This source again? Everything there is based from one man's opinion. Lets see what else Jay Windley says now show we? in a desperate attempt to explain why there should be no molten dust under the LM, Windley claims: "We collected some desert rocks and dust and heated them with an oxy-acetylene torch (5,700 F) for five minutes. They did not melt, and they were only slightly discolored." (http://www.clavius.org/techcrater.html) Really? I would love to hear from geogolists about this. Someone who makes a statement like that should never ever being used as a reliable source.

Jarrah White also contacted Rocketdyne (which is included in one of my censored posts, but what else would you expect?). And unlike Jay Windley, Jarrah actually shows us their answer:

"Thank you for your interest in Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne. In answer to your question, I can only offer a generic answer to how a Service Engineer was defined during the time period in question. A Service Engineer would have provided technical support for actions like equipment processing, transportation, installation, check-out, and for the launch itself. This would have been either when the product was in the field ready for use or during analysis prior to delivery to the customer." - Bryan Kidder; Rocketdyne, Communications Director."

So much for "Kaysing was not technically qualified" which the article wrongly claims.

The fact that i need to repeat all of these already posted censored facts is laughable, but thats what wikipedia has become. So at the end of the day, who should we trust? a self proven, caught liar? or Rocketdyne themselfs?
91.145.38.53