Believing that NASA could go to the moon from 1969 to 1972 but adopted a program of remaining in lower earth orbit for fifty years afterwards makes about as much sense as believing we had television for a couple decades in the 20th century but decided to go back to listening to the radio ever after because everyone had seen enough television already.
Hosts of people don't believe in the moon landing and neither did I because of the gravity problem. It just looks very fake. Maybe they were there, but I wouldn't put it pass them to lie about it.
They'll lie about anything, even if you shove the proof in their face. I don't know one way or another. I did stand next to a Saturn V rocket at NASA and the thing was freaking huge. I also saw a replica of the lander and it looked like it was covered in tin foil. So many inconsistencies. For what it's worth, I have some friends that now work for Lockheed Martin that swear they've bounced lasers off mirrors that were left behind on the moon and that that is how we know the moon is moving away from us very slowly. I can also say that if I was the Russians and the US faked it, I would out the US as fast as I could. Knowing what I know now, I wouldn't place a bet one way or the other.
I think that the launch vehicle would have to be real. People were on the ground watching/recording when that thing launched. Doesn't mean it put anything into orbit though. Once the launch is done, everyone is expected to trust what NASA broadcasts to their radios and televisions. Could be a Kubrick flick, could be real. What video's I've seen left me neutral, because they could be faked too. Maybe they actually did make it to the moon, but were unable to show the footage (for reasons) and had to fake what they presented to the people. So many possibilities!
Including the actual one: it was real. You can't fake lunar gravity, and that shows clearly on the videos, especially the behavior of the dust kicked up by the Moon Buggy. Or the nearness of the horizon. And if you've ever been at a major launch, you would know something Real has happened.
You would rather believe liars who lie to you about the Moon, than honest people who tell the truth about the Moon. You are nowhere.
You don't know. I don't know. No one knows. Nor do we all know if the number is only "thousands." You don't even have evidence that a single person was silenced, so that is a flight of fancy. We do have evidence that thousands---if not millions---are aware and have knowledge. We have rocks from the Moon. Other nations have sent probes and landers. You can't silence a world of independent researchers.
What kills me is that we know from (usually) personal experience that Google is perverse and following an inimical agenda. Why would we give it's "A.I." any credence whatsoever? These things are no better than scripted telephone robots. No sane person should have any expectation of truth from these algorithms. They are entirely a reflection of the ignorance and bias of their programmers.
It was covered in Kapton foil with an aluminum backing. That was solar radiation shielding to prevent the underlying structure from heating up.
https://apollo11space.com/apollo-11-kapton-foil/ It helps to research topics of discussion.
I was just trying to communicate that it looked cheap from a real "eyes on" perspective for those that hadn't seen it in real life. When it comes to NASA, there isn't a source of info that I trust completely.
Okay. But you have to figure out how to live, if you basically cannot rely on anything written or anyone who might write it. "Trust" is overrated. It implies that you can let others do your thinking for you. The better defense is knowledge: learning enough that you can correlate what you've learned with what you are told. You have to rely on sources that are used for real purposes, like engineering, physics, chemistry, or medicine. Textbooks, not internet articles.
Especially be critical of those who denounce everything as lies, for they are the camp from which operators like Jim Jones comes from. Civilization is a collective enterprise; it disintegrates if it is impossible to find truth.
Sounds a lot like ”trust the science” to me, we learned from covid that academics were the easiest to fool since they blindly trust anyone in a labcoat.
I find it amusing that there are those here who, on the one hand, glorify JFK as a Q precursor and in the next breath call him a liar by denying that we ever landed on the moon.
My take? I will wait until the credits roll because both are merely a sideshow until full disclosure and accountability and neither side furthers that end. We can deal with it then.
None of us k ow squat except what we've been shown Nd told. I refuse to believe the stories. Why should we believe any of it when we have zero first hand experience. Smart people will Inventory all they believe to assess what they truly know. The greek word for know = gnosis which means experiential knowledge. Most of what we believe we take at face value. Some things should not be treated that way.
Yes, when you are totally ignorant, you are at the mercy of anyone who tells you anything. So, why do you assume you are being lied to about the Apollo program? (Because it is only an assumption, as you have no evidence to the contrary.)
I did ask several questions regarding the Apollo program. I did not get good answers and also, Julian Assange. Some said he is DS but I don't think he would go to jail for that long if he isn't honest and telling the truth.
What questions did you ask, and not receive answers to? Maybe I can help.
You have to know information from sources other than social media, like history books or textbooks. Fairly reliable insofar hard science is concerned (because it has to match experimental results). Must be cautious about the "soft" sciences and politics. The oldest history books may be best (and also old dictionaries).
One question I have and it has been asked before by others, if Armstrong landed and it was filmed, who did the filming?
If we have been there, why doesn't we go back there again? Why go elsewhere but never returned? This one is mine.
Did you see the interview after they came back? They all but looked depressed instead of triumphant. Most people who had done such a monumental thing would be so excited.
Haven't you ever heard of remote cameras? They had several installed on the exterior of the LEM, activated from within. Once Armstrong got out, Aldrin was able to mount another camera.
Didn't go back? Why? No money, that's why. NASA's budget was cut and the last three planned missions were canceled. The Vietnam War was ramping up and going to the Moon was becoming a bore, so President Nixon decided to pull down the curtain on the Apollo program. And then afterward, we were all entertained by the Shuttle program and the International Space Station. The explanation is pathetically prosaic. You have to realize that things like going to the Moon do not have a limitless credit card for the satisfaction of the small minority that thought it was worthwhile. It's like a family that goes to Disneyland once upon a time, then has no budget to do it again in the future. They didn't lose the "ability" to go there; they lost the finances to go there. But once you shut down the production of launch vehicles, you sure enough lose the ability to go there.
You travel incredible distances in a deadly environment where there can be NO slip-ups, nerves taut when the landings took place (and the first landing had a last minute surprise when on the final approach), and then no letup on the very long trip home, then suffering the high-gs from the aerodynamic re-entry and the jostle about being plucked out of the water.... Yeah, they are heroes for even being able to walk, and you complain that they didn't look chipper as chipmunks? They were dead tired after holding it together for over a week. Who does something like that? "Most people"? Maybe someone who has returned from a grueling ascent of Mount Everest, or a trek across the Antarctic polar cap. I don't recall when the interview took place. Some of the physical strain may have worn off. But there is also a psychological strain of being in something not much larger than a phone booth for a week, with two other guys, no privacy, and a full schedule of tasks every day without letup. And there is the philosophical reaction to being on another world and getting your head around that. Perhaps they were so awed with what they experienced, they were distracted from trivialities like making interview chit-chat.
