Doubts about the moon landings

The van allen belt thing that moon landing conspiracy theorists always bring up is pretty much nonsense, and the reasons that they believe this specific one, is generally in most cases, based on people's limited comprehension of subjects that they are not studied in (funnily enough, how ironic for me to say, isn't it). In recent years having done a little of physics, engineering and other STEM subjects in college, it really helps to have this background because it trains your mind to think about things that actually have real effects in the world. Every little thing has to make logical sense, and you have to put effort into thinking about all of it in your mind, otherwise you will fail the class from your lack of understanding!

As I understand it, the concentration of radiation contained is not of the same magnitude in all places. It is not equally distributed. Thus, there are areas where there exist hardly any harmful radiation in an amount that would kill astronauts, and/or the amount of time spent transitioning them on the way to the moon, is negligible.

I'd be very surprised if the moon landing were hoaxed. Man most certainly did walk on the moon. There are far too many things that exist to disprove this.
Well, if the Van Allen belts are nonsense, one has to explain why NASA is on record as saying they are dangerous. And if they said that, why they ignored them on the moonflights. It's the inconsistencies that bug me. They can't seem to get all their ducks in a row. I mean, why stop people flying over the moon landing sites if there's nothing to hide? I may be agnostic, but I suspect there's shenanigans going on -- quite why, I could only speculate.
 
Well, if the Van Allen belts are nonsense, one has to explain why NASA is on record as saying they are dangerous. And if they said that, why they ignored them on the moonflights. It's the inconsistencies that bug me. They can't seem to get all their ducks in a row. I mean, why stop people flying over the moon landing sites if there's nothing to hide? I may be agnostic, but I suspect there's shenanigans going on -- quite why, I could only speculate.
I never said that the van allen belts themselves are nonsense - they exist, and they are dangerous. And NASA most certainly did not ignore them, or else there would be problems.

It's like I said. From my understanding, the amount of time spent transitioning them and/or the specific exit trajectory that the Apollo missions had on their way to the moon, mitigated this hazard to the extent that it was not a problem for the astronauts to pass through them.

Here's a good summeration of the subject by a respected YouTuber

 
Still no one has been beyond the VAB's or outside of low earth orbit in 50 years!! Despite the recurrence of speculations from the safety of Earth it was considered a problem to be overcome as of Orion missions so many years later.

"...Orion has protection shielding it will be put to the test as the vehicle cuts through the waves of radiation. Sensors aboard will record radiation levels for scientists to study. We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space."


Of course since a dozen or so men had gone through this region and back as well the exposed space between the walking on the moons radioactive surface with 60s technology It should hardly be the concern one would think. There really should not be any unknowns, like the discovery of the third belt.

it is a shame that along with all other data and tech that is lost. The bio medical data has also been lost. Not only is it considered the greatest of technological achievements, it also represents a unprecedented gap in the modern technological history.


This article has a great deal of information regarding potential hazards and developments, knowledge and lack thereof outside of LEO.

The Apollo Myth: A Hindrance to Human Space Exploration*
by Phil Kouts PhD

https://www.aulis.com/moonbase2017.htm

The author has completed a series of articles1 based on official NASA-published data and reached conclusions from NASA’s technical statements. Virtually all technical aspects of the Apollo record do not withstand the scrutiny of pragmatic reviews.
 
Last edited:
There was also clips of a press conference where someone asked about seeing the stars. Even Collins (the man is supposed to have stayed in orbit round the moon) said he didn't see any stars. At some point the spacecraft was in the shadow of the sun and the earth, at which point there must have been a magnificent visible star field. All three also looked extremely awkward.
How bizarre! This was contradicted by Edgar Mitchel and by modern astronauts.

Dr Mitchell explained that the stars were 'magnificent', and described them as being 'ten times brighter' than when observed from Earth.

I responded immediately, expressing how impressive his description had been of the voyage to and from the Moon and specifically the emphasis he placed on the magnificent and intense star field he so passionately portrayed. I then achieved a long-held ambition by asking the 'sixth man' to walk on the Moon why the first moonwalker, Neil Armstrong, had told Patrick Moore that the stars were unobservable whilst voyaging to and from the Moon on Apollo 11.

