Moon Landings - Fact or Fiction?
Created | Updated Jan 28, 2002
MOON LANDINGS – FACT OR FICTION?
The late 1960's saw the dawning of the true space age. For the first time in history, human beings left this planet and walked on the surface of the Moon - or did they?
There has been some debate over the last few years on whether NASA were capable of such an achievement back in the 60's, and arguments put forward to suggest it was all an elaborate hoax.
Below are some of the arguments: -
1. The Van Allen belts
There are belts of radiation around the Earth; the manned Apollo trips to the moon are the only ones that have required man to fly though these belts of radiation. At the time of the first Moon landing solar activity was particularly high, leading to increased intensity of the Van Allen belts. The craft and the space suits the astronauts were wearing were thin and light, and according to some experts not nearly enough protection to prevent the astronauts from death or serious injury from the radiation. The films in the cameras used by the astronauts would also have been damaged by the radiation.
The opposing argument is that although the Van Allen belts would fry anyone who spent any length of time in them, the spacecraft flew though them at high speed and the craft would have absorbed a percentage of the radiation anyway.
2. The dust factor
Photographs appear to show that the Lunar Lander didn’t kick up any dust as it hit the surface of the Moon, even though there was plenty around to record the astronaut’s footprints. There was also no sign of dust on the Lunar Lander’s dish shaped landing pads, and no blast crater created by the rockets on decent.
One explanation offered is that it is the air that disturbs the dust particles and as there is no atmosphere on the moon you would get no such effect.
3. Stars – or lack of them
In the pictures taken on the Moon, there are no stars visible in the background sky.
It is suggested that this is because they would be underexposed, as the shutter speed on the camera would have been set for the relatively bright lunar conditions. To see the stars would have required a longer exposure time.
4. Shadows
In some photographs details look clearly visible even though they are in shadow i.e. the American Flag on the Lunar Lander. Since the Sun is the only light source, anything in shadow should be totally black. On other images some shadows look longer than others, and they’re not parallel.
This is countered by the argument that the Sun is not the only light source on the Moon. There is also Earthshine, which is about 100 times brighter than a full moon, plus light reflecting from the Lander and the astronauts’ white suits. Also, the Moon is not flat. The shadows are cast along an uneven landscape and you are seeing a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional scene.
5. Landscapes
There are some identical-looking backgrounds in some of the images supposedly taken on different days and in locations several kilometres apart. Some of the crater formations bare a remarkable resemblance to craters within Area 51 in the Nevada Desert.
In defence, it is proposed that it is extremely hard to Judge size and distance with objects on the Moon. On Earth, we have the haze of the atmosphere to give us some clues as to whether a feature is small or close, or large and distant. Also impact craters can look very alike.
Although these are some of the arguments for which I have been able to find counter arguments, I am still left with questions for which I have no answers: -
a) Why does the American flag appear to wave in film footage of the flag planting?
b) Why is there no engine noise on the sound tracks of the live broadcast of the astronauts describing the decent onto the Moons surface?
c) Why do photographs appear to have been altered – crosses on the film which should always be visible on the photos appear to be half hidden behind some of the objects in the pictures?
d) Why, if they didn’t really land on the Moon, did the Russians and other nations with space tracking equipment not come forward at the time?
e) Was NASA really capable of staging such an elaborate hoax?
f) Is there no equipment available now that would be able to detect the debris left behind by successive Moon landings i.e. Lunar vehicles and discarded parts of the Landing crafts, and so independently confirm the landings?
g) If they were successful, why have there been no attempts to build a base on the Moon instead of a floating Skylab (below the level of the Van Allen belts)?
Does anyone have the answers?
The late 1960's saw the dawning of the true space age. For the first time in history, human beings left this planet and walked on the surface of the Moon - or did they?
There has been some debate over the last few years on whether NASA were capable of such an achievement back in the 60's, and arguments put forward to suggest it was all an elaborate hoax.
Below are some of the arguments: -
1. The Van Allen belts
There are belts of radiation around the Earth; the manned Apollo trips to the moon are the only ones that have required man to fly though these belts of radiation. At the time of the first Moon landing solar activity was particularly high, leading to increased intensity of the Van Allen belts. The craft and the space suits the astronauts were wearing were thin and light, and according to some experts not nearly enough protection to prevent the astronauts from death or serious injury from the radiation. The films in the cameras used by the astronauts would also have been damaged by the radiation.
The opposing argument is that although the Van Allen belts would fry anyone who spent any length of time in them, the spacecraft flew though them at high speed and the craft would have absorbed a percentage of the radiation anyway.
2. The dust factor
Photographs appear to show that the Lunar Lander didn’t kick up any dust as it hit the surface of the Moon, even though there was plenty around to record the astronaut’s footprints. There was also no sign of dust on the Lunar Lander’s dish shaped landing pads, and no blast crater created by the rockets on decent.
One explanation offered is that it is the air that disturbs the dust particles and as there is no atmosphere on the moon you would get no such effect.
3. Stars – or lack of them
In the pictures taken on the Moon, there are no stars visible in the background sky.
It is suggested that this is because they would be underexposed, as the shutter speed on the camera would have been set for the relatively bright lunar conditions. To see the stars would have required a longer exposure time.
4. Shadows
In some photographs details look clearly visible even though they are in shadow i.e. the American Flag on the Lunar Lander. Since the Sun is the only light source, anything in shadow should be totally black. On other images some shadows look longer than others, and they’re not parallel.
This is countered by the argument that the Sun is not the only light source on the Moon. There is also Earthshine, which is about 100 times brighter than a full moon, plus light reflecting from the Lander and the astronauts’ white suits. Also, the Moon is not flat. The shadows are cast along an uneven landscape and you are seeing a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional scene.
5. Landscapes
There are some identical-looking backgrounds in some of the images supposedly taken on different days and in locations several kilometres apart. Some of the crater formations bare a remarkable resemblance to craters within Area 51 in the Nevada Desert.
In defence, it is proposed that it is extremely hard to Judge size and distance with objects on the Moon. On Earth, we have the haze of the atmosphere to give us some clues as to whether a feature is small or close, or large and distant. Also impact craters can look very alike.
Although these are some of the arguments for which I have been able to find counter arguments, I am still left with questions for which I have no answers: -
a) Why does the American flag appear to wave in film footage of the flag planting?
b) Why is there no engine noise on the sound tracks of the live broadcast of the astronauts describing the decent onto the Moons surface?
c) Why do photographs appear to have been altered – crosses on the film which should always be visible on the photos appear to be half hidden behind some of the objects in the pictures?
d) Why, if they didn’t really land on the Moon, did the Russians and other nations with space tracking equipment not come forward at the time?
e) Was NASA really capable of staging such an elaborate hoax?
f) Is there no equipment available now that would be able to detect the debris left behind by successive Moon landings i.e. Lunar vehicles and discarded parts of the Landing crafts, and so independently confirm the landings?
g) If they were successful, why have there been no attempts to build a base on the Moon instead of a floating Skylab (below the level of the Van Allen belts)?
Does anyone have the answers?
