Why has NASA never gone back to the moon?

page: 20
32
<< 17  18  19   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saint Exupery
reply to post by OatDelphi
 


I was going to reply to your post with a point-by-point rebuttal, but your earlier comment about "Space Shuttles exploding" made me realize the fundamental nature of your argument:

You don't really care about answers, or facts, or learning about space travel, or engineering, or history, or understanding how things were done and why.

You have an axe to grind.

You WANT to believe Apollo was hoaxed.

Why is that?

I would really like to know.
I have an axe to grind. No not really. This thread was started to pose the question "why has NASA not gone back?" I am simply doing that while giving the reason behind my opinion.

And as for the "Space Shuttles exploding" clearly, at least I hope you are able to determine, that the comment in question is directly used against Weedwhacker's ridiculous claim that 99.9% of the world's population beleive NASA went to the moon. Which is flat out false. And yes whether it was the challenger or a bad piece of heat tile , the fact that we haven't gotten space flight right still, even within our own atmosphere, tends to raise questions about what we claim we did 40 years ago.

It seems though many of you are here to solely argue the Apollo missions validity and not the reasons as to why they haven't gone back. So since this is the case, because I am just a moron, care to explain in detail how exactly they survived the radiation with that point-by-point rebuttal.




posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by OatDelphi
 


Wrong....yet again.


.....and the best we get is some film that again some ASU kid has to touchup.


The same photos, as transmitted by the LROC, are available in the original form. ALL that the YouTube video demonstrated is that those originals could be cleaned up. BECAUSE, so many people "complained" about the raw images.

Do you even bother to try to understand what was involved, in that instance???

How old are you...asking, because (not sure if they many do today) but back only about ten years ago, most televisions had, among other things, a "sharpness" control you could adjust. So that you could make the TV image suitable to your tastes.

What was done to the LROC images is no different than that. They were "sharpened"....different process than on your TV, I presume, but for similar reasons.

Even today....do you understand photography? I mean, "old school" photography....NOT the modern version, which is almost entirely digital, nowadays.
.
Do you understand optics...as in lenses for cameras? Back when you wanted, say, 200X magnification, you bought a telephoto lens for your SLR (film) camera. This thing was big, heavy and long...really, had to be long like a telescope is.

Today, on most modern cameras that can "zoom in", they are built with minimal optics that "zoom"...and, after that, they use a process called "digital zoom". Go down ot Best Buy, or a camera store, or look it up online.

IF you take one of those cameras, and look at something with it, and then use the "digital zoom"...what about that is "fake"??? Cameras use software to do that, and to enhance the image....to "sharpen" it, because of limitations of pixel size. MORE you pay for the camera, better quality you get.

Same with a picture AFTER you "take" it....when you manipulate it later, and use software to "zoom" in (used to be called "enlarging" in film days). With film, even THEY have a type of 'pixels'....it is the "grains" in the film...and a film negative that is enlarged too much will begin to get "grainy"...depending on the size of the grains originally.

People who sit behind a keyboard and pontificate on subjects like Apollo "hoaxes" just don't really seem to have real experience, at all....NOR any grasp and understanding of many, many facts of science and other aspects of reality.......

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Here....a simple search for "LRO Apollo sites" brings up plenty of websites, with the basic images I mentioned. I linked those YouTubes because they were so much better!

www.nasa.gov...


edit on 26 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by OatDelphi
 


??????

As i mentioned above....some people simply have NO IDEA what they are talking about, and how to compare things:


....the fact that we haven't gotten space flight right still, even within our own atmosphere, tends to raise questions about what we claim we did 40 years ago.



The "...fact that we haven't gotten space flight right still..."????

Do you realize how ridiculaous that "comparison" is?? In the first place, the spacecraft are TOTALLY different, when speaking of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo hardware....and the Space Shuttle another entire magnitude of different!! ENTIRELY different machine, and different designs, different methods.....only those ignorant of the technological aspects would be unable to grasp the immensity......


IN ANY CASE......your "reasoning" is fundamentally flawed.
Can you not see why, yet? Then, I'll tell you:

By your "analogy", there should NEVER EVER BE AN AIRPLANE CRASH! Because, according to your comparison, since airplanes were invented over 100 years ago, the fact that airplanes still crash, and we (haven't gotten it right" means that, oh....40 years ago, ALL of those alleged airplane flights MUST have also been "faked". Hey, it's your analogy.

Works the same with cars, trucks, railroads, motorcycles, etc.....too.......


BUT, that is the sort of nonsnese that speaks to (and speaks volumes about) the sorts who try to perpetuate the baloney of "faking" Apollo.....

