(Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread

[Craig Lamson]

It would be a good idea, therefore, for you to explain the differences between the samples and how your sources resolve them, starting with the Soviets'.

Uh no Jim, that would be YOUR job. Your claim, YOUR burden of proof. I'll not hold my breath however, since providing actual proof is not one of your strong points.

[Dave Greer]

Great advice: "Check your sources!" In this case, I have the impression that your sources, all of which concern the lunar samples, do not refute the different findings by the Soviets with regard to the chemical composition of THEIR samples. None of them seems to defeat the inference that the Soviet lunar samples are genuine and the only genuine NASA samples are simulacra.

You've yet to explain why the Russian lunar samples prove that the US lunar samples are fake. Are you able to do so?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Dave,

You are reading my posts, aren't you?

From Post #621 of 11/16/2010

"Unlike the Apollo lunar samples, their Soviet counterparts exhibit triboluminescence[1] and non-oxidation,[1] contain 6 to 9 times more Mercury (which should be uniformly distributed on the lunar surface),[1] orders of magnitude more molybdenum, wolfram, cadmium and silver, and have 50 times lower thermoluminescence sensitivity. Also, A. Dollfus and E. Bouell of the Paris Observatory found that unlike the NASA samples, the polarisation of reflected light from the Soviet samples corresponds to that from the Moon surface.[1](pp. 141–152, 208–210, 216–224, 231–232)[1][1]

Geochemist Minoru Ozima of the Tokyo University discovered that the nitrogen-14/nitrogen-15 isotope ratio in the Apollo lunar samples is very different from that in the solar wind whose blasts drilled these atoms into the lunar soil.[1][1] The explanation is simple—the Apollo's soil was made on Earth.[1](pp. 467–470)

In the 1990s, publications about lunar soil simulation started to appear.[1] They could not have appeared earlier as this would raise questions about the Apollo programme.[1]

Jim

Great advice: "Check your sources!" In this case, I have the impression that your sources, all of which concern the lunar samples, do not refute the different findings by the Soviets with regard to the chemical composition of THEIR samples. None of them seems to defeat the inference that the Soviet lunar samples are genuine and the only genuine NASA samples are simulacra.

You've yet to explain why the Russian lunar samples prove that the US lunar samples are fake. Are you able to do so?

[Dave Greer]

Dave,

You are reading my posts, aren't you?

From Post #621 of 11/16/2010

"Unlike the Apollo lunar samples, their Soviet counterparts exhibit triboluminescence[1] and non-oxidation,[1] contain 6 to 9 times more Mercury (which should be uniformly distributed on the lunar surface),[1] orders of magnitude more molybdenum, wolfram, cadmium and silver, and have 50 times lower thermoluminescence sensitivity. Also, A. Dollfus and E. Bouell of the Paris Observatory found that unlike the NASA samples, the polarisation of reflected light from the Soviet samples corresponds to that from the Moon surface.[1](pp. 141–152, 208–210, 216–224, 231–232)[1][1]

Geochemist Minoru Ozima of the Tokyo University discovered that the nitrogen-14/nitrogen-15 isotope ratio in the Apollo lunar samples is very different from that in the solar wind whose blasts drilled these atoms into the lunar soil.[1][1] The explanation is simple—the Apollo's soil was made on Earth.[1](pp. 467–470)

In the 1990s, publications about lunar soil simulation started to appear.[1] They could not have appeared earlier as this would raise questions about the Apollo programme.[1]

Jim

I am indeed reading your posts. I don't think you're reading your sources though. That's why I'm asking you why the Russian samples prove that the US samples are fake.

Take Minoru Ozima of Tokyo University for example.

Geochemist Minoru Ozima of the Tokyo University discovered that the nitrogen-14/nitrogen-15 isotope ratio in the Apollo lunar samples is very different from that in the solar wind whose blasts drilled these atoms into the lunar soil.[1][1] The explanation is simple—the Apollo's soil was made on Earth.

This quote makes it sound as if Minoru Ozima's explanation for the nitrogen-14/nitrogen-15 is that the Apollo soil was made on Earth. It isn't. It seems to be the opinion of one Yury Mukhin, Russian author of "Moonlight scam, or Where were Amerikosy?" The link doesn't explain why the nitrogen-14/15 ratio means that the Apollo samples are faked. It's certainly not the published opinion of the scientist who did the study (Minoru Ozima). He speculated that the extra nitrogen came from Earth's atmosphere prior to the formation of the Earth's magnetic field.

