Why has NASA never gone back to the moon?

It's very difficult to keep up with which side of the fence some of you land on. There seems to be a belief among some of you guys that aerospace industry is a simple operation and you don't need any training to understand it fully. Thousands of men (and women) worked very hard during the 60's to achieve something as monumental as the moon landings and now we're sitting here almost 40 years later claiming it was impossible.

Every conceivable reason has been given for why it couldn't have happened. All of those reasons have been debunked. Somebody will come up with some "new" reason and throw it out there, and it will get debunked too. There are tens of thousands of pages of documents and photographs that are publicly available for you to examine on the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions. Why is it that all of THOSE documents are fakes and forgeries, but some obscure page from an even more obscure document with no provenance is given the weight of gospel truth?

If you seriously believe that the Apollo moon landings were faked, then you really need to get yourself educated. The proof is readily available and doesn't even require an FOIA form. So many technical advancements we enjoy daily are the result of manned space exploration. To deny that these events ever happened is like claiming that the coca-cola was never put into the bottle that you're drinking from.

Here's a great resource to get you started.

Here's the jist of the debunking, in case you don't want to read about it:

1. Radiation. The Van Allen belts are most commonly thrown out there as the "death zone" for astronauts. It's true that you could experience enough radiation in the Van Allen belts to kill you, but the translunar trajectory was designed for each mission to avoid them as much as possible. That means the astronauts may have been exposed to some intense radiation, but it would have been for a very brief time. NASA engineers studied this problem and their solution was simply to bypass as much of the belts as possible to limit the time they were exposed. This is not unlike what happens when you get an X-Ray: the radiation is intense but short in duration. Ever felt sick after an X-ray?

2. Photographs. This goes into many areas, but among the biggest claims is that the shadows are not parallel indicating multiple light sources. Prove this to yourself...Take two flashlights and shine them on a couple of things. Do you see non-parallel shadows or do you see two objects with two shadows each? Thought so.

Another photographic claim involves the temperature on the moon's surface rendering film unusable. This is false because the temperature of the actual camera body and its interior was regulated by making it more reflective. With no atmosphere to conduct the heat to the camera's surface, only radiative heat would have been a factor. This same principle applies to the astronauts themselves. In fact, the passive temperature control system for the entire Apollo craft involved reflecting solar radiation with a shiny surface.

3. Flags and apparent gravity. People have been claiming forever that the flag planting during Apollo 11 was an obvious fake because the flag can be seen waving. Has anybody actually watched it? The flag has a rod on top to hold it out rather than letting it hang limp. It had been stowed for many days (at least), so it had some wrinkles in it. It wiggles as they're trying to get it in the ground. It also stops moving almost immediate after they let go of it. Even their movement around it doesn't cause it to move unless they bump into it. This is the silliest of all the "proof" there is.

The claims that the gravity is wrong during the films is hardly realistic. It's been demonstrated plenty of times that the notion that slowing down a film makes it appear to be in a different gravity environment is bunk. It might seem realistic in a short clip of an astronaut walking, but most of the time they just look like they're bouncing around faster if you speed it up.

4. Atmosphere. Notice that there's no place on any of the Apollo films, even the ones with the rover, where you see the dust from the moon's surface move in any way except a ballistic trajectory right back to the surface. It doesn't billow, it doesn't stick in the "air," it doesn't do anything except fly as far as the energy imparted to it requires before it settles on the ground.

There are a ton of claims that can be debunked with a little research into the actual science behind them. It's not enough to just think that something is or isn't right. The moon missions are a great achievement for all mankind, not just Americans. The continuous antics of those who want to profit off of screaming hoax is disgraceful. I would pay to see a no-holds-barred match with Buzz Aldrin and Bart Sibrel. Throw in an undercard of Gene Cernin and Dave Percy and you've got yourself a pay-per-view phenomenon!

