Thomas Eversberg - The Moon Hoax Page 4
implicitly came to the following conclusion: If a phenomenon can be explained
by many different hypotheses or assumptions, the hypothesis that comes with
the fewest free assumptions (parameters) is preferable, or rather, correct. This
“principle of simplicity” is so far-reaching and successful that nowadays it
forms the basis of scientific work, and it is widely known in the history of sci-
ence as “Occam’s Razor. ”3 It states that explanations for natural phenomena should be valid with as few free assumptions as possible, and that you should
always search for simpler explanations for the observed phenomenon. In other
words, if I need fewer assumptions to explain something, it is a better explana-
tion than one that has to make more assumptions. One of the conditions for
applying Occam’s Razor is the existence of several theories to explain the same
phenomenon. It is certainly still possible that a newer theory is better, even if it is more complicated than the old one. A good example of this case is
Einstein’s theory of gravity, which is much more complex than Newton’s the-
ory. It has more assumptions but can explain a lot more observations.
The classic example of Occam’s Razor in action comes from when the geo-
centric worldview of Ptolemy was replaced by the heliocentric worldview of
Copernicus. Over the centuries, astronomical observations became more and
more precise, which made the Ptolemaic model with the Earth at the center
of both the universe and the planetary system inevitably more complicated,
because it required an increasing number of independent assumptions to
explain the observations. But the more accurate the measurements of the stars
became, the similarities of the observations with the Copernican worldview of
the Sun at the center of the planetary system became more obvious. The
breakthrough came from the observations made by Tycho Brahe, on which
Kepler’s laws were based. Upon this foundation, Isaac Newton developed the
Law of Gravity, which was formed with generally applicable equations instead
of being tailored to a specific planet. The Ptolemaic worldview, however,
became increasingly complicated in order to describe the more accurate
2 It is exactly this William of Occam, by the way, that is the model for the novel character of William of Baskerville in the book The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco.
3 The principle is not directly found in Occam’s writings. The term “Occam’s razor” for the principle of economy was first formulated in the 19th century by mathematician William Rowan Hamilton.
26
T. Eversberg
observations until contradictions within the models became too obvious. The
reduction of independent assumptions is therefore based on the demand for
models that leave as little room for interpretation as possible. The aim is to
explain the world consistently and logically rather than arbitrarily, so as to
avoid making up fantasies that are not reasonably related to what is actually
observed.
Turning back to the missing stars in the photos from the Moon, it quickly
becomes clear that the assertion about technicians forgetting to hang them is
problematic because it is too complex and has too many logically inexplicable
consequences. First, you would have to explain how the studio managers
could make such an easy mistake. An inconspicuous conspiracy should at
least be clever enough as to keep millions of people from catching it. Perhaps
the director intentionally wanted to send a sign of the fraud (he could have
been under coercion from the Secret Service), but this in turn increases the
number of free parameters in the sense of Occam’s Razor. Secondly, the ques-
tion arises as to how such a simple error could occur, even though a lot of
money would have been available for the recordings and there would have
been significant oversight. And thirdly, one may wonder how not even one
member of the team (technicians, engineers, etc.) noticed this mistake. Last
but not least, it must be pointed out that NASA still hasn’t been able to solve
the problem of stars being absent in their photographs, since there aren’t any
stars in any of their images from Earth’s orbit. All of the stars are even missing from pictures taken during recent Space Shuttle and unmanned missions
(Fig. 4.2). The only missions with photographs that include stars have explicit astronomical objectives or are those where pictures can only be captured at
night (Fig. 4.3). 4 So, if the light bulbs were forgotten, you have to wonder how NASA could still be employing obviously incompetent technicians and
yet, manages to get spacecraft and satellites into space. It shows that the sim-
ple assumption made by the Moon landing deniers has extensive conse-
quences, all of which must be explained conclusively and in accordance with
the established theory (forgotten stars on the studio ceiling). That all-encom-
passing explanation is very difficult to make.
For the purpose of utilizing Occam’s Razor, we can introduce a new expla-
nation and test whether it gets by with fewer assumptions. Luckily, we can
perform the same experiment here as they did on the Moon, because there is
not very much difference between the two places for the purposes of our
4 Sensitive digital cameras were used for such sequences. Examples of films at night from Earth orbit, all with stars in the sky, can be found at http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov
4 Stars are Missing in the Sky
27
Fig. 4.2 The Hubble Space Telescope photographed from the Columbia Space Shuttle STS-109 in March 2002. Photo: NASA. No.: STS109-730-034
experiment. Here on Earth, the stars are visible at night, and here too we have
cameras to take pictures with—a completely analogous experimental setup.
