A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon

Ratings: 6.91/10 from 65 users.


A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the MoonIf it wasn't possible to better the Soviets in the space race, which was really a race of technology armaments, what could be done?

How could America offset the threat of superior weaponry? Throughout the history of rivalry and war, astute generals of lesser armies than their counterparts have used deceit and misinformation as a method to achieve victory.

Surrounding the earth, beginning at an altitude of 1,000 miles and extending an additional 25,000 miles, lie lethal bands of radiation called the Van Allen Radiation Belts.

Every manned space mission in history (including Mercury, Gemini, Soyuz, Skylab and the Space Shuttle) has been well below this deadly radiation field...all except Apollo.

Recently uncovered footage of the crew of Apollo 11 staging part of their mission proves that the astronauts never made it beyond earth orbit. The goal was to fool the Soviet Union about US strategic capability during the height of the Cold War. Deceit, Greed, and Injustice... A sad thing happened on the way to the moon. The truth will astound you!

More great documentaries

306 Comments / User Reviews

  1. vlatko's brother

    this is truly a really great and mind opening doc. thanks for the posting V.. and im surprize more people haven't commented on this subject.. weird usually you would see fanatics on both sides of the arguments dogging it out. trying to prove each other wrong like its done in the religions documentaries.. oh well i guess most people leave this sort of thing to the gov. and accept what is giving to them. i for one do believe that the moon landing was a big hoax..

  2. Jonathan R

    Makes a internesting case

  3. nir

    Hi Vlatko,

    All of the landing were hoax!!!!

    There is not even one photo in NASA web page that you can see stars!!!!!!!

    All the pictures were taken on earth (in a Hollywood studio).

    I'll believe a man walked on the moon if you'll show me a picture with stars or even a picture with one source of light (on the moon it's supposed to have light only from the sun).

    This is the reason why men didn't continue to explore the moon - men never walked on the moon!!!

    The americans are the biggest liers ever, that's why the russians (that were not far behind in technology from the americans) did not land on the moon since then. I think they know the americans lie but they are angry that they didn't think of lying to the world about landing on the moon.

    A country that can lie about the landing on the moon can lie about everything (the 9/11, pearl harbor, man-made global warming etc.)

    Don't believe anything the gov. tells you - they LIE!!!

  4. kev

    you would think if we the USA made it to the moon the Russians get there to for national security reasons. If we have been there before then why will it take till 2020 to get back there again. I dont trust the governments info. Like area 51, JFK, pearl harbor attack, NWO.

  5. WTC7

    Hi Pete,

    I went to the bad astronomy site you suggested to the science-illiterate commentators, and I see myself as one of those, prior to watching the doc. The explanations of the irregularities of the shadows made an impression on me. There were several issues that made an impression on me, so, I watched the documentary very carefully against the stuff I read on his site.

    But I regret to report that there are still issues that he didn't succeed to explain properly, scientist or not.

    One thing I was really puzzled about was that the lunar surface reflects the light and so it explains why objects were so well illuminated even their parts that should normally not be. Everything was fine until I got to that photo of the big rock next to which we see a little lunar vehicle. If the bad astronomer's theory was right, than the side of the rock in the shadow should be reasonably visible. Alas, it's as dark as it gets (and normally should be that way!), which was absolutely incompatible with the rest of the photos. That, somehow, threw me off this scientific explanation... (the image of the rock is at the 25:47 minute of the doc)

    The second thing your bad astronomer made me think about were the angles of the shadows, which he nonchalantly explains by the fact that we are looking at 3D images on a 2D photos (as if any photo was something else), and the fact that IF there were indeed multiple light sources when the photos were being taken, there should have been multiple shadows visible too. In addition, he invites everybody to go out and check it themselves. Well, for one, I don't need to go out to check something I know - and that is that shadows indeed can appear to fall under different angles in the sunlight, for example. The problem is that they appear such under certain conditions - depending on the diversity of the terrain, the distance from the object which throws the shadow and the position of the observer.

    On one of the photos in the doc, we have the observer's (the astronaut who is at the same time taking the photo) shadow and the shadow of some kind of a pole at a distance not further than a meter and a half from him on his left hand side. In this case, it is safe to say that the perspective is the same, the distance between two objects is negligible and the terrain does not appear to be significantly different between the two. Still, the pole's shadow and the one of the astronomer are really at an odd angle.

    I made an effort and made a small experiment with multiple light sources in my room (since the bad astronomer so generously invited me to do so). I concluded that if I moved a bit further from the two sources of light I arranged behind me, there will appear in front of me two shadows of me, and both would be going in opposite directions. But if I moved a bit closer to one of the light sources, the shadows will move further apart and would not both be visible in front of me (depending on which area I chose to take a photo of, I could photograph only one of my shadows; but there would still be two light sources behind me).

    Hence, that "scientific" explanation put me off too and reinforced my doubts.

    Furthermore, have you ever used a vacuum cleaner? Say, a 1000 VAT strong one? Or even less than that? You see, with mine, no dust remains untouched, even if I'm attacking it from 10 cm above :-). Oh, and dust starts flying around even if you only blow at it.

    So, even with my limited, unscientific experience, it is still really hard to accept the bad astronomer's explanation on why there was no visible disturbance of the moon's dust underneath the lunar module that landed on its surface. 'Cause, as gentle as that landing was made to be, I'm still prone to believe that the module's exhausts were still more powerful than my vacuum cleaner.

    There goes another one...

    The issue of the moon walk - the fact that the astronauts look as if they were simply jumping on Earth, only in slow motion, I won't discuss as your bad astronomer doesn't mention it either.

    Also the fact that, 40 years after a number of "successful" Apolo moon landings, and development of an incredible technology compared to the one of 1960s/70s, the scientists can't reinitiate the program before 2015, is beyond any comment.

  6. Achems Razor

    Greetings WTC7: I went on the site that Pete suggested and found it very interesting. I will try to answer you dust thing with your vac. cleaner. You need an atmosphere for the dust to blow around as on Earth. On the Moon the only dust that was affected by the Lander was at point of impact by the jets settling on the Moon surface, the dust would be blown up and aside and the Moons gravity would settle it down right away. On Earth it would of been blown all over the place as with your vac. The rest I will not attempt like shadows etc: You are more voiced in that then I am. regards.

  7. WTC 7

    Achems Razor, hi! Always good to hear from you! Thanks for your comment, I certainly see the difference you are pointing to :-). Greetings

  8. Freedom Warrior

    These so called conspiracies have all been disproved by "Mythbusters" of all things! It was not hard to prove that flags continue to flap for a much longer time in a vacuum than in atmosphere (especially when the astronaut hanging on to the pole because they could just barely get it in the ground; there are no stars visible because the f-stop (iris) of the lens is set to accurately record the moons surface (very bright relative to the stars) and unable to record the dimness of the stars (which are outside of the 5-zone limit of the B&W film used in the cameras. Any photographer worth his salt can prove this one easily (as was done on "Mythbusters"). This same phenomenum is observed when the interior light comes back on in the space craft - as they opened the iris of the lens up to accurately record the low light of the interior of the craft, the earth outside the porthole became overexposed because of its relative brightness compared to the interior of the craft, just as it should have!

    On the subject of the "close-up" earth being cropped by the #1 window, it would have been pretty difficult to get the cloud cover to cooperate for a faked photo... think about it... we have all seen photos of the earth from "a couple of hundred miles up" that have been taken from the space shuttle... if you were to crop out just a section of the HUGEness of the earth from that distance, you would not see the complexity of the cloud cover that you see in the apollo photo in question. Think how big the moon looks from earth even with its relative size compared to the earth... how far do you think you would have to be from the earth to see the earth as small as it was in the apollo window... about 130,000 miles perhaps?

    Come on people, get over it... there was no conspiracy... I suppose they burned up Grissom, White, and Chaffee because they were going to talk?

    Over 400,000 people worked on this project and are a testiment to the abilities of the American people when they put their ingenuity behind something... Oh and why have'nt we gone again??? Because we got what we needed during the missions we had and then turned our focus on the mission to Mars and beyond, which the space stations have helped us with in terms of measuring the effects of long term exposure to space. All while working wiht a budget that is a very, very small fraction of the national debt... Obama just spent more on clunker cars that congress spent on NASA last year... Hmmm Do you think we could get back to the moon in a clunker?!

  9. sPUN-MUNKEy

    all points in this doc are quite impressive, but what strikes me is how odd the press conference with the 3 astronauts was; they should have the look and demeanor of proud heros, who had ensured american dominace in space. instead they all look as if they dont want to be there, no smiles, downcast eyes (guilt?)....thats not the look of a hero...looks more like bernake at a senate hearing

  10. Anthony P

    ha ha you believe mythbusters thats funny, if you had half a brain you would know the discovery channels either dont give you all the info or just plain lie do yourself a favor and turn off your tv.

  11. jdblms

    There are no telescopes, either earth or space based (AKA Hubble) that are powerful enough to achieve that sort of resolution. Even photos taken from earth satellites of the earth's surface itself can't make out such small details on our surface. Hence the switch to aerial photos on close-up with Google Earth.

    If anyone is interested though, there is a ship orbiting the moon right now which has been taking pictures of Apollo landing sites as it orbits in addition to its other scientific purposes. They are available online and clearly show the descent stages of the respective LM, the tracks that the astronauts made, scientific experiments they left behind and even some of the American flags. One or two of the sites have also been photographed at different times of lunar "day" by now on different orbits.

    In harmony with the lunar day concept, the astronauts themselves talked about how the light's effects are completely different on the moon at sunrise / set and at full exposure. I just thought it might be something to take into account with the whole shadow business.

  12. Squeegee

    Interesting, i'll have to look into them further....alyhough if we can see N.A's footprint tracks then the rover tracks, and the rover itself, should be quite visable at this scale? Are there more (conclusive) photos? A.Razor are these 2 poor quality pic's the best of them on your link provided? (I can only find these 2 from a quick google search.)

    Do those "footprints" look quite large compared to the lander footprint? If they said these were the rover tracks I would have been sold but its not quite the shots i was hoping/speaking of.

  13. Squeegee

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.
    Bertrand Russell

  14. Thece

    Squeegee, unfortunately there's one more thing - the "cocksure" ones are the majority compared to the ones darning to doubt the official, though sometimes completely illogical explanations.
    It was the discoveries in the space field, made After the Appolo program, that raised many further questions instead of giving a solid proof to the old statements. And the discovery of the Van Allen radiation belts is just a small piece of the whole inconsistency problem.

  15. Tossik

    Just like Zeitgeist, and all the other documentaries belonging to this genre, it can be very convincing. Give me the funds and the time, and I'll convince half of the worlds population that that the tooth-fairy really exists. Maybe the truth lies in neither of the theories available, maybe it was something else. What I really want to say is that only a fool could come to a conclusion about such a complex matter, and that it is mysteries like these that keep you awake at night. Main thing about it is to view them as exactly what they are, entertainment, instead of transforming them into complex conspiration theories and paranoia.

    Anyway, I enjoyed watching this, and I wanted to thank you for keeping me awake:P

  16. mazzy

    Interesting. One point I can definitely agree with is how space travel seems trivial, when a large percentage of the Earth's population is starving to death.

  17. Achems Razor

    The trouble with the World is that the intelligent are cocksure and the stupid are full of doubt.

    Me. :D

  18. Squeegee

    Wow, masterful retort there A.Razor, I seen what you done there, very clever.... but I don't think you'll ever be classed as a quotable individual. Did the point of this quote hit too close to the bone, maybe?

    @ Tossik, I truely believe the good people that invested there time and effort in this film hope to do more than merely entertain you for an hour or so.

    Does anyone care that the people accused of perpetraiting this lie are the SAME people involved in in The Gulf of Tonkin lie(admittedly), JFK's murder (obviously) and lie of 9/11/WMD's/Iraq-Afghan oil wars and the millions of deaths that have followed (undeniably)?

    But I'm sure your right Tossik, go bah-bah-back to bed like a good little sheep, "your government is in control", heres Myth Busters, "go back to bed America, your government has figured out how it all transpired, go back to bed America, your government is in control"....

  19. Achems Razor



    I see you did not take the time to check the latest on jdblms:
    You just like jumping the gun! You seem like a brain surgeon.

  20. Squeegee

    Oh I seen jdblms reply and say again that if they produce evidence, photographic or otherwise, that dispells all the rumours, then good, this rumour is put to bed. But, it is up to them to prove the story to critical thinking people who cannot accept several explanations currently provided. It seems to me that the onus should and is on NASA, not the "conspiracy theorists" to disprove. It just amazes me that so many issues can arise from NASA's claim. I mean how, after 40yrs have they not put this issue to rest.

    And the link to all 6 of those "grainy / pixelated" pictures will not be settling this matter any time soon. Was the rover on any of these missions, I just want to see the lander, the rover and its tracks (easily visible as we can see footprnts) with correct distances to the craters in the moon surface photos. I'm not interested enough to study the issue for myself, but hopefully someone will.

    I have no desire for this to be a myth. It would surely have been one of our greatest achievements as a species, to this day. But I find it hard to buy the story, as sold by NASA, with the proof povided. I do hope that one day (very long overdue) we will have that evidence and get on with the issue of getting back there. But alas, for this moment, on them corrupt whore's word alone on so many issues, I am not yet sold, as I think I have every right to be.

  21. Achems Razor


    Fair enough!


  22. jdblms

    Well, I finally watched the full documentary on YouTube. I must say I was a little disappointed with the amount of filler material. I thought there were plenty of other arguments the film maker could have made against the Apollo program with the time allotted. The music was also quite repetitive at times (and paint splatter cuts? why?). Enough of the general film making and stylistic critiques though.

    At least he did cover most of the bases that others have tried to bring to the public's attention before. Such as the photos with alleged shadow discrepancies and lighting. There have been many proponents with their own arguments on both sides of those issues already (film exposure and regolith reflection vs. stage lighting, etc...). The film also contains the usual explanations about possible studio setups for the EVAs, "flapping" flags, etc... Not much new there which hasn't been covered before. Mr. Sibrel did spend quite some time having his narrator extol the deadly nature of the Van Allen Radiation Belts though.

    I find the presented information interesting. This film, of course, is focused almost entirely around the events of the Apollo 11 flight and arguments against that moon landing, yet there was no mention made of the previous Apollo missions or the advancements made during the Gemini missions. Of particular interest to me would be to hear Mr. Sibrel's explanation of the footage taken in lunar orbit from Apollo 8, 10, and the footage of the landing taken from aboard LM-5 (aka Eagle) during descent.

    The film claims that no one can pass beyond 1,000-25,000 miles out from the earth's surface. It avoids explaining the footage of the moon recorded while inside its orbit and the view back to the earth from that distance though. Having long stretches of music superimposed with stock footage was more important than that? How did NASA stage the shot of Snoopy flying over the surface of the moon as filmed from Charlie Brown? The film makers even showed that footage in passing. If they had some sort of explanation for those events then the whole Van Allen Radiation Belt argument might have had some more ground to stand on.
    If there were an argument explaining away the footage from 8 and 10 then the later "old reel received by mistake" from Apollo 11 would have more staying power as a detractor as well. This "rare gem" is actually available in its entirety from Spacecraft Films on "Apollo 11: Men on the Moon" on the third DVD. There it can be fully examined in context to the surrounding events and with full audio tracks. I guess I was expecting something more fruitful when I heard rare footage had accidentally turned up.

    All in all I wasn't quite impressed with the film. I guess I'll have to find some more convincing moon hoax videos and see if they contain explanations to these and other questions.

  23. Solomon S. Buyco

    I have read somewhere that if you have a powerful telescope, you could see the flag and the stand where the Apollo sits, that was intentionally left behind in the moon as extra baggage.

  24. rtm

    I really enjoyed this one, I just find it interesting that USA creates these hoaxes, that are so transparent. Yes I would like to believe that they didn't land on the moon, and there is a good case in this doc, saying that if this was such a huge event then why were there so few pictures, and such little media coverage, and interviews, knowing the American media its pretty strange.

  25. pete b

    I agree with spunmonkey, The press conference tells it all, i see three men with guilt, you'd think they would be happy and smiling, they look very guilty of something, and also neil armstrong never gives press conferences, he seems liek the most depressed man in teh world, living the biggest lie the world has ever known is eating him up, thats my belief...im depressed i was the leader of the greatest achievment the world has ever known........

  26. Morther

    Now if the Astronauts are really faking it through the window, why is it that we don't see the Earth's surface moving past. Everytime we look at this supposed "earth" we see its image stopped.
    That can't happen.
    When the lights are turned on, the window's diameter is much larger than what we saw as the 'earth'.
    The press conference OTOH is very telling.
    That and several other things. No blast striations on the landing, too few pictures, no convincing shots of the first landing from any other source, Gus's death, the heat, the resignations, the media forced to take pictures from a screen, no interviews, the dire need for a success, the V. Belts,

  27. Morther

    What happened to Pete and his Bad Astronomy. The Lunar Modual was essentially falling to the Moon. Just recently we saw that rocket crash into the Moon and the dust cloud it made was visible from Earth.
    What slowed the Lunar Modual down? Gas pressure against the Moon. The LM weighed over 30 thousand pounds and it was falling. Pete says 1.5 lbs/sq. in did the job and no dust on the landing pads. Well I know how difficult it is to put a ping pong ball into a small fish bowl at the local church bizzare, maybe the Moon dust had the same problem.

  28. henry

    ok this makes my second doc on this subject and still undecided i would not b suprised to find out in time that this all faked but hatethe thought of it all this stuff about jfk 911 pearl harbor okc and so on tears me up that the goverment is behind it all oris there some other great shadow behind it all and not our goverment that maybe the goverment lets us all belive its its them but know and using all these conspriacy theroies as a means of control of the public because remember not everyonewatches these shows or care as long it dosent inter fear with their and to any who like to talk more on these type ofsujects let me know thanks

  29. rwiggum

    Moon conspiracy theorists are some of the worst out there. No matter how much evidence you present, they just tell you how it was "fabricated" or how I'm not "open-minded" and a slave to the "coming new world order."

    Really? Me, the person presenting the evidence that disproves your theories, is wrong? Yes, the Discovery Channel is part of some grand conspiracy. The sound science presented by Mythbusters is just a lie to get us to... I don't know, but it's trying to get us to do something.

    The biggest problem with the conspiracy theory is that of logistics. As someone above me mentioned, it wasn't just a hundred people who worked on the Moon landing. It was almost HALF A MILLION PEOPLE. Scientists from every field from around the world all working on the Apollo program. You simply cannot plan a conspiracy on that grand a scale without someone talking. The more complex a conspiracy, the more likely it is to break down, for someone to talk. It's been forty years now and not one of the half-million people has said a word.

    Oh, I know, they are all just "pawns of the new world order." Save it. If you can't subscribe to any logic but your twisted paranoia, then that's your deal. Too bad reality isn't cool enough for you.

  30. jdblms

    I don't see any remorseful astronauts at all. I do see some footage of the Apollo 11 astronauts at their post mission press conference and the footage has very obviously been slowed down an incredible amount. They look to be between answering questions and Mr. Sibrel chose to make the film crawl by at a very low frame rate. Watch those segments again to see what I mean.

    Here's one for ya. If this truly is a giant hoax and/or cover-up then someone explain to me how and where they filmed the lunar rover footage. They have hours of the stuff from three different missions, and they all show the rover + astronauts traveling impressive distances over a whitish gray terrain that continues unabated to the inky black horizon. If this was filmed on some sort of sound stage it would simply have been the largest stage ever constructed in human history with a black wall (for the sky) untold miles long and miles tall. If it were somehow filmed in an Earthly desert at night to capture an inky night sky then how did they evenly light tens of square miles of terrain?

    Go ahead, someone please explain this marvel of engineering which has remained hidden from the public for decades and help us all understand.

  31. jdblms

    Oh, and after my last question has been answered I'd like someone to explain something else to me. On Apollo 15 one of the astronauts performed an experiment (directly in front of a video camera, google it) recreating the theory put forth by Galileo that two objects dropped at the same time in a vacuum would fall at the exact same rate. He performed this experiment with a hammer held in one hand and a feather in the other while standing in the open in front of the lunar module.
    Suffice it to say that both the hammer and the feather fell at exactly the same speed and hit the ground at the same time.

    If these moon landings were indeed a hoax, then what sort of incredibly gigantic vacuum chamber was this staged in? They would have needed some sort of vacuum chamber hundreds of yards in diameter and height to pull of this sort of feat, and inside of it would have been the entire set, light rig and camera setup.

    Even now the largest vacuum chamber in the world is one built by NASA very recently and it only has a 100 foot diameter. If they had such a vast vacuum chamber in the early 1970s then where is it and why hasn't anyone built one as large since?
    Inquiring minds want to know.

  32. lols

    death to americans ! fuken pigs ! They`re all the game ! 9/11 was fuked up too ! fuk americans and NASA

  33. jdblms

    Aww, someone trollin' for lols.
    Please excuse a tiny mistake in my last comment, the 100' diameter chamber NASA uses was constructed in 1969 and refurbished very recently. Still not large enough to fit in everything that can be seen in the footage.

  34. Solomon S. Buyco

    It is just a returning module... the one refurbished.

  35. Bobby T

    There is one very basic fact which concerns me and was never mentioned - the spaceship was conical shaped, the base being the heat shield therefore the window where the photos of the Earth were shot from? HAD to be on the sides. Simple geometry would tell you you would NEVER see the Earth out ANY window on the way to the moon unless you rotated the entire spacecraft through 135deg I.E. doing a drift in space. It simply would not be facing that direction unless it was built into the heatshield??? Assuming the nose was pointing roughly in the direction of the Moon and the rocket pointing where it had just come from, then any window would not be anywhere near the direction of Earth. To manouver it so it was, would be a MAJOR operation then you would have to realign the caft again after you got your view. Nope can't see them doing it once never mind repeatidly.

  36. jdblms

    No, I don't believe it is a returning module, the Space Power Facility in Sandusky, Ohio that is. I'm not even sure what you mean by returning module. It's not even an unused section of a Saturn V rocket, they were only 33 ft. in diameter. It is a purpose built facility made with a 1/8 inch thick inner aluminum chamber and a 6-8 ft thick outer concrete chamber.

    Even if they did have a window through the bottom of the Command Module, it wouldn't have helped. The heat shield / bottom side of the CM was attached directly to the Service Module in flight.
    What photos are you referring to? Did you find some photos taken while they were on their way to the moon that show the Earth, and which were taken from the Command Module? Also, you have to remember that on the way to the moon the CM was attached to the Lunar Module as well. The astronauts were preparing it for their later descent, and it happens to have two 'forward' facing windows and one 'top' facing window (the top window would have been pointed directly back at Earth). If you are referring to the astronaut shot video in this documentary, they were already on their way back to earth when that was filmed.

  37. Yavanna

    The discussion is more interesting than the doc!

    Like many conspiracy theories you can easily find websites that can prove your preferred point of view. There is one doc I watched a while back showing all the masonic connections of those involved for instance.

    One thing not mentioned is that with the vast technological improvements, particularly in the field of cinematography, photography and CGi how much easier it has since become to fake new proof - if needed. On one link above there are photos showing footprints (apparently - wasn't that obvious to me.) Such photo's could easily be forged today.

    If this was man's greatest exploratory voyage. You'd think they might have packed a few extra rolls of film.....

    With manned missions to Mars being planned the Moon should be a veritable training ground. I cannot accept that there has never been a need to go back - "they got all they wanted " as said above.... When does a scientist ever have enough data to be satisfied? To not have a base there by now is almost unthinkable. I appreciate it's astronomically expensive to "go back" - after all; there is far more profit in warfare and global domination...... but enough money is found to fire a nuke at a moon crater last year... to ummm *cough* test for water....

    If it was a hoax and 400,000 workers were involved then only a very tiny percentage of those would have had to have been duped or be "in the know."

    Are there any good docs on TDF regarding the planning of the mission, the building of the various craft etc. I cant honestly ever remember seeing such a documentary.

  38. Serenity

    Wonder where the Apollo spacecraft went after they lifted off, and before they splashed down??

  39. Bobbyt

    Well I have read every post yet again and watched the documentary again. I have some very basic concerns that are not directly related to whether man was sent to the moon but still relevant I believe. From EXACTLY the same era - The Americans went to the moon.......BUT they couldn't design a VTOL jet at the time, they tried but gave up because it was too difficult (the British did with the Harrier which America bought and made under licence - now how humbling must that have been????). Also I submit Concorde, a supersonic airliner. Again it was a technilogical race. Massive rewards to the winner. Remember (anyone old enough) this was the BIG aim at the time - fly to Australia from New York in 2+ hours. Again the Brits/French won the race and America could not design it. SO..............on these relatively "easy" technilogical advances, when American giants like Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, Lockhead etc, unlimited government funding, not do it? How did they manage o send a spacecraft to the Moon? It's well documented that even Chuck Jaegers breaking of the Sound Barrier was only possible after the British told the AAF that their problem was the tail plane - the entire urfac has to move. Up until then America had not the slightest idea what the problem was. Similarly with Concorde it was he computers regulating the airflow into the engines that allowed it to fly supersonic, again American designers could not figure it out. Harrier - single engin withfour vertor thrusters (the logical solution to the problem of VTOL). Even NOW America cannot do it. The new F35 is a 50 year later half baked, engineering wise, BAD alternative.
    Go tothe Moon...........JUST CAN'T SEE IT HAPPENING FOR REAL.

  40. Yavanna

    Interesting points.

    Maybe the Americans were too busy indulging in the activities such described in the TDF doc "Zoo"?

  41. Yavanna

    AKA a funny thing happened on the way to the barn....

  42. Bobbyt

    Sorry for the missing letters occasionally in the above post. My keyboard is dodgy. Please add a "t" in front of the "he" and "urfac" means surface.
    Having read my post again, I am convinced it is a very pertinent point. I mean - go to the moon but can't design a VTOL jet with almost unlimited funding?????? As an engineer, if I was asked which is easier I would look at you to see if "Are you were being serious?"
    I must admit, my one concern is the amount of people that would need to be involved in any "hoax". How do you keep them quiet. It does seem however, everyone that was a potential problem, including astronauts, was mysteriously killed. Why no mention of conspiracy there as well?

  43. Bobbyt

    Yavanna - you are correct, the debate/for-against arguments are better than the doc. Looked for "zoo" not sure what you're talking about.
    Kennedy said America would put a man on the Moon by the end of the decade. No pressure there then! If he had lived, that would have been conveniently forgotten BUT as an American hero how could it NOT happen. Like we always hear non-stick frying pans are a direct result of the space program why not....digital photography, Pixar movies etc perhaps the effort was put into photographic manipulation. Now that America does seem to be leading the world at........Mmmm I wonder why? Unlimited government funding again????

  44. beeks

    Link broken. Please re-upload. was very interested in watching this!

  45. charlesovery


    Well now a little prejeduce against Americans eh? We all lie and are corrupt and the little Satans of the world huh? Or is it our government that you are referring to? We Americans are not our government, yet anyway, so next time you state such things you should realize the difference and appropriately refer to it.

  46. Yavanna

    Charles! I can't speak for Bobbyt, but it is mainly the government and business elites and religions I would include in your description. The REAL people are no different in most respects to any other national. Anyway much of what I say is always tinged with a bit of dry humour :P

    So hey you're top of the world and big enough to take some bruises anyway so suck it up :)

  47. Squeegee


    It works both ways. You can't be proud of your countries accomplishments if you cannot accept the responsibility of its failings.

    I agree with what your trying to say though, but its like British people being proud of "their glorious days of rule", but its not their faults, its how the education system is designed to work. They need loyalists, not critical thinkers researching the atrocities/lies carried out in their name.

    Its a sad fact that most of the worlds "leaders" have not represented their peoples desires abroad for a very long time. War continues hand-in-hand with famine and poverty. None of us want it, but what do we actually do about it? At the end of the day, our governments polices are our's wether we support them or not, by default of not keeping them in check. We pay them for their deeds, literally.

    (soz for the off topic rant, but i also feckin love this debate, a hell of a lot more than the doc :)

  48. Serenity

    They say 'the simplest explanation is usually the correct one'.
    So, where did they go for several days after liftoff and before splashdown? To the MOON! What alternative explanation is there, except perhaps that they just silently orbited the Earth while the staged footage played?! Unlikely!

    Anyway, to me the hammer and feather was pretty convincing; the lightness of movement of the astronauts with heavy packs on their backs,(incl. jumping high); the Moonlike landscape shot from ground level and from just above it; the recent footage of the Moon's surface which gives no visual evidence of tampering; ...etc.

    As for the Van Allen belts, there are people having CT scans (which equate to hundreds of X-rays in a session), and they seem to get away with it. A healthy human body can withstand a lot.

    What interests me most is the 'downcast eyes' and 'the depression', rather than the euphoria which the first trio (esp.) ought to have shown on their return. Of course, they WERE locked away in isolation for some time on their return.
    However, I think something happened on that journey and during the debriefing afterwards that took all the joy out of it. The schoolboy dream of landing on the Moon turned sour, NOT because it didn't happen, but because of what they saw there, and the lifelong silence imposed on them from that point on.

  49. Achems Razor

    Again I will say, do not think for a moment, that the soviets would not know, if a manned Moon landing was not achieved!

    They would have been on it in a heartbeat instead of losing their primacy of space!
    Unless everybody thinks the Soviets are utterly stupid, and also have no spies.

    No doubt every tracking device was aimed at Apollo 11, 40 years ago.

  50. Solomon S. Buyco

    Funny, funny.. but it is on the other way around... Russian Gagarin have accomplished the mission to get into the space as the first person to do it. So, does anyone question them? No, it is all about pride and glory of science over nationalism...

  51. Achems Razor

    Atta boy! @ Solomon:

    Instead of questioning if there was a Moon landing, why not question the Russians.

    Was Uri Gargarin, on April 12 1961. the first man in space?
    on board the Vostok, 3ka-3 (Vostok 1). And if he was, how do you know?

    Who are you people paying allegiance to? Funny is right! (LOL)

  52. Bobbyt

    Solomon/Axhems - It's nothing like the same thing. It's a bit like someone saying I'm going to the end of the street (you look out the window and see if they do) and someone saying I'm going to the North Pole. They are nothing like the same. Gagarin was very easily proved. You could almost see it with the naked eye.

  53. charlesovery


    I must agree with you. We are not happy of our shortcomings but we that know the truth of our own government don't just sit back and take it either. Look around and look at all the information out there that shows us uncovering the truth and our governments weaked ways. Let me just say that I am only in my thirties and in time in my life until recently (last 10 years) have a felt a tension between the people and the government. This was the reason why Mr. Peace Barrack Obama was elected president, but the more we investigate about him the more we find out that he is nothing but a puppet just like the rest of them.

  54. Solomon S. Buyco

    @Bobbyt, You mean to say that in those time, Russia is far more advance than US?

    Let just say that US thank God that Albert Einstein becomes an American... but sad to say about the other Germans who became American too for the sake of advance technology. If not for Einstein, America would the Nuclear Power of the world.

  55. Bobbyt

    Solomon - Think you'll find the Manhattan Project was Germans and British assembled in US to work on the bomb. You could argue if Hitler hadn't appeared in 1933 none of it would have happend, certainly not when it did anyway. So there you go, it's all Hitlers fault.

    I digress. Well lets put it this way - I'm 55, I lived through the space race. In simple terms the Soviets (not Russia, don't get them confused) WERE ahead of the US. By a counry mile. Or certainly appeared to be. They were 1st into space and 1st man into space....... I'm neither for or against USSR or USA, it's only the facts. Up until Apollo the USSR were leading the way. What is not clear however, is the USSR decided going to the Moon was not high priority and put their efforts into the Space Station. Now that makes me ask "why?". Did they know something? It is obviously a "1st" that is way up there in great achievements, so why did they abandon it. As for man going to the Moon, I want it to be true. Up until recently, I had no reason to not believe they didn't. Discrepancies and anomolies and the fact that NASA themselves don't help, make it, at the very best 50/50.

    The Japanese were supposed to be sending a satelite to the Moon this year to photograph the surface. The cameras were so good they would/could find everything left behind. Finding the original landing site was one of the flight objectives. That would put an end to the debate. Not sure what's happening with that now in the present economic climate.

  56. bobbyt

    Just read your post about Britain and "their glorious days of rule". Now let me help here and give you the benefit of the doubt, Queen Victoria ruled the country through most of what I think you're trying to say. BUT NAME ME THE PRIME MINISTERS or ACTUAL "RULERS" that ACTUALLY did it. Victoria was a little 5'3" figure head. Spent half her life as a hermit in Balmoral Castle in Scotland after Albert died. Hardly spoke to a living soul (with the exception, perhaps of a certain Mr Brown). Do you actually think she said "ok Generals, I want you to go and take over India, oh and by the way when you've done that, please go to Africa and sort them out as well". Get real.
    America seems to think they have a monopoly on "freedom" and "equality". Absolutely anything but. I give you as evidence - Guantanemo , slavery (reasonably recently), equal rights between blacks/whites (VERY recently), riding rough short over anyone (sorry ANYONE small enough that is - present day).

    That brings me to another point....Why is Obama BLACK? HE IS NOT. He's MIXED RACE. He's as much white as he is black or is it he just looks black. Never hear an American network say white or mixed race President. Again like the Moon shot, too eager for a 1st what ever it is.

  57. bobbyt

    Solomon - I'm afraid your two sites proved nothing. I can look out my window in a couple of hours and see the same thing.

