What is your theory on why the USA has not been to the moon in the past 40 years?

Discussion in 'Moon Landing' started by Clint Torres, Jul 7, 2011.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0

    it was more than a 'PR stunt' to the thousands of workers who made it happen...they weren't the politicians.
     
  2. daisydotell

    daisydotell Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,930
    Likes Received:
    6,499
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The land wasn't barren it was fertile. There is a big difference, this was fresh land with promise they had an easy vision. Establishing a moon base right now would be prohibitive with the current deficits growing daily. In other words we can't afford it, our infrastructure needs work and the budget deficit needs a serious reduction.

    On the other hand the moon is doing what it does best lighting up the night, controlling the tides and showing the seasons.
     
  3. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They didn't know what the new world offered,they could have been like the vikings and walked away fromAmerica,besides nasa's budget is .0.5% of 3 trillion...
     
  4. daisydotell

    daisydotell Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,930
    Likes Received:
    6,499
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How much of that is figured into the budget deficit?

    When you can't afford something you don't do it. Pity our politicians don't understand that.
     
  5. carloslebaron

    carloslebaron New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Messages:
    726
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Woa! then you are not a sane person because you replied my message.

    Too good to be true is because before the assumed traveling to the Moon, the attempts made on earth to simulate a landing on the Moon failed. But astronauts were sent to the Moon anyway... and everything worked so well... so smooth... hmmm

    The first traveling to outer space made by Russians has also several doubts... it appears that the first astronaut for the "press": was one, but another one did the trip. Probably the one who traveled died or got injuried when returned back to earth, and the astronaut for trhe "press" is the one who took the credit.

    With the knowledge of this trick in mind, NASA felt free to fake landings on the Moon as well, and the Russians to accept the trick.
     
  6. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    OOooooooookay <makes twirling motion with my index finger next to my temple>
     
  7. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
  8. carloslebaron

    carloslebaron New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Messages:
    726
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Such twirling motion with your finger might be a mirrorer lunatic reflection that deserves a deep explanation.
     
  9. frenat

    frenat Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    There was a crash of the trainer on Earth but there were also hundreds of successful flights. Does a car crash prove that all other cars don't work?

    If you think the landings went smooth then it only proves you haven't really looked at them.
     
  10. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Interesting way of saying 'nuh-uh,You are!'

    I think we ALL know what I meant(except YOU,maybe)
     
  11. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
  12. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
  13. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
  14. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
  15. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,095
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When you look at the hundreds of posts you have avoided, your request to get one answered falls on deaf ears.

    All collated on my blog - http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/

    As for reflectors proving man was on the Moon, in the absence of even one single piece of evidence showing an unmanned craft was used, that is exactly what they prove. You seem to be under the delusion that suggesting it is feasible, means it actually is, or suggesting an unmanned craft was used means it was.

    For the record and as a means to pre-empt the stock spam response. China did not fake their spacewalk and Jay Windley is better qualified to advise on aggregate transport than a geologist.
     
  16. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The fact that the reflectors are some distance from the landing sites proves this,and you're in NO position to demand 'proof' from anyone...especially with your spammed replies, scott/cosmored/fatfreddy88/david c
     
  17. carloslebaron

    carloslebaron New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Messages:
    726
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100426203545.htm

    Physicists Locate Long Lost Soviet Reflector On Moon

    The French-built laser reflector was sent aboard the unmanned Luna 17 mission, which landed on the moon November 17, 1970, releasing a robotic rover that roamed the lunar surface and carried the missing laser reflector. The Soviet lander and its rover, called Lunokhod 1, were last heard from on September 14, 1971.

    Evidence that suggest that US reflectors could have be installed the same way, no astronauts needed for this task
     
  18. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Only evidence that the russians may have done it that way,nothing else.
     
  19. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You discredited yourself when you said the Chinese spacewalk was real. Once someone is clearly discredited, what's the point of continuing talking to him?

    You avoided the issue that had you checkmated on this other thread.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...ions-were-faked-studio-45.html#post1062832858

    Here's the issue you didn't address.
    Anyone who looks at post #446 will see that you ignored it. You have the attitude that you're winning the debate, but what you're actually saying is pretty lame.

