Did we land on the moon?
I can remember the night of July 20th 1969 sitting in front of my television in the early hours of
the morning watching a grainy black and white image of Neil Armstrong climbing carefully
down the ladder of the Lunar Module and stepping out onto the surface of the Moon, the first
man to have done so. It was a magical, awe inspiring moment that I shall never forget. A man
was walking on the Moon, 240,000 miles away, and I was watching it happen, live, on the TV
that sat in the corner of my living room! Amazing! "That's one small step for (a) man, one giant
leap for mankind". It certainly was. I felt privileged to be able to witness such a remarkable
moment in history.
For a brief history of spaceflight leading up to the moon landings and schematics of the Apollo
and Saturn V spacecraft see
The journey to the Moon
There are however, some people questioning if that event actually took place. They are basing
this on what they perceive as some discrepancies in some of the photographs from among the
thousands that were taken by the Apollo astronauts, and for various other assorted reasons. They
believe that the Moon landings were mocked up in a film studio and that the Apollo crews never
left low earth orbit. I honestly think that this is so sad, the greatest technological achievement yet
by the human race and these people don't believe it happened. Even sadder, they do not possess
the understanding to realise that they are completely wrong and that their arguments are
incredibly foolish, to put it mildly.
All the claims that it was a hoax are based on errors and ignorance.
The most surprising thing to me about this ridiculous claim that it was a hoax, is that some
people actually manage to believe it was! How do they manage it? If it really was a hoax do you
not think that the Russians at least would have been able to expose it? After all, the
ONLY
reason for going to the Moon was to beat the Russians to it, yet they have never once even hinted
at the possibility that it was a hoax, they know it was real! That is why they gave up their own
attempt after they ran into problems with their booster, it kept exploding on take off! There was
no point in them continuing once they realised the Americans had beaten them to it.
Nobody in
the world had more reason to want to prove it was a hoax than the Russians.
The Russians
are not daft, they were closely monitoring the Americans every inch of the way, and were able to
determine for a fact that the Americans did actually land on the Moon, much to their annoyance.
If the Russians say the Americans landed on the Moon, and they do, then the Americans
landed on the Moon. It's that simple.
Why do some people believe it was a hoax?
There are however, some people (not many) who do believe it was a hoax, but then some people
are prepared to believe just about anything! Maybe it's because they saw the TV program
and later here in the UK. The programme points out 'errors' in the photographs, that there are no
stars visible, that the flag waves in the 'breeze', and a host of other silly stuff. This joke of a show
was so idiotic it is beyond understanding how it could fool anyone. It was in fact so bad that the
Network, FOX, distanced themselves from the broadcast with a disclaimer admitting that "The
theories expressed [in the show] are not the only possible interpretation." That's just another way
of saying "This is a heap of manure even by our standards". For a full scientific explanation of
every so called 'error' claimed by the programme, visit the following excellent site.
Bad
Astronomy
:
Bad TV.
Another reason why people may believe it was a hoax may be due to the efforts of a small
number of people who make a living by selling books and videos 'exposing the hoax'. The
trouble these people run into is that because it was not a hoax, they have to work very hard to
make it seem, however tenuously, that it was. The consequence of this is that the claims they
make are both idiotic and farcical in their desperate attempts to get you to part with your cash.
Before you are fooled into parting with your hard earned cash, check out my pages on two of the
best known purveyors of unmitigated nonsense-for-cash-in the moon hoax business
Bart Sibrel
and
Bill Kaysing
Check out both of my pages for details of why the material they want you to
buy is nothing but pure garbage.
These two jokers work VERY hard to get you to part with your cash, promising all sorts of
'proof'. It is only after you have parted with your cash and seen the 'proof' that you realise, too
late of course, you have been well and truly done. Those of you that have already purchased their
nonsense will know what I mean. If however you have seen their videos or read their books and
still believe it was a hoax, then you have mistakenly stumbled onto the wrong site, this one is for
thinking people who have a fully functioning brain. Goodbye, thank you for calling.
---Let's now move on to explain why all the reasons people believe it was a hoax are wrong. You
do not need to be a rocket scientist to see the obvious errors in their arguments. In most cases
common sense is all you need. But first, let's get something out of the way.
Do I think hoax believers are stupid?
I am sometimes accused of treating hoax believers as if they are stupid. Let me say this here and
now and clearly. I do NOT consider that ALL hoax believers are stupid, okay? Some, possibly,
may be quite normal sensible people that have just got the facts wrong - they have been
evidence presented simply cannot be denied, the sensible person is left with no alternative but to
accept that they were wrong.
If however, in this situation, they still insist that they are right, even in the face of
incontrovertible evidence, then they shift from a position of being ignorant - they are no longer
unaware of the facts - to a position of being stupid. I'm sorry if this offends but there is no other
word for it. The dictionary says
'stupid - deficient or dull in understanding: showing lack of
reason or judgement: foolish, dull, boring'
So yes, many of the hoax believers that I deal with,
the ones that send me very strange emails indeed, I do consider to be stupid, they perfectly fit the
dictionary definition of the word. I do not consider them to be stupid because their questions may
sometimes appear to be rather simplistic and show an alarming lack of even basic knowledge
(that is often understandable as it depends on the level of education they have received) it is
because they deny the answer and choose not to accept the logic of a given fact that is in reality
inarguable.
If for example someone tells you that 2 +2 = 5, and you clearly and patiently show them by using
four coins that 2+2 = 4, and they still argue that they are right, that you are an idiot, and that they
have positive proof that you will be proven wrong, would it be unreasonable to assume that they
must be stupid? It is an unfortunate fact of life that there are some people in the world that are
undeniably stupid, we have all met them. I realise of course that this causes some people to call
me arrogant - and many other highly descriptive phrases - so be it. If being unafraid to tell the
truth, if knowing your subject well, if carrying out extensive independent research, if being able
to reply to a question using facts and logic, all make a person 'arrogant', then fine, I am happy to
accept - that by that definition - I am arrogant. I would rather be arrogant than stupid. But I
repeat again, not all hoax believers are stupid - some are just ignorant of the facts but do have an
open mind - but some hoax believers are undeniably incredibly stupid.
For an example of the many questions I receive from hoax believers see
Are Moon Hoax
believers stupid?
For a very brief explanation of the top twenty points raised by hoax believers
Moon Hoax
Believer's FAQ's
If you have had a bad day and just want a bit of a LAUGH, here it is.
The
REAL
answers to
Moon Hoax Believers FAQ's
---Okay, lets get on with the hoax believer's arguments for why it was all a hoax:
1) The Apollo crews never left near earth orbit.
satellites are today every hour of the night. The Apollo craft were, by many magnitudes, the
brightest and largest artificial objects orbiting the Earth, and would have been impossible to miss
as only the Moon and Venus were brighter. Furthermore, they would have been moving so fast
that they would have transited the night sky in about three minutes.
