Jul 6 2005, 11:06 PM
Interview with LA Times Reporter About Moon Trip, Los Angeles, 12/26/1968
Reporter: If the space program, either the Russian or the American program, which have plans to try to land on the moon and return safely, if this is successful, do you think this accomplishment would hurt the Krishna movement in the United States? It would contradict Vedic...
Prabhupada: Why? First thing is even they are successful, according to our principle, it is simply waste of time. Because we are not concerned even with the moon planet. We are trying to go to the planet of Krishna from where nobody returns back to this wretched condition of life. So the wretched condition of life is as good in moon planet as it is in this earth planet. And do you know what is the wretched condition of life? Yes. The birth, death, old age and disease. This is the wretched condition of life. So you cannot avoid this wretched condition of life in the moon planet also. There is birth, death, old age and disease. But where we are trying to go by Krishna consciousness, there is no birth, death, old age and disease. So even there are, people are successful to go to the moon planet, what connection we have got there? We are not at all concerned with any planet where there is birth, death and old age and disease. Even in the highest planet of this universe.
Reporter: Well, what I’m getting at is that if for instance you say that first this conviction that they would not be able to land, and secondly that whatever earth people would go there would be opposed and would not be able to safely return, if you say this, based on Vedic literature, and other members of the Krishna movement heard this, and then if the feat were accomplished, would this not seem a contradiction or something that had been said would be the case and then the opposite was proved true? Would this...
Prabhupada: What is that contradiction? There is nothing contradiction. We say that if you get a suitable body you can enter there. So if by your scientific process you can equip yourself with suitable body you can enter there. Where is the contradiction?
Reporter: Well, you said that spacesuit was not a suitable...
Prabhupada: That is a fact. That is a fact. That is not suitable.
Reporter: That’s the way they intend to go.
Prabhupada: That is, that is not, that we can safely say that with this suit you cannot go there. You have to make a different suit. Perhaps you do not know that.
Reporter: Okay, then let’s say that if with that suit they do go there and do return, would that be a contradiction?
Prabhupada: Why contradiction? We say that if you get a suitable suit you can go there. Where is the contradiction?
Reporter: Well I thought you said the spacesuit was not suitable.
Prabhupada: Yes. Spacesuit is not suitable. But if you can go with the spacesuit that may be contradiction, but that I am certain you cannot go.
Reporter: I’m confused.
Prabhupada: I say... Just try to understand me, that if you can prepare a suitable body, you can go there. But this spacesuit is not the suitable body. Is that all right? Now if you actually go there by this spacesuit, that will be contradiction to my statement, but I am certain you cannot do that.
Reporter: I see.
Prabhupada: Yes. So there will be no contradiction. Just clearly try to understand.
Reporter: Okay. Then I’ll try to repeat what you said and see if I am correct.
Prabhupada: I’ll repeat. I’ll repeat. First thing is that to enter into the moon planet you have to prepare yourself for a different body. If that body, you think that it is already made by the spacesuit, spacesuit is that different body, then it will be contradiction to my statement. But I say that with the spacesuit that you have manufactured, that is not fit to enter there. Now it is clear? The spacesuit is not fit for entering there. Is that clear?
Prabhupada: Now if by chance with this spacesuit you enter there, that will be contradiction, that nobody can enter. But I say you can enter there with a suitable body. If you think that the spacesuit is that suitable body then you can enter there. But I think this spacesuit is not that suitable body.
Reporter: If I think the spacesuit is suitable...
Prabhupada: For entering that moon planet... That is your statement, but I say that spacesuit is not suitable for entering into the...
Reporter: If I think the spacesuit is suitable and, say, if I am an astronaut and I land there, I can land there?
Prabhupada: If it is suitable. First thing that if it is suitable you can land. But to my opinion it is not suitable. Therefore you cannot land.
Reporter: Well... So then you are not saying then that it would be impossible for...
Prabhupada: That I never say. I say in the beginning that in order to enter moon planet you have to get a suitable type of body. That suitable type of body is not that spacesuit. Therefore the conclusion is that you cannot enter with this spacesuit. Is it clear?
Reporter: That part is clear, but not if other questions are asked.
Srimad-Bhagavatam 6.1.6, Bombay, 11/06/1970
Just like modern scientists, they are finding difference between this planet and the moon planet. They say that there is no living entity. That is not fact. They... Even though they have reached the moon planet, it is not a fact that there is no living entity. Accepting they reached the moon planet, they might have gone to the part where it is desert or barren land, because in each and every planet there is such possibility. In our, this planet also, when I was passing through the Suez Canal, it is horrible desert. So if somebody drops in that Arabian desert and concludes that there is no living entity in this planet, it is simply foolish. Similarly, these people are going, maybe going... First of all, I don’t believe they have gone, frankly speaking. Even they have gone, they are landing in some part of the moon planet where there is no inhabitation.
Room Conversation, Sydney, 04/01/1972
Prabhupada: At once. Yes. The newspaper said that “Mr. such and such went to moon planet.” Oh, immediately believe. See? A newspaper, ten cent worth newspaper. And in the Bhagavad-gita Krishna says, yanti deva vrata devan: [Bg. 9.25] “One who can... One can go to the demigods planets by worshiping them. You can go, yanti deva vrata devan, as others. Similarly, one can come to Me by worshiping Me.” Mad yajino ’pi yanti mam. So they never worshiped Chandra, and how they can go to the Chandra planet, or moon planet? Then Krishna is false. Krishna is imperfect. They become perfect. They are defying Krishna’s instruction. They have gone to moon planet. Then our whole propaganda, Krishna consciousness, becomes bogus. Therefore I always protest.
Sudama: They have not gone.
Prabhupada: They have not gone. We have got our tests. I am speaking from the very beginning, “They have not gone.” And practically you see, even if you have gone, what utility you have made? They are simply planning, again planning. “We shall get petrol from there. We shall have defense from there.” Simply bluffing, simply bluffing. The Americans will go to the moon planet to defend his country from the Russians. Just see. And we have to believe all these nonsense proposals. What defense they will do from there? Is it not the proposal? Yes.
Morning Walk, Cheviot Hills Golf Course, Los Angeles, 05/17/1973
Prabhupada: No, no. Not 67, 57. Sixteen years before. They are all childish. I am a layman. It will never be successful. It is already written there in my Easy Journey to Other Planets. Here also, that, some press reporter asked me in San Francisco, when I landed, “What is your position about this moon planet?” “It is simply a waste of time and energy. That’s all. You cannot go there.”
Bhagavad-Gita 4.12, Vrindavan, 08/04/1974
I say therefore, these Americans, that “You are born of this rich nation. That is also a result of pious activities.” Because janma... Janmaisvarya-sruta-sri. And wealth also. The Americans have got immense wealth. That is also a result of pious activities. And janmaisvarya-sruta, education. They have got the highest education. Now they are going, trying to go to the moon planet. Or they have gone. That is education, scientific education. And sri, they’re beautiful also. All Americans... We have seen so many boys and girls here. They’re beautiful also. This is not ordinary thing. This is due to pious activities. Janmaisvarya-sruta-sri.
Morning Walk, Perth, 05/18/1975
Prabhupada: By argument, by teaching. [break] Just see how nice flower is coming from the sand. And they say there is no vegetation. What is the difference between this sand and that sand? Sand is sand. Huh? How they are coming? Wherefrom they are getting nourishment? If there no possibility of living being, who is coming to water it? Nobody is coming. In this place, flower, it is a good as the flower growing on the land. But they are growing in the sand, you see. You see actually in the sand things are coming out, and one rascal will say, “No, there is no life.” We have to believe it? Even it is full of sand and dust. Here we see dust and sand produce life, so why shall I believe these rascals about sand? What is the difference between that sand and this sand?
Amogha: Some scientists admit there is life there, there may be life...
Prabhupada: No, no, these scientists are all rascals; first of all take it, don’t believe it. “Some scientists say”; then who is real scientist? This scientist says there is no life, another scientist says there may be, then who is right, hm?
Amogha: They have to go and see. (laughs) But they don’t see any signs of civilization or buildings, so they say it may be plant life, but they don’t see anything...
Prabhupada: First of all whether you have gone there. That is our charge, “You have not gone there.”
