With how they rushed and skipped protocol, all Apollo missions. Many of the Gemini missions are plagued with proven false images and are also extremely likely propaganda as well.

Would you like to learn more? Jarrah White, YouTube.

So when you say you doubt all Apollo missions, what do you mean? which aspects of these missions do you believe are fake?

Which Gemini missions have proven 'false images'? what do these alleged 'false images' concern?

Id like to hear more from you, and your personal understanding and beliefs.

Its kinda like Star Wars and Star Trek. None of the episodes are any more fake than the others.

We dont have the technology to go to thw moon today, and we didnt have the technology to go to the moon 40 years ago

We dont have the technology to go to thw moon today

OK. Well, you were close.

Yes, the Apollo Missions were fake.

But we def have the technology to go to any planet we want. Our solar system, or not.

The moon is hollow, we have a base inside. We also have a base inside Mars. Barry Soetoro has been there.

Stewart Swerdlow and Mark Richards could tell you more.

We didn't have the technology then? What about the Saturn V rocket, do you think it did not perform as advertised, or what are you saying?

We dont have the capability to send men to the moon and back in the present day because A) we don't have a working rocket powerful enough (Saturn V was retired), and B) because sufficient funding has not been made available to the appropriate agencies for the development of a contemporary moon mission and appropriate launcher, though there are a few launchers in development on the near horizon like (China) Long March 9, (USA) SLS/Orion, and (USA SpaceX) BFR/MCT...

You may want to research The Montauk Project.

Space/Time Travel is trivial now.

Good luck.

This.

I'm running out the door on an errand. When I return.

In the interim, YT MookFaker.

Im still waiting for your explanation; I dont intend to read a whole bunch of linked websites or watch long videos... if I wanted to do these things I could have googled them myself, what Id really like is to hear from people like you, explaining your beliefs in your own words and answering questions to clarify where appropriate.

I used to be of the opinion that perhaps some of the footage was faked, but that we "definitely went". Why did I think we definitely went? I think perhaps it was just because it was easier to swallow.

I looked into it again recently, and particularly on reading this entertaining and highly informative chronicle "Wagging the Moondoggie"

It's really long (13 parts) and the HTML is shit, but I found it a really worthwhile read. It covers so many inexplicable anomalies about all the missions that by the end, one is left feeling like there's no hope to continue believing the official story.

Check this one out too, it's shorter but no less intriguing. There is tons of information out there on this.

http://www.serendipity.li/more/myth_of_apollo.htm

I've never looked into the Lunar landings, but I've heard that Russian scientists at the time believed it to be impossible because of inadequate radiation shielding.

But this recent story caught my attention:

Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon, secretly took home a bag of mementos from the mission including the camera used to film his "one small step" and the planting of the US flag on the lunar surface.

The white cloth storage bag itself was known as a "McDivitt purse" and, along with its contents, was supposed to have been left in the Eagle lunar module and destroyed.

It was not unusual for astronauts to keep small surplus pieces of equipment from their missions as personal mementos.

Experts have surmised that Armstrong decided to take the camera and other objects home for sentimental reasons.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11401781/Neil-Armstrongs-widow-discovers-moon-camera-in-cupboard.html

I'm not pretending this is 'smoking gun' evidence of anything, but isn't that a little funny?

Funny how? please connect the dots for me.

No I hate explaining jokes. But do you know anything about how the Astronauts survived exposure to the Moon's radiation belt?

The van Allen belts. External to the protective layers of the Earth. The heat at such altitudes/space is unbelievably hot. The noon, in the sun was also unbelieveably hot. Using the air cooling tech they claimed to have used doesn't begin to explain how hot/cold reactions could have occurred where water fizzles and dissipates. Evaporation of water in a vacuum? This doesn't provide adequate cooling whatsoever. The math and science doesn't add up. Their heaters for the trip the 290k miles makes a little sense. Another great topic is how they suited up to enter the moon's maurina. Using the same cool/hot management utkilites.

What sealed it for me, and mind you, I want you to learn what you believe to be real I'm your own. Of your own free will. The interior of the craft physically could not allow suit up, egress, and reentry for the boots in the wet dust time.

With all of the fatal proveable errors, having done nothing above low earth since, and knowing now we're away more time than they originally invested to make it, for us to now make it.

