Get a grip of yourselves and cop yourselves on.

No man (never mind twelve! what planet are you guys on???) has ever landed on the moon and no man will in the foreseeable future as we are nowhere near the technological levels required.

You can't even send astronauts into low earth orbit nearly 40 years later without killing several of them - what is it now? 17 deaths or something?

Yet you believe 12 were sent with 1960's technology to the moon, to walk around, play golf and drive cars up there and delivered them back safely to the Earth???

Carl Sagan - America's most famous astronomer - never promoted the lie in his lifetime and in one of his last interviews stated that the Apollo program was just about intimidating other nations and beating the Russians, just falling short of stating it was a cold war exercise lest he be demonised by brainwashed fanatics like yourselves.

Later on in the same interview he stated that NASA's greatest achievements were the Viking missions to Mars.

In 1994 NASA's chief administrator admitted/let slip in a British TV interview that no astronaut can travel above 400 miles until it can be figured out how to protect them from lethal cosmic radiation.

[reference to religion removed by moderator]

Welcome to the board, Ken.

So, what I'd like from you is, an explanation as to how they got all those photographs and films. Do not just say, "They staged it in the Nevada desert or something," because that's not good enough. I want to know which part of the desert they used, who drove the props out there, that sort of thing. I want to know who made the feather prop - you know, the one that fell at the same speed as the hammer. I want to know how they did the one sixth gravity effect.

That's just for starters.

__________________
Cricket is boring. IMHO, of course.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

So what exact technologies do we lack that are required to go to the Moon?

Quote:

You can't even send astronauts into low earth orbit nearly 40 years later without killing several of them - what is it now? 17 deaths or something?

14 deaths, out of 317 people flown. Assuming that the odds of dying on an Apollo mission are the same as for any others (which is not the case, the Shuttle suffers from a number of issues which don't apply to capsules) then statistically about half an astronaut should have died during the Apollo missions.

Quote:

Yet you believe 12 were sent with 1960's technology to the moon, to walk around, play golf and drive cars up there and delivered them back safely to the Earth???

You forgot gathering large amounts of scientific data, samples of lunar material that are beyond the capabilities of even today's robotic probes to retrieve, setting up experiments designed to be deployed manually that broadcast data for years after the end of Apollo, and take tens of thousands of photographs and hundreds of hours of video which couldn't be faked on Earth.

Quote:

Carl Sagan - America's most famous astronomer - never promoted the lie in his lifetime and in one of his last interviews stated that the Apollo program was just about intimidating other nations and beating the Russians, just falling short of stating it was a cold war exercise lest he be demonised by brainwashed fanatics like yourselves.

No one here will deny that the Apollo was to a large extent politically motivated, but that doesn't mean that it was faked, after all the consequences of a hoax being found out would be catastrophic and the USSR would be in a very good position to know if the missions were real or not with their own Lunar missions (they may have never flown manned Lunar missions (due to their big booster having the slight issue of blowing up) but that did fly unmanned ones).

Quote:

Later on in the same interview he stated that NASA's greatest achievements were the Viking missions to Mars.

So? Just because he doesn't consider Apollo to be NASA's greatest achievement doesn't mean that he doesn't believe that it happened, I can think of a number of ways in which Viking could be viewed as superior to Apollo.

Quote:

In 1994 NASA's chief administrator admitted/let slip in a British TV interview that no astronaut can travel above 400 miles until it can be figured out how to protect them from lethal cosmic radiation.

What exactly did he say and in what context? It is an unfortunate fact that hoax promoters and believers have an unfortunate tendency towards being shall we say "creative" in their interpretation of quotes.

This is particularly true as the radiation levels in space are well known (the USSR and every other country that has built a geostationary satellite would have to be in on the hoax) and aren't enough to be a problem for missions of only a few days like Apollo except in the event of a very major solar flare.

Quote:

It's like reading a scientologist blog here

Except that we have literally tons of scientific and engineering data from multiple sources to back us up and the various hoax believers have no real evidence to back on their side.

__________________
"Any Sufficiently Analyzed Magic is Indistinguishable from SCIENCE!" -Agatha Heterodyne

"Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those who don't understand it." -Florence Ambrose

It's aggravating to see the hoax types wrap themselves around Goldin's out-of-context remark.

