The massive hype surrounding the American lunar program has appeared relatively recently. The first who raised this sensitive issue was Ralph Rene, who noticed, in his opinion, inaccuracies and "bloopers" in the photographs taken on the Moon.
I don’t want to question the degree of education of some researchers and skeptics, but often the questions they ask and try to rank as irrefutable evidence of falsification of a flight to the Moon are simply ridiculous and, according to a number of astrophysicists, are not even worthy of comment because of their stupidity.
Below we will give the most common arguments of skeptics and try to popularly explain why certain photographs, films and phenomena seem strange or not natural in outer space.
Further, for the convenience of description, we will call those who do not believe in the flight of the Americans to the Moon skeptics, and those who assert the opposite - experts. Since all the materials for this article are taken from the official chronicle, the authenticity of which is beyond doubt, and the arguments of famous scientists and cosmonauts are given as evidence, whose professionalism is not questioned.
1 Argument: Neil Armstrong's Trail
Skeptics' opinion
The photo shows a clear, sharp mark left by the boot of the spacesuit, although it is known that there is no water on the moon in any of its manifestations. Therefore, it is not possible to leave a trace of such a clear and correct form. So say those who do not believe whether the Americans flew to the moon.
Expert opinion
The behavior of the lunar soil is no different from the behavior of wet sand on Earth, but this is due to completely different physical reasons. The earth's sand consists of grains of sand, sanded to a round shape by the winds, so such a clear trace on dry sand cannot remain.
There is an electronic wind on the Moon, the protons of which turn the particles of lunar dust into stars that do not slide over each other like grains of sand, but cling to each other, form a cast - in this case, a clear trace, the structure of which is reinforced by the molecular penetration of particles into each other due to vacuum ... Such a trace can persist on the moon for millions of years.
In support of the above, a photograph is taken from a Soviet lunar rover, which clearly shows that the tracks have the same clear shapes as the boot print of an American astronaut.
2 Argument: Shadows
Skeptics' opinion
There is only one light source on the moon - the sun. Consequently, the shadows of the astronauts and their equipment must fall in the same direction. In the above photo, two astronauts are standing side by side, therefore, the angle of incidence of the Sun is the same, but the shadows they cast are of different lengths and directions.
It turns out that they were illuminated from above by a searchlight. That is why one shadow is 1.5 measures larger than the other, so, as everyone knows, the further a person stands from a street lamp, the longer the shadow. Anyway, who photographed them, after all, both astronauts are in the frame. So say those who do not believe whether the Americans flew to the moon.
Expert opinion
As for the snapshot. It is not a photograph. This is a fragment of a video recording from a camera installed in the lunar module and working autonomously without astronauts on board.
As for the shadow, the point is in the uneven surface that creates the effect of a certain elongation. The clarity of the shadows is betrayed by the absence of the atmosphere, which should scatter the light.
Skeptics' opinion
In the above photos, something incomprehensible is happening with shadows. In the photo on the left, the sun shines in the back of the photographer, and the shadow from the module falls to the left. In the right photo, the shadow of the stones falls to the right as if the lighting is from the left, and closer to the left edge of the photo this strange effect loses its strength. This unusual behavior of the shadows cannot be attributed to the unevenness of the surface.
Expert opinion
Correctly noticed. Irregularities alone cannot create such an effect, but together with perspective it is possible. On the photo on the right, there is a specially superimposed image of rails, which, by analogy with stones on the Moon, also "suffer from left deviation," although we know for sure that the rails run parallel to each other, otherwise the trains would go along them. The same known optical illusion of connecting the rail closer to the horizon, a similar illusion is present in moon images.
3 Argument: Glare
Skeptics' opinion
The above photo clearly shows that the sun is behind the astronaut's back, which means that its part facing the camera should be in the shade, but in fact it is illuminated by some kind of device.
Expert opinion
It's all about the lunar surface, which, due to the lack of an atmosphere, accepts 100% of the light and scatters it much more strongly than on Earth, so much so that on a moonlit night on Earth we can read a book without additional lighting. In this photo, you can see that a significant part of the reflected light hit the astronaut's spacesuit and even reflected on the surface once again, creating the effect of flashing a shadow.
Skeptics' opinion
In many photographs, you can see incomprehensible white spots, similar to the light of spotlights. So say those who do not believe whether the Americans flew to the moon.
Expert opinion
The fact is that direct sunlight hits the lens, creating flare. In the above photo, you can clearly see that the Sun is above the frame, and, therefore, the reflections of the flare will be in a straight line from the center of the frame. What we actually observe.
4 Argument: Background
Skeptics' opinion
Different photos show the same background. In the two above photos, the background is the same. What is it? Scenery?
Expert opinion
This feeling arises due to the lack of atmosphere on the moon. Objects, and in this case mountains of great height, seem to be close to each other, although they are at least 10 kilometers away. If you look more closely, the mountains on the right are different from those on the left. Since the photo on the right was taken 2 kilometers from the lunar module.
Skeptics' opinion
Many photographs show a clear boundary between the foreground and the background of the mountains. What is this if not the scenery?
Expert opinion
This effect arises from the fact that the size of the moon is four times smaller than the earth. Because of this, the horizon (curvature of the surface) is only a couple of kilometers from the observer, so it seems that high mountains seem to be separated by an even line with the lunar surface.
5 Argument: No stars
Skeptics' opinion
The absence of stars in the sky proves the photographs are fake. So say those who do not believe whether the Americans flew to the moon.