.....BTW, see the article about China?? Seems they (since...well, it's a dictatorship and they don't have to "ask" for funding appropriations) have a plan to land a manned mission on the Moon.......in about ~ten years.

Hey, doesn't that sound familiar????


China plans a manned lunar mission by 2024 that will include a walk on the moon's surface...

www.dailygalaxy.com...


The launch will provide a boost to China’s ambition to emerge as a major space power capable of landing a man on the moon and perhaps one day exploring far beyond.



Chinese have long-term plans for Lunar base


The short-sightness of this, and previous U.S. adminstrations and Congresses??? The consequences are yet to be seen.........



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Did you even read the website you posted???


NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, or LRO, has returned its first imagery of the Apollo moon landing sites. The pictures show the Apollo missions' lunar module descent stages sitting on the moon's surface, as long shadows from a low sun angle make the modules' locations evident.
Shadows... really I am supposed to believe because they imaged some shadows. Hell aren't these the same people who ridicule scientists because they argue there are shadows of glass towers and structures and what not?


Though it had been expected that LRO would be able to resolve the remnants of the Apollo mission, these first images came before the spacecraft reached its final mapping orbit. Future LROC images from these sites will have two to three times greater resolution.
How convenient...guess we just have to keep our hopes up


oh one more thing you might want to check your 2006 china article again... it's a little outdated, (www.guardian.co.uk...)
(www.spacepolitics.com...)

Might it be suggested the sudden change has to do with problems cocerning, overcoming deep space radiation.




edit on 26-1-2011 by OatDelphi because: add on



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



Seriously wtf man? Do you think the russians faked their moon trips as well? And ignorant posters give you stars?
This world is crazy I tell you....


Russia have never landed a manned mission on the moon..
Odd though that sounds...Wonder why.??


If both america and russia could not land astronauts on the moon, would that not confirm there was "odd activity" going on, on the moon..such as alien structures and an alien civilisation? I am not 100% sure any earthly human LANDED on the moon, BUT I am pretty sure both russia and america managed to get at least HIGH ORBIT photos from their trips.

Were the images doctored by nasa aka airbrushed? Yes and this was proven by the photos john lear and zorgon posted to this forumn a few years ago. Remember the outdated LRO photos taken by Malin Space Center, the nasa subcontractor in california, and somehow miraculously discovered at an abandoned mcdonalds?



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
I've always thought they most likely have. Of course it is odd we did this so many years ago and have advancing in space tech so little since then. By advancing I mean what we know about publicly.

I think they have been to the moon countless times by now. Hell for all I know they already have a space station up there...who really knows?
edit on 26-1-2011 by Smell The Roses because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by OatDelphi
I have an axe to grind. No not really. This thread was started to pose the question "why has NASA not gone back?" I am simply doing that while giving the reason behind my opinion.

And as for the "Space Shuttles exploding" clearly, at least I hope you are able to determine, that the comment in question is directly used against Weedwhacker's ridiculous claim that 99.9% of the world's population beleive NASA went to the moon. Which is flat out false. And yes whether it was the challenger or a bad piece of heat tile , the fact that we haven't gotten space flight right still, even within our own atmosphere, tends to raise questions about what we claim we did 40 years ago.

It seems though many of you are here to solely argue the Apollo missions validity and not the reasons as to why they haven't gone back. So since this is the case, because I am just a moron, care to explain in detail how exactly they survived the radiation with that point-by-point rebuttal.


Radiation is a non-issue as far as I am concerned. NASA was probably set up as a public relations outfit so that nasa hardware and nwo ufos could traverse the solar system setting up minning operations and perhaps even alternative 3 bases.

Yes I am making far-out claims, but given the available evidence(for people who can spend hours searching) just because something sounds far fetched does not mean its also illogical. The technology that is available in the public sector versus the technology available to the nwo is light years different and that is why we have think tank companies such as RAND and the national security dictatorship.



Introduction II
The governmental institution known as NASA is a department of the executive branch, ultimately answerable solely to the president of the United States, an agency created through the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958.

Contrary to common belief, it was quietly founded as a direct adjunct to the Department of Defense. It says so in NASA's chapter:

"Sec.305 The [National Aeronautics and Space] administration shall be considered A DEFENSE AGENCY of the United States for the purpose of Chapter 17, Title 35 of the United States code."

Sec. 205 No [NASA] information which has been classified for reasons of national security shall be included in any report made under this section[of the act]. From "DARK MISSION: The Secret History of NASA by Richard Hoageland"




Please watch the video. Its very informative!
edit on 26-1-2011 by EarthCitizen07 because: fixed quote!



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



The same photos, as transmitted by the LROC, are available in the original form. ALL that the YouTube video demonstrated is that those originals could be cleaned up. BECAUSE, so many people "complained" about the raw images.

