What is your theory on why the USA has not been to the moon in the past 40 years?

And how exactly does one get a fully assembled Saturn V on the Moon? They weigh 2.8million kilograms according to the documentation, so you'd need a fleet of suited and protected, housed people to assemble it and probably a thousand journeys to get the parts there.

 

Because we spent all of our time and money taking care of blacks and illegals. But that's okay because we are protected by a big magic spell that watches over us. Or maybe it's just a massive case of denial and we really are trillions and trillions of dollars in debt, like a shining city in a bottomless pit. The moon....the moon!

 

Some people just give up too easily.

 

Elephant in the room question: What's the point of all this Mars nonsense if human life couldn't live there?

 

There are mountaineers who have climbed mountain Everest when they were young and then they have never been there again ...

Extraordinary deeds can be rare or even unique. Because they require extraordinary capabilities, resources, organization ... This can give the impression that to get such an achievement was impossible for us. It was a hoax!

Like ancient Egyptians didn't build the Great Pyramids [Atlanteans or aliens did, who else?].

But Reinhold Messner has climbed 14 mountains above 8,000mt from 1970 to 1986.

Moreover Messner has been able to climb Everest alone and without oxygen [in 1980].

It's 35 years that Messner doesn't climb mountain Everest alone and without oxygen ... should we infer that he didn't in 1980?

 

Honestly I think there was a shift in priorities and funding by NASA and the government. After Apollo 17 there was a lot of effort put into the development of Skylab, low Earth orbit satellites and the space shuttle. During that time the infrastructure NASA had in place for Lunar missions disappeared or ended up in museums.

 

Essentially, yes. Nixon promoted the shuttle as Apollo was Kennedy's legacy. So he was instrumental in pushing the shuttle ahead while the infrastructure for Apollo was mothballed. Then Congress continued to cut funding for NASA because they are more concerned with something that will pay off within the next 2 years and get them reelected instead of getting their successor reelected so we stagnated with the shuttle for 30 years without planning for a replacement.

 

OK.....radiation is not an issue no matter what the conspiracy theorists think.

When the Apollo Missions went to the moon they traveled at a high rate of speed through the radiation belts and this along with shielding allows us to travel to the moon and it would cost more money to fake the lunar landings than t actually go there!!

Plus there is a thing called TRIANGULATION as the radio signals sent from the Apollo Missions were triangulated by many HAM Radio operators on Earth and something like that is IMPOSSIBLE to fake!!

Plus the Soviet's certainly would not have kept their mouths shut if we faked it either!!

We have not gone back as of yet because there really has not been a reason to until now as development of a Lunar Base will happen as we can use that base for everything from launching missions to Mars and the Asteroids to mining H3 on the Lunar surface as H3 is used in Fusion Generation.

AA

 

The anomalies in the footage have already proven the hoax...
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...n-missions-were-faked-studio.html#post3989728

...so the radiation issue isn't about whether they faked it. It's about why they had to fake it. I dealt with the issue of the Soviet's not spilling the beans in that link.

 

There are no anomalies. Your ignorance is the problem. There are literally hundreds of posts in the other threads that you have failed adequately to address This post of yours I have quoted is cut and paste spam I have lost count of how many times you have said this same thing.

You have not dealt with anything. Your simplistic uninformed trivia merely confirms how woefully educated you are in this matter. There is no radiation issue to answer. The short duration missions picked up less than a dose for a chest x-ray.

I cannot fathom what motivates you to spend years posting the same identical posts. You aren't a truth seeker that's for sure.

 

In my last post I meant to post this thread instead of the other one.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/347662-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio.html

The other one has a lot of dead links. That one is more up-to-date.

 

Since you chose to ignore my post in favor of spamming yet another link of the same rubbish, the same response:-

There are no anomalies. Your ignorance is the problem. There are literally hundreds of posts in the other threads that you have failed adequately to address This post of yours I have quoted is cut and paste spam I have lost count of how many times you have said this same thing.

You have not dealt with anything. Your simplistic uninformed trivia merely confirms how woefully educated you are in this matter. There is no radiation issue to answer. The short duration missions picked up less than a dose for a chest x-ray.

I cannot fathom what motivates you to spend years posting the same identical posts. You aren't a truth seeker that's for sure.

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/

 

An important link in that summary that goes to an article about space radiation is dead so I'm posting the whole article.

http://www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/MOON/articles1.htm

--------------------------------------------------------

Did NASA steal $30 Billion to Fake
The Apollo Moon Landings?
Home Paper Moon Page

ARTICLE IN MEDIA BYPASS MAGAZINE, SEPT. 1997
THE VAN ALLEN ENIGMA
By Phylis and James Collier

In the early 1950's, a 35-year-old State University of Iowa physics professor and some of his students were cruising the cold waters ofnorthern Canada and the Atlantic Ocean, sending a series ofrocket-carrying balloons- which they dubbed "rockoons" - 12 to 15 miles into space.

