The Moon Missions: Why were they aborted?

[Water Bug]

There were six (6) manned Apollo moon landings... Apollo 11, Apollo 12, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16, and Apollo 17.

And, those guys on Apollo 13 certainly were heroes in their own right.

And, what these men accomplished during their missions must not be taken lightly. Many were in the military serving their country... and in a really big way!

[angusW]

Once they found Data's head I guess they figured that they have enough stuff to study to bother going back :D

[Blerv]

Once they found Data's head I guess they figured that they have enough stuff to study to bother going back :D

ROFL! Maybe Megatron threatened them?

[jackburton9807]

After a few trips it seemed a bit like my last "wife", pointless and far more expensive than I had anticipated. Who cares.

[SolidState]

Once they found Data's head I guess they figured that they have enough stuff to study to bother going back :D

Too true!

I spent years trying to find data on the moon landing because I find it incredibly hard to believe. I have found data from mirrors placed upon the surface of the moon that are used to reflect lasers and determine positioning. We wouldn't have the mirrors on the moon had we not been there to place them.

The simple explanation is that people only pay for religion for the sake of religion, not science for the sake of science.

[ChrisR]

The fact that Buzz Aldrin was approached by a man asking him to swear on the Holy Bible that he had been to the moon and he very hatefully declined. There's just a lot of things about the moon missions that just don't add up.

I kinda get Buzz's attitude though ... I mean, if you had spent your career risking your life for the nation and you'd been on the most amazing mission to the moon, and you'd done it and come back alive, you'd find it pretty insulting if you constantly got asked whether you did it or to swear on the bible. According to an interview I heard, he was pestered by conspiracy theorists and it just made his blood boil to be doubted in that way ... so there would be no way that he'd play their games and swear or go on oath ... he did it, it was patently obvious he did it and it was insulting to the man to suggest otherwise.

As has been said, we haven't been back because it's an uninhabitable ball of dust and rock with little or no commercial value. Mars has much more potential because it has water frozen into the permafrost and a more interesting geology that might eventually show signs of ancient life. Also, computer & comms technology has improved massively since the 60s and so the emphasis has moved from manned space research to remote-control - like the current Curiosity mission. I have no doubt that men will walk on Mars in the next 50 years but they will probably do a lot more unmanned missions first and the economy will have to pick up because it will be fearfully expensive.

[The Deacon]

I kinda get Buzz's attitude though ... I mean, if you had spent your career risking your life for the nation and you'd been on the most amazing mission to the moon, and you'd done it and come back alive, you'd find it pretty insulting if you constantly got asked whether you did it or to swear on the bible. According to an interview I heard, he was pestered by conspiracy theorists and it just made his blood boil to be doubted in that way ... so there would be no way that he'd play their games and swear or go on oath ... he did it, it was patently obvious he did it and it was insulting to the man to suggest otherwise.

Not to mention that he was lured to that interview under false pretenses, and the person "asking him to swear" was Bart Sibrel who, according to Wikipedia:

Bart Winfield Sibrel (born 1964) is a Nashville, Tennessee-based filmmaker who claims that the six Apollo Moon landings between 1969 and 1972 were hoaxes. He has filmed two documentaries on the subject: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon and Astronauts Gone Wild.

Dealings with Apollo astronauts

Most astronauts have refused to grant him interviews. The most infamous incident involved Apollo 11 crew member Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon. According to Aldrin, he was lured to a Beverly Hills hotel on September 9, 2002 under the pretext of an interview on space for a Japanese children's television show. When he arrived, Sibrel was there demanding that he swear on a Bible that he had walked on the moon.

When Aldrin refused, Sibrel called him a "coward", a "liar", and a "thief". An exasperated Aldrin punched Sibrel in the jaw, which was recorded. Sibrel later attempted to use the tape to convince police and prosecutors that he was the victim of an assault. However, it was decided that Aldrin had been provoked, and, based on Sibrel's unfazed, nearly instant reaction to his cameraman, did not actually injure Sibrel, so no charges were filed. Many talk shows aired the clip, making Sibrel the butt of jokes. Sibrel said later that he wrote a letter of apology to Aldrin.

Sorry JD, think your mind is made up and you will carry your disbelief of the moon walks to your grave, as I will carry mine of Marilyn Monroe committing suicide, Oswald acting alone, and BHO being born in the USA.

[The Mastiff]

I knew a guy that was working on a project ( pre 9/11 when we weren't as broke) to set up bases on the moon for something called helium 3. Apparently it's available there in abundance which is why the Chinese want to go there.

He's passed away so I can't talk to him now but I know whatever he was working on was defunded.

Joe

[JD Spydo]

Not to mention that he was lured to that interview under false pretenses, and the person "asking him to swear" was Bart Sibrel who, according to Wikipedia:



Sorry JD, think your mind is made up and you will carry your disbelief of the moon walks to your grave, as I will carry mine of Marilyn Monroe committing suicide, Oswald acting alone, and BHO being born in the USA.

No Deacon I'm not some narrow-minded redneck slug who doesn't examine evidence with an objective mind giving both sides the benefit of the doubt>> No I'm not that way at all. I just happen to see some evidence that demands a verdict and it seems rather strange to me that NASA or the US Government themselves didn't go straight to the public and let us know up front what was going on with the Moon Missions.

