Top 10 Apollo Hoax Theories

In honor of the anniversary of the moon landing, has an article listing (and debunking) the top 10 Apollo Hoax Theories. Below are the top 10 points raised by those who believe the moon landing was a hoax. You'll have to read the article to get the explanation of why these points DON'T prove that the moon landing was a hoax.

#10. Fluttering Flag: The American flag appears to wave in the lunar wind.
#9. Glow-in-the-Dark Astronauts: If the astronauts had left the safety of the Van Allen Belt the radiation would have killed them.
#8. The Shadow Knows: Multiple-angle shadows in the Moon photos prove there was more than one source of light, like a large studio lamp.
#7. Fried Film: In the Sun, the Moon's temperature is toasty 280 degrees F. The film (among other things) would have melted.
#6. Liquid Water on the Moon: To leave a footprint requires moisture in the soil, doesn't it?
#5. Death by Meteor: Space is filled with super-fast micro meteors that would punch through the ship and kill the astronauts.
#4. No Crater at Landing Site: When the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) landed, its powerful engine didn't burrow a deep crater in the "dusty surface."
#3. Phantom Cameraman: How come in that one video of the LEM leaving the surface, the camera follows it up into the sky? Who was running that camera?
#2. Big Rover: There's no way that big moon buggy they were driving could have fit into that little landing module!
#1. Its Full of Stars!: Space is littered with little points of lights (stars). Why then are they missing from the photographs?

Exploration/Travel Science

Posted on Wed Jul 20, 2005

More content from the Hoax Museum:


And von Braun's associates included:

Arthur Rudolph, chief operations director at Nordhausen, where 20,000 slave labourers died producing V-2 missiles. Led the team which built the Saturn V rocket. Described as "100 per cent Nazi, dangerous type".

Kurt Debus, rocket launch specialist, another SS officer. His report stated: "He should be interned as a menace to the security of the Allied Forces."

Hubertus Strughold, later called "the father of space medicine", designed Nasa's on-board life-support systems. Some of his subordinates conducted human "experiments" at Dachau and Auschwitz, where inmates were frozen and put into low-pressure chambers, often dying in the process.
All of these men were cleared to work for the US, their alleged crimes covered up and their backgrounds bleached by a military which saw winning the Cold War, and not upholding justice, as its first priority."
Posted by Ed  in  Lunar orbit  on  Tue Jan 13, 2009  at  11:31 AM
Chary-be-dissed said,

"Your (presumed) assumption that the stars would be clearly visible while on the surface of the moon is just wrong."

"And if you are the same Ed you should remember that we've already done the 'I don't recall any stars' argument on this thread. But then I guess it's been long enough that we can start over from the beginning and pretend that we haven't already debunked your claims and arguments."

Oh, Chary, not only is it my assumption that stars would be visible on the surface of the moon during daylight hours, but it is also NASA's assumption.
And please notate where you have debunked me and the scientists of NASA on the star issue, please.
Never mind, I'm just giving you a hard time. YOu haven't debunked that one or anything else I've been writing...except where I got some dates wrong.

The next posting will be a cut and paste of my previous post about the stars...taken from NASA's own words.
Posted by Ed  in  lunar orbit  on  Thu Jan 15, 2009  at  12:57 PM
NASA's recent articles belies its' own Apollo missions.

According to NASA:
If you could turn off the atmosphere's ability to scatter overwhelming sunlight, today's daytime sky might look something like this ... with the Sun surrounded by the stars of the constellations Taurus and Gemini. See Illustration here:

View photos of stars visible behind the sun's corona made by SOHO telescope photographs. Obviously, the sun didn't block out these stars.

When asked why none of the astronauts talked about the stars, NASA scientists respond with remarks such as:
"stars are not readily seen in the daylight lunar sky by either the human eye or a camera because of the brightness of the sunlight surface"

The reflected sunlight travels in straight lines. There is no atmosphere to scatter the sunlight, so when an astronaut (or camera) looks up at the stars, how could the reflected light from the lunar surface get into his eyes?

It is easy to measure the level of reflected light from the moon, and from that you can determine what percentage of the sunlight the moon is reflecting. The moon does not reflect very much sunlight.

This is a very simple description of the moon from NASA:
"...the moon is about the poorest reflector in the solar system. The amount of light reflected by a celestial object is called the albedo (Latin: albus, white). The moon reflects only 7% of the sunlight that falls upon it, so the albedo is 0.07"

This means that astronauts on the moon would not be overwhelmed with the brightness of the lunar surface. Rather, they would be amazed at how dark the surface is.

U2 pilots say that when they climb to high altitudes the sky becomes dark, the stars become brighter, and more stars become visible:
"The air is so much clearer up there; you can see what seems to be 10 times more stars. They just carpet the sky."

