We can't go to the moon we don't have the technology

[gasbanni]

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/nasa-astro...al-step-go-back-moon-then-mars-beyond-1582401
The technology was destroyed !.........yeah right ..........

Another problem. .

We have to test how to get people through the Van Allen radiation belts.......didn't they do that decades back .?

Photo analysis

 

[^woody^]

 

[Aquaheat]

OK, devils advocate here and I do respect the majority of your posts @^woody^

Some sort of evidence has been put on here, and there are a lot of others too, but can you find any convincing evidence that it did happen? Two sides to every story and all that jazz.

Jon

 

[^woody^]

OK, devils advocate here and I do respect the majority of your posts @^woody^

Some sort of evidence has been put on here, and there are a lot of others too, but can you find any convincing evidence that it did happen? Two sides to every story and all that jazz.

Jon

There is no evidence that this post has not in fact been typed by woody's pet spaniel, who has hacked his acount and is pressing the keys with his nose during a lull in the Grouse season. Sometimes, in the absence of absolute evidence, you just have to go with probabilities - the alternative is that fellow above.

However, I do concede that in the cases of John D and Kankerot, one may well be a Dachshund and the other a Cockerpoo.

 

[Brigadier]

The most convincing case I have heard for the defence is that the Russians tracked the Apollo craft every step of the way, and would have exposed the whole shebang, if the yanks had faked the landings.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Unless, as another conspiracy theory suggests, the US and Russia have been plotting together all along.

Or maybe that's what they want you to think.

 

[wobs]

There is no evidence that this post has not in fact been typed by woody's pet spaniel, who has hacked his acount and is pressing the keys with his nose during a lull in the Grouse season. Sometimes, in the absence of absolute evidence, you just have to go with probabilities - the alternative is that fellow above.

However, I do concede that in the cases of John D and Kankerot, one may well be a Dachshund and the other a Cockerpoo.

Or something else:

 

[wobs]

OK, devils advocate here and I do respect the majority of your posts @^woody^

Some sort of evidence has been put on here, and there are a lot of others too, but can you find any convincing evidence that it did happen? Two sides to every story and all that jazz.

Jon

The onus is on the likes of Gasbanni to provide some credible evidence (hint: youtube vids are not). Given that we have photographic evidence of the landers from a probe, the rocket was seen by millions, the radiation issue has been addressed ad nauseam (exposure was minimal, owing in part to the time spent there).

Here's a good start to research the issue:
http://www.clavius.org/

 

[Brigadier]

The onus is on the likes of Gasbanni to provide some credible evidence (hint: youtube vids are not). Given that we have photographic evidence of the landers from a probe, the rocket was seen by millions, the radiation issue has been addressed ad nauseam (exposure was minimal, owing in part to the time spent there).

Here's a good start to research the issue:
http://www.clavius.org/

Just for starters, this "rocket seen by millions"-stuff has sod all to do with whether they ever set foot on the moon.
For all the millions knew, it could have done a few loop-the-loops, and they'd have been none the wiser.

And, before you kick off, I believe that they did set foot on the moon, but not because I've seen footage of a huge firework.....

 

[wobs]

Just for starters, this "rocket seen by millions"-stuff has sod all to do with whether they ever set foot on the moon.
For all the millions knew, it could have done a few loop-the-loops, and they'd have been none the wiser.

And, before you kick off, I believe that they did set foot on the moon, but not because I've seen footage of a huge firework.....

The rocket issue is just part of what I posted. See also the link.

 

[noseall]

And, before you kick off, I believe that they did set foot on the moon, but not because I've seen footage of a huge firework.....

No, but it was a good precursor to anyone wishing to go there. You would not fly a rocket to within touching distance of the moon then decide it was all just a prank. Try and thing 'pragmatic' instead of 'cynical' for a change Brig.

 

[Brigadier]

No, but it was a good precursor to anyone wishing to go there. You would not fly a rocket to within touching distance of the moon then decide it was all just a prank. Try and thing 'pragmatic' instead of 'cynical' for a change Brig.

Don't be a Berk.
Pragmatic: difficultly level of launching a rocket: vs
difficulty level of getting said rocket to orbit the moon: vs
landing humans on the moon: vs
getting said humans back off the moon, alive, and back home.

There are probably blokes in sheds who have launched rockets, high enough that you would never know they didn't make it to the moon. It's the landing and live return that are staggeringly difficult, and crushingly expensive.

 

[Aquaheat]

There is no evidence that this post has not in fact been typed by woody's pet spaniel, who has hacked his acount and is pressing the keys with his nose during a lull in the Grouse season. Sometimes, in the absence of absolute evidence, you just have to go with probabilities - the alternative is that fellow above.

Let's just take this bit and the first part of @gasbanni post in isolation.

In the absence of absolute evidence we go with probabilities yes? So probability says that that post wasn't written by your dog while on a grouse break but was written by yourself. So in absence of evidence I would have to say that that was true.

Now with absence of evidence what would you perceive the probability of the US government and NASA destroying the technology that they spentany decades on and billions if not trillions of dollars on?

Probability points to the fact that this would be an untruth would you not agree?

Jon

 

[Aquaheat]

The onus is on the likes of Gasbanni to provide some credible evidence (hint: youtube vids are not). Given that we have photographic evidence of the landers from a probe, the rocket was seen by millions, the radiation issue has been addressed ad nauseam (exposure was minimal, owing in part to the time spent there).

Here's a good start to research the issue:
http://www.clavius.org/

Thanks, will have a read up on it tomorrow when I'm not so tired.

Jon

 

[EddieM]

I think we can all agree van Allen is a mean guitar player though.... Oh hang on...