If I have my facts straight, Truman did not even know about the bomb project while vice-president. So it was possible to keep the secret from the vice-president, but not from Stalin...

Comparing the Manhatten Project and Apollo is pretty dumb really. The two projects were run totally different. The Manhatten project was compartmentalised that each group only knew their part of the project, and only a few people knew the entire thing. This makes it quite a bit easier to hold secrets, and yet they still failed. Apollo was totally the opposite. It was totally open from day one. Engineers were able to wander between departments, briefings were held and everyone knew what the end product was going to be. Now fair enough, perhaps there was a public and a hidden side where the hidden side is all the hoax work, but then the question is, where did the money come from. NASA had to pay all the contractors for their work and every cent had to be accounted for, so where did they get the money to run a hidden secret Hoaxing squad.

So this is where the Hoax idea breaks down.

If the Hoax was to fool the Soviets, then why didn't the Soviets see through it if its so easy that a bunch of laymen can. Why didn't they make a fuss? You can't say they were brided to shut up if they were the supposed victims of the hoax.

If the hoax was done to fool the US public, then the question again is why? To take people's minds off Veitnam? Well Apollo was well under way before Veitnam started to get bad, and the same people protesting Veitnam were out there protesting Apollo. To make the US public think the US was better then the USSR? Well they already believed it so why spend the money and again it's risky to do it in case the Soviets reveal it is a hoax. Even with the supposed "grain bribe" in 1974, what stopped them from going back on their word and making the US look dumb -after- they got the grain. Wow that'd be even better. "Ha ha. Look you dumb Americans, your government spends your money to fool you and then spends even more of your money giving us grain to shut up about it. Ha ha, silly Americans."

If it was to profit, who won? Not NASA. They didn't get to keep the money spent, it all went to contractors, in fact they would have ended up deep in debt because after paying the contractor, they would still have to spend all the money on the hoax as well.

No, it just doesn't make any sense at all. NASA does win by faking it, they just put themselves in a position for future embrassment and ridule. The US Government doesn't win by doing it for the same reasons. The Russia's don't win by shutting up and never using the Blackmail power they would hold. The whole thing would have to be finaced by money that is totally untraceable (yeah like that's ever going to happen in Government departments. "Right I'm just wanting 30 billion for a um... um... Black Ops project, yeah that's right." Remember even the Iran/Contra affair had a paper trail) and in the end, it just doesn't add up. There is no sensible and logical senario for a hoax, and this is why BS and Rense and White and others have not, and will not, produce one. They are like the 9/11 crowd. They will never commit to formulating a way for their beliefs to have actually happened because they know that they can't, that any story they concoct will have bigger holes than they claim the offical one does, so instead they sit and throw stones and blame it all on the evil gubbermint.

__________________
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 honestly do await to see if anyone can produce any substantial evidence of a hoax.

If they have fooled me, I would like to know.

Problem is that no-one has yet been able to demostrate evidence of a hoax / conspiracy that will stand up to hard examination.

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

Lonewulf

Heh, are you talking about the film also viewable on the original Apollo 11 footage DVD, thingie? And if it were so top secret, how did Bart Sibrel get it in the first place? Why are you so trustful in a person who is more biased than, well, I don't know.

Not every response has to be exactly 2.8 seconds after the receiving. Could you post a transcript of the conversation?

Hmm, in another discussion I've been in, there was an interesting response: Hahaha, you are such a newbie on this subject. I'm not sure, but I believe Armstrong has even presented a TV show.

Of course they'd know. If Bill Kaysing published a book on it, the Russians must have found out about the book at least. Why wouldn't the Russians do anything to prove it was a hoax, thus embarassing America in front of the whole world? I'd love to hear your sources for the Manhattan project thing.
Debunked already.

The stars aren't visible because of exposure time. Seriously, you really need to study the subject more. This makes you look dumb. Also, actually, there are pictures of stars taken, I'll see if I can dig them up.

By boat.

Huh? What is this about?

Haha, you mostly asked debunked questions. The moon window shot can also be found on this page:
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
Beware, that site is very biased and very debunked.

Moonrock, I strongly suggest you to study more on this subject and come back later. Especially your no-stars-in-the-sky claim shows your not-studying of the subject. I have (only) 'studied' the subject for months, and most of your claims are easily debunked by... me, a 15 years old dutchie?

Seriously, study before you go into discussion. This makes you look dumb, and you will surely 'lose the discussion' if you continue like this.

Couldn’t they all be fooled by a Tetr-a satellite sending the signals? After all that was how NASA tested the whole thing out to make sure they could pick up the signals from the Moon. Sometimes the answer is so simple that you guys cannot even see it.

If Armstrong appeared on US TV within the last month then how would I know? I’m in the UK. I would be interested to know what he said.

Well I have just read JayUtah’s article and there are a few things that don’t add up. First of all he claims that for the best shot the camera is placed at the far end of the cabin away from the window where the camera is filming the Earth. That is fine, that is how Sibrel explains it in his video. But then JayUtah tries to explain away how Sibrel has got it all wrong about transparencies etc.

At this point JayUtah writes But then he goes on to show a transcript between Houston and Apollo which reads as follows:

The Clavius article contradicts itself here because the astronauts confirm to Houston that they are filming out of the left window but JayUtah insists in his article that they are actually filming out of the right hand one. And according to JayUtah the camera is filming Earth from well inside the cabin but according to Houston 'Apollo 11, Houston. It appears to us that we’re seeing a view from outside plus a little of the inside. It appears you’ve taken the camera away from the left window now. Over.' So JayUtah and Sibrel say that the footage is taken at the back of the cabin but Houston is leading the viewer to believe that the footage was taken against the window (this was pointed out in the Sibrel video too).

JayUtah goes onto explain ‘In this portion of the downlink the Earth does not change size in the frame. This proves it was not merely framed by the window, or taped to the window; this can only occur when the subject is very far away, so that the relatively small retreat doesn't mean much over that distance.’

Huh? Whether the image at the window is a transfer or the real thing, both images would be relatively the same when you move away from the window. Why would the real Earth stay the same size and yet a photograph of it not?

A TETR-A satellite burnt up on April 28th, 1968, according to NASA after using it for tests linked to Apollo.

But if it’s kept secret how do you know? You can speculate, but if its top secret then there could be many things that you don’t know about that are still under wraps to this day. Just because you dont know about it doesnt mean that its not in some file somewhere. Have you ever taken the time to look at the documents released under the freedom of information act pertaining to UFOs? Perhaps youve seen Stanton Freedman show documents that are 90% blacked out? Thats your freedom of information act for you.

I can read very well thanks. See above.

SERGEI VLADIMIR ILYUSHIN travelled into space 5 days before Gagarin. The US Government tracked the craft and asked the Russian Government for an explanation which they refused to give. Ilyushin lost consciousness and crashed and ended up in rehabilitation for a year in China.

Not according to the Apollo 11 press conference?

But what about the stars that would be visible that we cannot see because the Moon is in the way?

Really? So the official documentary I saw last month called ‘Space Race’ made jointly by the US and Russia was complete baloney? That program said that Russia were ready to send a man to the Moon just one month after Apollo 11 landed on the Moon. So should I believe them or not? And Mr. Bad Astronomy, is this person also going to get a ticking off for using vulgar language or do you just use that rule for sceptics such as myself and Andy Lloyd?

You’ve just confirmed that Russia only knew about the Manhattan project after it was successfully tested for the first time. That’s all I need to know.

No, I gave this as an example because you people keep saying that a hoax for a project as big as Apollo couldn’t be kept secret. The Manhattan Project example proves beyond doubt that no matter how many thousands of people you have working on it you can keep it secret until a time when you wish the World to know about it (as did Truman after the first successful test). Again it seems to me that your just moving the goalposts to suit your own agenda.

But wouldnt that go against the laws of physics if sound can travel at different speeds?

Hmm well I could give you a very details and political answer to this but according to the guy who runs this board those type of comments are not permitted, so Ill leave the answer to your imagination, but needless to say, just look at what happens to other countries that fall out with the US.

Umm... havent you just contradicted yourself? You say that stars arent visible because of exposure time and then in the next breath say that your going to dig out some pictures of stars? Now thats funny as hell. This is a funny old situation concerning the stars because the guys here on BA cannot agree with each other whether stars are visible or not. Even in this thread people are saying that they arent visible and yet you say they are. It seems to me that as long as you disagree with a hoax believer you can give any answer as long as you dont agree with them?


And your the one telling me that I dont know anything about the subject?

How can you debunk a press conference where an astronaut claims to seeing no stars and then saying that he did in his book? I'd be interested to read how this was debunked. And if it was debunked then you are calling an Apollo astronaut a liar.

Just a few months you say? Ive been talking about this subject for over 5 years. You dont even know the easiest facts about the mission like about Gus Grissom and you come preaching to me about looking up the facts. Perhaps you could take your own advice?

What do you mean by this???

__________________
Not because it is easy, but because it is hard...

There is no way to happiness,
happiness is the way.

Are you kidding me? Wasn’t $135 billion dollars enough? ($135 billion dollars in today’s money that is). And if you had read my earlier posts you would see that each contractor made $9 billion profit each. Have you never heard of black projects either?

To give the American public faith that they were ahead of the Russians. Remember the Cold War? There are many examples in Sibrel’s video where Kennedy and other government officials say that America are quite a way behind Russia in the space race. Consider that you are running a country with the threat of Russia gaining and launching nuclear missiles upon your country. Do you just say, oh well, and risk your citizens running riot in the streets or do you make your public believe that your scientists are quickly catching up with your enemies technology?

Hmmm, perhaps you could pop on over to the NASA site and give me a good reason why the Moon buggies cost $60 million dollars a piece when they didn’t even consist of as many parts as a Jeep? That’s where your budget went, false pricing on mission parts so that you can spend it elsewhere.

Jay also discusses the "Jeep" question on his site here.
http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny3.html

Really, you should start to read a bit. You're looking foolish.

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

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

That’s correct, Truman was kept in the dark about the Manhattan project until he became president following Roosevelt’s death.

While attending the Potsdam conference (July 17-Aug. 2, 1945), Truman was informed about the successful completion of the trinity atomic bomb test on July 16th. Truman then proceeded to tell Stalin, who was an ally at the time, about the test. Truman was shocked by Stalin’s response to the news, which was essentially non-surprise and disinterest. It was later discovered Stalin acted the way he did because he already knew about the project and the successful test through his spies who were updating him on the bomb’s progress.


No, I only said Stalin knew about the test before he was officially informed about it. How do you construe from this that it had to be the first time he heard anything about the project? You claimed that no one knew about the Manhattan project until the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. This is incorrect as the Soviets were well aware of it.

__________________
Webmaster, Rocket & Space Technology

"Of all the phantom cosmonauts, the most tangible is Vladimir Sergeyevich Ilyushin, the purported first man in orbit. He is a real person; his flight was reported at the time it was said to have occurred; and in his old age he allegedly confirmed the story. But when we examine the evidence, it must be concluded that Ilyushin was never a cosmonaut and never flew in outer space."

- http://www.astronautix.com/astros/ilyushin.htm

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

You seem to have left out one important option: you actually do catch up with and surpass your enemy in technology.

The Soviet lead in space is often overstated and made out to be far greater than it really was. The only real Soviet advantage was that they had a large booster available to them in the late 1950s. The Soviets needed a large booster, whereas the Americans did not, because the Soviets lagged behind in several other technologies. First, the USA had a large and capable strategic bomber fleet, thus the need for ballistic missiles was lessened. Second, the USA was producing less massive nuclear bombs that required a smaller missile to lift them. It can be reasoned that the United States' better technology actually put them at a disadvantage when the space age began.

The Soviet Union used the one advantage they had to make the Americans look bad in the eyes of the world during the early space age. However, many of the Soviet accomplishments were largely gimmicks designed solely for propaganda purposes. Throughout this time, however, American technology was not far behind and was making steady progress. Once the United States man-rated their Atlas and Titan missiles, thus negating the early Soviet advantage, the Americans quickly pushed far ahead of the Soviets.

__________________
Webmaster, Rocket & Space Technology

No. As Jay mentioned quite clearly on his site, the orbit of the TETR-A satellite was such that it circled the earth in 92 minutes, that means that they would have had to move the antennas A LOT in order to keep up with the transmission. THAT would be a dead giveaway that the transmision came from a satellite.

Because the more people are involved in a conspirancy and the longest it lasts, the harder it is to keept a secret.

