Moon Landing?

[emerald]

With all the hype in the news, does anybody know what type of materials the astronaunts used to protect themselves from the Van Allen belts, inner and outer belts? How long it took to pass through them? Was there any radiation exposure and if so, how much? Remember, they would needed to pass back through the belts on the way home. One trip would be four passings. They appearantly went to the moon a handful of times. What route did they take i.e...zig zag, straight line? These are legitimate and important questions I haven't been able to find. Has anybody done any research on the Van Allen belts and how much radiation they give off?

[Clancy]

The conspiracy theory you're nurturing has been debunked ad nauseam. They weren't in the Van Allen belts long enough to get a harmful dose, each passage was equivalent to a single chest xray.

Here's a good place to start looking for the answers to your questions, with references.
MAD Scientist: The Van Allen Belts and Travel to the Moon (https://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad19.html)



With all the hype in the news, does anybody know what type of materials the astronaunts used to protect themselves from the Van Allen belts, inner and outer belts? How long it took to pass through them? Was there any radiation exposure and if so, how much? Remember, they would needed to pass back through the belts on the way home. One trip would be four passings. They appearantly went to the moon a handful of times. What route did they take i.e...zig zag, straight line? These are legitimate and important questions I haven't been able to find. Has anybody done any research on the Van Allen belts and how much radiation they give off?

[emerald]

The conspiracy theory you're nurturing has been debunked ad nauseam. They weren't in the Van Allen belts long enough to get a harmful dose, each passage was equivalent to a single chest xray.

Here's a good place to start looking for the answers to your questions, with references.
MAD Scientist: The Van Allen Belts and Travel to the Moon (https://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad19.html)


Thank you for your comment, and I'm not nurturing a conspiracy theory, just asking some legitimate questions. I read the link you put, and I find this line interesting.....So the effect of such a dose, in the end, would not be enough to make the astronauts even noticeably ill. The low-level exposure could possibly cause cancer in the long term. I do not know exactly what the odds on that would be, I believe on the order of 1 in 1000 per astronaut exposed, probably some years after the trip. Of course, with nine trips, and a total of 3 X 9 = 27 astronauts (except for a few, like Jim Lovell, who went more than once) you would expect probably 5 or 10 cancers eventually in any case, even without any exposure, so it is not possible to know which if any might have been caused by the trips. The first part of the line says not enough to be noticeable....then, the middle says does not know exact odds of exposure....and the end of the statement says not possible to know. One would think that since cancer is a big thing, this would be big news. And with our technology way better than 40 yrs ago, why do you think we haven't gone back?

[Clancy]

LOL, the fatality rate of test pilots is FAR higher than the risk posed by a low dose of radiation, and presumably strapping yourself atop a controlled explosion is even riskier than being a regular test pilot.

They didn't care about a 1 in 1000 chance of getting cancer, they were making history.




Thank you for your comment, and I'm not nurturing a conspiracy theory, just asking some legitimate questions. I read the link you put, and I find this line interesting.....So the effect of such a dose, in the end, would not be enough to make the astronauts even noticeably ill. The low-level exposure could possibly cause cancer in the long term. I do not know exactly what the odds on that would be, I believe on the order of 1 in 1000 per astronaut exposed, probably some years after the trip. Of course, with nine trips, and a total of 3 X 9 = 27 astronauts (except for a few, like Jim Lovell, who went more than once) you would expect probably 5 or 10 cancers eventually in any case, even without any exposure, so it is not possible to know which if any might have been caused by the trips. The first part of the line says not enough to be noticeable....then, the middle says does not know exact odds of exposure....and the end of the statement says not possible to know. One would think that since cancer is a big thing, this would be big news.

[emerald]

I am keeping a neutral perspective here, as well as, understanding others perspective. I know this is a touchy subject many, and I ask again, why do or anybody else think we haven't been back since radiation exposure is no big thing?

[Clancy]

LOL, if you're asserting we haven't been back to the moon because of a 1 in 1000 chance of astronauts getting cancer years later, you'll have to support that with something... anything...



I am keeping a neutral perspective here, as well as, understanding others perspective. I know this is a touchy subject many, and I ask again, why do or anybody else think we haven't been back since radiation exposure is no big thing?

[emerald]

LOL, if you're asserting we haven't been back to the moon because of a 1 in 1000 chance of astronauts getting cancer years later, you'll have to support that with something... anything...


