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

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.

According to your article cited in the OP he said "manned lunar landings should be terminated."

Which obviously means he thought they were happening.

Maybe you need to clarify what your point is. I don't really get it.

originally posted by: DelMarvel

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.

According to your article cited in the OP he said "manned lunar landings should be terminated."

Which obviously means he thought they were happening.

Maybe you need to clarify what your point is. I don't really get it.

Del, Van Allen was trolling NASA. Thomas Gold was trolling NASA. Eugene Shoemaker was trolling NASA. It takes a lot of guts for a scientists to come out and criticize NASA. These eminent scientists are making a statement: unmanned space missions produce more science than manned space missions, dollar for dollar, and being an opponent of the space shuttle, Van Allen rested on his credentials and his prestige. It is 1970. Van Allen compared Apollo to a tv show.

Van Allen is not an idiot. He said what he said for a reason. As a scientist, why would he compare Apollo to a TV show? I think the obvious conclusion is that Van Allen was trolling NASA.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
It is 1970. Van Allen compared Apollo to a tv show.

Wrong again, he said it made great TV - which hundreds of millions of people agreed with, as it was the most widely watched programme on TV at that time. It did make great tv, watching man walking on the moon!

Van Allen is not an idiot. He said what he said for a reason.

He truthfully said man had walked on the mooon, and it was a great TV show - which was true.

As a scientist, why would he compare Apollo to a TV show?

What are you babbling about now? He never compared it to a TV show, he said it made great TV, which it did!

Van Allen was trolling NASA.

Van Allen is not the one trolling here!

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: DelMarvel

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.

According to your article cited in the OP he said "manned lunar landings should be terminated."

Which obviously means he thought they were happening.

Maybe you need to clarify what your point is. I don't really get it.

Del, Van Allen was trolling NASA. Thomas Gold was trolling NASA. Eugene Shoemaker was trolling NASA. It takes a lot of guts for a scientists to come out and criticize NASA. These eminent scientists are making a statement: unmanned space missions produce more science than manned space missions, dollar for dollar, and being an opponent of the space shuttle, Van Allen rested on his credentials and his prestige. It is 1970. Van Allen compared Apollo to a tv show.

Van Allen is not an idiot. He said what he said for a reason. As a scientist, why would he compare Apollo to a TV show? I think the obvious conclusion is that Van Allen was trolling NASA.

Would it be possible for you to do away with the blatant ambiguity and just say what you mean? Instead of repeating the tripe regarding Van Allen "trolling NASA", just tell us what you're getting at instead of playing pass the buck. Are you attempting to imply that the United States never landed men on the moon or are you trying to state something else? Just state your intent, otherwise this entire thread is you trolling ATS as opposed to Dr. Van Allen trolling NASA.

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

Why is this a requirement for everyone in the thread except for yourself? You're not backing up any of your claims. You're just dancing 'round the maypole. Just like when you scold other posters for anything making a passing resemblance to a personal commentary regarding yourself but then devolve yourself to explicitly doing so in your comment to DelMarvel regarding the number of stars they received. Or your reply to TerminalVelocity where you move the goal posts into areas not covered by your OP and then castigate others by stating that the only viable discussion involves the statement by Van Allen, specifically what is in quotes.

So yes, let's actually discuss the quotes as well as your actual point of view relating to said quotes are instead of dancing 'round the maypole here. Because your end game regarding your interpretation of the statement by Dr. Van Allen is a crucial component to properly discussing the OP. If you're unwilling to do so then this thread is, for all intents and purposes, dead.

Stellar levels of hypocrisy abounding in this thread perpetrated by yourself. This isn't conducive to a discussion that will go anywhere as you continue to ignore the facts in lieu of your pet hypothesis.

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 used the source material you provided, what, yours says it was real so I can't use it?

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
Van Allen is not an idiot. He said what he said for a reason. As a scientist, why would he compare Apollo to a TV show? I think the obvious conclusion is that Van Allen was trolling NASA.

He didn't. It was an actual television show. It was on TV, did you not know that? He said it was great TV.

a reply to: peter vlar

You're not backing up any of your claims.

Excuse me? Pardon me?

originally posted by: peter vlar
Why is this a requirement for everyone in the thread except for yourself?

I quoted his source. So I don't know why he has a bug up his butt asking for sources when it was a quote from his source.

From his source ...

"Van Allen said the US should phase out it's manned space program"

Van Allen claimed it was real per OP's source.

You can't phase out something that does not exist.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: peter vlar

You're not backing up any of your claims.

Excuse me? Pardon me?

Yes, we see van Allen spoke truthfully when he said man walked on the moon, and when he said the TV broadcast of man walking on the moon was the best TV show ever seen - which it was?

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: peter vlar

You're not backing up any of your claims.

Excuse me? Pardon me?

I'm not debating that you are quoting Dr. Van Allen and that your quote is accurate. What you're not supporting however is your interpretations of the quote. Hell, you're not being terribly clear regarding what your actual interpretations even are.

Well done on ignoring the actual important portions of my post so that you can continue your maypole dance by not actually letting anyone know specifically what you're getting at. Are you saying that Dr. Van Allen was implying that we never went to the moon or not?

Drop the ambiguity and get to the actual point please or else there is no discussion to be had. To continue on this path makes YOU the troll, not Dr. Van Allen so p[lease, clarify what exactly your position is if you intend to actually have a discussion instead of castigating all who reply to you.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Exactly! It would be nice if the OP would cease his circular reasoning and attacks on everyone who points out the obvious based on reading the entire article. The quote in the OP is entirely devoid of proper context. It was in response to the Soviets landing an unmanned rover on the Lunar surface and he was making the point that we could get way more bang for our buck by cutting the manned program and utilizing a setup similar to what we are doing currently on Mars. His comment on the Apollo 11 landing was stating that while it was a great piece of public relations as the US was triumphant in our race to the Moon against the USSR, it wasn't the most cost effective way to do science. I think everyone posting grasps this concept except for the OP who refuses to address these rebuttals and instead moves goal posts, redefines how we should be replying and castigates nearly everyone who took the time to engage in proper due diligence instead of misinterpreting a quote due to confirmation bias.

a reply to: peter vlar

He is clearly saying Van Allen is saying it was all a show and just tv and never happened .. which is not at all what Van Allen said, and does not match any other things VA said.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
You can't phase out something that does not exist.

The Russians have not gone over 308 miles in space. Perhaps you should ask Vladimir Putin why Russia scientists are unable to confirm the American claims for 45 years.

a reply to: peter vlar

circular reasoning

Nasa claims landing on the moon. Proof by Nasa. Nobody can confirm. Nasa claim continues for 45 years. Nobody can confirm.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Van Allen claimed it was real per OP's source.

Van Allen never claimed that Apollo was real. Please only use credible sources to back up your claims.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
You can't phase out something that does not exist.

The Russians have not gone over 308 miles in space. Perhaps you should ask Vladimir Putin why Russia scientists are unable to confirm the American claims for 45 years.

So your Van Allen trick did not work out so now Putin is your source? Nice moving of the goal posts.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Sources?

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Van Allen claimed it was real per OP's source.

Van Allen never claimed that Apollo was real.

Actually he did, the failure is your ability to comprehend what he said. It's been explained to you, you simply choose to cover your ears and then tell me to ask Putin.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I asked you for sources.

Actually he did, the failure is your ability to comprehend what he said. It's been explained to you, you simply choose to cover your ears and then tell me to ask Putin.