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.

 

What if we went back?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
This thread is mainly directed at those who believe that we did not go to the moon, although believers like myself are welcome.

Let us imagine that the US government decides to go back to the moon. They come up with the money somehow (let's ignore how they would do it in this economic climate). They build a rocket largely similar to Apollo, only with modern technology. The first mission is a success, with the usual hiccups (rocket nearly explodes during test, brief electrical failure, NASA accidentally installed Vista on the ship computers). They send back a ton of footage, looking largely similar to the Apollo landings. There is a ton of media coverage, with some networks basically relocating to Cape Canaveral or Houston.

My question is, what would your reaction be? Would you be skeptical? Would you assume that they faked it again? Or would you believe that we had, in fact, returned to the moon? Would you reevaluate your opinions about the first lunar landing? Or, maybe, would you suggest that this was in fact the FIRST lunar landing?

Now, let me add some variations:

1. Instead of going alone, the US sends a joint mission with Russia, Europe, and Japan.

2. The Chinese also launch a lunar expedition. They beat the West there, but their expedition isn't nearly as impressive.

3. A few weeks before the launch, NASA, in response to conspiracy theorists, does a special documentary in which they answer several major questions. For instance, when asked about the Van Allen belts, they take the opportunity to show off their new radiation shielding.

4. Instead of just popping over for a visit and then coming home, the expedition establishes a permanent manned moon base. Although the media coverage dies down after a while, there is still plenty of data coming in, including a rather popular blog maintained by the astronauts.

How would each of these change your reaction?




posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
I believe we went the first time. If we went back we might find TMA-1. (You remember, dimensions 1:4:9) I'm curious about whether people think we should go back, but that's an off-topic question. (Maybe you can sneak it into your answers, though.)



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Meshakhad, NASA accidentally installed Vista on the ship computers).


I personally believe we went there to begin with, but I will give you a star for making beer fly out of my nose with the above line. Thanks. My nose is now burning.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   
I personally would love to believe we went ! but after watching all of the Jarrah White, Moonraker episodes and doing quite a lot of online research my self i am very skeptical of it, i also feel that we have been deceived so many times, why wouldn't they fake this to guarantee space superiority over Russia ?
Pictures are quite strange also quite a few anomaly's.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Presuming as per your post, that we never did go the first time (which I am convinced we did go), I think, in this day an age, it would be far to difficult to fake, or pretend anything. Their is to much in the way of 24/7 media, media leaks, and technology to confirm the mission as being real. If, say, they never showed any footage (via fly overs, actual visuals etc) of any previous missions, the conspiracy theories would continue.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
i doesn't make much sense to use billions of dollars to build a vehicle to go back to a place that has been explored.

i would assume they have done every test imaginable to find precious minerals and natural resources to justify an expense back and found nothing.

to hit more golf balls or to see a bowling ball or a feather fall in near zero g is not very beneficial to america as a whole.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ktmadhouse
 




.....but after watching all of the Jarrah White....


Jarrah White is an idiot.

What a shame that anyone bothers to give him any credit.....sad, so very sad.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
i doesn't make much sense to use billions of dollars to build a vehicle to go back to a place that has been explored.

i would assume they have done every test imaginable to find precious minerals and natural resources to justify an expense back and found nothing.
You're right that cost is an issue.

But to say the moon has been explored is a common myth that you can debunk yourself. The Earth is mostly water so the Earth and moon have somewhat comparable land masses. So if you sent 6 teams of 2 people from another planet to the Earth, and they each spent 12 hours exploring the Earth, would you then say the Earth had been explored?

Hardly. You'd have to admit it would be mostly unexplored.

But I'd rather see us go to Mars, but I'm not sure if we can do it safely. One of the reasons people cite the moon landings were faked is the radiation. There actually was some radiation on the trip to the moon and back, and maybe some risk of a CME, but not enough to cause major problems, though I think a lot of the astronauts got cataracts eventually, perhaps a side effect of radiation?

However there would be much more prolonged radiation exposure on a 6 month trip to Mars. You can get a chest X-ray and it won't hurt you but if they turn on the x-ray machine and leave it on, it will become harmful. So ironically, while some people think radiation kept us from going to the moon (it didn't), it may keep us from going to Mars for a while, or at least haven't seen a solution to the radiation problem yet. This would include the Martian moons should we decide to go there first instead.

