Talk:Apollo affair

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Experts Agree, Zionists do not

Most serious researchers who have written about this subject (Victor Gilinsky, Roger Mattson, Congressman Morris Udall, CIA director of operations Carl Duckett, CIA Tel Aviv Station Chief John Hadden) confirm there was an illegal diversion. Most Zionists, such as Zalman Shapiro, Israel's foreign agent law firm Arnold & Porter, and Israel lobbyists claim there was no evidence of diversion, despite eyewitness accounts.

Erasing contrary information is not going to win this one and cover up the Apollo Affair. Shalman Zapiro (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source you're relying on in restoring these claims to the article has been confirmed as unreliable. Find a reputable source to base your claims on, or else accept that they don't meet Wikipedia's quality standards and look for an alternative venue to publish your ideas.—Biosketch (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the source is the US govt GAO, which is reliable. I don't think it is realistic to suppose IRMEP is publishing a fake document. If you have doubts, the Federation of American Scientists also announced the publication of this Declassified GAO report.[1] Rwendland (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be more specific WP:RS says "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." In this case the author is the GAO, clearly a very reliable source, and there is no need for the publisher to be a RS provided we believe the report is authentic, which the Federation of American Scientists announcement backs up. Rwendland (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"no evidence of diversion"? So you want to wait until the proof for diversion comes in the form of a mushroom cloud, to borrow Bushes words? 213.136.77.237 (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations = Facts? Not!

Both this article and its external references contain nothing but hits and allegations. They lists all kinds of investigations which came up with no answers. That the FBI inestigated someone or some organization in the 1960s is hardly noteworthy; see FBI#Criticism. Also, J. Edgar Hoover was notoriously biased, and misused the Burueau, as the article about him notes. “He is known to have investigated individuals and groups because of their political beliefs rather than their suspected criminal activity, as well as using the FBI for other illegal activities, such as burglaries and illegal wiretaps.”

Other than adding a few "alleged" remarks in the text, I don't know how else to make it clear that this article seems a case of innuendo - implying something that cannot be actually stated because it is not true. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 16:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up a minor point - the missing uranium was not alleged. The allegation is over who may or may not have taken the missing uranium. Cheers. ← George^[talk] 20:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You really didn't 'clean up' anything. The fact of the matter is that there was no diversion of material to Israel or anywhere else...but there was a diversion...a diversion of attention from what happened at NUMEC...PROCESS LOSSES! You cannot prove a lie and the lie to have everyone chasing their tail was the diversion to Israel theory. That was promoted to help protect the company NUMEC from the potential of the 'DOUBLE L': LIABILITY & LITIGATION! The liability would have put the government in an uncomfortable position for a few reasons. First, it needed NUMEC to produce a product for the Cold War. Second, the Government was not only the customer, but the Regulator, and they did an awful job with that. But they did manage to learn alot of what the effects of low-level ionizing radiation would do to a population thanks to the unwitting participants of the people of Apollo, Pa. The cancers rates in and around the Apollo area are extremely high. As for the missing material...that continued to show on the books at NUMEC long after the NUMEC was sold to Atlantic Richfield and then to Babcock & Wilcox. Process losses that went into the river, up the 124 stacks and all over the people of the town of Apollo, Pa. Every processing facility like Kerr-McGee, Westinghouse, etc., had huge process losses...Westinghouse had over 1200 lbs. And to finally correct you, the total amount lost at the Apollo NUMEC facility was an approximate 1000 lbs of both highly enriched uranium and plutonium. Finally, what Israel was interested in during the early 60's was the technology of the production...they could get their Uranium from Africa or France...or even the United States maybe in a finished product called 'Project Pluto'.---Patty A. born across the street from the Apollo plant and having been through approximately 3 million of documents related to the facility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.59.232 (talk) 05:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In 1966 as a U.S. Atomic Energy Branch Chief I was interviewed by the FBI re my knowledge of Zal Shapiro, NUMECs financial condition, and possible ways that enriched material might have been diverted to Israel. At the time the agents appeared very interested in the fact that NUMEC had shipped two isotopic fueled weather stations for use in the Israeli desert and their potential use to transport radioactive material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.81.58.216 (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Apollo Affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927094240/http://www.lrp.usace.army.mil/fusrap/slda.htm to http://www.lrp.usace.army.mil/fusrap/slda.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]