Is it a scam?

Is the Apollo moon landing plan a scam?

An American professor sparked a big online debate.

Positive fraud theory

Negative deception theory

In recent years, more and more Americans have doubts about the feat of "Apollo moon landing program". According to the statistics of authoritative social investigation institutions in the United States, about 25 million Americans believe that the so-called six American landings on the moon are an unprecedented scam created by NASA in the history of scientific and technological development.

Professor Bill Kane, who participated in the Apollo program, recently wrote a book called "We have never landed on the moon", which listed the following main doubts about the Apollo program:

1. The stars on the moon without atmospheric refraction should be brighter and clearer, but many so-called "moon photos" can't see a star on the space background.

When the spacecraft landed on the moon, the huge thrust of the rocket engine should leave obvious marks on the dusty surface of the moon, but it can't be seen in the photos.

3. In some photos, there is an imperceptible line between the close shot and the distant shot, which reminds people of the "fade-out painting" in movie stunts, that is, the distant shot is drawn first, and then covered with light and shadow.

If the moon landing is fake, by what means can we deceive hundreds of millions of TV viewers around the world? Bill Kane believes that the rocket carrying astronauts was indeed launched, but the target was not the moon, but the unreachable South Pole. The rocket popped out of the command module and was recycled by military aircraft. Then the astronauts went to the moon in the laboratory on earth, then entered the command module and were put into the Pacific Ocean to complete the so-called moon landing process.

After the publication of Professor Bill Kane's book, it aroused a strong response from personnel and academic authorities from all walks of life in the United States, and a big debate about whether the Apollo moon landing program was a scam was launched vigorously all over the United States. In addition, with the help of the Internet, this great debate has been widely spread all over the world. The author spent nearly a month on the internet to understand the general views of both sides of the debate, and then sorted them out and published them.

Positive fraud theory

The main representative is Hamlet, a famous physics professor in American academic circles. He believes that the basis for the US Apollo moon landing fraud is as follows:

1. The photos of Apollo landing on the moon are pure forgeries.

He found that the incident angle of the sun calculated according to the shadows on the photos of Apollo 1 1 spacecraft when people were on the surface of the moon was obviously inconsistent with the time, coordinate points and moon phase period of astronauts' activities on the surface of the moon announced by NASA. For example, he said, "Take Apollo 1 1 spacecraft as an example. The moon landing point is the sea of tranquility on the moon, 23.5 degrees east longitude and 0.6 degrees north latitude. The launch time from the earth is July 69, 69 13: 32 GMT, and the time for extravehicular activity on the moon is about two and a half hours, from 65438. Through calculation, I found that the incident angle between sunlight and the surface of the moon is only 6 to 7 degrees, almost close to the horizon. But the photos of Apollo 1 1 with the American flag planted on the moon show that the incident angle of sunlight is about 30 degrees, which is too far. Apollo 1 1 only spent more than two hours taking pictures outside the cabin, so the incident angle of sunlight should only increase by about 1 degree. The angle of the shadow in this photo should be 46 hours after "Take a Step". "

(Note: The following are some basic information for the reference of interested friends. Information about the moon phase query can be found on this webpage:

http://www . lunaroutreach . org " http://www.lunaroutreach.org； Apollo 1 1 moon landing website: http://www.ksc.nasa.gov "http://www.ksc.nasa.gov".

The video of Apollo landing on the moon was shot on the earth.

According to the video analysis of Apollo's landing on the moon, Hamlet thinks: "The gravity on the moon is one sixth of that of the earth. Even a fully armed astronaut weighs only 60 pounds. It should be easy to jump six times higher or six times farther than the earth. According to the video, the astronauts jumped up to three or four inches from the ground, less than one meter away. Isn't that a problem? Someone played back these shots 2.5 times faster, and everything was normal, just like the speed, height, distance and rhythm that the equipment should jump on the earth. According to the fact that the lens speed is slowed down to half, the acceleration becomes a quarter. Unfortunately, as a result of this treatment, the intensity of astronauts has also become one-sixth. If you really land on the moon, the astronaut is on the moon, and his thighs should be as powerful as the earth. "

Third, there is no laser reflector installed on the surface of the moon at all.