Sorry if my tone is off. I've crawled inside an Apollo capsule at the museum in Huntsville. I've seen the Saturn V vehicle there, once all stretched out on the ground, longer than a football field, and all assembled vertically. I'm familiar with the system design and how much went into it. The whole program was shocked with the deaths of Apollo 1. I'm just trying to convey the circumstances and considerations.
But, yeah, there are explanations. More questions are welcome.
Nah, you're calling out Google, not NASA. If you were using Google to justify saying NASA is fake, you'd get banned for being loony and for using Google instead of your own (albeit dead) brain.
And I'm sure Google doesn't have a lot of reference points for lighting and gravity on the Moon anyway.
Would be interesting to see how it evaluates deep undersea footage, or pictures of blue people (Pictish? There's also a rare disease that makes people blue iirc), because those both run contrary to a wide knowledge base.
Actually met some of the blue people's descendants when I was in Morocco. Real tall, and the skin has a bluish dark tint. They said it's due to the dye their clothing comes with. I don't know the exact thing but they live in the Sahara Desert.
I don’t know how they detect if the photo is fake or not, and I belive it was taken on earth, not on the moon, but someone in the repliks wrote that if the AI thought it was taken on Earth and it was in fact taken on the moon, maybe it would detect it as fake. To be honest I think the entire video is fake. 😅😅 That is what ten years of rabbit holeing gets you.
One question I have and it has been asked before, if Armstrong landed and it was filmed, who did the filming?
If we have been there, why doesn't we go back there again? Why go elsewhere but never returned? This one is mine.
Did you see the interview after they came back? They all but looked depressed instead of triumphant. Most people who had done such a monumental thing would be so excited.
Moon landing was one of my first rabbit holes, I especially like the proof that it happened always boils down to, the fact that it happened is proof that it happened.
How is it possible to steer a rocket in a vacuum? The proof that it can be done is that we did it.
Only question I've ever asked "moon landing hoaxers" is ... "Over 800 lbs. of moon rocks were brought back and in 50 years, over 10k scientists from around the globe have examined them. Are they all in on the hoax?"
do you want to stay on the pay roll? if answer yes, well keep your mouth shut and do as we say.
in on a hoax, remember we are fighting a filthy rich enemy with lots of resources.
the moon landing had some kinda benefit to their plan.
I studied them and they were no different from earth's rocks. Simply came from New Mexico.
Will you believe me? Because u may as well if you believe anyone studied moon rocks. People lie all the time. Van Allen radiation belt. Even nasa said they are still working on How to get humans through it without killing them. Ny the way the kid working g on the problem said so on u tube. They claim he is dead.
Cognitive Dissonance is very real and dangerous. The root cause is the attachment to a belief system that ego doesn't let go. Anything that shakes that belief system, the ego treats it as danger to its existence and tries to eliminate it at any costs. It does not want to let go of that attachment because that would mean diminishing of the identity that was formed from decades, especially since childhood. The child still living its days in the adult throws all sorts of tantrums, fights even up to eliminating anything/anyone contradicting what the child had been attached to. Apparently "open mindedness" has an individual limit where letting go of beliefs causes pain.
So, the Great Awakening thinks a toaster is smarter than the people who put us on the Moon? A toaster that is programmed by a left-leaning intelligentsia? Or, who do you think is doing the work on all this "Artificial Intelligence"?
I am one who think the toaster who bludgeon Clinton's friend to death is smarter than the friend, but moon landing, always seem a little fake to me. I did ask several questions about that and didn't get any good answers.
You have to be thoughtful about what a "good answer" is. Any truthful answer is a good answer. If you are not in a position to know the answer beforehand, you may have a problem if it conflicts with "common sense." In this case, common sense is mostly ignorant expectations and prejudice. (People actually scoffed at Robert Goddard's contention that one could use rockets in a vacuum. "How could it work if there is no air to push against?" Seems reasonable---but is totally ignorant of how a rocket works.) It will be necessary to accept answers that have nothing to do with your "common sense," because your common sense is the result of having no answers. The way to get over that is to continue to ask questions, and read up on the founding subject matter.
No "technology was lost." You have a magical conception of technology. We lost the ability to make F-1 engines for the same reason we lost the ability to purchase Studebaker automobiles: it was a limited production run, and after the run was over (or the demand market dried up), the supply base turned to other products or went out of business. A lot of the manufacturing information was embedded in hand-me-down "tribal knowledge," and when the tribe retired and died, that went with them. (A good argument for systematic and complete documentation.)
The F-1 "production line" was over with. People talked about bringing it back, but it would have meant starting all over again from scratch, and no one wanted to foot the bill. It didn't mean we lost the technology of making rocket engines. We went on to make the Space Shuttle Main Engine---which is now in its waning years. SpaceX comes along, newcomer on the block, and starts making rocket engines for its own use. Now they have the Raptor engine, which compares to the F-1 and they are flying it with gusto.
Go find a Studebaker and drive it around. Or an American Motors car. Pontiac, Mercury, Plymoth, and Oldsmobile will be equally unknown in another decade or so. Does their demise mean we have "lost the technology"? Of course not. We have lost them as products, and all we can say is "boo-hoo."
Get some humility and learn some history. You are in a very poor position to look down with scorn on NASA when they were doing the right things.
Slow down dude. We all know you know what we know. Nothing. All info pushed on us and not one bit of it is verifiable by any of us. Therefore i.will not accept it.
That's very telling and interesting. Even someone not major in physics know it's kind of strange. If you need something to be direct line of sight, which I have use the radios before, it's kind of hard to be direct line of sight. Where would they be?
Unless they can manipulate the images you can get with a good telescope in your own backyard, you can see all the crap they left on the moons surface. Oh, but maybe the moon isn't real either and is just a hologram! Yeah, that's the ticket! Kek
I looked at the moon through a massive telescope in Colorado. Didn't see equipment and they didn't point any out yet they claimed we were looking g at the very spot the apollo landed.
No telescope on Earth can see the leftover descent stages of the Apollo Lunar Modules or anything else Apollo-related. The laws of optics define its limits, and not even the Hubble Space Telescope can discern evidence of the Apollo landings.3 In 2002, astronomers tested the optics of the Very Large Telescope by imaging the Apollo landing sites, but the telescope provided a resolution of 130 meters, which was not good enough to resolve the 4.2 meters wide lunar landers or their long shadows.1 There is no telescope in existence or in planning that can do that.