One of the most glaring cases of this, has been mentioned several times before. The case of the US CIA's Spy Satellite: the KH-11, it was built and operated in the utmost secrecy and guess what happened? a low level ex-CIA employee named William Kampiles sold the technical manual to the soviets for US$3000


Please show some hard evidence of this

Could you please inform me who produced that documentary?

I did not interpret what he said in the same way, in any case the Soviets knew about the Manhattan Project since 1941

a) The speed of a wave varies depending on the medium it travels
b) What traveled was not sound, was a radio transmission
c) The delays in a conversation are not only due to the latency of the transmission

If you vary the exposure time you can get pictures of the stars both in space and here on earth.

Please provide a direct quote of that conference and tell us where you found it.

BTW the cost of a Lunar Roving Vehicle was US$ 40 million, not US$ 60 million and it was considerably more complex than "Jeep", Also only a few LRVs were made, you can't compare the economics of a mass produced vehicle with a special custom made device of which a few were made.

__________________
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi

Another gem from Barts site eh Moonrock? The people here who have been answering these old questions of yours aren't debunking a press conference. They are actually familiar with the subject, and don't make arguments based on bullet points from moonmovie.com. If you had been looking at this issue for 5 years, you would know that the question was asked in reference to photography of the solar corona while enroute to the moon. Hoax Believers like to take that isolated question and apply the answer to the whole mission. We are not calling the astronauts liars. It's the HB's grasping at straws.

Yes, ToSeek corrected me on that issue. Thanks again. I looked up TETRA rather than TETR-A and Google differentiated between the two.

Because you can't 'hide' the science. The lunar samples show characteristics that CANNOT be reproduced on Earth. The engineering behind the launch vehicles, the spacecraft, the computers, the environmental systems - everything - is verifiable, and much of it formed the basis for things in use today.

The evidence strongly supports all NASA claims. Nothing refutes it.

Claims by someone that "it might have been done", especially when contrasted against evidence to the contrary, does not mean that it was done.

If you want to make claims that go against accepted facts, then you have to have extraordinary evidence to substansiate your claims.

Could you provide a link to something that substantiates that the US queried the USSR over this tracking? It'd be interesting to read what they said.

If you look at the Clavius website, you'll see exactly why your above statement is wrong. If you'd like more detail, I'm sure Jay or the BA would be only too happy to explain it further.

There are not any stars which are permanently blocked by the moon to my knowledge (the astronomers can correct me if I'm wrong here). Some may move behind the moon, but this will only be for a certain period at certain times.

Documentarys often get facts wrong.

As has been pointed out before, the spacecraft were ready for flight (or at least flight testing) but the N-1 launch vehicle, required for the programme, was not. It never successfully completed a test flight.

No, the US (Manhattan) / UK (Tube Alloys) atomic programmes were betrayed from almost the very beginning by Soviet agents and sympathisers within the programme. Stalin knew as much about the project as Roosevelt and Truman following him.

Grissom said "How the hell are we going to get to the moon if we can't talk between two or three buildings?". This was just prior to the Apollo 1 / AS-204 fire on Pad 34.

So yes, they had technical difficulties. I can give you numerous examples of similar comms problems with aircraft that are in service today; does that make those aircraft a hoax?

Problems arise, problems get investigated, problems get fixed.

Read the Clavius website about his, as referred to earlier.

In the five years you have been studying this subject, you would appear to have missed a significant amount of information available out there. I suspect (and please correct me if I am wrong) the majority of your material is coming from pro-hoax sites.

Perhaps you don't have the necessary training to fully appreciate some of the factual information; could I ask what your normal line of work would be? Any training in the sciences, astronautics, aeronautics, engineering, etc?

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

Lonewulf

Even if a kit car was designed and built from scratch it would no way cost as much as $60 million dollars. There is only one car I could find on the internet that costs $1 million dollars and it is the fastest car in production called the Bugatti Veyron. VW will make 300 of them over the next 5 years. Thats just 40 per year. Even if every part of the moon rover was made of gold, im sure that it would cost much less than $60 million dollars to produce each vehicle.


But Russia did not know about the bomb until tests were started - do we agree on that? As long as you realise that Russia only knew through its spies after the tests were started then you’ll start to understand that this boards belief that you cannot keep a secret because thousands of people were involved in the project is incorrect and the Manhattan Project example proves my point.

