It’s not every day you hear a sitting member of Congress publicly invoke the specter of moon landing denial. Yet that’s exactly what unfolded when Rep. Lauren Boebert allowed a thread of lunar skepticism to drift across national airwaves, as detailed in a report from MeidasNews.

Infinite Improbability Drive: Engaged

During her appearance on Blaze TV’s Prime Time with Alex Stein, Boebert navigated a conversational orbit that included everything from conspiracies about nuclear weapons to some mild side-eye at NASA’s crowning accomplishment. While host Alex Stein aired doubts about the very existence of nuclear arms and mused over the authenticity of submarine missile footage, Boebert matched the energy with a quip about tinfoil hats and skepticism over how some military videos are so detailed—wondering aloud, as chronicled in MeidasNews, how incredibly close the footage must have been taken, and “how’d your video make it?”

From there, Stein directed the spotlight skyward. Delving into classic lunar skepticism—especially the question of traversing the Van Allen radiation belts—he pushed Boebert into the realm of Apollo doubt. Rather than staking any definitive claim, Boebert responded with, “I wasn’t alive either when we went to the moon,” a comment she delivered with a blend of humor and equivocation. When the topic turned to whether we can travel as far now as in 1969, she shrugged: “I got a GED. We don’t need numbers. It’s fine. It’s far.” Boebert also wondered aloud why, if we’ve already crossed the Van Allen belts, it’s taking NASA so long to return, referencing the current Artemis program and expressing curiosity about what the Orion spacecraft might accomplish in the coming years.

Taken together, as the outlet describes, Boebert didn’t outright deny the moon landing. Instead, she floated in a kind of ambiguity—dropping suggestive remarks without planting a flag, so to speak, on either side of the Stanley Kubrick conspiracy.

The Loosening of Lunar Logic

It’s worth noting, as MeidasNews pieces together, that Boebert’s moon speculation was just one item on a broader menu of doubts. During the same interview, she revisited familiar territory for internet conspiracy aficionados, referencing the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 and invoking commentary from Tucker Carlson to question the official 9/11 narrative. She leaned into the mutable nature of knowledge, saying, “I mean, things change, facts change. That’s why, I love Jesus. I love the Bible, because that is truth… God is not a liar, but… there is a father of lies.”

The magazine-style shuffle of skepticism—never fully endorsing one theory, but entertaining several—reads less like a manifesto and more like a rotating buffet of raised eyebrows. The approach lands somewhere between performance and plausible deniability, a rhetorical pose where “just asking questions” offers shelter from the fallout of firm claims. Rather than join the ranks of full-blown deniers, Boebert seems content to plant seeds of uncertainty and watch them grow.

Earlier in the MeidasNews report, it’s illustrated how this technique—hinting at the possibility of historic deceptions without going all-in—has become a sort of pastime among certain public figures. And one wonders: is our collective fascination with the moon landing simply too irresistible for the internet age to leave undisturbed?

Trust Issues: Now in Orbit

A careful reading of the interview paints a picture of a political era where “prove it” is often less a challenge than a posture—just as likely delivered with a wink as with a fist on the table. By referencing the Van Allen radiation belt, shifting timelines, and the Artemis mission, Boebert didn’t contest specific scientific facts so much as throw the door open to generational suspicion: if we did it once, why not again? Should a single lapse in the space program’s momentum be cause for cosmic doubt?

For context, genuine government cover-ups exist, and public skepticism can be a rational response. But the leap from “governments sometimes withhold information” to “perhaps Buzz Aldrin never left the soundstage” is a wide one. Are we watching a search for truth, or is it simply the comfort of basking in permanent ambiguity?

To the Moon, If We Feel Like It

The sight of a congresswoman idly suggesting the moon landing might have been a bit sus is, in an odd way, a testament to the tenacity of lunar legend. MeidasNews makes it clear Boebert isn’t making a definitive claim—just turning over the stone to see what skitters out. It’s almost a game: how far can one push the boundaries of skepticism if every statement is softened with a joke, or hedged with the possibility of divine deception?

Instead of anchoring her worldview to established fact, Boebert retreated to the certainty of faith, emphasizing that “God is not a liar, but… there is a father of lies.” The outlet also notes her comfort in irony and ambiguity—allowing room for possibility without responsibility to proof.

So, here we are. Another Tuesday, and another round of existential hide-and-seek with a historical milestone. The footage persists, the rocks in museum display cases aren’t foam, but the doubts, it seems, have made moonfall permanent. In a world always waiting for the next big reveal, maybe the bigger question isn’t whether we went to the moon—but what it would take, after all these years, to convince everyone of the landing. Or does the magic, as ever, lie in the not-knowing?