knowing all truth

[Pam]

Should we be concern about all the truth in the world and the universe. For example rumors are spreading on the internet that NASA fake the whole moon landing. That they paid Walt Disney and Holly Wood to fake the moon landing. It is said that there is a belt of radiation around the earth and that it is impossible to send men in a metal ship though these radiation belts because they would have cook like they were food in a microwave. The moon is out side these belts which mean they had to go though the radiation belts to get to the moon.

Even today NASA will not send astronauts pass these radiation belts, They always stay in earth's orbit which makes space travel very difficult and keeps us earth bound.

I hate to think that the astronauts were paid to lie to the American people and the world about going to the moon. Is it wrong to want to know the truth if the astronauts really went to the moon or not?

It is hard to believe that in 1969 we had enough technology to go the moon. We didn't have cell phones, we didn't have internet and many other inventions that we have today. Shouldn't going to the moon be something in this century instead of 1969? And why aren't they going back to the moon?

If someone has a powerful telescope could they see the soil on the moon see the American flag on the moon? Why was the flag waving in the wind on the moon when there is no wind on the moon? Was the whole moon landing film some where on the earth? And the pictures are too perfect for cameras on there chest and gloves the sides of oven mittens and poor lighting and yet there is perfect lighting and shadows going different directions then parallel.

[Brian Brill]

Should we be concern about all the truth in the world and the universe.

Certainly at this point we can't know everything at once, so priorities matter when it comes to what we learn.

For example rumors are spreading on the internet that NASA fake the whole moon landing. That they paid Walt Disney and Holly Wood to fake the moon landing.

I touched on this elsewhere, but guess I'll comment here too since it's come up and I've been investigating again. I hadn't really looked into this since about 20 years ago. Before the Internet/Web I researched the whole fake moonlanding thing and suspected that it could be a hoax. Then with better access to information it became clear that the ones denying the moon missions are the ones who are hoaxing. We did go to the moon.

It is said that there is a belt of radiation around the earth and that it is impossible to send men in a metal ship though these radiation belts because they would have cook like they were food in a microwave. The moon is out side these belts which mean they had to go though the radiation belts to get to the moon.

This claim depends on people not understanding the nature and shape of the Van Allen Belts. The claim could be true if the Apollo missions went directly through the thick parts of the belts. But the way they are shaped, the most dangerous part is a fairly narrow band at the equator, and it was not a problem to avoid the strongest zones, and therefore the protection of the spacecraft was sufficient against the primary danger of high-energy proton radiation. It may have still been dangerous, but it wasn't anything at all like "cooking".
http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vint ... llen-belts

Even today NASA will not send astronauts pass these radiation belts, They always stay in earth's orbit which makes space travel very difficult and keeps us earth bound.

That claim doesn't really make much sense, it's basically a straw-man argument. There has been no reason to send anyone that far since the moon missions. Since there still is some danger involved, they certainly wouldn't do it for fun. Plus it only gets more expensive to send people farther from the Earth, there would have to be something significant to justify the costs and risks. Unmanned missions get the deep space science done just fine.

I hate to think that the astronauts were paid to lie to the American people and the world about going to the moon.

Well thankfully you don't have to think that, since the evidence of that doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

Is it wrong to want to know the truth if the astronauts really went to the moon or not?

Certainly it's not wrong, but there's not a great deal of point to it. I guess it goes to whether or not you can trust the government, but it's always good to be skeptical of governments, because they do hide some things. But it isn't good to fantasize preposterous conspiracies to explain things that are quite easily explained without conspiracies. Occam's Razor and all that. I do think it's pretty important not to be suckered in by lies of any stripe. Better to be agnostic than to be stuck in delusion.

It is hard to believe that in 1969 we had enough technology to go the moon. We didn't have cell phones, we didn't have internet and many other inventions that we have today. Shouldn't going to the moon be something in this century instead of 1969? And why aren't they going back to the moon?

Well no, it's not hard to believe. Were you around in 1969? We had lots of technology then too. Traveling to the moon wasn't like using a teleporter or anything, it was primarily an exercise in using well-understood principles of physics, lots of math, a bit of chemistry, and plenty of solid engineering. Cell phones or other recent technologies have nothing at all to do with it. Certainly the spaceships we can build now would be far superior, but it wasn't rocket science back then. Oh wait, yes it was rocket science, but that's all it was, it wasn't magic. Consider that it took literally thousands of scientists and engineers to figure out and build the mission equipment, and they knew there were challenges, but they didn't think it was outright undoable with the technology they had and were developing. Kudos to them for the achievement.

And we haven't been back because we probably already went too many times. There's not much left to do that would justify the risks and costs. Have you tried getting a budget request through the US congress lately?

If someone has a powerful telescope could they see the soil on the moon see the American flag on the moon? Why was the flag waving in the wind on the moon when there is no wind on the moon? Was the whole moon landing film some where on the earth? And the pictures are too perfect for cameras on there chest and gloves the sides of oven mittens and poor lighting and yet there is perfect lighting and shadows going different directions then parallel.

