PROOF WE landed on the moon

1. The physical and photographic record: tangible evidence that has been examined and re‑examined

Apollo missions returned 382 kilograms of lunar rock that have been independently identified as lunar by laboratories around the world, and high‑resolution imagery from NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter shows artifacts at the Apollo landing sites consistent with human activity there — footprints, descent stages and rover tracks — providing material and visual evidence that corroborates the missions ^{[1] [6]}.

2. Independent verification: other nations and observatories tracked Apollo

The Moon landings were not witnessed only on US television; observatories and tracking stations around the world followed Apollo missions and recorded telemetry and radio contacts, and contemporary reporting and archival records document international monitoring that make an all‑sided global conspiracy logistically implausible ^{[2] [1]}.

3. The missing tapes and why gaps do not equal a hoax

There is an acknowledged archival gap: the original, high‑quality Apollo 11 telemetry tapes that contained the raw television broadcast are missing, a fact confirmed by NASA archivists and Apollo flight directors and cited by commentators as suspicious ^[4]. Reporting notes the tapes’ absence but also explains that the loss of recording media and duplication practices of the era do not, by themselves, constitute proof of fabrication; missing records raise legitimate archival questions but are not standalone evidence that the landings did not occur ^[4].

4. Common anomalies explained by physics and equipment, not fakery

Frequently cited anomalies — the absence of stars in surface photos, perceived “waving” flags, strange shadow geometry and apparent crosshair anomalies — have been explained by photography exposure settings, the physics of light on an airless surface, how the flag was mounted, and camera optics (the Réseau plate), with experts and institutions demonstrating reproducible explanations that align with the conditions on the Moon ^{[7] [4] [6]}.

5. Radiation, the Van Allen belts and technical feasibility

Claims that astronauts could not have survived traversal of the Van Allen radiation belts ignore mission planning and engineering: trajectories, spacecraft shielding, and short transit times limit radiation exposure to manageable levels — a technical point addressed in expert debunkings and explanations of Apollo mission design ^{[6] [3]}.

6. Why conspiracy narratives persist and how they spread

Conspiracy theories about the Moon landings have roots in early scepticism and were amplified by media and fiction (e.g., Capricorn One), and today social platforms and algorithmic echo chambers spread and resurface claims rapidly, with delays to current lunar programmes sometimes reigniting doubt ^{[6] [8] [3]}. Journalistic factchecks and encyclopedic summaries emphasize that despite the persistence of these narratives there is no credible evidence that the landings were faked ^{[5] [9]}.

7. Weighing the balance: cumulative evidence versus anomalies

Scientific and historical assessments conclude that the cumulative weight of multiple, independent lines of evidence — physical samples, international tracking, archival documentation, high‑resolution orbital imagery and the testimonies of thousands involved — overwhelmingly supports that humans landed on the Moon; anomalies and missing items deserve scrutiny but have been addressed or shown to be explainable and insufficient to overturn the larger evidentiary picture ^{[1] [2] [10]}.

8. Limits of the record and open questions for historians

While the evidence for the landings is strong, reporting also notes genuine archival and transparency issues — notably the missing Apollo 11 raw telemetry tapes — that are valid subjects for historical inquiry and improved preservation, and acknowledging such gaps strengthens rather than weakens public confidence when addressed openly ^{[4] [11]}.