Science Week 2010 Lecture Series from
Discover Science & Engineering, Ireland 2010
"Did we really land on the Moon?"
Dr Martin Hendry, School of Physics and Astronomy,
University of Glasgow.
Part 1 of 3
Dr Martin Hendry: Well hello everyone and
thank you for coming along to hear this talk
today. As Judith has just said my name is
Martin Hendry, I am an astronomer from Glasgow
University in Scotland in the UK and I am
here to talk to you today about the topic
 - Did we really land on the Moon? What I
spend most of my time doing is studying very
exotic and very bizarre objects like black
holes and exploding stars and for many years,
as well as researching those fields, I have
been doing outreach to schools and to the
public on those areas of astronomy and astrophysics.
But over many years I was finding that as
I give public talks or schools lectures on
these themes, somebody would ask me - did
I think we really landed on the Moon? And
I became quite fascinated why more than 40
years after the Moon landings happened, why
so many people were interested in that question
and perhaps suspected that maybe it was all
hoaxed and faked by NASA back in the 1960s.
So what I am here to tell you today is that
I don't think it was faked, so I should lay
my cards on the table and begin by saying
there's a very short version of this talk
which goes something like this ["YES" appears
on the presentation] and then we can all go
home! In a way the main point of why I am
here is to encourage you to think about it
for yourself and in fact I have just taken
on a new role within the UK's Science and
Technologies Facilities Council that funds
all that research into black holes and gravity
and cosmology, all the things I normally do.
What they are looking for me to do is be a
kind of ambassador, for those areas of science
which our research council funds and really
in a way what I am looking to do in that position
is just to get people thinking a bit more
about how science works in the first place.
Sure we find out lots of cool things about
the universe and a bit like Judith was saying,
five years from now we will be finding things
that no one has even thought of yet, so it's
kind of hard to anticipate future developments
in science.
The one thing we can point to is that the
scientific method, the way in which we do
science, hasn't really changed so much over
a very long time. What I am going to encourage
you to do in this short presentation is to
think about the question - "Did we really
land on the Moon?" and reach an answer not
just because of what I say, because I am a
professional scientist and I should know better,
but instead I want to see what you think and
I'd like to encourage you all to really just
have a little think about this question and
see what conclusion you reach for yourself.
Like I say, what got me into this was over
many years, people asking me the question
and my recognising that I didn't really know
enough about it to offer much of a professional
opinion. My gut feeling was that yes we really
did land on the Moon because, you know, it
would have been impossible for NASA to pull
off such an elaborate hoax. But there did
seem to be people out there who were claiming
the contrary.
[Slide changes] I began to dig a little more
into this and came across a documentary programme
which was casting serious doubt on whether
this great adventure, that took place in the
late 1960s and early 1970s, had really happened
at all. So I want to begin by showing you
a short extract from that documentary programme,
there has been several more like it and to
be fair there's also been documentary programmes
that set out to rebut the evidence in the
one I am going to show.
I am by no means doing this for the first
time, there's plenty of people out there who
have attracted some attention to this topic
in the past. But nonetheless it's an interesting
one, I hope you'll find it so as well and
as I said to begin lets just take a brief
look at a short extract from this FOX television
programme - 'Conspiracy theory , did we really
go to the Moon?'
[Video commences]
Voiceover on film: The following programme
deals with a controversial subject. [Loud
bang on film]
Tonight (Second voice on film - lift off,
we have a lift off - one small step for man)
man landed on the Moon (Second voice on film
 - one giant leap for mankind) But believe
it or not some people say it never happened.
Bill Kaysing being interviewed on film: This
whole thing was a fake. The flag flaps on
the Moon where there's no atmosphere.
Voiceover on film: During their eight-day
voyage the Apollo 11 astronauts saw spectacular
views of the Earth, floated in a weightless
environment and supposedly went where no man
had gone before. Millions of people watched
on television as the lunar lander touched
down and these unforgettable words were spoken.
Second voice on film: It's one small step
for man, one giant leap for mankind
Voiceover on film: But even today there are
those who claim that believing in mans one
small step requires one giant leap of faith.
Bill Kaysing being interviewed on film: I
think it was an intuitive feeling that what
was being shown was not real.
