The Moon Hoax? Conspiracy Theories on Trial by THOMAS EVERSBERG

THE SADDEST THING about German Space Agency astrophysicist Thomas Eversberg’s book is that it may be a wasted effort.

In 160-odd pages, he tackles the strange but stubbornly persistent school of thought that maintains the Apollo moon landings were all faked.

Like many conspiracist endeavours, the arguments put forward on countless websites and in the pages of New Age magazines are simultaneously detailed and dumb. They are the outpourings of bitter, paranoid people with time enough on their hands to watch NASA videos over and over again, eagle-eyed for the smallest apparent anomaly, yet without the intellectual chops to test their findings against the weight of evidence.

Verification – proof – to lunar conspiracists, as with those who harp on other, more dangerous fantasies, is to be found only in the agreement of fellow fanatics, not in the testimony of physicists, historians, reporters, archivists or, heaven forbid, actual participants. None of these types of people buy into the fiction and are thus, in the self-affirming arguments of the conspiracists

themselves, immediately and irrevocably suspect.

Eversberg shows that the lack of stars and the wonky shadows are artefacts of photography, easily testable and reproducible in one’s own back garden; the flag, supported by horizontal and vertical struts, only flaps when touched by an astronaut. And so on, and so on, his explanations richly referenced, with weblinks presented for readers who wish to review his statements immediately.

And his most powerful rebuttal resonates throughout: why would NASA (or, in the background, mysterious powers, pick your paranoia) ever bother setting up, executing and, for half a century now, maintaining such an audacious, outrageous and ultimately pointless con-job?

To what end? And if the perpetrators are clever enough to pull it off, why were they also stupid enough to make such obvious mistakes?

The book does its job well. In a time, however, when opinion is ranked above fact, and distrust is a default position, will it change even one doubter’s mind?