First Japan, Now China, Orbit Moon

[TuskCracker]

China satellite orbits Earth's moon
November 5, 2007

A Chinese satellite successfully entered lunar orbit Monday, a month after rival Japan put its own probe into orbit around the moon, but Chinese officials denied there was any competition between the two nations.

China is catching up fast to Japan. Only a month behind on putting a satellite going around the moon. They are only about 38-39 years behind the United States.

 

[Dogen Z]

India is next! It launched a rocket today.

 

[Pachipro]

Also, Japan had the most sophisticated high-resolution orbiter ever to orbit the moon to date and the pics were excellent. My one question is, why did Japan not photograph the US flag and lunar lander supposidly left on the moon by the US in 1969 to put to rest the conspiracies that it was all staged and that we (the US) never went to the moon?

That's all I want. Independent photos of the flag and lander. Is that too much to ask to finally answer this question and put it to rest once and for all? I hope India does indeed take photographs.

 

[Kappa]

If you disbelieve the existing evidence for the Apollo landings, why would one more picture suddenly put the issue to rest?

 

[Drew-san]

Because that picture wouldn't be coming from the US like all the rest of them.

 

[Kappa]

Well, to seriously question the Apollo landings you're presumably suggesting that the US was able to somehow pressure the Soviets, whose tracking and intelligence networks matched that of the US, into not blowing the secret.

The Apollo program generated vast amounts of scientific data, including over 800 lbs of physical samples. These have been available to scientists all over the globe, and so you seem to further suggest that the US has somehow been able to coerce all of them (including those in Japan, India and China) into not questioning its uniqueness and validity.

Why, then, are these new images any more reliable? Even in its current state the US has a lot of potential levers on foreign governments. If they somehow cowed or bought off the Soviets in the '60s, why should these new pictures be any more convincing than 40 previous years worth of evidence?

 

[Putrefaction]

I mean slap it on some PS3's and Sony Japan can get a new wave of exports.

SPECIAL EDITION: LIMITED "IN YOUR FACE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS" 1969 MOON LANDING PLAYSTATION 3

 

[Elizabeth]

Also, Japan had the most sophisticated high-resolution orbiter ever to orbit the moon to date and the pics were excellent. My one question is, why did Japan not photograph the US flag and lunar lander supposidly left on the moon by the US in 1969 to put to rest the conspiracies that it was all staged and that we (the US) never went to the moon?
That's all I want. Independent photos of the flag and lander. Is that too much to ask to finally answer this question and put it to rest once and for all? I hope India does indeed take photographs.

Oh, that's really rich. Ten of thousands of the some of the most brilliant, high powered scientists and astronomers the world has ever produced can assemble and launch an International Space Station (if that's even possible without the moon landings).

But this same motley crew somehow "forgot" to turn off the fan and shut the door on their fake Nevada sound stage. Give me a break.

 

[Hiroyuki Nagashima]

I hear that China failed in the launching of the moon probe satellite.

 

[Kappa]

You mean Chang'e-1? It crashed to the Lunar surface recently, but that seems to have been planned. Last I heard, Chang'e-2 isn't scheduled to launch until the end of this year.

 

[Pachipro]

Also, Japan had the most sophisticated high-resolution orbiter ever to orbit the moon to date and the pics were excellent. My one question is, why did Japan not photograph the US flag and lunar lander supposidly left on the moon by the US in 1969 to put to rest the conspiracies that it was all staged and that we (the US) never went to the moon?
That's all I want. Independent photos of the flag and lander. Is that too much to ask to finally answer this question and put it to rest once and for all? I hope India does indeed take photographs.

Oh, that's really rich. Ten of thousands of the some of the most brilliant, high powered scientists and astronomers the world has ever produced can assemble and launch an International Space Station (if that's even possible without the moon landings).
But this same motley crew somehow "forgot" to turn off the fan and shut the door on their fake Nevada sound stage. Give me a break.

Did I say we did not land on the moon in my post? All I am asking for is independent , verifiable proof. Is that too much to ask? If the Japanese sent a lunar orbiter with the highest resolution to date around the moon why couldn;t they have taken a simple picture and put this conspiracy to rest once and for all? That's all it would take and they would've been world famous for finally putting to rest, once and for all, this 40 year old conspiracy. But they didn't and probably never will and the conspiracy and arguments will continue to linger.

