The comments here are more related to the event than to the movie itself. Here we read what WE think about the Moon landing, which is not the point of these comments. I think this movie is not good, because it is a propaganda movie, not a documentary. The author should have tried to be more objective and to try to give us another opinions, not only his (For example, FOX's documentary "Conspiracy Theory, Did We Land On The Moon?" did it much better). But this movie has some good moments, such as a parallel with JFK's assassination - it is a great example how the government has been making the fools of its citizens for decades, and will be making, years from now. Hey, really, what are they afraid of, why everything has to be sealed for such a long time? There must be a big lie involved! And what I think about the lending - I believe it's a hoax, because the American government is such a great liar! And I don't need evidences presented in this movie - for me, my own evidences and common sense is quite enough: why Mr. Armstrong left the Apollo program and NASA itself almost right after the first "lending"? Why he has never talked to the press, except on a couple of press conferences with "no further questions" pattern? Why several astronauts and Apollo-related people died mysteriously? Why Soviets have never land on the Moon, when they were much more ahead of Americans in space exploration (3 years in unmanned hard landing missions to the Moon)? Do you think they gave up just like that? Why don't we go to the Moon nowadays, it should be peace of cake compared with 1960s and 1970s efforts? It is 35 years (and counting) from the final Apollo mission, don't you tell me there is nothing left to explore on the Moon! And for God sake, how could it happen the original tapes are missing, it is FIRST MOON LANDING, not just a students' excursion - sorry, we lost our tapes, just like that! No one can convince me there wasn't something compromising on those tapes! We have to admit - something really funny happens, despite the evidences and "evidences". Personally, I think the man is not capable of going to the Moon and returning safely.
38 Reviews
Its a conspiranoid stupid and misleading documentary? Yes! Does it has an eerie and creepy aura that i liked? Yes!
WolfieLol20 April 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Let me put this straight, I love to hear conspiracy theories who does have an enigmatic and hooking atmosphere, like watching classified articles or something like that, I don´t like stupid conspiracy theories like this one of the moon or the flat earthers or the Anti vaccinaties or things like that i despise how humanity´s ignorance increased over the years instead of growing up.
However, i remember watching this documentary when i was a kid, and it wasn´t the conspiracy that hooked me into watching the whole thing, what it really hooked me is that type of cold and creepy atmosphere that i hasn´t watched (Unless it was DrossRotzank) in a documentary before.
The editing is limited, but the narration, the adding of those vintage clips and the great song "Starlight" composed by the genius of Bernard Hermann increased the creepyness of the documentary and i actually enjoyed it, its the first time a dumb conspiracy theory like this was enjoyful to me and that´s a win of course, i mean if more documentaries could use a creepy atmosphere into their themes it would be awesome!
My favorite scene was the ending, first it starts with a boring and impartial speech about "freedom" that almost killed the documentary, but then the zapruder film is shown of in slow motion with the typical American-Millitary-Heroic-Type of generic music, everything went normal, but then....
Silence...pure dreadful silence.... And JFK´s head gets blown of and there´s still that awful silence, no shot sounds, no screaming nothing, just silence...
That is the scene that gave this documentary a 5, it´s the creative use of editing and thematic atmosphere that makes a film memorable, and while this is a dumb film and i don´t recommend to nobody, i´d just recommend it to film editors like me, just to analize the creepyness and the discomfort of the images and sound, and its a worthly experience if you keep in mind those types of things without focusing on the story.
However, i remember watching this documentary when i was a kid, and it wasn´t the conspiracy that hooked me into watching the whole thing, what it really hooked me is that type of cold and creepy atmosphere that i hasn´t watched (Unless it was DrossRotzank) in a documentary before.
The editing is limited, but the narration, the adding of those vintage clips and the great song "Starlight" composed by the genius of Bernard Hermann increased the creepyness of the documentary and i actually enjoyed it, its the first time a dumb conspiracy theory like this was enjoyful to me and that´s a win of course, i mean if more documentaries could use a creepy atmosphere into their themes it would be awesome!
My favorite scene was the ending, first it starts with a boring and impartial speech about "freedom" that almost killed the documentary, but then the zapruder film is shown of in slow motion with the typical American-Millitary-Heroic-Type of generic music, everything went normal, but then....
Silence...pure dreadful silence.... And JFK´s head gets blown of and there´s still that awful silence, no shot sounds, no screaming nothing, just silence...
That is the scene that gave this documentary a 5, it´s the creative use of editing and thematic atmosphere that makes a film memorable, and while this is a dumb film and i don´t recommend to nobody, i´d just recommend it to film editors like me, just to analize the creepyness and the discomfort of the images and sound, and its a worthly experience if you keep in mind those types of things without focusing on the story.
Highly misleading
heresjay9 May 2005
Writer/Director Bart Sibrel bases his work here around a can of film that he says was mistakenly sent to him by NASA. He says it shows the astronauts faking the television footage of their trip to the moon by employing camera tricks. The astronauts were in low Earth orbit all the time, and editors on the ground composed this raw footage into just a few seconds of finished film.
Unfortunately Sibrel's research is so slipshod that he doesn't realize his "backstage" footage is really taken in large part from the 30-minute live telecast (also on that reel) that was seen by millions, not hidden away in NASA vaults as he implies. And we have to wonder why Sibrel puts his own conspiratorial narration over the astronauts' audio in the footage, because hearing the astronauts in their own words clearly spells out that the astronauts were just testing the camera, not faking footage.
Finally, anyone can see the raw footage for themselves without having to buy Sibrel's hacked-up version of it. (He shows you more of the Zapruder film of JFK's assassination than of his "smoking gun".) Sibrel thinks he's the only one who's seen it. What's more revealing is the clips from that raw footage that Sibrel chose NOT to use, such as those clearly showing the appropriately distant Earth being eclipsed by the window frames and so forth, destroying his claim that mattes and transparencies were placed in the spacecraft windows to create the illusion of a faraway Earth.
As with most films of this type, Sibrel relies on innuendo, inexpert assumption, misleading commentary, and selective quotation to manipulate the viewer into accepting a conclusion for which there is not a shred of actual evidence.
