The Apollo 11 moon landing in 1969 remains one of humanity’s most celebrated achievements. Yet, despite overwhelming evidence, various conspiracy theories suggest the event was faked, claiming NASA staged the landing on a soundstage rather than actually sending astronauts to the lunar surface. In an insightful breakdown from the show Adam Ruins Everything, common misconceptions about the moon landing hoax theories are skillfully debunked, revealing the complexity and implausibility of such a massive deception.

Challenging the Skepticism: Could NASA Fake It?

Those skeptical about the moon landing often argue that NASA lacked the technology to safely land humans on the moon in the 1960s. The theory posits that fabricating footage on a soundstage would have been easier, cheaper, and safer than the real mission. However, Adam Ruins Everything dismantles this narrative by demonstrating how staging the moon landing with the technology available at the time would have been far more difficult and costly than actually conducting the mission.

The Lighting Evidence: Real Sunlight vs. Studio Lights

One of the most compelling pieces of evidence against the hoax theory involves the lighting in the moon landing footage. Adam introduces Mark Schubin, a forensic motion picture analyst and lighting expert, who explains the unique challenges of recreating moon illumination in a studio setting.

On the moon, the shadows seen in photographs are parallel and sharply defined because the sun is an extremely distant and singular light source—93 million miles away. In contrast, studio lighting, especially with 1960s technology, produces divergent shadows because it requires multiple lights positioned relatively close together, causing overlapping and inconsistent shadow angles.

To replicate the effect of sunlight on the moon, a studio would have needed to construct a wall of millions of laser lights to create a uniform parallel light source — a technology neither feasible nor affordable at the time. Moreover, lasers in the 1960s were expensive, bulky, and primarily emitted red light, which couldn’t have produced the full-color images we see from the Apollo missions.

The Impossibility of Recreating Authentic Lunar Imagery

In addition to lighting, color photography of the moon landing presents another problem for hoax theories. The images show vibrant, true-to-life colors under sunlight that would have been impossible to reproduce with the studio technology of the era. Modern computer-generated graphics, which could mimic such lighting today, simply were not available in 1969. Furthermore, attempts to produce the kind of footage seen from the Apollo missions in a studio setting ended up highlighting the impossibility of faking the event using contemporary technology.

The Human Factor: Maintaining the Secrecy of a Massive Conspiracy

Suppose, for a moment, the moon landing were faked. Pulling off this myth would have required an enormous number of people — and hence the need for absolute secrecy among them. Over 400,000 NASA employees, contractors, scientists, and engineers would have needed to keep silent for more than five decades.

And the idea that such a massive cover-up could evade leaks strains plausibility, especially considering human nature’s tendency toward gossip and whistleblowing.

Independent Verification: Allies, Rivals, and Retroreflections

Multiple countries, including Australia, Spain, and England, independently received radio transmissions from the Apollo missions during the moon landing. This international reception essentially defies the idea of a broadcasted hoax.

Interestingly, even America’s Cold War rivals, the Russians, who had every incentive to expose a fake, never disputed the authenticity of the moon landing. Instead, they acknowledged NASA’s success, conceding that the US had won that round in the Space Race.

Further tangible proof of humanity’s arrival on the moon exists in the form of retroreflectors — special mirrors left on the lunar surface by Apollo astronauts. These reflectors bounce lasers shot from Earth back to their source, and modern observatories continue to bounce high-powered laser beams off these reflectors, confirming their presence.

The Bottom Line: Faking Would Have Been More Difficult Than Doing

Through expert analysis and logical reasoning, Adam Ruins Everything illustrates that fabricating the moon landing would have been an astronomical endeavor — far more complex and expensive than actually sending astronauts to the moon. The combination of lighting evidence, photographic authenticity, practical technology limitations, international verification, and physical remnants on the lunar surface collectively debunk moon landing hoax theories.

In essence, while skepticism in science is healthy and necessary, it’s equally important to weigh the practical realities and evidence before embracing conspiracy theories. The moon landing wasn’t just a historic technological feat — it was a genuine human milestone, and attempts to rewrite that history with hoax claims don’t hold up under scrutiny.