A U2 pilot says stars "just carpet the sky", but not one Apollo astronaut talks about seeing stars.
Posted by Ed  in  lunar orbit  on  Thu Jan 15, 2009  at  01:00 PM
YOu can't have it both ways. Either there were stars in the pictures or not. AND, if you say, 'well, they adjusted the cameras to capture the light of the stars,' then why didn't the crew say they saw stars on the moon?

YOu and Chris really cancel each other out sometimes. But I'm over the stars and ready to start a new discussion...

No we don't. If you point a camera straight up you can capture stars. If you point it across the surface of the moon then you don't get stars because the brightness of the moon washes them out.
Posted by Charybdis  in  Hell  on  Fri Jan 16, 2009  at  09:15 AM
Once again you're posting arguments as absolutes without providing the rest of the story. The parts you willingly leave out answer the very questions you're raising.

Did you know that the overall albedo of the earth is only about .30? The moon's albedo isn't all that low, especially when it's the only light source in your field of vision.

The light reflected from the moon can easily cast a shadow on the Earth! That's pretty darn impressive. Now imagine that from the surface! Wow, really bright. When looking across the surface of the moon the human pupil will iris to allow less light in. Stars are far, far less apparently bright than the lunar surface, so they tend to disappear from your vision. The cameras used on the lunar missions had a similar problem.

If you point a camera straight up from the moon and away from the sun/Earth then you can see stars because the moon/sun/Earth isn't in your field of view.

Atmosphere isn't a problem so you don't get twinkling or scattered light causing problems. You are correct about that one, but I'm not sure how often the astronauts walked around looking straight up at a portion of the sky that didn't contain the sun or the Earth. Keep in mind that the trips were always planned to take place during the lunar day so the astronauts could see what they were doing, so you always had the sun and the Earth in the sky. Considering how bubble-like the helmets were I'm not sure how easy it would have been to point your head in a direction that didn't include one of these three bright objects in your field of view. A camera is easier because its field of view is narrower than a human's, so a human might have had to cup their hands to do it. I'm not sure how well that would work using a helmet, and I've already stated before that I'm not sure how much glare might come from the helmet itself.
Posted by Charybdis  in  Hell  on  Fri Jan 16, 2009  at  09:36 AM
As for the SOHO telescope photos...

Guess what Ed, they didn't use the same cameras. They used cameras specifically designed to address the washout problem. Cameras that weren't available during the lunar landing.

It's like arguing that Columbus couldn't have discovered the New World because dugout canoes couldn't have carried enough food and water for his crew to survive the trip. You seem unable to see the disconnect here.
Posted by Charybdis  in  Hell  on  Fri Jan 16, 2009  at  09:40 AM
Hey, Chary,

I'm not the one saying the moon is a poor reflector of light. NASA is...hence the links I supply from NASA. Why don't you provide documented support for your statements?

What I've done is to take information supplied by NASA and show how it contradicts the supposed ability of the Apollo missions to reach the moon. Read previous posts of mine to find those articles. I am sure more will surface and I'll post as I see them.

Since you believe that astronauts could not see the stars on the moon(remember, the cosmonauts could see 'millions of stars brighter than they had ever seen only 350 miles, give or take, from the surface of the much larger and more brightly-lit earth), what do you think the astronauts saw?

What did they see in the sky?

Well, I can tell you that the astronauts did not remember seeing stars. And I get that from the astronauts mouth, during their press conference.
Posted by Ed in Lunar Orbit  in  lunar orbit  on  Fri Feb 06, 2009  at  11:40 AM
Lastly, a small sampling of rocks was brought back from the moon.

Despite the vehemence with which you claim some kind of knowledge of what it is you are speaking, I tend to doubt everything you say based on this statement alone, because, in fact, the actual claim is that all six Apollo missions brought back a total of 842 pounds of rock. Hardly a small sampling.
Posted by Joshua  in  New Mexico  on  Sun Jun 21, 2009  at  01:09 AM
842 pounds is large compared to what? 5 pounds? 10 pounds? It's all relative, Joshy.

So each lunar mission brought back 140 lbs of rock? oooooooooo, big schmeal. Apparently, they learned nada from it.

Because they really didn't go to the moon and obtain any moon rocks, they are set to make an explosion on the moon in order to search the debris for signs of water. But surely they could ascertain if water existed on the moon from the biggy wiggy amount of rocks they 'brought back' with them. All of the evidence supports no moon landing.

Here's the article on how they intend on searching for water:

"The cloud from the Centaur rocket booster will kick up 350 metric tons of debris that should spread six miles above the surface of the moon..
the spacecraft will train its instruments and cameras on the debris cloud, searching it for the chemical signature of water."