Bright, fast-moving objects
in the sky tend to attract lots of attention.
Do you honestly think that the entire world's radar systems, and visual astronomical
observatories, let alone individuals, would have failed to notice them if they had stayed in Earth
orbit? This would apply to all the manned missions that entered lunar orbit, Apollo 8 and 10 to
17, a total of NINE missions. And no one in the entire world noticed, not even once, they they
didn't really leave Earth orbit? To suggest such a thing is ludicrous! No one would have been
more over the Moon (sorry) to expose any American Moon hoax than the Russians, but they
couldn't, they saw them leave Earth orbit, and tracked them all the way to the moon.
This argument alone should provide sufficient evidence to show that the Apollo crews did
actually leave near earth orbit, but this will not be enough for the Moon hoax believers, they love
a good conspiracy theory.
So here is the nail in the coffin!
This conspiracy is a conspiracy
Jim McDade 4/1/2001. Extract from the Birmingham News.
Apollo 11 left for the moon on July 16, 1969. The crew consisted of Neil Armstrong, Michael
Collins and Buzz Aldrin. Every single moment of the Apollo voyage was monitored by an
international cadre of journalists, broadcasters, commentators, investigators, spies (from US
"allies" as well as enemies) amateur and professional astronomers, amateur and professional
radio engineers, television viewers and fifteen year-old me. Thousands stood outside in Hawaii
to directly witness the third stage of the Saturn V moon rocket execute the long burn to raise its
velocity from earth orbital speed to trans-lunar speed. Amateurs and professionals alike took
time-lapse photos of the craft as it sped along the background of stars in the exact places where it
was predicted to be by independent calculations. Bruno Stanek, a brilliant Swiss mathematician
and space observer furnished me with the following eyewitness account:
---2) Photographic 'evidence'
.
Let's just take a look at some photographs that demonstrate how these errors arise. I cannot
include them all, otherwise this page would take a week to load, but these silly claims come up
time after time.
a)
NASA forgot to paint the stars in the sky.
This is a classic, first started by Bill Kaysing 30 years ago. It's my all time favourite. It is very
popular with the hoax believers, but I can't understand why though, it's so easy to prove for
yourself. I think it tells us something very important about the way they think.
Look mum! No stars, NASA forgot to paint them in!
Buzz Aldrin on the lunar surface, 1969
The real reason is that when contrasted with the brightness of the astronauts and the lunar
surface, the stars are just too dim to register on the photographic emulsion of the camera film. If
the camera shutter were held open long enough for the stars to register, everything else would be
over-exposed into a white featureless glare. You cannot have both visible on the one photograph,
so the camera was set for the correct exposure for Buzz Aldrin and the lunar surface, not the
stars. When standing on the lunar surface the astronauts could not visually observe the stars in
the dark sky, because of the surface glare, they could only see them when standing in shadow.
By the same token, if we take a photograph outdoors at night from a brightly illuminated surface,
our photograph also would not show any stars in the sky.
If it is so easy for hoax believers to spot this 'error' - and let's face it, to forget to put the stars in
would have been an incredibly stupid mistake to make - do you honestly believe that not one
single person involved in the 'hoax' wouldn't have noticed it either? Or is it just that hoax
believers are all just so much smarter then all of them?
I have been 'informed' (now that's a joke) by hoax believers that NASA were unable to reproduce
the stars in their correct positions as seen from the moon, (being much too complicated a task for
stupid NASA to calculate) so rather than get it wrong and risk being found out decided to leave
them out. Ho ho ho hohoho! This argument is soooo ignorant of the facts! The stars are
much
too far away for any difference to be visible over the tiny distance of 250,000 miles from the
earth to the moon. Take a photograph of the stars from earth, then six months later take another
photograph. In this time span the earth will have shifted the maximum distance from one side of
its orbit around the sun to the other, around 186,000,000 miles. Only a couple of the very nearest
stars will be seen to have shifted against the background stars (this apparent shift is due to
parallax) and even then, the shift is very small and is only perceptible by comparing the two
photos very carefully. (Parallax is the most accurate means available for measuring the distance
to the stars, but is limited to those few stars that are very close to us). So, Nasa would only need
to put up background photos of the stars as photographed from earth because that is exactly how
the stars would look from the moon as well. This is known as research, and comes in very handy
when attempting to argue a point.
Anyway, no need to take my word for it is there, I could be part of the conspiracy according to
your way of thinking. (Wish I was, I would be getting paid for this.) Just pop outside one night
and try to photograph the stars with a brightly illuminated person in the foreground. Try it, its
easy enough to prove without the need of a massive conspiracy theory, just you and a camera is
all that is required.
Case closed.
---b)
The Great Flag Waving in the Breeze hoax.
Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin deploy a U.S. flag on the Moon in 1969
The flag is held out in the unfurled position by an extendable rod running through the top of the
flag, so that it can be viewed unfurled, and you can see the unnatural rigidity this gives to the top
of the flag in the picture. The rod creates the effect of a breeze blowing the flag into that
position. Without the supporting rod the flag would just hang limply down and would not reveal
the stars and stripes. Flags are designed to be blown into position by the wind on Earth, so the
support was added to replicate this, as there is no atmosphere on the Moon. The rod is not
extended the full width of the flag and it looks like a breeze is causing a ripple in the flag.
It has also been claimed that some video clips show the flag waving in the breeze when it was
planted. Not so. The movement of the flag is only because when astronauts were planting the
flagpole they rotated it back and forth to better penetrate the lunar soil. Without an atmosphere it
takes a while for this movement to damp down. There is not one video clip showing the flag
moving when the astronauts are not holding it, a fact never mentioned by the hoax believers.
Do you really think that an errant breeze blowing through the set causing the flag to wave in
what was supposed to be a total vacuum would not have been noticed? Such an obvious fact
could not escape the notice of an entire film crew, besides which they would surely have called
upon the services of experts to oversee operations to guard against this very sort of 'error'. They
would simply have done another take.
Case closed.
---c)
The cross hairs have been added after and go behind some
I must admit to being rather fond of this one as well, as it is such a totally pointless 'hoax' that I
fail to understand why anyone can believe it was actually done. The most foolish aspect of this
claim is that if the cross hairs were added after, how can they possibly be overlaid on the photo
and appear
behind
some of the objects in the photo? Hoax believers are defeating their own
argument with this one!
Cross hairs shown 'behind' objects.
The explanation: Extract from
Moon Hoax
Under the section 'Photography and Film'.
