John Jackson © UK-Skeptics

The way that it works is that most people tell small lies and they have no difficulty in accepting the fact that other people tell small lies also. Most people however, do not tell colossal lies; therefore they do not believe that others tell colossal lies either. This results in colossal lies being accepted, as it seems too incredible that such lies be told.

Scaremongers rely heavily on the big lie technique: Aspartame causes tumours; Fluoride causes cancer; vaccines cause autism; etcetera. The idea is to use scare words like: cancer; birth defects; blindness; heart failure; seizures; multiple sclerosis; and such like to instil fear into the reader.

All that is required is to make the claim: no evidence need be provided to back it up. Keep repeating the claim so that it becomes “common knowledge” or people accept that “there must be something in it”, and the message will propagate. The big lie is a tried and tested technique: it works.

The scattergun approach.

This technique involves associating a wide range of symptoms and conditions that relate to the scaremongers’ claim so that almost anyone can find a match. Aspartame, for example, has been cited as the cause of ninety plus different illnesses and conditions from (the seemingly obligatory) cancer to restless leg syndrome.

The technique works because for people to believe the lie, they only need to accept one of the claims. This is an example of this trick: Aspartame side effects (opens in a new window). In reality, one substance is unlikely to cause dozens of debilitating or life threatening conditions; claiming this, however, undoubtedly helps when you’re selling an “Aspartame Detoxification Program”.

The scattergun approach is a double-edged sword, however. To those who are aware of it, its overt exaggeration is a telltale sign of scaremongering propaganda.

They claim a conspiracy.

This helps make the claims unfalsifiable. Official, scientific reports are dismissed as part of the conspiracy being waged by big business or “big pharma”.

Any evidence that opposes their claim is part of the conspiracy. Any evidence, including anything that can be selectively (mis)quoted from a scientist, however, unquestionably supports their claim.

Bad science.

One thing that is not seen with scaremongering tactics is reference to quality clinical trials or studies. Claims have to be substantiated with evidence to have any value. “Experts” are often quoted from their books, but where are the published papers showing their work? When “Expert X Ph.D.” is claiming that fluoridation of water causes cancer, his research paper should have been published and peer-reviewed in a prestigious medical journal. If his claims are not backed up with evidence then there’s probably a good reason for it; and it’s not a conspiracy.

Scaremongers tend to use new-age style “Eco words”: we’re being poisoned by “chemicals”; our bodies are full of “toxins”; the compound is an “additive” and therefore not “natural”. By using these words out of context as they do, the scaremongers are leaving another telltale sign of their propaganda.

Generate a bandwagon effect.

This is where the scaremongers create a false impression that their belief is more widely accepted than it really is. Their intention is to make people think that they are members of a group. Group mentality encourages people to conform to the group’s way of thinking and their behaviour will be modified to match the group’s expectations.

This group mentality is what causes those who have fallen for the propaganda to spread it further even though they may have little or no understanding of the real issue at stake.

Unquestioning belief and obstinance.

One major factor in the spread of scaremongering propaganda is the fact that so many people will believe what they see and hear without question. They only have to see one report that X causes Y and they simply believe it. Then, possibly thinking that they’ve found some knowledge that few people know about, they go around informing others about the dangers of X.

People tend to believe information they come across first rather than information that is of better quality. Changing their mind with evidence can be hard as you are now challenging their opinion: not the source of their opinion.

Somatizers.

One group of people who are especially prone to health scares are somatizers (previously known as hypochondriacs). They have psychological problems but absolutely reject the fact; as a result their psychological conflicts manifest themselves as physical symptoms. They often want help, sympathy and attention.

When something is demonised by a scaremonger who’s claiming 90+ side effects, it is bound to match up with many of the symptoms somatizers experience. Having found a “cause” and an authority figure or guru (the scaremonger claiming to be an expert), they can get attention and sympathy in their self-help groups. Once they have this support, their symptoms and ailments clear up.

