The Conspiracy Theories
​​
There are three conspiracy theories for the 1969 moon landing that we will look at. The first conspiracy is that producer Stanley Kubrick helped stage and produce the moon landing footage. The second conspiracy is that NASA and the U.S. government faked the landing for political gain. The third conspiracy is that the absence of stars, the waving of the flag, and the unusual shadows in the photos and videos all prove it was staged. Let’s dive into these theories to determine which one is best supported by evidence.
The first theory is that producer Stanley Kubrick helped stage the moon landing footage. This idea likely gained traction because of the extraordinary realism of Kubrick’s 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey, which depicted space travel with striking accuracy. Some viewers assumed that if Kubrick could make such realistic footage, NASA might have enlisted his help to fake the Apollo 11 broadcast. Becky Little writes, “The thing is, the moon landing footage didn’t look real because Kubrick filmed it—Kubrick’s movie 2001 looked real because Kubrick enlisted astronomical artists and aerospace engineers to help him with it. The only ‘evidence’ that Kubrick filmed the moon landing has itself proved to be a hoax” (Little 1). This shows that the connection between Kubrick and the moon landing is based on coincidence rather than fact. It is easy to see why people would link Kubrick’s film with the moon landing. However, the professional quality of Kubrick’s film was the result of his artistic research, not secret collaboration with NASA. When viewed critically, the theory falls apart because nothing connects Kubrick to NASA, and the supposed proof has been repeatedly debunked. This shows how easily visually impressive filmmaking can spark speculation when people confuse artistic realism with actual scientific engineering, making the conspiracy more a product of assumption than evidence.
The second conspiracy is that NASA and the U.S. government faked the landing for political gain. At the time, the United States was in fierce competition with the Soviet Union to achieve technological dominance, and winning the “Space Race” symbolized national superiority. Because of this, it is possible that some still believe the government fabricated the Apollo 11 mission to appear victorious without landing on the moon. According to the National Air and Space Museum, “Jaded by so many other government scandals, these younger members of society whose recollection of Apollo is distant to begin with finds it easy to believe the questioning they see on myriad Moon hoax web sites. Lack of understanding of science and failure to employ critical analytical skills make them more susceptible to this type of hucksterism” (Why Do People Persist in Denying the Moon Landings? 1). This observation highlights how mistrust in government institutions can fuel belief in conspiracy theories. Since there were so many government scandals during this time, the public began to doubt everything the government was saying. However, suspicion alone is not evidence, and no scientific or historical documentation supports the idea that the landing was staged. When placed in context, this conspiracy reflects more about people’s distrust and frustration than it does about the Apollo program itself. The theory ultimately fails because doubt is not the same as proof, and no credible evidence has ever shown that NASA falsified the mission.
The third conspiracy is that the absence of stars, the waving of the flag, and the unusual shadows in the photos and videos all prove it was staged. Some may argue that these details prove the event was filmed on a movie set. However, these claims collapse under scientific explanation. Becky Little writes that, “If the astronauts had planted a regular flag on the moon, it would’ve hung slack like flags do on Earth when there’s no wind. This wouldn’t make for a very appealing photo, so NASA designed special flags for astronauts to take with them (all six Apollo missions that made it to the moon planted an American flag there)” (Little 1). Little goes on to say that the design, which used a horizontal rod to hold the flag outward, made it appear as though it were waving (Little 1). Similarly, stars are not visible in lunar photographs because the camera exposure was set for the bright surface, and the unusual shadows result from uneven ground and multiple light sources reflecting off the moon’s surface (Little 1). Together, these explanations demonstrate that what some view as evidence of fraud is simply a misunderstanding of lighting and photography in space (1). To some people, these explanations may not fully debunk their doubts about the flag or the absence of stars in photos. While the skepticism for this theory is understandable, the evidence clearly establishes that there is a factual explanation for these anomalies. People who see these features as suspicious may misunderstand how space, light, and cameras work. Once the science is understood, the theory collapses, showing that these “anomalies” are completely expected under lunar conditions (Little 1).