"The cross hairs on this photograph appear to go behind the objects in the photograph. Does this
suggest that the photograph is a faked 'pasted-together' image? (The cross hairs are included as
an aid for linking a series of pictures together to create a panoramic view) The cross hairs on the
photographs were produced by a glass plate within the camera, between the lens and film. They
result in a black cross on the film because they block the light from reaching the film directly
below them. If, however, you are taking a photograph of a really bright white object, the
over-exposed part of the film 'bleeds' into other parts of the film. This is particularly the case if the
adjacent part of the film is black. This is exactly what is happening where the cross hair meets a
bright, reflective part of the photograph. It occurs in a number of the Apollo photographs, but
you only see it where the cross hairs seem to disappear behind a bright white part. You never see
it happening anywhere else."
The image below, a close up from a much larger photograph, shows how the cross hairs are not
visible where they cross the brightest part of the background due to 'bleed over'.
Why do you think NASA would want to add the cross hairs after? If they had somehow changed
cameras and forgot to insert the etched glass plate that produces the cross hairs, they would have
just ditched the photographs, not gone to the trouble of faking them in afterwards. It would be a
hell of a lot easier just to do a re-take if the photographs were considered to be important enough.
The photograph shown here can hardly be considered to be in that category, they are about as
mundane as they come, so why fake it?
Case closed.
---d)
The same background appears in two different locations
This one I feel is especially stupid. Almost deserving of a special award for supreme ignorance
and lack of even the most basic common sense. How anyone can take this claim seriously is
beyond me, they must be the village idiot!
Photos taken by the Apollo 15 crew
The photos above are the two most commonly used in support of this truly pathetic argument.
The poor confused hoax believers claim that as the Lunar Module is only visible in one photo, it
must show two different locations where NASA used the same fake backdrop twice. Pardon me
while I fall off my chair laughing!
The mountains we see above are the
Apennine Front
on the left side of each photo and
Mount
Hadley Delta
to the right in each. Apollo 15 astronauts went up to those mountains and walked
on Hadley Delta and collected many unique rock samples. How could they enter a fake
backdrop?
The photo on the left shows a tree in the foreground on the left hand side. The photo on the right
doesn't. The distant hills look identical thus proving that I have used the same fake backdrop in
two different locations.
Yes, their argument really is that stupid!
In reality I just walked forward a few yards and took the photo on the right while standing next
to the tree. I even made sure I kept the foreground in both pictures, thus showing a change of
location so I could not be accused of felling the tree!
If any hoax believers find this too difficult to follow, ask your older friends in the playground.
Case closed.
---e)
'Wrong' shadows.
This is a general category and covers many photographs based on the shadows being 'wrong'.
This is a good one as well. It shows how easy it is to make wrong assumptions when looking at a
'problem' with tunnel vision instead of trying to understand what is really going on from a
scientific point of view. This I feel is a concept that must be alien to Moon hoax believers.
Lots of the hoax claims rest on the belief that the shadows shown in the photographs are
somehow wrong, that they indicate more than one light source because the object shown is
illuminated from the front and the sides, and so on. This leads them to believe it is due to lighting
mistakes on a film set.
dark room. It shines on the entire 'daytime' surface, just as it does here on Earth. Therefore it also
illuminates the surface, the astronauts themselves, rocks, mountains, the Lander and all the other
objects on the surface. The reflections from these various objects is why there is more than one
light source, it is not because there was more than one spotlight used on a film set. It is also
worth noting that on the lunar surface the reflected sunlight from the Earth is 68% brighter than
that of the full Moon as seen from Earth.
You must visit this site, it's very good.
Are Apollo Moon Photos fake?
It shows some of the photos in question with alongside little models of the scene appropriately
illuminated. It is an ingenious and foolproof way of silencing the critics. Do check it out, its
great, and worth a visit just to see the little models. Here is a sample from the site.
The model on the left replicates a photo that hoax believers show how NASA got it wrong. They
claim the astronaut standing in the shadow of the lander should not be illuminated, but should
also be in shadow. The model on the right shows that it is the reflected light from the surface that
is illuminating the astronaut, by placing a dark sheet of paper over the surface to reduce the
reflection. There is nothing wrong with the photo, its just showing it how it is, the astronaut
being lit by surface reflection, which is a lot brighter than the surface of the Earth. It is not
because they used too many spotlights in a film set.
If two spotlights were used this would create two shadows from each object so illuminated. None
of the lunar photos shows more than one shadow. Think about it.
Case closed.
---So there you have it, the most commonly believed hoaxes shown not to be.
Personally I find the most surprising thing about the whole business is that hoax believers think
that NASA, armed with a budget of billions of dollars and the best experts in the world, could
make so many incredibly stupid errors that even the most novice, untrained, inexperienced
amateur can spot them easily.
I think that basically, this is what this is all about. Hoax believers consider themselves to be very
smart and all the experts at NASA incredibly stupid. This is the same hoax believers that didn't
even think to try to photograph the stars themselves, because they just know its a hoax, no need
to test it, they saw it on the internet. Oh yes, very smart.
---3) Conditions on the Moon are different to the Earth.
All the other 'fake' photographs are explained just as easily with a little knowledge, and an
understanding of how conditions on the Moon are very different to those here. With no
atmosphere to scatter the light, things look a little odd on the Moon, we have a very black sky
and a very bright surface. We see strong shadows everywhere, and our sense of distance is also
fooled because there is no atmosphere to produce the familiar atmospheric haze that creates a
distance perspective on Earth. Furthermore, with the gravity being only a sixth of Earth's gravity,
things move and behave differently as well. It's hard to make straight comparisons, because we
cannot, the Moon is just not like the Earth. We have to think differently when interpreting the
images from the Moon, and that's what causes the problems, people are not allowing for those
differences when looking at the lunar photographs. They are looking at them as if they were
taken under normal Earth conditions, and concluding wrongly that there must be something
wrong with the photographs. There isn't!
---Scientific Errors
It isn't just the photographs that have misled the hoax believers either, it's also a lack of scientific
knowledge. It's difficult to select a favourite hoax that makes the most ridiculous claim, because
there are so many to choose from, but personally I think this has to be number one, its a beaut! I
just love it to pieces.
4) The Moon rocks are just Earth rocks.
"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.
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 blastwaves 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."
"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]."
For further evidence that the Moon rocks are indeed rocks from the Moon, visit this site
Moon
Rocks through the Microscope
---Another popular hoax theory, this time sounding more plausible than usual because it is difficult
to verify without a very good understanding of the nature of particles and their effect on the
human body.
5) Astronauts couldn't survive passage through the Van Allen
radiation belt.
radiation dosage for the astronauts to be between 1-2 rem, the equivalent of a couple of chest
x-rays. See my page
Van Allen belts
---6) The spacesuits cannot operate their air-conditioning in a
vacuum.
