It was small step for man and a giant leap for mankind, but did astronaut Neil A

rmstrong really land on the moon? Despite the first moon landing being broadcast
when Apollo 11 touched down July 20, 1969, there are scores of conspiracy theor
ies that claim the U.S. government faked to landing to get ahead in the space wa
rs against Russia. None of them have been confirmed by NASA, but the hoax accusa
tions are one of the most popular rumors. Of course, there are also rumors Tupac
is still alive.
1. The American flag was moving when Buzz Aldrin planted it onto the moons surfac
e. While this doesnt seem like anything strange, it is for the moon. The flags mov
ement shows the presence of wind, but that would be impossible since being on th
e moon is like being in a vacuum. NASA rebutted the conspiracy theory by saying
the reason why the flag moved was because of Aldrin twisting it into the moons so
il.
2. There isnt an impact crater where Apollo 11 landed. This conspiracy theory cla
ims there should be a spot that marks where NASA landed on the moon. But there i
snt any crater visible in any of the footage. It looks like the module was placed
there. NASA refuted the assertion by saying since there is less thrust on the m
oon. They used an airplane as an example, saying the aircraft doesnt leave a crat
er when it lands on a concrete airstrip.
3. There are too many light sources. The only source of light on the moon is the
sun. So all the shadows should parallel each other. In the videos and photograp
hs from the moon landing, shadows fall in different places. NASA said the uneven
landscape was to blame for the odd lighting.
4. The Van Allen radiation belt should have cooked the astronauts. In order to g
et to the moon, the astronauts had to fly through a band of radiation. The space
craft had aluminum on the exterior to protect its passengers, but conspiracy th
eorists dont believe it was enough to safely protect the astronauts for the 90 mi
nutes it takes to navigate.
"My God, it s full of stars!" Arthur C. Clarke s 2001 character Dave Bowman famo
usly exclaimed when faced with the vastness of space.

You can tell Apollo was faked because ... the astronauts made no such exclamatio
n while on the moon, and the black backgrounds of their photographs are curiousl
y devoid of stars. (See more iconic space pictures.)
The fact of the matter is ... the moon s surface reflects sunlight, and that gla
re would have made stars difficult to see. Also, the astronauts photographed the
ir lunar adventures using fast exposure settings, which would have limited incom
ing background light.
he Waving Flag

Flag-Waving-Moon-Landing Conspiracy theorists have pointed out that when the fir
st moon landing was shown on live television, viewers could clearly see the Amer
ican flag waving and fluttering as Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin planted it. Ph
otos of the landing also seem to show rippling in a breeze, such as the image ab
ove which clearly shows a fold in the flag. The obvious problem here is that the
res no air in the moons atmosphere, and therefore no wind to cause the flag to blo

