Re: I take objection to NASA's Mars plans!

On 7 Aug 2005 10:44:36 -0700, "Brad Guth" <ieisbradguth@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>Cardman;
>> I take it that no amount of evidence would prove you wrong. So what
>> about when NASA returns to the Moon and goes and picks up some of
>> their old equipment? I am sure that one of those old lunar rovers
>> would come in useful.
>
>Everything you've sited as being supposed proof-positive is purely
>subjective, as in soft-science at best and otherwise social/political
>mainstream brown-nosed skewed conditional physics and perpetrated
>cold-war rusemastering at worse.

Well, since you have not yet stated one of the many possible claims,
then so cannot I quote the scientific fact to prove you wrong.

>Likewise, others nor that of yourself haven't addressed the
>proof-positive of established hard-science that I've contributed
>towards proving we actually haven't been there nor accomplished that
>moon walking thing.

You have no proof-positive that NASA did not land on the Moon all of
six times. And you don't have such proof, because NASA actually did
land on the Moon.

Let me expressive this a different way.

It could also be claimed that WWII did not happen at all. After all I
was not there, where this could easily be a political creation to
control the masses.

However, during your life you have to believe what other people say to
you. People who you know and can trust. And sure enough there are lots
of people around who directly remember this cold War space race.

Also just what is your point here? To have people believe that NASA
really did not land on the Moon I guess. And since I have well
examined both sides of this argument, where I conclude that NASA
really did land on the Moon, then since Brad Guth is known to be a
"paranoid doom and gloom merchant", then it is simply the case that
you won't convince people that you are correct.

I would also love to know just what NASA spent all those billions of
dollars on if they did not go to the Moon. There are only so many
hooker filled parties that NASA can hold. ;-]

Let me also reverse another idea. As if NASA landed on the Moon, or
not, is not really what is important here. What does matter is what
people believe that they did.

And since everyone, except you and a couple of your friends, believes
that NASA really did land on the Moon, where you simply won't convince
them otherwise, then this is proof positive that one Brad Guth is
simply wasting his time.

So no matter what "proof-positive" claims you have that NASA did not
land on the Moon, then so can I easily prove that you are doing
nothing more than wasting your time.

>I've stipulated that whenever the questions I've imposed are answered
>as to the objective scientific and regular laws of physics standards,

That can and has been done.

>as then I'll accept that we've walked moonsuit ***-naked upon the
>extremely dark and dusty environment,

That we have.

>horrifically meteroite strewn

Over billions of years.

>and highly reactive moon

In what way do you mean "reactive"?

>essentially unscaved in every measurable way,

The wonders of regolith. Odd that you claim "unscathed" when they were
kicking around the very result of countless impacts.

There were also a couple of big creators in the area as well. I even
recall that Apollo 11 almost landed in one.

>and
>that we simply haven't utilized such nifty fly-by-rocket capability
>ever since because, apparently it was simply too damn reliable and
>energy efficient per to/from kg.

As long as they can make escape velocity, then it all comes down to
Newton's first law of motion. They went to the Moon because mass in a
vacuum travels in a straight line, and at constant speed, if no other
force is acting upon it.

So it requires no energy to move through space. Starting and stopping
can be considered the hard bit.

Cardman.
.

Quantcast