Editing Moon landing conspiracy theories (section)

==Hoax claims and rebuttals==
Many Moon-landing conspiracy theories have been proposed, alleging that the landings either did not occur and NASA staff lied, or that the landings did occur but not in the way that has been reported. Conspiracists have focused on perceived gaps or inconsistencies in the historical record of the missions. The foremost idea is that the whole crewed landing program was a hoax from start to end. Some claim that the technology did not exist to send men to the Moon or that the [[Van Allen radiation belt]]s, [[solar flare]]s, [[solar wind]], [[coronal mass ejection]]s, and [[cosmic ray]]s made such a trip impossible.<ref name=k-pg7>[[#Kaysing|Kaysing 2002]], pp. 7–8</ref>

Scientists Vince Calder and Andrew Johnson have given detailed answers to conspiracists' claims on the [[Argonne National Laboratory]] website.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen01/gen01278.htm |last1=Calder |first1=Vince |last2=Johnson |first2=Andrew, P.E. |last3=ProfHoff 503 |title=Ask A Scientist |date=October 12, 2002 |work=Newton |publisher=[[Argonne National Laboratory]] |access-date=August 14, 2009 |display-authors=2 |archive-date=July 30, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140730143047/http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen01/gen01278.htm |url-status=dead }}</ref> They show that NASA's portrayal of the Moon landing is fundamentally accurate, allowing for such common mistakes as mislabeled photos and imperfect personal recollections. Using the [[scientific process]], any hypothesis may be rejected if it is contradicted by the observable facts. The "real landing" hypothesis is a single story since it comes from a single source, but there is no unity in the hoax hypothesis because hoax accounts vary between conspiracists.<ref>[[#Ramsay|Ramsay 2006]] {{page needed|date=July 2021}}</ref>

=== Number of conspirators involved ===
According to [[James Longuski]], the conspiracy theories are impossible because of their size and complexity. The conspiracy would have to involve more than 400,000 people who worked on the Apollo project for nearly ten years, the twelve men who walked on the Moon, the six others who flew with them as [[Apollo command and service module|command module]] pilots, and another six astronauts who orbited the Moon.{{efn|This number includes the crews of Apollos 8, [[Apollo 10|10]], and [[Apollo 13|13]], though the last technically only performed a fly-by. These three missions account for only six additional astronauts because James Lovell orbited the Moon twice (Apollos 8 and 13), while John Young and Gene Cernan orbited on Apollo 10, and both later landed on the Moon.}} Hundreds of thousands of people would have had to keep the secret, including astronauts, scientists, engineers, technicians, and skilled laborers. Longuski argues that it would have been much easier to really land on the Moon than to generate such a huge conspiracy to fake the landings.<ref>[[#Longuski|Longuski 2006]], p. 102</ref><ref>[[#Aaronovitch|Aaronovitch 2010]], pp. 1–2, 6</ref> To date, nobody from the United States government or NASA linked to the Apollo program has said that the Moon landings were hoaxes. [[Penn Jillette]] made note of this in the "Conspiracy Theories" episode of his television show ''[[Penn & Teller: Bullshit!]]'' in 2005.<ref name="bullshit">{{cite episode |title=Conspiracy Theories |series=[[Penn & Teller: Bullshit!]] |network=[[Showtime (TV channel)|Showtime]] |air-date=May 9, 2005 |season=3 |number=3}}</ref> Physicist [[David Robert Grimes]] estimated the time that it would take for a conspiracy to be exposed based on the number of people involved.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Barajas |first1=Joshua |date=15 February 2016 |title=How many people does it take to keep a conspiracy alive? |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/math-formula-charts-the-lifespan-of-hoaxes/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171013022744/http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/math-formula-charts-the-lifespan-of-hoaxes/ |archive-date=13 October 2017 |access-date=22 July 2016 |website=PBS NEWSHOUR |publisher=Public Broadcasting Service (PBS)}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Grimes |first1=David R |author-link1=David Robert Grimes |date=26 January 2016 |title=On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs |journal=PLOS ONE |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages=e0147905 |bibcode=2016PLoSO..1147905G |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905 |pmc=4728076 |pmid=26812482 |doi-access=free|issn=1932-6203}}</ref> His calculations used data from the [[PRISM (surveillance program)|PRISM surveillance program]], the [[Tuskegee syphilis experiment]], and the [[FBI Laboratory#21st century controversies|FBI forensic scandal]]. Grimes estimated that a Moon landing hoax would require the involvement of 411,000 people and would be exposed within 3.68 years. His study did not consider exposure by sources outside of the alleged conspiracy; it only considered exposure from within through whistleblowers or incompetence.<ref>{{cite book |first1=Steven |last1=Novella |first2=Bob |last2=Novella |first3=Cara |last3=Santa Maria |first4=Jay |last4=Novella |first5=Evan |last5=Bernstein |title=The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe: How to Know What's Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake |publisher=Grand Central Publishing |year=2018 |pages=209–210 |isbn=978-1538760536}}</ref>

=== Photographic and film oddities ===

Moon-landing conspiracists focus heavily on NASA photos, pointing to oddities in photos and films taken on the Moon. Photography experts (including those unrelated to NASA) have replied that the oddities are consistent with what should be expected from a real Moon landing, and are not consistent with manipulated or studio imagery. Some main arguments (set in plain text) and counter-arguments (set in italics) are listed below.

1. In some photos, the [[Reticle|crosshairs]] appear to be behind objects. The cameras were fitted with a [[Réseau plate]] (a clear glass plate with a reticle etched on), making it impossible for any photographed object to appear in front of the grid. Conspiracists often use this evidence to suggest that objects were "pasted" over the photographs, and hence obscure the reticle.

:* ''This effect only appears in copied and scanned photos, not any originals. It is caused by overexposure: the bright white areas of the emulsion "bleed" over the thin black crosshairs. The crosshairs are only about 0.004 inches thick (0.1 mm) and emulsion would only have to bleed about half that much to fully obscure it. Furthermore, there are many photos where the middle of the crosshair is "washed-out" but the rest is intact. In some photos of the American flag, parts of one crosshair appear on the red stripes, but parts of the same crosshair are faded or invisible on the white stripes. There would have been no reason to "paste" white stripes onto the flag.''<ref name="clavius-crosshairs">{{cite web |url=http://www.clavius.org/photoret.html |title=Clavius: Photography – Crosshairs |last=Windley |first=Jay |website=Moon Base Clavius |publisher=Clavius.org |access-date=April 20, 2013}}</ref>

{{Gallery
|title=
|align=center
|width=200
|File:Apollo 11 1998 scan cropped.jpg|Enlargement of a poor-quality 1998 scan; both the crosshair and part of the red stripe have "bled out"<!-- Do NOT replace this with a different/better version. This version is used to illustrate what is discussed in the article. -->
|File:Apollo 11 2004 scan cropped.jpg|Enlargement of a higher-quality 2004 scan, crosshair and red stripe visible
|File:Scott Gives Salute - GPN-2000-001114.jpg|[[David Scott]] salutes the American flag during the [[Apollo 15]] mission. The arms of the crosshair are washed-out on the white stripes of the flag (Photo ID: AS15-88-11863).
|File:Apollo 15 flag crop.jpg|Close-up of the flag, showing washed-out crosshairs
}}

2. Crosshairs are sometimes rotated or in the wrong place.

:* ''This is a result of popular photos being cropped or rotated for aesthetic impact.''<ref name="clavius-crosshairs" />

3. The quality of the photographs is implausibly high.

:* ''There are many poor quality photos taken by the Apollo astronauts. NASA chose to publish only the best examples.''<ref name="clavius-crosshairs" /><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.clavius.org/photoqual.html | title=Clavius: Photography – image quality |last=Windley |first=Jay |website=Moon Base Clavius |publisher=Clavius.org |access-date=September 5, 2009}}</ref>
:* ''The Apollo astronauts used high-resolution [[Hasselblad]] 500 EL cameras with [[Carl Zeiss AG|Carl Zeiss optics]] and a 70&nbsp;mm [[Medium format (film)|medium format]] film magazine.''<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/photography/ |title=Apollo 11 Mission Photography |publisher=[[Lunar and Planetary Institute]] |access-date=July 23, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.hasselblad.com/about-hasselblad/hasselblad-in-space/space-cameras.aspx |title=Space Cameras |website=Hasselblad in Space |publisher=Victor Hasselblad AB |access-date=May 6, 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130510154205/http://www.hasselblad.com/about-hasselblad/hasselblad-in-space/space-cameras.aspx |archive-date=May 10, 2013}}</ref>

4. There are no stars in any of the photos; the Apollo 11 astronauts also stated in post-mission press conferences that they did not remember seeing any stars during [[extravehicular activity]] (EVA).<ref>[[#Kaysing|Kaysing 2002]], pp. 20, 21, 22, 23</ref> Conspiracists contend that NASA chose not to put the stars into the photos because astronomers would have been able to use them to determine whether the photos were taken from the Earth or the Moon, by means of identifying them and comparing their celestial position and [[parallax]] to what would be expected for either observation site.

