DAE think the moon landing faked footage debate ignores something obvious?

I was watching a documentary last night (around 2 AM, couldn't sleep) and it got me going down this rabbit hole again. The two sides are always about shadows not matching or flags waving in a vacuum, but nobody talks about the radiation belts. Like, the Van Allen belts are a real thing, right? NASA says they went through them fast enough, but I found this old paper from a physics professor at Caltech who said the doses would have been lethal without way more shielding than Apollo had. Six months ago I stumbled on a forum where a guy who worked on the telemetry data claimed the readings got "corrupted" for 8 minutes during transit. That seems like a pretty big gap in the story either way. What do you all think, is that the smoking gun or just more noise?

3 comments

3 Comments

carr.brooke23d ago

...and that's exactly where I went with this a few years back when I had the same sleepless night rabbit hole. The radiation belt thing is the one piece that actually makes me pause, not the flag stuff. Here's the thing nobody tells you though - look up the actual film stock they used for the cameras. The thermal limits on that stuff are way lower than what NASA claims the cabin temps were. I found a photography forum where a guy did the math on the film's heat tolerance and it basically says either they had some serious cooling tech they never talked about, or the temp readings we have are made up. The telemetry gap you mentioned, that 8 minute window, lines up suspiciously close with where the radiation belts should have spiked the readings. I'd say dig into the film specs, that's where the practical evidence breaks down for me.

xenagarcia23d ago

Found an old archived post from like 2008 where a guy tested a roll of that exact film stock in a homemade heat chamber (sounds sketchy, I know). He found the emulsion started breaking down around 130 degrees F, which is way below what the Apollo cabin temps supposedly hit during reentry. The pictures they brought back look way too clean for that kind of heat exposure, unless they had some crazy cold storage setup nobody documented. Makes you wonder about those little details people just gloss over.

norag6612d ago

Good luck finding hard data on that film stock from the 60s, most of the technical specs people dig up are from later batches. Run your own test if you can get a roll, even a cheap thermometer and a toaster oven will tell you more than a forum post from fifteen years ago. The key is to match the heating profile to what reentry actually does, not just a steady bake. Quick spikes are different from sustained heat, but most people testing this stuff don't bother with that detail. NASA's own declassified documents on film handling procedures are a better lead than any random test, just be prepared to sift through hundreds of pages for one useful sentence.