• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Moon Landing: Hoaxed?



moon landing

I have a question about the theory that the moon landing was a hoax. As I wasn't yet even the proverbial twinkle in my parents' eyes, I don't have any personal memories of the events. But, based on what a big deal the Space Shuttle was when I was little (watched every launch and landing in school for the first few years), I can't help but wonder: didn't just about everyone on the planet with a decent home telescope watch the lander go to the moon and come back? Surely the universities had good enough telescopes in their astronomy departments to watch a good bit of the progress to and from the moon. Or am I missing some major part of the theory?
Quite an interesting case has been made for the notion that
the moon landing was really done in a Hollywood studio - or
at least a studio on Area 51.

It has been questioned whether the thin materials of the space-suits
were sufficient protection against the radioactivity that would have
been encountered.

Chiefly, however, sceptics have concentrated on the photographs
published by NASA. The arguments centre around the lack of any
crater beneath the landing craft, the flags that wave in a non-existant
lunar atmosphere and the way that features are visible in what should
be deep shadow.

Even more extraordinary is the match which has been made between two
shots, supposedly shot on different days, where the terrain is clearly

There is plenty of this material on the web. There has never been any
satisfactory explanation of these anomalies.

Cor! :cool:
Capricorn One

Movie reference, although I believe ideas about a fake moon landing were circulating before it was made.
Are there any telescopes that are powerful enough to see equipment left behind by the missions? :confused:

It might clear things up for the hoax proponents.
Apollo photo's

I have seen some of the photo's that have been deemed "faked". There was an artical on it in the first edition of X-Factor.

Two of the photo's do indeed have exactly the same background. Some rocks have letters on them, some of the grid reference markings (crosses) on the pictures go BEHIND things. And the inventor of the camera doesn't know how they could withstand the radiation they would of come into contact with, and still produce photo's. And why was Neil Armestongs first steps broadcast from pictures on a tv at mission control?!

Personally I believe what we have had people on the moon. Top astronaughts have said they have seen strange things up there (which nasa never told us about). If the guy who made the camera is right then hey would of had to fake it or be looked at like they were fools. But there is too much evidence (by my standards) to believe that we didn't go to the moon.

It sound possible that some people have got something to hide from us.


The issue of the flags which appear to be moving has always intrigued me, because is there actually any live footage of a flag blowing in the breeze?

The reason I ask this is that from examining still photos of the flags (being realistic) it mearly looks like the flags have been unwrapped ( as they would have been folded during transport )
because there is no wind/air etc they appear to be blowing in the wind, but the same effect/or similar would occur if you unfolded a flag ( or any material for that matter ) under water and took a photo of it.
So unless there is any live footage then there isn't anything weird about this at all.

By the way with the ammount of dust on the moons surface it is highly likely that a "crater/burn marks" would have been formed on tuch down but once the dust had settled it would have covered it up again.
The badastromomy link pretty much demolishes all the points put forward by the "whistleblowers" to my personal satisfaction, and the points are all argued from a sound scientific base.
I think we went to the moon. I don't know why we have not built a base there yet as it would make more sense for further missions.
Launching probes from a base on the moon would be so much easier than earth based launches, and the logistics of building a base on the moon do not appear to be that difficult.

Unless someone else is already there of course... :confused:
The site I was actually looking for (and will try again when I have time) was put together by folk who think NASA are hiding lots of stuff re UFOs, etc., but who are finding the waters being muddied by 'moon hoaxers', so they put together absolutely masses of evidence and explanation as to why these folk are wrong (poacher turned gamekeeper?).
DerekH said:
The site I was actually looking for (and will try again when I have time) was put together by folk who think NASA are hiding lots of stuff re UFOs, etc., but who are finding the waters being muddied by 'moon hoaxers', so they put together absolutely masses of evidence and explanation as to why these folk are wrong (poacher turned gamekeeper?).

Interesting, but haven't NASA publicly stated an interest in the Bonsall UFO footage?
The USAF have also released contradictory info regarding their position on UFOs. I think really they are as confused as the rest of us, over the UFO thing, and it would show them to be inadequate if they admitted this.
Probably a hellishly innaccurate statement, but I imagine that there is no crater below the lander as it didn't really use the jet that much on the way in. Vertical landing spacecraft are only just now being developed.