:* ''The astronauts were talking about naked-eye sightings of stars during the lunar daytime. They regularly sighted stars through the spacecraft navigation optics while aligning their inertial reference platforms, the [[Apollo PGNCS]].''<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-AOTNavStarsDetents.html |title=Navigation Stars used in the AOT |last1=Jones |first1=Eric M. |date=January 21, 2012 |website=Apollo Lunar Surface Journal |publisher=NASA |access-date=September 28, 2014}}</ref>

:* ''Stars are rarely seen in [[Space Shuttle]], [[Mir]], Earth observation photos, or even photos taken at sporting events held at night. The light from the Sun in outer space in the Earth-Moon system is at least as bright as the sunlight that reaches the Earth's surface on a clear day at noon, so cameras used for imaging subjects illuminated by sunlight are set for a [[Sunny 16 rule|daylight exposure]]. The dim light of the stars simply does not provide enough exposure to record visible images. All crewed landings happened during the lunar daytime. Thus, the stars were outshone by the Sun and by sunlight reflected off the Moon's surface. The astronauts' eyes were adapted to the sunlit landscape around them so that they could not see the relatively faint stars.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/2011/09/28/where-are-the-stars/ |title=Where are the stars? |last=Carlowicz |first=Mike |date=September 28, 2011 |work=[[NASA Earth Observatory]] |publisher=NASA |type=Blog |access-date=April 20, 2013}}</ref><ref>[[#Plait|Plait 2002]], pp. 158–160</ref> The astronauts could see stars with the naked eye only when they were in the shadow of the Moon.''<ref>[[#Woods|Woods 2008]], pp. 206–207</ref><ref>[[#Harrison|Harrison 2012]], pp. 95–96</ref>

:* ''Camera settings can turn a well-lit background to black when the foreground object is brightly lit, forcing the camera to increase shutter speed so that the foreground light does not wash out the image. A demonstration of this effect is here.<ref>[[:File:Lamp-and-moon-example-2.JPG]]</ref> The effect is similar to not being able to see stars from a brightly lit parking lot at night; the stars only become visible when the lights are turned off.''

:* ''The Far Ultraviolet Camera was taken to the lunar surface on [[Apollo 16]] and operated in the shadow of the [[Apollo Lunar Module]] (LM). It took photos of Earth and of many stars, some of which are dim in visible light but bright in the ultraviolet. These observations were later matched with observations taken by orbiting ultraviolet telescopes. Furthermore, the positions of those stars with respect to Earth are correct for the time and location of the Apollo 16 photos.''<ref>{{cite journal |last=Keel |first=William C. |date=July 2007 |title=The Earth and Stars in the Lunar Sky |journal=Skeptical Inquirer |volume=31 |issue=4 |pages=47–50 |location=Amherst, NY |publisher=Committee for Skeptical Inquiry}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/Apollo16EarthID.gif |title=Apollo16EarthID.gif |last=Keel |first=William C. |website=UA Astronomy Home Page|format=[[Graphics Interchange Format|GIF]] |access-date=May 8, 2013}} Base image: AS16-123-19657; Earth image start: 1233 CDT 21 April 1972; Field shown: 18.9 degrees.</ref>

:* ''Photos of the solar corona that included the planet [[Mercury (planet)|Mercury]] and some background stars were taken from lunar orbit by Apollo 15 Command Module Pilot [[Al Worden]]''.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/caption_direct.jsp?photoId=AS15-98-13311 |title=Solar corona photographed from Apollo 15 one minute prior to sunrise |date=July 31, 1971 |work=JSC Digital Image Collection |publisher=[[Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center]] |id=Photo ID: AS15-98-13311 |access-date=April 26, 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130217205048/http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/caption_direct.jsp?photoId=AS15-98-13311 |archive-date=February 17, 2013}}</ref>

:* ''Photos of the planet [[Venus]] were taken from the Moon's surface by astronaut [[Alan Shepard]] during the Apollo 14 mission.''<ref name="venusovera14">{{cite web |url=http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14Venus.html |title=Venus over the Apollo 14 LM |last1=Lunsford |first1=Danny Ross |last2=Jones |first2=Eric M. |year=2007 |work=Apollo Lunar Surface Journal |publisher=NASA |access-date=May 8, 2013|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20080506204733/http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14Venus.html |archive-date= May 6, 2008}}</ref>

{{Gallery
|title=
|align=center
|width=200
|File:213177main s122e010982 hires.jpg|Short-exposure photo of the [[International Space Station]] (ISS) taken from {{OV|104}} in February 2008 during [[STS-122]] – one of many photos taken in space where no stars are visible
|File:Earth & Mir (STS-71).jpg|Earth and ''[[Mir]]'' in June 1995, an example of how sunlight can outshine the stars, making them invisible
|File:Apollo 16 UV photo of Earth rotated.jpg|Long-exposure photo taken from the Moon's surface by [[Apollo 16]] astronauts using the Far Ultraviolet Camera. It shows the Earth with the correct background of stars.
|File:Space Shuttle Atlantis in the sky on July 21, 2011, to its final landing.jpg|Long-exposure photo (1.6 seconds at f-2.8, [[Film speed#ISO|ISO]] 10000) from the ISS in July 2011 of Space Shuttle ''Atlantis'' re-entry in which some stars are visible.
In this image, the Earth is lit by moonlight, not sunlight.
}}

5. The angle and color of shadows are inconsistent. This suggests that artificial lights were used.

:* ''Shadows on the Moon are complicated by reflected light, uneven ground, wide-angle lens distortion, and [[lunar dust]]. There are several light sources: the Sun, sunlight reflected from the Earth, sunlight reflected from the Moon's surface, and sunlight reflected from the astronauts and the Lunar Module. Light from these sources is scattered by lunar dust in many directions, including into shadows. Shadows falling into craters and hills may appear longer, shorter, and distorted.<ref>[[#Plait|Plait 2002]], pp. 167–172</ref> Furthermore, shadows display the properties of [[vanishing point]] perspective, leading them to converge to a point on the horizon.''
:* This theory was further debunked on the 2008 ''[[MythBusters]]'' episode "[[MythBusters (2008 season)#Episode 104 – "NASA Moon Landing"|NASA Moon Landing]]".

6. There are identical backgrounds in photos which were allegedly taken miles apart. This suggests that a painted background was used.

:* ''Backgrounds were not identical, just similar. What appear as nearby hills in some photos are actually mountains many miles away. On Earth, objects that are farther away will appear fainter and less detailed. On the Moon, there is no atmosphere or haze to obscure far-away objects, thus they appear clearer and nearer.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.iangoddard.com/moon01.htm |title=Goddard's Journal: Are Apollo Moon Photos Fake? |last=Goddard |first=Ian Williams |date=February 26, 2001 |website=Iangoddard.com |access-date=November 25, 2008}}</ref> Furthermore, there are very few objects such as trees to help judge distance. One such case is debunked in "Who Mourns For Apollo?" by Mike Bara.''<ref name="whomourns">{{cite web|url=http://www.studyphysics.ca/apollo2.pdf |title=Who Mourns For Apollo? Part II |last1=Bara |first1=Michael |last2=Troy |first2=Steve |website=Mr. Clintberg's Studyphysics! |publisher=LunarAnomalies.com |access-date=November 13, 2010 }} Part I with Steve Troy and Richard C. Hoagland is available [http://www.studyphysics.ca/apollo1.pdf here] (PDF). Part III by Steve Troy has been archived from the original by the [https://web.archive.org/web/20090610025602/http://www.lunaranomalies.com/rad.htm Wayback Machine] on June 10, 2009.</ref>

7. The number of photos taken is implausibly high—up to one photo per 50 seconds.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.htm |title=The skeleton in NASA's spacesuit |last=White |first=Jack |year=2005 |website=AULIS Online |publisher=AULIS Publishing |location=London |access-date=November 25, 2008}}</ref>

:* ''Simplified gear with fixed settings allowed two photos a second. Many were taken immediately after each other as stereo pairs or panorama sequences. The calculation (one per 50 seconds) was based on a lone astronaut on the surface, and does not take into account that there were two astronauts sharing the workload and simultaneously taking photographs during an [[Extra-vehicular activity]] (EVA).''

8. The photos contain artifacts like the two seemingly matching "C"s on a rock and on the ground. These may be labeled studio props.

:* ''The C-shaped objects are most likely printing imperfections and do not appear in the original film from the camera. It has been suggested that the "C" is a coiled hair.''<ref name="whomourns" /><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.clavius.org/rover1.html |title=Clavius: Photo Analysis – lunar rover |last=Windley |first=Jay |website=Moon Base Clavius |publisher=Clavius.org |access-date=September 5, 2009}}</ref>

{{Gallery
|title=
|align=center
|width=200
|File:Apollo 16 rocks.jpg|Original AS16-107-17445 photograph
|File:Duke on the Descartes - GPN-2000-001123.jpg|Original AS16-107-17446 photograph
|Image:Apollo16CRock.jpg|Close-up of later generation prints of AS16-107-17446<!-- do NOT replace this by a different/better version. This version is used to illustrate what is discussed in the article. -->
}}

9. A woman named Una Ronald (a pseudonym created by the authors of the source<ref>[[#Bennett & Percy|Bennett & Percy 2001]], p. 321</ref>) from Perth, Australia, said that she saw a [[Coca-Cola]] bottle roll across the lower right quadrant of her television screen that was displaying the live broadcast of the Apollo 11 EVA. She also said that several letters appeared in ''[[The West Australian]]'' discussing the Coca-Cola bottle incident within ten days of the lunar landing.<ref>[[#Bennett & Percy|Bennett & Percy 2001]], pp. 319–320</ref>

:* ''No such newspaper reports or recordings have been found.<ref name="cokebottle">{{cite web |url=http://www.clavius.org/bibcoke.html |title=Clavius: Bibliography – una ronald and the coke bottle |last=Windley |first=Jay |website=Moon Base Clavius |publisher=Clavius.org |access-date=May 23, 2013}}</ref> Ronald's claims have only been relayed by one source.<ref name="ReferenceA">[[#Bennett & Percy|Bennett & Percy 2001]]</ref> There are also flaws in the story, such as the statement that she had to stay up late to watch the Moon landing live, which is easily discounted by many witnesses in Australia who watched the landing in the middle of the daytime.''<ref>[[#Bennett & Percy|Bennett & Percy 2001]], p. 319</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.webwombat.com.au/careers_ed/education/fly-to-moon.htm |title=Fly Me to the Moon |last=Anthony |first=James |work=Web Wombat |publisher=Web Wombat Pty Ltd |access-date=November 25, 2008}}</ref>

10. The 1994 book ''[[Moon Shot]]''<ref>[[#Shepard & Slayton|Shepard & Slayton 1994]] {{page needed|date=July 2021}}</ref> contains an obviously fake composite photo of Alan Shepard hitting a golf ball on the Moon with another astronaut.