Unfortunately Sibrel's research is so slipshod that he doesn't realize his "backstage" footage is really taken in large part from the 30-minute live telecast (also on that reel) that was seen by millions, not hidden away in NASA vaults as he implies. And we have to wonder why Sibrel puts his own conspiratorial narration over the astronauts' audio in the footage, because hearing the astronauts in their own words clearly spells out that the astronauts were just testing the camera, not faking footage.
Finally, anyone can see the raw footage for themselves without having to buy Sibrel's hacked-up version of it. (He shows you more of the Zapruder film of JFK's assassination than of his "smoking gun".) Sibrel thinks he's the only one who's seen it. What's more revealing is the clips from that raw footage that Sibrel chose NOT to use, such as those clearly showing the appropriately distant Earth being eclipsed by the window frames and so forth, destroying his claim that mattes and transparencies were placed in the spacecraft windows to create the illusion of a faraway Earth.
As with most films of this type, Sibrel relies on innuendo, inexpert assumption, misleading commentary, and selective quotation to manipulate the viewer into accepting a conclusion for which there is not a shred of actual evidence.
Bad science, bad entertainment
ranb4012 June 2005
I watched this video at a friend's house. I'm glad I did not waste money buying this one. The video cover has a scene from the 1975 movie Capricorn One. The movie starts out with several clips of rocket blow-ups, most not related to manned flight. Sibrel's smoking gun is a short video clip of the astronauts preparing a video broadcast. He edits in his own voice-over instead of letting us listen to what the crew had to say. The video curiously ends with a showing of the Zapruder film. His claims about radiation, shielding, star photography, and others lead me to believe is he extremely ignorant or has some sort of ax to grind against NASA, the astronauts, or American in general. His science is bad, and so is this video.
You will believe only what you want to believe.
Hunky Stud13 April 2007
One important thing that has always been puzzling to me is that how come NASA hasn't done it again? After all, technology has advanced so much. We have never heard any big plans from the US government, or NASA about sending people to the moon ever again. Why is that? Can they really say that all the information they have collected from the moon is already plenty and enough? North pole is so close, and so easy to get to, yet People are still there doing research.
This film is good, because it didn't just give out random facts. It actually showed the actual footage and evidence to support why the moon landing was faked. I was surprised to know that at that time, people already have colored camcorders, etc. Before I watched this video, I thought that they only had black and white camcorders, and since the telecommunication technology was really bad, that is why the moon landing video clips all looked so blurry. So if they had camcorders that can record things in color, why didn't they record them? And if they can not transmit them right away, they should at least broadcast them later when they "returned" from the moon.
And how about those colored pictures? According to this video, NASA only released about 20 or so pictures, that is it? come on, the government spent billions of dollars on the project, all they took back was 20 or so pictures? At that time, the US government felt the urgency and necessity to reach the moon first during the cold war time. It could boost national pride, and make the soviets fearful. So the government will try anything to land on moon whether it is real or fake. And for those firm believers with their national pride, just like those people who believe in their own religious god, telling them that landing on the moon was entirely faked, it would be as if part of their believe system was destroyed. Therefore, there is no way that they will believe that it was staged.
And soviets and the US were both competing against each other, how come the soviets never ever sent their people to the moon? Both governments were able to build many nuclear weapons, warships, etc. Why did the soviet just sit there and watch the people from the US landed on the moon without doing anything? And ever since then, why didn't any other countries around the world ever try to send their people to the moon? Only now, in the 21st century, China is the only country that is planning to send Chinese to the moon.
At that time, how many people had TVs in their private homes worldwide? And how many people even had their own home phones? So it should be easy to fool people at that time.
One thing this video did not mention is whether they brought any rocks from the moon? I think that they did, this video did not spend any time discussing whether those moon rocks were real or fake. No other countries has ever collected any moon rocks. Each year, there are plenty of meteoroids hitting earth. So how can we be sure that those "moon rocks" are really from the moon, but not some meteoroid rocks? Another thing is the radiation belt. It was shown as two big circles surrounding the earth which can't possibly be true. Because the north and south pole areas seem to be free of radiation. So it was a technical error of its own. Or it should at least explain to the viewers why the north and south poles were free of radiation, and why the spaceship can not go through those two ares without the radiation damage? This video is like one of the religious books, if you believe that religion, no matter how bad that book is, you still believe in the religion. Any small evidence will only make you believe it even more. And for those who don't believe that it was a hoax, no matter what you tell them, they will still believe that it really happened. For me, I am still open minded. Until that day when NASA sends another spaceship to land on the moon, I have some serious doubts that it really happened.
This film is good, because it didn't just give out random facts. It actually showed the actual footage and evidence to support why the moon landing was faked. I was surprised to know that at that time, people already have colored camcorders, etc. Before I watched this video, I thought that they only had black and white camcorders, and since the telecommunication technology was really bad, that is why the moon landing video clips all looked so blurry. So if they had camcorders that can record things in color, why didn't they record them? And if they can not transmit them right away, they should at least broadcast them later when they "returned" from the moon.
And how about those colored pictures? According to this video, NASA only released about 20 or so pictures, that is it? come on, the government spent billions of dollars on the project, all they took back was 20 or so pictures? At that time, the US government felt the urgency and necessity to reach the moon first during the cold war time. It could boost national pride, and make the soviets fearful. So the government will try anything to land on moon whether it is real or fake. And for those firm believers with their national pride, just like those people who believe in their own religious god, telling them that landing on the moon was entirely faked, it would be as if part of their believe system was destroyed. Therefore, there is no way that they will believe that it was staged.
And soviets and the US were both competing against each other, how come the soviets never ever sent their people to the moon? Both governments were able to build many nuclear weapons, warships, etc. Why did the soviet just sit there and watch the people from the US landed on the moon without doing anything? And ever since then, why didn't any other countries around the world ever try to send their people to the moon? Only now, in the 21st century, China is the only country that is planning to send Chinese to the moon.
At that time, how many people had TVs in their private homes worldwide? And how many people even had their own home phones? So it should be easy to fool people at that time.
