Why a Moon Hoax Would Have Been Impossible

While I love delving into a conspiracy as much as the next esotericist, some are definitely more goofy than others. The idea that we never actually went to the moon, and instead NASA (or the Air Force) hired Stanley Kubrick to hoax the entire event has always struck me as more absurd than the ‘official story.’ That they would repeatedly fake further space adventures beggars belief. But it can be tiring to dispel the various anomaly-hunting, misrepresentations of science, and outrageous claims one by one.

Photographer and filmmaker sg collins has decided to cut all of those claims off at the pass, by turning the conspiracy hypothesis against itself; by 1969, while the rocket technology required for space travel had been developed over decades, the video technology necessary to fake the moon landing had not.

Via Gizmodo:


It was a typical day in junior physics class at Point Cordial High when things took a turn... to the atypical! Mild-mannered Breshvic's seething distaste of physics broke through its last tensile straw as the very fabric of spacetime holding him in place tore like the flimsy wet blouse of an amateur porn artist! Young Breshvic found himself disembodied, floating wildly in a place with no shape or form, but more directions than previously revealed to him, and not easily explained in this format! Had he gone to that ethereal void of wraiths and gods? Had he crossed over to the land of dead? HAD HE GONE UTTERLY MAD? Had he simply fallen asleep during another lecture? NO! It was in this astral plane between reality and dream, nexus of dimension, the OMNIVERSE, that he first learned to use his powers, clawing madly to survive against nightmarish demons and malevolent cosmic shadows!

75 Comments on "Why a Moon Hoax Would Have Been Impossible"

  1. But I’ve spent hours upon hours online disputing how it was faked. I have made it a part of my identity! NOOOOOOO, fuck reality. 😛

    I kid

    Excellent video. THanks for sharing.

  2. Why is this supposed to be an argument? Those who believe that the government faked a moon landing easily consider that they withhold advanced technology.

  3. The theory that the moon landing was hoaxed is part of a psyop to make those who investigate or try to expose real conspiracies look crazy or stupid.

    • You might not be as far off as people think. “Conspiracy theory” won’t last long as a useful term for discrediting a meme if every time someone checks into one, it suddenly makes a lot of sense. So why not encourage / manufacture tinfoil? IOW, some “tinfoil” might really be astroturf.

    • If you can make money doing it, whether or not you go to prison if you try, people will try to do it. Why was the moon landing called a conspiracy because people without an imagination (can’t create their own stories) wanted to make money by wrapping a story around denouncing reality.

  4. Kevin Leonard | Jan 27, 2013 at 3:39 pm |

    This was freaking awesome.

  5. Apathesis | Jan 27, 2013 at 5:43 pm |


  6. Jin The Ninja | Jan 27, 2013 at 6:28 pm |

    surprisingly i’m in the minority here, but regardless of above video, i remain skeptical that a tin can complete with some analog light up buttons and tin foil insulation made it to the moon. call me crazy.

    • Kevin Leonard | Jan 27, 2013 at 7:05 pm |

      I feel that the Mythbusters Moon hoax episode does a convincing debunking of most of the conspiracy theory arguments.
      Though I will admit that not all arguments have been addressed.

    • Why not? It’s been shown repeatedly in history that one can go lots of places with primitive technology if you either don’t care about getting home alive all that much or don’t really get the risks. Or read some of the SF Golden Age stories about first moon landings for fairly convincing explanations about how it could have been done even with 50s technology.

      • Jin The Ninja | Jan 28, 2013 at 2:39 pm |

        i’m pretty well-read as far as sci fi is concerned. i have no doubt of the foresite of many sci fi authors in predicting the technologies and eventual moon landing . i remain skeptical of the first moon landing in the context of the technology at the time. i don’t dismiss it out rightly, nor do i subscribe to any theories on it, moreso i am remarking on a pattern of action and a historical context that saw the moon landing divert attention away from vietnam, away from american actions in latin america/africa/middle east
        and oddly allocated funding regarding nasa and the pentagon. at the height of the cold war no less. i see something very odd about that.

        • But that assumes that the CIA and NASA are well-coordinated and objectively in tandem. This has never been empirically evident, nor would it make much sense from any policy perspective except for outlying conspiracy theory examples.