:* '' It was used instead of the only existing real images from the TV monitor, which the editors seemingly felt were too grainy for their book. The book publishers did not work for NASA, although the authors were retired NASA astronauts.''

11. There appear to be "hot spots" in some photos which look as though a large spotlight was used in place of the Sun.

:* '' Pits on the Moon's surface focus and reflect light like the tiny glass spheres used in the coating of street signs, or dewdrops on wet grass. This creates a glow around the photographer's own shadow when it appears in a photograph (see [[Heiligenschein]]).''
:* ''If the astronaut is standing in sunlight while photographing into shade, light reflected off his white spacesuit yields a similar effect to a spotlight.<ref name="bootspot">{{cite web|url=http://www.clavius.org/bootspot.html |title=Clavius: Photo Analysis – buzz's hot spot |last=Windley |first=Jay |website=Moon Base Clavius |publisher=Clavius.org |access-date=June 25, 2009}}</ref>''
:* ''Some widely published Apollo photos were high-contrast copies. Scans of the original transparencies are generally much more evenly lit. An example is shown below:''

{{Gallery
|title=
|align=center
|width=200
|File:Aldrin Apollo 11 original.jpg|Original photo of Buzz Aldrin during [[Apollo 11]]
|File:Aldrin Apollo 11.jpg|The more famous edited version. The contrast has been increased, yielding the "spotlight effect", and a black band has been pasted at the top.
}}

12. Who filmed Neil Armstrong stepping onto the Moon?
[[File:ApolloTVCameraOnLunarModule.jpg|right|thumb|upright=0.6|The Apollo TV camera as it was mounted on the side of the Lunar Module]]
:* ''Cameras on the Lunar Module did. The [[Apollo TV camera]] mounted in the Modularized Equipment Stowage Assembly (MESA) of the [[Apollo Lunar Module]] gave a view from the exterior. While still on the Module's ladder steps, Armstrong deployed the MESA from the side of the Lunar Module, unpacking the TV camera. The camera was then powered on and a signal transmitted back to Earth. This meant that upwards of 600 million people on Earth could watch the live feed with only a very slight delay. Similar technology was also used on subsequent Apollo missions.''<ref>{{cite book |last = Steven-Boniecki |first= Dwight |title= Live TV From the Moon |year= 2010 |publisher=[[Apogee Books]] |location= Burlington, Ontario |isbn= 978-1926592169}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=A Detailed Look at the Camera Gear Behind the Historical Apollo 11 Moon Landing |url=https://petapixel.com/2014/07/29/a-detailed-look-at-the-camera-tech-behind-the-historical-apollo-11-moon-landing/ |website=petapixel.com |date=July 29, 2014 |access-date=March 11, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Photography During Apollo |url=https://www.history.nasa.gov/apollo_photo.html |website=www.history.nasa.gov |access-date=March 11, 2019 |archive-date=February 26, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200226104037/https://www.history.nasa.gov/apollo_photo.html |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Teitel |first1=Amy Shira |title=How NASA Broadcast Neil Armstrong Live from the Moon |url=https://www.popsci.com/how-nasa-broadcast-neil-armstrong-live-from-moon |access-date=March 11, 2019 |work=Popular Science |date=February 5, 2016 }}</ref> ''It was also filmed from an automatic 16mm movie camera mounted in a window of the Lunar Module.''

=== Environment ===
1. The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the [[Van Allen radiation belt]] and galactic ambient radiation (see [[Acute radiation syndrome|radiation poisoning]] and [[health threat from cosmic rays]]). Some conspiracists have suggested that [[Starfish Prime]] (a [[High-altitude nuclear explosion|high-altitude nuclear test]] in 1962) formed another intense layer on the Van Allen belt.<ref name="envrad"/>

:* ''There are two main Van Allen belts – the inner belt and the outer belt – and a transient third belt.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/28feb_thirdbelt/ |title=Van Allen Probes Discover a New Radiation Belt |work=Science@NASA |publisher=NASA |date=February 28, 2013 |editor-last=Phillips |editor-first=Tony |access-date=May 8, 2013 |archive-date=December 7, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191207154753/https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/28feb_thirdbelt/ |url-status=dead }}</ref> The inner belt is the more dangerous one, containing energetic protons. The outer one has less-dangerous low-energy electrons ([[Beta particle]]s).<ref name="vanallenbelts">{{cite web |url=http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/tour/AAvan.html |title=The Van Allen Belts |website=IMAGE Science Center |publisher=NASA |access-date=May 6, 2013 |archive-date=December 20, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191220163500/https://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/tour/AAvan.html |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref name="woods109">[[#Woods|Woods 2008]], p. 109</ref> The Apollo spacecraft passed through the inner belt in a matter of minutes and the outer belt in about {{frac|1|1|2}} hours.<ref name="woods109" /> The astronauts were shielded from the ionizing radiation by the aluminum hulls of the spacecraft.<ref name="woods109" /><ref name="plait162">[[#Plait|Plait 2002]], p. 162</ref> Furthermore, the orbital transfer trajectory from Earth to the Moon through the belts was chosen to lessen radiation exposure.<ref name="plait162" /> Even [[James Van Allen]], the discoverer of the Van Allen belt, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too harmful for the Apollo missions.<ref name="envrad">{{cite web|url=http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html |title=Clavius: Environment – radiation and the van allen belts |last=Windley |first=Jay |website=Moon Base Clavius |publisher=Clavius.org |access-date=September 8, 2009}}</ref> [[Phil Plait]] cited an average dose of less than 1&nbsp;[[Röntgen equivalent man|rem]] (10&nbsp;[[Sievert|mSv]]), which is equivalent to the ambient radiation received by living at sea level for three years.<ref>[[#Plait|Plait 2002]], pp. 160–162</ref> The total radiation received on the trip was about the same as allowed for workers in the nuclear energy field for a year''<ref name="woods109" /><ref>{{cite web |url=http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/s2ch3.htm |title=Radiation Protection and Instrumentation |last=Bailey |first=J. Vernon |year=1975 |publisher=Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center |id=NASA SP-368 |access-date=May 17, 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130515020144/http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm |archive-date=May 15, 2013}} Section II, Chapter 3, of NASA SP-368, [https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/sp368.htm ''Biomedical Results of Apollo'']. See "[http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/Resize-jpg/ts2c3-2.jpg Table 2] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130221125347/http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/Resize-jpg/ts2c3-2.jpg |date=February 21, 2013 }}: Average Radiation Doses of the Flight Crews for the Apollo Missions."</ref> ''and not much more than what Space Shuttle astronauts received.''<ref name="vanallenbelts" />

2. Film in the cameras would have been fogged by this radiation.

:* ''The film was kept in metal containers that stopped radiation from fogging the emulsion.<ref>[[#Plait|Plait 2002]], pp. 162–163</ref> Furthermore, film was not fogged in lunar probes such as the [[Lunar Orbiter program|Lunar Orbiter]] and [[Luna 3]] (which used on-board film development processes).''

3. The Moon's surface during the daytime is so hot that camera film would have melted.

:* ''There is no atmosphere to efficiently bind lunar surface heat to devices that are not in direct contact with it. In a vacuum, only radiation remains as a heat transfer mechanism. The physics of radiative heat transfer are thoroughly understood, and the proper use of passive optical coatings and paints was enough to control the temperature of the film within the cameras; Lunar Module temperatures were controlled with similar coatings that gave them a gold color. The Moon's surface does get very hot at lunar noon, but every Apollo landing was made shortly after lunar sunrise at the landing site; the [[Lunar day|Moon's day]] is about {{frac|29|1|2}} Earth days long, meaning that one Moon day (dawn to dusk) lasts nearly fifteen Earth days. During the longer stays, the astronauts did notice increased cooling loads on their spacesuits as the sun and surface temperature continued to rise, but the effect was easily countered by the passive and active cooling systems.<ref>[[#Plait|Plait 2002]], pp. 165–167</ref> The film was not in direct sunlight, so it was not overheated.''<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.clavius.org/envheat.html |title=Clavius: Environment – heat |last=Windley |first=Jay |website=Moon Base Clavius |publisher=Clavius.org |access-date=November 25, 2008}}</ref>

4. The Apollo 16 crew could not have survived a big [[solar flare]] firing out when they were on their way to the Moon.

:* ''No large solar flare occurred during the flight of Apollo 16. There were large solar flares in August 1972, after Apollo 16 returned to Earth and before the flight of [[Apollo 17]].''<ref>{{cite web |url=http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/27jan_solarflares/ |title=Sickening Solar Flares |last=Phillips |first=Tony |date=January 27, 2005 |work=Science@NASA |publisher=NASA |access-date=November 25, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110615021549/http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/27jan_solarflares/ |archive-date=June 15, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Predicting Solar Eruptions |first=Selby |last=Cull |url=http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/3422566.html?page=1&c=y |work=News from Sky & Telescope |publisher=Sky Publishing |date=July 12, 2006 |access-date=November 25, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120829171703/http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/3422566.html?page=1&c=y |archive-date=August 29, 2012 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

5. The [[Lunar Flag Assembly|flag]] placed on the surface by the astronauts fluttered despite there being no wind on the Moon. This suggests that it was filmed on Earth and a breeze caused it to flutter. Sibrel said that it may have been caused by indoor fans used to cool the astronauts, since their spacesuit cooling systems would have been too heavy on Earth.

