Here's a few i've never heard addressed.


1.) why would NASA immediatley come out and flately state that "the face on mars" is not a face or anyhting artificial. wouldn't a statement like "we don't think it's a face becasue of xyxyxyx, etc. but we'll investigate and find out".
wouldn't that seem more reasonable as it would generate huge public/private interest and in turn generate some much needed cash for NASA. why immedialty discredit it??


2.) why are we going to the moon, AGAIN!!! at a cost of 104 BILLION?!?!?!
seriously. and why is it going to take 10-15 years of prep and planning??
it took less planning and prep in the 60's and the technology back then was non-existent compared with today. does this seem odd to anyone?
is the public/congress gonna buy into this?


3.) why are MOST of the conspiracy theory de-bunkers devoid of any intelligent discussion/conversation. i would love to have an open respectable dialogue about possible NASA cover-ups.

Because it obviously isn't a face and there is nothing artificial about it. There's nothing to investigate and find out. Are you saying they should lie about that? Do you propose NASA starts a conspiracy to secure funding and fame?

Doing stuff in space isn't cheap. It took at least 10 years for Apollo. Heavy lift rockets capable of launching equipment to carry astronauts to the moon are pretty much as non-existant now as they were then. No, this doesn't seem odd. Everyone who doesn't go through life with their conspiracist blinders on won't have a problem with that.

And you start by dismissing their discussions as dumb. Way to go, there.

wow! that didn't take long. You're exactly the type of make pretend scientist that i was talking about who is devoid of any intelligent conversation.

oh, right. Obviously. i guess that makes it so. end of discussion. bravo.


i never said anything about a conspiracy. and thanks again for such compelling evidence on nothing.


i didn't call anyone dumb, but i did refer to you as one of the many who are devoid of any intelligent debate and you proved my point quite eloquently. thanx dude.

1) NASA said that the face wasn't a face because, well, it doesn't look like one. Here's the most recent picture of it. Just looks like any other butte.

2) The current plan to go to the Moon is much more involved than Apollo was. Back then, astronauts stayed for under a week. Now they want to keep them there for one week to (possibly) six months. Plus they're planning on sending 6 astronauts instead of 3. And they want the capsule to be reusable.

So. More complex, more expensive. Also one heck of a lot more useful. The CEV (Crew Exploration Vehicle) is being designed to possibly be used for missions to Mars as well as to the Moon.

3) The reason that many debunkers seem a bit sharp is that they have to deal with the same arguments over and over again. It gets frustrating when people don't listen, can't be convinced, and become insulting when they are proven wrong. So when the next person comes along asking about hoaxes and the like, they get yelled at. I'm not saying it's right, and I'm not saying it should be done, but there it is.

Added: Welcome to the forum! I can't believe that I forgot to say that.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

sleepycell, if you want to avoid being banned here, I'd suggest you start making claims and defending them. However, if you're one of our sort of visitors who seems to want to get banned so they can go off and claim that we're closed-minded, just let me know, and I can save all of us a lot of time and trouble.

As for your questions:

1.) why would NASA immediatley come out and flately state that "the face on mars" is not a face or anyhting artificial. wouldn't a statement like "we don't think it's a face becasue of xyxyxyx, etc. but we'll investigate and find out".
wouldn't that seem more reasonable as it would generate huge public/private interest and in turn generate some much needed cash for NASA. why immedialty discredit it??

NASA suggesting that some blurry image of a hill on Mars could be artificial would make them a laughing-stock and probably result in some significant funding cuts. (Remember that NASA couldn't do any SETI work for over 20 years because Congress refused to fund it.)


2.) why are we going to the moon, AGAIN!!! at a cost of 104 BILLION?!?!?!
seriously. and why is it going to take 10-15 years of prep and planning??
it took less planning and prep in the 60's and the technology back then was non-existent compared with today. does this seem odd to anyone?
is the public/congress gonna buy into this?

If NASA were told to get men on the Moon and return them safely to the Earth within the next ten years, and cost was no object, NASA could almost certainly do it. But that's not what's happening. NASA is being told to develop a new manned space exploration infrastructure - not just a stunt - and to do it without spending any extra money over what's already been planned. Of course it's going to take longer!


3.) why are MOST of the conspiracy theory de-bunkers devoid of any intelligent discussion/conversation. i would love to have an open respectable dialogue about possible NASA cover-ups.

Without examples, this is just an incendiary statement. Could you perhaps point us to some of the discussions you find devoid of intelligence?

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

thanx Canuck!




