Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

[DrEvil]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ML2ZYYFOnI

[Harvey]

Genuinely very good to see you around these parts again guruilla .

I certainly am conspicuous by my absence of comment on this. For the very good reason that I haven't seen it yet. I probably will soon, if only to satisfy my curiosity. But I did pick a few minutes at random to have an excuse to chat, and landed on the part talking about a close continuous horizon across many of the photo's and films as evidence of a film stage with forward projection background.

This is not only a likely aspect of many moon photo's and footage, it would be unlikely that you'd see anything else, even on a fairly 'flat' plane. Why? Because the moon is a much smaller sphere, on a 'flat' plane the horizon appears much nearer. Here's a rough approximation of the relative size of Earth, Mars and Moon respectively.



If on Earth the geometric horizon at human height above sea level is roughly 3.6 kilometres (whereas the observable distance is closer to 3.8 kilometres through atmospheric refraction) then on the moon (where there is zero atmospheric refraction and scattering of light, the lack of both causing the horizon to appear nearer) the horizon is literally closer. Let's zoom into that image. Note how on each sphere, objects of identical elevation have to be much nearer together to obtain the same line of sight? There's a reason for all those images of long unbroken horizon's.



The moon landing hoax is not something I strongly believe or disbelieve. But when I look at the photo's and footage and imagine it in whole or in part having been faked, I have made very similar observations to the FX guys in the video above - I even made their final point earlier in this thread. On the balance of evidence, if it was all faked, then it was faked in situ. But since I'm already constitutionally open to the idea that everything is fake in one or many aspects, then at least I can approach the matter with an open mind.

[guruilla]

I have tried to remain agnostic, since it seemed sufficient simply to cease to believe in the Moon landing footage and leave the rest open (which wouldn't mean no humans went there, just that we haven't seen the evidence).

But on this last pass, I found myself feeling too disgusted by the obvious fakeness of it all, and by the various pathetic attempts at debunking. Perhaps having reached bullshit-fatigue after the past two years. It's possible, as with any psyop, that there are layers of truth mixed in with the lies, but if so I didnt see many of them. The Van Allen belt factor alone was always enough, IMO.

I had put something in there about people still defending the "vaccine," but took it out for fear of thread hijack.

My perspective is that life is too short, and the end too nigh, to continue to suspend our disbelief anymore about obvious high-level mind-fuckery.

The only convincing argument against the Moon-landing fake footage, at this point, is an equally high-level hoax of a hoax; which cant be ruled out, either, because the mind-fuckers really will stoop to anything.

(I wonder what QAnon would say about it )

[DrEvil]

The Van Allen belt is a non-issue. I really don't get why people get so hung up on it, as if it's an immediate death sentence to enter it. Going through at thousands of miles an hour is like getting an x-ray. Staying there for extended periods of time is probably not good for you, but the astronauts didn't.

[guruilla]

Then why is NASA talking about it again like it's a serious danger?

[DrEvil]

Because excessive radiation can be dangerous? I still don't get the reasoning. The Van Allen belts are dangerous - ergo it's impossible to go through them?

Plenty of things are dangerous. You can still do them if you plan accordingly.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Again: why are they -- NASA -- more recently indicating it's an obstacle they need to solve for before the belts can be traversed?

Also: given all the myriad space-related projects and humans fired off into Low Earth Orbit over the years (to visit the space station, etc, among many other claimed endeavors) how many of these missions included traversing the Van Alllen belts? How many involved even a 'test' run, either with a human or an animal? How much 'planning' has been reported/disclosed so far specifically Re: the Van Allen Belts, particularly given the current 'plan' to put humans on the moon by 2025?

How many astronauts -- from any nation or private enterprise -- have traversed the Van Allen belts, even briefly, OTHER THAN* the Apollo astronauts?


*reportedly

[DrEvil]

Yes, let's go to this high-radiation area for no good reason. It'll be fun!

You know the answer as well as I do, because we've had this argument several times already, so why play dumb? There's no reason to enter the Van Allen belts unless you're leaving Earth orbit, and we haven't done that since the seventies. The ISS is as far as humans currently go, and that's intentionally not in the Van Allen belt, because, shocker, that's a stupid idea.

NASA is sending an empty rocket to the Moon and back, might as well cram it with as many sensors as possible. Instruments have improved immensely since the seventies, so getting the best data available is a no-brainer. There's no big mystery here, NASA just wants better data.

