Why haven't we been back to the moon in 38 years?
 

I know that we can't go back to a place that we have never visited. :warning

But to those who really believe NASA, why haven't we been back to the moon in 38 years?

We make our own cheese now, in Wisconsin I think.. No reason to mine the moon, yet.

Because it was expensive as hell, and politicians of the time felt we had done all that justified the expense... Russia had been beaten, and we grabbed a bunch of rocks.

Our plan to go back in 2019 (dependant on us verifying with 100% certainty that ice water does, in fact, exist on the moon as we're already nearly certain it does) includes establishing a permanent base to act as both a lunar research facility and a way-station for lunar-based launches between the Earth and other destinations, such as Mars.

I have absolutely no problem saying that anyone who thinks we didn't actually go to the moon in the 60's either isn't bothering to do any real research on the matter, or isn't the brightest crayon in the box.... or both.

Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_l...ing_experiment

:2 cents:

er, no oil..?

This story is as much bullshit as NASA's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Revere or Christopher Columbus, or building 7...

All lies, and with no real solid proof, no blast in or blast out site, I mean come on.. why would you think it's true?

get a telescope they left most of the shit they took up there:2 cents:

Nothing to see there...

Buy one and use it.. please spare us the misery

http://boles.com/called/sw357.jpg

Did they? Let me look, again.

wow, another conspiracy theory thread on gfy...
carry on, while I grab my seat here...

I stand by my original statement. You haven't bothered really researching anything... I mean, you're using a Fox entertainment program as a source.

Everything in that video has been debunked subsequently. Go to a library, man.

I'm sorry - are you disapproving of my using a wiki source? I wasn't meaning to use it as any authority, merely point you in the right direction.

Would you rather me have used any of these:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apol...ents_LRRR.html
http://www.csr.utexas.edu/mlrs/history.html
http://physics.ucsd.edu/%7Etmurphy/apollo/lrrr.html
http://www.obs-azur.fr/cerga/laser/laslune/llr.htm
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclips...olloLaser.html
http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/n...e/k011402.html
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...htm?list736830
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9907/2...lo.experiment/
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=605

instead?

I'm only going to show you the door... you can kick your own ass through it.

As far as blast craters go, there was none to be expected. Read up on the physics of the lander sometime instead of just reading other people's thoughts. The lander's engines were in an environment much more similar to a vaccum than on Earth - which caused a much larger area of dispersal.... that and the lunar soil is also nearly as compact as rock - exemplified by the drill that got stuck on Apollo 15. There was a significant amount of scatter - as just about any video of any landing shows you.

Insofar as irrefutable proof, there's also the matter of several independent agencies picking up transmissions from the moon during the lunar landings of the 60's, independently verifying our presence there... same as they did when Russia first crashed a probe into the lunar surface a few years before we landed.


Especially with the modern bowl of crapola we're being served, I understand the tendency to be hesitant in believing everything we're told...

But you conspiracy nuts are barking up the wrong tree on this one - and doing so in matters such as these only serve to discredit you on topics you might have a better understanding of.

You're loosing street cred with anyone with half a brain here, imho.

LOL D... you got to be kidding me. Sure, NASA has multi billion dollar budget so they can afford top writers to put their ridiculous thesis together in a desperate attempt to debunk what any reasonable man can see. Sadly (but not really, we need sheep to retain balance in this world) there's enough blindfolded sheep who can't see further than a tip of their noses and so they just follow where they are led.

Since you chose the path of a dumb follower, it'd be a waste of time to try to open your eyes. Afterall - one can only show you the door, you are the one who has to walk through it (seen The Matrix?).

Compare NASA and their fabricated bullshit for which they have unlimited funds to nourish or follow arguments of people who don't have funds of NASA yet their message is much more powerful. Why is that possible - it's because it doesn't matter how much money you have to polish your lies, the truth will always shine the clearer. Even without expensive polish applied to it.

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

http://www.moonmovie.com/moonmovie/

The pledge to go to the moon Kennedy gave back in the 60s was political. It was shortly after the Cuba crisis. It cost a small fortune, the benefits were negligible and the reasons to go again are few. Maybe if Bush really fucks in Iraq, worse than he has, he will do it as a face saver.