After nearly 40 years, there has been no independent verification that it happened other that what the government tells us. If that be the case than all should believe the government when they say the present economic crisis is not a crisis and that things will get better this year. Not on your life. But many people take it a gospel. "Read my lips. No new taxes." "We invaded Iraq for weapons of mass destruction."

Governments lie to their people on a daily basis and propaganda is a way of life in this world of ours. When are people finally going to wake up to this and understand it?

Also, we need not have landed on the moon to have an orbiting space station. Besides, wouldn't it have been a far better achivement (and cheaper) to have built a space station ON THE MOON (if we actually did go there) and do research there like I was told as a schoolboy, than a flimsly space station costing untold billions of dollars in low earth orbit that can accomplish far less than a space station on the moon? More research, and far better research, could be accomplished on the moon than in a space station, but it never happened nor do I believe it ever will.

Will the Chinese or another nation ever land on the moon? I believe not as "something" will always go wrong to prevent it. Will the US ever "go back"? My belief is they never will. At least not in my lifetime because if it was possible and occurred as are told, then we would already have a strong presence there as I believe that whomever controls the moon and has a strong presence there, controls the planet.

Believe what you will, but without independent, verifiable proof, I will remain on the fence, because I witnessed it with my own eyes, but questions remain as to why we never built the bases there we were told they would and never went back. EVER! But we are to believe that it happened and we never went back because the American peoples interest waned. NOT!

If I am to believe that then I will believe that our economy and that of the world will be back on track within the next few months. NOT!

Too many questions have been avoided for my liking.

 

[Kappa]

Did I say we did not land on the moon in my post?

No, but the fact that you demand proof suggests that you doubt it. Furthermore, you do say exactly that in the post from which I am quoting.

If the Japanese sent a lunar orbiter with the highest resolution to date around the moon why couldn;t they have taken a simple picture and put this conspiracy to rest once and for all? That's all it would take and they would've been world famous for finally putting to rest, once and for all, this 40 year old conspiracy. But they didn't and probably never will

From the JAXA website:

http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/selene_viewer/en/observation_areas/landing_site/

OK, not pictures that actually resolve the LEMs' lower stages I'll admit, but suggesting either damn good guessing by NASA in 1970 or JAXA complicity.


INRO's site is not as nice, but here is a report from Times of India describing Chandrayaan-1's imaging of the Apollo landing sites:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...mapped_by_Chandrayaan/articleshow/3961580.cms

They don't seem to be blowing any whistles.

After nearly 40 years, there has been no independent verification that it happened other that what the government tells us.

Here is a link to the Lunar and Planetary Department of Moscow University:

Department of Lunar and planetary research

Among the English language papers available on this site, you can find "Physical and mechanical properties of lunar soil" by V. Gromov of Moscow University. In it he makes a highly detailed comparison of soil samples returned by the Apollo missions as well as those returned by Soviet automated return missions from 1970 and '72. They match. Again, either remarkably good guessing by NASA, remarkably effective subterfuge or the Russians are in on the plot.

A 2004 paper called "IDENTIFICATION OF LUNAR ROCK TYPES" correlates Apollo data (both sample return and gathered in situ) with data from more recent orbiters. The authors are: A. A. Berezhnoy (Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Russia), N. Hasebe, M. Kobayashi (both from Waseda University), G. Michael (German Aerospace Center, Institute for planetary research, Berlin) and N. Yamashita (also of Waseda). It suggests no anomalies. That's two more nations in on it. Look around and you can find scads more.

I reiterate my position: if the United States was able to keep the Soviet Union from blowing the secret by buying it off, threatening it, colluding with it or fooling it then it would be far easier to do the same with Japan, India and perhaps even China. It is hard to imagine anyone actually examining the body of evidence which has existed for four decades and concluding otherwise.

Let us assume though, for the sake of argument, that this evidence is somehow more reliable. What, exactly, do you doubt? Imagine that these orbiters had been able to give clear images of the LEMs' landing stages on the lunar surface. Did you doubt that hardware had been landed on the Moon? If so, then I guess you must believe the Soviets are also in on it, as they have been claiming to do so since 1966 (even longer if you count hard-landers). In any case, a large number of radio receivers worldwide monitored signals coming back from the ALSEP packages until they were shut off, not to mention the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment which continues to this day. Again, if you believe anything the existence of hardware on the Moon is established, while if you believe nothing new pictures seem pretty pointless.

