Proof We Didn't Go To The Moon?

reply to post by manmental


Should the burden of proof be on the conspiracy theorist's or the debunkers?

I have seen the photo's from Hubble just a couple of days ago and I don't find it to be the burden of me to provide you with easy lawn chair access to them. Call me lazy but I did my research but did you?? Hubble has a website. NASA is most likely the most transparent government funded agency in the United States of America that provides at least a half a million private sector jobs in America and abroad. Out of the NASA budget they have contributed at least so far as 200 million dollars to Space X to prove their claims and build their prototypes. Space X has contributed zero dollars to NASA R&D to date, they have their palms out for handouts.

I'm afraid no privately funded agency could ever surpass the accomplishments that NASA has offered to mankind and never will in space exploration, or any technology related to space exploration. Companies that have to meet quarterly market projections find it is very hard to justify space exploration to their stockholders.

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by manmental

 

Go to the Hubble Space Telescope site and learn a bit about its imagery. You can see Hubble photos of the Apollo landings there, they are inferior to the LROC photos because it is not designed to photograph the moon!

It gets better!!

FROM THE HUBBLE SITE

Can Hubble see the Apollo landing sites on the Moon? No, Hubble cannot take photos of the Apollo landing sites. An object on the Moon 4 meters (4.37 yards) across, viewed from HST, would be about 0.002 arcsec in size. The highest resolution instrument currently on HST is the Advanced Camera for Surveys at 0.03 arcsec. So anything we left on the Moon cannot be resolved in any HST image. It would just appear as a dot.

So... can you say you were mistaken and that the Hubble can't prove that the Lander is sitting on the moon?

reply to post by Illustronic

I have seen the photo's from Hubble just a couple of days ago

Which photos? Please, enlighten me... I just checked their official site. Where are they? Link please.

reply to post by Illustronic

I'm afraid no privately funded agency could ever surpass the accomplishments that NASA has offered to mankind

Hiya. Can you clarify what you mean by 'privately funded'?

Would the US Government funding be considerd 'private'?? Please help me to understand your arguement. Ta.

reply to post by manmental


Where has the majority of space exploration data come from to date?

A privately funded company does not get tax payer dollars outside of a government contract or agreement awarded. That is a privately funded company, one that has to bid to win jobs awarded without government funds (of any country) to do so. A private company could be publicly traded on stock markets (Boeing) or operate by their own private funds Space X?) or started by a charitable trust like the R&D firm I work for (from the will of a dead rich steel tycoon), and has to win contracts today to operate because the original charitable fund was exhausted over 50 years ago.

Early in my career I asked one of the project coordinators what do we actually do these days? He told me that the company attempts to solve the problems that Market firms find to be a poor investment/return and have to abolish the effort to stay viable or satisfy quarterly projections, so the problem comes to us to try and solve, since we are not answering to stockholders. Not every job is solved and some entire groups have been abolished so the company as a whole still exists in the black, on the monetary return of invested efforts of technology commercialization successes. Like NASA our company also gave birth to 'Spinoff' companies that started by a discovery, commercialization of a new product, or a mutual departure of the technology to go out on their own.

The company proudly advertises it is the largest independent R&D and laboratory management firm in the world, and no other such company is even close. Most operations look to be entirely mundane until you become aware of the issues being addressed.

Originally posted by manmental

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by manmental

AWESOME DUDE.. I'd love to be sure we landed on the moon!

And you explain the moon rocks how exactly

........I'd love to be sure you have the proof to disprove the Apollo moon rocks!

edit on 29-5-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

Sorry? I think you are putting words into my mouth young kung fu master.

Words into your mouth?

You've already said that you want proof of the moon landings.......and there is proof....the Moon Rocks!

So again I ask how do you explain the Moon rocks as "not"proof positive that man landed on the moon in 1969

Put forward a good case and I will listen to it........but it doesn't seem too forthcoming!

reply to post by manmental


Exactly .. I understand the gravity just making sure that part is out of the way but not entirely, The fact that the astronaut claimed he jumped 9 feet in that environment was never seen ???? makes one wonder again.

