Apollo Zero

2009, Conspiracy  -   493 Comments
Ratings: 5.55/10 from 92 users.

Apollo ZeroThink about this: to date, only three countries have been able to put a man merely in Earth orbit - the United States, Russia, and China. That speaks to how difficult it is just to get into orbit. Next, consider how far away the moon is from the Earth: 240,000 miles. Since the alleged moon landings, no country even claims to have gone more than 400 miles from Earth and that was in the Space Shuttle. The International Space Station orbits at 200 miles above Earth. There is a big difference between 240,000 miles and 400 miles. Why can't anyone make it more than 400 miles from Earth today if we could make a 480,000 mile round trip in 1969?

NASA further asserts that three men were loaded into a rocket, flew 240,000 miles to the moon and then achieved lunar orbit. They say the spacecraft separated and two astronauts flew 60 miles to the surface of the moon, in a vacuum and 1/6 Earth gravity. They then hung out on the moon for up to three days in 250 degree heat, hit golf balls, rode a moon buggy — but what powered their life support and equipment? They say BATTERIES.

They then supposedly blasted off the surface of the moon, docked with the third man going around the moon at over 4000 miles per hour, and made it 240,000 miles back to Earth. They re-entered Earth's atmosphere going 25,000 mph, but parachutes assured a safe landing in the ocean. (Excerpt from apollozero.com.)

More great documentaries

493 Comments / User Reviews

  1. I refuse to believe they did that live from 240,000 miles with no delay and I doubt the pseudo intellects who surf google too much so they can sound smart in the comments, have my answers.

  2. Gulf of Tonkin is the one and only lie the govt. ever told.

  3. Batteries? did he say Batteries? Really people it was 1969, batteries!" They even brought a dune buggy, that folded up in the module, really people.
    480,000 miles there and back, not once but 6 times like it was taking a bus. Seriously!

  4. This historical achievement,which is truly one of the greatest in human existence is really one that can't be diminished as a whole because if humans did indeed set foot on the moon back in 1969(as I like to believe) it would still in no significant way prove any more or less of a challenge than the whole world being hoodwinked by fake landings so either scenario
    would be high on the human achievement list...It's a win win.

  5. This is for all the "slower minds" that believe man did NOT go to the moon. I'd like you all to explain to me how this was possible (INDISPUTABLE FACT - NOT what you think or believe). During the Apollo 11 mission (1969) - the gravitational pull of the Moon was tested. A hammer and feather were raised at 1.4m (equally) above the surface of the Moon and dropped simultaneously. Result - both the hammer and feather hit the Moon's surface simultaneously. This is because its atmosphere has almost no gases to cause any resistances. The Moon atmosphere is almost 100% vacuum. The atmosphere has roughly 100 molecules per cubic centimeter. Earth (where we live. If you don't know yet) has roughly 100 Billion, Billion molecules per cubic centimeter (yes... there are scientists counting each one to make sure, so that no one can ask them to prove it one day. LMFAO) So in short - Earth's atmosphere will cause resistance. So if you did this test inside or outside your home the hammer will likely hit the ground before the feather (Hopefully your bright enough to move your feet out of the way).

    So you believe all the footages from Apollo 11 was done on a set?????????????? If you believe this...... In order make the hammer and feather drop at the same time. You'd need a vacuumed environment. This is to isolate the test objects from any resistances from "air" and subject them only to gravity. Lucky for you the US Government have spent millions and millions of your money in taxes to build one. There they made a modern day video of a bowling ball and some feathers drop simultaneously to the floor.

    So you think they built this huge vacuum and filmed this test inside of it??? Earth's gravitational pull is 9.807m/s square. ( This is a FACT) Moon's gravitational pull is 1.622m/s square. ( This is a FACT) In the footage the items dropped from 1.4m are irrelevant. Meaning they could of just dropped the hammer or feather ALONE.

    What matters is this. It took approximately 1.3 seconds for the hammer and feather to hit the surface. If this was done in that vacuumed chamber (ON EARTH) - the hammer and feather would hit the surface sooner. The FACT is that the hammer and feather hit the surface (YES OF THE MOON) 1.3 seconds after being dropped at exactly 1.4m above the surface. It's drop rate: 1.62m/s square. (NOW DON'T THINK TOO HARD - YOU MIGHT HURT YOURSELF. ASK YOURSELF - IS 1.62m/s square the gravitational pull of the MOON or the MOON?)

    Fact: Hammer and feather were dropped on the surface of the moon.
    FACT: THIS WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO DUPLICATE HERE ON EARTH. (Unless you believe the government is capable of changing Earth's gravitational pull).

    By the way any RETARDED statements about film editing back in 1969 played a part in it. Know that the film (FACT) was done in 10fps. This would only give them 90 seconds of slow motion filming. Reality is the film is 143 minutes long. IMPOSSIBLE. They did not have the technology back then. My advise to you is keep watching those Hollywood films and zip it. I'm pretty sure there will be more conspiracy films out there for you to watch and CGI it into reality. There is money to be made here (apparently lots).

    There is a reason why most of us are not astrophysicists. Most of us would not understand. Most of the non believers to be precise. Astrophysicists don't need to prove anything to me or you anyways.

    Most people are delusional when it comes to reality, they want to believe that the government is always in a conspiracy of grand. What makes most people pathetic is that they are GULLIBLE. Everyone wants to be a detective uncovering secrets from top, top, top secret, secrets. LMFAO

    We need to be governed PERIOD.
    Without order we don't have laws.
    And if we don't have laws???????????????

    I'm going to find a way to make loads of money off of this.
    I build - Lemmings will follow.

  6. The guy who made this is an ass hat of giant proportions.

  7. The idea of the moon landing being a hoax hits way close to home for Americans. They take it personally, because in a way it is a failure of their society. That's why no matter what evidence may come out ever they will deny it. Kind of like when a kid gets in trouble and the parents blame someone else or deny he is a bad kid..

  8. well mission impossible really when you think that if one just gets into the Van Halen belt 400 miles outside the Earth you get FRIED instantly by the intense radiation of the Sun. You would need a space ship with six feet of metal all around to protect the astronauts from instant death. Armstrong liked to trip on drugs and his sister said in an interview, "Yes he makes visits to Mars, Venus and the Moon when he's tripping out!" And of course at his death, Obama says to his 90% scientifically ignorant people "When you step outside and see the moon, think of Armstrong and give him a WINK" Most of the Americans didn't even get that! But then it's all about prime time entertainment.

    1. LOL
      So every rover that has ever existed is an hoax, right?
      And all the probes that have been sent to the outer and inner Solar System are also false... Is that what you are saying?
      Go and buy yourself a new brain because the one you have isn't working too well. No offence, truly, but your comment shows a high level of ignorance.

      It's funny how you talk about the Van Halen belt, it becomes apparent you have little idea of what the Van Halen belts really are. First of all, there are, at least, two Van Halen belts around Earth (It seems there could be 3 or more). Van Halen belts are a kind of radiation belts that exist around Earth but other planets have them too. The inner Van Halen belt lowest point is the South Atlantic Anomaly. This is a specially hazarous area in which the Inner Van Halen belt contains even higher levels or radiation. Despite all this, gps satellites and even the ISS cross that region every day... we can still use tomtoms and the people at the ISS are still alive, so don't exaggerate. Yes, there is radiation, but we learned how to deal with it long ago, there is nothing new here.

      Secondly: 6 FEET of...METAL? LOL You don't even know which materials to use to protect yourself from radiation, do you? Did you know that every element in the periodic table has its own properties? Lead "stops" much more electrons than aluminum does, for instance (the radiation we are talking about are just showers of electrons and other particles, by the way). If you were to build a radiation shield first you'd need to know the amount of radiation your shield would have to withstand. Depending on the material you chose, the layer thickness would vary.
      For example, lead is one of the best elements for radiation shielding, but it's too heavy, too "soft" and its melting point is too low. Aluminum, on the other hand, protects considerably less from radiation but it's cheaper and lighter. For a given amount of radiation, you'd need much less layer thickness if you were to build the shield with lead, but it would be heavy and it would melt easily. However, you could use aluminum instead but you'd have to increase layer thickness in order to "block" the same amount of radiation. So don't ever say again "6 feet of metal" because that's a highly ignorant approach.
      When you say that, you are showing that:
      a)You ignore the fact that elements (therefore materials) have different properties.
      b)You ignore the fact that there are non-metals which can also be used for radiation shielding...one example could be water.
      c)You ignore the fact that there are different kinds of radiation, therefore, there are different ways to deal with them.
      Have you ever seen a satellite/spacecraft/orbital station with a 6 feet radiation shield all around? Of course not,because it isn't needed (perhaps 6 inches thick, but never 6 feet). Also such a payload can't be launched into orbit. The final stage of a rocket needs to be as light as possible, otherwise the rocket that carries it can't reach orbit. The heavier the final stage is, the MUCH MORE powerful and heavier the main rocket needs to be. We can only build rockets up to a certain size... the Saturn V and Vostok rockets were gigantic and absurdly heavy and yet they never had to carry modules with a 6 feet thick steel radiation shield all around... that would be absurd, those rockets wouldn't even liftoff.

      For the Apollo missions they used aluminum sandwich-like shields with steel honeycombed core. Still, those astronauts were travelling fast and followed a specific path through those Van Halen belts, therefore their exposure to radiation was pretty short and within expected parameters.

      Anyway, astronauts working at the ISS usually experience sudden flashing in their vision. That's due to the interaction between particles traveling within the Van Halen inner belt and the astronaut's optic nerves. As you can see on youtube, those astronauts aren't fried.
      If Van Halen belts instantly fried stuff like you said, mobile phones, gps, Google Earth, etc. wouldn't exist. Don't you see? Yes, satellites are exposed to levels of radiation, and their performance drops over time because of it, but they are designed to withstand those levels of radiation and keep working for years.
      In 1958 James Van Allen proved the existence of those belts by sending probes (Explorer 1, Explorer 3) equipped with Geiger–Müller tubes, which can detect some kinds of radiation. So the US knew right there and then that those belts were there and they started collecting data about their strength...we are talking 1958 here.

      In 1961 Gagarin orbited the Earth... was he fried? No.

      Was it a hoax? Go buy yourself a new brain, seriously.

      The US created new radiation belts in 1962 when they

      executed Starfish Prime (a low orbit thermonuclear detonation), a lot of satellites were crippled due to the extra radiation. Those belts decayed in a few years, so they are gone now.

      Since that event, every new satellite that was launched into orbit was extra protected against radiation, and if they knew how to protect their satellites, they obviously learned how to to protect the crews of Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions.
      So yes, there are radiation belts and they can and have been dealt with time and again.

      All it takes to go to the Moon is a spaceworthy ship with enough delta-V. There's no friction in space, you just "jump" between orbits, so to speak. You burn your engines in a specific direction&moment for a given time and when you get enough speed you stop the engines and let gravity do the rest. It's not like you are constantly burning fuel, space travel is pretty efficient in this sense.
      The US and the Soviet Union had already landed probes on the Moon before Apollo 11.

      Just so you know, there were several Apollo missions before Apollo 11 whose task was to test the validity of the entire procedure for the Moon landing. First they launched a series of unmanned rockets to test the different steps and vehicles that would be used in the Moon landing.
      When NASA decided it was safe/feasible enough, they started launching manned Apollo missions whose objective was to check all the process again, but this time with astronauts onboard. The first manned flight was Apollo 1, but they got fried before they had the chance to launch.
      After that NASA divided the Apollo program in mission types indicated by letters from A to J.

      A,B and C were all unmanned missions, D (Apollo 8) was the first Apollo manned mission, then came E (Apollo 9) and F (Apollo 10) which made the first manned lunar orbit and nobody got fried. G (Apollo 11) was launched AFTER everything had been tested by the previous missions and AFTER Apollo 10 had succesfully orbitted the Moon and returned to Earth. The only new thing they did is to actually land on the Moon, which was important but technically less challenging than the rest of the mission combined.

      So, for your information, they did a lot of testing, fixing and upgrading before launching the first manned mission.
      They knew about Van Halen belts from day 1, they had a pretty clear idea of what they were doing, unlike you...

  9. Buzz Adrin made my day by hitting this clown. What a man. No hesitation.
    The guy risked his life to go to the moon, then came back and some nobody calls him a liar, and a coward-BAM on the chin! Can you hit back? I guess not!
    Buzz is the man you are a big mouth with soft hands. You've probably done nothing more than drive your Toyota Corolla slightly above the speed limit on a freeway.

  10. It has been proven before, that it didn't happen. And it's kind of a fact among intelligent people. I'm actually surprised of the amount of mocking comments, are you really that ignorant?

    1. Intelligent people make space travel possible. They also invent stuff like computers or the Internet which make this site possible. This doesn't need to be proven, it's obvious.
      If you can't deal with it, buy yourself a new brain.

      How does your brain even work?
      I mean, In 1905 Albert Einstein published his theory of special relativity and 10 years later he published his theory of general relativity. Those opened the door to countless advancements, space travel among them... that was before 1920!
      In 1945 there was technology capable of destroying Hiroshima and Nagasaki using nukes, no less. The nazis were launching V-2 rockets from Belgium to London, they also produced the first jet fighter ever (the Brits were about to introduce one too). In the 1950s there was technology capable of launching small rockets to the upper atmosphere and jet planes were increasingly capable of high altitude flying.
      In 1957 the Soviet Union successfully launched Sputnik I (and then Laika) into orbit. In 1961 Yuri Gagarin became the first human to journey into outer space (Alan Shepard would follow a few weeks after). Orbital rockets were perfected during the rest of the 60s in a frantic race.
      Americans and Russians landed probes on the Moon before 1965...
      Despite this apparent evolution of technology you still think it wasn't possible to land on the Moon in 1969? The Apollo program launched several rockets (manned and unmanned) in order to prepare for the Moon landings.
      So your argument is that there was technology to orbit the Moon but not to land on it? Seriously?
      Mankind has been to the Moon several times and has sent probes all over the Solar System. We've had the technology to do so for nearly 60 years now, so stop ignoring facts, please.

  11. I agree with legendary NASA astronaut, Dr. Edgar Mitchell, when he calls the filmmaker an ***hole! The creators of this nonsense merely specialize in tediously nit-picking the historic records of men far greater than themselves.

  12. I believe in a lot of conspiracies, JFK, haarp, 911 etc. But man they landed on the moon. I don't care what anyone says.

  13. this guy frequently discusses the lack of technology needed to get to the moon and yet he forgets that there were lander on MARS in like 1965!

  14. Not the best of the "moon hoax" docs that are out there. If we are going to actually have this discussion then we really should focus on the science behind the moon landing. Frankly, when the douche begins harassing the former astronauts, I had to stop watching. Seriously, if they are guilty of keeping this secret then why would they "confess" anything to this jerk?

    I, for one, am very interested in the science behind the lunar rover. If NASA could put a car in a suitcase and fly it to the moon in 1970 then why don't we have suitcase cars today? From interviews I've read, astronauts have a terrible time using tools in their fully inflated suits, how did they assemble the lunar rover? Why are there no images of the rover being assembled?

  15. It is sad that so many people in this once great Republic are told and believe that such occurrences such as the moon landings have happened with the sort of technology that was available at that time. Keep the fluoride, soda pop, GMO, vaccines, and the rest of the garbage that's out there running through their feeble minds and bodies. That's what they call progress.

    1. Yes, they had enough technology for the Moon landings.


    2. Provides a wikipedia link, oh gosh then it has to be true.

  16. god, what ultra bulls*it

  17. what a great movie in 1969!!

  18. AND it was Nixon.......

  19. This show is so s*upid, it's hilarious though.

  20. It is pretty weird that we haven't gone back and forth to the moon over the years.At least one more time ya think?! Hell I'd expect us to at least have a international moonbase up there by now.
    But it seems we used all of our great tech advancement since going way up there in 1969 on yearly planned obsolecense iPhone debuts for tweeting silly videos and commenting on futile attempts at "journalism" by discussing what the latest reality show whore paid for a pair of designer shoes.

    1. We did go back, five times. Apollo 11 was just the first landing. Missions 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 all landed. We haven't been back since because it's cheaper to send unmanned missions like the lunar orbiter that is currently circling the moon.

  21. Matthew S,

    Calling people fools is extremely ignorant. If you present a point of view, and somebody presents an opposite point of view, respond with intelligence not insult. Also using the Bible or any book of scripture as a prop is simply wrong. If you are a Christian you should no this. Ambushing people like that is simply theater and accomplishes nothing. Why not present your questions in an open forum to scientists? Engage in discussion and debate. You are not the only person that questions the moon landing. I am sure there are many scientists that would be happy to take part.

  22. Bwahahahahaha is this one of those 'The Moon Landings didn't happen' things? How cute.

  23. You fools got no understanding whatsoever how extremely difficult it is to go to the moon. It's unbelievable to me that you actually believe they went.. You can't be that foolish.. The technology available to them wasn't even close to what was needed, there's no way in hell they went during the Apollo missions, how the hell can't you see that, it's unbelievable to me. You got no understanding of psychological warfare and disinformation techniques.. Everything is spun to make it believable, that's what you do in psych warfare you have teams of PR operatives to counter attack true claims, that's exactly what they have done. They commissioned the text books with their official story that disinformation to brainwash, and a lot of educated people can be brainwashed I assure you, I have seen it hundreds of times.. This is all covered in psych warfare... It's unbelievable to me that you actually believe that crud when they say that there's no need to go back, you actually believe that? Do you know what helium 3 is? Do you have an idea what they could do if they were able to mine H3? Do you have any idea the precious resources that could be mined there? Do you have any idea how important it is to establish a base there for future space exploration?? You actually believe that all the astronauts who happened to be speaking out at the poor state the space program was in, all died under mysterious circumstances is just a coincidence? You honestly think that he was putting a cardboard cut-out at the window to make to earth look smaller just for the sake of it? You honestly believe they went right through the Van Allen allen radiation belt with no protection whatsoever. You honestly think the film wouldn't have been damaged, and they had no protection for the film, even when imax went into orbit a few years ago, the film was put in special radiation protective boxes, and they were just in orbit.. Nasa claims to have gone right through the van allen belt. You honestly think the perfect studio quality pictures were taken on a moon with a flashless camera with no view finder? That's why Neil Armstrong stayed out of the public eye and didn't profit from it. He felt guilty, the rest didn't. Look at the speech he gives to the children about ''hopefully your generation will reveal a layer of truth...'' Watch the film above, look at their body language, look how they react, use your intuition... Do you have any idea how much power air-conditioning uses? They had one little battery powering the air-conditioning all day in their back pack, and that same battery was powering everything else too, and they had no solar power either... You actually believe that??? None of them suffered any cancers or anything for having no protection and being exposed against the radiation later in life.. You are being deceived and taken for a ride... Nasa is just a front to keep the sheep happy.... The real space program is the secret one... Anyway, keep being played and deceived and manipulated...

    1. Have you listened to your own ramblings?
      First you claim to have such superior knowledge that you could claim that the one and only possible outcome of applying critical thinking was to arrive at the exact same conclusion that you have arrived at.
      Now you are rambling like a lunatic demanding that it wasn't physically possible for them to get to the moon back then and therefore only a fool could possibly believe in the moon landings.
      You are full of all this control and manipulation language and yet you refuse to remain on one point of argument and follow it through to a natural conclusion, instead you throw lots of things into the mix and ignore any debate thats offered on any of the points that don't suit your own plan of attack.

      It is blindingly obvious that you have no intention of ever seeking the truth because you have fooled yourself into thinking that you already know the truth and anyone that believes anything different must therefore be absolute idiots who are not worth having a real debate with on any ONE point.

      Now shut up and answer me this, you claimed the surface of the moon would be extremely hot and therefore their suits couldn't have protected them with the batteries they had back then.
      Please prove that their suits would have had to protect them from oven like temperatures,, yuou can't because it simply isn't true!
      If you were on the surface of the moon and had your back tot he sun then the temperature on the shaded side of your suit would be extremely cold while the other side is hot from the suns rays (although a lot of that is reflected off since you are wearing white).
      It's NOT like an oven on the surface of the moon, the suits were composed of several layers of reflective material to keep the outside temperature out of the suit and the body heat inside of it.

      Have you ever tried one of those survival blankets?
      If so then you will know how effective one layer is, let alone the 7 or so layers that the suits had along with the layers between to trap whatever heat was already there.

      Seriously, have you even bothered to actually read up about the suits? or are you just blindly believing what the conspiracy sites are telling you because I cannot fathom why you don't want to investigate the truth to the question of
      "would it been like an oven for them on the surface of the moon or not?"
      Instead you have ranted and raved and just ignored any perspective that didn't agree with yours.

      This is the last time I will reply to you, you have proven that you really are just a conspiracy nut who is incapable of having a meaningful discussion that starts from one point and moves forwards.

      Please do enjoy your ranting and raving to yourself, you clearly praise yourself for your own awesomeness and superior knowledge compaired to us lowly fools who actually want to have discussions that go somewhere rather than just rant and rave.

    2. Matthew S
      do you plan on presenting any accurate/demonstrable/repeatable evidence? do you plan on backing up your multiple claims? did you go to the links provided? can you refute anything presented in those links? and finally do you plan on answering any questions asked of you? or are you going to continue to spout your nonsense without backing it up?

    3. @Matthew S...don't go calling anybody "fools" when you start insulting people means you have lost the argument!

    4. Nice post, crack or Heroin?

    5. As a student of Astrophysics and Astronomy, yes, I do understand how extremely difficult it is to go to the moon. I also understand that there technological level was lower at the time than it is now. In fact, it shows the ingenuity of the project that they only had the computing power of a calculator with them in the rocket at the time we made it to the moon. I am well aware of what helium 3 is and as much as its worth, it is still not worth the money it costs to go to the moon on a regular basis. Yet. A moon base there would cost billions per year to maintain right now. Going there for a few days compared to building a base is two totally different things. Do you know how much it costs to lift one pound into orbit? Let alone the moon. Yet you seem to under estimate the fact that politicians will do almost ANYTHING not to lose, and the fact that we were in a cold war at the time made the motivation even greater. Yet, as for precious resources being mined on the moon, pretty much there are few, except H3, and water which would be used to make drinking water and oxygen for people working there. We went to the moon for ONE reason. To beat the Soviets and show that our technology was better than theirs at the time. That's all Kennedy wanted to do, and when he was assassinated, it was even more important that they make it. Also, you are making it sound like the 223,000 miles that it actually is to get to the moon is a long way. Its not. We have sent probes MILLIONS of miles in space, why could we not have sent 3 people 240 thousand miles? Newtons Laws of Gravity are simple enough to calculate to launch there. That's all you need to get a trajectory, and we had made a nuclear BOMB by the end of WWII. Why would it be so hard to believe that we could go to the moon. The nuclear bomb took new physics to make, the moon landing did not. You needed Einstein's theory of relativity to make the nuclear bomb. Anyway, I could argue on this for hours, but clearly you have not done your homework well enough to debate this with me. Though come back when you have, I would be happy to serve you some more.

  24. An uninformed id**t wrote this article. People think that we should just role out of bed in the morning and go to the Moon as a "matter of course."
    Going to the Moon was hard, and there is no good reason to go now.

    In the 60s their was a one pointed effort towards landing on the moon. Much more money (as % of total budget), many more resources, much more public interest, and an intense space race with the Russians.

    There is no reason to go back to the moon. hence to travel outside low Earth orbit. The author above states it like "we don't because we can't". But in fact we don't because there's no need to.

    We are not ready for Mars.

    As for sending humans to the moon:
    No reason + no interest = no money.

    Misinformed, shallow postings like this are a product of our continued dumbing down as a people.

  25. all they have to do to REALLY PROVE the moon landing is, i - take a picture with their fantastic imaging techniques, if that could be believed, or ii - get a satellite to do a fly by of the landing site or hover over the site and show all of us their success...both will never happen...it would be too easy to silence all the conjecture, better to have the minions squabble amongst ourselves...it is a crying shame that witch hunts still exist today...seriously can you trust a politician - the shining light of democrazy....seriously ask yourself openly and logically what is truth ? truth requires three things, i - a happening, ii - a witness or story teller, iii - a believer...or as we have seen throughout history more force or resource than anyone else...how else do you conjure the the journey of history, you have simply got to own it...humanity before profit...now thats really funny...

    1. charles mead
      are you suggesting that NASA build a satellite and sens it to the moon at great expense just to satisfy the conspiracy theorists? if that is your suggestion i will propose that is not only ludicrous but will not satisfy them even if done. there have been recent pictures taken by equipment sent for other reasons but i will guess you will dismiss them. but i will try anyway. look up Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE. or India's Chandrayaan-1 or China's Chang'e 2.

