cheaters :: moonlanding hoax debunked :: assumptions and presumptions




Even 20% of Americans themselves doubt that they ever landed on the Moon.

Since supporters of the hoax theory never explain where this 20% figure they quote comes from, it is very hard to substantiate. A certain percentage of the American people indeed doubt that the Moon landings ever took place, but it is not even near 20%. The Gallup Organization, which has studied human behavior through polling over the last 70 years, concluded from its July 1999 poll on this matter that the overwhelming majority of Americans (89%) did not believe the U.S. government staged or faked the Apollo Moon landings. Only 6% of the public believed the landing was faked and another 5% had no opinion. For a further insight into how the United States public thinks about putting people on the Moon, you can read this Gallup poll.

There are calculations that proof that the chance of success is so small that it is impossible to land on the Moon.

Hoax advocate Bill Kaysing has claimed that the chance of a successful landing on the Moon was calculated to be 0.017% (1 in 6,000). The source of this calculation is unknown. Of course, if the odds were indeed that slim, NASA would most likely never have proposed a Moon landing to begin with. But they weren't. In reality, during the mid-1960s the Apollo Support Department of the General Electric Company in Florida conducted extensive mission reliability studies for NASA. These studies were based on very elaborate reliability models of all of the systems. A reliability profile over the course of a mission was generated by computer simulation, and a large number of such simulations were carried out for different scenarios. Based on those studies, the probability of landing on the Moon and returning safely to earth never dropped below 90%.

Every mission before Apollo 11 suffered from about 20,000 defects each. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn't one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions.

This is a claim of hoax advocate Ralph Rene. Here, too, the source of the information is unknown, but the gist is clear: the early missions had so many insurmountable problems that NASA decided to abandon the Moon landings and fake it. Even if the data is accurate, there is a big difference between a defect and a major technical problem. None of the Apollo missions, with the exception of number 13, experienced a major technical problem that prohibited the crews from successfully completing their missions. Also, the early Apollo flights were test missions designed specifically to shake out bugs in the hardware and procedures. Finally, the Moon landings were far from flawless. There were numerous technical problems, but, thanks to the skill of the flight controllers, engineers and astronauts, the problems were either corrected or circumvented such that the crews were able to complete their missions successfully.

The Earth never shows up in pictures taken from the Moon.

Hoax advocate James Collier was among the most enthusiastic promoters of this mistaken notion, based on studying only a few press release photographs from NASA. There are actually many photographs taken on or at the Moon that show the Earth, for instance: AS11446547, AS11446549, AS11446551, AS11446553, AS11446559, AS11405924, AS11446642, AS14669228, AS158811988, AS1713420384, AS1713420461, AS1713420471, AS1713720957, and AS1713720960. Since all the non hand-held pictures taken on or at the Moon were using something other than 70mm transparency film, these photos had to have been taken by a human being -- an Apollo astronaut -- physically present either on the surface or in space around the Moon. Noteworthy is that the cloud formations on the Earth in these pictures is consistent with the weather patterns present on Earth during the time the pictures were taken.

Astronauts allegedly left mirrors on the Moon, but nobody has ever managed to get a reflection from those mirrors.

The assumption is that these are huge mirrors and bouncing a laser beam off of them can be done by just about anyone with a 10 dollar laser pointer. This is far from true. Taking the enormous distance into account, the laser reflectors were specifically meant for measuring the distance between the Moon and the Earth with a laser beam shot through a large telescope.

The first of three US laser ranging retro-reflectors was positioned on the Moon in 1969 by the Apollo 11 astronauts. It can be seen in photograph AS11405952. This reflector consists of 100 fused silica half-cubes, called corner cubes, mounted in an 18-inch square aluminum panel. Each corner cube is 1.5 inches in diameter. Corner cubes reflect a beam of light directly back toward the point of origin. The Apollo 11 and 14 laser reflector arrays are identical and are located in the Sea of Tranquility and the Fra Mauro, respectively. The Apollo 15 reflector, located in the Hadley Rille, is a larger array consisting of 300 corner cubes. French built reflectors, consisting of 14 corner cubes, were also left on the Moon by the unmanned Russian Luna 17 and 21 missions. The Luna 17 and 21 arrays are located in the Sea of Rains and the Sea of Serenity, respectively.

