Where were the false moon landings recorded

Apollo 11 : And yet they landed on the moon

Did Apollo 11 not land on the moon but in a California film studio? At least that's what conspiracy theorists have been stubbornly claiming for decades. You see a propaganda lie in the first manned mission to the satellite. The entire flight was a staging that was supposed to give the Soviet Union a technological edge.

Just in time for the 45th anniversary of the moon landing, it is worth looking back and checking the ten best-known counter arguments of the conspiracy theorists.

1. The slide films would have melted in the heat of the sun

When Neil Armstrong became the first person to set foot on the moon on July 21, 1969, there were no digital cameras. Instead, the astronauts had converted Hasselblad cameras with them using Kodak Ektachrome Diaflime. These celluloid films have a relatively low melting point of just under 64 degrees Celsius. How could pictures be made with it on the moon, the surface of which heats up to over 100 degrees Celsius? On earth, for example, the cozy warmth of a stove is transmitted via the molecules in the air. Since there is no atmosphere on the moon whose molecules could transfer thermal energy, only solar radiation remains. And as soon as this is gone, it gets really cold on the moon. Since the astronauts did not put the cameras on the hot floor, the question remains how much the cameras absorb the thermal radiation. The Hasselblad cameras had a largely silver-colored outer skin and reflected the sunlight so well that the cameras did not heat up more than an average of 30 degrees Celsius. In addition, they were cooled down again and again in the shade.

Link to the post

2. Far too many perfect moon images

The Hasselblad cameras worn by the astronauts at chest height did not have a viewfinder. They were only slightly adapted for use with gloves. How did the astronauts get so many perfect photos with it? Of course, not all pictures turned out perfect. There are also blurred images, but these images were only partially published by NASA - after all, aesthetically impressive images were to be presented. On the other hand, the astronauts had 6 months on earth to practice using the cameras. The focus was done in 4 lockable steps to set near, far, far and infinitely quickly and easily. In addition, a light wide-angle lens was also used, which also made it easier to focus and allowed larger image sections.

Link to the post

3. The "moon rocks" come from the earth

The Apollo missions brought almost 381 kilograms of lunar rock to earth. This has been studied by many different scientists and clearly identified as moon rock. Because a considerable part has a composition that cannot exist on earth. In addition, the soil samples were compared with material from unmanned Soviet lunar missions. So it is definitely moon rocks. But, skeptics argue, it could also have been brought to earth by probes or was found on earth as a lunar meteorite! The first lunar meteorite was discovered in 1979 and identified in 1981. About every 1200th meteorite comes from the moon. And to date, just under 30 kilograms of lunar rock have been detected on earth. So far too little. The three unmanned Luna probes of the Soviet Union brought a total of 326 grams of lunar rock to earth. In order to bring the almost 400 kg of lunar rock to the earth, NASA would have had to send dozens of probes to the moon, in secret.

Link to the post

4. The astronauts could jump much higher

In the picture, astronaut John Young leaps about 44 centimeters as he salutes next to the American flag. However, since the moon is significantly smaller than the earth, there is six times less gravitational pull there. As a result, the astronauts could have made jumps of up to 2 meters! The jump was also filmed with a film camera. There you can see that Young does this jump without running a run or crouching down, on sandy ground and in a full suit with a supply rucksack (about 85 kilograms). Such a jump on earth would not have been possible under the same conditions. Other motion sequences cannot be simulated on earth in this way either. In this way, the astronauts stand up again from a kneeling position without much effort. After falling on the lunar surface, John Young catapults himself back to his feet from a kind of push-up. It is unimaginable how this should have been possible on earth and with the trick technology of that time.

Link to the post

5. No crater under and no dust on the lander

In order to touch down on the moon, the lunar lander had to be slowed down at a rate of 6,000 kilometers per hour and the necessary descent engine had to generate a thrust of 45,000 Newtons. Why is there never a recoil crater in the pictures, as it would undoubtedly be created on Earth? And why is there no dust whirled up on the landing feet of the lunar module? Even the critics agree that the moon has no atmosphere. So what should offer resistance to the escaping gas? On earth, it is the air that makes flowing gases turbulent. Without air, however, the exhaust jet can be fanned out much wider. In fact, much of the gas is ejected from the side, so any small crater rim that might form is simply blown away. And even the dust particles blown away do not swirl, but land much further away than we are used to from Earth. In the case of Apollo 11, the problem is that Armstrong took over the manual control shortly before landing and flew over a scree field, which led to a more horizontal landing. The moon dust that was pushed back can be seen on some pictures on the landing feet.