    Squeegee - I'm obliged. I was wondering what had happend with that Moon shot. The little guys took-off, went there, and never told me. Now THAT evidence I have time for. My 50/50 went up to 90/10 until i saw the US published the pictures. Sorry but back to 70/30.

    Again a question - with all this controversy, why did no one produce this evidence until I mentioned it???????????????

  58. Bobbyt

    Squeegee, looked at that site again with a bit more attention. Sorry, not convinced. It's not the orbitor I was talking about. This is American again. The Japanese moon shot is supposed to have brilliant definition cameras on it (as you'd expect being world leaders in that technology) but this NASA website basically trashes them saying their cameras not as good. I'm afraid America trying to confirm what America did is not conclusive. If it was from the Japanese of Indian satelites, which will be monitored (in UK, God how did that happen) then yes I will believe.

    My God, you'd think 41 years later it wouldn't be THAT difficult. Hubble n ol that! Sorry bad example, that was bust at first as well wasn't it.

  59. Squeegee

    Bobbyt, you seemed to have missed the (intended) point of my post "...with all this controversy, why did no one produce this evidence until I mentioned it?..." those pic's (of which I was critical) were originally posted here by Achems Razor, Nov 6th, 2009 at 16:57 - I'm inquiring about the supposedly iminent clarifing shots, months on.

    Who mentioned Famine Queen Victoria? (dont get me started!) who WAS very influential in what was done to Ireland and I'm sure abroad also. My point was, I don't blame the British people whom I know are as good as any, I blame their "leaders" Royalty, PM's, all of them. But their children are still taught only of the "glory" of there country's past today.

  60. Yavanna

    Ummm as a British "child" I can tell you that we are well acquainted with out own versions of national guilt and reminded of it often. Inventors of concentration camps and so forth. Our "glory" is not taught other than to remind us of how "wrong" we were. I am also a believer of the CT that Britain still holds a lot of influence over America. Whilst we seem to be the puppet. America to me seems to be the bully tool used to further designs.

    Bob - One point you made regarding cars being more evolved yet space travel not; is a bit raw. If you look at the design of cars they have changed very little for decades. Just an off remark. Putting a MP3 player in it doesn't float my boat - I want a trans-dimensional egg Goddamit!

    You do however make some excellent points - how Mars is more examined than Mars for instance. With today's technology we should be able to see live pics and video from the Moon and rove about in virtuality. Why this near satellite is such a mystery is beyond me. A moon-base - not a space station is the clear and obvious way forward!

    I read somewhere a while back that the RCC vets all moon(and all Nasa) images. Before I am lampooned let me say that the RCC holds far more influence than any other organisation on earth as well as being the most wealthy. So that wouldn't be impossible. As they have destroyed so much stuff regarding ancient civilisations in pursuit of disguising their "truth" there would be a strong motive.

    I guess this all comes down to WHY. Why haven't we put a base on the moon when all they discuss is the habitability of Mars of eco-spheres etc? Why have we been there so rarely? One CT suggests that the moon is used by ETs. We were warned off. If there are such thing's as aliens where would they set up base? And we send a nuke Moonward to "look" for water......

    None of it adds up. I don't buy this crap that the Russians would have disclosed the hoax because they are and were bought and paid for.

  61. Solomon S. Buyco

    Irish people who doesn't want to pay taxes and killed some in doing so but asked a lot of support when famine sets in upon them... Hmmnnnn... The untouchables, crumbles down.

    Sputnik, the first... Gagarin, the first... 'Laika' the dog, the first... The first woman in space, still belongs to USSR!
    Finally, Armstrong, Hoax? lol

    Maybe, there is no first man in the moon, only the first American! lol

  62. Yavanna

    And I ask again Solomon (asked on previous discussions) - Where on earth were you spawned. Tell us something about yourself I would happily give you my street name, county post code. You are an enigma! Identify your belonging so I may extrapolate your egrarious meanings!!!!

    What the hell do you know about the Irish for instance. One minute you;re Christian the next minute Muslim. You give impressions about living in the USA.

    OK I`ve got it - You are Yoda. You are often drunk and probably dyslexic

  63. Bobbyt

    Sorry, seem that there was crossed threads for a bit there for some reason.

    Seems the documentary's been pulled by You Tube for some reason. Anyone got a theory on why? Conspiracy? LOL.

  64. Solomon S. Buyco

    @Yavanna, There is one thing I am sure of and I am sure that you would agree, I am not you... :)

  65. Achems Razor

    How come I know things about Solomon that others do not know?

    But I will never tell, I don't squeal.

  66. jdblms

    Aha, but they are releasing more images from the LRO. Of course, it's sole purpose isn't simply to take images of the Apollo moon landing sites, but rather to document potential future landing areas and places of interest (not like we'll be going back any time soon though, apparently). In January NASA released some 3D data based on a composite of pictures from the Apollo 14 landing site, complete with extrapolated measurements.

    Nobody has tried to answer any of my earlier questions yet :(

  67. Squeegee

    "Aha, but they are releasing more images from the LRO." - When, whats the hold up? Its first pics were released over 8moths ago, how long does it take to settle in to orbit (or photo shop their photos for release!)

    Also @ Solomon S. Buyco (or any one who speaks his language!?!) "[Irish people who doesn’t want to pay taxes?] and [killed some in doing so but asked a lot of support when famine sets in upon them?!?]… Hmmnnnn… The untouchables [cant even guess what this means], crumbles down." Translation/point please?

    @ Yavanna "If you look at the design of cars they have changed very little for decades. Just an off remark. Putting a MP3 player in it doesn’t float my boat – I want a trans-dimensional egg Goddamit!" -

    Thats like saying computers haven't evolved because they still only compute code from a plastic box on your desk. Remember, Appolo 1 - 11+ were basically the Ford Model T of extraterrestrial manned ships. How can you not see their advance. As with all things, cars are more reliable, safer, faster and fuel efficient/capable of longer journeys. I wont even touch your "dimensional egg" analogy.

  68. Bobbyt

    Squeegee - wish my kids WERE taught only about past "glories" unfortunately in today's very PC UK I'm at a loss to know what they get taught that's useful. Certainly not "glories". 40-50yrs ago I wasn't either. I despair at the basic lack of intelligence in todays youth.

    However does anyone want to divulge where they are from????? It makes it easier to understand points of view, although having said that, it would still be difficult to understand some of those posted above.

    I live in Newcastle, NE England although I'm Scottish and a Mechanical Engineer. My Dad was born in Philadelphia so half my family live in America and the other half in Scotland. The half in Scotland seem to spend most of their time these days in the USA. In fact I think 6 of them are there now.

  69. Yavanna

    Squeegee go develop a sense of humour regarding my egg analogy.

    As for cars they are basically the same as they have been for decades. They are refined yes. Have they "evolved" as computers have? Cr^p comparison. If they had then we would indeed be transporting about in light speed "eggs."

  70. KT

    The mental image of a light speed egg is brilliant. :p

  71. Yavanna

    You would enjoy the sci-fantasy novels by Julian May in that case :)

    Start off with " A many coloured land"

  72. Serenity

    I just want to say how I appreciate your posts 'jdblms', but I find the latest exchanges (of others here) boring and off-topic. Is that because they have run out of any pertinent comments? Silence CAN be golden! No-one has made any comment yet on my considered opinion on the Moon landings - Apollo 11 esp.
    By the way, having spent time reading transcripts of Apollo 11 conversations with Houston ... how could anyone believe that all this detailed, technical, unfolding, interactive communication (boring at times,too!), have been staged? Those guys were engineers, not actors. They report how different things WERE on the Moon, e.g. how craters which appeared close to them as they stood there, were actually much further away than they looked. (Did the clear ether up there cause this effect??) The 'dust' up there flew off to the horizon when disturbed, instead of falling close by, etc.

    Truth is stranger than fiction!

  73. Solomon S. Buyco

    With Bobbyt, Truth is stranger than fiction indeed!!! lol... Proof?...

    +# In fact I think 6 of them are there now.#+

    It is a fact to him of his 'doubts' that there are 6 of them. lol....

  74. Bobbyt

    I think someone beat Nasa to outer space because there are definitely people on here that are already on a different planet.

  75. Solomon S. Buyco

    Do not worry Bobbyt, I am still shooting the moon... lol

  76. Achems Razor

    @ Solomon:

    How is your neighbor, Manny Pacquiao doing, win anymore titles lately?

  77. Solomon S. Buyco

    He is still along the way... to get the fight over and done with against Joshua Clottey for his title defense fight, but, as he is eying a congressional seat after the fight, everything would be as is as for now... let's just go along with time...

  78. Achems Razor

    Google= Alien artifacts on the moon.

    There is stuff on the moon we are not supposed to see.

    Towers, buildings, etc: And someone has stolen our heritage!

    Apparently 698 boxes of original Apollo 11 tapes are missing.

    @ Solomon:
    Good to hear about Manny, hope he wins.

  79. jdblms

    I'd be perfectly happy to show you all the facts you want from the LRO, or any other NASA or privately funded space exploration group. That's not what I'm going to do though.
    Sure, I could research its rate of descent, camera capabilities, provide you with the links to the 3D imagery and measurements from my last post as well as a myriad of other sources to study and further understand how these programs work.
    That's not really going to help though.

    You posted it yourself earlier:
    "I’m not interested enough to study the issue for myself, but hopefully someone will."

    If that is your attitude then it doesn't matter what I post you're not likely to take the time to fully understand it, just skim and post first impressions and half formed conclusions.
    The research has already been done by someone else. It has been made available to everyone. These issues have been studied, dissected and discussed ad infinitum.

    I'm no better myself sometimes to be honest. I admit that there is a possibility this whole moon landing business could have been a hoax. I have studied this and other films, visited their author's websites and perused space related forums discussing the matter. I also admit that based on the dozens of hours I have spent familiarizing myself with this particular period in space exploration I have formed my own opinion on the matter.

    I'm not going to argue with anyone. I've been there and done that many times before and it doesn't lead anywhere (plus, the fact that it's a discussion on the internet only makes matters worse). I've been on both sides of such 'discussions' and learned from these encounters in the real world, face to face with other human beings.

    I present evidences as I see them. I research the topics I post thoroughly and try to know what I'm talking about before bringing a new tidbit forward. Still, I'm no expert by any means. If someone has a well researched and thought out rebuttal, or answer to my previous questions that's fine. I don't deal in unfounded convictions, fleeting fancies or heresay though.

    I'd love to meet anyone here in person and discuss this particular subject. Loosely moderated internet forums don't really lend themselves to fruitful dialogs.

    Anyway, I've got to go find some Armorall to oil the platen on my old Underwood typewriter and better understand an even earlier time period.

  80. Yavanna

    Could I please ask a question of people with better knowledge of such subjects. And truthfully I am not taking the p1ss here.

    Whilst we are considering conspiracy theories. And as this is a conspiracy theory in it's own right...I feel it is appropriate to bring up the RCC. I have heard it said (or read) on more than one occasion that they own satellites, probes etc etc (see the 8 hour lecture by NH for one.....)

    Before you utterly disrespect this CT (I`m not saying I believe it -not saying I don't however......) please consider that the RCC is the most wealthy and influential single organisation in the world and if you believe in CT you should also believe that the RCC is a massive part of any of it. Even if only the dissinfo side.

    I suppose my main question is to those above presenting themselves in authority of this subject:

    1) Where does the full funding come from?
    2) who owns the probes etc etc?
    3) what interests are involved?

  81. Brandon Mounteer

    The use of words throughout this webpage has been an inspiration. Everyone is so smart. (no sarcasm intended). I am thoroughly impressed.
    A sadness goes out from my heart knowing this will be read with skepticism.
    It extends to those who defend the truth.
    I, for one am not one of the 10% who think it's a hoax.
    I truly love intelligence, and have much love for those who repeatedly duke it out with the skeptics.
    May Earth live for many more billions of years and our race grow into something alien of what we now are... Non-debaters.
    Oh yeah, a special shout-out to the moon. p.s.i-love-you

  82. Serenity

    Great to read your post, Brandon. Obviously you have a heart as well as a head. Since we don't know all the facts about anything, we all should exercise some humility towards each other, and try to remain teachable. Not gullible, but willing to revise our opinion if and when clear evidence to the contrary (of our opinion) is presented. That's where the problem lies - in our evaluating mechanism. Our heart shows up in our attitudes. E.g, an almost-stranger gives you a bunch of flowers. Immediately all sorts of thoughts go thru your mind, trying to work out their motive. Soon you'll settle on an explanation that suits your heart, but that explanation (for their action) could be miles away from the truth. Same with the Moon conspiracy issue. Our minds look at all sorts of evidence, but our hearts (our 'bent') determines which attitude we'll take. Some people raise the bar of 'proof' so high that it is impossible to convince them of anything, even if it's true. (THAT is a heart issue.)
    Roll on the spirit of truth !

    By the way Yavanna, I heard recently that some sort of space-tracking facility had been discovered on Mt Graham in AZ. It is apparently owned (and run?) by a branch of the RCC. Interesting!

  83. Klugx

    First of all, sorry for my English if I make mistakes (I'm Spanish).

    I've never known if the Americans made it to the Moon or not. But it's obvious that they had enough reasons to lie to us (they usually do). Of course, that doesn't prove they did. Now I've just watched "A funny thing happened on the way to the Moon", and I'm sure enough everything was a set-up.

    However, I have a couple of questions for the forum mates who support the official version:

    1) How can the wind (moving the flag) be explained in a non-atmosphere environment?

    2) What's the point in performing the windows trick, pretending to be half-way to the Moon, if you REALLY are half way to the Moon?

    3) If it takes 3 days to arrive on the Moon, how could they be orbiting the Earth just hours before? (and they undoubtedly were)

    and 4) Why did the astronauts need a "voice" telling them when to respond to Houston, thus making everyone believe they were actually at the "official" distance from the Earth?

    Please someone tell me how the official version explains this.

    Kindest regards,

  84. Krissto

    Let me ques that a great number of you who believe that humans didn't make it to the moon also believe that Jesus was the son of God and that dinosaurs belong to fairy tails. Not to mention the ridiculous stories written by a guy called Charles Darwin, talking about the evolution of humans and The Origin of Species.... If it wasn't for the space program, you smart guys wouldn't have the opportunity to sit where you sitting now,using the Internet and sharing with the rest of us, your truly unbelievable stories.

  85. WTC7


    I don't believe that Jesus is the son of god, I believe in evolution of species, the dinosaurs were roaming Earth 65 billion years ago... But I don't believe we made it to the Moon... Not yet...

  86. Achems Razor

    Hi, WTC7:

    I guess we cannot agree on everything, but they went to the Moon, I tell ya!! (LOL)


  87. WTC7

    Hi, my friend!

    From you, I take it with a lot of respect. But I have lots of doubts... Anyway, some day we'll know... ;-)

  88. Serenity

    Interesting comments, Krissto. Myself, I believe man did land on the Moon (several times), and yes, Jesus IS the Son of God. Dinosaurs existed from about 6000 years ago, & some small ones still exist, eg the tuatara of New Zealand. (Dinosaur means terrible lizard.)

    Charles Darwin theorized, but never came near proving the spontaneous generation of life from N-O-T-H-I-N-G.

    Sincerely, Serenity.

  89. Sweevo

    There is one way of proving that the USA landed on the moon
    On some of the last missions they carried the lunar rover with them and used it to travel futher out from the lander than was safer in earlier missions
    There is film of them bouncing around in the buggy and kicking up tons of moon dust, the dust just falls back to the surface and dose not "blow" around
    This is because they were in a vacum and the dust had no air currents to carry it
    Now before anyone says "they where in a vacum chamber" we dont have the tech knowhow to make something that big today never mind the 60's

  90. WTC7

    Sure, Sweevo, we couldn't make the vacuum chamber but we certainly had the technology to travel to the Moon

  91. Epicurus

    @serenity, Darwin never set out to prove the spontaneous generation of life from inorganic material. that was never Darwin's intent. His theory concerns itself with the change of species. not the rise of all life.

    no dinosaurs did NOT exist 6000 years ago. yes there are some lizards that lived at the time of the dinosaurs but that was 65 million years ago.

    all radiocarbon dating confirms these numbers as well as the layer of strata all the fossils are found.

    again...WHY would someone like serenity PRETEND they know what they are talking about when almost everything they said is as wrong as claiming California is 2 inches away from New York?

    @WTC7 you seem to think the technology to go to the moon would be more difficult to produce than a vacuum chamber. however again just like most people on this site, you dont know. you dont understand what either would need, yet you act like "if we can make stuff to go to the moon we can do ANYTHING!!!" and this is just false.

    but what really shocks me is that serenity would actually tell people that he believes in things that are so false it hurts my head.

