COMPLETE STATIC READING EDITION

Crosshairs behind objects

Marks that seem to vanish behind the scenery.

← Interactive guide and chronology · The Moon File hub: the history, the full timeline and every file · What people say ↓

The strongest version of this theory

Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisShare

If a mark disappears behind an object, the picture was composited.

The crosses are supposed to be on top of everything in the image. If one seems to stop at the edge of a bright object and continue on the other side, that looks like a layer was pasted over it. [1][2]

The sources

  1. NASA: Apollo 11 image library ↗

    Primary institutional record. Carried from the first edition and re-listed 23 October 2026; cited for the specific point in the text.

  2. University of Manchester / Peter Knight: How moon landing conspiracy theories began ↗

    Peter Knight’s cultural history dates Kaysing’s book to 1976; Roger Launius calls an earlier pamphlet 1974. No first edition was inspected. The article’s problematic HSCA chronology is not repeated here.

How the crosses were made

Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisShare

A glass plate, bright suits and many copies.

NASA’s cameras had a glass Réseau plate pressed against the film, engraved with a grid of small crosses used for measuring distances in photos. [1]

A thin black line on a bright white object can be swamped by light spilling over from the bright area, especially after copying and printing. The cross is still there, just too faint to see in that spot. The best scans often show the faint line. [2]

Checking the exact frame number in the best available scan is the fair test. A crop in a meme may be several generations from the original. [2][3]

The sources

  1. NASA history: Astronaut Still Photography During Apollo ↗

    NASA technical history establishes the measuring plate and camera modifications. It does not provide a forensic verdict on every scan.

  2. NASA: Apollo 11 image library ↗

    Primary institutional record. Carried from the first edition and re-listed 23 October 2026; cited for the specific point in the text.

  3. University of Manchester / Peter Knight: How moon landing conspiracy theories began ↗

    Peter Knight’s cultural history dates Kaysing’s book to 1976; Roger Launius calls an earlier pamphlet 1974. No first edition was inspected. The article’s problematic HSCA chronology is not repeated here.

WHAT PEOPLE SAY ABOUT THIS FILE

The claims, rated.

1 claim people make about this file, each rated documented, partly true, disputed, unproven or false. Think a rating is wrong? Use Dispute or Support, or join the Discussion.

All 111 rated claims ↗

← The Moon File hub: the history, the full timeline and every file

PREVIOUS CASE
The “C” rock↗NEXT CASE
No crater under the lander↗

Discussion

Comment, dispute or support a claim, submit a source or rate this page through a short Google Form. It asks you to sign in with Google so we know you are a real person; your email is never shown. Nothing appears here until it has been reviewed. Conversation on X tagged #AIFiles #AIFilesMoon shows up below after the daily refresh.

CommentSubmit a sourceRate this pageStart a discussion on XFull forum topicSee all disputesFollow updates (Google Group)

Reader comments

Approved reader comments and ratings are shown on the interactive edition. This plain reading edition does not load them.

On X

This plain reading edition does not load posts. You can read this subject’s threads on the forum: Forum: #AIFilesMoon.

Reader comments are shown only after review, and rows removed from the form’s sheet disappear at the next refresh. X posts are a read-only daily snapshot; posts deleted or made private there are removed at the next refresh. Inclusion is not endorsement. A submitted source stays pending review until a page update says otherwise.