Why do you think that comment was posted? Do you think that poster is just uninformed or lying?
The big lie claims that going to the moon is hard, and only Big Brother has the power to do it- but they just don't want to, because it's just so hard, and expensive, and useless. Or, as this bullshit narrative suggests: "iT's LitTeRaLlY iMp0sSaBiLe!"
They don't want their peasants fleeing the shithole society, and escaping the resource monopolies that they built here on planet earth. That's why they want you to think that we can't leave.
It's not a big lie. Going to the Moon IS hard. Pretty much only Big Brother can devote the money to do it without a cost-benefit justification. It burns up billions like any other government program. And "useless"? You tell me.
It's not like anyone needs to keep people prisoner on the Earth. Try to go somewhere else. There ain't nowhere to go, except places where you would die unprotected and would need to survive at the far end of a logistic supply train that makes "resource monopoly" seem like a supermarket. There's plenty of vacant land in northern Canada, but no big land rush by freedom-seeking people.
Get rid of the rules, regulations, permits, restrictions, and other prohibitions that Big Brother uses as stumbling blocks for the proles on the way to the moon, and people would be going there routinely.
Costs? Your tax dollars have payed over $600 billion towards welfare for illegal aliens, and that Ukrainian greaseball, Zelensky. We don't have a cost problem, we have a theft problem, and misappropriated funds problem. We also have an education problem, which is again another problem created by the govt.
The point being- nearly all of the reasons mankind finds it so "hard" to get to the moon are self imposed hardships created by our governments. And, that is in addition to the lack of inspiration, and complete unwillingness of the govt. to even want to try to go there. We have the technology, the know-how, and the money to do it. Big Brother doesn't want that, that's the real problem.
The last president who made a serious effort to get mankind to the moon ended up with the the government blowing his head off, and Big Brother covering up the murder with the "lone gunman" lie for 70 years.
The Apollo program ended a half-century ago. There was no follow up. They didn't just kill JFK, they killed the idea of mankind leaving this shithole planet altogether, and poisoned the minds of people into thinking that going to the moon is some kind of impossible feat, that simply cannot be done.
And, as the above author proposes with his bullshitter article- the moon landings never even really happened little peasants, go back to sleep, and forget about everything beyond earth.
The sad truth is that there was no popular desire to continue going to the Moon, or going "back" to the Moon. May I ask how old you are? I lived through all this and saw firsthand the changing agenda for spaceflight. The Moon novelty wore off really fast. Then it was the Space Shuttle and "reusable" spacecraft. And when that became routine, it was the International Space Station. And then the new wore off when the Challenger and Columbia were destroyed in flight, and the shuttles were retired without any replacement system having been developed (evidence that there were no adults in charge).
If you think that rules and restrictions are the main difficulty in going to the Moon, you don't know much about going to the Moon. And if NASA was opposed to private industry going to the Moon, they wouldn't have picked SpaceX for the lunar lander portion of the Artemis missions. Or welcomed their Dragon capsules as our chief way of getting into orbit with human beings---or approved entirely private flights.
By the way, I am no cheerleader for government overreach and plunder, and you really have no right to assume I am. I'm just reporting the history and the background. And the idea that Kennedy was killed to prevent the Apollo program is belied by the fact that Johnson was an ardent supporter of the program, so to say "they killed the idea of mankind leaving this...planet" is totally at odds with what happened.
As for the Moon Hoax notion, you can thank the conspiracy theory community for giving legs to that absurdity. It may well be a Deep State head fake, but the community bought into it with all its teeth. They should have spurned it as the nonsense that it is.
By the way, I am no cheerleader for government overreach and plunder, and you really have no right to assume I am...
Apologies if anything I said implied that I think you are a govt. fanboy, I do not think, nor assume that to be the case, friend.
As for LBJ and the space program, he did indeed keep it funded so, it's hard to fault him personally for what became of the space program. However, I am confident that Kennedy would have promoted, and funded the program much better.
Bush Sr. ruined the space program by shifting priority away from exploration, and more towards spy satellites in earth orbit, in my opinion.
However, the facts are pretty clear that the US govt. hasn't promoted, nor funded the space program anywhere near as well as it should have been during the last few decades.
...If you think that rules and restrictions are the main difficulty in going to the Moon, you don't know much about going to the Moon...
Obviously, I don't know much about going to the moon- I'm no rocket scientist lol!
But, I do know that where there is a will, there is a way.
The point I was making is that the govt. clearly lacks the will to promote off-world manned exploration of the moon, and other nearby celestial bodies. That lack of will, combined with decades of opposition (in various forms) against private exploration, or expanding NASA- as well as outright public deception, suggests to me (personal opinion) that there is a dark agenda at work to halt mankind from technological gains, as well as using off-world resources for growth, and prosperity for all.
I simply do not buy into the modern narratives that suggest manned exploration is "iMpOsSiBle!" or "just too expensive, and not 'worth it.'" The scientific field of geology (and others) strongly suggests otherwise.
And as for this whole "the moon landings were fakes" narrative, that all comes from the exact same place that much of the other anti-America propaganda comes from- it was hatched from the same mold that the "America was never great" propaganda narrative was hatched from. It's just pure garbage-tier commie propaganda.
I agree with some of what you say, but I think you are astray of the history a bit.
LBJ was JFK's "go-to" man on the space program. JFK gets the credit, but LBJ was the guy behind the scenes making it happen. To the benefit of Texas, of course (Johnson Space Flight Center). And of other states having major NASA facilities. Hard to predict what Kennedy would have done in the future. The Moon landing took place when Kennedy would no longer have been in office, even if he had a 2nd term. There's no reason to think things would have been otherwise than they were: the public support was not there, the Vietnam War was ramping up, and budgets were tight.
The government didn't fund the space program very well, and "lacks the will" to promote off-world manned exploration of the Moon? Says who? Not the majority of Americans, or they would have made their preferences known to Congress. But they didn't. At the end of the Apollo program, about 1972, NASA made a transition from a mission-driven organization to a self-perpetuating organization. As part of that, they kicked von Braun upstairs (perhaps the most visionary man in favor of exploration) and fired his team from Peenemunde. The Shuttle program and the ISS can easily be viewed as extravagant technical exercises to keep NASA "rice bowls" full and its employees engaged, while spreading the largess around the nation. Why would a bureaucracy go back to a mission-driven posture, when that carries the risk of failure? We can thank Trump for kicking them off their stools, and Musk for providing external competition.
There was never any competition between spy satellites (inaugurated by Eisenhower) and the NASA programs. Bush didn't do anything special. He continued a successful observation program that had been in existence since the late 1950s.
