Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Moon Hoax with a twist


  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

#46    KennyB

KennyB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,472 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2005

Posted 07 August 2009 - 03:01 PM

You guys really like these arguments, don't you? All right, I'll put my 2 cents in. The whole purpose of NASA is to create a wide-open money hole to finance black-ops projects. I can see no civilian purpose in going to the moon. It all was and is a huge boon-doggle. When you have 100% media cooperation, you can put anything over on the people. Oh, I believe the U.S. has intra-solar space travel, all right. They probably had it before the first 'moon landing'. I should think you guys should know by now that you're looking at another CIA scam.  KennyB


#47    Peter B

Peter B

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,143 posts
  • Joined:29 Mar 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Yes We Can-berra!

Posted 07 August 2009 - 05:06 PM

View PostKennyB, on Aug 8 2009, 01:01 AM, said:

You guys really like these arguments, don't you? All right, I'll put my 2 cents in. The whole purpose of NASA is to create a wide-open money hole to finance black-ops projects.
Do you have any evidence for this?

Quote

I can see no civilian purpose in going to the moon.
Well, those of us who accept the reality of Apollo don't argue that Apollo started out as a propaganda exercise within the context of the Cold War. But still, some very real science was done on Apollo, which helped to determine its likely origin. That in turn has shown us how violent the Solar System was in its early life, which in turn has shown us that it's still occasionally violent even today. In other words, thanks indirectly to Apollo, we're aware of the need to scan the skies for large rocks which might otherwise land on us unexpectedly.

Quote

It all was and is a huge boon-doggle. When you have 100% media cooperation, you can put anything over on the people.
Don't forget there were plenty of people who were critical of space travel in general and Apollo in particular, all the way up to Congress. Democrat Walter Mondale was no friend of NASA. But he never claimed Apollo was faked.

Quote

Oh, I believe the U.S. has intra-solar space travel, all right. They probably had it before the first 'moon landing'. I should think you guys should know by now that you're looking at another CIA scam.  KennyB
Do you have any evidence for this?


#48    KennyB

KennyB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,472 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2005

Posted 07 August 2009 - 06:22 PM

Why do you always say,' Prove it', or,' Do you have evidence'? You know as well as I do that you can not have any evidence, especially on this forum, that accepts nothing but 'concrete evidence' against the Federal govt. Do you have any 'concrete evidence' that they DID land on the moon? Just like you, I won't accept eye witness testimony, TV or movie images or sworn statements. Maybe, and I stress MAYBE, you personally believe they did, but I doubt it. I, on the other hand, DO NOT believe they did. All the things that are listed as accomplishments for the moon landing could have probably been done without actually sending men to the moon.  KennyB


#49    Peter B

Peter B

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,143 posts
  • Joined:29 Mar 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Yes We Can-berra!

Posted 07 August 2009 - 07:23 PM

View PostKennyB, on Aug 8 2009, 04:22 AM, said:

Why do you always say,' Prove it', or,' Do you have evidence'?
Then how do you know NASA is a "wide-open money hole to finance black-ops projects"?

Quote

You know as well as I do that you can not have any evidence, especially on this forum, that accepts nothing but 'concrete evidence' against the Federal govt.
Then how do you know your claims are right?

Seriously.

Do people you trust tell you? Did you get something through Freedom of Information? Is it something that everyone knows?

Quote

Do you have any 'concrete evidence' that they DID land on the moon?
Personally? No.

Quote

Just like you, I won't accept eye witness testimony, TV or movie images or sworn statements.
Why don't you accept video images? When they show things which can't happen on Earth, what do you say then? Would you accept scientific papers from scientists around the world (including from countries which were hostile to the USA), saying they studied rocks which had characteristics unlike any rock on Earth? Would you accept the word of the engineers who worked at the tracking stations who got signals from the Moon?

Quote

Maybe, and I stress MAYBE, you personally believe they did, but I doubt it.
You doubt I believe the reality of Apollo? You're wrong.

Quote

I, on the other hand, DO NOT believe they did. All the things that are listed as accomplishments for the moon landing could have probably been done without actually sending men to the moon.  KennyB
Some of the things done on Apollo could have been done using unmanned spacecraft.

But it's very hard to fake radio signals from the Moon which include voice communication with the right delay.

And given that the USSR had the means to tell whether Apollo was faked, it's implausible to believe that they'd have kept quiet about it. Or are you one of the growing number of people who think the Cold War was faked too?


