It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Were we kicked off the moon?

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 05:47 PM
Has anyone thought about WHY the aliens would possible want to be on the moon? there are so many other planets its pointless to say they're hiding out on the backside of the moon.

posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 06:21 PM
Purely a speculative reply. Assuming that "they" are there.

Perfect observation point I guess.

posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 06:46 PM

Originally posted by defcon5

Enlighten me, because I just don’t see them…
No conspiracy, just plain old bottomline…

Defcon, thanks for info. Extremely valid post.

However just to keep in line the "vision for Space" shouldn't we be getting the ball well and truly rolling?

If there is nothing there worthwhile why the new budget?

Again thanks for that info too - those figures blew me away considering $billions back then would be like a Dr Evil ransom.

posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 06:50 PM

Originally posted by JoeHead
Has anyone thought about WHY the aliens would possible want to be on the moon? there are so many other planets its pointless to say they're hiding out on the backside of the moon.

But its a great hiding spot for spying isnt it......

posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 07:03 PM
Yes, it does make one think, why have we not gone back to the moon. It does not make sense that we would not want expand on the moon and mine it's resources. Also, considering that so many astronauts have tesitifed to seeing UFO's/ET's on the moon, it would certainly explain it.

In keeping with my current research into Ancient Indian culture, it says in the vedic texts, that the moon is inhabited by advanced intelligent beings, and has vegetation and structures on it. It is called a "higher planet" A swami and Sankrit scholar, known as Srila Pradhpa, the highest authority of the International Hare Krishna movement, was vehemently against NASA claims that it went to the moon. He said "they did not go to the moon, they are hoaxing it"

He further says "even if they did go to the moon, then they would not be allowed to stay there by the moon beings" He also talks about N-theory saying that in the higher dimension the Moon is a flourishing planet. I personally think he is just being fundamentalist.

However, It looks like he could be right.

posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 10:11 PM
Here we go again. Mine the moon, eh. Well look at these statistics:

Weight capacity of the shuttle to orbit (cannot find the landing weight but am sure it is less):

Originally from
Technical data
· Space Shuttle stack height: 56.14 m (184.2 ft)
· Orbiter alone: 37.23 m (122.17 ft) long
· Wingspan: 23.79 m (78.06 ft)
· Mass at liftoff: 2,041,000 kg (4.5 million lb)
. ET 751,000 kg
. SRB 2 x 590,000 = 1,180,000 kg
· Thrust at lift-off 34.8 MN:
. SSMEs 3 x 1.8 = 5.4 MN
. SSRBs 2 x 14.7 = 29.4 MN
· Mass at end of mission: 104,000 kg (230,000 lb)
· Maximum cargo to orbit: 28,800 kg (63,500 lb)
· Orbit: 185 to 643 km (115 to 400 statute miles)
· Velocity: 27,875 km/h (7.7 km/s, 17,321 mi/h)
· Passenger Capacity: 10 Astronauts (crews other than 5 to 7 are uncommon, 8 was largest crew)

Now the Cost:

Originally from
While the shuttle has been a reasonably successful launch vehicle, it has been unable to meet its goal of radically reducing flight launch costs, as each flight costs on the order of $500 million rather than initial projections of $10 to $20 million.

So it costs NASA $500,000,000.00 to move around 63,500 lb of cargo, right, now lets compare that with the weight capacity of a single coal car on a freight train:

Originally by
BethGon II Coal Gondolas for NIPSCO
General Dimensions (Approximate)

Overall length over coupler pulling faces 53' 1"
Truck centers 40' 6"
Length, inside 47' 9 1/8"
Width, extreme 10' 7 13/32"
Height, rail to top of side 12' 8 1/2"
Cubic capacity 4,520 Cu. Ft.
Light weight 41,700 Lbs.
Load limit 244,300 Lbs.
Gross rail load 286,000 Lbs.

To carry 3.8 times less material then a single railroad car, it costs NASA $500 Million dollars, what do you expect them to be mining on the moon, pure diamonds?

