"Would be good to add this info into the video that you’re spreading."
It proves nothing so why?
Why don't you just post over at Dave's site, you can be with like minded people then? Sheeple. Just a thought, you won't make many converts here if any.
Wikipedia which you seem fond of is a thoroughly discredited source.....Wikipedia Co-Founder: Site's Neutrality Is 'Dead' Thanks to Leftist Bias
"That's what we're seeing and it can be proven.
Can you backup your claim with proof?"
When one KNOWS humans can not get passed the Van Allen Belts ie 1000 MILES from earth, one knows all the other stuff on moon landings Dave, Rusty and yourself believes is a lie. So you can produce 100'S of articles trying to prove man went to the moon and I won't believe any of them. All of it was filmed here on Earth.
Some may have seen the movie Interstellar, which contains an interesting clip about the moon landings..
Why did they put that into a film like Interstellar? (It didn't seem to be needed for the story.)
It actually would have made a lot of political sense (knowing that politicians are professional liars and therefore horrible people) for it to have been like it says in the clip - propaganda to get the Soviets to bankrupt themselves building rockets (and the Buran) that never worked as intended. And as a result, America "won" the space race in the eyes of the world by "landing" in the top spot - as seen on TV!
What is truly most horrible, is realising how big of a lie and deceitful action it would turn out to be, against the whole world.
People watched in awe, what they were shown and told on TV and everyone believed it.
It was a wonderful moment and memory, that gave people everywhere hope.
It made people feel elated and proud..
But if it was all a lie... then how could the US (govt) justifiably deserve to continue leading the world, after orchestrating such a big lie, on such a big scale and foisting it on the world?
And it seems to have all gone pretty much downhill from there quite fast..
Your previous rationalizations for passing through the Van Allen Radiation Belts by a special route to avoid the radiation become nonsensical when one listens to Astronaut Alan Bean Apollo 12, he doesn't even seem sure what the Van Allen Belts are, let alone plotting a course through them. Lets face it most of these supposed explanations are just cover-ups/lies, they make it up as they go along just as Alan Bean is here. Use your critical thinking skills Cybe and listen carefully to what Alan Bean says, do you think he is credible? And no I am not interested in Dave McKeegan's interpretation of what he meant/said.
Here is a more original video where it's taken from. It's as 12 minutes.
It doesn't look like a harness.
Yes, it appears he's strapped a white looking belt around him and also has something strapped to his thigh but if we look at a ZFX flying harness they all look different.
If we look at how complex the whole ISS operation is with it's many missions, building, repairing, tools, different people, experiments etc etc done aboard then we can determine that there must be a lot of equipment involved.
If an astronaut has to transport an object such as one of the tools (some of the tools on the ISS) above from one part of the ISS to another then how would he do it? In his hand? No, he would need his hands free to be able to move about. Some kind of fannypack/toolbelt would probably be the solution.
The fact that the strap seems to be pointing upwards is probably because of the weightlessness. As to his position and way he moves, I don't believe there is anything suspicious about it.
Speaking of how complex the ISS is. We see here how many missions and crew members here, there have been. All of them actors? Astronauts and scientists who are all "in on it"?
*yes, it's a link to Wikipedia and it usually contains references to the claims it makes unlike flat-earth/space is fake videos.
To me it seems that most of these "lies" can be debunked quite easily...
No, I'm referring to numerous videos where astronauts move around in many different axis which would not be possible with a wire harness.
See the woman spin from 16:40 ->
Here is a more original and better quality version:-
end of STS-135 Flight Day 7 Recap : NASA : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
It does clarify:-
- It's not a secret that zfx suddenly let slip
- zfx also builds bigger hoists for other purposes than lifting people.
At 25000km/h, it would take 52.8 minutes to go through the belts and the astronauts would receive a radiation dose of 11.4 rads. And that is without the protection of the spacecraft. A lethal dose is 300 rads per hour (source) So it's understandable that it wasn't an issue for Alan Bean.
Here's someone elses take on the belts. And I've provided material on the Van Allen Belts before in this thread.
I think we agree on Sibrel's trustworthiness and honesty.
