All the "Moon Landing" theories. What is your opinion and why?

moongate MOONGATE moongate

Originally posted by geobro
moongate MOONGATE moongate

Did you click your heels together? It doesn't work unless you click your heels.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

Why are they then planning a moon landing in the future?

Who is? When?
What is the goal of such a mission? Just to get there and back? What's the point? It's been done.

Wow, you are proving yourself to be ignorant with your replies. To answer your question


The title of page is "NASA Plans for Future moon_missions

NASA has announced plans for sending humans back to the Moon, as a first step to Mars.

Two new launch vehicles, using Shuttle rocket technologies. (NASA)
A 2018 lunar mission is proposed, where a crew of four would remain on the Moon for as long as a week. A minimum of two lunar missions a year is planned, with astronauts remaining as long as six months.
Some of the technology had previously been proposed for replacement of the Space Shuttle.

en.wikinews.org...

I bet you wished you researched that before replying phage.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


The sources on that page are at least 7 years old...


In actuality, those plans were scrapped by the Obama administration

President Barack Obama has cancelled the American project designed to take humans back to the Moon.
The Constellation programme envisaged new rockets and a new crewship called Orion to put astronauts on the lunar surface by 2020.

But in his 2011 budget request issued on Monday, Mr Obama said the project was too costly, "behind schedule, and lacking in innovation".

BBC

reply to post by Phage


thats mk ultra mind programming your thinking of dorathy

reply to post by phatpackage


Your bias is obvious. You left out the most important option: "the historical record and physical evidence is overwhelming that the lunar landings occurred. As in any historical record, future research may reveal previously unreported political motivations, back-room deals, covered up mistakes, inter-departmental rivalries and personal issues not publicized for the sake of maintaining a positive public image."

In other words, the "official narrative" is undoubtedly colored to advantage. In the future, scholars may well find evidence of corporate kick-backs, political in-fighting, astronaut misbehavior and so forth. This is to be expected in the face of genuine research. No Moon Hoax Theorist has the discipline to do this sort of research; instead, they use a combination of arguing from ignorance ("something's wrong with this picture") and sheer fantasy ("there are huge alien bases on the Moon, so NASA's pictures MUST be fake or altered.") That's my two cents' worth.

reply to post by DJW001

Your bias is obvious.

You obviously do not know what bias means. If you read the post I state I have no leanings either way. Hardly biased in a any capacity. If I had stated an opinion of this definitely or did not happen then bias would be appropriate. Read it again, I am not biased toward any argument and not claiming to believe any version 100% as yet.

I have acknowledged all sides have put up some form of evidence (evidence being a long way from proof .... some of it "Iffy" at best and others very solid) but I am truly neutral on the subject. To assume bias in this case demonstrates a lack of comprehension and a massive untrue and wrongful assumption on your part.

You have failed to demonstrate how I personally am biased to one side. All I asked for was opinion. Not to push a version of events down anybodies throat. OK show me how I am biased when I hold both sides arguments with a little contempt? Who am I bias towards?

Just in case you don't get I'll say it again

Don't know because all sides have presented some evidence to back their claims but neither of them yet has produced solid proof to settle the issue beyond all doubt.

To take one side and debate that = Bias. To take no side = Neutral

To put it bluntly I am not sold on the official story or "Conspiracy Theorist" story! On this subject I am not biased to either side. Get it?

reply to post by phatpackage

You obviously do not know what bias means. If you read the post I state I have no leanings either way.

Then how do you explain this?

1. Believes the Official Story of the Moon Landing 100% no questions asked.

The fact that you cannot even conceive of the possibility that someone might view the historical and scientific records critically and come to the conclusion that they are essentially correct betrays your bias. It is clear that you feel that people who defend the historicity of the Moon landings are motivated by blind religious belief. 100% faith. It is this same sort of prejudice that has made the 9/11 forum into the pathetic joke that it is. Any government report is going to contain epic amounts of spin. Anyone who dismisses the possibility that the towers were zapped by energy weapons from space is likely to be attacked for being a "disinfo agent" or a "sheeple." Serious discussion of genuine discrepancies, missing information or alternative plausible scenarios has long since been shut down.

7. Don't know because all sides have presented some evidence to back their claims but neither of them yet has produced solid proof to settle the issue beyond all doubt.

As Bird pointed out, this statement is not at all "objective." The quantity and quality of evidence put forward by all "sides" varies immensely.

reply to post by DJW001

Then how do you explain this?

There are people who think this way. The stances I listed were ideas people have stated and have read in research. In fact I did not condone or criticise this stance. It would be wrong of me to say something negative as I am not convinced either way. Massive fail and assumption on your part.

The fact that you cannot even conceive of the possibility that someone might view the historical and scientific records critically and come to the conclusion that they are essentially correct betrays your bias.

I have read all the arguments and conceive the possibility of anything. You are upset because I do not agree with you 100%. You spoiled and intellectually deprived child. Again you are making making assumptions Fail on your part again.

It is clear that you feel that people who defend the historicity of the Moon landings are motivated by blind religious belief. 100% faith.

Fail again on your part. Where did I say this? Just because it entered your deficient mind does not mean it is what I said or meant.

As Bird pointed out, this statement is not at all "objective." The quantity and quality of evidence put forward by all "sides" varies immensely.