Expert opinion
Each camera has a sensitivity threshold. There are no cameras that can simultaneously capture the bright surface of the Moon and the stars that are dim by comparison. If you shoot the surface of the Moon, then the stars will not be visible, but if you shoot the stars, then the surface of the Moon will look like a single white spot.
6 Argument: It is impossible to shoot on the moon
Skeptics' opinion
As far as is known, on the lunar surface there are very strong temperature drops in the range of 200 degrees. How did the film not melt during shooting?
Expert opinion
- The landing site of the lunar module was chosen so that after the rising of the sun a little time passed and the surface did not heat up.
- The American film was made on a special heat-resistant base that softens only at a temperature of 90 degrees, and melts at 260.
- In a vacuum, heat can only be transferred in one way, radiation. Therefore, the chambers were covered with a reflective layer that removes most of the heat.
- The Americans flew to the moon in 1969, and back in 1959, the domestic automatic station was already transmitting photographs of the lunar surface without any obstacles.
7 Argument: Flag
Skeptics' opinion
During the installation of the flag, it is seen that it crumples and sways in the wind, although it is known that there is no atmosphere on the moon.
Expert opinion
There were actually two flags on the moon. The first is the national flag of the United States, and the second is the NATO flag, emphasizing the international character of the expedition. The US flag was made of nylon and mounted on telescopic consoles.
During installation, the horizontal bar did not fully extend, as a result of which the flag did not fully stretch, so the astronaut even had to pull it up to straighten it. As a result of the lack of full tension at the temperature, the nylon began to jar until it warmed up to a certain temperature, and due to the tugging of the flag, its vibrations did not die out like the earth in calm weather, since in a vacuum the pendulum swings much longer in the absence of frictional force against the air. This is where the myth of the flag fluttering in the wind was born.
8 Argument: Funnel and engine flame
Skeptics' opinion
At the time of landing and launch, a crater should have formed under the lunar module, and also during the launch, the flame of the engines was not visible. So say those who do not believe whether the Americans flew to the moon.
Expert opinion
As for the funnel. The bearing capacity of a 10 centimeter layer of the lunar surface is about 0.3-0.7 newtons per square meter. see When landing and maneuvering over the surface, the engine of the module operates in low thrust mode. That is, the pressure of gases on the surface is not significant. When landing, it is generally less than 0.1 atmosphere. During takeoff, a little more, but with the hardness of the Moon's soil, this pressure is enough only to blow off the dust.
Since the design pressure from the nozzle of the starting stage to the surface is 0.6 newtons per square meter. cm. The soil fully compensated for the take-off of the lunar module, leaving only a bright spot of crushed soil. As for the engine flame, we repeat, the takeoff thrust is very low and amounts to no more than a ton.
The fuel used in Apollo, aerosin-50 and nitrogen tetroxide, is practically transparent during combustion, therefore, with a strongly refreshed surface of the Moon, its glow would hardly be enough to significantly illuminate the shadow from the module or to fix it with a camera.
10 Argument: Lunomobile
Skeptics' opinion
When astronauts move on the surface, the sound of the engine of the lunomobile is clearly audible, and, as is known, sound cannot be transmitted in airless space. Another interesting fact is that the soil from under the wheels in a vacuum must rise up several meters, and it behaves in the same way as when driving on sand on Earth.
Expert opinion
Sound can be transmitted not only through air, but also through harsh substances. In this case, vibration from the engine is transmitted through the lunomobile frame to the spacesuit, and from the spacesuit to the astronaut's microphone.
As for the ejection of soil from under the wheels of the lunar car, on the moon, contrary to expectations, it does not rise in the form of a dust cloud due to the slight acceleration of the dust particles, which tend to zero, at the moment of contact of the wheels with the lunar soil. The same grains of dust, which are given acceleration, parts of the wheels that are not in contact with the surface are extinguished by the wings mounted on the lunar car.
Moreover, in terrestrial conditions, dust from the same trip would swirl for a long time behind the car. In an airless space, it falls as quickly as it takes off. This can be clearly seen at the moments of "slipping" of the lunomobile wheels.
Argument 11: Protection from radiation and solar flares
Skeptics' opinion
I wonder how the Americans managed to protect themselves from radiation and solar flares on the moon? And in general, how did they manage to bypass the famous Van Allen belt, where the radiation reaches 1000 roentgens. Indeed, to protect against such radiation, one meter-long lead walls of the shuttle are required. And how did ordinary rubberized American spacesuits protect astronauts from radiation and solar flares on the Moon? So say those who do not believe whether the Americans flew to the moon.
Expert opinion
Indeed, when launching automatic stations in near-earth orbit, belts with a large accumulation of radioactive particles attracted by the Earth's magnetic field were discovered. Later they received the name of the Van Allen belt. On the Moon, such a large background radiation was not detected due to the absence of an atmosphere and the small size of the Moon.
Before launching the Apollo, automatic scouts with radiation sensors were repeatedly sent along the proposed flight paths in order to find out the optimal course. It turned out that the maximum radiation background is only above the equator of the Earth, closer to the poles it is many times lower. Therefore, the trajectories of the Apollo were chosen as close as possible to the poles. Since the astronauts passed them in just a few hours, such a level of radiation could not cause damage to human health and was equal to about 1 rad.
Regarding American spacesuits, to say that they had no protection is to make a gross mistake. American spacesuits of the time consisted of 25 layers of various materials to protect the astronaut. Such a spacesuit weighed about 80 kg on Earth and 13 on the Moon and was quite capable of protecting the astronaut from falls, micrometeorites, vacuum, solar radiation and radiation in its reasonable aisles.
As for solar flares with a huge emission of radiation, this was indeed a dangerous phenomenon, but predictable. NASA has been closely observing the Sun and forecasting solar flares and storms.
