The Moon Landing Conspiracy: Feat or Hoax?

When historic events, paranormal activities, and unexplained phenomena occur, conspiracy theories often proliferate in various media outlets and public discourse. Modern society today highly values scientific knowledge and justification for unexplained or extraordinary events. The veracity lunar landing in 1969 continues to stir much controversy and has sparked much debate about whether it truly occurred or if the U.S. government orchestrated the greatest hoax in history. The majority of the scientific and community and politicians believe that the lunar landing did occur within the tense climate of the Cold War. On July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong, the leading astronaut in the Apollo mission to the moon, told the Houston station that the Apollo II lunar module had successfully landed on the moon. When Armstrong stepped onto the moon's surface, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) celebrated their victory over the Soviet Union in the space race that occurred during the Cold War (Koman, 1994, pg. 42). However, non-believers have exploited America's obsession with government conspiracies and have produced documentaries and opinion pieces that sensationalize the sentiment that NASA orchestrated a billion-dollar hoax because of the tense political climate (Braeunig, 2006). Both proponents and non-believers center the lunar landing controversy within the context of the Cold War. Although conspiracy theorists invoke science and logic in their attempts to uncover this monumental hoax, it becomes clear that they distorted evidence in order to fit their narrative about a government scandal. Such sensationalized accounts elide overwhelming scientific evidence and result in a misinformed public.

The Apollo mission did not transpire overnight as non-believers claim, which the accelerated development of the space program within the context of the Cold War climate that culminated in the 1969 monumental space odyssey reflects. In 1950, the Soviet Union had hired a team of German scientists to develop their missiles and rockets. They had already experienced much success in the manufacturing advanced weaponry, as they successfully produced an atomic bomb in 1949, a hydrogen bomb in 1954, and various ballistic missiles. The rapidity of Soviet innovation and development of technology surprised the United States, The American public soon became informed of Soviet accomplishments in 1957 when Sputnik, the first artificial satellite, successfully went into orbit and enabled Soviets to send nuclear warheads to any location in the world (Koman, 1994, pg. 42). As a result, American politicians, especially Lyndon B. Johnson, juxtaposed political clout with space and called for the need to match Soviet feats (Reichstein, 1999 pg. 114). He spoke at a Democratic conference about the need to accelerate the development of the U.S. space program in order to compete with the Soviets: "The urgent race we are in now...is not the race to perfect long-range ballistic missiles...There is something more important than any ultimate weapon. That is the ultimate position--the position of total control over earth that lies somewhere out in space" (pg. 115). Shocked, American officials accelerated efforts to close the gap in space technology revealed to them by Sputnik.

After the success of Sputnik, the American government vowed to catch up to Soviet technology in outer space. The U.S. had hired German expatriate Werner von Braun to develop rockets in 1950, which provided a foundation for the development of the first intercontinental ballistic missile called the Atlas. The success of Soviet scientists in 1957 prompted American scientists to become more creative and risky in their initiatives due to the increased vulnerability to Soviet nuclear weapons and bombs. President Eisenhower created NASA in 1958 to consolidate various space programs throughout the nation. Its primary goal from the beginning was to successfully put a man into orbit in outer space (Koman, 1994, pg. 42). In 1961, the Soviets further outdid the Americans by launching Yuri Gargarin into space and orbiting the earth and subsequently boasted about it in the international press. As a result, President John F. Kennedy's strategy in the Cold War centered around putting a man on the moon before the Soviets did regardless of the cost (pg. 43). Doing so would bolster national prestige, quell the fear of communism and Russian attack which permeated the American public, and restore public morale and pride. As a result, three separate space exploration projects focused on achieving Kennedy's race to the moon and culminated in 1969 with the Apollo 11 mission (pg. 44). Kennedy viewed the risk of investing in the space program as worth it when the United States would ultimately succeed (TheoriesofConspiracy). Thus, it becomes clear that the lunar landing did not occur overnight, and the tense political climate during the 1960s provided an impetus for the rapid development of adequate technology to allow for a man to walk on the moon.

Skeptics, however, contend that the Cold War accounted for the government contriving this monumental hoax. Sputnik had fostered great concern that the Soviets had mastered space over the U.S., which sparked fear that they would launch a nuclear strike from space. The United States, skeptics argue, have historically offset the threat of superior powers through deceit and misinformation as a tactic for victory. During World War II, the United States army placed inflatable tanks far from Normandy to draw German forces away from the real location of the invasion. Moreover, the Star Wars missile defense program rigged tests to trick the Soviet Union about the preparedness of the United States during the Cold War. The government cannot just fool the Soviets while informing the U.S. public of the actual truth. Thus, cynics invoke these historical instances to posit that the United States government deceived the entire nation and world because the pride of the U.S., which invested billions of dollars, was at stake (TheoriesofConspiracy). The government considered space to be the final frontier of the Cold War and thus went to any length to make sure the world believed the United States had triumphed.

