Apollo Astronaut Was Murdered, Son Charges

[Waspie_Dwarf]

I have always had the impression that Gus was the black sheep of the space program though , ever since his "screw the pooch " debacle ... A debacle which was proven not to have been his fault .. and it's a dam shame that he was never properly publicly cleared from any wrong doing when his Mercury space capsule sank to the bottom of the ocean .

I'm not sure that this is entirely true. I think it is a perception that is the result of Tom Wolfe's "The Right Stuff" more than reality.

Grissom was actually considered one of the "stars" amongst the astronauts. He was selected to fly the first Gemini mission with John Young (a rookie at the time). He was then pulled from Gemini before making a second flight so that his expertise could be used in helping design Apollo. He should have flown that first Apollo mission but the fire, of course, meant that was not to be. In his autobiography Deke Slayton (who selected astronauts for missions) said that had he lived Grissom would have been the first man on the Moon.

It seems to me that you don't select a man to make the first flight on 2 out of 3 programmes (he was the second Mercury astronaut to fly) if you think he was incompetent.

[straydog]

Black sheep and incompetent are two different things .... Obviously he was not incompetent in any respect ... In fact , he was competent enough to speak out against NASA's outright incompetence when it came to their inferior design of the Apollo spacecraft and it's communcations system which didn't even work properly between two buildings .

I believe even Grissom himself considered himself to be the black sheep of NASA's Mercury's astronauts because of his mistreatment by NASA during and after the Mercury Liberty Bell incident and then their total disregard of his spacesuit , which he told his son , had been thrown away by NASA ....

MID didn't agree with that part of this story , but according to Scott Grissom , this is what his father told him happened ... and I think he and Betty Grissom were in a better position to know the truth of his mistreatment than anyone else ....

One thing that is quite disturbing about the story of his death though, is the fact that his personal papers were grabbed by NASA , including his diary , immediately following his death .... And according to this account , some of them were never returned , including his diary .

Why would NASA want Grissom's personal papers and especially his diary , if there was nothing to hide ? .... That is almost as suspicious as Tom Barron's report turning up missing out of his car , immediately after the train'accident' that killed him and his family ..... If their deaths had really been an accident , then his damaging report against NASA's Apollo Program should have been right there in the car with them , where it was before the train hit them .

Edited December 12, 2006 by straydog

[MID]

MID .... Thanks for your post ... I didn't know much about the Apollo 1 fire or Gus Grissom's career until I found these articles the other day .... I found it curious that the Grissom's would suspect sabatoge instead of incompetence , as I don't believe it would have been in NASA's best interests to have deliberately sabatoged their own spacecraft ... As someone just pointed out on this thread ... if someone wanted Grissom dead so he couldn't talk , there would have been much easier and less expensive ways to shut him up ..

I have always had the impression that Gus was the black sheep of the space program though , ever since his "screw the pooch " debacle ... A debacle which was proven not to have been his fault .. and it's a dam shame that he was never properly publicly cleared from any wrong doing when his Mercury space capsule sank to the bottom of the ocean .

After reading your replies to this article , I will have to say that I agree with you ( don't fall out of your computer chair ... LOL ) .... I admit that I am a conspiracy believer when it comes to Apollo .. but I don't see anything that would really suggest that these three astronauts were deliberately murdered by anyone at NASA .... It does look like incompetence based on a need to rush through certain engineering matters and problems, which should not have been rushed for any reason .... especially if it involved putting men's lives at risk .

Tom Baron's case might be quite a different matter though .... as his death does appear to be highly suspicious ...

You're welcome.

(I'm strapped into my chair...!)

You're also correct that the MR-4 incident was not something that Gus caused by any miscue of his own.

I think the idea of Gus being the "black sheep" of the program is osmewhat of an urban legend of sorts. He was actually considered one of the top test pilots of his day, and was favored by Deke Slayton, and NASA management. He was completely exonerated of "screwing the pooch" on MR-4, but of course, there were some who believed he blew it...no one important, I should say. As Waspie said, one doesn't get picked to be CDR of the first Apollo mission because of a less than stellar record. It is also significant that Gus commanded GT-4, the first Gemini mission as well...a very sucessful test flight of the new spacecraft.

One doesn't get to command #1 unless one is respected, and highly thought of. Gus did it twice, and, according to Deke Slayton, he was likely to have been his pick to command the first lunar landing mission (virtually no one argued with Deke Slayton on his recommendations...much as they wouldn't argue with Al Shepard...a force to be reckoned with).

I'm not so sure Gus cared about being "publicly cleared". He was cleared by his peers, which was about all that mattered in the NASA fraternity...and of course, his commands rather confirmed that fact.

At the same time, Gus was frustrated and outspoken about the state of the Apollo CM in late 1966 and early 1967. But he was not alone. Wally Schirra openly stated that the spacecraft was a mess, and many Astronauts echoed those sentiments. Gus' black sheep status may have been somewhat warranted, though. He was a very private person, uncomfortable with the press (unlike men like Glenn, who was, by comparison, a media sweetheart). Gus actually had his house built with no windows facing the street, so people couldn't gawk at him and his family through the windows. Of course, Neil Armstrong was very reticent to speak as well, and was somewhat of a loner among astronauts. I don't think it's a significant thing, really.

I don't think any one at NASA would disagree with you regarding incompetence and rushing things. Nor do I. I quoted Gene Krantz previously...he would never disagree with your assessment . Glynn Lunney wouldn't either. He had a rather realistic assessment of the affair, when speaking of Joe Shea and the Apollo 1 disaster:

"It's just another lesson in life. Boy, you can think you're the smartest sonofab**** anybody ever saw, but there's so many events that occur that can affect one's performance or one's role in life.

"You still can't stop people from stuffing rags in pipes and things like that, all of which make somebody look dumb in retrospect . The obvious question is, "Jesus, why didn't you guys see that?" That is the question Shea refused to stop asking himself. For years after, as he neared the top of one of the nation's largest high-tech corporations, he kept the photograph that the crew of Apollo 1 had given him (that one I told you about) displayed prominently near the front entrance of his house. Shea would not let himself so much as enter or leave his own home without passing by the inscription, 'It isn't that we don't trust you, Joe, but this time, we've decided to go over your head.'"

[turbonium]

Not that I've looked into it much, but to play devil's advocate:

What motive(s) would NASA have, or possibly have, to murder Grissom and his crew inside the Apollo 1 capsule?

Grissom made those around him aware of his displeasure with the Apollo program. Two of the best known examples...