Amogha: That’s what we are trying to do. In a few years we will find out.
Prabhupada: Yes. They might have gone to some hellish planet, where there is only sand, only, and very hot, and the culprit is pushed through that deserted place to the Yamaraja. And before going to Yamaraja he has to suffer so much. There are places, copperlike, you see. (aside:) Hare Krishna. So hot, and the criminal has to go on that copper land. There are mentioned for many millions of miles simply copper, and one has to pass through that to Yamaraja. So, they might have gone to some such place, not to the moon planet, who is the source of vegetation even throughout the whole universe—and in his own planet there is no vegetation. Now I am sure they have not gone to moon planet. How they will go? It is beyond the sun. I was protesting that they have not gone; now I am convinced that they have not gone. The Russian scientists and the American scientists joined on the platform, “Don’t expose me, I don’t expose you.” (laughter) (Bengali) “You have to do your business and same I have to do my business. Let us support one another.” In all other case, they are inimical, and the scientific field they are friends. That means that if a scientist, another scientist, opposes me, then my attempt will be futile, so let us don’t do it.
Srutakirti: You don’t expose me, and I won’t expose you.
Prabhupada: Because we are doing business, we are getting money from these rascal government, so if you expose me, then I will not get money, and if I expose you, you will not get money. Let us remain together and let them remain fools. That’s all. This is it. If a common man like me can understand the whole policy, how the scientist will not understand? But they have made a compromise that “Don’t expose me, I’ll not expose you, and let us take money from the government.” This is going on.
Morning Walk, Melbourne, 05/21/1975
Devotee: The first moon landing was 1961.
[Actually, the first Moon landing was Apollo 11 on July 20, 1969.]
Prabhupada: That is beginning. First of all they sent dog. (laughter)
Madhudvisa: Space dog. Space mouse.
Prabhupada: Huh? Space mouse.
Devotee: Space monkey also.
Prabhupada: So since 1955 even. So twenty years, what they have done?
Devotee: Spent billions of dollars.
Prabhupada: Yes, simply they have brought little dust, that’s all.
Madhudvisa: Now they have found that that same dust is here on the earth.
[As mentioned elsewhere, the dust is not like anything found here on Earth. This is an unfounded argument by Moon-hoax advocate Bill Kaysing that he has never been able to back-up.]
Prabhupada: Yes. Simply propaganda. They are not going. Now the Russian scientist and American scientist are combined. Because both of them thieves, so one thief is asking, “Don’t expose me. I will not expose you, so that our business will go on.” This is the way. “Let us combine together and cheat these rascals, and otherwise, if you expose me, then I will expose you. Then our business will stop.”
Morning Walk, Honolulu, 06/02/1975
Prabhupada: [break] ...are going to Venus, Americans and Russians combined together?
Ambarisa: This summer.
Prabhupada: Oh, in the summer. Venus is very cold? Why they have selected summer season? (laughter) [break] ...could not go to the moon, and Venus is far above moon. How they will go?
Bali-mardana: They’re not going to Venus, are they?
Paramahamsa: Are they going to Mars?
Bali-mardana: No, they’re just going around the earth, right?
Ambarisa: Yeah, they’re linking up in space.
Devotee (3): Prabhupada, when they said they went to the moon and they showed films of them landing and walking on the moon, was this all a bluff?
Prabhupada: Yes, here they... All laboratory work, that’s all.
Devotee (3): They all made it up?
[These are absolute statements by Srila Prabhupada, yet there is absolutely no proof whatsover that the Moon landings were faked. Rather the opposite.]
Morning Walk, Los Angeles, 07/24/1975
Prabhupada: No, no, in the sand. You’ll find so many lives, many millions. How there is life in the water? There is life in the water, there is life on the land, there is life in the air, so where is there no life? How you can say there is no life? That is foolishness. And they say that the dust brought from the moon planet is the same. It can be found here. So why there should not be life?
Paramahamsa: If there is life on other planets then they assume it’s in a plant form or very, very low, like plants, bushes at the most.
Prabhupada: That is their opinion.
Tamala Krishna: Srila Prabhupada? If these scientists, they landed on the Rahu planet, that means that...
Prabhupada: That could be, but some... Just like somebody was saying that there are many planets unknown. They might have gone to some... Just like there are many parts of the world you have never seen. Even on this planet, you cannot say that you have seen all the parts of the world. That is not possible. [break]
Room Conversation with Reporter, Los Angeles, 06/04/1976
Reporter: When I interviewed you perhaps five or six years ago, it was before there were reports of the astronauts landing on the moon, and I asked you at that time if you thought, what you thought about it, and you said that, as I recall, that they would not be able to land or explore, because spirits or creatures that lived on the moon would not allow it. The reports of course said that indeed people did land and explore and return safely. I understand you have further thoughts about that (laughter) and you’ve even written a lot about it. I wonder if you could tell me, not at great length perhaps, but what your belief about those events is.
Prabhupada: Yes. From the.... That question I was discussing the other day. In the common sense, gross sense, that all over the world, they accept Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, in this way Saturday last. So why these arrangement? Sunday first and Monday second, and nobody could reply it. But as a layman I can conclude that Sun planet is first and the moon planet is next. So if you cannot go to the sun planet, which is ninety-three million miles away, how you can go to the moon planet within four days? Nobody could answer me. Can you answer?
[I never understood this reasoning. In many European countries the week starts on Monday, not Sunday. There is no world wide conclusion as to how exactly the names of weekdays have come about. Ancient Celtic and Germanic cultures linked their weekdays to names of gods. There are theories that indicate that the weekdays are named in relation to the brightness of the planets as visible from earth with naked eyes and clear night skies, rather than their distance from the Earth. Other theories link the appearance of planets to hours of the day and extrapolate the sequence of weekdays from the planet that occupies the first hour of the day. Again, there is no conclusive correlation between the order of weekday names and the distance of the planets from the Earth.]
Reporter: Well, I don’t think it’s worth the answer now, but I’m wondering what your response is.
Prabhupada: But this is the arrangement all over the world. Sunday first, Monday second, then Tuesday. So Sun, Moon, Mars, Jupiter, in this way. Last Saturn. This is the arrangement of the planets. So if this is the arrangement of the planets, moonday next to..., moon next to sun, and if you cannot go to the sun, how can you go to the moon?
Reporter: Do you, in other words, do you believe that astronauts landed somewhere?
Prabhupada: That is next question. First of all, whether you actually went to the moon, that is the first question. You have to conclude that you did not, because the sun planet is first, the moon planet is second. You cannot go to the sun planet, ninety-three millions of miles, how can you go to the moon planet?
Reporter: Well, except that...
Prabhupada: According to our sastra, the moon planet is above the sun planet, and the distance is 1,600,000 miles. So accepting that the sun is 93,000,000 miles away, then you add another 1,600,000, almost 2,000,000, it becomes 15,000,000 miles away. So if you go at the speed of 18,000 miles per hour, it takes more than 6 months. So how you go there in 4 days? And you advertise in the paper: “Now, they have reached.” After 4 days.
Ramesvara: They don’t accept that the moon is further away.
Prabhupada: They don’t accept, that is another thing, but we have got this information. How we can accept it?
Reporter: I didn’t understand that last.
Ramesvara: I said to Prabhupada that the modern man believes that the moon is closer, but Prabhupada said, “But our ancient literatures teach that the moon is further away.” So since we have that information, how can we accept the version of the modern scientists?
Reporter: Hm hm.
Ramesvara: We’ve got...
Prabhupada: Not only that. Why this arrangement that Monday and, Sunday first, Monday second?
Reporter: Well, that doesn’t necessarily speak of distance.
Reporter: It doesn’t necessarily speak of distance.
Prabhupada: That.... Distance may not be, but you have to accept the sun planet first, moon planet next.
Prabhupada: Distance is not the question.
Prabhupada: Why this arrangement: Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday? There is some system. The system is, just like first, second, third, fourth. So it is naturally concluded the moon planet is next to the sun planet.
Reporter: Do you feel—maybe you answered this, but I didn’t understand the answer—do you feel that astronauts did land somewhere, but it was some other planet?
Prabhupada: That may be. Or it may not be also.
Tamala Krishna: What about that sometimes people ask us what about the pictures of man on the moon?
