Has anyone else come to the same conclusion?
Which space hoax are you referring to?
Edit:
Oh. Are you referring to Man landing on the moon?
Peace
Sorry, maybe I should have been more clear.
The whole "space" program, all of it, not just the moon movie, all of it in it's entirety. From the first inexistent moon probes, to the dead astroNots the dozen of people who died when launched to space and hidden from the public, the shuttle scams. It's was, and is a tax-swindle, they pocket the money and divert it to military/espionage.
The soviet's never challenged the moon spectacle because they lied even more to their own public! You can research it if you want, there are hundreds of confessions of the people involved.
But my question was a economical one, the soviets showed how great central planning is by telling fairy tails in their controlled media about putting men in space. The americans too, a strong heavily financed central government is needed to advance "science" and they will guide us to new world. They are doing the same with CERN, the message is individuals can not do science, only big governments which billion dollars toys.
Edit: I was clear, I said space hoax, not moon hoax, space hoax means all they tell about space is a hoax, all of it.
I find it very strange that no such discussion takes places here...
I find it hard to believe.
Especially since, not only did the U.S.S.R. have the opportunity to fake it, but given their expertise in propaganda, I'm sure they would've faked a Moon landing much earlier than '69 (and they would've done it better than the U.S. propaganda machine would allow, or at least before the U.S. 'faked' their Moon landing).
Latest Projects
"Even when leftists talk about discrimination and sexism, they're damn well talking about the results of the economic system" ~Neodoxy
They already faked Gagarin.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
this is what makes anarchism and libertarianism look like just anohter crackpot religion.. conspiracy nuts. Im disappoint
If you say it was a scam, I agree, totally. Most of you are too young to remember ( ) but back when the STS (Space Shuttle) program was launched by the Nixon Administration (who else?) it was said it would reduce the costs of sending payloads into orbit to "next to zero dollars per pound". The original aim was to make each launch cost around 10 million dollars. The most recent launches have cost about half a billion dollar each. Even when adjusted for inflation that is more than ten times the original goal. If you want proof of a statist scam, there you have it. Even the usually spending-happy USAF was so frightened by costs they decided to get back to single use launchers like the Delta family of rockets. Single use launchers are much more cost-effective and, if a fault is detected, can be redesigned at a fraction of the cost required to refit a Shuttle if a fault is found.
When the USSR decided to clone the STS in the late '70s there were many in Soviet space program who felt it was just a propaganda stunt. Vladimir Chelomei, one the most bright minds behind the Soviet rocket program and a "political heavyweight", was strongly against it and so only pennies were allocated. But when Chelomei died an untimely death in 1984 (killed by the much vaunted Soviet sanitary system... he was being treated for a broken leg in an "elite" hospital) the Buran spacecraft, immediately recognizable as a clone of the US STS, was put on a crash course. The first unmanned flight took place in 1988. Both this test and careful analysis of the US experience (the Challenger blew up two years before) combined with the precarious Soviet financial situation finally did it. The Minister of Defense, Dmitri Yazov, who everybody thought of as a "political appointee" but had the ear of Gorbachev, spoke against it and the program was "mothballed". So the Commies diplayed much more common sense than the "Free World" on the matter.
Good grief...
I think you accidentally typed mises.org instead of prisonplanet.com or some other paleo-dork website.
I think you are naive.
You know freedom has to be fought for and defended everyday.
But incredibly you believe truth will be given to you for free?
jay:Good grief... I think you accidentally typed mises.org instead of prisonplanet.com or some other paleo-dork website.
That's not helpful at all.
Look up "mythbusters moon landing" on YouTube. Watch all nine parts.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
MaikU:this is what makes anarchism and libertarianism look like just anohter crackpot religion.. conspiracy nuts. Im disappoint
I never worry about what other people think of anarchism or libertarianism. They don't seem too concerned I think statism is immoral and irrational.
As long as you allow other people to define you and your ideas, you will never be in control of your image.