Here is an interesting video for those of you that believe in Bart Sibrel

Bart Exposed

[edit on 30-6-2008 by no_pulse]

Originally posted by StudioGuy
they're bouncing around faster if you speed it up

Where can I see footage like that? I have never come across it. Never once saw footage that when carefully examined it looks real, often it looks fake, in movement and the shadowing.

There are a ton of claims that can be debunked

I have yet to see several credible points raised debunked. I've watched many videos in which the government has trouble even addressing some of these claims. Some of their best answers are "it is right there on the tape, just look, it is real".

Kind of like the JFK assasination, where you watch his head blown off in one video, and people running and screaming and pointing in another that is not in the direction the government claims he was shot at.

"Believe what we tell you, not what you see with your own eyes" has become their motto.

I'd love to be proven wrong about the moon landing, FACT is I haven't. This is in no way a closed case.

Which side am I on? The side who strives for the truth, good or bad, truth that either coinsides with or crushes my beliefs. All I want it truth.

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage


I wouldn't normally post a youtube video as evidence of anything, but since you specifically said you'd never seen anyone breakdown the speed that way...

Leapin' Luna


I'd hardly say the moon landings are in the same category as the JFK assassination. I don't know anybody who will debunk the hoax theories that asks you to simply believe what they say. The information is right there in front of you. The catch is that it might take expertise beyond a cursory understanding of what's around you to see the evidence and know it's real. That's not condescension, it's reality.

If you care to see some good analysis of the data from Apollo, check out Clavius. Heady technical data is a bit of a pain for most hoax believers, but the truth is in the data. If it's truth you're after...





[edit on 1-7-2008 by StudioGuy]

[edit on 1-7-2008 by StudioGuy]

reply to post by StudioGuy



I see no evidence that we went to the moon, I see a nearly five minute video trying to argue that the tapes were not put into slow motion. That the movements made by the men were not faked due to slow motion. This does not mean that A) one little youtube video is correct on the front or B) that it was not faked some other way. People far more intelligent than I and in such fields have cliamed the footage, especially the shadowing is off. Possibly not fake, but definitely in need of scrutiny.


As for the web link you gave me, I've been there before. Thing is there are several websites on either side of the debate. Neither has conclusively addressed all the issues correctly. It is all very one sided and hostile for the most part, the rest is rather vague. As for data I know nothing about data, only what those who do understand it can tell me, and there are people of both sides of this issue with that skill who either believe or do not believe in the landing. How this proves or disproves anything I can not debate, for I know nothing about such data.

As for JFK they are not comparable in context, but two good examples of the government lying to it's people for reasons unknown.

As for JFK they are not comparable in context, but two good examples of the government lying to it's people for reasons unknown.

So you're approaching the moon landings with the assumption that the government is lying to you? Based on what?

JFK, yeah, there's something that smells very fishy about all of that, no doubt. But the moon landings were documented about as much as any event in human history. There are reams of data and thousands of photographs of the event in progress. The video I linked to was an example of the sped up video to compensate for the alleged "slow-mo fakery" that hoax believers claim caused the low gravity properties of the film. It's a simple equation that if you slow it down by a factor to make it appear to be in lower gravity, then speeding it up by the same factor should return it to its originally recorded speed. That video shows a fairly conclusive example where playing the video at an increased rate makes their movement seem unnatural. That was by no means a scientific examination, but neither are most of the hoax claims.

I'd venture to say that anybody who truly has done more examination than watching a few youtube videos and still believes the moon landings didn't happen may never be convinced of anything. That's a pretty miserable way to go through life. How can you be so sure that's coffee you're drinking? Or tea? Or maybe it's crude oil you're drinking? Perhaps it's Starbucks pumping all the oil and selling it to us as espresso that's causing the gas prices to rise? How long will it be until we measure our gas tanks in venti's? A prius probably only gets about 10 miles per venti!