Ramesvara: They show man in a spacesuit walking on some other planet.
Prabhupada: That is also, what is called, argumentative. Somebody says it is arbitrary arrangement.
Reporter: Hm. Laboratory.
Prabhupada: Of course, we do not go into the details of this. My question is that why Sunday first and Monday second? Nobody can apli..., replies.
Morning Walk, San Francisco 07/21/1975
Paramahamsa: In Stockholm, Prabhupada, in the museum, they have a whole room, and in the room there is all these... There’s American flag and Swedish flag, and there’s a whole exhibit with one teeny little rock about as big as my finger nail that the Americans gave the Swedes. It’s supposed to be a rock from the moon. And they said in it that it’s exactly as any kind of rock that you’ll find on earth. (laughter)
Prabhupada: They say? It is simply cheating. They found this in Arizona, somebody... (laughter) And laboratory work.
[Of course, “they said” is not clarified, nor where in Arizona the rocks came from, or even where this information came from (other than the mention of an ambiguous “somebody”). Between 1969 and 1972 Apollo missions brought back 842 pounds of lunar rocks, core samples, pebbles, sand and dust from the lunar surface. The six space flights returned 2,196 individual specimens from six sites on the Moon. These specimens have been processed into more than 97,000 individually cataloged samples. The lunar sample laboratory at Johnson Space Center is the chief repository for the Apollo samples where pristine lunar samples are prepared for shipment to scientists and educators. More than 60 laboratories worldwide actively pursue sample studies; some 1,100 samples are sent out to researchers annually. Over the last 30 years thousands of geologists from all over the world have analyzed these samples and found that they are like nothing else on Earth. There has never been presented any proof of any rocks from Arizona being identical to any of the specimens of Moon rocks. It has been suggested that researchers could not to tell the difference between fake and authentic rocks since no one had ever examined a Moon rock before. This claim is utter nonsense. In addition to the rocks returned by Apollo, there are samples of lunar rocks that have fallen to Earth as meteorites (which are very rare, with only about 30 known samples). Tests have shown the Apollo Moon rocks and the meteorites are of identical origin; however, the Apollo samples lack other features that would distinguish them as meteorites, such as scorching and oxidation. Also, the Moon rocks have characteristics that are not found in terrestrial or artificial rocks, such as evidence of meteoroid bombardment and exposure to cosmic rays. Likewise, terrestrial rocks have unique characteristics not found in the Moon rocks, such as weathering and exposure to water. Finally, the Moon rocks returned by Apollo have been determined to be between 3.1 and 4.4 billion years old.]
Bahulasva: I have been trying to arrange a meeting between Your Divine Grace and that astronaut. He was going to come to Rathayatra, but he had to go to Florida for some space project.
Prabhupada: What does he say, astronaut?
Bahulasva: He says that... His name is Edgar Mitchell, and he was one of the men who went to the moon. But we talked, and he said... He thinks he has gone to the moon. But he said that when he was there, he had a religious experience, and he felt that there was a God. When he went to the moon, he had this experience. So when he came back, he was telling all his scientist friends what his experience was. So they became very afraid, and they kicked him out of the space project. They thought he had become a fanatic, religious sentimentalist, so they kicked him out. So now he has opened up an institute for noetic sciences or... It is some Greek word. It means like spiritual sciences. He wants to prove to the scientific world that there is God.
[Navy Captain Dr. Edgar Mitchell was never kicked out of any program. He partook in the Apollo 14 mission from January 31st until February 9th, 1971, and was the 6th man to walk on the Moon. He retired from the Navy in 1972 and founded the Institute for Neotic Sciences. They make it emphatically clear that they are “not a spiritual association, political-action group, or a single-cause institute.” He never spoke of God during his experience in outer space, but rather of "a sense of universal connectedness" and that the cosmos itself was somehow conscious.]
Prabhupada: That’s nice. He is good.
Bahulasva: So we gave him a copy of Easy Journey to Other Planets and Srimad-Bhagavatam, and he’s been reading that. He is friends with that other scientist, Wernher Von Braun, who gave that speech also saying that he feels that there is definitely God by his scientific studies. We also wrote him a letter, but we haven’t gotten any response. Svarupa Damodara prabhu wrote him also.
[In September of 1975, Wernher von Braun was already 62 years old and in bad health. He died June 15th, 1977.]
Morning Walk, Bombay, 11/03/1975
Dr. Patel: I have heard that the man could have first landed on moon and then...
Prabhupada: Nobody landed. This is all bogus.
Morning Walk, Bombay, 11/13/1975
[break]...strength of sastra we are challenging that “You have never gone to the moon planet.” Who can do so? The whole world is accepting they have gone to moon planet, and we are challenging, “You have never gone to moon.” Hare Krishna. Thank you very much.
Morning Walk, Los Angeles, 06/04/1976
Tamala Krishna: But what about the people, like the men on the ship who say they have jumped on the moon? Are they lying and being paid off, or are they just.... What, I mean what is the actual position? Some men are getting on a television saying, “We landed there, it was like this, it was like that.”
Prabhupada: No, I saw that television, at that time, the whole thing broke wrong. There was a press representative. He protested. I was protesting from the beginning, but they could not show how they jumped, at the last. Going, going, going, but at the time of jumping, melancholy. Ceylon jumping melancholy.
Tamala Krishna: But I mean they do, these men who are space travelers, they say “We did land on the moon.” Now are they lying?
Prabhupada: No, they, but the television was showing. They could not show this.
Tamala Krishna: Jumping on the moon?
Prabhupada: That was not shown.
Candanacarya: They may be hypnotized also.
Hrdayananda: Prabhupada said they’d gone to Rahu.
Ramesvara: They have got that dust. They say they got that from another planet.
Prabhupada: Dust you can take it from here, from this beach.
Ramesvara: So then they’re lying.
Room Conversation, New Vrindaban, 07/02/1976
Pusta Krishna: Their theory is that there’s a dark side of the moon that we’ve never seen.
Pusta Krishna: Their theory is that there’s a dark..., that actually the moon is reflecting the sun’s light. So there’s a dark side of the moon.
[This shows how badly informed some devotees were who dabbled in this topic. First of all, “dark side” is a misnomer. More about that later. Second, already in 1959, Russia's spacecraft Luna 3 returned the first picture of the dark side. Then in 1968, astronauts Borman, Lovell, and Anders saw the far side of the moon with their own eyes as their Apollo 8 spacecraft circumnavigated the Moon.]
Prabhupada: So far the world is, where is the dark side and the bright side? If you compare like that, then so far this globe is concerned, which one is dark side, which one is bright side?
Hari-sauri: No, they say the earth is spinning on its own axis, so all parts of the earth at one time or another receive sunlight.
Prabhupada: The moon does not do that?
Hari-sauri: The moon does not revolve on its own axis.
Prabhupada: Another foolishness.
Pusta Krishna: Just to fit their speculation.
[The real foolishness is the statement that the Moon does not revolve around its axis. It does, but the rotation of the Moon about its axis is synchronized with its orbital period. Thus it always shows the same face to the Earth. As it rotates, all of its sides receive light of the sun, hence there is no “dark” side. What we call the far side is illuminated by the sun during the new Moon phase.]
Prabhupada: Just see. Simply speculation and misleading people.
Hari-sauri: There’s no basis for it, there’s no truth to it at all. (laughs)
Prabhupada: And you people believed that? I’m surprised. (laughter) You are also fools and rascals.
Hari-sauri: This is what they teach in all the schools.
Pusta Krishna: They have little models, Srila Prabhupada, made out of plastic.
Prabhupada: Ah, they are... Let them, we take them as rascals, that’s all. Mudha.
Hari-sauri: That other argument that you use about how the moon rays give life to the vegetables... So how is it that there’s no life on the moon? If the rays from the moon give life, then how is it there’s no life where the rays come from?
Prabhupada: They have never gone to moon. (laughs) All bogus. And this Mars expedition will be a failure. Let them spend millions of dollars. I told about moon planet ten years ago. It is childish, simply a waste of money and energy. I told this. Now it has proved.
[What Mars expedition is being referred to here, or whether they constitute a waste of money and energy, is besides the point; what needs to be observed is that over the last couple of decades there have been several very successful unmanned Mars expeditions – notably the Mars Pathfinder Project and the recent Twin Mars Rovers.]
