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.

 

Faked Moon Landing - Amazing Documentary

page: 12
67
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by bokonon2010
 


Russian and Canadian by blood, American by birth.




posted on May, 18 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I don't doubt that either.
There will always be questions.
I bet you too, ask yourself why we didn't go up there in 40 years.
If it was just to place a telescope and observe the universe, without interference from earth or even sunlight.
I'm sure the moon is the perfect place to set up a giant scope.
And while they do that, put some webcams to


If they did it a couple of times back then, without any real problems, it has to be a piece of cake today, no.
Every mission is a risk.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by intergalactic fire
 


I bet you too, ask yourself why we didn't go up there in 40 years.

Not really. I've been a witness to the politics over the entire period. I saw the "Ok, we did it. Now what?" syndrome. I saw how public interest died. I saw how other things became more important (not to me, but I didn't count).



If they did it a couple of times back then, without any real problems, it has to be a piece of cake today, no.

No. But why? If and when we go back it will be for more than a few days. That is not a piece of cake.
edit on 5/18/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Didnt mean it litteraly, but in comparison with the more advanced technology and knowledge.

Ok, so its all just politics and how to feed the people? Or what is the real reason?

Why not go back?
edit on 18-5-2012 by intergalactic fire because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by intergalactic fire
reply to post by Phage
 


Didnt mean it litteraly, but in comparison with the more advanced technology and knowledge.

Ok, so its all just politics and how to feed the people? Or what is the real reason?

Why not go back?
edit on 18-5-2012 by intergalactic fire because: (no reason given)


I know this wasn't directed towards me but it's my opinion that it's all politics.

For example, NASA takes in a whopping 0.5% of the federal budget now, as opposed to the 5.5% they were receiving during the era of the moon landings.

There have been 6 manned lunar landings, and the only reason to go back now would be to set the moon up as a stepping stone for a manned Mars mission. But of course, knowing the great politicians we have in office (such as Obama cancelling the manned moon missions set for 2025), it won't be happening any time soon due to other "bigger" priorities
. But the good news is, other countries such as India and China are planning manned moon missions around that time. So at least that's something to look forward to.
edit on 5-18-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by intergalactic fire
 


Ok, so its all just politics and how to feed the people?

Feed the people? Maybe some of that (with LBJ and all) but probably more a case of more expenditures to defend against the "reds".

Whatever it was, people got bored with Moon landings. People got tired of the war. People elect politicians. Politicians don't spend money on things that people aren't interested in because they don't keep their jobs if they do.

It wasn't a matter of "can't". It was, and is, a matter of "won't". In a way I can agree even though it disappoints me. The problem is, there is no strong reason to do it. The risk and expense are not justified. Not that there couldn't be, there just is no political leadership to push a long term plan (which is the only thing that makes sense).

There is no point in going to the Moon to prove that it can be done...again. Some Hoax believers seem to have an inflated sense of self-importance; "prove it to me!". That's a dumb reason.
edit on 5/18/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
The Hollywood like events of Apollo 13 explain to anybody with an inkling of ability for logical thought that the Apollo missions were a hoax.




I would actually rephrase your original statement to say: The Hollywood like events of Apollo 13 explain to anybody with an inkling of ability for illogical thought that the Apollo missions were a hoax.

The 'Hollywood like events' idea is purely a retrospective notion, and 'explains'.....zero, zip, nada.

C'mon then, show us your 'inkling of ability for logical thought' and tell us why they were a hoax?









edit on 18-5-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)


If an oxygen tank explodes (which never happened) the craft would be blown WAY off course (which never happened) and would have resulted in the astronauts being lost in space forever (which never happened, since they were never there)

Nice docu btw, turns out i already saw it but never hurts to get the facts presented a second time.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Yes, feed the people with their interests.

Another question.
Why not, instead of building the ISS in 'space', why not build it on the moon?
Or was the plan to build a 'transfer station' for future moon or mars missions?
What is the difference between living on a spacestation in earths orbit or one on the moon?

It frustrate and dissapoints me that the majority of people are more interested in who wil get the award for best actor and worrying what their neighbour think of them.
And thats also partly blamed to politics of course.

And if it's so what you say that they 'won't' go to the moon because of the people interest. Aren't many people dissapointed that Obama cancelled the moon mission?



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 


Just found a wiki list of current and future lunar missions.
en.wikipedia.org...
10-15 years isn't that much

It's a bit strange that the USA isn't in on this one, no? Maybe they are planning secret manned missions to Mars

It's also strange they could do it back then within a couple of years and now it's a 20 year program.
But i didn't check the reasons and goals of the future moon missions from India, China, EU.
You have some information on them?



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 


It sure is, since it would be the first time we would set foot on the moon.

"It's one small step for China..."



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
post by intrptr


Are all the LM's that went to the moon scattered around on the surface?


