moonrock it has become obvious to me at least that you aren't stupid; you are simply blinded by ideology. It allows you to ignore compelling evidence, and makes you at least as ignorant as the brainwashed jingoists you seem to think all Americans are.

I'm sure the very idea of the Evil Red White and Blue Empire actually setting a man on the moon over 30 years ago must really grate on you.

I don't know that you really can. If a strange belief is due to lack of information, then there's a cure for that. But if it's really about self-validation, my suspicion is the only thing that will work is to provide some substitute form of self-validation. Something I'm not really willing to do

I'd like to repeat what I consider the most important part of my previous post.

Why didn't the Soviet Union announce to the world that the Apollo missions were a hoax?

That is, to me, the simplest question. All other questions are superfluous until this one is answered. Forget the moon rocks; clearly, HBs don't understand the problems in fooling geologists/acquiring samples in the first place. Forget Dr. Van Allen saying the radiation isn't a problem; HBs don't generally know for whom those belts were named, so it doesn't bother them. Forget the hours of film showing different gravity and no atmosphere; HBs don't understand how hard that would be to fake.

If the Soviets were that close to a lunar mission of their own--heck, even if they weren't but the hoax was so easy to see through that people who aren't trained in physics or geology or whatnot can do it--they would have known if the US had faked it. The public relations coup that would have entailed would have been enormous. There is nothing the US could have done to prevent the USSR from announcing it. Or Vietnam or China, come to that. Why didn't they?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

The usual explanation offered is that the US paid the Soviets to keep quiet. Why the US didn't pay them to, for example, stop supporting North Vietnam, I'm not sure, but the HBs probably have an answer for that also...

Yeah and if the US paid the Soviets, how come that evidence never surfaced out of Russia after the end of the Cold War.......

__________________
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi

It's hard to imagine that we could have simply paid the Soviets to keep their mouths shut. Even if we did, it would effectively give the Soviets, and later the Russians, a compelling method of blackmailing us for generations to come.

I can see something like that brought up in every high-level talk between the US and Russia for decades:

"Well President Bush , we can do it your way if you want, but (as the Russian president waives a dossier in Bush's face that contains proof of the moon hoax) I think you might want to reconsider; I'd hate for the wrong people to find out about our 'little deal' 40 years ago..."

Well, and the Vietnamese certainly could've worked it out if it was as easy as HBs seem to think, and we didn't exactly leap out of their country in 1969, which certainly would've been the first thing I would have asked for.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

I don't think Moonrock's worth it. His ignorance and political views are so common in HB circles he's just the same old same old all reharshed. If he wants to get his entire Apollo knowledge from HP sites, well I honestly can't be bothered rehoeing ground that has been well and truely covered before. I'm surprised he hasn't gone on about dust on the lander and stars missing from photos.

If he wants to totally ignore the evidence that disproves his altered reality, the hundred of pounds of handpicked virgin samples, photos of the samples being retrieved, even chips taken from larger rocks and photographed as it was done, well nothing is going to get through his blindness. If he wants to believe that NASA had the technology to send a remote control rover capable of taking 8' core samples, colecting soil cans and rocks, packaging them up 800 pounds of them long with removing power sources from the lander and putting them into lunar experiments and returning all the required materials to the Earth, (something we still can't do today) and yet didn't have the technology to send a man, well that's his business, we can't compete with that sort of willful ignorance. If he wants to continue to think the US got lucky because he's incapable of real research and learning about why the US program succeeded and the Soviet moon program failed, how they didn't start until 1964 (6 years after the US) and how with the loss of Khrushchev's political thrust and Korolev's death meaning that they never got the N-1 working, along with the infighting and bickering over resources. Of course he doesn't want to know that, nor that by 1971 the Soviets had completed everything that was needed for a successful lunar missions except for the successful launch of an N-1 and how when the N-1 failed the fourth time, the program was canned and the head of it, Vasily Mishin, was sacked for incompetence, well who are we to stand in his way? No he doesn't want to know these things, so we might as well not even bother with him. Leave him to his delusions of granduar because his believes are created from his politics, not reality and so we'll just be going around in circles, al la moonman, etc.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

I have to agree with the majority of the previous comments.

The 'evidence' of a 'hoax' that people trot out are the same old lines, each one of them thoroughly disproven. No-one comes up with any new 'evidence' because there is none. The landings happened - accept it. The statements, the science, the tracking, the images - everything backs it up.

Each time someone tries to use science to show it was faked, it's demonstrated they themselves are using bad science (sorry BA!).

__________________
"For ignorance to reign, all it takes is for knowledgable people to say nothing"

Lonewulf

Well it looks like everyone and their uncle has come out for this one, so heres a long answer which includes the reasons why and how I think the Apollo missions were faked.

What exactly do you mean? As I said, the Russians have rocks from the Moon which were collected without humans being there. How is that breaking any rule?

I’ve just watched the film ‘A funny thing happened on the way to the Moon’. In the film they show a rare film of colour footage taken during the Apollo 11 mission. The footage in question was included in film rolls asked by the producers of the documentary from NASA. The film was obviously sent by mistake because at the start of the film it warns ‘Not for general public viewing’ and from seeing the footage we now know why.

During the film we hear Houston ask a question with no answer, then you hear a guy at Houston say ‘talk’, at which point Armstrong immediately starts talking. The audio from the film also picks up such things as Houston and the Apollo crew going over specific ideas and Houston basically telling them what to say and when and that it can all be used later for the official broadcast.

But the biggest surprise is when the crew are heard to say that they have blanked off all the windows and turned off all the lights in the capsule… why? To take a picture of Earth from far inside the capsule to make the viewer think that the capsule is in deep space and on its way to the Moon, in fact Armstrong says that they are currently 130,000 miles from Earth. This is false. He also says that the camera is pressed up against the window – false again. The camera is actually positioned far away from the window, you can see this because at one point an arm is visible in the left hand of the shot and we can see a capsule light which is used so that the astronauts can see the cameras settings.

In an early shot out of the window we see what is supposed to be a view of Earth from deep space. The reality however is that the Earth is not entirely visible out of the window and what appears to be the roundness of the Earth is actually the round window that the shot is being taken through. You cannot see the edges of the Earth because it is framed by the round window and the other windows in the capsule were covered up so that the darkness surrounding the window could be confused for the darkness of space. But there is a problem, the edge of the Earth is not entirely round because the camera is catching earthshine on the lower edge of the window. This is rectified later by applying a black curved border to the right hand side of the window. The film shows one of the astronauts removing the dark border from the window and stepping away from the window at which point we see the bright blue glare coming through the window which obviously points to the fact that they are still in low earth orbit. And just 9 hours later the astronauts are apparently on the Moon? How come when the Earth out of the window had obviously been filmed in low Earth orbit just 9 hours previous?

Now lets ask why Armstrong has not given one single interview other than official NASA conferences or anniversaries? Why wouldnt he be proud to go onto talk shows and talk of his great acheivement?

What about the tracking stations ALL over the world following the missions you ask? NASA sent up a Tetra satellite just before the Apollo missions which could accurately send back information and telemetryidentical as if an Apollo craft were near the Moon. What would stop the US government secretly sending up another one to fool the World? Is this too implausable a suggestion at the height of the Cold War? Please honestly ask yourself that question.

Why didnt Russia announce that the Apollo missions were faked? Well, did they actually know? Did NASA know that Gagarin wasnt the first man in Space? Did they know about the launchpad accident in 1960 in Russia? No they didnt, so surely with the Apollo missions, which incidently, in todays market would cost the equivalent of $135 billion dollars, where the contractors made $9 billion dollars profit, do you seriously believe that such evidence could not be kept from the Russians?

How did they keep it secret? We hear that question all the time. Why didn’t Russia or any other country know about the Manhattan project before the bomb dropped on Hiroshima? After all, its people on this board who keep saying ‘you couldn’t cover up Apollo because too many people were involved. Do you know how many people were involved with the Manhattan Project? 129,500 people. So to say that such projects could not be covered up is foolish.