Hari-sauri: There’s no more interest in the moon at all.
Prabhupada: No? Kirtanananda said “It is inhabitable.” Ten years ago I said there’s no use going there. It is childish, waste of money. But who hears about us? We know moon planet is inhabited by high-class living entities. (laughs) (sarcastically:) And they will allow these rascals to go by their machine.
Hari-sauri: When they originally started sending sputniks to the moon, they couldn’t even land them properly. They would crash, they said that they were crash-landing spaceships into the moon’s surface.
Hari-sauri: Crash-landing. The spaceship was supposed to just smash into the surface of the moon, like that.
Prabhupada: They have never gone. Simply propaganda. Even they have gone, what is the result? Simply with big report that it is inhabitable.
Evening Conversation, Tehran, 08/08/1976
Just like this moon excursion. Ten years ago in one small book, Easy Journey to Other Planets, we predicted that this moon-going attempt is childish and waste of time. We are not expert scientist, but from the sastra we can understand. Now such a brilliant planet, pleasing, and they have discovered there rocks and sand. Just see their intelligence. Do you think rocks and sand are so brilliant? What do you think?
[One of the most obvious characteristics of lunar soil, or regolith, is that it is extremely reflective. It consists mostly of fine dust particles and tiny glass spheres that tend to reflect light straight back to its source. Combined with the fact that there is no atmosphere to scatter light, the surface of the Moon acts as a very effective reflector of light.]
This bluff is going on. People are feeling under the moonshine is so pleasing, and it is full of rocks and sand. We have to accept that. Rocks and sand, throughout the whole day by scorching heat, they also become heated. So at night it is suffering. So if it is rocks and sand, so whole day it was heated by the sunshine, how it is pleasing?
Srimad-Bhagavatam 5.5.10-13, Vrindavana, 11/01/1976
Of course, these rascals, they are finding only stones and rocks in other planets. They have got everything only in this planet. And you have to believe them. Wherever they are going, in the moon planet or in the Mars planet, what do they see? Simply rocks and sands. But that is not the fact. Each and every planet is full of living entities, janata(?).
Bhagavad-Gita 16.8, Hyderabad, 12/16/1976
Big, big asuras like Ravana, he also wanted to be happy himself and others by material adjustment. He proposed that “There is no need of acting piously to go to the heavenly planet. I shall construct a staircase so anyone can go.” Ravanera svargesvari. So that was failure. Just like we are now trying, the modern scientists. We are trying to go to the moon planet. It is failure. They will never be able to go there. I have discussed this point. We are conditioned. We cannot live one place to another without being proficient or without being eligible. Just like even in this planet you cannot go to the other country. Suppose from India if we want to go to America, it requires arrangement, not that all of a sudden you can go to America or the Americans come here. There is international arrangement, visa, passport, immigration, so many things. So many obstacles are there even in this planet, and what to speak of going to other planet. It is not possible. You must be efficient; then you can go.
Bhu-mandala Diagram Discussion, Vrindavana, 07/02/1977
Tamala Krishna: It says here, “There is thick dust covering and no evidence to suggest that the moon has ever supported life.” In that newspaper article the man who is exposing them said—because they say it is covered by dust—“How is it that no dust is shown on the astronauts’ suits when they walked around?” He says, “If there’s such a thick dust, then, when the rocket landed, it would have made a pocket within that dust.” He says, “But there’s no crater around the rocket. Then how it is possible that these things are like that?” ’Cause actually they forgot. When they were making the stage setting in Arizona, they forgot these things.
[This refers to Bill Kaysing’s Moon-hoax arguments, which are apparently readily accepted without further scrutiny as if Kaysing is some kind of guru with better credentials and qualifications than NASA and other world scientists.]
Yasoda-nandana: One argument Your Divine Grace gave in 1971 was that if they went to the moon and they found it was rock, how do they explain the moon is so shiny and gives such a cooling effect? They cannot explain that.
[There are very detailed expanations of why the Moon is shiny. As to the cooling effect, the Moon is mostly visible at night, when temperatures are already dropping naturally. Incidentally, the coolest nights are new Moon nights (when the Moon is not visible) and cloudless nights.]
Tamala Krishna: Look at the earth. Now, this is a real question that we still have to answer. They picture the earth round, and we say, no. Bhu-mandala is like a lotus, like this, and the earth is only one part of one island in Bhu-mandala, and it’s not, you know, it’s not round(?). It doesn’t look like that. And all the pictures they take of the earth when they go up in their satellites show round. And we’re going to tell them that it’s not. This is a very tricky question. In other words, if this is the picture of the world, like this, and we say that... If we take an airplane from here, from Los Angeles. Now, supposing we go to India, which is here. So there’s two ways to go. One way, you can go like this, and the other way, you can go like that. But if the earth is not a round globe, then how is it sometimes people go from Los Angeles via Hawaii to Japan and then India? So we can’t figure this out. We have experience, those of us who have flown, that actually the plane went from Los Angeles to Hawaii to Tokyo to Hong Kong and then to India. So it doesn’t work out in our maps so far, right? We can’t figure it out. This thing has to be very complete in its answers. Otherwise everyone will laugh at us. We can’t leave any loopholes.
Letter to Tirthanga dasa, 09/??/1977
If you believe whatever the material so-called scientists are saying, that is your business, but I do not believe any of their so-called observations in outer space by the blunt material senses can be true without any doubt... They have spent simply millions of dollars to make a show of their so-called learning and the resul is a handful of dust, that's all... Even it is true that they have landed on the moon, so what is their accomplishment? If I come to Earth planet and land in the Sahara desert, then I say, "Oh, this planet is a barren desert, no one lives here?" The moon may be like that or like this, so what does that help to our Krsna consciousness movement. We have nothing to do with moon planet or this planet and that planet in Krsna consciousness. We simply want to serve to Krsna, that's all.
Jul 6 2005, 11:21 PM
Next, I'd like to actually post the most common arguments that have been thrown around to disproof the reality of the moon landings. These are (usually) standard arguments that I have devotees heard bringing up over and over again -- even in seminars and Bhagavatam lectures.
Sadly, to anyone who has taken the trouble to delve into the matter a bit deeper it makes these devotees look really foolish and devoid of critical thinking. Not even so much because they don't speak from a level of conviction, faith or understanding of sastra, but because they use really, really bad science to refute good science in a field they often know nothing about. The arguments aren't scientific, sastric, or even emperic.
Here is a quick overview. After some more introductory stuff about the hoax advocates and very common reasons for hoaxing, I will post the comments to each argument in little chunks (with the photo and movie references linking):
Assumptions and Presumptions
• Even 20% of Americans themselves doubt that they ever landed on the Moon.
• There are calculations that proof that the chance of success is so small that it is impossible to land on the Moon.
• Every mission before Apollo 11 suffered from about 20,000 defects each. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn't one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions.
• The Earth never shows up in pictures taken from the Moon.
• Astronauts allegedly left mirrors on the Moon, but nobody has ever managed to get a reflection from those mirrors.
• The biggest telescope on Earth should be able to see evidence of the Moon landings, but nothing was ever found.
• The Hubble space telescope, which is situated beyond atmospheric disturbances, should be able to see evidence of the Moon landings.
• Military spy satellites, which can see a golf ball on a lawn from orbit, should be able to see evidence of the Moon landings.
• The Clementine Lunar Orbiter is in orbit around the Moon and has taken photographs of the entire surface, but no evidence of the Moon landings has been found.
• The video quality of the first Moon landings was deliberately poor to prevent close examination.
• NASA was able to fake the Moon landings because the conspiracy required only a small number of core people.
• The anomalies in the photographs were purposefully put there by whistle blowers in order to expose NASA.
• The death of the Apollo 1 astronauts was intentional, meant to prevent Gus Grissom from exposing the hoax.
• NASA faked the Moon landings to beat the Soviets, who were far ahead in the race to the Moon.
• NASA faked the Moon landings to distract Americans from the war in Vietnam.
• Apollo 13 was a failure because it was the last time that NASA really tried to go to the Moon.
• The Soviet Union never attempted to land on the Moon because they knew it was impossible.
• The Soviet Union was also planning a fake Moon landing and, to avoid exposure, would therefore not question NASA’s achievements.