Ken, when we go back, it will be for longer stays. The "normal" cislunar radiation environment isn't as deadly as some believe, same with the Van Allen belts. They used normal shielding, along with carefully designed trajectories, to minimize their exposure during the short trips. Next time, with much longer stays, the likelyhood of solar events will increase noticabley, and must be dealt with.

Meanwhile, the scientific findings of the Apollo missions helped in large part to discover the real history of the Earth-Moon system.

What technological levels are required to get men to the Moon? Manned spaceflight is a well practised science now. Sending unmanned probes to the Moon is also well-practised. If both the US and USSR could soft-land unmanned probes on the Moon by remote control from Earth, what's so hard about landing a manned craft?

The shuttle has failed catastrophically twice, both for well understood technical reasons and bad amangement. The Soyuz, which is far closer in design concept to Apollo than the shuttle, has been a highly successful transport to low Earth orbit for forty years.

In the past month there have been two disastrous passenger aircraft crashes, with the loss of hundreds of lives. Does that mean that during WWII we couldn't send squadrons of men in 1940s technology aircraft on bombing raids over enemy territory?

Yes, because the sheer volume of evidence points no other way. Do you even know just how much material there is documenting the devlopment, construction and execution of those missions?

I admire your ability to creatively twist that quote from 'it was a political stunt' to 'it was faked'. Do you really not see a difference?

So? Can you think of no way in which remotely landing an unmanned vehicle on a planet millions of miles away with a radio delay of anything from 5 to 20 minutes and then having it send back pictures and do worthwhile science with no human within 50 million miles could be considered a greater achievement than sending a few men a couple of hundred thousand miles?

Context please. This gets trotted out a lot, and everyone who thinks it relates to Apollo overlooks the fact that he was talking about missions to Mars or setting up bases on the Moon, i.e. long duration flights. Duration is a critical factor in exposure to radiation of any kind. A few days may be safe, but a few months can be lethal.

Do you have any actual evidence to support your contention it was fake, or must we be bombarded with yet more innuendo and context-free misquotes?

__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.

Hello, Ken. Welcome to the board.

Get a grip of yourselves and cop yourselves on.

No man (never mind twelve! what planet are you guys on???) has ever landed on the moon and no man will in the foreseeable future as we are nowhere near the technological levels required.

OK, I'll play. What technology, exactly, are we lacking?

You can't even send astronauts into low earth orbit nearly 40 years later without killing several of them - what is it now? 17 deaths or something?

Do you mean the two Shuttle accidents, out of 126 flights? Can you think of any differences between the Shuttle and Apollo configurations?

The Soviets/Russians have fewer manned launches then the U.S. has Shuttle launches. They have had two fatal accidents and several near-disasters. Does this tell you anything about the nature of space flight in general?

Yet you believe 12 were sent with 1960's technology to the moon,

What exactly was inadequate about the technology, and why? I happen to work in this field, so I'll be very interested in learning all about this.

to walk around, play golf and drive cars up there and delivered them back safely to the Earth???

To explore the lunar environment, including obtaining an enormous amount of carefully-planned and documented still and video imagery; to select, obtain, and return differentiated lunar samples (several hundred kilograms); to perform a wide range of selenological investigations designed and built by leading scientists; to test and demonstrate suitable technologies; to set up and place in operation multiple automated lunar science laboratories which operated for years afterward; to set up lunar ranging retroreflectors which are still in routine use today.

Carl Sagan - America's most famous astronomer - never promoted the lie in his lifetime

That's the problem with cherry-picking your supporting "evidence". Sagan participated in the science training of the Apollo crews, and received an Apollo Achievement Award from NASA for his work.

and in one of his last interviews stated that the Apollo program was just about intimidating other nations and beating the Russians, just falling short of stating it was a cold war exercise lest he be demonised by brainwashed fanatics like yourselves.

Bluster and invective will get you nowhere. Sagan also spoke movingly of the Earth images taken by the Apollo crews en route to the Moon, and spoke of the privilege of participating in Apollo. None of which is incompatible with believing Apollo was primarily motivated by political goals, which in itself does nothing to diminish the scientific legacy of Apollo.

