Photography Portfolio and Tutorials

DECISIVELY Debunking Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories: In memory of Neil Armstrong

Left-to-right: Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins, and Buzz Aldrin - the crew of Apollo 11.
Introduction: 25th August, 2012 marked the death of Neil Armstrong, the first man to ever set foot on the moon back in 1969. This man, along with his "Apollo 11" crew-members, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins, is among the true heroes of the scientific era.

            However, owing to the work of several notable conspiracy theorists, there exists a huge mob of people that believes that none of the moon landings the Apollo missions were real. To uphold their claims, they present a variety of arguments, ranging in quality from utter dumb to moderately technical - however all of these arguments can be proved false with a little logic and scientific knowledge. The theories are based on insufficient knowledge.

            Since I have always been an astronomy freak and can't see one great hero presented in such bad light, I decided to write a huge article debunking all the major theories in one place - a service rendered in the honour of Neil Armstrong.


How the conspiracy theories started:

            On February 15, 2001 the FOX television aired a program titled "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land On The Moon?". The program featured "evidence" that proved NASA's Apollo missions were faked. (i.e. they were shot in a studio on Earth, supposedly by the director of film The Space Odyssey)
            Although the conspiracy theories had been around for decades, starting in 1974 with Bill Kaysing's book "We Never Went to the Moon", reinforced by the works of the award-winning photographer David Percy (author of Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers) and Ralph Rene (author of " NASA Mooned America!")  but the airing of this program was the time when most people started believing in them. 
But why do moon landing conspiracy-theories exist in the first place? Are the theorists credible?

            If I were to give an opinion on why such theories exist - assuming the theorists had no negative motives - I would simply suggest that these theories arose out of lack of scientific knowledge. Most of the notable theory advocates  were people not trained in science (e.g. Bill Kaysing held an arts degree; David Percy was a photographer; Ralph Rene was self-taught publisher with no formal degree) These people made conclusions based on analysis of Apollo photographs and footage, with little or none attention towards the complex physical SCIENCE involved in the moon's environment. People who have knowledge of science can better judge the physics involved in the moon missions instead of people who have insufficient or no knowledge of physics.



            We shall now examine the many claims made by various conspiracy theorists and debunk them with LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC facts. We shall start off with points raised by the leading advocates and move on to the other ones when they're done.

1. The PHOTOS shows wind blowing the U.S. flag on the moon, although the moon has no atmosphere and the flag should not blow on the moon (Ralph Rene)

Reply: This is perhaps the most commonly repeated point from the theorists. It is quite absurd to make a decision on MOVEMENT in a STILL photograph. Obviously, the people seem to be perceiving the wrinkles on the flag as signs of motion - and I would recommend them to watch all the video footage and note that the flag is actually motionless.

If you search for Lunar Flag Assembly, you will note that the flag was fastened to a Г-shaped rod so that it did not hang down (see photo on the left).

Now for some proof, see the photos below, the two photos are two successive photographs showing Buzz Aldrin saluting the US flag. The flag is motionless although the wrinkles on the flag appear to be indicative of motion.

These two photographs had a time difference of several seconds
Animation of the two photos, showing that though the camera moved between the photographs, the flag is motionless.
 (Also see the video footage in point no. 10, it clearly shows a motionless flag)

2. There is also a VIDEO footage of the astronauts that shows that the flag was moving (Raplh Rene)

 Reply: The video Raplh mentioned is the one in which Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin are trying to hoist the US flag into the moon soil. Take a look at the video below, keeping in mind the structure of the flag post that I mentioned above.


            As you can see, the flag is not moving of it's own accord. It's moving because the astronauts are twisting the flagpole, trying to hoist it into the ground. The movement of the flag is unlike anything you would see on earth. In the absence of air, there is no damping effect on the flag and it keeps fluttering due to inertia. On earth, the movements of the flag would quickly be damped.

NOTE: This was also EXPERIMENTALLY verified by MythBusters in Episode 104 of their TV series using this method: "The Build Team placed a replica of the American flag planted on the Moon into the vacuum chamber. They manipulated the flag in a manner similar to what the astronauts did when they planted the flag on the Moon, then stopped the manipulation. They first tested at normal pressure; the momentum moved the flag around somewhat but quickly dissipated. In pure vacuum conditions, after the manipulation stopped, the momentum caused the flag to flap wildly as if it were being blown by a breeze. This is because there was no resistance from air to dampen the motion. This proved that in a vacuum, a flag does not need wind to flap for a while after a person sets it in motion."

 3. Without an atmospheric cloud cover, there should have been a sky full of stars but Apollo photographs do not show a starry sky (Bill Kaysing, Ralph Rene). NASA could not hope to recreate the lunar sky, so they may have opted for simple black backdrops.

 Reply: Faking a starry sky is too easy a task for any studio. The fact that there are no stars actually proves the authenticity of the photographs.

