Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

[Belligerent Savant]

.
With each passing year it becomes increasingly clear -- to me, and others -- that we never landed on the Moon, at least not as depicted on TV, by NASA, and/or in the news. There was a purpose and need to present such a narrative at the time.

I also co-sign with the sentiment of this fellow 'legacy' RIer:

@brainsturbator

Whenever I need a good laugh, I remind myself how many adults I know earnestly & honestly believe we're going to "colonize Mars"



6:41 PM · Jan 16, 2024

[Elvis]

Cognitive dissonance on full display.

[stickdog99]

I am happily agnostic about Moon landings, but it's amazing to me how backwards 21st century technology has gotten.

[DrEvil]

There's just no one around who knows how to build Saturn V's anymore. The institutional knowledge was lost when they switched to shuttle missions and people retired. Then they spent several decades on various programs to get back there that was cancelled or replaced with a new and shiny program when the previous one was almost done and way over cost and a new administration needed to mark their territory. The whole thing turned into a pork feast for the aerospace industry with cost plus contracts out the wazoo. They could do that for so long because there wasn't any competition from anyone else. That's no longer the case, which is why they're starting to make semi-serious noises about actually going back, and even finished building the rocket to do it. A stupidly, insanely expensive rocket obviously, with a grand total of one launch to the Moon so far, but it's there, and it works, or they got incredibly lucky on their first and only try so far.

Plus, Richard "Pork" Shelby is finally retired.

[Elvis]

Mariana Mazzucato, who wrote a book about the Apollo program, says that government has been infantilzed by its increasing reliance on private sector "consultants."

[DrEvil]

Yeah, the last few decades have been more about stuffing the right pockets than anything else. A jobs program for Boeing. Not that maintaining highly skilled jobs is a bad thing in itself, but it would be nice if they had something more to show for it beyond one more yacht for the CEO and billions down the drain. Boeing is the poster child of MBAs taking over and trashing everything in favor of quarterly profits.

Saw an excellent suggestion for their new motto: "Most of our passengers survive!"

[JackRiddler]

There's just no one around who knows how to build Saturn V's anymore. The institutional knowledge was lost when they switched to shuttle missions and people retired. Then they spent several decades on various programs to get back there that was cancelled or replaced with a new and shiny program when the previous one was almost done and way over cost and a new administration needed to mark their territory. The whole thing turned into a pork feast for the aerospace industry with cost plus contracts out the wazoo. They could do that for so long because there wasn't any competition from anyone else. That's no longer the case, which is why they're starting to make semi-serious noises about actually going back...

Edit this to describe the course of the military-industrial complex as a whole, and how it is that the U.S. really did outspend everyone and yet has ended up with a dud armory of billion-dollar planes they'd rather not risk and no artillery shells.

[Belligerent Savant]

Cognitive dissonance on full display.

Care to expound on this, or will you leave it vague and hollow, as it is? What, specifically, constitutes "cognitive dissonance" in my prior commentary?

Individuals that, not too long ago, scoffed at the mere notion of questioning -- for example -- mask effectiveness or mRNA product efficacy, can readily type "cognitive dissonance" without irony. Indeed, those that questioned such things were called "anti-science"! Still, to this day, the dwindling count of individuals that refuse to relinquish their firm grasp of covid-related hysteria/cult-like fervor continue to refer to those with VALID/SOUND reservations as "anti-science". The delusions die hard for many, as exemplified these last few years, on a number of topics. [Climate "Alarm" another, among others].

Consider that certain 'truths' any of you continue to hold as "infallible" may not be as firm as assumed. These last few years alone should serve as BRIGHT, SHINY exemplars of this. But given that many now operate in SHEER DENIAL that they participated or were complicit in BLATANT AFFRONTS to Human Rights, it is no surprise that many continue to refuse to assess information soberly, or fearlessly.

For all these reasons and many others, I continue to marvel at the self-assuredness (or unwavering support of increasingly questionable dominant narratives) on display by many humans, here and elsewhere.
It's a powerful drug.

Anyway, re-directing to the topic of this thread:
With respect to humans landing on the moon, or whatever it is that is being promoted at the moment about human space travel: to be clear, neither I nor any other 'normie' without the ability to reach the outer limits of Earth's orbit can ever know for certain the extent which these current and historical narratives are either partially or fully fabricated.

Best we can do is operate on probabilities.

And as I stated above, and at various points over the last few years (along with a number of others): with each passing year the probability increases that we never went to the Moon, at least as advertised to the masses.

These notions Re: "spending" and/or "budgets" are becoming increasingly unsustainable as viable explanations/justifications for the [stated] FACT humans haven't traveled beyond low-earth orbit for well over 50yrs now (or NEVER, to those that subscribe to the notion we never landed on the Moon).

Keep hope alive, however -- whatever helps you sleep at night.

As of January 2024, humans have not traveled beyond low Earth orbit since the Apollo 17 lunar mission in December 1972.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_spa ... ber%201972.

[DrEvil]

Why the bold font? NASA stopped sending people to the Moon in 1972 because it was stupid expensive with dwindling returns. You make it sound like it's some big mystery or something. The money was spent on other things with better returns.

You keep bringing it up as if it is a valid point, but it really isn't.

with each passing year the probability increases that we never went to the Moon, at least as advertised to the masses.

That would only hold if the amount of evidence supporting your position was increasing, which it isn't. Meanwhile out in the real world we now have photos of the landing site taken from lunar orbit showing the lander and wheel tracks from the rovers, so if anything the probability of you being wrong is increasing each passing year.

(Actually the probability is exactly 50/50. We either went or we didn't.)

[stickdog99]

Why the bold font? NASA stopped sending people to the Moon in 1972 because it was stupid expensive with dwindling returns. You make it sound like it's some big mystery or something. The money was spent on other things with better returns.

