Moon landing was an inside Job!

i do believe the United States of North America landed on the moon, but for me it was just an act of cold war, space exploration was not in their minds, and that is why to me, the moon landing will never be as amazing to me.
i cant help feeling that all the investigation they did on the moon were "lazy and flat", they could have done more, way more.

i also cant help feeling like the later edition of the moon landings were just to proof that USNA was/is the powerhouse, and just to show the world that they have won the space race.

i think putting the man of the moon was one of the most memorable things the human race have done.. but for all the wrong reasons, and that shows me that NASA/USNA, and the Soviet union were never interested in space exploration, and that i think slowed down the process of advancing in the space exploration field.

[- sorry about my grammar, and if this thread is completely useless-]

[edit on 23-8-2008 by CzErased]

I tend to agree. Whether or not we actually landed on the moon, or if the footage we saw was real or altered or totally staged, the whole thing nonetheless feels like one big publicity stunt. Maybe that's what makes it so easy for many people - raised in a world of movies and television - to think it more likely that it happened on a sound stage rather than in so-called "reality."

I am inclined to point out that I think your thread title is a bit misleading. Most people assume that the moon landing was done by the US government - our OWN government, if you are an American - so isn't it redundant to call it an inside job? That phrase usually refers to more damaging events such as...hmm, uh, maybe 9/11? But it caught my attention so I guess it worked (or not, depending on your perspective! )

I thought this was an AJ thread.
Inside job for Illuminati money makers.
Blessed by JFK.
Government funded, you can't beat that in any age.

It was Vietnam or the Moon, you choose.

There are actually several reasons why going to the moon would have an interest besides that of proving anything to the enemy.

Actually, as every educated person knows, the moon has no atmosphere, and a gravity that is about 1/6th of that on earth. This alone is an interesting feature considering space travel: if one was to launch a ship from the moon rather than from earth, it would be tremendously easier and more economical.

However, launching a ship from there involves a few things...

The first one is the presence of the ship there, and consequently of the staff of the ship. If the ship is there ready to be launched, that means it either was built there, landed there in the first place, or was somehow "brought there" (but that is the least likely option).

Landing a ship there in the sole view of re-launching it to elsewhere is a waste of energy, thus a waste of money. It would only have an interest if the ship was to be launched and return several times to the same place...

That would require a permanent (or semi-permanent) base on the site. Which is also the prerequisite to building the ship there in the first place...

Well, all things considered, it is then interesting to plan building something on the moon, to allow those scenarios above to happen. And going there in the first place to investigate the place is necessary. One doesn't just "grab his things" to settle down somewhere unknown...

Why it would have been interesting at the time, and abandoned after a while... Who knows? But there are countless reasons that man would have liked to go to the moon in hope to build a base there. The reasons for not returning there have also been discussed a lot, and it seems that financial reasons would be the most reasonable to consider giving it a break.

However, imho, with the recent developments of the rovers & probes on and around Mars (and elsewhere in the solar system), the usefulness of a moon base becomes more and more important, and could result in a focus to the moon again in the next few years.