Capturing stars requires slow shutter speeds of >30s for good exposure and can not be captured at fast shutter speeds.
            Those who are familiar with photography might know that capturing stars requires the camera to be set at SLOW SHUTTER SPEED to maximize exposure. For properly capturing a starry sky on earth, an average of 30 seconds time should be set.
              The white surface of the moon was strongly reflecting the sunlight. In such strongly lit situations, a FAST SHUTTER SPEED ranging around 1/500 seconds may be required to prevent overexposure. Apollo photographs were taken at fast shutter speeds. However, at this configuration, stars can definitely not be captured.
This is an example of a space photograph in which no stars are seen; the photograph was captured at fast shutter speed to minimize overexposure resulting from the Earth's glare due to sunlight.
4. The film used by astronauts on the moon should have melted due to the supposed high levels of radiation and temperature above 250 ° F (Bill Kaysing)

Reply: There are several points to be noted here.
  • A special transparency film produced by Eastman Kodak under a NASA contract was used by the Apollo astronauts. The photosensitive emulsions layers were placed on an ESTAR polyester film base. The melting point of ESTAR is 490° F, although some shrinkage and distortion can occur at around 200° F.
  • The films were protected in special camera casings to keep them cool and were never exposed to high temperatures.
  • The moon has no air, hence, without convection or conduction, the only method of heat transfer on moon was radiation. Radiative heat can be effectively directed away from an object by wrapping it in a material with a reflective surface, usually simply a white material. The camera casings, as well as the astronauts' cooling system-equipped clothing, were indeed white.
 5. Only two men walked on the Moon in every Apollo mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor is not holding a camera. Who took the shot?
Apollo 12 Astronaut: Bean's camera is attached to his suit.

Reply: Astronauts were not "holding" their cameras like we do. The cameras were attached to the chest of the space-suit they were wearing, leaving their hands free for other operations unless they wanted to click. 

            Here is a close-up photo that shows the camera to be attached to the suit. 

6. Shadows cast on the moon's surface should be parallel (and equal) as there is only one light source - the sun. Yet in some photographs, the shadows cast by the astronauts are not parallel. 

 Reply: This is explained on the basis of perspective of the camera and the angle of photography. In addition, the surrounding hills and slopes should also be taken into account as they alter the direction of light. One such example was experimentally demonstrated by MythBusters (read caption for details)
In this Apollo 14 photograph, the shadows of the rocks and the lunar lander are not parallel. "The MythBusters built a small scale replica of the lunar landing site with a flat surface and a single distant spotlight to represent the Sun. They took a photo and all the shadows in the photo were parallel, as the myth proposed. They then adjusted the topography of the model surface to include a slight hill around the location of the near rocks so the shadows fell on a slope instead of a flat surface. The resulting photograph had the same shadow directions as the original NASA photograph from Apollo 14."

            As far as perspective and angle of photography is concerned, shadows that are parallel in real life may appear different in a photograph. The image below illustrates this concept.

This photograph shows the "perspective" concept. The shadows are infact parallel in real-life but in a 2D angular photograph, may give a false impression of not being parallel.

7. The shaded side of objects should be dark and in sharp contrast, but they are not, indicating a three point lighting in a studio (Ralph Rene)

Buzz Aldrin is clear - despite being in shadow


8. Many Apollo photographs show lighting "hot spots", as well as a darkening of the surface toward the horizon. Sunlight should not produce hot spots, nor should the surface fade in an airless environment. Seemingly, a spotlight was used.

Reply: The soil of the moon has a strong tendency to reflect sunlight. The (main) reason is that there are tiny glass spheres present in the soil that were formed in meteorite impacts. As a result of strong reflection from the soil, even the shaded sides of objects are not dark. 

            (The moon surface reflects 10% of the total light it receives. When the sun is directly overhead, the maximum illumination can be up to 10,000 lumens. However, in the Apollo missions, the sun was diagonal, and the luminosity was hence decreased to 3400 lumens. Now, when 10% of it will be reflected, the moon surface will seem to be lit up with 340 lumens power - the power roughly equal to a 35 watt light bulb.

             The "hot spots" also result from similar phenomenon. Contrast enhancement from NASA in some shots also created more of this effect. As for fading of the surface, the surface fades drastically toward the horizon. It is brightest near the foreground due to sunlight being preferentially reflected back toward the camera. Farther away, the sunlight is preferentially reflected away from the camera, making the ground look dark. The technical term for this phenomenon is Heiligenschein, and is the result of light refraction, reflection, and diffraction on the surface of and inside the glass spheres of the lunar soil. (This phenomenon can also be seen on wet grass where water droplets act like small glass spheres).
9. During the videos of the lunar landings the astronauts replied instantly to Mission Control in Houston.  Yet light, radio waves, and all energies of the electromagnetic spectrum travel at roughly 186,000 miles per second, meaning the response time of the astronauts to comments made by Mission Control should have been a little over two seconds since the moon is over 200,000 miles from the Earth.

