Do you think America landed on the moon?

Everyone, please examine the “rat”. Its clearly not a rat.
Notice the front “leg”. It front and top clearly merges with the body. This does not make sense. Only the socket part and surrounding skin of a leg is attached to the body. That is a rock that looks like an animal.

1 Like

Satellites are covered with MLI, or multi layer insulation.
MLI consists of lightweight reflective films assembled into thin layers that range in thickness. These layers are usually made of polyimide or polyester films (types of plastics) coated with very thin layers of aluminum. The exact composition depends on where the satellite will orbit, what the insulation will be protecting and how much sunlight it will be exposed to.

This is very efficient at protecting against solar radiation, and before you say “freemason lies” it has been tried and tested here on earth…

Because of the thermosphere being a near vaccuum- convection/conduction does not work… heat mainly comes from radiation- which is exactly what these satellites are designed to fight against.
That poor burnt guy in your picture could have easily been protected by wearing a blanket… think of it that way.

And because the air is so thin there, the nitrogen and oxygen particles which are 2,500 degrees Celsius do not conduct much heat to the satellites.

1 Like

And please stop discrediting everything i say with “You sheep, you parrot, think for yourself”

I am thinking for myself- I side with whatever has the most evidence to back it up- the logical way. So far you have not given any mathematical/scientific evidence that has backed up your statements.


I could explain it, but many people explain it better than me. No tapes were lost. Nothing was lost.
Dont know why anyone think that.

Link to answers to this question by experts (Not nasa employees…)

The Van Allen belts were a large problem that scientists had to solve- there are several hotspots of supercharged particles held in place by the earths magnetic field- you are fight in the fact that it has fatal potential. Because it is simple radiation, it cannot physically destroy any structure but will damage organic DNA.
However. while charged particles are damaging to human bodies, the amount of damage done can range from none to lethal, depending on the energy those particles deposit, the density of those particles, and the length of time you spend being exposed to them.
In the Apollo missions, while they could not affect the energy the particles deposit, the goal was to change the other two factors.

When the missions were being planned, specific details about areas of density and lack of it were well documented because of un-manned probes sent into the Van Allen belt- to perform tests and scans.

The inner Van Allen belt is very dense, but easy to avoid, so that was not a problem.

The outer belt is unavoidable, and still has dense areas to avoid. However, there were several known areas of the Van Allen belt that were sparsely populated with these charged particles.

When the apollo rockets passed through, there was indeed some radiation- enough that you wouldn’t want to get exposed to itover the course of a long period of time. However, the radiation levels were not lethal or injuring considering the amount of time it took to pass through.

Do you mean this image? If so, it is correct. Keep in mind the Earth is very large compared to the moon- and halfway to the moon is not that far in space distance. Imagine this- Look at the night sky, and double the size of the moon (halfway there)

This is a size comparison. So take your double sized moon, and multiply it by 8-10 in size, and you get what the Earth looks like from halfway.

You mean this?

Considering the moon has very little atmosphere, it seems that the camera taking this picture is exposed to a lot of sunlight- resulting in a whole lot of lens glare- making the sun look like a giant white ball with rings.

I don’t quite get this one…sorry

1 Like

See most recent post.

I do not talk about camera effects … I talk about that …



it looks real


You realize that van allen video is useless for you, right? My brother just proved his point.

Wow - so your brother know more than a Nasa scientist/astronaut :exclamation:

I am impressed, instead of trying to support your brothers “view”, you should watch the whole video from Nasa :exclamation:

He clearly stated that they ARE working on a solution to PASS through the Van Allen Belts twice :exclamation:

ARE working

in the year 2014 (or 20xx, when that video was made from Nasa)

and NOT they had the solution 1969 :exclamation::exclamation::exclamation:



“We must SOLVED theses challenges before we SEND PEOPLE through this region of space!”

1 Like

You are right, they are finding new ways to deal with the radiation… because it is a different scenario. The scenario they are planning for this rocket involved orbiting around the earth while in the Van Allen belt- they are bound to encounter dangerous dense pockets of charged particles.

In the Apollo missions, there was no orbiting in the Van Allen belt- they simply rocketed through a less dense portion of the Van Allen belt.

1 Like

Now, for your point about the technology being lost… it all has to do with construction

The Saturn V (which we used to go to the moon) rocket had over three million parts. The command and service modules and lunar module were composed of millions of additional parts. An individual person cannot contemplate the scale of detail needed to assemble and operate those vehicles.

So, when the Apollo program ended, the factories that assembled those vehicles were retasked or shut down. The jigs were disassembled. The molds were destroyed. The technicians, engineers, scientists, and flight controllers moved onto other jobs. Over time, some of the materials used became obsolete.

If we, today, said - “Let us build another Saturn V rocket and Apollo CSM/LEM and go to the moon!” it would not be a simple task of pulling out the blueprints and bending and cutting metal.

We don’t have the factories or tools. We don’t have the materials. We don’t have the expertise to understand how the real vehicle differed from the drawings. We don’t have the expertise to operate the vehicle.

It is not an effort to cover up anything- it is simply the fact that rebuilding these rocket would take many many years, and so much money. And for what? What are we going to the moon for? Rebuilding the Saturn V rocket would mean they would have to halt pretty much everything else. It would be like the space race all over again.

Trust me, I have seen the Saturn V, as well as its internals, in person. It is huge, and unimaginably complex. Rebuilding it would take so much effort that is needed for other NASA projects

1 Like

At around the 1:52 mark in the video, you can see the guy describing how the rocket will have to orbit around the Earth- this is because instead of building massive fuel tanks, they can use the Earth’s massive gravitational pull to slingshot them to mars.

Of course not. However, read his newest post, he explains it exactly.

Ok I have an other question, please really think about it a while, and after give ma a clear answer …

IF you would be 384,400 km (238,855 miles) away from your home(-planet) AND the only thing that can bring you safe and ALIVE back home is the LEM (Lunar Excursion Module) …

  • WOULD you drive with a vehicle that is constructed BEFORE 1975 into the direction of the only thing that can bring you home and risk maybe a crash and (that would be it for you … gone / history / dead for sure in a few HOURS)


  • WOULD you avoid to drive into this direction, special with a vehicle which was NEVER EVER tested before on the moon :question:


1 Like

Personally, I would go home- I have never wanted to be an astronaut. The risk of death in that job is much too high for me.

However, those astronauts are not me. They are certainly braver- they went where no one has gone before.
And, keep in mind the space was in full craze. Everyone wanted to beat the Soviets to the moon- it was a phenomanon really. And with the whole worlds eye on those astronauts, there really was no turning back at that point- they landed the lunar excursion module succesfully despite the risks.

Im sure they trusted the Genius Nasa Technicians. Remember: They were very meticulous. Everything was extremely well tested.

You could say that a plane COULD crash so that way people would never ever ride planes, but ultimately people have faith in the design.

Emmm… Nothing to say… :expressionless:

About your concern about “loss” of NASA technolgy.

Thats funny …

Nasa Budget :

“Seen in the year-by-year breakdown listed below, the total amounts that NASA has been budgeted from 1958 to 2018 amounts to $601.31 billion.”

My aunt with a budget from few hundrets $ has a better / safer archive than Nasa :exclamation:

No lost data or footage or technology - she is a great chef (cook) :exclamation:



You mean like the landing on the moon, tested on Earth …

  • 0 successfull landings

  • Armstrong had to safe him twice with a parachute before the crash

  • first successfull landing of a rocket on Earth 2011 :exclamation::exclamation::exclamation: