Everybody loves a good old-fashioned conspiracy theory and the granddaddy of them all is the belief that NASA somehow faked the Apollo 11 moon landing on a secret sound stage and that astronauts never really walked on the lunar surface.
Despite an avalanche of evidence and data to the contrary, this wild yarn has been perpetuated for decades. The shaky reasoning behind the Apollo 11 moon landing has been easily debunked one-thousand times by NASA officials, scientists, astrophysicists, engineers, billionaire geniuses, and historians. However, there's still a cabal of hardcore conspiracy theorists who still cling to the idea that it was all a clever ruse orchestrated by Hollywood and NASA to beat the Soviet Union in the Space Race.
Columbia Pictures' "Fly Me To the Moon" is a new romantic comedy released on July 12, 2024 directed by Greg Berlanti that depicts this conspiracy theory, centering its story around a clandestine plan to shoot a fake moon landing as a precautionary backup should the Apollo 11 Moon mission go awry. Scarlett Johansson stars as Kelly Jones, an ace ad executive assigned to Cape Canaveral, Florida who strikes up an intimate relationship with Channing Tatum's straight-laced NASA launch director named Cole Davis while this bumbling classified production called Project Artemis is filmed.
While this feature film is definitely a work of fanciful fiction, could there be more than a thread of truth behind the purported artificial act and any rumored discussion of NASA hedging their bets with an orchestrated effort to pull off a bit of moviemaking misdirection? The answer is a resounding "no," as there is zero proof of any fraudulent proposal put forth by NASA or the U.S. Government to concoct a facsimile of any Moon landing. The theory is all smoke and mirrors.
So where and when did this lame-brained idea, which postulates that filmmakers and special effects artists fooled millions of people worldwide for decades by creating a substitute lunar landing, come from and what are the logical fallacies at its paranoid heart? Let's take a deeper dive into this somewhat murky puddle of misinformation and see what it’s truly all about.
"I think the fact that NASA was always going to participate in this movie to the degree that they did always made me know that we were honoring actually what happened," Berlanti told The Hollywood Reporter. "When you see the movie, without giving away the ending, you realize that so much of it is about why the truth is important. And so I think I was fine to take on an OG conspiracy theory, knowing that in the end, what we were really trying to say why the truth matters."
Human beings are skeptical by nature, which is an evolutionary trait meant to perpetuate our survival, but even in the face of tens of thousands of NASA images, films, videos, lunar dust and rock samples, and scientific data to prove we did indeed land on the moon, the conspiracy theory has never completely died. We've even taken images of footprints, rover tracks, abandoned equipment and even bounced lasers off Apollo 11's Lunar Laser Retro-Reflector left behind by Buzz Aldrin!
Get the Space.com Newsletter
Breaking space news, the latest updates on rocket launches, skywatching events and more!
One trigger point for these unfounded beliefs was director Peter Hyams' 1978 sci-fi thriller "Capricorn One," which centered around a plot to record a fake Martian landing after it’s discovered that the astronauts would have died when their life support systems failed.
Another amusing aspect of the crackpot theory speculates that director Stanley Kubrick of "2001: A Space Odyssey" fame was recruited by NASA for the staged hoax for its six moon landings, something that most definitely did not happen. Kubrick, the master cinematic perfectionist, even pokes fun at that absurd idea by having Danny Torrance, the clairvoyant child character in 1980's supernatural horror classic, "The Shining," prominently dressed in an Apollo 11 sweater.
It took the combined effort of more than 450,000 living breathing souls to deliver humankind to our lone satellite in the heavens, an almost unimaginable accomplishment when considering the state of computers, aerospace engineering, rocket propulsion, navigation tools and microcircuitry of the age.
But even more unimaginable is the notion that nearly one-half million of these proud contributors could have remained silent for the past 55 years if these hoax allegations were true to the slightest degree.
Sure, we've heard the head-scratching reasoning for the continued madness: Apollo 11's U.S. flag waves in the wind without the existence of wind on the moon; the absence of stars in any of NASA's moon landing photos; Apollo astronauts couldn’t have survived Earth's dangerous Van Allen radiation belt; and non-parallel shadows in the moon landing images undeniably show they were faked.
