!

    “Our major vice of old, as of today, is PARASITISM. We are a people of vultures living on the labor (of the host nations) and the good nature of the rest of the world….. It seems to be part of the Jews’ unwritten code that they should never work. I venture to add that they never will, either…..I cannot find anything of value that the Jews have created in their 250 years residence on the American continent.” (Samuel Roth, a Jew, “Jews Must Live”, The Golden Hind Press, New York (1934), pp. 56, 101, 108).

    “A Jew cannot be a true patriot. He is something different, like a harmful insect. He must be kept apart, out of a place where he can do mischief – even by pogroms, if necessary. The Jews are responsible for Bolshevism [Communism] in Russia, and Germany too. I was far too indulgent with them during my reign, and I bitterly regret the favors I showed the prominent Jewish bankers.” (WILHELM II. German Kaiser, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, July 2, 1922)

    “A Jew remains a Jew. Assimilation is impossible, because a Jew cannot change his national character or his nature. Whatever he does, he is a Jew and remains a Jew. The majority has discovered this fact, but too late.” (The Jew Ludwig Lewisohn, in his book “Israel,” 1926)

    • ron abbass says:

      Hi GuitarMan! Thanks for those revealing quotes by Jewish writers — much apreciated. I guess we could consider these Jews as either/or — self-hating or anti-Semitic! 🙂

      Peace and blessings to you and yours, GuitarMan!

  18. thetruthisstrangerthanfiction says:

    The Van Allen belts are just one reason I’ve come to see that the moon landings were impossible. the documentary “a funny thing happened on the way to the moon” reveals many more. There is footage clearly showing them faking being half way to the moon when they are really in earth orbit. the whole air-conditioning question is another huge problem. regardless of how much computing power they had, nothing can explain how thr suits and craft kept them from being cooked alive, operating on what were basically just car batteries (for 3 days in 200-300 degree heat), especially when there is no atmosphere, no outside air to use to cool the inside air. (We all understand how modern a/c works right?) It’s a joke if u stop and think about it for even five minutes!

    Plus you have all the wonky photo evidence, the shadows etc, the flapping us flag, and the moon walk footage, which when sped up, is CLEARLY just showing guys hopping and driving around in normal gravity. think about it, operating in 1/7 of the earth’s gravity wouldn’t make you go in “slo-mo”, the astronauts arms and bodies would be able to move as naturally as we seem them do as when they were training on earth. what we WOULD see is them is them taking long, floaty steps like we see in the movies, yet the “moon-walkers” stay as close to the ground as we do on earth… plus there is no burn mark under the lunar lander’s huge engine, and on and on…

  19. Brian "Smitty" Smith says:

    Anyone can do 5 minutes of internet research and easily find the answer to how astronauts DID IN FACT PASS THROUGH THE BAN ALLEN BELTS!! You people are the reason real conspiracies of terror or greed are able to successfully occur without a second look by the majority of the public or media of any kind! I too believe the government lies to its people and at times kills them. But for you to buy into this Van Allen Belt bullshit as a reason to circle jerk the absolutly psychotic story that they faked the moon landing is pathetic! Think exposure time, trajectory, velocity and stop looking at the damn pics!! The Van Allen belts are not perfectly shaped their are thinner areas and it does move! And there is all kinds of different radiation people that you know absolutly nothing about! Lead is the stupidest form of “protection”! Ever heard of google you idiots maybe you should try using it before looking like a bunch of thin wits lol…no wonder people laugh off conspiricists (shaking my head)

    • ron abbass says:

      Hi Brian! Thanks for your comments — much appreciated. Why haven’t the Americans (NASA) gone to the moon since? Why haven’t the Russians tried it? They haven’t gone because they do not have the technology to pass thru the Van Allen Belts. That’s what NASA admits to in the article, that is, if you read it!

      Thanks again, Brian. Peace and blessings to you and yours.

      • Chris Carter says:

        Don’t your realize Ron that the Apollo mission trajectories, meant that the ships spent very little time in the belts and skirted around the intense inner core? This information is readily available from many sources on the internet – have you bothered to do the research to reach a balanced conclusion about this subject?

    • fertog says:

      Your right, just that even if the belts were perfectly shaped, the exposure levels would still be minimal for a passage. They did not stay in the belts long enough to get any observable radiation effect.

      • hsaive says:

        Case not closed. The Van Allen belt is only one issue even if you could show evidence that radiation was insignificant.. The only reason we are skeptics is because we took a lot more than 10 minutes to research both sides of the issue. The Book: “One Small Step? : The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth from Space” by Gerhard Wisnewski tells what really happened. $Trillions of dollars cannot be located in the DoD that started with the mis-appropraiation of Apollo funds used instead to weaponize near space and the climate. The entire planet is now under Climate Geoengineering (aka chemtrails) and Tesla scalar weapons to to produce man-made climate change.

  20. angela alvares says:

    humans didn’t even get to the moon dummy. Read why by checking moonlanding hoax. Only one to moonwalk was MICHAEL JACKSON

    • ron abbass says:

      Hiya Angela! Thanks for your comment– much appreciated. I smiled when I read: Only one to moonwalk was MICHAEL JACKSON! 🙂 Yep, I really liked Michael’s moonwalk especially his one featured in youtube’s “Billy Jean”.

      Thanks again, Angela! Peace and blessings to you and yours.

  21. Joe says:

    I take it I’ve upset someone?
    My posts having been removed.

    • ron abbass says:

      Hi Joe! No offence, but I removed your posts as I didn’t see how they tied into the Moon landing hoax. They were a distraction from the topic. Nevertheless, Joe, I did appreciate your comments. Peace and blessings to you and yours.

  22. Joe says:

    Ahhh ok Ron.
    I seem to have a habit of going off topic.
    As for the moon stuff I’m still on the fence.
    I don’t want to beleive it was a hoax but … the radiation belts above all else pose a major difficulty for my wee brain.
    Saw a comment somewhere saying they were only exposed to them for a very short time but … they are thousands of miles deep are they not?
    Carrying film through it one way and then back again intact is a problem too.
    Fuel to power that landing craft down and back upagain … anyone have a picture of the fuel tanks?
    What I find amusing right now is … they drive a car out of the thing too!
    A space capsual with a garage attached!
    Over two hundred degrees inside that little box too yet they had a sleep on one mission before stepping out.
    This is all taking me where I don’t want to go.
    I sat in a cafe watching the first man on the moon aged sixteen … very exciting times.

    • fertog says:

      Fuel tanks? come on, this is a “moon landing hoax” page. No one wanted to tell you for about 8 months that yes, there were tanks in every section. Investigate the cross sections of the moon lander. There are videos also explaining how it was designed. Lots of info. That’s why no one helped you with this question, they need you.

      Van Allen Belts difficult? Ok, just google what Dr James Van Allen said himself about a possible threat for the Apollo mission. Oh, I just can read it down below in the post by dave.

      The film? Ok, the spacecraft is aluminum (excellent filter for that type of radiation), besides film already had radiation protection in its container and in the camera; it was designed for cosmic radiation, which during the mission was way higher than the radiation received in the belts. Besides, they took Video Tape as well, which is not as sensitive to radiation.

  23. dave says:

    “The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense.” — Dr. James Van Allen

    Ever heard of the ‘horse’s mouth’. You choose to believe something didn’t happen, that’s fine but your evidence is based on your misunderstanding of what Nasa reports actually mean. You are not a scientist so this understandable. If you want the website address the quote comes from i can provide it.

    • ron abbass says:

      Hi Dave! Thanks for your comments and quote — much appreciated.

      Here’s a quote from a person with a username Raven found on this site >>

      QUOTE: “If you want to make a conspiracy theorist look like a fool, quoting the man who discovered the radiation belts is a good start. However, my meanderings around the Internet have found no source for this statement, beyond saying Van Allen said it. All seem to lead back to the website. So just where did you get it? A youtuber while commenting/debating on Lunar Legacy episode 1-part 3 directly asked me, and I thought it important to find out.” (End of Quote)

      NASA is the horse’s mouth. Did you know that NASA “lost” the “original” film of the so-called landing. I’ve looked into that event and viewed and read many articles written by experts who claim that the Moon Landing is a hoax.

      And NASA, as the article confirms and unwittingly admits that the Van Allen belts pose an obstacle to human space flights to the moon and other planets.

      Thanks again, Dave. Peace to you and yours.

  24. dave says:

    just looked at the site raven posted, the various responses include quotes from van Allen and others which support the scientific view that the belts pose no serious threat to astronauts passing through them. The site which is where i found the quote contains a good deal of information explaining the science of radiation and its effects. The fact is you believe something and all you post is directed by this belief. Nasa express concern about the possible effects passing through the Van Allen belts, this is not the same as saying they are an impassable obstacle, is it?
    peace to you too.

    • ron abbass says:

      Hiya Dave. Here’s a quote from the AP NASA article>> NASA launched two satellites into space on Thursday to explore the belts of radioactive particles orbiting the Earth, in a mission that is the first of its kind.

      The twin spacecraft will spend the next two years exploring the so-called Van Allen belt that is filled with highly-charged particles and at times poses a danger to communications, GPS satellites and even human spaceflight.<<<

      Note, if presently the belts pose a "danger to human spaceflight", how in the hell did they overcome this danger 44 yrs ago.

      Why haven't they returned to the moon? Why haven't the Russians gone to the moon. At the time of the first so-called moon landing (Neil Armstrong), the Russians immediately stated that it was a hoax.

      Thanks again, Dave. Peace out!

  25. dave says:

    “The twin spacecraft will spend the next two years exploring the so-called Van Allen belt that is filled with highly-charged particles and at times poses a danger to communications, GPS satellites and even human spaceflight.”
    “and at times poses a danger” again this does not suggest an impassable obstruction. They overcame it by passing through it near one of the poles where the belts are at their narrowest, the craft was travelling at great speed and passed through in around an hour. One of the crew of Apollo 8 became physically sick shortly after passing this point and nasa’s medical team considered halting the mission but all was well.
    They stopped going because interest and funding dried up. Now it would be far more expensive and there would have to be something in it for those who pay.
    The Russians did not immediately state it was a hoax and never have dispite having monitored the whole thing closely. The Russians version of the saturn 5 rocket failed and this halted their efforts to beat the US to the moon.
    All of this is very well documented but ignored and/or denied by those who wish to believe otherwise.
    Having spent quite some time on this I find that the forces of logic and research come down on the side of the moon landings having happened.
    I wish you well,

  26. brian says:

    There is a you tube clip of an astronaut hammering something into the moon surface you can clearly hear the hammer making contact, yet the moon is a vacum , there would be no noise unless it was on a film set..

    • ron abbass says:

      Thanks brian for your comment — much appreciated. I chuckled re “hear the hammering”. 🙂 If that is true, how stupid do “they” think we are, or perhaps it’s because “they” are so sloppy.

      Thanks again, brian! Peace and blessings to you and yours.

    • fertog says:

      Not science. Sound may travel trough the spacesuit to reach the microphone inside. Solids can conduct sound better than air. Native Americans used to stick they ears to the ground to advert horses coming. Okay, that might be a Hollywood myth but try it yourself, it works, that’s science.

  27. joe says:

    So wheres the youtube?

  28. ron abbass says:

    Hi Joe! There’s a link to a 10min version and there is the 1min 56sec vid which is part of the article.

  29. hsaive says:

    More compelling is the dosimeters for the entire to the (alleged) moon only registed 2 Rads. This evidence adds shattering doubt that the Apollo mission transited the Van Allen.
    “Note: According to radiation dosimeters carried by Apollo astronauts, their total dosage for the entire trip to the moon and return was not more than 2 Rads over 6days”

    • ron abbass says:

      Hi hsaive! Thanks for your info– much appreciated. You posted a NASA source. The very first so-called moon landing by Neil Armstrong, was debunked by the Russians who stated that is was a hoax. I’m convinced that it was indeed a “lying wonder”, to use biblical terms. If you read the article NASA stated that the Van Allen Belt was a huge obstacle which prevented human space flight. If a true moon landing was possible, surely the Russians and NASA, by now, would have undertaken to do so –but they haven’t.

      At any rate, hsaive, peace and blessings to you and yours.

    • fertog says:

      That proves that they had exposure, maybe some of it at the Van Allen Belt.

      Ordinary people tend to think that radiation is that of Hiroshima, Nagasaki or Chernobyl. Radiation can kill? yes, but it depends on the type, the magnitude, the distance from the source and the exposure time. We get radiation all the time, cosmic, solar, soil, even from bananas. We are built to deal with it. Our body repairs itself continuously. Eventually a cell mutates yes, some of them become cancer, yes in cases of repeated or prolonged exposure. That’s why people is warned about long exposures under the sun. What do you do? use an umbrella, you are filtrating radiation.

      Some types of radiation are more penetrating than others. Gamma being the most penetrating type, which requires thick lead or heavy metal to filtrate. Still we use Gamma radiation in nuclear imaging equipment. Then XRays, filtered with lead as well, but thinner than for the same magnitude of Gamma. The less penetrating ones, those at the Van Allen Belt, are Beta which can be filtrated with glass or Alpha, which can be filtrated with paper. But what if the magnitude is high at the Van Allen Belt? Ok, the aluminum spacecraft is a bunker for that order of magnitude. Just stay in the ship.

      Astronauts were shielded by the aluminum walls. Even foil can reduce Alpha or Beta radiation, which is the type of radiation at the belt, the least penetrating types. Besides, the astronauts were exposed with a much lower dose than outside.

      I use a dosimeter myself since I work with radiation equipment. The radiation calculated during the passage is 11 Rad, the radiation received after aluminum filtration at the astronaut dosimeter is 2 Rad. Per current standards, the minimal dosage to get observable symptoms is 25 Rad, you start to get skin damage at 200 Rad, you get acute exposure at 400 Rad which can be very harmful requiring hospitalization, it gets lethal at 10000 Rad. So why all this discussion if we are talking about 2 Rad?

      The Van Allen Belt poses a threat yes, all levels of radiation do pose some risk since radiation kills cells and may mutate others into cancer cells. But if we are talking about a 11 Rad in a passage and 2 Rad after filtration, the threat is only for long term exposures. The long term and short term exposures have different considerations. Long term exposures need to be evaluated for a long mission; our cells reproduce slowly, our body takes time to trash the death cells as well, so the dosage has to be sufficiently low over a long term exposure to allow our body to self-repair. Short term exposures can imply higher doses but differ from the other, that they affect a larger numbers of cells, so these exposures should not be repeated as often, you blood cells need to recover, that means you do not want a space station orbiting trough the Van Allen Belt or same astronaut traveling across back and forth periodically. Cells can mutate to cancer, but that’s statistics at the long term; the more exposure is accumulated over lifetime, the more likely you are to get cancer cells reproducing.

      What NASA refers to when they say it’s a threat, they mean don’t plan for a space station there. No long term manned missions at the belt. Use a lower orbit.

      • ron abbass says:

        Thanks fertog for your info and comments — much appreciated. Personally, I’m not convinced there was any human who walked or drove on the moon. The show was Hollywood.

        In any case, fertog, thanks again. Peace and blessings to you and yours.

  30. ron abbass says:

    Thanks again, hsaive! I wholeheartedly agree. Cheers and Merry Christmas – Happy Holidays, Hsaive. 🙂

  31. John says:

    This is a terrific thread. I am convinced there was no manned moon landing. The Van Allen Radiation belt was never raised as a significant radiation risk for the astronauts for a good reason, they never had to go through it. Once NASA employed Operation Paperclick nazi scientists realized it was not feasible in 1965 the brilliant ones decided it would be a great diversion for the Vietnam war. When the war was over c. 1975, the Apollo missions magically disappeared. Dear reader, look to the political motivations and the machinations of the military industrial complex for the reasons both to continue and to discontinue the program. While technical arguments are interesting, the motivations lie in power and control. By the way, does anyone have the link for the depressing interview Armstrong and his mates had with the media upon his return from the moon (laughter and sarcasm intended). The depressing atmospherics of that interview spill the beans for those listening.

    • hsaive says:

      Take a look at the 1966 documents and article that reveal NASA was the organizing agency to assemble all federal agencies under a National Weather Modification Program. The R and D project soon came under military authority where all agencies have been under top secret clearance as a gag order of secrecy for “national security” ever since. The Apollo mission followed – an enormously expensive project that never landed a man on the moon but secretly allowed funding of covert space weapons, HAARP, Tesla devices and “chemtrails” (the only truly visible layer of the weather modification/global warming conspiracy).
      Fascinating stuff that reveals global warming was viewed as a desirable outcome for 70 years prior to the post WWII paper-clip operation —

  32. John says:

    By the way, interestingly, I worked as a summer university student in a mine in Sudbury, Ontario in 1969, the year before the astronauts visited Sudbury because the landscape was so similar to the moon they said, good for lunar landing simulation. The really big question for Dear Readers: Did Stanley Kubrick or film associate participate in this “simulation”. The passenger manifold for Air Canada for 1968 would confirm his participation.

    • ron abbass says:

      Hi John! Thanks for your spot on comments –much appreciated. I wholeheartly agree with all of your observations, especially re the media interview with Armstrong and his mates. I saw that interview and they were not convincing. In addition, after that interview, Armstrong stayed completely out of the public’s eye. It’s my belief, he couldn’t face the public knowing that he was living a lie.

      At any rate, John, thanks again. Peace to you and yours.

  33. hsaive says:

    Theory says that AREA-51 is a giant Hollywood Studio. Easier to believe with each passing day, eh?

  34. John says:

    Indeed, the impossible becomes too possible each day, the unbelievable believable. I had the distinct pleasure in meeting R.D. Laing, the anti-psychiatry psychiatrist in the 1970s, this man clearly understood paradox and illusion and the powers of deception. I think the powers that be are conditioning us to this reality, perhaps mocking our stupidity at the same time, in old movies like Capricorn One (free on internet) and The Bodysnatchers (original, 1956). Everytime I see obvious criss-crossing chemtrails overhead, and realize I am the only one aware in my neck of the woods, I shudder just like the lead character in the Bodysnatchers does at the end of the film, “They’re here, they’re here”.

    • ron abbass says:

      Thanks to both hsaive and John. Your comments are much appreciated. Re Area–51 being a giant Hollywood studio — you could be right hsaive.

      John, it was just the other night that I watched “Bodysnatchers” for the first time and it held my attention all the way thru. I’m surprised there are not others “in your neck of the woods” who are not aware of those dam chemtrails.

      Peace and blessings to you both.

  35. xs says:

    The claim that radiation of Van Allen belt would be so deadly that no human, present or in the past, could travel through it, is not supported by any of the evidence presented here.

    NASA’s statement indicate the radiation is bad for astronaut’s health. That’s a given, as any radiation is more or less bad for your health. The real question is, how much radiation would one receive sitting in Apollo space craft, for the duration of time required to travel through the belt.

    Well, the fact is, Apollo space craft would spend less than 1 hour traveling through the belt at the speed necessary to go to the moon. And based on known radiation strength of the Van Allen belt, the total radiation the astronaut at most would receive during that time would be less than 20 Rads, well below lethal radiation dosage. The shielding of the ship and their suit would cut that down much further.

    This Van Allen belt would kill the astronaut business is a hoax, propagated by people who don’t know enough about Van Allen belt, and not enough about the physics required for moon travel.

    • ron abbass says:

      Hi xs! Thanks for your comments — much appreciated. The fact NASA hasn’t returned to the moon and set up a station there, convinces me that the moon landings were indeed a hoax. They didn’ have the technology in ’69 and they do not today, and it’s the Van Allen Belts that prove to be the problem as admitted by NASA.

      Peace and blessings to you and yours, xs.

  36. John says:

    Manned moon landings have been faked, the evidence and commonsense and political judgement almost bring this, in my mind at least, to a confirmed fake, however we have a genuine mystery in crop circles. The California crop circle is the latest incarnation. I am of the opinion, after much study and deliberation, that many crop circles are evidence of a profound intelligence at work, either paranormal, or alien in origin. At this point I cannot confirm the California crop circle as otherwordly in origin, but it has been pointed out to me that the recently discovered grand geometric shaped circle is being guarded by Echelon Security services who plan on erasing this shape by December 31st, only discovered a day or so ago. Why this rush to erase what could be a very important communication. The British crop circles around Stonehedge were fantastic, they are constantly being analyzed and speculated upon. While crop circles arose to prominance in the early 1990s, the so-called debunking of them by intelligence services such as MI5 has been bullshit: biophysicists have subsequently detected molecular changes to vegetation within the crop circle, mathematicians suspect mathematical codes and postulate remarkable additions to geometric theorems, the intricate (apparent) mathematical patterns appear to form in fields within hours to some observers, and strange lights have been observed prior to their creation, they even occur after rainy nights or during the daytime, and patterns have been observed in sand and ice. Huge numbers of crop circles have been reported, and the mainstream media either completely disregards or ridicules them. Why? What is being hidden? Why in this California case is the evidence being erased? Crop Circles may represent the most important communication with the otherwordly that mankind has ever encountered — and teams of funded researchers from major universities are not investigating them? Why?

  37. ron abbass says:

    Hi John! An excellent commentary, coupled with some thought-provoking questions. After my own scant research into crop circles, I’ve come to the conclusion that they are indeed the work of “other-worldly” beings as recorded in the bible. I’ll leave it at that.

    Thanks again, John. Peace and blessings, Bro!

  38. Stevie says:

    Moon hoax, crop circles, aliens – what a bunch of crap. You should all be locked up.
    Typical pseudo-science from people who wouldn’t know a Geiger counter if you shoved it up their ass.

  39. Stevie says:

    Hi Ron, I assumed I would be banned or my post not approved due to my bad language and distain. Thanks for that at least. 🙂

    The moon landings are the most documented events in history over the past 100 years or so and have been studied by scientists the world over for 40+ years. If you doubt the moon landings, then you must also doubt everything that has happened in history.

    Try learning some basic science first and then come back and talk further.



  40. hsaive says:

    We have telescopes that can spot earth-like planets in another galaxy but the tin-foil American Flag on the moon remains out of range?

    • fertog says:

      That’s not true. No telescope can still take pictures of exoplanets in our galaxy. They measure little changes in light magnitude of distant stars as an exoplanet passes in front of it. That’s why artists draw those exoplanets with some imagination and some science. You said other galaxies? Wrong, they cannot take pictures even of a single star in another galaxy, maybe a supernova, exoplanets? No way.

      They cannot get a picture of a flag? True, it’s too tiny for a picture a doxen of miles away but the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter took pictures of the landing sites including Apollo 11, showing tracks, traces and equipment left behind, matching what was reported back then. Japanese, Indian and Chinese probes have also spotted traces of the landing sites as well. Russians have spied all telecomunications as well. The day one of those missions take a picture of the flag, they will ask for the picture of the golf ball. Then when they find the golf ball they will say the picture was fabricated.

  41. ron abbass says:

    Hi Hsaive! Fabulous comment! I’m still chuckling as I type this! 🙂 LOL Thanks for an insightful comparison — much appreciated. Peace and blessings to you, hsaive!

  42. Stevie says:

    hsaive – amazingly ignorant comment. Do some basic research about telescope resolution and then come back and apologise for your stupidity. Thanks

  43. joe says:

    funny,..NASA themselves say the belts are a problem and dangerous..and that a human would need adequate shielding,..and STILL people believe we went…along those lines of thinking,.even tho american airlines has posted on thier website that thier planes werent involved in 9/11,.and in fact at least one is still in use…doesnt change a thing and it was still terrorists?,.only in america

    • ron abbass says:

      Hi Joe! Thanks for your comments — much appreciated. I wholeheartedly agree with your insights. Yes Joe, unfortunately most peeps are fast asleep.

      Peace and blessing to you and yours, Joe!

  44. Hammad says:

    I haven’t read through all the comments but just wanted to note the 3 biggest factors for me is, #1 the Van Allen Belt of course, #2 the fact that there are no stars from any angle! #3 there is no crater or scorch mark from the landing of the craft on the surface of the moon! Also we have no modern day pictures of the landing site! No doubt a hoax.

    • ron abbass says:

      Hi Hammad! The 3 factors you noted are spot on! I wholeheartedly agree with you. Thank you for your comments — much appreciated. Peace and blessings to you and yours, Hammad!

      • Jay Goudy says:

        Why wasn’t the sinking of the Titanic ever questioned? Every thing I have ever seen or read simply states it was a terrible tragedy, which it was by the way, but didn’t any one ever question if some thing different could have happened to it. It had a well seasoned sea worthy captain and even the designers of the boat were on board. Checking the manifest of passengers you will quickly see there was a lot of people with money or those that controlled or had influence over others money in first class. Combine the money aspect with the thought that the sinking occurred just a few years before the beginning of WW1. How many of them survived, where did they go, what did they do….before the trip and afterwards. I think if this research was done one may have reason to question if the sinking was a true “accident”.

      • ron abbass says:

        Hi Jay! Thanks for your thought-provoking comments — much appreciated. I read a couple of articles a few years back regarding the sinking of the Titanic. The authors of those commentaries also suggested it was no accident, but a planned sinking. Who, or what, the motive was for the planned sinking, I can’t recall who the author(s) fingered.

        Since then, I haven’t dug into the possibility of a planned sinking of the Titanic. You bring up some excellent questions. Jay, I think you’d agree, we’ve been born into frickin lies, lies and more lies.

        Thanks again! Peace and blessings to you and yours.

      • Chris Carter says:

        Ron, why should there be stars in any of the lunar surface pictures? When a camera is set to 1/250th of a second shutter speed, as were the Apollo lunar mission cameras due to the bright daytime conditions, the faint images of stars are never going to show up on film. Google ‘International Space Station pictures’ and tell me how many images you can find that have stars in the background? Actually, there aren’t any, so in theory you must now come to the conclusion that the ISS is a hoax as well.

  45. John says:

    Well documented in John Hamer’s work, clearly Titantic was a gigantic fraud. There were two sister ships, Titantic was one of them. Her identical sister ship was a mess and for insurance reasons was unfit to sail, or at least required significant maintenance to do so. Problem solved overnight by flag change and minor paint jobs. As a result the unfit vessel set forward, while true Titantic stayed in port designated as the lame sister ship. The original Titantic would have survived the collision.

  46. Mike Anthony says:

    Now we know why the original footage of the moon landings is missing. The first clue of a hoax were the absence of blast craters from the lunar module, absence of stars, and the fact that the Van Allen Belts are still being studied for space travel. Am I close to anyone elses doubts of enough knowledge to have completed the moon landings starting in 69?

    • fertog says:

      Japanese probe has pictures of the blast and no, there are no craters, there is no need for a big blast in low gravity. If there were a crater, it would in fact be fake.

      The stars are not visible in pictures because of photography, not because they’re absent. If there were stars in the background, I would start suspecting fraud. Debunked so many times.

      Van Allen Belt did not pose a threat for Apollo Missions. The type of radiation, the time of exposure and the calculated radiation do not cause any noticeable symptoms.

  47. Stevie says:

    Mike – Kindly explain the following
    1/ Why do you think there would be a huge blast crater under the LEM?
    2/ Why do you think we should see stars in the Apollo photography?
    3/ Why wouldn’t scientist still be studying the Van Allen belts?

    All seems perfectly understandable to me – then again, I have a scientific education and you clearly do not.

    • 1dogma1 says:

      +Stevie / Why wouldn’t there be blast crater? Or a mention of dangers from the Van Allen Belts. You’re wrong in saying I have no scientific schooling. I didn’t know you were the Q&A person for NASA. They also had kb’s to compute the misson, clearly not enough data. Did you open your text books to the vacuum of space? I’ll bet my IQ is in your same realm, if not higher(degree) during a discussion$$

      • fertog says:

        No crater because the lower section is on top of it, in fact not a crater, but a minor blast. The upper section took off over the lower section which was left on site. Because even if the blast would hit the moon directly, the upper section did not need as much thrust to get far away from the soil and because there was no air to blow dust and leave a large mark.

        The dangers of the Van Allen Belt are because all radiation is dangerous, even Alpha and Beta which are the harmless. Because long term exposure to them do pose harm. Because a space station in it would be life threatening. Not because it cannot be crossed. Besides, why you think NASA would be shooting in their own feet?

  48. machocomacho says:

    I was having a discussion at the pub the other night with a doctor friend who is really into science, quantum physics, space, matter, particles, debunking conspiracy theories…. that sort of stuff. I asked him about China’s recent forays into space exploration and if he thought the US would ramp up the funding of NASA to return to the moon themselves. He feels the US will definitely back NASA to plan a return visit. I just said huh, maybe that $$ would be better spent trying to convince China to be quiet when they find out that it’s impossible for humans to travel to the moon and expose the US government for the moon landing fraud. My friend laughed in amazement that I’m a crackpot conspiracy theorist & I just said, well then Mr Scientist, please explain the Van Allen Radiation Belts and how none of the astronauts were badly affected after passing through it. He couldn’t explain, stared into my eyes in sudden amazement that he had no answer. I continued further by saying that I had read that the spacecraft passed through a thin layer of it quickly that they weren’t affected. WTF? If it’s drizzling outside and I run quickly from my car to the house, I still get a little wet – impossible not to. Rain ain’t radiation. Why when we get x-rays are we given all this protective gear???? Why are there hazard signs everywhere in the oncology treatment area about the radiation! Oh, well the astronauts and crew of the Apollo were not exposed to that much and weren’t there for that long, oh and well, the type of radiation they experienced isn’t ‘bad’ radiation. Bologna. I hope China exposes this fraud – further egg on the face of the Americans.

    • fertog says:

      Ask him again, maybe he read about the Van Allen Belt already. I didn’t know about of it either until you deniers got me interested. Just takes 10 minutes of reading the Van Allen radiation distribution and the passage time to understand that’s harmless if you have radiation background. I am not only into quantum physics and space exploration but I work in radiation equipment. Now thanks to this page I am also into debunking bad science and I am having a lot of fun. And by the way I am not born nor studied in any of the 50 States, just defending mi little one’s flag and pride.

