moon hoax not

Share this video on

What's Hot

What's New

Top Grossing

Top of the Chart


mk17173n : Look at me im a conspiracy theorist i know more than the hundreds of thousands of people involved in the Apollo program. They were able to trick millions of people including our enemy the Soviets but not me because i'm smart. Now i will troll on the internet using technology that was developed through space technology. TOOLS!

Gordon Miller : Great video. I love it. I met Buzz Aldrin in 2011 and had dinner with him and you only have to talk to him for 15 minutes to realize it was all real. Smartest guy I ever met.

Gabriel Rd : The us gov successfully faked he moon landings?... the us gov that couldn't even cover up prez clinton's blow job? ...are you people serious?

sgcollins : i hope you're doing okay. if you ever need something else to think about besides this, think about what the CIA did in latin america in the 1970s, and how they got rid of mossadegh before the shah. there are so many more stories to tell, of *real* conspiracies against the people. i hope your heart will be strong and your mind will be razor sharp, and i wish you luck.

Kocayine : I love your style and humor, man.

Keith Kieth : folks trying to prove it's a hoax after having the camera tech explained to them are desperately moving the goal post to prove their conspiracy

Reverend Flash : The funny thing about the hoaxtards is that they're being handed a bunch of technical information here that debunks the notion that a moon landing could be faked. Instead of them processing that information and suspending their foolishness, they are simply proceeding to engage in one of their usual discussions about how the moon landing could only have been a fake. Not only are they not considering the extent of the information presented here in the video, but when people attempt to reiterate that information for them or even supply extra information, they more or less simply dismiss it and continue their persistent rhetoric. This is clearly a psychological condition. These people have an extreme fear of the government and believe they are being lied to all the time about everything by the government. By being able to subscribe to conspiracy theories, they can feel like they are somehow exposing those secrets and are taking away the government's power in the process. This comforts them and subsides their anxiety. When you try to tell them otherwise, you push them closer to their actual fear, and they will not have any of that. In other words, it's probably always going to be a lost cause to try to sway conspiracy theorists away from the nonsense. What makes them look even sillier is that many of them believe in virtually any conspiracy theory that's out there, an irrational behavior trait which actually runs consistent with the assessment of them as psychologically disturbed.

Silvio Šarunić : folks trying to prove it's a hoax after having the camera tech explained to them are desperately moving the goal post to prove their conspiracy . This was absolutely outstanding. Rock solid logic and reason, and you made me laugh in 3 or 4 spots. Bravo!!

sgcollins : how bout let's move on to a new topic,  obviously a lot of people don't even understand the difference between film and video, let alone the difference between today's film and video and that of 1969.  new question:  why should they?  for example: jarrah shows us a clip proving how bad the video quality was ... and the clip is of a kinescope of the video, fraught with film dirt.  does anybody even know what that means?  maybe not.  why should anybody young today know, or understand, the specific limitations of completely obsolete technologies? got another message today from someone saying 'they had billions, don't worry, anything is possible with billions.'  uhm ...

Brian Snyder : I'm 65 and I have never seen the naysayers dealt a blow like that. I saw the men launched I seen them on the moon. Our generation was the first generation where politics pulled the rug out from under our feet. As teenagers we hoped and wished we would get jobs in the space industry. I got a masters in Aeronautical engineering and because of financial and political pressure the industry crashed.So I went to work for GM for 20 years, never forgetting the loss. But the space shuttle or "special bus" was starting up good ,but by then I was way behind in the industry. Every thing I was helping to design had wheels and we were trying to keep the wheels on the ground. Love your show.

Robert Rauch : It was never easy to fake a moon landing. It is easy to triangulate the location of the origin of any radio transmission (thats why GPS works) - which means the Russians and the Chinese would have to have been in on it. Not to mention the equipment the astronauts set up on the moon and is still in use remotely today.

sgcollins : people don't have time to read all ten million comments, that's why they keep posting the same question over and over.

Marcus Sundbom : This video is too smart for any conspiracist to ever understand!