All kidding aside, if you consider evidence from both sides to be equal, then you eventually have to consider the source. Thousands upon thousands of people who are educated in aerospace engineering and make their livings developing spaceflight technology still use data from Apollo in their work. If nothing else, consider that the continuing success of our space efforts is a pretty reasonable testimony to the validity of those missions. So on one hand you have people who are experts in the technology of Apollo and apply the data acquired to their daily work. On the other hand you have guys who are trying to sell you a DVD or a book that feeds into your skepticism of your government.

Originally posted by StudioGuy
There are reams of data and thousands of photographs of the event in progress.

Yeah except they lost ALL the Apollo 11 videos... but in USA AND the UK copies

But all that aside... my BIGGEST issue with the Apollo photos is the smooth rounded hills in the back ground... All the Lunar orbiter shots show jagged rough peaks Apollo shows soft rounded peaks...

Since yawl claim there is no atmosphere to erode them... and the dust storms that NASA describes do not appear strong enough to erode them... then how did they get from rough and jagged in LO pics to smooth and round in Apollo only a few years later?

reply to post by StudioGuy

Based on what?

I have several questions that can not be answered and that are often dismissed, mostly; conflicting facts that have no reason to conflict, unless the government is being deceiving, as usual.

But the moon landings were documented about as much as any event in human history. There are reams of data and thousands of photographs of the event in progress.

All of which that have had things come into question. I can not debate on those photos or data because I am no expert, but when I see something in them that just isn’t right and have someone who knows what to look for validate that suspicion questions arise that need to be answered. Some of my questions are just incapable of being answered, many with a slew of BS. BS that is familiar with the governments logic and way of deceiving.

That video shows a fairly conclusive example where playing the video at an increased rate makes their movement seem unnatural

So that makes the videos when it appears they are doing completely ordinary movements with the help of strings and their driving on the moon videos that look completely ordinary well played at different speeds, examined by experts, completely unwarranted of attention or belief? That one youtube video with a few seconds of tape being played does all that? Sorry if I’m still a doubter, I didn’t find it THAT monumental.

All kidding aside, if you consider evidence from both sides to be equal, then you eventually have to consider the source.

As several freedom of information acts have proven to me, the government can be a pretty crappy source, purposefully.

On the other hand you have guys who are trying to sell you a DVD or a book that feeds into your skepticism of your government.

You can’t group everyone who disbelieves the moon landing together, that would be like assuming all conspiracy theorist are nuts. There are plenty of intelligent, educated people who do not believe the landing took place; you are only validated by experts on your side of the debate because that is the side your feet are firmly planted at.

I don’t find this surprising considering your total disregard for the other side of this debate, according to what you find satisfactory. I don’t, this is where our opinions split off and go their separate ways.

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
As several freedom of information acts have proven to me, the government can be a pretty crappy source, purposefully.

On that I have gotten several FOIA documents where the Black Ink sections are so bad there is nothing left to read... if there was nothing going on... why all the black ink on key sections?

What use is the FOIA if they can
A) Decide it is still classified thus exempt from FOIS
B) Black out ANY sensitive details
C) Stall you for months even years on getting documents that are already declassified... hoping you will give up
D) Tell you they have it and you can have it but they will only photocopy 20 pages... "if you want the rest of that 380 page report on the Moon base you will have to come to our office and you can copy it for free"



BTW anyone live in Huntsville Alabama? I have a few bucks....

We went to the moon, people. A very big, and very real rocket blasted off and took 3 American astronauts to the moon. Two of them actually walked on the surface. After that, they returned to Earth.

If it was all a hoax, all an attempt to convince the world that we beat the Soviets to the moon, then why didn't the Soviets expose it as a hoax? The extent to which the Soviets had infiltrated the American intelligence community is well documented. Faking a moon landing would definitely fall within that realm. Yet the Soviets, America's arch nemesis and sworn enemy for life, said nothing. They did nothing.

Do people actually think that the possibility of America faking the moon landing never crossed the Soviets minds? Not once? Of course it did. I'm sure they looked into it. I'm also sure that they didn't find any credible evidence that would convince them that it was all a hoax. Because if they did, they would've shouted it from the mountain. They would've submitted their evidence for international scrutiny. The moon race wasn't just a technological race. It was ideological, as well. The winner would not only be superior technologically but, by association, ideologically as well. What better way to prove the supposed fallacy of democracy by exposing its greatest practitioner as a fraud? Not only that, but also exposing that practitioner's claim to Mankind's greatest achievement as a hoax?

