Russian Cosmonauts Questioning the American Moon Landing;

a reply to: AllAnIllusion

It may very well have been an aluminum honeycomb structure, as opposed to beryllium, used as shielding on the Apollo spacecraft. My information came from documents I had read long ago (I actually lived during the Space Race, and my father worked for one of the aerospace companies that built the Apollo Command Module motors).

Honestly? ... Really? What proof is there?
Actually? There is none.

Other than "The Government", with a few government "Commissioned Officers" and a "space agency", sucking funds from the public treasury. Then a "Public Education" system all saying, YAY, We made it!

Other than that? There is no proof that the U.S.A. put a man on the moon. None!

I know, "Moon Rocks". Any idiot can pick up a rock, from anywhere and say, "it's from the moon".

I'm not being "anti-U.S.A."
But blind faith in any authority? Is anti-American.
Especially when "the science" doesn't add up.

The solar radiation alone is a barrier.
The super secret tin foil? Didn't exist back then and it still doesn't.

originally posted by: murphy22
Honestly? ... Really? What proof is there?
Actually? There is none.

Other than "The Government", with a few government "Commissioned Officers" and a "space agency", sucking funds from the public treasury. Then a "Public Education" system all saying, YAY, We made it!

Other than that? There is no proof that the U.S.A. put a man on the moon. None!

I know, "Moon Rocks". Any idiot can pick up a rock, from anywhere and say, "it's from the moon".

I'm not being "anti-U.S.A."
But blind faith in any authority? Is anti-American.
Especially when "the science" doesn't add up.

The solar radiation alone is a barrier.
The super secret tin foil? Didn't exist back then and it still doesn't.

I posted the debunks already. The "radiation" they were exsposed to isnt instantly deadly. they took the quickest path through as well. its called CHARGED PARTICLE RADIATION,not the type that will make you glow in the dark either.

For the Apollo missions, exposure during the crossing of the Van Allen belts was calculated and measured by means of uncrewed test flights: specifically, Apollo 6 (April 1968) carried into Earth orbit an Apollo capsule equipped with instruments for measuring the capability of the spacecraft to block the radiation from the belts.

Probe data indicated, and actual dosimeters worn by the Apollo crews confirmed, that total exposure due to the Van Allen belt passage would be about the equivalent of a chest X-ray.

originally posted by: scrounger
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

This.

Great summation

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Debunked

Plenty of reasons not to trust the science

The science proves we have been there , ignorance says otherwise.

I.like to think that we landed on the moon, but in all honesty, I can't prove it. Pics and video are easy to assemble here on earth. And seeing as no one had been there before, how woild anyone really know what to expect?

Again, I BELIEVE we landed on the moon, but I certainly don't KNOW for certain that it happened (I have my doubts as well).

Ultimately it comes down to trusting the USG during the cold war.

a reply to: sapien82

Apollo mission were tracked by number of entities - famed Jodrell Bank Observatory in England , university in Berlin
Even some guy in Kentucky, who build antenna in back yard to eavesdrop on radio transmissions

www.arrl.org...

www.jodrellbank.net...

Besides if Soviets could detect signs of fraud back in 1969 no doubt would have revealed it

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)

a reply to: Mantiss2021

Not Correct

Apollo command module had outer shell of stainless steel, inner shell of aluminum bonded to a honeycomb structure Equipment and gauges were attached to this structure

This shielded the crew from much of the radiation

Also the radiation belts consist of several layers , one of protons , another of electrons trapped earths magnetic field

Great conspiracy threads are always the best pallet cleanser from the norm these days and a welcome distraction. Things being faked aside..I recently watched a documentary film Apollo Mission To The Moon from NatGeo on Disney+.

It was not the standard documentary where people are interviewed after the fact but "real time" interviews of the time and recordings from that period. If you have not watched it I would recommend it regardless if you believe the landing or not. It was done really well and I have learned about missions that I was ignorant to or have forgotten.

My personal take on the moon landing is I think we were and the reason we have not gone back is what we found there. Of course that is my tinfoil hat take.

Now to comment on why we can not see the lander or flag on the moon from what I can tell its all about "optics" no pun intended..LOL

For instance google earth satellites are pretty close to the earth in comparison to the moon to the earth.