Moreover, during a flare, the Sun throws out radiation not in all directions, but with a narrow beam the direction of which can also be predicted. Of course, there was a fraction of the risk of cosmonauts in this regard. Suddenly the prediction was not correct, but the degree of this risk was very small. In general, in the entire history of Apollo flights from December 1968 to December 1972, there were only 3 flares on August 2, 4 and 7, 1972, and then predicted. As we know from history, no one flew to the moon at that time.
Argument 12: Stanley Kubrick's Widow Interview
Skeptics' opinion
In 2003, director Stanley Kubrick's widow claimed that her husband had been filming the moonlight at the request of the US government. Moreover, there is a video on the Internet where, during filming on the Moon, a lighting device falls on an astronaut and suddenly out of nowhere, personnel appears and helps the astronaut. This is irrefutable proof of falsification.
Expert opinion
Indeed, in 2003, the film "Dark Side of the Moon" was released, in which there were a lot of interviews with prominent people of that time, who told how the lunar program was filmed in the pavilions of film companies. Among all the speakers was Stanley Kubrick's widow, who said that the film was directed personally by her husband at the request of President Nixon.
In fact, this movie was filmed in 2002 using real lunar footage taken by astronauts during the first flight to the moon. Much was added to this film from the chronicle of astronauts' training on Earth, as well as other soundtracks were superimposed on many frames, and part of the interviews was composed using phrases ripped from the content of previously recorded interviews.
The creators of this film in no way hide its falsity. It was removed only in order to shake the audience and show that you should not believe everything you see. It was screened in Canada and France. Many yellow media outlets from different countries, without really figuring out what it was, presented all this in the form of a loud sensation of disclosing the falsification of flights to the moon.
For the sake of fairness, it should be said that in case of the failure of the mission, a plot was really created, but not in the Hollywood pavilions with the successful completion of the expedition, but on ordinary television with Nixon's mourning speech about the dead astronauts.
The famous video with a spotlight on an astronaut first appeared on www.moontruth.com in late 2002. The authors of the site claimed to have received the footage from an anonymous person who fears for his life. These shots fully reveal the truth about the most expensive show of the 20th century. Many people believed this video and still believe it. Although, after a few months, the site's owners announced that it was nothing more than a promotional video for their film company.
On an additional page with the interesting title "Here you can read why everything said above is bullshit" that appeared on the same site, it was described in detail how this small English film company shot this video as an advertising campaign for their company.
13 Argument: Lack of Earth-Based Evidence
Skeptics' opinion
Why shouldn't the Americans photograph the remaining equipment on the Moon with a telescope directly from Earth as proof that they were on the Moon? So say those who do not believe whether the Americans flew to the moon.
Expert opinion
Today, there simply does not exist a powerful enough telescope that can photograph the lunar modules of the Americans. By astronomical standards, they are very small. The distance to the moon is 350 thousand kilometers. The Earth's atmosphere is a major obstacle to quality photographs.
If we assume that there is a telescope on Earth with a lens radius of 50 meters in diameter (and today the largest telescope is only 10.8 meters), then the surface that it can photograph relatively clearly will be much larger than the size of the lunar modules. That is, we will not see them anyway.
There is a second reason why NASA will not do such nonsense. Many instruments have been left on the moon, the work of which is recorded, and data is being received from the moon to the earth, which in itself is irrefutable proof that the Americans were on the moon and installed there laser reflectors, a seismometer, an ion detector and an ionization manometer.
As we can see from all of the above, only an amateur can ask whether the Americans flew to the moon. All the hype related to falsification is nothing more than rumors, fueled by pseudo-experts, whose knowledge in this area is clearly limited.
Here, only those questions are considered that have at least some intelligible justification, while the other part of the absurd arguments given by people who are clearly far from understanding physics, optics and astrophysics, we decided not to even consider in the format of this article, since there is a 100% probability of their scientific explanation ...
As for some oddities in photographs that are not related to physical laws, but rather to the exposure, we will fully answer this question in the article “
MOSCOW, July 20 - RIA Novosti. The renowned cosmonaut Alexei Leonov, who personally prepared to participate in the Soviet lunar exploration program, denied long-standing rumors that American astronauts had not been on the Moon, and that the footage broadcast on television around the world was allegedly edited in Hollywood.
He told about this in an interview with RIA Novosti on the eve of the 40th anniversary of the first in the history of mankind landing of US astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin on the surface of a satellite of the Earth, celebrated on July 20.
So were the Americans on the moon or were they not?
“Only absolutely ignorant people can seriously believe that the Americans have not been to the moon. And, unfortunately, this whole ridiculous epic about frames allegedly fabricated in Hollywood began with the Americans themselves. By the way, the first person who began to distribute these rumors, he was imprisoned for libel, "said Alexei Leonov in this regard.
Where did the rumors come from?
"It all began when, at the celebration of the 80th birthday of the famous American film director Stanley Kubrick, who created his brilliant film" The Odyssey of 2001 "based on the book of science fiction writer Arthur Clarke, the journalists who met with Kubrick's wife asked to talk about her husband's work on the film in And she honestly said that there are only two real lunar modules on Earth - one in a museum, where no filming has ever been conducted, and even additional surveys of the American landing on the moon were carried out, "the Soviet cosmonaut specified.
Why was studio filming used?
Alexey Leonov explained that in order for the viewer to see the development of what is happening from start to finish on the movie screen, elements of additional shooting are used in any cinema.
