The Why Files and fake Moon landing

skip to the 3:50 mark to skip the ad. Typical Why Files episode where the high points of the conspiracy is covered and then debunked in a step by step method. After hitting on the Moon landing conspiracy the last few moments talks about some real possible conspiracy about structures on the Moon with eye witness testimony from NASA and pictures of possible Structures.

Stanley Kubrick is considered one of the greatest filmmakers of all time. Of his 13 movies a few are considered classics in their respective genres. Including the black comedy Dr. Strangelove, the highly-quotable anti-war commentary of Full Metal Jacket, and one of the most disturbing and enduring horror films of all time, The Shining.

But in 1968, Kubrick released "2001 – A Space Odyssey". This is more than a classic. It's a masterpiece. And widely regarded as one of the best science-fiction films of all time, and probably the most influential.

This collaboration with science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke tells the story of an alien intelligence that visited Earth in the distant past, and left behind artifacts in the solar system.

The movie features groundbreaking special effects, which still hold up today.

In fact, the effects looked so good, that the movie gave the American government an idea.

Billions of tax dollars were invested in the space program but the Soviets were still years ahead of the United States.

NASA desperately needed to get to the moon before Russia, but they knew it was impossible. So they turned to one of the world's best filmmakers for help. Because when it came to the moon: if they couldn't make it, they'd fake it.

youtu.be...

Why Files always provide a great production, I've enjoyed many of them.

Since the video didn't address the Van Allen Radiation Belts, I thought this video had a good explanation:

a reply to: 727Sky

I think just the fact that Russia, being our main competitor for space travel, never landed a man on the moon makes it suspicious. 23 trips to the moon and no man landed on the surface. However..

All along, the Soviet moon program had suffered from a third problem—lack of money. Massive investments required to develop new ICBMs and nuclear weapons so that the Soviet military could achieve strategic parity with the United States siphoned funds away from the space program.

www.smithsonianmag.com...
It seems that the overall goal was achieved regardless whether it was faked or not. 🤔

A lot of these so called conspiracy theories have been debunked. The shadows, the flag, etc. They did have remote camera after liftoff. They also had specialized cameras. The boots thing has been debunked. crosshairs and "C" on rock as well. You can go point by point on each item and look them up. I remember looking at NASA moon landing archive back when I was in the Air Force in 95. I sat in an alarm room for over a year with nothing to do but search online. Do I think for certain they went in '69? Not really...later they did.

originally posted by: inflaymes
I remember looking at NASA moon landing archive back when I was in the Air Force in 95. I sat in an alarm room for over a year with nothing to do but search online.

And did you ever see a NASA photo from the first moon landing taken on the surface of the moon showing the actual face of Buzz Aldrin or Niel Armstrong with the sun visor up?

Either of those astronauts would be gagging to have something like that on their mantlepiece and NASA would remove so much skeptisism towards a fake landing too.

Nowhere to be found me thinks.

a reply to: saint4God

He hit the van allen belt early in the show. Apparently the van allen isn't as intense as people think and they went through it really fast.

originally posted by: saint4God
Why Files always provide a great production, I've enjoyed many of them.

Since the video didn't address the Van Allen Radiation Belts, I thought this video had a good explanation:

At 20mins into the why files video in OP he discusses Van Allen Belt

a reply to: nerbot

In the late 1970s I got the chance to ask Buzz Aldrin a question in a packed church hall , he was expecting this young boy to ask a religious question, He got hit with a curve ball that he never saw coming or I did not even realise was thrown it was about the Hot and Cold of the Moon and the equipment.

I was curious about the glass and visors and how his body and equipment taken to being one second in freezing conditions the next in a boiling hot environment.

He went totally silent stared at the ground and walked out of the hall to sit in a vehicle nearby ? .

I know from experience that a glass object kept at minus 20 c explodes violently when chucked into a pan of boiling water ,real violently and a Pyrex caserole dish will destroy a kitchen if tested at those conditions

a reply to: stonerwilliam

the why files video in OP @43.25 AJ suggests due to there being no atmosphere on the moon (or a very thin one)

AJ says "the temperatures are hot on the moon but without an atmosphere to conduct heat theres no convection, as long as things are bright white they reflect most of the suns energy, heat wasnt an issue for the astronauts and not for the film"

youtu.be...

^NASA engineer admits we don't know how to get to the moon anymore

originally posted by: cooperton
youtu.be...

^NASA engineer admits we don't know how to get to the moon anymore

He may very well be telling the truth for his particular clearance level. However, if there's any truth to this Marines' story below (video), the afore mentioned NASA engineer is the equivalent of a Johnson Space Center tour guide.

I mean holy @$#!

I'm still pondering the implications if his experience was real and I'm leaning towards that after watching the entire interview. It's part two of a three part series. Worth a listen without a doubt.

If you got some time, this interview is VERY compelling.

a reply to: UpThenDown

In the 1950s when they were putting probes to the moon using figures for a airless world and the braking distances needed to land one they all heavily impacted the moon .

When they played about with those figures and breaking distance for a atmosphere on 5he moon they managed to land , if I remember correctly it was 29k versus 42k miles .

Many observations have been made since the 1700s by astronomers viewing the moon who have observed and reported on clouds on the moon

originally posted by: stonerwilliam
I know from experience that a glass object kept at minus 20 c explodes violently when chucked into a pan of boiling water ,real violently and a Pyrex caserole dish will destroy a kitchen if tested at those conditions

And never change a hot lightbulb using a damp cloth.

Interesting that Buzz just left like that. Well done on the curveball.

a reply to: stonerwilliam

They were not in boiling water which conducts heat.

They were in a pretty negligible "atmosphere" which does not conduct heat, so, no.

If you had an oven with a vacuum inside, it would not cook anything.

a reply to: nerbot

Probably did a face palm?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Is space or the moon really a vacuum , as water would explode in a vacuum according to the experts , it wasn't that long ago saying a blue sky on Mars got you laughed at

a reply to: stonerwilliam

www.forbes.com...

"But when you put liquid water in space — where it can no longer remain as a liquid — which one of these two things happens? Does it freeze or boil? The surprising answer is it does both: first it boils and then it freezes! We know this because this is what used to happen when astronauts felt the call of nature while in space. According to the astronauts who’ve seen it for themselves:


When the astronauts take a leak while on a mission and expel the result into space, it boils violently. The vapor then passes immediately into the solid state (a process known as desublimation), and you end up with a cloud of very fine crystals of frozen urine."

So, it boils and then freezes.

"

a reply to: stonerwilliam

No.

The first one to impact the Moon was a USSR one in 1959 which is what it was meant to.

Here's a complete list:

moon.nasa.gov...

Where do you get your information from and do you have a source?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

They are not in space at that station only in Los Earth Orbit or LEO ,according to some gravity models used that can be many hundreds of miles from the earth suface .

People sweat like pigs I noticed this in enviorament's where white meat can cook while working the sweat was phonominal that I lost and the noise issues were upsetting for me all that noise from equitment and air rushing in ,dust sticking to you , the litres of water I would need for all that .

a reply to: stonerwilliam

Are you talking about the ISS?

It's pressurized and the astronauts inside are not in a vacuum?

The ISS maintains an orbit hight of 400km. Here is an explanation of what LEO means.

The ISS is in space:

www.britannica.com...