Dark Side of the Moon

Dark Side of the Moon

2002, Conspiracy  -   161 Comments
Ratings: 6.56/10 from 142 users.

Dark Side of the MoonHow could the flag flutter when there's no wind on the moon? During an interview with Stanley Kubrick's widow an extraordinary story came to light. She claims Kubrick and other Hollywood producers were recruited to help the U.S. win the high stakes race to the moon.

In order to finance the space program through public funds, the U.S. government needed huge popular support, and that meant they couldn't afford any expensive public relations failures. Fearing that no live pictures could be transmitted from the first moon landing, President Nixon enlisted the creative efforts of Kubrick, whose 2001: a Space Odyssey (1968) had provided much inspiration, to ensure promotional opportunities wouldn't be missed.

In return, Kubrick got a special NASA lens to help him shoot Barry Lyndon (1975). A subtle blend of facts, fiction and hypothesis around the first landing on the moon, Dark Side Of The Moon illustrates how the truth can be twisted by the manipulation of images.

With use of 'hijacked' archival footage, false documents, real interviews taken out of context or transformed through voice-over or dubbing, staged interviews, as well as, interviews with astronauts like Buzz Aldrin and others, Dark Side Of The Moon navigates the viewer through lies and truth; fact and fiction. This is no ordinary documentary. Its intent is to inform and entertain the viewer, but also to shake him up - make him aware that one should always view television with a critical eye.

Directed by: William Karel

More great documentaries

161 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Most skeptics and other self appointed experts don't take a lot of things into consideration. The missions were tracked. Other countries knew where the astronauts were. Of course a hoax believer would say all evidence is fake. Even evidence independent of NASA. Usually someone denies something they aren't experienced in. Most never visited the air and space museum, or read anything on NASA. If they said it can't be done......... That's it. It can't be done in their minds, and no evidence, not moon rock samples, not videos, or pictures will convince them. Some have said they wouldn't believe it if they were flown to the moon and showed the landing sites. Well, that says a lot. Why bother. In today's world people laugh at skeptics claiming we never went to the moon. It's very silly, but there are millions who believe it never took place. How sad. A simple Google search shows all the proof, and mistakes on the hoax sites. To bad some will never listen. All they do is laugh, make jokes, and say how all believers are sheep.

  2. nasascam.atspace.co.uk

    100% faked case closed

    1. That's just your opinion. A lot of Brits believe it was faked. They don't do proper research. There was no hoax. There are tons of sites that can debunk all your claims in minutes. There were six manned missions. Why would America risk getting caught six times? The missions were tracked by other countries, along with the transmissions If anything was a hoax, it would have been all over the news. Or were the news companies in on it too? . Russia would have squealed immediately. Also there were moon rock samples sent around the world and examined and proved genuine, and not from earth. I'm sure nothing can convince a skeptic, as they will claim any evidence is fake anyway. Could it be the hoax is fake?

    2. There's no proof of any hoax, and there never will be. Case closed on hoax theories once and for all.

  3. Well how come there's been no manned missions to anywhere in outer space since the Apollo missions?

    1. Mostly lack of interest, and funding. America won the space race, so that was pretty much it. Nowadays it looks to be different, maybe some more manned missions will take place.

    2. People seem to think that because there haven't been any manned missions to the moon in a while, then it must be fake. What???? Any evidence? Of course not. I haven't been to High school in years, does that mean I never went? Lol. Mainly it's lack of interest and funding. It's dangerous and expensive, with no real gain at the time. (I believe they are trying for more manned missions very soon, but I'm sure they are "fake" too. Lol )This doesn't automatically mean the missions never happened. Remember, Countries we're watching the US, and the samples from the moon were analyzed and proved to be from the moon, and not the earth. Although I'm sure skeptics will try and claim the rocks were fake as well, and everyone was paid to lie. Lol. Before anyone tries, the whole moon rock was " petrified wood" story, was used by skeptics, however they didn't bother to read the whole story. Authentic rocks from NASA were encased in plastic and much smaller, plus this wood was never authenticated by NASA as genuine. There was a mix up. A piece of petrified wood was given to the retired Dutch Prime Minister. It was a badly spun news story, as someone got their wires crossed. We all know conspiracy cheerleaders will be claiming everything is fake regardless of what they are shown. There is no point in explaining anything to someone who refuses to listen.

  4. Falsifying the truth and counterfeiting the lie

  5. This documentary seems t be fake. Notice that neither Stanley Kubrick's wife nor any of those politicians ever mention filming of the moon landing. It looks like they were referring to something else and their speeches were used in a way to appear they are referring to the filming of the moon landing. The entire documentary seems very fake.

  6. even astronaut gus grissom said it was all bollocks, then he was murdered

    1. Many hoax believers are British. There is no evidence anyone was murdered. There are many paranoid people spreading false stories like these. A little fact checking goes a long way to debunking crazy theories.

  7. This is the wrong doc., I assume. It is pro mainstream narrative.

    1. See a lot of comments. The only thing that is inescapable is that you believe or you don't believe.

  8. what baffles me is this: if there IS actual footage of the darkside of the moon, why arent we shown it. if its there some where ... i like to see it. i hope that we dont get the same stuf dissed out when we go to MARS........ but perhaps then they enlist the financial help of the NESTLE chocolate company......????

  9. Everything these bastards say and do has an ulterior motive, everything! If their mouth is open, they are manipulating something. So what were they trying to get away with in this film?
    How old is that film? It's just about the same time people started to doubt the truth of the moon landing, the end of the Vietnam war, the fall of Nixon and the Watergate scandal... The cat was out of the bag and soon everyone would find out the truth.
    These crooks were just covering their asses over the assignation of the people that made the film. That's all.