All the Apollo 11 astronauts resigned soon after their mission. During the press conference the crew were asked by renowned British astronomer Sir Patrick Moore if they could see any stars from the Moon. Armstrong replied that he couldnt remember, and Collins said he doesnt think they did. However, when Collins wrote his book 'Apollo: Expeditions to the Moon' he noted that they could easily see the stars.

Many posters on this forum say that stars wouldnt be visible on the photos due to the glare - what would be stopping them altering the aperture and pointing their cameras upwards? What stopped them taking a photo telescope to map stars? After all they could get the best pictures of the galaxy ever. Why truly were no stars visible or purposely filmed? Because any astronomer worth his salt could have detected that something was amiss if they had painted stars onto a backdrop, it would have had to be very accurate to fool them.

Radiation hmmm. A lot has been said about this. Today the shuttle only goes up 400 miles at the most which is nowhere near the van allen belts and yet they have seen cosmic rays with their own eyes coming through the shuttle and through their suits. The thinest parts of the Apollo craft only has 1/8 of an inch metal protection - hardly enough to shield from radiation now is it? A CNN investigation in the late 90's announced that the radiation belts were even worse than thought before. And only a few years ago NASA were just testing the effects of radiation on a dummy stuffed with meat. Its a bit late if theyve been through it 7 times already isnt it?

How did they get to the capsule when it landed in the sea so quickly?

Obviously the people who knew exactly how well prepared NASA were at the time to go to the Moon were the astronauts themselves. Guss Grissom sat in the cockpit and couldnt even hear the control centre just a few miles down the road. He made his feelings known and said that how did they expect to contact them on the Moon if the communications couldnt even work over a couple of miles?

Up until Apollo 11 Russia had beaten the US on every count in the space race, and only just a month before they failed to land a russian probe on the Moon to collect soil samples. How did the US suddenly get such luck as to not only send a man around the Moon, but to land on it at the very first try?

So theres a few answers to your questions. If you havent seen the film Im referring to then please do not speculate as to what it contains - get a copy and then come back and try and explain what it shows.

He was just interviewed on 60 minutes just a few weeks ago.

Here's a link for another interview.

Please answer the question about the film and where they cover the window.

Moonrock,

You must be Bart Sibrel, or one of his employees because everything you say it right off his website. And off course it all wrong.


Let me see if I got this right,

Great Britain (several of the ocean islands), Spain, Australia, Mexico, Madagascar and Gaum all had helped with the deep space tracking and communications of Apollo. By your reasoning, all these people (in the hundreds at least) got fooled by the Great and All Powerful NASA, or were paid off. Right. How about technical details on how that was done.

Furthermore, Russia, China and a whole host of other countries got fooled by the Great and All Powerful NASA, or were paid off. Right. Again, how about some details

How about retracking your statement about Neil Armstrong, since it is false.

JayUtah covered this video extensively on his site.

here he talks abut the comparison to the Manhattan Project, how it is not a valid comparison and how it was infiltrated by the Russians.
http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny4.html

Here he mentions the specific parts of the video.
http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny7.html
http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny8.html

So can you come up with anything new or are you going to spew out the same lies from Bart Sibrel that were debunked ages ago?

__________________
"Eternal vigilance is the price of supremacy"
------------Mark Twain

"Women are like Voltron. The more you can hook up, the better it gets."

Jay says it all here:
http://www.clavius.org/bibsibrel.html

A snippet from that site:
"What Mr. Sibrel supplies is footage of the astronauts practicing for an upcoming telecast. Because television was added at the last minute, they hadn't had time to practice much with the equipment. So they were experimenting with different camera positions and exposure settings. Someone on the ground recorded it. Mr. Sibrel notes several observations which he can't explain in terms of his expectations, therefore he concludes the astronauts "must" have been faking it. That's it. That's his "smoking gun."

