One of my favorite reads on the topic is a series called "Wagging the Moondoggie" (14 parts)

I really recommend it; comprehensive and entertaining.

The troublefree traversal of the Van Allen Belts is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the moon landing hoax.

Approved this one too as I'm seeing it - you're still shadowbanned though.

Jay Weidner makes a good point that Apollo 13 likely shows what the astronauts did on every mission: which was simply launch and go out to moon orbit but never land, as landing and surviving on lunar surface has the lowest odds of success of any stage of the journey.

I tend to think they actually executed the lunar module separation and went down to a lower orbit then basically came back up to reconnect...which is all we have film of (there's no film of the landings from the command module perspective).

Us non-believers sure will be red in the face when we land people on mars. Any day now guys.

This post is purely speculative, and a theory in every sense of the word.

Except for the cientific definition ;)

Why do people think the Apollo missions couldn't fly through the Van Allen belt? I thought that idea was based off of a poor understanding of the belt.

People seem to think deadly amounts of radiation are being spewed around all the time. The truth is it comes in waves. Not impossible to get to the moon and back with limited exposure with a little bit of luck.

LOL. Dude, 6 times in 3 years is a whole lot of luck. Maybe that should be the new motto. NASA: who needs technology when you're lucky.

But seriously, can you show us one of these special pathways that nasa traveled through. where is it in the scientific literature that shows weunderstand the movements of the radiation to the point of being able to pick a launch date and traverse along a clear path path? And more importantly, are you conceding to yourself that the radiation belts are deadly and need to be avoided? Because when you come up short in your search for nasa telemetry data, much less that they chose a path to avoid radiation waves, you are going to want to remember that the radiation is a current technological barrier that even today hasn't been overcome.

I'd argue that the dangerous times to be afloat are the rarity, not the norm. We are being constantly pelted with radiation from the sun. It's in you right now. Radiation isn't deadly - large amounts of radiation is deadly. Our closest form of large amounts of radiation is the sun, and the amount it outputs varies based on solar storms and CME's. The Sun is 93 million miles away from earth. Cmon.

The belts are formed by particles from the sun getting captured in the planet's magnetic field. This isn't some voodoo barrier, it's just concentrated sun particles as they pass around the earth. They don't get stuck and continually build up, they are just passing through, so while the density is higher it's not an insane amount. This might be a problem if the astronauts spent significant time in the belt, but they passed through it at almost 40,000 km/hr. They spent less than 2 hours in the belt each way.

You act like radiation shielding isn't a thing. It is. We can't completely contain it but we can reduce it to safe levels. The Apollo astronauts were shielded and they were monitored for radiation levels.

"In fact, the astronauts' overall exposure was dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission to mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv) per year set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt

Radiation belts are something that should not be orbited in without significant shielding, but they are safe to pass through (at least in regards to the one around earth, which we have the most data on).

Exactly.

Do you know why Apollo 13 is named 13? It's not just a fancy name with a coincidental bad luck number, it's the 13th mission of the Apollo program.

Apollos 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 went around the moon - With 11 and 12 landing.

So why would Apollo 13 suddenly be screwed up by the Van Allen belts when many prior missions went through the belts and reached the moon with little issue?

Why was the rock sample from the moon given to Sweden made from petrified wood?

Why was the dust still under the lunar lander even though it used its thrusters to land?

How come there was no cloud of dust hanging in low gravity when Armstrong left the lunar lander?

How did they manage to assemble the rover on the moon?

Why did they use a stencil over the window in Apollo 11 to make it look like they were further away from Earth than they were?

How were parts of the shadows lit up on the moons surface with no extra light sources?

Do you believe 100% that the US gov would never lie to you? Do you really?

Why was the rock sample from the moon given to Sweden made from petrified wood?

It wasn't, a Dutch one was, and un like all the other official moon-rock gifting ceremonies, this wasn't gifted by astronauts or the president. This was apparently passed off by an ambassador. Very likely that the museum was just full of shit and looking for something to bring in visitors.

Why was the dust still under the lunar lander even though it used its thrusters to land?

I don't understand what you're asking.

It's dust. Dust gets everywhere

How come there was no cloud of dust hanging in low gravity when Armstrong left the lunar lander?

The moon has pretty much no atmosphere. Dust clouds don't behave the same as on earth. Why would there be a dust cloud hanging around?

How did they manage to assemble the rover on the moon?

With care. It was stowed and unfolded, like unfolding a large lawnchair. They didn't put it together from scratch.

Why did they use a stencil over the window in Apollo 11 to make it look like they were further away from Earth than they were?