  49. machocomacho says:

    Regarding the Titanic sinking not being an ‘accident’, I read somewhere once that JJ Astor, F Guggenheim and I Strauss, 3 of the world’s richest men were passengers on the ship and did not survive. Allegedly the 3 were against the Federal Reserve Act going ahead and were planning a challenge to Rockefeller and his cronies who were of course in favor of it. Removing the dissidents from the equation made it much easier to push the Federal Reserve Act which was eventually passed into law by Woodrow Wilson in Dec of 1913.

  50. machocomacho says:

    On the NASA website, I read that the Apollo crew had to travel through the most intense regions of the belts but were not affected by radiation because it only took 30 minutes.

    Yet I read on a debunker site that the Astronauts plotted the course through the thinnest parts of the belts to minimize the danger…

    Hmmmm…. I get differing information everywhere on this. Did they go through the most intense parts or the thinnest?

    Then of course is some info I picked up last year about a 3rd belt discovered & some other interesting tidbits about the Van Allen Belts.

    “The Van Allen belts can pose a severe danger to satellites and spacecraft, with hazards ranging from minor anomalies to the complete failure of critical satellites. A better understanding of the radiation in space is instrumental to protecting people and equipment, Shprits said. He goes on to say “Ultra-relativistic electrons—which made up the third ring and are present in both the outer and inner belts—are especially hazardous and can penetrate through the shielding of the most protected and most valuable satellites in space, noted Shprits and Adam Kellerman, a staff research associate in Shprits’ group.

    Read more at:

    If NASA already sent people and equipment through the belts and to the moon and all they got were cataracts, it seems we should already have a pretty good understanding of how to shield against the radiation in the belts and how to protect satellites long term.

    The initial story was that Apollo and the crew did not have any special protective material to shield the radiation but that story has evolved over the years on Wikipedia and now it seems they had special suits with aluminium etc even though they didn’t originally! Oh, and it took 4 hours to traverse the belts, not 30 minutes. The story has changed too many times for me to believe a word of it.

    • ron abbass says:

      Hi Machocomacho! Thanks for your commentary and insights — much appreciated. Peace and blessings to you and yours.

    • fertog says:

      No shielding? What about the spacecraft itself? Know that paper can stop Alpha radiation? Beta takes just foil? Those are the radiation types there. Sure some particles may penetrate, however it is so little compared with outside dose and the outside dose is not even lethal. Ok, say not 2 hours but 4, still no clinically observable symptoms. It needs 12 times that to get observable symptoms.

      Your post? that’s a transient ring of highly energetic particles. They observed it and it went away after a month. So what’s the fact, that it was there during the mission? Most likely not, but even if it were, astronauts got radiated with a non lethal dose. The threat to life is again, staying there in an orbit, not going across them. Same applies to electronics equipment, it will fail if the orbit stays in the belt.

  51. Stevie says:

    Machocomacho – complete crap. The discoverer of the Van Allen belts, Dr Van Allen himself has gone on record to state that the belts posed no major threat to the safety of the Apollo astronauts. Who should we believe? Your made up doctor friend who you stunned with your amazing insights or Dr Van Allen? Do us a favour and buy a physics book and learn something useful.

  52. machocomacho says:

    I don’t normally respond to trolls like Steve but I’ll go on to note that Van Allen made recommendations to the US Government and NASA on the scientific requirements necessary to build a rocket that would protect the crew from radiation when passing through the belts and he was basically ignored. According to Van Allen’s original findings, aluminium wasn’t enough protection from the deadly radiation. Ultimately further shielding was going to be needed but would be too heavy making it impossible to get off the ground. With 30 billion at stake, NASA did their own thing and told The National Committee on Radiation Protection (NCRP) and the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) to lower their standards on acceptable radiation levels for space travel and declared that aluminium skin on the command module was adequate protection – this was based on NASA’s own studies, not Dr Van Allen’s. When interviewed about this many years later, Dr Van Allen stood by his original findings but at the same time downgraded them to ‘popular science’ and modified his story.

    Now Steve, why don’t you join all of the other statistics out there and take your medicine like a good boy.

  53. Stevie says:

    A quote from Dr. James Van Allen himself:

    “The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense.” — Dr. James Van Allen

    I repeat – get a physics book and learn some proper science – you really will learn something – do not be taken in by conspiracy nonsense garbage. You might think you are ‘in the know’ or ‘can see the truth’ but in reality you are doing nothing more than displaying publicly your wilful ignorance.

    • 1dogma1 says:

      You haven’t seen anyone change their public views because of government influence. By the way, I take planetary science. I just find it odd that probes are just getting into the picture for the first time. How come we haven’t seen any photo of the american flag and such that we supposedly left on the moon? Or were they conveniently placed on the dark side? Don’t believe everthing you read. It’s you can’t create your own opinoin.I’ll start calling you the “obvious scholar”, it must be true if the book says so.

  54. Stevie says:

    1dogmas1 – If you take Planetary Science then you would know all the Apollo landings took place on the near side of the moon for obvious communication line-of-site reasons. Clearly you should pay more attention in class – I just hope you are not giving the class – I doubt that somehow – there are certain standards. You do know of course there is no such thing as the dark side of the moon, all places on the moon get the same amount of sunlight over a lunar day.

    By the way there have been pictures taken on the Apollo landing gear in the last couple of years.
    Here you can even see the legs if the LM that were left behind by Apollo 17.

    Yes of course Dr Van Allen was threatened or bribed to change his story! Of course he was – how else could your illusion stand up?

    • 1dogma1 says:

      We have several ground based telescopes that could put this baby to sleep for pocket change compared to the alternatives. You sound like you would. So, are you a scientists? I’m sure your computer wit outweighs your personal character.” Sputtered”

  55. Stevie says:

    typo : Here you can even see the legs of the LM that were left behind by Apollo 17.

  56. Stevie says:

    As you ‘take’ Planetary Science, 1dogma1, you will of course understand basic optics and telescope resolution power. You will understand that you would need an Earth bound telescope with a mirror over 100m across to be able to resolve a 4m object on the moon, 250,000 miles away. Basic trigonometry and optics.

    The largest telescope on the planet is only 10m across, so no chance. The Hubble telescope is only 2.4m across.

    I think we have all become accustomed to popular culture talking crap about satellites being able to read newspaper headlines from space and such like. Again this all big brother fear mongering and complete nonsense.

    If telescopes could see the Apollo stuff on the moon we would see pictures all over the place. Unfortunately they can’t and that’s the end of it – It does not mean some global conspiracy, just plain boring old physics.

  57. rnsone says:

    It’s now known that there is a their belt! So that means they were in the belt even longer than previously thought! It’s like the researcher Dave McGowan (Wagging the Moon Doggie) said, either they didn’t to the moon or men were just superhuman in the 60’s!

  58. Stevie says:

    rnsone – Your comment is incoherent – “It’s now known that there is a their belt!” WTF?
    What are you trying to say? Is English your first language or are you under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
    No wonder you guys have trouble understanding rocket science.

    • 1dogma1 says:

      Check out Science. com “Magellan Telescope MagA/O’s secondary mirror” I am getting a blood test right now, you must be my karma for today. I had a new equation written out for you and that is all I can reference off the top of my head. I have all of my equations stickered to my computer. I’m a subject person and have to work out math. I Thank you, in a weird way, for bringing a smile to my face during the worst part of my day. I respect you dude, I’ve been through the last 5 years with stomach problems but I’m a christian.

  59. Stevie says:

    Best wishes with your health problems 1dogma1 – keep smiling.

    • 1dogma1 says:

      Stevie, here’s the sight with the formula. ( is this at least a good start? When I found a year old article on “Advances in Optical and Mechanical Technologies for Telescopes and Instrumentation” it had one hit from a girl in another country. Pretty Sad. Regards, 1dogma1/Mike.

  60. Stevie says:

    Not sure the point you are trying to make with that document Mike.
    Keep in mind that a telescope can point to a distant star or galaxy in the night sky for hours on end gathering light one photon at a time – building up an image – obviously can’t do that with the moon as everything will be completely washed out.

    The maximum resolving power of a telescope is still a function of mirror size no matter how sensitive the detector cells are. Still need one over 100m to see the moon buggies and stuff.

    • 1dogma1 says:

      It’s cool Stevie, my mistake. You are an awesome person and full of knowledge. What I won’t do is act like an egotistical jackass, and try to drag someone over the coals in front of a whole chatroom hungry with hate and fear. Thanks for keeping it above the belt. My main goal is peace. I can always pat myself on the back for beiny the only person to ace my D.C. test in boot. Small but sweet. Regards, Mike Anthony.

  61. Stevie says:

    In short – resolution power has nothing to do with sensitivity

  62. Stevie says:

    No worries Mike. I like explaining things to people who will listen and haven’t already made their mind up about things.

    It’s okay not to understand things, but wrong to make completely false statements due to lack of knowledge or an agenda. (YouTube videos or conspiracy websites do not count as knowledge)

    In my experience I have yet to come up against a single Apollo hoax ‘argument’ that could not be explained away by a little physics and deeper understanding.

    It’s okay to be sceptical, but not to be cynical.

    Best wishes


    • 1dogma1 says:

      So what is your take on Ron’s post? It just stood out to me cause he’s an awesome dude, and obviously a class act. Also, I’m used to not being able to reference from Wikipedia, I’m sure you know why. I reference as much as I can from Your writing style is nice and you reference too, “College!” Peace!

  63. Stevie says:

    My take on Ron’s original post…

    The article references this news story

    If you read it you will find nothing that puts the Apollo missions in any doubt. Scientists are continually trying to improve their knowledge of things – why is it strange that NASA is studying the Van Allen belts in more detail now? Why wouldn’t they want to increase data and get more detailed results. That’s what science is all about – getting more data. We sent a probe to Mars decades ago, and we are still sending them now – its called science.

    The information they has about the belts in 1969 was limited but not considered a show stopper. Health and Safety laws were not as crazy as they are now!

    The only alarming things in Ron’s post are the freakish ramblings of somebody posting comments on the article – a poster called username un4g1v3n1

    He is the person using trumped up phraseology like ‘Sea of DEADLY RADIATION’ – not NASA. You find ignorant comments like this all over the web, so why does that surprise you?

    Nothing to see here at all – the Apollo landings happened as advertised.

    • 1dogma1 says:

      I checked a killer non-wiki site and found out some cool information. If it is easy for you to believe the astronauts were in orbit, than it would be easier to believe they passed through the (VAB). The exposure time in orbit from the (SAMA) is far longer than passing through the (VAB) at its thinnest part. Plus, I guess it would be easier to find shielding from charged particles, than fake the whole thing. My main reason for being angry was that NASA spent billions in honest American taxpayer’s dollars.


      L8er & Peace, Mike.

  64. Dave says:

    There really is no point arguing about the moon landings – they happened as described by NASA and sometime within the next 5-10 years China or some other country will either go to the moon or map the entire surface with high resolution photography. In either case the evidence will be there on the moon’s surface where it has been ever since the landings and the conspiracy theorists will be made to look like the fools they are. (By the way – Capricorn 1 was a sci-fi movie not a documentary).

  65. Stevie says:

    1dogma1 – Nice to see somebody look at the evidence objectively and change his mind on the subject based on facts and not belief. Good for you – just wish more people would do the same – nothing shameful about being wrong. What is bad is sticking to one’s initial opinion when shown why it is incorrect. Kudos.
    By the way the site deals with practically all Apollo hoax arguments and explains why they are not to be trusted. Good find.

  66. 1dogma1 says:

    Hi Ron, I thought you might enjoy this article, if you haven’t already. Is the activity, on this particular site, pretty fluid? I’ve met some cool people, regardless of their views, that think you’re a cool person. I’m right along with them. Regards, 1dogma1.

  67. ron abbass says:

    Hiya 1dogma1, Yes, I’m aware of how it was faked by Stan Kubrick. A couple of years ago, I viewed a couple of youtube vids which outlined how Stanley faked the moon landings. Thanks 1dogma1.

  68. Stevie says:

    Ron – Behave! – Listen to yourself – ” A couple of years ago, I viewed a couple of youtube vids which outlined how Stanley faked the moon landings.” Ridiculous unsubstantiated statement.

    Care to give us some actual evidence?

    Sorry, but you cannot be allowed to get away with such a glib statement, even if it is your blog 🙂

    • ron abbass says:

      Hi Stevie! 🙂 It’s a never ending debate, as indicated by you and 1dogma. I thought you guys were going to go on forever. lol Stevie, I’m firm in my convictions re it was a hoax. (1) Why is NASA, at this point in time, going to study the Van Allen Belts? They admit it is an “obstacle” to space travel for humans. Didn’t they do their homework in the 60’s? (2) Why haven’t they returned to the moon? No need to respond. In the meantime, Peace and Blessings Stevie, to you and yours. 🙂

      • shawn young says:

        Hi Ron! I want to start by saying, “man did not go to the moon”. Maybe a probe or two, but not man. Ron,; you keep mentioning, “didn’t they do their homework in the 60’s?” They actually started in the early 50’s. Sputniks 1,2,3; Explorers 1,2,3; 1961 Explorer 12. Ludwig has a book out; look into the IGY Bulletins. After the data was compiled from these artificial satellites, Van Allen was “admonished not to make a public announcement”

      • ron abbass says:

        Hi Shawn! Thanks for your comments – I appreciate them. And, you are correct re they started in the 50’s. Interesting that Van Allen was cautioned not “to make a public announcement. I wasn’t aware of that. Peace and blessings to you and yours, Shawn.

  69. John says:

    Hi Ron: Of course you are right and at some point all of us truth-seekers will be completely vindicated. The evidence for the supposed moon landings make no political, strategic or technological sense; the harder the NASA shills try to push back on honest questioning of events the more you know they are attempting to cover up an absolutely indefensible contention. I am old enough to have witnessed the supposed first moon landing in 1969 in Copenhagen on street TV and am the last person to want to deny it happenned as portrayed. However, this is a significant watershead moment which has proven to be a lie: John Hamer proves it well in his writings, as does David McGowan in his series of “Wagging the Moondoggie”. Take care my friend.

    • ron abbass says:

      Hiya John. Thank you. I do appreciate your comments, especially, “truth-seekers will be completely vindicated”. Peace and Blessings to you and yours, John.

  70. bonny says:

    Great arguments from you guys. But i think you should stop this as you Guys are proving that Americans are nothing but cheats and fakes. Moreover this is an insult on the American pride, lol sorry that is if they have it.
    Nice going guys, keep it up.

  71. Stevie says:

    John – If you care to share some actual evidence that the landings were faked we can discuss further. For example what are your 3 most compelling reasons? I assure you it is highly likely you are just mistaken or badly informed from others.

  72. Stevie says:

    Bonny – The guys have proven nothing – no evidence means no case.

  73. Clay says:

    I watched President Kennedy state that we should land a man on the moon and bring him home safely. Sad to say he never got that chance. During that time frame we the USA had a very big problem with Russia. The space race was to prove that the USA was capable to launch a ICBM and put it where we wanted it, not possible at that time. Remember the Bay of Pigs time frame? If we were successful at landing a man on the moon is really moot as far as getting Russia to remove the weapons out of Cuba.
    With that said could we have done what we were told we did?
    The Van Allan belt is just that a belt not a sphere. It is 20 deg north and 20 deg south of the equator. Yes if exposed long enough it would certainly kill a flesh and blood entity. It is not a X-ray belt not like your doctor or dentist would use. a very different type of radiation. Yet still deadly.
    As your microwave is deadly. Look at your microwave how much protection between you and the magnetron’s deadly radiation. Put a piece of foil in the same unit and you will have 4th of July in your oven. Microwave Radiation cannot penetrate it.
    The Apollo missions traveled at 25000 MPH approx. 58 min skirting the belt. Was it worth the risk? Remember USSR had missiles with warhead of conventional or nuclear explosives in Cuba.
    If the US government made a lie that saved us from a nuclear war, thank you.
    I have my doubts as to if man landed on the moon but think it is quite possible.
    One thing for sure time will tell.
    “All that is done in darkness will be seen in the light”
    Why did Mr. Neil Armstrong choke up?
    If you had done what he did and then been called a liar. He risk his life for all Americans, moon landing or not, he blasted off.
    Basic knowledge of photography and enlargement of imagery will mathematically show you why we do not have a Earth based image or satellite image of our flags on the moon.
    Hubble is deep space telescope. Try this take a small astronomical telescope and try to read your newspaper from three foot away.
    I’m Just saying…

    • ron abbass says:

      Hi Clay! Thanks for your interesting comments and background on JFK and the Van Allan belts. In my opinion, Armstrong kept out of the public spotlight because he knew he participated in a hoax.

      China supposedly landed a space craft on the moon recently and you’d think they would have landed close to the site where the American’s landed and took pictures of the flag and rovers left behind by the Americans. But they didn’t.

      I’m convinced that no American landed on the moon. I’ll leave it at that, Clay. Peace and blessings to you and yours.

  74. Clay says:

    Mr. ron abbass
    I too was convinced the moon landing was a hoax, not so much any more.
    I’m old enough to have studied the facts and believe it is possible that we landed.
    Not that I’m without doubts.
    I have ate evening dinner years later with some of those that designed the first rover and they appeared to me quite legit. I have met the crew of the early flights first hand, then much older than I. So being young then, I may just be holding onto that dream, being at quite an impressionable age.
    I remember Grandma and Grandpa saying “it’s a lie” Mom and Dad said “they landed”. Grandpa never believed it, Dad still does. I don’t know.
    It’s not like 9-11 where the evidence is irrefutable, that it was a planned attack from the inside with ulterior motives. Which Dad nor my brother believes. To which I am convinced, as you are of the moon landing. I wish we were both wrong but believe we are both right. You on Moon landing and I on 9-11

  75. Clay says:

    Joshua Filmer
    wrote a good paper
    take a look he is just a kid but smart

  76. Maybe the Van Allen Belts are not a threat to life over short(ish) periods of time.

    But answer me this – if the radiation can pierce right through the ships and then the astronauts suits and then the cranium (and it appears it can) – then how on earth did they protect their photographic films??

    • ron abbass says:

      Hi Chris! Thanks for your comments/question — much apreciated. Your question was presented as one of the pieces of evidence that suggest the film and pics were not taken on the moon, but here on earth. A few months ago, I read an article that NASA LOST the original film of the very first Neil Armstrong moon landing. Is that possible? Maybe, but I think they didn’t want anyone reviewing the original, which probably would have revealed that no such moon landing took place.

      In any case, Chris, thanks again. Peace and blessings to you and yours.

    • fertog says:

      “Radiation can pierce” is not enough. A few particles get trough the aluminum walls but those particles after filtrated are much less in quantity than those outside. If you want to prove that Film would be unusable by just crossing the Van Allen Belt, you cannot only say “aha, the walls can be pierced”. You have to calculate and consider the following (in fact it may be more complicated):

      1) time of the passage (elementary physics, known speed and distance)
      2) distribution and types of radiation over the passage (chart by NASA or 3rd party)
      3) aluminum thickness of the ship (NASA)
      4) material and thickness of the film container (manufacturer or NASA)
      5) radiation shielding of the camera (yes, it was specifically designed, manufacturer)
      6) calculate the geometry of the film reel (inner film protected by outer, calculus)
      7) attenuation of Alpha and Beta radiation (radiation safety)
      8) dose of Alpha and Beta radiation exposing the film (your calculations)
      9) film sensitivity to Alpha and Beta radiation chart (manufacturer or experimental)
      10) then you can conclude if the attenuated radiation exposed the film or part of it

      So believing or not that’s your right but if you are not ready to know yourself, then believe in the experts. The experts are the ones that challenge the “belief in other believer” loop.

      Besides, they used Magnetic Video Tape, that would require so much radiation to get destroyed (to damage the molecular structure of the tape), that it’s most likely not possible. Tapes lost or reused does not imply fraud. They have lost or trashed pieces of equipment as well, they didn’t save all consumables that were used already. You loosing the textbooks you used at school, does not prove you were not at school. You have other evidence.

  77. Paul says:

    Lots of Apollo scientist and astronauts involved with the Moon landings have died in mysterious circumstances. There is a mass of evidence against the Landings including photographic!! Only a handful of top NASA/government officials were party to the whole picture, with all other workers operating on a need to know basis! The Van Allen Belt is a major hurdle for the future of manned space exploration and not one astronaut has had problem with the radiation they would have encountered on a trip to the Moon? I’m waiting for another country to scan the lunar surface as I do not trust NASA’s last scan that showed vehicles and footprints at the alleged landing sites !! I have left a small part of my mind open to the idea they did land against all the odds, but I’m not holding my breath !!

    • ron abbass says:

      Hi Paul! Thanks for your insightful comments — much appreciated. I smiled when I read: “I have left a small part of my mind open to the idea they did land against all the odds, but I’m not holding my breath!!” Admitting to lies and deception is not part of the power broker’s agenda.

      Thanks again, Paul. Peace and blessings to you and yours.

  78. 1dogma1 says:

    I’m almost completely sure,because of the referenced article, the computers in the late 60’s & early 70’s space program didn’t have the technology to function properly through the Van Allen Belts (3) without being fried.
    This blog keeps me coming back because of the new discoveries in the Van Allen Belts. Thanks Ron.

    • fertog says:

      Yes, electronic components and computers may be damaged by a short term exposure to radiation, but its required in the order of over 10,000 Rad. We are talking about 2 Rads across the Van Allen Belts during the passage, which is a minor exposure to electronics.

      There is a vast number of probes, even Russian, before and after the manned landings, whose computers passed across the belts with no failures. Computers at the time of the missions had much larger and with less number of elements than nowadays. Transistor joints had more area, so the likelihood of particle-matter interactions to overtake the whole gate response causing a fluke were less likely. Likewise, there were less elements, so simpler logic more difficult to collapse. So they may need better protection now.

      Either for manned or not manned missions, they are not as concerned about passages trough the VABs, as they are concerned about solar flares (short term exposures to higher levels of radiation) and long missions (long term exposures to cosmic radiation), which pose a real risk specially for astronauts that are often outside of a lander or spacecraft, moonwalking or spacewalking. That’s why they are need to improve radiation shielding in spacesuits which will allow extended safety. There is a rule in Radiation Safety called ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) which enforces radiation protection even if it is low. XRay or CT Scanners are still reducing dose levels whenever newer technologies arise, even when older and cheaper equipment is still in use.

  79. Brandon Osuna says:

    I think NASA probes into the Van Allen belts are proof that we did not land on the moon.

  80. Billy says:

    NASA is just discovering how deadly, dynamic and ever changing the Van Allen Belts are to spacecraft and humans? I thought they had all this data from all of the “Apollo missions to the moon”. NASA “sent” men to the moon and through the Van Allen Belts without knowing everything about them and just learning what they are all about today? I think NASA in a subtle way is saying that we never went to the moon because those radiation belts would have cooked humans and destroyed spacecraft.

  81. Stevie says:

    The article DOES NOT say the Van Allen Belts are harmful to humans during a brief transit to the moon and back. You will NOT find a reputable article that does.

    Why is it so strange to you guys that they are studying the VAB in more detail now. That is what scientists do – they study things – YES even if they have studied them before – SHOCK HORROR.

    Gaining extra knowledge is a good thing – it DOES NOT imply Apollo was faked – only in your own warped minds.

    ‘Cooked humans and destroyed spacecraft’ – what a joker!
    Learn some basic science, then come back an apologise.

    • fertog says:

      Absolutely right. Some people think of this radiation as a firewall like in video gaming, not considering at all the time of exposure.

  82. Annabel says:

    It never ceases to amaze me how many people still believe in this ridiculous story that man walked on the moon in 1969. It was the biggest lie ever told. NASA has refused to answer many questions or has blatantly lied. Many moon rocks and lunar soil in museums and collections have been found to be fakes. Dozens lost. The original videos were wiped or lost. The footage that we do have is a joke. I don’t have a scientific mind but I’ve looked at all the facts and read about this subject for years. I don’t buy it for one second.
    I couldn’t help but feel sorry for Neil Armstrong. A reluctant hero. A recluse. A man who probably had death threats or threats on his family. On ever interview or press conference he just looked so sad, so uncomfortable. Just because it’s in the history books… Dont make it fact. Ask questions, Annabel x

    • Chris Carter says:

      Many moon rocks are fake? Actually, one ‘moon rock’ was found to be petrified wood, and this is the only instance out of hundreds of samples that has EVER been found to not be genuine moon rock. Please stop exaggerating, it only lessens your credibility.

  83. Annabel says:

    Oh and Stevie, when you have some real solid proof that we did go to the moon, I’ll apologise 🙂

  84. Stevie says:

    Welcome Annabel,

    The moon landings were man’s greatest achievement to date and certainly not the biggest lie ever told.

    Your post contains absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the landings were faked – all your points are circumstantial at best, completely wrong or just offer an unsubstantiated opinion.

    Out of the millions of pieces of evidence that support Apollo, you have simply sorted through and latched onto things that seemingly support your belief system. It is called ‘confirmation bias’ and is not how science works in the real world.

    “NASA has refused to answer many questions or has blatantly lied”
    – No they haven’t. Please supply examples of this – you are mistaken or have taken things out of context.

    “Many moon rocks and lunar soil in museums and collections have been found to be fakes. Dozens lost”
    – The only example I can find is the Dutch Moon rock that turned out to be petrified wood. Again when you look into this you find quite an innocent explanation. It appears the petrified wood was simply misidentified and incorrectly labelled at some later date years after it was presented.

    Having lunar rocks go missing in museums (if true) DOES NOT imply the moon landings were a hoax. Please explain your logical reasoning for this. Whether the rocks are missing or not is irrelevant to whether they landed or not. What about the rocks that are not lost?

    “The original videos were wiped or lost.”
    – I think you will find one reel was lost or damaged out of hundreds. Again so what? Why does this imply a hoax in any shape of form? What about the reels that were not lost?
    There were thousands of moon artefacts, diagrams, samples, recordings, plans etc relating to the moon landings. I think it would be more remarkable if nothing was lost given the amount of time passed and the huge cut in NASA’s budget to look after all this stuff.

    “The footage that we do have is a joke”
    – Agreed the film footage of Apollo 11 was not great – however the many hours of footage taken on Apollo 14, 15, 16 and 17 are absolutely fantastic. Long uncut scenes of them working in 1/6 g, throwing objects that perfectly match lunar gravity, driving around in moon buggies that throw dust back exactly as it should in low g, vacuum environment. The hammer and feather experiment etc. Impossible to fake.

    “I couldn’t help but feel sorry for Neil Armstrong.”
    – Again so what if Neil Armstrong looked a bit awkward in some interviews ?– You are seeing what you want to based on your belief system. This again does not in any way provide evidence Apollo was faked. Looking at some 2 minute video snippet from a two hour press conference is simply cherry picking the evidence. These guys were military test pilots not polished media men.

    So you see all your points are superficial and do not stand up to scrutiny. Just like all the other nonsense arguments about no stars, wrong shadows, ‘lethal’ radiation, extreme temperatures, and the rest of the hoax nonsense.

    The scientific method is all about asking questions actually – I am a sceptical about many things but NOT the authenticity of the moon landings.


  85. Annabel says:

    ”We don’t have time to answer their questions, the truth is in the photographs.”

    Brian Welch NASA spokesman

    There are many, many examples of NASA lying and withholding information. You don’t look for them because your mind is already made up. You would think they would find the time to answer questions. They spent billions of dollars. Why not give answers and proof and silence the deniers?The astronauts and NASA have refused interviews and tv debates where they knew they would be questioned by conspiracy theorists. I stand by my original statement.

    You only found ONE example of fake or missing moon rock or lunar soil? One? Are you kidding me? Yes the Dutch museum’s moon rock was petrified wood. Due to this discovery, an investigation was started to locate the 134 moon rocks from Apollo 11 that were given as gifts to countries around the world. Some countries deny being given them. Fewer than a dozen have been found. NASA has admitted they didn’t keep any records of where the rocks went. NASA inspector general Paul K Martin determined that 517 moon rock and astromaterial samples that were lent between 1970 and 2010 had been lost or stolen. They couldn’t make an inventory or record of who received each moon rock or which country each one went to? Astrobiologist have tested samples of lunar soil. They found Teflon and plastic among other things. Very little evidence here of man walking on the moon. You only found one example because your mind is already made up. You spent 5 mins googling lost moon rocks? Did you use that oh so reliable and trustworthy site Wikipedia and then post here?

    Regarding the tapes… You say one reel was lost or damaged. No, not true. You trust NASA so much, then look at their statements regarding how they wiped the original as they needed to re use the tapes. Not lost not damaged…they taped over the moon landings like it was auntie Margaret’s 40th birthday bash. They then had to go scrounging round the world to see what footage other countries had. You didn’t read NASA’s statement or look in to the subject because your mind is already made up.

    If some 16 yr old macdonalds worker wins xfactor or Britain’s Got Talent , they are immediately trained in how to conduct themselves in interviews, in the public eye, body language, voice coaches, image, etc. The astronauts would know they would be national heroes and be expected to give many press conferences and interviews for the rest of their lives. The footage is there for all to see. Their heads are down, their voices low, shifting uncomfortably in their seats. It’s uncomfortable to watch. These men should be animated with their stories. They should be elated, proud. They are not. Billions of dollars of tax payers money…and Armstrong refuses interviews and becomes a recluse? He (supposedly) got to do something none of us will ever do. The experience of a lifetime all funded by the people…and yet he was so reluctant to talk about it. Okay Stevie, this isn’t proof that the moon landing was a hoax but then again, I haven’t see any proof we did go to the moon. Not any.

    • fertog says:

      ”We don’t have time to answer their questions, the truth is in the photographs.”
      (Brian Welch NASA spokesman)

      I just watched the final game at the Soccer World Cup in Brazil and a lunatic jumped to the field. The TV just started to broadcast views of the landscape in Rio, instead of those of the showman being chased at the field. That’s exactly what NASA spokesman did regardless the lunatic paid for his ticket.

    • chris says:

      I love your reply Annabel. Well done.

