I've heard that they lost a few too many cosmonauts and didn't want people to know some of the gruesome and tragic things that were done in the name of the space race. Or maybe it was mostly fake on both sides, with 99% of the real effort and money going toward developing superior ICBM capabilities, with the manned efforts an afterthought to distract the public.
The Cold War was more or less a hoax. Supposedly there was all this hostility over ideaology but the Russians never really showed much interest. Everything was secret spies and alleged nuclear capabilities and a lot of fear of shadows. Besides that, they could barely keep their shit together and we ended up sending them aid even during the height of the cold war. It's very possible that the Soviet Union was just a puppet state.
I've heard the reverse--that communists from the Soviet Union successfully infiltrated the US government in the 50s, in order to allow or help Communism take over China and spread across the globe. McCarthy was right, but the Commies were so successful they were able to smear him and cover up the true extent of the infiltration. Whether it's true or not, it's interesting how every theory has an equal and opposite conspiracy theory. Disinfo just mirrors the truth and we go around seeing a mirror image of reality without even realizing it.
I've definitely heard that one as well. It was one reason I was on the fence about the cold war hoax for a while. However these are the different type of communist - the subversive ones. They live for nothing else than to infect America with their filth. It sure seems rather theatrical and paranoid. Whenever I detect someone going for the paranoia dollar, I tend to have flags go up. It's easy enough to fake. There are a lot of connections between MKULTRA and the spy game. There's always been this weird talk about brainwashing spies. There's been weird talk of Lee Harvey Oswald being wrapped up in something like that. Then suddenly it makes sense: soviet spies are just MKULTRA victims. The CIA has declared war on America to serve national interests. To produce the enemies America needs to justify it's actions. Once you play around with the theory, it seems to explain so much it's hard to shake. I could argue that the soviet spy thing proves the cold war hoax because it's too easy to fake and blame it on Russian secrecy. However you've got to snap out of it and realize Russia got nothing out of spreading communistic ideals.
Someone else made a good comment about the Cold War, but I'll say this also:
I used to ask the same question you just did until I thought about how that would have played out.... the Soviets would have claimed we faked the moon landings, been able to offer basically no proof, the U.S. would have decried these accusations as propaganda, and the public would have persisted in their belief of the authenticity of the Apollo missions.
If on the other hand they played their cards right and kept mum about the chicanery, they could blackmail the U.S. out of billions of dollars in the ensuing decades, which is probably what has happened with several countries.
Because the cold war was fake, too. That is to say, both sides were really playing for the same team, even though they managed to trick and terrify the rest of us.
Of course they were. That way both sides could borrow money from the same group of bankers. All the money flowed in the same direction. Check out the research by Anthony Sutton. The Soviet Union was backed by Western banks.
Most people don't even think about it, they're too distracted to even remember it supposedly happened.
And if you ask the question of why no one has been back you get the same predictable train of really dumb canned responses about how it's too expensive and wouldn't serve a purpose or whatever. I only hope the hoax's expiration date is approaching soon because it's harder every day to see how this lie has continued.
People are so fucking dumb it's just horrific. If anyone even brings up the possibility of moon landings being faked people look at you like you're insane.
we land remote controlled drones on other planets all the time, what are you talking about
I can understand thinking it was too difficult to pull off in 69 and being skeptical about that, but OF COURSE we could make it happen today if they invested an assload of money and found enough people willing to risk their lives for no good reason.
I've brought this up many times to people, everyone dismisses it...even neil de grasse tyson, gives a wishy washy meal mouthed the van allen belts aren't that bad.
someone should put him on the line, to put on a replica suit and get in a replica craft, and let us bombard it with equivalent levels of radiation. or even just 1/4 or 1/8 or 1/16 the kevel.
I'm more convinced every day that NDGT is literally just an actor, and wouldn't understand what you were talking about with interstellar radiation anyway.