#50    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,822 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 07 August 2009 - 08:29 PM

View PostKennyB, on Aug 7 2009, 04:01 PM, said:

The whole purpose of NASA is to create a wide-open money hole to finance black-ops projects.
On the other hand, NASA accounts are published and they do a lot of expensive civilian things.  Probes to the moon, Mars, other planets don't come cheap - it takes a lot of expensive engineering to design, build and launch a machine that will operate for years in space with no chance of a service call if it goes wrong.  There's all the scientific satellites such as the Hubble Telescope.  There's the space station and the Shuttle that supplies it and its international crew - currently two Russians, two Americans, a Canadian and a Belgian - carrying out civilian science for a score of countries.

Admit it, you cannot back up your statement because it is just an opinion based on your obvious dislike of the US Government.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#51    KennyB

KennyB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,472 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2005

Posted 07 August 2009 - 08:47 PM

Why is this thread even on here? You just had 474 pages to hash all this same stuff out.
No, I don't have a secret source of information about the 'space' projects. I don't personally know anybody that is (was) on the 'moon landings'. By the same tokens, I don't know any of you guys, so I'm not taking your word or opinion on anything. I'm going on what seems logical to ME. When the proposition is put to the (whoever makes these decisions) that there is 30plus billions of dollars up for grabs to put a man on the moon, which is very risky and might fail, against a goodly portion of that which could be saved and used on other projects, I can't blame them for faking it. I would, myself. And, yes, I am one of those that believe the 'cold war' was another hoax. KennyB


#52    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 07 August 2009 - 09:41 PM

View PostKennyB, on Aug 7 2009, 04:47 PM, said:

Why is this thread even on here? You just had 474 pages to hash all this same stuff out.
No, I don't have a secret source of information about the 'space' projects. I don't personally know anybody that is (was) on the 'moon landings'. By the same tokens, I don't know any of you guys, so I'm not taking your word or opinion on anything. I'm going on what seems logical to ME. When the proposition is put to the (whoever makes these decisions) that there is 30plus billions of dollars up for grabs to put a man on the moon, which is very risky and might fail, against a goodly portion of that which could be saved and used on other projects, I can't blame them for faking it. I would, myself. And, yes, I am one of those that believe the 'cold war' was another hoax. KennyB


Well Kenny, I think that just about says it all.

You won't take our word on anything, and you don't actually know anything.

You ask why these threads are here.  The reason is simple.
It's not to argue about someone's unfounded opinion.  It's to hopefuly inspire you to research some information and learn the facts about the program; what was done, how it was done, etc., so that you may understand that it did happen, and if you apply yourself, how it happened (it's really not that difficult, and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand).

If all you want to do is throw in your two cents, OK, that's fine.  You did it.  However, understand that the most documented and substantiated scientific accomplishment in human history stands as a given.  If you wish to contend that it didn't happen, you'll be required to show some basis for your belief.  That will provide the keys to learning.  

Of course you're not going to be able to prove your position.  It isn't provable.  Here, you can learn why.

So, as I always say, if you have doubts, phrase them as questions.  Then the fun begins.
If all you want to do is say, "We didn't land on the Moon," well, you said it, and if there's nothing more, then there's nothing more for you to say.

You're call of course, but learning something is generally alot of fun!


#53    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,624 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Coast, NSW, Australia

  • "Truth needs no defence. Nobody - NOBODY - can ever take the footsteps I made on the surface of the Moon away from me."
    Gene Cernan, Apollo 17

Posted 07 August 2009 - 10:02 PM

View PostKennyB, on Aug 8 2009, 06:47 AM, said:

Why is this thread even on here? You just had 474 pages to hash all this same stuff out.

Because I asked some questions, in the opening post, which people have still failed to answer. Would you like to answer?

'I said in the opening post...' said:

There are a number of people on this board who are staunch in their belief that the Apollo lunar landings were faked. A common credo is that it must have been faked because it is impossible for people to travel through the VABs or Van Allen Belts (or in some cases, not without many inches of lead shielding).

To those people I would ask some questions:

1. The planned new lunar landings by the US, perhaps about 2015-2020; is your position that it is still impossible to travel through the VABs and any claimed lunar landings by the US about 2015-2020 must also be faked?

2. If other nations (such as the PRC) achieve lunar landings around that same time frame, will you also claim that they are faked?

3. If you believe that Apollo was faked but when the new Constellation / Orion missions land and you are happy that they are (will be) real... what will you say to anyone who claims that it is still impossible to conduct lunar missions because radiation is a killer / we still don't have the technology / they don't report alien civilisations on the Moon / another reason with which you disagree?

