to debunk the theory that the "lunar landings of the late 1960's and early 1970's" were "staged as a Cold War tactic to bluff the Soviet Union into a reserved nuclear posture" is not something you are going to achieve in one thread, and any time soon.

I disagree. It will never be settled, and that's because there is no one solitary truth out there to be discovered. The question, "What was the true goal of the Apollo program?" has no one correct answer.

Like everything that has been argued before, a great deal of it comes down to interpretation.

Well, yes and no. This question comes down to interpretation -- or more accurately, down to perception. But it's not like everything else that's been discussed.

The radiation issue, for example, has a correct answer. To compute it analytically is tedious and very complicated, but it is tractable. The amount of radiation in the Van Allen belts or in a solar particle event is not a matter of opinion or interpretation, but a matter of precise and accurate observation.

The thermodynamics question has an answer. The lighting question has an answer.

But what's the "correct" answer to the political question?

There's evidence Kennedy wasn't interested in the scientific aspects, only the political aspects. I believe it. Kennedy was a politician, not a scientist. But does that mean Jim Webb had to share those interests? Does that mean George Low or Tom Kelly or Max Faget had to share that view? Was Ed Thompson motivated by political concerns? (Ed Thompson was the North American Aviation engineer who wrote the computer program that predicted the re-entry blackout timeline for the command module.)

What Apollo was depends on who you are. You can say Kennedy's opinion is the "correct" answer because he was the President. But there were a lot more Ed Thompsons than there were JFKs. Who's to say their collective opinion isn't just as valid an interpretation?

The problem with Sibrel is that his political analysis is subordinate to his contention that the landings were falsified. Even if we agree that the primary motive was political and not scientific, a genuine landing satisfies the political goal. We object to Sibrel not because he draws an unpleasant political conclusion, but because the conclusion is unpleasant in the context in which he chooses to discuss it.