I think if it was completely faked we'd see more frantic or observable behaviour on behalf tptb to soften the blow

Observable behavior? You mean like the flagrant destruction of evidence? I think TPTB considered this lie 'won-and-done'. Now they are building on the initial lie.

Yup, all records and blueprints for the apollo missions have been "destroyed", "lost", or taped over. Possibly the greatest achievement of man kind and NASA loses the technology for it?

Possibly the greatest achievement of man kind a

We like to say people-kind, not necessarily mankind.

The arrogance of a man saying that to a woman...

Well calling Zoolander... I mean Trudeau a man is stretching it.

I consider myself fortunate that I don't know who that is.

There are plenty of anomalies in the official record - the moon rock that turned out to be petrified wood,

This isn't an anomaly an any official record. It was never part of any official record.

The actual moon rocks onthe other hand...

the missing flight data etc

No flight data missing.

That's not true at all.

I think they want everyone who cares enough to call bullshit to think it's impossible to go to the moon and if that's the case they've done a pretty good job imo

They erased the only existing high definition copy shortly before the release to the public and lost literal tons of moon rocks. I say thats frantic and observable.

Do you know what I mean though? Like that is so on the nose I feel like they would have been able to just make the telemetry data up if somebody really important asked for it and they needed to prove it.

Other than the Apollo missions (which were 50 years ago) no one has been through the Van Allen radiation belts. Even in the space station which is supposed to be hundreds of miles below the start of the belt, radiation is significant. Astronauts get something a years worth of natural radiation exposure on earth, in one day.

Even in the space station which is supposed to be hundreds of miles below the start of the belt, radiation is significant. Astronauts get something a years worth of natural radiation exposure on earth, in one day.

Super relevant

Even in the space station which is supposed to be hundreds of miles below the start of the belt, radiation is significant.

Define significant. NASA limits lifetime exposure to radiation of 1 Sv (100 rads). Even if you were to get 100 rads in a single day you probably wouldn't die from it. It will increase your risk of getting cancer in your lifetime by a couple percentage points, but astronauts know the risk going in.

The Apollo missions explained in detail

Very good.

Here is a consideration I am sure many have already thought about.

As far as I know there are virtually no "leakers" or "whistle-blowers" for this particular scenario. Did they just do it better than they did JFK?

For JFK, we can guess there were maybe a few dozen co-conspirators - all seasoned operators? But for Moon Landing, there would have to have been hundreds of people exposed, few of them trained agents.

It would seem to me that after this much time, some of those supposed witnesses to the non-landing would have emerged. Just note that we are getting deathbed confessions for JFK.

How have they kept it secret this long?

Compartmentalization, all the nasa operators were doing what they wouldve done. The only ones in on it are the astronauts, the film crew and the photo editor. Plus everyone that would know first hand are almost dead.

Well that is at least an answer. Thank you. But still not convinced that there would have to be a hundred or more.

What about the signals that all spacecraft must carry and "ping" back to radio stations on earth. As I recall they did have to turn off commo for certain parts, but thats evidence that cannot be easily faked. There were listeners from all over I'm sure.

The pings didn't have to originate on the moon.

They would have originated from the space craft, possibly mediated by something like this

I cant probve within a shadow of a doubt that it was faked. I can however provide enough inconsistencies that defy the official narrative and reality according to our only source on the subject, NASA. I can provide more evidence that its not what it seems than the story being true. Circumstancial evidence is like snow flakes. Eventually it all piles up to become undeniable.

OK, I have already given my honest opinion - that I cannot see enough evidence - circumstantial or direct - to roll the faked Moon Landing up to the level of a 9/11 or JFK.

However - I do think there is one aspect of all this that is very seriously weird. Why did the US/World switch from outer space exploration, which presumably started with the moon shots, to very tame orbital activities?

All of us alive in 1968 when we "reached" the moon thought that Mars would be a couple decades ahead. We were wrong. What stopped that trajectory. Money was claimed, but that cannot be true given the trillions of wealth floating through the deep state. Someones decided to stop it - find the reason and you will have an interesting conspiracy.