Dr Mitchell, seemingly surprised, immediately switched the subject of my question. Describing the view from the lunar surface, he stated that 'this required more time for the eye to adjust'. I brought him back to the question which specifically related to the view of the stars during the Earth/Moon/Earth voyage that he had so euphorically dramatised.

'Why would Neil Armstrong deny the visibility of the stars?' I asked, as to do so, obviously contradicted the focal point of Dr Mitchell's lecture. Neil Armstrong is credited as the astronaut with the greatest interest in observing the heavens. He had flown jet fighters at 40,000 feet to observe the clarity of the universe at that rarefied altitude.

'No he wasn't!' was his abrupt and venomous reply. The sixth Moon trekker and holder of an MIT doctorate in astronautics glowered at me, and mystifyingly refuted my historically-corroborated reference. Determined not to give up, I repeated clearly, 'Mr Armstrong stated that he couldn't see stars!'.

This time Mitchell's reply stunned the large audience – many whom were filming this exchange. 'He [Neil Armstrong] didn't know what he was talking about!', Dr Mitchell exclaimed sharply. Immediately I received a number of nodded acknowledgments from fellow audience members who obviously were taken aback by this

Footnote
Kathryn C. Thornton, Space Shuttle astronaut has orbited the Earth 256 times and travelled over six million miles. She logged a total of over 40 days in Cislunar space. In October 2011, I asked Kathryn if she could describe the stars from her four shuttle voyages. She stated that they were 'brighter than if viewed from the Earth' and, surprisingly, confirmed that she had never used a telescope or binoculars to aid her view of the stars from the shuttle windows.
https://www.aulis.com/edgar_mitchell.htm
 
"...Orion has protection shielding it will be put to the test as the vehicle cuts through the waves of radiation. Sensors aboard will record radiation levels for scientists to study. We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space."
This was most likely said in the context of building the Orion spacecraft i.e the engineer had things like weight of the vehicle or the material to be used, in mind. It was a specific challenge to the spacecraft being built as new.

I don't think it was said as if it had never been done before.

I haven't looked at the rest of the material in your post, but I'll do it later when I have the time LS.
 
This was most likely said in the context of building the Orion spacecraft i.e the engineer had things like weight of the vehicle or the material to be used, in mind. It was a specific challenge to the spacecraft being built as new.

I don't think it was said as if it had never been done before.

I haven't looked at the rest of the material in your post, but I'll do it later when I have the time LS.
That is not the point DD. It is not a specific challenge to the spacecraft, it is one of the primary issues of travel outside of LEO. It has not been done in 50 years from when it was seemingly barely a inconvenience. That is just one of the undeniable points here.
 
Last edited:
It is not a specific challenge to the spacecraft
How do you know this though? Are you involved in the programme? Do you develop spacecraft or are involved in the design or maintenance of machinery? Obviously I'm not involved in the space programme, but from my own experience in other safety critical fields, there are loads of little factors that need to be considered, and aren't obvious to outsiders that don't have to deal with problems that arise in developing or maintaining complex things.

I think this is a case of a comment taken way out of context.

LS said:
It has not been done in 50 years from when it was seemingly barely a inconvenience
Maybe this was just down to lack of political and public interest? The US had landed first with Apollo 11, and by Apollo 13, the public had apparently lost interest. They didn't carry many of the en-route to the moon broadcasts on networks for this reason.

And due to this lack of political capital, the costs of going again to the moon after it had been done, were too prohibitive and it basically wasn't worth it.
 
How do you know this though? Are you involved in the programme? Do you develop spacecraft or are involved in the design or maintenance of machinery? Obviously I'm not involved in the space programme, but from my own experience in other safety critical fields, there are loads of little factors that need to be considered, and aren't obvious to outsiders that don't have to deal with problems that arise in developing or maintaining complex things.

