Absolute hogwash, nothing is ever in the interest of the public. In a world of profit, the public's interest is last.

Wow, considering it was the govt. of the day, you are telling me that it would not bear any measure of influence on the space program. wow, lets start drawing lines of where it does and where it doesn't. And lets just say we had an honest govt. telling you the truths, it seems you'd still try to tell me the govt. didn't do anything wrong..especially when it came to the space program because scientists were running the whole show, yeah right. spin spin

So because the government of the day was not forthcoming about the details of the assassination of JFK, it follows that there's an atmosphere on the moon, despite no evidence to support the idea and plenty independent evidence to refute it?

Sorry, piknar, but you're doing exactly what I said I thought you'd do. You are talking utter nonsense, then calling people names when they refuse to agree.

Do be aware that most BAUTers are thoroughly familiar with your approach, and are too intelligent to be fooled by it. If you really want to impress a BAUTer, you're best advised to present some evidence.

Well, except inasmuch as they, you know, pay for things. Like taxes. For space missions.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Oh, ok so they were forthcoming on the space program..

And i called no one names, just what was said, just like nonsense=hogwash

Good one!! Now you saying the taxpayer decides the public's interest.

Like Vietnam, nixon's health care, JFK & Robert, all in the name of public interest, not including the space program that was a small thingie that could just get wrapped into a skylab/mir thingie now because we don't care for the moon.

and
This is intended as helpful advice: affecting a cynical attitude towards politics, and using that cynicism as the basis for sarcastic remarks, does not impress many people.

Face it, we know governments lie, we know the world is not perfect. It's good and healthy to question people's motives.

But leaping to absurd conclusions is not healthy.

And incidentally, in answer to your second point, yes they were pretty forthcoming about the space programme. The coverage was live, and the many photographs and many hours of film are available to anybody who wishes to see them.

Following "i expect the wolves and spin doctors on this board, no experts, as usual." with "spin spin" counts as name calling, in my book.

Sorry.

about our discussion, everything was set up to make the apollo missions to fail. Vietnam, and JFK were a form of internal sabotage. How is killing people in Vietnam as a govt. and wanting to put mankind on the moon compatible.

Nasa is a govt. agency and body, not some association of scientists.

bye bye moon, mars, here we come. good one!!

Is that why they were all successful except 13?

__________________
"One does not require alien ruins in order to absorb a profound sense of wonder and mystery from the moon. That our civilization had actually visited it is miracle enough." Jason Roberts

I'm with LaurelHS on this. How in the name of all that is sane can putting 12 people on the moon count as a failure??? This could possibly count as the worst thought out conspiracy theory of all time.

Are you now saying they didn't land on the moon? If you are, are you aware that this would contradict your earlier claim that the moon landings made us realise there's a significant atmosphere there?

It's a govt agency that has scientists in it.

You're doing the sarcasm thing again, which seems to be based on ignorance.

At the risk of being moderated, it wasn't always that way, at least not all the time.

__________________
Where mainstream ideas can't be found,
some novel theories can be had.
But keep your feet both on the ground;
Sometimes the astronomy's bad.

You may see the cosmos through the noise,
But take care which path you choose.
Remember when reading conspiracy ploys,
A mind's a terrible thing to lose.

So keep your spider sense on high
And before they drive you to booze,
Take time to roll up your pant legs, boys,
It's too late to save your shoes.

No no, i totally believe in our future in the stars, and believe we made it to the moon.

I prefer my future well outside of stars (perhaps excepting some Hollywood stars..).

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

Then what did you mean about the government setting up the Apollo missions to fail?

__________________
"One does not require alien ruins in order to absorb a profound sense of wonder and mystery from the moon. That our civilization had actually visited it is miracle enough." Jason Roberts

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Sorry, I don't accept arguments that rely on the premise that the U.S. government (or any government) is a homogenous blob of undifferentiated, cooperative oppression. "The government" is composed of several competing interests. One doesn't have to believe they are all trustworthy (in fact, the system rather assumes the opposite). But one doesn't get to paint everything governmental with the same color.

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

Well from the surface initially it is a success, but because of 13 and its nuclear payload and the lack of moonbases, one is left with a weird sense of empty.

I am interested about the moon now, because i am hearing that we are going back, so why the long break? why the waste of time? why did we not use the moon's resources? where did our space program get to be about the disposal industry? going up to some spacestation as opposed to build on the moon to last and break new ground? only profit would have come up with such an idea, as some coma on life support.

or,some aliens are on the moon and won't let us colonise there, and now we got some 'star wars' and are coming back for more.

so why the long break?

Ask the public. Two presidents prior to George W. Bush proposed a return to the Moon. Each met with lackluster response and hence was not funded.

why the waste of time?

