why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?

[RAF]

Re., your claim that Percy won't debate Jay because he hurt his feelings (or whatever) makes ZERO sense.

What better way to show Jay wrong, and embarrass him than by agreeing to a debate and showing that Moon landings didn't happen.

No...the reason he won't debate Jay, is because Jay would "hand him his hat"...and make him look like the complete fool that he is.

[JayUtah]

No...the reason he won't debate Jay, is because Jay would "hand him his hat"...and make him look like the complete fool that he is.

I tend to believe that's the reason, but I don't know for sure.  The invitations were made separately to me and to Percy by Zig Zag Productions and by Ten Worlds Productions, both verifiable independent filmmakers who have provided content for mainstream media outlets such as Discovery Networks and National Geographic.  I accepted both invitations.  Percy declined both.

And it's not just me.  David Percy will not respond to any of his critics.  I just happened to be the one who attracted the most mainstream attention and therefore the highest-stakes opportunities for him.

[raven]

Just remember folks, just because a snooty British sounding guy in a suit says something, that doesn't make it true.
I blame David Attenborough for this.

[Bob B.]

On November 12th 1963 President Kennedy issued a Top Secret National Security Action Memorandum No. 271 with the subject header:"Cooperation with the USSR on Outer Space Matters:".  It was sent to the then NASA administator, James Webb, (as well as the US Secretary of State, the US Secretary of Defense, the Director of the CIA, the President’s Science Advisor, and three other agency directors) instructing Webb to develop a program with the Soviet Union in Joint space and lunar explorations

(emphasis mine)

If we are to assume the memo is legitimate, it is clearly not ordering the development of a joint program with the Soviet Union.  It is simply asking for proposals on how the two countries might be able to collaborate.  This is evident by the second paragraph:

These proposals should be developed with a view to their possible discussion with the Soviet Union as a direct outcome of my September 20 proposal for broader cooperation between the United States and the USSR in outer space, including cooperation in lunar landing programs.  All proposals or suggestions originating within the Government relating to this general subject will be referred to you for your consideration and evaluation.

In other words, "Shoot me some ideas and, if I like them, I might discuss it with the Soviets."

[Noldi400]

Back in 1997 Sergei Khrushchev, eldest son of then-Premier Nikita Khrushchev, stated that in early November 1963 his father had decided to accept JFK's suggestion to make the lunar landing a joint USA-USSR project.

After Kennedy was assassinated, Khrushchev decided against a joint effort because he didn't trust Johnson and his Administration.

Link to the story in Space Daily:

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/russia-97h.html

FWIW

Edit: JFK publicly proposed the joint project in his address to the United Nations on September 20, 1963.

[raven]

Man, there is an alternate history I wouldn't mind seen.

[ProfessorAlfB]

What public evidence?  If it was so public it shouldn't be hard to find some to back that statement up.

You're seriously asking for evidence that the Apollo program was styled as a race to beat the Soviets to the Moon?  Are you blind?

That does not answer the question.

Do have any evidence to show it has been discredited?

Actually yes, but it's not really a going concern.  See also below.  The only people who still consider the Majestic documents authentic anymore are a very few of the wackier UFO authors.  Even many of the authors who once considered them authentic have now changed their minds.  Among the factual evidence suggesting forgery are the many errors in the Truman document.

However I should back up and concede that the Majestic reference is something of an inadvertent red herring.  There is a version of the Kennedy memo "No. 271" that circulates with the Majestic documents.  It bears some resemblance to the actual memo and contains some of the same language, but has been doctored to include references to UFOs and has some mysterious handwritten annotations.  It is also heavily redacted, which is a technique used by many UFO enthusiasts to suggest that the redacted portions support their claims.

Wrong, it does bear his signature!...See the second page of the memorandum here:
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/qVncp893wEmJFplIn1AlHA.aspx

Well no, that's not Kennedy's signature.  That's a memo to the file, which is why it has the "S/" annotation rather than a signature.  However the memo itself is an authentic document, and the version you link here is not part of the Majestic documents.  Therefore if that's the version of the memo to which you refer, then my reference to the Majestic documents was a misdirected rebuttal and I withdraw it.

