Neil Armstrong was stashing a McDivitt Purse! No, he wasn’t a transvestite, but he had this “purse” which went up with him on Apollo 11. It was a journey that really happened, by the way. No hoax. We will review the whole hoax business one more time.
The 1969 moon landing was back in the news recently when it was revealed that Armstrong’s wife, Carol, found a bag full of moonshot gear in a closet. It was instantly recognized as a McDivitt Purse, a tool bag resembling a purse that the astronauts kept up front with them. She was nice enough to return it to NASA, passing up her chance for the Pawn Stars appearance we can only dream of …
“… So, do you want to sell this or pawn it? Sell it? I thought so, since nobody has ever once said they wanted to pawn anything here. Okay, Carol, since you got no certificate of authenticity I am going to call a buddy of mine to come look it over. It won’t take long. My buddies are on-call, 24-7. It’s neat stuff, but I’m thinking it will sit around here for a long time. I’ll give you fifty bucks for it.”
It’s amazing that there are still people claiming Apollo 11 was a hoax. (How about all the other moon landings?) The fact is, it was entirely technically possible at the time it happened. It was just risky and expensive. We finally did it, primarily due to military competition with the Russians. That’s why we never went back. We won the race and proved the point and that was all they were after. Just a military thing, no lofty humanistic vision. Although some humanistic vision went along for the ride, in the shape of millions of young people whose minds were supercharged by the experience. Anyway, here is the main reason you can be sure it wasn’t all a hoax back in ‘69 – the TV signals.
They broadcast a TV feed from the moon, and it is very easy to triangulate or pinpoint the origin of a broadcast signal. Certainly our enemies could have done so. But the Russians and Chinese never complained that those signals were coming from anywhere but the moon. Indeed, nobody ever once called this a hoax until a Fox Network special in the 1990s. That is where all this started. Tabloid TV.
The video of the flag flapping, as if in a breeze, was denounced as proof of fraud. There’s no breeze or atmosphere on the moon to move that flag! Actually, the flag flapping is more proof that they were on the moon. The astronaut twisted the flag pole to and fro as he jammed it into the soil, and that started the flag moving. There was no atmosphere to slow it down, as we have here on Earth, so it kept undulating for a while. It would never move like that on Earth. The moon rocks they brought back were also primary evidence. They have micro-meteorite impacts which would have been all but impossible to fake.
Many more points of hoaxing are claimed: No stars are visible in the background of the photos! NASA forgot to hang some twinkling Christmas tree lights as stars. But any weak source of light, like stars, would be washed out by the much brighter objects in the foreground, as any amateur photographer would know. Unless you are using special equipment you aren’t going to see stars in the background of a campfire photograph, for example.
We hear that some shadows fall at different angles on the moon photos, indicating artificial lighting was used. That’s right. They had multiple sources of lighting.
Radiation would have killed them! Barbequed them alive! No, radiation would not have killed them. With their space suits and the capsule itself, and the short time they were there, it was entirely doable. They did absorb a lot of radiation, but nothing fatal. How do conspiracy theorists explain all the astronauts who have spent a much longer time in space? Do they know we are preparing to send a man up for a year? It will be a new endurance record. Guess that will be a hoax, too. Moon conspiracy talk is actually pretty benign compared to the paranoid stuff out there, like claiming that the Newtown Massacre or the Boston Marathon Bombing was all staged with actors.
With the moon hoax what we are dealing with is anti-intellectualism. Possibly anti-humanism. It provides a good life lesson, one to bear in mind: There are people who are so uncomfortable with the fact that humans can achieve great scientific advancements that they have reached the point of denying it could happen. Anything will serve as evidence to confirm what they want so desperately to believe. The question is, why are they so desperate to think so poorly of human achievement? Probably a lot of it is rooted in religion. We are “playing God” when we do great things. We should keep to our place in the scheme of things, they believe. Space exploration is too far removed from their worldview.
Man was not meant to fly.