They didn't.

How were parts of the shadows lit up on the moons surface with no extra light sources?

They weren't.

Do you believe 100% that the US gov would never lie to you? Do you really?

This is irrelevant to the point at hand.

1)It wasn't, a Dutch one was, and un like all the other official moon-rock gifting ceremonies, this wasn't gifted by astronauts or the president. This was apparently passed off by an ambassador. Very likely that the museum was just full of shit and looking for something to bring in visitors.

It was given to former Prime Minister Willem Drees during a goodwill tour by the three Apollo-11 astronauts shortly after their moon mission in 1969. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8226075.stm

2)I don't understand what you're asking. It's dust. Dust gets everywhere.

When the lunar lander came to rest, the astronauts had to use a lot of thrust to slow the lander down for a safe landing. Yet there is no crater underneath the lander...in fact theres no dust displacement either. How strange?

3) The moon has pretty much no atmosphere. Dust clouds don't behave the same as on earth. Why would there be a dust cloud hanging around?

Because if the lunar lander did throw up a shit load of dust, it would take a lot longer to settle, but lets pretend Armstrong took his time leaving the lander before he went walkies. Why didn’t any of the dust settle on the landers pads? http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS11/40/5925.jpg

4) With care. It was stowed and unfolded, like unfolding a large lawnchair. They didn't put it together from scratch.

Yeah sure. It just unfolds. What could possibly go wrong? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Apollo15LunarRover2.jpg

5) Why did they use a stencil over the window in Apollo 11 to make it look like they were further away from Earth than they were? They didn’t? Your 100% sure are you?.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY-VWFx4yEU

6) How were parts of the shadows lit up on the moons surface with no extra light sources?

They weren't you say! Astronaut lit up in shadows... http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5868HR.jpg Amazing how the flag is lit up here hahahaha!! http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Apollo_15_flag,_rover,_LM,_Irwin.jpg

Do you believe 100% that the US gov would never lie to you? Do you really? This is irrelevant to the point at hand. NO! This is totally the point at hand! I say the US gov is lying about the moon mission, and you say they are not. It couldn’t be anymore at hand!!

It was given to former Prime Minister Willem Drees during a goodwill tour by the three Apollo-11 astronauts shortly after their moon mission in 1969. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8226075.stm

It was given during the visit.

It was given by an ambassador. Not the astronauts. The ambassador was one JM Middendorf, who presented it to Mr Drees.

When the lunar lander came to rest, the astronauts had to use a lot of thrust to slow the lander down for a safe landing. Yet there is no crater underneath the lander

Because they landed (using very little thrust) on rock.

...in fact theres no dust displacement either. How strange?

The very small layer of dust would have been moved away. I'm not such what degree of visual "dust displacement" would be satisfactory to you. You seem to be under the imression the lander came to a big fiery halt in a sand pit.

Because if the lunar lander did throw up a shit load of dust

Who says it did?

The lander's engines were shut off before it touched ground, there wouldn't be a big fiery, smoky, billowy mess.

Dust on the moon behaves much different than on earth. There would be no big billowy clouds- any small amount of dust kicked up would have settled before the lander hit down and the rest would have been thrown away from the immediate area (mentioned by Aldrin) as it would act ballistically.

Yeah sure. It just unfolds. What could possibly go wrong?

Lots.

So many things could have (and sometimes did) go wrong at every junction.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Apollo15LunarRover2.jpg

Yes, that's the lunar rover. There are plenty of images, diagrams and hanbooks available showing the stowage and assembly process.

Here's one

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/Apollo_16_Astronauts_Inspect_Lunar_Rover_-_GPN-2000-001858.jpg/600px-Apollo_16_Astronauts_Inspect_Lunar_Rover_-_GPN-2000-001858.jpg

this demonstrates it eloquently

http://cache.wists.com/thumbnails/1/5c/15cc3e008bf392928a33f4c0f2f5d4d1-orig

Your 100% sure are you?.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY-VWFx4yEU

I'm not even sure what this point is supposed to be.

If they were in LEO the image through the window would be clear a clear and obvious indicator and would look something like this:

http://depletedcranium.com/Lowearthprbothole.jpg

They weren't you say! Astronaut lit up in shadows... http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5868HR.jpg

I don't see anything werid about this image. You'll have to try harder than just link dumping, since the rest of the world relies on more than just casual insinuation.

Amazing how the flag is lit up here hahahaha!! http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Apollo_15_flag,_rover,_LM,_Irwin.jpg

Well yes, one would expect it to be. What do you take issue with in this image?