“If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid.” (Epictetus) “Another way to phrase this is through a more recent quote from Elbert Hubbard,” Ferriss says. “‘To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, and be nothing.” Ferriss, who holds a Guinness World Record for the most consecutive tango spins, says he has learned to enjoy criticism over the years. Ferriss, using Roman philosophy to expand on his point, says: “Cato, who Seneca believed to be the perfect stoic, practiced this by wearing darker robes than was customary and by wearing no tunic. He expected to be ridiculed and he was, he did this to train himself to only be ashamed of those things that are truly worth being ashamed of. To do anything remotely interesting you need to train yourself to be effective at dealing with, responding to, even enjoying criticism… In fact, I would take the quote a step further and encourage people to actively pursue being thought foolish and stupid.” Source
“If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid.” (Epictetus) “Another way to phrase this is through a more recent quote from Elbert Hubbard,” Ferriss says. “‘To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, and be nothing.” Ferriss, who holds a Guinness World Record for the most consecutive tango spins, says he has learned to enjoy criticism over the years. Ferriss, using Roman philosophy to expand on his point, says: “Cato, who Seneca believed to be the perfect stoic, practiced this by wearing darker robes than was customary and by wearing no tunic. He expected to be ridiculed and he was, he did this to train himself to only be ashamed of those things that are truly worth being ashamed of. To do anything remotely interesting you need to train yourself to be effective at dealing with, responding to, even enjoying criticism… In fact, I would take the quote a step further and encourage people to actively pursue being thought foolish and stupid.”
Source
I partly agree with you, liberty student, but I am really just fed up with conspiracy threads. I mean, it's not a skeptical website, where people evaluate and debunk "alternative theories" and search for strong arguments against it, even though, state can be seen as a conspiracy too.
But when some conspiracy theorist come here believing he will get support from libertarians, because he sees, that other people also shun them because of their non-mainstream theories (austrian econ, natural rights etc), I can not help but mock them and inform him, that not everyone here disbelieve in general scientific theories just because government funds them.
Well, I guess I gotta still learn to ignore it and be more.. how to say this in english.. hard-boned or hard-skinned, can't find the right word..
If both USSR and USA space programs were hoaxes, why stop the hoax? Why didn't the Russians claim to have gone to the moon? Why admit that any people died in the accidents? Was only some of it a hoax? Certainly some of it was not not faked, or there would be no failures.
MaikU, the phrase you are looking for is to be less thin-skinned. Or to have a thicker skin.
I generally don't take seriously beliefs based on paranoia and pseudo-investigative Internet journalism. There's no need to resort to these ridiculous ideas to invalidate statism; its badness is already illustrative.
We're supposed to be the rational ones, right?
It is funny, in a way, that there is something to be said for the lie that 'only government backed scientists know what in the hell they are talking about'. Never mind that many of them (especially in the fields of Astronomy/Cosmology) keep having to alter the observations to fit their conclusions. Anyone who can seriously sit there and claim there is any rational basis for Non-baryonic (dark) matter is a fool, lying or both. Might as well say 'Its God' for all the empirical evidence for such a claim. Its sad, in a sick way, to track back to just where it was science in America turned down the wrong path. The late Dr. Michael Crichton (yep, that one) made the observation numerous times in his books in later years that the peer-review process is inherently corrupted and that government grants and the manner in which results are desired do nothing to actually further science.
Buran was destroyed back in 2002, When the hanger it was being stored at collapsed. For what the Shuttle program cost, the Taxpayer really got screwed. I've always thought private enterprise is the way to do space. They would be more competitive and the technology would expand rapidly. instead of the government system of outdated and overpriced. If the government was in charge of designing planes, we still be waiting for a biplane.