Despite the overwhelming evidence that proves the lunar landing occurred, some people still render it the greatest government hoax and point to a plethora of "scientific" evidence to back up their claims. Some television networks such as FOX television news have aired programs that provide supposed scientific evidence that NASA contrived the moon landing (Braeunig, 2006). Skeptics assert that it seems implausible that NASA could accomplish a moon landing, but twenty years later they could not put into orbit a telescope that focused, a far less complicated endeavor (TheoriesofConspiracy). Furthermore, they point to various inconsistencies with scientific facts in the photographs taken by the astronauts on the moon. Only twenty photographs have been found, which is surprising because of the historical significance of the event. The shadows on the moon, they argue, confirm the hoax because the sun provides the only light source so artificial light would not be necessary to take photographs. Objects solely lit by the sun as they would have been on the moon would produce shadows that run parallel from one another and never intersect. However, photographs from a rarely used NASA archival site reveals that artificial light was used, as shadows intersect in many of them. Artificial light would not need to be used because the sun was bright enough, but the obtained photographs could not have been taken using solely the light of the sun (TheoriesofConspiracy). These claims ignore scientific reality because it does not take into consideration sunlight that the lunar surface itself reflects. Besides the sun, the lunar surface provides the primary source of lighting on the moon. It reflects approximately ten percent of the light it gets, which justifies the patterns of shadows evident in the photographs. Moreover, the slope of the ground, as well as the perspective of the photographs, explain why the shadows on the lunar surface are not parallel, which photographs on earth simulating these circumstances reveal (Braeunig, 2006). Skeptics predicate their conspiracy theory on the "scientific" inconsistencies evident in these photographs, yet scientists have continued to refute the fallacies they espouse.

Moreover, skeptics harp on the fact that if the astronauts really did land on the moon, they would have seen hundreds of stars if they looked above them; however, they never mention it or claim amnesia when the issue is brought up. Cynics point to the post-flight conference when Neil Armstrong experienced an absence of memory regarding whether or not they saw stars. This amnesia indicates that the government wanted to silence these astronauts when asked questions that might foster doubt in the American public that they actually accomplished the feat so desired by President Kennedy at the beginning of the decade. Years after the flight, Michael Collins, one of three astronauts who landed on the moon, recalled in his memoir that he remembered seeing stars (TheoriesofConspiracy). However, skeptics emphasize, no stars appear in the photographs taken. Such a conclusion elides scientific reasoning and thus distorts the facts of the lunar landing. The glare of the lunar surface posed an obstacle to these astronauts from adapting their eyesight in order to see the faint stars in the black sky. Additionally, stars are too faint for cameras to capture them on film (Braeunig, 2006). The reality of the lighting of the lunar surface thus explains away the cynics' contentions regarding the hoax.

Decades after the first man walked on the moon, conspiracy theories continue to proliferate regarding whether it actually happened or if the government concocted the greatest hoax of all time. Cynics invoke "scientific" authorities to convince the audience that the lunar landing could not have occurred. They provide limited details on the sources they use to qualify their claims, often asserting that they got access to remote archival sites that house classified photographs and documents that the government does not want the public to see. Rather than proving the lunar landing was a conspiracy with scientifically sound facts, many skeptics often paint a picture that fosters doubt regarding the credibility of NASA and the astronauts. These doubters not only distort facts but they also take interviews and statements out of context in order to support the narrative they proffer. The nature of the media in elevating ratings underlies many of these conspiracy theories. Nonetheless, science remains the ultimate authority in the modern era, and it cannot be disputed. Despite the triumph of science, Americans remain obsessed and captivated by conspiracy theories regardless of the evidence available to counter them.

References

Braeunig, R. (n.d.). The Moon Hoax Debate. The Moon Hoax Debate. Retrieved March 25, 2014, from http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

G., D. (1965). Space: Administration Officials Says Some Harsh Things About Scientists Opposing Moon Landing. Science, 147(3656), 381.

Koman, R. G. (1994). Man on The Moon: The U.S. Space Program as a Cold War Maneuver. Organization of American Historians , 8(2), 42-50.

Reichstein, A. (1999). Space--the Last Cold War Frontier?. American Studies, 44(1), 113-136.

TheoriesofConspiracy. THE MOON LANDING HOAX (FULL DOCUMENTARY). (2012, December 21). YouTube. Retrieved March 25, 2014, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW4_5kAPzb0

Was The Apollo Moon Landing Fake?. (2013, April 11). Was The Apollo Moon Landing Fake?. Retrieved March 25, 2014, from http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm