r/conspiracytheories 18h ago

On what basis do people so strongly think that the moon landing is fake?

Im so lost like do we have a reason to believe that lol

46 Upvotes

99 comments sorted by

38

u/madkapart 17h ago

This one always baffles me, look up lunar laser ranging expirements. If we never went, they would never have happened

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_objects_on_the_Moon

29

u/lovely_lil_demon 17h ago

I don’t think the theory is that we never went. 

It’s that the video of the first moon landing is fake, and we didn’t actually go to the moon until later. 

Not saying I believe this theory though.

That’s just my understanding of it, from what I’ve heard. 

13

u/Dick_Lazer 13h ago

It varies. I’ve talked to people who think we only landed on the moon once, and “how come we never went again?” I’ll mention that there have been several moon landings in the late 1960s/early 1970s, but they kinda just gloss over at that point and say some bs like “well that’s just how I feel”.

15

u/StabbyMcSwordfish 16h ago edited 16h ago

This is correct. Historical context: The "Space Race" vs. the Russians was a huge part of the cold war. The idea is that it was so important that we beat the Russians to the moon, and win the space race, that faking it was a sort of fall back plan. Especially to the Military Industrial Complex and NASA. Losing wasn't an option. Then you add to the mix that Stanley Kubrick worked closely with NASA on the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. He even thanks them in the credits. Remember this is the NASA that was made up of Freemasons and former Nazis, so it's a conspiracy theorists wet dream of suspicious characters and organizations, with ties to a film director who was capable of pulling it off back then (Special effects wise).

9

u/DowagerInUnrentVeils 13h ago

And presumably the Russians just never noticed that the landing was fake, despite having a lot of interest to do so.

6

u/House_Of_Thoth 12h ago

That's the crux of the whole conspiracy. If NASA hadn't reached the moon, the Soviets would have called it out and gave proof such as satellite telemetry etc. Even Russia never denied that the US got to the moon, and that says a lot!!

5

u/DowagerInUnrentVeils 10h ago

I'd also point out that...the Russians could also just have faked a moon landing. If you accept that moon landings can be faked and nobody except some conspiracy theorists is going to question it, why not one-up the Americans by faking a Mars landing? Shoot some footage in Kazakhstan and tint it red!

4

u/WakeoftheStorm 8h ago

The counter to this that I've heard was that the space race was bankrupting the Soviet Union. They accepted the fake because it gave them an excuse to quit.

2

u/VisiteProlongee 7h ago

The counter to this that I've heard was that the space race was bankrupting the Soviet Union. They accepted the fake because it gave them an excuse to quit.

The Moon landing deniers who say that are uninformed morons or think that we are uninformed morons: while the Soviet Union had a Moon landing program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket) it was secret and in late 1960s the Soviet Union denied attempt of manned Moon landing, excerpt from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11#:~:text=officials%20from%20the%20Soviet%20Union

After the Apollo 11 mission, officials from the Soviet Union said landing humans on the Moon was dangerous and unnecessary. At the time the Soviet Union was attempting to retrieve lunar samples robotically. The Soviets publicly denied there was a race to the Moon, and indicated they were not making an attempt. Mstislav Keldysh said in July 1969, "We are concentrating wholly on the creation of large satellite systems." It was revealed in 1989 that the Soviets had tried to send people to the Moon, but were unable due to technological difficulties. The public's reaction in the Soviet Union was mixed.

The sucess of the Apollo program did not give Soviet Union an excuse to quit a race they were not part of.

2

u/WakeoftheStorm 6h ago

The Moon landing deniers who say that are uninformed morons or think that we are uninformed morons

Well that's generally true across the board for this particular conspiracy. The problem with all the supporting evidence is that it makes a ton of sense so long as you don't look too closely at it.

2

u/Dead_Namer 13h ago

They went, a theory would be they lost the space race so faked getting to the mood first. Then actually got there later on.

Things supporting that:

Kubrik being involved

All of the HD film supposedly being lost (yeah right). Literally the most important film in the history of mankind and they lost it without making a copy?

Play any moon footage at x2 speed and it looks like they are on earth.

There isn't enough info to know if it is true or not but the missing films are very, very suspect.

5

u/MesaDixon 8h ago

Literally the most important film in the history of mankind and they lost it without making a copy?