I think this is a case of a comment taken way out of context.
Quite simply because the primary mission of Orion is to exceed LEO. So saying it is just a specific problem to the spacecraft is contradictory to its primary purpose. It does not make any sense.

Maybe this was just down to lack of political and public interest? The US had landed first with Apollo 11, and by Apollo 13, the public had apparently lost interest. They didn't carry many of the en-route to the moon broadcasts on networks for this reason.

And due to this lack of political capital, the costs of going again to the moon after it had been done, were too prohibitive and it basically wasn't worth it.
Again the very fact that multiple endeavors to go beyond LEO such as Orion, and endeavors in the private sector are at odds with this assumption.
The irrefutable facts remain. No amount of sugar coating and handwaving makes a lick of difference.

https://www.aulis.com/orion_vanallens.htm
 
Quite simply because the primary mission of Orion is to exceed LEO. So saying it is just a specific problem to the spacecraft is contradictory to its primary purpose. It does not make any sense.
I don't understand what you are trying to say. Could you please clarify.



LS said:
Again the very fact that multiple endeavors to go beyond LEO such as Orion, and endeavors in the private sector are at odds with this assumption.
What assumption?

LS said:
The irrefutable facts remain. No amount of sugar coating and handwaving makes a lick of difference.

https://www.aulis.com/orion_vanallens.htm

What facts?
 
I don't understand what you are trying to say. Could you please clarify.
I don't see how it can be any clearer. The Orion mission is to do what you say is a specific problem to the craft when that is exactly one of the issues it seeks to overcome. Quite simple.
What assumption?
A lack of interest. When clearly the very existence of the Orion project, future lunar missions and interest in missions to Mars refutes it. As do non manned missions seeking to evaluate the full ramifications of travel beyond LEO.

What facts?
That no one has gone beyond LEO in half a century and as stated "these problems must be overcome" and are being sought to be overcome when apparently it was never a problem before. Its as simple as that DD. As awkward as it is.... It is what it is.
 
Quite simply because the primary mission of Orion is to exceed LEO. So saying it is just a specific problem to the spacecraft is contradictory to its primary purpose. It does not make any sense.



Again the very fact that multiple endeavors to go beyond LEO such as Orion, and endeavors in the private sector are at odds with this assumption.
The irrefutable facts remain. No amount of sugar coating and handwaving makes a lick of difference.

https://www.aulis.com/orion_vanallens.htm
That's a fascinating site, LS. Thanks for posting.
 
I don't see how it can be any clearer. The Orion mission is to do what you say is a specific problem to the craft when that is exactly one of the issues it seeks to overcome. Quite simple.
I still don't understand what you are saying, sorry.

The bottom line is that manned spacecraft have indeed gone past LEO on the way to the moon. There exists radiation in the form of VAB. Specific trajectory and time spent negates the effects of the VAB.

Then you brought up a comment made by a NASA employee I'm assuming. You took what he said to be evidence that we had never got past the VAB in the first place. To which I say is hogwash. It was a comment taken out of context.

LS said:
A lack of interest. When clearly the very existence of the Orion project, future lunar missions and interest in missions to Mars refutes it. As do non manned missions seeking to evaluate the full ramifications of travel beyond LEO.
Yes, because now we have decided to go again for many different reasons? Pretty simple to be honest LS. It's a weak argument for you to use.

LS said:
That no one has gone beyond LEO in half a century and as stated "these problems must be overcome" and are being sought to be overcome when apparently it was never a problem before. Its as simple as that DD. As awkward as it is.... It is what it is.
Again, I refer back to my comment on this.

It is way more likely that "These problems must be overcome" is regarding manufacturing a new spacecraft that has a new purpose beyond simply the VAB, by a new generation.

It's simply a comment taken out of context to fit a conspiracy theory that is false.
 
Last edited:
I still don't understand what you are saying, sorry.
Yet you proceed in a attempt to correct me by straw manning me.

Except I have stated no grand claims in this regard.

I was actually approaching this under the assumption that the Apollo missions did go beyond LEO and land on the moon.

