Sciences >
Astronomy
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedWas the Apollo moon landing real or a hoax?
Results so far:
| Real | 76% | 965 votes | Total: 1262 votes | |
| Hoax | 24% | 297 votes |
Real
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesBeginning with the Apollo 11 lunar landing on July 20, 1969, a total of 12 astronauts explored the Moon's surface on foot and traveling in the lunar rover vehicle. On Apollo missions 11, 12, (Apollo 13 was aborted, but returned to Earth safely), 14, 15, 16 and 17, the commanders and lunar module pilots conducted a series of experiments, photographed their lunar surroundings and returned to Earth 382 kilograms (843 pounds) of lunar surface materials consisting of more than 2,000 separate samples.
Apart from the fact that millions of people saw the Apollo series on television and heard them on radio in real time, perhaps the lunar material is as irrefutable proof as any that the Moon missions were not "faked." The rocks and particles, still under study by scientists worldwide, were clearly formed in an atmosphere lacking oxygen and water and they show major chemical differences from any previously known Earth rocks. This material could not have been collected, or even manufactured on Earth, and clearly comes from an entirely different world.
Even if NASA had set out to "fake" the Apollo or any of its other programs, there is no possibility it could have done so. Since its inception in 1958, NASA has operated an "open" program, i.e.: all activities have been covered in depth by the news media. For example, during Apollo 11, over 3,500 media representatives from all over the world were at Kennedy Space Center, Florida, for the liftoff. Most of these press, television and radio reporters shifted immediately after launch to Johnson Space Center, Texas, to follow the operational phases through splashdown in the Pacific Ocean and recovery by an aircraft carrier with the U.S. President aboard. Before undertaking the Apollo program, NASA had to justify it to the President and Congress before funds were appropriated. The Apollo series cost approximately $25 billion.
There has been speculation that the LM never left a crater when it touched down thus supporting the argument that the LM never did land. However, there are two very good reasons to believe that the Lunar Landings did take place and i will list them in the following:
(1) Although the descent engine on the LM is powerful, most of its operation takes place thousands of feet above the Moon during the early stages of the landing. Because the lunar atmosphere is a near-perfect vacuum, no air currents are set up that would scour the surface at a distance as might occur during a landing on Earth. Movies of the landing show that, at the moment of touchdown, a small amount of surface dust is blown away, but the relatively cohesive lunar surface deflects the blast sideways, rather than developing a crater directly underneath the LM.
(2) The lunar soil is not a fluffy dust but a moderately dense and cohesive material somewhat like wet sand or ploughed farm soil. Therefore, it is not surprising that the LM engine did not excavate a crater. The lunar surface, in fact, turned out to be much more dense, compact, and resistant to penetration than some scientists originally thought.
On the Apollo 15 mission, the first soil mechanics tests were conducted using a penetrometer-a device to measure resistance to penetration by a coring bit. The penetration test showed a strong resistance to penetration. A trench, dug to about 14 inches, showed that soil was fine-grained and highly cohesive; a vertical wall was maintained with no difficulty.
In other activities, the astronaut succeeded in implanting the flagpole to a depth of only 20 inches before it required hammering. Holes driven into the lunar surface for heat-flow experiments were observed not to collapse when the digging tools were removed. Surveyor I, the first American spacecraft to achieve a soft landing on the Moon, transmitted a picture of a footpad resting on the surface; it had sunk in less than one inch. The Apollo Lunar Roving Vehicles, which weighed only 80 pounds in the Moon's gravity, drove on the lunar surface and left very shallow tire tracks.
Some surface dust can be seen in Apollo on-the-surface photos. A thin film of dust adheres to the Rover vehicle, the equipment, and especially the light-colored suits of the astronauts. However, all the evidence indicates that the lunar soil is too cohesive for the LM descent engine to excavate a large crater during the lunar landing.
