I thought we went to the moon....until I viewed these videos

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Not only that but they appear to be pullng some sort of object off of the window which is clearly seen. The whole thing looks fishy but the damage control that NASA applies to their Apollo forgery is second to none. People free of bias and cognitive dissonance can see that Apollo may have been a production. Others, well, get ready to be insulted for daring to question mankind's greatest acheivment that nobody has ever come close to recreating even with exponential technological advantages. It's as if the Apollo record never happened because the data is basically ignored when deep space travel is concerned.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Lad, I think you just got owned.

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
a reply to: Greathouse
So the Orion missions will spend more time in the Van Allen belts then? What would be the purpose of that if it could be dangerous to humans and equipment? Is the reward worth the risk?

Solar electric propulsion is more efficient than chemical rockets; we can get to Mars using less fuel than we could with chemical engines, so the payload mass requirement is smaller, so we can actually get to Mars with a given launcher and a given number of launches which would have required a much larger launcher and/or more launches to reach Mars with a chemical engine. Nevermind the fuel needed to get back home again.

onebigmonkey....I went to your profile and I didn't see any qualifications to out and out dismiss the notion that we did NOT go to the moon....maybe you can enlighten us other members as to your dismissive attitude toward this supposed conspiracy....I say this as someone who is skeptical to conspiracies in general, but, you can't deny the ones already proven and admitted to....for example:
1...gulf of Tonkin
2..watergate
3...Iran-contra
all 3 of those just in my lifetime, and all done by the highest leadership in our country

a reply to: bobbypurify

You can search it yourself there are claims both ways I tried to supply some proof. But honestly does it eally matter to you anyway? I bet you could go to the moon tomorrow and come back but still be so married to your idea you will deny it.

This subjects really a very big bore. I seldom get involved in it anymore just every now and then I post that letter.

I had had another thought a while back which seemed to indicate that earthlings were somehow "banned" from the moon.

And this had to do with asteroid mining.

As we know the current theory of the formation of the moon was that some large celestial object collided with the earth a billion or so years after its formation, and the resulting collision threw a huge amount of earth material into space which ended up coalescing into the moon and taking up orbit. Hence the moon has all of the elements and minerals the earth does, this follows logically from this theory, and if this were not the case this theory would be invalid, but it is generally accepted.

However, given that the moon has all the elements and most of the minerals of earth, many well-regarded organizations have proposed asteroid mining.

Question, would it be easier to rendezvous with a small distant object traveling at a great speed relative to earth, or a close huge object that is on the same solar orbit? The latter obviously, yet asteroid mining has been promoted in the news over the past few years, whereas no one discusses mining on the moon?

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Hear the music in the background in the second video? That music is what I call "mystery music". Twilight Zone used to use that kind of stuff to set the tone for some of it's shows. Actually, that very music I think may have been used in TZ. My point being that the music sets the tone of the video. It enhances a state of wonderment and questioning in the viewer. It opens us up to suggestion. I always listen to the music in videos like this. It is the same technique used in most of our movies. Music to tell us when to be sad and when to be joyous, proud, patriotic etc.

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
a reply to: onebigmonkey
Also, if you watch the video from about 5 mins in onward it is pretty obvious that only a small portion of the earth is being filmed through a hole in the craft, can you deny that?

Actually it's obvious that that is NOT the case, if you watch the actual footage in its entirety. In fact it could not have been faked in the manner you describe for a variety of reasons. The weather patterns match the weather on earth that day, the image of earth does NOT get cut off until the camera nears the edge of the spacecraft window itself; that would NOT cut it off like that if it was just a small hole in a cutout in the middle of the window.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

I believe we went to the Moon. I also believe that some of the footage was edited and possibly even replaced at a later date, because there were things on it that could have caused a worldwide panic, were it to have been shown in its entirety. Yes, we were lied to...but not about traveling to and landing on the Moon.

a reply to: Greathouse


I was at Wikipedia reading the Van Allen Belt theory. The proof the astronauts survived was because some developed Cataracts. That seemed strange and by that logic my mother / my father in law and my sister could all say theyl been to the moon as they all developed cataracts at a young age.


So I started viewing the history and here it is.

How the Moon Landing Van Allen Belts Shill Story Progressed

The Conspiracy Argument
The radiation from passing through the van Allen radiation belt is fatal.

Initially we had sophisticated Space suits. This is the official statement originally provided by NASA to Russia when they asked.

By December 2002 the astronauts were protected by the metal hull of the space ship and the moon is a long way from the radiation belts.

In December 2003 We relised they actually had to fly through the belts so they decided the time to get through the belts was only 30 minutes

In December 2004 everyone had overstated the radiation affects.

By December 2005 We lost the sophisticated space suit theory. Maybe someone tested them. So they decided the radiation levels only equaled a chest xray and some astronauts had developed cataracts proving they had been to the moon.

Now in 2006 They were navigating the ship on a safe course around the belts going through the thinnest parts but we still don't know how they measured that path yet. The radiation levels are now equivalent to living at Sea level ?? for 3 years.

December 2007 not much happend to improve the theory we were better at navigating and still had sophisticated space suits.

In December 2008 An amazing thing happened The Hulls are now made of Aluminum so they were lite weight and radiation proof and the now once again deadly radiation is now shielded by thin aluminum.

December 2009 some smart person did the math it wasn't 30 minutes but 4 hours to pass through the belts. Not sure if this one way or 2 hours there and 2 hours back. Now armed with the new Aluminum hulls they traversed the radiation was kept at bay via the special secret low radiation path in 4 Hours (I guess NASA new that it was not 30 minutes all along since they created the special secret path through). We were no longer getting a chest XRAY or living at Sea level we were now working in a nuclear energy industry for a year (not sure where perhaps inside a fusion reactor )

December 2010 to Today Apart from minor tweaks they are proud of their aluminum shielding idea, losing the space suits and taking 4 hours navigating around the safest path to only get the exposure of working in a nuclear power plant for a year with side affects of cataracts.

lunaticoutpost.com...


So, the arguments have been altered. Shouldn't this have all been settled in 1969? Why has the argument changed so much? And, combine with this that nobody since has officially recorded travel into the belts (outside of the SAA occassionally) and it gets fishy. Oh, then combine it with the present challenges and the ignoring of what we did with a thin aluminum hull supposedly and it gets super ridiculous. Almost like damage control has been engaged.

originally posted by: jimmyx
onebigmonkey....I went to your profile and I didn't see any qualifications to out and out dismiss the notion that we did NOT go to the moon....maybe you can enlighten us other members as to your dismissive attitude toward this supposed conspiracy....I say this as someone who is skeptical to conspiracies in general, but, you can't deny the ones already proven and admitted to....for example:
1...gulf of Tonkin
2..watergate
3...Iran-contra
all 3 of those just in my lifetime, and all done by the highest leadership in our country

Non-sequitur. Just because there are REAL conspiracies involving the military and government leaders it does not follow that an independently verified event like Apollo did not happen. If you say it does then you can just as easily dismiss other very real and verified space programs as well. For example,
Gulf of tonkin, therefore, the space shuttle was a hoax...
...therefore, ISS is a hoax...
...therefore, Orion EFT-1 was a hoax...
...therefore...

a reply to: bobbypurify

Your proof of a hoax is lunaticoutpost? Really? According to that website, I am personally involved in a criminal conspiracy to fake the existence of a telescope in Florida. Yeah, BS. The arguments haven't been "altered," the idiots on lunaticoutpost are just ignorant.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE


The best way for anyone to get information about Dr. James Van Allen. Is to find the 1959 time magazine on him. Throughout that article he he states the same stance in 1959 in a completely black and white opinion. He discusses human travel through the belt long before Apollo was even thought of.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Lad, I think you just got owned.

Is that what ATS is to you, about proving people right or wrong, making them feel bad about their questions or mistakes? Do you realize proving others wrong or yourself right is just ego? I think that attitude is kind of high-schoolish.

I would like to think ATS is the kind of place where people are not afraid to ask questions, not afraid to question the establishment.

For that is how lies are exposed, and usually how science is advanced.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the most discoveries, is not "'eureka"' but "That's funny.."
Asimov

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: Greathouse

Got any, you know, proof that Mr. Van Allen signed that? is there a signature from him that we can have professionally matched to that email?

Dr. Van Allen's signature is clearly on the letter.

a reply to: ngchunter

Since you're so quick to hand out fallacy badges, here's yours: Ad Hom Merit Badge

It's just some poster's blog about studying how the arguments have changed from Wikipedia and he linked the archives.

Of course, nothing from officialdom will talk about Apollo in a critical manner. That's taboo.

a reply to: bobbypurify

The other thing what were they flying in

a reply to: ngchunter

Can you match it professionally to another signature of his? Is he on video claiming he exchanged email with Windley? I'm being serious because this wouldn't work the other way around. You'd demand proof from me if I presented an email with a signature agreeing from JVA claiming we couldn't traverse the belts.

a reply to: bobbypurify

Wow great sources???? A Troll blog linked to a wiki article specifically titled "Moon landing conspiracy theories".


No you'll have to do better than that please.