:* ''The flag was fastened to an ''Г-''shaped rod (see [[Lunar Flag Assembly]]) so that it did not hang down. It only seemed to flutter when the astronauts were moving it into position. Without air drag, these movements caused the free corner of the flag to swing like a pendulum for some time. It was rippled because it had been folded during storage, and the ripples could be mistaken for movement in a still photo. Videos show that, when the astronauts let go of the flagpole, it vibrates briefly but then remains still''.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.clavius.org/envflutter.html |title=Clavius: Environment: fluttering flags |last=Windley |first=Jay |website=Moon Base Clavius |publisher=Clavius.org |access-date=April 20, 2013}}</ref><ref>[[#Harrison|Harrison 2012]], p. 97</ref><ref>[[#McAdams|McAdams 2011]], p. 132</ref>
:* This theory was further debunked on the ''MythBusters'' episode "NASA Moon Landing".

{{Gallery
|title=
|align=center
|width=200
|Image:AldrinFlag1a.jpeg|Cropped photo of Buzz Aldrin saluting the flag. The fingers of Aldrin's right hand can be seen behind his helmet.|Image:AldrinFlag2a.jpeg|Cropped photo taken a few seconds later. Buzz Aldrin's hand is down, head turned toward the camera; the flag is unchanged.
|Image:AldrinFlag-animation.gif|Animation of the two photos, showing that Armstrong's camera moved between exposures, but the flag is not waving.}}

6. Footprints in the [[Moondust]] are unexpectedly well preserved, despite the lack of moisture.

:* ''Moondust has not been weathered like the sand on Earth, and it has sharp edges. This allows the dust particles to stick together and hold their shape in the vacuum. The astronauts likened it to "talcum powder or wet sand".''<ref name="whomourns" />
:* This theory was further debunked on the ''MythBusters'' episode "NASA Moon Landing".

7. The alleged Moon landings used either a sound stage or were filmed outside in a remote desert with the astronauts either using harnesses or slow-motion photography to make it look like they were on the Moon.

:* ''The [[HBO]] miniseries "[[From the Earth to the Moon (miniseries)|From the Earth to the Moon]]" used the sound-stage and harness setup, as did a scene from the movie "[[Apollo 13 (film)|Apollo 13]]". It is clearly seen from those films that, when dust rose, it did not quickly settle; some dust briefly formed clouds. In the film footage from the Apollo missions, dust kicked up by the astronauts' boots and the wheels of the [[Lunar Roving Vehicle]]s rose quite high due to the lower lunar gravity, and it settled quickly to the ground in an uninterrupted parabolic arc since there was no air to suspend it. Even if there had been a sound stage for hoax Moon landings that had the air pumped out, the dust would have reached nowhere near the height and trajectory as in the Apollo film footage because of Earth's greater gravity.''

:* ''During the Apollo 15 mission, [[David Scott]] did an experiment by dropping a hammer and a falcon feather at the same time. Both fell at the same rate and hit the ground at the same time. This proved that he was in a vacuum.''<ref>{{Cite APOD |title=Hammer Versus Feather on the Moon |date=November 1, 2011 |access-date=April 20, 2013}} Source for video: {{YouTube|id=4mTsrRZEMwA|title="The Hammer and the Feather"}}</ref>

:* ''If the landings were filmed outside in a desert, heat waves would be present on the surface in mission videos, but no such heat waves exist in the footage. If the landings were filmed in a sound stage, several anomalies would occur, including a lack of parallax, and an increase or decrease in the size of the backdrop if the camera moved. Footage was filmed while the rover was in motion, and yet no evidence is present of any change in the size of the background.''

:* This theory was further debunked on the ''MythBusters'' episode "NASA Moon Landing".

{{Gallery
|title=
|align=center
|width=200
|File:Apollo 15 feather and hammer drop.ogv|David Scott drops a hammer and feather on the Moon.
}}

=== Mechanical issues ===
[[File:Apollo11 under LM.jpg|right|thumb|Lunar surface under the [[Lunar Module Eagle|Lunar Module ''Eagle'']]]]

1. The Lunar Modules made no blast craters or any sign of dust scatter.<ref>[[#Kaysing|Kaysing 2002]], p. 75</ref>

:* ''No crater should be expected. The {{convert|10000|lb|kg|adj=on|order=out|abbr=on}} thrust [[Descent Propulsion System]] was throttled down very far during the final landing.<ref>[[#Harrison|Harrison 2012]], p. 96</ref> The Lunar Module was no longer quickly decelerating, so the descent engine only had to support the lander's own weight, which was lessened by the Moon's gravity and by the near exhaustion of the descent propellants. At landing, the engine thrust divided by the nozzle exit area is only about {{convert|10|kPa|psi|lk=on|abbr=on|order=flip}}.<ref>[[#Plait|Plait 2002]], p. 164</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Metzger |first1=Philip |author-link1=Philip T. Metzger |last2=Smith |first2=Jacob|last3=Lane |first3=John |date= June 30, 2011 |title=Phenomenology of soil erosion due to rocket exhaust on the Moon and the Mauna Kea lunar test site |journal=Journal of Geophysical Research |volume=116 |issue=E06005 |pages=5–8|doi=10.1029/2010JE003745 |bibcode=2011JGRE..116.6005M |doi-access=free }}</ref>''

::''Beyond the engine nozzle, the plume spreads, and the pressure drops very quickly. Rocket exhaust gasses expand much more quickly after leaving the engine nozzle in a vacuum than in an atmosphere. The effect of an atmosphere on rocket plumes can be easily seen in launches from Earth; as the rocket rises through the thinning atmosphere, the exhaust plumes broaden very noticeably. To lessen this, rocket engines made for vacuums have longer bells than those made for use on Earth, but they still cannot stop this spreading. The lander's exhaust gases, therefore, expanded quickly well beyond the landing site. The descent engines ''did'' scatter a lot of very fine surface dust as seen in 16mm movies of each landing, and many mission commanders spoke of its effect on visibility. The landers were generally moving horizontally as well as vertically, and photos do show scouring of the surface along the final descent path. Finally, the lunar [[regolith]] is very compact below its surface dust layer, making it impossible for the descent engine to blast out a crater.<ref name=ba-pg163-165>[[#Plait|Plait 2002]], pp. 163–165</ref> A blast crater was measured under the Apollo 11 lander using shadow lengths of the descent engine bell and estimates of the amount that the landing gear had compressed and how deep the lander footpads had pressed into the lunar surface, and it was found that the engine had eroded between {{convert|4|and|6|in|order=flip|abbr=on}} of regolith out from underneath the engine bell during the final descent and landing.<ref name="as11psr">{{cite web |url=http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11psr.pdf |title=Apollo 11 Preliminary Science Report |pages=93–101 |year=1969 |publisher=NASA |id=NASA SP-214 |access-date=May 1, 2013}}</ref>''

2. The second stage of the launch rocket or the Lunar Module [[Apollo Lunar Module#Ascent stage|ascent stage]] or both made no visible flame.

:* ''The Lunar Modules used [[Aerozine 50]] (fuel) and [[dinitrogen tetroxide]] (oxidizer) propellants, chosen for simplicity and reliability; they ignite [[hypergolic propellant|hypergolically]] (upon contact) without the need for a spark. These propellants produce a nearly transparent exhaust.<ref>[[#Woods|Woods 2008]], p. 191</ref> The same fuel was used by the core of the American [[Titan II GLV|Titan II]] rocket. The transparency of their plumes is apparent in many launch photos. The plumes of rocket engines fired in a vacuum spread out very quickly as they leave the engine nozzle (see above), further lessening their visibility. Finally, rocket engines often run "rich" to slow internal corrosion. On Earth, the excess fuel burns in contact with atmospheric oxygen, enhancing the visible flame. This cannot happen in a vacuum.''

<gallery class="center">
File:Ap17-ascent.ogv|Apollo 17 [[Apollo Lunar Module|LM]] leaving the Moon; rocket exhaust visible only briefly
File:Apollo8Launch.ogg|[[Apollo 8]] launch through the first stage separation
File:Apollo6Interstage.jpg|Exhaust flame may not be visible outside the atmosphere, as in this photo. Rocket engines are the dark structures at the bottom center.
</gallery>
<gallery class="center">
File:Gemini-Titan 11 Launch - GPN-2000-001020.jpg|The launch of a [[Titan II GLV|Titan II]], burning [[Hypergolic propellant|hypergolic]] Aerozine-50/N<sub>2</sub>O<sub>4</sub>, {{convert|430000|lbf|MN|abbr=on|order=flip}} of thrust. Note the near-transparency of the exhaust, even in air (water is being sprayed up from below).
File:Atlas missile launch.jpg|[[Atlas (rocket family)|Atlas]] uses non-hypergolic kerosene ([[RP-1]]) fuel which gives a bright and very visible exhaust, {{convert|340000|lb-f|MN|abbr=on|order=flip}} of thrust
File:Apollo 11 launch.jpg|Bright flame from first stage of the [[Saturn V]], burning RP-1
</gallery>

3. The Lunar Modules weighed 17 tons and made no mark on the Moondust, yet footprints can be seen beside them.<ref>[[#René|René 1994]] pp. n, 11</ref>