  86. Stevie says:

    Good truculent comeback Annabel – nice to see a bit of fight from an Apollo denier rather than their usual shallow thinking. Only you could manage to get away with mentioning Britain’s Got Talent in a moon landing debate 🙂

    I thoroughly agree with your last statement – “…this isn’t proof that the moon landing was a hoax…”. Glad we cleared that up.

    Good for Brian Welch I say. If I were continually bombarded with innate questions doubting your integrity and life’s work I would say the same thing too. That is why astronauts have sometimes failed to answer questions when they have been bullied or tricked to comment by unscrupulous people – because they are totally fed up with this nonsense – they know whatever they say it won’t change these peoples minds so what is the point? This is not a glib response but a real one. If you knew 100% that the landings were true, you were surrounded with all the evidence on a daily basis – you would not bother with such shallow trivial nonsense when there is so many more exciting things to talk about in the Space programme.

    I would go further to say that if by some miracle NASA could spend just one extra $ that would 100% convince all Apollo hoax believers they are wrong I would say don’t waste the money – spend it on something more useful, more sciencey!

    You are quite correct about many additional moon rocks being lost – point conceded – but so what? What does this prove apart from many nations were careless with them? How does this imply a hoax? – it is a non sequitur.

    Plastic found in lunar samples –the lunar samples given to most nations of the world were encased in lucite to stop them degrading. Lucite is a plastic so no mystery there.

    Regarding the lost tapes – yes some of the Apollo 11’s telemetry tapes were reused. This was a conscious decision about resource management made in the face of looming threats to lose data from ongoing missions for lack of storage media. Tapes remain for all the other 5 landings – why aren’t you concerned about them? Why on moon does this imply a conspiracy?

    Neil Armstrong was an intensely private man both before and after his successful moon landing with Apollo 11. He later became a recluse. Buzz Aldrin on the other hand became a show-off and a womaniser. What does it matter? – People are different. If Neil had become a showman and extrovert – would you say he was only doing this to cover up his guilt too?

    There is an overwhelming body of evidence that the Apollo landings happened as advertised. They were the most scrutinised and well-documented events in history and still studied intensely today. Thousands of high res pictures, hour upon hour of TV and film footage, nearly 400kg of rock and soil samples, surviving hardware, personal testimonies, millions of pages of documentation, independent verification from hostile and friendly nations.

    It has been nearly 45 years since the first landing – nobody has exposed the conspiracy, no death bed confessions, no damning evidence. It’s one hell of a bloody clever cover up!

    President Nixon could not cover up a simple break in. President Clinton couldn’t get a blow job in the oval office without getting found out. Ridiculous to think the moon landings were faked 6 times over 3 and half years and nobody is clever enough to figure it all out apart from you conspiracy fanatics.


  87. Annabel says:

    I’m sorry Stevie, I keep reading your last post. Nope, Still can’t find evidence in there. The burden to prove a negative is not on me. You’re saying it did happen. The burden is on you.. I’m still waiting for that single piece of absolutely proof of the Moon landings. Let me know when you have it. I can wait. Cheers.

    • Chris Carter says:

      Google ‘LROC Apollo landing sites’ Annabel. HMMM, look at all those pictures showing the equipment left behind on the lunar surface from all six Apollo missions. There’s your proof darling, lol.

  88. Stevie says:

    In the real world – once something has been established as a historical event and documented the world over the burden of proof moves on to the hoax believers. You are saying the moon landings did not happen – that is an extremely minority viewpoint – you are accusing NASA and the US Government of some huge global conspiracy so you might need a little evidence to back up those claims 🙂 – so far you have offered nothing but unsubstantiated opinions and irrelevant facts.

    Once something is established as fact it is no longer necessary to prove it. Think about Concorde for example – do you doubt it ever existed now supersonic commercial air travel is no longer possible?

    However I am very happy to explain why the moon landing must be 100% genuine and any logical and sound mind is forced to believe it.

    1/ Photographs

    The photographs are stunning – do yourself a favour and take a look at some of the high res images available. They are simply beautiful and should make you feel in awe of life , the universe and everything.

    I have a book called ‘Full Moon’ – a coffee table book full of stunning images from the 6 manned landings. If you saw the book and read it – next time somebody said they think the landings were faked you would more than likely bang them on the head with it.

    There are 5771 high resolution photographs available to wonder at. There is NOT one single tiny anomaly on any Apollo photograph. I mean it – not one. There is your proof right there – colossal amounts of photographic evidence!

    And, if you think about it – pretty stupid to try to fake 6000 pictures – why not just take 20?

    2/ Video

    Hours of video footage taken in low gravity high vacuum environment – impossible to fake. You might need to have studied physics to appreciate the subtleties of the footage – but every second of the footage stands up to rigorous scrutiny. There are no absolutely no anomalies, no wires, no coke cans lying about, no third astronaut and no evidence whatsoever of a fake.

    Any, if you think about it – pretty stupid to try to fake hours of video – why not just take a 10 minutes worth? Why make your job 10 times harder filming moon buggies driving all over the place too? Makes no sense whatsoever.

    3/ Moon rocks – groan – yes 381 kg of moon rocks and soil samples.
    All lunar rocks show evidence of micro impacts from tiny particles that would otherwise burn up on entry on earth. No hydration and evidence of being formed in low g environment – impossible to fake!

    No, they did not collect them all from Antarctica – there were only a few found there and were only identified to have come from the moon AFTER they were compared to the rocks returned from the moon by Apollo. These also show signs of atmospheric heating, water contamination and weathering. Clearly not the same as the rocks collected by Apollo astronauts!. Most rocks collected were even photographed in situ on the moon prior to being picked up.

    1000’s of scientist from all nations of the earth have studied them and nobody thinks they are fake – why do you?

    And, if you think about it – why bring back so much rock if you were gonna fake it? Easy to say due to weight restrictions you could only bring back a few pounds?

    4/ Faking would be pointless – Absolutely pointless. The Russians were neck and neck with the US in trying to get to the moon. What would be the point of faking so many pictures, video and samples when you knew with 100% certainty you would definitely be exposed the minute somebody else landed? Think about it – Answer – they didn’t fake it.

    I really don’t understand what Apollo hoax believers think was so impossible about the moon landings. Clearly the technology was available to send probes to the moon (even the Russians did that) – there was clearly life support systems available (submarines could keep 50 men under water for months during WW2)

    Please explain where the problem is? Where is this mysterious line that they could not cross? They had the technology, they had the incentive, they had the combined brain power of 400,000 top engineers and scientists and they had a practically infinite budget and the will of the nation. Quite simply they figured it all out.

    And before you put your fingers in your ears, shut your eyes and shout – “ They never left earth orbit”, you may want to be reminded that the moon does in fact orbit the Earth.

    Case closed.


  89. Pingback: Discuții cu domnul istoric Cristian Troncotă despre revoluția din 1989 | Blogul lui Marius Mioc

  90. LMMFAO says:

    LMMFAO….. I authentically feel bad for you people… a physicist (who judging solely on his explanation obviously knows more about the subject than the author of this article) explains it to you clear as crystal and you choose to ignore all that he has to say in favor of something you misunderstood entirely from an article that said nothing at all of what you claim…. Don’t bother replying to me.. I won’t be back..

    • hsaive says:

      LMFAO – I’ve seen all the evidence. Good bye

    • jashend says:

      Many interesting points brought up on both sides here. I read most but not all of the comments. I saw that a few people refered to the Kubrick vid as evidence against the landing. I would like to thank those who believe any part of that vid is true becuse I got a much needed laugh from your posts. I’m not sure if anyone above addressed the fact that the Kubrick video is a mockumentary…a planned and billed mockumentary. It is quite obvious early on that Rumsfeld and Kissenger were not interviewed for the movie. The producers simply isolated comments from past unrelated interviews that fit into their script. I respect everyone’s right to an opinion and have no reason to try to change anyone’s mind on the subject. I just thought it was hilarious that the same people that get duped by a poorly put together movie turn around and argue the complexities of space travel.

  91. Cllr Chris says:

    I’m confused. There is Stevie who waxes eloquently about photography so stunning and beautiful that we must believe in moon landings. Not sure I see the connection …? Then we have LMFAO who is so sorry for us that he is leaving us to our misery. Good convincing move there LMFAO – just not sure it’s enough to win me over. But Fertog takes the biscuit. A man so confidently scornful of doubters and so knowledgeable in the Van Allen Radiation Belts that NASA could have saved a great deal in satellite and research funding just by asking this man. Yet despite this relentless barrage against doubters I still remain curiously unconvinced. It seems sensible then that my interest in the debate should remain until my doubts are either proven or disproven.

  92. fertog says:

    Cllr Chris,

    The Van Allen Belts were explored deeply around 1958. There were multiple unmanned missions that carried radiation monitoring equipment to analyze the recently discovered belts by Dr Van Allen. The probes measured, classified and mapped the existing radiation at the inner and an outer belt. These belts were found to be made of high energy particles, the shape is like a doughnut along the magnetic equator, thicker at the equator and thinner as latitude gets towards the poles, where it has no presence; their size changes though, they swell and shrink depending on the solar wind and cosmic rays.

    It was then known the belts posed a threat for man and equipment, yes; but explicitly stated for long term exposures, referring explicitly too, to stationary orbits along the belts. Exposures to astronauts and equipment when passing across the belts are short term exposures and they were below 2 Rad in all missions. In fact I believe it was from 0.4 to 1.2 or so, less than what you get in a CT Scan.

    During a mission launched in August 2012 to study the belts with more detail, they were caught by surprise with the presence of an anomalous, transient, thin belt in between the other two, which appeared and then disappeared after a month. So far, they have not observed it again as of July 2014; so, they still don’t know if it is a cyclic or a rare event.

    That’s all the buzz is about. The less they do research, the less they will understand physics. They want to confuse people with poor technical background. If you are not into physics, you do not need to trust me, just search for what scientists think about a fake moon landing.

  93. ken says:

    The Van Allen bet imay not be an issue, apparently “they” ( astronauts) only spent a number of minutes in the strongest radiation , which was “acceptable ” . Im erring on the side of USA did not land on the moon and usually quoted the Van Allen belt as the main unexplained issue , but read this for a proposed solution.

  94. Pingback: 45 Years Ago Today Man Set Foot On Another World... -

  95. fertog says:

    Exactly Ken, that was one of the original explanations. There were only two known belts by then, however it is still valid for most, but not 100% of the time.

    The findings about a third belt, observed by the NASA Van Allen Probes in 2012 were misunderstood and refueled the discussion. The fact is that there is still nothing conclusive about the third belt’s habits. So far, it was a temporary, single appearance that lasted a month before it was wiped out by solar winds; it has been absent since then.

    The third belt seems to be rare, meanwhile a deeper study of the Van Allen Belts is in progress. Findings also include the presence of a natural particle accelerator which is driving most of the attention for now and it may even trigger a new discussion as the third belt argument losses grip. It will just take cherry-picking some of NASA’s publications to ignite more debate.

  96. zeez says:

    How the appolo made it through the van allen belts is magic.
    Even now in the year 2014 nasa still dont have materials to protect its space craft and astronaut, how can appolo passed through the deadly belt in 1969? Magic?

    • fertog says:


      No materials? Where are you reading that?

      The 2 Van Allen Probes are currently in permanent orbit at the belts as many other probes did since 1958. Do you know the radiation damage is accumulative, do you? Both for the living and for materials, right? Ok. As being permanently there, these probes are exposed to radiation maybe thousands or even millions of times more than the astronauts did. Hard to calculate but it is way, way more.

      A spacecraft for humans is designed as a big O2 tank so that astronauts can breathe and strong enough not to blow in the vacuum of space. In this case the walls were made of thick aluminum which is an excellent radiation shield for this type of radiation.

      By the other hand, the probes are minimalistic, they don’t have an enclosure to host a crew and their electronics are more exposed. So yes, they need extra shielding in some components and guess what, they are shielded with known materials and guess what: they are still working.

      There’s nothing magic, just real science.

  97. Marshalr says:

    Shield effectiveness is usually measured in “half-layer thickness”. The “half-layer thickness” number tells you how thick your shield must be to block at least HALF of the radiation. The half-layer thickness for some materials for x-rays at 100 keV:

    Lead 0.12 mm
    Copper 1.8 mm
    Iron 2.6 mm
    Aluminum 15.9 mm
    Water 41.5 mm
    Air 35550 mm

    As you can see, aluminum is a terrible radiation shield. A sheet of lead as thick as a piece of paper works as well as a block of aluminum thicker than your finger. Aluminum is more than 10 times worse than lead. It’s more than 6 times worse than iron.

    It seems to me that you would want to stock pile lead at an in orbit space station and manufacture a vessel fit for human transportation.

  98. fertog says:

    Marsharl, you mention XRay, that’s not the type of radiation we are talking when we mention Van Allen Belts. What makes Van Allen Belts different are protons and electrons, which have less penetrating power. There is other radiation types too but in outer space as well. The Landing Module is the only one that had thin walls but the crew was not there during the passage.

    Here a study on the radiation dose received by a satellite at the belts:

    It says: “A object satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminum will received about 2500 rem (3) per year.”

    So they consider aluminum for a satellite, but the Command Module was a bunker compared to that.

    Lets consider the Satellite approach (which is a coke can compared to the CM) and divide the 2500 rem by 365, then it will be 6.8 rem per day. That’s not any close to lethal dose but then how many hours were they though the belts? Two? Then 0.6 rem? Ok 1.2 rem due to their way back. Besides the wall was a sandwich of aluminum walls in each side, an aluminum honeycomb layer, another brass-iron honeycomb layer, two fiberglass layers, a thermal layer all making 1.5 inch, plus all kinds of metal in the equipment, hardware, seats, attenuating even more. Take a look to the thickness of the walls in the link below.

    No way, the Allen Belts posed no risk at all.

  99. fertog says:

    Here a link that makes a calculation for an astronaut exposure during the passage but disregarding the spacecraft as a shield. Reading it my way: the first astronaut doing a strip-spacewalk at the expense of 13 Rads. They calculate the passage is almost 1 hour, so even my estimate in the previous post was high. The lethal dose in that ~1 hour passage would be 300 Rad. (1 Rad= 1 rem). The stripper would have survived to radiation but killed by vacuum.

    Ok, that’s a post by NASA, but Russians and Chinese can read it too, so why they would remain silent? A conspiracy on top of a conspiracy? That’s nuts, if those numbers were faked or exaggerated, then Russia would have been the first to point it out, then Putin’s ego would skyrocket past the belts and survive.

  100. paulos says:

    The NASA article you have posted doesn’t say anything about the van allen’s belts prohibiting human spaceflight beyond near earth orbit. The closest it gets to saying that is “The twin spacecraft will spend the next two years exploring the so-called Van Allen belt that is filled with highly-charged particles and at times poses a danger to communications, GPS satellites and even human spaceflight.”

    “Poses a danger to human spaceflight” is a lot different to saying it’s not possible to go beyond the Van Allen’s belts or that the Van Allen’s belts prohibit manned spaceflight beyond near earth orbit.

    I’ve read a fatal radiation dose is 300 rads. “According to radiation dosimeters carried by Apollo astronauts, their total dosage for the entire trip to the moon and return was not more than 2 Rads over 6 days. ”

    They took the shortest route through the belts. There are different types of radiation and the command module did offer some protection against some of the types of radiation in the belts. Alpha particles wont even pass through a human hand while Gamma radiation needs something as dense as lead to stop them (you even learn this in high school). Not all the radiation in the Van Allen’s belts was of the most deadly variety and the less deadly varieties (alpha and beta rays) wwere mostly blocked by the structure of the vehicle.

    I found this very interesting

    The only person saying the Van Allens belt prohibit spaceflight is someone with the username ” un4g1v3n1″. Who is this person ? Is it just someone who commented on the NASA article or what ? Anyone can say anything on the internet. I can say aeroplanes can’t fly because they are too heavy. Doesn’t make it fact.

  101. FilmAllfoggedUp says:

    Check mate ‘Moon hoax deniers’! Forget the argument about how radiation effected the astronauts, please explain how the film from the Hasselblad cameras that supposedly took pictures on the lunar surface got back through the Van Allen Radiation Belts with 0% damage ? In case anyone don’t know, radiation fogs film and is a serious problem for NASA even in the shuttle, well below the Van Allen Radiation Belts.

    “The Shuttle and its cargo are occasionally exposed to a large enough amount of radiation to
    create nonimage forming exposures (fog) on photographic flight film. The sensitivity of
    photographic films to significant space radiation was investigated during several NASA
    programs including Skylab.”

    Quote from NASA ‘The Effects of Space Radiation on Flight Film’, September 1995.

    If NASA cannot protect film from radiation in 1995 while it is aboard the shuttle, below the Van Allen Radiation Belts, how did it achieve this amazing feat in 1969 ? Every single picture, from every single supposed Apollo mission to the moon has 0% radiation fogging, how is that possible ?
    Please read the NASA article before just blabbing nonsense, because NASA has clearly admitted, as of 1995, they don’t know how to protect film from radiation.
    Remember, I am talking about film, from Hassleblad cameras, that NASA has stated was on the lunar surface and used to take pictures. This film, according to NASA would have to travel from the lunar surface in open space ( where there is radiation ) and through the Van Allen Radiation Belts.
    Anyone can view the images NASA claims was taken with Hassleblad cameras on the lunar surface, here is a link to Apollo 11 images.

    There is 0% fogging from radiation on these images, this is impossible if this film passed through the Van Allen Radiation Belts in 1969 aboard the ‘Command Module’ when it supposedly returned from the moon.

  102. fertog says:

    In the previous post, the link was a study done in 1995 to quantify film exposure to radiation at Space Shuttle Missions, which was used to “demonstrate” that the film would get foggy in the Van Allen Belts. Results from a long mission which even considers solar flares are compared to a 2-hour passage. That’s not comparing pears to pears. Besides, the results in that study show minimal or no degradation and in the worst scenarios the images could be corrected during the printing process.

    One thing to consider is that by 1995, there were commercially available high resolution digital cameras (i.e. Kodak DCS 465, 6.3 Megapixels) so, why would they insist using film? If they chose film over digital, it must be because the pictures are better, meaning that film could be used.

    One more fact to consider is that the levels of radiation at the belts were studied since 1958 in different satellite missions by the USA and the USSR. Why would they risk film to get exposed if they could have only used videotapes? Sure it was because their films would not get foggy.

    • FilmAllfoggedUp says:

      ‘Results from a long mission which even considers solar flares are compared to a 2-hour passage’
      *STS-31 ‘Flight Film exposure to radiation resulted in fogged and degraded images’
      Mission Duration: 5 days, 1 hour, 16 minutes, 6 seconds
      STS-31 382 miles above earth to launch the Hubble Space Telescope, protected by VAB’s.

      *Apollo 11 ‘Beautiful images from the Lunar surface on 1969 film technology and 1969 Hasselblad Camera’ – Mission Duration: eight days, three hours, 18 min, 35 seconds.
      Apollo 11 spent 4 hours in the VAB’s ( 2 hours twice, once each way ) and at least 7 days outside the protection of the VAB’s.

      ‘worst scenarios the images could be corrected during the printing process’
      “Table XIII. Recommendations for Shuttle Mission Photography”
      Deals a death blow to any procedure to ‘correct’ for radiation fogging of Apollo 11 images taken on film with the Hasselblad Camera. We can not go back and ‘correct during the printing process’ on Apollo 11 thru 17 images, NASA has never stated such a process was done on those images. We can not imagine some other images to talk about or a process considered in 1995, we are bound to the 1969-72 Apollo 11 thru 17 Hassleblad images and the process used on that film.

      ‘One thing to consider’ is that NASA supposedly sent Apollo 11 to the moon with a Hasselblad Camera to take pictures on film and those images appear to be 100% free of any radiation fogging what so ever. How is that possible when ‘CR188427.pdf’ clearly states NASA has no idea how it was done in 1969 and is studying the problem in 1995 ?

      ‘ Why would they risk film… Sure it was because their films would not get foggy’.
      I don’t know why NASA choose the Hassleblad Camera for supposedly taking pictures on the lunar surface.
      The ‘risk’ has physically bound them to those Apollo 11 thru 17 images developed from the film they supposedly brought back from the Hassleblad cameras. NASA can never go back on its claim about those images. Images that are physically impossible according to NASA themselves in ‘CR188427.pdf’.

      We cannot re-write history, NASA documented what they said took place on the film, where the images where taken, the films journey through the VAB’s twice and in open space outside the protection of the VAB’s for more than 7 days.

      Please respond with documented proof from NASA, from 1969, that describes how the film was protected from radiation or what magical non-radiation-fogging film was used. I mean, the documentation has to be out there, right ?

      If I had found any info from NASA showing how they pulled this off I wouldn’t be on this forum.

      • Marshalr says:

        I would like to say what I think from all I have studied. We live in a fishbowl, and its not meant for us to leave our environment. Space is a harsh environment. Lack of gravity and pressure, particulate and radiation. The sunlit side of the moon has to be the biggest solar reflective oven there could be. By the best evidence I have seen, Apollo teams launched into orbit, did send unmanned LEM, recovered the samples, and splashed down. The live coverage I remembered had to a reverse Trojan Horse designed to convince the USSR that Nuclear war was futile, because we could come out of our bunkers with wonder suits and solar powered vehicles even if the aftermath was a moonscape. Or for the same reason, we used technology obtained by an accident of a much more advanced technical creatures. The materials were expended for the Apollo program or it was decided to recover them and hide them. At least the case of Apollo 13 would not be the mother of all fraud, which would be the case if the team never left earth orbit. In any case, humans don’t leave orbit, even for another once around the moon. NASA continues to study radiation environmental issues for deep space travel. Something just is not right.

      • hsaive says:

        Failure of ANY COUNTRY to return to the moon to setup a base, manned experiment or lunar community is a major clue to the moon landing hoax. The future of Internet access, personal technologies to (further) debunk phony landings quashed the Apollo mission.

  103. Hi folks!

    In recent studies, Nasa has confirmed that there are now more belts (more than the initial two), and that they have appeared recently. Independent studies said so before.

    So, I would like to express my serious concerns about what Nasa or any other state controlled agency is admitting or distributing when it comes to core information. It very clearly looks like that our planet has kind of reacted and powered up more shields, thus to prevent entrance or escape by certain kind of organisms, artifacts or unknown. It is quite possible that the actual crazy and furious race around technology is no other thing that a kind of program which wanted to conduct to manned or unmanned space flight and investigation, but now has found out that the more we push in this direction, the more we get caught or shielded away from the goal. Finally, the whole thing starts to throw stones on all those agencies, making it clear that most of their propaganda was nothing else but propaganda.

    In my surely uninteresting opinion the incredible speeding up of economies, developments and specially tech-developments in the last 50 years was dedicated solely to escape from planet Earth. Now it has become clear that we have no chance to do so, and even if we try harder, just the more belts or other devices will prevent us from any kind of success.

    Nasa is a fraud, as all the other agencies are. They partly act as cover-up for highly secretive missions, or decorate conveniently the mock-ups and setups for the broad public.

    My – of course totally useless – personal feelings are that technology will never be the key to any kind of evolution in the way the planet is designed to react, or act and even help us. All this looks like that some very rich and powerful were trying to find a passage for themselves, and then look at us from above or leave us behind forever. Now their dreams have come to a sudden end, they know that they are bound to this planet. It’s just the epic economical and technological infraestructure that can’t be stopped by them – no matter how hard they may try now, and, oh dear… they really try hard lately.

    Whether the truth will come out or not in time to know, it’s quite clear to me that another kind of evolution was withheld from us by our own fellow humans, but will now emerge with grace from the ruins the last decades have accomplished to multiply all over the planet.

    Don’t take me seriously. Just read, feel… and have fun.

    Kind regards to all

  104. Awakezone Team says:

    Good post! Thank you

  105. fertog says:

    @Miguel, you choose not to believe, that’s your right; however, as I posted before, the additional belt was observed temporarily for about a month in 2012 and disappeared not to be observed again. Not saying that the newly discovered, more energetic third belt would have been fatal to astronauts inside the LEM, but basically that it is absent most of the time. There is no way to know if the third belt was present during the Apollo Missions; however, for the sake of the discussion, it is easy to deduct that the probabilities were low (1 month out of 2+ years makes it an unlikely event). This becomes a weak argument to disprove a safe passage.

    @FilmAllFoggedUp, the film fogginess in a Space Shuttle Mission that was not in orbit trough the Van Allen Belts, but in lower orbit and on a longer mission. The foggy film may have been exposed by other type of radiation with more penetrating power and for a longer term than the Apollo Missions, not by the characteristic radiation at the belts. Yes, Apollo may have been exposed too, that’s a statistical possibility but not very likely; what is for sure, is that if the film got exposed, it was safe in its aluminum canister inside the LEM and besides, it was not exposed for too much time. A study like the one you refer to, is intended to cover multiple possibilities while in a long mission while in orbit, not during a passage or a short term mission. The test you refer to uses a film more sensitive to radiation and the radiation used “a thousand of times more energetic than those existing in outer space”. Maybe you want to read this article: it even has has a link to a primer in radiation.

    • Marshalr says:

      The lunar space helmets face plates are are lined with gold??

      • hsaive says:

        We expect many people will not have the capacity to believe the facts. This is how it should be. If it’s true that the planet’s population is too high, this may be an opportunity to eliminate the mentally unfit.

    • hsaive says:

      “Choosing” to believe is a religion and has nothing to do with the scientific method. So choose away.

      • Marshalr says:

        Countries and private enterprise want to mine Helium 3 from the moon to use for fusion. Energy resource, that’s human motivator So how do they plan to accomplish this? Robotics? If they plan to establish a colony, where is their data about the lunar surface. There was a “moon bomb” that NASA has published, stating its impact showed there was frozen water? So you must shield for a CME proton storm caused by solar flares? You must shield for Comic rays. You must be ready for unearthly temperature and UV conditions. What are the shielding requirements?

      • Marshalr says:

        You do it with aluminum??

      • fertog says:

        @hsaive, that’s exactly what I meant. I didn’t have to “choose to believe” or “choose not to believe” this topic, but some people do, and that’s their right.

        I base my arguments in science. I understand science because I studied it, because I got a degree almost 30 years ago, because I have been working with it since then in a daily basis and because I stay tuned with the emerging findings.

        Moon landing denial has used so many anti-scientific arguments that are easily debunked. Some forums where weak arguments are exposed, are so crowded with illiterate people, politically biased, and there is lack of a real challenge in explaining them basic physics because they don’t even care learning. For them you’re another illiterate as they cannot even distinguish between science and nonsense. This post however, the Van Allen Belts argument, is a hard one because it requires understanding more advanced physics, like electromagnetic radiation, interactions of radiation with matter, attenuation, radiation safety, biological effects, occupational hazards, solid state physics, radiography, photography… not like debunking the flag, the crater or the parallel shadows arguments, huh? Anyone not qualified just “chooses” what to believe, like in a religion when it’s not imposed by others; however, anyone qualified can easily understand it after studying the facts.

        I have been reading your comments (above and below up to Apr 17) and I think you distrust any official agencies and sometimes yes, they deserve discredit. Conspiracies are undeniable, the nature of power and weakness of men lead to create conspiracies; “follow the money trail…” yes, but that’s not what moves me. I am not an Alex Jones or Jesse Ventura or Bart Sibrel fan, I consider them paranoid (or act like one to make millions). However, I don’t believe all what’s being said about Anthropogenic Global Warming for example, and if I’m not wrong, we’re in the same page there; however, my reasoning is not because I distrust the government, the IPCC, Al Gore, Ban Ki Moon or Margaret Thatcher, but because the science around it has failed dramatically when earlier predictions turned out to be way too far from the current records. In that case, the scientific method just proves 97% of climate apprentices are wrong: the proposed climate models have been falsified by their own results, meaning that the anthropogenic factor has been overestimated, which ended up being (partially) admitted by the IPCC. Sure I smelled something wrong in the overall campaign in the beginnings, that made me a “disbeliever” for a time, but science is what turned it into a fact for me.

        Said that, I think you understand that I am not a “believer” nor a “disbeliever” in regards to the Moon Landing. I am a person driven objectively by science, who agrees with the scientific method and who knows that science is always behind everything we do and nature does. For me science provides the ultimate explanation for everything and science is what turns “belief” or “disbelief” into knowledge. Not a problem with anyone while in the transitional phase, we’ve all been there for a while.

  106. Stevie says:

    Basically then – the people who do not believe in the moon landings have very little understanding of science and radiation. Those that do believe them actually know what they are talking about.
    All you doubters are quite pathetic and should open a science book before opening your mouths!

  107. Marshalr says:

    Please read about super tenacity from Col P.J. Curso. Could this material been included in Dupont’s famous lunar space suit?

  108. John Spaziani says:

    I see there is a discussion in the Science Community about removing ions & radiation from the Van Allen belt: they better be careful what they wish for, owing to unknown factors whereby the belts as they are might hold some existing protection for our planet!

  109. Jake says:

    The only technology that has regressed. NASA nor anyone else can duplicate the feat done almost a half a century ago. Dental X-rays at 0.1 Rem and they place a lead shield over you. There is a reason they stay below 400 miles and usually 200 miles up in orbit and it is radiation. Only the naive believe in the government.

  110. Pingback: Létající muž z Macclesfieldu a pád do „jezírka ticha“: Záhada, kterou nikdo nevyšetřuje. Otázka stejného druhu, jako zda opravdu byli Američané na Měsíci |

  111. Tom says:

    I don’t see any problem…

    Missions beyond low Earth orbit leave the protection of the geomagnetic field, and transit the Van Allen belts. Thus they may need to be shielded against exposure to cosmic rays, Van Allen radiation, or solar flares. The region between two to four Earth radii lies between the two radiation belts and is sometimes referred to as the “safe zone”.[24][25]

    Solar cells, integrated circuits, and sensors can be damaged by radiation. Geomagnetic storms occasionally damage electronic components on spacecraft. Miniaturization and digitization of electronics and logic circuits have made satellites more vulnerable to radiation, as the total electric charge in these circuits is now small enough so as to be comparable with the charge of incoming ions. Electronics on satellites must be hardened against radiation to operate reliably. The Hubble Space Telescope, among other satellites, often has its sensors turned off when passing through regions of intense radiation.[26] A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit (200 by 20,000 miles (320 by 32,190 km)) passing the radiation belts will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year. Almost all radiation will be received while passing the inner belt.[27]

    The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts, which was one of several radiation hazards known by mission planners.[28] The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them.[29] The command module’s inner structure was an aluminum “sandwich” consisting of a welded aluminium inner skin, a thermally bonded honeycomb core, and a thin aluminium “face sheet”. The steel honeycomb core and outer face sheets were thermally bonded to the inner skin.