This one comes up on a fairly regular basis so I decided to include it. It seems to be a popular
misconception that heat cannot be removed from an object in a vacuum. A little thought on the
subject easily dispels this myth, for if that were the case how could we receive heat from the
Sun? Radiation travels though a vacuum, this is an obvious fact. The system used by the
spacesuits to shed surplus heat generated by the exertions of the astronauts is fairly simple in
operation. The astronauts wear a garment that has water filled tubes running through it that is
circulated around their body. The cool water absorbs the heat from the astronauts and is cooled
down by the cooling unit. The cooling is achieved by spraying a fine jet of water over the
cooling tubes which are located outside the space suit in the cooling unit and exposed to the
vacuum of space. In a vacuum the water spray naturally rapidly expands, and in expanding is
naturally rapidly cooled, and turns to ice on the tubes. The water passing through is cooled by the
cold tubes and the heat given up by the water melts the ice and is lost into space as it evaporates.
Simple. The astronauts are able to adjust the temperature control of their spacesuits according to
their exertions.
The amount of water used is minute compared to the volume of drinking water taken on board to
supply a crew of three for periods of a week and over. For more information on how spacesuits
work visit the following site:
www.howstuffworks
---7) Why doesn't the Hubble Space Telescope provide proof?
This argument runs along the lines that as the HST can provide images of galaxies millions of
light years away, why can't it provide images of a lander on the Moon, which is on our door
step?
HST resolution = 0
.
048 arc seconds (formula for this is 116 divided by aperture in mm. = 116
divided by 2400)
Visual maximum diameter of full Moon = 31'40
"= 1900 arc seconds (a fraction over 1/2 a
degree)
Therefore HST can resolve an object on the Moon of (1900 divided by 0.048 ) = 1/39,583 of the
Moon's diameter
Actual diameter of Moon = 3476 km
Therefore resolvable object size = 3476 km divided by 39,583 =
87 metres
As the landers are only around 9 metres across
it is not possible for the HST to resolve them,
they just wouldn't show up on any image of the area under examination. I emailed the HST site
to make sure I had got my sums right, explaining why I needed it for this site, and their reply was
as follows:
"You are correct. Hubble's resolution is good and can resolve objects and areas as small as
280 feet, (86 metres) which rules out the Apollo debris on the moon. Hope this helps!"
Yes it does! Thanks to the HST Office of Public Outreach.
PS. The current largest ground based telescope is the 10 metre Keck, far bigger than the HST and
therefore has a far better resolution of 0.012. But this is a theoretical limit that cannot be
achieved through an atmosphere, so the HST, being in the vacuum of space, is still number one.
HST maximum detail image of the 58 mile wide crater Copernicus. Imagine trying to see a
lander!
Anyway, what would be the point even if the HST were able to image the landers? The good old
Moon hoax believers would only claim the images were faked.
---Enough of scientific errors, I cannot answer them all here, it would take a book, but a little
research will always reveal that the hoaxers have got it wrong every time.
If you wish to check out further sites that debunk the Moon hoax theory, this one is very good on
facts, with clear easy to follow explanations, with a host of photographs, and offers a good
choice of further sites.
The Moon landings were not faked
---8) Why haven't we been back?
This one comes up on a fairly regular basis and is used by hoax believers to support their
argument that we never went in the first place, because if we had then surely we would have
gone back. There are a number of reasons why this has not happened, and it is necessary to know
the reason for going in the first place, and the history behind it, to understand why.
On the 25th May 1961 President John F Kennedy told Congress: "I believe that this nation
should commit itself, before this decade is out, to the goal of landing a man on the Moon and
returning him safely to Earth."
The only reason for making this declaration was in response to the USSR for having put the first
man in orbit, Yuri Gagarin, because at the time of Kennedy's speech, the USA had only managed
one small sub-orbital manned flight. The Moon landing project was not a scientific endeavour, it
was a political decision to win the 'Space Race', as it was believed that whoever controlled space
would gain an enormous military advantage. It also had very important propaganda value
regarding Communism v Capitalism. The USA felt that it was extremely important that they
overtake the Russians in the 'Space Race' and be the first to land a man on the Moon. This was a
propaganda war at the height of the cold war. Nothing to do with science. See
The journey to the
Moon
Having achieved the goal of landing a man on the Moon in 1969, that was it, mission
accomplished. The Russians had given up trying and now pretended that they never intended to
send men anyway, only probes. President Nixon cancelled the Apollo project, and the last to go
was Apollo 17. It had been planned to send Apollo's 18, 19 & 20, but the USA had other far
more pressing issues, such as the Vietnam war for example. The American public had become
bored with the Moon landings anyway and felt it was becoming a huge waste of money, and in
response to the general apathy many TV channels did not even bother to give the Moon flights
air time. (Remember the film 'Apollo 13'). Furthermore, photographs of American soldiers
ducking bullets in a muddy trench in Vietnam while listening to the Apollo 11 astronauts walk
on the Moon, was, to say the least, incongruous.
by the Shuttle, various probes to study the Sun, Mars, Saturn and other planets, comets and
asteroids, and so on.
Going back to the Moon would be unbelievably expensive, and very little would be gained by it.
Would the American public readily part with their tax dollars for such a pointless venture when
they have other issues, such as health and welfare, unemployment, areas of poverty, a stock
market collapse, an energy problem, pollution, crime, etc. (as do most countries I would add) not
to mention a very costly war against the 'axis of terrorism'? What President is going to propose a
massive investment in returning to the Moon, for no real reason, when there are so many more
important issues that need addressing? It would be madness.
That's why we have not gone back. Its not because we have not been there, but because we have.
---9) Why was manned space flight safer back then?
This question comes up every now and again, so I decided it was easier just to include it on the
main page, even though it is pure nonsense.
It was never a 'safe' journey to reach the Moon, far from it. The Apollo 1 crew were all burned to
death on the launch pad while only rehearsing a lift off, and the Apollo 13 crew were very lucky
to make it back alive after being forced to cancel their Moon landing following a near fatal
onboard explosion. This from a total of only 11 manned Apollo flights. You call that 'safe'? The
Space Shuttle has suffered two major disasters in 113 flights, not a great record, but far better
that the Apollo missions, even though the shuttle is forced to use a far more dangerous system of
lift-off and re-entry. The truth is NASA were glad the moon missions were cancelled because
they knew it was only a matter of time before they lost a crew. Better to stop while ahead.
The system of getting to the Moon was to use a huge Saturn V booster costing $185,000,000 that
was used once only - simply to get the Apollo Command and Service Module into low Earth
orbit and then boost it on its way to the moon- then it was thrown away! The Saturn V booster,
complete with the tiny Apollo Module on top, stood 363 feet high and weighed 2,888 tons. The
only part of this huge monster to return the crew to Earth was the tiny Command Module fitted
with a heat shield. See
The journey to the Moon
This system IS a lot safer then using a re-usable
Space Shuttle, but is impossibly expensive to use on a regular basis as the shuttle is today. The
ONLY reason such a ridiculously expensive system was ever used in the first place was because
it provided the USA with the quickest way to achieve a Moon landing before the Russians got
there first.
