Apollo 11 Conspiracy Theories: Did America Actually Land on the Moon?

Apollo 11

This week marks the 45th anniversary for Apollo’s epic first lunar landing, which occurred on July 20, 1969 and included astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins. The backup crew consisted of James A. Lovell, William A. Anders and Fred W. Haise. However, there are many people who believe that Apollo 11 was indeed a conspiracy theory, and that the moon landing was faked by the United States government in order to assert victory in space over Russia. So the real question is did America actually land on the moon?

Conspiracy Theory #1 – The Fluttering Flag

Apollo 11Conspiracy theorists declared that when America first landed on the moon and it was debuted on live television, spectators could see the American flag waving as Armstrong and Aldrin positioned it into the ground. This suggested that there was a breeze causing it to do so. Since there is no air on the moon’s atmosphere, no wind could cause the flag to ripple.

NASA claimed that the flag was held up by a thin horizontal bar and that the flag moved because it was unfurled and also when the astronauts fixed it into position on the moon’s surface.

Conspiracy Theory #2 – Several Light Sources

The Sun is the only light source on the moon, suggesting that all shadows are parallel to each other. Ironically, both photographs and videos demonstrate that shadows are falling in different directions. This suggests to conspiracy theorists that multiple light sources were present and that the photos of the moon landing were captured on a movie set. Again, NASA supposedly debunked the rumor, stating that the odd shadows were caused by the uneven landscape from the surface of the moon.

Conspiracy Theory #3 – The Van Allen Radiation Belt

Apollo 11Astronauts had to navigate through the Van Allen radiation belt in order to reach the moon. Earth’s magnetic field holds the belt in place, remaining in the same location over an infinite period of time. The Apollo 11 mission was the first time humans were transported through the belt. Conspiracy theorists attest that the radiation levels would definitely have cooked the astronauts on their route to the moon, despite the large amount of aluminum that coated both the interior and exterior of the ship.

This argument was countered by NASA, emphasizing the short period of time it took the astronauts to pass through the belt and reinforcing that they only received very small doses of radiation.

Although NASA stated that the radiation to the astronauts was minimal, Apollo 11 conspiracy theorists continue to believe that it was physically impossible for human tissue to survive that kind of impact through the Van Allen belt.

Conspiracy Theory #4 – Absence of Stars

Apollo 11A compelling argument from conspiracy theorists saying that the moon landing was a hoax is that there were no stars in any of the photos or videos from the Apollo 11 expedition. Because no clouds exist on the moon, stars are much brighter then what is visible through the Earth’s atmosphere.

According to NASA, the quality of the pictures washed out the stars so they left them out of the photos. In addition, NASA stated that the Apollo 11 landing took place during a lunar morning, with the Sun shining brightly and blocking out any potentially visible stars for the pictures.

Conspiracy Theory #5 – Lack of an Impact Crater

Those who believe the moon landing was a ruse also point out that there should have been an impact crater beneath the lunar module to mark where it landed. When looking at video footage or photographs of the landings, there is no crater visible and no markings in the dust. NASA maintains that the surface of the moon is solid rock, so a crater would not be formed upon the shuttle’s destination on the moon.

Conspiracy Theory #6 – Stanley Kubrick Theory

There are also those who believe that film director Stanley Kubrick was contacted by the United States government to fabricate the first three moon landings. Allegedly, Kubrick was approached after the release of 2001: A Space Odyssey, which was released in 1968, a year before the first moon landing because NASA noticed the amazing realism of the movie’s outer space scenes at that time. Other conspiracy theorists believe that the director was coerced by the feds before the film was released and that 2001: A Space Odyssey was a “staged” practice run.

NASA has documented hundreds of photos from Apollo 11’s mission plus numerous moon rocks that geologists confirm could only have been taken from the moon itself. It seems that the evidence outweighs the so-called holes in the story that changed American history. Apollo 11’s mission has acquired numerous conspiracy theories over the years. So did America actually land on the moon? Only the astronauts know the real answer.

Opinion By Amy Nelson

The Telegraph

13 Responses to "Apollo 11 Conspiracy Theories: Did America Actually Land on the Moon?"

  1. Siegfried Marquardt   May 5, 2017 at 11:44 am

    The Americans themselves have debunked – Apollo 11 was the biggest hoax of all time !

    Everyone has probably wondered already once , like Neil Armstrong was filmed when getting out of the lunar module , where he was the first man on the moon . Now the puzzle solution : On 11.27.2015 the TV channel ARTE aired under the heading ‘ Missing film treasures ” images and movies to Apollo 11 and in particular to the moon landing . When Neil Armstrong stepped out of the lunar module , a camera above ( !!! ) of Luke about Neil Amstrong has been activated with the opening of the hatch . Now the legitimate question , as Neil Amstrong was then laterally filmed from below ? The Americans have shot himself in the foot with this movie scenes themselves ! Apollo 11 was by evidence of Amis (evidence of lost film Apollo 11 ) the purest hoax !!!!!!!!!

