Project Apollo is probably the single greatest achievement of
human civilization, especially from a scientific or engineering
perspective. The astronauts who took
part were enormously courageous in their endeavour in pushing back the
boundaries of exploration. It showed a modern democratic and technological
society at its best as an act of cooperation and coordination over many years
and involving a large number of people.
The theory that the Apollo moon landings were faked is
fatuous, absurd nonsense. It’s a boring, paranoid conspiracy theory that shows
a lack of understanding of science, common sense or history.
I really didn’t want to write this article but am doing so
for those times when someone raises this theory’s ugly and asinine head, so I
can just point to this as my response.
Please watch the wonderful documentary, Stranger than
Fiction : The Truth Behind the Moon Landings, for a good understanding of why the
hoax theory is such palpable balderdash. You can view this here:
For a detailed examination of the various points made about
the Apollo Moon landings please have a look at the Bad Astronomy website by
Phil Plait : http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
Mr Plait is an astronomer. That is, he is a scientist who actually deals in science for a living rather than simply watching things on youtube and then making stuff up.
Mr Plait is an astronomer. That is, he is a scientist who actually deals in science for a living rather than simply watching things on youtube and then making stuff up.
My friend Jerry Stone from the British Interplanetary Society has a
presentation that is all about the hoax theory and what hogwash it is. For details of how to hire him for this
please look at this : http://spaceflight-uk.com/would_you_believe.html
Wikipedia has a great page which provides more detail : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories
Professional astronomers and physicists are in a much
stronger position than I am to comment in detail about the finer points put
forward within the hoax theory. The
following is a more personal view about the topic as a whole.
The Moon Race
The Apollo space programme started during one of the most
dangerous periods of the Cold War – the sixties. The USA and the Soviet Union were enemies poised to unleash nuclear doomsday at the touch of a button. The
space race and in particular the Moon Race can be seen historically as symptomatic
of that enmity. The Soviet launch of Sputnik and their success in sending the
first human into space were deeply threatening to the USA. President Kennedy’s initiative to land a man
on the Moon by the end of the sixties and return him safely to the Earth was in
large part a response to this Soviet dominance. The Moon Race, that is the struggle between the superpowers to
land a human on the Moon first, was part of a long battle between the two for
dominance, technically and in terms of international prestige and
influence.
After the end of the Cold War, more details have come
to light about the nature of the Soviet lunar programme. The Soviets had the capability to track
NASA’s flights to the Moon and if the landings had not taken place they would
have been the first to tell the world.
They would have been delighted to have uncovered any evidence of
trickery. Yet in reality after the
landing of Apollo 11 they graciously congratulated America on its achievement. The hoax theory cannot realistically include
the Soviets within their conspiracy. If there was any evidence of faking the
landings, the Soviets would have discovered it and released it to the world.
Similarly, the British Jodrell Bank Observatory tracked the
Apollo missions along, interestingly, with the Soviet unmanned lunar lander at
the same time. More broadly, the Apollo
landings were broadcast over an international network of television stations.
Many other non-NASA and even non-American organisations and individuals tracked
the missions. None suggested the landings were faked. It simply is not realistic to suggest that all of these
organisations, individuals, television and receiving stations would have been
involved in a conspiracy to mislead the public.
The Lack of Evidence of the HoaxBuzz Aldrin sets up an experiment on the lunar surface during Apollo 11 |
The hoax theory, as a whole, simply tries to pick holes in
small parts of the whole range of evidence of the lunar missions. It unconvincingly talks about flags waving,
alleged problems with photographs and so forth. It does not set out a positive case of its own and as a lawyer this always strikes me as a major failing. To suggest that the Apollo moon landings were faked is a proposition so wildly divergent from accepted history, the hoax theorists need to provide reliable evidence that positively supports their case. There is none.
The hoax theory fails to provide any direct or primary
evidence to supports its allegation that the lunar landings were faked. No witnesses are produced who saw the studio and the set on which they were alleged to have been filmed. No models, props or sets in which the lunar landings were filmed
are given up for examination. No
documentation showing evidence of the faking, such as scripts, camera
directions, billing or invoices for sound crews and so forth are ever
released. No evidence is provided as to what happened to the Apollo space hardware, such as the lunar modules, if they were not left in space or on the Moon as part of the missions.
There are no confessions by either NASA employees or the
numerous contractors, academics, universities and other staff. No newspaper stories providing details of
how the lunar landings were staged have ever been written. Actual confessions of this sort would be
amazingly valuable to newspapers as it would be a great story for them to
publish and reveal to the world. But it’s never happened.
It's difficult for hoax theorists to suggest the Apollo launches did not take place as hundreds if not thousands of people watched them. There were six unmanned launches in the Apollo missions followed by the manned missions of Apollo 7 to 17. From Apollo 7 onwards the launches were broadcast on television. So, the hoax theorists cannot plausibly suggest the launches didn't happen as there were so many witnesses. If the landings did not take place, where did the rockets go? The hoax theorists have not provided any direct evidence for this. There are no tracking stations that indicated the missions did not go exactly where they were supposed to. No one has come forward to say they tracked an Apollo lunar mission and it did not go to the Moon. Again, the hoax theorists would have to supply primary evidence of this sort for their theory to start to have any credibility.
The hoax theorists might then suggest that whilst the missions went to the Moon they were unmanned in reality and so no humans stepped out onto the Moon. We are then back to the previous missing evidence concerning the film studios in which the Apollo missions were allegedly filmed. It has to be remembered that Apollo 15, 16 and 17 used the Lunar Rover, the remarkable "car" which lead to the astronauts range over the Moon being greatly extended. If these missions were filmed here on Earth it would have required a very expansive studio in which to have created this footage. No evidence has ever been provided of the location of this studio or its size.
It's difficult for hoax theorists to suggest the Apollo launches did not take place as hundreds if not thousands of people watched them. There were six unmanned launches in the Apollo missions followed by the manned missions of Apollo 7 to 17. From Apollo 7 onwards the launches were broadcast on television. So, the hoax theorists cannot plausibly suggest the launches didn't happen as there were so many witnesses. If the landings did not take place, where did the rockets go? The hoax theorists have not provided any direct evidence for this. There are no tracking stations that indicated the missions did not go exactly where they were supposed to. No one has come forward to say they tracked an Apollo lunar mission and it did not go to the Moon. Again, the hoax theorists would have to supply primary evidence of this sort for their theory to start to have any credibility.
The hoax theorists might then suggest that whilst the missions went to the Moon they were unmanned in reality and so no humans stepped out onto the Moon. We are then back to the previous missing evidence concerning the film studios in which the Apollo missions were allegedly filmed. It has to be remembered that Apollo 15, 16 and 17 used the Lunar Rover, the remarkable "car" which lead to the astronauts range over the Moon being greatly extended. If these missions were filmed here on Earth it would have required a very expansive studio in which to have created this footage. No evidence has ever been provided of the location of this studio or its size.
Conspiracy theorists would suggest this is because the cover
up involved is so complete, so overwhelming that this primary evidence cannot
and will not come to light. Yet that suggestion is simply not convincing given
the nature of all the secrets that have come to light. As discussed below, Apollo involved a huge
amount of people over a long time – at some point some form of witness
testimony or physical evidence showing the nature of the faking would come to
light. Consider scandals such as Watergate. Governments and organisations are simply not that effective at keeping such a mass of evidence so tightly concealed.
On balance then, the hoax theory’s complete lack of primary
evidence to support it coupled with its unconvincing attempt to rubbish
Apollo’s evidence leads to the only reasonable conclusion – that the Moon
landings were not faked. The hoax theorists even fail to provide a reasonable theory as to how the landings were allegedly faked and how it was then covered up and by whom.