I say the US gov is lying about the moon mission, and you say they are not.

You are saying the evidence presented is false or altered or dishonest somehow, yet you haven't proven it to be other than "I don't trust the government"

You're on drugs mate. I'm not going to go over all that again just because you're being an obstinate dick on most points. Carry on.

Whatever. Doesn't bother me you can't back up your paranoid talking points.

Its all here. Enjoy.

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

Right, like i said before. Linkdropping and paranoid talking points. Good to see the source where you quoted your bullshit from though. Ooh let's see, he misquotes Hitler on the first page! Shocking.

Haha! I love how you can write off every point on the basis of a misquote of something that has no connection. If you choose to believe in that bullshit then carry on. I will use my own judgement backed up with commonsense and not be clouded by flag waving propaganda bullshit. Have a good day. I won't be reading anymore so no need to reply.

Haha! I love how you can write off

I didn't write everything off. I responded to every one of your points. You dismissed them.

a misquote of something that has no connection

It's nice and indicative, and actually quite ironic since the context concerns lying to further an agenda.

I will use my own judgement backed up with commonsense

I understand knowing that dust particles act different in different places may not be "commonsense", but what certainly isn't commonsense is running to the fringiest nutjob just because you agree with the idea that the government is shady.

not be clouded by flag waving propaganda bullshit.

How could the flag wave if there's no atmosphere????

I won't be reading anymore so no need to reply.

"I don't have anything to backup my copypasta"

You sent me 10 links in one post earlier. Hypocrite much?

10 links? I posted 3 relevant pictures which illustrate the points I was making.

This argument game seems real hard for you.

You linked to a picture you tard.

I posted 3 pictures; 2 showing the manner in which the "impossible" LRV was stowed and 1 showing the (obvious) incorrect assumption about the earth's size at LEO

Just went through your posts. Seems you even think 9/11 wasn't an inside job.

I'm done. Fuck off back to shilltown.

Just went through your posts. Seems you even think 9/11 wasn't an inside job.

Correct. I also don't think the rothschilds are behind everything, and that JFK was shot by one crazed dude and elvis ate too many Peaut Butter sandwiches and got fat and died of a drug overdose.

I'm done. Fuck off back to shilltown.

""I don't have anything to backup my copypasta"

Looks like I have a stalker. Must be really butt-hurt.

Looks like I saved myself a lot of time. You ask a ton of questions and run when challenged.

Pick three, i'm not fond of the Gish Gallop.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Rule 10. Removed.

[deleted]

Rule 10. No personal attacks. Removed.

Carry on.

That's nice dear.

Perhaps if that user didn't attempt the gish gallop then there wouldn't have been a problem.

[deleted]

Rule 10. No personal attacks. Removed.

The fact that we have a rule here that restricts free speech is pretty ironic and ridiculous. The amount of removals seem excessive lately. Think I'm finally going to move on from this place. Keep up the (good?) work bro.

If you don't like the fact that we don't allow discussions to degrade into name calling contests, then perhaps moving on is the best choice for you.

Oh yeah cause the word shill is really demeaning and hurtful. Come on man, you have to know that's ridiculous. I wasn't even particularly rude in my comment, it's not like I was insulting their family, or their intelligence or anything. Such bullshit, excuses for censorship is what it is. No one should have the authority to restrict speech due to perceived harmfulness of words. They're fucking words, no one needs to be defended from words. Anyone who is "offended" by the words of a Stanger is choosing to feel offended. Words don't hurt anyone unless they choose to feel that way.

Rule 10. Removed.

'kay

Apollo 13 was a planned fuck up, designed to focus americas attention on the fact that we were going to the moon. America had become ho hum about moon landings by this time. Perhaps they sensed that something wasn't right or not real. The apollo 13 " crisis" was what was needed to keep americas attention looking in the right direction.

That's what I'm asking. #1 did all the preceding missions really go that far out. And #2 what actual harm could the belt do to a ship, or the human body?

I realize there is video evidence, but being around television production as much as I have in my life has shown me how anything can be faked, which has done nothing but make me more skeptical to anything I see regarding video evidence.

edit: added paragraph.

I realize there is video evidence

Nope, Apollo lost it all decades ago. They lost all of the telemetry and bio-medical data as well. And even the original TV productions were recordings of recordings.

They lost all of the telemetry and bio-medical data as well.

They lost all the backup data. The data was still recorded.

And even the original TV productions were recordings of recordings.

To clarify, this isn't anything out of the ordinary. For more than a decade (probably longer) this was standard practice for converting format types.

