Why Couldn’t The United States Claim The Moon?

On July 20, 1969, Armstrong and Aldrin became the first humans to land on the Moon, manually guiding the LM to a landing at 20:17 UTC. This historic occasion was viewed on TV by an estimated audience of over 700 million people besides President Nixon who viewed the proceedings from the Oval Office of the White House.


Pic courtesy: NASA

So why didn’t the US claim the Moon? Was it because of the UN’s Outer Space Treaty that forbade it, or could there have been another reason? Was there an alien influence behind that as well? This sounds like familiar claptrap and beyond bizarre! Nonsense actually…Or is it?

Having said that, let’s take a look at a document co-authored by none other than Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, then Director of Advanced Studies Princeton, New Jersey, and father of the atomic bomb and Professor Albert Einstein.

Operation Majestic-12 was established by special classified presidential order on September 24, 1947 at the recommendation of Secretary of Defense James Forrestal and Dr. Vannevar Bush, Chairman of the Joint Research and Development Board. The goal of the group was to exploit everything they could from recovered alien technology.

Einstein and Oppenheimer were called to give their opinion, drafting a six-page paper titled “Relationships With Inhabitants Of Celestial Bodies.” They provided prophetic insight into our modern nuclear strategies and satellites, and expressed agitated urgency that an agreement be reached with the President so that scientists could proceed to study the alien technology.
www.majesticdocuments.com...

Extracts From The Paper, Relationships with Inhabitants of Celestial Bodies

“Res nullius is something that belongs to nobody such as the moon. In international law a celestrial [sic] body is not subject to the sovereignty of any state is considered res nullius. If it could be established that a celestrial [sic] body within our solar system such as our moon was, or is occupied by another celestrial race, there could be no claim of res nullius by any state on earth (if that state should decide to in the future to send explorers to lay claim to it). It would exist as res communis, that is that all celestrial [sic] states have the same rights over it.”

In short, the US, the Soviet Union, or any other human state on Earth could not claim the Moon as their exclusive property — because it was already occupied by extraterrestrials.
www.virtuallystrange.net...

So was it the Outer Space Treaty that prevented the United States from claiming the Moon or was it because it was already occupied by extra terrestrials?

I'll leave that for you to surmise.....

Refs

www.weirdload.com...
www.majesticdocuments.com...
Text of the Outer Space Treaty

I think the idea is that if the United States (or any other country) sets up a permanent moon base, then that area is their sovereign territory. But simply going there once and planting a flag doesn't establish ownership.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I think the idea is that if the United States (or any other country) sets up a permanent moon base, then that area is their sovereign territory. But simply going there once and planting a flag doesn't establish ownership.

So why are the russians allowed to stake claim of the North Pole, simply by planting a flag there? Is Planet Terra, aka Sol III, not a celestial body as well?

Could the laser reflector station on the moon be considered as a base (albeit a very small and relatively insignificant base), it is permanent... What constitutes a base anyway? Does it have to be livable in? I say the laser reflector is the U.S.'s first base on the moon, the flag has been planted, the moon could have been ours...
Why isn't it? Because as suggested, it is already claimed by non-terrans, and on top of that, I thought the moon was an artificial station built by an ancient race of et's already anyway...

Because if the US started claiming bits of moon, the soviet union would have started claiming bits of moon.

The soviet union had a greater capacity to claim bits of moon (america would have been unable financially to maintain a presence).

Therefore america did not claim bits of moon thus avoiding the humiliation of loosing to the soviet union.

if the USA claimed the moon

then business, nations, communities could sue the US every
time there was a 'Spring Tide',
which in my experience causes
flooding of the main downtown intersections & streets of
Garden City, SC,
interrupting business activity, civil services, etc.


this is just one instance....there are hundreds of lunar tide events
that result in flooding & damages all over the planet.

Then on a 'Neap Tide', the same place stinks to high heaven because
of all the stranded or dead marsh critters exposed by the extremely shallow tide....a health issue on top of the unpleasant smell...
even I would try to start a class action suit vs. the USA

the world court could be asked to decide if the activities brought about
during a 'Full Moon' are considered 'damages',
the USA as owner of the moon could have to pay for the extra police
dispatched for domestic violence during Full Moon periods, at every town on Earth.

plus hundreds of other Moon or Lunar caused social disruptions

[edit on 26-8-2007 by St Udio]

Originally posted by IronDogg
So why are the russians allowed to stake claim of the North Pole, simply by planting a flag there?

They haven't claimed the North Pole.

What they've done its implied that the continental shelf from Asia extends to a certain point, and because that part of the shelf is along the Russian coast they can claim the mineral rights to it under international law.

I want to know why I can't just claim the moon or anything else. No one country or individual has any right to claim the moon. This planet Earth and our moon is just as much mine as it is any of yours or your countries.

We should be able to travel our earth whenever and wherever we'd like. It really sucks that gov't/countries decided where we can and can't go and who's land is who's. It's a real mess living in our containment cells of one piece of the planet that is just as much ours as it is theirs.

reply to post by evilCorgi


You gotta be kidding me. You do know that America is much more economically stable than Russia? If the U.S. wished to start a moon race with the russians there is no way they would be able to keep up with us. One thing about americans, if they want something bad enough they will do anything to get it. We even in a war have the capability to go to and set up a base on the moon, I cannot see the russians capable of anything of the sorts at least in the present, maybe 10-20 years for them... Never underestimate America.

The reason is because of the 1967 outer space treaty.

The Outer Space Treaty, as it is known, was the second of the so-called "nonarmament" treaties; its concepts and some of its provisions were modeled on its predecessor, the Antarctic Treaty. Like that Treaty it sought to prevent "a new form of colonial competition" and the possible damage that self-seeking exploitation might cause.

