mfisher452 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.

Pavel N 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.

daveshubcaps-1 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.

DanielP-11 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!