Link to the post

6. There is deadly radiation in space

The activity of the solar eruptions increases approximately every eleven years, and the Apollo flights took place exactly during an eruption maximum. On earth, we are protected from high-energy particles by the Van Allen Belt. This forms two layers at a height of 700 to 6,000 kilometers and 15,000 to 25,000 kilometers, which are generated by the earth's magnetic field. Within these layers there is a particularly high concentration of high-energy particles, so that staying for too long would lead to serious health consequences. So how are the astronauts supposed to get through there? Even on earth we are not completely protected from intense radiation. On average, every German citizen receives a radiation dose of two milisieverts per year. Within the Van Allen Belt there is a maximum radiation value of one sievert per hour. At a dose of 10 Sievert or more, a person will definitely die. However, solar winds essentially consist of helium nuclei, protons and electrons. These have a very low penetration depth and can be safely shielded by thin layers of material. Therefore, a maximum of peak values ​​of up to 50 milisivert were to be measured behind the cladding of the command capsules. It took the astronauts of the Apollo missions about an hour to cross the Van Allen Belt. The crew of the Apollo 17 received the highest total dose with nine milisieverts, but this is still well below the maximum dose of 20 milisieverts per year valid for Germany, for example.

How is radiation measured, where does it occur?

Radiation dose

The effects of radiation on humans, animals and plants are often mentioned in Sievert per hour specified. The unit can be used to estimate how harmful radiation is for an organism. It takes into account the Duration, type and effect of radiation. 1 Sievert corresponds to 1,000 millisievert or 1,000,000 microsieverts. Basically, a single dose of 6,000 millisievert as fatal (100 percent mortality within 14 days).

It cannot be said with certainty whether a person who has been exposed to a low dose of radiation can expect damage to his health. The Limit values usually relate for a year. Some experts believe that the same dose of radiation is less harmful over a longer period of time. Others say the radiation has to be added.

Natural sources

The average dose of radiation that a German by natural sources records within a year is between two and five millisieverts. This external radiation, that of the human being depending on the location and time is exposed to different heights Local gamma dose rate called. This map of Germany from the Federal Office for Radiation Protection shows the radiation intensity depending on the region.

In medical examinations, much higher individual doses are sometimes achieved, but these are limited to a short period of time. So a person takes during one Computed tomography (CT) of his head to about two millisieverts at the Mammography 0.4 millisievert.

Other units

The Absorbed dose a radiation source is in Gray specified. A gray means that a body with a mass of one kilogram has absorbed an amount of energy of one joule. For the beta, gamma and X-rays released in nuclear power plants, the unit Gray is identical to the equivalent unit Sievert, a Gray is therefore like a Sievert.By the mid-1980s, the dose equivalent was held in Sievert in Rem specified. That meant the radiation dose in Roentgentaken in by a human.

Link to the post

7. Nothing can be seen in the telescope

If the Americans have been to the moon and even left something as large as the lunar module's descent stage, why has no astronomer been able to take a picture of it with his telescope? The descent stage of the lunar lander measures a full nine meters in diameter, but the moon is so far away that even the powerful Hubble space telescope can currently only image objects over 60 meters in size on the moon. Something as small as the flag or a moon vehicle (Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) of the Apollo 15 mission) can therefore not be resolved. On July 17, 2009, NASA released images of five of the six landing sites of the Apollo missions. These were recorded by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter satellite, which was in orbit at an altitude of about 50 kilometers. High resolution images of the Apollo 11 mission were released in March 2012. From a height of almost 24 kilometers, in addition to the landing module, a camera that has been left behind and even the astronauts' footprints can be seen.

Link to the post

8. The shadows are oblique

Some of the photos show shadows that are not parallel to each other. With the sun as the only source of light, which is also very far away, all shadows would have to run parallel - even on the moon. So why doesn't it look like that in the pictures? For one thing, the surface of the moon is not a flat plane. Bumps distort the shadows, making them appear shorter, longer, or at a different angle. Since a camera only has one "eye", three-dimensional information is missing in order to correctly assess the condition of the ground from the photo alone. The second reason is so-called projection effects, which arise when our three-dimensional world is shown on a two-dimensional film. These effects can be seen well when photographing train tracks. These seem to converge on the horizon, although they are guaranteed to always run parallel. And the theory of a second light source? Where there are two sources of light, there are always two shadows, but nothing like that can be found on any of the moon images.

Link to the post

9. The flag flutters

Without an atmosphere there is no wind and without wind no flag flutters. And yet the US flag raised by the astronauts seems to be fluttering on some footage. But where should the wind blow in the television studio?
A closer look at the footage shows that the flag only flutters when one of the astronauts has touched it shortly before. The slightly longer oscillation movements are due to the six times lower gravity than on earth, which acts on the material of the flag. In addition, the comparison of two pictures taken in quick succession from the same position (picture 1 and picture 2) shows exactly the same "waving movement". In fact, the fabric is also attached to a cross brace to create the impression of a waving flag.

Link to the post

10. There are no stars in the sky

There are no stars to be seen in almost all of the images of the moon from the Apollo missions. Conspiracy theorists like to cite this as evidence that the recordings were made in a studio. But why should those responsible even make such an easily detectable mistake as the missing artificial stars on the studio ceiling? On the moon - without a disturbing atmosphere - we would expect a fantastic view of a full starry sky. Only at the time of the moon landings it was always daytime on the satellite. The lunar surface, the astronauts and the lander shone so strongly from the incoming sun that the weak light from the stars simply went down. In addition, the film material used had only a limited range of contrast. Only with longer exposure times would stars be seen in the pictures, but then everything else would be out of focus and overexposed. Incidentally, it is not much different on earth: even long-term night-time photos of illuminated objects usually do not show any stars.

Link to the post