He pointed out that the laser reflector is another powerful evidence of Apollo's moon landing fraud. He said: "When the laser beam hits the moon, it diverges into a big beam with a diameter of seven kilometers, and when it reflects back to the earth, the diameter of the beam reaches 20 kilometers. According to the mirror photos I saw on the moon, it is estimated that it is no more than one fifth of a square meter. Ok, now please calculate, according to the optimal conditions, that is, the mirror is completely perpendicular to the beam, and the reflectivity reaches 100%. What percentage of the original light beam can be intercepted by the mirror and reflected back? The thickness of this reflected beam after reaching the earth is 20 kilometers. Assuming that the cross section of your receiving device is one square meter, how much of the original light was finally received by you? I don't know, but I am shocked! You will soon learn that the laser reflector on the earth emits back and receives it. In fact, the real laser reflector is the moon itself, because the distance between the moon and the earth is very far, and the moon itself can completely realize specular reflection.

Fourth, the progress of the Apollo program is suspicious.

Saturn V rocket used for landing on the moon is extremely powerful, far exceeding any modern rocket and modern space shuttle. Why is it abandoned now? It is said that even the drawings have not been preserved. How is that possible? In fact, the United States has never built an earth space station. So far, there is no suitable vehicle to put the space station into earth orbit. The modern space shuttle only sends a fragmentary payload of no more than 20 tons into low earth orbit at a time. Saturn V rocket was developed in the 1960s. It is said that it can easily send more than 100 tons of load into earth orbit and push dozens of tons of objects out of the earth's gravitational circle, thus launching the space station. If the drawings are still there, it should be easy to use modern computer technology and other high-tech improvements to make more effective and powerful rockets. Why not? NASA thinks Saturn V is too expensive, so it's ok to cheat children. From 1967 to 1972, the United States made 17 Saturn V rockets at one go. From Apollo 1 to Apollo 17, it is said that 17 Saturn V rocket failed to launch. Such a highly reliable rocket can produce 17 at one breath, which means it is not expensive. Why did you suddenly abandon it?

And the lunar module is also very problematic. It is easier to shoot an object on the moon, but it is not so easy to launch it from the moon. Is there enough fuel to make it reach the lunar orbit speed, that is, more than 1.7 km per second? When landing on the moon, the rocket continued to burn twice, once for 30 seconds, slowing down and leaving the orbit of the moon, and once for 12 minutes, to counter the gravity of the moon (I know it is one sixth of the earth! ) until a soft landing is achieved. Can the lunar module still have enough fuel to launch from the moon? The first-class fuel of Saturn V rocket is kerosene and liquid oxygen, and the fuels of the second, third and lunar landing spacecraft all use liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. The original Apollo spacecraft took five days to launch to and from the moon. In the next few times, the Apollo spacecraft landed on the moon and stayed on the moon for a longer time, from launch to return for a total of 8 days. During this period, it is a very difficult technical problem to keep liquid hydrogen as the fuel of the lunar module at ultra-low temperature, but NASA has never talked about how to solve this problem! "

In addition, from the development of Apollo spacecraft to the success of landing on the moon, the biggest doubt in history was the rapid progress of the project, which was unimaginable in terms of the national strength of the United States at that time. It is particularly important to note that it was not until June 1967 and June 1 that the first Saturn V rocket was successfully developed and the first launch test (Apollo 1) was just about to be carried out. Unfortunately, during the pure oxygen filling test of the lunar module on June 27 of that year, a fire broke out because of the wire collision for five minutes.

Rescuers just opened the hatch, and all three of the best astronauts were smoked to death by the poisonous gas produced by burning. After the accident investigation, the hardware circuit of the rocket was completely redesigned and the lunar module was improved a lot. This accident alone delayed the implementation of the moon landing plan 18 months. 1July 969 How could it be possible to land on the moon in such a short time?

As early as 1965, NASA discovered it; The pure oxygen scheme used in the lunar module has serious safety disadvantages, so it is not suitable. Many experiments have proved that in pure oxygen cabin, the spark of electrical switch friction is easy to cause fire, and it can not be put out. Using pure oxygen can reduce the pressure of the lunar module, and the design is simple, but for safety reasons, the design of nitrogen and oxygen mixture is adopted. This greatly increases the design difficulty, because it is necessary to use equipment to control the pressure and proportion of the two gases at the same time, and the weight of the lunar module alone has increased by one ton. The question is, why did you insist on the pure oxygen test of the instrument in 1967, and let the astronauts sit in it instead of ordinary testers? Knowing that it was dangerous, he forced the experiment, which made people suspect that the astronauts refused to cooperate with the fake plan and were murdered.

