Moose O'Malley's Software Valley Established : July 1996 Please bookmark this location only : http://move.to/moose

Introduction :
Were the Moon Landings Fake ?

As visitors to my web site know, I normally don't comment on conspiracy theories. However, this one is big and becoming bigger every day. So, I have taken this opportunity to comment further and go "on the record" with what I think.

Did we really land on the Moon ? Or was it all just a big hoax ?

If we are to believe NASA and the United States Government, then between 1969 and 1972, seven Apollo space ships headed to the Moon.

Six flights claim to have made it, with the ill fated Apollo 13 - whose oxygen tanks apparently exploded halfway - being the only casualties.

According to NASA and the US Government, a dozen astronauts (laden with cameras) walked on the Moon between 1969 and 1972. Nine of them are still alive and can testify to their experience.

According to NASA and the US Government, the astronauts didn't return from the Moon empty-handed, either. Just as Columbus carried a few hundred natives back to Spain as evidence of his trip to the New World, the Apollo astronauts (apparently) have brought back 841 pounds of Moon rock to Earth, 1,000's of photographs, movie footage, and a wealth of data and experience.

During March and early April 2003 in Australia, there have been shows on SBS TV alleging that the Moon Landings were all fake, and putting forward a whole swathe of conspiracy theories that they claim are facts. ("The Cutting Edge: The Dark Side Of The Moon", and "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon ?").

Below, I list the main arguments that these Conspiracy Theorists are putting forth.

In addition, to balance these arguments, I sometimes list what the Anti-Conspiracy Theorists are saying.

Finally, I add my own 2 cents worth to each argument and say what I think, or which side I agree with.

Mike "Moose" O'Malley
April 2, 2003

Movie Clips :

So you can see some of what is being discussed below for yourself, you can also download the following short Movie Clips :

Download a 54 second MPEG movie clip of the the first Moon Landing and Neil Armstrong's first steps on the Moon. (8.6 MB)	Download a 20 second MPEG movie clip of the Lunar Rover in action. (2.8 MB)
Download a 20 second MPEG movie clip of the Apollo 16's Lunar Lander lifting off the Moon. (2.7 MB)	Download a 63 second MPEG movie clip of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin planting the first US Flag on the Moon. (2.8 MB)

Conspiracy Theory Analysis
Point by Point :

1. My Friend the Wind :

   The Conspiracy Theorists say :
   • On the Moon there is no atmosphere, but in movie clips, flags appear to be "flapping" in the breeze.

   Not every waving flag needs a breeze - at least not in space. When astronauts were planting the flagpole there is little doubt that they would have rotated it back and forth to make it penetrate the lunar soil. So of course the flag waved ! Unfurling a piece of rolled-up cloth will naturally result in waves and ripples - especially if there is no atmosphere or air resistance to slow it down - no breeze is required ! None of the movie clips I remember seeing show the flag 10's of seconds after it was unfurled. If, for example, it was still flapping around 30 seconds after the astronaut last touched it, then this would be more indicative of some sort of wind / breeze / anomaly.

2. Golf on the Moon :

   The Conspiracy Theorists say :
   • Apollo 14 astronaut, Allen Shepard, apparently played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. If he really did slice the ball, then this would have been impossible on the Moon.

   However, from the movie clips I have seen, it is impossible to say whether he really "sliced" the ball . It is possible that Shepard didn't slice the ball at all, and that Mission Control are just teasing him and joking with him. It is a good joke, after all ...

3. Panning Cameras :

   The Conspiracy Theorists say :
   • A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Lander lifting off the Moon. Who controlled the filming ? Why weren't they blown away in the hot exhaust gas dust storm ? How did they get off the Moon ?

   However, the camera could have been remotely controlled by Mission Control on Earth, with the signal given to pan the camera several seconds before take-off to give the signal time to reach the camera and for the camera to react.

4. One Small Step for Man ...

   

   The Conspiracy Theorists say :

   • One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong as he is about to take his giant step for mankind. To take this photograph, the photographer must have been lying on the Moon's surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot ?

   However, according to NASA, the camera was attached to an arm that was extended and positioned before Armstrong stepped down the ladder.

5. Michelin Spaceman :

   The Conspiracy Theorists say :
   • The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, making it difficult to move and bend their joints. But this was not the case.

   However, the American space suit is a high-tech multi-layered device, with insulation and hard-plastic layers and it is composed of jointed segments. This hard-plastic layer would stop any space suit wearer from looking like a Michelin Man.

6. I Woz Here ??

   The Conspiracy Theorists say :
   • The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America put a signal on the Moon that could be seen from Earth ? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.

   However, to do this, you would need to carry a lot of flares ! How many tons of flares would you need to set-off for it to be visible from Earth ? Why would they carry all of this extra weight ? Would this really be worth doing ? How would you ignite a standard magnesium flare without an oxygen atmosphere ?

7. Howdy Stranger :

   The Conspiracy Theorists say :
   • During the Apollo 12 mission, only two men walked on the Moon. But, is several pictures, the astronaut reflected in the astronaut's visor has no camera. So, if only two men were on the Moon, and one is in the photo and the other one doesn't have a camera, then who the hell took the photo ?