Thanks.



#54    KennyB

KennyB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,472 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2005

Posted 07 August 2009 - 10:13 PM

MID,   What gives you the idea I don't know anything about the 'manned moon shots'? I know as much as can be learned by a layman from the TV, magazines and the computer.
I don't need to know all the details. Even tho they might do some 'good' things for the people, I still say I think the whole program needs to be scrapped. The highways and bridges are falling apart. People are being thrown out of their homes out into the streets. Some people are eating dog food to survive and the govt is throwing money away by the ton so people like you can play Buck Rogers.  KennyB


#55    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 07 August 2009 - 11:08 PM

View PostKennyB, on Aug 7 2009, 06:13 PM, said:

MID,   What gives you the idea I don't know anything about the 'manned moon shots'? I know as much as can be learned by a layman from the TV, magazines and the computer.

Now Kenny, if that were true, and you actually had some knowledge about what actually happened, and how,  then you wouldn't be here arguing that we faked the landings.


Quote

I don't need to know all the details.


It might help, if you actually have questions.


Quote

Even tho they might do some 'good' things for the people, I still say I think the whole program needs to be scrapped.


Kenny, Apollo ended 37 years ago.  It was scrapped.  Nixon did that...

Quote

The highways and bridges are falling apart. People are being thrown out of their homes out into the streets. Some people are eating dog food to survive and the govt is throwing money away by the ton so people like you can play Buck Rogers.  KennyB

That's a tired, old, and irrelevant argument. It was the same argument in 1969.
The NASA budget is a pittance (small potatoes, inconsequential, in fact) compared to the Federal budget (and to the current government's spending plans, which dwarf anything in the history of this country).  Always has been, always will be, probably. NASA gets nothing relative to Defense, Interior, Justice,  State, and all those departments that could indeed be doing something about the problems you mention.


#56    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 07 August 2009 - 11:10 PM

Oh by the way...


This thread is in fact here exactly because of what Obviousman said in his reply to the question...(see post 53 above...)

Maybe you could read the OP, and answer that question?

Edited by MID, 07 August 2009 - 11:11 PM.


#57    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,141 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 07 August 2009 - 11:55 PM

View PostKennyB, on Aug 7 2009, 03:13 PM, said:

The highways and bridges are falling apart. People are being thrown out of their homes out into the streets. Some people are eating dog food to survive and the govt is throwing money away by the ton so people like you can play Buck Rogers

Here's some food for thought, Kenny:

From The Space Review: Putting NASA's Budget in Perspective

Quote

Thanks to the media, which generally covers space-related stories only when something goes horribly wrong, a general impression has been created that space exploration does nothing more than produce a rather small amount of scientific information, of no practical use to anybody, at enormous cost to the taxpayer. Once people have settled into a comfortable belief about something, getting them to change their opinion is far from an easy task.

It is obvious to those who are knowledgeable about the potential of a robust space program that, far from diverting resources away from efforts to solve Earth’s problems, the answers to many of our problems are to be found in space. However, for the purposes of this essay, we shall limit ourselves to examining how the funding for NASA stacks up when compared to the various programs that are often cited as more deserving than the space agency.

According to budget documents obtained from the Government Printing Office, the national budget for 2007 totals about $2.784 trillion. At $16.143 billion, spending on NASA accounts for 0.58% of this. Compare this to NASA’s allocation during the mid-1960s when, despite the pressures of the war effort in Vietnam and President Johnson’s Great Society programs, NASA spending made up more than five percent of the federal budget.

How does NASA’s budget compare with the amount of money the federal government spends on social programs? In the 2007 budget, the funding for social programs (calculated here as the budgets for the Department of Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Veterans Affairs, Social Security, Agriculture, and Labor) adds up to a whopping $1.581 trillion. For every $1 the federal government spends on NASA, it spends $98 on social programs. In other words, if we cut spending on social programs by a mere one percent, we could very nearly double NASA’s budget.

The naysayers often speak as if the country’s social problems would be solved if only we took the money given to NASA and devoted it to social programs. Does anyone seriously believe that increasing spending on social programs from $1.581 trillion to $1.597 trillion would make any appreciable difference?

Note also that we are only talking about federal spending here. Not included in these estimates are the vast amounts of money that state and local governments spend on social programs. Needless to say, state and local government funding of space exploration is negligible.