WorldView-3 will be one of the most powerful Earth observation satellites ever sent into space by a private company. Spinning around the planet some 600 kilometres (370 miles) above us, it will cover every part of the Earth’s surface every couple of days.

Source

At its furthest point from the Earth, the Moon is about 405 696 km (252 088 miles) away and astronomers say that the Moon is at apogee (‘apo’ means ‘away’). On the other hand, when the Moon is at perigee (‘peri’ means ‘near’), the Moon is at its closest approach to the Earth.

The distance between them is only 363 104 km (225 623 miles). These two figures differ by 42 592 km (26 465 miles) - more than three times larger than the diameter of the Earth! The average distance between the Earth and the Moon is 384 400 km (238 855 miles).

Source


It all comes down to the required size of the telescope from earth to be able to see the moon surface. I am trying to locate where I read it but I believe it was needing to be like 200meters in diameter and the same goes for the Hubble. This explains it.

But how do we know what the angular diameter of an object is? Well, the angular diameter is entirely dependent on two factors: distance, and the resolution capability of the telescope. A larger telescope can achieve a higher resolution. By capturing more light over a large area, you can resolve more detail. Angular diameter is also dependent on the distance between you and the object and is measured in degrees/minutes/seconds. There’s a relatively simple trigonometric equation to calculate this:

Where diameter is the diameter of the object, and distance is the distance to the center of the object. Let’s go back to the Apollo flag as an example. Per NASA, the flag was about 3 ft by 5 ft. For simplicity, let’s just say the flag is 5ft across. The average distance to the Moon is 238,900 miles. Converting this to feet and plugging this into the above equation, we find that the angular diameter is equal to roughly 0.00000001 radians, or ~0.002 arcseconds. For comparison, Pluto at opposition is 0.06” arcseconds. This is significantly smaller than any commercial telescope can resolve.

So can Hubble see the flagpole on the Moon? The answer is no, it cannot. The highest resolution that Hubble can achieve is about 0.03 arcseconds using its Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) array of cameras. The smallest object on the Moon that Hubble could observe is about the size of a football field.

Source

Again great thread!

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.

To reinforce that nonsense; Parkes radio dish, New South Wales, Australia-it helped with bringing the Apollo eleven landing to the world.

I had my tin foil hat on once, How foolish I was, and so I can honestly say it takes one to know one.

I've done a lot of looking for clues today but the more I search the more anomalies I find.

So, sensible answers only please ...

Can anyone explain how those three people in 'space suits' just walked out of helicopter 66 like they'd just been for a ride in a rowing boat ...

Here's a direct link to the point in the original footage (as rebroadcast for the 50th anniversary)

Exiting Helicopter 66

Again, I'm only asking about one of the same pointy questions that piqued my interest from the original Redacted presentation.

Any other footage I have seen of Astronauts or Cosmonauts (or whatever the particular countries refer to them as) where they were beyond Earth Orbit for more than 1 day they struggled to stand or walk and certainly weren't bounding easily down a flight of steps.



I always just believed that the Moon landings had happened but then I also believed that JFK had been shot by just one crazy bloke at the book depository so what do I know.

More questions than answers ... (lots, lots more)

P.S. If you listen to the audio at 2:37:18 the commentators oddly say 2 Astronauts not 3, I'm guessing Michael Collins wasn't top of mind for them.

a reply to: AllAnIllusion

Also note at 3:33:30 when they are waving to President Nixon through the glass of the mobile isolation unit that there are no signs of any Puffy Face Bird Leg Syndrome

a reply to: AllAnIllusion

Also note at 3:33:30 when they are waving to President Nixon through the glass of the mobile isolation unit that there are no signs of any Puffy Face Bird Leg Syndrome

I guess one would have to ask how long does it take before Puffy Face Bird Leg Syndrome to take affect in space. The entire Apollo mission took about 8 days and some change about 21 hours of that time frame where spent on the moon which does have some "gravity" so we would need to figure how much that slows down the process.

Can anyone explain how those three people in 'space suits' just walked out of helicopter 66 like they'd just been for a ride in a rowing boat ...