   However, the camera is mounted on the chest of the astronauts, and that is why it didn't appear in the reflection of the astronaut's visor.

8. Faken Photos #1 :

   The Conspiracy Theorists say :
   • Many of the photographs and movie clips contain anomalies and have been faked.
   • The astronauts took thousands of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and sharply focused, and none of the subjects of their photographs were truncated or out of the centre of the frame. No photograph was badly composed or even blurred.
   • Not one photograph matches the film footage, yet NASA claims both were shot at the same time.

   And, the Anti-Conspiracy Theorists say :

   • NASA has faked the photos on purpose to prevent rival countries from making use of scientific (or other) information contained in some of the genuine photos. In this way, NASA could release a lot of photos taken during the training stages, and this would have satisfied the American taxpayer and left no real possibility for the other countries to make scientific use of them.
   • 3 words: Practice, practice, practice. The Apollo astronauts trained over and over again on Earth before their flights. By the time they flew, they had shot hundreds of practice pictures, learning how to line up photos without a viewfinder. They also had preset exposures and focus positions easily settable with their bulky gloves for different types of shots. Also, they used fairly high f-stops on their camera lens to maximize the depth of field, so focus wasn't as critical when setting up a shot. Given all that, the photographs are far from perfect. Exposures are uneven, mostly due to lighting issues and there are plenty of badly composed and out of focus images amongst the thousands obtained. The pictures we see are often the best of the lot - that's why they were picked for public release. An examination of the images on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal will show you what they tend to look like.

   Based on the evidence I have seen, it does appear that at least some photos indeed have been faked. I really can't see how anyone could dispute this. But, I don't agree with the reasons that the "Anti-Conspiracy Theorists" give. Instead, I believe that (at least some of) the photos taken on the Moon might have been so washed out, blurry, over exposed, etc, that they weren't good enough to provide to the public, so NASA might have faked some photos back here on Earth. And, who could blame them ?

9. Faken Photos #2 - Multiple Shadows in Different Directions :

   The Conspiracy Theorists say :
   • On the Moon there is only one powerful light source - the Sun. However, in photographs and film of the Moon landings, objects cast multiple shadows - and these go in different directions - which can only indicate multiple light sources - such as powerful spotlights. There were no spotlights on the Moon.

   And, the Anti-Conspiracy Theorists say :

   • The hoax proponents apparently don't understand simple convergence - the disappearing point which elementary school art students learn about in order to draw roads or railroad tracks disappearing into the distance. The shadows, though parallel from overhead, look to be going in different directions from the perspective of a person on the ground. You can see the same effects here on Earth.
   • The most used image by the hoaxers is from Apollo 14 where the Lunar Module appears in the distance to be casting a horizontal shadow while the shadows of the rocks in the foreground are angled towards the camera. However, if you look closely at the LM shadow and the LM itself, you'll see the LM partly lit - similarly to the rocks in the foreground along the same direction and you can see that the shadow is not horizontal, but is greatly foreshortened. As usual, just a casual examination of the evidence contradicts the hoaxers argument.
   • The lunar surface is also very undulating with hills and craters in great abundance. Shadows appear longer if they go down a slope on the sunward side of a crater or hill or appear shorter on a slope that faces into the sun. Hills and craters can also change the apparent direction of a shadow to make it look non-parallel with adjacent shadows.

   Based on the evidence I have seen, it does appear that at least some photos indeed have been faked. The anomaly - from the photos I have seen - certainly doesn't appear to be "simple convergence".

10. Faken Photos #3 - Hiding in the Shadows :

    The Conspiracy Theorists say :
    • The astronaut's cameras had no white meters or view ponders. So the astronauts achieved this feet without being able to see what they were doing. Their film stock was unaffected by the intense peaks and powerful cosmic radiation on the Moon, conditions that should have made the photographs over exposed and useless. Instead, they managed to adjust their cameras, change film, aim their cameras, and swap filters in pressurized suits. It should have been almost impossible with the gloves on their fingers and under those hostile conditions.
    • The American flag and the words "United States" are always brightly lit, even when everything else is in shadow.
    • Pictures taken of astronauts standing on the "dark side" of the Lander module should have been almost completely black against the glare of the Sun - but instead they were perfect and show the astronauts and Lander details in clear and bright contrast.

    And, the Anti-Conspiracy Theorists say :

    • Although the sun is the primary light source on the Moon (the Earth also lights the Moon somewhat since it is about 13 times the surface area as viewed from the Moon compared to the Moon from Earth, but also is 5 times brighter per unit area), the shadows are lit up by scattered sunlight off of the surrounding lunar surface and equipment. You don't need an atmosphere to fill in the shadows on the Moon.
    • Any photographer knows how to use objects to reflect light into the shadows to make the shadowed areas more visible. Photographers use efficient items like reflecting umbrellas or white boards.
    • On the Moon, the surrounding lunar surface, mountains, astronauts, rovers, and even the LM itself scatter light into the shadowed areas of the Moon and equipment.