Launching missions to Mars and Venus? Please give me a break. What is there that will benefit mankind in return for the money, energy and resources for going?

As far as going further is concerned, stop watching Star Wars, it's fiction. The actual cost of going to another solar system would bankrupt the whole worlds economy and for what cause. We have far more pressing and cheaper problems to solve here.

How about solving the problems of driving to the local mall and not fucking the Earths atmosphere first?

the cold war is over. there hasn't been a need to. going to space/moon.mars is mostly about politics/prestige... not science.

Or clean up the two year old Katrina disaster area and quit pretending it does not exist :winkwink:

Out of all that... I promise you I give two shits about 'street cred' with anyone here.

Those URL's don't tell you anything other than, someone, probably the russians put probes on the moon that we can bounce lasers off of and the same picture, posted over and over again.. I want proof.

I don't care if we did or didn't land on the moon, but I have seen 1000 good things to say we lied and like 2 that are real, and I stopped believing school book text about 10 years ago.

You know that isn't happening at all? Humans, aren't causing the warm up.. It's been happening for 5k+ years, it slowed down a little about 300 years ago during the little ice age, and it has been warming up ever since.

TV gave the best analogy, humans are the last 2 seconds in a 24 hour day, we are nothing, it's as dumb as thinking we could blow up the earth.

I find it ironic that you're calling me the "dumb follower."

Believe what you will, man.

I'm all for working on other issues that face us, but there's alot of us humans, you know - as a species, we can multitask pretty well... and whether you choose to believe it or not, we are planning on being back on the moon in 12 years... quite a few missions have already been launched to meet that end... and part of the design of the mission is to ready a base for subsequent launches to other outer-worldly destinations.

You realize, the world's internet was science fiction in Gibson's mind 45 years ago. Traveling in space was science fiction 60 years ago. The act of flying itself was part of the plot in the first science fiction work I believe.

And here we are... living the "Star Wars" life.

We're not gonna be here - on the Earth - forever, ya know. That's pretty much scientific fact. It's gonna die out one day.

Space is where we have left to turn... and we gotta start somewhere. This is the next logical step.

As far as fiscal rewards - if we could find an easy way to mine the moon and asteroids and other planets... we pretty much have a near-infinite source of whatever natural elements we could ever need. Mars could provide us with invaluable scientific data as to how the Earth formed, and where, exactly, it's going.... not to mention there's enough minerals on the planet to last us a few hundred generations, if need be.

And it's all a hell of a lot better of a focus and use of our budget than sending kids to Iraq, imho.

I love this :D

nothing really on the moon, we should be exploring further out.

..as we have never been there..........

OK... forget the 300 years ago and forget global warming. Using less shit fuel with leave a cleaner taste in your mouth and some oxygen to breath.

A further benefit is around a 40% reduction on the massive trade deficits which have been happening for decades.

BTW.. the book is going to be called - "The First Steps to Solvency" and subtitled, "Learn to live to a standard you can afford and quit leeching loans off other nations to support the unsustainable" :)

Why do you bother posting if not to attempt to show people "the light"?

Then use the urls I gave you a bit more effectively than your mind - that's probably used to other people doing the research for you - is used to.

Contact any of the people at the laser listening posts. Arrange a field trip, and check out their facilities... I hear they welcome visitors and questions about the moon landings regularly.

Go to the library. Check out the newspapers of the time. Call and verify the reports of the agencies that independently reported picking up signals from the moon during the landings yourself.

I know you're probably used to people doing thinking, and then telling you what they think, and you basing what you think is cool to believe on that - but if you're demanding proof, grow a pair and get out there and do it yourself, ya know?

Then you're not looking hard enough. Either that or you're biasing your research with your preconceptions.

It's up to you.

I have the benefit of being someone who was a skeptic, and so went to work answering my questions. So I've been there... and I'm 100% on this one... and I'm never 100% on anything.

There is little reason to go back until we have fusion reactors widely available.

