Could it be just coincidence that the USA abruptly stopped going to the moon around the same time the Vietnam War ended or was it just part of an ingenious plan; a plan that tried to gain people’s trust in a period were no one agree with the decisions that were been made.
By analyzing and understanding the political background existent in the late 60’s, we can find a good answer to the question of why the US would fake an event as important as the first man landing on a celestial body. However, the analysis of the political background is not enough to support the conspiracy theory; knowing this, the conspiracy theorist have other “evidence”.
On the 15th of February, 2001, Fox TV network aired a program called “Conspiracy Theory: Did we land on the moon?” The hour-long show included interviews with people who believed that NASA faked the Apollo moon landings between the 1960’s and the 1970’s. This has stirred up quite a controversy.
The arguments brought out by the Fox TV program can be generally classified according to technical mistakes associated with the photographs, political background, physiology, and space weather.
Much of the evidence supporting the claims that the moon landing was a hoax comes from the photographs brought back by astronauts who have been there. All the pictures that were shown to the public were completely controlled by the federal government before they were broadcast or distributed. No independent press conference was permitted about the Apollo 11 expedition. But unfortunately for hoax believers, there is an explanation for every point made by the skeptics. Some of these explanations involve understanding photographic techniques, and some have to do with properties of the moon itself.
One of the NASA blunders in the production of photos of the lunar landing cited by the conspiracy theorists is the absence of stars in the pictures; there are no stars in the background of any of the pictures taken on the Moon. With no atmosphere on the moon and therefore no air to diffuse the light, wouldn't stars have to be clearly visible? (Van Bekel)
Fig 1 Edwin Aldrin poses for photograph beside U.S. flag. rpt. on NASA: Digital Image Collection
But, as NASA responded; “it’s difficult to capture something very bright and simultaneously something else very dim on the same piece of film – typical emulsions don’t have enough dynamic range.”(“Great”). In other words, in order for the camera to focus on the astronauts and moon surface, all bright images, the faint stars in the background would not show up at all. So the question wouldn’t be why aren’t there any stars in the sky? But, Why are there some at all?
Another argument is based on the fact that in many of the photographs objects in shadows can be seen. For example, in figure number 2, area K, one side of the Lunar Module is covered in shadow but the symbol of the US flag is perfectly illuminated. Conspiracy theorists say that the only explanation for this phenomenon is multiple light sources: but they argue, the only light source on the moon would have been from the sun (“Great”). They claim that the absence of air molecules on the moon would not allow for the bending of light to illuminate an object in a shadow in the same way as on Earth, because of the atmospheric diffusion (“Photo”). Therefore, a shadow on the moon would be absolutely dark, and anything that happened to be in it could not be seen. The only problem in this point is that reflectivity is not considered by the conspiracy believers. Reflectivity can cause the same indirect lightning effect as atmospheric diffusion.
Whether an object appears bright or dark to our eyes depends on whether light reflected from the object arrives at it (our eye). And that in turn depends on whether an object is primarily a diffuse reflector or primarily a specular reflector. Since specular reflectors reflect light only in one direction, you have to be in the right place to intercept the reflected light and thus perceive the object as bright. But diffuse reflectors reflect light in all directions. As long as light is falling on it, you can almost anywhere and still see light from a diffuse object (“Moon”)
Fig2
Astronaut Neil Armstrong posses in front the Lunar Module. rpt. on NASA: Digital Image Collection
This means that even though an astronaut, a flag or a US logo, may be in shadow, there is enough reflected light on the moon to illuminate them so that they appear in photographs.
Even though, as shown in the previous paragraphs, conspiracy theorists have used many of these Apollo photos as examples of anomalies, every photo has a legitimate explanation. The skeptics ignore science and logic. With a better understanding of the moon and some basic photographic information, however, all these “errors” can be explained. The same is true of other evidence offered by the conspiracy theorist.
One of the major and most powerful arguments against the landing of the Apollo 11 on the moon come form the fact that the Earth is surrounded by two powerful radiation fields, called the Van Allen belts. “Any human being traveling through the Van Allen belt would have been rendered either extremely ill or actually killed by the radiation within a short time thereof” (Plait).
The Van Allen belt was discovered during the Explorer I flight in 1958. It consists of two bands of trapped radiation, made up mainly of protons and high-energy electrons (Ster). According to hoax believers, the amount of radiation astronauts would be exposed to in space would be high enough to cause them to burn up. Ralph Rene, the New Jersey author of NASA Mooned America claims that, “Before they’d [the astronauts] go halfway there they’d all [have] been dying from radiation poisoning” (Dean).
