Thursday, November 15, 2018

The Conspiracy of Neil Armstrong and the Moon Landing by Ashlynn Barrera


“That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind” were the first words spoken by astronaut Neil Armstrong when he set foot on the moon in 1969 (Dunbar 1). But what if those words were not spoken on the moon at all? The landing on the moon was monumental in United States history; on July 16, 1969, the Apollo 11 mission, initiated by President John F. Kennedy through NASA, was launched into lunar orbit, reaching Earth’s moon just four days later (1). The landing was broadcasted heavily, and quickly became a global sensation, especially to those in other countries, as at this time, the United States was heavily involved in the Space Race. However, after such an incredible and triumphant event, many conspiracies ensued relating to the feasibility of the lunar landing. Was the moon landing faked in order for NASA to save money for further space research? Was the moon landing faked by NASA to show superiority in the space race against the Soviet Union? Let’s investigate the case of the moon landing, and the theories that have followed it, with the most plausible theory being that NASA faked the moon landing to show superiority in the Space Race against the Soviet Union.
Neil Armstrong made history in 1969 when he became the first man to set foot on the moon (Dunbar 1). Becoming the first man on the moon, Armstrong had to hold certain special qualities to handle such a history-changing task. Neil Armstrong’s passionate, meticulous, and timid attitudes shaped the man who changed United States history.
Neil Armstrong was passionate about aviation and spacecraft.  According to a 2001 interview with the Johnson Space Center, Armstrong was adamant about his field of profession from a very young age:
 I began to focus on aviation probably at age eight or nine, and inspired by what I'd read and seen about aviation and building model aircraft, why, I determined at an early age—and I don't know exactly what age, while I was still in elementary school—that that was the field I wanted to go into, although my intention was to be—or hope was to be an aircraft designer. (Ambrose 1)
Armstrong continued to work persistently towards his goals throughout his adolescence, eventually earning his pilot license at the age of 16, as well as a scholarship to Purdue University through the US Navy, where he studied aeronautical engineering and served as a Navy pilot (Editors 1). Once Armstrong finished college, he was so passionate about continuing a career in spacecraft that became part of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, which later became NASA, and “moved his entire family to Houston” (1). There, Armstrong was allowed to expand his craft by working on various air force and spacecraft, and his passion grew further as he continued his lunar voyages. In 1969, he was appointed as the mission commander on Apollo 11 mission, which reached the moon on July 20, 1969 (Dunbar 1). Armstrong became the first man to set foot on the moon, an accomplishment that only increased his love for aeronautics. After the Apollo 11 voyage, Armstrong was so passionate about a career in aerospace that he became NASA’s “deputy associate administrator” for aeronautics and remained so until 1971 (1). Even in his old age, Armstrong was committed to spacecraft. He taught aerospace engineering at the University of Cincinnati until he retired (1). Even though he wasn’t in space, Armstrong’s involvement in the space program contributed greatly to NASA’s success. Despite being exposed to a variety of interests, Armstrong always followed a passion for aviation and aeronautics that contributed greatly to United States space travel.

As well as being extremely passionate in his craft, Neil Armstrong was very methodical and specific about the way he approached tasks, especially the Apollo 11 mission. Sources from a 2001 interview with Armstrong reveal that while in the planning process, Armstrong thought deeply about the best way to make the moon landing successful, “I remember the discussions earlier that we'd had at conferences on these subjects of blunt shapes and flying bodies and winged vehicles and so on, which were the best configurations and what were the pluses and minuses of different routes to go into space,” (Ambrose 1). Armstrong thought carefully about the way everything should run, though it was extremely difficult, because the moon landing was such a complex task to complete for its time. Armstrong’s meticulous attitude applied not only to the success of landing on the moon itself, but the efficiency of the moon landing, seen in an interview with Neil Armstrong, where he stated he and his crew “were looking for not a range of stuff, but the best method that we could find that would give us ability to go at the earliest possible time, maximum speed, and with the highest level of confidence” (1). Armstrong did not want his plans to fall through, he deeply wanted to change history for the U.S. and the space program, especially in the Space Race against the Soviet Union. Armstrong thought so much about the steps needed to achieve success in lunar voyages before any other country, that he planned steps for the missions before it was necessary to. As stated in a 2012 article by James Clash, Armstrong thought constantly about how to operate the moon landing logically before space exploration even started, “I had been very concerned about the technical details of assuring that [on the moon] the ascent engine could be started and would do the job of getting us back into lunar orbit. But that was in the two years prior to the flight. On the lunar surface, it did not weigh on my mind at all” (Clash 1).  Armstrong’s success took a huge weight off his shoulders once he arrived on the moon, but prior to that, Armstrong’s main priority in life was ensuring the safety and functionality of everyone and everything involved in the space program. Armstrong’s analytic thinking shaped the man that he was and allowed the Apollo 11 mission to be a victory for the U.S.
Despite Neil Armstrong being a public figure, he was very reticent and shy to the public. Following the moon landing, Armstrong taught at the University of Cincinnati rather than attempting to stay in America’s spotlight, “Neil Armstrong turned down many offers of more money and more fame to teach aeronautical engineering” (Dean 1). He did this because he felt happier near his hometown, and could avoid the press easier than if he attempted to stay public.  Armstrong refused to give interviews, making him appear rude and boastful to the public, though he was just not comfortable being the center of attention. Bloomberg writer James M. Clash revealed that Armstrong “guarded his privacy fiercely. But it wasn’t because he was arrogant -- he was intensely shy.” (Clash 1).  Armstrong believed that the moon landing was not about him, but rather about the accomplishments of the United States as a whole, a goal reached for all mankind. In the years after the moon landing, Armstrong stopped giving interviews altogether, and would hardly appear in public settings, stated by Huffington Post author Margaret Dean, “Neil Armstrong was never comfortable with the attention that his historic achievements brought with them, and at a certain point he stopped granting interviews or making public appearances almost entirely.” (1). He felt he was not special enough to make scenes about, and was likely happier with his family and in the comfort of his own home. The general public was not satisfied with this, and in the rare chance he was in public, would taunt him and try to harm him for not giving out autographs or speaking to them (1). People who were closer to Armstrong however, were aware of his shy tendencies and were gracious of the time he did spend with the public (1). Armstrong cherished his privacy and was reluctant, he never saw himself as special, just as doing his job.
Being the first man on the moon, Neil Armstrong had quite unique qualities instilled in himself. His strong desire to be in space, his detailed thinking, and his shyness towards the public all contributed heavily to the success of the moon landing and the events that followed. The mixture of his disdain towards the public eye, as well as his hope for success of the space system, could possibly lead to motivation behind faking the 1969 moon landing for the betterment of United States during the Space Race.
The Apollo 11 mission of 1969 was revolutionary to United States and global history. Because nothing similar to the mission had ever been accomplished before, the authenticity of the landing was challenged. The moon landing led to the formation of two conspiracy theories: the theory that the moon landing was faked in order for NASA to save money so they could further their space research, and the theory that the United States faked the moon landing in order to show superiority against the Soviet Union during the Space Race. Though these theories are interesting and provide insightful information, neither theory is plausible.
The first theory culminated revolves around the 1969 moon landing being faked to save money for further research. Throughout the period of 1960 to 1968, NASA spent over $30,297 towards research, about 2.6% of all government spending, the highest spending percentage the government has ever spent on NASA (Rogers 1). 

Since NASA overspent in the years leading up to the launching of the moon, they needed to save money efficiently so they could feasibly further their space research. The theory goes that, in order to accomplish this, the United States government decided to create a set that looked similar to what they believed the composition of the moon looked like (“Conspiracy Theories 1”). They used “astronauts” as actors to believably “land” on the moon, “with Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin acting out their mission on a secret film set” (1). Researchers support this theory because of many oddities found throughout the filming of the moon landing. In an analysis from EarthSky, videos recorded of the moon landing reveal “no stars in the lunar sky”, which is highly unlikely from the view from the moon (Byrd 1). Furthermore, footage of the American flag placed on the moon appeared to be waving, which is impossible, as stated by Time Magazine, “The flag's movement, they say, clearly shows the presence of wind, which is impossible in a vacuum” (“Conspiracy Theories” 1). Researchers at The Washington Post speculate the flag could be moving because of fans placed on the set (Noack 1). Also, reported by Time, “Theorists have even suggested that filmmaker Stanley Kubrick may have helped NASA fake the first lunar landing, given that his 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey proves that the technology existed back then to artificially create a spacelike set,” (“Conspiracy Theories” 1). Lastly, according to interviews conducted at Reuters, “NASA itself admitted that it had erased the original video recordings of the first moon landing among 200,000 other tapes in order to save money” (Noack 1). Could the files have been falsely “erased” from the archives because they never actually existed? The theory is quite intriguing, however, this theory can be debunked. The cost of creating a set to stage an “authentic” moon landing would have been just as expensive as funding NASA to go to the moon. In addition, reports from Washington Post inform theorists that “NASA has since restored copies of the landing,” in which “the recordings' quality is superior to the original one that has gone missing,” (Noack 1).
While the idea that the moon landing was faked to save money for further space research was growing, another, slightly more plausible theory came to light. Theories about the moon landing being a hoax in order to show superiority in the Space Race throughout the Cold War were brought to light. In the mid 1900s, the United States was heavily involved in the Cold War against the Soviet Union, tensions were high concerning nuclear weaponry and the idea of going to war again (“The Space Race” 1). One of the key parts of the Cold War was the Space Race, as told by editors at A&E, “space would become another dramatic arena for this competition, as each side sought to prove the superiority of its technology,” (1). The Soviet Union showed their adamancy, “On October 4, 1957, a Soviet R-7 intercontinental ballistic missile launched Sputnik (Russian for ‘traveler’), the world’s first artificial satellite and the first man-made object to be placed into the Earth’s orbit,” (1). The U.S. was trailing far behind, and could not afford losing in such a tense time, “it was crucial not to lose too much ground to the Soviets,” (1). In response, President John F. Kennedy made a bold claim in 1961, stating the United States would “put a man on the moon by the end of the decade” (“May 25, 1961: JFK's Moon Shot Speech to Congress” 1). Americans were not certain this goal could be accomplished within the next nine years, but the government would stop at no lengths to show superiority against the USSR. What is believed to have happened as a response, theorized by Time, was the United States government, “desperate to beat the Russians in the space race, faked the lunar landings,”, collaborated with NASA to create a set that appeared similar to the moon, and filmed the first man, Neil Armstrong, walking on the “moon” to create a video of the landing (“Conspiracy Theories” 1). If the United States was truly serious about winning the Space Race, they would do whatever was necessary to show they were a threat to the Soviet Union. However, there is no true evidence that Kennedy did not put a man on the moon. His speech was simply misinterpreted as going to extreme measures to accomplish a desperate goal for the United States, whereas it was truly meant to establish a national precedent, and only cause further tension between the United States and the Soviet Union. Though this theory is more believable than the first concerning funding, this theory can also be proven not plausible.

