The Apollo hoax theories
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
In Pictures: The 10 best hot hatchbacks
9/11 and Kennedy aside, no event in world history has generated quite so many conspiracy theories than the Apollo moon landings. But do they stand up? Here are the best reasons why it couldn’t have happened, and the rebuttals. Of course, you may disagree.
Click on the image to launch our guide
Post a Comment
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
The earth has a magnetic shield, this is called Van Allens belt. It protects the earth from the plasma radation from the Sun. During corona mass ejection, there can be collosal amounts of radation thrown towards the earth. When this happens, in far northern countries, its possible for the filament in incandescent bulbs to glow without any power from the mains. The belt protects humans upto the edge of space (considered to be around 120 miles above sea level). Beyond this man would require a massive amount of lead shielding to survive from the radiation from the sun. This and many other supporting factors indicate that humans have not been to the moon yet.
Are you for real?
Conspiracy theories are very powerful, they give social invalids a sense of power from their bedroom comfort zones. The application of sense is generally enough to deal with this.
But the Moon landings were a great achievement, although one may question the point of spending millions on visiting a place with less life than Bridlington on a Thursday afternoon.
Around 20 men have walked on the Moon, and I applaud them.
I do not applaud no-marks who never leave their bedroom, who say that it is all a hoax.
Exactly right, far too many people were involved for this to be hoax,I have always thought so. And yes, getting there despite the risks was a fantastic achievement, and those who attempt- for whatever reasons- to belittle their efforts do themselves, and the brave people who went to the Moon, no favours at all. I think they must be rather thick.
The stills camera lenses had a little cross etched onto them (in the top left-hand corner) in order (I believe) to give the photos a sense of scale. The cross should therefore be ON TOP of the pictures. But in some pictures the cross is partly obscured by the subject. This should be an impossibility. So what happened?
Clearly this does not detract from the landing itself, but it seems that maybe the photos were manipulated in some way. Or is there another perfectly logical explanation?
I do believe it's healthy to question things that we are told by the media, however those responsible for running the country, Nasa, the media outlets etc must take stock of the fact that increasing numbers of people don't believe a word that comes out of the TV or papers.
The degree of alienation that lies between Government and the public certainly appears to be growing.
On another shoe I'd also suggest that the Global Conspiracy theories that abound, involving Illuminati plots to microchip the population, should serve as a pretty good warning against stuff that we simply *don't* want to happen. A bit like Orwell's 1984, say.
So whereas one may not consider it necessary to start wearing tinfoil hats or whatever, I still think it's worthwhile and interesting hearing out the claims of various conspiracy theorists, even if one doesn't agree with them.
That psychology can be found primarily in the subject of numbers, where some members suggest and innocently argue that the large number of those involved in the moonlanding strategy proves that it was real and that it happened. This is where the application of psychology was best used and the nations "bought it for a pound". The large number of people involved might have been many but we do not see the large number of people on the picture, do we now? All the people "involved" were NOT ACTUALLY "involved" in the entire act, especially the landing bit. I thought people knew about cover-ups by now. The large number of people invlolved constitute a very tiny part of the cover up. Besides, no matter how much evidence we can provide to prove that the project of moon landing and walking was a fake, when people want to believe something because choosing to do so makes them happy and content, it is difficult to make them think otherwise until the relevant government or an indivudual invoved at the very high ranking level of the project comes out and confesses the truth. I however do not see anyone doing that soon
Surely that would prove/disprove the Apollo landing and with new technology and digital photography and colour tv etc it would be an improved visual experience for the world.
"The shadows may fall differently to how we expect, but this is not our planet ? things will be different there."
If you're billing this as an explanation then it won't do. Physics is _very_much_ the same on the moon. That's kind of the point of physics.... You're "there be dragons" explanations simply don't cut it.
Any conspiracy to fake a moon landing would be harder to pull off than actually going there.
Don't give hope yet
Ah, of course,well clocked, know what I mean; cororpeal4... kodka321, what could he be on
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Manned-M
Note also that the Moon suffers from radiation so we would need much protection there.
As the article says "The first manned missions to the Moon were somehow fortunate, even NASA approves, as a dangerous burst of solar radiation would have put the astronauts in serious danger."
Fair bit of luck and risk taking since they knew less than we do now.
I thought to look at manned space stations and how they deal with Van Allen belts etc. Admittedly they look to longer periods in space than the Apollo missions.
Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_stat
"In the case of solar flares, all current habitats are protected by the Earth's magnetic field, and are below the Van Allen belts."
Van Allen Belts are too hot for space stations. They see spots before their eyes i see. What side effects did the Apollo pilots suffer if any? i noted reports that no human has been through the belts since.
Not conclusive articles but they clearly indicate that the trip to the Moon and Mars are not something we undertake lightly today. Indeed even low orbit satellites seem to have to contend with significant radiation damage.
Per
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moo
the aluminium hulls protected them. Why doesn't that solve problems now? Presumably it is time that is critical. It only works for a short period by reducing exposure to a level safe for a short period. This is the position
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_humans_pa
Can you show that short term exposure is dangerous?
Perhaps a real issue is not the Van Allen Belts but the moon as Nasa say themselves here
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y
The surface of the Moon is baldly exposed to cosmic rays and solar flares, and some of that radiation is very hard to stop with shielding.
For people to live and work on the Moon safely, the radiation problem must be solved.
The lunar surface itself is radioactive!
The first global mapping of neutron radiation from the Moon was performed by NASA's Lunar Prospector probe in 1998-99. LEND will improve on the Lunar Prospector data by profiling the energies of these neutrons, showing what fraction are of high energy (i.e., the most damaging to people) and what fraction are of lower energies.
With such knowledge in hand, scientists can begin designing spacesuits, lunar habitats, Moon vehicles, and other equipment for NASA's return to the Moon knowing exactly how much radiation shielding this equipment must have to keep humans safe
--
They got really lucky in 1969 in a vacuum of knowledge. Or they were in and out so fast...
One has to have doubts.
The Nasa hoax 40 years ago wasn't water tight, it was shabby, hence all the postings...
kodak321, whats you're mode of transportation?, are you travelling in physical form or have you shed your baggage and moving as energy found in the pockets at the boundary of the covalent threshold? If you are still peeing, then you must be in human form...
Uh We Have The Hubble Up Running Again $$$$$$ Many Dollars Cost To Our Broke Country..
And The LRO I Have Asked NASA Many Times!!!!!!! To SHOW The Pictures of The Moon Landings Hm Have They Done It....NO!!
Uh If It Ain't A Hoax..
Why Can't They Show Us The Landings Folks Hubble Can Take A Pic Of A BB On An 8 Lane Freeway No Excuses!!!!! NOW!!!!
ALL of the hoax arguments have been shot down (including the radiation belt "problem") by others who took the time, particularly Phil Plait at Bad Astronomy.
Sending humans to the moon and back is not that difficult. It is ridiculously expensive and requires an enormous amount of man-hours and industrial resources, but the technology needed is in no way exotic (we knew how to build rockets, we were capable of doing orbital calculations with or without computers, we could build an airtight capsule, carbon dioxide scrubbers, etc.), hence the relatively short development time of less than a decade.
In 1960, two men touched down at the bottom of Challenger Deep in the Mariana Trench, more than 6 miles beneath the surface of the Pacific, in an environment FAR more dangerous than the vacuum of space - so dangerous that we have not returned, and there are no plans to ever attempt it again. Was that trip hoaxed too?
It really comes down to Occam's Razor. For the U.S. government of the 60's, pulling off a hoax of that magnitude would be far more difficult than actually going to the moon - and considering that the landings would have been impossible to fake for reasons already given, and that the evidence for the landings is overwhelming, the only conclusion that any intelligent person can come to is that we went to the moon.
We haven't gone back because it's expensive and because it's a low priority. For what it's worth, we could likely have sent people to Mars and back for the cost of the Iraq war. Of course we'll be accused of faking the Mars trip, too, even though we have the technology to do it now.
For PR purposes. NASA and the military industrial complex were afraid that many of the shots might be disappointing or even ruined so they set up a "B" unit of photo reels. This was deemed necessary for funding purposes and for the cold war propaganda effort. A rather boring conspiracy but if you want one, there it is. The whole incident is an embarrassment to NASA which is why they always irritably "down" the talk when it arises.
"Thousands of people were involved in getting the first humans to the Moon".
"and those who attempt- for whatever reasons- to belittle their efforts do themselves, and the brave people who went to the Moon, no favours at all. I think they must be rather thick".
Last year I went sailing and didn't fall off the planet, must tell Darwin the good news and not to give up on the crazy ideas about natural selection.
But I'm rather thick - I build duck houses for MPs. MPs need these things to help their efforts and those who attempt- for whatever reasons- to belittle their efforts do themselves, and the brave ducks, no favours at al.
I'm off now to follow the herd and jump off that 200,000 mile cliff!!! whoooooooooosh!!