Later on in the same interview he stated that NASA's greatest achievements were the Viking missions to Mars.

Viking was one of NASA's greatest achievements. (It used data and technology developed during Apollo and its precursors.) There is nothing unusual about prominent scientists believing that unmanned missions such as Viking are more important than manned ones. The late James Van Allen, who helped NASA design the Apollo trajectories through the trapped-particle belts bearing his name, and Bob Park, a physicist and well-known scientific gadfly, both have shared that opinion with Sagan. They have also specifically repudiated the notion that Apollo was somehow faked.

Again, that's the problem with cherry-picking your quotes; someone will come along and look into what was actually said.

In 1994 NASA's chief administrator admitted/let slip in a British TV interview that no astronaut can travel above 400 miles until it can be figured out how to protect them from lethal cosmic radiation.

Incorrect, as already explained. Long-duration missions are quite a different matter than short-duration missions like Apollo.

It's like reading a scientologist blog here

No. The regulars here will happily explain their reasoning, and hard evidence, in detail, with appropriate citations you may verify yourself, for free. There is nothing hidden, no secret rituals, no fees to pay for expertise freely shared. All you have to do is actually pay attention to what is explained, rather than mindlessly quoting conspiracist sites and spewing insults.

If you're willing to actually learn something, that is.

__________________
"Slapping a guy on the head is just as funny now as it was eighty years ago."

I would love to take a look at the web server logs for BAUT. I would love to know the path that Ken took through this site. When you sign up for an account here, it dumps you back on the forum home page. So, even if Ken landed here as a result of a google search, he went back to the forum root. I would love to know how, from there, he made it to a year-old thread and decided to bump it. I mean, why not just start a new thread? I would love to know if this one was the only one he looked at, etc.

If what you are saying here is that Sagan never acknowledged that the Moon landings actually occurred, then what you are saying is simply not true.

Bluffing will not work on this BB. It's membership ranges from professional scientists to interested amateurs...all of whom "know their stuff".

Stick to what is factual, please....

...and welcome to the board.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Welcome to the board, Ken.

There are many lines of evidence that the mainstream will use to explain why we accept that the moon landings happened, but I'll just go with one for now, and ask you to defend your theory against this one;

We have a large quantity of moon rocks that were supposedly brought back by the returning Apollo astronauts. These have been widely distributed and studied, and appear to have come from the moon. They cannot have come naturally from earth (no weathering at all on them), and no-one has suggested how they could have been made.

So, how, if we did not go to the moon, do we have all of these moon rocks?

...we are nowhere near the technological levels required.

Is that so? I'm an engineer. I have worked in the aerospace industry. No one there doubts the Moon landings, no matter which country they work in. In fact, the only people who express doubts in the technological ability of the Apollo engineers are those who, when pressed even a little bit, can't describe what Apollo was tryingt o

You can't even send astronauts into low earth orbit nearly 40 years later without killing several of them - what is it now? 17 deaths or something?

Two missions lost out of more than 100. That is still better odds than Alaskan crab fishing and still a far greater mission success rate than Apollo.

The dangerous parts of a space mission are, generally, launch and landing. You seem to believe that the distance traveled between those events markedly affects the overall expectation of mission success or survivability. The fact that post-Apollo missions have been largely orbital and largely routine does not mean they are necessarily markedly less dangerous. In fact, humankind's proficiency at manned space flight has increased dramatically since Apollo: we now have paid private excursions into space, and privately-built and -operated suborbital spacecraft.

Yet you believe 12 were sent with 1960's technology to the moon...

You mean that same 1960s technology that gave us ICBMs and launch vehicle designs still in use today? That gave us the Boeing 747, one of the most successful airframes in all of aviation history? That produced the SR-71 -- still the world's fastest airplane (that we know of)?

See, the difference between conspiracy theorists and the people here is that the conspiracists really don't know much about "1960s technology," whereas most of the people here do, and have studied the technological history and descendency of Apollo in depth. There is an enormous amount of technical information available regarding Apollo, and the world's engineering community still turns to it today to help solve our current problems. According to the conspiracists -- none of whom seems to have an engineering degree or have worked in an engineering discipline -- all that stuff is bogus. Yet the world's practicing engineers, who use it, don't seem to have figured that out yet. Why do you suppose that is?

