It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

If NASA landed on the moon then, why not now?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2009 @ 05:41 AM
link   
Why NASA? Private companies could go back or a bunch of rich guys could get together and do so, even if it is just with robotic probes.




posted on May, 3 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


incarnate, THAT's the problem!!

A couple of whackjob documentaries from the 1908s, maybe a few books. Nobody pays attention, because they're made and written by idiots.



Ohhhhhhhhh. I must be pretty stupid then. Since I read "internet" somehow, that is what I thought you meant. But when you said "INTERNET" what you really meant was a few docs from the 80s and some books??????

Can you go look up the word internet please. It has nothing to do with 80's TV shows or books on paper, but do go on.


NOW, we have the viral and immediate nature of the InterWebs. AND a new generation of kids who were born in 1980!!! They are only fed the nonsense of the 'Hoaxers'...so, we're off to the races!!

Submitted for your approval (cue spooky 'Twilight Zone' music) two goofballs who pollute utube with their uneducated dreck: 'greenmagoos' and 'WhiteJarrah'. A Brit and an Aussie, both in their twenties.

OH! The humanity!!!


So you are a closed minded punk who cares not for logic, sense, consistency in your story, facts, believability. I did not know that when I firs replied to you but now that I know you will keep moving the goal posts with each response that shoots your outlandish theory down., I know not to waste any more time hoping you will make any sense. Between your two posts you have made two different arguments, claiming they are one, and the second one contradicts the first one.

Try again.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by OhRico
 


Umm...hellooo? How much money would you guess goes into a project like that? And with the present economy how would NASA look to the citizens if it starts dumping money into going to the moon again when we have rovers that will do the job just as well or better than a human? I personally don't see the gain in something like that anyway.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by RedRaven
 



Yeah, that is just ridiculous. How would it look if NASA was wasting our tax dollars to do stuff like this

Money is the weakest argument out there. We do not go back because we do not have the technology. Even NASA admits they do not know how to send a man to the moon right now. They are spending plenty of money. Did you really approve of your tax dollars going to send the shuttle into orbit with ant farms to see how 0 gravity impacts them? I sure didn't but they went anyway. Just take a gander at the money they are spending now and tell me that they all meet public approval.

We never went to the moon. If we did, we would know how to do it now. We do not.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


EI, your link to the latest NASA projects is a 'strawman'....you have NOT yet proven your allegations.

I mean....really!!!???

Using a website that is showing a bunch of 'possible' NASA Projects????

Very, very, very weak.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


LOL, ok, so what are they spending our money on now? Ant farms? Growing sprouts? Having sex? Need I go on? How many of those did you approve tax dollars for?

My link is not a strawman. We are talking about why they are not planning another mission to the moon. The reason given was money. I pointed out that they are actually planning all kinds of expensive things. Did we just go back to the moon and I missed it or is my argument right on point?

[edit on 5-5-2009 by evil incarnate]



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


EI, you seem to miss the concept of the 'budget'!!

Of course, since you were likely just a child in 1969....you cannot be fully cognizant of the Programs of the 1960s. I happened to be lucky enough to be alive to see, LIVE, the Apollo 11 landing LIVE!!!!!!

July 20, 1969. I lived in Los Angeles, CA area then. I was 12 year old.

I watched Apollo 11 live....did you??!!??

Am getting sick and tired of these threads....ignorance, personified. Compared to actual experience. Which do YOU think will trump??



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Trust me. They are there right now and they are just not disclosing it to us. Nasa is one very corrupted "organisation" ontrolled by the illuminati



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


EI, you seem to miss the concept of the 'budget'!!


Nope. I understand budget. I was not aware that you were so privy to the budgets involved. Which office is it that you hold that you know how much money our government is spending on what. You seem to completely forget your point but on to the next one...


Of course, since you were likely just a child in 1969....you cannot be fully cognizant of the Programs of the 1960s. I happened to be lucky enough to be alive to see, LIVE, the Apollo 11 landing LIVE!!!!!!


No, you did not. I can two ways here and either way, you still did not watch it live.

1- CT route - How would even know if what you saw was live or prerecorded????? You were watching it on a television were you not? That means it is possible that the footage was days, months, years old. Care to tell me how you are so sure that what you saw was live?

2- The real reason you did not watch it live is because the broadcasts were sent to Austrailia and bounced around for a while and then run through a projector and onto a screen. Television cameras were aimed at the screen and were recording a second generation copy of something that has been traveling from the far reaches of space down to the other side of the planet. You saw nothing live. The men aiming the tv cameras did not even see it LIVE.

I thought your grasp of English was better than it seems to be.

I saw Phill Collins LIVE. That means I was there, where he was. I could see him in the same room I was in. That is what seeing something live is.


July 20, 1969. I lived in Los Angeles, CA area then. I was 12 year old.

I watched Apollo 11 live....did you??!!??

Am getting sick and tired of these threads....ignorance, personified. Compared to actual experience. Which do YOU think will trump??


LOL actual experience? First of all, you have no idea what my age is or what I have done and experienced and you arrogance to assume you could is so off putting. Secondly, What do you think actual experience is? Does this mean you have a better understanding of how to use a lasso because you watched the lone ranger on tv?

A 12 year old boy watching television is what you call REAL EXPERIENCE? The only thing you experienced was sitting there watching images on a screen and hearing what they wanted you to hear.