  26. The bull**** some yanks will believe, man never walked on the moon 43yrs ago, Buzz Aldrin is a liar and the 'moon landings' were no more than an elaborate hoax by a paranoid govt. Maybe one day we will - but its not happened yet

  27. I stopped watching at 02:40. If comments are going to be taken out of context and then used as "evidence" the "documentary is clearly biased and a waste of my time.

  28. Kennedy WAS WRONG !

  29. I don't understand why anyone can still try and claim the Hubble telescope should be able to take a pic of the moon to see if there is anything manmade there.
    Do these people not realise telescopes are designed for focusing on things that are light years away?
    Tell ya what, do an experiment for yourself to add some perspective,
    get a telescope that can easily focus on the moon,
    now try and focus on something that is 10 feet in front of you,, tell us all what happens.
    I'll tell you what happens, it cannot focus as you are viewing far too close for the distance the telescope is designed to focus on, to view anything landbased with a telescope you need to use the right lens that is made for the job, this lens would be useless for viewing anything in space though!
    Does the hubble telescope have removable lenses they can just swap over to view things that (compaired to things that are many light years away) are right under it's nose?

  30. i dont find it hard to believe in the least that our lying government would
    fabricate this kind of hoax- they were paranoid of the commies back in the sixties as evidenced by the viet nam war which was contrived to "stop"
    communism in south east asia started with the gulf of tonkin hoax
    the astronauts looked perplexed when being asked questions at the phony press conference they sure as hell didnt appear to be acting like theyf just done the most remarkable feat in human history thats for sure-
    hopefully someday we'll know the truth

  31. heat exchangers do not work in a vacuum! the temperature on the moon is 240 degrees F. wake up!

  32. FAKE moon landings- 1000's of problems, provably fake photos and video, ludicrous explanations by NASA supporters.. the recent photos are blurry blobs of light- if google can take clear photos of a person through our atmosphere from a further distance, we should have perfectly clear photos of the rover, flag, etc..

    1. Explain the reflectors that were placed on the moon then that you can pinpoint with a LASER that will reflect back at the earth. What about LRO? We have evidence that we have been there, you just havent seen it yet.

    2. It has been proven that reflectors aren't needed to reflected a laser from the moon, it can be done with no reflectors whatsoever. It is possible they went to the moon in secret many years after Apollo, but they most definitely didn't go during the Apollo missions, you can take that to the bank!

  33. Yes, the lunar landing had to be fake...It's not like every country in the world was watching them via telescopes or anything....oh wait...

  34. The people responsible for this **** are a bunch of m*rons and so are the people who subscribe to this nonsense....same as the people who think 911 was an inside job...nuts...nothing but assorted nuts!

    1. who put the nanothermite in the WTC dust? how did WTC 7 collapse? wake up...

    2. and you're a swallower of all the goo that gov't and media feed to the masses like you who can't open their eyes and think clearly and look at the evidence for both sides and make intelligent choices based on that evidence.... you'll swallow the hook, line and sinker AND the fishing pole... sheep

    3. You don't have to be a sheep to see the evidence that is right infront of your face, and the government can be lying pigs, but that does not mean everything it does is fabricated. THOSE OF YOU THAT DENY THE MOON LANDING PICK UP A PHYSICS BOOK AND SEE WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO GO THERE! You will see that as hard as it was, we had the tech to do it in 69. Maybe the government did do 911. That is not what were talking about right now. You all subscribe to every conspiracy theory you can find, and that is not something that makes for good judgement. Your thinking that everything is a conspiracy makes your points invalid. The government is not responsible for tricking you all the time. You are the same people who say the government is hiding UFO's. IF SO HOW DID THEY SURVIVE ALL THE RADIATION YOU SAY WOULD KILL US. Do your research please. That's all I ask, your uneducated arguments make me sick, and I hate debating them.

  35. IMO this is weak at best, the whole film feels like their really reaching to prove their points. And they don't actually prove anything. Its mostly "it seems to me" and "wouldn't you think" type arguments. Worth watching if you have interest in the moon landings, but watch the other ones on here as well, don't just watch this one and consider it good reasoning.

    If anything, this film pushed me further to the side that its NOT a hoax.

    1. I found some interesting points. not sure u saw it all.

      "In 33 years noone has ever came to us."
      Jerry Wiant Chief Engineer.
      Jan Lunberg GRP Manager Space Projects Hasselblad 1966-75
      "yes it seem like he is standing in a spotlight, heh. I can't explain that, " after he was asked about one of the photographs having too much light.

      7:08 - 7:40 part 5
      compare earth and moon pics from lunar landings. Go out at night imagine standing on the moon looking towards earth. Earth looks even smaler then moon looks like from earth, How is this possible? is't there an obvious size problem here?. this beggs for better explaination. please prove me wrong. if we were living on moon the earth shouldn't look smaller then moon look like from earth.

      Why the astronaut got upset from jarrah's points on the window view in part 6?, he got upset because he found something unusuall there which cought him of guard. ive been pretty neutral to this ,hoax or not thing, this didnt convince me more that it is not a hoax though.

      When i consider how much our government lies all the time for theyre own profit, i do think its possible they could lie about this aswell, and they get away with everything. like global warming, swine flue, war on terror, i know this are all lies. if they ended all this, there wouldnt be much to read in norwegian newspappers anymore :D. a friend had swine flue, he didnt take the vaccine cause he knew it wouldnt be worse then normal flue. He still lives today though many others got permanent illness because of the vaccine which had not been tested. i think what Jarrah is doing is pretty brave:D.
      f i went to the moon i would put my hand on that bible puting end to this lies... the way he reacted "its probably a fake bible". does he refuse because he can lie to us, but not to god himself? its interesting though.
      Please dont write with hate, but with open mind. i'm not saying we couldn't do this, but don't ignore some of this either. Some stuff which dosnt make sence thats all.

    2. Prove to me god exists and I will swear on the bible. If you are truly and honestly not biased on this, than do your research sir, pick up a physics book. You will see that we had the tech and ability to do this when we did.

  36. No man has landed on the moon in 40 years. considering all the missions they can afford another, with paper money u can afford anything. what did they find on the moon? they have kept secrets for a wery long time but there are some people who try to tell us the truth all the time, but do we listen to them? Apollo 18 never safely returned to earth. Whatever data Apollo 18 had collected and whatever alien discoveries were made remain a mystery. Officially they never had other missions after apollo 17 in 1972 so something caught theyre attention. why can we send probes to the ege of the universe but not to mars moon phobos? all the probes have failed mysteriously in the attempt to go there.

    watch apollo 18. and go to the web site this movie is based on.

    1. there are probes on Mars right now

    2. I was talking about phobos.

    3. There is no such thing as Apollo 18 it's a movie it never happened in real life it's fiction.

  37. Let's consider what it would take for the moon landing to be a hoax. 1. All the people involved never leaked or squealed or blew the whisle. 2. All the would be space faring nations are hiding the fact that they don't go into space because of the van allen belts. 3. All the scientists that examined the moon rocks are either naive or also keeping a secret.
    I could go on.

    My point is that you have to stretch harder to believe it was a hoax than to believe it was real. You can second guess technology and not be sure, but don't second guess human nature. A hoax this big, someone would have squealed by now.

    But I do have a ? tho. Why can't we just point our biggest space telescope at tranquility base and see if we can see even one pixel that obviously is not moon dust? That would end this maybe? No, wait. They would say it's a fake picture. Darn it all!

    1. 1. Only those at the top would need to know, everyone else just thought they were doing their jobs.
      2.They still go into orbit just not beyond the 400 mile mark.
      3.There are plenty of moon rocks on Earth from lunar impacts to be passed off.

    2. @DANN
      1 "Only those at the top would need to know," what about the astronauts themselves,the nasa employees tracking them ,the countless others around the world tracking them,the low level techs responsible for programming the navigation ahead of time and during flight and so on? please provide proof for rebuttals not speculation
      2 "They still go into orbit just not beyond the 400 mile mark." and you have proof of this assertion? by proof i mean positive evidence not speculation.
      3 "There are plenty of moon rocks on Earth from lunar impacts to be passed off. really? they brought back 840 pounds of moon rocks the best estimate i could find of the volume of lunar meteorites foumd (as of October 2010) is 46kg in total. that means that if NASA took them all (nobody would notice right) they would still be short over 700 pounds. not to mention the samples that have been destroyed by testing. also lunar meteorites are different. they would have experienced the extreme heat of entering the earth atmosphere along with the impact with the earth scientists testing these rocks would notice this

    3. Yeah, well it looks like some of those 840Lbs. of "moon" rocks you are talking about are really petrified wood. Not too many trees on the moon from what I hear.

    4. A Russian probe took pics of footprints on the moon

    5. Think about the actual difficulty involved with each Apollo mission. I find it very difficult to believe NASA could pull off all missions successfully (Apollo 13 is still considered a success since the A-nauts survived) even almost perfectly one might say. When they can't even get people into low earth orbit without two catastrophic failures that resulted in the entire loss of two shuttle crews. I've seen a LM with my own eyes. I wasn't impressed in the least.

  38. They couldn't have landed on the moon. The moon lander was obviously too heavy to be supported by just cheese and nothing but cheese.

    What this kid is saying, without realizing it, is the marvelous accomplishment NASA and it's men and women succeeded at using one percent of the technology we have today. This is worth watching and hearing him be so incredulous, because it indeed is quite incredible. These missions were staggering and breath taking, and we should all be inspired by the magnitude of what dedicated people can accomplish if we put our minds to it.
    Never think too small!

  39. The clinton phrase is completely ridiculous, clinton is talking about not believing everythign you see on tv NOT the damn moon landing...

  40. m*ronic, st*pid... I love when id**ts make up a story based on absolutely NO facts, and taking quotes and comments out of context.... ret*rds..

  41. Possible the stupidest show on this site. No evidence just an arrogant annoying little douche trying to make a name for himself. Grab a little proof, learn a little science and maybe get a life.

    Do not watch this unless you enjoy bad film making and proofless garbage. Apparently this site will show anything. Embarrassing.

  42. Conspiracy theorists do make me chuckle. As one poster said earlier 4000 people worked on the moon landings and you people are telling me NO ONE blew the whistle on this great lie. Christ, you can see evidence of the landings with a telescope (but I am sure thats all unmanned stuff right?). And for the "doctored photos" people, are you telling me every photo is doctored, even the newest ones?
    What does really ring true though is that the people who believe this junk "documentary" are the same ones who when confronted with 1000 pieces of evidence for 9/11, and a slew of other "conspiracies" all seem to think their 1 or 2 pieces of "evidence" outweighs the 1000.
    Secrets come out people. When more than one person knows a secret the chance of it getting out goes up exponentially for each person who knows. How does the US keep other countries quiet about this?

    PS. your skin would only be "peeled off" by the Van Allen belt if you were on the outside of the ship and naked. But I am sure the few nut jobs know better than 10000 scientists. Lol. The comedy continues.

  43. I think the staged press conference of 1969 and the recent vid put out on you tube where Neil Armstrong refuses to swear that he walked on the moon and was very defensive and nervous looking when asked to do so is the proof of the alice in wonderland hoax that those three men ever walked on anything other than terra firma earth.

  44. People who believe that the moon landings were faked are ******* r*tarded. You can see the lander, the buggy and its tire tracks on the moons surface with a decent telescope.

    1. Just watch the Apollo 11 Press Conference with these Astronauts who "went to the moon" without getting their skin peeled off by the Van Allen radiation belt. You can just see the bullshit in their faces and actions to see how nervous they were to speak.

    2. @Bhangra singh
      look up the Van Allen radiation belt. what type of radiation is it? how do you effectively shield against it? what type of shielding did the shuttle have? i already know the answers but feel you would benefit from doing your own research.

    3. just like we seen the explosive damage of the american airlines flight 77 which hit the pentagon?

    4. lofl truthers

  45. The gist of this "documentary" seems to be "it sounds so difficult, I don't know HOW they did it!"
    I don't understand Einstein's theory of relativity, either, but at least have the wisdom to know my lack of understanding is not credible evidence to doubt it.

  46. Was this "documentary" an ambitious high school project? It sure started developing into one. The educational disclaimer in the opening titles is a misnomer. Simply saying things are implausible has no educational or thought-provoking merit if you can't provide reasonable evidence. Evidence like this require many sources. Grilling a former test pilot and none of the engineers leaves a gap in the documentarian's argument. Plus, astronomers have been sending laser signals back and forth to the moon--pinging astronaut-left reflectors for more than 35 years. How did these and other scientific experiments get to the moon and set up?

    I hope the student got a good grade on his project.

  47. we didn´t go indeed

  48. Ok, I was going to give this a chance but this is just lame. Repetitively arguing that it is unlikely we don't wish to budget for deeper space exploration but rather simply don't have the ability is weak.Seems very logical that we are too cheap! Then taking a paragraph from Clinton's book and claim he doesn't believe in the lunar landing? Come on this is garbage.

    1. Your belief system clouds your logic.

    2. so does yours

  49. I worked with NASA engineers who were part of the moon landing. I analyzed every aspect of it in order to write a program simulating it. Nothing we did was impossible given the technology of the time. The evidence is overwhelming that we landed on the moon. I looked at all the counter evidence and it didn't hold water. I have to say if anyone believes the moon landing was fake, then I am afraid your judgement is not reliable. However 9/11 was definitely controlled demolition. So, perhaps this kind of conspiracy theory is run by disinformation agents? Oh yeah, Billy Meier is fake too, but the Alien Interview with Victor is real. Disinformation is out there as shown by this video.

    1. Come on dude...seriously.

  50. old hat. nothing new here. and defo a bullshit conspiracy.

  51. Most of this happened during the Nixon years where the TRUTH became a bit of a luxury.I think they landed on the Moonbut this was during the heights of the ColdWarwhere the stakes were high and noone could afford to look like a fool.

  52. Wait till the Chinese land on the moon then we will know the truth.

    1. It won't happen and neither will we. How much time needs to pass before you will admit we never got there.

  53. What a shame, the documentary starts off strong and includes some fairly decent evidence however at about half way through it tips into low quality conspiracy garbage. The documentary maker is unlike able and quite frankly a complete jerk with little of no appreciation for how technological advances come about. I'm a scientist who works on projects, if you ask me questions about specific areas i'm involved in then sure I'll answer the questions but I won't be a expert on absolutely everything, just my part. Harassing elderly test pilot's about insignificant details regarding what camera they were using on a event that happened over 30 years ago isn't what I'd call 'proof'

    I'd recommend this documentary but only because it's funny when he gets punched in the face.

  54. This whole thing about the radiation in the Van Allen belt is blown out of proportion. The spacecraft purposely traveled along its edge to avoid the bulk of the radiation and only spent about an hr traveling through it. The Astronauts did received radiation however but not enough to kill them on the spot. Also much of the physical evidence for the moon landing is completely ignored. Namely the rocks they brought back which were similar to those found on earth but generally older than the average earth rock and missing minerals formed in water in on earth. You can see the dust on their space suits in the National Air and Space Museum. He tries to use the astronaut’s ignorance against him missing out on the fact that the man was a test pilot trained to fly planes and space crafts not to do science and engineering. The Narrator should interview Apollo engineers or if he want specifics on how the cooling systems worked. I’m not a huge fan of the narrator’s tone of voice he seems to poses a lot of doubt in the power of human ingenuity and seems to forget that Apollo technology was not your typical tech from the 1960s it was cutting edge, much of the technology was developed especially to solve the problem existing tech did not.

  55. LOL REALLY, ITS ON NASA WEB SITE, MUST BE TRUE, would they lie ??

    Here's one more nail in the coffin of this ridiculous 'conspiracy'.

    Photo's from orbit of the Apollo 17 landing site.

    See below

    1. Pay up, you can't hide, you owe both of us money, check out Reuters news service, and so what if it is also on Nasa web site, what? they are not allowed?

  56. Did they?.... didn't they?... Defiantly...probably..maybe?...i don't know ...the thing that gets me is when the three astronauts are being interviewed, having just completed the most historic event in the history of mankind.... is just how incredibly uncomfortable they all appear. You would think they would be all smiles and bursting with pride...yet they look sheepish and a little embarrassed...either they are the three most incredibly humble and dull men on the planet or..........

  57. mitchell was 100% correct and if that was me i would personally derail his sense of balance. that is not journalism this is as cheap as it gets.

  58. Strangely quite from all the manned Moon landing conspiracy wing-nuts Eh? in light of all the new manned moon landing pictures from only 13 miles up from the surface of the Moon on the news. From Reuters news service.

    1. WAIT....I hear something......the hushed groans from swallowing a 'jagged little pill'....gulp!

  59. If it was a hoax, why would Russia not have said so?

  60. "NEW" photos from only 13 miles up from the Moon, showing Apollo 12, 14 and 17 landing sites, plus photo of the boot tracks left behind in 1972.

    (Reuters news service)

    Alright, who owes me money? pay up!

    1. Photos? Wake up folks! Photos are easiest thing to doctor up. An id**t can do it these days on his home computer. That's not evidence. I'm not saying the landings were a hoax...just saying the photos mean nothing.

  61. The mirrors which have been placed on the moon, were obviously left there by a remote lander much like the the 'mars rover'... mirrors on the moon does not prove that man has been to the moon!
    Sending remote vehicles has no risk to human life and is a whole less complex as no 'life support systems' are required.

    1. And the foot prints were "obviously" left by a remote lander as well right? And the flag? And the golf balls and the .....
      I am amused how smug you can be at using "obviously" in your point. Lol. Tard

  62. The mirrors which have been placed on the moon, were obviously left there by a remote lander much like the the 'mars rover'... mirrors on the moon does not prove that man has been to the moon!
    Sending remote vehicles has no risk to human life and is a whole less complex as no 'life support system' is required.

  63. ROFLMFAO.... That guy calls Buzz a LIAR AND A COWARD, and Buzz decked him. I would have punched him too.... Oh man that was EPIC... YOU GO BUZZ!!!!!!!!

    If that dumb ass knew anything about physics he would know about Newton's first law of motion which states "A body in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force". This completely explains why it "appears" that the flag was blowing in the? wind, when actually it was still moving from being set in place in a vacuum..

  64. ROFLMFAO.... That guy calls Buzz a LIAR AND A COWARD, and Buzz decked him. I would have punched him too.... Oh man that was EPIC... YOU GO BUZZ!!!!!!!!

    If that dumb ass knew anything about physics he would know about Newton's first law of motion which states "A body in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force". This completely explains why it "appears" that the flag was blowing in the? wind, when actually it was still moving from being set in place in a vacuum..

  65. Wow! What a bunch of skeptics! Watch the Mythbuster one at least. They have no agenda and asnwer nearly every "proof" in this documentary to the contrary.

  66. Sorry if this has already been addressed, I only read this page of comments. I was kind of intrigued by the fact that in several of the clips of moon footage, the american flag did seem to be blowing in wind (as was pointed out by the narrator of the film). This was something I could not figure out even though i'm sure there must be a plausible explanation for?

    1. Oh, that's a super easy explination. I think I saw it on Mythbusters. In zero gravity especially and with no atmosphere, it takes a long long long long long time for any movement caused by touching it to stop waving or moving. Friction is what causes things to stop moving or to move in the first place (like with a flag on a windy) day---- no friction, then that which is still remains still; that which is moving remains moving. But, since it was connected to the pole which was connected to the moon, then some of the energy in the movement was slowly drained away, but not before it looks like it's being blown by the wind (which there was no wind).

      Peace to you! :-)

  67. America , America God shed his grace on thee ! So what if we find out they didn't go to the moon. What is it going to change ? We already know that our government is corrupt,they lie to us all the time ,it just makes me laugh at all of it.....

  68. You don't send a man where you haven't sent a monkey.

    1. you show me a monkey who can select a spot to land a craft on the moon, land it, then take off again, and your point will thus be salient.

  69. Well it might just be the shape of Aldrins visor, but the reflection in it seems to show another astronaut far away in the background who isnt facing Aldrin, you can see no space helmet, and a shadow in the foreground which cannot be Aldrins shadow, but looks suspiciously like a person walking by.


    1. umm, jay, someone did go back. Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, 17...
      just like climbing everest again and again.
      I suppose that's not good enough for you as it's the same gov't liars, right?
      The fact is no one's gone since as there is no reason to and it's very expensive and risky. And I'm sorry but pleasing delusional conspiracy theorists is not likely high on the priority list for the chinese or russians.
      You know aerospace technology was pretty advanced back in the days when the average american thought watching howdy doody on a little black and white screen at home was worldly stuff.
      Do a little research for instance on the XB-70 Valkyrie, an amazing aircraft made by North American.

  71. Aside from the fact that conspiracy theorists regularly acknowledge only the "evidence" that appears to contradict the "official" stories, the larger picture of the "theory" usually doesn't make any sense to begin with. This is especially true when looking at things like the moon landing, and the overwhelming consensus of scientists and engineers worldwide that agree that not only did the moon landing happen, but also largely agree that conspiracy theories like this truly hamper the scientific literacy of our culture. Conspiracy theories like this aren't critical thought. True critical thought does not take all the evidence and try to make it fit into a preconceived story. And this moon hoax story is quite a whopper, considering it would take unprecedented secrecy between a small number of people to pull it off, and even then it would be extremely difficult. But according to this, all kinds of people are "involved" in this "coverup," such as the entire scientific and engineering community. It's downright ridiculous, and beyond that, it's actually insulting to the scientists and engineers that made it possible, and greatly contributed to the body of knowledge many take for granted to this day.

    1. Let us know what "all the evidence" actually is..... other than they told us so & because of sound/visuals that are easy to pick apart as staged. Of which it's far more credible that it was done right here on earth. Appears you have a serious case of cognitive dissonance over positions that challenge dubious official narratives; as if being official makes it ironclad. Critical thinking you lecture about doesn't include gross blanket statements about "the entire scientific and engineering community" as if this broad group were privy to the proposed science and technology of space programs at the time, that a rare number in only one country were.

      "the overwhelming consensus of scientists and engineers worldwide that agree that not only did the moon landing happen, but also largely agree that conspiracy theories like this truly hamper the scientific literacy of our culture"

      Sources would have been helpful, because otherwise that's a throwaway line & if any in the group you highlight were gullibly swallowing or gushing over the wonders, then no less prey to naivete, wishful thinking and confirmation bias as the rest of the population....designed to glorify US power. Unless anyone produces overwhelming data as to *how it was done* to adequately test the science -- oh that's right, soveign secrets -- it remains a conjuror's deceit. 'Scientific literacy'.... which: authentic, in flux, flawed or fraudulent? It's not proven fact or even verifiable theory that man went to the moon. Can't have people - & common mere non scientists at that - rigorously thinking for themselves now can we?

  72. Great this is more political than science,the moon landing is a great hollywood

  73. I have one question for all the people who believe we've never made it to the moon.
    How do you explain the mirrors left on the surface? Scientists use those mirrors for research all the time, it's how we know that the moon is slowly moving farther from our planet.

    1. show me a sat pic of the mirrors.

  74. Van Allen Belts are called "Belts" because they are just that.....BELTS, not BUBBLES. Which means they are only hazardous flying straight through them.
    Apollos trajectory to the moon took them OVER the belts where radiation was minimized. That's why Allen Bean was confused about whether they actually went THROUGH the belts at all. This idiot narrator deducts that because no other nation ever went to the moon then it must be impossible to do so. Trust me when I tell you that the Russians were trying their hardest to get to their men to the moon first but their heavy lift N1 rocket had 30 first stage engines, all with individual plumbing to feed them, never made it into space let alone to the moon. 4 failed N1 launches and they gave up/ran out of money. Ask the Russian's if they were scared of the Van Allen Belts while they were trying to get the N1 rocket off the ground. It's laughable. The Russians would be the first to deny Apollo went to the moon if they had half a leg to stand on. THE RUSSIANS HAVE NEVER DENIED OR CHALLENGED THAT APOLLO MISSIONS WENT TO THE MOON......6 TIMES. WHY? BECAUSE THEY WERE TRYING TO GO THERE THEMSELVES AND KNEW IT WAS POSSIBLE. END OF STORY. LMAO

    Those Apollo astronauts are not mad or defensive at being challenged on whether they went to the moon or not. They are mad because that guy is just plain annoying and doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.
    That idiot can come interrogate me on whether they went to the moon or not. I'm neither an astronaut or old/borderline senile.