Please set me right if I've got this wrong. You have taken the uninformed opinion of a Russian conspiracy theorist as proof that the Apollo samples are faked. He took the findings of a scientist who specialises in geochemistry, discarded the scientist's own conclusions and theories about the nitrogen levels, and decided that the mere fact that the nitrogen levels were different was proof that the Apollo samples must be faked? Do you have the actual passages from his book where he states this? If not, why do you use his opinion as proof that the Apollo samples were faked?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

The Russian samples were from the Moon. NASA's samples were analyzed and found to be

inconsistent with known lunar samples. The NASA samples may have come from Antarctica

or a laboratory, and some of the so-called Moon rocks, like the Dutch sample, appear to be

petrified wood from the desert in Arizona. Burton seemed to be comparing simulacra to actual

lunar samples and here you are trying to "make hay" from nitrogen, as if that were the only

element of which they are composed. It must be frustrating to attempt to undermine actual

proof of a hoax when your only arguments are flimsy and weak and almost painful to behold.

Dave,

You are reading my posts, aren't you?

From Post #621 of 11/16/2010

"Unlike the Apollo lunar samples, their Soviet counterparts exhibit triboluminescence[1] and non-oxidation,[1] contain 6 to 9 times more Mercury (which should be uniformly distributed on the lunar surface),[1] orders of magnitude more molybdenum, wolfram, cadmium and silver, and have 50 times lower thermoluminescence sensitivity. Also, A. Dollfus and E. Bouell of the Paris Observatory found that unlike the NASA samples, the polarisation of reflected light from the Soviet samples corresponds to that from the Moon surface.[1](pp. 141–152, 208–210, 216–224, 231–232)[1][1]

Geochemist Minoru Ozima of the Tokyo University discovered that the nitrogen-14/nitrogen-15 isotope ratio in the Apollo lunar samples is very different from that in the solar wind whose blasts drilled these atoms into the lunar soil.[1][1] The explanation is simple—the Apollo's soil was made on Earth.[1](pp. 467–470)

In the 1990s, publications about lunar soil simulation started to appear.[1] They could not have appeared earlier as this would raise questions about the Apollo programme.[1]

Jim

I am indeed reading your posts. I don't think you're reading your sources though. That's why I'm asking you why the Russian samples prove that the US samples are fake.

Take Minoru Ozima of Tokyo University for example.

Geochemist Minoru Ozima of the Tokyo University discovered that the nitrogen-14/nitrogen-15 isotope ratio in the Apollo lunar samples is very different from that in the solar wind whose blasts drilled these atoms into the lunar soil.[1][1] The explanation is simple—the Apollo's soil was made on Earth.

This quote makes it sound as if Minoru Ozima's explanation for the nitrogen-14/nitrogen-15 is that the Apollo soil was made on Earth. It isn't. It seems to be the opinion of one Yury Mukhin, Russian author of "Moonlight scam, or Where were Amerikosy?" The link doesn't explain why the nitrogen-14/15 ratio means that the Apollo samples are faked. It's certainly not the published opinion of the scientist who did the study (Minoru Ozima). He speculated that the extra nitrogen came from Earth's atmosphere prior to the formation of the Earth's magnetic field.

Please set me right if I've got this wrong. You have taken the uninformed opinion of a Russian conspiracy theorist as proof that the Apollo samples are faked. He took the findings of a scientist who specialises in geochemistry, discarded the scientist's own conclusions and theories about the nitrogen levels, and decided that the mere fact that the nitrogen levels were different was proof that the Apollo samples must be faked? Do you have the actual passages from his book where he states this? If not, why do you use his opinion as proof that the Apollo samples were faked?

[Dave Greer]

Dave,

You are reading my posts, aren't you?

"Unlike the Apollo lunar samples, their Soviet counterparts exhibit triboluminescence[1] and non-oxidation,[1] contain 6 to 9 times more Mercury (which should be uniformly distributed on the lunar surface),[1] orders of magnitude more molybdenum, wolfram, cadmium and silver, and have 50 times lower thermoluminescence sensitivity. Also, A. Dollfus and E. Bouell of the Paris Observatory found that unlike the NASA samples, the polarisation of reflected light from the Soviet samples corresponds to that from the Moon surface.[1](pp. 141–152, 208–210, 216–224, 231–232)[1][1]

Let's not leave this one unaddressed either.

Even if the samples are provably different to such an extent that they could not possibly come from the same planet, why does it prove the Apollo samples are faked? Why not the Russian samples?