:* ''On the surface of the Earth, Apollo 11's fueled and crewed [[Lunar Module Eagle]] would have weighed approximately {{convert|17|short ton|kg|lk=on|abbr=on}}. On the surface of the Moon, however, after expending fuel and oxidizer on its descent from lunar orbit, the lander weighed about {{convert|2700|lb|kg|abbr=in|order=flip}}.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/SP-4029.htm |title=Apollo by the Numbers: A Statistical Reference |last=Orloff |first=Richard W. |orig-year=First published 2000 |date=September 2004 |publisher=[[NASA]] |isbn=016050631X |id=NASA SP-2000-4029 |access-date=May 31, 2013}} See Statistical Tables: [https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-37_Selected_Mission_Weights.htm "Selected Mission Weights (lbs)"] and [https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-28a_LM_Descent_Stage_Propellant_Status.htm "LM Descent Stage Propellant Status"].</ref> The astronauts were much lighter than the lander, but their boots were much smaller than the lander's approximately {{convert|3|ft|cm|adj=on|abbr=on|order=flip}} diameter footpads.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM_Landing%20Gear1973010151.pdf |title=Apollo Lunar Module Landing Gear |last=Rogers |first=William F. |work=Apollo Lunar Surface Journal |publisher=NASA |access-date=May 31, 2013}}</ref> Pressure (or force per unit area) rather than mass determines the amount of regolith compression. In some photos, the footpads did press into the regolith, especially when they moved sideways at touchdown. (The bearing pressure under Apollo 11's footpads, with the lander being about 44 times the weight of an EVA-configured astronaut, would have been of similar magnitude to the bearing pressure exerted by the astronauts' boots.)''<ref>[[#Heiken|Heiken 1991]], pp. 475–476</ref>

4. The air conditioning units that were part of the astronauts' spacesuits could not have worked in an environment of no atmosphere.<ref name="cooper">{{cite web |url=http://www.williamcooper.com/majestyt.htm |title=MAJESTYTWELVE |last=Cooper |first=William |year=1997 |website=williamcooper.com |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20000815194854/http://www.williamcooper.com/majestyt.htm |archive-date=August 15, 2000 |access-date=May 31, 2013}}</ref>

:* ''The cooling units could <u>only</u> work in a vacuum. Water from a tank in the backpack flowed out through tiny pores in a metal [[Sublimation (phase transition)|sublimator]] plate where it quickly vaporized into space. The loss of the heat of vaporization froze the remaining water, forming a layer of ice on the outside of the plate that also sublimated into space (turning from a solid directly into a gas). A separate water loop flowed through the LCG ([[Liquid Cooling and Ventilation Garment|Liquid Cooling Garment]]) worn by the astronaut, carrying his metabolic waste heat through the sublimator plate where it was cooled and returned to the LCG. The {{convert|12|lb|kg|abbr=on|order=flip}} of feedwater gave about eight hours of cooling; because of its bulk, it was often the limiting consumable on the length of an EVA.''

[[File:Surveyor 3-Apollo 12.jpg|thumb|right|[[Surveyor 3]] with [[Apollo 12]] lander in background]]

=== Transmissions ===
1. There should have been more than a two-second delay in communications between Earth and the Moon, at a distance of {{convert|400000|km|mi|abbr=on|order=flip}}.

:* ''The round-trip light travel time of more than two seconds is apparent in all the real-time recordings of the lunar audio, but this does not always appear as expected. There may also be some documentary films where the delay has been edited out. Reasons for editing the audio may be time constraints or in the interest of clarity.''<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Radio.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080729183941/http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Radio.htm |archive-date=July 29, 2008 |title=Radio Lag |publisher=Redzero.demon.co.uk |access-date=November 25, 2008}}</ref>

2. Typical delays in communication were about 0.5 seconds.

:* ''Claims that the delays were only half a second are untrue, as examination of the original recordings shows. Also, there should not be a consistent time delay between every response, as the conversation is being recorded at one end by [[Christopher C. Kraft Jr. Mission Control Center|Mission Control]]. Responses from Mission Control could be heard without any delay, as the recording is being made at the same time that Houston receives the transmission from the Moon.''

3. The [[Parkes Observatory]] in Australia was billed to the world for weeks as the site that would be relaying communications from the first moonwalk. However, five hours before transmission they were told to stand down.

:* ''The timing of the first moonwalk was changed after the landing. In fact, delays in getting the moonwalk started meant that Parkes did cover almost the entire Apollo 11 moonwalk.''<ref>{{cite web |url=http://airandspace.si.edu/collections/imagery/apollo/AS11/a11sum.htm |title=Apollo 11 Mission Summary |website=The Apollo Program |publisher=National Air and Space Museum |date=July 16, 1969 |access-date=November 13, 2010 |quote=From NASA SP-214, Preliminary Science Report |archive-date=July 24, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090724111656/http://airandspace.si.edu/collections/imagery/apollo/AS11/a11sum.htm |url-status=dead }}</ref>

4. Parkes supposedly had the clearest video feed from the Moon, but Australian media and all other known sources ran a live feed from the United States.

:* ''That was the original plan and the official policy, but the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) did take the transmission direct from the Parkes and [[Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station|Honeysuckle Creek]] radio telescopes. These were converted to [[NTSC]] television at [[Paddington, New South Wales|Paddington]] in Sydney. This meant that Australian viewers saw the moonwalk several seconds before the rest of the world.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/Apollo_11/Australian_TV.html |title=Apollo 11 TV – as seen in Australia |publisher=Honeysucklecreek.net |access-date=November 25, 2008}}</ref> See also Parkes radio astronomer John Sarkissian's article [http://www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/news_events/apollo11/ "On Eagle's Wings: The Parkes Observatory's Support of the Apollo 11 Mission"].<ref name="eagleswings2" /> The events surrounding the Parkes Observatory's role in relaying the live television of the moonwalk were portrayed in a slightly fictionalized Australian film comedy "[[The Dish]]" (2000).''

5. Better signal was supposedly received at Parkes Observatory when the Moon was on the opposite side of the planet.

:* ''This is not supported by the detailed evidence and logs from the missions.''<ref name="eagleswings1">{{cite journal |last=Sarkissian |first=John M. |title=On Eagle's Wings: The Parkes Observatory's Support of the Apollo 11 Mission |year=2001 |journal=Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia |volume=18 |issue=3 |pages=287–310 |location=Collingwood, Victoria |publisher=CSIRO Publishing for the Astronomical Society of Australia |doi=10.1071/AS01038 |access-date=November 25, 2008 |url=http://www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/news_events/apollo11/one_giant_leap.html|bibcode = 2001PASA...18..287S |doi-access=free }} October 2000 website version, part 9 of 12: "One Giant Leap." Original version available from [http://www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/news_events/apollo11/pasa/on_eagles_wings.pdf CSIRO Parkes Observatory] (PDF).</ref>

=== Missing data ===
Blueprints and design and development drawings of the machines involved are missing.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.clavius.org/bibdave32.html |title=Clavius: Bibliography – cosmic dave's 32 questions |last=Windley |first=Jay |website=Moon Base Clavius |publisher=Clavius.org |access-date=November 13, 2010}}</ref><ref name="bibcollier">{{cite web |url=http://www.clavius.org/bibcollier.html |title=Clavius: Bibliography – the Collier article |last=Windley |first=Jay |website=Moon Base Clavius |publisher=Clavius.org |access-date=November 13, 2010}}</ref> Apollo 11 data tapes are also missing, containing [[telemetry]] and the high-quality video (before [[scan conversion]] from [[slow-scan TV]] to standard TV) of the first moonwalk.<ref name="didwego">{{cite AV media |author1=Ranen, Aron (Director, Writer, Producer) |author2=Britton, Benjamin (Writer, Executive Producer) |orig-year=First published 1999 by the [[University of Cincinnati]] as part of ''Moon: A Mutual Reality Art Experience'' |year=2005 |title=Did We Go? |medium=VHS tape |url=http://moonhoax.com/site/index.htm |access-date=May 4, 2013 |publisher=Third Wave Media |location=Santa Monica, CA |oclc=56316947}} Abstract: "This video looks at whether man actually walked on the moon in 1969 or if it was an elaborate hoax."</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/08/04/1154198328978.html| title=One giant blunder for mankind: how NASA lost moon pictures| first=Richard| last=Macey|date=August 5, 2006| newspaper=[[The Sydney Morning Herald]]}}</ref>

==== Tapes ====
{{Main|Apollo 11 missing tapes}}

[[File:Apollo11C.jpg|thumb|right|Photo of the high-quality SSTV image before the scan conversion]]
[[File:Apollo11D.jpg|thumb|right|Photo of the degraded image after the SSTV scan conversion]]

Dr. David R. Williams (NASA archivist at [[Goddard Space Flight Center]]) and Apollo 11 flight director [[Gene Kranz|Eugene F. Kranz]] both acknowledged that the original high-quality Apollo 11 telemetry data tapes are missing. Conspiracists see this as evidence that they never existed.<ref name="didwego" /> The Apollo 11 telemetry tapes were different from the telemetry tapes of the other Moon landings because they contained the raw television broadcast. For technical reasons, the Apollo 11 lander carried a [[slow-scan television]] (SSTV) camera (see [[Apollo TV camera]]). To broadcast the pictures to regular television, a scan conversion had to be done. The [[radio telescope]] at Parkes Observatory in Australia was able to receive the telemetry from the Moon at the time of the Apollo 11 moonwalk.<ref name="eagleswings2">{{cite journal |last=Sarkissian |first=John M. |title=On Eagle's Wings: The Parkes Observatory's Support of the Apollo 11 Mission |year=2001 |journal=Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia |volume=18 |issue=3 |pages=287–310 |location=Collingwood, Victoria |publisher=[[CSIRO Publishing]] for the [[Astronomical Society of Australia]] |doi=10.1071/AS01038 |access-date=November 25, 2008 |url=http://www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/news_events/apollo11/|bibcode = 2001PASA...18..287S |doi-access=free }} October 2000 website version, part 1 of 12: "Introduction." Original version available from [http://www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/news_events/apollo11/pasa/on_eagles_wings.pdf CSIRO Parkes Observatory] (PDF).</ref> Parkes had a bigger antenna than NASA's antenna in Australia at the Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station, so it received a better picture. It also received a better picture than NASA's antenna at [[Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex]]. This direct TV signal, along with telemetry data, was recorded onto one-inch fourteen-track analog tape at Parkes. The original SSTV transmission had better detail and contrast than the scan-converted pictures, and it is this original tape that is missing.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/news_events/apollo11/Parkes_Apollo11_TV_quality.html |title=The Parkes Apollo 11 TV Quality |last=Sarkissian |first=John M. |publisher=[[Parkes Observatory|CSIRO Parkes Observatory]] |access-date=November 25, 2008}}</ref> A crude, real-time scan conversion of the SSTV signal was done in Australia before it was broadcast worldwide. However, still photos of the original SSTV image are available (see photos). About fifteen minutes of it were filmed by an amateur [[8 mm film]] camera and these are also available. Later Apollo missions did not use SSTV. At least some of the telemetry tapes still exist from the [[Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package|ALSEP]] scientific experiments left on the Moon (which ran until 1977), according to Dr. Williams. Copies of those tapes have been found.<ref name="Amalfi">{{cite news |title=Lost Moon landing tapes discovered |last=Amalfi |first=Carmelo |url=http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/lost-moon-landing-tapes-discovered/ |work=Cosmos Online |publisher=Cosmos Media Pty Ltd |location=Australia |date=November 1, 2006 |access-date=November 25, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130214030100/http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/lost-moon-landing-tapes-discovered/ |archive-date=February 14, 2013}}</ref>