          Plus, we are always at war and we are always ‘at science.’ They are linked in many ways, but the world and the government are pretty complex, and don’t require such close linkages (which actually results in a lot of dysfunction and infighting). To assume that because one department had a scientific goal within a timeframe, and another set of departments had war-mongering goals in another timeframe means they are linked… well, you might as well claim that the US Postal Service killed JFK.

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 4, 2013 at 1:46 pm |

            i didn’t say it was a broad conspiracy, i think it was accomplished using the favoured tag of “national security.”

            we don’t have open/ transparent gov’t or even democracy, so the notion of extant empircal evidence somehow entering the public sphere is pretty ridiculous.
            there exists plenty of state secrets, each more damning than the last, that haven’t entered the public consciousness either concretely or in conspiracy theory.

          • Breshvic | Feb 5, 2013 at 2:55 am |

            But lack of evidence is not evidence of a conspiracy. Claiming that any proof would be secret and unknowable is special pleading. It needs to be a falsifiable premise.

            And if your supposition is that the Apollo program was a boondoggle distraction from Vietnam, then it failed miserably. And funding for NASA relative to Pentagon spending has been abysmal for decades.

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 5, 2013 at 1:42 pm |

            you are right, lack of evidence is not evidence (nor did i say it was), i am simply asserting that the state holds many unknown secrets and to believe otherwise is naive and contrary to history, and that the lack of evidence is not proof either that there was not shady bizness going on.
            i didn’t say ‘vietnam’ solely, i said the apollo mission coincided with a number of secret actions in several places (and yes, coincided with a huge surge in vietnam as well as a number of euro-corporations moving in to exploit the huge reserves of tin, copper, oil and natural gas. in my view the pentagon simply needed the apollo mission to stir perenial nationalist sentiment, and simply began spending much less on the program when a nationalist space race/cold war victory was assured.

          • Breshvic | Feb 7, 2013 at 1:51 pm |

            We all accept the historicity of the space program being bolstered by the Cold War to a certain extent. I’ve no doubt of that. I think where we part on the issue is on how explicit this was between governmental offices. I see more infighting for funding than anything else. It’s just as plausible that the anti-communist sentiment was so pervading that it created a like-minded interest across departments with no clear-cut policy coordination. I’m just not convinced without evidence.

    • Apathesis | Jan 31, 2013 at 5:54 pm |

      It is incredibly impressive how quickly we were able to get to the moon, especially considering the disasters we had before and after our first landing.

      Fucking o-rings, man. O-rings.

  7. This guy is full of shit. A couple of nuggets to think about. NASA had done robotic missions to the moon before manned missions, and networks did not receive a direct television feed from NASA.

    Give it another decade to make a positive declaration IMHO. The US & USSR had competing theories as to how the moon was formed. The Apollo missions supported the US theory. Lately, recent science is supporting the USSR theory. IE.. More water than expected and evidence of volcanic activity etc… Whatever, I’m not a scientist or a film expert so I’m going to keep an open fucking mind and wait to see.

  8. If you read the books of Richard Hoagland, who was a NASA employee, he pretty much puts the idea of a Moon Hoax to rest. In fact, he says he was there when the suspiciously dressed man was passing out packets saying that it was faked, inside of the NASA press room. How did he get into the NASA press room? That question alone keeps me from jumping onto this idea, even though I have seen some of the alleged evidence.

    The words Conspiracy Theory do not cause me to cringe or recoil, but at the same time, every Theory that comes down the road cannot possibly be true.

    And in my opinion I think Andrew is right again in his comment. This keeps up Andrew and I might have to write a book together. This is twice that he has said what I was leaving out.

    • While I don’t personally think it is a psyop or a concerted misinformation campaign, I do think that the words ‘conspiracy theory’ have been unfairly and unfortunately charged with negative connotation.

      I don’t subscribe to many of the theories that a lot of those on here do, but I do recognize that many conspiracies have and continue to happen every day, that some percentage of the more commonly well-known ones would be true (or at least elements of them), and that we benefit most by acknowledging that they are just that; theories. At the end of the day, we just don’t know. And the humility of not knowing is even more encompassing than positing any particular story.

      Actually, conspiracy hypotheses would be a more accurate (and not as negatively associated) term.