    Based on the evidence I have seen, it does appear that at least some photos indeed have been faked. The secondary light reflected from the Earth would be totally insignificant in the glare of the unshielded, naked Sun.

11. Faken Photos #4 - Same Foregrounds / Backgrounds at Different Locations :

    The Conspiracy Theorists say :
    • The background and foreground on several photos are identical (i.e. the same rocks and landscape), even though NASA claims that they were taken at different times and at different locations.

    And, the Anti-Conspiracy Theorists say :

    • The hoax proponents cite cases of finding the same exact background mountains in images taken from vastly different places around a landing site. In the case of the TV special, they showed a picture of the LM with mountains in the background and a second image without the LM with the "exact" background mountains. The mountains in question are several miles away from the LM. Two pictures taken a few hundred feet apart can have a vastly different foreground (like LM and no LM) while having what appears to be exactly the same background. There's no mystery to that. Tucson has mountains surrounding the city and amazingly, from the University of Arizona Campus area, one can travel from one end of campus to the other and find not only very different buildings in front of you, but what appears to be the exact same mountain backdrop in the background. Apparently, the mountains around Tucson are a giant background painting if one follows the logic used by the hoax proponents.
    • If one watches the actual video from the rovers TV camera, you'll find that the two identical images were obtained within minutes of each other from the exact same site. A small amount of investigation easily solves the mystery. The source of this error is a NASA documentary film in which the film editor mistakenly claims the two film clips were taken on different days at different sites when in fact they were not.

    Based on the evidence I have seen, there are photographs with precisely the same foreground and background rocks and rock patterns and background scenery, but according to NASA, these are supposed to be different locations. Sorry, Anti-Conspiracy Theorists - it certainly does appear that at least some photos have been faked.

12. Faken Photos #5 - Crosshairs :

    The Conspiracy Theorists say :
    • All of the cameras had crosshairs etched onto the camera aperture. However, on some photos these crosshairs are obscured by objects in the photo, which can only mean that the crosshairs were added to the photos after they were taken.

    And, the Anti-Conspiracy Theorists say :

    • The Reseau marks are the crosshair "+" marks that appear on the Lunar photographs. They are caused by marks etched on a "Reseau plate" which is a clear glass plate mounted immediately in front of the film on the Hasselblad camera.
    • Film, like most all imaging media, is not a perfect recorder. When a very bright part of the subject appears next to a dark area, there is often saturations effects which appear as bleeding into the darker areas, such as the Reseau marks.
    • It's a well known photographic effect which the conspiracy theory "experts" conveniently forget to suggest.

    Based on the evidence I have seen, this "saturations effect" is not consistent or predictable in Lunar photos. Sorry, Anti-Conspiracy Theorists - it certainly does appear that at least some photos have been faked / tampered with.

13. Faken Movies #1 : Blurred and Low Quality

    The Conspiracy Theorists say :
    • TV footage of the Moon landings was hopeless. In July 1969, the world tuned in to watch what looked like two blurred white ghosts throw rocks and dust. Part of the reason for the low quality was that, strangely, NASA provided no direct link up.
    • So networks actually had to film man's greatest achievement from a TV screen in Houston.
    • A deliberate ploy so that nobody could properly examine the footage ?

    Apparently, NASA didn't pay too much attention to using video cameras early in Apollo flights. The first such camera was carried aboard Apollo 7 almost as an afterthought, but the public loved the "movies", so NASA made the camera standard on later flights. The camera used on Apollo 11 was a black and white camera. Later missions used better cameras, but the portable video cameras of the day tended to be bulky and used a lot of power. Weight and power were at a premium on the lunar surface.

14. Faken Movies #2 : Slow Motion and Filmed on Earth

    The Conspiracy Theorists say :
    • The movie of astronauts and the Lunar Rover was shot on Earth and was just played at half-speed to make it look like they were on the Moon.

    And, the sound of a humpback whale sped up by 40 times sounds exactly like a bird chirping in a tree. And, the sound of the human voice sped up a few times sounds makes a great "singing chipmunk" sound. e.g. as used with Alvin and the Chipmunks.

    But, that doesn't mean that a whale is a bird, or that a human is a chipmunk, or that chipmunks really sing.

    By working out the projectile motion of the Lunar Rover as in bounces over rough ground, or the dust leaving its tyres, it should be possible to prove that the footage is real.

    Sorry, Conspiracy Theorists, what you say simply doesn't stand up.

15. Moon Rock (and Roll) :

    The Conspiracy Theorists say :
    • The so-called "Moon Rock" samples could have been easily mocked up in a lab.
    • These samples have fooled 100's of gullible scientists around the world.

    And, the Anti-Conspiracy Theorists say :

    • It would be an extremely difficult and complex job to fake a Moon rock.

    • "Moon rocks are absolutely unique," says Dr. David McKay, Chief Scientist for Planetary Science and Exploration at NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC). McKay is a member of the group that oversees the Lunar Sample Laboratory Facility at JSC where most of the Moon rocks are stored. "They differ from Earth rocks in many respects," he added.