Clancy, your putting words for me, I'm not asserting anything, just asking a question that, so far, nobody can seem to answer.

[Clancy]

I've already answered, there's no relationship between us not going back to the moon and a risk of cancer that is far less than that posed by smoking cigarettes.



Clancy, your putting words for me, I'm not asserting anything, just asking a question that, so far, nobody can seem to answer.

[emerald]

I've already answered, there's no relationship between us not going back to the moon and a risk of cancer that is far less than that posed by smoking cigarettes.


No, you haven't answered the question, just comparing possibilities. All I was wanting, was some constructive conversation on this without criticism. I'll wait to see if anybody else out there has an open mind on the issue. Again, thank you for your comments.

[tomcat]

Richard Hoagland is the guy you want to ask these questions of.
Google his name and/or go to <cite>The Enterprise Mission (https://www.enterprisemission.com/)
Tom

</cite>

With all the hype in the news, does anybody know what type of materials the astronaunts used to protect themselves from the Van Allen belts, inner and outer belts? How long it took to pass through them? Was there any radiation exposure and if so, how much? Remember, they would needed to pass back through the belts on the way home. One trip would be four passings. They appearantly went to the moon a handful of times. What route did they take i.e...zig zag, straight line? These are legitimate and important questions I haven't been able to find. Has anybody done any research on the Van Allen belts and how much radiation they give off?

[emerald]

Great site, Thanks Tom.

[PeriodThree]

You may not have constructive conversation 'without criticism' when you
repeat falsehoods.

With respect, you are repeating flat out lies. That makes you either uninformed or a simple liar. Neither should be met 'without criticism.'



No, you haven't answered the question, just comparing possibilities. All I was wanting, was some constructive conversation on this without criticism. I'll wait to see if anybody else out there has an open mind on the issue. Again, thank you for your comments.

[emerald]

You may not have constructive conversation 'without criticism' when you
repeat falsehoods.

With respect, you are repeating flat out lies. That makes you either uninformed or a simple liar. Neither should be met 'without criticism.'

You need to take a look at the conversations again PeriodThree! I haven't repeated any falsehoods, just asking questions, in fact, the phrase I have on one of the conversations is a copy/paste from Clancy's link. Other than that, all I have written are questions, legitimate questions regarding science....there's no respect in your words, I haven't repeated any lies, I was only asking a few questions because "yes" I'm not fully informed and I'm looking for answers. I have a friend who pulled out 5-6 major sicence and astronomy books, and not one of them mentioned the Van Allen belts and what they where all about. How can asking questions be "repeating lies"....you are truly uniformed on social skills, and/or you just want to be harsh and mean, and/or your having a bad day and decided to take it out on this person inquiring on why we americans haven't gone back to the moon. Then why don't you answer the question....why haven't americans gone back to the moon? What lies and falsehoods are in that question? The only civil person here, has been TomCat, again, thank you TomCat! Wow, one person to offer info out of three, I thought west co was better than that.

[DynamicBalance]

You may not have constructive conversation 'without criticism' when you
repeat falsehoods.

With respect, you are repeating flat out lies. That makes you either uninformed or a simple liar. Neither should be met 'without criticism.'

Hold on a second. "Flat out lies"? emerald was asking a question. Not once did emerald make a single assertion. What an outrageous thing to say! Someone cannot be a liar if they have not stated anything as fact. Uninformed? It seems a little pretentious to criticize someone for not knowing something. Especially when they are asking questions to try to expand their knowledge.

From my perspective, emerald is indeed trying to stay neutral on this subject. It seems that emerald is simply curious about the mechanisms by which the astronauts were able to pass through the Van Allen Belts. That is a perfectly legitimate question. Clancy and PeriodThree seem to be interpreting emeralds questions as assertions, and that strikes me as absurd.

To me, it is shameful that someone would be ridiculed, and implied to be a conspiracy theorist and a liar, all for expressing curiosity and posing questions about something? What kind of community would treat someone that way? Certainly not a "progressive" community. Does that word even mean anything anymore?

If Wacco were a progressive community, people would be encouraged to question the official explanation for things. After all, how many times has the official explanation been wrong? If we did not question these things, we wouldn't make a lot of progress, would we?

This bothers me because it is far too easy to label something as a "conspiracy theory" and reject it without further thought. Similarly, if something has been "debunked," there is a tendency to reject it without doing your own research. To me, that's just as ridiculous as accepting something as true without further thought or research.

