Conspiracy Theory The Moon landing - 40 years on

[PoppedCorn]

good to hear
knew someone would get it

i still dont believe this money and dangerous thing tho
yeah sure it has a degree of danger of course and yeah it costs billions, but cmon....theyve never gone back in recent times???

sorry i dont buy it and am happy to agree to disagree or whatever that means

i must say
reading a few threads in this section of the forum has peaked my interest in subjects i was once a tad obsessed by

 

[Werewolf]

The real question isn't whether they went to the moon, it's what they found when they got there?

 

[PoppedCorn]

santa claus...........

 

[Bulldog Banana]

My understanding of why we havent been back is that there is no real reason to go back.
The moon is a dead world, there is no sign of life or water there.
There doesnt appear to be any minerals worth anything so there is no need to 'dig it up'.
Scientific research on the geology of the moons surface that was done during the apollo missions confirmed this.
I had heard of an idea to use the moon as a launch pad to explore further into the solar system. The theory was that due to the moons atmosphere being a lot thinner than the earth, it doesnt take a massive solid fuel rocket to launch from the moon as opposed to earth, which then meant that it was cheaper to launch spacecraft from the moon.
However, I would think the cost of having a permanent moon base & associated costs with either transporting equipment there or manufacturing the space craft themselves on the moon, probably knocked the whole idea on the head. Although, I guess if the dream of a Mars colony ever comes into fruition then the moon may be considered for this purpose.

 

[PoppedCorn]

well
they tell us theres no signs of life and no water.........

 

[Bulldog Banana]

well
they tell us theres no signs of life and no water.........

& the russians also confirmed this after their lunar rover was remotely driven around the surface of the moons for months and found nothing.

 

[Kram]

They were lucky enough that nobody died the first times around, that plus the obscene amount of money it takes to go there with not much more to learn about it for the risk is why they haven't gone back.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

good to hear
knew someone would get it

i still dont believe this money and dangerous thing tho
yeah sure it has a degree of danger of course and yeah it costs billions, but cmon....theyve never gone back in recent times???

sorry i dont buy it and am happy to agree to disagree or whatever that means

i must say
reading a few threads in this section of the forum has peaked my interest in subjects i was once a tad obsessed by

You realise you make the case yourself.

NASA continued to go to the moon until *******s got back in charge and cut funding again and again again.

Until NASA didn't have enough funding to send people to the moon.

So what did NASA do? spruked space stations and reusable space vehicles for less then going to the moon.

In other words "look at the New shiny" here funding!

Then the *******s cut funding which meant the shuttle's got older and older and were out of date.

But wouldn't green light New shuttle's cause we have those.

So what did NASA do? Pooled its resources to explore another planet like never before. (the mars missions)

Again *******s "shiny shiny take our money"

Then the *******s shut down the shuttle's cut rocket funding talked about moving away from major government funded missions.

So what did NASA do? They started revisiting the moon smashing probes into it, high resolution mapping all pretty cheaply. Then China mysteriously stopped its rockets from exploding and is looking at the moon.

The *******s turned around and went "communists are over taking us omg what do we do? We need a new shiny"

And now NASA is negotiating for New rockets, has plans for a new shuttle and is gaining support for a manned mission to mars.

Congressmen and senators in the us don't give a s**t about space they simply don't care, they'd rather spend a few billion dollars researching a threatened species of butterfly or commission investigations into why poor people don't have money.

They are inheritantly small minded people, think off them as people who drink bottled water.

Tastes the same as tap water, looks the same as tap water, goes through the same filtering process as Tap water, usually comes from the same dams as tap water.

But you try to get one of those clowns to drink tap water.

Stick water in fluorescent light bulb and have it change colour and they'd never drink water from a bottle again despite the risk if poisoning.

 

[Quokka]

The thing I've never understood about the fake moon landing theory is that the signal from any of the capsules had to be triangulated to be received (or whatever the correct term is). Russia and probably a good few other nations knew that the signal and footage was coming from a point traveling to and from the moon.

So the biggest prize of the entire space race and the world's governments all got together and decided why not let America have the kudos on this one? Even though they could prove America was lying and redicule them on the world stage, and I know America could have fought back with propaganda or whatever but still.... and this has never been leaked in any meaningful way?

That only leaves an unmanned capsule sending recordings back as it did a round trip but seeing as humans were cheaper and more reliable than a system that could do that I honestly find the idea that they sent 3 guys something like 1.5 million kms in a tin can without killing them, simpler and more believable.

 

[Partridge]

They were lucky enough that nobody died the first times around, that plus the obscene amount of money it takes to go there with not much more to learn about it for the risk is why they haven't gone back.

If you don't count Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee who died in the Apollo 1 launch pad fire of course.

 

[Kram]

If you don't count Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee who died in the Apollo 1 launch pad fire of course.