“For example, it was impossible to film the real opening of the hatch of the descent ship on the Moon by Neil Armstrong - there was simply no one to remove it from the surface! Kubrick in Hollywood studios to develop the logic of what is happening, and laid the foundation for numerous gossip that the entire landing was allegedly simulated on the set, "explained Alexei Leonov.
Where Truth Begins and Editing Ends
"The real filming began when Armstrong, who first set foot on the moon, got used to it a little, installed a highly directional antenna through which the broadcast to Earth was carried out. His partner Buzz Aldrin then also came out of the ship to the surface and began to shoot Armstrong, who in turn filmed its movement on the surface of the Moon ", - said the astronaut.
Why did the American flag fly in the airless space of the moon?
“The argument is that the American flag was waving on the moon, but it shouldn't. The flag really should not be fluttering - the fabric was used with a rather rigid reinforced mesh, the cloth was twisted into a tube and tucked into a cover. The astronauts took a nest with them, which they first inserted into the lunar soil, and then stuck the flag pole into it, and only then took off the cover. And when the cover was removed, the flag cloth began to unfold in conditions of low gravity, and the residual deformation of the springy reinforced mesh created the impression that the flag was flapping like in the wind. " , - explained the "phenomenon" Alexei Leonov.
"To argue that the entire film was filmed on Earth is simply ridiculous and ridiculous. In the United States, there were all the necessary systems that tracked the launch of the launch vehicle itself, acceleration, correction of the flight orbit, orbiting the landing capsule and its landing", - concluded the famous Soviet cosmonaut.
Where did the "moon race" lead two space superpowers
"In my opinion, this is the best competition in space that mankind has ever carried out. The" moon race "between the USSR and the United States is the achievement of the highest peaks of science and technology," Alexei Leonov believes.
According to him, after the flight of Yuri Gagarin, US President Kennedy, speaking in Congress, said that the Americans were simply too late to think about what triumph could be achieved by launching a man into space, and therefore the Russians triumphantly became the first. Kennedy's message was clearly stated: within ten years, land a man on the moon and safely return him back to Earth.
"It was a very correct step of the great politician - he united and rallied the American nation to achieve this goal. Huge funds at that time were also involved - $ 25 billion, today, this is, perhaps, all fifty billion. The program provided for a circumnavigation of the Moon, then Tom Stafford's flight to the hovering point and selection of a landing site for Apollo-10. The Apollo-11 dispatch provided for the direct landing of Neil Armstrong and Bazz Aldrin on the moon. Michael Collins remained in orbit and waited for his comrades to return, " - said Alexey Leonov.
18 Apollo-class ships were made to prepare for the landing on the moon - the whole program was implemented perfectly, except for Apollo-13 - from the engineering point of view, nothing special happened there, it just went out of order, or rather, one of the fuel cells exploded , the energy weakened, and therefore it was decided not to land on the surface, but to fly around the moon and return to Earth.
Alexei Leonov noted that only Frank Borman's first flyby of the Moon, then the landing of Armstrong and Aldrin on the Moon, and the story of Apollo 13 remained in the memory of the Americans. These accomplishments have rallied the American nation and made everyone empathize, walk with fingers crossed, and pray for their heroes. The last flight of the Apollo series was also extremely interesting: American astronauts no longer just walked on the Moon, but traveled on its surface in a special lunomobile and made interesting footage.
In fact, it was the peak of the Cold War, and in this situation, after the success of Yuri Gagarin, the Americans simply had to win the "moon race". The USSR then had its own lunar program, and we also implemented it. By 1968, it had already existed for two years, and even the crews of our astronauts were formed for the flight to the Moon.
On censorship of human achievements
"The launches of the Americans in the framework of the lunar program were broadcast on television, and only two countries in the world - the USSR and communist China - did not broadcast these historical footage to their peoples. I thought then, and now I think - in vain, we just robbed our people , the flight to the moon is the property and achievement of all mankind. The Americans watched the launch of Gagarin, Leonov's spacewalk - why the Soviet people could not see it ?! ", Alexei Leonov laments.
According to him, a limited group of Soviet space specialists watched these launches on a closed channel.
“We had military unit 32103 on Komsomolsky Prospekt, which provided space broadcasting, since there was no MCC in Korolev at that time. The Americans put up a television antenna on the surface of the Moon, and everything they did there was transmitted through a TV camera to Earth, several replays of these TV broadcasts were also made. , Soviet cosmonauts, also crossed their fingers for good luck, and sincerely wished the guys success, "recalls the Soviet cosmonaut.
How was the implementation of the Soviet lunar program
"In 1962, a decree was issued, signed personally by Nikita Khrushchev, on the creation of a spacecraft for flying around the Moon and the use of a Proton carrier rocket with an upper stage for this launch. In 1964, Khrushchev signed a program for the USSR to fly around the Moon in 1967. , and in 1968 - landing on the Moon and returning to Earth. And in 1966 there was already a decree on the formation of lunar crews - a group was immediately recruited to land on the Moon, "Aleksey Leonov recalled.
The first stage of the flyby of the Earth satellite was to be carried out by launching the L-1 lunar module by the Proton carrier rocket, and the second stage - landing and returning back - on the giant and most powerful N-1 rocket equipped with thirty engines with a total thrust of 4.5 thousands of tons with the weight of the rocket itself about 2 thousand tons. However, even after four test launches, this super-heavy rocket did not fly normally, so it eventually had to be abandoned.
