honest intellectual
5th May 2002, 16:08
From the Irish Times, May 2nd.
Proof that man did land on the moon
Dr William Reville
On February 15th, 2001, the US Fox TV network aired a programme called Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land On the Moon? hosted by X-files actor Mitch Pileggi. It featured interviews with people who believe that NASA faked the Apollo moon landings in the 1960s and 1970s.
The overall conclusion was that the whole thing was faked on a film-set in the Nevada desert. It was claimed that NASA did not have the technical capability to go to the moon at the time but the pressure of the Cold War with the Soviet Union forced them to fake the moon landings.
"OK", I can hear you say, but why bother with stuff like this? Isn't there always a market for small-minority crackpot views and isn't paying attention only giving them the oxygen of publicity? It turns out that the minority we are discussing is actually quite sizeable. A recent survey found that 20 per cent of US citizens expressed doubt as to whether NASA landed men on the moon. It is disturbing to think that such a significant minority believes in fairytales. If scientists can disprove the evidence for a NASA hoax, then it is important that this be done.
It would have been possible for NASA to hire a skilled film director and film crew and to film a convincing mock-up of a moon landing. We have seen many examples of such filmmaking over the years. The most recent one I remember is Mission to Mars. But so many people (actors, camera-persons, technicians, administrators, etc.) would be required for this conspiracy that it would be impossible to keep it secret for months, let alone for more than 30 years. To quote from Poor Richard's Almanack: "Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead."
I will briefly outline some of the main evidence quoted by the hoax theorists and the explanations that rebut them.
Claim No. 1: Films taken from the moon show no stars in the black sky. This was a mistake NASA made on the film-set.
Answer: The thick atmosphere on Earth scatters sunlight all over the sky and this is why the sky is bright during the day, swamping the faint starlight. Without sunlight at night the earth sky is dark, allowing us to see the stars. The lack of air on the moon causes the background sky to always appear dark, even near to the full bright daytime sun. All the lunar landings were done at local morning time when the sun was low on the horizon and brightly lighting the lunar landscape. The astronauts wore white spacesuits, also brightly lit by the sun.
When you take a picture of a bright object in a bright background you must set a fast camera exposure time and restrict the amount of light entering the lens. But, stars are faint objects and in the fast exposure they don't have enough time to register on the film. If you took a picture of the sky on Earth on a pitch black night using the astronauts' moon camera settings you wouldn't record any stars on your film either.
Claim No. 2: The US flag waved as it was planted by the astronauts but the moon is airless and gusts of wind are necessary to wave the flag.
Answer: The flag only moved when the astronauts jiggled the pole on which the flag hung. Under these circumstances the flag will wave, whether or not air is present.
Claim No. 3: Shadows in the photographs taken on the moon reveal two sources of light. But the sun is the only source of light on the moon. The extra light sources were studio spotlights.
Answer: There are three sources of light on the moon - the sun, the Earth reflecting the sun and the moon itself, which powerfully reflects the sun.
Claim No. 4: The moon photographs show no blast crater made by the engine of the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) which landed on the moon and the top portion of which later took off again.
Answer: The moon's surface is covered by a few inches of dust beneath which is a solid surface not easily affected by an engine blast. Also, as the rocket landed it throttled back to a low level of thrust, exerting a pressure of only 1.5 pounds per square inch on the surface of the moon.
Claim No. 5: When the LEM took off from the moon there was no visible rocket exhaust. It leaped off its base as though yanked up by cables.
Answer: The footage shows there was a substantial blast sending dust flying. Also, the LEM used a fuel mix that produces no visible flame.
The conspiracy theorists make many more claims and all of them are relatively easily refuted. More serious charges are also made of the murder of astronauts and pilots in "accidents", including Gus Grissom in the Apollo I fire, because they were about to go public to expose the hoax.But the conspiracy theorists have produced no positive evidence to support their position.
I have nothing against a conspiracy theory that is supported by credible evidence, but this one is not. Conspiracy theories of this sort will always be with us. Some people want to believe in them and many people want to be entertained by them. The NASA fake moon landings theory probably won't go away, but we should continue to dampen it down lest it burn out of control.
William Reville is associate professor of Biochemistry and director of Microscopy at UCC
---------------------------------------------------------------------
What's interesting is the approach that Dr Reville takes. He thinks that because there is no evidence that the landing was faked, this amounts to proof that ma landed on the moon. He asks himself, "What evidence is there that te footage is fake?", whereas I would ask myself "What evidence is there that te footage is real?"
Proof that man did land on the moon
Dr William Reville
On February 15th, 2001, the US Fox TV network aired a programme called Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land On the Moon? hosted by X-files actor Mitch Pileggi. It featured interviews with people who believe that NASA faked the Apollo moon landings in the 1960s and 1970s.
The overall conclusion was that the whole thing was faked on a film-set in the Nevada desert. It was claimed that NASA did not have the technical capability to go to the moon at the time but the pressure of the Cold War with the Soviet Union forced them to fake the moon landings.
"OK", I can hear you say, but why bother with stuff like this? Isn't there always a market for small-minority crackpot views and isn't paying attention only giving them the oxygen of publicity? It turns out that the minority we are discussing is actually quite sizeable. A recent survey found that 20 per cent of US citizens expressed doubt as to whether NASA landed men on the moon. It is disturbing to think that such a significant minority believes in fairytales. If scientists can disprove the evidence for a NASA hoax, then it is important that this be done.
It would have been possible for NASA to hire a skilled film director and film crew and to film a convincing mock-up of a moon landing. We have seen many examples of such filmmaking over the years. The most recent one I remember is Mission to Mars. But so many people (actors, camera-persons, technicians, administrators, etc.) would be required for this conspiracy that it would be impossible to keep it secret for months, let alone for more than 30 years. To quote from Poor Richard's Almanack: "Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead."
I will briefly outline some of the main evidence quoted by the hoax theorists and the explanations that rebut them.
Claim No. 1: Films taken from the moon show no stars in the black sky. This was a mistake NASA made on the film-set.
Answer: The thick atmosphere on Earth scatters sunlight all over the sky and this is why the sky is bright during the day, swamping the faint starlight. Without sunlight at night the earth sky is dark, allowing us to see the stars. The lack of air on the moon causes the background sky to always appear dark, even near to the full bright daytime sun. All the lunar landings were done at local morning time when the sun was low on the horizon and brightly lighting the lunar landscape. The astronauts wore white spacesuits, also brightly lit by the sun.
When you take a picture of a bright object in a bright background you must set a fast camera exposure time and restrict the amount of light entering the lens. But, stars are faint objects and in the fast exposure they don't have enough time to register on the film. If you took a picture of the sky on Earth on a pitch black night using the astronauts' moon camera settings you wouldn't record any stars on your film either.
Claim No. 2: The US flag waved as it was planted by the astronauts but the moon is airless and gusts of wind are necessary to wave the flag.
Answer: The flag only moved when the astronauts jiggled the pole on which the flag hung. Under these circumstances the flag will wave, whether or not air is present.
Claim No. 3: Shadows in the photographs taken on the moon reveal two sources of light. But the sun is the only source of light on the moon. The extra light sources were studio spotlights.
Answer: There are three sources of light on the moon - the sun, the Earth reflecting the sun and the moon itself, which powerfully reflects the sun.
Claim No. 4: The moon photographs show no blast crater made by the engine of the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) which landed on the moon and the top portion of which later took off again.
Answer: The moon's surface is covered by a few inches of dust beneath which is a solid surface not easily affected by an engine blast. Also, as the rocket landed it throttled back to a low level of thrust, exerting a pressure of only 1.5 pounds per square inch on the surface of the moon.
Claim No. 5: When the LEM took off from the moon there was no visible rocket exhaust. It leaped off its base as though yanked up by cables.
Answer: The footage shows there was a substantial blast sending dust flying. Also, the LEM used a fuel mix that produces no visible flame.
The conspiracy theorists make many more claims and all of them are relatively easily refuted. More serious charges are also made of the murder of astronauts and pilots in "accidents", including Gus Grissom in the Apollo I fire, because they were about to go public to expose the hoax.But the conspiracy theorists have produced no positive evidence to support their position.
I have nothing against a conspiracy theory that is supported by credible evidence, but this one is not. Conspiracy theories of this sort will always be with us. Some people want to believe in them and many people want to be entertained by them. The NASA fake moon landings theory probably won't go away, but we should continue to dampen it down lest it burn out of control.
William Reville is associate professor of Biochemistry and director of Microscopy at UCC
---------------------------------------------------------------------
What's interesting is the approach that Dr Reville takes. He thinks that because there is no evidence that the landing was faked, this amounts to proof that ma landed on the moon. He asks himself, "What evidence is there that te footage is fake?", whereas I would ask myself "What evidence is there that te footage is real?"