Carl Sagan - America's most famous astronomer - never promoted the lie in his lifetime...

Straw man. What about all those who did?

...and in one of his last interviews stated that the Apollo program was just about intimidating other nations and beating the Russians...

Arguably it was. That doesn't mean it was faked.

Later on in the same interview he stated that NASA's greatest achievements were the Viking missions to Mars.

He is welcome to his opinion. That doesn't provide proof that Apollo was faked.

In 1994 NASA's chief administrator admitted/let slip in a British TV interview that no astronaut can travel above 400 miles until it can be figured out how to protect them from lethal cosmic radiation.

No, he was speaking in context of the return to the Moon and on to Mars, where the mission lengths will be drastically longer than the 10 days and therefore subject to a more hazardous radiation environment. Can you find a qualified astrophysicist today who doubts that Apollo was successful? I've been asking this for about 10 years, and so far no conspiracy theorist has been able to produce an astrophysicist who believes and can substantiate that the Apollo missions must have been faked because of the supposedly harsh radiation environment.

Most conspiracy theorists don't understand the first thing about radiation, its actual hazards, the nature of its presence in space, or how engineers go about dealing with it.

It's like reading a scientologist blog here...

Not really. You've just spouted the same old uninformed generalities and cherry-picked hogwash that the conspiracy-theory web sites have been shoveling for the past 10-15 years. Nothing new. If you have the temerity to stick around and defend your claims, we'll see how much original thinking you've really done on this problem. Do you have the gumption to test your beliefs against those of actual engineers and scientists?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Translation: I have no facts but I'll still handwave everything you say away.

__________________
"Eternal vigilance is the price of supremacy"
------------Mark Twain

"Women are like Voltron. The more you can hook up, the better it gets."

Ah, a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black!

__________________
Talkie Toaster: The question is this: given that God is infinite and that the universe is also infinite, would you like a toasted tea-cake?

Ruffled? No...

I'm going to venture a guess here, Ken...you know very little about the US manned space program, aside from what (often inaccurate/erroneous) info you gleaned from hoax sites, you have no knowledge of space science in any form, and are likely young enough to have little or any recollection of "those days" in the 60s.

Why do you claim that we didn't go? What is your evidence, aside from personal bias and a couple of out of context, misinterpreted quotes?

...we are nowhere near the technological levels required.

Is that so? I'm an engineer. I have worked in the aerospace industry. No one there doubts the Moon landings, no matter which country they work in. In fact, the only people who express doubts in the technological ability of the Apollo engineers are those who, when pressed even a little bit, can't describe what Apollo was tryingt o

Prove you are an engineer Jay, and try finishing your reply the next time please.

You can't even send astronauts into low earth orbit nearly 40 years later without killing several of them - what is it now? 17 deaths or something?

Two missions lost out of more than 100. That is still better odds than Alaskan crab fishing and still a far greater mission success rate than Apollo.

Better odds than Alaskan crab fishing? - No it's not, that's a one in 50 failure rate and an even greater failure rate in human death tolls.

The dangerous parts of a space mission are, generally, launch and landing. You seem to believe that the distance traveled between those events markedly affects the overall expectation of mission success or survivability. The fact that post-Apollo missions have been largely orbital and largely routine does not mean they are necessarily markedly less dangerous. In fact, humankind's proficiency at manned space flight has increased dramatically since Apollo: we now have paid private excursions into space, and privately-built and -operated suborbital spacecraft.

Irrelevant argument

Yet you believe 12 were sent with 1960's technology to the moon...

You mean that same 1960s technology that gave us ICBMs and launch vehicle designs still in use today? That gave us the Boeing 747, one of the most successful airframes in all of aviation history? That produced the SR-71 -- still the world's fastest airplane (that we know of)?

The Jumbo 747 didn't fly to the moon and back, and besides the European Concorde and Soviet Concordski were far superior examples of human technology in the sixties. Strawman argument.

