Stanley Kubrick Faked the Apollo 11 Moon Landing in 1969, Or So the Conspiracy Theory Goes

This week is the anniver­sary of the Apol­lo 11 jour­ney to the moon. And while most peo­ple will cel­e­brate the event by acknowl­edg­ing the abil­i­ties and courage of Neil Arm­strong and com­pa­ny in this land­mark of human endeav­or, a small, though vocal, group of peo­ple will decry the moon land­ing as a fraud.

In that spir­it, French film­mak­er William Karel spins an elab­o­rate tale of intrigue in Dark Side of the Moon. (See out­takes above.) The 2002 film posits that the Apol­lo 11 moon land­ing was staged by none oth­er than Stan­ley Kubrick. How else did the direc­tor get his hands on a super advanced lens from NASA to shoot those gor­geous can­dle-lit scenes in Bar­ry Lyn­don? The film is slick­ly pro­duced and fea­tures an impres­sive array of inter­vie­wees from Hen­ry Kissinger, to Buzz Aldrin to Chris­tiane Kubrick. Some of the oth­er peo­ple inter­viewed include Jack Tor­rance and David Bow­man. If that’s not a tip off that the whole movie is fake, then the bloop­er reel at the end dri­ves the point home. Only a lot of peo­ple didn’t get the joke. Con­spir­a­cy enthu­si­asts Wayne Green cit­ed the movie as fur­ther proof that the moon land­ing was faked.

Moon hoax­ers like to point to The Shin­ing as a con­fes­sion by Kubrick that he was forced into a Big Lie. In the doc­u­men­tary Room 237, Jay Wei­d­ner claims as much. And Michael Wys­mier­s­ki argues the same in The Shin­ing Code 2.0, a fea­ture length video that you can watch below. Or get right to the meat of things here.

And just in case you get swept up in Wysmierski’s loony log­ic, film­mak­er S. G. Collins makes the very com­pelling argu­ment that the tech­nol­o­gy sim­ply didn’t exist to fake the moon land­ing in 1969. Case closed.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Stan­ley Kubrick’s Very First Films: Three Short Doc­u­men­taries

Room 237: New Doc­u­men­tary Explores Stan­ley Kubrick’s The Shin­ing and Those It Obsess­es

Rare 1960s Audio: Stan­ley Kubrick’s Big Inter­view with The New York­er

Jonathan Crow is a Los Ange­les-based writer and film­mak­er whose work has appeared in Yahoo!, The Hol­ly­wood Reporter, and oth­er pub­li­ca­tions. You can fol­low him at @jonccrow.


by | Permalink | Comments (30) |

Sup­port Open Cul­ture

We’re hop­ing to rely on our loy­al read­ers rather than errat­ic ads. To sup­port Open Cul­ture’s edu­ca­tion­al mis­sion, please con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion. We accept Pay­Pal, Ven­mo (@openculture), Patre­on and Cryp­to! Please find all options here. We thank you!

Comments (30)
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
  • jean duffle says:

    Great arti­cle! I would like to add that the facts S.G. Collins states have been crit­i­cized and have led to fur­ther debate and counter-videos, which are quite inter­est­ing for those seek­ing fur­ther infor­ma­tion on the audio/video tech­nol­o­gy of the time (see:

  • mary says:

    Why did­nt you dis­cuss the lunar landing?it looks like pieces of tin foil and card­board with tape on it

  • rod says:

    Parts of the lunar lan­der WERE made of alu­minum foil!

    One of the astro­nauts said “if you weren’t care­ful, you could put a boot through it” which of course would be the end of life

  • Chris says:

    “film­mak­er S. G. Collins makes the very com­pelling argu­ment that the tech­nol­o­gy sim­ply didn’t exist to fake the moon land­ing in 1969”

    – Yes but he did­n’t have any idea of NASA’s avail­able tech­nol­o­gy, only what he as a film-mak­er had access to.

  • Ace says:

    Pro­pa­gan­da at its finest.