  10. The fact faces like Rumsfeld and Kisinger are ridiculing the conspiracy tells me a lot.

  11. Funny,I didn't read a single comment that that applies good scientific practice to hypothesize,let alone confirm or deny. Conjecture and opinion prove nothing but their own existence.Nasa claims the moons gravitational force is 1/6th that of earth,(what does this mean?)is there any evidence in the moon landing films that support this claim?Any physics professor or mathmatician care to chime in? didn't think so

    1. Well there is tons of proof to explain the 1/6th gravity, just Google it. Is there any proof in a hoax? Absolutely not. Just a bunch of misinformation spread on hoax believer sites.

    2. Just Google all your questions, there is no moon hoax, it's nonsense. What I find funny, is even if a hoax believer was shown evidence, they will simply deny it, and say believers are sheep.

  12. Watched it.
    no pazzaz

  13. Some of the most astounding comments i've ever seen.
    Now I see how Trump stayed in there so long.
    There's more of 'em out there then I thought!

  14. Eyepopping "i would hate for my future generations to not be able to view what an amazing thing the earth's moon really is." I think you will be dead about 2.8 Million years by then

  15. Nice to find out this was the Spinal Tap of the moon landing documentaries. Something didn't seem right and then thanks to the internet I found out this was a mocumentary .

  16. They almost got me there, especially because of the very credible witnesses involved, but for the entire film in the back of my had I was thinking: "why would officials and direct witnesses come forward revealing a scandal o such proportions in a documentary?". Very well crafted. Some of the questions raised about the real problems filming on the moon still "buzz" in my head... would the flag flap? Would the foot print be so deep and clean cut? What about the two light sources in one of the pictures? Would the camera not be affected by extreme temperature changes? Maybe they actually went to the moon, but still faked the film for technical limitations (?)

  17. Why is this on a documentary website?

  18. No doubt a fantastic mockumentary by William Karel. It is a brilliant
    way to further cover up the greatest political secret in human
    I wanted to ask all of you a simple question. What all
    does humans do when they walk in the desert or in the mountains?
    Especially if it is the first time they are there?
    Answer: They all
    go to climb the highest peak to see the view, to get the big
    perspective. For some reason none of the 6 landings ever did this?...
    There is not one wide shot made from the lunar surface of the horizon.
    Why is that? Not a big enough studio? All the 360 shots are stitched
    together in the same small valley with almost identical close range
    peaks. And when these poor three astronauts returned and sat down at the
    conference. They did not sound or look like men who had achieved the
    mission impossible. They were shitting bricks not to say the wrong
    thing, since the price was kind of high... Just look what happened to
    dear teammate Gus Grissom and comp. Nonetheless it was a great
    achievement to get away with it, politically speaking . But we are now
    soon 50 years ahead of the times. And it is all there so very clear, yet
    history still insists on feeding us with this great lie. I am not even
    upset just wondering how long people are willing to deny the truth? And
    the so called hard evidence they brought back is a nice collection of
    old NASA meteors. Obviously passing all tests. I must say this little
    film is really a high level of intelligent cover up play. No better way
    to mock and make fun about things that are delicate. A simply brilliant

    1. Nice try, but many of the shots from the moon were taken miles apart. The astronauts were quarantined for a few weeks, and that takes a lot out of you, plus they aren't to comfortable talking in front of large crowds. Just do a Google search, it debunks all the sill hoax nonsense.

    2. Actually some shots were miles apart. Hoax believers jump to conclusions, instead of proper fact checking. There was no studio, that's nonsense. Someone would have talked by now. The missions were tracked.

  19. Fake, mashup of video clips out of context, not a documentary!

  20. It seems impossible that so many people think this is a serious film. It is a mockumentary, it is mockery of the moon-hoax! Search Wikipedia for "Dark Side Of The Moon (film)"
    Half of the people interviewed are fictional characters, with names coming from Hitchcock and Kubrick films: Eve Kendall, Ambrose Chapel, George Kaplan, Jack Torrance, Dave Bowman, Dimitri Muffley... LOL!

  21. omg i love what they did with this. well done!

  22. Interestingly, anyone who claims it is impossible that they faked the moon landings is deluding themselves. With that said, I have no doubt that 12 men landed on the moon, (that we know of) not because of irrefutable facts, but because I have seen way to many interviews from all the people involved, and they are quite simply not that good of actors, nor can their actions (foot prints, etc) be removed from the moon's surface, which can now be confirmed by lunar orbitors. The idea that Nixon would do whatever he felt necessary (take phony pictures just in case) is not only plausible, but highly likely considering the known nature of the individual.
    If people wish to pursue 'conspiracy theories' that are actually valid, start with the assassination of JFK. There is no doubt that there was more than one shooter, (bang....bang, bang - confirmed by the Zapruder film - impossible from a single bolt action rifle), and anyone who contests the kill shot came from in front of Kennedy, forgets that Jackie Kennedy, while in shock, climbed onto the back of the car to retrieve the large piece of her husband's skull that would have been on the windshield in front of him, had the shot come from the rear. (critical thinking) Any questions?

    1. awful truth.. Of course we have been to the moon, the whole point of the conspiracy theory is that we didn't go to the moon when we say we did. We couldn't risk the Russians beating us to the moon so we faked it at that time.

    2. @Chris Kul: I appreciate your thoughts on the issue, but for the record, there was no threat of the russians beating the americans to the moon because their entire moon program collapsed when Sergei Korolev died during a botched operation in 1966. Since we have not been back to the moon in 40 years, most younger people can't conceive the risks they were taking at the time. Even a president like Nixon did not want it to go sour on his watch due to political ramifications. On July 20, 1969, they really did land on the moon, and they have the moon rocks to show for it. Ironically, if we attempted to do it again, it would take another 10 years to make it happen, because they gave up the technological approach and wisdom that got them there to begin with.
      P.S: They would never take the risks today that they did then. Take care, and best wishes Chris Kul.

    3. @awful_truth

      quick question...

      If what we see is actually Neil Armstrong taking the first steps ever by a man on the moon... Who set up the camera on the moon's surface that captured that exact footage??