There's actually quite a few unanswered geological questions, now that we're pretty sure how the moon was formed.

And, as I've inferred, the moon's a great natural jump point to those "further out" destinations you speak of.

Less escape velocity needed = easier launches to wherever.

We're starting to build a launch-pad there in 2019, if all goes as planned.

I posted about cheese, not light. And my point was, I don't care what people think here, about me or my brain or my company.

You are flat funny, I mean come on, did that come to you naturally or did you re-type in 10 times? Educate yourself before you come knocking on my door, ha!

I live in S. AZ, the best observatories in the world, 30 minutes away, what would you like me to ask them? If they can point a laser at the moon?

If this is such a huge theory, then why don't they just show us the foot prints? Google can zoom in a girls thong in a pickup truck, and we can't look through our super telescopes and see the foot prints?

Wait, we can leave foot prints but not blast marks? nm, different story.


We had the technology to 'read signals from the moon' but not the technology to encrypt it. Odd, wasn't this during the cold war? Na, we wouldn't fake this, hell.. we wouldn't fake Cuba possibly attacking us would we?


My cock is at least 10 inches when I pull on it hard.. but I straight up don't have Bob balls so I guess you got me with my pair.


You don't own the company in your signature I hope.

All we need to do to reduce the deficit is collect from the countries that owe us money.

Money is clearly what drives all this, if the same people could drop oil or whatever and make solar power earn them trillions, they would.

I am getting solar power for my house, the sun shines 300 days a year here. But the kicker is, not a big thing but to put things in perspective. Last year the power companies quit buying or storing the return energy... That's just sucks.

1. Because it's expensive, like hundreds of billions of dollars expensive.

2. Because we already did it.

;)

TheDoc, I'm curious...

those big missles they built for lots and lots of dollars, and then shot up with people in them.. they did all that just to fool us all? Or did that never happen either? Were all those missle launches fake too?

My biggest question always is though, why fake the whole thing at all? They built the landers, we know that, you can look at them in museums. They built the missles, we know that, they still build them today and shoot shit up there. They built the space shuttle, and noone is saying the international space station is fake, right?

So, rather than actually learning space flight by going to the nearest object first, we actually skipped all that, invested billions in FAKING it (since we did have to build the landers, the missles and shit, just to destroy them)... and then suddenly we build technology that flys all the way to mars and puts little robots on there?

Oh wait, or are those fake too?

BTW, footprints on the moon VS. blast marks:
Footprints: small localized changes which cause prints in the dust on the moon;
blast marks: very big, chaoticly formed changes in the dust, hard to spot since they probably cause very slight slopes and thus its not easy to see as the sunlight does not produce a good 3d image compared to a localized footprint.

Unless you look very closely, can you see a mark in a 10"x10" sand-pit which has a 1' deep dent in it forming a round crator as big as the pit itself? You would have to look REALLY CLOSE to see that...

And regarding your "why do they not show us the footprints".. why exactly would they? So you can say they faked that too? The only way you would BELEIVE it would be if they put you in a rocket, shot you up to the moon, let you land and see it for yourself.

And reading signals from the moon.. emm.. its called "directional radio waves".. its a rather old technology actually. And why encrypt something that you _WANT_ the russians to know about?

I want a GoogleMoon
http://www.csun.edu/science/geoscien...unar_Rover.jpg

So global warming is being caused by natural causes. OK I don't think it's entirely down to that but will accept it.

So what about the shit air we breath in every day. Do you think this is doing us and our children good or what? I remember when a grey/beige cloud did not hover over every city, when you could take a picture outdoors and get clean light.

D yes I accept that without dreams we are nothing, but we have to look at reality as well. How many of the dreams man had came to nothing? You only quote the ones that worked.

To my knowledge no one has so far come up with anything valuable enough to justify the expense. As someone pointed out "No oil there." If there was anything worth having then we would of gone. We put up satellites all the time, because it's profitable, the Internet exists because it's profitable, in fact everything you quoted happened because there was money to be made. So far I do not see anyone making money from moon dust. Might change but there are far more pressing problems here on Earth to solve first.

