
If the
Moon landings were
faked, then one question that naturally arises is: why would any government go to
such extreme lengths to mount such an elaborate hoax?
The most obvious answer (and the one
most
frequently
cited by skeptics) is to reclaim a sense of national pride
that had
been
stripped away by
Could so many people have really been
duped
into
believing such an outrageous lie, if that in fact was what it
was? To
answer
that question, we have to keep in mind that we are talking
about the
summer of
1969 here. Those old enough to have been there will recall
that they –
along
with the vast majority of politically active people in the
country –
spent that
particular period of time primarily engaged in tripping on
some really
good
acid (most likely from the lab of Mr. Owsley).
How hard then would it really have
been to
fool most
of you? I probably could have stuck a fish bowl on my head,
wrapped
myself in
aluminum foil, and then filmed myself high-stepping across my
backyard
and most
of you would have believed that I was Moonwalking. Some of you
couldn't
entirely rule out the possibility that everyone was
walking on
the Moon.
In truth, not everyone was fooled by
the
alleged
Moon landings. Though it is rarely discussed these days, a
significant
number
of people gave NASA’s television productions a thumbs-down. As
Wired
magazine has reported, “when Knight
Newspapers polled 1,721
When Fox ran a special on the
Moon
landings some
years back and reported that 1-in-5 Americans had doubts about
the
Apollo
missions, various ‘debunking’ websites cried foul and claimed
that the
actual
percentage was much lower. BadAstronomy.com,
for example, claims that the actual figure is about 6%, and
that
roughly that
many people will agree “with almost any question that is asked
of
them.” Hence,
there are only a relative handful of kooks who don’t believe
that we’ve
ever
been to the Moon.
All of those websites fail to
mention, of
course,
that among the people who experienced the events as they
were
occurring,
nearly 1-in-3 had doubts, a number considerably higher
than the
number
that Fox used. And, needless to say, the ‘debunkers’
also
failed to
mention that 1-in-4 young Americans, a number also higher than
the
figure Fox
used, have doubts about the Moon landings.
Returning then to the question of why
such a ruse
would be perpetrated, we must transport ourselves back to the
year
1969.
Richard Nixon has just been inaugurated as our brand new
president, and
his
ascension to the throne is in part due to his promises to the
American
people
that he will disengage from the increasingly unpopular war in
In short, he needs to wag the dog.
This has, of course, traditionally
been done
by
embarking on some short-term, low-risk military endeavor. The
problem
for Big Dick, however, is that a military mission is
exactly what
he is
trying to divert attention away from. What, then, is a
beleaguered
president to do? Why, send Neil and Buzz to the Moon, of
course!
Instead of
wagging the dog, it's time to try something new: wagging the
Moondoggie!
Nixon's actions from the very moment
he takes
office
belie his campaign pledges to the American people (not unlike
that
Barry Obama
guy, who also led the American people to believe that he
opposed an
unpopular
war). In May of 1969, with Nixon just a few months into his
term, the
press
begins publicizing the illegal B-52 carpetbombing of
In truth, however, only 25,000 of the
540,000
Just in time to save the day,
however, Apollo
11
blasts off on July 16th on its allegedly historic
mission,
and –
with the entire nation enthralled – four days later the Eagle
purportedly makes
its landing on the pristine lunar surface.
The honeymoon is short-lived,
however, for
just four
months later, in November of 1969, Seymour Hersch publishes a
story
about the
massacre of 504 civilians in the
All is well again until March of 1970, at
which
time a
U.S.-backed coup deposes Prince Sihanouk in
Meanwhile, it's time for yet another
Moon
launch.
But this one is not going to be just any Moon launch. This
one, you
see, is
going to introduce the element of danger. With the first two
having
gone off
without a hitch, the American people – known for having
notoriously
short
attention spans – are already adopting a 'been there, done
that'
attitude. The
problem, in a nutshell, is that it looks just a little too
damn easy.