Reply: This is actually a pretty great point put forward by one theorist online; however it clearly shows lack of information.


            NASA hadn't established a direct link with the television channels. The live pictures transmitted from the Moon were displayed on a 10-inch black-and-white monitor and a vidicon camera was pointed at the screen, the output of which was given to the channels. 

            Television channels actually showed us the live footage from the ASTRONAUT's side. i.e. the voices of the mission control that we heard in the footage were coming to us from the moon, and not directly from mission control. The conversation between the mission control and the astronauts as seen in the footage was hence, without any time delays.

10. There is one photograph of an astronaut standing on the surface of the Moon in direct sunlight, yet he casts no shadow

Theorists mention the absence of a shadow in this photograph.
Reply:  The photograph the theorists refer to is shown. If you see carefully, you will note that there is a shadow below him and to his right. 
            The shadow is not attached to his body as the astronaut John Young was jumping. A video of that scene is shown below. It is odd that the theorists do not have information about such a popular scene.

(P.S. Don't mind the music in the video: Just watch it as I couldn't find any better version :P And do observe the motionless flag)


11.  In an Apollo 11 photograph of Buzz Aldrin the horizon is located at eye level; however, if the camera was mounted to Neil Armstrong's chest, the horizon should be at chest level.

Note the level of the horizon in this shot.
Reply: The theorists refer to the image shown and argue that the horizon should be at chest level if the camera that took this shot was at chest level. 

            However they assume that Buzz and Armstrong were standing at the same level. If Armstrong's reflection in Buzz's visor is enlarged, Armstrong will be seen to have the horizon at his chest level - indicating that he actually was standing at a higher level than Buzz when the photo was taken. Armstrong's chest, and hence the camera, was at Buzz's eye level, which is why the horizon is seen at Buzz's eye level.

Enlargement of Armstrong's image in Buzz's visor, indicating that Armstrong was indeed standing at a higher level than Buzz.
12. The sound of the Lunar Module descent engine should be heard in the Apollo audio transmission, but there is no sound heard, not even at touchdown.  

Reply: This one is pretty easy. sound transmission requires a medium. On earth, the engines would surely make alot of noise but in the vacuum atmosphere of the moon, with no air to act as a medium, sound should not be heard.
13. A clear footprint cannot be made in vacuum because there is no moisture to hold its shape.

Reply: This point was also experimentally disproved by the MythBusters.

Our planet's soil is weathered and rounded, so the particles do not support each other's weight very well unless some moisture is present. Lunar soil, because it is not weathered, has a more jagged texture, so the particles "lock" with each other and will hold the shape of the imprint much more clearly.

14.  One photo from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his first step on moon. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot? (Ralph Rene)

Reply: This is among the most  non-objective points. Surprisingly however, it came not from a curious child pondering over the moon landings but from Ralph Rene himself.

            If I plan a trip with a big moment, obviously I will be fully equipped to capture that big moment in the perfect way. NASA, similarly, had a plan for it's big moment.

            While still on the steps, Neil Armstrong deployed the Modularized Equipment Stowage Assembly from the side of the Lunar Module, which happened to contain the TV camera. That camera took the photograph under question.

15. The space suits were too heavy and too pressurized for the astronauts to comfortably perform all the tasks that they did. The gloves on the Apollo space suits would also have expanded in the vacuum of space to the point where they would be immobile. (Ralph Rene)

Reply: The space suit although made of hard materials has jointed sections to allow a good range of movements. The upper and lower torso sections are put on separately and the two pieces are connected at the waist to allow the flow of water and gas-lines. Gloves and helmet create a sealed protection against meteoroids and radiation. The material they are made of does not expand in vacuum, it's made for vacuum and low-pressure environments.

            As far as weight is concerned, the suits are really heavy for Earth but in space (gravitation-free environment) and Moon (low-gravity environment), weight of the suit is none, and negligible, respectively.

16. The Lunar Lander weighed 17 tons and the powerful booster rocket (of 10,000 lbs thrust) at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.

Reply: The Lunar Lander certainly had a huge mass but with the moon's low gravity - a 6th of Earth's gravity, the 17 ton would actually have weighed 17/6 = 2.8 tons.  That certainly isn't enough to leave a crater at the landing site; aided by the fact that the lunar soil particles "lock" with each other (as mentioned in point 10 above).

  • The Lunar Module was throttled down to mere 3000 lbs when landing, and turned off before actual touch down. 
  • The Lunar Module descended at an angle, moving laterally across the ground. When the astronauts identified a suitable landing site, the LM leveled off and dropped to the surface. The LM did not hover over its final landing site for any significant length of time.
  •  In a vacuum exhaust gases expand rapidly once exiting the engine nozzle. They should not create a "pressure effect".
17. A large amount of dust was generated during the landings, yet no dust can be seen on the Lunar Module footpads or anywhere.