1. No manned missions beyond LEO for half a century. True.

2. And they are still studying the hazards and solutions. "We must overcome these Problems". True.

No? well that is denial is all I can say. You can spin it however you like. But you are also leaving out crucial information and making assumptions with no data. it is not my job to... nor do I care to address those. It's a bore, I left some info that anyone can use to investigate the actual situation so that is my contribution. Thankfully NASA takes it more seriously than you do. You are clearly not interested in knowing otherwise you would be clear that the highly variable VAB's are just one of the issues in this complex problem that you are reducing to insignificance. And that only scratches the surface. I thought I could just drop some uncontroversial facts (because that is what they are) and not be drawn into a debate.

Quite foolish of me.
 
Last edited:
Yet you proceed in a attempt to correct me by straw manning me.

Except I have stated no grand claims in this regard.
Okay, I'll grant that you never claimed anything specific yourself, I misunderstood you. But then, I don't really get your point anyway? What is it that you are doubting exactly? What is it that you are trying to say?

I would add though that you engaged in the subject, posting things by moon landing skeptics. What am I meant to assume by this other than you doubt the official record?


LS said:
But you are also leaving out crucial information and making assumptions with no data. It is not my job to... nor do I care to address those.
What crucial information? What assumptions am I making with no data?

LS said:
You are clearly not interested in knowing otherwise you would be clear that the highly variable VAB's are just one of the issues in this complex problem that you are reducing to insignificance.
What complex problem?

LS said:
I thought I could just drop some uncontroversial facts (because that is what they are) and not be drawn into a debate.

Quite foolish of me.
What uncontroversial facts?
 
Okay, I'll grant that you never claimed anything specific yourself, I misunderstood you. But then, I don't really get your point anyway? What is it that you are doubting exactly? What is it that you are trying to say?

I would add though that you engaged in the subject, posting things by moon landing skeptics. What am I meant to assume by this other than you doubt the official record?




What crucial information? What assumptions am I making with no data?



What complex problem?



What uncontroversial facts?
Understand DD, I don't really care about this anymore because no matter what there is nothing I can do to change someone's mind. My opinion does not matter. All I have said on this particular subject is what is true. I got to say your questions are baffling to me, I thought what I was saying was pretty straight forth, I can't say it any simpler. There is much more that can be said but look how it turns out with just these two simple facts? Not to mention the other many remarkable actual states of affairs that are simply ignored or normalized, its not my place to attempt to change that. It's completely futile, akin to arguing religion. While I did appreciate Dave posting the vid, I also cringe because this is exactly how it goes down. In this case, Diverdown.

Haha. Pretty funny If I do say so myself. No hard feelings mate, I just don't care enough to jump through hoops. Luv ur stuff!
 
Last edited:
Understand DD, I don't really care about this anymore because no matter what there is nothing I can do to change someone's mind. My opinion does not matter. All I have said on this particular subject is what is true. I got to say your questions are baffling to me, I thought what I was saying was pretty straight forth, I can't say it any simpler. There is much more that can be said but look how it turns out with just these two simple facts? Not to mention the other many remarkable actual states of affairs that are simply ignored or normalized, its not my place to attempt to change that. It's completely futile, akin to arguing religion. While I did appreciate Dave posting the vid, I also cringe because this is exactly how it goes down. In this case, Diverdown.

Haha. Pretty funny If I do say so myself. No hard feelings mate, I just don't care enough to jump through hoops. Luv ur stuff!
It's all good LS, no worries chief!
 
Understand DD, I don't really care about this anymore because no matter what there is nothing I can do to change someone's mind.
Well mine is at least half changed! It is an awful thought if it is true. You were also the person that changed my mind about evolution by natural selection (a long time back, if you remember).

I think the evidence that the three astronauts were pretty upset, worried me more than the technical discussions about the shadows etc.
Do you know if the other astronauts on the program on Appolo were as emotionally upset - that would be:

9, and 10 which went to the moon without landing.

12,14,15,16, and17 That also landed on the moon.

And 13 - the accident and the nail biting return to earth would need faking.

David
 
Top