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.

 

Doesn't this kill the conspiracy?...NASA to future moon explorers: Don’t ruin our Apollo landing

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 

Do you even read what you post? Of course you do. But do you think other people won't look at what is actually in the links you provide?

The Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space is the only international forum for the development of international space law. Since its inception, the Committee has concluded five international legal instruments and five sets of legal principles governing space-related activities.
www.oosa.unvienna.org...
Five different treaties and agreements. Not 5 parts of a single document.


Here is what you said:

However the Outer Space Treaty of 1966 contains 5 parts.
1966. Then how can the "Moon Agreement" of 1979 be "part" of it? Different documents.


returning objects to Earth for scientific purposes that benefit all mankind, is expressly authorized by the Moon Agreement., which the United States is a party.
The US is not signatory to the "Moon Agreement". The US is signatory to the Outer Space Treaty. Different documents.


China and Japan are not party to the 1979 "Moon Agreement" section of the Outer Space Treaty.
So what? Neither is the US. There is no "'Moon Agreement' section" of the Outer Space Treaty. There are guidelines on how to protect the integrity of historical sites. Different documents.


Different documents.

Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (the "Outer Space Treaty")


Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (the "Moon Agreement")




There is no "'Moon Agreement' section" of the Outer Space Treaty. The "Moon Agreement" (actually the Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies) is separate and independant from the Outer Space Treaty. Different documents.

Besides the fact that you are wrong about the treaties, you are also wrong in that neither one assigns "salvage" rights to anyone other than the State which owns, as explictly defined in both agreements, artifacts on the Moon. The Soviet Union (Russia?) owns theirs, the US owns theirs, Japan owns theirs. There is no provision for salvage rights in any space law or treaty.

But again, this is all moot since the NASA recommendations are nothing more than recommendations. They have no teeth. There is no attempt to restrict access. There are recommendations to protect the integrity of the sites.
edit on 5/31/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 31 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


Holy shnikes!!! I laughed my f'n arse off... Thanks for that!



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhageHere is what you said:

However the Outer Space Treaty of 1966 contains 5 parts.
1966. Then how can the "Moon Agreement" of 1979 be "part" of it? Different documents.


returning objects to Earth for scientific purposes that benefit all mankind, is expressly authorized by the Moon Agreement., which the United States is a party.
The US is not signatory to the "Moon Agreement". The US is signatory to the Outer Space Treaty. Different documents.


China and Japan are not party to the 1979 "Moon Agreement" section of the Outer Space Treaty.
So what? Neither is the US. There is no "'Moon Agreement' section" of the Outer Space Treaty. There are guidelines on how to protect the integrity of historical sites. Different documents.



USA, not signed to the "Moon Agreement"?!

I stand corrected on this point and I'd like to thank Phage for pointing out that the USA has not ratified, signed or acceded to the "Moon Agreement". .Obviously, NASA has something to hide on the Moon.

The intent of the language in United Nations space treaties & agreements is clear. ALL SITES SHOULD BE OPEN. which is why NASA (under the command of General Bolden) is now using offensive language such as "Keep-Out Zones", "exlusionary zones", "heritage sites" to confuse the general public, to confuse the issues, to protect the Apollo Hoax sites, which according to the United Nations should be open sites.


Article XII All stations, installations, equipment and space vehicles on the moon and other celestial bodies shall be open to representatives of other States Parties to the Treaty on a basis of reciprocity.




Article 15
1. Each State Party may assure itself that the activities of other States Parties in the exploration and use of the moon are compatible with the provisions of this Agreement. To this end, all space vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations and installations on the moon shall be open to other States Parties


It's interesting to note that there are 195 signatures on the "Moon Agreement" but USA, Russian Federation, Japan and China are not signers. But.......... India is.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


I stand corrected on this point and I'd like to thank Phage for pointing out that the USA has not ratified, signed or acceded to the "Moon Agreement". .Obviously, NASA has something to hide on the Moon.
Gosh. So must Russia and Japan and China and Brazil and 180 or so others.



to confuse the general public, to confuse the issues, to protect the Apollo Hoax sites, which according to the United Nations should be open sites.
I'm not confused, the X Prize contestants aren't confused. Only the hoax believers seem to be confused...including you. You quoted Article XII from the Outer Space Treaty (which the United States is signatory to). It seems quite similar to Article 15 from the Moon Agreement. Don't you think?

The Apollo sites are "open". NASA has offered guidelines to be followed to protect their historical and scientific integrity. No one is required to follow the guidelines as is clearly stated within them.



It's interesting to note that there are 195 signatures on the "Moon Agreement"
No.
France, Guatemala, India, and Romania have signed but not ratified it.
13 countries have ratified or acceded to it.

You're really making yourself look foolish by continuing to not understand what you are talking about and by continuing to claim that the guidelines to protect the sites are anything other than that.

edit on 5/31/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

edit on 31-5-2012 by Iwinder because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


What part of "all space vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations and installations on the moon shall be open to other States Parties" do you not understand?



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


NASA formally calls this the Keep Out Zone.

No they don't. They have several terms which they use but "Keep Out Zone" is not one of them.
The "exclusion zone" for the Apollo 11 site is 75 meters and for Apollo 17 it is 225 meters. That's close enough for some pretty good pictures. For the other sites it recommended that rovers do not approach closer than 1 meter to most of the artifacts.

But it doesn't really matter much since NASA really has no way to enforce the recommendations.
www.nasa.gov...



I thank you for the statement "But it doesn't really matter much since NASA really has no way to enforce the recommendations.
www.nasa.gov... " That means if some country ever gets to the moon we will see some humdinger pictures.
And I will bet my last dollar here that they will be much clearer than anything we have seen so far from NASA.

What I am saying is that there are cameras out there that can do amazing things but when it comes to photos of the Moon or Mars or Phoebes it is always blurry or smudged out if you will.

Enjoying this thread very much.
Regards, Iwinder



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join