• If it was really possible to land on the Moon in the sixties, the Russians or Chinese would also definitely have gone there in the last 40 years, but they didn’t.
• Neil Armstrong’s refusal to appear in public or give interviews proves that he has something to hide.
• The blueprints for the Saturn V rocket were purposefully destroyed or lost.
• Plans for the Lunar Module and Lunar Rover were purposefully destroyed or lost.
Moon Environment, Surface, Dust and Rocks
• If the Moon has one sixth the gravity of the Earth, dust should float around in the air much longer.
• Apollo 11 photographs AS11405850, AS11405917, AS11405918, AS11405920, AS11405925, and many of the other missions, show the feet of the Moon lander without any dust on them, which should have been there as it was thrown about by the rocket engine on descent.
• There is no water on the Moon, yet the dust clumps together like wet sand in the astronauts' footprints. These footprints should have disappeared like footprints in dry sand dunes.
• The powerful rocket engine on the lander should have created a crater beneath the lander, yet none of the photographs of the successful Apollo Moon landings show one.
• The Moon rocks allegedly collected and returned to Earth by Apollo astronauts are identical to rocks found here on Earth, in Arizona.
• The Moon rocks allegedly collected and returned to Earth by Apollo astronauts were actually manufactured by NASA in a laboratory on Earth.
• The Moon rocks allegedly collected and returned to Earth by Apollo astronauts were actually collected and returned to Earth by robotic spacecraft.
• Apollo 16 photograph AS1610717446 shows a rock with a clearly defined "C" marking on it, which is a studio prop identification marking that proves that the photographs were made on a fake lunar landscape in a studio.
• The lunar rover’s tires should have burst in the vacuum atmosphere of the Moon.
• The Apollo astronauts should have been pierced by thousands of micro-meteoroids.
• The astronauts’ footprints are deeper than the footpad imprints of the lander, which weighed 17 tons.
• The pressure inside the astronauts’ spacesuits was greater than inside a football, which should have made them puff up like the Michelin Man and restricted the movements of their joints.
Shadows and Lighting
• In many photographs the shadow side of the astronauts is illuminated, while the shadow side of nearby rocks is totally black.
• In many photographs there are lighting hot spots and a darkening of the surface toward the horizon, while Sunlight should not produce hot spots and in an airless environment the surface should not fade.
• In Apollo 11 photograph AS11405903 the horizon is located at eye level, but should have been at chest level because the camera was mounted to Neil Armstrong's chest.
• In Apollo 16 photograph AS1611318339 an astronaut stands on the surface of the Moon in direct sunlight without casting a shadow.
• The astronaut in Apollo 11 photographs AS11405866-AS11405869 should be in the dark, as he is located in the shadow of the lander.
• If the Sun is the only source of light on the Moon, all shadows should run parallel, instead of going in different directions as in Apollo 16 photograph AS1611318342 and many others.
Hot and Cold
• The temperatures on the Moon reach 280 degrees Fahrenheit and should have destroyed the films in the cameras of the astronauts.
• The astronauts could not have survived in the heat on the Moon, because the vacuum of space cannot cool heated objects.
Video and Photography
• Like many other Apollo photographs, Apollo 11 photograph AS11405872 shows strange blobs in the sky that should not have been there.
• The cross hairs on Apollo 16 photograph AS1610717446 go behind the objects, which proofs that it is a fake, pasted-together image.
• In Apollo 11 photograph AS11405942 Buzz Aldrin is carrying the EASEP experiments toward the deployment site. There is no antenna on top of his PLSS. In Apollo 11 photograph AS11405943, supposedly taken only a few seconds later, an antenna is clearly visible.
• Photographs and video footage of the American flag on the Moon shows it fluttering, although there is no atmosphere or wind on the Moon.
• On some video footage of the Apollo landings you can see right through the astronauts, like they're ghosts, which proves that the footage was faked.
• Some photographs have strange, smudged areas and lines on them, which prove that they were faked.
• Since the Moon has no atmosphere, there should be thousands of stars visible on the photographs, but there are no stars at all.
• Some of the photographs show the cross hairs at a strange angle, instead of straight as they should be, which proves that the photographs were tampered with.
• There was nobody to film the lander taking off from the Moon's surface, yet footage of it exists for all landings and it appears to have been done with models and wires. With Apollo 16 and 17 the camera even follows the ascent.
• The photographs taken on the Moon were taken by amateur photographers under allegedly very difficult conditions, yet they all came out perfect.
• Everything looks normal when you double the speed of the Apollo landing video footage, because it was simply filmed on Earth and slowed down to look like it was on the Moon.
• Neil Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, yet there is video footage of him descending the ladder and taking his initial steps on the lunar surface taken from outside the lander.
• The hills in the background of many of the photos keep reappearing in other photos, but with different foregrounds, which proves that the scenes are artificial backdrops.
• Two video clips that NASA claims were taken at different locations many miles apart show an identical hill.
Technology of the Sixties
• In the sixties and seventies the computer technology simply did not exist to build de guidance systems and other sophisticated hardware required to go to the Moon.
From Earth to the Moon, and Back
• The astronauts should have died due to the extreme radiation coming from the Van Allen belt, because their spacecrafts lacked the required 12 inches of lead shielding as protection.
• You can hear Neil Armstrong talking during the landing of Apollo 11, yet you can’t hear the roaring of the rocket engine.
• There's no delay in the conversations between the Astronauts and Mission Control on Earth. There should be a lag just like with satellite connections.
• The Apollo Saturn rockets were not big enough to carry the fuel needed to reach the Moon.
• There are no flames or smoke plumes visible coming from the rocket during the take-off of the Moon lander, which looks strange to begin with.
• The rover was too big to be carried in the lunar lander.
• The tracks of the rover in Apollo 16 photograph AS1610717446 turn at almost right angles behind it, which is impossible.
• The Apollo crews were launched into space but never left Earth orbit.
• NASA used its TETR-A training satellite to transmit data to Earth to simulate transmissions from the Apollo spacecraft to fool ground controllers into believing they were receiving real data.
• The astronauts’ movement inside the Lunar Module would change the center of mass, making it impossible to control.
• The untested Lunar Module landed on the Moon six times flawlessly, although its prototype crashed on Earth during training.
• The astronauts could not pass through the tunnel connecting the Command Module and the Lunar Module with their spacesuits and backpacks on.
• The astronauts could not have left the Lunar Module because they could not fit through the hatch and there was no room to even open the hatch, which opened to the inside.
• The fuel tanks of the Lunar Module were nowhere near even a sixth the size of those on the space shuttle, as one would expect to achieve lunar orbit.
Jul 7 2005, 09:09 PM
Attention modem users: most image links link to high-resolution images that are often around a megabyte in size.Assumption and PresumptionsEven 20% of Americans themselves doubt that they ever landed on the Moon.
Since supporters of the hoax theory never explain where this 20% figure they quote comes from, it is very hard to substantiate. A certain percentage of the American people indeed doubt that the Moon landings ever took place, but it is not even near 20%. The Gallup Organization
, which has studied human behavior through polling over the last 70 years, concluded from its July 1999 poll on this matter that the overwhelming majority of Americans (89%) did not believe the U.S. government staged or faked the Apollo Moon landings. Only 6% of the public believed the landing was faked and another 5% had no opinion. Furthermore, on their website Gallup clarifies:"Although, if taken literally, 6% translates into millions of individuals, it is not unusual to find about that many people in the typical poll agreeing with almost any question that is asked of them -- so the best interpretation is that this particular conspiracy theory is not widespread."There are calculations that proof that the chance of success is so small that it is impossible to land on the Moon.
Hoax advocate Bill Kaysing has claimed that the chance of a successful landing on the Moon was calculated to be 0.017% (1 in 6,000). The source of this calculation is unknown. Of course, if the odds were indeed that slim, NASA would most likely never have proposed a Moon landing to begin with. But they weren’t. In reality, during the mid-1960s the Apollo Support Department
of the General Electric Company
in Florida conducted extensive mission reliability studies for NASA. These studies were based on very elaborate reliability models of all of the systems. A reliability profile over the course of a mission was generated by computer simulation, and a large number of such simulations were carried out for different scenarios. Based on those studies, the probability of landing on the Moon and returning safely to earth never dropped below 90%.Every mission before Apollo 11 suffered from about 20,000 defects each. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn't one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions.
