Custom papers academic service

The three controversial hoax theory on the apollo 11 moon landing

A surprising number of people are not terribly well-informed about something that happened almost 50 years ago. So, let's get some facts straight first: Kennedy in response to the Soviet Union's early successes in space exploration, just in case the world decided that those Commies were right and Communism was the way to go.

See also the whole Cold War thing. Unsurprisinglythis is the thing most people Americans seem able to remember. There have been SIX [note 2] human landings on the Moon, between 1969 and 1972: Each landing delivered two astronauts to the surface, with a third one waiting for them in lunar orbit.

There have been three more flights to the Moon: There is a mostly accurate movie with Tom Hanks about it. Each of the last three flights, 15, 16 and 17, carried the Lunar Roving Vehicle LRVan electric car frame with wheels which allowed astronauts to get several miles away from the landing site and cover a lot more ground than they could have on foot. Three more flights were originally planned 18, 19 and 20but they were canceled when the public decided that the US had more pressing concerns than "Whitey on the Moon"such as the Vietnam Warand politicians pulled the plug.

The extra spacecraft were used for the Skylab space station occupied 1973-1974 and the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project 1975, Americans meeting Soviets in orbit for a few shots of vodka borscht. The footage of Neil Armstrong going down the ladder and saying the "small step" line was shot by a TV camera cunningly attached to the side of the lander and deployed by pulling a cord.

One of the ways to troll space nerds is to ask them who filmed Neil Armstrong coming out if he was the first man on the Moon. The footage of the Lunar Module lifting off was shot by the lunar rover's TV camera that could be operated remotely from Earth.

Moon landing hoax

There are actually three attempts to film the ascent: See the Take-off video section below. The Soviets did have a manned lunar program, but it started in earnest three years later 1964 and never managed to get there due to a variety of problems political, financial and technical, including all four test flights of their heavy launch rocket ending in massive explosions.

Like the other Soviet space programs, the project was secret unless it succeeded or failed really badlywhich allowed the Soviets to pretend that they never intended to go, claiming that the Moon could be explored by robots instead of risking human lives.

The Lunokhod program was hastily developed and managed to land and operate two remotely-controlled rovers on the lunar surface in 1970 and 1973scoring another Soviet first.

After the US successes, the support for a Moon landing mission evaporated and the Soviet space program focused on orbital stations. If you want to know more, you can start by reading the Wikipedia article on the Apollo program.

WATCH: Does Neil Armstrong

If you really want to know more, you can read the Apollo Lunar Surface Journala collection of transcripts, photos, videos and other information about the landings. Or see the External links section below. A variety of conspiracy beliefs[ edit ] Obviously faked! There is, in fact, no single concrete Moon landing conspiracy narrative.

There are many, depending on the believers' gullibility or desire to believe. The following are only brief summaries of some of the most popular positions: Flat Earth[ edit ] Flat Earthers believe space travel to be impossible for some reason, so the astronauts never left the Earth and the whole thing was filmed on the ground.

For example, Charles K. Johnsonpresident of the Flat Earth Societyclaimed that until the Moon landings "almost no one seriously considered the world a ball. The landings converted a few of them, but many are coming back now and getting off of it. Columbus' original intents when he accidentally "discovered" [note 3] America, never mind the fairly accurate estimation of the Earth's circumference by Eratosthenes, are but two of the many known references to belief in a round Earth predating the moon landing.

And apparently, Johnson somehow missed Sputnik 1 and the significant number of satellites launched in the 1960s. Maybe he thinks they crashed into the Firmament. Johnson further believed that the Apollo missions were filmed by Hollywood studios, and dismissed the then-new Space Shuttle as "a very ludicrous joke.

