Something I never questioned until this idiot told me not to
(media.communities.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (44)
sorted by:
The first one would not have been that difficult to fake considering all the technology they had hidden at that point, but real landings are easier to do now than back then. They needed to produce something to show engineering superiority to other countries and continue research. The Russians did some crazy things back then. They killed a dog in their first LEO mission with a living animal because they weren't figuring out safe retrieval before launching.
oh my.... you know about the dog. You have NO idea how many people I bring that up to and they never heard of it. I actually was taught that in grade school.
But the landings were faked. Artificial lights, of any kind, won't work in a vacuum, period. You can't be out on the moon when the sun's out - you'd die instantly.
The moon landings were just compilation footage of the training videos. If you dig, you can find some engineers standing near a VERY large, full scale moon with a track going around it. Hook a camera to that track, and you can easily make it look like you're "landing" on the Moon.
Van Allen radiation belts, start between 360 and 400 miles up. Can NOT be passed through by a human. We need 3 ft, of concrete all around you to be protected from Gamma radiation alone ; sun puts out ALL wave lengths of light = radiation. You'd instantaneously evaporate.
Fire / combustion of any kind won't work in a vacuum either. How'd they get off?
Why do we watch Neil Armstrong set up a FILM video camera on a tripod, get back in the LEM, and it's 'blasts off' back to the module..... nobody pays attention that the camera PANS UP to follow the LEM.
How they remote controlled a FILM camera, on the Moon, from Earth in 1969 is amazing because we don't have the tech to do that today.
Just a few points.
Light works in a vaccum because it doesn't need a medium. You're thinking of sound. Sound needs a medium.
The Van Allen belt is not solid at all. It's like a thin cloud.
Combustion works with oxygen, so you only need an oxidizer to supply oxygen to get combustion.
They had technology they didn't share with the public back then. I think the moon landing being faked with the technology is not outside possibility, but I won't disregard everything else over the possibility it could be or the possibility it couldn't.
wrong.
Artificial light can NOT work in a vacuum. Take a clear tube, a flashlight and a vacuum cleaner. Real simple. Artificial light reacts with oxygen. No oxygen in space. You can even go to NASA's website and read, for yourself, the ENTIRE equipment lists for the Moon landings - no artificial lights.
The VA Radiation belts aren't clouds. Do know what radiation is? It's a form of light, doesn't have a physical property you can touch.
Take a container. Fill half with fuel, half with oxygen. Place an igniter inside. Place entire container in a vacuum. Ignite, and open a vent for exhaust ( or all you have is a bomb ). The nanosecond the vent opens, the vacuum rushes in and separates all atoms. Process fails.
Combustion of any kind can not work in a vacuum.
By your logic, vacuum sealed beam headlights, standardized in 1940, wouldn't work because the light would never leave the vacuum sealed unit. But they do work, because regardless of source, light can travel through a vacuum.