There has never been a manned mission above the Van Allen radiation belts except for the fabled Apollo missions.

This is the biggest smoking gun. If we were able to safely send men through this toxic radiation. Why haven't we been back to study it? Why are other manned missions, like potential Mars expeditions, hindered by this very same problem that was allegedly no problem at all in 1969?

Nasa admits problem of Van Allen radiation.

Well, the claim is that we've learnt everything that needs to be known about the moon, so there's absolutely no reason to return! :)

Can't argue with that logic.

They want to return, there just isn't funding for it.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdf

Most of the rest of the confusion in this video (which could have been 20 seconds long and contained all of the same assertions) is based on a lack of understanding of the differences in the missions. This mission can't use the same technology as Apollo for a great many reasons, but the most important and the most critical is that the electronics being used are far more sophisticated than those on Apollo, and are therefore far more susceptible to interference via EM radiation.

If they just used Apollo's shielding, everyone would be dead in the craft not long after the electronics began to wink off...

What makes you think we can't send people through the Van Allen belts?

Other than experts at Nasa acknowledging it?

"The inner Van Allen belt consists largely of highly energetic protons, with energy exceeding 30,000,000 electron volts. The peak intensity of these protons is approximately 20,000 particles per second crossing a spherical area of one square cm in all directions. "

Suffice it to say that a human body can not survive encounters with radiation levels several hundred orders of magnitude less than this.

Straight from the mainstream source!

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/622563/Van-Allen-radiation-belt

I read nothing in that source to support the idea that the levels of radiation in the Van Allen belts is immediately fatal.

It's not the sort of radiation that will likely kill a human instantly, but that combined with the EM outside of the VA is pretty lethal. You do need shielding, but it's a more or less trivial problem to solve, compared to some of the other challenges.

Apollo solved it, but the Orion mission has more complex circuitry that requires heavier shielding, and at the same time they're trying to use lighter weight materials, so the whole thing has to be completely re-tested.

Nasa wasn't even first to solve the problem. The Soviet's had already sent Zond-5 with tortoises among other organisms to orbit the moon and return to Earth with no trouble.

Let's send you up to find out!

Hasn't Van Allen himself said that it's safe to travel through it in short missions? It only took 8 days of travel and they probably spent 6 in the "danger zone", a mars mission takes a lot longer.

There has never been a manned mission above the Van Allen radiation belts except for the fabled Apollo missions.

Because the funding for space agencies isn't high enough to afford missions outside LEO.

Also, if that was really such a huge issue and a massive conspiracy, why would NASA admit to it in a publicity video?

Idiot logic.

Them admitting they can't pass through van allen radiation now, somehow grants them credibility in the Apollo claims.

I'm curious. If they said, we don't posses the technology to pass through van allen belts. But did not clarify their position on Apollo missions. Would you still believe it? Are you that naive?

Realistically, I think we possess the technology to shield that radiation and get people through them. You'd just need a powerful magnetic field and some thick walls.

That stuff's gonna be really expensive to push to high earth orbit, though.

!! i've caught this also...

its fun to try to figure out how they got back to earth too.

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/2el4f1/if_you_are_into_moon_landing_stuff_rover_dust/ck0yq4g

how fast is this thing moving?

The notion that the lander was able to dock with the orbiting rocket, is utterly fucking absurd.

How? We can dock in LEO, why not LLO?

Because the ship was traveling at a high speed. Not orbiting casually like a fucking space station.

Orbiting casually at nearly 8km/s? Orbit around the moon is actually slower than orbit around earth.

ITT: people who don't play Kerbal Space Program :D

The radio response time is an interesting question, however.

OK, you clearly don't understand orbital mechanics.

do you?

Not very well, but I do know that it takes very little delta v to reach lunar orbit and to transfer from lunar orbit to an earth return trajectory.

ha didnt even realize u were OP

http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/Communications/1-how-long-for-transmissions.html

The actual time it takes for the radio waves to go back and forth is a tiny bit more than 1 second. Please link me audio where NASA is talking to people on the moon and they're replying faster than 1 second.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMFolzWdnWw

There's a pretty obvious 2 second pause between all those communications.