I really don't know how many different ways I can say this before it penetrates, but I'll try the old x-ray comparison again:
getting one chest x-ray is not dangerous. Getting one chest x-ray every day for a year is. See the difference? It's not just the amount of radiation, but the duration of exposure, which you seem to forget between every time we have this argument.

[Belligerent Savant]

.
I'm not playing dumb, I attempted to avoid explicitly calling out the hollowness of your argument. A futile effort.

NASA is sending an empty rocket to the Moon and back, might as well cram it with as many sensors as possible. Instruments have improved immensely since the seventies, so getting the best data available is a no-brainer. There's no big mystery here, NASA just wants better data.

But they already went to the moon, allegedly. What happened to that data? Is there an indication that radiation levels changed? If so, where is the data that demonstrates this change? On the other hand, if the radiation levels haven't markedly changed since the 70s, why can't NASA just refer to their prior protocols?

Putting that aside for a moment, it seems they've had some trouble getting rockets to launch of late, so we'll just have to wait a bit longer, eh? I'm sure NASA will have valuable data, soon enough. Though it still leaves unresolved the question as to why any of this is necessary if NASA supposedly already solved this issue in the 70s. Or did NASA's Van Allen solution go 'missing' along with the telemetry data* that got 'lost' some time ago?

*the telemetry data would contain very valuable info, if ever located. It would go a long way towards confirming actual coordinates of the capsules/mission trajectory during flight, among other valuable data points. Let's not hold our breath, however, as I suspect the this info will never be located. We'll just have to go on faith, then, that it's all just as they described it to us.

I really don't know how many different ways I can say this before it penetrates, but I'll try the old x-ray comparison again:
getting one chest x-ray is not dangerous. Getting one chest x-ray every day for a year is. See the difference? It's not just the amount of radiation, but the duration of exposure, which you seem to forget between every time we have this argument.

Where do you get the idea that passing the van allen belts is the same as ONE chest x-ray? What is your source for this comparison?

And what about the radiation levels beyond the van allen belts, for the entire round trip? (separately: It remains a mystery how the Apollo video/film footage had no visible cosmic ray damage given the exposure to such radiation while the astronauts cavorted on the lunar surface)

In any event, NASA seems to believe otherwise, more recently.

Starting at the ~1 hour mark of the previously linked video, the Van Allen belts are raised:



The documentary includes snippets of a video segment direct from NASA. Sample screenshots; the words on the screen are added by the documentary filmmakers, quoting the NASA rep in the video clip:





It appears, according to NASA, at least as of a few years ago, this Van Allen issue remains unresolved. And it also appears that it's more of a concern to NASA than a mere chest x-ray.

Of course, there are many, many other serious issues with the official narratives of the Apollo missions beyond the Van Allen belts. The documentary covers most of them quite well, and also addresses the counters from 'debunkers'.

But narratives can be quite alluring, especially when embedded in the mind at an early age. As we've observed, particularly over the last ~couple years, a significant percentage of individuals will refuse to revisit or reconsider storylines once firmly entrenched in the mind.

The pitfalls of the human mind (and its susceptibility to programming), eh?

[Belligerent Savant]

Disclaimer, applicable across all my posts here: I always maintain the possibility that I may be wrong, at least in part, in some aspects of a given topic. My positions on a number of topics ("climate change"; health; vaccine efficacy; politics; etc.) has shifted at various points over the years, though particularly over the last 2 years it's becoming increasingly apparent -- to me, at least -- that there are far more lies, BIG lies, than truths, in our current world/epoch.

What continues to baffle me is how so many remain so seemingly firm in their worldviews despite the uptick of viable contrary data points (some more worthy of attention than others).

The fact is, at least with respect to the moon landings, NONE OF US CAN KNOW FOR CERTAIN.

But it also appears increasingly obvious that so much of what we've been told about the Apollo mission is straight up nonsense.

Guruilla summarized it well, here:

IMHO, the mystery isn't how "they" could perpetuate such a hoax; the mystery is how it took so long for people to notice, or how anyone can still deny it.

I was only two, so that's my excuse.

and here:

I have tried to remain agnostic, since it seemed sufficient simply to cease to believe in the Moon landing footage and leave the rest open (which wouldn't mean no humans went there, just that we haven't seen the evidence).

But on this last pass, I found myself feeling too disgusted by the obvious fakeness of it all, and by the various pathetic attempts at debunking. Perhaps having reached bullshit-fatigue after the past two years. It's possible, as with any psyop, that there are layers of truth mixed in with the lies, but if so I didnt see many of them. The Van Allen belt factor alone was always enough, IMO.

