Russian Cosmonauts Questioning the American Moon Landing;

What's the ETA for a moon landing, from launch to landing, with the journey to the original sites, all in continuous ultra HD livestreaming from several cameras?

Only THEN will it be confirmed.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: KSDakar01

So a science experiment that is still being used today is on the Moon and American equipment is still on the Moon but America never went to the Moon ?

Pure nonsense.

The mirrors? You don't need humans to directly put mirrors on any object in outer space.

a reply to: baggy7981

Perhaps not now but we did when they were put there in 69 and 71.

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: KSDakar01

So a science experiment that is still being used today is on the Moon and American equipment is still on the Moon but America never went to the Moon ?

Pure nonsense.

Yeah, but how do you know? Because that what you were taught? Because they gave us photos and bad video? Is that how we know?

1.Well the mirrors we use to tell distance from the moon to the earth had to be manually placed. why? because unmanned rovers caouldt set them precisely.

2. No stars argument. Its called LIGHT POLLUTION. the surface is reflective. you can see that when the sun is down and the moon is relecting the light. Now imagine BEING on the surface immersed in that light.

3. Shadows. Easy. light sources from all directions gave the people and equipment weird shadows.

4. Van allen belts. the radiation in the Van Allen belts is not X-rays, its charged particles.
There are two main types of radiation, the first is electromagnetic waves. This covers everything from the radio waves, through microwaves, infrared which we feel as heat, visible light on through ultraviolet, X-rays to Gamma rays, that is the electromagnetic spectrum.
The second type of radiation is charged particles, these are the component parts of atoms such as protons, neutrons and electrons which have been broken apart by nuclear reactions or extreme heat as in the sun.

The Apollo spacecraft was protected by a thick-walled aluminum honeycomb structure that shielded the astronauts from most of the radiation2. NASA also set the course so ithe trip through would be SHORT and FAST,further limiting exsposure.

5. RUSSIANS LIE.SELF EXPLANATORY.

a reply to: Mantiss2021

Safe transit through the radiation belts was not the result of any special space suit technology. In point of fact, for much of the mission the astronauts did not even wear the suit helmets. Protection from radiation for the Apollo crew was primarily provided by the beryllium structure of the capsule itself, which acted as an neutron absorbing barrier, and a calculated trajectory through the radiation belts that provided the least exposure time

Yep, I admit I was wrong about the suits needed for the radiation belts. I confused that with the shielding needed for the spacecraft used. But where did that tech go? Regarding the rest of the rhetoric you put in your post of me claiming things as fact or something, I was just asking a question. Didn't know everyone was so uptight about moon landings.

You specifically asked "What happened to the suit technology that allows them through the radiation belts?"


By your very question, you acknowledge that the radiation belts exist, since you obviously understand that the "suit technology" allowed the astronauts to traverse them.

To then claim that you "don't know if there are radiation belts or not" rather contradicts your previous assertion.

I claimed I don't know if radiation belts exist cause I don't just trust the science and I've never been to space. I assume they exist like everyone else, but that's as far as I go. I admit I was wrong about the suits and confused with shielding. You got me, but still doesn't answer the question of why all the excuses for not going back and why don't they have the shielding tech? Funding? I guess, but I'll fall into my place and stay out of the space threads and stick with the political ones for now on. Didn't know you space guys got so upset over some questions.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: KSDakar01

if it was even remotely true that it was faked , dont you think Americas greatest enemies at the time would have proved it so ?

the USSR and CCP probably would have proved it false

Amen, I came here to say that, lol.

To Yuppa:

I got your DM, tried to reply but I can only message ATS staff. Maybe some day! I appreciate your sentiment though.

a reply to: Debunked

Because the radiation affects computers, and the new capsules are all computer controlled. To get to places other than the moon, they’re going to have to go through other portions of the Belts, exposing them to more radiation. So they don’t know how that’s going to affect the capsule.

Where's Kubrick when you need him?

Only thing I’m convinced of relating to any of this is that NASA lies. (Shrug)

originally posted by: Debunked
a reply to: Mantiss2021


...
trimmed
...
Didn't know everyone was so uptight about moon landings.
...
trimmed
...
Didn't know you space guys got so upset over some questions.

TBH I don't think many in this thread were being sensitive over the moon landings ...

They were wailing that Russia said something negative about the USA

Tensions are clearly far too high for far too many right now ...

I stepped away from this thread because of all the negativity even though I really wanted to learn and understand the truth (Deny Ignorance! - If you will) I can always look elsewhere for the answers instead, sad!.

Thanks for trying to get some level of genuine response to the matter but even still the questions actually posed by the article remain completely untouched and now a new one created: Was it aluminium honeycomb (yuppa) or beryllium (Mantiss2021) or both for the shell of the Apollo spacecraft.

NVM

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Debunked

Because the radiation affects computers, and the new capsules are all computer controlled. To get to places other than the moon, they’re going to have to go through other portions of the Belts, exposing them to more radiation. So they don’t know how that’s going to affect the capsule.

