Excellent response, jsbjsb001, however I was also struck by how the very subject of cognitive dissonance often compels us, and in this case compelled you, to write facts like this "facts", in quotes, as if facts is always suspect. Some things are not only demonstrably fact but can possess an intuitive component such as "Worried about Van Allen radiation? OK. We went around it". We know from our general experience if we avoid a pothole our car won't bump. It is obviously a fact that avoiding altogether drops risk to inconsequential if not non-existent. Even if "avoiding a pothole" puts us in the path of an oncoming semi, that's an entirely separate issue. The pothole was not a problem. Line of sight or something else was. There is no fault in asking the question, "How did NASA deal with Van Allen?". There is with offhand rejection of "we avoided it".

Avoidance is an extreme example since it is so obviously factual, but it doesn't require much more to seek evidence that the bits NASA did have to pass through, for example, did not require a foot of lead. It is absolutely beyond me why one would choose to dismiss such solid and provable/disprovable facts to support any other idea, concept or personal point of view. It is a house built on quicksand. No thanks.

(edit) NOTE - This endorsement of NASA data should not be construed to mean NASA is above reproach as they have been guilty of deception a few times but to my knowledge it has always been confined solely to political issues, not Science, and even then not as an across-the-board policy. NASA made Tricky Dick wait for hours to make his "most historic phone call ever" until NASA was ready, not The White House or The Media. Some sub-contractors like North American have been guilty of being deceptive or simply incompetent about safety risks, but not NASA itself. The openness with which they have conducted Science is absolutely unparalleled and demands respect. NASA has earned that.

Grinning here as I catch up on this thread. Cuz reading replies. My mind thinks of all the tourist trap UFO places out west here. Never mind the moon landing.

Funny - I drove out to Carlsbad NM to see the caverns. After doing that I decided to take a day trip over to Roswell. Everything there is alien themed. I particularly liked the street lamp covers that were shaped like alien heads so they'd painted alien faces on them. The museum had affidavits signed first to say that no alien craft had been seen or found then later ones by the same people saying they now assert it was in fact a UFO despite their prior affidavits.

It occurred to me then that one way for a government to cover up something is for it to start rumors itself. If some top secret military craft or device went awry one way to make people never believe anything they hear might be to plant the seed that it was a UFO then officially deny it was anything other than a weather balloon. The problem with all such things is that by the time most of us hear anything there has been so much FUD nothing seems credible. The fact is we'll never "know" if something happened if it got covered up so wasting time on "researching" it seems pointless.

I ran into this today:

https://boomstarter.ru/projects/zele...fotosemki_luny

(the above is what Google Translate spits out)

"Oh, the check from NASA has arrived!"
Nice video.

So you opened this "Once and for All" thread only to kick loose another endless discussion on that same ol' topic, being the most prolific participant by far.......
:smh:

Of course that's what it was. NASA is going broke paying off 250,000 some odd conspirators to keep quiet <sarc>.

I don't think it is at all "endless", but until we return it is a great Rorschach Test of how individuals here weigh evidence.