  92. WTC7

    Dear Epicurus,

    I have to say that I'm sick and tired of your imagined omni-knowledge. If you are really so smart, why don't you (at least) google the answer to my comment above and explain WHY the heck it is the way you say it is, instead of making unintelligent remarks.

    "The Space Power Facility (SPF) is a vacuum chamber built by NASA in 1969. It stands 122 feet high and 100 feet in diameter, enclosing a bullet-shaped space. It is the world's largest thermal vacuum chamber. It was originally commissioned for nuclear-electric power studies under vacuum conditions, but was later decommissioned." (decommissioned in 1975, just 3 years after the last mission - Apollo 17).

    Now just shut the f*ck up, cause your lectures have no substance! They are just plain ignorant.

  93. Frosting Emerson

    This is my first post on this site.

    First, I'd like to say I love this site, best place for Doc's on the Web. Keep up the good work Vlakto.

    I am a 37 year old American male, who used to believe 100% for sure, that man walked on the moon. Then at one point in my life, I thought there was enough evidence to prove 100% that man did not walk on the moon. Now-a-days I have mixed feelings about the whole thing.

    My reasons against the moon landings are simple. Why have we not been back to the moon or even close since 1972? We (the USA) have the money and the thinkers to do it. So why havent we? Also I have doubts about humans being able to live through the Van Allen Belts. But by no means am I an expert on radiation.

    My reasons for the moon landings are as simple. How could you keep so many people quiet for so long? And at the time the USSR would of outed us for sure if we were lying. But again, by no means am I an expert on the former USSR.

    I simply do not know if we really have been to the moon for sure. As do none of you. Those of you who think you know for sure one way or the other are very full of yourselves.

    Unless you were there, unless you participated some how in the landings or hoaxes, you my friends do not know for sure.

    Also, I hate to be a grammar and spelling Nazi (God knows Im not perfect in either category), but some of these posts are hard to read. It's like reading something a 5 year old wrote.

  94. zippo.viii

    I've always believed the moon landing to be true and i'm new to this "consiracy theory" about landing on the moon but i do have one question, how did the camera get into place that filmed neil armstrong coming down the ladder as he was saying his famous lines?

  95. Sweevo

    zippo.viii The camara was mounted on the leg of the LEM

  96. superfreak

    the US DID go to the moon. i wasn't sure because of who NASA is and who is behind them (nazis) but i have watched several interviews of richard hoagland and they convinced me. HOWEVER, there were several things that happened both on the moon and during travel which has led to no one going back. what was it? UFO and ETs. watch the interviews on project camelot and be properly informed.

  97. DeathSSghosT

    thanks the website showing the landing site. that is a really cool pic of american power. if people want to know why hubble hasnt taken this shot its cuz the time needed for exposure to see the landing sight would be around a week. and since hubble has better things than trying to prove to you that its there. hubble is constantly looking to the depths of the universe to try to figure out how the universe works to understand how we came to be able to admire and explore the same universe that we all came from.

  98. Sweevo

    Guys the reason the USA never went backt to the moon is very simple
    congress cut NASA's buget by so much the project was abandoned
    and I think there was 2-3 of the misions canceled cos of the cuts
    and if you want the "UFO and ETs" ideas google ATS they got loads of wackos that think that way, I know Im a member ^^
    I does not matter what proof you got they say "Its a fake"
    I even told them the name of the pub where the crop circle makers went the still come up with the UFO s***.

  99. Mark

    @sPUN-MUNKEy regarding the downcast appearance of astronauts at press conference: If they have recently returned from space, they should be experiencing constant nausea, vomiting, light sensitivity, virtigo and disequilibrium. This is so because their senses and have acclimitized to to zero gravity conditions. It is impressive that they could hold it together for the press conference.

  100. Klugx

    Still, no one has answered my questions above.

    I understand that some of you NEED to believe that the American really landed on the Moon. But... to the extent of ignoring all evidence? I repeat my questions:

    1) How can the wind (moving the flag) be explained in a non-atmosphere environment?

    2) What’s the point in performing the windows trick, pretending to be half-way to the Moon, if you REALLY are half way to the Moon?

    3) If it takes 3 days to arrive on the Moon, how could they be orbiting the Earth just hours before? (and they undoubtedly were)

    and 4) Why did the astronauts need a “voice” telling them when to respond to Houston, thus making everyone believe they were actually at the “official” distance from the Earth?

  101. Epicurean_Logic

    5) Why did the U.S. gov't give fake moon rocks to the Dutch.

  102. Randy

    Stop it! This is all internet, conspiracy theory claptrap!

    JFK challenged us to go the moon and we did because Americans could really do things then. Now, we can't do a thing for ourselves without mommies' help!

    I was there when the landing happened. I know it happened. Private Ham-Radio operators all over the world listened in and heard it happen.

    All of your ideas have been refuted.

    Stop it!

  103. DancingSpiderman

    Q: WHY does the funny-looking Government Grants guy wearing the question mark suit show up on late-late-late-night TV infomercials every night?

    A: Because America stopped trying.

  104. Randy

    @DancingSpiderman (what a great name!!)


    Yes... that's perfect. My point exactly.

  105. Randy


    I used to believe all of that stuff, when I was a kid, but then I did real research, and I grew up.

    Plus I actually LIVED through all of this and I have read the Warren Commission detail, and Garrison's work and everything on the JFK assassination and you have the wrong idea.

    Grow up!

  106. Squeegee

    Hahahahaha, Point and Case. Another non-retort devoid of any facts or any semblance of an idea of your own.

    Sorry Vlatko for wasting space with this reply.

    P.S. still no answers Randy, but hey your experience should be enough to sway us all right?

  107. Randy

    Yes, yes, sweetie...

    Unless you are over 45 and have at least one advanced degree, then be quiet, sweetheart...

    Let the adults talk...

  108. WTC7

    I would also like to hear a solid answer specifically to Epicurean_Logic's question. Anybody.....? Would appreciate it.

  109. Randy

    @WTC7 (because you are so respectful)

    As with most conspiracy theories, the answer is in the screw-ups of just regular guys. The world is made up of just regular men and women, just like us, who drink too much or get distracted because of problems at home, etc.

    Things get missed, and when they do on a higher level, it turns into A CONSPIRACY!

    It's all just sloppiness. It's what all people, all over the world, always do. They screw-up and then try to cover their tracks. The cover-up of sloppiness then becomes A CONSPIRACY!

    We don't live in a James Bond film, people!

  110. Randy

    Oh, and all of the other anomolies are explained by people not understanding the way light and sound and radio waves travel through space.

    You know how, when a gunman is very, very far away and he fires his weapon and you see the flash of the report first then hear the sound later?

    You can figure out the rest... when that example is muliplied by hundreds of thousands of miles...

    Oh, and the damn flag was being moved by the astronaut! He was fidgeting with it while the pictures were being taken. Of course it had a rigid top bar...

    And you can still see the footprints on the moon, by the way!

    Holy Batman!

  111. Eff

    Eff quote from his *Big Book of Cosmic Circumstance *

    "If I had known the pointlessness of man wanting to visit a barren and desolate moon... I would have moved it a lot closer." God.

  112. DancingSpiderman

    Effing good point there!

    Kudos to you Eff, and also to The God Of Eff, if there be one
    (I leave the possibility open so as to not have holy jihad waged on my a$$ by someone who took offense by my exclusion)

  113. jazz

    It's Gone, just plain gone like the twin towers.

  114. HKMatt

    I read with interest and a little sadness the back and forth about this subject on here and in other places. I don't blame people for feeling strongly about a subject that is patriotically emotive as well as scientifically. Personally I think it crazy people dispute it but it makes good TV. As someone who works in both science and television I am not surprised people are confused. convincing programs are made for both sides but none are made by actual credible scientists. they may be guests or be interviewed but at the end of the day the program is produced and edited by, no surprise here, producers and editors not scientists.

    Still as just another voice in the crowd I give you this to think about. With the amount of money spent the infrastructure the thousands of people involved, the independent companies and their staff, the international scrutiny, the fact that the Apollo mission is not yet finished and the same laser is being sent everyday to reflect off the equipment left to monitor the distance between the earth and moon, yes they do i have seen it, but the biggest problem I have with all of these is this. Suposedly government planned the fake so all those people know, nasa knows it was a fake, so do both their families and friends through drunken confessions and death bed confessions, so do the media because they have more money than some governments to investigate things, so do the mythbusters, they're in it to, guessing their families and best mates know to I mean Adam Savage never shuts up! I know it was too because i know people working on moon based experiments. So either all these thousands of people me included are the best secret keepers ever, or maybe just maybe they went. I mean really speaking as one myself, have you ever met an American who could keep his fat mouth shut?

  115. Sweevo

    It would be imposable to keep something this big a secret for so long, human nature being what it is
    HKMatt very well said Sir

  116. Squeegee

    .... There are precedents....AGAIN. 3 little letters: J.F.K. of the disappering brain/evidence/proof fame. But 56 witness' (to the grassy knoll) who gave chase and came forth in this case, and were silenced or ignored. Gulf of Tonkin took 40yrs. Swine Flu & WMD's took a lot less, but was just as big/costly a lie.

    Just watched a good "Sky Archaeology" doc (on TDC) about satalite imaging, and you have to forgive people for being amazed that after 40 years the rumours persist. I find that amazing enough to leave the door (if only just a little) ajar.

    Where is the irrefutable evidence?...after 40yrs!
    Moon rocks - fake.
    Grainy photos of "footprints" devoid of lander, rover/tracks etc - inconclusive.
    Putting a metalic target on the moon for laser reading - hardly requires a human to set foot on the moon, mars rover et all.

    AAAARRRGGGHHH, i swore i wouldn't reply to any more opinion based theories (or go back over old ground), but hey, what else would i be doing after a hard days work? :) i mean "have you ever met an American who could keep his fat mouth shut?", well yes, the Bush Regime, JE Hoover, Obama (+ every other pres since Kennnedy) on these preceeding lies remains silent and pushes on with the same agenda. Your enslavement, enjoy.

  117. HKMatt

    Sweevo Thank you Sir, very kind. Squeegee, great name by the way, Thank you too.

    you raise the usual and valid points but dont worry. The Chinese will have people poking around the landing struts soon enough, or america will be torn apart by the worst humilliation internationally and domestically what ever shred of respect there is for govt will be gone forever. Hey it could even topple america from the world stage. Or china will find all the evidence you need. But then maybe as these things always go there will be the next conspiracy, that the US planted that stuff there quickly and secretly before that commies arrive and use the lie to bring them down. Oops maybe i just started one. Because if it is a lie and they find out they will take the US down I guarantee you.

    I am un aware of any swine flu conspiracy. It happened people died, there was a small but real chance of mutation into something else the media were all over it from day one and after SARS I can tell you hong kong had taken action within minutes of Mexico declaring a flu problem. We don't want that again. But maybe I haven't seen that TV program. WMD's is a perfect example of how governments cant lie like that. The brits said it to convince parliament to go to war and in less than a week were found out that the dossier was exaggerated and that came home to roost when as predicted there weren't any. May have been different in America but i wasn't there at the time.

    Anyway like you i wont comment further on this issue. I didn't watch the documentary because i read the comments first and realized there was nothing new. I find it interesting that people want to talk about science but get there info from TV and the intertwat. If you want science dont watch the idiot box.

    If there is a conspiracy out there and i am sure there are loads the best one has to be keeping the people entertained and occupied with this stuff so they don't look the other way.
    Misdirection, a useful tool.

    All the best

  118. Jack Green

    The moon landing was peer reviewed. Soviet Union did not object and you can be damn sure they knew and would have debunked it.

  119. Randy

    Yes, Jack, exactly, thank you...

    This silly debate really must end. So childish.

    We have important work to do! The internet has lied to you, it often does, get over it and move on!

    We landed on the moon!

  120. Jack Green


    1) Newton's laws of motion still work on the moon. It's not a solid plate. It's a flag with a piece of iron in it to keep it up. You can't move a flag without creating waves.
    2) There was no window trick. The video told you that. They put a camera against the window and saw the earth. Amazing, isn't it? If the trick was performed the way this video suggests the texture of the earth would change as the camera shakes. What you're seeing is the earth, with its terminator, in all its glory.
    3) They weren't. The video told you that.
    4) There was some kind of radio noise. If it wasn't suggested to you that it sounds like "talk", you probably wouldn't even have recognized it that way. It's like seeing faces in rocks. Also, you have to remember that media coverage was critical to this entire event, so obviously there would be some instructions throughout the process.
    5) They obviously didn't need them ;-)

  121. Jack Green


    > We landed on the moon!

    Now that you mention it. We should celebrate that.

    July 20. Moonday!

  122. DancingSpiderman

    GREAT idea, "Jack Green" !

    I'm going to celebrate 20JULY by going outside that night, stare at the moon for a few whie muching on some swiss cheeze and sipping on some Moonshine, and then retreating inside to watch Capricorn One , AGAIN, for the uptheenth time... BTW, OJ Simpson played an astronaut in that movie

    "Men on the moon"... BWAAAhahahaha

  123. Sweevo

    I realy think the big problem with this topic is the fact most people dont know enough about physics
    physics:-natural science that involves the study of matter and its motion through spacetime
    The moon is not the earth things that we see here are not the same as they are there
    the "waving flag" ect are old hat and has been explained many time but people dont listen and that is problem 2#
    No one has explaned the "moon buggy" yet and why the dust falls right back down EG does not blow around the place
    So you guys have all the answers then us why ????
    << waiting with baited breath ^^

  124. Achems Razor

    @ Sweevo:

    I myself will also wait with baited breath, but there explanations will not be forthcoming,

    What they know about physics would be at the bottom of their moonshine jar. The only physics they know is if they can walk without falling down. Re: gravity.

  125. Alfi

    just a short comment about Mythbusters :) I like the show... seriously I do.... but not all of what they disprove as myths are actually true... they try their best of course, but sometimes they might have missed some things (i guess?)

    One of the myths they disproved personally happened to me...
    my cigarette lighter once actually did explode inside my car.
    (according to them it would be impossible)....
    left in there (with contact to direct sunlights). and since i live in Malaysia, which can get really2 hot at times (but still cooler than the oven they used :P)....
    truthfully, it did actually brake into pieces.

    of course I didnt see it happen as I was not in the car when it happened. but finding it shattered to pieces was proof enuff. unless of course somebody came into my car.... didnt take the radio, didnt take the spare change etc... an just decided to thash my lighter :D

  126. Eff

    @ Alfi
    I CONFESS! It was I who blew up your cig lighter! And I already have a dozen car radios... keep the change!

    (It's Time once again... to MOON my nosy neighbor)

  127. Alfi

    @ Eff

    I think U didnt take mine because it only had a cassette player :P BTW... I LIKED THAT LIGHTER!!! I demand for a replacement... huhu

  128. DancingSpiderman

    uhhhh, hmmm.
    uhmmm, haruph.

    (clears throat) Our people will be in touch with YOUR people. Vaya Cornholios.

  129. Epicurean_Logic

    Hrrrmmmrrmm (cough cough) Kin i get me some m*onshine with that?

  130. Nu

    Bouncing lasers allegedly off of mirrors left on the moon by Apollo moon landings, and this supposedly "proves" there was a moon landing? NOPE.

    The "mirrors on the moon" mythology is handled quite well in the documentary "Apollo Zero" available for viewing on this very same website. Seems you can bounce lasers off the moon and have them reflect back at you WITHOUT mirrors being on the moon. The evidence cited for this is shown to come straight out of the scientific literature and from reputable scientists.

    Watch "Apollo Zero" and see for yourself.[Moreover you can bounce infrared or lasers off of people who are NOT draped with mirrors and have your $30 camera capture these emissions and auto-focus on them accurately. No "mirrors" on the subject are needed.]

    Finally, perhaps the best circumstantial evidence for NEVER having gone to the moon is the fact that the U.S. hasn't attempted a moon landing in almost 40 years. Now why would that be? It's because with so many various nations having caught up to the U.S. in terms of satellite, telescope, communications and real time de-encryption technology, such a hoax would be near impossible to pull off today.

    Think on it HARD: The U.S. has had space shuttles almost fall apart, and two space shuttles literally blown to pieces along with their crews using the LATEST technology. And these were trips merely into earth's orbit, around the earth a few times and back. Yet we are to believe the U.S. made it to the moon (and back) using what today would be considered junkyard technology (that mechanics and engineers could slap together in 24 hours on the "Junkyard Wars" TV show) and with hand-held calculator level computers!!

    Again, I suggest you think hard about it: The U.S. "landed a man on the moon" almost 40 years ago but there hasn't been even the slightest attempt to land a man on mars in the almost 40 years since then. That's because the technology for manned flight to mars doesn't exist today. Just as technology to get a man to the moon and back couldn't possibly have existed almost FOUR DECADES ago: back when the U.S. air force was flying clunky phantom jets.

  131. Doug

    Don't think I can even make myself watch it. The other stuff I have seen about moon landings being faked is way over the top, but, come across as if they know they know.