Gee, surely if the technology existed to reach the moon in the late 60s, then I'm sure the technology existed to confirm the presence of water.

Hey, Joshy, please explain to me your reasoning why they haven't gone back, since apparently there are HUGE reasons and HUGE dollars/profits and HUGE benefits for mankind's knowledge for doing so. Thanks smile
Posted by eD  in  Lunar Orbit  on  Thu Jul 02, 2009  at  11:24 AM

Ja, al hierdie dinge is baie waar, maar die hoofrede hoekom ek weet die maanlandingstorie is twak, is die rooi Mini wat in die agtergrond verbyry.
Posted by Dom Boer  in  Transvaal  on  Sat Jun 26, 2010  at  01:38 AM
I do not wonder at the people who come out of the woodwork, as it were, to go out of their way to support Government Conspiracies telling us that there is no conspiracy, and that we are all fools for using our brains.

I have recently acquired Mr. Bart Sibrel's documentary, A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE MOON, and I did not find it funny.

I find it chilling that people can look at hard evidence, and dismiss it with an airy wave of their hands! The journalist was accidentally sent a reel of the unedited film of Neil Armstrong pretending to be 100,000 miles away!

For the benefit of those who haven't seen it- and don't intend to, because they have been told it was "rubbish," by people they trusted:

The astronauts turned out all their lights, and extinguished every blinking panel, then shot the Earth from the back wall of their capsule, so that it would look like they were 100,000 miles out, when they weren't! At some points, the camera moves around- when Neil Armstrong SAYS that the lens is pressed up against the window!
Then an arm of an astronaut intrudes at right field! The most shameless lying you ever saw!

I was totally convinced by this- but then I saw ASTRONAUTS GONE WILD. I was bored by watching the same clip again, but then I was jolted by seeing the lights come on, and we could plainly see the astronauts in the foreground, and that the camera was in the back of the cabin, away from the window. I felt sick! I feel sick! This is horrible!
Posted by Olatunde Aroloye  in  Obafemi Awolowo University, Nigeria.  on  Mon Jan 24, 2011  at  10:36 AM
I fully understand the need to have intimidated the Soviet Union. The American Government did a very noble thing, using utterly ignoble means.
They had no choice, because this is the sort of corner you get painted into, when you resort to the unholiest weapons, such as H-Bombs to solve your political problems.

The Soviet Scientists had the choice between exposing the myriad technical impossibilities NASA would have had to overcome, telling their ignorant and immoral leaders, whom they thoroughly despised, and would brave dogs and minefields to escape, that "USA Tech is no better than our own: You can go to war at any time!" or striking the Fear of God into their Atheistic leaders, making them think that there was no hope of besting America in a Nuclear War.

If any Western nations pretended to have tracked the Apollo module to the Moon. Soviet spies could have verified that they had not- for what?
So they could help initiate World War III?
The KGB must have helped keep this from their leadership. To paraphrase Josef Stalin, "Those who gather data determine nothing; Those who Interpret data determine nothing; Those who tell the Chairman what the data and interpretations were determine everything."

In ANY event, every astronaut who participated in this subterfuge is a hero. That can never be taken away from them. I was appalled at Bart Sibrel's behavior in ASTRONAUTS GONE WILD. THAT is why NASA still can't tell anyone what really happened. Neither those who disbelieve the evidence presented (some of which is untenable- the shadow stuff, crosshairs, and crap like that,) nor those who believe every "proof" (an honest and intelligent person should not support proofs presented just because they support their side- some of them are definitely not right!) have shown any sign of maturity in this matter.

On the one hand you have blind support for the integrity of government, and on the other, a blind determination that every fact and secret must come out, so that people know- WHAT?

That the Soviets should not have given up, and that no enemy nation should succumb to American Technological bluff ever again. What is this now, the third of fourth time America has gotten away with "Making the Other Guy blink first?"
Posted by Olatunde Aroloye  in  Obafemi Awolowo University, Nigeria.  on  Mon Jan 24, 2011  at  10:49 AM
Brilliant article here, Top 10 apollo hoax theories are your another wonderful articles. Thanks.wink
Posted by jonson will  in  , Perth, Western, 6007, Austral74 WaltDriveiaers  on  Mon Jan 31, 2011  at  06:27 AM
The best proof is seeing the WIRES ON THE ASTRO-NOTS.

I don't need much more than that. What's NASA's phony-physics answer to this one? Moon Webs? String Lightning?
Posted by voltaire  on  Mon Feb 07, 2011  at  02:59 PM
Comments: Page 5 of 5 pages ‹ First  < 3 4 5
Commenting is no longer available in this channel entry.