Rob, I have used a different font to clarify my responses embedded below.Gary Shelton--------------------------------------------------------------------------------In response to Gary's post. "The story I always heard was they left on July 16, 1969 in 1st Quarter phase of the moon, and splashed down some eight days later. Forgetting the radiation show-stopper for this essay, the other facts I heard as a kid when they would invariably and irritatingly interrupt my cartoons (I'm 44 now) were that the craft travelled at 20,000 mph and they took 84 hours to get to the moon and another 84 hours to get back. " Not quite. The Apollo Spacecraft didn't travel at a continuous speed the whole time, as it left the Earth at the beginning of the translunar coast, the speed was about 24,300 mph, but the Earth's gravity worked on it after that to slow it down even as it travelled outwards. By the time it got to 210,000 miles out from the Earth, Apollo has slowed to 2,000mph, but then the Moon's gravity started to make it's presence felt and the spacecraft began to accelerate towards the Moon. By the time it was ready to go into Lunar orbit, the speed had reached 5600mph relative to the Moon, the burn into Lunar Orbit then slowed it again to a 3600 mph lunar orbit. "BUT HOW? 1st Quarter phase means (in the h-people world) that the moon is exactly trailing the earth in the earth's orbit around the sun and therefore travelling through space at the same or similar 66,000 mph as the earth does around the sun. This means that as Apollo 11 left the earth for the moon at 20,000 mph, the moon was simultaneously coming to them at 66,000 mph." No it wasn't. You haven't understood the relative velocities here. The Moon is orbiting the Earth at a tangential velocity of 2300 mph, and the combined system is orbiting the Sun at 66,000 mph relative to the Sun. The Moon does have a slight variation in it's orbit round the Earth, so it does approach and recede from the Earth as it orbits, but it approaches and recedes at quite slow speeds, nothing like 66,000 mph. That is the speed that the combined system is going round the Sun.Rob, can you please explain how you can simultaneously state that this earth-moon binarysystem you propose can be moving at 66,000 mph around the sun, yet incredulously, the moon is not moving at that same 66,000 mph?I have claimed that the moon, for h-people, is trailing the earth in the earth's orbit during the time of 1st quarter. And that if so, assuming the moonspeed of 66,000 mph, then itfollows that in about 4 hours the moon will have traversed the 250,000 mile distance tothe earth, and occupy the same space that the earth previously did. Therefore, anythingleaving the earth in 1st Quarter and heading toward the moon would merely have to wait and the moon would simply greet it in 4 hours. Rob, if you do concur the moon moves at 66,000 mph (which you half seem to), how does it not work the way I have just described? (Strictly speaking, the Moon is not orbiting the Earth. The Moon is quite a big body, and in fact the Earth and Moon jointly rotate round a point in between called the Barycenter. However this is only a couple of thousand miles from the centre of the Earth.)If you believe this, Rob, then what in the world are you doing on this geocentric mailing list? The notion that the earth spins about an axis at its core is ridiculous enough. To add this "Barycenter" as a second"axis" for the earth to spin around a mere "couple of thousand miles from the centre of the Earth" is flat-out preposterous. This means that, on our 4000 mile radius earth, there are two centers within our own globe that we simultaneously, somehow, turn around. "This combined speed was 86,000 mph. And the distance separating the moon and the earth is taught to us at about 250,000 miles. So I ask again: How did it take 84 hours to get to the moon? It should have only taken 4 hours. What were the astronauts doing all these extra 80 hours? This is a puzzle, is it not?" No, for the reasons given above. The Moon was never approaching the Apollo spacecraft at anything like that speed.Again, Rob, how can the moon NOT be going 66,000 mph under your version of heliocentricity when theearth-moon system you back is going that rate? "Still, a bigger puzzle occurs for the return trip. The moon is moving between 1st Quarter and Full Phases now, and the major factual change is that the destination object, the earth, is no longer coming at the astronauts as the moon was originally. It is in fact moving away from them. At the very most generous, one might say the earth and moon were moving parallel to each other at this time, as they would during Full Phase. But the earth is clearly not heading toward the returning astronauts. (Keep in mind I am using a simple circular path of the moon around the earth as my basis for this hypothesis.) " For the same reasons given above, the Moon was not 'coming at' the spacecraft origininally in the sense you meant, i.e. at 66,000 mph. I think you have the idea that when the Moon is waxing, it is coming nearer the Earth, and when it's waning,it is receding from the Earth. It isn't. If it was, you'd see it getting bigger in the sky!Rob, I have no such misunderstanding. "So, the question is thus: How does it take the same amount of time for the return trip as it did to reach the moon? There are very different factors to take into account if you are a heliocentrist." No they are not. The factors you speak of are a result of your not understanding relative speeds.You know, the trouble with what we are discussing here is that we are trying to prove a "negative". We're trying to iron out facts in a worldview that simply does not exist. The earth doesn't move anyway, so all this claptrap about "relative speeds" is just that, a lot of nonsense. Nonetheless, if you say that the moon is moving at 66,000 mph, then that is absolute, not relative. If you sayit is only moving at 2300 mph in some kind of closed loop orbit about the earth, or in some kind of far-fetched binary relationship, then that is what I assume you mean by "relative". The trouble comes in when you state that the moon is moving at 2300 mph relative to the earth, and simultaneously at 66,000 mph with the earth around the sun, yet you fail to see the moon will occupy the same space the earth occupies 4 hours later in 1st quarter phase under heliocentricity. For if it does, then my point that the moon "comes at" the astronauts of Apollo 11 in 4 hours is validated."It is almost laughable to think that the astronauts could have left the surface of the moon travelling at a puny 20,000 mph and trying to catch an earth moving at 66,000 away from them. Wouldn't this be akin to a fast runner trying to catch a faster moving car, that is already going highway speed and is already twelve hours' distant from the runner when the runner takes off? How does this runner catch the car? Likewise, how did the astronauts catch the earth? Was it the "Slingshot Method"?" The Apollo spacecraft did not leave the Moon at 20,000 mph. The Transearth injection maneuver increased the spacecraft speed to 5,500 mph approaching the Earth. As it drew nearer the Earth, the Earth's gravity pulled on it to increase the speed of Apollo until by th time it hit the top of the atmosphere, it was travelling at 25,000 mph. I strongly recommend you get a basic book about space exploration, your understanding of how Apollo got to the Moon and back is very flawed.Rob, I admit I do not know the entire flight schedule of Apollo 11. But any speed they flew at less than the maximumonly serves to make my point even stronger. Moreover, I don't want to bog myself down with the phony details of"how Apollo got to the Moon and back". It was a complete lie and never happened anyway. The same as the fact that we have been taught that the earth rotates and revolves. Junk and more junk. "I believe the simple truth is that we never went to the moon with Apollo. " If this is your only reason, it is a false one. Try another.Well, Rob, it isn't my only reason, but I don't feel you have proven your contention that this one is false anyway. Still, the photographic evidence provided by Percy, et.al. in "Dark Moon" should convince anybody about the moon hoax, regardless what I say. Plus, there is the "show stopper" called radiation. Gary Shelton Regards, Rob.