It is in the details of this evidence for the Apollo landings that the doubts
begin to accumulate.
Initially it might be sensible to outline what is not in doubt.
The Apollo programme must be viewed in the context of the time. The 1960s were
a period of great political upheaval. It was the height of the Cold War and the
Vietnam War was turning very unpleasant.
In the Space Race The USA had been beaten to every major space first by the
Russians. America does not have the option of coming second to anyone hence the
dramatic challenge issued by JFK, in an address to the joint houses of Congress
May 1961, to 'land a man on the Moon before the decade is out'. When JFK issued
his challenge no American had even been into orbit, yet there was already a
timetable in place for the challenge to be completed.
Astronauts from the Mercury and Gemini programmes have been sent into earth
orbit since John Glenn in 1962. Similarly Russians cosmonauts spent many months
in extended earth orbit. Earth orbit is around 250 miles above the surface but
all flights and experiments are conducted well below the two Van Allen radiation
belts. (There is a third belt now which was created by the extensive nuclear
tests known as Operation Starfish Prime, carried out by the USA in late 1962 at
a height of 250 miles above Johnston Island in the Pacific. The largest was 1.4
Mton. The USSR also conducted many tests at a similar height over Siberia).
The reported figure of 400,000 people who worked on the Apollo programme were
doing the very best job they could. They were trying to fulfil their, by then,
dead President's challenge of 'landing a man on the Moon before the decade is
out and returning him safely to the Earth' (JFK, May 1961). They were building
the best rockets, landers, rovers, control centers, engines and all the many
thousands of items needed for a Moon landing. All these are real and could do
the job they were designed to do to the extent that anyone understood the
conditions they were intended to operate under.
Getting to the Moon was not a problem, it was getting astronauts back alive that
was the difficult part.
The Saturn V rocket was certainly powerful enough to launch a 50 ton payload
into lunar orbit. The launch of each Saturn V was observed by millions of
spectators. Those launches were real enough as were the 3 astronauts strapped
into their CSM on the top of the rocket. The recovery operation when the Apollo
module descended on its 3 parachutes into the Pacific was also as recorded.
The original unmanned craft sent to survey the Moon: the Ranger, Surveyor and
Orbiter craft did what was reported. Incidently the Orbiter craft carried
cameras capable of resolving objects on the lunar surface down to 3 feet across,
and this in 1967. The Clementine satellite launched in 1994 could only record
objects of 'half a kilometer'.
The Space Shuttle and the Space Station are for real as are all the reports
about their flights and construction. I watched the Space Station orbit over
the UK recently.
In no particular order the following could be considered some of the doubts:
1. The photographs and cameras.
Many photographs were published and distributed by NASA as evidence for the
Apollo programme in the late 1960s. Given the conditions we know they were
supposedly taken under they are very good pictures indeed. As such they could
be considered PR material for NASA to promote their space exploration programmes
to the US public who, through Congress, were paying for it all. But were they
actually taken on the lunar surface?
It is important here to know the ability of Kodak Ektachrome film to record
details in shadow areas while at the same time recording details in the
highlights. The accepted exposure range for this film is less than 1 stop.
The very harsh lighting on the Moon, being from the Sun and unfiltered by any
atmosphere, also produces very black shadow areas. Even on earth photographers
need 'fill in flash' to record shadow detail. On the Moon this requirement
would surely be even more a necessity. No additional lighting nor reflectors
were carried on Apollo. To then say that the reflection from the 'special lunar
surface' is sufficient to 'fill in' does not stand up to scrutiny. There is an
observable inconsistency in the amount of 'fill in' seen in different
photographs. Some have dense black shadows on the LM and other objects and some
have well 'filled in' shadow areas.
In the book Full Moon, by Michael Light and Andrew Chaikin, on page 51 there is
a picture of the Apollo 14 lander, Antares. It is taken with the camera pointed
straight into the Sun yet the shadow side of the craft is fully illuminated and
the directly lit area of lunar surface around the lander is not overexposed.
