Since Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon in 1969, numerous conspiracy theories have emerged, which have cast doubt in the public’s mind if the moon landing happened. One of these conspiracy theories suggests that images taken while on the mission have several optical anomalies, which points to them not being real (Launius). The second conspiracy theory Campbell states that the radiation exposure and difficult atmospheric conditions the astronauts would have encountered during the Apollo II mission would have made it impossible to survive the trip. The third conspiracy theory is the moon landings never occurred as the original film footage proof is missing from the NASA archives (Rabie).
    The first conspiracy theory is that optical anomalies found in various images taken during the Apollo mission indicate the imagery is faked in the photos captured during the moon landing. "For each of these charges, there are completely reasonable, understandable, and convincing explanations, most relating to the nature of photography and the vicissitudes of shadows, lighting and exposure of film in a vacuum" (Lanius). Believers of this theory have pointed out inconsistencies in the shadows and lighting in the captured photos (Lanius). Roger Lainus pointed out this claim had a huge flaw when he said, “The problem with this theory is that although the sun is the main source of illumination on the moon, it isn’t the only source of illumination. Another source is the lunar ground, which reflects the sun’s light” (Lanius). The author is clarifying that the sun is not the only source of illumination on the moon as its moon's surface is also reflecting light to different places, and it is itself illuminating those places, which easily explains why the shadow on the moon may be inconsistent in some of the imaging. This argument is invalid as imaging in space is unique due to the unusual qualities found in space.

The second conspiracy theory is that the atmospheric conditions would have made it impossible for the astronauts to survive the trip from earth to the moon and back because of the radiation exposure. “Moonlanding deniers enjoy focusing on the Van Allen Belts as an impenetrable barrier. These are areas of geomagnetically trapped, high-energy particles that surround Earth” (Campbell). This theory focuses on the exceptional feat of going to the moon with the technology NASA had at the time and attempts to discredit the great work done by NASA scientists by essentially saying it couldn’t have been done with the limited technology of the time. If the astronauts were flying through the Van Allen Belts for extended time periods, then perhaps there would be validity to this claim. According to Dallas Campbell in his article 6 Apollo Moonlanding Conspiracy Theories and How to Defeat Them, the astronauts were on a specific path that did not remain on the Van Allen Belts and had radiation protection within the spacecraft, and he additionally points out the astronauts wore personal dosimeters to measure and make sure that the radiation was low enough to not be harmful. (Campbell).

But a path was set to avoid the most hazardous regions of the belts and the astronauts weren’t in this region for very long as they sped to the Moon, shielded by the skin of the spacecraft. Any potential radiation hazards were accounted for and flights were scheduled when there were no major solar weather events.  Personal dosimeters (that measure radiation exposure) were worn by all the astronauts and exposure was low, no more dangerous than, say, an X-ray (Campbell).  

The radiation exposure the astronauts experienced on their journey was minimized by the precautions that were taken by NASA and a non-issue for those on the Appollo missions and, therefore, would have been easily survivable.

     The third conspiracy theory is that the moon landing never took place because the original film footage of the moon landing is missing from the NASA archives. “The search for the "lost tapes" began in 2006, when reports began surfacing that NASA had erased some original footage from the first moon landing. The agency conducted an intensive search at the time but could not find the tapes” (Rabie). Those hungry to believe the moon landing never occurred latched on to the news of the missing data convinced that the tapes weren’t lost but rather further proof they never existed in the first place. Passant Rabie focused on this theory in the article NASA Addresses Controversy Over Lost Tapes of Apollo II Moonwalk pointing out that NASA conducted an extensive investigation into the rumors surrounding the lost tapes, "NASA reaffirmed that there is no missing footage from Apollo 11 since the video transmissions were relayed to the Manned Spacecraft Center and video from those tapes was converted to a format which could be broadcast on television" (Rabie). While the original film no longer exists, NASA has confirmed that the activity on the moon was recorded to video transmission recordings and those recordings still exist and are not lost.  Rabie’s analysis found that during the investigation NASA concluded the space program managers found no further use for the original tapes since the landing was preserved in other formats and they reused the original film to record other missions, so they were erased and reused (Rabie). While the original tapes do not exist in their original format, the moon landing recording still exist and can be watched, therefore, the missing tapes are unnecessary to prove that the moon landing did occur.