Why do they worship the timecube Satan? Is space real? Are planets Real. With the moon the way it is, we don't have a single photograph of any probe turning out from to earth to captue both the earth and the moon in the same shot. Why wouldn't they simply snap a pic? We've only ever seen composities. again, why?

Thermal conduction and radiation in a vacuum don't work the way you seem to think they do... solar radiation is conducted into objects in vacuum so inefficiently that they will always get colder unless they are generating it from their own sources, but they also lose heat very slowly depending on the mechanisms available for thermal radiation, which is why astronauts inside their highly insulated suits require active heat removal systems to prevent them from cooking in their own built-up body heat.

Im not sure what you mean about the interior of the craft (which one) not allowing suitup, egress and reentry? perhaps you can clarify what you mean.

I cant parse your third paragraph at all.

Timecube, Satan, what?

I dont understand your point about photographic evidence... do you think the moon doesn't exist?

Sounds like he believes in the moon, but not in the Earth.

Food for thought.

That user is just a troll who verbally attacks anyone who calls him out on it. Just saying.

Why do they worship the timecube Satan? Is space real? Are planets Real

Gene Ray, is that you?

(PS - I love you)

Wrong timecube, but close. This gets far deeper than many could ever handle.

I'm listening. I have heard Jordan Maxwell discuss a timecube.

We'll get back to Gene Ray later. Tell me about your timecube.

(Is Gene Ray a mossad disinfo agent?)

He's a man with a humanist theory on time. Saturn is the God of the temporal and time. A truly meaningless concept. The elite worship Saturnus/Satan. Very intriquing.

Time for some self development. Search Saturn's time cube.

Did you have a stroke?

Are you asking me if I have seen the hexagon (which is a 2 dimensional representation of a three dimensional cube) on the pole of Saturn?

I've seen it.

Now tell me about this timecube. Tell me in English though.

Sounds kind of like a Jaden Smith quote to me ;)

They survived because its not actually very dangerous, especially for such a short trip.

Some people hear 'radiation' and they freak out because they dont understand that only certain types and certain doses of radiation are harmful.

Unless there's major sunspot activity or a CME, worst case scenario for astronauts outside Earth's magnetic field is a tiny increase in the risk of developing cancer, which was already fairly low for any Apollo astronauts given the stringent requirements concerning their health and physical fitness.

I know what radiation is, but maybe I'm mistaken in believing that the Moon has its own radiation belt -- or does it? Has it been mapped?

But as far as I understand the Earth's radiation belt is very dangerous, and that seemed to present a problem. http://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s2ch3.htm

The first line of the summary for the link you provided reads as follows:

"Radiation was not an operational problem during the Apollo Program. Doses received by the crewmen of Apollo missions 7 through 17 were small because no major solar-particle events occurred during those missions. One small event was detected by a radiation sensor outside the Apollo 12 spacecraft, but no increase in radiation dose to the crewmen inside the spacecraft was detected."

I was more interested in a discussion about the theoretical basis of it. I understand that it was not an operational problem, as claimed by NASA, but it certainly represented a theoretical problem before the Lunar missions and I'm just curious how intense the radiation belt is and what sort of shielding was used to protect the astronauts and the craft as they exited the earth's belt and entered the Moon's (if it has one, I imagine it does).

Earth's moon has a very weak magnetic field, but its not a dipolar magnetic field such as the one which generates Earth's magnetosphere.

The only planets besides Earth that have a magnetosphere are the gas giants, and the only moon in the solar system that has a dipolar magnetic field is Jupiter's moon Ganymede, though it is well within Jupiter's much stronger magnetosphere so it doesnt have Earth's characteristic interaction with solar particles.

The Command Module and Lunar Expedition Module offered sufficient protection from solar radiation (and that of the Earth's van-allen radiation belts) to its occupants from its aluminium hull.

The van Allen rads were so high, they broke shielded geigercounters. something massive thermonuclear weapons didn't to.

The van Allen rads were so high, they broke shielded geigercounters.

What's your source for this information?

J Van Allen's testing, pre manned space flight.

Google.

Im sure the VA radiation belts would have been a bad place to hang around in, but that's not what happened on the Apollo missions; the trajectory taken through the belts was relatively brief to deliberately limit radiation exposure - read here: http://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/Algebra1/3Page7.pdf - a lethal radiation dose is 300 rads in 1 hour, but the astronauts were exposed to only 2 rads over 6 days, and even outside the craft where it was unshielded, the trip through the VA radiation belts only involved exposure to 11.4 rads in under 1 hour.

