20
Got roasted by a historian for my moon landing theory
I was deep into the whole moon landing hoax rabbit hole for about 3 years. Then I met this retired professor at a local coffee shop in Austin who specialized in aerospace history. He pointed out that the Van Allen radiation belt data I was using came from a 1962 paper that was already outdated by 1967. After he showed me the corrected radiation models from the Apollo missions themselves, I realized my whole argument was built on old science. Has anyone else had a specific expert call out a key piece of evidence in your theory?
4 comments
Log in to join the discussion
Log In4 Comments
olivia67015d agoMost Upvoted
Damn man, you're that worked up over some old conspiracy stuff?
7
gavin_kim13d ago
Bro that's exactly what happened to me with the JFK assassination stuff. I had this whole file on the magic bullet theory using some 70s forensics book until a retired ballistics guy at a gun show pointed out the test was done with a different type of rifle and ammo. Just shut my whole argument down in two minutes. Felt like an idiot carrying around that binder for two years.
4
morganmartinez15d ago
Oh come on, you just gave up way too easy. That professor showed you one paper and you folded like a cheap suit. Van Allen belt data from 1962 was the foundation of the whole radiation argument for a reason it was the best available until NASA themselves changed the numbers to fit their narrative. You think a government agency wouldn't update models to make their missions look safe? The fact that Apollo data itself became the new standard is exactly the problem it's circular reasoning. They measured the radiation during the flights and then used those measurements to claim the flights were safe. That's like a restaurant grading their own kitchen. I've seen plenty of physicists who still question how the Apollo astronauts survived those belts with 1960s shielding technology. Maybe dig a little deeper before letting one retired guy with a coffee shake your whole worldview.
1