One thing this video did not mention is whether they brought any rocks from the moon? I think that they did, this video did not spend any time discussing whether those moon rocks were real or fake. No other countries has ever collected any moon rocks. Each year, there are plenty of meteoroids hitting earth. So how can we be sure that those "moon rocks" are really from the moon, but not some meteoroid rocks? Another thing is the radiation belt. It was shown as two big circles surrounding the earth which can't possibly be true. Because the north and south pole areas seem to be free of radiation. So it was a technical error of its own. Or it should at least explain to the viewers why the north and south poles were free of radiation, and why the spaceship can not go through those two ares without the radiation damage? This video is like one of the religious books, if you believe that religion, no matter how bad that book is, you still believe in the religion. Any small evidence will only make you believe it even more. And for those who don't believe that it was a hoax, no matter what you tell them, they will still believe that it really happened. For me, I am still open minded. Until that day when NASA sends another spaceship to land on the moon, I have some serious doubts that it really happened.
What a waste
evilroy-213 June 2005
There are so many incorrect statements in this so-called "documentary" that I found myself shouting at the television.
Bart Sibrel might be able to produce a flashy looking DVD, but he is sadly lacking at looking at the science behind his claims.
He relies on either being inaccurate, not telling the full story, or the old favourite "government always lies to us" innuendos, and people believing what is told to them and not checking on the accuracy or details behind the claims.
What's more, his "exclusive" or "unreleased" footage is freely available over the internet from various sites.
Further reading about the circumstances regarding the filming of this production shows that he used false pretenses to gain interviews, and has used creative editing of the responses in order to promote his own opinions.
All of the claims made by Mr Sibrel about "inaccuracies", "mistakes", or "whistleblowing" in the Apollo programme have been thoroughly disproven.
How do I get that 40-odd minutes of my life back?
Bart Sibrel might be able to produce a flashy looking DVD, but he is sadly lacking at looking at the science behind his claims.
He relies on either being inaccurate, not telling the full story, or the old favourite "government always lies to us" innuendos, and people believing what is told to them and not checking on the accuracy or details behind the claims.
What's more, his "exclusive" or "unreleased" footage is freely available over the internet from various sites.
Further reading about the circumstances regarding the filming of this production shows that he used false pretenses to gain interviews, and has used creative editing of the responses in order to promote his own opinions.
All of the claims made by Mr Sibrel about "inaccuracies", "mistakes", or "whistleblowing" in the Apollo programme have been thoroughly disproven.
How do I get that 40-odd minutes of my life back?
Interesting movie that raise serious questions about Apollo program.
bbone10 February 2007
I was very skeptical about the claims that Apollo program was fake at first. But a few pictures that is originate from NASA itself on their official pages make me wonder and raise my first questions, as they are so obviously fake on the very first sight: http://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/gallery/apollo08_earthrise.jpg Hence I started looking out for more data and informations and with just few hours of research I manage to stumble upon some even more disturbing pictures. NASA claim that there is no artificial lighting used on the Moon, yet take a look there: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5872 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-82-11057 What are these? A stars? Why do they look like very much a classic studio spotlights? Hence I started taking these "Apolo hoax" guys way more seriously. And there come the movie - it answer most of my questions about why it was necessary to fake the landings. Since Russians are ahead in the space race and the war in Vietnam is all but lost, the USA is not looked like superpower at all. The assassination of JFK by "lone Communist sympathizer" Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963 was just another drop to the declining global leadership of USA. Hence a success was desperately need. When it was discovered that the Van Allen belts prevent the mission to be successful it become necessary to convince at least the public about this success. How? A TETR-A satellite, that was launched to simulate communication and data flow with Apollo crews it claimed to be used, as NASA lied about it "entering atmosphere" in 1968, since was well orbiting back in 1972... Take it with grain of salt, but take it. Worth considering.
Some of the facts are wired
DanielP-1123 December 2005
The Great Old Myth! Did we ever land on the moon? First of all, this is a MUCH better documentary then Fox's "Did we really land on the moon", especially because of some of the footage you're presented. For example; How does NASA explain the clip were Armstrong tells ground control that they're 130,000 miles away from earth, and by holding the camera up against the window they get this perfect shot of the earth. Then seconds later turning on the cockpit light and removing a cardboard cutout of earth in a shadow, showing the earth being right outside their window?
I would like to hear the explanation for that!
I would like to hear the explanation for that!
Smoking gun backfires
flyingswan20 October 2006
The views of Earth that are claimed in this film to have been faked by NASA have recently been compared with the historical weather data for the time of Apollo 11, and show a good match between the cloud patterns in the video sequence and the actual rainfall records on the day.
This would seem to undermine the entire argument put forward in the film that the "whole Earth" picture is actually a small part of the planet framed by the spacecraft window.
I am waiting for Bart Sibrel to now claim that the historical weather data has been faked by NASA, though that would no doubt involve them in also replacing every archived newspaper copy with a weather map, and the ones in private hands would still be a problem.
Ah, a response: "Trying to discredit this movie by referring to NASA weather data I'd say is a charming, but weak and gullible argument. What about the rest of the footage and proofs in the movie? A certain wise man once said something about sifting mosquitoes and swallowing camels. Do you in any way feel that maybe this could apply to what you are trying to do here? :-) This movie is just packed with irrefutable evidence against the claim once made by U.S. government that the moon-missions were a success, and that man now are true masters of the universe. Things are nearly never quite what they seem.. Just watch the movie, and I dear say you'll see things a bit different than before."
First off, weather data doesn't come from NASA, it comes for met agencies around the world. Second, the weather data undermines a major claim in the film. Third, far from being "packed with irrefutable evidence", the remaining claims in the film have been thoroughly debunked. Sibrel thought he had a previously secret piece of film, so he edited it and added his own interpretation. Unfortunately for him, his source film is public domain, and the bits Sibrel edited out contradict his claims.
This would seem to undermine the entire argument put forward in the film that the "whole Earth" picture is actually a small part of the planet framed by the spacecraft window.
I am waiting for Bart Sibrel to now claim that the historical weather data has been faked by NASA, though that would no doubt involve them in also replacing every archived newspaper copy with a weather map, and the ones in private hands would still be a problem.