- he hung a lemon on the CM simulator the week before his death - with all the news media on hand to see him do it.

- minutes before he and his crew died, he complained...."I can't hear a word you're saying," Gus said in disgust. "Jesus Christ. I said, how are we going to go to the moon if we can't even communicate between two or three buildings?!?"

If he was regarded as a "loose cannon", and he had first hand knowledge that the space program was in shambles, there's no telling what he might say to the media. And if they were aware that putting a man on the Moon by 1969 was impossible, he could expose the entire Apollo program as a sham, a PR stunt.

Straydog said...

I don't believe it would have been in NASA's best interests to have deliberately sabatoged their own spacecraft ... As someone just pointed out on this thread ... if someone wanted Grissom dead so he couldn't talk , there would have been much easier and less expensive ways to shut him up ..

I agree there are simpler, cheaper ways if NASA wanted to murder Grissom. But in that case, I think it would be in NASA's best interests to sabotage their own craft. That is, if NASA wanted to make a point about what happens to astronauts that publicly mock and ridicule NASA's numerous technical screw-ups, it's almost perfect.

It sets a precedent for the entire Apollo program - sending a powerful message to all the astronauts should they be chosen for subsequent Apollo missions. "If you don't toe the line, we can - and will - kill you. And nobody will ever find out. We completely control the investigation, and if we have to, we can fabricate evidence to prove it was a 'technical blunder', a 'freak accident'. History will record your death as a tragic mishap, in which you bravely lost your life in the service of your country."

NASA could not establish full control of any investigation outside of its facilities. More important, it would probably not send an obvious or convincing message to the other astronauts, that Grissom was deliberately "silenced" by his employer.

If Grissom died alone, NASA could look like it had a motive to commit murder - the guy who always scoffs at NASA needed to be "silenced". But killing three astronauts at once eliminates the singular attention and media focus on Grissom. The other two men were quite uncontroversial, especially when compared to the unpredictable, outspoken Grissom.

Anyway, just putting out some gist for the rumor mill....

Edited December 16, 2006 by turbonium

[Hans Dolbrook]

my uncle was an md for NASA when all this happened,but i do not know if he took part in grissom's,chafee.or the other man killed in the capsule that day's autopsies.i find it very hard to believe that these gentleman were murdered

however.back then,NASA was under pressure to land a man on the moon before russia because russia had launched the first satellite a few years earlier,so NASA had to get to the moon first.from what i remember was'nt the cause of the spark a special kind of velco that became flammable when it was pressurized or something?i do think the accident was nasa's fault,just like it was NASA'S fault that when grissom orbited the earth,and splashed down and the explosive bolt on his aircraft blew off,thus losing the mercury space capsule which was found and retrived a few years back!

[MID]

from what i remember was'nt the cause of the spark a special kind of velco that became flammable when it was pressurized or something?i do think the accident was nasa's fault,just like it was NASA'S fault that when grissom orbited the earth,and splashed down and the explosive bolt on his aircraft blew off,thus losing the mercury space capsule which was found and retrived a few years back![/b]

Actually, velcro is not an ignition source. It cannot cause a spark.

It is however a potential fuel, and aboard the Apollo 1 spacecraft, it, and several other materials became a fuel, once an ignition source was manifest.

The ignition source was electrical arcing, caused by frayed wired most likely inside a frequently accessed panel located in the right side of left hand lower equipment bay. Also present in this area was a leaking glycol coolant line, which seemed to be the initial fire source.

This incident was the fault of everyone involved with that spacecraft, NASA, North American, etc. This has already been clearly established. One doesn't need to believe it. It is a fact.

[straydog]

Not that I've looked into it much, but to play devil's advocate:

What motive(s) would NASA have, or possibly have, to murder Grissom and his crew inside the Apollo 1 capsule?

Grissom made those around him aware of his displeasure with the Apollo program. Two of the best known examples...

- he hung a lemon on the CM simulator the week before his death - with all the news media on hand to see him do it.

- minutes before he and his crew died, he complained...."I can't hear a word you're saying," Gus said in disgust. "Jesus Christ. I said, how are we going to go to the moon if we can't even communicate between two or three buildings?!?"

If he was regarded as a "loose cannon", and he had first hand knowledge that the space program was in shambles, there's no telling what he might say to the media. And if they were aware that putting a man on the Moon by 1969 was impossible, he could expose the entire Apollo program as a sham, a PR stunt.

Straydog said...

I don't believe it would have been in NASA's best interests to have deliberately sabatoged their own spacecraft ... As someone just pointed out on this thread ... if someone wanted Grissom dead so he couldn't talk , there would have been much easier and less expensive ways to shut him up ..

I agree there are simpler, cheaper ways if NASA wanted to murder Grissom. But in that case, I think it would be in NASA's best interests to sabotage their own craft. That is, if NASA wanted to make a point about what happens to astronauts that publicly mock and ridicule NASA's numerous technical screw-ups, it's almost perfect.

It sets a precedent for the entire Apollo program - sending a powerful message to all the astronauts should they be chosen for subsequent Apollo missions. "If you don't toe the line, we can - and will - kill you. And nobody will ever find out. We completely control the investigation, and if we have to, we can fabricate evidence to prove it was a 'technical blunder', a 'freak accident'. History will record your death as a tragic mishap, in which you bravely lost your life in the service of your country."

NASA could not establish full control of any investigation outside of its facilities. More important, it would probably not send an obvious or convincing message to the other astronauts, that Grissom was deliberately "silenced" by his employer.

If Grissom died alone, NASA could look like it had a motive to commit murder - the guy who always scoffs at NASA needed to be "silenced". But killing three astronauts at once eliminates the singular attention and media focus on Grissom. The other two men were quite uncontroversial, especially when compared to the unpredictable, outspoken Grissom.

Anyway, just putting out some gist for the rumor mill....

turbonium .... Interesting post as always ... I am having this same discussion on another forum at this time and also used the term "loose cannon" in describing Grissom ... I believe the fact that the Grissom family suspects sabatogue of the Apollo 1 capsule goes much deeper than any of us could possibly know or understand .... I posted here that it would not have been in NASA's best interest to burn up their own space craft but on second thought , it might have been the answer to taking care of two problems at the same time ... Getting rid of a space craft which according to Tom Barron , in his maticulously detailed report ( which disappeared right after his 'suicide' ) , would have never made it to the moon in the first place .... and of course Grissom , who was so disgusted with NASA's complete incompetence that he loudly griped about the technical problems of his craft ...and then hung up a big lemon on the side of it for the whole world to see ... Quite an embarrassment for NASA , I'm sure .... But the fact that his personal papers , including his diary , were confiscated by NASA immediately following his death , speaks the loudest as to the possiblilty of him being deliberately killed.