In a similar theme, I've never been clear as to why in particular the Moon landings are deemed to be fakes but no attention is given to other space missions. The Apollo lunar missions are only a small subset of all the human journeys into space. We start of course with Yuri Gagarin in Vostok 1 in 1961, through the long, glorious history of the Soviet and then the Russian space programs and their extended stays in space on board their various space stations. Did the Russians fake all or some of all of this? If so how and why?
With NASA of course we have Mercury, then Gemini, then Apollo, followed by Apollo/Soyuz and then onto the three decade long space shuttle programme. If Apollo was faked, what about all these other missions? What happened with them? Are the hoax theorists suggesting the International Space Station is a hoax too? What about other aspects of space exploration such as the unmanned missions to the Moon, Mars, Jupiter and so forth? Is Voyager 1 really heading out beyond the planets or is that fake too? The inconsistent application of hoaxing to the Moon landings just doesn't seem reasonable. Apollo wasn't sealed off from other aspects of NASA's activities and was by and large very open to the press. Faking it seems entirely implausible.
In a similar theme, I've never been clear as to why in particular the Moon landings are deemed to be fakes but no attention is given to other space missions. The Apollo lunar missions are only a small subset of all the human journeys into space. We start of course with Yuri Gagarin in Vostok 1 in 1961, through the long, glorious history of the Soviet and then the Russian space programs and their extended stays in space on board their various space stations. Did the Russians fake all or some of all of this? If so how and why?
With NASA of course we have Mercury, then Gemini, then Apollo, followed by Apollo/Soyuz and then onto the three decade long space shuttle programme. If Apollo was faked, what about all these other missions? What happened with them? Are the hoax theorists suggesting the International Space Station is a hoax too? What about other aspects of space exploration such as the unmanned missions to the Moon, Mars, Jupiter and so forth? Is Voyager 1 really heading out beyond the planets or is that fake too? The inconsistent application of hoaxing to the Moon landings just doesn't seem reasonable. Apollo wasn't sealed off from other aspects of NASA's activities and was by and large very open to the press. Faking it seems entirely implausible.
There is a wealth of evidence to support the reality of the
lunar landings. There is the large amount of
photographs and television transmissions.
The later Apollo missions featured colour television broadcasts
including the journeys across the lunar surface on the Lunar Rover.
The Apollo missions included experiments on the lunar
surface including distance measuring by laser. Called retroreflectors,
measurements have been taken from these ever since the Apollo missions and
continue to date. In addition, the
Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission of 2009, forty years after the Apollo 11
landing, has taken photographs of all six landing sites and provided
photographic evidence of them.
There are also the moon rocks brought back by the Apollo
missions. No one has ever credibly
suggested these are anything but genuine.
Project Apollo was HUGE
Project Apollo is sometimes referred to as the Moon Landing. Singular. In fact, six missions landed on the Moon within Project Apollo: Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17. So for the moon landings (plural) to be faked required the plan to operate throughout this entire period. Actually, Apollo lunar missions commenced with Apollo 8, which I always think of as the really historical one, in December 1968 when for this first time astronauts travelled beyond Earth orbit and orbited round the Moon. Apollo 10 was also a lunar mission, a rehearsal as it were for the first lunar landing of Apollo 11. As the missions progressed they became increasingly lengthy and on Apollo 17 the astronauts spent roughly three days on the lunar surface.
Project Apollo was HUGE
Project Apollo is sometimes referred to as the Moon Landing. Singular. In fact, six missions landed on the Moon within Project Apollo: Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17. So for the moon landings (plural) to be faked required the plan to operate throughout this entire period. Actually, Apollo lunar missions commenced with Apollo 8, which I always think of as the really historical one, in December 1968 when for this first time astronauts travelled beyond Earth orbit and orbited round the Moon. Apollo 10 was also a lunar mission, a rehearsal as it were for the first lunar landing of Apollo 11. As the missions progressed they became increasingly lengthy and on Apollo 17 the astronauts spent roughly three days on the lunar surface.