Voiceover on film: Kaysing observed that despite
the clarity of deep space, the stars were
missing from the black lunar sky. He saw the
American flag waving, even though there is
no air on the Moon and he discovered that
there was no blast crater beneath the lunar
lander. As outlandish as it might seem, it
has been estimated that as many as 20% of
Americans believe we never went to the Moon.
[Video ends]
Dr Martin Hendry: So that's a lot of people,
so just what exactly is lying behind these
claims? Well we heard some commentary there
from Bill Kaysing, [Slide appears] who in
the 1970s was one of the chief protagonists
of these Moon hoax conspiracy theories. Another
person around that same time and indeed to
the present day is Bart Sibrel who in the
1990s put together a DVD called
'A funny thing happened on the way to the
Moon' which very firmly put forward the notion
that it was all filmed in some studio.
Bart Sibrel has achieved, more recently, infamy
on the internet because there is a video clip
which you can find on Youtube, which is where
Bart Sibrel was going in search of some of
the Apollo astronauts, in this instance Buzz
Aldrin, who was the second person to land
on the Moon and he was challenging the Apollo
astronauts to swear on the Bible that they
had really gone to the Moon. This is what
happened when he tried to get Buzz Aldrin
to do that.
[Video commences]
Bart Siebrel's voice on video: You are a coward
and a liar and a thief. [Buzz Aldrin punches
Bart Sibrel] Did you get that on camera?
[Video ends]
Dr Martin Hendry That may be worth watching
again. Bearing in mind that Buzz Aldrin was
in his late 70s at this time and he still
packs a fairly mean left hook.
[Repeats video]
Bart Siebrel's voice on video: You are a coward
and a liar and a thief. [Buzz Aldrin punches
Bart Sibrel] Did you get that on camera?
[Video ends]
Dr Martin Hendry: Much as I can understand
Buzz Aldrin's reaction, I think as a scientist
what I want to try and do is approach this
in a more cool and calm and objective way.
As my wife put it when I saw that FOX television
documentary, you know once my blood pressure
had returned to normal levels, what she recommended
I should do was try and think of ways of which
through simple science experiments we can
test some of the ideas of the conspiracy theorists.
That's what I am here to talk to you about
today. There isn't time to go through all
of them, but what I am going to do at the
end is give you a web address where I've put
together a lot of resources and I have worked
with many schools in the UK to essentially
carry this out as an extended science project,
over maybe a few months. So perhaps some of
the school groups who are here today might
wish to consider doing that for themselves
in the future.
Let's take a look at what I would regard as
the kind of top ten conspiracy theories, and
we'll do our best to get through a selection
of them in the time we have today.
[Referring to the presentation] I think number
one in the list is undoubtedly the waving
flag, the fact that you see the flag waving
in the video footage from the Moon. It's the
one which the conspiracy theorists say is
the real chief piece of evidence in favour
of it being fake, that's what they say anyway.
They also point to the fact that there are
no stars in the photographs which in their
view is suspicious because one should, as
they put it, be able to see stars and the
clarity of deep space. Then they point to
[Slide changes] oops lets not advance quite
so quickly [Back to previous slide] they point
to some discrepancies in their opinion in
the shadows in the photographs, the fact that
the shadows don't appear parallel which in
their view is an indication that there are
multiple light sources contributing to the
photographs. Therefore in their view that
means that it was filmed on Earth and not
on the Moon.
They also point to the fact that the film
of the astronauts, when played back at a faster
rate, looks in their opinion as if it was
being filmed on Earth and therefore they conclude
that what actually happened is it was filmed
on Earth and slowed down later to make it
look as if it was on the Moon.
[Slide changes] Then there are various other
photographic anomalies as they would have
it. The fact that some of the cross hairs
on the images, which according to NASA, are
on the lens of the camera. Well some times
they actually appear behind things in the
photographs, which they would claim as evidence
that NASA were some how tampering or doctoring
the images. Then there's the fact that you
can see detail on the astronauts' space suits
even when they are standing in pools of shadow.
In their view there is only one bright source
of light, that is the sun, then the hoax theorists
challenge the fact that you can see these
details, they say that the astronauts should
be standing in shadow, and therefore you shouldn't
see those details on their space suits.
