Moon Hoax with a twist

[KennyB]

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

[MID]

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!

[Obviousman]

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?

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.

[KennyB]

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

[MID]

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.

I don't need to know all the details.

It might help, if you actually have questions.

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...

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.

[MID]

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 August 7, 2009 by MID

[Czero 101]

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

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

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.

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

[KRS-One]

Here's some food for thought, Kenny:

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

From 8 Ridiculous Things Bigger Than NASA's Budget

Cz

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.

[mrbusdriver]

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.

[KennyB]

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

[Obviousman]

Err..

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".

There were only 3 questions. The first two can be YES / NO answers, but the third one asks you to state what you would say to someone if you did believe the landings were genuine. If you say "It will never happen", that would indicate you are dogmatic and unable to reason. I certainly can envisage changing my mind if evidence ever surfaces; it's just that so far all the evidence points for it being real. But I digress.

With respect to your theory, might I suggest it be moved to a new thread? Some interesting talking points there but to begin, just let me state:

1. I'm Australian, not a US citizen.

2. I'm an atheist.

3. I'm very liberal.

4. I just have a high school education.

Edited August 8, 2009 by Obviousman

[MID]

Just a side note...

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.

IQ has never been a measure of intelligence, Kenny.

It is a measure of potential, and it is highly debatable.

I have known several idiots with high IQs...

Edited August 8, 2009 by MID

[KennyB]

MID, So have I. In fact, I've run into several of them on this forum. KennyB

[flyingswan]

I have a 134 IQ, I am no fool.

The fact that the one fact does not support the other is shown by the existance of the MENSA organisation - a group of people with high IQs who are foolish enough to think that they have to pay to join an organisation or else their high IQs would go unnoticed.

Edited August 9, 2009 by flyingswan

[Peter B]

I just had a few more words I wanted to say to this:

Why do you always say,' Prove it', or,' Do you have evidence'?

Which do you think is better: "Believe me; here's the evidence," or "Believe me, because I said so"?

[KennyB]

Peter, How about, believe me or not, it makes no difference to me. I'm retired. I'm on the computer 10-12 hours a day, every day, surfing. I pick up a little info here and there that might apply to one of the threads on this forum or another. I may post it, purely as conversation. If it interests somebody, let them follow up on it. For the ones that are not interested, forget it. I'm not trying to educate anybody or convince them of anything. I can't understand why I get so much animosity. Like I said, if you don't like it, move on. It's nothing world-shaking, anyway. KennyB

[KennyB]

FlyingSwan, What's wrong with that? People pay to join groups all the time. One that comes to mind is 'hunting clubs'. I used to be a member of a hunting club that had about 1500 members. About 500 of them didn't hunt. I guess they joined for the companionship. Look at all the people that join gym clubs and wellness. They go a few times and never come back but they continue to pay dues. As to the Mensas. I.Q. may not be a measure of intelligence but I'll bet you $100 that every member of that club is considered to be an 'intelligent person'. Which would you bet on to be a 'smart' person, one with a 60 IQ or one with 120 IQ? Which would you rather be? You say you know some high IQ idiots? Do you know any low IQ geniuses? KennyB

[flyingswan]

FlyingSwan, What's wrong with that? People pay to join groups all the time. One that comes to mind is 'hunting clubs'. I used to be a member of a hunting club that had about 1500 members. About 500 of them didn't hunt. I guess they joined for the companionship. Look at all the people that join gym clubs and wellness. They go a few times and never come back but they continue to pay dues. As to the Mensas. I.Q. may not be a measure of intelligence but I'll bet you $100 that every member of that club is considered to be an 'intelligent person'. Which would you bet on to be a 'smart' person, one with a 60 IQ or one with 120 IQ? Which would you rather be? You say you know some high IQ idiots? Do you know any low IQ geniuses?

There was a bit of history of the UK branch of MENSA, last time it really hit the headlines (1960s), that suggested that most of the membership were high IQ fools.

However, you seem to be misunderstanding the distinction I'm making between IQ and foolishness. I'm not arguing that IQ isn't linked to intelligence, which seems to be the supposition behind your reply. (That was MID's argument). The opposite of fool isn't genius, it's wise man, and there's no reason someone with low IQ can't gain a bit of wisdom, or someone with a high IQ conspicuously lack it.

Edited August 10, 2009 by flyingswan

[KennyB]

FlyingSwan, Just because 'some other people' said the U.K. Mensa group was a bunch of fools means nothing. Ever hear of jealously? At best it was just an opinion. As to some fools being wise and some intelligent people not being wise, I'd have to agree. It would all hinge on what a true definition of what 'wise' is. It sorta falls into a gray area like 'intelligent' does. Like 'beauty', it may be in the eye of the beholder. KennyB

[flyingswan]

FlyingSwan, Just because 'some other people' said the U.K. Mensa group was a bunch of fools means nothing. Ever hear of jealously? At best it was just an opinion.

Where did I mention "some other people"? The activities of MENSA members as reported in the media at the time, ie a childish and ill-natured squabble over the leadership of the organisation, led me to form my own opinion.

As to some fools being wise and some intelligent people not being wise, I'd have to agree.

You're still getting it mixed up. How can a fool be wise?

[KennyB]

I was thinking more of native people. They might not be wise in our environment, but in their own, they could be very wise. Somehow, I'm feeling that wise has a lot to do with other factors besides intelligence. For instance, you can make a decision to do something. At the time, you and everybody else thinks it was a wise decision. Later, maybe even years later, some factor you didn't think was important, causes your decision to be the cause of a calamity. I'm thinking of Hitler's decision to cancel the invasion of England. That one unwise decision caused a string of events to occur, causing him to lose the war. What I'm trying to say is, for a decision to be wise, it has to be wise over a long period of time. KennyB

[MID]

I think we've diverted from the import of this thread a bit.

We've gotten into a discussion about IQ, when it was supposed to be about Obviousman's three questions to HBs....

Edited August 12, 2009 by MID

[Obviousman]

Kenny, please take your comments and theories to a new thread unless they directly relate to my questions, please.

Thank you.

[digitalartist]

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

Well having a high IQ hasn't diminished your capacity for fantasy. There is no evidence to support your statements about Germany and a logic to disprove it. If Germany had those things they would not have lost WWII. They would have shot down every enemy plane and sunk every enemy ship. Besides, If all these things existed and with the shoddy state of Russian security some terrorist group would long ago have obtained those items and technology and things would be far different now.