Whatever the verdict or who the real person was, it does not alter the fact that the US detected a Russian craft on this date in space.

Here is the BBC press release about the show.

For the first time ever, the BBC are to bring together old adversaries to work on a series that will tell the untold story of what really happened during the space race.
In an extraordinary co-production partnership, the team behind hugely-acclaimed Seven Wonders of the Industrial World, will bring the Russians and Americans together to create a major new docu-drama series.

It reveals what really happened behind the scenes during the space race - charting the whole of the shocking but true story including the ruthless and brilliant scientists who fuelled it.

Due to be broadcast next year on BBC TWO, Space Race will also be the very first co-production between the BBC and Russia's Channel One TV.
The stories of Space Race are set at the heart of the Cold War, when the two superpowers, and their ideologies - communism and capitalism - were seen as fundamentally opposed.

Executive Producer, Jill Fullerton Smith, commented:
"To tell the true story behind the scenes of the race to the moon for the very first time is hugely exciting, particularly as it is the first time the BBC has done a co-production with partners in Russia, America and Germany.

"The fact checking is rigorous, not just important historical moments, but faithful and accurate character portrayal.

"Each co-producer is taking the series extremely seriously, and is able to shed a unique light in their country's contribution to the race."

Debbie Cadbury, series producer, said: "We're going back to original primary sources in Russia with the help of Channel One to shed light on some of the leading characters behind the Soviet space programme who were barely known to the West.

"Such was the fear that Western agents would assassinate top Soviets rocket experts that the names of some of their leaders weren't even released in their own country and they were constantly shadowed by the KGB.

"The negotiations took several months to complete and it was quite an emotional moment when we finally got the Russians and Americans together to share a drink and shake hands."

John Lynch, Creative Director of BBC Science, sees Space Race as the latest in a long run of series bringing complex science stories to a mass audience, by telling dramatic stories in a popular and accessible way.

"For once, we can actually say, "this is rocket science", but it is a terrific story that will have you on the edge of your seats, and amazed at what it took to achieve the greatest journey of exploration in human history."

Notes to Editors

Space Race will be the very first co-production between the BBC, NDR in Germany, Russia's Channel One TV, and National Geographic Channel-US, the American investor.

So then, what if there were a different delay during the ascent of the Apollo module as the remotely controlled camera took the picture on lift off – from a radio prompt from the Apollo astronauts?

I have the press conference tape from the Apollo 11 mission. Here is the transcript of that conversation:

Sir Patrick Moore: When you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars and solar corona, inspite of the glare?

Armstrong: We were never able to see the stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon. But I would doubt looking through the optics. I don’t recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.

Collins: I don’t remember seeing any?

That's an earth vehicle, based on known & proven technology.

This was a vehicle that had to reliably run on batteries over dusty, undulating terrain, in a hostile environment, with an onboard INU, be capable of being folded up into a designated space with the LM, be constrained by weight limitations, and have a production run of no more than about 8 vehicles?

That will cost you, big time.

No. Stalin knew about the project from almost it's very beginnings.

This "when he knew" is sidetracking the main issue - the secret wasn't a secret. If you like, I'll try to find out exactly when Stalin was first informed about the project.

There is no proof - so far - that it was a manned vehicle.

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

Lonewulf

No, we do not agree. Soviet agents had infiltrated the program long before the Trinity test. The United States effort to keep the Manhattan project a secret from the Soviets was a failure, and thus, it most certainly does not prove your point.


Armstrong and Collins were both referring to the solar corona photography that occurred while in route to the Moon, since that is what the question was about. They are clearly saying they don’t recall seeing stars while looking through the optics. If Collins later said he could see stars, it is not a contradiction unless his later comment was specifically in reference to the solar corona observations. You are taking a comment about a very specific thing and trying to apply it broadly to the entire mission.

If you ask me if I saw Joe in the elevator and I say no, then I am not contradicting myself if I later say I saw Joe in the lobby. Your question was specifically about the elevator, thus my answer is applicable only in that context. It is invalid for you to conclude I did not see Joe in other parts of the building. Yet this is exactly the type of error you are making in regard to the Collins comment about seeing stars.

