Nick van der Leek plays Devil’s Advocate, examining the veracity of Conspiracy Theory claims that the moon landing was a hoax.
I’m not playing games. I wrote an article for reporter.co.za saying I would bet money that the moon landings were a hoax. I’ve done even more digging since, and now I’m still willing to bet money, but no more than R100.
It’s difficult to be certain about the moon, simply because it lies beyond our collective experience. A simple example is the point about a boot print on the powdery surface of the moon. The Conspiracy Theorists say it is impossible for dry soil to hold an impression at such a high, shall we say, resolution. Obviously the surface of the moon is dry, and everyone knows, you can’t really leave footprints (like the ones you see on the moon) on dry beach or desert sand. Why? Because dry sand doesn’t stick together. Well, there are exceptions. Silica, for example, can form fairly strong bonds, especially at extreme temperatures. Some crystalline structures, like sugar, can also maintain the shape of a spoon shoveled into its crust. So there’s an argument, but I’m not sure if it’s a very strong one.
The bootprint does suggest quite a thick layer of baking powder like dust. Once again, when the lunar module descended, whipping up a cloud of dust, why did the dust not coat the legs of the LM? Well, because dust on the moon doesn’t act the way it does on the Earth. It would quickly dissipate into sparse particles. Once again, it’s an argument, but how plausible is hard to say if you’ve never been on the moon.
The reason there is no blast crater, the believers say, is because the layer of dust on the surface of the moon is only an inch or two thick, everywhere. Thus, when the LM landed, it blew away the dust, leaving behind a hard almost impenetrable bare crust. This same crust proved hard to drive the flags into, which is why, they say, the flags flap about so much. I’d like to know if a narrow thin rod has been inserted in the top of the flag, to keep it straight. This would not be necessary on the moon, and my guess is, something has been placed inside the material on the upper edge, to maintain the flags perpendicular line to the post.
I still maintain that the circumstances surrounding the launch – the pressure from the soviets, the expectations of the American people, Kennedy’s promise, make a good case for the need to fake the landings. I don’t doubt that man is capable of it, but I believe they ran out of time. It’s a nice story to say we landed on the moon on July 1969, but a real effort would have probably taken another decade, and a lot more money to accomplish, with still very slim chances of success, above all surviving the Van Allen Radiation belts. The proponents of the moon landing say this radioactive field was passed through at high speed, in about an hour, greatly reducing radioactive absorption. Once again, having no hard evidence about the Van Allen belts, who can say for sure what effects it could have on astronauts? To reiterate what I said in the previous article: no manned missions before or since Apollo have approached the Van Allen belt and this implies that they are indeed lethal.
It’s an important question, whether the moon landings were rigged, because if we were deliberately and brilliantly swindled by agents in the government and the media in 1969, that may have set the tone, and changed the course of history, in subtle ways that would benefit from our observation. We may at present and in future, be swindled on the same basis – TV footage – into wars at worst. We know we’re manipulated on daily basis towards certain kinds of buying behavior. Like many people, I would like to believe we achieved great things, and that we’re a gifted species.
I know it is not very scientific, but something as truly momentous as reaching the moon, having it on our doorstep (as opposed to faraway Mars), would have meant making it into a playground, or a military base, long before now. I would have expected hundreds of trips to date, and the emergence of some kind of lunar Las Vegas. The fact that we haven’t followed up on moon missions, but have instead built a rickety space station, seems ample evidence that our space actions since the 60’s speak louder and more clearly than the ghostly TV images.
The lesson we learn from taking this subject seriously, is to think critically about ourselves and the world. Things are not always what they seem, and some people seem to think they are more intelligent than we are.
No comments:
Post a Comment