While you're chewing on that one, let's look at the detail of what you are claiming proves the Apollo samples are fake.

Soviet counterparts exhibit triboluminescence.

Firstly, the link you provided for this claim points to an abstract of "Moon under the Microscope" by Mokhov. The abstract contains no reference to triboluminescence. How did you verify the validity of the claim?

Secondly, if the claim is true, please explain why presence of a triboluminescent material in some of the Luna samples proves that the Apollo samples are fake. Does the large difference in the composition of Luna 16 and Luna 20 samples prove that one of the Russians own missions was faked, or does it prove that the samples came from different locations?

The same goes for the non-oxidation and mercury claims. The author of the wikispooks page seems to be forming an argument along the lines of "all samples from different regions on the moon must be identical in all respects, otherwise the Apollo ones are fake", and you seem to be agreeing with him.

Polarisation of reflected light from the Soviet samples corresponds to that from the Moon surface, unlike the Apollo samples

The first reference [84] just points back to the book by Mukhin, "Moonlight scam, or Where were Amerikosy?". Reference [350] doesn't point to an online article, but references a Russian article called "Lunar soil from Mare Fecunditatis" published in 1974. Did you read this to verify the claim? [351] points to an abstract from "Petrology of a portion of the Mare Fecunditatis regolith" published in 1972. The abstract makes no mention of polarisation of light. It does make several references to similarities between Luna and Apollo samples (my bolding below). There is a single reference to differences with Apollo samples.

1300 microprobe analyses of glasses, pyroxenes, feldspars, oxides, olivines, troilite and metal in two 0.025 g samples of the Luna 16 return were made in order to characterize the Mare Fecunditatis regolith. Pyroxenes display a very wide compositional range, extreme fractionation, and metastable crystallization. Solid solution of Ti, Al, and Cr is appreciable and most pyroxenes plot along an Al:Ti line 2:1, similar to Apollo 11 clinopyroxenes. Orthopyroxenes are very rare. Zoning in plagioclase is varied but not extensive; compositions from An 75 to An 100 are dominant. The compositional distribution is indistinguishable from Apollo 12 and 11 low-K basaltic plagioclases. No potassic feldspars were found. Ilmenite is the dominant oxide phase, with minor ulvospinel, rare chrome spinel and spinel. The latter resemble Apollo 14 pink spinels. Olivines range from Fo 75 to Fo 11 but the majority range from Fo 60 to Fo 70 thus more iron-rich than olivines from other maria. On the basis of preferred compositions, a tentative classification of glasses has been made. Twenty-three percent of the glasses are Al-rich, Fe, Cr-poor, have Ca/Al ratios similar to many Apollo 14 glasses and are considered to have a non-mare origin. Their compositions are essentially the same as that of the high Al component at all Apollo landing sites. Glasses equivalent in composition to Fra Mauro basalts (KREEP) and to granite are extremely rare. The majority of glasses, mare-derived, are substantially higher in Fe, Ti, and Cr and lower in Ca and Al. They are divisible into a major group, Fecunditatis type A basaltic glasses, with less than 5% TiO 2 , and a smaller group, Fecunditatis type B basaltic glasses, with more than 5% TiO 2 . The type A glasses are richer in Al, and lower in Fe than glasses at the Apollo 11 or 12 sites. Type B glasses are similar to the high Fe basaltic glasses from the Apollo 11 regolith. If the type A glasses reflect the characteristic basalts at the Mare Fecunditatis site, then these are intermediate in major element chemistry between Apollo 11 and 12 basalts and the aluminous non-mare basaltic rocks.

I'm sorry Jim, but I'm just not convinced you've done any homework on this one. You've just seen a claim that supports your opinion, and held it up as proof without looking at the nitty-gritty. The devil is in the detail, and the detail doesn't seem to support your claim that the Apollo samples are fake.

[Dave Greer]

The Russian samples were from the Moon. NASA's samples were analyzed and found to be

inconsistent with known lunar samples. The NASA samples may have come from Antarctica

or a laboratory, and some of the so-called Moon rocks, like the Dutch sample, appear to be

petrified wood from the desert in Arizona. Burton seemed to be comparing simulacra to actual

lunar samples and here you are trying to "make hay" from nitrogen, as if that were the only

element of which they are composed. It must be frustrating to attempt to undermine actual

proof of a hoax when your only arguments are flimsy and weak and almost painful to behold.

