First up, rockets can fly in a vacuum.
Secondly, NASA didn't have the technology to fake the moon landings.
feel free to watch the best documentary ever uploaded on youtube about APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY
Being the best documentary on a lie doesn't magically make it true.
How about instead of providing a documentary filled with nonsense you try making a rational argument, even if it is just presenting one from the documentary?
Moon landing propaganda is like software code being installed on people's brains. And it's purpose is to utterly warp a person's perception of their reality and their senses, to the point that they are likely to believe all manner of nonsense because once you accept that men have gone to the moon, a feat which I'm not even convinced will ever be within the realms of possibility seeing as there isn't even any evidence the moon is actually this rock in space that humans can fly to and land on, but once you accept this garbage you are much more likely to accept other totally unproven "facts" from these deceivers.
So what you really mean is when people start to accept one part of reality and see that a religion is wrong, they are more likely to accept more points that show that religion is wrong, instead of blindly following religious indoctrination?
Simple OFFICIAL science debunks the moon landing.
No it doesn't, not in the slightest.
Instead it confirms it, such as by the subsequent space probes that went to the moon and photographed the landing sites, and the retroreflectors placed on the moon to bounce light off it.
It's called Van Allen Belt
A region of radiation that the Apollo craft went mainly around, rather than through.
If you wish to claim that the radiation would be lethal and fry the electronics you will need more than an assertion.
The materials used aluminum, nickel/iron, and titanium would have all melted due to the extreme radiation and temperatures.
The radiation would not cause it to melt. That is just pure nonsense.
What makes you think it would?
As for the extreme temperatures, the thermal mass of the minuscule amount of gas they passed through was minuscule and thus would be unable to melt them.
Just like you can stick your hand in an oven at 250 C and not get burnt, unless you leave it in there for quite some time.
Our measurments show that the maximum radiation level as of 1958 is equivalent to between 10 and 100 roentgens per hour, depending on the still-undetermined proportion of protons to electrons. Since a human being exposed for two days to even 10 roentgens would have only an even chance of survival, the radiation belts obviously present an obstacle to space flight. Unless some practical way can be found to shield space-travelers against the effects of the radiation, manned space rockets can best take off through the radiation-free zone over the poles. A "space station" must orbit below 400 miles or beyond 30 000 miles from the earth. We are now planning a satellite flight that will test the efficacy of various methods of shielding. The hazard of space-travelers may not even end even when they have passed the terrestrial radiation belts... James Van Allen
You really need a better citation for that. Not just "Van Allen".
Where did he say this?
The roentgen was an exposure for x-rays and gamma rays, not for protons and electrons.
The actual dose given to a person will vary depending on the radiation (including its energy).
So there is no basis to conclude it was lethal.
Also note that they didn't just send people straight through the belt and instead followed a trajectory which avoided the majority of the radiation.
If you want to assert that the belts would be a problem you need more than an old quote.
Do tell where all the O2 was kept for them to breathe, for a scuba divers tank will only last for about an hour without complicated rebreather technology.
Do you know why? As there are many factors.
Firstly, the scuba divers don't just sit around at the surface. Instead they dive deep into water, often going 10s or 100s of m down.
Do you know what happens then? The pressure increases.
In order for lungs to work, the air pressure inside them needs to be the same as the outside pressure.
This means instead of drawing in a volume of air at 1 atm, they will draw it in at multiples of atm.
This is a very large waste of air. For example, if a tank held 80 cubic feet of air at 1 atm, breathing it in at 10 atm would only provide 8 cubic feet.
So if instead of just wasting all that air due to the greater pressure, how long do you think it would last at 1 atm, or a lower pressure?
Then there is the difficulty of the rebreather.
It is complex because of where it is.
You need to capture the users exhaled breath, without providing too much resistance to making breathing hard, and then give them back the oxygen.
On a spacecraft it is much easier. They just need a CO
2 scrubber and make up gas.
Also note that rebreathers are much older than you think. People were already starting to make them in the 1800s.
A SCUBA divers tank which holds 80 cubit feet of air would calculate to 13,440 cubic feet of air needed for roughly 7 days just for two people.
Based upon the assumption that they need 80 cubic feet of air per 2 hours.
Where did you pull this number from?
Just your earlier claims based upon scuba divers at high pressure wasting a lot of oxygen?
A quick search indicates humans use roughly 500 l of oxygen each day. This works out to be ~ 7000 l of oxygen or 250 cubic feet.
If that is compressed to 200 bar then you only need 35 l of compressed oxygen, or just over a cubic foot.
So there was plenty of space for that air.
Your quote from some random just rejecting the idea of moon landing doesn't support your case either.
He provides no justification for why he called BS.
Blazing Saddles, Boyz in the Hood, Star Wars, and Back to the Future are just a few of the hundreds of films collected in the Library of Congress. But we’re to believe NASA can’t preserve the telemetry data from the moon missions. Hahahahahah!!!
They have preserved the telemetry, just not on the original media.
Do you understand the difference?
But even if they did lose all the data, that proves nothing.
It doesn't magically mean the moon landings are fake.
See unlike movies, there was only one take as it was the real deal. That can make it much harder to preserve.
Movies have countless takes which is then all stitched together to produce the final product which is mass produced and distributed.
ROCKETS CAN'T FLY IN A VACUUM :
Unless you want to discard how pressure works and conservation of momentum, they do work in a vacuum.
If you would like to provide an argument as to why they can't, feel free. But I will skip your youtube spam.
If you do decide to make an argument, please explain what happens to the gas generated inside the rocket, and as a hint, it can't go out in all directions as the rocket blocks the majority of those directions.
so feel free to acquaint yourself with their fake excuse by reading just a few excerpts from my "hate speech" video :
Youtube shutting down your channel is irreverent to the moon landings.
Posting a few snippets from a video which was taken down for hate speech doesn't show that there was no hate speech in the video. You would need to provide the entire video.