| FEATURE ARTICLE |
| DID MAN EVER SET FOOT ON THE MOON? |
| By Matt Ravenhouk |
You may be surprised to discover that there are a great many people in the scientific community who seriously doubt that man has ever
travelled to the moon. As a matter of fact, Neil Armstrong for 36 years, never stated publicly that he did, in fact, go to the moon. There
were a few times when he was asked frankly whether he did or not. Armstrong's response was to become furious, almost to the point of
getting into a fistfight with the person asking the question. That seems rather strange, in view of Armstrong's training, as well as his
military career.
It isn't as if Armstrong has lived in a vacuum all of his life. Virtually all of his adult life was spent in the public eye. Astronauts are public
figures, and as such, much of their training is spent in the field of public relations. They know very well that they are subject to being asked
questions that are unexpected, and often off-the-wall.
Astronauts and military officers are not chosen because they are Pollyannas. They know all too well that the American Public has been
lied to many times in the past. They have been lied to by bureaucrats, candidates for public office, Congressmen, Senators, Secretaries
of State, Vice Presidents, and yes, even Presidents. The point is this: Armstrong knows very well that no one is above lying to the
American People, and the news reporters know that also, and will ask embarrassing questions from time to time. What makes Armstrong
think that he is above the President of the United States in stature, and that no one has the right to question him? Or does he have
something to hide?
Such a hoax as a faked trip to the moon is entirely within the realm of possibility. Those who do not believe that man has travelled to the
moon offer some very strong evidence to support their allegations. Anything that can be filmed or televised can be faked. The photos of
the astronauts, which were supposedly taken on the moon have been proven to be fakes. They were staged photos, taken on a theatrical
sound stage. After years of denial, NASA finally admitted that the photos were staged fakes, and said that it was because of poor quality
originals, supposedly taken on the moon. Why did they lie for so many years about those photographs?
All photographs that allegedly come from outer space are artificially enhanced by computers. That means that they are deliberately
manipulated and recomposed by humans. Anyone with a copy of Adobe Photoshop knows how to manipulate and "enhance"
photographs. The tabloid newspapers that we see on the aisles of the supermarket check-out stands do it all the time. But even before
the age of digital photography, people were making "composite photographs" in the darkroom on a regular basis. The quality of their
work was very good. Artificially produced photo images are not a new thing: They've been around since the invention of photography.
But there are scientific obstacles to space travel, none of which have been addressed by NASA. When directly asked about those
obstacles, NASA obfuscates the issue, circumvents the question, and rattles off double-talk and nonsensical jargon which means nothing
at all. The largest obstacle to space travel is the Van Allen belts. One of the major discoveries made by unmanned space probes in 1958
was information leading to the discovery of two huge belts of extremely intense radiation that encircle the earth.
The belts are doughnut shaped. The inner belt is made up of high energy protons; the outer belt, of high energy electrons and other
particles. The belts are part of the magnetosphere, the tear shaped magnetic region around the earth. The band start at an altitude of
several hundred miles above the earth, and extend for several thousand miles into space. These radiation belts were named for James
A. Van Allen, whose work helped bring about their discovery. In 1993, a third belt, enclosed by the inner belt was discovered by other
scientists. The new belt contains ions of oxygen, nitrogen, and neon.
Make no mistake: the radiation in the Van Allen Belts is extremely intense. The usual space shuttle flight is limited to somewhere in the
neighborhood of 150 miles out in space. But on one particular space shuttle flight, the astronauts travelled more than 300 miles out. They
had not reached the Van Allen belt, but after just a few hours out, the astronauts had to drop back closer to the earth. The reason is that
the astronauts began to panic, as the radiation from those belts began to affect their eyesight, even with protective goggles. It was so
intense, that even with their eyes closed, the astronauts could see the radiation through their eyelids. It was as if a bright light were being
shone directly in their faces. With their eyes closed, they could actually see the radiation waves dancing across space, and could feel
tingling sensations on their skin.
NASA has never explained how the manned moon missions were protected from this intense radiation. Not only is that level of radiation
invariably fatal to all living beings, but also to electronic devices, and photographic equipment as well.
Although there is not complete agreement on how much of a particular kind of radiation is harmful, two standards are commonly used: the
rad, and the rem. A rad is the measure of the amount of ionizing radiation absorbed by living tissues. Exposure to 800 or more rads is
fatal to all humans. Exposure to 450 rads causes the deaths of roughly half of the people exposed. A few people cannot even survive
exposure to 200 rads. At doses of 50 rads or less there are no immediate outward signs of illness, but some parts of the body such as
cell tissue vital to sexual reproduction are genetically damaged.