Jay, What you are supposed to be is a shill, but your techniques to derail conversations, used ad-hominems and fear to scare people into complying and not-researching things for themselves won't work here. Anyone here can for example google Gagarin Lie or any other, I won't even tell what to search because what matters is the process, the mindset to cut through lies and say "I want proof". You are betraying this site based on the motto "Do not give in to evil, but proceed every more boldly against it", you are asking everybody to resign, to give up, to fear, to not lead their lives but instead be lead, controlled and directed. Now going back to the thread, the only 'good' thing about politics is when they fight each other, when the soviets took over, they published secret treaties from the Tsarist Era, when the URSS broke, lots of secrets went public in the new republics.
jay:I generally don't take seriously beliefs based on paranoia and pseudo-investigative Internet journalism.
No one asked you to. The premise of the thread is that the space program has been a cover for big government socialism.
jay:There's no need to resort to these ridiculous ideas to invalidate statism; its badness is already illustrative.
Asserting something is ridiculous isn't an argument.
jay:We're supposed to be the rational ones, right?
Rational means something different to Austrians than how you are using it. In AE, everyone is a rational actor.
Player:Jay, What you are supposed to be is a shill, but your techniques to derail conversations, used ad-hominems and fear to scare people into complying and not-researching things for themselves won't work here.
You're probably not familiar with the current standards for discussion, but flaming and name calling are a no-no.
Let's keep it clean, and discuss ideas.
Let's investigate this! Just wait till I get my tin foil hat
here..
liberty student:No one asked you to. The premise of the thread is that the space program has been a cover for big government socialism.
I wasn't making an argument.
liberty student:Rational means something different to Austrians than how you are using it. In AE, everyone is a rational actor.
I realize that. I wasn't using the term in the Austrian way. Now you're just nitpicking.
Well if many people died in failed space launches, then that would be a good proof that the Soviet space programme was not all fake? Why would somebody fake a failed space launch?
^ Exactly. I tried to make that point earlier. And why would the US fake similar accidents?
Sheldon Richman wrote an interesting article called "The Case Against Nasa", but I can't find it online. It's in the compilation for The Economics of Liberty. He talks about how un-manned missions to space are more efficient and cost less than manned missions but that NASA insists on manned missions because they get more attention and thus more funding.
Player, you believe the entire space program is faked? Even Hubble and telecom satellites?
How about SpaceShip 1?
I don't agree with your assessment that the program is a hoax, but I do agree with your assessment of the intentions behind it.
Interestingly, NASA has a long history of altering their space images, from the moon landings to Hubble's color photos; all for the purpose of aggrandizing the State.
Waiting for NASA to tell us the origins of the universe is like waiting for a politician to solve our problems. They are the problems, they have derailed science and keep two, one for public consumption and another secret. With all the evidence of lies they should already be in jail, investigations should have been made and NASA police-taped and their computers analyzed, their getting away with it is because their mission is to lie, plain and simple. It's a joint venture, military/intelligence/psyop, we are paying our jails and are happy about it, we are applauding the launch of spy satellites which are and will be used against us. - Most engineering students study for example Maxwell "equations", but never his original works, his original books, only a censored simplified version, but no-one seems to care. Just as we had been giving lies about the origins of modern terrorism, which is orchestrated and trusted mainly to MOSAD who get arrested daily disguised as arabs fomenting wars or laying mininukes and blaming "terrorist" and they get away with it, they had been caught sniping americans and uploading it into youtube blaming arabs, they nuked american barracks at Beirut, and you are their best friends! Believing NASA is like believing the CIA or a White House Conference, and using their recommend books and theories for science is like using their recommend books to learn american history. The state's functions can be separated in two, to be eliminated and to be privatized. The same with state's sponsored science, things that are not truth and those which are hard to disregard, they gave us a bad explanation of it. We are attracted to the comforting results they gave us, just as comforting as pensions and the guarantees the state promises in exchange for our freedom, the same applies, this time the prices is curiosity and questioning.
It's the same, economic/legal security and religious/spiritual/scientific security all for the humble price of submission.
Edit: To summarize.