    In fact, the astronauts’ overall exposure was dominated by solar particles once outside Earth’s magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission to mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv) per year set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity.[28]

  112. Marshalr says:

    So between the structure of LEM and the Apollo astronaut suits, astronauts would not be overexposed to dangerous radiation on the moon surface. The radiation is of what type and what levels on the lunar surface??

  113. shawn young says:

    Has anyone mentioned the book, “Opening Space Research: Dreams, Technology, and Scientific Discovery” , By George H. Ludwig. He worked with Van Allen at the time Van Allen was making his discoveries. It is very interesting reading. Ernie Ray signed a letter in which he states, “Evidently there is no hole in space. Rather, space is radioactive…. work with an Anton Geiger tube indicates…10 to the fourth – 10 to the sixth/sec…. 4 April, 1958. (page 336). Ludwig also recounts a page from his journal in which he writes: By now a very startling and interesting result has appeared in the data. We have encountered some extremely high counting rates at the higher altitudes, and at perhaps all latitudes north and south 33 degrees….Counting rates are probably over 4000 per second. This result appears on both Explorers, and there seems to be no doubt as to its existence. ….Van Allen was sufficiently confident in our conclusions by mid-April that he discussed them with several IGY program officials, namely, Richard Porter, Hugh Odishaw, Homer Newell, and William Pickering. Those calls were made, most likely on Monday, 14 April….The US National Committee had recently established a policy for the release of scientific information… It provided that all satelite-derived data should be conveyed to the US national Committee in advance of public release. Odishaw reminded Van Allen of that policy and admonished him to make no public announcement of the new discovery…(chapter 12 page 339)…..”. I’m not going to write out the whole book for you… the information is out there if you want it. I can’t believe with how easy it is to find information, these days, that there are still so many ignorant Sheeple!

  114. Marshalr says:

    Thank you.. I have been looking for more info on Ernie Ray. I once saw a quote from Van Allen about the danger of going to Mars, but cannot seem to relocate it. However, the more people who retire or pass, the more information becomes available.

  115. John says:

    I just saw the spectacular movie, Interstellar, it promises to wake up some of those in stupified sleep. The revelation to the lead character that the moon landings were fake and done to bankrupt the old soviet union is part of predictive programming: the controllers well know the absurdity of their fantasy that there has been no return manned flight to the moon in over 40 years, and counting, despite quantum leaps in technology and their immense desire to utilize the moon as a miltary and mineral resource base; let’s habitualize those asleep so they will awaken in a controlled way. Another clue is the Kubrick 2001 meme and the open references to the parallels with Kubrick’s earlier masterpiece — the controllers have an ironic sense of humour don’t they.

  116. Stevei says:

    Congratulations John on probably the dumbest post so far, and there have been quite a few.
    So your evidence that the moon landings were a hoax is because you have seen a movie at the cinema? Wow, such a powerful argument.

  117. Wayne says:

    You want proof we did it. Russia our biggest enemy at the time said we did it. They have taken pictures of our rovers. Now give me one reason that Russia would lie for us. Just one.

    • Wayne says:

      Just wanted to add a quote from the man who the belt is named after.

      “The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense.” — Dr. James Van Allen

      • hsaive says:

        Wayne need to know that the Russians – Like the US Government – can lie or tell the truth on any given subject for no reason that you will ever be allowed to know.

  118. John says:

    On July 21, 2019 it will be 50 years since Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. Think about that. 50 years. Half a century since the first fictional moon landing, and since 1973 no manned U.S. lunar landings, despite the militiary, mineral, research, human colonization and propaganda prize. The technological, human factors and economic advances during the intervening period have been staggering, but backward on the manned landing front; in fact, a reversal.

    This is all you have to know. Hats off to Hollywood NASA. But what a cruel, cruel joke on the American people.

  119. hsaive says:

    Why hasn’t a manned mission returned to the moon? Is it true that we’ve finished exploring the Moon and there’s nothing else of import to learn? Or is it that there’s simply no military or research advantage to building a colony on the lunar surface from which to build and launch interstellar, manned missions to further reaches with less need for bulky rockets needed to escape the bonds of earth’s gravity.? There must be a million reasons why it’s no longer a good idea to return a man to the moon – and you’re likely to hear all of them right here from the “true believers” of the Apollo myth-shun

    • Wayne says:

      Cause NASA has like almost no funding. Cause people didn’t want to spend millions of dollars to go back when there is nothing to gain. By gain I mean the prize is greater then the price to get there.

      • hsaive says:

        No funding is no excuse. The FED creates cash out of thin air. Since when did the grassroots will of the people have anything to do with the $3 Trillion+ missing from the Pentagon reported by Rumsfeld the day before the 9/11 False Flag? (another collosal lie) — We know by now that mass propaganda like that of Edward Bernays and repeated through lying media created strong opinions about what was needed for commerce and war throughout the 20th Century. – including the Apollo mission itself. Bernays demonstrated that Propaganda can too easily create the “will of the people” when the invisible government needs to dominate and profit. If it could REALLY be done, there would already be a highly touted lunar base on the moon made immensely easier by the past 50 years of terrestrial advances in related technology. There is no excuse, therefore the Apollo Myth-shun is revealed.

    • fertog says:

      Why the budget for the Superconductive Super Collider was cancelled? The US lost the leading role and that decision placed Europe at the edge in scientific research.

      If I had to choose to go back to the moon, fund the ISS or fund the SSC, I would have chosen the SSC because it would have seeded the future Feynmans.

      The private sector will anyways end up taking the space and moon alternatives, driven by commercial reasons; those are now tasks for entrepreneurs.

  120. John says:

    Well said, hsaive, completely agree!

  121. spacecat says:

    was just watching the Orion test flight q&a on the Nasa channel, even with the modern tech equipment they have today they still dont seem to know, much about or, how they are going to deal with the Van Allen and Solar Radiation in deep space. They are just now trying to figure how to overcome safety issues for astronauts and computer problems when comp chips get fried by radiation. Can someone please help? I’ve been looking for a story about ?Russian? astronauts getting fried to death when passing thru the radiaion belts on there way to the moon… incredibly they were able to turn around and make it back to earth…but sadly one of the men was dead on arrival and the ther died soon after, am i imagining this story

    • shawn young says:

      I have been looking for the story of the three cosmonauts for a long time. I read it from a book (saw the pictures with my own eyes, read the story myself), when I was a kid, and although I still have a few sets of the books that I had, they were torn up by my nephews and nieces, and some of the books were replaced with newer versions that have been reedited or just flat out changed. I have the Life Science books, I thought it was there, some of mine have been replaced with newer editions; and I have the book of Popular Science, I thought it might be there. The one set I spent a lot of time with, but no longer have, was the Worldbook Encyclopedia. I know I’ve read, and seen, that man cannot figure out how to pass through the Van Allen Radiation Belt, I just can’t find it.

      • spacecat says:

        hi shawn, thanks for the reply, i saw the cosmonaut story on tv. i’m thinking late 70’s to early 1980’s. a man i worked with in the early 80’s was the only other person, i know, that has ever heard of this story. it was a news show or maybe a documentary (kinda fuzzy) but i do remember them talking about the story. cosmonauts on there way to the moon being severly burned as they entered radiation belts were able to turn around and head back to earth but the exposer was fatal, the other two cosmonauts dead on arrival, the other cosmonaut coherant for several hours before he perished. i remember clearly the still pictures of his upper body and the large red patches or blisters on his upper body

    • g.g says:

      “They are just now trying to figure how to overcome safety issues for astronauts and computer problems when comp chips get fried by radiation.”

      You *do* understand that the Apollo computer ran on SSI circuits and magnetic core memories, right? Orion flies on VLSI circuits and semiconductor memories, the former being much more complex and therefore much more vulnerable, and the latter, unlike core memories, being sensitive to radiation (magnetic cores don’t even notice there’s any radiation around). Therefore, all the new computer stuff has to be re-qualified.

  122. spacecat says:

    i know the russians had concerns about manned missions into deep space, even tho they had some probs with some unmanned deep space missions they had theplans and the capability to send manned missions to lunar orbit and to land on the moon, they supposedly did send some small animals to deep space (insects turtles) supposedly they didnt survive re-entry or maybe the radiation got them as well, maybe they were waiting to see what happened with the US deep space experiments before they admitted concerns about deep space radiation? so this is what i’m getting at…if they see the US manned mission orbit the moon (apollo 8) and they see apollo 11 land on the moon…they decide the wait is over, tje US did it safely lets go now. Imagine there anger when they found out theUS lied snd mow three beloved cosmonauts are dead. this would have happened right sfter 1969(apollo11) the russians had everything they needed, equal technology(maybe better) the rockets, th lander, everything, it was all there ready to go…so maybe by late 69 early 70 they go, the cosmonauts die from radiation poisoning and they realize that the US lie. my point is the russians are very angry, they immediatly send nuclear subs and missles to cuba and continue a build up weapons late 1970, 71, 72…get whete i’m goin with this. then all of the sudden in 1972 the US says…..hey how about we share all of our space technology forget about this cold war stuff and work together onspace exploration. a few years later all lunar missions are scrapped and the space station and shuttle programs begim in low earth orbit. why? because mannd missions into deep space were impossible and may still be

    • spacecat says:

      and sorry about the misspellings and grammer, my mobil keyboard is giving me fits lately and it only gets worse afer i cram so mant characters into these reply windows..LOL

      • hsaive says:

        Russian Intel and monitoring was good enough that they knew the Apollo missions never happened. The absence of Russians on the moon speaks loudly to the Apollo lie.

        The real question remains as to why the Russians failed to expose the Apollo lie to embarrass their US rival.

        My guess is the ultimate NWO agenda of “dominance” is shared by both world powers. It would not help Russia to snitch on the Apollo lie if they wanted to join in on secret Near=earth-orbit Space weapons technology directed at world population dominance themselves.

        I suspect the Russians agreed not to snitch on the Apollo lie in exchange for US promise not to attack the Russian space weapons program.

        This agreement is now manifest in the ongoing, US/Russian ISS mission where “trust but verify” is easy to achieve.

        The ultimate synthesis of the US/Russian Space weapons program of global population dominance is actually on track even if the lying media’s “official story” places US and Russia at near “nuclear war “. But, so far there is no sign of ISS cooperation breaking down despite the manufactured violence of ISIS and in East Ukraine where helmeted NAZI’s are media fodder to inflame the propaganda for the large dumb-downed western audiences.

        The collapse of the Berlin Wall was the signal to move forward with the next phase of globalist corporatism. After all, the Russian Oligarchy is in a position to demand equal time on planning the coming global feudalistic state.

        The manufactured friction of relations that gives China the excuse they need to enter the arms race promises to form the defacto 3-way Space weapons program needed to cover the physical area and majority populations of planet earth in the northern hemisphere wheli South America languishes helplessly in bankster-imposed debt..

        As country boundaries and sovereignty of nations dissolve driven by increasingly inter-dependant trade agreements, all those space weapons are increasingly turned DIRECTLY against all populations rather than through the old-school method of country against country warfare contrived by bangster funded, media propaganda.

  123. spacecat says:

    hello hsaive, thanks for your reply, and yes it does seem as if their is alot of BS out there intended to confuse the public. all these military confrontations (the russians take one side the US takes the other)and everyone gets to test use and sell a bunch of military equiptment stockpiles so they can sign new military contracts and produce more. its all big business at the expense of human life and the taxpayers

    • spacecat says:

      mind control and controlling the masses has been going on for a very long time. probably since the beginning of time. when the first deviant person (just smart enough to be dangerous) told the biggest strongest person that; with your muscle and my brains…we can rule this place… (i think i saw that on the three stooges LOL) religions and governments have been attempting to control the masses many different ways (lie’s, instilling fear, propaganda, racism, ect ect) most of witch are very effective on the large majority of the populous.

      • spacecat says:

        but what really concerns me….i saw Michio Kaku on c-span saying that mind control is now a scientific reality. no longer science fiction, their will be no need for wires sticking out of your head or a computer chip implanted in your brain. how will they do this? they will do it with the very simple FM radio waves. at first for medical applications a fm reciever in the home would would send the stimulie to help sick people. this is not speculation or exageration on my part, this is now a fact of science. he said these experiments are succesful and repeatable in the labratory. they are mapping all brainwaves for every different action of our minds. he said in 5 or 6 years it will have wonderous medical applications, and that military applications would soon follow. what he didnt say was how long befor governments are controlling the masses with real foolproof scientific mind control. kinda scary huh. step outside right now and tell me if you cant see at least one large atennae structure, or maybe even two or three. it seems that its just a matter of time before all of our freedoms and freewill will be under control of the world powers that make up the NWO

  124. spacecat says:

    who knows what the world powers will do or how they will use this technology. so i think i will get busy with my life, my music, my writing and others project and things i love to do, splitting wood, the outdoors, cooking, making beer LOL, i’m in mid life so i think i should be ok. this will probably be slowely implimented process, so i guess future generations wont even realize what is happening to them(just as most people today dont even realize) besides the cold truth is that their is not a single thing that any of us will be able to do about. enjoy the simple pleasures in life, try to be spritual, moral, optomistic and try to make life easier for one another

    • hsaive says:

      Just posted on Veterans Today – Reveals what the secret military space weapons program has been doing to us. We must remember that a military career is essentially a socialistic “jobs program” model on the backs of taxpayers who are increasingly weary of perpetual war. When will this awareness make a difference to the left and the right-wing war-mongers who think they are fighting for “freedom”?
      Chemtrails: Synthetic Alien Biology and Climate Change War on Mankind

  125. Stevie says:

    I see the lunatics are back in charge of the asylum again. Any sane person reading the last ten posts or so would think he has accidentally stumbled into a nut house.

    • CllrChris says:

      Stevie – don’t you understand that using abuse is hardly the way to win friends or influence people? How would you like it, it works both ways, if I said to you “Don’t open your eyes, you’ll let all the sand in” – or some such demeaning comment? Whatever the truth – I’d be happy to hear ALL sides with thanks – and no silly insults.

  126. Nissim says:

    This article is complete nonsense. The amount of radiation each astronaut is calculated to have endured is under 13 rads/hr. A dosage of 300 rads/hr is deemed deadly.

    Please read this article

    • hsaive says:

      Sorry, but NASA is in the business of falsifying certain data sensitive to NWO, corporatist agenda. You only need look at their feeble defense of the debunked climate change lie and faux ignorance of the past 16 years of covert aerosol geoengineerig (chemtrails).

      The article you throw up here is no more than speculation of best-case scenario and fails to meet the rigors of peer-reviewed research – even if that were to make much difference in the current age of massive science fraud and media deceit.

  127. stargaze says:

    This video is over 3 hours long but my goodness we never landed on the moon in fact we never orbited the moon. After watching this I am 100% sure the moon landings were all fabricated and many have died keeping the lie going.

  128. Stevie says:

    stargaze and hsaive – That video is a crock of shit. It exhibits every possible logical fallacy going. In fact some of them are so blatant it should be held up as a text book example of Logical Fallacies. It has ‘special pleading’, ‘poisoning the well’, ‘strawman’, ‘begging the question’, ‘personal incredulity’, ‘appeal to authority’ and one or two others. Anybody with any basic critical thinking skills can see them plain as day. Don’t be duped by such nonsense just because it seems to fit your already made up opinion.

    The following link dissects the video minute by minute and completely debunks it. Basically it is quite shocking how somebody watching the video can be willingly mislead.

    Try engaging ones brain.

    • CllrChris says:

      Stevie – I haven’t yet watched your debunking video. I will. What devalues your argument are the insults you so carelessly fling at people who are simply having a discussion. Politeness, especially with ideas (or people?) you disagree with can only work to your advantage. Unless of course it is your argument that is “s**t” ???

  129. Stevie says:

    CllrChris – Sorry for the insults – I will try to rein them in future 🙂 It is difficult however when people are effectively calling the Apollo astronauts con artists and liars, when in reality they were/are incredibly brave and courageous men backed up by the fantastic hard work and dedication of thousands of NASA scientists and workers. Their achievements should be revered and celebrated, not pissed on.

    In reality the hoax argument is dead anyway – I constantly ask hoax believers to give me once piece of solid evidence that it was hoaxed. They NEVER can!

    • Jay Dabigman says:

      are you trying to tell us that 3mm of alluminium sheet will stop gamma radiation? i smell bullshit here bro,,fact,, nothing we know of atm can stop gamma radiation,,this is one of the problems with cleaning up fuklushima,,its just a death zone that ppl cannot get any where near,, and ok,, i have a comeback question,,as ur info was good but flawed,, answer me this one simple question,, if they really did go,, why did they never go aagain? and name me another thing that humans worked out how to do but then only did once and decided to never do it again? shit even the atom bomb was dropped twice on 2 seperate citys,, and if they really did go,, what happened to scare them from going again,,cus fear is the only reasonable answer,,and why is it that china plans to land on the moon but cannot accomplish this untill at least 2020,, you telling me they flew a spaceship thru deadly radiation 60 years ago,, with a computer that would have been less powerful than my electric toothbrush ? but yet we cant do it now,,or since,, seriously,, ? btw again,, alluminium does not stop radiation bro,,dunno where u got that from? the label inside ur tin hat?

      • ron abbass says:

        Hi Jay! Thanks for your comment. Man, I really laughed out loud when I read your response to “Stevie” — “…dunno where you got that from – the label inside ur tin hat? I’m still laughing as I type this. 🙂 Thanks again, Jay. Peace Bro! 🙂

      • Dan says:

        Nobody is saying 3mm of Aluminium will stop Gamma radiation. That’s ridiculous. However, 3mm of aluminium will easily stop both Beta and Alpha radiation. Gamma radiation can be considered as a packet of extremely powerful energy (it’s basically light at a really high frequency). Beta radiation is a fast moving electron ejected from an atom when a proton breaks down into a neutron and an electron. Alpha radiation is a fast moving helium nucleus, or two protons and two neutrons moving at high speed.

        Because of this, gamma radiation passes through matter really easily and is difficult to stop. Beta radiation is significantly larger but still quite small, so it’ll pass through stuff like paper, but will get stopped by a thin sheet of any reasonable dense metal. Alpha radiation is really large compared to the other two and will be stopped by basically any collection of matter.

        There are other particles considered to be radiation (because radiation isn’t just gamma rays, it’s an umbrella term and can be used for a lot of things), including high energy protons. High energy protons (free protons moving very quickly) are what the first layer of the Van Allen belts contains. Protons are quite a bit larger than electrons and as we can see above, 3mm of aluminium is enough to block beta radiation (electrons), so it will just as easily block the high energy protons found in the Van Allen Belts.

      • Stevie says:

        Hey Jay, ever heard of capital letters and full stops? Are you just as ignorant about English as you are about science?

        1/ You obviously know nothing about radiation – why do you compare the radiation in the Van Allen belts to that found in a nuclear reactor? Only somebody ignorant of radiation would say something like that. Kindly pick up a science book, read it, then come back and apologise for your stupidity.

        2/ Your mind numbingly stupid rant about only doing it once and not going back sums you up completely. As everybody knows NASA sent men to land on the moon 6 (SIX) times, plus Apollo 8, Apollo 10 and Apollo 13 when to the moon but did not land (NINE trips). I’d imagine your mathematical skills are lacking too, but even you must know that nine is more that 1.

        After MANY TRIPS TO THE MOON, public interest wained, NASA’s budget was slashed and there was very little left to learn about the moon that could not be done using remote probes instead.

        3/ Only an idiot would equate the computing power of an electric toothbrush to … well anything really.

        STOP trying to make an argument from ignorance. You are embarrassing yourself.

      • mikedanton says:

        There and back (during the cold war) 6 times with 6 perfect take-offs, 6 perfect landings, 6 perfect dockings with the orbiting modules and 6 perfect returns to Earth – each with a happy and healthy crew. I smell something worse than bullshit.

      • Stevie says:

        Would you feel happier if a few of them died then? Don’t think Apollo 13 was perfect, all 3 men nearly died. Listen to yourself – you think it was faked because it was successful? Try again.

      • mikedanton says:

        Yes Stevie that is exactly what resonates “bullshit” with me. If America tried to put men on the moon today “for real” (six times :)) there would be more than a few casualties (and they might not necessarily occur here on Earth like the Columbia and Challenger disasters).

        Apollo 13 was a sham just like the rest.

  130. Derek says:

    Man can only go so far…
    Psalm 115:16
    King James Bible
    The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD’S: but the earth hath he given to the children of men.

  131. Stevie says:

    Great, that clears everything up then.
    Thank you so much Derek for your fantastic insight.

  132. CllrChris says:

    Do I detect a hint of sarcasm there Stevie? 🙂

  133. Dan says:

    Hi, I’d just like to drop in with some data.

    The Van Allen belts are actually quite small in latitude. They only span roughly 20 degrees in both directions from the equator. The trajectory of the Apollo missions was at 30% to the equator, so they only passed through at worse, the outer layers of the belts. They aren’t a spherical shield around the earth that is untraversable by anyone. If you think of it in 3 dimensions, they’re like two thin donuts around the equator.

    Also, most of the nasties in the belts are high energy protons. The protons in the Van Allen belt tend to have an energy level of around 30MeV (Mega electron volts). 3mm of aluminium can protect against all protons with an energy level of 25MeV, and the aluminium hull on the Apollo command module was at least twice this thickness, allowing it to shield up to 50MeV, well enough to block out the radiation at the middle of the belts, let alone the edges the craft passed through.

    The lower Van Allen belt is the one with all the nasty proton radiation and is the most deadly. It’s also the thinnest, at 5000km. When the Apollo mission flew through the first belt, it did so at a bit over 10km per second. With a quick calculation, you find that they spent at most, 8 minutes in the least deadly part of the belt along with adequate radiation shielding.

    So what about the upper belt? That one is more expansive and more difficult to avoid. The problem is, the radiation found there is beta radiation in the form of high energy electrons. This also happens to be shielded by 3mm of aluminium, which we have already established to be overprovided for by the Apollo craft.

    I honestly want to hear your thoughts on this, because I would be delighted if you could prove me wrong.

  134. mikedanton says:

    If the Van Allen belts are so harmless then why are they seen as such a major stumbling block to further space flight?

    I don’t believe the moon landings happened. (and it’s not only about the Van Allen belts for me – there are so many issues I have with it, but I suppose the probability of success vs failure make up a big part of it : it was made to look like the easiest thing in the world in the early 70s – whereas other Earth bound feats remained/ still remain fraught with danger/high rates of failure).

    I can almost guarantee that if a moon landing was genuinely attempted with today’s technology it would result in many deaths.

    The truth of the Vietnam war has never been revealed. History has all but forgotten anything other than the American governments side of events. I do believe that Kennedy wanted to put a man on the moon, but as time went on – it became obvious that it was out of reach.

    As time progresses I believe less and less people were believe the lie. I just hope that the truth is revealed before the US can conceal it forever.

    • hsaive says:

      It will not be the government – it will be the people themselves who allow the government to perpetuate secrets and false history, forever. We see this with the 9/11, Sandy Hook and Boston Marathon Bombing, ISIS, deliberate plane crashes and many other events. The success with the Apollo mission lie has encouraged the criminal cabals that no lie is too big as long as they own and control the media.

  135. mikedanton says:

    As time progresses I believe less and less people “will” believe the lie. I just hope that the truth is revealed before the US can conceal it forever.

    (sorry I read all the other replies before I typed this – I’m tired :))

  136. NuttyK says:

    I won’t suggest what my views are on the moon landings but my question is:

    If the landings are proved to be fake, what happens next?

    • hsaive says:

      Here’s a clue…9/11 is proved as a False Flag event but nothing has happened to put anyone in jail and a majority of the public seem too helpless to care.

  137. Don Austen says:

    The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts, which was one of several radiation hazards known by mission planners. The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them. The command module’s inner structure was an aluminum “sandwich” consisting of a welded aluminum inner skin, a thermally bonded honeycomb core, and a thin aluminum “face sheet”. The steel honeycomb core and outer face sheets were thermally bonded to the inner skin.

    In fact, the astronauts’ overall exposure was dominated by solar particles once outside Earth’s magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission to mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rads (50 mSv) per year set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity

  138. Stevie says:

    You are wasting your time Don. These idiots have already made up their mind Apollo was fake and whatever evidence you put in front of them is simply dismissed. There is already enough information in this thread for any sane person to realise they were true and as described at the time.
    Can’t argue with whackjobs.

    • CllrChris says:

      By “idiots” & “whackjobs” you mean what ….? Anybody open to a view other than your own Stevie? It seems in the Land Of The Blind it is you who would be King possessing all true knowledge? But flinging insults may not be the best way to persuade others.

      • Dan says:

        Well to be fair, none of the people in this thread that deny that the Apollo missions happened have responded to any actual science that’s been posted. I can see how that guy would get annoyed at what seems like people purposefully avoiding evidence that their views are wrong.

      • CllrChris says:

        People are asking questions Dan. Nothing wrong with that. For instance – from Don’s figures – maximum radiation received by astronauts was 1.14 rads over a “short time”. A standard is a NASA set 5 rads per year. That’s nearly a quarter of a years dose in a few hours. Leaving out questions as to the reliability of such statistics – surely quarter of a year’s dose would fog at least some of the camera film?

      • Dan says:

        Well, even though that’s a maximum dose, it’s still a tiny amount of radiation. Someone can take up to 200 rads in a day and likely turn out fine.

        Also, they knew that film can be fogged from radiation, so they stored them in special containers to reduce the effect of radiation on the film to the point where there was no perceivable fogging.

        Also, the majority of the radiation the astronauts received wasn’t from the Van Allen belts, it was just minor stray cosmic radiation from places like the sun.

        I’d also like your opinion on the information I posted further up in the thread, thanks!

    • mikedanton says:

      Tell me Stevie. Do you believe the US governments version of events concerning the Vietnam war? What was your take on Kennedy’s assassination? Do you believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction? – and do you believe that Bin Laden had many underground layers like this 🙂 ???

      I could go on…….

      • CllrChris says:

        To be fair Mike – we cannot go off at a tangent. Much as I might sympathise with you and find the credibility of Governments generally to be “wanting” – to say the least – this forum is specifically about the moon landings (or not – as the case may be!). I have been asked for my opinions on some parts of this. I have to say that I do not have opinions on it – I naturally have some suspicions – and some questions because of that – but no opinions. I am happy to read all sides – but abuse was being used – which I think was out of order; hence my input today.

  139. mikedanton says:

    One thing I’ve noticed about folks like Stevie: They tend to believe everything they are told/read as long as it’s “official”. I was just asking him to confirm or deny my suspicions.:)

  140. Stevie says:

    No mikedanton – science doesn’t work like that. We don’t believe things because NASA says so – how bloody insulting. Science works by doing the complete opposite in fact. Testing and testing a claim, theory or law and trying to break it. To see if it holds up to all manor of rigourous scientific scrutiny.

    Scientists and the scientific method are committed to the truth, not to any government or ideology, so governments or ideologies can exert little influence on what he or she has to say.

    Everything in science is peer reviewed.

    If NASA is lying, there is HUGE body of scientists not connected to NASA that would challenge NASA’s claims in the scientific literature. Science isn’t about having “we’re right” parties. Scientists make their name tearing down the work of other scientists.

    If there was even the slightest discrepancy in the Apollo record that was not correct or verifiable by other means, scientists would be all over it like a rash! That has not happened because there is not a single problem with any of the Apollo record.

    • Derek says:

      Wow, you sure don’t know much about the history of science, Stevie.

      • Dan says:

        He described the scientific method. That’s how all science is performed and has been performed for quite a while. He does know what he’s talking about, but if you want to try and refute his point, you’d better provide something more than just an opinion.

  141. Stevie says:

    Dan is right – I get annoyed because Hoax Believers NEVER respond to explanations that are given. A HB makes a claim, it is then explained in detail why that claim is incorrect based on science. What SHOULD then happen is that the HB either withdraws the claim OR explains why the explanation was wrong.

    Instead, HB’s just ignore the explanation, wait a while and then REPEAT the same claim. Why do they do that? Most infuriating!

  142. mikedanton says:

    I know how science works and I don’t doubt that American, Russian and Chinese probes have been to the Moon. The only evidence we have that Man went to the Moon (almost 50 years ago 🙂 🙂 :)) however is the edited video footage (not exactly scientific). Any other “evidence” could have just as easily been collected by probes (please don’t talk about space rocks).

    I have a hunch that if Man landed on Mars in the next couple of years “officially” – you would believe it).

    • Don Austen says:

      The fact of the matter is that once you get into orbit, it isn’t that difficult to move out into space. The main problems are micro-meteors, solar flares (which don’t happen that often) and knowing how to predict where a planet or moon is going to be when you get there. Escaped villains from the Phantom Zone are an extremely rare occurrence. The problem with going to Mars in to getting there. It’s getting back. The moon only has 1/6th of earth’s gravity. It would take more fuel than the astronauts could bring with them to blast off Mars, so they are basically stuck there. Then it becomes a question of food and water and air for the next 40 years or until better technology makes faster travel possible. There is, of course, the possibility of a scram jet being able to land and take off again. Since Mars doesn’t have an atmosphere, one doesn’t have to worry about heat shield reentry. The Apollo and shuttle missions essentially fell, unpowered, and with gravity kept accelerating, creating a lot of friction against the atmosphere. A scram jet could land without a problem. It would just need to be able carry enough fuel to take off and reach escape velocity, and then refuel at a space station orbiting the earth prior to attempting to land. I would not even attempt going to Mars without doing it in a scram jet. It’s all but suicide. You’ll die on Mars. My question is, if astronauts have children on Mars, will they be considered Martians?