Ah, a response: "Trying to discredit this movie by referring to NASA weather data I'd say is a charming, but weak and gullible argument. What about the rest of the footage and proofs in the movie? A certain wise man once said something about sifting mosquitoes and swallowing camels. Do you in any way feel that maybe this could apply to what you are trying to do here? :-) This movie is just packed with irrefutable evidence against the claim once made by U.S. government that the moon-missions were a success, and that man now are true masters of the universe. Things are nearly never quite what they seem.. Just watch the movie, and I dear say you'll see things a bit different than before."
First off, weather data doesn't come from NASA, it comes for met agencies around the world. Second, the weather data undermines a major claim in the film. Third, far from being "packed with irrefutable evidence", the remaining claims in the film have been thoroughly debunked. Sibrel thought he had a previously secret piece of film, so he edited it and added his own interpretation. Unfortunately for him, his source film is public domain, and the bits Sibrel edited out contradict his claims.
Worth Watching
reguser423 October 2007
A very good documentary tackling issues such as inconsistent video reels which show date/time when astronauts were still in orbit, and yet at the same time should have already been walking on the moon if original record is correct...
Moon landing was definitely faked, if it was possible to send a man outside of low earth orbit then they would have done it since the cold war, but even Russians who were a decade ahead in space travel technology knew it was not possible.
One day the truth will come out and people will learn, most likely when they try to send an astronaut outside of the Van Allan belt of radiation.
Moon landing was definitely faked, if it was possible to send a man outside of low earth orbit then they would have done it since the cold war, but even Russians who were a decade ahead in space travel technology knew it was not possible.
One day the truth will come out and people will learn, most likely when they try to send an astronaut outside of the Van Allan belt of radiation.
No reason to be offensive - if you believe - fine - you believe.
magicsage4 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I received this film from a friend who knew I was interested in the subject. Having spent many years studying what I could find on the moon landings at the library, etc - I felt at the very least - Bart Sibrel did a fine job of putting together his argument into a film. You don't have to agree with it. But it does ask questions, and that can never be a bad thing. There simply is not enough room for me to go into all of the for and against evidence. It would take a month of Sundays and then - we would only have my opinions....you would have yours and we would be no further off than when we started....get the picture? One thing I keep reading from those who fight the good fight and say we did go to the moon is the overwhelming evidence of moon rocks - some 400 odd kilos of the stuff supposedly brought back from the moon by Apollo - then sent around to scientists the world over and used as proof positive we went to the moon. When in fact the moon rocks were collected by scientific expedition to Antarctica for that very purpose. The rocks are indeed not from this earth. But there is no way of proving how they got to earth either, nor whether they are from the moon - or from a disintegrated meteor which burned up in our atmosphere and pieces of rock landed on the barren plains of Antarctica over the past thousands of years. With very little or no earth - or vegetation - rocks have a way of standing out in the white - all you have to do is dig, and dig they did. Look it up. It's a well known fact that Von Braun himself was there in late 66 early 67.
Conspiracy theorists are in denial, BIG TIME
drengen_ortmann699 July 2006
This so-called "documentary" tries to tell that USA faked the moon-landing. Year right.
All those who have actually studied the case knows different.
First of all: there is definitely proof. When the astronauts was on the moon, they brought back MANY pounds of rock from the moon - for geological studies. These where spread around the world to hundreds of labs, who tested them. And they all concluded that they came from the same planet, not earth: because the inner isotopes of the basic elements are different from those found on earth, but similar to those calculated to be on the moon. I.E. the conspiracy theorists never studies anything: they only take the thing that fit into their theory and ignores the rest.
Another wrongful claim from them is that their was wind in the hangar where they shot the moon landing, I.E. the flag moves. There is a logical explanation: the astronaut moved it with his hand, so it moved. And what proves this: well, if the conspiracy theorists even studied the footage, they would see that the flag NEVER moves after the astronaut have let it be, I.E. the conspiracy theorists are bad-scientists, they cant study a subject properly, or only studies it until they have what they came for, so that they can make a lie from that, and make a profit (I.E. this so-called "documentary").
A claim says that it cant possible have been filmed on the moon because all the shadows come from different places, because there are different light-sources, the artificial lighting from the studio. Once again the conspiracy theorists are wrong (as usual), the same would happen in an earth desert at night, with no light-sources. But i doubt that any Conspiracy theorists have ever been outside their grandmothers basement for more than how many days a Star Treck-convention is held over.
The Conspiracy theorists are in denial, BIG TIME. They only see what they want to see. So they make up all these lies to seem important - that is a fact.
All those who have actually studied the case knows different.
First of all: there is definitely proof. When the astronauts was on the moon, they brought back MANY pounds of rock from the moon - for geological studies. These where spread around the world to hundreds of labs, who tested them. And they all concluded that they came from the same planet, not earth: because the inner isotopes of the basic elements are different from those found on earth, but similar to those calculated to be on the moon. I.E. the conspiracy theorists never studies anything: they only take the thing that fit into their theory and ignores the rest.
Another wrongful claim from them is that their was wind in the hangar where they shot the moon landing, I.E. the flag moves. There is a logical explanation: the astronaut moved it with his hand, so it moved. And what proves this: well, if the conspiracy theorists even studied the footage, they would see that the flag NEVER moves after the astronaut have let it be, I.E. the conspiracy theorists are bad-scientists, they cant study a subject properly, or only studies it until they have what they came for, so that they can make a lie from that, and make a profit (I.E. this so-called "documentary").
A claim says that it cant possible have been filmed on the moon because all the shadows come from different places, because there are different light-sources, the artificial lighting from the studio. Once again the conspiracy theorists are wrong (as usual), the same would happen in an earth desert at night, with no light-sources. But i doubt that any Conspiracy theorists have ever been outside their grandmothers basement for more than how many days a Star Treck-convention is held over.
The Conspiracy theorists are in denial, BIG TIME. They only see what they want to see. So they make up all these lies to seem important - that is a fact.
A pack of easily debunked lies.
daveshubcaps-127 June 2006
The only reason I didn't score this a one is that Sibrel does show that he is adept at the technical aspects of making a film. It is a technically adept film.
That having been said, this is a film based on lies and distortions that are quite easily disproven. Most of the documentary is spent using propaganda techniques to bash the space program, rather than actual fact. And Sibrel's "irrefutable proof" that the landings were faked is easily refuted if you know anything about orbital mechanics.