Vedic fundamentalism[ edit ] A few hardline followers of the Hare Krishna movement refuse to accept the landings, [4] because it would contradict what their holy texts say about the Moon for example, that it is further away than the Sunsurrounded by fire and ice, and the source of planetary vegetation. This attitude dates back to the founder of the movement A. The three controversial hoax theory on the apollo 11 moon landing orbit[ edit ] A number of people are silent on the shape of the Earth but nevertheless believe that no Apollo astronauts ever went into Earth orbit.

This includes the subgroup believing that human spaceflight — or indeed, spaceflight at all — is impossible for some other reasons. Only orbit[ edit ] Probably most common is the belief that the astronauts only went into a low orbit around the Earth.

This is usually connected to the claim that the space outside low Earth orbit is filled with deadly radiation[6] as made for example by Bart Sibrel.

Proponents of such claims never bother to check the facts, such as what kinds of ionizing radiation exist in space, what are their sources, what are the expected radiation levels and what protective measures are taken against them. Ignorance of space radiation and its effects can lead to amusing results, such as claiming that passing through the Van Allen belts would literally melt the Apollo spacecraft while Van Allen himself stated that it's all nonsense.

The fact that an Apollo spacecraft would have been clearly visible on earth orbit is completely ignored. For all we know, it was visible; whether it was possible for anyone to identify it as an Apollo spacecraft, that's an altogether different question. Landed at a later time[ edit ] Some people believe that the earlier landings were faked, but that NASA finally managed to get there some time in the 1970s.

Enjoying EarthSky? Subscribe.

Real landings, fake pictures[ edit ] See also: Richard HoaglandMars Anomaly Research and a number of other pareidolia aficionados. A number of conspiracy theorists do accept that NASA went to the moon, and — with unmanned probes — the rest of the Solar System ; however, the things those craft saw were so incredible that The Powers That Be had to doctor the photographs to hide evidence of aliens or Space Nazis.

As usual, no good reason has ever been given for anyone wanting to conceal such a discovery. Examples are Richard Hoagland and Mike Barawho have rebutted hoax claims, [8] but continue to use Apollo imagery as evidence for alien structures on the Moon and believe NASA to be involved in all kinds of cover-ups.

The Moon Landings Were Faked

His evidence was a secret NASA video. Independent journalist Marcus Allen has said that, as a professional photographer, he is certain that none of the photographic materials from Apollo could have actually been obtained on the Moon, for technical reasons.

He appears to believe that six Moon missions carried photographic equipment that was useless. As of 2014, it was still being filmed. Following is just a sample of the kind of "evidence" and misinterpretations that are used to prop up the various conspiracy theories.

However, none of it stands up to scrutiny. Suppression[ edit ] It is reported that Bill Kaysing, whose 1976 book started the madness, was originally requested by his publishers to write his book as a satirebut he somehow "lost the plot" and became convinced of the truth.

Kaysing then self-published both the book and the letter, creating a false Streisand effect. Stars[ edit ] Proponents of the hoax theory insist that there are no stars visible in any of the footage or photographs taken on the moon.

This is very true. Take any image at night and you'll very rarely see stars in the sky. This is because stars are faint things, which is the very reason you can't see them during the day.

It takes the human eye a good few minutes to an hour to adjust to seeing all the stars in the sky, even on a clear night with little light pollution, because the rhodopsin in our retinal photoreceptors needs time to unbleach the widening of our irises is a secondary contributor, but occurs quickly compared to unbleaching.

Cameras have the same issue; they expose their shots for a certain length of time and with a certain iris size aperture. During the day, when it's nice and bright, exposure can be short and the aperture small. But at night the exposure must be long, or the aperture large.

  • And what about the contractors?
  • Ignoring that there's clearly a beam coming out from the flagpole holding up the top of the flag, and ignoring that the footage shows them flopping around in ways that flags don't move here on Earth like they're being shaken around someplace where air resistance doesn't affect them , there's another consideration;
  • Unlike technology we use down on Earth, NASA's equipment has to be specialized for use in space and for operation while wearing a space suit;
  • This is very true;
  • Anyone who came forward to demonstrate it was a hoax would have become famous.

