Apollo Investigation

Commentary on
Is There Any Hope for a Moon Base?

by Petros Evdokas

While reading the article, I kept wanting to say "Brilliant!" Also, during several passages of text I found myself wanting to laugh and shout the words "ALLEGED!", and "SUPPOSEDLY!" Not to counter the author, of course, but to joyfully join in with the spirit of revelation that the article fires up.

The author, Phil Kouts, does a great job of extracting with precision from official NASA reports the only reasonable conclusion – and this conclusion gushes forth repeatedly from each segment of the article: "the overall message of the latest NASA reports is that the technology for journeying to the Moon is not available."

What I found really interesting was reflecting on my own thought process as a reader. So far, most of the analysis and argumentation that I’ve studied related to the alleged Apollo "conquest" of the Moon, relies on evidence from the past. Photos, films, TV recordings, videos and news reports, etc. from the past are all analysed and we are brought to the conclusion that regardless of whether NASA astronauts actually went to the Moon or not, their "evidence" is mostly faked, staged. The reports accomplish that by cutting an anatomical cross-section into the record we have from the past. But Phil Kouts takes a totally different route and reveals ever more condemning realities by examining the present!

His review of NASA's and US Government's reports is really a cross-section into the official record of contemporary reality. It seems like a counter-intuitive route, but apparently by taking this indirect path of exploring the past through the eyes of the present.

The author has accomplished something extraordinary: he has confirmed beyond speculation NASA's own admission that the alleged technology that supposedly took those astronauts to the Moon does not exist; or if it exists it cannot be relied upon; it cannot be reproduced; it cannot be reverse-engineered; it cannot be retrofitted so as to be enabled to better handle new problems; and cannot even be used as a stepping stone to create "new, improved" versions. Because the whole thing is a lie.

Previous thinkers had gone along similar roads but somehow their approaches – even when absolutely correct – were never convincing. For example there were many who calculated and re-calculated the rocket fuel of the Apollo missions, and pointed out that it was not enough to do the job. Others have pointed out that the protection provided by the astronauts' suits on the Moon was too flimsy; that the thickness of the space capsules (CSM, LM) was not enough to protect the astronauts from the radiation of the Van Allen belts; etc.

NASA's apologists are always replying with things like "well, our engines had better fuel efficiency than is generally understood"; "oh, the astronauts received on the whole only about 2 rems of radiation, hardly worrisome"; and "we designed the flightpath to minimise the time spent in the Van Allen belts, plus we made the craft go through the thinnest areas of the belts, where radiation is weakest." Arguments like this are usually judged ("resolved") according to which side can muster up the most authoritarian posture, or spin its views in the most authoritative way.

But Phil Kouts bypasses all of that and lets NASA and the US Government argue against their own lies: when THEY say we have an unresolved problem in transportation, in radiation shielding, etc., then there is no other alternative: either they had already solved this problem 45 years ago, or they had not.

Skeptics might use the "lost technology" argument. It is verified in history that there were technologies known to humanity in the past which are no longer with us. Isn't NASA allowed to have "lost" some of its technologies?

Skeptics might refer to Greek Fire (also known as Liquid Fire), the weapon of the ancient Greeks and Byzantines, or to Roman Cement, as examples of lost technologies; these, no one disputes that they existed, and no one has access to them any longer. Are they truly lost expedition technologies?

In fact, there is a website that claims exactly that! Right here – it includes NASA's lost technology in the list of the "top ten": Top 10 Lost Technologies We Really Could Use Today. A part of me wants to point out the obvious, to state how RIDICULOUS this argument is! But then, this brings up the mind-blowing question… who am I talking to? If the bizarre is accepted as common sense, then the ridiculous is normal. For instance, this here illustrates a significant segment of the modern population: "20% of Republicans said they believed Obama is the Antichrist, while only 6 percent of Democrats agree."

If people are actually capable of believing that NASA, the largest section of the US military, the largest space program in the world, continuously in service and with billions in its budget has "lost” its Moon expedition technology, it is absolutely pointless to proceed in "proving" to such people that this is a fallacy.

If reality is what science seems to be revealing, i.e. that the Moon expedition was a fake, done only for reasons of propaganda aimed at a gullible humanity, then the statistics mentioned above (that fully one quarter of American voters believe that Obama is the Antichrist) are total proof that the propaganda machine did its job well because it understood the vulnerabilities and idiosyncrasies of its target audience.

But even though a large section of humanity is gullible, especially within the US, scientific exploration of reality persists and its findings are earth-shaking; the very premises upon which our perception of modern history are founded have been totally shattered. Regardless of whether the concept of "lost technologies” is propaganda or not, as Phil Kouts brilliantly points out, NASA itself admits that it is standing exactly at that point: behaving as if it has lost that technology, or as if the scientific and technical problems it had supposedly solved 45 years ago are now being considered by humanity for the first time.

It's not just in the Augustine Committee Report, but this admission is found everywhere in NASA's work. Here, they admit frankly that they don't know how to protect astronauts from radiation on the Moon: Radioactive Moon.

They're so desperate that they're even trying to invent the force-field stuff inspired by science fiction: A Force Field for Astronauts? They admit that the rocket engine thrust oscillation problem is unsolved, and they are still processing various options – you can see here that they're still at the stage of "plan A" and "plan B".

They are still wondering what to do about protecting astronauts in flight beyond the low-Earth orbit (LEO) limits:

"National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) astronauts on exploration missions of long duration beyond LEO (e.g., Mars) face exposures to ionizing radiation levels that may exceed those routinely received by terrestrial radiation workers, or even those faced by crews in near-Earth spacecraft, such as the Space Transport Shuttle (STS) and International Space Station (ISS).../...The acceptable levels of risk for space exploration beyond LEO have not been defined at this time and need to be dealt with before sending manned missions to the moon..."

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements

I would say this to our readers: you don't have to accept anybody's word; it's best if you research all this yourself in order to verify the fact that NASA has no clue about how to get to the Moon. Phil Kouts is absolutely right: if they supposedly solved all those problems 45 years ago, then these issues would no longer pose as obstacles in humanity’s quest for space travel. "Wouldn’t it be more productive", he writes, “to finally recognise that the Apollo manned missions to the Moon, allegedly completed four decades ago, did not happen?"


Petros Evdokas

Aulis Online, August 2014


creative commons
This article is licensed under
a Creative Commons License

NEXT Article next page

AULIS Online – Different Thinking