Thomas Eversberg - The Moon Hoax Page 3
many missions completed prior to the end goal of getting to the Moon. The
Mercury Program gave the United States its first manned spaceflight experiences. After the groundbreaking flights of the famous Mercury Seven astronauts came the Gemini Program. The Gemini capsule was a spacecraft piloted by two astronauts (in the year prior, the Soviets had launched a capsule called
12
T. Eversberg
Fig. 2.4 Redstone 1 with the Mercury Capsule for the first flight of the astronaut Alan Shephard from Launch pad 5 in Cape Canaveral, FL. 1961. Photo: NASA. No.:
KSC-61C-181
Voskhod 1 into orbit with three cosmonauts on board) that had two major
tasks: First, it needed to prove that rendezvous maneuvers were possible. These
maneuvers, also known as in-space docking, would be necessary tasks to per-
form in the upcoming lunar missions. Second, it was important to learn what
conditions and controls were conducive to the astronauts successfully
2 Russians, Rockets, and Election Campaigns
13
Fig. 2.5 Edward H. White completing the first American spacewalk during Gemini 4.
After the Russian Alexei Leonov, he was the second person to carry out this experiment. Photo: NASA/James McDivitt. No.: S65-30431
performing outboard maneuvers. Both goals were achieved within the ten
manned Gemini missions ( Gemini 3 to 12). Only afterwards could the Apollo flights be carried out, and even then, the first Moon landing was only made
on the fifth Apollo flight.
For the purpose of practicing each complex action and sequence prior to
landing on the Moon, the Moon landing was actually simulated in a “studio”
prior to the real Moon landing. It is simply impossible to send people to the
Moon without having them train for every possible task they may need to
perform and without thoroughly testing each component and procedure.
Considering the dangers that the astronauts would be facing, to go without all
14
T. Eversberg
Fig. 2.6 Gemini 7 in Earth orbit, photo taken by the crew of Gemini 6 during a joint rendezvous maneuver. 1965. Photo: NASA. No.: S65-63220
of this preparation would simply be suicide. Prior to parts being built for any
mission, the entire spacecraft and the astronauts’ interactions with it are
entirely planned out. This begins with a project definition, followed by a fea-
sibility study, and concludes with the final design definitions. This means that
the astronauts, the components and their functions, and the entire flight are
documented on paper and subject to critical tests and controls by highly qual-
ified engineers. Everything is laid out on paper before a single bolt is made.
But because humans make mistakes, even this method can’t entirely prevent
2 Russians, Rockets, and Election Campaigns
15
Fig. 2.7 Launch of Apollo 7 on a Saturn-1B rocket. In this orbital flight in 1968, the new Apollo service and command modules for the lunar missions were tested for the first time. Photo: NASA. No.: AP7-KSC-68PC-185
16
T. Eversberg
Fig. 2.8 Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin during training for the Moon landing in Houston. 1969. Photo: NASA. No.: AP11-S69-32245
2 Russians, Rockets, and Election Campaigns
17
catastrophic errors. The Apollo Program is not the only human spaceflight
program that has had fatal accidents. 8
One should keep in mind that the Moon landings were part of a complex
development process that involved open discussions between managers, engi-
neers, and technicians; and that this process was not impervious to many
setbacks. It remains the greatest technical accomplishment of all time.
Therefore, many people were involved in the work, who on top of that, were
scattered across an entire continent.
Complex, expensive, and risky space programs that human beings entrust
their lives to, require prompt and intensive exchange of information.
Recklessness would be deadly! As long as public relations play a part, failures
will adversely affect every space program. The death of Vladimir Komarov and
the entire crew of the Space Shuttle Challenger are sad examples. From the
Nobel laureate Richard Feynman at the end of the Challenger Accident Report to the US Congress9: “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.”
8 Valentin Bondarenko (1961); Virgil (Gus) Grissom, Edward White, Vladamir Komarov, Michael Adams (1967); Georgi Dobrowolski, Victor Pazayev, Vladislav Volkov (1971); Dick Scobee, Michael Smith, Ronald McNair, Ellison Onizuke, Judith Resnik, Gregory Jarvis, Christa McAuliffe (1986); Rick Husband, William McCool, Michael Anderson, David Brown, Kalpana Chawla, Laurel Clark, Ilan Ramon (2003). In addition, several rockets exploded on the ground or at launch. These incidents officially killed 157 people. Unofficial information names up to 600 dead.
9 Feynman’s report can be found on the internet at: http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v2appf.htm
3
Proof I: The Dilemma
In short, those are just some of the details in the background of the Moon
landings, a historical event that I have never questioned. I have been studying
aerospace history for a while, following the lunar missions and subsequent
projects (for example, Skylab, the Space Shuttle, Viking, Voyager) and after
the end of the Cold War, I was happy to learn more about the Soviet program.