But even if they would now satisfy you that hardware existed on the Moon, why would they convince you that they had been manned? Seems to me you would want to see the footprints as well.

Governments lie to their people on a daily basis and propaganda is a way of life in this world of ours. When are people finally going to wake up to this and understand it?

Stipulated, but on what basis do you believe some and not others? I'm also curious what caused you to doubt the Apollo landings in particular. Do you doubt the existence of, say, McMurdo Station in Antarctica? Can you disprove it if I assert that it is nothing but propaganda? Would you even bother unless I first offered some compelling evidence for thinking that it didn't?

Also, we need not have landed on the moon to have an orbiting space station.

That's true.

Besides, wouldn't it have been a far better achivement (and cheaper) to have built a space station ON THE MOON

As far as "cheaper" goes that's mistaken. The delta-V, or speed increase a rocket must give you to reach Low Earth Orbit (where the ISS is) is 26,000 ft/sec ideal and about 30,000 actual (and is even higher if you don't launch from the equator). For a soft landing on the Moon with no return the requirements are 44,200 ft/sec and 53,000 ft/sec. To land and return the requirements rise to 52,100 ft/sec and 61,000 ft/sec (figures from George P. Sutton, Donald M. Ross, Rocket Propulsion Elements: An Introduction to the Engineering of Rockets, New York: A Wiley-Interscience Publication, 1976, pg 153). A higher delta-V requirement calls for a bigger, more complex and more expensive vehicle. Note that this cost applies not only to the initial package sent up, but also to every pound of consumable supplies sent up in supporting it.

As to a Lunar base being a "better achievment" I would agree, but precisely because it is not cheaper. Admittedly the two ideas are not directly contradictory, but they border on it.

a flimsly space station

Yes, I suppose so, but in zero-G you don't need to build particularly robustly. Low Earth Orbit (which I'll abbreviate LEO if I refer to it again) has both advantages and disadvantages compared to a Lunar base. It's below the Van Allen belts and thus better protected from many radiation hazards than is even a higher Earth orbit. On the down side zero-G presents some problems in day-to-day housekeeping and--more importantly--results in some detrimental biological changes to the crew over time. One-sixth G probably helps with some of these, but to what degree is still not clear.

The big advantage to LEO (aside from being cheaper) is that it's closer in an emergency. You can de-orbit and be down in under an hour as opposed to several days heading back from a Lunar base. Partially related to this is the fact that a vehicle able to return you from the Moon is more complex. It has to do everything that a return from LEO vehicle does and then some.

More research, and far better research, could be accomplished on the moon than in a space station, but it never happened nor do I believe it ever will.

It depends on what kind of research you want to do. A lot of observational astronomy is mainly hindered by atmospheric absorption, and so getting just outside the atmosphere pretty well covers the requirement. Radio astronomers do like the idea of a farside observatory to block terrestrial interference, but I've heard that electronic signal processing has come far enough that that's considered less of an issue. Solar wind astronomers do want to observe from above the Van Allen belts, but high orbit satellites do the job as well as a Lunar base would.

If you want to study the zero-G environment or biological reactions to it, you simply can't do it on the Moon. You can study one-sixth G, but the main thing to study is the Moon itself. There are some things where LEO is better, some where Luna is better, some where it's a toss-up.


To return to an earlier point:

Did I say we did not land on the moon in my post?

No, but you did in the quote that precedes that one and rather categorically. It seems to me that your fence is leaning.

I believe that whomever controls the moon and has a strong presence there, controls the planet.

The new high ground doctrine. Yes, there are knowledgeable people who make that argument. The idea was first promulgated in the '50s, the idea being that a Lunar missile base would have a much easier time bombarding Earth than vice versa. One common analogy was two men having a rock-throwing fight, one at the top of a cliff and one at the bottom.

It was popular as late as the '60s and you see a lot of military interest in Lunar bases, but by the '70s there was a sense that the idea had been oversold (sometimes deliberately, as by space enthusiasts who wanted to attract military funding). By that time also the development of MIRVs meant that even a small surviving missile force could retaliate against an attack, and SLBMs offered largely invulnerable weapons far more cheaply than a Lunar base could. Now, if you could somehow transplant your entire country to the Moon that would be one thing, but in terms of MAD a base there doesn't gain you a lot.