A rem is the amount of radiation necessary to cause the same biological effect in humans as one rad of X rays. Most people are thought
to receive about 0.3 rems of natural radiation each year. The United States Government has set a standard of 5 rems per year as the
most that employees of industries using radiation should receive before tissue damage passes beyond acceptable levels.
Protection from most kinds of radiation is possible, though a method of protection from one kind of radiation may not be effective for
another. The density and thickness of the protective layers are the crucial factors.
Eugene N. Parker is the undisputed leading expert on interplanetary gas and magnetic fields. Parker is an emeritus professor at the
University of Chicago, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. He has received numerous prizes, including the U.S.
National Medal of Science, the Henry Norris Russell Lectureship of the American Astronomical Society, and the Kyoto Prize in Basic
Sciences. Parker developed the modern theory of the solar magnetic field, including magnetic reconnection. His hypothesizing and
explaining the solar wind earned him world wide acclaim in 1958. Here is what he wrote in the March, 2006 edition of the Scientific
American:
"in low earth orbit, the astronauts aboard the space shuttle receive doses of 10 rems. That's enough to damage human reproductive cell
tissue. The dosage on the lunar surface ranges between 7-12 rems, slightly higher than that of low earth orbit. In interplanetary space the
level is 13-25 rems, and in interstellar space the dosage is increased to 30-70 rems. Exposure to those levels of cosmic radiation for a
period of several days would make a person very sick, and would probably cause cancer, cataracts, and brain damage. But in between
low earth orbit and the lunar surface are the dreaded Van Allen belts, which deliver a whopping 1,500 rems --- double the dosage
required to kill humans outright.
If 800 rems is fatal to all humans, and 450 rems is fatal to half of those exposed, and some cannot even tolerate a paltry 200 rems, then
we have every right to ask the following question: How was it possible for Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldren to survive continuous exposure
to 1,500 rems of cosmic radiation over a sustained period of several days? That is a perfectly fair question, and it has never even been
addressed, let alone answered by anyone at NASA.
The density and thickness of the protective shielding is crucial. It isn't simply a matter of a dentist painting his walls with lead paint, or the
X ray tech at the hospital putting on a lead flak jacket."
Here is what Eugene N. Parker said would be required to shield astronauts from fatal doses of cosmic radiation:
"To survive the journey through the Van Allen Belts, the spacecraft would have to have a spherical shell of water or plastic surrounding the
craft. That shell of water or plastic would have to have a mass of at least 400 tons, which is far beyond the capacity of heavy-lift rockets. A
superconducting magnet would repel cosmic particles, but it would have to weigh at least 9 tons, which is still beyond the capacity of
heavy-lift rockets. No only that, but the magnet itself would pose sever health risks to the astronauts. "
Parker went on to say that no other proposed scheme of radiation shielding is even vaguely realistic. Needless to say, the Apollo
spacecraft had no such shielding from cosmic radiation. But that's not all.
The sun also periodically releases tremendous bursts of protons and heavier nuclei, which travel at nearly the speed of light. These solar
bursts are totally unpredictable, and occasionally deliver a couple of hundred rem over an hour or so --- A lethal dose to any unshielded
astronaut.
It is important to remember that the man who made these statements is not some bum that fell off of a watermelon truck and wandered
into town: He is Eugene N. Parker, winner of the U.S. National Medal of Science.
And then those utterly scornful men at Jet Propulsion Laboratories, Inc. had the unmitigated gall to tell the world that they had landed a
rocket on Mars in the late 1990s. The ever-gullible public sat enthralled as JPL broadcast pictures of the so-called Martian landscape
over the television airwaves. What absolute rubbish! Those photographs came directly from Golden Valley, Arizona, which is located
about 100 miles South of Las Vegas, Nevada. All of the locals recognized those photos right away: even the Las Vegas radio
disk-jockeys commented on that fiasco. Anyone who has ever crossed the river from Laughlin, Nevada to Bullhead City, Arizona has
seen that scenery which JPL presented as being Martian.
But the clincher came when JPL presented an animated video depicting the supposed landing of that craft on the red planet. The video
showed the landing module being dropped from an altitude of 200 miles above the planet. It was encased in an inflatable balloon, and
when it supposedly hit the surface, it bounced about a mile in the air. It continued to bounce about fifty more times. And then they showed
the land rover crawling out from under the inflatable wrapper, and immediately sending pictures back to earth. Anyone who believes that
preposterous garbage belongs in a lunatic asylum!
The folks at JPL are notoriously cheap when it comes to spending money on projects that they are paid to develop. Witness the fact that
the Hubble Telescope only has an IBM486 computer installed on it. The Martian probe may have had a Pentium installed, and that's what
makes the entire debacle downright laughable. Any housewife with a home computer knows what a pain in the butt computers can be.
Even the newer multi-gigahertz processors will crash at the most inconvenient times, prompting a flood of curses from the owner.
Apple Macintosh computers are the most reliable, but the Government doesn't use them. They use Windows instead --- which is a joke!
But even if they used UNIX, the probability of an unexpected crash is inevitable. We challenge any computer owner to pick up their
computer and drop it from a height four to six feet. Do that only three times, and then plug it in and see if it works. Now imagine that
computer being dropped from 200 miles high, even with an inflatable balloon around it. What do you suppose the chances are of that
computer functioning at all after such abuse? There is no way that those Bozos at JPL did what they said they did. They may have done it
in virtual reality, in a simulated computer program, but never did they do it in the real world, in real time.
The wizards at Intel, Texas Instruments, Dell, and Motorola cannot even invent a cell phone that is guaranteed never to have a signal drop
off. Bill Gates cannot even come up with an operating system that will function reliably for more than six weeks without crashing, or being
infected by some virus or worm. Why can't the folks at Microsoft come up with a virus-proof operating system? You would imagine that
programmers could program an internet browser to only execute commands which come directly from the computer's keyboard --- Or is
that to simple of a solution? We invite the reader to go out and spend $200 on a high-tech radio, and then try to listen to a 50,000 radio
staion from fifty miles away without experiencing periodic fade outs. Our whole point is that no electronic or mechanical device on planet
earth ever works the way it is supposed to work, 100% of the time.
Sooner or later your computer will crash; your car will take a big dump on you; your cell phone will drop off, your toilet will back up into your
bath tub; the pay-at-the-pump computer will reuse to accept your debit card; your Blu-Ray will skip; the zipper on your favorite jacket will
come apart, your roof will leak, and so will your radiator. Your motorcycle will die; the bulb in your flashlight will burn out; the washing
machine will flood your floor; your boat will sink, and your car's computer chip will fry, leaving you stranded in traffic on the freeway.
Nothing is perfect, and nothing on earth is completely reliable. Nothing, not even Everclear alcohol is 100% pure. Nothing is flawless, not
even a diamond. Nothing is quite what it seems, particularly where people are concerned. Everyone tells lies, at least some of the time,
and everyone eventually betrays a trust.
But when it comes to space travel involving highly complex equipment, and hundreds of millions of miles of distance, everything has to be
perfect. There is absolutely no room for error, or malfunction. Human lives are at stake, as well as millions, if not billions of dollars, not to
mention years of development. America has had relatively few deaths related to its space program, and those deaths which occurred
happened either on the ground, or in launching or landing the space shuttle. Why do you suppose that the Russians gave up on going to
the moon? The reason is that unlike the USA, they did actually try, and suffered many deaths among their cosmonauts. Remember that
the Russians were far ahead of the USA in their space program. They launched the first satellite into space. But through many deaths of
their cosmonauts, they realized that their was no way to get out into space more than 150 miles, and survive. They knew that cosmic
radiation was killing the dogs and other animals they sent up into space, and when their cosmonauts started arriving back on earth in a
non-living condition, they realized how futile their efforts were.
The USA knew very well what was happening in the Russian space program. But their vanity and lust for first place, coupled with their loss
of face in the launching of Sputnik, drove their efforts toward deception, rather than achievement. The Russians aren't dumb: They know
very well that we never went to the moon, and that is why they gave up trying. The Russians are still way ahead of us in Space travel.
Remember that it is the unmanned Russian Soyuz Space vehicles that have had to bail out many an astronaut, while our outdated,
pathetic shuttles remained grounded time after time due to mechanical failures, or to adverse weather conditions. If we cannot function in
earthly wind and rain, how can we hope to survive solar winds, solar bursts, or the Van Allen Belts?
Until NASA comes forth with detailed, accurate information as to how the astronauts were shielded from cosmic radiation, we have no
other choice than utter disbelief.
travelled to the moon. As a matter of fact, Neil Armstrong for 36 years, never stated publicly that he did, in fact, go to the moon. There
were a few times when he was asked frankly whether he did or not. Armstrong's response was to become furious, almost to the point of
getting into a fistfight with the person asking the question. That seems rather strange, in view of Armstrong's training, as well as his
military career.
It isn't as if Armstrong has lived in a vacuum all of his life. Virtually all of his adult life was spent in the public eye. Astronauts are public
figures, and as such, much of their training is spent in the field of public relations. They know very well that they are subject to being asked
questions that are unexpected, and often off-the-wall.
Astronauts and military officers are not chosen because they are Pollyannas. They know all too well that the American Public has been
lied to many times in the past. They have been lied to by bureaucrats, candidates for public office, Congressmen, Senators, Secretaries
of State, Vice Presidents, and yes, even Presidents. The point is this: Armstrong knows very well that no one is above lying to the
American People, and the news reporters know that also, and will ask embarrassing questions from time to time. What makes Armstrong
think that he is above the President of the United States in stature, and that no one has the right to question him? Or does he have
something to hide?
Such a hoax as a faked trip to the moon is entirely within the realm of possibility. Those who do not believe that man has travelled to the
moon offer some very strong evidence to support their allegations. Anything that can be filmed or televised can be faked. The photos of
the astronauts, which were supposedly taken on the moon have been proven to be fakes. They were staged photos, taken on a theatrical
sound stage. After years of denial, NASA finally admitted that the photos were staged fakes, and said that it was because of poor quality
originals, supposedly taken on the moon. Why did they lie for so many years about those photographs?
All photographs that allegedly come from outer space are artificially enhanced by computers. That means that they are deliberately
manipulated and recomposed by humans. Anyone with a copy of Adobe Photoshop knows how to manipulate and "enhance"
photographs. The tabloid newspapers that we see on the aisles of the supermarket check-out stands do it all the time. But even before
the age of digital photography, people were making "composite photographs" in the darkroom on a regular basis. The quality of their
work was very good. Artificially produced photo images are not a new thing: They've been around since the invention of photography.
But there are scientific obstacles to space travel, none of which have been addressed by NASA. When directly asked about those
obstacles, NASA obfuscates the issue, circumvents the question, and rattles off double-talk and nonsensical jargon which means nothing
at all. The largest obstacle to space travel is the Van Allen belts. One of the major discoveries made by unmanned space probes in 1958
was information leading to the discovery of two huge belts of extremely intense radiation that encircle the earth.
The belts are doughnut shaped. The inner belt is made up of high energy protons; the outer belt, of high energy electrons and other
particles. The belts are part of the magnetosphere, the tear shaped magnetic region around the earth. The band start at an altitude of
several hundred miles above the earth, and extend for several thousand miles into space. These radiation belts were named for James
A. Van Allen, whose work helped bring about their discovery. In 1993, a third belt, enclosed by the inner belt was discovered by other
scientists. The new belt contains ions of oxygen, nitrogen, and neon.
Make no mistake: the radiation in the Van Allen Belts is extremely intense. The usual space shuttle flight is limited to somewhere in the
neighborhood of 150 miles out in space. But on one particular space shuttle flight, the astronauts travelled more than 300 miles out. They
had not reached the Van Allen belt, but after just a few hours out, the astronauts had to drop back closer to the earth. The reason is that
the astronauts began to panic, as the radiation from those belts began to affect their eyesight, even with protective goggles. It was so
intense, that even with their eyes closed, the astronauts could see the radiation through their eyelids. It was as if a bright light were being
shone directly in their faces. With their eyes closed, they could actually see the radiation waves dancing across space, and could feel
tingling sensations on their skin.
NASA has never explained how the manned moon missions were protected from this intense radiation. Not only is that level of radiation
invariably fatal to all living beings, but also to electronic devices, and photographic equipment as well.
Although there is not complete agreement on how much of a particular kind of radiation is harmful, two standards are commonly used: the
rad, and the rem. A rad is the measure of the amount of ionizing radiation absorbed by living tissues. Exposure to 800 or more rads is
fatal to all humans. Exposure to 450 rads causes the deaths of roughly half of the people exposed. A few people cannot even survive
exposure to 200 rads. At doses of 50 rads or less there are no immediate outward signs of illness, but some parts of the body such as
cell tissue vital to sexual reproduction are genetically damaged.
