Why didn’t the USSR even try to question the achievements of their American colleagues? Indeed, it would be natural to expect from the main competitor in the lunar race meticulous attention and meticulous analysis of what was proposed to be taken on faith. After all, the event, in everyday language, happened at a great distance, without witnesses, and who knows what actually happened there. But no, not a word of disbelief followed. Not a shadow of doubt fell on the opponent’s triumph. Why?
Alexey Leonov goes into outer space (RGANT archive)
Years passed, then decades, and now books have been written about the ambiguities of those flights, and they asked many questions to which the public has not yet received convincing answers. What independent researchers discovered over time was most likely obvious to Soviet space specialists from the very beginning. But - silence. Moreover, cosmonaut Leonov and other famous figures of the Soviet space industry assured and continue to assure that everything is clean with the Americans here and there is nothing to doubt.
Nevertheless, a huge number of people doubted and doubt, and the advice “Take everything on faith” does not work on them, especially since our defenders of American achievements do not give clear answers to many questions.
But if we pose the question in a slightly different plane - not “why”, but “for what” the USSR was silent - the picture gradually acquires logical completeness.
In fact, the end of the Cold War, “détente,” the warming of relations with the United States and the entire Western world, and many other, as they now say, preferences received by the USSR in foreign policy, surprisingly coincided with the Americans’ lunar program. Why did these gifts of fate fall on him?
The reasons for our political leadership of that time could have been as follows. Firstly, the curtailment of the lunar program saved the country many billions of not extra rubles. After the flights of unmanned ships and the landings of automatic vehicles, it was clear that there was nothing special there, and even though there was, you couldn’t take it, because it was terribly far from the people, and they didn’t need it.
But that's not all, as the guy in the recent TV commercial liked to say. The embargo on the supply of Soviet oil to Western Europe was lifted, we began to penetrate their gas market, where we still operate successfully to this day. An agreement was concluded on the supply of American grain to the USSR at prices below the world average, which negatively affected the well-being of the Americans themselves.
Here is what the American lunar race researcher R. Rene writes about this: “The logical question that many asked and continue to ask: if we actually didn’t fly anywhere, then why didn’t the Soviet Union notice the forgery? Or didn't you want to notice? I have some thoughts on this matter. While our valiant army was fighting communism in Vietnam and other countries of Southeast Asia, we were selling megatons of grain to the Soviet Union at ultra-low prices. On July 8, 1972, our government shocked the whole world by announcing the sale of about a quarter of our harvest to the Soviet Union at a fixed price of $1.63 per bushel (36.4 liters - Ed.). The Russians would receive the next harvest another 10-20% cheaper. The domestic market price for grain was $1.50, but immediately jumped to $2.44. Guess who paid the difference? That's right, our taxpayers. Our prices for bread and meat immediately shot up, reflecting the sudden shortage. How much money did this Moon cost us? Huge money was at stake, not to mention American prestige. The end in this case justified any means.”
1961 N.S. Khrushchev and J. Kennedy (Ogonyok magazine)
It is also believed that Western companies built chemical plants in the USSR in exchange for finished products from these same plants, that is, the USSR received modern enterprises without investing a penny. The auto giant KamAZ and much more were built with active American participation. This was an economic benefit worth many tens of billions of rubles per year. The 5 billion that the USSR spent over ten years on the N-1 lunar rocket paled in front of her. From a purely economic point of view, the delivery of the lunar program together with N-1 paid off a hundredfold, if we keep in mind the short-term (several years) economic interest.
Military confrontation, the Cold War and the constant threat of a full-fledged nuclear disaster are a thing of the past. The pinnacle of “détente” was the Helsinki Act of 1975, which affirmed the inviolability of the borders established in Europe after the Second World War. It seems like Eternal Peace has arrived between East and West!
In addition, by remaining silent about the US lunar scam, the USSR leadership could put pressure on its political opponent under the threat of exposure. And, judging by the impressive foreign policy successes of the USSR, it was successful.
Another version of the amazing “compliance” of the Soviet authorities, who did not make a fuss, despite the obvious fact that the United States’ “lunar program” was an ordinary scam, is that the Americans could blackmail these very authorities with information available to the United States about How exactly did Joseph Stalin die? He did not die a natural death, but was killed.
The author of the book “The Moon Scam, or Where Were the Americans?” talks about this in detail. Yuri Mukhin. We quote: “If the West, in response to the exposure of the lunar scam, began to publicly find out the reasons for the murder and spitting of Stalin, then no matter how the CPSU Central Committee interfered with Western propaganda, six years later in the USSR not only members of the CPSU, but also non-party people would look at the party the top as enemies who do not transfer power to everyone - the Soviets, who do not allow communism to be built in the name of their greed. This would be the death of the highest party and state nomenklatura of the USSR, at least politically.”
Moreover, according to Mukhin, a convenient object for blackmail was not Khrushchev (“Nikita Sergeevich knew for sure what kind of country he was the leader of and what, in fact, cowardly scum was opposing him in the West. So the Americans tried to blackmail him with a war in connection with the Cuban Missile Crisis. And what?” writes Mukhin), namely Brezhnev, who replaced him. “Brezhnev was already the cat Leopold, trying to calm down the insolent people with a spell: “Guys, let’s live peacefully!” So the Americans “came upon him” in the lunar scam, most likely, precisely with this blackmail (there are simply no other reasons for blackmail), and Brezhnev gave in to them,” says Yuri Mukhin.