Do you even bother to try to understand what was involved, in that instance???

How old are you...asking, because (not sure if they many do today) but back only about ten years ago, most televisions had, among other things, a "sharpness" control you could adjust. So that you could make the TV image suitable to your tastes.

What was done to the LROC images is no different than that. They were "sharpened"....different process than on your TV, I presume, but for similar reasons.


Try attacking the information instead of the poster Weed...
Or do I need to redirect you to SO's thread on being civil again!!!

The pics in the video were HEAVILY ENHANCED..
The original LROC images show no trully dicernable objects..
Yes they may be apollo equipment but it's definitly not 100% proof..

So worry less about how old posters are and instead focus on the facts they present..



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


I only mentioned age in reference to television controls of old....that younger generation people are unlikely to be aware of such things, unless they either have an old TV, or are older, and have experience with them. It was for illustration, to show that merely enhancing (sharpening) the LROC images diesn't mean that they are any less factual. Thought my intent was quite clear, as written above.

(There will come a time when people will still say "dial the telephone", and not know, or remember, where that term comes from).


But, the NASA images from the LROC do show the Apollo hardware. Just, in today's computer-game age, and modern films like "Avatar", etc....people have been spoiled by fakery...and they seem to expect reality to look the same. And, when it doesn't? They cry "fake!!"

Ironic.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



But, the NASA images from the LROC do show the Apollo hardware. Just, in today's computer-game age, and modern films like "Avatar", etc....people have been spoiled by fakery...and they seem to expect reality to look the same. And, when it doesn't? They cry "fake!!"


Fine Weed..
Crop and enlarge the "original" pics and show us what you get..

A few pixels is all I saw..
Hardly proof of anything...



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by OatDelphi
I have an axe to grind. No not really.


Yes, really. You credulously swallow old, debunked arguments like flapping flags and multiple light sources without the slightest hesitation, or analysis because they support your desire to see Apollo as a hoax.

You handwave away any evidence for Apollo as inadequate or falsified because they run counter to your beliefs.

You logic... Well, it isn't:


Originally posted by OatDelphi
...the fact that we haven't gotten space flight right still, even within our own atmosphere, tends to raise questions about what we claim we did 40 years ago.


No, it doesn't. Here is video of a B-2 Spirit crashing on Guam in 2008. If the most modern 1.2 billion-dollar bomber can't even take off successfully, then by your "logic", this should "raise questions" about how much-more primitive bombers could have flown long-range combat missions from this very same base 40 years before.

Your argument is ridiculous, but you will cling to it because it supports your desire to see Apollo as a hoax.

You referenced a rather long and poorly-written article about the dangers of solar flares. I noticed that you have no trouble believing references to high radiation levels (you don't even ask how those numbers were derived), but measurments of safer levels from what may be the same sources must somehow be "tainted".

What makes you believe the first set of numbers must indicate the "true threat" and the measured dosages from Apollo must be faked? It's simple. The first set conforms to your desires, and the others do not. You will argue with any explanation that tries to reconcile the difference - not on the merit of any explanation (or even whether you understand it or not), but simply because it might make you call into question your core-belief:

You WANT to believe that Apollo was hoaxed.

Why is that?



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by OatDelphi
 



I need an actaul live, major announced mission, one whos goal is to get difinitive proof.

you will never get a mission designed for that from any space agency becuase its a waste of money. I suppose your best hope is the google lunar x prize.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

I only mentioned age in reference to television controls of old....that younger generation people are unlikely to be aware of such things, unless they either have an old TV, or are older, and have experience with them. It was for illustration, to show that merely enhancing (sharpening) the LROC images diesn't mean that they are any less factual. Thought my intent was quite clear, as written above.

(There will come a time when people will still say "dial the telephone", and not know, or remember, where that term comes from).


Weed, I actually had no problem with what you were saying in this particular argument. I honestly thought that was the least disrepectful and inflammatory post you have had for me. I completely understand the analogy you were trying to make with older uhf style televisions. I don't buy it, but I understand it.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Yes I am making far-out claims, but given the available evidence(for people who can spend hours searching) just because something sounds far fetched does not mean its also illogical. The technology that is available in the public sector versus the technology available to the nwo is light years different and that is why we have think tank companies such as RAND and the national security dictatorship.

I cannot do anything but respect your opinion here. And I would like to admit that the idea of technology being hidden since the Apollo missions has made it's way into my thought process before. Really that is one of my points that I have been trying to get across. Were is the technology???

Also thank you for the video that was very interesting.

reply to post by Saint Exupery
 


Originally posted by Saint Exupery
You handwave away any evidence for Apollo as inadequate or falsified because they run counter to your beliefs.
You WANT to believe that Apollo was hoaxed.
Your argument is ridiculous, but you will cling to it because it supports your desire to see Apollo as a hoax.
Why is that?



