The most consistently seen argument of moon hoax believers, is why, in a land with no air, the American flag stands up and waves, instead of falling down to the ground? And yes, if you look closely at the moon flag video clip, (Realtime player required.) it does appear as if Neil is fighting with the USA flag. But, if you look even closer, you can see that the flag is only flapping when Neil is holding it, and trying to twist the flag into the ground. (You can’t see this that well because of convenient editing.). Because of this the flag waving can be accounted for by Neil twisting the pole.
But the conspiracists also say that there are at least one photo, where the flag is flapping and the astronauts are no where near the flag. The explanation for this is simple. NASA’s flag was on an antenna, connected to the pole which pulled out like a radio receiver. At Apollo 11, the antenna wouldn’t pull out all of the way, causing a ripple which looks like a waving flag if taken through a camera. On later missions the flag wasn’t pulled out all of the way because it looked better.
But the most publicly advertised hoax conspiracy is the Coke can hoax. A woman called Una Ronald was said to have spotted a Coke can bounce along the floor. Left there are some frames of the video. The supposed “Coke bottle” is shown highlighted.
Even though it doesn’t look much like a Coke can – as it can be barely seen on still photos – it is still something. And that something is light. In this clip Neil is demonstrating the bunny hop (a kind of walk) and he’s moving from left to right. What is happening, is the light from the sun, is reflecting from Neil’s visor and showing up on the camera. The visor and the Coke can is shown with purple dots and connected with a yellow line, the middle of the screen is marked out in the blue lines.
If you see the yellow line crosses the center in every picture. This anomaly is called a catadioptrism, or ghosting and you can see several cases of this in the Original Apollo Moon Landing Film.
If you look at the film closely, another example of ghosting is shown, as half of the time there are three astronauts running around on the moon. Also the ‘Coke can’ appears twice in different places, and it doesn’t make sense that there was two Coke cans on the moon, both slipping detection. Also if you freeze the frames with the Coke in shot, you can see that the can is bent in different places at different times!
But many people will argue, that the reason why you couldn’t see the Coke sign and the can is bent, is because the video is too low a quality. Which in itself is a conspiracy.
The theory is, the video was low quality on purpose, to stop critical analysis, but there is a another, more reasonable reason. The first plans for TV broadcast, was a giant satellite dish set up on the moon by the astronauts. NASA wanted to record the first step on the moon, but the dish would take to long to set up, in the short amount of time they had, so the small transmission satellite dish on the moon lander was used resulting in lower quality images.
This section was supposed to be much larger, but I couldn’t find much original footage that hadn’t been tampered with. (i.e. convenient editing) or the full film. So I can’t explain all of the video arguments the conspiracists have presented in full.
See our Apollo Moon Landing Forum.
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Photographic Evidence
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – More Photographic Evidence
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Camera Problems
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Video Evidence
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Why Fake a Moon Landing?
Moon Landing Hoax Fun Video
Well if you didn’t believe it was a big government conspiracy before watching the video below, you will afterwards. It’s very funny 
57 responses to Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Video Evidence
NASA has lied through their teeth constantly about the moon landings and still the sheeple swallow without question every thing they tell them. Ok just to prove them liars and that the landings are fake I will give you simple proof. They claim there is no stars in the photos because of sunlight then go on giving cheap excuses to prove this lie. So in all lunar photos yip no stars. Blatant lies sheeple. Here is an example from the Soviet Luna 13 photos, yip lots of stars. Oops NASA missed deleting them lol.have a look for your self here. http://www.mentallandscape.com/C_CatalogMoon.htm these are untampered photos from the Russian space museum.
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
16 
10 (+6)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Video Evidence
if you take a scond and think of 2 different cams one taking a picture in 1/250 second and the other taking a picture over a few days, which picture do you think have more detailing. ask any photographer this question. or even better, try it under low light conditions yourself.
one of humans greatest achivements is the lunar landing, and i pity all the people that believes that it is a hoax
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
9 
14 (-5)
mor proof that the con game is the no moon landing hoax
http://www.clavius.org/
go there to educate your self about the no moon landing hoax. Yes the conspiracy theory of no moon landing is a fabrication of media and social entrepreneurship targeting undereducated and gullible people to buy into their media driven hoax to sell books and eventually kill the civilian program to return to the moon.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
3 
4 (-1)
Wake up children. Kubric composed the moon landing. He tells us all about in 2001 and in “The Shining”, if you wake up to the ART.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
LA ILAHA ILLA LAHU MUHAMMAD RASULULAH. THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH. MUHAMMED IS HIS PROPHET
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
6 
12 (-6)
Here’s a handy experiment to try. Grab a digital camera with a manual exposure mode. On the next sunny day, go outside around noon, set your camera to ISO 100, shutter speed to 1/125, aperture to f/16, and take a picture of the landscape. You *should* get a decent exposure, at least within a half-stop or so. Now set the shutter speed to 30 seconds and take another picture. You should get a frame of solid, detail-free white.
On the next moonless night, go outside and take a picture of the stars using the same two sets of exposure settings. At Tv=1/125, you should have solid black where the stars should be. At Tv=30″, you should see at least the brightest stars (and possibly a lot of noise, depending on the camera).
Photographic film and digital sensors cannot capture the dynamic range between the sunlit lunar (or terrestrial) surface *and* the stars in the background. Our eyes have greater range, but even they have limits (tell me how many stars you can see on a moonless night vs. a night with a full moon).