...

My perspective is that life is too short, and the end too nigh, to continue to suspend our disbelief anymore about obvious high-level mind-fuckery.

The only convincing argument against the Moon-landing fake footage, at this point, is an equally high-level hoax of a hoax; which cant be ruled out, either, because the mind-fuckers really will stoop to anything.

...

[DrEvil]

I looked at the part of the movie you screengrabbed, and it's full of shit, like when the narrator says "even modern astronauts curiously admits that we are currently unable to go beyond low Earth orbit", the implication being that it's because of the radiation that they're currently talking about, followed by a clip of the ISS commander explaining why we can't go beyond Earth orbit, which has fuck-all to do with radiation and everything to do with THE FRICKIN' ROCKET NOT BEING BUILT YET. That's not a documentary, it's fiction. You have to be a fucking idiot to take that kind of obvious bullshit seriously.

[Belligerent Savant]

.


You are a spectacle to behold. The NASA rep specifically indicated they need to solve the issue of high levels of radiation in the van allen belt before any humans can traverse it. This has nothing to do with any rocket being built or not built.

And then you broad brush dismiss the ~3.5 hr documentary as "bullshit", clearly before watching more than perhaps a few snippets of it.
The documentary may, or may not, have its flaws, but as I mentioned before it contains significant amounts of official documents and reference material, as well as audio/video clips from NASA and other scientists.

Breathtaking refusal to re-assess. Good for you. Keep holding on to your dreams.

[DrEvil]

Flaws? As in blatantly misrepresenting what is being said, you mean? I watched a grand total of one minute out of three and a half hours before the first screamingly obvious deception occurred. In case I haven't said it enough already: I fucking hate liars. If you can't present your case in a, to the best of your knowledge, honest way you can fuck right off. No misrepresentations, lies, omitting facts, distortions or any of that shit you seem to like so much. Be honest or shut the fuck up.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

You are the dishonest actor here, or are entirely lacking in self-awareness. One or the other.

"I hate liars" -- EVERYONE LIES at one point or another, sometimes knowingly, sometimes not.
No human has lived their entire life without lying.

ALL CONTENT IS PRONE TO both ADVERTENT AND INADVERTENT miscues, 'mistruths', misrepresentations.

You, DrEvil, fucking subscribe to the NASA NARRATIVE. You got mRNA shots. You subscribe to "climate change" as presented in dominant narratives with minimal/no scrutiny (from all your representations here, at least). And you "hate liars"? Laughable.

It's -- naïve -- to believe that every medium can only provide all "truth" and zero "lies", particularly when, as I alluded above, any given medium, author, or content will have information that may be earnestly presented as a "truth", but is either wrong, untrue, or later found to be untrue. Of course, in a (growing) number of instances there are knowing lies presented, but that's where VIEWER/CONSUMER DISCERNMENT comes into play. Your suggestion to toss ALL content into the 'trash bin' when a portion, or more of it counters YOUR belief structures (not necessarily what's actually a truth or a lie (if even knowable in a given timeframe) can only be described as foolish, and childish.

Newsflash: you're not the sole objective arbiter of what IS a "lie", or what IS a "truth".

Cognitive dissonance on full display.

The documentary covers over 3 hours and raises some very legitimate questions and calls out some notable flaws in the official narratives pertaining to NASA's Apollo missions. I've not seen compelling counters here yet.

Discussion and debate, and well-reasoned counters are encouraged. I share [the documentary previously linked above] here not because I necessarily subscribe to all of it, per se, but because it'd be ideal to have others -- such as those that to this point subscribe to most of the moon landing narratives --offer up reasoned and/or thoughtful reactions.

Hissy fit reactions, or flippant brush-offs, on the other hand, are not encouraged.

(still waiting for corroboration -- preferably from a non-NASA funded source, though this is tough to identify at times -- to the claim that "traversing the van allen belts emits more or less the same radiation levels as a single chest x-ray", particularly since it counters claims made by NASA itself, as they are on record, as of a few years ago, suggesting the radiation levels are "dangerous", and, again per NASA, it's a problem that needs to be solved before humans traverse the belts, which begs the question as to what exactly occurred out there from ~1969 - ~1972. Among other questions.)

[DrEvil]

.

You are the dishonest actor here, or are entirely lacking in self-awareness. One or the other.