__________________
Webmaster, Rocket & Space Technology

This is from Answers.com:

The Soviets, were well aware of the programme due to a spy ring operating within the American nuclear program. The atomic spies (including Klaus Fuchs and Theodore Hall), as they became known, kept Stalin well informed of American developments. When U.S. Vice President Harry S. Truman informed Stalin of the weapons, he was surprised at how calmly Stalin took the news and thought that the dictator had not understood what he had told him. In fact Stalin had long been aware of the programme. The American programme had been so secret that even Truman did not know about the weapons until he became president and Stalin had thus known about the Manhattan Project before Truman himself did.

http://www.answers.com/topic/nuclear-arms-race

Not necessarily an authoritive source, but it does add weight to my assertion that Stalin knew about the project well before the Trinity test.

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

Lonewulf

From
Stalin & the Bomb
The View from Inside the Kremlin

http://www.carnegie.org/sub/pubs/quarterly/cqqxl2.html


"A spy in London for the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs, a forerunner of the Committee of State Security (KGB), was the first to verify to the Soviet Union in September 1941 that Britain had decided to build a bomb. Even more valuable information began to flow from Klaus Fuchs, a spy on the British bomb team who also worked on the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos in 1944. According to Holloway, it was Fuchs who gave the Soviets key information on the "implosion" method of detonating a bomb, which is the process of using conventional explosives to compress nuclear material until it reaches "criticality" and detonates, as well as a sketch of the U.S. bomb, its components, and important dimensions."

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

Lonewulf

Hmmm I found several reviews of this docu-drama, however could not find any references to the soviet space program ready to put a man on the moon on August 1969

On this site which specializes in the Soviet/Russian space program however, the only references to Soviet Manned launches are from January 1969. The second N-1 Rocket test had failed by July 3.

I am afraid I don't understand what you are asking

__________________
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi

So now Moonrock is banned? What was the last straw?

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

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

He was suspended for three days after this post

__________________
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi

Don't worry, even if he doesn't come back, there will be ten more just like him; all we need do is wait long enough.

I was going to post this last night, but for some reason the site was down for me, so somethings may have been answered, I'll have to respond to moonrock 's latest and deal with them too. Well if he comes back after his suspension anyway.

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

Not according to the Apollo 11 press conference?

You obviously need to reread the reply. Apollo 16 took UV images of the Stars. Why would the press conference for Apollo 11 deal with an experiment for Apollo 16? If you wonder why 11 didn't do it, they were lucky to have ANY experiments at all. They flew without an ALSEP and it was only because a few people at the PSAC figured that they might as well use the opportunity to do a few things that they got a few experiments at all. Heck they were lucky to be allowed out of the craft. Apollo 11's mission was purely to test the Landing Module for a full lunar landing and take off, not to fluff about with a bunch of non-necessary experiments that all could be done on later missions when they had both the time and experience to do so.

But what about the stars that would be visible that we cannot see because the Moon is in the way?

You are not honestly going to try and tell me that you think the moon stays in the exact same place in the sky relative to the stars, are you? Think about this before answering and if necessry go and look at the moon a few times over the period of a few hours and take note of the Moon's position compared to the stars.

Really? So the official documentary I saw last month called ‘Space Race’ made jointly by the US and Russia was complete baloney? That program said that Russia were ready to send a man to the Moon just one month after Apollo 11 landed on the Moon.

I'd be highly suprised if they actually did make such a claim because they'd be the only ones to have looked at dates and figures from the Soviet Program who would have made it. Considering that the N-1 blew up on the 3rd of July, 1969 and destroyed the launch facilities in doing so, there isn't any way they could have have launched for the moon in August of that year even if they had desperately wanted too. The fact that they didn't do their first test of the LK until November 24, 1970, over a year later, also belies such a claim. How could they have been ready to land on the moon if they had never tested their craft. You are wanting us to believe that the Soviets planned to land on the moon without a working Heavy Lifter capable of getting their stack and D-block into orbit, without ever testing either the LOK or the LK, even unmanned, with their launch facility in ruins, without ever even having done a test flight for the missions, and yet you're already stated you don't believe the US could have done that same thing (not that they actually did.) You have rather strange beliefs.

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.