They were trying to measure the nature of low-energy cosmic raysswirling around the earth. The experiments continued for five more years. Then, in 1958,Professor James Van Allen discovered his monster. Suddenly, his instrumentation warned of a giant beast of a thing, spewing enough deadly radiation counts to kill any human who ventured into its domain unprotected.

Van Allen and his students weren't sure of the size, shape and texture of the monster, they just knew they had encountered an incredible phenomenon.

Then, in l958, as part of the International Geophysical Year (a year in which men like James A. Van Allen were praised for exploring the realms of time and space) the young professor asked the U.S. military to send his experiments deeper into space, this time using a Geiger Counter to measure the intensity of the radiation. He further requested the most sophisticated rockets that would penetrate l00,000 miles into space.

That's when the monster grew all encompassing. It appeared to surround the entire earth and extend out some 65,000 miles, maybe even 100,000 miles. The Geiger Counter confirmed that the region above the earth, and in the path of the rocket, was cooking with deadly radiation. That radiation was born from solar flares that would race through the universe and become trapped by the earth's magnetic field. A deadly mixture of protons and electrons.

It was then that Van Allen realized the Aurora Borealis, the northern lights, was actually a visual manifestation of that tremendous energy from the sun. You could actually see the radiation swirling in a magnificent and deadly dance. His eventual finding of two such lethal radiation belts, put his name in the history books as the man who discovered the Van Allen Radiation Belts. There was an inner belt and an outer belt. The inner belt went from 40 degrees north and south of the Equator and was basically a doughnut surrounding the earth. Scientific experiments conducted by Van Allen and the military proved that belt was so deadly that no human could survive in its orbit. The outer belt was equally as destructive, and separated from the inner belt by an area of lesser radiation.

Van Allen's conclusion was delivered in a speech to the Academy of Science in 1959. He warned future space travelers they would have to race through these two zones on their way to outer planets.

"All manned space flight attempts must steer clear of these two belts of radiation until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts has been developed" he said. Moreover, Van Allen advised they would have to be shielded with some extra layers of protection beyond that of the spacecraft itself. These findings were also published in Scientific American Magazine, March, 1959.

Two years later, Van Allen updated his report in Space World Magazine, December, 1961. In brief, he reported that everything he had found in 1959 was still valid. It was also in that year that President John F. Kennedy told an assembled group of students and dignitaries at Rice University in Houston, that it was America's destiny to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. With that statement, the space race become a political game, worth 30 billion in taxpayer dollars to the winners. National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA), which is part of the Department of Defense and the CIA, became the caretaker of Kennedy's dream.

It was their job to build a spacecraft that would meet Van Allen's scientific requirements of safety through the radiation belts. Van Allen stated that the ship's skin, made of aluminum, would not be enough protection for the astronauts. Extra shielding of lead or another substance that would absorb the radiation would be needed. That, of course, posed the problem of weight. More weight created a booster problem. In other words, they would need a bigger rocket to carry a ship that was properly lined against radiation penetration. One of the most interesting of Van Allen's findings was that once protons and electrons hit the aluminum skin of the spacecraft, they would turn into x-rays. The kind the average dentist protects patients against with two inch lead vests. Those rays would naturally penetrate the astronaut's bodies and create anything from nausea and vomiting to eventual death, depending on the length of the exposure.

All of this scientific data presented a big problem for NASA. How could they build a spacecraft that would meet radiation standards and yet get off the ground?

The National Committee on Radiation Protection (NCRP) and the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) had established low "permissible doses" of radiation at levels that were consistent with living on earth. However, where the critical dosage on earth might be 5 rems of radiation in a year, the astronauts would receive that amount within minutes passing through the lower zone of the radiation belt.

In order to penetrate Van Allen's belt, in l965 NASA requested the two regulatory groups modify the existing standards for space flight. It was simply a matter of "risk over gain" and NASA convinced them to change the standards and allow them to take the risk. Whether or not future astronauts would be advised of these dramatically lowered standards and substantial risk is unknown at this time.

The next problem NASA faced was the shielding of the spacecraft. It was solved in a report NASA issued in Aerospace Medicine Magazine in 1965 and 1969. The report was written prior to the first Apollo mission to the moon.

NASA announced that a simple aluminum skin on the command module was enough to protect astronauts from lethal doses of radiation. This conclusion was based on studies NASA had conducted. Now NASA had ingeniously solved their two basic problems, protection and weight. They had eliminated the danger of radiation penetration, along with the problem of radiation shielding and spacecraft weight. We telephoned North American Rockwell, the builder of the Command Module which carried the astronauts to the moon and back. They verified that the craft was not protected by any additional shielding.

