Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Of Moon Landings And Conspiracy Theories

Lunar Landing Closeup
My grandmother (1931-2007) did not believe people landed on the moon. The whole thing just seemed too fantastic to her. She believed it was all a propaganda hoax designed to intimidate the Soviets, and dazzle the world, during the Cold War. I don't know if she ever accepted the moon landings as fact before her death, but I understand this point of view was fairly common among people of her generation.

I, on the other hand, always accepted the moon landings. There has never been any reason for me to doubt them. The science behind it is fairly simple. Truth be told, once rocket technology was developed, going to other worlds was really not that hard of a thing to do. Anybody with a big enough rocket and a degree in physics can hit a celestial body. The trick of course is doing it softly, and the bigger trick is putting people on these rockets and bringing them home safely.

This last weekend I encountered my grandmother's conspiracy theory once again. This time it came from some of my co-workers, from some folks younger than myself. I was a bit taken back by it. I thought it was just a generational thing. I didn't realise that younger people would subscribe to this conspiracy theory as well, and shockingly, it seems to be in fairly large numbers.

What was their rationale? Well, in their words, they simply said that there was no way we could have the technology in 1969 to send men to the moon. Maybe today, the argued, but not back then. Of course, I mentioned all of the pictures, videos, etc. To which I was rebuffed with the same arguments I heard from my grandmother. It was all a hoax, a massive conspiracy, a product of the Cold War.

Lunar Landing Site
A Telescopic View from Earth
Well, I'm still a believer. Modern telescopes can now see the lunar landing sites, and make out some of the features of the landing modules, rovers, and even the American flags still standing. Yes, we did go to the moon, and no it was not just propaganda.

This caused me to wonder why such conspiracy theories persist today. I can understand my grandmother's generation. It all just seemed too fantastic to many of them. But what about my generation? How can such conspiracy theories persists among people who don't have the same excuse? After pondering this for some time, I've come to the decision that it really is the government's fault. Why? We live under a government that persistently lies to us all of the time. It's a constant thing from politicians to bureaucrats. People just don't know what to believe any more. So in some cases, they just choose not to believe anything. They adopt the view that if it sounds too fantastic, it's probably not true. Honestly, who can blame them? I think it's sad really, that we have finally reached this point in history. The greatest scientific achievement of the human race is now dismissed by a growing number of Americans as a fabrication. Will the moon landings one day be forgotten to the American mind? Will future generations simply dismiss that whole epic of history as mere propaganda? I hope not, but I think it's a sad commentary on just how incredibly corrupt our government has become, and what that kind of corruption does to the attitudes of our people.


Click Image to Learn More
Highly recommended by priests and catechists, "Catholicism for Protestants" is a Biblical explanation of Roman Catholic Christianity as told by Shane Schaetzel -- an Evangelical convert to the Catholic Church through Anglicanism.  The book is concise and formatted in an easy-to-read Question & Answer catechism style.  It addresses many of the common questions Protestants have about Catholicism. It is ideal for Protestants seeking more knowledge about the Catholic Church, and for Catholics seeking a quick refresher course on fundamental Catholic teaching. It's an excellent book for Catholics and Protestants alike!


Steve "scotju" Dalton said...

I don't believe in the moon landings for one good reason. The radiation in outer space. There is no protection from radiation out there. You need a lot of lead to protect you from radiation if you don't have atmosphere or something like the Van Allen belt. All our supposed astronauts had for protection was tin can space capsules and tin-foil spacesuits. So I'm with your granny until somebody can explain the radiation thing.

MarijaD said...

In July of 1969 when the first moon landing news occurred, I had just graduated from college that May and was traveling around Europe with college friends so I was not very interested in moon landings.

I do remember all the excitement in the 1950's and 1960's regarding the competition between Russia and the United States to be the first to put a man on the moon. When Russia sent up her Sputnik satellite with a dog in it to test how it would be for humans in space, media called it "Mutnik." (got a puppy at that time and named him Mutnik).

A few years later some people started doubting the moon landing event, like my father who was well read and very interested in space science. He did not doubt the science of sending a man to the moon, but the government using the event for some other agenda.