Could you post the time-stamps of the suspicious turn-arounds you are referring to? I tried to listen for them, but this is way too long for me to do that.

I think that's Collins, in the command module, talking to Armstrong or Aldrin in the lander.

Lol what? Are you understanding when the astronauts talk and when control center talks? Give me times on that video where mission control says something, and then within 2 seconds the spacecraft responds.

Check audio around 13-14 minutes

Great rebuttal of the OP! That was a quick thread.

around 13 minutes to 14

Yeah its funny picturing op scowling while listening intently to that audio

He's gonna find some way to deny it though

He'll probably claim the audio is faked or delayed for some other reason. Or he'll just deny there's a delay.

The position that Jay Weidner presents in Kubrick's Odyssey and the one that I find to be most credible is that we have gone to the moon (and possibly could still be there) but the footage from '69 and all of the Apollo programs are frauds. Some of the potential motivations are that during a cold war, you don't want to unveil UFO technology to the Russians if you can claim to get to the moon by rocket, etc.

YEah, that was my position for ages. Seeing the footage, it's pretty plain that it's fake. But, somehow it seemed just too sad that they really did fail to (be able to) go to the moon back then at least, so I figured one might as well believe that they did go, but the photos were shit so they subbed in these fakes.

On learning everything else about it, well, I now see our entire society to be a bunch of 8th graders bossing around a very credulous bunch of 4th graders, the news is like a school play.

Actually, it reminds me a bit of these two.

Trying to just be a sort of generalist I've looked into varying moon conspiracies and found Crrow777's youtube channel to be a great source of current information, and the compelling evidence in Kubrick's Odyssey conform to the same large picture. We went to the Moon, either found some stuff that didn't want to be found or had to hide some stuff that would be too weird for everyone, and now there's a big hologram type of projection over it, concealing... something. The minor difference would basically be - and this 100% my understanding so I hope everyone looks into both Kubrick's Odyssey and Crrow777 themselves to form their own opinions - that the Kubrick's Odyssey take implies we did succeed in going to the moon at some point, though there is no official account, and Crrow777 doubts we even leave low Earth orbit.

you are really gonna start something with this thread, maybe what was shown on tv was fake? is it possible that they did go to the moon, but the public wasn't allowed to see the real deal.

luckily for you, you're not getting the beat down i got when i posted a question about this, i also question the validity of the moon landing.

i read that it's easier to get people to believe a BIG lie than a small one:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joseph Goebbels

and the US moon landing would be considered a BIG lie. (one of many, btw)

If we went to the Moon the way the Freemasons at Apollo...

Freemason here. A few astronauts were Freemasons (we make a big deal about that, of course) but it's not "Freemasons at Apollo" who make the claim that we, Americans, went to the moon, it's NASA, every scientist who has ever studied the data, every scientist that has ever studied the samples, the government and non-government scientists who worked with the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter which was able to image the tire treads of the buggy, descent stage and other details of the landing site, etc.

There's just such a wealth of data from NASA and from third parties that it became absurd in the 70s to make the claim that it never happened, let alone today.

Freemasonry has no interest in faking mountain hikes, much less trips to the moon.

I believe that we went to the moon. But I also believe that the footage shown was to public was faked . Just like how there's no footage of d day but we have old stock footage of the war

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Non-mobile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt

^{That's why I'm here, I don't judge you. PM /u/xl0 if I'm causing any trouble. WUT?}

Non-mobile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

^{That's why I'm here, I don't judge you. PM /u/xl0 if I'm causing any trouble. WUT?}

The "we didn't go to the moon" conspiracy is garbage. They left equipment behind that is still used today in scientific experiments.

Kubrick was a professional. :)

Honestly, I've always considered that all the public material broadcasted then about the mission was heavily edited, doctored, and embellished. This doesn't mean the mission was fake, just that the reporting was sexed up.