It was at this point in our research that we realized the Van Allen Report had been seriously compromised by NASA. Professor Van Allen had become an icon in the scientific community for warning of radiation dangers. One of his most important tenets was that even if you raced quickly through the 65,000 mile belt, which starts 400 miles above the earth's surface (thus allowing for inner space travel) you would still need considerable additional shielding. Were his findings now bogus? We had to speak to Van Allen.

Professor James A. Van Allen now 83, is Professor Emeritus in Geophysics at the University of Iowa. Our first question was why he did not speak up after NASA's claims and defend his original findings. Astonishingly, he told us that his seminal Scientific American article
in 1959 was merely "popular science."

"Are you refuting your findings?" we asked.

"Absolutely not," he answered, "I stand by them." In the next breath, Van Allen again acquiesced to NASA's point of view. He became positively mercurial in his answers. Basically he defended NASA's position that any material, even aluminum without shielding, was adequate to protect the astronauts from the radiation he once called deadly. When we asked him the point of his original warning about rushing through the Belt, he said, "It must have been a sloppy statement." So there we were, down the rabbit hole, chasing Van Allen through halls of mirrors. Was he taking the line of least resistance to government pressure? Was he trashing his own report in order not to be labeled a whistle blower? Could this renowned scientist actually be capable of a "sloppy statement" and blatant hyperbole published in a scientific journal?

If you don't believe we went to the moon, then you will say that NASA created the perfect cover story. It allowed them to continue receiving funding for a spacecraft they could not build, to enter a region of space they could not penetrate. If you believe we went to the moon, then you have to disregard Van Allen's years of research and published findings. You would also have to believe that aluminum, and not lead, is adequate protection against radiation in the very heart of the Belt. . .exactly the spot where Apollo rocket ships entered from Cape Canaveral in Florida.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It kind of looks like James Van Allen started working for NASA after he'd done those studies and he changed his stand so that it would agree with the official NASA version of space radiation.

 

No, it looks like as he got more information he was able to register a more informed position. Only a complete ignoramus would assume the very first data told the entire story. In addition to the fact that their trajectory took them around the thickest parts of the belts, then there is the fact that polyethylene was also used as shielding. The article lies about the path AND the shielding. Badly researched or deliberate mistruths because of a hoaxie bias? Probably a little of both.

 

Hey bot. Your objectivity tests are rigged and if you weren't a bot you'd know I've answered you multiple times before. But anything to distract from the facts that destroyed your previous post, right? Prove you're not a bot. Bet you won't.

 

real translation: I've answered you before multiple times and it isn't worth it playing your games when you can't be arsed to remember.

The "article" is thinly veiled biased hoaxie trash. It has no actual research and a conclusion based on their feelings rather than facts, much like everything your bot software writes.

That is what the data shows. Their orbital data shows it. The observations of them leaving Earth orbit shows it and the tracking data shows it. You'd know that if you did actual research but we all know that as a bot you are incapable of anything beyond copy/paste.

Translation: bot software has no data. Does not computer. Unable to actually research. Must make accusations instead of research.

Thanks for proving once again you're nothing but a bot. Not even a single attempt to deny it. They really should program you better.

 

Because the Apollo missions are a hard act to follow..
40 years ago the notion of putting men on the moon was a thrilling idea, and after the fantastic objective was achieved, public interest in future moon landings dropped off sharply, especially as it was hugely expensive and also risky for the astronauts.
Maybe if there was gold, silver or diamonds on the moon to make it worthwhile, NASA would go back.

PS- Regarding the "Moon landings were faked" consp-theory, I don't subscribe to it because I just cannot believe the astronauts would lie to us.

 

If they were faked, you'd think they would fake landings on Mars and other planets as well.

 

Yes, In '69 the politicians and NASA were sweating and fretting trying to meet Kennedy's pledge to put men on the moon before 1970, so they'd have been sorely tempted to fake it rather than lose face in the eyes of the world, especially Russia, but nowadays there's no space race and therefore no pressure to fake anything, and anyway today's generation would probably be totally against spending billions to put men on other planets..

 

Why do we want to go to the moon again? Been there five times already... so that is not "once".

- - - Updated - - -

Russia would have exposed any fake landing and scientists all over the world confirm that we went to the moon and brought back evidence.

 

It boggles the mind that some people are so stupid as to think the Apollo Manned Lunar Landings were a hoax.

It would be harder to create such a hoax than land on the moon!! LOL!!!

AA

 

What's your opinion of the info that I linked to in post #234?

 

No opinion just fact.

It is worthless garbage.

The moon landings were not faked and that is irrefutable. You have never presented any evidence of any sort whatsoever

 

[video=youtube;Tv6m4gowIIQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv6m4gowIIQ[/video]

 

How about some real science?

[video=youtube;8AWemWrsZn4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AWemWrsZn4[/video]