I volunteer as tribute. I will voluntarily, for free, accept a flight to the moon in a replica suit, on a replica vessel, as long as they are exact replicas of the ones used in the Apollo missions. And then, when I come back to earth, I will voluntarily and again for free submit to the same levels of radiation the astronauts should have faced in space in the same capsule and same suits.
If the results are different, I'll be dead so I don't care. If the results are the same then the "moon landing hoax" is dead and I never hear about it again. I'm going to die young anyway, so what difference does it make if I go down in the history books first?
even though Orion’s apogee was well shy of the worst part of this inner belt, (another 2,344 miles further out)
The very colourful NASA Orion Press Kit doesn’t refer to radiation data acquisition at all, nor was it listed among the flight objectives of this 2014 test.[3] Perhaps the Press Kit was for the ‘ordinary media’, as the specialist website Spaceflight101 did mention this aspect of the Orion test:
firstly Orion did not pass through the belt(s) it merely skimmed the edge of the lower belt. Secondly, it infers that radiation in ‘Deep Space’ is harsher and somehow different. From what? Shallow Space, Softer Space? Interestingly, at one point in the Orion radiation report, just after the instrumentation had registered a spike in an extremely potent area of the inner belt, the radiation is described as ‘softening’:
The manifest disinclination to place the results of these findings in the public domain implies that the radiation data obtained during the Orion test was of greater significance than indicated by NASA’s casual attitude during the run-up to the test. It also implies that the results would be of such importance that it was necessary to keep any mention of radiation out of the Press Kit and, in NASA’s own Orion blog, categorise the radiation research as by-product of the heat shield testing.
Indeed, I read the whole thing. Honestly I was trying to look for some documentation of measurements done on the van allen belt, in to debunk this. And we'll after a brief goolge season I couldn't find much. I did however find this. And it certain implies there are some inconsistency with what nasa has said.
I'd consider the moon landings to be basically the biggest lie ever told, which has permanently crippled science in America, how is that not important?
I'm not saying it isn't a great conspiracy, I just don't believe it. I had film and photos from several of the missions when I was a kid, and got to meet several of the people that were involved. You know it's funny now that I think about it, my mom worked at Lockheed. Most of the people I remember growing up worked at EG&G, Bechtel, EPA and SAIC lol. I had never realized until just now what I grew up around.
This was all in support of projects at the NV test site and environmental sciences, not aerospace. But that's still like a who's who of the MIC I guess.
When I searched Google for images of the Van Allen radiation belt, I didn't see any that showed the radiation encompassing the poles. Is this a thing? If not could that be a way to circumvent it? I'm not saying I think that's what they did when "attempting" to go to the moon. I'm thinking that could have something to do with the secrecy regarding Antarctica.
Interesting. You obviously know more about this then I do. So, what're your thoughts on this? I'm assuming the proposed flight paths of the moon landing missions didn't pass through those lower radiation areas.
Geez people, the moon is not that far away! The Earth is rather quirky, its moon is close, otherwise it would have been impossible to visit.
We had blank check budgeting for NASA and a bunch of nazi scientists who wanted to go to the moon long before hitler.
Yeah that's what I'm trying to say... supposedly all the footage was broadcasted with RCA and Westinghouse specially developed video cameras.. but this is clearly film which takes days to process.
I'm agnostic on the subject although it seems really implausible that any human ever walked on the moon, given the physical difficulties and the level of technology that existed at the time. I mean, just think about how heavy the cars were in the 70s, and the real difficulties in storing enough fuel to generate the required thrust, not only to get people there (a not insurmountable problem) but also to get them back safely.
But, anyway, I have a quirky little hypothesis I'm playing around with, that says the Van Allen belts (or the magnetosphere in general) are intimately tied to mammalian consciousness. I.e., you can't even get past the Van Allen belts and be a functioning human being, even if you could overcome all of the obvious physical difficulties. It's just a hypothesis, and I wouldn't know how to test it, but obviously if humans walked on the moon, that would falsify my hypothesis.