Well lets not forget the Mars pictures. Not only do they look like Death Valley but we can't forget the squirrel picture. The Hubble can take these pictures of stars light years away but can't get a good picture of the moon. We aren't going to Mars if we can't go to the Moon. The one thing that is undeniable is that things don't add up and they can't keep their story and reasoning straight, so someone isn't being entirely truthful.

one thing that is undeniable is that things don't add up

Yes, and in multiple places, some related some not. But we cannot allow ourselves to be taken in by conspiracies that are carefully developed - like counterespionage - to devalue the real conspiracies by lumping them in a big messy almost-believable basket. That's what I fear on several of our current "fringe conspiracies" such as flat earth. This one as well.

By contrast, the 9-11 event should never have been considered as a conspiracy story. It should have been a special-prosecutor criminal case from Week 1, and the real perps should all be in jail right now. Instead, we allowed power to triumph over common sense and intelligence. Let's never make that mistake again.

Love the pic. Capricorn One?

This is one of my favorite conspiracies, and one that has a lot of compelling points on both sides. However, my major read flag that makes me think they were faked is the advancements in tech since the 70's.

Think what computers looked like in the 70's, think what cars were like, what telephones were like. Now, think about the phones and cars we have today and all the innovation in the last 50 years. Why hasn't our space technology advanced the same way? You think if we landed the first man on the moon in the 50's there would be public transit there by now! Ok maybe not a bus to the moon, but it's bizzare we have made no progress since then.

Yeah, space is hella sweet

Why are you so certain that 'outer space' is real?

I know this may be a disturbing question, but I hope you can try to engage with it intellectually.

What evidence have you seen which convinces you that 'outer space' is a real place?

Bonus point for evidence which does not come straight from your telescreen or the authorities who you already know to be liars.

My grandma has a piece of a meteor with some special substance in it that is incredibly rare on earth. She says she say it land in her farm and went and found it and brought it to the college near her in Kansas, and they said it had some super rare mineral in it that basically doesn't exist on earth. It's only about the size of a lumpy golfball

If she said she saw it come from the sky, got it, and then professors at a college say it contains stuff not from earth, id accept that it came from 'outer space'

My grandma has a piece of a meteor with some special substance in it that is incredibly rare on earth.

No, she doesn't. She has been fooled. And so have you.

How do you think satellite tv and radio works exactly?

The same way terrestrial TV works.

Why hasn't our space technology advanced the same way?

Oh you mean like:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Space_Shuttle_Atlantis_launches_from_KSC_on_STS-132_side_view.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/Mir_Space_Station_viewed_from_Endeavour_during_STS-89.jpg/1200px-Mir_Space_Station_viewed_from_Endeavour_during_STS-89.jpg

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/final_configuration_of_iss.jpg

https://i.redd.it/fzvjxc9947py.jpg

http://moonpans.com/signed/McCandlessCloseSigned-a.jpg

http://www.technovelgy.com/graphics/content12/russian-space-farmers.jpg

You think if we landed the first man on the moon in the 50's there would be public transit there by now!

Please demonstrate. I want to see technical outlines, logistic analyses, cradle-to-the-grave project outlines.

Ok maybe not a bus to the moon, but it's bizzare we have made no progress since then.

See above.

All that stuff you posted sucks in comparison to going to the moon.

It's not even close.

All that stuff you posted sucks in comparison to going to the moon.

(Relatively) sustainable extra terrestrial living facilities suck in comparison to going to the moon?

Cheap, safe, reusable lifting vehicles suck in comparison to complicated, expensive, gargantuan rockets?

Interesting ideas.

It's not even close.

Let's see your step by step plan for space exploration.

Yep, growing lettuce in a space Winnebago and creating a shuttle that blows up twice sucks in comparison to going to the moon.

It's actually pretty embarrassing that the US has to send up its astronauts in Russian rockets. It's pretty weird that you would mention that as an accomplishment.

So yeah, it's not even close. Every astronaut and rocket scientists involved in those missions would rather have been sending man to the moon.

