A Voice in the
Wilderness

site navigation

free newsletter

May 21, 2002

Return to: Q/A's
Q/A Topic:
  • -Apollo "hoax"?

Apollo "hoax"?

READER QUESTION:
Sorry not to let this go, but since it does not relate directly to the day's mailing, I thought you might be able to give me some background.

On Friday, May 17, 2002 You wrote: "It was during my college years that we had the 'hoax' (?) of the Apollo program, " [VW Editor: an item e-mailed to subscribers, but not posted at the website]

It is the bit on the Apollo program that I am curious about. I watched a sitcom in which someone was ridiculed for thinking that the Apollo program and man on the moon stuff were all major scale hoaxes, in the same vein as 'Elvis is still alive'. What is/was this all about, if and when you get the time?

VW ANSWER:
We touched on this awhile back briefly when we discussed "Conspiracy Theories" There was another question on this from somebody else a couple weeks ago, so let's pass over it briefly again for newer subscribers, and also address a few more points this time.

There have been a couple of TV exposes on this that I've seen over the past few years, showing videos from the Apollo days, pointing out various things:

  • -When they planted the US flag "on-the-moon", it "fluttered"... where there is no air...let alone 'wind/breeze'.

  • -Shadows "on-the-moon" came away from various objects at different angles, depending upon where they were on the 'moon' scape, like a video studio where there would be flood lights located throughout an area, not natural light from 'one' source/angle (sun/earth).

  • -They showed computer superimpositions of the mountains from each mission when the lunar rover would be driving around. They supposedly landed at 'different' places each mission, and yet, their superimpositions showed them to be the -identical- 'same' mountains each time, matching 'perfectly'.

  • -There was never any 'dust' clouding up from the thrust of the retro-landing engines..nor any dust kicked up when they had set a camera away from the lunar lander, to watch when it was taking off to rejoin the orbiter...this, where there was 'dust' in which to leave boot imprints.

  • -Radio transmissions did not have what should have been an overpowering background noise from the descent rockets during the landings.

  • -Where were the stars? Look at the photos of the "moon-scape" and notice how the 'sky' in the background is -solid- 'black'. Anybody who has been in the country, away from city lights at night, when you look up into the 'black' heavens what do you see? Stars. -LOTS- of them! There's -no- stars in all those scenes and photos!!

  • -And, they had a whole bunch more things they showed, that I don't remember them all now; each time it was an hour's worth of exposes, including the suggestion that the fire that killed those three on the ground were deliberately killed to shush them up, because they were about to expose the hoax to the world.
There is the scientific contradiction of Apollo 13 when they were purportedly coasting through space with life-support turned off, sitting up there, huddled together "freezing". Anybody who has used thermos devices knows that a "vacuum" thermos is the best kind. "Science" -fiction- says that space is "cold". In reality, space is neither cold nor hot; it is a most perfect insulator. In order for heat to exist, molecules must be 'moving'. If, for instance, food is heated, the heat makes the food molecules move faster. Or, the principle of the microwave is that the molecules are induced to move faster, thus, producing heat. Space (vacuum) cannot 'conduct' or 'be' heat/hot because there are no molecules of any 'substance' in space. By definition, "space" is 'nothingness'. However, radiant energy/heat can pass 'through' space, until it hits some object composed of molecules, and then heats it up; as anyone with experience around electronic vacuum tubes ("valves" to you of a more British persuasion) can attest, the radiant energy of the filaments passes through the tube's vacuum to the 'material' of the enclosing glass case, making the case hot to the touch; such that you can burn your fingers on them.

This stuff isn't even so-called "Rocket" science! It's basic stuff that is learned in basic pre-collegiate science classes.

So, you have this capsule travelling through the vacuum insulator of space, and radiant energy of the sun is shining on it. What happens to a car with closed windows that sits in the sun? It gets terribly hot. But the car does not get nearly as hot as an object in space would get, because the surrounding atmosphere, having molecules of 'substance' touching the outside of the car helps conduct some of that heat away; same principle as an air-cooled engine. But in space that heat would become concentrated within that craft, but not being hot enough to 'radiate' its own heat away, the heat stays inside and builds up. If those men had really been up there like that, with life-support turned off, they would have all been burnt into three little crisps.

Now, if a person might find arguments or supposed 'logic' to refute exposes such as this, as being the concoctions of some sort of whacked out zealots with some anti-government agenda or something, there is the -other- 'independent' matter that anybody can look up in an encyclopedia, from astronomical science, if they know that they 'should' look it up. The Van Allen radiation belts. For life to exist within those radiation belts (through which Apollo would have had to pass), it would require at least an inch thick lead plating to shield from its harmful effects. As post-cold-war information has come out, apparently the Russians 'fried' one of their cosmonauts when they rocketed him up beyond 500 miles into the radiation. And the apollo craft had hulls reputed to be "paper-thin". It would have required -much- more than our Saturn rockets to propel all that much weight up there. Even to this day we do not yet have the technology to safeguard against the radiation belts, let alone go beyond, into the sun's 'direct' rays. Not to mention, considering this knowledge, the relatively 'flimsy' suits they wore while walking around "on-the-moon".

Since I've read/heard all this, I have kept track of mileages when I hear them. The hubble telescope, which they go to, to periodically do repairs and upgrades, orbits at around 300 miles up. The space station is only around 270 miles up. But you never hear of them going to the geosynchronous communications satellites to do repairs, at 22,000 miles out. The Van Allen belts begin at around 500 miles, and continue on out I-forget-how-many-thousand miles.