Despite the huge amount of info out there on it (leaning either way) I always remind myself that the space race wasn't just a friendly science competition. It was the cold war. Nukes were a big deal. After WWII the Russians acquired all of the best German rocket engineers. That's why U.S. rockets kept blowing up on the launch pad. We were behind. Getting to the moon (or at least appearing to do so) was of great importance after Sputnik.
Would it be so hard to build a mammoth Saturn V rocket to look the part, fill the tanks just enough to allow some dudes to circle the Earth for a few days--then parachute back down in order to achieve a huge geopolitical victory?
The logistics of actually getting people there, alive, then back again is staggering. If they really did it..well, hats off to them. Incredible. Otherwise, we haven't been more than 280 miles up or so since the last 'moon mission', and those astronauts reported radiation effects.
It amazes me that no one brings up the simple facts such as NASA using duct tape and other cheap materials to hold together their equipment while we all sit back and laugh thinking its funny that they do that but never second guess that it is fake. On top of this, they wear these space suits that wouldn't be able to handle the force of a vacuum. Hardly anyone had shown the results of vacuum experiments.
This is one conspiracy I cannot get behind. The fact is the amount of exposure time is critical in killing someone from radiation. The exposure time in a trip to the moon is a minimal amount.
They literally planted retroreflectors on the Moon during the Apollo program which reflect lasers from the moon back to Earth to this day. The flags planted on the moon, the landers, and the tracks are all still visible to this day via the LRO which orbits the moon.
The evidence is overwhelming that we in fact went to the moon.
NASA didn't but the Secret Space Program did. They shared technology to help NASA get to the Moon.
However when they arrived, they were not welcomed. Something strange awaited them. This has been corroborated by many whistle blowers. Here's one... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPrWqt6VESQ
I'd consider the moon landings to be basically the biggest lie ever told, which has permanently crippled science in America, how is that not important?
48 comments
n/a PsychedelicPhlegm 2017-01-17
Here is actual footage of them faking it: https://youtu.be/xciCJfbTvE4
It's pretty much undeniable. They never went to the moon.
n/a EricCarver 2017-01-17
Yeah, the suits they wore would have had to protect against radiation, and extreme heat in the sun, and extreme cold in the shade.
There are so many gaps in the story. What I find confusing is why did the russians keep mum about the Americans failure?
n/a saxmaster 2017-01-17
I've heard that they lost a few too many cosmonauts and didn't want people to know some of the gruesome and tragic things that were done in the name of the space race. Or maybe it was mostly fake on both sides, with 99% of the real effort and money going toward developing superior ICBM capabilities, with the manned efforts an afterthought to distract the public.
n/a littleblueanarchist 2017-01-17
ding ding ding we have a winner
=)
n/a Outofmany 2017-01-17
The Cold War was more or less a hoax. Supposedly there was all this hostility over ideaology but the Russians never really showed much interest. Everything was secret spies and alleged nuclear capabilities and a lot of fear of shadows. Besides that, they could barely keep their shit together and we ended up sending them aid even during the height of the cold war. It's very possible that the Soviet Union was just a puppet state.
n/a saxmaster 2017-01-17
I've heard the reverse--that communists from the Soviet Union successfully infiltrated the US government in the 50s, in order to allow or help Communism take over China and spread across the globe. McCarthy was right, but the Commies were so successful they were able to smear him and cover up the true extent of the infiltration. Whether it's true or not, it's interesting how every theory has an equal and opposite conspiracy theory. Disinfo just mirrors the truth and we go around seeing a mirror image of reality without even realizing it.