These people often enthusiastically spread the scaremongering hoax with personal stories of miraculous transformations in their health. Fortunately, their exaggerated claims are easy to spot.

Don’t be misled.

People or organisations with ulterior motives often make these hoaxes and wild claims. Our natural tendency – to err on the side of caution and avoid danger – can lead us to accept claims that have no foundation in reality or that are intentionally made to deceive us.

People are strongly influenced by anecdotes and are much more likely to accept an idea if they believe it was heard inadvertently or informally. When someone comes out with something like, “I will always try to avoid artificial sugar. Aspartame has been banned in the States as it has a link to cancer“, it is because they’ve read the same thing somewhere else and believed it. They’ve jumped straight on the scaremongers’ bandwagon without a thought of checking out the facts.

The antidote to falling for scaremongering tactics is to realise that the people spreading the bogus information may well be sincere, but they may not be right. Propaganda works on many levels; however, checking out claims before believing them will weed out most that are not true very quickly. Understanding the telltale signs of propaganda and basic fact checking, can help us to avoid being duped by a misinformation campaign.

John Jackson © UK-Skeptics

• The odds of a successful Moon landing were calculated to be 6000 to 1 against (or probability 0.000167).
  
  This figure of 6000 to 1 against a successful mission is put forward by Bill Kaysing, although it is unclear exactly how the figure was calculated or from which data.
  
  NASA and GEC did computer simulations involving every aspect the mission. The results consistently gave a projected success rate of over 90%.
  
  
• The Lunar Module (LM) crashed in testing on Earth, yet worked perfectly six times in space.
  
  There were two types of training vehicle: the Lunar Landing Research Vehicles (LLRV); and the more advanced Lunar Landing Training Vehicles (LLTV). These vehicles were different to the actual LM, having jet engines to mimic the reduced weight of the LM in space, and rocket thrusters to simulate the LM’s guidance thrusters.
  
  There is footage of Neil Armstrong ejecting from an LLRV after its steering guidance system failed. This is the evidence that conspiracy theorists focus on. In reality, hundreds of successful tests were completed.
  
  The actual LM was tested continuously also: its components on Earth; and its performance in space, notably during other Apollo missions. The only untested aspect of the LM was its ability to land on the Moon. Due to the extensive testing undergone, the LM landed safely on the Moon’s surface using its computer controlled guidance and gyroscopic inertial control systems.
  
  
• Apollo’s computer system was not powerful enough for such a complex mission.
  
  It is true that by today’s standards the computer system used on Apollo would be thought of as very basic. The misconception, however, is that too much emphasis is placed on the role of the computer in the missions. The onboard computer was only used for one purpose: guidance. A task for which it was perfectly adequate.
  
  The real computer work was done on Earth using mainframe computers. Results of complex calculations were transmitted to the onboard computer which could act upon them.
  
  
• The Apollo craft never left Earth’s orbit.
  
  This is not a very credible theory. Satellites in orbit are easily tracked by radar, and many are actually visible to the naked eye. The Apollo craft, being much larger than satellites, would have been the brightest object in orbit. It is inconceivable that it could have remained in orbit without being noticed by anyone.
  
  
• The crew could not survive the journey through the Van Allen radiation belts.
  
  The Van Allen belts are two belts of radiation that surround the Earth and are held in place by the Earth’s magnetic field. They are doughnut shaped and are more intense around the equator. High energy particles exist in these belts and can be a hazard to both humans and electronic equipment.
  
  There are two reasons why the radiation was considered to be of little risk:
  
  
  1. It only took one hour for the craft to pass through the radiation belts therefore reducing exposure time.
  2. The spacecraft avoided the centre of the belts, and therefore the most intense radiation.
     
     

The astronauts received a radiation dose of less than 1% of that which is considered lethal.