And the one brother (Chris R) does make a great point about Mr. Aldrin and I will admit that I never looked at it that way at all. Maybe the guy with the Bible went at it with totally the wrong attitude and there probably was more than met the eye. I just thought it was strange that he would just walk away without so much as an explanation of some sort.

No Deacon I'm just the kind of guy who doesn't automatically believe what the bought and paid for news media happens to tell us. I want evidence that I can take to court and get a conviction before I believe a lot of what I hear. And like I said during that particular time of the Nixon administration we were plagued with so many blatant lies about everything you can think of such as the ones I previously listed.

I just think the American public has been brainwashed by the corporate TV tube that has them led by the pied piper of corporate greed and I just want the truth>> whatever that truth is>> And if I'm a jerk for wanting to know the truth well I guess you all can call me a jerk. The truth will get you killed now a days I realize that.

I really didn't want this thread to go down this direction and manifest hatred and misunderstanding. I was just wanting to know why they officially abandoned a mission which they once thought was the utmost importance. But I guess I'm a jerk again for seeking out the truth. I'm sorry we can't have a discussion like gentlemen. I may just delete the thread.

[Blerv]

I think the thread is FAR from heated. Pretty impressive considering it's a topic that is a few shades below the wrath of the 9/11 validity.

Perhaps I'm thick skinned but Paul's statement didn't seem to hold judgement or insult. You rebutted it with your actual stance of being open minded. Why does it have to get personal?

The flip side of the freedom of speech coin is that everyone else has it too. Not everyone agrees and there is a varying degree of respect and conversational skill. Entering topics of politics and religion is a full contact sport. People don't have to play but if so they should expect the worst. Even the professionals act like blithering children.

[JD Spydo]

I think the thread is FAR from heated. Pretty impressive considering it's a topic that is a few shades below the wrath of the 9/11 validity.

Perhaps I'm thick skinned but Paul's statement didn't seem to hold judgement or insult. You rebutted it with your actual stance of being open minded. Why does it have to get personal?

The flip side of the freedom of speech coin is that everyone else has it too. Not everyone agrees and there is a varying degree of respect and conversational skill. Entering topics of politics and religion is a full contact sport. People don't have to play but if so they should expect the worst. Even the professionals act like blithering children.

Yeah you're right Blerv I probably did have a bit of a knee jerk reaction of sorts>> but it did sort of have shades of myself belonging to a group of conspiracy theorists who belong to the Flat Earth Society or maybe even something worse :rolleyes:

I'm sure Deac is really a good guy who didn't mean it to come off at face value. But I will say this>> there sure are a lot of serious unanswered questions about the Moon Missions. Just the fact that Neil ARmstrong only did 2 interviews in 25 years is a bit odd in my book. But maybe he was told not to talk much about his work>> I probably shouldn't have even started this thread>> but I mean no disrespect to anyone I just want to know what's up that's all.

[Sequimite]

I just happen to see some evidence that demands a verdict and it seems rather strange to me that NASA or the US Government themselves didn't go straight to the public and let us know up front what was going on with the Moon Missions.

I think Paul went a step too far in expressing the opinion that JD is incapable of change. I also think JD took it more harshly than it was intended. So if evidence will change your mind lets get down to cases.

What evidence is this that you speak of? Your question about motivation was a good one that has been IMO convincingly answered. I assume you are not demanding that the government prove they have nothing to hide. If so you might show them how its done by proving that you are not a serial killer. Tough to prove a negative.

[CubistHamster]

I knew a guy that was working on a project ( pre 9/11 when we weren't as broke) to set up bases on the moon for something called helium 3.
Joe

Helium-3 is an isotope of Helium that is extremely rare on Earth, but potentially quite valuable as a fuel for fusion reactors because, unlike our current fuels (Deuterium and Tritium) the Helium-3 reaction does't produce any radioactive neutrons. Assuming we ever figure out how to build fusion reactors economically, using Helium-3 as fuel would allow them to produce essentially zero radioactive waste.

The solar wind produced by the sun is the primary source of Helium-3, and the theory is that the moon's lack of an atmosphere has allowed the stuff to accumulate in the lunar regolith (soil) in far greater concentrations than are found on Earth (or are likely to be found on Mars.)

[Water Bug]

I find it unfortunate that this conspiracy stuff about the manned moon landings is being discussed within a week of Neil Armstrong's passing. This is not the way to honor a hero of space exploration and a veteran of the Korean Conflict.

It is also not the way to honor all those who perished in the name of U.S. space exploration... Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia.

[Clip]

Yeah you're right Blerv I probably did have a bit of a knee jerk reaction of sorts>> but it did sort of have shades of myself belonging to a group of conspiracy theorists who belong to the Flat Earth Society or maybe even something worse :rolleyes:

I'm sure Deac is really a good guy who didn't mean it to come off at face value. But I will say this>> there sure are a lot of serious unanswered questions about the Moon Missions. Just the fact that Neil ARmstrong only did 2 interviews in 25 years is a bit odd in my book. But maybe he was told not to talk much about his work>> I probably shouldn't have even started this thread>> but I mean no disrespect to anyone I just want to know what's up that's all.

JD, what's wrong with only giving two interviews? I've always heard he was just a guy doing the job he was given. Just so happened that job was cooler than most. Several people, including Aldrin and Glenn, described him as quiet and reserved. Hey, some people are just nerdy engineer types :)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/2 ... 30343.html