Moon landing conspiracy theories, debunked
Yes, Apollo 11 did go to the Moon. No, the US flag isn’t ‘waving’ in the wind. The Moon landings were faked. Apollo 11 didn’t happen. Humans never set foot on the Moon. Heard all this before?
Conspiracy theories surrounding the Moon landings have proved worryingly persistent in the 50 years since Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin took their first small steps on the lunar surface. NASA’s landmark achievement is still being challenged.
Despite there being a wealth of information online debunking these conspiracy theories, the cries of hoax continue. Why?
See great space photography
“We find ourselves awash in an ocean of information online,” National Space Centre Discovery Director Professor Anu Ojha said during a 2019 lecture at Royal Museums Greenwich.
“There has been more data produced in the last two years than in the whole of human history. This information ocean is getting more turbulent every single day. The only tools we have to navigate through this maelstrom are the critical thinking skills that we are trying to develop in people as scientists.”
So how can science help to debunk Moon landing conspiracy theories?
Leading SFX experts show in the video below why it is still beyond even the very latest computer graphics for NASA to have faked the moon landing footage way back in 1969.
Conspiracy theory 1: shadows in the Moon landing photos prove the images were faked
Take a look at the image below, and at the full panorama on the NASA website. Look closely at the shadows cast by astronaut Neil Armstrong and another object just out of shot. What’s wrong with them?
They’re not parallel.
This image has been taken as proof by conspiracy theorists that the Moon landings were faked. Surely if the Sun were the only light source, then the shadows should be parallel? Doesn’t this prove that the whole scene was mocked up in a studio, with multiple light sources creating different shadow patterns?
Well, no.
“This is on the surface of the Moon, but we can reproduce this effect any time we want to on Earth,” Prof Ojha explains. “You have all seen this phenomenon yourself, where, because of perspective, parallel lines appear to be non-parallel. If you are trying to reduce on to a two-dimensional plane a three-dimensional situation, you can make lines do all sorts of weird things. Artists have been using this for centuries.”
Go outside when the Sun is low in the sky and see this effect for yourself. Just like the images from Apollo 11, the shadows will not be parallel.
Conspiracy status: debunked
Shadows on other worlds
Join the astronomers at the Royal Observatory Greenwich as they discover what shadows look like on other worlds.
Conspiracy theory 2: Apollo astronauts could not have survived Earth’s radiation field
Earth is surrounded by a zone of charged particles known as the ‘Van Allen’ radiation belt.
“These are regions surrounding the Earth in our magnetic field where high energy trapped particles from the Sun tend to get confined,” Prof Ojha says. “What that means is if you are going into these regions, there are extremely high radiation concerns.”
If that is the case, how did the Apollo astronauts travel through the Van Allen radiation belt and out of Earth’s orbit unharmed? Surely the amount of radiation would have killed them? Doesn’t this prove that the Moon landings were a hoax?
Prof Ojha has a killer reply.
“My answer to that is… firewalking,” he says.
“If you’ve ever done firewalking, you’ll know the one thing you don’t do is linger around in the middle of the firepit. You cross as quickly as you can. From a science point of view, as long as you walk across quite quickly, looking at the thermal conductivity of your feet, you are not going to have enough thermal energy going into the soles of your feet to burn you. You’re absolutely fine. Just don’t hang around in the middle!
“In a similar way, the transit time through the Van Allen radiation belt right at the beginning of the Apollo voyages was incredibly short. Travelling through the Van Allen radiation belt if you are going fast enough – which you need to be if you’re going to the Moon – is no problem whatsoever.”
https://youtu.be/XKCMaJBXmzY
Conspiracy status: debunked
Conspiracy theory 3: why are there no stars in pictures of the NASA Moon landings?
Below is another Moon landing photograph which has caught conspiracy theorists’ eye.
Buzz Aldrin carries experiment equipment during the Apollo 11 Moon landing (NASA)
If the image really was taken on the Moon, shouldn’t the sky be filled with stars? After all, there is no atmosphere to distort the image, no clouds to interrupt that glorious view.