People (Waccos included) seem to get very touchy and irrational when someone presents an opposing viewpoint. I think that shows an underlying insecurity. In this case, an opposing viewpoint was not even actually presented! Yet people reacted as though it had. What does that say about Wacco?

Personally, I would hesitate before I posted a controversial opinion on Wacco. I know that I would be treated in a similar way to emerald, and to me, this kind of treatment is a sign of immaturity. This is emphatically NOT a sign of a progressive community. People should be able to discuss these things and disagree without being a jerk and disrespecting others. emerald was very respectful to other posters even when they were misrepresenting emerald's words. emerald even thanked them for their comments. I think a lot of Waccos could learn a thing or two from emerald.

[Barry]

You may not have constructive conversation 'without criticism' when you
repeat falsehoods.

With respect, you are repeating flat out lies. That makes you either uninformed or a simple liar. Neither should be met 'without criticism.'I agree with umphreak & emerald that this accusation is uncalled for. Please be respectful.

Barry

[PeriodThree]

Hi Barry,

Here is what the love of my live has to say about this thread.

Note, I am not being disrespectful, just quoting someone else's views.

"Don't get into a brawl about the moon landing, that is a solved problem.
If somebody is being a nut jub about the moon landing I feel that
they are being unreachably ridiculous."

Note: yes, that _is_ a disrespectful statement of my friend. It does not take Emerald's point seriously. But it is not my statement. I am simply quoting someone else. Just like Emerald isn't making statements, no, of course not. Emerald is just asking questions. Of course those 'questions' are raw and unveiled attacks on reason and on the agency, NASA, where I work.

I am sorry Barry that you feel that it is disrespectful to call out factually wrong statements. Emerald was given a direct and on point reference which answered their questions. Emerald continued with active and obtuse ignorance.

Emerald is using rhetorical questions in order to make vile accusations about NASA and the US Government.

I feel that your operating a community and your active encouragement of factually wrong statements is literally an active assault on my core values of reason flat out nut lies as being flat out nut job lies. I feel that we as a community can not allow insane statements to pass by without comment and active refutation.

You and I have discussed variations of this issue over the years. You feel that there are effectively 'rings' of community, and that we owe progressively higher levels of respect as we come in to the rings closer to ourselves.

That is a good theory in many ways. Under that theory NASA is where I am most days. Emerald is no where near any measure of my community.

Now, you can kick me out of the community, but it is unacceptable to me for you to defend Emerald, who is literally and technically acting as a conspiracy based nut job, while chiding me for defending NASA and defending reason.

I'm sorry Barry, but I gave Emerald so much more respect than Emerald deserved.

Emerald read Will Wheaton's page and continued his lies.

That is unacceptable.



I agree with umphreak & emerald that this accusation is uncalled for. Please be respectful.

Barry

[PeriodThree]

Sorry, perhaps I was too subtle. I didn't mean to imply anything. I meant to absolutely state that Emerald is acting to advance conspiracy theories.

Sorry you find my behavior 'shameful.'

To me an active and intense and deep ignorance, even in the face of being offered links to help Emerald to understand, is shameful.




To me, it is shameful that someone would be ridiculed, and implied to be a conspiracy theorist and a liar...

[emerald]

Hi Barry,

Here is what the love of my live has to say about this thread.

Note, I am not being disrespectful, just quoting someone else's views.

"Don't get into a brawl about the moon landing, that is a solved problem.
If somebody is being a nut jub about the moon landing I feel that
they are being unreachably ridiculous."

Note: yes, that _is_ a disrespectful statement of my friend. It does not take Emerald's point seriously. But it is not my statement. I am simply quoting someone else. Just like Emerald isn't making statements, no, of course not. Emerald is just asking questions. Of course those 'questions' are raw and unveiled attacks on reason and on the agency, NASA, where I work.

I am sorry Barry that you feel that it is disrespectful to call out factually wrong statements. Emerald was given a direct and on point reference which answered their questions. Emerald continued with active and obtuse ignorance.

Emerald is using rhetorical questions in order to make vile accusations about NASA and the US Government.

I feel that your operating a community and your active encouragement of factually wrong statements is literally an active assault on my core values of reason flat out nut lies as being flat out nut job lies. I feel that we as a community can not allow insane statements to pass by without comment and active refutation.

You and I have discussed variations of this issue over the years. You feel that there are effectively 'rings' of community, and that we owe progressively higher levels of respect as we come in to the rings closer to ourselves.