Later (( objective person who just comes here to talk about conspiracies )).

Yep, growing lettuce in a space Winnebago and creating a shuttle that blows up twice sucks in comparison to going to the moon.

Okay, let's make the assumption that yeah, being able to produce food in a non terrestrial environment while using a cheap, reusable transportation method sucks in comparison to the moon landing. Okay. Let's go with that.

At some point, things need to be built and developed. Progress happens in phases, it's iterative. You don't go to the moon, then bam- brothels on Mars. Every single part needs to be rigorously tested and developed.

Like long term low-gravity habitation.

Like food creation.

Like cheap, reusable transportation.

Like long term physiological and psychological analyses.

Oh hey, almost like what's happening right now

It's actually pretty embarrassing that the US has to send up its astronauts in Russian rockets.

Russia makes good rockets. Pretty much always have. It's an effective way of moving material.

t's pretty weird that you would mention that as an accomplishment.

Intergovernmental cooperation is an accomplishment.

So yeah, it's not even close. Every astronaut and rocket scientists involved in those missions would rather have been sending man to the moon.

Source for this claim?

Later (( objective person who just comes here to talk about conspiracies )).

You didn't do it very well.

Do you have to keep responding to every post?

Is that part of your contract?

Oh, can't actually stand up for your argument so you default to "everyone but me is a shill" lmao.

You get rekt

Seriously though, do you keep having to respond in order to keep your job? Like a telemarketer?

What happens if you don't? How long will this thread go?....

Just to keep your employers happy and on point, here's a nice quote for you to respond to...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16MMZJlp_0Y

Seriously though, do you keep having to respond in order to keep your job? Like a telemarketer?

So many Sorosbucks. I'm getting rich.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16MMZJlp_0Y

He's correct. There isn't currently any operating vehicle or supporting system capable of making the trek.

And?

He's correct. There isn't currently any operating vehicle or supporting system capable of making the trek.

Hmmm, pretty weird that in 50 years we are less capable, no?

Hmmm, pretty weird that in 50 years we are less capable, no?

Of going to the moon? Yes, less capable.

Nothing odd about it though.

Missions change bud. The Apollo program did what it intended to do and then retooled.

Anyway, here's a 2005 article where NASA estimates it would take 13 years to go to the moon.

That's right.

As there are currently no vehicles capable of it, crews trained for it, machinery to support it, lifting vehicles designed and built, launching platforms, housings and facilities created. That would take a long time.

houghts on why it would take 13 years to replicate 50-year-old technology

Where in the article does it say replicate 50-year old technology? Why on Earth would they ever use 50 year old technology?

That's moronic.

Hey champ, let me quote your own article

The $104 billion plan calls for an Apollo-like vehicle to carry crews of up to four astronauts to the moon for seven-day stays on the lunar surface.

,

(it) could even carry six-astronaut crews to the international space station or fly automated resupply shipments as needed

,

Think of it as Apollo on steroids

,

NASA’s lunar exploration plan entails the development of a reusable 18-foot (5.5-meter) diameter capsule capable of seating six astronauts in all, or a four-person moon expedition.

,

What we're really developing is the shuttle's successor,

,

NASA's Apollo program landed two astronauts on the lunar surface while a third orbited the moon. Under the space agency's new plan, all four astronauts would make the lunar descent and explore the surface.

,

Also unlike the Apollo flights, which were largely confined to the moon's equatorial regions, CEV missions could reach any point on the moon that promised interesting science

Gosh, reading is so hard these days, what with the fluoride and government ray beams melting our faces.

Hey those are some good talking points to dance around the fact that NASA can't even safely send astronauts to the ISS in Lower Earth Orbit, let alone to the moon.

In fact NASA hasn't been able to send man to space for about 7 years now.

But I'm sure if they decided to go to the moon for 3 days, like they did 50 years ago, they totally could. They just don't want to. It's only worth it to them to go for 7 days, and for it to take 30% longer to produce than the original missions.