Conspiracy theorists argue that the lack of stars in the Apollo 11 mission photographs prove that the event was staged. NASA could not have faked the full wonder of the lunar sky, and so they simply chose not to include any stars at all.
Here’s another solution: both the astronauts and the lunar landscape itself are brightly lit by the Sun. The sky may look black, but remember, this is in fact daytime on the Moon.
If you’re going to take a photo of a brightly lit scene, your camera’s shutter speed needs to be fast and your aperture incredibly small. In that situation, faint objects like stars simply aren’t going to show up.
Conspiracy status: debunked
Conspiracy theory 4: the Apollo 11 US flag is waving in the wind… but there’s no wind on the Moon
“One of the crowning moments in terms of US national pride was seeing the Stars and Stripes on the surface of the Moon,” Prof Ojha says.
Buzz Aldrin saluting the proudly waving American flag on the Moon remains one of the iconic images of the Apollo 11 mission, a declaration of US supremacy over space race rivals the Soviet Union.
But if there is no atmosphere on the Moon, there is no wind – so why is the flag waving? Is this the proof that conspiracy theorists have been seeking?
Look again at the image, and in particular along the top edge of the flag, and you will find the answer. A telescopic pole has been extended along the top in order to make the flag fly proudly (yes, NASA really did think of everything).
“Because it’s been set up like this, it appears to be waving in the wind,” Ojha explains. “All the wrinkles are there because it’s literally been screwed up for four days en route to the Moon.”
Conspiracy status: debunked
Conspiracy theory 5: if we really went to the Moon in 1969, why have we never been back?
Apollo 17, the last Apollo mission to land astronauts on the Moon, took place in 1972. Since then, humans have never returned. Maybe that’s because we never went to the Moon in the first place?
Apollo 17 wasn’t meant to be the end of the story, of course. Throughout the 1970s there were ambitions to establish a permanent lunar base before turning to the next major space exploration challenge: Mars.
It never happened. But this was no grand conspiracy; this was geopolitics.
“The answer is we changed our priorities,” Ojha says. “From a combination of the Vietnam War, but also there was this geopolitical element of thinking, ‘We’ve won the race’. Just as we’d got good at doing science on the Moon, we abandoned it.”
Instead, attention turned to the Space Shuttle programme and, latterly, the International Space Station, which has been permanently inhabited by teams of astronauts since November 2000. But that doesn’t mean humans couldn’t return to the Moon in the future…
Conspiracy status: debunked
Apollo 11 50 years on: leaving our mark on the Moon
The Moon landings were not a hoax. Apollo 11 did happen. Humans really did set foot on the Moon.
We have countless images, videos, lunar samples and scientific data to prove it. But more than that, human exploration has literally left its mark on the Moon’s surface.
“In 2009 we sent a lunar reconnaissance orbiter to map the lunar surface in three or four orders of magnitude more resolution than had ever been managed before,” Prof Ojha says.
“Every single Apollo landing site was pictured. Absolutely stunning. What really strikes me about these images is that those footprints, those tracks of the lunar vehicles – they’re going to maintain their integrity for millions of years,” he says. “No matter what we do to ourselves as a civilisation, we’ve really left our mark on the cosmos.”
source: www.rmg.co.uk
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Heretic Jones
| #
Why is it that every time a “conspiracy theory” is “debunked”, the debunking never actually addresses the issues brought up by the “conspiracy theorists”?
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
That’s a very vague statement, can you give an example?
Reply
Heretic Jones
| #
Sure.
1) numerous nasa interviews and videos in which they literally say they’re still unable to exceed low earth orbit, and are still working on a way to cross the Van Halen radiation belt.
2) the nasa admission that all data and technology associated with the greatest technological achievement in human history has been lost. Several videos of nasa literally saying this are available. To lose this information and technology is absurd – I still have stuff on a Zip disk from college.
3) video and audio of ‘astronauts’ hammering equipment and tossing equipment against the ‘moon lander’ in which these activities create sounds that are physically impossible to make in a vacuum.