They lost all the backup data. The data was still recorded.

Well it was allegedly record but now NASA claims that it's "missing". Go ahead and try to find some.

To clarify, this isn't anything out of the ordinary. For more than a decade (probably longer) this was standard practice for converting format types.

The essential point is that most of the hard evidence doesn't exist today.

now NASA claims that it's "missing"

No, they claim the original backup data is missing. Not that the data is lost.

The essential point is that most of the hard evidence doesn't exist today.

Sure, the original pieces are missing. That doesn't mean hard evidence is missing, especially since a live broadcast of the data was made

No, they claim the original backup data is missing. Not that the data is lost.

I don't know what to say other than this isn't true. From NASA's own mouth:

From there, the tapes were sent to the Washington National Records Center (WNRC) in Suitland, Md. The engineers never saw the back-up telemetry tapes again.

and then when a team of modern researchers tried looking for them:

By all accounts, the epic-like search has not ended as anyone had expected. The searchers never found what they set out to uncover. Aside from a few canisters of Apollo 9 telemetry tapes still stored at the WNRC, the Apollo-era telemetry tapes no longer exist--anywhere.

The engineers never saw the back-up telemetry tapes again.

Exactly.

The backup tapes are missing.

The data is not lost.

You are totally wrong my man. Read that link I sent you. The data is gone. All of it, from every Apollo mission, except for allegedly a few canisters from Apollo 9.

Here's the salient quote for you in case you missed it:

By all accounts, the epic-like search has not ended as anyone had expected. The searchers never found what they set out to uncover. Aside from a few canisters of Apollo 9 telemetry tapes still stored at the WNRC, the Apollo-era telemetry tapes no longer exist--anywhere.

You can keep repeating your mantra as many times as you want but it will still be a lie. Again, the data is lost according to NASA. The video is as well.

You'e misunderstanding. The data isn't gone. The data went on to be used and recorded as intended.

The physical tapes (which were intended solely backups) are gone.

If they were to ever find the tapes (which I doubt as they were probably recorded over) they wouldn't go "Whoah!! Look at all this new data we have!". Whe the data was originally being sent it didn't just go out the window.

It's sort of like how I lost my Age of Empires 2 cd years ago, but still have the game and it works just fine.

You're just wrong, I don't know how many other ways to say it.

Show me some of the telemetry and biomedical data from the Apollo missions if you're so sure that the evidence exists.

Listen to the first few seconds of this, NASA's flight director will tell you in his own words.

Show me some of the telemetry and biomedical data from the Apollo mission

you want to see a bunch of blips and bloops?

if you're so sure that the evidence exists.

You can find all sorts of relevant information, mission debriefings etc all over the internet.

Here's an electrocargiogram from one of the missions http://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/p493a.jpg

Here is heartrate data from Apollo 11

http://demo.tizra.com/Apollo_11_Mission_Report_November_1969/233

Real time biomedical data (radiation exposure was not available realtime) were monitored, on Earth by a surgeon.

They didn't just record the data to tape (which was, once again, always meant as backup) and then ignore it. Data was dealt with as it was received. They used proprietary IBM systems to handle the incoming data before it was stored.

Listen to the first few seconds of this, NASA's flight director will tell you in his own words.

Yes, he restates what I've said the whole time.

you want to see a bunch of blips and bloops?

It has nothing to do with what I "want to see", it has to do with having hard evidence.

You can find all sorts of relevant information, mission debriefings etc all over the internet.

I know, none of that is hard evidence.

Here's an electrocargiogram from one of the missions

Here is heartrate data from Apollo 11

Not to be a dick but I'm not entirely convinced you know what telemetry data is...

Data was dealt with as it was received. They used proprietary IBM systems to handle the incoming data before it was stored.

You keep saying this, but where is the evidence of any existing? Where is it stored? Where can we see it?

Why does NASA claim they have no evidence that any exists?

Yes, he restates what I've said the whole time.

He literally says in plain English: "I haven't, uh, seen anything that indicates the telemetry data is even in existence and, as I said, even if we had it we don't have the machines to play it back."

Do you understand what those words mean?

I can't tell if you're just trolling me or if you literally can't comprehend these very simple facts (which are not in dispute by NASA - it seems to be only you disputing them).

It has nothing to do with what I "want to see", it has to do with having hard evidence.

I'm not sure you really understand what evidence is.

I know, none of that is hard evidence.

So then you want blips and bloops

Not to be a dick but I'm not entirely convinced you know what telemetry data is...