The stuff they left behind Nation: USA

Status: Landed
Date: 20 April 1967
Surveyor 3 was the second spacecraft of the Surveyor series to achieve a lunar soft landing. It was visited 2 years later by the Apollo 12 astronauts.

Surveyor's robotic arm was operated for a total of 18 hours, 22 minutes, digging trenches as deep as 18 cm, and the television camera returned 6326 pictures.

The distance between Apollo 14 and the surveyor is abt 99 miles I mapped it .. with the available technology they said they hasdwouldn’t you think after they went back they could prove with pictures that the surveyor was still there so now where are those pictures ???

This to my knowledge was done in 1967 so that they could map out a spot to land Apollo 12.. I keep getting these mixed up so if I recently said Apollo 11 in recent posts my apology.

What I’m getting at is they claim they cant see any of the artifacts or all the stuff they claim left behind is another false flag..

The radiation levels that were being tested and shows us that this is knowledge they never had back in the 60"s and to tell you the truth if the surveyor was already up there mapping it all about don’t you think if the technology was available back then the Surveyor would of been able to do a reading ????

it wasn’t till the LEND discovery about the radiation .. and I agree with your statement on blurry pictures.
I'm not for certain and the reasons I’m not is there are to many doubts and its not just me .. so here we have a few angry people that use attack phrases , to me that shows inability to answer posts in a civil manner.

One other thing I been saying is all this talk about money and funding .. does it make any sense to fund a program when in fact they never accomplished anything on the moon?? so was it just a big waste of money??

but yet they had money to fund the ISS .. .. IMO the true reason is because we really didn’t go to the moon and it was essential to build a ISS station to further the technology and gather more information.

And imo they stopped it all now only because of the money and the other possible reason is that they have figure it out that it is not even close to sending man to the moon for his first real time. so for over 40 years we have been gathering information and yes I agree we have obtained much information about space in lower orbit and outer orbit .. and all these satellite pictures of mars have came back yet the blurry ones on the moon still remain blurred .. and no signs of anything they claimed they left behind ?????

One other thing I been saying is all this talk about money and funding .. does it make any sense to fund a program when in fact they never accomplished anything on the moon?? so was it just a big waste of money??

It's posts like these you don't even understand how incendiary they are, but you cry about other posters calling out your stupidity (troll tactic 57, play dumb, act innocent). Tell us why it is important to go back to the big dead moon? Tell us why NASA has to prove to you that men landed on the moon when you cannot even understand 4th grade science? You are either a practicing troll or an incredibly stupid person. Why are you even in a Space Exploration forum? I'm simply not going to entertain a single future post you make, (mostly questions and little enlightenment, and even less facts, and zero science). You really need to be posting in this forum,not here.

reply to post by manmental


I clearly stated that the Hubble Space Telescope cannot image the Apollo moon landing sites because it was not designed to, The NASA LROC images are the best the world can offer at this time, from 10x to 20x the resolution of the Japanese SELENE moon mapper spacecraft just 100 km from the surface of the moon!

I simply cannot find the links to my browsing history at the time because I was either at work on private browsing of simply felt it was so insignificant to not save a bookmark to. My history does suggest I may have been private browsing at the time. I deemed the images superfluous for any discussion I was having, so like trash, didn't save.

So why can't the rest of the world provide you conspiracy theorist's with the data that is competent enough to prove you as being whackoos? Because NASA is world's ahead of any other space exploration agency in the world and if you can't believe them, how can you believe any one else?

reply to post by Logical one

You've already said that you want proof of the moon landings.......and there is proof....the Moon Rocks! So again I ask how do you explain the Moon rocks as "not"proof positive that man landed on the moon in 1969 Put forward a good case and I will listen to it........but it doesn't seem too forthcoming!

Well the fact that unmanned USSR Lunar missions have brought back samples from the moon makes me wonder if NASA couldn't do the very same thing. Just with a bigger payload.

Then there is the fact that moon rocks have been discovered on earth no less.