The problem may be solvable and we just haven't found the solution yet. Bit it would probably me more interesting to go to Mars or Phobos, than back to the moon.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
If we did go back the videos would look essentially the same only in HD.
They would drill more core samples. Drive another rover which looks essentially the same as the last one.

The end result would be the public would get bored just as quickly as last time. And there would not be another return for decades due to the still sky high prices.
Plus the conspiracies would have double the BS reasons as to why it never happened.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Meshakhad
 


Your whole post is based on fallacy assumptions. So I will not reply.

Did you study Physics in college? I didn't think so.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


My father had successful cataract surgery a couple of years ago, he's almost 85 years old, like some of the Apollo astronauts. I don't think that is linked to flying through the Van Allen belts.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


My father had successful cataract surgery a couple of years ago, he's almost 85 years old, like some of the Apollo astronauts. I don't think that is linked to flying through the Van Allen belts.
I think you have two wrong ideas:

First, I never mentioned the Van Allen belts, and my post certainly didn't imply those would be any more of an issue on a Mars mission than they were on the moon mission, because they wouldn't be.

Second, you have the wrong idea about your father. That's sort of like saying, "I know a non-smoker who got lung cancer, so I don't think smoking cigarettes increases your risk of lung cancer". Obviously that's not true, but your statement about your father uses similar logic:

Space radiation has Astronauts seeing stars

There appears to be a relationship between this radiation exposure and later development of cataracts, a disease characterized by a clouding of the lens of the eye. According to a 2001 study, a total of 39 astronauts have developed cataracts later in life, and 36 of them flew on high-radiation missions, such as those to the Moon.

Scientists are currently working on nailing down the genetic link between radiation exposure and cataracts, but until then, it simply appears that exposure to space radiation increases your risk of cataracts later in life.
I wouldn't blame all that on the Van Allen belts, because that article doesn't mention them either. And i think that there's a specific type of cataract astronauts are more prone to get cortical cataracts so if your father had, for example, a subcapsular cataract, that's not even the same type of cataract and exposure to space radiation doesn't seem to increase the frequency of those.

Also as in the smoking analogy, where some people smoke a pack a day and never get lung cancer even at age 100, some astronauts may not get cataracts. Exposure to space radiation simply increases the risk.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Meshakhad
This thread is mainly directed at those who believe that we did not go to the moon, although believers like myself are welcome.

Let us imagine that the US government decides to go back to the moon. They come up with the money somehow (let's ignore how they would do it in this economic climate). They build a rocket largely similar to Apollo, only with modern technology. The first mission is a success, with the usual hiccups (rocket nearly explodes during test, brief electrical failure, NASA accidentally installed Vista on the ship computers). They send back a ton of footage, looking largely similar to the Apollo landings. There is a ton of media coverage, with some networks basically relocating to Cape Canaveral or Houston.

My question is, what would your reaction be? Would you be skeptical? Would you assume that they faked it again? Or would you believe that we had, in fact, returned to the moon? Would you reevaluate your opinions about the first lunar landing? Or, maybe, would you suggest that this was in fact the FIRST lunar landing?

Now, let me add some variations:

1. Instead of going alone, the US sends a joint mission with Russia, Europe, and Japan.

2. The Chinese also launch a lunar expedition. They beat the West there, but their expedition isn't nearly as impressive.

3. A few weeks before the launch, NASA, in response to conspiracy theorists, does a special documentary in which they answer several major questions. For instance, when asked about the Van Allen belts, they take the opportunity to show off their new radiation shielding.

4. Instead of just popping over for a visit and then coming home, the expedition establishes a permanent manned moon base. Although the media coverage dies down after a while, there is still plenty of data coming in, including a rather popular blog maintained by the astronauts.

How would each of these change your reaction?


I don't think it would make any difference to people that believe Apollo was faked. Maybe international cooperation would help a little with credibility, but people might simply believe the international partners were complicit in the hoax. A blog would be no more convincing that TV. A moon base could be faked too. I can't speak for those people because I'm not one of them.




top topics



 
3

log in

join