Your claim is that all the data somehow went out the window, including biomedical data. That there is biomedical data transmitted using unified S-band communication.

This information would have been backed up and stred on the missing tapes.

You keep saying this, but where is the evidence of any existing?

I just posted it.

Where is it stored? Where can we see it?

I just posted it.

Nasa is surprisingly transparent with its stored information. I'm sure if you took a few seconds to google anything other than conspirac theorists you could find it, as I did.

Why does NASA claim they have no evidence that any exists?

What?

Nasa states the tapes are lost, not that they never acquired any data.

He literally says in plain English: "I haven't, uh, seen anything that indicates the telemetry data is even in existence and, as I said, even if we had it we don't have the machines to play it back."

That's right. He's referring to the stored, backup tapes. Not you know, the data acquired is it was produced- some of which I aready posted. If there was no data returned they wouldn't know that Armstrong's heartrate was pushing 150 bpm before he stepped out of the lander.

I can't tell if you're just trolling me or if you literally can't comprehend these very simple facts (which are not in dispute by NASA - it seems to be only you disputing them).

Nasa doesn't dispute anything. They openly state they don't know where the tapes are.

Your claim is that all the data somehow went out the window, including biomedical data. That there is biomedical data transmitted using unified S-band communication.

All of the telemetry data is missing according to NASA. Nothing you've provided is telemetry data. The Mission Report is not telemetry data.

I just posted it.

No you didn't. A heartbeat graph from the Mission Report is not telemetry data. The 13,000 reels that are missing are what's being discussed here.

Nasa states the tapes are lost, not that they never acquired any data.

Whether they "acquired data" in the past is irrelevant if none of the alleged acquired data exists today, which it doesn't. And this is true of all the Apollo missions.

Not you know, the data acquired is it was produced- some of which I aready posted. If there was no data returned they wouldn't know that Armstrong's heartrate was pushing 150 bpm before he stepped out of the lander.

So apparently my suspicion that you don't know what telemetry data is has turned out to be correct. None of what you posted is telemetry data and none of the hard evidence behind the Apollo Missions, the 13,000+ reels, can be located.

I guess when he says, "I haven't seen anything that indicates the telemetry data is even in existence," you read that as - the data does exist? Haha. And he clearly says that even if it did exist, they'd have nothing to play it back with.

Nasa doesn't dispute anything. They openly state they don't know where the tapes are.

No shit! You realize that's what this whole argument is about right? The hard evidence?

All of the telemetry data is missing according to NASA. Nothing you've provided is telemetry data. The Mission Report is not telemetry data.

See, it's clear you don't know what telemetry means. Telemetry is anything measured and sent long distance. This included biomedical data.

No you didn't. A heartbeat graph from the Mission Report is not telemetry data. The 13,000 reels that are missing are what's being discussed here.

That is telemetry. Biomedical data is telemetry. That is telemetry. Telemetry telemetry. Get it through your head.

The 13,000 reels that are missing are what's being discussed here.

The thousands of reels were backups for all telemetry data, which included biomedical data.

Whether they "acquired data" in the past is irrelevant if none of the alleged acquired data exists today, which it doesn't.

How is it not relevant? There wasn't much reason to backup the data, let along hang on to it. Telemetry tapes were bulky and awkward and often got taped over. That was just how things worked. It can be seen as an unfortunte oversight now, but at the time there wasn't much reason to hold onto the data as it had already been used.

So apparently my suspicion that you don't know what telemetry data is has turned out to be correct. None of what you posted is telemetry data

Biomedical data transmitted back to earth is telemetry.

I guess when he says, "I haven't seen anything that indicates the telemetry data is even in existence," you read that as - the data does exist? Haha. And he clearly says that even if it did exist, they'd have nothing to play it back with.

Yes, he is talking about the tapes.

No shit! You realize that's what this whole argument is about right? The hard evidence?

Fortunately, as I posted, we have the evidence. Having backup copies of the data isn't important.

Dude. That graph in the Mission Report is not telemetry data. Telemetry data is raw data that's sent over a long distance. In other words, you would take the telemetry data and use it to create a graph like that. The graph itself is not telemetry data, nor is anything else in the Mission Report.

Do you know what a graph is? It's a way of looking at/interpreting raw data, it isn't raw data in itself.

There wasn't much reason to backup the data, let along hang on to it.

Okay man, you're right - those 13,000+ reels of hard evidence are totally irrelevant, as are all of the original videos being missing. Who needs hard evidence for anything right? Let alone the alleged greatest technical achievement in the history of mankind. Nothing to see here, move along.

