why can there be no rover on the moon?

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
There already is a rover on the moon. We left it there in '73.

too bad we cant use it on remote to view our moon

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Murcielago

HowardRoark
I have no intention of being the grammar nazi here, but if you can�t even bother to capitalize the word �I,� then well, . . .

WHAT! your bitchin because someone didn't capitalize an eye?

who gives a #.

The failure to follow some simple and easy rules of grammar, punctuation and capitalization only reflects back on the person making the post. An occasional typo is one thing, we all have those, but this is something different. It is called intellectual laziness.

This isn�t a high school.

and this isnt college, or being submitted to a political office, and even well known authors have grammer nazi's that proof read their work, the point is to here is to express your opinions openly here about conspiracies without having to dot every "I" or worry about grammer, or if it is beneath u to tolerate poor grammer u should seek people to communicate with that are as perfect as u think u are

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Genesiss, if you really want to believe that we didn't go to the moon, then, of course, it is your choice to do so.

All your comments, including the Van Allen Belt radiation, the fact that the exposure on the still cameras were set to capture the people and moonscape and not the stars, the so-called "rippling" flag, the inability to discern among thermal radiation, conduction, and convection, and whatever else have been debunked over and over and over again.

Your questions and comments tell me that you are either a johnny-come-lately to the discussion, or are refusing to believe evidence because you choose to believe the hoax scenario.

But again, this is a (more or less) free country; you may believe whatever you choose.

yea call me weird but when a national television station states something is wrong i tend to ask questions mabey I should be like u and believe what the mainstream says despite other evidence, I should just not question anything, the government is being honest, what forum is this again? and once again no real explanation why the van allen belt isnt an issue because its a different kind of radiation, ok then explain once again the main question, whats with the last 40 years and not going back to continue or even as far as i know and i must be an idiot according to howard but as far as my limited knowledge is concerned no one else has gone to the moon, not even russia when they were racing to be first, i wonder why that is

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by genesiss
howard once again u are feeding in to my point to easily, give me some real evidence we did go to the moon. I have not decided either way but i dont believe that we know the truth, and one more thing howard, VAN ALLEN BELT, say it with me buddy, VAN ALLEN BELT, let me know when u can explain it away

How bout this for evidence.

During Apollo 11's mission several pieces of scientific gear were emplaced on the surface for taking measurements. Everyone else here points to the laser reflector, which is used for taking precise distance measurements to the moon. Among the other experiements that they set up (as did subsequent missions) was a seismic detector. These detectors were able to allow scientists to determine the weight of the moon by crashing the expended S-IVB onto the surface and recording the impact.

Apollo PSE's

thats great and i agree that doesnt make alot of sense, then again u have the word of nasa they actually have that ability, then please explain your theory on the 40 year lapse in going back for us or anyone else,,why will we not return

Hi genesiss. I'd like to give you a quote that relates to the Van Allen Belts.

"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen

The belts arn't that dangerous. Obviously prolonged exposure isn't good for you, but it's not the same kind of radiation that you'd get from a nuclear exlposion or what have you. You can read more about radiation here and more about the belts themselves here

Seems like we have a lot of BIG Quoting going on in this thread. Try to only quote the text that you are directly replying to. Thanks all�

Originally posted by genesiss
...please explain your theory on the 40 year lapse in going back for us or anyone else,,why will we not return

Let me ask you something. What can NASA use to get back to the Moon with? They have nothing. The shuttle can't get any higher than a low orbit, so that's out of the question. They arn't building Apollo style rockets/capsules anymore, so that's out of the question. NASA doesn't get the money that they used to back in the day either, and that's the main problem. That and the over amount of bureaucracy that has bloated the administration.

Originally posted by Zipdot

Originally posted by genesiss

Originally posted by Zipdot
Oh, snap!

Moon landing hoax supporters totally refuse and ignore the evidence that supports the FACT that we landed on the moon. Why? Why do they want to so badly believe that we didn't land on the moon? Is it so horrible that we said we would land on the moon and then we did?