Korolev and Glushko: antipathy of two geniuses
“There were other options, for example, using a 600-ton engine developed by the brilliant designer Valentin Glushko, but Sergei Korolev refused it, as he worked on highly toxic heptyl. Although, in my opinion, this was not the reason - just two leaders , Korolev and Glushko - could not and did not want to work together.Their relations had their own problems of a purely personal nature: Sergei Korolev, for example, knew that Valentin Glushko had once written a denunciation on him, as a result of which he was sentenced to ten years When he was released, Korolev found out about this, but Glushko did not know that he knew about it, "said Alexei Leonov.
Small step for man, but giant leap for all mankind
NASA's Apollo 11 spacecraft on July 20, 1969 with a crew of three astronauts: Commander Neil Armstrong, Lunar Module Pilot Edwin Aldrin and Command Module Pilot Michael Collins - became the first to reach the Moon in the USSR and USA space race. The Americans did not pursue research tasks on this expedition, its purpose was simple: to land on an Earth satellite and return successfully.
The ship consisted of a lunar module and a command module, which remained in orbit during the mission. Thus, of the three astronauts, only two visited the moon: Armstrong and Aldrin. They had to land on the moon, collect samples of lunar soil, take pictures on a satellite of the Earth and install several instruments. However, the main ideological component of the trip was still hoisting the American flag on the moon and conducting a video communication session with the Earth.
The launch of the spacecraft was watched by US President Richard Nixon and German rocket scientist Hermann Obert. A total of about a million people watched the launch at the cosmodrome and the mounted observation platforms, and the TV broadcast, according to the Americans, was watched by more than a billion people all over the world.
Apollo 11 launched to the moon on July 16, 1969 at 13.32 GMT and entered lunar orbit 76 hours later. The command and lunar modules were undocked approximately 100 hours after launch. Despite the fact that NASA intended to land on the lunar surface in an automatic mode, Armstrong, as the leader of the expedition, decided to land the lunar module in a semi-automatic mode.
The lunar module landed in the Sea of Tranquility on July 20 at 20 hours 17 minutes 42 seconds GMT. Armstrong descended to the lunar surface on July 21, 1969 at 02 hours 56 minutes 20 seconds GMT. Everyone knows the phrase he uttered when he set foot on the moon: "This is one small step for man, but a giant leap for all mankind."
Aldrin also went to the moon 15 minutes later. The astronauts collected the required amount of materials, placed instruments and installed a television camera. After that, they planted the American flag in the field of view of the camera and held a communication session with President Nixon. Astronauts left a commemorative plaque on the moon with the words: "Here people from planet Earth first set foot on the moon. July 1969 new era. We came in peace on behalf of all Mankind."
Aldrin stayed on the moon for about an hour and a half, Armstrong - two hours and ten minutes. At the 125th hour of the mission and the 22nd hour of stay on the Moon, the lunar module was launched from the surface of the Earth satellite. The crew splashed down on the blue planet about 195 hours after the start of the mission, and soon the astronauts were picked up by the arriving aircraft carrier.
On July 21, 1969, American astronaut Neil Amstrong set foot on the moon. However, to this day one can hear the opinion that the American landing on the moon is a great hoax.
Lunar conspiracy theory
In 1974, the book by American Bill Keyzing "We Never Fled to the Moon" was published. It was the beginning of the spread of the theory of the "lunar conspiracy". Keyzing had reason to bring this up, since he worked for Rocketdyne, which built rocket engines for the Apollo program.
As arguments confirming the staging of flights to the Moon, the author draws attention to the incidents of "lunar photographs" - uneven shadows, the absence of stars, the small size of the Earth. Keysing also refers to the insufficient technological equipment of NASA at the time of the implementation of the lunar program.
The number of supporters of the "lunar conspiracy" grew rapidly, as did the number of revelations of a manned flight to the moon. So David Percy - a member of the British Royal Photographic Society - has already made a more detailed analysis of the photographs provided by NASA. He argued that in the absence of an atmosphere, the shadows on the moon should be absolutely black, and the multidirectionality of these shadows gave him reason to assume the presence of several sources of illumination.
Skeptics noted other strange details - the waving of the American flag in an airless space, the absence of deep craters that should have formed during the landing of the lunar module. Engineer Rene Ralph brought up an even more compelling argument for discussion - in order to prevent the astronauts from being exposed to radiation, the spacesuits had to be covered with at least 80 centimeters of lead!
In 2003, the widow of American director Stanley Kubrick, Christian, added fuel to the fire, claiming that the scenes of the American landing on the moon were filmed by her husband in Hollywood pavilions.
On the "lunar conspiracy" in Russia
Oddly enough, but in the USSR no one seriously questioned the Apollo flights to the moon. In particular, materials confirming this fact appeared in the Soviet press after the first landing of the Americans on the moon. Many Russian cosmonauts also spoke about the success of the American lunar program. Among them are Alexei Leonov and Georgy Grechko.
Alexey Leonov said the following: “Only absolutely ignorant people can seriously believe that the Americans were not on the moon. And, unfortunately, this whole ridiculous saga about the allegedly fabricated Hollywood footage began with the Americans themselves. "
True, the Soviet cosmonaut did not deny the fact that some scenes of the Americans' stay on the Moon were filmed on Earth in order to give the video report a certain sequence: “It was impossible, for example, to film the real opening by Neil Armstrong of the hatch of the descent spacecraft on the Moon - there is simply no one from the surface was removed! "
The confidence of domestic experts in the success of the lunar mission is primarily due to the fact that the process of the Apollo flights to the Moon was recorded by Soviet equipment. These are signals from the ships, and negotiations with the crew, and a television picture about the exit of astronauts to the lunar surface.
In case the signals were coming from the Earth, it would be immediately exposed.