Hey, here's a nice video of the Apollo astronauts faking a shot of Earth from afar. Got any good talking points, Mr. Normal Citizen who totally isn't on a base in Virgnia, talking about getting "rekt" like a true r/fellowkids ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yN_GDew5NyQ&t=207s

Hey those are some good talking points to dance around the fact that NASA can't even safely send astronauts to the ISS in Lower Earth Orbit, let alone to the moon.

NASA hasn't sent an astronaut to space using entirely its own craft since the Space Shuttle program ended, that's right. The Shuttles are still kickin around though.

In fact NASA hasn't been able to send man to space for about 7 years now.

and?

But I'm sure if they decided to go to the moon for 3 days, like they did 50 years ago, they totally could.

I imagine if for some absurd reason they wanted to dredge up decades old design, despite no mission, no supporting systems and having to build every single thing from scratch again they could. Thor Heyerdal road a reed boat around the Pacific afterall.

Hey, here's a nice video of the Apollo astronauts faking a shot of Earth from afar.

Actually, it's a heavily cut and edited video.

That particular broadcast is available in its entirety on youtube. But hey, what's the point of actually doing research when you can plug your ears and call everyone a shill?

Thor Heyerdal road a reed boat around the Pacific afterall.

Lol. Anyway, there's a NASA guy saying that if they could go back to the moon they'd do it in a nanosecond.

Moving on, sound doesn't travel in a vacuum, right? Weird how it did during the Apollo missions.

https://youtu.be/ij5fdMgj36A?t=47

.Anyway, there's a NASA guy saying that if they could go back to the moon they'd do it in a nanosecond

So would I. I'd love to go to the moon. However, much like Nasa I don't have the right vehicle and systems to do so at the moment.

. It's weird how you're making it seem like that's not the case

That's precisely what it is. NASA doesn't have the equipment necessary.

. But you're objective and not obligated to prove a certain point, wink wink.

It's elementary.

Which systems does NASA currently out historically employ? Which can get to the moon?

Not the current ones.

.Moving on, sound doesn't travel in a vacuum, right? Weird how it did during the Apollo missions.

whew good thing they remembered their pressurized suits with microphones.

You're going to have to do better than that before I move on to the next piece of evidence of obvious fakery.

Specifically, how does sound go from the hammer, in the vacuum of space, to the microphone inside the helmet?

You're going to have to do better than that before I move on to the next piece of evidence of obvious fakery.

The one you've failed to produce?

Specifically, how does sound go from the hammer, in the vacuum of space, to the microphone inside the helmet?

He's holding it lmao.

Are you're saying that the sound traveled up his arm, through his bones?

whew good thing they remembered their pressurized suits with microphones.

Spit out. How exactly are you claiming the sound traveled? Through their suits?

Yes. Materials are conductive. Especially when there's hammering involved

Wow. So you're saying a hammering sound travelled through about 10 layers of fabric in the gloves, and then travelled in the air bladder, up to the microphone, clear as day?

Wow, you guys really believe some wacky stuff.

I didn't know fabric was capable of transmitting sound like that. Sure, when there's air on both sides of the fabric, it won't stop sound from passing through it. But in a vacuum, where there is no air for transmission, the fabric alone has to reproduce a tapping sound. I've just never heard fabric itself make a hard-tapping sound, have you?

Moving on. Check out this video, there's a large wispy shadow that just doesn't belong. It looks like some sort of cord or harness goes by the light source from a far distance away.

Care to explain?

Wow, you guys really believe some wacky stuff.

What are basic physics

I've just never heard fabric itself make a hard-tapping sound, have you?

When there's a hammer on one end and a mic on the other...

Moving on. Check out this video, there's a large wispy shadow that just doesn't belong.

Why doesn't this "shadow belong?"

It looks like some sort of cord or harness goes

It doesn't look like that at all.

Care to explain?

Seems you've just invented (or in this case, regurgitated) some empty statements without much logic behind them.

The two astronauts are very attending the high gain and PLSS antenna systems.

