What do the MOON LANDING and CLIMATE CHANGE have in common? BOTH are FAKE

Get some cheap cameras, some lights with stands, 50 rolls of tin foil and a couple lapel mics and head out to the Badlands of South Dakota with some amateur actors and YOU TOO can film the next “moon” landing. It will be one small step for the elementary science fair, and one even smaller step for mankind.

Take one look at the “Apollo 11” spacecraft, made with sticks, tin foil, cardboard, a couple copper pipes and some old television antennas, and then swear up and down this thing made it 240,000 miles to the moon and back home to earth with 3 guys in it, a land rover, and enough equipment to fill up a storage facility, and you can be 100% sure the moon landing was all faked on a Hollywood set somewhere in Arizona. Great job NASA. Does NASA stand for Never Anything So Absurd?

1. Rising Skepticism About the Moon Landing

• Polls indicate growing doubt, especially among younger, more educated individuals (e.g., 73% of Brits aged 25–34 disbelieve it, vs. 38% of those 55+).
• Russian polls show 57% disbelief, rising to 69% among higher-educated respondents.

2. Alleged Evidence of Fakery

• Shadows intersecting at 90° in Apollo photos suggest studio lighting, not sunlight.
• “Moon rocks” may originate from Antarctic meteorites; some samples were proven fake (e.g., petrified wood gifted to the Netherlands).
• NASA’s high-resolution photos show anomalies (e.g., inconsistent shadows, overexposure when shooting into the sun).

3. Suspicious Filmmaking and Footage

• Filmmakers like Bart Sibrel uncovered edited NASA footage (e.g., repeated takes to fake distance).
• Experts like Hasselblad engineer Jan Lundberg admitted they couldn’t explain photo inconsistencies.
• Astronauts’ rehearsals in studios with fabricated “moon dust” raise questions about authenticity.

4. Historical Context of the Hoax Theory

• Conspiracy claims gained traction post-internet; pioneers like Bill Kaysing (ex-Rocketdyne) alleged a $30B fraud.
• Documentaries (What Happened on the Moon?, A Funny Thing Happened…) dissect technical flaws.
• Compartmentalization (e.g., Manhattan Project secrecy) suggests few needed to know the full truth.

Next to impossible that the Apollo 11 traveled past the Van Allen Radiation Belt way back in 1969, especially with humans aboard

You may be asking yourself, why would NASA, the U.S. government, and Big Media lie to every single American about something so big? Well, if you believe in the moon landing in 1969 as some sort of miracle, then you’ll probably believe the Polio vaccine works and that fluoride in tap water is good for your health too. This is also why so many gullible people believe in man-made climate change. Here’s the story (and that’s all it was … a fictional story).

Time to celebrate historical fiction folks. Yes, as the 55th anniversary of NASA’s Apollo 11 moon landing approaches, doubts about its authenticity continue to grow worldwide. A 2016 survey revealed that 52% of British respondents believed the missions were staged, while younger generations expressed even greater skepticism. Theories alleging the landings were faked — spread by figures like Bart Sibrel and Bill Kaysing — have gained traction online, fueled by scrutiny of NASA’s photographic evidence and lunar samples.

Skepticism about the moon landings emerged shortly after Apollo 11’s 1969 mission, but conspiracy theories proliferated with the rise of the internet and platforms like YouTube. Early critics, including former Rocketdyne employee Bill Kaysing, argued in his 1976 book We Never Went to the Moon that NASA never overcame technical hurdles like Van Allen radiation belts. Similar claims were amplified in documentaries like What Happened on the Moon? (2000) and Bart Sibrel’s A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon (2001), which dissected anomalies in NASA’s footage.

Advocates of the “hoax” theory highlight inconsistencies in Apollo mission photos, such as odd lighting, shadows, and claims that lunar rocks could have originated from Antarctic meteorites rather than the moon. German researcher Gerhard Wisnewski noted that some NASA-released “moon rocks” contained terrestrial contaminants, including plastic and wood — details that fueled distrust. Meanwhile, critics point to the near-flawless composition of images taken by astronauts, despite the Hasselblad cameras being strapped to their chests with no viewfinder.

NASA has repeatedly defended the moon landings, releasing thousands of high-resolution photos in 2015 and citing independent verification by international scientists. Yet with trust in institutions declining, skepticism persists — especially in Russia, where 57% doubt the landings ever occurred. The debate reflects broader tensions between official narratives and alternative media, with theorists framing their arguments as a defense of transparency against potential government deception.

Decades after Apollo 11, the moon landing remains both a cornerstone of human achievement and a lightning rod for skepticism. While NASA maintains its legacy, the persistence of doubt — bolstered by digital scrutiny and distrust in authority — ensures the controversy will endure. Whether the truth lies in conspiracy or confirmation, the discussion underscores a universal demand for evidence in an age of institutional skepticism.

Check out ClimateAlarmism.news for updates on hoaxes the U.S. government, mass media and the FAKE science “community” push on Americans to convince us we need to fund huge corporations and pad elitists’ pockets.

Sources for this article include:

NaturalNews.com

BezoEarthFund.org

UNZ.com