The SpaceProgram was created because it benefits the state in two ways
-They show how great and necessary they are, 'superiority of socialism/central planning'
-It's an even better excuse to steal tax-payers money than "the poors", people want to advance science (but they are not, they are actually paying and building the best jail ever, a true big brother, big eye watching everything you do in real time, and the computers are not to calculate the rivers in pluto, but to store that information). It's a gullible excuse to steal tax-payers money.
They don't give a damn about moon rocks or mars rocks, this rocks don't work and don't give them money.
Another effect, just ast IP is a hindrance to development, so is NASA, and they don't want others to launch their satellites and compite with them, that's why the feed mis-information. It's the easiest and simple explanation, the same as always, the same that has been going over for centuries, power and it's guaranteed continuation, that is control.
It's a funny assertion because NASA programs are among the first socialists want to cut.
The Space Race was political? You don't say.
It is a given that NASA is a political-based government monopoly on the exploration of space. I think NASA has probably retarded scientific advances far more that it has helped. Of course NASA will spout a long list of stuff they've added to civilization - like Tang. Objective scientific discourse is more often than not sacrificed to the political concerns.
As an organization, NASA is a huge beauracratic mess that tends to focus more on acquiring jobs (and thereby political influence) than technical excellence. That's not to say that all the folks at NASA are scum, afterall it's one of the only gigs that some get to work on problems and solutions that interest a lot of engineers and scientists.
Debate on manned versus unmanned exploration is going to happen based on the costs associated with manned spaceflight.
Arguments for manned spaceflght most frequently include the risk of an extinction level event, such as one that has been theorized as eliminating the dinosaurs. That risk has a low probabilty, but a catestrophic consequence. Over a long time the probability reaches 1. A massive evacuation of the Earth isn't something you can execute in a day, a year or even 100 years. It's the sort of long term planning that a lot of people just don't engage in.
Manned spaceflight has many issues associated, most significantly radiation which can kill people. This technological hurdle is something that will take a long time to work out.
The U.S. Government has placed certain technologies in a protected category to the point where you either need permission from the government or you need to be the government in order to utilize them. In the case of technologies a company might want to market, export compliance and ITAR make this impractical.
Present commercial ventures, like Space Ship One and the Bigelow project, are low-earth experiences that are being marketed for tourism above all else (for now). I do not categorize Space X as a commercial venture because it is heavily subsidized by the government, as a way for Obama to pay back Elon Musk for his political donations. So when Obama uses the term "commercial" in his plans for NASA, he really means a few chosen companies (companies that line his pockets being preferred). The Delta programs are the property of the Air Force, as are Atlas.
No current commercial company has the capability for manned, deep space exploration.
Bigelow's venture still requires the use of non-commercial launch vehicles, however the customers will be paying for these services. He will have flexibility to use whichever launch provider is most affordable.
My preference would be for space exploration to be 100% commercial, but that isn't going to happen any time soon.
I believe NASA, as well as the Department of Defense, has created artificial demand for technical capabilities and jobs that would not otherwise exist. Movement toward a 100% commercial market would significantly impact this base, something that has political consequences - most often on the right rather than the left. In addition, NASA has been a selling point for the Liberal's public education system. So both sides are heavily invested.
A 100% commercial market (i.e., free market) on space exploration very well could open up space exploration more than any government plan could devise, and in ways superior to the NASA way of doing business. So while in the short term the industry would be harmed, in the long term there would be a lot more opportunities.
As for arguments on fake lunar landings, I put those in the same category as aliens at Roswell.
The USSR most definitely covered up some of their disasters in order to appear superior to the U.S. In this respect you are correct that it was to show the superiority of socialism.
Being in the business, the thing that I find interesting is how some of the early endeavors were done with much less sophistication and technology than today. I think there is a lesson to be learned there, as far as design. It's not the most advanced solution that wins out. It's the most elegant.
For most exploration, unmanned vehicles are sufficient. Manned spaceflight is a political exercise until we have fully understood and addressed the problems of people in space. Limited, low-earth orbit seems to be generating interest, and may be viable as a business (even better without government).