That is a good theory in many ways. Under that theory NASA is where I am most days. Emerald is no where near any measure of my community.

Now, you can kick me out of the community, but it is unacceptable to me for you to defend Emerald, who is literally and technically acting as a conspiracy based nut job, while chiding me for defending NASA and defending reason.

I'm sorry Barry, but I gave Emerald so much more respect than Emerald deserved.

Emerald read Will Wheaton's page and continued his lies.

That is unacceptable.


Ouch! Such strong words..."Vile accusations" "Nut job" and much more. All I was wanting was to find out why we haven't been back. I thought by reaching out to one's community, someone might be able to help and help with compassion. Again, thank you all for your comments and guidence. I will definately be more mindful of what my inquiring mind wants to know, and where I go for help.

Thank you Barry and Umphreak, for supporting civil community conversations.

[Clancy]

All I was wanting was to find out why we haven't been back...

Not quite.

You were intellectually dishonest by inferring that the reason we haven't been back to the moon is because of the radiation in the Van Allen belt, when there's actually no correlation at all.

Then, when I showed you proof that there's no connection between the two, you ignored it.

[emerald]

Not quite.

You were intellectually dishonest by inferring that the reason we haven't been back to the moon is because of the radiation in the Van Allen belt, when there's actually no correlation at all.

Then, when I showed you proof that there's no connection between the two, you ignored it.


Clancy.....again, your putting forth words for me, I Never inferred any reason why we haven't gone back, in fact....that has been my question. The National Geographic Channel just did a show about this, yesturday am, they interviewed a Russian Astronaut and he even said that the Van Allen belts "are" a concern. Do you and the others dare to share your comments with the National Geographic people, or just a local person with a question?

[Clancy]

No, if your question is "Why haven't we gone back to the moon?"

It would look like this: "Why haven't we gone back to the moon?"

If you have a pet theory why we haven't gone back and you're not willing to defend it, you play silly games like you continue to do.

The Van Allen belt is a concern to astronauts in orbit, not those going to the moon, and you just showed your intellectual dishonesty yet again.




Clancy.....again, your putting forth words for me, I Never inferred any reason why we haven't gone back, in fact....that has been my question. The National Geographic Channel just did a show about this, yesturday am, they interviewed a Russian Astronaut and he even said that the Van Allen belts "are" a concern. Do you and the others dare to share your comments with the National Geographic people, or just a local person with a question?

[Barry]

...
I am sorry Barry that you feel that it is disrespectful to call out factually wrong statements. ...

I don't see any "factually wrong statements" from emerald. I see:


I am keeping a neutral perspective here, as well as, understanding others perspective. I know this is a touchy subject many, and I ask again, why do [you] or anybody else think we haven't been back since radiation exposure is no big thing?

The only statement that could be construed as a factual statement would be "since radiation exposure is no big thing", which would be agreeing with what you hold to be true.

I do see you using responding with "flat out nut job lies" and other harsh personal language.

Apparently emerald hit the nail on the head with "I know this is a touchy subject [to] many"

Me thinks you "protest too much".

:chillpill: :chillpill:

You might just answer the question of why haven't we been back to the moon...

[Clancy]

.... I ask again, why do or anybody else think we haven't been back since radiation exposure is no big thing?

And this is the intellectually dishonest part. We have already ruled out the insignificant exposure as a reason we haven't been back, so why do you keep bringing it up?

[Sylph]

Why haven’t we gone back to the moon?
Interest in the space program waned in the early ‘70s. Besides that, it’s insanely expensive. Our country was busy with a few wars in last few decades, among other challenges. Two exploding space shuttles were not good ‘PR’ for the space program.
I think the fear of the danger of radiation is miniscule compared to the financial, technical and public relations hurdles.

40 Years After Moon Landing: Why Is It So Hard to Go Back? - Yahoo! News (https://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20090720/sc_space/40yearsaftermoonlandingwhyisitsohardtogoback)
Why is it so Hard to go Back?

Rocket Science:
NASA's current rockets and space shuttles aren't capable of surpassing low-Earth orbit to reach the moon with the amount of gear required for a manned expedition.

"The amount of rocket energy it takes to accelerate those kinds of payloads away from Earth doesn't exist anymore," said Jeff Hanley, NASA's Constellation program manager. "It exited in the Apollo era with the Saturn V. Since that time this nation has retired that capability."