Believe what you will, but without independent, verifiable proof, I will remain on the fence, because I witnessed it with my own eyes, but questions remain as to why we never built the bases there we were told they would and never went back.

The reasons why the Apollo program was not followed up are numerous, having to do with both international and US domestic politics, not to mention the economic problems of that era. To really over-simplify though, Apollo was primarily a stunt to gain back a mantle of technical superiority over the Soviet Union. That meant that once the race had been won Washington saw no reason to foot the bill for the development program NASA envisioned, or indeed to even fund the last three landings. Had the Soviets decided to continue their program things might have been different, but for similar reasons they chose instead to shelve their own plans and deny they had ever been in the race.


Perhaps it 's beating a dead horse by this point, but I simply fail to see how JAXA or INRO imagery is any more independent or verifiable than material that has been around for decades, unless someone was privileged to personally oversee every step of the operation "with [their] own eyes." Positivism is a virtue, but you really have to live in a wilderness of mirrors to demand it to that level, especially when the evidence for doubting the landings in the first place is so flimsy.

 

[Pachipro]

Very good detailed post with good links Kappa . Thanks for the time you put into it. The fact remains that both sides present some pretty good arguments and proof for their theories, but I stand by my argument that I'd like to believe we went and lean towards it, but will remain skeptical until a photo from a lunar orbiter is finally released that clearly shows the flag and the rover left there. With today's technology that should not be too difficult especially when satellites can photograph your license plate from space as I mentioned. However, I believe it will never happen and, until then, the argument will rage on when it could easily be put to rest.

With the research I've done, it's easy to see how countries could be made to comply just as they are being made to comply with a New World Order as last weeks G-20 meeting proved, or with global warming that they recently changed to "climate change", but this is not the forum or thread for that.

Suffice it to say, as you said, it's like beating a dead horse and those that believe we went will stick by their guns and those that believe we did not go and it was a hoax will stick by theirs and the argument will never be settled. Therefore, I will remain somewhat skeptical at 60/40. 60 that we went and 40 that we didn't due to lack of pictures and the fact that we never went back; have never lived on a foreign planet but yet we plan to have a manned mission to Mars in the next 20 years when it would be much easier to see if we could live and work on the mooin first. Doesn't make alot of sense to me.

Thanks again for your input.

 

[Kappa]

You're welcome, but it didn't really take all that long.

I suspect a Lunar base would come before a manned Mars mission, as it is a more sensible approach. To do it the other way around would be another "stunt" program.

I wouldn't expect either any time soon, though I'm hoping China might get the ball rolling again.


By the way, here's a site with a lot of information on past, present and future space activities:

Encyclopedia Astronautica

 

[bakaKanadajin]

I agree with Pachipro on this one. I think something definitely stinks a little about the lunar landing.

I don't think they didn't go, I think they went and what they saw wasn't suitable for public consumption so they had to fabricate portions of the media, film and images, that which was released to the public. Undoctored, raw images which have come into the hands of former NASA specialists confirm (or seem to confirm, only the experts really know because only they can interpret the data correctly but let's let our noses down a bit and grant them the fact that they are experts and we are not and that many of them have chosen to divulge this information most likely at the cost of credibility within their field as many notable scientists have done in the past *cough*Galileo*cough*) that artifacts, unnatural looking formations, seemingly 'man'-made objects exist both on the moon and on Mars.

For example, IIRC, both Mars rovers were purported to have photographed samples of the exact same objects in their two respective (completely different) locations. This points to either a complete fluke, which is a fair enough possibility, or also quite likely, an object which is mass-produced or produced purposely. There is of course the famous face on Mars and also possible pyramid-like structures which some claim exist if one carefully looks at the weather pattens and the way in which sand has accumulated and clumped up in certain parts around the face area. Again, not yet disproven, something worth looking into I think. Those rovers are still going up there aren't they? Everyone kind of forgot about them but they're still running around checking stuff up, lord knows what they've found so far.

So, everyone's sending up satellites to the moon so they can see what's going on there. The US in conjunction with other astronomers worldwide has also built an extremely powerful telescope in the Antarctic so they can keep an eye on.... ?