In order
to regain the attention of the American people, it has to be
impressed
upon
them that our brave astronauts are placing themselves in grave
danger.
And so it is that on April 11th,
1970, Apollo
13
blasts off with Tom Hanks and a couple of somewhat lesser
known actors
on
board, but unlike the first two missions, this Apollo
spacecraft fails
to reach
the Moon and instead drifts about for the next six days with
the crew
in mortal
danger of being forever lost in space! Now that gets
our
attention! So
much so that when three
Awaiting news of the fate of the
Apollo 13
crew, we
all have our eyes glued to our TVs as though we are watching
postmortem
coverage of Michael Jackson. When our heroes somehow make it
back
alive,
defying seemingly impossible odds, we are all so goddamned
proud of
them that
we decide to award Tom another Oscar. And all is well again
for the
remainder
of the year.
I really have to repeat here, by the
way,
that in
the late 1960s and early 1970s,
That was just an awesome time to be
an
American and
especially to be an American astronaut … well, except for the
three
guys
(Virgil “Gus” Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee) who were
burned
alive
during
a test procedure in the command module of what was to be the
Apollo 1
rocket.
But they were troublemakers anyway who probably wouldn’t have
wanted to
go
along with the Moon landing fable. And then there was that
Thomas Baron
guy who
was a safety inspector for NASA and who delivered highly
critical
testimony and
a 1,500-page report to Congress, only to then be killed a week
later.
That
report seems to have been sucked into the same Black Hole that
swallowed up all
the other Apollo evidence.
Anyway, returning now to our
timeline, the
dawn of
1971 brings the trial of Lt. William Calley on charges that he
personally
ordered and oversaw the mass murder of the inhabitants of the
A few months after that, the
Back on Earth, the astronauts return
on
August 7th
and the rest of the year passes uneventfully. On March 30,
1972, North
Vietnamese troops mount a massive offensive across the DMZ
into
By the end of the year, a ceasefire
is
finally
looming on the horizon. Beginning in October, Kissinger and
David Bruce
(a
member of the infamous Mellon family) are secretly negotiating
peace
terms with
Le Duc Tho of North Vietnam. In December, however, those talks
break
down – but
not before Apollo 17 is launched on December 7th in a most
spectacular
way: it is the first night launch of a Saturn V rocket. With
the latest
Apollo
mission still a few days away from returning, the talks cease
and Dick
and
Henry unleash a final ruthless carpetbombing campaign against
Just five weeks later, the talks
having
resumed, a
peace agreement is announced. Within a few days a ceasefire is
in
effect,
thereby officially ending
In addition to restoring national
pride and
providing a diversion from the savage colonial war being waged
in
There
is no shortage of Moon hoax ‘debunking’ sites out there on the
wild and wooly World Wide Web. The majority of them are not
particularly well
written or argued and yet they tend to be rather smug and
self-congratulatory.
Most of them tend to stick to ‘debunking’ the same facts and
they use
the same
arguments to do so.
One thing they like to talk a lot
about is
the Van
Allen radiation belts. The Moon hoax sites talk a lot about
them as
well. The
hoaxers will tell you that man cannot pass through the belts
without a
considerable amount of radiation protection – protection that
could not
have
been provided in the 1960s through any known technology. And
the
‘debunkers’
claim that the Apollo astronauts would have passed through the
belts
quickly
enough that, given the levels of radiation, no harm would have
come to
them.
The hoaxers, say the ‘debunkers,’ are just being girlie men.
As it turns out, both sides are
wrong: the
‘debunkers,’ shockingly enough, are completely full of shit,
and the
hoaxers
have actually understated the problem by focusing exclusively
on the
belts. We
know this because NASA itself – whom the ‘debunkers’ like to
treat as a
virtually unimpeachable source on all things Apollo, except,
apparently, when
the agency posts an article that implicitly acknowledges that
we
haven’t
actually been to the Moon – has told us that it is so. They
have told
us that
in order to leave low-Earth orbit on any future space flights,
our
astronauts
would need to be protected throughout the entirety of the
flight,
as
well as – and once again, this comes directly from NASA – while
working
on
the surface of the Moon.