But now people ask me whether any of it even happened! And if I say that it
did, they ask me to prove it.
Whenever people asked me this, I would remind them that everyone fol-
lowed it happening in newspapers, on television, and in books. Very quickly,
however, I discovered the issue one runs into. I was met with the counter
argument that the videos on television, the pictures in the newspapers, and
the reports from the astronauts, engineers, journalists, and reporters were
either manipulated, or those people were simply lied to. I would point out the
lunar rocks that were brought back, but these are said to be counterfeit and
simply made from lava. They would basically point out that if you can’t see
how everything was faked, then you’re just being too naïve to see the truth.
After a while, I would get annoyed, standing there looking like an ignorant
fool, but I couldn’t really figure out why. A strangely unsatisfactory feeling
remained in my stomach, combined with frustration at the mutual lack of
understanding, and I would have to ask myself: What on Earth just
happened?
There can’t be any productive discussion when you only confront others
with mistrust. To understand something, you must be willing to listen and to
understand the contents of the answers you receive. Flat out refusal to do so
leads to a standstill in the discussion. In reality, however, providing proof can
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
19
T. Eversberg, The Moon Hoax? , Science and Fiction,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05460-1_3
20
T. Eversberg
be difficult and treacherous. What poof is being asked for? A scientific proof?
Or a historical proof? Perhaps even scientific proof for an historical event? You would do well to clear this question up with the person asking for proof in
order to provide the correct response. In the end, the discussion will be tricky
&
nbsp; and complicated if you don’t do this first.
I have become accustomed to reciprocating the demand for proof with a
request: Until 1989, Berlin had a very famous wall. Please prove to me that this wall existed. Of course, the other person will refer to the photos that exist.
There are also witnesses and the remnants of the wall, which remain in Berlin
to this day. Further, there are records in history books. My succinct answer to
them is as follows: The photos are fake, the witnesses were manipulated by the KGB, and the alleged remnants were later built by the Secret Service; and history books don’t say a thing about the veracity of these people. On the objection that hundreds of thousands of German citizens have seen and lived through the
times when the wall was standing, I can confidently say that hundreds of
thousands have simply been manipulated or they are lying. By this point, I’m
sure that my conversation partner has a strangely unsatisfactory feeling in his
stomach and, becoming frustrated, is asking himself, “What is going on
here?!” I can relate. What should you do when you’re speaking with someone
who negates all of your arguments instead of discussing them openly to come
closer to the truth? Nothing at all. Because this isn’t really a conversation—it’s a propaganda event being held in private.
In truth, my retort is quite unfair. The deceit in it lies in the demand for
scientific proof for a historical event. However, scientific proof comes from
the repeatability of an experiment. That, and only that, says something about
the quality of scientific evidence. If I say that a ball falls to Earth when I let go of it, it’s just a hypothesis. This hypothesis is only proven to have evidence of being true if this experiment can be repeated as often as desired. 1 With this, I can establish a theory of free fall that must be valid for all further cases of
objects falling. History, on the other hand, is not repeatable but consists of
singular events that can never occur exactly the same again (excluding physi-
cal phenomena such as the return of comets that exhibit scientifically deter-
mined repeatability). Scientific proof of historical events is simply impossible
because they aren’t repeatable. You can only resort to an “inductive” or a
1 Strictly speaking, verifications in science are impossible, and theories can only be proven as well as possible through repeated experiments. There is no 100% certainty. A single counter-proof, however, and the theory is invalid. You can only prove theories wrong. For this reason, Einstein’s theory of relativity is regularly tested with experiments in order to refute it, even if hardly any other scientist doubts this theory. If in the above example, the ball ever goes up instead of falling, my hypothesis is proven wrong.
3 Proof I: The Dilemma
21
“deductive” proof. The evidence for both types of proofs is based on observa-
tions and experiences. In an inductive proof, you use observed phenomena to
obtain a general insight. In a deductive proof, you use general assumptions to
suggest a more specific case. However, you can’t establish absolute certainty
about the truth of a historical statement with these proofs, because history is
not repeatable. But you can certainly test the power of individual claims made
by the disparagers of the Moon landings.
Now you could also argue that proving the Moon landings is possible by
using logic. This is the correct method and as such, it’s what I will use it.
Logical approaches require that each assumption made is accepted by all par-
ties. An example of a proof by logic: If A is greater than B, and if B is greater than C, then A is also greater than C. If any of the assumptions are in question
or are actually false, such as “if A is greater than B,” or “B is greater than C,”
then this proof is no longer true. By ignoring logic, you could claim that the
Moon is made of cheese.