4) in every post-‘moon landing’ interview, the ‘astronauts’ are inexplicably solemn and worrisome in appearance. One would think that only exuberance could be expressed after the greatest human achievement in history.
5) several videos of ‘astronauts’ literally stating that “we didn’t go”.
6) the inexplicable refusal of any of these ‘astronauts’ to simply swear on the Bible that they went – these ‘astronauts’ literally become physically violent when asked to simply place their hand on the Bible and swear.
7) Stanley Kubrick admission
8) the ‘copy and paste’ photoshopping of ‘moon photos’ – i.e., repeated pasting of the same features in spatial sequence
9) quite convincing leaked ‘footage’ of the ‘moon landing’ filmed in Nevada
10) the absurd tin foil and dryer vent construction of the ‘lander’
11) contradictions among ‘astronauts’ in terms of the moon’s substrate and visibility of stars
12) complete lack of dust on lander after touchdown – it was perfectly shiny ha ha.
There are many other examples. These coupled with nasa’s constant failures – rodents in space, air bubbles in space, tethers exposed, nasa’s hilarious list of 666s – should give any reasonable man cause for suspicion.
Reply
Heretic Jones
| #
And why do these ‘astronauts’ have stars on the hollywood walk of fame? Weird.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Heretic,
How is it that not one of your12 points have any direct references or links???
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Andy,
How can you argue against such convincing evidence. The astronauts are nervous and won’t swear on the Bible. The clincher is they have stars in the sidewalk at a Hollywood restaurant.
A skeptic doubts until evidence is produced. A believer denies all contrary evidence and accepts anything as supporting evidence. (How a sound possibly be transmitted through structures instead of air.) There is no point in trying to convince a believer with any explanation since it contradicts the fundamental truth that they are always right.
Herb
Reply
Howdy
| #
“How a sound possibly be transmitted through structures instead of air”
Allready covered that possibility with Heretic regarding the vacuum of space, Herb. The result was abuse and complete avoidance, as if I had posted nonsense instead of a valid answer.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Heretic and Andy,
I doubt if I have ever written this here at PSI. I like, no love, challenges!!!
I read: “Take a look at the image below, and at the full panorama on the NASA website. Look closely at the shadows cast by astronaut Neil Armstrong and another object just out of shot. What’s wrong with them?” According to the critics: “They’re not parallel.”
A quote I claim for my own is: “The most obvious is most difficult to SEE!”
The rod (stick) casting the narrow shadow is not seen. But the critic’s answer assumes this rod is standing upright as Armstrong is. No need for a somewhat complicated perspective argument.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
NecktopPC
| #
“All the wrinkles are there because it’s literally been screwed up for four days en route to the Moon.” – Professor Anu Ojha.
Reactions to the flag look quite different in the original video:
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
“A telescopic pole has been extended along the top in order to make the flag fly proudly”
Uhm, total non-sequitor.
Reply
Ryan
| #
We’ve never been back, because we didn’t want to, and neither did any other country, is not debunking anything. They somehow managed to lose the technology to get back to the moon, but had the tech to stream the moon landing, while Nixon called the astronauts on a landline ooookay. What about all the “moon rocks” they gave to other countries that turned out to be fake?
Reply
Denis dombas
| #
The fact is that no human was ever on the Moon.Not possible in those years.
Reply
frank
| #
yes and what about that pesky van allan belt, ya know the “shield” that protects this planet from becoming the moon, how’d the lil aluminum can get through that? And once that miracle happens how exactly does the lil aluminum can go through space to the moon without everyone being burnt to ashes from radiation and the can being shredded by the high speed particles (size of sand) being carried by the solar “wind?”
Did the lil aluminum can have a portable magnetic shield generator onboard?
The earth does have a magnetic shield and if it did not no life would exist on earth, so tell me again how the lil aluminum can survive the trip back and forth, through space, to the moon?