  75. I love all the phrases on this comments thing like "in my opinion." People seem to think they are entitled to an opinion on everything. Well you don't. When it comes to science you can have a theory, if your a scientist, or you can bugger off. You dont have an opinion on whether heart surgery shoud be key hole or open chest, or an opinion on how wings on the aeroplane you are about to get on work because you are not a doctor or an aerodynamisist. it's a matter of physics and proven theory not opinion. All of these stupid, inane and unscientific, uneducated comments on whether or not man went to the moon are a waste of your time and everyone elses. The fact they went has been shown proven and still is every day since it started. No credible scientist has or would ever dispute the fact that they went. The way the conspiracy nut jobs shift the questions slightly so they never hear the answers they want reminds me of religous zealots when conforted but the myriad contradictions in thier own beliefs. This is'nt religion it's science. Facts are facts you can't have an opinion further then whether you like that fact or not which frankly is your problem and has no conciquence. Personaly even knowing the science and the facts I always laugh at the people and say the same two things. 4000 people worked on apollo and i have never ever met an american that could keep his mouth shut and the russians would have been the first to blow the whistle on any lie about it because they did and still do hate americas guts and had all the technology needed to track apollo and the lander.

    1. "No credible scientist has or would ever dispute the fact that they went."

      Of course not, scientists are federally funded. That would be biting the hand that feeds them.

      This science caught my attention:

      "Our measurements show that the maximum radiation level as of 1958 is equivalent to between 10 and 100 roentgens per hour, depending on the still-undetermined proportions of protons to electrons.

      Since a human being exposed for two days to even 10 roentgens would have only an even chance of survival,
      the radiation belts obviously present an obstacle to space flight."

      Buzz Aldrin: :"I don't think we went that far..."

      His response to what the radiation effects were like when passing the Van Allen Belt.

      Whoops...looks like NASA wasn't prepared for that question.

    2. I could tell that the comment with this photo would be bullsh*t.

    3. Hey meathead, Buzz is a pilot not a scientist and belts are not shrouds around the earth. You stay out of the BELT. Are you seriously saying ALL scientists are in on this? Do you realize how dumb that sounds or are you simply a troll? Guess what champ, when scientists retire they do not rely on their funding anymore. Dont you think at least one of the 4000 or so who worked on these projects would have said something? Do you honestly think 4 people let alone 4000 can keep secrets for 40 years? You are delusional. Even the mythbusters disproved you meatheads but hey I am sure they are in on it too. Wow. This comment board gets more and more amusing. I truly hope none of you people have lives in your hands at your job. Thats a scary thought. Dumb and dumber part 2.

    4. You
      obviously don't know that in the real world every single employee and remotely
      related sub contracted worker involved in these missions are bound by the
      strictest confidentiality contracts that are in fact tantamount to life and
      death. That people did die trying to get the truth out. Then again you may know and/or get a kickback out of abusive **** stirring.

    5. Buzz made his position quit clear when he punched Bart Sibrel for harassing him. He went there, the man who fell to earth might have only been on the moon for 2 and a half hours, but the breakdown from it lasted a decade. Good to see Buzz back on his feet, a real life hero.

    6. lol not all scientists are federally funded. In fact, most scientists get money from non-federal grants. From places such as companies and universities. And, while the universities are federally funded, the scientists themselves usually don't interact in any way with the government.

    7. Once upon a time earth being flat was called hard science. It's not really that long ago you know. I know why you say what you say and I agree to an extent, but try to comprehend that even the best science today may merely be a close-call attempt to comprehend the true nature of this highly organized chaos called the world we live in. I wouldn't know if that was the case, would you?

    8. Hey Matt, Why not write your next childish blat in capital letters. It's the written equivilent to shouting. Maybe even more people will bow to your clearly superior knowledge. Thank you for existing... without you, we ill educated plebs would lead lives far less mundane.

  76. THEY LOST THE FILM, more than 600 reels of original tape per NASA's admission to the Washington Times in '06, so will never be analyzed for authenticity. And oops, they also accidentally erased the TV footage too. But never fear, NASA came up with a new edition produced in Burbank in '09, all sparkly clean and ready to spoon feed to the gullible. Come on Sheeple, is a Hollywood version acceptable to you? Regarding the original, how could something so historically monumental be allowed to disappear. A library book is tracked better.

  77. The way I see it, Kennedy wanted to land on the moon and was going to try hard to do that during a time Russia was the first to put a man into orbit the space race begins, unknown american government knew they would never come close to the moon they decided to fake it in area 51 and Kennedy would not have it, now he is dead.

  78. Just jotting down points as I watch.
    -Clinton never says he puts stock in moon landing conspiracies. The quote from the book is about how you can't believe everything you see on tv.
    -The reason we don't send things more than a few hundred miles from earth is simple, there's nothing there.
    -only 3 countries have put men into space, not because its so hard but because a cost/ benefit analysis doesn't justify it.
    -They were only in the belts for about 4 hours- the next line in van allen's article says 'unless some practical means can be found to shield space-travelers against the effects of radiation' this was done, astronauts were shielded with aluminium plating.
    -The effects on the eye of radiation actually support the moonlanding because many of these astronauts developed related cataracts later in life.
    -Countries are not too 'stingy and incompetent' to send people or animals past the belts.. there is just no clear reason to. Automated ships pose no threat to life and are cheaper.
    -The lander's cooling system isn't explained adequately here and it is simply stated there is no way to cool down the lander. The cooling system is well documented, it worked by expelling coolant vapour and with it the heat from the lander. Time was limited by the amount of coolant and the power to pump it.
    -docking at 4000 miles an hour isn't that impressive when there is no atmosphere, it only matters how fast they are going in relation to eachother.
    -I fail to see how sending a man to the moon would impact anyones plans to bomb the US from space. US had already sent a man around the world in orbit too so they had similar capabilities going to the moon offers no military advantage.
    -More stuff about why havn't we gone back to the moon...there's nothing there!, why would we? the idea of further trips are controversial. A base on the moon has been proposed primarily to serve as a launch pad to explore further out into space. The feasibility is questionable though.
    -Braun's book was published in 53, it's calculations are simply out of date and could not account for technological advances 15 years later.
    -Once you break through earths gravitational pull (which we can clearly do) the amount of fuel needed is negligible by comparison.
    -Implying that NASA committed murder to discourage astronauts from sharing the truth is serious...and done so with absolutely no evidence.
    -Harassing old men isn't cool.
    -..and the rest is just reassertions and incredulity for a conclusion.

  79. You conspiracy nuts always talk about the astonauts lying...but what about all the engineers and civies involved in the apollo project?! Do they all looked like liars to you in interviews as well?

  80. Look at the faces of the astronauts, it looks like they are sitting in front of trial rather then at a meeting of the worlds so called greatest achievement. If I had been to the moon and back, I would be overenthusiastic to let the world know what I saw, and try to recall every detail, not sit around dumb founded, trying to recall events as if it happened so often that they could be easily overlooked like you were attending someone's birthday party, to be so quickly and forgotten. Their facial impression speaks louder then they will any day, and their actions at old age trying to convince themselves that its was all acceptable...

    1. Right, watch..."in the shadow of the moon"...here on TDF
      personal testimonies of the astronauts themselves that went to the moon, look at their faces and facial impressions and then tell me that they were sitting there dumbfounded.

    2. The Myth Buster Moon landing episode was excellent (for a moderately informed person like myself). They did a good job in my opinion of debunking all the moon hoax theories out there one by one. You can find it here on Topdocs too.

  81. NASA had the time to aproach every moon hoax theory one by one and explain exactly how they did it. It's on their website and I think it's also on wikipedia. I'm talking about real scientific explanations, you all should check it out.
    I belive they went there. If they didn't then they know exactly what's needed to go there and we DO HAVE what is needed to go there. About not returning... the money argument is not convincing enough to me.

    1. Wikipedia? NASA's website? Seriously, you really think that if they'd hoax the entire moonlanding, they wouldn't spend 5 or 10 minutes cooking up some scientific "facts" that John and Jane Doe would be convinced by and put it on the web? Ofcourse they would be as prepared as human thinkingly possible. You really think they would just launch a global hoax without thinking it through and just "go with the flow"?

      "We tend to accept that people in authority are right"

      Why the heck rely on information put out by NASA if they were the ones to hoax the moonlanding?

      P.S. I'm not saying it was or wasn't a hoax in any way, just pointing out that going to Wikipedia or the source of the hoax for information to deny it was a hoax is just non-sense.

  82. Aim a laser at the reflectors on the moon. If you get a beam back, then man landed on the moon and you can shut up. If not, you may have something. (I doubt it, but science must leave room for all data)

    The point is, there's easy ways to test whether we've been to the moon or not, and frankly, we have.

    1. Yeah because there is no way we could have put reflectors on the moon with something unmanned. Reflectors on the moon proves nothing. Sorry but that line of thinking is seriously flawed.

    2. Wow. You're saying his thinking is wrong. And why the hell would man be able to land "something unmanned" on the moon (or elsewhere, like Mars) but it's not possible to do so with a human being on board. It's your thinking that is seriously off man. You just want to deny people have been to the moon without having any actual arguments. Even if it didn't actually happen (which isn't the case of course) that still makes it possible right?

  83. I find it siverely ignorant to claim that the moon landing never happened, it's like denying the holocaust.

    I understand there is a difference between manned and unmanned missions, but that in no way implies that the moon landing ever happened.

    We know more about the moon than the Earths oceans, does that mean No one has ever gone deep-sea exploring before? NO. Whoever made this doc obviously had the full intent of quote mining and decieving gullible viewers, and judging by the stupidity I see in 90% of the comments below me, it seemed to have succeeded in doing so.

  84. A dumb pathetic film that will be received very well by the morons that buy into the Hoax Theory.

    From the text,
    "Why can’t anyone make it more than 400 miles from Earth today if we could make a 480,000 mile round trip in 1969?"

    The idiot that made this statement forgets the two big reasons why we aren't traveling to Moon at present. They are:

    1) MONEY (NASA had a blank check in the 60's and 70's that isn't true today)

    2) NEED (The Moon Race was essentially part of the cold war and then we needed to and did prove our technological superiority over the Russians. Missions to the moon to plant more flags and more footprints just aren't needed. And going to Mars is many many times as expensive as going to the Moon and also isn't needed.

    The creator of this video simply hasn't a clue about space flight. An ICBM can on average hit a target 15,000 Km away with an accuracy of <100 meters. With a bit more propulsive power and the same guidance equipment the rocket can hit the moon with an accuracy of about a mile and a half. Sorry kids its just not that hard. And by the way Dr. Van Allen thinks that conspiracy theory nuts just don't understand how short the exposure to the Van Allen Radiation Belt is on a lunar mission or how weak the field is. it would take days orbiting in the Rad-field to do any real damage to human being.

    Now you guys go watch some 2012, big foot and Area 51videos to stay up on those fascinating bits-o-bullshyte

    1. Exactly. very well said. i was starting to think this website had lost its majority of critical thinkers.

    2. Aaaah, dear Epi! No wonder you would agree with this kind of uncivilized discourse... The level is appropriate in your case though... :-)

  85. NASA shows us what NASA whants us to see... And only that. I only have one question about the whole Moon landing thing. How come the Russians never went to the Moon? Did they just give up on the whole space race thing? That is so unlike them don't you agree?

    1. No. It isn't.

      The space race was for one country to show technological superiority over the other in response to the cold war.

      America won, and was able to get to the moon before Russia, and Russia had no need to spend anymore time on a race that they had already lost.

      Furthermore, NASA ia a scientific organization fixated on filtering credible theories and evidence to back those theories up throughout the scientific community, furthermore the have accomplished many missions into outer space with unmanned probes (Voyager will eventually leave the solar system)

      So to say that NASA, a respected Organization would LIE to it's following is a spit in the face of modern science.

    2. You're neck and neck with someone you're racing against. They pull ahead and cross the finish line. Do you keep running as if you'll win?

  86. Hahahahahahhaha american science so big but american people people so stupid.

  87. He makes mention in the video that many of the scientists working on the program were brought over from Germany after the war. The Germans were big on Propaganda. Why not put together a hoax that gives the people what they want, makes the government look good, and allows them to further develop technology that of course would ultimately be used for military purposes.

    I've checked google earth/moon to see if the landing spots are visible, and they are not. Instead they give you a 3d walkthrough and a 3d flag, but you can't just look at the actual surface close up. Also, I'm sure that somewhere on this earth there is a telescope that could give a good detailed image of that spot if they actually wanted to.

    I've also seen footage of the rover they drove around in and how the sand just falls back down to the surface with no drift to speak of, when in 1/6 gravity the sand should almost float behind the rover before drifting back down.

    If they had batteries in 1969 that could power everything they need for 3 days on the moon and the return trip. Then why the hell in 2010 are we still being told that they can't make a battery for an electric car that will travel more than a couple hundred kilometers. That's only a few hours of power.

    The whole thing is a hoax

    1. Good point about the sand. One thing though: The moon has no atmosphere... In earth, aldo the gravity is 6x, driving the rover in such a surface would cause imense dust to float on the air and it would take a lot of time to clear out. Well, moon has nothing that can suspend the dust so... it just falls at it's normal speed, 1,57 m/s2 insted of the 9,8m/s2 on earth.

    2. About the batteries: the hard part is to get out of Earth gravitational field. On space energy needs would be much lower as there is no major force on the spacecraft. Another thing: if we were to use all the knoledge and science we have for the greater good of all humans and all living things in this planet, we would have solved every problem on earth 50 years ago. But those who call the shots have other interests and probably do not belive that such a world and society would be stable. That's very sad indeed. Look at the mobile comunications. Can you see just how fast we could develop that tecnology out of nowhere?! money makes the world go round and some people are to preocupied with weapons and power.

  88. One of the astronauts said it best, the appalling ignorance to science displayed by the people who make these documentaries is incredible. The author is clearly not even a college graduate. That was shown with his using a fallacy of logic to "prove" that Bill Clinton had doubts. Really?? Bill Clinton doubts that NASA went to the moon, when during his own administration they sent rovers to Mars?? I don't know, is Mars further away than the Moon?? You know there is a precise mirror set up on the moon that an observatory out in California uses to accurately measure the distance from the Earth to the Moon with a laser, right? Do you think they just crashed a rocket on the moon and were fortunate enough to get that piece of equipment to land intact and facing the right direction?

    All that talk about how we couldn't possibly send something to the moon because it is ohhhh so far away, even though we have probes around Mars and now Mercury along with the Voyager spacecraft.

    1. My argument is a little different. I think the moon is relatively close - considering modern technology. How come after 40 plus years, almost EVERY SINGLE photo that NASA has released of the moon has been drastically edited and photoshopped? How come the "best" pictures that are available to us show the lunar module as a very tiny speck? Do you honestly not think we have the technology to map and release the topography of the moon as detailed as the Google Earth street view?

      Just curious. Are you truly satisfied that NASA is releasing ALL uncensored information about the moon to the public (the public who has footed the bill for the space program for over 50 years). Good lord, Neil Armstrong is the most dedicated "yes man" poster boy of the entire Space Program, and even he snuck in a comment about the need to remove "truth's protective layer" about space. Have you ever wondered what he might mean?

    2. google earth street view is taken with street level cameras and the high resolution top views are taken from planes (not satellites) the very high low detail pics are from the satellites. think about it if we had the technology for high resolution pics from satellites why the need for spy planes? and in case you are wondering hubble lacks the resolution to look at the moon with any detail (too close). what proof do you have that nasa isn't releasing all the photos? and what proof do you have that "EVERY SINGLE photo that NASA has released of the moon has been drastically edited and photoshopped"?

    3. now google eaarth also provides full view of the Moon like that of the earth and also the Mars too..

    4. now google eaarth also provides full view of the Moon like that of the earth and also the Mars too..

    5. I think you'll find, paying attention to your science, that theres quite a substantial difference between manned and unmanned missions.

    6. Dan,
      While I'm not attacking the validity of the Moon landing, I must attack your logic. Because we can land UNMANNED (a.k.a. robots) on Mars and even on such things as comets and asteroids does in no way prove that we can land a man on the moon or any of the places we've successfully landed or sent probes. Probes do not have the "overhead" living creatures have. By "overhead" I of course mean life-support systems (air, air-pressure, food, temperature stablization, toilets, radiation shielding, etc.). Each of these needs require an enormous cost in money, payload weight and technolgical inventiveness. You need one tenth the cost of these needs mentioned to send a robot and the robot will still have 200 times greater chance of surviving even with finding optimum solutions to meet all these concerns of landing a living creature on Mars. In other words, it is greater than 500 times easier to land a robot on Mars than it is to land a man on the moon. Just the radiation emitted by the sun which is deflected by the earths magnetic field but is not effective beyond the Van-Allen Radiation Belt would fry any living organism to death faster then placing that same organism a mile or so from ground zero of a hyrogen bomb. So comparing landing a robot on Mars to landing a man on the moon is like comparing apples to rollerskates (especially with 1969 technology... remember, the fastest most powerful computers available to the government was technology made available to the public much later in the Intel 286 processor... do you even remember Intel 286 processors). Food for thought... Chew on that for a while...

  89. besides all the scientific/political reasons why it never happened...
    armstrong 33rd degree and aldrin 32nd degree masons!!

    1. what scientific reasons do you have?

  90. When you believe a lie is the truth it becomes your reality, but its only your reality just because you choose to believe in it! The technology available in the 60s did not provide the availability of space travel in long distance fact ! 250,000 miles is long way away from home and even today no wonder they send only satellites even today just because we are not quite there to unglue our fat butts and travel the distance.

    And after all the American government has believed in its own lies for quite some time and the secret will remain the same. In your heads you did in the worlds eyes you are just big fat liar with your rocket pants on fire :)

  91. Please study up on secret societies (key word: "secret") in re: to your theory about keeping secrets. As for the other one, the backwards logic, I'm going to have to pass.

  92. "If you believe the Moon landings didn't happen, just two words: prove it. Hint: Having a nice-sounding hypothesis != proof."
    Well they just did in this documentary. Anyone who beleives this nonsense that man went to the moon needs a check up from the neck up

    1. there is proof man walked on the moon, there are photos taken by a japanese probe, also there is video evidence that apollo 11 went through Van Allen Belt where have you been.

    2. on the moon to check your so called proof and as it happens the Moon it self is made of cheese and no American flag was found but the Russians were there drinking vodka and said hello!

    3. Ey Jonny, you mind pointing out this proof again? I see a bunch of insinuations, nothing more. Well… besides Buzz sucker-punching that rat Sibrel I mean, I saw that too. Dude had it coming.

      Btw nice fallacy you got there Jonny… Not obvious at all.

  93. excellent best one ive seen on the moon still up in the air about it

  94. Have to log in again to get back on discussion board I guess.

  95. I suppose another rehashing of the old tired conspiracy theories can still be trotted out to an ignorant public. I find it hard to believe there are still people around that believe this junk.

  96. Thye are only unidentified to us the public so you are right there. They (the govt) know who the UFO's are and who is operating them, and they are not human until recently. It is interesting to see what the near future holds and what will be revealed because the govt has to. We did not land on the moon in the 60's. Valiant men died trying to tell the truth. Astronauts with conviction and courage but could not see the "Big Picture".

  97. So what about the Van Allen radiation belts? what about the nuclear bomb NASA exploded in the belts creating additional radiation? Why did NASA bomb Jupitor's sun? With plutonium? Why did scientists in 1959 say that there was a 0.00007 chance of putting a man on the moon? Then in conspiracy, why the differing photos and movie shown to the public from the moon? Why in Australia did a newspaper print articles from Television watchers in 1969 that they had seen a coke bottle in the film? Russia didnt go to the moon and neither did the USA. The Cold War was a fraud, space war was a fraud. Dig deep ask questions, no such thing as a UFO "unidentified flying object" USAF has stated that all CRAFT have been identified.

    1. Why did the Japanese photograph footprints on the moon using their recent probe, why do so many conspiracy theory videos fabricate evidence the videos which show apollo 11 faking being half way to the moon are fake themselves and there is video evidence of apollo 11 going through or past the Van Allen belt, there are also videos which prove that 9/11 conspiracies have had the same treatment, you may ask why would people do this its because there is money to be made from this garbage, it should be illegal to profit from lies. If you want some proof I'll give it for this and for 9/11.

    2. I might have stayed with you until you mentioned 9-11, at which point you demonstrated a complete lack of research and a complete lack of knowledge about who/what is in control of the US Govt. 9-11 required the kind of precision that was simply out of the realm of possibility for the alleged hijackers. It required something like extreme clandestine military planning that only groups like Mossad, the CIA, or the NSA possess. Al Queda is a cia-creation that was, no doubt, employed to play a topographical role, to give the illusion of participation. They're still called patsies, like they were in Kennedy's days.

      As for the moon landing, I just don't know - this was yet more compelling evidence, and the reactions of some of the Astronauts, becoming violent, and in the case of Aldrin, throwing a punch, are not the reactions of men who are comfortable in the knowledge they went to the moon. They are the reactions of men with much to fear - including the shame of their children and the shame of other important family and friends - and it's precisely that kind of fearwhich causes emotional outbursts. I'm skeptical about a moon landing, but I'd still have to say "undecided". That's because it's possible that NASA created the circumstances for a "hoax" theory to keep researchers looking in a useless direction and to undermine anyone who caught up to other more nefarious NASA conspiracies, which may cut deeper and wider if uncovered. Basically, I'm not ruling anything out, except that the "official" 9-11 story is junk, which is 100% truth.

    3. I think you should direct this at the American government ,they are kings of lies and making a profit of it ,wake up !

  98. BAM! Well put Ray H.

  99. The producers of this documentary deserves congratulating. An extremely difficult assignment but it's been carried off superbly.Very well summarised. Needless to say there is a plethora of detailed information behind all this. What hope is there for the world when scientists will sell their souls to political ends? This may explain the significant degree of scepticism in the climate change debate.Who can we trust?

    I doubt that we will ever see man on the moon even in the next 100 years.

  100. Clearly there are a lot of intelligent people commenting on this issue and it sparks decent debate, but I still want to know how, in 1969, the camera work ( taking into account the time delay ) with tilt and zoom, happened at takeoff.
    No, I am not a scientist but an informed observer.

  101. thanks for the correction...it was Gus Grissom

  102. ....errr that's Gus Grissom you mean - not Buzz Aldrin. But cheers for your high-caliber input!

  103. This film was mis-catagorized. It should be in the Comedies section. However, it is worth wasting an hour to see the idiot get punched in the face by Neil Armstrong. Not a bad shot for an old guy. This is truely one of the trashiest, most ill-concieved documenataies ever made. The film-makers claim that, to cover up his protests about the poor level of technology, Buzz Aldrin was murdered by NASA in the fire that took his and the lives of two other Astronauts. They then add to the insult by dedicating the film to them. I doubt if they would have accepted that dubious honor.

  104. Film starts with out-of-context quote from Clinton... wow that's science! He must be a scientist!!!

    Next, there's no math or calculations involved in his opinions. He just says... some dude says it's impossible, so therefore it's impossible.

    Finally he gets punched in the face. Maybe this will make him be a better journalist.

    I wasted an hour of my life.

  105. I think the author of this piece has eaten too much green cheese.

  106. heard anything about " cost benefit analysis" if the US government was to "game out" a scenario of carrying out such a project as to fake such a project the downfall of being caught out in such a a scenario would far outweigh the advantages. This in light of the resources of the Russians, and the hundreds of US special effects gurus and stage people, editors, film technicians, set designers, grips, lighting people, sound specialists, set builders .......

  107. telemetry! radio source triangulation! The control of the thousands of people required to pull off such a deception from so many different countries involved in real time such as Australia, UK, etc at scientific, not political levels. I am surprised the detractors are not dead from tripping on their own shoelaces probably not able to tie them until their mid thirties due to brain damage or congenital stupidity!

  108. Not the same old vacune feces again.


    If you believe the Moon landings didn't happen, just two words: prove it. Hint: Having a nice-sounding hypothesis != proof.

    40 years after the facts what have the denialists got? Wacky ideas about conspiracies and no stars showing on the pictures and other nonsense which just shows their lack of the most basic scientific literacy.

  109. Till nearly the very end, I thought that the film-maker, with all his non-sequiturs was just "intellectually challenged".
    But from the scene where he presses Neil Armstrong to swear on the bible that he actually did go to the moon, the film-maker reveals himself to be no more than a pathetic little prick.

    The films true value is as an intellectual exercise to test who can name the greatest number of absurd assumptions and logical fallacies made by the film-makers (and what mental disorder they likely suffer from).


    1. the fact that he wouldn't swear on he bible is very suspicious. The violent reactions to the accusations shows they have something to hide. They ar liars and frauds and anyone wo believes this nonsense that man went to the moon needs a check up from the neck up.