Shuttle, and much faster, with the result that it was much safer. This may sound odd but it's all
due to the shockwave created by the space craft, and the blunter the capsule and the faster it
moves, the farther away the shock wave occurs. A returning spacecraft does not get hot through
friction with the atmosphere. A layer of air builds up in front of it, and between this layer and the
surrounding atmosphere is the shockwave. That's where the heat is generated. Most of the heat of
a Mercury (and Apollo) re-entry was swept away into the atmosphere.
Because the shuttle was required to be maneuverable during landing it had to have a delta wing
which meant that the wing is much more exposed to the heat. NASA originally wanted the
Shuttle to re-enter like the Mercury capsule, with its nose held high, but it's shape and size
restricted it with the nose allowed no higher than 40 degrees to the horizon. As a result, the
Shuttle would be subject to four times as much heat, for twice as long.
The shuttle re-entry procedure has always been dangerous, as is the lift off, strapped as it is to the
External Fuel Tank and two Solid Rocket Boosters, with no means of escape for the crew in the
event of an emergency.
Yes, of course the technology has improved over the last 30 years or so, but it's just not possible
to compare a one-flight only Saturn V booster with a re-usable Space Shuttle. Two very different
machines doing two very different jobs.
So the next time someone feels like asking "How come they did all those flawless trips to the
Moon over 30 years ago but can't do anything today?" just pause for a minute and think about
what you are saying. Now that WOULD make a change!
For a history of space exploration leading up to the Moon landings
The journey to the Moon
---10) But how can you ignore all that evidence that it was a hoax?
This is very simple to explain,
there is no evidence.
There are however plenty of crazy web sites
claiming that it was a hoax, and some of these sites are run by people who actually make a living
out of it, people such as
Bill Kaysing
and
Bart Sibrel
for instance. These people have no formal
qualifications on space flight and know not much more about it than the average man in the
street, perhaps even less! They are however very keen that you visit their web sites and buy their
books, videos and DVD's. They are prepared to make the most stupid of claims if they think it
will help boost sales. Often they will present things in such a way that they seem to make sense,
but closer examination always reveals how the truth is very different.
Here is an example from Bart Sibrel's
DVD and video. This one comes up fairly frequently,
which is which is why I have selected it.
he should not have been answering. ...I'm saying Collins blew it right then and there and I
honestly cannot understand why there is even further discussion on the whole topic..."
Sounds convincing doesn't it! Truth is though this statement is so inaccurate it amounts to
a lie.
Here is the relevant part of the transcript:
SIBREL:
I have two brief questions that I would like to ask, if I may. When you were carrying
out that incredible Moon walk, did you find that the surface was equally firm everywhere or
were there harder and softer spots that you could detect? And secondly, when you looked up at
the sky, could you actually
see the stars in the solar corona
in spite of the glare?
ALDRIN:
The first part of your question, the surface did vary in its thickness of penetration
somewhere in flat regions. [...]
ARMSTRONG:
We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side
of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics [i.e., the lunar module's navigation
telescope].
I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar
corona what stars we could see.
COLLINS:
I don't remember seeing any.
(The First Lunar Landing As Told By The Astronauts: Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins in a
Post-flight Press Conference, NASA EP-73, 1989 pt. VI)
As you can see, Sibrel
DID
ask about seeing stars,
BUT
it was 'stars in the solar corona'
WHICH ONLY OCCURRED WHILE THEY WERE ON THEIR WAY TO THE MOON,
NOT ON THE MOON
. That is why Collins also answered the question. Solar corona
photography had been taken from the command module during the translunar coast, in which all
three astronauts participated. (Apollo 11 Preliminary Science Report NASA SP-214, 1969, p.
39).
It's by using editing tricks like this that Sibrel, and others, try to support their ridiculous claim for
a hoax and thereby hope to sell a few more of their daft books, videos and DVD's.
---What do I think?
radiation belt. If you think you still have any problems remaining, then a visit to the sites I have
put in links to should dispel them.
As a matter of interest, if you believe otherwise, how do you explain the Moon rock samples
held in laboratories throughout the world? As explained above, they
REALLY ARE Moon rocks,
and cannot possibly be Earth rocks that have been faked. You could, I suppose, argue that every
laboratory, university, research centre, geological institution, professional scientist, etc,
throughout the world that has examined the Moon rocks, are so incredibly stupid that they have
failed to spot that they are really only faked up Earth rocks? (This is ignoring the fact that they
cannot be faked anyway). Or perhaps you prefer the good old standby that it is all part of a world
wide conspiracy. (No, you're not paranoid, they really are all conspiring against you).
Or perhaps instead you think that a probe was sent to the Moon to bring back the Moon rocks?
Well yes, that is possible, sort of, but not on this scale.
Three robotic Soviet Lunar probes
returned a total of about 3/4 lb. (301 grams) from three lunar sites in the 1970's. However, the
Apollo crews from 1969 to 1972 collected a total 840 lbs, (382 kgs.) of rock and other surface
material. One rock alone weighed 25 lbs. (11.7 kgs.) In comparison to the Apollo total of 840
lbs. the Soviet total of 3/4 lbs. is miniscule. Probes simply could not have returned that much
material, (especially a single rock weighing 25 lbs.) and if they could have, it would have been
the Soviets that achieved it as they were always way ahead in the field of robotic probes.
Below: (Left)
Nick-named "Big Muley," this 11.7 kg (over 25 lbs.) Moon rock was the largest
returned to Earth by Apollo astronauts. One side of Big Muley was peppered with meteoroid
"zap pits."
Below: (Right)
A close-up view of 1 mm diameter zap pits shows tiny craters lined with black
glass surrounded by a white halo of shocked rock. (Remember, this cannot be faked!)
"Big Muley"
'altered' to give that effect. I have received emails suggesting that this was if fact what happened,
that the signals were 'faked' to make it appear that they came from the Moon. However, this
could not be accomplished even today, let alone back in 1969.
Do you think Apollo 13 was just for fun, why fake that? Do you think all the thousands of
photographs was faked? All the video was faked? Think just how many people would have to be
involved in the cover-up, and they all kept quiet? Really!
Whatever arguments are presented claiming the Moon landings never happened, the fact is they
did.
I have even been emailed to have it pointed out to me that as the 'Apollo 13' film was made in
Hollywood, so could the Moon landings have been made in the Nevada Desert. This theory also
clearly demonstrates that the 'Titanic' may not really have sunk either! Just how bad can some
people's reasoning get? How on Earth do you begin to reply to this type of nonsense? I
sometimes just despair at some people's mentality.
However, in reply to the person who emailed me to ask why I am so sure that the Earth is not
flat, the answer is very simple. If it were flat then I'm sure that you would have been the first to
fall off.
If anyone still believes it was a hoax after visiting the above web sites, please email me with
your reasons why. If it makes sense I will not only publish it, I will publish a full retraction and
admit to being not only wrong, but also stupid. I do NOT expect this to happen, but please feel
free to try. Dated 27th December 2001.
