You still don't counter much of what has been presented.
Appreciate your reply — and you’re right, that’s the standard explanation. But I’d still like to ask a few genuine questions to make sure we’re thinking critically, not just repeating “basic stuff.”
If Apollo modules had shielding capable of protecting humans from the Van Allen belts in the 60s, why has NASA
since admitted in multiple interviews that we “still don’t know how to get past the Van Allen belts” today?
- NASA engineer Kelly Smith (Orion mission) said in a 2014 NASA video:
“We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space.”
If we already did it over half a century ago — with
tech no more advanced than a pocket calculator — why is it still a challenge now?
Live communication in the 1960s between Earth and the moon — over 384,000 km away — with crystal-clear audio and no delay (in many cases), is incredibly hard to reconcile.
- No satellites as we know them.
- No internet.
- No fiber optics.
- And yet, live feeds from the moon supposedly reached living rooms without a hiccup, even when the tech in our cars back then didn’t have electric windows.
That raises reasonable doubts. Even today, we experience delays on Earth-to-Earth satellite calls, yet somehow the Moon-Earth connection worked flawlessly?
Australia’s Parkes telescope — yes, it was used to relay signals. But there’s something strange: NASA
admits that the original moon landing tapes (priceless evidence) were
lost and taped over. That alone should raise concern in any serious scientific operation.
Camera evidence — no stars were ever visible in any moon footage. NASA says this is due to camera exposure settings. But… stars are
blindingly bright from a zero-atmosphere lunar surface. They could’ve adjusted settings for even one shot — but didn’t. Why?
- Some argue it’s because putting the stars in the sky would have required precise placement — and one wrong constellation could’ve exposed the whole thing as staged.
I'm not saying I have all the answers. I'm just saying it's okay to
re-question the “basic stuff” — especially when the story depends on 1960s tech doing what we struggle to repeat today, with all our modern advancement.
Let’s be real:
If NASA has to “solve” getting past the radiation belts now, then something’s not adding up.
Would love your thoughts — not arguing, just digging deeper.