To see stars effectively, exposure times for the average camera need to be on the order of seconds indeed, so long that even the shortest exposures can reveal motion in the stars [note 5]which is hardly conducive to video footage. Alternatively, the aperture can be increased to let more light into the exposure. This could work for the video, but it would overexpose the rest of the footage — turning astronauts and the lunar surface into one big bright white blob of nothing, along with reducing the depth of field and requiring a larger camera.

Lacking any nice HDR technology, the cameras used could see the astronauts nice and clearly, but not the stars. Consider that, on a clear night with a full moon, it reflects enough sunlight for a person on Earth to see their shadow [note 6] and to be able to read.

Imagine how bright it is on the surface! This isn't just a handwave to explain the moon landing photos; the exposure problem for observing stars exists on Earth and is easily demonstrable.

The C rock[ edit ] One image purports to show the letter "C" on a rock, [16] but it's rather obviously a fiber on somebody's scanner glass. Conspiracy theorists say that this is a label for a prop piece and that the letter indicates which position it goes in for the shot. There are numerous problems with this, not least of which is the fact that the "letter" is clearly a case of pareidolia. Secondly, this is not seen anywhere else in any of the moon footage or photos. If NASA was dumb enough to put a prop the wrong way up, you'd expect it to be visible on most rocks, or the moon buggy, or the lander itself.

Third, and most importantly, no one in film or television labels their set pieces like this precisely because such labels might be seen if the director picks a new angle to shoot from. Lunar paparazzi[ edit ] Alan Bean, Apollo 12. Note the camera attached to his chest.

  1. Clearly the Moon landings were filmed in a darkened building, and the flags were flapping in a strong breeze indoors?
  2. In space, where there is no air to prevent this, any slight movement of the flag will continue until the friction of the material alone slows it down. When surrounded by air, the flag would be subject to air resistance, and so, while it would flap in a strong wind, it would also settle down very quickly as the air buffers against its motion.
  3. But it was never a concern to me because I know one day somebody is going to go fly back up there and pick up that camera I left.

The guy reflected in his visor is "Pete" Conrad. If you look carefully in the reflection of Buzz Aldrin's visorit is possible to see Neil Armstrong taking the photo. He isn't holding up a camera, so how could he be taking the picture?

It must be fake! One would expect that, if it were fake, the visor would be reflecting a full film crew complete with their cameras. Of course, the simpler explanation is to look at the cameras used on the Apollo missions. Unlike technology we use down on Earth, NASA's equipment has to be specialized for use in space and for operation while wearing a space suit.

So holding up a compact camera, peering through the viewfinder and snapping away like you're on a holiday just isn't a sensible option. The cameras used were attached to the chest of the suit, [17] as can be seen in that very photo of Aldrin. Despite the restricted ability to aim the cameras shooting from the hip, as it wereit's still possible to take very good images, particularly once they had been selected, processed and cleaned up.

This explains why we keep repeatedly seeing the same few "great shots" despite there being several thousand photos taken on the moon. Another argument used by hoax supporters is that the pictures are simply too good, indicating that they were taken by professional photographers, and not just some test pilots galloping around the Moon. But one must remember that these were no holiday snaps; NASA equipped their astronauts from the beginning with the finest cameras available, generally 70mm Hasselblads much larger film frame than a standard 35mm SLR, hence much greater detailmodified for semi-automatic operation with 150-shot film magazines and further optimized for the lunar environment--and again, enough photos were taken that NASA could pick and choose the best ones to publicize.

With the EVAs on the Moon lasting 4834 minutes and 5771 photos taken, some people seem incredulous that the astronauts managed to do anything but take photos during their time on the lunar surface. Next, ask any professional photographer and they'll tell you that if you get under 5000 images from nearly 6000 minutes of their time you need to fire your photographer and get a new one.

Really, this is beyond silly.