PiercingSight : This would be all fine and dandy if the moon weren't a hologram in the first place. I mean just look at it, you can tell by the fringes and stuff-... Oh! My tinfoil hat arrived!

Jaklyman : You know, wouldn't the Soviet Union have been the ones most interested in proving the landings as fake. If they could have proved that the U.S. landings were fake then it would have been a huge blow. I'm pretty sure that the Soviets poured some money into attempting to prove it fake, and if they never managed it it seems like proof to me.

Herbert Miller : LOL I mean that literally. Hey all a conspiracy would take is the involvement of thousands of people working in the program and a equal number working in secret. The faking not only of photos but the telemetry coming back from the spacecraft, the interception of that data stream before it is sent by the antenna dishes of the deep space tracking network (with the insertion of a light speed time lag and the appropriate Doppler shift witch varies with the stage of the mission and the craft's orbit around the moon), without any one working at any of the global facilities noticing, and the convincing of tens of thousands that they had watched a 350 foot 6 million pounds of thrust rocket lift off when in fact nothing happened.

Jordan Boggs : You've probably just ruined a couple conspiracy theorists lifes.

Brandon Kerr : "Once you're forced to hypothesize whole new technologies to keep your conspiracy possible, you've stepped over into the realm of magic." I think I need to get this tattooed on my butt.

Francois Lacombe : When you look at the videos shot on the Moon, you see the dust being kicked up by the astronauts as they walk fall right back to the ground. None of it lingers in the air, drifts away or is blown off in the wind. These videos were shot in a vacuum, plain and simple. Kubrik (or anyone else) would have had to build a movie stage in a vacuum chamber to make those videos. I don't think it's possible to make vacuum chambers of that size, even today.

Vox Luna : I don't know what you can say to the average conspiracy type, because they're so invested in their theories they become blind to the truth. Maybe it's scientific illiteracy, maybe it's because they'd lose face, who knows. In the end, it doesn't matter -- sadly, there is no answer that can ever satisfy them. Their minds will just conjure up ever more fantastic assumptions to explain away everything you offer, no matter how simple, rational or patient it may be.

Sal AveNU : This doesn't even touch on the audio production needed to make these programs. You didn't see anyone talking on the set. So all the audio would have been done in post production.              You would have needed to get the astronughts and the guys from mission control into a recording studio. Someone would had have to have written a script. Since a recording studio environment would have been intimidating to these guys the first few takes would have been completely stiff.          They probably wouldn't have recorded with the headset and desk mics used in mission control. They would have wanted to use good mics so they could capture good sound, and have control over what was being recorded. Which means they would had have to made these recordings sound like they were coming through cheap "Office" mics during the post audio production. Then come up with all the static and beeps.         Once all of these elements were laid out and mixed the recording would had have to have been synced to the picture. I have no idea how that was done back then.      And then it's like the guys says in the video all of the people working on this would have needed to die in tragic accidents.      There's one more thing that bothers me about the "Shadow" argument. The theory is this was done in a TV studio. That means they would have hired a professional crew to run things. A professional lighting crew would know how to light a set so there are no shadows. Turn on the TV and show me the shadows.

sgcollins : here's a question.  what if one could really *prove* beyond doubt, that the moon landings were faked?  then what would that mean?  what would be the significance?  what would we know, then, that we don't know already?  i've always been very curious about this part of it, because the question of whether people did or didn't go seems wicked important to some people, and i never grasped why it's so important. to me, if it could be proved that the moon landings were phony, that would be proof that governments lie to the people.  but we already knew that, so what *else* does it prove? i hope some people (esp hoax believers) will have time to write in with their thoughts on that.  i know people are kinda busy.  but this is the part i am most curious about.

nyctreeman : I've commented on this brilliant video before, but I just want to double down on my praise of this magnificent slap-down of all the Moon Hoaxer morons :D I've shared this video on multiple social media sites when debating these imbeciles ... and quite frankly, disregarding the the issue of the hoax theory itself, I find the video to be immensely entertaining, backed by real knowledge and life experience, and it relegates the detractors to "flat Earth" debating tactics ... OH ... and it's a pleasure to watch now and then :D

