Are Moon Hoax believers stupid?

I am sometimes accused of treating hoax believers as if they are stupid. The problem I face here is that if I am asked a really stupid question it is very difficult, if not impossible, to answer without making them appear to be stupid. Who's fault is that?

The following are extracts taken from emails from hoax believers to give an idea of the type of questions and statements I receive from the vast majority of them. My replies, are NOT always my original replies, I was a lot more polite!

Some of the questions are sensible, but most are not, and display a number of common attributes:

1) Many ask questions that are already answered on my site, showing that they did not even bother to read the page before asking the question.

2) Many of the questions have obvious answers, given just a little independent thought.

3) Many of the assertions made clearly show that no independent research whatsoever has been carried out, they are merely repeating information as if it were a proven fact, when in fact it's utter nonsense.

4) They tend on average to know very little about science - spaceflight, vacuum, gravity, geology, astro-photography, radiation, orbital mechanics, thermodynamics, etc. - yet feel amply qualified to challenge known facts on these subjects. This part at least make sense, for if they knew the facts they wouldn't believe it was a hoax!

The following is just a very small selection, but they are representative of the hundreds I have received. Make up your own mind if any of these appear to you to be daft questions or statements, not all are.

1) They could have made the moon rocks by getting boulders and spraying dirt over the rocks.

No, this isn't meant to be a joke, it was a serious statement, I checked!

2) Why are there are no stars visible in the sky?

Not again! Try actually reading my page before asking questions about it.

3) They made the Apollo 13 movie don't you think they could have made the other Apollo landings fake? I do!!

Well, that proves it was all a hoax then. Also proves the Titanic didn't sink either. (How do you answer such a stupid remark?)

4) On almost ALL of my research papers I got off the Internet they say they filmed Apollo 11 in the Nevada Desert!!

That about wraps it up then, it must have been a hoax. I dread to think the sites you selected.

5) Aldrin's shadow is far longer than Armstrong's. Yet the only light on the moon comes from the sun and could not create such unequal shadows.

Armstrong is semi-crouching holding the lower part of the flag pole and Aldrin is standing upright and on higher ground!

6) The flag is shown waving in the wind.

Not again! Did you actually READ my page?

7) The astronauts never left earth orbit.

And not one radar installation, or visual observatory, across the world, noticed this obvious fact? Not even the Russians? Perhaps every time they orbited the world, which would have been around 15 times a day, when they should have been on the moon, everyone was taking a coffee break.

8) The moon rocks are not really from the moon, they are ordinary rocks faked up in a lab.

Not again! Did you actually READ my page? It is impossible to fake Moon rocks!

9) The lunar lander was so unstable that if the crew moved even a tenth of an inch during the landing stage they would have lost control and crashed onto the moon.

The landing was computer controlled and small thrusters were automatically fired to keep the lunar module stable during the descent. The crew had to move about a lot more than a tenth of an inch!

10) The lander was shown to be unstable during tests and could not have landed on the Moon

It is true that the test model was unstable. Tests were made on Earth of course, so the landers used in practice were not the same as the landers that went to the Moon. Gravity is six times stronger on Earth so the engines were much bigger and heavier, making the entire test lander bigger, heavier, and harder to control. It also required an extra jet engine that supported only 5/6ths of its weight to simulate 1/6th moon gravity. They have been described as the most unstable flying machine to have ever been tested. Landing on the Moon proved to be relatively easy compared to the tests on Earth.

11) Many Apollo photos show a lunar sky without stars, yet with no atmosphere on the moon, stars should be visible - a fact confirmed by Maria Blyzinsky, Curator of Astronomy at the Greenwich Observatory, London. If NASA could not hope to recreate the lunar sky, they may have opted for simple black backdrops. NASA claim that the sunlight was so strong it overpowered the light from the stars.

Not again! Did you actually READ my page?

I would be VERY surprised if the Curator of Astronomy at the Greenwich Observatory would make such a silly remark, but will have to take your word for it(???) However it is obviously wrong. Stand outside at night anywhere where the area is brightly lit and try and see stars in the sky. You cant! The light causes the pupils to contract thereby making the feint stars impossible to see. You have to BE in a dark area, not just have a dark sky! It doesn't matter that the lunar sky is very dark, the surface is very bright. Cameras with automatic settings, such as used by the astronauts, are affected in the same way. Try and take your own photo of the stars from a brightly lit area instead of just claiming its wrong.

12) How could they manage to get twelve astronauts into such a small spaceship?

PASS!

13) How could they make footprints? The surface is too dry.

Because there is no atmosphere, and therefore no weather, the particles do not get eroded and smoothed, but stays gritty and angular. This causes them to 'lock' together under pressure. There is also a far more technical explanation, but I will leave that for you to look up if you are that interested, it's too complex to summarise here.

