Moon Landing Conspiracy Debunked Once and for All
Did we land on the moon?
NASA wants you to believe that on the 20th of July, 1969, they successfully put a man on the moon, and they support this with a decent amount of pictures and videos. But they never tell you that Stanley Kubrick was the man who actually faked it all when the United States could no longer compete with the Soviet Union in the space race.
This, briefly, is what the conspiracy theory which I will investigate in this article says, and which, frankly, surprised me with tons of questions that made me doubt a bit what I have been considering for years to be true. How did the Apollo crew make it through the Van Allen belt? Why there are no stars in the background of those pictures? Why do the shadows point in different directions? Why is the American flag waving? Didn't you say that there is no wind on the moon? And the questions just kept accumulating so quickly that I couldn’t help investigating this matter.
How did the Apollo astronauts get past the Van Allen radiation belt?
The Van Allen belt is the region around the Earth where the amount of radiation is disturbingly high. But to know if that qualifies for deadly, I made a simple calculation. The Apollo 11 crew spent four hours in that region. And knowing that one year will expose you to 25000 mSv of radiation, I found out that each one of them has been exposed to 10 mSv.
The question now is should they really have died? Unfortunately, the answer is no, as this is roughly equivalent to having a CT scan. In fact, to die from radiation, you must at least expose yourself to 5000 mSv; or spend two months in the Van Allen belt.
Why are there no stars in the moon pictures?
Common sense says that when it’s not cloudy, a black sky should be saturated with stars. But do those pictures have to have stars in them too?
Having spent our lives on Earth, we all know they have to, but what we don’t know is that our sky is different from the sky that our ancestors enjoyed before they invented electricity; and the reason for that is that as soon as there is something bright in front of you the pupil will automatically close; so less light goes into the eyes, and therefore, only the very bright stars will still be present. Now, imagine if that light in front of you was the sun; in that case, even those bright stars would vanish just like in the pictures of Apollo.
What about the "Stanley Kubrick conspiracy"?
If you’ve seen movies like The Martian, Interstellar and First Man, you must already know that one doesn’t need to go to the moon to get those pictures; of course, you could just fake a moon landing here on earth. But if we tried to get rid of that 21st-century mentality even for a second and went back 50 years into the past to examine the iconic achievement of Stanley Kubrick, 2001: A Space Odyssey, we would find out that the moon landing scenes are not quite realistic, which indicates that at the time there was no way they could have faked a moon landing that looks realistic.
So, do you really think that the man who produced 2001: A Space Odyssey could have really faked it? That's up to you.
Why aren't the shadows parallel?
The optical rule says that if the light source is too far away, the shadows should point in the same direction. However, if you look closely at some of the pictures from the Apollo missions, you will notice that the shadows are not parallel, which gives the impression that there are multiple light sources. In fact, those interested in the art of painting must already have an understanding of the concept of perspective; that is if two parallel lines are photographed from the front they look as if they intersect at a point called the vanishing point, as you see in this picture that I took myself.
Moreover, the idea of using multiple lights is at best strange because that would have caused multiple shadows, as happens during football matches, for example; and that’s why in the movie "First Man", they used a single light to film the moon landing scene.
There could be other reasons why we may have non-parallel shadows such as the shape of stones, the topography of the moon’s surface, and the type of lens used, but in this case, it seems that perspective is what caused the shadows to look non-parallel.
Speaking of shadows, and to those who may wonder why Buzz Aldrin appears to be lit from the back in this picture even though the sun is in front of him, I say he is lit in the same way you are lit every day when the sun is in front of you; in other words, with light reflected from the walls and the pavement – or from the lunar sand grains if you happened to be on the moon.
Why was the flag waving on the moon?
We all agree that there is no wind on the moon – or at least that’s what they told us – but why does the American flag appear to be waving while the astronaut fixes it in the sand?
It actually stops when he moves away from it, but regardless of that, it’s hard for our brains which evolved on this planet to believe that the slight movement of his hand is what makes it shake like that; if we try to do that on the ground, of course, it wouldn’t work. But what really would limit the flag’s movement, in that case, is the very air resistance which costs you 5% of your car's fuel budget without you knowing it. And since there is no air on the moon, the flag will, of course, have more freedom of movement.
Did we go to the moon?
You might still prefer the "moon landing fake proof" articles despite all this. But personally; after I learned that the reflectors that were left on the moon are still used today to study its trajectory by pointing laser to them; after I learned that the Soviet Union, which is supposed to be a mega-skeptic, acknowledged the success of the mission after tracking it all the way to the moon and back; after I learned that we have 400 kilograms of moonstones distributed throughout the world; after I learned that NASA's Lunar Orbiter recently photographed the landing sites of all the Apollo missions; and after I learned that the real reason why we didn’t go back the moon is that the American government drastically reduced the budget of NASA after the Cold War; I decided to tell you, my skeptic friend, that it seems that man has indeed landed on the moon.
“That's One Small Step for [a] Man, one giant leap for mankind.” – Neil Armstrong
© 2020 ABDERRAHIM AISSA