On June 24,
2005,
NASA made this rather remarkable
admission: “NASA's Vision for Space Exploration calls for a
return to
the Moon
as preparation for even longer journeys to Mars and beyond. But
there's
a
potential showstopper: radiation. Space beyond low-Earth orbit
is awash
with
intense radiation from the Sun and from deep galactic sources
such as
supernovas … Finding a good shield is important.” (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/24jun_electrostatics.htm)
You’re damn right finding a good
shield is
important!! Back in the 1960s, of course, we didn’t let a
little thing
like
space radiation get in the way of us beating the Ruskies to
the Moon.
But now,
I guess, being that we are more cultured and sophisticated, we
want to
do it the
right way so we have to come up with some way of
shielding our
spaceships.
And our temporary Moon bases. And figuring out how to do that,
according to
NASA, could be a real “showstopper.”
As NASA notes, “the most common way to deal with radiation is simply to physically block it, as the thick concrete around a nuclear reactor does. But making spaceships from concrete is not an option.” Lead, which is considerably denser than concrete, is actually the preferred material to use for radiation shielding, but lead also isn’t very popular with spaceship designers. In fact, word on the street is that one of the main reasons the Soviets never made it to the Moon was because their scientists calculated that four feet of lead shielding would be required to protect their astronauts, and those same scientists apparently felt that spaceships wouldn’t fly all that well when clad in four feet of lead.
Now NASA is thinking outside the box
and
contemplating using ‘force fields’ to repel the radiation, a
seemingly
ridiculous idea that, whether workable in the future or not,
certainly
wasn’t
available to NASA in the 1960s. Below is NASA’s own artist
rendering of
a
proposed ‘force field’ radiation shield that would allow
astronauts to
work
safely on the Moon. As you may have noticed in the earlier
photos of
the lunar
modules, our guys didn’t bring anything like that with them on
their,
uhmm,
earlier missions to the Moon. And you may have also noticed
that the
modules
did not have any type of physical shielding.

How then did they do it? My guess is
that the
answer
lies in that gold foil wrap. While it may look like an
amateurish
attempt to
make the modules appear more ‘high-tech,’ I have a hunch that
what we
are
looking at is another example of the lost technology of the
1960s –
this time
in the form of a highly-advanced superpolymer that provided
maximum
radiation
shielding while adding virtually no weight. So all we have to
do is
track down
a few leftover rolls of that stuff and we should be well on
our way to
sending
guys back to the Moon.
According to Charles Buhler, a NASA scientist currently working on the force field concept, “Using electric fields to repel radiation was one of the first ideas back in the 1950s, when scientists started to look at the problem of protecting astronauts from radiation. They quickly dropped the idea though because it seemed like the high voltages needed and the awkward designs that they thought would be necessary … would make such an electric shield impractical.”
What a real journalist would have
asked here,
of
course, is: “After dropping the electric shield concept,
exactly what
did they
decide to use to get our astronauts safely to the Moon and
back on the
Apollo
missions? And why can’t we do the same thing now, rather than
reinventing the
wheel? Don’t you guys have some of that gold foil in a closet
somewhere?” No
one in the American media, of course, bothered to ask such
painfully
obvious
questions.
The 2005 report from NASA ends as follows: “But, who knows, perhaps one day astronauts on the Moon … will work safely.” Yes, and while we’re dreaming the impossible dream, let’s add a few more things to our wish list as well, like perhaps one day we’ll be able to listen to music on 8-track tape players, and talk to people on rotary dial telephones, and carry portable transistor radios, and use cameras that shoot pictures on special film that develops right before our eyes. Only time will tell, I suppose.
