why were missions to moon stopped?

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   
I'm surprised how no one has mentioned Ingo Swann on this thread yet ( One of the best remote viewers of all time.), and his book called 'Penetration: The Question of Extraterrestrial and Human Telepathy', where he in detail describes what he found/ saw when he was asked to remote view the dark side of the moon. Also why we aren't allowed to go there anymore.

The book is available free and online to read , just google the title. Sorry, I don't have the link at the moment.




edit on 18-7-2013 by Rainbowresidue because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-7-2013 by Rainbowresidue because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rainbowresidue
I'm surprised how no one has mentioned Ingo Swann on this thread yet ( One of the best remote viewers of all time.), and his book called 'Penetration: The Question of Extraterrestrial and Human Telepathy', where he in detail describes what he found/ saw when he was asked to remote view the dark side of the moon. Also why we aren't allowed to go there anymore.

The book is available free and online to read , just google the title. Sorry, I don't have the link at the moment.




edit on 18-7-2013 by Rainbowresidue because: (no reason given)


Meh psychics



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 11:07 AM
link   
They did do more manned missions after the supposed first-and-only, with a total of 12 people who have walked on the Moon thus far.
Someone probably said that already though....



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rainbowresidue
I'm surprised how no one has mentioned Ingo Swann on this thread yet ( One of the best remote viewers of all time.), and his book called 'Penetration: The Question of Extraterrestrial and Human Telepathy', where he in detail describes what he found/ saw when he was asked to remote view the dark side of the moon. Also why we aren't allowed to go there anymore.

The book is available free and online to read , just google the title. Sorry, I don't have the link at the moment.


I don't know about the validity of the statement "why we aren't allowed to go there anymore."

We have gone back -- although just not with people. The U.S., Russians, Japanese, Chinese, and even India have sent probes to the moon. We have taken pictures of almost every inch of the Moon, and took scientific measurements and collected data. NASA's LRO spacecraft can see objects the size of a beach ball on the Moon.

If "they" (whoever they are) didn't allow us to go back after Apollo, then "they" shouldn't allow us to send probes to study the physical characteristics of the moon in detail and photograph almost every bit of it with high-res images.

It doesn't make any sense.

edit on 7/18/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by sparky31
 


There were several theories but budget cut's never really convinced me as anyone whom controlled the moon controlled the military high ground, maybe the mission's never really stopped but the military took over, there are some sites that claim the astronauts were warned of and encountered craft that were menacing and far ahead of us technologically, the claim the later missions were just for a quick scoop and home to satisfy the political promises to the public.

We can only speculate. And any evidence we gather is sure to be met by the paid debunkers whom are usually the first to comment on anything of interest in order to limit or control damage but if fact are harming there own interests in the long run as a house built on lies can not stand when the wind of truth blows hard.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by LABTECH767
...the claim the later missions were just for a quick scoop and home to satisfy the political promises to the public...


Maybe the first reason for the missions was to "satisfy" the public (or to at least show the world that the US has technological superiority)...

HOWEVER, the fact of the matter is that the public soon became very bored and uninterested in the idea of missions to the moon, and it was the public who complained that the money is better spent fixing problem on Earth.

Like I mentioned above, this was the liberal 1970s, and there was a groundswell of public support for the funding of liberal social programs (welfare, education, housing for the poor, feeding the hungry, etc) -- and very little public interest in funding additional Moon missions.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


I will accept that argument though some of those liberal aim's were noble the moon missions drove the technological evolution of the late 20th century more than most people would realise even today so it is actually a shame as further massive space programs may have given rise to even better new technology's, Personally though while I believe the moon mission's happened I wonder how much money was tabbed on so it could be syphoned to the black ops and covert war activity's, the end of the Vietnam way and the focusing on more urgent matters probably also played a significant role as well as the need for this back door to syphon money through being reduced.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by sparky31
ok watched a program last night on h2(history 2) in uk about the new released ufo files,its never really occurred to me before about why no ones been sent back to the moon.

mean on this program its suggested the reason being is they found more than they would like people to know and if you think about it then it kinda makes sense cause if they,ve done it half a dozen times then surely thats not even scratching the surface of exploring it so why all of a sudden stop?

i know you say post links and i,ve searched for the program but can,t find it so maybe some1 could help me out and post a link,thanx



Rumour has humans are banned from the moon for bombing parts of it.

Think about this. Theory has it that the moon came about due to another interstellar object crashing into the earth and splitting apart with large parts of the earth, so the moon contains large portions of the earth.

And yet there is much talk about asteroid mining. Wouldn't rendezvousing with an fast moving asteroid, and then just having a limited time to mine minerals, be on a factor 10 to 100 times more difficult and complex than going to the moon, where the orbital trajectories are known, and it is not on a course either headed toward the Sun or out of the Solar System? It takes years to set up a mining operation on earth, even if one could be done in six months on an asteroid, how far away would it be in six months @ 50,000 mph or so?

To me, all the hullabaloo about mining asteroids and not the earth, when the moon contains the same minerals as earth, is evidence but not absolute proof that humans are banned from the moon.

Well, the Chinese and Japanese are orbiting the moon, let's see if they are able to take the next step and land humans on it, and this rumor will be disproven.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by LABTECH767
 
There were several theories but budget cut's never really convinced me as anyone whom controlled the moon controlled the military high ground, maybe the mission's never really stopped but the military took over,
Notice that NASA is part of the DOD. And the maps they provided to the public are far lower resolution than they should be. It seems clear to me that there is something they don't want us to see. We should also consider to send robotic missions.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
It has always been ridiculously expensive.