I don't see that any time has been "wasted." Elapsed, perhaps. The reason is that the public has become disinterested in space exploration and international competition, hence public space programs suffer.

why did we not use the moon's resources?

Because all but a few of them are available in much greater abundance on Earth and can be obtained there at several orders of magnitude less cost. The only unique element of interest is helium-3, which might serve as a fuel for nuclear fusion as soon as we figure out a way to react it.

only profit would have come up with such an idea, as some coma on life support.

Are you claiming that it would have been profitable all along to mine the Moon's resources? Please provide an economic analysis of that hypothesis using actual financial numbers instead of handwaving.

or,some aliens are on the moon and won't let us colonise there, and now we got some 'star wars' and are coming back for more.

An interesting hypothesis. Will you defend it?

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

Sure does when those several layers are compartmentalized in such a way that the vulture contractors never change while the govt. ppl always are changed, best suited to the profit vultures i'd say. so yeah one brush!!

And how many departments of the U.S. government have you personally contracted for? Please give the names.

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

I'm sorry...is "sure does" really your argument?

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Well from the surface initially it is a success, but because of 13 and its nuclear payload and the lack of moonbases, one is left with a weird sense of empty.

piknar, what the heck are you talking about with the "13 and its nuclear payload"? Are you referring to the ALSEP heat source, now comfortably buried in a deep ocean trench? If that leaves you feeling "empty", what about the years of telemetry from the ALSEPs deployed by A12, A14, A15, A16, and A17?

I am interested about the moon now, because i am hearing that we are going back, so why the long break? why the waste of time? why did we not use the moon's resources? where did our space program get to be about the disposal industry? going up to some spacestation as opposed to build on the moon to last and break new ground? only profit would have come up with such an idea, as some coma on life support.

The fact is that the U.S. public lost interest in lunar exploration. NASA and contractors oversold the Shuttle as a cheap, routine way to get into space and develop an infrastructure, and spread the work on the station as much as possible to secure ongoing votes. I actually agree that this was a waste in many ways, but that's real life. In any case, we've actually almost finished the station, the Shuttle - in all it's amazing, versatile, expensive, and somewhat fragile glory - is about to be retired, and we're focusing on human exploration again.

I work in this business, for one of those "vulture contractors". I've worked with NASA, DOD, and DOE. The government isn't one big monolithic entity, but, beyond that, I'm still not quite clear as to what you're getting at.

__________________
"Slapping a guy on the head is just as funny now as it was eighty years ago."

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

I will, and will try to answer some of my assertions, but note that they are lazy speculations sitting in front of my pc, and that is all they are. I wonder whether i am trying to prove anything to anyone except myself, and it seems like I am brainfarting to brainstorm. For sure my assertions are not new and many have recognized where these assertions are coming from and where it is going to end up. Thank you and apologies.

Withdrawing your claims is a perfectly acceptable response to a request for substantiation.

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

For pete's sake NASA isn't even one big monolithic entity. It's a collection of loosely federated centers, all of which do business a different way and operate according to their own procedures.

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

Yep, it's also true of my agency, the FAA. Last year, I accepted a promotion which took me from one "line of business" (Flight Standards) to another (Air Traffic) and the organizational differences are remarkable. Payroll, labor reporting, cost accounting, and staffing applications are unique to ATO as is its organizational heirarchy. On top of that, I had to learn a new version of "greek" because the jargon also changed.

But compartmentalized? No, not even close. We interface with other lines of business and other agencies on a regular basis. Our mission depends on it and our business practices benefit from it.

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Oh, absolutely. The field centers are legendary for acting as independent city-states jealous of their own agendas; especially, say, JPL, which was an independent entity predating the formation of NASA altogether.

__________________
"Slapping a guy on the head is just as funny now as it was eighty years ago."

Is any entity bigger then perhaps a mom and pop operation one monolithic organization? (and even then I have my doubts, my grandparents ran one and they weren't even always on the same page) I've seen rather small (tens of people) businesses/colleges/what-not where the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing, and where one branch/department had its own agenda.

__________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity than malignity" H.G. Wells

"Getting lost is part of exploring." Uniqua in "Backyardigans-Heart of the Jungle"

"Trying to wrap my head around creationist astronomy is like trying to ride a unicycle around a Moebius strip: it’s off-balance, physically impossible, full of one-sided arguments, and in the end you don’t go anywhere." Phil Plait

Piknar

Again, I'd like to ask you:

If the Moon has an atmosphere, how was the Lunar Module able to land on it? In fact, how was it able to orbit the Moon as low as 15 kilometres above the surface. It has no heat shield, and atmospheric friction would cause it to burn up.

The same goes for the Surveyor spacecraft, and the various Soviet spacecraft which landed on the surface.