Reply
Mario M
| #
It is impossibile for human to travel in empty space, neither to the moon, nor on a earth orbit. There are technical limits that now cannot be overcome.
Reply
Apache
| #
Em nenhuma fotografia da superfície se vêem rochas de dimensão apreciável, nem mesmo ao longe. Sem chuva nem vento, é estranha a enorme erosão sofrida pela superfície da Lua, nas zonas próximas do pouso da Apollo 11.
A imagem de Aldrin saudando a bandeira (em “Teoria da Conspiração 4”) é excelente. A bandeira americana apresenta as mesmas cores que aqui na Terra, apesar de estar iluminada por uma luz solar muito mais verde (devido à inexistência de atmosfera). Acho que a máquina fotográfica estava equipada com um filtro de azuis que simulava a filtração da atmosfera terrestre. Mas o filtro não funcionava para o solo, que aparece no cinzento original, tal como os nosso olhos o veriam se lá fossemos.
As costas de Aldrin vêem-se com uma razoável nitidez apesar de estarem na sombra, num mundo sem zonas de penumbra (pela ausência de difusão da luz na inexistente atmosfera). Acho que alguém vai dizer que é a difusão da luz solar no solo, que permite colher boas fotos de zonas totalmente na sombra. Lol.
Reply
Strang Haldane
| #
Are we to believe that, in 1970, man could transmit live TV to the Earth, supposedly a quarter of a million miles distant? And do it with a tiny transmitter and a car battery? Have a close look at the NASA photographs of the ramshackle Lunar Landers. An elementary school project could probably produce something more believable. We are told that the Kodak film worked fine in supposed vacuum of space. Not possible.
It is a pity that a good website like this throws in nonsense propaganda, without explaining its source. The ‘conspiracy theories’ have not here been debunked. What we see is just another recycling of the same old lame attempts to back up an untenable Apollo story.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Strang,,
“We are told that the Kodak film worked fine in supposed vacuum of space. Not possible. It is a pity that a good website like this throws in nonsense propaganda, without explaining its source.” The source of this wisdom is STRANG HALDANE.
STRANG, Does this improve PSI???
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
lloyd
| #
People who push the Lunar Landing Conspiracies are just this side of Flat Earthers. Somehow, all the world helped cover up the fakery by buying into the claiming the radio/TV transmissions were real when THEY KNEW, they were all fake. Really? Occam’s Razor. Look it up.
Reply
Whokoo
| #
The horizon is clearly not flat. And there is no ice wall to stop from falling off the edge.
Reply
itsme
| #
‘Somehow, all the world helped cover up the fakery’
hmm really?
how about they were ‘played’ – you know, like that so called ‘pandemic’ a couple of years ago that the majority believe in.
Reply
ant I
| #
have a watch … interesting stuff. https://nobulart.com/kubricks-odyssey/
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Ant,
If you look at the interview with Buzz Aldrin and take “it” (as in we never did it) to mean “never returned to the moon” (which is the question) instead of never went there in the first place, what he says makes a lot more sense. He talks about when you do something there should be plans of continuing to do it instead of abandoning the progress made.
Herb.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Herb:
Buzz Aldrin’s words were I quote “:Because we didn’t go there and thats the way it happened.” Thats about as clear as it can get. But any reasonable person who looks at the evidence of this nonsense will quickly see that they never put men on the moon in 1969-72 nor since then. It is all as fake as the CGI planes that cut through structural steel and concrete buildings on 9/11 and as fake as the recent fake shooting (and all the many others) in Uvalde: Here again is that “lunar lander that was used to launder billions of tax dollars like the fake war in Ukraine:
Reply
Tom O
| #
Interesting how people cannot be shown the truth – whatever that might be, once they have made a decision to the opposite. Sort of like trying to show someone that has taken the covid vax information about how it is killing them, and expecting them to change their mind about the vax. Damn near impossible.