    • "For example," explains Dr. Marc Norman, a lunar geologist at the University of Tasmania, "lunar samples have almost no water trapped in their crystal structure, and common substances such as clay minerals that are ubiquitous on Earth are totally absent in Moon rocks. We've found particles of fresh glass in Moon rocks that were produced by explosive volcanic activity and by meteorite impacts over 3 billion years ago," added Norman. "The presence of water on Earth rapidly breaks down such volcanic glass in only a few million years. These rocks must have come from the Moon !"

    • Meteoroids are nearly-microscopic specks of comet dust that fly through space at speeds often exceeding 50,000 mph -- ten times faster than a speeding bullet. They pack a considerable punch, but they're also extremely fragile. Meteoroids that strike Earth's atmosphere disintegrate in the rarefied air above our stratosphere. But the Moon doesn't have an atmosphere to protect it. The tiny space bullets can plow directly into Moon rocks, forming miniature and unmistakable craters. "Moon rocks are peppered with tiny craters from meteoroid impacts," explains McKay.

    • Just as meteoroids constantly bombard the Moon so do cosmic rays, and they leave their fingerprints on Moon rocks, too. "There are isotopes in Moon rocks, isotopes we don't normally find on Earth, that were created by nuclear reactions with the highest-energy cosmic rays," says McKay. Earth is spared from such radiation by our protective atmosphere and magnetosphere.

    • Even if scientists wanted to make something like a Moon rock by, say, bombarding an Earth rock with high energy atomic nuclei, they couldn't. Earth's most powerful particle accelerators can't energize particles to match the most potent cosmic rays, which are themselves accelerated in supernova blast-waves and in the violent cores of galaxies.

    • Indeed, says McKay, faking a Moon rock well enough to hoodwink an international army of scientists might be more difficult than the Manhattan Project. "It would be easier to just go to the Moon and get one," he quipped.

    • "I have here in my office a 10-foot high stack of scientific books full of papers about the Apollo Moon rocks," added McKay. "Researchers in thousands of labs have examined Apollo Moon samples - not a single paper challenges their origin ! And these aren't all NASA employees, either. We've loaned samples to scientists in dozens of countries [who have no reason to cooperate in any hoax]."

    I agree with the "Anti-Conspiracy Theorists" on this one.

16. The Stars :

    The Conspiracy Theorists say :
    • Where, in all of these pictures, are the stars ? The stars should have been blazing in at least some pictures of the atmosphere free sky of the Moon.

    And, the Anti-Conspiracy Theorists say :

    • We see no stars in the images because the images are exposed for the bright sunlit scenes. The stars are too faint to show up on the images due to their short exposure.

    While I agree with the "Anti-Conspiracy Theorists", I can't help thinking that if I was an astronaut standing on the surface of the Moon, I would marvel and stare for hours at the sky full of more stars and brighter stars than I could ever have seen from Earth, and I would have taken at least one photograph just of the stars. In this photograph, I could have chosen the exposure to suit the subject. None of the astronauts seem to have done this, and I do wonder how this could be ...

17. Rocket Blast Craters :

    The Conspiracy Theorists say :

    • The Lunar Lander weighed 17 tons (on Earth - but one sixth of this on the Moon) yet the astronaut's feet seem to have made a bigger impact in the dust of the Moon's surface.
    • When the powerful rocket motors fired during landing and take off on the Moon, the exhaust gases should have created dust storms in the vicinity, and there should have been a large crater under the Lander after it touched down.
    • No NASA films or photographs show any craters under the Lander, nor are their any dust clouds when the rockets land or take off.

    And, the Anti-Conspiracy Theorists say :

    • The Conspiracy Theorists claim that the LM descent stage used its full thrust of 10,000 pounds at lunar landing and that it should excavate a large blast crater under the LM. At landing in the low lunar gravity (which is 1/6 of Earth's gravity), the LM only needed about 3,000 pounds of thrust. This blast of rocket exhaust would result in scouring the topmost layer of lunar soil from underneath the LM.

    • In addition, the LM had 6 foot long landing probes under 3 of the 4 footpads and when any of the probes contacted the surface, the crew shut down the engine so that the LM would fall the last few feet to the surface, so the rocket engine was more than 6 feet above the surface at its closest. In the movie clip, you can hear the crew "engine stop" before the LM completes touch down.

    • You can even see effects of the blast in some of the lunar images including any taken under the LM and one set taken on Apollo 12 which shows a disturbance along the ground path of the LM before landing. The dust is clearly visible flying out at high speed away from the LM prior to touchdown in all of the lunar landing films taken from the LM cabin windows during approach and landing. Given that the descent stage engine bell is about 5 feet across at the bottom, and that thrust of the engine at touchdown was about 3,000 pounds, that blast pressure of the rocket exhaust was only about 1 pound per square inch.

    • Why would we expect to find a blast crater under the LM ? Does a garden hose sprayed at high pressure into the dirt create a blast crater ? It certainly blows away some of the surface dirt in a radial direction and will create a small depression or hole, but not a crater in the form that the Conspiracy Theorists suggest.

    • There is even an Earthly example of a rocket landing on dirt. The DC-X was a test flight program of a vertical takeoff and landing rocket. On one of its last flights, it made an emergency landing outside of the pad area. Despite the hydrogen/oxygen engine producing a thrust of some 60,000 pounds, the engine produced a mark on the desert floor that was barely recognizable.