I wouldn't surprised me if it was faked at first, but later attempts seem to be successful.

We have been to the moon once, they say.. We have shot 100's of rockets into space.. They didn't goto the moon and no they aren't fake. I don't know wtf each did, I do know what some did.



Cold war, it was a fight to see how had better and bigger technology. Very open history on this. During this time our gov was planning a fake attack on our country, that document is now declassified.



Humans vs bots, I think bots have been all over the moon and mars. 30 years later, it makes since.


No actually that is all I have been waiting for, but we can't see to find them or the big giant ass blast mark a rocket would leave.



I don't know if I should answer this or just laugh.

CONGRATULATIONS !!!

You have successfully nominated yourself for a Bullshit Of The Year AWARD. Job well done.
*insert standing ovation here*

Can you actually explain why? Or is it just a "I think the moon landing is fake, have no arguements, so I'll make the other guy look stupid" kind of answer?

k, cool... what about the people that went inside them? They just took them out again on a hidden exit door that nobody knows about but the few thousand people working on the project which never talked about the big conspiracy?

Ok, guess I can accept that reasoning.. also, sorry for me not knowing, can you point me to that declassified document? Curious...

K, cool.. so what makes it so more difficult to get a human on the moon compared to getting them on the space station?

Also, you never replied to the interesting fact that somehow we were too stupid to land on the moon, but with no prior knowledge of space travel (since its all been faked) we suddenly have an international space station. Or is that faked too?

Ok, so if someone shows you a telescope image which shows the footprints on the moon or the huge blast mark you claim a rocket would leave in vacuum on the moon, then you would say "ok, the landings were real"? And you would NOT claim that these pictures are faked too? Faking these pictures is 200 times easier and cheaper than actually faking the moon landings, but noone has done so yet, I wonder why?


I usually do not ask questions I do not want answered, so please answer, I seriously want to know..

Also, could you post the, to you, most obvious reasons why its a fake? I mean, that prove that the video is a fake? Like, what, the flag waving? The shadows? The black sky?

You've been going off about the big missiles - have you noticed how much power they weild? Even in a much smaller scale of a moon module, they still produce such flow of energy that even the most powerful aircraft turbine you have seen would blush watching it. If you think this amount of energy would leave slightly sloped, hard to spot, chaoticly formed changes in the dust, then you really deserve an idiot award. You are blatantly lying to yourself if you believe this bullshit.

http://www.cosmos4kids.com/extras/dt...huttle_580.jpg

http://www.adclassix.com/images/66tangoj.jpg

I like poontang... :pimp

ADG

The dust only is around 1' deep.. how do you think the huge amounts of energy, in a vacuum, would cause a deeper dent in the DUST than the 1' it actually has?

That is all I am saying... it gets even less detectable if you make the range of dust the blast caused to change bigger... there is only a certain amount of dust there, the footprints localize the changes and cause actual prints that light causes shadows with... Without those, you get no 3rd image on a photo, thus you can not really SEE it either..

Nathan, you are clearly looking for ways to justify this for yourself. It's nothing short of ignoring the forest for the trees. The crater would have noticeable size. That's the bottom line. Now, I understand the NASA reps coming with ridiculous versions of why there would be no crater, cause they must do something to cover their asses. They are in "all or nothing" tight spot so they will take any measures to cover up their lies, even at a price of winning the bullshit awards. But when a smart guy who (I assume) is not associated with NASA makes himself look like a fool justifying this non sense, that makes wander what the heck you?re on?

I really don't know all the things they did.. But I heard they put monkeys in open space to see what would happen, they did a lot of animal tests to see what it would take 20 years later to build a space station.



Kinda late right now.. But it was during the Cuban missile crises.. We were going to attack ourselves, kill our own people.. so we could.. either attack cuba or russian subs, been awhile. It's been on TV, read the document myself.. But I really can't recall its name.



Oh man, much harder to goto he moon, it's much much further away. Our space station orbits around us, we can't just go up whenever we feel like it, it's all planned based on the position of the station.