This is a claim of hoax advocate Ralph Rene. Here, too, the source of the information is unknown, but the gist is clear: the early missions had so many insurmountable problems that NASA decided to abandon the Moon landings and fake it. Even if the data is accurate, there is a big difference between a defect
and a major technical problem
. None of the Apollo missions, with the exception of number 13, experienced a major technical problem that prohibited the crews from successfully completing their missions. Also, the early Apollo flights were test missions designed specifically to shake out bugs in the hardware and procedures. Finally, the Moon landings were far from flawless. There were numerous technical problems, but, thanks to the skill of the flight controllers, engineers and astronauts, the problems were either corrected or circumvented such that the crews were able to complete their missions successfully.The Earth never shows up in pictures taken from the Moon.
Hoax advocate James Collier was among the most enthusiastic promoters of this mistaken notion, based on studying only a few press release photographs from NASA. There are actually many photographs taken on or at the Moon that show the Earth, for instance: AS11446547
, and AS1713720960
. Since all the non hand-held pictures taken on or at the Moon were using something other than 70mm transparency film, these photos had to have been taken by a human being -- an Apollo astronaut -- physically present either on the surface or in space around the Moon. Noteworthy is that the cloud formations on the Earth in these pictures is consistent with the weather patterns present on Earth during the time the pictures were taken.Astronauts allegedly left mirrors on the Moon, but nobody has ever managed to get a reflection from those mirrors.
The assumption is that these are big mirrors and bouncing a laser beam off of them can be done by just about anyone, but that is not true. The laser reflectors were specifically meant for measuring the distance between the Moon and the Earth with a laser beam shot through a large telescope.
The first of three US laser ranging retro-reflector was positioned on the Moon in 1969 by the Apollo 11 astronauts. It can be seen in photograph AS11405952
. This reflector consists of 100 fused silica half-cubes, called corner cubes, mounted in an 18-inch square aluminum panel. Each corner cube is 1.5 inches in diameter. Corner cubes reflect a beam of light directly back toward the point of origin. The Apollo 11 and 14 laser reflector arrays are identical and are located in the Sea of Tranquility and the Fra Mauro, respectively. The Apollo 15 reflector, located in the Hadley Rille, is a larger array consisting of 300 corner cubes. French built reflectors, consisting of 14 corner cubes, were also left on the Moon by the unmanned Russian Luna 17 and 21 missions. The Luna 17 and 21 arrays are located in the Sea of Rains and the Sea of Serenity, respectively.
Lunar ranging involves sending a powerful laser beam through an optical telescope. The beam enters the telescope where the eye piece would be, and the transmitted beam is expanded to become the diameter of the main mirror. It is then bounced off the surface toward the reflector on the Moon. The reflectors on the Moon are too small to be seen from Earth, so even when the beam is precisely aligned in the telescope, actually hitting a lunar retro-reflector array is technically challenging. At the Moon's surface the laser beam is roughly four miles wide. Once the laser beam hits a reflector, scientists at the ranging observatories use extremely sensitive filtering and amplification equipment to detect the return signal, which is far too weak to be seen with the human eye. Even under good atmospheric viewing conditions, only one photon is received every few seconds.
Many of these measurements have been made by the McDonald Observatory in Texas
. From 1969 to 1985, they were made on a part-time basis using the McDonald Observatory 107-inch telescope. Since 1985, these observations have been made using a dedicated 30-inch telescope. Additional measurements have been made by observatories in Hawaii
(now closed due to budget constraints), California
, and Germany
. The International Laser Ranging Service
is adding even more stations world wide.
Scientists from all over the world have analyzed the data from the long-term Lunar Laser Ranging experiments, and from it they know that the average distance between the centers of the Earth and the Moon is 239,227 miles, with an accuracy of better than one part in 10 billion. Ranging has also determined that the length of an Earth day has distinct small-scale variations of about one thousandth of a second over the course of a year, caused by the atmosphere, tides, and the Earth's core. In addition, precise positions of the laser ranging observatories on Earth are slowly drifting as the tectonic plates on Earth drift. The observatory on Maui is seen to be drifting away from the observatory in Texas. Data also indicate that ocean tides on Earth have a direct influence on the Moon's orbit. Measurements show that the Moon is receding from Earth at a rate of about 1.5 inches per year. Continued improvements in range determinations and the need for monitoring the details of the Earth's rotation will keep the lunar reflector experiments in service for many years to come. Obviously, if the Moon landings were faked and no laser reflectors exist on the Moon, hundreds of scientists from the four countries that are and have been involved in these experiments have been living a dream for the last 30 years, and the current International Laser Ranging Service
must be a hoax, too. The biggest telescope on Earth should be able to see evidence of the Moon landings, but nothing was ever found.
The theoretical resolving power of a telescope is measured in arc seconds and calculated by dividing the aperture of the telescope (in inches) into 4.56. The largest telescope on Earth at this point is the 10-meter Keck telescope in Hawaii
. The theoretical resolving power of this telescope is 0.012"; however, the Earth's atmosphere limits the resolving power of any ground-based telescope to about 0.5"-1.0". At the Earth-Moon distance of 239,000 miles, the smallest object that can be resolved by these telescopes is about 3,000 feet. The largest dimension of any hardware left behind on the Moon is 31 feet, which is the diagonal distance across the Moon lander's footpads.The Hubble space telescope, which is situated beyond atmospheric disturbances, should be able to see evidence of the Moon landings.
The Hubble Space Telescope
does not suffer from atmospheric limitation; thus, with an aperture of 94 inches, its resolving power is 0.05". That would still not be powerful enough. Hubble’s resolution is 800 x 800 pixels, with each pixel being a little less than 46 milliarcseconds. For anything to show up in Hubble’s field as a pixel, it needs to be at least 400 feet in diameter -- roughly the size of a football field.Military spy satellites, which can see a golf ball on a lawn from orbit, should be able to see evidence of the Moon landings.
The military may well have satellites that do that, but they are in low orbits around the Earth. They are nowhere near the Moon and don't have the power to get out there even if we wanted them to.The Clementine Lunar Orbiter is in orbit around the Moon and has taken photographs of the entire surface, but no evidence of the Moon landings has been found.
The Clementine Lunar Orbiter
has indeed taken photographs of the entire surface of the Moon. These photographs are, however, not detailed enough to see any small features on the surface such as a Lunar Module. The purpose of the Clementine project was multi-spectral imaging of the entire lunar surface for topographical reasons and assessing the surface mineralogy of the Moon, not to make ultra-high resolution images of small objects. Apollo 15 spent 3 days on the Moon's surface, far longer than earlier missions. This gave the astronauts more time to stir up dust in the surrounding area. This, coupled with the disturbance cause by the lander's rockets made enough of a dark mark on the lunar surface to be just visible on one photograph
taken by Clementine. Of course, this isn't conclusive proof, but still evidence and the clearest pictures we're going to get besides those made by the astronauts themselves from orbit, which show distinctive shadows cast by the landers.
The SELENE Project
is a Japanese space mission that aims to place an orbiter around the Moon in the year 2005. Part of the tasks it will complete is a mapping of the Moon's surface at a resolution that should make it possible to see the Apollo landing sites.The video quality of the first Moon landings was deliberately poor to prevent close examination.
Television pictures of the Apollo 11 landing were sent directly to Earth from the surface of the Moon using the lander's antenna and power supply. This placed a restriction on the amount of bandwidth that could be transmitted. Apollo 11 was thereby limited to using a black-and-white, slow-scan TV camera with a scan rate of 10 frames-per-second at 320 lines-per-frame. In order to broadcast the images to the world, the pictures had to first be converted to the commercial TV standards. In the US, this was the EIA standard of 30 frames-per-second at 525 lines-per-frame. The pictures transmitted from the Moon were displayed on a 10-inch black-and-white monitor and a Vidicon
camera was pointed at the screen and the pictures were scanned at the EIA standard. A number of peculiar image artifacts were seen on the images. One set of artifacts was produced by sunlight reflecting off the astronauts and the lander onto the TV camera's lens. These reflections produced the ghostly effects perceived by the public. Other prominent artifacts were the result of spots burnt into the monitor screens from which the optical conversions were produced. Apollo 11 was only a first step in what was to be increasingly ambitious missions, thus it was lacking in the ability to transmit high-quality TV pictures. Later missions, starting with Apollo 12, had enough time in the schedule to permit the astronauts to erect large freestanding dish antennas. This increased the amount of bandwidth that could be transmitted, thus allowing complex color TV pictures of later missions to be sent directly to Earth. The anomalies in the photographs were purposefully put there by whistle blowers in order to expose NASA.