I hardly think they needed to hire Stanley Kubrick just for a little sexing up.

Well, who knows what the deal involved...

Could you link to the part you mention?

Also if the moon landings were fake the soviets would have said, they had loads of people inside

Have you ever heard of the cold war?

Saying how the moon landings did happen, you seemed to forget that, suggesting that they were working together

It was rehearsed you know, everything they did was scripted so that they made it perfect

Then you don't understand it or the Soviet space program that was trying to get to the moon at the same time.

In a nutshell, which I doubt you can digest anyway because you don't understand the difference between how light, radio waves, and sound travel, the Soviet Union at the time would have known with certainty whether or not the Americans really did what they said they did and and could prove it. If the Soviet Union could have proved the American moon landing was a ruse, they would have done it.

That the Soviet Union didn't out the American moon landing as a ruse is among the most compelling evidence that it was real.

I didn't know anything about telecommunications through space. I can't answer your question.

Good thing sound isn't played through speakers toward the moon then. It's transmitted through radio waves that have different properties than sound.

You really didn't get what he wrote. The sound was modulated onto radio waves. Radio waves travel at the speed of light. The speed of light round-trip to and from the moon is 2.4 seconds. Therefore, the sound carried on radio waves can't make the round-trip in under 2.4 seconds.

Does that make sense to you?

Yes

The speed of light is constant

Wrong, but close enough for this conversation.

is the maximum possible speed at which sound can be transmitted

Wrong again. Sound travels at the speed of sound and actually is a disturbance of matter that your ears detect. The speed with which sound travels varies with the density of matter available, along with other factors. The speed of sound is different at sea level than it is at 60,000 feet.

But there isn't enough matter in space to convey that disturbance, so nobody can hear you scream in space. Sound doesn't travel through outer space.

Light and radio waves (which are not sound) travel at the speed of light and can travel through outer space.

there's no way for the sound radio waves to travel over 200,000 miles instantaneously

FTFY.

If you had audio evidence from the communications between the moon and earth that showed less than a bit over a second delay between communications, you'd have something. So would everyone else. And it would be plastered all over the place.

Quotes Wikipedia for scientific fact. Brilliant.

The speed of light can be modified in a lab. It has also been shown to vary depending on what it's traveling through in space. Follow current physics. Maybe you'll learn something.

Oh... space isn't a perfect vacuum. Maybe that's where you're confused?

But like I said, it's close enough to "constant" for the scope of this discussion.

So how does any of this invalidate anything I said? You're just agreeing with me in a roundabout way.

Correcting your misstatement and/or misunderstanding.

Go ahead and listen for yourself to the lack of 2+ second lag between replies.

I'm not listening through all the Apollo transmissions. You're the one making the claim. Burden of proof is on you, my good sir.

If you have evidence, you should be able to link a video or audio track and say, "listen from X:XX through Y:YY and you'll see the less than one second gap". Oh, please be sure it's a recording of the time they were actually on the moon and it wasn't edited specifically to remove the gaps that nobody cares to hear anyway.

G'luck.

This has nothing at all to do with this discussion. Are you suggesting that Apollo "modified the speed of light" somehow to allow it to transmit audio instantaneously across hundreds of thousands of miles? Can you explain how?

Are you unable to read the words I wrote in two posts now that says it's close enough for this conversation, or are you just being an argumentative douchnozzle?

"You're wrong, but I'm not going to bother looking into anything you're saying. You're just wrong."

That's not the way it works. The person making the claim needs to provide the evidence. You made the claim with the OP and many of your posts since.

If you're unable to provide that simple little bit of data - an unedited audio recording that shows too small a gap - then the conversation's over and you're just spewing bullshit to get attention, aren't you?

To humor you though, try this video at around 2:18.

That's a good example of them talking over each other. You have to pay attention to the words, too, not just the points at which you hear sound.

The Russians have equipment on the moon, they never landed a man there. That argument is bunk.