The Van Allen belts, by the way, trap
most
Earth-bound radiation, thus making it safe for us mortals down
here on
the
surface of planet Earth, as well as for astronauts in
low-Earth orbit
(the
belts extend from 1,000 to 25,000 miles above the surface of
the
Earth). The
danger is in sending men through and beyond the belts,
which,
apart from
the Apollo missions, has never been attempted … well, actually
there
was that
one time, but I think we all remember how badly that turned
out. In
case anyone
has forgotten, the astronauts returned to a world dominated by
extremely poor
acting, apes speaking with British accents, and a shirtless
Charleton
Heston.
And I don’t think anyone wants to see that happen again.
The 2005 report was not the first
time that
NASA had
openly discussed the high levels of radiation that exist
beyond the Van
Allen
belts. In February 2001, the space agency posted a ‘debunking’
article
that
argued that the rocks allegedly brought back from the Moon
were so
distinctive
in nature that they proved definitively that man had gone to
the Moon.
The
problem though with maintaining a lie of the magnitude of the
Moon
landing lie
is that there is always the danger that in defending one part
of the
lie,
another part will be exposed. Such was the case with NASA’s
ill-conceived The
Great
Moon Hoax post, in which it was
acknowledged that what are referred to as “cosmic rays” have a
tendency
to
“constantly bombard the Moon and they leave their fingerprints
on Moon
rocks.”
NASA scientist David McKay explained
that
“There are
isotopes in Moon rocks, isotopes we don’t normally find on
Earth, that
were
created by nuclear reactions with the highest-energy cosmic
rays.” The
article
went on to explain how “Earth is spared from such radiation by
our
protective
atmosphere and magnetosphere. Even if scientists wanted to
make
something like
a Moon rock by, say, bombarding an Earth rock with high energy
atomic
nuclei,
they couldn’t. Earth’s most powerful particle accelerators
can’t
energize
particles to match the most potent cosmic rays, which are
themselves
accelerated in supernova blastwaves and in the violent cores
of
galaxies.”
So one of the reasons that we know
the Moon
rocks
are real, you see, is because they were blasted with
ridiculously high
levels
of radiation while sitting on the surface of the Moon. And our
astronauts, one
would assume, would have been blasted with the very same
ridiculously
high
levels of radiation, but since this was NASA’s attempt at a
‘debunking’
article, they apparently would prefer that you don’t spend too
much
time
analyzing what they have to say.
How exactly are we to reconcile
NASA’s
current
position on space radiation with the same agency’s
simultaneous claim
that we
have already sent men to the Moon? There are a few different
possibilities that
come to mind, the first of which is that, in the late 1960s
and early
1970s, we
simply threw caution to the wind and sent our boys off to the
Moon with
no
protection whatsoever from space radiation. If that were true,
however,
then
the question that would naturally be raised is: why not just
do it
again? After
all, all of our Moonwalkers made it home safe and sound and
most all
have lived
long, healthy, cancer-free lives. So why all the fuss over
space
radiation?
NASA could, I suppose, take the
position that
space
radiation is a recent problem. Perhaps in the ‘60s and early
‘70s,
space was
relatively free of radiation, allowing unshielded Apollo
rockets to
cruise about
without a care in the world while crew members primarily
busied
themselves with
such important tasks as trying to capture all the stems and
seeds that
were
floating around the command module as a result of cleaning
their stash
of
low-grade ‘60s marijuana. It was just a different solar system
back in
those
days. As aging hippies like to say, if you remember the solar
system of
the
sixties, you weren’t really flying around in it.
If it proves not to be the case that
this
space
radiation “showstopper” is a new development, then I suppose
that the
only
explanation that we are left with is that we did indeed have
the
technology to
shield our astronauts from radiation back in the 1960s, but at
some
time during
the last four decades, that technology was simply lost. What
probably
happened
was that an overzealous night custodian simply threw the data
away. The
conversation around the NASA water cooler the next day
probably went
something
like this: "Holy shit! Has anyone seen that folder that I left
on my
desk last
night? It contained the only copy of the secret formula that I
devised
for
building a weightless space radiation shield. It could be
forty years
or more
before someone else can duplicate it! My ass is so fired!”