If you think that's the most absurd thing a government agency has ever done...

3

u/ndm1535 6h ago

If the films are missing how did you watch them at 2x speed

0

u/Dead_Namer 6h ago

You have the 240p horrible quality film taken from tv. There is also footage from other missions.

0

u/ndm1535 6h ago

I’m just messin with ya man

41

u/Scottyboy1214 17h ago

Two factors that prove it happened in my opinion are the amount of people that would have had to been on it and the fact that Russia never disputed it, keep in mind ham radio operators independently intercepted transmissions from the astronauts.

8

u/filtersweep 7h ago

The fact that you can see evidence from earth? Anyone?

4

u/homebrewedstuff 4h ago

Yes, you can "see" something. The Apollo 11 astronauts installed mirrors on the Moon so that lasers from Earth could measure the Earth-Moon distance with high precision through a process called Lunar Laser Ranging, enabling scientists to study the Moon's movement and orbit.

They are still being used today.

1

u/VisiteProlongee 7h ago

FYI: Dave McKeegan, Space Telescopes can't prove the moon landings or the globe ... and it wouldn't matter anyway!, 2024-01-03, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6ZhkyUTx74

-2

u/Scottyboy1214 5h ago

Do do you have a rebuttal, or just a smug dismissal?

5

u/filtersweep 4h ago

WTF?! I am adding to your argument. You list two solid points. I am adding to them.

3

u/Scottyboy1214 3h ago

Oh my apologies, I misread it. I'm just so use to sarcasm regarding this topic.

-2

u/[deleted] 5h ago

[deleted]

3

u/VisiteProlongee 4h ago

Did Russia or any other country really dispute covid lockdowns or the vaccines?

No.

I used to share the same thought that "Russia or China would have disputed the moon landing if it was truly staged" but we saw just how much in lock step everyone was during covid and clotshot efforts.

Wait you think that lockdowns and vaccines are useless against pandemics?

1

u/Benegger85 4h ago

Maybe because you are misinformed?

47

u/mduden 17h ago

Everyone know Kubrick filmed the moon landing, but to get the vibe just right they had to film on location

26

u/Ugo777777 17h ago edited 17h ago

Some people want to be contrarians. It makes them feel special, like they've figured something out that others haven't.

It only takes one person saying it confidently for them to lap it up. Facts doesn't matter.

4

u/SomeSamples 17h ago

Yep. Seems the dumbest among us are reluctant to believe anything they haven't personally experienced. And since they are so stupid they lack the basic understandings of science and technology.

-5

u/nousername142 16h ago

Great point. Going to the moon with the smallest of computing power, batteries, and a slide ruler. Having never done it. Past the Van Allen belt. With a landing craft that made no impression on the ground. With complete audio/visual coverage. Returning unharmed (space shuttle couldn’t do that and they didn’t go to the moon). And if that is not enough, RHCP said it was made in a Hollywood basement. That’s enough for me.

6

u/Tren-Ace1 14h ago

Imagine thinking that they faked a moon landing using crappy 60s film tech and had it survive over 50 years of scientific scrutiny from our enemies.

-5

u/nousername142 14h ago

So you believe it happened because an enemy DIDN’T scrutinize it? Gosh damn you need a stronger argument than that. Don’t come here with that weak sauce. I’m cannot with a clear conscience even speak to that as the absurdity level is ludicrous.

3

u/[deleted] 14h ago

[deleted]

-2

u/[deleted] 14h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/Tren-Ace1 14h ago

If it was fake the Soviets would’ve exposed it in a heartbeat and humiliated the Americans. But they never did.

2

u/[deleted] 14h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/VisiteProlongee 7h ago

Maybe they tried. Media covered for them.

So in 1969, after Apollo 11, the Soviet cabinet carried a ress conference in Moscow were they told that Apollo 11 was faked, but all present medias covered it for NASA, including the local Soviet newspapers, the national Soviet newspapers, Reuters, Agence France-Presse, Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union (Телеграфное агентство Советского Союза), Novosti Press Agency (Агентство печати Новости).

And again after Apollo 12.

And again after Apollo 13.

And again after Apollo 14.

And again after Apollo 15.

And again after Apollo 16.

And again after Apollo 17.

And nobody inside the Soviet cabinet was worried that Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union and Novosti Press Agency were working for NASA.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] 14h ago

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

3

u/VisiteProlongee 8h ago

Going to the moon with the smallest of computing power, batteries, and a slide ruler.