The Russians know about the mink and how it looks and they congratulated NASA for their landing, if it had been fake am pretty sure the Russian space agency would be the firs to point it out (given they know a lot more about space than tinfoil hat madmen on the internet)

They left equipment behind that is still used today in scientific experiments.

I've heard some weird things about this. I heard that if you go to an observatory that can bounce off the lunar reflectors you will 'see' (not sure if this is by eye or instrument) the pulse go up to the moon but you never see it come back, the computer just registers it.

I have been trying to find more information on this but it seems difficult. I want to hear from someone who has done it themselves.

In 10 minutes, they receive a few dozens of photons for 6k laser shots. They use a specific wavelength, and filter out on the receiving end whatever wavelength is too far off from the expected energy levels, they also have time gates as they know more or less when to expect the return photon. They readily admit some natural photons matching their expectations get through the filters and bias their results, however it seems to be of the utmost importance that the laser is aimed right, they don't explicitly mention it but it seems to me this insistence means one of two things, either they don't get as many photons when they are not aimed right, which would indicate there is a mirror... or... it's so hard to aim right you need "experts" to man the gun... there aren't many of these guns around the world so this second option is potential for shenanigans.

edit: does seem to be the first option, here is a comment of an otherwise interesting thread on how to make your own -> https://np.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/qw30x/can_an_amateur_astronomer_test_the_lunar_laser/c410sn9

Dude if you get a above average nice telescope you can look at shit we left on the moon.

Can you provide an example of this? I follow a channel on youtube of a guy who films the moon with very high quality equipment and you can't come close to making out anything like that.

I was wrong, this is the article I was thinking of

Yeah I knew there were some pics of stuff up there but didn't think you could do it with consumer grade equipment. Of course if someone is calling conspiracy on the moon landing they'd say these pictures were faked by the establishment as well.

I really don't know what to think. I'm fascinated by space travel and NASA and the moon appears to have some significance when it comes to occult symoblism and the 'illuminati' type stuff. I just try to absorb it all and not really judge.

I just wish we could get some super high res pics of the moon. It seems like everything we see is doctored in some way or is way less resolution than you'd expect. The reason usually given is that the moon is too close and thus moves by too fast to get really good pictures of it from earth.

You'd think we could get some amazingly detailed pics though from sattelites considering what we get from google earth and stuff.

I saw your Antartica post the other day and I noticed that Vice just posted a big video about the ice in Antartica melting. They go there by boat and fly over it and show lots of footage. You might be interested in checking it out.

They show them flying around in a NASA plane equipped with this ice surveying gear. I can't recall very many high altitude, wide shots showing a significant portion of the land. It was mostly tight shots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h92Ath_2XA

This is incorrect. In fact, There are telescopes powerful enough to see the things we allegedly left, but NASA will not reveal their exact locations. Now why would they care about that?

What telescopes?

I'd be surprised, frankly, if we had scopes big enough to resolve ~1m on the moon from LEO/Earth's surface. I didn't think we'd sent anything that big up.

Dude if you get a above average nice telescope you can look at shit we left on the moon.

In 10 minutes, they receive a few dozens of photons for 6k laser shots. They use a specific wavelength, and filter out on the receiving end whatever wavelength is too far off from the expected energy levels, they also have time gates as they know more or less when to expect the return photon. They readily admit some natural photons matching their expectations get through the filters and bias their results, however it seems to be of the utmost importance that the laser is aimed right, they don't explicitly mention it but it seems to me this insistence means one of two things, either they don't get as many photons when they are not aimed right, which would indicate there is a mirror... or... it's so hard to aim right you need "experts" to man the gun... there aren't many of these guns around the world so this second option is potential for shenanigans.

edit: does seem to be the first option, here is a comment of an otherwise interesting thread on how to make your own -> https://np.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/qw30x/can_an_amateur_astronomer_test_the_lunar_laser/c410sn9

luckily for you, you're not getting the beat down i got when i posted a question about this, i also question the validity of the moon landing.

i read that it's easier to get people to believe a BIG lie than a small one:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joseph Goebbels

and the US moon landing would be considered a BIG lie. (one of many, btw)