# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Part of the documentary "Room 237" (2012) where Jay Weidner explains his theory of the movie "The Shining" (1980) being Stanley Kubrick's confession about faking the footage of the Apollo 11 Moon landing. A few words about Jay Weidner: Called by Wired Magazine an "authority on the hermetic and alchemical traditions," and "erudite conspiracy hunter, "Jay Weidner is a renowned author, filmmaker and hermetic scholar.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Apollo 11 moon landing was one giant leap for mankind, but a string of conspiracy theories have since tried to ground the 1969 spaceflight as a staged production on a Hollywood backlot.

The false claims range loud enough that NASA, in 2001, issued a response. Unique rocks and common sense, the agency said, were evidence that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin left footprints on the moon. There was also that time that Aldrin punched a conspiracy theorist who poked him with a Bible, insisting repeatedly that the moon landings were faked.

But have you ever wondered, for the Apollo 11 conspiracy to be true, how many people would need to be part of the secret?

Just over 400,000, says Oxford University physicist and cancer biologist David Robert Grimes. Grimes, who is also a journalist, has published a new mathematical equation in the journal PLOS ONE that estimates how long a large-scale conspiracy can last before someone behind the scenes intentionally or unintentionally pulls back the curtain.

"Science thrives on being open and gradually self-correcting, and a willingness to be guided by evidence rather than dogma," Grimes said in an email. This means criticism and questions are an inherent part of the scientific process. However, Grimes thinks conspiracies, especially large one, go too far and should be separated from science.

So Grimes devised a formula designed to calculate the lifespan of big conspiratorial beliefs. It takes into account the number of conspirators, the passage of time and the probability of a whistle-blower.

The conditions were fine-tuned by three conspiracies that had been revealed in the past: the NSA eavesdropping scandal that was eventually uncovered by whistle-blower Edward Snowden; the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, which withheld a cure for the sexually transmitted disease from African-American men; and an FBI scandal involving Dr. Frederic Whitehurst, whose misleading forensic tests led to wrongful detainment and execution of several innocent people. Grimes looked at these conspiracies to approximate things like the "secret-keeping ability of a conspirator" and other factors that ultimately maintain a secret. Plus, Grimes gave imaginary conspirators in his math model an "unrealistically high" capacity for secrecy to gauge what it would take to spill the beans.

He then tested his formula on four famous conspiracies that persist, despite being demonstrably false. Among them, that the Apollo 11 moon landings were faked, that climate change is a hoax perpetuated by scientists, that vaccinations are unsafe, and that Big Pharma is hiding a cure for cancer. In all four cases, scores of conspirators would be required to keep each secret.

All four conspiracies would be uncovered in less than four years, according to Grimes' calculations. For the moon-landing conspiracy to stay quiet, it would require an estimated 411,000 people - the number of NASA employees in 1965 - to keep mum. Grimes estimates this hoax should have broken down within 3.68 years, decades before a conspiracy theorist met the business end of a former astronaut's fist.

"Even then, a sustained lie would be very, very likely to fail quickly," Grimes said.
Video by YouTube user Tim Farley
According to Grimes' study, the climate change hoax, with an estimated 405,000 people involved, should have been exposed after 3.7 years. The vaccination conspiracy would need people at the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and drug companies to keep mum, so according to Grimes' formula, should have been exposed after 3.15 years. But it all comes down to numbers. For example, in the case of the vaccination subterfuge, if you remove the drug companies so it only involved the 22,000 folks at CDC and the WHO, it could have lasted a full 34.78 years, according to his equation.

The cancer cover-up has the highest number of estimated conspirators - 714,000 people - and thus should have been revealed in 3.17 years.

Grimes then looked at the maximum number of people needed to keep a secret for a actual conspiracy. According to Grimes' calculations, the number of conspirators reduces the longer a conspiracy survives. For a hoax to persist five years, no more than 2,521 people can be active participants: that is, be aware that the conspiracy exists. To last 25 years, that number drops to 502. And to last a century: 125 people tops.

"Large conspiracies tend to fail, and if you need large numbers of scientists to conspire, that's incredibly unlikely to be tenable," he said.

So why do conspiracy theories resonate with some people?