Pilot-cosmonaut and designer Konstantin Feoktistov in his book “The Trajectory of Life. Between yesterday and tomorrow, ”writes that in order to reliably simulate the flight, it would be necessary“ to land a television repeater on the surface of the Moon in advance and check its operation (with transmission to Earth). And on the days of the imitation of the expedition, it was necessary to send a radio relay to the Moon to simulate the Apollo's radio communication with the Earth on the flight path to the Moon. " To arrange such a hoax, according to Feoktistov, is no less difficult than a real expedition.
Russian President Vladimir Putin also spoke about the "lunar conspiracy", calling in one of his interviews "complete nonsense" the version that the United States had falsified the landing on the moon.
Nevertheless, in modern Russia, exposing articles, books, films about the impossibility of technically carrying out such a flight continue to be published, they are also scrupulously examined and criticized by the photo and video materials of the "lunar expedition".
Counter-arguments
NASA admits that they are bombarded with so many letters with this or that argument proving flight falsification that they are not able to fend off all attacks. However, some of the objections can be discarded, knowing the elementary laws of physics.
It is known that the location of shadows depends on the shape of the object casting them and on the surface relief - this explains the unevenness of shadows in lunar photographs. The shadows converging at the far point are nothing more than a manifestation of the law of perspective. The idea of several sources of illumination (spotlights) is untenable in itself, since in this case each of the illuminated objects would cast at least two shadows.
The visibility of the banner waving in the wind is explained by the fact that the flag was installed on a flexible aluminum base, which was in motion, while the upper crossbar was not fully extended, which created the effect of crumpling of the canvas. On Earth, air resistance quickly dampens oscillatory movements, but in an airless environment, these movements are much longer.
According to NASA engineer Jim Oberg, the most convincing evidence that the flag was planted on the moon is the following fact: when astronauts passed next to the banner, it remained absolutely motionless, which would not be in the conditions of the earth's atmosphere.
Astronomer Patrick Moore knew that the stars would not be visible on the moon during the daytime before the flight. He explains that the human eye, like the lens of a camera, simply cannot adapt simultaneously to the illuminated surface of the moon and the dim sky.
It is more difficult to explain why the lander did not leave behind craters on the lunar surface or, at least, did not disperse the dust, although NASA experts motivate this by the fact that during landing, the device greatly slowed down and landed along a sliding trajectory.
Probably the most compelling argument of the conspiracy theorists is that the ship's crew simply would not have been able to overcome the Van Allen radiation belt surrounding the Earth and would have been burned alive. However, Van Allen himself was not inclined to exaggerate his theory, explaining that the passage of the belt at high speed does not threaten astronauts.
However, it remains a mystery how astronauts escaped the powerful radiation on the lunar surface in light enough spacesuits.
Peering into the moon
In the heated debate, it was a little forgotten that the astronauts installed laser rangefinders on the moon after each successful descent. At the Texas MacDonald Observatory, for several decades directing a laser beam to the corner reflector of lunar installations, specialists received a response signal in the form of flashes, which was recorded by highly sensitive equipment.
For the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 flight, the LRO automatic interplanetary station took a whole series of images at the lunar module landing sites, presumably fixing the remains of the equipment of the American crews. Later, higher-resolution photographs were taken on which you can see the tracks from the rover and even, according to NASA, the chains of tracks of the astronauts themselves.
However, pictures taken by uninterested parties inspire more confidence. Thus, the Japanese space agency JAXA reported that the Kaguya spacecraft had detected possible traces of Apollo 15's presence. And an employee of the Indian Space Research Organization Prakash Chauhan said that the Chandrayan-1 apparatus received an image of a fragment of the lander.
However, only a new manned flight to the Moon can finally dot the "and".
The most touching of the famous lunar "epic", of course, are the shots of the hoisting of the American flag, shown, in particular, in the Island World film "For all manking", released in 1989 for the 20th anniversary "Landing on the moon of the first people." According to all the laws of the Hollywood genre, there is no way without this hoisting. An astronaut drives a peg into the ground, another puts a flagpole there. According to legend, the "banner" was made of a rigid fabric on a wire frame, that is, the flagpole looked like the letter "G". So the panel had only one free corner, and this corner showed that it was really "free" ... from common sense. He fluttered so cheerfully in the wind of the "airless" (remember: wind is the movement of air in the atmosphere) space of the "Moon" that the astronaut had to pull him back. Angle sagged. But as soon as the astronaut departed, the flag "came to life" again. (Apparently, someone was constantly opening and closing the gates in the film studio, creating a draft.)
Flag on the Moon (NASA Archive)
Since the too obvious absurdity of these shots began to catch the eye of any more or less reasonable person, fans of America tried to get out of the situation by offering "obvious" explanations for the incredible fact. At the moment, all "sleepwalkers" adhere to one of two mutually exclusive hypotheses. The first one says: "These are just natural vibrations of the elastic flagpole-flag system."
However, it is not enough to know smart words, it would be nice to at least figuratively imagine what it is. Take, for example, a ruler, secure one end of it, pull and release the free one. Get elastic vibrations, as they say, in its purest form. Their peculiarity is that the oscillating part of the system always deviates from the zero position - the one in which the oscillations will subside.
So, in the film there is not even a hint of these very "elastic vibrations". The flag is blown away by the wind in one direction from the zero position, in one direction, by the way, the ribbon stretching after the "going out into space" astronaut is also blown away. She covers him all the time exclusively from one side and trembles in the draft. So, "flight to the moon" and "spacewalk" were somewhere nearby ... on earth. By the way, when you "exit" you can see the cumulus clouds as close as they can be seen from an airplane, but by no means from a space station. American journalists have repeatedly "caught" NASA specialists by giving fake photographs of the "spacewalk" to the press.
