On July 20, 1969, NASA astronaut Neil Armstrong became the first man on the Moon. The now-iconic event is viewed as a rare example of the good mankind is capable of. However, as they sixtieth anniversary of the Apollo 11 Moon landing approaches, a cable of conspiracy theorists stubbornly refuse to belief the Moon landing truth.
The Apollo 11 Moon landing was a moment that changed the world.
NASA astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins faced great sacrifice for the sake of pushing the frontiers of science, technology and human endeavour forward.
Embarking on the craft with “a very limited set of objectives”, the NASA mission was really “a test run” to see if mankind could reach the Moon.
Sir Charles Shults III was recently invited to address key aspects used by Moon landing naysayers on the Coast To Coast radio show.
The broadcast Moon landing footage was filmed in a studio:
Sir Charles Shults III, a respected aerospace engineer with several decades experience, believes that although there was the potential for forgery to exist, it would be too difficult to make it realistic.
Sir Shults said: “There are many details that forgers could not possibly have got right in a recreation.
“Think about prep to watch a movie these days and pick apart every frame for inconsistencies.
“And you can see it would be very difficult to fake something in a studio that would match what was going on.
“And on top of that a huge bulk 8,400 photographs has just been released by NASA, that would make it extremely impossible if not impossible to fake.”
The “fluttering flag” conspiracy:
Sir Shults said points out how NASA scientists were well aware that without any atmosphere the flag had no way of fluttering – it would simply hang limply.
He said: “The scientists put a springy wire at the edge of the flag to hold the fabric out.
“And because there is no air, that is why the flag continued to move after the flag was planted.
“The spring had nothing to slow its movements down, as it is was in a vacuum.
“And if you look at the footage where the lunar landed lifts off at the end of the mission, you will see the rocket exhaust definitely move the flag, that was standing still only moments before.”
The Van Allen radiation belt conspiracy theory:
Some sceptics point out that in order to get to the Moon, it requires passing through the Van Allen radiation belt, both there and on the trip back.
Sir Shults however points out this argument is based on a poor understanding of physics.
He said: “People do not have a lot information about physics, and they don’t know what the intensity of radiation is.
“The astronauts take around four hours to pass through the Van Allen belts.
“And the total amount of radiation they would pick up is approximate to receiving a chest X-ray.
“So it is not a life-threatening amount of radiation, as it is not a place they have to spent a lot of time.
And to prove this point, three astronauts actually went to the Moon twice.
Sir Shults said: “James Lovell went to orbit the Moon in 1968 and went back for another pass on Apollo 13.
“So he went through the Van Allen belt four times.
“It was soon found to make the capsules of very light-weight materials that allowed the radiations to pass right through the astronauts, without generating secondary and tertiary radiation.”
The Moon temperature conspiracy theory:
Some Moon landing conspiracy theorists believe the Moon blistering temperatures would make it impossible for mankind or their equipment to survive.
Sir Shults acknowledge the temperature extremes, but points out how these can be countered with some simple techniques.
He said: “The surface of the Moon can exceed 200F during the lunar day, which is extremely hot.
“There is no cloud coverage, so astronauts are being hit with raw sunlight.
However the NASA spacesuits were insulated and they also contained air conditioning layers.
“The astronauts did not get cooked because because they had the proper equipment to keep the alive.
“The equipment was also well insulated, and during the early missions, you will notice the shielding on the cameras is something very thick, and they didn’t allow it to the exposed to direct sunlight for much of the time.
“And another defence against that intensity of heat was to keep the equipment under something as simple as a shade or an awning.”