This is a joke post isn't it Jim? For someone who makes such a fuss about logic, your first three sentences are hilarious.

"Making hay from nitrogen?" That was YOUR claim Jim. YOU provided it as part of your proof that the Apollo samples are fake. The scientist who made the discovery didn't make that claim.

Admit it, you've done absolutely no research whatsoever on this issue, other copying and pasting a page from a "wikipedia" lookalike site that supports the moon hoax.

[Matthew Lewis]

and some of the so-called Moon rocks, like the Dutch sample, appear to be

petrified wood from the desert in Arizona.

The Dutch "sample" was never claimed by NASA to be a Moon rock. Here are the FACTS. It was recieved in 1969, a year BEFORE anybody else got any samples. It was far larger than any other sample given out. It is not encased in plastic as other goodwill samples are. The card with it does not identify it as a Moon rock. It was given by an ambassador to a former Prime Minister, otherwise known as a private citizen which was also never done, when the royal family of the same country did not get a sample (protocol would never have allowed that to happen). There is no evidence the astronauts were even present when it was given. Since it remained unseen in a private collection (also very rare) for decades it is also unclear if the petrified wood was what was originally associated with the card. It was later given to an art museum and the VERY FIRST time it was seen by somebody remotely familiar with geology it was realized for what it was. The Prime Minister's family said at the time (1969) he was old and hard of hearing. It is far more likely that the former Prime Minister misunderstood what it was, if that is even what he was given at all.

If you still insist that it was intentionally given to him as a Moon rock then you need to explain, why was it given to a private citizen? Why give it to him and not give one to the royal family of the same country? Why is it far bigger than any other sample given out (which would be a significant fraction of the small amount of rocks they had at the time)? Why does it look different from every other sample? Why is it not identified on the card? Why was it given out a full year before any other samples were given?

Edited November 21, 2010 by Matthew Lewis

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

So what precisely was being given to the former Prime Minister? And why was it placed on public display and

identified as a "moon rock"? I love the stories that go into implementing "plausible deniability" when these

things go wrong. It's worth reading your post for the elaborate attempts to "explain it away"! Excellent!

and some of the so-called Moon rocks, like the Dutch sample, appear to be

petrified wood from the desert in Arizona.

The Dutch "sample" was never claimed by NASA to be a Moon rock. Here are the FACTS. It was recieved in 1969, a year BEFORE anybody else got any samples. It was far larger than any other sample given out. It is not encased in plastic as other goodwill samples are. The card with it does not identify it as a Moon rock. It was given by an ambassador to a former Prime Minister, otherwise known as a private citizen which was also never done, when the royal family of the same country did not get a sample (protocol would never have allowed that to happen). There is no evidence the astronauts were even present when it was given. Since it remained unseen in a private collection (also very rare) for decades it is also unclear if the petrified wood was what was originally associated with the card. It was later given to an art museum and the VERY FIRST time it was seen by somebody remotely familiar with geology it was realized for what it was. The Prime Minister's family said at the time (1969) he was old and hard of hearing. It is far more likely that the former Prime Minister misunderstood what it was, if that is even what he was given at all.

If you still insist that it was intentionally given to him as a Moon rock then you need to explain, why was it given to a private citizen? Why give it to him and not give one to the royal family of the same country? Why is it far bigger than any other sample given out (which would be a significant fraction of the small amount of rocks they had at the time)? Why does it look different from every other sample? Why is it not identified on the card? Why was it given out a full year before any other samples were given?

[Matthew Lewis]

Nobody really knows what was given, if anything. He could have been given the petrified wood but as the card DOES NOT IDENTIFY what it was with and it was in a private collection for decades it is possible if not very likely that the card became separated from the original gift. As I already said the former Prime Minister likely misunderstood what he had. He may have thought it was a Moon rock and somebody from the art museum may have thought that but there is nothing identifying it as such. And of course NASA had not given out ANY rocks at that time, nor would they for another year.

There are no "stories" nor "plausible deniability" nor "elaborate attempts to explain it away". I reported the facts. The only "stories" are coming from your side.

I notice you have ignored these questions.

If you still insist that it was intentionally given to him as a Moon rock then you need to explain, why was it given to a private citizen? Why give it to him and not give one to the royal family of the same country? Why is it far bigger than any other sample given out (which would be a significant fraction of the small amount of rocks they had at the time)? Why does it look different from every other sample? Why is it not identified on the card? Why was it given out a full year before any other samples were given?