As a result, the hoax theory implies that the faking carried on at least from December 1968 to December 1972. The build up to the lunar missions included Apollo 7 in 1967 and Project Apollo itself commenced in 1961. As a result the lunar programme lasted slightly more than ten years. The amount of people involved at its peak has been estimated at 400,000 including all the contractors and academics involved. The hoax theory seeks to suggest that some or all of this enormous outpouring of effort over such a long time was a fake. Does it seem likely that such a huge undertaking could conceivably be a fabrication?
What’s striking about a lot of the people supporting the hoax theory is how little they actually know about Project Apollo and its size and complexity and yet at the same time they are so expert they are in a position to judge the moon missions as a whole.
One point that intrigues me about Apollo is the way
non-scientists seem to think that after watching a programme or short film on
the subject, they are therefore far more knowledgeable than the myriad of
scientists who either worked in Apollo or commentated on it for the benefit of
the public at the time.
Take for example the sadly missed Sir Patrick Moore. Many of us will think of him as a wonderful
television personality who brought the delights of astronomy to us all. He was also a lunar expert whose work in
mapping the surface of the Moon was of assistance to lunar exploration. Yet those who support the hoax theory imply
that they are more knowledgeable and expert on conditions on the lunar surface
and science in general than someone like Sir Patrick. As can be seen from the documentary posted above, Sir Patrick was
a fierce enemy of the hoax theory. Why would he, for example, be part of any
conspiracy?
Whilst it must be right that anyone can make an argument, we
also need to look at the scientific education of those making these
suggestions. Most if not all the people
who seem to support the hoax theory have little or no scientific training and
yet seem to insist they are experts on physics, optics, rocket engineering,
astronomy and orbital mechanics simply from watching a few short films on
youtube. This is not to even mention
selenology, which for those who don’t know (which will be most hoax theorists)
is the science of lunar geology or, more broadly, lunar science generally.
Science is often far more complex and fascinating than
articles in popular magazines or short films on the internet might
suggest. Conditions on the Moon can
involve parameters that are very different if not to say alien than those we
encounter on Earth. What is common sense here on Earth might not apply on the
Moon. Yet the typical hoax theorist seems to have so little scientific
knowledge that they cannot even conceive that it might be otherwise.
The Apollo LegacyThe Lunar Rover from Apollo 15 |
As noted above, Project Apollo was arguably the single
greatest achievement of the human race to date. So big, perhaps people living now want to deny that it ever
happened. Perhaps people don’t like the
idea that the most exciting thing that we as a civilization have ever done is
not taking place now in our contemporary era but finished over forty years ago.
All the Apollo astronauts, from the tragedy of Apollo 1 to
the final steps in the Taurus-Littrow Valley of Apollo 17 and the historic Apollo/Soyuz mission, are eternal heroes
of our species in extending human consciousness out into the universe. Yet aside from Buzz Aldrin and Neil
Armstrong, most people could not name any of the others to have walked on the
Moon. The hoax theory seeks to urinate
and defecate all over the extraordinary heritage of Apollo, that Herculean effort by so
many people in seeking to make humanity more than a one world people.
One has to question why some people seem to be so keen to
suggest that the moon landings were faked.
We can put aside the question of why would NASA and the USA’s government
want to fake such a thing or how they might do it - no one has ever suggested a convincing rationalisation for such a
plan. The hoax theorists seem to take an almost gleeful zest in their cause.
Why? Why is it so important to advance such a squalid proposition?
I like the lawer angle. As an engineer I've noticed doubts are never raised by qualified aerospace engineers. Presumably because they make use of the weath of technical knowledge from appllo everyday. I recommend a book called Full Moon by Michael Light. He's a picture editor that was given unrestricted access to NASA's appllo archive. No words just pictures. The large format version is stunning. I've even shown it to a couple of friends who had 'concerns' and it convinced them.
ReplyDelete