The majority of conspiracy theories focus on the Moon landing itself:

There are many misconceptions that arise regarding the Moon landings. Many of these occur because people compare events in the Apollo pictures with how they would expect those events to occur on Earth. They fail to take into account the reduced gravity on the Moon and the fact that there is no atmosphere there.

• The lunar module did not create a blast crater when landing.
  
  
  1. The lunar module did not hover for long over the landing site. There was no need for an enormous amount of thrust to be used due to the reduced gravity on the Moon, and the exhaust gasses were quickly dispersed into the vacuum; they could not cause disturbance of air molecules around them as they would on Earth.
     
     
  2. “Moon dust” is not the same as dust or sand on Earth. There is no weathering on the Moon and the particles are jagged in nature; when compressed they stick together. Any particles that were ejected from the lunar surface, by direct contact with exhaust gasses, would have simply have dropped back to the surface. Large clouds of dust cannot form on the Moon as there is no atmosphere in which to suspend the particles.
     
     
  3. There is evidence that where the module landed, most of the lunar dust was blown away by direct contact with exhaust gasses, revealing the rock below:
     
     

  

• The astronauts made clear footprints in a totally dry medium.
  
  This is because lunar dust is not like soil or sand on Earth. The dust, formed by meteorite impacts, remains in the same condition over time as there is no weathering or oxygen on the Moon. When compressed, the jagged shaped particles stick together because they can interlock, and they can form molecular bonds with each other as the bonding sites formed on creation were never filled by oxygen as they would be on Earth.
  
  
• The American flag was waving in the breeze, yet the Moon is airless.
  
  This is one of the less serious theories. The only time the flag is seen waving is when it is being planted in the ground. As the astronaut is planting the flag he is twisting the pole back and forth. This induces quite a pronounced waving of the flag. This is because of the lack of an atmosphere. There is nothing to dampen the flag’s motion.
  
  It is interesting to note that in other footage astronauts quickly move past the flag, something which could induce motion from disturbed air, yet the flag remains completely still.

Many conspiracy theorists believe that the Moon landings were faked in Area 51, in the Nevada desert, USA. To support this idea they look for inconsistencies in the video and photographic evidence shown by NASA.

• The sky is black, yet no stars are visible in the photographs.
  
  This is an illusion caused by the lack of an atmosphere on the Moon. Although the sky, or lack of it, is black, it was still daytime on the lunar surface and the sun was very bright. Photographs taken had to be of short exposure time and the comparatively dim stars did not have time to be recorded on the film.
  
  
• More than one light source was used, this is shown by unparallel shadows.
  
  This is an example:
  
  
  

  The obvious answer is that if two light sources were used the astronauts would each have two shadows. This is clearly not the case.
  
  This anomaly is caused by perspective. The ground is not perfectly flat; different slopes will cause shadows of different lengths and angles to form. If the astronauts were viewed from above, then their shadows would be seen to be parallel.
  
  

• There is a photograph of an astronaut standing on the lunar surface, saluting the flag, yet he casts no shadow.
  
  This is another much used photograph, produced to prove that the photographs were faked in some way:
  
  
  

  
  
  At first glance the photograph looks unconvincing. The astronaut, John Young, does not seem to be standing on the ground in a natural manner, and there is not a shadow where one would be expected.
  
  The answer, however, is very simple. The astronaut had jumped up from the surface. His shadow can be seen to his left, exactly where it would be expected to be. There is also a video of this event which confirms this simple explanation.
  
  

• The same background appears from different locations.
  
  The implication here is that NASA used the same set for many of the fake photographs:
  
  
  

  
  
  In the left picture the lunar module is visible, in the right picture the foreground is different yet the background appears to be the same.
  
  Again the answer is simply one of perspective. On this mission, Apollo 15, the astronauts were collecting Moon rocks. The second photograph would only have to be taken a small distance to the side of the first one for the lunar module to be out of frame. As the hills in the background were approximately five kilometres in the distance they appear to move very little.
  
