Photos: 8 Moon-Landing Hoax Myths--Busted

Flags Wave
Photograph courtesy NASA
Forty years after U.S. astronaut Neil Armstrong became the first human to set foot on the moon, many conspiracy theorists still insist the Apollo 11 moon landing was an elaborate hoax. Examine the photographic evidence, and find out why experts say some of the most common claims simply don't hold water.

You can tell Apollo was faked because ... the American flag appears to be flapping as if "in a breeze" in videos and photographs supposedly taken from the airless lunar surface.

The fact of the matter is ... "the video you see where the flag's moving is because the astronaut just placed it there, and the inertia from when they let go kept it moving," said spaceflight historian Roger Launius, of the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum in Washington D.C.

The astronauts also accidentally bent the horizontal rods holding the flag in place several times, creating the appearance of a rippling flag in photographs (Apollo 11 moon-landing pictures).

—Ker Than
Published July 16, 2009
No Photographers
Photograph courtesy NASA
Neil Armstrong and the Eagle lunar lander are reflected in Buzz Aldrin's visor in one of the most famous images taken during the July 1969 moon landing.

You can tell Apollo was faked because ... only two astronauts walked on the moon at a time, yet in photographs such as this one where both are visible, there is no sign of a camera. So who took the picture?

The fact of the matter is ... the cameras were mounted to the astronauts' chests, said astronomer Phil Plait, author of the award-winning blog Bad Astronomy and president of the James Randi Educational Foundation.

In the picture above, Plait notes, "you can see [Neil's] arms are sort of at his chest. That's where the camera is. He wasn't holding it up to his visor."

(Also see restored 1960s moon pictures from unmanned orbiters.)
Published July 16, 2009
No Stars Visible
Photograph courtesy NASA
"My God, it's full of stars!" Arthur C. Clarke's 2001 character Dave Bowman famously exclaimed when faced with the vastness of space.

You can tell Apollo was faked because ... the astronauts made no such exclamation while on the moon, and the black backgrounds of their photographs are curiously devoid of stars. (See more iconic space pictures.)

The fact of the matter is ... the moon's surface reflects sunlight, and that glare would have made stars difficult to see. Also, the astronauts photographed their lunar adventures using fast exposure settings, which would have limited incoming background light.

"They were taking pictures at 1/150th or 1/250th of a second," Bad Astronomy's Plait said. "In that amount of time, stars just don't show up."

(Related: Hear a 1969 audio history of the space age, including the Apollo 11 moon landing.)
Published July 16, 2009
No Landing Crater
Photograph courtesy NASA
The lunar lander known as the Eagle rests peacefully on the moon's surface in a picture taken mere hours after the July 20, 1969, moon landing.

You can tell Apollo was faked because ... the module is shown sitting on relatively flat, undisturbed soil. According to skeptics, the lander's descent should have been accompanied by a large dust cloud and would have formed a noticeable crater. (Explore an interactive moon map.)

The fact of the matter is ... the lander's engines were throttled back just before landing, and it did not hover long enough to form a crater or kick up much dust, the Smithsonian's Launius said.
"Science fiction movies depict this big jet of fire coming out as [spacecraft] land, but that's not how they did it on the moon," he added. "That's not the way they would do it now or anytime in the future."

(Related: new, high-res moon pictures from NASA orbiter launched in 2009.)
Published July 16, 2009
Lighting Varies
Photograph courtesy NASA
A moon-landing picture shows astronaut Buzz Aldrin standing on the footpad of the Eagle's ladder, his bent knees suggesting that he's about to jump up to the next rung. (Read "Buzz Aldrin, First Man (to Pee) on the Moon, Sounds Off.")

You can tell Apollo was faked because ... Aldrin is seen in the shadow of the lander, yet he is clearly visible. Hoax subscribers say that many shadows look strange in Apollo pictures. Some shadows don't appear to be parallel with each other, and some objects in shadow appear well lit, hinting that light was coming from multiple sources—suspiciously like studio cameras.

The fact of the matter is ... there were multiple light sources, Launius said. "You've got the sun, the Earth's reflected light, light reflecting off the lunar module, the spacesuits, and also the lunar surface."

It's also important to note that the lunar surface is not flat, he added. "If an object is in a dip, you're going to get a different shadow compared to an object next to it that is on a level surface."
Published July 16, 2009
Footprints Too Clear
Photograph courtesy NASA
The contrasted lines of a bootprint appear as Buzz Aldrin lifts his foot to record an image for studying the moon's soil properties. Apollo pictures show scores of clear bootprints left behind as the astronauts traipsed across the moon. (Find out more about moon exploration.)