Reply: This is because in the absence of atmosphere, the dust particles generated in landing simply followed a ballistic motion when they were blown away. On moon, we can not get those "billowing dust clouds" like Earth since there is no air to suspend the clouds.

18. The TV footage was hopeless. Part of the reason for the low quality was that, strangely, NASA provided no  direct link up. So networks actually had to film all the footage from a TV screen in Houston - a deliberate ploy, so that nobody could properly examine it. (Ralph Rene)
 19. By contrast, the still photos were stunning. Yet that's just the problem. The astronauts took thousands of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and sharply focused. Not one was badly composed or even blurred. (Ralph Rene)

 Reply: The transmission of videos from Lunar Module wasn't done a high-speed internet connection: It used the Lunar Module's radio antenna and power supply, and was hence limited to a low bandwidth.

             Apollo 11 could therefore use a black-and-white, slow-scan TV camera with a scan rate of 10 fps (frames-per-second) at a low resolution of 320x240.

             In order to broadcast the images to the world, the pictures had to first be converted to the commercial TV standards. In the US, this was the EIA standard of 30 fps at 525x394 resolution. This is why the networks had to shoot the footage from NASA's screen in Houston, and not directly.
A highly underexposed photograph from Apollo.

 As for the photos, the theorists should note that not all shots were perfect; but then, why should NASA actually publish unfocused or improperly exposed photographs? The photos publicly released were the best photos among the roughly 5300+ photographs from all Apollo missions. The picture shown at the side is an example of an underexposed photo.
20. Some Apollo photographs show mysterious lights in the shadowy background that appear to be studio spotlights.

Lens flare in this photo is mistaken for studio spotlight.
Reply:  Some theorists present photographs like the one on the left and claim that the "lights" seen in the background are studio lights.

However these "lights" are actually lens flare and are often seen on earth as well when the image of sun is reflected back and forth inside the camera lens.

Another close-up image shown below shows the same lights; and from that photo one can clearly infer that the lights are lens flares afterall.

These lights are clearly lens flares.

 This notorious C rock is shown in the figure. Theorists claim it to be the markings of a studio prop.

This was uncovered to be just a hair fibre that got scanned on the film. The images were widely distributed in this form. The original photos do not have this C.

A magnification of this "C" shows a secondary mark that appears to be a shadow is clearly visible under the top portion of the mark, which supports the fact that the "C" was a hair fibre on film.
Note the secondary mark - a shadow.

 22. The Apollo crews were launched into space but never left Earth orbit.

Reply: This is a very lame argument. An ordinary orbiting satellite, even one that isn't as large and as white as Apollo, is clearly visible from earth. People even track them as hobbies. It is known that Soviets also tracked Apollo all the way from the moon to the earth.

23. To reach the Moon astronauts would have to travel through the Van Allen Radiation Belts, resulting in lethal doses of radiation.

Reply: This is often stated by the theorists. NASA was well aware of the Van Allen Radiation belt and  upon research, found that there was no danger. The total radiation dose that the astronauts encountered was 1 REM, an amount that is easily tolerated by the body. Toxic levels of radiation begin over 150-200 REM with 300+ accounting for lethal doses.
24. There are many pictures of spacesuited astronauts inside buildings with artificial moonscapes, presumably the studio where the moon landings were faked. 

Jim Lovell training for Apollo 13.
Reply: These photos are from various training/practice scenarios that all astronauts were subjected to before being sent to moon. NASA never claimed that those photos were from moon, nor ever made any attempt to hide them. They are publicly available.

25. The film of the astronauts moonwalking is actually film of the astronauts skipping in front of a high frame-rate camera, slowing down the picture and giving the illusion they are on the Moon. If the video footage of the Apollo astronauts is played at double normal speed, their motion appears quite normal, thus the images were faked by playing normal motion at half speed.

Reply: The MythBusters tried this experimentally: " Adam donned a replica NASA space suit and mimicked the astronauts' motions while being filmed by a slow motion camera. They also attached Adam to wires in order to mimic the Moon's lower gravity. While comparing the new and original footage, the MythBusters noted that at first glance, they looked similar, but there were many small discrepancies due to filming in Earth's gravity. In order to film in microgravity, the MythBusters boarded a Reduced Gravity Aircraft run by Zero Gravity Corporation and filmed exactly the same movements. Adam noted that the movements were more comfortable and made more sense in microgravity, and the footage from the plane looked exactly like the original film. The MythBusters concluded that the Moon landing film is authentic"

            Besides, there is a scientific explanation: An object in free flight will follow a ballistic trajectory in accordance with Newton's laws of motion. Moon's gravity is one-sixth that of earth. If the ballistic flight of an object on the Moon is sped up by a factor of 2.46 it will mimic exactly ballistic motion on Earth. 

