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.
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.