I do not recommend watching this, but if you do, see it at google video for free. Don't let Bart Sibrel profit from your curiosity.
That having been said, this is a film based on lies and distortions that are quite easily disproven. Most of the documentary is spent using propaganda techniques to bash the space program, rather than actual fact. And Sibrel's "irrefutable proof" that the landings were faked is easily refuted if you know anything about orbital mechanics.
I do not recommend watching this, but if you do, see it at google video for free. Don't let Bart Sibrel profit from your curiosity.
All conspiracy-theorists are in denial
loleralacartelort789017 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
When I was 16 I saw the documentary: "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon". I actually liked, and believed in it for a couple of years. But then I grew up, and began to think, and when I had sought more information. This is: more info from reel sources, and non-biased sources. When I started at university, not so long ago, i asked an assistant-professor in astronomy about these conspiracy theories. What he said shocked me: He said that all those theories where lies. That baffled me, I did not believe it first, but then he presented evidence for his claims. He quickly debunked most of the theories about the subject: "humans did not go to the moon". The most outrages claim was that the Apollo-craft could not travel through the Van-Allen-radiation-Belt, without the crew perishing from radiation. The truth is that the Americans use a secret aluminum-anti-radiation-alloy. It is not that well-known. And the exact specifications are a secret. And why is it a secret: Well, why should they reveal it back then?? If they where in a space race with the Russians, then it would be VERY dumb to reveal that they had new technology that could shield crew against radiation.
And then there is the biggest evidence of all: The Moon Stones. When the Apollo-missions DID go to the moon, they brought back many rocks from the moon, to give to geologists and similar scientists, who are documenting all things about the moon. These rocks and stones are IN FACT FROM THE MOON. Because: the internal basic elements, which all matter consist of, are also made of special isotopes, that are different from quarry to quarry, land to land, and especially planet from planet. The isotopes of these rocks and stones have been Proved, that they do not come from earth. The astronauts brought home HUNDREDS of Kilogram's of these rocks, all of them have been proved to have come from outside earth, and from the same planet. Ergo: The moon-landings where not fake. NASA did go to another planet: the moon, though it is not a planet, but a satellite to a planet, a moon (duuh). These rocks have been distributed to laboratories and universities all around the world. It has been proved: Humans did go to the moon - it is a fact, pronto.
But I do not worry: most conspiracy-theorists are generally unemployed and uneducated, that is mostly why they do not know or lie about these facts. The fact remains: Humans did walk on the moon.
And then there is the biggest evidence of all: The Moon Stones. When the Apollo-missions DID go to the moon, they brought back many rocks from the moon, to give to geologists and similar scientists, who are documenting all things about the moon. These rocks and stones are IN FACT FROM THE MOON. Because: the internal basic elements, which all matter consist of, are also made of special isotopes, that are different from quarry to quarry, land to land, and especially planet from planet. The isotopes of these rocks and stones have been Proved, that they do not come from earth. The astronauts brought home HUNDREDS of Kilogram's of these rocks, all of them have been proved to have come from outside earth, and from the same planet. Ergo: The moon-landings where not fake. NASA did go to another planet: the moon, though it is not a planet, but a satellite to a planet, a moon (duuh). These rocks have been distributed to laboratories and universities all around the world. It has been proved: Humans did go to the moon - it is a fact, pronto.
But I do not worry: most conspiracy-theorists are generally unemployed and uneducated, that is mostly why they do not know or lie about these facts. The fact remains: Humans did walk on the moon.
Weather patterns?
verifire9 March 2008
Trying to discredit this movie by referring to NASA weather data I'd say is a charming, but weak and gullible argument. What about the rest of the footage and proofs in the movie? A certain wise man once said something about sifting mosquitoes and swallowing camels. Do you in any way feel that maybe this could apply to what you are trying to do here? :-) This movie is just packed with irrefutable evidence against the claim once made by U.S. government that the moon-missions were a success, and that man now are true masters of the universe. Things are nearly never quite what they seem.. Just watch the movie, and I dear say you'll see things a bit different than before.
Perhaps you had to be there
Jim-50024 May 2006
I notice that most of the people who think this film speaks the truth were either not born before the moon landings (1969-1972), or not old enough to appreciate them. I think it is much easier to question an historic event if you did not live through it.
I was a youngster at the time of Apollo, but I was old enough to understand what was going on. The entire world followed the moon landings. Our families gathered around the TV to watch the launch. Newspaper headlines screamed the latest goings-on each day, from launch to landing, from moonwalks to moon liftoff, all the way to splashdown, in a multitude of languages. In school, some classes were cancelled so we could watch the main events on TV. During Apollo 13 the world prayed and held its collective breath as the men limped home to an uncertain fate. You couldn't go anywhere without someone asking what the latest was. The world was truly one community.
Now with a buffer of 30-odd years after the fact, it is easy to claim fraud because worldwide enthusiasm and interest has died down. We are left with our history books, and anybody can claim that history is wrong and attempt to "prove" it with a bunch of lies and made-up facts while completely ignoring the preponderance of evidence showing otherwise--not to mention the proof that dwells in the souls and memories of those who lived through these wonderfully heady and fantastic days.
I was a youngster at the time of Apollo, but I was old enough to understand what was going on. The entire world followed the moon landings. Our families gathered around the TV to watch the launch. Newspaper headlines screamed the latest goings-on each day, from launch to landing, from moonwalks to moon liftoff, all the way to splashdown, in a multitude of languages. In school, some classes were cancelled so we could watch the main events on TV. During Apollo 13 the world prayed and held its collective breath as the men limped home to an uncertain fate. You couldn't go anywhere without someone asking what the latest was. The world was truly one community.