Hoax supporters think things are SO SIMPLE when in reality there is a thick layer of science beneath everything about space travel from beginning to end. Hoax supporters think themselves to be juniour scientists just because they can say the phrase "Van Allen Belt."

Hoax supporters: read the Bad Astronomy page and LET IT GO.

Zip

yea those stupid junior reports on fox, how did they get on tv anyway? right? lolmao give me a break theres scientific evidence both ways, please quote facts when saying we went there, not just "we did" theres lots of evidence to prove we did not

Yeah, FOX, the people who brought you Alien Autopsy. Ever hear of ratings? You know how advertising works, right?

As for calling badastronomy.com disinformation -- all I can say to that is "hoo boy..."

Your mind is obviously not going to be changed with even the most reasonable and logical arguements and the most solid evidence.

Anyway, why do you think we didn't go to the moon -- why do you think we were lied to?

Zip

to draw attention away from the war and to beat the russians there? and give me something besides bad astronomy please,, im sick of hearing about that site, if its truth there should be loads of web sites out there not just one,, and howard? i envy u, can i be like u and pretend i understand how all the science works by just nodding my head and agreeing with mainstream scientists official statements? i give up and u two have turned this into a debate and im more then aware of badastronomy trying to find a way to explain away any doubt that our government scientists are not being honest so hopefully the moderator closes this topic since its pointless to discuss this

p.s. howard u seem to not believe in conspiracies and have faith in what ever the mainstream feeds u as fact without having personal knowledge to understand it why would u take an interest in this subject of conspiracies? and u dont have to reply howard im sure the reply would be obnoxious and i wont be revisting this topic to check so please dont respond on my behalf

Originally posted by genesiss
thats great and i agree that doesnt make alot of sense, then again u have the word of nasa they actually have that ability, then please explain your theory on the 40 year lapse in going back for us or anyone else,,why will we not return

Because of the costs involved. Simple as that, lobby your congressperson to increase the amount of tax money that goes to the space programs.

All they need is the money, the technology is still there.

You want sites? You got sites.

archives.cnn.com...
science.nasa.gov...
www.redzero.demon.co.uk...
pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu...
www.lunaranomalies.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

The wikipedia site is good and balanced -- your feelings won't get hurt reading that one.

Zip

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by genesiss
...please explain your theory on the 40 year lapse in going back for us or anyone else,,why will we not return

Let me ask you something. What can NASA use to get back to the Moon with? They have nothing. The shuttle can't get any higher than a low orbit, so that's out of the question. They arn't building Apollo style rockets/capsules anymore, so that's out of the question. NASA doesn't get the money that they used to back in the day either, and that's the main problem. That and the over amount of bureaucracy that has bloated the administration.

They dont even have the plans for the Saturn V anymore as part of the Shuttle deal they were destroyed. I have no clue why they did this though.

Originally posted by genesiss
so hopefully the moderator closes this topic since its pointless to discuss this

There is no need to close this topic. While both sides so far have argued well, the evidence simply supports the fact that MAN went tot he moon. Period.

The hypothesis put forth than man faked it have been debunked, rebunked, abd bebunked time and time again.

Gen made the arguement, "it's on TV, it MUST be real!"

I think that says it all for this guy...

He doesn't read web pages that people post to debunk him, thus he limits his knowledge of the subject to purposely stay ignorant.

Then he says he won't be revisiting this topic... I guess he's giving up.

Zip

Originally posted by Zipdot
Gen made the arguement, "it's on TV, it MUST be real!"

I think that says it all for this guy...

He doesn't read web pages that people post to debunk him, thus he limits his knowledge of the subject to purposely stay ignorant.

Then he says he won't be revisiting this topic... I guess he's giving up.

