I'm a writer with 6 years of experience in writing from Venezuela, South America. I love learning about science and discoveries
Despite the information on the moon landing that is on the internet, many questions continue to arise in websites, forums, and social networks. All of them have been answered, but some responses can lead to confusion.
Questions about photography, the flags, and the module used to fly to the moon are discussed by doubters, who generally believe in sources that are unofficial.
Let’s debunk these myths.
Could this trip have been a work by Stanley Kubrick?
The answer is no for a simple reason.
They did not have the technology in those days. Film director S.G Collings can assert this.
In a video posted on YouTube, he clearly explains he is not sure if the man went to the moon but he is sure there was no equipment to make the montage of the moonwalks.
Those who say that the video was a montage blindly claim this could have been achieved simply by slowing people down to simulate they were walking in zero gravity. However, S.G Collings claims the camera required to do that did not exist.
To be able to make a video in slow-motion, you can do it by slow playback or high-speed filming.
In 1969, this was only possible with the cameras that were used to shoot movies, not with the cameras that were used for the trip to the moon. There were no high-speed cameras.
This explanation, however, is not enough to stop moon landing conspiracy theories.
They hang on to the idea that in those years, NASA had magnetic discs that could record 30 seconds of video at normal speed and then play the content at 10 frames per second or 10 images per second, so they could make the slow-motion effect and that will last 90 seconds.
(Foto of the magnetic disk)
The Apollo moon landing was not filmed at 10 frames per second. You can see these specifications in the Apollo Lunar Television Camera Operations Manual that was used for that exploration. It is online, and you can download it for free.
So if the moon landing was signed at ten sprints per second, was it also possible to get 90 seconds of slow-motion video? Of course! The problem is that the full Apollo 11 moon landing video is 143 minutes long.
The cameras of the subsequent trips were 29.97 FPS. They are three times more difficult to fake.
For example, in this photo, Aldrin is shown getting off the lunar module, which is clearly shaded but he looks slightly lit. How is this possible if he is in the shade?
You have to keep in mind that sunlight is not the only source of light there. They have the light reflected from Earth, the light reflected from the moon itself, and also from the astronaut white suits. It is well known the white color objects reflect light better than other hues.
Why does the flag fly if there is no wind?
This has already been demonstrated by myth hunters, who put the same flag in a room with air and then they took the air out of it to convert it into a vacuum chamber.
In a vacuum, the flag moves more as there’s no air resistance, so that movement of the flag they think they see is nothing but the consequence of the force to put the flags up. And further, not only did Apollo 11 put up a flag, but Apollo 17 also did. The flag then moves due to inertia.
Moon landing doubters focus only on Apollo 11 and watch conspiracy videos without having any idea there were further moon landings. Of the 7 flags raised on the moon, 6 have been photographed by satellites.
But how is it possible they had studio lights?
However is NASA going to spend millions of dollars to fake the trip to the moon, and not take the time to erase the studio lights that are supposedly seen in the video? But then, what is that “unwanted” effect that some photos have?
This is called lens flare, a photography phenomenon, in which the moonlight (the light that the moon reflects because of the sun) and the sunlight enter the camera lens. This effect occurs even when a bright source is partially covered by something that shines less. In this case, the astronaut and the spacecraft.
Why can’t we see the flags on the moon?
But, with the current technology, with so many telescopes, why can't we see the objects that are on the moon, if we can see planets, galaxies, and nebulae?
The planets that we can photograph with telescopes are the closest to Earth, Mars, for example. There are no photos of the planets beyond the solar system. We know they exist because telescopes detect the change in light intensity when they pass in front of a star. There is no way to take photos of such distant objects.
We can see distant galaxies because they are hundreds of thousands of light-years across. We can see nebulae far away because they are millions of light-years across.
The objects left on the moon are too small to be seen with telescopes. Satellites and telescopes cannot capture objects on the lunar surface that are no bigger than a house, but they can detect them by the shadows they form.
Why can't we see the stars?
The photos on the moon were taken with a camera that was set up to capture photos in the daylight. In other words, we can’t see the stars because of the camera exposure. If the camera had been set up to take photos at night, we would have seen something like this.
The sunlight reflected on the moon is much stronger than all the stars in the distance. There are astronauts who have taken photos with adequate exposure. This is what stars look like from space with a camera set to take photos at night.
The Van Allen belts
Astronauts went through the belts by traveling through a zone of low radiation. Besides, they didn’t receive lethal doses of radiation because most of it was absorbed by the Columbia space module.
While many people say the spaceship was made of aluminum, the reality is the main components of the module were aluminum alloy, stainless steel, and titanium.
"There is a documentary where an astronaut clearly says it is impossible to fly through the Van Allen belts."
The documentary is taken out of context. It is just a fragment that talks about the things to do for the Orion spacecraft to get past the Van Allen belts. The astronaut says textually they have to work through these challenges before sending more people into this region.
He’s not stating it is impossible to go through them or they have never done it. He is speaking in the context of the project development because they have to do new calculations. They're not going to copy-paste what they did in Apollo. But some are experts at spreading misinformation.
The Hoax that is not a hoax
The moon landing was not an isolated event. Thousands of people worked on it around the globe. It was witnessed by three stations on Earth on different continents.
There were antennas in Spain, Australia and the US. Even Australia received the first words from Neil Armstrong 0.3 seconds before the US. In addition, the Soviet Union was also monitoring the moon landing. It was the Cold War and they were in a space race against the United States.
If it had been a hoax, the Soviets would have been the first to jump in and say “this is not real”.
As a tip, don't believe in internet videos just because they sound beautiful and compelling, or market themselves as ‘documentaries’. Always check the sources and take your time to research.
This content is accurate and true to the best of the author’s knowledge and is not meant to substitute for formal and individualized advice from a qualified professional.