  • Siegfried Marquardt says:

    Abstract math­e­mat­i­cal-phys­i­cal refu­ta­tion of Apol­lo 11 and N

    1. After Stern­feld (1959) only two 14-day con­stel­la­tions and a 60-day sce­nario should exist to reach the moon with an arti­fi­cial space­craft from Earth and land on the earth. Regard­less of the the­o­ret­i­cal facts and details of Stern­feld, required the research satel­lite SMART I, which was launched end of Sep­tem­ber 2003, 49 days until the moon lev­el and five months until the probe ein­mün­dete in lunar orbit. And suc­cess­ful­ly run­ning in the Decem­ber 2013 lunar expe­di­tion of Chi­nese probe Chang‘e‑3 proved impres­sive­ly that it takes at least 14 days to cope with the dis­tance from the Earth to the Moon. This Apol­lo 11 would already impres­sive­ly refut­ed empir­i­cal­ly because a puta­tive 8‑day regime that is alleged­ly prac­ticed with Apol­lo 11 and drilled, astro­phys­i­cal the­o­ret­i­cal­ly and empir­i­cal­ly does not exist!

    2. The cos­mic radi­a­tion, which would have affect­ed the astro­nauts with­in eight days would have been absolute­ly hope­less! After all, you would have incor­po­rat­ed a lethal dose of at least 11 Sv to 26 Sv depend­ing on the cho­sen mod­el cal­cu­la­tion. if you are in this con­text to the high-ener­gy par­ti­cle den­si­ty in the cos­mos and to the par­ti­cle stream the sun with the solar con­stant of 8.5 * 1015 MeV / m * s think­ing. The astro­nauts had the flight to the moon and back in any case not sur­vive.

    3. It was miss­ing a total of 163 tons of rock­et fuel to get from Earth to the moon and from there back to Earth by NASA on the giv­en loop-shaped tra­jec­to­ry. Fur­ther­more, the amount of fuel and the for­mer fuel para­me­ters would have a moon charge and even boot from the moon under the for­mer con­di­tions impos­si­ble. Alone for the tran­si­tion from the ellip­ti­cal tra­jec­to­ry close to the Moon would be for the brak­ing of the CSM + LM with a total of 45.3 t mass of the 2.3 km / s to 1.7 km / s for the lunar orbit [2,72 high (0 , 6: 2,6) ‑1] * t = 45.3 (1.26 ‑1) * 45.3 * 45.3 t = 0.26 ≈ 12 tonnes of fuel have been nec­es­sary! The remain­ing three tons a moon land­ing would not have been pos­si­ble and start from as lit­tle moon! On the Moon, LM did not have 14 t, but (15–8) t = 7 t!

    4. Recon­struc­tion of the com­mand mod­ule at a pre­de­ter­mined height by NASA of 3.23 m and a diam­e­ter of 3.9 m, result­ing in the end can only result a total vol­ume of about 12.9 m³, showed that after deduc­tion of the declared inter­nal vol­ume of 6.23 m³ vol­ume of the out­er cell of the com­mand mod­ule only about 6.7 m³ could include. With a mass of 5.9 t the den­si­ty of the com­mand mod­ule would thus have to be only about 0.9. This would “afford” not even paper or card­board! Anoth­er math­e­mat­i­cal opti­miza­tion was then that the out­er cell only from a 2.5 cm thick alu­minum lay­er could exist — with­out the heat shield. If one half of the total mass of 5.9 tonnes for a heat shield as a basis, the heat shield could con­sist of only 2 mm thick steel. A com­men­tary is super­flu­ous almost: The com­mand mod­ule would be in the earth­’s atmos­phere with a the­o­ret­i­cal­ly cal­cu­lat­ed brak­ing tem­per­a­ture of at least 45,000 K like a shoot­ing star burns!

    5. Even in a pre­lim­i­nary phase in the recon­struc­tion of the Lunar Mod­ule accord­ing to NASA para­me­ters after deduc­tion of the alleged approx MTr = 10.8 t invoiced fuel mass of the start­ing com­pound with Mo = 15 t the Lunar Mod­ule mere­ly remain only 4.2 t to emp­ty weight, already with the mate­r­i­al recon­struc­tion of the cab­in (about 1.1 tons), parts of the out­er cell (1.3 t), and the declared weight (1.7 t), with­out tak­ing into account the weight the astro­nauts with their space suits (400 kg), the mass of the tank and the two main engines of the Lunar Mod­ule (…) of 600 kg exceed­ed. Total lacked exceed­ing 3 tonnes con­struc­tion mass, could be as orig­i­nal­ly stat­ed by NASA and how 11 is impres­sive and con­vinc­ing with the total recon­struc­tion of the Luna mod­ule of Apol­lo.