A rem is the amount of radiation necessary to cause the same biological effect in humans as one rad of X rays. Most people are thought
to receive about 0.3 rems of natural radiation each year. The United States Government has set a standard of 5 rems per year as the
most that employees of industries using radiation should receive before tissue damage passes beyond acceptable levels.
Protection from most kinds of radiation is possible, though a method of protection from one kind of radiation may not be effective for
another. The density and thickness of the protective layers are the crucial factors.
Eugene N. Parker is the undisputed leading expert on interplanetary gas and magnetic fields. Parker is an emeritus professor at the
University of Chicago, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. He has received numerous prizes, including the U.S.
National Medal of Science, the Henry Norris Russell Lectureship of the American Astronomical Society, and the Kyoto Prize in Basic
Sciences. Parker developed the modern theory of the solar magnetic field, including magnetic reconnection. His hypothesizing and
explaining the solar wind earned him world wide acclaim in 1958. Here is what he wrote in the March, 2006 edition of the Scientific
American:
"in low earth orbit, the astronauts aboard the space shuttle receive doses of 10 rems. That's enough to damage human reproductive cell
tissue. The dosage on the lunar surface ranges between 7-12 rems, slightly higher than that of low earth orbit. In interplanetary space the
level is 13-25 rems, and in interstellar space the dosage is increased to 30-70 rems. Exposure to those levels of cosmic radiation for a
period of several days would make a person very sick, and would probably cause cancer, cataracts, and brain damage. But in between
low earth orbit and the lunar surface are the dreaded Van Allen belts, which deliver a whopping 1,500 rems --- double the dosage
required to kill humans outright.
If 800 rems is fatal to all humans, and 450 rems is fatal to half of those exposed, and some cannot even tolerate a paltry 200 rems, then
we have every right to ask the following question: How was it possible for Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldren to survive continuous exposure
to 1,500 rems of cosmic radiation over a sustained period of several days? That is a perfectly fair question, and it has never even been
addressed, let alone answered by anyone at NASA.
The density and thickness of the protective shielding is crucial. It isn't simply a matter of a dentist painting his walls with lead paint, or the
X ray tech at the hospital putting on a lead flak jacket."
Here is what Eugene N. Parker said would be required to shield astronauts from fatal doses of cosmic radiation:
"To survive the journey through the Van Allen Belts, the spacecraft would have to have a spherical shell of water or plastic surrounding the
craft. That shell of water or plastic would have to have a mass of at least 400 tons, which is far beyond the capacity of heavy-lift rockets. A
superconducting magnet would repel cosmic particles, but it would have to weigh at least 9 tons, which is still beyond the capacity of
heavy-lift rockets. No only that, but the magnet itself would pose sever health risks to the astronauts. "
Parker went on to say that no other proposed scheme of radiation shielding is even vaguely realistic. Needless to say, the Apollo
spacecraft had no such shielding from cosmic radiation. But that's not all.
The sun also periodically releases tremendous bursts of protons and heavier nuclei, which travel at nearly the speed of light. These solar
bursts are totally unpredictable, and occasionally deliver a couple of hundred rem over an hour or so --- A lethal dose to any unshielded
astronaut.
It is important to remember that the man who made these statements is not some bum that fell off of a watermelon truck and wandered
into town: He is Eugene N. Parker, winner of the U.S. National Medal of Science.
And then those utterly scornful men at Jet Propulsion Laboratories, Inc. had the unmitigated gall to tell the world that they had landed a
rocket on Mars in the late 1990s. The ever-gullible public sat enthralled as JPL broadcast pictures of the so-called Martian landscape
over the television airwaves. What absolute rubbish! Those photographs came directly from Golden Valley, Arizona, which is located
about 100 miles South of Las Vegas, Nevada. All of the locals recognized those photos right away: even the Las Vegas radio
disk-jockeys commented on that fiasco. Anyone who has ever crossed the river from Laughlin, Nevada to Bullhead City, Arizona has
seen that scenery which JPL presented as being Martian.
But the clincher came when JPL presented an animated video depicting the supposed landing of that craft on the red planet. The video
showed the landing module being dropped from an altitude of 200 miles above the planet. It was encased in an inflatable balloon, and
when it supposedly hit the surface, it bounced about a mile in the air. It continued to bounce about fifty more times. And then they showed
the land rover crawling out from under the inflatable wrapper, and immediately sending pictures back to earth. Anyone who believes that
preposterous garbage belongs in a lunatic asylum!
