In regards to the technology to go to the moon, "we lost it". Yes it was safely contained in our Dennis the Menace lunch pail when the latch flew open and the tech spilled on the neighbors grassy knoll. Lassie unfortunately ate it, the old dog ate my report trick.
Crosshairs missing or in front of lunar photos, temperatures to destroy a camera or a paper space suit, no crater on landing, no dust on lander legs, wires propping jumping nuts back up, cellphones the size of an ammo box tech, no no no the list is soo long and the evil side has failed to convince the masses any longer. No lunar landing proves flat earth again and the creator God. The evil at the government level is far greater than drug crazed mass shooters.
I don't remember going thru the Van Belt, it was a studio lot no less.
There's a lot wrong with this.
1. We did not "lose" the tech to go to the moon. It still exists and we are building new crafts (Orion) to go on new rockets (SLS). We simply lost the tech to make the Saturn V. Why? Well, when 50 years pass and something goes unused during that entire time, the technology usually changes. We don't make the parts that go in the Saturn V anymore. We don't make the machines to make those parts anymore. We DO make parts for other rockets though, and that's what we're doing.
2. Crosshairs are not missing or in front of objects. It's a simple effect of exposure. In better photos that were recently scanned you can see that the crosshairs appear. Compare these photos:
The first photo is an older, poorer quality scan of the original photo film. It is caused by overexposure, where the bright white areas "bleed" over the dark, thin crosshair. The crosshairs are only about 0.004 inches thick (0.1 mm) and emulsion would only have to bleed about half that much to fully obscure it, so it is not that difficult for the white part to obscure the crosshair.
3. The temperatures would not destroy the camera or the suits. First, the suits are not made of paper. They're made with multi-layered fabrics. Take a look at this wiki page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo/Skylab_A7L#Basic_design. Next, the temperatures out not destroy the camera. The moon does not have an atmosphere to "bind" lunar surface heat to the cameras or other objects that are not in direct contact with the surface. In a vacuum, only radiation remains as the method of heat transfer. Heat from the sun would've radiated to the moon and heated up the objects, BUT, because we know how radiative heat works, we can prevent it. The cameras used passive optical coatings and paints, along with layers of mylar and other metals to control the temperature and reflect radiative heat. The LM used the same technique. That's why it is covered in layers of aluminized mylar (the gold stuff). The suits are the same way. The only way heat could've transferred to the suits was by radiative heat from the sun, or conductive heat from the surface, but only when the suit touched the surface. The suits had a reflective layer inside that kept the sun's radiative heat out of the suits, so radiative heat would not have burned the suits or the astronauts. Conduction wouldn't have worked either because the surface was not that hot. Let me explain.
I know that you constantly see sites online saying the moon's surface is 250F in daylight and -250F in darkness, and while this is true, it only applies to when the surface is in lunar noon, or lunar midnight. All Apollo missions landed shortly after lunar sunrise at the landing sight. One day on the moon is 29.5 earth days, so it's a bit less than 15 hours on the moon from sunrise to sunset. Because the sun was not directly shining down on the surface, the surface was not being heated as much. It's like on earth. During sunrise on Earth, the ground is not as hot because the sun is not directly shining on the surface. As the sun moves directly overhead in the sky, the ground temp gradually increases. It's the same on the moon. The surface temperature on the moon never hit 250F while astronauts were there. Longer missions, like 15-17, did notice increased loads on their suits' cooling systems, though, but the effect was cancelled out by the passive and active cooling systems.
4. There shouldn't be a crater on the landing. It takes some math to explain so stay with me. The descent engine of the LM had a max thrust of 10,000 lbf (pound force). The engines, as the LMs were landing, were not at 10,000 lbf of thrust, but more like 3,000. The nozzle of the descent engine had a diameter of 54 inches, so it had an exit area of 2290 in
2. 3000/2290 is about 1.5 pounds per square inch. This means, from the exit of the engine nozzle, the engine was putting out a pressure of 1.5 psi onto the surface of the moon. A human footprint has a greater pressure than the engine (a
size 10 shoe has an area of about 205 cm
2, or 31 in
2. If you have a 170 lb man, wearing 2 shoes, then 170/62 is 2.75 psi, almost 2 times greater than the engine).
Now, we're not done. In a vacuum, gasses expand, so the pressure of the exhaust from the engine was even less by the time it reached the surface. The engine shut off a few meters above the surface, and the LM dropped the rest of the way in free fall. Because the engine was not directly on the surface when it shut off, the surface was experiencing less than the 1.5 psi. This is enough to blow dust around, but is not enough to break away the lunar regolith, making a crater. Dust WAS blown around. The descent videos show streaks of dust blowing from under the LM just as it was landing, and the astronauts acknowledged there was dust (Aldrin even said "kicking up some dust"). Photos of the engine on the surface also show streaks radiating away from the engine on the surface, indicating that dust was blown.
5. Why should there be dust on the legs? It would have been blown away before the legs reached the surface, as I said above. The dust on the surface wouldn't billow, because there's no atmosphere. It would just move in a straight line away from where the engine is pointing.
6. There is no evidence of wires. The videos showing "wires" pulling up astronauts after they fall are ridiculous, because the astronaut is either only pushing himself up, or leaning on an object or the other astronaut. Wires would have been very visible on the surface, and would be reflecting a lot of sun light. They would have also made shadows on the surface, yet no shadows exist.
7. Not sure what you mean by cellphones.
8. Not sure how no lunar landing could prove flat earth. Earth could still be round. Also not sure how no landing means god is real.
9. We didn't go through the Van Allen Belts. We went above them.