Do you not realize how laughable that is? Five decades later, the period of most rapid advancement in technology that humanity has ever achieved in recorded history. But for some reason we "destroyed that technology" to go to the moon and in the last 50 years it became too hard to replicate. That's perfectly reasonable to you?

Do you not realize how laughable that is?

A new mission? Laughable?

Hmm, odd.

But for some reason we "destroyed that technology" to go to the moon

A hugely expensive launching platform and no mission plan to use it with. Did you expect them to just stick the Saturn V in a locker somewhere?

it became too hard to replicate.

Who made this claim?

Oh that's right. No one.

That's perfectly reasonable to you?

Yes. Missions change. There was no reason to keep going to the moon.

I see none of you moon idiots have indulged me on your oh-so-simple 5 step Moon Mission program.

A hugely expensive launching platform and no mission plan to use it with. Did you expect them to just stick the Saturn V in a locker somewhere?

He's not saying they scrapped the materials to do it. He is saying they destroyed the technology. He didn't even say they have other things to focus on, or that they don't have the funding, or that they simply not want to, he said they DESTROYED THE TECHNOLOGY. And now they are saying they plan to go to Mars. LOL.

He's not saying they scrapped the materials to do it. He is saying they destroyed the technology.

The technology meaning the associated systems. We don't have a Saturn V, nor the vehicles and structures associated with it.

The blueprints weren't tossed into a fire.

He didn't even say they have other things to focus on,

"Going to Mars should be one of the next series of steps that humans do. The first should be go back to the moon for a number of technical reasons and exploration reasons"

Lol.

or that they don't have the funding,

That's what "it's a painful process to build" means. It's a massive undertaking to (re)build the Saturn systems. Why the hell would you build a decades old system?

That's idiotic.

That just seems laughable to me. Especially when you see the bigger picture. You have your opinion on it I guess. Actually try watching the documentaries linked by OP and feel free to see your opinions on the more ridiculous things they point out. This is just a very minute detail of the whole story. Start with this one:

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon

I'd actually be glad to discuss your thoughts on it after you watch it. Cheers.

That just seems laughable to me. Especially when you see the bigger picture.

The bigger picture being progress? Technology and research happens in steps not massive cartoonish eureka leaps and bounds?

Actually try watching the documentaries linked by OP

I've seen them all. They get linked monthly.

This is just a very minute detail of the whole story.

There is no whole story. Just lies and ignorance, as you've demonstrated.

I'd actually be glad to discuss your thoughts on it after you watch it.

It's a load of trash.

Well you are beyond help then. And I meant the bigger picture as in all the holes in the space missions story.

And I meant the bigger picture as in all the holes in the space missions story.

There aren't any holes. You've yet to post something that isn't

1) you misunderstanding

2) not a correct statement

I guess that's too bad you disagree with what I said. And apparently also with all the facts and evidence the documentaries have shown.

The documentary "facts" aren't facts. They're usually straight up lies, misinformation like casually cutting away at important moments (why don't they post the entire clip of Apollo astronauts viewing the Earth? Well because it would demolish their platform), or plain old ignorance.

I think the liar is you. There is plenty of correct information that directly refutes NASA's statements and excuses numerous times throughout many documentaries and other media.

There is plenty of correct information that directly refutes NASA's statements and excuses numerous times

Post 2.

You can find at least 2 yourself in the links posted. I believe in you.

I've already responded.

I said post 2. Don't defer. Give me your 2 favourite pieces of "evidence"

Pretty much this, we're doing tons of awesome stuff in space right now and it's very exciting...but nothing like going to the moon, that achievement still seems so far ahead of what we have now...and it was done 50 years ago! Doesn't make sense to me, it would be like inventing wifi 50 years ago and then walkie-talkies now.

one that has a lot of compelling points on both sides.

Give me one 'compelling point' to suggest that the moon landings actually happened.

Just one.

A big one for me is the amount of people involved in the moon landings. There were hundreds, probably thousands of NASA employees all working on the apollo missions and you would think that if the entire thing was a sham someone would have blown the whistle.