I don't know what you mean about "outright public deception." If you are talking about "climate change" propaganda, I can agree with you. Otherwise, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Nobody was standing in Musk's way to any significant degree when it came to him redeveloping all the technology necessary to revisit the Moon. You are not grasping the importance of MONEY and how people calculate a return on investment. Musk is a visionary. Anyone else who has as much money is fixated either on money per se, or on other obsessions. And, again, there was no popularly-expressed urgency to go to the Moon. In matters where the Legislature sets budgets, the democratic process rules. Moon exploration didn't have the votes. And NASA getting budget for the Artemis program is still a chancy deal.
The only "modern narratives" that contend space exploration is "impossible" come from ignorant conspiracy theorists. The "popular science" is quite opposite. The other position that space exploration is "too expensive" is a matter of judgment on priorities, and it is a legitimate position, depending on your point of view. I happen to think that NASA will ultimately bungle the Artemis project, and would have been happier with Musk bankrolling and guiding the entire effort---but that's not in the cards just yet. I would not be surprised if Musk would be the Man On the White Horse if Artemis fails, offering to do it his way.
As for precious-metal asteroids, don't count your chickens before they hatch.
The Moon Hoax delusion may come from the direction you mention, and/or also an obsession with radical skepticism ("Question Everything"), which we (us, this page) tends to feed into. Either way, it leads into paranoid psychosis.
But thanks for the conversation. Much more pleasant than ideological bashing. I hope you can see that the reasons for where we are owe much to simple lack of public support. Within reason, now that we are 30 trillion $ in debt. When the family bank account goes dry, trips to the seashore must be suspended for a while.
Yes, thanks for the pleasant chat. I will just comment on one more thing.
LBJ was JFK's "go-to" man on the space program. JFK gets the credit, but LBJ was the guy behind the scenes making it happen. To the benefit of Texas, of course (Johnson Space Flight Center).
LBJ and Kennedy hated each other, and LBJ was deeply involved with the assassination of JFK. LBJ is as far deep state, democrat swamp as anyone.
LBJ was the swamp enforcer whom the establishment forced Kennedy to take as his VP. LBJ was one of most loathsome, murderous snakes ever to be born on American soil. Jackie Kennedy even wrote a book accusing LBJ of the murder- ever heard about that book?
Money being diverted to the Vietnam war, instead of space exploration- again, that was all LBJ.
Anyways, while we may disagree, your point about LBJ and his relation to the space program only reinforces my position- the establishment doesn't really want the little peons leaving their planet.
The idea of space exploration has not been promoted in the halls of power, it has been shunned by the establishment, and propagandized under the same propaganda umbrella that asserts- "America was never great; landing on the moon was, and is impossible you stupid little peasant, just forget about it."
I think we are getting down to history and what it shows us. I never liked LBJ, and I was quite surprised upon reading a detailed history of the Apollo program showing that he had been a spaceflight advocate during his time as a Senator. He had taken a lead in advocacy that JFK later adopted as part of his campaign and subsequent administration. What you say about the evils of LBJ are possibly true---but it doesn't erase the fact that LBJ was an Apollo program supporter. The program was not canceled when he was president.
Money "diverted" where and when? LBJ made sure NASA was fully funded through his presidency. Nixon was the one who canceled the final 3 planned Moon landings---in order to free up funds for Skylab and the development of the Space Shuttle. So, money was not "diverted" from space exploration, just reallocated among space exploration projects. (The federal budgeting process is a fight over every dollar, and the formation of a particular budget is not "diversion." The only untouchable allocations are the mandatory ones, like Social Security, etc.)
Nixon was president after LBJ, 1969 to 1974. All lunar landings were made during his presidency. The financial support for the program slumped after the first landing---which was the driving pressure behind the Space Race. We won the race, and there were other priorities for the federal budget. You don't seem to understand, or want to understand, that (1) the nation had no Constitutional duty to go to the Moon, (2) the public interest had waned, and (3) other issues had higher financial priority. There was absolutely no popular interest in leaving the planet (and there still isn't). The Apollo project itself, for all it did, cost $20.2 billion in then-year dollars, or about $176 billion in 2022 dollars. Somehow, I think a GoFundMe campaign would have a hard time scraping up that kind of money...and I don't agree that the government should be spending taxes on space exploration (other than necessary to support military operations). The "establishment" simply doesn't care; they have other fish to fry. The problem is so challenging, there is no need to "prevent" anyone from doing anything. The difficulty of the problem is a sufficient barrier. If you think you have a cheap way of doing it, there is a whole industry that is ears open, but you seem to want the government to spend unlimited $100s of billions on such an effort. I've been a space enthusiast ever since I could read, but not at any cost.
Nobody has an obligation to promote space exploration. You want a voice like that in Congress? Run for office. Absolutely no one in the government is promoting the "space flight is impossible" nonsense. I have only seen that ridiculous ignorance and denialism on these pages. Meanwhile, the government tolerates Elon Musk's ambitions, plans, and activities with only minor regulation. You seem to be oblivious to the way in which he is pushing forward on the road into space, making massive breakthroughs in cost and capability. I should think you would be encouraged. I am encouraged. (I also think he is underestimating the challenge and costs of colonizing the Moon or Mars, but that is another matter. For example, building and maintaining the International Space Station for 25 years has taken $150 billion. Hard for me to think of that as "not supporting" space exploration.)
We may agree to disagree, but in my case, I have been in the industry for 40 years. I understand what happened and how we got where we are. There is no need to dream up an adversary that really doesn't exist, when the main obstacles are money and time.
Believing that NASA could go to the moon from 1969 to 1972 but adopted a program of remaining in lower earth orbit for fifty years afterwards makes about as much sense as believing we had television for a couple decades in the 20th century but decided to go back to listening to the radio ever after because everyone had seen enough television already.
We have been lied to so much I don't trust anything they said including what NASA told us.
Exactly that. Even before I was awake, I was pondering that question.
One of google's purposes seems to be to hide the truth. Why wouldn't they also want to sew the seeds of division. I'm just say'n.
Hosts of people don't believe in the moon landing and neither did I because of the gravity problem. It just looks very fake. Maybe they were there, but I wouldn't put it pass them to lie about it.