See, the difference between conspiracy theorists and the people here is that the conspiracists really don't know much about "1960s technology," whereas most of the people here do, and have studied the technological history and descendency of Apollo in depth. There is an enormous amount of technical information available regarding Apollo, and the world's engineering community still turns to it today to help solve our current problems. According to the conspiracists -- none of whom seems to have an engineering degree or have worked in an engineering discipline -- all that stuff is bogus. Yet the world's practicing engineers, who use it, don't seem to have figured that out yet. Why do you suppose that is?

"...really don't know much about "1960s technology," - see above

Carl Sagan - America's most famous astronomer - never promoted the lie in his lifetime...

Straw man. What about all those who did?

Not a strawman argument as I wasn't replying to a particular person I was making a statement, and besides I'll take Carl Sagan's word over anyone elses in the field of astronomy and space travel given his unmatched intimate association he had with NASA space missions.


...and in one of his last interviews stated that the Apollo program was just about intimidating other nations and beating the Russians...

Arguably it was. That doesn't mean it was faked.

Arguably it was indeed, but I know what he meant. Subjective argument.

Later on in the same interview he stated that NASA's greatest achievements were the Viking missions to Mars.

He is welcome to his opinion. That doesn't provide proof that Apollo was faked.

You are welcome to your opinion too Jay, I'll take Carl's over yours though if you don't mind

In 1994 NASA's chief administrator admitted/let slip in a British TV interview that no astronaut can travel above 400 miles until it can be figured out how to protect them from lethal cosmic radiation.

No, he was speaking in context of the return to the Moon and on to Mars, where the mission lengths will be drastically longer than the 10 days and therefore subject to a more hazardous radiation environment. Can you find a qualified astrophysicist today who doubts that Apollo was successful? I've been asking this for about 10 years, and so far no conspiracy theorist has been able to produce an astrophysicist who believes and can substantiate that the Apollo missions must have been faked because of the supposedly harsh radiation environment.

Again that's your opinion Jay, you can't speak on behalf of this man.

Most conspiracy theorists don't understand the first thing about radiation, its actual hazards, the nature of its presence in space, or how engineers go about dealing with it.

Most, and conspiracy theorising is essentially what moon landing believers conduct, despite all the mountains intrinsic evidence that tells you - shouts in your face in fact - that the moon landings were just a cold war exercise that nebver actually happened you still doggedly hang on by your finger nails to the pathetic ersatz evidence that supports it.

Whatever you do - don't look down.

It's like reading a scientologist blog here...

Not really. You've just spouted the same old uninformed generalities and cherry-picked hogwash that the conspiracy-theory web sites have been shoveling for the past 10-15 years. Nothing new. If you have the temerity to stick around and defend your claims, we'll see how much original thinking you've really done on this problem. Do you have the gumption to test your beliefs against those of actual engineers and scientists?

Speak for yourself Jay - I'm new here, that's my first post and you've just violated the rules of the site by quoting that line, it was edited out by the moderators here, and to their credit, it was the only line that was edited out.

Not really....this seems to be standard "HB speak" since you're not the first to say almost the exact same thing.

...and another HB gets the "burden of proof" wrong.

All I'm going to say, is this sounds oh so familiar.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

I'm curious--how many times does everyone think I'm going to have to correct this quote and its actual meaning?

Ken, at least get your Shakespeare right, if you can't understand anything about Apollo, which you clearly don't. The quote is "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." It does not mean that everyone's objecting, and therefore we know we're wrong, which is what people seem to think. It means that the person in question is swearing too many vows about something to be believed. In context, the Player Queen is swearing her love over and over to the Player King, and Hamlet's mother tells Hamlet, basically, that the fact that she feels the need to make the vow over and over means that she probably doesn't mean it.

Now, you may still think it applies. However, there's a very pertinent reason it does not. For all your apparent belief in blind faith around here, very few people have it. What you have instead is people who have looked at the evidence--I am at least glad that you know there was more than just Apollo 11!--and have found it equal to the claims. Several of our members have worked with technology pretty directly based on Apollo data. If it doesn't work, how do they do their jobs?