I think if you take into adrenaline from what just happened and the emotions involved. I think it would be possible. They have been studying this for astronauts and longer time in space seems like 1 and 4 can not stand longer than 10 minutes after re-entry.

Redistribution of body fluids with pooling of blood volume back in the vasculature of the lower body in association with reduced in- travascular blood volume contributes to landing-day orthosta- tic stress. Typically, 1 out of 4 astronauts is unable to stand quietly for 10 continuous minutes within hours of landing because of light-headedness, heart palpitations and syncope.

Source
Source PDF

I would also take a look at this site. You can listen to Mission control channels not sure how this guy did it but it is amazing.

Apollo in Real-time

Here is the clip from Armstrong. Make sure CAPCOM is selected.

Armstrong

Edgar Mitchell is unable to remember what the it felt like to walk on the moon. Just another oddity. Starts at 34 min

Not sure if that is an oddity. If you ask me today what I felt during the birth of my children I can honestly say I do not remember.

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: sapien82

Apollo mission were tracked by number of entities - famed Jodrell Bank Observatory in England , university in Berlin
Even some guy in Kentucky, who build antenna in back yard to eavesdrop on radio transmissions

www.arrl.org...

www.jodrellbank.net...

Besides if Soviets could detect signs of fraud back in 1969 no doubt would have revealed it

this argument that the "russians would call us out" has been put forth in like forever

but the problem with that idea is the russians were no where near ready for a MANNED moon mission.
they made alot of noise and their "experts" make alot of promises.

but what is missed is the PERSPECTIVE of russia at the time
anyone, and i mean ANYONE who didnt do what the "leadership" told them to do or had any failure you either disappeared to a vacation in siberia or DEAD.

also the "space race" was one of two items (second nuclear subs, look how the early ones of those turned out) of national pride
a situation where the ends justified the means aka you gonna die trying.

however even the leadership wasnt so blinded to national pride not to see (but not admit) their MANNED moon mission was no where near ready..
so when the USA appeared or did go to the moon they could "save face" by saying "USA did it first".

because reality if the mission was fake then they have to continue to try to go the moon knowing failure (and loss of national face) would happen.

also given (as i have statted) maybe not all (or any) mission were "fake" , they knew "something" didnt want us there or both so more than enough reason to "go along/ not call out" the "fake".

now as for "others tracking the mission"...
in all honesty how would ANY amateur or even other nation using JUST RADIO SIGNALS know it was fake?

im not a scientist but i can think of one two ways off the top of my head how to "fake it" .

one... a relay satellite with "delay" of a recorded signals of a "mission"

two.. we send a mission to go AROUND THE MOON (we do know we did do that) with same "recordings".

or a third a remote transmitter landed on the moon to do the same thing.

not saying it did happen or not

scrounger

a reply to: Kratos77

I guess one would have to ask how long does it take before Puffy Face Bird Leg Syndrome to take affect in space. The entire Apollo mission took about 8 days and some change about 21 hours of that time frame where spent on the moon which does have some "gravity" so we would need to figure how much that slows down the process.

I read the very same publications ... a couple of times and the answer is written there ...

It was in the actual data not the descriptive, they name then describe the symptoms and causes if each physiological alteration and the data shows when, for how long and duration of flight - The answer as I asserted was any flights >24h duration ... The return after to Earth after lunar launch was > 24h so moon 1/6 gravity is insufficient ... add in 24-48h post flight recovery

Typically, 1 out of 4 astronauts is unable to stand quietly for 10 continuous minutes within hours of landing because of light-headedness, heart palpitations and syncope.

You and I interpret this observation differently I see 1 in 4 cannot stand for (at least) 10 continuous minutes ... subtle but significant ... the critical eye ...

Well tried though ... been there ... still looking ... will keep searching ...

a reply to: Sparkymedic

I understand what you are saying but there is physical evidence of our visits to the Moon , the 800 lbs of rocks that were brought back and studied , some were gifted to around 130 friendly nations so there are bits of the Moon all over the world.

I remember watching the Apollo missions as a kid in the 70s , it fuelled my interest in Space , I am in no doubt we went to the Moon because the evidence is overwhelming and I'm still in awe of the bravery of the few that went there .