w.Countless explanations have been put forward to disprove this phenomenon as an

ything unusual: NASA claimed that the flag was stored in a thin tube and the rip
pled effect was caused by it being unfurled before being planted. Other explanat
ions involve the ripples caused by the reaction force of the astronauts touching
the aluminum pole, which is shown to shake in the video footage.
9
Lack of Impact Crater
The claim goes as follows: had NASA really landed us on the moon, there would be
a blast crater underneath the lunar module to mark its landing. On any video fo
otage or photograph of the landings, no crater is visible, almost as though the
module was simply placed there. The surface of the moon is covered in fine lunar
dust, and even this doesnt seem to have been displaced in photographic evidence.
Much like the waving flag theory, however, the lack of an impact crater has a sl
ew of potential explanations. NASA maintains that the module required significan
tly less thrust in the low-gravity conditions than it would have done on Earth.
The surface of the moon itself is solid rock, so a blast crater probably wouldnt
be feasible anyway in the same way that an aeroplane doesnt leave a crater when i
t touches down on a concrete airstrip.
8
Multiple Light Sources
the moon there is only one strong light source: the Sun. So its fair to suggest
that all shadows should run parallel to one another. But this was not the case d
uring the moon landing: videos and photographs clearly show that shadows fall in
different directions. Conspiracy theorists suggest that this must mean multiple
light sources are present -suggesting that the landing photos were taken on a f
ilm set.NASA has attempted to blame uneven landscape on the strange shadows, wit
h subtle bumps and hills on the moons surface causing the discrepancies. This exp
lanation has been tossed out the window by some theorists; how could hills cause
such large angular differences? In the image above the lunar modules shadow clea
rly contradicts that of the rocks in the foreground at almost a 45 degree angle.
7
The Van Allen Radiation Belt
BeltIn order to reach the moon, astronauts had to pass through what is known as
the Van Allen radiation belt. The belt is held in place by Earths magnetic field
and stays perpetually in the same place. The Apollo missions to the moon marked
the first ever attempts to transport living humans through the belt. Conspiracy
theorists contend that the sheer levels of radiation would have cooked the astro
nauts en route to the moon, despite the layers of aluminum coating the interior
and exterior of the spaceship.NASA have countered this argument by emphasizing t
he short amount of time it took the astronauts to traverse the belt meaning they
received only very small doses of radiation.
6
The Unexplained Object
After photographs of the moon landings were released, theorists were quick to no
tice a mysterious object (shown above) in the reflection of an astronauts helmet
from the Apollo 12 mission. The object appears to be hanging from a rope or wire
and has no reason to be there at all, leading some to suggest it is an overhead
spotlight typically found in film studios.The resemblance is questionable, give
n the poor quality of the photograph, but the mystery remains as to why somethin
g is being suspended in mid-air (or rather lack of air) on the moon. The lunar m
odule in other photos appears to have no extension from it that matches the phot
o, so the object still remains totally unexplained.
5
5.
Slow-Motion Walking and Hidden Cables
In order to support claims that the moon landings were shot in a studio, conspir
acy theorists had to account for the apparent low-gravity conditions, which must
have been mimicked by NASA. It has been suggested that if you take the moon lan
ding footage and increase the speed of the film x2.5, the astronauts appear to b

e moving in Earths gravity. As for the astronauts impressive

uld be impossible to perform in Earths gravity, hidden cables
suggested as giving the astronauts some extra height. In some
nes of alleged hidden cables can be seen (the photograph above
a wire, though it is extremely vague).

jump height, which wo

and wires have been
screenshots outli
supposedly shows

4
Lack of Stars
One compelling argument for the moon landing hoax is the total lack of stars in
any of the photographic/video evidence. There are no clouds on the moon, so star
s are perpetually visible and significantly brighter than what we see through th
e filter of Earths atmosphere.The argument here is that NASA would have found it
impossible to map out the exact locations of all stars for the hoax without bein
g rumbled, and therefore left them out intentionally falling back on an excuse t
hat the quality of the photographs washes them out (an excuse they did actually
give).Some photographs are high-quality, however, and yet still no stars are sho
wn. Certainly eerie, considering you can take pictures of stars from Earth in mu
ch lower quality and still see them.
Read about the incredible voyages of the worlds first astronauts in the spellbind
ing book A Man on the Moon: The Voyages of the Apollo Astronauts at Amazon.com!
3
3
The C Rock
One of the most famous photos from the moon landings shows a rock in the foregro
und, with what appears to be the letter C engraved into it. The letter appears to
be almost perfectly symmetrical, meaning it is unlikely to be a natural occurren
ce. It has been suggested that the rock is simply a prop, with the C used as a mar
ker by an alleged film crew. A set designer could have turned the rock the wrong
way, accidentally exposing the marking to the camera.NASA has given conflicting
excuses for the letter, on the one hand blaming a photographic developer for ad
ding the letter as a practical joke, while on the other hand saying that it may
simply have been a stray hair which got tangled up somewhere in the developing p
rocess.
2
The Layered Cross-hairs
The cameras used by astronauts during the moon landings had a multitude of cross
-hairs to aid with scaling and direction. These are imprinted over the top of al
l photographs. Some of the images, however, clearly show the cross-hairs behind
objects in the scene, implying that photographs may have been edited or doctored
after being taken. The photograph shown above is not an isolated occurrence. Ma
ny objects are shown to be in front of the cross-hairs, including the American f
lag in one picture and the lunar rover in another.Conspiracy theorists have sugg
ested NASA printed the man-made objects over a legitimate photograph of the moon
to hoax the landings although if they really planned on doing this, then why th
ey used cross-hairs in the first place is a mystery.
1
The Duplicate Backdrop
The two photos from the Apollo 15 mission shown above clearly have identical back
drops, despite being officially listed by NASA as having been taken miles apart.
One photo even shows the lunar module. When all photographs were taken the modu
le had already landed, so how can it possibly be there for one photo and disappe
ar in another? Well, if youre a hardcore conspiracy theorist, it may seem viable
that NASA simply used the same backdrop when filming different scenes of their m
oon landing videos.NASA has suggested that since the moon is much smaller than E
arth, horizons can appear significantly closer to the human eye. Despite this, t
o say that the two hills visible in the photographs are miles apart is incontrov
ertibly false.
Bonus
The Stanley Kubrick Theory
This loose extension of the popular conspiracy theory states that acclaimed film