Benjamin Radford, deputy editor of the Skeptical Inquirer science magazine, said many conspiratorial beliefs have a "grain of truth" to them, such as when the high-profile revelations from Julian Assange of WikiLeaks and NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden revealed that the government lied to the public.

"There's this illicit transference of belief where people assume just because the government is capable of doing bad things and being careless," Radford said. It provides a "sheen of plausibility" that leads people to assume officials take things another step too far.

That latent distrust of the government has translated to conspiracies theories about those in charge, such as contrails being made in the sky for nefarious means or suggestions that AIDS was introduced to decimate the African-American population, Radford said. More recently, conspiracy theorists have blamed the Zika outbreak on a public health initiative that released genetically-modified mosquitos, while others have questioned whether government officials intentionally poisoned Flint residents.

Medical conspiracies, in particular, endure because they're more emotional and much more salient to people than a moon-landing hoax, Radford said

"Medical conspiracies deal with people's lives. They deal with people who are sick. They deal with people who are dying. And that's very personal," he said. "A conspiracy about the moon landing is less personal.

In his study, Grimes offers the disclaimer that the formula isn't outwardly dismissing all conspiracy theories as "inherently false."

"On a small scale, conspiracies always exist," Grimes said. "It's easy to dismiss someone as paranoid, but, then again, we might have said the same about someone who claimed the [National Security Agency] was spying on Internet traffic a few years ago."

So the question to ask yourself isn't 'Do conspiracies happen?' but rather what's the likelihood that scientists en masse would be complicit in a conspiracy?

Grimes doubts his equation will sway the true believers, but hopes it can raise public trust and instill an intuition.

"Of course, not everyone who is worried about these claims is an out and out conspiracist. Many are just worried third parties who hear this and don't know how to parse such claims," he said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How many people does it take to keep a conspiracy alive?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Apollo 11 moon landing was one giant leap for mankind, but a string of conspiracy theories have since tried to ground the 1969 spaceflight as a staged production on a Hollywood backlot. The false claims range loud enough that NASA, in 2001, issued a response.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Conspiracy Theory Analysis- Apollo 11 Mission

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Francisco Nunez Anthony Ortiz Journalism 6B  Conspiracy Theory Analysis - Apollo 11 Mission

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Internet legend would have you believe that filmmaker Stanley Kubrick - as well as directing classic films including 2001: A Space Odyssey and Full Metal Jacket - aided the US government in its faking of the moon landing in 1969.

The idea has been chewed over by conspiracy theorists over the years, most prominently aided by documentary Room 237, which suggests that the British filmmaker hid allusions to his involvement in the Apollo 11 deception within his horror film The Shining.

It has now emerged that Kubrick's daughter Vivian is not a fan of this theory, going so far as to write an open letter vehemently chiding those who believe it to be true.

It wasn't until Kubrick's passing in 1999 that the Apollo 11 theory gained traction - which hasn't stopped media from embracing it. Most recently, comedy film Moonwalkers weaved the idea into its plot.

For those who are dismissing his daughter's efforts to debunk the theory, she does make an excellent point:

"I actually knew him!" she writes. "I lived and worked with him so forgive my harshness when I state categorically: the so-called 'truth' these malicious cranks persist in forwarding... is manifestly A GROTESQUE LIE."

That seems pretty definitive to us.

Which recent movies will become classics?

Vivian Kubrick's response in full (sic):
"Re: Faked Moon Landings Surely (?!) an artist, such as my father, whose profound degree of artistic integrity is self-evident, whose political/social consciousness is manifestly present in nearly every film he made. Whose highly controversial subject matter literally put his life at risk, and yet he continued to make the film's he made ... don't you think he'd be the very last person EVER to assist the US Government in such a terrible betrayal of its people?!? There are many, very real conspiracies that have happened throughout our history, are happening presently, I'm only too aware of the dreadful manipulations perpetrated by governments, secret services, banksters, the military-industrial-complex etc.. But, claims that the moon landings were faked and filmed by my father? I just can't understand it!!? How can anyone believe that one of the greatest defenders of mankind would commit such an act of betrayal? My father's artistic works are his unimpeachable defence! Finally, my love for my father notwithstanding, I actually knew him! I lived and worked with him, so forgive my harshness when I state categorically: the so called 'truth' these malicious cranks persist in forwarding - that my father conspired with the US Government to 'fake the moon landings' - is manifestly A GROTESQUE LIE."
Read more: Cary Fukunaga set to try and make the film Stanley Kubrick couldn't