Zip

ok im going to respond to that only because its so obnoxious and then im done,, fox is a legitimate news station that presented a theory to the public,, because its tv doesnt make it a joke, second most people believe in the moon walk because they saw it on tv and all internet sites about the moon walk are based off of that feed,, so im not seeing your point here, im asking questions and trying to understand this without having a phd as to why we refuse to go back

your cute little statement about ignorance (and if u are trying to say im ignorant for not understanding the phd level of science they try to use to explain how we did go and now cannot or will not makes me ignorant then u may be right and alot of those web sites most people couldnt really understand unless they had a phd, remember reading and understanding are two very different thingsand i doubt that u actually have the education to understand the science) and that makes me an idiot only means that u are calling most of the public idiots for believing in the moon walk in the first place based on the tv footage, thats very hypocritical my friend

p.s. i do read the web sites by the way and while i may not be educated in that field of science which DOES make me and anyone else like me who is not educated in that field ignorant i did manage to notice they never answer the questions about the abnormalities that make us doubt we went, they just preset the proof we did and avoid the abnormalities questions, so thats not debunking in my opinion thats debating and ask yourself since u believe so much without personal knowledge of science to really understand how we did or did not go, what if we didnt go? would that shake your faith in our government? in their ability to lead when they lied so much? thats a great reason for people to get so hostile about the subject and why if we didnt go u can bet thats why they will never tell us

later guys ill see u all in a post thats a little less hostile and debating

[edit on 17-10-2004 by genesiss]

[edit on 17-10-2004 by genesiss]

Originally posted by genesiss
fox is a legitimate news station that presented a theory to the public,,

Right there is the basic flaw in your argument.

This so called "theory" was NOT aired by Fox news. It was aired by Fox entertainment.

Originally posted by genesiss

...snip...
your cute little statement about ignorance (and if u are trying to say im ignorant for not understanding the phd level of science they try to use to explain how we did go and now cannot or will not makes me ignorant then u may be right and alot of those web sites most people couldnt really understand unless they had a phd, remember reading and understanding are two very different thingsand i doubt that u actually have the education to understand the science) and that makes me an idiot only means that u are calling most of the public idiots for believing in the moon walk in the first place based on the tv footage, thats very hypocritical my friend

p.s. i do read the web sites by the way and while i may not be educated in that field of science which DOES make me and anyone else like me who is not educated in that field ignorant i did manage to notice they never answer the questions about the abnormalities that make us doubt we went, they just preset the proof we did and avoid the abnormalities questions, so thats not debunking in my opinion thats debating and ask yourself since u believe so much without personal knowledge of science to really understand how we did or did not go, what if we didnt go? would that shake your faith in our government? in their ability to lead when they lied so much? thats a great reason for people to get so hostile about the subject and why if we didnt go u can bet thats why they will never tell us

later guys ill see u all in a post thats a little less hostile and debating

... Anyways, whatever the hell THAT was all about, I just wanted to say that for me, what's important is that man put a man on the moon. I don't care which country the guy was from or which country developed the technology.

I have faith in my government, to answer your (I think that was a) question. Maybe you should have more than you do. It's one thing to be a conspiracy believer and another to think you're smarter than the entire US government because you saw a program of some crackpot's insulting theory on Fox television. Give your country more credit.

Zip

Originally posted by mr_sheldon
The moon is barren, you won't be hurting the environment or the atmosphere cause there's barely one.

well...there is no atmosphere on the moon, right? its all just space, no air at all.

on the other hand, mars does has an atmosphere, and some research i saw stated that there was evidence of glaciers years and years ago.

i think it would be easier to inhabit mars:
we wouldnt have to live inside a dome, with our limited amount of air and no water
mars(.38x of earth's gravity) has a greater gravity than the moon(.16x of earth's gravity)

Some info about Mars:
Rotates: 24 hrs. 37 min. Revolves: 1.88 yrs. High Temp: 80�F (27�C). Low
Temp: -190�F (-123�C). Diameter: 4,197 mi. (6,794 km). Gravity: 0.38 X Earth�s.
Thin Carbon Dioxide atmosphere.

We would be able to adapt to mars more eaily than the moon, in my opinion.

note: that post doesnt really have to do anything about any other replies in this thread...it pretty much jus goes back to what the starter of this thread asked

[edit on 17-10-2004 by natew100]

How can you guys be losing this argument, or even tying in it?