Biomedical data transmitted back to earth is telemetry.

If we had some then you might have a point. As it stands, we have a few random graphs allegedly created from the telemetry data, which are not telemetry data themselves.

Yes, he is talking about the tapes.

Yes, I know. That's been the subject of this entire conversation.

Fortunately, as I posted, we have the evidence. Having backup copies of the data isn't important.

For about the eighth time, no we don't. The 13,000+ reels are missing, all of the data allegedly contained within them is also missing. We have no copies of any of that data.

Dude. That graph in the Mission Report is not telemetry data. Telemetry data is raw data that's sent over a long distance. In other words, you would take the telemetry data and use it to create a graph like that

That's right, blips and bloops.

Okay man, you're right - those 13,000+ reels of hard evidence are totally irrelevant

Yes, as the data had been recorded there was no need to hold on to big, heavy, hard to store reels.

as are all of the original videos being missing

The videos were broadcast on to format-appropriate media. Many pieces of old footage has been "lost" once the transition between formats was made. It's unfortunate too that many master reels of classic albums have long since been lost or taped over, but we have all of their final product, which was the intent.

If we had some then you might have a point.

We do, there are many of them.

As it stands, we have a few random graphs allegedly created from the telemetry data,

You conspiracy idiots can claim anything is "alleged" as a way to further your paranoia. If they can "fake" the graphs then they can "fake" the blips and bloops. The data was recorded and then the originals copied, backed up and then taped over.

That's right, blips and bloops.

Also known as hard scientific evidence. "Blips and bloops" sounds like something a five year old would say but sure, if that works for you.

Yes, as the data had been recorded there was no need to hold on to big, heavy, hard to store reels.

So now you're alleging that NASA deliberately threw out the tapes because there was "no need to hold on to" them? Where'd you get that information from? Because it directly contradicts NASA who has no idea where the tapes went and has never claimed that it "didn't need to hold on to" them.

You conspiracy idiots can claim anything is "alleged" as a way to further your paranoia.

And here it is. I could tell this was bubbling under the surface all along, thanks for making your actual opinion clear.

Just FYI for the future though, claims without hard evidence to back them up are claims alleged. That's why a "paranoid idiot" such as myself used the word.

The data was recorded and then the originals copied, backed up and then taped over.

So we do agree that none of this data exists anymore though right? That you and I have never seen any of it and are just trusting NASA when they tell us it existed?

Also known as hard scientific evidence. "Blips and bloops" sounds like something a five year old would say but sure, if that works for you.

Which is pretty much what it was. Are you going to sit there and process it?

So now you're alleging that NASA deliberately threw out the tapes because there was "no need to hold on to" them? Where'd you get that information from?

I didn't say they deliberately threw out the tapes. I didn't even say they accidentally threw out the tapes. I didn't make any sort of claim.

I stated that storing them was difficult and not a major priority, and it was common that they'd get over written.

Because it directly contradicts NASA who has no idea where the tapes went and has never claimed that it "didn't need to hold on to" them.

That doesn't contradict anything I said.

If keeping some clunky old reels with redundant information was #1 top priority material they wouldn't have been taped over.

Just FYI for the future though, claims without hard evidence to back them up are claims alleged.

There's nothing alleged anywhere. Please look up all the recording information. But you probably think that's falsified so I understand your assumption.

So we do agree that none of this data exists anymore though right? That you and I have never seen any of it and are just trusting NASA when they tell us it existed?

The data has been recorded. The originals are gone. Plain and simple. No information from the missions is unknown, at least none that is purpoted to be by making statments about missing telemetry.

Are you going to sit there and process it?

I don't have the option to whether I wanted to or not so how is this question relevant? But yes, I'd certainly comb through it if the evidence existed.

I didn't say they deliberately threw out the tapes.

This is you: "Yes, as the data had been recorded there was no need to hold on to big, heavy, hard to store reels."

Who said there was "no need to hold on to" the reels? NASA? Nope. So this is just you saying there was no need apparently. You aren't really making a point if you didn't mean to imply they threw the tapes out deliberately.

I stated that storing them was difficult and not a major priority

According to who? This was allegedly the greatest achievement of all time (or one of them), why would the hard evidence not be a priority? Has NASA ever said it wasn't a priority? Nope, they just claim they lost it.

If keeping some clunky old reels with redundant information was #1 top priority material they wouldn't have been taped over.

Another unfounded claim. Who says they were taped over? That has never been proven - NASA simply doesn't know. That's one of many speculations as to what could've happened to the reels.

