Unpopular opinion: The moon landing faking theory has way too many holes

I spent 4 hours last weekend digging through old NASA telemetry data and found the radiation belt argument just doesn't hold up when you check the actual mission logs. Has anyone else tried to verify these claims with real numbers or is it all just vibes?

2 comments

2 Comments

anna5677d ago

You know, I used to be one of those people who thought "the radiation belt argument just doesn't hold up" was totally correct. I actually believed the whole faking thing for a couple years because I saw some slick YouTube video with fancy graphics. But then I sat down and looked at the actual numbers from the Apollo missions myself, not just the cherry-picked stuff conspiracy people love. The math on how they got through the Van Allen belts checks out if you factor in the speed and path they took. It was a real eye opener for me, and now I feel kind of silly for doubting it so hard.

schmidt.eva7d ago

Got into the same rabbit hole myself a few years back, watched that one video with the dramatic music and all the flashy animations. What finally made it click for me was when I grabbed a calculator and plotted out the actual radiation dose over time, not just the peak numbers they love to shout about. Realized the spacecraft zoomed through the thinnest parts of the belts in like 30 minutes, and most of that dose was from the inner belt which barely spiked the total. Felt pretty dumb after that too, but hey, we all fall for slick presentations sometimes, the trick is just checking one or two sources yourself before doubling down.