  110. I believed in the landing for decades. I clearly remember watching the blurry black and white images of the landing unfold as the event took place.
    It was some years ago that a friend pointed out some anomalies in the footage that I started to doubt the voracity of what I had seen on the TV, but especially the shots of the module leaving the moons surface and taken from some distance away.
    This has been explained by some as being a remotely controlled motorised camera tripod, and camera, operated by a person in mission control, who had taken the time delay into account and perfectly operated both camera and tripod to take the pull back and tilt shots of the lander taking off from the surface.
    This is the thing which totally changed my mind.

  111. Honestly if anybody thinks the moon landing was staged, you need to go back to school, and pay attention this time. I won't even disprove all the claims about flaws. That's just it. If the government was going to lie about something so huge, they would make sure that there aren't any flaws in the film! The fact that people can find what looks like a flaw proves that we went. Secondly, I find it impossible that all the people who would have known the truth, would be able to keep it a secret for this long.

  112. I can't wait for the sequel where he will convince us that the Earth is flat.

  113. Well "Man on the Moon", must mean that it really happened.:) For the thinkers in the bunch, its not unpatriotic or disloyal to question authority or findings of any discipline or government agency. The U.S. Gov. (NASA), took the taxpayers on a long ride to no-where. Billions of dollars sucked out of our pockets to fund all the LBJ and CIA special interests. People should able to question, and do it without fear. Were not the ones wearing the tin hats, thats for the folks that desire(expect) extra-terrestial contact.
    We are skeptics, and because of the continual lying on the part of Presidents, FDA, FBI, Senators and Congressmen down through the decades, we've earned the right to desent and question. A patriot should question where theres wrong.

  114. Just a note to cast light -

    The narrator keeps pointing out that the space shuttle only goes to 400 miles (max) above Earth. Yep, that's right, that's what it was designed to do. Aprrox. 200 miles is the "height" needed for Earth orbit. Not to mention that the ISS (space station) is at this altitude, the shuttle is just that - A SHUTTLE - to be used to service the ISS, launch satellites, and conduct 0G experiments. Or maybe some of you don't believe that satellites exist either!

    Also, he keeps spouting "Mach" numbers. Mach is relative to the speed of sound. It bears no consideration in the vacuum of space. Go ahead and scream!

    I could keep going on the faults of this crocumentary but two is all I care to share.

  115. Some of you are so ignorant to buy the manure that we actually went to the moon. 41 years ago we went on a 480,000 mile round trip to the moon but since then we've managed to go only 400 miles above the earth. I don't buy most of the conspiracy bs but this one is obvious. The show myth-busters did a show to prove man went to the moon. It was clear to any free thinking person that they lied there ??? off.

    The astronauts have said yes we went to the moon but I challenge to you listen to these men and watch them as they answer, Any man with a shred of common sense can see through the lies. As for the same old idiots asking why wouldn't the Russians expose us if we didn't really go to the moon?

    1. They had know way of finding us as we hovered a few hundred miles above earth. It would be like trying to find a child's toy boat in the middle of the pacific ocean.

    2. If the Russians said what they really felt that the USA had just pulled off the hoax of the century, It would have only made the Russians look jealous and weak. I assume that most of you think we went to the moon because the Government told you so and we know they would not lie.

    Do some research and after you do, I'd bet that many of you would change your belief that we landed on the moon in 1969. Bush said during his 2nd term that he'd like to see another mission to the moon by 2018. A few years back the space shuttle went just 700 miles above the earth and cnn reported live that the crew was complaining of problems with there vision. During the past 30 years we've sent numerous probes to mars, Have you not asked yourself why all these missions did not have a man on board!

    I could go on and on but I won't. In time this conspiracy theory will be proven right, Most will not because there is no freaking conspiracy around every corner. No human being has ever stepped on the moon or quite frankly even came close to the moon.

  116. What gets me is that there are those out there that if we decide not to believe in this fraud upon America that was perpetrated for very good reasons and that put half a world to work with impressive wages then we are traitors or un American. I guess maybe to an extent we can fit that category because what if the fraud had not been perpetrated, then what would those many people associated with the space industry have done for work? Would then the powers that control our destiny as a nation have to initiate another "Twin Towers" episode (see utube Loose Change), to get us into a war to employ people. At least it was a peaceful way to provide jobs, encourage education for future high tech jobs, and continue our quest to truly conquor space travel and prepare an escape valve to another planet (Mars, Venus possibly), when we totally pollute or destroy this planet. And yes Achem's there are road blocks to establishing off world colonies, but road blocks like rules were made to be conquored and broken especially when the controlling authorities are corrupt and make the rules for us "the Mushrooms" (keep us in the dark and feed us BS*** ), and not for themselves.

  117. No question of a NASA fraud. Millions of dollars collected for these Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions. What is sad as someone put it earlier; Honorable men, forced to act out this fraud of the moon landings. Many of these astronauts had experience in test flight, Korea, and a few as far back as WWII as fighter pilots. The rest had their time fighting the Cold War. None of them were cowards, but they were forced to put on the sharade and help with the deception.
    The thought of a code of vendeta, is a fearful thought. The idea of the safety of their families being threatened comes to mind. "You will help us,, you dont have any choice in the matter".
    "Dad do you want me to call the CIA, and have them waxed"

  118. Deine Mutter ist ein hamster und dein vater richt nach Holuderbeeren!

    Anata no okasan wa hamusuta de otosan wa erudaberi
    no nioi ga suru.


  119. ...and you response to my accusation that you mistook the 'docking' footage, plus held-up a PC game install video as some kinda evidence?

    English, German and Japanese.

  120. Thats it? thats all you got for your proof kid? Just some snide remarks.

    Bad language EH? how many do you know? I know three, and English "ain't" my first language.

  121. Good point... that install video for the game 'Orbiter' that you recommended says [quote] "...we'll make a 'pass' around the moon - not even an 'orbit'...[unquote]".

    Also, bad spelling, and typos on intermanet forums is all-good... but, wooly-pretence at sophistimacation is doubleplusungood!

    "The Astronauts were very "voiced" in docking procedures" {sic}?... I guess you meant 'well-versed', 'cause 'voiced' sounds like some girlfriendless Twatola pretending to be sophistimacated!

    But yeah... those Astromanauts were surely well-versed at every miracle they pulled-off - exspecially the lunar lander - which almost killed Armstrong during testing!

    Additionally, to depart the moon, the ginormous slow-mo roar of the Von Braun rockets that initially throw Apollo 11 up to the heavens need only be one-sixth - however, we see APOLLO ZERO! No rocketry, crater, dust disturbance et cetera!


  122. The Astronauts were very voiced in docking procedures, how did they dock? same way that the shuttle can dock with ISS, inertial nav. system and some math.

    Anyway, you are the one saying they cannot, so the onus is on you to prove it! I do not have to prove anything!

  123. ...well, that didn't work-out! I watched those links, and you, Occam [sic], owe me 12 minutes of my life back!

    Jezus Maan, what are you like? The first clip was how to install a PC game called Orbiter, and at 3.33 the instal-buddy says something very telling...

    Astronauts lives are not virtual, Apollo 11 had no in-situ practice runs - one pressure leak would have killed them all!

    Your second recommended "knock yourself out" is actually 7.10 of pixels we've all seen everywhere. 'cept for the rapturous 'docking' segment at 5.50 which, as the narration clearly establishes, is filmed THREE hours after take-off, and so, is NOT the re-docking of Adrin & Armstrong with Cooper after collecting 30kgs of moon-beams, sorry, moon-rocks, and prancing about in a Masonic apron, with a coupla' silver dollars in my pocket!

    It's utter PANTS!

  124. Here you are, knock yourself out!

    Videos for...

    ...youtube-orbiter apollo (moon) mission tutorial part 1...do this one first.

    ...youtube-apollo lunar landing tutorial part 1...this one also does the docking back up from the moon.

    Goes without saying start at part one and do all the sequence of videos.

  125. ... I'll just reiterate that an explanation is completely missing as to how Aldrin and Armstrong re-docked with Cooper.

    To blast 70 miles directly up from a the moon with 1/6th of Earth's gravity and successfully dock with the Orbiter whizzing at 4000 mph is impossible and remains unexplained here!

    Anyone got an explanation? - 'cause courtesy of this fantastic and humbly made documentary 'Apollo Zero', I now seriously query all SIX Apollo missions, not only Apollo 11.

  126. 'We can put hardware on the moon ie reflectors, not men! Been out there! Know the truth! I Joined the military years ago country and would sacrifice my life today even knowing the truth. The difference between me and you is I see the “Big Picture”.'

    By "Been out there!" do you mean you have flown in a spacecraft in space? You participated in some form in one of the APOLLO missions ... thus giving you the personal anecdotal experience necessary to definitely say it is not possible? Do you even have any education beyond high school? Pardon me for asking but you did join the military after all ...

    Being in the military does not mean you know anything special about NASA or space missions. Being in the military does not mean you have anything to do with, or any knowledge pertaining to aerospace. Your extensive military training from the last 2 years does not make you an expert on NASAs systems built in the 1960s.

    They actually crunched the numbers. They actually sling-shotted a craft around the moon. They actually landed on it with a Landing Module. The evidence is overwhelming, and it has been proven that we had the technology and knowledge to pull it off. The evidence that the landing was faked has been thoroughly dissected and discard as trash. If you spend any amount of time researching the issue, you will quite clearly see there is no basis except the "gut feeling" of conspiracy theorists :)

    It is amazing to me how many people would rather conjure a giant conspiracy in their minds, which requires almost as much complexity to be successful than an actual moon landing. What is harder ... getting thousands of people to keep a secret for 40 years, or plotting a trajectory and firing a missile at the moon with people inside it?

    You admit its possible to land equipment on the moon, but not if the equipment is humans? On which facts that have not been totally discarded at this point do you base your opinion?

  127. Basically every single technical point of the faked moon landings conspiracy has been properly debuffed.

    I don't understand the people criticizing processors of the time. Sure you may know alot about your PC, but that doesn't mean you know ANYTHING about microprocessors available to NASA in the late 60s. You may know alot about the system requirements for Crysis, but it doesn't mean you know ANYTHING about the system requirements for a giant missile to hit the moon. Not to mention the teams of people who designed it, the contractors who built it, and the flight and ground crew who helped pilot it. That's a pretty giant conspiracy ...

    Also when there is no atmosphere to heat up around you, the only heat transfer is radiant. You could protect a camera with just the right kind of paint, my friend ... which I believe is exactly what they did :)

  128. The c@#$ people will believe when its narrated to moving pictures ... honestly o_O

    Do you know how many people it takes to design, construct, and pilot a mission into outer space? More than you can lasso into a conspiracy theory. Not to mention that almost every technical point in this docu has been thoroughly debuffed.

    Maybe this docu was a giant troll ... and I just fell for it. In which case hats off docutroller ... you got me :D

  129. I was not angry nor do I feel I wrote angry. I never used the words "coward criminal liars" etc. I have a lot of respect for our people who continue to try to conquer space travel and I also believe that I conveyed that in my commentary.

    I grew up dreaming of space travel and being one of the ones who contributed to its success. I wish the best to you in your endeavour. Hopefully you are looking at plasma drive and quantum physics. I recommend looking at some of Nikola Tesla'a theories. He is probably one of theh greatest minds this world has ever known.

    There will probably come one day to you a realization that our government lies to us on a regular basis. Usually it is for our own good but not always. I hope that you are able to see a "big picture" and not be as the guy who in Orwell's "1984" who frets about it so and the full power of the government comes down upon him. What Orwell predicted in that book has come to fruition. I am conquered now, they win. What many of us know about this lie is to no avail and useless to argue. What many of us know about the Kennedy assasination now is again useless. I recommend JFK II in the conspiracy section of this site. They dwell too much on the actual shooting scene before getting into the meat of the story of who and why. Funny how some of the main players depicted in the theory have gone on to great heights. That doc is 97% accurate. Thye get a few things wrong but are mostly on target.

  130. Yea I did watch the doc and it doesn't change anything I said. They're main argument was about the "challenge" of going a further distance from earth. And if you didn't base everything you think you know just from watching documentaries then maybe you would know that what I was saying debunks the whole thesis. The challenge has nothing to do with the distance, but with the cost. Not to mention I made no statement about even going to the moon.

    From reading these posts there seems to be a huge misconception about basic things. Somehow people try to make an argument, whichever side they may be, by making statements like "escape earths gravity" or "escaping the earths atmosphere"..cute. The only way to escape the earth's gravity is to be at d=infinity in which 1/d^2=0.

    Have fun writing an angry respond to this Joe. Unfortunately, I won't have time to come back to this and read it because I'll be too busy studying at an accredited university so that I may join the "coward, criminal liars" that make up the rocket science workforce so that I can spend my career "scared to admit the truth about the moon landing" and of getting "waxed by the cia". Enjoy your psyche major, or was that just a documentary series you watched?

  131. If you haven't watched the documentry then you should not comment on it. Getting into space is not the problem here. That is not disputed. If you had watched the Doc then you would know this instead of letting your emotions and sense of Nationalism take over your brain.

    I watched the series of videos "A Funny Thing happened on the Way to the Moon". In it are the raw film footages of the astronauts post interviews done on a stage set up by NASA. Ochem's talks about reading peo-ple, all of us versed in psychology should watch these very boring clips. I bought the whole movie series and watched all.

    We can put hardware on the moon but have not yet put man there. I did your candidness about the space shuttle being outdated. Ion drive and Plasma drive have long been worked on in secret and will be revealed more as our economy and the world economy can absorb the impact of the transformatiom to new technology. NASA employs people worldwide not just nation wide in our space exploration efforts and needs to be supported and continue to strive to explore the cosmos. I have always believed that and always will.

  132. I don't even have to watch this doc, I can tell from the opening summary that it was made by a two year old. First of all only 3 countries, have put a man in space not because its hard (we had the technology in the 50's), but because its expensive and requires a well funded administration.

    Remember, Nigeria and the private company, Virgin Galactic, are close to doing it. Second its false to directly compare the complexity of space flight to the distance traveled from earth, i@#$%^. Gravity has an inverse square relation to distance, 1/d^2, which means the closer the masses are, the stronger the gravity.

    So the hardest part is actually blasting off the surface. I spoke with NASA administrator, Dr. Lind, during an internship interview. He explained that chemical reactant propulsion from the ground and the space shuttle program are being cut because they're outdated technology and too expensive, not because of Obama.

    The space shuttle only goes a certain altitude because the missions flight profile is determined by Newtonian physics, not because it can't go further. Linear Velocity must be great enough to compensate gravity so an object can FALL in a circular orbit. and blah blah blah!; these are 400 year old equations people.

    If nobody believes me, read a f@#$%^& book for once and figure it out yourself, please before you go making a documentary about something you don't know s@#$ about obviously. That goes for all you s@#$ heads commenting too.

  133. I like how 'Apollo Zero' is made very low-budget and with a very honest narration.

    Regrettably “In the Shadow of the Moon” - made with huge budget by no-lesser legendary director than Ron Howard, left me with a sense of being hustled,especially by the astronaut's testimony - they might all simply be lying! It's quite fair to assert that 'Aldrin is basking in the fraudulent glow...'

  134. @billy ryder:

    Watch "In the Shadow of the Moon" here on TDF.

    From the personal testimony of the surviving crew members, in their own words.
    And then tell us how good you can read people.

  135. I've heard about the moon hoax material for about 10 years, but this is the first time-in 2010-that I've seen this footage (the window footage of the astronauts faking the Earth shot)I was weeping at such betrayal (like a child learning there was no Santa or Easter Bunny). Any jury would convict these b@#$%^& for committing perjury.

    I thought the moon hoax folks were perhaps misguided, uneducated or misinformed. Now I see that Armstrong, Aldrin, and the rest are liers at best and lying cowards at worst. History will see this through. They must be asked about this footage. I pray they will speak soon. The footage faking the earth half way to the moon (and Armstrong's accompanying comments) at least prove that he lyed about the circumstances of that particular footage. Although Arstrong today visibly appears to feels guilty, Aldrin is basking in the fraudulent glow of the dark side of the distance moon. Clearly even the laser reflectors on the moon are the pre-1969 Russian remote reflectors (on record) or American mid-1960's remote devices.

    The American program "Mythbusters" claimed that the laser reflectors were proof that man was on the moon, when in actuality, the receiving of the laser signals are only evidence that there are laser reflectors on the moon. They filmed legitimate simulations to practice the moonlandings. later the simulations were used for the moon surface shots, while the scumbag astronauts feined legitimacy in low earth orbit to dupe the so-called evil Communists.

    By the early 1970's, even the astronauts were growing sick of the fraud and even talked about spotlights and simulations while performing their respective tasks in Nevada and in low Earth orbit. They later flights even joked about the LEM by stating there were no craters just like when Neil landed. This is truely pathetic.

  136. The earth-made-and-tested lunar lander travels 70 miles up from the Moon’s surface to effortlessly dock with a whizzing tin can? Impossible!

    We all know how battery technology has progressed in recent decades – no way were batteries capable of doing everything we see in the moon footage over forty years ago!

  137. @Superbuggg:

    There are videos on the docking, google it your self!
    You are not even asking a pertinent question. What are you, a kid?
    If you want to attack, go somewhere else!

  138. Achem's Razor... So, you're suggesting I check-out a site though you have 'not tried it yet'... and that google and wiki have some good stuff on my query...

    Wow... you really are an intellectual giant!

    So yeah... Great documentary! The clinch really is ‘how did they get back up and dock with the whizzing orbiter?’ This point renders the length and angle of shadows supervacuus.

  139. Achems Razor..."That is elementary, as in maths, trajectory, etc:" - please explain et cetera!

    The earth-made-and-tested lunar lander travels 70 miles up from the Moon's surface to effortlessly dock with a whizzing tin can? Impossible!

    We all know how battery technology has progressed in recent decades - no way were batteries capable of doing everything we see in the moon footage over forty years ago!

  140. @Superbugg:

    That is elementary, as in maths, trajectory, etc:

  141. Great documentary! The clinch really is 'how did they get back up and dock with the whizzing orbiter?' This point renders the length and angle of shadows supervacuus.

  142. Well, what about those reflectors on the moon. They were mentioned, but the guy did not describe an alternative explanation.

  143. "China is planning a Manned Moon Mission in 2016. USA in 2020"

    Actually no cupcake... china wont even be ready till 2025... as for usa mr.obama cut that program .Secondly nasa already admits they spent billions on the return trip but wouldnt have been ready till 2030's =p Why? Who cares. Truth doesnt matter anymore. Propaganda and offical story does right. There is no return to the moon by usa anytime soon. Blacky wants to jump on astriods and hit mars .... To think how much practice we could've had on the moon .. But who cares its just american lives right? 9/11 tells us american lives are as worthy as terrorist life.

  144. to be honest guys there is no proof we went there
    any pics or footage they show****

  145. to be honest guys there is no proof we went there
    any they show can be EASILY be doctored, i want to believe we went there but i just don't think its the case, and to the mythbusters epp about the moon landing,they recreated the effects on a stage... dont get me a wrong im a fan of the show, but seriously dont you think that nasa could have done the same thing just on a bigger stage?

  146. The only real value these type of documentaries have, is to provide entertainment for real scientists when they need to chillax with a bong or a beer and a pizza.

  147. you all that beleive we went to the moon are just not thinking this through. Come on man! really to the moon, in 69, with batteries to cool you off and keep you warm! REALY! that was possible back then!
    come on man!

  148. When the Chinese get there, they'll come back with the same stuff we did in just a few years. Or will you idi-ots not believe them either? They wouldn't be trying this hard to get there if they knew it couldn't be done. Right now, they have more money than anyone else on earth, and the time, and the scientists, and the desire, (like we use to have). Just watch 'em go! I lived in China two years. I have no doubt they'll do it and probably ahead of schedule, just for the bragging rights.

  149. It takes a religious nut (sorry for the redundancy) to make a documentary in such a slanted way. Swearing on the bible is to be feared by satanic astronauts??

    Aside from all the clear debunking that's been done... the most obvious is the reflector that keeps sending back data to tell us how far away the moon is to the THOUSANDTH OF A FRICKING INCH. Wakey wakey!

  150. This is one of the worst docu's i have ever seen.

    His arguments are not supported by any faqs and you could interpreted a lot of his information in different ways.

    Also are there some really good explanations about some arguments he uses, which he never talks about in his docu.

    After 5 min he talks about man has never been over 200 miles into space. That is when i started to laugh, in HIS fantasy maybe but de fact are overwhelming that men did go farther into space.

    It is clear this guy just want to make some money with a lot of cr@p.

    I think he did well because there are really people, read other commands, that believes this docu.


    The Russians flew the loenik 2 to the moon without any astronauts on 14 September 1959 10 years before the NASA put a man on the moon. We drove a car on mars , the evidence for this is overwhelming. And THERE are pictures taken of the first moon landing landing place in 2009. On the picture : Equipment from NASA and landing gears.

    Finally where did the moon rocks come from if we did not go there.

    So YES there is no doubt in my mind that NASA put a man on the moon.

  151. NEVER believe ANYTHING your government tells you! The U.S. government consists of nothing but corrupt evil souls and the "yes men" who consistenly bow down and worship at their feet. It takes a strong person to challenge the status quo and search for the truth. I have no problem leaning towards the side who believe that the moon landing was faked. The astronauts who were questioned, acted like stubborn, insecure jerk offs.

  152. Worst evidence ever. "Clinton was posting a secret message to the public in his book about the truth of the moon landing". How paranoid can someone be?!

    And why havn't other countries been into orbit? Because a space program cost a LOT of money. Is it any wonder why the 3 main super powers of the world are the only ones who have been? The others simply just can't afford it.

  153. Yes, "Seven" is a great horror movie. I just watched "Silence of the Lambs" again...

    (Hannibal Lecter, my hero... you know...)

    Pretty much all through October, for me, it is horror movies and Satanic Heavy Metal!!!

    My wife still likes me.... amazing, eh?

  154. @Randy:

    Ha,Ha, see you are still on your brain eating kick! well, you will get tired of it eventually I suppose.

    Talk about horror, just watched "Seven" seven deadly sins, with Brad Pitt, and Morgan Freeman, On my biggg screen HD TV in my sound room, 26 speakers and two 12 inch powered down-driving subs, good stuff!! (LOL)

  155. @Achems

    Vlatko is right, pay no attention! You were educated by life! I respect that, immeasurably!

    Still, I would like to eat your brain... it's all juicy and full of knowledge...

    HAHAHA! I'm just kidding youse! If we ever met, there would be very little cannibalism... probably...

  156. How easy it is for someone to say what can't be done... even after it has been done several times. (I worked at Grumman when the Lunar Lander was being built.)

    There was an instance where a physics PhD candidate was convinced that something couldn't be done. He came to a lab, examined some hardware and witnessed the 'thing' being done. Afterward, his only comment was:
    "Now, I've seen it and I still don't believe it."

    WHY do we even try to convince anyone of anything?

  157. am sure all those statements made against this film are americans....i dont see a valid NEGATIVE point to this film people....

  158. If it were proven that no one has landed on the moon then my feeling would be one of relief. It always saddens me to think that we have spoilt the moon by trampling all over it. I am one of those people who like a beach to be empty and unmarked and like snow drifts to remain unsullied. I would rather we designated the moon a 'no-go area' and left it alone for ever. If the conspiracy theorists are right and mankind has not been there then I would rejoice. I think there are enough problems on earth to keep us busy without spreading our ability to harm all we touch into the rest of the solar system. But, sadly, I am not convinced by the claims advanced by this documentary or others who claim the moon landings never happened. I think some points made have an element of truth in them. For example, I think that someone probably did produce 'enhanced' photographs for press use. I think they probably did this because there were no good quality photos from the moon. I think they probably 'put a spin' on the moon landings. However, I still think, regrettably, they probably did go there. And I sincerely wish they had not. Sigh. So sad. So very sad. Who are these people to destroy the enchantment of unspoiled nature? What right has NASA or the US government to do this? They have rights in America, not in Outer Space. They do not own Outer Space and I want them to stop trying to colonise it. I dread the Chinese going to the moon. Look how the Chinese destroy their own homeland, how they disregard the environmental impact of their actions, how they exploit endangered species, how they disregard human rights... The last thing I want to see is any flag on the moon and of all flags the American, Russian, or Chinese flags are the least welcome. If I had to plant something on the moon, what would I choose? I think I would leave a simple marble slab with 'Sincere Apologies' carved on it.