No, Apollo 13's explosion, they did not land on the Moon and their LM was used as a life boat to bring them safely back to Earth. It was then jettisoned into a decaying orbit so the crew could re-enter the Earth's atmosphere in the Command Module.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by intergalactic fire
 


What is the difference between living on a spacestation in earths orbit or one on the moon?


About 250,000 miles of supply lines. About 3 days of travel time (at least) in case of emergency.

Cost of lifting 1 pound of something (food, water...) to the ISS: About $20,000
Cost of lifting 1 pound of something to the Moon: About $400,000

Less long term exposure to radiation due to the protection offered by the magnetosphere.

 


Aren't many people dissapointed that Obama cancelled the moon mission?

I know I am (unless his plan turns out to work). But there are plenty of people who aren't. Like I said, I don't count.

edit on 5/18/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Romekje
reply to post by paradox
 


It sure is, since it would be the first time we would set foot on the moon.

"It's one small step for China..."


Really? Is that why China confirmed the Apollo landing sites from their Chang'e 2 orbiter moon map?

Just like a moon hoaxer to not know what they are talking about!



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoctorMobius
reply to post by bokonon2010
 


Russian and Canadian by blood, American by birth.


I bet you have an epic beard.

On topic though, this is a well done documentary and raises some questions I hadn't seen before. Whether it's true or not is subjective at this point, but it's a fun exercise in logic and debate.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by intergalactic fire

It's a bit strange that the USA isn't in on this one, no?


Not really strange, but stupid. The politicians care more about spending their money towards the military than space travel these days. Obama cancelled the moon missions because he said he wants NASA to focus more on Earth related projects.

After the 6th manned Apollo mission, people were really losing their interest on travel to the moon. In fact I was reading that people were actually calling up TV stations and complaining because they stopped showing re runs of I Love Lucy and were playing moon footage instead. Shows just how quickly human priorities can shift. They had literally close to 0 public support.



It's also strange they could do it back then within a couple of years and now it's a 20 year program.


Yes well priorities were slightly different back then.
The motivation back then was to beat the Russians at their own game, and then learn about the moon in the process by setting up seismographs, collecting lunar samples, and just exploring etc. It's one of the greatest achievements of mankind next to inventing the wheel and the discovery of the atom.



But i didn't check the reasons and goals of the future moon missions from India, China, EU.
You have some information on them?


Here's a couple links that I was reading a while back:

India - www.telegraph.co.uk...

China - www.guardian.co.uk...
edit on 5-18-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I bet it's only a question of money, they dont care about peoples lives.


edit on 18-5-2012 by intergalactic fire because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by paradox

Originally posted by Romekje
reply to post by paradox
 


It sure is, since it would be the first time we would set foot on the moon.

"It's one small step for China..."


Really? Is that why China confirmed the Apollo landing sites from their Chang'e 2 orbiter moon map?

Just like a moon hoaxer to not know what they are talking about!


There might be landing sites on the moon but im pretty confident you won't find any footsteps. (not "ours" at least)



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Romekje

Originally posted by paradox

Originally posted by Romekje
reply to post by paradox
 


It sure is, since it would be the first time we would set foot on the moon.

"It's one small step for China..."


Really? Is that why China confirmed the Apollo landing sites from their Chang'e 2 orbiter moon map?

Just like a moon hoaxer to not know what they are talking about!


There might be landing sites on the moon but im pretty confident you won't find any footsteps. (not "ours" at least)


Are you expecting to see footprints from a satellite?

You sure as hell can see rover tracks.

Oh right, those were remote controlled, right?



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by CuriousCosmos
 


Whether it's true or not is subjective at this point, but it's a fun exercise in logic and debate.

You mean logic like the discussion about the lunar landing rockets?

About how it was supposedly the same fuel as that on the shuttles and which should produce "smoke"? Wrong. The ascent and descent engines on the LM used Aerozine 50. The shuttle RCS used monomethyl hydrazine. The two have different burning characteristics.

The nonsense about how, if the blast of the rocket spread out it would not provide enough thrust for the landing? That's just stupid. That's not now a rocket works. Rockets don't push against anything. The thrust is produced by the exhaust gases leaving the nozzle. Action-Reaction. Once they leave it doesn't matter what they do. Foolishness like that really doesn't help the credibility.
edit on 5/18/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 


Thanks for that.

It's also
that they call it again, a space race.
When i think about it it's pretty damn discusting the goals of the USA back in the 60's. Competing with someone else for 'something' that's such an achievement for mankind.

That's why it's not that hard to believe it could been a hoax, it was all a GAME.They even played golf.
Not much of scientific research, for such an opportunity.

I bet They rather wanted Neil to say it's a giant leap for the USA and we have beaten Russia
edit on 18-5-2012 by intergalactic fire because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join