The 1978 Hollywood film Capricorn One popularized moon landing conspiracy theories, which posit that a Mars landing was faked in a film studio. This theory was based on rumours that the moon landings were directed by Stanley Kubrick. The controversy over the moon landing first emerged in the mid-1970s, with many conspiracy theorists suggesting that Kubrick directed the footage after being involved in the Apollo 11 mission.
Conspiration theories surrounding the moon landings have been persistent for the past 50 years, with some believing that the entire moon landing was faked. Bill Kaysing, a former US Navy officer and technical writer for one of NASA’s rocket manufacturers, claimed to have inside knowledge of a government conspiracy to fake the moon landings. However, every single argument claiming that NASA faked the moon landings has been discredited.
The Apollo 11 moon landing conspiracy theories are based on six common Apollo 11 moon landing conspiracy theories and how to debunk them. These theories were early hints of the dangerous anti-vax, antiscience beliefs backed by politicians today. The Apollo 11 moon landings were not actually the first humans to set foot on the lunar surface, and the evidence supporting these theories has been discredited.
In conclusion, the moon landing conspiracy theories have been a significant part of our understanding of the Apollo 11 mission and the Apollo 11 moon landings.
📹 Who Started the Moon Landing Hoax Conspiracy Theory?
This video is sponsored by Squarespace. →Some of our favorites: …
📹 The Moon Landing – World’s Greatest Hoax? | Free Documentary History
Moon Landing – The World’s Greatest Hoax? | History Documentary Watch the two-part documentary ’13 Factors That Saved …
NASA should welcome all deniers to be within a mile of the next launch of Artemis. Those within a circle of a thousand feet would be killed by the vibration of 8.5 million pounds of thrust, and the rest would have their brains rattled to a successful reboot hopefully. 😂 Honestly, how do they explain their cell phones gps? Or, how about those probes on Mars? Are those images all fakes as well? If so, why aren’t astronauts included? Hint. It’s not because deniers can’t be fooled. 😅
The point they seem to miss is that when you look back on the last 122 years, or more, people can see that the US govt, and the media, military, industry, and advertising, has told so many lies, or covered so many things up, that it becomes impossible to just trust what we are told. If you’ve been caught showing a pattern of lying, don’t act offended when people don’t believe you even when you tell the truth.
I am 55 Years Old.I remember my Grandfather stating that he was highly skeptical of the moon landing .I was young and found his distrust of the Govt disturbing and thought How sad to be so distrustful of our good govt. He had served in the war..I wish I had appreciated his insights more.Nothing has changed .Governments are corrupt
one thing that doesn’t sit right with me is how they lost all this footage and other important data about the missions .. one of the most impressive incredible feats in human history .. should’ve been under tight security at some museum .. but no, they were totally careless with it as if it was something unimportant and disposable and ended up losing it .. that’s a massive red flag
With regard to the 400000 people that worked on the apollo program, it’s worth noting that the Manhattan project had 130000 people working on it but very few of them had any idea what they were working on other than it being top secret. If there was deception at NASA, only a few at the top would know the full details.
At the time of the first moon landing both my grandfathers were alive. One, was born in 1880. He was 32 when he saw his first automobile. He watched the landing and was amazed. My other grandfather never believed it happened. He had been stationed in Hawaii during the war and firmly believed that it was filmed on one of the island volcanic regions.
In freshman Rhetoric & Writing today we talked about perspective taking in the context of the argumentative essays they are writing. I had them write, for ten minutes, a letter to their Opposition showing this opposition that they understand their point of view. Not that they agree with them, only that they understand them–a “generous” read of the other side rather than a “critical” read. Why do such a thing? Because if one suspends critique for a bit, he can better see things through the eyes of the opposition, understand their thinking, and from there craft a more fitting, customized response which is more likely to move them from their position, if only a little bit. And that is the goal–to move them, not to beat them. I find it difficult to practice here what i preach there. But here the goal IS to beat them, or at least to beat the flaming numpties.
Great article! I grow up on the space coast of Florida, as all of this was unfolding. My Dad, as about 80% of the people in Brevard County at the time, worked out the cape for NASA. The number of people involved getting people in space was enormous, there is now way this was faked. It is a shame to see the doubters, however I understand why they would question it, with the way our government, news media etc are now. The deniers have never felt the power of those rockets. Or seen the concern on the faces of concern when things went wrong, ie Apollo 1 and 13. Also when someone would die due to an accident out at the cape. The deniers are simply unable to imagine the world without the technology they grew up with. But yes, we had black AT&T rotary dial phones and taught how to properly use them in grade school. Nothing like today.
There’s one sure way to put all doubts away – to take high resolution photos of Apollo landing site. Not the blurry photos Nasa is showing us, but the high quality photos. Modern equipment is powerful enough to show every little detail of the items that should be still sitting on the Moon – lunar module, footprints of the astronauts, the flag, and other items. That would be great opportunity for Nasa to end theories once and for all.