Negative deception theory

The main representative is Mr. Fang, who is studying for a doctorate in biochemistry in the United States. He thinks that the Apollo moon landing program can't be faked;

Because the plan was broadcast live around the world at that time, nearly 1 100 million people witnessed it. In addition, American astronauts brought back some objects from the moon, such as rocks. Besides, is it that easy to fake a large-scale plan involving tens of thousands of science and technology engineers? In addition, Fang pointed out: "Hamlet's claim that Apollo's landing on the moon was a scam with a little common sense thinking in middle school physics is not rigorous enough. For example, he said that because the gravity of the moon is only one-sixth of that of the earth, jumping on the moon is six times higher and six times farther than that on the earth, which sounds reasonable. I remember reading an article in a popular science magazine for teenagers when I was a child, explaining why this algorithm is wrong. This is a problem that middle school students can understand. Hamlet is a professor of physics and doesn't even understand this question. As a great evidence, it seems that he is possessed. "

First of all, the US government will not joke about its credibility.

When American astronauts landed on the moon for the first time, they broadcast live to the whole world via satellite. If it's a scam, the U.S. government doesn't have to take such a big risk to broadcast it live. Just send some photos afterwards.

It is almost impossible to know that the live broadcast of the moon landing is fake. If something goes wrong, the U.S. government will bear huge consequences, leading to the discredit of the whole American country. No president in the United States dares to do this, and it is not necessary. Is it necessary for the United States to choose a fake moon landing to take risks while competing with the Soviet Union for space technology hegemony? More than 20 years later, tens of thousands of engineers and technicians participated in a large-scale project. In a country with free press, it is unimaginable that so many parties came out to identify this scam.

Today, Clinton's sexual harassment lawsuit is endless. Although he is the president, the press and the judiciary are equally fascinated by him. If the moon landing plan is a hoax, the personalities of all participants in the plan will be ruined. And telling the truth afterwards is not necessarily risky, and sometimes it is even profitable. To let tens of thousands of people lie down for decades, non-power constraints can.

Second, the supervision of news and public opinion reports is quite powerful.

The United States is a society that pays attention to the freedom of news reporting, and the press has the right to expose any scandal. If the government deceives the public, American TV stations will immediately hire the most authoritative scientists in the world to make special commentary programs to expose the lies. If the moon landing plan proves to be a scam, I believe these American TV stations will take action.

Third, the evidence is still sufficient.

Judging from several photos and videos, the moon landing plan is a scam, and proving Goldbach conjecture is a kind of problem by mathematical induction. Generally speaking, NASA's projects involve thousands of people from academia and engineering, and they all maintain a rigorous scientific research attitude. Deceive or coerce them to cheat? It is not easy!

User comments:

Judging from the above-mentioned debate about whether the Apollo moon landing plan is a scam, those who affirm the scam mostly demonstrate their views from the perspective of scientific analysis and logical reasoning, while those who deny the scam mostly demonstrate their views from the perspective of social ethics.

Furthermore, Professor Hamlet, the representative figure of affirmative fraud theory, used scientific empirical means to identify the authenticity of Apollo's moon landing plan. For example, Hamlet discovered this defect according to the shadows cast by people when they moved on the photos on the surface of the moon.

Furthermore, Hamlet accurately calculated the video footage of an astronaut jumping off the landing ladder with a height of 1 m during the Apollo 14 spacecraft landing on the moon, and found that this was the conclusion of the earth's gravity field. The editor admires these two scientific calculation methods proposed by Hamlet.

The negative attitude is mostly based on social rumors and social ethics to support the "Apollo moon landing program." Obviously, this is not a scientific worker who analyzes and explains the essence of events with a rigorous and realistic attitude, so people like Fang are not as good as Hamlet. Professor Hamlet can distinguish "the authenticity of Apollo moon landing program" with a scientific and realistic spirit, which is very worthy of people's appreciation and learning, but we must also admit that Hamlet's argument has some shortcomings.

Science is based on natural objective facts, and scientists must seek truth from facts. Being able to deny one's subjective and one-sided views at any time in the face of facts is the real scientific spirit. To the editor's relief, Hamlet, as a scientist, embodies this scientific spirit, for example, he can still accept criticism and testimony from others in the face of the shortcomings in his own argument.

As a netizen, editors also hope to establish a good academic debate atmosphere in the real world and online, so as to promote people's understanding of nature and improve people's ability to transform nature. Finally, the editor solemnly stated that the big debate about Apollo's moon landing plan has not been finalized, but we can't deny the possibility of human landing on the moon!