Others are looking for the missing telemetry tapes for different reasons. The tapes contain the original and highest quality video feed from the Apollo 11 landing. Some former Apollo personnel want to find the tapes for posterity, while NASA engineers looking towards future Moon missions believe that the tapes may be useful for their design studies. They have found that the Apollo 11 tapes were sent for storage at the U.S. National Archives in 1970, but by 1984, all the Apollo 11 tapes had been returned to the Goddard Space Flight Center at their request. The tapes are believed to have been stored rather than re-used.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/Apollo_11/tapes/Search_for_SSTV_Tapes.pdf |title=The Search for the Apollo 11 SSTV Tapes |last=Sarkissian |first=John M. |date=May 21, 2006 |website=Honeysucklecreek.net |publisher=CSIRO Parkes Observatory |access-date=April 26, 2013}}</ref> Goddard was storing 35,000 new tapes per year in 1967,<ref>{{cite web| url=https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19670010532_1967010532.pdf| access-date=September 5, 2009| title=The GSFC Scientific Data Storage Problem| publisher=NASA}}</ref> even before the Moon landings.

In November 2006, [[Cosmos (magazine)|COSMOS Online]] reported that about 100 data tapes recorded in Australia during the Apollo 11 mission had been found in a small marine science laboratory in the main physics building at the [[Curtin University of Technology]] in [[Perth, Western Australia|Perth, Australia]]. One of the old tapes has been sent to NASA for analysis. The slow-scan television images were not on the tape.<ref name="Amalfi" />

In July 2009, NASA indicated that it must have erased the original Apollo 11 Moon footage years ago so that it could re-use the tape. In December 2009, NASA issued a final report on the Apollo 11 telemetry tapes.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/Apollo_11_TV_Tapes_Report.pdf |title=The Apollo 11 Telemetry Data Recordings: A Final Report |date=December 2009 |publisher=NASA |access-date=April 27, 2013}}</ref> Senior engineer Dick Nafzger was in charge of the live TV recordings during the Apollo missions, and he was put in charge of the restoration project. After a three-year search, the "inescapable conclusion" was that about 45 tapes (estimated 15 tapes recorded at each of the three tracking stations) of Apollo 11 video were erased and re-used, said Nafzger.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2009/07/17/nasa-lost-moon-footage-but-hollywood-restores-it |title=NASA lost moon footage, but Hollywood restores it |date=July 17, 2009 |first=Seth |last=Borenstein |agency=Associated Press |newspaper=[[U.S. News & World Report]] |access-date=September 5, 2009}}</ref> [[Lowry Digital]] had been tasked with restoring the surviving footage in time for the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing. Lowry Digital president Mike Inchalik said that "this is by far and away the lowest quality" video that the company has dealt with. Nafzger praised Lowry for restoring "crispness" to the Apollo video, which will remain in black and white and contains conservative digital enhancements. The US$230,000 restoration project took months to complete and did not include sound quality improvements. Some selections of restored footage in high definition have been made available on the NASA website.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/hd/apollo11.html |title=Apollo 11 Partial Restoration HD Video Streams |date=August 7, 2009 |editor-last=Garner |editor-first=Robert |publisher=NASA |access-date=September 5, 2009 |archive-date=September 3, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090903224337/http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/hd/apollo11.html |url-status=dead }}</ref>

==== Blueprints ====
[[File:Apollo15LunarRover.jpg|right|thumb|[[Lunar Roving Vehicle]] flown on Apollo 15]]

[[Grumman]] appears to have destroyed most of its LM documentation,<ref name="bibcollier" /><ref>{{cite web |url=http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/collier.htm |title=The Collier article – a critique |first=Jim | last=Scotti |author-link=James V. Scotti |date=February 4, 2000 |website=Lunar and Planetary Laboratory |publisher=University of Arizona |access-date=September 2, 2009}} Scotti's critique of James M. Collier August 1997 article, "Investigator Challenging NASA", ''Media Bypass'' (Evansville, IN: [https://secure.in.gov/sos/online_corps/name_search_results.aspx?search_name=Tree+Top+Communications%2C+Inc.&search_type=exact&client_id=&submit.x=46&submit.y=9&search_mode=search Tree Top Communications, Inc.]) Vol. 5, No. 8. {{ISSN|1085-6714}}.</ref> but copies exist in [[Microform|microfilm]] for the blueprints for the Saturn V.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/saturn_five_000313.html |title=Saturn 5 Blueprints Safely in Storage |work=[[Space.com]] |publisher=[[TechMediaNetwork, Inc.]] |last=Paine |first=Michael |date=March 13, 2000 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080708081443/http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/saturn_five_000313.html |archive-date=July 8, 2008 |access-date=November 13, 2010}}</ref>

Four mission-worthy [[Lunar Roving Vehicle]]s (LRV) were built by [[Boeing]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.thespacereview.com/article/127/1 |title=Lunar rovers past and future |last=Young |first=Anthony |date=April 5, 2004 |work=[[The Space Review]] |publisher=[[Jeff Foust]] |page=1 |access-date=September 5, 2009}}</ref> Three of them were carried to the Moon on Apollos 15, 16, and 17, used by the astronauts for transportation on the Moon, and left there. After Apollo 18 was canceled, the other LRV was used for spare parts for the Apollos 15 to 17 missions. The 221-page operation manual for the LRV contains some detailed drawings,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/lrvhand.html |title=Lunar Rover Operations Handbook |publisher=NASA |id=Doc. LS006-002-2H |access-date=November 25, 2008}}</ref> although not the blueprints.

=== NASA technology compared to USSR ===
{{See also|Space Race|Timeline of the Space Race}}
Bart Sibrel cites the relative level of the United States and USSR space technology as evidence that the Moon landings could not have happened. For much of the early stages of the Space Race, the USSR was ahead of the United States, yet in the end, the USSR was never able to fly a crewed spacecraft to the Moon, let alone land one on the surface. It is argued that, because the USSR was unable to do this, the United States should have also been unable to develop the technology to do so.

For example, he claims that, during the [[Apollo program]], the USSR had five times more crewed hours in space than the United States, and notes that the USSR was the first to achieve many of the early milestones in space: the first artificial [[satellite]] in [[orbit]] (October 1957, [[Sputnik 1]]);{{efn|According to the 2007 ''[[Nova (American TV series)|NOVA]]'' episode "[[List of Nova episodes#Season 35: 2007–2008|Sputnik Declassified]]," the United States could have launched the ''[[Explorer 1]]'' probe before Sputnik, but the [[Dwight D. Eisenhower|Eisenhower]] administration hesitated, first because they were not sure if international law meant that national borders kept going all the way into orbit (and, thus, their orbiting satellite could cause an international uproar by violating the borders of dozens of nations), and second because there was a desire to see the not yet ready [[Project Vanguard|Vanguard satellite program]], designed by American citizens, become America's first satellite rather than the Explorer program, that was mostly designed by former rocket designers from [[Nazi Germany]]. A transcript of the appropriate section from the show is available at "[https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/sputnik-impact-on-america.html Sputnik's Impact on America]."}} the first living creature in orbit (a dog named [[Laika]], November 1957, [[Sputnik 2]]); the first man in space and in orbit ([[Yuri Gagarin]], April 1961, [[Vostok 1]]); the first woman in space ([[Valentina Tereshkova]], June 1963, [[Vostok 6]]); and the first spacewalk ([[Alexei Leonov]] in March 1965, [[Voskhod 2]]).

However, most of the Soviet gains listed above were matched by the United States within a year, and sometimes within weeks. In 1965, the United States started to achieve many firsts (such as the first successful [[space rendezvous]]), which were important steps in a mission to the Moon. Furthermore, NASA and others say that these gains by the Soviets are not as impressive as they seem; that a number of these firsts were mere stunts that did not advance the technology greatly, or at all, ''e.g.'', the first woman in space.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.clavius.org/techsoviet.html |title=Clavius: Technology – beating the Soviets |last=Windley |first=Jay |website=Moon Base Clavius |publisher=Clavius.org |access-date=September 5, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://blogs.nasa.gov/ISS_Science_Blog/2013/06/17/women-in-space-part-one-female-firsts-in-flight-for-space-exploration-and-research/ |title=Women in Space Part One, Female Firsts in Flight for Space Exploration and Research |last=Warren |first=Liz |date=June 17, 2013 |work=A Lab Aloft |publisher=NASA Blogs |type=Blog |access-date=July 18, 2013}}</ref> In fact, by the time of the launch of the first crewed Earth-orbiting Apollo flight ([[Apollo 7]]), the USSR had made only nine [[spaceflight]]s (seven with one cosmonaut, one with two, one with three) compared to 16 by the United States. In terms of spacecraft hours, the USSR had 460 hours of spaceflight; the United States had 1,024 hours. In terms of astronaut/cosmonaut time, the USSR had 534 hours of crewed spaceflight whereas the United States had 1,992 hours. By the time of Apollo 11, the United States had a lead much wider than that. (See [[List of human spaceflights, 1961–1970]], and refer to individual flights for the length of time.)