Charlie Duke was interviewed for a nifty new article called “Moon astronaut reacts to moon landing deniers.” Perhaps not the most inspired title but it’s a cool interview and includes some interviews of Deniers on the street–in one memorable comment a young woman says that “it was probably AI.” Kinda puts a face on some of the more amusing comments seen on this board.
Here’s an interesting fact. No human has ascended above the earth past the 400 miles mark in 49 years. (The radiation belt begins at around 400 miles.) The last times they flew to 380 they experienced the spots of radiation in their eyes and and had to descend quickly. So sure, humans went 238000 miles to the moon and back 50 years ago. Many times. But zero since ?
I would like to point out that this is not the first time in the history of exploration that a major milestone has not been repeated for decades after the first time, contrary to what some conspiracy theorists claim. Here are some examples: After Ferdinand Magellan’s expedition, it took 55 years before anyone else managed to completely circumnavigate the globe. This does not mean that Magellan’s expedition was fake. After Amudsen and Scott’s expeditions between 1911 and 1912, it was not until 1956 that other humans set foot on the South Pole. This does not mean that Amudsen and Scott’s expeditions were fake. After the dive of the Bathyscaphe Trieste in 1960, it was not until 2012 that another vessel carrying humans descended into the Mariana Trench. This does not mean that the dive of the Bathyscaphe Trieste was fake. The Russians also completely stopped sending automatic probes to the moon starting in 1976 due to a lack of money and political will (except for last year’s failed attempt), but no one accuses them of having faked anything. Conclusion: saying “we never went there because we haven’t been back in 50 years” makes no logical sense!
As an amateur photographer who had an active interest in photography as a hobby during the era of emulsion film, the question i would welcome anyone to answer for me is: given that during lunar daylight the moon’s surface temperature can reach 260 degrees Fahrenheit (127 degrees Celsius), and the night-time temperature can dip to minus 280 F (minus 173 C)… How did the film in those Hasselbrad cameras survive that?
I watched the moon landing with my kindergarten classmates in Australia in 1969. I was mesmerised. (The song that accompanied the televised moon landing was ‘The Sound of Silence’ by Simon and Garfunkel). I had never doubted the authenticity of the moon landing until a few years ago when I stumbled across some stuff on the internet. Most of the stuff I simply thought was silly but I just can’t shake one thing. How is it that when the astronauts jump on the moon they rise and fall back down quite slowly while the dust around thier feet, which I assume weighs a lot less than the astronauts, seems to rise and fall quite quickly? Surely the dust would take longer to fall back down when disturbed and cause a haze of dust for a while rather than just moving the same way dust does on Earth. I’m sure many have asked this question and there may be a very rational answer, but I have never heard any yet.
Did anyone picked up the old tube TVs, radios, and the so called portable cameras, back in the 70s and realized how big and extremely heavy they were ? Even the electronic advancements in the 80s the devices were still heavy and large . My Beta Max recorder was incredibly big and heavy . Now let’s imagine the technology of the 60s .
The first astronauts television appearance,gave them away,because of their very odd behaviour,like they were under duress,or something. They were very vague,like they were making up answers.I think they were just orbiting earth,until advised when to ditch,into the ocean. And they claim,they lost telemetry data,thats why they haven’t been back. Cmon!
Why do all of the guys claiming conspiracy appear crazy? I mean, they either have a bunch of cats or appear as if they haven’t slept for days. Btw, the star thing and other BS they claim— don’t you think the directors, the cia and whoever would’ve made it a bit more believable, if it wasn’t? Also, why didn’t all of our enemies call us out— then or since?
Well my doubt was the fuel load of the Landing Module that had too take off with the crews combined weight, then very tactfully hook up to the main Re Entry Capsule orbiting the moon. Considering that the secondary vehichle was travelling at XSpeed ( the time taken to orbit the moon ) such a feat in total darkness and a magnificent performance of flight precision. Remember the payload of fuel was weight of about 38 kgs, in an almost zero gravity how much fuel was required to dock the module. What distance was the docking capsule from the landing site, when we were kids we were treated like imbeciles if we questioned or raised the idea that it was incredulous afterall it was America and “they could do anything” it was on TV.
I have spent my entire adult career as an automation engineer and can tell anyone that as long as the computer can calculate the required math the programing of control is simple and needs only relay logic and the more computational the better but not required. That is why Neil Armstrong was so adamant of learning how to calculate orbits and become familiar with the mechanics incase the computers did fail. Just as the jet fighters of the day could function quite well even though they have not the computers that the F-35 has the could fly by their pilots intelligence the reason why non astronauts can fly to days because of that automation.