Of course, a proof would be possible if the person who doesn’t believe me
flew to the Moon and verified my claims himself (I’ll come back to that in
Chapter 14). At most, this would only be feasible for a few individuals and those who remained on Earth would still probably not believe them. Therefore,
no one would be able to “prove” to everyone that we have landed on the
Moon in a scientific sense. All we can do is inductively check the arguments
of the Moon landing opponents for consistency, logic, and insight, and then
determine whether they are credible or not.
At the end of Chapter 1, I hinted that the burden of proof of the new “evidence” lies with those making new claims. In science, the requirements for
proving new theories are very high. Scientists are extraordinarily conservative,
and they heavily scrutinize new theories, methods, rules, or theses before
accepting them as the truth. Only when new theories withstand this level of
review, modifications of previous theories are considered. This was the case for
Newton, Einstein, Planck, and Heisenberg. But opponents of the Moon land-
ings consistently claim to use scientific methods for their arguments. Therefore, it is natural to discuss the topic, in contrast to NASA, in order for the reader
(and for my friends) to see the theories clearly. To do this, I will present the
main claims of the lunar landing opponents and put them to the test of logic.
For some theories, this is very easy to do on Earth, while others will require an application of high school-level physics. In addition, I’ll discuss direct evidence to the reality of the lunar missions, which in a twist of fate, can be
discovered based on the observations of the conspiracy theorists.
4
Stars are Missing in the Sky
Why is the sky blue? This seemingly simple question has become so common
on physics tests that it doesn’t frighten students anymore. While it’s easy for a layman to understand, it is not easy to answer. In fact, a detailed answer is not simple, but requires knowledge of atomic and molecular physics. The blue
color of the sky is caused by the scattering of light off air particles, or the split-ting of a directed light beam in other directions. This fact has been known for
a long time, but interestingly, the scattering depends on the color of the light.
Blue light is more strongly scattered than green or red, and so blue light is
distributed over the entire daytime sky, while all other colors are mostly
allowed to transmit directly through the atmosphere. The scattering of the
blue light is so strong that considerable amounts of intense sunlight are spread
across the sky, rather than reaching the ground. The light of the stars is out-
shined by the scattered sunlight and the stars are therefore obscured during
the day.
But there isn’t any atmosphere on the Moon. Because of this, light from
outer space is not scattered and reaches the surface of the Moon without
obstruction. Of course, sunlight can still blind your eyes and even be dangerous
for astronauts since the ultraviolet light is not filtered out by an atmosphere.
Appropriate protective measures on the astronauts’ helmets, such as shades and
sunglass lenses, are therefore necessary to protect their eyes. However, the stars are not hidden by a blue sky and are always visible. The sky is not blue, but
always black. It does not matter whether the sun is in the sky or not—if your
eyes are not blinded, stars must be visible from the Moon at all times.
With these facts of physics in
mind, I’ll begin with the most popular argu-
ment for the lunar landing conspiracies. In the photos of the Moon landings
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
23
T. Eversberg, The Moon Hoax? , Science and Fiction,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05460-1_4
24
T. Eversberg
Fig. 4.1 Buzz Aldrin looks at the Apollo 11 lunar lander Eagle. Photo: NASA/N. Armstrong. No.: AS11-40-5948
every single star is missing from the sky. Whichever image of the lunar mis-
sions you look at, the stars are always missing. The simple argument presented
is: The Moon landing scenes were filmed in a studio and people forgot to
install artificial stars on the ceiling of the studio (Fig. 4.1).
At first glance, this assertion is as simple as it is captivating. When we look
at the sky on a clear night, we see the stars. And the darker the surroundings
of your location, the more stars you can see. Shouldn’t the night sky visible
from the Moon be fantastic, since it has no atmospheric disturbances? As clear
and simple as this argument seems, it is anything but that. On the contrary,
the claim that studio technicians forgot to install lamps on the ceiling has far
more complex consequences than can be seen at first. 1 To help with our answer, let’s take a brief excursion into the history of science.
1 Some people claim that the stars on the moon should have had a different position in the sky than on Earth and astronomers should have noticed this if they had been seen. This is not correct in view of the fact that the stars in the sky are several billion times further away from Earth than the moon.
4 Stars are Missing in the Sky
25
The Franciscan monk William of Occam lived from 1285 to 13472 and was
not only far ahead of his time with his analytical way of thinking, but he also
concerned himself with scientific subjects. Long before the Enlightenment,
when the Ptolemaic world view of an Earth immobile at the center of the
Universe was still valid, William of Occam thought about the nature of
hypotheses. Through observations of nature and thought experiments, he