The idea of NASA money being diverted away from social programs is the most common proposal by those who would divert NASA’s funding. But how does NASA compare to other big government expenditures? Compare, for example, the NASA budget with the United States defense budget.

The 2007 budget allocates roughly $609 billion to defense, not including the budget for the Department of Homeland Security. This is nearly 38 times the amount of money spent on NASA. If you include funding for the Department of Homeland Security, defense spending adds up to $652.5 billion, which is more than 40 times NASA’s budget. While few question the need to maintain a strong military in an uncertain age, some might consider it excessive for the United States to spend more on its military than the next fifteen biggest defense spenders put together, especially as most of them are American allies. Furthermore, there certainly are a great number of military programs of questionable value, as well as many sound military programs whose price tags nevertheless raise eyebrows.

As one anecdotal example, consider that each B-2 stealth bomber cost the US taxpayer roughly $2.2 billion. Then consider that the New Horizons robotic mission to Pluto, which will answer fundamental questions about the solar system, was nearly canceled for lack of funds. The total cost of the New Horizons mission, including the launch vehicle, added up to $650 million. In other words, the New Horizons mission to Pluto cost less than a third the cost of a single B-2 bomber.

Then there is the matter of paying the interest on the national debt. As I write this essay, according to the US Treasury office, the United States is in debt to the tune of $8,835,268,597,181.95. Merely paying the interest on this massive load of debt every year costs a fair amount of money. In 2006, the federal government had to allocate about $400 billion to this task, which adds up to more than 23.5 times the amount of NASA’s 2007 allocation. As the debt is continually increasing, these interest payments will only continue to grow.

One can argue forever over the merits of government social programs, how much we should be spending on our military, or how much the government should rely on borrowed money. What one cannot argue about, however, is that space exploration gets a very, very small slice of the pie. Compared to the behemoths of government spending, NASA is a pigmy. That it achieves so much with such a small share of the federal budget is astonishing.

When you look at the numbers, the notion that we should “solve our problems on Earth before we go into space” is revealed as a blatant non sequitur. Even assuming that the solving of social or geopolitical problems was merely a matter of allocating sufficient money to those problems—a notion which is highly questionable in itself—it is clear that diverting NASA money to other programs would make little if any difference.

...

To conclude with a final observation, recall that NASA spending made up more than five percent of the federal budget during the heady days of the Apollo program. If it received five percent of the federal budget today, its annual funding level would be $139.2 billion dollars. Imagine what the space agency could do if it had that level of support.

From 8 Ridiculous Things Bigger Than NASA's Budget

Quote

The most often-used argument against space exploration is that we should use that money to alleviate problems here on Earth. But that argument fails to realize that NASA doesn't just pack millions of dollar bills into a rocket and blast them into space. The money NASA uses creates jobs, providing an opportunity for some of the world's brightest minds to use their talents to, yes, actually benefit humanity. NASA's exploration spurs inventions that we use everyday, many which save lives and improve the quality of life. Plus, we're expanding our horizons and feeding our curiosity, while learning so, so much and attempting to answer really big questions about ourselves and the cosmos.

NASA’s annual budget for fiscal year 2009 is $17.2 billion. The proposed budget for FY 2010 would raise it to about $18.7 billion. That sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but let’s put it in perspective. The US annual budget is almost $3 trillion and NASA's cut of the US budget is less than 1%, which isn't big enough to create even a single line on this pie chart.

Posted Image

A few other things to put NASA's budget in perspective:

Former NASA administrator Mike Griffin mentioned recently that US consumers spend more on pizza ($27 billion) than NASA's budget. (Head nod to Ian O'Neill)

Miles O'Brien recently brought it to our attention that the amount of money Bernie Maddof scammed with his Ponzi scheme ($50 billion) is way bigger than NASA's budget.

Americans spend a lot of money on some pretty ridiculous things. Returning to that oft-used phrase about spending the money used in space to solve the problems on Earth, consider this: *

Annually, Americans spend about $88.8 billion on tobacco products and another $97 billion on alcohol. $313 billion is spent each year in America for treatment of tobacco and alcohol related medical problems.

Likewise, people in the US spend about $64 billion on illegal drugs, and $114.2 billion for health-related care of drug use.

Americans also spend $586.5 billion a year on gambling.


It’s possible we could give up some other things to help alleviate the problems in our country without having to give up the spirit of exploration.

*the numbers used here are from various years, depending on what was readily available, but range from the years 2000 and 2008.