The Soviets would never have passed that up. They never would've said, "Meh...we'll get 'em next time." The implications of America faking the moon landing, and have it being exposed as such, are so disastrous for the country that no government agency, in any country at any time in history, would've had the guts to attempt it. It would be a lie of such magnitude, that the truth of it would crush an entire government and an entire political ideology - especially considering the fact that your arch enemy is looking over your shoulder waiting for you to try and pull something like that.

Originally posted by DarthChrisious
then why didn't the Soviets expose it as a hoax?

I think you are vastly overrating the Soviets power. For several years they boasted to their people about knowledge, power, and science they didn’t freaking have. I’m not saying anything else you said and or speculated about was irrelevant or not correct. I just don’t see how that single argument snuffs out the possibility of the landing being a hoax.

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage


I don't expect it to snuff it out. It's just my point of view. This is an argument that has taken on a life of its own. It's probably safe to say that people will still be debating this 200 years from now.

Originally posted by StudioGuy

1. Radiation.

I am having trouble getting REAL HARD data on the actual amount of radiation that IS there...

I have a NASA document from 1964 that was a GE contractor final report on electromagnetic shielding of space craft to protect from plasma and harmful radiation

I have a 380 page report from NASA detailing the tether incident with what went wrong, complete power readings on the tether and in that they also mention the ISS has shielding though they did not go into detail (one point made heavily was the plasma discharge that can occur when the shuttle approaches the ISS... Both are metal objects 'dragging' through the ionosphere at high speed... Imagine sliding over a carpet and touching a door knob amplified MANY times hence the shielding concepts

So before we can rule out that the Van Allen Belt is safe or not... or what layers of protection you really need or what level of protection you need on the Moon exposed to the fill blast of solar and cosmic rays...

We need the real facts... and so far I have so many different values its unbelievable that they are all working together

2. Photographs.

I agree with you on the shadows... 2 lights 2 shadows...

My problems are...

The size of the reflected Sun in the visors... it SHOULD be the same as in open space it is not

The amount of clear detail on things that have the sun BEHIND them... skeptics say the Lunar surface refection accounts for this... but it is SELECTIVE If the surface reflection provided the filler light it would do so equally...it does not

The hills in the background are way to smooth.. but I will get to that in a new thread... even a few skeptics have noticed that If there is no air there is no erosion... impact would not make them so smooth

The lack of stars bothers me.. BECAUSE NASA shows me what the sky on Earth would look like with no atmosphere...

Also you can see Jupiter and Venus in the daytime sky on Earth so this "moon surface is too bright doesn't wash especially if there is NO ATMOSPHERE then the lunar reflection would not be a problem if you pointed the camera up into space away from the Sun.The description of the astronauts on the ISS say how wonderfully bright the stars are... a FEW would be visible in the images... there are NONE

Well the Apollo 11 astronauts couldn't remember seeing any

:shk:

Another photographic claim involves the temperature on the moon's surface rendering film unusable. This is false because the temperature of the actual camera body and its interior was regulated by making it more reflective. With no atmosphere to conduct the heat to the camera's surface, only radiative heat would have been a factor.

So your saying they made the camera more reflective to keep them cool but you ever tried using cold film? It gets very brittle ... so when not in the sun it would get very cold very quickly... if there is no atmosphere

3. Flags and apparent gravity. People have been claiming forever that the flag planting during Apollo 11 was an obvious fake because the flag can be seen waving. Has anybody actually watched it? The flag has a rod on top to hold it out rather than letting it hang limp. It had been stowed for many days (at least), so it had some wrinkles in it. It wiggles as they're trying to get it in the ground. It also stops moving almost immediate after they let go of it. Even their movement around it doesn't cause it to move unless they bump into it. This is the silliest of all the "proof" there is.

