Were the
Over the years, there have been some people who had believed that the lunar landings between 1969 and 1972 had been staged. In 1999, a Gallup poll showed that 5% of Americans believed in the lunar hoax theories. (Villard, 2004) Although the theories are believed by only 5% of the population, a mere lack of believers is not sufficient proof that the fact that the landings were faked is incorrect. After all, back in 1938, many Americans believed that we were being attacked by inhabitants of the planet Mars. This happened on Halloween eve, 1938, when War of the Worlds was broadcast. Out of 1.7 million listeners, a whopping 1.2 million believed that we were actually being invaded by Mars. (Comarow, 2004) That accounts for almost 71% of the listening audience! So, simply saying that only 5% of the US population believes that the landings were faked does not necessarily make it untrue.
First, let’s gather some of the facts about the moon. For one thing, the moon lacks an atmosphere. There is no air on the moon, therefore there are no clouds, no wind, and nothing to buffer from the extreme temperatures. The gravity on the moon, being 1/6 that of Earth, is not sufficient to hold an atmosphere, as the gas would move faster than the escape velocity of 1.5 km/second. (Hughes, 1989) Without this atmosphere, the moon experiences extreme heat during the daylight, when the sun is shining directly on the surface. It can reach up to 280 degrees Fahrenheit. (Redzero, 2003) Furthermore, the lack of atmosphere prevents this heat from remaining during nightfall, so at night it is extremely cold. The sky will always be black, since there is no atmosphere to reflect and refract light.
What is to be gained by pulling off such a hoax? Well, in 1969, we were in the middle of the Cold War with Russia. This perpetuated a race to gain military superiority. (Gordon, 1992) The Russians had already launched a satellite in 1957, Sputnik, beating the Untied States in the “space race.” President John F. Kennedy declared, in April 1961, that we would put a man on the moon before the end of the decade. (Gordon, 1992) It would have been a great embarrassment if we did not succeed in that goal, and in 1967 it seemed that we would not. On January 27, 1967, the first Apollo mission failed when a fire killed the three-man crew before the rocket even took off. (Gordon, 1992) It was starting to look like we would not meet President Kennedy’s goal. President Nixon and his administration knew that “it was more important that astronauts be seen walking on the moon than actually walk on the moon.” (Strachan, 2003) This means that as long as we believed it happened, we would avoid the embarrassment, and the money spent would have been well worth the effort. It doesn’t matter whether or not it really happened, as long as we believe it happened.
Much about the landings leave questions to the authenticity of the event. For example, the moon lacks an atmosphere. This is a known fact. However, the flag in the photographs appears to be waving in the wind. (Strachan, 2003) Without an atmosphere, there is no wind. Furthermore, without an atmosphere, the photographic equipment would not work, due to the extreme changes in the temperature. Extreme heat causes metal to expand, rendering the lens and shutter useless. Extreme cold would cause the gelatin emulsion on the film to freeze, rendering it useless for recording images. (Strachan, 2003) Even if the film was able to be used, the transportation of that film through the Van Allen belt, which is an area of extreme radiation, (Villard, 2004) the film would have been destroyed or deteriorated at least. Yet, the film showed vivid detail.
The Van Allen Belt is an area of radiation around the Earth, caused by the magnetic fields. There is no way to leave the planet Earth without passing through this field of intense radiation, and again passing through to return. The only known substance that would protect from this radiation would be lead, and you would need a shield of lead at least one foot long. (Redzero, 2003) And the space crafts would just not be able to carry such weight. Lead is an extremely heavy metal, and it’s atomic weight (density) is what causes it to shield radiation. So, the astronauts would have had to have been exposed to this radiation when leaving Earth, and again upon returning.
In the photograph of the astronaut leaving the lunar module, shown below (figure 1), we see that he is in the shadow of the Lander. Since they did not bring any lighting equipment to the moon, how is it possible that the astronaut is well lit, while standing in a shadow?
Figure 1
Also, in the following photo, figure 2, we see that the shadows of the rocks in the foreground are at a 45 degree angle, whereas the shadow of the Lunar Module is at a 0 degree angle, enhanced by the yellow lines showing the difference.
Figure 2
And, in the last photo here, figure 3, we see that not only are the shadows at different angles, but they are different lengths, indicating that there was an alternative light source.
Figure 3
It has been argued that the reason the astronaut in figure 1 was lit up is because that on the moon, light reflects off of everything, including the surface. Also, his suit was highly reflective, so it showed up clearly in the photograph. Yet, if the suit was so reflective, why isn’t anything else lighted, from this reflection on the suit? In figure 3, the explanation has been that the astronaut on the right is standing on a slope, so therefore his shadow is sloping downhill, and the astronaut on the left’s shadow is sloping uphill. (Redzero, 2003)
Regarding the Van Allen Belt, it has been argued that the level of radiation is only 4% of the amount considered “dangerous,” and only 1% of the level considered to be “lethal.” So therefore, they would not be harmed. That level is considered to be mild. However, they had to spend several hours in this radiation field. Remember, when you have an x-ray taken at the dentist’s office, you are given a lead shield, and the dentist (or assistant) leaves the room. And that is only a short, ½ second burst. It is inconceivable that the astronauts could have survived such radiation for so many hours, both exiting, and returning to Earth.
Regarding the fact that the flag was waving in the wind, the argument is that it was staged to appear as if it were waving, although it is in fact not. The flag was not held up by the vertical rod, as a flag on Earth would be. Instead, it was held up by another rod going across the top. (Redzero, 2003) This is what kept the flag in place. However, the rod does not extend to the end of the flag, so the right-most part of the flag droops down, due to gravity. The result is the appearance of ripples, as if it were waving in the wind. Is that really the case? See the example in figure 4, below. Also, where is the shadow of the Astronaut in this picture?
Figure 4
The fact that there were no stars in the picture has been explained as being due to the fact that the picture was taken in the daytime. (Comarow, 2004) However it does not address the fact that the sky was dark. Again, there is no atmosphere to reflect the sunlight, such as there is on Earth. It is our atmosphere that is responsible for the blue sky, and the obscuring clouds. At night, when the sky is black, we can see the stars. As Alex Strachan puts it, “As they say on CSI: people lie; the evidence doesn’t.”
Another example is in the footprints on the moon. Being that the gravity on the moon is only 1/6 that of Earth, (Hughes, 1989) the astronauts would have weighed 1/6 of their “Earth weight.” However, the depth of the footprints do not indicate such a light-weighted astronaut, as they are full depth. (Strachan, 2003)
Sure, some of the theories can be given a quick explanation. However, it is nearly impossible to prove that something did not happen. Therefore, there is no concrete proof to say that we absolutely, positively did not put a man on the moon. But many arguments have been presented to introduce an element of doubt. There is no empirical proof that we were there, at least none that is available to the general public. So the decision has to be left to the reader. Were the lunar landings faked? Maybe, but I’m not fully convinced that they were not faked. There are still enough unanswered questions out there that would keep us in doubt.