Lunar ranging involves sending a powerful laser beam through an optical telescope. The beam enters the telescope where the eye piece would be, and the transmitted beam is expanded to become the diameter of the main mirror. It is then bounced off the surface toward the reflector on the Moon. The reflectors on the Moon are too small to be seen from Earth, so even when the beam is precisely aligned in the telescope, actually hitting a lunar retro-reflector array is technically challenging. At the Moon's surface the laser beam is roughly four miles wide. Once the laser beam hits a reflector, scientists at the ranging observatories use extremely sensitive filtering and amplification equipment to detect the return signal, which is far too weak to be seen with the human eye. Even under good atmospheric viewing conditions, only one photon is received every few seconds.

Many of these measurements have been made by the 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 (now closed due to budget constraints), California, France, Australia, and Germany. The International Laser Ranging Service is adding even more stations world wide.

Scientists from all over the world have analyzed the data from the long-term Lunar Laser Ranging experiments, and from it they know that the average distance between the centers of the Earth and the Moon is 239,227 miles, with an accuracy of better than one part in 10 billion. Ranging has also determined that the length of an Earth day has distinct small-scale variations of about one thousandth of a second over the course of a year, caused by the atmosphere, tides, and the Earth's core. In addition, precise positions of the laser ranging observatories on Earth are slowly drifting as the tectonic plates on Earth drift. The observatory on Maui is seen to be drifting away from the observatory in Texas. Data also indicate that ocean tides on Earth have a direct influence on the Moon's orbit. Measurements show that the Moon is receding from Earth at a rate of about 1.5 inches per year. Continued improvements in range determinations and the need for monitoring the details of the Earth's rotation will keep the lunar reflector experiments in service for many years to come.

Obviously, if the Moon landings were faked and no laser reflectors exist on the Moon, hundreds of scientists from the four countries that are and have been involved in these experiments have been living a dream for the last 30 years, and the current International Laser Ranging Service must be a hoax, too.

The biggest telescope on Earth should be able to see evidence of the Moon landings, but nothing was ever found.

The theoretical resolving power of a telescope is measured in arc seconds and calculated by dividing the aperture of the telescope (in inches) into 4.56. The largest telescope on Earth at this point is the 10-meter Keck telescope in Hawaii. The theoretical resolving power of this telescope is 0.012"; however, the Earth's atmosphere limits the resolving power of any ground-based telescope to about 0.5"-1.0". At the Earth-Moon distance of 239,000 miles, the smallest object that can be resolved by these telescopes is about 3,000 feet. The largest dimension of any hardware left behind on the Moon is 31 feet, which is the diagonal distance across the Moon lander's footpads.

The Hubble space telescope, which is situated beyond atmospheric disturbances, should be able to see evidence of the Moon landings.

The Hubble Space Telescope does not suffer from atmospheric limitation; thus, with an aperture of 94 inches, its resolving power is 0.05". That would still not be powerful enough. Hubble's resolution is 800 x 800 pixels, with each pixel being a little less than 46 milliarcseconds. For anything to show up in Hubble's field as a pixel, it needs to be at least 400 feet in diameter -- roughly the size of a football field.

Military spy satellites, which can see a golf ball on a lawn from orbit, should be able to see evidence of the Moon landings.

The military may well have satellites that do that, but they are in low orbits around the Earth. They are nowhere near the Moon and don't have the power to get out there even if we wanted them to.

The Clementine Lunar Orbiter is in orbit around the Moon and has taken photographs of the entire surface, but no evidence of the Moon landings has been found.

The Clementine Lunar Orbiter has indeed taken photographs of the entire surface of the Moon. These photographs are, however, not detailed enough to see any small features on the surface such as a Lunar Module. The purpose of the Clementine project was multi-spectral imaging of the entire lunar surface for topographical reasons and assessing the surface mineralogy of the Moon, not to make ultra-high resolution images of small objects. Apollo 15 spent 3 days on the Moon's surface, far longer than earlier missions. This gave the astronauts more time to stir up dust in the surrounding area. This, coupled with the disturbance cause by the lander's rockets made enough of a dark mark on the lunar surface to be just visible on one photograph taken by Clementine. Of course, this isn't conclusive proof, but still evidence and the clearest pictures we're going to get besides those made by the astronauts themselves from orbit, which show distinctive shadows cast by the landers.

The SELENE Project is a Japanese space mission that aims to place an orbiter around the Moon in the year 2008. Part of the tasks it will complete is a mapping of the Moon's surface at a resolution that should make it possible to see the Apollo landing sites.

The video quality of the first Moon landings was deliberately poor to prevent close examination.

Television pictures of the Apollo 11 landing were sent directly to Earth from the surface of the Moon using the lander's antenna and power supply. This placed a restriction on the amount of bandwidth that could be transmitted. Apollo 11 was thereby limited to using a black-and-white, slow-scan TV camera with a scan rate of 10 frames-per-second at 320 lines-per-frame. In order to broadcast the images to the world, the pictures had to first be converted to the commercial TV standards. In the US, this was the EIA standard of 30 frames-per-second at 525 lines-per-frame. The pictures transmitted from the Moon were displayed on a 10-inch black-and-white monitor and a Vidicon camera was pointed at the screen and the pictures were scanned at the EIA standard. A number of peculiar image artifacts were seen on the images. One set of artifacts was produced by sunlight reflecting off the astronauts and the lander onto the TV camera's lens. These reflections produced the ghostly effects perceived by the public. Other prominent artifacts were the result of spots burnt into the monitor screens from which the optical conversions were produced. Apollo 11 was only a first step in what was to be increasingly ambitious missions, thus it was lacking in the ability to transmit high-quality TV pictures. Later missions, starting with Apollo 12, had enough time in the schedule to permit the astronauts to erect large freestanding dish antennas. This increased the amount of bandwidth that could be transmitted, thus allowing complex color TV pictures of later missions to be sent directly to Earth.

The anomalies in the photographs were purposefully put there by whistle blowers in order to expose NASA.

Hoax advocate David Percy is the main proponent of the whistle blower theory. One may seriously ask why these whistle blowers inside NASA would have produced these anomalies instead of simply speaking out. It could not have been for safety reasons, as it is documented who handled the images and video footage. On top of that, during the more than 30 years after the landings not one of the other hundreds of thousands of people who worked on Apollo has come forward to admit they were part of a conspiracy. Not even a single deathbed confession. The truth is that there are no whistle blowers because the supposed photographic anomalies are the result of misunderstood phenomenon and mistaken conclusions, not hidden messages.

The death of the Apollo 1 astronauts was intentional, meant to prevent Gus Grissom from exposing the hoax.

This accusation is a complete fabrication with no corroborating evidence whatsoever. Some hoax advocates claim there have been many ôsuspiciousö deaths among those associated with the Apollo program, alleging that NASA murdered these people. These accusations are both ludicrous and libelous. Bill Kaysing particularly has made many slanderous allegations against NASA, including the above. Kaysing accused NASA of murdering Christa McAuliffe, the school teacher who was to fly aboard Challenger in 1986, because she would not go along with NASA's lie that stars cannot be seen in space. To do this, NASA destroyed the Space Shuttle Challenger, with McAuliffe and six other astronauts, in one of the most spectacular, expensive, and embarrassing failures in US history that set back space exploration by ten years. As usual, Kaysing has no proof whatsoever to back up this claim. Also, consider that if NASA has a habit of silencing people bent on exposing this alleged hoax, then why haven't they killed any of the current hoax conspiracy theorists?

NASA faked the Moon landings to beat the Soviets, who were far ahead in the race to the Moon.