As for the flags, in the low-gravity, (almost) no-atmosphere environment of the moon, a flag will respond to the action of twisting the pole back and forth to insert it into the ground. Much like the surface of water ripples when you disturb it, the energy of that twisting rippled through the flags for a while, and with no air resistance, the movement lasted longer than it would here on earth, but soon enough after that they became completely still unless disturbed by nearby vibrations. If you watch the actual videos with this understanding, it's obvious that wind is not the explanation for the movement you see. And after the flags were planted and settled, they remained exactly the same in subsequent photographs, crinkles and all. Also, the "waving" action of the flag has even been demonstrated in a vacuum environment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMBCfuKs9i8

Here's a good video on the moon hoax topic, and this guy has many others, but this one alone can decisively settle the issue because what happens simply could not have occurred on Earth but is exactly what would be expected on the Moon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHRHIZdJZFc

And these parts deal with some of those lighting and shadow "issues":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2nqyCtnMzE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnrPaz3xFIg

Overall there is something going on here with so many people wanting to believe and promote that the moon landings were fake. Some people are just wanting to have what they think is special knowledge, others have a desire to "debunk" anything that they don't actually understand, while others are just reflexively paranoid about authority. But it seems some people just want to distort, confuse and deceive. There are two reasons for this last one. First, travel to the moon is somehow seen as counter to God's creation, especially the flat-Earth model that people derive from the Bible and un-informed observations. But there is also a recent drive to debunk NASA because the science they do confirms that anthropogenic climate change is a real thing. The need to change policy to address the unloving abuse of our resources that contributes to the problem is a tremendous threat to the profits of those who control the energy sector. For those who are conspiracy-minded, it makes a whole lot more sense that "Big Carbon" is trying to influence the discussion to maintain their greedy goals rather than that there's some nefarious plot by thousands of scientists to take over the world by limiting pollution. I've seen Divine Truth people go along with that nonsense, even though AJ has stated that humans are indeed affecting the climate. Ah but I'm wondering way off topic here, so I'll stop.

- B

[Pam]

Thanks so much for answering my moon questions.

[Pam]

I watched the videos and they are good. Thanks for sharing them with me. I have another question. Why didn't the space ship leave a crater when it landed? And why wasn't the foot of the space ship cover in lunar dirt?

[Brian Brill]

I watched the videos and they are good. Thanks for sharing them with me. I have another question. Why didn't the space ship leave a crater when it landed? And why wasn't the foot of the space ship cover in lunar dirt?

Just because someone somewhere said "the lander should have made a crater", doesn't mean it should have made a crater. The whole idea of a crater is based upon the lander's highest possible thrust rate, but when it got near the ground it was only at about 1/3rd that rate, it was moving a bit sideways, and it was shut down several feet before actually landing. If the lander had set down and blasted it's full power for a while, it's still questionable if that would have created much of a crater. The properties of the lunar regolith rock, with its jagged constituent particles, means that they interlock quite strongly, so it would take more force than the lander exhaust to bust them up in any significant way.

As for the dust, the claim that it should have gotten on the lander feet is based upon the assumption that dust on the moon will act like dust on the Earth. On Earth when you blow some dust it largely swirls into a cloud because the atmosphere is thick enough to create too much resistance for such small particles to easily fly through. And the air has eddies and currents that are made visible as the dust gets wrapped up into it. But the moon has almost no atmosphere to interfere with the dust's trajectory, so when the lander was blowing away the dust, that dust went pretty much flying straight away from the lander, not into a cloud that would re-settle on and near the lander. There was probably some residual dust, but not enough to really be noticeable.

- B

[Pam]

I watched the videos and they are good. Thanks for sharing them with me. I have another question. Why didn't the space ship leave a crater when it landed? And why wasn't the foot of the space ship cover in lunar dirt?

Just because someone somewhere said "the lander should have made a crater", doesn't mean it should have made a crater. The whole idea of a crater is based upon the lander's highest possible thrust rate, but when it got near the ground it was only at about 1/3rd that rate, it was moving a bit sideways, and it was shut down several feet before actually landing. If the lander had set down and blasted it's full power for a while, it's still questionable if that would have created much of a crater. The properties of the lunar regolith rock, with its jagged constituent particles, means that they interlock quite strongly, so it would take more force than the lander exhaust to bust them up in any significant way.

As for the dust, the claim that it should have gotten on the lander feet is based upon the assumption that dust on the moon will act like dust on the Earth. On Earth when you blow some dust it largely swirls into a cloud because the atmosphere is thick enough to create too much resistance for such small particles to easily fly through. And the air has eddies and currents that are made visible as the dust gets wrapped up into it. But the moon has almost no atmosphere to interfere with the dust's trajectory, so when the lander was blowing away the dust, that dust went pretty much flying straight away from the lander, not into a cloud that would re-settle on and near the lander. There was probably some residual dust, but not enough to really be noticeable.

- B

Thanks so much for answering my questions. This really means a lot to me.