Al Bean's reaction seems suspicious only if you buy into the conspiracy theory notion that the Van Allen belts are invariably deadly. They aren't. Bart Sibrel is an expert on the Van Allen belts the same way Britney Spears is an expert on parenting. The fact is simply that passage through the Van Allen belts is gives you about as much radiation as a couple of chest x-rays -- in other words, no big deal.
So the astronauts say stuff like, "Yeah we went through the Van Allen belts; so what?" This seems suspicious only after Sibrel has carefully hyped up how "dangerous" they are. He manufactures this inconsistency out of nothing more substantial than his own ignorance. Sibrel just expects the viewer to take his word for the astrophysical properties of the Van Allen belts.
Why did Earth change its history books to claim that the Apollo missions to the Moon were faked?
For continuing survival of the human race, it was believed that humans should become farmers and not explorers, thus using all possible resources for crops, not space exploration. One of those resources would be people who specialize in farming, like Cooper's son Tom. Claiming the moon landing was faked was used as a way to discourage students from pursuing space travel and exploration and instead focusing on survival on Earth. The idea that the Moon landing of 1969 was faked using astronauts in a Hollywood studio has been a conspiracy theory for decades. More info on it can be read here.
Understood. Here's a brand new video debunking Siebrel by Scimandan who has a much more sarcastic style that I don't particularly enjoy.
"At 25000km/h, it would take 52.8 minutes to go through the belts and the astronauts would receive a radiation dose of 11.4 rads. And that is without the protection of the spacecraft. A lethal dose is 300 rads per hour ([source](https://at 25000km/h, 52.8 minutes, radiation dose 11.4 rads without the protection of the spacecraft. 300/hour)) So it's understandable that it wasn't an issue for Alan Bean."
According to this: Apollo 11 Moon Landing Timeline: From Liftoff to Splashdown
"Once attached, the Apollo 11 spacecraft separated from the Saturn V for good and the Apollo 11 astronauts began their three-day journey across the 238,000-mile expanse between the Earth and the moon."
3 days is 72 hours, the Van Allen Belts stretch out 25,000 miles so therefore 10.5% of distance, 10.5% of 72 hours = 7.56 hours. Not 55 minutes. Don't forget the return journey too, thats almost 16 hours exposure. I make that about 200 rads TOTAL if your figure for 50 minutes is correct.
There's plenty of material explaining how they got past the Van Allen Belts safely.
Some interesting and detailed discussion on the subject:-
Where do NASA-doubters and flat-earthers get their facts about the Van Allen Belts, by the way? From anti-NASA scientists, flat earth charlatan YouTubers, or are they cherry-picking from NASA?
Come to think of it, where do they get any facts? You have some piece of NASA footage, (sourced from NASA) dishonestly presented by some random Youtuber (who you can trust because he's not a sheeple) but then you can't go to Wikipedia because they are untrustworthy, you can't trust NASA sources so you just Google (they can be trusted, right?). No, even better, Duck Duck Go because they are to good guys (obvlivious to the fact that it uses Bing). Then you land on Disney/Hearst owned History.com, oh yeah, they are trustworthy....
BTW, when quoting someone else on the forum you can mark the bit of text you want to quote and "Quote appears and you can click that. This also creates links from the replied to posts to the reply which is handy.
Alternatively when pasting in a quote from another site you can just add a > character before that
I used History.com because you seem comfortable with mainstream sources, and I couldnt be that bothered spending much time on it as I knew immediately your timeframe was out, according to you they would be at the moon in less than 10 hours LOL. I remember the scam live in 1969, it took a few days to get there supposedly. Most likely they were just orbiting in low orbit for the duration faking their distance from the moon, as seen in a funny thing happened on the way to the moon.
Thanks for the tip.
