or rebuttal, NASA and other government officials have attempted to explain some of the inconstancies pointed out by conspiracy theorists, but a NASA spokesmen said that replying to all of the claims would be unnecessary and a waste of time. One of their explanations is that the reason that the flag looked like it was blowing in the wind is because the inertia from placing the flag in the ground kept it moving. As for the lack of stars, officials say that since the moon reflects sunlight, and glare from the sunlight would have made it almost impossible for the astronauts or the cameras to see the stars. They also say the exposure settings on the camera help explain why no stars can be seen.  In response to the lack of a crater caused by the blasters, scientists argue that the vehicle’s blasters were running too low and the vehicle was not directly over the moon for enough time to cause a crater. What about the multiple light sources seen in photos?  Spaceflight historian Roger Launius, of the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum says that there are in fact multiple light sources present on the moon. “You’ve got the sun, the Earth’s reflected light, light reflecting off the lunar module, the spacesuits, and also the lunar surface.”

NASA’s basic argument is that between bad photography equipment and simple science, all of these inconstancies can be explained.  They just aren’t willing to take the time or energy to explain every single claim.  Conspiracy theorists say that this is an easy excuse for the things that NASA cannot explain and that they don’t buy the explanations they do give. They base their arguments on circumstantial evidence of discrepancies and a few outlandish claims. The government plays the role of the defense in the argument, trying to combat what theorists say with science and the general premise of a trustworthy government.

So, which is more convincing? If the government was on trial accused of falsifying information and I was a jury member; I certainly couldn’t convict them. As someone who does not trust the government, at all, the conspiracy theorists do make some strong points. There are some real concerning inconstancies that they point out and are not fully addressed by the government. Now with that said, some of their claims are absolutely absurd and are so farfetched that they risk discrediting themselves. On the other hand, the government has some good explanations that make sense. However, just because they can explain one or ten of the inconstancies, doesn’t mean they are being fully truthful. The government simply is not able to completely discredit all of the claims. Conspiracy theorists also can not completely verify the claims either, and the b