Because no one wanted to go.
If they can put a man on the moon, why can't anyone climb Karjiang I in Tibet? It must not exist!
Men never set their feet on the Moon
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
- Status
If they can put a man on the moon, why can't anyone climb Karjiang I in Tibet? It must not exist!
Again, because no one wanted to go.
Because there is no dark side of the moon. It rotates, just like the Earth - just slower.
Really, if you are going to try to get a good conspiracy theory going, you should at least learn enough to make it plausible.
You may not understand it. But still, no one wanted to go to the Moon badly enough to spend the money.
The Apollo program cost $152 billion in today's money. You gonna buy a ticket?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Cause it's dark. You'll need a flashlight and hope your battery doesn't run out.............
Actually it is the far side of the moon, facing away from earth and AFAIK, no communication with earth.
Last edited:
Sure, but you can build domes, drill mines, set up a penal colony, eventually terraform it. Lots more potential than the moon, which, let's face it, is pretty damn boring.
Janus58
Valued Senior Member
And there are many that will argue that the cost outweighs the benefits. The reason we ended the Apollo missions short was because congress decided they wanted to cut spending and shift the money it did spend on space to developing the Shuttle, which they saw as being more practical. This shift in direction was aided by the fact that interest in the Moon missions faded within the general public,so those who had always argued that it was a waste of money gained more sway.
To paraphrase Pink Floyd, there is no dark side of the moon.
Janus58
Valued Senior Member
Er, we did have color TV back then. The live transmissions were in B/W to limit transmission requirements. However, this did not prevent them from using color film cameras to record footage, which they did on some missions.
And I repeat, while fake footage might have been enough to fool some people, it wouldn't have got past experts. And there were governments in the world, unfriendly to the US who had experts who would have called out the fakery, and would have been able to back it up. The simple fact is that the US could not have faked the moon missions and have gotten away with it. If any of the "evidence" you claim really existed, it would already be widely accepted that Apollo was a hoax, and this claim would not just be relegated to conspiracy nuts.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I find it curious why people keep believing the space program is a hoax.
Why would a government spent millions of dollars on building rockets, launch them in front of millions of witnesses, and then go back into a film studio to fake a moon landing and low-gravity walking?
And for what purpose? Just to fool people? There are a whole lot of easier ways to create "Big Lies".
Just go on Twitter and declare that the last elections where millions of people cast votes were faked. Case in point, Trump!
Why would a government spent millions of dollars on building rockets, launch them in front of millions of witnesses, and then go back into a film studio to fake a moon landing and low-gravity walking?
And for what purpose? Just to fool people? There are a whole lot of easier ways to create "Big Lies".
Just go on Twitter and declare that the last elections where millions of people cast votes were faked. Case in point, Trump!
Follow the exploiting self-interests, with respect to the whole spectrum from fringe preoccupations like this to even widely celebrated, popular social movements anointed and given blessing by intellectual establishments.
This is contrarianism utilized in a marketing sense, where the goal is eventual opportunistic profit from potential lectures, television pseudo-documentaries, publications, etc.
In contrast to the contrarianism of creating, preserving or exhuming minority thought orientations for largely recreational and fellowship purposes (like Flat Earth clubs). Or for serious "seed stock diversity" efforts in the context of maintaining a variety of ideation nuclei.
Arguably an environment of "Moon landing conspiracy" has been cultivated enough to tentatively yield earnings over the years. But it's unclear if any individual is literally surviving on such full-time. At any rate, maturing it into a lucrative, meme-mining venture that can reliably support a measurable percentage of people as a "new" opportunity avenue or career area is the thing -- not just the occasional "Dr Steven Thomas" facade benefiting irregularly.
Last edited:
Sorry but I stayed up to watch it live.
Sell your propaganda to someone else.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
c'mon Saint, get real. Half the scientific world was monitoring the event and here you come along and declare the whole thing was a hoax? You have no evidence other than training films which were shot on earth, long before the actual trip to the moon.
Why do you believe unsupported and unsubstantiated rumors and reject evidentially supported records of the scientific world? Don't be stupid!
In 1959 the Russian probe Luna 2 sent back radio signals from the Moon to the USSR.
In 1962 the satellite Telstar was sending satellite TV from Europe to America via geosynchronous orbit.
In 1968 Apollo 8 sent video from Lunar orbit to the Earth.
Your claims are nonsensical.
A question - what do you get out of posting these silly conspiracy theories? Do they make you feel significant? Intelligent?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
AFAIK, no one accuses China of that. I just hope they will televise the launch and recovery.
Janus58
Valued Senior Member
In addition to what billvon has already mentioned, Rangers 7, 8, &9 successfully sent back videos of their impacts on the Moon's surface in '64 and '65. Surveyors 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, &7 (4 failed*) all sent back video from the Moon's surface between '66 and '68.
In 1962, Mariner 2 sent data back from a fly-by of Venus
In 1965, Mariner 4 sent images back of Mars during a flyby. We were able to receive data from it as late as 1967, by which time it was far past Mars.
You do not have the faintest idea of what technology was, or was not capable of in 1969.
We were even developing nuclear powered rocket engines by that time. The initial plans included a Mars mission by 1978 and a permanent Moon base by 1983.
These plans were ended when Congress, on a budget cutting spree, cut funds to the project. Without the more efficient Nuclear rocket, those missions were just not feasible.
You stated earlier that it should be easier to go back to the Moon with today's technology, but that is simply not the case. We are still using chemical rockets, which have limits, and thus are not that much better than those used for the Apollo missions.
It was a shift in political priorities that stopped us from developing the type of technology that would have had us to Mars by now. Congress decided they wanted a "Space Truck" (the shuttle) to get things into low orbit, and thus they shifted funds from further manned space exploration to that.
* All told, there were 65 lunar missions launched by either the US or USSR before 1969 ( 1 manned,) Of those 65, 24, or over 1/3, were unsuccessful from various causes.
It would be nice to see that again.
Even in my jaded old age, I was thrilled by the SpaceEx soft landing.- Status