Outer space treaty

But don't let that stand in the way of a good scam.
Legal Loopholes Help Man Sell the Moon

one the outer space treaty from the un and some one mentions why the russians can have the north pole big differance the moon is alot bigger personaly no one should or can own the moon dont give yuo the right just because your so advance and put a dumb flag on the moon it automaticaly becomes yours then if i put flags on loads of islands they become mine

reply to post by Starwatcher


I agree, at the moment Russia has a lot better thing to do with its time.
My comments where in reference to the soviet union between 1957 and 1975.

if you actuly look back at the space race, apart from the moon landing the USSR succeeded in beating the "Americans" (you may want to look up Dr. Wernher Magnus Maximilian Freiherr von Braun) in all other technical achievements.

reply to post by neformore


As I understand it they have claimed the area(s) within the "wedge" created by their extreme Eastern and Western borders' longitude and the pole itself. Is this correct?
RR

Originally posted by Starwatcher
One thing about americans, if they want something bad enough they will do anything to get it.

Bingo! That's the point. Like Iraq! It's the oil that's gotten America there. Thousands of US soldiers killed protecting the interests of the oil cartel and the self serving neo-cons, who'll go to any extent for achieving their selfish aims.

Does anyone suggest for a moment that the great Moon race was an ego trip that the US won? Billions of dollars just to plant a flag (Which unfortunately tipped over and hit Moon dust due to the LM's thrusters!) and tell the Commies, "Hey! We beat ya to the Moon! Get the beer! Cheers!...OK. The show's over. Now back to work."

America wanted to get to the Moon first and claim large chunks of it for exploiting its natural resources. Especially HELIUM!

Right now I can only think of two slightly plausible scenarios that might initiate extensive lunar settlement in the foreseeable future, together with industries that are important in this respect.

1. Controlled nuclear fusion will finally be mastered and the supply of 3//2 He for fusion reactors will depend on mining the Moon.

2. Humanity runs out of fossil fuels and it turns out to make economic sense to build large Earth orbiting solar power satellites, creating the need for large quantities of lunar ores to construct them.

Traveling to the Moon is very expensive, but humanity spends about ten trillion dollars per year to pay for its energy bills, people could easily afford to mine the Moon if it were important for generating a major part of the worlds energy supply.

Mining Lunar 3//2 He

Future nuclear fusion plants will depend on either 3//1H (tritium) or 3//2 He. There is no significant natural source for tritium and the cost of manufacturing it could be prohibitive. Its use in fusion generators would generate much radioactive junk making it a less than ideal fuel.

3//2 He is a much cleaner fuel, but also not readily available. Though the isotope is stable, it is only present on Earth in extremely minute quantities.
www.mps.mpg.de...

Thus, it wasn't just an ego trip to reach the Moon first, during the Cold War.
It was the same old story - control of ENERGY and natural resources. But this time, on the Moon! History always has a habit of repeating itself, what?

Cheers!

Could it be that they couldn't claim it seeing as they never got there.



Just a crude trick to beat the Russians in the space race...

i've always wanted to know... if they put a flag on the moon why have we never seen telescope pictures from earth of the flag?.. even a picture from a satellite?.. why not?

Originally posted by KINGOFPAIN
i've always wanted to know... if they put a flag on the moon why have we never seen telescope pictures from earth of the flag?.. even a picture from a satellite?.. why not?

Even modern spy sat's would struggle to get the resolution needed to see the flag, let alone a telescope from Earth.

Why couldn't the US claim the Moon

Perhaps when they did get there they found it wasn't their's to claim???
You can't claim someone else's belongings now can you, but you can sure as hell help them hide their belongings...

[edit on 26-8-2007 by Chukkles]

Originally posted by mikesingh
Like Iraq! It's the oil that's gotten America there.

I'm probably the lone pea in the pod here but I'm tired of everybody saying that.

Can someone point me to a single credible news article that says the United States has taken over so much as a square inch of Iraq's oil industry?

reply to post by stumason


Hi

mmmmm hubble...it can look back to the origin of the universe and all other planets and galaxies but cannot check out the moon?
Go check John Lears forum

Moon is off limits.
Why that´s the question.

Nando out!

Originally posted by fweshcawfee

Originally posted by mikesingh
Like Iraq! It's the oil that's gotten America there.

I'm probably the lone pea in the pod here but I'm tired of everybody saying that.

Can someone point me to a single credible news article that says the United States has taken over so much as a square inch of Iraq's oil industry?

Not yet, but only because security there is utterly awful.

Read this

For a sector desperate for a panacea, the stakes couldn't be higher. By conservative estimates, Iraq represents about one-tenth of the world's reserves at 115 billion barrels. Most of this is untapped or under-exploited. Former oil minister Issam Al-Chalabi was quoted recently saying that a fully functioning Iraqi oil industry could generate $100bn (£52bn) in annual revenue.

The new legislation "is a redrawing of the whole Iraqi oil industry into a modern standard," said Khaled Salih, a spokesman for the Kurdish Regional Government, a party in the negotiations. "It will allow new technologies to come in to revitalise the oil industry and allow foreign investors to invest long-term in Iraq and upgrade infrastructure."

Iraqi government sources say the hope is to have the law on the books by March.

No one expects big players such as Exxon, BP and Shell to jump into the country until the security situation stabilises. They are jockeying to stake their claims now for exploitation later. "It's a mad rush to get something there," said James Paul, the executive director of Global Policy Forum, a New York watchdog group. "The companies are saying, 'Before any troops are withdrawn, we have to have these contracts.' "