Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories | Did Man Really Land On Moon

Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories | Did Man Really Land On Moon

Did man really land on the moon | First of all: this question has already been asked thousands of times on internet. See the other answers. 95% of them are quite good.

Other than that:

I am quite familiar with aerospace technology from the 1960s. My father was an aeronautical engineer since 1930. I have worked in an aerospace company for 40 years. 



And doing physical calculations for these types of questions is a hobby of mine. Then I will tell you what I know, and not only what I think:


The technology:

Moon-Landing-Conspiracy-Theories-Did-Man-Really-Land-On-Moon

Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories

No technology is required for a trip to the moon that went beyond the well-known and widely published aerospace technology of the 1960s. 

Rockets, life support (re-respirators, thermal control, etc.), radios, computers autopilot, radiation shielding, vertical landing on an exhaust column, etc. 



Everything was at least several decades old in its fundamental functioning at that time. 

Apollo 11 landed on the moon. Much of this had to be personalized for the trip. But the Apollo project did not require fundamental advances in science.

 It was just a gigantic engineering project to put everything together.


The project itself:

A huge and diverse development project like Apollo requires what in the aerospace sector we call liaison engineers. These are men (and women too, these days) who run between the various pieces of the project and make sure everything fits together. 

Nothing happens to the next stage of development or production until the engineers approve it and it is certified that it passes the test of the previous stage.

All these thousands of engineers certified that the hardware was built for the purpose for which it was designed.



 All certified that the inspection passed and that it would work in the right environment for a trip to the moon.

And all of them would have had to be "in the secret" if it were somehow a "hoax." And, not only them, but the types that produced it and the original design engineers, as well as the guys who tracked the Progress on the actual trip.

There were almost half a million people who worked on the Apollo project. A very large portion of them would need to be "in the deception" if it were a deception. 

And everyone else would be in a position to discover it potentially.


Promoters of the theory of deception:

Moon-Landing-Conspiracy-Theories-Did-Man-Really-Land-On-Moon

As soon as the first moon landing occurred, there were people who said it was all a hoax. Because there are always strange people who don't bother to understand things.

Just like: When my grandmother was a teenager and heard about the first plane, she saw two old men saying, "No ... that's just a hoax. Men can't fly."

Well, the boys who said Apollo was a "hoax" began to give reasons. But their reasons simply do not work. Some of them are dumb.



 Some of them contradict simple laws of physics. And, in some cases, it can be deduced from the inconsistencies in the stories of the "deception theory" promoters who are simply lying.

I will give just one example because it is already too long. But there are dozens of other examples:


Example of false theory:


Just after Apollo 11, a guy named Bill Kaysing came out saying he was an engineer at NASA and that he knew everything was a hoax.

Well,  he was basically just a librarian in the engineering department of one of NASA's subcontractors. (And, as I just remembered in a comment, he never really worked for NASA. 

He worked for Rocketdyne. And he even left there more than five years before Apollo 11.)



And Bill Kaysing's "proof" that the Apollo missions were "forged"? For one of his main pieces of "evidence," he said "the dust would have swollen and landed on the foot pads of the landing module." 

And then he pointed out that they were almost completely clean.

Well, think about it. Anyone who considers the environment even for a few minutes can realize that it is impossible for dust to "swell" in a vacuum. 

Because "undulating" would require the exhaust stream to blow against the surrounding air. And there is no surrounding air. 

Therefore, his statement in one of his main pieces of "evidence" makes no sense.

When the people of the "theory of deception" began to leave the carpentry about 10 years ago, I took a look at their claims. 

And each of them is like Bill Kaysing's claim "the dust should swell." All are fake.

Thanks For Reading

You Can Also Read

What is the best way to impress a girl?

Which is the most venomous snake in the world?

What are the most fascinating science facts?

Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories | Did Man Really Land On Moon