They'll lie about anything, even if you shove the proof in their face. I don't know one way or another. I did stand next to a Saturn V rocket at NASA and the thing was freaking huge. I also saw a replica of the lander and it looked like it was covered in tin foil. So many inconsistencies. For what it's worth, I have some friends that now work for Lockheed Martin that swear they've bounced lasers off mirrors that were left behind on the moon and that that is how we know the moon is moving away from us very slowly. I can also say that if I was the Russians and the US faked it, I would out the US as fast as I could. Knowing what I know now, I wouldn't place a bet one way or the other.
I think that the launch vehicle would have to be real. People were on the ground watching/recording when that thing launched. Doesn't mean it put anything into orbit though. Once the launch is done, everyone is expected to trust what NASA broadcasts to their radios and televisions. Could be a Kubrick flick, could be real. What video's I've seen left me neutral, because they could be faked too. Maybe they actually did make it to the moon, but were unable to show the footage (for reasons) and had to fake what they presented to the people. So many possibilities!
Including the actual one: it was real. You can't fake lunar gravity, and that shows clearly on the videos, especially the behavior of the dust kicked up by the Moon Buggy. Or the nearness of the horizon. And if you've ever been at a major launch, you would know something Real has happened.
You would rather believe liars who lie to you about the Moon, than honest people who tell the truth about the Moon. You are nowhere.
How much would silencing thousands cost?
You don't know. I don't know. No one knows. Nor do we all know if the number is only "thousands." You don't even have evidence that a single person was silenced, so that is a flight of fancy. We do have evidence that thousands---if not millions---are aware and have knowledge. We have rocks from the Moon. Other nations have sent probes and landers. You can't silence a world of independent researchers.
What kills me is that we know from (usually) personal experience that Google is perverse and following an inimical agenda. Why would we give it's "A.I." any credence whatsoever? These things are no better than scripted telephone robots. No sane person should have any expectation of truth from these algorithms. They are entirely a reflection of the ignorance and bias of their programmers.
Didn't you know star trek was a documentary?
It was covered in Kapton foil with an aluminum backing. That was solar radiation shielding to prevent the underlying structure from heating up. https://apollo11space.com/apollo-11-kapton-foil/ It helps to research topics of discussion.
I was just trying to communicate that it looked cheap from a real "eyes on" perspective for those that hadn't seen it in real life. When it comes to NASA, there isn't a source of info that I trust completely.
Okay. But you have to figure out how to live, if you basically cannot rely on anything written or anyone who might write it. "Trust" is overrated. It implies that you can let others do your thinking for you. The better defense is knowledge: learning enough that you can correlate what you've learned with what you are told. You have to rely on sources that are used for real purposes, like engineering, physics, chemistry, or medicine. Textbooks, not internet articles.
Especially be critical of those who denounce everything as lies, for they are the camp from which operators like Jim Jones comes from. Civilization is a collective enterprise; it disintegrates if it is impossible to find truth.
Sounds a lot like ”trust the science” to me, we learned from covid that academics were the easiest to fool since they blindly trust anyone in a labcoat.
Before you can trust or distrust, you have to learn the science. Ask questions and find out. That's how Covid was seen through.
Don't forget they invented tang for nasa. That's proof rheybwent to the moon. Plus a moon pen.
No. I am not going to place bets on this one even though I talk about bets all the time. LOL
More lies from liars! Shocking!
I find it amusing that there are those here who, on the one hand, glorify JFK as a Q precursor and in the next breath call him a liar by denying that we ever landed on the moon.
My take? I will wait until the credits roll because both are merely a sideshow until full disclosure and accountability and neither side furthers that end. We can deal with it then.
I’m sorry, but did jfk ever claim we landed on the moon?
Rhetorical question? Of course he was assassinated well before any moon landing.
Of course
None of us k ow squat except what we've been shown Nd told. I refuse to believe the stories. Why should we believe any of it when we have zero first hand experience. Smart people will Inventory all they believe to assess what they truly know. The greek word for know = gnosis which means experiential knowledge. Most of what we believe we take at face value. Some things should not be treated that way.
Dude all i’m saying is that jfk “died” years before the “moon landing”
Sometimes you have to wonder who is telling the truth or are they all lying.
Yes, when you are totally ignorant, you are at the mercy of anyone who tells you anything. So, why do you assume you are being lied to about the Apollo program? (Because it is only an assumption, as you have no evidence to the contrary.)
I did ask several questions regarding the Apollo program. I did not get good answers and also, Julian Assange. Some said he is DS but I don't think he would go to jail for that long if he isn't honest and telling the truth.
You get all these debunk and fact check.
What questions did you ask, and not receive answers to? Maybe I can help.
You have to know information from sources other than social media, like history books or textbooks. Fairly reliable insofar hard science is concerned (because it has to match experimental results). Must be cautious about the "soft" sciences and politics. The oldest history books may be best (and also old dictionaries).
One question I have and it has been asked before by others, if Armstrong landed and it was filmed, who did the filming?
If we have been there, why doesn't we go back there again? Why go elsewhere but never returned? This one is mine.
Did you see the interview after they came back? They all but looked depressed instead of triumphant. Most people who had done such a monumental thing would be so excited.
Haven't you ever heard of remote cameras? They had several installed on the exterior of the LEM, activated from within. Once Armstrong got out, Aldrin was able to mount another camera.
Didn't go back? Why? No money, that's why. NASA's budget was cut and the last three planned missions were canceled. The Vietnam War was ramping up and going to the Moon was becoming a bore, so President Nixon decided to pull down the curtain on the Apollo program. And then afterward, we were all entertained by the Shuttle program and the International Space Station. The explanation is pathetically prosaic. You have to realize that things like going to the Moon do not have a limitless credit card for the satisfaction of the small minority that thought it was worthwhile. It's like a family that goes to Disneyland once upon a time, then has no budget to do it again in the future. They didn't lose the "ability" to go there; they lost the finances to go there. But once you shut down the production of launch vehicles, you sure enough lose the ability to go there.
You travel incredible distances in a deadly environment where there can be NO slip-ups, nerves taut when the landings took place (and the first landing had a last minute surprise when on the final approach), and then no letup on the very long trip home, then suffering the high-gs from the aerodynamic re-entry and the jostle about being plucked out of the water.... Yeah, they are heroes for even being able to walk, and you complain that they didn't look chipper as chipmunks? They were dead tired after holding it together for over a week. Who does something like that? "Most people"? Maybe someone who has returned from a grueling ascent of Mount Everest, or a trek across the Antarctic polar cap. I don't recall when the interview took place. Some of the physical strain may have worn off. But there is also a psychological strain of being in something not much larger than a phone booth for a week, with two other guys, no privacy, and a full schedule of tasks every day without letup. And there is the philosophical reaction to being on another world and getting your head around that. Perhaps they were so awed with what they experienced, they were distracted from trivialities like making interview chit-chat.
