Mad Scientist wrote in
Wally Anglesea wrote:

It was sold to the world as a scientific project.

So then it really wasn't a scientific project according to you, other
than a political project.

Who do you think provided the funding for this "scientific" project?

Going once to one place
would have been politically stupid

Why? They 'beat the Russians' to the Moon, no need to prove it they
could do it again. That IS stupid reasoning on your part.

Sorry, we are not obligated to answer the question to your satisfaction.
It is not our job to make you happy with the answers.

(the US showed time and again they could
do it as often as they felt it was neccessary, plus, the incremental
cost of the following missions was not as huge as the cost of setting
up to get there once, and what, you are going to say to your
astronauts that only 2 of you will ever land on the Moon?), and the
scientists, geologists, etc wanted more. It was worth it. There was a
whole lot of what comes after, but poilitically, once the US had
demonstrated that their Science was the best in the world, the US
decided it wanted to spend more on domestic issues.

So here you prove that Science is not about understandin the universe
for the 'benefit of all mankind' but rather an ego building exorcise
for countries and politicians. That is exactly what Hoagland is
saying about NASA.

And what surprises you that politics are involved? Politics are almost
_always_ involved when the government is providing the funding.

I suppose, under your postion, once Columbus had reached the
Carribean, that should have ben the last of it, huh?

Hardly, you have no idea what my 'position' is on anything.

Incidentally, NO evidence of aliens, artificial structures, sphinxes,
pyramids, machines, excavators, etc were found on the Moon.
HTH

Corso says to people like you: "How would you know? Do you have the
security clearance? Were you there? They can't prove anything, all
they can do is criticise.'

Hasn't school started yet? As I have pointed out to you NUMEROUS times,
it is the person who makes the claim who must prove the claim. It is not
the defendant who must prove the claim to be false. Therefore until
evidence is provided to the contrary "no evidence of aliens, artificial
structures, sphinxes, pyramids, etc." must be assumed to be correct.
Sorry if you don't like it, that's the way it works.

--
"I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an
argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer
clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they
don't even invite me." -Dave Barry