And again, how do they get it off the surface of the moon to begin with?

posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 11:36 PM

To carry 3.8 times less material then a single railroad car, it costs NASA $500 Million dollars, what do you expect them to be mining on the moon, pure diamonds?


Small quantities of helium-3 previously discovered on Earth intrigued the scientific community. The unique atomic structure of helium-3 promised to make it possible to use it as fuel for nuclear fusion, the process that powers the sun, to generate vast amounts of electrical power without creating the troublesome radioactive byproducts produced in conventional nuclear reactors. Extracting helium-3 from the moon and returning it to Earth would, of course, be difficult, but the potential rewards would be staggering for those who embarked upon this venture. Helium-3 could help free the United States--and the world--from dependence on fossil fuels.

That vision seemed impossibly distant during the decades in which manned space exploration languished. Yes, Americans and others made repeated trips into Earth orbit, but humanity seemed content to send only robots into the vastness beyond.

There is a brilliant incentive. However, why in more than 40 years, has it not been pursued?

[edit on 27-1-2005 by Indigo_Child]

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 01:06 AM

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 01:55 AM
I saw a couple of people who believe that Americans and NASA never landed on the moon. Well is it not true to become a Astronaut you need some pretty high qualifications? Many of them are Engineers, Scientists, they have Ph. Ds they are very dedicated to their craft. Do you think they would all embark on some half baked fake moon landing? You have to be out of your gore to think these respected, dedicated, proud and honorable members of American history are lying?

Armstrong a fraud? Buzz Aldrin a fraud? Fo paw on you Americans, some of you aren't even respectful or intelligent enough to realize heroism when they hear it. Well don't change your opinions now, believe what you believe, that all these professionals with qualifications and credentials that make your head spin are frauds?

Please if you have any sense of self and righteous patriotic dignity you have to realize that the people involved in making the Apollo missions and moon landing happen are the true achievement. The NASA establishment is the true achievement and mankind to second that, with the greatest feat of human history.

For shame on you unpatriotic Americans who doubt your own heroic and honorable Astronauts.

Have you seen Buzz Aldrin knock out a journalist? I have, you know why? Little ungrateful extreme fools who believe there wasn't a landing got a faceful of OLD MAN ASTRONAUT HERO knuckle sandwich ! Why because he questioned Aldrin's greatest achievement of his life and doubted his accomplishment and most importantly, tried to thwart America's and Human kind's accomplishment. And for all you non believers you deserve a cold cocked slap across the broadside of your ignorant faces.

And thats coming from a Canadian who identifies and exemplifies people with such professionalism and academic dedication, such as those great astronauts. They are pioneers and some of you don't give them the respect they obviously deserve.

That conspiracy of not landing on the moon is all hogwash, and I'll remember the people who claim it true, so I can discredit them when the time is right. You know who you are. Your plain wrong this time, sorry.

The evidences supporting the theory have been debunked over and over and over again. Hell we got moon dust and rocks that came from the moon, are those fake too?

That conspiracy is so disinfo, if you arent able to realize that from the second it registers to your brain, then your brain is faulty from the start.

I had to take a stand on this one, I hate seeing niave people get tied into the erroneous theories. Take a look see at someone with a education who this shot this theory up, full of holes.

(Phil's Conclusion of the Moon Landing Hoax case; HB=Hoax Believers)

The utter bilge pumped out in this program goes on and on, and indeed, if you go to the HBs websites you can read more than any brain can handle. I have read literally dozens of things that ``prove'' the landings were faked, and each one is rather easily shown to be wrong by anyone with experience in such things. I think the problem here is twofold: we tend to want to believe (or at least listen to) conspiracy theories, and this one is a whopper. Also, the evidence is presented in such a way that, if you are unfamiliar with the odd nature of the vacuum of space and of space travel, it sounds reasonable.

But it isn't reasonable. Their evidence is actually as tenuous as the vacuum of space itself. I find it amazing that they are so willing to scrutinize every available frame of data from the astronauts, yet miss the most obvious thing right in front of them. Fox television and the producers of this program should be ashamed of themselves. Even worse, the Fox Family Channel broadcast a show just last year that was skeptical and even handed about the Moon Hoax! Amazingly, Mitch Pileggi hosted that program as well.