            Apparently, when using a slow motion camera, the ballistics will resemble, but the arm movements will seem unnaturally fast - and oddities will appear.

Some points that the theorists can not falsify:

1. There are many moon rocks brought back by the Apollo missions. 382 kilograms (840 lb) of Moon rocks were collected during the six manned missions. These have characteristics that are not found in Earth or artificial rocks, such as evidence of meteoroid bombardment and exposure to cosmic rays. Likewise, Earth rocks have unique characteristics not found in the moon rocks, such as weathering and exposure to water. Finally, the moon rocks returned by Apollo have been determined to be between 3.1 and 4.4 billion years old, older than any rocks on earth.
Genesis rock brought back by Apollo 13 is older than any Earth rocks.

 2. Apollos 11, 14 and 15 erected laser reflectors on the lunar surface. Laser beams are routinely fired at these reflectors through telescopes at McDonald Observatory in Texas and near Grasse in southern France and these laser beams are actually reflected back from the moon. Timings of these reflected beams are used to measure the Earth-Moon distance to an accuracy of one inch. Do the theorists have any answer to this?

3. In 2009, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter spacecraft, which was in a low polar orbit over the Moon, returned a series of images of Apollo landing sites showing the vessels themselves at rest on the Moon’s surface. A direct visual confirmation is a sure sign that the moon landings were real.

This is LROC's first picture of Apollo 11 after LRO dropped into its 50 km mapping orbit. At this altitude, very small details of Tranquility Base can be discerned. The footpads of the LM are clearly discernible. Components of the Early Apollo Science Experiments Package (EASEP) are easily seen, as well. Boulders from West Crater lying on the surface to the east stand out, and the many small craters that cover the moon are visible to the southeast.
Apollo 17 landing site photographed by the LRO mission
4. Last but not the least, a few logical points: More than half a million people were working on the Apollo program. To plan a conspiracy on this scale would have been as difficult as making real landings. It's just not feasible. Yet, after all this time, not a single inside man has slipped anything. Those who are naturally dead did not make any deathbed confessions or leave behind any secret incriminating documents or photos. None of the Apollo workers ever showed any evidence of "reward". They all had quiet lives in retirement with no luxurious mansions  or anything. No disgruntled employee fired from the Apollo program made any dark revelations. Everything is so normal and nothing seems fishy.

5. (UPDATE: Added November 2014)
NVIDIA has recently graphically reconstructed the entire scene of the moon landings using their new Maxwell GPU technology. They carried out extensive research about the surface of the moon, the lights in the environment at the time of the landing and so on. All the necessary factors were taken into account. When the graphics was rendered in 3D, the resultant output was exactly in accordance with the footage and photographs of NASA. Take a look at this photo:

NVIDIA's team used Maxwell GPU to simulate the conditions on the Moon’s surface during the lunar landing revealing how Aldrin was illuminated by light reflected from the Moon’s surface and Armstrong’s spacesuit. 

As you can see, this screenshot from NVIDIA's reconstruction of the moon landings using Maxwell GPU is exactly like the photo in point number 7 of this article: Buzz Aldrin was clear despite being in shadow! 

You can read more about their efforts on their official blog:

Kudos NVIDIA! )

             The above discussion makes it clear that all the objections raised by the conspiracy theorists were invalid – MAN REALLY WENT TO THE MOON – SEVERAL TIMES. It was indeed a great achievement for mankind and should be remembered as such.


  1. That's a loooooooooooooooong read but the work is nicely done. =)

    1. That's what it takes to debunk an elaborate cascade of stupid thinking.

    2. That's what it takes to debunk such an elaborate cascade of stupid thinking.

  2. Phew! i finished it. xD

  3. Unfortunately, this, while comprehensive and quite correct, is unlikely to convince anybody.

    Conspiracy adherents will simply brand any facts they can't explain as vicious lies. I've heard it said that a major reason many people believe in conspiracy theories is because they like being on the "inside" of something - they love knowing what most people don't. If that's integrated onto their identity, they'll fight tooth and nail to hold on to it.

  4. I love seeing conspiracy nutjobs get owned with facts and science.

  5. dunSHATmySelf - We need to define the kind of people I was talking about here. The kinds of people who have already made up their minds that some vast conspiracy was perpetrated for (insert crazy reason here) and will not budge from this POV. They're the kind of people who will not see reason even in the face of hard data suggesting otherwise. The kinds of people who tell us to 'open our minds' whilst they doggedly cling to a singular notion supported by unsubstantiated claims and hollow hyperbole. The kind of anti-intellectualists hell-bent on destroying factual credibility for a modicum of narcissistic egotistical gain.

    These people don't simply ask questions. They throw their 'theories' about like bludgeoning instruments whilst trying to shout over any opposing view.

    It is immediately obvious why the fake moon landing conspiracy is built from lies. It's an insidious manifestation of paranoia that should be treated with derision and belittlement at every turn.