By slipping this fake, the Americans show that they are sorely lacking material for the movie about the flight to the moon. For the sake of fairness, it is worth noting that in the "output" scene there are a number of frames of clearly cosmic origin, in particular, the inclusion of the propulsion engine in Earth's orbit - the jet from the engine is exactly what it should be when it flows into vacuum (so to speak, very underexpanded), its structure in the form of shock waves is also visible. Therefore, they still flew into space. And installation is a matter of technology.
Shepard and Mitchell plant the flag (NASA archive)
The second hypothesis is the assumption that for some reason the flag had a motor, which created the vibrations. But besides the fact that it is rather difficult to imagine such a thing, it should also be noted that the oscillations created by the motor must, firstly, be strictly periodic, and secondly, have a wave profile constant in time. We see nothing of the kind. Of course, enthusiasts can assume that there, inside the flag, there was a Pentium II or even III (why not? Near the motor!), Which jerks the flag at random intervals in a random direction with random effort (haha 3 times) ...
one more point, not from space, but from logic. Truth is always specific, therefore, the implementation of two mutually exclusive hypotheses is impossible in principle. If it's about free vibrations, then why use the motor hypothesis? If there was a motor, then who does one need to be to believe in the hypothesis of free oscillations? Even if one of these versions were true, then the apologists of the other are outright donkeys. In general, astronauts with "special effects" got excited, they would just take the flag in their hands ...
Fragment of the film by Y. Mukhin "Maximum of lies and stupidity"
"The boys are replacing the concepts of" wobble "and" wobble "
This year marks 35 years since humans landed on the moon. And all this time, the controversy does not subside: were the American astronauts really there or all the photo and video evidence - a fake fabricated in Hollywood.
Unfortunately, when on July 21, 1969, NASA broadcasted the first landing of earthlings on a satellite of our planet to the whole world, the comedy film "The Pig and the Shepherd" was shown in the USSR.
In our country, they readily concealed real information about the American lunar program. For example, the authoritative "space" journalist of "Komsomolskaya Pravda" Yaroslav Kirillovich Golovanov wrote the book "The Truth About the Apollo Program" back in the 70s, but then no publishing house dared to publish it. But we willingly believe all sorts of crooks and charlatans (not only domestic, but also Western), who decided to make a career, claiming that the Americans were not on the moon. How so? After all, the lunar program really existed? A lot of journalists have always been invited to the launches. And skeptics do not even claim that the Apollo never took off. They believe that the Americans flew, but not to the moon, but to the moon. And they did not land on its surface - they could not with the imperfect technology that they had then. Skeptics have many arguments to defend their version. We are starting a series of publications where we will try to expose this "evidence".
I wonder what the astronauts have gotten themselves into? Have you gotten yourself into something incomprehensible?
Skeptics did not like the fact that the footprints of the astronauts' boots in the photographs turned out to be too clear and deep. After all, there is no water on the moon, and dehydrated soil cannot "keep its shape." Imagine that you are walking on dry sand - the embossed prints of the soles of boots will not work.
Here is what is written about the soil of the Moon in the collection of works of Soviet scientists "Lunar soil from the Sea of Abundance" (M., Nauka, 1973, authors D. L. Nagy and others):
“The loose soil of the lunar seas has a very contrasting character in comparison with the loose soil of the Earth ... it is a dark gray (blackish) material, easily forms and sticks together into separate loose lumps ... traces of external influences are clearly imprinted on its surface ... has unusual properties - anomalous adhesion and an order of magnitude higher than that of sand, the coefficient of relative compressibility ... "
It is thanks to this “anomalous compressibility and adhesion” that the footprints of astronauts' boots were clearly imprinted on the surface of the Moon.
By the way, Soviet scientists investigated the soil brought to Earth not by the Americans, but brought by the domestic automatic station "Luna-16".
It can be seen that the flag is held not only on the vertical flagpole, but also on the horizontal crossbar. Therefore, the illusion is created that it flutters as if in air.
WHERE THE WIND COMES FROM
The most important assertion of skeptics is the waving American flag that astronauts planted on a satellite of the Earth. The newsreel shows that he flutters, although there is no atmosphere on the moon and he must be motionless.
In fact, the aluminum flagpole was made in the shape of the letter "L". And so that it took up less space during transportation, it was retractable, like modern fishing rods. When the flag began to be installed, the horizontal part was stuck, and the nylon cloth remained not fully stretched. The astronauts tugged at it several times, trying to straighten it. This is where the effect of the "lunar wind" manifested itself. Of course, there is no atmosphere here, so no winds are possible. But if you swing an object in a vacuum, it will swing for a very long time. Just because there is no atmosphere and, accordingly, the air friction force, because of which it would stop. Therefore, it was worthwhile to jerk the flag once so that it began to flutter. Any fifth-grader who carefully reads a physics textbook knows this.
On the NASA website at www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/ktclips/ap14_flag.mpg, you can watch a documentary video of the moment when the flag was installed and pulled.
Neil Armstrong (right) and Edwin Aldrin are the first earthlings on the moon.
From the history of the issue
On May 25, 1961, US President John F. Kennedy addressed the Senate with a proposal to develop a program for the landing of American astronauts on the moon.
As part of the Apollo program, 11 spacecraft were launched. In order for 12 astronauts to be able to walk on the lunar surface and bring 380 kilograms of lunar soil to Earth, about 400 thousand people worked on them at NASA. The total cost of the lunar program is $ 25.5 billion.
The same stone.