The American moon landing has both supporters and opponents.
Both give a lot of arguments in their favor.
The arguments of those who believe that there was a landing are usually as follows:
1. It is impossible to keep such a large-scale falsification a secret, because thousands of NASA employees must have participated in it.
2. If the falsification was exposed, the reputational losses of the United States would be too great; the Americans could not take such a risk.
3. There were several Apollo missions; they couldn’t fake them all.
4. There are traces of landing on the Moon.
5. The Soviet Union recognized the landing, which means everything happened.
But the skeptics’ arguments are also weighty:
1. The American flag in the footage is waving as if there is wind, but this is impossible.
2. In some photographs, shadows are visible during processing, as if the shooting took place in a pavilion.
3. In 1968, immediately before the launch of the lunar mission, 700 developers of the Saturn-5 launch vehicle were fired, which is very strange.
4. The F-1 engines were not used or developed further, Russian RD-180s began to be used instead, which is very illogical if the F-1 was allowed to carry the mission to the Moon.
5. The lunar soil delivered by the lunar mission has disappeared somewhere.
The lists of arguments can be continued on both sides.
But I want to draw attention to something that rarely gets the spotlight.
Look at the photos of the American landing:
And now on photographs of the lunar surface taken by the Chinese Chang'e-3 probe in 2013:
Does anything seem strange to you?
Pay attention to the color of the surface. It's noticeably different. In American photographs, the surface of the Moon is gray, almost without tint, although the colors on the American flag and parts of the equipment are quite distinct, right down to the shades - which means that everything is in order with the color rendition. And in photographs from the Chinese probe, the surface of the Moon is yellow-brown, not gray at all.
Why did this happen?
Maybe the Americans landed in some special place on the Moon with gray soil?
In the gray area? In the gray zone?
Or maybe they didn’t land...
After all, you will agree that it is quite strange that in 1969 such a technically complex mission was carried out, a powerful launch vehicle with powerful engines was developed, and 45 years later the Americans not only cannot repeat their success, but are also switching to Russian engines instead of using their F- 1 or its modifications.
If everything went so well in 1969, then why today do Americans have neither their own engine nor a launch vehicle?
The other day another commercial Falcon 9 rocket exploded.
Why, 45 years later, do the Americans have such problems with launches, if back in 1969 they solved such a technically complex problem as launching into space a rocket capable of reaching the Moon, lowering to its surface a module with two (!) astronauts and the fuel necessary for launch? from the lunar surface?
For reference: the mass of the command module is 28 tons, the mass of the lunar module is 15 tons.
To deliver such a mass to the Moon, to lower 15 tons to the Moon and return three astronauts back to Earth, and after 45 years to use Russia’s services to deliver astronauts to the ISS and regularly lose their own trucks is either a severe technical regression, or the previous success was greatly exaggerated.
Regarding the launch from the surface of the Moon:
The gravity on the Moon is 6 times less than on Earth, but it is not zero. And lifting two astronauts into lunar orbit, and not just any orbit, but a strictly defined one, so that they return to the ship and then to Earth is not an easy task.
There is a suspicion that to solve this problem on the Moon, it is necessary to build a small launch complex, and not just drop the lunar module, which itself will then launch “from the ground.”
Proponents of landing in response to the “low jumps” of astronauts on the Moon say that in spacesuits with life support systems you cannot jump high, even on the Moon. Right. But it follows from this that launching from the Moon is also not as easy as it might seem to some.
It turns out that it was difficult for them to jump on the Moon, but it was easy to take off.
Once - and straight from the ground into orbit, and on the first try.
Logically, before landing two astronauts on the Moon, it was necessary to lower an automatic module - exactly the same one in which the astronauts would later fly, only without the astronauts. And for it to take off and go into orbit.
It is quite strange to make the first attempt to descend to the Moon and return with two astronauts at once.
See how astronautics developed:
First they launched the satellite. And not alone. Then the dogs were released. Then Gagarin flew. Then there were several more launches. And only then a spacewalk was made and group flights began.
And in the American lunar program, the last test mission was Apollo 10, which included only a flyby of the Moon, but there was no landing of the lunar module and, accordingly, no launch from the Moon. And after this, the immediate landing of astronauts on the Moon, two of them (that is, a group landing) and a successful launch from the Moon, on the first attempt.
The stages of landing the lunar module and launching from the Moon without astronauts or with one astronaut were not completed - two were immediately landed.
Let's summarize the above:
1. The color of the surface of the Moon in American photographs differs from those from the Chinese probe.
2. The F-1 engine, on which the lunar program was carried out, was not developed and used by the Americans in the future.
3. The Americans did not have a powerful and reliable launch vehicle for 40 years after the lunar mission.
4. The landing on the Moon was carried out, having passed the intermediate stage with the descent and launch of the apparatus without a crew.
5. Two astronauts landed on the Moon at once, and not one, which would have been easier, if only for reasons of saving mass, and therefore fuel for braking during landing and launching from the Moon.
6. There was no launch pad on the Moon. Whether it is needed or not is a complex question, but for some reason it seems to me that for the launch of a multi-ton module with two astronauts, some kind of launch pad, albeit a simple one, is still needed.