14) Buzz Aldrin stands with the sun shining down across his left shoulder. Although his right side is in shadow, there is too much detail shown on that side of his space suit. It should be much darker and less visible because the contrast between light and dark is much greater on the moon.

Did you actually READ my page? Light reflects off the lunar surface, the lander, the astronauts, and everything else on the brightly lit surface. Some of this reflected light hits the shadowed areas.

15) Who took the video of Armstrong climbing down the ladder if he was supposed to be the first one on the Moon?

A video camera was deployed by Armstrong by pulling a lanyard from the top of the ladder causing an arm to swing out from the lander holding the video camera.

16) The film "Capricorn l" shows scenes just like the Apollo moon scenes, proving they never landed on the Moon. .

The makers of 'Capricorn l' would obviously want the film to look realistic and would have studied real footage! I despair at your mentality. I suppose World War Two didn't happen either because they were able to make the film 'Saving private Ryan" look the same as the real thing.

17) Object reflected in Aldrin's visor. Some theorists think that it is a helicopter, others say that it is a 12-metre glass structure. NASA claims that it is a piece of equipment on the lunar surface.

It's just some lunar equipment. Don't you think though that as there is a hell of a difference between a helicopter and a 12 metre glass structure that the 'theorists' (?) don't have much of a case? (I dread to think of the type of people that call themselves 'theorists' and believe it was a hoax. I wonder what their qualifications are? Stupidity?)

18) In this shot taken from the Lunar Module while it was 95 km above the moon's surface - is a shadow cast by the Command Module's rocket. But when larger aircraft fly at lower altitudes over the Earth, they do not cast such huge and defined shadows.

Neither does the lunar module. It is not a shadow on the lunar surface, its part of the lunar module seen through the window! It looks so obvious why did it not occur to you?

19) NASA is keeping it secret that there is a mile high artificial tower on the moon.

Amazing! Please explain why no telescope has detected it. Even my own telescope would resolve an object that large.

20) NASA is keeping it secret that there is a ancient ruined city on the moon.

Amazing! Not very good at keeping secrets are they?

21) The Lunar Module Antares, from Apollo 14, rests on the moon's surface there is no crater beneath its feet despite the considerable amount of dust that would have been thrown up during its descent.

And why do you think the lunar module would make a crater? What happens to disturbed dust in a vacuum, what trajectory will it take? How much thrust was being used at touchdown? At what angle did the module approach the landing site? How deep is the layer of dust where it landed? Find the answer to these questions and you will have your explanation.

22) As Alan Bean holds up a Special Environmental Sample Container, the top of his head is clearly in view. But the camera taking the shot was fixed on Charles Conrad's chest, and the ground here seems to be level, so the top of the helmet should not be in the photo.

When you hold your own camera up to your eye and take a picture centered on someone's head a few yards away, do you ONLY get the head in the picture?

23) You never see a picture of the astronauts holding a camera, so who took the pictures then?

The camera was fixed to their chest, not hand held, you just haven't recognised it.

24) Shadows visible in Al Bean's visor go off in various directions, not in straight parallel lines, as expected, suggesting that there is more than one light source.

The visor is curved, straight lines will appear curved on the visor.

25) Please explain how the astronauts got past the Van Allen radiation belts (these keep a lot of radiation away from earth) surrounding earth. And don't try to say they had protective shielding on the capsules (that gold foil is not much thicker than normal aluminum foil) you would need something like 6-8 feet of lead to protect you from all the radiation in space.

Why do you say that they would need 6-8 feet of lead shielding? Where did you get that gem from? Recorded space flight data shows they only received approx. 1 -2 rem for the entire mission, which is harmless, about the same dose as 2 chest xrays. This aspect was WELL studied before any mission took place. They would not have wanted their astronauts to die, bad publicity.

26) Explain the lack of stars in any photos.

Not again! Try reading the page.

27) Perhaps you can explain why transmissions from and to the moon were instantaneous when it takes at least a few seconds for radio waves to travel around earth today, (watch a sat phone on CNN sometime) much less millions of miles across space 32 years ago (through radiation which interferes with radio waves no less)

Millions of miles across space? The moon is only 240,000 miles away. At the speed of light that translates to about 1.3 seconds. The messages were not instantaneous. I have an old long play record with many recordings of messages between NASA and the astronauts on the Moon. There is a definite time lag. There is not a time lag shown on some of the video recordings because they were recorded by the astronauts on the moon showing them receive a message and then respond straight away. You don't know how long it took the message to get to them, or how long before NASA actually received their reply. Same thing if they were recorded by NASA. Where you see them send a message, and get the reply, there is a noticeable time lag in receiving the reply.

28) Can you explain why the hash marks (+ etched on the camera lens) in some of the photos were BEHIND objects they should have been in FRONT of?

Not again! Yes I can, and already have. Read my page. (What's your explanation? That they were pasted on afterwards and somehow went behind???)

