Lunar landing hoax, facts that prove we haven't left the earths atmosphere.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
Going to chemicals means you're scraping for grip
You may as well be that iron filing as you also conduct electricity and you're subject to requiring your presence to be within the magnetosphere for any rational order in your life . So is any potential moon-goer , spacesuit or not : concerning isn' t it .

a reply to: ZIPMATT

Still waiting for that evidence that our biology can't function outside your arbitrarily defined limit.

originally posted by: ZIPMATT
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
Going to chemicals means you're scraping for grip
You may as well be that iron filing as you also conduct electricity and you're subject to requiring your presence to be within the magnetosphere for any rational order in your life . So is any potential moon-goer , spacesuit or not : concerning isn' t it .

I don't understand what the fact that iron conducts electricity has specifically to do with iron filings reacting to a magnet. Copper, aluminum, and silver are all great conductor of electricity (better than iron), but they are not attracted to magnets.

The electrical forces that allow a body to operate work by the exchange of ions, not due to magnetism. So the iron filings analogy is an extremely poor one.

Granted, iron is important to the body, because it is the iron in hemoglobin in our blood that bonds with oxygen and carries that oxygen to all of our cells. However, the bond between the oxygen and the hydrogen is not magnetic, but due to ions. The same goes for the potassium and sodium reactions that help create electrical impulses in our muscles. The, too, are due to the exchange of ions, not magnetism.

What if everything was lined with lead? Would that help?

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Are you trying to get us to do the work of scouring the net for that evidence when its apparent that it's been thoroughly stripped ?

For one thing we're crossing over into the territory of environmental medicine studies which found that microwaves , 5G etc , are playing havoc with our electrical systems .
and for the other, useless explanations of the magnetosphere don't fully inform of its necessary presence other than to shield from solar radiation .
That a phenomena can cause several effects , or have multiple attributes is thrown to the wind on google explanations of the magnetosphere , therefore there's bypassing of inconvenient facts

a reply to: JourneymanWelder

That would make it worse. Radiation in space isn't the same as on earth. It's a lot more energetic, so if you put dense materials, like lead(totally ignoring the fact that it's heavy as hell), then you get a lot more ionizing radiation. You need light materials that don't have a lot of density to them.

a reply to: ZIPMATT

So you have no evidence for your bogus theory then?

originally posted by: JourneymanWelder
What if everything was lined with lead? Would that help?

Lead is great for EM radiation, but it is bad for cosmic radiation.

EM radiation, such as X-rays (photons of energy, which is the definition of EM radiation) is very different from Cosmic radiation, which is made of charged particles of matter, mostly protons.

When the matter particles of cosmic radiation with a lot of kinetic energy strike a big heavy atom, such as a lead atom, it slows down. Because of the conservation of energy, the slow down/reduction of kinetic energy results in energy being given off (the higher kinetic energy that the particle had before has to go somewhere), and that energy given off is in the form on a photon with X-ray energies (so X-rays are given off). This continues as the cosmic ray particle keeps going through the lead, creating even more X-ray radiation that comes out the other side of the lead.

This is sometimes called "braking radiation" or Bremsstrahlung.

So while lead is great for protecting X-ray technicians, a better material for protecting people against cosmic particle radiation is something fibrous or even some plastics. Water also makes a good shield against cosmic rays. Polyethylene plastics and water are both good because of their high hydrogen content.

originally posted by: ZIPMATT
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Ion exchange is affected by electric and magnetism

They are not specifically dependent on magnetism.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Whatever . I get that you get what I mean .

Uri Gregarin was not the first man in space , the first "men in space" came back dead . Even Gregarin was nearly overcome , blacking out and describing all kinds of bodily disorders at full height . Can't link or quote but it'll be somewhere

originally posted by: ZIPMATT
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Whatever . I get that you get what I mean .

Uri Gregarin was not the first man in space , the first "men in space" came back dead . Even Gregarin was nearly overcome , blacking out and describing all kinds of bodily disorders at full height . Can't link or quote but it'll be somewhere

Good thing they learned a thing or two from trailblazers like Gagarin.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: maxzen2004

On ATS for a decade and only now you believe we never made it to the moon? What took you so long.

Basically the notion that man never landed on the moon has been a conspiracy theory since the 70s when they made that Capricorn One movie.

Were thousands of people sworn to secrecy? Since that time, most of those people have gotten old and near natural death so where are the oldsters coming forth with proclamations in this day and age of disclosing government cover ups.

Faking a moon landing is one thing but covering it up for 50 years is even harder to believe.

Nobody ever said thousands covered it up. Those who knew Kubrick who have made comments say that only the head of NASA, Kubrick, the astronauts, and a computer programmer knew with an assistant or two working under them. They can stock a ship, they can bring a crew in for monitoring, they can have astronauts on a radio back and forth. Doesn't mean they actually went to the moon and did not simply run a simulation program.

I just can't fathom why if they openly admitted that apollo 16 was faked (after amateur satellite watchers, about 17 I think, got the live NASA feed of the astronauts taking the very first picture of earth and doing it flying over the ocean then putting a cut out in the window to make a blue sphere and laughing about it as they did, NASA had no choice to admit ok the picture is faked the footage is legit. people may not get that that also means the whole mission was fake unless you can explain how five or six hours later the men went on live television broadcast from the moon, a week long flight from planet earth) then why on earth would people believe the others were real?