When Patrick Moore asked the question he asked it in a rather confusing way by asking about the sun's corona. As a result the Astronauts interperted him to be talking about an experiment they did while on the trans-moon coast where they studied the sun's corona while it was blocked by the Earth. As such they replied that they didn't think they'd seen any (during the experiment.) At other times they have stated that they couldn't see them while in the sunlight on the surface, but that they could while looking through the optics on board the LM. Other astronauts reported that if they stood for a while in the shadows and allowed their eyes to adjust, they could see the stars. Colins in his book is talking about stars during his time in the CM, not during the experiment which he assumed was meant when answered Moore's question.

Are you kidding me? Wasn’t $135 billion dollars enough? ($135 billion dollars in today’s money that is)

They weren't paid in today's money, let's stick with the $20 billion it really cost.

And if you had read my earlier posts you would see that each contractor made $9 billion profit each.

I'm assuming here that a) you re again speaking in today's money, and b) you have sources for this figure outside of Sibrel?

Have you never heard of black projects either?

Yes I have, I also know that their funding just doesn't vanish out of the Federal Budget without it having some sort of tag attached to it. Do you think that black ops is way to just have the Federal Govt spend taxes without accounting for where it goes? Do you honestly believe that no one is going to question a Black Op that is costing more that the open part of the Apollo Program (that's assuming a hidden black op Hoax.) You really think the Washington DC beancounters are just going to turn a blind eye to a $30 billion hole with nothing to account for it and allow it to be totally hidden?

give me a good reason why the Moon buggies cost $60 million dollars a piece when they didn’t even consist of as many parts as a Jeep?

How many Jeeps have been built? How many Rovers? That's the first clue, the second is "custom parts."

There are many examples in Sibrel’s video where Kennedy and other government officials say that America are quite a way behind Russia in the space race.

And they were, in 1962. You seem to keep avoiding the blatent fact that the Soviets had -one- mission between March 18th, 1965 and October 25th, 1968 and that one mission resulted in the Cosmonuat's death. That meant that the Soviets went for 3 1/2 years without a successful manned mission. During that time the Americans had completed 10 successful manned Gemini missions, and 1 Apollo mission.

By the time of Apollo 11, the Soviets had a total of 6 Vostok missions, 2 Voskhod missions, 1 failed and 4 successful Soyuz missions, a grand total of 12 missions. The Americans had 6 Mercury Missions, 10 Gemini Missions and 4 Apollo missions meaning a grand total of 20 missions. Who was behind again?

See Sibrel wants you to believe that the situation in 1962 = the situation in 1969. It just doesn't. The Soviet Premier of 1962 had been outsted, their top rocket scientist had died, there was infighting throughout the Soviet space program over which area had the most importance and deserved the most resources, the new head of the program believed in a caution over records policy and in short the USSR's program was a mess. Meanwhile the USA's had gone from strength to strength, building on each success. Sibrel ignores it, won't tell you about it, and actively hides it from you. Again I ask you, is this trustworthy behaviour? If he really is telling the truth, why is he not being honest about the real Soviet and American positions as of 1969? If his video is so correct, why does he have to stoop to using half-truths and outright lies? You need to ask yourself these questions and submit BS's claims to the same sort of scrutiny you do the offical Apollo story.

__________________
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

That is the key to this whole thing. He is not willing to do that because his position is all about ideology and preconceived ideas, not about facts and logic.

Sibrel's claims are the gospel truth to him because they say what he wants to hear. End of story.

Well, what about it?
I never said it did. Armstrong may have had to think of an answer (delay +) or answered the question before it was finished (delay -).
The stars aren't visible on the majority of the photographs because a short exposure time was used. The pictures of the stars I've seen had been made with a long exposure time. Great reasoning for somebody who has studied this for over 5 years.
Clavius dot org.
I'm disappointed you recycle old debunked claims (like everybody else does). Where did Gus Grissom come from? There's a difference between talking about a subject and studying a subject, Moonrock.

I'm sorry it's such a short response, I should be sleeping.

Even if a kit car was designed and built from scratch it would no way cost as much as $60 million dollars. There is only one car I could find on the internet that costs $1 million dollars and it is the fastest car in production called the Bugatti Veyron. VW will make 300 of them over the next 5 years. Thats just 40 per year. Even if every part of the moon rover was made of gold, im sure that it would cost much less than $60 million dollars to produce each vehicle.