The Pope suddenly announced a doctrine reversal recently, after many years of the accepted Christian position basically amounting to a staunch dismissal of any discussion on aliens, that by the way if aliens do exist they are also God's creatures and their existence does no harm to Christian doctrine after all, or something to that effect. That kind of turned some heads.

At the root of it all, I simply feel this way: take notice of what people are doing not what they're saying. So if they continue to tell us aliens or intergalactic phenomena are a joke, but then they're obviously taking keen interest in things up there recently, maybe there's something worth seeing up there?

 

[Kappa]

I agree with Pachipro on this one. I think something definitely stinks a little about the lunar landing.
I don't think they didn't go, I think they went and what they saw wasn't suitable for public consumption so they had to fabricate portions of the media

Then you sort of agree with Pachipro, who (while waffling) has said he does not believe we went. Would your doubts also be influenced by JAXA imagery? I ask the same question: why?

Undoctored, raw images which have come into the hands of former NASA specialists confirm (or seem to confirm, only the experts really know because only they can interpret the data correctly but let's let our noses down a bit and grant them the fact that they are experts and we are not

And yet you reject out of hand the interpretation of the far larger number of former and current NASA experts who have handled and do handle the raw data and yet see no problem with it. Further, I suggest you check some résumés.

The US in conjunction with other astronomers worldwide has also built an extremely powerful telescope in the Antarctic so they can keep an eye on.... ?

... the cosmos, as astronomers have for millennia. Or perhaps you are suggesting that Galileo feared an alien invasion?

The Pope suddenly announced a doctrine reversal recently, after many years of the accepted Christian position basically amounting to a staunch dismissal of any discussion on aliens, that by the way if aliens do exist they are also God's creatures and their existence does no harm to Christian doctrine after all, or something to that effect. That kind of turned some heads.

Is this a NASA conspiracy or a Vatican conspiracy? If we drift into theology then satellite imagery seems to become far less central.

So if they continue to tell us aliens or intergalactic phenomena are a joke,

Who says this? You have, perhaps, heard of SETI? Note also that "intergalactic phenomena" is a rather vague term, care to clarify it? It could mean anything from dark matter to big bang echoes to a rather tenuous gas.


Forgive me if this post offers less evidence than the last, but this thread also seems to be becoming rather tenuous.

 

[bakaKanadajin]

Then you sort of agree with Pachipro, who (while waffling) has said he does not believe we went. Would your doubts also be influenced by JAXA imagery? I ask the same question: why?

I sort of agree with the idea that we aren't getting the full picture, is all. I mean, yea the government has a really good reputation for giving us the unequivocal truth and all but I guess I'm just a stickler for details.

And yet you reject out of hand the interpretation of the far larger number of former and current NASA experts who have handled and do handle the raw data and yet see no problem with it. Further, I suggest you check some résumés.

There are two sides to every tale, this is true.
I'm just saying that history shows us governments take the more easily managed, profitable side to these tales so I'm just not satisfied with the official story is all. That's not my problem it's the governments.

Is this a NASA conspiracy or a Vatican conspiracy? If we drift into theology then satellite imagery seems to become far less central.

It's an odd change of doctrine all of a sudden, that's all. What reason would they have to suddenly include aliens in their doctrine? About-face changes like that are usually reactionary.

Who says this? You have, perhaps, heard of SETI? Note also that "intergalactic phenomena" is a rather vague term, care to clarify it? It could mean anything from dark matter to big bang echoes to a rather tenuous gas.

I'm aware of SETI, I'm not saying they aren't trying for the public's sake, but if they did make contact and wished to keep it a secret how would we ever know? There are a lot of unexplained phenomena and by that I mean encounter-type stuff, starting from the day the government and news media both acknowledged UFO's existence in the 50's and then the next day retracted their statements, to a host of others since then which are always chalked up to military maneuvers.

All I'm doing is keeping an open mind and you'll have to excuse my distrust for 'the official story', as it has been proven numerous times over this past decade to be BS in a host of arenas.

 

[Kappa]

I find it interesting that "open-mindedness" and "fence-sitting" seem to consist of little more than asserting and re-asserting that the Apollo program was a hoax.

It's a shame that a thread on an interesting topic like an increasingly diverse global space program has degenerated into a non-discussion of a non-issue.

I have yet to see anyone on the doubting side offer a solitary piece of specific evidence, despite my having asked for clarification of specific points and beliefs several times. Neither have I seen any attempt to refute the specific evidence which I have offered.