I do not know how anyone can condone continuously going to the moon spending Billions when there are people starving.

and it was initially only a politically motivated move.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by kykweer
 
It has always been ridiculously expensive.
I do no know how anyone can condone continuously going to the moon spending Billions when there are people starving.
and it was initially only a politically motivated move.

Lets see, now we are going to Mars, that must be less expensive because it is closer, right?

DOD cares about people starving? Then why are we spending hundred of billions a month maintaing military bases around the world?

No, it was to advance technology - and it did.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ThinkingHuman
 


Remember the speech in which Reagan said "What if we were facing a threat from outside our earth".
And what if there was evidence we had already lost in the past on the moon.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman

Originally posted by kykweer
 
It has always been ridiculously expensive.
I do no know how anyone can condone continuously going to the moon spending Billions when there are people starving.
and it was initially only a politically motivated move.

Lets see, now we are going to Mars, that must be less expensive because it is closer, right?

DOD cares about people starving? Then why are we spending hundred of billions a month maintaing military bases around the world?

No, it was to advance technology - and it did.


Let me rephrase that.

I do not know how anyone could guilt free condone spending Billions when there are people starving, on going to a different planet.

Look I know it is really cool, but nothing can justify it, finding water is cool, but it wont really change peoples lives for the better.

Fujny how you bring up "to advance technology".

The advances we got from military, dwarves anything we have done in space.
edit on 18-7-2013 by kykweer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Why do you all think missions to the moon stopped. I am convince there is missions to the moon just not civilian missions.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by kykweer

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman

Originally posted by kykweer
 
It has always been ridiculously expensive.
I do no know how anyone can condone continuously going to the moon spending Billions when there are people starving.
and it was initially only a politically motivated move.

Lets see, now we are going to Mars, that must be less expensive because it is closer, right?

DOD cares about people starving? Then why are we spending hundred of billions a month maintaing military bases around the world?

No, it was to advance technology - and it did.


Let me rephrase that.

I do not know how anyone could guilt free condone spending Billions when there are people starving, on going to a different planet.

Look I know it is really cool, but nothing can justify it, finding water is cool, but it wont really change peoples lives for the better.

Fujny how you bring up "to advance technology".

The advances we got from military, dwarves anything we have done in space.
edit on 18-7-2013 by kykweer because: (no reason given)


Its never a choice between spending money exploring space and starting on a noble crusade to feed the worlds hungry. People always make that argument but its false. Specifically its presenting a false choice.

Thats simply not the way the world works, ever. If we collectively gave a # about feeding the hungry you could shuffle money around from all the other government waste an accomplish it without affecting the space program.

Most of us just don't give a damn most of the time. Thats sad. However, cancelling space programs wont make us care any more about the worlds hungry so the money saved would disappear back into the government trough for the political pigs to fight over.

The starving don't make campaign contributions and don't vote so they are out of luck regardless.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by kykweer
It has always been ridiculously expensive.

I do not know how anyone can condone continuously going to the moon spending Billions when there are people starving.

and it was initially only a politically motivated move.


This hippy argument


You do realise the population of earth is too big and unless we go back to pre industry standards of living we are useing far too much resources for the planet to cope?

Unless you want resources to run dry and all hell to kick loose (which is whats starting to happen) the space is the way to go.

Well that or forecfully reduce the population by 6 odd billion. So you volenteering to die first?
edit on 18-7-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by justwokeup
 


reply to post by crazyewok
 


Even if I do not fully agree with it, i still see some minor merit on going to mars (efficiently).

But this article is about the moon. It was 100% a political reason to go. Scientists everywhere cheered, but truth is that NASA or whatever conspiracy related agency USAF or even the NAVY would never yave received funding if it was not for the cold war.

What I am saying is even though there was those reasons, there is no other reason to go to the moon every second year just to prove something. What do they still need to prove.

PS. when they built that spaceship. Who do you think will represent humanity? Scientists? Phylosophers? Or the people behind the funding?

Unless we eventually have governments that have the interest of people at heart space travel is merely a thing of fantasy of tye potential it had.
edit on 18-7-2013 by kykweer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 01:56 PM
link   
i don't know.. wasn't helium 3 either found or figured to be in abundance on the moon? for fusion energy? a small amount would be enough to power the a city or country for an insanely length of time? i apologize for not knowing more about it, i lost interest because i don't think anything will happen until "they" figure out how to profit immensely yet.

but yeah.. the bottom line, in my opinion, isn't warnings from alien inhabitants.. it's more along the line of how to make the most cash out of the trip.

that's not necessarily a bad thing, i mean, they do need money to make that trip but that isn't where the majority of the loot wouldn't go and that's is the reason and problem.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by n3mesis
i don't know.. wasn't helium 3 either found or figured to be in abundance on the moon? for fusion energy? a small amount would be enough to power the a city or country for an insanely length of time? i apologize for not knowing more about it, i lost interest because i don't think anything will happen until "they" figure out how to profit immensely yet.

but yeah.. the bottom line, in my opinion, isn't warnings from alien inhabitants.. it's more along the line of how to make the most cash out of the trip.

that's not necessarily a bad thing, i mean, they do need money to make that trip but that isn't where the majority of the loot wouldn't go and that's is the reason and problem.


Yup your right its one of the richest sources of helium 3.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   
So we replaced the moon missions with a shuttle and a piece of junk space station, when we could have had a moon base. That doesn't make any sense what so ever.

There is something on the moon that "they" don't want us to know about.

edit on 18-7-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join