---Apollo 15 Landing Site Spotted in Images
Article taken from
Space
com
.
Arrows B & C show recent impact sites. Arrow A shows a dark patch at the exact point
Apollo 15 landed
Apollo 15's lunar module, the Falcon, touched down at the Hadley-Apennine region near the
Apennine Mountains on July 30, 1971. Falcon was the first of the piloted landers to carry
enlarged fuel tanks, as well as tote along a Moon rover. Moonwalkers David Scott and James
Irwin scuffed up the lunar surface during their over three-day stay. Using an electric-powered
car, the twosome wheeled their way back and forth over the crater-dotted terrain for a total of 17
miles (27.4 kilometers).
Kreslavsky, along with research colleague Yuri Shkuratov of the Kharkov Astronomical
Observatory in Ukraine, made use of images taken by the U.S. Defense Department's high-tech
Clementine lunar orbiter. The Ballistic Missile Defense Organization's faster, better, cheaper
Clementine probe circled the Moon in 1994, making use of a camera that snapped well over a
million images in the ultraviolet to visible range. A set of Clementine images in the vicinity of
the Apollo 15 landing site were intensively studied by Kreslavsky and Shkuratov. Their work
was dedicated to help discern fresh impacts on the Moon, or to search for sites of recent seismic
activity in the lunar crust.
The work and the techniques utilized not only proved useful in studying the lunar surface, but
also yielded a bonus find. A small dark spot found in the Clementine images is not associated
with any fresh crater, but exactly coincides with the Apollo 15 landing site, Kreslavsky told
SPACE.com.
"This is a result of my processing 52 images taken by the Clementine spacecraft through a red
filter, while the spacecraft went over the scene from the southern horizon through zenith to the
northern horizon," Kreslavsky said. A diffuse dark spot can be seen exactly at the landing site, he
said.
The disruption in the structure of the lunar regolith is caused by the landing, Kreslavsky said. He
contends that the alteration has been created by the lunar module's engine during touchdown.
---It is not possible to convince hoax believers!
I do not think for one minute that the above picture of the landing site of Apollo 15 will go one
jot towards convincing hoax believers, they will claim the picture is a fake (which it isn't) and
that it does not reveal enough detail to be convincing (which is true). But what WOULD it take
to convince them? Photo, TV and video evidence no, Moon rocks no, testimony from the Moon
walkers themselves, no, reams of documented papers no, scientists from around the world no.
etc. etc. What would?
Suppose that a prominent hoax believer was taken, at enormous costs to NASA, to the Moon and
showed the old landers, would that do it? No, of course not, all the others would claim that he or
she was bought off by NASA or was even working for them all along!
There is no way possible to convince these people, it just can't be done. Ask them what they
would accept as evidence, and the answer, short of going to the Moon themselves, which as I
have explained would be pointless as far as the rest of them are concerned, is nothing! If the
Japanese go to the Moon and show images of the Apollo landers would that do it? No, they
would claim the images are fake.
I can't help but wonder how these people manage to be so selective in choosing what they are
prepared to accept when confronted with such a mass of evidence. How on Earth do they manage
to accept other events that they have not personally witnessed?
Do they accept that JFK was shot dead? Why? Were they there at the time?
Do they accept that the Titanic sank? Why? Were they there at the time?
Hiroshima after the atomic bomb.
Do they accept that men walked on the Moon? No. Why not? Every argument they have put
forward for not believing has been proven wrong.
If they can accept that Hiroshima was destroyed by an atomic bomb, and accept countless other
historical events, based on eye witness accounts, photographs and documents, why not accept
that men walked on the Moon? The sources of evidence are the same!
---DID WE LAND ON
THE MOON?
A Debunking of the Moon
Hoax Theory
On February 15, 2001 the FOX television network aired a program titled Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land On The Moon? This program showed alleged evidence that NASA faked the moon landings. This hoax theory has been around for several years, but this is the first time it has been presented to such a wide audience. Since this Website, Rocket and Space
Technology, is dedicated to the men and women who brought the moon landings to
fruition, I feel the time is right for me to speak out on this topic.
This TV program capitalizes on America's fixation with government conspiracies by
American public is an insult to the courage of the astronauts and the brilliance of the engineers who worked to achieve mankind's greatest technological feat. FOX is apparently only concerned with ratings while exhibiting total disregard for the integrity of America's true heroes.
Some of the most prominent advocates of the hoax theory are Bill Kaysing, author of We Never Went To The Moon, Ralph Rene, author of NASA Mooned America, David Percy and Mary Bennett, co-authors of Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle Blowers and, more recently, Bart Sibrel, producer of A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon. These people, and other hoax advocates, usually point to alleged anomalies in the Apollo photo and video record as evidence of their claims. The FOX program featured many of these claims while providing very little refuting evidence or testimony. Below are my comments refuting both the evidence presented in the TV program and many other common hoax allegations. I invite you to draw your own conclusions, but I suspect you will find the facts speak for themselves.
The likelihood of success was calculated to be so small that it is inconceivable the moon landings could have actually taken place.
Bill Kaysing has claimed that the chance of a successful landing on the moon was calculated to be 0.0017% (1 in 60,000). The source of this information appears to be a report
prepared by the Rocketdyne company in the late 1950s. This assessment was, of course, based on understanding and technology existing at the time of the report. As tremendous resources were poured into the problem over the next decade, the reliability studies improved dramatically.
During the mid-1960s the Apollo Support Department of the General Electric Company in Florida conducted extensive mission reliability studies for NASA. These studies were based on very elaborate reliability models of all of the systems. A reliability profile over the course of a mission was generated by computer simulation, and a large number of such simulations were carried out for different scenarios. Based on those studies, the probability of landing on the moon and returning safely to earth never dropped below 90%.
Every Apollo mission before number 11 was plagued by about 20,000 defects apiece. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn't one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions.
This is the claim of hoax advocate Ralph Rene. Although I am unfamiliar with the source of this information, Mr. Rene's assertion is clear; the early missions had so many
insurmountable problems that NASA decided to abandon the moon landings and fake it. Even if the data is accurate, there is a big difference between a "defect" and a "major technical problem". None of the Apollo missions, with the exception of number 13, experienced a major technical problem that prohibited the crews from successfully completing their missions. Also, the early Apollo flights were test missions designed specifically to shake out bugs in the hardware and procedures. Finally, the moon landings were far from flawless. There were numerous technical problems but, thanks to the skill of the flight controllers, engineers and astronauts, the problems were either corrected or circumvented such that the crews were able to complete their missions with amazing success.