    If it's feasible, it can't be ruled out and you are ruling it out. This is defective thinking. There may have been a clasified mission, or one of the Surveyor craft may have had reflectors attached to its sides.

    This is such a basic issue that any seventh grade science student can see that Jay Windley was wrong.
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487&page=135&p=6341973&viewfull=1#post6341973

    He's a qualified scientist who's paid to lie. Your supporting his stand destroys your credibility again.
     
  20. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,095
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Spam. I actually attempted to pre-empt the spam, but as always futile.

    Lying spam. The cable is affected by shape memory which I have stated numerous times in response to your spam.

    I don't rule out feasible, I rule out that it was feasible. Not one piece of evidence, not a single person to come forward and the idea of keeping a secret mission to the Moon, with nobody noticing a launch, or adaptions to given hardware - totally unfeasible.

    Spam. The geologists on that site quite rightly think your claim is moronic. You cherry pick parts of their statement, and ignore others.

    Prove it spammer.

    When the judge of my credibility is an obsessive spammer, who trawls hundreds of forums with identical posts and responses and regularly spams 50 youtube videos with identical comments in one sitting, I can rest assured it's quite secure.
     
  21. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Anyone who actually looks at the discussion can see that you're tap dancing around the issue that has you checkmated. This is the issue.
    Now please address that issue. Tell us why the movement is one hundred percent consistent with the cable being buoyant.
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487&page=132&p=6317012&viewfull=1#post6317012

    Tell us why at no time does the cable move in a way that's inconsistent with its being buoyant.
     
  22. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,095
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Spam. Do you just cut and paste identical replies from some sort of online folder? Nothing you say has ever had anybody checkmated. You are simply incapable of understanding, you have a profound lack of critical thinking skills and have no idea whatsoever about logic.

    Begging the question. The movement is absolutely nothing like a buoyant cable. There are numerous passages where the same movements occur horizontally.

    I have asked this of you numerous times and you simply run away from answering it. Why would China use a buoyant steel cable in the first place?

    Begging the question again. As I said, there are numerous times when this floaty effect is seen as the cable moves horizontally.

    An example at 8 minutes 30 seconds onwards. Clearly there is no strain on the cable, yet it floats to the left:

    [video=youtube;9PAkbT4kTpI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpag e&v=9PAkbT4kTpI&t=513[/video]



    I have no idea why your totally off topic spam is allowed.
     
  23. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,095
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please, once again, offer your totally ridiculous explanation for how a flag can rotate in a viscous medium without the fluid causing the fabric to billow outwards. You make some weird claim that the film speed has been altered - by what margin roughly, and why would this make one iota of difference.
     
  24. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're trying to mislead the viewers who don't take the time to look at all of the footage. This post tells you where to see it all.
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487&page=132&p=6317012&viewfull=1#post6317012
    (post #3946)

    Anyone who actually watches it will see that what you're saying simply isn't true. I urge all viewers who don't have time to look at the footage not to be swayed by rhetoric and withhold judgement until you have the time to look at it.


    You're really stretching your imagination to see what you want to see. If you start watching the video at the 8:20 time mark, you'll see that it wants to float upwards but his elbow is holding it down. Its buoyancy is only slighty positive so, when it's pushed downward, it continues downward before coming to a stop and starting to float upwards again. Then there's all the other footage in which it's obviously one hundred percent consistent with its being buoyant in water.

    Evidently they did so our not knowing exactly why doesn't make the fact that they did go away. We can speculate though. They probably couldn't find the exact thing they needed to simulate zero-G in a vacuum and they didn't take the trouble and go to the expense of developing something special. The whole footage is full of anomalies. It's amazing that they ever thought they could pull this off. It's so clearly faked that it's amazing that NASA chose to take the position that it's real. This destroys NASA's credibility and the credibility of all the pro-Apollo posters who try to obfuscate the anomalies.
     
  25. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    NO it's NOT scott/cosmored/fatfreddy88/david c...your imagination isn't proof.
     

Share This Page