QR: The International Space Station ISS flying over Africa. tinyurl.com/yajvldef
For this experiment, an old commercially available analog camera can be
used to take pictures of the sky using different exposure times and with a fully
opened aperture. With such a camera, a photographer typically exposes
28
T. Eversberg
Fig. 4.3 Night photo of the Southern Lights with stars above the horizon, taken from the International Space Station in September 2011. Photo: NASA. Product No.:
ISS029-E-008433
moving objects (people, vehicles, animals) for about 1/60 of a second so they
appear sharp and unblurred. Likewise, care must be taken not to overexpose
the objects. By using a short exposure, the photographer also manages to keep
their own restless movements from blurring the pictures (my own motor con-
trol, meanwhile, leaves a lot to be desired so the shorter I set the exposure, the better). However, if you choose such fast shutter speeds (short exposures) to
photograph the sky, you won’t see anything. No stars in the sky. If you now
progressively increase the exposure time, you will discover that only with an
exposure time of several seconds the brightest stars will finally become visible
in the photo. This is an interesting result! Apparently, the stars in the sky are all so dim that they remain invisible to film for an exposure time of less than
one second. This, of course, has consequences for our analysis. The exposure
times on the Moon were chosen so that the image is not overexposed. The
astronauts, the Lunar M
odule, the instruments, and the moonscape shine
much more brightly than the stars (they are illuminated by the sun). Therefore,
exposure times of several seconds are far too long because the objects would
be washed out in white light. In addition, the moving astronauts should be
photographed such that their image appears sharp. It’s no different than on
Earth. We are forced to choose a short exposure time so that the people in
4 Stars are Missing in the Sky
29
motion don’t appear blurry. But with this short exposure time, the stars remain
invisible at night. Nevertheless, everyone will be able to see for themselves
that the stars have not disappeared.
If you now compare this experiment with the assertions of the Moon land-
ing deniers using Occam’s Razor, it is easy to see there is a clear winner. The
number of necessary prerequisites for a complicated conspiracy in the studio
is so immense and the plot has so many problematic consequences, that the
explanation regarding camera exposure times is obviously favored. The only
assumption in the latter was that the stars are not bright enough in relation to
the scenery to be visible on pictures taken with the exposure times required
for normal photography. In addition, we can prove this fact experimentally
and without further assumptions, entirely in accordance with Occam’s Razor
and with the help of inductive reasoning (see Chapter 3). The inductive proof is as follows: At night you can’t photograph stars with short exposure times.
Therefore, it is impossible to photograph stars with short exposure times any-
where. This also applies to the human eye when confronted with very bright
light sources. On the Moon, the astronauts could not see any stars with their
eyes, because the sun outshined everything. This was confirmed by Armstrong
and the other astronauts in interviews shortly after the Moon landings
(Fig. 4.4). 5
Neil Armstrong gave an informative interview to the BBC as early as 1970,
describing that in the pitch-black, moonlit sky only the Earth can be seen, but
no stars. This is an interesting statement at first glance, but of course, it was not an argument that there weren’t any stars in the sky. Everyone can understand the explanation for this. Very bright floodlights are sufficient for clarifying this issue (e. g. floodlights on a football field). If you’re looking for the stars past bright lights on a football field, you’ll find that your eyes are strongly blinded and the relatively weak stars in the night sky are obscured. It’s no
wonder: the stars are about one billion times dimmer than the lights. If you
compare this to the sun, which shines a hundred times stronger than lamps on
a football field, stars being invisible in the night sky is inevitable. In the conversation, Armstrong also discusses his problems of estimating distances on
the Moon. I’ll come back to that in Chapter 7. His optimistic assessment of future lunar bases towards the end of the conversation is discussed in the last
chapter.
5 Most Moon landing deniers claim Armstrong never gave any interviews. But that is not true! On the internet, you can find a host of public appearances by Armstrong, including various interviews.
30
T. Eversberg
Fig. 4.4 A BBC Interview of Neil Armstrong from 1970. You can find the interview on the internet by using the search terms Neil Armstrong BBC 1970
Since the lunar missions were not astronomical missions (see Chapter 2),
we found a simple and sound explanation for the missing stars in the sky. The
argument of the Moon landing deniers that the lamps on the studio ceiling
were forgotten is illogical and does not meet the requirements of a well-
founded theory. Therefore, it cannot be used as an argument for a
conspiracy.
5
But Look! The Flag Flutters!
Without air there can’t be any wind. And without wind, a flag cannot flutter.