First of all, a kit car uses parts that already exist for the most part, when designing a new car you don't have to redesign the sparkplugs, or the oil filter, or the fan belts, or the tyres, or the wheel nuts, or the suspension, and so on, 80% of the car already exists as generic parts. This wasn't true for the Rovers, they had to be designed and built from scratch because they had to work in an enviroment that no vehicle had ever worked in before and so their parts, from the electric motors that would drive them, to the suspention to the steering mechanisms all had to be custom designed and built.

Now let's look at your very expensive car. They are going to build 300 at $1 million a piece. Great. By the way your Maths is wrong. 300 over 5 years is 60 a year, not 40. So 300 million dollars is going to be their total income from the sale. Let's assume they put on a 50% markup which is pretty good for a car. That means that they are getting a third, or $100 million profit and the cars cost them $200 million to design and produce. Most of that's desing cost so well say 75%/25% for Design/build. ie it costs $150 million to design them and $50 million to actually build them. Now we work out the design cost per car. That's $150 million/300 or $500 thousand a piece. What if we were to build 50,000? well then we could divide out $150 million by 50,000 and we'd only have a developmental cost of $3,000 a unit. At that we could sell them for just $170,000 a unit and we'd still make our $100 million. This is the called Economics of Scale. Of course it goes the other way too. Lets make 6 of them instead of 300. Our developmental costs now skyrocket to $25 million per car and to make our profit we need $16.6 million per vehicle as our markup, add in our productions costs and we're now selling each of them at a measly $43 million a car.

Now let's put this into perspective of the rovers. Only 6 were ever built. They had to be designed and build from scratch, using newly developed techniques and materials and virtually no generic parts or pieces, right down to the screws. This means a very very high design cost, and production cost, even without the company adding a profit factor into it. $150 million is easy to reach in vehicle design even when you have all the parts already. It's not that much harder to expect a design bill of $200-300 million for something that is really very complex and needs to be designed and built entirely from scratch, remember that when creating new parts, you have to make new dies, develop new techniques, even design and build new machines to do the work in some cases. Getting things off the shelf is a lot easier and cheaper, but Apollo couldn't do that in most cases as most of what they required simply didn't exist. That's what pushed up the costs, and when you then spend that cost of 6 vehicles, each one has a horrendous price tag.

Whatever the verdict or who the real person was, it does not alter the fact that the US detected a Russian craft on this date in space.

Whether they did or didn't is really pretty irrelevant, a number of unmanned flights occured prior to manned ones on both sides. What you have to show is that a) it occured and b) it was indeed manned.

__________________
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

So then, what if there were a different delay during the ascent of the Apollo module as the remotely controlled camera took the picture on lift off – from a radio prompt from the Apollo astronauts?

I'm not really sure what you are asking here, but the launch was preplanned and well practiced. Not only that but the guy controlling the camera, Ed Fendell, already had tried doing it once for Apollo 16. (They had planned an attempt for Apollo 15 to but a fault in the camera's tilt mechanism prevented it.) The astronauts knew they had to park the rover an exact distance from the LM and the countdown was syncronised between the crew and missin control so that everyone knew what they were doing. At exactly the right time in the countdowm (about 2 1/2 secs left) Fendell told the camera to zoom out and start to tilt up. The signal got there at the same time as the count for the Astronauts hit zero and they initiated the launch. The signal from Earth travelled at the speed of light, just like it always will do their wouldn't have been, couldn't have been a different delay for that signal. The camera started to tilt upwards at a preplanned speed which from the rover's position would mean that the angle was the same as that travelled by the ascent module. All it is, is Trig applied to the real world.

__________________
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 wonder if Moonrock will go the way of Moonman and try to rehash the whole thing over at apollohoax. Wait a minute.......Moonrock........Moonman........nah,
MR's vocabulary is better than MM's even if his tone and attitude isnt.

Actually, Launch Complex 110 had two pads; 110R & 110L:

http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/q/q2n1sair.jpg

LC39 at KSC (where the Saturn Vs launched) also has two pads.

__________________
"Transport of the mails, transport of the human voice, transport of flickering pictures - in this century, as in others, our highest accomplishments still have the single aim of bringing men together." St. Exupery