You can tell Apollo was faked because ... the astronauts' prints are a bit too clear for being made on a bone-dry world. Prints that well defined could only have been made in wet sand.

The fact of the matter is ... that's nonsense, said Bad Astronomy's Plait. Moon dust, or regolith, is "like a finely ground powder. When you look at it under a microscope, it almost looks like volcanic ash. So when you step on it, it can compress very easily into the shape of a boot." And those shapes could stay pristine for a long while thanks to the airless vacuum on the moon.

(Related video: "Abandoned McDonald's Serves Restored NASA Moon Pictures.")
Published July 16, 2009
No Leftovers
Photograph courtesy NASA
When Armstrong and Aldrin took off from the moon in July 1969, they left behind part of the Eagle, the U.S. flag, and several other instruments and mementos, including the seismometer Aldrin is adjusting in the above picture.

You can tell Apollo was faked because ... with instruments such as the Hubble Space Telescope capable of peering into the distant recesses of the universe, surely scientists should be able to see the various objects still on the moon. But no such pictures of these objects exist.

The fact of the matter is ... no telescope on Earth or in space has that kind of resolving power. "You can calculate this," Plait said. "Even with the biggest telescope on Earth, the smallest thing you can see on the surface of moon is something bigger than a house."
Published July 16, 2009
Strange Lights
Photograph courtesy NASA
Strange patterns of light partially obscure the upper left part of a picture of Buzz Aldrin setting up a foil sheet for collecting solar particles near the Eagle.

You can tell Apollo was faked because ... those mysterious reflections come from studio lights on a production set.

The fact of the matter is ... it's highly unlikely NASA would make such an obvious blunder if they had spent millions of dollars to fake the moon landing, Plait said.

"Okay, let's take a step back. NASA's going to release a picture showing studio lights? Hello!" The odd lights in the picture are simply lens flares," he said. "There's a big fat pentagonal one right in the middle that is from the aperture of the camera itself."
Published July 16, 2009

More »

26 comments

Newest | Oldest

cool cool

It's funny. Hoaxers say there's "atmosphere" that caused the flag to wave, but then contradict themselves and say there's no atmosphere because the footprint is too fine (at least I took it that way, where surely the moon dust would not settle perfectly but move around once they lift their legs).

Only question I would have if I were to believe this was a hoax is that, the Eagle, even though this was in the 60s, looks like it was made from popsicle sticks, tin foil, and some tape. I mean, c'mon, it's Nasa. Surely they could have built something that at least looks like it would survive re-entry into earth.

J PEREZ

@cool cool They used the module to enter earth not the eagle, the module was orbiting the moon and the eagle landed on the moon two different space craft.

J PEREZ

@cool cool The eagle is what they use to land on the moon it was attach to the module which was orbiting the moon after they took off from the moons surface they met up with the module and that's what they used to enter back into the earths atmosphere.

Timo E.

Maybe you land on the moon but these photos... I can´t believe them, sorry. You, professional photographers from NG knows how it is difficult to make a photo in hard conditions like shadows (dynamic range, ISO, F, ...) even if you have the most expensive camera from 21th century and wearing no spacesuit.

Robert sorry for grammer, I am from Slovakia (the most unknown land in the USA)

sam s.

If the gravity of the moon is what the so called scientist say it is then the so called astronaut in that photo would not have to be leaning forward to counteract the weight of the backpack. There is never going to be one giant leap for mankind if the sheep continue to keep grazing on the GMO and drinking the fluoridated water.

Brian Robbins

@sam s. them leaning forward does not mean they are trying to counter act the weght of the backpack and floride is only found in tap water, it doesnt have that drastic of an affect on the brain, and ur even advised NOT to drink it

Aller Teuerste

1 Like

@Brian Robbins @sam s.

Sorry, to disagree on a certain point: they are trying to counter act because they have to. Just because someone´s weight is less than on earth does not mean is has not to be balanced. There´s still the tricky matter of having to support one´s centre of mass - everywhere in the universe.

Torg Jungle

God no one is dumber then a moon hoaxer.. Well maybe a 9/11 truther.

Torg Jungle

God no one is dumber then a moon hoaxer.. Well maybe a 9/11 truther.

Christian Maldonado

This then contradicts the landing of the module - either the boot or the module landing is complete garbage. If the weight of a mere man with say 50-80 of aeronautical equipment on for a total estimated weight of 250-260lbs can make an impression on fine moon dust reminiscent of thin volcanic ash..... IM VERY SURE that the lunar module which must weigh in excess of 1000lbs over the average human (the weight of say a tiny car) would've made at very least a slight indentation on this "moon dust"....at foot of every one of its four legs. Yet theres not even the slightest impression on the "moons" surface.

Try this experiment.... try placing a single grain of rice on a mound of thin sawdust without making an impression..... IT CANT BE DONE.

Brian Robbins

@Christian Maldonado the moon has one sixth the gravity of earth and its a vacuum so their is no atmospheric pressure u cant tell someone to try it themselves in an environment completely different from the one the claim holds in question

Dave S

@Christian Maldonado I hope you realize the lander's feet are dome shaped and are considerably sunken into the moon's surface in the photos shown. Without an atmosphere there would be no air pressure to blow the tiny particles away as it came down so it would simply compress around the dome shape and not show an impression until it took off.

Mitchell Munoko

I found the explanation of the "covered" crosshairs referenced on Wikipedia easy to understand. Basically, this is observed when the "fiducials" as they call them go over a bright white object. Turns out that it's actually proof of an authentic photo. I've recently been doing quite a bit of reading on lunar landing conspiracy theories and their rebuttals - and I'm turning from skeptic to believer.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination_of_Apollo_Moon_photographs#Issues_with_crosshairs_in_photos

"In photography, the light white color (the object behind the crosshair) makes the black object (the crosshair) invisible due to saturation effects in the film emulsion. The film particles that ought to have been black were exposed by light from the adjacent brightly lit particles.Ironically, this saturation effect would not happen if the crosshairs were drawn on in post, and so is evidence of genuine photos. Attempting to alter photos that already have crosshairs would make the compositing process far more difficult."

Ronnie Ficsher

Mostly all the arguments are addressed here but one of the argument that is clear to the eyes i.e., not requiring any knowledge of 'applicable applied science', is the argument of the crosshairs in the images being covered by objects in the images!!

Any ideas about that?

Aller Teuerste

@Ronnie Ficsher

Yes, it´s a simple photgraphic phenomen. Very bright spots (sun, reflexions) do under certain angles simply "overshine" smaller or less brighter objects. This is mostly due to film sensitivity.

When watching carefully it soon becomes clear that this phenomen only occurs when there are bright objects close to the covered crosshairs in question.

Brian Petersen

The only reason why you can't see stars is because unlike earth. The moon doesn't have a atmosphere. Atmospheric pollution is what cause stars to shine in the night sky. You can't see stars in space.

Brian Robbins

@Brian Petersen that might be the most absolutly rediculose think ive ever heard in my entire f****** life

Choong Q.

@Brian Petersen Nope. "Atmospheric pollution", is what causes stars to 'twinkle'. Stars 'shine' because of nuclear fusion, as the Sun does. If you were referring to planets, however, they shine simply because they reflect the light from the Sun. Without the atmosphere, stars should be more visible. As for why there are no stars in the photographs, it might be due to the exposure of the cameras. Cameras were adjusted to properly expose the astronauts and their surroundings, which are well illuminated by the Sun that is brighter than the stars. As such, the cameras did not capture dimmer light from the stars, just like when your eyes cannot 'capture' the light from stars during the day.

Robert Fouts

The problem with these blogs is that there is no space for proper explanations or good science, but only bad grammer.

I have probably met an talked to Mr. Aldrin more than once as a neighbor. Sombody once told Mr. Aldrin that the moon landing was a fake and he became very upset over the issue. The incident was never in the press. That is one point of confirmation.

The secoond point of confirmation is that the LEM was pre-engineered for a subjective acceleration of exactly 2 lunar gravities. Since the unscientific blogger world is unaware of the applicable applied principle, if the landing was a fake there would be no reason to mention the specific thrust. There point 2 confirms the landing.

M.F. Jakubs

@Robert Fouts

" The problem with these blogs is that there is no space for proper explanations or good science, but only bad grammer."

Did you mean grammar? "I have probably met an talked...."

Did you mean "and"? Oh, and it's spelled "somebody"

Talk about bad grammar!

Aller Teuerste

@M.F. Jakubs @Robert Fouts

That´s not a grammar but a spelling mistake.

Danial Aziz

As the quality of the time not so up, the camera is brought in the moon to capture the pictures are not so clear, so that star images are not shown

Danial Aziz

The moon reflects the sun to the earth, so the picture looks shine Buzz Aldrin.

Danial Aziz

What do scientists use when want to see waste in moon? Please tell me. If scientists use telescopes, are very unlikely to see Apollo leftovers on the moon.