And why would all of them be privy to that information? They top level knew it was fake the rest were being fooled just like everyone else in the world. Just because you work for a company doesn’t mean you know all of the corrupt shit they have going on.

I agree with you in that its possible that everyone was left out of the "big secret" and maybe 90% of the people at NASA thought they were really working on a real moon landing, and were duped with the rest of us. But I still think there had to be SOMEONE who was working there for years and was finally like "ok I've been designing the landing gear for 5 years now and no one seems to care that it only has a 15% chance to work, why are we sending this thing up?"

A big one for me is the amount of people involved in the moon landings

You don't think a few thousand people can keep a secret?

https://spacecentre.co.uk/blog-post/know-moon-landing-really-happened/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

https://nerdist.com/still-think-the-moon-landings-were-faked-heres-more-proof-they-werent/

https://www.inverse.com/article/34408-moon-landing-not-a-hoax-conspiracy-theory-apollo-11-true-real

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/11-proofs-that-the-apollo-moon-landings-were-not-fake_uk_5971d821e4b00e4363decb38

Lastly, Occam's Razor

Those are a bunch of links.

Are you completely unable to speak for yourself?

You give me YOUR best point for belief in the moon landings.

The enormous, undeniable body of evidence

So you don't have any evidence then. Thought not.

How did you possibly get that from the many, many pieces of evidence I linked you to above? Lunar rocks alone are enough to prove that we've landed on the moon since they would be impossible to synthesize on earth

Wait....do you think apollo missions landed on the moon in the 50s??!

I meant 50 years, not in the 50's. I'll edit that ty.

My question to your theory: why is every space fairing nation, friend and foe, all in on this conspiracy to fool earths population?

Why? Why would anyone do that, and why would enemies all work together for this?

Have you read "wagging the moondoggie" by David McGowan?

That's the series of articles that made me a non-believer. I think we definitely do have enough evidence to determine conclusively that we did not go to the moon.

People (shills/idiots) love to talk about how we didn't have the technology to fake it in the 60s - which is exactly why all of the footage looks like bad 70s sci-fi and our current CGI tech is capable of creating far more realistic depictions of space travel for cinema.

Bart Sibrel

The fraud. He uses chopped up edited videos and pretends they explain a whole.

He couldn't even explain basic principles of gravity on his AMA.

The crucial question is asked at 47:16 - did you see the stars? Watch Neil and Michael Collins scramble to answer "...NO".

So are they trained public speakers?

The Van Allen Belts

Oh goodie.

This is one, very specific objection to the Apollo missions, namely that the radiation surrounding Earth

It is not a ubiquitous, uniform blanket. They're called belts for a reason.

Nor is radiation an insta-gib deathray.

is lethal and cannot be passed without lead shielding or something else notably absent from NASA's designs.

Like just avoiding it?

First off, there is no question that the radiation belts were initially perceived to be a serious obstacle for manned space flights. Article 1 Article 2. Van Allen himself expressed his doubts in this video from 1960,

1960.

where he refers to the possibility of sending humans into deep space as 'premature'.

1960

The question, then, is whether NASA truly solved the problem of radiation, which is another debate. I just don't believe anyone who claims that the radiation problem is non-existent when the literature clearly stated that it was a problem.

Are you that disingenuous that you won't post Van Allen's quotes later into the 1960s?

Is there any good documentaries going along with your points and that debunks ridiculous claims? I've seen some documentaries on the oddities of things like shadows (saying we never went to the moon), but its never been entirely convincing. We've left several laser devices that even private people can supposedly check, left-behind equipment such as the lander pods and moon cars should still be visible with good cameras/telescopes today, the invention of the transitior explains technological advances. Any links would be welcome, thanks.

Regarding the Van Allen Belt, NASA are still claiming that it is a problem they need to solve, here’s a NASA employee talking about it (around the 3:00 min mark)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4O5dPsu66Kw

I posted the longer clip as the other clips are shorter and remove context. Arguably, when he says they need to solve the problem he could be referring to the computers and technology rather than people, however, he is still saying it’s a problem. I’ve read the quotes from Van Allen that it wasn’t necessarily a problem for the astronauts but considering NASA are still planning for navigating through it surely it must pose some sort of problem?

