The Van Allen Belt

amershamdave

Well-known member
Joined
15 Dec 2017
Messages
2,085
Once you fly into space, over (about) 400 miles, you enter a region of space called the Van Allen Belt(s). What's that, you might ask? In a nutshell, it's an area full of nasty radiation, caused by energetic charged particles, originating from something called the solar wind and cosmic rays. Apparantly, when rockets or probes fly through this area, the instruments on board these crafts can go 'haywire'. Unless the craft carrying humans is properly protected with super insulation, there is a real risk of a threat to life on board. That is; the body could definitely face the risk of burning up, due to the high levels of radiation. The Van Allen Belt(s) extend up to just over 36,000 miles.

Apparantly (again), we haven't quite mastered this phenomenon. If we have, it's news to me.

This then, beggars the question..................................how did the Americans manage to safely fly through this sector in space 50 years ago (1969 of course) with the technology they had, available then? Have we regressed, or progressed with our technology? Our laptops have more information and storage space available than what NASA itself had, according to the experts.

I have a theory about the events that are recorded in July 1969. That's for another day.
 
Last edited:

Malc

Senior moderator
Staff member
Joined
5 Dec 2017
Messages
4,642
And then a dog ran onto the moon?

But you have a good point, the Van Allen belt is deadly.
Hmm
 

Sarge

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
29,714
There was me thinking this lethal van Allen belt was a potential close season target for signing :rolleyes:
 

ZeroTheHero

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
4,789
Once you fly into space, over (about) 400 miles, you enter a region of space called the Van Allen Belt(s). What's that, you might ask? In a nutshell, it's an area full of nasty radiation, caused by energetic charged particles, originating from something called the solar wind and cosmic rays. Apparantly, when rockets or probes fly through this area, the instruments on board these crafts can go 'haywire'. Unless the craft carrying humans is properly protected with super insulation, there is a real risk of a threat to life on board. That is; the body could definitely face the risk of burning up, due to the high levels of radiation. The Van Allen Belt(s) extend up to just over 36,000 miles.

Apparantly (again), we haven't quite mastered this phenomenon. If we have, it's news to me.

This then, beggars the question..................................how did the Americans manage to safely fly through this sector in space 50 years ago (1969 of course) with the technology they had, available then? Have we regressed, or progressed with our technology? Our laptops have more information and storage space available than what NASA itself had, according to the experts.

I have a theory about the events that are recorded in July 1969. That's for another day.
The Van Allen Belt was discovered before the Apollo missions (in 1958). They aren't a 'ring' around the earth so it's possible to minimise the amount of time a space craft spends in them - and that's what they did and still do. Oh, and lead underpants of course.
 

amershamdave

Well-known member
Joined
15 Dec 2017
Messages
2,085
Some people just love de-bunking conspiracy theories. Makes'em look clever, doesn't it?! De-bunk these............

1. In all of the shots of the men on the moon, why can't you see any stars?
2. The steps of the moon lander are in the shadow of the sun. Why, then, is the astronaut coming down these steps shown in perfect, lit clarity?
3. Many photos of the astronauts on the moon show their back-packs without aerials poking out. How did they manage to talk to each other on their radios, like the many footages purportedly show they did?
4. What size batteries did they use, to power their transmitters, when they gave live transmissions back to Earth?
5. Where were the transmitters on the moon, when they gave these live transmissions? Why was there no time-delay in the transmissions?
6. If you watch carefully, you can see on one of the official NASA films, two astronuats supposedly bouncing up and down on the moon's surface up to "Four feet high" without first bending their knees to get a good 'purchase'. How is that possible, without using a trampoline?
7. If you watch the astronauts walking on the moon, they appear to bounce up and down as they move around. Something to do with the lack of gravity, apparantly. Funny, that. If you speed up the footage, they appear to walk around exactly as you would, on.................Earth. How come?
Quite a few photos have a coloured stain on them. This was supposedly caused by orange juice inside the astronaut who took the photos's helmet leaking out onto the camera. Excuse me if I'm wrong, but if there was a way that juice could leak out of their helmets, there would also be a way of harmful radiation leaking inside as well, which would kill a human instantly, in the open vacuum of space........true?
8. There's no atmosphere on the moon. No atmosphere means no noise. How come, then, can you hear a 'clunk clunk clunk' sound, when you see the astronauts banging posts into the ground?
9. On the reflection of one of the astronauts, there is what could be described as a light that they use, when making films. You know the ones; with four flap-like shields around it. How come?
10. One of the films they released shows one of the astronauts on the way to the moon, with earth shown in the window, which experts have deducted was around two hundred miles away. Later day, he was shown supposedly walking on the moon. But it took around three days to get to the moon. How is this possible?
11. The space-craft was travelling at supposedly around 3,000 miles an hour. Yet when they got within a relatively short distance from the moon, the video shown depicts the craft moving really slowly above the surface. Watch it try and work that one out.
12. Who took the video of the moon lander leaving the moon for the return journey?
13. Why were there no signs of any landing blast under the moon lander?
14. Why is Jeremy Corbyn still leader of the Labour Party?
 
Last edited:

Yellow River

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
1,331
The Van Allen Belt was discovered before the Apollo missions (in 1958). They aren't a 'ring' around the earth so it's possible to minimise the amount of time a space craft spends in them - and that's what they did and still do. Oh, and lead underpants of course.


Pretty sure Ian McGuckin & Lee Jarman used to wear those.
 

amershamdave

Well-known member
Joined
15 Dec 2017
Messages
2,085
There is a documentary which you can see on Youtube, called 'A funny thing happened on the way to the moon' It's about 45 mins long.

I urge you all to watch it. Make comments about on here....................................
 
D

Deleted member 462

Guest
It was a space race both sides desperately trying to beat the other. Do u honestly believe that
1/ the several thousand people that would have been in on it would have to this day all kept totally tight lipped.

And

2/ the Russians wouldn’t have instantly tried to disprove or at least heavily questioned it.?

There are as many reasonable explanations out there to each of the points, as there are questions.

Never a fan of van halen
 

ZeroTheHero

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
4,789
AmershamDave,

How about http://www.flatearthproof.com - that should keep you occupied?
Or maybe https://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidence-for-creationism-faq.htm?

Not wanting to mock, but why on earth would not only NASA and the US government, but all the amateur astronomers who watch spaceflights in progress, all the foreign governments, every single reputable scientist, all those involved in filming and broadcasting the hoax (etc, etc) conspire to keep this huge secret? Do you think that is likely? And presumably they have since shipped up a dummy lunar module to the surface of the moon (there are photos of it there from multiple different nationalities space agencies) without anyone noticing?

Sometimes, the simplest explanation is the best - the astronauts went to and walked on the moon.

I don't think Star Trek is real though, hmm....
 

SteMerritt

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
8 Dec 2017
Messages
4,269
(there are photos of it there from multiple different nationalities space agencies)
Like this one...

 

amershamdave

Well-known member
Joined
15 Dec 2017
Messages
2,085
ZeroTheHero,
The Earth is round. Who or what created the Earth and the rest of the Universe............f*ck knows.

What, Zero old mate, do you know about Zero atmosphere? Can you enlighten me? Can you tell me the basic principles of there not being any atmosphere?

Your Star trek thing....................mmmmmm

Do you believe what they say about the Van Allen Belt? And are you qualified to give us all your 100% correct analogy? You should see what NASA say about the belt, Mr Hero.
 
D

Deleted member 462

Guest
ZeroTheHero,
The Earth is round. Who or what created the Earth and the rest of the Universe............f*ck knows.

What, Zero old mate, do you know about Zero atmosphere? Can you enlighten me? Can you tell me the basic principles of there not being any atmosphere?

Your Star trek thing....................mmmmmm

Do you believe what they say about the Van Allen Belt? And are you qualified to give us all your 100% correct analogy? You should see what NASA say about the belt, Mr Hero.

Have you seen your self what nasa say about the belts including the calculations ?
 

Oslernorth

Active member
Joined
23 Dec 2017
Messages
253
The biggest problem the hoax theory has is a lack of realistic Motive for hoaxing it in the first place. If they realised it was impossible to land on the Moon, then they could have just cancelled the missions, instead of taking on such a huge pointless risky cover up.
Governments cover things up all the time. But always after something embarrassing has happened. Not before.

I can help with one or two of your questions though.

No stars - The side of the Moon they landed on always faces the Earth. Think how bright a full Moon is, the Earth is 4 times larger and 2/3 covered in reflective water. This puts our side of the moon in purpetual daylight from the reflection on the Earth, plus there is even more daylight during the half of the month it faces the sun. In other words you can't see any stars because it's daylight.

Walking down the Ladder. I'm not sure I fully understand you question, but if your referring to 2 shadows, then that's explained above as well with Earthlight and Sunlight at the same time (bit like you get in a football stadium)

But if really want to convince yourself then watch what the Chinese have to say about it. They are currently doing a lot of research on the Moon with satellites and Probes with an aim to sending someone there. They will undoubtedly be all over the America equipment left up there, trying to get whatever information they can. And if it's not there then they will absolutely tell the world, because they are not going to pass up the opportunity For there man to be the first man on the moon.

I suspect we'll hear nothing from the Chinise on the mater confirming the Americans got there first



Some people just love de-bunking conspiracy theories. Makes'em look clever, doesn't it?! De-bunk these............