Well, from reading the sources that I've just provided you should know that your wrong about that. Yes, I know that you're probably ignoring most that I post.
http://americanmoon.org/VanAllen/SciAm1959March/ScientificAmerican_VanAllenBelt.pdf
Read the conclusion on last page:
Our measurements show that the maximum radiation level as of 1958 is equivalent to between 10 and 100 roentgens per hour, depending on the still-undetermined proportion of protons to electrons. Since a human being exposed for two days to even 10 roentgens would have only an even chance of survival, the radiation belts obviously present an obstacle to space flight. Unless some practical way can be found to shield space-travelers against the effects of the radiation, manned space rockets can best take off through the radiation-free zone over the poles. A "space station" must orbit below 400 miles or beyond 30,000 miles from the earth. We are now planning a satellite flight that will test the efficacy of various methods of shielding.
The hazard to space-travelers may not end even when they have passed the terrestrial radiation belts. According to present knowledge the other planets of our solar system may have magnetic fields comparable to the earth's and thus may possess radiation belts of their own. The moon, however, probably has no belt, because its magnetic field appears to be feeble. Lunar probes should give us more definite information on this point before long.
Inner Belt 1000-8000 miles
Outer Belt 12000-25000 miles
What the Above Top Secret Forum?
Scimandan keeps saying how incredibly expensive it is to go to the moon, I bet its a fraction of the budget they are throwing at Zelensky. Governments waste money all the time, its only an argument if you want to avoid facing the facts, that they can't go and would be under far greater scrutiny this time, after all since at least Baby Bush they have all promised to go back to the moon.
Tis a pity both SciMan Dan and Dave MacKeegan seem to know far more about the flight path of Apollo than an astronaut Alan Bean who was actually on an Apollo flight. You think perhaps NASA didn't make up this tale of its route through the Belts after the event, because too many people were asking questions? Alan Bean didn't even seem to know about them, which brings us to that Astronaut talking about the Orion Program......and the DANGEROUS Van Allen Belts :
Orion to Mars - Van Allen Belts
Perhaps SciMan Dan can become a consultant to NASA and point out to the astronaut above that the the Van Allen Belts can be bypassed.
I hope he does interview Bart Sibrel, I would pay to watch that...I will tell him when I see him in a few days.
This is from 1959...
See my links on the belts from the 70s. This for instance.
Or read what Van Allen had to say about it in 2004
Which is what they did.
What the what? Well, a good threa about the van Allen Belts
Of course it didn't take just 10 hours to get there. I'm sure if there were a inconsistency like this in the speed/days it took someone would have found out by now?
They would have been detected. And the whole "faking the earth through the porthole" is just bunk as I've outlined in a post in this thread.
Or mysteriously lost Pentagon budgets. Hard to say just how much it would cost today and how effectively it could be done.
In Finland we have one of the most expensive buildings on the planet, the Olkiluoto 3 nuclear reactor. Construction began in 2005, was supposed to cost 3 billion and was to be finnished and start production in 2010. It however only started regular production in this year, 18 years later, at a cost of 11-12 billion.
They can't be completely bypassed but one goes through the weakest point of it, so this video doesn't mean anything. They are variably dangerous depending also on space weather.
I bet he'll refuse to be interviewed by someone with an opposing view and expertise in the subject of debunking his kind of material.
10.11648.j.ijass.20200803.11.pdf (1.2 MB)
Radiation Analysis for Moon and Mars Missions
Abstract: This paper provides an overview of the radiation aspects of manned space flight to Moon and Mars. The expected ionizing radiation dose for an astronaut is assessed along the Apollo 11 flight path to the Moon. With the two dose values, the
expected and the measured total dose, the radiation shielding and the activity of the Sun are estimated. To judge the risk or safety margin the radiation effects on humans are opposed. The radiation from the Sun has to be set to zero in the computer model to
achieve the published radiation dose value of the Apollo 11 flight. Galactic and cosmic particles have not been modelled either. The Apollo 11 astronauts must have been lucky that during their flight the Sun was totally quiet in the solar maximum year 1969 – and also their colleagues of the subsequent Apollo flights, i.e. until 1972, where the published dose values still require a quiet Sun. The here built mathematical model allows assessing the total dose of a journey to Mars by only changing the flight duration. Even if in the meantime much thicker and/or active radiation shielding is proposed the radiation risk of manned space flight to Moon and Mars remains still huge.
He has been interviewed on MSM before.