Hoax advocates often mention the early lead the Soviets held in manned space flight, implying that American technology was inferior. The Soviets accomplished many "firsts" because their program was designed to do so, often at great risk. The Americans, on the other hand, were more methodical and took their time to develop better technology. With its Gemini program the United States pushed far ahead of the Soviets, completing many space milestones of their own. Among these: the first use of an onboard computer, first use of fuel cells for power, first piloted spacecraft to change its trajectory, the first space rendezvous, and the first space docking -- all very important foundational elements for further space exploration. By the end of 1966 the United States held a 4-to-1 superiority in manned hours in space and a 30-to-1 superiority in EVA experience. The U.S. would not relinquish its lead in space man-hours until 1978, which was due to the Soviets' emphasis on space stations.

Aside from technological advantage issues, it is true the US was in competition with the USSR, but the risks involved in trying to perpetrate a hoax would be tremendous. The devastating effect the exposure of a hoax would have on the reputation of the United States would be many times more severe than simply failing to reach the Moon. Why would NASA be willing to take that risk? Also, why six landings? After Apollo 11 the goal had been met, so why fake five more landings? In fact, NASA continued to send men to the Moon long after the public had lost interest. Continuing to perpetrate a hoax would only increase the possibility of making mistakes and being exposed. Furthermore, the Soviets would have never been fooled by a hoax. The USSR fully understood the difficulties of a Moon landing and tracked American progress closely, yet they have always acknowledged that the Apollo Moon landings were real.

Also, do not forget that some hoax advocates claim the supposed technologically inferior Americans were able to robotically collect and return to Earth over 800 pounds of diverse lunar rock and soil samples, while the so-called technologically superior Soviets could manage only less than a pound.

NASA faked the Moon landings to distract Americans from the war in Vietnam.

Hoax advocates like to point out that the timing of the Apollo missions almost exactly corresponded with the war in Vietnam and were therefore meant to pull the attention of the masses away from ravages of the war. However, we cannot merely look at when the Apollo missions actually occurred. Rather, we should look at when the planning for those missions took place. The genesis of the Apollo program was John F. Kennedy's speech to congress in May 1961, while the first US ground combat forces did not enter Vietnam until March 1965. Apollo 18, the last Apollo mission to be scrapped, was cancelled during the summer of 1970, while the last U.S. ground forces did not leave Vietnam until March 1973. That's 1961-70 for Apollo and 1965-73 for Vietnam. It is obvious that NASA plans were made years in advance of events in Vietnam. Planners could not have possibly anticipated the timing of future events.

Apollo 13 was a failure because it was the last time that NASA really tried to go to the Moon.

The last time? Wouldn't that be the only time then? Or do the hoax advocates accept that there were at least several successful manned flights to the Moon before Apollo 11, even without landings? If so, why would NASA hoax two Moon landings, then give it a "real" try, and then, on failure, hoax four more over several years -- all while public interest had already waned significantly? This makes no sense from whatever angle you look at it. If NASA were indeed faking the landings, why would they encourage greater interest and unwanted scrutiny of their actions by risking a real landing attempt? Some hoax advocates have suggested that a failed mission was needed to renew interest in Apollo so that the dollars would keep flowing to subcontractors. However, the interest generated by Apollo 13 was short lived and the accident proved to be a contributing factor in the cancellation of latter flights, thus shortening the program.

The Soviet Union never attempted to land on the Moon because they knew it was impossible.

The failure of the Soviet Union to land a man on the Moon was due to the failure of their N1 Moon rocket, which was the USSR's equivalent of the Saturn V. The Soviets attempted two test launches of the N1 in 1969, the first on the 21st of February and the second on the 3rd of July. The July test, which occurred just two weeks before the launch of Apollo 11, was a catastrophic failure, as the rocket exploded on the launch pad and destroyed much of the launch complex. After the failure of the first two N1 rockets, and the success of Apollo 11, Russian engineering efforts were diverted into crash development of the Salyut Space Station in order to beat the American Skylab. Cosmonauts, however, continued to train for lunar landing missions until October 1973, when the last training group was dissolved. By that time, manned flight of the original single-launch spacecraft to the Moon had been abandoned. Instead, work was underway on a twin launch scenario that would put a lander on the surface in 1978 for extended operations, and eventually, a lunar base. This in turn was cancelled with the entire N1 program in 1974. Clearly the Soviets believed a Moon landing was a technological possibility as they continued with their plans until well after the last Apollo mission.

The Soviet Union was also planning a fake Moon landing and, to avoid exposure, would therefore not question NASA's achievements.

Surely the Soviets possessed the knowledge and experience necessary to debunk NASA's claim of a Moon landing. Since they declined to do so, they, according to the hoax advocates, must have had something to hide as well. Not only is there no evidence whatsoever of fraud on the part of the USSR but, if they were faking it, why didn't they just hoax a landing before the USA did? It was awfully generous of the Soviets to allow the US to fake it first. Another idea that's been proposed by the hoax advocates is that NASA paid-off the Soviets to keep them quiet. We are more than 30 years further in time. The USSR no longer exists and Russia has seen several regime changes. What has prevented all these changes from dissolving the alleged pay-off and silence?

If it was really possible to land on the Moon in the sixties, the Russians or Chinese would also definitely have gone there in the last 40 years, but they didn't.

Despite the apparent ease with which NASA landed six crews on the lunar surface, traveling to the Moon was difficult, dangerous and very expensive. Once the US succeeded, one of the main reasons for the Soviets' for going to the Moon was eliminated. The failure of their N1 rocket lead to the cancellation of their Moon program altogether in favor of an orbital space station. To fly to the Moon today would be nearly as difficult and likely much more expensive than it was three decades ago and, as such, requires sufficient motivation to do so. The current Russian economy can hardly keep up with what is left of their former space programs. The Chinese are currently very actively pursuing manned space flight and future Moon missions.

Neil Armstrong's refusal to appear in public or give interviews proves that he has something to hide.

A claim from hoax advocate Bart Sibrel. Neil Armstrong is, by nature, a very shy and private man who shuns the spotlight. It is true that he infrequently gives interviews or makes public appearances, but to say that he refuses to is simply not true. He was interviewed by Andrew Chaikin for the book A Man On the Moon, participated in a televised press conference for the 30th anniversary of Apollo 11, was interviewed by Stephen Ambrose and Douglas Brinkley in September of 2001, gave an interview to an audience of about 1,000 at Dublin's National Concert Hall in November of 2003, and has made a public appearance in Dayton, Ohio for the Centennial of Flight celebration in 2003. What he apparently does refuse to do (with good reason, and much like most Apollo astronauts) is grant interviews to those who call him a liar and a fraud.

The blueprints for the Saturn V rocket were purposefully destroyed or lost.

If the hoax advocates mean that there is no complete set of blueprints, then yes, this does not exist, nor has it ever. The literally millions of documents relating to the Saturn V and its components were spread out across the country among a dozen NASA centers and hundreds of contractors. Certainly many copies of these documents have been discarded, but much of it still exists. Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama has much Saturn documentation on microfilm and the Federal Archives in East Point, Georgia has 2,900 cubic feet of Saturn documents. Rocketdyne, which built the F-1 and J-2 engines for the Saturn and is now part of Boeing, has in its archives dozens of volumes from its Knowledge Retention Program.

Plans for the Lunar Module and Lunar Rover were purposefully destroyed or lost.

Much paperwork relating to the Lunar Module and Rover has been discarded. However, this is to be expected. No company is going to keep in storage millions of documents for an obsolete project that has no chance of being resurrected. Still, there is much left of the documentation. The National Archives microfilmed everything they thought was historically significant and those films are currently in storage. It is not uncommon for space enthusiasts and modelers to find many obscure facts and details about the LM, Rover, and other Apollo hardware.



©2001-2010 :: kuruvinda.com
Design by Kuruvinda :: reality bites...