  159. There ought to be a channel for r@#$%&* on TV, and this documentary would fit nicely on there.

  160. I understand the phrase "Achems Razor" is a song title, and it is spelt that way, and I suppose is a corruption or variant of Occam's Razor. Besides is this forum for only the bluebloods with education?

  161. @Well Educated:

    Should of mentioned instead of going to school, had to work, was not as fortunate as some, so I educated myself, is there something wrong with that?

    1. Nothing wrong with that @Achems. Pay no attention.

  162. @Well Educated:

    I don't believe! it not another one? How many times did I have to defend my handle? Well, Vlatko knows.

    Will do it one more time for @Well Educated, who in my books, does not seem that educated to me. You can use Ocamm's, Ockham's, Occem's, Okham's, and Occham's, besides my Achems. Which all mean the same thing,.. "all things being equal, the simplest solution is often the right one"!

    Your radiation stuff, you better go back to your studies!

  163. @ Achems Razor

    I was very upset to read that you too are Canadian, though i was not shocked to read that you have not been educated... perhaps if you had bothered to go to school you'd know that the correct term is OCCAM'S RAZOR. I cant take anything you say with any credibility! And to think, of all of you that have replied to him, NO ONE HAS CORRECTED HIS NAME, ugh!!!

    But seriously the main reason humans could not have possibly walked on the moon is due to the intense radiation emitting from the sun. The earths' magnetic fields protect us from the suns' radiation, once we leave this protection we will die from radiation exposure.

    The moon lander and suits would have to be made of lead to protect the astronauts. cuz no, the moon does not have a stong enough magnetic field to stop the sun's radiation. my source; a little show on the history channel called "the universe", I'm sure you're all familiar.

  164. ''The moon landing'' was probably the right thing to do at the time for the States and alies. Its a new world mow and things have to be done differently- we can't judge the actions in 1969 on todays standards

  165. @john and joe t

    As for the guy being punched in the face....if someone asks you to get out of there face and you do not give them space then that is considered an act of intimidation and you do have the right to punch them. We know that the interviewer was not going to assault Buzz Aldred but he invaded his safety zone and would not leave when asked. That is considered intimidation and justifies protecting yourself. Basically if he was far enough away from the man he could not have been hit. He did not run up to him and hit him. Just don't hit a cop when they wont get out of your face.

  166. I watched this video because I thought it was going to be ridiculous and thus really funny. I was surprised that it was actually vary logical. If even some of the information is true the the landing could not be real.

  167. Anyone who believes any of this must be r@#$%&*#. Enough said.

  168. @John
    John, I believe you are talking about two different events. No one here has said or denied that the twin towers were controlled demolitions. The astronaut that punched the reporter could have been seen as defending himself in a kangaroo 'court of law' that would have probably leaned toward the astronaut. It would not have been worth it.

    As for 911, see you tube and 'Loose Change Final Cut'. Also see another video of how our government throughout history has contrived events to bring on war. The Maine and th eSpanish American War at the turn of the century. Gulf of Tonkin event that never took place as Johnson said it did to get our involvement in the Viet Nam War. The allowing of Pearl Harbor to involve us in WWII. The list goes on. I found it exceptionally coincidental that Brown and Root was the prime no bid contractor chose by Johnson to do most of the construction work in Nam which was the mother company of what would be Haliburton.

    Looking back on history and our aggression as a whole and the steps forward in technology that we as a country have propogated because of war, makes one think, has it been worth it? Could the technological advances we have achieved through the development of war machines been accomplished any other way than through necessity of defense of ones values and properties? Could we have put so many families to work to achieve these goals without war? Would we have expanded so exponentially in population without those jobs and continued our competetive growth with other nations of the world? Would we propogate a lie of landing on the moon to put thousands of people across the globe (especially Texas, Florida, and California East, Mid West, and Western shore)), and expand Americas influence everywhere.

    Questions to ponder as the Bilderburgers, CIA, NSA, Think Tanks that advise foreign policy, corporations (which are officially by law people now), and other tentacles of our government ponder. Do we stagnate when we have no goals or incentives to step forward in to the future with a purpose? It takes a Brave New Heart to consider and to ponder an answer to these questions. It is a Cross I do not bear at this time.

  169. I have a problem with the author saying he wanted to take this to a court of law, and then misses the opportunity when punched, to lawyer up and get astro minions to speak under oath in court????? Hey what??? As for you all that could watch clip after clip of controlled demolitions and then watch the three buildings brought down on 911 and deny they too were "pulled" You are total mind controlled banker elite losers.

  170. I agree, this guy is embarrassing. If anything he's made me question the opposite of what he's saying. In either case, these astronauts do not deserve to be treated with the lack of respect and insinuations. Satanistic, anti/religious attacks in the name of science is against anything I believe as a scientist. It's counter intuitive and counter productive on his part. He talks about morality and ethics, what about in the name of responsible jouralism? He shouldn't have to get to the point of someone punching him, especially someone older than him, to make people believe him. In fact, he loses credibility in my mind!

    Note: I believe that these missions probably did not take place as they are said to have, but I am looking for more 'professional' interviews and videos to find the answers/information.

  171. whats more entertaining than the video is the comments

  172. the facts speak for themselves. Great work on this video. the reporter who got punched shouldve knocked that old geaser out!

  173. mickey mouse lives on the moon with elvis john lennon and ghandi.......mickey mouse wears a barack obama watch.

  174. Typical covert manipulation of events brought to media in order to influence public opinion. Bring the 'boogey man' (Russians, Germans, etc) in to play to bring public support for the space effort. This is one of the many good things that covert operations do to influence American society's way to think and do things.

  175. without the nazi element there would not have been a nasa program, or a russian one either... why does this bother you?

  176. All u have to do is punch a hole in 1
    thing concerning walking on the moon
    Neil Armstrong could not control the LEM
    here on earth he had to bail out as it crashed
    and were supposed to believe they landed
    it without a hitch on the moon?
    Van allen radiation belts?
    They orbited for 8 days well under va belts
    the mission control played the moon walk video
    made here on earth. Case closed

  177. I agree this guy did it all the wrong way but jeez he's got some balls to go to a man's house and call him a liar to his face. If you haven't made up your mind on the subject then the reaction from these guys should at least give you a helping hand. One more thing and it's the thing that pi**es me off most is how the nazi element in the NASA program has never soiled its greatness. Surely even the fact they were involved should make it wrong.

  178. Great documentary! It states my beleves!!

  179. I see the comments have gone off on an emotional tangent. Our country would never mislead us, the astronauts are too honorable to lie, etcetera.
    These astronauts are among the most brave, intelligent and honorable men in the world. Noone is disputing that. However, they were all proud military officers, sworn to give their very lives for their country, should such a sacrifice be required of them. When their bosses explained that they had to help with this project, they really couldn't refuse. I'm certain the fabricated stories were required of them as absolutely necessary to the future of their nation and its people. They wouldn't enjoy doing this, but do it? You bet. Just watch their body language during interviews. They are lousy actors. To this day Neil Armstrong avoids all publicity like the plague. He cancelled his appearance at a celebration, but then relented and appeared. He is tired of this mission, more than any of us, I'd wager. Great American, and a fine pilot. He deserves all our respect. You people have every right to believe what you want regarding the moon missions. I would never confront the astronauts (whom I admire very much) and act like they were the coverup artists here. They were used specifically because of their fine characters, and this is the biggest sin of the whole deceit. The little rat that made this particular doc deserved a fat lip, and he got his.

    Some of us, however, are interested in finding the truth. In science, nature, finance, society, there are many secrets. We enjoy discovery and free thought.

    I think discussing the technical problems is the only way to show how unlikely all this is. Americans are not children, and they shouldn't think like them. We can handle the truth.

    Many pro landing arguments state that the reflectors they use to bounce lasers back to Earth were put there by our astronauts. There is probably just a spot with exceptionally high albedo (reflecting power) like the crater aristarchus, a quartzite deposit or even a patch of ice in a deep crater somewhere on the face of the moon.
    They aim at this 'spot', and fire the laser (with slaved optic sensor aimed at the same point). The time between the firing and the seeing of the 'dot' on the moon is noted. This time (divided by two) would give the distance to the spot.
    You just need a powerful laser and a telescopic optical sensor connected to a timer. Doing it while the target area is in darkness would make it easy to see. It's not impossible at all.

    Let's consider the lunar lift-off of the crew capsule, after the lunar visit was over.
    The moon's gravity being 1/6th of Earth's means that the part of the lander that blasted back into space would have to achieve velocities in the thousands of miles per hour. 18,000 mph Earth maybe 3,000 mph to orbit the moon. (1/6th) Maybe more, I'm no mathematician. But you do have to fly very fast to achieve orbit. Action (rocket thrust) creates reaction, using fuel, providing acceleration to orbital velocities. Something bigger than a suitcase should be evident. A large tank would be necessary, which is not seen on this crew capsule.
    At (maybe) 3,000 mph the command module is orbiting the moon while the capsule the moonwalkers are in is trying to rendezvoux. 3,000 mph works out to 4,400 feet-per-second. That's a thousand FPS faster than a bullet from my .30-06 M1 Garande. Every second the command module is moving 4,400 feet. Any error at all in lift-off time or co-ordination of flight path meant that no docking would ever be possible. If the crew capsule doesn't catch up, first try, then it never will.
    How would two guys with a computing machine of that vintage stand a chance, even with help from the JPL?
    And no problems with the blast-off and docking maneuvers were reported. On any of the missions. (That I heard, and I was fixated on these missions as a teenager.)

    Now let's consider their electrical power needs for two days in the fully instrumented, well lit, interplanetary shortwave radio equipped, somehow-cooled lander, and whether those batteries would be possible, at the time. How much would they weigh? Big, heavy lead things with acid in them.
    I don't believe Lipo or Nimh cells were available WAY BACK THEN.

    Today we have APUs that can deliver power from powerful new fuels, like mono-hydrazine. Hydrogen extracting fuel cells. Efficient solar arrays. Tiny nuclear reactors for un-manned space probes. (Radiation is too dangerous for crewmen)
    With a real electromagnetic shield, (needs to be developed for all manned space flight, anyway) and some sort of gyroscopic stabilization (easy part), and modern computers (got 'em), we could almost try this today.
    Maybe we should. Show the world we are a Can-Do country. Unfortunately, we've spent our money and credit on wars (for the bankers) and medicare (for pharma and the votes) instead.
    Oh well.
    You all believe whatever makes you comfortable, ya hear? Go watch the news... receive today's programming.

  180. First I would like to say that the man who did the interviewing is a very disrespectful person. He was standing before men of great faith and great minds, as well as men who risked there lives to make America great. I think he is truely an un-American, and may as well go and live with the communists. When he got socked in the jaw I wish it could have done more damage, one thing for sure, had Buzz hit him twenty years earlier, he would have been drinking from a straw lol. In summation, he proved nothing but what an jackass he is, and also that he is the coward. He can not give one good reason why the moon landings were faked, he stands on the false fact that we were trying to scare Russia. Lmao like they wouldn't have thoroughly studied the landings, and been the first ones to cry foul had they been faked. Dan A. Giammarino

  181. Excellent documentary! we did not go to the moon in 1969 however after that we did, but the whole apollo space program was a huge lie.. The fact speak for themselves, you can dwell even deeper into the debate as you look closely at photographs taken "on the moon's surface" absolutely impossible to be done. I can't believe buzz aldrin physically assaulted that man.. If you were telling the truth and not living a lie and profiting from actual events and not false ones.. why, would you react that way? Call the CIA and have them waxed? is that a correct response to someone who speaks the truth and is not lying..? why have them killed if there is nothing to hide? ridiculously stupid. Very good doco thanks!

  182. The former President used the term nookyoular- then I guess he knew nothing about modern weaponry?

  183. @ Justwatch:

    Yes, you have just nullified it, thank you for your input!
    You have nullified, @ Mooned: post, on 03/05/2010 at 01:26.
    Let us see if he can get around that.

  184. Furthermore absorbed dose would be the critical issue here and that is not measured in (R) or reontgens but in (msv) milliseverts or (RAD) or (REM). To give an idea as to conversion 1 (R) = 10 (msv). in this doc they mention the level of 10R as being 50% fatal. well a standard chest CT delivers 10 (msv) or 1 (R). that would seem to imply that 5% of those given a standard chest CT would die. Well in short he knows nothing of radiation physics and should stay off that subject entirely. I believe a previous poster said if you can debunk one aspect of a theory that theory is nullified. Thank you scientific method for making it so easy to prove this dude is a tool.

  185. Part one: my comment is this "rent-gens" If this guy is attempting to be an expert on radiation physics he may want to first understand the term Roentgens or (ren-kins) mispronouncing a term named after one of the founders of the science Willhelm Roentgen is a pretty obvious way to show that you never ever studied it.

  186. I can't even call this a documentary. I am normally a skeptic. I see there being room in everything for being questioned and analyzed. But as an engineer with an interest in science and history the probability of the moon landings being faked is so outside of the realm of possibility for me that it's mind-boggling. The sheer amount of evidence supporting the moon landings speaks for itself. As for the reactions of the astronauts, how would you react if the greatest achievement of your life is being called into question by this idiot. The 12 men that have walked on the moon and the multitudes of people that were a part of the Apollo program are an astounding example of the ability for humans to have a goal and conquer it.

  187. I don't suppose we will see MythBusters take up the test on the Hasselblads in their moon shows!

  188. John Seals -I am not a conspiracy "nut" - Documentaries are most always slanted - I have yet to see one that is not in some way. Mirrors on moon because you or NASA says so proves nothing and can easily be refuted - scientist "every where" demonstrates your ignorance...just as Pete brought up - the cameras and the filming can not be explained - the information on the equipment makes it impossible to have functioned. This is as blatant as a flashlight not working w/o batteries. They will not work and this is what gives a ray of hope for the filming of the landing being staged.

    Personally, I don't care one way or another - what I care about is whether we have been told the truth and there are tremendous concerns that are completely validated and can not be answered to the satisfaction of the people that want to know.

  189. Hi John,
    I don't know about the mirrors. The thing that bothers me is the cameras. They were Hasselblad 500s with no special modifications or covers. In a period of two hours on the surface of the moon the temperature would go from +130 to minus 150 degrees, the heat changes in +50 degree heat causes chemical changes in photo emulsions, the mechanical parts would expand and the lens would loosen. Extreme cold renders batteries and the exposure meter useless, and freezes the film which would shatter like glass at minus 80 degrees. X-rays from the sun would fog the film and UV rays would distort the colour- yet the colours are perfect in the photos we see. - if you can tell me how they could have functioned properly in such conditions I'd be happy to hear it.

  190. @ John Seals
    Your Spaceship awaits you...happy travels
    Take along a dental mirror for closer examination
    and don't forget to floss! PS: Vote for Homer Simpson
    and bring us back a moon rock from your backyard that the "Canadarm" plunked there for you...

  191. If we didn't land how did the mirrors on the surface get thier? Thier are mirrors on the surface of the moon that we hit with lasers in order to get exact distance from earth to moon. Explain this conspiracy nuts. I have seen documentaries where they went through and adressed every point you conspiracy guys bring up and explained all of them to the satisfaction of scientist every where. Get over it we landed on the moon. Maybe when we go back you will admit you where wrong.

  192. @ the Newbies Who have landed. When I was your age I built the plastic Apollo rocket ships and thought? I was on the moon...
    Evidently, you guys snorted more of the the Lepage's glue
    than me...PS: We also did early "photoshop" overlaying pictures to put on the fireplace mantle. Yeah...propaganda...seeing is believing...we were all duped! nOW DO THE REAL RESEARCH AND CHANGE "IMAGINATION" INTO "REALITY" BESIDES, YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER:

  193. I would like to believe they landed on the moon too. I was nine or 10 at the time, and I remember visiting the tracking base here in Exmouth, Australia, and it was most impressive to see. We saw the Apollo 11 crew as they visited our city in a parade through my suburb. I have great memories of this. But the various sites on the web, like the Aulis site etc pose a lot of thorny questions and arguments, that are hard to dismiss. It is likely and possible that Apollo 8 went round the moon, and within the limits of credibility, given there were not any dangers from radiation as some critics postulate, but as you say landing on the moon is another ballgame.

  194. back @u John Seals

    ...as foul as this documentary might be, it illustrates the incredible proficiency of their skills and knowledge in their accomplishments at all levels of operation from the Astronauts and control room personel to the first piece fabricated to assemble those mammoth compartmentally designed structures.

    That said I must admit, I am only stating what I know and believe beyond doubt...I can not say that for whether or not they actually landed, I am not prevy to that information. I think a case has been made that the filming of the landing is questionable. If so, what else is questionable, like did they actually land?

    I believe cicling the moon and landing are two completely different projects.

    One is like being a rock in a slingshot and being rotated in circles, never being released, while the other is like being flung from the slingshot and then having to somehow return to it. This guy picked the wrong argument (exceeding 400 miles) for his documentary and should have focused on my comparison: leaving and return to an object going thousands of MPH, that and the real conditions on the moon, those should of been the points to focus on.

    This could have been done a lot better and although this guy is jerk in how he comes across...if ever it is proved that they didn't land on the moon, then Buzz, Neil and Co would indeed be frauds and as sad as that would be to learn - if true, it does need to be exposed.

    Like most all of us, I want to believe it but that kind of faith I put only in God.

  195. @ Dave L

    I completely agree with you, that Bill was the real deal. I hate to see people dishonoring the memory of these men. They are true heros that possessed courage beyond belief. I have trouble even getting in a air plane. These men went into a totally alien environment and accomplished a job so huge even now we can hardly wrap our minds around it. To all those in the Apollo program- You where and still remain heros in the minds of educated Americans every where. Never again may we have the privelidge to come to know men of such honor and courage. Your accomlishments will never be forgotten and your legacy is much too strong to be tarnished by claims of conspiracy and corruption. The dream is still alive and soon we will go back, to stay this time. That would never have been possible without you.

  196. WHOOPS!

    My Bad! So sorry...I said Jim Anders...I meant "BILL" Anders.

    Give me a break, that was along time ago!

  197. When I was 12-13 I lived down the street from the Ander's. There son Jim, an astronaut was on the first flight to circle the moon...one day when I was over there messing around like kids do, his dad came out and we got to talking and he told me about Jim and it was very exciting to learn just down the street was this famous astronaut, the clincher was when he invited me in to the living room and above the fireplace was this huge picture of the earth with the moon in the foreground.

    There is no doubt in my mind that picture was authentic - meaning Jim Anders circled the moon - meaning the spacecraft went beyond the so-called limit of 400 miles.

    Jim Anders would have to be the worse person on earth for that picture to be fake and even as a kid, I knew just how proud his dad was - that was not a fake. USA Spacecraft's have been able to go well beyond the distance of the moon and back.

    And for the record Jim Ander's is the real deal, a highly respected true authentic space explorer from the Apollo program.

  198. If there are any JFK conspiracy thorists out there I recommend the doc "JFK II". It is right on target and will tie some loose ends to recent past presidencies as well ties to 911. To those of you that know that that the final kill shot through the head had an entry wound in the throat and exit wound in the top of the head, I give you my theory of who provided that shot. There is only one place that shot could have been made from and that would be his lap. Therefore, John connely shot him when he laid down in his seat after being hit himself and gives the explanation of why Jackie tried to exitted the vehicle immediately. I believe Lee Harvey fired the shot on Cnnely trying to protect the President. Lee was a CIA agent that was also discovered to be a rat for Hoover reporting directly to him on th emovements of the CIA.

  199. What amazes me was their first interview immediately after "coming back" from the moon on a stage in front of the media. Very telling to those who can read body language. The interview I am referring to is seen on a doc called "A Funny Thing happened on the Way to the Moon". A lot of footage straight from Nasa archives. Very telling.

  200. @ Art Rod:

    Watch "In the shadow of the moon" here on TDF. narrated by the astronauts themselves and see how they do not answer questions, and where vague, and short, and no eye to eye contact! Check their reactions!

  201. Like said below on previous comments, We needed the landing and if it was not possible we would have had to bluff our way. and yes look at the astronauts face when they get asked questions they don't feel eager to answer questions and on the questions they did answer they where vague and short and no eye to eye communication. Do you guys remember the kid who was on the news about the spaceship that they could not find?? look at the kids reaction when he was on camera, He had the same looks as the astronauts. Be open about it and think about it this way, if we didn't fake it we would have probably gone to war for many years. strategy, strategy don't get pissed just because you or your parents believed it and got hustled. be proud that our government would go to any extent to protect us!

  202. L O L !!!!!!~

  203. @ joetmml
    Space flight requires very little oxygen...
    The trick is learning how to hold your breath!

  204. For all you die hard dockers who are eager to register so you can join in all the fun! You are missing out on...
    Check out the Dancing Spiderman's Solution For Oil Pollution POST
    @ FORUM: Politics and Current Affairs

  205. The government is corrupt, but there is a "bigger picture".

  206. Some really good discussions here guys especially about the amount of o2 required for trip.

  207. @ Dancing Spider
    I have reformed and now a registered member of the Top Doc group
    I sent you a message from the FORUM thanking you and
    announcing my initiation...consequently you don't seem to be registered as of yet. What gives?
    Drop me a line when you are on line OK

  208. Achems,
    Sorry if you thot I was calling you out as a Rules Nazi... I actually was NOT referring to you. The way I wanted that statement from my previous post to be interpreted is that, for those who ARE Goody Two-Shoes Rules Nazi's , they darn well DO know who they are. I did NOT consider you one. For future reference, when I mean to get a specific person's attention, I type in their Username; otherwise my statements are just a broadcast to ALL, a lonely cry for attention, loosely germane to the topic of the video.

    I love you all. I love you too, Achems Razor.
    I am glad we have just one special place on the internets where we can cogently discuss a video without enduring the negativity that sometimes goes on at the wild wild west frontier known as YouTube. Thats the reason why I leave the weblink to my YouTube page, that you may visit by clicking on my LoserName. We can have our knockout-dragout THERE all you want.

    My issue against Facebook is that, in order to visit a member's page there, you FIRST have to create a profile with a zillion information fields to fill in. Then, and ONLY then, are you able to go read somebody's Facebook content. That's just too much work for me. If all that's required is that I come up with a LoserName and a Password, then you've been able to hook me. I have not posted on the TDF Forum as of yet, but I prolly would so to have any sort of verbal fisticuffs on a topic, since we are ALREADY signed up here on TDF.

    "I'd like to teach The World to sing, in perfect har-mo-neee..."

  209. Vlatko thanks! Like my Math teacher once said: "When all else fails...read the directions. I will make use of FORUMS And Gravatar. My error! In the future I will advise your followers that I have gone to FORUM status or Avatar Whew! I feel educated now. Regards.

  210. @ Eff:

    Yeh! your right, am not mad at Spider, we actually had some good posts together, anyway I apologize @ Spider: no harm, no foul!

    What is the matter? Eff, type on here as you would on typewriter, it's easy!

  211. Now I'm really confused! What are the rules anyway?
    Fill the rectangular box from left to right?Make it fit nicely Or? Where do I find the rules? If Vlatko advised me I missed it...which is another reason for a common place(site) to connect. Thinking? a (closed)Facebook Group was the answer.

    I respect everyone's anonymity...I however am an open book
    with nothing to hide but a few dozen scars on a worn out body.
    So why not Host it. I see a lot of people asking: what do we do? So I figured? Why not share ideas to make things happen instead of rattling on about the woes of the world.

    I apologise for my unorthodox writing skills and my penchant
    for leaving gaps in the right margin...its habitual...HELP!
    Consequently, I always seem to create conflict with intentions for betterment. So Achems and Spider, if you are both done
    DUKING IT OUT! Shake hands and get back to your respected corner. I respect your valued opinions...let the great debate continue with a good argument and feel free to Cuff Me with a Left Hook! If required... Wham! Ouch! Please advise.
    Where is the referee? And what is the protocol?
    I wish I could share this burnt chili with you guys
    it's even got extra garlic in it to raise your spirits.
    Don't assume or get paranoid...that's my job...Thanks

  212. @ Dancing Spider,

    If you are referring to me, never went to f...n school, well, not much anyway.
    Follow rules? not. And if that was idle threat, really do not give a flying f...k!

    I just found it hard to read!! Thank you.

  213. Hey Eff,
    I'm all in favor of typing comments in whatever textual manner the commenter sees fit to abbreviate or spell them, just so long as what we post is within the rules of the place.

    After all, I or NONE of us semi-intelligent peons are going to be the ones specially selected by the powers-that-be to make major changes in this stupid F'ed up world, not with usage of correct English, nor with observing posting protocol, nor with the ideas of any of our comments. We here are ordinary people , who are given a place to voice our opinions about the video.