As a young pupil perusal the events live on a little b&w TV in the school hall the thought that struck and stayed me over the next 50 years was whether NASA sacrificed and left one of the astronauts on the lunar surface so that he could pan the movie camera upwards to track the landing module as it blasted off on its rendezvous with the lunar module. 🤔
What we believe about this event has no bearing on the fact of it. Truth cannot be altered by mental assent or decent. I, personally, don’t believe they did. In 1969 I was 16 years old and didn’t believe it the day they televised it, and i still don’t. That being said, if they actually did it, my belief doesn’t alter it. So i guess the saying, “it is, what it is.” Works here.
For me, if first time being in OuterSpace, and they say theres no Air. I would be very very careful not to be Jumping around doing Kangaroo Hoppings, trip and fall and crack my helmet, or tear a hole on my Suit, can jump on a sharp rock, trip and fall face down on a rock. And would those helmets first time in a ” no air space ” actually hold on ? It just reminds me of that small submarine that had the implosion. Just my wondering. 🤔 thoughts
I’m surprised they didn’t cover the visible cable line footage or the “C rock”. I’m honestly really torn. Some of the points they bring up about going seem plausible and make sense, but I mostly believe we didn’t go. Too many inconsistencies. Less technology than a modern cell phone, but we haven’t been back since? Seems fishy and makes me skeptical about the story they fed everyone.
Those were some convenient excuses to the objections. I especially liked the explanation about the Van Allen radiation belts, can’t figure out how to get through it even today but the Apllo missions “just went through in an area where the radiation levels are low” and they can watch the solar activity so they apparently could tell what the sun was going to do beforehand. Sort of a sun psychic. And if they got into trouble where the sun decided to throw out a flair they weren’t able to predict, they’d see it coming and have time to “hide behind a rock”. And one of the men being interviewed, never looked into the camera….he was looking upward like trying to come up with a story the entire “documentary”.
I like the pictures of the golf cart that doesn’t have tracks leading up to its position. IT’s almost like it was raked or a model was set down. Oh and that reminds me of the spark plugs, engines, transmissions and junk cars that can be seen in some backgrounds. It’s almost like they wanted us to see the fakery.
For each “reason” all of these issues happened, there was a logical explanation of how it did happen. We went to the moon. Man walked on the moon. The earth is a spere. There are dozens of articles also explaining all the “footage” that disappeared. They didn’t..but some did due to improper storing techniques.
Can someone answer the simple questions that has been bothering me for several years. If we only see one side of the moon, no mater where the Apollo missions landed, shouldn’t the earth be overhead not on the horizon? The earth is 11 times the diameter of the moon, should it be a more dominate feature in the photos? Since the moon only rotates once every 27 days, how can the earth raise during any of the Apollo mission that the longest was 3 days? Last, during Apollo 17, according to the Lunar Calendar, the landing sight was in the shaded option of the moon but all the photos where were in sunlight?
On Monday my new job starts–teaching a freshman Rhetoric and Writing course at a U.S. university. I might actually use some of the stuff in this comment section. But I’m sure as hell not telling my students that my nickname is Gives Bad Advice. Anyone else care to share what his or her profession is?
The shadow argument fails because the pictures on the moon weren’t all by a camera shooting a picture in the same direction as the parallel shadows, which would converge. There are pictures of camera shots perpendicular to the non-parallel shadows, which were not parallel. Also, why no sand/dust on the capsule’s footing and there was no dust being cleared wasn’t explained. The greatest jet air pressure is when capsule is just about to land. It doesn’t turn off the engines near the ground. That was not true. I never believed the moon landing was fake, but given the credibility of our government & the totality of the circumstances, I now believe there is a possibility the moon landing was faked.
I always wanted to know that after 16th July 1969 till date how many astronauts landed on moon, because the technology has been so much advanced now so the no. must be very large. ….once man landed on Mount everest or entarctica the route is clear and the obstacles are known the no of persons visiting these places increased substantially
The whole world watched it on TV in 1969 with awe. It was a huge and memorable event. I was in primary school. The teacher wheeled in the TV so we could watch the historical moment. It took a decade of Russian and American ingenuity to finally make it a reality. People died along the way. And the world isn’t flat either.
@douglasbachman3990 Science doesn’t tell us that the Earth as Trillions of years old, it tells us that it’s 3.9 Billion years old. If you were smart and could do basic math AND really read the bible you would know this. Because it’s the only thing that the Bible and Science have ever agreed on and didn’t realize it because the two look at it from different perspectives. I can extrapolate if you’d like.
saying why man never landed on moon since then is like saying why man never build a great pyramid never again if it was work of man- landing on moon has not much financial or scientific value to compensate its expenses…until it does (expenses go down or some other nations leader finds it valuable to be the second nation who steps on the moon)