From this we can draw the following conclusion:
There really was a launch to the Moon. And the Americans flew to the moon, more than once. But an unmanned vehicle descended to the surface, without astronauts. And he most likely did not start from the surface of the Moon at all.
Thus, the Americans did not skip the stage of landing the automatic module on the moon - they carried out this stage and stopped there, passing off the descent of the automatic vehicle as the landing of astronauts.
And the astronauts remained in orbit of the Moon, from where they conducted their reporting.
That is, there was a mission to fly to the Moon, but there was also an element of falsification. It was both.
In this case, it turns out that supporters of the version that the Americans were on the Moon and skeptics who dispute the American lunar program are also partially right.
The version that the Americans flew to the Moon, but did not land on it, immediately explains all the known facts and answers all the arguments presented on both sides:
1. Since there were flights to the Moon, keeping the landing falsification a secret was not difficult, because thousands of NASA employees witnessed the launch, but none of them were on the Moon. Only they themselves and a few other people from the management knew that the astronauts remained in orbit.
2. It is extremely difficult to expose this falsification, so the United States risked virtually nothing. The risk that the astronauts would not be able to launch from the Moon was an order of magnitude greater than the risk of exposure. And the United States could not admit that they reached the Moon, but the descent did not take place; this would have angered taxpayers, whose billions went to a banal flyby of the Moon.
3. Several Apollo missions were needed to leave more equipment at different landing sites. Roughly speaking, to inherit. And at the same time to master the entire budget of the program. It was impossible to leave the budget underutilized and return the money to the treasury.
4. The Soviet Union recognized the landing because it turned out to be easier to admit than to challenge. To challenge the landing, you had to fly yourself, and this is very expensive and risky. To challenge the landing, you had to successfully land and take off yourself. Probably the Soviet leadership realized that the mission of landing a man on the Moon and successfully launching him back was beyond technical capabilities and decided to give up. The media effect of the American message about the landing on the Moon was so strong that it became useless to argue without landing yourself, and there was no possibility of landing in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the USSR decided to recognize the landing and beat the United States in another area by building a manned orbital station, which is what it did.
5. The Americans stopped using the F-1 engine due to the fact that its performance was not as high as stated. Apparently because of this, they refused to send astronauts to the Moon - they simply could not deliver enough mass to the Moon to provide the descent vehicle with fuel for a soft landing and return launch. And the descent module itself was probably also delivered to the Moon in a lightweight and simplified version, just to lower the equipment to the surface.
Most likely, the management of the lunar program realized during the test missions that the mass restrictions imposed by the engines and launch vehicle did not allow delivering to the Moon a device capable of reliably lowering astronauts to the surface and launching them back.
But the American space bosses could not admit that the mission had hit a limit and the lunar stomping would not take place - they risked paying with positions, and the United States would find itself sitting in a puddle, because it spent a lot of money and did not achieve the final goal. And this also meant a complete loss to the Soviet Union in the space race.
It was impossible to admit that we had reached the flight but couldn’t land.
The reputation of the United States and the positions of big bosses, right up to the president, were at stake, because the senators would place all the blame for the fiasco on him. After all, the senators who voted for the lunar program had to somehow explain to taxpayers who was to blame - not to take the blame on themselves.
The risk of losing astronauts who would land on the Moon but not be able to take off was even worse. Losing astronauts on the Moon would not only be a failure of the program, but also a national tragedy.
Therefore, the management of the lunar program came up with their own “cunning plan” - we fly to the Moon, drop equipment on the surface, talk on the air about “a huge step for all of humanity” and no one will prove anything.
Since the leadership of the lunar program understood the complexity of the task of landing on the Moon, they most likely understood that the Soviet Union would not land in the coming years either. And in twenty years, either the donkey will die or the emir will die. Either war or one of two things.
And the most interesting thing is that this is what happened - 45 years have passed since the lunar program, and no one has visited the Moon.
The calculation turned out to be correct.
For 45 years, no one has been able to convincingly challenge the landing of astronauts on the Moon. Because no one else has been there. And NASA understood this. Because better than anyone else they knew the complexity of the task of landing on the surface and launching back.
It’s just that NASA soberly assessed the risks and realized that the most reliable thing was to throw “hardware” on the Moon and broadcast “a big step for all mankind.” And the whole world will be so impressed that no one will believe in the little trick at the final stage of the mission.
Or maybe NASA hoped that they wouldn’t have to deceive for long, that they would receive a new budget, modify the engines and land for real. But in reality it simply became unnecessary, because spending gigantic amounts of money to take the “second step” was no longer considered necessary either in the USA or in the USSR.
However, if you don’t like this version, you can try to explain in your own way all the oddities listed above - the color of the surface of the Moon, the unused F-1 engine, as well as the lack of powerful and reliable launch vehicles by the Americans 45 years after the triumphant delivery of a multi-ton complex to Moon and back.
But no matter what arguments are given for or against the landing, it is not yet possible to definitively prove or disprove one or another version.
To find out the truth and put an end to the controversy about the landing of American astronauts on the surface of the Moon in 1969, someone else needs to be there too.