Bill Kaysing, a technical writer for Rocketdyne, which built rocket engines for NASA's Apollo program, published a 1974 book, "We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle." This book contributed to more "conspiracy theories."

Who knows if the 1969 moon landing and subsequent landings were real or faked? God does.

I really do not know, but I have to say it would not surprise or shock me to find out it was all fake. Sadly, our government does not have a good track record of telling the truth about many issues.

"But God is true and every man a liar." Romans 3:4

Adela passini said...

First off: the return of the Apollo flight crew never registered a radiation any more abnormal than any worker at nuclear plants. In fact, those at the Fukushima Daichi Japanese plant after the disastrous quake and tsunami received multiple times more. Apollo 11's crew received 1 REM or about 10 mSV (milisieverts, all can be also converted to RADs and Grays if you want). Not close enough to cause even the mildest radiation sickness.

This is meant to provide information addressing the fake moon landings and how any hoax-proof evidence can easily and gladly be explained. This is simple but if needed I can give you physics equations, the type and combination of material(s) astronauts all had , talk about any cosmic radiation in detail, particle physics and all. I'm here.

That has numerously been disproven even by Dr. Van Allen.
Firstly, solar flares or any cosmic rays were not present nor capable of any significant interference. I'l address the details soon.

Next, Know that the moon itself HAS, a lower yes, but still has a magnetic field a great aid.

To define and understand the belt correctly note that there are two different types of radiation. Ionizing and non ionizing. The most dangerous being the inner, high energy ionizing field which was quickly traversed. Protection was easily provided even back then. The use of aluminum, honeycombed middle structure PLUS inner metal layer meant any thermal impact or anything that may result in radiation sickness was deflected back/absorbed without an amount measurable enough was ever felt/absorbed by the astronats.

The next field was of NON ionizing. So much less dangerous (I mean, CAT scans, microwave oven all are non-ionizing. If ionizing radiatio was held back enough, the next was as well. And, again, had they received larger quantities anytime, they'd be nothing like gamma radiation aka that seen in Nagasaki etc. and more like repeated CAT scans/X-Rays etc.

Cosmic rays present the biggest problem Thing is a. they occur very spaced out AND are beyond, very far beyond, this system in origin..(the biggest current danger is likely to be Eta Carinae's hyper or Supernova within 1 mill.. yrs) All others are enough to cause harm yes and satellites have experienced it but it's not something experienced that time especially since it was not even intergalactic. It barely left the zone of our planet's/satellite heliocentric orbit.

The timed mission launch coincided with high solar winds which are enough to deflect almost any except superbly strong rays and thus the mission occurred at the higher point of wind amounts.

The moon itself has a magnetic field to already help with some radiation. Next, again the shielding of suits added to cooling units which are a big reason the suits were bulky as anything, were imoirtant. Radiation from the sun would increase at lunar noon but ALL these landings took place at lunar dawn. A lunar DAY aka a month really, is approximately
29 1/2 making the time they were on the moon in the daylight, the dawn, went on for 15 days before it would at all get that unbearably hot with more direct solar radiation. The solar radiation between moon and earth was what made the biggest impact and this was still held off a bit by the type of orbits the crafts took. Any other radiation remains as background, radio, microwave etc which are barely there in our universe (in a way we can feel it. It's too spread out now.

Adela passini said...

a concluding bit regarding moon landings...

Last I should mention, many different 3rd party, not NASA or US govt ones have now used modern telescopes wit huge magnification to locate markers on the moon veryfiying the fact they all occured (all Apollos, barring 13 which obviously aborted.)

If any more detail is required no problem. Need to address nything else like supposed problems with photos, starfields, lack of craters, as well as a very easy to demonstrate hollywood versus moon example (dust falling rather wuickly, verticlaly in the fim Apollo 13. The level f height moon dust reaches in all videos of such occassions shows n obvious lowered gravitationalpull as well as a hyperbolic pattern to how it fell again.

I was just giving info. Not trying to preach but if you had doubts I wanted to at least give as much evidence short of personally writing one by one in highly detailed fashion. The conspiracies presented all have empirical data from multiple sources meaning bias is not likely that towers against any hoax statements or supposed proof