?!!?!?!?!?!
what is this??? Nazis for NASA??!! i appreciate your answers to my questions but you're threat is ridiculous. in case you did not notice i posted this under the "Conspiracy theory" thread. and also, I've made NO claims other than most de-bunkers (once agin, this is the conspiracy thread) are devoid of intelligent conversation and so far 2 people have proved that claim on this thread.
stop being a baby. seriously. relax. i won't attack anyone who does not attack me. I think you're ideas/science is just as laughable as you think of mine. but that's ok, because as they say "this is america after all" right? right.
so let's all ease up on the banning threats and let's not get too confrontational of the "wacko conspiracy guy" who is posting on the (for the third time) CONSPIRACY THREAD.

The "face on Mars" has been the subject of a great deal more publicity and speculation than is deserved of a feature that somewhat resembles a face under a certain set of conditions. In the absence of any evidence that the feature was created by intelligent beings, clamoring for an "investigation" is patently silly.

Regarding returning to the Moon, there are a few reasons, of varying merit, but for me the most compelling reason is to regain a focus for our manned space program. Whether that's worth $100B may be debatable, but the alternative IMO is to abandon manned spaceflight entirely, at least for a long
time.

The Apollo program was incredibly risky. We aren't willing to accept the same risk of disaster today. Despite the huge gains in technology, spaceflight presents a large number of very difficult problems, and is still exceedingly dangerous. And expensive. This is why it takes so long to go back - combined with the lack of resolve resulting in part from resistance from those who say it's not worth it.

__________________
"Scientific progress goes 'boink'?"

Hi SleepyCell, and welcome.

Interesting questions. IIRC. NASA did make note of the fact that the "face" indeed did resemble a face. Considering the low resolution of the photo, it would not have been prudent to immediatle declare it an alien artifact when all they had was an image that looked face-like. Later photos from other systems were trashed by the "HB folks" (look around for "Catbox" references)

For 104 Billion (far less than what Apollo cost, considering inflation), we are re-learning manned spaceflight outside of low Earth orbit...something we haven't done in 30 some years. The launch vehicle technology and spacecraft experience went away with Apollo and the Saturn V. The new generation of boosters will be based on some existing, proven shuttle technology, along with the materials and technological advances made through the years. We need to learn to do this again and trips to the moon are a good starting point if we are seriously considering getting to Mars.

I'm not sure what the last point was about. In my experience here and at other boards, I have seen many arguments that say that Apollo was faked. The same arguments ("doctored" photos, Van Allen radiation, no landing crater under LM descent engine, etc) which seem to reflect the same arguments from the same few sources. Many, many professional scientists and engineers have clearly shown these arguments to be flawed and simply without merit. If you do have specific questions or concerns on Apollo, and will keep an open and inquiring mind, I hope we can give you further insight into the overwhelming evidence supporting the moonlandings. It may require a bit of reading on your part, simply dismissing our evidence because it conflicts with ingrained beliefs is not a 2 way discussion...I've seen these before and nobody "wins".
I'm a schoolbus driver, a couple of Masters courses in space science, and a spaceflight enthusiast. These are my qualifications...and I know we went.

Dave

Well open respectable dialogue would be nice. The problem is there would have to be evidence of a NASA coverup to have a dialogue about the coverup. You don't happen to have some evidence, do you?

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Hey now.. play nice...there are plenty of posters here who want to get banned and then brag about it on other boards. We've seen it happen fairly often, and then your first statement above comes.

BTW ToSeek has been posting here for a very, very ,very long time and has seen many posters come and go.

I think comparing him to A Nazi (and anyone else here) is way out of line.

Also , this is probably not a good choice of words. "Attacking" people here will get more than one person banned, probably....

Later

Pete

__________________
PJE

There's so much I don't know about astrophysics. I wish I had read that book by that wheelchair guy.

Hi sleepycell, you have been banned for 24 hours. You're welcome to come back tomorrow. We ask that our members be nice, and respectful of everyone here. You must be aware that most members here are de-bunkers, and you have insulted all of them. You've also called someone here a baby. This is outside the behavior we accept. Attack the idea, not the person.

Hopefully, you'll have time to understand what we ask, and will be willing to engage in the kind of productive discussion this forum tries to maintain.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

as a note one the time and cost: NASA plans on doing this within it's current budget (and projected budget)...so this isn't on top of everything else. They're shifting gears from the space shuttle to this program. I.e. they're merely re-allocating funds they already have.

And that's another reason it'll take longer than Apollo. There is no reason to rush, and they have a comparitavely smaller budget compared to their Apollo heydays. Throw on top the already mentioned need to redesign and relearn the technology required, and you've got all the reasons for a slightly longer time scale.

Just look at the high res pictures of the area. It does not look like a face. So yeah, it is obvious. Also, there are no signs of artificiality. That indeed makes it so until evidence to the contrary is presented.