And when someone else visits the Moon and comes back, we will be able to check whether steps on the Moon look like this, as the Americans showed us, whether the descent and landing look like this, whether the lunar surface looks like this, and whether it was even possible to land on the Moon and launch back with the technology that existed in 1969.
Hi all. Few people do not know the fact: Americans are the only earthlings to have walked on the Moon. This happened almost 50 years ago, on July 16, 1969, when the sensational news of a man walking on the surface of the Moon spread around the Earth. There was no limit to the general joy and rejoicing of the people! Over time, the world was filled with photographs, video footage, and objects of lunar origin delivered by the Americans to Earth.
And years later, they began to keep silent about the event and it turned out that this fact was not as clear and transparent as it seemed in those distant times of cosmic romanticism; some facts became known that slightly did not fit into the picture of ideas and raised deep doubts about the lunar achievements of the Americans. What are the doubts? Was there any lunar expansion at all? This is what we will talk about.
Americans on the Moon
So, the Apollo 11 space complex, which consisted of the lunar module and the Saturn 5 launch vehicle, delivered three astronauts to the surface of the moon: Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin (Edwin Eugene) (they were the first and for the first time to descend to the surface of the Moon) and Michael Collins (he remained in orbit).
How many times have Americans been to the moon? According to irrefutable data from the US State Department, in the period from 1968 to 1972, Americans carried out 9 flights to the Moon under the Apollo program, some of which took place without landing astronauts. A total of 12 Americans have walked on the surface of the Moon, some of them having repeated walks.
Photo clickable
The scientific research program cost the country more than $25 billion - a colossal amount of money even for the richest country.
- During the program, the US national flag was planted, soil samples were taken, video and photo shooting was performed, and a capsule from the citizens of the Earth was laid on the surface of the earth's satellite. Subsequently, the module launched, docked with the Apollo 11 spacecraft and returned safely to Earth.
- Of the Soviet space minds, no one doubted the fact of the flight to the Moon, except for General Designer Mishin, who replaced Korolev. Here's how the designer behaved:
“During the live report, he smoked all the time and repeated: “This is impossible, Apollo will not be able to break away from the earth’s orbit and head towards the Moon...” Read more here: https://sneg5.com/nauka/kosmos/na-lunu-amerikancy .html
- An authoritative opinion in defense of the American lunar adventures of our respected cosmonauts Grechko and Leonov, designer and cosmonaut Konstantin Feoktistov, who claim that Soviet tracking stations received signals from American astronauts from the Moon. In their opinion, this is impossible to fabricate. So did they accept it or not?
- Lunar soil - regolith weighing 22 kg from the first flight was delivered to Earth and distributed to many world scientific centers. The USSR also received its share of 25 grams and scientists analyzed it, the results absolutely confirmed the unearthly origin of the breed.
- The mass of photographs of the Moon provided by NASA, as well as the flight itself at that time, did not raise any doubts at the moment of human euphoria. Everything was perceived beyond suspicion. An accurate description of the hours and minutes of the entire lunar expedition looks very reliable. Could ALL of this really be falsified? Could a great advanced country really commit a forgery of this magnitude? Well... I don’t know, it doesn’t fit in my mind...
Americans haven't been to the moon
Today, with the improvement of technology, questions began to arise regarding lunar images and video materials from that expedition, due to the appearance of some inconsistencies.
- More recently, the Japanese proved the “terrestrial” origin of the regolith provided by the United States, which the tricky Americans simply irradiated with radioactivity in special installations in their laboratories, passing off the earth’s soil as regolith!
- Presumably, there is evidence that part of the “lunar filming” was carried out in Hollywood pavilions. Is it just a part? Or maybe the majority? The very first fact that comes to mind is the colorful fluttering flag of the United States, which in itself is incredible, because there is no atmosphere on the Moon.
- Analysis of close-up photographs and those taken with perspective showed a different nature of origin. This suggests that some of the photographs were taken from the module, above the surface of the Moon, and some in the terrestrial conditions of the pavilions, where the atmosphere of the Moon was recreated.
- NASA representatives themselves admitted to the fact of upthrowing photographs taken under terrestrial conditions, explaining this by the poor quality of lunar negatives. Well, it hasn’t happened to anyone: they shot it a little and retouched it a little 🙂 But the main thing is that no one knew that in just about 30 years the almighty “Photoshop” would appear. When we added maximum brightness, contrast and magnification to the pictures, stripes of random light, previously unnoticed shadows from spotlights, traces of retouching appeared on them in all their glory... The program immediately highlighted all the sins of photomontage!
- And not so long ago, a new revelation appeared in the press: Scottish researcher Marcus Allen, analyzing supposedly real lunar photographs of two astronauts on the Moon, called them fake. He looked at the photo in the reflected glasses of the spacesuit, instead of one, two images. It turns out there were three of them there at the time of filming? But everyone knows from the reports that more than 2 people have never descended to the surface of the Moon. The earthly origin of the photo again?! So where are the real ones?
How do Americans respond to all this? Yes, nothing... as always, they turned around... they said that some of the photographs taken on the ground were added. Why and for whom were these cartoons made?
I think that if fraud was discovered in even one fragment, there is every reason to question all the flights.