NASA is developing new rockets, called Ares I and Ares V, for the return trip to the moon. These will be larger and taller than their Apollo-era Saturn counterparts, and will be able to carry significantly more weight.

The Constellation plan calls for these new rockets to surpass the Saturn vehicles in capability, but to do it on a budget.

"We want to do it cheaper, and we want to do it safer," Hanley told SPACE.com. "That's a pretty tough prescription for NASA to meet."

And on top of those challenges, Constellation plans to go farther than the moon: The lunar voyages will be a staging ground to prepare humans to journey to Mars.

"The complexity of leaving Earth's orbit, we understand that," said Frank Peri, director of NASA's Exploration Technology Development Program at Langley Research Center in Virginia. "But getting back to the moon is not trivial, staying on the moon is not trivial, and going on to Mars is even beyond that."

Fiscal challenges

While engineering a return trip to the moon won't be easy, some experts say the biggest hurdle for Constellation is money. NASA is spending $35 billion to build Orion and the Ares I.

"The technologies that we need to do the job are largely in hand," Hanley said. "In terms of the challenge, it's really a fiscal challenge - the amount of money that the nation can afford to spend."

During the Apollo years NASA's budget was almost five percent of the federal budget. Now, it's less than one percent.

"We understand the technologies that will be necessary, but it's going to take an investment to do that," said Roger Launius, space history curator at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum. "That's the rub."

During the 1960s, many Americans felt the expense of Apollo was justified because of its importance to national security during the cold war. Today, some people question whether human space exploration is as valuable.

"There are not compelling publicly-held reasons for doing this," Launius said. "Without a rationale that everybody understands and can buy into, it's a very hard sell to get the resources to do it."

NASA maintains there are a host of good reasons for going back to the moon. In addition to the lunar science that can be learned, and the thrill of human exploration, many of the new technologies could have applications on the ground. For example, advances in high-efficiency batteries, energy storage systems, and closed loop environmental control and life support could benefit people back on Earth, Olson said.

"Despite the fiscal challenges and the tough times that we currently are experiencing, we need to go do this because of the economic benefits, because of the positive impact on people in our society," Olson said. "It truly is a worthy goal."

[PeriodThree]

Hi Emerald,

You say that you are keeping a 'neutral perspective.' But sometimes there is a true position and a false position. To be neutral in the face of truth specifically supports the false position.

You say you are just asking questions. I think your questions have been answered, but you don't seem to think so. So let me ask you an important question:

Do you believe that we went to the moon?

And yes, this is a very biased test. There is one right answer. That is often true in life. There are questions which have right answers. Here are two others.

-Did the holocaust happen?
-Is the world (literally, not Thomas Friedman like) flat?

A person who believes that we did not go to the moon should be treated in the same way as someone who answers those other questions in the wrong way.

If you keep a 'neutral perspective' on whether or not the holocaust happened, or that the world is round, than you are explicitly supporting something which is simply wrong.

So, it is a 'biased' question, and yes, I will judge you harshly based on your answer, but there it is.

Do you absolutely believe that we went to the moon?





I am keeping a neutral perspective here, as well as, understanding others perspective. I know this is a touchy subject many, and I ask again, why do or anybody else think we haven't been back since radiation exposure is no big thing?

[emerald]

PeriodThree......looking back at the conversations, it's obvious that the first amendment doesn't exist here. Our leaders have lied to the public on many of issues. Many of our leaders preach family values while they're out having affairs, engaging in strip clubs, drugs. What's a youth to think? I would think one would want to help someone understand something with eagerness and ethusiasm, rather than harsh words and anger. Proving these skeptics wrong rather than verbal attackes. Too much of that behavior is everywhere. Isn't this how we want our children to learn? Showing them knowledge by enthusiasm? I'm a young adult who grew up in the south where the education is crap, and since I've been here, I have been introduced to a lot of "theories" on many different topics. As I sit here writing this, there are people still believing that our President isn't a citizen. Headlines on wether or not our President is wearing "cool" pants. It seems science has taken a back seat, and someone advised that I ask these questions on this site, because west co is an open minded and diverse place. I am not a gluttony for punishment, I will not engage in anymore attacks with you or anybody else just for wondering something. Thanks to the person who sent the article on the money issue. That makes sense. I think you all, for I have learned a lot with this. I'm moving on.

[PeriodThree]

Emerald,

You didn't answer the question.

In fact, you actively refused to answer the question. Do you believe we went to the moon?