This isn't easy to explain.. The gravitational pull that covers the moon, is strong enough to hold humans and a rocket. It's actually is stronger the closer you get to the moon. Even earths at around 50k "feet" (or so) starts to go away, that isn't very far. So it's not a full vacuum around the moon, shit doesn't just float away and they didn't kick off the moon the climb back in.


Not being on the moon every myself, I can't really say.. But from what I gather the moon is either really fucking hot or cold, since it doesn't have a a strong polarity to protect itself. (thats why the sun doesn't cook the earth and us humans)

I see pictures and video of 100% incorrect light angles and then them standing in the brightest spots.. We use the earth to protect our people from direct exposure to the sun for a reason.

Otherwise, over the last 8 years I have just found things, different view points, ect.. in both directions. It's not like I ignored what I was told, I thought it to be true, I still want to think it is true.

Sorry, but I do not beleive conspiracy theories involving hundreds if not thousands of people can be kept quiet... I also do not have a reason to beleive the videos are fake. I have yet to hear of any reason why its so impossible that it was done...

All the big arguements I know of are stupid. Maybe I do not know enough arguements though... A smart guy like you beleiving in conspiracy theories makes ME wonder why YOU are on.

Other than the crater, that you claim MUST be there, and that physisists have explained over and over again why they are not, what great things are there to prove that they are fake?

The reason conspiracy theories work is that many people are simply not intelligent enough to grasp the bigger concepts. Its EASIER for someone to prove to you that it can impossibly be true, since you do not have anything to UNDERSTAND there.. you simply take the "there must be a crater" as a fact. Than someone proving to you that there can not be a crater, because there always is a simple way for the conspiracy theorist to disprove that, by saying "it was faked too". There is physics involved here that most people do not understand and things people do not understand, they tend to not beleive. Its that simple.

This does not make the moon landings fake though.

And before you come with the standard stupid arguments:
1) There are no stars in the sky in the videos: The exposure time is too low, its daylight, the moon reflects light well, the exposure time must be short so that you can see anything in the first place. (Proof of the moon reflecting light well: look at the fucking moon)
2) The shadows are wrong in the videos sometimes: Its a wide angle lens AND its simply hills which cause the shadows to fall differently.
3) The flag waves, it can not do that on the moon, because there is no wind: Correct, there is no wind, the flag waves because the pole is moved around while sticking it into the moon soil. The flag looks like it waves later because thats how it was setup, it does not actually move, the cloth is just not straight on the top supporting pole.

Also, do explain why there are videos of one of the moon rovers moving and throwing up dust which falls back down in a way it can only do in a vacuum? And do not tell me that they created a false vacuum in the studio, because that would fuck up your "the flag waves" theory...

Actually not so sure what is harder, the moon is a lot bigger, a lot easier to hit than the space station. A lot more calculations to do to get to the space station, a lot more equipment needed to fly the space shuttle to it and actually dock to the tiny thing they connect to.

You gotta start small, I can not beleive that the space shuttle is easier than landing on the moon. You do not START with something like the space shuttle, you start with easier things first...

This doesn't even answer my question, what does any of this have to do with the fact that you think the videos were faked, and its very easy to fake pictures of the footsteps that you claim would prove they were there?

I know the moon is not a full vacuum, its very close to it though. There is video of an astronaut letting a feather and a hammer drop on the moon and they land on the surface at the same time. How did they fake that one? Pump out the air from the studio?

They are wearing a space suit, you do know that, right? It does not protect against solar flare radiation, but it protects against heat. The sun exposure OUTSIDE of the space station is worst than on the moon.. yet you do not question that?

I have not sadly seen any proof that shows it was faked :( I want to see it too!

FREAKIN A RIGHT WE GOT DA CHEESE IN WISCO!

I would continue this but it's 1am and my kids are going to get up at 6, I know this!!!

The moon is just a spot light at the back of a painted canvas, watch the Truman show it will answer all the questions.

Stay Cheesy.

can i see it?

I've heard that Apollo mission or what was named was the most expensive movie ever made

there's been no point until now to go back. but one of the main reasons for going back now is to mine an isotope called helium3 that is found on the moon but very rare on earth, that they need for nuclear fusion reactions.