Logically speaking, you don't have to be any specialist in the history of space exploration to understand: there are only two possibilities: 1 - they were there, 2 - they were not there.
This is called the "law of the excluded middle" - one of the three basic laws of logic formulated by Aristotle. Its original formulation reads: "Both statements A and not-A cannot be simultaneously false." A more common version is: "One of the statements A or not-A must be true."
This does not apply to Eastern logic, there at the same time the statements A and not-A and “neither-A nor not-A” perfectly coexist with each other, and all of them in the East can simultaneously be both true and false. A good example: the story about Khoja Nasreddin, when he recognized both disputants as right, and when his wife pointed out to him that this was impossible, she said that she was also right.
So that's it. Reading numerous conspiracy studies that films and photographic materials from the Moon are faked, an inquisitive reader first gets confused in versions, and then decides: stop. Let's go in order. From the fact that the film and the photos are fake, it does not generally follow that the Americans WERE NOT on the moon. Even if it can be proved that the film and the photo are fake, it will only prove that the film and the photo are fake. This is the first thought that comes to mind.
But nevertheless: either they were there or not. Aristotle, hello! If there were - all theories down, the question is closed. There were and were.
If not, we continue to reason and explore this curious phenomenon …
Promotional video:
If the Americans were not on the moon, then they had to make a lot of money, not the right word - monstrous efforts in order to crank out a sufficiently convincing falsification on a global scale, and at the same time not be exposed.
Probably, the average reader thinks, they had reasons for this. The Aristotelian reader thinks as follows: there were either reasons for falsifying the landing (the statement "A is true"), or they were not ("A is wrong").
If there were no reasons, it turns out that the moon landing was simply faked. For no reason. We have to assume that in the US government and in NASA all polls are abnormal idiots and morons. In this case, the question is again closed, since those who think so do not bother themselves with prolonged mental activity. They already feel good. Let's mark this item with the letter Z. At this point they can stop reading, the Ministry of Health warned: it is harmful for them. The rest move on.
If there were reasons, then they must be very, VERY serious.
Several versions are usually put forward:
- they wanted to show their strength at the height of the Cold War and thus intimidate the USSR
- they were there after all, but they saw something that they want to hide. Therefore, they made fake footage of astronauts jumping on the moon, etc.
- they just wanted to cut money for TV coverage of the moon landing.
As arguments for the "session with revelations", the fact is usually cited: in the frames where the astronaut jumps on the Moon and puts the flag, the stars are not visible in the sky, and the shadows on the surface of the Moon are uneven. Hence the elephantine conclusion: filmed in the pavilion.
Obviously, powerful minds who accept these arguments believe that there is not a single person in NASA who knows that there must be stars in the sky. And in Hollywood, too (it was probably Hollywood who helped them shoot). Well, no one thought to put a black screen with holes behind it, and behind it a searchlight, as they do in the provincial Youth Theater, because even in the provincial Youth Theater they know that there must be stars in the night sky. But NASA did not know! And those who accepted their jobs (presumably, nevertheless, very high persons in the government) did not know either.
Here we find ourselves back at point Z (all idiots) and again we can stop thinking. They are all idiots, we are all smart, what else is there to think about? It's time to put on jeans, take dollars and go to the OVIR for a visa, but no - continue to strain Windows, typing different letters like www and
Those to whom this version seems strange have to think further, and think of the fact that photography and telephoto shooting in a brightly lit moon may have their own peculiarities, which is why the stars simply did not work out, and the shadows are uneven because the surface is uneven. But it doesn't matter at all - it is clear that IF NASA really faked all these frames, then the stars would shine like in Lucas's films, and the shadows lay beautifully, and everything else. So this argument rather testifies in favor of the authenticity of the frames.
The version about "seen something" is much more beautiful. First, it is more interesting. What could they see there? Of course, aliens! The aliens came into contact with them, and either by intimidation, or by some profit, persuaded them to hide this meeting. It is not clear, however, what prevented the astronauts from asking them to step aside and shoot footage of the "first steps on the moon" without the aliens. Maybe the aliens did not allow them to land at all and even land on the moon? Maybe they turned astronauts in circumlunar orbit? So they had to shoot fake landing footage?
This version is much richer, and it is more difficult to refute it, in fact, there are only two serious arguments against it:
1) why until now none of the participants in the production of photo forgeries split? After all, if such a person provided evidence, he could take SUCH money from journalists for it, which is hard to imagine. It is even more difficult to imagine that none of the hundreds of employees and personnel wanted to take them.