There have been discussions about the very reclusive and strange behavior of all of the Apollo astronauts throughout the years ... but people speculate that the reason for this behavior is because there was something to hide about the moon itself .... UFO buffs seem to always grab on to the disinformation about alien craft being seen on the moon and ancient alien glass structures covering the lunar landscape .. and that this was the reason for not only the strange behavior of the astronauts , but for faking the Apollo photographs as well .

Then there is the theroy that the photos didn't come out very good because of all the radaition on the lunar surface ... and NASA wanted us all to see some pretty pictures of their alleged accomplishments , so they staged them ....

But not many people discuss the fact that none of the Apollo astronauts act much like heros at all but rather hide away in seclusion , refusing to give any interviews ,.... and then when they do agree to giving interviews , they make complete fools of themselves by not even being able to answer the most basic of questions about their suppossed moon trips and moon walks ...

I'm sure you have seen the Bart Sibrel interviews with Gene Cernan , Ed Mitchell and Alan Bean , where none of them could even get their stories straight or even told the same story about what it was like to travel to , land , and then walk on the moon ...

The NASA defenders will say that this is just because it was almost 40 years ago that these guys went to the moon and now as old men they can't quite remember all of the details of their space travels .... But there is obviously more to it than that .... If you watched the documentary 'Astronauts Gone Wild ' , you will see that Bean said there were no radiation flashes to be seen going though the Van Allen belts ... Then you can see where he didn't even know where the Van Allen belts were located or if they had even travelled high enough to go through them !!! ...

Then in complete contradiction to that story , Cernan said that he did see the radiation flashes going through the belts .... but while he was telling his story about theses flashes , he was literally sweating bullets ( his shirt was soaked through) and hollering at his dog to shut up ...and while he was hollering at this dog to shut up, his body language showed that he was lying ....

Then Sibrel asked Cernan if the LM landing on the moon made any noise and he said that it was very loud ... but Bean had just stated in his interview that it made no noise at all and was completely quiet ... So these complete contradictions show that either one or both of them were not telling the truth about landing on the moon .... In another interview in this same documentary , Ed Mitchell literally shoved Sibrel out of his house and then Mitchell's son threaten to call the FBI to have Sibrel "waxed" !!!

So I ask you , are these the actions of truthful men who have nothing to hide ? ... Neil Armstrong refused to be interviewed as usual but when Sibrel did manage to get him on camera and asked him to swear on the Bible that he walked on the moon , he refused to do so ... And when Sibrel confronted John Young with the same offer , Young also refused to swear on the Bible and then ran away as fast as he could , threatening to knock Sibrel in the head ...

Why would National heros , the only men to have ever allegedly set foot on the moon , act like guilty criminals ? .... I have read where Neil Armstrong doesn't even have any Apollo moon items or photographs his home .... There are pictures of his career as a test pilot ( something which he is the most proud of ) and also pictures and items from his other accomplishments , displayed in his home.... but not even one photo or item about his moon mission !?!? ... The first man to walk on another planet , and nothing to show for it in his home among his other souvineers ? ... Why not ? .... And when Neil is forced out into the public to make a brief speech at some place like a college about his alleged moon trip , he utters enigmatic statements which include words such as ... "peeling back the layers of truth " , as tears fill his eyes .... WTF ???

You and I everyone else who believes that Apollo was a hoax, know that something was not only not well with the entire Apollo Program , but is still not well with any of the Apollo astronauts ... Not emotionally anyway ... As far as physically goes , they all seem to be a bit too healthy, considering their stressful space flights and their exposure to deep space radiation .

Could NASA have threatend their astronauts into silence , as you suggested is a possibility ? ... And could NASA have permanently silenced Grissom because he was a "loose cannon" and was possibly getting ready to blow the whislte and the lid off of the entire Apollo hoax ? .... Unfortunately , these are questions we may never know the answers to .

Edited December 17, 2006 by straydog

[MID]

I meant to thank you turb, for "putting out some gist for the rumor mill..."

It obviously was inspirational!

Every piece of previously thrashed speculation seems to have re-surfaced in a single inspired post.

The gist seemed to work!

You are indeed the devil's advocate

[MID]

Could NASA have threatend their astronauts into silence , as you suggested is a possibility ? ... And could NASA have permanently silenced Grissom because he was a "loose cannon" and was possibly getting ready to blow the whislte and the lid off of the entire Apollo hoax ? .... Unfortunately , these are questions we may never know the answers to .

There is a reason for the fact that these questions may never have answers provided for them.

This is because, as has been clearly shown in the past, these questions are based upon imaginative speculation, and have no background in the facts of the matter.

The actual answers...

Could they have done this?

Yes, of course they could have done this, especially in your world, where everything seems to point directly to foul play.

But the real question is:

Would they have done this? Would they have silenced a national hero, who spoke his mind, like many others in the program did at the very same time? Would they have murdered him, as well as a 31 year old rookie astronaut, and Ed White, another national hero, while at the same time risking millions of dollars of equipment, and many other lives at the same time?

Would they have put them selves in the position they found themselves in, a high degree of negative public scrutiny, and an even higher degree of Congressional scrutiny...getting grilled in hearings for months?

Could they have actually gotten away with murdering people, and have it remain a hush-hush secret for 40 years?

Of course not.

One of course can hold fast to his or her most cherished beliefs for as long as one breathes. However, the actual evidence speaks for itself in this case, and in the case of the Apollo program, and in no case has any proof of fakery, nor, in this particular case, of murder, ever been put forth.

I am frequently amazed at the lengths HBs will go to in order to come up with some speculative tid bit that points to some inconsistency. Perhaps, if that same energy was put forth into learning about the actual facts of these matters, then there wouldn't be incessant reiterations of the same worn out arguments...

[straydog]

Yes, of course they could have done this, especially in your world, where everything seems to point directly to foul play.

I am frequently amazed at the lengths HBs will go to in order to come up with some speculative tid bit that points to some inconsistency. Perhaps, if that same energy was put forth into learning about the actual facts of these matters, then there wouldn't be incessant reiterations of the same worn out arguments...

Not everything in my world points to foul play .... Only situations which could possibly be foul play , for obvious reasons ... but like I said before , these questions might never be answered one way another .