Personally, I reckon we got there. If anything, the photos were retouched to make 'em more dramatic. Who knows? Maybe there is the odd 'set up' one in there. Actually, it would have been terribly embarrassing if they got all that way and the camera had bust.

A big point that everyone forgets; the moon does have an atmosphere. Neglible, but there. Which is often ignored in 'whistle blower' tracts.
DanHigginbottom said:
....Actually, it would have been terribly embarrassing if they got all that way and the camera had bust.

One of the video cameras did.....forget which mission, but the only movie type camera (i.e. not stills, wouldn't have been video tape, not then) got accidentaly pointed at the sun for just a little too long. By the time the astronauts noticed, it was goosed, so the mission continued in sound only! :)
Re: moon

Originally posted by DONKAMELEON
The issue of the flags which appear to be moving has always intrigued me, because is there actually any live footage of a flag blowing in the breeze?

Yes, there is! I've seen it on a documentary quite recently - on Ch4 or Ch5, I can't remember which... :confused:
The moon landing were genuine.
The photos are "reconstructions" in a studio.
No way could anyone in a space suit get piccies that good using a fully-manual HASSLEBLAD.
Yeah, I've read lots of articles on the oddities in the photographs, including the one in FT. That's not really my point, though - as seems to be the general consensus of the forums when it comes to unusual pictures, anything can be faked. What now can be easily accomplished by anyone with a decent home computer could surely have been done 30 years ago with all the resources available to the US Govt. My question is more: wasn't there plenty of corroraborating evidence that SOMETHING went to and from the moon? Surely Mission Control weren't the only ones watching it.

As some have said, believing that the pictures were faked does not preclude believing that the mission was real. I grew up around Washington, so in elementary school we were always taking field trips to the various Smithsonian museums. They had a magnetic moon rock, which was cool to see. Can't remember if touching it was permitted, but it sure did look like a big ole (kinda weird looking) rock with paper clips stuck to it. But hey, how hard is it to fake a rock, I have no idea.

In a lighter vein , one little bit of fat for the conspiritorial fire - I just realized that the Kennedy Space Center is in Florida, the domain of Jeb Bush, and Mission Control is in Texas, home of Dubya, and supposedly Papa Bush was in the CIA back then, and was briefed on the JFK assassination.... Maybe the reason why they can't show the real photos is because they were drilling for oil! ;)
It is interesting to compare two strands here, both of which
involve faking.

If we accept that some of the moon photographs are faked, then
do we throw out the whole Man lands on Moon story as ridiculous?

Catching a medium in some fakery has traditionally (correctly?)
cast doubt on his or her whole act.

In this case the medium was television? :confused:
I think Djinna has a very good point. Unless you're seriously suggesting the biggest and most impressively secretive conspiracy ever, the moon landings seem unliklely to have been faked.

Just for starters, there would have to have been a real rocket launch, witnessed by thousands live and millions on television. You'd pretty much have to equip the craft as if it was really going to the moon, to avoid suspicion. The cost of this would be huge, and on top of this any faker would still have to find money to fake up all the pictures etc. It makes sense in purely financial terms to actually go to the moon once you've launched, and its a damn sight easier than constructing and defending a fraud.
We did go to the moon but it is highly likely that the photo's were faked.

if you have the patience to plough through *all* the sites I've posted, it would appear that a few - very few - of the photographs were faked for 'publishers' reasons.

There appears to be a variety of sensible reasons - emulsion bleed, etc - why some of the pics *appear* to be less than real.


Did we go to the moon? - Yes.
Are the pics real? - mainly, Yes.
Could it be have been faked? - Yes - but the cost of the fake would have been in (at least) the same ballpark as doing it for real!
Was the Apollo team lucky (deaths per million miles) - Very!
Are NASA hiding anything? - Probably - artefacts seen both in space and on the moon that point to 'other intelligence'.

And why hide it/them - 'Conspiracy' ;)
An earlier respondant suggested that the idea of a hoax was more or less coincident with the landings themselves.