- Here we can add the concealment of all original videos and photographic materials of that expedition and the classification of all “lunar reports” as “top secrecy”. And in 2009, a NASA representative finally stated that all the original films and video recordings of the first landing on the Moon were lost (only their copies were preserved). Well, are representatives of the most unique nation in the world really so careless? It’s somehow hard to believe in an accident...
- The astronauts’ well-being after landing and spending eight days in weightlessness (for the first time) is highly suspicious. Brave, fresh and smiling, they appeared in front of journalists’ cameras immediately after the flight. Then no one simply could know how a person might feel after a space flight of such a length. But already in October 1969, our Gorbatko, upon returning from a flight lasting only about 5 days, could not take a single step on his own, he was carried on a stretcher. The Russians couldn't walk on their own feet, but the Americans were super-hardy, please! No one could even suspect an entire state of planetary deception!
- And the most important trump card, which does not speak in favor of the States, is the level of equipment of the spacecraft itself at that time. The Americans claimed that they had built a new generation F-1 engine, the so-called liquid engine (kerosene-oxygen), Saturn had five of them. However, most likely there was no special type of engine, just as there is none now; even the design capabilities of modern engines do not allow landing on the moon, and even more so it was very problematic to do this half a century ago.
- If yes, there was such an engine, then where is it now? Why, after 50 years, do Americans still not use this model on their space rockets, but have been buying ours since the 90s - Soviet-era inventions? Just because they are cheaper? And where did the cool Apollos, which so famously delivered the Americans to the Moon, go? Why were they replaced by even more “advanced” Shuttles, which did not escape explosions over and over again?
And why is the lunar exploration program suspended today? Is it just the financial side of the issue? Have the states really fallen so sharply in their financial situation in 50 years?
- And also, if the flight to the Moon took place, then for what reason were 700 employees of the American Space Research Center fired in 1968, and a year after the first flight to the Moon, the head of this center himself was fired? Surely success should always be highly rewarded?
- And it’s doubtful that such a dashing, immediate rush to the moon, well, I can’t believe it... that such progress could be achieved in 8 years. And where is he now? After all, then no one could have imagined that humanity would advance so slowly in space exploration. Most likely, the Yankees were sure that flights to the Moon would become commonplace, and then they would present the world with a whole pile of evidence... It was important for them to be the first to stake a peg on the Moon, to demonstrate their, albeit false, success!
You can still give and give evidence of exposure and doubt... It is quite possible that Apollo 11, which flew to the Moon, separated the lunar module, which took a number of photographs from space. That's all that the Americans succeeded in exploring the Moon. And everything else became a matter of technique and skill. Well, I really wanted to keep up with my enemy in space exploration - the USSR. Although, of course, deceiving the whole world is also no small art.
More and more new possibilities of developed modern technologies increasingly point to an American-style lunar fantasy. For expeditions of this kind, the main evidence of their authenticity is scientific research based on photo and film documents. There are no scientific reports, no deep analysis of materials from the US “Lunar Operation”, which means there was no presence on the Moon!
Conclusion
The Americans have not been to the moon! The question is practically on the surface, but the debate still does not subside, due to the fact that each side is now trying to defend only its own opinion. What about the Americans themselves? They believe that they do not need to stoop to such disputes. They were on the moon!
And it’s strange, the fact of our Yuri Gagarin’s first flight into space has never caused controversy or doubt among anyone. Why, years later, with the development of technology and technology, more and more questions arise about flights to the Moon... And why then did the USSR not dare to express its doubts, why has this not been done so far? Maybe in some miraculous way, with God's providence, the Americans were on the Moon?
Massive hype around the American lunar program appeared relatively recently. The first person to raise this sensitive issue was Ralph Rene, who noticed, in his opinion, inaccuracies and “blunders” in photographs taken on the Moon.
I don’t want to question the level of education of some researchers and skeptics, but often the questions that they ask and try to classify as irrefutable evidence of the falsification of the flight to the Moon are simply ridiculous and, according to a number of astrophysicists, are not even worthy of comment due to their stupidity.
Next, we will present the most common arguments of skeptics and try to popularly explain why certain photographs, films and phenomena seem strange or unnatural in outer space.
Further, for convenience of description, we will call those who do not believe in the American flight to the Moon skeptics, and those who claim the opposite - experts. Since all materials for this article are taken from the official chronicle, the authenticity of which is beyond doubt, and the arguments of famous scientists and astronauts, whose professionalism is not questioned, are presented as evidence.
1 Argument: Neil Armstrong's trail
Skeptics' opinion
The photograph shows a clear, sharp trace left by the boot of the spacesuit, although it is known that there is no water in any form on the Moon. Consequently, it is not possible to leave a trace of such a clear and regular shape. This is what those who do not believe whether the Americans flew to the Moon say.
Expert opinion
The behavior of lunar soil is no different from the behavior of wet sand on Earth, but this is due to completely different physical reasons. Earth's sand consists of grains of sand, polished to a round shape by the winds, so such a clear trace cannot remain on dry sand.
There is an electron wind on the Moon, the protons of which turn particles of lunar dust into stars, which do not slide over each other like grains of sand, but, interlocking with each other, form an impression - in this case, a clear trace, the structure of which is strengthened by the molecular penetration of particles into each other due to the vacuum . Such a trace could remain on the Moon for millions of years.