You have amazed me with this post. I never thought you were as ignorant as this comes across but budget, LIVE, experience????? Please go look all of those words up and see if you can use them in their proper context!

P.S. if you are so sick of these threads then why are you reading and posting in them still?

I am sure you are not going to answer any of my questions so thanks so much for making the moon believers seem more like arrogant jerks!



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Awesome point.

Simply because the film quality is not up to par compared to whats available today. Or somebody seen something "Online" that was an opinion of it being faked.

They start by quoting web pages that state somebody "Conspiracy" Theory and take it as the gospel truth. Not realizing that when we went to the moon it was a national effort with Billions being spent and hundreds of thousands of people all pulling in one direction.

It was a national coordinated effort to beat the Soviets there. Hell Our biggest rivals the Soviets who would of liked nothing more than to make us look foolish admitted we went to the moon.

It would have been in their best interest if we had failed or worse yet "Faked" it, of all people they would have had the Technology to prove to the whole world that it was faked! Yet they admitted we went.

Humans can accomplish great things. Look at the pyramids.

Some people these days have never lived through or experienced what that feels like. So they just do not have a point of reference and just automatically dismiss it at being bogus.






posted on May, 7 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Awesome point.

Simply because the film quality is not up to par compared to whats available today. Or somebody seen something "Online" that was an opinion of it being faked.

They start by quoting web pages that state somebody "Conspiracy" Theory and take it as the gospel truth.



And that would be an awesome point too if you could just quote me once doing any of the above.

Otherwise you are both wrong.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Don't be facetious. He obviously meant the Van Allen radiation belt

[edit on 7-5-2009 by vcwxvwligen]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Good point. Even China says that they don't plan on going to the Moon for 20 years.

Richard C. Hoagland says that during the original mission they found some crystaline structures. He based this off of Photoshopped photos from the 60's. Mega-high-resolution digital photos now would yield much more interesting results.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


LOL, ok, so what are they spending our money on now? Ant farms? Growing sprouts? Having sex? Need I go on? How many of those did you approve tax dollars for?

My link is not a strawman. We are talking about why they are not planning another mission to the moon. The reason given was money. I pointed out that they are actually planning all kinds of expensive things. Did we just go back to the moon and I missed it or is my argument right on point?

[edit on 5-5-2009 by evil incarnate]


Here's where a LOT of US Tax dollars go: The Department of Defense Budget (1947-2013) DoD.


TOTAL COST PER APOLLO MISSION: -----------------------------
Year ($M) (94$M)
Apollo 7 1968 $145 $575
Apollo 8 1968 $310 $1 230
Apollo 9 1969 $340 $1 303
Apollo 10 1969 $350 $1 341
Apollo 11 1969 $355 $1 360
Apollo 12 1970 $375 $1 389
Apollo 13 1970 $375 $1 389
Apollo 14 1971 $400 $1 421
Apollo 15 1971 $445 $1 581
Apollo 16 1972 $445 $1 519
Apollo 17 1972 $450 $1 536
---------------------------------
$3,990 $14,644

Source

The table above shows the cost on Apollo Missions in $millions. The last column shows the cost at 1994 values (couldn't quickly find a Y2K value).

The last estimate I saw (during the dying days of the Bush Admin) was for $450 billion for a manned mission. I saw somewhere that regarding these types of predictions...add 10% and double



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
Richard C. Hoagland says that during the original mission they found some crystaline structures. He based this off of Photoshopped photos from the 60's. Mega-high-resolution digital photos now would yield much more interesting results.


OK, I know hoagland is completely delusional or full of crap but this is a new one for me. What version of photoshop does he claim NASA used in the 60's?



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
Richard C. Hoagland says that during the original mission they found some crystaline structures. He based this off of Photoshopped photos from the 60's. Mega-high-resolution digital photos now would yield much more interesting results.


OK, I know hoagland is completely delusional or full of crap but this is a new one for me. What version of photoshop does he claim NASA used in the 60's?



He himself used Photoshop on photos that had been developed from discarded negatives, if I remember correctly.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   
i am really not sure why we havent gone back to the moon, my first logical thought is money. My other thought is, theres nothing really useful on the moon and we already collected rock samples from it.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Many years ago the americans discovered large quanities of valueble mineral resorces on the moon.Thats one thing they have nearly kept secret all theses years.Why keep it a secret.The americans are keeping it a secret until they eithers have the technology to mine thoses minerals on the moon or obtain first mining rites to the moon.Therse big money to be made from the natral resorces on the moon.The americans know this and they do not want to share that with anyone else.Can you just imagein what would happen if another country like china or russia reached the moon first to mine minerals.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 




Try again.


OK



So you are a closed minded punk who cares not for logic, sense, consistency in your story


Oh, so now it's resorting to name-calling on a specific ATS member, is it? Well, I am not a 'punk', but I do consider those who promulgate the "hoax" rubbish as punks, and those who fall for it as innocent victims. Because the 'hoaxers' are the ones foregoing logic, sense and consistency. Oh, and 'facts and believability'.



...but now that I know you will keep moving the goal posts with each response that shoots your outlandish theory down.


'Moving the goalposts' is a favorite tactic of conspiracy theorists, not those who attempt to refute what actually are outlandish theories.



Between your two posts you have made two different arguments, claiming they are one, and the second one contradicts the first one.



No I haven't and no, it doesn't. Perhaps you should try reading, again, with an 'open' mind. Ahh, the irony; calliing ME 'closed minded'!!!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join