Forget Apollo, Antarctic Moon-rock better

Lunar meteorites found on the Earth seem to be more representative of the Moon as a whole, he said. "They can give us an idea of the variety of rocks that we should expect over a broader swathe of the Moon."

So, its proven that moon rocks can be found in Antartica. And guess who took part in an extended expedition to Antartica in 1967, when some say he should have been in the USA working on the Apollo program? Only NASA's best rocket scientist and former Nazi collaborator, Wehnher Von Braun.

Wernher von Braun

According to one NASA source, he is "without doubt, the greatest rocket scientist in history. His crowning achievement was to lead the development of the Saturn V booster rocket that helped land the first men on the Moon in July 1969."

Could that strangely timed expedition be the source of some the Apollo moon rocks?

Has there been evidence of fake moon rocks? Yes.

Fake Dutch 'moon rock' revealed

It was given to former Prime Minister Willem Drees during a goodwill tour by the three Apollo-11 astronauts shortly after their moon mission in 1969.

And their are a lot of disrepencies, or conflicting theories about moon rocks from the very scientists studying them. This is summarised very well in the last few paragraphs of this blog which will do a better job than me right now of explaining...

Are some Apollo "moon rocks" really from the Earth?

How can we reconcile substantial water trapped inside “lunar” glass beads with strong evidence that the moon was drier than bone? Perhaps the glass beads are not lunar. Perhaps they’re — as the scientists reported — “strikingly similar to solidified lava that came up from the Earth’s upper mantle through undersea vents” because they ARE solidified lava that came up from the Earth’s upper mantle through undersea vents. It’s at least possible Von Braun’s team collected moon rocks in Antarctica but misidentified some terrestrial rocks as lunar rocks.

So, those are a few reasons why I don't think the 'moon' rocks are definitive proof that man set foot on the moon.

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by manmental

 

I clearly stated that the Hubble Space Telescope cannot image the Apollo moon landing sites because it was not designed to...

You actually said...

Go to the Hubble Space Telescope site and learn a bit about its imagery. You can see Hubble photos of the Apollo landings there, they are inferior to the LROC photos because it is not designed to photograph the moon!

And I haven't been able to find evidence of Hubble's photos of the Apollo landings.

I simply cannot find the links to my browsing history at the time because I was either at work on private browsing of simply felt it was so insignificant to not save a bookmark to. My history does suggest I may have been private browsing at the time. I deemed the images superfluous for any discussion I was having, so like trash, didn't save.

I'm glad you deemed them 'superfluous'. So much so that you now use them to back up your non-arguement.

So why can't the rest of the world provide you conspiracy theorist's with the data that is competent enough to prove you as being whackoos? Because NASA is world's ahead of any other space exploration agency in the world and if you can't believe them, how can you believe any one else?

NASA supplies the data that backs up NASA's claims most of the time. It's NASA's evidence that is used as evidence we went to the moon. NASA is funded by the US Government. The US Government is corrupt. Therfore, by my reasoning, there may be some corruption with NASA as well and I certainly do not believe everything they say, or don#'t say... if you get my drift (ufo's etc).

reply to post by manmental


Your research is flawed...and, your *guesses* are worthless.

Well the fact that unmanned USSR Lunar missions have brought back samples from the moon makes me wonder if NASA couldn't do the very same thing. Just with a bigger payload.

Over 840 POUNDS over the course of the six landed missions. Versus less than even one kilogram, for the USSR. SOIL, is what they successfully returned.

Ever heard of "Big Muley"?? Google it.

Then there is the fact that moon rocks have been discovered on earth no less.

Once again, THAT old chestnut....totally debunked. The dates of finding them, and their make-up, and the amounts come NOWHERE NEAR being anything possible, nor resembling the Apollo samples.

So, its proven that moon rocks can be found in Antartica.

AFTER 1972!!! (This was all covered in that other thread....yet, you bring it up here? Know what that is? Dishonest).