Steve Cochran : As Gene Cernan said, "The truth needs no defense. No one can take away from me the footprints I left on the Moon."  Nice job on defending it though, but the conspiracists have to hold onto their religion.

turboxstar Presents : Have you ever been confused by Neil Armstrong's "one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind?" Well, I was, as a child, teen , adult ,.. Because "man" means "mankind". Neil is making no distinction .. Only 40 some years later I come to find that he made a mistake. The first man on the moon goofed. He was suppose to say "that's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind." Folks. We are human, like Neil, we make mistakes, and get fooled . I agree that the government lies. I hate the lies but honestly for God's sake WE MADE THAT GIANT LEAP. We were not tricked. As a human race we can celebrate this- we made it to the lunar surface and we walked on it. Heck Even "secret unsung" astronauts went on Apollo missions we are finding about now. What is up with the music heard by the Apollo 10 astronauts on the dark side of the moon? Let's stop focusing on what's not fake and let's try to focus on what is left to see...because that to me is much much more fascinating

Unintentional Good : I very much like this video :)... The 'Moon Hoax' allways reminds me about the 'FlatEarth' people. They have thier theory and when they are forced into a corner because there is clear evidence, that this utter nonsese is madup, they make even more assumptions to keep thier theory alive... Haven't they ever heared of Ockham's razor? :) Well nice video anyway

FrodoOne1 : ,At the time of the Apollo missions the signals from the moon were received "live" at stations on three continents on earth: - two in Australia (the Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station near Canberra and the Parkes Radio Observatory); one at the Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex in the Mojave Desert of California; and one at the Madrid Manned Flight Tracking Site in Spain. Of course, these signals also could be received by other facilities on earth (e.g. Jodrell Bank or tracking stations in the USSR, among others.) Since no such facility at the time reported that the signals were NOT coming from the moon or in space to or from the moon, it is reasonable to conclude that they did come from the right place at the right time. (i.e. If it did not happen as NASA showed "live", the USSR, at least, would have called "foul".) As stated in this video, there is a device called the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter orbiting the moon and taking high resolution photographs. It has photographed many of the sites of the lunar landings and they can be viewed at Also, see

John Morrison : Don't forget that on the first moon landing a device was placed on the lunar surface that will direct any beam of light back in the direction it came. Used by astronomers to calc distance to the moon. If there was no Apollo 11 landing, how did it get there.

Yoshi_IX : You only need to look at the Soviet Union's reaction to the American moon landing to debunk the theory that the moon landing was faked. The U.S.S.R. had always been ahead of the U.S. in the space race up until this point. The soviets were the first to launch a satellite into orbit, put a living creature into space, put a man into space, and put a man into orbit. Soviet rocket and aerospace technology was on par, if not better than the U.S. when it came to their space program. When we launched Apollo 11, the Soviets were able to track us the whole way, and they confirmed that we did, in fact, go to the moon. As our main competitor in the space race, they had every reason to call us out if we'd faked it, and no reason to turn a blind eye if we faked it. This is the cold war, there'd be no logical reason that the Soviets would have to conspire with the American government, their primary enemies.

AlexTheLondoner1 : Basically, conspiracists are saying that 46 years ago the US government was capable of faking a Moon landing, but nowadays it's unable of hacking a bloody iPhone.

Kunaak : the problem isn't actually whether we did or didn't go to the moon - any person with even basic knowledge of space, and photography, physics and so on could easily point out why the conspiracy theory just doesn't hold up - the problem is, theres money to be made, by making dumb people paranoid, the less they know, the easier it is to sell them an idea, and those ideas sell books, movies, give ad revenue to vids and so on.

Steven Allen Boggs : The presenter is so correct in this video. The mention of the shadow diversion, which has been a staple of the 'we didn't go to the moon crowd', made me particularly happy. I'm an artist, an oil painter for over 25 years. That hasn't made me a scientist, but it has made me an observer of nature. And I can tell you that anyone can go out in an open area on a sunny day and see shadows in all kinds of different directions at the same time.