Well there is one video where the flag is stationary and the astronaut passes it at a fair distance and does not bump it and IT MOVES... also the flag is STARCHED so it maintains a 'wave look'

If you watch closely when they unpack it the wrinkles remain the same through all the shaking... even in a vacuum a piece of cloth when manhandled will move... it does NOT stay in the same format..

Yes I have actually watched it closely have you?

The claims that the gravity is wrong during the films is hardly realistic. It's been demonstrated plenty of times that the notion that slowing down a film makes it appear to be in a different gravity environment is bunk. It might seem realistic in a short clip of an astronaut walking, but most of the time they just look like they're bouncing around faster if you speed it up.

Well back in the day they showed us in training films how we could operate in 1/6th G WITH the suits on... It was all over the daily TV... those clips are all but lost now... I have only found ONE... what I see in the videos as is... they appear to be correct... for 1/2 G... which would be about right using von Braun's neutral point figure that was also recorded on the Apollo 8 space craft

I would like to find an unbiased expert who could time the fall of the hammer and feather and calculate the gravity from that image I mean we know the height it was dropped from so it should be easy...

4. Atmosphere. Notice that there's no place on any of the Apollo films, even the ones with the rover, where you see the dust from the moon's surface move in any way except a ballistic trajectory right back to the surface. It doesn't billow, it doesn't stick in the "air," it doesn't do anything except fly as far as the energy imparted to it requires before it settles on the ground.

There is NO QUESTION that there is an atmosphere on the Moon... the only question is HOW MUCH NASA has data sheets on the composition so do other sources

There is no question that there are clouds and dust storm on the Moon Astronomers have seen them for hundreds of years.. NASA has tracked reports since 1546... and now NASA has come out and said so... in fact the storms may be so bad they can cause settlers a problem (maybe building an excuse for later" ? )

NASA has withheld the dust clouds and storms for DECADES... they knew about them from Surveyor... surveyor took photos of lunar sunset rays... rays that can ONLY be formed by dust particles in the air...

Apollo astronauts supposedly saw them because NASA released sketches they made quite impressive.. but why in hell did they not just point the camera at them? NASA calls the "Moon Fountains"

There are a ton of claims that can be debunked with a little research into the actual science behind them. It's not enough to just think that something is or isn't right.

And there are a ton of things that skeptics claim as gospel that with a little research even at NASA can show you the reality. But then skeptics very rarely ever LOOK because they are so sure that they are right... and even when NASA sends out the info in a weekly newsletter telling you about dust storms and lights on the moon are REAL... skeptics still continue the same old story line...

Can't have it both ways my friend... If you want any of the links for any of this just ask... I have already posted it in many threads

I would pay to see a no-holds-barred match with Buzz Aldrin and Bart Sibrel.

Don't hold your breath...

Buzz is right in the thick of it and always has been... Buzz is partners in a firm working on anti gravity with the CHINESE using Ning Li's work (who has disappeared)

Buzz spoke in an interview that the Chinese will be going back to the Moon and that people on the Moon will speak Chinese...

Buzz is the owner of the company that has the Aquila. Starcraft boosters traces launches back to 1962

No Buzz won't be 'debunking' anything anytime soon... He is also closely tied in with Bigelow

But enough for now.... I only took the time because you asked nicely



OH and just to clear things up...

It is my belief that

...we had a base on the Farside of the Moon by 1962..
...that Apollo was a coverup when Kennedy forced their hand..

I used to believe that they went... just faked the pictures because of what is really going on up there, but lately I have been rethinking that based on what I am finding...


[edit on 1-7-2008 by zorgon]

As to the Russian... I have a feeling that they were and are a bigger player than they get credit for... their current space program and assembly line with hundreds of Progress robot ships is just the tip of the iceberg

Does this look backwards to you?