2) if aliens really settled on the moon, then what the hell are they doing there and will not show up to earthlings in any way?
But this version, despite its beauty and persuasiveness, is not popular. Why? Yes, because the creators of such theories first of all need to simulate the situation "the Americans are stupid deceivers, did not fly anywhere", but here, first of all, they flew, and secondly, it turns out that the aliens agreed with them, and for some reason with us, then no? Are we worse? It's a shame. Personally, I believe that if the aliens were there, they died of laughter when they saw the lunar rover, but this is already in the imagination.
The version about cutting down money for TV broadcasts does not stand up to criticism for the same reason 1, namely: this version is completely contradictory to itself. If it's about money, then after the falsification was successful, everyone believed in the landing on the moon, the money was collected for the show - even more money could be ripped off for exposing this. After all, if there is an opportunity to make money, then they will definitely be made. Then where are the memories of the participants in the hoax? Not the speculations of conspiracy theorists and paranoid, but REAL participants in the events? Why haven't any of them made HUGE money from it yet? So that out of the hundreds of employees who participated in the counterfeiting, NOT ONE would say a WORD - this simply cannot be. If it was worth the money to DO such a laborious job, risking nevertheless to fail, it is a million times less realistic than UNLOCKING it FOR THE SAME MONEY,without doing anything, without removing, without wasting any effort. The money for exposing the deception is no worse than the money for the deception.
And it didn’t come out in any election campaign? This is not Monica's dress, this is a more serious matter. However, there is no significant evidence of revealing documents and publications of the participants. There is only a bunch of speculation from the outside, and the books that lie on the bookshelves next to the books "Columbus did not discover America", "Napoleon was not", "The ancient Slavs built pyramids", "New chronology of Fomenko", etc. All this is designed for people who are unable to doubt any information - they believe in everything: in the evil eye, in horoscopes, in the memory of water, the theory of torsion fields and other Feng Shui.
It can be assumed that SOMEONE is to do the disclosures, because business tycoons simply killed all the filming personnel (“whoever stole a hat killed his aunt”). But then the next question arises, why did those who killed still not sell this information to the same paparazzi? Were they also killed or were they paid too? And so on - endlessly. In a word, the version of money for TV shows does not stand up to logic and crumbles at all seams.
There remains the version of intimidation of the socialist countries. camps by exaggerating the space power of the United States. But in this case, supporters of the version will have to admit that Soviet intelligence gave such a blunder that it cannot be described. Because if there were even the slightest reason to officially declare falsification, the USSR would not have missed such a moment (not to mention China and North Korea), but, on the contrary, would have blown all trumpets, exposed and shamed the whole world. Remember the 70s programs about the United States by Val. Zorin, where the troubles and hardships of the American unemployed were vividly described - I myself saw the program where Val. Zorin was agitated by the story of a poor boy who makes his living by selling firewood in Manhattan (typical fuel for houses in Manhattan). And he was not shy. So would he really be ashamedif an order was given by the Central Committee of the CPSU - to expose about the moon? But there was no instruction, which means there was not the slightest reason for that. And here this version also somehow loses its attractiveness: although they may not have been on the Moon, they still turned out to be more agile than everyone else (except for the authors of these works, of course) … Again, it's a shame …
Having studied a sufficient number of documents, where they prove in detail that the shadows did not fall like that, and the flag fluttered (did not flutter) wrong, and there were no stars, etc., the researcher of the question realizes: all multi-megabyte works dispute and investigate ONLY the FIRST landing. The materials of the other five landings on the moon are practically not subject to doubts by conspiracy theorists. And here again the question arises: the creation and support of such a falsification of a truly cosmic scale is a very laborious, expensive and troublesome business, a shame in the event of exposure is indescribable up to the loss of every face of the country. So why did they have to do SIX of such falsifications? After all, this greatly increased the risk of exposure? Well, we did one, we succeeded. Why take any further risks?
It is very interesting to ask this question to specialists in lunar revelations, photography and television technology, space science and the history of astronautics. Experts who have just confidently thrown in complex terms, after a considerable pause, usually ask: "six of what?"
It turns out that they did not even suspect that after the first landing of Armstrong and Aldrin, five more took place and that 28 people actually visited the orbit of the moon (according to the Americans), of which, it seems, 15 landed and even went there on an all-terrain vehicle. This clearly characterizes their competence and awareness, but does not prevent them from considering themselves wise experts, and everyone else - naive deceived simpletons. What can you do?
Thus, we see a purely practical benefit from applying the "principle of the excluded middle" to various interesting questions of history. For lovers of logical constructions, of course.