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Stanley Kubrick's daughter debunks moon landing conspiracy theory

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Internet legend would have you believe that filmmaker Stanley Kubrick - as well as directing classic films including 2001: A Space Odyssey and Full Metal Jacket - aided the US government in its faking of the moon landing in 1969.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The theory that the moon landings were hoaxed by the US government to assert their victory in the space race over Russia, is something which has grown in popularity over time.

Recent polls indicate that approximately 20% of Americans believe that the U.S. has never landed on the moon. After the Apollo missions ended in the seventies, why haven't we ever been back? Only during the term of Richard Nixon did humanity ever land on the moon, and after Watergate most people wouldn't put it past Tricky Dick to fake them to put America in good standing in the Cold War.

In this list I have presented some of the proposed evidence to suggest that the moon landings were hoaxes. I tried to include NASA's explanations to each entry to provide an objective perspective.

Conspiracy theorists have pointed out that when the first moon landing was shown on live television, viewers could clearly see the American flag waving and fluttering as Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin planted it. Photos of the landing also seem to show rippling in a breeze, such as the image above which clearly shows a fold in the flag. The obvious problem here is that there's no air in the moon's atmosphere, and therefore no wind to cause the flag to blow.

Countless explanations have been put forward to disprove this phenomenon as anything unusual: NASA claimed that the flag was stored in a thin tube and the rippled effect was caused by it being unfurled before being planted. Other explanations involve the ripples caused by the reaction force of the astronauts touching the aluminum pole, which is shown to shake in the video footage.

The claim goes as follows: had NASA really landed us on the moon, there would be a blast crater underneath the lunar module to mark its landing. On any video footage or photograph of the landings, no crater is visible, almost as though the module was simply placed there. The surface of the moon is covered in fine lunar dust, and even this doesn't seem to have been displaced in photographic evidence.

Much like the waving flag theory, however, the lack of an impact crater has a slew of potential explanations. NASA maintains that the module required significantly less thrust in the low-gravity conditions than it would have done on Earth. The surface of the moon itself is solid rock, so a blast crater probably wouldn't be feasible anyway - in the same way that an aeroplane doesn't leave a crater when it touches down on a concrete airstrip.

On the moon there is only one strong light source: the Sun. So it's fair to suggest that all shadows should run parallel to one another. But this was not the case during the moon landing: videos and photographs clearly show that shadows fall in different directions. Conspiracy theorists suggest that this must mean multiple light sources are present -suggesting that the landing photos were taken on a film set.

NASA has attempted to blame uneven landscape on the strange shadows, with subtle bumps and hills on the moon's surface causing the discrepancies. This explanation has been tossed out the window by some theorists; how could hills cause such large angular differences? In the image above the lunar module's shadow clearly contradicts that of the rocks in the foreground at almost a 45 degree angle.

In order to reach the moon, astronauts had to pass through what is known as the Van Allen radiation belt. The belt is held in place by Earth's magnetic field and stays perpetually in the same place. The Apollo missions to the moon marked the first ever attempts to transport living humans through the belt. Conspiracy theorists contend that the sheer levels of radiation would have cooked the astronauts en route to the moon, despite the layers of aluminum coating the interior and exterior of the spaceship.

NASA have countered this argument by emphasizing the short amount of time it took the astronauts to traverse the belt - meaning they received only very small doses of radiation.

After photographs of the moon landings were released, theorists were quick to notice a mysterious object (shown above) in the reflection of an astronaut's helmet from the Apollo 12 mission. The object appears to be hanging from a rope or wire and has no reason to be there at all, leading some to suggest it is an overhead spotlight typically found in film studios.

The resemblance is questionable, given the poor quality of the photograph, but the mystery remains as to why something is being suspended in mid-air (or rather lack of air) on the moon. The lunar module in other photos appears to have no extension from it that matches the photo, so the object still remains totally unexplained.

In order to support claims that the moon landings were shot in a studio, conspiracy theorists had to account for the apparent low-gravity conditions, which must have been mimicked by NASA. It has been suggested that if you take the moon landing footage and increase the speed of the film x2.5, the astronauts appear to be moving in Earth's gravity. As for the astronaut's impressive jump height, which would be impossible to perform in Earth's gravity, hidden cables and wires have been suggested as giving the astronauts some extra height. In some screenshots outlines of alleged hidden cables can be seen (the photograph above supposedly shows a wire, though it is extremely vague).

One compelling argument for the moon landing hoax is the total lack of stars in any of the photographic/video evidence. There are no clouds on the moon, so stars are perpetually visible and significantly brighter than what we see through the filter of Earth's atmosphere.

The argument here is that NASA would have found it impossible to map out the exact locations of all stars for the hoax without being rumbled, and therefore left them out - intentionally falling back on an excuse that the quality of the photographs washes them out (an excuse they did actually give).

Some photographs are high-quality, however, and yet still no stars are shown. Certainly eerie, considering you can take pictures of stars from Earth in much lower quality and still see them.

One of the most famous photos from the moon landings shows a rock in the foreground, with what appears to be the letter "C" engraved into it. The letter appears to be almost perfectly symmetrical, meaning it is unlikely to be a natural occurrence. It has been suggested that the rock is simply a prop, with the "C" used as a marker by an alleged film crew. A set designer could have turned the rock the wrong way, accidentally exposing the marking to the camera.

NASA has given conflicting excuses for the letter, on the one hand blaming a photographic developer for adding the letter as a practical joke, while on the other hand saying that it may simply have been a stray hair which got tangled up somewhere in the developing process.

The cameras used by astronauts during the moon landings had a multitude of cross-hairs to aid with scaling and direction. These are imprinted over the top of all photographs. Some of the images, however, clearly show the cross-hairs behind objects in the scene, implying that photographs may have been edited or doctored after being taken. The photograph shown above is not an isolated occurrence. Many objects are shown to be in front of the cross-hairs, including the American flag in one picture and the lunar rover in another.

Conspiracy theorists have suggested NASA printed the man-made objects over a legitimate photograph of the moon to hoax the landings - although if they really planned on doing this, then why they used cross-hairs in the first place is a mystery.

The two photos from the Apollo 15 mission shown above clearly have identical backdrops, despite being officially listed by NASA as having been taken miles apart. One photo even shows the lunar module. When all photographs were taken the module had already landed, so how can it possibly be there for one photo and disappear in another? Well, if you're a hardcore conspiracy theorist, it may seem viable that NASA simply used the same backdrop when filming different scenes of their moon landing videos.

NASA has suggested that since the moon is much smaller than Earth, horizons can appear significantly closer to the human eye. Despite this, to say that the two hills visible in the photographs are miles apart is incontrovertibly false.

This loose extension of the popular conspiracy theory states that acclaimed film director Stanley Kubrick was approached by the US government to hoax the first three moon landings. There are two main branches of this somewhat implausible theory: one group of believers maintain that Kubrick was approached after he released 2001: A Space Odyssey (released in 1968, one year before the first moon landing), after NASA came to appreciate the stunning realism of the film's outer-space scenes at that time; another group contends that Kubrick was groomed by the government to film the moon landing long before this, and that 2001: A Space Odyssey was a staged practice run for him.

So what evidence might support such claims? Well: apparently, if you watch The Shining (another Kubrick picture), you can pick up on some alleged messages hidden by Kubrick to subtly inform the world of his part in the conspiracy. The most obvious is the child's Apollo 11 shirt worn in only one scene. Another supposed gem is the line written on Jack Nicholson's character's typewriter: "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy", in which the word "all" can be interpreted as A11, or Apollo 11.

If you aren't convinced yet, Kubrick made the mysterious hotel room in the film number 237. Guess how many miles it is from here to the moon: 238,000. So divide that by a thousand and minus one, and you've got one airtight theory right there.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Reasons the Moon Landings Could Be a Hoax - Listverse

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The theory that the moon landings were hoaxed by the US government to assert their victory in the space race over Russia, is something which has grown in popularity over time. Recent polls indicate that approximately 20% of Americans believe that the U.S. has never landed on the moon.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In a statement released through a spokesperson, the family made it clear the film published on YouTube was a complete hoax, using an actor who was purporting to be the Clockwork Orange film director.

The statement on behalf of his widow Christiane Kubrick said: "The interview is a lie, Stanley Kubrick has never been interviewed by T.Patrick Murray, the whole story is made up, fraudulent & untrue."

The two-hour film, said to be raw footage of an interview with the Clockwork Orange director, in March 1999, went viral just days after NASA announced it had found the crash site on the moon of part of the Apollo 16 Mission rocket.

NASA's announcement it had solved an age-old mystery over what happened to the booster was a blow to conspiracy theorists who have claimed for years that no man has ever set foot on the moon and every photograph and video from the six missions from 1969 were staged on Earth.

However, the emergence of "Kubrick"'s apparent explosive confession could put the conspiracists firmly back in the driving seat after he appeared to admit being behind the historic footage of Neil Armstrong becoming the "first man on the moon" in 1969.

The world watched in awe as Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and the rest of the Apollo 11 crew stepped foot on the moon for the first time that year.

For decades since conspiracy theorists have claimed it and all the subsequent moon landings were hoaxed and no one has ever been on the moon.

In the video, allegedly shot by documentary maker T. Patrick Murray on March 3 1999, four days before Kubrick died, but only released this year, a beared man said to be the reclusive The Shining director declares he has a confession to make.

The bearded man says: "The conspiracy theorists were right, on this occasion."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
MOON LANDINGS 'FAKE': What Stanley Kubrick's family say about 'hoax admission' video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a statement released through a spokesperson, the family made it clear the film published on YouTube was a complete hoax, using an actor who was purporting to be the Clockwork Orange film director.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Vladimir Markin, a former spokesman for the government's official Investigative Committee, said the committee had called for an inquiry to find out what happened to the original footage of the first moon landing in 1969 and also lunar rock, brought back to Earth during the several "missions".

The moon landings have been a staple of conspiracy theorists everywhere since 1969 - most claim the missions were faked on a Hollywood style film set.

Mr Markin, who resigned from the post in October, did not go as far as suggesting the missions were faked, but said as part of world history it was right to establish what happened and an inquiry could provide new insights into the historical journeys.

He said: "We are not contending that they did not fly [to the moon], and simply made a film about it. But all of these scientific - or perhaps cultural - artefacts are part of the legacy of humanity, and their disappearance without a trace is our common loss. An investigation will reveal what happened."

The call comes amid ongoing tension between Russia and the US over world affairs and a return to the "space race."

In 2009, NASA said it "erased" the original video recordings of the first moon landing among 200,000 other tapes in order to save money.

It has since said restored copies of the landing had been put together using recordings from news footage at the time.

NASA claims because of restoration work undertaken during this, the recordings' quality is better than the original which is no longer available.

In 2001 David McKay, chief scientist for planetary science and exploration at NASA's Johnson Space Center, said most of the soil and rock removed from the Moon was stored there, but is is unclear where it all is now, 46 years on.

US media has speculated that the call is no more than a smear since the US brought about the downfall of FIFA's leadership following its corruption inquiry.

This was because in an article for Russian newspaper Izvestia Mr Markin said US authorities had "crossed a line by launching a large-scale corruption probe targeting nine FIFA officials."

He argued this lay the US open to scrutiny of its own actions due to the high number of conspiracy theories that the Moon landing videos were faked due one of the flags having an shadow and blowing in the wind despite thee being no atmosphere and other anomalies.

He wrote: "US prosecutors have declared themselves the supreme arbiters of international football affairs."

Mr Markin said after resigning last month that he will serve as the first deputy general director of the RusHydro energy holding.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Did NASA really land on the Moon? - Russia wants probes into missing video and lunar rock

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vladimir Markin, a former spokesman for the government's official Investigative Committee, said the committee had called for an inquiry to find out what happened to the original footage of the first moon landing in 1969 and also lunar rock, brought back to Earth during the several "missions".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Reasons Why People Believe The Moon Landing Is A Hoax

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From the C rock to unexplainable objects, we count down 10 Reasons Why The Moon Landing Is A Hoax.