This video is good for a laugh.

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

NASA itself is supposed to be the beacon of science. But when asked about any inconsistencies and strangeness about the Apollo missions not only can they not give proof or a straight answer, but it is becoming more and more clear that they cannot even remotely prove what happened during the Apollo missions because they literally "misplaced" almost everything that would corroborate the story.

Can you give any examples? Your post seems really hyperbolic (especially when paired with your last one).

Take a look at the Van Allen Belts, the ONLY time in history that humans have ever passed through it was during the Apollo missions, never before and never since.

NASA, in 2012, has publicly stated that we still can not currently send a manned spacecraft through the VAB.

But somehow we did it 7 times, over 50 years ago, during a period of time where we would have the most reason to fake it.

What is it about the Van Allen Belts specifically which precludes manned spaceflight? We've sent spacecraft through that zone many times with appropriate shielding, right?

Radiation.

The word "radiation" does not preclude manned spaceflight though.

Don't get me wrong, I understand there is radiation in the Van Allen Belts, and in fact, there is a lot of radiation everywhere in space outside of the earth's magnetosphere and atmosphere, not to mention radiation that we encounter on a daily basis here on earth. The thing is, though, scientists have a reasonably good understanding of what produces radiation, what the effects of radiation are on both animate and inanimate objects, how to measure it and how to shield it. Also, the physiological effects of "radiation" are more complicated because it depends not only on the strength, but also on the length of exposure and type. Honestly, I'm not a scientist that can school you in the finer points of space radiation, but you don't exactly sound like one either.

Not with humans on board, the only time in history humans have ever got that far, was in 1969 to the end of the apollo program in the mid 70s.

It is make believe that man ever went to the moon, it's the adult equivalent of believing in santa claus, we are very likely hundreds of years away from having the technology to be able to achieve this.

Take a look at the Van Allen Belts, the ONLY time in history that humans have ever passed through it was during the Apollo missions, never before and never since.

Of course, why would they ever do it otherwise?

NASA, in 2012, has publicly stated that we still can not currently send a manned spacecraft through the VAB.

did they?

But somehow we did it 7 times, over 50 years ago, during a period of time where we would have the most reason to fake it.

We haven't had reason to "go through" them.

Of course, why would they ever do it otherwise?

Because usually when scientist have a major breakthrough, they utilize that breakthrough and build from it. They don't sit on the technology for the next 50 years.

The space program didn't cease to exist once people landed on the moon. It continued to grow and develop.

In my opinion, successfully sending people through the VAB should have set the bar from many different manned missions outside of LEO.

Also, funny how it seems like no other country can get through it, just us, and just those 7 times during the Apollo program.

Its just a curious thing in my opinion.

In my opinion, successfully sending people through the VAB should have set the bar from many different manned missions outside of LEO.

why though?

They can do it, but they don't need to do it. And the general difficulties in doing things outside of LEO means that doing so is incredibly more complicated and difficult.

Also, funny how it seems like no other country can get through it, just us, and just those 7 times during the Apollo program.

What makes you say that others can't get through it? Again, not needing to go through them is not the same as being unable to do so. Why would space-programs conduct operations outside LEO when there's no reason to?

Human nature is to push further and further. When the first climbers scaled Everest, thousands of people followed in their footsteps.

The core of science is about knowing more by building from what you already know.

It makes no sense that human beings would break the VAB successfully 7 times and then never do it again for 50 years.

Human nature is to push further and further.

We don't need this sort of hyperbole in this discussion

When the first climbers scaled Everest, thousands of people followed in their footsteps.

Of course.

However the difference between scaling everest and travelling beyond LEO is.... astronomical.

Interestingly enough, now that technology has become more accessible and cheaper, private citizens are now more capable of space-travel where before it required a monumental, centralized organization to handle funding and research.

And frankly when it comes to "I want to go to space for fun and as a testament to the human condition" there's little, if any difference between LEO and beyond.

The core of science is about knowing more by building from what you already know.

And for the last 50 years that's what scientists have been doing.

