Moon Landings
Self-published essay, Mar. 12, 2025
My essay on aliens was fun to do, so I thought I might do one on the moon landings. Some people seem to doubt whether we actually landed on the moon. Hopefully, this essay will clear up a few things.
The moon landings were part of NASA’s Apollo program, which ran from 1969 to 1972. There were six crewed lunar landings in all. The first was Apollo 11.
The cost of the Apollo program is an estimate. The program, in adjusted dollars, ran about $300 billion. If the US government faked the moon landings, they would of course have to hide or steal one-third of a trillion dollars. And how does one do that? One doesn’t. There are receipts and (many) accountants. To suggest that a handful of governmental personnel took off with $300 billion is to announce one is a child.
And for that matter, we must consider the number of people who worked on the Apollo program: 400,000. Were 400,000 people in on the secret? Some 400,000 people kept a secret and fooled the public—and have so since 1969, many taking that secret to their graves?
If there is one thing humans are lousy at, it’s keeping secrets. And almost half a million of them doing so successfully? To believe this is to possess a remarkably high opinion of governmental personnel as well as the human ability to keep a secret—which is quite poor. Maybe the 400,000 people who worked on the Apollo program were genetically unique.
This leads us to why the US government would create such an elaborate hoax. Why bother? The Soviets! It was the Cold War! I have summarized and lightly analyzed the Cold War and will not do so here. (See my Straight Power Concepts, p. 40-7.) Crying “The Soviets!” is not an explanation as to why the US government would hide $300 billion and have 400,000 people swear to secrecy a deception merely to fool the Kremlin.
And we can ask the simple question—assuming the moon landings were faked—how did the United States benefit from allegedly going to the moon? Take that, Moscow! What were the foreign-policy benefits? Was Washington now positioned to achieve some goal it was not able to do so before?
Or maybe it was just self-esteem? We wanted to be first. So, then we lied? How does this improve our self-image? And we are of course back to those 400,000 people who could have done interviews and written and sold many books. Maybe they were afraid to. Maybe the government threatened them, or made them sign NDAs and they feared the repercussions. Maybe Bigfoot prevented them from doing so.
Now for the “evidence.” Some conspiracy theorists point to the photography as evidence that the whole thing was done on a sound stage. Let’s look at a few of the particulars:
• Conspiracy: There are no stars in the photographs.
Reality: It was daytime on the moon.
• Conspiracy: Neil Armstrong’s footprint doesn’t match his suit.
Reality: It was Buzz Aldrin’s footprint. And they were wearing overshoes when they walked on the moon.
• Conspiracy: The flag is waving and there is no wind on the moon.
Reality: The astronauts even said they put wires in the flag to make it look like it was waving. They did it as a joke. Is there wind on a sound stage?
• Conspiracy: The shadows aren’t right in the photography.
Reality: The moon’s surface is reflective and they wouldn’t be.
• Conspiracy: In the reflection of Buzz Aldrin’s visor, Armstrong does not appear to be holding a camera. So, how did he take the picture?
Reality: Armstrong took the photo with a 70mm lunar-surface camera. (A Swedish Hasselblad, I believe.) You can indeed see he’s holding something.
So, when we take into consideration the money, the people, the why, and the photography, we’re not left with much. The suggestion that the moon landings were faked is therefore difficult to take seriously.
The moon landings did take place. Nevertheless, I remain critical. I feel it was a colossal waste of money. Before we went, the assumption was that the moon was a large gray rock. $300 billion later we discovered that the moon … is a large gray rock. Money well spent.
Some who are passionate about the space program are eager to cite the technologies that the space program has provided. Space blankets! Freeze-dried ice cream! Memory foam! We spent $300 billion to get these things? That is a poor return on investment.
Telescopy I am in favor of. We have learned far more by peering into space than by traveling into it. With the Hubble telescope we can see 13 billion light years away. There is value in that. Physically traveling into space is expensive, dangerous, and inefficient.
And how do we know this? Because it has been endeavored. Y'know, like the moon landings, for instance.