No, had the Player Queen just gone about showing her love instead of talking, Hamlet's mother could not have made the statement.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

More like a perfect example of the pot calling the bone-china teacup black, I think...

You can't even send astronauts into low earth orbit nearly 40 years later without killing several of them - what is it now? 17 deaths or something?

Going yet you believe 12 were sent with 1960's technology to the moon, to walk around, play golf and drive cars up there and delivered them back safely to the Earth???

You make it sound like it is a lot harder to go to moon than into low earth orbit. I doubt it. The moon isn't really that far. Also, most of the gravity energy is already overcome when you get to earth orbit, and it doesn't take a lot more energy to get to moon. Then once there, all you have to do is have a craft like lunar module which is just strong enough to maneuver in the moon's gravity, which is weak. Taking off the moon will be also easy, and then returning the command module to earth is essentially like going down hill.

Carl Sagan - America's most famous astronomer - never promoted the lie in his lifetime and in one of his last interviews stated that the Apollo program was just about intimidating other nations and beating the Russians, just falling short of stating it was a cold war exercise lest he be demonised by brainwashed fanatics like yourselves.

Early in his career, he didn't like the idea of manned missions because he felt unmanned probes could do the science better and save money. He felt manned missions were political. But then after Apollo 17 landed, he was against stopping the Apollo missions, because he felt they were now inspiring people . Late in life, he became critical of Shuttle because it was boring. So you're only looking at half of the story.

Later on in the same interview he stated that NASA's greatest achievements were the Viking missions to Mars.

This is logical that he would say that. Those of us old enough to remember him as a Viking project scientist going on "The Tonight Show" with Johnny Carson remember his beaming smile and youthful good looks. Remember, he was initially against Apollo so now, in 1976 , after they cancelled it, he was disillusioned by NASA's lack of vision and he reverted back to his current project.

In 1994 NASA's chief administrator admitted/let slip in a British TV interview that no astronaut can travel above 400 miles until it can be figured out how to protect them from lethal cosmic radiation

The command module and lunar module were made with a light-element skin that shielded them from the radiation . Remember, thicknesses of materials absorb radiation to certain percentages. The astronomers figured out how much and what types of radiations would be encountered during the flight, how long the exposure; and gave the problem to the people designing the craft and spacesuits. They figured out the correct materials and thicknesses. Now, they probably had some radiation dose, but not so much it couldn't be repaired by normal healing.

[FONT="Comic Sans MS"][SIZE="3"]I'm going to venture a guess here, Ken

Keep guessing Dave, because you never know - you might get something right about me the next time.

1. You don't know me from Adam so please don't make expedient assumptions about my knowledge of the US manned space program.

2. You don't know where I gleaned my information from, so please keep your biased assumptions to yourself.

This brings a question to mind. Will anything convince you...anything at all?

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

I seem to have ruffled a lot of feathers here.

Ill-conceived notions do have a tendency to do that when expressed.

However, I have yet to read anything in your replies that rebuts what I stated in any convincing manner...

If you had said anything beyond parroting the general handwaving claims of conspiracy theory books, videos, and web sites, then your dismissal might mean something.

You say the technology didn't exist in the 1960s to go to the Moon. Yet you seem wholly ignorant that vast amounts of records have survived of the development, testing, and deployment of that technology; and that such material is routinely consulted by modern engineers who are well equipped and well motivated to discover any shortcoming or falsehood in it.

Sorry, but in light of the universal acceptance in the world engineering community of the validity of Apollo, it is your claim that stands as unsupported and unconvincing. Please explain what exactly about going to the Moon was unattainable in the 1960s and 1970s.

...what are merely your personal interpretations masquerading as general factual information.

As opposed to your personal interpretations masquerading as factual information?

How old are you? Were you practicing engineering in the 1960s? Do you have any training or experience in aerospace engineering? You are simply denying a huge volume of evidence, of whose existence I suspect you are largely unaware.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Your words bear no relation to what is being said.

__________________
Cricket is boring. IMHO, of course.

You have made the claim that 1960s technology was insufficient to go to the Moon. I have asked you specifically what elements of such a mission was beyond 1960s capability. Do you intend to answer my question?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base