  132. Serenity

    @ Doug

    WATCH it if you will, Doug, but with the sound OFF. ! Seriously !
    The woman narrator has a nasty, cynical tone to her voice the whole way through. No way is she objective. She is anti-American all the way, and even seems to blame the U.S. for the Biafran crisis. A nasty piece of work. However the footage of 1960's current events interests me.

  133. ray

    Very engaging documentary *thankyou*
    In all the appollo moon missions, I have only ever seen one single gravity experiment. One would expect Astronaughts to demonstrate gravity quite alot on the moon and in various ways, such as throwing objects/rocks about etc. I think the first thing I would have done on the moon would be to pick up a rock and throw it. Astronaughts quite often have demonstrated zero gravity in their Appolo spacecraft, why not on the moon?
    Sometimes its not what you see but what is missing that tells the story. Very odd.
    Also now with the hubble telescope taking pictures of distant galaxies why have we never seen any clear close up photos of the moon's lunar surface? Certainlyt we are now seeing some very close up shots with the mars explorers but whats happened with the moon photos?

  134. Sweevo

    Hi ray
    well in the 1st place the suits you wear dont let you scratch your ass nevermind toss anything and there was was several demos of the 0 grav efects.
    Hubble is just doing what it was made for "taking pictures of distant galaxies"

    Certainly we are now seeing some very close up shots with the mars explorers but whats happened with the moon photos?

    There is lots of new photos from the new luna mapper probe
    including the moon landings but they are probably fakes if you think that way

  135. ray

    Hi Sweevo
    I'm open minded on this issue of the Apollo missions.
    The fact that there were several moon missions, logicly would point to them being genuine, why fake the landing several times?
    However, the astronauts were able to put a flag up and mount onto moon buggies, and so although they may not of been able to scratch their arses they certainly could have had more fun with gravity up there.
    I've seen the photos of the moon mapper and I can't see any footprint or anything else in those photos. Certainly they are not nearly as clear or close as the mars photos.

  136. Serenity

    Thanks ray for shedding some light on the subject with those vimeos.
    It's pretty clear, isn't it ! (Puns unintended!)

  137. Knat

    Wow, you're right.
    If it hasn't been repeated in over forty years then it must be a hoax.
    Hey, you know what else hasn't been repeated in over forty years? The bombing of a major metropolitan area with a nuclear weapon. So that was probably a hoax too.

    Or is that just a case of VERY BAD LOGIC?

  138. Ian

    thats not a very good argument...

  139. homie12

    I didn't get to see the doc, but did takeover an hour to read the comments. Einstein was an id***. Lisa Mitner discovered fission.T he sun is an electric anode not a fusion engine. It gets its energy from the galaxy.

    Thats why the corona is 2 million degrees. You accelerate a charged particle by putting it in a magnetic field. Thats why the solar wind accelerates. NASA would be doing life in prison or executed for all their lying. Why do they air brush photos? Von Braun said the neutral point was at 43,495 miles from the moon.

    So did Apollo 16? which makes its gravity 45% of earths not 18% Ok , yall got factoids? Cause I have many more I want to discuss. Funny thing on the way to my college degrees, I was never taught all other primates have 48 chromosome pairs, but humans 46. Oh and why haven't we been told more about the Sumerians than they popped out of the wilderness and set up civilization?

    Lastly, when someone threatens to kill your whole family, you will keep your mouth shut. Oh there were 4 astronauts burned up in that test.

  140. Mark

    Primates have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46, but we have found the chromosomes that have merged.

    Exons, which are usually found on the ends of chromosomes (and are structurally different than anything else)were found in the 'middle' of two chromosomes, strongly indicating that at sometime in history, two chromosomes merged in humans to give the 46 present today.

  141. TARIQUE

    This has been proven that nasa has landed on the moon by a simple experiment. A laser was bounced off the mirrors placed on the lunar surface and the the distance to the moon was calculated to a fraction of a centimeter. Recent measurements have shown us that the moon is receding at 1" to 2" per year from us which will be a cause for concern in a few million years.

  142. Serenity

    @ David.

    Thanks for sharing that recent LRO photo with us.

  143. Achems Razor

    I agree, great link @David.

    Let the nay-sayers choke on that one! Have bookmarked the site.

  144. homie12

    multi disciplined engineer? what a curious discription. whats that qualify them to do or be?

  145. miguel felipe

    Iwonder were the kgb and the soviet union science academy a bunch of ignorants

  146. Achems Razor

    Watch 47 minute video...

    Google..."the real story of apollo 11-stranger than fiction"

  147. miguel angel

    september 1968 zond 5 flyby around the moon and come back to earth carrying 2 russian turtles, flies and other bugs everybody come back to earth alive

  148. letsgetsteve

    this doc is terrible.

  149. pcarr92153

    Serenity, the nastiness you hear in the narrators voice is probably not vindictive its just that being from the UK WE generally sound all our letters correctly and sound words as they are spelt :)

  150. Andrew Mead

    I hear Russians/Soviets claim they invented this and that-contrary to American claims but I've never heard the Soviets claim the US did not land men on the moon in the late 60's and 70's. I doubt the Soviets could be fooled about the subject because they were aware of all the challenges involved.
    The technology the US had to develop to do this was very costly and widely engaged but the benefits of creating that technology remain with us to this day. It's very real and it works.

    The proof offered that the US created a myth about the Apollo program is not convincing.

    Never-the-less, I maintain an open mind about the subject because it's extremely unusual and there was a powerful motive for one nation to be the first to land on the moon.

    Why have manned flights to the moon surface stopped? The cost and risk of doing it wasn't justified. Without any apparent life, the moon is a dust covered, pock-marked rock without an atmosphere and very little gravity.

  151. ashbreaksstuff

    it won't let me watch it =(

  152. »»»Pilipino«««

    how about!!! you all will join my cause including the funds,technology,etc., and in the end we all have the answer. coz 2 heads is better than one. hehehehe

  153. PSA

    Funny thing is documentary is all directed, produced and written by single man, Bart Sibrel. Just google him.

  154. ashbreaksstuff

    it still won't let me watch.

  155. Dan Bartz

    Hey Freedom Warrrior

    The three men burned up because the americans couldn't even build a rocket safe enough to fly in, never mind make it to the moon. How can people continually fall for and believe the same type and style of propoganda thet Hitler started with an actual minister of propoganda (Goebells) only perfected by the United States. Use media to brainwash the masses into conformity.

    The "Make our people beleive we are the strongest, smartest and most advanced people on the planet while all others are inferior by means of mass delusional brainwashing" keeps all the nations confused, dumb and hating each other, when really, there is no reason for hatred or war. Take a quote from the Bible,...

    "But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. 6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other. 8 So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel - because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth."

    This is the first written form of dumbing down the masses for political/power control, and oh how perfect the system works now, all you retards beleive man went to the moon, and all the other crap the governments and secret organizations tell you.

  156. darren

    if the yanks didnt land on the moon the russians would have exposed them,why would every other nation in the developed world just go along with it

  157. awful-truth

    best evidence that man landed on the moon. 72 year old Edwin "buzz" Aldrin punching a man in the head for calling him a fruad. That is a normal reaction for someone who strapped 5 million pounds of high explosive to his rear end and walking on the moon.

  158. Tim Osman

    AMAZING documentary - read all the comments, still no probable debunking going on.....i'll check back later to see if anything credible pops up

  159. James

    Addressing Squeegee and his, or her link regarding the Dutch moon rock.
    Forgive me if this has already been pointed out but I quickly lost interest in reading through the comments posted about this overly repetitive argument for a landing hoax.
    The very link you posted to the BBC story does not say that the rock was presented personally to the Queen of the Netherlands by Neil Armstrong. The rock was given to the Prime Minister by the Ambassador of the United States as a personal keepsake. The Queen was presented with an official copy of the placard left on the moon by the astronauts. There was no ceremony or official status attached to the rock gift which is why it remained among the Prime Minister's personal belongings until donated to the museum after his death.
    I can think of a lot of ways where the original gift might have been exchanged, or lost and replaced with something similar in size and colour. But my favourite explanation is that maybe it was a misunderstood joke of the U.S. Ambassador to give the Dutch Prime Minister a "wooden" moon rock! The explanation notwithstanding, it is hardly evidence that the Apollo missions were faked. What I find most revealing is the extrapolation Sqeegee put in the comment when the link did not even support the claim of a "personally" exchanged gift between Neil Armstrong and the Queen!! Squeegee's comment is a perfect example of the way hoaxers reinterprete the information they read to support their own conclusions. Truth, like the facts of the missions, never change! Only the hoaxers have to keep moving their story around to support the ever changing fiction of their claims!

  160. kuti

    Thing that buzzels me is that when the moon landings where conspiracy than why didn't the Russians ever suggest it...i mean they were watching every step of it...

  161. Tellz

    I dont believe people are still doubting the moon landings...of course we got to the moon.Without the moon landings we could never have gained the data needed to allow us to build the ships that got us to Pandora..next you will all be telling me that was a lie too :)

  162. antogonist

    @ray its very convincing what is the source of this video, could be faked lol, dirty american scum will do anything to look good hahaha

  163. Bryan

    After reading just about only a mere fraction of all these posts, I am not ready to vomit and pull the trigger of the revolver pointed at my temple. Thank you all for squabbling the spirit of the Lord out of me. my soul hurts. :(

  164. Achems Razor


    Your welcome, personally I think your spirit of the lord is not welcome here. You do not even make sense?? read your post again!

    Show where it says that this doc. has anything to do with your lord?

    Religee's everywhere! argh!

  165. WTC7

    @ Brian,

    Why don't you just pull the trigger and save both us and yourself from misery... (and for the sake of those who find you be a good christian to the end and pull it before you puke)

  166. kwiyjibo

    Vlatko, are you kidding? You are referencing the Wikipedia?? Unbelievable! Anyone can edit info on Wikipedia.

  167. Rob

    @AchemsRazor. Ask one question to all free thinking people and be objective. Since the mid 1970's we have sent over 20 probes to mars and not one single mission had a man a board.
    Common sense would force us to simply ask why? In 2005 the space shuttle went to a height of 700 miles above the earth and CNN reported that the crew had trouble with there vision.
    The moon is 240,000 miles from earth. Now let us talk fuel.
    For a round trip to the moon and back it would take a craft the size of an ocean liner just to carry the fuel, 480,000
    miles round trip! I also take issue with achems razor and his desire to be the religee sheriff on so many sites. Sir my guess is you're in you're late 40's or early 50's and suffer from serious self esteem issues. Best wishes to all

  168. Achems Razor


    I already answered your/these same questions on "The truth behind the moon landing" doc. here on TDF

    I think you should get some schooling, some book learning there kid.
    Learn something before you attack,

    What? are you a religee also?? Me a religee sheriff? you betcha

  169. Doug

    @Rob, you are pretty funny. You mention the amount of fuel needed to go to the moon as an issue, but, you gladly accept we send probes to Mars. The closest we have been to Mars in recent history was in 2003, when we were 34,000,000 miles apart. How many ocean liners of fuel did that take? Someone doesn't have their thinking cap on.

  170. Rob

    Sir a far more brilliant man that you and I said that we would need a craft the size of a ocean liner to carry the fuel. His name was Werner Von Braun, He made this comment
    in the mid 60's.I simply quoted Werner Von Braun. Why the hell would one of the most brilliant men in history make such a comment? He went so far as to say we'd have to go to the moon in stages. As for the 34,000,000 miles in approx to mars, what the hell are you talking about Doug? We've put rovers on martian soil. If it's so easy to put man on the moon in 69, why have we not sent them to mars? Thank you for the reply Brother. Best wishes

  171. Rob

    @ ACHEMS RAZOR. My point went right over your head. No I'm not a religee. When you decide to be the religee sheriff,
    Your behavior is just as crazy as the bible thumping zealots.
    How in hell could a religee bother you or offend you just by
    typing a few words? You give them power when you behave that way. No hard feelings Brother. Best wishes

  172. Achems Razor


    You are the one that is bent all out of shape with this religee thing pilgrim, not I. Really couldn't care less.

    For your info all the moon landings "were" done in stages. The hardest part because of the biggest payload was escaping Earth gravity, then was a almost a cakewalk.

    "So easy to put man on Mars" three to four days in a capsule is far different than 6 months to Mars and who knows how long on the planet, and 6 months back, come on think!!

    Don't worry, I have no hard feelings, You have learn sometime.

  173. Achems Razor


    Have noticed you are on most of the moon docs. with your same questions.

    Why are you so adamant on trying to discredit the Moon landings, with your hostile unproven suppositions?

  174. Rob

    @ACHEMS RAZOR: Thank you ol man. I'm trying really hard to learn. I'm still so puzzled at what Werner Von Braun said about the craft having to be the size of an ocean liner to carry the fuel for a round trip. As for the stages, Von Braun said Years not days. Most people are out to pasture grazing. They'll buy anything that is being sold. I noticed that you have not commented about Von Braun and his comments.
    So who is a novice like me to believe, The Mainstream media or Von Braun who is considered the Godfather of Nasa?
    Mmmmm it's a tough choice razor man but I'll go with the
    director of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center 1960-1972,A
    man named Werner Von Braun. Either way It's getting boring to
    keep going jab for jab. Happy Holidays to all My Brothers
    and Sisters here in the United States!

  175. Rob

    I'm not hostile. Infact I'm done with the moon debate.

  176. Achems Razor

    If anybody wants to know more, check my link called "17 steps to the Moon and Back"..."In the shadow of the moon" doc. here on TDF...blog 16

  177. awful-truth

    You know, I have read many of the blogs, and I will sum it up for everyone. If you want proof, we have to go back to get it. The reason they haven't is because they can't. They gave up the technology of the Saturn 5 in favor of the shuttle program. It would take them just as long to do it again today, in fact longer, because no one would ever take the chances they did originally. I am of the belief that most of the nay sayers are relatively young, and because we haven't went to the moon in 39 years, I understand the inherent scepticism. Yes, we have an orbiter around the moon that has taken pictures of the LEM bases. The Russians have landed unmanned probes, and taken film of the landers themselves which is why they don't suggest the U.S lied. If however you really want to talk conspiracy, JFK and 9 11 are good places to start, because the Zapruder film shows Kennedy getting shot from the front, not the back. As far as 9 11 goes the most important question is never asked. Why would Donald Rumsfeld tell the American public the day before 9 11 that the pentagon had misplaced 2.3 trillion dollars that they can't account for. Considering no mainstream media has brought it up since. It would seem like the perfect time to announce it, knowing that the public would be so galvanized over what happened, they could easily be distracted from the U.S need for oil; Iraq.

  178. Adam

    If we actually went to the moon it would be easier and less costly each additional time. This holds true for every other technology in existence. A 40$ computer today does more than a multi-million dollar computer from the fifties and in 1/1000th of the space. Why doesn't this line of reasoning work with the moon missions? It defies logic if you ask me.

  179. azilda

    Some will never believe that their loved ones could lie to such a degree...we see it in families, we see it in couples, we see in the best friendship, we even see it in our children and we see it here...and still some refuse to accept the fact that they were simply and utterly betrayed.
    Perhaps because most humans refuse to see it in themself, no matter how small the lie was.

  180. azilda

    Great doc...thanks.

  181. VonSmallhousen

    Nice Doc, rise lot of question.

    tnx for sharing.

  182. Alex

    It can easily be proven. Just point the Hubble telescope at the moon. If there were men on the moon, it will be evident.

  183. Achems Razor


    It seems that no matter how many times it has been said, will say it again, the Hubble telescope due to resolution, cannot pick up any evidence of the moon landings.

  184. azilda

    @Achems Razor...not to say that you are wrong, because frankly i know little about the power of the Hubble telescope but please answer my question: if the millions living on earth can go to something as simple and available like Google Earth and pinpoint a house why can't we go to the moon and pin point a large area? I am not sarcastic...i am truly trying to find out.

  185. Jesus in another guise

    I thought it was common knowledge that the close up images on google earth are not from a satellite but are aerial photographs, im shocked, has no one seen the photos of the footprints which is going around, I know a robot could have left them or something but there is also a vid of them going through van allen belt, I just think there is too much evidence in favour that they must have went.

  186. ff1

    the U.S found out early that there is no money to be made returning to the moon. But there is a lot of money to be made in starting wars. Ask yourself this. what gives you more power and money? (a)Weapons or (b) lunar lander?.

  187. MarkSalerno

    This lady doesn't know what she's talking about - Neil has been in heaps of documentaries, detailing everything about the landing - just watch 'when we left earth' - i hate this ho....