29) Can you explain why the flag of the evil empire is flapping when there is no wind on the surface of the moon?

Not again! Yes I can, and already have. Read my page!

30) The lunar rover used to drive about on the surface is larger than the lander's onboard stowage space.

It was partly folded in transit and fixed to the outside of the lander.

31) Perhaps you can explain why the hills around groom dry lake a.k.a. area 51 looks just like a section of the moon surface, and several "hangers" look amazingly like Hollywood sound stages (you know the places where they shoot movies and TV shows)

Yes, I do know what a sound stage is thanks. Until you show me the photos of said hills at area 51 and identical hills on the Moon, I can't comment except to say that lots of hills look similar from a distance. Why should the likeness between a hanger and a film studio be grounds for believing in a moon hoax???

32) Maybe you can also clarify why the astronauts didn't boil alive in the sun (well over 250 degrees F) or freeze in the shadows (well under 250 degrees F)

Yes I can, and already have. Read my page! (Clue: they were wearing spacesuits!)

33) The intense heat would have melted the camera film.

The only method of transmitting solar heat to the film in a vacuum would be by radiation. A reflective surface on the camera solved that problem. This is the same reason that the spacesuits were white, not because it looked smart, but because it is very reflective and reflects back a lot of heat.

34) The intense cold would have frozen the camera film.

The Hasselblad camera and film used were specially designed and developed by Hasselblad to withstand the rigors of space. Visit Hasselblad's site for more information of a technical nature www.Hasselblad.com

35) It would not have been hard to cover it up, for the most part the people working in mission control probably thought we were really going to the moon, only a select few knew it was a hoax, not to mention anybody that did know would be eliminated i.e. killed, if they said anything.

So are you are accusing people at NASA of murder? If there was even a hint of this don't you think we would all know about it? Produce the 'evidence' and see if the murder charge sticks in court.

36) Why do the people that run the Hubble Space Telescope refuse to show the Apollo stuff on the moon?

They don't refuse, they just can't do it! Read the page! The HST is unable to resolve objects on the moon less then 86 metres across, none of the Apollo debris is more than 10 metres across at most.

37) How did they manage to film the lift off from the Moon? No one was supposed to be there!

What a stupid mistake for NASA to make! Just how daft are they? Imagine not thinking of that! Boy, you hoax believers are so smart to spot that one!

The lunar Rover was fitted with a video camera to transmit live action from the lunar surface, and they were of course left behind. It was a simple matter to leave the camera pointed at the Lander from a suitable distance.

38) How could the Rover camera follow the lander as it took off?

Easy. The camera was set back far enough to give a wide field of view. The time lag from Houston was only just over one second (1.3 seconds) so it was not difficult for Mission Control to coordinate timing to tilt the camera as the Lander took of. It wasn't perfect, but it was good enough to see the lift off.

39) How could the Lander take off without any air to burn in the engine?

Oh dear! How does the Shuttle get into orbit 'without any air to burn'? Someone at NASA has made a big boo boo here! My God! This must mean that the Space Station is a hoax as well! Hold the front page!

40) How does the Lander take of from the Moon without any air to push against?

Are you serious? (Turns out he is, this is from a professional photographer, not a 10 year old kid! The same guy who asked the question above).

41) How can it be that it takes a 300 foot rocket to get to the Moon, yet they get back in a 5 gallon propane tank?

Maybe you should consider how much energy is required to reach escape velocity from the Earth, and how much to reach escape velocity from the Moon, and how much mass each was carrying at the time. But as this will obviously be well beyond your limited ability you will just have to accept they did.

42) How could the one that stayed in Lunar orbit stay above the Moon for all that time?

Probably by using the same technique as the Space Station, satellites and the Moon to keep above the Earth, and the Earth to keep above the Sun and.........so on and so on. Think about it!

43) Even an idiot can see from the 'photos that the lander is the wrong shape for a rocket and could not possibly blast off from the Moon.

In that case, 'even an idiot' is well named indeed!

44) I won't believe it until I see photographs of the old landers on the moon taken by the TrailBlazer probe in 2003.

Fair enough, but why will you believe it then? I don't see the logic in that at all. You believe all the thousands of photos taken by the astronauts are fake, why should just one photo taken from a probe convince you? After all, it is supposed to be a massive conspiracy. Right?

45) They moved about the moon in slow motion, they should have been moving faster not slower. They moved around as if the were 6 times heavier not lighter.

Strange way of thinking! Allow me to explain. Strong gravity, manage jump up only little way, fall down quickly. Weaker gravity, manage jump long way, fall down slowly. Okay now?

46) How can you reject all that evidence for a hoax as shown on Fox TV?

I just have! The arguments put forward for a hoax were a mixture of wrong information, wrong science, and most of all, downright stupidity. The programme was a joke, unfortunately some people believed it.

Return to Did we land on the Moon?