  6. karadan100 - Thanks for the further explanation, but doesn't that contradict what you were originally stating? If they are closed minded people who cling to a single notion, this blog post will not change their thinking because they will not believe the facts.

    At any rate this was a great blog post.

  7. Personally, I don't think it's even worth trying to convince conspiracy theorists of anything. Not worth the time and frustration involved.

  8. scowdich - you're quite right about that. I've had plenty of experience with this sort of stuff - trying to convince people to believe the right thing.

    Although many people are unreasonable and can't listen just because of "ego", there are still some reasonable ones out there. This post was for that sort of people :)

    karadan100 - so do I :D

    dunSHATmyself - Actually - they aren't asking "questions". They are infact "accusing" or "challenging" the real facts. Quite a lot of people who raise questions do not actually convert even when a satisfactory reply is given, but there are some that do. That's the people whom I wrote for.

    cultcirca - There are some people out there who actually want a true picture. They usually just read the facts and don't speak out or comment. The fraction of unreasonable people out there who bombard such facts make it appear as if it's not worth the time, although it is still beneficial for the people watching from sidelines.

    1. I second this! I am one of said sideline individuals, as I am for all such debates and flame wars. The undertaking of logical and rational argument should not be abandoned because of its perceived futility in convincing stubborn parties; there will always be intelligent passive observers who will weigh out all of the points made and decide for themselves so long as those who understand their position thoroughly take the time to elucidate their point of view.

  9. I have to say I saw some pretty convincing evidence that it was hoax to my untrained eye a few years ago when I wasn't lol and I thought the circumstances were fishy. We completed the project so fast after the USSR was winning the space race, it would take a long time to complete another mission, etc., it just made sense that the US would try to fake it and they have lied before so I figured why can I trust them? But I am convinced we did go to the moon now. Thanks for the post

  10. Absoluteverdict.blogspot.

    No argument can continue after it has been cited.

  11. Pure genius!! great work!

  12. I've not read a better or more convincing account of these landings. A masterwork.

  13. There is an error in the caption for the photo of a moon rock

    'Genesis rock brought back by Apollo 13 is older than any Earth rocks.'

    Apollo 13 never landed on the moon after the service module was catastrophically damaged after an oxygen tank explosion

  14. Thank you for pointing that out. The caption shall be duly corrected. Apollo 15 brought the rock - not Apollo 13.

  15. Awesome points. good effort.

  16. A lame attempt to prove the moon landing.Nearly 50 years since this supposed landing.You must try better than this to convince us.

    To prove this really did happen,let's do it all again 2013 style with 1969(tec)and let the whole World witness it with their own eyes with no hollywood involvement.

    Far too many anomalies for many people,no matter what the debunkers say.

    Debunk the debunkers. Let the show begin.

    Watch the show below.....

  17. Apollo Zero(full movie) answers all your questions!

    We have no reason to lie,Goverments do!

    Ask questions!!!!

  18. Don't waste your time on the video. It's not objective. I'm willing to listen to fact presented objectively, but this clearly has an agenda. Watch if you feel you must, but it will be an hour of you life, you'll never get back...

  19. Tell us all about the facts/agenda?

    Apollo Zero(full movie) answers all your questions!

  20. how come nobody went back to moon after 1970s???? if it was true then more ppl would have traveled there ...may be millionaires and elites would have made a business out of it as they tend to tap all the other things for business...if it was true why nobody went back ??? and i mean ppl not robots ...only 12 ppl have ever claimed to walk on moon and all in 1970s ....this is a little astonishing .!!

  21. The only astonishing thing here, is that muppets are still going on about 'waving flags' and 'inconsistent shadows' - gripping evidence that the Apollo missions were faked, lol.

  22. If apollo manned mission were real then why manned moon mission are not done now???
    Why is it stopped??
    Give a valid ans for this

    1. Why? Just to prove it could be done? Who will pay for it, you? It was done for for national pride and to prove the technology. That's a pretty lame reason for believing it's a hoax.

  23. Pratyush, to follow your logic, you must have expected that Nasa would have been sending missions to the moon forever. Obviously, money, politics and justification are the main factors as to why the missions were discontinued, but unsurprisingly, hoax nuts such as yourself will always come up with ignorant suggestions as to why the missions never occurred.

  24. I'm loving this blog so much!
    I love reading articles/blogs like this (about the moon, stars, galaxies, and etc.)
    I really believe they've been in there, at the moon. :)

    another way to prove this is to be an astronaut yourself.
    and I want to ._____./

  25. Great write-up! There are so many TV shows about the conspiracy which hide details like this (obviously a conspiracy theory makes for better TV ratings than scientific fact). One thing I saw recently which I don't know the explanation for was photos with the cross-hairs (partially)'hidden' behind objects (astronauts' spacesuits / rocks etc). Do you know the reason for this?