The folks at JPL are notoriously cheap when it comes to spending money on projects that they are paid to develop. Witness the fact that
the Hubble Telescope only has an IBM486 computer installed on it. The Martian probe may have had a Pentium installed, and that's what
makes the entire debacle downright laughable. Any housewife with a home computer knows what a pain in the butt computers can be.
Even the newer multi-gigahertz processors will crash at the most inconvenient times, prompting a flood of curses from the owner.
Apple Macintosh computers are the most reliable, but the Government doesn't use them. They use Windows instead --- which is a joke!
But even if they used UNIX, the probability of an unexpected crash is inevitable. We challenge any computer owner to pick up their
computer and drop it from a height four to six feet. Do that only three times, and then plug it in and see if it works. Now imagine that
computer being dropped from 200 miles high, even with an inflatable balloon around it. What do you suppose the chances are of that
computer functioning at all after such abuse? There is no way that those Bozos at JPL did what they said they did. They may have done it
in virtual reality, in a simulated computer program, but never did they do it in the real world, in real time.
The wizards at Intel, Texas Instruments, Dell, and Motorola cannot even invent a cell phone that is guaranteed never to have a signal drop
off. Bill Gates cannot even come up with an operating system that will function reliably for more than six weeks without crashing, or being
infected by some virus or worm. Why can't the folks at Microsoft come up with a virus-proof operating system? You would imagine that
programmers could program an internet browser to only execute commands which come directly from the computer's keyboard --- Or is
that to simple of a solution? We invite the reader to go out and spend $200 on a high-tech radio, and then try to listen to a 50,000 radio
staion from fifty miles away without experiencing periodic fade outs. Our whole point is that no electronic or mechanical device on planet
earth ever works the way it is supposed to work, 100% of the time.
Sooner or later your computer will crash; your car will take a big dump on you; your cell phone will drop off, your toilet will back up into your
bath tub; the pay-at-the-pump computer will reuse to accept your debit card; your Blu-Ray will skip; the zipper on your favorite jacket will
come apart, your roof will leak, and so will your radiator. Your motorcycle will die; the bulb in your flashlight will burn out; the washing
machine will flood your floor; your boat will sink, and your car's computer chip will fry, leaving you stranded in traffic on the freeway.
Nothing is perfect, and nothing on earth is completely reliable. Nothing, not even Everclear alcohol is 100% pure. Nothing is flawless, not
even a diamond. Nothing is quite what it seems, particularly where people are concerned. Everyone tells lies, at least some of the time,
and everyone eventually betrays a trust.
But when it comes to space travel involving highly complex equipment, and hundreds of millions of miles of distance, everything has to be
perfect. There is absolutely no room for error, or malfunction. Human lives are at stake, as well as millions, if not billions of dollars, not to
mention years of development. America has had relatively few deaths related to its space program, and those deaths which occurred
happened either on the ground, or in launching or landing the space shuttle. Why do you suppose that the Russians gave up on going to
the moon? The reason is that unlike the USA, they did actually try, and suffered many deaths among their cosmonauts. Remember that
the Russians were far ahead of the USA in their space program. They launched the first satellite into space. But through many deaths of
their cosmonauts, they realized that their was no way to get out into space more than 150 miles, and survive. They knew that cosmic
radiation was killing the dogs and other animals they sent up into space, and when their cosmonauts started arriving back on earth in a
non-living condition, they realized how futile their efforts were.
The USA knew very well what was happening in the Russian space program. But their vanity and lust for first place, coupled with their loss
of face in the launching of Sputnik, drove their efforts toward deception, rather than achievement. The Russians aren't dumb: They know
very well that we never went to the moon, and that is why they gave up trying. The Russians are still way ahead of us in Space travel.
Remember that it is the unmanned Russian Soyuz Space vehicles that have had to bail out many an astronaut, while our outdated,
pathetic shuttles remained grounded time after time due to mechanical failures, or to adverse weather conditions. If we cannot function in
earthly wind and rain, how can we hope to survive solar winds, solar bursts, or the Van Allen Belts?
Until NASA comes forth with detailed, accurate information as to how the astronauts were shielded from cosmic radiation, we have no
other choice than utter disbelief.