And it's not true that you can only see the footage by ordering Mr. Sibrel's video. It is available -- unedited and without Mr. Sibrel's "interpretive" voice-over -- on the Apollo 11 DVD set from Spacecraft Films. Mr. Sibrel allows you to see only bits and pieces of this evidence which he considers so important. "


Could you provide a link to a transcript of that? I believe it to be either faked or a misinterpretation of the dialogue.

To sleep, perhaps?

See the above link

He gives many speeches. What about when he was teaching at University? Students would ask him about his experiences all the time. He appeared on a number of programmes connected with Apollo.

What Mr Sibrel means is that Armstrong won't talk to HIM.

I can't find any reference to a TETRA satellite, except in modern times - not prior to or during Apollo.

You could send an object up, but it needs to have matched the planned trajectory, conducted burns at the planned times (if required), broadcast telemetry from it - and the voices of the crew have to eminate from the satellite at the correct time, in response to the questions from the CapCom. Very difficult to fake. Then you had the transmissions from the lunar surface, which were sent direct via the S-band antenna and relayed via the CSM. So there had to be a transmitter on the surface as well.

For a start: difference in political systems and media reporting. The US was open with 'warts and all' reporting. The USSR only released information that they chose to, and then normally after a successful event (for the first few launches).

They did. It's existance was known by the USSR almost from the very beginning.

See above

So? Training for a lunar mission took an incredible toll and the astronauts and their families. Armstrong said he wanted to teach. Aldrin went to the USAF Academy, resuming a USAF career. Collins entered government service where he was a big player in the establishment of the NASM.

Many said that nothing could top a lunar mission, and that trying to live on past glories just wasn't on.

They were required for publicity tours after the mission, and so were not back in the training pipeline.

Dealt with on the Clavius website, link above.

It's all just the same old junk that has been dealt with previously. Read the Clavius website, or the BA's own responses on this website.

Please, open your eyes and learn something.

__________________
"For ignorance to reign, all it takes is for knowledgable people to say nothing"

Lonewulf

Moonrock isn't going to read those links.

This hardly rare color film. I purchased this DVD about three years ago, maybe more. IIRC, it was never a film, it was recorded electronically.

Bart Sibrel has changed his story on how he obtained this film. First he said NASA sent it to him by mistake, then he said he found it doing research and now his producers received it by mistake. Which is it?

‘Not for general public viewing’ hardly means top secret or anything else. If it is sooooooooooo important, again, why do I have a copy. Why can anyone who has 30.99$ by it from amazon and watch the entire video and not watch Bart's editted and commented video.

To be precise, it's "TETR-A". Jay talks about it here:

http://www.clavius.org/techcomm.html

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Since no one else has addressed this, I will just point out that Gagarin was the first man in space, and despite various rumors and claims, no official source has stated otherwise.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Ah! Thank you.

__________________
"For ignorance to reign, all it takes is for knowledgable people to say nothing"

Lonewulf

Moonrock,

Did you know that BS's "smoking gun footage" is publically avalible in TOTAL (All three brodcasts, not just the shortened version BS gives you) from Spacecraft Films? Did you know that most of the footage that BS claims is "secret" was part of the offical and Live TV Broadcast? Did yu know that BS"s claims of the earyth being a transparceny on the window run into a problem because their are many shots where the Earth disappears behind the window ledge and can be seen moving with respect to the window? Did you realise that the camera was pulled back at in the middle of the live broadcats and that it is then that the arm is seen and that shortly after they turn on the lights?

Just for your viewing peasure, here are some shots you didn't get to see on AFH.










Many posters on this forum say that stars wouldnt be visible on the photos due to the glare

Not the glare, the difference in light intensity

what would be stopping them altering the aperture and pointing their cameras upwards?

The cameras weren't designed for it. They would have had to have the shutter opened for over 30 secs.

What stopped them taking a photo telescope to map stars?

Nothing, they did it on Apollo 16 with a special UV Camera.

After all they could get the best pictures of the galaxy ever.