But there may have been a degree of cooperation between the US and Soviets on space exploration soon after the date of the memorandum.

No "may have been" about it.  The Apollo-Soyuz program was a direct result of it, as was the exchange of lunar samples between the Soviet and American scientists.  "A degree of cooperation" does not substantiate your claim that the Soviets flew missions to the Moon in secret cooperation with NASA.  If you argue that a different "degree of cooperation" existed beyond that which the record shows, you bear the burden to prove it.

You misunderstood my reasoning...I never claimed that US-Soviet cooperation was to allow the Soviets to land on the Moon too, that would be very far fetched, but many Apollo believers find it impossible to believe that if NASA was pulling a fast one that the Soviets wouldn't immediately blow the whistle on them.
Ignoring the possiblity that their cooperation could suggest that the Soviets might have known full well that it was a hoax but that they were willing to go along with it.
The possibilty cannot simply be ruled out, tenuous evidence as it is.
But perhaps their some other far more important reason why they would stay silent?
Jarrah White seems to think the Russians depended on Wheat imports from the US to prevent the population from starving and if correct this would be a very good reason to go along with it.
A little research reveals that whilst the USSR did indeed import a great deal of Wheat from the US (400 Bushels or about 30% of the entire average annual US Wheat export total in 1971) this only occured from July-August 1972 onwards, too late to coincide with Apollo 11 in 1969 and only just a few months before the last Apollo mission, Apollo 17 in  December 1972.
Does this prove Jarrah is lying?  No, because this could have simply been a delayed payment for their long term silence, or it could indeed be because the Soviet population was literally starving.
However, what is more interesting is that the US Government also extended a credit of $750 million to the Soviets for "the purchase of grains over a three-year period", at the same time.
This could imply that that the Wheat imports were perhaps a cover story and that the real reason they kept silent was a purely financial one, or perhaps both might have been part of the same deal.
Whatever the truth of the matter, the Soviets did have at least two good motives for keeping quiet, even if it didn't coincide directly with the start of manned Apollo Moon Missions. 

This would have given the Soviets ample motive to try and hide the fact that the US may have been perpetrating a hoax

Nonsense.  The entire civilized world believed the U.S. had beaten the Soviets to the Moon and the Soviets graciously, but begrudgingly, acknowledged that.  You're telling me they put forth effort under a supposed secret agreement but got no public credit for it.

What they believed and what actually happened are not the same thing!

...It cannot be ruled out.

Shifting the burden of proof.  You have no credible evidence that the Soviets participated actively in Apollo operations.  You may not assert they did and then sit back lazily and expect everyone else to try to prove you wrong.

Yet those that believe in NASA's side of the story often do exacty that!

Yes it had, space has always been governed by the same rules as "international waters".

No, it had not.  It was so governed later as a result of those discussions, but there had been no prior agreement.

Actually there was!  It was called: "The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies", and it came into force in October 1967...It was a UN treaty that was signed by the US the UK and the USSR.  It is now referred to simply as "The Outer Space Treaty".  It proves that there was direct collaboration between the US and the USSR on space exploration before the Apollo missions.

Yes, and this disproves your earlier claim that there was no US Soviet cooperation on space exploration during the time of the Apollo missions!

Your claim is that the photo in question is not from Apollo-Soyuz but from an earlier Apollo mission, ostensibly one that went to the Moon.  Showing that an American astronaut was aboard a Soviet spacecraft at some point in history does not prove that American astronauts and Soviet cosmonauts collaborated on missions to the Moon.

Again I did not imply that Russians went to the Moon.

I don't have the book here so no, I can't.

I skimmed the book and found no such photograph or reference.  That doesn't mean it's not there, but it does mean I'm not going to expend any more effort to provide the evidence for your claims.  The onus is on you.

Quite right.

What evidence have to to prove "His blatant intellectual dishonesty"?

My entire web site, which has been up for more than 10 years and is very well known and commonly cited by others to third parties whenever Percy's claims are mentioned.  Do you really know anything about this debate?

Yes, but lets just say I haven't always been so middle of the road in my opinions regarding the validity of the Apollo story as told to us by NASA.  I try to keep an open mind so I can see it from both sides.