Even before hearing these things, there were always other technical matters that I always wondered about, foremost among them was "fuel". When you consider that the huge tank under each shuttle at launch, dwarfing the shuttle in size, is 'full' of fuel, and those two side-rockets are there merely to lift the fuel in synchronicity with the shuttle, how did they possibly have enough fuel on that lunar lander to launch it off the moon's surface, and gain orbital speed? It would take a -HUGE- Saturn rocket to propel the craft off earth, and yet, somehow magically, it required comparatively 'nothing' to get back off the lunar surface. Yes, I know the lunar gravity is less than earth's, but that vehicle was large enough to sustain life a few days on the surface, and to expend fuel landing with an attached dune buggy and other equipment to drive around with...and they added the weight of "rocks" they supposedly brought back. Well... if it was a hoax anyway...all this other is moot, eh. It didn't happen...and couldn't, and never will, the way they would claim for it to have happened.

The big question is, "WHY?" Besides politics and the cold war. Surely the Russians knew we never went to the moon. They knew it was impossible, because of the radiation belts...that's likely why they stopped their program..? So, why the lies and coverups? I expect there's lots of speculations. But we don't need to go there in this Q/A While stuff like this might speak to geo-politics, it's not really directly related to Scriptural matters, which is what VW is about.

Except... for us to be aware of just how much 'lying' there is in the world... at the highest levels, and the lengths and expense to which they have gone to deceive the world's population this greatly. And 'who' is the "father of lies"? (Jn8:44) Remember that the antichrist's rule will be based on deception. (2Th2:11) If the world believes NASA went to the moon, then, they will also believe everything else put to them.

Well, look at the sophisticated organization that comprises -pretend- "christianity", and how hard it is for people to see God's Truth. What we have just observed to refute the Apollo hoax is the same thing we do regularly to expose the -pretend- "christianity". Satan the liar has his -false- "ministers of righteousness" (2Cor11:15) all over the world, and most people believe in his deception. But it's a "hoax".

Learn about the Van Allen Radiation Belts... go to a readily available encyclopedia.

Learn about God's Truth... "search the Scriptures daily". Why? To see "whether these things are so..." (Acts17:11)

Amen!


ADDENDUM: (8/21/06)
Over time there have been the periodic 'complaints' to this Q/A from anti-hoax militants. Out of all the things mentioned in this Q/A they pick on the Van Allen Radiation issue; and seem to ignore the other things. They each write, with their own set of theories and alleged scientific specifications as to why Apollo was possible. But their theories and arguments are all -different- from each other. They scoff at my brief synopsis of information gleaned from a (presumably) non-biased source, an encyclopaedia...as though (they seem to think) the encyclopaedia is 'biased' towards hoaxists. The encyclopaedia made no mention of "Apollo" or any other such thing.

There might be explanations for why the stars are not visible, due to camera lense openings and light settings. There might be explanations for why there was no dust kicked up, considering the 'size' of the lander's engine, and the resultant low per-square-inch pressures involved. But what is the explanation for shadows, over the lunarscape, coming off of rocks and objects, at -different- angles...as though those items each had 'separate' light sources closer to them, situated in different places. If they landed and explored -different- landing areas, why were the background mountains always the 'same' (identical) mountains, as shown in the expose's image super-impositions?

But to my mind, the biggest one is Apollo 13. Some anti-hoax militants have also proposed various theories. But next time the sun has been shining on your car, with the windows rolled up...go open the door and sit in it...and tell me if it's "cold" or "hot". A vehicle in space, between the earth and moon, has no 'tree' to sit in its shade, and no 'atmosphere' to conduct any heat away, that heat is going to be multiplied. And if the power is turned off...there is no "air-conditioner". And they cannot "roll down the windows" to "feel the breeze" and cool off. Apollo 13 certainly took off atop a Saturn rocket, and a capsule landed in the ocean. But it is certain the events in space between those two things did not happen the way it was presented to the public. But they can certainly replay the movie with Tom Hanks; just like they now have movies about 9/11 to continue the lies surrounding that day; and keep the hoax alive. Wasn't it Hitler who said: Repeat a lie often enough, and in people's minds it becomes truth.

If the Van Allen belts are not a problem, as the anti-hoax militants insist, why is it, then, as they speculate about space ventures beyond the international space station, that I've heard/read the comments over the past year that, before they consider establishing a moon base, and go beyond, to Mars, that they first need to solve the problems regarding "radiation". If Apollo really happened, the way they marketed it to us, why not just use Apollo's technology? You see..."two and two" are just not adding up.

Man wants to reach to the stars; but that is God's domain. God made the -earth- for man's habitat, to have dominion over it. (Gen1:26,28, Ps8:6)

Beyond this addendum, I will not respond further to personal notes refuting this or that about "Apollo". This particular Q/A is not VW's main thrust. It was included to support the matters of "conspiracy theories" and "false agendas". It is merely -one- 'example' of the sorts of things people become engrossed in. There are many things a person could speculate: Kennedy's assassination, Apollo, 9/11, Saddam Hussein, bird flu, mad cow disease, homeland security, etc.etc. So, if there are all -those- lies and conspiracies out there about worldly things, why is it so hard for some people to understand that there are also many lies being told about spiritual things?

This ministry is not about all those worldly things and conspiracies; but about living a Godly life, sticking with the Scriptures, being prepared for the return of Jesus Christ, and the need for the sinner to repent.

[Top]


Return to: Q/A's