      • Agreed, and from now on Conspiracy Hypothesis it will be. I like the adjustment out of the enforced connotation.

  9. WTFMFWOMG | Jan 27, 2013 at 9:48 pm |

    About 9 minutes in: “No such thing as a 5700 foot 35mm film magazine.” Yes there is. 6000 foot loads were routinely used by TV stations to record Kinescopes of live TV shows, one continuous hour, before practical video tape systems were invented. A 35mm movie could have been downgraded to Slow Scan TV resolution and it would have looked “live” especially at ten FPS. He points out that what the astronauts did on the moon was according to a highly predetermined schedule, so it very well could have been filmed in advance. The Astronaut’s faces were obscured by helmets, so lip-sync wouldn’t be necessary, and the sound quality was shit, so voice actors could have ad libbed the whole thing. This guy is full of shit. If these are the best arguments in favor of the Apollo missions being real, then I am a skeptic. I was watching it on TV in 1969, a firm “believer,” but now I’m not so sure anymore. This guy doesn’t help. Not one bit.

    Nobody ever asks why the original slow-scan video tapes from Apollo 11 were “lost” or “erased over” to save tape. Think about that for a moment: Mankind’s most significant achievement since the invention of fire, costing billions of dollars to execute, and they erased the historical documentation of it to save money. Bullshit. Aside from a few still photos recorded off screens in various control centers, all we have is footage from news cameras pointed at screens in mission control. The tapes should have been saved in the Smithsonian, at least, to be converted to modern formats by what ought to have been anticipated improvements in technology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes

    • Actually, lots of people ask exactly that about those tapes. For all mankind, it’s on par with the loss of the Library of Alexandria. But just because tapes were erased isn’t proof of anything. Hell, the tapes that do exist don’t seem to be proof enough for some folks that we did go to the moon.

    • Actually, lots of people ask exactly that about those tapes. For all mankind, it’s on par with the loss of the Library of Alexandria. But just because tapes were erased isn’t proof of anything. Hell, the tapes that do exist don’t seem to be proof enough for some folks that we did go to the moon.

  10. How can be such a bright surface under such a dark sky?
    From what source of light are shadows from?

  11. Being a Luddite, basically, I liked the part at the end best when he waxed philosophical and talked about civil liberties.

    I do know that Godzilla looked fake.

  12. WTFMFWOMG | Jan 27, 2013 at 10:47 pm |

    The contrast in outer space is extreme. There is a single light source, the sun, no atmosphere to diffuse it. Shadows go in different directions because of the uneven surface. This is one of the skeptics’ arguments, easily explained. The light color of the moon’s surface reflects the sun, is the source of fill light.

  13. and also, there’s this: http://disinfo.com/2010/09/who-parked-the-moon/

    Assuming that all to be true, then someone’s been to the moon…

  14. BuzzCoastin | Jan 28, 2013 at 5:43 am |

    Disinformation can be true or false
    the important thing is to focus on Nero’s fiddling
    while Rome burns
    but whatever you do
    don’t focus on those who control the puppet show

  15. stephan390 | Jan 28, 2013 at 8:17 am |

    Hayden. true that Roy`s c0mment is incredible… on saturday I bought a top of the range Audi Quattro from making $8820 this-past/five weeks and just over 10-k last month. without a doubt its the nicest work Ive had. I started this 10-months ago and practically straight away earned over $77, per-hr. I use this website, jump15.comCHECK IT OUT

  16. http://archive.org/details/Apollo11EarthViewFaking ~9:00-11:00 you can see the hole in the magicians hat quite vividly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2lyHoqIBFc ~3:52 on is interesting and telling also.

    • He should have slapped the shit out of that guy.

    • well, if they did go to the moon, that interviewer guy was being a real dick.

      • even if it is fake, that dude was wicked old and the guy snuck into his house under false pretenses. I like Luke Redkowski’s “gotcha” type stuff, but that clip just seemed like bullying. The guy just had a normal house. This documentary guy should go after Bilderbergers and shit. Face giant goon security guards and stuff, in Castles. That would take more balls.

        • He treated that scumbag pretty well considering. Which says a lot about his integrity, not to mention the integrity of the interviewer.