The data has been recorded. The originals are gone.

The originals are gone, the back-ups are gone, and the 13,000+ reels and the data they contained are nowhere to be found. These are facts despite your inability to accept them.

This is you: "Yes, as the data had been recorded there was no need to hold on to big, heavy, hard to store reels."

Yes, that's what I said. Pay attention now.

Who said there was "no need to hold on to" the reels? NASA? Nope.

"(the tapes) served no other purpose other than to act as backup"

"after a months long period.... personnel revied the tapes content and determined that the Apollo program no longer needed the data"

try again.

Having big clunky backups was superfluous so they passed them off to be stored somewhere. They weren't locked away in a super secure memory bank somewhere because they didn't need to be. The broadcasts had been made and transferred to standard format and the data recorded.

Another unfounded claim. Who says they were taped over?

Nasa claimed this in 2009 in the investigation.

The originals are gone, the back-ups are gone

There is no difference between original and backup. The data was recorded and the backup tapes were filed away.

#1 did all the preceding missions really go that far out.

I don't see why not. They've made many ships capable of reaching the moon - If not landing on it.

There's plenty of satellites and probes that have gone through the most dangerous lower belts without too much issue - You can test such satellites each time you use your phone (GPS).

#2 what actual harm could the belt do to a ship, or the human body?

A properly shielded ship, travelling quickly through the belts will be fine.

If you decide to leave the windows open then you'd probably have a bad time.

So why would Apollo 13 suddenly be screwed up by the Van Allen belts when many prior missions went through the belts and reached the moon with little issue?

Exactly, they're lying about all of it. The first 12 Apollo missions were the buildup and prequel and then each Apollo mission after that had some new reason to tune in and watch in on TV, timed perfectly to distract from what the American public was learning about Vietnam and Operation Phoenix.

If satellites and probes have been successfully sent through the belts, why not humans?

Doesn't radiation shielding exist?

Wouldn't the enemies of the US have noticed the Apollo shuttles just chilling in LEO?

If satellites and probes have been successfully sent through the belts, why not humans?

Oh that was easy, they haven't.

Doesn't radiation shielding exist?

Yes, but not sufficient for what is claimed exists in the Van Allen belts.

Wouldn't the enemies of the US have noticed the Apollo shuttles just chilling in LEO?

They didn't even make it to LEO, and the "enemies of the US" were in on it. It is these governments against the people, not the people of different nations who actually want to travel to other nations for war.

Oh that was easy, they haven't.

B-B-but then how does GPS work?

Yes, but not sufficient for what is claimed exists in the Van Allen belts.

So nuclear power plants aren't real either?

They didn't even make it to LEO

What makes you say that?

If it didn't go to the moon, and didn't even go to LEO, where'd it go?

the "enemies of the US" were in on it

Then what is the purpose of war?

Then what is the purpose of war?

To make money for TPTB.

Which is vastly more lucrative if you control both sides of the conflict.

Why would the enemies of the US try to make money by engaging in a conflict they're going to lose?

1) There are no enemies of the US. It's all a giant shell game.

2) After we complete a conflict, we then go and pump hundreds of millions of dollars back into the economy of the country we have just defeated in war. If you think people's coffers don't get lined via those hundreds of millions, you're just dense

GPS is skywave propagation of signals, bouncing them off the ionosphere via the 'repeater' towers in the system.

Nuclear power is real; nuclear weapons are a hoax.

So many open ended questions, all immediate and to the point of maintaining and defending the religion of the One Ring. Can you keep your questions to the topic of the thread?

The rockets went up in an arc and promptly fell back to Earth, reaching nowhere near the altitudes claimed. Notice, outside of NASA and their affiliates, no one can reproduce any of this. We have a LEM in a Smithsonian; why not fire it up with a new round of Masons?

That's... Not how GPS works.

Nuclear power is real; nuclear weapons are a hoax.

LOL so Nagasaki and Hiroshima - All lies?

Nuclear weapons tests - All hoaxes?

But they need nuclear shielding for power plants.

the religion of the One Ring

. . . wat

The rockets went up in an arc and promptly fell back to Earth

Where?

Notice, outside of NASA and their affiliates, no one can reproduce any of this.

Who are NASA's affiliates?

Lol, you just described your type of comment as a Gish gallop and refused to respond. So transparent.

The Gish Gallop would be when someone spams questions.

It's not when i'm addressing your questions point by point.

Those aren't addressing my points, you're throwing up all of the mythology of the One Ring and asking me to simultaneously debunk all of it.