I'll end this on one more bit the HBs don't talk about. When Jim Lovell, two time Apollo astronaut and commander of the ill-fated Apollo 13 mission, was told about Kaysing's claims, Lovell called him a kook. Kaysing, ever the rational thinker, sued Lovell for slander. Imagine: Kaysing, who says that NASA murdered three men outright and arranged for the murders of others, sued Commander James Lovell for slander! After some time, a judge wisely threw the case out of court.

[edit on 28-1-2005 by lord finesse420]

[edit on 28-1-2005 by lord finesse420]

[edit on 28-1-2005 by lord finesse420]

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 06:46 AM
Reading this thread has reminded of a book I read about 20 years ago. It was called something like "Someone Else Is On Our Moon", I can't remember the author. Anyhoo, this book suggested that there was a lot of visible proof of Alien occupation, and seemed to have some pretty convincing photos of such - for the time, anyway. Has anyone else seen or read it?

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 08:18 AM
Aliens, bases on the moon?

I'm very open minded but this just seems bogus. I think if it were true, this would be somethig that could be proved/disproved much easier than some of the other conspiracies around here. With all the exploration & research in space and with new technologies, surely the moon hasn't been overlooked. What about SETI and their search? Do they happen to "miss" any happenings on the moon? Just seems a bit far fetched in this case.

If there is anything "on" the moon, it's prob "man made". Hey- if I am proved wrong then fine. I have no problems being wrong but I still feel this to be highly unlikely simply for the fact that this would be easier to confirm. I mean we have rovers on mars!!!

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 11:14 AM
There were some questions posed earlier in this thread asking why we should even put resources towards having a presence on the moon.

Well I am in the engineering field, and have had interviews for companies contracted to NASA for various aspects, and if any of you know stuff about space travel, you'll be able to agree that probably the single greatest challenge involved with space travel is achieving escape velocity.

Shuttle flights from earth are expensive in terms of engergy due to the earth's gravity. On the moon, gravity would not be an issue. If we could establish a permanent presence on the moon, and over time, develop a moon base to self-sufficiency, the advantages could be endless. If we could get to a point where we are processing the moon's frozen water, and growing our own food, and mining for raw materials. Then we could build shuttle manufactuing facilities, and/or give way to have payloads of ONLY space ship materials instead of food and supplies. We could make trips to mars, or whereever from the moon instead of earth, and save lots of energy (and money of course). Plus, in lieu of this, I am no aerospace engineer, but I assume that propulsion systems designed to take off from the moon could be stream lined a lot better than systems designed to take off from earth, and perhaps improvements could allow for faster travel speeds for missions originating from the moon.

Just wanted to add some comments of my own to this thread!


posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 11:31 AM
there are some really cool moon anomalies images on the link below

EDIT: another good site with more pics

[edit on 28-1-2005 by enrage]

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 11:47 AM

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
There is a brilliant incentive. However, why in more than 40 years, has it not been pursued?

Not because it's occupied or anything like that.
It's because intrest simply isn't high enough to support the cost of such a mission.

While I do believe that we will go to the moon again in our lifetimes, I reallly don't see us ("us" as in NASA - some other country may attempt) going more than once. Regular joes just don't care and I can see a lot of people complaining about their tax dollars being wasted.

Plus, what's the point in going if people won't believe you went in the first place. It's all a conspiricy and ****. Actually, like how the astronaunts of the 60s must find it, it's probably hillarious to come back to earth and have people try to convince you you didn't go, or you're a horrible agent of the government.

[edit on 28-1-2005 by ThatsJustWeird]

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 11:51 AM
defcon5 says:

"Now I would like to hear from someone with an engineering background what it would have cost to have a 2 man base established on the moon. Lets just for fun say that we could strip the area from the bottom lunar Lander bay forward, and did not have to worry about a Lander big enough to get this payload down to the moons surface."

You'd probably need someone with an accounting, logistics, and contract management background to do that, but I can research over the weekend and give you a ROM (rough order of magnitude) figure.

"Off_The_Street, you’re an airspace engineer, is there any chance you could figure this one out."

Naah. I'm a Logistics Engineer in an aerospace environment, but like I said, I could do a bit of research here.

What I will do is to try to come up with a guesstimate for what it would've cost in then-year dollars and then-year technology to have implemented a permanent base in the moon starting in 1972; and then the same approach starting in 2005.

The cost nowadays would be much higher, for several reasons:

(1) Financial. 1970 dollars would buy you a whole bunch more thatn 2005 dollars would; I will have to come up with an inflation multiplier, but I can tell you now it will be ugly indeed.

(2) Logistical. We had a workable infrastructure, with the Saturn V, Agena, and a lot of suppliers in place. What we have now is a high-flying widow-maker airplane that can't get out of LOE.

(3) Human Resources. There were tons of young engineers and aerospace workers in place. Most of those folks are still around, but they're mostly like me: 60 or older.

(4) National Will. We were a lot more rah-rah-rah back then. we lost our national virginity in Vietnam and, despite our imperialist adventures since then, seem to have lost our national will to do much except to vege out in our lives.

In counterpoint, we do have a higher level of whizz-bang technology, but I don't it offsets the very real problems associated with the fact that we threw away all of the really important things when we ran away and hid from the Universe in the early 1970's.

Anyway, I will do some research this weekend, which is a good thing, because I start the first of two stats courses next week and I have a feeling I won't be doing too much playing after that.

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 01:38 PM

Originally posted by instar
If we were kicked off the moon, why can we go to mars with apparent impunity? So much impunity thats its almost welcome, Aliens polishing solar
cells on the rovers etc????

Actually, we can't "go to Mars with apparent impunity". Are you forgetting all the failed Mars missions? Just saying perhaps, here, but what if the missions that 'failed' were headed for areas 'someone' didn't want us to see?

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 02:19 PM

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by instar
If we were kicked off the moon, why can we go to mars with apparent impunity? So much impunity thats its almost welcome, Aliens polishing solar
cells on the rovers etc????

Actually, we can't "go to Mars with apparent impunity". Are you forgetting all the failed Mars missions? Just saying perhaps, here, but what if the missions that 'failed' were headed for areas 'someone' didn't want us to see?

There are so much assumptions we can make.
- Maybe centurion1211 is right and some areas are simply not authorized to be explored.
- Maybe there are no problems "for them" to send rovers and other material on mars, if there are no man aboard.
- Another complex hypothesis is that we may be dealing with different aliens. Maybe humans have been kicked off the moon by some bad aliens, but the ones who are installed on mars are friendlier.
- Or maybe we were kicked off the moon just by our own FEAR, but the extraterrestrials outhere were peaceful.

[edit on 28/1/2005 by Musclor]

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 02:59 PM
And if there really were aliens "pitching tents" and setting up Starbucks on the moon ... how would we NOT know this? Simply because it's on the other side? SETI would have no clue of this? No signals being picked up?

You mean to tell me all our (and other nations) technology can't detect any of this on the moon? Highly unlikely. This is the moon people not Venus (or mars for that matter)

Just thoughts

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 05:04 PM
SETI would pick up signals only if the aliens used radio to communicate.

But what if they use laser pulses, as we are also beginning to do? If they used lasers and pointed them from the far side of the moon into deep space, no one on earth would ever see it.

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 05:58 PM

Originally posted by Musclor
To me there is not a shadow of a doubt that we were kicked out of the moon by aliens. How can you explain the fact that we have not been back to the moon for 30 years without any valable reasons. It's so easy to go on the moon (compared to mars for example), and send people, rovers or other stuffs for study, but nothing is done anymore. It's all seen : we're not welcome outhere.
Considering the fact that extraterrestrials are visiting us, the moon is the perfect "relay" to earth for them. They probably make us understand : "ok we leave you relatively quiet on earth, but moon is for us" or something like that.

We only made like 5-6 sucessful trips up there but left an incredable amount of "junk" lying around, so no wonder we got "sent back to our rooms"

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in