Indeed, I have seen nothing to indicate any "fence-sitter" has even looked at it, protestations of open-mindedness notwithstanding.

This whole issue began with Pachipro bemoaning that the Kaguya probe had not imaged the Apollo sites. I linked to JAXA web pages which showed that they had (some four months prior to that post, though I admit I don't know when JAXA posted it), and that the 3D mapping results matched surface photos taken by Apollo astronauts. As he has not seen fit to comment on that I must presume that he doesn't find it compelling. Why not? Look at the pictures and judge how well they match. Of course, that may simply indicate that JAXA is yet another NASA shill, but then who cares about hypothetical landing site photos they might take? Such photos couldn't be faked? But the whole charge is that NASA did just that, is it not? I find it hard to make anything internally consistent out of this argument.

Now bakaKanadajin tells us we must not question experts, except (I must infer) for the overwhelming number of them in and out of NASA (as well as in and out of the US) who declare the Apollo hoax data ludicrous. His position seems to be that nothing a government (or, I must assume, a university either as that was the source of much of my data) says can possibly be true. What, precisely, the Vatican's relevance is still eludes me. He then alludes to a buffet of vague "ifs" and "purporteds" with no details (despite claiming to be a stickler for same). From what unimpeachable source did these come? Uncle Dick? Stanton Friedman? Or perhaps classics like Bill Kaysing or even Donald Keyhoe? Whichever it might be, is there a non-circular reason for accepting them while rejecting seemingly everyone else?

At the risk of being argumentative for its own sake, the amusing thing about this is that the fervent arguments given for these positions demonstrate remarkably little knowledge of their background. A lot of this information is not hard to scope out, like how rockets work or why astronomers want to look at the sky. To return to a key underlying point, "fence-sitters" seem not to have the foggiest idea how much scientific data is shared and peer-reviewed across international borders. Anyone who's ever checked a university library would know this and laugh at the concept of Apollo data being solely American (unless, of course, they believe that the conspiracy is total, but that's getting downright solipsistic).

It's a disappointment to me that the only thread on this board in which I've found any real interchange has been so dominated by smoke and hand-waving. It's not even particularly good smoke and hand-waving, feeling more like a regurgitation of dimly remembered Hoagland without even his panache. I've heard over and over what you believe, but not a single coherent reason why.

This feels increasingly pointless. For those who actually wish to evaluate these claims, I'll leave a few links. Anyone who feels I've skewed them, by all means post your own.


AULIS Online – Different Thinking. Aulis, all information on the Apollo Moon Landings, faked photos, space exploration

AULIS Online, where you can learn how even the Chinese fake their manned space missions.


The Mars Mission – The Enterprise Mission – The Enterprise Mission

Richard Hoagland's site. Read how Wernher von Braun discovered anti-gravity in the '50s.


MUFON – Mutual UFO Network

MUFON, as this thread has already drifted into saucer territory.



Clavius Moon Base - debunking the moon hoax

"Fence-sitters," you'll make a better case if you're at least aware of the problems with your data.



http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/

Less detailed analysis of particular elements than the above, but still a good overview.



Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy: Bad TV

Astronomer Phil Plait, specifically analyzing the Fox special.



Science News | Science Mission Directorate

And, just for laughs, NASA itself.


Further web searching, or maybe even a trip to a library, will yield even more.

 

[Pachipro]

I have yet to see anyone on the doubting side offer a solitary piece of specific evidence, despite my having asked for clarification of specific points and beliefs several times. Neither have I seen any attempt to refute the specific evidence which I have offered.

Indeed, I have seen nothing to indicate any "fence-sitter" has even looked at it, protestations of open-mindedness notwithstanding.

I have looked at the sites and studied the pictures you posted, but they still do no show me anything concrete that could be considered definitive proof. As the famous quote goes, "A picture is worth a thousand words." And one picture would completely stop this thread in its tracks, but still there is none.

Is JAXA in on the scam? Given what I know today on how Japan is controlled by the US I would have to say yes, they are for if they weren't, the picture of the rover and the flag would be the most downloadable pictures on the internet today. There is no excuse for not having a picture from the highest resolution camera ever to orbit the moon to date. No amount of reasoning and talk will satisy me as it could so easily have been done.