Okay, I will. The horizon is flat in every direction from every vantage point on Earth. As you ascend in altitude, it rises up to meet you. This is indisputable and reproducible proof that the Earth is flat and every single one of their lies depends on a spherical Earth.

That's all I'll feed you, dedicated detractor of all questions and defender of the mainstream at all times.

What's this One Ring business?

I've heard of the flat earth/'curved upwards like a plate' hypothesis, but that can be disproved by anyone with a camera and a high-altitude balloon.

Alternatively it can be disproved by anyone with a webcam and a friend on the other side of the planet.

Those aren't addressing my points, you're throwing up all of the mythology of the One Ring and asking me to simultaneously debunk all of it.

Okay, I will. The horizon is flat in every direction from every vantage point on Earth. As you ascend in altitude, it rises up to meet you. This is indisputable and reproducible proof that the Earth is flat and every single one of their lies depends on a spherical Earth.

That's all I'll feed you, dedicated detractor of all questions and defender of the mainstream at all times.

Whatever. Doesn't bother me you can't back up your paranoid talking points.

Right, like i said before. Linkdropping and paranoid talking points. Good to see the source where you quoted your bullshit from though. Ooh let's see, he misquotes Hitler on the first page! Shocking.

Looks like I saved myself a lot of time. You ask a ton of questions and run when challenged.

That's right, blips and bloops.

Also known as hard scientific evidence. "Blips and bloops" sounds like something a five year old would say but sure, if that works for you.

Yes, as the data had been recorded there was no need to hold on to big, heavy, hard to store reels.

So now you're alleging that NASA deliberately threw out the tapes because there was "no need to hold on to" them? Where'd you get that information from? Because it directly contradicts NASA who has no idea where the tapes went and has never claimed that it "didn't need to hold on to" them.

You conspiracy idiots can claim anything is "alleged" as a way to further your paranoia.

And here it is. I could tell this was bubbling under the surface all along, thanks for making your actual opinion clear.

Just FYI for the future though, claims without hard evidence to back them up are claims alleged. That's why a "paranoid idiot" such as myself used the word.

The data was recorded and then the originals copied, backed up and then taped over.

So we do agree that none of this data exists anymore though right? That you and I have never seen any of it and are just trusting NASA when they tell us it existed?

Also known as hard scientific evidence. "Blips and bloops" sounds like something a five year old would say but sure, if that works for you.

Which is pretty much what it was. Are you going to sit there and process it?

So now you're alleging that NASA deliberately threw out the tapes because there was "no need to hold on to" them? Where'd you get that information from?

I didn't say they deliberately threw out the tapes. I didn't even say they accidentally threw out the tapes. I didn't make any sort of claim.

I stated that storing them was difficult and not a major priority, and it was common that they'd get over written.

Because it directly contradicts NASA who has no idea where the tapes went and has never claimed that it "didn't need to hold on to" them.

That doesn't contradict anything I said.

If keeping some clunky old reels with redundant information was #1 top priority material they wouldn't have been taped over.

Just FYI for the future though, claims without hard evidence to back them up are claims alleged.

There's nothing alleged anywhere. Please look up all the recording information. But you probably think that's falsified so I understand your assumption.

So we do agree that none of this data exists anymore though right? That you and I have never seen any of it and are just trusting NASA when they tell us it existed?

The data has been recorded. The originals are gone. Plain and simple. No information from the missions is unknown, at least none that is purpoted to be by making statments about missing telemetry.

Are you going to sit there and process it?

I don't have the option to whether I wanted to or not so how is this question relevant? But yes, I'd certainly comb through it if the evidence existed.

I didn't say they deliberately threw out the tapes.

This is you: "Yes, as the data had been recorded there was no need to hold on to big, heavy, hard to store reels."

Who said there was "no need to hold on to" the reels? NASA? Nope. So this is just you saying there was no need apparently. You aren't really making a point if you didn't mean to imply they threw the tapes out deliberately.

I stated that storing them was difficult and not a major priority

According to who? This was allegedly the greatest achievement of all time (or one of them), why would the hard evidence not be a priority? Has NASA ever said it wasn't a priority? Nope, they just claim they lost it.

If keeping some clunky old reels with redundant information was #1 top priority material they wouldn't have been taped over.

Another unfounded claim. Who says they were taped over? That has never been proven - NASA simply doesn't know. That's one of many speculations as to what could've happened to the reels.

The data has been recorded. The originals are gone.

The originals are gone, the back-ups are gone, and the 13,000+ reels and the data they contained are nowhere to be found. These are facts despite your inability to accept them.