Now with a buffer of 30-odd years after the fact, it is easy to claim fraud because worldwide enthusiasm and interest has died down. We are left with our history books, and anybody can claim that history is wrong and attempt to "prove" it with a bunch of lies and made-up facts while completely ignoring the preponderance of evidence showing otherwise--not to mention the proof that dwells in the souls and memories of those who lived through these wonderfully heady and fantastic days.
read this if you don't believe
cadreau9 August 2005
The moon had only one light source, the sun. It is IMPOSSIBLE for there to be parallel shadows. The Van Allen radiation belts are the most brutal radiation ever discovered. The first belt starts at 1,000 miles. Many astronauts have almost died from these belts in recent years being 400 miles away from them. Yet we went to the moon in 1969 with no radiant shielding. Why didn't the astronauts take any pictures of the stars. It would have been easy to take and been a beautiful site. However if would have been hard to created a fake star landscape. If they would have do this any amateur could have debunked this scam. Why doesn't Niel Armstrong give any on camera interviews. Why is the flag constantly waving in an atmosphere less planet. Why is there absolutely no mark of a blast crater under the lunar lander. Why didn't they use the high quality color camera which they brought with them to shot scenes on the moon. If landing on the moon was so easy more than 30 years ago why don't we go back and do more studies. WHY DOES NOBODY MENTION THE TEN MINUTE CLIP OF THE CREW STAGING THEIR MISSSION. IF YOU HAVE SEEN THIS MOVIE THAN YOU HAVE SEEN IT. SOMEBODY COMMENT ON THAT PLEASE.
This movie was showed to us in school!
sammie64517 December 2005
I am a 11th grader at my high school. In my Current World Affairs class a kid in my class had this video and suggested we watch. So we did. I am firm believer that we went to the moon, being that my father works for NASA. Even though I think this movie is the biggest piece of crap I have ever watched, the guy who created it has some serious balls. First of all did he have to show JFK getting shot? And how dare he use all those biblical quotes. The only good thing about this movie is it sparks debates, which is good b/c in my class we have weekly debates. This movie did nothing to change my mind. I think he and Michael Moore should be working together and make another movie. Michael Moore next movie could be called "A Funny Thing Happened on Spetember 11th" or "A Funny thing happened on the way to the white house".
Strange But True We Never went to the moon.
wcpag712 September 2006
This bold documentary only scratches the surface on dozens of facts that NASA cannot not respond to - because the whole thing was faked. The film talks about the notion of pride deeply embedded inside the human spirit toward its greatest boasts such as the Titanic, the ship that God Himself couldn't Sink and the Tower of Babylon. Since technically the USA still doesn't have the ability to send humans through the Van Allen belt nor could it accomplish manned lunar orbit in this decade.. after watching the film and others that challenge the greatest lie ever told - you will be stunned. One thing is true, books that are published on the subject matter are taken from the shelves, websites posted on the facts are suddenly shut down and a massive effort to discredit its exposure is underway. I myself was at NASA in 2001 and awaited the publication of a book that would refute the 100's of claims made that would explain how they landed a man on the moon and safely brought him home over and over again. That book was later canceled. The blue prints for the Saturn rocket are claimed lost, the sound tapes of the landing are also lost. No photographic evidence of any lunar observer has ever shown a landing site. Common sense prevails in this gripping must see documentary. I'm sorry if angers some who refuse to look at the truth and want to cling to American pride in something that never could have happened in 1969.
A documentary on what it takes to get a 72 year old American hero to punch you in the face.
ejonconrad27 October 2018
The release of the movie "First Man" has brought a lot of Moon Hoax conspiracy nuts out of the woodwork, which has brought this "documentary" back on the radar screen. I've seen and read a lot of moon hoax nonsense, so I always thought I had seen this movie, but it turns out I hadn't, until now. Let's just say it's 45 minutes of my life I won't get back.
Sibrel is of course most famous for getting punched in the face by Buzz Aldrin after lying to him, backing him into a corner, and harassing him. I've always enjoyed that video clip, but now I appreciate it even more.
At least half of the movie is spent on red herrings and logical fallacies. For example, they show a lot of clips of rockets blowing up as evidence that rockets can't possibly work. You know, the way a picture of a car crash proves you can't drive. They also use the fact that the Soviets were ahead as evidence they would always be ahead. Oh yeah, they get a lot of mileage out of the Tower of Babel story, which they seem to believe is true.
Sibrel's theory is even dumber than most conspiracy theorists. While most think the whole mission was faked, he believes the capsule stayed in low Earth orbit and staged the rest. Do you know who would definitely have noticed that the transmissions were coming from lower earth orbit? The Soviets, who were monitoring everything. They would definitely spot the difference between a transmission source orbiting every 90 minutes and one orbiting every 28 days.
He believes the entire moon landing was done in a sound studio, and "proves" it using the same long-debunked nonsense: shadows, no stars, the fact the flag waved when they moved it, etc. On the other hand, he believes that they went to elaborate lengths to fake the Earth shots - which would have been pretty easy to fake on Earth - from the capsule.
The funniest part of the movie is when they speed of the footage of walking on the moon and claim it looks just like walking on Earth. I suppose it does - on Monty Python.
Of course, the central argument is the usual one that the the astronauts could not have survived passing through the Van Allen radiation belts. I'm always impressed that guys who have never taken a physics class somehow know more about the Van Allen Belts than people who literally spend their entire career studying them.
It would take to long to debunk every ridiculous thing in this documentary, but suffice to say, don't bother watching it. Instead, go on YouTube and watch Buzz Aldrin punch Sibrel in the face, because that's both more educational and more entertaining.
Sibrel is of course most famous for getting punched in the face by Buzz Aldrin after lying to him, backing him into a corner, and harassing him. I've always enjoyed that video clip, but now I appreciate it even more.
At least half of the movie is spent on red herrings and logical fallacies. For example, they show a lot of clips of rockets blowing up as evidence that rockets can't possibly work. You know, the way a picture of a car crash proves you can't drive. They also use the fact that the Soviets were ahead as evidence they would always be ahead. Oh yeah, they get a lot of mileage out of the Tower of Babel story, which they seem to believe is true.
Sibrel's theory is even dumber than most conspiracy theorists. While most think the whole mission was faked, he believes the capsule stayed in low Earth orbit and staged the rest. Do you know who would definitely have noticed that the transmissions were coming from lower earth orbit? The Soviets, who were monitoring everything. They would definitely spot the difference between a transmission source orbiting every 90 minutes and one orbiting every 28 days.