You asked "is the public/congress gonna buy into this?" and I replied that there is no reason anybody wouldn't unless they want to see a conspiracy. But since you don't want to hear about conspiracies, I guess I should have simply answered "Yes." to that question.

Your reply however begs the question why you were questioning whether people would "buy into this" if it isn't for the suspicion of a conspiracy. Otherwise, what would have to be bought into? I eagerly await your explanation after your timed ban is lifted.

I didn't accuse you of calling anyone dumb. What's your point?

why would NASA immediatley come out and flately state that "the face on mars" is not a face or anyhting artificial.

Because it's incredibly improbable that it's actually a face.

wouldn't a statement like "we don't think it's a face becasue of xyxyxyx, etc. but we'll investigate and find out".

Let me rephrase your statement the way I see it, and maybe the answer will become clear: "We don't think that cloud in the sky is really a bunny rabbit for reasons X, Y, and Z, but we'll investigate it and find out." I don't mean that to sound condescending, but to the scientifically-minded you simply don't have to give detailed reasons for why a fluffy cloud isn't really a bunny, even if it really looks like one.

wouldn't that seem more reasonable as it would generate huge public/private interest and in turn generate some much needed cash for NASA. why immedialty discredit it??

It's not that easy. NASA doesn't get a very big budget. It seems like a lot, and you see all their fun toys and think that they are well-funded, but in fact NASA gets by on a fraction of what they got during Apollo. There are lots of space scientists at universities and places all over the world who want to do the kind of science that only NASA can do. NASA can do only a very small fraction of that science for them, and so there is very fierce competition for the limited NASA resources. For NASA simply to say, "We're going to take that precious spacecraft time that you've all competed hotly for, and use it to check out a supermarket tabloid story," would cause a riot in the scientific community. And as a matter of fact, the scientists have more sway with Congress about NASA's budget than the readers of tabloids do.

why are we going to the moon, AGAIN!!!

Probably for political reasons, the same as 40 years ago. NASA would love to do it for engineering and scientific reasons, but the purse-strings are always held by people who are looking at what political benefit they get from them.

...at a cost of 104 BILLION?!?!?!

Adjusted for inflation this is only about 20% more than it cost for Apollo. The new missions are more ambitious too. The plan is not simply to repeat the Apollo stunts, but to do more science and take on more challenges.

Unfortunately it does come at a bad time for national finance. We're currently conducting a war with no end in sight, and we have a rather disastrous hurricane and flood to clean up.

and why is it going to take 10-15 years of prep and planning??

Because we're not trying to beat anyone there this time. It's not a race, and NASA is under fire for not being concerned enough about safety.

...in the 60's and the technology back then was non-existent compared with today.

The 1960s was considered the golden age of aerospace engineering.

...does this seem odd to anyone?

No. I work on the periphery of the aerospace business. It seems about right. Personally I think it could probably be done for cheaper, but I don't think it could be done any faster.

is the public/congress gonna buy into this?

Sadly, probably not. The CNN straw poll asking whether we should do this right now has a majority saying no.

why are MOST of the conspiracy theory de-bunkers devoid of any intelligent discussion/conversation.

I don't find that this is the case.

i would love to have an open respectable dialogue about possible NASA cover-ups.

This is probably the place to do it. But typically the debunkers get frustrated with people who argue vehemently for one particular farfetched notion or another, and don't carefully check their facts or apply good logic. Debunkers really do have open minds, but being open-minded doesn't mean you leave your brain in your locker. You can be open-minded and still put things to the test.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Or as someone's (I don't remember who) sig says:

An open mind is like an open window; unless you have a good screen, you let in all kinds of weird bugs.

__________________
Old laser physicists never die, they just become incoherent.
These days, every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows what a photon is, but he is wrong. - Albert Einstein

At what point was SleepyCell banned? He was not at the point where he had degenerated into name-calling, I think. And once you are banned you might not know that you are later "un-banned".

He posted his post in the form of a question "Nazis for NASA??!! " I think we have to be careful and patient when dealing with such people.

But, at the same time I can relate to having to patiently explain something to someone and they result to insults when they are cornered or when they find that they are starting to think that they really might be wrong. Nothing is worse than trying to show someone the light when you have already been down the path they are on and they return the favor with crude insults. Nothing.

Do you mean that you can pst anything you want, as long as you put a question mark at the end? Or is there any other reason you mentioned that he used the form of a question?

Oh, and Sleepycell was of course only banned after his last post.

And where do you see Sleepycell 'patiently explain something', 'corner' someone, or 'trying to show someone the light'? Do you really think that someone here think that they really might be wrong after Sleepycells posts?

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

__________________