    6. The declared by NASA thrust of 44.4 kN and 15.6 kN of the descend­ing and ascend­ing lev­el does not match with the the­o­ret­i­cal­ly cal­cu­lat­ed thrust. There are sig­nif­i­cant dif­fer­ences here! (descend­ing lev­el: S = m * ve = 16.8 kg / s * 2560m / s ≈ 43 kN and ris­ing lev­el: S = 5.9 kg / s * 2560m / s = 15.1 kN).

    7. addi­tion would be the Lunar Mod­ule at a speed of 215 m / s bounced and crashed on the moon, because the for­mer fuel para­me­ters such as the effec­tive exhaust veloc­i­ty of 2560 m / s and the mass ratio of the descend­ing lev­el of 15 t to 6.8 t only per­mit­ted a max­i­mum speed burnout of 2025 m / s [vB = ve * ln (Mo: ML) = 2560m / s * ln (15: 6,8) = 2560m / s * 0.79 = 2025 m / s]. Tak­ing away the 570 m / s, which are caused by the moon’s grav­i­ty from, so you get only a resul­tant veloc­i­ty of 1455 m / s. It could have been so ago by the tech­ni­cal and phys­i­cal para­me­ters, can be held no moon land­ing!
    It is on the oth­er hand almost point­less to be men­tioned that the ris­ing lev­el only a result­ing burnout veloc­i­ty of around 1500 m / s could have and there­fore does not enter the orbit would be as it had a speed dif­fer­ence to the orbital veloc­i­ty of 170 m / s in this case would.

    8. Fur­ther­more, the pen­du­lum behav­ior of the flag on the moon is extreme­ly treach­er­ous! For the pen­du­lum peri­od T, which is phys­i­cal­ly con­nect­ed to the pen­du­lum length l (l = 0.7 m) and the grav­i­ta­tion­al accel­er­a­tion g (g = 9.81) to

    T = 2 * π * √ l: g (1)

    cal­cu­lat­ed, would have on the Moon

    T = 6.28 * √ 0.7 m 1.6 m /s ≈ 4.2 a (2)

    respec­tive­ly. In the TV film doc­u­men­taries peri­od lasts but close to 2 s, as indi­cat­ed on the earth. The exact cal­cu­la­tion of the peri­od for the earth yields accu­rate

    T = 6.28 * √ 0.7 m / 9.81 ≈ 1.7 s. (3)

    This time dif­fer­ence of 2.5 s is seri­ous! In addi­tion, a slight­ly damped peri­od­ic oscil­la­tion would arise on the moon, because there is no atmos­phere is present on the moon. The increas­ing vibra­tion is true but almost ape­ri­od­ic. Sum­ma­ry: The shoot­ing took place so unique on earth!

    9. A mechan­i­cal insta­bil­i­ty of the lunar mod­ule would have made an intact moon land­ing impos­si­ble! Every per­son on the plan­et has prob­a­bly already seen a failed rock­et launch when the rock­et has already picked up a few meters from the launch pad and then fail the engines and do not pro­duce more pow­er. As a result, the rock­et moves the phys­i­cal laws of grav­i­ty accord­ing­ly again towards the launch plat­form and then tilts due to the mechan­i­cal insta­bil­i­ty sim­ply because the cen­ter of grav­i­ty has changed dra­mat­i­cal­ly. This would also be the fate of the lunar mod­ule of Apol­lo 11 was because short­ly before land­ing an absolute insta­bil­i­ty of the fer­ry would have been! Because: Full expect­ed gross, the ris­ing lev­el would have had to ground just before land­ing on the moon for about 5 t and the descend­ing stage would have received under the fuel con­sump­tion of only 8 t only about 2 tons of emp­ty weight had. As the focus of the Lunar Mod­ule must have lain on the moon exact­ly at 2.1 m before land­ing the fer­ry across the noz­zle, the torques would like 2.5: 1 to 3:1 behaved. For an absolute­ly unsta­ble mechan­i­cal sys­tem would be active! Even the small­est vibra­tion, such as vibra­tions through the engine orpres­sure fluc­tu­a­tions in the efflu­ent gas­es in the noz­zle of the engine have the lunar posi­tion fer­ry can eas­i­ly tip over!Amoon land­ing would indeed be “suc­cess­ful”, but a return from the moon would have been so impos­si­ble. How­ev­er, sincê 11 have for­tu­nate­ly sur­vived the imag­i­nary adven­tures all actors of Apol­lo, it can be con­clud­ed razor sharp, no moon land­ing took place.
    The solu­tion of the phys­i­cal prob­lem is that the focus of a lan­der sim­ply must be at the lev­el of the noz­zle of the engine, such as the Chi­nese real­ize this in Decem­ber 2013, and prac­ticed.

    P. S. By the way, the author had the skep­ti­cal thoughts on the insta­bil­i­ty of the lunar mod­ule land­ing on the moon more than 45 years ago spon­ta­neous­ly for about 1 s had enter­tained!

    Siegfried Mar­quardt, Kingswells, Feb­ru­ary 2015

  • Fessell says:

    Amaz­ing Mr Mar­quardt,
    You explained it so well!

  • Yaz says:

    Nice list of made-up non­sense Mr Mar­quardt.

    For exam­ple, take point num­ber one, which is real­ly unformed because you clear­ly don’t under­stand the rea­sons for the dif­fer­ent times it takes space­craft to reach the moon (and back to earth for some). In case you did­n’t know, the USSR land­ed many craft on the moon, includ­ing return­ing sam­ples back to earth dur­ing Luna 16, 20 and 24. The total mis­sion times on aver­age (from earth launch to cap­sule return to earth) for Luna 16, 20 and 24 was 12 days! Upon leav­ing the lunar sur­face, the cap­sules for those Luna mis­sions ALL took THREE days to return to earth.

    So, you were say­ing?

    Now take point num­ber 2 regard­ing cos­mic rays. In low earth orbit, the body of the earth shields astro­nauts from about 1/3 of the cos­mic rays and the mag­ne­tos­phere deflects about anoth­er 1/3 of the cos­mic rays. So it does­n’t take a math­e­mati­cian to realise that the cos­mic ray lev­els out­side of earth­’s mag­ne­tos­phere is about 3 times high­er than in low earth orbit.

    Now expand upon that.…it means that in terms of radi­a­tion dosage due to cos­mic rays, a 2 weeks Apol­lo mis­sion would expose the astro­nauts to the about the same lev­el of cos­mic ray radi­a­tion as a 6 week mis­sion in the Inter­na­tion­al Space Sta­tion.

    The record stay for low earth orbit is 437 days, which is about the equiv­a­lent of a mis­sion out­side of earth­’s mag­ne­tos­phere last­ing about 145 DAYS, about 12 of the longest Apol­lo mis­sions!

    As for point num­ber 8, you can­not com­pare the edge of a 5ft by 3ft swing­ing sheet of nylon cloth attached to a cross and flag­pole in a vac­u­um to a pen­du­lum attach to a fixed point on earth. Just the fact that you believe the two are com­par­i­ble shows how lit­tle you know.

  • Carlos Garcia says:

    In 1969, tech­nol­o­gy did­n’t exist to land a man on the moon (still does­n’t, why do you think they mur­dered Gus Gris­som?). Case closed!

  • Perla says:

    Sure, sure (irony). Go study sci­ence, please.

  • oitucrem daed says:

    Apol­lo era. It’s hard to fake RS170 tim­ing, though, isn’t it? Need those 6 pre-equal­iza­tion + 6 ser­ra­tion puls­es + 6 post-equal­iza­tion puls­es dur­ing part of the ver­ti­cal blank inter­val and you need them skewed by one-half line in each of the inter­laced fields. You need the 10.9 microsec­ond hor­i­zon­tal blank­ing inter­vals for the 240 dis­play lines in the odd field and 240 dis­play lines in the even field. That leaves 22 + 23 lines of ver­ti­cal blank­ing to yield a total of 525 lines per frame. You can argue one could make a cam­era with alter­na­tive video tim­ing (dif­fer­ent oscil­la­tors and mod­u­lo dividers), but when it comes to dis­play­ing the results on TV mon­i­tors all over the world for Apol­lo era broad­casts, you would have still had to con­form to the RS170 stan­dard. That sub­se­quent scan con­ver­sion process would negate any “slow motion” effects sought (and appar­ent­ly cham­pi­oned by une­d­u­cat­ed con­spir­a­cy the­o­rists).