He believes the entire moon landing was done in a sound studio, and "proves" it using the same long-debunked nonsense: shadows, no stars, the fact the flag waved when they moved it, etc. On the other hand, he believes that they went to elaborate lengths to fake the Earth shots - which would have been pretty easy to fake on Earth - from the capsule.
The funniest part of the movie is when they speed of the footage of walking on the moon and claim it looks just like walking on Earth. I suppose it does - on Monty Python.
Of course, the central argument is the usual one that the the astronauts could not have survived passing through the Van Allen radiation belts. I'm always impressed that guys who have never taken a physics class somehow know more about the Van Allen Belts than people who literally spend their entire career studying them.
It would take to long to debunk every ridiculous thing in this documentary, but suffice to say, don't bother watching it. Instead, go on YouTube and watch Buzz Aldrin punch Sibrel in the face, because that's both more educational and more entertaining.
lies lies lies
themainman20001 April 2008
this documentary is founded on sponge cake as soon as you put any REAL evidence on it the integrity slowly sinks into a big pile of crap for example Bart Sibrel claims they must have had multiple lighting sources because the shadows appear to be crossing if this were the case wouldn't there be two or more shadows for each object when Apollo 11 went through the van Allan radiation belts they spent 30 Min's there not the 90 Min's claimed in the documentary and they received a dose of radiation more equivalent to that of an an x ray.
seriously do some research learn what really happened don't let this pile of crap of a documentary mold your opinion of what really happened
seriously do some research learn what really happened don't let this pile of crap of a documentary mold your opinion of what really happened
There was no "secret radiation shield"
karn10 October 2009
In an otherwise good review, loleralacartelort7890 says "The truth is that the Americans use a secret aluminum-anti-radiation-alloy. It is not that well-known. And the exact specifications are a secret. And why is it a secret: Well, why should they reveal it back then?? If they where in a space race with the Russians, then it would be VERY dumb to reveal that they had new technology that could shield crew against radiation." This is completely incorrect. There is (and was) no "secret" to radiation protection in Apollo. The design and construction of the Apollo Command Module has long been publicly available. It uses a lightweight "honeycomb" of aluminum and stainless steel. The entire outer surface (except the windows of course) is covered with a heat shield made of a phenolic resin, thicker on the bottom that faces forward during re-entry. These materials are actually *better* at stopping the kind of radiation we have in space (charged particles) than lead, which is better suited to stopping ionizing photons like X-rays and gamma rays.
Space radiation is a definite problem for *long term* space flight because of the risk of big solar flares. But it simply wasn't a serious threat to the Apollo astronauts. The Command Module gave them pretty good protection during their brief (1/2 hour or so) passage through the Van Allen belts. They all carried dosimeters so we know exactly how much radiation they each received: no more than 1.5 rem, and usually much less. Of the 24 men who flew to the Moon (12 of whom landed), 18 are still alive. Only two have died from cancer: Alan Shepard (leukemia) and Jack Swigert (bone cancer). The rest died from heart attacks, pancreatitis (Roosa), and a motorcycle accident (Conrad). These are actually pretty good statistics for a group of men now in their late 70s (Shepard would be 86).
Space radiation is a definite problem for *long term* space flight because of the risk of big solar flares. But it simply wasn't a serious threat to the Apollo astronauts. The Command Module gave them pretty good protection during their brief (1/2 hour or so) passage through the Van Allen belts. They all carried dosimeters so we know exactly how much radiation they each received: no more than 1.5 rem, and usually much less. Of the 24 men who flew to the Moon (12 of whom landed), 18 are still alive. Only two have died from cancer: Alan Shepard (leukemia) and Jack Swigert (bone cancer). The rest died from heart attacks, pancreatitis (Roosa), and a motorcycle accident (Conrad). These are actually pretty good statistics for a group of men now in their late 70s (Shepard would be 86).
Convincingly questioning the NASA dogma.
john_alexanders12 January 2007
Should you be afraid to make up your own mind, and prefer to take refuge in other's elaborate dogmas, then this documentary is not for you. It exposes several questionable aspects of the alleged NASA missions to the Moon in a straightforward fashion, using logical and understandable arguments. Not only does it focus on the original NASA documentation, but it also conveys reasonable motives as to why they could have lied.
Personally, I had not earlier questioned the purported official NASA version, but after watching this very interesting documentary I found it quite probable that man has yet to set foot on the moon.
If you are interested in more documentaries on the same topic, I would recommend "Opération Lune" ("Dark Side of the Moon" in English), which complements nicely this one.
Personally, I had not earlier questioned the purported official NASA version, but after watching this very interesting documentary I found it quite probable that man has yet to set foot on the moon.
If you are interested in more documentaries on the same topic, I would recommend "Opération Lune" ("Dark Side of the Moon" in English), which complements nicely this one.
Ludicrously lame
mfisher45225 April 2013
Watching this moving, I was reminded of Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass. In chapter 5, Alice says to the White Queen, "One CAN'T believe impossible things." The White Queen replies, "I daresay you haven't had much practice. When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." Because according to Bart Sibrel, the self-appointed Moon landing hoax whistleblower, NASA spent 17 billion 1960s dollars employing thousands of workers and subcontractors and building not just spacecraft and the Johnson and Kennedy Space Centers but an entire and HIGHLY VISIBLE technological infrastructure from scratch, in order NOT to send men to the Moon. According to Sibrel, somehow NASA managed not only to perpetrate on us dolts a vast deception but also to hoodwink an entire small army, from around the world, of scientists, newspaper reporters and magazine journalists AND their editors and publishers and TV and radio reporters AND their crews and producers and networks, many of whom had closely followed the space program every step of the way, up to and including Walter Cronkite and Arthur C. Clarke, neither of whom had shown any previous signs of senility or brain damage.