Same as trying to prove the world is round to one that believes it is flat. Can’t be done. It was always the way that the dirt and dust moved while they were hopping about that convinced me that the videos were real. Just like it is the swirling of the water in the toilet as it drains, with it going clockwise north of the equator and counterclockwise south of the equator, that says the world is round to me. Then again, it doesn’t take much to prove somethings to a simple mind, and I am really not very complicated. Some times.
Reply
Typhus
| #
Ah,Yes!
The world is exactly what we wish it to be.
Reply
Mario M
| #
Most of the denialists point out the photos and film of the men on the moon that were artifacts, but I think that a more sound objection to the feasibility of human travel lies on the technical impossibility to project and built all the equipments to allow the living in an empty space for so long. The cabin conditioning, the toilet for the liquid and solid human discharge, the gas to breath and to expel.
Another order of problems is the reenter in the atmosphere, with a truncated cone: aerodynamically impossible
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Mario,
The Mercury capsules were truncated cones. Do you deny that anyone who has been launched into space has ever returned.
The problem with your technical impossibility argument is that you limit everyone else abilities, imagination, and daring by your own. How could the vikings cross the Atlantic in small open boats? How could the Polynesians get to unknown distant islands in the Pacific. Instead of just saying how it couldn’t be done why don’t you find out how it was allegedly done and judge that.
Herb
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
There will always be those who ignore the excellent debunking’s as show here because they are functional illiterates.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Here is something you will not likely read Mark Tapley writing about.
“Rockefeller Center is a large complex consisting of 19 commercial buildings covering 22 acres (89,000 m2) between 48th Street and 51st Street in Midtown Manhattan, New York City. The 14 original Art Deco buildings, commissioned by the Rockefeller family, span the area between Fifth Avenue and Sixth Avenue, split by a large sunken square and a private street called Rockefeller Plaza. Later additions include 75 Rockefeller Plaza across 51st Street at the north end of Rockefeller Plaza, and four International Style buildings on the west side of Sixth Avenue.
In 1928, the site’s then-owner, Columbia University, leased the land to John D. Rockefeller Jr., who was the main person behind the complex’s construction. Originally envisioned as the site for a new Metropolitan Opera building, the current Rockefeller Center came about after the Met could not afford to move to the proposed new building. Various plans were discussed before the current one was approved in 1932. Construction of Rockefeller Center started in 1931, and the first buildings opened in 1933. The core of the complex was completed by 1939. Described as one of the greatest projects of the Great Depression era, Rockefeller Center was declared a New York City landmark in 1985 and a National Historic Landmark in 1987.”
(Wikipedia)
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Jerry:
Your’e right, I am not really interested in trivialities other than to mention that in front of the Rockefeller Center is the “Prometheus” statue however I believe it is really a Masonic symbol of “the angel of light” Lucifer. The Rockefeller’s associates, the Rothschilds have lots of Masonic symbolism in the supreme court building in Israel (Palestine):
https://www.bitchute.com/video/2onOk368GF0W/
The Rockefeller’s could afford to drop a few crumbs from the table since J.D. got insider shipping rates from the railroads controlled by the Rothschilds. That is how they got ahead of the competition (transportation was the most important factor at the time for oil) which was later entrenched by the Sherman “Anti Trust Act:” as told by John Moody (Moody’s Bond Ratings) in “The Truth About The Trusts.”
The Rockefeller’s along with the Rothschilds also used their front men Paul Warburg, J.P. Morgan and son-in-law Senator Nelson Aldrich (Nelson’s maternal g. father) to establish the banking cartel which has continued to plunder the goyim ever since. Recently this cartel of thieves handed their buddies at Black Rock (Rothschild-Rockefeller) trillions more “stimulus” under cover of there fake virus also instigated by the Rockefeller’s as outlined in their 2012 document. Bill Gates is the third generation from William Henry Gates that instigated the dozen deadly “vaccines” beginning at Fort Hood that are now fronting for the Rockefeller’s WHO to install total control of the goyim under the pretense of “medical emergencies.” No problem Jerry. Your grand kids will be paying for all of it in worthless fiat in the coming Agenda 21 existence.
Reply