No way
That's great
We landed on the moon!
Yes, we landed on the moon, but it's been 45 years since we've been back there
Heck, it’s been almost 45 years since we went beyond low Earth orbit.
And when I say “we,” I mean the United States. Only 12 humans have ever walked on the surface of the moon, all of them men, and all of them American.
The last two to be there were Eugene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt.
That was in December of 1972, of the Apollo 17 mission.
For more about the moon landings, check out this video by the legendary Keith Hughes.
Keith has been making history videos on YouTube longer than just about anybody, and they are all high quality, so while you’re over there, be sure to subscribe.
Now, the moon landings. Apparently, we never landed on the moon. It was just a hoax.
At least that’s what a lot of people think. One survey conducted in the United Kingdom last year found 52% of people thought the moon landing was a hoax. Ok, so that’s just one survey, and probably not a good sample, but still
A lot of people out there don't think the moon landings really happened.
It’s easy to understand why people would be skeptical. Skeptics often point to the motive for wanting to fake the whole thing.
The race to the moon was part of the Space Race, during a particularly tense time during the Cold War.
The United States and Soviet Union were battling it out to get there first.
Skeptics say the United States would have wanted to fake it to show they won the Space Race even if they knew it actually wasn’t possible to go.
The Soviet Union had epically failed to ever get even near the moon, so they argue it seems suspicious that the United States able to land men safely on the moon six times in 3 and a half years, yet never do so since.
Was this just a publicity stunt, faked in order to strongly discourage the Soviet Union and give the United States a huge advantage in the Cold War while saving its lots of money?
But how could this hoax be pulled off? Skeptics argue the technology did exist to recreate a fake mooning landing in a film studio.
Sure, they argue the astronauts really did take off into space, but they likely just orbited the earth for several days before landing back on Earth, while faked footage was distributed to the masses.
But what evidence do that have of the moon landings being faked?
For the rest of this video, I will first give you evidence that creates doubt, then give you NASA’s response, and then give you my conclusion.
The first thing that causes doubt is the footage showing the American flag on the moon waving. Skeptics say the flag waving shows the presence of wind, which should be impossible on the moon because it doesn’t have much of an atmosphere and is surrounded by a vacuum.
NASA insists that the flag moved due to astronaut Buzz Aldrin twisting the flagpole, causing it to move like that.
Apparently the astronauts also accidentally bent the horizontal rods that were supposed to hold the flag outward.
My take: I give NASA the benefit of the doubt here
The next evidence that causes doubt is the fact that there were no stars in any of the footage or photographs taken by NASA on the moon.
Skeptics say stars were left out because astronomers would have been able to use them to determine whether the photos were taken from the Earth or Moon.
NASA, as well as many many others, argue that of course you wouldn’t be able to see the stars because the moon’s surface is so bright.
It’s the same reason why you can’t see the stars standing on a bright football field at night.
Some astronauts were able to take long exposure UV photographs of bright stars and Venus from the moon, though. But skeptics would probably argue these photos were taken from earth.
My take: I’m again going to go with NASA on this one
What about the fact that there was no blast crater from the lunar module on the moon, especially when scientists before predicted one would be created?
Well NASA says those scientists predicted wrong. The fact is, the pressure on the moon was simply too low for the lunar module to create a crater.
Again, NASA for the win on this one
Quite a bit of discussion by skeptics revolve around the discussion of lighting and shadows in photographs taken on the moon.
Shadows are inconsistent and often intersect in photographs. Skeptics argue that the shadows should be completely black and run parallel to each other.
NASA and others argue that shadows are weird on the Moon due to many light sources and lunar dust.
Also, the unique terrain of the moon alters how the shadows are seen.
I can definitely understand the skepticism on this one, but again give NASA the benefit of the doubt.
Skeptics also say the photographs on the Moon show the same exact background, despite astronauts saying the photos were taken far away from each other.
They argue that the backdrop was basically kept the same, even for different Apollo missions.
Take these photographs, for example.
Skeptics have combined the two pictures and claim the backgrounds match...kind of.
Well, NASA says that because the Moon is much smaller than Earth, horizons appear closer to the naked eye than they really are, and thus may look identical from different viewpoints.
I don’t know. This one is definitely suspicious. I'm a little bit skeptical on this one.
Other skeptics point to the massive radiation found in the Van Allen radiation belt and just the radiation in general out in space.
They argue that the inevitably prolonged radiation exposure would have made it impossible for astronauts to go to the moon.
NASA says the astronauts in the Apollo spacecrafts were only in Van Allen radiation belt for a little over an hour and a half at most, and that their spacecraft had aluminum protection from the radiation.
Ok, so say they really did go to the moon but the film was destroyed by all the radiation so they had to re-film it on a Hollywood set?
Well NASA says the film was kept in metal containers that protected it from radiation as well.
Well what about solar flares on the surface of the moon? NASA admits that could be a potential threat since the moon has no atmosphere, but no solar flares were recorded during any of the Apollo missions, luckily.
These concerns have merit, and I could honestly see them landing on the moon and having all their film destroyed and having to film back on earth as a backup plan. I don't know. That kind of makes sense to me, actually.
Now wait just a second. SUPPOSEDLY There is still stuff on the moon that the astronauts would have left behind.
If we can just show those, we can put this debate to rest.
Well skeptics argue that if we have instruments like the Hubble Space Telescope, which can see way way way off into the universe, why can’t we use it to see various objects still on the moon? Eh?
NASA doesn’t want to do this, so skeptics are like, “see, if you got nothing to hide, you would.”
NASA argues that no telescope in existence can show these objects in detail.
The smallest thing you can currently see on the moon from our most powerful telescope would have to be bigger than a house. NASA says, why would we waste our time when nothing would show up anyway?
Still, in 2009, NASA sent its Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, a robotic spacecraft that has been orbiting and mapping nearly all of the moon’s surface.
It released these photos, saying, see there’s all the stuff left by the Apollo missions, but these haven’t convinced skeptics much because you can’t make out many details with these.
Plus, NASA released them, and they could have Photoshopped them, man!
Other countries have also confirmed the Moon landings with photographs of their own, although China never released theirs.
My take: there is plenty of third-party evidence to verify we landed on the moon. It would have to be quite the conspiracy- involving people from all over the world, to pull this off.
While it is unfortunate the photographs we have aren’t not that detailed and in the Photoshop era maybe it wouldn’t matter if they were detailed. People wouldn't believe it anyway.
I still lean towards NASA on this one.
Skeptics point out how the footprints in the moondust are suspiciously well preserved, despite no moisture on the moon.
NASA argued that Moon dust is not weathered, so it would stick together like that.
This theory ended up being debunked on an episode of the show Mythbusters.
By the way, that episode also debunked claims that the photos and film were faked and debunked claims that the American flag on the moon couldn’t move like that.
There are other pieces of evidence that skeptics point to, but I am not bringing those up due to the fact that they are just not that convincing.
The fact of the matter is, we will know FOR SURE if we landed on the moon or not, as billionaires like Elon Musk and his forward thinking company SpaceX are looking to get there within a few years.
NASA is also looking to get annual flights to the moon’s orbit by 2023.
So In my opinion, yes, WE LANDED ON THE MOON!
There’s just too much third party evidence for the moon landings. But I totally understand why people are skeptical.
The motives are there. Regardless, hopefully in the near future we will get definitive proof that we landed on the moon.
But people probably still won't believe.