    I agree with the "Anti-Conspiracy Theorists" on this one.

18. Rocket Plumes :

    The Conspiracy Theorists say :

    • There aren't even any rocket plumes - hot exhaust gas emissions - when the rockets take off.

    And, the Anti-Conspiracy Theorists say :

    • The LM ascent stage engine was a hypergolic rocket engine which uses fuels that burn on contact with each other, making them very reliable since they don't need an ignitor. These fuels burn with only faintly visible exhaust plumes. If one looks inside the engine exhaust bell, then you would probably see a bright blue light in the combustion chamber, but the rocket's plume itself is nearly transparent.

    • The Titan rockets which launched the Gemini spacecraft also used the same type of fuel. With very much larger thrust levels, this rocket produced a plume that was nowhere near as spectacular as the plumes we saw on the Saturn V rocket or on the spectacular Space Shuttle (which is dominated by the solid rocket boosters at lift-off).

    • The faint plume produced at LM take-off would probably be visible to the human eye if someone were there to see, but this plume is not obvious enough for the lower quality of the TV camera used to capture the images of the lunar lift-offs on Apollo 15, 16 and 17.

    I agree with the "Anti-Conspiracy Theorists" on this one.

19. Lunar Module - Wipe Your Feet :

    The Conspiracy Theorists say :

    • Several pictures show the feet of the Lander after touchdown, and these are incredibly free of dust and debris. Has someone carefully swept the feet before the photos were taken ? Or are these fake photos ? Or did the Lander never land on the Moon ?

    Very simply, the dust was blown away by the rocket's exhaust. And, the engines shut off while the LM was still several feet above the ground, so by the time the LM landed, the dust that was being moved by the rocket thrust was already blown away. On the Moon, there is no atmosphere, so dust does not swirl - it simply travels in the direction it is thrust until it falls back to the surface of the Moon - possibly several kilometres away, if moved by a powerful rocket's thrust.

20. Lunar Module - I Can't Hear You :

    The Conspiracy Theorists say :

    • There is a lack of sound from the LM descent engine. The motor should be roaring, making it impossible to hear the astronauts talking during decent.

    There are several obvious problems with this theory. Firstly, the engine is many feet away in a vacuum so that the sounds would have to be transmitted through the spacecraft's metal structure itself. Secondly, the microphones that the astronauts used are insulated inside of the spacesuits they wore. Thirdly, the microphones are worn next to the astronaut's mouth and are designed only to pick up sound from its immediate vicinity.

    They are not super sensitive, long distance microphones.

21. Footprints in the Sand :

    

    The Conspiracy Theorists say :

    • Footprints appear around the LM despite the rocket engine scouring the lunar surface during landing. If there was no dust or lose dirt near the LM after landing - because it was all blown away by the rocket's thrust - then how could there be footprints.

    Dust was blown away, but the dust on the surface of the Moon is many metres thick. The rocket's thrust would have blown away a few centimetres of dust from the area immediately under the engine at the moment of landing. However, this would have left plenty of dust in which the astronauts could make footprints.

22. Deadly Radiation :

    The Conspiracy Theorists say :
    • Outer space is awash with deadly radiation that emanates from the Sun and from solar flares firing out from the Sun. Astronauts orbiting Earth in near space, like those who recently fixed the Hubble telescope, are protected from this radiation by the Earth's Van Allen belt. But the Moon is to 240,000 miles distant, way outside this "safe" zone. During the Apollo flights, astronomical data shows there were no less than 1,485 solar flares.
    • John Mauldin, a physicist who works for NASA, claims that shielding at least two metres thick would be needed on a space craft that could get men safely to the Moon. Yet the walls of the Lunar Landers, which took astronauts from the spaceship to the Moon's surface, were about the thickness of heavy duty aluminium foil, according to NASA.
    • The intense radiation from the Sun should have been killed the insufficiently shielded astronauts almost instantly.
    • And if the astronauts were protected by their space suits, why didn't rescue workers use these as protective gear at the Chernobyl meltdown, which released only a fraction of the dose of radiation that the astronauts would have encountered ?

    And, the Anti-Conspiracy Theorists say :

    • The hoax proponents consistently exaggerate the effects of radiation in space. Radiation was a definite concern for NASA before the first spaceflights, and they invested a great deal of research in it before flying the first astronauts into space.
    • The most dangerous part of the journey to the Moon for radiation exposure was during the passage of the spacecraft through the Van Allen belts. This is a zone from about 1,000 kilometres up to about 20,000 kilometres.
    • The Apollo missions flew through this zone at very high speed - outbound starting around 40,000 kph and inbound at about the same speed. They spent a few hours within the Van Allen belts and estimates of the total exposure during their passage is about 2 rems (the equivalent of about 100 chest x-rays or about 40% of the maximum permissible dose of radiation according to OSHA standards ).
    • Doses of 100-200 rems cause a person to experience nausea several hours after exposure and fatal doses occur above about 300 rem. Solar flares were a concern as well, but typical doses due to flares that the astronauts were exposed to were only a few rem.
    • The space crews all wore dosimeters which were read back roughly daily during the flights.

