MoonFaker: Exhibit C. PART 5

1997, Bill Kaysing's lawsuit against Jim Lovell was thrown out of court.

Ten years on, the propagandists still neglect to tell their readers why it got thrown out of court. The time has come for enlightenment.

http://www.moonmovie.com
http://www.billkaysing.com
http://www.ralphrene.com
http://www.moonhoax.us


Jarrah White would like to invite you to see the Apollo 11 footage that Svector, Phantom Wolf and Shane Killian have tried to suppress from public view.

APOLLO XI: THE LITTLE GEM
http://moonhoax.us/littlegem.htm

See also the evidence of faked and suppressed Apollo 10 footage that Mark Gray doesn't want you to see.

FLAGGING THE GEMS
http://moonhoax.us/flagginggems.htm

• Category

  Science & Technology

[Jarrah White]

'If the Van Allen belts were impassible, both NASA and the USSR would know that neither side could put men on the moon, and at that point any motivation for either side to fake moon landings disappears.'

If you want to know what the Soviet Union thought of the radiation, see these videos.

watch?v=w3Joz6vnpsg

watch?v=mPh079lMhI8

[Synthetrix]

The Van Allen belts are composed of high-energy protons and high-energy electrons, metal shielding is actually counterproductive because of the Bremsstrahlung that would be induced.

Polyethylene is the choice of particle shielding today, and various substances were available to the Apollo engineers. The fibrous insulation between the inner and outer hulls of the command module was likely the most effective form of radiation shielding. The lower the atomic number, the less Bremsstrahlung

[RonaldWieck]

The claim that the Van Allen belts would kill the astronauts is false. Ignoramuses pretending that the scientists working for NASA are, for unfathomable reasons, liars make themselves ridiculous without advancing science.

[GMBCATASTROPHE]

The studio and our atmosphere of course.

[GMBCATASTROPHE]

What has this got to do with anything? You are trying to trump science with historical speculations relevant only to what is going on in your own head. To think that you can do this is pure tribal superstition.

Try science and reason.

What we know about NASA is that they are compulsive liars. It may not be for us to know every aspect of why they lie all the time. I'll give you an example. They always lie about comets. No snow, no ball, no snowball. But they lie about it just the same.

[GMBCATASTROPHE]

You have no capacity to make that statement as you lack the magical powers to make such a survey. But if you could make that statement honestly it would be irrelevant to science and hence to the subjects at hand.

Some people are just never going to understand logic reason and science. So give it up. You aren't going to be able to teach yourself human reason at this late stage. Its quite different from Lenins democratic centralism, or Judaisms rabbinical discourses.

[RonaldWieck]

What hopeless morons you moon landing deniers are. NOT ONE astrophysicist ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD doubts that America landed men on the moon in 1969. Van Allen certainly did NOT agree with your uninformed lies. You could, of course, learn the facts from any number of real-science sites, especially Phil Plait's "Bad Astronomy," but facts hold no interest for you.

[KayBeeEee1983]

"The purpose was to fool the public so they could spend billions on the cold war. The motivation wasn't for Russia it was to fool us to justify military spending."

I hope you're joking. How would the USA landing on the moon justify military spending? Why would we even need to justify military spending? Ever heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis? Everyone in the USA already assumed that Russia was trying to annihilate us.

[KayBeeEee1983]

Dude, use your head. If NASA knew that moving through the Van Allen belts was impossible, why would they say that they did it? Do you think NASA believed it could hide that fact for all eternity? Or you think they just weren't thinking about the future?

[yesiamawizardjonny]

I think it was alluminum.