I'm being completely honest. I could be wrong, but I'm not intentionally lying about anything, and that's the main distinction for me: intentionally misrepresenting something to bolster your case makes you untrustworthy, and that's exactly what they did in the above documentary. Maybe you're fine with the occasional lie as long as it helps your case. I'm not.

"I hate liars" -- EVERYONE LIES at one point or another, sometimes knowingly, sometimes not.
No human has lived their entire life without lying.

Of course not, but I'm not talking about the kind of white lies everyone tells to smooth social interactions (the "do I look fat in this?" variety), but the intentional distortions and bullshit you usually see from politicians, PR people and other assorted scumbags.

ALL CONTENT IS PRONE TO both ADVERTENT AND INADVERTENT miscues, 'mistruths', misrepresentations.

Inadvertent miscues isn't what I'm talking about. They happen. People realize and correct themselves. End of story. You seem to be saying the occasional ADVERTENT miscue is something to be expected, not really a big deal, which I think is utter flaming horseshit. Being honest in presenting your argument shouldn't be extra credit, it should be the fucking default.

You, DrEvil, fucking subscribe to the NASA NARRATIVE. You got mRNA shots. You subscribe to "climate change" as presented in dominant narratives with minimal/no scrutiny (from all your representations here, at least). And you "hate liars"? Laughable.

And you subscribe to people I just showed you are fine with misrepresenting things to further their narrative. You're shooting yourself in the foot. If you rely on sources that can be easily shown to be dishonest you discredit your own narrative.

It's -- naïve -- to believe that every medium can only provide all "truth" and zero "lies", particularly when, as I alluded above, any given medium, author, or content will have information that may be earnestly presented as a "truth", but is either wrong, untrue, or later found to be untrue. Of course, in a (growing) number of instances there are knowing lies presented, but that's where VIEWER/CONSUMER DISCERNMENT comes into play. Your suggestion to toss ALL content into the 'trash bin' when a portion, or more of it counters YOUR belief structures (not necessarily what's actually a truth or a lie (if even knowable in a given timeframe) can only be described as foolish, and childish.

Newsflash: you're not the sole objective arbiter of what IS a "lie", or what IS a "truth".

I just showed you a clear example of the documentary maker misrepresenting what was being said, and all you can do is make excuses.

Cognitive dissonance on full display.

Indeed. Yours can be seen from orbit.

The documentary covers over 3 hours and raises some very legitimate questions and calls out some notable flaws in the official narratives pertaining to NASA's Apollo missions. I've not seen compelling counters here yet.

Did you watch the Corridor Crew video I posted? It's only twenty minutes, and they raise a couple of damn good points.
First one: how the hell did they manage that long take of the capsule approaching? Second: how did they get the dust to behave as if there was no atmosphere? As a bonus they look at the absolute state of the art from Hollywood at the time, 2001 by Kubrick, and it's no contest. 2001 looks obviously fake compared to the real footage.

Discussion and debate, and well-reasoned counters are encouraged. I share [the documentary previously linked above] here not because I necessarily subscribe to all of it, per se, but because it'd be ideal to have others -- such as those that to this point subscribe to most of the moon landing narratives --offer up reasoned and/or thoughtful reactions.

Hissy fit reactions, or flippant brush-offs, on the other hand, are not encouraged.

(still waiting for corroboration -- preferably from a non-NASA funded source, though this is tough to identify at times -- to the claim that "traversing the van allen belts emits more or less the same radiation levels as a single chest x-ray", particularly since it counters claims made by NASA itself, as they are on record, as of a few years ago, suggesting the radiation levels are "dangerous", and, again per NASA, it's a problem that needs to be solved before humans traverse the belts, which begs the question as to what exactly occurred out there from ~1969 - ~1972. Among other questions.)

I don't know for sure. I remember posting an article that mentioned it in this thread (sorry, can't be arsed to wade through 20+ pages to find it, but I'm pretty sure it was this thread), but I could be wrong. It could be more or less. See, this is me admitting to be wrong. You should try it. But you missed the broader point I was making: long exposure = more bad, short exposure = less bad.

Also, don't you think you're reading a bit much into those comments? If your read is correct and they're hiding something, why the actual fuck would they just casually publish that in an educational video? What's the more plausible interpretation: "we're hiding something, muahaha", or "we're aware of the dangers and are looking into solutions for the rocket we're in the process of building"?

You keep missing the point I'm trying to make, which can be summed up as: dangerous doesn't mean impossible. The Van Allen belts aren't a brick wall, they're a tricky part you can engineer your way around.