Ryad Arlan : Reading some of the comments on here I am not surprised there are some who want to get off the planet and make an effort to go to the moon.

MrNecrotik : I guess there are about 400 people that are upset with you that you are trying to shatter their view on "The Moon Landing Hoax".

Five Sigma : Superb video. Beautifully explained and with such charming delivery. Thank you for this!

sgcollins : everybody ok in here?

andy cooper : The part I love about this, is I know the tech he is talking about so i can trust his hypothesis. I have an open mind, open enough to indulge those conspiracies like this one and take a good hard look. Honestly, this guy's argument is bulletproof 100%. Other arguments can be picked at, but the interesting aspect of being UNABLE to fake this footage hilariously proves without a doubt the footage is real. I actually had to use this video to argue against the hoax concept today. We will see if it works.

Richard Smith : I will say this, IF the moon landing was fake, it was by far a greater achievement than actually landing on the moon, and should be applauded for such impossibly good production. America is home for hollywood right, hell, we could wear that achievement in style. Unfortunately, and boringly, we just landed on the moon.

Sportacus : Look, I agree with you but you don't need to call me a homo.

Scott Wallace : sg- so you got your check from NASA? I'm still waiting for mine. I must admit, though, that the NWO, the Freemasons, and the Devil are no better. Sigh- it's a thankless job being a shill.

john mellor : What's interesting about this video is that like many other debunkers he's able to give a technical explanation at length and prove he has real expertise in his area. Something I've never ever seen a hoax believer do. I am a time served audio engineer and hold an MA in post production for TV and film so I can concurr with much of what he says.

Keith Kieth : Every year on the anniversary I make sure to repost this video on my Facebook for all my tinfoil hat wearing friends

JKazama182 : I absolutely love this video!!! Im actually linking this video to "Flat Earth" believers!!! I love your message at the end especially!!!

Mike F. : The information in this video is excellent, yet for the hoaxers it goes in one ear and out the other. Is it any wonder that many hoaxers also believe the earth is flat? I'm pretty sure these people are mentally ill.

Christopher Miller : He is correct. Those with lower IQ just want to believe so badly the government lied to them about the landing, they will ignore basic facts. The reason? Basic facts are not basic to them. Beyond understanding so they basically regurgitate a blog the read once.

SixFt12 : Interesting, but now that we have sufficiently powerful telescopes, we can simply see the remnants of the landing site with our own eyes.

Kasonde Chishimba : I feel where he's going, but essentially saying "It was easier to go into outer space at that distance and through all the radiation and multitudes of intergalactic unforseen problems than it was to shoot a movie" doesn't convince me. I don't care what year. I'm not saying it was wrong. But to sum it up like that, idk. NASA is government ran essentially. The government is always leaps and bounds ahead of the public technologically. You can be a master at a tool but be in the dark about a lot of it's development. The internet became popular and widely usable not that long ago (Remember dial-up and AOL Free Trials). But the government had been using it for a long time. I'm just saying, to simply say "Shooting this movie would be harder than going to moon" doesn't cut it to me. If we did or didn't I don't know, but his explanation doesn't make me say, "You know what, you're absolutely right"

ShiroiKage009 : Oh god, I was linked this on reddit and it's SUCH an awesome video. The direction, the editing, and most importantly the information.

Zissou Moonshot : Plus it's exceptionally difficult to keep something a secret. The bigger the project, the more difficult it is to keep it under wraps. The moon landings especially had a ton of heat from the media and the public, it was under a massive spotlight because everyone knew it was going on. It's not like the stealth bomber or other black ops project that lives it's entire life in a highly secret facility with compartmentalized small numbers of people working on different parts of it... nobody in the public sphere knows about it from the start, and hence it is far easier to keep under wraps.

James T : Here's the thing about the di-hard conspiracist; it's not so much about the conspiracy as it is, after a point, an issue of personal identity. The external evidence, no matter how complete, simply cannot be allowed past the superficial. And if it is, and the person does not simply look for a way to avoid the conflict, then it will likely require more than the sum of all the time and energy spent reaching the current point of denial or a shattering personal experience that bypasses the same.