    • Now that I think about it, these astronauts act like you would expect them to act if they really went to the moon when confronted by conspiracy theorists. If they were really well prepared to debunk conspiracies, it would make you wonder. But if they really went it would make sense that they would be irritated and at a loss for words when pressed to prove its not fake.

      I mean, imagine confronting a veteran and saying “you are lying. You didn’t go to Viet Nam! All those photos are fake!” If he punched you in the face, he most likely was there. If he sits down and tries to persuade you that the photos are real, he’s probably bullshitting you like a PX soldier.

    • Kevin Leonard | Jan 28, 2013 at 12:13 pm |

      Dunno about that, Camron. It looks like light optics to me.

      At 10:45 – 10:50, they opened the f-stop (aperature) on the camera, they said they were reconfiguring for interior lighting.

      You can clearly see that the “anomaly” Mitchell was questioned about was inside the craft.
      You can also see for a moment, at the same timestamp, the expanding light in the window.

      At 11:35-45, they open the aperature even more (as suggested in between) and the light in the window gets washed out even more.

      At 2:20-ish, you see the other clip, which the interviewer said looked like a “hairy arm.” But this is actually consistent with having the camera focus set to “infinity” and the earth being blocked by the side of the window hatch, or the other piece of vertically-oriented equipment which is shown when the interior lights come on. The obect is blurred due to the depth of field when focused on far away objects.

      • Shhhh… they are only tuned into flaws, not proof that their delusions are incorrect.

        • Kevin Leonard | Jan 28, 2013 at 7:08 pm |

          I subscribed to the Moon Hoax theory for a long time. I actually find many of the arguments rather convincing without specialized knowledge.

          • I like what sg collins had to say about it. If you are inventing new technologies to support your delusions then you may want to step back. It’s possible most that visit this site have entertain/ed the idea. I’d like to think that some have cast them aside as mostly a distraction.

            Robert Anton Wilson has some words on the subject

          • Kevin Leonard | Jan 28, 2013 at 7:30 pm |

            I was impressed with Collins, and even watched some of his other vids. I like his sense of humor and rationalism. Some of the posters here, however, seem to have a different take on what technologies were actually available.

            By and large, I feel that we have been to the moon. But there are still some questions in my mind. I’m a conspiracy theorist at heart. I rarely believe the government. They have poisoned their own well.

          • I appreciate your perspective on this.

          • It may not be all one way or the other. They may have faked some things and not others.

          • That is something I did not consider, but it could be because I have made a choice to keep from wasting energy on what I see as a fruitless waste of time or distractions. Granted, the process of thinking outside the box can be useful.

      • I’ve tried to explain that to Mr. Wiltshire before. I don’t think he has either experience with cameras or a willingness to consider that the footage might be real.

        • Andrew. Do you think that erasing (disappearing is more like it) “accidentally” the greatest scientific achievement in human history would be likely given the magnitude of the supposed achievement? How is this possible? Did they really so haphazardly maintain evidence such paradigm changing information? With that in mind, do you believe that government’s ever use false or misleading information to extort money or power from their subjects? Once you have answered I will proceed with more information explaining why it is perfectly sane to consider another example of hoaxing by the powers that shouldn’t be.

          • Calypso_1 | Jan 31, 2013 at 2:19 pm |

            Not only is it an extended time exposure, the caption states the contrast has been manipulated to make the stars even more visible.

            Here is a non-time lapse.

          • Calypso_1 | Jan 31, 2013 at 2:19 pm |

            Not only is it an extended time exposure, the caption states the contrast has been manipulated to make the stars even more visible.

            Here is a non-time lapse.

          • I do believe governments use false and misleading information to extort power from citizens, and I am willing to consider/have considered the possibility that the moon landing was faked. But regarding that particular Apollo 11 footage, I have personally worked with cameras and how aperture adjustments work, and I’m positive that’s what I see in that video, not a transparency with a hole in it. I’m not making a judgment on any other evidence.

  17. William Thurman | Jan 28, 2013 at 12:48 pm |

    If slow motion technology was unavailable in 1969, then how did Kubrick use it in ’68 while making 2001?

    • He didn’t say it was unavailable, he describes the cranking techniques available for film.

    • He didn’t use slow motion — those space stations and spaceships in “2001” were actually stop-motion, done the one one-frame-one-photo-at-a-time way by Douglass Trumbull.

  18. what a complete idiot

  19. I can’t believe there are still those who thinks the moon landing were faked! Like it has always been said, we were in a race to the moon with the Soviets to be the first on the moon! Why would we have to land more than once?
    What get me is people that looks at rocks on Mars and sees all kinds of animals yet when shown photos of our landing sites from orbital cameras they call them faked!
    I can’t imagine someone being so unscientific in these days to still think we didn’t go to the moon! Not unlike those “Flat Earth” believers from days past!

    • Kevin Leonard | Jan 28, 2013 at 3:57 pm |

      On the other hand, if we could just convince everyone we landed, why would we have to land at all?

    • To be fair, the people who see little alien shadows and faces on Mars rocks are not usually the same people who claim we didn’t go to the moon. And even if there are people like that, well, cognitive dissonance can be a powerful thing.

  20. There is no way we went to the moon in the sixties. back then a computer that would be comparable to the average calculator today was the size of a large room. Man has never landed on the moon and never will. How is it possible to calculate how much fuel to the moon and back without ever going there. How would we be able to communicate from the moon to earth through the amount of radiation. Anything outside of orbit will kill any living thing. Can anyone imagine not having the protection of the ozone.

    • VaudeVillain | Jan 28, 2013 at 8:19 pm |

      “There is no way we went to the moon in the sixties.”

      Well, there is the one. I suppose you’re welcome to believe that it didn’t actually happen, but claiming that it isn’t even a way to have done it is a bit foolish.

      “Man has never landed on the moon and never will.”

      Never? Why not? There is currently a large-scale manned one-way mission to Mars in the works, landing on the moon is trivial by comparison.

      “How is it possible to calculate how much fuel to the moon and back without ever going there.”


      Is this a serious point? Have you ever driven to Tallahassee? I’ll bet that you could make a relatively accurate estimate of how much fuel that would take if you worked on it for a few minutes. I’ll bet if you got together a few hundred engineers, professional drivers, mechanics and traffic analysts, then gave them over a decade to test out different vehicles and perfect their calculations of how much fuel your specially selected automobile burns, that they could give you a damned-near-perfect estimate.

      “How would we be able to communicate from the moon to earth through the amount of radiation.”

      How do we communicate through the enormous amount of radiation here on Earth? You are aware that visible spectrum light is radiation, yes? Try out this fun experiment: go outside at high noon on a sunny day, and have somebody else turn on a flashlight; you might be surprised to see that even without any fancy equipment or error correction, you can see the light from the flashlight just fine, despite the vast amount of broadband radiation bombarding everything around you.

      “Anything outside of orbit will kill any living thing.”

      Well, the moon is expressly not outside of orbit, so that doesn’t seem relevant. I suspect that you meant something a bit different, but rather than guess at your meaning, I’ll just leave this one as explicitly irrelevant. Also, it is more than a little ambiguous. Please clear this up, so that I can more thoroughly dissect your incorrect claims.

      “Can anyone imagine not having the protection of the ozone[ layer?]”

      Yes, I imagine that it would be challenging, and that it would require extensive radiation shielding. Apparently you cannot, but this does not so much invalidate the possibility of a moon landing as indicate that your imagination is deficient.

    • F*ckin’ Magnets. How do they work?

  21. Once Again… Back in the sixties NASA didn’t have fancy digital encrypted radio. They only had old-fashioned analog AM. (Those frequencies still being used today for weather sats at 137mhz). So anyone who had the time and means could build their own parabolic dish antennas to monitor the audio. TV signals required way bigger dishes like Parks, Australia or Goldstone. Many Ham Radio hobbyists built their own dish antennas and listened in during the Gemini and Apollo missions. Parabolic antennas MUST BE POINTED AT THE TARGET to receive the signal. Anyone who has dish network knows this. Hams tracked the spacecraft all the way to the moon and back. That can’t be faked.

  22. Fucking shill! Just try to find ONE photo from the “moon landings” that shows THE SUN. YOU CAN’T CUZ THEY DON’T EXIST!!!! (case closed.)

Comments are closed.