Hoax advocate David Percy is the main proponent of the whistle blower theory. One may seriously ask why these whistle blowers inside NASA would have produced these anomalies instead of simply speaking out. It could not have been for safety reasons, as it is documented who handled the images and video footage. On top of that, during the more than 30 years after the landings not one of the other hundreds of thousands of people who worked on Apollo has come forward to admit they were part of a conspiracy. Not even a single deathbed confession. The truth is that there are no whistle blowers because the supposed photographic anomalies are the result of misunderstood phenomenon and mistaken conclusions, not hidden messages.The death of the Apollo 1 astronauts was intentional, meant to prevent Gus Grissom from exposing the hoax.
This accusation is a complete fabrication with no corroborating evidence whatsoever. Some hoax advocates claim there have been many “suspicious” deaths among those associated with the Apollo program, alleging that NASA murdered these people. These accusations are both ludicrous and libelous. Bill Kaysing particularly has made many slanderous allegations against NASA, including the above. Kaysing accused NASA of murdering Christa McAuliffe, the school teacher who was to fly aboard Challenger in 1986, because she would not go along with NASA's lie that stars cannot be seen in space. To do this, NASA destroyed the Space Shuttle Challenger, with McAuliffe and six other astronauts, in one of the most spectacular, expensive, and embarrassing failures in US history that set back space exploration by ten years. As usual, Kaysing has no proof whatsoever to back up this claim. Also, consider that if NASA has a habit of silencing people bent on exposing this alleged hoax, then why haven't they killed any of the current hoax conspiracy theorists? NASA faked the Moon landings to beat the Soviets, who were far ahead in the race to the Moon.
Hoax advocates often mention the early lead the Soviets held in manned space flight, implying that American technology was inferior. The Soviets accomplished many "firsts" because their program was designed to do so, often at great risk. The Americans, on the other hand, were more methodical and took their time to develop better technology. With its Gemini program the United States pushed far ahead of the Soviets, completing many space milestones of their own. Among these: the first use of an onboard computer, first use of fuel cells for power, first piloted spacecraft to change its trajectory, the first space rendezvous, and the first space docking -- all very important foundational elements for further space exploration. By the end of 1966 the United States held a 4-to-1 superiority in manned hours in space and a 30-to-1 superiority in EVA experience. The U.S. would not relinquish its lead in space man-hours until 1978, which was due to the Soviets’ emphasis on space stations.
Aside from technological advantage issues, it is true the US was in competition with the USSR, but the risks involved in trying to perpetrate a hoax would be tremendous. The devastating effect the exposure of a hoax would have on the reputation of the United States would be many times more severe than simply failing to reach the Moon. Why would NASA be willing to take that risk? Also, why six landings? After Apollo 11 the goal had been met, so why fake five more landings? In fact, NASA continued to send men to the Moon long after the public had lost interest. Continuing to perpetrate a hoax would only increase the possibility of making mistakes and being exposed. Furthermore, the Soviets would have never been fooled by a hoax. The USSR fully understood the difficulties of a Moon landing and tracked American progress closely, yet they have always acknowledged that the Apollo Moon landings were real.
Also, do not forget that some hoax advocates claim the supposed technologically inferior Americans were able to robotically collect and return to Earth over 800 pounds of diverse lunar rock and soil samples, while the so-called technologically superior Soviets could manage only less than a pound.NASA faked the Moon landings to distract Americans from the war in Vietnam.
Hoax advocates like to point out that the timing of the Apollo missions almost exactly corresponded with the war in Vietnam and were therefore meant to pull the attention of the masses away from ravages of the war. However, we cannot merely look at when the Apollo missions actually occurred. Rather, we should look at when the planning for those missions took place. The genesis of the Apollo program was John F. Kennedy's speech to congress in May 1961, while the first US ground combat forces did not enter Vietnam until March 1965. Apollo 18, the last Apollo mission to be scrapped, was cancelled during the summer of 1970, while the last U.S. ground forces did not leave Vietnam until March 1973. That's 1961-70 for Apollo and 1965-73 for Vietnam. It is obvious that NASA plans were made years in advance of events in Vietnam. Planners could not have possibly anticipated the timing of future events.Apollo 13 was a failure because it was the last time that NASA really tried to go to the Moon.
The last time? Wouldn’t that be the only time
then? Or do the hoax advocates accept that there were at least several successful manned flights to the Moon before Apollo 11, even without landings? If so, why would NASA hoax two Moon landings, then give it a "real" try, and then, on failure, hoax four more over several years -- all while public interest had already waned significantly? This makes no sense from whatever angle you look at it. If NASA were indeed faking the landings, why would they encourage greater interest and unwanted scrutiny of their actions by risking a real landing attempt? Some hoax advocates have suggested that a failed mission was needed to renew interest in Apollo so that the dollars would keep flowing to subcontractors. However, the interest generated by Apollo 13 was short lived and the accident proved to be a contributing factor in the cancellation of latter flights, thus shortening the program.The Soviet Union never attempted to land on the Moon because they knew it was impossible.
The failure of the Soviet Union to land a man on the Moon was due to the failure of their N1 Moon rocket
, which was the USSR’s equivalent of the Saturn V. The Soviets attempted two test launches of the N1 in 1969, the first on the 21st of February and the second on the 3rd of July. The July test, which occurred just two weeks before the launch of Apollo 11, was a catastrophic failure
, as the rocket exploded on the launch pad and destroyed much of the launch complex. After the failure of the first two N1 rockets, and the success of Apollo 11, Russian engineering efforts were diverted into crash development of the Salyut Space Station in order to beat the American Skylab. Cosmonauts, however, continued to train for lunar landing missions until October 1973, when the last training group was dissolved. By that time, manned flight of the original single-launch spacecraft to the Moon had been abandoned. Instead, work was underway on a twin launch scenario that would put a lander on the surface in 1978 for extended operations, and eventually, a lunar base. This in turn was cancelled with the entire N1 program in 1974. Clearly the Soviets believed a Moon landing was a technological possibility as they continued with their plans until well after the last Apollo mission. The Soviet Union was also planning a fake Moon landing and, to avoid exposure, would therefore not question NASA’s achievements.
Surely the Soviets possessed the knowledge and experience necessary to debunk NASA's claim of a Moon landing. Since they declined to do so, they, according to the hoax advocates, must have had something to hide as well. Not only is there no evidence whatsoever of fraud on the part of the USSR but, if they were faking it, why didn't they just hoax a landing before the USA did? It was awfully generous of the Soviets to allow the US to fake it first. Another idea that's been proposed by the hoax advocates is that NASA paid-off the Soviets to keep them quiet. We are more than 30 years further in time. The USSR no longer exists and Russia has seen several regime changes. What has prevented all these changes from dissolving the alleged pay-off and silence?If it was really possible to land on the Moon in the sixties, the Russians or Chinese would also definitely have gone there in the last 40 years, but they didn’t.
Despite the apparent ease with which NASA landed six crews on the lunar surface, traveling to the Moon was difficult, dangerous and very expensive. Once the US succeeded, one of the main reasons for the Soviets' for going to the Moon was eliminated. The failure of their N1 rocket lead to the cancellation of their Moon program altogether in favor of an orbital space station. To fly to the Moon today would be nearly as difficult and likely much more expensive than it was three decades ago and, as such, requires sufficient motivation to do so. The current Russian economy can hardly keep up with what is left of their former space programs. The Chinese are currently very actively pursuing manned space flight and future Moon missions
.Neil Armstrong’s refusal to appear in public or give interviews proves that he has something to hide.