Not really, BS over empahsiszed the loss of light due to the Atmosphere. The main trouble ith the Atmosphere is that it distorts the star's image, not that it dims it. This is why Hubble was created, to be able to look deep into space without having to overcome the distortion factor of the atmosphere. Photos of the stars from the moon are not a lot different from those from the Earth (The Surveyor Program took a number of them.)

Why truly were no stars visible or purposely filmed?

They were, I just told you that. Check out Apollo 16's UV camera experiment.

Because any astronomer worth his salt could have detected that something was amiss if they had painted stars onto a backdrop, it would have had to be very accurate to fool them.

No, the difference in the stars between the Earth and the moon is nothing. The Earth moves by 600 million miles a year as it travels about the sun and it takes very accurate equipment to detect the parrallax in the stars. 300 thousand miles is nothing. Heck probes out as far as Pluto still will see the stars very similarly to what we do, even as far away as Alpha Centuri things don't change a huge amount.

Up until Apollo 11 Russia had beaten the US on every count in the space race, and only just a month before they failed to land a russian probe on the Moon to collect soil samples. How did the US suddenly get such luck as to not only send a man around the Moon, but to land on it at the very first try?

Bollocks, go and read up on the real Soviet Space history instead of BS's BS. When challanged on his 5-1 claim he couldn't support it except to say that's what he'd been told. The Soviets had launched 7 missions by 1964, and then their next mission wasn't until Apirl 1967 with Soyuz 1. During those three years the US had run the entire Gemini Program and far supassed anything the Soviets had done. Not only that you obvious failed to actually study the Soviet program or understand anything about the N-1 Rocket, which had already failed twice by the time of Apollo 11, the second of these destroying the launch complex. BS's list of Russian "firsts" is often padded, irrelevant and incorrect. He ignores the US firsts entirely as well s the actual technology. Fr example.

1) First Satellite: The US had the Technology in 1955 to launch their first Satellite but due to politics von Bruan's team at the ABMA wasn't given permission to do so until after Sputnik and only them because they threatened to resign is not allowed to do so.

2) First man in space/orbit: BS splits these but they are the same event. True the Soviets had bigger boosters, but then they needed them because their warheads were bigger too. (The US warheads were better designed making them lighter and more compact.) This meant that the US wasn't ready before the Soviets. However was the Technlogy better? Well as stated, the US bossters were smaller because their weapons tech was better and in a showdown between the Vostok and Mercury capsules, the Mercury Capsule was able to be piloted and manoeuvred whereas the Vostok couldn't. The Mercury Caspule has the abliy to softland on water, the Vostok pilot's had to eject before landing. Which do you think was better?

3) First Woman: Irrelevant. The sex of the pilot has no efrect on the technology.

4) First multiman crew: The Soviets still had bigger bosters, and squeezed in the third man into a 2 man capsule. They did this by taking the risk of not wearing space suits.

5) First Spacewalk: Nearly killed the cosmonaut due to having to exit and enter through an airlock as they couldn't depressurize the capsule (Gemini could.) Their second Spacewalk would not be for another 5 years. During that time the US had completed over ten space walks incident free.

6) The first Rendevous: Is a fabrication. The Soviets fired to unmanoeuvrible craft so they passsed near each other. The first REAL renedevous was Gemini 4 and 5.

By the time that the Soviets got back in the game in Oct 1968 (Soyuz 1 was a failure killing the cosmonaut,) The US was ready to launch Apollo 8 and a few months later Apollo 8. They were nowhere near a Month behind. There first Test of their Lander, the LK, was November, 1970. That was the equivalent of Apollo 5 which had occured 5 1/2 YEARS eariler in Janurary of 1965!!!!!!! Besides, the probe you refer too, Luna 15 crashed AFTER Apollo 11. What occured a month prior to Apollo 11 was the explosion of the second N-1 test.


Instead of taking BS's BS as gospel, go and study it for yourself. It won't take long to find he is wrong, basically because he is so wrong it isn't funny. His video should be called "A funny thing happened on the way to my bank account."

