Dan Goldin comment

[stutefish]

I do not care what Dan Goldin said in or out of context.

Well, that's odd. You're posting on an Apollo-focused discussion board. Presumably you care about the Apollo Project.

Am I unreasonable to expect that what Goldin said--in or out of context--would be pretty interesting to someone who cared about the Apollo Project?

Is he right about the radiation problem? How did Apollo solve it? How well did the solution work? What new technologies were developed to solve it? Etc.

As it turns out, there's actually quite a lot of fascinating technical detail about the radiation problem, and about the Apollo solution. I should think that if you care about the Apollo Project, you'd be quite interested to learn more about what Goldin meant, and how it applied to Apollo.

On the other hand, if you don't care about the Apollo Project, that would explain why you suddenly don't care what Goldin had to say (even though you cared enough to ask about it in the first place). But if you don't care about Apollo, why are you even posting here?

[profmunkin]

I do not care what Dan Goldin said in or out of context.

Well, that's odd. You're posting on an Apollo-focused discussion board. Presumably you care about the Apollo Project.

I really no longer care to argue about Apollo and if we did or did not go to the moon. Can't know one way or the other. So to you that say we did, I say you got all the evidence covered. To those that say no, I say there appears to be a lot of circumstantial evidence to support that theory, but no hard evidence.
Someday someone will provide sufficient proof to know one way or the other.

What catches my attention is random bits of knowledge or information, such as: Dan Goldin said" ...250 mile limit...", I wonder what he meant by that? Then think, just go to the experts, I have to bounce this off apollonet for a good scientific answer, these guys know space... then I throw it out for a quick answer, which I receive and a good answer I will add....Followed by a stink-storm criticizing my inquiry.
Some of you guys might consider increasing your fiber uptake.

[twik]

Well, if we're just asking random questions, what happened on the Mary Celeste? And where is my other black glove?

[profmunkin]

Well, if we're just asking random questions, what happened on the Mary Celeste? And where is my other black glove?

OK obviously the glove has to be on the Mary Celeste, so you did something that required you to take the glove off. Unless Mary Celeste is a woman?
You may have to give me some more clues.

[LunarOrbit]

Someday someone will provide sufficient proof to know one way or the other.

NASA has already provided more than enough evidence to convince reasonable people.

What catches my attention is random bits of knowledge or information, such as: Dan Goldin said" ...250 mile limit...", I wonder what he meant by that? Then think, just go to the experts, I have to bounce this off apollonet for a good scientific answer, these guys know space... then I throw it out for a quick answer, which I receive and a good answer I will add....Followed by a stink-storm criticizing my inquiry.

We're not just trying to be difficult. Before we can answer why someone said what they said, we have to know that they actually said it. That quote has been floating around the internet for years and no one can actually prove that Dan Goldin said it. Why would we waste time trying to explain something he may have never said in the first place?

[profmunkin]

We're not just trying to be difficult. Before we can answer why someone said what they said, we have to know that they actually said it. That quote has been floating around the internet for years and no one can actually prove that Dan Goldin said it. Why would we waste time trying to explain something he may have never said in the first place?

Hey tell me about it, I spent much of the day looking for it just to stop all the fuss.

[twik]

Perhaps, then, you should have done that work before assuming he *did* say it?

[profmunkin]

Perhaps, then, you should have done that work before assuming he *did* say it?

Problem was I assumed you guys knew more then you did.

[AtomicDog]

Perhaps, then, you should have done that work before assuming he *did* say it?

Problem was I assumed you guys knew more then you did.

Why is it our job to verify your quotes?

[Glom]

I really no longer care to argue about Apollo and if we did or did not go to the moon. Can't know one way or the other. So to you that say we did, I say you got all the evidence covered. To those that say no, I say there appears to be a lot of circumstantial evidence to support that theory, but no hard evidence.

So one side has all the evidence covered and the other has no hard evidence. Yet you say we can't know. This really sounds like the conclusion of someone who desparately wants to believe in the hoax theory and is just waiting for something useable to come along.

As for your circumstantial evidence, you tried some of that and you acknowledge it got ripped to shreds. This circumstantial evidence does not have a good track record of standing up to scrutiny.

[profmunkin]

I really no longer care to argue about Apollo and if we did or did not go to the moon. Can't know one way or the other. So to you that say we did, I say you got all the evidence covered. To those that say no, I say there appears to be a lot of circumstantial evidence to support that theory, but no hard evidence.

So one side has all the evidence covered and the other has no hard evidence. Yet you say we can't know. This really sounds like the conclusion of someone who desperately wants to believe in the hoax theory and is just waiting for something useable to come along.

As for your circumstantial evidence, you tried some of that and you acknowledge it got ripped to shreds. This circumstantial evidence does not have a good track record of standing up to scrutiny.

No. What this means is I feel both sides have compelling arguments.

I didn't try "some of that."
The intention was information clarification and what I am receiving is paranoid fanatical fever.

[profmunkin]

Why is it our job to verify your quotes?

You are right
I withdraw the inquiry!

[RAF]

...I feel both sides have compelling arguments.

Which Moon hoax arguments are "compelling"?....and be very specific.

[Jason Thompson]

No. What this means is I feel both sides have compelling arguments.

What 'compelling arguments' are there that stand up to the vast piles of actual evidence for the Apollo landings?

[RAF]

I really no longer care to argue about Apollo and if we did or did not go to the moon.

Of course you do, or you wouldn't continue posting.

Can't know one way or the other.

Sure we know....Apollo is historical FACT....no need to speculate when the facts are on your "side".

So to you that say we did, I say you got all the evidence covered.

Historically verified factual events are "covered".

To those that say no, I say there appears to be a lot of circumstantial evidence to support that theory, but no hard evidence.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the Moon landings were haoxed, period.

Someday someone will provide sufficient proof to know one way or the other.

Someday??? There is sufficient proof NOW confirming that Apollo happened...you have chosen to ignore it.