Then there is various issues that they identified
to do with the dust. The fact that for example
you can still see well formed footprints around
the lunar module, which they claim would have
been impossible because all the dust should
be blown away, in their opinion, by the exhaust
of the lunar module rocket engine. That same
rocket engine should, according to them, have
produced a sizeable blast crater beneath the
lunar module. Then they also point to the
radiation belts around the Earth, which they
say , no pun intended , is a real piece of
killer evidence in favour of the conspiracy
theories because they would say that the astronauts
would never have survived the journey to the
Moon and the passage through those radiation
belts.
[Slide changes] Then there's one or two further
photographic anomalies. For example the fact
that you see the lunar module in some images
and not in others, which appear to be taken
from essentially an identical location and
this is puzzling to them because the lower
stage of the lunar module actually stayed
behind on the Moon and therefore, why is it
missing from the photograph on the right?
[Video commences in background]
Dr Martin Hendry: Related to that, as I said
the lower stage stayed behind. Well the footage
of the upper stage ascending from the Moon,
which NASA say is filmed from the lunar rover,
the little Moon buggy that the astronauts
had in the later missions. According to the
hoax theorists that looks suspicious too because
you don't see a fuel jet from the exhaust
of the lunar module.
[Video ends]
[Slide changes] So that's a little cross section
of some of the ideas and I guess my experience
has been that when people look at these ten
conspiracy theories or maybe others that they
have heard about or read about, then it's
maybe quite understandable that they should
have some doubts and indeed it's maybe worth
pausing at this point to see whether anyone
here is harbouring any suspicions in light
of all of these conspiracy theories that perhaps
the Moon landings were faked.
Anyone like to express a view? Do we have
any doubters in the audience now after all
those? Well if everyone thinks that the Moon
landings really happened again maybe we can
all go home. In the spirit of getting you
to just think about more carefully about the
question, let's take a look at one or two
of them and see how I as an astronomer would
encourage you to think about the science behind
the hoax theory.
If we start with the waving flag, let's begin
by seeing what the television show had to
say about that one.
[Video commences]
Voiceover on film: If there is no air or wind
on the Moon, why is this American flag waving?
Bill Kaysing on film: The fact that the flag
flaps on the Moon when there is no atmosphere
means that there must have been a little blast
of wind out in Area 51 where they shot this.
Voiceover on film: Could these questionable
images simply be the result of astronauts
struggling to plant the flag in the lunar
surface or is there more going on than meets
the eye?
[Video ends]
Dr Martin Hendry: I think it does tell you
a lot about just how difficult it might be
for someone confronted with these conspiracy
theories to make up their mind on what they
should believe and what they shouldn't believe.
Because conspiracy theories come in many levels
and many layers and indeed one of the best
sites I've come across which debunks some
of these Moon hoax conspiracy theories is
actually written by people who think the real
cover up is that NASA discovered evidence
of alien life on the Moon and that it suits
NASA's purposes to have the Moon hoax theorists
as a distraction from those conspiracy theories
and indeed the authors of those pages describe
people like Bill Kaysing as the sort of people
that give conspiracy theorists a bad name.
That's what you are confronted with, so basically
my moral here is that the challenge of 21st
century science is to be able to sift the
information that you find and separate the
good science from the not so good science.
Let's see if I can help you do that today.
Let's have a think about what we would expect
a waving flag to do on the Moon, where there
is no atmosphere.
[Referring to video clip] Well first of all
if we look at this video clip we can see that
the astronauts are planting the flag in the
ground and sure enough it is indeed waving
from side to side.
If there is no atmosphere in the Moon we basically
expect the flag to droop, to just sag and
hang down the way a flag would on Earth on
a windless day.
Now I think the PR people in NASA figured
that wouldn't look too good for the watching
millions back home, so they designed the flag
to have a rigid horizontal crossbar, so that
the flag would be extended. It would look
better for the photographs and moreover the
flag wasn't made of cloth it was made of plastic,
with a semi-rigid ripple effect so that again
it would look more photogenic for the cameras.
But I think the real question here is can
the conspiracy theorists show me some video
footage where the flag is flapping and yet
the astronauts are off doing something else.
