I saw 'Astronauts Gone Wild'. It does not, by itself, convince me.


Until many other people start looking into this (people who are more knowledgeable than me), I am going to continue to assume that the moon landings were real.

If you believe every single conspiracy theory that you hear, the result would be total insanity.

It's very interesting how effective the film is in planting the seeds of doubt in your mind. If you assume that the moon landings are REAL, then Astronauts Gone Wild becomes an interesting study on propaganda. Whether or not these astronauts are guilty of lying about the moon landings, they certainly do look and sound guilty when they are rattled.

Is this... sort of an illusion? Could people who are NOT lying get THAT annoyed at Sibrel? Might they refuse to swear on the Bible? Obviously I think so.

Anyway, it's certainly pretty interesting to watch.


"I lived 7 lives at once.
I was power and the ecstasy of death.
I was god to a god."

reply

If you watch a video of the astronauts when they aren't being harassed by a conspiracy theorist (In The Shadow of the Moon for example) or read their interviews with Eric Jones in the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, they seem to be quite comfortable discussing their Apollo flights.

Neil Armstrong's interview on "60 Minutes":
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1722270428583799532&ei=llJ GSq-BCYfurgLBwogx&q=neil+armstrong+60+minutes

Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (10 of the 12 Moon walkers were interviewed for this):
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/
__________________________
"I am a collage of unaccounted for brush strokes, and I am all random!"

reply

"Until many other people start looking into this (people who are more knowledgeable than me), I am going to continue to assume that the moon landings were real. "


I'm with you on that one, Franco Zed. I think the fly in the ointment with this whole conspiracy is the Van Allen Belt rays. Someone with knowledge has to explain how those astronauts got through them on the way to the moon or at least present convincing evidence that the rays are not as lethal to human health as is posited in this "documentary".


reply

Hi Derek,
The short answer is that the Van Allen Belts are not the "seething radiation hell" that the conspiretards make it out to be. You'd have to stay in them for days or weeks to pick-up a biologically significant dose, and the Apollo missions only took roughly an hour to traverse them each way. Also, particle radiation like you find in the belts is pretty easy to shield against.

To be on the safe side, though, NASA launched the Apollo missions on a trajectory that went up & over the doughnut-shaped belts, bypassing the most intense regions completely.

Here is a link to a very good thread that discusses the belts. Yes, it is 23 pages long, but will answer your questions quite comprehensively and includes some really excellent illustrations.

http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=2614&page=1

Enjoy!

reply

cntzero,

Hey thanks for the info. Sober minded rebuttals are definitely needed in this controversy because it's demoralizing to consider the implications for the United States if the Apollo missions were a hoax.

Long Life and Prosperity!
--Derek

reply

You're shifting the burden of proof. The documentary makes the assertion that the Van Allen belts are lethal and impassable. That's a testable claim, but where's the evidence?

Bart Sibrel is a part-time cameraman and (lately) a taxi driver. He has no training, education, or experience in astrophysics, space science, engineering, radiology, or health physics. When presenting highly technical material that isn't common knowledge, a conscientious documentary filmmaker would ordinarily consult a noted expert on the subject, such as a lead designer of actual spacecraft or a credentialled professor of astrophysics. That assures the viewer that the highly specialized information is likely to be correct.

But Sibrel doesn't do that. He relies upon his own uninformed opinion and judgment. Not surprising then that he got the wrong answer! The whole Van Allen belt argument is based entirely on one's acceptance of Sibrel's claims as those of an expert on space radiation. It's not the world's job to prove Sibrel is wrong; it's Sibrel's job to prove he's right. And the world has no reason to accept the opinion of a taxi driver on the hazards of space radiation any more than an insurance salesman would be considered an expert on how to make cheesecake.

I second the reference to the link you were provided; I participated in that discussion and contributed the doughnut example. One of our colleagues provided a very detailed analysis of the Apollo trajectory and the geometry of the Van Allen belts from published sources and showed just how the spacecraft avoided the harshest radiation.

reply