    Now, don't all you rules-nazi's and ex-school-hall-pass-monitors start harping on obeying posting rules -- I'll lose ALL respect for you at that point. And YOU KNOW who you are...

  214. @ Eff:

    My problem is that I will never join facebook or any other such site, have my own reasons. But thanks for thinking about me!

    I really wish you would acquiesce to Vlatko's request that you write across the page. Just a friendly warning.

  215. 2 Achems Razor
    It was never my intent or otherwise to PEE OFF! the Editor...It's my writing style... I'm not typing a newspaper article And I feel that it is BETTER READ THIS WAY And besides...it doesn't appear as cluttered or disjointed...running off the page as much. (Any KUDOS coming my way for minimal typos?)

    On other news: I've started a (closed) Facebook Group entitled: Top Doc Junkies Tea Party That I have dedicated to Vlatko Who is instrumentally responsible for linking great minds from around the globe. I thought it would at least connect the dots with the others...as to where to find each other? on the Top Doc Sites...and a place to reconnoiter for quick discussions for future research... re-supplying this SITE with future documentaries. ...without cutting anyone's grass... instead of coming back to Apollo Zero or whatever to find you and the others who share the same interests... in lieu of backtracking to search former doc sites to reply to comments...in effect...it will save us all a lot of time without interrupting the enormous progress being made here.

    Whatcha think about that? Cheers then! I hope you are the first to join the TEA PARTY! It won't hurt a bit! Perhaps you could pass this along to: Vlatko, Dancing Spider, Pacha, Pete, Joe, Scott, Matt, El Hanzerino, Capricious, Yavanna, Josh, Ayran Aukland, Emily, 30-stone, firefly, Epicurean Logic, Po, m, joetmml, Triad, halmeren, C2,Art History Videos, WTC7, Tigerass and the many others who I have failed to mention HAVE A GREAT DAY! Keep that RAZOR Sharp!

  216. @ Eff:

    Yes, found all your humorous sayings. I know, am always trying to quit the lung rockets.

    By the way, do not piss @ Vlatko, off. Write in full sentences across the page! like the rest of us humans.

  217. @ Pete
    Just dial up: Moon for sale On this great TOP DOC SITE (thanks again Vlatko and associates) and cut back on your sugar intake. No worries! I too have urrendered a few molars and survived several root canals. My dentist has actually taken pictures of the inside of my large mouth that resembles a lead mercury mining pit.

    Flouride was added to the water at the German WW-2 camps to keep the prisoners docile. Aspartame (that sugarless substance) does the same thing. It's a conspiracy... endorsed by your local illuminated dental industry. Try Baking Soda instead.

    @ Achems and Spiderman and Pete and... I left several (hopefully humorous) comments on past Doc sites for you. You just gotta find them! Happy Hunting!

    I will keep all of you updated... I was thinking we should all get together at a common site with the other Down to Earth Top Dockers and have a TEA PARTY! Who knows? As a conglomerate...we may change the world... By WAKING IT UP! (to be con't).

    And Spider...by the way: Didn't you know? That Incest is best!LOL.

  218. @ Herb:

    Once you are free of Earth gravity, the engines are cut, and free sailing to the Moon.

    The Earth and Moon gravity at that time are negligible to some thing as small as spacecraft.

    Don't they teach stuff like that in your schools??
    At least Google it!!

  219. @DancingSpiderman
    I thought maybe I'd said something uncouth. The joys of internet conversation.
    I was never good at Cryptic crossword questions- it does look suspiciously like one. I can stop thinking for an answer now. My hypothalamous hurts! Perhaps the fluoride has made my joke receptor brittle, hmmm...

  220. Question, assuming the moon orbiting earth has somthing to do with earths gravitational pull. Then one would assume the space shuttle would have to blast out of earth atmosphere and fight the earths gravitational pull until it was close enough to the moon to enter its gravitational pull. so that rules out being able to blast the engines once and coasting the 240,000 miles... thats one hell of a trip on one tank of gas!

  221. Pete, never mind. Good joke gone wrong.
    Just -- NEVER MIND.
    I'll stick to the narrowly focused topic next time. Sowwy. BWAAhahaha

    But, getting back onto the subject, I WONDER whether adding fluoride compounds to the water supply actually does help our teeth. What I was told back in college chemistry was that , in high concentrations and in direct contact with bones, fluoride causes the calcium to be leached out of bone, causing it to become brittle and prone to fracture. But then, there are millions of very old people living in desolate regions where you KNOW their water supply is not fluoridated, but they still have all their teeth that haven't been knocked out in a fight or war. Hmmm... "Better living through Chemistry"...

    I would have liked to have seen Buzzard Aldrin knock out the teeth of the annoying interviewer. That interviewer stopped being useful in the movie, and quickly became a pest to be swatted. Buzzard, the scrappy old fart.

  222. @ DancingSpiderman
    Dear friend, I am not sure what you mean. You must have read me wrong. Where I used to live, they put fluoride in the water supply. I moved to another city in another state where they don't put fluoride in the watersupply. I then lost two teeth. Not being in the USA I don't know what non fluoride area can possibly mean other than the obvious references Eff made to fluoride laced toothpaste. Does fluoride have racist implications?

  223. Ladies and gents, the Tim the F4 jet techo challenge is still out there waiting for a Yes we did go to the moon person to answer. It seems they indeed are being selective in the arguments they defend- still give it time, perhaps the mental cogs are turning on this one... I would like to hear some convincing answers. Then maybe I could believe it's true.

    If the camera does not work, then all those moon photos are bogus, and we have been sold a bunch of big fibs. If I sent a bunch of rockets to explore the moon, in the days before Hubble, it makes sense to me that we forget the golf and the beach buggy, take some Kodaks instead and get some decent snaps of the earth, the sun, and the stars- surely it's way better up there than from Mt Palomar. Not being prepared doesn't wash. If they got there, and the cameras worked, they would have done some such photographic record. But they had none. Go figure. I guess astronomy is too hard to imitate- just look at the original Star Trek.

  224. Pete,
    Redheaded step-children in southern states don't like it when you make fun of the way their sister-wife looks.

  225. @Eff
    I moved states to a non fluoride area, and then funny thing is I lost a couple of teeth!
    Where do I find the Moon for sale doc?

  226. @ Pete
    Thanks! It's my satirical nature Bible stories are pretty far out too! Albeit I have also read Chomsky and am well aware of being force-fed propaganda from Day-1
    I've also stopped eating fluoride-laced toothpaste I hear that it makes one sluggish and hinders the operation of a TV remote: To want to turn the damn thing off!

    PS: Have you checked out the MOON FOR SALE DOC? I think that I have some Helium-3 rocks buried in the backyard if NASA wants them?

  227. Nice lines Eff,
    I blame the comic books too...

  228. ROGER THAT! The Beagle has landed... Montreal Canadians-2 : Apollo-o

  229. OK , sounds good eff

  230. Conspiracy Theorists: Armchair detectives. They are relentless in their pursuit of truth and reality... and viewed by the generic public as a compulsive lot, heretics and visionaries promoting their philosophical views and going against the grain of seeded contemporary thought perpetrated by mass media.

    Armchair Conspiracy Theorists are the bane to corrupt governments, revolting against the status-quo and the machinations of New World Order. They are more likely to be: Free-thinkers... Rather than: Free-masons... and are not unlike those overly-educated hippie radicals from the sixties, that America wants safely locked up in the joint.

    Armchair Conspiracy Theorists are nothing but a "think tank" of moralists who derive pleasure from seeking out truth while expanding their knowledge in an ever-expanding universe. This type of person is not easily led about with a ring in it's nose and refutes being trampled on by the hierarchy, or by those who cannot think outside of the box.

    Armchair Conspiracy Theorists... Watch out! For them... There is at least one in every neighborhood. They are highly revered and potentially dangerous with their vociferous diction and were most likely? weaned in their youthful days by devouring too many comic books...

    BEWARE! I strongly feel and believe that I may be one of them...? (Now that's! SCARY!)

  231. @ dancing spiderman (ballet arachnid)
    I thought it would be a start: uniting the great thinkers and debaters of the world to discuss contemporary issues of concern without the bothersome interruption by those who stray off topic or have a penchant to BASH or ridicule others with their tainted criticisms. ( I know I know...that's half-the-fun: listening to those who seek enlightenment ...I will definitely get some desirable and unwanted feedback on that comment) But Hey! Anyone will be able to peruse the homepage albeit, they will need to be a member to leave a comment. Pass this message along to the other cherished armchair detectives.

  232. Eff, sounds like an idea, another place to text-argue, hahaha.
    My only prob with Facebook -- it takes effort to plug in all those bits of info JUST to get started reading other people's Facebook info.

    But I'll do it. For You.

  233. @ Sacha, Spider, Achems, Pete etc
    Literacy is a big problem in this world. I too, sometimes rely on those red-squiggles that underline my typos and sleep comfortably with a hard-covered Oxford under my pillow.

    I have started a Facebook group entitled: Storegga Sliders. You are all welcome to check out the Homepage comments I have made thus far concerning petty global issues like: oil spills and tsunamis as well as my armchair conspiracy beliefs. The site requires great thinkers as yourselves if you wish to connect. Touch base! I'm off...to collect some more moon rocks from my North Ontario backyard...Have a great day Y'all!

  234. Peter Carson:

    To get all the info you need, Google ..."Apollo 11 computer"

    Why, you can even build your own, free 1,000 page pdf download manual,
    cost you about 3,000 $ for the hardware though!

  235. Achmed's Razor

    Thanks you for your return, with details per Appolo CPU's.
    If I am mistaken, I will graciously apologize, bus unless I am mistaken - a guidance system for a missile is not a CPU which will handle numerous additional functions as required for communications, landing, navigational re-assessment and adjustments, or for monitoring life support systems.

    Please provide a link to your Appolo computer.


  236. Seriously get over it im sick of all you guys that say every achivement or disaster in "Planned or Fake" instead of wasting your life trying to prove it didnt happen get a LIFE..... one that evidence is a Lot of BS.. And honestly if you think every thing that happens in AMERICA or AMERICA does os fake or planned than get your ASS OUT OF AMERICA

  237. Tim the F4 jet techo made some interesting comments on the camera, and the oxygen supply issues. I notice those of you who defend the moon landings as having happened, and pride yourselves on being educated techno heads, are selective in what arguments you defend- but do you have answers for Tim's comments?- that is 1. Camera, can it possibly have worked in extremes of heat and cold? and 2. Given you need an 18" sphere of O2 for a jet for three hours, how does the lunar lander measure up? (Did they use an O2 recycling system? you have not responded to this)

    Quoting Tim:
    Now go and find your old 60’s vintage SLR camera, load it with the best film you can buy, preheat your oven to 250 degrees, and bake it for an hour. Then toss it in a cryogenic freezer set at, say, 125 below zero for an hour, then back in the oven..
    Now into the microwave for 20 minutes, and finally snap some photos and post them here. Let’s see how sharp and colorful they are.

    I have given thought to the O2 requirements for the moon missions. As an F-4 maintenance tech in the USAF I was aware of the oxygen tanks on these planes. About 18? sphere of liquid oxygen lasts two pilots about 3 hours at altitude.

  238. Me myself, the id to which this humanoid refers to as "I", wonders why the heck it lives in the middle of the desert, in the middle of Phoenix Arizona. If it weren't for one narrow, precious, several hundred mile long canal, there wouldn't be anything growing green here. We have lava rocks here, I suppose these ones look somewhat like moon rocks, the ones NASA went up to Antarctica to go fetch for samples. Welcome to The Moon; Welcome to central Arizona.

    I've also wondered WHY there are so many ill-tempered New Yorkers here, the EYE-talian ones who speak with those goofy accidents. --shrugs shoulders--

    NASA could have saved a lot of money on that Antarctica trip and come down here to Arizona. The Natural Arizona Space Artifice.

  239. Alot of you have your valid points. I keep mine to myself. You either feel one way or another on every issue out there. Me myself, I think we landed on the moon. Me myself, I'm what you call a 9/11 skeptic. Not quite "conspiracy" but skeptic because too many coincidences occurred.

    But only wanted to say to those that keep asking why we or nobody since has gone to the moon since is because THERE IS NOTHING THERE. Moon rocks! What's the point? If you took a vacation to the desert and there was nothing there, would you go back?


  240. He is pretty much cherry picking "facts" presenting them in an unfair manner. Putting Clintons statement in context as if he was saying the moon landing was faked is putting words in his mouth. The comparison of Wernher von Braun's calculation of the size doesn't apply since Apollo 11 was not a single space ship. I don't know this particular book but earlier works (written in the 20ies) were science fiction and no technical manuals. A thorough calculation of how much fuel they had and how much mass was transported to and back from the moon would have been interesting indeed. Instead he focuses on convincing us that it is the distance which would have made the endeavor impossible. I'm no expert in technical details about space travel but in my understanding distance is relative in space with regards to fuel consumption.

    IMO conspiracy theory based on half-witted quarter knowledge.

  241. Apollo 11 computer:

    Invented by MIT
    Introduced Aug. 1966.
    Discontinued July 1975.
    Type, Avionics Guidance Computer.
    Processor Discrete IC RTL based.
    Frequency 2.048 MHz.
    Memory 16-bit wordlength, 2048 words ram,(magnetic memory core memory).
    Power 55w.
    Weight 70-lbs.
    Dimensions 24x12, 5x6.5 inches

  242. @ Peter Carson:

    You figure I have to prove anything? The onus now is on you to prove
    your assumptions!

    And another thing, you come on site and attack, and disrespect, without just cause.

    I can only think of two words for you... F.Y.!

  243. To Achems (dull) Razor, and Randy et al, numerously.

    Dear sir or madam
    Do you purport NASA loaded a Cray mainframe into each lunar module ?? Please cite the actual computer you reference was allegedly used on space missions and lunar landings ???

    As I understand it, the only computers of this era were massive 15 ton pieces of equipment the size of small buildings, operating with vacuum tube technology, requiring huge cooling systems, and had far less than a megabyte of RAM - without hard drives, because none were yet invented. The notion that either main-frames or cooling systems could operate on batteries is laughably beyond ridiculous.

    Furthermore, after researching websites you noted as your resources in comments on this and other TD films, it is abundantly clear your views are widely discredited by the majority of others posting comments on each of these sites. (lol)

    Please feel free to correct any misapprehensions I may have, and I look forward to your future postings for the pure entertainment value of your disingenuous, unfounded, poorly “researched” opinions.

    Yours, very truly.

    Another, hopefully more enlightened Canadian.

  244. To TruthSeeker1st,

    It's better to ask your question , but worded without the assumption, or else the answer is automatically suspect...

  245. Amen to Brian, Pete, Dancing spider, how do you go to the moon and claim to not have the techno to go back today?!?!? Who is the sheep...

  246. Very well put Pete.
    A classic example is a recent war film (can't remember the name because it was so dire) where the US soldiers are fighting an unseen 'monster' in the desert. I got about 10 minutes in and and turned it off.

    This is the same tactic they used in Rwanda and Hitler's Germany don't forget. Dehumanising people makes it easier for the the other side to kill them all.

    Time to wake up people.

  247. One must always be highly selective in accepting thoughts and feelings advertised all around you from outside of yourself; e.g., Reality TV is NOT a decent description of Reality. Turn off the TV, don't see movies, don't listen to talk radio anymore, quit hanging out with people who perpetuate petty passive-agressive behaviors, and be careful of what you take in from outside of yourself, including all forms of entertainment. Think Before You Do Anything.

    Furthermore, only YOU are responsible for the thoughts and feelings that you think and feel ABOUT ANYTHING. Take responsibility for your own thoughts , feelings, actions, and your life.

    These two concepts should be required learning material for grade skool kidz, drummed into their long-term memory, given a higher priority than the learning of reading-writing-rifmatic.

    And certainly, all adults should be experts in these two concepts BEFORE attempting to become parents. The World would be MUCH better off.

  248. I guess the folk who can't spell, are not as well read, as reading is the best reinforcer of good spelling, although this is a generalisation as smart people can have genuine difficulties despite all their education efforts.
    I get surprised at people who genuinely believe Arab terrorists flew jet airliners into two buildings in NYC, while effectually destroying three. I think the NASA lie proponents have the more convincing argument. If you do believe we went to the moon, is it in fact your emotional investment in Old Glory that is holding you there? Not everybody reads the material that is out there, and many choose to not go there. I used to believe Ronald Reagan was the embodiment of American virtue, and the USA was in the right, and that JAG was a fantastic show, until I started reading Chomsky on South and Central America. I like the USA and American people, but the USA is an imperial state. It is a wolf clothed in sheepskin. I now know JAG was propaganda like much of what comes out of Hollywood, and I really hate the feeling that I get when the film I am watching for entertainment is actually trying to win me over to a belief, and assumes I believe what they believe, either in the form of the script, the characters, the plot or the music. I am being intellectually raped and it is not a good feeling, unless you believe that it is in fact true love. But is it? Think about the themes that are presented to you every day on TV- it's mind control wrapped up in a nice juicy lolly. A prime example is State of Play with Russell Crowe- a reporter thinks there is a conspiracy, we are led to believe there is a conspiracy, all the evidence points to a conspiracy, but finally we found out there is in fact no conspiracy. So you can find all this convincing evidence but in fact it is not true. If this is not mind control I don't know what is.

  249. Correction: @ Brian!

    Even I make mistakes! (LOL)

  250. @ Brain:

    I really do not care how much they wave their flag! am a Canadian.

    More than enough computer power at that time! You have never read my post about such, it is right here, at...05/03/2010 at 06:05

  251. If you read all of these posts, you can tell who knows and who doesn't know. The people that do not know how to spell and make stupid grammatical errors are often the ones that don't understand what is going on in the world. Ahem..."Achem's Razor" They wave the flag and believe everything they've been told to believe since they were young kids. There is no way that the government would lie on such a grand scale, and they will believe that until it hits them on a personal level. The government has been lying and pulling off grand schemes since before any of us typing now were even born. We had 6 "manned" moon missions to enforce the original lie. Just look at the computers we had in 1969. We never went to the moon, and the astronauts know this. They did see the moon. That part is true.

  252. Thanks you veddy, veddy much, Rrrrrrrram...

    Sometimes it DOES take an unjustifiable amount of money to do what one's ego says can and should be accomplished... only to find out that the goal is not realizable under current conditions and with all other commitments of time, effort, money and emotion...

    ...then all the ego is left with is to spend even MORE resources in not facing up to the responsibility of their failure, and the subsequent cover-up...

    ...anybody have David Blaine's contact info?

  253. @ ram:

    Since you believe the conspiracy theories that men never set foot on the moon.
    Then it should be very easy for you to believe that there are Alien artifacts on the moon!

    Google "Alien artifacts on the Moon". Will give you something else to think about!

    And if there are Alien artifact on the Moon, that is the last thing they would want the general public to know!

  254. very well done , i have already seen some of other documentries regarding the conspiracy of moon landing , and it is clear that america clearly blow up the vistle , after such long years america should be arranging tours to moon , i think to be the world powerful country you should be able to cheat your own people and others as much as you can...........shame on you america

  255. Carlus , i think you should get off your parent's computer before they get home .
    They should probably fire the baby sitter for not watching you better .

  256. Allow me to make a humble apology to Vlatko who hosts this site... and let me kick my own asp into outer space. Thanks!

    Keep up the good work! These docs are of great importance to the reader and provide much needed food for thought...

  257. I loved this doc but only for the knock out punch by Buzz, What a legend!
    We went to the moon and we should all be proud to be human

    pow right in the kisser!!!

  258. I just want you send few words to Neil A and all of the astronauts who think they landed on the moon.
    You would be doing the mankind a huge favor by telling the truth. Why ?
    The time and effort that Nasa uses to keep that story going on , is blocking the opportunity to keep the work and new ideas going strong.
    When the truth is blind the darkness keep growing.

    If you know a way to reach any of those astronauts,please send them an positive mail or a line ,they need it .

  259. That wasn't a stupid remark. That was a question.
    Why don't you learn to be more polite?

  260. @ Pacha:

    There are three sets of mirrors,

    A key observing site is the McDonald Observatory in Texas where a 0.7 meter telescope regularly pings reflectors in the sea of tranquility (Apollo 11), And at FraMauro (Apollo 14). and at Hadley Rille (Apollo 15)

    Why don't you give them a call and find out for yourself! Instead of making st*pid remarks!

  261. @ dj:

    You are right! the corner cube mirrors/prisms, had to be placed by man on the Moon! They are arrays that had to be placed just right for them to be effective.

  262. @ dj
    Have you actually seen these reflectors with your own eyes or are you just taking Nasa's word for it?

  263. There are reflectors that have been positioned on the moon that we regularly shine lasers at for various reasons . We did not nor could we at that time do this remotely . NASA had to mount and position these reflectors by hand !

    Subject closed in my opinion .

  264. You guys are m*****. I sucked off buzz and drank a spooge cocktail while I gazed into the blue haze, known as our planet. Why would I lie about that?

  265. Carla,

    I know you are asking the question from a frustrated cell phone user's POV, but think about it:

    The Apollo communication system was designed SPECIFICALLY for two-way communication between TWO MAIN users, one on earth and the other perhaps 250Kmiles away.

    The current cell phone communication system is designed to handle bits and pieces of 100 MILLION phone calls, each one-tenth of a second piece of phone conversation , being switched and layered with 100 million OTHER cell calls going on at the same time.

    And then , there's the whole OTHER issue of the electrical transmission power that is dedicated for each of these two scenarios. I'd say, the cellphone technology that we have is purty DAMN good compared to being limited by only using LANDline phone technology.

  266. If the Moon spacecraft had such a powerful communication system 40 years ago, why is that my cell provider can't still produce a reliable phone that does not lose the signal when I am off the range of its satellite, or deep inside a building. I am talking about 21st century technology. OK, I know, back them they had that technology from the martians kept in the Area 51.

  267. The Moon is on average 238,857 miles from the Earth.

    Speed of light 186,000 miles per second.
    It takes "1.26 seconds" for radio or tv. signals to reach Earth!! from the Moon. The signals travel at the speed of light in space or vacuum.

  268. Explain real-time audio @450,000 miles away The Eagle Has Landed "Roger that Houston" yeah right

  269. This ridiculous accusation was disproved with science, on television. Mythbusters, check it out.

  270. Pete,
    That plane crash, saxophonist Gerry Niewood died in that crash. Hearing about the crash and that Niewood died, really bummed me out the rest of that day.

    RIP Gerry. RIP to all the passengers.

    Hmmm, I wonder whether Beverly Eckert was a target?

  271. "seemingly unrelated cascade deceptions to divert attention away from acts of rich-boy manipulation"

    Hey, nicely put, Dancing Spiderman!

    That plane crash near Buffalo in which 49 people were killed in 2009 is a case in point.
    Beverly Eckert, co-chairwoman of the group Voices of September 11th, and Family Steering Committee member for the 9/11 Commission, had lost her husband in the 9/11 attack, and had only just announced a resolution to Congress to vote on the Federal Intelligence Reform Bill. She was on the plane. Big air accidents don't happen every day. You had the Hudson River one that same month.

  272. Cant take credit for the camera recipe eff. That was someone else, up there ^^^
    I am an aqua airy arse by the way, meaning my head is always up my arse and I am qualified to talk sh1t on any subject you care to mention.

    You're right about people losing interest in the moon landings though. I was 4 when they did the first one and it was a very big deal but as they went on I remember it became a bit of a chore sitting through it all.
    It all livened up a bit when the challenger blew up though. That was quite exciting.

  273. Eff,
    I was born into the celestial Gemini Program '62 with a lack of oxygen in my capsule

    Partial A to your Q: Partly has to do with staying under the umbrella; protection from the Sun's lethal high-energy particle radiation, afforded by the Van Alien Radiation Belts (inner and outer), named after Dr. James Van uhhm Alien.

    As for why Americans aren't colonizing the Moon; it is easier to fake a series of space achievements than it is to fake the death and destruction of a war, both in the 1960s and present day. The Vietnam war actually occurred and it accomplished absolutely NOTHING beneficial. Even now, it's financially difficult to simultaneously accomplish winning a war AND colonize an extraterrestrial body AND finance the unemployment of a country full of semi-educated semi-motivated people losing their family homes in Foreclosure.

    "Space exploration" is one strand of diversion in a meticulously crafted web of diversions. I much prefer the Monica Lewinsky Presidential KneePads/ Sophie Marceau Cannes Film Festival/ Janet Jackson HalfTime Performance kinds of diversion.