A claim from hoax advocate Bart Sibrel. Neil Armstrong is, by nature, a very shy and private man who shuns the spotlight. It is true that he infrequently gives interviews or makes public appearances, but to say that he refuses to is simply not true. He was interviewed by Andrew Chaikin for the book A Man On the Moon
, participated in a televised press conference for the 30th anniversary of Apollo 11, was interviewed by Stephen Ambrose and Douglas Brinkley in September of 2001, gave an interview to an audience of about 1,000 at Dublin's National Concert Hall
in November of 2003, and has made a public appearance in Dayton, Ohio for the Centennial of Flight
celebration in 2003. What he apparently does refuse
to do (with good reason, and much like most Apollo astronauts) is grant interviews to those who call him a liar and a fraud.The blueprints for the Saturn V rocket were purposefully destroyed or lost.
If the hoax advocates mean that there is no complete set of blueprints, then yes, this does not exist, nor has it ever. The literally millions of documents relating to the Saturn V and its components were spread out across the country among a dozen NASA centers and hundreds of contractors. Certainly many copies of these documents have been discarded, but much of it still exists. Marshall Space Flight Center
in Huntsville, Alabama has much Saturn documentation on microfilm and the Federal Archives in East Point
, Georgia has 2,900 cubic feet of Saturn documents. Rocketdyne
, which built the F-1 and J-2 engines for the Saturn and is now part of Boeing, has in its archives dozens of volumes from its Knowledge Retention Program
.Plans for the Lunar Module and Lunar Rover were purposefully destroyed or lost.
Much paperwork relating to the Lunar Module and Rover has been discarded. However, this is to be expected. No company is going to keep in storage millions of documents for an obsolete project that has no chance of being resurrected. Still, there is much left of the documentation. The National Archives
microfilmed everything they thought was historically significant and those films are currently in storage. It is not uncommon for space enthusiasts and modelers to find many obscure facts and details about the LM, Rover, and other Apollo hardware.
Jul 8 2005, 09:38 PM
Attention modem users: most image links link to high-resolution images that are often around a megabyte in size.Some of the photographs show the cross hairs at a strange angle, instead of straight as they should be, which proves that the photographs were tampered with.
Some of the photographs have the Reseau-lines, or cross hairs, at odd angles because the photograph was originally taken with the camera squint. When the image was developed and printed for publication it was rotated to straight up and down, and then cropped to a tidy rectangle. A good example is Apollo 11 photograph AS11405903
, which was rotated several degrees clockwise to make Buzz Aldrin stand up straight. Also, as you can see, in the original the topmost part of his backpack is cut off by the frame edge. On the press-released image several inches of black space has been added for balance.There was nobody to film the lander taking off from the Moon's surface, yet footage of it exists for all landings and it appears to have been done with models and wires. With Apollo 16 and 17 the camera even follows the ascent.
This often shown footage was taken by a remotely controlled camera. This camera was initially mounted on the lander to film the astronauts leaving the lander. It would later be removed from the lander and, in earlier missions, mounted on a tripod (photographs AS11405907
-- which failed, and AS14669241
). In later missions it was mounted on the Lunar Rover, which was left behind (AS158811901
, and AS1713420475
). By the last two missions, Apollo 16 and 17, it was known exactly how fast the lander would ascend and how fast the camera had to pan up. It was set up in advance of the take off and triggered remotely from Earth.The photographs taken on the Moon were taken by amateur photographers under allegedly very difficult conditions, yet they all came out perfect.
The astronauts received a great deal of training before they left Earth. Part of this was in the operation of the cameras, which were specially designed by Hasselblad
to be used by the astronauts with their suits on. What many people do not know is that the Apollo astronauts took about 17,000 photographs on the lunar surface. So there are plenty of not-so-great photographs that NASA simply has never published -- over or underexposed, strange angles, accidental exposures, out of focus, extreme lens flares, etc. A few examples: AS11405901
, and AS1713420389
. Those that the public are most familiar with are the best ones.Everything looks normal when you double the speed of the Apollo landing video footage, because it was simply filmed on Earth and slowed down to look like it was on the Moon.
There's an easy explanation for this phenomenon. An object in free flight will follow a ballistic trajectory in accordance with Newton's laws of motion. The only force acting on the object is gravity, which on Earth has an acceleration of 32.2 ft/s2. On the Moon gravity is much less, 5.33 ft/s2. If the ballistic flight of an object on the Moon is sped up by a factor of 2.46 it will mimic exactly ballistic motion on Earth, and vice versa. The double speed the hoax advocates claim is close to this 2.46 ratio, hence free flight motion looks somewhat normal because it is what our eyes and brains are accustomed to seeing here on Earth. Other motion
however, such as the movements of the astronauts' arms, looks very unnatural when speeded up. The hoax advocates deceivingly apply this explanation very selectively. If the Apollo footage is viewed in its entirety at double speed it becomes clear that this assumption cannot account for all
The Apollo footage is exactly what it appears to be, that is, man on the Moon. The convincing evidence is in the dust, which is particularly apparent in the footage of the Lunar Rover. If this footage were shot on Earth there would be clouds of dust thrown into the atmosphere by the Rover's wheels; however, there is no evidence of this. The dust immediately falls back to the surface in a ballistic arc matching its airless and low gravity environment. The same applies for dust kicked up by the astronauts.
There also is footage that shows clumsiness and inadvertent falls by astronauts. For instance Apollo 15
(.mpg format), Apollo 16
(.mpg format), and Apollo 17
(Quicktime format, .mov), which, when played back at double speed, looks extremely unnatural. So playing with film speeds really doesn't prove anything other than that the footage is authentic at its normal speed.Neil Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, yet there is video footage of him descending the ladder and taking his initial steps on the lunar surface taken from outside the lander.
There was a video camera mounted on and extended from the side of the landing module especially for this purpose. NASA anticipated that the moment that Armstrong stepped onto the Moon would be particularly significant and something everyone would want to see. As Armstrong started down the ladder he remotely deployed it, swinging it out from its storage position in the side of the module. Note how the left hand side of the video image is obscured by both the side of the lander and the arm of the storage compartment that lowered it (A11V1092338
in .mpg format). The way the camera was mounted meant that these first pictures were actually upside-down and had to be flipped over once received on Earth. The same camera was then removed and used to send video pictures of the rest of the lunar activities from a stand on the lunar surface. Here is a collaborating statement from Buzz Aldrin:
"As Neil backed out of the hatch, it was not that easy -- with the backpack on -- to clear the opening. So I had to guide him down: left, right and so on. Once he got on the ‘porch,' as we called it, he pulled a lever, which brought the live television camera into view. But the image was upside down; Houston had to send the computer a signal to put it right-side up again."The hills in the background of many of the photos keep reappearing in other photos, but with different foregrounds, which proves that the scenes are artificial backdrops.
What can often be seen in the background of the Apollo lunar photographs are not hills, but mountains. Very big mountains even compared to mountains on Earth. Lunar mountains tend to be big because there is nothing to wear them down, unlike on Earth. It is also very difficult to judge distances on the Moon. This is because there's no atmosphere to soften distant objects and the landscape is pretty featureless. Things that are very far away can appear to be quite close. Unless you know their relative size it can be hard to tell. This comes out very clearly in Apollo 16 video clip A16V1673855
(RealMedia format), where the boulder that appears to be about ten feet high and only a few yards away from the astronauts turns out to be as big as a house and quite a distance away.
Another example is the unassuming hill pictured in Apollo 15 photograph AS158711835
, which is in fact Mount Hadley -- all 14,765 feet of it. That makes this hill over three times the height of the tallest mountain in the British Isles and bigger than any mountain in the US outside of Alaska. And Mount Hadley is by no means unusual in lunar terms. So many of the apparent hills are actually mountains, and they're far away. So the astronauts would have to travel a long distance before they'd ever stop being in the background. What Apollo photos taken from different points actually show is a slight variation in the angle you can see the mountains. This is called parallax and is often used on Earth to estimate distances from photographs. Parallax is very hard to fake and would be impossible with a backdrop. Rather than proving they're a fake background, the photographs prove they are three
dimensional, large, distant objects.Two video clips that NASA claims were taken at different locations many miles apart show an identical hill.
The video clips to which the hoax advocates refer are from a non-NASA documentary that accidentally used a wrong clip. This was a simple mistake, but not one made by NASA. According to NASA, the clips were actually taken about three minutes apart on the same hill.