    • hsaive says:

      Trust in government has sunk to a new low. Much of the public disgust is earned when government agencies are revealed to be cheating on the scientific method to satisfy a political agenda. Was the Apollo mission anything less than a agenda?

      NIST would have you believe that 2 enormous skyscrapers fell into their own footprint at near free-fall acceleration on the same day due to a relatively small impact from a jetliner. Is this like believing a man landed on the moon and returned safely to earth?

      Enter Climate-gate where the scientific method continues to be betrayed.

      Enter Chemtrails where government agencies unite to lie about scientific proof for covert aerosol spraying from aircraft.

      Re-evaluation of historic events reveals severe doubts about assassinations that were most likely false flag events or lies for the benefit of banker wars and military – industrial – congressional complex.

      It’s little wonder the government cannot convey believability in a world where open-source investigation can so easily discover old-fashioned, unprejudiced, science-based facts to debunk the “official story” as the “official lie”.

      • Don Austen says:

        Again and again, your argument is the the moon landing is fake because we cannot trust the government. By your logic, we should doubt the authenticity of American Indians, who might well be Chinese actors placed on reservations so that the government would be justified in running hundreds of casinos. You ignore all the facts. But there is one that you cannot ignore. There are photos of the Apollo lunar landing module taken by the lunar orbiter. And there have been lunar rocks that have been examined by scientists around the world, who confirmed their origin. NASA didn’t just build a rocket and launch it to the moon like Impey Barbicane did in Jules Verne’s From the Earth to the Moon. It took a lot of attempts and a lot of failures and was a long learning process. And no one landed on the first journey. It took 10 practice runs and the deaths of three astronauts before it was attempted, and then the third attempt failed. Yes, we were probably complicit in 911 and in Sandy Hook, but we did go to the moon, and it is something to be proud of. Only a century after Kitty Hawk, small children can now operate model helicopters and drones when for more than 50 millennium, all of mankind through that flight was for the birds.

      • mikedanton says:

        You think those photo’s prove something Don?

        I could point arrows to any little dots in that picture and label them.

        The pictures are about as truthful as Bin Laden’s “Islamic” sea burial.

        Did you believe that too?

      • hsaive says:

        Oh Stevie…. how lame.

      • hsaive says:

        It didn’t happen people – get over it — March 14, 2015 – NASA’s Orion Engineer Admits Van Allen Belts a source of “dangerous radiation”. – not only to humans but to electronic equipment on board a technologically advanced space vehicle compared to the fragile Apollo craft. No amount of photoshop will re-write history on this fact.

      • jamengulfer says:

        I agree with you. I too am sick of the ‘shit flinging’ going on from mainly Don Austen and Stevie’s side. It’s no way to have a civilised debate.

        Also, I just checked out the link you posted and watched the video that provided the damning evidence. I noticed some interesting differences between the flight pattern of the video capsule and the actual apollo missions. In the video, their capsule went into low earth orbit, then accelerated into a higher orbit that took them through the Van Allen belts at a shallow angle. This means that the craft would indeed be subjected to fatal doses of radiation as it would spend a long time in the belts.

        The key difference is that the Apollo missions went straight through the Van Allen belts at a near perpendicular angle at multiple kilometres per second. Whilst the Orion capsule would take fatal doses of radiation from prolonged exposure, the Apollo capsules only stayed in the Van Allen belts for about 8 minutes. This isn’t long enough to receive any significant dose, as the Apollo capsule had adequate radiation shielding for short exposure.

        The man in the video was mentioning the problems faced with shielding long term exposure.

        I think that the article you linked was a bit quick to jump on the idea of a ‘certain proof’ that the Apollo missions were faked and forgot to consider all of the information involved.

        Anyway, I’d love to hear your thoughts on this and the mini essay I wrote earlier regarding the thermal effects on the Apollo camera. Thanks!

      • Don Austen says:

        Between hsaive and Mike Danton, I feel like I’m arguing with born again Christians. Nothing anyone says will change their minds. They do not understand science. They ignore any facts. One could actually take them to the moon and afterwards they will claim they were hypnotized. I cannot deal with this level of stupidity. And these are the same people who probably will go to church and tithe money, preferring to believe in some nonexistent Santa Claus like being who will grant you immortality of you say the magic words and spin around three times holding a string of beads. Personally, I think that hsaive and Danton are part of a government conspiracy to try and drive me insane. OMG! WTF! and Lemme outta here! Crazy people! Arghhhhhh!

      • CllrChris says:

        What about the “building 7” skyscraper that also fell to earth that day, also within its own footprint and was NOT hit by any jet? That’s even less believable than the possibility of a manned moon landing ….. isn’t it? 🙂

      • Don Austen says:

        I’m unsubscribing from this. hasive, you are card-carrying fucking idiot. The only thing that is a hoax is your brain or the vacuum that is should occupy. It drives me to insanity that are such stupid stupid stupid ignorant people like you in the world. Jesus Fucking Christ! You must think that stupidity is a virtue. I am outta here! Done!

      • CllrChris says:

        You seem a little agitated Don? Try a nice cup of decaf.

      • hsaive says:

        Don, you give yourself away as a cult believer when you’re willing to call NASA’s Kelly Smith a liar when he points out the Van Allen belt is a source of “dangerous radiation”. Your constant rabid name-calling in response to reasonable debate is a sign that you need to seek professional help before you completely lose it. Good-bye.

  143. hsaive says:

    In 1961, would anyone dare predict the Apollo mission would land men on the moon without a single casualty? Would anyone actually calculate this after a fire killed the entire crew during a pre-launch test on Apollo one.? Do we actually believe the one and only deadly design flaw in the entire Apollo program had been discovered and corrected?

    Would anyone believe that only 3 soldiers died in the Normandy invasion.?

    • Don Austen says:

      Honestly, Columbus never discovered America. What we believe is America is actually what used to be called Atlantis. The reason Europe seems so far away is because there is a huge telescope all along the east coast and we are looking through the wrong end. Meanwhile, the myth of the American Civil War still persists. No one ever killed anyone. It was a conspiracy to get slave owner’s to do their own tap-dancing. And as for the World Wars, did you ever think that Adolf Hitler might have been just a role played by Charlie Chaplin? Killing six million Jews in the showers! Ridiculous. Do you know how much water that would take? And the Atom bomb. Wow! talk about fakes! Hey, if they could make King Kong come alive, what’s so hard about making a mushroom cloud? Does anyone on this blog actually know a Jap that was killed by being fissioned off the earth? Come on. And Neil Armstrong! What sort of a name is that. Buzz Aldrin! John Glenn—John Glenn what? No last name. Fake. Fake Fake. Neil Armstrong. What like Dick Buttkiss? Please. I believe that man went to the moon about as much as I believe that jumbo “jets” can fly. WTF!

  144. hsaive says:

    If you are immune from mind-control and believe what you see, then you might believe that Jumbo jets are covertly spraying chemical aerosols into the atmosphere to modify the climate.

    • Dan says:

      Oh my god, first 9/11 stuff and now chemtrails? This is a golden buffet of conspiracy theories and it’s hilarious. I love you people, thanks for making my day.

      • CllrChris says:

        Keep-up Dan. Governments have moved away from shrieking “conspiracy theorists” and now admit to chemtrails – but they say it’s harmless. They are just trying to control global warming (well that’s there story anyway). BUT this is a forum on the moon landings (or not?) and should not be lumped in with everything you might like to think of as a “conspiracy theory”. Let’s tackle it on the facts (which hitherto this forum has been excellent for) and not abuse by association with ……. well …. whatever.

      • hsaive says:

        This forum is equally about why we believe what we do as it is about the credibility of the Apollo mission. — My brief comment, intended to raise the issue of comparative conspiracy beliefs, did not mention the word “chemtrails”. Read it again. — Also my comment about chemical aerosols followed your long rant where you began by asserting that “Columbus never discovered America”. So, how far from the Apollo mission cnversation would you like to drift in order to make your point?

  145. fertog says:

    It’s been a while since I last posted a comment and I stumble with this page again. Great to see Dan and Stevie have been standing up all this time. Then the Van Allen Belt discussion was taken tangentially out of orbit, I guess it’s all clear by now.

  146. Mori says:

    Conspiracy theorist take random objects, materials, facts, statements, and documents, and magically transform them into critical pieces of “evidence” by making up a creative context in which to place the items.

    Conspiracy theorists will never run out of evidence. No matter how much proof to hand them, they will turn around and invent one more “startling fact” to insure they’ve always got one more piece of evidence because human beings are fooled by numerology. Quality of the evidence, and whether it passes critical thinking tests, doesn’t matter.

    As to why people circulated the moon landing hoax in the first place, and why they persist, the general reason is pretty simple: there’s a perverse attraction in ignorance.

    People who are ignorant to begin with tend to feel intimidated by the complexity of the world and society. They compensate for their lack of knowledge and understanding by telling themselves “ignorance is bliss” and that most things aren’t worth knowing. It’s just a bunch of nonsense that others trick themselves into thinking is important. These people also tend to be anti-intellectuals and are afraid of anyone who appears to have a high degree of abstract intelligence – they’re afraid those people will trick them and deceive them.

    Subjects like the moon landing hoax have great appeal for the ignorant and the wilfully ignorant because the hoax is a flat denial of a great achievement by a bunch of “smart people”. Untrustworthy scientists. Thinkers. Eggheads. America in particular has a troubled history of its “down to earth” farm-belt people distrusting “city slickers”, those with high levels of education, and thinkers. The moon landing hoax is a linchpin in an attitude of anti-intellectualism. Proving that smart people can’t do most of what they claim they can and must resort to tricks to appear impressive.

    Ignorant people never seem to consider that the tools and implements their conspiracy theories rely on, such as photography and television studios, were things developed and refined by yet more smart people. But critical thinking isn’t a strong suite for those who buy into conspiracies.

    The reason why belief in the moon landing hoax is ridiculous above all, is that foolish people think they’re clever for denying that “the government” as they see it, wasn’t as capable and clever as it claimed. What they’re actually denying is the incredible amount of work and dedication of hundreds of thousands of persons who not only made the US space program possible, but ushered in the space age for the entire world.

    There’s nothing mysterious or unreachable about space. To people who educate themselves, it is remarkably close and understandable. Our entire world is supported by a complex network of satellites and space based technology. We have space stations, and even civilian companies building space-capable ships and equipment. We have placed nuclear powered explorers on Mars, far beyond the moon.

    To deny the moon landing is to deny the reality of much of the world around us today; that’s the height of selfish, conceited irrational thinking.

    • mikedanton says:

      “There’s nothing mysterious or unreachable about space. To people who educate themselves, it is remarkably close and understandable. Our entire world is supported by a complex network of satellites and space based technology. We have space stations, and even civilian companies building space-capable ships and equipment. We have placed nuclear powered explorers on Mars, far beyond the moon.”

      None of this makes it any more likely that men walked on the moon in 1969. Pure fantasy – widely accepted as fact. A bit like religion actually (it took a long long time before that began to be exposed as bullshit too – for most it’s still a reality)

  147. Weezer says:

    Just in case there are any retards out there who still believe this faked moon landing nonsense, here’s the proof: every tracking station in Europe and Russia was following those vehicles. If at any point, they did not land – and then take off again to return to earth – do you not think, for one second, that Russia would have been all over the TV and news? They has more to lose than anybody in the space race, but somehow managed to keep totally quiet. So, you vacuous, pin-headed dimwits have a little faith in your fellow human beings instead of looking for some shitty conspiracy because it makes your own worthless existence feel feel somehow less pathetic.

    • mikedanton says:

      Every tracking station in Europe and Russia? Lol.

      There is no evidence that humans have been to the moon. Not a shred.

      • Terry Mac says:

        The reason you think there’s “no evidence” for the veracity of the Apollo missions is because you obviously haven’t looked for it! The hard scientific evidence for the Apollo missions is overwhelming, hundreds of peer reviewed scientific publications easily accessed on line. You’re just like a Creationist who claims there “not a shred” of evidence for evolution, despite all the evidence to the contrary. This is a very strange phenomena, it’s like living with blinkers on your whole life. It’s similar to a religious mindset. Very weird.

    • hsaive says:

      Accusing people with above average IQ’s as “retards” is a desperate end-game of the hopelessly ignorant..

  148. Stevie says:

    “There is no evidence that humans have been to the moon. Not a shred.”
    Probably the stupidest comment on this thread so far!

    • mikedanton says:

      Ok Stevie………. Let’s see/hear this conclusive evidence that humans walked on the moon during Nixon’s reign. Oh wait….. There is none.

      • Stevie says:

        MikeDanton – I have no desire to make an complete list of the VAST amounts of evidence that the Apollo landings happen as advertised. There is ample of this thread already, much of it posted by me. None of it was responded too, simply ignored.

        All I would say is that every bit of the Apollo programme was recorded it meticulous detail. From the early Mercury and Gemini missions through to the early Apollo missions – every one learning from and building on the previous missions.

        Unlike me, you have clearly NOT studied Apollo in its entirety and probably gained your ‘knowledge’ from a few misguided hoax and conspiracy websites.

        Tell me exactly what missions you think were faked? Mercury, Gemini, Apollo 1 through 17. I guess you must think Apollo 1 was real because people died, so you can use that to fill your blinkered conspiracy boots loool.

      • mikedanton says:

        I believe space craft have been to the moon. I also strongly believe that none of the Apollo missions were manned.
        One day all will become (or should become) clear to you as it did to me.

        I’m an ex believer.

      • mikedanton says:

        Before you respond – I mean the Apollo missions that supposedly went to the moon.

      • hsaive says:

        Don Austen misses the point. Surface temperature is not the issue when calculating the consequences of direct solar radiation on the camera body and it’s fragile contents. Despite the alleged reflective exterior (likely designed for Hollywood effect) there is nothing to protect the fragile contents when the solar radiation is absent and the fragile film medium is exposed to severe freezer burn in the shadows. A reflective exterior is not enough. The camera and fragile medium must be maintained at a stable temperature in every condition of sunlight and absence of sunlight.

    • CllrChris says:

      I know it’s completely unscientific but I cannot help feeling – as a general principle – that in the level of debate the side that throws the most insults has the weakest argument. So far the moon-landing doubters seem to be much the best behaved!

      Anyway – the trouble with these forums is that people simply can’t tackle every nuance and issue. Disagreement over basic facts (like levels of radiation) are hard enough to follow. But this website here seems to go a long way towards answering many of the points the moon-landing supporters have put.

      (sends and steels oneself for onslaught!! 🙂 )

  149. hsaive says:

    The evidence confirming the Apollo hoax is so vast that occasional attempts to “re-bunk” one or 2 issues are met with a collective “yawn” by those who have graduated into an intellectual state of justifiable certitude. This is why “re-bunkers” generally get no response to their posts asserting that Apollo “really happened”.

    Does anyone really believe the reason we discontinued all interest in landing a man on the moon is because the Apollo mission accomplished everything man needed to know and do?

    Do we really believe the military would not already have a manned base on the moon if the Apollo mission had proved it could be done?

    • Don Austen says:

      Hsaive, you are an idiot, probably one of the morons who believe the earth is flat and that that the stars are really holes in the fabric of Heaven. Of course, I’m sure you also believe that planes can’t fly because they are so heavy. But not to worry, no one else here is real. How could they be? Only an insane person could believe that a small box could take information you type and put it into pictures and movies. Inconceivable! Computers are huge mechanical things with machinery like clocks. Someday, when you wake up at Bellevue and they remove your straitjacket, give you your meds and say, “There, there,” everything will be fine. No more bad dreams about astronauts. Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, Commando Cody and Captain Video are you to make things all right. Now, you must forgive me. I need to go rescue Dale Arden from Ming the Merciless.

      • CllrChris says:

        Don – may i refer you to my post above regarding the most insulting posts having the weakest argument? Your post seem to fit the bill.

      • Don Austen says:

        Not quite sure how one can respond to literally lunacy. It’s like saying that the blue sky is just a colored dome.Millions of people watched the Apollo missions, many from telescopes. Others tracked their signals. To suggest that it was all some Hollywood hoax is insane.

      • hsaive says:

        The moderator has a right and responsibility to remove ad hominem attacks from this forum.

    • Stevie says:

      Why in hell would the US want a Military Base on the moon? Are you nuts? Obviously you have not thought this through properly – no surprise there!

      Do you think we need to defend ourselves from Martians or something? – Please say yes? That would make really my day 🙂

      Travel time from the moon is 3 days – so not much use for a Rapid Response Unit. Ha ha.

      Not only would military craft from the moon arrive 3 days too late to be much use BUT they would also NOT be able to contain explosives, weapons or even fuel due to the dangers of heat on re-entry. Ha Ha.

      I bet the Russians or North Koreans would be dead scared of unpowered military aircraft, with no explosives or weapons bearing down on them. Perhaps they could fire cannon balls?

      As usual hoax believers fail to engage their brain before making fools of themselves.

      • CllrChris says:

        I hope you don’t mind but I reproduce some of your insults and sarcasm here. Just to ask – is it really necessary? Surely if you made the point without the all this it would be better made and more likely to be taken notice of?

        “…………………. Are you nuts? Obviously you have not thought this through properly – no surprise there!

        Do you think we need to defend ourselves from Martians or something? – Please say yes? That would make really my day 🙂

        ……………………… Ha ha.

        ……………………… Ha Ha.

        ……………………… Perhaps they could fire cannon balls?

        As usual hoax believers fail to engage their brain before making fools of themselves.”

      • hsaive says:

        Don Austen misses the point. Surface temperature is not the issue when calculating the consequences of direct solar radiation on the camera body and it’s fragile contents.

    • Terry Mac says:

      Where is this “vast” amount of “evidence” for a “hoax”? If it’s so vast then it will be easy for you to provide me with just *ONE* piece of hard scientific evidence that PROVES the Apollo missions were a “hoax”. And I’m talking about INDISPUTABLE HARD EVIDENCE, not a bunch of assertions, claims and misunderstandings of the science involved, which is ALL the “hoaxers” have came up with so far.

  150. ron abbass says:

    Dear commenters, please do NOT attack a person’s character. Thank you for your co-operation. And thanks to hsavie for the heads-up on that issue. Peace and blessings to all.

  151. brnrds says:

    Rockets are hard to control.
    They were never able to safely landing a rocket driven vehicle on earth.
    Not even a jet in those days.
    All astro-nuts fell out of the sky in the ocean or the desert.
    How would they succeed in one hit, on an never before visited planet like the Moon?
    I have seen a part of the original rocket in Munich and the supposed capsule.
    These bulky switches on primitive panels, the size of it all, made me laughing
    In the 60’s we needed two kitchen-size cabinets to store only 32 K of core-memory.
    The only alternative was plated wire memory, which was less bulky, but still needed one cabinet.
    How on earth would they be able which such basic technology to get on the Moon?
    And more important, to return?
    Is was indeed a hoax, but most of us liked to believe that crap.
    There are tons of evidence that prove the hoax.
    But logical thinking was enough to doubt all missions.
    Most of these pictures and video’s from outer-space are faked.
    Nothing is easier to manipulate than photographic material.
    Think about a colour-film on a extremely burning hot surface like the Moon?
    Was that camera kept cool? How would they cool the astro-nuts without air?
    Think about the cat on a hot tin roof.
    They had to jump, as they did in their water basin, or as puppets on a string.

    I’m a retired computer-engineer.

    • Don Austen says:

      Apparently you are retired for good reason. The temperture usually given for the Moon is the SURFACE temperature. In a vacuum there is no ambient, therefore the surface temperature is irrelevant to the camera. In the vacuum of space the major source of heat is radiant solar heat, and you can protect against this by making the outer surface reflective. The cameras on Apollo had reflective outer casings. As for the onboard computer, it didn’t have to display Candy Crush.

      Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC)
      Dimensions: 24 x 12.5 x 6.5 inches
      Weight: 70 pounds
      Processor speed: 1 MHz
      Memory: 2,048 words (32,768 bits or roughly 4kB)
      Display: Seven-segment numeric
      Price: $150,000 (est.)

      Apple iPhone 5s
      Dimensions: 4.87 inches x 2.31 inches
      Weight: 3.95 ounces
      Processor speed: 1.3GHz, dual-core
      Memory: 64GB
      Display: 4-inch diagonal Multi-Touch display, 1136 x 640 pixel resolution at 326 ppi
      Price: $399

  152. hsaive says:

    Don Austen misses the point. Despite the alleged reflective exterior (likely designed for Hollywood effect) there is nothing to protect the fragile contents when the solar radiation is absent and the fragile film medium is exposed to severe freezer burn in the shadows. A reflective exterior is not enough. The camera and fragile medium must be maintained at a stable temperature in every condition of sunlight and absence of sunlight and it was not. Hoax confirmed, again.

    • jamengulfer says:

      Do you actually have a citation for that? In space, there is nothing to conduct heat to or from an object. The only way that an object can absorb heat is through infrared radiation. The reflective coating that you so quickly dismissed is designed specifically to reflect away said infrared radiation. The camera would have experienced ~120 to ~-65 degrees Celsius in the light and shadow respectively. NASA knew about this and it’s perfectly possible to design a camera that can withstand extreme temperatures. The actual amount of solar radiation they would have experienced is quite low. Interestingly, you can actually see streaks of solar radiation on some of the photos that can’t occur on Earth because of the natural radiation shielding of the magnetic field. So, hoax busted, again?

    • Stevie says:

      hsaive – Freezer burns? Really? That’s just not how it works on the moon. You need to learn the difference between heat and temperature – they are NOT the same thing, especially on the moon with no atmosphere.

      You seem to imply that the astronauts were standing in blazing heat of the sun one minute, popped in the shadow of the LM for a moment and were plunged into freezing temperatures – then as they walk back into the sun instantly plunged into a furnace again!

      Complete nonsense.

      • hsaive says:

        Complete nonsense for you to imply a reflective coating is necessary to protect photographic media then claim there is no consequence to the media in the absence of sunlight. I’m staggered that you pretend to have any scientific background.

  153. Pingback: New threat for astronauts heading to Mars – dementia, brain damage [VIDEO] | YOUR PERCEPTION IS NOT REALITY

  154. Stevie says:

    Of course he can’t – Can’t get citations for made up nonsense.

  155. Stevie says:

    I am still staggered that people with no scientific training or understanding about a subject attempt to make assertions about things they clearly know nothing about.

    It takes years of dedication and academic study to learn the science involved in applied physics and space engineering. Please don’t assume that watching a few You Tube videos or conspiracy theory websites confirming your bias is a shortcut to knowledge and wisdom.

    • hsaive says:

      Sunlight can cause the moon’s surface temperature to approach 253 degrees F. while the dark side of the moon can dip to minus 243 F. Apply this physics to cameras and other equipment “allegedly” used by those lunar astronauts.

      • Stevie says:

        Give it up hsaive – you clearly know nothing about heat, temperature and thermodynamics. Stop making a fool of yourself.

      • hsaive says:

        Stevie seems desperate to discredit the facts that support no Moon landing. My example is clearly supported by the physics. Anyone can look it up. Now hear this — THE APOLLO MISSION WAS a HOAX. Live with it.

    • hsaive says:

      I post this not as a reply to the previous attempts to smear the facts but as a courtesy to our predominantly reasonable audience of clear thinkers.

      Let’s consider that space suits, cameras and other objects “allegedly” rocketed to the moon are essentially “in space” for the purpose of this example.

      “NASA’s bulky white spacesuits that astronauts wear on spacewalks can have a temperature difference of up to 275 degrees F from one side to the other. This can happen if an astronaut has one side of the suit facing the sun with the other side facing deep space.”

      NASA’s example validates the notion that the “alleged” camera, lunar module and space suits on the moon would experience dramatic changes in temperature as one side is exposed to the sun while the other side is essentially exposed to DEEP SPACE.

      The temperature extremes affecting the delicate photographic media are inducted from the solar exposed side as well as the dark “deep space” side. This unregulated heat sink will have wildly unexpected, unknown and destructive outcomes on the medium and the images that are “allegedly” produced. Case closed.

      • CllrChris says:

        hsaive. For that purely factual information, delivered in a civil manner, that makes no attempt to denigrade or insult others. Thank you. 🙂

      • Don Austen says:

        I supposed, Hsaive, that you can choose to believe what you want, disregarding all of the scientific information that has been presented. The fact of the matter is, that if the Van Allen belts were as dangerous as you and your conspiracy theorists describe, all NASA had to do was sent the Apollo mission to the moon via a polar launch, because the earth’s magnetic field reduces them to nothing at those points. But if you so believe in all these conspiracies, how do you know that anything is real? How do you know that the bright points of light in the sky are actually stars and planets? Maybe the government is hiding the fact that they are all simply holes in the dome that leads to Heaven, fearful that if everyone knew “the truth” that there is no outer space. but only Heaven and earth, that there might be mass suicides to get to see God? Do you really think that Jesus could have ascended to Heaven if Heaven were billion of light years away? He’d still be traveling. But if Heaven were only a few hundred miles… Thunderbolts of Jove! as Wonder Women would say, I’ve convinced myself! I’m going to throw away all of my science books and make a stack of Bibles to build a stairway to Heaven. This will be my new Kickstarter project. The only problem is that I know now that my computer isn’t really a computer. There are trained fleas inside making drawings. Nothing is real. Life is just one big hoax. Seriously, in a real world, could any woman have as big a derrière as Kim Kardashian of Niki Minaj purport to have? Help me to wake from this irreverent dream.

      • jamengulfer says:

        Hey hsaive. I’ve honestly got to thank you for bringing this up because it’s been super interesting researching all of this.

        So I decided to dig into it a bit and do some of my own calculations. So, the cameras were being held by the astronauts, which has enough insulation that the thermal energy won’t be conducted from the ground to the camera, so that’s irrelevant.

        Thermal radiation (heat) is essentially how fast an atom vibrates. Heat can only be transmitted either through another atom vibrating into it, or a photon (blob of light) at the right wavelength hitting it. In space, there obviously aren’t any particles to vibrate into the camera, so no energy is conducted that way. Empty space basically has a heat of ‘0’. More specifically, it doesn’t *have* a temperature because that’s not a property empty space can have.

        From this, we can see that the only way for energy to be transmitted in space is through light, in the form of Infrared radiation.

        The cameras were (obviously) coated with a material that reflects light pretty well. You can see this in any photos of it. The actual coating was silver (source: and elsewhere). Silver, although it might not be the most reflective material in terms of normal light, it has the nearly unique property of reflecting Infrared radiation really well. Specially prepared silver on a flat plate has an infrared reflectivity of 98.5%, but the Apollo cameras wouldn’t have gotten quite that high. The normal value for the reflectivity of a silver coating on a normal object is about 95%. This means that 95% of the infrared radiation that hits it is totally reflected, meaning it absorbs ~5%.

        At the distance of the Earth, the total power per square meter given off by the Sun is 1366.1 Watts. This includes emissions in the Visible light spectrum as well as a bit of ultraviolet and a lot of Infrared. In fact, about 54% of this energy is in the form of Infrared radiation (heat radiation). This results in about 737.7 Watts of power in heat radiation per square meter on the Moon. I ended up calculating the dimensions of the camera and got a maximum of 0.025 m^2 surface area in the sun at one time. At a 95% reflectivity and a 0.025 m^2 surface area, the camera receives about 36.9 Watts of power in thermal energy.

        Now, if you’re thinking that’s not much, remember that this energy can only be gotten rid of through the reemission of Infrared radiation, not through contact with surroundings. Incidentally, that’s how we don’t overheat in the sun, because our body transmits the energy away from our skin. Earlier, we said our camera was coated in silver. The thing is, a good energy reflector is a terrible energy emitter. A material has an emissivity of 1-reflectivity. This means that the silver has an emissivity of 1-0.95, or 0.05. Now, a material doesn’t emit IR in the same way that it reflects it. There is the “Stefan–Boltzmann Law”, which determines a close estimate of the rate at which an object re-emits thermal radiation. It is defined as j = ϵ𝝈T⁴. This tells us that the rate of re-emission increases faster than the internal temperature. What this means is that there is an equilibrium temperature where re-emission is balanced with the incoming energy. If we rearrange the equation for T (hello high school algebra!), we get ⁴√(j/ϵ𝝈) = T. If it’s not very legible, it says the 4th root of (j/ϵ𝝈). ϵ is the emissivity of the material (0.05). 𝝈 is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant (5.670373×10^-8). j is the input energy (36.8847). If we substitute in all of our values, we get an answer of 337.73 K. This value is in Kelvin because it’s an absolute temperature. To convert it to Celsius, just take away 273. This gives us 64.7 degrees C. For Fahrenheit, we can use Google, which tells us 148.24 F. This is basically the max value the equipment will reach in direct sunlight. Of course, the astronauts will be constantly moving and turning, so that energy will probably be a bit less.

        As a bonus, we can calculate the rate at which the temperature increases. If we take the standard specific heat capacity equation and rearrange it to find (the change in temperature) / (the specific heat capacity * the mass (about 2.5Kg)), we can find a rate of temperature increase of under 0.12 degrees C per second. This also means that the changes in heat will be quite slow. Realistically, the camera isn’t going to get too hot. When the camera gets to 0 degrees Celsius and is in total 100% darkness, it will only be dropping by about 0.17 degrees C per second. The camera will also stop dropping too far beyond that, because it’s likely absorbing some vibrational thermal energy either from the astronaut’s suit or from a ground mounted tripod.

        Again, thank you for leading me down this rabbit hole, it’s been really interesting to research. If you think I’ve got any of it wrong, please feel free to do the calculations with your own numbers.

      • Stevie says:

        hasive – so you believe NASA are telling lies, yet you link to a NASA document to supposedly support your daft claim them the camera’s would overheat (or freeze or whatever suits you.) Isn’t that a little bit fucked up?

        Of course it still doesn’t support your claim one bit – the document relates to deep space, not strolling around on the moon surface constantly changing orientation all the time.

      • hsaive says:

        Austen is changing the subject….Ha!