Events in history never come with a feeling among many people that they doubt the event actually took place. So why is it that only a handful of events all linked to the same overall group of people and brotherhood's are suddenly the anomalies of history where there is evidence of holes and a feeling of BS?

originally posted by: AlexandrosTheGreat

I just can't fathom why if they openly admitted that apollo 16 was faked (after amateur satellite watchers, about 17 I think, got the live NASA feed of the astronauts taking the very first picture of earth and doing it flying over the ocean then putting a cut out in the window to make a blue sphere and laughing about it as they did, NASA had no choice to admit ok the picture is faked the footage is legit. people may not get that that also means the whole mission was fake unless you can explain how five or six hours later the men went on live television broadcast from the moon, a week long flight from planet earth) then why on earth would people believe the others were real?

No such thing happened.

No-one has ever openly admitted Apollo 16 (or 11, as I suspect you mean) was faked, or any of the others. A small number of people making a nice living out of it claim that the missions were faked by preaching to the gullible.

It has been claimed that a fake cut out of Earth was used in a live broadcast of Apollo 11. The slight problem with that is that the 'cut out' actually showed Earth, in colour, exactly as it should have been at the time of the broadcast (and each subsequent broadcast) right down to the last cloud - specifically the appearance of Hurricane Bernice.

NASA has made no such 'admission' the footage was being faked. They did not make live broadcasts '5 or 6 hours later' from the moon. It does not take a week to get there, ore like 3 days.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Yeah -- I'm not sure what he is referring to about Apollo 16, but as far as I know, the hoax believer's story about the cut-outs in the Command Module windows was about Apollo 11, not Apollo 16. There are some people who say the Apollo 16 images of Earth look doctored, but that's a different thing altogether.

As for the Apollo 11 cut-out theory, that comes from a hoax-believers video that claims it had "leaked footage" of the astronauts on their way to the moon showing the Earth in the window of the Command module as seen from LEO (Low Earth Orbit) as just a cut-out and not the entire earth seen from far away.

Here is the video purported to be their "smoking gun" faked footage (a video put together by hoax-pusher Bart Sibrel):


However, a few things are wrong with that. First of all, it was not "classified footage sent to them by mistake". It was a publicly available film that had been publicly available for years.

Secondly, that video (conveniently) cherry-picked just the parts that support their stories, but ignore the parts that show that the earth was small and far away, like we can see in the video below.

In this video below -- which, funny enough, is ALSO from a hoax believer, Jarrah White -- you can see some of the parts missing from the video above, parts that make it obviously clear that they did NOT fake if by showing the Earth as seen from LEO in the window with a stencil cut-out.

In the description to this second video, Jarrah White mentions a bunch of stuff that attempts to debunk the debunkers, but none of his arguments hold water. And in fact (as I mentioned) his video actually makes it more clear to me that it was NOT faked.....

.....Starting at about the 5:55 mark and again at the 7:15 mark, we can see that the entire Earth is truly small and far away, and we can also see the edge of the window This debunks Sibrel's and White's allegations.:


The only reason I can think of that the hoax believers decided to cherry pick and edit that first video was to be intentionally misleading and intentionally disingenuous -- i.e., the people pushing the idea that Apollo was a hoax were intentionally lying.

originally posted by: maxzen2004
Wrong, NASA BS.

a reply to: Bhadhidar

ever hear of..GASP thermal shielding INSIDE the fairing that protected the Lunar module? Not everything is on a blueprint either. Cant have the russians stealing their info back then with full complete blueprints.


Oh here is the shielding information for the Lunar module. home.earthlink.net...

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: maxzen2004
Wrong, NASA BS.

a reply to: Bhadhidar

Not everything is on a blueprint either. Cant have the russians stealing their info back then with full complete blueprints.

His blueprint claim doesn't make sense because he says his blueprint shows a metal alloy heat shield. In reality, the CM heat shield was epoxy resin. I'm not sure what blueprint he has, but it isn't the Apollo CM.

no no no.....to the N asayers

Let a seasoned pilot and trained observer chime in

Just like the carwash on Mars for the rovers dust, why do we look for dust on the liners lander feet and get exactly squat!!

a reply to: maxzen2004

I am not sure of this , I remember one of the experiments done by the astronauts was to put a reflector on the moon . An earth based laser was used to target the reflector . I think it was done more than once to calculate how far the moon is moving away from earth . If my memory is right someone would have to put the reflector there . just saying

originally posted by: GBP/JPY

no no no.....to the N asayers

Let a seasoned pilot and trained observer chime in

Just like the carwash on Mars for the rivers dust, why do we look for dust on the liners lander feet and get exactly squat!!

Because there is no atmosphere in which the dust to billow in a suspended cloud and slowly fall back.

In addition the engines were shut down while the LM was not yet ion the surface. Any dust left that had not already been pushed aside as the LM was descending would have then fell back to the surface (along a ballistic path) upon engine shut down.

In the no-atmosphere environment, there would only be very little dust that would make it onto the pads.