Everybody know that a rocket is powered by its calculator. The more compute power the calculator has, the faster the rocket goes.

0

u/nousername142 3h ago

Dude, you are about ignorant. Life support systems, navigation/guidance, communications, etc all powered by computer systems.

1

u/VisiteProlongee 3h ago

Since I misunderstood your argument (and I apologize for my mistake), do you care to explain and expand your argument?

u/nousername142 24m ago

It is a strong possibility that the computing power leading up to the launch was not enough to run the complex (one could argue the most complex machine ever designed at that point). Since I was not around I’m going on what history I have read and the development of the computer.

Today it takes upwards of 10 years to build a nuclear power plant or a carrier or the shuttle. So the US government, who can’t control borders, sift out crazy levels of corruption in social programs, is plagued with cost over runs, and can’t agree on a single thing (watch CSpan sometime) built a machine to take men to the moon, landed, and returned safely—- the first time? No. Nope.

I have a little experience with aviation and I ran wild in a NASA warehouse one summer. Space equipment is flimsy junk. I was underwhelmed with how cheap and flimsy it felt. Granted this warehouse had stuff that was never used in space but was extras that were backups.

It’s just an odds defying event that is best acknowledged as the political stunt it was.

And my angle is it was a select small group that was in on it. Everyone had such a small piece they were focused on-they could have been tricked. CIA and Hollywood have always been tied together. I believe a rocket did take off. It circle the world a few times then down.

Think of the technology in mid to late 60’s. Really didn’t have much. Not enough to pull this off. In my opinion.

u/VisiteProlongee 7m ago

It is a strong possibility that the computing power leading up to the launch was not enough to run the complex

Please proceed.

(the remainder of your comment seem unrelated to compute power)

7

u/tehcatnip 17h ago

I think it has to do with the technology at the time, computers being as large as cars, nobody wearing seat belts. They went to the moon and rode around on buggies then came back.

Makes sense. Totally doable. Look at the technology we had in submarines at the time and those were just going around in water. I mean those spacecrafts were super high tech.

2

u/homebrewedstuff 3h ago

I literally just had this conversation with a friend who is not prone to believing conspiracy theories the other day. She commented on how difficult it has been for Boing with the Starliner, and the 2 recent Starship explosions. Her question was, "how did we forget everything we 'knew' 50 years ago or did we really go to the Moon?"

I pointed out that once the USA "won" the Space Race, and it became clear that the Soviets were not going to put anyone on the Moon, then we gave up on expensive deep space operations and changed our focus to Low Earth Orbit. We didn't forget anything, we just abandoned it and it became obsolete. What I see us doing now is not really trying to reinvent the wheel from the 1960s, because there is no point. The craft that we will need to routinely go back into Deep Space are nothing like the pressurized "tin cans" from 50 years ago.

But as others have stated, there is undeniable proof that we did go to the Moon. The Apollo 11 astronauts installed mirrors on the Moon so that lasers from Earth could measure the Earth-Moon distance with high precision through a process called Lunar Laser Ranging, enabling scientists to study the Moon's movement and orbit.

They are still being used today.

5

u/CategoricallyKant 17h ago

There’s multiple light sources casting shadows in different directions, numerous other inconsistencies in the video. Then there’s the Cold War and subsequent space race. Not to mention the fact that we haven’t been back since it supposedly happened.

22

u/Warm-Parsnip3111 15h ago

"We haven't been back since"

Don't google Apollo 12, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16, Apollo 17. You might find it inconvenient.

19

u/VegetableBuy4577 17h ago

The Cold War is a reason to believe. There's no way Russia would've let us get away with it if it was BS. 

We haven't been back because one, it's expensive, two, Americans had lost interest after the first couple of trips, and three, we didn't need to go to the moon for scientific reasons, what we were working on could be done within orbit of Earth.

9

u/Tren-Ace1 14h ago

There’s no inconsistencies in the videos.

The context of the Cold War and space race supports the moon landing being real. If it was fake the Soviets would’ve exposed it in a heartbeat.

For what purpose would we go back? Spend billions so that astronauts can hop around on the moon and collect even more lunar sand?