n/a Outofmany 2017-01-17
I've definitely heard that one as well. It was one reason I was on the fence about the cold war hoax for a while. However these are the different type of communist - the subversive ones. They live for nothing else than to infect America with their filth. It sure seems rather theatrical and paranoid. Whenever I detect someone going for the paranoia dollar, I tend to have flags go up. It's easy enough to fake. There are a lot of connections between MKULTRA and the spy game. There's always been this weird talk about brainwashing spies. There's been weird talk of Lee Harvey Oswald being wrapped up in something like that. Then suddenly it makes sense: soviet spies are just MKULTRA victims. The CIA has declared war on America to serve national interests. To produce the enemies America needs to justify it's actions. Once you play around with the theory, it seems to explain so much it's hard to shake. I could argue that the soviet spy thing proves the cold war hoax because it's too easy to fake and blame it on Russian secrecy. However you've got to snap out of it and realize Russia got nothing out of spreading communistic ideals.
n/a joe_jaywalker 2017-01-17
Someone else made a good comment about the Cold War, but I'll say this also:
I used to ask the same question you just did until I thought about how that would have played out.... the Soviets would have claimed we faked the moon landings, been able to offer basically no proof, the U.S. would have decried these accusations as propaganda, and the public would have persisted in their belief of the authenticity of the Apollo missions.
If on the other hand they played their cards right and kept mum about the chicanery, they could blackmail the U.S. out of billions of dollars in the ensuing decades, which is probably what has happened with several countries.
n/a EricCarver 2017-01-17
Interesting idea. Does make some sense.
n/a daddie_o 2017-01-17
Because the cold war was fake, too. That is to say, both sides were really playing for the same team, even though they managed to trick and terrify the rest of us.
n/a EricCarver 2017-01-17
I don't think so. I really dont. The ramp up was too huge, both betting all in to see who could break the other.
n/a daddie_o 2017-01-17
Of course they were. That way both sides could borrow money from the same group of bankers. All the money flowed in the same direction. Check out the research by Anthony Sutton. The Soviet Union was backed by Western banks.
n/a I_luv_cp_hmm 2017-01-17
I cannot believe people actually believe we landed on the moon. It's just not possible to do that in 69. Hell it wouldn't even be possible today
n/a joe_jaywalker 2017-01-17
Most people don't even think about it, they're too distracted to even remember it supposedly happened.
And if you ask the question of why no one has been back you get the same predictable train of really dumb canned responses about how it's too expensive and wouldn't serve a purpose or whatever. I only hope the hoax's expiration date is approaching soon because it's harder every day to see how this lie has continued.
n/a crestind 2017-01-17
People are so fucking dumb it's just horrific. If anyone even brings up the possibility of moon landings being faked people look at you like you're insane.
n/a SacredCock 2017-01-17
I brought up the subject with my uncle a few weeks ago and he got fucking pissed
n/a crestind 2017-01-17
Sounds like a pretty standard response. Had a girl give me a look of complete disgust for suggesting it.
n/a OsoFeo 2017-01-17
It's really amazing isn't it? It's a meme that serves as a perfectly engineered social weapon to alienate people who are paying attention to details.
n/a Afrobean 2017-01-17
we land remote controlled drones on other planets all the time, what are you talking about
I can understand thinking it was too difficult to pull off in 69 and being skeptical about that, but OF COURSE we could make it happen today if they invested an assload of money and found enough people willing to risk their lives for no good reason.
n/a littleblueanarchist 2017-01-17
I've brought this up many times to people, everyone dismisses it...even neil de grasse tyson, gives a wishy washy meal mouthed the van allen belts aren't that bad.
someone should put him on the line, to put on a replica suit and get in a replica craft, and let us bombard it with equivalent levels of radiation. or even just 1/4 or 1/8 or 1/16 the kevel.
n/a pepe_silvia67 2017-01-17
This would actually be a great way to settle the debate.
n/a joe_jaywalker 2017-01-17
I'm more convinced every day that NDGT is literally just an actor, and wouldn't understand what you were talking about with interstellar radiation anyway.
n/a HAESisAMyth 2017-01-17
He doesn't answer scientific answers posed on Twitter.