Perhaps he just doesn't want to talk to you because you may have insulted him at some point during or after your invitations?

Desperate speculation.

But your not denying it!

Yes, I know, but doesn't the author of the book in question claim the photo was taken on a earlier Apollo mission?

That's what he claims.  And since his claims regarding the Apollo record have proven so disastrously wrong and misrepresentative in the past, we cannot take his word for it.

Nobody can be right about everything, I will give him the benefit of the dought for now.

[raven]

You might want to edit that again so that your replies are outside the quote boxes, ProfessorAlfB
It will make your post a lot easier to read.

[Andromeda]

PLEASE learn to use the quotes properly.

Nonsense.  The entire civilized world believed the U.S. had beaten the Soviets to the Moon and the Soviets graciously, but begrudgingly, acknowledged that.  You're telling me they put forth effort under a supposed secret agreement but got no public credit for it.

What they believed and what actually happened are not the same thing!

No one said it was.  The point is the the USSR agreed.

Shifting the burden of proof.  You have no credible evidence that the Soviets participated actively in Apollo operations.  You may not assert they did and then sit back lazily and expect everyone else to try to prove you wrong.

Yet those that believe in NASA's side of the story often do exacty that![/quote]

Utter rubbish.  NASA's "side of the story" has produced an abundance of evidence.  No-one, anywhere, ever expects such a claim to be taken on faith with no credible evidence.  There is a huge amount of evidence supplied so don't sit there and make such patently false accusations.

[JayUtah]

I can't find anything in Dark Moon that explicitly makes the Professor's claim.  But here's what I'm able to find.

The only photo I can find of an Apollo astronaut in a Soyuz spacecraft is on page 67, and it's labeled correctly.  That page discusses the Apollo-Soyuz project and does not attempt to connect it to lunar landing missions.  Instead Percy is trying to argue that the photo he reproduces should have been of higher quality because Hasselblad 70mm cameras had been sent aloft.  In other words, he cherry-picks a bad photo and tells the world it all should have been better.  But no reference to secret collaborations.

Not until page 343 does the Apollo-Soyuz mission recur again in any substantial detail.  Here is where Percy spins a wild tale.

First, earlier in the book and in his movie What Happened on the Moon? Percy shows us footage of swimming "down" the connecting tunnel from the CM to the docked LM.  Because he does not understand the geometry of the connecting tunnel and the LM, he believes the ascent engine cover is some sort of wall and that the astronaut has to turn at right angles (which, in a sense, he does) to enter the LM cabin.

Also by way of context, his eponymous theme is that Apollo 13 was designed as a fake mission and took place instead in Earth orbit.  The title of the book derives from his belief that Apollo 13's ad hoc post-accident timeline had them arriving at the Moon too soon, when their proposed landing site would have been in darkness.  He's unaware of the 20-hour "settling" time in lunar orbit, that didn't occur on the aborted Apollo 13.

So here Percy tries to argue that Apollo 13 shows a "special" tunnel unlike what he says was needed to connect to the command module.  He speculates that the "special" tunnel was for Apollo 13 The Fake Mission, in low Earth orbit, in case the LM with the actor-astronauts got into real trouble and had to bail out into -- get this! -- a Soviet Soyuz supposedly parked nearby to serve as just such a lifeboat.  Showing the "special" Soyuz tunnel (which was really just the ordinary tunnel, although Percy couldn't figure out how) was allegedly a slip-up.

In order to make this happen, Percy has to speculate that the Apollo-Soyuz docking adapter was actually developed many years previously, not for the 1975.  He gives no evidence that it was, only that in his mind it's plausible.  But then of course the A-S docking adapter bears no resemblance whatsoever to the CM/LM tunnel in Apollo lunar missions, but Percy is silent on that subject.  He doesn't even try to show they're the same thing, even though that's what he argued.  Further, the docking adapter had nothing to do with the lunar module and wouldn't have worked on it anyway.