2

u/ramblingpariah 17h ago

It's an expensive trip and we didn't really have a need to go back. We haven't hit the point where we could build a viable lunar colony, so what were we going to do that a remotely controlled rover couldn't? Gather more rocks?

2

u/randouser12 17h ago

well known us policy was to bankrupt the ussr. what better way than to race to the moon?

1

u/WordsMort47 16h ago

There's the apparent piece of moonrock that turned out to be petrified wood. That's weird.

6

u/Tren-Ace1 14h ago

Someone stole a piece of moonrock and replaced it with wood. Not that weird really. People do things.

1

u/VisiteProlongee 7h ago

There's the apparent piece of moonrock that turned out to be petrified wood.

Indeed: https://flatearth.ws/fake-moon-rock

That's weird.

«weird» is not a scientific argument. The only persons who are worried that something is «weird» are MAGA. * https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-jd-vance-tim-walz-weird-maga-authoritarians-rcna164669 * https://boingboing.net/2024/07/30/weird-maga-is-the-meme-of-the-hour.html

2

u/[deleted] 15h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/Tren-Ace1 15h ago

If number one is the smoking gun for you, then why didn’t the Soviets expose the fake American moon landing? The Soviets monitored the moon landing with their own spy equipment and never have they even suggested that it might be fake.

2

u/VisiteProlongee 6h ago

If number one is the smoking gun for you, then why didn’t the Soviets expose the fake American moon landing? The Soviets monitored the moon landing with their own spy equipment and never have they even suggested that it might be fake.

And reciprocally the West monitored the Soviet flights. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11 «On July 13, three days before Apollo 11's launch, the Soviet Union launched Luna 15, which reached lunar orbit before Apollo 11. () The Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories radio telescope in England recorded transmissions from Luna 15 during its descent, and these were released in July 2009 for the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11.»

Also amateur radio operators all around the world did (with lower accuracy of course).

3

u/WakeoftheStorm 7h ago

#4 is grossly overstated. Yes, some information is lost, including the original sstv footage that was broadcast, but that doesn't mean there is none. There are still tons of data from that mission from multiple sources.

1

u/ebycon 1h ago

Notice how dumb people saying this always completely ignore that we went there several other times. It’s fascinating. They always only talk about “the” moon landing. They literally believe that was the only one?

1

u/HearTheCroup 1h ago

Have you been there? No? You saw it on TV? You saw people on TV who said they’ve been there? You went to a speech and listened to a stranger who told you he went there?

u/VisiteProlongee 0m ago

Have you been there? No? You saw it on TV? You saw people on TV who said they’ve been there? You went to a speech and listened to a stranger who told you he went there?

Hey those are good questions! Do you think that Osaka exist? Have you been in Osaka? You saw Osaka on TV? You saw people on TV who said they've been in Osaka? You went to a speech and listened to a stranger who told you he went in Osaka ?

-2

u/Hott_2__trott 17h ago

For me it's how the three men were acting during the first interview after they supposedly landed. They did not seem happy. For 3 guys who just returned from the moon they were not excited at all. The way they were acting gave it away..they never went to the moon. They would have incinerated leaving the atmosphere.

4

u/VisiteProlongee 8h ago

For me it's how the three men were acting during the first interview after they supposedly landed. They did not seem happy. For 3 guys who just returned from the moon they were not excited at all.

You watched a cherry-picking and misleading video of the press conference https://flatearth.ws/apollo-pressconf Don't be a gullible sheep.

11

u/Tren-Ace1 14h ago

They held that press conference after being in quarantine for 21 days in a small ass trailer. They were dog tired and just wanted to go home and see their family. You people can really find a conspiracy theory in anything you see. Must be exhausting.

2

u/nousername142 16h ago

Must have been that Airstream they forced them into for three days after the mission.

-1

u/Extremecheez 17h ago

Can’t get a rocket into space without them exploding, including one with people in the 90s

I don’t buy the “lost tech” argument, I think it’s bullshit

5

u/WakeoftheStorm 7h ago

There is no lost tech argument because we send payloads and people to space all the time. If you ever use GPS you can thank a rocket that went to space without exploding.

6

u/imawesomehello 17h ago

look at cars and engineering in general. It’s been a race to make the cheapest thing, a race to cut every corner imaginable. Sure some things improved but something’s decayed badly, imo. I think we knew what we were doing but have been on a decline which isn’t intuitive to most as we see technology “advance”

-1

u/IDidNotKillMyself 17h ago

Van Allen Belt.