Sorry if my tone is off. I've crawled inside an Apollo capsule at the museum in Huntsville. I've seen the Saturn V vehicle there, once all stretched out on the ground, longer than a football field, and all assembled vertically. I'm familiar with the system design and how much went into it. The whole program was shocked with the deaths of Apollo 1. I'm just trying to convey the circumstances and considerations.
But, yeah, there are explanations. More questions are welcome.
No problem. I do ask questions because it just didn't make sense. Those are good answers.
No, I have no idea about remote cameras. How does that work?
They spent all that time on a ship at sea
I wouldn't be surprised.
I wouldn't be surprised to get ban for this one.
Nah, you're calling out Google, not NASA. If you were using Google to justify saying NASA is fake, you'd get banned for being loony and for using Google instead of your own (albeit dead) brain.
And I'm sure Google doesn't have a lot of reference points for lighting and gravity on the Moon anyway.
Would be interesting to see how it evaluates deep undersea footage, or pictures of blue people (Pictish? There's also a rare disease that makes people blue iirc), because those both run contrary to a wide knowledge base.
Actually met some of the blue people's descendants when I was in Morocco. Real tall, and the skin has a bluish dark tint. They said it's due to the dye their clothing comes with. I don't know the exact thing but they live in the Sahara Desert.
LoL, NASA...
Never A Straight Answer
Great acronyms. I love it.
I don’t know how they detect if the photo is fake or not, and I belive it was taken on earth, not on the moon, but someone in the repliks wrote that if the AI thought it was taken on Earth and it was in fact taken on the moon, maybe it would detect it as fake. To be honest I think the entire video is fake. 😅😅 That is what ten years of rabbit holeing gets you.
One question I have and it has been asked before, if Armstrong landed and it was filmed, who did the filming?
If we have been there, why doesn't we go back there again? Why go elsewhere but never returned? This one is mine.
Did you see the interview after they came back? They all but looked depressed instead of triumphant. Most people who had done such a monumental thing would be so excited.
Moon landing was one of my first rabbit holes, I especially like the proof that it happened always boils down to, the fact that it happened is proof that it happened.
How is it possible to steer a rocket in a vacuum? The proof that it can be done is that we did it.
Someone actually have the pic of where it was filmed and it does look very much like the video. It's in Canada.
wouldn't be the first time there was a fake picture of something that really happened
Reverse could be true. I don't believe in much any more.
Only question I've ever asked "moon landing hoaxers" is ... "Over 800 lbs. of moon rocks were brought back and in 50 years, over 10k scientists from around the globe have examined them. Are they all in on the hoax?"
do you want to stay on the pay roll? if answer yes, well keep your mouth shut and do as we say. in on a hoax, remember we are fighting a filthy rich enemy with lots of resources. the moon landing had some kinda benefit to their plan.
Dan Brown has a good book called, "Deception Point."
It has a hoax so large if you questioned it, you are a damn conspiracy theorist and will be terminated.
Hahaha fucking lol.
You mean petrified wood.
"10k scientists" LOL
I studied them and they were no different from earth's rocks. Simply came from New Mexico.
Will you believe me? Because u may as well if you believe anyone studied moon rocks. People lie all the time. Van Allen radiation belt. Even nasa said they are still working on How to get humans through it without killing them. Ny the way the kid working g on the problem said so on u tube. They claim he is dead.
Cognitive Dissonance is very real and dangerous. The root cause is the attachment to a belief system that ego doesn't let go. Anything that shakes that belief system, the ego treats it as danger to its existence and tries to eliminate it at any costs. It does not want to let go of that attachment because that would mean diminishing of the identity that was formed from decades, especially since childhood. The child still living its days in the adult throws all sorts of tantrums, fights even up to eliminating anything/anyone contradicting what the child had been attached to. Apparently "open mindedness" has an individual limit where letting go of beliefs causes pain.
You are right on. I was there before regarding feeding raw meat to the dogs. Finally I just took the plunge and never looking back.
So, the Great Awakening thinks a toaster is smarter than the people who put us on the Moon? A toaster that is programmed by a left-leaning intelligentsia? Or, who do you think is doing the work on all this "Artificial Intelligence"?
I am one who think the toaster who bludgeon Clinton's friend to death is smarter than the friend, but moon landing, always seem a little fake to me. I did ask several questions about that and didn't get any good answers.
My other offer stands, so I won't repeat it here.
You have to be thoughtful about what a "good answer" is. Any truthful answer is a good answer. If you are not in a position to know the answer beforehand, you may have a problem if it conflicts with "common sense." In this case, common sense is mostly ignorant expectations and prejudice. (People actually scoffed at Robert Goddard's contention that one could use rockets in a vacuum. "How could it work if there is no air to push against?" Seems reasonable---but is totally ignorant of how a rocket works.) It will be necessary to accept answers that have nothing to do with your "common sense," because your common sense is the result of having no answers. The way to get over that is to continue to ask questions, and read up on the founding subject matter.
The people who "put us on the moon" miraculously "lost" the technology that allegedly got us there. Some "geniuses".
No "technology was lost." You have a magical conception of technology. We lost the ability to make F-1 engines for the same reason we lost the ability to purchase Studebaker automobiles: it was a limited production run, and after the run was over (or the demand market dried up), the supply base turned to other products or went out of business. A lot of the manufacturing information was embedded in hand-me-down "tribal knowledge," and when the tribe retired and died, that went with them. (A good argument for systematic and complete documentation.)
The F-1 "production line" was over with. People talked about bringing it back, but it would have meant starting all over again from scratch, and no one wanted to foot the bill. It didn't mean we lost the technology of making rocket engines. We went on to make the Space Shuttle Main Engine---which is now in its waning years. SpaceX comes along, newcomer on the block, and starts making rocket engines for its own use. Now they have the Raptor engine, which compares to the F-1 and they are flying it with gusto.
Go find a Studebaker and drive it around. Or an American Motors car. Pontiac, Mercury, Plymoth, and Oldsmobile will be equally unknown in another decade or so. Does their demise mean we have "lost the technology"? Of course not. We have lost them as products, and all we can say is "boo-hoo."
Get some humility and learn some history. You are in a very poor position to look down with scorn on NASA when they were doing the right things.
Slow down dude. We all know you know what we know. Nothing. All info pushed on us and not one bit of it is verifiable by any of us. Therefore i.will not accept it.
