Nasa puts alleged Apollo Moon landing sites off limits

Well, over several years of looking at this conspiracy I am more convinced than ever that Apollo was a gigantic hoax. There are so many questionable things about the moon missions, dozens at least, that it's impossible for me to even consider them as real anymore.

Here's another nail in the coffin- if anyone ever actually gets to the moon they won't be allowed to go to the landing sites, or even fly over them. You heard that right, the landing sites are now a no-fly zone. Allegedly flying over them in a spacecraft would somehow disturb them, even though there's no atmosphere to buffet the ground. Isn't that suspicious. It sounds more like they don't want anyone to find out that we never went there except with robotic landers.

sservi.nasa.gov...

a reply to: CB328

Been discussed before. It's not a law, from the link

The recommendations listed by NASA are intended to apply to U.S. government artifacts on the lunar surface

emphasis mine.

I dont think anyone would breach radiation belt. Its there to do one thing. Stop germs from spreading.

a reply to: CB328

Read your link it explains they don't want small robotic landers disturbing the site with rocket blasts spreading debris around.

If you don't want to believe the landing was real then more power to you, but at least read your own link and apply some common sense.

a reply to: CB328

I'm not doubting we went to the moon.

What gets me is one simple question...

Why if nothing is on the Moon,

Why would you blur or even have the need to Photoshop anything ?

a reply to: CB328

In 2009 an Indian probe filmed Apollo 15 on the moon,so that one happened at least it didn't disturb anything so the explanation by NASA is bs unless your landing on such a site

- If it is real I also would not want any debris covering my reflector mirrors or other scientific machines I placed.;
- If it was a hoax; you know the rest.

if there is nothing there why did they go there 6 times? they brought back 842 pounds of rocks,how many moon rocks do we really need?
after the 2nd trip they would have seen enough to know there is nothing there and they would have had 280 pounds of rocks to play with and study.

And if so someone decided to go, exactly how were going to stop them?
We don't exactly own the Moon.

Sure if they blabbed, there would be sanctions and some loud BS, but the deed would be done.
Can't put the genie back in that bottle.

originally posted by: Caver78
And if so someone decided to go, exactly how were going to stop them?
We don't exactly own the Moon.

But we own the equipment we left there (which can be seen in pictures from the Lunar Orbiter), so if any American firm disturbed them they could be prosecuted.

The footprints alone are international treasures.

Im an Aussie and i can see why they want to preserve these.

Of course they did, I'm only surprised it took them this long.

Never A Straight Answer.

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: CB328

In 2009 an Indian probe filmed Apollo 15 on the moon,so that one happened at least it didn't disturb anything so the explanation by NASA is bs unless your landing on such a site

Source?

originally posted by: Pandaram
I dont think anyone would breach radiation belt. Its there to do one thing. Stop germs from spreading.

But it doesn't work well to stop fungus. Everyone know space fungus killed the dinosaurs.

A wee bit of common is in order. First off, NASA has the Orion programme envisaged at least, that entails a Moon orbiter space station, and a possible moon landing perhaps not from any Orion orbitor but without a caveat that could mean a Moon base however limited. So NASA does have a plan up to the latter part of the 2020's leading to a Mars Mission of some kind. It is pretty grandiose though, and is meant to involve visits to asteroids, which kind of implies a Moon visit.
From Popular Mechanics,
"NASA's key partners the European Space Agency, Roscosmos, JAXA, and the Canadian Space Agency."
www.popularmechanics.com...
The language is a bit flowery from that source, but you'll get the drift as to how sensible or realistic it is or isn't.

Anyway, I do think that the OP's link is a bit vague, especially in regard to Apollo 11 which is a fairly small space, (though it doesn't seem to mention about flying over them), so perhaps on the surface you might not need to be so far away as to be able to observe that site without making much of a disturbance.

originally posted by: D8Tee
Source?

Indian Probe Takes Clear Photo of Apollo 15...

a reply to: CB328

I believe they really went to the moon. But I think they have something to hide.

www.evawaseerst.be...

originally posted by: CB328
Allegedly flying over them in a spacecraft would somehow disturb them, even though there's no atmosphere to buffet the ground. Isn't that suspicious.

Not particularly, the engine exhaust will cause irreparable damage.

originally posted by: Pandaram
I dont think anyone would breach radiation belt. Its there to do one thing. Stop germs from spreading.

It doesn't have a purpose, it's an interaction between charged particles and the magnetic field lines of the Earth.

originally posted by: whyamIhere
Why if nothing is on the Moon,

Why would you blur or even have the need to Photoshop anything ?

What do you think is blurred?