Nuclear Connection Project
Moon Tests - Nuclear
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 12:52:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Any credibility?
From: joel carpenter <email@example.com>
I lurk on an email list for international space projects that's frequented
by a number of space journalists and government experts (I just lurk!! :))
and over the course of the last couple of years there have been several exchanges
between the members about claims of secret deep-space nuclear detonations
during the early space race era. One member is a former NSA analyst (after
seeing his website and postings I believe him) and claims that he was privy
to intercepted communications about these tests (presumably Soviet but he
won't elaborate since it's all still classified). Other members of the list
publicly doubt the story but he insists this occurred and he saw reports.
I doubt an actual moon shot occurred, since it would be pretty hard to
conceal if it was done secretly.
> I have several newspaper articles about the "moon test". The original
> of this story was a letter from physicist Leonard Reiffel published in the
> journal Nature, May 4, 2000. According to the newspaper articles the test
> was scuttled by the Air Force due to the inherent dangers of launching the
> warhead on a rocket (reliability). Carl Sagan is said to have been on the
> person team to study the possible affects of the dust and debris cloud
> ejecting out to space and to determine if there were any organic molecules
> released. Also suggested is that he may have revealed the project (security
> breach) in an application for an academic fellowship. Could this breach
> had a role in the scuttle?
> Colonel Ross Dedrickson claims that the moon test launch actually took
> place. In Greer's book, he also claims there was a nuclear atmospheric test
> out in the Pacific in '61. My information on tests indicates there were
> atmospheric tests due to the moratorium ('58-'62).
> It seems unlikely, given the tense cold war climate at that time, that the
> moon launch actually happened, although what we have at this point is one
> man's word against another's.
> Any further observations?
> Rob Duvall
The Nuclear Connection