Yet all the computerized equipment we launch into far space orbits all seem to have no problem ... hmmm!

a reply to: AllAnIllusion

Actually they do, but those computer systems aren’t responsible for keeping a crew alive. It would be really nice to make sure they can still breathe.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I guess you maybe missed the point ... we agree, they can protect this extremely sensitive equipment that is launched into far more hostile environments that just the Van Allen Belt and yet the excuse for not going back on an moon mission that was achieved over 50 years ago using ZX80 level computing is that the computer may not be safe enough ... ISS interlock level tech still has a manual (electrical as opposed to electronic) override just like standard aviation.

I'm trying very hard not to say anything that might rattle the pro-America cages more than has already occurred just by the mere mention of the R..... word, I'm tired, it's late, so I'll give up on getting sensible answers for tonight.

a reply to: angelchemuel

Putin bad.
All Russians evil.
All Russians backwards with no technology.
You lie in name of Russian disinformation.

originally posted by: BiffTannen
Where's Kubrick when you need him?

His legacy lives on.

www.bitchute.com...

Green screen footage.

Eta: it may be bogus.

originally posted by: angelchemuel
Some 40 years ago an ex-military friend of our family said the following. I am just putting it out for consideration. The 'Cold War' was in full swing at that time in the 70's/80's.
He said this, and I'm not quoting verbatim after 40 years:
There is just one thing the Americans and Russians work together on and that's space exploration. The Yanks got really pi**ed off when the Russians were first in space. So, because they both had a mutual interest in space and our defence from UFO's, they agreed that the Americans would get to be first on the moon and have that accolade.
So apparently, when Neil Armstrong said his famous words, they weren't the first words he spoke. (remember there was a time lag). Allegedly the first thing he said was "What the hell are they doing here?" meaning the Russians. The Russians were already there, but kept out of 'camera shot'. The Americans really believed the Russians would step back from this monumentous space event and allow them the glory of 'first on the moon'. But allegedly they didn't, they wanted the Americans to know "we still beat you to it".
So the cold war intensified, yet to this day we still have cosmonauts on the ISS.
I'm only reporting what a family friend told us.
Rainbows
Jane

Now see, this is the version I find most convincing because it exemplifies the quintessential soul of the human race. Everybody worked together, everybody hated it and now everybody is awkward at christmas parties because we're all jealous and insecure about the fact that firstly, we have to share credit, and secondly, maybe those jerks across the ocean are actually useful and even amicable. I'm tempted to offer some Freudian observations but maybe let's not push it.

Look i dont know if one or more moon landing were fake
i dont know if they saw something on the moon that kept us from going there (when we more that capable of for quite some time) again.
what i do see is a set of FACTS that cause me to question and not dismiss "moon conspiracy theories" out of hand.

one..
one of the most important events in human history by any scale and they LOOSE THE ORIGIONAL MOON TAPES (visual, technical, ect)
hell we have stored lots of USELESS THINGS (ex all the "first lady dresses") at great expense but not this?

two..
the plans of all space vehicles at the time (along with tools, jigs, ect) have been destroyed and/or also "disappear"

three..
going along with two the claims that somehow the engineers of the day made equipment that current ones (with all the advance knowledge, materials and computers) cant replicate and we must spend DECADES (along with hundreds of millions of dollars) to make new tech to go to the moon?

four...
we going gangbusters to make a mission to mars but cant seem to get a base on the moon
to remind MUCH CLOSER and way to test new equipment/procedures/train people with added advantage close (relatively) to send help if something goes wrong
along with makes a GREAT JUMPING OFF POINT for said mars mission.

and by far the most (but not last) troubling question why we cant get CLEAR CLOSE AND DIRECT pictures of the sites of landings.

this one staggers my mind because right now from COMMERICAL TECH i can get a satellite picture of my house (or anyones) clear enough to see the swingset, bbq grill, and all but read the license plate from my vehicles.

but your telling me NASA cant get a satellite of equal or better quality to take pics of the moon landing and exploration sites?

hell they have lots of spare "satellites" left over in warehouses that even if older are at least equal or better than commercial ones now.

before someone says "its too expensive" need i remind you on the moon landing anniversary (sorry off top of my head cant remember year) they DID SEND one to take pictures to drum up support

yet get the same "distant" shots where you see something but not as clear as looking at any property on the net.

again back to my point

i dont think all the conspiracy claims are true (if any)

but there is enough PROVEN facts to not have some serious questions/doubts for NASA.
with their continued ability to prove the old saying "NASA.. Never A Straight Answer"

scrounger

a reply to: KSDakar01
If anyone is doubting the moon landings, I suggest you read all the third party evidence that's out there.


en.m.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Nucleardoom
a reply to: KSDakar01
If anyone is doubting the moon landings, I suggest you read all the third party evidence that's out there.


en.m.wikipedia.org...

with respect did you look at the "independent evidence" with a critical eye?

because i did and guess what i saw

again distant low detail pics when we have better , smaller, cheaper and lighter picture taking tech.

claims of "well others put probes on the moon and space programs" that match what was CONVFIRMED DONE (probes) but are not proof AMERICA did all it claimed

or another way "correlation does not mean causation"
a well trained and funded special effects company can put up a (example) zombie outbreak scene.
doesnt mean that zombies exist as presented now does it?

these are just two examples from your "independent evidence"

again my PERSONAL OPINON is we went around the moon and landed on it at least once.

but there is enough "irregularities" that have been proven to have anyone of logical mind to be questioning/have doubt

see my previous points

scrounger