  26. Declan -
    Great point, and i can try to explain.

    On the front of the cameras was a glass plate, with black crosses painted on (for the purpose of measuring objects in photos). When the picture was taken, the black crosses were obviously on the photo as well.
    Where these crosses go across bright, reflective areas, they are harder to see, and in some cases can be blotted out entirely (because of the luminosity of the objects - like looking at a piece of white paper on a very sunny day - it reflects light so much it can be hard to look at. This makes it hard for cameras to pick up detail, as too much light can overpower/blot out things - any photographer can and will tell you how important it is to have proper light.)
    There are many conspiracy theorists out there that say this proves the objects were added in earlier, or some such nonsense, however they only show the photos that support their argument - this 'blotting out' happens on many many photos taken by the Apollo crew yet on most of them you can tell the crosses are being blotted out by bright areas.
    For example, there is a picture including the flag, which has a cross over it, and on the red parts you can see the cross, yet on the white part the cross has vanished. Conspiracy theorists don't show those photos because it is obvious that it is just the bright areas blotting out the thin crosses.

    If you wanted to see the flag picture for yourself -
    You can clearly see how the light is blotting out the lines on the flag. :) (you may have to zoom in a bit, it is a large image!)

    (Hope this makes sense, im not great at explaining things!)

  27. Thanks very much! I was one of those people that would've appreciated an 'educated' explanation for all the conspiracy theorists selling points! And here you've answered all my questions and then some! Well done!! You've also proved another point - conspiracy theorists cannot be reasoned with! lol

  28. I am impressed your blog because your blog words is very impressiveness Many thanks a lot for sharing this Information.

  29. Well done! A good effort to provide a valid arguement to the uneducated masses. I wholly agree with you - on one point about the leaving of a footprint in a dry atmosphere - you can recreate the effect of the moon easily back on earth. Take some cement straight from the bag and no-one could rgue that this is not dry - scatter on a surface (as thich as you like - stand in the bag if you want) and stand on it - this will leave a very accurate footprint which is due to the very course texture of the cement locking the particles together - this proves that you do not need water or dampness to leave a footprint - ooops I have jus given the conspiracy mongers an opportunity to claim that the 'studio' was covered in cement! You cannot argue with these jokers because they can always take the arguement to the next level of incredibility!!

    All the best

    SDL - UK astronomer

  30. For those asking: "If we already did go to the moon, why aren't we going back?"

    Well.... Why would we? The race to the moon happen right in the cold war. It was more a way to prove "Hey look! I'm so better then you!". While they were at it they also conduct some scientific experiment. But now, there is no reason to go back to moon. It's expensive, very expensive. We already proved we can. So why go back? Actually there is nothing useful to do there. Better use our resources to send useful satellites or prove that we are again very good by sending people on mars this time.

  31. Exactly. Heck the goverment is bickering over expenses like food and health care. The country is in debt for trillions. I can't imagine anyone agreeing to fund another moon mission when have already been to the moon a few times...nothing else to see. However if we don't go totally broke it is possible that at least younger people will be alive when we send a manned mission to Mars. And we will probably go to the moon again before that to see if there is ice under the caps which can be useful for drinking water and energy source but only when we are out of this insane dept.

  32. Been arguing with my brother for hours (because he just won't shut up about it) over this. But like someone said, he made up him mind and won't be dissuaded no matter how much evidence. The latest bout of arguments was some incoherent tirade about the reflect in the astronaut's visor and that the ships shadow is going in the wrong direction (which it clearly isn't if you're following the line from ship leg to the point of the ship). Trying to argue with a conspiracy nut and using reason or logic just doesn't work. I don't know if he's trying to say you're supposed to see the Earth or Sun somewhere in there, hence it's fake when they're so far away. If anything an artificial light source would be right there and more easily reflected. He just makes no sense.

  33. I always believed the moon landings were real but there has been some unaddressed evidence that raised my doubts. The waving flag and “nearly” everything mentioned throughout this blog has been spot on and hardly anything I’d question anyway. With that said, does anyone know if the following evidence has been debunked?

    Reference photographs left on the “set” of Apollo 15

    The stage light reflection on the visor which casts a shadow perfectly in line with it… the nearby shadow also seems “off” in perspective

    The Rover tracks before assembly

    Scotch tape revealed with Photoshop enhancements

  34. nice your site thanks for sharing love you all teme good work keep it up.
    Hack Wifi Password