    The Think Tanks are hard at work, creating multiple seemingly unrelated cascade deceptions to divert attention away from acts of rich-boy manipulation and various forms of crimes against Humanity. Notice that sometimes they can't keep The All-Powerful Oz hidden behind the curtain. That's when someone gets killed. dont hayt im jus sayin

    I'm not haungrey for popcorn. I'm haungrey for sardines in green chilie sauce.

  274. Note to Ted Pitman.
    As I recall? People lost interest in watching Apollo moon landings after a while... (seen one...seen 'em all!) albeit, money was still made on commercial advertising
    as well as cash going into the pockets of NASA contractors. If going to the moon was that easy, during primitive days of technology and computer systems... why is there a space shuttle that orbits the Earth a few miles up? And not a colony on the moon... next door to a McDonalds? Werner Von Braun and the Nazis could barely fly their V-2 Rockets as far as jolly old England on a full tank!

  275. Pacha
    Liked your camera recipe! I baked a Kodak instamatic for dinner @375-degrees. Cranked up Elton John's "Rocket Man" on the stereo then mooned the neighbors...
    They now believe that I must be a SPACE CADET!

    Hey Dancing Spiderman...good chuckle I will try some of that seasoning and see if it will put me in orbit!

    PS: I am a Gemini...what astro-sign are you comedians?

  276. Good one Eff.

    I'd like to have Michael Moore create another one of his boffo uncomfortable yet humorous documentaries:

    Driven To Drink: The Astro-Nots Of The Apollo Program,
    Subtitled: One small step for Man... 12 Step Programs, for Buzzard-Kind.

    I enjoy the documentaries on this website that detail the personal lives of the people of science, technology, & financial industries. Those docs are usually more realistic anyway, being that it is impossible to create a factual movie due to all the diversion and cover ups of truth.

    Hold the butter… movie popcorn butter upsets my stomach. I like to walk into the movie theatre with a few packets of the dry seasoning that come with the Top Ramen nooodles, and sprinkle it into my popcorn, yumm. Sometimes, I just like to open up a non-cooked Top Ramen and sprinkle some seasoning on it and munch. It's good that way

  277. Spot on Eff

  278. Dark Side of the Moon documentary reveals that moon landing/walk was staged using Kubricks 2001 Space Odyssey movie set. Nixon wanted the world to see Americans on the moon and to relieve pressure from the Vietnam war. The CIA cast members were sworn to secrecy, paid big bucks and faced possible assassination if the word got out. Buzz Aldrin was given the script to read as they circled the Earth: One small step for man...One big leap for Bee-Essing humankind. Afterwards the Apollo-nauts all became alcoholics and regressed into society. NEWS FLASH! Next month the Americans are putting Bin Laden on Mars to look for oil. Put on your 3-D glasses for this one folks...and use a little imagination will ya please? You'll want extra butter on the popcorn watching this one!

  279. @ Neil....
    Hey Buddy,

    Please don't think that because you chose that particular nickname you really convinced everybody. I have been witness of how much money our government can invest in fiasco or pseudo-operations.
    Just take the war in Iraq as an example: it has cost so many billions of dollars and human lives, and the main reason for it was based on lies and deception. Stay thirsty my friends.

  280. If you were given billions of dollars to go to the moon, why would they make a fake landing in a movie studio? Isn't that like saying you had the chance to bone your favorite porn star but you sent your dad and told your buddies you did it? Why wouldn't you do it? Just to mess with reality? Doesn't make sense. If your passionate about something and smart enough to get your ass a job at Nasa, I think you'd bust your balls to send folks anywhere you could. Some people work harder then you. Like the beatles. They really are the beatles. It wasn't a dream. They really did it and no one has yet to touch them. That's just the way it is. That's why its special.

    This $hit happened son. Get use to it.

  281. @ Achems Razor, thanks :-)!

  282. Achems Razor.
    I'm not really a researchy kind of guy. I'm more of a sit around, picking holes in other people's ideas, kind of guy.

  283. I would rather listen to religee's! than the negative doubters.

    I am not including you though @ WTC7. (LOL) honest.

    @ Pacha: it seems like you have not really researched this stuff that much! bought any bridges lately??

  284. The whole thing is a hoax people!!! Get over yourselves! I'm proud to be an American blah blah blah...Well it seems like your gov. isn't proud to serve you...

  285. Nothing wrong with either sarcasm or a few drinks, both are healthy, I find ;)

  286. thank you kindly.
    I do enjoy a bit of light hearted sarcasm.
    especially if I'm grumpy or drunk i find.

  287. I read most of your comments and they all have that witty spirit. Carry on :-)

  288. its my pleasure to amuse

  289. Pacha,

    You are witty & I like it :-)

  290. Good answer spiderman.
    Now try standing on your head and see if you can say it all backwards.

  291. Dancing Spiderman,

    Wow! First of all, thank you for answering my, obviously, pretty stupid question :-). But, if I understood you well, there's no way for us to use any of the currently available technology to see what was left by our astronauts there?

  292. WTC7, the telescope's lack of visual acuity has to do with the geometric/probabilistic considerations down at the molecular size level of the lens material: Even IF your lenses where made of molecularly-perfect crystalline silicon molecular compound, there still is the problem that the wavelengths comprising the visible light spectrum are relatively smaller than the OPTICALLY-EFFECTIVE diameter, width AND lens thickness of the local molecules line-of-sight through the molecularly-perfect crystalline lens material molecule.

    Through this molecularly-perfect lens, you get all kinds of various types of scattering of the photon wave-icles that make up your view; some wave-icles absorb each other and get nulled out, some wave-icles get refracted off of its trajectory, etc. But statistically on average you end up with a blurry view, so matter WHAT you try to do with the manufacturing of the lens or the tweaking of the focal length of the multiple lenses, etc. And then you can't see the American Flag nor the astromaut's footsteps on the lunar surface, not even using the Hubble Space Telescope.

    The workaround for The Ultimate Telescope is the development of a non-optical telescope lens, ala Star Trek The Original Series. I understand how that can be done, but this technology has of course Weapons Of Mass Destruction applications, and I do NOT desire to contribute to the stupidity of a nation's economic improvement and stability by means of The Military Industrial Complex.

  293. Ok, I understand that our telescopes can't 'see' properly that far. What I don't understand is why hasn't any of the probes we sent after the Apollo missions got a good picture of the LR or the mirrors or reflectors or whatever they call them they left there? (Btw, I saw some photos from one of such probes recently, I think it was an American one, and it was claimed that on the photos it provided one can see the astronauts' footsteps there - now, that was a real joke.)

    And the Hubble, we get pictures of much more distant objects from it, why can't it get the Moon's surface properly?

    Just a question.

  294. pu36explosivespacemodulator, yer SNWER:

    It has to do with the various optical imperfections of telescope lenses. You can only get so much magnification from a telescope lens, no matter how good the various visual conditions are.

    Now if you're attempting to see the flag from anywhere on Earth, it also has to do with the constantly changing density of our atmosphere line-of-sight which causes blurring.

    Simple Science FailBlog-type considerations.
    [harsh loud buzzer sound] PWNed by lack of science.


    Some American: We're Number 1 ! We're Number 1 ! We're Number 1 !
    Some Foreigner: NO, you're NOT !
    American: Yeah we ARE! We got all the guns, bombs, and the money in the whole world! We're Number 1 !
    Foreigner: But you don't own yourself anymore ! China owns WalMart, and WalMart owns America!
    American: uhhm, hmmm.. okay... We're Number 2 ! We're Number 2 ! We're...
    Foreigner: NO YOU'RE NOT NUMBER 2! Health Care, standard of living, and application of state-of-the-art technologies are better in 15 OTHER countries! Even a CaveMan can outdo you guys!
    American: We're Number 16! We're Number ...
    Another American: Duuude (shakes his head slowly) don't go there...duuuude...

  295. lol... USA have dropped any future moon missions plans :D Just heats up the debate lol. One thing i´ve wondered about for a long time is: Why cant we just use the telescopes to see the flag which the astronauts planted :) Just a suggestion.

  296. Hahaha... that single stage 35-"story" rocket concept sounds like a YouTube "Science Fail-Blog" video waiting to happen.

    I visited the Cape Carnival Saturn 5 rocket museum last year. What I saw was that the rocket "that we 'in the know' realize never really went to the Moon several times" was built up in MULTIPLE ROCKET STAGES -- it was NOT a single 35-story long explosive space-tube. You cannot merely "scale things up" on something this massive. It'll be like carrying your own waste poop products all the way through the end of the return leg of the journey. Rocket Scientits considerations and all. That's why they call it Rocket Science.

    Hey Ted Pittman (hahahaha)-- did anybody ever tell you that you that it's not a good idea to use your real first and last name on an internet comment post? Among other things, you run the risk of forever being known as the "pwned by science fail" guy.


  297. Ted Pittman said,
    'it isn’t difficult to know that a rocket that is 35 stories tall, filled with liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen can reach the moon.'

    Most of that rocket gets jetisoned though right? So how did they get back?
    Just curious like.

  298. Anyone who has built a model rocket and flown it knows that a rocket twice the size can fly twice as far. If one simply scales things up, then it isn't difficult to know that a rocket that is 35 stories tall, filled with liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen can reach the moon. Duh!

    If the moon landings were faked, then what was gained by "faking it" so many times? Wouldn't the risk of being exposed be greater?

    Funny how people who don't know anything about astronautics try to be experts on what can NOT be done with astronautics.

  299. Made me smile reading this;
    'Now go and find your old 60’s vintage SLR camera, load it with the best film you can buy, preheat your oven to 250 degrees, and bake it for an hour. Then toss it in a cryogenic freezer set at, say, 125 below zero for an hour, then back in the oven..
    Now into the microwave for 20 minutes, and finally snap some photos and post them here. Let’s see how sharp and colorful they are.'

  300. @ Tim, please do come, anytime you want :-)

  301. I have given thought to the O2 requirements for the moon missions. As an F-4 maintenance tech in the USAF I was aware of the oxygen tanks on these planes. About 18" sphere of liquid oxygen lasts two pilots about 3 hours at altitude. The LEM and command modules were so small, the O2 tanks would have taken up beaucoup space on the little things.
    From a real scientist:
    Human Oxygen Requirements
    4/10/2003 *snip*
    "So, what ARE human
    oxygen requirements for elementary aged children to adults?
    Dear Teressa, A VERY reasonable question. *snip* However,
    I found a web site which stated that an average adult each day consumes 4 lb of food, 2 lb of water, and 6 lb of oxygen. I could not find a
    corroborating site, but the numbers seem roughly reasonable. *snip*
    Incidentally, an exercising adult uses oxygen at about 15 times this rate, so remain calm!
    6 lb is about 2.73 kg. Since a mole of oxygen has a mass of 32 gm = 0.032
    kg, an adult needs about 85 moles per day. Since a mole under standard
    conditions (atmospheric pressure, 300 C) occupies 22.4 liters, 85 moles
    occupies about 1900 liters or 1.9 m^3. But air is 21% oxygen, so about 9.1
    m^3 of 321 ft^3of air is required for one adult for one day. *snip*
    So a room 20 ft square (400 ft^2) would provide for 5 (quiet)
    adults for two days. That air would be rather stale, so you would want a
    factor of at least 2 or 4 to make the air more breathable after two days. *snip*
    Best, Dick Plano, Professor of Physics emeritus, Rutgers University

    It's tough to just ignore reality just because the politicians in DC say this or that..

  302. "late 50’s" should have been 60's. ALL thumbs...

  303. "If the flag pictures were taken on Earth"- - - but they weren't were they?
    Now go and find your old 60's vintage SLR camera, load it with the best film you can buy, preheat your oven to 250 degrees, and bake it for an hour. Then toss it in a cryogenic freezer set at, say, 125 below zero for an hour, then back in the oven..
    Now into the microwave for 20 minutes, and finally snap some photos and post them here. Let's see how sharp and colorful they are.
    The NASA moon pics are all just beautiful, perfect, even.
    Take some pics of yourself, balancing a full water glass on the tip of your finger for a few minutes. This will give an idea of the LEM's stability problem. Puffers or no, that thing would have tumbled and crashed the first time it got a few degrees out of plumb. Niel Armstrong crashed the LEM practice jet plate before they gave up flying the thing.
    As for Russia, during the late 50's through the middle 70's we FED that nation, with subsidized mega-tonnage of wheat shipments. And they weren't going to risk the suffering and embarassment of starvation just to rub the US's nose in a self-serving lie. We also had many intelligence secrets about them they wouldn't want exposed, as well.
    Now don't make me come back here again. ;)

  304. You know what. you have a point there Achems when you say,

    'if you must know why the flag appears to be waving, the top of the flag is attached to a solid rod, and the machinations of placing the pole makes the flag appear to wave.'

    because by newtons 1st law ( yikes i hope thats the right one) when an object is in motion in a vacuum it continues to move in the same way forever. unless compelled to do otherwise.

    I never got that before.

  305. 1) I'm not religee-lol did I say I'm Catholic, Christian, Muslim, Jewish...? Those are religions pal, period. 2) Who are you my MAKER/CREATOR-lol You sound like you want to be god with an ego like yours buddy-lol And I quote Achems Razor's exact words-"Keep your religious verbage to yourself." The questions were posed for Eric to answer not you...but thanks for exposing yourself for who you really are-lol 3) Of course I know that the flag appears to be waving, however, if you watched the Docu, why does it wag as a flag here on earth does when it cathces a breezy current? We must have a lot of astronauts making comments-lol

  306. @ TruthSeeker 1st:

    Unbelievable! Religee's everywhere! This is not a religious doc. Keep your religious verbage to yourself.

    If you must know why the flag appears to be waving, the top of the flag is attached to a solid rod, and the machinations of placing the pole makes the flag appear to wave.

  307. @Eric you are right I am wrong...there I said it! lol...By the way my belief is not in man but in the Most High of the bible...I will not be persuaded by empty thoughts as yours...If you are so convinced answer me this my friend...HOW DID THE FLAG THAT WE WERE SHOWN ON THE MOON ABLE TO WAG BACK AND FORTH IN A VACUMM...WHERE DID THE BREZZE COME FROM??? WHEN THERE IS NO ATMOSPHERE??? Please I need concrete evidence...

  308. @TruthSeeker1st,

    The only thing you said that has anything to do with the Apollo missions is, essentially, that you don't know what you're talking about. The rest is a bunch of silly stuff about agendas and your confusion about the difference between simple truth and the historic (and ongoing) crimes of your country.

    So, the moon landings were fake because the US government has done a lot of bad things and they needed some heros? Am I missing something here?

    You say that you're not a scientist. That's fine but no excuse for not educating yourself a little bit. You have easy access to massive amounts of knowledge and understanding if you but choose to learn. If you think it is all agenda-driven lies then go educate yourself enough to see where the lies are, you might be surprised (and embarassed) at what a bit of clear thinking and knowledge can do.

    You live in a technologically advanced society, you owe it to yourself to know a little bit about how all this stuff works. You don't need a PhD in physics but you should at least have a basic understanding of science so that you won't be baffled by BS.

    Stop allowing your politics to blind you to simple verifiable truths. Open your eyes.

  309. @Eric...ok you may be right on a few points...which ones I really do not know...because I like you are not Scientists and Astronauts who by the way are "humans with an agenda." Hmmm...so could it be all is made up to serve an agenda??? Maybe or with classic examples from the past did these "experts' have the American people in mind??? Did anybody see "Dr. Strangelove?" If not please google it and watch, it is halarious! Just like your post Eric-halarious! Is that all you have to convince me I'm wrong and your right? See to me it is not about being WRONG or RIGHTit is telling and informing others of what is TRUE! I apologize to all my god fearing Americans but the country was founded on lies! Everyman is equal (which is impossible then we would not have superstars like Lebron James) when this was penned their was an African Israelite/Muslim holocaust going on...When the Constitution was penned it did not have the common man invovled...because most of these guys had agendas...And please every OPEN-MINDED spirit keep this in mind...America claims it founding was breaking away from tyranny from the opressive King George, however, if you really look into the history of America it is Britian's little sister till this day! The offical language is English, Fincial banking system is mimced off of the Parlimental system, the heroism in this country is identical to the Brits and the Military has never been opposed of each other more than an arms length...don't believe me google who finaced the revolutionary war..the colonies were broke at that time! @ Eric your not an American great-more powa to ya! I was born and raised here...I have been lied to since birth-even schools are biased...Most presidents in the early history of US had multiple slaves, teach it but they don't...they would rather force feed us heros...heros...HEROS...lman! ike those Apollo astronauts were MADE INTO HEROS! Open your eys

  310. to all those that don't believe the trip to the moon was stage, you all are just in a sad state right now, there are other documentaries that has more evidence than this one proving that it was staged, if man made a trip to the moon over 40 years ago, why can't they do the same today. Are you going to believe that people are too cheap to try it or is it that we don't have the technology to do so?? Could you all explain the Van Allen radiation belt, it affected astronauts that reached a distance of 350 miles above the earth. Just accept the fact that we live in a world of deception, the biggest one is the HIV/AIDS, watch the documentary AIDS Inc., and you would see just how corrupt this world is, be smart people the mass media only tells you what they want you to know

  311. @ Eric Howe:

    Yes, I agree with what you are saying, I stand corrected!

    NASA, sent three arrays of 100 to 300 prisms to the Moon during three flights.

    They say the retroreflectors on the Moon are small mirrors, called "corner cube reflector arrays" So no matter how you cut it, you can call them mirrors or prisms, they serve their purpose.

  312. @ Eric the only self-hating human around here sounds like you...again NONE OF US HAS EVER BEEN IN SPACE...all we can do is put our TRUST in people we don't even know NASA...How many times in RECENT years has the government lied to us??? I'm still looking for WMD's and Bin Laden...Please let me know if anybody has some leads...My factual evidence is the VAN ALLEN BELTS...the documentary said the radiation would be worse than the Chernobol accident...??? However, you can see that all three astronauts were fine...Like always History is litered with to much void leaving a vaccum of conspirency...Remember whoever controls the power controls our past-NAZIs tried it with there book burnings...THINK AND STOP DRINKING THE PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN KOOLAID!

  313. with respect Eric Howe,
    those little shiny things could have been added in photoshop. 'If' the moon landing was fake it wouldnt be a big deal to fake a few fuzzy photos would it.
    I dont care if they went to the moon or not by the way. They achieved nothing even if they did.

  314. @Philip Van Der Mude Seems like that was a cheap shot at science. Science has less reason to BS , than religion or politics.Trust me , the last two are the herd , and the deception.

  315. Well just finished watching Doc...and the other day watched a funny thing happened on the way to the moon...I never really believed in NASA because they are just another arm of the gov propaganda machine...PLUS MOST OF US ARE NOT ASTRONAUTS SO HOW DO WE REALLY KNOW WHAT IS UP THERE?!?!? It is a rhetorical question...Who cares that the narrator said satanic whatever...point is the reaction at the truth through my own experience with people who are afraid of the TRUTH...good ol' Buzz showed his true colors-ROFL I'm sorry I would have knocked that old bastard out...not turn the cheek like the system wants you to do...("Remember question everything and than question some more until YOU find what your looking for")

  316. You know what the moon landing film reminds me of?
    The set of Star Trek.
    And funnily enough they were both filmed around the same time.

  317. @ Carlo Coello:

    You do not need major computing power for manned missions to the Moon.
    Right now the Space Shuttle is operating on one gigabyte.

    The brain of of NASA's primary vehicle has the computational power of an IBM 5150, that you can pick up for 20$ at a yard sale.
    That is as powerful as 0.005% as an XBOX 360.

    And Russia's Soyuz Space Capsule since 1974 has only 6 kilobytes of ram.

    They did have enough technology for manned Moon landings at that time.

  318. and then there are some (including commentors of this schlock-u-mentary) of which could actually witness a ufo set down right in front of them, and still would try to pawn it off as a hoax.

    get your heads out of the sand, the moon landings happened people. the earth is round and Elvis really did die too. try to wedge that into your clueless narrow minds. I don't see the sun come up everyday, but I know it does.

  319. I still get the common cold, I still have relatives dying of cancer, I still believe in Santa Claus, I still have dropped calls from my cell, I'm still waiting to see the WMD (not a pile of old shells) found in Iraq; however, I don't believe blindly everything the government says, or by the way, scientists paid by the government, I don't believe that the big banking corporations are looking after the benefit of the average Joe, but themselves, I could hardly believe that the USA put a man on the Moon 41 years ago, with technology of 41 years old or more, and had near clear two way communication with them for the entire trip, when I barely have good reception with my $500 cell phone, when I am inside my office blgd, or an elevator, using 21st century wireless technology, when there are not effective drugs to fight and cure common cold, or by the way, cancer and other "so-called incurable diseases", which surely benefits a few sectors, such as the great pharmaceutical companies.
    Please, give me a break; Russia and USA have always deceived their people, one way or another. This won't be the first or the last time. Why are you people so surprised? Like somebody mentioned before, it is just because you are an American, I am too, but I am not a brain-washed American. I'd love to see what would be your position if it was another country the one that "landed on the Moon first." I am so sure that you will be crying out loud "that country is openly lying...there is not way to have reached the Moon back there with that technology...blah, blah, blah,
    After all, we are entitled to believe whatever we want, aren't we?
    BTW, I just saw a good movie about alien abductions, which proves to me that aliens from outer space really exist.

  320. RIght hook and he goes down! "POW ZOOM STRAIGHT TO THE MOON"!


  321. It's really interesting to see how upset the americans get every time someone suggests their country lied about going to the moon.

  322. Since the dawn of man, anytime somebody speaks out about truth or justice or pushes the envelope on 'sensitive' topics, he's immediately labeled a nut-job or he's crazy, or blasphemous etc, by the general public, starting with crucifying Jesus.

    Human beings have a mechanism where we believe what we WANT to believe, thus our beliefs and convictions are relative and subjective. I think the people who want to believe that they aren't/weren't being deceived by their own Govt, choose to believe the moon landings took place.

    Personally, I don't think they went to the moon. I think it was merely a case of the US showing the former USSR the size of it's c*ck, with a bit of propaganda on the side or an attempt to deflect the nation's eyes to the monstrosity of a war they had going in Vietnam.

  323. The manned moon landing narrated by the Apollo 11 astronauts.

    "In the shadow of the Moon": A film by Ron Howard.

    They all seemed very ecstatic and happy to me!

  324. You're a jerk. You can't read. Your embarrasing assumptions about Clinton, Von Braun, reflections on a window, et-al: They're all quite stupid. Comprehensible or not to a person like yourself, please be aware that there are (and were in years past) people who are extemely smart. These people get what's known as "educations" (which you didn't) and they develop into actual humans, occupying their lives in eneavors of skill, determination and bravery. You are completly and totally dead wrong. Stop advertizing your obvious stupidity....

  325. anyone who actually buys into this poor excuse for a documentary is more foolish than the embecile who made it.

  326. What an id***. This guy has no thought process beyond his nose. He's even got me too stupid to say anything else.

  327. This guy is an id***, and it made me happy to see him get kicked and punched!

  328. I really don't see why anyone would think the presenter is a douche, unless you're just blinded by patriotism.
    This story does piss me off actually because as a young boy in 1969 I was completely taken in by their lies.
    As a free thinking adult though it seems blatantly obvious that the whole thing was bulls*it.

    Buzz does have a good punch for an old guy though :)

  329. Let's just accept the Syldavians with Professor Calculus, Tintin, Haddock and Snowy got there first before the Russians. Merkins and Chinese! It makes better fiction!

  330. Mooned, your post is out of line, really. Even if Achems Razor were a Jew, what exactly would that prove as to his defense of his belief in Moon landings? Does simply being a Jew have a particular disadvantage in your eyes? I wish to give you a well intended advise - don't utilize this type of discourse if you yourself want to be taken with respect. Greetings.

  331. Mooned: You're an ogre.

    I thought I was Jewish when I was a kid as the Jews were "God's chosen people" in all the Bible stories; I was shocked and a bit saddened to find out I was not when I got older. I sincerely wish I was of Jewish decent as Jerusalem (most likely the New Jerusalem) is my heart's home and I've not yet been there. My Messianic Jewish friend in college tried to comfort my heart one day when he told me that by faith we were both "Children of Abraham." :-)

  332. @ Mooned:

    What are you, A skinhead? you cannot go around and talk about Jewish people like that!

    Just using the movie as an example, was apparently very truthful.