Note also the 'jerry can' like object on the ground under the lander which is
well illuminated and has a highlight of light on it. The shadow of the lander
extends for about 70 feet from the craft and is solid black with nothing visible
in it at all. Other than a light source or reflector near the camera position I
cannot see how this picture could have been taken to show all the detail
visible.
Just a brief reference to the odd direction shadows on the Moon sometimes take.
In Full Moon on page 45 there is a picture taken by Jack Schmitt (A17) showing
his own shadow as well as that of a small rock to his right. The shadow of the
rock appears to be at right angles to Jack's shadow. Assuming it to be
illuminated by the Sun both shadows should be parallel. Here they are not. It
is baffling.
I contend that the photographs supposedly taken on the lunar surface were in
fact professionally taken by NASA employees under a controlled environment on
earth to simulate the conditions assumed to exist on the Moon. Most likely they
were taken during the extensive training and simulation exercises know to have
been carried out.
The cameras used were all Hasselblad 500EL (electric motor drive) made and
modified to NASA's requirements by Hasselblad of Sweden. They had no
viewfinder, no exposure meter, manual setting of the focus, shutter and aperture
rings, a shutter button on the front of the camera body not visible from inside
a space helmet and no visible nor audible means of knowing whether a picture
had actually been taken. The small film counter, measuring about half an inch
in diameter, being on the side of the magazine could not be seen from inside the
helmet. This camera was operated wearing a space suit with armoured gauntlets
pressurised at 5 psi in the vacuum of space.
Hasselblad UK have an example of the Apollo camera at their HQ in London. I
handled this camera when I appeared on the Big Breakfast (UK TV program) with
Johnny Vaughan a few years ago. I have also used a regular Hasselblad camera.
At the best of times they are not easy to control, but when mounted on a chest
support would be even more of a problem.
Yet the pictures supposedly taken with all these limitations of use under what
were very extreme conditions on the Moon are some of the defining images of the
20th Century. Correctly exposed, accurately focussed, well composed and no
heads cut off. There are even several panoramas which overlap by just the right
amount. This is very hard to achieve without a viewfinder to check the overlap.
The known limitations of the Apollo cameras mitigate against the excellent
results obtained with them.
The film used for the still images was Kodak Ektachrome transparency 160 ISO
film. The originals are stored in vaults at Houston. They were duplicated once.
Every Apollo picture we have seen is taken from those duplicates. Noone,
including Michael Light for his book Full Moon, has seen let alone handled the
originals.
The Hasselblad cameras all had a screen built into the camera body with 25
crosshairs etched onto it. The centre crosshair was always the largest and
shows the centre of the picture. On the famous picture showing Aldrin as Man on
the Moon the large crosshair is below his right knee and well below the center
of the picture. It is only when you look at a duplicated image supposedly
showing the whole film area from the original that you see the picture appears
to have been cropped before it was duplicated. But this should not have
happened if the dupes were exact copies of the original.
The temperature range on the Moon of +250F to -250F would cause severe damage to
any film.
2. Radiation.
All radiation in space is produced by the Sun. Up to and including X-rays and
Gamma rays. The Sun also throws out flares at unpredictable intervals and
strengths. Due to the protection offered by the Van Allen radiation belts which
are held in place by the earths' magnetic field and stretch from 500 to 40,000+
miles above the earths surface we humans can live in reasonable comfort and
safety. So long as we dont spend too long soaking up the rays...
Beyond the Van Allen belts humans are exposed to the full gamut of the Suns
energies and so would require some form of protection to survive. I understand
that lead is particularly good for this. We know that no lead shielding was
carried on Apollo so how were 27 astronauts able to survive a journey of several
days to and from the Moon? To my knowledge none have suffered from any form of
radiation induced illness.
Logically their space suits would offer protection when the astronauts were on
the lunar surface. So I contacted the manufacturers of the space suits, a
company called Hamilton Standard, and asked them what protection against
radiation was offered. I also asked them, in view of the obvious success these
suits had in keeping the astronauts alive, could the same suits be used by
technicians to go into Chernobyl or Three Mile Island nuclear reators and clean
up the mess? They said this would not be advisable in view of the fact that no
radiation protection was built into the suits. They were made according to the
specification submitted by NASA and I should direct my query to NASA. No reply.