Does Sibrel really believe that we've been the victims of a decades-long conspiracy so shadowy, ubiquitous and impenetrable that it's worthy of the X-Files? Maybe for Sibrel this is a substitute for religion; certainly his obsessiveness about his Moon-hoax delusion has the intensity of religious fanaticism. Does he really believe that TWELVE Americans never really walked on the Moon and that NASA managed to fake not just one, but SIX successful lunar missions? Or does he know the truth and his poor excuse for a film is just a cynical attempt to gain notoriety? Because this film fails either as a serious documentary or as propaganda. It's so laughably inept and full of holes that it would get an F in film school. Is Sibrel not clueless that deliberate misrepresentations, scientific inaccuracies, and logical fallacies don't pass for facts? The film is riddled with non sequiturs. A few miscellaneous items are strung together and suddenly, voilà: A completely unrelated conclusion is presented and a figurative finger is triumphantly pointed at the supposed conspirators as if the conclusion were obvious instead of ridiculous. Several interviews were obtained under false pretenses, and Sibrel is clearly too thick to comprehend that the interviewer isn't asking tough and hard-hitting questions, he's just being obnoxious. Or else Sibrel was deliberately trying to goad them into losing their patience and their tempers. Then Sibrel jumps up and down and points: "See? He got mad. He MUST be hiding something." Sibrel is so self-involved that he thinks this part of the film will lead the viewer to see him as a crusading reporter or courageous whistleblower; instead, "detestable nut-job" tends to spring to mind.
But the film's real downfall is simple and obvious: The positive reviewers probably are far too young to have actually witnessed the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs. If they had, they'd immediately realize why Sibrel's contention is bunk: Because most Gemini and all Apollo missions broadcast TV shows from space. If you believe that, then you also have to believe that we're able to create true zero gravity here on Earth and that THAT also has been covered up. You can create free fall in the Air Force's "Vomit Comet" for 45 seconds or so at a time, but not for the 20 or 30 minutes that the shows sometimes ran. Or else you have to believe that there was ALSO a cover-up of such advanced visual-effects techniques that a convincing illusion of zero gravity could have been created in a studio. Oh wait, I know: The astronauts stayed in their spacecraft in Earth orbit so they really WERE in zero gravity; they just matted the views out the windows afterward, and of course all of the astronauts had been given acting classes and were bought off. They were ALL to a MAN paid handsomely to PRETEND they went to the Moon. And the scenes from the Moon's surface? Oh right, they were done BEFORE the spacecraft ever took off so they could be cut in at the right time. And NONE of those astronauts EVER spilled the beans, not even to their WIVES or FAMILIES. EVERYONE did a PERFECT job of keeping mum. Everyone. Without exception. Since 1969.
While there is still a depressingly large number of Americans who believe in UFOs, alien visitation, and guff like that, a small ray of hope was published in 2011, when a survey reported that the proportion of Americans who believed that the moon landings were a hoax has fallen from 10 percent to 6 percent.
Does Sibrel really believe that we've been the victims of a decades-long conspiracy so shadowy, ubiquitous and impenetrable that it's worthy of the X-Files? Maybe for Sibrel this is a substitute for religion; certainly his obsessiveness about his Moon-hoax delusion has the intensity of religious fanaticism. Does he really believe that TWELVE Americans never really walked on the Moon and that NASA managed to fake not just one, but SIX successful lunar missions? Or does he know the truth and his poor excuse for a film is just a cynical attempt to gain notoriety? Because this film fails either as a serious documentary or as propaganda. It's so laughably inept and full of holes that it would get an F in film school. Is Sibrel not clueless that deliberate misrepresentations, scientific inaccuracies, and logical fallacies don't pass for facts? The film is riddled with non sequiturs. A few miscellaneous items are strung together and suddenly, voilà: A completely unrelated conclusion is presented and a figurative finger is triumphantly pointed at the supposed conspirators as if the conclusion were obvious instead of ridiculous. Several interviews were obtained under false pretenses, and Sibrel is clearly too thick to comprehend that the interviewer isn't asking tough and hard-hitting questions, he's just being obnoxious. Or else Sibrel was deliberately trying to goad them into losing their patience and their tempers. Then Sibrel jumps up and down and points: "See? He got mad. He MUST be hiding something." Sibrel is so self-involved that he thinks this part of the film will lead the viewer to see him as a crusading reporter or courageous whistleblower; instead, "detestable nut-job" tends to spring to mind.
But the film's real downfall is simple and obvious: The positive reviewers probably are far too young to have actually witnessed the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs. If they had, they'd immediately realize why Sibrel's contention is bunk: Because most Gemini and all Apollo missions broadcast TV shows from space. If you believe that, then you also have to believe that we're able to create true zero gravity here on Earth and that THAT also has been covered up. You can create free fall in the Air Force's "Vomit Comet" for 45 seconds or so at a time, but not for the 20 or 30 minutes that the shows sometimes ran. Or else you have to believe that there was ALSO a cover-up of such advanced visual-effects techniques that a convincing illusion of zero gravity could have been created in a studio. Oh wait, I know: The astronauts stayed in their spacecraft in Earth orbit so they really WERE in zero gravity; they just matted the views out the windows afterward, and of course all of the astronauts had been given acting classes and were bought off. They were ALL to a MAN paid handsomely to PRETEND they went to the Moon. And the scenes from the Moon's surface? Oh right, they were done BEFORE the spacecraft ever took off so they could be cut in at the right time. And NONE of those astronauts EVER spilled the beans, not even to their WIVES or FAMILIES. EVERYONE did a PERFECT job of keeping mum. Everyone. Without exception. Since 1969.
While there is still a depressingly large number of Americans who believe in UFOs, alien visitation, and guff like that, a small ray of hope was published in 2011, when a survey reported that the proportion of Americans who believed that the moon landings were a hoax has fallen from 10 percent to 6 percent.
Illuminiating
datphan11 July 2005
Some people will believe anything. If you want to believe that a dozen or so people went to the moon, apparently no one can disabuse you of that notion. Sure, this wasn't a multi-million dollar epic full of special effects, but it does present a quite credible case that the public has been hoodwinked into believing something that clearly could not have happened. Certainly not the first time. Too bad no Asians in it, though. I think that if you make a point by point list of the issues that are presented, and then do a basic search on the web, you will find there is considerable disagreement to this very day, and that not every fact is a true fact. The aspersions as to Van Allen's Belt causing harm to delicate electronics, brain tissue and trouser suspension is well noted in the literature, and there have even been probes that became defunct because of it. And I don't buy for one minute the lack of photos of stars or even the Earth from the moon.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