I do not need to 'prove the skeptics wrong' on the moon issue any more than I need to prove a holocaust denier is wrong. Or prove that the world is round.

I am often an asshole. Oh well. Deal with it or not. But the 'source' who told you we had not gone to the moon is a dark and evil person.


Rich


PeriodThree......looking back at the conversations, it's obvious that the first amendment doesn't exist here. Our leaders have lied to the public on many of issues. Many of our leaders preach family values while they're out having affairs, engaging in strip clubs, drugs. What's a youth to think? I would think one would want to help someone understand something with eagerness and ethusiasm, rather than harsh words and anger. Proving these skeptics wrong rather than verbal attackes. Too much of that behavior is everywhere. Isn't this how we want our children to learn? Showing them knowledge by enthusiasm? I'm a young adult who grew up in the south where the education is crap, and since I've been here, I have been introduced to a lot of "theories" on many different topics. As I sit here writing this, there are people still believing that our President isn't a citizen. Headlines on wether or not our President is wearing "cool" pants. It seems science has taken a back seat, and someone advised that I ask these questions on this site, because west co is an open minded and diverse place. I am not a gluttony for punishment, I will not engage in anymore attacks with you or anybody else just for wondering something. Thanks to the person who sent the article on the money issue. That makes sense. I think you all, for I have learned a lot with this. I'm moving on.

[tomcat]

... and I've heard that at the end of your life, YOU DIE! Gee, so hard to know what to believe... Guess we will all find out one day, or not.

[Barry]

PeriodThree......looking back at the conversations, it's obvious that the first amendment doesn't exist here. ... I'm moving on.

Hi emerald,

I'm sorry you have been treated so roughly here. I tried to work with PeriodThree, both publicly and privately, to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were truly asking an "innocent" question. It seems I was not successful. But at least you did get an answer from someone else and both I and another member stood up for you along the way.

I hope you won't give up on us! There are many kind and helpful souls here, and yes, some that have certain sensitivities.

West County is indeed rife with unconventional thinkers that hold many opinions/beliefs that are contrary to the mainstream and to each other! I think you'll find thoughtful, and hopefully respectful, replies here to any further queries you may have...

:heart:

[PeriodThree]

I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I asked him if he believed that we landed on the moon. He refused to answer.

Accept that we went to the moon and one can have a discussion. Deny it and yes, I think you are a whack job.

Sorry.

Go ahead, ban me, or silently change my words - as you have so many other times.

It doesn't make whackery right.


Hi emerald,

I'm sorry you have been treated so roughly here. I tried to work with PeriodThree, both publicly and privately, to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were truly asking an "innocent" question. It seems I was not successful. But at least you did get an answer from someone else and both I and another member stood up for you along the way.

I hope you won't give up on us! There are many kind and helpful souls here, and yes, some that have certain sensitivities.

West County is indeed rife with unconventional thinkers that hold many opinions/beliefs that are contrary to the mainstream and to each other! I think you'll find thoughtful, and hopefully respectful, replies here to any further queries you may have...

:heart:

[Zeno Swijtink]

I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I asked him if he believed that we landed on the moon. He refused to answer.



There could be a number of reasons why he didn't answer directly. Being asked that question can itself be considered an insult, since it suggests you felt you needed to test his sanity.

Or an insult since implicitly he had already indicated that he believed that we landed on the moon: it's a presupposition of the question he did ask: "All I was wanting was to find out why we haven't been back."

[PeriodThree]

Sure, lots of reasons not to answer.

And yes, I honestly believe that anyone who does not believe that we did not land on the moon is either deeply ignorant, or not sane.

I do not know which of those two he is in, since he refused to answer. In place of answering he wrote " Our leaders have lied to the public on many of issues. "

That implies, but does not confirm, that he is at least agnostic on the issue.

His rhetorical form was based on asking questions and apparently ignoring the answers he was given. It now appears to me that it includes ignoring questions as well.

There are some questions which you can't be 'open' about.




There could be a number of reasons why he didn't answer directly. Being asked that question can itself be considered an insult, since it suggests you felt you needed to test his sanity.

Or an insult since implicitly he had already indicated that he believed that we landed on the moon: it's a presupposition of the question he did ask: "All I was wanting was to find out why we haven't been back."

[Zeno Swijtink]

If it was implied by what he said, he confirmed it.

But he was not clearly responding to your (insinuating) question.

Sorry, Rich, from my reading of this exchange you came over as the less skillful converse.