<Begin Wild Speculation>
Given that it was a highly political mission (the future prestige of the US was in balance) and that the USSR had been trying and failing to get a mission together, is it not possible that some of the first hoax suggestions were themselves part of a conspiracy (not by the US but by the USSR.)
<End Wild Speculation>

Just a thought....
Looking at the photos, a few points

1) the photos issued were not for scientific use, but for PR. IF you apply the rules of earthly publicity photography, you throw as much film as you can afford at the image you want, pick the best one and airbrush it. Im not sure that this is faking or PR

2) The 'classic' photos look to me to have had areas burned in (flags and such), also other areas could have been 'montaged' in over poorly lit or out of focus areas, using picture segments other shots. See my note to point 1

3) Some of the odd lighting could be achived simply by having a very large bright light source, in hard vacuum shining onto a highly reflective surface, also in a hard vacuum. There being no diffusion or refraction of light puts us al into an environment e are optically unfamiliar with. Anyone know the average albedo of the lunar surface?

4) Some pictures would just have come out. Blind luck. Having once managed to get a perfectly framed 300mm zoom shot hanging out from a window, with enough light and no shake, of firefighters at work late on an October afternoon, I know how hope can overcome physics.

Usual disclaimers apply... just something to think on...

A lot of people seem to take up the idea of the moon landing hoax wrongly. A lot of people I've spoken to on other forums on the internet have said they believed from what they heard that the entire moon landing was faked and that we never went to the moon. I don't subscribe to this theory because as DerekH said it would be as expensive to actually land a spaceship on the moon as it would to fake the whole thing. Instead however I believe that in true X-files style that the moon landing photos were indeed faked by the US government because the crew of Apollo 11 found something that NASA and the US government didn't want people to see.

The evidence presented in the photos such as objects in the photo obscuring the crosshairs of the camera and flags waving on the moon bears out this point of view.

There is however another point of view but one which is even more far-fetched. The photos could in fact be one of Barnum's Feejee Mermaid type exhibits. I mean that the photos taken are in fact real but that the US government altered them so that on close inspection they appear to be fake. The mistakes in the photos are so glaringly obvious that even a cursory inspection can reveal some anomalies.

I've always seen photos of supposed structures on Mars - although they are mostly of poor quality.............
..............however what evidence is there for "signs of non human activity on the moon" ( I will also post this as a thread on it's own)???????????????????????????:)
I never read the book, but the James Bond film 'Diamonds are Forever' has a sequence in an underground facility just outside Las Vegas (Sounds familiar.....) where Bond was chased across a lunar landscape.

Was Ian Fleming trying to tell us something?
Moon landings, real or fake ?

I have begun to question moon landings.
I would like to hear other peoples veiws and comments, and share reaserch.
This will help me make up my own conclusion about the Moon landings.
Any info. or comments will be gladly accepted ! :D :) :)
Er, Laura

We've already covered that one under the 'Conspiracy' heading.

You can rest easy - take it from me, man landed on the moon in 1969. There is no real evidence to the contrary and besides, Buzz told me and I believe him!


The Boggart
The general consensus in my house is that yes men did land on the moon, no doubt about that but the photos we see were possibly rigged up on earth. After all, its the single greatest achievement in mans history you want to have pictures to match. This could explain all the discrepences in the photos.......just a thought........
Blueswidow said:
the photos we see were possibly rigged up on earth. After all, its the single greatest achievement in mans history you want to have pictures to match. This could explain all the discrepences in the photos...

Don't be misled by the hype. I am a pro photographer and take it from me, all that happened on earth was standard post production work on the photographs (i.e cropping and push/pull processing and maybe a little airbrushing to clean up the images)

If they were going to re-stage the moon landing on earth and then photograph it, then they missed the big shot. They surely would have included one of Neil Armstrong standing with one hand on the stars & stripes and the other resting on his heart.

The first man on the moon is not on any of the still photos because he was carrying the camera! (As the photographer in my family, I never appear in our holiday snaps - because I took them. But I was there... honest!)

Most of the people doubting the moon landing weren't even born when they took place and are looking at this piece of history out of context.

Go to the NASA web site and look up the First Moon Landing. Look at the photos and read what both Buzz and Neil had to say. Two genuine guys talking about the greatest human achievement.

The first man on Mars will not get the same TV coverage (but he will get sponsership from Nike and the like)


The Boggart
The Boggart and Blueswidow,
Thanks for your veiws, I will take them into account when making my own !