To prove the above, a photograph taken from the Soviet lunar rover is provided, which clearly shows that the footprints have the same clear shapes as the imprint of an American astronaut's boot.
2 Argument: Shadows
Skeptics' opinion
There is only one source of light on the Moon - the Sun. Therefore, the shadows of the astronauts and their equipment should fall in the same direction. In the above photograph, two astronauts are standing next to each other, 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 spotlight. That is why one shadow is 1.5 measures larger than the other, since, as everyone knows, the further a person stands from a street lamp, the longer the shadow. And who took the picture anyway, since both astronauts are in the frame. This is what those who do not believe whether the Americans flew to the Moon say.
Expert opinion
As for the photo. It is not a photograph. This is a fragment of video recording from a camera installed in the lunar module and operating autonomously without astronauts on board.
As for the shadow, the point is the uneven surface creating the effect of a certain elongation. The clarity of the shadows is given by the absence of an atmosphere that should diffuse the light.
Skeptics' opinion
In the above photographs, something incomprehensible is happening with the shadows. In the photo on the left, the sun is shining in the photographer’s back, and the shadow from the module falls to the left. In the right photo, the shadow from the stones falls to the right as if the illumination is coming from the left, and closer to the left edge of the photo this strange effect loses its strength. This unusual behavior of shadows cannot be attributed to surface unevenness.
Expert opinion
Correctly noted. Irregularities alone cannot create such an effect, but coupled with perspective it is possible. The photo on the right is specially superimposed with an image of rails which, by analogy with the stones on the Moon, also “suffer from left deviation”, although we know for sure that the rails run parallel to each other, otherwise how would trains run on them. The same optical illusion of connecting rails closer to the horizon is known; a similar illusion is also present in lunar photographs.
3 Argument: Glare
Skeptics' opinion
In the above photograph you can clearly see that the sun is behind the astronaut, which means that the part facing the camera should be in the shadow, 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, receives 100% of the light and scatters it much stronger than on Earth, so much stronger that on a moonlit night we on Earth can read a book without additional lighting. This photograph shows that a significant part of the reflected light hit the astronaut’s spacesuit and was even reflected again on the surface, creating the effect of a shadow being illuminated.
Skeptics' opinion
In many photographs you can see incomprehensible white spots, similar to the light of spotlights. This is what those who do not believe whether the Americans flew to the Moon say.
Expert opinion
The fact is that direct sunlight hits the lens, creating glare. In the above photo you can clearly see that the Sun is above the frame, and, therefore, the reflection of the glare will be in a straight line from the center of the frame. Which is exactly what we are observing.
4 Argument: Background
Skeptics' opinion
Different photos have the same background. In the two photos above, the background is the same. What is this? Scenery?
Expert opinion
This feeling occurs due to the lack of atmosphere on the Moon. Objects, and in this case high-altitude mountains, seem to be located closely, although they are at least 10 kilometers away. If you look closely, the mountains on the right photo are different from those on the left. Since the right photo was taken 2 kilometers from the lunar module.
Skeptics' opinion
In many photographs there is a clear boundary between the foreground and the background of the mountains. What is this if not decoration?
Expert opinion
This effect arises from the fact that the size of the Moon is four times smaller than that of Earth. Because of this, the horizon (surface curvature) is only a couple of kilometers from the observer, so it seems that the high mountains are as if separated by an even line from the lunar surface.
5 Argument: Lack of stars
Skeptics' opinion
The absence of stars in the sky proves that the photographs are fake. This is what those who do not believe whether the Americans flew to the Moon say.
Expert opinion
Each camera has a sensitivity threshold. There are no cameras that could simultaneously capture the bright surface of the Moon and the dim stars in comparison. If you photograph the surface of the Moon, then no stars will be visible, but if you photograph 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, there are very strong temperature changes on the surface of the Moon in the range of 200 degrees. How did the film not melt during shooting?
Expert opinion
- The landing site for the lunar module was chosen so that a short time would pass after sunrise and the surface would not become hot.
- The Americans made the film on a special heat-resistant base that softens only at a temperature of 90 degrees and melts at 260.
- In a vacuum, heat can be transferred only in one way, radiation. Therefore, the chambers were covered with a reflective layer that removes the main 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 can be seen that it wrinkles and sways in the wind, although it is known that there is no atmosphere on the Moon.
Expert opinion
Actually, there were two flags planted on the moon. The first is the national flag of the USA, and the second is the NATO flag, emphasizing the international nature of the expedition. The US flag was made of nylon and mounted on telescopic consoles.
During installation, the horizontal crossbar did not extend all the way, as a result of which the flag was not fully stretched, so the astronaut even had to pull it to straighten it. As a result of the lack of full tension at temperature, the nylon began to warp until it warmed up to a certain temperature, and due to the pulling of the flag, its oscillations did not die out like terrestrial ones in calm weather, since in a vacuum the pendulum swings much longer in the absence of air friction. 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 during the launch, the engine flames were not visible. This is what those who do not believe whether the Americans flew to the Moon say.
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 on the surface, the module engine operates in low thrust mode. That is, the gas pressure on the surface is not significant. At landing it is generally less than 0.1 atmosphere. During takeoff, a little more, but given the hardness of the Moon’s soil, this pressure is only enough to blow away the dust.