All these inane claims have been easily disproven with simple explanations for decades, yet the desire to perpetuate the conspiracy is stronger than mere logic and so it remains embedded in an irrational corner of our imaginative global zeitgeist.
Had there been some fatal Apollo 11 mission mishap, there was however a contingency speech President Richard Nixon might have delivered to the nation titled, "In Event of Moon Disaster." This somber address would have been read had Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin been stranded on the lunar surface due to the lunar module's ascent stage not propelling them back into orbit. Luckily that never happened and the entire Apollo 11 crew splashed down safely July 24, 1969.
"Fly Me To The Moon" might draw upon silly conjecture that the moon landings were faked or that a misguided backup plan was discussed behind closed doors, but however far-fetched it seems to disbelievers, NASA did actually place 12 men on the moon from 1969-1972, proving that the weight of truth still reigns supreme.
Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.
Jeff Spry is an award-winning screenwriter and veteran freelance journalist covering TV, movies, video games, books, and comics. His work has appeared at SYFY Wire, Inverse, Collider, Bleeding Cool and elsewhere. Jeff lives in beautiful Bend, Oregon amid the ponderosa pines, classic muscle cars, a crypt of collector horror comics, and two loyal English Setters.
-
vincestone I'm just a simple fool buuut.Reply
It seems that despite you remarking a "No to your moon hoax theory". The problem is that, from all the images and film the Apollo missions captured, we are presented to this day only a handfull of images. And the US had more failures with the Saturn V rockets a than successful trials, let alone NASA somehow deleting all of the files of the flight data, telemetry & statistical records.
When it comes to cinematic movies involving an outer space theme, they aren't really in abundance, as they generally have an "Alien theme" as most films with CGI and Bluescreen seem to show space if not better than photos or live feeds shown. Including NASA having to edit the google image of earth, showing landmass askew and cloud formations added with the countless shades of color Earth.
We've seen bubbles rise, on the the Spacestation and over spacesuits. Not to mention SpaceX with having the capability to land back on its legs with somehow using less propellant to get it back on ground than to go up.
NASA can't even show the landing sites and rovers that have been left up on the moon. I've got a Celestron 9.25 advanced VX and struggle to see anything at all.
How come only the US had sent people to the moon when the Russians had the know-how more than the US.
The no dust or crater from the thruster when Gemini landed, the remote camera filming on the LEM, and leaving, the direct phone conversation with Nixon with no time delay.
I can keep going to prove that there's a conspiracy to hide the fact we can't go further than lower earth orbit . You're a joke.
NASA spent how much on an ink pen that would work in zero g but the Russians just used a pencil. That's shows you how inept they are. -
Classical Motion I heard the time delay when it happened. Millions did. And we now have telescopes that can see the left there equipment.Reply -
Classical Motion Back then some were saying it was fake and the tape delay proved the dubbing of the tape.Reply -
AlphaCrusis
NASA probably have a whole heap of images but it could be that a lot of them aren't very good. I don't know where you got that information about the Saturn V, there is no record of any catastrophic failures (apart from Apollo 1 which was an oxygen test gone wrong in the command module) and it was recorded that one engine failed on the first stage after the Apollo 11 launch for a short period of time and we all know about Apollo 13 although that was the service module that failed but you really need to qualify your assertions.vincestone said:I'm just a simple fool buuut.
It seems that despite you remarking a "No to your moon hoax theory". The problem is that, from all the images and film the Apollo missions captured, we are presented to this day only a handfull of images. And the US had more failures with the Saturn V rockets a than successful trials, let alone NASA somehow deleting all of the files of the flight data, telemetry & statistical records.
When it comes to cinematic movies involving an outer space theme, they aren't really in abundance, as they generally have an "Alien theme" as most films with CGI and Bluescreen seem to show space if not better than photos or live feeds shown. Including NASA having to edit the google image of earth, showing landmass askew and cloud formations added with the countless shades of color Earth.
We've seen bubbles rise, on the the Spacestation and over spacesuits. Not to mention SpaceX with having the capability to land back on its legs with somehow using less propellant to get it back on ground than to go up.