It makes no sense that human beings would break the VAB successfully 7 times and then never do it again for 50 years.

There is no reason to do so. They already demonstrated they were capable of doing it- and with antiquated 50 year old technology.

Why would one need to send a human beyond the belt when anything that can be done there can be done within LEO (and done cheaper, easier and safer)?

There is no reason to do so. They already demonstrated they were capable of doing it- and with antiquated 50 year old technology.

Sounds a lot like an excuse to me. The kind of excuse made to cover a lie.

If you're paranoid and bent on seeing lies everywhere, then yeah.

"No need to do something" is probably the best explanation of why people don't do things.

No, it has nothing to do with paranoia and everything to do with critical thinking and the scientific method. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Calling "They had no reason to" an excuse and a lie is paranoid and illogical. You haven't demonstrated why NASA not sending humans beyond the Van Allen Belt outside of the Apollo program is incongruous with their mission.

everything to do with critical thinking

Says the one who doesn't understand the difference between climbing a mountain and reaching orbit.

the scientific method.

The scientific method isn't really in play here.

If it were, your statement that "Well they did it once why don't the do it again?" would be rejected immediately.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Hyperbole.

Why would we need to send humans to the Moon right after we already went there?

Can we stick to discussing the Van Allen belts? Why are you changing the subject?

The myth that we cannot travel through them, period, is pretty comical.

All footage was lost, the untested launches from the moon, the miracle radiation shielding aluminum foil, the streaming live footage, the rover that magically fit in the lander. Just take a look at the lander and tell me that that looks like something that landed on the moon. The thing about this hoax is it has a time limit, and its been 40 years already...

I think you're referencing things that have been debunked already...

Show a source debunking it.

Here's a good place to start.

the untested launches from the moon

Yes they were untested on the moon. Luckily they had a pretty good understanding of how things worked at that point. After the successfully launched the first one, the rest were no longer tests.

the miracle radiation shielding aluminum foil

yes the steel and aluminum sheets helped protect against the fairly low exposure to radiation

the streaming live footage

what about it?

the rover that magically fit in the lander

Yes, it was designed to do that and was made to be relatively easy to assemble once removed from the lunar excursion vehicle. No magic there.

Just take a look at the lander and tell me that that looks like something that landed on the moon

Yes, it looks like something that landed on the moon.

what is a "moon-landing-capable" vehicle supposed to look like?

Suitcase vehicles? Where are they on earth Don't you think some millionaires would be showing off their suitcase cars? Carrying them around to the Apple campus, then driving them around Cupertino?

Where are the suitcase cars?

I don't understand what you're saying. What's this about suitcase cars?

You didn't actually address the question: Why did NASA lose all proof of it ever existing?

When did it lose all proof it "it" ever existing?

You didn't actually address (and never have) any of the rebuttals sent your way.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/16/us-nasa-tapes-idUSTRE56F5MK20090716

example of "misplaced"

For me, the most damning evidence against the moon-hoax hypothesis are the reflective mirrors placed on the moon in 1962.

Any backyard astronomer can measure the distance to the moon by a lazer's reflection on those mirrors.

People who don't believe the moon landing happened tend to think we can still get there with probes, we just didn't send humans.

So that's not really damning against anything.

Any backyard astronomer can measure the distance to the moon by a lazer's reflection on those mirrors.

This is one of those things that people like to say but it is actually false. Only the world's leading space labs have been able to do it. Taking their word for it, of course.

The Russians put reflectors on the moon before the US did, it does not prove that humans ever went near the moon.

I'm confused on what the issue is then with sending people along with. If we're able to send craft, then why not people?

You could argue that nothing has returned, enforcing the idea that we can't send enough fuel to bring anything back.

But then, why wouldn't they be able to bring something back, you'd need only a fraction the fuel to get off the moon with its low gravity and lack of atmo?

Can you give examples of the "miracle technology" you're talking about? I'm not disagreeing, just don't understand what you're referring to.

Rockets that hold unattainable amounts of fuel necessary to go to the moon and back. Rockets that can shield against the Van Allen Belts. Spacesuits able to heat and cool according to the extremes of temperature on the moon.