      • Don Austen says:

        Changing the subject? How so? the entire argument of a conspiracy is ludicrous. You base it upon your unsupported theory that any astronauts passing through the Van Allen Belts would die, or that the film in the cameras would burn up. The Van Allen Belts are donut shaped with the holes at the north and south poles. If the belts were so critical, all NASA would have had to do is a polar launch, which would have avoided them. I have already explained about the film. Furthermore, numerous spacecraft have been launched and gone through the belts without damage to their sensitive electronics. Your entire argument is based upon two things: someone told you the Van Allen Belts were lethal and someone else told you that the moon was hot. You have offered absolutely no scientific evidence. You simply pull sentences out of paragraphs out of context to support an baseless theory.

      • hsaive says:

        Beware…that tedious article was admittedly cobbled together to support the hoax and to denigrate Apollo skeptics as “conspiracy theorists.” — In this article/video NASA scientist admits that they still haven’t worked out how to properly shield the spacecraft from the radiation emitted from the Van Allen belts.

      • jamengulfer says:

        Hey hsaive, if I spent a significant amount of my time researching something and writing a mini essay on it, could you at least have the decency to respond to it?

        Also, they *were* coated in silver. They weren’t black. You can see from this picture: and this NASA document: and basically every article on the subject. You cannot deny that it was painted silver.

        Also, if you had played around with the equation I provided (like I invited you to), you would find that the temperature of thermal equilibrium remains the same no matter the emissivity and reflectivity of the object. Those black components wouldn’t have ever gotten red hot, because they would still only reach about 64 degrees C. This is because the amount of energy actually reaching them is very small.

        The only thing that would change is the rate at which it heats up. If we take an estimate of about 65% reflectivity, (because it is gloss paint after all) that results in 332 Watts per square meter of material. I (generously) estimate the surface area of the black parts to be 0.012 meters squared. This means that there is 3.98 Watts per second in IR hitting it. This results in a temperature increase of about 6 degrees C per second in direct sunlight, WITHOUT correcting for the energy loss through re-emission of IR light. Regardless, it would still only reach the equilibrium temperature of 64 degrees C.

        Also, there is no such thing as the conversion from UV to IR. The UV light doesn’t work in the same way and doesn’t factor into this at all. I have no idea where you got that idea from, but it’s factually wrong.

      • Don Austen says:

        The article describes how conspiracy theorists pull sentences that support their argument. The fact of the matter remains that one can go to the moon without going through the Van Allen Belts. But there appears to be no arguing with you. No amount of facts will change your myopic view, so what is the use?

  156. Don Austen says:

    Again, the temperture usually given for the Moon is the SURFACE temperature. In a vacuum there is no ambient, therefore the surface temperature is irrelevant to the camera. In the vacuum of space the major source of heat is radiant solar heat, and you can protect against this by making the outer surface reflective. The cameras on Apollo had reflective outer casings. What part of this don’t you understand? By the way, if a person is in space without any spacesuit, if they hold their breath, they can survive for about 30 seconds. Our bodies are themselves pressurized to a small degree. Just close your eyes. Not recommended during an intense solar flare. Do not attempt this at home.

    • hsaive says:

      Don…give it up. Are you and Stevie living in the same basement?

      • Don Austen says:

        Van Allen radiation belt
        Written by: The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica

        Van Allen radiation belt, doughnut-shaped zones of highly energetic charged particles trapped at high altitudes in the magnetic field of Earth. The zones were named for James A. Van Allen, the American physicist who discovered them in 1958, using data transmitted by the U.S. Explorer satellite.

        The Van Allen belts are most intense over the Equator and are effectively absent above the poles.


        This is an extremely good article on the Van Allen belts and all the conspiracy theorists.

      • jamengulfer says:

        Now, now. There is no need to be uncivil in this debate. Everybody can take turns putting forwards their point, without getting annoyed or resorting to shouting. As you can see, I left a perfectly civil comment for hsaive to read and respond to. This also goes for all of us, I guess. If any of us put the effort in to put forwards our side of the debate, the least anyone can do is respond to it with either a rebuttal or a reply.

  157. hsaive says:

    The photo of Hasselblad 500 EL Data Camera confirms the hoax when you see the black lens, trigger and handle capable of going red hot in a lunar heartbeat when exposed to solar radiation.

    Clearly, no reflective surface is seen and no insulation is possible within this critically important part of the camera.

    Look at the photo of Buzz Aldrin who would be challenged to press a button that could possibly burn through his make-believe space suit.

    The author carelessly admits lunar images were photoshopped: “On other, more published versions of this photo, the horizon have been corrected and more black space added above Aldrin’s head”. while they were at it, they should have photoshopped those images that show shadows going off at different angles revealing multiple light sources on the Hollywood set.

    The camera and other Apollo objects on the moon would heat up very quickly as the heat is generated from the conversion of UV into IR. With no atmosphere, the moon would have greater solar energy density reaching the camera compared to the same camera under earth’s diffused and highly filtered atmosphere.

    On the moon, the hot camera could only lose heat through radiation. Conduction or convection is not an option.

    Little wonder the camera was successfully hauled around for testing in a Hollywood studio and a few golf courses prior to the Buck Rogers Apollo TV show.

    Simply put, the Hasselblad camera would suffer higher solar energy input as heat (agitating those pesky atoms) while the ability to dissipation the heat is limited to radiation.

    Hoax Bottom line: — The camera (most obvious is the critical black lens system) would suffer rapid and disabling heat in the lunar vacuum.

    Why was the lens system black and not silver? Why was the camera not engineered in an essential “bubble” case to protect from thermal and lunar dust issues?

    Little wonder why no country on earth has a military or civilian base on the moon.

    • Tom says:

      With all the evidence nowadays, I am surprised people still hold on to old outdated and disproven theories like the silly moonhoax. Of course many skeptics have their minds made up already. Most just have their information wrong. Documentaries like ” a funny thing happened on the way to the moon” are filled with innacurate statements, and bad science. People are just uninformed about what humans are capable of. Take a look at the moonbuggy, notice the dirt it kicks up? No dust right? It falls right back down. This is because they are in a vacum. Or on one hell of a giant soundstage. Lol see how silly the hoax is? Their is nothing wrong with an open mind, but credible research will find the hoax is a lie. People love conspiracies, truth sometimes isn’t exciting enough for some people. They use imagination, and their take on what’s happening. Just lack of knowledge. Many seem to think they know more about space than nasa. Not the case. Not one person came toward to confess. Russia agreed we made it to the moon, I am sure they would have exposed a hoax immediately if they found out. Of course a hoaxer would say we threatened them with nuclear war if they spoke lol see their imaginations! Well we are entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts. Are the history books in on the hoax? All lies? Enough already 6 missions to the moon. It happened.

      • CllrChris says:

        Hi Tom, Thanks for joining the conversation. I have to say I remain open-minded to sceptical about the moon-landings. You say we are not entitled to our own facts yet you talk of “inaccurate statements” and “bad science” as if this is proven fact. I don’t think it is. You also invoke Russia as being “bound to know”. But in the circumstances of the cold war – IF the US was trying to sneak a cold war advantage in pretending it had a technology the Russians couldn’t hope to compete with, if I were Russia and knew it was a hoax I would still play right along and let the US think “the Russians think” that they had the advantage. No one coming forward to “confess” in all these years? Would I? Would I make myself a target for an assassination squad? Could I be able to do any more than raise suspiciouns? Would I be anything more than just another “nut-case conspiracy theorist”? Would I even be reported? How would I prove it? No, probably best to let the US have it’s cold war propaganda coup engraved into the history books. The guys at NASA sure believed it all.

      • Don Austen says:

        This discussion is going nowhere. The conspiracy theorists have no scientific knowledge whatsoever. There have been many such ridiculous theories in the past: hollow earth, ESP (including Yuri, Ross and Monica Geller) UFOs, and my all-time favorite, God (and his sidekick, J.C.). There is no convincing. Even Scientific American doesn’t want an explanation for quantum entanglement unless you are “credentialed” like Sheldon Cooper, PhD.

      • mikedanton says:

        Do you not find it bizarre that for three years (and for these three years only) America were experts at all things concerning The Moon (during Tricky Dick’s reign and during the Vietnam war (the only war that America lost might I add))???

        6 manned missions to the moon in three years. The most hostile environment ‘supposedly’ ever explored and no fatalities or even injuries on route, at destination or on return.

        The law of probability argues strongly that the whole thing was bullshit (and that’s before even considering any of the hoaxers arguments).

        Even with an unlimited budget and using today’s technology, 6 missions to the Moon in three years would be like begging for major fuck ups and their subsequent fatalities.

        The other day (while pointing up to the moon) I asked my four year old daughter “did you know that men have been there?” She looked up at me and said “don’t be silly daddy”.

        And that’s coming from someone that still believes in Santa and the Tooth Fairy. Lol.

      • Don Austen says:

        What are you talking about? Did you get your education in a box of Cracker Jack? Lt. Col. Gus Grissom, Lt. Col. Edward H. White, and Roger B. Chaffee all died in a fire in Apollo I. Nearly all three astronauts died in space during Apollo 13. But, of course, a four-year-old knows that only a cow can jump over the moon, and, as you said, thinks Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are real. Yes, there are so many things that can go wrong, like the ghost of Hoagy Carmichael throwing stardust at the ships. Just one question. How do you know that your daughter is real, and now some hybrid aliens planted in your wife? Have you done any DNA testing? Just because your daughter looks human, doesn’t mean she is, you know. It’s part of their plans to take over the earth. Yep. Apollo mission fake. Your daughter not human. You win.

      • CllrChris says:

        Now that’s just being silly Don. Those 3 astronauts did not die during a manned moon mission which is what Mike was talking about. They died here on earth in a fire. The rest of your comment is pointless ridicule.

      • Don Austen says:

        And Apollo 13. Also a fake? Does one need die in space to prove a point? The Columbia space shuttle disintegrated on reentry. Are you happy now? By your warped logic, only failure proves success.

      • mikedanton says:

        I’m sorry: Did Apollo 1 go to the moon? Was it meant to?

        Apollo 13 likely never happened.

      • Don Austen says:

        Mike Danton, you are insane. You should ask you four-year-old daughter if she would recommend treatment.

      • CllrChris says:

        More pointless personal ridicule Don? Not very helpful is it?

      • Don Austen says:

        Pointless ridicule? No amount of evidence could change anything you think. All you know is Van Allen belts. Van Allen belts. How do you know that the Van Allen belts aren’t hoax to keep people from going into space? You don’t know science. You don’t know the difference between a proton and a photon. No amount of facts are going to change any of your beliefs. You’re like trying to convince a born again Christian that God doesn’t exist. It’s a lose-lose situation and it seems that everyone offering facts is just wasting their time on a silly argument that is based upon some preposterous rumor that is floating around on the Internet.

      • mikedanton says:

        It’ll soon be the 50th anniversary of the biggest lie of the 20th Century. I wonder how many more years have to pass before it becomes clear to all.

        I used to believe men had been there back in the 70s. I was a space nerd in my youth.

        But logic,common sense and the laws of probability have since convinced me otherwise.

        I’m not saying probes haven’t been to the moon and beyond. All I’m saying is that men did not go there and back close to 50 years ago.

  158. CllrChris says:

    Sorry? Was I using warped logic somewhere? I was just trying to concentrate on the manned moon missions. Which I thought was the purpose of this thread? Which of course includes Apollo 13. (Not sure how “dying in space” proves anything?). It does not of course include the Challenger missions which happened 30 years later and were not manned moon missions. Albeit they may still demonstrate that something much less complicated than a moon mission, with much more modern technology, is still extremely dangerous.

  159. Bert says:

    It happened people. Get over it. For those who think it’s not possible to transit the Van Allen belt they did it backstroking….

    • CllrChris says:

      Very sage Bert. You nearly had me convinced there!! 🙂

      • Stevie says:

        Yes, it contains math, and we all know hoaxies are allergic to things with lots if scary numbers in them.

      • CllrChris says:

        Since stumbling across this blog I have scrolled across the internet to attempt to establish details both for and against. I can’t help but notice that those supporting the theory that man never got to the moon are rationally argued and detailed. This site here is evidence (and math!) enough of that.

        In fact it is a remarkably comprehensive site far more detailed than I could have even imagined. It details fundamental flaws within the Apollo story at almost every turn – and not just for the Van Allen Belt radiation issues.

        Whereas although there are a number of “debunking” sites which are sufficiently detailed enough to be deemed genuine in intent, their propensity to taunt, scorn and ridicule the “opposition” shows a paucity of solid argument as has also been demonstrated by Stevie and Don on this blog. The only logical conclusion if such tactics are necessary is that the argument is lost and that pushes me more towards the view that the moon landings never happened.

        Go on – see if I’m wrong. Check that “aulis” site over. See if you can find just one single disparaging comment (apart from saying they are wrong about various stuff) about moon landing believers.

    • hsaive says:

      The fact that NASA can’t put a man “safely” on the moon today is even more proof the Apollo Mission was a criminal hoax.

      • Stevie says:

        The fact that I can’t fly across the Atlantic in under 3 hours today is even more proof that Concorde was a criminal hoax.

      • Terry Mac says:

        So Apollo was a “hoax” was it? So how do you explain this video, it’s Neil Armstrong narrating footage of his Apollo 11 descent filmed from the window of the LEM in 1969, perfectly synchronised with footage from Google Moon Maps filmed in 2009! This is indisputable evidence of Apollo 11’s LEM moon landing!

  160. hsaive says:

    New Book: “And I suppose we didn’t go to the moon, either?”: The Beatles, the Holocaust, and other mass illusions” — from page 47 to 98, Winston Wu offers 35 solid proofs of Apollo Hoax. This is followed by Jay Weidner’s examination of “The Parallax experiments” starting on page 99. The faith-based cult of hoax deniers have a lot of debunking to do. —

    • Stevie says:

      hsaive – You must be joking right? That is some serious delusional stuff you have going on in your brain.

      The Amazon intro text says, “This book demonstrates–with scientific argument and empirical proof–that Man did not go to the Moon, that Paul McCartney was replaced after his death in 1966 and that the official narrative of the Holocaust cannot be sustained.”

      I really must wonder what the hell must have gone so wrong with your life, that your thoughts can possibly be so far removed from reality.

      I pity you, honest I do.

      I realise now that rational argument with somebody so completely deluded is utterly pointless. Wow, just wow!

      • hsaive says:

        There you go again… attacking the messenger without reading a word of the 2 articles. Little wonder you hoax deniers are driven to believe the Apollo lie by some religious cult, “lead of faith”.

    • jamengulfer says:

      Did you ever look through any of my scientific rebuttals to your comments, or are you just purposefully ignoring things that prove you wrong? I’m getting real tired of this. You act like this is some sort of debate, then you state things like they are absolute truths and ignore anybody proving otherwise.

      Are you scared of being wrong, or is it just you don’t want to admit that you’re wrong because it’s somehow a sign of weakness?

      I didn’t want to stoop to lashing out to get a reply, but you’re really pushing my patience here.

  161. Stevie says:

    If you starting posting stuff about Paul McCartney being replaced by a double and denying the Holocaust you are asking to be ridiculed. Your credibility is zero.

    • CllrChris says:

      Derek – I think that the Russians have actually said they wish too investigate why so many of “mankind’s moon heritage” (space rocks, film seen just once, etc) seems to have gone missing. Inter alia of course they may well come across information that may suggest the moon landings were falsified. The Russians of course had there own space-race skeletons in the closet, not least that Gagarin was not the first man in space – but in recent years they have come relatively clean about that (reported in Pravda). I don’t think Russia nor the Chinese believed the Americans put man on the moon – but it was part of the Cold War etiquette to not let on that they knew. If the Russians are now threatening to expose this then that indicates the Cold War just got quite a bit hotter!

  162. Stevie says:

    Cold War etiquette to not expose the hoax landings! ha ha – never laughed so much – you can’t seriously believe that? Even if such a preposterous thing were true at the time how, would you expect it to survive the fall of the USSR and the break up of the Russian states.

    I have given up arguing with you guys now – I come back occasionally for entertainment purposes to see what actually goes through the heads of the seriously deluded. You guys never fail to disappoint.

    • CllrChris says:

      I appreciate knowing you so much enjoy my comments Stevie. After all, what are we here for if not in some way to make life more enjoyable for each other? That’s my good deed for the day done! 🙂

    • mikedanton says:

      I gave up arguing with you a while back too. Once I realized that you were basically just a “believe every official version of events” kinda guy.

      I bet you still believe in this too.

      • christoph says:

        Hahaha…I had totally forgot about that piece of crap by the pentagram and dumbsfield. Fuck me how can anybody believe a word coming from “official” places in the USA. They have even now banned the confederate flag!! To me that shows the whole event in that church was a false flag.
        ….talking about flags, check this out.

        Examples of anomalies and inconsistencies in the Apollo photography


    • Mike says:

      All of the world’s space agencies have the same emblems on their agency’s flags and insignias. The USSR and the USA are fully cooperative partners in their space programs. The US had the sound stages, mock up moonscapes at full scale in Langley, VA and the $$$ to create and run a massive psyop called Apollo. I’d say 98% of the people involved with the Apollo program were unwittingly participating in a massive space exploration based simulation. It was completely compartmentalized to the max, the handful of people who got filthy rich from it weren’t going let out a peep about it and the lead scientists in charge of the whole apparatus were pretty much Nazis who felt obligated to do it to advance human insights of space exploration. It is still a running program that has been augmented with many other bullshit story lines that the public swallow hook, line and sinker. How do you think funding continues to pay for this scheme?

      • Stevie says:

        What’s it like to live a life so paranoid?
        Using your own figures if 98% had no clue what was going on then 2% did. 2% of 400,000 NASA workers means 8000 people did. Good luck keeping 8000 people quiet for over 40 years. Fuck me you people are dumb.

      • CllrChris says:

        Stevie? I thought you were leaving us? Kind of you to keep an eye on us poor deluded lunatics. Although I think we might manage better without the gratuitous swearing. Anyway – you have variously mentioned 400,000 employees (or scientists and engineers in some comment). My information is that your figure is well over 10 times too high. At the height of the Apollo programme the figure was 36,000 employees (2% of which is a much more manageable 720). Then take out the cooks, errand boys, cleaners, candle-stick makers – it comes to a lot, lot less. Is my information not what it appears? You may find it here: Hope that is helpful.

  163. mikedanton says:

    That reply was meant for Stevie (not CllrChris).

  164. NuttyK says:

    History states, at present, that the moon landings happened. There are of course, evidenced by this website and many others, a certain amount of controversy as to whether these moon landings happened.

    I myself have an opinion as to whether it happened or not, made up from researching the many websites and gathering lots of empirical evidence.

    We are at present living in a world that accepts that the moon landings happened but my question is this: What if it was proved that it was all a fake? yes, many people will enjoy a few moments of
    “I told you so!” but

    What is the bigger picture of a proven massive fake and the consequences on a larger scale?

    Many awkward questions? All faith lost on US government? Riots? Trading stoppages? Loss of jobs? Financial meltdown? Civil war? Loss of life?

    There are many other outcomes that could be associated with a lie of this magnitude and the majority are all negative.

    I say gather your evidence, make up your mind as to whether the moon landings happened, perhaps share your opinions at dinner parties but my conclusion is that the consequences of the real truth on this matter need to be taken into consideration. Stopping the negative things mentioned in my text is surely the biggest step for mankind.

    • Wise considerations NuttyK. I was thinking as much with the latest Russian (sabre-rattling?) statement that they were going to investigate aspects of “our heritage” moon landings. I’m sure neither Russia nor China ever really accepted the moon landings at face value if at all. It seems to me that by publicising this the Russians are saying – if you don’t back off (Ukraine, Syria, our borders, etc.) we are going to destabilise world opinion and the American population with this information. Information – especially where it can be shown to be true – can be a powerful weapon.

      • Dan says:

        Well, you’ll be sorry to hear that Russia themselves actually sent living things around the moon to test the effects of radiation, so I think they’d be very surprised to find that NASA didn’t find a way through the Van Allen belts even when they did.

      • CllrChris says:

        You are right Dan. Interestingly a pair of tortoises won the race to the moon (or so the Russians told us??) with an varied assembly of other small creatures and insects in 1968. Didn’t land though. Does make me wonder – was this a Ruskie ruse to hustle the US on to an impossible task? Or, of course as you would accept, everything was above board and as contemporary history records it. Does make me wonder why on earth (pun intended 🙂 ) the US didn’t do something similar to get their own results before sending man up there though? And why did the Russian’s never follow up with their own men to the moon? Probably raises more issues than answers?

  165. Mike says:

    The VAB’s are just the tip of the radiation iceberg for space travel. Past the belt’s is when a craft enters into interplanetary space which is an endless cacophony of ionizing radiation, proton radiation, cosmic rays and the solar wind. There is absolutely nothing to hinder this endless sea of radioactivity like the magnetosphere that shields the earth. The metals that the Apollo space vehicles were supposedly made out of were worthless for shielding this radiation. As a matter of fact the aluminum and titanium would actually amplify exposure due to the creation of X-rays caused by the initial bombardment against the hull of the craft. When electrons crash into metals like aluminum and titanium X-rays are produced in what is called secondary bombardment. So add X-rays to the already deadly mix of interplanetary space radiation basically turns the CM/SM into a JiffyPop tin to cook astro-nots in!

    • Stevie says:

      So do you have a citation for this made up drivel Mike, or are we supposed to just believe you?

    • jamengulfer says:

      Well, I was hoping for a nice discussion, but apparently Stevie is unable to pose a question without stooping to insults.

      I will say that the basis for your arguments are all pretty sound. The crafts weren’t really designed for super high doses of interstellar radiation and X-rays are produced in secondary bombardment as the high energy particles travel through the radiation shielding.

      To address the first point, if there had been a major solar flare up, the astronauts would have been toast. However, that is a risk they knew about and acknowledged the risks of. Luckily there were no such events during the apollo missions. The normal background radiation in space when there isn’t major solar activity is quite low. Not enough to pose much of a risk to the astronauts.

      I can’t properly address the second point in my own words, so I’ll direct you to a page with someone who actually does the necessary calculations to prove that there was no significant risk to the astronauts from said secondary bombardment.

      Just skip past the anti-hoax rhetoric and look for the section entitled “Bremsstrahlung”. It’s quite interesting to read.

  166. Derek says:

    Wow! “NASA Admits They Can’t Send Humans Through The Van Allen Radiation Belts.”

    • Stevie says:

      Ha ha! – The guy who made the video thinks the Space Station is fake and the crew are suspended by cables! Very credible source!
      Thanks for the entertainment – never knowingly undersold! lol

      • Derek says:

        Your the joke, you’ll do anything, but look at the facts in front of your face. Are you that invested in the moon landing? Or maybe, your the real nut job. Give it a break, you look like a fool.

      • Stevie says:

        I think you mean ‘you’re’ not ‘your’. Sorry, who looks like a fool?

      • Derek says:

        That’s exactly my point, that’s what you argue, some grammatical error? Not “the facts in front of your face”, fool (again Stevie, really)

    • Stevie says:

      What facts in front of my face? Please explain. All I see is conspiracy conjecture and bad science. You will have to do better than that. There is no evidence of a conspiracy – absolutely none.

  167. Stevie says:

    You hoax freaks must be rubbing your hands and wetting yourself with glee at the moment. A NASA SpaceX rocket blew up just after launch yesterday on the way to the Space Station. I can hear it already, “How did they get to the moon if they can’t even get to the Space Station! ”
    Go on, make my day 🙂

    • christoph says:

      Even for a twat like you, that is below the belt. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Apollo hoax, which you cannot get your head around. Apollo was a lie!!. Period. Get over it. This accident is a worry as it does show that space travel is dangerous and for 6 missions to the moon to occur in the 60-70’s without any hick up is basically bullshit….VA belt or not. 300 miles compared to 240,000 miles…..what a joke.

  168. Albert says:

    Serious question – Do you really believe that thousands of physicists and engineers, the kind of people who would understand in great detail how things should work and look on the moon, over the course of forty years have all missed this? And you and other conspiracy people are the only ones to have noticed it?

    • christoph says:

      No. Many knew about it but did not come forward. They saw what happened to Grissom and co.

      Looking at some of the official footage, the whistle blowers were rebelling in the best way they could.

      The problem is that so many people just accepted it as fact. We are seeing the same things now , in a lesser extent, with things like cholesterol and saturated fat and the use of statins. Even though this is medical science and not astronomical/mechanical science, Ancel Keys told the world about it as fact but it wasnt until people looked back on his work and found he had selectively picked data. BUT PEOPLE JUST ACCEPTED IT. BELIEVED IT AS GOSPEL TRUTH. It was published in top journals and he was on Time magazines cover…how could he be wrong?

      People have also questioned relativity and stated that Einstein was WRONG. They have done experiments where they claim that if we remove the idea that light speed is constant, suddenly all sorts of experiments start to work. But they claim that Einstein supporters refuse to look into it….and dominate and block any investigation. This is a problem we have through out the scientific community in many different scientific arenas, from medical to archaeological to history. Max Planck said “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”…or something like that.

      I had a small argument with Mike Barra, co author I believe with Richard Hoagland many years ago, about their revelations that huge domes were seen in the back ground of the Apollo shots of the moon landings. They claimed they were remnants of ancient structures on the moon but I applied occams razor and said it was easier to state they were parts of a sound stage here on earth…and these sound stages did/do exist!! But they stated the moon landings happened so the only outcome was that they were alien artifacts!!

      Blind belief is something we humans do ie religion including Scientism. When its combined with slick propaganda and it becomes embedded, people will just believe. If you are a scientist and start questioning, you may lose funding, get the cold shoulder from others in your field or even direct threats. As Lenin said , a lie told often enough becomes the truth.

      You have to remember the budget NASA had…it was massive. People and companies were , and still are, making a killing, in more ways than one.

      Why havent we gone beyond the 300-400 mile barrier.? We did not have to go back to the moon but to just get past the belts…a couple of thousand miles…do experiments etc half way to the moon. It should have been a cake walk…..BUT WE HAVENT!!

      Now all the plans and schematics of the Saturn 5 rocket have been destroyed….the only rocket that got us to the moon??…successfully 6 times???…destroyed?? WTF!!

      Just like the Lusitania was a set up for the US to get into WW1, the Gulf of Tonkin to get the US into a war in Vietnam, the moon landings were also part of a war, once again a propaganda war. Why did the Ruskies stay quiet??. Now some of them want to “open” up a debate about the landings. Imagine that!.What would that do to the US populace if suddenly it was exposed as a lie!. Wow.

      • CllrChris says:

        christoph – I’ll concur with virtually every word you say. I would have written similar but for time. So when Stevie, or whoever, responds with the giggles and sneers don’t let it get to you – because that seems to be the true intent of their otherwise disparaging comments.

      • Stevie says:

        What a bunch of crap! Thanks for confirming you are NOT a scientist and have no scientific training or understanding on how the scientific method works. All paranoia and unsubstantiated waffle.

        If there was even the slightest doubt within the scientific community it would be world headline news and fully exposed.

        Ha ha – now you think you know more than Einstein now! Go on publish your work then and win a Nobel Prize. Ha ha.

        Love the entertainment hoaxtards – keep it coming please.

      • Well timed Stevie. So predictably rude. You said you were leaving this forum once, then you commented that you were keeping an eye on it “for a laugh”; now you’re in full blown windbag mode. Tell us – what changed your mind? You missed us didn’t you? 🙂

      • Derek says:

        Obama won a Noble Prize, not a very good argument. Just BS as usual. Anyone can step to your level. Fool

      • Stevie says:

        Okay Derek, step up a level. What have you got that proves Apollo was a fake that cannot be debunked by a 10 year old that attends science class?

      • Derek says:

        Ok, lets start here, with the Information I put up, “NASA Admits They Can’t Send Humans Through The Van Allen Radiation Belts.”

      • Dan says:

        Firstly, Stevie, shut the hell up. It’s so annoying to hear you throwing insults at people without you really contributing to the discussion.

        To address the video, anybody who lauds the clip from NASA as NASA ‘slipping up’ and accidentally revealing that they lied hasn’t spent a few minutes actually thinking about what they’re describing. The path of the featured Orion capsule appears to be around the equator and takes a long shallow path through the Van Allen belts, maximising the amount of time spent in them. The Apollo missions on the other hand, took a path straight up at a latitude of about 30 degrees, taking them perpendicularly through the edges of the Van Allen belts. At the velocity the craft was travelling, they were only in the belts for about 8 minutes, nowhere near long enough for any significant dose of radiation to bypass the shielding on the craft.

        I’m enjoying this, please provide something else to debunk.

      • Derek says:

        If true, then why wouldn’t they take the same trajectory as Apollo and resume course once they are out of the belts?

      • Dan says:

        Because if I recall correctly, the Orion craft won’t just be used for going to the Moon. One way of getting to somewhere like Mars is to get into an orbit around the Earth, then burn at the apoapsis to extend the periapsis into the orbit of the target planet. Potentially, this means spending quite a bit of time in the Van Allen belts. The reason the Apollo missions didn’t do this was because they had a direct shot at the Moon. However, this type of trajectory doesn’t work as well for bodies farther afield where precise orbital manoeuvres are required.

        If you want to learn more about orbital manoeuvres and this kind of thing, look up Kerbal Space Program.

      • Derek says:

        yes, but for going to the Moon? Nobody would embark on a full mission like going to Mars without testing all the processes on a closer body, such as the Moon.

      • Stevie says:

        OK Derek – so you are saying that you agree with the video and that the International Space Station is fake are you? If yes, you are an idiot. If not, then why are you using the video as your evidence?

        If all this is beyond you, then try putting it in your own words rather than posting a crappy You Tube link – that way we know that you have comprehended what you have seen and not just regurgitated somebody else’s crap.

      • Derek says:

        I never implied the ISS is fake, the video is a copy of the crew’s testimony. Terry Virtis stated, “Right now, we can only fly in earth orbit.” They are hoping someday, with the Orion Project, they might be able to explore the solar system, such as the Moon, Mars, Asteroids, Etc. There’s a lot of places they “could” go to. They hope to do all of this, “eventually”.