Of course it is objective. What are you that hard of any common intelligence? I have tried to state that all sides have possibilities but none have convinced me. Don't you get it? Their is evidence on all sides. Read my previous post with regard to the quality of evidence. But it is still evidence all the same.

Your disgraceful, intolerant, assuming and uninformed reply is putting words into my mouth that I just did not say or imply. All this because I do not follow your way of thinking? What are you a communist? Note I asked not assumed like you.

Again the first 6 opinions I listed are not my own. So how dare you assume they are or I am trying to have a go at anyone for their opinion? You can have your opinion. That is fine I am not here to condemn you for that. All I was looking was other members opinions for reading pleasure only. Where have I said anybodies opinion is wrong? I am saying I don't have one on what happened. The thread was not about extracting opinions and debating them. It was a about reading and taking in others opinions.

I have always wondered why Nasa quit going to the moon. There are many missions to mars, venus and other planets, moons and asteroids some of these involve crash landing a highly sensitive package that is on a one way, unpracticed, mission with no chance of recovery or repair.

With the moon so near and already explored, why havent the space agencies used the moon more often for testing landing techniques and equipment destined for other planets considering that it is ever so close?

With the moon so near and barely explored why havent we gone back since 1972 and before that they were going up almost every year?

They are sending Rovers all over the solar system yet the moon is barely touched. Not one remote rover sits on our closet neighbor. Why?


They are planning on going back one day in the future maybe by 2018 or beyond. This perplexes me. Why so long?

The russians were on the moon too. They had rovers. Why no manned mission?The russians also landied on the moon the same time Apollo did. Not too much mention about that.

reply to post by phatpackage

The thread was not about extracting opinions and debating them. It was a about reading and taking in others opinions.

Then why are you calling me names, rather than considering my opinion? Your first option was a straw man. I called you on it, and that makes me a "communist." You clearly do not understand that some people have decided that there is overwhelming objective evidence that men have landed on the Moon. This does not mean that they have blind faith; that they "believe" the "official story" is "100%" accurate or complete. If you really want to understand other peoples' points of view, pay attention to what they actually say. You are the one who has been putting words into peoples' mouths, and now you insult them for trying to help you see past your own misconceptions of their position.

reply to post by Shadow Herder

They are planning on going back one day in the future maybe by 2018 or beyond. This perplexes me. Why so long?

reply to post by DJW001


But its ok to send remote control cars all over the solar system?
\
Like I said before, the moon is so close yet not one rover sits on it. I am not surprised by the lazy counters.

I think we haven't been back to the moon because mars has our attention right now. The moon was our focus in the 60s because we were in a race against Russians. They beat us to space but we beat them to the moon. It's time to set our sights elsewhere. But its not just NASA who hasn't gone back, no one is really interested in the moon at the moment.

reply to post by Cosmic911

But its not just NASA who hasn't gone back, no one is really interested in the moon at the moment.

Not quite factual.

China.

China plans manned moon mission

(30 December, 2011)

Tentative plans to land a man on the moon have been outlined in a document published by the Chinese government that confirms the nation's intention to become a major spacefaring nation. Officials in China have spoken before of their hopes for a crewed lunar mission, but the government document is the first to state the aim as a formal goal for the nation's space agency.

Details of the plan – which would see a human walk on the moon for the first time since Apollo 17 in December 1972 – were published in a white paper that serves as a roadmap for the next five years of Chinese space exploration.

reply to post by ProudBird


Point being its been 40 years and no country or space agency has done anything with the moon.

we went to the moon, may have seen something they would rather keep secret, but it's more industrial/military variety. we were not told not to return by little green men, and there are no bases or chimneys.

I believe this because big muley could not have been acquired by probe, and the lunar laser range finder program is still going strong after all these years using the mirrors armstrong placed on the moon

so we brought something back, and left something behind

and my favorite hoax buster page, one that 100% of the time gets ignored by the hoaxers because it obliterates the "NAZA ia always lying" nonsesne

third party evidence of the apollo missions

reply to post by Cosmic911


Huh?:

....its been 40 years and no country or space agency has done anything with the moon.

Most recent is the NASA GRAIL mission.

Before that, the LRO and LCROSS.


Here is more info on other "recent exploration" since the era of Apollo.

Concurrently, the Japanese SELENE/("Kayuga"), and Chinese Chang'e.

Perhaps a bit more space research is in order?


And in terms of NASA's interest in the Moon...they have a lot still from the Apollo missions. And, a limited budget for other exploratory ventures. They choose how they allocate that budget carefully.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


What would be the point of a rover on the moon? lmao. Are you somehow trying to suggest a rover cannot be sent to the moon? If not, why even ask? What does a rover on the moon have to do with anything this thread is about? The moon is a giant rock. This is common knowledge. There's nothing up there of interest. Human progress moves on to greater things. We have studied the moon to death for years. The next time man will go to the moon is when they plan to use it as a stepping stone towards another planet. This is indicative of a much larger space mission, which = a lot more money. It'd be great but space isn't really where main government priorities are in case you couldn't tell....

The replies are not lazy just because you refuse to accept extremely comprehensible facts.

reply to post by ProudBird


No, I'm talking about actual "feet" on the moon. (In keeping with the spirit of the question, "Why haven't we been back to the moon?") It's been since Apollo 17 since a human walked the surface of the moon. I think there might have been an expectation that there might have been colonization of the moon by this point, given the amount of manpower and resources that NASA put into reaching and landing on the moon.