James Van Allen described moon landings as "the greatest television show"

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
Why don't you tell us the story about how you saw it live? You watched it on TV right? You didn't actually witness anything but a TV screen.

Watch "The Dish", en.wikipedia.org... you will learn something.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: hellobruce

I saw it live, it was great.

Why don't you tell us the story about how you saw it live? You watched it on TV right? You didn't actually witness anything but a TV screen.

What's the point of you saying that? You keep saying you aren't talking about a hoax .. and then everything you say is saying "hoax". Get your story straight.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Why do you ignore the facts?

I'm trying to give you some facts... but there seems to be a great resistance by you and others in accepting facts into the narrative! The Van Allen TV remarks are from November 1970.

If we are to believe that James Van Allen has any credibility at all we must also consider that his remarks November 1970 are not associated with "hoax believers" so we can lay that false flag argument down and bury it in the moderator's discretionary authority. Seriously, Van allen meant what he said about moon landings and television. Van Allen is a critic of NASA and he is a credible source.

James Van Allen did not say anything about a hoax.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
Why don't you tell us the story about how you saw it live? You watched it on TV right? You didn't actually witness anything but a TV screen.

Watch "The Dish", en.wikipedia.org... you will learn something.

No, I asked you to tell us the story about HOW YOU SAW IT LIVE.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Why do you ignore the facts?

I'm trying to give you some facts... but there seems to be a great resistance by you and others in accepting facts into the narrative! The Van Allen TV remarks are from November 1970.

Point? Were they not on TV yet? I have no clue what your point is. They were on TV at this point and one of if not the most watched television broadcast. It was a great television show, people loved it.

If we are to believe that James Van Allen has any credibility at all we must also consider that his remarks November 1970 are not associated with "hoax believers" so we can lay that false flag argument down and bury it in the moderator's discretionary authority. Seriously, Van allen meant what he said about moon landings and television. Van Allen is a critic of NASA and he is a credible source.

Of course he did. Everyone but you agrees. He said it was great tv .. it was. He said we have a costly manned program and we should stop putting men on the moon. He was right. He said we should put science above TV ratings. I agree with him.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
I'm trying to give you some facts

The facts are Van Allen said man landed on the moon - and as we all know, man landing on the moon is a fact!

but there seems to be a great resistance by you and others in accepting facts into the narrative! The Van Allen TV remarks are from November 1970.

you mean the fact Van Allen said man landed on the moon? Or that the factual moon landing was a great TV show?
Or the fact that you are very confused?

Seriously, Van allen meant what he said about moon landings

You mean he meant it when he said man landed on the moon!

Van Allen is a critic of NASA and he is a credible source.

We know he is a credible source, so when he said man landed on the moon that was a factual statement!

You seem to be going in circles, you really are very confused.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
James Van Allen did not say anything about a hoax.

Why should he, as he knows man landed on the moon!

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
James Van Allen did not say anything about a hoax.

Why should he, as he knows man landed on the moon!

/thread

No idea what OP is even trying to say. If it's not in support of it being a hoax what the heck is the point of the thread?

I think there some some people out there trying to turn this thread into a moon hoax thread. This is one of those moments that might get lost in history...

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

No, there are people completely confused by what you are trying to say. The man did not want great TV, he wanted great science. He said we need to stop sending people to the moon, we can do so much more for even less money if only we were after great discoveries, not great TV. He was absolutely criticizing NASA.

I think there some some people out there trying to turn this thread into a moon hoax thread.

So then that means you agree Van Allen was saying we went to the Moon?

The only one lost is you.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
This is one of those moments that might get lost in history...

What moment?

Oh, you mean the moment when you shot yourself in the foot by posting a credible source that stated man landed on the moon!

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So he is saying the program was real, men went to the moon.

This thread is about source material and quotation marks, if you make a claim you have to back it up.

I will sell you some bullet proof boots after this howler re the Van Allen quote you need them!

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

if this is not a moon hoax thread - then what the hell is it ?

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

if this is not a moon hoax thread - then what the hell is it ?

A threads on

"How to Shoot Yourself in The Foot"!

I'm all for interesting, intelligent discussions, even when there is some misunderstanding/errors/lack of knowledge invovled (on any side of the participants), as long as there is at least some coherence and clarity of what is being discussed. I don't see any coherence or clarity in this (or most other of SJ's) thread.

It's like you're being asked a seemigly simple and straightforward question, but that question is loaded with covert meaning or agenda, and the asker isn't letting you in on what he means by posing that question. It seems the OP has already decided what the subject of this thread is all about, and we're just left flopping about trying to make sense of that.

I think this has run it's course...

Closing

Thank you

Semper