For me to point to web sites and "proof" that we did not go there would be pointless as there will always be someone who believes wholehartedly that we went to discount it with their own "proof". Besides, the 100% believers will refute the "evidence" of the non-believers and vice-versa thus leading to a perpetual stalemate.

I find it interesting that you posted a link to enterprisemission.com as I have been following Richard for more than 10 years now and have donated to his site. If you have read his book "Dark Mission" you will discover how NASA lies to the people especially about the moon and the pictures of structures there and evidence from Mars about sentient life once being there. Richard believes that WE are the Martians. It's because of him why I do not totally refute that we went to the moon which may seem like waffeling and/or fence sitting to you.

As I mentioned previously, I was not up on the data save for Richard's site and a few others I have scanned over over the years. However, thanks to these threads I have taken a more closer look and am still studying it which may still seem like fence sitting to you.

Look at it this way. If there were an internet back in Galileo's day do you seriously believe that they would not be having a similar argument as we are today about the moon "landing" as to whether the earth revolved around the sun or vice-versa? There would be the religious fanatics with all their "proof" that Galileo was wrong and then there would be the opposite side with their "proof" that Galileo was correct and those with the bigger sledgehammer (The church back then, the "controlled" scientific community/mass media of today) would always come out on top. The religious leaders of Galileos day refused to look into his telescope, but insisted he was wrong.

Back then the church came out on top and Galileo had to refute his claims under penalty of death, but he was later proven to be 100% correct! The same with the non-believers in a flat earth in days gone by. Regardless of the proof, those with the most power controlled what was taught and believed. I believe the same holds true today. As much as things may seem to change on the surface, underneath they remain the same.

Therefore, what may seem like fence sitting and waffeling to you is just caution not to believe at face value everything I am taught in school no matter who teaches it without concrete, irefutable evidence. But, since they have the power and a bigger sledge hammer, the majority goes along with what they say and all others are nuts.

Richard Hoagland may be 100% correct in his theories and lord knows he has done the research, and I hope he is, but because he is not a "learned" scholor from "their" schools and universities, his work, no matter how accurate and truthful it may be, is NOT peer reviewed and he is considered a kook and a member of the lunatic fringe and is not taken seriously.

As he so fond of quoting on his website and in interviews, he always refers back to the Brookings Institute Report of the 1960's which states that if the truth be told about UFO's, ET life, and the truth about space and such that the world's population could not handle it as it would throw religious belief on it's head and there would be riots in the world. Therefore, the truth is being held back as the world cannot handle the truth.

I can point you to hundreds of examples of world governments colluding and lying to their own people about everything from the economy to space trave to global warming to religion; to WW I and WW II, to previous advanced civilizations on the earth and Jewish artifacts being uncovered in Texas and the American southwest and Egyption influence in the Americas including Central and South America or to the fact that the Chinese were the first to circumnavigate the world way before Columbus or the Vikings; to aspertame as a neurotoxin and fluoride as a poison, to chemotherapy cures cancer, etc. etc, that it woild make your head spin. But this info is held from us in schools and universities as those with the power teach history and "fact" and what they teach is correct and all others are wrong regardless of the facts. "Don't confuse me with the facts! This is the way it is and everybody is wrong because we are from Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford, Yale, Stanford, etc, etc, blah, blah blah and what we say is the truth!" And the media, also being a controlled institution, goes along and reinforces the falsities we are taught and fed on a daily basis through the likes of the History channel, Discovery Channel, NPT, the major media, etc and the populace swallows it hook, line and sinker just as they are doing with the current economic situation without ever doing any independent research into the truth other than they will only seek out the "facts" as they believe them and present them as evidence and truth.

Therefore, Kappa, without solid undeniable proof as I've said countless of times, like a picture of the rover and flag to put this argument to rest (which is so easy given the technolgy of today and which you yourself refuse to comment on), I will remain on the fence and be a waffler as you characterize me as I have learned to be not as gullable as I was in the past when it comes to being told that something is fact from people who are considered "experts" in their field.

If it weren't for the internet I may be as I was in the past believing 100% that we went to the moon and those that refuse to believe it are off their rocker and that Columbus discovered America and that the bible and religion is the end all be all, blah, blah blah.

As the Who sang in their songs, "I Won't be fooled again" and "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Sorry to digress and go off on a tangent, but I just felt I had to respond to your claims of me waffeling and being a fence sitter and give you my reasons why I think as I do. Rubbish? Maybe. But today I look at all sides and it seems clearer and clearer that we are hardly ever told the truth about anything these days and I would not be surprised to learn in the future, or it may come out after I am long gone as in Galileo's case that, because of "national security reasons" and the "cold war tensions" of the time, the US had to fake the moon landings to keep the USSR at bay or the Russians would've landed there first and taken over the world. But Russia was bought off also by the real powers that be. Like Richard Hoagland says in his thesis about Warner von Brandt and space travel at the time, that it was designed to put the USSR at bay and keep them out of the loop so to speak. He says we had to lie.

One of my favorite quotes of Mr. Hoagland's is when he was referring to Armageddon is, "Instead of being the last book of the bible, maybe the Book of Revelations" should've been the first."

When looking at how disrepected Mr. Hoagland is in the scientific community and people like myself are derided for our opinions and beliefs when we have done the relevant research and looked at all sides is this quote:

In the Land of the Blind a sighted man is considerd handicapped. Therefore, they cut out his eyes."

 

[Elizabeth]

It's a shame that a thread on an interesting topic like an increasingly diverse global space program has degenerated into a non-discussion of a non-issue.

Can the complete and utter propaganada postings be moved here, please ?
Do you think we really landed on the moon?


It's been 40 years and nobody as nobody has come forth with "I helped fake it." None of our highly motivated enterprising investigative journalists have produced pictures, tapes or any other evidence.


Renowned astronomer Sir Patrick Moore fiercely refutes the hoax claims and makes it clear how he feels about those that make them. "Their ignorance of science is so complete that it's pointless to try and argue with them," says Moore. "Any idea of it being hoaxed is quite frankly insane." If it is a giant conspiracy, it is on a global scale and involves thousands of people, including Nobel Prize- winning scientists and experts from all over the world, as well as the silence of many governments that would be only too happy to prove that the United States staged the moon landings.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/100301/debunking_the_hoax_theories/

 

[bakaKanadajin]

Pachio Pro as always has nicely summed up the intangibles of why us 'fence sitters' exist. I don't think it's as weak and useless a position as Kappa makes it out to be. I don't care how passionately one argues for the infallibility of the scientific community, because they've been wrong before and continue to be wrong on purpose in some cases usually because it's profitable to do so. Science like any other industry is heavily influenced by grant money, which is given via competition and based on how well that science serves the governments needs.

So as not to veer further off topic I'll just respond to the points he made as succinctly as possible. I don't in one gulp believe the entire other side of the coin. What I do believe is that we don't always get the full picture. That's not to say that the rest of the picture can't be peer-reviewed or isn't true, in fact since it's part of the actual picture I would expect that it is quite solid. I'm as common sensical and fact-based as the next person who demands truth. So, sure we probably went to the moon or got damn close, but are we seeing all of what came from those expeditions? Of course the rovers and a whole host of other fact-gathering equipment made it to Mars, but are we seeing everything that's being beamed back from Mars? Does the general public (who I might remind you, scientists are part of) always get the full story? We're talking about the really well-spoken blind leading the less well-spoken blind in some cases. The US owns those rovers does it not? That would mean any data collected from them comes back via the US first, then goes across international borders. Not to mention, any other country with equipment in space probably wouldn't throw their cards on the table unless it was the river card either.

That's my basic point. It's a little more ideological than fact-based but then I never claimed to be an astronomer.

 

[butakun]

I don't think the fence sitters will get any third-party information from non-US space agencies ever. The agency directors don't suspect the lunar landing and thus see no incentive of spending extra expenditure in terms of money and payload mass just for the sake of "proving".


What was on the Kaguya (SELENE) spacecraft was nothing more than a civilian-grade HDTV camera. It's a video camera, not a surveillance equipment used on satelite imaging. The camera was developed and provided by NHK. There was initially a resistence within the mission planners against putting this camera on board. Why? It's just too heavy. I don't know of the exact mass of the equipment but on spacecrafts every single gram counts. Yes it captures *video* footages quite impressive for the general public but it serves no scientific purpose. Eventually the project manager agreed to put this on board because it's a great PR for the agency.


BTW, the HDTV camera is way too weak for getting any meaningful image of the lunar landing site. The craft orbits the Moon at the altitude of 100km, way too high for video camera optics to zoom into the site.