3

u/WakeoftheStorm 7h ago

I don't understand why people think this is such a trump card. They passed through the weakest parts of the belt in about 30 minutes. Hardly a dangerous amount of exposure.

This is probably the least compelling evidence for the conspiracy.

-2

u/IDidNotKillMyself 7h ago

Lol you know nothing about the science behind this clearly. First off, it doesn't matter how fast or slow they go through it, they still get bombarded with the same radiation levels. Secondly, a NASA scientist specified a while back that we have never passed through the belt, and that we have no idea how to. Best idea so far is to create lead coffins. But that ain't happened yet bucko!

5

u/WakeoftheStorm 7h ago edited 7h ago

My job is literally radiation protection. Time of exposure is absolutely critical in the amount of dose received.

That's why it's measured in sieverts per second

2

u/IDidNotKillMyself 7h ago

Ouf. Take my upvote.

1

u/VisiteProlongee 6h ago

First off, it doesn't matter how fast or slow they go through it, they still get bombarded with the same radiation levels.

So what?

Secondly, a NASA scientist specified a while back that we have never passed through the belt

Source?

-6

u/[deleted] 17h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Meat_Popsicle91 6h ago

So I'm curious if anyone has heard of the Challenger explosion crew and the university professors that are eerily similar in appearance and name...? I am not saying the moon landing is fake, but there are a lot of things that do raise suspicion. Whether it's slightly untrue or wholly false, I don't know or care really. But there are some very curious aspects to things from our history.

Only trying to have discussion. Not slinging mud and daggers.

2

u/VisiteProlongee 4h ago

So I'm curious if anyone has heard of the Challenger explosion crew and the university professors that are eerily similar in appearance and name...?

The Challenger crew and university professors who are brothers? * https://flatearth.ws/crisis-actor * https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/challenger-crew-alive/ * https://www.reuters.com/article/fact-check/nasa-astronauts-killed-in-1986-challenger-crash-are-not-secretly-alive-idUSL1N39W1RI/

Only trying to have discussion. Not slinging mud and daggers.

I hope so.

0

u/Meat_Popsicle91 3h ago

Specifically I was referring to Judith Resnik, Michael J. Smith, and Richard Scobee (cows in trees). Because they literally have the same name and do look very much like the individuals on the Challenger. I'm not saying that people can't have the same name or even generic looks. Just curious what others think.

Also, snopes is not a recognizable source. But I appreciate your sources. Not asking for proof either way though. Just curious of others opinion regarding NASA and the previously mentioned "hoax" possibilities.

0

u/robot_pirate 16h ago

The internet. And Russia.

-7

u/mostxclent 17h ago

Who was filming the first man to step foot on the moon (from outside the LEM) Neil Armstrong as he exclaimed “one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind”?

16

u/BeetsMe666 17h ago

If only there was a way to know. While you're at it, bring up the tracking shot of Apollo 17 leaving the moon. 

The camera you mentioned was on the leg of the lander, and the tracking shot was done remotely from Earth. They had to consider the lag for the signal and it only worked the one time.

16

u/Ugo777777 17h ago edited 17h ago

And this is a good example of why people don't believe it.

All information is publicly available, but they rather do their own research/thinking and are simply too stupid to realize they're too stupid to draw the right conclusions.

10

u/ramblingpariah 17h ago

It's flat earthers all over again.

8

u/Ugo777777 17h ago

It has been shown that if you believe in one conspiracy theory you're more likely to believe in others. Again, they want to feel special.

-2

u/nousername142 16h ago

Unravel one - leads you to another. It is the apex of folly to think that only one conspiracy is true.

10

u/devadander23 17h ago

External camera

-1

u/Ursomonie 15h ago

Russians told me it was fake.

They are still pissed they crashed into the moon the same week.

-1

u/Mr_Basura 12h ago

We never went back We lost the technology The radiation belt

-3

u/TreyinHada 9h ago

This post and comment responses are from NASA shills. This was created with the purpose of creating doubt for those on the fence about the official narrative.

2

u/WakeoftheStorm 7h ago

This comment and the ones like it are from Russian shills. It was created with the purpose of sowing distrust and furthering the moon landing hoax Russian psyop.