Yes, We Really Landed On The Moon And Simple Science Debunks All The "Evidence" Of A Conspiracy

NASA is not lying to you about the Moon landings; the Apollo missions really did land on the lunar surface, and there is an abundance of proof out there for anyone interested in facts instead of fiction. While debunking Moon landing conspiracies could be a full-time job for those who know the facts, one can only marvel at the tenacity of conspiracy theorists in their endless quest to perpetuate the lie that NASA never landed on the Moon. Interestingly enough, the most significant piece of evidence to support NASA's claim isn't really evidence, per se; at least not in the physical sense so much as in good ol' everyday common sense. 

The single greatest proof that NASA's Apollo Mission landed on the Moon just as they claimed lies in the simple, undeniable fact that if it had been a hoax, there is no shortage of people out there who are qualified to expose the lie. Not only qualified, but extremely motivated to do so if doing so were possible in the first place. Do not forget, NASA accomplished this feat during the height of the Space Race with the former Soviet Union, and nothing would have pleased the Communist State more than exposing President Nixon and the United States of America as frauds. They did not, simply because they could not. That in itself is pretty substantial evidence the Moon landing wasn't fake. But if you still need a little more convincing in the form of fact-based science, there's a wealth of that to go around as well.

Photo: NASA/Neil A. Armstrong / Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain

  • The Flag 'Waved' Due To An Equipment Malfunction

    The Flag 'Waved' Due To An Equipment Malfunction
    Video: YouTube

    Since there's no atmosphere on the Moon (the Moon has an exosphere made up of spread out gas molecules that rarely collide), there is no wind. That's never been in dispute. So how is it when astronauts planted the American flag, it waved and continued moving momentarily after the astronaut released it?

    The waving flag is one of the most common points brought up by conspiracy theorists as proof the Moon landing never occurred. In the book Apollo Expeditions to the Moon by Edgar M. Cortright, Buzz Aldrin explains what went on as he and Neil Armstrong were setting the flag up: 

    "It took both of us to set it up, and it was nearly a public relations disaster... a small telescoping arm was attached to the flagpole to keep the flag extended and perpendicular. As hard as we tried, the telescope wouldn't fully extend. Thus the flag which should have been flat had its own permanent wave."

    In addition to Aldrin's explanation of the moving flag, the fact the flag continued to move proves that it was not inside some secret studio within Earth's atmosphere. Were it being influenced by Earth's gravity, it would have actually stopped moving much faster than in an atmosphere with considerably lower gravity. This has been independently tested and proven on numerous occasions, including by the Mythbusters gang in the above video.

  • NASA Coordinated The Launch With The Van Allen Belts' Lowest Radioactive Intensities

    The Earth is surrounded by a massive amount of radiation known as the Van Allen radiation belts. Moon landing conspiracy theorists point out that if Apollo 11 had really exited Earth's atmosphere, the radiation of the Van Allen belts would have killed all of the astronauts on board. 

    What the conspiracy theorists don't include in their argument, however, is the fact that the radiation in the Van Allen belt waxes and wanes in reaction to the incoming energy from the sun. In order to ensure the astronauts on the Apollo 11 (and every other manned mission) weren't fried traveling through the belt, NASA timed the launch to coincide with the radioactive belts' moments of lowest intensity, and they made sure they got through there quickly. NASA also made sure to line the spacecraft with instrumentation that would block as much radiation as possible

    The radiation from the Van Allen belts could be lethal if the astronauts were in the area for days, but they were able to travel through the belt in a matter of hours, receiving the same amount of radiation one would get from an X-ray.

  • The Footprint On The Moon Doesn't Match Neil Armstrong's Boot... Because It Was Left By Buzz Aldrin

    Anyone who has perused the photos of NASA's Apollo missions has undoubtedly seen the famous image of the footprint left in the lunar dust. Conspiracy theorists have compared the print in the picture to the boot tread of the actual suit worn by Neil Armstrong. The entire space suit is on display at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum for anyone who wants to conduct their own comparison.

    For the conspiracy theorists out there, you will be happy to know that in this particular case the claim made is correct. The print doesn't even come close to a match of Armstrong's boot. That probably has something to do with the fact that it wasn't a footprint left by Armstrong in the first place. The image seen in the photos is a print left by the space boot of Buzz Aldrin. He also took the photo of the impression himself. And yes... the two are a perfect match.

  • There Was No Blast Crater Due To Low Gravity

    At first glance, conspiracy theorists have a point here. There should be a blast crater beneath the landing module - that is, if it were making its landing on Earth instead of a lower gravity environment. Landing on the Moon requires far less thrust than is necessary on Earth since there is far less gravitational pull.

    Additionally, the landing module set down on solid rock and left no more of a crater than a 747 jet would on the runway at an airport. The lack of a crater actually supports the authenticity of the Moon landing, because if they were perpetuating a hoax, it stands to reason NASA would have also thought of a blast crater and made sure there was one in place to satisfy the critics. The fact of the matter is there was no crater created by the actual landing, and they did not feel compelled to dig one so that their landing would appear more authentic.

  • The "C" On This Moon Rock Is Just A Fiber That Got Caught In The Photo Copier

    The "C" On This Moon Rock Is Just A Fiber That Got Caught In The Photo Copier
    Photo: NASA / Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain

    When people started taking a closer look at the photographs from the Apollo 16 mission, a discovery was made of the letter "C" printed on a particular rock. Conspiracy theorists believe that the "C" was the way of cataloguing a prop; stage crew members would know where to put props based on their letters.

    Some are convinced that the "C rock" is all the proof they need to know the Moon landing was a hoax. However, upon further investigation, the "C" does not appear in the original NASA photographs or even on the negatives. The "C" is believed to be a hair or fiber that somehow got caught in the machine while copies of the photograph were being made.

  • Short Exposure Time Did Not Allow Cameras To Capture A Starry Backdrop

    Some theorists have stated that the missing stars in the backdrop of space prove that photographs were not taken on the Moon. Because of the lack of stars, the photos must have been taken on Earth and/or faked in a studio.

    If the photos were faked, one would think Stanley Kubrick and all of the genius minds behind NASA would have scattered a few fake stars in the backdrop. The simple truth is the cameras were not able to capture the celestial backdrop because the subjects being photographed - the astronauts - were much brighter than the background, and the short exposure time of the camera did not allow the light from the stars to be captured. The light reflected from the moon's surface also played a part in drowning out the light from distant stars. NASA gave the following explanation about the stars being absent in photos:

    "Astronauts striding across the bright lunar soil in their sunlit spacesuits were literally dazzling. Setting a camera with the proper exposure for a glaring spacesuit would naturally render background stars too faint to see."