  333. You call yourself Achems Razor. Achems Razor means the simplest answer is most likely the correct one. You claim you are not a Jew. Wonderful. Why not apply Achems Razor to the Apollo landings and see what you come up with? Allow me to clarify that Achems Razor does not say that the Jew influenced media is correct nor does it say that popular opinion is correct. Looking at all the hoops you have to jump to support an Apollo landing, I know what appears to be the simplest answer to me. When you site a movie from Jew-infested Hollywood to support your claim of a moon landing, it make me think you ARE a Jew. If you want people to view your comments with respect, try offering something that might pass as evidence. "I watched a movie and I think its true" is a waste of everyone's time. Don't forget to never buy retail if you can possibly avoid it.

  334. How about Apollo 13?

    There is scientific evidence that Apollo 13 almost went to the Moon.
    Google "Apollo 13"

    The nay-sayers are always saying that you can not go through the Van Allen belts.

    There is a movie made about this, which I have, it is supposed to be very factual.

  335. Oh noooo, that's downright embarrassing ... I see at LEAST 4 things not right about this "authentic" photograph... It's crap like this that makes me wonder how can a 'Merkin remain patriotic...

  336. Tim, yep, that's a good one. I wish someone could explain that, since the US officials can't ;-)

  337. What did Neil Armstrong mean by this?

    "There are great ideas undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of the truth's protective layers. There are places to go beyond belief."

    It is a part of his speech he delivered on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the Apollo 11 mission (at White House, 1994).

  338. DancingSpiderman,

    Yes :-) I fell, but I didn't want my fall to go down unnoticed. So, here I am, rose again like the Phoenix from the ashes... :-)

  339. @Mooned,

    Yeah, I guess I didn't do such a great yob of selecting the wordage for some of the items on my National Deception check list -- Sowwy 'bout that. I knew about the illegal sale of arms aspect, but I was trying to keep each item to a single line.

    A totally off-topic comment: What cracks me up about Hillary Clinton -- she can never just relax and speak at a normal volume. Even when she is seen on the TeeVee speaking to only one other person in a quiet room, she always speaks as if she's trying to be heard on a busy loud street corner through a non-amplified megaphone cone. How can BillyBob tolerate her all these decades?!? They must live on opposite sides of a very large house.

    @ WTC7, I heard you went down too. My sympathies. How could you collapse when no airplane nor falling building smashed into YOU? I'll add YOU to the National Deceptions check-list. Thanks for the link on the moon's radiation danger. I shall read it.

  340. DancingSpiderman: Not to get too far off topic... you might want to check a little deeper on the Monica Lewensky story. BillyBob Clinton was impeached (behind closed doors) for the illegal sale of arms to fund his re-election. The Monica story was just a cover to tell the public. Clinton most likely never got anywhere near her hot juicy snizzle. Did you ever wonder why Hillary never seemed too upset over the whole affair (Hillary cannot act)? Fooled again.

  341. One punch in the face for The Buzzard...
    Another punch, for Buzzard-Kind !!
    I LVOE it... the interviewer truly deserved AT LEAST a punch in the face.
    Buzzard really had to reach upwards for that hit. He shoulda socked the guy square in the BoZak instead

    I have an issue with the narrator's repeated use of the Mach number as a measure of speed of the Apollo spacecraft between the Earth and the moon... Somebody check me on this, but... isn't the Mach Number only to be used when the speed being measured is within a medium capable of propagating sound waves? Extraterrestrial space does NOT propagate sound waves, no?

    National deceptions... Okay, let's see...

    (check mark) Roswell NM, there were no ET aliens,
    (check mark) U.S. involvement in wars were NOT for corporate financial profit,
    (check mark) U.S. can't find weapons of mass destruction, but continues wars anyway
    (check mark) 911 was NOT "an inside yob"
    (check mark) Prez Clinton did NOT have relations with Monica,
    (check mark) U.S. landed on the moon, SIX times with a windy flag video as proof,
    (check mark) Clarence Thomas never DID determine who put the pubic hair on his coke can,
    (check mark) U.S. army DID NOT decimate many Native American tribes
    (check mark) The U.S. automobile industry scientits cannot come up with a viable gasoline alternative technology, but individual non-credentialed experimenters succeed with working prototypes?
    (check mark) U.S. "intelligence" could not locate Bin Laden, but found Saddam in a damn hole
    (check mark) The typical American homeowner could not convince themselves via simple mathematical 7th grade calculation that their ARM mortgage was a really bad & stupid deal,
    (check mark) The population of the U.S. will not collaborate (revolt) in order to make Big Pharma/Medical industries behave themselves and make healthcare affordable?

    WHY are we Americans allowing all this stupid deception to continue?!?
    Collectively, we must REALLY enjoy this status quo.

  342. Beldar and Primak Conehead said it best. When the INS guy mentioned men on the moon, Beldar says, "Men on the moon, Hahahahahahahaha!"
    No one can 'splain how a 60's vintage hasselblad with standard film worked in a 400 degree fahrenheit variance in temperature (light to shadow on the moon) environment while being bombarded by high energy cosmic rays, not to mention hard solar radiation, and managed to take perfect, well-lit pictures, with no fogging of the film. Very impressive camera.
    BTW, anyone who has ever taken pictures manually will know why there would be no stars. The glare of the bright scenery would force the closing down of the aperture and/or the shortening of the exposure time. Either would cost you your stars in the resulting photograph. The cameras being more or less 'off the shelf' ruined the story for me.
    The Van-Allen belts were the other big clue.

  343. It's hard to believe stuff like this even gets air time. The author lacks the basic scientific training to understand simple concepts, or deliberately misrepresents them. Saying "240K miles is X times 400 miles" is gibberish, since the energy required to get out of the earth's atmosphere is orders of magnitude more than the energy required to push the vessel from there to the moon. This is just one of a large number of portrayals that represent either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty: there aren't any other options.

  344. I wonder how many of the believers of the moon landing are Americans who have been raised with the belief that the landing is fact..? I suppose you believe that Australians ride to school/work on kangaroos too? OK so the host of the doco is a tool... Doesn't mean he is incorrect.

  345. As for "Beate" and the myth busters and the debunking of the moon landing. Ive watched that, and the test they slaped together for the picture of the guy climbing into the ship, was no more then a black cloth draped around a table. You
    can clearly see the room behind the black wall. If this test was done to prove that the picture was not a fake, then they needed to be in a controled enviroment (black room with no outside light). So naturly they did recreate the fake picture. I would love to see them try again in a controled enviroment. TV lies. Government lies. People need to think for them selfs. Oh and I would love to see myth busters do a show on 9-11 and the pancake theory on how the towers fell. And Building 7 (no plane hit that one! and it too fell in under 10 seconds!)

  346. I had to watch it again we he got punched in the face. Whether he believes we landed or not he got what he deserved.

    But he did get me thinking. Did anyone watch "US vs Lennon"? Now I think there is a conspiracy there. I don't think John Lennon actually got shot and died. I think he's holed up in some wing at Graceland with Elvis. Ah, to interview them

  347. If you've ever held the hand of a terminally ill patient going through the stages of denial, its very similar to the hand holding needed to get someone through political denial. And I do think denial is the word for it. How else would you explain the behavior of people schooled in logic and fairly capable of its application? At some level, they must suspect what is the truth, yet to believe it is just too upsetting. Please don't fool yourself. You deserve to know the truth.

    I can't think of a better topic than Apollo to introduce someone to our covert government. There is no other topic that comes close to the depth of evidence against moon walking. Some people require more evidence than others. In this case, there is a virtually limitless supply of evidence to review. How ever much you need is equal to the amount available. The White-Rabbit says to feed your head but don't feed it junk.

  348. Time well tell.

    Ok, not that refutation of this "evidence" will convince any of the die-hard conspiracy theorists, but it doesn't take a "rocket scientist" to see that Von Braun's calculations were entirely aimed at describing the requirements for a SINGLE VESSEL to make the trip from earth, into space, onto the surface of the moon, back into space, and then to earth again. The difficulties with this approach were widely understood even before the Mercury project: namely, if an entire rocket system, including propulsion systems, were to slow itself to land on the moon, and then try to lift off again, it would need a massive quantity of fuel to achieve both, thus making it even larger. And again, on re-entry into Earth's atmosphere, an additional, massive thrust capacity (more fuel).
    But this SINGLE ROCKET DOING EVERYTHING model was, as von braun suggested, impractical. And THAT's why nobody tried it; instead, the initial propulsion is staged, with the hardware dropping off as fuel is spent (thus less and less weight needs to be moved as the rocket exhausts fuel), THEN, only a small lunar orbiter along with a lunar lander and earth splash down compartment is needed to complete the journey. Of these components, only the lunar lander actually had to lift off again, escaping lunar gravity, with remaining fuel used simply to escape lunar orbit (not nearly as difficult) and guide and slow atmospheric re-entry.
    SEE HOW THIS WORKS? Von Braun's calculations are simply not relevant except as a good argument in support of the design actually used.
    So, yeah, size matters: that's why they didn't take the whole darned system, the whole darned way.
    Ok, maybe it IS rocket science, but it's pretty simple.

  350. @ A.Wright:

    Okay, got it, I misunderstood.

  351. @Achems Razor
    I agree with you totally. That was actually a verbatim quote from that video ,just to point out the paucity of understanding and lack of common sense of people who produce videos like these.

  352. A.Wright:

    If they can send the many probes to the Moon that they have, or even to Mars, then, they can send men!

  353. "Just getting into orbit is no small feat as is illustrated by the fact that in all of recorded history only three countries, the United States, China and Russia , have been able to put a human just into orbit and never been more than 400 miles from earth. The explanation for this has always been that except for these three countries, every other country in the world has been too cheap and lazy to venture into just earth orbit. In reality the reason has to do with the difficulty in accomplising this. This most of all drives home the point that NASA's claim of sending men on a 240,000 mile trip in 1969, some 600 times further than they can send men today is just not plausible."
    Read it and weep for the collapse of critical thinking and basic intelligence in the United States.

  354. lol- I would hope that you would have the curiosity to find out what else has been sold to you as true which definitely ain't. I'll give you a hint... EVERYTHING. "What could change" is the wrong question. I want to ask what CAN change and what WILL change. Consider that no more than 3% of the US population controls the other 97%! At least we have them out numbered... and that's a start.

  355. just a question.
    even if the moon landing were a hoax, what would it change?
    all it would prove is that governments have been known to lie, and that not exactly breaking news.
    just kinda seems like an exercise in futility.

  356. Alex- That evidence is circumstantial. I'm not knocking circumstantial evidence, as people have been convicted on murder-one charges for same such evidence. However, in this case, there is too much hard (non-circumstantial) evidence against for it to be of much value. For further proof that you've been bamboozled, you might want to check out the Jack White photographic studies. Warning: The Jack White photographic studies are EXTENSIVE. You will need a couple of hours just to skim them over quickly.

  357. @ Mooned:

    Since you are jumping to the conclusion thinking I am Jewish, Will jump to the conclusion, that I Gotcha!

    Argumentum ad lapidem!

  358. I think that the main proof that Americans landed on the Moon is that the Soviet Union never opposed to that statement. Considering the extremely tense relationhip between the USA and the USSR at that time, the Soviets wouldn't have missed a chance to disclose American lies if they hadn't been indeed on the Moon.

    So, if even Soviets admitted that fact, than I think there shouldn't be any doubts about it. :)

  359. Do I hear the high pitched whine of a lone clarinet playing softly in the background? I hope you had a nice Hunukkah last year and I wish you many more to come.

  360. The Soviets landed unmanned probes on the Moon showing countless pictures. Check them out to see how much dust was generated?
    Do you see any stars in the soviets probes pictures? And check the shadows!

    Google if you want, countless websites.

    U.K. and Australia operated several of the Apollo links, long con from them also right?

    You say you do not know what role the soviets played in Moon shot
    then do not even talk about Moon landings period!

    You have not properly checked out all sources, do not talk about something unless you are fully prepared!

  361. So let me get this straight... You are saying if we did not go to the moon that would mean the Jewish cabal posing as our government scammed us out of a trillion, which you cannot believe. Yet the same Jewish cabal recently stole over 23 trillion from our treasury during the recent bank buy-out swindle. Where is the logic in that?

    Regarding your long con comment... Someone within the Germany's Third Rich made the keen observation that big lies are sold to the public easier than smaller lies. Humongous lies are never even questioned by the public.

    Regarding the Soviets, I don't know what role they played during our bogus Apollo shots. I do know the Soviets were also in the habit of lying to the public about their space program, which may explain why they were not eager to expose the Americans too much. However, the Soviets did expose the Apollo fraud in their own newspapers. The Soviets didn't want the embarrassment of failure so they would fly fictitious missions to resemble a successful missions they had just flown in secret. In this manner, disasters were never reported. Gregarian was not the first man in space. I believe, Gregaran was, in reality, the third.

  362. Apollo astronauts flew nine missions to the Moon, of which six landed on its surface.
    At a cost of, in today's dollars upwards of one trillion dollars.

    And count, considerable emotional stress. More than 400,000 workers where employed. A great many Americans suffered premature heart attacks, strokes, from there efforts for Apollo missions to succeed.

    So than what you are saying here is a long con, correct? a long con by the American Government against the taxpayers just so they could tell the Soviets that they have lost there Primacy of space.

    All I can say is get real!!

  363. just because of the poor quality of his production does not mean his ideas should lack forther individual thinking . to judge on those criteria is the herd mentality of the ivory tower , draw within the lines or you are not worthy of being considered art .

    the earth is flat we all know that ! science told us and science is always right .

  364. You still don't get it. What I'm saying is that the "conspiracy theorist" have the natural advantage on this one. You cannot (you can never) absolutely prove your claim that we went to the moon... you can only be more confident. On the other hand, it only takes one piece of convincing evidence to know for certain we never went. Those are the rules of science. I did not make them up. If you poke around inside the Apollo stuff on the Aulis link, you will find 1000's of pieces of hard evidence that will indicate we never went. The evidence ranges from mathematics to photography and everything in between. Of all that evidence against, it just takes one convincing piece to reject the hypothesis that we went. If you have never been to that site before then I am pretty sure you have not looked all that evidence (just because you haven't had enough time). It took me 3 (count them, three!) full days to hastily skim over it. If after looking at the Aulis evidence you remain unshaken in your belief of a 1969 moon landing then I must respect that. Either way, there is nothing I could possibly say to convince you otherwise that is not said (and probably said better)on the Aulis site.

  365. @ Mooned:

    You said pick one, I will pick "NASA test generates much dust during demo"

    My link on October 16th. 2009 at 18:45 refutes the above!

  366. I completely agree with @ amazed:

    If people do not believe there was a manned moon landing,
    you would not have to believe it 6 times, not once.

    There where 6 manned moon landings!!

    @ Mooned: says the manned moon missions was repeated 6 times to enforce the original lie.

    That would give the Soviets 6 times more opportunity to claim the landings where a lie, so they could regain there primacy of space.

    Let common sense prevail!

  367. I can't believe this is even being discussed. We made it to the moon and for no real profit so why go again. The only reason we are attempting it again is for researching the possibilities of using the moon as a launching pad for the mars missions( which are going to happen folks! ). We can do far more than merely reaching the moon.

  368. What do you smoke man?

  369. How about when the guy's son says "Do you want to call the CIA and have him waxed?" Was that a joke?! What an i**** thats incriminating themselves! Or is he joking that the CIA would "wax" someone that's being so publicly unpatriotic, denouncing the wondrous moon landing? Which in hindsight is probably even worse.. My god has this country ever lost its way..

  370. I always believed the moon landings was America's saving grace. Despite America's participation in coups, assassinations and dishonest politics, I always thought Americans could be proud of the moon landings. I made my son several custom Apollo jackets (covered with authentic NASA patches) as he was growing up. The jackets were important as I was telling my son who we are. We ARE at least as corrupt as Mexico (American corruption just takes a different form). We are perpetrators of fraud. That is who we really are. This film is honest self criticism of America. Judging from comments, many would rather step around the truth than deal with it directly. If Americans are really as courageous as these "moon walkers" pretend to be, they would simply face the music. We never came close to walking on the moon and the fraud was repeated 6 times only to reinforce the original lie. You, me, my son... we've all been duped. Sad but true, sad but true.

  371. The thing that gets me the most of all of this is the massive requirement of covering the distance, then docking the lander at 4000mph and travelling home. We have more technology in our cell phones than they did in that lunar lander. But the botom line is this, if they couldn't make the trip, then there is no way the rest of it could happen. I think that looking into this is an important step for anyone to make. 87% of people base their own opinions on what they hear, never really making any attempt to validate the source, being the news, friends or anything. I applaud any person who is willing to at least get some answers or check out the other side from independent media. I would encourage that to anyone. 9/11 is another good one. Promote info gathering because the news is what you are supposed to hear.

  372. @ squid:

    Mirrors!! "lunar laser ranging retroreflector array"

    100 mirror array that are corner-cube reflectors. Not Prisms!!

    A "Prism" breaks down light into its comparative colors and wavelengths.

  373. @ Achems Razor It is actually an array of prisms not mirrors.

  374. It is surprising and a pity how stupidly you guys are taking on the the guy who produced the documentary. This video and all others you can find on you tube or somewhere else prove beyond doubt that the moon landing was staged.

    May be you believe only what you want to believe, but I choose to believe what makes sense. Just keep your mind open and read and ask more, stupids

  375. Arick, is right.

    Neil Armstrong left a 2 foot wide panel 100 feet from his footprint,
    studded with 100 mirrors pointing at the Earth, called the "lunar laser reflecting array".

    They have learned with the mirrors that the Moon is spiraling away from the Earth at 3.8 cm per year.

  376. This guys is dumb, there is proof that they were up there... They put mirrors that you can bounce lasers off of, this guys talks like a douche with an a condescending tone...what a douche sounds like he is a kid trying to sound smart.

  377. well i do c alot of things wrong here and i realy have trouble beliveing that we went to the moon i agree with lesa if it happened y cant we see evidence of the landing thru a telescope a flag debrie isnt part ofthe lander still there and if we went there a total of 6 times should there not b 6 parts of 6 landers b there telescope an some one said we couldnt because of realution we can go to the moon lol but cant get a clear photo of the moon surface wow

  378. Ever "notice" how the landscape in the distance is suspiciously in the same place even shot from multiple different angles? Not possible. Even if you "believe" the account there is one thing that pretty much tells me its a set up. Forget about all the pictures they could never have shot given the short amount of time, forget about the continual failures even in simulation mere weeks before lift off, forget all of it. Focus on the press conference alone and you have your answers. Here you have three pilots who, like all great sports athletes, are very competitive, performance oriented individuals. The moon landing should be the ultimate high, the touch down sent by God, but here it gets weird. You should be seeing ear to ear grins from cats who ate the canary, guffaws... jokes, back slaps, but instead you have downcast heads and eyes, fidgeting etc. They act as they they're at a wake! Who died? It's surreal and they're not good actors, because that's not who they are! I've been in the military and know the kind of personalities who have a passion to fly. The body language alone tells me it's all wrong.

  379. The moon lander nuts here get down right fussy over their probable delusions. LMAO

  380. This was an awsome doc. I have seen many similar. I do not believe in the moon landings of the USA. I have seen too many doc's and pics to allow myself to continue to believe. Maybe we will very soon with China in 2015-16 (purpose...to collect Heleium 3#) Pete B said it best upbove...no diffrence in the believers of the landings and those who believe in the validity/loyalty and honesty of the federal reserve. Wake up people, we will always be in a conspiracy due to a lack of transparencey along with a lack in ability to handle the truth.

  381. Does anybody think USA would try to fudge Moon Landings 6 times?

    Why would they push their luck?
    It is coming close to when there will be indisputable proof of Moon Landings. There are probes now that are circling the Moon.

    China is planning a Manned Moon Mission in 2016. USA in 2020. Imagine the chance USA is taking if there was not any Manned Landings. They would loose all "Primacy of Space" credibility.

    I hold, that there definitely was, 6 Manned Moon Landings by USA.

    People have asked, why cant telescopes, Hubble Etc: pick up Manned Moon Landing Data on the Moon?
    They cannot, it has to do with resolution.

  382. What really gets me is how neal armstrong wouldnt give an interview for years,Even on the anniversaries of the moon landings he declines interview's ..its like your the first man on the moon and your declining an interview about the greatest feat of all mankind....shady.. in it was almost like he was hiding out or something? and he finally did, but i think because he knew he had to or blow the cover, i dont think we ever landed on the moon, we just went into orbit like they say and staged it..the people who think we went to the moon are the same people that dont understand the federal reserve bank, which has nothing to do with our country and is able to print money out of thin air and lend it to us with interest...lol wake up people.....they believe it cause its got our presidents pics on it...lol scam of the century...

  383. this guy is an idiot. He did not have an once of proof for his lame argument. He would ridiculously pull comments from others and make asinine comparisons to try to prove his unfounded point, and to pat himself on the back.

    Waste of my time!!

  384. This documentary is entertaining for one reason… it is a good example of a person struggling with an undiagnosed mental disorder. The man who created this documentary is a sick individual. It’s sad. Get help!!

  385. This documentary is entertaining for once reason... it is a good example of a person struggling with an undiagnosed mental disorder. The man who created this documentary is a sick individual. It's sad. Get help!!

  386. Well Audrin takes no shit by the look of things, LOL. I kinda felt sorry for Neil Armstrong I always thought he was a nice guy.

    R.I.P to the three poor souls that perished in the pod. Heartbreaking,

  387. bo:

    The Chinese are planning a manned Moon mission in the future,
    there is none as yet.

    They have sent a unmanned probe orbiting around the Moon.

    My position is, there was manned Moon landings, by USA.

  388. The chinese landed on the moon so obviously some of his generalized arguments is no longer valid in 2009. The chinese landed and nobody cared so that answers his stupid question "why has no other country landed on the moon?" Becuz nothing is there you stupid fool. If i"m mistakin and they didnt land but did orbit. Same difference becuz his argument is also no country has orbit close to moon. Maybe we shouldnt believe them damn chinese either. /sarcasm

  389. If we really did go to the moon, shouldn't be able to see our flag through high powered telescopes?

  390. Who cares about how slick the presenter should be to pass our approval? Would you rather have a Dr Phil lookalike, made by Speilberg? Give them a break! The guy certainly shows some guts standing up for what he believes and putting it out there! He did a top job narrating it.
    And he actually raises some great points- how could Alan Bean, an astronaut of the highest order be ignorant about the height of the Van Allen belts? Was he ever concerned about a fatal dose of radiation?
    It has been 40 years now and it is amazing how people who examine the evidence on the internet can still remain convinced we went to the moon and yet the KGB knew within two hours of seeing the first lunar images that they were fake (witness one of their former agents I think in the other video on this site about Apollo).

  391. Total ridiculousness. Clinton makes a joke about how TV manipulates things as per the documentary SPIN on this website and these guys take it all the way to making the moon landing a fraud. Not sending a spaceship to the moon cause of magnetism? Go to Nasa and take a look at a Saturn 5 and tell me that couldn't get something up into a vacum and push it along 400k miles.

    But we are free to watch and believe what we want. In this case I have to stand with the fraud being this production.

  392. Whether you believe the moon landing or not, this idiot deserved to get punched. He narrates with a real bad attitude.

  393. Wow, he punched that guy right in the face! BAM!

    I don't think we went to the moon... I've read alot about the lighting, the way the flag reacted, the burn under the lander... too many flaws

  394. Obviously it was staged. Why is that so hard for people to believe? People can't think for themselves. I guess nobody really cares anyway. It's not like we'll ever get a chance to go ourselves.

  395. I agree with whoopi, could've done in a proper way.

  396. some of his arguments seem agreeable its just that he states his points in really uncool ways. he also has some ridiculous accusations "lying about going to the moon is a satanic lie"??
    i would like to learn more about apollo and the furtiveness of the moon missions its just that i find his angle embarrassing

  397. I don't know what you all wining about ... I think he's right, the evidences speak in his favor, and the reaction of the astronauts isn't that much of a help for all pro-mooners.
    America needed the moonlanding badly, and since then it has become a cornerstone of the american self-conception.
    It does make sense when he says there's something foul in the state of america ^^

  398. well, if they did manage to successfully land on the moon or not is up for debate but one thing we can all agree on is that the creator of this doc is a douche

    a huge douche

  399. moon or no moon, he deserves to get punched

    first they are satanic but now they are afraid of the bible?

    I think the landing was fabricated in some degree..but this guy was a bit psychotic

  400. This Doc. must have been made by kids!

    Very poor proofs.

    Again I will say, do you not think the Russians would not know in a heartbeat! If a manned Moon landing was not achieved? You bet they would!! Instead of loosing their "Primacy" of space!