MYSTERIOUS STONE WITH THE LETTER "C"
One of the photographs shows a stone on which you can see the clear letter "C". Critics argue that this is one of the elements of Hollywood scenery, turned to the camera in the wrong direction due to the carelessness of the staff.
In this regard, NASA conducted a whole investigation. It turned out that on some prints of the picture, which has the code AS16-107-17446, the letter "C" is present, but on others it is not. After carrying out work with the involvement of forensic experts, it turned out that in one case, a hair or some kind of thread just got on the film during printing - this has been proven for sure. The next question: if a hair got on the negative, then the photo should have its light print. The answer is that the astronauts did not shoot on ordinary film, but on slide. In this case, the hair will turn out to be dark.
For many, such a proof may seem unconvincing - "how did the speck so successfully hit the very center of the stone, and not, say, on the sand or on the astronaut's spacesuit." It is difficult to argue with this, but NASA stores the original of the film, and any serious organization, if desired, can take it for examination.
WHY DUST ARE NOT WORTH POST AND SOUND IS HEARED
The newsreel footage shows that the dust from under the wheels of the lunomobile behaves the same way as on Earth: it swirls and soars not too high. But with the lunar attraction, which is much less than the earth's, it should rise high. And not to swirl, but to fly in even streams.
The main reason that prevents the grains of sand from soaring is the wings above the wheels of the lunar car. And the clouds of dust come from the fact that the surface of the moon is not too flat, and when the wheels lose traction, they throw out clouds of dust as they spin.
A documentary about the movement of the lunomobile, filmed by the Apollo 16 expedition, can be viewed here: www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/40thann/mpeg/ap16_rover.mpg
By the way, the video shows that the dust settles very quickly. This is only possible in a vacuum. On Earth, it would have hung in the air for a long time.
When astronauts travel in a lunar vehicle, the sound of a running engine is heard. But sound does not propagate in a vacuum, does it?
NASA also gave a reasonable answer to this question. In a vacuum, sound, of course, does not propagate, but it is completely transmitted through solids. Vibration from a running motor is transmitted through the astronaut's spacesuit and goes to a microphone installed in the helmet.
By the way, it would be completely foolish to assume that the Americans do not know that acoustic waves do not propagate in a vacuum, and made such an unfortunate mistake.
WHERE IS THE EARTH?
Why is our planet not visible in images from the Moon? It would be so spectacular!
Technically, it was easier to land the lander in the center of the visible side of the moon. This means that the astronauts had the Earth directly over their heads. And when photographing it, the lunar surface would not be visible. Such pictures are little known, but they exist. The members of the Apollo 17 expedition (the module sat down closer to the edge of the visible surface of our satellite) managed to take pictures showing the Earth and a little the Moon.
By the way, this picture was another object of criticism. On it, the Earth seems disproportionately large, which does not correspond to real lunar landscapes. NASA has repeatedly stated that this is a fake photo, assembled from another image taken by astronauts not from the lunar surface, but from a height, even before landing.
UFO SHOTS OR SPOTLIGHTS?
Many photographs from the lunar archive show mysterious glowing balls. UFO? Or are they spotlights - spotlights, for some misunderstanding remained on the set?
Any professional photographer will understand that these spots are simply glare due to the reflection of sunlight from the lens of the camera - simply a marriage. NASA tries not to publish such images, because there are better ones. But skeptics get them and then use them for their "proofs."
RIDDLE OF SHADOWS
There is only one light source on the Moon - the Sun. Why, then, do the Apollo 11 astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin, people of approximately the same height, have shadows that differ in length by about one and a half times? Was there really some kind of lighting, like on the set in Hollywood?
Astronauts went to the moon when the sun was just showing above the horizon, so as not to burden the spacesuits with additional protection - it was already warm enough, but not hot. At this time, the sun's rays fall on the surface very gently. And any unevenness greatly distorts the shadows. Therefore, one of the astronauts, standing on a small elevation, is simply obliged to cast a shorter shadow. The shadows will be different even if one of them lies on a surface located at an angle. This can be easily verified by directing a beam of light onto two cylinders of the same height (see diagram above).
And then think about this: NASA still employs people with higher technical education. Probably, they could see that the "wrong" shadows are obtained on film and cards.
WHERE ARE ALL CAMERAS?
Since many questions arose from the photographs, NASA specialists were asked to present the cameras that were used for filming. And they did not show it, citing the fact that the astronauts had left all the cameras on the moon.
This is indeed the case. At the places of their "parking", the Americans threw all the equipment that was useless on the way back, including cameras. The weight of the landing modules was limited, but we wanted to bring as much lunar soil as possible (380 kilograms were delivered in six expeditions).
And only long-focus cameras reached the Earth, which were used for filming in space and were located in the main ship, which remained in the orbit of the Moon.
WHERE THE STARS GONE
During his historic flight, Yuri Gagarin reported to the MCC: “You can see how the stars pass. A very beautiful sight. In the right porthole now I observe an asterisk, it goes from left to right like that ... ”And in not a single American photograph from the Moon are stars visible. Couldn't find their correct location so as not to be caught in a fake?
Here are the results of another experiment by KP photographer Ivan Timoshin.
He twice photographed the illuminated person against the background of the starry sky. One card does not show the stars, but the person and everything around him turned out very clearly (photo A). The other shows stars and bright windows in a nearby house, but everything else is very vague (photo B).
The secret is simple - in the second case the camera lens was opened for several minutes - a very long exposure was set. It is very difficult to take such photographs without great need.
The task of the astronauts was to shoot not the stars, but each other, the flag, their ship, the lunar car, landscapes. In these pictures, the stars, of course, will not be visible.
