Why the moon landing could not have been faked

Adam Conover from the show Adam Ruins Everything explains why the theories of how the moon landing was faked by director Stanley Kubrick working for NASA could not possibly be true. Not that this will convince the skeptics of course. They will say that Adam is part of the conspiracy.

UPDATE: I came across this Mitchell and Webb sketch on this topic.


  1. says

    I’ve heard that before, that the moon landing couldn’t be faked because in the photos, the shadows are parallel and therefore the light source was too far away for the pictures to have been shot on a film set. But what if the light source had been really far away, like if the pictures were taken in a football stadium?

    Not that I buy moon-landing denialism for a minute.

  2. sonofrojblake says

    If they were far enough away that they produced parallel (or close to it) shadows, they wouldn’t have been bright enough. Inverse square law ftw.

    I used to argue with creationists, flat earthers, moon-landing hoax believers etc. Recently I thought: why bother? I mean, there’s a certain smug satisfaction to be gained from demonstrating that you’re smarter than they are, but to whom are you demonstrating this? Only to people who already think that you’re smarter than the woo-believer. The WB themselves are always impervious. It’s a waste of time. Life is too short, and as we know, you get just one go at it and then you’re done.

  3. larpar says

    Kubrick filmed it, but insisted to shoot on location. The cover-up is that he was the first man on the moon and not Armstrong.

    Seriously though: I lived in Melbourn FL in the late ’60s. Several school field trips to Cape Canaveral and saw several launches from my back yard.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *