The Pale Blue Dot? Chapter Five: The Apollo Missions; Did We Really Go? Objection Numbers 4, 5, 6 and 7

Written By Thomas Perez. August 8, 2019 at 10:26PM. Copyright 2019. Updated 2020.

In the previous chapter we looked into the first three out of seven objections concerning the Apollo missions. This chapter will cover the remaining four out of seven: Environment, Missing Data, Technology, and the Deaths of Some NASA’s Personnel.

Objection 1. Environment:

A. The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the Van Allen Radiation Belt (VARB) and galactic ambient radiation (radiation poisoning and health threat from cosmic rays). Some conspiracies have suggested that Starfish Prime (a high altitude nuclear test in 1962) was a failed attempt to disrupt the Van Allen belts.

Mainstream Answer: Their (the astronauts – T. Perez) time in that radiation-intensive region, however, was very short, in part because the trajectory was designed to pass through the thinnest known parts. With more study, astronauts can be better protected for long-term stays in Earth orbit.” (1).


Here are two pictures illustrating the VARB’s…

In 2012, observations from the Van Allen Probes showed that a third belt can sometimes appear. The radiation is shown above in yellow, with green representing the spaces between the belts. According to Discovery, 3 belts have been confirmed. (2).


The shape of the VARB can vary widely depending on how energetic the individual electrons are, and general conditions in the Earth’s magnetic environment. During geomagnetic storms all three regions in the belts can balloon, as depicted above.

Traditionally, it was always thought that the VARB had only two “doughnuts.” The “two belts are like two nested doughnuts circling the planet. Their altitudes vary slightly, but the inner doughnut sits between 600 and 3,700 miles above the planet and is comprised mainly of highly energetic protons. The outer doughnut, meanwhile, sits between 9,300 and 12,400 miles above the planet and is made of both protons and electrons. The radiation environments of both vary, more dense in some places and nearly absent in others.” (3). But as the citation above this one explains, the belts can expand into 3 belts.


In the past, scientists have tried to penetrate the belts to no avail. “NASA never tried to clear the Van Allen belt with a nuclear bomb, but an Atomic Energy Commission test in 1962 briefly made the radiation problem much worse. America’s nuclear testing program of the early 1960s was called Operation Dominic. Within this program was a group of atmospheric tests called the Fishbowl events understand how nuclear weapon debris would interact with the Earth’s magnetic field in the event of nuclear war. The highest of the Fishbowl events was one called Starfish Prime (the first attempt, Starfish, had failed). This test saw a 1.4 megaton bomb detonate at an altitude of 250 miles (the ISS orbits at 250mi – T. Perez) Rather than clear out the inner Van Allen belt, Starfish Prime added more radiation around the planet.” (4). This is precisely why Kelly Smith of NASA said that no one has ever penetrated the VARB’s. See the following video…

4. Ibid.

Additionally, it is said that astronauts were given dosimeters to measure and keep track of radiation exposures. At one point, missions were limited to 345 miles above the Earth. Again, I repeat: The ISS is said to orbit the Earth at 250 miles above. Below is a picture depicting Apollo 11’s trajectory. (5).


My Rebuttal: I find it quite odd that the failed Starfish was stalled at 250 miles above. I also find it odd that they would name these tests; “The Fishbowl” experiments. The firmament/dome is said to be shaped like a fishbowl by flat Earthers and all ancient cultures alike. But even with all this, they say they were able to beat the problem by passing through its thinnest part, as mentioned above. If destroying the dome (the VARB) was their goal, my question to them would be; “Why destroy something that is designed to protect us?” Radiation probes reveal that, “Data gathered by the probes showed that the radiation belts shield Earth from high-energy particles.” (6).


Furthermore, when we observe the opening objection, we will take note to mention what is said there; “Some conspiracies have suggested that Starfish Prime…was a failed attempt to disrupt the Van Allen belts.” (7) (8). Apparently, this is not a conspiracy theory. Today scientists are aiming to wipe out the VARB’s once again.



Moreover, if astronauts were truly given dosimeters, why didn’t astronaut Allen Bean know about the VARB’s and the dangers involved in exposures to it? In an interview, Allen Bean was asked about the VARB’s. His response is cited as follows…

“Any ill effects from the Van Allen Radiation Belts?”