Have you seriously not considered the FACTS that I brought up? Do the facts mean nothing to you?

So what precisely was being given to the former Prime Minister? And why was it placed on public display and

identified as a "moon rock"? I love the stories that go into implementing "plausible deniability" when these

things go wrong. It's worth reading your post for the elaborate attempts to "explain it away"! Excellent!

and some of the so-called Moon rocks, like the Dutch sample, appear to be

petrified wood from the desert in Arizona.

The Dutch "sample" was never claimed by NASA to be a Moon rock. Here are the FACTS. It was recieved in 1969, a year BEFORE anybody else got any samples. It was far larger than any other sample given out. It is not encased in plastic as other goodwill samples are. The card with it does not identify it as a Moon rock. It was given by an ambassador to a former Prime Minister, otherwise known as a private citizen which was also never done, when the royal family of the same country did not get a sample (protocol would never have allowed that to happen). There is no evidence the astronauts were even present when it was given. Since it remained unseen in a private collection (also very rare) for decades it is also unclear if the petrified wood was what was originally associated with the card. It was later given to an art museum and the VERY FIRST time it was seen by somebody remotely familiar with geology it was realized for what it was. The Prime Minister's family said at the time (1969) he was old and hard of hearing. It is far more likely that the former Prime Minister misunderstood what it was, if that is even what he was given at all.

If you still insist that it was intentionally given to him as a Moon rock then you need to explain, why was it given to a private citizen? Why give it to him and not give one to the royal family of the same country? Why is it far bigger than any other sample given out (which would be a significant fraction of the small amount of rocks they had at the time)? Why does it look different from every other sample? Why is it not identified on the card? Why was it given out a full year before any other samples were given?

Edited November 21, 2010 by Matthew Lewis

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Matthew, I have one question for you: Would you not agree that deception is the essence of lying?

Nobody really knows what was given, if anything. He could have been given the petrified wood but as the card DOES NOT IDENTIFY what it was with and it was in a private collection for decades it is possible if not very likely that the card became separated from the original gift. As I already said the former Prime Minister likely misunderstood what he had. He may have thought it was a Moon rock and somebody from the art museum may have thought that but there is nothing identifying it as such. And of course NASA had not given out ANY rocks at that time, nor would they for another year.

There are no "stories" nor "plausible deniability" nor "elaborate attempts to explain it away". I reported the facts. The only "stories" are coming from your side.

I notice you have ignored these questions.

If you still insist that it was intentionally given to him as a Moon rock then you need to explain, why was it given to a private citizen? Why give it to him and not give one to the royal family of the same country? Why is it far bigger than any other sample given out (which would be a significant fraction of the small amount of rocks they had at the time)? Why does it look different from every other sample? Why is it not identified on the card? Why was it given out a full year before any other samples were given?

Have you seriously not considered the FACTS that I brought up? Do the facts mean nothing to you?

So what precisely was being given to the former Prime Minister? And why was it placed on public display and

identified as a "moon rock"? I love the stories that go into implementing "plausible deniability" when these

things go wrong. It's worth reading your post for the elaborate attempts to "explain it away"! Excellent!

and some of the so-called Moon rocks, like the Dutch sample, appear to be

petrified wood from the desert in Arizona.

The Dutch "sample" was never claimed by NASA to be a Moon rock. Here are the FACTS. It was recieved in 1969, a year BEFORE anybody else got any samples. It was far larger than any other sample given out. It is not encased in plastic as other goodwill samples are. The card with it does not identify it as a Moon rock. It was given by an ambassador to a former Prime Minister, otherwise known as a private citizen which was also never done, when the royal family of the same country did not get a sample (protocol would never have allowed that to happen). There is no evidence the astronauts were even present when it was given. Since it remained unseen in a private collection (also very rare) for decades it is also unclear if the petrified wood was what was originally associated with the card. It was later given to an art museum and the VERY FIRST time it was seen by somebody remotely familiar with geology it was realized for what it was. The Prime Minister's family said at the time (1969) he was old and hard of hearing. It is far more likely that the former Prime Minister misunderstood what it was, if that is even what he was given at all.

If you still insist that it was intentionally given to him as a Moon rock then you need to explain, why was it given to a private citizen? Why give it to him and not give one to the royal family of the same country? Why is it far bigger than any other sample given out (which would be a significant fraction of the small amount of rocks they had at the time)? Why does it look different from every other sample? Why is it not identified on the card? Why was it given out a full year before any other samples were given?

