The Russians had already sent landers to the Moon by then.

First off, 3 missions were cancelled, not just two. Apollos 15, 19 and 20. Apollo 20 was cancelled due to budget cuts in January 1970. About two months after Apollo 12 and four months before Apollo 13. Apollos 15 and 19 were cancelled in September of 1970 (four months before Apollo 14 flew) and the remaining missions were renumbered.

So NASA must have been able to predict that Russia would have the tracking capability 2 years ahead of time, to have Bart's statement to be true. As the BA pointed out, Russia had sent probes out before Apollo and had been able to track them. So, BS's statements are more fertilizer.

Well, he would have to have some 'facts" before we could figure out where he got them.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Apollo 18 was cancelled during the summer of 1970 (and I think Apollo 19 was cancelled even earlier), which was a full 2-1/2 years before the last Apollo flight in December 1972. According to Sibrel's claim, Apollo 18 would have been cancelled just before its scheduled launch sometime in 1973, which is clearly incorrect. The cancellation of Apollos 18 & 19 had nothing to do with Soviet tracking technology, which, by the way, was capable of tracking the moon missions from the beginning of the Apollo program. Sibrel is either lying or just plain ignorant.

The Soviets began sending probes to the Moon as earlier as 1959. They also sent the first spacecraft to do a circumlunar fly-by and return to Earth - Zond 5 in September 1968.

By the way, Zond 5 also carried live biological samples - plants, flies, worms, and turtles - which were recovered alive. This is a fact that Sibrel either does not know about or is purposely suppressing, because it contradicts many of his other claims.

Or both.

You see, I'm a firm advocate in the authenticity of the Apollo moon landings (although, at one point in time I had doubts [that was a good while ago, though] BUT that was before I ever knew what it meant to think critically.) Anyway, I'm not as knowledgable as many of you (e.g., the exact details regarding the cancallation of the latter Apollo missions) but I knew Sibrel's claim regarding the matter [expectedly] HAD to be wrong, so thanks.

__________________
If only closed minds came with closed mouths!

Civilian hobbyists were tracking the apollo missons right from the get-go.

Well, I gave it a go and listened to almost the first half of part one.... after that I couldn't stand it any more and went of to do something much more useful..... he is very insistent about his "inconsistent shadows", isn't he? I worked those out all by myself the first time I saw a "hoax" site a couple of years (or so) ago, but then I have done some basic (VERY amateurish) photgraphy. I also looked at a few examples of photo's I had taken to check the perspective thing.

I suppose what that means is I DID MY OWN RESEARCH, something most HB'ers appear unable to do/comprehend.

__________________
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, 'hmm.... that's funny...'
- Isaac Asimov

Are we alone in the Universe? Are we the only intelligent life? Who knows? But the universe is so BIG, it somehow seems such a waste of space if we are ....

Yes, but the whole point of a Darwin Award is that they have removed themselves from the gene pool in the most stupid way possible (I don't think mundane is used in the darwin award definition). For some reason this is what makes the whole concept so entertaining, really....

__________________
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, 'hmm.... that's funny...'
- Isaac Asimov

Are we alone in the Universe? Are we the only intelligent life? Who knows? But the universe is so BIG, it somehow seems such a waste of space if we are ....

IIRC there were three basic rules for qualifying for a Darwin

1) You have to remove yourself from the gene pool (either by death or sterilization) before reproducing

2) It has to be willfully accomplished in a creatively stupid manner, accidents don't count.

3) No innocent bystanders or minors can be endangered in any way, including being the recipient of the award.

__________________
Free speech is no problem
It's listening that costs