I haven't gone to any lenghts to discover how strange all of the Apollo astronauts act ... All one has to do is to watch them being interviewed to see that everything I posted above is not any kind of speculation on my part , but rather exactly how they have conducted themselves when being asked questions they don't know how to answer ...This is not just my "belief" , but rather the way it is ....

The Apollo program is considered to be a hoax by millions of people for very good reasons , whether you like that fact or not .... Not everyone sees Apollo in the same light as you do ... and it's time that you allowed others to express their opinions without trying to make them look like they don't know what they're talking about ...

If you don't believe me , just watch the documentary 'Astronauts Gone Wild' ... Then you can see the astronauts contradicting each other's stories about going to the moon .... It was pretty embarrassing , to say the least ... and I don't remember this being discussed to the point of being considered " incessant reiterations of the same worn out arguments " ....

If you have a rebuttal as to why they would have contradicted each others stories about the effects of the Van Allen radiation belts or why Alan Bean didn't know anything about the belts or if Apollo 12 had even gone high enough to have encountered them .... or why the Apollo 11 astronauts acted like they were attending their own funerals instead of their press conference , where they couldn't even get their stories straight about seeing any stars , ... or why Neil Armstrong doesn't display any Apollo items in his home when he was allegedly the first human to step onto the moon , then by all means , rebutt away .

As far as Grissom's death goes , that of course IS sheer speculation because no one can prove that any foul play was involved.

Edited December 18, 2006 by straydog

[Waspie_Dwarf]

The Apollo program is considered to be a hoax by millions of people for very good reasons , whether you like that fact or not .... Not everyone sees Apollo in the same light as you do ... and it's time that you allowed others to express their opinions without trying to make them look like they don't know what they're talking about ...

I tell you what makes someone like like they don't know what they are talking about...

• posting articles in which the science is clearly wrong.

• posting articles which contradict each other.

• stating that it is impossible to go to the moon time after time and then claiming "maybe we did go to the moon using alien technology"

• admitting that a site is unreliable and then later quoting that site as evidence.

• claiming you do not need to understand the science to know that it is wrong.

• claiming that the conspiracy was easy to pull off because a compartmentalised NASA meant very few people knew the truth whilst also claiming that the Soviet Union and all other nations capable of tracking spacecraft were in on the conspiracy

• claiming the lunar module looks wrong whilst admitting that you don't know what it should really look like.

• claiming that the astronauts were in low earth orbit when they should have been on the moon, then saying that maybe the returned to earth then admitting actually you don't know where they were but they weren't on the moon

• claiming that van Braun collected the "moon rocks" from Antarctica and then later claiming that a secret unmanned project brought the rocks back from the moon.

• claiming that computer technology was insufficient for a manned mission yet was adequate for a complex unmanned mission.

• persisting in posting evidence from a man who admitted to Congress that he was not qualified in the area he claimed to be an expert in.

At various times you have done all these things. Your version of events changes with every post you make. The only thing consistent is that you have presented not one piece of evidence which backs up your claims. It is your own actions which make it evident you don't know what you are talking about not those of MID. Edited December 18, 2006 by Waspie_Dwarf

[straydog]

"posting articles in which the science is clearly wrong." ...

What articles have I posted with wrong science ?

"posting articles which contradict each other."

Which articles have I posted which contradict each other ? ... Conspiracy information is written by different people with various different opinions about all of this ... So yes, some of it can be contradictory at times ... but that doesn't make it all incorrect .

"stating that it is impossible to go to the moon time after time and then claiming "maybe we did go to the moon using alien technology" ".

No contradiction there ... I doubt that Apollo could have landed men on the moon but reversed engineered alien technology possibly could have .

"admitting that a site is unreliable and then later quoting that site as evidence."

What site did I do this with ?

"claiming you do not need to understand the science to know that it is wrong"

I don't know much about science but it doesn't take a scientist to see that everything was wrong with Apollo .

"claiming that the conspiracy was easy to pull off because a compartmentalised NASA meant very few people knew the truth whilst also claiming that the Soviet Union and all other nations capable of tracking spacecraft were in on the conspiracy "

I never made the claim that the Russians tracked Apollo to the moon because they didn't have the tracking capability to do so until 1972 , after the Apollo program had already ended ... No one tracked Apollo to the moon ... Not even the Jodrell Bank observatory in the UK , which did have the tracking capabilities ....NASA had them under contract to track every mission before Apollo , for some very strange reason left them out of the loop during the Apollo missions and wouldn't give them the tracking contract or the tracking coordinates .... Not even Goldstone , Parkes or Honeysuckle Creek had the capabilities to track the Apollo crafts to the moon ... All they did was to receive the TV transmissions , which were bounced OFF of the moon and then routed directly to the back room at mission control , where NASA had complete control of the TV picture that was broadcast in the most unsusal way to the rest of the world .

"claiming the lunar module looks wrong whilst admitting that you don't know what it should really look like."

The LM's not only looked ridiculous , but NASA was apparently so ashamed of them that the FBI ordered all of the blueprints to them be destroyed ... So now no one will be able to see if they really were able to fly to the moon or not .

"claiming that the astronauts were in low earth orbit when they should have been on the moon, then saying that maybe the returned to earth then admitting actually you don't know where they were but they weren't on the moon"

I remember claiming that the astronauts never left LEO , but don't remember saying anything else about their whereabouts for the duration of the 'moon' trip .... There is some speculation that they splashed down immediately , and then the capsule was taken back up by a military transport plane and dropped for the splashdown later on TV ... There is also speculation that they orbited the Earth for the duration of the mission and then re-entered Earth's atmosphere for the splashdown ... As for what I personally believe , I don't remember ever mentioning it before .

"claiming that van Braun collected the "moon rocks" from Antarctica and then later claiming that a secret unmanned project brought the rocks back from the moon."

It is a fact that Von Braun went to the Antarctic two years prior to Apollo 11 on a geology expedition ... It is also a fact that moon rocks have been found in the Antarctic ... As far as unmanned missions go , the Russians brought back their moon rocks using them , so why not the Americans also ? ... Moon rocks could have come from the Antarctic and the moon , using unmanned missions .... So there is no contradiction there either .

"claiming that computer technology was insufficient for a manned mission yet was adequate for a complex unmanned mission."