Additionally, Dr. James Van Allen has personally refuted claims that the radiation exposure to the astronauts during the Apollo missions would have been fatal; http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html

Seems like NASA spent plenty of time worrying about the Van Allen Belt issue

But ultimately it wasn't an issue, because they didn't just park in one and have a fucking picnic. They got through as fast as they possibly could, and got away with a comparatively light dose.

You like dots?

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/luna/esp_luna_16.htm

How you like them dots?

Yes, those are more unconnected data points.

I don't see what significance you intend I should confer from them, perhaps you can explain?

You can't handle the truth

You should look into it my friend, you will be surprised by what you find I suspect.

Here and here are two good places to start.

Excellent, thank you.

I've got one for you, and this goes for all Apollo missions.

How is it possible that there's no time lag between mission control speaking and one of the astronaut's speaking? The Apollo craft was supposed to have been well over 220,000 miles away. Assuming speed of light travel (around 186,000 mile per second), the radio waves carrying the sound should have taken about 1.25 seconds to reach the Moon, and then a reply from the astronaut would take the same time to come back. There should therefore be a definite, obvious, even annoying pause of over 2 seconds between Mission Control speaking and an astronaut replying. But there isn't. The only pauses are natural pauses, while someone thinks or is distracted. Most of the time the two groups are speaking in real time with no lag whatsoever.

Explain to me how that's possible.

And all through these videos, at least some of them, the Lunar Module's descent engine is supposedly running at near full throttle in the background yet can't be heard on any of the recordings. Again, how is that possible?

It likely you've only watched / heard edited clips with the delays removed... if the audio were faked, wouldnt it have been recorded with pauses included? its not like the delay due to distance wasnt expected by NASA, and explained contemporaneously to the general public.

Im not sure why you expect the LM's engine to be audible on the inside of the cabin... a rocket engine acting on a vacuum doesnt produce noise, because sound waves cant promulgate through a vacuum.

Just because there's a vacuum outside the ship, it's not simply the interaction of the expelled gas in air that produces sound on account of turbulence, it's the high-velocity expulsion of gas through the rocket that creates the sound "inside" the plume of escaping gas. Yes, you wouldn't hear it from outside the ship because there is no medium to transmit the sound, but inside the ship there is a continuum of non-vacuum that would adequately transmit the roar through the rocket engine itself ultimately to the inside the ship, where it would be heard.

The rocket plume generated in a vacuum just doesnt act the same way as it would for a rocket firing in an atmosphere... there is no characteristic 'roar' heard within the cabin because the force of the engine is entirely directed out, away from the ship, and the vibrations of the engine (if any) upon the ship's frame are negligible, assuming they can even be felt at all, but they are certainly inaudible.

What audio from inside the LEM I've listened to demonstrated to me that the noise from the fans that circulate the cabin's air were also fairly loud, and could easily drown out a low-frequency hum such as that produced by an engine; the same has been reported by shuttle astronauts, who say the engine noise on launch drowns out everything and requires headphones to be bearable, but after they reach a decent altitude all they can hear are the air ventilation fans. Ive also read similar reports from high-altitude test pilots going fast enough, high enough through the upper atmosphere, who describe it as 'eerily silent'.

a low-frequency hum such as that produced by an engine;

an ear splitting roar, turbulent fluids in motion tend to be noisy.

On Earth, in an atmosphere.

TMYK

We didn't have the technology then? What about the Saturn V rocket, do you think it did not perform as advertised, or what are you saying?

We dont have the capability to send men to the moon and back in the present day because A) we don't have a working rocket powerful enough (Saturn V was retired), and B) because sufficient funding has not been made available to the appropriate agencies for the development of a contemporary moon mission and appropriate launcher, though there are a few launchers in development on the near horizon like (China) Long March 9, (USA) SLS/Orion, and (USA SpaceX) BFR/MCT...

We dont have the technology to go to thw moon today

OK. Well, you were close.

Yes, the Apollo Missions were fake.

But we def have the technology to go to any planet we want. Our solar system, or not.

The moon is hollow, we have a base inside. We also have a base inside Mars. Barry Soetoro has been there.

Stewart Swerdlow and Mark Richards could tell you more.

Sounds like he believes in the moon, but not in the Earth.

Food for thought.

That user is just a troll who verbally attacks anyone who calls him out on it. Just saying.