  188. from_the_bleachers

    IN MY OPINION, we never went to the moon in the 60's.. here are just a few reasons:1- not enough fuel to get there and back2- no computing power, a computer the size of a car had the computing power of a modern day calculator3- not enough room in landing module for 2 fully suited men, computing systems, heating and cooling systems, fuel and engines4- the suits used by the astronauts weren't even radiation proof (hard to pierce through the allen radiation belt upon leaving earth without radiation protection)5- ww2 fighter pilots in the pacific had communications problems at times, and these guys with 1960's technology could maintain uninterrupted comms 200,000 + away? impossible6- we are supposed to believe that on the 1st attempt EVER to get men to the moon we succeeded. Impossible7- the soviets had already put a satellite and a man in orbit, we needed to prove to them we were beyond their technology, so we faked it.8- the landing gear of the lunar module never got a spec of dust during landing? impossible9- no blast crater under the lunar module after touching down on the moon. impossible10- the pictures allegedly taken on the moon look perfect, too perfect, apparently unfiltered radiation doesn't do anything to the colors or the filmthose are just a few reasons.. think about it. If we went, IF, it wasn't in the 60's, that was just propaganda to hold off the russians. And IF we actually landed on the moon in future mission, I don't think the government actually told the public, they were covert ops.

  189. over the edge

    ok lets see
    1 show me the #'s you have for fuel required
    2 the computers ran navigation only not much power needed (the modern shuttle has a 500kb cpu less than a cell phone)
    3 show me facts to prove that
    4 radiation issue explained to death on this thread
    5 what ww2 fighter pilots went through is irrelevant
    6 yes
    7 the soviets also had an interest in showing it was fake so why did they confirm it
    8 the landing gear was clean because in a vacuum the dust would have continued outward away from module
    9 jaxa (japans space agency) sent selene recently and detected halo from landing
    10 we see the pictures nasa released there could have been many not released due to poor quality

    ok i answered yours now for mine
    1 why did/does Japan /Australia/Canada and Russia confirm it
    2 how did nasa keep 100's of thousands involved completely quiet
    3 why did they fake going back multiple times and compound the odds of a leak when once was enough

  190. Simon

    doesnt work?

  191. Mario Silverio

    For all of you that dont believe in the landings, they placed an object in the moon that can return a laser bean to earth... now the difficult part, try to find by your self what object is that and how you can interact with it.

  192. Simon

    its a laser to a mirror, and you interact with it at an observatory somewhere, i think hawaii maybe not 100% certain... does this documentary work for you? i cant see it.. i want to see what the argument is for their claims of it being faked

  193. Epicurean_Logic

    I also have a problem with how the mirrors were placed on the moon. If anyone can give a convincing answer there is a crate of beer on me coming your way.

    The problem: To place a mirror on the moon so that a laser fired at it from the Earth will reflect back to the exact point at which it was fired from.

    The facts:

    1. The human hand cannot place objects to within an angle accuracy of 2 degree's

    2. The distance from moon to earth is on average 238'857 miles

    3. Basic Trigonometry tells us that placing the mirror with an angle error of 0.01 degrees creates a circle of radius 2388 miles on Earth! Or reformulated. A radius circle error on Earth of 100 metres would mean that the mirror on the moon would have to be placed to within an angle accuracy of 0.00000001 degree's.

    How was the mirror placed to such a level of accuracy?

  194. over the edge

    this answer is definitely not worth a case of beer but the mirrors are designed to reflect light hitting it back on the exact path. look up "Retroreflector"

  195. Epicurean_Logic

    Thanks for the link. I will study the details and report back on my findings. I pretty much knew that there was no way that the human hand could have placed the mirrors to that degree of accuracy.

  196. Epicurean_Logic

    A reflector reflects light back at an opposite angle to the entry angle. A retroreflector reflects light back on the exact path regardless of the angle of incidence.

    Two triangular prisms next to each other like a submarine corner mirror as opposed to a flat mirror.

    Got it. Simple really... The beers are on me when you are next in town.

  197. over the edge

    you are welcome i am glad i could help
    p.s hope it's Canadian beer ha ha

  198. Marko Cebokli

    These were retroreflectors, no need for precise aiming.
    The Russians put a couple of these on the Moon too, on their Lunohods.

  199. Gary V

    I know. God did it. That is usual BS answer that people come up with when they can't find any logical answer.

  200. Nakor420

    Just another America bashing video.

  201. GlialFlatulence

    Hello, and welcome to Movie Phone! You have selected 'A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon' starring conspiracy theorist x, acid tripping college dropout, and uneducated champion of the cause. Press 1 to earn rewards from AOL; press 2 to receive beauty secrets from Heidi Klum; press 3 to vote that you care if the government inflamed claims about their accomplishments in regard to the space race to one-up the commies.

  202. spikebat

    I think fuel efficiency/technology may have improved from the 60's to 2003.......Where's that thinking cap!

  203. John

    You don't think a lunar base would be better than a space station?

  204. 0zyxcba1

    @ John

    I want a space station like they had in 2001, A Space Odyssey, AND a moon station!


  205. Tessa Bell

    1.Uh. because japan, australia, canada and russia had a lot more to gain, in funding and support, by showing it was possible than showing it was not.

    2. They've done it before, they'll do it again. Area 51? Invasion of L.A.? Hanger 18?

    3. He said they could have gone there since, but that the original was a fake, which there is MORE than enough evidence backing.

    Steven Spielberg was hired to direct and produce the moon landing video?

    AHAHAHA totally legit.

  206. over the edge

    @Tessa Bell
    1 the Russian moon program was shut down afterwards what funding did the landing get them?
    2 that fact that something might have happened before is not proof of it happening again
    3 he said "we never went to the moon in the 60's" there were two landings in the 60's and two lunar orbits in the 60"s and what evidence do you speak of?

  207. Yannick Dierens

    As already mentioned a billion times here: there is no point in going back now. It's not just about the money. We would learn very little about a new trip to the moon. And it's still not a walk in the park you know.

  208. dadc

    If any of you non-believers of the Moon Landings, Id like to invite you to west Texas, where the University of Texas has the last operational base of the Apollo missions. On the first, and I believe 2nd Landings Astronauts placed Mirrors at different locations, specified by Astrophysicists that wanted to study, in depth, a swinging motion noted by observation from ground based telescopes. Well, every 3/4 or more moon phase they reflect lasers off the mirrors, measuring the return signal, in order to track the the movements precisely, and they have, ever since Apollo 11.

    As they say again and again, "If anyone questions the landings, we are still here, come and see". You can actually see the bounce, it is rather amazing. Also note that hundreds of home radio operators were following their transmissions that were going on throughout the mission, not just televised coverage.

    Another thing, the USSR wanted nothing more than a failure, and I assure you, they were able to track orbiting bodies, just as we were and are. Had there been a hint of anything untoward, they would have been all over it faster than you can say Francis Gary Powers. That's all ancillary, really....just Call the University of Texas, they have all the info any doubter will need...unless they are so dug in on denial, that plain facts fly through them like neutrinos.

  209. dadc

    Did you watch Apollo 13, if nothing else? After a few missions, they couldn't get a television audience, or public interest in the Apollo Missions, so funding for Moon Landings was slashed, and they began the Shuttle which would reach obsolescence, as it was pulled to the launch pad for it's first launch. They pulled an amazing trick by converting nearly the entire Saturn V Rocket body into an orbiting space station, Skylab. It had its bumps, but produced a ton of great science while it was in orbit.
    Someone had made a miscalculation as to when it would lose the necessary speed to continue falling around the Earth nearing the end of its service...it wasn't made to take on the solar winds forever...once the degradation of orbit was detected, they influenced it to the best degree they could, not knowing precisely the angle of deflection, and were pretty successful, keeping most in the ocean, but many artifacts were collected throughout the Outback in Australia, the first person that produced a verifiable piece of Skylab was awarded one millllllion dollars if memory serves.

    Lack of public interest & support = No funding, thus, No more Apollo after 1972.

  210. Loudon Cito

    The HAMs tracking transmissions don't mean a thing? Have you watched this documentary, or are you just such an ardent fan of UT?

  211. Achems_Razor

    "NEW" pictures from only 13 miles up from the Moon, showing Apollo 12, 14, and 17 landing site. Plus photo of the boot tracks left behind in 1972.

    From Reuters news service.

    Alright, who owes me money? pay up!!

  212. Yuri Soud

    There seems to be a ton of info backing this up. The window seen is hilarious!

  213. adler556

    So you mean that people who believe the moon landing was a hoax, are just going to rely on pictures from the same people that is supposed to already have fooled them once before?

    Have you heard about photo shop? Isaw a picture of a man eating the great pyramide of Ghiza too....does that make it true? I heard the pyramide is still there.

    no one is paying no one before enough evidence are shown. i'm not convinced by any side. However it is most unlikely any man ever set his foot on the moon.

  214. Achems_Razor


    The last of the die-hards, you owe me money, pay up!

    You better let Reuters news service know that they have photo shop? pictures on hand about the manned moon landings, go ahead I dare you!

  215. adler556

    uuhh..... EPIC FAIL!

    Pay up!

  216. mr_martinoyo

    The American problemsolver for the state, and wisleblower Pete Peterson tells in a documentary made by project camelot, that he has knowlage about different sugestions of colaborations betwen the russians and the americans, regarding the moon "race". There was not a frantic race. it was all planned an spoken about. Shut up now you fools who belive americans didnt go to the moon. Buzz aldrin puncked this guy in the face when he proclaimed he wasnt on the trip. A small studio version or pictures of some questionable images of faking the voyage should be dismissed as not a reliable evedence, bacause remakes are bound to be done on the matter.

  217. miguel_gomez

    Uh... There's a mirror on the moon, one that reflects a laser signal from the Earth to measure the distance from the planet to the moon. In fact, the device is visible with enough clarity if you look hard enough through a high-powered telescope. Ever wonder who put it there? :P

  218. Larry Brewer

    the entire mission was a "gravity experiment". If there had still been a lot to learn about gravity at that point in space exploration they would have never made.

  219. Larry Brewer

    Problem with space Shuttles is that they were meant to be reusable.
    That meant solid rocket boosters, detachable hydrogen fuel tanks and wings. Things that failed on shuttles and weren't used in the Apollo program.

  220. Tko Santrac

    No man has ever walked on moon, so shut your stupid mouth!

  221. Ahsan Khan

    yeh thats it by "mistake" NASA gave these guys unedited tape...so they did everything possible to cover this but at the end they made a mistake...who is bull******** now?

  222. sws420

    I have heardthis before. I remember it was suppose to measure the moon moving away from Earth, which is probably BS.

  223. sws420

    I have heardthis before. I remember it was suppose to measure the moon moving away from Earth, which is probably BS.

  224. miguel_gomez

    I can get a bounce from it, successfully. It takes a few seconds to travel, which is about the same time it takes light to travel to the moon and back.

  225. Virakotxa

    The same guy who drives the rover in Mars and flies inside the Voyager to the far reaches of our Solar System? Just guessing...

  226. Winston Smith

    'We don't live in a James Bond film, people! '

    really? Yet we were told that we were supposedly attacked on 9-11 by a group of 19 suicidal terrorists belonging to an evil mastermind living in an elaborate cave fortress in the mountains of Afghanistan who managed to evade the most expensive and sophisticated military on the planet, despite the having flown around the country for 60-90 minutes, fly one plane into the pentagon in the most heavily defended airspace in the world..then able to topple 3 skyscrapers that fell through themselves or were violently blown up at nearly freefall speed by flying planes into only two of them. -Talk about james bond.

    You're the one living in a fantasy world. Go to architects and engineers for 911 truth and stop making such grossly uninformed comments.

  227. Me.

    how tedious.
    i heard a lecture by terrence mckenna some time ago that profoundly affected me, and after having watched this dross, a quote from that lecture came to mind. i lhad to look it up and i share it with you freely, as it exemplifies what crap like this makes me feel:
    "A balkanization of epistemology is taking place. There is no longer a commonality of understanding. For some people quantum physics provides the answers. Their next door neighbor may look to the channeling of archangels with equal fervor.
    It is accompanied by a related phenomenon which is technology, or the historical momentum of things, is creating such a bewildering social milieu that the monkey mind cannot find a simple story, a simple creation myth or redemption myth to lay over the crazy contradictory patchwork of profane techno-consumerist post-McLuhanist electronic pre-apocalyptic existence.
    Into that dimension of anxiety created by this inability to parse reality rushes a bewildering variety of squirrelly notions, epistemological cartoons if you will. Conspiracy theory, in my humble opinion, is a kind of epistemological cartoon about reality. Isn't it so simple to believe that things are run by the greys, and that all we have to do is trade sufficient fetal tissue to them and then we can solve our technological problems, or isn't it comforting to believe that the Jews are behind everything, or the Communist Party, or the Catholic Church, or the Masons. Well, these are epistemological cartoons, it is kindergarten in the art of amateur historiography.
    I believe that the truth of the matter is far more terrifying, that the real truth that dare not speak itself is that no one is in control, absolutely no one. This stuff is ruled by the equations of dynamics and chaos. There may be entities seeking control, but to seek control is to take enormous aggravation upon yourself. It's like trying to control a dream."
    then again: maybe i have simply done so much acid that i believe in kennedy's dream, and it's significance to our species. as far as i am concerned, the real question to ask, the real conspiracy meme is why, 40 years after humanity last set foot there, have we truly not returned?

  228. jbone32

    to Me. your obvious purpose for posting your comment was to make yourself look smart but using all those big words make you look desperate...im sure you regard yourself as inteligent but for most people you come off as ignorant..im sure you use the word essentially in every sentence dont you?

  229. Another21stCenturySlave

    very nicely put. the issue i got is that the twin towers were never blown up & osama bin laden does not live in a cave but, in a more convenient palace on the planet nebula...heard it here first!

  230. Rainmaker

    The best proof that men never went to the Moon is that no one can go there NOW. What happened - the break-through successful Apollo technology of space travel suddenly deteriorated? NASA budget problems are total BS - NASA's budget never really shrinked, besides why closing such a revolutionary technology and abandoning this program? Just think about this for a moment.

    Years after Apollo, the advanced U.S. shuttle program improved and perfected through many years was recognized to be inferior and shut down. Now, the United States can only go into space through Russian Soyuz rockets.

    FORTY (40) years ago the U.S. had the technology of launching huge Apollo spacecrafts with enormous amount of fuel into space, fly 238'857 miles (384403 km) to the Moon, undock the lunar moduel with two persons on board, land it on the Moon, walk around, take off the Moon surface (!), reconnect with the main module orbiting the Moon (!), and then fly 238'857 miles (384403 km) back to Earth, successfully land here. Evrything done at first attempt, uncountless things that could go never did. Repeated seveal times, each time wit hsuccess. Van Allen Radiation Belts never did any harm to the astronauts.

    And all this amazing technology created in a rush within several months is now just in description and some fuzzy-looking photos. Come on, really!? How about we completely stop DVD and Blu-ray technologies, just for the heck of it, go back to VHS and start developing something new from scratch? Does this make sense to you? Do the "Apollo missions to the Moon" make sense to you as well?

  231. Rainmaker

    Reflectors, mirrors, etc. on the Moon are no proof that men put them there - the Soviets put reflectors and other objects by Lunokhod there as well.

    An interesting documentary, but it's a bit emotional and less technical; "Apollo Zero" makes more sense to me.

  232. Nicolas Tsisios

    Absolutely agree! No need to check all these technical stuff which we can be tricked off from pretending experts (eg flag waving, no dust on feet of moon lander etc).

    And another thing which makes things look pretty sketchy is when NASA couple of years ago when they were looking into their archives to digitise the APOLLO 11 missions said they lost them>;<?! What??? Are they serious? They lost the original footage! And their response on their website was also so funny! NASA was behaving like a baby who stole something and got caught:-)

  233. over the edge

    first "The best proof that men never went to the Moon is that no one can go there NOW" can you prove this? don't use "we haven't" as we "can't". the appolo technology didn't deteriorate the focus was shifted to near earth missions and achieved many things. you then state "shuttle program improved and perfected through many years was recognized to be inferior and shut down." the shuttle had a planned lifespan of 15 years which it exceeded. the cost of new shuttles (they do need replacement) amid possible changes in direction coupled with the loss in interest by the public all contributed to the decision to end the program. "Evrything done at first attempt, uncountless things that could go never did. Repeated seveal times, each time wit hsuccess." really? there were many accidents and failures during testing, experienced delays and included deaths. next "And all this amazing technology created in a rush within several months is now just in description and some fuzzy-looking photos" . this technology was developed over decades and the evidence includes a lot more than " some fuzzy-looking photos". how about samples brought back,the astronauts themselves, the countless working on the missions,the confirmation by other nations (recently selene), and so on. also "start developing something new from scratch? Does this make sense to you? " who said they are starting from scratch? please provide proof of this? finally i skipped over the Van Allen statement on purpose. here is why. you have in one short sentence let all of us know a lot about you. one that you don't know anything about the Van Allen Belt. two you can't even be bothered with applying the short time needed to find out why that statement is absurd. three you are guilty of confirmation bias. and finally you are relying on sites as ignorant as yourself as this question has been answered here and well known among anybody with the education and intelligence to study the subject and make an informed decision.