Since there isn’t any atmosphere on the Moon, you would expect that a flag
wouldn’t be moved by the wind. Planting a flag on the Moon was actually
never thought about during mission planning. It was included so late in the
program, that the procedure for planting the flag was the only activity for
which the astronauts of Apollo 11 did not train. 1 It turns out that Armstrong and Aldrin didn’t manage to plant the flag firmly enough into the ground, so
during their launch off the Moon in the Lunar Module the flag fell down.2
But now critics point out that, in several NASA recordings, the American flag
planted on the Moon flaps in the wind. Their argument is this: In several
video sequences, the flag flutters in the wind and therefore, the respective
scenes must have been shot on Earth.
Looking back at the issue of the stars missing from the sky, this argument
is exciting in and of itself. We have seen in Chapter 4 that the missing stars are explained by someone simply forgetting to put the corresponding lamps on
the ceiling of the studio where the scenes on the Moon were shot. So, the
video would have been shot in a closed room—right? Then where did the
wind come from? Were some scenes shot in a studio and others in the open
air? In order to solve this contradiction, you would have to assume that the
1 There were some initial thoughts to also plant flags from other nations. This idea, however, was quickly abandoned by Congress due to the argument that the mission was financed solely with US taxpayer’s money.
2 The political and technical aspects of the flag can be found at https://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/flag/flag.
htm
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
31
T. Eversberg, The Moon Hoax? , Science and Fiction,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05460-1_5
32
T. Eversberg
Fig. 5.1 The flag of Apollo 11. Photo: NASA/N. Armstrong. Product No.: AS11-40-5905
scene was shot in the studio, but a door was left open somewhere and the
penetrating wind led to the flag’s movement (some people suspect air condi-
tioners are at fault). As with the subject of stars in the sky, here we would also have to ask ourselves how such a simple mistake can be made when planning
a truly global fraud (Fig. 5.1).
But let’s examine the assertion that the flag is fluttering in the wind a little
more closely. In fact, there are a whole series of NASA videos in which the flag
planted by the astronauts on the Moon moves. However, there is not a single
sequence where the flag moves without one of the astronauts either touching
the flag or its flagpole, or touching it a few seconds before it moves. A move-
ment or “fluttering” can only be observed if the flag has just been or is being
5 But Look! The Flag Flutters!
33
touched. The skeptics refer to different video clips in which the flag moves by
itself. However, these clips are quite brief and they all start shortly before or directly with the corresponding flag movement. It leaves you to wonder what
happened just before and after the clips. Fortunately, an extensive amount of
video was taken on the Moon, and in many cases, it is evident that the selected
short clips have a back-story. This back-story invariably includes astronauts
handling the flag. On closer inspection you will find that complete sections of
the video are withheld by the critics, and these sequences clearly show
that the
flag has been manipulated. One example of such a clip is a scene from Apollo
14 where Alan Shepherd and Edgar Mitchell are being filmed by a remotely
controlled camera as they plant the flag (Figs. 5.2 and 5.3).
Fig. 5.2 The commander of Apollo 14, Alan Shepard, and the US flag. Photo: NASA/E. Mitchell. Product No.: AS14-66-9232
34
T. Eversberg
Fig. 5.3 Apollo 17 pilot Jack Schmitt and the US flag below the Earth. Photo: NASA/G. Cernan. Product No.: AS17-134-20384HR
QR: The astronauts from Apollo 14 plant the flag. tinyurl.com/y7wkqbxr
You can see two things here: one is that the flag is not only attached to the
vertical flag pole, but also to a horizontal crossbar. Therefore, only the lower
free corner of the flag “flutters”. Secondly, you can see that the flag only moves when the flag stand has been turned. The crossbar does not follow the flag as
would be normal in the wind, but vice versa, the flag follows the pole in its
movement. There is no gust of wind to speak of. This is exactly what the
5 But Look! The Flag Flutters!
35
corresponding scene from Apollo 17 shows; here, too, the flag follows the crossbar’s movement and not vice versa. And once again, the flag only moves
when an astronaut touches it.
QR: The astronauts from Apollo 17 plant the flag. tinyurl.com/ybz6k55q
To be fair, I must admit that the corresponding pendulum motions actually
look different than you would expect on Earth. In fact, you can easily get the
impression that these are movements caused by the wind. This is especially the
case in some scenes because the preceding touches from astronauts happened
relatively long before the motion occurs. However, we must not forget that six
times less gravity acts on the flag material on the Moon than on the Earth. By
precisely analyzing the flag’s motion, you can determine that an oscillatory
response describes its movement without issue, quickly invalidating the asser-
tion of flag movement caused by the wind.
Once again, I need to stress Occam’s Razor. The claim that wind moves the
flag requires an extraordinary number of assumptions and simply is not evi-