I'm not moon landing denier but i can tell this conference was very weird at least.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzhyZQGAmzU
That's very telling and interesting. Even someone not major in physics know it's kind of strange. If you need something to be direct line of sight, which I have use the radios before, it's kind of hard to be direct line of sight. Where would they be?
Thanks. I will watch this.
Unless they can manipulate the images you can get with a good telescope in your own backyard, you can see all the crap they left on the moons surface. Oh, but maybe the moon isn't real either and is just a hologram! Yeah, that's the ticket! Kek
I looked at the moon through a massive telescope in Colorado. Didn't see equipment and they didn't point any out yet they claimed we were looking g at the very spot the apollo landed.
No telescope on Earth can see the leftover descent stages of the Apollo Lunar Modules or anything else Apollo-related. The laws of optics define its limits, and not even the Hubble Space Telescope can discern evidence of the Apollo landings.3 In 2002, astronomers tested the optics of the Very Large Telescope by imaging the Apollo landing sites, but the telescope provided a resolution of 130 meters, which was not good enough to resolve the 4.2 meters wide lunar landers or their long shadows.1 There is no telescope in existence or in planning that can do that.
Why do you think that comment was posted? Do you think that poster is just uninformed or lying?
I've seen those. But, as posted above by another, cognitive dissonance is huge with most. Even when you show irrefutable facts.
No you can't.
You should update your talking points.
Flip through your package of pre made approved talking points and try another one. Lol!
The big lie claims that going to the moon is hard, and only Big Brother has the power to do it- but they just don't want to, because it's just so hard, and expensive, and useless. Or, as this bullshit narrative suggests: "iT's LitTeRaLlY iMp0sSaBiLe!"
They don't want their peasants fleeing the shithole society, and escaping the resource monopolies that they built here on planet earth. That's why they want you to think that we can't leave.
I have never heard that one, but hey, could be.
It's not a big lie. Going to the Moon IS hard. Pretty much only Big Brother can devote the money to do it without a cost-benefit justification. It burns up billions like any other government program. And "useless"? You tell me.
It's not like anyone needs to keep people prisoner on the Earth. Try to go somewhere else. There ain't nowhere to go, except places where you would die unprotected and would need to survive at the far end of a logistic supply train that makes "resource monopoly" seem like a supermarket. There's plenty of vacant land in northern Canada, but no big land rush by freedom-seeking people.
Get rid of the rules, regulations, permits, restrictions, and other prohibitions that Big Brother uses as stumbling blocks for the proles on the way to the moon, and people would be going there routinely.
Costs? Your tax dollars have payed over $600 billion towards welfare for illegal aliens, and that Ukrainian greaseball, Zelensky. We don't have a cost problem, we have a theft problem, and misappropriated funds problem. We also have an education problem, which is again another problem created by the govt.
The point being- nearly all of the reasons mankind finds it so "hard" to get to the moon are self imposed hardships created by our governments. And, that is in addition to the lack of inspiration, and complete unwillingness of the govt. to even want to try to go there. We have the technology, the know-how, and the money to do it. Big Brother doesn't want that, that's the real problem.
The last president who made a serious effort to get mankind to the moon ended up with the the government blowing his head off, and Big Brother covering up the murder with the "lone gunman" lie for 70 years.
The Apollo program ended a half-century ago. There was no follow up. They didn't just kill JFK, they killed the idea of mankind leaving this shithole planet altogether, and poisoned the minds of people into thinking that going to the moon is some kind of impossible feat, that simply cannot be done.
And, as the above author proposes with his bullshitter article- the moon landings never even really happened little peasants, go back to sleep, and forget about everything beyond earth.
The sad truth is that there was no popular desire to continue going to the Moon, or going "back" to the Moon. May I ask how old you are? I lived through all this and saw firsthand the changing agenda for spaceflight. The Moon novelty wore off really fast. Then it was the Space Shuttle and "reusable" spacecraft. And when that became routine, it was the International Space Station. And then the new wore off when the Challenger and Columbia were destroyed in flight, and the shuttles were retired without any replacement system having been developed (evidence that there were no adults in charge).
If you think that rules and restrictions are the main difficulty in going to the Moon, you don't know much about going to the Moon. And if NASA was opposed to private industry going to the Moon, they wouldn't have picked SpaceX for the lunar lander portion of the Artemis missions. Or welcomed their Dragon capsules as our chief way of getting into orbit with human beings---or approved entirely private flights.
By the way, I am no cheerleader for government overreach and plunder, and you really have no right to assume I am. I'm just reporting the history and the background. And the idea that Kennedy was killed to prevent the Apollo program is belied by the fact that Johnson was an ardent supporter of the program, so to say "they killed the idea of mankind leaving this...planet" is totally at odds with what happened.
As for the Moon Hoax notion, you can thank the conspiracy theory community for giving legs to that absurdity. It may well be a Deep State head fake, but the community bought into it with all its teeth. They should have spurned it as the nonsense that it is.
Apologies if anything I said implied that I think you are a govt. fanboy, I do not think, nor assume that to be the case, friend.
As for LBJ and the space program, he did indeed keep it funded so, it's hard to fault him personally for what became of the space program. However, I am confident that Kennedy would have promoted, and funded the program much better.
Bush Sr. ruined the space program by shifting priority away from exploration, and more towards spy satellites in earth orbit, in my opinion.
However, the facts are pretty clear that the US govt. hasn't promoted, nor funded the space program anywhere near as well as it should have been during the last few decades.
Obviously, I don't know much about going to the moon- I'm no rocket scientist lol!
But, I do know that where there is a will, there is a way.
The point I was making is that the govt. clearly lacks the will to promote off-world manned exploration of the moon, and other nearby celestial bodies. That lack of will, combined with decades of opposition (in various forms) against private exploration, or expanding NASA- as well as outright public deception, suggests to me (personal opinion) that there is a dark agenda at work to halt mankind from technological gains, as well as using off-world resources for growth, and prosperity for all.
I simply do not buy into the modern narratives that suggest manned exploration is "iMpOsSiBle!" or "just too expensive, and not 'worth it.'" The scientific field of geology (and others) strongly suggests otherwise.
And as for this whole "the moon landings were fakes" narrative, that all comes from the exact same place that much of the other anti-America propaganda comes from- it was hatched from the same mold that the "America was never great" propaganda narrative was hatched from. It's just pure garbage-tier commie propaganda.
I agree with some of what you say, but I think you are astray of the history a bit.