You keep bringing it up as if it is a valid point, but it really isn't.

Yes, it is. It's an extremely valid and compelling point, despite your hand waving that it is not.

In fact, it is the most obvious point in favor of the view that humans never actually landed on the moon as advertised and that it has instead taken TPTB roughly 50 years just to land some robots capable of faking the landings that they pretended that humans made 50 years ago.

"We could have gone back hundreds of times every year if we had wanted to, but we just didn't feel like it until 20 years from now" is not as compelling a rejoinder as you appear to believe it is.

[Belligerent Savant]

Stickdog:

It's an extremely valid and compelling point, despite your hand waving that it is not.

In fact, it is the most obvious point in favor of the view that human never actually landed on the moon as advertised and that it has instead taken TPTB roughly 50 years just to land some robots capable of faking the landings that they pretended that humans made 50 years ago.

Quite right. And it isn't only NASA that hasn't surpassed human-piloted low earth orbit ("LEO") in over 50 yrs. NO OTHER COUNTRY NOR ANY PRIVATE ENTITY (Musk, Branson, et al.) have been able to replicate this [reported] feat, EVER.

Indeed, the Private Entities have made claims -- flush with CAPITAL/FUNDS and PLANS --- to travel not only to the Moon but to MARS. Money is not an obstacle (well, except apparently for Branson's outfit. See below.)

And yet, to date, NO ONE has traversed beyond LEO, unless of course there's Dark/Black Ops going on up there that only a very select few know about (if even the 'clandestine' ops are capable of it). To the contrary, it seems efforts have either amounted to little/no improvements of note compared to NASA's 'accomplishments' of late, or they are shuttering outright.

Sir Richard Branson says he won't invest any more money in his Virgin Galactic space travel company, the Financial Times reports. The billionaire serial entrepreneur founded Virgin Galactic in 2004, but the lossmaking venture announced last month it was cutting jobs and suspending commercial flights from 2024.

https://readwrite.com/richard-branson-w ... rom%202024.

[Belligerent Savant]

.
I will be pedantic on this and emphasize further.

When someone claims:

NASA stopped sending people to the Moon in 1972 because it was stupid expensive with dwindling returns.

It's important to reiterate here that the BARRIER that has NOT BEEN SURPASSED since 1972 (Or EVER, for those that don't subscribe to the Moon Landing narratives) is LOW EARTH ORBIT.

NOT 'getting within range of the Moon'. Certainly not LANDING on the Moon (let alone Mars!).

LOW.
EARTH.
ORBIT.

Read the quoted bit above. Notice the reference to exorbitant costs for going to THE MOON, and yet the current THESHOLD IS FAR MORE MODEST. And it would also be a critical, necessary milestone for any entity with far more ambitious aims, such as MARS landings.

Let's see A HUMAN PASS THROUGH THE LOW EARTH ORBIT BARRIER FIRST. This would presumably be far cheaper/less costly.. or no?

And yet, it hasn't happened yet. Indeed, there are precisely ZERO indications in the press or by any govt on this Earth that there will be any near-term attempts to surpass this apparently insurmountable feat.

I mentioned this before, perhaps months ago now, but there will always be a subset of humans that will continue to believe -- 50 years from now, even 100 years from now -- that we are on the cusp of SPACE TRAVEL (to planets/moons) & COLONIZATION.

They will never consider any other possibility, at least not outwardly. Irrespective of (lack of) progress in any given space program.

The 'joke' is that many that harbor these beliefs also self-proclaim as atheists without irony, wholly unaware (consciously, at least) of their Dogma and Worship of 'The Science'.

[DrEvil]

Uh.. yeah. low Earth orbit, where the ISS is, one of only two orbital destinations for humans, the other one also being in LEO. Why would they send anyone beyond that for no good reason (and no, sending someone to see if they die from radiation poisoning or not is not a good reason. That's what you have sensors for)? The closest destination after LEO is the Moon, so unless they're going to the Moon there's absolutely no reason to send anyone outside LEO.

Edit:

They will never consider any other possibility, at least not outwardly. Irrespective of (lack of) progress in any given space program.

Why is it so hard to grasp we stopped sending people to the Moon because there was no point in continuing doing so? I've never gotten a good answer to that one: why keep sending people?

All the money was spent on other things with better returns (and as mentioned earlier, a whole lot of pork for large corporations). Earth observation, telescopes, GPS, exploring the solar system with numerous probes, sample return missions, asteroid redirection, space stations, shuttles, etc.

[Belligerent Savant]

It is not hard to grasp. It's quite easy to grasp why one may attempt (and continue to attempt, for years) to insist on this justification.

You type as if NASA remains the only entity vying for extended space travel. As already indicated, there are multiple ventures with ample funding out there.

'Sensors' will only suffice for a limited time. At some point, one will need to venture forth (as NASA claims to have done in the late 60s/early 70s).

Sensors alone will not get a human to another planet/The Moon, needless to say. If they are indeed aiming to travel to The Moon & Mars as ALL press releases advertise (and have advertised for years) they will need to get humans out there beyond LEO at some point, and I'd think they'd want to confirm they can do this FIRST before attempting a full flight & return from the Moon..

As with most experiments/testing/prep programs, once initial testing (w/Sensors, etc) is complete there is generally an initial human test launch -- or even a test launch with animals -- of a shorter duration but beyond the threshold previously reached.

This is precisely what NASA and the Soviets did back in the early/mid 60s.

So -- let's see, eh?

When will it happen? 5 yrs... 10? 20?

Oh, the suspense.

[stickdog99]

Again, "the only conceivable reason nobody has done it for 50 years is because nobody wanted to" is not actually the debate ending rejoinder that you appear to believe is.