The 1969 moon landing was a groundbreaking moment in the 20th century, but theories have surfaced questioning the validity of the lunar voyage. In fact, a study at College of the Mainland suggests that 25 out of 47 students believed the moon landing was faked by NASA and the United States Government. Two major theories that resulted from the mission were the theory that NASA faked the moon landing in order to conserve money for further space research, and the theory that the United States faked the moon landing in order to show superiority in the Space Race against the Soviet Union. Though neither of these theories is actually plausible, they both do provide ideas and evidence that help one understand the moon landing and the motives behind it more efficiently.
United States history was changed forever when footsteps were “taken on the moon for the first time on July 20, 1969” (Dunbar 1).  However, such an incredible accomplishment led to speculation on whether the moon landing was real or not. Two main conspiracies rose from the idea that the moon landing was a hoax:
1.       Was the moon landing faked by NASA in order to save money for further space research?
2.       Was the moon landing staged by the United States government and NASA to show superiority in the Space Race against the Soviet Union?
Though both theories provide outstanding evidence, the case concerning the Apollo mission’s actuality remains unsolved. The most plausible result, however, is that the moon landing was not falsified, and Neil Armstrong truly was the first man on the moon.



Works Cited
Ambrose, Stephen E, and Douglas Brinkley. “NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Edited Oral History Transcript Neil A. Armstrong .” NASA, NASA,  16 July 2010, www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/oral_histories/ArmstrongNA/ArmstrongNA_9-19-01.htm.
Byrd, Deborah. “Apollo and the Moon-Landing Hoax.” EarthSky, Human World, 20 July 2018, earthsky.org/space/apollo-and-the-moon-landing-hoax.
Clash, James M. “Memories of Neil Armstrong, Shy Hero, American Patriot.” Bloomberg.com, Bloomberg, 2 Sept. 2012, 4:56 AM, www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-08-26/memories-of-neil-armstrong-shy-hero-american-patriot
“Conspiracy Theories.” Time, Time Inc., 20 Nov. 2008, content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1860871_1860876_1860992,00.html.
Dean, Margaret Lazarus. “Neil Armstrong's Second Act.” The Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 28 Oct. 2012, www.huffingtonpost.com/margaret-lazarus-dean/neil-armstrongs-second-ac_b_1834065.html.
Dunbar, Brian. “July 20, 1969: One Giant Leap For Mankind.” NASA, NASA, 19 Feb. 2015, www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/apollo11.html.
“May 25, 1961: JFK's Moon Shot Speech to Congress.” Space.com, Space.com, 8 Mar. 2016, www.space.com/11772-president-kennedy-historic-speech-moon-space.html.
“Neil Armstrong.” Biography.com, A&E Networks Television, 28 Apr. 2017, www.biography.com/people/neil-armstrong-9188943.
Noack, Rick. “Russian Official Wants to Investigate Whether U.S. Moon Landings Actually Happened.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 17 June 2015, www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/06/17/russian-official-wants-to-investigate-whether-u-s-moon-landings-actually-happened/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.cfe3fb1dd8a7.
Rogers, Simon. “Nasa Budgets: US Spending on Space Travel since 1958 UPDATED.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 1 Feb. 2010, www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/feb/01/nasa-budgets-us-spending-space-travel.
“The Space Race.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 22 Feb. 2010, www.history.com/topics/cold-war/space-race.

No comments:

Post a Comment