1. In all of the shots of the men on the moon, why can't you see any stars?
2. The steps of the moon lander are in the shadow of the sun. Why, then, is the astronaut coming down these steps shown in perfect, lit clarity?
3. Many photos of the astronauts on the moon show their back-packs without aerials poking out. How did they manage to talk to each other on their radios, like the many footages purportedly show they did?
4. What size batteries did they use, to power their transmitters, when they gave live transmissions back to Earth?
5. Where were the transmitters on the moon, when they gave these live transmissions? Why was there no time-delay in the transmissions?
6. If you watch carefully, you can see on one of the official NASA films, two astronuats supposedly bouncing up and down on the moon's surface up to "Four feet high" without first bending their knees to get a good 'purchase'. How is that possible, without using a trampoline?
7. If you watch the astronauts walking on the moon, they appear to bounce up and down as they move around. Something to do with the lack of gravity, apparantly. Funny, that. If you speed up the footage, they appear to walk around exactly as you would, on.................Earth. How come?
Quite a few photos have a coloured stain on them. This was supposedly caused by orange juice inside the astronaut who took the photos's helmet leaking out onto the camera. Excuse me if I'm wrong, but if there was a way that juice could leak out of their helmets, there would also be a way of harmful radiation leaking inside as well, which would kill a human instantly, in the open vacuum of space........true?
8. There's no atmosphere on the moon. No atmosphere means no noise. How come, then, can you hear a 'clunk clunk clunk' sound, when you see the astronauts banging posts into the ground?
9. On the reflection of one of the astronauts, there is what could be described as a light that they use, when making films. You know the ones; with four flap-like shields around it. How come?
10. One of the films they released shows one of the astronauts on the way to the moon, with earth shown in the window, which experts have deducted was around two hundred miles away. Later day, he was shown supposedly walking on the moon. But it took around three days to get to the moon. How is this possible?
11. The space-craft was travelling at supposedly around 3,000 miles an hour. Yet when they got within a relatively short distance from the moon, the video shown depicts the craft moving really slowly above the surface. Watch it try and work that one out.
12. Who took the video of the moon lander leaving the moon for the return journey?
13. Why were there no signs of any landing blast under the moon lander?
14. Why is Jeremy Corbyn still leader of the Labour Party?

The biggest problem the hoax theory has is a lack of realistic Motive for hoaxing it in the first place. If they realised it was impossible to land on the Moon, then they could have just cancelled the missions, instead of taking on such a huge pointless risky cover up.
Governments cover things up all the time. But always after something embarrassing has happened. Not before.

I can help with one or two of your questions though.

No stars - The side of the Moon they landed on always faces the Earth. Think how bright a full Moon is, the Earth is 4 times larger and 2/3 covered in reflective water. This puts our side of the moon in purpetual daylight from the reflection on the Earth, plus there is even more daylight during the half of the month it faces the sun. In other words you can't see any stars because it's daylight.

Walking down the Ladder. I'm not sure I fully understand you question, but if your referring to 2 shadows, then that's explained above as well with Earthlight and Sunlight at the same time (bit like you get in a football stadium)

But if really want to convince yourself then watch what the Chinese have to say about it. They are currently doing a lot of research on the Moon with satellites and Probes with an aim to sending someone there. They will undoubtedly be all over the America equipment left up there, trying to get whatever information they can. And if it's not there then they will absolutely tell the world, because they are not going to pass up the opportunity For there man to be the first man on the moon.

I suspect we'll hear nothing from the Chinise on the mater confirming the Americans got there first
 

amershamdave

Well-known member
Joined
15 Dec 2017
Messages
2,085
When they were supposedly on the moon, the camera used to take the photos was a Hasselblad 500EL, from what I believe. This was a camera which used film, instead of being a modern-day digital one. It was a great big camera, compared to the beauties you can buy today (nothing wrong with that, being that it was 50 years ago). They had to remove the viewfinder, because they couldn't see out of it, due to the bulkiness of their helmets. Anyone want to dispute this? They mostly took their pictures with the camera lined up with their chest. In the official release of their photographs, there was no 'bracketing' done, to make sure they got each picture right. Remember, they had to wear big bulky gloves, for protection. They had no way to set their light meters (to make sure the exposures were correct on each photo). Remember, too, the sun was always REALLY bright on the moon. When you see the official photos that were presented to the world, you can't help but notice how perfect the photos were! How can you do perfect pictures with even looking in a F*cking viewfinder? These were astronauts, not David Bailey-types! Each photo has perfect representations of the men on the moon, complete with EXACTLY the right light-settings! Wow! Amazing!

The only full-body photograph of Neil Armstrong on the moon shows him doing something next to the lunar module (LM). That part of the LM is in a massive shadow from the sun........and yet Armstrong's back is shown in a brilliant white. That is impossible, unless the picture has been photoshopped. Why would they need to do that? Did they admit doing that? In my opinion, another light source was used, other than the sun. They did not have a flash gun with them.