He flame wars though.
n/a peanutwrath66 2017-01-17
I think this is largely what it is tbh. sort of a science-celebrity gatekeeper.
n/a Detached09 2017-01-17
I volunteer as tribute. I will voluntarily, for free, accept a flight to the moon in a replica suit, on a replica vessel, as long as they are exact replicas of the ones used in the Apollo missions. And then, when I come back to earth, I will voluntarily and again for free submit to the same levels of radiation the astronauts should have faced in space in the same capsule and same suits.
If the results are different, I'll be dead so I don't care. If the results are the same then the "moon landing hoax" is dead and I never hear about it again. I'm going to die young anyway, so what difference does it make if I go down in the history books first?
n/a arrest_her_now 2017-01-17
The Van Allen belt waxes and wanes over time. Space weather.
n/a xhosSTylex 2017-01-17
Can't explain that..
n/a Dfensog 2017-01-17
Clearly space aliens transported men to the moon. Nothing else is physically possible. Now can I have my meds back?
n/a Melmelcom 2017-01-17
Well that is an eye opener.
n/a ness_monster 2017-01-17
Not going to say I agree or disagree with you, adjust you tin foil a bit and look for some more solid sources.
http://www.aulis.com/orion_vanallens.htm
Read this. It has a pretty well put together analysis of Apollo dosimetry data, compared to the 2014 orion test flights.
It concludes that the data from apollo data does match the orion data, and other expected results.
Again not going to agree or disagree, but very interesting none the less.
n/a dic_pix 2017-01-17
From your source;
n/a ness_monster 2017-01-17
Indeed, I read the whole thing. Honestly I was trying to look for some documentation of measurements done on the van allen belt, in to debunk this. And we'll after a brief goolge season I couldn't find much. I did however find this. And it certain implies there are some inconsistency with what nasa has said.
n/a joe_jaywalker 2017-01-17
This is still the best conspiracy because it could be revealed at any time and have enormous and far-reaching repercussions.
n/a mastigia 2017-01-17
I think this just gets brought up everytime we start talking about something important.
n/a joe_jaywalker 2017-01-17
I'd consider the moon landings to be basically the biggest lie ever told, which has permanently crippled science in America, how is that not important?
n/a mastigia 2017-01-17
I'm not saying it isn't a great conspiracy, I just don't believe it. I had film and photos from several of the missions when I was a kid, and got to meet several of the people that were involved. You know it's funny now that I think about it, my mom worked at Lockheed. Most of the people I remember growing up worked at EG&G, Bechtel, EPA and SAIC lol. I had never realized until just now what I grew up around.
This was all in support of projects at the NV test site and environmental sciences, not aerospace. But that's still like a who's who of the MIC I guess.
n/a MrBulger 2017-01-17
It's a belt dumbass, not a earth radiation condom.
n/a HAESisAMyth 2017-01-17
Isn't the belt where we supposedly launched through?
n/a StoneColdStinkAustin 2017-01-17
n/a 34679 2017-01-17
The "a" is attached to the noun "condom". In this case, "earth radiation" is a compound adjective. You wouldn't say "an condom".
n/a I_Blindly_See 2017-01-17
When I searched Google for images of the Van Allen radiation belt, I didn't see any that showed the radiation encompassing the poles. Is this a thing? If not could that be a way to circumvent it? I'm not saying I think that's what they did when "attempting" to go to the moon. I'm thinking that could have something to do with the secrecy regarding Antarctica.
n/a dic_pix 2017-01-17
Yes, it's a result of the magnetic poles/fields interacting with solar winds.
n/a I_Blindly_See 2017-01-17
Interesting. You obviously know more about this then I do. So, what're your thoughts on this? I'm assuming the proposed flight paths of the moon landing missions didn't pass through those lower radiation areas.
n/a spork22 2017-01-17
You will still pass through the belts in a polar orbit and incur huge fuel costs to transition to an orbit that intersects the moon's orbit.