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Gee, I guess we could, from a thread in the ATM forum, use this:

But, I would guess, in this instance, it's ok, since he's not the one complaining about three different versions.

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

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

How did the US suddenly get such luck as to not only send a man around the Moon, but to land on it at the very first try?

I missed this the first time out, but it's rather important. BS wants to totally ignore the development of the US Space program from the begining to landing on the moon. He wants to give the impression that Apollo 11 miraculously appeared from nowhere. This is far from the real story.

Apollo really started pre-1958 with the dreams of various people, but for NASA, 1958 was the starting date. By 1960 they had spent two years working out the best way to do it and before they had even put a man into space they were already getting the Aerospace Industy involved in the Apollo program, designing craft to do it. The Saturn Rocket program was started in 1959 and in 1960 was declared the most important program the US had. Mercury was all about getting men into space and learning about space flight, but even before it was completed NASA realised that they were far from being able to get to the moon. They had already worked out what they needed to learn, the hardware was already being designed and so they decided to develop a new program that would be a stepping stone to Apollo. That program is one that people like BS fear to speak about. It was Gemini.

The reason that people like BS hate Gemini is because it was the very thing they don't want people to know about. It was Gemini which trained the Astronauts how to manoeure their craft for docking, it was Gemini that first went up into the VA Belts proving that people could survive in them. All that was to be Apollo first had its roots in Gemini.

Not only that but they "forget" to mention the testing that occured proir to Apollo 11. They makes untrue claim like that the LM was never tested unmanned (Apollo 5) or that it wasn't tested enough (Apollo 9,10.) They ignore that the unmanned Apollo missions (4,5,6) tested the hardware before it was manned, that Apollo 7 tested the CSM in Earth orbit before Apollo 8 tested it in Lunar orbit. They ignore that Apollo 9 tested a manned LM in Earth orbit, retesting its ability to fly with its descent and ascent engines and that Apollo 10 did the same in Lunar orbit, descending to 50,000 feet before aborting, dropping the decent stage and using the ascent stage to return and rendevous with the CSM. They don't tell of the backup plans and how Apollo 9 tested the ability to spacewalk between the LM and CSM in case of a failed docking, or thework that went into making each mission work. They totally ignore that one of the Surveyors was diliberately "hopped" where JPL reignited its engine and lifted off of the surface of the moon bfore landing it again. They don't tell you about the Soviet Zonds 5 & 6 and their cargo of living creatures which followed a free return tragectory about the moon prior to Apollo 8. All they do is tell you about the failures and then claim Apollo 11 suddenly apeared from nowhere, all while hiding and ignoring the successes and stepping stones. Does this seem honest to you?

Apollo 11 did one thing that no other craft had done previous. It flew from an attitude of feet 30 feet to one of 50,000 feet above the moon, that's it. Everything else had been done previously.

Manned launch - Everything from Vorstok 1 to Apollo 10
Earth orbit - Everything from Vorstok 1 to Apollo 10 with the exception of the first two Mercury missions.
Trans-Lunar Insertion Burn - All Ranger, Luna, Zond, Suryeror, Lunar Orbiter missions and Apollo 8,10
Multi Craft Docking - Numerous Gemini Missions, Apollo 5, 9, 10.
Lunar Obital Insertion Burn - A number of Luna, All Surveyor and Lunar Orbiters, Apollo 8,10
Undocking - Numerous Gemini Missions, Apollo 5, 9, 10.
Lunar Dscent to 50,000 feet All Surveyors, Apollo 10
Soft Lunar Landing - Surveyor
Lunar Launch - Surveyor
Flight from launch to 50,000 feet - None
Re-entering Lunar Orbit Apollo 10
Trans-Earth Insertion Burn - Apollo 8,10
High Speed Earth Re-entry - Apollo 4, 8, 10
Safe Lnding on Earth - All non-Vostok craft from Mercury's Freedom 7 excluding Zond 6 and Soyuz 1.

So what was so incredible about Apollo 11?

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Of course that should be Apollo 7 and Apollo 8. Thanks Tensor for catching that typo.

Of course I should have checked my dates too. Soyuz 2 flew on the 25th October 1968, two weeks AFTER Apollo 7's 11th of October launch date. So the US's Apollo Program was already into it's manned missions before the Soviets even got their program back on track

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Moonrock, I am one of the two people who run this board, and I can assure you we value the truth very highly, But we have rules here, and you've violated three of them: you've posted rudely, you've used a curse word, and you've brought up political topics (the elections last year).

I could easily debunk every claim you've made (a Google search on my name and Bart Sibrel's should be very interesting to you), but that information has been pointed out to you as existing both on my site and JayUtah's. It's up to you to read it.

If you do -- and I strongly urge you to -- and you post here again, you will do it within the rules of the forum, or you will be permanently banned. Given you've already violated three rules, you won't get another chance.

__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com

It is true this is the usual explanation given by the HBs. It is also one of the most foolish of the HB claims. Think about it for a minute ... the whole reason for faking the missions in the first place, so says the HBs, was to fool the Soviets. But since we can't really fool them, we pay them to keep their mouths shut while we fake fooling them. But if we're not really fooling them, then the alleged reason for faking it in the first place doesn't exist.

__________________
Webmaster, Rocket & Space Technology

Too bad; why don’t you watch it again and take note of how Bart Sibrel does everything in his power to keep you from thinking for yourself. He just keeps beating you over the head with his own interpretation while denying you the ability to truly examine the evidence and come to your own conclusions as to what it means. The Apollo footage is highly edited and voiced over with commentary. Sibrel allows you to hear only a few seconds of audio, and then he tells what he wants you to believe it means.

Are you so gullible that you just mindlessly accept what Sibrel tells you? Aren’t you at all curious about what is shown in the parts of the film Sibrel chose to hide from you? Why do you think Sibrel discourages you from formulating your own interpretation of the evidence?

The Soviets did know about the Manhattan project. Joseph Stalin received word of the first successful atomic bomb test through his spies before being told about it by President Truman.

On the contrary, the Space Shuttle and International Space Station routinely goes through a low portion of the radiation belts called the South Atlantic Anomaly.

Wrong. The Command Module wall section consisted of (from inside to outside) a welded aluminum primary hull, aluminum honeycomb cells, central heat shield stainless steel inner face sheet, Q-felt fibrous insulation, central heat shield stainless steel outer face sheet, stainless steel honeycomb cells, glass-phenolic honeycomb cells filled with phenolic resin, pore seal, moisture barrier, and Mylar thermal strips.

The phenolic layer was the spacecraft's ablative heat sheat. It was 0.75” think on the sides of the capsule and varied from 1.5” to 2.75” across the base.

Worse by a tiny bit, and still not harmful to short term exposure.

Does it not occur to you that problems can be fixed? The Block I version of the spacecraft did have its problems, but the new and improved version was well along in its development by the time of the Apollo 1 fire. The problems that plagued the Block I capsule were rectified in the Block II version.

Absolutely wrong! By the end of the Gemini program in 1966 the United States was way ahead of the Soviets, having beaten them in many important space milestones.

__________________
Webmaster, Rocket & Space Technology

Guss Grissom sat in the cockpit and couldnt even hear the control centre just a few miles down the road. He made his feelings known and said that how did they expect to contact them on the Moon if the communications couldnt even work over a couple of miles?

The thing was that Grissom was NASA's go too guy. He had already been at the forefront of telling the designers and engineers what was wrong with the Mercury and Gemini capsules, and what was needed in them from the pilot's prespective and so he was the obvious choice to pick to shake down the Apollo caspsule. No one expected the Block 1 capsule to be perfect and it was up to Grissom and his crew to tell NASA exactly what was wrong so it could be fixed for the later model. Of course he made his feelings know about it, because that was what he was being paid to do!!!!!

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran