The Flapping Flag: Poor Conspiracy Evidence

Every Moon hoax conspiracy theorist knows about the flapping flag. Whenever Astronauts in the Apollo films plant a flag on the Moon, the flag goes flapping around like a strong breeze is flowing through the area. The hoax theorists claim that the flag can't do this, since there's no atmosphere on the moon.

 

Despite the initial reaction people have to this hoax theory, the theory really has no solid logic. It's pure sensationalism. The Astronaut in the picture torques the flag left and right in order to screw it into the ground, so naturally that same torque will be applied to the flag post and the flag itself. All of this torquing results in the appearance of a breeze flowing through the flag. This is just basic physics at work.

If you read my post about "marionettes," you'll find an explanation about why it is possible to jump higher in a vacuum. In a vacuum, the lack of heavy oxygen, nitrogen and argon on top of you allows you to jump higher. An atmosphere of gasses is like a giant hand pressing in every direction - up, down, sideways, etc. In other words, atmospheric gasses offer resistance to motion. Since the Lunar surface has no atmosphere, any torque applied to the base of the flag allows the flag to flap even more than it would on Earth, because there are no gasses present to slow down the motion

As droll as it may seem to conspiracy theorists, NASA allowed the Mythbusters team to torque a flag in one of their own vacuum chambers. Naturally, the flag appeared to flap even more in the vacuum - not less. Evidence like this doesn't phase a conspiracy theorist one bit. The experiment was done in a NASA laboratory, and for all we know, there wasn't a real vacuum in that chamber. The conspiracy theorist believes that allowing NASA to conduct anti-Moon hoax experiments is like allowing a tobacco company to determine whether cigarettes are harmful.

The flapping flag theories represent some of the worst evidence that conspiracy theorists have come up with. After the flag has been planted by Apollo Astronauts, it remains stationary. This theory might have some credence if the flag were to flap randomly, without the presence of the Astronauts. Flag flapping hoax theories really drive home the notion that these conspiracy theorists have never studied basic (high school) physics.

The Moon Landings: A Disney Production

If the Moon hoax is real, then someone or some studio had to be behind the whole thing. Many say the key player was Stanley Kubrick, because he was granted access to NASA's Zeis camera lens for his film Barry Lyndon. The special lens was used to film satellites in orbit from the ground, but Kubrick used the camera to film a 19th century period movie using only candlelight and natural sunlight to illuminate the actors. Needless to say, Barry Lyndon contains some of the most beautiful footage ever captured on film. There are other ways to link Kubrick with NASA and the US government - through such films as Dr. Strangelove (Pentagon footage and B-52 Bomber accuracy) or 2001: A Space Odyssey - but Kubrick wasn't necessarily involved with the Moon landing shoots. He may have been involved, but two other players in this film conspiracy need mention first.

In the middle of the 1950s, Walt Disney and Dr. Wernher von Braun (a central player in the Apollo missions, and the man who brought us the Saturn V rocket) worked together to create a film called Man and the Moon. People were amazed at how realistic the movie looked on television. Was this a rehearsal for the real thing?

 

 

There were a lot of similarities between Man and the Moon and the actual Apollo missions. Dr. von Braun really seemed to know a lot about the future of NASA - right down to how the LM would work (picture included). Why would the government allow a scientist to televise methods that could actually land a man on the Moon? Well, to be fair, the space age didn't begin until Sputnik launched in 1957, but still - why allow the Russians to see something that could feasibly work? Dr. von Braun was already working for the United States government during the filming of this movie, and he had been doing so ever since he had been recruited from the NAZI SS during project Paperclip.

Man and the Moon represents a rather remarkable feat. Today, science fiction films tend to depict places, events, and technologies that won't be around for hundreds, if not thousands, of years; but, Dr. von Braun's science fiction story about a Moon landing became reality in a little over 10 years. Amazing!

It seems logical to speculate that, during the height of the Cold War, the 30 billion dollars worth of money appropriated to the Apollo program was instead used to fund covert operations, technologies, and other Cold War related necessities. A small amount was given to a film crew that must have worked primarily out of Disney Studios and other venues. The Moon landings - brought to you by Disney!

The Moon landing films and footage are, honestly, immaculate. It remains quite hard to prove that they are filmed in a studio, though hoaxers and conspiracy theorists try and try again. With scientists like Dr. von Braun pulling the strings of a Moon hoax production, you can be sure that the results would be nearly perfect; and, for the most part, they are.

The few at Disney that knew about the hoax must have wanted desperately to leave their mark. How could they pull off the greatest hoax of all time, and never receive any credit? They had to do something, and they did.

In the early videos, Disney only added the most basic and subliminal elements that one can use to verify the Disney presence. When Apollo 17 rolled around, they knew that they had one last chance to put their trademark somewhere on the footage - and boy did they.

Hidden messages within Disney art is no great secret. It seems that many Disney artists do this. Take a look at the cover of The Little Mermaid sometime. Look at the castle, and you'll see a large phallus posing as part of the castle.

The above picture is taken from an Apollo 17 film feed. The Astronauts are collecting soil samples near "shorty crater" (geology station four), and one of the Astronauts appears to be resisting some of the lines that he may have been required to recite. Over and over again, they make references to a dog, and to the animal faces in the rocks. Some claim that the Astronaut is trying to imply that the "jig would be up" if they showed this Disney rock, because it is just too obvious. The innuendo is so obvious that the official NASA historical video no longer contains audio. If you would like to download this video from the NASA website, contact me (bottom of this page).

Conspiracy theorists claim that the original Astronaut audio has been tampered with, but the multiple references to dogs and to these strange rocks remain. The video with the above rock can be downloaded from the NASA website.

It seems very plausible that a Moon hoax would have been filmed using Disney stages and equipment. Heck, they already had the Moon sets from Man and the Moon. More than this, though, Disney was a firm partner to the US government's interests. During World War II, Disney studios produced training films and other necessities for the army. Disney Studios was the only place where dreams could become reality - on the big screen, that is.

Coke Bottle on the Moon: A NASA Photo Anomaly

The original "Coke bottle on the Moon" story comes from a woman named under the pseudonym "Una Ronald." Miss Ronald claims that she saw footage of the Moon landing (possibly tape-delayed) late at night in Australia. For a period of three seconds, Ronald is absolutely sure that she saw the Astronauts kick a bottle of Coke across the screen accidentally (during the scene where Buzz is demonstrating his Moonwalk). For whatever reason, this Coke bottle never appeared in the film footage ever again.

Moon hoax theorists and anti-hoax theorists have poured over any evidence surrounding the Coke bottle. Though miss Ronald herself remains utterly mysterious, she claims that letters were written to a local newspaper in support of the Coke bottle theory. Real evidence of these claims, and Miss Ronald's story, has yet to surface.

A mind-numbing conversation about the satellite feeds and paths of television signals on Earth has ensued. Some claim that miss Ronald could have seen an early version of the Moon broadcast, while others say that this was impossible because of the path that the signal took. This argument seems pointless. Nobody should have ever been curious about how the Moon landing footage of Apollo 11 was routed around the world - at least, before Una Ronald's story. It seems likely that, in the event of such a discovery, a misinformation campaign could have been introduced to make Ronald's story more unbelievable. This website claims that the CIA might have been involved in a Moon hoax cover up, and misinformation was (and still is) a standard CIA practice. It's hard to prove or disprove anything when you can't even get the facts straight.

One thing remains - the photographs of the Apollo 11 mission. Moon hoax theorists believe they have found proof of the Coke bottle claims within the photographs. The following photo is a scene with Neil and Buzz planting the flag - but we are not interested in the flag planting at the moment. Notice the circled portion - it seems as though someone has tried to disguise a coke bottle as part of the Lunar landscape. This part of the photograph looks very strange. It doesn't look like a rock, yet it casts a shadow. Do take a good look. Notice how the top of the shadow looks strikingly like that of a glass Coke bottle.

 

So, why would there be a Coke bottle in the pictures? If a film crew had staged the Moon hoax, shouldn't the crew have seen this bottle and removed it? Maybe. You have to remember, they took a lot of photographs. The photographers were expecting the film editors to examine these prints and remove any anomalies (such as weeds, lizards, Coke bottles, and anything else that you find in the desert). In the end, maybe they just didn't do a good enough job.

Whether or not you believe in the hoax, you have to admit, that section of photo above really does look like a Coke bottle. The presence of such a bottle makes Una Ronald's fantastic story much more plausible. She supposedly saw the bottle in the film footage, which was televised "live" around the world. The photo above was taken from NASA's photo archives of the mission, which weren't made available to the public until long after the Apollo 11 Astronauts had returned home from their voyage.

Lunar Laser Reflectors: Is This a Joke?

NASA claims that Apollo missions 11, 14 and 15 left Lunar laser reflection units on the Moon. Key observatories on Earth claim to use these reflectors to bounce off lasers, and thus calculate the distance from the Earth to the Moon. Perfectly scientific, right? Well, this may be a bit much to swallow for some.

 

These reflectors are tiny little things. Hitting one with a laser from Earth should be almost impossible. Furthermore, any backyard astronomer knows that the Moon is a moving target. The closer that you zoom in with your telescope, the faster the Moon zips away under high magnification. You have to calibrate your telescope with the Earth's axis perfectly in order to minimize that movement. Even with perfectly (and I really mean perfectly calibrated instruments), hitting a small target the size of a few books on the Moon should still be impossible. Imagine for a moment that I gave you a gun that could shoot targets over 250,000 miles away. How long would it take you to hit a target the size of a few books 230,000 miles away? It's not going to happen!

Right, right, we have those things called telescopes; but, NASA claims that even the Hubble Space Telescope can't get us a good look at the lunar landing sites - let alone get us a shot of the tiny laser reflectors. Even the recent LRO probe (there's an article here about it) can't give us a real picture of the landing sites. The alleged photos of the landing sites, taken by the LRO, look like globs of indistinct, white light.

Despite everything I just said about inadequate telescopes, NASA claims that their telescopes can find the laser reflectors and bounce light off of them. In NASA's words, "only the largest telescopes can be used" to bounce light off of the laser reflectors on the Lunar surface. How convenient for NASA! Or, is this just a bit of icing on the cake that "proves" that the Apollo manned Lunar landings were successful?

Are thousands of NASA astronomers "in on" the conspiracy? No, they aren't. Most of these telescopes are guided by computer systems these days, so coordinating the telescopes with the position of the alleged Laser reflectors is a snap. The astronomers believe they are bouncing lasers of of reflectors on the Moon. Are they really? Not necessarily.

Surely it isn't a huge surprise that the Moon is highly reflective. Just wait till the next full Moon and take a good look. It lights up the sky like a giant spotlight. You can bounce a laser off of the surface of the Moon without the need of any reflective equipment.

The US first bounced a laser off of the Moon's surface in 1962, and the Soviet union followed with the same experiment in 1963. The Moon's approximate distance from the Earth was calculated using this data. This is the data which would help the Soviets and Americans send probes into lunar orbit, with the hope of a soft-landing on the Moon. The hard landing on the Moon achieved by a Luna probe in 1959 (there is an article on this here, as well) was more of a "shoot directly at it" approach to landing on the Moon. To achieve a stable orbit, you have to aim just a bit to the side of the Moon.

Anyway, all of this talk of "Lunar reflectors" seems to be hype. If you are science minded, then you are probably thinking, "but... the reflectors allow us to calculate the distance to the Moon more precisely than just bouncing lasers off of the Moon's surface does..." Yes, perhaps. Or, perhaps improved laser technology (or improved computer algorithms) allow for that precision. Both are possible in this matter. The fact remains - NASA has already explained that Earth telescopes cannot be used to find the Lunar landing sites. They have no way of locating these reflectors with any sort of precision. Yet, they claim to be able to locate them with ease during their laser exercises. Something is amiss here, and it's not the logic presented in this article.

Mind Control: The Conspiracy Gets Even Smaller

In a previous entry here, it was explained that the supposed Moon hoax might only involve a select group of people. That group of people could have been as small as one hundred. At minimum, it would have taken the Astronauts, some scientists, film crews, and government agents to stage a Moon landing. The rest of America - including mission control and 98% or 99% of NASA's employees - would have thought that the Moon landings were absolutely real.

It seems plausible that one hundred people might be able to keep a major secret like the Moon hoax, but the number of people "in on it" might be even smaller yet. How? Mind control.

Another common thread amongst conspiracy theorists suggests that the CIA thoroughly tested mind control. A Hollywood film exists (starring Frank Sinatra) that exploits the whole concept: The Manchurian Candidate.

CIA mind control experiments began after World War II, after the CIA was formed in 1947. Mind control experiments fell under the codename "project MK-ULTRA" or MKULTRA. The CIA went berserk testing MK-ULTRA, and numerous deaths are supposed to have been linked to the program. MKULTRA used various mind control methods, which included illegal drugs (such as the hallucinogen LSD), hypnosis, torture, electronics, visual sensory input, and other methods or combinations of methods. One paper statement mentioned that "chemical, biological, and radiological" means were studied. The result of this research? Complete control over a human being.

MK-ULTRA could erase someone's memory of an event, replacing those erased memories with other memories. MKULTRA could force people to do things. MKULTRA was complete control over people.

Now, back to those 100 people that may have been involved in a Moon hoax. We know that 24 Astronauts believe that they flew to the Moon, and 12 of them believe they landed on the Lunar surface. These Astronauts could have been persuaded into believing that they landed on the Moon through mind control techniques. The scientists and film crews that helped make the hoax might have had their memories erased through mind control techniques. This only leaves the government agents that performed the mind control remaining. We all know that these agents specialize in keeping secrets like the Moon hoax.

So, next time you ask Buzz Aldrin or Neil Armstrong about their Moon trip, at least you'll know that they are telling the truth. That is to say, the truth that they know. The truth that they might have been brainwashed to believe. This could explain why, at their post-Apollo 11 press conference, Neil and Buzz were clueless when a reporter asked them about how "the stars looked?" In later missions, Astronauts explained that some stars were visible in the shadows and during certain times on the Lunar surface.

All of this is, of course, conjecture of the highest level. Mere speculation. Even still, it seems somewhat possible that only a handful of people were/are "in on" the Moon hoax. How many government agents would it take to brainwash the few NASA operatives that staged such a hoax? Five? Less? The Moon hoax could involve so few people that nobody will ever be able to prove that it exists beyond a shadow of a doubt.

JFK and the Moon: The Nature of Moon Exploration

Two gigantic topics in the minds of conspiracy theorists are surely the JFK assassination and the Moon hoax. It really should not seem surprising that these conspiracies are related.

When JFK took office in 1960, he did so with a warning from President Dwight D. Eisenhower. In his farewell address to the American public, Eisenhower warned that "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." Eisenhower, himself a five-star general and leader of the armed forces in Europe during WWII, knew that America's war machine was becoming dangerously powerful. This problem would fall squarely on John F. Kennedy's shoulders.

Kennedy immediately found himself being pressured to send troops into battle in places around the globe. The military pressed for action in Cuba, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, and elsewhere. Kennedy must have felt swamped. He refused to lend US support to the Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba - a US CIA project (created by Eisenhower and staff) that would send Cuban exiles on a mission to destroy Fidel Castro and communist Cuba. Kennedy's lack of support for this and other projects of war put him at great odds with the military-industrial establishment. Say, what exactly is a military-industrial establishment, anyway?

To explain what the military-industrial establishment truly is, we have to begin with World War II. When America entered the war on December 7, 1941, the nation was still in the wake of the Great Depression. Yet, not more than 4 years later, America would emerge from the war as the richest and most powerful nation on Earth. How could that even be possible? The answer: military-industrial complex.

When America entered World War II, all production was immediately transformed into military production. Civilian factories were transformed into military factories, and loads of profit rolled in. Shipyards, aircraft factories, artillery factories, tank factories, coal and oil mining centers, infantry weapon factories, and an eye-popping host of subsidiary establishments began to take over American industry. All able-bodied individuals came out to produce America's weapons. A stream of money flowed into everyone's pocketbooks - factory owners, the government, and workers alike. World War II obliterated the Great Depression. The government and military would take notice of this. For the government, military, and factory owners, war created immense prosperity.

Enter a period of general prosperity - the 1950s. The military-industrial complex was churning out armaments like nobody's business (and selling them like hotcakes). Eventually, though, the sales would die out. By 1960, the establishment was hoping for the US to enter into more wars. They looked to Kennedy for the go-ahead.

Kennedy doesn't give the military establishment more wars, though. He cripples the Bay of Pigs invasion, and stalls missions to Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. He brushes off the notion of the communist menace in favor of peace. He tells America that we will go to the Moon, not some far-off war in a far-off country.

Some say that Kennedy attempted to dismantle the military bureaucracy, and that he attempted to disintegrate the CIA. Instead of war, Kennedy wanted to give Americans peace. Instead of pouring government money into military ventures, Kennedy wanted to fund explorations to the Moon and beyond. All of this may have brought the powers that be against him.

Kennedy had struck a chord with Americans. Not only had he escalated the space race, but he had inspired Americans into believing that their country could do almost anything. Perhaps that last statement is the whole problem. America could do anything. America could assassinate JFK, install a leader who supported the military-industrial complex, and inspire the country with a faked Moon landing taped on a Hollywood-style set. Outlandish as all of this may seem, you have to admit that it would be possible.

Kennedy's successors, Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon, gave their full support to the Vietnam War. The allowed the military-industrial complex to flourish.

The idea of peaceful exploration was loathsome to military interests. Kennedy's thrust to "go to the moon" before the end of the 1960s shocked America's war apparatus. They believed that Kennedy would divert a majority of military funding toward peaceful endeavors like space exploration. The result was an assassination, and (possibly) a Moon hoax. Why the Moon hoax? Well, again, Kennedy's words inspired Americans. Near-Earth space could be used for missile stations and vital military purposes, but the Moon itself had no direct military usage. Ultimately, NASA may have used any extra funding to develop near-Earth space technology. In the end, a Moon hoax would have been necessary to satiate the desires of Americans and the world - and to beat the Russians.

Marionettes: Were Apollo Astronauts Suspended on Strings in the Films?

If you sit around and watch the Apollo Moon footage long enough, you might notice something odd about the movements of the astronauts. They often walk around bent at strange angles, or perform acrobatics that seem to violate some fundamental laws of physics. Many conspiracy theorists have noted that, in order to simulate the effects of low-gravity, the Astronauts were suspended from strings connected to a crane. This conspiracy theory is only given more credence by the fact that NASA actually had such cranes, and used them for "training" sessions.

 

Here on Earth, an Astronaut in his Apollo spacesuit would weigh about 450 pounds. That's pretty heavy, but the Moon has one-sixth of the Earth's gravitational pull. In the Moon's gravitation pull, 450 Earth-pounds feels more like 75 Earth-pounds. Confusing? The Moon makes you feel lighter. Imagine that you weigh only 75 pounds right now, and that you are a muscular, physically fit Astronaut. Wouldn't you be able to jump pretty high?  There's some footage of Astronauts jumping on the Moon, and the results are not stellar. 

If you could walk on the Moon without a spacesuit, then you would discover that you can jump about 6 times higher than you could on Earth. Realistically, it would be even more than this, because the Moon has no atmosphere. 

On Earth, there are miles and miles of nitrogen and oxygen molecules stacked on top of you right now. This weight pushes you down, and prevents you from jumping higher. I did a simple experiment recently to prove that this has a major effect. I measured my jump at sea-level: 44 inches (pretty good, I think). I then traveled up a mountain, to 5,000 feet. At this height, there are less nitrogen and oxygen molecules stacked on top of me (yes, there's a little argon in there too). How high could I jump at 5,000 feet? About 59 inches. That's a huge increase! Imagine how high I could have jumped if there had been no atmosphere at all? Pretty darn high! So, why are NASA Astronauts having so much trouble? Even with their 300 Earth-pound spacesuits, these strong Astronauts should still feel as though they weigh less than half of their Earth weight. If I were to weigh half of my weight right now (and retain my height and muscles), I would certainly be able to jump up in the air about 7 or 8 feet high.

The picture above clearly shows that the Astronaut (John Young) can jump no more or less than he can on Earth (without the bulky suit). So, if the heavy suits make Moon walking/jumping more or less like walking/jumping on Earth, why do the Astronauts seem to float around as they move? The answer might be wires and cranes. The wires would allow Astronauts to defy physics, but leave them struggling to jump off of the ground (to pull them up during a jump would have looked quite fake).

  

In the above sequence of photos taken from an Apollo mission film, we see an Astronaut performing a maneuver that seems to defy physics. The Astronaut begins in a push-up position, and thrusts himself backwards, onto his knees. From his knees, he seems to magically pop up into a standing position - without any obvious effort exerted from his legs. Notice the first photo at the bottom left. In that photo, it seems most plain that the Astronaut is suspended from wires connected to his waist. The wires easily hoist him up, onto his feet. Oddly enough (or obviously enough), Astronauts in the Apollo videos always seem to revolve in circular motions around their waist. Does the Moon do something to people's gravitational centers, making it the waist area? 

 

Occasionally, as shown in the photo above, some possible evidence of wires appears on the films. There are many examples of these "pings" of light. Pings can also be seen in some science fiction films, where wires may have been used to suspend people or models.

Anti-conspiracy theorists always say the same thing: if filmmakers couldn't make space travel look realistic in movies, then how could NASA have made landing on the Moon look so real? Anti-hoax theorists point out that even the most naive, amateur viewer of science fiction movies can usually tell that what he or she is seeing is fake. These theorists aren't considering enough evidence. 

 

Science fiction films do not have teams of scientists working behind the scenes, nor do they have the sort of information stored in NASA archives. Movies produced during the 1960s and early 70s worked with budgets that paled in comparison to NASA's. Capricorn One, a movie that demonstrated how a space landing hoax might work, did a convincing job of staging a Mars landing. That movie was produced on a budget of about 5 million dollars. In comparison, NASA's budget for the Apollo missions raged in excess of 30 billion. Also, science fiction film making had only just moved into semi-mature stages during the Moon landings, with Stanley Kubrick's 1968 film, 2001: A Space Odyssey. Though 2001 showed audiences some of the most visually perfect, awe inspiring space movie footage of all time, the budget for the film was only 10 million dollars. NASA's 30 billion dollar budget could surely have done better than that, even if 29 billion dollars had been spent on building semi-useless spacecraft.

This "marionette" idea posed by conspiracy theorists represents some very good thinking. The idea forces us to compare the Moon landings with science fiction films from the 60s and 70s. We must think about how, even with the 300 Earth-pound space suit, the Astronauts should have been able to jump distances that an Olympic athlete or basketball star would salivate over. What, exactly, is that pathetic little hop that John Young is doing in the second photo above? In one-sixth of Earth's gravity, these Astronauts should have been jumping over craters with ease. Where is the photo of Buzz Aldrin leaping over the LM? Well, yes, that's a bit much, but not entirely too much. So, the Astronauts could defy physics while walking around, but they couldn't jump more than a foot or two high? How strange, indeed.

Keeping Quiet: How Big Was the Moon Conspiracy?

Moon truthers, or anti-hoaxers, often "settle" the whole matter with a quip about how "thousands and thousands of people would have had to keep the Moon hoax a secret." The Moon hoax would definitely not have required thousands of people to keep such a major secret.

A movie from the 1970s, Capricorn One, shows exactly how simple it could be to stage a Moon conspiracy. In the movie, three Astronauts, a single NASA scientist, a camera crew, and some government agents are the only people required to stage a fake landing on Mars. Everyone else, including the President of the United States, thought that the Mars landing was real. That includes all of the people who built the space equipment, all of the people at mission control, and just about everyone who worked on the entire thing. Why, then, do anti-Moon hoaxers insist that thousands of people kept this great secret?

To put a spin on things - thousands of people can actually keep a secret. The Manhattan Project - the project that supplied the United States with the first atomic bomb during World War II - managed to keep the bomb a secret. Thousands of people had been working on that bomb, and none of them spilled the beans about the project. Of course, as with the Apollo program, few of them probably knew of the larger picture. Many people in both projects were simply peons. Nobody told them anything, and they were just happy to receive their modest government paychecks every few weeks.

Most hoax projects require very few people. In fact, the Moon landing photos could have been faked right under the noses of NASA onlookers during the so-called "practice" missions in the desert. How? Simple image editing techniques. A lot of the stuff found in Photoshop was around in the 1960s. After all, the good people on the Photoshop team didn't invent the notion of "changing hues" or "cropping." Sure, it took longer back then, but a rainbow of possibilities existed in expensive editing studios. One or two image editors could have made hundreds of photos.

 

The above photo was taken during the Viking missions. The convincing blue sky that I added took about 30 seconds in Photoshop, and all I has to do was a little bit of hue editing. Therefore, this color of sky may have existed in the original photo, and the uncanny resemblance to some remote spot in Arizona may be more than just a resemblance. This sort of image editing was around during the 1960s, although that 30 second time frame might have been more like eight hours. Of course, the photo editors would have been working on numerous exposures during that eight hour period. One can easily see how only a few people would have been involved in each stage of any space hoax.

The Apollo missions really did take off. That much is certain; but, the Saturn V rocket didn't necessarily have to go to the Moon. The spacecraft might simply have orbited the Earth until re-entry time. During that time period, a select group of scientists would have played back tapes of the Moon landing. Far-off satellites or Lunar probes may have been used to relay signals back to Earth, giving radio monitors around the world the proof that they were looking for. As for seeing the crew orbiting the Earth and spotting the hoax, well, finding an object in Earth orbit has been compared to finding a small boat lost in the Atlantic Ocean. Tracking devices help Astronauts locate objects in Earth Orbit, but telescopes do not have any such luxury. Anyway, the take-off of the Saturn V would have been enough to please almost everyone involved with the project. No conspiracy would have been necessary amongst the vast amount of NASA employees and contractors. The only people who would have known of such a conspiracy, again, would have been the Astronauts, film crews, and a select team of science advisers who helped to 'make it seem real' for the rest of the world.

  

To demonstrate how easy this photo tampering stuff is, I took a NASA moon photo and quickly changed some of the hues in Photoshop. I didn't bother to edit the Astronaut in the photo, because that would have consumed too many minutes of my time. The entire process took only about a minute, and as you can see, it now looks like the Astronaut is standing on a sand dune somewhere in Nevada. This sort of tampering only took one or two people, even back in the 1960s. The way that I did this job is actually more like how it would have been done in the 1960s, because the Astronaut would have been cut out of the shot with a fine blade; then, the subsequent hue tampering would have taken place. The Astronaut would then have been re-added, and very small bits of paint would have been used to "airbrush" out any inconsistencies. If the Moon hoax was actually staged in the desert, then the Astronauts would have soiled themselves with "Moon-colored" soot. This way, no tampering with the photos of the Astronauts would have been necessary, and they could have simply been placed in a hue-altered shot.

In the end, if we accept a Moon hoax, we must accept two additional postulates: 1) NASA fooled the public at large, and 2) NASA fooled itself. What does number 2 mean? Well, it's quite simple - NASA had to fool 99% of the people working for NASA that the United States actually did send people to the Moon. The Saturn V's launch wasn't just for public consumption, it justified the years of work put in by NASA scientists and engineers. It is much easier to control a handful of conspirators than a stadium full. Those few 1-2% of NASA that actually knew about a Moon hoax conspiracy could easily have been dealt with.

Again, you ask, how could we fool so many scientists around the world that the US went to the Moon? Surely, you say, the scientists that monitored the launch would have found something out of place.Well, on this point, many details could be divulged; but, that seems unnecessary. NASA spent a long time researching the process required to land a man on the moon; so, obviously, they knew how to fake a moon landing in great detail. Even if the moon landings were real, even if the hoax isn't true - you have to admit, NASA would still know how to fake a landing on the Moon. Furthermore, you would have to admit, they would probably do a fine, fine job of faking one. 

Okay, so how many people would it realistically take to fake the Moon landings? Probably no more than a hundred. This number would include the Astronauts, film crew, leading scientists, and government agents assigned to the cover up. If there was a conspiracy, then it wasn't much bigger than that. Such a huge conspiracy necessarily must involve as few people as possible, and in the case of the Moon landings, a low number would have been entirely possible. It's as as simple as this: few people needed to be in-the-know. Mission control could easily have been fed false data, and the film footage of the landings may have just been that - a Hollywood-style film.

Google Moon: NASA's LRO Attempts to Resolve the Moon Hoax Once and for All

For the 40th anniversary of the Apollo Moon missions, NASA has sent up a probe called the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, or LRO for short. The "high quality" photos that the LRO sent back to Earth detail the landing sites of Apollo missions 11, 14, 15, 16 and 17. Google jumped at the chance to include these photos in their new Google Moon program. Anti-conspiracy theorists are currently having a heyday. The anti-hoaxers are going as far as to declare the Moon hoax "over," and, "a closed matter."

Really, though, if conspiracy theorists weren't convinced by photos of men on the moon, then why would a series of blurry, indistinguishable photos of the landing sites convince them? In an age when Photoshop makes image editing a snap, the usefulness of such photos remains dubious. Anti-hoaxers have been much too quick to jump on the "Moon hoax solved!" bandwagon. These anti-hoaxers have historically been the ones to point out the gullibility and stubbornness of hoaxers, claiming that a hoaxer can 'believe almost anything.' In the LRO matter, though, anti-hoaxers have shown themselves to be the gullible ones. Anyone with a bit of common sense should realize that NASA could have Photoshopped these landing site photos much more easily than taking them from an orbiting probe.

In the above photo, the supposed landing site has been expanded. It appears to be nothing more than a few pixels of white and dark light lumped together. This sort of editing can be done in Microsoft Paint - a program that gets shipped with every version of Windows. If NASA had really wanted to dispel the hoaxers with photos, then the LRO should have been equipped with more powerful telescopic lenses.

Have you seen Google Earth or Google Maps lately? A satellite orbiting the Earth can take clear pictures of my apartment and the automobiles parked on the streets nearby. Why, then, can a probe orbiting the Moon not take clear pictures of the Apollo landing sites? Theoretically, a Lunar probe would orbit much closer to the Moon's surface than satellites near Earth do, because the Moon exerts 1/6 of the gravitational pull of the Earth. Therefore, the telescopic lens required for close-up pictures wouldn't even have to be as strong as the ones on Earth-orbiting satellites. A probe orbiting the Moon should be able to take close-up, high quality photos of the landing sites. We should be able to see the remains of the LM quite clearly.

The above picture is a satellite view of a street in Los Angeles. Notice how an automobile is clearly visible. The remnants of the LM on the moon should be visible with a similar clarity from satellite probe equipement, because the LM remnants are of a similar size to - if not slightly larger size than - an automobile. Why was the LRO not equipped with state-of-the-art telescopic lenses for Lunar surface exploration? Wasn't that the whole purpose of the LRO?

Despite what anti-hoax enthusiasts are saying about these new LRO photos, the truth is that they do not settle the conspiracy matter. The photos only shed new light on the Moon hoax dilemma. Rather than answering questions and settling disputes, the photos seem to have opened an entirely new chapter in the Moon Hoax conspiracy.

Returning to the Moon: Why Hasn't NASA Returned?

Moon hoax believers and non-believers share one central question: why haven't we returned to the Moon? NASA had planned to return to the Moon by 2015, but at present, those plans have been pushed beyond 2020. If NASA truly landed men in the Moon in the 1960s, then why has it taken them so long to plan another trip? They claim that the LM's guidance system was no more than a glorified scientific calculator the size of a shoebox - a gizmo that costs $100 USD today, in 2009. Perhaps the main issue here is safety?

One mission to the Moon did go horribly wrong - Apollo 13. Anyone who has seen the movie knows the NASA story: a huge explosion occurred, and the men of Apollo 13 narrowly returned to Earth with their lives intact. That means that NASA's overall success rate for landing men on the moon was about 86%, for a grade of "B."

NASA does not allow anyone to look at plans for the Lunar Module. They do not seem to be willing to re-construct the Saturn V, the Command Module, or the Lunar Module, for a new mission. Does NASA think that this 1960s technology is simply too out-dated for another launch? The shuttle is almost just as old!

NASA's space shuttle was developed during the 1970s. The technology employed throughout the shuttle is firmly rooted in that 70s period. Much of the technology aboard the shuttle, even today - in 2009 - is still rooted in the 1970s. Two shuttles have exploded, resulting in the deaths of their crews. Why, then, does NASA still employ 40-year-old technology in 2009?

If NASA is willing to risk the lives of astronauts with technology that is over 40 years old, then why not use technology that is 50 years old? This argument that Apollo space equipment (like the Saturn V and the LM) are "too old" just doesn't make any sense. NASA should have already updated their Moon landing systems, and they should have already sent men back to the Moon.

The truth is, though, that there's no profit to be made on the Moon. NASA's space shuttle is - sadly - nothing more than a glorified satellite repair station. The compartment in the middle of the shuttle, and its giant retractable arm, are simply tools for repairing space junk.

The space shuttle travels at a speed of about 18,000 MPH at its height. The Saturn V rocket traveled at 25,000 MPH while leaving Earth orbit, on its way to the Moon. It only stands to reason that, somehow, NASA could use a specially-fitted shuttle to land on the moon. The shuttle itself would work like Apollo's command module, of course, and some sort of landing device would be necessary. All of this seems entirely possible.

Some conspiracy theorists believe that NASA found extraordinary things on the Moon. Some say that the Apollo Astronauts may have encountered aliens, who made it clear that man was not allowed on the Moon. Others say that NASA may have found strange artifacts, or buildings, on the Moon. NASA has an official policy about informing the public about extra-terrestrial life - in a nutshell, they won't. They can't. They can't inform the public until we are ready, and in their opinion, we probably will never be ready. Therefore, if NASA did find some sort of evidence of extra-terrestrial life on the Moon, then that would be an essential reason for them not to return.

There is some talk in support of NASA going back to the Moon. China has plans to go, and that has renewed NASA's interest. Honestly, though, this seems to be a common theme. First, communist Russia forced us to go to the Moon - and now communist China? Moon landings seem to have no greater purpose than to upstage communism! For this very reason, the landings should rightly be questioned. Man's greatest scientific endeavor should not be reduced to some sort of PR move. NASA ought to be erecting permanent stations on the Moon by now.

The Death of Gus Grissom: A Cover Up?

On January 27, 1967, Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee died during a test in the Apollo command module. The picture above shows the charred remnants of the module, which is currently locked up in a NASA vault. Grissom's son was once permitted access, and he found what he believed to be evidence of tampering. A metal plate had been added to a switch from the ship's external batteries. This caused the capsule's external power supply to become partially internal. Though the environment of the module had been pure (and highly combustible) oxygen, someone had allowed the initial power-on circuitry to ignite a spark inside the module, causing a fateful and horrifying  fireball - and a deadly fire.

Grissom had been a major skeptic of the Apollo missions from the beginning. The Apollo 1 mission was meant to test the command module in Earth orbit (the module that would orbit the Moon and provide a docking station for the Lunar module). Grissom had lamented the state of Apollo since the beginning, stating that "we might never make it to the Moon." Many hoax theorists claim that Grissom simply knew too much. NASA had to get rid of him, before he went public with his opinions about the Apollo program's ineptitude. What, exactly, did Gus Grissom know?

 

The deadly fire in Apollo 1 hadn't been the first accident for Grissom. Years earlier, in 1961, Grissom had become America's second man in space. When his capsule, the Liberty Bell 7 (pictured above), parachuted into the Caribbean, something strange happened. As the capsule hit the water, the escape hatch blew open. Sea water rushed in, and Liberty Bell 7 quickly sank. Grissom narrowly escaped the accident, but the Liberty Bell 7 capsule was lost for many years. Was this NASA's first attempt to kill Grissom? NASA blamed Grissom for the hatch accident, claiming he had blown it prematurely; but, every other Astronaut who had flown in a Mercury-style capsule had exhibited hand injuries from the hatch lever - Grissom had no such hand injuries.

Conveniently, Liberty Bell 7 was lost to the sea for many years - preventing any sort of investigation. NASA did not find the capsule. It was Curt Newport, and a team financed by the Discovery Channel, that eventually found Liberty Bell 7. The capsule is currently enclosed in glass at the Kennedy Space Center, as can be seen in the picture above.

Today, Grissom's son, Scott, claims that Gus was murdered by NASA. His theories about the Apollo fire were corroborated by an independent engineer, Clark MacDonald; but, Clark claims that NASA operatives destroyed his evidence, reports, and tapes, in order to keep the murder of Grissom a secret. NASA had hoped that MacDonald's research would prove NASA's innocence, but, instead, MacDonald had discovered the same evidence that Scott had.

Gus Grissom had been a senior Astronaut in the Apollo program, and he knew an awful lot about the Apollo technology and North American Aviation - the main NASA contractor for the program. Shortly before Grissom's death, Gus had taken a large lemon and placed it around the Apollo space capsule in full view of the press during an interview. Grissom had become outspoken about poor NASA technology, and had begun to make it clear that, in his opinion, NASA would never make it to the Moon. Gus said that NASA's chances of landing a man on the Moon were "Pretty slim."

Gus had received death threats during the period preceding the fire that killed him. He petitioned for, and received protection from, the Secret Service, because he feared that NASA wanted him dead. Gus told his wife that any nefarious accidents at NASA would probably involve him. 

After the accident that resulted in Gus Grissom's death, Thomas Baron had planned to testify, at a congressional hearing, that the Astronauts had tried to escape from the capsule much earlier than the official story indicated. Thomas was killed in a train crash before he could make those accusations.

Grissom had been one of the oldest mainstays of the NASA program. His negativity towards the Apollo program, and indeed the entire NASA space program, was something that NASA could do nothing about. NASA could not simply fire Grissom, because doing so would only give credence to Grissom's complaints and grievances. NASA finally rid one of its oldest hindrances with the Apollo fire. Did Grissom know too much? Would Grissom have gone public with all of his findings? Would he have eventually told the world that the Moon landings were faked, because of defective space technology? 

The year that Grissom had been killed, 1967, was a pivotal year for the Apollo space program. The program began during the mid-60s, and any inadequacies in the "mission to the Moon" had become plain to many Astronauts and civilians associated with NASA. Ted Freeman was killed in 1964, in a T-38 crash. The T-38 was (and still is) a supersonic jet used for training and military purposes. Eliot See and Charles Bassett were killed in the T-38 in 1966. Ed Givens was killed in a car accident in 1967. Mike Adams, though not an astronaut like the previous men, was an experimental test pilot for the X-15 NASA rocket; he was killed during a flight in 1967. Robert Lawrence had been scheduled to become part of an Orbiting Laboratory project (a canceled project), but he died in a jet crash in 1967 shortly before his NASA duty began. Civilians died too, possibly as a result of a larger NASA cover up. The aforementioned Thomas Baron was killed in a train crash shortly before his testimony could be given at a congressional hearing (that Grissom's crew had tried to escape the locked Apollo I module). Paul Jacobs asked the head of the US department of Geology about whether all of the Apollo Moon rocks had really come from the Moon, but the Geologist only laughed. Jacobs and his wife died of cancer 90 days later. Finally, Lee Gelvani was said to have convinced James Irwin, the Apollo 15 astronaut, to confess about a Moon hoax cover-up. Before he could go public with his confession, James Irwin died of a heart attack, in 1991.

Believe it or not, the above list of fatalities is not exhaustive. Many other people connected to the Apollo program died under mysterious circumstances - plane crashes, sicknesses, car crashes, and more. Was NASA looking for the perfect men to stage a Moon hoax? What did all of these men know? Did NASA really kill many of these astronauts and civilians?

Moon Landing Photos: Problems with the Apollo Photos

A series of questions revolve around the pictures taken during the Apollo missions. The Astronauts used a special Hasselblad camera, and even the creator of the camera has voiced objections to the photos. All things considered, the photos represent some of the best evidence that support the claims of conspiracy theorists. This should seem natural, though, because the photos and film represent most of the evidence that men landed on the Moon.

If one peruses the many images taken from the Lunar surface, one is immediately struck by how fantastic the pictures look. Everything is pristine. The focus is immaculate, and the astronauts are always centered perfectly within the frame. The photos look as though they were taken by expert photographers, with each shot carefully fit into focus and frame perfectly. NASA tells us that the Hasselblad cameras were mounted upon the chests of the Astronauts, and that they had no way to line up objects in the frames of the camera. These cameras didn't have view finders or any sort of automatic focus. So how did they take such perfect pictures? Well, as it turns out, the Apollo astronauts were specially trained to use the cameras. They were shown a technique known as "zone focusing," which would explain the excellent pictures. Still, the pictures, to many theorists, seem too perfect, and NASA's aforementioned explanation might only be a clever afterthought.

One NASA employee explained that she saw people editing large versions of the Moon landing photos. The evidence of these edits has been examined at great length by moon hoax theorists. They have noticed that, in some cases, patches of the Lunar surface are exact copies of other areas. To put it in another way, the same rocks and dirt appear in sections across the picture, indicating a doctored photo. If these photos were taken at Area 51, as many theorists believe, the doctoring may have been done to remove trash, plants, and other anomalies from the photos. Some have found blurred sections in various photos, more commonly amongst the photos taken from Lunar orbit.

Conspiracy theorists like to point out the lack of stars in the Moon landing photos, but there are some holes in that theory. A camera focusing on things nearby will miss out on tiny details like stars in the background. Also, when the sun is in full view, stars are impossible to see with the naked eye here on Earth. During the daytime, can you see any stars in our blue sky? Well, the Moon does not have a blue sky because it does not have much atmosphere to speak of, but that doesn't mean that stars should be readily visible! Even with all of this explanation, we must ask - why didn't the astronauts attempt some sort of photo of the stars? Conspiracy theorists answer quite quickly: any non-conformity to actual celestial charts would be readily apparent; and thus, such a picture would make the Moon hoax plot laughably obvious.

The Moon is both a hot and cold place - temperatures fluctuate from around -270F to more than 300F (-170C to over 110C) - and these temperatures fluctuate wildly depending on whether the Astronaut is in the shade or not! That means that constant fluctuations in temperature take place on the moon. Conspiracy theorists explain that under these circumstances, the mechanical components of the cameras and the film itself would fail. This explanation only has so much clout, but it depends on whether you believe that men sent unmanned probes to the moon. The probes seem to have had no problem taking images from Lunar orbit, so, there should be no surprise that images could be taken from the Lunar surface. Still, it would be good of NASA or some organization to provide a simulation of these cameras in operation. Such a demonstration would put many conspiracy claims to rest. It has even been said, by some theorists, that the US may have gone to the Moon, but the astronauts were unable to take any photos because of the harsh environmental X-rays, temperatures, and whatnot.

The above image shows yet another common line of evidence from Moon hoaxers. These proponents of the Moon hoax usually examine the crosshairs that dot each Lunar photo quite closely. The crosshairs were present on the Lunar cameras between the lens and the film, and thus show up dotted across each photo. Hoaxers have noticed that some objects in the photos appear to be in front of these crosshairs - a seemingly impossible feat. The explanation for this may be simple, though: bleeding. These pictures are not digital. They were taken with film. Film captures light, and does not specifically capture a perfect or exact representation of the light exposed onto it. The bright white light from the rover, in the blown-up relief shown in the above picture, could simply be a bleeding of that bright light over the dark crosshair. Still, the theorists have a good point, and this problem could be cleared up with experiments. Just like with the temperature problem, NASA would only have to set up a few experiments (experiments that anyone could perform) that demonstrate film bleeding.

This next picture, above, shows Buzz Aldrin making his way down from the Lunar lander. Moan hoax theorists say that, since the lander is casting a shadow over him, he should be in darkness. After all, the only light present on the Moon was that of the Sun. Anti-hoax theorists claim that light was reflected off of the Lunar surface to illuminate him. This sort of problem could be resolved with experiments here on Earth, but they don't seem to have been attempted.

Moon hoax theorists also discuss the wayward shadows present in Lunar photos. They say that, since the Sun was the only light source, the shadows ought to be parallel to each other. Mythbusters had an episode where they showed that a surface can have one light, and yet contain shadows that don't appear to be parallel. Still, this sort of experiment can be done by anyone in their own home, and it would be best to try it for yourself before accepting such a conclusion.

Many of these theories have a high amount of plausibility. Some theories are better than others, and some could potentially be disproved (easily, with experiments). Still, the questions raised here remain intriguing. There are many more anomalies found within the Lunar photos, and they will be discussed at a later date.

Moon Rockets: The Saturn V and the Soviet N-1 Rockets

Conspiracy theorists often point to the Soviets as a sort of compass in order to explain Moon hoax theories. They will cite the radiation levels, and the less-than-eager approach that the Soviets took toward sending men to the Moon. The Soviets did have plans to go to the Moon, though. Their main problem in getting there, however, was with their rocket technology.

The American rocket that took Apollo Astronauts to the Moon was called the Saturn V. The Saturn V produced 7.6 million pounds of thrust initially; thus, it made moon exploration possible. Remember, probes are small and can be launched with smaller rockets. Moon landers, men, life support systems, and scientific equipment require almost exponential leaps in the amount of thrust required to deliver them safely to the Moon. To send men to the Moon, you simply need a bigger rocket.

The Soviets tried to develop a rocket called the N-1, which would produce 10 million pounds of thrust. While the Saturn V used 5 initial engines, the N-1 used 30. The engines had to be fired simultaneously in order to minimize thrust imbalances, and because of this, the N-1 proved to be very unreliable. Many N-1 rockets exploded after liftoff, crashing into launchpads and destroying buildings in the process.

The poor design of the N-1 rocket effectually halted Soviet plans for a manned mission to the Moon, but let us not forget that Soviet technology had been somewhat superior to US technology during the early 1960s. The N-1 failed, in large part, because the Soviets were thinking too far ahead of the game. It turns out that the Soviets never went to the Moon because they simply had too many plans on the table. If the N-1 rocket had been a success, then missions to Mars and beyond would have been within the grasp of Cosmonauts. So, the Soviets were not exactly behind the Americans in the space race, per se, but they were a bit too far ahead.

What does all this tell us about conspiracy theories? Well, it reminds us that the Americans may have indeed achieved their Lunar landings with technology that paled in comparison to what the Soviets had. Though the Americans may have lacked technology, they did have money and resources to throw at NASA. Many supporters of the Moon hoax suggest that NASA could never have made the leaps and bounds in technology necessary to land men on the Moon, and often point to the superiority of the Russians and their own inability to land men on the Moon; however, what these theorists don't realize, is that the Russians simply blundered the entire Moon project with the N-1. They had wanted to go far beyond the moon, to Mars. Their high technology turned out to be their downfall.

When the US first began designing rockets for space exploration in the 1950s, they failed over 100 times. There are many videos of rockets exploding in the air and on American launchpads. Throughout the space race, it was American perseverence, not technology, that would ultimately prevail. Of this, one cannot argue. The Russians could not boast of any such perseverence. The N-1 was only launched a handful of times, and upon its ultimate failure, the entire Soviet Moon agenda was scrapped.

Lunar Probes: The Soviet Space Program's Luna Series of Probes

By the time of the Apollo 11 mission, the Soviets had already sent 15 successful probes toward the moon. A Soviet probe had crash landed on the Moon more ten years before the Apollo 11 mission. The Soviet space program ultimately achieved success with 20 "Luna" probes, and these probes discovered many interesting things about the moon and space. The discoveries made by these probes raise several issues in regards to the Apollo program and conspiracy theories.

The picture to the left shows Luna 9, which was the first craft to achieve a soft-landing on another planetary body. Luna 9 touched down on the lunar surface in February, 1966. The Luna 16 probe was able to return soil samples and lunar rocks to the Earth. Luna 16 also studied temperature and radiation data from the moon. The radiation data showed that humans could feasibly land on the moon safely. Some say that the data showed the moon to be "harmless" in terms of radioactivity, but one fact stands out: the moon would subject humans to more radiation than the Earth would. The amount of radiation differed by as much as 20% - depending on the test sites of various probes. They pondered - would a trip to the moon, then, pose a significant cancer risk to humans? Humans would have to cross the Van Allen radiation belts long before the Moon landing, so the real question was about 'how much radiation is enough?'

The Luna missions present a major stumbling block for believers in the validity of the American Moon missions: soil samples. Supporters of NASA's Apollo program often point to the loads of moon rocks brought back by the Apollo Astronauts as irrefutable evidence that the US sent men to the Moon. These moon rocks mean very little, though. If the Soviets could send unmanned probes to collect Moon rocks, then so too could the United States; furthermore, it has been said that Moon rocks can be collected on Earth. Apparently, Moon meteors arrive on Earth, and many of them are located near the Earth's axes in places like Antarctica. Dr. Wernher von Braun went on an expedition to Antarctica shortly before the Apollo program brought back the first lunar samples. In the end, one must admit that lunar samples do not prove that man ever set foot on the Moon. There are simply too many alternate explanations for how these samples made their way to geologists' desks.

Soviet probes demonstrated that humans would have to endure brutal temperature changes on the moon. These changes would span from -290 to 310 Fahrenheit (-179 to +154 Celsius). A complex suit would be necessary to create hospitable temperatures, and also to supply oxygen, food, water, remove waste, and more. NASA developed a spacesuit specifically for these purposes. While it may seem reasonable to some, the demands made on these spacesuits should seem quite intense to others. The changes in temperature alone, as discovered by the Luna probes, make the functioning of a such a suit problematic. Take the backpack for instance. NASA claims that oxygen was delivered to the Astronauts at approximately 50 degrees, yet no heating or cooling systems seem to exist within this backpack. A design flaw, or a telltale sign of inadequacy?

The Luna missions proved Soviet superiority in the early stages of the space race. When the Russians had landed their first probe on the moon in 1959, the Americans had barely begun to tinker with rocketry. Whether or not Soviet space superiority was a fleeting notion - we cannot say. The Apollo moon missions ultimately put the US on top the space race; however, this fact alone should raise questions about the validity of US missions to the moon. Wouldn't a faked mission to the moon be the perfect foil to the Soviets during the height of the Cold War? It certainly would have been.

The next blog article will discuss the Soviet N-1 rocket, and will explain, specifically, why the Soviets failed to land a man on the moon.

Van Allen Radiation Belts and the Soviet Space Program: Why the Soviets Delayed a Manned Moon Landing

Moon landing conspiracy theories always discuss the nature of the Van Allen radiation belt. The Van Allen belt radiation extends far from the earth, encircling our planet in a storm of deadly radioactive particles. The first image here shows NASA's conception of these radiation belts.

A recent high-flying space mission came within close proximity to the radiation belts, and the Astronauts described the same phenomenon that Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong experienced on their way to the Moon. The phenomenon entails the Astronauts seeing white sparks of light - even with their eyes closed.  This happens because the spacecraft and Astronauts are bombarded with a storm of radioactive particles that seem to penetrate everything - including the eyes. The particles fly into the eyes (the eyes can be open or closed) and cause a dance of white light. Now, this phenomenon doesn't really prove anything about the moon hoax conspiracies. All this proves is that NASA knew the effects of the Van Allen belts during the days of Apollo; and, right they should, because the Van Allen belts were the biggest obstacle standing between them and the moon.

Let's not forget, the Apollo missions were part of the space race between the Soviet Union and the United States. The Soviet Union's space program may have been far more advanced than the United States' program during the early 1960s. After all, the Soviet program had an awful lot of firsts: first satellite in space, first man in space, first spacewalk, and first probe to land on the moon. The Soviet lunar probe landed on the moon in 1959 - a whopping 10 years before NASA sent Apollo 11 on its famous mission. Therefore, why did Cosmonauts never land on the moon?  The Soviet Union's plethora of lunar probes brought back a startling discovery: space is dangerous. The Van Allen Belts, cosmic radiation, meteoric activity, and a host of other problems awaited any manned mission traveling far from Earth.

The dangers didn't stop brave Cosmonauts. In the early 1960s, several Cosmonauts signed a letter asking top Soviet science officials for permission to fly to the moon. Their proposal was quickly denied. Everyone in the Soviet space program knew that the dangers were far too great to risk the lives of brave men.

NASA seems to have found a way around the dangers of the Van Allen radiation belts. As can be seen in the picture above, NASA calculated that there were areas in the belts that were thinner than others. The radiation belts were thus thinner and closer to Earth at the axes. The use of this information in sending men to the Moon has some plausibility. If you've ever been near these axes - in a place like, say, Alaska - then you may have been witness to the Aurora Borealis (or Northern Lights). The Aurora Borealis has been thought of as a mystery for many years. It creates sweeping, glowing, hues across the skyline. Many theories state that this glowing is caused by excited air particles, but other theories claim that the proximity of the Van Allen radiation to Earth's axes causes this excitement. So, NASA claims that astronauts can move quickly through the radiation at points near the axes, because the Van Allen radiation is thinner here than in other places.

Though the Van Allen radiation is fierce, the more quickly a person moves through this radiation the better. NASA claims that one can move through the radiation in about an hour, and that this causes minimal damage to human tissue. This theory is given much credit by leading scientists.

Companies operating satellites in space also must understand the Van Allen belt radiation. Satellites in high Earth orbit can become damaged by the radiation, and thus an exact measurement of the radiation is needed. These radiation measurements lend themselves well to Apollo investigations. In the end, we find that (through complicated math and theory) Astronauts traveling through the Van Allen belts are exposed to the same amount of radiation in one hour that an average person is exposed to in 2-3 years. Needless to say, this is a heavy dose of radiation - but not one that would immediately cause sickness. There is a definite risk of cancer in the long term.

This next image shows a simulation of the Van Allen belts performed in a laboratory. Note how the radiation is heavier in some areas than others, and also note how heavy radiation tends to be closer to the Earth near the axes (above North America in the picture). Indeed, it seems that a space vehicle might lessen its time within heavy radiation depending solely upon the path that it takes through the Van Allen belts.

So, if the Van Allen radiation belts could be conquered, why didn't the Soviets conquer them and set foot upon the moon? Well, it turns out that there are more dangers out there than the belts. The Soviets quickly discovered the harshness of space. Were their fears irrational and unjustified? Perhaps the Soviets were first to learn the truth - that space is a harsh, dark, desolate place for human life. If Soviet science can be believed, then the plausibility of a moon hoax grows. The moon landing conspiracy theories only gain credibility with the state of Soviet science in the 1960s; however, perhaps the Soviet fears were irrational. Fears of solar radiation storms, cosmic rays, and other space nasties may have been somewhat irrational - that is, since America claims to have landed on the Moon with minimal protection from such things.

Maybe, just maybe, the Americans of the Apollo space missions rolled the dice, and like daring cowboys, rocketed toward the moon with their fingers crossed. The Van Allen radiation belt theories do not seem to support conspiracy theorists' claims as much as they used to. The emerging science of satellite technology has shown that it is possible for humans to fly through the belts; but, many conspiracy theorists will not pay attention to emerging space science discoveries.

In the next blog entry, I will zero in on the Soviet lunar probes, while providing more specific data about their finds.