Cz

"Thinking is critical, because sense is not common..." - GreaterSapien

"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." – H. L. Mencken

#58    KRS-One

KRS-One

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,555 posts
  • Joined:24 Apr 2009

  • This Machine Kills Fascists

Posted 08 August 2009 - 01:58 AM

View PostCzero 101, on Aug 7 2009, 06:55 PM, said:



Just another way to look at it, the total cost of NASA on the federal budget as a percentage is .57%.

If you made $40,000 a year and were going to sponsor your own NASA like program, it would require you to drop $227.

So basically, the US can fund NASA for less money than it would take you to buy an Xbox.


#59    mrbusdriver

mrbusdriver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,547 posts
  • Joined:19 Dec 2007

Posted 08 August 2009 - 06:41 AM

KennyB,

It's important to realize that the science and engineering that gets satellites into orbit, that gets geosynchronous satellites into a place in space that lets the satellite TV dish on the side of my house catch the signal...it's common knowledge to spacefaring nations. These nations are relatively few right now as spacecraft are expensive, and the science and engineering are expensive and demand precision. Spaceflight is difficult, as says the famous quote. But, with appropriate energy, knowledge, and cash, it can be done.

I cannot imagine how happy we'd be to discover a secret, black program of routine Moon base missions and manned voyages through the solar system...unfortunately, these things just cannot happen in secret using present technology. There are literally millions of people whose work is spaceflight, day in and day out. They design, build, launch, operate and track spaceships every day. It's not a "secret" operation...it's, in great part, just a business, filling a need, providing a product and service.

Puting men on these spaceships provides additional challenges, but there are ways to make it happen. More engineering, more testing, more money. But it's still the same environment the unmanned spacecraft ply, and it's pretty well understood.

If people are suffering because NASA is funded at a tiny percentage of what's spent on welfare programs, that is not NASA's fault...perhaps someone should look at the waste in these programs. If NASA had their funding, we'd have been on Mars decades ago.


#60    KennyB

KennyB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,472 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2005

Posted 08 August 2009 - 10:24 AM

O.M.,  I'm going to answer your questions. Nos 1,2,3 are YES, altho I don't think the VARB are a big problem. The answer to #4 is 'It will never happen". Even tho I know that you, MID, aquatus and the rest of you brainiacs have more education than me, I don't think you're any smarter. I have a 134 IQ, I am no fool. I also have a suspicious nature. I have my own theory. I'm going to share it with you. You can take it or leave it. The American people are a setup for a 'Big Con'. They have been brainwashed from birth, starting with that religious bunk, which teaches you to trust your 'leaders', that you have no control over your life, that Mama and the President are always right and 'true blue', in spite of all evidence to the contrary.Any info. that comes from an authority figure is the same as if it came directly from God. Most people in the U.S. have an education level of about 6th grade, if that. History has been warped and distorted from at least 2000 years ago. The history that most people think they know is at least 75% untrue. Their understanding of the world around them, including politics , is about 95% untrue. Their knowledge of religion is 100% untrue. They really know almost nothing, but they think they know everything. O.K., lets get to something else.
    By the time WW2 ended, our PTB had learned that the Germans were light years ahead of us in technology. In fact, they had no-fuel engines, flying saucers, the beginnings of particle beam weapons, the beginnings of lazers, etc. We, and the Russians grabbed every bit of that technology we could find plus the people that made it. In a short time, we had progressed to the point that we could send satellites into orbit or maybe to the moon. I'm not forgetting the ICBMs. They had to come up with a way to separate this technology into civilian and military, and find a way to finance it. They decided to use the rockets from the ICBMs as power units for 'space ships'. At the same time, they started on their 'black projects' of developing the captured German technology. It would be like in the days of the sailing ships, you continued to build wooden battleships in the open while secretly building metal submarines. Now, the secret military projects have produced all the fantastic inventions that the Germans started and several of their own. They can fly into space at will and have all these super weapons. But they still have to keep building those wooden battleships to fool the public. That's where the Viking and Apollo projects come in. They are useless projects, their only use is to cover up the REAL work being done at Area 51, Montauk and other hidden places. Now Generals and Admirals love to fight. They are jumping up and down to get a chance to show off their new weapons. Several more bad things are lining up, too. A big population reduction thru a bio-engineered plague. A possible war with China. That's why I doubt they'll ever make those next moonshots. There won't be anything left to make them. Oh, I'm sure there'll be survivors. There'll be a few thousand of the 'Elite" and a few million of their 'slaves' to start things off again. Well, that's my theory, have fun with it. KennyB





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users