Thanks for the detailed response. I don’t doubt that your experience in physics and programming in the '60s and '70s gave you insight into the technology of the time. But respectfully, that was over 50 years ago. Technology has drastically changed, and so has access to information. What was accepted back then as fact is now being rightfully questioned — and in many cases, debunked — by experts with far more access, tools, and transparency than those working under government contracts in the Cold War era.
You speak with confidence, but confidence doesn’t equal truth. Much of what you’ve presented comes from the same institutions that have a vested interest in upholding their version of events. That’s not a conspiracy theory — it’s basic logic. Governments and agencies like NASA have repeatedly been caught fabricating or withholding information.
You assume I base my view on “conspiracy websites,” but in truth, many of my views have come from qualified engineers, pilots, ex-military professionals, and even former NASA employees who now question the official story. What they reveal aligns with logic — not blind trust.
Now let’s talk about the Van Allen belts. You say the spacecraft “carefully avoided” the most dangerous parts. That’s a convenient explanation, but it doesn’t hold up when you look at the sheer radiation levels recorded. Modern space agencies still say it’s a serious challenge — yet somehow, with 1960s tech and no advanced shielding, they breezed through it multiple times? Even today, NASA engineers openly admit that we haven’t yet solved how to get humans safely through them again.
As for your dismissive tone — I’ll be real with you. You often speak down to people, implying they’re ignorant for questioning official narratives. You bring up my past posts and assume I never listen or change. That’s simply not true. I’ve revised my beliefs many times, even publicly. What I don’t do is blindly follow narratives that can’t be backed with solid proof.
If I question something, it’s not because I disrespect people — it’s because I respect truth enough to test it, not just trust it. That’s the difference. I don’t expect you to agree with me, but I do ask that you consider that many of us have done the research — and we’re not living in the 1960s anymore. Maybe it’s time to move forward too.
No hard feelings. But if you’re going to challenge others, expect to be challenged back — especially when the evidence you rely on is decades old and increasingly exposed as flawed.