He doesn't mention the memo specifically here, nor can I find any reference to it in Dark Moon.  But Percy says that "cooperation in space" had been discussed on an off throughout the space race.  That's true enough, but doesn't substantiate that ASTP per se occurred substantially sooner, nor that it had the sinister motives Percy ascribes to it.  We know cooperation was discussed and that it occurred.  To say that it occurred in some other form or at some other time than the documentary record witnesses is still an unsubstantiated claim.  Percy argues that the Soviets helped the U.S. fake their lunar landing missions, but provides only his typical speculation and innuendo as evidence for that.

In Kennedy's precise words on the subject, "an agreement to negotiate does not mean a negotiated agreement."  Initially the proposal was for mutual launch services, since each country's launch sites accessed different regions of space more easily; mutual tracking services, since each country faced deep space at different times of the day; and cooperation with the U.S. to establish international satellite communications.  Later those came to include the practical problems of manned space flight, such as repatriation of national flight crews and equipment, and "rules of the road" for space operations -- something you don't do and don't need if you cooperate, as those apply only to competitors pursuing independent programs.

The proposal for a joint manned lunar mission came from the Soviets, but was not seriously considered by the United States.  Kennedy gave it lip service, but the tenor at NASA was that under no circumstances would there be a joint mission to the Moon.  In fact, the prevailing paranoia was that "joint" missions would just be an excuse to get free access to NASA materials to help the Soviets solve problems they admitted were hampering their own lunar landing program.  In case there was any question about it, Congress' subsequent appropriation bills explicitly prohibited funding for a Moon landing mission involving any other country.

That's the behind-the-scenes story of the real collaboration between the U.S. and the Soviets, and why it had to wait until after Apollo lunar landing missions.  I'm at a loss as to why this is at all relevant to the entirely speculative claim that NASA faked the lunar landing missions with Soviet help.  The technology for one isn't directly applicable to the other and the timelines don't match up, so it's just meaningless allusion to give the impression of credibility without any reason for it.

[ProfessorAlfB]

You might want to edit that again so that your replies are outside the quote boxes, ProfessorAlfB
It will make your post a lot easier to read.

I already have been editing, but it takes time with such lengthy posts.

[onebigmonkey]

Actually there was!  It was called: "The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies", and it came into force in October 1967...It was a UN treaty that was signed by the US the UK and the USSR.  It is now referred to simply as "The Outer Space Treaty".  It proves that there was direct collaboration between the US and the USSR on space exploration before the Apollo missions.

CBA to edit ProfAifB's quotes for him, so I'll just cite that bit.

The fact that there was a treaty on how to behave in outer space is no proof of co-operation on any space related activity during the Apollo missions.

In a nutshell, the treaty simply agrees that no-one owns space, it would be a bad thing to put weapons there, and people should generally be nice to each other.

If you have a specific reference that clearly states that there was co-operation during Apollo, please find it for us.

http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/tos/tos.html

[Andromeda]

You might want to edit that again so that your replies are outside the quote boxes, ProfessorAlfB
It will make your post a lot easier to read.

I already have been editing, but it takes time with such lengthy posts.

They are still incorrect...

[Jason Thompson]

Shifting the burden of proof.  You have no credible evidence that the Soviets participated actively in Apollo operations.  You may not assert they did and then sit back lazily and expect everyone else to try to prove you wrong.

Yet those that believe in NASA's side of the story often do exacty that!

This is utter nonsense. NASA's version of the story has never been 'we went to the Moon, now prove we didn't'. It is 'we went to the Moon,  and here is the evidence for it'. The evidence is there and freely available. If you wish to clain that they did not go to the Moon you have to challenge that evidence, and in that case a challenge of 'prove the evidence wrong' is appropriate.

What you are doing is making wild assertions and speculating without evidence, then challenging people to find the evidence your speculation is wrong. That is not appropriate.

Actually there was!  It was called: "The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies", and it came into force in October 1967...It was a UN treaty that was signed by the US the UK and the USSR.  It is now referred to simply as "The Outer Space Treaty".  It proves that there was direct collaboration between the US and the USSR on space exploration before the Apollo missions.

No, it proves there was agreement on how space may be used by anyone planning to send probes or people there, what may or may not be done in terms of claiming discoveries and terrtiory, and what was to be done with the results of the study of space in terms of distribution of the information. It does not in any way suggest any kind of collaboration on what those missions would be or how they would be accomplished.