    I agree with the "Anti-Conspiracy Theorists" on this one.

    And, on NASA's web site, you can read / see more about this :

    • Radiation Protection And Instrumentation report following Apollo flights,
    • A picture of the Radiation-Survey Meter (RSM),
    • The Average Doses of Radiation received during each Apollo Flight.

23. Goldilocks Syndrome : Too Hot or Too Cold

    The Conspiracy Theorists say :
    • Temperatures on the surface of the Moon are hundreds of degrees in the Sun and minus hundreds of degrees in the shade. How could someone in a flimsy spacesuit possibly survive this ? How could a film in a camera survive these high temperatures, when on Earth, film deteriorates at 50 degrees Celsius.

    And, the Anti-Conspiracy Theorists say :

    • On the Moon, day-time temperatures reach about 250 degrees Fahrenheit (120 degrees Celsius), while night-time temperatures drop to a chilly -270 degrees Fahrenheit (-170 degrees Celsius).
    • However, the Moon landings all occurred within a day or two of local sunrise so that the sun angles were low and the surface had not heated up to its full daytime levels.
    • With no atmosphere, convection does not transport heat from object to object.
    • Conduction of heat occurs only when a hot surface is contacted and thermal radiation is the only other source of heat.
    • Film in a camera is protected from direct sunlight except during exposures and a light coloured or silver camera does not absorb heat efficiently.
    • The lunar EVA suits were designed to withstand temperatures of +250F.

    And, don't forget that the Moon has a day which is 28 Earth day's long, so you can stay on the Moon for quite a few Earth-days and never have the Sun move beyond sun-rise. Also, the astronauts were NOT exposed to the freezing cold in the shadow for lengthy periods of time, nor were they exposed to the full, overhead naked Sun.

    I agree with the "Anti-Conspiracy Theorists" on this one.

24. Why Hasn't Anyone Been Back to the Moon in 30 Years ??

    The Conspiracy Theorists say :
    • No-one has been back to the Moon since the early 1970's because no-one has ever been to the Moon at all.
    • If it was so easy to get to the Moon, surely we would have gone back, and built a Moon Base, etc.
    • If getting to the Moon was so "easy", then why haven't we been back there for 25+ years ?

    And, the Anti-Conspiracy Theorists say :

    • If we went to the Moon 30 years ago, why haven't we gone back, and why haven't the Russians sent anyone to the Moon ? Despite the apparent ease with which NASA flew 12 men to the lunar surface between 1969 and 1972, travelling to the Moon was difficult, dangerous and enormously expensive. The advanced planning and preparation of the spacecraft and crews resulted in spectacularly successful missions which succeeded despite the dangers and the inherent malfunctions of manmade equipment. The United States landed men on the Moon while the Soviet Union failed in its attempts to build a lunar program despite its hard work. Once the U.S. succeeded, the Soviets primary reason for going to the Moon was eliminated and residual work dwindled. Despite the official word of the Soviet Union claiming that they were never in a race to the Moon, the post-Soviet Union evidence demonstrates otherwise with lunar landing hardware and the huge N1 booster program as well as training programs for its Cosmonauts. To fly to the Moon today would be nearly as difficult and probably more expensive (even accounting for inflation) than it was in the 1960s. Until there is enough motivation to do so, we are unlikely to mount any new missions to the Moon in the near future.

    I agree with the "Anti-Conspiracy Theorists" on this one.

    It would be terrific to see the human race get stuck into building a Moon Base, setting up a Mars Base, an underwater city on Earth, etc - and I hope that these sorts of projects are undertaken within my life-time - but it all comes down to the desire of enough people to do this, and money.

    Sadly, though, the world is run by accountants, and projects like these usually need to pass a Cost / Benefit Analysis before they can go ahead.

25. Why Can't Earth based Telescopes "see" the Apollo Equipment ?

    The Conspiracy Theorists say :
    • No telescope on Earth - even the biggest telescopes - has seen anything that NASA astronauts have "supposedly" left on the Moon.
    • They can't see the LM descent stage or the Lunar Buggy or the flags or anything else.
    • If this stuff in on the Moon, surely someone could see it ??

    And, the Anti-Conspiracy Theorists say :

    • A telescope's diffraction limited resolving power depends linearly on the aperture of the telescope.
    • Ground-based telescopes also have to look through the murky and turbulent atmosphere of Earth, so without corrective techniques that are just now becoming common in large telescopes (called adaptive optics), a telescope's resolution is limited by the atmosphere to about 0.5-1.0 arc seconds (3600 arc seconds are in one degree and 360 degrees around the whole sky). That limits ground-based telescopes to a resolution of about 2 kilometres on the Moon.
    • From space, a telescope is limited by its diffraction limited resolution. For the Hubble Space Telescope, that is a little less than 0.05 arc seconds or about 90 metres at the distance of the Moon.
    • To resolve the LM descent stage which is about 10 metres across, one would need to have a resolution better than 10 metres, perhaps 2-3 metres which means we need a telescope some 30 times larger than the HST in orbit around the Earth to resolve the largest equipment currently left on the Moon.