  This entirely natural effect is easily reproducible by anyone taking two photographs of a distant object from locations only 10-15 metres apart: the background will appear the same; the foreground will look different.

Conspiracy theorists can offer up many more examples of this type, however, there is nothing that can’t be explained very easily.

For an in-depth explanation of photographic anomalies see:
http://www.iangoddard.net/moon01.htm (opens in a new window).

Other conspiracy theories are based on a lack of scientific knowledge:

• Moon rocks are just earth rocks.
  
  There are some unique properties of Moon rocks that could not be reproduced on Earth.
  
  Dr. David McKay, Chief Scientist for Planetary Science and Exploration at NASA’s Johnson Space Center (JSC):
  
  
  “Just as meteoroids constantly bombard the Moon so do cosmic rays, and they leave their fingerprints on Moon rocks, too. There are isotopes in Moon rocks, isotopes we don’t normally find on Earth, that were created by nuclear reactions with the highest-energy cosmic rays. Earth is spared from such radiation by our protective atmosphere and magnetosphere.
  
  Even if scientists wanted to make something like a Moon rock by, say, bombarding an Earth rock with high energy atomic nuclei, they couldn’t. Earth’s most powerful particle accelerators can’t energize particles to match the most potent cosmic rays, which are themselves accelerated in supernova blastwaves and in the violent cores of galaxies.
  
  Indeed, faking a Moon rock well enough to hoodwink an international army of scientists might be more difficult than the Manhattan Project. It would be easier to just go to the Moon and get one.”

  
  The Moon rocks have been shared with many countries throughout the world, including the former USSR. Not one scientist from any country has expressed the opinion that the Moon rocks are anything but genuine.
  
  

• When the lunar module took off from the Moon, there was no exhaust flame.
  
  This is a question of chemistry. People are accustomed to seeing rockets taking off from Earth with a large flame coming out of the back of them.
  
  The visibility of the reacting exhaust gasses is dependant on the propellants used. The lunar module used nitrogen tetroxide and Aerozine 50 as its propellants. These compounds produce an almost invisible flame. Coupled with the fact that the lunar surface is very bright, that the exhaust gasses are dispersed into a vacuum and that the footage is of low resolution, it would be surprising to see the very little flame that existed.

A nail in the coffin of conspiracy theory.

There is one fact that the conspiracy theorists tend to ignore: for good reason.

The Apollo 11 crew deployed a reflector array in the Sea of Tranquility, which is used to reflect laser beams sent from Earth. By beaming laser pulses at the reflector from Earth, scientists have been able to determine the round-trip travel time that gives the distance between the two bodies at any time to an accuracy of about 3 centimetres.

The original reflector, placed in 1969, is still working today. Other reflectors were added later by Apollo 14 and Apollo 15 missions.

It is a testable, and undeniable fact the these reflectors exist on the lunar surface.

See: Apollo 11 Laser Ranging Retroreflector Experiment.

The only answer that conspiracy theorists have, is that they were placed there by a mission employing robots. That mission would have been more complex than sending men there to do it, and the theory is not backed up by one piece of evidence.

The plain fact of the matter is that the reflectors were placed on the lunar surface by the Apollo missions. That is why conspiracy theorists conveniently forget to mention them.

Note: The Soviets also placed a reflecting device on the Moon in 1973, from a robotic probe. As a result, the Lunakhod 2 mirror produces a weaker laser echo than the smaller Apollo reflectors; devices that benefited from the personal attention of humans on the Moon.

Conclusion.

Conspiracy theorists have looked for evidence of fakery in the Apollo missions. They have formulated many theories and raised many questions; however those theories and questions can all be answered.

Conspiracy theorists have not brought to light one single piece of evidence that cannot easily be explained.

For scientists, the Moon rocks with their unique composition will be proof in themselves; to historians the huge amount of consistent documentation offers proof; to the layperson, the fact that the lunar reflectors are still working today, is convincing evidence.

Were the Moon landings faked? No.