The guy can't properly use grammar or even english. His main argument is that "I saw a documentary on Fox Television." - give me a break.

First, we prove that we did go to the moon.

1) We went. Through a massive series of preliminary exercises and planning stages, through failure after failure, we persevered, and built up to a point where it was doable. I say this as simply an argument in itself. We went.

2) Scientific equipment for testing of relativity and various other experiments was placed on the moon. In order to align this equipment for use, (and it has been used for thirty years now) we had to hand-adjust it. People had to actually be there, and had to actually move things so we could use them.

3) You can look. We have satellites that can look, and you can do it with a high-power telescope in an elevated area. You can see the impressions we've made on the moon, and I've heard, if the scope is powerful enough, you can actually faintly see the flag.

It's a proven fact. We went to the moon. Unlike you, who, in your dumbened and offended state, have decided "In viewing my documentary and glancing at 2-3 webpages, I have become the authority on this subject.", I have taken place in this debate over 50 times. There's one side that always wins. It's the side that's done the most work, that knows the most, that's telling the truth. It's the side that is saying "We went to the moon." - And I'm telling you now, for real and for sure, we did. I've asked questions, I've looked around, I've seen the documentary, read the refutes and the counter-refutes. We went.


Jesus. It wasn't that hard.



Next, let's look at why we haven't gone back as of now, and why we may in the near future.

1) Science moves forward. We try to 'conquer' one thing, then move on. We 'conquered' the moon, then set our sights on resuseable shuttles. That took up planning for the rest of the 70's and building in the 80's. Then it was a step-by-step back to the moon. The 90's were the ISS, the 00's are the demise of that and the realisation of greater things. Permanent bases on the moon, Manned Missions and bases on Mars, far-flung missions.. It's a bigger world of space-faring than ever before.

2) We had no reasons. I could very well ask why we aren't putting massive study into ultralight aircraft - WE COULD STILL USE THEM! - but, instead, we're studying Super and Ultrasonic craft.

3) We have sent small things there, just nothing momentous, it isn't important enough to make national television like Mars Missions are.

4) We _will_ go back, just not until it's economically and technologically feasible. If you remember Bush's crazy Space Initiative, he wanted us on the Moon and Mars in 30 years! We'll get there, just not right now.



The long and short of my answer to you, Genesisss: We went to the moon once, and we haven't gone back yet because it hasn't been important to the people who make the decisions - but we will go back eventually.

Finally, I hold no grudge against you, and mean no offense. I'm just blatantly surprised that this has managed to straggle on 3 pages. It should be a simple thing to do. You don't have to sacrifice your knowledge, or admit you were wrong and we were right, it isn't a win/lose situation.

You've gone in and asked a question, we've given unsatisfactory answers, and you've miraculously beaten through them. You've shown determination and a driving will to find the truth, but I'm telling you in all honesty, you've found it. It's here. You win as much as we do, because all you've done is learned.

jra
Let me ask you something. What can NASA use to get back to the Moon with? They have nothing. The shuttle can't get any higher than a low orbit, so that's out of the question. They arn't building Apollo style rockets/capsules anymore, so that's out of the question. NASA doesn't get the money that they used to back in the day either, and that's the main problem. That and the over amount of bureaucracy that has bloated the administration.

The ISS is sucking up most of Nasa's money at the moment, But After the Shuttle is Retired we will use the CEV (Crew Exploration Vehicle) to get to the ISS. When were all done learning on that platform then we will go back to the moon. Nasa will either build there own rocket, or just use Boeing or Lockheeds Heavy Lifters, which can lift about 1/6 that the Saturns could lift, But with come tweaks and Mods you could get them to lift 1/2 of what the Saturn V could haul. Which isn't to bad.

But I just think a new means (other then rockets) to get to space in far overdue, Whether a future craft will start horizontal and then go vertical, or we just build an elevator to the heavens. I just think the rockets replacement is desperiatly needed.