Expose for the lunar surface, and the stars simply don’t register. Expose for the stars, and the surface will be a detail-free blob of solid white. Don’t take my word for it, grab your camera and see for yourself.
To get both in the same image, you either would have to use two separate exposures and combine them later, or somehow double expose the same frame, masking out the surface for one exposure and the stars for the other.
As for the Luna and Zond photos in the link you supplied: which frames are supposed to have stars in the background? As far as I can tell, *none* of the images show any background stars.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
6 
1 (+5)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Video Evidence
NO STARS IN RUSSIAN PICTURES
These are picture from the Russian sond going behind the moon. No stars whatsoever can be seen on these pictures. None.
http://www.mentallandscape.com/C_CatalogMoon.htm
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
4 
2 (+2)
in response to hyundisonata…looked at the russian page…not one photo with stars in it! black just like ours!
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
0 (+1)
Lol.lol. censored site. Yip when someone gives you real evidence of the lies you emit their post. Dickheads or what. Hope you enjoy living under the new world order.
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
6 
12 (-6)
Hey, Sonata -- the fact you can’t even spell Hyundai is a bit of a clue to the rest of us. You poor undeveloped meat-puppet. Real evidence of lies? Good grief -- try reading the text that belongs with your Russian photos. They are photos of the Dark Side of the moon. Do you understand the tricky scientific concept of Dark? It’s where you have to expose a film for seconds in order to see any detail at all -- so of course the stars show up. Much like other NASA photos from missions that travelled around the back.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
3 
4 (-1)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Video Evidence
duuuh. if russia went all the way to the dark side of the moon dont you think nasa from the USA they will do the same to discover were the stars at
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
2 (-2)
just once i’d like to meet a conspiracy theorist who presents plausible evidence.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
Appolo moon landing is not true. Becouse of uncountable scientific reasons. I have many questions to ask NASA about space which NASA will not answer.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
4 
1 (+3)
Apollo moon landing is just unbleivable joke of fake scientist i.e NASA. You better change your mind from making fable films to something important.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
4 
3 (+1)
I have read the info and arguements on both sides looked over the photos and read opinions from freaking everyone. I have to say I don’t think the moon landing is a hoax. oh and by the way fuck you Sonata Im not a “sheeple”
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
6 (-6)
point by point debunking of hoaxed no landing theroies
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
you might want to rain in the faulty research with real science
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
1 (0)
Apollo 16 "Jump Salute"
It seems that it is not possible for the footage covering this event to have been shot on the moon. When jumping for this historic snapshot, the astronaut stays in suspension far too long, accounting for the moon’s gravitational force and also the huge discrepancy between the soil’s falloff from the boots and the astronaut himself. It’s easier to ascertain this by bearing in mind that this should have been a lunar environment where there would be no air resistance and the moon’s gravitational force represents 1/6 of the earth’s gravitational force, the peak and descent of both soil and astronaut should have been pretty much the same. Oddly this doesn’t happen, the soil is pretty much settled when the astronaut begins it’s descent. Remember that a feather and a hammer fall at basically the same rate in the moon?
Here is more detail:
http://speedge.free.fr/nasa/jumpflag2/jumpfalg.htm
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
6 (-5)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Video Evidence
Re: Apollo 16 "Jump Salute"
Um, isn’t buoyancy from air what keeps dust up on the Earth? Furthermore, if one watches the ground in the video closely, they will see a wave of dust spreading from the point where the astronaut jumped at. Some dust is still visible until the moment when the astronaut lands, perfectly consistent with the “hammer and feather” experiment.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
1 (-1)
true, hammer and feather fall at the same speed in a vacuum…which they did…on the moon…and video taped it…and it worked…they must have been in a vacuum…in space…
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
RE: Jump Salute
You made the point that the maximum height of the dust is much smaller than the maximum height that the astronaut reached. You also said that the dust fell much quicker than him. Does this not make sense to you? Taking into account for the same gravity which applies to and is experienced both by the astronaut and the dirt, it would seem to make perfect sense that the majority of the dust will already be settled on the ground (because there is no air for the dirt to be supported by)? This is due to the fact that the dust is not attached to the astronauts boots and hence doesn’t possess the same vertical kinetic energy and is only momentarily disturbed as he applies downward force on the moon’s surface and jumps. Some of the dirt tracked into the base of his boots will come up with him, but as it is not directly attached, it will fall back to the surface according to Newton’s Laws while the astronaut who still possesses vertical kinetic energy will continue to rise. When his velocity is zero (due to the moon’s deceleration caused by its gravity (caused by mass)), he should (and does) fall back to the surface according to the same laws that caused the dirt to fall in a similar fashion. So basically, it is this “absence of air resistance” that causes the effect you described and that which is shown by footage taken on the Moon by NASA astronauts. “Science-ed”
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
0 (+1)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Video Evidence
+++ The Moon Landing Hoax +++
The moon landing was a cleverly designed plan to fool all people who thought it was a hoax. And guess what? NASA got away with it! NASA tricked all you basement dwellers into believing it was a hoax. All the astronauts pwnd you from the moon. In fact… when us smart people leave to live on mars, we will remember you hoax believers as our “village idiots”.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
2 (-2)
Let's shed a little light...
I know this will not convince everyone but, the moon hoax theorists can preserve the first part of the bell curve…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=RfKItI-cHPM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&v=NOv_zvM-oJQ&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=0dTATMEJSuQ
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
0 (+1)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Video Evidence
Leave a reply to Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Video Evidence