All photographic film is fogged by exposure to radiation. A few years ago when
passing through airport X-ray machines it was always advised that film be hand
searched and not put through the machines due to the dangers of fogging.
In 2002 the producers of the new IMax film, about the construction of the Space
Station, recounted how their cameras with the 70mm film canisters attached had
to be taken up in the Space Shuttle in a lead lined box then passed to the
astronauts who were to do the actual filming for the 2 minutes allowed in each
magazine. The camera had to be passed back to the Shuttle as soon as possible
'for protection against the dangers of radiation'. All this was of course
happening below the Van Allen belts.
The Hasselblad cameras used on Apollo also carried 70mm roll film in their 120
exposure magazines. There was no radiation protection possible on these
camereas nor on the magazines. As all radiation is contained in the
electromagnetic spectrum it would enter the camera through the lens whenever a
picture was taken. Yet none of the many thousands of photographs supposedly
taken on the lunar surface show any deterioration or damage due to radiation.
All these pictures were taken beyond any protection offered by the Van Allen
belts around earth and had been carried unprotected in the LM to and from the
Moon.
The Russians had told Bernard Lovell, (A well known UK astronomer) who had
tracked many of their craft in the 1960s with the Jodrell Bank radio telescope,
that they would not be sending any cosmonauts to the Moon until they could
ensure their protection from the dangers of radiation in space.
I had always assumed that both NASA and the Russians would have conducted
extensive testing to establish the dangers and levels of radiation in the Van
Allen belts and beyond, possible using monkeys, dogs and other animals as well
as sending geiger counters up. I cannot find any reports which indicate that
this had happened before humans were sent to the Moon in 1968 on Apollo 8.
In April 2002 the new head of NASA, Sean O'Keefe, stated that one of the two
major objectives of his term in office was to research the dangers of solar
radiation in space to ensure the survival of humans travelling beyond earth.
This appears to be a retrograde step if on Apollo it really was so easy to go to
and from the Moon 'in the shirt sleeve environment' of the CSM, which also had
no protection against the more lethal emissions of radiation and flares from the
Sun. During the time Apollo 16 was travelling to the Moon several flares were
recorded, certainly powerful enough to have adversely affected unprotected
humans.
3. Temperature.
Space has no temperature until there is something in space, such as a space
craft, to be affected by the radiant energy of the Sun. The reports from Apollo
11 that 'it was too cold to sleep' indicates that space is cold. Yet the LM on
the lunar surface was exposed to the full energy of the Sun for 22 hours and
during the time Armstrong and Aldrin were inside the LM they were in an
breathable atmosphere at 5psi. Have you tried getting back into your car when
you have left it parked in the sun during a hot summer day for a few hours? The
interior will be almost too hot to touch. Is the Moon really so different?
The LM only had a thin skin of aluminium yet was cold but reports from Skylab in
the early 1970s showed that it overheated severely despite spending half its
time in the earth's shadow. These reported variations do not make sense.
When on the lunar surface the astronauts wore a PLSS which contained all their
life support systems and allowed them to be independent of the LM. It included
the means to keep them cool. This used a system of circulating water in pipes
around their body. How was the heat then removed from the backpack? One answer
could be the explosive decompression of water by venting it into space. This
would have produced a very photogenic image around the astronaut, but no such
image exists that I can find.
Because space is a vacuum it is also a very good insulator. The internal heat
generated by the astronauts just walking around as well as the radiant energy of
the Sun on their suits would very soon cause them to become distressed. If
water was used to keep them cool it is possble to calculate the volume required
to remove a given amount of heat in order to maintain a reasonable temperature
of 80F inside the space suit. The PLSS carried at most .5 gallon which would be
sufficient for about 20 mins EVA. Not the 7 hours we were told Apollo 17
astronauts spent on the lunar surface before returning to the LM.
