SaturnV, it is poor taste to remove your articles and substitute the text with something else. There are people who read these threads long after the participants are finished with them, and it's very difficult to see what questions are being responded to if the questions have been removed.

Here is the full text of your latest, so that it cannot be removed. I will respond point-by-point below.

2. the saturn had only five nozzles and russian rockets had over 30 because of extreme temps created by the fuel the bigger the nozzle the more likely it is to burn through

American engineers had better metallurgy. This is how they were able to build more powerful single engines. Boosters with few engines are more reliable than boosters with many engines. The Soviets used many small engines because that was the limit of their metallurgical understanding.

3. acoustic vibrations resulting in burn anomalies causes the thin metal walls to burn through ...

You're mixing acoustical effects with thermal effects. Please make up your mind.

Have you ever seen a real rocket combustion chamber? I've worked on, disassembled, and studied Rocketdyne engines. The combustion chambers are not made of "thin metal walls".

... makes rocket explode thus the saturn was just an light empty shell which was used to convince people a rocket did blast off

You omit to describe how the various development problems with the F-1 were solved. You are presenting only half the evidence. With the full weight of evidence, there is no justification for arguing that the Saturn V was just a prop. The engines behaved as expected, therefore there is no reason to suppose the Saturn V was incapable of its task.

Besides, there are literally thousands of photographs and thousands of eyewitness accounts to the design, testing, assembly, checkout, and launch of the Saturn V. You ignore this evidence completely. Were all these people in the hoax? Were they all fooled by the hoax? Please elucidate.

the pogo effect was probably the reason the saturn had to be faked using smaller more proven rockets

Why do you ignore the evidence that the pogo problem was addressed, solved, and/or mitigated? All the Saturn V vehicles, including those deemed operational, exhibited pogo. Many rockets of the time did. Pogo in itself is not a reason why a rocket cannot be useful.

the saturn rockets blew up on numerous occasions in the testing stage

Where is your evidence?

None of the Saturn V's exploded in flight. Do you perhaps mean that certain components of the Saturn V failed catastrophically during test? If this seems strange to you, then it is perhaps because you do not understand the purpose and rationale of engineering testing. Catastrophic failure tests are common in this type of engineering. It does not mean that the final product is unduly dangerous.

as we learned with challenger sometimes rockets do not divulge their problems until it was to late

The public learned of the problems with the SRBs in hindsight. Engineers knew of the problems long before the Challenger disaster. The accident occurred not because it was not known that the problems existed, but because various pressures kept those problems from being given the attention they deserved. Do not confuse what is reported in the media (or not reported) with what is known by practioners in the relevant field.

If the scientists and engineers as you say were confindent that the rocket would not blow up why were they hiding miles away from the launch site

A Saturn V rocket when operating properly is still a tremendous risk to onlookers.

No one ever said that rocketry was perfectly safe. But you must distinguish between necessary risk and foolish, unnecessary risk. The astronauts took the necessary risk of riding the Saturn V because they obviously could not do their jobs without doing so. The ground crew can perform effectively from a safe distance, so there is no need for them to place themselves in unncessary danger.

Think about your argument carefully. It's really quite silly. You're claiming the Apollo missions were falsified because the ground crew didn't act in a bravado fashion. Don't you think that's rather flimsy?

The saturn had hydrogen tamk leaks plague building the program because hudrogen was so untried and dangerous

Hydrogen is not as dangerous as some fuels. The common hypergols, for example, are highly toxic, highly corrosive, and ignite spontaneously on contact with air.

The difficulty in working with hydrogen derives from its extremely low cryogenic temperatures and its small molecular weight. Aluminum actually strengthens at those cold temperatures. But welds needed to be extra tight. Fittings too. This is because hydrogen, being a very small molecule, leaks easily.

However, again you cite only half the evidence. There were indeed welding difficulties with the Saturn V tanks, just as there were welding difficulties with the Venture Star tanks. You seem to miss the point that space development often requires developing new and untried technologies, and that failure along the way is not only expected, but common. You fail to cite how the welding problems were solved.

insulation was yet another grand problem

... and another problem that was successfully solved.

Your pattern of argumentation remains unchanged. You cite problems during the development of highly sophisticated and experimental technology, and somehow suggest that the existence of these problems means the final product was not suitable. You selectively eliminate discussion of the solutions, but the real problem is that you seem to miss the point of what engineering is. Engineering is, precisely, the solving of problems. Problems have to occur before they can be solved.

Can you point to a single engineering endeavor that didn't encounter and overcome problems? What will it take to make you see the utter silliness of your entire line of reasoning?