Moreover, the USSR did not develop a successful rocket capable of a crewed lunar mission until the 1980s – their [[N1 (rocket)|N1 rocket]] failed on all four launch attempts between 1969 and 1972.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |url=http://www.astronautix.com/flights/sovnding.htm |title=Soviet Lunar Landing |encyclopedia=[[Encyclopedia Astronautica]] |publisher=Mark Wade |access-date=November 25, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090224200322/http://www.astronautix.com/flights/sovnding.htm |archive-date=February 24, 2009}}</ref> The Soviet [[LK (spacecraft)|LK]] lunar lander was tested in uncrewed low-Earth-orbit flights three times in 1970 and 1971.

=== Technology used by NASA ===
Digital technology was in its infancy during the time of the Moon landings. The astronauts had relied on computers to aid in the Moon missions. The [[Apollo Guidance Computer]] was on the [[Lunar Module]] and the [[Apollo command and service module|command and service module]]. Many computers at the time were very large despite poor specs.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://classroom.synonym.com/computers-70s-20890.html|title=Computers of the '70s &#124; Synonym|website=classroom.synonym.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://homepage.cs.uri.edu/faculty/wolfe/book/Readings/Reading03.htm|title=History of Computers|website=homepage.cs.uri.edu}}</ref> For example, the [[Xerox Alto]] was released in 1973, one year after the final Moon landing.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2012/4/26/2976870/xerox-alto-commercial-1972-personal-assistant|title=Xerox commercial from 1972 shows the computer as your personal assistant|date=April 26, 2012|website=The Verge}}</ref> This computer had 96kB of memory.<ref>{{cite book |url=http://bitsavers.org/pdf/xerox/alto/memos_1975/Alto_Operating_System_Reference_Manual_Jun75.pdf |title=Alto Operating System Reference Manual |publisher=Xerox |via=BitSavers |date=June 26, 1975 |access-date=July 21, 2019}}</ref> Most personal computers as of 2019 use 50,000 to 100,000 times this amount of RAM.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.zmescience.com/research/technology/smartphone-power-compared-to-apollo-432/|title=Your smartphone is millions of times more powerful that all of NASA's combined computing in 1969|first=Tibi|last=Puiu|date=October 13, 2015|website=ZME Science}}</ref> Conspiracy theorists claim that the computers during the time of the Moon landings would not have been advanced enough to enable space travel to the Moon and back;<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/a28434260/moon-landing-hoax-conspiracists/|title=What It's Like to Be a Moon Landing Conspiracist in 2019|first=Eric|last=Spitznagel|date=July 19, 2019|website=Popular Mechanics}}</ref> they similarly claim that other contemporaneous technology (radio transmission, radar, and other instrumentation) was likewise insufficient for the task.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.astronautcentral.com/Moonhoax.html|title=The Moon Hoax; Did we really go?|website=www.astronautcentral.com}}</ref>

=== Deaths of NASA personnel ===
In a televised program about the Moon-landing hoax allegations, [[Fox Entertainment Group]] listed the deaths of ten astronauts and two civilians related to the crewed spaceflight program as part of an alleged cover-up.
* [[Theodore Freeman]] (killed ejecting from a [[T-38 Talon|T-38]] which had suffered a [[bird strike]], October 1964)
* [[Elliot See]] and [[Charles Bassett|Charlie Bassett]] ([[1966 NASA T-38 crash|T-38 crash in bad weather]], February 1966)
* [[Gus Grissom|Virgil "Gus" Grissom]], [[Ed White (astronaut)|Ed White]], and [[Roger B. Chaffee]] (killed in a fire during the "plugs-out test" preceding [[Apollo 1]], January 1967)
* [[Edward Givens|Edward "Ed" Givens]] (killed in a car accident, June 1967)
* [[Clifton Williams|Clifton "C. C." Williams]] (killed ejecting from a T-38, October 1967)
* [[Michael James Adams|Michael J. "Mike" Adams]] (died in an [[North American X-15|X-15]] crash, November 1967. Adams was the only pilot killed during the X-15 flight test program. He was a test pilot, not a NASA astronaut, but had flown the X-15 above {{convert|50|mi|km|disp=or|order=flip}})
* [[Robert Henry Lawrence Jr.]] (killed in an [[F-104 Starfighter|F-104]] crash, December 1967, shortly after being selected as a pilot with the [[United States Air Force]]'s [[Manned Orbiting Laboratory]] (MOL) program, which was canceled in 1969)
* [[Thomas Baron|Thomas Ronald Baron]] ([[North American Aviation]] employee. Baron died in an automobile collision with a train, April 27, 1967, six days after testifying before [[United States House of Representatives|Rep.]] [[Olin E. Teague]]'s House Subcommittee on NASA Oversight hearings held following the Apollo 1 fire, after which he was fired)

Two of the above, X-15 pilot Mike Adams and MOL pilot Robert Lawrence, had no connection with the civilian crewed space program that oversaw the Apollo missions. Baron was a quality control inspector who wrote a report critical of the Apollo program and was an outspoken critic of NASA's safety record after the Apollo 1 fire. Baron and his family were killed as their car was struck by a train at a train crossing. The deaths were an accident.<ref name="not_faked">{{cite web |url=http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/FOX.html |title=Comments on the Fox special on the Hoax |first=Jim | last=Scotti |website=Lunar and Planetary Laboratory |publisher=University of Arizona |access-date=November 25, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://history.nasa.gov/Apollo204/barron.html |title=NASA Apollo Mission Apollo-1 – Baron Report |website=NASA History Program Office |publisher=NASA |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080921155820/https://history.nasa.gov/Apollo204/barron.html |archive-date=September 21, 2008 |access-date=November 25, 2008}}</ref> All of the deaths occurred at least 20 months ''before'' Apollo 11 and subsequent flights.

{{as of|2024|June}}, four of the twelve [[List of Apollo Astronauts#Apollo astronauts who walked on the Moon|Apollo astronauts who landed on the Moon]] between 1969 and 1972 are still alive, including Buzz Aldrin. Also, two of the twelve [[List of Apollo Astronauts#Apollo astronauts who flew to the Moon without landing|Apollo astronauts who flew to the Moon without landing]] between 1968 and 1972 are still alive.

The number of deaths within the American astronaut corps during the run-up to Apollo and during the Apollo missions is similar to the number of deaths incurred by the Soviets. During the period 1961 to 1972, at least eight Soviet serving and former cosmonauts died:
* [[Valentin Bondarenko]] (ground training accident, March 1961)
* [[Grigori Nelyubov]] (suicide, February 1966)
* [[Vladimir Komarov]] ([[Soyuz 1]] accident, April 1967)
* [[Yuri Gagarin]] ([[MiG-15]] crash, March 1968)
* [[Pavel Belyayev]] (complications following surgery, January 1970)
* [[Georgi Dobrovolski]], [[Vladislav Volkov]], and [[Viktor Patsayev]] ([[Soyuz 11]] accident, June 1971)

Additionally, the overall chief of their crewed-spaceflight program, [[Sergei Korolev]], died while undergoing surgery in January 1966.

===Post flight conference===
During the post flight conference for Apollo 11, there were moments in which the astronauts appeared serious or tired in a press conference otherwise filled with laughter. Conspiracy theorists often present images of those moments and portray it as the astronauts feeling guilty about faking the landing. This supposed evidence can be explained as a case of [[cherry picking]] and an [[appeal to emotion]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2018/10/91-why-do-astronauts-have-guilty-looks.html |title=Why did the astronauts have guilty looks on their faces and shun public appearances? |website=Moon Hoax: Debunked |access-date=2023-05-19}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://flatearth.ws/apollo-pressconf |title=Apollo 11 Post-Flight Press Conference |website=FlatEarth.ws |date=March 17, 2020 |access-date=2023-05-19}}</ref>

=== NASA response ===
In June 1977, NASA issued a fact sheet responding to recent claims that the Apollo Moon landings had been hoaxed.<ref>{{cite web |url=ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/media/2001/lunar_landing.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151213100852/ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/media/2001/lunar_landing.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=2015-12-13 |title=Did U.S. Astronauts Really Land on the Moon |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=February 14, 2001 |publisher=NASA |location=Washington, D.C. |type=Reissue (June 1977) |access-date=April 24, 2014 }}</ref> The fact sheet is particularly blunt and regards the idea of faking the Moon landings to be preposterous and outlandish. NASA refers to the [[Lunar sample displays|rocks and particles collected from the Moon]] as being evidence of the program's legitimacy, as they claim that these rocks could not have been formed under conditions on Earth. NASA also notes that all of the operations and phases of the Apollo program were closely followed and under the scrutiny of the news media, from liftoff to splashdown. NASA responds to Bill Kaysing's book, ''We Never Went to the Moon'', by identifying one of his claims of fraud regarding the lack of a crater left on the Moon's surface by the landing of the lunar module, and refuting it with facts about the soil and cohesive nature of the surface of the Moon.

The fact sheet was reissued on February 14, 2001, the day before Fox television's broadcast of ''Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?'' The documentary reinvigorated the public's interest in conspiracy theories and the possibility that the Moon landings were faked, which has provoked NASA to once again defend its name.