Since the calculated pressure from the starting stage nozzle to the surface is 0.6 newtons per square meter. cm. The soil completely compensated for the takeoff of the lunar module, leaving only a light spot of crushed soil. As for the engine flames, we repeat, the thrust during takeoff is very small and amounts to no more than a ton.
The fuel used in Apollo, aerosin-50 and nitrogen tetroxide, is practically transparent when burning, so with the highly refreshed surface of the Moon, its glow would hardly be enough to significantly illuminate the shadow of the module or to capture it with a camera.
10 Argument: Lunomobile
Skeptics' opinion
When astronauts move on the surface, the sound of the lunarmobile engine is clearly audible, but, as is known, sound cannot be transmitted in airless space. Another interesting fact is that the soil from under the wheels in a vacuum should 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 hard substances. In this case, vibration from the engine is transmitted along the frame of the lunar vehicle 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 vehicle, 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 tending to zero at the moment of contact of the wheels with the lunar soil. The same dust particles that are accelerated by the parts of the wheels that are not in contact with the surface are extinguished by the wings installed on the lunar vehicle.
Moreover, under earthly conditions, dust from the same trip would swirl behind the car for a long time. In airless space, it falls as quickly as it takes off. This is clearly visible in the moments when the wheels of the lunar vehicle “slip”.
11 Argument: 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 radiation reaches 1000 roentgens? After all, to protect against such radiation, meter-high lead walls of the shuttle are required. And how did ordinary rubberized American spacesuits protect astronauts from radiation and solar flares on the Moon? This is what those who do not believe whether the Americans flew to the Moon say.
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. They were later called the Van Allen Belt. Such a large radiation background was not detected on the Moon due to the absence of an atmosphere and the small size of the Moon.
Before launching Apollo, automatic reconnaissance aircraft with radiation sensors were sent multiple times along the intended flight paths in order to determine the optimal course. It turned out that the maximum background radiation is only above the Earth's equator; closer to the poles it is many times lower. Therefore, the Apollo trajectories were chosen as close as possible to the poles. Since the astronauts passed them in just a few hours, this level of radiation could not cause damage to human health and was equal to approximately 1 rad.
Regarding American spacesuits, to say that they had no protection means making a grave mistake. American spacesuits of that time consisted of 25 layers of various materials to protect the astronaut. Such a suit 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 within reasonable limits.
As for solar flares with a huge release of radiation, this was a truly dangerous phenomenon, but predictable. NASA conducted careful observations of the Sun and forecast solar flares and storms.
Moreover, during a flare, the Sun does not emit radiation in all directions, but in a narrow beam, the direction of which can also be predicted. Of course, there was some risk for the astronauts in this regard. Perhaps the forecast is 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, only 3 flares occurred on August 2, 4 and 7, 1972, and only those that were predicted. As we know from history, no one flew to the moon at that time.
12 Argument: Interview with Stanley Kubrick's widow
Skeptics' opinion
In 2003, the widow of director Stanley Kubrick said that her husband filmed the lunar footage on behalf 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 appear and help the astronaut. This is irrefutable evidence of falsification.
Expert opinion
Indeed, in 2003, the film “Dark Side of the Moon” was released, which contained 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 everyone, the widow of Stanley Kubrick spoke and said that the film was directed personally by her husband at the request of President Nixon.
In fact, this film was made 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 the astronauts' training on Earth, and other soundtracks were superimposed on many frames, and some of the interviews were compiled using phrases taken from the content of previously recorded interviews.
The creators of this film do not hide its falsity at all. It was filmed only to shake up the public and show that you shouldn’t believe everything you see. It was released in Canada and France. Many yellow media from different countries, without really understanding what was what, presented all this in the form of a loud sensation revealing the falsification of flights to the Moon.
To be fair, it should be said that in the event of the failure of the mission, a story was indeed created, but not in the Hollywood pavilions with the successful completion of the expedition, but on ordinary television with Nixon’s funeral speech about the dead astronauts.
The famous video of the astronaut being hit by the spotlight first appeared on the website www.moontruth.com in late 2002. The site's authors claimed to have received this recording from an anonymous person who feared for his life. These shots completely reveal the truth about the most expensive show of the 20th century. Many believed this video and still do. Although after a few months the site owners stated that this was nothing more than an advertising video for their film company.
An additional page with the interesting title “Here you can read why everything said above is bullshit”, which appeared on the same site, detailed how this small English film company filmed this video as a promotion for their company.
13 Argument: Lack of evidence received from Earth
Skeptics' opinion
Why don't the Americans, as evidence that they were on the Moon, photograph the remaining equipment on the Moon using a telescope directly from Earth? This is what those who do not believe whether the Americans flew to the Moon say.
Expert opinion
Today there is simply no telescope powerful enough to photograph the American lunar modules. By astronomical standards they are very small. The distance to the Moon is 350 thousand kilometers. The Earth's atmosphere is a serious obstacle to high-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 will be able to photograph relatively clearly will be much larger than the size of the lunar modules. That is, we won’t see them anyway.
There is a second reason why NASA will not engage in such nonsense. There are many instruments left on the Moon, the operation of which is recorded, and data is received from the Moon to Earth, which in itself is irrefutable evidence that the Americans were on the Moon and installed there Laser reflectors, a seismometer, an ion detector and an ionization pressure gauge.