Since the belt is located at approximately 665 km above the Earth, the way NASA solved the overdose radiation problem was for the astronauts to remain under the belt when in Earth orbit and then pass through it quickly. In this way the astronauts were exposed to the radiation for a short time, and they did not receive a dose considered dangerous (Ster). The total radiation received by the astronauts at the belt in order to reach the moon and come back is approximately 1.38 mSv, and the total radiation dose received by an individual annually on Earth is 3.6 mSv (Churchill). These values show that the speculations of the conspiracy believers aren’t true, would have been possible to survive the space flight to the moon through the Van Allen belt with out any dramatic consequences.
Another point of interest for the conspiracy believers is the time lapse between the conversations of the astronauts and the NASA technicians, who were in constant communication. It is known that radio waves travel at an average velocity of 186,000 miles per second. The Moon’s distance from the earth is approximately 238,857 miles. After doing a simple math calculation and dividing 186,000 into 238,857, we can see that it would take 1.28 seconds for a radio wave to reach the moon. For the radio wave to travel to and from moon would require 2.56 seconds. But the average response time between astronauts and Houston was between 0.5 and 0.7 seconds delay on a two-way broadcast to the moon and back (NASA). Dose this mean that the conversations was not recorded in a distance of 238,857 miles?
The only answer given by the non-conspiracy believers is that “All recordings of radio conversations of the Apollo missions were made on Earth” (NASA). This means if we listen to the tapes we could hear the conversations as if we were standing beside the NASA control base. The astronaut’s message comes in and the mission controller immediately responds. This is the reason why there is no, or only a very small, gap between the conversations.
In this essay I have analyzed the physiological, political and technological views surrounding the controversy around landing on the moon in July 21st 1969. After considering the process that surrounded the moon landing and the contrary points of views, it seems to me that the weight of the facts of American arrival on the moon are far more acceptable than the various details proposed by the backers of the conspiracy theory.
Some doubts will still exist on what really happened on July 21st 1969, until space travel is accessible to everyone, it is still an exciting topic to discuss as Katie Couric conclude on her television show on ABC: “it’s certainly an interesting notion and fun to talk about”
Nevertheless, for both sides there are still unanswered questions and pending doubts: Why NASA’s highest ranking official, James Webb, resign without explanation just days before the first Apollo mission, when he could have gained great success with NASA’s greatest achievement? Or, why all three Apollo 11 astronauts also resign shortly after their return? (Funny) But probably most disturbing of all is the rare appearance and speech given by Neil Armstrong on the 25th Anniversary on 1994, when he told a group of astronauts, “To you we say we have only completed the beginning. We leave you much that is undone. There are great ideas undiscovered, great truths available to those who can remove truth’s protecting layers”. (Funny)
Work Cited
Churcill E. Susanne. “Fundamentals of Space Life Science”. Volume 1. Tampa: Krieger Publishing, 1991. pages 11-13
Dean, Katie. “Man on Moon or Pie in Sky?.” Wired News. 20 Kul, 1999. 12 April, 2004.
“Milestones of flight”. National Air and Space Museum. 23 April, 2003. 27 April, 2003.
“Moon Base Clavius.” 11April, 2003. http://www.clavius.org
Phillips, Tony “The Great Moon Hoax”. SCIENCE@NASA. NASA. 9 April, 2003.
“Photo Analyzis”. Moon Base Clavius. Clavius.org.April 11, 2003.
Plait, Phil. Bad Astronomy. March 04, 2003.11 April 2003.
.
A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon. Dir.Sibrel Winfield, Bart. AFTH, 2001.
Stenger, Richard.” Man on the moon: Kennedy speech ignited the dream.”CNN.com/Space. _ 25 May, 2001. 10 April, 2003. http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/05/25/kennedy.moon/
---.”NASA debunks moon landing hoax conspiracy.”CNN.com/Space. 19 Feb,
2001. 10 April, 2003.
Ster, David P. “Radiation Belt”. NASA.. 12 Oct, 2002. 12 April,2003.
Van Bekel, Rogier. “The Wrong Stuff.”Wired Magazine. Sept, 1994. 11 April, 2003.
Dear Emily:
I take advantage of this chance to thank you for a wonderful semester, this course haven’t been easy for me at all, I know I still have some work to do with my writing but hopefully I’m getting better.
I know that we discuss in our conference that I should make my conclusion stronger, I change the order of the paragraphs but couldn’t add to which side I’m in favor with, so I decided to leave it kind of open, after all, that was the purpose of my paper, to state both sides not no choose one, even though it is clear that the evidence go to the side that we did landed on the moon.
Any ways, I hope you have wonderful summer. Thank you again for everything it was a pleasure working with you… and HAPPY BIRTHDAY,
Take Care
Sincerely
Jessica