The other thing that needs to be considered is the laser Ranging Retro-reflector was deployed on Apollo 11, 14, and 15. It consists of a series of corner-cube reflectors, which are a special type of mirror with the property of always reflecting an incoming light beam back in the direction it came from. A similar device was also included on the Soviet Union's Lunakhod 2 spacecraft. These reflectors can be illuminated by laser beams aimed through large telescopes on Earth. The reflected laser beam is also observed with the telescope, providing a measurement of the round-trip distance between Earth and the Moon. This is the only Apollo experiment that is still returning data from the Moon. Many of these measurements have been made by McDonald Observatory in Texas. From 1969 to 1985, they were made on a part-time basis using the McDonald Observatory 107-inch telescope. Since 1985, these observations have been made using a dedicated 30-inch telescope. Additional measurements have been made by observatories in Hawaii, California, France, Australia, and Germany.
So with that we can safely conclude that all Apollo missions were moon related and there isn't any refuted argument on the case of the Laser, as it was deployed there in a specific location for measuring round trip distance between earth and the moon.
Learn more about this author, Mark Dykstra.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Hoax
As an American, I would like to believe that we walked on the moon; after all, it's part of our culture. But, having researched this for several years, I can't believe it.
At the time, we were struggling with Russia. Both nations wanted to be the superpower in the world. And the belief was that whoever won the space race would win the Cold War. It was a grossly expensive and dangerous game of two nations trying to outdo each other.
When the Russians sent Sputnik into space, Americans were terrified. The American government needed some way to answer it, and to outdo it.
But look at the videos of the astronauts on the moon. There are several that look like different shoots with the same background. Though NASA claims that the shoots take place miles from each other, you can superimpose them and see that the backgrounds are identical.
Another piece of evidence for a hoax is the lighting in the photographs. In many places, shadows go in different directions, and objects that should be in shadow (backlit by the sun) are practically spotlighted.
Now, on the moon, there is only one source of light: the sun. Shadows going in different directions indicate more than one light source. And if the astronaut or lunar landing module is backlit by the sun, how are they lighted from the front?
It's strange, even eerie in ways, how similar the landscape in this footage is to the Nevada desert. And there we have the base known as Area 51. Signs around it say in plain English that unauthorized visitors can be shot and killed without question. While some speak of aliens and downed alien craft, Area 51 could be the top-secret film location for the Apollo footage.
In one piece of footage, the American flag is waving. NASA claims it's just the motion of the astronaut planting it on the moon. But it's clearly the cause of wind, or a breeze. And there is no atmosphere on the moon; thus, no air, and no breeze.
Look closely at the crosshairs in the stills. Used for reference, crosshairs always appear on top of the image.
Yet, in many stills of the Apollo mission, the crosshairs are behind astronauts, the lunar module, and the American flag. One still shows the crosshair sticking out from behind a rock.
That, if nothing else, points to photo manipulation after the fact.
There were several people at the time, including at least one astronaut, who spoke out against the Apollo program. Each of these people died from "freak accidents," or by mysterious means.
All I've ever heard from NASA regarding this is the runaround. They refute any claims that it was a hoax and so on, but they never explain HOW we are supposedly wrong.
Some say that the immense number of people that worked on this could not keep it a secret. But NASA is greatly departmentalized. There are people working in areas all over the US for NASA projects. Ninety percent of them likely know their immediate job, such as making bolts or something, and no more.
Then there is the radiation belt. Every manned mission after Apollo remained below the belt.
Apparently, the only protection they had aboard the shuttle was the thin aluminum of its walls; their spacesuits were made up of fibers and silicon rubber.
Magnetic storms roar through space, caused from solar flares. They can disrupt the most delicate technology down here on Earth. Radiation on-planet can cause anything from hair or skin loss to cancer or death. The radiation in space is hundreds if not thousands of times more potent.
For a dental X-ray, we require a lead shield to protect us from the radiation. Yet the Apollo astronauts apparently passed through the radiation belt and walked on the moon without even the threat of sickness.
As for the liftoff, it was real, no doubt. The leading theory is that the astronauts simply orbited Earth for eight days and then returned, and all the while, NASA gave us fake images.
In the end, though, it isn't a question about walking on the moon. The question is:
Would the American government, given the means, go such lengths as to deceive the entire world in order to beat Russia?
One should remember that, in order to deceive the world, they would have to deceive the American public. If the public had known the secret, it would have somehow leaked it.
And if we were so successful with the Apollo missions, why haven't we returned to the moon in the thirty odd years since?
Learn more about this author, Jason Lusk.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