n/a monkeyman114 2017-01-17
Geez people, the moon is not that far away! The Earth is rather quirky, its moon is close, otherwise it would have been impossible to visit. We had blank check budgeting for NASA and a bunch of nazi scientists who wanted to go to the moon long before hitler.
n/a MaxMactor 2017-01-17
It's not really that close.
n/a orionquest2016 2017-01-17
No mention about the fact that this is filmed? There's way to broadcast film. How many reals of film would they have needed?
n/a mastigia 2017-01-17
Have you heard of TV?
n/a orionquest2016 2017-01-17
Yeah that's what I'm trying to say... supposedly all the footage was broadcasted with RCA and Westinghouse specially developed video cameras.. but this is clearly film which takes days to process.
n/a sleep-apnea11 2017-01-17
What I'd like to know is who is trying to keep us in?
n/a OsoFeo 2017-01-17
I'm agnostic on the subject although it seems really implausible that any human ever walked on the moon, given the physical difficulties and the level of technology that existed at the time. I mean, just think about how heavy the cars were in the 70s, and the real difficulties in storing enough fuel to generate the required thrust, not only to get people there (a not insurmountable problem) but also to get them back safely.
But, anyway, I have a quirky little hypothesis I'm playing around with, that says the Van Allen belts (or the magnetosphere in general) are intimately tied to mammalian consciousness. I.e., you can't even get past the Van Allen belts and be a functioning human being, even if you could overcome all of the obvious physical difficulties. It's just a hypothesis, and I wouldn't know how to test it, but obviously if humans walked on the moon, that would falsify my hypothesis.
n/a xhosSTylex 2017-01-17
Earth is just a big singular Atom.
n/a Sabbatean 2017-01-17
What about all the radiation from when we nuked the upper atmosphere?
n/a xhosSTylex 2017-01-17
I've always been heavily torn on this one.
Despite the huge amount of info out there on it (leaning either way) I always remind myself that the space race wasn't just a friendly science competition. It was the cold war. Nukes were a big deal. After WWII the Russians acquired all of the best German rocket engineers. That's why U.S. rockets kept blowing up on the launch pad. We were behind. Getting to the moon (or at least appearing to do so) was of great importance after Sputnik.
Would it be so hard to build a mammoth Saturn V rocket to look the part, fill the tanks just enough to allow some dudes to circle the Earth for a few days--then parachute back down in order to achieve a huge geopolitical victory?
The logistics of actually getting people there, alive, then back again is staggering. If they really did it..well, hats off to them. Incredible. Otherwise, we haven't been more than 280 miles up or so since the last 'moon mission', and those astronauts reported radiation effects.
n/a KyleIsATree 2017-01-17
It amazes me that no one brings up the simple facts such as NASA using duct tape and other cheap materials to hold together their equipment while we all sit back and laugh thinking its funny that they do that but never second guess that it is fake. On top of this, they wear these space suits that wouldn't be able to handle the force of a vacuum. Hardly anyone had shown the results of vacuum experiments.
n/a ajjets10 2017-01-17
This is one conspiracy I cannot get behind. The fact is the amount of exposure time is critical in killing someone from radiation. The exposure time in a trip to the moon is a minimal amount.
They literally planted retroreflectors on the Moon during the Apollo program which reflect lasers from the moon back to Earth to this day. The flags planted on the moon, the landers, and the tracks are all still visible to this day via the LRO which orbits the moon.
The evidence is overwhelming that we in fact went to the moon.
n/a TedShield 2017-01-17
NASA didn't but the Secret Space Program did. They shared technology to help NASA get to the Moon.
However when they arrived, they were not welcomed. Something strange awaited them. This has been corroborated by many whistle blowers. Here's one... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPrWqt6VESQ
n/a joe_jaywalker 2017-01-17
I'd consider the moon landings to be basically the biggest lie ever told, which has permanently crippled science in America, how is that not important?