Television pictures of the Apollo 11 landing were sent directly to Earth from the surface of the Moon using the Lunar Module's antenna and power supply. This placed a restriction on the amount of bandwidth that could be transmitted. Apollo 11 was thereby limited to using a black-and-white, slow-scan TV camera with a scan rate of 10 frames-per-second at 320 lines-per-frame. In order to broadcast the images to the world, the pictures had to first be converted to the commercial TV standards. In the US, this was the EIA standard of 30 frames-per-second at 525 lines-per-frame. The pictures transmitted from the Moon were displayed on a 10-inch black-and-white monitor and a vidicon camera was pointed at the screen and the pictures were scanned at the EIA standard. A number of peculiar image artifacts were seen on the images. One set of artifacts was produced by sunlight reflecting off the astronauts and the LM onto the TV camera's lens. These reflections produced the ghostly effects perceived by the public. Other prominent artifacts were the result of spots burnt into the monitor screens from which the optical conversions were produced.
Apollo 11 was only a first step in what was to be increasingly ambitious missions, thus it was lacking in some capabilities. Among these was the ability to transmit high-quality TV pictures. Later missions, starting with Apollo 12, had enough time in the schedule to permit the astronauts to erect large freestanding dish antennas. This increased the amount of bandwidth that could be transmitted, thus allowing complex color TV pictures to be sent directly to Earth.
There can't be any pictures taken on the Moon because the film would melt in the 250° temperatures.
The Apollo astronauts used what was, at the time, a special transparency film produced by Eastman Kodak under a NASA contract. The photosensitive emulsions layers where placed on an ESTAR polyester film base, which had previously been used primarily for motion picture film. The melting point of Estar is 490° F, although some shrinkage and distortion can occur at around 200° F. Fortunately the film was never exposed to this kind of
temperature. The cameras were protected inside a special case designed to keep them cool. The situation on the airless Moon is much different than in your oven, for instance. Without convection or conduction, the only method of heat transfer is radiation. Radiative heat can be effectively directed away from an object by wrapping it in a material with a reflective surface, usually simply a white material. The camera casings, as well as most of the astronauts' clothing, were indeed white.
Every Apollo photograph appears to be perfectly composed, focused and exposed, despite the fact the astronauts used cameras without viewfinders and light
meters.
The implication is that the astronauts could not have achieved this apparent level of perfection. The obvious answer is that they did not, as is evident by this badly
underexposed example [see photo]. The photos to which the hoax advocates refer are publicity photos released by NASA. Surely, NASA isn't going to release the foul-ups and blunders. Also, what appears to be perfect composition is, in many cases, the result of cropping. If all the photographs were uncropped, the number, size and pattern of crosshairs would be identical in every photo, which clearly is not the case. I don't mean to take
The black sky should be full of stars, yet none are visible in any of the Apollo photographs.
This claim is one I hear frequently, and is one of the easiest to refute. The answer is very simple: they are too faint. The Apollo photos are of brightly lit objects on the surface of the Moon, for which fast exposure settings were required. The fast exposures simply did not allow enough starlight into the camera to record an image on the film. For the same reason, images of Earth taken from orbit also lack stars. The stars are there; they just don't appear in the pictures. The hoax advocates often argue that stars should be visible, and some of their claims are valid, however they fail to recognize the difference between "seeing" stars and "photographing" stars. The astronauts could have recorded star images in their photos by increasing exposures, but they were not there to take star pictures. The purpose of the photos was to record the astronauts' activities on the surface of the Moon.
Bill Kaysing claims that NASA has perpetrated the lie that stars cannot be seen in space to validate the lack of stars in the Apollo photos. This assertion is utterly ridiculous; in fact, NASA has released many photos in which stars are visible. Common among these are long-exposure nighttime photographs of aurora taken by space shuttle astronauts. This example
[see photo] is a four-second exposure taken from the flight deck of the shuttle Endeavour.
The astronauts should have seen a beautiful star-filled sky above them, yet they never mention it.
Even though there was a black sky above them, the astronauts still had to contend with the glare of a brightly lit lunar surface. The bright landscape prevented the astronauts' eyes from becoming dark adapted, thus making it nearly impossible to see faint stars. It would be like trying to see stars at night on Earth while someone is shining a flashlight directly into your eyes. Some astronauts reported that, while inside the LM, they could see stars through the upper rendezvous window. Also, astronaut Gene Cernan said that, while standing in the shadow of the Apollo 17 LM, he could see some stars while he was outside.
There are several photographs of objects that are in shadows, yet they appear lighted and with surprising detail. Objects located in shadows should appear totally black.
The problem with this statement is that it fails to consider reflected sunlight. Next to the Sun, the largest source of light on the Moon is the lunar surface itself, which reflects large amounts of sunlight. At the Earth-Sun distance, maximum solar illumination is about 10,000 lumens per square foot; however, if the Sun is not directly overhead its rays will strike the surface obliquely. This decreases the intensity of sunlight per unit area. A typical Sun elevation during the Apollo landings was about 20 degrees, thus the illumination per square foot was about 3,400 lumens. Since the Moon's surface reflects about 10% of the light it receives, each square foot of surface reflected about 340 lumens. This is equivalent to the luminosity of a 35-watt light bulb. This amount of light easily explains the illumination observed in the Apollo photographs.
In many photographs the shadow side of the astronauts appear illuminated, while the shadow side of rocks appear totally black.
surface acts as a reflector to illuminate the shadow side of the astronaut. At the elevation of the astronaut's feet, and the foreground rocks, this reflector surface is mostly covered by the adjacent shadows. However, at the elevation of the astronaut's head and torso, the shadows cover a much smaller percentage of the surface. For example, on a flat surface the angular distance from horizon to horizon is 180 degrees. At an elevation of five feet, a one-foot wide shadow subtends an angle of 11.4 degrees, or only 6% of the distance from horizon to horizon. At two inches above the ground, this shadow subtends an angle of 143 degrees, or nearly 80% of the surface. Furthermore, the rocks are darker and less reflective than the astronaut's white space suit.
Shadows cast on the lunar surface should be parallel. Some shadows in the Apollo photos are not parallel indicating more than one light source, thus the photos are fakes.
Again there is a sound explanation; it is a simple a matter of perspective. A photo is a two-dimensional representation of a three-two-dimensional world, hence parallel lines may not appear as such on film. We all know how lines on a highway appear to diverge as they approach the observer, yet we know they are parallel. Another important factor that comes into play here is the slope of the ground. Let's consider two shadows - one cast on an upward slope and the other on a downward slope. If viewed from the side, these shadows would appear to go off in different directions. However, if viewed from high above, they would be seen as parallel. In other words, looks can be deceiving. There is no evidence of NASA trickery here.
This photograph [see photo], taken on Earth, is an excellent example illustrating how perspective causes shadows to appear non-parallel when seen on film. In this example [see photo] the astronaut on the right is standing on a small rise. The sloping ground has caused his shadow to elongate and appear at a different angle than the shadow of the astronaut on the left. Also note, if two spotlights produced the shadows then each astronaut would have two shadows.