As we can see from all of the above, only an amateur can ask the question: “Did the Americans fly 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 small.
Here we consider only those questions that have at least some intelligible justification, but we decided not to even consider the other part of the absurd arguments posed by people who are clearly far from understanding physics, optics and astrophysics 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 exposure, we will fully answer this question in the article “
On July 21, 1969, American astronaut Neil Amstrong set foot on the moon. However, to this day you can hear the opinion that the American landing on the moon is a great hoax.
"Moon conspiracy" theory
In 1974, the book “We Never Flew to the Moon” by American Bill Keysing was published. It marked the beginning of the spread of the “moon conspiracy” theory. Keysing had reason to bring up the topic because he worked for Rocketdyne, a company that built rocket engines for the Apollo program.
As arguments supporting the staged flights to the Moon, the author draws attention to the incidents of “lunar photographs” - uneven shadows, absence of stars, small size of the Earth. Keysing also cites NASA's lack of technological capabilities at the time the lunar program was implemented.
The number of supporters of the “moon conspiracy” grew rapidly, as did the number of revelations about 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 photographs provided by NASA. He argued that in the absence of an atmosphere, the shadows on the Moon should be completely black, and the multidirectionality of these shadows gave him reason to assume the presence of several sources of illumination.
Skeptics also noted other strange details - the waving of the American flag in 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 astronauts from being exposed to radiation, spacesuits had to be covered with at least an 80-centimeter layer of lead!
In 2003, Christiane, the widow of American director Stanley Kubrick, added fuel to the fire by saying that scenes of the American landing on the moon were filmed by her husband on Hollywood stages.
About the “moon conspiracy” in Russia
Oddly enough, 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 American landing on the Moon. Many domestic cosmonauts also spoke out about the success of the American lunar program. Among them are Alexey 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 epic about footage allegedly fabricated in Hollywood began precisely with the Americans themselves.”
True, the Soviet cosmonaut did not deny the fact that some scenes of the Americans being on the Moon were filmed on Earth in order to give the video report a certain sequence: “It was impossible, for example, to film Neil Armstrong’s real opening of the landing ship hatch on the Moon - there was simply no one from the surface to do that.” was to be removed!
The confidence of domestic experts in the success of the lunar mission is primarily due to the fact that the process of Apollo flights to the Moon was recorded by Soviet equipment. These include signals from the ships, negotiations with the crew, and a television picture of astronauts entering the lunar surface.
If the signals were coming from Earth, it would be immediately exposed.
Pilot-cosmonaut and designer Konstantin Feoktistov in his book “The Trajectory of Life. Between yesterday and tomorrow,” he writes, 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 during the days of the expedition simulation, it was necessary to send a radio repeater to the Moon to simulate Apollo radio communication with the Earth on the flight path to the Moon.” Organizing such a hoax, according to Feoktistov, is no less difficult than a real expedition.
Russian President Vladimir Putin also spoke out about the “lunar conspiracy,” calling in an interview “complete nonsense” the version that the United States faked the moon landing.
Nevertheless, in modern Russia, revealing articles, books, and films continue to be published regarding the technical impossibility of carrying out such a flight; they also scrutinize and criticize photos and videos of the “lunar expedition.”
Counterarguments
NASA admits that they are inundated with so many letters with one or another argument proving the falsification of flights that they are not able to fend off all the attacks. However, some of the objections can be discarded if you know the elementary laws of physics.
It is known that the location of the shadow depends on the shape of the object casting it and on the surface topography - this explains the unevenness of the shadows in lunar photographs. Shadows converging at a distant point are nothing more than a manifestation of the law of perspective. The idea of multiple light sources (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 fluttering in the wind is explained by the fact that the flag was installed on a flexible aluminum base that was in motion, while the top crossbar was not fully extended, which created the effect of the fabric being wrinkled. 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 the case in the Earth's atmosphere.
Astronomer Patrick Moore knew that the stars would not be visible on the Moon during the daytime even before the flight. He explains that the human eye, like a camera lens, simply cannot adapt to both the illuminated surface of the Moon and the dim sky.
It is more difficult to explain why the landing module 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 on the moon along a sliding trajectory.
Probably the most compelling argument of the supporters of the “conspiracy theory” is that the ship’s crew simply would not have been able to overcome the “Van Allen Belt” of radiation surrounding the Earth and would have burned alive. However, Van Allen himself was not inclined to exaggerate his theory, explaining that passing the belt at high speed would not pose any threat to astronauts.
However, it remains a mystery how the astronauts escaped the powerful radiation on the lunar surface in fairly light spacesuits.
Gazing at 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 at 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 automatic interplanetary station LRO took a series of photographs at the landing sites of the lunar modules, presumably recording the remains of the equipment of the American crews. Later, higher resolution photographs were taken in which one can see traces from the all-terrain vehicle and even, according to NASA, a chain of traces of the astronauts themselves.
However, photographs taken by uninterested parties inspire more confidence. Thus, the Japanese space agency JAXA reported that the Kaguya spacecraft discovered possible traces of Apollo 15. And Prakash Chauhan, an employee of the Indian Space Research Organization, said that the Chandrayaan-1 apparatus received an image of a fragment of the landing module.
However, only a new manned flight to the Moon can finally dot the i's.