    I agree with the "Anti-Conspiracy Theorists" on this one.

26. 20,000 Defects :

    The Conspiracy Theorists say :
    • Furthermore, every Apollo mission before number 11 (the first to the Moon) was plagued with around 20,000 defects a-piece.
    • Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn't one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions.
    • Just one effect could have blown the whole thing.
    • "The odds against these are so unlikely that God must have been the co-pilot," says Ralph Rene in his book titled "NASA Mooned America".

    I have insufficient data on this topic, so I cannot comment with any degree of certainty at this stage.

27. Buzz Aldrin's Party - and He'll Cry If He Wants To !

    The Conspiracy Theorists say :
    • Several years after NASA claimed its first Moon landing, Buzz Aldrin "the second man on the Moon" was (apparently) asked at a banquet what it felt like to step on to the lunar surface. Aldrin staggered to his feet and left the room crying uncontrollably. It would not be the last time he did this. Is he suffering from trying to live out a very big lie ??

    This sounds suspiciously like an "urban legend" to me. I have insufficient data on this topic, so I cannot comment with any degree of certainty at this stage.

28. Grissom's Lemon :

    The Conspiracy Theorists say :
    • Virgil Grissom, a NASA astronaut, was due to pilot Apollo 1 in the first Moon Landing. However, in January 1967, during pre-flight testing, he hung a lemon on his Apollo capsule (in the US, unroadworthy cars are called lemons) and told his wife Betty: "If there is ever a serious accident in the space program, it's likely to be me." Nobody knows for sure what fuelled his fears, but by the end of the month he and his two co-pilots were dead, burnt to death during a test run when their capsule, pumped full of high pressure pure oxygen, exploded.

    Gus Grissom was apparently very enthusiastic about the Apollo program and very aware of the dangers of spaceflight while trying to make his spacecraft as safe as possible. His hanging a lemon on the Apollo simulators has been widely misinterpreted as dissatisfaction with the entire Apollo program.

    I have insufficient data on this topic, so I cannot comment with any degree of certainty at this stage.

29. Julian Scheer's Film Party :

    The Conspiracy Theorists say :
    • Julian Scheer, a NASA public affairs officer, once delighted 200 guests at a private party with footage of astronauts apparently on a lunar landscape. It had been made on a mission film set and was identical to what NASA claimed was they real lunar landscape. "The purpose of this film," Scheer told the enthralled group, "is to indicate that you really can fake things on the ground, almost to the point of deception." He then invited his audience to "Come to your own decision about whether or not man actually did walk on the Moon." Is this true or is it simply an urban legend ?
    • In Ralph Rene's book, titled "NASA Mooned America", he claims that the only real thing about the Apollo missions were the lift offs. "The astronauts simply have to be on board," he says, "in case the rocket exploded. It was the easiest way to ensure NASA wasn't left with three astronauts who ought to be dead." he claims, adding that they came down a day or so later, out of the public eye (global surveillance wasn't what it is now) and into the safe hands of NASA officials, who whisked them off to prepare for the big day a week later.

    This sounds suspiciously like an "urban legend" to me. I have insufficient data on this topic, so I cannot comment with any degree of certainty at this stage.

30. Freaky and Frequent Astronaut Deaths :

    The Conspiracy Theorists say :
    • In fact, before the first manned Apollo fight even cleared the launch pad, a total of 11 would be astronauts were dead.
    • Apart from the three who were incinerated, seven died in plane crashes and one in a car smash.
    • Now this is a spectacular accident rate.
    • Were these 'accidents' NASA's way of correcting mistakes or saying that these men didn't have the 'right stuff' ?

    And, the Anti-Conspiracy Theorists say :

    • The show claimed that 10 astronauts died "under mysterious circumstances" during Apollo. Mysterious apparently includes accidents in high performance jet aircraft and accidents in new untested spacecraft. Astronaut deaths: Ed Givens (car accident), Ted Freeman (T-38 crash), C. C. Williams (T-38 accident), Elliot See and Charlie Bassett (T-38 accident), Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee (Apollo 1 fire).
    • So who are the other 2? According to the show, two other pilots were shown, but they weren't astronauts, at least by NASA standards. One was X-15 pilot Mike Adams who was the only X-15 pilot killed during the X-15 flight test program. Mike Adams, though not a NASA astronaut, had flown his X-15 above 50 miles which is considered space and technically, he could be considered an astronaut along with a number of the other X-15 pilots. The other was Robert Lawrence, a would be Air Force Manned Orbiting Laboratory pilot who died in a jet crash shortly after reporting for duty to that program.
    • Later, they claim that the Apollo 1 fire may have been a murder conspiracy to silence Gus Grissom's outspoken criticism of the Space Program. The TV show producers obviously have not researched Gus Grissom at all. He was enthusiastic about the program and very aware of the dangers of spaceflight while trying to make his spacecraft as safe as possible. His hanging a lemon on the Apollo simulators has been widely misinterpreted as dissatisfaction with the entire Apollo program.
    • They also claim that the death of NASA worker Thomas Baron was a murder and a cover-up of a 500 page report on the Apollo 1 accident. A more accurate version of the story is that the man committed a murder/suicide in distress over the loss of the crew. It's amazing that more workers didn't do the same.
    • These unfounded claims of murder and conspiracy are libellous, particularly as they lack any significant evidence to support those claims.