director Stanley Kubrick was approached by the US government to hoax the first
three moon landings. There are two main branches of this somewhat implausible th
eory: one group of believers maintain that Kubrick was approached after he relea
sed 2001: A Space Odyssey (released in 1968, one year before the first moon land
ing), after NASA came to appreciate the stunning realism of the films outer-space
scenes at that time; another group contends that Kubrick was groomed by the gov
ernment to film the moon landing long before this, and that 2001: A Space Odysse
y was a staged practice run for him.So what evidence might support such claims?
Well: apparently, if you watch The Shining (another Kubrick picture), you can pi
ck up on some alleged messages hidden by Kubrick to subtly inform the world of h
is part in the conspiracy. The most obvious is the childs Apollo 11 shirt worn in
only one scene. Another supposed gem is the line written on Jack Nicholsons char
acters typewriter: All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy, in which the word all
can be interpreted as A11, or Apollo 11.If you arent convinced yet, Kubrick made
the mysterious hotel room in the film number 237. Guess how many miles it is fro
m here to the moon: 238,000. So divide that by a thousand and minus one, and youv
e got one airtight theory right there.

The first moon landing, back on July 20, 1969, was a huge achievement, not just
for the United States, but for all of mankind. When Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldr
in touched down on the lunar surface, it was a triumph for science and human end
eavor, while also representing humanitys first baby steps out into the larger uni
verse. But for some people, some or all of the moon landings are also something
else: A well-constructed fraud.
Below, we lay out some of the conspiracy theories surrounding the moon landings,
but please keep in mind: we are not promoting them as true. Last thing we need
is Buzz Aldrin running wild in the Geek.com offices socking people in the jaw.
The moon landing conspiracy
First off, its important to note that not all moon landing conspiracy theorists a
re created equal. Some readily admit that humans have, since 1969, landed on the
moon, and that only the first landing was faked. Others are all the way at the
other end, contending that human beings have never landed on the moon. And, natu
rally, there are all manner of believers along the spectrum. So as not to go dow
n absolutely every rabbit hole, well be concentrating on the first lunar landing.
With that out of the way, lets talk about the evidence that suggests that Armstro
ng and Aldrin did actually land on the moon. First up, most obviously, theres the
video that shows the actual landing, along with footage of the rocket taking of
f and eyewitnesses that attest to that, Yeah, they blasted off in a rocket. In add
ition to the video footage there are also a slew of photos of the lunar surface,
the astronauts and, most notably, an American flag stuck in the ground. Finally
, the mission also returned with more than 47 pounds of lunar material.
Naturally, however, conspiracy theories have readily taken issue with all of the
se seemingly concrete pieces of evidence, with most of the discussion centering
on the photos released by NASA. The fact that it is a massive, secretive governm
ent agency that released these photos is pretty much all that some people need t
o believe that theres more than meets the eye. But, once combined with the Waterg
ate and Vietnam-era suspicion and paranoia that embraced the United States in th
e 1970s, disbelief in NASAs claims really began to really pick up steam.
The most frequently cited evidence for something fishy going on is a series of c
rosshairs that show up on photos in interesting ways. Normally, you would expect
a crosshair to show up on the top layer of a photo, seeing as its something that i
s placed on an image by the photography process itself. However, some photos cle

arly
hoax
the
able

show that pieces of crosshairs seem to disappear behind objects that, in a

situation, would have been added in. The response to this, however, is that
anomaly only seems to occur on copied and scanned photos, and is not observ
on high quality originals.