  234. DanielA

    Most of the claims in this documentary were debunked in a video created for the Mythbusters television show. There are also at least 2 videos of interviews with Neil Armstrong that can be found on the Internet, so that clearly disproves the claim in this documentary that "Neil Armstrong has never given an on-camera interview".

  235. Rainmaker

    @ over the edge
    What you wrote is actually funny (except of your abusive tone and for some reason desperately making it personal). Lets see:

    1. "... the focus was shifted to near earth missions and achieved many things" - hmm, such as the abandoned shuttle program?! Putting satellites on the orbit is no unique achievement, a number of nations is doing this, even the Chinese. These days, the U.S. cannot even launch men to the Low Earth orbit. The International Space Station is a mutual project of several nations, and even the ISS is based on Russian MIR technologies.

    2. What you wrote about the shuttle program does not make any sense, and I'm not sure if you really thought what you have written. Do such technologies as DVD, Blu-Ray, TV and radio broadcast, Internet, etc. any "lifespan"?! Some outdated technology is ALWAYS replaced ONLY if there is a new substitution, which is nothing at this moment.

    3. "... this technology was developed over decades " - Let me get this straight: the landing on Moon in 1969 was developed and engineered over decades?!

    4. If someone shows me 40-year old pictures of some dish that he/she allegedly cooked several times 40 years ago, NEVER cooked ever since, claims to remember well the recipe, at the same time cooking about the same as everyone else and bragging a lot about those "40 -year old dishes", I'd say that this person is full of it.

    5. The only astronauts death was during the pre-flight test at a launch pad in Florida back in 1967, the same way other American and Soviet pilots died in several other missions/tests. Nothing really went wrong starting from Apollo 11, despite of the incredible complexity of the project and no actual tests performed prior to it.

    6. "samples brought back"? It's very easy to collect asteroids fallen onto Earth, so those "samples" don't prove anything. Astronauts are saying they've been on the Moon, so I have to take their word for faith? What else would they say?! "The countless working on the mission" - first of all, no one in the United States or Soviet Union involved in space programs knew everything what was going on (both back then and now), and only few people had restricted access to the actual information. You NEVER give full access to anyone neither in any governmental nor in any commercial project (unless you don't care about leakage, which is not the case), you always give separate individual tasks to everyone involved, and maintain full control of the project. Take any IT company - they have "coders" working on small tasks, and no one has access to everything except several key person.

    7. About Van Allen Belt: I don't see how relying on the basic knowledge available to the modern science on Van Allen radiation belt and other solar/cosmic rays shows my "ignorance".

    8. Calling people names, and generally going to a personal level trying to offend someone instead of focusing on a topic always shows a lack of either education, intelligence or a low psychological or chronological age. Also, using Internet's anonymity ito abuse others is often a sign of cowardness. A piece of advice for the future: behave on Internet the same way you'd behave in real life, and never write anything abusive to anyone over Internet, because it is simply lame and doesn't show you as an intelligent person.

  236. Rainmaker

    Why did Moon travel suddenly end? Why haven't we returned in the last 40 years? Did they have better technology in the 60's than they do today? Or were people naive enough back then to buy the hoax? I can believe we orbited the Moon. But the landing, hopping around, take-off and re-connect with the command module is the stuff of science fiction. Really! An infinite number of things that could go wrong didn't.

  237. Rainmaker

    @ Vlatko

    Well, those are all indirect evidences:

    1. "The Moon rocks" could have been either asteroids found on Earth or Moon rock samples brought before by unmanned spacecrafts. The Soviets reached Moon surface in 1959,
    2. Retroreflectors. Even the Russians put them on Moon with their Lunokhod, so it proves nothing.
    3. It doesn't really matter which photographs are taken by "Post-Apollo lunar missions" (note: UNMANNED missions), because they take photos of, again, indirect evidences, which could have been put there by any probe sent to Moon.
    4. Back in late 60s beginning 70s there was very primitive "intelligence-gathering and surveillance equipment", just to read some basic data. On old videos you can see which computers they had back then. Post-war technologies that were still at VERY basic level. The images taken in 2011, again, do not prove that men were on Moon. It's no-brainer that both Americans and Russians reached Moon on a number of occasions. It's just that with men, living beings, on board it's a totally different story.

    "If the conspiracy is complex, and its successful completion demands a large number of elements, it is likely to be untrue." - Not necessarily. Take fake pictures, pick up asteroids, put some objects on Moon by unmanned spacecrafts as if men put them there. The conspiracy is not so complex. Remember - it is not project of these days, it was over 40 years ago, back then it was very easy to convince general public of something like this. Just 30 years before Apollo, people believed the radio broadcasted "War of the worlds" that aliens invaded Earth! :)

    For me, personally, there is no HARD evidence of MANNED Moon landing, at the same time too many questions remaining unanswered, such as:
    [1] How come such revolutionary technology as manned interplanetary space travel is unavailable for 40 years?! Such technologies do not deteriorate, they develop or at least stay at the same level. How come this technology is not used? Is it useless? No need to work on it? No one is interested in Moon anymore?
    [2] Keep in mind WHEN the "lunar missions" took place - in the era of Cold War (its beginning), when no one really cared about science, but primarily about ideological race and political competition. The first mission to Moon (considering the complexity of the mission, they were basically gambling), with world-wide broadcast, and ... full success. Imagine if they failed - do you think they would take the risk? It'd be SO much easier and safer to simulate / fake it.
    [3] You don't send a man where you have not sent a monkey yet. Prior to putting a man on Low Earth orbit, a number of tests were performed on animals first. No animal has been sent to Moon so far for experimental purposes. No man is sent there again. Instead, the focus is ONLY on taking photos of alleged 40-year old landings.

    Doesn't it all at least rise an eyebrow?

    However, I believe the two sides will both stay with our opinions no matter what. And it's totally fine, as long as we keep the discussion civilized. ;) The best proof to finally end this decades-long debate would be some nation sending men on Moon / Mars sometime in the near future. With the current advanced equipment it'll be easy to track down the whole mission, so there would be no doubt.

  238. Vlatko


    First, you have to ask yourself what is the REASON and the GAIN of faking the moon landings, and that there were six NASA manned missions that landed on the Moon. All of them had to be faked... INTERNATIONALLY, which is big, big effort. To repeat the same grand hoax for 6 times is virtually impossible.

    For me personally "fake moon landing believers" are something similar to "flat earthers."

    1. Apollo (all manned missions) brought 381kg lunar rocks back home. Russians brought back less than would fill a Coke can (gathered by machines). Ask yourself, is it possible to gather almost half a ton of moon rocks here on Earth. Plus the moon rocks that hit the Earth are easily recognizable - scorched and melted rocks, damaged by Earth's atmosphere, the heat of entry, and the water in Earth's environment.

    2. Retroreflectors are in precise position at the manned moon landings. To suggest that they were put exactly there before or after the fact by non manned missions is simply beyond anyone's imagination. It simply shows how far conspiracy theorist can go.

    3. The argument that landing sites were "staged" (rocket craters, tracks, flags, etc...) by machines before/after the fact is also moot. If they were "staged", how come Russians and the others didn't see this for 6 times in a row. Or they were part of the plot too?

    4. The surveillance techniques in the 60s and 70s were enough to track a manned satellite travelling from Earth to Moon. It turns out that Russians were able to lunch machines out of the orbit at that time, but were unable to track the Apollo missions. Come on.

    You really have to realize that all of those Apollo missions were closely monitored by other nations. If there was any little sign of hoax, Russians and others would have been first to come out and ridicule USA... publicly and officially.

    You ask: How come such revolutionary technology as manned interplanetary space travel is unavailable for 40 years?

    It was a showdown, a race between USA and USSR. Simply a clash of ideologies. That is over and there is no particular need of going to the Moon or even the other planets in the solar system. Space shuttle program is over. Done. There is no need to gather rocks from Moon or even Mars.

    You say: no one really cared about science, but primarily about ideological race and political competition...

    You're wrong. All scientific achievements (which were many) were employed in the military service. And that propelled the ideology clash in the first place. Arms and Space race is not achievable without science.

    You also say: You don't send a man where you have not sent a monkey yet..

    Yes, but when you're sure that man can operate in Earth's Orbit (you've already sent one) it is far more cheaper to send manned mission to Moon. That way, at least, you'll attempt to win the race whit the Russians, who were winning all the time.

    The best proof to finally end this decades-long debate would be some nation sending men on Moon / Mars sometime in the near future.

    I don't think so. Some will not believe that. They will claim that that was faked too. For some no matter how much evidence is present they will still cling to their opinion. It is like some sort of religion.

  239. over the edge

    1. the shuttle program wasn't abandoned it exceeded it's mandate.the u.s has moved the focus (at the moment) to the private sector which i disagree with but is common in this day and age (private prisons,private hospitals and so on). are you claiming they haven't achieved things from the near earth missions? (hint Hubble). by the way the last Apollo mission was 1972 and the first shuttle mission was 1981 so a gap isn't unheard of
    2. see 1
    3.yes the rocket technology dates back to ww2 for an example.
    4. sorry this is ridiculous
    5.the fact that the only deaths were during pre flight tests doesn't diminish the fact that it happened . and the fact that there were no deaths during the missions only proves that all the pre tests achieved their goal. the fact that there was not a catastrophic failure doesn't mean that the missions were faked. the first nuclear bomb worked in actual use that fact only shows the testing worked not that they weren't used.
    6. you stated "very easy to collect asteroids fallen onto Earth," no it is not and the samples from meteorites are not only far less in volume than the samples brought back they have been exposed to the extreme heat of reentry and the impact with the earth any scientist working the relevant field would easily pick up on these differences and expose the lie.
    7. please state you specific reason you have for the van allen belt being a hurdle and i will try to address it?
    8. go ahead attack my tone and feel free to diagnose me if you wish. but all i care about is if you can back up your claims with hard evidence not speculation. can you?

  240. docoman

    I think that's a point many skeptics forget, that because of the cold war, if it was faked the Russians should have known and broadcast their proof to the world.
    There is a radio-telescope here in Aus I've visited, near Parks NSW. I recall them saying how they tracked a signal strength of about 5 watts from the Apollo 13 mission. (I remember being quite amazed, as the cheap hand-held UHF's broadcast at about .5 watt, so 5 isn't a strong signal over that distance) It's not evidence either way of a conspiracy or not, but I thought it interesting at the time.
    As Vlatko mentioned, it would be harder then just collecting meteorites as samples. I've found a couple while metal detecting, you can tell by the scorch marks on them still. (the ones high in minerals set off the detector. Some are worth a few $'s too ;) Didn't they send samples around the world to be studied? I'd think it'd be hard and risky if not impossible, to palm off meteorites to people in that field as 'fresh' samples.

  241. Vlatko

    LOL @Hanzo. Now NASA is deleting UFOs from their photos. What's next: Obama is reptilian.

  242. dewflirt

    Not reptilian, but an illegal alien ;)

  243. dannyboy2225

    There isa building here in this town where i live filled with some "space" junk that was supposed to have gone to the moon.You have pay admission to see. The original propriotor realized that since it had the NASA moon mission certification he stole some of it and sold it for a fair profit in Oklahoma. He got caught and convicted. There was a business here whose product was making exact replicas of space junk used in the American space program.They built the capsule for "Apollo 13",a friend of mine worked there so i looked inside the movie model it was definitely convincing.That whole business is full of deception.

  244. Devon Griffiths

    Oooh look an "expert", well if he's an "expert" I'll just buy whatever he's selling, without question.

  245. Lillian

    Never mind getting to the moon. My question is how on earth did they get back? Where was all the fuel needed to power the mission back the 240K miles home?

  246. Achems_Razor

    @Lillian...Only need enough fuel to get off the moons gravity, none in space, keeps on going like the "energizer bunny" need fuel only for course corrections.

    You have a computer, look it up!!

  247. Kurt

    Jose Escamilla shows both correlated Moon landings, film crew having a blast doing it too, documented in "Moon Rising". (how come thats not on here?) The "population of the moon is in the millions" on youtube gives a hint or two on things But-Just got back from checken out those landing site images, Now wondering about what footage China has, didn't they get back from the moon not too long ago, and has nothing to show? Lately there's all kinds of UFO sighting in China... The frightening thought is that they may have went and got some assistance from off planet. Perhaps they want their turn at the #1 gangster superpower country, one world order thing, ya know?

  248. Pythus

    that belt of radiation you are referring to has been proven non lethal with proper shielding. consult a real scientist.

  249. keith

    OK so by the logic that human hands had to have placed the mirrors on the moon, can you explain how the Russian Moon mirrors(Lunokhod 1 and 2) were hand placed there? If you do that then I'll buy you a beer! Did the Russians walk on the moon? Did the US kindly place them there for them? Or did they launch it there exactly like the US did, on a rover.? I think you guys watched too much Mythbusters, that was their definitive proof that the USA walked on the moon, because there are US mirrors there, they totally neglected to mention Lunokhod(1-2) ... so as not to skew their findings. Since that show I have never watched Mythbusters.

  250. keith

    Yeah proper shielding, 3 feet of lead should do it! Consult your real local dentist and heavy lead dress you wear when you get a measly X-Ray done for a split second.

  251. Patrick Karnes

    Yes, Dr. Van Allen himself the discoverer of the radiation belts, said that they were able to be flown through with proper sheilding

  252. Patrick Karnes

    No, he is another that has not done his research on this topic edge, no need to fight with the uneducated

  253. Patrick Karnes

    The ISS is based on Mir tech? Only the Russian part of the station lol, the US built its own side, and they coordinated to make sure all the modules fit

  254. Patrick Karnes

    China has not yet gone to the moon, they have plans to go

  255. Patrick Karnes

    actually its not BS, the moon travels away from earth at a rate of 2in per year, when the earth was young, the moon circled the earth at 15,000 miles. Which made it tidally locked to earth, over time, the rotation of the earth slows, and the moon moves farther away. Who knows, when it gets far enough away, it may even begin to rotate. I don't understand why its so hard for everyone to believe we put a man on the moon, but they believe that we can leave the solar system with voyager, or put 2 ton vehicles on the Martian surface. We should be proud of the accomplishments of our nation. We all took part in building it.

  256. John F

    Big questions:

    Were the Soviets aware it was a fake while it was going on, or have they since woken up?

    How is it that Lunar samples which have been traded around, all satisfy all observers that they're genuine?
    There's a some interest in making Lunar soil simulants, but all of them can be distinguished from each other and from the genuine article.

  257. RussiansNoTheTruth

    That is true.....Except he said the trip there and back would require a spacecraft nearly 800, 000 tons. Apollo was nowhere near that....not even a 1/5 of that. There was no lead shielding at all!

  258. RussiansNoTheTruth

    Yes.....Mythbusters really let me down after that. People need to realize that items on the moon will NEVER prove that Man walked the Moon

  259. jackmax

    G'day Edge,

    I found that article very interesting, it's a shame that so many people listen to entertainers more than the people that have spent their life learning and continually studying their chosen field of expertise in my opinion.

  260. over the edge


    the clavius site is the best moon conspiracy debunking site i have seen. been using it for years. if you are interested i suggest you tour the whole site.
    edit : i agree with the entertainers statement. it is a shame. not to diminish the accomplishments of entertainers or their dedication and skill. but i wonder how many people can name 5 living Grammy winners and cannot name 5 living Nobel prize winners

  261. jackmax

    Gday Edge,

    I had a very similar conversation with docoman about Aussie kids not knowing 5 Victoria Cross medal winners. I could name more than 5 noble prize winners however I had to check to see if they were still alive. Patrick White, Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk, Peter Doherty and Barry Marshall.

  262. Tronald dump

    Hey hey, myth busters did a good episode on debunking the debunkers who are skeptical of the moon landing. I believe it happened, I've been to Kennedy space center, I've seen all the evidence for and against. It was a great human achievement. And I don't think we will see one like it ever again.

  263. Scotty

    Van Allen himself sugggested Water shielding, thus why the ship would weigh too much to take off.. thus why we can't go to the moon. And Van Allen HIMSELF, stated very recently he might have been mistaken with the belts... that he discvoered, tested, and validated were real for the past 50 years.. i guess even HE could be wrong? or that he doesn't like being the reason that NASA faked the moon landings.. all you have to do is quote Van Allen's own words.. and you know we never went to the moon.

  264. over the edge

    could you please point me to where "Van Allen himself sugggested Water shielding," for the types of radiation in the belts? also as my link pointed out the insulation would have provided the shielding against the types contained within the belts. instead of quotes how about some evidence?

  265. over the edge

    and this proves what?

  266. Scotty

    Clout? the images from LRO are worse than the original apollo images. FAKED i could do better with MS paintbrush.. Sorry, but the images are NOT convincing, and NOT to the level that they were touted.. it was supposed to be the end of the conspiracy theories and what we get is more questions than answers.. thats the BEST resolution they got? you can see cars differentiated from space on earth, THROUGH our atmosphere, but a atmosphere free image of a camera orbiting the moon takes pictures that are not even 25% as high quality as those used on earth?

  267. Achems_Razor

    Show some proof of your "NASA faked the moon landings" allegations.


  268. Scotty

    actually its ALUMINUM shielding that causes problems as radiation isn't shielded by it, it splits and alters directions in Al.. oh wait, the LEM was shielded with a thin layer of aluminum.. oh well, there goes that theory.. :) We never went to the moon. it will be nice once this is finally put to rest.. Wait and see what China does..and LRO was a miserable failure in my opinion. The images STINK and are no better than taking 40 year old images of the moon adding some photoshopped bright areas, adding some tracks in, and calling it authentic.. Sorry, but the LTO inages are NOT good.. even with the current orbits.. we just get the same photoshopped images.. And for thos who don't think they are photoshopped, open one of them up in a hex editor and see for yoruself. the Adobe photoshop info shows up in every photograph.. BUSTED!

  269. over the edge

    did you read the link i provided? here is just one section for you "Metals can be used to shield against particle radiation,
    but they are not the ideal substance. Polyethylene is the choice of
    particle shielding today, and various substances were available to the
    Apollo engineers to absorb Van Allen radiation. The fibrous
    insulation between the inner and outer hulls of the command module was
    likely the most effective form of radiation shielding. When metals
    must be used in spacecraft (e.g., for structural strength) then a
    lighter metal such as aluminum is better than heavier metals such as
    steel or lead. The lower the atomic number, the less Bremsstrahlung." do you disagree with what this states? do you have any actual proof of your claims ?

  270. jaberwokky

    This doc is a wanton display of ignorance dressed up as something else altogether. Towards the end the presenter mentions the waning public interest in the Apollo missions and how there was then a "convenient" human toll that reignited interest. What a despicable implication to make.

    Also way too much bible waving going on, I wasn't sure until 5 minutes in if I was actually watching the right documentary.

  271. Sam Ros

    Embarrassing documentary...

  272. freddy1016

    VERY surprised that Top Doc have allowed such rubbish!

  273. timbo

    lunar samples can be collected from meteorites

  274. timbo

    Funny how when something we believed for all our lives is questioned the
    first reaction is complete and utter closed minded un-acceptance

  275. over the edge

    no they cannot. passing through the earths atmosphere and the high speed impact with the earth leaves tell tale signs on a meteorite that are not present in the samples.

  276. timbo

    maybe the samples were originally part of a bigger piece which was broken into smaller ones to eliminate the tell tale signs you describe?

  277. timbo

    'If I read it, I believe it..' debunking conspiracy theorists is one thing, undeniable proof is another where although most of us do not have the knowledge to reach an educated conclusion, the default sentiment is to believe what we have always been told and have always believed

    So if we did land on the moon and not only once why is it that a basic station was never erected to facilitate the consequent missions there? a launching pad at least? is a flag and a foot print all the infrastructure we mustered from our countless missions there? what was done up there with all the time they had? skipping around the moons surface with no gravity must be very entertaining...but is that all we have? I admit, lunar samples which we are told are legitimately so because they dont have tell tale signs sounds very convincing

  278. timbo

    'That is over and there is no particular need of going to the Moon or
    even the other planets in the solar system. Space shuttle program is
    over. Done. There is no need to gather rocks from Moon or even Mars.'

    there is no need to go to other planets?? hilarious, 'The last frontier' is done and dusted? We landed on the moon and we're done? Is that why we've abandoned all study of the universe, built ever more powerful telescopes to observe the universe because we're happy to observe and study from a distance? Is that why we're still sending all those probes and rovers to mars? viking, pathfinder..phoenix? strange way of being done...or is it all a conspiracy theory?

  279. over the edge

    you ask "why is it that a basic station was never erected to facilitate the consequent missions there?" obviously one was not needed. why carry all that weight to the moon at great expense if not needed? the cost per pound to send something to the moon is pretty high. s launching pad was not needed so why build one? do you honestly consider a flag and a footprint "infrastructure"? and no skipping around the moon isn't all we have. there were many scientific tests performed, we collected moon rocks for study. we developed technology that has been utilized in other ways. most impotently (for Americans) they beat the Russians there. either you know all this already and are playing ignorant or you are questioning a topic you are woefully uneducated in. either way it is kind of sad

  280. timbo

    you have an amazing ability to say things that seem like something but your youve really said nothing at all...politician?

    -one was not needed? what about a basic site shed? you know to have smoko break in the mornings and lunch? or was there no time for breaks with all that lunar rock collecting they were doing? They couldve just taken a little in each of their half a dozen missions they did, no doubt there would be a starbucks up there had man really set foot on the moon

    - cost per pound was expensive...is that why they took the lunar buggy and the golf clubs? was claimed to be 35 kg weight. Since your so versed in the subject, was this weight on the moon or earth?

    - 'do you honestly consider a flag and a footprint "infrastructure"?' Its all we have up there isnt it? Plus a couple of reflectors? Basically carry on luggage lol

    - 'we developed technology that has been utilized in other ways.

    I wasnt aware of this technology that was developed and utilized in other ways. Dont bother with the details, im convinced

    - most impotently (for Americans) they beat the Russians there

    were they the same Russians that sent a dog up 1 way ticket just for their first orbit test? haha dumb Russians, good old USA dont need no silly 'test runs' before they attempt the maiden straight forward lunar mission! USA were there and back before Russia could say 'dodgy amerikanski'. They really did make it look easy

    "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics
    are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts"

  281. timbo

    gulf of tonkin, the sinking of the USS Maine

  282. timbo

    'Why have manned flights to the moon surface stopped? The cost and risk
    of doing it wasn't justified. Without any apparent life, the moon is a
    dust covered, pock-marked rock without an atmosphere and very little

    true..and its only our gateway to space

  283. timbo

    Im as unsure if it did happen as you are sure and maybe with reason. There are good points on both sides however I am slightly inclined to think after your factual and unequivocal hard proof that the moon landing did indeed happen (that moon buggy could've been been quite a bit smaller and lighter to fit your its expensive to fly to the moon) Biggest point is I dont believe the US is capable of the massive cover up involved to take advantage of a situation in their bid to strengthen its position as the worlds super power. Same as 9/11, JFK, desert storm, gulf of tomkin, USS Maine, Pearl Harbour, Boston marathon etc is all the stuff of conspiracy theorists and nutjobs (except for the systematic genocide of 20 million native americans) US won the space race and gues what: History is wriiten by the victors. Been good discussing with you

  284. Achems_Razor

    The whole problem with the world is that wiser people are certain of themselves because of the 'scientific method' and 'empirical evidence' that proves man was on the moon, and that fool's and fanatics are just that, because of their untested and erroneous 'tin foil hat' beliefs.

  285. timbo

    The problem is that the scientific method and empirical evidence is a certainty for those with 1st hand proof of it. 'The moon landing is fact because I read it on the internet and they had photos, reports and displayed all the testing they did up there and all' does not stack up for me and is not endorsed by 'emprirical evidence' or 'scientific method' by any means. Facts relayed through the Internet are not facts, you can choose to believe them or not so yes I have my beliefs (which are by no means facts) unlike sheeple who will not admit it and think they are absolutely unequivocal of their faith (or beliefs..or 3rd hand facts..or unless your Stanley Kubrick?)...thats why im happily sitting on the fence if you dont mind...with no tin foil hat :)

  286. timbo

    Oh and you have done your 'research'..or you must mork for the government

  287. timbo

    If Russia hadve called the US's bluff for an alleged fake moon landing, it would have changed nothing. Victory is written by the victor, Russia's claim would have been written off as 'sour grapes' in the west and today it would have as much credibility as all those fake photos and false proof that all the conspiracy theorist nutjobs claim the moon landing was staged. It was win win US and Russia knew it was over. And if you think about it, it wouldve been cheaper to pay Russia off than actually land on the the moon (how much did the US pay for Alaska again) win win win

  288. Patrick Karnes

    Just so you know Dr Van Allen could not have stated anything recently cause he is dead. He also taught where I currently go to school. He is the astronomy and physics departments pride and joy. If you really want to know what he did said and suggested read his biography. That or use the net.

  289. timbo

    yeah yeah just like they 'lost' the transmission tapes from the maiden moon landing. Was only the 'biggest step in mankind' you know those things happen, on a personal level would've been sthing like losing all the photos of your first child? One minute their there as your most precious possession...the next theyre just 'gone'..

  290. timbo

    oooooh look if its an official US federal document it must be so without doubt! The US government have an enviable track record for transparency in the form of 'classified files' in their quest to remain world super powers & policy of honesty with the American people, who can forget of all the wmd's found in Iraq? Why would anyone not believe CNN or CBS?

  291. timbo

    like why did the Russians accept 2 million dollars as payment FOR THE WHOLE of Alaska?? that one really is baffling

  292. timbo

    I hear there's a lot of 'punching' evidence's going on in Guantanamo bay too..

  293. timbo

    yes the moon buggy lol they took a vehicle up there just to fck around in lol the moon buggy, in case they wanted to drive up the road to get cigarettes? at least it had room for the golf clubs..

  294. timbo

    ofcourse it was money! did you see the last NASA attempts at re-entry of the earths atmosphere columbia? we're struggling to return to just return to earth with our current equipment....back in the 60's they were waltzing up there with a moon buggy, skipping around the moons surface having a picnic, planting flags and waltzing back to earth & not once BUT half a dozen missions!! and god knows how energy efficient the crafts were back then to make the 480,000 odd mile round trip..

  295. timbo

    'It was almost HALF A MILLION PEOPLE. Scientists from every field from around the world all working on the Apollo program.'

    source? (a favourite of the believers) a NASA official document? well why didnt you say so? thats as good as so...just a question though, weren't these the same people that found all those WMD's in Iraq? watergate? gulf of tomkin? USS Maine? japanese american internment? Guantanamo bay? Pearl Harbour? genocide of 20 million native americans? depopulation of the chagos islands? haha conspiracy nutjobs!

  296. Cardair

    Docs for the weak of mind.

  297. truthseekah

    Being labeled a 'conspiracy theorist' is a huge factor in steering clear of many subjects. There is such a stigma attached and it continues to neutralize people in their tracks. Oddly enough, this marginalization label came as a direct response to the JFK assassination. And there is no coincidence that the label is used perfusely in the media for nearly anyone that doesn't buy the narrative presented by the state. Whether you believe accusations of many about any control system or not, it is an effective tool of marginalization. I'm not trying to give validity to any theory, only trying to make others aware of how easily they can be manipulated.

  298. edgedweller

    well said, I was actually just diffusing a pointless discussion :)

    There is no worst blind than the one that does not want to see

  299. footshot

    hmm interesting questions raised here , i used to think this was a looney tune accustion

  300. Russell

    You can sit on the fence if you like. That is your prerogative. Most folks, myself included, have daily lives (jobs, etc.) that don't allow us to go out looking for facts for every single scientific thing that is presented to us. I don't have time to go get a physics degree to become an astrophysicist or whatever would be required to get this sort of proof. That said, I don't consider myself part of these "sheeple" you deride. I consider myself an average dude who has to trust some of the people who do go through the trouble of making these things their life's work. I mean, I have to trust that the folks that made the bus I ride to work knew what they were doing. Should I walk the many miles to work because a few people decide to say that the bus might just blow up? No. If I read that buses have begun to blow up, then I'll reconsider my mode of transportation. In other words, right now, even Russia and China say the US landed on the moon. They have their own independently obtained proof. They are competitors. If the US's fiercest competitors have proof the US landed on the moon, am I part of the "sheeple" to think it happened? You say "The problem is that the scientific method and empirical evidence is a certainty for those with 1st hand proof of it." There are people with first hand proof. They've provided it. What more proof do you need? Short of a ride to the moon so see the landing site with your own eyes, what exactly is required beyond the voluminous amount of proof already available by the US and its fiercest competitors?

  301. edgedweller

    Fiercest competitor - you mean partner in the joint Soyuz program? You mean 45 year cold war in which not a shot was fired?

  302. Dennis M

    "The Truth will always set us free..."

    Welll... for some,,, it brought them death!

  303. Dennis M

    Whether it was faked or not, the TRUTH --now-- is that there is too much space to get there using gas fuel. Therefore, until and unless we develop reusable rubberband power--we arent flying no where. NOWHERE human cargo that is. So whatever there is on Mars or Pluto it is hardly worth knowing as we cannot use it.

    For those who feel we need to venture, I urge you all to invest in some private space company.

    NASA employees are WELFARE PRIVILEGED CLASS and not worth anything to me. being unable to buy a new car. I am certain I put in more hours each week and suffer more exertion than 98% of all NASA employees, yet I barely make $25k year. Half of what they begin.

    For those who are so giddy to see a photo of Pluto--You cannot be certain you seen anything, I wonder if there could be so much light to get a good picture.

    The Saying is, two rovers on Mars is like an employee on some Caribbean island--useless.

    space lab value = $0.00 for science/ $+.++ for hairspray

  304. Dennis M

    did not land on moon no more than Columbus landed on USA.

  305. DustUp

    Very few to NONE were born disbelievers of one giant step of man or dune buggies on the moon. I came this doubt from a couple of simple things long before I saw this documentary:
    1. If the moon is in a vacuum with no atmosphere, how were footprints or tracks made?
    Been too long ago to recall names but a scientist did a Bell Jar experiment with talc powder and a magnet outside holding a ball bearing inside. Dropped the ball bearing from the inside top of the Vacuum Bell Jar. The ball bearing bounced leaving no evidence of a dimple on the talc. The conclusion was: No atmosphere = No fluffy dirt = No footprints or tracks.
    2. Watching NASA made videos of them walking, bounding, and driving rover around. That activity depicted in NASA videos could easily be performed on earth NOT on the moon. At 1/6 gravity the lunar rover would have either slid out or flipped over doing some of the turns. If one claims it was the digging in of the tires which kept it from sliding out, how is this possible to make tracks in a vacuum? Any one who is satisfied with the bounding around of the astronaut on the moon should try it themselves right here. Easy. Somewhere I heard their packs weighed 300lbs. fine. Estimated weight of astronaut w/pack about 474lbs./6 = 79 lunar lbs.
    Now if I can or could at their age , jump 20 inches vertically without much difficulty, weighing 174lbs. on Earth. And if gravity supposedly is 1/6 on the moon... 20in x 6 = 10 feet vertically weighing 174/6 or 29 lunar lbs. Too bad about that heavy pack right? Not so fast. 10ft x 29no pack/79pack = 3.67 feet vertical. In the NASA videos I watched, I don't recall seeing anyone bounding or jumping ANY higher than I can right here on Earth let alone over 3 feet high. Tell me what fit red blooded man feeling light footed on the moon wouldn't take advantage of that and jump over 3 to 4 feet vertical if they easily could? I could get into linear distance leaps but the point is already made.
    Also, explaining away valid questions doesn't constitute proof. You may be correct, you may be wrong, you don't know for absolutely sure. It isn't proof. No photo is proof, all can be faked. Why is it necessary for NASA to composite photos of the Earth from their distant space probes? What is it that they are compositing? What is the true uncomposited pictures? Something smells like baking. For some it smell like a good pie. For others it smells like a burning pumpkin.
    As far as all the arrogant ones above. Don't bother responding, just be happy with your ego. Arrogance is the true sign of error and mental disorder.

  306. DustUp

    Why not just look at the more recent fake space station tours with the hair spray girls? And the poor guy on the right who screwed up divulging where they really were. Not proof, but history tends to repeat. If can fool them once...

    Why would the Soviets point fingers when they would then be exposed as frauds as well? They like the Chinese want to bilk their masses with populace uplifting space programs to benefit those contractors just like the usa. Now they do so jointly with the supposedly manned space station with hair spray gals needing to grab onto the side. What happened that they needed to grab something if not for actually being in the zeroG plane?

    Having confidence in a known liar (most any govt) seems a bit odd. Ask any native. Ask anyone who has something the govt wants. Land next to a waterway for instance. They lied, lied, and more lies in attempt to get it. There is no integrity. Putting ANY trust in govt is a large mistake. The only "govt" I know of that is any good is that run directly by the locals who participate in the work, such as a local water district. $100/yr water bill versus $80/month in town by elected representatives. There absolutely is a culture of deception and coverup. Does one part of govt directly apply to another part? Not necessarily. Yet show me one agency that isn't full of baloney and couple that with those types (corps.) who want their people in govt. I suggest using simple math to dispel many fabrications of govt. and the media. If you want improvement YOU will have to get involved. Believing much of anything on the TV is another large mistake. Find something more productive to do with your time. I am, except this diversion which ends now.

Leave a comment / review: