Faked Moon Landing - Amazing Documentary

reply to post by Phage


Since you are here, tell me about the radiation.
How would it affect the astronauts and their equipement?

reply to post by intergalactic fire

That's an awfully broad question. But you know, all this stuff has been covered. Over, and over, and over again.
The astronauts were provided sufficient protection for the short term radiation they were exposed to. The transit of the Van Allen belts was calculated to both minimize the time in the belts and to transverse the regions with the least radiation. Yes, there was a risk of solar activity producing dangerous levels of radiation however there were contingency plans for such events and no such events occurred during any of the missions.

Textreply to post by thegagefather
Thanks for posting this ! I
_javascript:icon('')
Most fascinating topic .. and of course the big question .. (i havent seen this doc yet) ... WHY HAVENT WE BEEN BACK ???? and of course peolple say 'because we already been there!'

Really .. would send a Mars rover to Mars before you had a good working Moon rover remote on the moon ?? maybe they already have but that one wasn't glamorous and so not public or perhaps up to nefarious H3 mining operations ! ha ....

reply to post by Phage


Haven't you heard "deny evidence" took the place of "deny ignorance"

reply to post by Phage


So they were lucky, 9 missions, almost 3 months in space during solar maximum.
Good timing i guess

there was a REALLLLLLY good documentary with basket balls in it showing how far away the moon really is, and how no one since the supposed trip has even gone like 0.08% that far.... it was just so logical... I haven't been able to find it since!

reply to post by intergalactic fire

Saying "3 months in space" is not the same as saying "a series of 1 week (about) missions over several years". The chances of a severe event occurring on any particular mission were slight.

It was a calculated risk, not blind luck. The Sun was monitored. There were contingency plans.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

to me the perfection in controlling the camera from Earth with the radio delay of some 1.3 sec was too good to be true...



i refer mostly to exact moment the camera pans up...and at the end of the clip the camera adjusts accordingly to the lunar module

reply to post by Phage


A min. of 7 and max. of 13 days.
IMaybe it was calculated, but i still go for 'luck'.
You know how unpredictable a CME can be.

I came upon this docu



Skip to 13:40 where Alan Bean is questioned on the radiation belt.
He didn't even know he went through??
After some chit chat he changes his story and talkes about these flashes he saw when he closed his eyes and payed good attention??
Then he changes again and said he didn't saw them(lights) on our mission because it wasn't discovered yet??
The discovery of the VAB dates back to 1958

What are they teaching these guys at NASA??

REally, this guy is hilarious

reply to post by heineken

Not that hard to do with practice, they knew the timing after all. But you notice he lost track of it for a while.

With the punch button command arrangement and a 3 to 4 second time delay, their command sequence had to be totally preplanned. I had worked with Ed Fendell for the Apollo 17 liftoff to get it exactly right for a long tracking shot. At liftoff, the action was perfect, but soon the image of the ascending capsule drifted out at the top of the frame. Ed was furious that, after all the calculations, we missed the mark. It was discovered later that the crew had parked the Rover buggy closer to the Lunar Module than was prescribed by mission plan, and the vertical tilting of the camera was too slow.

www.ehartwell.com...

reply to post by intergalactic fire

You know how unpredictable a CME can be.

CMEs are really not a problem (not much hard radiation and days before they arrive). Proton events would be. Proton events are much more rare. The chances of such an event occurring during any particular mission were slight.


Nowhere does Bean say he didn't know about the Van Allen belts. He's talking about the flashes. No one knew about the visual effects of cosmic radiation.

You've fallen for Bart Sibrel's drivel.

reply to post by Phage


I havent fallen for nobody.
I didn't said he dont know the VAB, i am sure he is aware of it. But he don't deems to know much about it.
Only after the reporter starts talking about that particular shuttle mission and those lightflashes.
Maybe at the time he didn't knew what it was, but you would think after 40 years he knows.
But with the first question if he experienced something strange from the VAB he says, No, i am not sure we went far enough out to encounter the VAB.

And what about this Bart? Does he manipulate his interviews?

reply to post by intergalactic fire

Sibrel selectively edits interviews and videos. He provides false and misleading information and the narration is designed to guide the viewers thoughts rather than provide information

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by heineken

 

Not that hard to do with practice, they knew the timing after all. But you notice he lost track of it for a while.

With the punch button command arrangement and a 3 to 4 second time delay, their command sequence had to be totally preplanned. I had worked with Ed Fendell for the Apollo 17 liftoff to get it exactly right for a long tracking shot. At liftoff, the action was perfect, but soon the image of the ascending capsule drifted out at the top of the frame. Ed was furious that, after all the calculations, we missed the mark. It was discovered later that the crew had parked the Rover buggy closer to the Lunar Module than was prescribed by mission plan, and the vertical tilting of the camera was too slow.

www.ehartwell.com...

yes but are you aware they failed every time they tried it before

reply to post by heineken

There were three times it was done.

On Apollo 15 the vertical panning motor burned out so the practice didn't matter.


On Apollo 16 the lander was not parked in the correct location so the tracking wasn't a good as it was on 17 but it still got the liftoff.


On Apollo 17 they did a better job, but not perfect.

What's your point?

This video debunks the OPs (not directly)

The Truth Behind The Moon Landings

If you believe the moon landings are a haox, you might as well believe you're eating albino broccoli.

one for the moon hoaxers to debunk the hammer and feather drop, the pendulum
and the mirror

reply to post by denver22


Ummmm, so a feather weighs the same as a hammer on the moon, but the astronauts are so "light" they kinda float????

Makes no logical sense to me....

Originally posted by mellisamouse
reply to post by denver22

 

Ummmm, so a feather weighs the same as a hammer on the moon, but the astronauts are so "light" they kinda float????

Makes no logical sense to me....

Because they were essentially in a vacuum, there was no air resistance and the feather fell at the same rate as the hammer, as Galileo had concluded hundreds of years before - all objects released together fall at the same rate regardless of mass

A (a 1.32-kg aluminum geological hammer) and a light object (a 0.03-kg falcon feather) were released simultaneously from approximately the same height (approximately 1.6 m) and were allowed to fall to the surface. Within the accuracy of the simultaneous release, the objects were observed to undergo the same acceleration and strike the lunar surface simultaneously, which was a result predicted by well-established theory
by galileo all them years ago.

p.s hope that helps