    I agree with the "Anti-Conspiracy Theorists" on this one.

31. Conclusion : Are The Moon Landings Fake ??

    The Conspiracy Theorists say :
    • The "Moon rock" samples are all fakes.
    • The photographs and film footage of the Moon landings are all fakes.
    • Everything is fake.
    • NASA and the United States Government have told bare faced lies to the world for the past 30 years.
    • America has never put a man on the Moon.
    • The giant leap for mankind was fake.
    • Buy my book - and you'll understand all the "facts" (you sucker) !
    • Watch / buy my TV show - and you'll understand all the "facts" (you sucker) !

    Sadly, many thousands of people around the world seem to have swallowed this conspiracy theory and believe that the Moon Landings are fake.

    The "evidence" that they showed on recent SBS TV shows looks compelling, looks believable (at first glance), is well presented and slickly presented, and they show an endless stream of "self-proclaimed experts" who no-one has ever heard of before, and these "experts" seem to know what they are talking about and sound convincing.

    The trouble is, that these "self-proclaimed experts" all have axes to grind, books to sell, TV shows to sell, money to make - so you should disbelieve everything they say (or at least be incredibly suspicious of everything they say) on these grounds alone.

    Most of the "facts" and "evidence" they report simply doesn't stand up or make sense - as I have shown above.

    In addition, if any book or TV show has the words "Conspiracy Theory" in the title, then you know you are in for some interesting "interpretations" of the "facts".

    At least some of the photos, etc do appear to have been tampered with or maybe shot in a studio - but who could blame NASA for doing this if the images that came back from the moon were over exposed, poor quality, blurry, etc. The American Tax Payer had just spent $40 billion on going to the Moon, and they - and the media - demanded good quality photos.

    Sorry Conspiracy Theorists, at this stage I simply cannot agree.

    If NASA and the US Government have lied to the world for 30 years, then the fire-storm of protests they would receive would (Moon) rock the world.

    One thing the Conspiracy Theorists never seem to comment on is the radio signals. The radio transmissions from the astronauts on the Moon were picked up by Russia and other countries. At the height of the Cold War, how long do you think Russia would have remained quiet if these was any sign of anything fishy or fake ? But, Russia confirmed the signals were real, and that they definitely were not sent from Earth and bounced off the Moon.

    Astronauts were definitely on the Moon.

    Until I see irrefutable, concrete evidence, I simply cannot believe the Moon Landings were fake.

    Conclusion: The Moon Landings definitely happened !

    
    

32. Should I Believe Conspiracy Theories ?

    The Conspiracy Theorists say :
    • Yes, believe everything we say.
    • If it sounds like it might be right, it must be 100% right.
    • If the experts deny it, it must be right.
    • Buy my book and make me rich (you sucker) !!
    • Buy my TV show and make me rich (you sucker) !!

    My advice for people who are inclined to believe conspiracy theories is this :

    • Never believe any conspiracy theories - they are often based on hearsay, urban legends, or things that friends of friends (apparently) saw or heard.

    • Take everything you read on the internet with a pinch of salt - much of the material on the internet is written by faceless, anonymous, slippery, unaccountable people - don't believe everything (or anything !) that such people say !

    • Don't believe everything (or anything !) written by people who have axes to grind or money to make or TV shows to sell or books to sell - such as Ralph Rene who is simply trying to flog his book titled "NASA Mooned America" to as many suckers as he possibly can.

    • Remember the Y2K Millennium Bug hysteria ?? It was whipped into a frenzy by people with axes to grind and software and books and services to sell). You can read about what I said about the Y2K Millennium Bug here.

    • Don't believe anything unless you see it with your own eyes, touch it with your own fingers, hear it with your own ears, smell it with your own nose, and/or taste it with your own tongue - and even then be very careful to consider and weigh up all possible explanations before proclaiming something is fact or jumping on your little band wagon.

    Follow this advice, and it will be difficult for devious people to make a fool of you or rip you off.

    Mike "Moose" O'Malley

References :

The information in this article came from a variety of WEB sites and the TV shows that recently aired on SBS TV in Australia ("The Cutting Edge: The Dark Side Of The Moon", and "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon ?").

For Conspiracy Theorists : (i.e. links to articles that claim the Moon Landings are FAKE)

• BBC News: Moon shots 'faked' (21-June-2000)
• Was The Apollo Moon Landing Fake ?
• SBS TV (Australia)

For Anti-Conspiracy Theorists : (i.e. links to articles that claim the Moon Landings are REAL)

• The Great Moon Hoax
• Jim Scotti's FOX Special - "Conspiracy Theory: DID WE LAND ON THE MOON?"
• Lunar Sample Laboratory

From Here you can :

Email me with comments etc...

---

This page is part of Moose's Software Valley

Please bookmark this location only : http://move.to/moose

---

You are Visitor since April 2, 2003.