And guess who took part in an extended expedition to Antartica in 1967, when some say he should have been in the USA working on the Apollo program? Only NASA's best rocket scientist and former Nazi collaborator, Wehnher Von Braun.

How quaint, again. Like I said, your research is poor....




And, in reverse order, this is Part 'A':

reply to post by weedwhacker


Hi Weed. What a surprise... you find my views worthless and accuse me of being dishonest.

If NASA could supposedely get men to the moon and back then it's not a stretch of the imagination that they could get loads of rocks back. I find both ideas as silly as each other.

Moon rocks have been found in Antartica... who cares when and who says they weren't found earlier? If a new species is discovered in 1972 does that mean it didn't exist before then? Silly.

Are your saying Werner didn't go to Antartica in 1967? Because NASA thinks he did. What he was doing is anyone's guess but I guess you'll take NASA's word for it.

history.msfc.nasa.gov...

I'm sorry you didn't like the blog I referenced. The links in the blog, if you had bothered reading it go to reputable sources.

Originally posted by Illustronic

One other thing I been saying is all this talk about money and funding .. does it make any sense to fund a program when in fact they never accomplished anything on the moon?? so was it just a big waste of money??

It's posts like these you don't even understand how incendiary they are, but you cry about other posters calling out your stupidity (troll tactic 57, play dumb, act innocent). Tell us why it is important to go back to the big dead moon? Tell us why NASA has to prove to you that men landed on the moon when you cannot even understand 4th grade science? You are either a practicing troll or an incredibly stupid person. Why are you even in a Space Exploration forum? I'm simply not going to entertain a single future post you make, (mostly questions and little enlightenment, and even less facts, and zero science). You really need to be posting in this forum,not here.

Yes it's posts like this one ..that you and other posters exhibit frustration as how to respond civil. Do you really think anyone cares? and your post is a classic example .. you rant and go off topic ..
You ask why It's important to go back to a dead moon? why ask me ? talk about 2nd grade logic.

NASA..btw.. I doubt has to prove anything to anyone ..

That's been very clear to many people .. that those who have been seeking answers to many legit questions .. regarding space exploration and moon missions..go unanswered.

Why are thre no pictures of the Surveyor?
When In fact they have telescopes and what have you to show images of Mars ??
So if they can do this why not on mars to show where the left behind artifacts?


Valid Reasons can include many issues and just because it doesn’t appease you .. Does not give you the right to tell others how to post their views.

Do you understand what a conspiracy theory is ??

IMO it is possible that various information is being withheld for unknown reasons. Many of books have been written regarding UFO’s, The Moon Hoax , Alien Existence, Area 51, Underground Bases, ect !!

A Possible connection regarding the following list-
Moon images from 2005 to present have changed >>> why is that ?
over the years Google community has searched the moon images and saved these . Although as time went on these same images were blurred out ..
The real reasons why NASA formed and started the race to get to the moon?
The possible connection to the Roswell incident,
UFO's reports & disclosure
Alien and ET reports & disclosure
Area 51 experiments

NASA Why Go Back To The Moon?
www.nasa.gov...

This is interesting .. Has to do with the radiation belts Notice this is probe is soon to come in 2012
Radiation Belt Storm Probes Mission.. it just has a short vidio from NASA

rbsp.jhuapl.edu...

Now is it not possible or correct to say "if we only had this probe in the 60's maybe we really could have gone to the moon?".

So if its the truth that we never went to the moon it only means that we didn’t have the technology to do it… we didn’t know about the extreme radiation belt .. I still have to believe this was all a test drive ..

I surely don’t think that NASA wants the embarrassment of going back to the moon and having something seriously go wrong especially after they claim they have already been there successfully how many times?? wouldn’t that be something … well who knows I’m just another skeptic.

I am loving the subtle bickering that has been going on from page 1. I have yet to make my mind up on
the moon landing , although I used to think a definite no we couldn't' have, yet lately from information I've been reading I feel strongly that we did.

Anyway, interesting thread. Reguarding the original quote, I do think the emphasis is on "next generation" but you know I am always left wondering, why we haven't gone back to the moon. Ok it might have been just a baron rock, but wouldn't we want to take new technology there and assess it again?