You keep going with this "you have an agenda" crap. And your right I do have an agenda, the truth.

Face it we are always gonna be at a stale mate. There is just as much evidence for the landing as there is against it. That is why it would serve the argument better if people would stop goggle searching old arguments and open there minds up enough to come up with their own logical questions. Ones that haven't been raised before. That is my agenda that's what I'm trying to do.

As for the Nasa hasn't got it right thing. Well I understand what you and someone else previously were trying to point out. I can't argue that reaction or the point your making after you read those words. Having said that though I still argue that the continued failures of NASA along side the hoax claims, only pushes the notion around the world(not just in America) that we never made it to the moon. That is undeniable.


You referenced a rather long and poorly-written article about the dangers of solar flares. I noticed that you have no trouble believing references to high radiation levels (you don't even ask how those numbers were derived), but measurments of safer levels from what may be the same sources must somehow be "tainted".


Thats about the most reader friendly one on the web as your gonna find, and it has all the references right there for you so can easily see from where they were deriven.

Might I suggest though before you start critiquing someones work you be able to understand it. So run down to your public library and get the most basic, introductory level, nuclear medicine or science book you can find and actually read them, although there are pictures as well. Here I'll even give you some ISBN#'s that will help you.
(ISBN-13:978-0-323-03566-8, ISBN-13: 978-1420061642, ISBN-13: 9780387307541)
These are very basic books, used by most entrance level courses at universities these days. In them you will discover the basic terminolgy and principles of nuclear science. Also you'll get a quick overview of what the effects are on a biological specimen at different dosage levels. That will be a good place to start for someone with no knowledge in the subject.


Originally posted by yeti101
I suppose your best hope is the google lunar x prize.


Hope it seems is all we have these days.




edit on 27-1-2011 by OatDelphi because: quote html f-up's



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Thanks for the post. It does make ones imagination run rapid. There is life outside this planet. As there has been for millions of years. Exposing that and other information to the masses is a whole other monster. The average person could not handle the power, and the knowledge of all things that are possible to do. It would simply crush them. Everyone will know the truth at some point. Being prepared for that though, well that's going to be exciting to see! Keep the dream alive. Most dreams aren't really dreams at all.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by OatDelphi

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Yes I am making far-out claims, but given the available evidence(for people who can spend hours searching) just because something sounds far fetched does not mean its also illogical. The technology that is available in the public sector versus the technology available to the nwo is light years different and that is why we have think tank companies such as RAND and the national security dictatorship.


I cannot do anything but respect your opinion here. And I would like to admit that the idea of technology being hidden since the Apollo missions has made it's way into my thought process before. Really that is one of my points that I have been trying to get across. Were is the technology???

Also thank you for the video that was very interesting.


"Were is the technology???" THAT is one of the most infuriating aspects of the entire discussion because we have been getting taxed since the inception of the IRS only so they can use the best technology for themselves and then sell the outdated stuff to the highest bidder.

I would say there is barely any disease that is uncurable and barely any enviromental condition bad enough that you cant protect yourself from, BUT either the cure/solution is extremely expensive or totally non-existant in the official public domain.

Have you seen the video of american soldiers being placed close to atomic bomb detonations with no anti-radiation suits? Have you seen videos of clean-up crews not wearing enviromental suits(or anything even remotely resembling them) in the gulf of mexico oil spill?

Are you aware that free-energy has existed for a long, long time but is constantly supressed so big oil can continue with its monopolistic practices? Even the "peak oil crisis" is made up bs because abiotic oil is real and they deny this.

Do you know of mag-lev technology and that it is possible to travel at speeds of 15,000 mph within a vacuum enviroment? Do you know of electric/nuclear tunnel boring machines that can dig miles per day and leave no muck for cleanup because the waste is glassified?

I can go on and on but its pointless because everything is officially denied eventhough the patents exist and some covert organisations are probably using them.

Frustrating as hell and your welcome about the video!
edit on 28-1-2011 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by xweaponx
 


It's pretty simple, there's an alien base on the moon. Maybe the U.S made some sort of pact with the aliens not to visit the moon in return for something else...



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Patents don't prove a technology is workable. Patents are filed to protect the invention of a technology should a working prototype be developed from the information filed in the patent by some other agency. I've seen many patents issued for technologies that don't exist. How a patent holder can prove their theory was successfully developed into a working prototype from their plans seems to me to be a waste of patent filing effort, any agency can say they got something wrong.
edit on 27-7-2011 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
32
<< 17  18  19   >>

log in

join