Sure, lots of reasons not to answer.

And yes, I honestly believe that anyone who does not believe that we did not land on the moon is either deeply ignorant, or not sane.

I do not know which of those two he is in, since he refused to answer. In place of answering he wrote " Our leaders have lied to the public on many of issues. "

That implies, but does not confirm, that he is at least agnostic on the issue.

His rhetorical form was based on asking questions and apparently ignoring the answers he was given. It now appears to me that it includes ignoring questions as well.

There are some questions which you can't be 'open' about.

[PeriodThree]

If it was implied by what he said, he confirmed it.


I'm sorry - I don't understand what you mean here.



But he was not clearly responding to your (insinuating) question.


And I don't quite get what you mean here. That he is clearly not responding, or that his response is not clear?

I'm not quite sure why you added 'insinuating' to describe my question.

I don't think I am insinuating anything. I was being pretty clear. I think, based on the sum of his/her words that he/she is at best 'open minded' about the question. And I was pretty clear that I hold the 'no' and 'open minded' answers to be similar to being open minded about whether the earth is round.

A person who believes that we went to the moon and is wondering why we have not returned is one thing. A person who denies that we went to the moon and who asks that question is quite different.


No insinuation here. None. I'm pretty damn clear on what is the right answer. (And yes, it is a 'right' and a 'wrong' question. I will repeat that anyone who denies that we landed on the moon is ignorant or crazy).





Sorry, Rich, from my reading of this exchange you came over as the less skillful converse.

I'm okay with your reading. I do notice that Emerald gave you gratitude for your post.

So Emerald has not 'moved on' as he/she said he/she was going to do, but is instead still at least partially engaged. Good for Emerald.

[someguy]

I'm sorry - I don't understand what you mean here.



And I don't quite get what you mean here. That he is clearly not responding, or that his response is not clear?

I'm not quite sure why you added 'insinuating' to describe my question.

I don't think I am insinuating anything. I was being pretty clear. I think, based on the sum of his/her words that he/she is at best 'open minded' about the question. And I was pretty clear that I hold the 'no' and 'open minded' answers to be similar to being open minded about whether the earth is round.

A person who believes that we went to the moon and is wondering why we have not returned is one thing. A person who denies that we went to the moon and who asks that question is quite different.


No insinuation here. None. I'm pretty damn clear on what is the right answer. (And yes, it is a 'right' and a 'wrong' question. I will repeat that anyone who denies that we landed on the moon is ignorant or crazy).




I'm okay with your reading. I do notice that Emerald gave you gratitude for your post.

So Emerald has not 'moved on' as he/she said he/she was going to do, but is instead still at least partially engaged. Good for Emerald.

Isn't the moon made of cheese?

I heard that the astronauts could never have made it to the moon and back without cheese breath, and my Uncle was a 'friend' of Neil, and he specifically remembered that Neil's welcome home kiss tasted just like tuna.

So how do you explain that?
:Yinyangv::yippee::sunshine::rainbow::dance1::dowave::bonghit::balloons::partyhat::drink4::santa1::joker::actor::bluebandana::princesssmilie::conehead ::football::wrestle::winneris::juggle::Luste::snoopydance::dancer::puppy::lame:

I could go on, but its all in fun.

[tomcat]

Oh Someguy! That's SO cheesy! :lol2::plumber::macareana::frogdance::bugsbunny::Ball kicker:


Isn't the moon made of cheese?

I heard that the astronauts could never have made it to the moon and back without cheese breath, and my Uncle was a 'friend' of Neil, and he specifically remembered that Neil's welcome home kiss tasted just like tuna.

So how do you explain that?

I could go on, but its all in fun.

[Neshamah]

A large part of the reason we spent the money to go to the moon in the 1960s was to prove the capitalist United States could do it before the communist Soviet Union. The Soviet Union already beat us to space. We could not let them beat us to the moon. So we spent the money.

Since then, we've been there, done that, and there are a lot more practical things we can do in space without going all the way to the moon. When Bush declared we should go to the moon and then Mars, a lot of other more practical NASA programs were put on hold.

I would love to see us go to the moon, and Mars, (and Europa) as soon as possible, but we are already overtaxed while those who work the hardest can barely make ends meet. I'd certainly rather see all that money we continue to spend in heavy handed diplomacy and stimuli to failed companies redirected to space exploration, but well, there will be elections in 2010.

~ Jessica