Originally posted by TamtammyMacx
I read somewhere that that the moon's surface is so statically charged that it would have been impossible to bring the rocks into the LEM because the LEM was never revamped like the command module and its cabin was still a 100% Oxygen environment and it was too dangerous.

LOL .. nice come back!!!!!!
I seriouslyhad to chuckle at this one ..

Glen say's to Buz : Oh look at that rock it soo purdy.. I want to take that one back to earth
Buz rolls his eyes smiles with delightment and says to Glen: Ok here is a zip lock baggie now get some moon dust in there too .. so I can put in a jar an show it off to the whole family ..hahaha

Harmful effects of lunar dust
en.wikipedia.org...
Another interesting thing I have been reading in variious places ..
IMO the impossibility of actually sending a human being to the moon ..
is it not true that the moon is constantly being bombarded with micrometeors that travel at speeds of 20,000 mph. So with that perspective and a rifle bullet travels at 800 mph.

We know that the moon has no atmosphere to slow them down .. If any astronaut or the Lunar landing module got hit with just one of those…...even if it were the size of a of tiny piece of rice that would be the end. Strange NASA wasn’t too concerned about this at the time, and as I have said this before about space debris but no one seems to think this is so ..

Originally posted by manmental
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Hi Weed. What a surprise... you find my views worthless and accuse me of being dishonest.

If NASA could supposedely get men to the moon and back then it's not a stretch of the imagination that they could get loads of rocks back. I find both ideas as silly as each other.

Moon rocks have been found in Antartica... who cares when and who says they weren't found earlier? If a new species is discovered in 1972 does that mean it didn't exist before then? Silly.

Are your saying Werner didn't go to Antartica in 1967? Because NASA thinks he did. What he was doing is anyone's guess but I guess you'll take NASA's word for it.

history.msfc.nasa.gov...

I'm sorry you didn't like the blog I referenced. The links in the blog, if you had bothered reading it go to reputable sources.

Well the russians only managed about 100g around 4oz on their first robot mission!! so it would take a while!!!

reply to post by manmental



Reading and listening comprehension problems? Critical thinking difficulties??

Are your saying Werner didn't go to Antartica in 1967? Because NASA thinks he did.

Twist people's words. much???

It is CLEARLY obvious you (and the people who starred your ridiculous post) did NOT watch, and understand, the information I posted.

The Society that monitors such finds had the RECORDS of all...ALL meteorites found, on Earth, starting in 1912!!!

None of them were anything at all like the Apollo samples (842 POUNDS of Lunar samples).
To continue to claim *robots* did it, is just utter nonsense, and fantasy.

You all, with the mountains of evidence, are not using your rational thinking, and prefer to remain blissfully ignorant?

Fine...embarrass yourselves all you want. Don't be surprised when people you encounter in life start to whisper about you, behind your backs....and shake their heads in sorrow, as they snicker......

AGAIN !!

Originally posted by Jbird

Can we Please Stop the Personal Sniping, character assassinations, condescension and snide remarks.

reply to post by NorthStargal52


You have such a seriously misunderstood view of space science, and reality......

....is it not true that the moon is constantly being bombarded with micrometeors that travel at speeds of 20,000 mph.

"constantly"? DO you realize how large the surface area is? And, how small a person is, as a "target"?? The effects of a serious micro-meteor that DID hit an Astronaut, would have been of concern.

But.....every spaceflight is under the same threat. The ISS, on orbit now for all these years, has been exposed to that risk on a continuous basis. Has it been destroyed?? Astronauts conduct EVAs, in their suits....out with no protection, other than their suites. The same approximate number of micro-meteors that that exist in space don't differentiate between the Moon and the Earth....they are just random, and evenly distributed.

There WILL be a greater number later this year (possibly) as a result of the Comet Elenin passage. There were NO nearby comets when Apollo flew.

I'm sorry that you have so much, still, to learn. Got a library card yet??