Conspiracy Theories Surrounding the NASA Moon Landing and Scientific Rebuttals
Between 1969 and 1972, humanity successfully achieved manned landings on the moon through America's Apollo program. However, for over half a century, various conspiracy theories have been voiced regarding this historic achievement. Below, we introduce the claims and grounds for widely circulated conspiracy theories, and present scientific and logical rebuttals for each.
1. The claim that the angles of shadows in photos are unnatural, indicating studio photography (multiple light sources).
Basis of the claim: Conspiracy theorists point out that the shadows of objects in Apollo moon photos are not parallel and have inconsistent angles. They argue this is evidence that multiple light sources were used in addition to the sun, implying they were shot in a studio on Earth using artificial lighting.
Rebuttal: The fact that shadows do not appear parallel in moon photos can be explained by the terrain's undulations and the visual effect of perspective. Because the lunar surface has craters and rocks of various sizes, the direction and length of shadows can change depending on the location, even under the same sunlight. Furthermore, when a three-dimensional landscape is projected onto a two-dimensional photograph, shadows from parallel light rays may not appear parallel depending on the observer's viewpoint. We also experience the phenomenon where shadows of separate objects converge or diverge and do not appear parallel in photos when we look at our own shadows on the ground in the morning or evening when the sun is at a low angle. In other words, even with a single light source like the sun, it is not unnatural for shadows in moon photos to appear at various angles. In some photos, reflected light from the lunar surface and spacesuits, as well as the wide-angle effect of the lens, also affect the shadows, which can be fully explained without assuming studio lighting. From these points, the inconsistency in shadow angles is not evidence of a faked moon landing, but a natural phenomenon that occurs in an actual environment.
2. The claim that there are no stars in the moon photos.
Basis of the claim: Because not a single star is visible in the black sky of the moon photos released by the Apollo program, suspicions have been raised: "If they were really taken in space, stars should be visible. NASA must have intentionally left them out because they couldn't reproduce the starry sky." Some also claim that NASA erased the stars to prevent astronomers from identifying the shooting location as Earth or the moon based on the arrangement of the stars.
Rebuttal: The absence of stars in moon photos is due to the exposure settings and the difference in brightness of the surroundings at the time of shooting, not an intentional cover-up. The Apollo astronauts landed on the moon during the lunar daytime, and the sun was directly illuminating the lunar surface, making the spacesuits and the moon shine very brightly. To photograph such bright subjects, it is necessary to set the camera's shutter speed fast and the aperture small. As a result, faint light like background stars is not captured due to underexposure. In fact, it is not uncommon for stars not to appear in photos taken on Earth of people illuminated by streetlights at night, and there are many examples of photos taken in space (such as photos of Earth taken from the Space Shuttle or the International Space Station) where stars do not appear. It is not that the stars themselves do not exist; it is simply that the camera settings were not capable of capturing the light of the stars. Furthermore, the astronauts reported that they could not see the stars with the naked eye under direct sunlight because their pupils had constricted, but they did testify that they could see starlight when they entered the moon's shadow. From the above, the fact that stars do not appear in the photos is a scientifically explainable phenomenon and is not evidence of a fabrication.
3. The claim that it is strange for the American flag to be waving in the wind.
Basis of the claim: In the Apollo 11 footage, there is a scene where the American flag planted by the astronauts on the moon appears to be waving in the wind. It was pointed out that since there is no wind on the moon, which has no atmosphere, the flag should not be fluttering. From this, suspicions were raised such as, "Is this evidence that it was filmed in a studio on Earth?" or "Was it hit by air conditioning or a fan in the studio during filming?"
Rebuttal: The flag on the moon was not moving due to wind; it only appeared that way due to the installation method and the laws of physics. If you look closely at the photo, there is a horizontal bar (a telescopic pole) along the top edge of the flag, and it is fixed in a U-shape so that the flag does not droop. NASA had devised a way to keep the flag spread out even on the windless moon. For this reason, the flag was taut and wrinkled, making it look as if it were waving in the wind. In reality, those wrinkles were caused by the flag being folded and stored during transport to the moon, and the creases that occurred when it was spread out simply remained. Also, the flag only shakes in the footage while the astronauts are moving the flagpole. Because there is no air on the moon, there is no attenuation due to air resistance, so the flag only swayed back and forth like a pendulum for a while after they let go, and it quickly came to a stop. In other words, the fact that the flag appeared to be fluttering was due to the ingenuity of the installation and the physical behavior in a windless state, and is not evidence of a fabrication.
4. The claim that it should have been impossible for astronauts to pass through the Van Allen radiation belt.
Basis of the claim: There is a strong radiation belt (the Van Allen belt) around the Earth, and powerful solar flares and cosmic rays occasionally rain down from the sun. Some conspiracy theorists claim that "with the technology of the time, it was impossible for humans to pass through such an intense radiation environment safely." They point out that the astronauts should have died from radiation exposure, or that the film on board should have been fogged and rendered useless.
Rebuttal: The Apollo spacecraft passed through the Van Allen belt, but its path and speed were carefully calculated, and the radiation dose received by the astronauts was well below dangerous levels. The Van Allen belt surrounding the Earth varies in intensity depending on altitude, and the inner belt (which has many high-energy protons) is particularly dangerous, but the Apollo spacecraft passed through this inner belt at high speed in just a few minutes and took a course that cleared the relatively weaker outer belt in about an hour and a half. The aluminum alloy hull and equipment of the spacecraft acted as a certain amount of shielding, suppressing exposure to high-energy particles. Furthermore, the trajectory from Earth to the moon itself was selected to be a route with less radiation. As a result, the total radiation dose received by the astronauts was estimated to be less than about 1 rem (about 10 millisieverts), which is a level equivalent to the natural radiation dose a person receives living on Earth for three years. This level of radiation does not have a serious impact on the health of the astronauts and is well within the permissible range from the perspective of international radiation safety standards. In fact, the Apollo astronauts remained healthy after their missions, proving that the radiation of the Van Allen belt was not a fatal obstacle to the moon landing. Also, James Van Allen himself, the discoverer of the Van Allen belt, has denied the conspiracy theory by pointing out that the radiation level passed by Apollo was not fatal to the human body.
5. The claim that a moon landing was impossible with 1960s technology.
Basis of the claim: Some people believe that "it should have been impossible to send humans to the moon and return them safely with the level of scientific technology at the time." For example, doubts are raised that computers in the 1960s had low computing power and lacked reliability, making it impossible to guide and land a manned spacecraft on the moon, or that the development of giant rockets and the realization of precise landing mechanisms were premature.
Rebuttal: In the 1960s, the technology required for a moon landing was actually developed and put into practical use. NASA developed dedicated equipment and systems, including the powerful Saturn V rocket, for the Apollo program and succeeded in transporting humans to the moon. The Saturn V was a rocket with one of the largest launch capacities in history, capable of delivering the Apollo spacecraft (command module and service module) and the lunar module to the moon. In addition, the Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) was a cutting-edge small digital computer for its time, which accurately performed guidance and control of the spacecraft within limited memory and computing resources, and worked with the ground control center to lead the mission to success. These new technologies were subjected to thorough testing and improvements before being used in the actual missions. As a result, a total of six manned moon landings were actually achieved between 1969 and 1972. Numerous physical pieces of evidence, such as the approximately 380 kg of moon rocks brought back from the moon and spacecraft tracking data captured by observatories around the world, support the fact of the moon landing and the technical capabilities of the time. In other words, a moon landing was fully possible with the technical capabilities of the 1960s and 70s, and the claim that it is a fabrication because it was technically impossible is invalid.