Moon landing hoax
(→See also) |
(Undo revision 589809 by 196.25.255.246 (Talk) OK, but that's what the talkpage os for.....) |
||
| Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
*[[Conspiracy theory]] | *[[Conspiracy theory]] | ||
*[[List of Conspiracy Theories]] | *[[List of Conspiracy Theories]] | ||
| − | |||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
Revision as of 05:14, 21 May 2010
| B U L L "If you are in possession of this revolutionary secret of science, why not prove it and be hailed as the new Newton? Of course, we know the answer. You can't do it. You are a fake." |
The moon landing hoax refers to the belief of a small, but persistent, percentage of people who think that the Apollo moon landings of the late 60s and 70s were propaganda films produced by NASA in pursuit of humiliating the U.S.S.R. in the cold war.
Some believe that men never went to space at all, save for perhaps low orbital flights, while others think we may have eventually succeeded, but the original claims dating to July 20, 1969 of a moon landing were false.
While there are small evidences that they claim makes their case, these are easily explained, and overwhelmed by the body of evidence that we have, indeed, been to space and left trash on the moon just as at the top of Everest.
The moon landing hoax was originated by libertarian writer Bill Kaysing with his early 1970s book We Never Went to the Moon. It is a shame Kaysing is mostly remembered for that, because he also wrote some great books on sustainable living, privacy, hot springs, homelessness and other topics. It has since reached the level of being a pop-culture meme, much in the way JFK assassination theories are. A TV commercial plays off it, by having the actual astronauts on the moon drink an energy beverage and become unable to do their jobs. Tag line: "Come on back, we'll have to shoot it all in a studio down here".
Contents |
Variety of conspiracy beliefs.
There is, in fact, no single Moon landing conspiracy belief. There are several depending on the believers' gullibility or desire to believe.
Flat Earth belief
In this belief the astronauts never left the Earth, as flat earthers believe space travel to be impossible, and the whole thing was filmed on the ground. Charles Johnson, president of the Flat Earth society described the Space Shuttle as "a joke", claiming that he has observed bits falling off it in testing which prove that it can't really go into space. Presumably, he thinks the same of high altitude airliners such as Concorde, from which people could also see the curvature of the Earth.
No orbit belief
This group believes that the earth is in fact spherical (so far, so sane), but that no astronauts ever went into orbit. Rockets that were launched were either unmanned or crashed into the sea. Slightly more plausible than Flat-Earthers but this does imply a very expensive hoax.
Only orbit belief
This group believes that the astronauts only went into orbit around the earth. This level of conspiracy theory relies on the claim that space is filled with radiation that renders it inhospitable to the astronauts. It seems not to have occurred to these theorists to check the actual facts, such as what kinds of ionizing radiation exist in space, what are their sources, what are the expected radiation levels and what protective measures are taken against them. An extreme version is the claim that radiation in the Van Allen belts would melt the spacecraft.[1]
Moon orbit belief
This group believes that that NASA went to the moon but only to orbit it.Quite why NASA would stop here and fake the rest is anyone's guess — the final landing, while complex and difficult, would not have been impossible for such a large, well prepared organisation.
Landed, but later belief
These people believe that the earlier landings were faked, but that NASA finally managed to get there some time in the seventies.
Moon alien belief
This group accepts that NASA went to the moon, and — with unmanned probes — the rest of the solar system; however, the things they saw were so incredible they had to doctor the photographs to hide the evidence of alien civilizations. As usual with this kind of conspiracy theory, a logical reason has never been given for anyone wanting to conceal such a profitable discovery.
A similar, but slightly less insane, subgroup of this postulates that the moon landings did happen, but the footage was so poor that it was re-recorded on Earth, thus explaining the "evidence" of forgery without the incredulous claims associated with a full hoax, such as the vast expense at faking the launches and keeping everyone quiet.[2]
Moon landing belief
This group swallowed hook, line, and sinker the low quality video footage propaganda released by NASA (and covered up by the U.S.S.R. in return for wheat subsidies) and actually thinks that men walked on the moon and returned to Earth unharmed. What gullible fools!
Moon landing hoax hoax
This group believes that the moon landing hoax was itself a hoax, to cover up the fact that Chinese filmmakers had successfully filmed a "moon landing" video before NASA. The CIA intercepted the video, dubbed it into English,[3] and broadcast it to the world.[4] There are rumors that this theory is itself a hoax, but the rumors have been dismissed as a hoax.[5]
Arguments against the conspiracy
Logical arguments
Tens of thousands of people worked on the Apollo project at NASA and a variety of contractors. There were also many people around the world working peripherally on the project, e.g. relay stations in Australia and Spain. Anyone who came forward to demonstrate it was a hoax would become rich and famous. This has not happened.
The moon landings took place at the height of the cold war, and transmissions came from the surface of the moon. These were picked up all over the world, including by the Soviet Union. It is likely the Soviet Union would have mentioned that the signals were not coming from the moon if they weren't.
In an effort to counter this rather gaping hole in the conspiracy theory, true hoax believers claim that the Soviets were bribed in secret with large grain shipments. But there are a number of reasons why this is obviously fallacious:
- It is difficult to believe that this bribe would have paid for 40 years of silence.
- It is especially difficult to believe that the information would have remained secret after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
- Grain supplies were stopped in 1980, and yet the Soviets still kept silent about the moon landings, even though it would have been a massive propaganda coup.
- It would seem patently absurd to secretly prop the Soviet Union up with vast amounts of free grain while at the same time spending even more money on a faked moon shot to publicly humiliate the same entity.
- The Soviets were not the only other nation which picked up the signals.
Physical arguments
- A large quantity of moon rock was brought back by the missions. Many international scientists have spent entire careers studying the stuff. If they could prove it did not come from the moon they would be rich.
- A set of retroflectors, mirrors meant to be targets for ranging lasers, were placed on the moon. These retroflectors have been used by relatively independent parties.
- Close up images of dust being kicked up by the astronauts on the moon showed that it fell parabolically, as expected in a vacuum. If the moon landings were shot on a soundstage on Earth, the dust would float around in the air before falling to the ground.
- The biggest watchdog of the era (i.e., the Soviet Union) had every tracking station peeled on the lunar module as it descended to the lunar surface. Had NASA faked it, the world would have known.
Conclusions
Given the overall context of the moon landings, that of the Space Race with the Soviet Union, there are many, many reasons that people would come forward to conclusively prove that the landings were faked; political gain, monetary gain, pure fame and so on. Disproving the landings by a first hand account, or evidence such as a sneaky photograph of the studio used or something more concrete would be relatively simple. However, this still flies in the face of what is known. Man-made objects are on the moon and transmissions came from the moon, there is no "faking" this.
If we assume a conspiracy exists, we need to know what it involves. Given the number of people that would need to be paid off to stay silent, the effort required to pull the wool over the USSR's eyes, the ground based fakery - rockets, launches, control rooms - the scientific fakery such as moon rocks as well as the photography and video taken from the moon... wouldn't it be easiest just to go to the moon?
See also
External links
- Wikipedia's article is good on the rebuttal.
- Astronomer Jim Scotti's page on the "controversy"
- Clavius.org is a site dedicated "to debunk(ing) the so-called conspiracy theories that state such a landing may never have occurred."
- This page explains how the Moon rocks really did come from the Moon
- Thekeyboard.org on the "hoax"
- NASA has produced a PDF on the subject
- A New York Times article on "hoaxes"
Fox News special responses
Three websites responding to a Fox News special program on the hoax allegations:
- A critical review of the Fox News special
- Bad Astronomy on the same program
- Analysis of photographs used in the program
Parodies
- Opération lune (English title: Dark Side of the Moon), a French mockumentary often confused for a hoax-supporting movie, especially by people who don't speak English or French and have seen only a dubbed version (and, sadly, by some people who speak English or French but lack any critical faculties).
- Misbegotten Moon—a video that makes fun of much of the logic of conspiracy theories, and the techniques used by conspiracy theory "exposé films".
- An excellent parody of the typical moon landing hoax site is here!
Footnotes
- ↑ http://www.helium.com/debates/84502-was-the-apollo-moon-landing-real-or-a-hoax/side_by_side?page=7
- ↑ This is pretty much the most weak-ass conspiracy theory ever.
- ↑ Thus proving that the CIA are a bunch of posers. Real fans prefer the subtitled version.
- ↑ A webcomic said it, so it must be true.
- ↑ According to recent theories, the dismissal itself seems to be a hoax. However, these theories need closer investigation due to their highly dubious nature.