Great. So now maybe you could address the issue of the Apollo rocks more generally, as well as the historiography of the Cold War.
One piece of evidence against the Cold War was JFK's attempt to establish a collaboration with Russia on the Moon Landing in 1963. This doesn't sound like "enemies" to me... They said "no thanks, but good luck with that" -- soon after JFK was assassinated. JFK wouldn't go into Vietnam? Was exhibiting doubts about Apollo's mission, possibly willing to pull the plug? Anti-Banks/CIA? Who knows -- why he was assassinated. BUT -- 1963 we see he doesn't seem to be too concerned by Cold War... maybe that was part of it... the DoD profiteers wanted the Cold War to be something that struck fear in Americans to justify govt spending to mitigate these fears.
The existence of the ideological conflict is undeniable, as it was argued out by people in many countries across the world, whether at the ballot box, in universities, or down the barrel of a gun. The same for the officers and men of the military forces of the USA and the USSR - fervently believing in the rightness of capitalism or communism.
Yet according to you the clique in charge of each country consisted of people who knew it was all for show. How did people psychologically handle that transition? "Congratulations on your appointment. There's something important you need to know about this job..."
Take General Colin Powell: involved in combat in the Vietnam War, so definitely in the former category; but also National Security Adviser to President Reagan, so definitely also in the latter category.
I'm half-talking-from-my-ass here -- I'm sure.
Not half.
I haven't researched it thoroughly, but only enough to know there was a LOT of shady stuff going on. And I do not put much trust in govt feeding us fear narratives about "the enemy" - which then justifies spending. I'm leery at best.
Yes there was shady stuff going on. But not only have you admitted you don't know what you're talking about, you haven't even started to address the issue of historiography.
Do yourself a favour and learn something about the Cold War. And maybe learn what historiography is too - it's how we can rely on mainstream views about any subject, like the Cold War...or Apollo.
But that's not all, is it. There's the issue of the Apollo rocks. I told you the four simple points scientists make about the Apollo rocks: 1. They can't be from the Earth. 2. They can't be fake. 3. They can't be lunar meteorites. 4. They can't have been collected by unmanned sample retriever missions. Sure, you had a go at point 3 with von Braun's trip to Antarctica, at point 2 with a handwave about radiation, and at point 1 with the
Danish Dutch rock. Do you accept you're wrong on all three points? If not, what's your objection? If so, what about point 4?