    Siegfried Marquardt , King Wusterhausen 2017

  2. Siegfried Marquardt   March 24, 2017 at 1:47 pm

    Mathematics and Physics refutation of Apollo 11 and N

    1. After Sternfeld (1959) only two 14-day constellations and a 60-day scenario should exist to reach the moon with an artificial spacecraft from Earth and land on the earth. Regardless of the theoretical facts and details of Sternfeld, required the research satellite SMART I, which was launched end of September 2003, 49 days until the moon level and five months until the probe einmündete in lunar orbit. And successfully running in the December 2013 lunar expedition of Chinese probe Chang`e-3 proved impressively that it takes at least 14 days to cope with the distance from the Earth to the Moon. This Apollo 11 would already impressively refuted empirically because a putative 8-day regime that is allegedly practiced with Apollo 11 and drilled, astrophysical theoretically and empirically does not exist!

    2. The cosmic radiation, which would have affected the astronauts within eight days would have been absolutely hopeless! After all, you would have incorporated a lethal dose of at least 11 Sv to 26 Sv depending on the chosen model calculation. if you are in this context to the high-energy particle density in the cosmos and to the particle stream the sun with the solar constant of 8.5 * 1015 MeV / m * s thinking. After meeting Lindner (1973) per second per square meter in 1300 protons from the cosmos to the Earth’s atmosphere. Extrapolating this energy to the eight days-long “lunar mission” high, would result in the massive dose of more than 1000 Sv! The astronauts had the flight to the moon and earth not survive back in any case, since the absolute lethal dose is 10 Sv. This Apollo 11 and N would be absolutely refuted!

    3. It was missing a total of 90 tons of rocket fuel to get from Earth to the moon and from there back to Earth by NASA on the given loop-shaped trajectory. Furthermore, the amount of fuel and the former fuel parameters would have a moon charge and even boot from the moon under the former conditions impossible. Alone for the transition from the elliptical trajectory close to the Moon would be for the braking of the CSM + LM with a total of 45.3 t mass of the 2.3 km / s to 1.5 km / s for the lunar orbit [1- (1: 2,72 high (0, 8: 2,6) ] *45,3 t = 45.3* (1 -0,74) * 45.3 t = 0.26 *45,3 ≈ 12 tonnes of fuel have been necessary! The remaining three tons a moon landing would not have been possible and start from as little moon! On the Moon, LM did not have 14 t, but 15-8 = 7 t!

    4. Reconstruction of the command module at a predetermined height by NASA of 3.23 m and a diameter of 3.9 m, resulting in the end can only result a total volume of about 12.9 m³, showed that after deduction of the declared internal volume of 6.23 m³ volume of the outer cell of the command module only about 6.7 m³ could include. With a mass of 5.9 t the density of the command module would thus have to be only about 0.9. This would “afford” not even paper or cardboard! Another mathematical optimization was then that the outer cell only from a 2.5 cm thick aluminum layer could exist – without the heat shield. If one half of the total mass of 5.9 tonnes for a heat shield as a basis, the heat shield could consist of only 2 mm thick steel. A commentary is superfluous almost: The command module would be in the earth’s atmosphere with a theoretically calculated braking temperature of at least 45,000 K like a shooting star burns!

    5. Even in a preliminary phase in the reconstruction of the Lunar Module according to NASA parameters after deduction of the alleged approx MTr = 10.8 t invoiced fuel mass of the starting compound with Mo = 15 t the Lunar Module merely remain only 4.2 t to empty weight, already with the material reconstruction of the cabin (about 1.1 tons), parts of the outer cell (1.3 t), and the declared weight (1.7 t), without taking into account the weight the astronauts with their space suits (400 kg), the mass of the tank and the two main engines of the Lunar Module (…) of 600 kg exceeded. Total lacked exceeding 3 tonnes construction mass, could be as originally stated by NASA and how 11 is impressive and convincing with the total reconstruction of the Luna module of Apollo.

    6. Furthermore, the pendulum behavior of the flag on the moon is extremely treacherous! For the pendulum period T, which is physically connected to the pendulum length l (l = 0.7 m) and the gravitational acceleration g (g = 9.81) to

    T = 2 * π * √ l: g (1)

    calculated, would have on the Moon

    T = 6.28 * √ 0.7 m 1.6 m / s ≈ 4.2 s (2)

    respectively. In the TV film documentaries period lasts but close to 2 s, as indicated on the earth. The exact calculation of the period for the earth yields accurate

    T = 6.28 * √ 0.7 m / 9.81 ≈ 1.7 s. (3)

    This time difference of 2.5 s is serious! In addition, a slightly damped periodic oscillation would arise on the moon, because there is no atmosphere is present on the moon. The increasing vibration is true but almost aperiodic. Summary: The shooting took place so unique on earth!

