Technological Reasons the Moon Landing was Fake

Moon Landing Conspiracy Theory

Since 1969, a lot has changed in terms of technology: computers have become smaller and orders of magnitude faster and more efficient; cell phones arrived; instant communication became possible with the Internet—and yet space travel seems to be the one thing that mankind apparently mastered and then forgot how to do. NASA says it “lost” the technology to get back to the moon—and people contrast today’s technology with the technology of 1969 and say that if we can’t reach the moon today with what we have, there is no way people reached it in 1969 with what they had (McGowan, 2009). Or they run the other way with their argument and say that the technology required to do what they did back then still does not exist—and in defense of this theory they might point to the fact that Nixon took a phone call from the moon, yet getting good cell phone reception when one is at the beach remains a problem for us today. Thus, the development of modern technology in the present shapes how people view the past. Therefore, this paper will explain how the influence of technology has led to the belief in the moon landing hoax conspiracy theory.

Technology shapes the way people think. But the fact that NASA has chosen to take the “high road,” as Dunn (2002) calls it, and “ignore the hoaxers” has not helped convince conspiracy theorists that America did land on the moon in 1969. Instead, it leaves others to the task of addressing the arguments—and Royal Museums Greenwich (n.d.) has done just that. For example, conspiracy theorists look at computers we have today and compare them to what we had back then and say there’s just no way. They argue that if we had the technology in 1969-1972 to get to the moon, we would surely have been back by now. The Royal Museums Greenwich (n.d.) argues in response that it is not a matter of technology—but rather simply that “Our priorities changed.” The justification for no longer going to the moon is that the space race was won, and the US no longer had anything to prove; moreover, the world turned its attention to space flights and the International Space Station instead (Royal Museums Greenwich, n.d.). Still, those who insist on viewing the past through the prism of the present argue that SpaceX seems to be having a tough time getting to the moon (even though its alleged destination is Mars). One skeptic is Dave McGowan (2009) who states that “technologically speaking, the NASA scientists working on the Apollo project were working in the Dark Ages. So if they could pull it off back then, then just about anyone should be able to do it now.” McGowan (2009), like other conspiracy theorists view the technology of the 1960s unfavorably in comparison to more innovative technology of today—and in so doing, they make judgments like the following: “transmitting live footage back from the Moon was another rather innovative use of 1960s technology. More than two decades later, we would have trouble broadcasting live footage from the deserts of the Middle East, but in 1969, we could beam that sh*t back from the Moon with nary a technical glitch!” (McGowan, 2009). It is precisely this type of view of technological accomplishments of the past seen through the lens of modern-day challenges that gives the moon landing hoax conspiracy theorists the grist for their position.

At the same time, skeptics look at modern technological developments and wonder why human beings haven’t walked on the moon in fifty years. In NASA’s defense, all of the technology that got America to the moon in 1969 has been lost—and that is the real answer. As McGowan (2009) points out, the original footage beamed back from the moon is missing and so is everything else: “Also allegedly beamed back from the Moon was voice data, biomedical monitoring data, and telemetry data to monitor the location and mechanical functioning of the spaceship. All of that data, the entire alleged record of the Moon landings, was on the 13,000+ reels that are said to be ‘missing.’ Also missing, according to NASA and its various subcontractors, are the original plans/blueprints for the lunar modules. And for the lunar rovers. And for the entire multi-sectioned Saturn V rockets.” None of it appears to have survived the years and decades of re-organization. Therefore, when critics of Elon Musk and SpaceX state that Musk’s space organization is not doing anything unique with rockets that wasn’t already achieved decades ago and wonder aloud why he doesn’t just send some people to the moon to prove that the technology exists to get us there, one can assert on NASA’s defense that the technology did exist—but it’s simply gone missing.

But that is the thing about conspiracy theorists: even when there is a logical, valid argument, they tend to jump to conclusions and suggest that the technology behind the biggest event in modern history—landing on the moon—has not gone missing but rather that it never existed in the first place. They look at modern technology and what it is and is not capable of and then ask questions about the past and the present and the future and expect answers. It is as if having the Internet or an iPhone suddenly made one feel as though he were entitled to clarifications on matters that NASA isn’t talking about and that—quite frankly—makes some worry people will next start questioning the Holocaust (Dunn, 2002).