A larger complaint is that, despite being on the moon with what looks like a bla
ck night sky in the background not a single star can be seen, and even more stra
ngely, the astronauts claimed that they didnt see any stars at all while on the m
oon! Of course, scientists have explained this one away pretty easily, seeing as
the astronauts landed on the moon during the lunar day, and that the sky appear
s black because of the lack of atmosphere, like the one that makes the Earths sky
appear blue.
We could spend the rest of this article and more discussing all of the specific
anomalies, oddities and seeming inconsistencies that appear in the lunar photos,
as well as the photographic and scientific evidence explaining them, but that l
ine of thought basically comes down to How much do you know and believe about 196
9 photography and science. So lets turn our gaze to another contentious issue: The
flag.
The United States flag planted in the ground on the moon appears to be waving tr
iumphantly in the wind, but theres a problem with that: There is no wind on the m
oon. Of course, NASA explains this pretty simply, saying that they were fully aw
are of the moons lack of wind, so they inserted a rod in the flag to make sure it
didnt just hang down, limp and impotent. Okay, but what about the ripples in the
flag that you can clearly see in the photos? It certainly looks like the flag i
s blowing in the wind. But, again NASA has an explanation, which is basically th
at the flag got all creased in storage, making it appear to be waving in still p
hotos, still photos that clearly show Armstrong moving around, but the flag stay
ing in the same position.
But, theres yet another conspiracy theory counter: In video footage, you can see
the bottom corner of the flag swaying back and forth. Couldnt this only be caused
by wind? Wind that shouldnt exist on the lunar surface? No, NASA says, it could
also be caused by the energy created by planting the flagpole in the ground, ene
rgy that, with no atmosphere or air, took a really, really long time to disperse
.
The conspiracies get deeper, weirder, more paranoid and complex from there as th
ey so often do. They feature claims that the entire thing was filmed on a sounds
tage, pointing to photos of training sessions as evidence of its plausibility. S
ome even claim involvement from Stanley Kubrick, a director who was said to have
left clues to the hoax in his later work. While even other state that the landi
ng itself would have been impossible due to any number of outer space conditions
, such as solar flares or radiation, as well as disbelief that the United States
1969 technology could even accomplish such a thing. That last one was and remain
s particularly popular amongst our former Space Race opponents in Russia.
But, ultimately, like most wide-reaching conspiracy theories, the biggest red fl
ag is: How come there hasnt been a whistleblower yet? To fake something of this m
agnitude, thousands and thousands of people needed to keep quiet for more than 4
0 years now. Nixon couldnt even keep Watergate under wraps! Combine this with the
fact that human endeavors are always arranged by, well, humans, and it would st
and to reason that if the entire thing was faked, even if someone didnt spill the
beans intentionally, they would have screwed up something, somehow, somewhere a
long the way.
Is there other evidence that we didnt cover that leads you to believe that the mo
on landing was faked? Do you buy NASAs explanations or do you think that theres so
mething else going on? Tell us below in the comments!

in a statement released through a spokesperson, the family made it clear the fil
m published on YouTube was a complete hoax, using an actor who was purporting to
be the Clockwork Orange film director.
The statement on behalf of his widow Christiane Kubrick said: "The interview is
a lie, Stanley Kubrick has never been interviewed by T.Patrick Murray, the whole
story is made up, fraudulent & untrue.
The two-hour film, said to be raw footage of an interview with the Clockwork Ora
nge director, in March 1999, went viral just days after NASA announced it had fo
und the crash site on the moon of part of the Apollo 16 Mission rocket.
NASA s announcement it had solved an age-old mystery over what happened to the b
ooster was a blow to conspiracy theorists who have claimed for years that no man
has ever set foot on the moon and every photograph and video from the six missi
ons from 1969 were staged on Earth.
However, the emergence of "Kubrick" s apparent explosive confession could put th
e conspiracists firmly back in the driving seat after he appeared to admit being
behind the historic footage of Neil Armstrong becoming the "first man on the mo
on" in 1969.
The world watched in awe as Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and the rest of the Apollo 11
crew stepped foot on the moon for the first time that year.
For decades since conspiracy theorists have claimed it and all the subsequent mo
on landings were hoaxed and no one has ever been on the moon.
In the video, allegedly shot by documentary maker T. Patrick Murray on March 3 1
999, four days before Kubrick died, but only released this year, a beared man sa
id to be the reclusive The Shining director declares he has a confession to make
.