“No. I am not sure we went far enough out to encounter the Van Allen radiation belts. Maybe we did.”

When Sibrel pointed out the Belts were 1000 miles out, Bean tossed up his hands and replied, “Then we went right out through them.”

“No effects on yourselves?” asked Sibrel.

Bean shook his head. “Uh-uh, didn’t even know it. I don’t think anyone even, well, maybe someone said “you went through the radiation belt” (fidgets, takes his right hand and begins scratching his right temple, closes his eyes) but we didn’t feel it inside. And we didn’t get any added radiation.” See video below.

The dangers experienced by various voyager probes to the Moon in the 1960s and the preceding discovery of the VARB would motivate any traveler into space to be up on current events. I would think that test pilots and astronauts who went venturing into space beyond the Earth’s atmosphere for the first time in human history would be on top of any data available to them about that environment because it would mean their very lives. Below is the Allen Bean interview…

However, today NASA claims to have this problem beaten. They insist that they have better technology and sophisticated astronaut suits today to protect their astronauts from deadly radiation exposures. (9).


The following video debunks NASA’s claim of any successful Apollo missions. In this video, ISS astronauts cite that, “Right now we can only fly in low Earth orbit.” Low Earth orbit (LEO) is 1,200 miles high. High enough to be considered “space.” Kelly Smith, NASA engineer said, “We must solve these issues (the VARB’s) before we send people into space.” This is precisely why all various space shuttles have only orbited at low Earth orbit. They claim that they have never ventured any further than the belts. Question: But didn’t they do that already with the Apollo missions? NASA claims to have the answer to that contradiction. They claim that all of the data pertaining to the Apollos missions, and how they did it are lost, and that they have to start from scratch in reference to sending men beyond and through the VARB’s and its protective telemetry paths. See video below.

However, “The Moon is totally exposed to solar flares,” explains solar physicist David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center. “It has no atmosphere or magnetic field to deflect radiation.” (10). Protons rushing at the Moon simply hit the ground–or whoever might be walking around outside. The VARB’s simply cannot be penetrated safely without massive lead shielding. The following lead shielding picture is from Dr. E. E. Kovalev: Radiation Protection DuringnSpace Flight. Institute of Biomedical Problems, USSR Ministry of Health. Moscow 123007, USSR

Once you are past the Van Allen shields, for example between the Earth and the Moon, you would be subject to the full brunt of solar flares. The Van Allen shields protect us here on Earth from this deadly radiation as mentioned above. For occupational exposure dose limits, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) states that the “Occupational exposure of any worker shall be so controlled” that the limit of an “effective dose of 50 mSv” “in any single year” “be not exceeded.” (11) (12). 50 mSv converts to 5 rems. How were the Apollo astronauts able to withstand 375 rems per day when the IAEA occupational exposure dose limit is only 5 rems in any single year? How did the astronauts survive the deadly radiation without the protection of the Van Allen belts while on the Moon?

“Dose Limits for Radiation Workers: Although the limits vary, depending on the affected part of the body, the annual total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) for the whole body is 5,000 mrem (5 rem).” (13).

“The current federal occupational limit of exposure per year for an adult (the limit for a worker using radiation) is “as low as reasonably achievable; however, not to exceed 5,000 millirems” above the 300+ millirems of natural sources of radiation and any medical radiation.” (14).




Click to access Pub1081_web.pdf



But yet we are told that “Astronauts are exposed to approximately 50-2,000 millisieverts (mSv) while on six-month-duration missions to the International Space Station (ISS), the Moon and beyond.” (15) (16).

15. Cucinotta, FA; Durante, M (2006). “Cancer risk from exposure to galactic cosmic rays: implications for space exploration by human beings” (PDF)Lancet Oncol7 (5): 431–435. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70695-7PMID 16648048.

16. Cucinotta, FA; Kim, MH; Willingham, V; George, KA (Jul 2008). “Physical and biological organ dosimetry analysis for international space station astronauts”. Radiation Research170 (1): 127–38. doi:10.1667/RR1330.1PMID 18582161.

Moreover, the area between the Sun and the planets has been termed the interplanetary medium. Although sometimes considered a perfect vacuum, this is actually a turbulent area dominated by the solar wind, which flows at velocities of approximately 250-1000 km/s (about 600,000 to 2,000,000 miles per hour). Other characteristics of the solar wind (density, composition, and magnetic field strength, among others) vary with changing conditions on the Sun. The effect of the solar wind can be seen in the tails of comets (which always point away from the Sun).” (17).

The hulls of the Apollo spacecraft were ultra-thin. They would have been unable to stop any significant amount of radiation. The same can be said for the space suits. However, NASA claims that “Metals can be used to shield against particle radiation, but they are not the ideal substance. Polyethylene is the choice of particle shielding today, and various substances were available to the Apollo engineers to absorb Van Allen radiation. The fibrous insulation between the inner and outer hulls of the command module was likely the most effective form of radiation shielding. When metals must be used in spacecraft (I.e., for structural strength) then a lighter metal such as aluminum is better than heavier metals such as steel or lead.

“Polyethylene is a good shielding material because it has high hydrogen content, and hydrogen atoms are good at absorbing and dispersing radiation.” “Polyethylene makes good shielding: it is composed entirely of lightweight carbon and hydrogen atoms, which minimizes secondaries. These lighter elements can’t completely stop space radiation. But they can fragment the incoming radiation particles, greatly reducing the harmful effects.” (18).



As we learned from Chernobyl and now Fukushima, 9 ft. of concrete cannot contain deadly radiation, but light shells in space exposed to solar radiation for nearly the entire journey to the Moon can? And what about the VARB’s that these “shells” would have to encounter first, only to be met by solar radiation accompanied by its 600,000 to 2,000,000mph winds? And not to mention their exposure to “50-2,000 millisieverts (mSv) while on six-month-duration missions to the International Space Station (ISS), the Moon and beyond,” as mentioned above.

Moreover, “Modern materials such as aluminum, Mylar, Dacron, nylon, and Teflon constituted the many layers. In addition, the space suits had gloves with wrist joints, boots, and helmets with gold-plated visors to reflect the sun’s rays. During the earlier Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo Missions, space suits were simpler.” (19). Simpler? Are you kidding me?


The following video is very informative in reference to cosmic activities…

But regardless of the evidence presented to the contrary, NASA claims that they went right through the belts. This also nullifies the theory that NASA was caught lying about flying through the belts by taking a “Polar Orbit” to avoid the belts. The theory was presented by Amy Teitel and Paul Shillito, but was debunked by Trev Weaver and Marcus Allen, as the following two pictures demonstrate from Weaver’s and Allen’s book ‘The Apollo Moon Hoax: The Real Evidence.’ This whole theory of a flight path which took them around the belts is a myth. But that conclusion doesn’t mean that they went through the belts either, since it is a forgone conclusion that one can not penetrate the belts without exposure to life threatening radiation.

B. Film in the cameras would have been fogged by this radiation.

Mainstream Answer: “The film was kept in metal containers that stopped radiation from fogging the film’s emulsion.” (20). The Lunar Orbiter and the Luna 3 was not fogged either.

20. Plait 2002, pp. 162-63.

My Rebuttal: Because they are both virtually the same point of contention, my rebuttal to both B and C is provided in C.

C. The Moon’s surface during the daytime is so hot that camera film would have melted.

Mainstream Answer: There is no atmosphere to efficiently bind lunar surface heat to devices (such as cameras) that are not in direct contact with it. In a vacuum, only radiation remains as a heat transfer mechanism. The physics of radiative heat transfer are thoroughly understood, and the proper use of passive optical coatings and paints was enough to control the temperature of the film within the cameras; Lunar Module temperatures were controlled with similar coatings that gave them a gold color. Also, while the Moon’s surface does get very hot at lunar noon, every Apollo landing was made shortly after lunar sunrise at the landing site; the Moon’s day is about ​29 1/2 Earth days long, meaning that one Moon day (dawn to dusk) lasts nearly fifteen Earth days. During the longer stays, the astronauts did notice increased cooling loads on their space suits as the Sun and surface temperature continued to rise, but the effect was easily countered by the passive and active cooling systems.” “The film was not in direct sunlight, so it was not overheated.” (21) (22).

21. Plait 2002, pp. 165–67.

22. Windley, Jay. “Clavius: Environment – heat”Moon Base Clavius. Retrieved November 25, 2008.

My Rebuttal To B and C: Many use the mainstream explanations of film protection through optical coatings, paints and canisters to make the claim that film were not damaged because NASA, yesterday and today, continually goes to great lengths to protect its films. The picture below provides such an explanation. It is taken from Quora. But it is full of holes…

The error of this gentleman’s blog answer is highly noted. Number 1. The ISS does NOT travel through the VARB’s. Number 2. The ISS orbits at an altitude of 250 miles above. Number 3. The two main belts extend from an altitude of about 400 to 36,040 miles above; still within LEO, but below the danger zone. Number 4. In order for the ISS to enter the belt they would have to alter its orbit, which actually defeats the purpose of an orbit. And number 5 – orbits do not ascend or descend. They descend when their orbits decay. (23).

23. Zell, Holly (February 12, 2015). “Van Allen Probes Spot an Impenetrable Barrier in Space”NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center. Retrieved 2017-06-04.

In reference to films being protected in optical coatings, paints and canisters; I would think that the answer to that would be pretty obvious. Since they did not pass through the radiation belts as the contention above propagates then there is no need to even make that subject matter a point of contention.

D. The alleged Moon landings used either a sound stage or were filmed outside in a remote desert with the astronauts either using harnesses or slow-motion photography to make it look like they were on the Moon.

Mainstream Answer: Mainstream cites that the “Dropping (of) a hammer and a falcon feather at the same time (proved a vacuum). Both fell at the same rate and hit the ground at the same time. This proved that he was in a vacuum.” (24).

24. Nemiroff, R.; Bonnell, J., eds. (November 1, 2011). “Hammer Versus Feather on the Moon”. Astronomy Picture of the DayNASA. Retrieved April 20, 2013. Source for video: “The Hammer and the Feather” on YouTube

Here is a video demonstrating the hammer and the falcon feather in a vacuum…

Another mainstream objection to the denial of the Apollo missions is that if “The landings were filmed outside in a desert, heat waves would be present on the surface in mission videos, but no such heat waves exist in the footage. If the landings were filmed in a sound stage, several anomalies would occur, including a lack of parallax, and an increase or decrease in the size of the backdrop if the camera moved (footage was filmed while the rover was in motion, and yet no evidence of any change in the size of the background is present).” (25).


My Rebuttal: The answer is similar to what we learned in chapter 5 concerning “Rooster Tails.”

It is believed that “Galileo had concluded that all objects, regardless of mass, fall at the same speed — however, the resistance caused by the air (as in the case of the feather in Earth’s atmosphere) can cause the feather to drop slower. Well, on the Moon there is no atmosphere (a vacuum), so the objects should drop at the same speed.” (26). Moreover, “Because they were essentially in a vacuum, there was no air resistance and the feather fell at the same rate as the hammer, as Galileo had concluded hundreds of years before – all objects released together fall at the same rate regardless of mass.” (27).



The hammer and falcon feather video doesn’t prove anything. The Moon is supposed to be “260 degrees Fahrenheit (127 degrees Celsius). When the sun goes down, temperatures can dip to minus 280 F (minus 173 C).” (28). At 260° how can a feather survive the Moons temperature, as well as the Suns radiation, solar winds and space radiation?


Another interesting anomaly is the fact that we can hear the astronauts hammering a lunar rock. If they were truly in a vacuum of space you would not be able to hear anything. Remember the old trailer advertisement for the movie, Alien; “In space no one can hear you scream.” The following video depicts sound in space. As the astronaut hammers the lunar rock, you can actually hear it. This is impossible in a vacuum…

At one point NASA had a blog in their childrens website citing that sound could not be heard in the vacuum of space, but has since then deleted the post. Here is a picture of the original post. I was able to locate it though ‘Way Back Machine,’ an internet archive site.

Remember, “In space nobody can hear you scream” – Alien 1979. It is said to be a vacuum. There is no atmosphere to produce sound. However, its been said that the sound miraculously traveled through the astronauts hand (glove), through his arms, and upwards to his air filled helmet with the astronauts microphone picking up the sound. However, in the Apollo 15 mission, astronaut James Irwin tosses a metallic object, and as it is hurtling upward it hits the ship a great distance from his glove or anything near his air filled helmet. Hence making a distinct sound.

Another example is the admittance by NASA that when Alan Bean was doing his hammering on another Apollo mission, “No sound was heard.” But if you were to watch the video of it, the sound IS heard. Moreover, when you see an astronaut on the ISS perform a hammering duty today there is absolutely no sound coming off his glove, up to his arm and into his air filled helmet.

The falling of the hammer could of easily been done in g1 – if taken away, like in a tubed experiment. Or, it could of been done like this illusionist showed us. Perhaps, it was the gloves?

Objection 2. Missing Tapes:

A. NASA admits to losing Mankind’s greatest achievement. They lost the original video feed, the technology, and erased the technical know how concerning Apollo’s telemetry paths. You would think that the greatest event in Human history should of been properly cared for and preserved. I mean, after all, if Hollywood could preserve their finest films, even going back to the silent picture era, then shouldn’t NASA be able to do the same?

“NASA admitted in 2006 that no one could find the original video recordings of the July 20, 1969, landing.” There were “200,000 tapes that were degaussed — magnetically erased — and re-used to save money.” Moon landing tapes got erased, NASA admits. WASHINGTON’S (Reuters) – The original recordings of the first humans landing on the Moon 40 years ago were erased and re-used, but newly restored copies of the original broadcast look even better, NASA officials said.” (29). What we have now are video tapes and kinescope films – courtesy of CBS, etc.


Question: How could anything showed through a kinescope look better? A perfect example of a kinescope at work can be found in the lost episodes of the popular 1950’s sitcom, ‘The Honeymooners.’ I am not referring to regular 39 episodes still aired today on re-runs, I am referring to the over 100 episodes lost, of which can be found at Amazon and some DVD stores today. The following DVD video clip shows how kinescope did not look better than actual film footage. Forgive my slight of hand as it moved toward the left…

Now compare that with the classic 39 episodes shown on T.V., YouTube or on DVD. Kinescope, also known as telerecording, in Britain, is a recording of a television program on motion picture film, directly through a lens focused on the screen of a video monitor. Kinescopes were the only practical way to preserve live television broadcasts prior to videotape. The following is a picture of a kinescope.

As you can see, the kinescope is on top of the film camera recording the film that in turn is being recorded itself. But like I said, they certainly didn’t make things look better. However, NASA claims that the telemetry data is lost. All that remains are its footages of the alleged accomplishments. They do not know where the telemetry is…

“Off the top of my head there exists: The testing data available on the NASA website, lunar module manuals, module source code. What I have not seen is: Specifications, component level data, launch instructions, mission telemetry, incident reports/mission evaluations.” (30).


However, scores of reels of telemetry data from lunar-surface experiments were recently uncovered in a basement at Curtin University of Technology in Perth, Western Australia. Just how much of this is supposed to be original, we don’t know. What we do have now are video tapes and kinescope films. “The Apollo 11 missing tapes were those that were recorded from Apollo 11’s slow-scan television (SSTV) telecast in its raw format on telemetry data tape at the time of the first Moon landing in 1969 and subsequently lost…At the time, the NTSC broadcast was recorded on many videotapes and kinescope films” (31).

31. Wiki.

Others claim it was discovered and found in a dead man’s Pennsylvania basement. “More than 300 data reels, some from Apollo-Era missions, were discovered in a deceased Pennsylvania man’s basement, FOIA documents reveal.” (32). It is interesting to know that NASA and Curtin University of Technology signed a contract, “an international agreement to share scientific and technological expertise in exploration science.” (33).



Objection 3. Technology:

A. Did we have the technology to go?

Mainstream Answer: I will not bore my reading audience concerning this answer by getting into the details because the long and short end of the answer concerning this question according to the mainstream narrative is, “Yes, we did.” And that any technology the USSR had were matched by the United States within a year, and sometimes within weeks.

My Rebuttal: It is said that Moon landing denialists argue that “Computers during the time of the Moon landings would not have been advanced enough to allow for manned space travel to the Moon and back.” (34). “Aside from the computer technology used, other technology regarding radio transmission, radar, and other instrumentation are said to be insufficient for the task at the time.” (35).