I invite you to dig around a little, you will find that NASA cannot solve these problems even today. And they have apparently lost the blueprints and data necessary to prove how they did these things the first time. I am not even making this up, NASA is sketchy as fuck.

Hey, just gonna throw in my 2 cents here, because you inspired me to do some of my own research. I didn't really come to the same conclusion you came to though, but I wanted to share what I found for you and others to talk about. For me, I figured that if I didn't believe the moon landing was possible/happened, I'd have to have some issue with the facts involved as explained by NASA, so that's what I researched.

It looks like the lost blueprints and the "Van Allen problem" have been more or less debunked as reasons not to believe the moon landings. I read up on the blueprints on various websites. Its apparently not standard procedure to hold onto all the original design documents, or distribute them freely afterwards (not worth the cost of storing millions of documents for a project which will never see use again), but a massive amount of documents were still preserved in Huntsville, the Federal Archives, Rocketdyne, etc for anyone's perusal (http://www.moonlandinghoax.org/25.html). That's not the greatest source, but the info there can be verified easily. I can understand why you'd want to see more diagramming than is available here (http://history.nasa.gov/diagrams/diagrams.htm), but it seems there are likely those places above to do so. Also, despite common belief in the conspiracy community, NASA has never said the Van Allen Belts are impossible to traverse safely (Van Allen HIMSELF said the idea was "nonsense" http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html). The ORION engineer quoted as saying this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlXG0REiVzE) actually never mentions the safety of the astronauts, only stating the issues the relatively minor proton radiation can pose for the onboard computers. Apparently, we didn't have issues with this in the 60s because we were using primitive analog computers, which are apparently much less susceptible to radiation/emf (again, an easily provable claim by anyone with a little hardware). The actual radiation shielding for the astronaut's sake was not as important as the electronics' shielding, as they did not spend days in the VA belts, and even took a clever route avoiding the worst of it (http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts), resulting in a very small amount of rads taken per astronaut, as recorded by their dosimeters.

Now, of course, none of this "proves" that the moon landing happened, but to be honest, if it wasn't already obvious, I believe they did. For every question as to how the lunar landing worked there will always be an explanation from an engineer or scientist vastly more educated than ourselves from NASA. And then you face a decision - do you go by these explanations? I mean, the US had EVERY reason to fake the moon landing, I don't dispute that. Every reason. But if you look into the other side, NASA always provides a scientific answer. I can't disbelieve that answer until hard evidence comes up that suggests NASA is in the business of lying. For sure, the CIA is in the business of lying - they've been caught doing so a vast number of times. But things that involve huge amounts of engineers and scientists need a lot more strong scientific opposition to discount as conspiracies.

I left out the official answers to temperature extremes on the moon and rocket fuel capacity, any NASA answer is easily found via google. I also respectfully dispute your title, that the insulated spacesuits and big rockets are "miracle tech" for which all documentation has been erased.

To clarify, I respect everyone who is watching the government to keep them honest, I just don't think NASA is guilty of doing anything wrong, based on the facts. They have to keep working to solve new problems as the spacecraft delivery systems necessarily change.

Edit: So I have a bit of evident bias, so let me give a short bit of background on where I'm coming from. I'm related to folks who know people who actually worked on space stuff. No matter how you slice it, NASA hires a bunch of real scientific minds, who I believe would quickly figure out if there was something weird happening.

Read this, all parts of it..

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html

i never really did believe in the moon landing, then i got into the bhagavad gita and i believe it to be true where it says that man cannot reach other planets through mechanical vehicles

What is that? I could google but I would like to hear it from you:)

its a book of the hindu epic Mahabharata.
it describes a conversation between Krsna, and a warrior, Arjuna.

It is what the hare krsna people follow.

Thanks

what does a 2000 year old story about enlightenment have to do with the moon landing?

because its the literal record of Krsna's conversation with Arjuna?

What do Krsna and Arjuna know about space travel technology 2000 years in the future?

I see it's become on of those statements. If you're going to use circular reasoning there's no point in continuing.