Because the only footage I've ever seen where
the flag is moving is when they're in the
process of planting it in the ground or they
have just let go of the flag pole after planting
it into the ground.
My scientific explanation for this one is
that the reason the flag is flapping because
they're twisting the flag pole back and forth
to plant it in the ground and that sets up
the motion of the flag itself. But don't take
my word for it, let's have a look at a little
experiment that we constructed, short of going
to the Moon ourselves, to try and investigate
that theory that I have just put forward.
Would the flag flap on the Moon where there
is no atmosphere?
[Referring to video playing] What we basically
did was to pump the air out of the jar, or
as much as we could without equipment, so
when you see it saying one tenth of atmospheric
pressure that's because we have pumped 90%
of the air out of the jar. What I'd like you
to notice when most of the air is gone from
the jar, the flag flaps many more times than
it does when there's air in the jar. [Video
ends]
If you remove most of the air you greatly
reduce the friction, there's no air resistance,
there is still some friction between the flag
and the flag pole so it does stop eventually
but it takes quite a bit longer then when
there's air in the jar. The curious thing
about this, in my view it actually argues
that the waving flag, instead of being the
chief piece of evidence in favour of the hoax
theory, it's actually the best evidence we
have that we really were on the Moon.
Because a flag on Earth in Area 51, or anywhere
else, simply wouldn't do what we see the flag
doing, it wouldn't flap for as long because
there would be air resistance to slow it down.
Now I wouldn't say that this proves that we
really went to the Moon, but it think it makes
a serious dent in the chief argument of the
conspiracy theorists and in my view it's all
because they haven't properly understood what
a flag would do in a truly airless environment.
You've got to think through the science, ideally
construct a little experiment like we did
and see what you find.
Conversely for example if you look at some
footage of a flag where the astronauts aren't
just planting it in the ground, in fact in
this case they are on board their space ship
about to head off home. [Referring to video]
This is just the final seconds before Apollo
16 left the Moon and we can see that sure
enough the flag does move as it's blasted
by the exhaust from the upper stage of the
lunar module. Which in a sense also relates
to number ten in my top ten list, just because
you don't see an exhaust flame doesn't mean
there isn't an exhaust or that it doesn't
have an effect. [Video ends]
Indeed often back home what I do to demonstrate
this is to consider using a Bunsen burner,
which many of you would have used in school,
and you might have had experience of this
yourself. If you are in a brightly lit room
it's sometimes quite difficult to see the
flame of the Bunsen burner. So basically I
think that the waving flag is a real red herring.
I think in the case of this one, the conspiracy
theorists have just got it completely wrong
because they've misunderstood the basic science.
What do you think? Go away and have a think
about if for yourselves.
It does lead us on to maybe the next topic
that's worth considering which is the absence
of stars in the photographs. Now what we see
here is quite a famous bit of footage whereby
one astronaut is filming [Referring to the
video clip] his colleague as he jumps off
the Moon surface and then he sort of floats
down , well floats really not the correct
word in this context. He drops down but in
the lower gravity of the Moon so it takes
him longer to accelerate towards the Moon
surface than it would do if you were on the
Earth. [Video ends]
[Slide appears] But the two things to note
are that first of all, the flag is just perfectly
still throughout all of that and secondly
you don't see any stars in the photographs.
The conspiracy theorists would challenge this
absence of stars and say that that in their
view is highly suspicious because in the clarity
of deep space, and the words of Bill Kaysing,
one should be able to see the stars in the
photographs. Well that's not really true.
The puzzling thing that I find about all this
is that Bart Sibrel is a photography expert,
or he claims to be at any rate. So surely
Bart Sibrel should realise if you take a photograph
on a Moonlit night, it's pretty hard to see
any stars. [Slide changes] Here's a photograph
taken in Tucon, Arizona, from an observatory
near to there. Actually Tucon, although it's
a big city, the light pollution as we call
it, isn't too bad around there. Although there
is a lot of street lights most of the light
doesn't shine up and illuminate the sky. That's
good for astronomy. But actually the biggest
source of light pollution in this photograph
isn't the street lights, it's the Moon.
Any professional astronomers know that the
one time of the month that you don't want
to go looking at faint starts or galaxies
is when there is a full Moon. The Moon is
just too bright by comparison.