Apollo 11 footage shows the astronauts' shadows increasing and decreasing in length as they move about. This is because they are in close proximity to a large artificial light source that causes their shadows to change as they move toward or away from the light.
This claim comes from David Percy, who displays this image [see photo] on his Web site. A brief examination reveals that Percy's explanation cannot possibly account for the shadows. If the shadows were produced as described, then the closer an astronaut is to the light source, the shorter his shadow will be, which is just the opposite of what we see. Percy claims ground slope cannot explain the shadows because the terrain is essentially flat. On a large scale the Apollo 11 site was essentially flat, however there were local undulations in the ground surface. Since we are looking at a two-dimensional image we cannot see the slope of the ground, but we can infer it from the shadows. It appears the ground is sloping upward and away from left astronaut either to the top-left, the bottom-right, or a
combination of both. Remember, shadows cast on a downward slope are lengthened, while those cast on an upward slope are shortened. It seems that a change in ground slope is the only feasible explanation for the shadows we see.
The "hot spots" are the result of the lunar soil's tendency to reflect light back toward its source. There are many reasons for this, but it is mostly due to countless tiny glass spheres found in the lunar soil, and formed by meteorite impacts. When you see a photo taken "down sun", away from the Sun, you see what looks like a spotlight around the shadow's head. This is because the light is strongly reflected back toward the Sun, so the soil around the head of the shadow looks very bright. This phenomenon also explains why the surface fades so drastically toward the horizon. It is brightest near the foreground due to sunlight being preferentially reflected back toward the camera. Farther away, the sunlight is preferentially reflected away from the camera, making the ground look dark. This
phenomenon can also be observed in wet grass on Earth, as spherical water droplets act like the glass spheres. The technical term for this phenomenon is Heiligenschein, and is the result of light refraction, reflection, and diffraction on the surface of and inside the glass spheres and/or water droplets. This Apollo 11 photo is very good example [see photo] of Heiligenschein.
Some Apollo photographs show mysterious lights in the shadowy background that appear to be studio spotlights.
The hoax advocates usually reference this photograph [see photo] because the lights bare a vague resemblance to studio spotlights, however there are many photographs, such as this one [see photo], where the same lights seem to contradict this hoax claim. There is no mystery as to the origin of these lights; they are lens flares. A lens flare is an image of the Sun reflecting back and forth between the lens elements of the camera. If you examine the photographs in which lens flares are found you will notice they all have a couple things in common. First, they are all taken with the camera pointing in the general direction of the Sun and, secondly, if you were to draw a line from the center of the photograph through the flares (they usually occur in pairs), the line will point in the direction of the Sun, which lies just outside the frame.
Only two men walked on the Moon during each Apollo mission, yet there are photos in which the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?
The Apollo astronauts carried cameras that were attached to the front of their spacesuits. In this Apollo 12 photograph of astronaut Alan Bean [see photo], taken by Pete Conrad, one can clearly see Bean's camera mounted to his chest. The astronauts aimed and operated the cameras while they remained in this mounting. If you look closely at Conrad's reflection in Bean's visor, you can see Conrad's camera, which he is operating with his right hand.
In an Apollo 11 photograph of Buzz Aldrin the horizon is located at eye level; however, if the camera was mounted to Neil Armstrong's chest, the horizon should be at chest level.
The hoax advocates also point out that the top of Aldrin's backpack should not be visible if the camera was attached to Armstrong's chest. Again, the hoax advocates fail to recognize that Armstrong is standing on higher ground. In addition, Aldrin is leaning forward, thus exposing the top of his backpack to the camera. Due to the weight of the astronauts' backpacks, a slight forward lean was required to maintain balance.
There is one photograph of an astronaut standing on the surface of the Moon in direct sunlight, yet he casts no shadow, which is impossible.
The photo to which the hoax advocates refer is one of astronaut John Young saluting the Stars and Stripes [see photo]. They often reference this photo as evidence of fraud, however they are very wrong. Young's shadow is clearly visible on the ground below him and to the right (his left). How can his shadow not be attached to his body? The answer is simple; Young was leaping off the ground and was elevated about two feet when the photo was taken. There is also some very good corroborating video of the event. This is one of the most famous of the Apollo photos and it is surprising that the hoax advocates would be unfamiliar with the story behind the photograph.
Other comments I've heard about this particular photo include (1) the flag appears to be fluttering and (2) the flag's camera facing side should be shaded from the sun. The fluttering issue I will deal with later. As for the lighting issue, it seems obvious to me that the flag is angled to the right and toward the camera. With the sun to the left, the flag's camera facing side would be sunlit at a shallow angle, which agrees with the shadows on the flag itself.
Not one still photograph matches the video footage, yet NASA claims both were shot at the same time.
This statement, made by David Percy, is entirely untrue. For evidence I submit the above-mentioned photograph of astronaut John Young [see photo]. There is some excellent corroborating video of the event captured in this still photo. In the video, the TV camera is positioned behind Young and to his right. The video shows a leaping John Young, the flag (which is not fluttering) and Charlie Duke, who took the photograph. There are other examples as well.
Mr. Percy claims that the triangular shaped piece of fabric located on the top of John
Young's backpack, and seen in the still photo, does not appear in the video. This is not true - the tip of the fabric can be seen when one closely examines the video. Percy's claim fails to take into consideration the relative camera angles, the fact that Young in leaning
forward, and the fact the fabric is attached at the front edge of the backpack.
If Neil Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who shot the video of him descending the ladder and taking his initial steps on the lunar surface?
The TV camera was stowed in an instrument pallet in the LM descent stage. When
Two photographs show an identical mountain background, yet in one the Lunar Module is present while in the other the LM is absent. The mountain scene must be an artificial backdrop.
The above example, which was presented in the FOX TV program, is just one of many hoax claims about "identical backgrounds" and "artificial backdrops" [see photos]. If someone is going to claim the backgrounds are identical, they had better be IDENTICAL. In this case, as in all such claims, the backgrounds are clearly not identical. If you examine the photos with scrutiny, differences can be easily identified. For example, look closely at the hill on the right of each photo and you will notice that the angles of view are significantly different. It is obvious the photos were taken from different camera positions, thus we see different
foreground terrain. In the right photo it appears the LM is off-camera to the left.
Another factor to consider is, due to the lack of an atmosphere, distant objects on the Moon appear clearer than they do on Earth, thus the background mountains may be more distant than they appear to be. As such, a change in camera position may, at first observation, have a nearly unperceivable affect on the appearance of the background. However, close examination will reveal otherwise.
Two video clips, claimed by NASA to have been taken at different locations many kilometers apart, show an identical hill.
There's an easy explanation for this: human error. The video clips to which the hoax advocates refer are from a documentary (not made by NASA) that accidentally used a wrong clip. This was a simple mistake, but not one made by NASA. According to NASA, the photos were actually taken about three minutes apart on the same hill.
Apollo 16 photographs show a rock w