[Matthew Lewis]

Who are you saying is being deceptive?

Why are you avoiding questions again?

Matthew, I have one question for you: Would you not agree that deception is the essence of lying?

Nobody really knows what was given, if anything. He could have been given the petrified wood but as the card DOES NOT IDENTIFY what it was with and it was in a private collection for decades it is possible if not very likely that the card became separated from the original gift. As I already said the former Prime Minister likely misunderstood what he had. He may have thought it was a Moon rock and somebody from the art museum may have thought that but there is nothing identifying it as such. And of course NASA had not given out ANY rocks at that time, nor would they for another year.

There are no "stories" nor "plausible deniability" nor "elaborate attempts to explain it away". I reported the facts. The only "stories" are coming from your side.

I notice you have ignored these questions.

If you still insist that it was intentionally given to him as a Moon rock then you need to explain, why was it given to a private citizen? Why give it to him and not give one to the royal family of the same country? Why is it far bigger than any other sample given out (which would be a significant fraction of the small amount of rocks they had at the time)? Why does it look different from every other sample? Why is it not identified on the card? Why was it given out a full year before any other samples were given?

Have you seriously not considered the FACTS that I brought up? Do the facts mean nothing to you?

So what precisely was being given to the former Prime Minister? And why was it placed on public display and

identified as a "moon rock"? I love the stories that go into implementing "plausible deniability" when these

things go wrong. It's worth reading your post for the elaborate attempts to "explain it away"! Excellent!

and some of the so-called Moon rocks, like the Dutch sample, appear to be

petrified wood from the desert in Arizona.

The Dutch "sample" was never claimed by NASA to be a Moon rock. Here are the FACTS. It was recieved in 1969, a year BEFORE anybody else got any samples. It was far larger than any other sample given out. It is not encased in plastic as other goodwill samples are. The card with it does not identify it as a Moon rock. It was given by an ambassador to a former Prime Minister, otherwise known as a private citizen which was also never done, when the royal family of the same country did not get a sample (protocol would never have allowed that to happen). There is no evidence the astronauts were even present when it was given. Since it remained unseen in a private collection (also very rare) for decades it is also unclear if the petrified wood was what was originally associated with the card. It was later given to an art museum and the VERY FIRST time it was seen by somebody remotely familiar with geology it was realized for what it was. The Prime Minister's family said at the time (1969) he was old and hard of hearing. It is far more likely that the former Prime Minister misunderstood what it was, if that is even what he was given at all.

If you still insist that it was intentionally given to him as a Moon rock then you need to explain, why was it given to a private citizen? Why give it to him and not give one to the royal family of the same country? Why is it far bigger than any other sample given out (which would be a significant fraction of the small amount of rocks they had at the time)? Why does it look different from every other sample? Why is it not identified on the card? Why was it given out a full year before any other samples were given?

Edited November 22, 2010 by Matthew Lewis

[Evan Burton]

Stop demanding Jim prove his claims! It just confuses him. Anything that supports his claim is "evidence". Whether it is true or not doesn't figure in his equations.

[Evan Burton]

Next: Splashdown.

Whoever wrote the wiki entry demonstrates their ignorance in this case. Firstly, Apollo 11 began re-entry just before dawn, so the sky would have not been very light. Even if were not the case, re-entering spacecraft have seen during daylight hours.

It is far more likely that Nixon saw something, but not Apollo 11.

Next, why was the recovery ship so far away? Because the splashdown point was moved some 200nm downrange because of thunderstorms in the original planned splashdown area (Apollo 11 Mission Report MSC-00171 November 1969, page 4.20, para 4.19). Aircraft can move quickly to a new location but ships take longer.

Why were the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo spacecraft so much better at landing accuracy? Because the craft were designed to give a small lift co-efficient, enabling them to be "steered" and course corrections made. On the other hand, the Soyuz spacecraft made a purely ballistic re-entry and could not be steered.

JUST HOW MANY OF THESE SPECIOUS CLAIMS DO WE NEED TO ADDRESS BEFORE PEOPLE REALISE THAT APOLLO WAS REAL?

[Evan Burton]

Next: Quarantine.

Many people felt that the quarantine would be totally unnecessary. Still, it was decided in 1963 by a special committee from the National Academy of Sciences that a chance could not be taken and the astronauts should be subjected to a quarantine period. It was NASA who lobbied in 1970 that there was no reason for the quarantine period to remain, and the committee approved the recommendation. Only Apollos 11, 12 and 14 went through the quarantine.