One more thing; on two of the official films shown, the American flag and a container hanging from the LM are both seen moving, as being blown from a wind-like source. Please, before you compare me to David Ike on that Wogan interview, bear this in mind; their is no f*cking atmosphere on the moon) even less than what comes out of the Curse-him stadium on match days), so how can things get blown around?
 
D

Deleted member 462

Guest
When they were supposedly on the moon, the camera used to take the photos was a Hasselblad 500EL, from what I believe. This was a camera which used film, instead of being a modern-day digital one. It was a great big camera, compared to the beauties you can buy today (nothing wrong with that, being that it was 50 years ago). They had to remove the viewfinder, because they couldn't see out of it, due to the bulkiness of their helmets. Anyone want to dispute this? They mostly took their pictures with the camera lined up with their chest. In the official release of their photographs, there was no 'bracketing' done, to make sure they got each picture right. Remember, they had to wear big bulky gloves, for protection. They had no way to set their light meters (to make sure the exposures were correct on each photo). Remember, too, the sun was always REALLY bright on the moon. When you see the official photos that were presented to the world, you can't help but notice how perfect the photos were! How can you do perfect pictures with even looking in a F*cking viewfinder? These were astronauts, not David Bailey-types! Each photo has perfect representations of the men on the moon, complete with EXACTLY the right light-settings! Wow! Amazing!

The only full-body photograph of Neil Armstrong on the moon shows him doing something next to the lunar module (LM). That part of the LM is in a massive shadow from the sun........and yet Armstrong's back is shown in a brilliant white. That is impossible, unless the picture has been photoshopped. Why would they need to do that? Did they admit doing that? In my opinion, another light source was used, other than the sun. They did not have a flash gun with them.

One more thing; on two of the official films shown, the American flag and a container hanging from the LM are both seen moving, as being blown from a wind-like source. Please, before you compare me to David Ike on that Wogan interview, bear this in mind; their is no f*cking atmosphere on the moon) even less than what comes out of the Curse-him stadium on match days), so how can things get blown around?

Easy, it’s not wind blowing it. There is no gravity as u know, so if u set an object in motion, be it push a spaceman or ram a flag into the ground, that object will keep moving until it is stopped.

Take a look here Dave, click on all ur conspiracy photos and have a read of the expert reasoning behind the myth

https://relay.nationalgeographic.co...o-11-hoax-photos--8-moon-landing-myths-busted
 

amershamdave

Well-known member
Joined
15 Dec 2017
Messages
2,085
Thanks for replying Dave (and everyone else, come to that........it makes a change, us discussing this, instead of us discussing how shite we are playing football at the moment) What started me on all of this, was me reading that NASA declared that they had LOST the original recordings of the first humans landing on the moon. How strange. Lost them? The most important (in my opinion) thing man has done and some prick lost the evidence. Are you serious? Now it turns out that they have managed to retrieve old copies and tarted them up, digitally. On the photos, you see those cross-shaped thingies placed over the pictures. Some pictures show part of the cross partly behind certain objects, etc. What got me going, was............why? That just leaves it open to the question; have some of these photographs been changed, for some reason?
 

Oslernorth

Active member
Joined
23 Dec 2017
Messages
253
Thanks for replying Dave (and everyone else, come to that........it makes a change, us discussing this, instead of us discussing how shite we are playing football at the moment) What started me on all of this, was me reading that NASA declared that they had LOST the original recordings of the first humans landing on the moon. How strange. Lost them? The most important (in my opinion) thing man has done and some prick lost the evidence. Are you serious? Now it turns out that they have managed to retrieve old copies and tarted them up, digitally. On the photos, you see those cross-shaped thingies placed over the pictures. Some pictures show part of the cross partly behind certain objects, etc. What got me going, was............why? That just leaves it open to the question; have some of these photographs been changed, for some reason?

I appreciate the temptation to make sence of the lose ends. But motive is so crucial here, just as it would be in a court of law.
It would just be such a bizarre and irrational thing for any elected government to carry out. And even less likely when you take into consideration that the hoax would have to been created by a Democrat administration and then be carried out by a Republican administration.
 

amershamdave

Well-known member
Joined
15 Dec 2017
Messages
2,085
Osler, I was thinking; a good reason for faking the moon landings might be that, at the time during the 'Cold War' with Russia, a good way of frightening Russia away would be to prove that America had the resources to bomb the shite out of the USSR if they ever thought of nuking America. Or at least to make the USSR BELIEVE they had the resources to do such a thing. If you could land a man on the moon, you would be seen as pretty invincible. Or am I talking B*****s?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Yellow River Miscellaneous 0

Similar threads


Top Bottom