Updated: April 2024
Published: July 2022
Did the United States send men to the moon? Watch the best skeptical documentary on the moon landing question and read the best counter-arguments to that documentary.
1) Documentary: American Moon (2017)
A documentary by Italian filmmaker Massimo Mazzucco (210 minutes; website). The documentary raises 42 questions or issues concerning the Apollo moon landings (see screenshots below).
2) Counter-arguments to the documentary
The strongest counter-arguments to the 42 points raised in American Moon.
- Debunking “American Moon” (I) (questions 1 to 21)
- Debunking “American Moon” (II) (questions 22 to 31)
- 42 answers to “American Moon” (Moon and Beyond)
3) Screenshots from “American Moon”
25 pivotal screenshots from the “American Moon” documentary.
4) Lunar gravity and sound analysis
Skeptics argue that lunar gravity was simulated using monofilament wire suspension and variable frame rates (i.e. dynamic slow-motion), but that some scenes reveal Earth gravity. Furthermore, skeptics argue that some scenes reveal sound transmission, despite the lack of a lunar atmosphere.
Skeptics have also argued that in Apollo moon footage, all movements, not just vertical (free fall) movements, appear to be in (variable) slow-motion. In addition, skeptics noted that astronauts in Apollo moon footage were jumping merely knee-high, while astronauts in transverse lunar gravity simulation experiments are able to jump well over one meter high.
A comprehensive frame rate and gravity analysis based on the original Apollo footage was first performed in 2015 in a three-hour technical video investigation titled “Make Believe”. The following short video clips show examples of this analysis reproduced by the Apollo Project.
- Apollo Lunar Gravity Analysis (AP 2015, 5 min.)
- Apollo Lunar Sound Analysis (AP 2015, 3 min.)
- Apollo Jump Salute Analysis (AP 2015, 2 min.)
- Full video: Apollo Make Believe (160 minutes)
Video: Apollo frame rate and gravity analysis (5 min., AP)
5) Lunar landing simulations
Prior to the Apollo moon missions, NASA performed several highly realistic lunar landing simulations. In a 2003 documentary, Apollo Flight Director Gene Kranz stated that: “The simulations were so real that no controller could discern the difference between the training and the real mission.”
In the same documentary, Kranz stated that one week before the launch of Apollo 11, NASA had to abort the final lunar landing simulation due to computer problems (see video below).
Thus, contrary to common belief, rather few people were directly involved in events that occurred beyond low Earth orbit. In a 2002 documentary, even German NASA scientist Ernst Stuhlinger, who together with Wernher von Braun designed the Saturn V rocket, said about his knowledge of the Apollo moon landings: “I watched the television screen and believed what I saw.”
Both Ernst Stuhlinger and Wernher von Braun were transferred from Germany to the United States as part of Operation Paperclip, a US military and intelligence operation, and both men collaborated with Walt Disney Pictures on three films about moon missions and space exploration.
However, von Braun and Stuhlinger were only responsible for the “visible” part of the Apollo missions, i.e. the launch of the Saturn V rockets on Earth. The “invisible” part â operations beyond low Earth orbit â was managed by Robert R. Gilruth. Gilruth previously was assistant director of NASA’s Pilotless Aircraft Research Division, which developed remote-controlled aircraft.
US government agencies have used simulations and exercises to stage other televised events, such as the 2013 “Boston Marathon bombing” and other alleged “terrorist attacks”. Thus, passing off simulated moon landings as real would not constitute a unique or inconceivable accomplishment.
Figure: Gene Kranz on lunar landing simulations (Failure Is Not An Option, 2003)
6) The Saturn V rocket
While the moon landing debate has mostly been focused on the actual moon landings, additional questions concern the Saturn V rocket used for the Apollo moon missions (center in figure above).
According to official data, the five F-1 kerosene engines of the Saturn V rocket (1968-1972) produced a combined thrust of 3400 tons at liftoff. This was almost five times more powerful than the Saturn IB rocket (1966-1975), whose eight H-1 kerosene engines produced a combined thrust of only 740 tons at liftoff. Moreover, it was almost 20% more powerful than the total thrust of the Space Shuttle (2950 tons, 1981-2011), which used two solid rocket boosters in addition to the three RS-25 main engines.
However, skeptics have argued that the actual thrust of a Saturn V rocket appears to have been rather similar to the thrust of a Saturn IB rocket and rather lower than the thrust of a Space Shuttle. Furthermore, skeptics have argued that the measurable acceleration of Saturn V rockets during liftoff and ascent was three times lower than required to transcend low Earth orbit (see video comparison below). In addition, skeptics have argued that reported Apollo atmosphere re-entries, allegedly observed by airline pilots, appear to have been staged. In short, skeptics suggest the F-1 engine never reached its stated power and, thus, the Saturn V rocket was unable to reach the moon.
According to official data, the F-1 engine produced almost eight times more thrust than any other American kerosene rocket engine ever built and almost four times more thrust per combustion chamber than the largest Soviet kerosene rocket engine (see chart below). The F-1 engine was beset by instabilities during its development in the 1960s, but apparently worked without a single failure during the Apollo moon missions. Nevertheless, it was scrapped in 1973 and can no longer be built today because “there are simply not enough people with the necessary skills”.
In terms of rocket weight, the reported weight at liftoff was 590 tons for the Saturn IB, 2,900 tons for the Saturn V, and 2,000 tons for the Space Shuttle, resulting in an official thrust-to-weight ratio at liftoff of 1.25 for the Saturn IB, 1.2 for the Saturn V, and 1.5 for the Space Shuttle.
The SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket, first used in 2018, achieves a thrust of 2,300 tons at liftoff (i.e. 30% less than the Saturn V). The SpaceX Starship Super Heavy booster, first tested in 2023, achieves a maximum thrust of 7,600 tons (i.e. 120% more than the Saturn V). However, the Starship Super Heavy uses 33 liquid oxygen (not kerosene) Raptor 2 engines; thus, the maximum thrust per engine (230 tons) is three times lower compared to the five F-1 engines used by the Saturn V rocket.
Figure: The Saturn V F-1 engine compared to other US and Russian kerosene rocket engines (MF)
Video: NASA Rockets: Launch Comparison (SPR, 2023)
7) Prior NASA achievements
Prior to the manned Apollo moon missions, NASA launched several unmanned lunar missions that were designed to achieve hard landings, soft landings, lunar orbits, and lunar liftoffs.
However, prior to the manned Apollo 11 mission in July 1969, NASA had achieved only one unmanned lunar liftoff of just four meters (by the Surveyor 6 mission in November 1967) and no complete lunar liftoff and return to Earth. Moreover, prior to the manned Apollo 8 lunar orbiting mission in December 1968, NASA had not sent any animals through the Van Allen radiation belts.
The first lunar mission to include animals (two tortoises), transverse the Van Allen radiation belts, circle the moon and return to Earth was the Soviet Zond 5 mission in September 1968. The first unmanned spacecraft to successfully lift off from the lunar surface and return to Earth was the Soviet Luna 16 mission in September 1970. Even so, the USSR never sent men beyond low Earth orbit.
In 2004, US President George W. Bush announced a program to achieve a “return to the moon”, but twenty years later, NASA had only completed a single uncrewed moon orbiting mission.
Between 2019 and 2024, ten unmanned missions from six countries (the US, Japan, China, India, Israel, and Russia) tried to reach the lunar surface. Two of them failed to reach the moon, four crash-landed, two landed sideways, and two (from China and India) landed successfully.
In a 2016 interview, veteran NASA astronaut Don Pettit made the following statement: “I’d go to the moon in a nanosecond. The problem is we don’t have the technology to do that anymore. We used to but we destroyed that technology and it’s a painful process to build it back again.”
Figure: The Earthrise photograph reportedly taken during the Apollo 8 mission (1968)
8) Photographs of Apollo lunar landing sites
To date, no high-definition photographs of the Apollo lunar landing sites have become publicly available and no robotic lunar mission of any country has ever visited the Apollo landing sites.
In 2012, when private robotic moon missions participating in the Google Lunar X-Prize announced their intention to visit Apollo landing sites, NASA imposed no-fly zones and ground-travel buffer zones to “protect and preserve the historic and scientific value of US government lunar artifacts”.
In 2011, NASA released low-resolution photographs of Apollo landing sites taken by NASA’s own Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO, see below). Skeptics disputed the authenticity of these images and argued that the LRO camera should have been able to provide far more detailed photographs.
In 2012, a Chinese official stated that Chinese scientists “spotted traces of the previous Apollo mission” in images taken by the Chang’e 2 lunar probe, but the images were never released.
In 2021, during a Youtube webinar, an official of the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) briefly showed two low-resolution photographs of the Apollo 11 and 12 landing sites reportedly taken by the Indian-American Chandrayaan-2 lunar exploration mission. Skeptics again noted the lack of any details and disputed the authenticity and origin of the images.
Finally, it is sometimes argued that lunar laser ranging experiments prove that NASA astronauts placed so-called retroreflectors onto the surface of the moon. But this claim doesn’t hold up.
First, lunar laser ranging experiments were performed already before the Apollo missions; second, a 2020 study published in the American Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics found that there is no evidence the alleged NASA retroreflectors improved lunar laser ranging; and third, two unmanned Soviet moon missions (Luna 17 and 21) also placed retroreflectors onto the moon.
Read more: Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings (Wikipedia)
Figure: A NASA LRO image of the Apollo 17 landing site released in 2011 (NASA)
9) Russian skeptics of the Apollo moon missions
Several Russian scientists and engineers, including veterans of the Soviet space program, have questioned the Apollo moon missions. The highest-ranking Russian official to publicly doubt the American moon landings is Dmitry Rogozin, former chief of Russian space agency Roscosmos.
In a 2023 interview (shown below), Rogozin raised questions concerning both the available technology and the astronauts themselves. In addition, Rogozin argued that there is still no independent verification of the American moon landings (see discussion above).
Prior to the Apollo missions, some American scientists and engineers suspected that the Soviets faked their own manned space missions, including the first “spacewalk” and the first manned orbital space flight, as documented in a 1966 issue of Science and Mechanics titled “Russiaâs Space Hoax”.
Figure: Former Roscomos chief Dmitry Rogozin on NASA moon landings (2023)
10) Additional articles and videos
Additional information on technical, historical and political aspects.
Videos
- The Moon Landing Debate (SPR Media Archive)
Apollo skeptics
- Wagging the Moondoggie (David McGowan, 2009)
- Did the USA Really Go to the Moon? (Serendipity, 2013)
- Were Apollo Atmosphere Re-Entries Faked? (Popov, 2013)
- Saturn V Launch Analysis (Popov/Bulatov, 2013)
Counterarguments
- “Moon Hoax” â Debunked (Paolo Ativissimo, 2020)
- Moon landing conspiracy theories (Wikipedia)