NASA can't even show the landing sites and rovers that have been left up on the moon. I've got a Celestron 9.25 advanced VX and struggle to see anything at all.
How come only the US had sent people to the moon when the Russians had the know-how more than the US.
The no dust or crater from the thruster when Gemini landed, the remote camera filming on the LEM, and leaving, the direct phone conversation with Nixon with no time delay.
I can keep going to prove that there's a conspiracy to hide the fact we can't go further than lower earth orbit . You're a joke.
NASA spent how much on an ink pen that would work in zero g but the Russians just used a pencil. That's shows you how inept they are.
I also have a book called 'Rocket Men' by Craig Nelson that details the Apollo 11 mission and its full of flight data, telemetry and statistical records.
Just on the film studio conspiracy; The best a film studio could do in the 1960's was what we saw with Star Trek (Paramount Studios) and how bad the special effects were, in fact it wasn't until Star Wars in 1977 and progress with sfx that the images were at least believable with the use of green screen and the Dykstraflex camera but to say that NASA had the film technology in 1969 that Lucasfilm had in 1977 is nonsense.
I've never seen bubbles on the ISS but you should ask Elon Musk why it is that SpaceX uses less fuel to land than it does to launch, but I think that it has to do with the weight at the time of landing that is, a lot lighter landing than what is was when it launched having a full load of fuel.
NASA has actually shown us the remnants of the Apollo missions and have posted them.
The Russians N1 rocket blew up soon after launch which spelled the end of their moon programme at the time but the Russians aren't very good at minor details, in early missions the cosmonauts took sandwiches and cake for their food which is OK if you don't mind crumbs flying around the capsule. Pencils are OK if you can scrub the environment of carbon particles from the pencils lead. NASA have built a reputation of assembling spacecraft in clean rooms because they know that contamination of any sort is detrimental for any type of mission, the Russians aren't so fastidious so they are more prone to failure.
Vincestone, there is no conspiracy, Neil Armstrong assembled a laser reflector array for scientists on earth to fire a laser at so when they receive the reflected light then they can compute the distance of the moon from the earth, it is still in use today. Forget about the conspiracies they are only a distraction. -
COLGeek
Sorry, but this is full of misconceptions and misunderstandings. Not reality in any way and perpetuating a hoax.vincestone said:I'm just a simple fool buuut.
It seems that despite you remarking a "No to your moon hoax theory". The problem is that, from all the images and film the Apollo missions captured, we are presented to this day only a handfull of images. And the US had more failures with the Saturn V rockets a than successful trials, let alone NASA somehow deleting all of the files of the flight data, telemetry & statistical records.
When it comes to cinematic movies involving an outer space theme, they aren't really in abundance, as they generally have an "Alien theme" as most films with CGI and Bluescreen seem to show space if not better than photos or live feeds shown. Including NASA having to edit the google image of earth, showing landmass askew and cloud formations added with the countless shades of color Earth.
We've seen bubbles rise, on the the Spacestation and over spacesuits. Not to mention SpaceX with having the capability to land back on its legs with somehow using less propellant to get it back on ground than to go up.
NASA can't even show the landing sites and rovers that have been left up on the moon. I've got a Celestron 9.25 advanced VX and struggle to see anything at all.
How come only the US had sent people to the moon when the Russians had the know-how more than the US.
The no dust or crater from the thruster when Gemini landed, the remote camera filming on the LEM, and leaving, the direct phone conversation with Nixon with no time delay.
I can keep going to prove that there's a conspiracy to hide the fact we can't go further than lower earth orbit . You're a joke.
NASA spent how much on an ink pen that would work in zero g but the Russians just used a pencil. That's shows you how inept they are.
A blow by blow response is likely not going to convince you otherwise, but all of this can easily be debunked.
Have a real day. -
billslugg
At the distance of the Moon, a 9.25" telescope, working at 500 nm, could resolve about 0.4 mile. The landing craft were smaller than that. You have confirmed this.vincestone said:I've got a Celestron 9.25 advanced VX and struggle to see anything at all.
PS - You are ahead of me though. I'm still up in the air on this "Moon" thing.