I'm not sure how complex the unmanned missions were , but the computer technology was obviously available to land unmanned missions on the moon because both the Russians and the Americans apparently landed several of them there , several times .... Manned missions on the other hand , would have faced completely different problems ... Namely , radiation on the lunar surface , radiation in deep space and also radiation in the Van Allen belts ... And since the Apollo astronaut's never bothered to measure the radiation levels on the lunar surface, when they allegedly had six missions to do so , it is highly doubtful if humans would even be able to walk on the moon without becoming seriously ill from the effects of that radiation .

"persisting in posting evidence from a man who admitted to Congress that he was not qualified in the area he claimed to be an expert in."

What man are you talking about ? ... Tom Barron ? ... If so , why did NASA hire him to investigate the Apollo Program's many technical problems, if he wasn't qualified to do so ? .. And more importantly , why was he killed and then his "unqualified" report immediately stolen out of his car , never to be seen again ?

So once again , you have twisted my post comments and articles around to mean something they didn't ... A habit which you insist on doing almost every time I post about this subject .

Edited December 18, 2006 by straydog

[frenat]

.. I never made the claim that the Russians tracked Apollo to the moon because they didn't have the tracking capability to do so until 1972 , after the Apollo program had already ended ... No one tracked Apollo to the moon

False. Russia did have the tracking capability. They had already tracked their own probes there as well including the Zond 5 which carried live animals around the moon.

[Bill Hill]

I tell you what makes someone like like they don't know what they are talking about...

[*]posting articles in which the science is clearly wrong.

lol good post waspie!

[straydog]

False. Russia did have the tracking capability. They had already tracked their own probes there as well including the Zond 5 which carried live animals around the moon.

This was waspie's accusation about what I suppossedly claimed .

"claiming that the conspiracy was easy to pull off because a compartmentalised NASA meant very few people knew the truth whilst also claiming that the Soviet Union and all other nations capable of tracking spacecraft were in on the conspiracy"

Not only did I never make this ridiculous claim , Russia did not track Apollo to the moon .... If the Russians tracked their own craft it's because they set up the entire mission and also set up their own tracking coordinates .

The Russians never tracked Apollo ... And neither did anyone else .. No one at that time had the capability to track an American craft on a trajectory to the moon except for Jodrell Bank and they were not allowed to have the Apollo contract , nor were they ever given any of the tracking coordinates to any of the Apollo missions ....They had been under contract for all of NASA's previous missions which took place in LEO ... but were not given any contract for Apollo .... Don't you find that just the least bit strange ?

All the Russians did was to listen into the Apollo voice transmissions , as did several other countries ... and those transmissions could very well have been coming from LEO.

[expo2]

The Russians never tracked Apollo ... And neither did anyone else .. No one at that time had the capability to track an American craft on a trajectory to the moon except for Jodrell Bank and they were not allowed to have the Apollo contract

Actually you are correct there while most people assume the russians tracked apollo... that in itself sounds like a conspiracy.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

"posting articles in which the science is clearly wrong." ... What articles have I posted with wrong science ?

The simple answer to this is "most of them" however, specifically every post in which it is claimed that stars shows appear in the Apollo photographs is scientifically wrong (and you've postd a lot of them).

"posting articles which contradict each other." ... Which articles have I posted which contradict each other ?

Well how about this from Wagging the Moondoggie

Some scientists have claimed that the suits worn by the astronauts would not have protected them from the temperature extremes present on the moon. Due to the lack of atmosphere, the temperature in the sun would have been somewhere around +250 degrees. Stepping into the shadows, it would have dropped instantly to -250 degrees.

And this from the link you provide in Rethinking NASA's Version of History

Objects which are heated cannot be cooled off by space. In order for an object to cool it must first be removed from direct sunlight. Oh, sure, objects which are in the shade of another object will eventually cool off, but not because space is "cold". Space is not cold. Hot and cold do not exist in the near-absolute vacuum of space. Since the vacuum of space is the ultimate insulator, objects take a very long time to cool even when removed from all sources of heat.

Bold emphasis is mine in both cases.

"stating that it is impossible to go to the moon time after time and then claiming "maybe we did go to the moon using alien technology" "..... No contradiction there ... Apollo couldn't have landed men on the moon but reversed engineered alien technology possibly could have .

No contradiction, you are having a laugh. Let's assume that you are right about reverse engineered technology. Now we'll aply some critical thinking ans see what it does to your claims.

If NASA had alien technology how can you be sure this was not incorporated into the Lunar Module? Answer: you can't thus your claim that the LM could not have landed on the moon is blown away. If NASA had the capability to land on the Moon then all your claims that the Moon rocks must have been brought back from Antarctica and/or the moon using unmanned spacecraft are blown away. If NASA could land men on the Moon all your arguments that the photographs must be fake are blown away. Basically your claim about alien technology invalidates EVERY previous argument you have ever put forward. If that's not a contradiction then my dictionary definition is incorrect.

"admitting that a site is unreliable and then later quoting that site as evidence." ... What site did I do this with ?

How about this one: http://www.geocities.com/fakemoonpics/

A site about which you said in this post:

Waspie .... I'm pretty sure the geocities site was written by a grown up who did his or her homework .

After admitting that site had mis-represrent a photograph you the said in this post:

Waspie .... I agree with you that it is very disappointing to find outright incorrect information on any site , regardless of the content of the web site .... So in that context , yes , I doubt I would trust this particular site again until I have verified the information as being correct myself

Thirteen days after the above statement you made this post in which you linked to a site you admitted as being untrustworthy in order to back up one of your claims.

"claiming you do not need to understand the science to know that it is wrong".... I don't know much about science but it doesn't take a scientist to see that everything was wrong with Apollo .

This is clear nonsense. If you can not understand the facts you are in no position to determine whether they are correct or not.

"claiming that the conspiracy was easy to pull off because a compartmentalised NASA meant very few people knew the truth whilst also claiming that the Soviet Union and all other nations capable of tracking spacecraft were in on the conspiracy " ... .. I never made the claim that the Russians tracked Apollo to the moon because they didn't have the tracking capability to do so until 1972 , after the Apollo program had already ended ... No one tracked Apollo to the moon ... Not even the Jodrel Banks observatory in the UK , which did have the tracking capabilities ....NASA had them under contract to track every mission before Apollo , for some very strange reason left them out of the loop during the Apollo missions and wouldn't give them the tracking contract or the tracking coordinates .... Not even Goldstone , Parkes or Honeysuckle Creek had the capabilities to track the Apollo crafts to the moon ... All they did was to receive the TV transmissions , which were bounced OFF of the moon and then routed directly to the back room at mission control , where NASA had complete control of the TV picture that was broadcast in the most unsusal way to the rest of the world .