  35. Well, nice try. But, explaining away the easy stuff isn't going to quite do it. You must work for NASA, because you obviously avoid the tougher details...for example, we all know this photo the "well lit" one of Buzz Aldrin climbing down the LM ladder. Your explanation is that the lunar surface reflects approx 10% of the sunlight which is equivalent to a 30 watt bulb, am I correct here? Well, it must have clouded over 28 pictures later when this photo was taken on the same cartridge of film note the handrail in the upper left portion seems to be shrouded in darkness now. I guess the surface stopped reflecting there for a moment. Care to explain that one away? That entire area was so brightly lit only minutes's things like that which make me wonder. Not to mention that all Apollo photos fail to capture any real distance. The backgrounds always seem to fade to black within a hundred yards or so on all but a few of the later mission photos (which have suspiciously familiar backgrounds and landmarks). And another thing. Who says that conspiracy theorists need an explanation for a hoax? I'm talking motive here, why do we need a motive anyway? It seems to me that your explanation for them going in the first place is pretty lame to begin with. To get there first? Really? That's the best you got? Experimentation? It seems to me that experimentation could have been done much more efficiently with rovers and mechanical devices. I mean humans are so frail and need life support, etc...and then there's always the chance of mission failure. Is it really worth the few readings or samples they could collect or perform on their limited eva's? So we're back to "they wanted to be first". Is that really enough of a reason to risk 3 men's lives on a technology that was, at that time, less than is available on my Android phone? Really? And, do you really think that the Russians would have "told" on us? I mean, after all, they did get a man into space first...hmmm, or did they? Maybe they didn't? And we knew it? Not only that, but, if we did go to the moon, with all of it's mineral deposits and so on, wouldn't it have been much more economical for us to have built a base there, mine the metals for spacecraft, build them there and use that as a base for future space exploration? Surely, you have to see that that only makes sense, right? C'mon now, use that head of yours, you know it does. It would cost a FRACTION of what it costs for a terrestrial takeoff. Plus, it would give astronauts an environment to acclimate themselves to zero g better, don't you think? It makes perfect sense to have done that...unless we NEVER WENT TO BEGIN WITH. Are you aware that NASA exploded a nuclear weapon in an attempt to "blow a hole" through the Van Allen belt? You know, the one you say is "harmless". Well, needless to say, not only were they unsuccessful, but made it MUCH WORSE than it was to begin with. So, you go ahead, believe what you want, as for me, I choose to be a free-thinker. I am not a physicist, nor a scientist, but, I do have a bit of common sense, and all of this is researchable. And, btw, you kind of contradict yourself with the whole footprint thing, because if the soil was that pliable then why wouldn't an engine bell located a meter from the surface dig a hole in the ground beneath it? You say they shut the engine off and "fell" to land. I have to say that you're wrong here. If you "listen" to the audio tapes of the supposed landing sequence, you can clearly hear them saying they landed FIRST and then about 5 seconds LATER shut the engines that argument goes right out the window....You really need to quit spreading this propaganda around because you are poisoning peoples minds with it. tyvm

  36. I am not a physicist, nor a scientist, but, I do have a bit of common sense. You are not kidding my friend except about the common sense. Your obvious need to believe that everything is a lie says more about you that about any supposed faked moon landing. Even though it was explained to you that the LM landing engines you still have some inability to understand.

  37. UFO footage' in the Apollo of sixteen living space objective directed a lot of to think of which unfamiliar life kinds had been monitoring man's earlier makes an attempt to succeed in the Landing for many an Apollo mission actual celebrities. Immediately after it's secure resume Soil, the intended 'flying anomaly' has been discovered on many of the crew's video clip in the period these people expended inside Moon's orbit. That UFO video footage sparked a thing of your debate and also has been analysed within fantastic detail because of the best heads NASA acquired back then. you can read more

  38. The conspiracy theories are almost as interesting as the moon landing itself!

  39. yes, nasa was willing to risk the lives of it's astronauts. the astronauts were willing to risk their own lives as well. the were test pilots. their job before space was to fly planes that had never been flown before! if you think that we didn't land on the moo, this is what you do. go to a hardware shop. buy some wood and nails. build a bridge. AND GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  40. Wow. You all are really telling each other off good but nobody is going to win cause both sides are so blockheaded.

    You cant get through the belts as easy as is explained not to mention the danger of solar radiation on the surface of the moon has no real good explanation either in this article. Both sides cherry pick arguments, but for me those are the big questions. Hoax believers aren't idiots who lack reason and common sense else this page would be totally pointless. The fact so many pages like this exist on the internet proves theres a lot of explaining needed to those paying attention. Moon believers do a disservice to the credibility of their argument by attacking anyone with questions.

    People who believe we went to the moon arent stupid either. After all, who wants to believe we were hoaxed? I don't.

  41. My current position is that I don't know whether they were fake or real. Coming from a position of not-knowing, I would like to seek answers from those who claim it was real to the following question:
    Why was there soft moon-dust to imprint the astronauts' footprints in around the moonlander? Why was that moon-dust not blown away by the exhaust when it landed via Newtonian ballistic motion mentioned above? Lack of atmosphere should mean those particles just shoot straight off never to come back it would not billow around as mentioned above. So from a physics standpoint, I can't understand why there would be any talcum-like particles to have photographs of footprints in around the ML.


Your comments are most welcome!