The Russians don't waste time on expensive pretties... its more utilitarian ... like that old space pen story... NASA spends millions making a pen to write in space... the Russians take a pencil

Yeah I know it was an urban myth... but the principal isn't

But I always wondered why the NASA logo on an Energia Mars rocket?




And Energia is partners with Boeing on Sea Launch... the only countdown in the world in both Russian and English.

Remember THIS one?



Well I was doing a little recon over Russia a while back and spotted THIS

They never been back to the moon because they are occupy with building bases on Mars. Plus, they probably have a secret moon program and don't want the other countries to know, so they don't say anything. Why else do u think they keep going back to space? To drink some beer?

Dan Bursh talks a little about Mars. projectcamelot.org...

[edit on 2-7-2008 by amfirst]

reply to post by StudioGuy


I recently did some research into the earth's electromagnetic field for a different thread. If you are referring to earth's radiation when you are talking about van allen belts, the bulk of earth's magnetosphere doesn't even reach but maybe half the distance to the moon at it's furthest point. The solar wind pushes it back away from the sun anyway. Not necessarily toward the moon unless the moon would happen to be directly behind it.

And even then the moon would be too far away to be directly affected by earth's magnetic field (although the tail of the magnetopause could possibly have some effect since the length of the tail is always changing. But it would be extremely unlikely). IF anything involving radiation were to be a human health factor, it would be in the form of cosmic rays/solar wind. And the moon's magnetic field is so weak it's not really much of a factor. Even if the moon has an atmosphere (which some claim) it is so weak it wouldn't be able to deflect the solar wind/cosmic radiation enough to keep it from being a health hazard to humans.

But I get your point..

en.wikipedia.org...

The large outer radiation belt extends from an altitude of about (3 to 10 Earth radii) above the Earth's surface, and its greatest intensity is usually around 4-5 RE.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Moon has an external magnetic field of the order of one to a hundred nanotesla—less than one hundredth that of the Earth, which is 30-60 microtesla. Other major differences are that the Moon does not currently have a dipolar magnetic field (as would be generated by a geodynamo in its core), and the magnetizations that are present are almost entirely crustal in origin.[31] One hypothesis holds that the crustal magnetizations were acquired early in lunar history when a geodynamo was still operating. The small size of the lunar core, however, is a potential obstacle to this theory. Alternatively, it is possible that on an airless body such as the Moon, transient magnetic fields could be generated during large impact events. In support of this, it has been noted that the largest crustal magnetizations appear to be located near the antipodes of the giant impact basins. It has been proposed that such a phenomenon could result from the free expansion of an impact generated plasma cloud around the Moon in the presence of an ambient magnetic field.[32]

From same link..

The average centre-to-centre distance from the Earth to the Moon is 384,403 km, about thirty times the diameter of the Earth

So..The van allen belts themselves don't reach out far enough to be a factor to humans on the moon. But the magnetopause tail could potentially be a factor if the moon and earth were perfectly aligned somehow (which, like I said, would probably be extremely unlikely).

en.wikipedia.org...

The boundary of the magnetosphere ("magnetopause") is roughly bullet shaped, about 15 RE abreast of Earth and on the night side (in the "magnetotail" or "geotail") approaching a cylinder with a radius 20-25 RE. The tail region stretches well past 200 RE, and the way it ends is not well-known.

-ChriS


[edit on 2-7-2008 by BlasteR]

[edit on 2-7-2008 by BlasteR]

Because they never went there in the first place, because it used to be impossible.

Now, countries are working on projects to assemble proper spacecraft in space, in orbit, which utilise proper anti-radiation protection, to go to the moon. They will use the ISS as a launching pad.

There is no way to go from the Earth to the Moon in one go, with one spacecraft, the only way to do it is to assemble the spacecraft in space. That is of course, unless you use classified technologies, etc.

Chances are we've been going back to the moon this whole time, just not reporting on it... And now that it's getting opened up Bush is all of sudden interested in going to the moon again... What a joke and he is laughing in our faces... ! So frustrating..

For example...



[edit on 2-7-2008 by ElectricUncleSam]