Fact Check: we haven't gone to the moon yet

Fact Check: we haven't gone to the moon yet

Published March 11, 2025Updated June 18, 2025
VERDICT
False

# Fact Check: "We Haven't Gone to the Moon Yet" ## What We Know The claim that "we haven't gone to the moon yet" contradicts well-documented historic...

Fact Check: "We Haven't Gone to the Moon Yet"

What We Know

The claim that "we haven't gone to the moon yet" contradicts well-documented historical events. The Apollo 11 mission, which took place in July 1969, is widely recognized as the first successful crewed lunar landing. On July 20, 1969, astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin landed the Lunar Module, named Eagle, on the Moon's surface, specifically in the Sea of Tranquility. Armstrong famously declared, "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind," as he became the first human to step onto the lunar surface (Apollo 11 Mission Overview, Apollo 11: The Moon Landing).

During this mission, the astronauts conducted scientific experiments, collected lunar samples, and transmitted live video back to Earth, which was viewed by an estimated 650 million people (Apollo 11: The Moon Landing). The mission lasted a total of 195 hours, culminating in a successful splashdown in the Pacific Ocean on July 24, 1969 (Apollo 11 Mission Overview).

Analysis

The assertion that humans have not gone to the Moon is unfounded and directly contradicts extensive evidence from multiple reliable sources. The Apollo 11 mission is one of the most documented events in human history, supported by photographs, videos, telemetry data, and physical samples brought back from the Moon. NASA's official documentation, including the Apollo 11 Mission Report, provides detailed accounts of the mission's objectives, execution, and outcomes.

Furthermore, third-party observations corroborate the lunar landings. For instance, the Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK tracked the Apollo missions, providing independent verification of the spacecraft's activities (Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings).

The claim that we haven't gone to the Moon often stems from conspiracy theories that lack credible evidence and rely on misinformation. Such theories have been debunked by experts in various fields, including astronomy and space science. The overwhelming consensus among scientists and historians is that the Apollo missions, including Apollo 11, successfully landed humans on the Moon.

Conclusion

Verdict: False
The claim that "we haven't gone to the moon yet" is false. The Apollo 11 mission successfully landed humans on the Moon in July 1969, a fact supported by extensive documentation, independent verification, and scientific consensus. The evidence is clear and well-established, making the assertion of a lunar landing hoax unfounded.

Sources

  1. Apollo 11 Mission Overview
  2. Apollo 11: The Moon Landing
  3. APOLLO 11 MISSION REPORT NOVEMBER 1969
  4. Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings
  5. The Moon Landing
  6. Apollo 11
  7. Investigating The Truth Behind The 1969 Moon Landing
  8. 1969 Moon Landing - Date, Facts, Video

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
100% Free
No Registration
Instant Results

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

🔍
Mostly True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: IT knowledge. There are several factors at work here. Colleges are mostly a few years behind trends, if not more. So a lot of recent grads are way behind from the gate. Most colleges are now just shills for business licenses called "degrees," You need this "license" to be "allowed" to have a entry job, and they know it, and charge whatever the market can bear. Pearson Vue has seized a huge amount of this space, which just adds to the cost, and tries to enforce certification tracks with government contract specs and all sorts of inroads. The "cash cow" of graduating college with 6 figure jobs waiting for them is mostly gone. The junior roles have been outsourced overseas, and have been replaced with people with multiple hats. There are very few "middle roles," so the track of going from junior to senior has a HUGE gap that keeps getting wider. The senior roles are starting to age out: many went into management, and some are retiring. Knowledge and experience is getting lost. Companies reliant on technology to surve are cutting technology costs as a "cost center" because of the pressure of rising capitalism always producing value year to year. Thus, they send more jobs overseas, and senior roles become too costly to maintain. We are incurring a lot of "debt" in aging infrastructure, and IT is no different. There are systems operating high-cost operations in factories, transportation, and utilities that haven't been upgraded in decades, and some of the people who knew how it all worked are dying off. Eventually, there won't be enough senior roles to teacher younger people anything, and there will be a cascading series of knowledge gaps in current infrastructure, leading to huge failures. People say that "kids today know computers" but they really don't: most only know GUI and how to operate an iPad, not what makes the iPad work under the hood or how the Internet works.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: IT knowledge. There are several factors at work here. Colleges are mostly a few years behind trends, if not more. So a lot of recent grads are way behind from the gate. Most colleges are now just shills for business licenses called "degrees," You need this "license" to be "allowed" to have a entry job, and they know it, and charge whatever the market can bear. Pearson Vue has seized a huge amount of this space, which just adds to the cost, and tries to enforce certification tracks with government contract specs and all sorts of inroads. The "cash cow" of graduating college with 6 figure jobs waiting for them is mostly gone. The junior roles have been outsourced overseas, and have been replaced with people with multiple hats. There are very few "middle roles," so the track of going from junior to senior has a HUGE gap that keeps getting wider. The senior roles are starting to age out: many went into management, and some are retiring. Knowledge and experience is getting lost. Companies reliant on technology to surve are cutting technology costs as a "cost center" because of the pressure of rising capitalism always producing value year to year. Thus, they send more jobs overseas, and senior roles become too costly to maintain. We are incurring a lot of "debt" in aging infrastructure, and IT is no different. There are systems operating high-cost operations in factories, transportation, and utilities that haven't been upgraded in decades, and some of the people who knew how it all worked are dying off. Eventually, there won't be enough senior roles to teacher younger people anything, and there will be a cascading series of knowledge gaps in current infrastructure, leading to huge failures. People say that "kids today know computers" but they really don't: most only know GUI and how to operate an iPad, not what makes the iPad work under the hood or how the Internet works.

Apr 9, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Transcript
00:00
911 was a false flag. For the
first 10 years, I did not think
anything other than the
official narrative then after
being shown a video, a close up
video of building number seven
coming down and that got me
going because it's obvious to
me that building seven was was
a controlled demolition because
the building collapses from the
bottom down. The trade centers
were unique in that they were
designed to withstand the
00:33
impact of a a a jet. From what
I understand the the outer
skeleton of the building. The
outer columns was like a a fish
net and you had these inner
core columns which was
substantial thick steel beams
to withstand four or five times
what the loads were. Got it.
The engineers always over
design a building. No steel
frame building has ever
collapsed before or since 9/
eleven. So that should say
something right there. And it
said that building seven it was
01:05
aggressive collapse that it was
caused by fire but progressive
collapse unlike the twin
towers, the twin towers
collapse from the top down.
That's a progressive collapse.
Sure. Floor by floor by floor.
But if you look at the videos
of building seven collapsing,
it collapses uniformly, it's
collapsing from the bottom, the
building stays intact all the
way to the bottom of the ground
and you could see the sides
caving in on it. For a building
to collapse uniformly which the
video show all the load bearing
it would have to have failed
01:36
simultaneously. Now, fire
doesn't act like that. I came
across an analogy of the twin
towers and if you could
visualize cast iron stoves
stacked. One on top of each
other. The stoves up at the
top. Yes, there's fire and
they've been damaged but the
stoves on the bottom, they
haven't been damaged. Okay. So,
the structure underneath all of
that is intact. So, it's
impossible for a building to
collapse near free fall speed
and increase. Without a
02:07
controlled demolition. You're
running into the path of most
resistance. I something else is
going on. I don't believe that
it was just the planes or the
fires I think that and they
examine the dust and they found
what they call thermitic
material which is like a
explosive incendiary which was
in the dust samples and that's
documented. There were reports
of the buildings were
undergoing a extensive elevator
renovation in the two or three
years prior to all kinds of
02:40
workers they had access to the
the core the cores of the
building and on the day of the
attack the the elevator company
would not assist in the
operations of the elevators and
the elevator company was the
elevator company it
subsequently went out of
business and a couple of years
after that
False
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Jul 28, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Transcript
00:00
This whole saga with Epstein
having any impact on Trump's
approval rating overall when it
comes to the Grand Old Party?
Yeah I mean look I think this
one surprised me a bit because
of all these complaints online
going after Trump and the
Epstein Fasio might think his
approval ratings were going
down with Republicans if
anything they're going up
Republicans who approve of
Trump look at our CNN poll the
prior 186 percent the one out
this week 88% were Republicans
how about Quinipiac the prior
poll 87% approval of
Republicans week out, 90% with
Republicans. If anything,
00:33
Donald Trump's approval rating
has gone up since this whole
Epstein saga started. He is at
the apex or close there too in
terms of his popularity with
Republican voters. Epstein
files complaints or not. You
just prove that not everything
online is real. Yes. In real
world. Who knew? Who knew?
Amazing. Twitter and X are not
reality.
False
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 This whole saga with Epstein having any impact on Trump's approval rating overall when it comes to the Grand Old Party? Yeah I mean look I think this one surprised me a bit because of all these complaints online going after Trump and the Epstein Fasio might think his approval ratings were going down with Republicans if anything they're going up Republicans who approve of Trump look at our CNN poll the prior 186 percent the one out this week 88% were Republicans how about Quinipiac the prior poll 87% approval of Republicans week out, 90% with Republicans. If anything, 00:33 Donald Trump's approval rating has gone up since this whole Epstein saga started. He is at the apex or close there too in terms of his popularity with Republican voters. Epstein files complaints or not. You just prove that not everything online is real. Yes. In real world. Who knew? Who knew? Amazing. Twitter and X are not reality.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 This whole saga with Epstein having any impact on Trump's approval rating overall when it comes to the Grand Old Party? Yeah I mean look I think this one surprised me a bit because of all these complaints online going after Trump and the Epstein Fasio might think his approval ratings were going down with Republicans if anything they're going up Republicans who approve of Trump look at our CNN poll the prior 186 percent the one out this week 88% were Republicans how about Quinipiac the prior poll 87% approval of Republicans week out, 90% with Republicans. If anything, 00:33 Donald Trump's approval rating has gone up since this whole Epstein saga started. He is at the apex or close there too in terms of his popularity with Republican voters. Epstein files complaints or not. You just prove that not everything online is real. Yes. In real world. Who knew? Who knew? Amazing. Twitter and X are not reality.

Jul 21, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Just 13% of private buyers have gone fully electric this year.
False

Fact Check: Just 13% of private buyers have gone fully electric this year.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Just 13% of private buyers have gone fully electric this year.

Jul 15, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Moon landing was fake
False

Fact Check: Moon landing was fake

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Moon landing was fake

Aug 6, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Social Security benefits haven't been reformed in 40 years.
False

Fact Check: Social Security benefits haven't been reformed in 40 years.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Social Security benefits haven't been reformed in 40 years.

Jun 19, 2025
Read more →