Carryfast:
Rjan:
[…]
I don’t get your conclusions.
1.Any war with the Soviet Union had to go nuclear by default with no way of beating the Soviet Union in a conventional war.
But the Americans were similarly unbeatable in a conventional war. The Soviets had no decisive upper hand against them, other than in the ideological arena.
2.The whole space programme was definitely subject to defence standard classification of its activities or at least a need to know basis.Much of that classification only recently being lifted.
But then by your own logic, there is a great deal that is classified that turns out not to involve any concealment of fraud! My point is very simple, that the Apollo programme overall could not be considered a “classified” or “secret” programme. Its activities and results were in the public eye. The US spent about a tenth of a trillion dollars on it - it’s not some murky operation in the jungle, it involved the work of thousands of firms and millions of American workers.
3.It’s also equally obvious that it was seen as being in the national interest to ‘outdo’ the Russkies both technologically and ideologically.If for no other reason than to bluff them regarding US ballistics capabilities and the resulting deterrent effect of that.Not to mention domestic consumption.
But nobody disputes that the agenda was to outdo the Soviets. The dispute is as to whether they would be successfully outdone by a mere bluff!
4.Not withstanding any of the above it was in the interests of ‘both’ sides to divert the attentions of their respective populations and military machines into a peaceful rivalry wherever possible rather than fighting.On that note see 1.
No doubt. That’s why it was called the Cold War.
In which case 3 applied at the point when Kennedy kicked off the Space Race.But which even with all the might of the US industrial machine and know how was probably never going to be able to meet its mission statement.Whether Kennedy actually knew it or was gone from the scene before he could be told is open to question,but moot regardless.
Given the apparent evidence that it’s mission statement was met, on what grounds would you conclude that it was improbable that they could have done so?
And against the improbability of simply going to the moon, you think it is quite probable (again, despite all evidential themes to the contrary) that a bluff was pulled off (and is still being pulled off) on a scale totally unprecedented in human history?
And not for reasons of immediate military need, but as a mere ideological gambit whose blowback if discovered (whether from within or outside) would be thermonuclear in its effects on American society?
While 4 definitely applied by the point when the Russkies would/could possibly have been in a position to discredit the Apollo Moon missions.IE 1970 if not before.IE the Russians were ‘in with’ NASA by that point and certainly no longer rivals in Space for good reason.Just as Kennedy would have wanted it or maybe even intended from the start.IE a big diversionary publicity scam to stop the two rival sides from fighting. 
But if they were capable of such trusting collusion, why would they purport to be fighting in the first place? Why get dragged into spectacular conspiracies that could unleash uncontrollable forces, when you could simply fix the situation between yourselves? And why would the Soviets participate in a conspiracy that promoted the American system and discredited the Soviet system?
But I’m happy either way in understanding the bigger picture and the even more honourable motives as to why they would have rigged it if they did.So I don’t get Rjan’s position,as usual. 
