Last manned mission to the moon? 1972. Really!!

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Who knows apart from TPTB, they could of found something extraordinary up there, but that doesn't mean they want to tell the likes of you and I.

a reply to: skyblueworld

hahahah we posted at the same time!! I was just saying.. I know that stuff is no going to get out anytime soon. Why?? well you had to be there!! ...

originally posted by: skyblueworld
a reply to: OccamsRazor04



Who knows apart from TPTB, they could of found some extraordinary up there, but that doesn't mean they want to tell the likes of you and I.

So to sum it up, sending a man to the moon is more expensive, and yields WORSE results, making doing so stupid and illogical, but somehow not doing it means there is a secret on the moon. You realize how delusional that sounds?

a reply to: droid56

or they just kept going secretly on black budget money.

originally posted by: neversaynever
a reply to: droid56



or they just kept going secretly on black budget money.

Why would they? There is a huge cost to sending a person, and rovers can do a better job / stay longer.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: neversaynever
a reply to: droid56



or they just kept going secretly on black budget money.

Why would they? There is a huge cost to sending a person, and rovers can do a better job / stay longer.

One example

A breakaway civilisation, because when SHTF here on Earth, wouldn't it be logical to say they've already planned and built their next step?

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: droid56

NASA wasted so much money going there again and again, in all 7 times. This consumed NASA's budget and there was real no benefit to going 7 times, 9 times if you count the two that went and did not land.

To do so now would be very expensive at a time when the US is broke.

NASA's budget was set up for at the time with just enough funds to accomplish those very missions, after they successfully did them then at that point was cut in order to set enough funds aside to build a shuttle fleet.

The rest is history...

originally posted by: opethPA
Or the cost doesn't warrant what they know the reward will be.

You haven't heard of Helium 3 then?

Or the massive cost savings by building a Lunar base to launch probes and manned missions to nearby planets.

Or the massive benefits to astronomical endeavors...radio and optical would be very much improved by a lunar based observatory.

Military advantages are numerous of course.

To think there is no benefit to further moon missions is wrong, there's plenty.

a reply to: SLAYER69

NASA's budget was set up for at the time with just enough funds to accomplish those very missions, after they successfully did them then at that point was cut in order to set enough funds aside to build a shuttle fleet.

To do something over and over again and expect a different outcome is rather pointless.

NASA did what they did because they had money rolling in.

The Space race was the most expensive phallic waving event in our history.

P

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: droid56

Too expensive!

P

For God's sake, FED can just print money.
There must be something else in this. Maybe they found something, something they were not supposed to find there.

a reply to: Necrose

Or maybe the Public just didn't care anymore, which was exactly what happened. By the 5th time there was hardly anyone who cared.

Name the 5th and 6th person who landed on the moon, without looking it up!

No one cared, there were no votes in it and the public perception was one of "What! Again! How much does this cost!"

In those days, the Fed were not "Just printing money." That is a more recent trend.

P

a reply to: pheonix358
yeah, I know only the first 2 people.
Well, I am not really into moon landings, as they seem fishy.
I mean, I would even say that the first one was a hoax.
And I accepted the fact that I will never know the truth about space missions & their purpose respectively.

originally posted by: skyblueworld

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: neversaynever
a reply to: droid56



or they just kept going secretly on black budget money.

Why would they? There is a huge cost to sending a person, and rovers can do a better job / stay longer.

One example

A breakaway civilisation, because when SHTF here on Earth, wouldn't it be logical to say they've already planned and built their next step?

A breakaway civilization .. on the moon? Do you realize what you are saying?

originally posted by: MysterX

originally posted by: opethPA
Or the cost doesn't warrant what they know the reward will be.

You haven't heard of Helium 3 then?

Or the massive cost savings by building a Lunar base to launch probes and manned missions to nearby planets.

Or the massive benefits to astronomical endeavors...radio and optical would be very much improved by a lunar based observatory.

Military advantages are numerous of course.

To think there is no benefit to further moon missions is wrong, there's plenty.

No one is arguing about the benefit of future missions. That's a red herring. The post is about us not having been back in a MANNED mission in so long. Much of what you are suggesting would not even be done by a manned mission. The preliminary work would be done unmanned.

So again, we are back to there has been NO REASON to do manned missions. At some point, this will likely change.

a reply to: droid56

How about this
70 years on from roswell
we know nothing (Verified)
and are still not in the slightest enlightened about ufology and aliens despite cameras everywhere

originally posted by: uninfluenced
a reply to: droid56

How about this
70 years on from roswell
we know nothing (Verified)
and are still not in the slightest enlightened about ufology and aliens despite cameras everywhere

Seems like we are pretty fu**ed up

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: skyblueworld

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: neversaynever
a reply to: droid56



or they just kept going secretly on black budget money.

Why would they? There is a huge cost to sending a person, and rovers can do a better job / stay longer.

One example

A breakaway civilisation, because when SHTF here on Earth, wouldn't it be logical to say they've already planned and built their next step?

A breakaway civilization .. on the moon? Do you realize what you are saying?

Yes a breakaway civilisation, and the first step would of been to build a base on the Moon, the moon is a stepping stone for further space exploration.

You seem astonished that this could be so, yet plans to do so have already been made..... publicly.
They don't have to tell us when they actually put that plan in place.

originally posted by: skyblueworld

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: skyblueworld

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: neversaynever
a reply to: droid56



or they just kept going secretly on black budget money.

Why would they? There is a huge cost to sending a person, and rovers can do a better job / stay longer.

One example

A breakaway civilisation, because when SHTF here on Earth, wouldn't it be logical to say they've already planned and built their next step?

A breakaway civilization .. on the moon? Do you realize what you are saying?

Yes a breakaway civilisation, and the first step would of been to build a base on the Moon, the moon is a stepping stone for further space exploration.

You seem astonished that this could be so, yet plans to do so have already been made..... publicly.
They don't have to tell us when they actually put that plan in place.

yeah! I've heard about those plans either.
Seems legit & of course, makes sense.

originally posted by: skyblueworld

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: skyblueworld

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: neversaynever
a reply to: droid56



or they just kept going secretly on black budget money.

Why would they? There is a huge cost to sending a person, and rovers can do a better job / stay longer.

One example

A breakaway civilisation, because when SHTF here on Earth, wouldn't it be logical to say they've already planned and built their next step?

A breakaway civilization .. on the moon? Do you realize what you are saying?

Yes a breakaway civilisation, and the first step would of been to build a base on the Moon, the moon is a stepping stone for further space exploration.

You seem astonished that this could be so, yet plans to do so have already been made..... publicly.
They don't have to tell us when they actually put that plan in place.

The Moon is not a breakaway civilization, and preparing for exploration with the moon as a base does not require MANNED missions. You have nothing and are spouting inane nonsense. Other countries are all over the moon, nothing is hidden.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

other countries may as well be hiding the very same thing.
the fact is you will never see the dark side of the moon with your eye