  • downthetube within says:

    Stan­ley Kubrick approached all projects from an artist’s per­spec­tive. It is very doubt­ful he con­tract­ed with NASA or want­ed to have any­thing to do them, but you (at Open Cul­ture) can always try ask­ing his daugh­ter, Vivian about it. Did­n’t she play, Squirt, Dr. Floy­d’s daugh­ter in 2001, a Space Odyssey?

  • Sir Kevin Parr Bt says:

    i doubt not that Nixon allowed the fake just to stop Rus­sia lead­ing the space race. What con­cerns me is what will hap­pen when the whole truth comes out of this enquiry. What then?

  • Defango says:

    He came out on Video 3 days before he died say­ing that he Faked 11, 13.

  • Shug says:

    The tech­nol­o­gy was so poor that they could­n’t even fake it!!!

    but did exist to go to the moon.

  • Nate says:

    Inter­view was a hoax dum­my.

  • Ted Lemoine says:

    The state­ment that the more you under­stand about the world the more you real­ize you don’t know applies incred­i­bly well here. To under­stand how cal­cu­la­tions are made in rock­et sci­ence or the­o­ret­i­cal physics would help. The Van Allen belt for 1 which many deem too dan­ger­ous to fly through. The exact amount of radi­a­tion emit­ted while trav­el­ing through those belts is cal­cu­lat­ed into sev­er­al oth­er equa­tions need­ed for a suc­cess­ful trip to the moon and back. To pre­tend you know a frac­tion of the knowl­edge it takes to be on the mis­sion con­trol team or be a part in any way of this voy­age is laugh­able. Those who do pos­sess that type of genius no longer argue the valid­i­ty of the moon land­ings. They def­i­nite­ly don’t do so on social media or blogs. The math­e­mat­i­cal for­mu­las cal­cu­lat­ed are prob­a­bly under­stood by less than 100 peo­ple on Earth. Think about the incred­i­ble amount of vari­ables chang­ing in real time and the demand to com­plete the mis­sion as cost effec­tive as pos­si­ble. If you think you have the capac­i­ty to intel­lec­tu­al­ly wrap your head around that then you’re either kid­ding your­self or you can’t under­stand how com­pli­cat­ed a mis­sion like this is. I only hope one day you can grasp it and real­ize how fool­ish you were at 1 point

  • mitchell carter says:

    If the tech­nol­o­gy did­n’t exist to fake the moon land­ings, then the same argu­ment can cer­tain­ly be used to say that the tech­nol­o­gy of the day just was­n’t capa­ble of send­ing a manned mis­sion to the moon and return­ing it to earth.

    I have an open mind,on the one hand I do won­der how nasa could have pulled this off with the lim­it­ed com­put­ing pow­er avail­able to them.

    The van allen radi­a­ton issue is well known.
    But the thing that makes me won­der the most is how did the lunar lan­der pro­vide enough thrust to break free of the moon’s grav­i­ty, the footage of the lan­der blast­ing off from the moon’s sur­face looks very odd to me.

    It does­n’t look natural,almost like it’s being lift­ed by a crane.

    On the oth­er hand the Rus­sians had infil­trat­ed well into the amer­i­can establishment,this was at the height of the cold war and if the Rus­sians had­n’t been able to track Apol­lo 11 to the moon and back, or if Russ­ian agents had found any sug­ges­tion that the land­ing was faked, they would have been crow­ing about it all over the place.
    It would have been one hell of a pro­pa­gan­da vic­to­ry for them.

    I don’t know what to make of it all.

  • Yaz says:

    Anon, you said “In fact the Rus­sians ‑even if they have evi­dence of fak­ery- they won’t use it, for many dif­fer­ent rea­sons they are just too long to explain them here.”

    With all due respect, that’s a cheap cop out. If you believe what you’ve said, then pro­vide the evi­dence to sup­port your claim.

    An exam­ple of the weak­ness of your argu­ment is the clas­sic worn out claim about the USSR not reveal­ing the hoax due to receiv­ing cheap wheat from the US. The prob­lem with that is, USSR did­n’t receive wheat from the US until 1972 fol­low­ing fails crops, which was the year of the LAST Apol­lo moon land­ing.

    Search online for “The Great Grain Rob­bery” and explain how USS­R’s failed crops and need to pur­chase grain in 1972 pre­vent­ed the USSR from reveal­ing a hoax with the Apol­lo moon land­ings that began 3 YEARS ear­li­er in 1969!

  • Malcolm Shykles says:

    “NASA is now slow­ly and care­ful­ly work­ing on a num­ber of prob­lems
    which should have been ful­ly resolved decades ago if the Moon land­ings did real­ly hap­pen. Some progress was achieved over the last decade, but the impact is minis­cule com­pared to the vast pro­gram of works alleged­ly com­plet­ed over 40 years ago.”

  • Neil Armalate says:

    the sky and lake formed the let­ter A? omg i could­nt go any fur­ther.

  • Me says:

    Dan­ny Tor­rence asks Hal­lo­ran. “What is in MOON 237?” Watch the movie again. It is clear as day. He says MOON. Also, his big­wheel hits 10 pieces of car­pet before his final liftoff when he has the Apol­lo 11 sweater on. And on the 10th time he hits car­pet he approach­es 237 but does­n’t go in. Just like Apol­lo 10 did with the moon. This the­o­ry has many many coin­ci­dences asso­ci­at­ed with it. The road they are trav­el­ing at the begin­ning of the movie is the road to the sun. The sun God is Apol­lo.

  • Doc Smith MD says:

    Very com­pelling argu­ments. But haven’t sub­se­quent launch­es or improved optics made it pos­si­ble to detect the mate­ri­als alleged­ly left behind by nasa? One way or the oth­er I’d like to know the truth. If we did it, great. If the whole thing was faked, I want to know.

    Some­thing this impor­tant should­n’t be left to debat­able inter­pre­ta­tions of old movies or grainy pho­tos.

    Log­i­cal­ly, I’d bet that over the last ~50 years some­body would have made a death bed dec­la­ra­tion, to clear his con­science. If faked, a lot of very tal­ent­ed, ded­i­cat­ed men, were forced to live a lie.

    Great stuff! My thanks to those who con­tributed. Espe­cial­ly the math­e­mat­ics.

  • Doc Smith MD says:

    I entered the U.S. Army Oct 24th, 1966. I was dis­charged, July 24th, 1969.….a few days after “the day”, or one of the days in ques­tion.

    The truth will set you free.

  • wilrog says:

    The USSR had ques­tions sur­round­ing their claim of putting the first man in space orbit so maybe it could have been a sim­ple solu­tion to trade one fake his­tor­i­cal event for anoth­er so that both events would be acknowl­edged with­out too much ques­tion­ing from either coun­try.

  • Ted, the Well Read Bear says:

    Regard­ing Room No. 237 …

    The ana­gram of “room no” is “or moon” …

    So, the key to the room is … “237(,000 miles) or moon” …

    Pret­ty clever of Kubrick!

    (Inter­est­ing­ly, some ana­grams of Stan­ley Kubrick are:
    Crab­like Sky Nut
    Backer Until Sky
    Back Sky­line Rut
    Neb­u­la Trick Sky

  • Ted, the Well Read Bear says:

    Regard­ing Room No. 237 …

    Please see my reply below …

  • Alissa M Clough says:

    Now let’s talk about how “Eyes Wide Shut” is actu­al­ly about how he tried to sound the alarm about the Illu­mi­nati, and was killed for his effron­tery…

  • Vasilis Caravitis says:

    I tend to agree with all those believ­ing that the moon land­ings were fake, based on a num­ber of tech­ni­cal issues that have been brought up by sev­er­al doubters. There is one ques­tion though,that I have not been able to answer intel­li­gent­ly: The Sovi­ets were sure­ly close­ly mon­i­tor­ing the lunar events and had the tech­nol­o­gy to do so, in terms of telecom­mu­ni­ca­tions, mea­sur­ing instru­ments, etc. If the land­ings were fake why did­n’t the Sovi­ets tell the world about NASA lies? Could the Sovi­ets have also believed the lies?

  • Eric says:

    How did the get through the Van Allen belt with­out 6 inch­es of lead to pro­tect them from radi­a­tion in that Tim can they called a space­ship?

Leave a Reply

Open Culture was founded by Dan Colman.