=== Alleged Stanley Kubrick involvement ===

Filmmaker [[Stanley Kubrick]] is accused of having produced much of the footage for Apollos 11 and 12, presumably because he had just directed ''[[2001: A Space Odyssey (film)|2001: A Space Odyssey]]'', which is partly set on the Moon and featured advanced special effects.<ref name="clydelewis">{{cite web |url=http://archives.groundzeromedia.org/dis/gorsky/gorsky.html |title=Good Luck, Mr. Gorsky! |last=Lewis |first=Clyde |publisher=Groundzeromedia.org |access-date=November 25, 2008 |archive-date=September 11, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190911042654/http://archives.groundzeromedia.org/dis/gorsky/gorsky.html |url-status=dead }}</ref> It has been claimed that when ''2001'' was in [[post-production]] in early 1968, NASA secretly approached Kubrick to direct the first three Moon landings. The launch and splashdown would be real but the spacecraft would stay in Earth orbit and fake footage broadcast as "live from the Moon." No evidence was offered for this theory, which overlooks many facts. For example, ''2001'' was released before the first Apollo landing and Kubrick's depiction of the Moon's surface differs greatly from its appearance in the Apollo footage. The movement of characters on the Moon in ''2001'' differs from that of the filmed movement of Apollo astronauts and does not resemble an environment with 1/6 the gravity of Earth. Several scenes in ''2001'' show dust billowing as spacecraft landed, something that would not happen in the vacuum environment of the Moon. Kubrick did hire [[Frederick I. Ordway III|Frederick Ordway]] and [[Harry Lange (film designer)|Harry Lange]], both of whom had worked for NASA and major aerospace contractors, to work with him on ''2001''. Kubrick also used some 50&nbsp;mm f/0.7 lenses that were left over from a batch made by [[Carl Zeiss AG|Zeiss]] for NASA. However, Kubrick only got this lens for ''[[Barry Lyndon]]'' (1975). The lens was originally a still photo lens and needed changes to be used for motion filming.

The [[mockumentary]] based on this idea, ''[[Dark Side of the Moon (mockumentary)|Dark Side of the Moon]]'', could have fueled the conspiracy theory. This French mockumentary, directed by William Karel, was originally aired on Arte channel in 2002 with the title ''Opération Lune''. It parodies conspiracy theories with faked interviews, stories of assassinations of Stanley Kubrick's assistants by the [[Central Intelligence Agency|CIA]], and a variety of conspicuous mistakes, puns, and references to old movie characters, inserted through the film as clues for the viewer. Nevertheless, ''Opération Lune'' is still taken at face value by some conspiracy believers.

An article titled "Stanley Kubrick and the Moon Hoax" appeared on [[Usenet]] in 1995, in the [[Usenet newsgroup|newsgroup]] "alt.humor.best-of-usenet". One passage – on how Kubrick was supposedly coerced into the conspiracy – reads:

<blockquote>NASA further leveraged their position by threatening to publicly reveal the heavy involvement of Mr. Kubrick's younger brother, Raul, with the American Communist Party. This would have been an intolerable embarrassment to Mr. Kubrick, especially since the release of ''[[Dr. Strangelove]]''.</blockquote>

Kubrick had no such brother – the article was a spoof, complete with a giveaway sentence describing Kubrick shooting the moonwalk "on location" on the Moon. Nevertheless, the claim was taken up in earnest;<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.clavius.org/bibkubrick.html |title=Clavius: Bibliography – the Kubrick article |last=Windley |first=Jay |website=Moon Base Clavius |publisher=Clavius.org |access-date=April 20, 2013}}</ref> Clyde Lewis used it almost word-for-word,<ref name="clydelewis" /> whereas [[Room 237|Jay Weidner]] gave the brother a more senior status within the party:

<blockquote>No one knows how the powers-that-be convinced Kubrick to direct the Apollo landings. Maybe they had compromised Kubrick in some way. The fact that his brother, Raul Kubrick, was the head of the American Communist Party may have been one of the avenues pursued by the government to get Stanley to cooperate.<ref>{{cite web |last=Weidner |first=Jay |url=http://jayweidner.com/AlchemicalKubrickIIa.html |title=How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Apollo Moon Landings |work=jayweidner.com |date=July 20, 2009 |access-date=June 24, 2017 |url-status=bot: unknown |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101123205838/http://jayweidner.com/AlchemicalKubrickIIa.html |archive-date=November 23, 2010 |df=mdy-all }}</ref></blockquote>

In July 2009, Weidner posted on his webpage "Secrets of the Shining", where he states that Kubrick's ''[[The Shining (film)|The Shining]]'' (1980) is a veiled confession of his role in the scam project.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/luna/luna_apollomissions10.htm |title=Secrets of the Shining |last=Weidner |first=Jay |website=Bibliotecapleyades.net |date=July 20, 2009 |access-date=June 24, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{YouTube|7hRgQ-Qk7u8|Faked Moon Landing Hidden Subliminal Messages in Stanley Kubrick's Movie 'The Shining'}}. Retrieved June 24, 2017.</ref> This thesis was the subject of refutation in an article published on [[Seeker (media company)|Seeker]] nearly half a year later.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.seeker.com/faked-moon-landings-and-kubricks-the-shining-1765004443.html |title=Faked Moon Landings and Kubrick's 'The Shining' |last=Lamb |first=Robert |publisher=[[Seeker (media company)|Seeker]] |date=January 21, 2010 |access-date=June 24, 2017}}</ref>

The 2015 movie ''[[Moonwalkers (film)|Moonwalkers]]'' is a fictional account of a CIA agent's claim of Kubrick's involvement.

In December 2015, a video surfaced which allegedly shows Kubrick being interviewed shortly before his 1999 death; the video purportedly shows the director confessing to T. Patrick Murray that the Apollo Moon landings had been faked.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/626119/MOON-LANDINGS-FAKE-Shock-video-Stanley-Kubrick-admit-historic-event-HOAX-NASA |title=Moon Landings 'Fake': Shock video shows 'Stanley Kubrick' admit historic event was 'HOAX' |last=Austin |first=Jon |newspaper=[[Daily Express]] |date=December 11, 2015 |access-date=December 11, 2015}}</ref> Research quickly found, however, that the video was a [[hoax]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.snopes.com/false-stanley-kubrick-faked-moon-landings/ |title=Lie Me to the Moon |last=Evon |first=Dan |website=[[Snopes.com]] |date=December 11, 2015 |access-date=December 11, 2015}}</ref>

=== Academic work ===
In 2002, NASA granted $15,000 to James Oberg to write a point-by-point rebuttal of the hoax claims. However, NASA canceled the commission later that year, after complaints that the book would dignify the accusations.<ref name="Fake Moon Flight' Myth 2003, pp. 23, 30">{{cite journal |last=Oberg |first=James |author-link=James Oberg |date=March–April 2003 |title=Lessons of the 'Fake Moon Flight' Myth |journal=Skeptical Inquirer |location=Amherst, NY |publisher=[[Committee for Skeptical Inquiry]] |pages=23, 30 |access-date=April 27, 2013 |url=http://www.jamesoberg.com/042003lessonsfake_his.html}} Reprinted in [[Kendrick Frazier|Frazier, Kendrick]] (ed.) (2009). ''Science Under Siege: Defending Science, Exposing Pseudoscience''. Amherst, NY: [[Prometheus Books]]. {{ISBN|978-1591027157}}.</ref> Oberg said that he meant to finish the book.<ref name="Fake Moon Flight' Myth 2003, pp. 23, 30" /><ref>{{Cite news| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2424927.stm| access-date=August 26, 2009| title=Nasa pulls Moon hoax book| date=November 8, 2002| first=David| last=Whitehouse|work=BBC News | location = London}}</ref> In November 2002, [[Peter Jennings]] said that "NASA is going to spend a few thousand dollars trying to prove to some people that the United States did indeed land men on the Moon", and "NASA had been so rattled" that they hired somebody to write a book refuting the conspiracy theorists. Oberg says that belief in the hoax theories is not the fault of the conspiracists, but rather that of teachers and people who should provide information to the public—especially NASA.<ref name="Fake Moon Flight' Myth 2003, pp. 23, 30" />

In 2004, Martin Hendry and Ken Skeldon of the [[University of Glasgow]] were awarded a grant by the UK-based [[Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council]] to investigate Moon landing conspiracy theories.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cafescientifique.org/glasgow1.htm |title=Did we really land on the Moon? |date=February 17, 2005 |last1=Hendry |first1=Martin |last2=Skeldon |first2=Ken |publisher=[[Café Scientifique|Cafescientifique.org]] |access-date=August 26, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090805174628/http://www.cafescientifique.org/glasgow1.htm |archive-date=August 5, 2009}}</ref> In November 2004, they gave a lecture at the [[Glasgow Science Centre]] where the top ten claims by conspiracists were individually addressed and refuted.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://dimaggio.org/Glasgow/SPST/nov_2004.htm |title=Hoax Busters |date=November 2004 |first=Mario |last=Di Maggio |publisher=Dimaggio.org |access-date=August 26, 2009 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20071012215016/http://dimaggio.org/Glasgow/SPST/nov_2004.htm |archive-date=October 12, 2007}}</ref>

=== ''MythBusters'' special ===
{{Main|MythBusters (2008 season)#Episode 104 – "NASA Moon Landing"|l1=Mythbusters "NASA Moon Landing" episode}}

An episode of ''[[MythBusters]]'' in August 2008 was dedicated to the Moon landings. The ''MythBusters'' crew tested many of the conspiracists' claims. Some of the testings were done in a NASA training facility. All of the conspiracists' claims examined on the show were labeled as having been "Busted", or disproved.