Why haven't we been back to the moon?

[Flubber]

Uh, Flubber? Remember one of the other big news stories of the day, a little thing called Vietnam? Americans were going missing over there every day. There would be no suspicion over the suicide astronauts' disappearance if their loved ones thought they were missing in 'Nam. Connect the dots, my Canadian friend. Connect the dots.

Well I guess we solved it. The US never brought anyone back from the moon . Instead US servicemen marched around and then dutifully died there while Armstrong et al were reunited with the spacecraft at splashdown (or were inside all along).

Suicide spacemen !! It explains everything except

1. for all the questions on the moon photos that lead to these theories
2.there uis no evidence supproting the theory whatsoever

Other than that , its perfect

[BlackCat]

2.there uis no evidence supproting the theory whatsoever

That's the beauty of conspiracy theories - you don't have to prove it

[Serb]

I agree it would be "cool" if it was a hoax but as I have said repeatedly, the number of people that would have known at the time or would have had to be told since (all head NASA folks, every president) . . . it defies logic that this secret would stay secret.

With very limited exceptions, people want to tell stuff and its hard to keep big secrets. Could a large group of scientists working on something big keep that secret for a while? sure. I can see that and its been accomplished to some extent.

BUt can a group keep a secret for years and years after it is really that relevant and a secret that involves a major deception on the American public that at least some of the "secret-knowers" would fundamentally disagree with. Hell its a secret that for sure some politician could have used at some point to embarrass someone else.

Haven't Stanley Kubrick's widow admitted her husband shot the Moon landings? There was a guy (some kind of high-ranked official that inspects NASA funding or something, don't remember his name now) who had proofs and died under very suspicious circumstances soon after he said this Apollo programm is just a BS.
Not to mention about a dozen astronauts involved in the Apollo died in 60-70s. And by "died" I don't mean died because of their age, but that those were violent deaths.

So cool or not, I have a very tough time believing the hoax theories. The idea that it actually happened fits better with all available facts

If there were not SO MANY holes in NASA's story there weren't SO MANY speculations.

[N35t0r]

The fact that people who have never been to outer space, don't have the faintest idea how a rocket engine works, and find it mysterious that people in a high-risk profession die more than regular people see holes in nasa's theory doesn't mean there are holes.

[Felch]

As to the capability of keeping a big secret with many conspirators, I point to the Manhattan project.

[N35t0r]

Yeah, there were no nukes. It's all a big lie.

[Darius871]

As to the capability of keeping a big secret with many conspirators, I point to the Manhattan project.

Yeah, there were no nukes. It's all a big lie.

In fairness, what he obviously meant was that Groves, Stimson, FDR, etc. were able to keep both the public and Congress "completely in the dark" (Groves' own words) about roughly $2.16 billion in project expenses, even to the point of flatly rejecting then-Senator Harry Truman's vehement demans for information about hundreds of millions of missing dollars that he thought hinted at corrupt war profiteering, and this somehow proves his general statement that keeping a large operation secret is oh-so-easy.

Of course, a more compelling rebuttal to zakuHL is that he's comparing apples and oranges; for instance, Stimson and Groves could only hold out until February 1944 before being forced to make disclosure to Congressional leaders, just two short years after Vannevar Bush first proposed the project to FDR, whereas zakuHL's alleging that the supposed moon hoax has been successfully kept secret for four decades, or twenty times as long. Not to mention that the Manhattan Project's very existence and the very fact that $2.16 billion was spent on it were kept secret in that short period whereas Project Apollo's existence, particulars, and $25.4 billion in costs were extremely publicized in a 13-year dick-wagging contest. Not to mention that it's easier to prevent leaks when developing a weapon in wartime than when carrying out the (supposed) greatest hoax in the history of mankind during peacetime, in public while under a rival superpower's vigorous scrutiny. But lets not let these petty distinctions get in the way of a good yarn.

[Felch]

What Darius said.

Keeping a wartime secret by isolating it in the desert is much easier than a peacetime secret that you're broadcasting on TV. Not to mention the fact that the Soviets knew about the bomb, but apparently didn't know about the moon hoax.

[N35t0r]