Regarding the Van Allen Belt, NASA are still claiming that it is a problem they need to solve, here’s a NASA employee talking about it (around the 3:00 min mark)

That's right.

It is.

Just like getting off the ground is a problem they need to solve.

They do it. Quite regularly.

rguably, when he says they need to solve the problem he could be referring to the computers and technology rather than people,

That's right.

however, he is still saying it’s a problem.

Being a problem =/= insurmountable boogeyman

I’ve read the quotes from Van Allen that it wasn’t necessarily a problem for the astronauts but considering NASA are still planning for navigating through it surely it must pose some sort of problem?

It's launching humans hundreds to thousands miles off of the Earth.

Every single thing is a problem that needs to be properly solved.

NASA doesn't currently have the systems available to send astronauts on any extended, beyond LEO trip and re-building a 50 year old system and its associating support structure is ludicrous. Meanwhile research into cheaper, better, safer, faster, cleaner etc etc etc systems goes on.

Saying "we don't have anything that can currently do X" doesn't mean they never did. That's a tremendously ignorant inference made by people with very little understanding (and willingness to actually research) some very simple things.

Every single thing is a problem that needs to be properly solved.

That's fair enough, and I did try to link to the longer version of the clip as the shorter clip on it's own without the context makes it seem like it's a problem NASA has never solved.

I honestly don't know enough about space to say if the Van Allen Belt is significant or not to a missions' success, so what is the issue here? Can the astronauts easily survive going through it and it's just the technology that is at risk or is there still a significant risk for humans/animals going through it too?

It seems like with regards to NASA and conspiracy theories, either they cannot leave LEO or they have secret space programs that can traverse great distances (not saying I necessarily believe either)

The only thing I find a bit suspicious is a few of the astronauts talked about aliens/UFOs in space (I think Buzz Aldrin mentioned a monolith on Mars and Edgar Mitchell is a big "disclosure" advocate). Personally, I don't believe aliens exist and it's a ploy to try and get the public excited so NASA will be granted a bigger budget because public opinion will be fine with increasing the budget if they think it's likely to result in some sort of alien contact scenario as this has been the staple of huge blockbuster movies, TV shows and books since at least the 1950s.

I honestly don't know enough about space to say if the Van Allen Belt is significant or not to a missions' success, so what is the issue here?

The issue is ignorance. People are so obsessed with making up points to support their NASA LIES narrative that they'll grasp at anything, regardless of the truth behind the system. In this case it's the belts. We've got a brief clip of a dude saying "hey this bit is a little trick" ergo to them it's a gotcha moment. NASA lies radiation melts your brain etc.

It's nonsense.

Can the astronauts easily survive going through it and it's just the technology that is at risk or is there still a significant risk for humans/animals going through it too?

It certainly needs to be done right. Best to aim for is shooting through one of the thinner areas very quickly. Like running over hot coals, you're sprinting over them, not taking a leisurely pace.

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

• [/r/topmindsofreddit] Did they forget that the USSR America’s enemy at the time, never once questioned the USA landing on the moon?

 ^{If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)}

That just seems laughable to me. Especially when you see the bigger picture.

The bigger picture being progress? Technology and research happens in steps not massive cartoonish eureka leaps and bounds?

Actually try watching the documentaries linked by OP

I've seen them all. They get linked monthly.

This is just a very minute detail of the whole story.

There is no whole story. Just lies and ignorance, as you've demonstrated.

I'd actually be glad to discuss your thoughts on it after you watch it.

It's a load of trash.

Well lets not forget the Mars pictures. Not only do they look like Death Valley but we can't forget the squirrel picture. The Hubble can take these pictures of stars light years away but can't get a good picture of the moon. We aren't going to Mars if we can't go to the Moon. The one thing that is undeniable is that things don't add up and they can't keep their story and reasoning straight, so someone isn't being entirely truthful.