34. Spitznagel, Eric (July 19, 2019). “What It’s Like to Be a Moon Landing Conspiracist in 2019”Popular Mechanics.

35. “The Moon Hoax; Did we really go?”

Whether the USSR or the U.S. had the technology to go or not shouldn’t be viewed as a point of contention. What one should really be focused upon is the fact that the above missions prior to Apollo only flew to altitudes within LEO. I find it extremely impossible, given the exposures in part one, what is exposed above, the dangers of the VARB’s, their spaceships, suits, sounds in space, and the apparent defying of alleged gravity with hammers and feathers, that any Apollo mission got past the hazardous conditions of the belts and the cosmic dangers of solar radiation winds and general cosmic radiations as well.

Moreover, the first man made satellite in orbit (October 1957 Sputnik 1); the first living creature in orbit (a dog named Laika, November 1957, Sputnik 2); the first man in space and orbit, (Yuri Gagarin, April 1961, Vostok 1); the first woman in space (Valentina Tereshkova, June 1963, Vostok 6); and the first spacewalk (EVA) (Alexei Leonov in March 1965, Voskhod 2), all orbited the Earth at LEO. And now fast forward to all our various space shuttle programs and even the ISS today and you will find out that they too are all orbiting at the same altitude.

Objection 4. Deaths of NASA Personal:

A. There have been 9 deaths connected with NASA. In a televised program about the moon-landing hoax allegations, Fox Entertainment Group listed the deaths of ten astronauts and two civilians related to the crewed spaceflight program as part of an alleged cover-up.

These deaths include; Theodore Freeman, Elliot See and Charlie Bassett, Virgil “Gus” Grissom, Ed White and Roger B. Chaffee, Edward “Ed” Givens, Clifton “C.C.” Williams, Michael J. “Mike” Adams, Robert Henry Lawrence Jr, Thomas Ronald Baron and Brian D. Welch.

During the period 1961 to 1972, at least nine Russian serving and former cosmonauts died: Valentin Bondarenko, Grigori Nelyubov, Vladimir Komarov, Yuri Gagarin, Pavel Belyayev, Georgi Dobrovolski, Vladislav Volkov, Viltor Patsayev, and Sergei Korolev.

Mainstream Answer: The number of deaths within the American astronaut corps during the run-up to Apollo and during the Apollo missions is similar to the number of deaths incurred by the Russians.

My Rebuttal: There really isn’t anything to say about this. But I will say this. In total there are 21 deaths from roughly 1961 to 1972; a total of 11 years. A coincidence? Maybe. Maybe not. But all of them were killed by an “accident.” However, I wouldn’t put this point of contention as one of my top five argumentations. But it is highly suspicious and plausible.


Critics of the flat Earth say that its members simply deny any evidence that conflicts with their world view without offering any real alternative hypotheses. Not true. In my case, I have offered many citations from both sides, with alternate explanations backed by bibliographies, mathematical equations, expressions and formulas. One can not simply deny the alternative especially when they are providing real alternate hypotheses.

However, many today still believe that the Apollo Moon landings actually did occur. The only thing one can add to the discussion in this chapter is what NASA said in reference to leaving Earth’s low orbit and penetrating what they call the Van Allen Radiation Belt – something they admit to having never accomplished before. If they never did it before, how did the Apollo missions do it in 1969? Flat Earthers should not be too concerned with the Apollo missions with reference to the shape of the Earth, because the Earth is still a circle. They should be more concerned with the aspect of the Moon itself. The topic of the Moon will be covered in chapter thirteen. 

Appendix: “In regard to the new poll by Newsweek that has the US at 31% that believe NASA faked the moon missions, I believe the growing numbers are due to this 3 and half documentary. It was fair, it even pointed out where moon hoax advocates were wrong in some areas. This film did some massive damage to NASA.” Social Media Blogger – Paul Colizzo. (36). But let it be known that the makers if this film are not flat Earthers, they are simply Apollo Mission Moon landing denialists. Nevertheless, the film serves its purpose for this particular chapter.


If, by any chance, you can not find the video on YouTube, since they may delete or close the account that is associated with the video because that is what they seem to love to do to any video that may prove or support the flat Earth model, you can then find it on “Bitchute” by copying and pasting the following links into your web browser.