Yeah that's true, I was more thinking along the lines of an accident during an actual flight or even worse astronauts getting marooned up there, how bad would that look.

 

[Interceptor]

Yeah that's true, I was more thinking along the lines of an accident during an actual flight or even worse astronauts getting marooned up there, how bad would that look.

Which is why they didn't go with any female astronauts in that era, despite a number apparently testing better than the men.

 

[Bulldog Banana]

It was tremendously dangerous, risks were taken & the US was very lucky (except the fire on apollo 1) to not have a fatality whilst one of the missions were "on".
Obviously the Russians were not as confident about being able to return a man safely so had to make do with the rover missions.

 

[Partridge]

Which is why they didn't go with any female astronauts in that era, despite a number apparently testing better than the men.

There were no females recruited by NASA during the Apollo program. Many wanted to get recruited, but the fact is they didn't. NASA hired the best people for the job, which happened to be military test pilots, that were overwhelmingly male.

 

[Interceptor]

There were no females recruited by NASA during the Apollo program. Many wanted to get recruited, but the fact is they didn't. NASA hired the best people for the job, which happened to be military test pilots, that were overwhelmingly male.

I was wrong with the era, you're correct about that.
They were testing potential female candidates briefly though, pre-Apollo: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/10/mercury-13/

 

[baz_machine]

100% happened.

Proof you ask? This guy commutes everyday from the moon

 

[blaze036]

good to hear
knew someone would get it

i still dont believe this money and dangerous thing tho
yeah sure it has a degree of danger of course and yeah it costs billions, but cmon....theyve never gone back in recent times???

sorry i dont buy it and am happy to agree to disagree or whatever that means

i must say
reading a few threads in this section of the forum has peaked my interest in subjects i was once a tad obsessed by

What do they have to gain from going to the moon? Nothing..

What have they got to lose? Hundreds of millions of dollars, plus time and energy and the real possibility of the lose of life

And you wonder why we haven't gone back recently

well
they tell us theres no signs of life and no water.........

Why would they lie about that... an impossible lie to keep when so many people would have to be in on it and eager to break the information to the world, if they did and had seen the evidence they would make tens of millions from telling the story.

Beyond any reasonable doubt the moon landing happened.. as another poster said the pictures were also beamed back from the moon

 

[BIG MATTY WHITE]

Cmon Guys have you not seen stanly kubricks movies...he left clues in them about the moon landing.....duuuuhhh

 

[BIG MATTY WHITE]

im using it as an example. It's in human nature to explore. So we are never going to go to the moon again because a few explorations were said to be carried out 40 years ago saying there is nothing there? More like it can't be done.

Considering a $50 mobile phone has the same computing capacity as what sent those rockets to the moon, i wouldn't of thought cost was a huge issue.

You make a valid point....would it be just as expencive to go to the moon now if you wanted too?

But then again they are going to mars ....so must be legit

 

[telsor]

My understanding of why we havent been back is that there is no real reason to go back.
The moon is a dead world, there is no sign of life or water there.
There doesnt appear to be any minerals worth anything so there is no need to 'dig it up'.
Scientific research on the geology of the moons surface that was done during the apollo missions confirmed this.
I had heard of an idea to use the moon as a launch pad to explore further into the solar system. The theory was that due to the moons atmosphere being a lot thinner than the earth, it doesnt take a massive solid fuel rocket to launch from the moon as opposed to earth, which then meant that it was cheaper to launch spacecraft from the moon.
However, I would think the cost of having a permanent moon base & associated costs with either transporting equipment there or manufacturing the space craft themselves on the moon, probably knocked the whole idea on the head. Although, I guess if the dream of a Mars colony ever comes into fruition then the moon may be considered for this purpose.

Cheaper, easier and more effective to do all that construction from orbit.

 

[telsor]

http://xkcd.com/1074/

 

[telsor]

You make a valid point....would it be just as expencive to go to the moon now if you wanted too?

But then again they are going to mars ....so must be legit

The cost isn't really in the computers, so yeah, it'd probably cost at least as much.

Te computers they had then might have been small (tiny) by current standards, but being single purpose, specifically designed machines, they were extremely optimised so a current, general purpose machine would need to be bigger to match them..and hey, they did the job, so why bother going bigger?

 

[Sydney Bloods]

You make a valid point....would it be just as expencive to go to the moon now if you wanted too?

But then again they are going to mars ....so must be legit

What sort of car do you drive?

 

[Hillsguy]

Cmon Guys have you not seen stanly kubricks movies...he left clues in them about the moon landing.....duuuuhhh

Yes he became a recluse due to when they did the fake moon landings everyone else on set got bumped off. The moon is hollow as they have had sattelites hit it & the moon reverberates like a bell. They did go to the moon, just not as many times as said.

 

[BIG MATTY WHITE]

I saw this before couldnt not tell if fake ...I also one where they they pulled 2 dead bodies off a crash site on the moon