I concede that you may not have made this claim (S3th certainly did). If that is the case I apologise for the mistake. However the fact that you claim that Apollo was not tracked by anyone when it was tracked visually by many astronomers (both amateur and professional) rather backs up my claims that it is YOU not MID that makes it look like you don't know what you are talking about. This site: Bill Keel's Space Bits

"claiming the lunar module looks wrong whilst admitting that you don't know what it should really look like." .... The LM's not only looked ridiculous , but NASA was apparently so ashamed of them that the FBI ordered all of the blueprints to them be destroyed ... So now no one can see if they really were able to fly to the moon or not .

As usual ignoring thee facts. There are several flight worthy LMs in museums, including one in the Smithsonian. If your nonsense is true why were these not destroyed?

"claiming that the astronauts were in low earth orbit when they should have been on the moon, then saying that maybe the returned to earth then admitting actually you don't know where they were but they weren't on the moon" ... I remember claiming that the astronauts never left LEO , but don't remember saying anything else about their whereabouts for the duration of the 'moon' trip .... There is some speculation that they splashed down immediately , and then the capsule was taken back up by a military transport plane and dropped for the splashdown later on TV ... There is also speculation that they orbited the Earth for the duration of the mission and then re-entered Earth's atmosphere for the splashdown ... As for what I personally believe , I don't remember ever mentioning it before .

You have a point here, you NEVER say what you actually believe you just offer contradictory theories neither of which have any evidence to support them and considerable evidence (which you always ignore) to indicate they are wrong. I have personally asked you on at least 4 occasions why, if Apollo was in LEO, it was never seen. You have failed to answer every time.

"claiming that van Braun collected the "moon rocks" from Antarctica and then later claiming that a secret unmanned project brought the rocks back from the moon." ... It is a fact that Von Braun went to the Antarctic two years prior to Apollo 11 on a geology expedition ... It is also a fact that moon rocks have been found in the Antarctic ... As far as unmanned missions go , the Russians brought back their moon rocks using them , so why not the Americans also ? ... Moon rocks could have come from the Antarctic and the moon , using unmanned missions .... So there is no contradiction there either .

Your latest answer is the silliest yet. How could von Braun (an engineer NOT a geologist) possibly have known that the Antarctic rocks would match the lunar samples (which as has been pointed out to you over and over again they don't0 BEFORE the rocks were returned from the Moon?

"claiming that computer technology was insufficient for a manned mission yet was adequate for a complex unmanned mission." .... I'm not sure how complex the unmanned missions were , but the computer technology was obviously available to land unmanned missions on the moon because both the Russians and the Americans apparently landed several of them there , several times .... Manned missions on the other hand , would have faced completely different problems ... Namely , radiation on the lunar surface , radiation in deep space and also radiation in the Van Allen belts ... And since the Apollo astronaut's never bothered to measure the radiation levels on the lunar surface, when they allegedly had six missions to do so , it is highly doubtful if humans would even be able to walk on the moon without becoming seriously ill from the effects of that radiation .

This answer totally fails to address the question. The question was how could technology be sufficiently advanced to carry out a complex unmanned mission but not advanced enough to land a manned mission. The radiation levels are totally irrelevant to this point. If technology was advanced enough to land a craft with out people on board it follows it MUSY have been advanced enough to land a spacecraft with men on board. Since you concede that the unmanned missions took place (and have even invented some new ones) it follows that your arguments about technology not being advanced enough are blown away by your own arguments.

"persisting in posting evidence from a man who admitted to Congress that he was not qualified in the area he claimed to be an expert in." ... What man are you talking about ? ... Tom Barron ? ... If so , why did NASA hire him to investigate the Apollo Program's many technical problems, if he wasn't qualified to do so ? .. And more importantly , why was he killed and then his "unqualified" report immediately stolen out of his car , never to be seen again ?

Trying to change the subject again. You know very well that I am referring to Jack White and you know very well that he admitted to congress that he had no qualifications in photo-analysis. You also know full well that despite the fact it is a field he is not qualified in he persists in calling himself a professional photoanalyst.

So once again , you have twisted my post comments and articles around to mean something they didn't ... A habit which you insist on doing almost every time I post about this subject .

Your stock accusation whenever your contradictions are highlighted. There is no need to twist your words, direct quotes are all that are needed as I have demonstrated on 10 of my 11 points.

[straydog]

Wow Waspie , you really did some time consuming homework here just to bust my chops ... It would appear that you are even more desperate to try to refute my Apollo hoax claims than MID is !

First of all , I didn't write those two articles so I would have no way of knowing if one paragraph in either of them were contradictory in any respect to the other ... This is conspiracy information written by different people with different opinions .... and therefore none of it is written in stone .

The geocities site posted a picture of the lunar buggy that was taken from a museum setting and claimed it was something different ... This could have been a legtimate mistake on their part or it could have been intentionally misleading ... I would have no way of knowing which ..... But when I was shown that the information was incorrect , I admitted it was incorrect and stopped using that site as evidence because I didn't believe it could be trusted to be accurate anymore ....

Werner Von Braun did go to the Antarctic on a geology expedition two years prior to Apollo 11 , and it was highly suspicious that a NASA Apollo rocket scientist would make such a trip unless there was a very good reason to go there ..... For all we know , all of the moon rocks could have been picked up there and none of them really came directly from the moon .... The same goes for the Russian samples .... After all , all we have to verify where they really came from is Russia and NASA ... neither of which can be trusted .

This discussion , until you intentionally derailed it , was about Gus Grissom's death and Tom Baron's testamony and alleged suicide .... So I thought you were refering to him with your statement about congressional hearings ... I had no idea that Jack White was the target of your distain in this context ... Neither did I remember that Jack had testified to congress about his photo analysis .... So your accusations against me about this are completely unfounded also .

I will repeat this once more ... No one tracked Apollo outside of low earth orbit .... The amatuer astronomers you mentioned only tracked the missions in LEO because if the Russians couldn't track Apollo to the moon and Goldstone and Parkes and Honeysuckle Creek couldn't track Apollo to the moon , then how could you possibly think that some amateur yahoos in their back yards could track Apollo to the moon ? ...That is absolutely absurd !

And let me make this point very clear so you can't pretend to misunderstand me again ...

It is a POSSIBILITY that reversed engineered alien technology could have been flown to the moon because none of us have any idea what has been taking place at top secret bases , such as Area 51 .