[JayUtah]

That does not answer the question.

That's correct, it does not.  It mocks the question, and with good reason.

You misunderstood my reasoning...I never claimed that US-Soviet cooperation was to allow the Soviets to land on the Moon too

You never supplied any reasoning or a conclusion.  You cited the Kennedy memo and the photo from Dark Moon as evidence that the Soviets were cooperating with the U.S. on the Apollo missions.  What you meant to say, but didn't, was that you believed the Soviets were helping the U.S. fake the Apollo missions.  You're citing irrelevant evidence for legitimate cooperation as if it somehow argued in favor of a hoax.

...many Apollo believers find it impossible to believe that if NASA was pulling a fast one that the Soviets wouldn't immediately blow the whistle on them.

True.  How does involving them in the hoax solve that problem?

Ignoring the possiblity that their cooperation could suggest that the Soviets might have known full well that it was a hoax but that they were willing to go along with it.

Why ignore it?  I don't see how you can avoid it.  The scenario proposed by David Percy not only requires the Soviets to know they are helping perpetrate a hoax, but requires them to have undertaken significant engineering and planning to accomplish it.

The possibilty cannot simply be ruled out, tenuous evidence as it is.

I can get coffeehouse smoke-blowing for free.  I'm not interested in what tenuous proposals you think merely can't be ruled out.  That's just idle speculation.  I'm interested in whether you think you have a viable alternative history or scenario for the Apollo missions that answers all the evidence and yet also proves it was hoaxed.

You haven't said whether you believe they were hoaxed, but if you force us to judge your arguments by the company you keep and the source you cite, I'd say you do believe in a hoax.  If so, say so and defend your claim.  Quit with this passive-aggressive, "I just want to keep an open mind" approach.

Jarrah White seems to think the Russians depended...

Jarrah White cribbed that argument from one of his mentors, and it has no more historical validity when he says it as it did when his mentors first proposed it.  Citing Jarrah White as any sort of expert or authority gets you nowhere fast with me.  Trying to patch up the obvious holes in the Wheat Theory with unsubstantiated speculation only makes things worse.

What they believed and what actually happened are not the same thing!

No, you evaded my question.  You say the Soviets had enough motive to collaborate secretly with the United States, at the height of the Cold War, to fool the world into thinking the U.S. had succeeded in a major world endeavor, humiliating the Soviets.  You say this while the two powers were fighting a war by proxy.  You've abandoned all semblance of an argument according to evidence and are engaged simply in second-guessing motives.  So answer my question about motives.

Yet those that believe in NASA's side of the story often do exacty that!

More evasion.  Satisfy your burden of proof or admit you cannot.

Actually there was!  It was called: "The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies", and it came into force in October 1967...

Long after both nations started manned space flight.  It wasn't "always" the case as you claim.

Again I did not imply that Russians went to the Moon.

Again, you said the Soviets collaborated on the Apollo project, which was ostensibly aimed at landing a man on the Moon.  You further cited a Kennedy document purporting exactly that sort of proposal.  If you want to change the goalposts, do so -- but don't imply they were never set.

Yes, but lets just say I haven't always been so middle of the road in my opinions regarding the validity of the Apollo story as told to us by NASA.

What does that have to do with my web site?  It's from my personal experience, research, and expertise.

I try to keep an open mind so I can see it from both sides.

I haven't seen any evidence that you do this.  You seem to be defending the hoax authors at all costs while ignoring much of what is being said to you by way of objection.  I don't see evidence that you're an uncommitted third party.

But your not denying it!

Am I speaking to a child?  You're making up fanciful reasons why Percy won't engage in open debate.  You've been called on your wishful thinking.  Deal with it.

Nobody can be right about everything...

This isn't about innocent error.  This is about deliberate misrepresentation and fabrication, for which Percy has had to issue retractions and apologies.  He's lying and he knows it; he's been caught lying, and he knows it.

I will give him the benefit of the dought for now.

We don't.  Any argument that requires us to take the word of hoax authors at face value, or for the sake of argument, is summarily rejected.  Put your faith in these charlatans if you must, but don't ask us to.