        NASA engineer Kelly Smith explains about many of the risks and pitfalls surrounding the new Orion Deep Space Mission to the planet Mars.

        Surprisingly, chief among Kelly’s concerns is whether or not his spacecraft can successfully pass through the perilous Van Allen Radiation Belts. Such is the prospective danger in fact, that NASA will have to send a dumbie craft first in order to ‘test out’ what the potential radiation effects will be on future human crews, as well as on the ship’s delicate sensors and equipment.

        This video released by NASA about the upcoming Orion space exploration craft, shows a NASA scientist (NASA Engineer Kelly Smith) admitting that they still haven’t worked out how to properly shield the spacecraft from the radiation emitted from the Van Allen belts.

        If you review the information from a logical point of view, it’s easy to see we’ve been lied to.

      • CllrChris says:

        Derek – when Stevie (or anybody) continue to use terms of abuse (like “idiot” & “crap” in his last email) they really don’t deserve and answer as considered and polite as yours. Stevie did at one point suggest he was leaving this forum – if he can’t control his verbiage then I wish he would leave.

      • Derek says:

        I agree with you, I don’t have the time or the patience to provide unnecessary arguments with people.

      • stevie says:

        Nice one Dan – you tell me to stop throwing insults then proceed tell me to shut the hell up! 🙂
        Derek – As Dan explained the quotes from NASA in the video are taken out of context as they are talking about Orion NOT Apollo. That’s what most HB’s do – take things completely out of context to suit their delusions.

        Do you really think NASA could keep a lid on the hoax for 46 years, fake 6000 photographs, hours of video, huge amounts of telemetry data, 300KG of moon rocks – fake another load of images of the landing sites from orbit showing footprints etc and then one day just totally forget about it and admit they couldn’t get through the VaN Allen belts! You can’t actually believe that?

      • CllrChris says:

        I think one thing is fairly certain to me, Stevie. If it ever did come to light that the Americans hoaxed the moon landings – our world will have changed significantly, militarily and politically, especially within America itself. A sobering thought.

  169. christoph says:

    Thanks CllrChris for your comment

    Believe it or not I just found out that a guy called Jack White, over 10 years ago, found that by adding up the Apollo camera shots for all the so called successful missions and when compared to the amount of time the EVA’s were on the moon…he actually added up the photos “by hand” if you like…and compared that to the minutes that NASA officially stated that the landers were on the surface…..and it meant that they took a photo every 50 odd seconds. This is without the flag raising, dune buggy driving, rock picking, golf playing….and most if not all are “perfect” when shot from the chest of an astronaut in a hostile environment.

    This was released like I said 10 years ago and I had no idea about it.

    Also the Hasselblad people said there was no shielding on the cameras….so what about cosmic rays.??

    This is doing my head in.

    • stevie says:

      Think what you are saying here christoph – Imagine that you are trying to perpetrate the hoax for a minute. You are planning it carefully. For every photograph you fake it has to stand up to rigourous scientific scrutiny of scientists and the media of the eagerly awaiting world. Any slight errors and you will be found out. What would you do ? Obviously you fake as few photographs as you could possibly get away with!

      You are saying the complete opposite – that they took so many pictures that they didn’t have time to take them all. See how crazy that sounds now?

      As it happens your time figure between photographs is about right – however the were 2 astronauts taking pictures (not one) , so double your time for starters, many were panoramic shots so many pics were taken in very quick succession. When you balance it all out with a clear head it all makes perfect sense.

      By the way, loads of images were not very good – we only tend to see the good ones. Visit the NASA archives and you will see there are plenty of blurred and badly frames images.

  170. christoph says:

    “You are saying the complete opposite – that they took so many pictures that they didn’t have time to take them all. See how crazy that sounds now?”

    Not if they were taken here on terra firma!! Think about it. All the “training” camps in massive sound stages, photos taken by the ‘nauts themselves or , as many have said, professional photographers. This makes sense..too many photos on the moon because we did not get there and they were from the “training”. camps so no “misting” or “fogging” from the cosmic rays. This also makes sense for Hoagland’s “alien artifacts” on the moon. He is so convinced about that ,the so called alien shit artifacts that is in the background of the Apollo shots, which he has written a couple of books about, …was, in my opinion, just here-on-earth movie sets as I have stated before.

    Of course the “moon landings were real “crowd, who rely on a religious base for their church, will never acknowledge that there was too many shots taken…period. Jack White took into account the 2 (or 3 ) astronuts. who were there to film but still said the 50 seconds was over the top for each photo. Which it is.!! Period.

    Now check this out.

    Astronauts without a PLISS…amazing.

    Is this a new space suit….or someone on a movie set!!!

  171. BRAINS says:

    lots of great comments on here.. personally i am an engineer as well and have studied the evidence as a believer . so i had no interest in discrediting he lunar landing. After seeing the evidence myself, from the lack of crater under the lunar lander when it landed (despite the 10,000 pound thruster), the lack of dust on the legs of the lander (despite the 10,000 pound thruster which would have blown dust everywhere), the letter “C” which appears on a well publicised moon rock photo published by NASA itself (NASA later revised this photo and more modern releases no longer show the letter C on this moonrock , said to a prop marking from a film set), then there are the anomolies with shadows flowing in multiple directions despite there only being one light source – the sun, then there are the missing films the missing photos in fact from all the moonwalks there were only a few dozen photos ever released by NASA and not one photo showing stars. Surely the astronauts would have seen the most incredible spectacle of stars in the sky and be tempted to take at least one photo but not a single photo showing a single star appears in any of the NASA photos with all kinds of excuses given about the apperture and what not that just dont make sense.. i mean change the apperture and take photos of the sky.. its very simple really.. im sure NASA a space agency would have been very interested in taking lots of photos of the sky since this is its core function as a space agency. finally when Armstrong lands the lunar lander for the very firs time and pronounces his famous words ” we have touchdown” he is heard giving a second by second commentary as the lander draws nearer to the moon surface then lands.. the whole time however you cannot hear one iota of sound from the 10,000 pound thruster rockets which emit sound at 160 decibels and are located directly under Armstrongs ass as he was seated for the landing. It would simply not have been possible to land that craft and not hear one bit of noise from the thruster.I’ll add one final point.. about the computer.. I’m an electrical engineer and back in the 60’s a 64 meg computer weighed a half a tonne and was the size of a volkswagon. There is now way they could have carried the computer power required to preciselly plot a trajectory to the moon through the ideal part of the vann allens belt, land the craft perfectly on the moon, take off perfectly from the moon then touch down perfectly back on earth. i mean the best programers were still inventing the first pong and basic tennis games using the technology at hand back then. infact the first atari systems came out years after the lunar landing happened. and on top of all this you have the Vann allenn belt radiation issue being discussed here.. quite frankly i think it is utterly preposterous when you consider all the evidence that anyone has landed on the moon and if i were american i would be utterly disgusted that taxpayers paid in todays money tens of billions of dollars if not hundreds of billions in todays money, for a project that probably only cost a few million and was filmed in a film studio. clearly the moon landing made some people very very rich and may even be a key reason why Kennedy was assasinated as were so many scientists, astronauts and reporters in those days.. mostly under mysterious or unsolved circumstances. when you assess all the evidence and events in their entireity it points to one major scam. and a massive money making scam at that.

  172. BRAINS says:

    regarding the photo debate , in all honesty NASA is a “space agency” its core function is not to land people on the moon but to take photos of space, to discover and explore space. Now if they had men on the moon on various missions who were there for 2 or 3 days at a time each with camera in hand, you would think they would have taken hundreds if not thousands of photos of every angle, every part of the sky, the sun the earth in the distance everything not just some photos of the moon lander, of each other , of their buggy.. it just makes no sense to me that a space agency whos main function is exploring space would take so few photos mostly of the moon lander, other astronauts and its moon buggy with not a single photo of earth in the distance and remember earth is much ibgger than the moon so if we can see the moon from earth, you surely would have seen earth from the moon as a large glowing ball. yet not one photo exists of the earth taken from the moon. surely the stars would have lit up the sky and the perspective of the starts as the moon orbited earth would have given a whole new vision of the stars not viewable from earth. surely this would have provided NASA some of its best exploratory photos ever at that time and yet.. not a single photo of the stars exists with debate raging of the apperture and the suns reflection of light .. this is NASA core function !!! to take photos !! of space !!! it had the worlds best technology at hand.. it could navigate a path to the moon through the Vann Allens belt, land with pin point precision without even leaving a crater or putting a spec of dust on its landing gear.. and yet it could not take one photo of the stars !!! now come on people.. REALLY ??? imagine YOU worked for NASA and were running the moon landing program and had numerous missions sent and returned and astronauts walking around the moon for days at a time, wouldnt you ask them to take a few photos of the sky ??? or would you ask them to take selfies as they mostly did ??? coz as i say most of the photos from NASA were either astronaut selfies, photos of the buggy or photos of the lunar lander sitting there ever so immaculately.

  173. christoph says:

    Welcome to a club which is starting to question.

    Ken Welch , the former NASA spoke person stated that we went to the moon and the evidence is in the photos, or somat like that.

    These photos are the problem it appears.

  174. Stevie says:

    BRAINS, or should I say, NOBRAINS – your contribution is completely unreadable. Nobody is going to plough through a block of text with no spaces or paragraphs.

    Shame on you – what’s the matter with you people. Shocking!

  175. Stevie says:

    It’s funny how hoax believers wilfully show how uneducated they are by the format of their posts, then expect to be taken seriously arguing against rocket scientists – very amusing. Thank you NOBRAINS for yet more entertainment from the hoaxtards.

    When you can format your post in a legible way I will happily destroy it. A quick glance through shows it is garbled incredulous nonsense and I very much doubt you are an engineer like you claim to be.

  176. Mikey says:

    n. – Denotes a rambling conspiracy theorist spouting absurd, nonsensical pseudoscience to support his position, usually found on places like moon hoax, flat earth and grassy knoll websites. Combines the words hoax and retard.

    Example: “I have all the answers right here! The U.S. faked the moon landings because-” (enters into diatribe of ludicrous, longed debunked reasons why it was faked).

    Example: “Have you ever picked up a science book in your life…”

    • CllrChris says:

      n. – (look it up!)
      example: “Mikey”
      Unfortunately not a hoax.
      (Now perhaps we might keep the debate civil??)

      • christoph says:

        Hahaha…good one. I should not be uncivil but that was great!!

        Mikey…go back to school mate. I know they threw you out but try again.

  177. Nick says:

    NASA never admitted they couldn’t get past the Van Allen Belts. There’s a video of a NASA engineer working on a spacecraft named Orion. In it, he says something about how his team hasn’t figured out how to get past the Van Allen Belts. This has been twisted by people trying to find some shred of evidence to support their outdated claims. Really? You honestly think this “evil” organization you believe masterminded what would be the greatest lie ever told just casually admitted they couldn’t have done it? You should sell whatever you’re smoking, it’d probably go for quite a bit, given that it really messes with your mind.

    That engineer was talking about how difficult it is to build a spacecraft that is completely oblivious to even the harshest of conditions in the Van Allen belt. He is attempting to build a spacecraft that can sit anywhere in the Van Allen Belts for months on end. Apollo zipped through a carefully chosen part of the belts, where the astronauts received minimal radiation. Its trajectory was calculated by the very person who discovered the belts, Dr. James Van Allen (who never, at any point in his life, said it was impossible for humans to go through the Van Allen Belts). NASA constructed the hull specifically for the parts of the Van Allen Belts Apollo went through.

  178. christoph says:

    Nick there are many problems.
    The Saturn 5 for a start….Werner Von Braun stated we would need 2 rockets, I believe, to get to the moon and they would be huge used in a tag team role. But we went with the Sat 5….now all specifications destroyed (purposely) and the only rocket to “supposedly” get us to the moon.!!! WTF…..a NASA employee not long ago stated he was the last person alive who knew how to fire it so if it was rebuilt it would not be launched…, then we had original moon footage “taped over” because NASA needed the tapes to reuse…WTF…ORIGINAL FOOTAGE SENT TO EARTH then taped over.!!!….their budget was huge!!….I see it as destroying evidence left right and center.
    If you go through what people have posted here you will see its bigger than the VAB.
    The photos especially give the game away but because the propaganda was so huge people believe it…just like Saddams weapons of mass destruction or Gaddafi killing his own people….just pure bullshit.
    But the Apollo myth had to stay. Hence Grissom had to die. He was not the only one. He hung a lemon on the command module and died the same day, I believe. The fact that the only test for the LM was the moon landing….Armstrong nearly died here on earth using it….no prior tests in moon gravity and it works perfectly…just like all the other gadgets. Normal photo film was used in an unadulterated Hasselblad camera…just changed the “click” button and had no view finder. Still had to change film cartridges though like us here on terra firma….but with massive atmosphere protecting gloves!!..
    No dust on the LM legs while astronauts foot prints are clearly seen all around the lander feet…no craters from the landing (believers say it was so slow and didnt need a huge thrust so no dust…….therefore I contest the dust should have settled on and next to the feet but did not).
    There are so many problems that have been exposed……but the main one is the enormity of the project….6 perfectly launched and executed flights where we now in the 45 years since we have not been beyond the 450 kilometer limit…while the moon is a 760, 000 km return journey.
    Watch the first press conference of the Apollo 11 guys…google it….these are guys which have just done the impossible….watch them and think.
    I have learned a lot lately…its making me mad.

    • Stevie says:

      You are mad.

      • Stevie says:

        Says all you need to know…

        n. – Denotes a rambling conspiracy theorist spouting absurd, nonsensical pseudoscience to support his position, usually found on places like moon hoax, flat earth and grassy knoll websites. Combines the words hoax and retard.

        Example: “I have all the answers right here! The U.S. faked the moon landings because-” (enters into diatribe of ludicrous, longed debunked reasons why it was faked).

      • mikedanton says:

        I bet you lapped this crap up Stevie

    • Nick says:

      Criticizing Saturn V isn’t a good start to your argument. That rocket was tracked by the Russians past low orbit.
      As for Braun saying something about two rocket to get to the moon: that was his original plan-Earth Orbit Rendezvous (EOR). He wanted to send rockets loaded with parts for a spaceship into Low Earth Orbit. A massive spaceship would be built there. This spaceship would then travel to the Moon. A rookie engineer at NASA called him out on his idea. He claimed Direct Ascent (sending a vessel straight from Earth to the Moon) would be easier and cheaper. Braun surprisingly conceded.
      Original footage of the Moon Walk SENT to Earth was not deleted. You can find it by typing “first moon walk” into the Google search-box. You meant the original tapes from the mission. Ones that weren’t released publicly. They seemed to have been conveniently erased and taped over, especially to hoax believers. NASA actually spent a large amount of money on a restoration team to restore them. Want to see them? Of course you don’t; you don’t give a shit about what was on them, you just wanted to add another paragraph to your rant. I’m surprised your “research” didn’t lead you to them:

      Now you’re on the photos. Every single claim your kind makes about these photos are silenced by the originals. The “spotlight” you saw in some of the photos is a result of a major increase in the contrast. It was obviously edited by one of your kind. Don’t believe me? See for yourself: -contrast increased -original

      And the “labeled” rock? -original -close up of a later copy

      They used an “unaltered” Hasselblad did they? Where’d you read that? Some shut-in’s blog? This is a breakdown of all the differences between Apollo 11’s modified Hasselblad and the modified Hasselblads used in Apollo 8-10:
      This means Apollo 11’s camera was indeed altered for the mission, and adds another tally against your claim of having done your research.

      There shouldn’t be any dust on the LM’s legs. The LM was built with an antenna sticking out the bottom of the craft. When the antenna touched the ground, it signaled to the astronauts that they were close enough to the surface for a safe landing. So they shut off the engine. Because the LM’s decent engine was actually shut off before it fully landed, the dust that was kicked up by the engine settled immediately (before the lander made contact with the Moon’s surface). This means the LM’s legs should be (and were) free of dust. Once again, I thought you said you did your research.

      Six perfectly executed flights. You’re saying NASA was too good, huh? Well NASA was made up of pretty much the brightest scientists in America, which was the place to be if you wanted to work in a science field. Everyone always tries to make 1960s NASA look like a small weak child. Why? It makes for a better David and Goliath story. In all actuality, America caught up to and surpassed the Soviet Union in early 1965. NASA was a force to be reckoned with. They weren’t incapable in any way whatsoever, so I don’t think NASA was too good. Instead, I think its errors with Apollo 13 are inexcusable.

      If we were so good then, then why haven’t we gone back now? Money. Until recently, there wasn’t anything of interest on the Moon. Although, some senators have been pushing to go back to the Moon and mine Helium-3, a gas that has potential as a future fuel source for nuclear fusion (NOT fission).

      Yeah, you did learn a lot lately- from my post. Got anything else you want me to clear up?

      • christoph says:

        You got your stuff from wikimedia…????..jesus help us!!

        The dust settled before the craft landed???… did it do its last few meters…and not leave dust…a cable from above!!!.

        Saturn 5 tracked past low orbit by the Ruskies does not mean it went to the moon. A “rookie engineer” called Braun out…and he agreed.!! Excellent…a unknown sets the stage for a scam so big no one else takes the blame.!!

        The Hassleblad info was straight from the horses mouth. Jan Lundberg stated that NASA wanted changes and they were done on the protective case and the film mag….thats it…but the film was still just ordinary film. HJP Arnold confirmed this as he was Kodaks assistant to the managing director during Apollo, and states that ektachrome was used, no special gels or emulsions were used…as NASA seems to contradict…..take that as you will. The nauts still had to change mags on the surface and haselblad did not change the way a gloved hand would change the mags!!

        As far as your “america is great..” in the ’60s, Go grow a brain. Its impeding on your logic. Its fine being patriotic but dont be daft!!

        Oh…rare earth elements are now popular and they exist on the moon….and if we went so easily in the ’60s why not just cruise up there now and grab some.

        Oh…if you go to your “original moon walk” footage…you will see it is stated as the “original television footage” NOT the original footage sent from moon to earth.

        now go and do some real research.

      • Nick says:

        Christoph, no I did not get all my information from wikipedia simply because using one source for anything is untrustworthy. Wikipedia seemed like a neutral source for pictures, so I used it. Obviously that was a mistake, given your anti-establishment stance. Anything that’s mainstream can’t be trusted, right?
        Yes, the dust did settle before the craft landed. I even explained that to you in my last post.

        As for this: “Saturn 5 tracked past low orbit by the Ruskies does not mean it went to the moon.”
        What exactly is your argument? That’s all Saturn V had to do- get Apollo 11 out of Low Earth Orbit. As for the second part of your sentence, you’re right: the ROCKET itself didn’t go to the moon, but its payload-Apollo 11, complete with 3 astronauts-did.

        Yes, a rookie engineer did call Braun out. His plan called for a massive ground team, which would take years to train; gigantic spaceship, which would require at least three rockets to launch (instead of just one for Apollo 11); and many more years of planning and prepping. Why Braun admitted defeat, I don’t know. Braun could’ve had that engineer fired, but he agreed. That takes balls.

        Yes, the Hasselblad information was straight from the horses mouth. No one knows more about the cameras taken to the Moon than NASA. Whether or not they lied about that can’t be determined by anyone out there, especially your beloved hoax theorists.

        In the 1960s, America WAS the go to place for science. I’m not saying it is now. I NEVER said it is now. It is a fact, however, that America was the leader when it came to technology in the ’60s. Today, I admit, that’s debatable. Several Asian countries are taking the lead, in terms of robotics, for example.

        Rare Earth Elements are bountiful on the Moon. Just because I didn’t mention them, doesn’t mean NASA doesn’t know about them. In fact, their M3 team started mineral mapping the Moon for a year (2009-2010). This shows NASA is indeed considering mining the Moon for REE. The M3 team’s primary objective was to find REE, but they also discovered water on the Moon, btw.

        If you were to have actually read the article, you would have realized those were the tapes that had been erased. The restoration team identified the tapes that had “gone missing” (been erased and written over) and restored the tapes. NASA had to spend money on this team just to silence people like you. They should’ve known they’ll never get through to that twisted mind of yours.–restoring-lunar-images-after-40-years-in-the-vault.html

        Just a few more articles that restate my original claim.

        Yeah, I did do some real research. In my endeavors, I’ve debunked all of your premises What do you know about research?

      • CllrChris says:


        Does it not occur to you that sneering at and insulting your opponent may be counter productive?

        “….. given your anti-establishment stance. Anything that’s mainstream can’t be trusted, right? …..”

        “….. your beloved hoax theorists. …..”

        “….. that twisted mind of yours. ……”

        Makes me think that your arguments are weak given your need to slur.

        In any case – I still don’t get it. How can the dust settle before the ML landed? What was it? Just hovering on some anti-gravity device (not serious!!!) to give the dust time to settle? It really doesn’t make sense.

      • Nick says:

        My arguments aren’t weak; my slurs are to defend myself from Christoph’s ignorant rants.

        However, I do admit the whole dust thing can be complicated. As I’m sure you’re aware, the Lunar Module used a rocket to slow its descent. This rocket works by spewing out gas downward in an effort to push the LM upward. This gas formed a sort of temporary atmosphere under the craft. That atmosphere helped to suspend dust that was blown upward by the rocket. This created a dust cloud we on Earth are familiar with. However, when the rocket turned off while the LM was still in the air (as I mentioned in my previous post), that temporary atmosphere dispelled (It’s not like the rocket stopped the air from obeying the laws of physics, but because the air was being sucked around the Moon, and when the rocket turned off, there was nothing to replace the air under the craft), and the dust settled almost immediately.

      • CllrChris says:

        Hi Nick, Thanks for the response. I was OK with everything you said until you get to that bit about the engines switching off. Would that be inches, feet or even yards above the ground? T.V. showed us the LM being positioned by visual observation – without any sign of dust displacement – nor indeed any indication that the engines were even in operation, although of course they would have to be in use at that point. The module itself weighed well over 2000 lbs. Switch off the engines and even if the dust was immediately sucked away alongside the “bubble atmosphere” that was created under the ML, you (um,, well .. me anyway!) would still expect three things. One – a crater of at least some description below the landing area. Two – an almighty thump (even under 1/6 gravity) to the ground as the LM lost its support jets. Three – at least some settlement of dust on the Lander’s feet and body. It seems obvious that the authorities recognise that dust is fairly thick on the moon – as can easily be seen in the operation of the moon-buggies.

        As to the bad-mouthing – I get very frustrated when that happens on forums. I don’t know what you think – for instance – of my offerings; I don’t claim to know huge amounts on the subject. But I do try to keep it sane, sensible and even interesting – as I hope this post is too.

      • Nick says:

        Apollo was around 68 inches from the ground when its probe made contact with the surface and they shut the engine off.

        The reaction between aerozine 50 (fuel) and nitrogen tetroxide (oxidizer) is colorless. Any image that shows a colored flame of any sort is an artist’s rendering. Which is more appealing to younger audiences: a giant multicolored flame shooting out of a thundering engine or no exhaust/flames? The reason why so many conspiracy theorists use this as an argument is because Alan Shepard used an image in a book showing a bright red flame coming from the engine, instead of a colorless flame, like in actual images.

        There shouldn’t be any real blast crater of any sort. The rocket’s nozzle had a diameter of 59.0 inches. Using A = π r^2, to get area, we must divide that by two to get the radius, 28.5 inches. Square it and multiply by pi, and you should get about 2551.76 square inches, or 2550 in^2 (area), taking sig figs in to consideration. The rocket had a “thrust range” of 1050-10,125* ft-lbf (force) (Operation above 65% was avoided to control erosion of the nozzle). During descent, the engine was kept around the lower 1/3 of its “thrust range.” This meant that the engine was pushing out a force close to 4,050 ft-lbf. Now that we have force and area, we can calculate pressure using P = F / A. 4,050 fr-lbf / 2,550 in^2 ≈ 1.59 psi. To put that in to context, a person weighing 150 pounds and the typical foot size of about 25 square inches, each foot puts exerts a pressure of 3 psi (assuming you’re standing on both feet with each foot entirely in contact with the ground). You may ask: “If the psi is too low to create a visible impact crater, then how did it blow dust particles off the ground.” To answer this, you must look at the lunar surface’s composition in the area the astronauts landed in. At the top of the Moon is a little layer of particles (for lack of a better word) known as lunar soil. These are small rocks ranging from 1 cm in diameter to .05 cm (50 µm) in diameter. Yes, some of those rocks probably got blown around, but most of dust visible came from an even smaller layer in the lunar surface known as lunar dust. These are rocks that are smaller that 50 micrometers. Lunar dust is the subtle aftermath of meteorite impacts. Because the layer is so small, the fact that it’s gone is impossible to pick up on in the pictures we see today.

        There was a jolt. It was noted in Apollo 11’s mission log:
        “The craft settles down with a jolt almost like that of a jet landing on a runway. It is at an angle of no more than four or five degrees on the right side of the Moon as seen from Earth…”

        Perhaps there was some lunar dust on the craft. You’ve got to keep several things in mind: A) most of the dust blown into the temporary atmosphere was sucked away with the temporary atmosphere; B) If all the dust displaced by the rocket ended up on module, it would have to spread more thinly due to the module larger surface area, thus becoming harder to see; and C) There very well could be lunar dust particles on the module, but you’ve got to keep in mind how small those particles are. Yes, they were visible when they were more densely clustered in “clouds,” but I doubt you’d be able to see them with the naked eye when they’re spread very thin on a surface.

        * I’ve seen some sites that give different numbers, but they are consistent within a couple hundred foot-pound force units.

  179. Stevie says:

    Sums it all up…

    n. – Denotes a rambling conspiracy theorist spouting absurd, nonsensical pseudoscience to support his position, usually found on places like moon hoax, flat earth and grassy knoll websites. Combines the words hoax and retard.

    Example: “I have all the answers right here! The U.S. faked the moon landings because-” (enters into diatribe of ludicrous, longed debunked reasons why it was faked).

  180. CllrChris says:

    I don’t understand Stevie. Why have you posted the identical comment made by Mikey … twice now?? Seems to be some serious lack of original thought here. I can only think that you must be the one that put the “definition” into the “urban dictionary” website. Not had many hits yet has it? BTW – my response to Mikey’s offering applies equally to yourself. Just swap the name “Stevie” for “Mikey”.

  181. christoph says:

    “on this team just to silence people like you.”…..Look Nick…silence people like me??? WTF…are you going to do me in?? “twisted mind”…hahahah… I read your articles and they all state that NASA DID wipe the tapes and then used TV footage as “proof”. Thats all you can come up with????

    “Why Braun admitted defeat, I don’t know. Braun could’ve had that engineer fired, but he agreed. That takes balls.”

    No…Braun was numero uno in rocket research… let a rookie undermine him not is explainable …unless you are doing a hoax.

    You also state “Real research!!!”….until you started abusing my name I would have been gentler on you but as you are a dickhead….. only in your bigoted twisted brainwashed your “research” genuine. They have you by the balls and you dont see it….and your arrogance refuses you to see it.

    • Nick says:

      “(S)ilence people like me??? WTF…are you going to do me in??” Well, if you would’ve read that in context, you could have deduced “silence” means “shut up,” not “kill.” Perhaps you aren’t smart enough to have gathered that. Maybe your reading skills aren’t as great as you think, I don’t know.

      “‘(T)wisted mind’…hahahah… I read your articles and they all state that NASA DID wipe the tapes and then used TV footage as “proof”. Thats all you can come up with????”

      Yeah, your mind is twisted. You only accept things you agree with as facts and don’t listen to reason. I meant that when I typed it, and I mean it now.
      No, my articles don’t state anything like that. They specifically say: NASA admitted it wiped the tapes for future usage. When people claimed they wiped the tapes to get rid of evidence supporting fake Moon Landings, NASA hired a restoration team.
      Then the articles entail how hard the restoration team’s job was. Several include videos or links of the remastered footage. It doesn’t matter what you call them, these are the tapes NASA erased. They proved you wrong by restoring them, but you’re too delusional to realize it.
      Also, that isn’t all the proof I can come up with. Moon rocks, recent third-party imaging of LZs, retroreflectors, and the fact that no one involved has ever admitted to the hoax.

      “‘Why Braun admitted defeat, I don’t know. Braun could’ve had that engineer fired, but he agreed. That takes balls.’

      No…Braun was numero uno in rocket research… let a rookie undermine him not is explainable …unless you are doing a hoax.”

      Yes, Braun was the best when it came to rocket science. Then engineer didn’t correct him on rocket science, though. He corrected him on how to get to the Moon. Try to twist it any way you want, the engineer simply suggested a new plan of action. It’s not like the engineer said Saturn V wouldn’t work. Speaking of, you actually did question the Saturn V. Now your all of the sudden saying Braun is unquestionable. Weird how your facts can change whenever it’s convenient for you.

      Yes I did say “real research.” As I said before, I meant it then and I still mean it now.

      This is you at your worst? Buddy, this isn’t even my 50%. I never questioned your name, I just showed everyone how silly your argument is. Why don’t you stop criticizing my research. It’s a fact: my research is genuine. Why? Because I use sources that cite their claims. Every single website I’ve been to is cemented in fact. If I can’t check its work, then how can I verify its claims? I don’t use those voodoo/witchcraft preaching blogspots, like you do. So why don’t you quit defending your limp-dick “research” and admit defeat?

  182. christoph says:

    “Voodoo/witchcraft preaching blogspots”……..when ever someone starts that they are not only frustrated but totally lost in their argument. Like I said before, if you had been civil, we could have discussed…but you went , like Stevie, into a religious (ie all NASA says is good, all everyone else says is bad) rant. All you are doing is protecting your BELIEF. The science does not back it up with the photos, film or rocket science. This was a political scam, which NASA is trying to evade.

    As I have said before , why destroy the Saturn 5 blueprints as its the only rocket to get us to the moon. Why allow the “original” footage to be taped over….this is the supposedly the most monumental event in all world history.!! Fuck…does this mean they are willing to tape over the Kardishans????

    I have “discussed” with Hoagland’s co author about the what they saw in the moon footage, with them claiming (after processing with , I think photoshop) it shows huge structures, which shows the moon was/is habitable. I argue these photos are taken here on earth and done on sound stages and the photos were likely taken in Langley or other areas where NASA has these massive reconstructions of the moon and of the areas Apollo was supposed to land. These are really impressive clay/cement scale models standing over 30 feet in height. A camera moving in could look real given the 60’s TV coverage. Photoshop could expose the background rigging and screens….no need for the moon.

    As I stated before , in a previous post, this has been not so much a shock but as a confirmation that we did not do the moon with Apollo. I did not know about some of the websites stated here before and it has opened my eyes even further.

    Basically , Apollo was a scam hence the disregard of photos, film where they do not stand up to scrutiny. The death of Grissom, Armstrong refusing to give interviews and the general feel of the first NASA orchestrated press conference shows that there were problems. Other astronauts making contradictory statements……..Some “leaks” have stated this was because they saw aliens on the moon……I think this is a ruse and pure bullshit. The poor buggers had to lie and some could not handle it while others could.

    It appears if the USA keeps provoking Russia, Russia may start to unravel the meme…

    • Nick says:

      I’m going to take CllrChris’s advice and stop the name-calling. Whether or not you do the same is you decision.

      I found it quite funny you thought I was lost in my argument. By: “Voodoo/witchcraft preaching blogspots,” I was clearly stating those blogspots are spouting out long-disproven bogus. I “Apollo”gize if you didn’t see it that way.
      I’m not protecting my belief. I have views. I see the world a certain way. In the way I see it, NASA is full of people who’ve always wanted to explore the Heavens (yes, I do believe in Heaven, as I am a Lutheran). Ignoring all the hoax theories, NASA has never actually been caught in a lie about anything. So, these people that always dreamed of going exploring space since they were a kid automatically forget their dreams and become pathological liars right when they join NASA? Seriously, NASA has the worst cybersecurity of all government agencies (to clarify: that’s a proven fact, not my opinion). If they were so evil and had so much at stake, then wouldn’t they protect their privacy? I know Apollo was long before the internet, but people still think NASA is evil, so my question still applies. Saying NASA is evil is like saying you got roofied by the autistic kid at a party. At least in my view. I haven’t seen anything (that can’t be disproven) to suggest NASA isn’t as innocent as I see them.

      They didn’t actually destroy the blueprints. They are at Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, along with one of the three remaining Saturn V rockets. This rocket is not exactly flight capable. The only rocket of the three that is intact as it is supposed to be is at the Johnson Space Center. There are several reasons NASA doesn’t use the Saturn V anymore.
      If NASA wanted to build one (They would never use the only one left, that would be very dumb), finding parts would be more than challenging due to the fact that no one makes them anymore.
      A major factor in the cancellation of Saturn V is cost. The cost to launch a Saturn V was $494 million in the late ’60s (or $ 3.18 billion in 2015) versus a shuttle launch at $450 million today (USD).
      There have been so many advances in technology that the Saturn V is pretty much obsolete. It’d be like taking a Smith & Wesson revolver into war with Predator in the Aliens Vs. Predator series.

      As for the clay model theory, In the 1960s, they didn’t have any sort of photoshop tool that could insert astronauts onto the clay background. They had to be on something that looked as big as it looked. If you look at pictures taken, you can see for quite a ways. It’s obvious they were taken in a vacuum much bigger than what we have on Earth.

      As I stated in my previous post, this article is founded on words taken completely out of context. The engineer was discussing problems faced with developing Orion, a spacecraft that is supposed to be invulnerable to radiation received from the Van Allen Belts. Apollo flew through the weaker parts of the belts for no more than a couple hours (Its radiation shield was built specifically for the parts of the belts if flew through, and less than 99.99% of the radiation it encountered penetrated its two main shields, according to sound calculations from the science fields of chemistry and physics); Orion is designed to remain in the strongest parts of the belts for a couple of months at a time. There is a huge difference. The engineer this article was referring to was talking about Orion, not Apollo. He never once said Apollo didn’t go through the belts. Ever.

      As I’ve pointed before, the scrutiny put on the photos is in total disregard of actual astronomic and photographic phenomena. One photo in particular has even been doctored to look fake (the spotlight photo).

      The death of Gus Grissom was an accident brought on by the “race” part of the space race. He was added to the conspiracy theory after his son, Scott, claimed NASA had him killed. The original claim doesn’t talk about whether or not NASA went to the Moon. Instead it claims NASA was still embarrassed about the Liberty Bell 7 capsule and felt Grissom wasn’t deserving of such a historic event, and that’s why they killed him. I could tell explain what went wrong, but you wouldn’t believe me, so what’s the point?

      Armstrong used to refuse to give interviews because he felt he had nothing to prove. He doesn’t have anything to prove. The Moon landings are an accepted fact. However, recently, Armstrong agreed to do an interview. It’s pretty boring, but feel free to watch it.

      You’re judging the authenticity of the Moon landings based on how socially awkward scientists acted during a conference? Don’t get me wrong, they’re smart, but they aren’t good at talking to people like us.

      Anyways, I mean no offense in this comment.

  183. christoph says:

    Well said and I “Apollo” gise for my comments. Oh and by the way , according to “belief net” , I am an Unitarian…. and have Pagan beliefs….what ever that says, I dont know.!

    Yes this started about the VAB but got bigger. I am so pleased to have been involved in this discussion because it opened new information for me that I did not know existed. Like I stated I was suspicious that we did these amazing things in 1969 but seemed to be not able to now.

    We have to question all that is landed on our plate by the “authorities”…and as Hitler stated the bigger the lie the more people will believe it…….or something like that…as I have stated before…and the funny thing is he was talking about the Soviet Union at that stage.

    I follow modern politics and human events and find that governments constantly outright lie and deceive to gain acceptance and control over populations….examples are ….”Gulf of Tonkin”……by LBJ………, Lusitania sinking , Pearl Harbor……”weapons of mass destruction” by Bush against Hussain…….Gaddafi is killing his own people…by Obama…..This is why I question things like Apollo. The USA has shown it will lie and deceive and even kill its own citizens. Its not alone. Other countries do this as well.

    But the Apollo landings as a media really push up fakes and blunders all over. The footage is bad!

    It is almost like the people involved wanted it to be found out or NASA were using just straight out training vids used to promote the landings, hence the “fuckups” !


    • Nick says:

      I’m genuinely surprised! I thought you were like the hoax believers on YouTube that don’t want to do anything but talk about my mom….I guess that’s everyone you disagree with on YouTube. Anyways, as corny as it was, I did mean my apology. I judged you too soon, and I can see I was wrong to have done so.

      I mentioned I was Lutheran to show that I do believe there is a God. I’m not an atheist, but I don’t look down on atheists, either. Many arguments on YouTube turn into religious flamewars. I was trying to convey to you I accept God, even though I believe the Moon Landings are real.

      I do agree that many events in recent history are a bit shady. Yes, we should question anything those types of government agencies say. They generally don’t have evil intentions, but, as it was said in Jurassic Park, “Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions.” I think those movies are super cheesy, but some of the best quotes imaginable have come from the cheesiest movies. Having said that, not all American agencies are evil. Someone once mentioned to me: “NASA is about as evil as the National Weather Service.” In my eyes, it’s true. NASA may have been founded to beat the Soviets in the space race, but the people NASA hired actually cared about making it into space. Yes, the CIA, NSA, and similar agencies do stuff that’s frowned-upon, they do it to help maintain human life. The Gulf of Tonken incident happened so that America would have an excuse to help keep Communism out of Vietnam. That seems pretty nosey, but under Communist rule, everyone is equally dirt poor and has almost no chance to enjoy life. Capitalism actually creates money and gives people an opportunity to excel based on their prowess and determination. Which seems better?

      I admit, Bush was a…a dipshit. I live in a region where everyone around me is a Republican (The political party Bush was a part of). Republicans like to blame a lot of stuff on Obama (a Democrat), however I see Obama as the janitor cleaning up after Prom. The Bush Administration had a horrible foreign policy and dealt with confrontation by hiding behind the military. It seems like Bush wanted to go to war in the Middle East to finish what his dad started. How childish is that? He’s the guy everyone’s judging Americans on. How stupid do they think we are after seeing who we elected as a leader? The funny part is, he actually lost the election. However, due to our more efficient electoral college, he somehow won. It’s entirely unfair to judge an entire nation…or even our government agencies by the tendencies of one bad leader. As for Obama, he is actually pretty smart. He’s published books on US Law and he understands how the economy works. He was supposed to wait around 70 years before disclosing how Osama Bin Laden was killed, but actually released the details immediately.

      Yeah, the footage was bad, but most of it was beamed back from the Moon, so you shouldn’t expect HD pictures. Every anomaly in the pictures can be explained, but the people that make those biased websites either ignore the explanations or don’t care.

      • christoph says:

        “NASA’s focus now is on sending humans beyond low-Earth orbit to Mars… We are trying to develop the technologies to get there, it is actually a huge technological challenge. There are a couple of really big issues. For one thing – Radiation. Once you get outside the Earth’s magnetic field we are going to be exposing the astronauts to not just radiation coming from the Sun, but also to cosmic radiation. That’s a higher dose than we think humans right now should really get.”
        Dr Ellen Stofan Chief Scientist, NASA, BBC Newsnight interview Nov 13, 2014

        …..Nick we did not put humans on the moon with Apollo. Period. Belief systems and paradigms are hard to overcome. When we grow up, our lives are marked by the belief systems we embrace and they usually stay with us for the rest of our lives or until we get a shock or so called wake up call. Its part of our learning/survival/evolution. I used to accept that Apollo was real but wanted to look into the crazy ideas of these people who said we did not go. It would be easy to deny them their conspiracies but I found out I could not. It was really hard for me to accept that. I kept telling myself “nah…they are crazy… we did go”….but I could not shake that doubt. So I could not help myself and looked further with some links from other sites and here. There are so many problems with the Apollo I wont go into them. Occam’s razor has to be applied.


      • Nick says:

        Yeah, extended travel outside Earth’s magnetic field is dangerous. However, the celestial body in question, the Moon, does spend time in Earth’s magnetic field. Plus it’s a lot closer to Earth than Mars (the celestial body your reference was talking about). Your argument is like saying “We can’t walk across the street because we don’t have enough gas in our car to drive across the country.” Your quote can’t be applied to our argument simply because the Moon is in Earth’s effective magnetic field for several days at a time. The reason why it’s not in Earth’s magnetic field all the time is because Earth’s magnetic field is being pushed by a firestorm of solar wind. This solar wind comes from the Sun. It elongates Earth’s magnetic field in a similar way to a comet’s ion tail.

        I do understand that we grow attached to our beliefs, and that we can go into denial when these beliefs are questioned. Everything any conspiracy theorist has ever said in regards to the Lunar Landings has been disproven, just read our comments. You don’t need to apologize, as I, in all my years, have yet to see anything that suggests man never went to the Moon. Perhaps you could show me the sites you went to that caused you to change your mind?

      • christoph says:

        Sorry Nick
        In all of your years you have yet to see anything that suggests man never went to the moon.
        Think about it. Look at the Apollo craft. The original press conference, the fact that Saturn 5 blue prints destroyed..the only rocket to get us to the moon.., the fact that the space suits for the moon could not be used at 3 mile island nuclear accident…, the “fake” moon rock given to the Dutch, the fact Von Braun went to Antarctica to collect “moon rock” back in the 60’s, …enough to go around..originally…the fact that we were bouncing signals off the moon BEFORE the Apollo landings which totally stuffs up some of the pro NASA propaganda about putting on the moon “reflectors”…and all these that follow in “OFFICIAL” NASA photographs…reflections in the visors of the astronauts showing 2 people in the background (should only be one!), reflections of astronauts without their PLISS…(impossible), astronauts being lifted in moon footage where they have fallen over looking like they have a wire (if they cant back flip as we were told they could ), the flapping flags, the contrasting light/darkness where the astronauts are brilliantly lit where they should not, the moon mountain back drops where the LM is in one scene then not in the next, the lunar rovers which have no tyre tracks in the still photos either forward or back so how did they get there?, foot prints all around the LM even almost getting underneath the LM but not even a hint of any blast crater for landing, Brilliantly lit American flags even on the “dark side” of the LM, amazingly composed photos of the LM, astronauts and flags all together without any view finder, sounds of astronauts hitting pinions into the moon surface coming over their voice systems , (where the moon is a vacuum and should not be heard), 10 000 pound rocket sitting under the LM and under Armstrong’s arse while he and others can clearly be heard above the massive roar and vibration talking quietly to control, Boot signatures on the moon in photos not matching those pattern that they “supposedly” used, the inability to “jump” like NASA stated the would in 1/6th gravity, the smearing on camera shots of a liquid that got onto cameras while on the moon (liquid should not be floating in the LM or in zero gravity), the reticles (“fiducials” ) that suddenly are NOT in the fore front of photos when they should be on the hassleblads, the shadows which, unlike earth, should not have light diffuse and should be straight lines from the sun, the diffusing of light around certain photos of Buzz, the fact that Armstrong has only one photo of himself on the moon…..the most famous man on the moon…sums up his press conference and obvious shunning of the press immediately after and for the rest of his life…., the fact that Michael Collins remarked “we could not see stars on the moon” at that amazing press conference when , in fact, Collins was in the command module but Buzz Aldrin could not Collins jumped in, …the press later stated it was Aldrin who said that. A HUGE LIE….the list goes on.

        As I have stated before, Richard Hoagland stated that the Apollo photos show that there are huge structures on the moon. He has used this to , in my opinion , to fool people. He has been (and may still be ) a NASA”consultant” ie paid employee and its in his interest and NASA’s to push these theories. These promote the “alien agenda” and cover up the fact we DID NOT GO with Apollo.
        The simple truth is that they were filmed/photographed here on Terra Firma. I saw years ago footage that was supposedly NASA video that many “alien” watchers endorsed but could not find it. To me it showed a technician running madly up a camera rail to get out of the shoot. Could not find it but GOOGLING it got me these.

        Check this out. Aliens or just humas on a sound stage?

        I dont need a website to tell you. There are dozens…do your own homework. I know the tactics of the so called “skeptics”…get the people to provide all the info and websites and waste their time on a bunch of f wits who do not even look at the evidence. The so called skeptics have this down pat. But even this took me a good half hour to put together while I worked my memory and made my dinner.

        Paraphrasing the famous Arnie classic “Total Recall”…where his so called wife tells him….”Sorry, Quaid. Your whole life is just a dream.”.

        This is the lie they have sold us. If you want to believe the lie so be it. You cannot stop the truth.

      • mikedanton says:

        Thanks for listing all that stuff so I didn’t have to Christoph.

  184. Stevie says:

    I see the lunatics are back in charge of the asylum.

    • CllrChris says:

      Now, now, Stevie! 🙂

      • Tom says:

        Hey cris haven’t been on in months. Hope everyone is well. I know the landings happened, not because I have a hunch, or I think nasa lies, but because the facts prove it. We have a right to our own opinions, but not a right to our own facts. The “statements” you imply I was saying are facts is off the mark, many statements made by hoaxers or no moonies, are just innacurate, which is why it is not a fact. There are documentaries on YouTube claiming a hoax, that are debunked in schools describing their mistakes and false claims. People just aren’t aware of what humans are capable of. Remember, just because you think something is not possible doesn’t mean it is. We faked the landings six times? How? Why? We never got caught? The astronauts spent days shitting and pissing in a bag, wouldn’t you feel strange when you came back? Armstrong was a private person, not one to be in the spotlight, but people make up lies about him not talking because he was afraid to die. People overestimate the dangers of space, but underestimate the power of science, this is why the nasa scientists are the ones to trust, not a hoaxer who cries fake at everything they cannot understand. As far as Russia not telling on us, really sounds like a great idea for a movie but really? Remember the missions were framed, if those transmissions didn’t come from the moon, the Russians would have known! There is so much non believers don’t know! They need a better education in science.

      • christoph says:

        Sorry Tom , but I dont know what propaganda you have been watching.

        “…better education in science would be a good thing……” I have listed the problems and wont go into it again. There are nefarious powers that control major “beliefs” from science and religion. Our “modern science” , especially medical but also other areas, is so corrupt but so protected its a disgrace and slowly being exposed. But when the powers that be control the media and governments world wide , it will take time.

        Re look at those videos……I did and had a great laugh. Almost forgot about them. Aliens or manipulation…use Occam’s razor.

        Tom…..breaking the bonds of your belief system or a paradigm is the hardest thing you can ever do…it is traumatic but it must be done.

        I fell for it!. For years I believed it…we went to the moon. Then the LOGICAL arguments of the “moon hoaxers” got me looking and reading.

        You WILL be a better person for it. It WILL open your mind to other ideas.

        A famous bloke called Mark Twain once said “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled”

        Sorry for sounding arrogant.

    • mikedanton says:

      I see “blinded by Nasa” is back.

      • Tom says:

        I see a lot of conspiracy people are back lol. So you doubt facts, but are willing to accept a conspiracy sites lies without question. No one is blinded by anything, only conspirators. They have a motto, never mind the facts and evidence, I already know what I believe. I personally don’t care about nasa, but they did land on the moon, no matter how hard people try to disprove it. People deny what’s hard for them to figure out. It’s very sad people deny the landings. Now we aren’t saying believe everything we are told, do research, any credible scientist knows we went to the moon.

  185. christoph says:


  186. tom says:

    hello, sorry the last post was mean for mikedanton. i think its great people study, and learn, and dont trust people. however when facts overshadow the nonsense, its game over. there is no propaganda i am talking about just the facts. i have studied many years on this moon hoax, and my eyes are open to anything, but the hoax is just not true. most conspiracy believers will ALWAYS come up with an answer to a fact. the ski is blue…….. no, its green. is the earth really round? how do we know its not flat. science. many people are in denial of evolution. i think people need to realize that not everything is controlled by the government, and not everything is a hoax or lie. thats paranoia, and many people suffer from it. why dont you take your own advice, and be “open minded?” i guess you were a believer once, but then the conspiracy sites got you with their lies and misinformation. heres a good argument, although i already know the outcome, a few shows did tests on the moon hoax theory, like mythbusters, fact or faked, and others, i watched them all. i know before i even finished saying mythbusters, you were already saying mythbusters? they are paid government goons that lie to cover up the hoax…….. am i right? i bet i am lol you see, when anyone disagrees with a hoaxer, or their thesis, they are considered a government sheep, who believes everything they are told. thats just not true. anyway, all the shows concluded that you can fake a landing on earth, but does that mean it really was? no. so does this mean, all of these shows are controlled by the government? all paid to keep silent? no, just more paranoia, and a refusal to look at facks. the landings werent perfect, the photos werent perfect, nasa showed the best ones they had, many were of poor quality, but again, a hoaxer will take something and run with it if its exciting.personally i am going to trust a scientist not someone who thinks or has a hunch it was faked. i only hope one day you will realize this is all nonsense, and accept the facts. the moon hoax is the weakest of the conspiracy theories because it has been proven false time and time again. there are many people who sell dvds online trying to prove the so called hoax, they are out for your money, and people are so gullable sometimes. remember, many conspiracy theorists are very smart, but remember sometimes very intelligent people make very unintelligent statements. like the moon hoax. try looking at moonlanding rebuke on youtube, very interesting, might help you understand more. the problem is, there is so much a hoaxer doesnt understand. the seem to be self proclaimed experts in many fields, many people who have believed in the hoax eventually realized they were wrong, remember theres no shame in being wrong. i know all six landings happened, so i dont need to hear any misinformation about the hoax. i certainly am open minded, but once you learn more, you will realize how silly this hoax really is. do people really believe that everyone has kept quiet all these years? all paid off? scared? theres no proof, only speculation. a lot of people make these stories sound better, like “oh my god the government is controlling everything!” can we as humans do anything? are we robots? this never ends. just realize not everything is fake! yes there are lies, and conspiracies, just not this one. remember even at the end of capricorn one, the truth of the hoax was found out! now Russia not calling bs is another thing. they would have exposed us right away! i know people came up with a crazy story of why russia didnt expose the hoax, well of course! a hoaxer has an answer for everything! they should write for movies they would make a fortune. we all love a good conspiracy, its exciting. people like them more than the truth. the hoax is simply filled with misinformation, paranoia, and a little imagination. most tend to not think everything through. when you research, you will find how fast the hoax theory falls apart. another thing, is the missions were tracked, if those transmissions were coming from space, and not the moon, they would have know something was wrong. i personally dont think some people will accept the truth, which is why some have said even if they were flown to the moon, they would say they were druged, sadly things are that bad for some people. i dont want to ramble to much, but i feel many people are lost on this conspiracy hoax. many people i have spoken with claim only kids think the landings were faked, well apparenty more than that do. i feel no evidence can convince all people, people want more pictures, well, what good are they? people claim all the rest are fake, what will more do? i jope one day you will find the truth, because its right in front of you, best of luck! hey by the way, its great to have a nice conversation without name calling! i do agree with steve, but i was just trying to hear opinions, and educate some people who are willing to listen.

    • Terry Mac says:

      Well said Tom. You should check out this video if you haven’t already. It’s Neil Armstrong narrating film of his Apollo 11 landing being synchronised with footage from Google Moon Maps filmed only a few years ago. The synchronisation is perfect! This COULD NOT have been faked, as the Apollo footage has been around since 1969 and the Google Moon Maps project is from 2009. This is indisputable evidence. I defy anyone on here to prove it’s wrong.

  187. tom says:

    one thing i forgot, remember the earth is not the moon, things behave different up there, like gravity, plus the moon dust is very reflective.

  188. christoph says:

    ” i guess you were a believer once, but then the conspiracy sites got you with their lies and misinformation. heres a good argument, although i already know the outcome, a few shows did tests on the moon hoax theory, like mythbusters, fact or faked, and others, i watched them all. i know before i even finished saying mythbusters, you were already saying mythbusters? they are paid government goons that lie to cover up the hoax…….. am i right? i bet i am lol you see”

    No they are not goons but they would not dare to expose the hoax……Myth Busters is ENTERTAINMENT. They work within the system and thats what you get with the mainstream….if you asked me before the show was aired what they would fine, I would have laughed and said OF COURSE THEY WILL SAY THERE IS NO HOAX………I have to admit I have not seen the show on Apollo but they did a great one with making a boat out of duct tape. LOL

  189. Terry Mac says:

    This video of Neil Armstrong narrating film of his Apollo 11 landing synchronised with Google Moon maps is INDISPUTABLE HARD EVIDENCE of the Apollo 11 moon landings. I defy anyone on here to prove this is wrong. And please don’t insult my intelligence with claims that Google are “in” on a “hoax”. This video is the final nail in the “haoxers” coffin.

    • christoph says:

      As I have stated before…..

      “Think about it. Look at the Apollo craft. The original press conference, the fact that Saturn 5 blue prints destroyed..the only rocket to get us to the moon.., the fact that the space suits for the moon could not be used at 3 mile island nuclear accident…, the “fake” moon rock given to the Dutch, the fact Von Braun went to Antarctica to collect “moon rock” back in the 60’s, …enough to go around..originally…the fact that we were bouncing signals off the moon BEFORE the Apollo landings which totally stuffs up some of the pro NASA propaganda about putting on the moon “reflectors”…and all these that follow in “OFFICIAL” NASA photographs…reflections in the visors of the astronauts showing 2 people in the background (should only be one!), reflections of astronauts without their PLISS…(impossible), astronauts being lifted in moon footage where they have fallen over looking like they have a wire (if they cant back flip as we were told they could ), the flapping flags, the contrasting light/darkness where the astronauts are brilliantly lit where they should not, the moon mountain back drops where the LM is in one scene then not in the next, the lunar rovers which have no tyre tracks in the still photos either forward or back so how did they get there?, foot prints all around the LM even almost getting underneath the LM but not even a hint of any blast crater for landing, Brilliantly lit American flags even on the “dark side” of the LM, amazingly composed photos of the LM, astronauts and flags all together without any view finder, sounds of astronauts hitting pinions into the moon surface coming over their voice systems , (where the moon is a vacuum and should not be heard), 10 000 pound rocket sitting under the LM and under Armstrong’s arse while he and others can clearly be heard above the massive roar and vibration talking quietly to control, Boot signatures on the moon in photos not matching those pattern that they “supposedly” used, the inability to “jump” like NASA stated the would in 1/6th gravity, the smearing on camera shots of a liquid that got onto cameras while on the moon (liquid should not be floating in the LM or in zero gravity), the reticles (“fiducials” ) that suddenly are NOT in the fore front of photos when they should be on the hassleblads, the shadows which, unlike earth, should not have light diffuse and should be straight lines from the sun, the diffusing of light around certain photos of Buzz, the fact that Armstrong has only one photo of himself on the moon…..the most famous man on the moon…sums up his press conference and obvious shunning of the press immediately after and for the rest of his life…., the fact that Michael Collins remarked “we could not see stars on the moon” at that amazing press conference when , in fact, Collins was in the command module but Buzz Aldrin could not Collins jumped in, …the press later stated it was Aldrin who said that. A HUGE LIE….the list goes on.

      As I have stated before, Richard Hoagland stated that the Apollo photos show that there are huge structures on the moon. He has used this to , in my opinion , to fool people. He has been (and may still be ) a NASA”consultant” ie paid employee and its in his interest and NASA’s to push these theories. These promote the “alien agenda” and cover up the fact we DID NOT GO with Apollo.
      The simple truth is that they were filmed/photographed here on Terra Firma. I saw years ago footage that was supposedly NASA video that many “alien” watchers endorsed but could not find it. To me it showed a technician running madly up a camera rail to get out of the shoot. Could not find it but GOOGLING it got me these.”

      I posted this a while ago……prove me wrong!!

      Oh the footage is just up a bit.

  190. Mark Sauer says:

    The scientific evidence has been disputed, denied and, quite frankly,…… distracting. I thought science was the answer to all things, no debate necessary, end of the story. It seems just the opposite is true. Everyone has scientific evidence authenticated by their favorite scientist, yet no agreement is forthcoming on a single point. Okay, maybe that’s a slight exaggeration, but the fact is, science isn’t working to solve this issue so allow me to push science to the back of the bus for a minute.
    I’m going to dare to use just plain old common sense, if that’s not too old school for you guys. One thing that jumped out at me as I pondered this conundrum was a question that was asked of one of the astronauts( I’m sorry,..I’ve forgotten which one but it’s easy to find ) that went to the moon. He was asked how they were able to travel safely through the Van Allen belts and if they were adversely affected in any way by the radiation. Now, is it fair to say that these astronauts would be very intelligent in general and very well versed on the mission and all things related? I believe that’s a fair statement. The astronaut answered by saying, ‘ now I’m not sure if we were out far enough to encounter them’.
    In other words, one of the astronauts that walked on the moon wasn’t familiar with the Van Allen belts, at least not enough to know their location and whether or not they were a factor to be considered on his voyage to the moon. Given his hesitation and the look on his face as he answered the question, I’m not sure if he knew what the Van Allen belts were. At any rate, he clearly admitted not knowing if they passed through the belts on their journey to the moon. Here’s my assessment of that fact; if well trained, highly educated astronauts were actually embarking on a mission to travel to the moon and then return to earth, I can’t believe that any of the chosen astronauts would be unfamiliar with an issue of that magnitude. That’s my opinion, and I think you have some fancy double talking to do if you try to make an excuse for his ignorance on this issue.
    The other observation I have is regarding a video showing the space craft taking off from the Moon to return to Earth. If you haven’t seen it you really should take a look. In my 12th grade opinion ( I was 17th in a class of 500,….so there …), the lift off I watched was about what you would expect from a kindergarten science project. It was absolutely hilarious. The ‘craft’ lifted straight up, kind of jerking around, then after hovering for a second, it tilted about 20 degrees to one side, then took off ‘like a rocket’. If what I saw is authentic, I’ll take all the sarcasm you give me. I refuse to believe it’s authentic however, and I’m not very worried about being proven wrong………..

  191. Eder says:

    The moonlanding was obviously faked.. all one has to do is view the footage and photographs..
    I can’t believe that intelligent people are still fooled by one of – if not the biggest lie in history.

    • Stevie says:

      Eder – There were 6 moon landings dumbass. Sure makes a lot of sense to fake it 6 times.
      Which of the 8000+ photos and tens of hours of video footage was faked then? Oh yeah – all of it of course. Idiot..

      christoph – Ever heard of paragraphs? Nice gish gallop crap – every single point in your diatribe of shit can be debunked by a six year old. Incidentally, why would Von Braun, a rocket, scientist go to Antartica to collect moon rocks? Might not have it been wiser to send a geologist? idiot.

      Mark Sauer – So lets forget the whole of science and just rely on your sole intuition. Genius – why didn’t I think of that? Idiot.

      • An unfortunate relapsing into the vernacular there Stevie. Or – as my Dad would drum into me – the more insulting the language the weaker the argument. Shame – you’d been doing so well too.

      • Stevie says:

        Chris Cooke – Had the misfortune to click on your FB link. You really are one fucked up dude. My sympathy to your family – idiot.

      • See Stevie? That’s exactly what I’m talking about. Start losing the argument and off you go into foul language, personal diatribe and even trying to divert the subject. Interesting ……..those are also the very characteristics of internet trolls. Don’t tell me NASA has really got that worried???

      • Nick says:

        When did Stevie start losing the argument? Everything he said is true- you have no actual evidence. Every comment detailing how the landings were faked involve heavy use of pseudoscience, misinformation, or a lack of understanding of how things actually work. I actually went through and debunked every piece of “evidence” you had- and did so as nice as possible at the request of other people here- and you’re still babbling on about how the moon landing is fake? Is it that you don’t read my comments, you can’t comprehend things that go against your beliefs, or that your mind just blurs out any words that you don’t want to see?
        Stevie isn’t resorting to insults ’cause he is losing the argument (which he isn’t); he’s resorting to insults ’cause you’re not listening to him. Your skull is too thick. It’s comparable to talking to a wall, honestly. I can admit when I’m wrong. I can see both sides of an argument. Can you?