    7. A mechanical instability of the lunar module would have made an intact moon landing impossible! Every person on the planet has probably already seen a failed rocket launch when the rocket has already picked up a few meters from the launch pad and then fail the engines and do not produce more power. As a result, the rocket moves the physical laws of gravity accordingly again towards the launch platform and then tilts due to the mechanical instability simply because the center of gravity has changed dramatically. This would also be the fate of the lunar module of Apollo 11 was because shortly before landing an absolute instability of the ferry would have been! Because: Full expected gross, the rising level would have had to ground just before landing on the moon for about 5 t and the descending stage would have received under the fuel consumption of only 8 t only about 2 tons of empty weight had. As the focus of the Lunar Module must have lain on the moon exactly at 2.10 m before landing the ferry across the nozzle, the torques would like 2.5: 1 to 3: 1 behaved. For an absolutely unstable mechanical system would be active! Even the smallest vibration, such as vibrations through the engine or pressure fluctuations in the effluent gases in the nozzle of the engine have the lunar position ferry can easily tip over! A moon landing would indeed be “successful”, but a return from the moon would have been so impossible. However, since 11 have fortunately survived the imaginary adventures all actors of Apollo, it can be concluded razor sharp, no moon landing took place.
    The solution of the physical problem is that the focus of a lander simply must be at the level of the nozzle of the engine, such as the Chinese realize this in December 2013, and practiced.

    P. S. By the way, the author had the skeptical thoughts on the instability of the lunar module landing on the moon more than 45 years ago spontaneously for about 1 s had entertained!

    Siegfried Marquardt, Kingswells

  3. Siegfried Marquardt   March 24, 2017 at 1:43 pm

    On 06.02.2017 the “great success story” of Apollo 11 with the alleged moon landing in summer 1969 was broadcast in N 24 in the evening hours. At the beginning of the documentary it was shown how, under experimental field conditions, a vehicle of the lunar lander on the earth crashed out of relatively low altitude and the pilot could save himself with need and trouble. How could a lunar ocean ferry boat be able to land vertically on the moon in the summer of 1969? This problem was solved technically / technologically only in December 2015. Furthermore the computing power for the control of the Commandmodul and the Moonmodul by the control center in Houston should have been made, since the Computer had a too low performance (like a today’s pocket calculator). How should this have worked? In the case of a necessary control correction for the commandmodul and the moon landing, a time of approximately 2.7 s (t = s: c = 2 * 400,000 km: 300,000 km / s ≈2.7 s) until the corrective signal had arrived at the commandmodul or at the lunar landing stage. During this time, the moonmodul module would have changed its position when landing on the moon at an orbit speed of 1.6 km / s over 4 km and a positional correction would have simply been lost!
    Siegfried Marquardt King Wusterhausen

  4. ap   October 13, 2016 at 8:42 am

    Oh dear Amy! Are you ‘blonde’ as well? So many flaws in that moon ‘expose’! Love the bit about the lack of impact crater. Uhhh, for there to be an impact crater, wouldn’t they have to had crashed onto the moon?
    And, the lack of stars. You are probably right saying that nasa ‘left them out’, because, if they really were on the moon, then stars should be visible, even in daylight. We can’t see stars on earth during the day because – we have a reflective atmosphere. On the moon, Uhhhh, no atmospgere.

  5. James Williams   September 5, 2016 at 8:06 am

    As for different light sources, why does the moon glow so bright at night? Because of the sun. So, the Earth is considerably larger than the moon and with the sun shining on the Earth, reflecting off the oceans, that could create “light”. If the Sun was to their right and the Earth on the left, that could produce shadows from different directions, not to mention landing lights on the lunar module, itself.

  6. jiggley josh   November 4, 2015 at 12:57 pm

    poo in a bucket

  7. Samuel McGrath   July 23, 2015 at 6:20 am

    They had a studio on the moon where they shot the moon landings.

  8. Person   February 13, 2015 at 8:29 am

    There are multiple other theories. There was no crater. The impact wouldve left a big crater.

  9. jamie foy   February 3, 2015 at 6:03 am

    if no stars where able to be captured on film why was It possible to capture such a picture perfect of the earth but no stars ? we need to wake up I think

    • ThatAdelaideBellringer   October 21, 2015 at 5:43 pm

      Seriousy. Just seriously. Do you know how far the stars are away from earth? The closest is four LIGHTYEARS away. Thats 37,840,000,000,000 kilometers. The earth is only 384,400 kilometers away. With the the sun directly behind, which do you think is brighter?

  10. uncleburger   November 18, 2014 at 5:26 pm

    you are wrong, the moon need a sufficient amount of food/water to stay in this universe

  11. DLWELD   August 17, 2014 at 2:05 pm

    Oh man! That “several light sources” thought – take a look outside for God’s sake – note the way the sun’s light gives different shadow angles depending on where you (the observer) are placed. Amazing how the conspiracy folks’ specious thinking and flakey observations can get any traction at all.

  12. DLWELD   August 17, 2014 at 1:58 pm

    Love that supposed “no stars” problem – the film was exposed for the earth or the moon in bright sunlight. An exposure like that (for bright sunlight) is NOT going to show any stars – way too faint.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.