LBJ was JFK's "go-to" man on the space program. JFK gets the credit, but LBJ was the guy behind the scenes making it happen. To the benefit of Texas, of course (Johnson Space Flight Center). And of other states having major NASA facilities. Hard to predict what Kennedy would have done in the future. The Moon landing took place when Kennedy would no longer have been in office, even if he had a 2nd term. There's no reason to think things would have been otherwise than they were: the public support was not there, the Vietnam War was ramping up, and budgets were tight.
The government didn't fund the space program very well, and "lacks the will" to promote off-world manned exploration of the Moon? Says who? Not the majority of Americans, or they would have made their preferences known to Congress. But they didn't. At the end of the Apollo program, about 1972, NASA made a transition from a mission-driven organization to a self-perpetuating organization. As part of that, they kicked von Braun upstairs (perhaps the most visionary man in favor of exploration) and fired his team from Peenemunde. The Shuttle program and the ISS can easily be viewed as extravagant technical exercises to keep NASA "rice bowls" full and its employees engaged, while spreading the largess around the nation. Why would a bureaucracy go back to a mission-driven posture, when that carries the risk of failure? We can thank Trump for kicking them off their stools, and Musk for providing external competition.
There was never any competition between spy satellites (inaugurated by Eisenhower) and the NASA programs. Bush didn't do anything special. He continued a successful observation program that had been in existence since the late 1950s.
I don't know what you mean about "outright public deception." If you are talking about "climate change" propaganda, I can agree with you. Otherwise, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Nobody was standing in Musk's way to any significant degree when it came to him redeveloping all the technology necessary to revisit the Moon. You are not grasping the importance of MONEY and how people calculate a return on investment. Musk is a visionary. Anyone else who has as much money is fixated either on money per se, or on other obsessions. And, again, there was no popularly-expressed urgency to go to the Moon. In matters where the Legislature sets budgets, the democratic process rules. Moon exploration didn't have the votes. And NASA getting budget for the Artemis program is still a chancy deal.
The only "modern narratives" that contend space exploration is "impossible" come from ignorant conspiracy theorists. The "popular science" is quite opposite. The other position that space exploration is "too expensive" is a matter of judgment on priorities, and it is a legitimate position, depending on your point of view. I happen to think that NASA will ultimately bungle the Artemis project, and would have been happier with Musk bankrolling and guiding the entire effort---but that's not in the cards just yet. I would not be surprised if Musk would be the Man On the White Horse if Artemis fails, offering to do it his way.
As for precious-metal asteroids, don't count your chickens before they hatch.
The Moon Hoax delusion may come from the direction you mention, and/or also an obsession with radical skepticism ("Question Everything"), which we (us, this page) tends to feed into. Either way, it leads into paranoid psychosis.
But thanks for the conversation. Much more pleasant than ideological bashing. I hope you can see that the reasons for where we are owe much to simple lack of public support. Within reason, now that we are 30 trillion $ in debt. When the family bank account goes dry, trips to the seashore must be suspended for a while.
Yes, thanks for the pleasant chat. I will just comment on one more thing.
LBJ and Kennedy hated each other, and LBJ was deeply involved with the assassination of JFK. LBJ is as far deep state, democrat swamp as anyone.
LBJ was the swamp enforcer whom the establishment forced Kennedy to take as his VP. LBJ was one of most loathsome, murderous snakes ever to be born on American soil. Jackie Kennedy even wrote a book accusing LBJ of the murder- ever heard about that book?
Money being diverted to the Vietnam war, instead of space exploration- again, that was all LBJ.
Anyways, while we may disagree, your point about LBJ and his relation to the space program only reinforces my position- the establishment doesn't really want the little peons leaving their planet.
The idea of space exploration has not been promoted in the halls of power, it has been shunned by the establishment, and propagandized under the same propaganda umbrella that asserts- "America was never great; landing on the moon was, and is impossible you stupid little peasant, just forget about it."
I think we are getting down to history and what it shows us. I never liked LBJ, and I was quite surprised upon reading a detailed history of the Apollo program showing that he had been a spaceflight advocate during his time as a Senator. He had taken a lead in advocacy that JFK later adopted as part of his campaign and subsequent administration. What you say about the evils of LBJ are possibly true---but it doesn't erase the fact that LBJ was an Apollo program supporter. The program was not canceled when he was president.
Money "diverted" where and when? LBJ made sure NASA was fully funded through his presidency. Nixon was the one who canceled the final 3 planned Moon landings---in order to free up funds for Skylab and the development of the Space Shuttle. So, money was not "diverted" from space exploration, just reallocated among space exploration projects. (The federal budgeting process is a fight over every dollar, and the formation of a particular budget is not "diversion." The only untouchable allocations are the mandatory ones, like Social Security, etc.)
Nixon was president after LBJ, 1969 to 1974. All lunar landings were made during his presidency. The financial support for the program slumped after the first landing---which was the driving pressure behind the Space Race. We won the race, and there were other priorities for the federal budget. You don't seem to understand, or want to understand, that (1) the nation had no Constitutional duty to go to the Moon, (2) the public interest had waned, and (3) other issues had higher financial priority. There was absolutely no popular interest in leaving the planet (and there still isn't). The Apollo project itself, for all it did, cost $20.2 billion in then-year dollars, or about $176 billion in 2022 dollars. Somehow, I think a GoFundMe campaign would have a hard time scraping up that kind of money...and I don't agree that the government should be spending taxes on space exploration (other than necessary to support military operations). The "establishment" simply doesn't care; they have other fish to fry. The problem is so challenging, there is no need to "prevent" anyone from doing anything. The difficulty of the problem is a sufficient barrier. If you think you have a cheap way of doing it, there is a whole industry that is ears open, but you seem to want the government to spend unlimited $100s of billions on such an effort. I've been a space enthusiast ever since I could read, but not at any cost.
Nobody has an obligation to promote space exploration. You want a voice like that in Congress? Run for office. Absolutely no one in the government is promoting the "space flight is impossible" nonsense. I have only seen that ridiculous ignorance and denialism on these pages. Meanwhile, the government tolerates Elon Musk's ambitions, plans, and activities with only minor regulation. You seem to be oblivious to the way in which he is pushing forward on the road into space, making massive breakthroughs in cost and capability. I should think you would be encouraged. I am encouraged. (I also think he is underestimating the challenge and costs of colonizing the Moon or Mars, but that is another matter. For example, building and maintaining the International Space Station for 25 years has taken $150 billion. Hard for me to think of that as "not supporting" space exploration.)
We may agree to disagree, but in my case, I have been in the industry for 40 years. I understand what happened and how we got where we are. There is no need to dream up an adversary that really doesn't exist, when the main obstacles are money and time.