But the Apollo Program never flew any of their Apollo craft to the moon because their 1969 conventional space flight technology was obviously a joke .... It is a possibility that Apollo was just a smoke screen for the real stealth technology being advanced , tested and flown behind the scenes ...So there is NO CONTRADICTION there either .

The point is this ... Apollo was a hoax , regardless of whether it was a smoke screen for stealth technology or just a public relations publicity stunt for America to look good ... The nation had been completely torn apart by the immoral and illegal Viet Nam war .. and what better way to distract the entire country and also the world by showing them something postive and happy for a change ? ... Like pretending to land men on the moon ! ... And what better way to beat the evil Russians to the moon and 'win' the not only the space race but the entire cold war as well !

You also mentioned that if stealth technology had gotten men to the moon that all of the Apollo conspircy evidence would be blown away ... but I don't understand your reasoning here at all .... The Apollo photos were faked because the Apollo missions were faked ... It doesn't get any clearer than that .... All of the rest is just pure speculation .

Oh , and an Apollo LM sitting behind ropes in a NASA museum somewhere is NOT proof that it can fly either ...Just as unmanned missions landing on the moon is not proof of manned missions having landed there ....

NASA doesn't have the technology today to send manned missions to the moon for one simple reason ... They NEVER had it to begin with .... DEEP SPACE RADIATION was , still is , and will continue to be what is known in the scientific community of rocket scientists , as the SHOW STOPPER of manned missions to the moon and Mars !

I even predict that NASA's future planned unmanned and then robotic missions to the moon , will be the definitive proof that will finally blow the lid right off of the entire Apollo Program and blow NASA's claims of landing manned missions there almost 40 years ago , right out of the water ! ... Scientists are the first to admit that they don't know much about the moon at all ... and that the radiation levels on the lunar surface are a complete unknown also .

And one last point .... You asked where I thought the Apollo astronauts were during the duration of their 'moon' landings ? .... Well , there are several possibilities .... Some people believe that they continued to circle the Earth in LEO for the duration of the 'lunar' landings .... but then the NASA defenders always make the claim that they would have been detected and tracked if they had stayed in LEO .... Others believe that they immediately splashed down in a secluded place far out to sea , to be taken back up by military transport plane for the spashdown later on TV .. And some folks believe that they never launched the astronauts at all , but only sent up an empty Saturn V rocket and CSM , while the astronauts filmed their weightless scenes in the same fashion the actors filmed them for the Apollo 13 movie .

I had never really given much thought to where the astronauts really were , but given these choices , I'm gonna go with door number three !

Edited December 18, 2006 by straydog

[Waspie_Dwarf]

The geocities site posted a picture of the lunar buggy that was taken from a museum setting and claimed it was something different ... This could have been a legtimate mistake on their part or it could have been intentionally misleading ... I would have no way of knowing which ..... But when I was shown that the information was incorrect , I admitted it was incorrect and stopped using that site as evidence because I didn't believe it could be trusted to be accurate anymore ....

This is untrue. You used it as evidence 13 days later. I have provide the link for everyone to see. You used it despite knowing it was unreliable.

I did not have to do much research, you see I actually read and understand what is being said and remember how contradictory you are. You don't even remember your own posts which is no doubt why you go round in circles making the same mistakes over and over again.

First of all , I didn't write those two articles so I would have no way of knowing if one paragraph in either of them were contradictory in any respect to the other

So how did I know they were contradictory? Well I actually read them and understood them.

This is the sort of mistake you make when you don't understand the science. This statement from you alone shows that you do not have the skills necessary to argue your beliefs. It is not MID that makes it look like you don't know what you are talking about but you yourself. This admission that you can't know whether the contents of the posts you copy and paste / link to is a de facto admission that you don't know what you are talking about, so quit laying the blame at other peoples door.

Several people including myself have suggested that, as you have invested so much time in this hoax nonsense, that you take some time to research the basic science behind it. You have always seen this as some sort of insult. It was never any such thing it was a helpful suggestion, which you rejected out of hand. Why are you so scared of learning something that may help you? Is it because once you understand the science you are scared that you finally see that you have been backing the wrong horse all this time?

I will repeat this once more ... No one tracked Apollo outside of low earth orbit

I will repeat this once more. Apollo was tracked. It is IMPOSSIBLE to mistake a vehicle in LEO for one on a trans-lunar trajectory. Your claim that Russia could have been mistaken ia voice signal from LEO when they were on the Moon is nonsense. For this the Russians would have had to be so stupid that they would not notice that there antennae were pointing in the wrong direction and that the signal they were tracking would disappear every few minutes and reappear an orbit later. Of course if you understood the science you would know how silly this claim of yours is. There is a difference between you and I. I have presented a link to back up my claim. All you offer is your opinion and you admit you don't understand the science. So what does that make your opinion worth?

I had never really given much thought to where the astronauts really were , but given these choices , I'm gonna go with door number three !

So you never gave it much thought despite the fact that you claim to have studied this subject for years? Some researcher!

At least we have something in common. If you believe that Saturn V was launched unmanned then we are both agreed that Sibrel and Percy & Bennett are liars. If the astronauts never left Earth then they couldn't have been ie LEO putting transparencies in front of the CM window to make the Earth look distant. If they couldn't have done that the Sibrel's and Percy & Bennett's evidence is unreliable. So I take it you won't be linking to them any more will you? Mind you past experience shows that you will continue to link to sites even after you admit they are unreliable so I won't be holding my breath.

[MID]

Wow Waspie , you really did some time consuming homework here just to bust my chops ... It would appear that you are even more desperate to try to refute my Apollo hoax claims than MID is !

MID is not, and never has been desperate to refute your claims. He has done so time and again, without a great deal of strain. This was done intitially to educate you. However, time has shown that you persist. Therefore, my efforts are geared toward pointing the facts out for those who may come here and see your incessant diatribes about unsubstantiated ideas.

Waspie is not attempting to bust your chops, as you say. He is pointing out the inconsistency in your arguments, and the fact that everything you insist on re-hashing has already been dispensed with.

Werner Von Braun did go to the Antarctic on a geology expedition two years prior to Apollo 11 , and it was highly suspicious that a NASA Apollo rocket scientist would make such a trip unless there was a very good reason to go there .....

As has been pointed out to you before, Dr. von Braun was an adventurer. He did many things. His visit to Antarctica was a vacation trip. It is not highly suspect that anyone would go where he or she would wish on his or her vacation. It had nothing to do with his work. In fact, he was away from his work. The "very good reason" was the same reason anyone goes on a vacation...

For all we know , all of the moon rocks could have been picked up there and none of them really came directly from the moon ....

No, as has also been repeatedly said, only about 20 pounds of Antarctic lunar samples have ever been collected. This, as opposed to about 800 pounds of lunar samples returned from the Apollo lunar missions...ALL of which are different, and easily distinguished from the Antarctic samples, as the Antarctic samples are all changed in character by virtue of ablation produced by their entry into the Earth's atmosphere.

You see?

You keep re-hashing already completely fleshed-out and explained ideas.

This is of course pointed out for those who are actually curious about these things....

But the Apollo Program never flew any of their Apollo craft to the moon because their 1969 conventional space flight technology was obviously a joke ....

Same principal exactly.

It obviously did fly. It obviously did succeed.

You have never shown anything which indicates that 1969 space flight technology was "a joke", nor have ever illustrated a single example of how that is allegedly so.

You have never understood that flying to the Moon was perfectly possible with the technology we developed for the purpose. Nor apparently, have you ever investigated any of the myriad information provided you, so that you may learn about this technology.

The Apollo photos were faked because the Apollo missions were faked ... It doesn't get any clearer than that .... All of the rest is just pure speculation .

This is perhaps the greatest illustration of what we're dealing with here.

Pure speculation. Nothing you've presented has any basis in science, and is completely speculative. There is absolutely no evidence that the photos were faked. On the contrary, they are all normal.

What is actually clear is that you believe...too much.

[straydog]

Posting on this forum is like looking at a car wreck ... It's pretty ugly and upsetting , but you just gotta take a look anyway !

Waspie .. I do believe you're about the nicest guy that I have ever encountered online ... and it must be your charming personality that keeps me coming back here .....You know for someone who jumps all over the members here who dare to go off topic on any given thread , you sure don't seem to mind doing it yourself .... Just so long as you can bash the crap out of me in the process , right ? .

Since you are a scientist and I'm not , then I'm sure that makes you an authority and an expert on just about everything under the sun , right ? ... Including corruption in governments , black ops programs , the US military/industrial complex, dark political agendas, and government lies , scams, hoaxes and cover-ups ... Yes sir , I bet all those science classes taught you all about those type of things , didn't they ?

We are obviously viewing this subject from two very different perspectives .... Yours would obviously be science , which come to think of it , has been known to be pretty closed minded at times , and of course mine , as a conspiracy believer .

The fact that I never gave much thought to where the Apollo astronauts really may have been during their alleged moon landings and EVA's has absolutely nothing to do with the credibility of conspiracy researchers such as Bart Sibrel or David Percy .... Their opinions are their own , just as mine are my own and one has nothing to do with the other .... It's only a guess on my part where the astronauts might have been while the pre-recorded 'moon' landings were being presented to the world as "live from the moon" , via the TV monitors in mission control's back room .

As a conspiracy researcher , I happen to throw out a lot of different opinions using different and various articles about the moon hoax . ... Even if some of the authors of these articles have differences of opinons from time to time .... Like I said before , nothing is written in stone and much of what is written are different theories of how NASA faked the moon landings ... But not being a professional photographer or scientist , I am at a dis-advantage and will be the first one to admit that .... But just because I may have a different theory or opinion as to what Percy or Sibrel may have , does not make them liars by any means ...

If you think that science is so important , then what would you think about an Apollo hoax book that was written by a scientist ? .... Charles T . Hawkins has been acknowledged as having one of the greatest scientific minds of our time , and he wrote a book called 'How America Faked the Moon landings' ... I don't own this book yet , but I have ordered it and it promises to explain not only where but exactly when and how the moon landings were faked ... And it should be interesting getting this information from a scientist for a change , instead of the devil himself , Mr. Bart Sibrel ... LOL

But isn't that the way to debate the moon hoax subject ? .... To vilify the conspiracy believers by calling them con-artists and liars , meanwhile protecting the real liars ... NASA and the Apollo astronauts .... Yes sir , that would be quite a clever tactic if it hadn't already been done to death by the all of the other NASA defenders and disinformation agents working overtime to disfuse the conspiracy information on forums such as this one .

You claim that I haven't produced any evidence to back up any of my conspiracy claims, yet I have done so many times and in many different ways during the Apollo hoax discussions ... It's just that people with mind sets such as yourself and MID , refuse to see that what the conspiracy believers present IS evidence of a hoax ... but you only consider it to be nonsense, because what you are shown just doesn't quite conform to your already preconceived beliefs and opinions about NASA and their alleged accomplishments during the Apollo Program..

Okay , getting back to who did or didn't track Apollo to the moon , all I can say about Bill Keel and his "I tracked Apollo to the moon " web site is ... you have got to be kidding ???

He is an admitted ameteur BACK YARD astronomer , who saw some lights in the sky and assumed they were from the Apollo missions !! .... Did you even look at those pictures he posted ? .... Those lights could have been anything ! ... There were dozens of lights that all looked the same in those silly looking pictures ....

Even the University of Alabama where he works will not back his claims ... Here's a disclaimer they posted on his silly web site to cover their own asses , in case someone cared to question the scientific validity of Keel's lights in the sky claims ...

"(ostentatious throat-clearing) "The views, opinions, and conclusions expressed in this page are those of the author and not necessarily those of The University of Alabama or its officers and trustees. The content of this page has not been reviewed or approved by The University of Alabama, and the author is solely responsible for its content. "

Oh and it gets even better ... Here's what Keel said himself about the Apollo 17 mission ..

"I have yet to find any sightings of Apollo 17. However, this is an excellent place to link to Sven Grahn's report of amateur tracking of this mission by radio, including astronaut voices from the Moon."

And here are some of Keel's pictures of what he believes to be the Apollo 8 space craft .

And here's one he did get right .... Apollo 8 RE-ENTRY from LEO .

And here's Apollo 11 ! .... He has got to be pulling all of our legs , don't you think ?

Apollo 12 ... this one is a hoot also !

And here's one where Ron Welsh VISUALLY observed Apollo 14 RE- ENTRY from LEO.

And here's a link so everyone can view Keel's few other silly looking pictures of lights in the sky ...

http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html

Like I said before ... NO ONE TRACKED APOLLO TO THE MOON .

Edited December 19, 2006 by straydog

[aquatus1]

Back on topic, or this gets closed tomorrow morning.

[straydog]

You may as well close it now ... I don't believe there is any more to say about Grissom's death anyway .

Edited December 19, 2006 by straydog

[aquatus1]

Topic closed at the request fo the OP