    4. I thought everyone knew this.


    5. Achems azor old friend nice to see other moon threads are still alive, what was the reason of the closing of comments of 'Truth behind the Moon'? such a shame, just as the discussions were beginning to build momentum

      Since you guys are so knowledgeable regarding space travel and the moon, I have a follow up question to our convo regarding the reason for the horizon on all moon photos to appear only 100-200 yards away:so your response was "Its because the Moon has no atmosphere only blackness, and don't go on why no visible stars in the pictures please"
      which induced a bit of light bulb moment > regarding the non visible stars, the reason given was that the sunlight was so bright that you could not see the stars with the bare eye, why didn't they just hop on the lunar rover drive out into the darkness that we can see 100 yards away to see the stars and take photos of them??

      That would also explain why they took a lunar rover to the moon too!!!!!?? two birds with the one stone! did they not think of that or am I missing something? or does the sunlight follow the astronauts into the darkness wherever on the moon they they go? or the same as light reflects off the moons surface in the light area which eliminates strong shadowing, darkness reflects of the surface accentuating darkness?

      I eagerly await your reply :)

    6. @edgedweller: No matter how clever you think your questions are, many things in life are non-intuitive. Contrary to what you were told as a kid, objects are not solid, time is not a constant, and 2 observers can view the same incident, derive opposite conclusions with certainty, and yet both are correct. (relativity)
      In the final analysis, we all have to decide for ourselves what is the truth in a world of lies. It is only from extensive research, can we even hope to determine what is correct.
      P.S: Vlatko, and Achems_Razor have both given you sources of information to check. While I respect your intellectual skepticism, (a good thing) perhaps you may wish to broaden your horizons. One cannot add to a cup that is already full! Take care edgedweller.

    7. Is that it? On Vlatko's criteria of negative discussion tactics:
      - deflection,
      - relativization,
      - ad hominem, and
      - circular logic.
      - fluff

      it ticks a number of them.

      Wheres the crew today, no takers? Pretty concrete question, nothing to do with quantum, relativity or the price of fish in china.

      And what great Internet sources they are, Im in the process of veirfying Authors, Publishers etc etc etc you can never be 100% sure of anything, specially of a cup one believes is full

    8. For the record, I have bunted heads with these individuals myself, and while I may not agree with everything they say, I still respect their knowledge base, and what they have to offer.
      Challenging everything is easy, but it impedes communication, since no one desires to jump through hoops in an effort to convince anyone of anything. ( an exercise in futility, signifying nothing)
      If you truly believe that man has not walked on the moon, nothing anyone states, nor the information they provide will change your position; not because the information is invalid, only that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. (a cup that is full - why there is no takers) Is it possible the Apollo missions were fabricated? Yes, it is possible. The right question however would be is it probable? Only after you have devoured all the pertinent information can this be determined. (still no certainty) As I stated to you previously, intellectual skepticism is a good thing; just make sure it is applied in the right context, with the right delivery.
      P.S: correct is not the one who screams the loudest, or rambles on the longest. All battles are won or lost long before they are fought - that includes debates. Take care edgedweller.

    9. while we do disagree on occasion. the respect is mutual. neither of us will ever learn anything if we only listen to the choir

    10. The Sun is even brighter on the Moon than it is on Earth, how many stars can you see on Earth in the daylight no matter what dark shadows you may venture in?

    11. we come full circle as I draw you to Neil Armstrong words 'we could not see any stars'
      Your observations "its because the Moon has no atmosphere only blackness" and "The Sun is even brighter on the Moon than it is on Earth" can be confirmed by the photos however they also show a very clear demarcation of light and blackness...so which is it? you cannot have both at the same time.

      When a photo is taken in daylight on earth there is no blackness 150 yards away. If the sun is brighter on the moon thenwhat is the nature of this darkness on the bright side of the moon? is the moon 300 yards in diameter?

    12. Could you please provide a link to this "blackness" 150 yards away? please just one photo (your best example).

    13. choose any photo, ask achems razor to point it out to you if you cant see it...he can see it

    14. I asked you because you made the claim. Also I am trying to avoid explaining a shadow or something away then getting a response like " that is not the blackness i meant" as an answer. You are free to make a claim without evidence. But I an also free to dismiss it without evidence. (paraphrasing Hitchens)

    15. and I told you to ask achems razor because he may be in the building/you may be the same person.

      There is no misinterpreting what we mean by 'blackness' - everything outside the light of the set - the horizon and beyond.

      You are asking for evidence for something that is self evident of all moon photos - unless you are blind, why would you be asking for evidence for something that needs no evidence - do I now ask you for evidence of the sun or the moon?

      So lets speed this up a little since I know exactly the road your taking - the distance to the horizon is open to your interpretation, and unless I provide evidence (from a credible source - which won't be credible unless it supports the moon landing agenda) then theres nothing doing because you guys only guide yourselves by 2nd hand Internet sources. Maybe add its ok to prove the landings with photo evidence - not ok to disprove anything though...

      There - send Fabien in? maybe its time for epicurus to step in and reinforce the conundrum?

    16. The lunar surface itself reflects light. As does the Earth. Figure it out. It is simple.

    17. @RK: The initial video was filmed from a camera mounted on the LEM. (lunar excursion module) Once they were on the surface, cameras on the front of their spacesuits also took some footage, that is, until they fried several of them by facing direct sunlight.

    18. question answered!


    19. Question answered, but I would like to chip in. I am going to teach you something very interesting today. Out there is a process that is called logical thinking. In your case it would work like this. You ask the question. ' Who set up the camera on the moon's surface that captured that exact footage??' You think.No human has ever set foot on the moon. So it is impossible that a camera (motion activated, remote control, etc) could have been left there to capture the footage. What are the other possibilities? The other astronaut actually getting out of the LEM first and filming the footage? (conspiracy theory?). Now you start to run out of ideas. What now? YOU DO RESEARCH! before you ask nonsensical questions on a public forum like this. Love. Peace. Joy. Truth

    20. did you really just say your proof of the moon landing is that they brought back moon rocks? wow youre one of those who make it so easy for the government to lie to us. "They told me it was a rock from the moon so I guess its rea!!" wow

    21. @Chris Kul: If you read my comments carefully, you would realize that I said:
      Lunar orbiter can now see the landing sites. (no atmosphere to remove the evidence) Maybe you believe this is a lie as well as the 840 pounds of moon rocks that collected, and studied by people from many countries. It is also important to note that the Russians also collected a small sample of lunar soil robotically.
      Perhaps the best evidence is indirect. Do you believe the Russians wouldn't have exposed this if it was a lie? At a reunion of the anniversary of the 1st landing, Buzz Aldrin (in his 70's) punched a conspiracy theorist in the face for calling him a fraud. (hmmmm, yup, that would be my reaction as well if someone questioned my courage, and integrity for my involvement in what is arguably the greatest achievement in humanity's history.
      As I stated in my original comment, it is not impossible that it was a hoax, but if you study the story in it's entirety, it becomes highly improbable. While it is true that governments lie to us just about all the time, if you wish to find conspiracies, look for things that really don't add up, like a 46 story building falling for no reason, (9 11) or JFK's assassination. In these situations, there is all kinds of real evidence that sets the 'official story' on it's head. Apparently, I am capable of thinking for myself since I use something called critical thinking. More importantly, it requires using what is referred to as an 'intentional stance'. Once you know what motivates someone, it is very easy to predict their actions. Note: While intellectual skepticism is the hallmark of critical thinking, the 'proof' you are referring to will never exist, if you choose to believe nothing you see, or hear. At some point, you have to decide for yourself, which is always best served by delving deep, and looking at a lot of information from many different perspectives.
      Ultimately, we all believe what we want to believe, and it doesn't make any of us right, and that is what is most useful to the powers that be. (divide and conquer) Either way, you obviously have not read enough of my posts, or you would not even attempt to infer that 'people like me' make it easy for the government to lie to us. May I suggest that you do a lot more research regarding any particular topic before you jump to such conclusions. Take care, and best wishes Chris.

    22. the government told me kennedy was shot from the back, so guess it did! think for yourself awful truth

    23. awful truth, No questions, just two comments. I retired from the gov at age 46 with a full pension and a healthy 6 figure bonus settlement to suppress the truth that I knew and spoke. This was in the USDA. Agriculture! Yes, my phone was tapped, and yes the USDA broke into my home and confiscated most of, Thank God not all, the evidence I had. That said, I still have serious doubts about actually landing on the moon. Neil Armstrong's incriptic comment "peel back the layers of truth" alone should be enough "reasonable doubt". As for the Kennedy assassination, the head shot came from about 7 feet away out of a storm drain inlet. The Zapruder film you referenced clearly shows the driver come to almost a complete stop right in front of the storm drain. The Nix film from the opposite dirrection shows the drain the the street curb. Every eye witness to the assissination do not agree where the shot came from. But they do agree 1 shot had a different raport. That's not from echos. It's from the acoustic's of firing a gun from inside the cement casing of a man-hole/storm drain.

    24. While we may not agree on where the kill shot came from, it appears that we are in complete agreement that a conspiracy to kill JFK is indisputable.
      As far as the moon landings go, I don't believe Neil Armstrong, or the 11 other astronauts that walked on the moon (some still alive) would be willing to leave their children or grandchildren to the vindictive nature of humanity to answer for their supposed deception, after it was finally discovered. By your own admission, we know governments lie all the time, and even with a 6 figure settlement, you don't seem content to let sleeping dogs lie neither. (and kudos to you for speaking up) Take care nixonpeas.

  23. The Freemasons is an "old boys" club, nothing more. Having an open mind is one thing, but believing every stupid thing presented to you is another matter entirely.

    1. I Agree with u 100 and 10%!!!!!!!Freemasons have evry body believing so much bull! Its called control and they have done a good job at it. I don't believe the government about anything anymore. They have put so much fear into the atmosphere its ridiculous. I truly love documentaries.

  24. General Vernon Walters. A Frenchman. Former director of the CIA.....LOL

  25. at the seen where a local vietnam/cambodian person was talking(part 5/6), the translation is wrong the guy was saying about how much it cost him, at 600 per kilo, 10 kilo is already 6000. not about a person arriving in his village. the translation is fake.

  26. Belief is a chosen ignorance. What is so hard to see about a story of another story. The fear is to admit that we can be so easily desceived either way. There is no such thing as truth only chosen ignorant bliss. I know that when it comes to money and power anything can and will be done to keep the money and the power.

  27. You can tell its fake by the out-of-context clips of Rumsfeld

  28. Whatever you search for, you will find it.

  29. Armstrong and Aldrin, 33rd degree and 32nd degree masons, respectively. Look into it.

  30. Amazing comments about fuel consumption here: what these "moon-landing-deniers" forget is that the rockets (all THREE stages) not only lift the command module, but all the fuel required. As the craft travels, it burns more and more fuel and as a result weighs less and less. Each stage gets jettisoned, lightening the load for the next stage. EVentually, after all the stages have completed their burns, that left only the command module and the lander.
    The command module stayed in lunar orbit while the Eagle landed on the moon. Only a portion of the lander left the Moon's surface and quickly accellerated into lunar orbit.
    Once rendezvous was accomplished and the lander module jettisoned, it was a quick jaunt back to earth.
    Oh, never mind,
    There's just no convincing some people.

    1. I agree with what you are saying, but thats not what took place. Theres way too many experts that have looked at the footage of the moon landing and have all picked it apart in regards to flaws and goofs. Theres just way too much evidence to show it was filmed in a studio. The U.S. had to be number one, and this was the only way it could be done. There were a lot of reasons why it was done. And plenty of evidence to show that it was faked, Theres all kinds of evidence you can view online.

    2. let me preface this comment with a smile, i come in peace. Did you do the math for those fuel calcs yourself ? or are you going on something someone told you. you know hearsay. because i don't have a problem believing we've been to the moon, but i'm also open to the possibility the actual footage that was televised was faked. because to say that the footage was faked by Kubrick, or any one else is not to say that man hasn't been to the moon. just that for whatever reason, it was decided a live broadcast wasn't possible or advisable. certainly kubrick seems to imply he was involved in some of his films. he was an expert on back screen projection. Weidner and Hoagland tell an interesting story with their theory if nothing else. it does us know harm to entertain it. i saw this film on Telebision, and missed the first few mnutes. I had just read an article by weidner outlining the landings as a clever obfuscation by kubrick, and i gottatell you, i was completely taken in. Even when Kissinger and Rumsfeld et al started yukking it up, i was able to suspend my urge to dsbelief. when they did the big reveal at the end i was gutted, and looking over my shoulder in embarassment to see if i had been spotted. I think that it is just as interesting to ponder how these humble french mocumentarists gained access to these pretty high initiates, and convinced them what a jape it would be. Cause they are well known tricksters, front man for illuminati corp. pty ltd is just a day job. Sorry to pick on you, but i had to get that off my chest, and i prefer a little scepticism with the open mindedness. cheers.

    3. You need help and therapy if you believe the Apollo fairy story.

    4. The allegation here is that the moon landing was real, but that Nixon hired Kubrick to make fake back up landing scenes in the event live images failed. Oh, never mind, There's just no convincing some people (that should read more carefully.) Second paragraph, second sentence.

  31. "Dark Side of the Moon is a French mockumentary by director William Karel which originally aired on Arte in 2002 with the title Opération Lune. The basic premise for the film is the theory that the television footage from the Apollo 11 Moon landing was faked and actually recorded in a studio by the CIA with help from director Stanley Kubrick. It features some surprising guest appearances, most notably by Donald Rumsfeld, Dr. Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, Vernon Walters, Buzz Aldrin and Stanley Kubrick's widow, Christiane Kubrick."

    Do you really think members of the American government would admit it if the moon landings were fake?

    1. Great Movie & funny.

  32. it is hilarious that they used 3 names from hitchcock films: Eve Kendall, Abrose Chapel, and George Caplan. I thought maybe the first two were coincidences but when I heard Caplan, I laughed my butt off. What a waste of my time...

  33. Holy smoke, a few nutjobs on this thread.

    It's clearly a spoof documentary and the director had obviously cut and pasted archive footage to make you think they were discussing the moon landings.

    Think about some of the ridiculous narrator comments and others by some of the participants!

    "We put gold foil on the rockets - it served no purpose whatsoever, but we wanted them to look very expensive" lol

    "For the stars they used huge sheets of paper with pins holes" lol

    "We moved the launchpad so the sun would be directly behind it so it would look spectacular" Cheaper to move the camera position - lol

    There are many more absurdities that any intelligent person would immediately pick up.

    Actually the last 10 minutes of the film is missing, and the jokes get funnier and more obvious.

    Anyone who thinks this is evidence of a lunar hoax is rather missing the point and is probably confused about other things too.

    1. Oh yeah, 'obviously'....

      The moon landing was so obviously faked....I really feel sorry for the cowards too afraid to consider the facts...

  34. I tend to believe that the mythology of the moon is like any other mythology. The moon has two sides. One is the mythology of the Heavens, and the other the mythology of he Earth.

  35. Hmm....I'ts been awhile since I've stopped by and I see that as predicted the IQ's of the 'We Didn't land On The Moon' conspiracy theory nut bags is still in free fall.
    I might accept this kind of foolishness from Cyrax and Flyrax but you guys aren't even funny!

    1. Talking about the waste of space... But Xbow shows a high IQ though, doesn't he/she? And a lot of knowledge, I mean, with all the data provided., one can't just simply dismiss it...

    2. you are an idi*t of immense size considering a brain the size of a rice grain..Oh i disagree with him so ill abuse him because my vocabulary is very limited

    3. @ordinaryLEE,

      You're calling people around idiots. That is why your comments are held for approval. Read the comment policy.

    4. dear moderator does this id*ot Xbow have superstar status or referential treatment because every other time i reply to a post it goes thru immediately ,yet for this plank you dither about like hes something special..treat all posts equally or stop modding..thankyou

    5. you might share the same IP range with someone who was blacklisted for abuse and thus your comments get automatically put in moderation. sorry about that but you wont be edited, you comments will get through. its nothing personal.

    6. Yeah, it's not as if the government would ever lie to its people.

  36. When I read the title I thought "OOoo a Pink Floyd documentary!" I was so excited... I was like :D. I then read the description... I became :~(. Not another moon landing conspiracy video cr@p. *sighs*

    I believe it happened, but the video was clearly faked. Sorry ... but beyond the flag waving, there was just no way that video could be crystal clear in space...not with all of the interference of space sound waves and other waves that could alter or interfere singles. I doubt that film could be possible with all those space waves and energy throwing about and the technology at the time wasn't advanced enough to fix bad reception in space. With that said, I'm still researching and studying the matter on my own... media, government, education, etc... their all in the game of lying to the people. The only way to make sure anything is true or not, is to go out and do your own documentary research.

    1. Come back and let us know what you find, please...

  37. I think the landings were faked! If there were all ready Alien beings all ready on the moon telling us not to land again or not to tell earth that the moon is basically a telescope looking down on us. But i have seen many documentary's and one that i remember was that they have a air force base with our moon built inside it. One guy had got into this hanger with a video cam i had saw video cam rails all over this room with the massive slabs of the moon plates assembled like a sphere in the middle of the room when he asked about the rails he was asked to leave why? Because he was close to finding out the truth i think anyway. I also know we have sent probs to mars and have found a heat signature under the surface of the planet that looked like a underground city, they only had a moment to look before they seen a bright light coming from the surface then the satellite was shoot down. You can find these videos on youtube and project camelot also on youtube, please keep looking into these type of videos and files coz the USA, Russa, UK, China are all rulled by the master puppeteer who is always looking to fool the common man for power and control.

    1. i was gonna say really well put together post until you brought the damn illuminati into it..Shame but even the intelligent can get caught up in it

    2. Armstrong, 33rd degree Mason, and Aldrin was 32nd degree.

  38. The film makes a lot of sense. I paused it 30 minutes through, then went to see Transformers dark of the moon for a second time. This time I saw it not in 3-D. I took notes and when I came back home from the Theatre I un-paused the Focumentary (documentary that tries to mock but is made backwards as the French are, not unregettably, at least France has publically disclosed its UFO/ETI files.)... to find that as i have suspected somehow my whole life, that Kubrick s' 2001: A Space Oddessy all by itself feels suspicious, never-mind the proof that the White House and Hollywood work closer then previously imagined. What really should set people off? How about Hollywood and the white house doing 9/11 working with Extra Terrestrial intelligences, working in tandem, or try-laterally? I have absolute proof. Donald R. and H. Kissinger played in both time-space operas, Apollo 11 and 9/11. But their parts were played down, when compared to the role the Previous President played as well as warmly forgiven characters (Michael Moore) some consider neoanderthalesque heroes. The evidence of a 9/11 code embeds itself in crop formations. We can think of many heroes in this "deepartment". Not enough room here to explain. But the moon is involved, it's position on Jan. 1st of 2000, matches a code that targeted 9/11 via crop circles. You require the very book I am writing. How about. We faked going to the moon because the moon itself is fake, put in place to create life on earth. The moon is the controlling pillar. The moon is metal, hollow, and used as a time-machine, or teleportation device to travel anywhere in the galaxy. That is how we all got here on earth, but the moon's function as this device fell out of repair when the Great Pyramid was dismantled. The moon naturally helps amplify cosmic rays from Cygnus, which is where the dream-body of the human consciousness gets it's "light". This is displayed at Gobekli-tepe in stone, a sun in Cygnus, 1,000,000 brighter than our sun, yet we see it dimmed by the dust of the milky-way’s Great Cygnus Rift. Going back in time 90,000 years the larger than life energen stream coming from CygnusB-12 and Cygnus x-1 unblocked by the dust is what helped the second wave of humans to get here, travelling of course through the center of the moon, and from the moon-sea to earth. How ironic and unforn that today, 1) this information is tangled in loose-end new age conspiracy, and 2) we faked getting back there in 69 when once upon a time we all came through the moon, here?, at least that’s how our astral spirit found its body. With the help of mushrooms. The Great Pyramid and its caves is the human attempt to get back to the underworld of the moon-gate, through ritual and magic of the dead. The area above Orion’s right arm between the horns of the bull is a place the priests were sending off the king’s soul, or human souls, to be reborn in the duat. The entrance to the duat was opened on earth in 4493 BC, or 350 years after “Adam” was created. By 4243 BC, the Pleiadian Gods (aka watchers), who arrived in 17,250 BC, on Mars had waited 5 sothic cycles or, 7300 years before they grew tired of their human creation on earth which took advantage of the Cromagnon and Neanderthal DNA archetypes, the backbone of evolution of all humanoid types. Many Humanoid types were taken from here though the moon, some were brought back here to learn ‘our history’ that is us now. The super-union of Atlantean and Lemurian intelligence is America as we (it) previously wiped out the native neanderthals peaceably living here. This is the final part of the divine plan where ET’s (autobots) and the Global Elite (decepticons) join forces (9/11) to fulfill our book of Revelations for us. the Second Christ is the Swan Song. The head of the dragon is Yawawy. And it has been cut off, since the days when the whole Bill-game=shh Epic begin and a flood, plague, and nuclear war changed into the political game we play today. With the matrix key of leadership, and the golden reed, I climb higher the tree of life from which the emerald tablet hung. The Y2K position of the Pole Star and the Moon as Yahaweh/allah did 9/11. In mathematical equations it is: 21.6 x 216 = 4665.6 = Aftermath number of 9/11 and formula of a hypercube or, sphere of the ultimate womb.
    Weaving truths like an agile angel undone in the sun. i so/sew/saw/see as much as Cacye and Gooch combined. Gobekli Tepe is the "Space bridge" the Star Gate, Where Enkidu became a ghost in the machine mysteriously called Adam. I am the reincarnation of Enki, solving the spot where Adam was sucked into the Earth for a mysterious burial, which birthed the idea of religion/archaeoastronomy/farming/language by means of the pillars which are star-time-gates of the oldest astrology.

  39. a nice mockumentary!

  40. Well that was a great documentary, very thought provoking, and somewhat annoying.

  41. thanks T D F ...(wishin a long film)

  42. To all those Conspiracy theory believers: If the moon landing was just a hollywood fake, then how come there has never been a peep out of the Soviets - who would have been the first one out there screaming FAKE if going to the moon is so difficult to do. It doesn't take much to figure out whether or not something is genuinely originating from the moon. Also If it was faked, with so many people working on the space program and on the scientific data gathered over all those years, how come there hasn't been any peep about it being faked.

    The only "fake" believers are those on the outside of the whole space program nitpicking so-called "anomalies" that they can't understand or don't wish to investigate further as evidence. A classic saying in science is "the absence of evidence doesn't prove the evidence of absence". i.e. there may be other explanations for the alleged "anomaly" but until you disprove them, presenting it as evidence of a "fake" is not proof. Makes a good story for the uninformed masses but that doesn't make it real. That's the point of the film - check out the evidence and not just believe everything you see. It is easy to craft something that is believable but totally wrong. As proof, see what Creationists have been doing to spread their "truth" about Evolution and how when confronted by the scientific community in the Dover trial what evidence they had was not evidence at all.

    1. creationism and the moon landings are two different leagues of "conspiracy". By your logic, if L.H. Oswald was not the lone gunman how come there has not been a peep from the soviets. That would have been a PR coup for them. It doesn't take much to figure out whether all the bullets came from his rifle, etc.....etc. The paucity of basic documentation (photos etc) beyond that which came out at the time is highly suspicious. This at a time when satellites and satellite surveillance were well advanced and taking pictures of the reds with their pants down. Perhaps Nasa didn't think to take film of the approach etc so if it went wrong they would have clues on what to modify? This from the same guys who researched various different means of writing in zero G, a simple pencil not being good enough for the greatest achievement of mankind? Live feed from the moon for a few minutes instead of wall to wall coverage of the biggest F*** You to the commies, beamed into their own homes? (If Nasa couldn't do it they knew damn well that the reds couldn't) And you buy that based on your scientific approach to evidence? The lack of evidence supports the conspiracy theory more than it does the moon landing "fact". When you work for NASA you work for them ALL THE WAY. How little have Buzz and Armstrong said since the great event. Yes they spoke but they said the same simple controlled PR soundbites, no off the cuff detail on what must have been the most mind boggling, emotion testing, greatest YEE HAAA! ever. I don't actually buy the moonlanding or JFK conspiracies but I'm certainly buying the failure to put an end to the nonsense by putting out solid DATA and I feel no shame in wondering, WHY NOT? This doc doesn't actually rubbish the moon landings, just the film of it and smells of damage limitation. Kissinger, Haig and Rumsfeld giving up Nixon's secrets? This is Kissinger we're talking about. My take is this is a "Dead man helped us make films of what we achieved but couldn't document" cover story for the issues better raised in "a funny thing happened on the way to the moon" conspiracy documentary. Disinformation posing as conspiracy. Like those powerful men wouldn't have shut this down before it got near production.

    2. The Moon landings are so easily verifiable, that I am amazed that any question remains. On Apollo 11, and another, subsequent mission, they placed mirrors at various locations, mapped out for them. The University of Texas Observatory is charged with the duty of bouncing a laser off those mirrors a number of times a day. It tells us 3 things: 1.) The Moon is slowly moving away from us (don't freak out, you wont be here for its departure). 2.) the Moon is also swinging back and forth slightly, like a bell. This is the leftover of the last asteroid strike it too, which left us with the very visible crater named Brahe, for the famous Danish Astronomer. and 3.) the third thing it tells us, is that the freaking Moon missions weren't fake, hell, amateur radio operators worldwide were able to listen in to their communications. Many have reported. Still the simplest way to prove it to yourself, if you are a lunar non believer, is to call the University of Texas, and they will arrange a visit to the observatory if you ask nice. There of course are multiple Hubble Photos of our lunar campsites....we don't clean up after ourselves very well, do we? Though Id love to have all those kicka** Hasselblad cameras they left up there. In that environment, they would be like out-of-the-package new

    3. That's funny. And not in a good way. It gives the strong impression you're a government(Zionist) employee...sorry, but I'm just giving my honest assessment...

    4. Probably because they faked their own people in space...

      Besides, look how many fools insist the moon landings were real; do you think it would have been a problem for the media to portray any Soviet comments as 'Pravada' material? If the Soviets did know the'd probably have said nothing for a multitude of possible reasons.

      Also, the Soviets may not have known it was fake....half of NASAs staff probably thought it was real, too...

  43. If the moon landings where faked, they where faked very well for pepole to still discuss if they where true or not.
    I dont think they where faked becouse, it would take 100s of pepole to fake (think camera men, sound pepole, set builders, editors, lighting crews, equipment, etc etc).
    If any of these pepole where involed surely by now there would be a convincing deathbed or for money confession with proof by somebody.

    i can believe films have been touched up, or even a backup film set was created in case of failure of mission or transmissions, maybe some parts of the films where faked to cover up errors or problems with filming..

    In otherwords the landing must of been true, as so far it has been not proven to not be ture.

    1. if you also watch " a funny thing happened on the way to the moon" you might reconsider! They are being exposed.

    2. I am stumped as to what to say in response to your disingenuous statement. Even after hearing Alexander Haig, Henry Kissenger, the Presidents personal advisor and the director of the CIA to admit that they filmed this event yet you suggest it didn't happen? Either you are delusional and brainwashed into believing Anything the media tells you or you are so unbelievably arrogant that I imagine you as having no one who will dare be in your company.

    3. Yes it has but people refuse to believe it.

  44. Hey this is a great spoof,...I confess I fell for it but happily started to research it, fascinated esp. by the bit with the luminaries Helms, Kissinger, Rumsfeld et al,...not sure, I did notice their lips didn't exactly match their words,..also saw the Jack Torrance bit,...but still bought it. They didn't claim in the movie the moon shot didn't happen, this was suppose to be back up footage,...the little pic of Kubrick in the dirt, that should have clued me up. I enjoyed being fooled and it reminds me check check check !
    Regarding other movie 'this is true' spoofs is "Fargo" a classic mash up story which claimed complete truth. The Japanese woman who supposedly went searching for the suitcase of money, that wasn't true either.
    Of course Snopes and other web sites not specialize in debunking or verifying.
    Here's one story that is such a tangled web it is difficult to unravel "Report from Iron Mountain". I suspect it may be true and they are hiding behind the we were just kidding line. Point is this, if you want to hide something the best palce is in the open.

    Another fascinating site I highly recommend is the Museum of Jurassic Technology, Google it .
    The whole point is what do we think we know and how true is it?

  45. this website should be used by schools, if any education system would make any sense.
    thanx Vlatko!

  46. I have read all of the comments with regards to “The Dark Side of the Moon”. Could it be that both events really happened? The United States did go to the moon and that the astronauts were filmed on a film stage for safety and security reasons to guarantee film footage.

    Watching this documentary I thought it was neat with regards to what editors can do with sound bits to build a story. To be honest though this happens in every staged production in the movies and on TV today. No better example of this is an animated feature where all of the actors lines are recorded before hand separately and then assembled together.

    So did the astronauts really go to the moon? There is evidence that they have with regards to the lunar reflectors. Since 1969 I have believed that the US Space Program was genuine.

    However on the flip side I can easily why the White House could have faked some shots to create a better program.

    So perhaps both theories are true. In a modern movie some footage is taken on location and some footage in the studio.

    In the new moon landing scenario, spacecraft and astronauts really did go to the moon. These astronauts however were not the ones filmed on the sound stages.

    In case an Apollo moon mission failed or the astronauts were sicked by space radiation these astronauts were kept hidden from public scrutiny. Where as the other land based astronauts, the stars of the show did their takes on a sound stage.

    In this way both scenarios are now possible. The United States did fly to the moon, and did fake the lunar films. And this was only done to ensure the safety and continuity of the real space program.

    Experiments were conducted on the lunar surface and real lunar rocks were returned to Earth. However not by the astronauts we think returned them.

    Just some ideas I had after having read all of the comments above with regards to the dangers of space travel from the Earth to the Moon and back again with regards to space radiation.

    Arnold Vinette
    Ottawa, Canada

  47. @Stoneman, bs, the goverment would lie to us in a minute. They lie everyday to us.

  48. Oh my lord....This movie is about how the media can be used to convince people of crazy things. It's about promoting skepticism. If you didn't realize that this movie was not even about the Moon Landing by the end of it then it went way over your head.

  49. @Pheldestat Ask one question to all free thinking people and be objective. Since the mid 1970's we have sent over 20 probes to mars and not one single mission had a man a board.
    Common sense would force us to simply ask why? In 2005 the space shuttle went to a height of 700 miles above the earth and CNN reported that the crew had trouble with there vision.
    The moon is 240,000 miles from earth. Now let us talk fuel.
    For a round trip to the moon and back it would take a craft the size of an ocean liner just to carry the fuel, 480,000
    miles round trip! Best wishes to all

    1. Rob,
      That is some of the most close minded anti-free thinking crap I have ever heard.
      20 probes to Mars and not one maned mission... It is a freaking two year round trip to Mars by way of direct minimum energy orbit .
      First just think of all the food that would have to be taken.
      Grow it? Now you talking even more weight and craft volume.

      CNN? Sure hit the nail on the head there because we know they never miss report things like or even out right lie.............................. Sorry, I just had to dodge a bolt of lightening

    2. ...and, you Sir, are a man of logic and reality. I commend you for your precise and eloquent analysis.

    3. Mars is 2 years away , that's why there have been no manned missions to Mars the moon is only 3 days,
      I don't know where you got an ocean liner of fuel from
      Go learn some basic physics/rocket science especially the bit about escape velocity.

    4. A Saturn V Rocket actually is pretty damn close to being an Oceanliner full of fuel. Have you ever seen one in person? Most fuel was burned to achieve escape velocity, and before you say something silly like "how did they make it back with less than half the fuel they left with", they didn't need a whole mountain of fuel to allow the Earth to re-capture the Command Module for the return trip. After a few controlled burns to kick it in the ass, they have just a few thruster burns for re-entry alignment.

  50. I would like to salute all the people on this site for offering their heart felt convictions on the subject matter. It allows for disagreement and agreement on interesting topics which allows us to question each others opinions and world view. Its courageous to stand on a particular theory whether one is wrong or right. I am pleased that there wasn't any severe personal attacks. We all have something to bring to the table of opinion - especially if it's for the simple desire to learn.


  51. Don -- Yup, Vietnam was quite a story. I recently read Ralph Epperson's account of how the Vietnam War was ended. The world planners had wanted to drag it on another 20 years. But one man (can't remember his name) forced the hand of the U.S. government and President Nixon by buying some planes and threatening to bomb the dredge in Haiphong Harbor. Without that dredge, the ships bringing food and supplies in to North Vietnam could not pull in and dock and unload. There were ships coming in from all over the world, including the USA.

    This one man caused the war to end. I should be able to tell you his name, but -- you'll have to go check out Epperson's website and read it yourself, the account of how the Vietnam War finally was brought to an end.

    This world is pure evil. What can I say. The people who run the world had to sell their souls to get where they are, and I guess they figure they made a good trade. They don't seem to mind hooking up with devils and ghouls.

  52. Captain "Nemo" Kirk,

    Good arguments. It's sad just how much our Government works against its own citizens (I'm the "Don" from the other commits up above).

    In 1969 I was stationed on a Sac Nuclear Base that was also one of the three primary NASA base's. I can tell you many of us had doubts about the "Space Race" even then. Yet many people seldom heard our experience in our arguments about it being suspect! During this period they were also waging a War that could not be won. Over 50,000 Americans died in Vietnam for Corporate contracts. That all it was about. Its good hearing that people are waking up to the many lies and deaths governments have perpetrated against its own citizens. Wasn't it P.T.Barnum that said a "sucker is born every minute" or was it Ben Bernanke of the Fed?

    1. lol Bernanke of the fed?

  53. Check out Aulis, Jack White analysis of anomalies of NASA "moon shot" photos, and then head on over to Bart Sibrel's site and catch "Stars? What Stars?" and watch the Freemason astroNOTs squirm and sink down into their chairs as they faced the nation in a press conference after their phony trip to the moon. Be sure to take a good look at that "moon lander." The gold foil they were talking about in this mocumentary was actually draped all around the phony moon lander, and the pads were wrapped in it also.

    And you know of course that NASA announced plans to send a probe to the moon in 2020 to check the radiation to see if it is safe to send a ship to the moon. Kinda late for that, wouldn't you say?

    They were able to orbet the earth. That's ALL they did. If those guys really did all that stuff, they would be on Jay Leno every other day and telling the world how to fix its problems, instead of getting drunk every night. We would have books describing such an amazing thing as standing on the moon, instead of these hokey pics of astroNOTs hitting golf balls and buzzing around on moon buggies with the fenders taped on with duct tape.

    No, they didn't stage it with Kubrick, but Walt Disney did give them a hand at it. And you can see pics at nasascam of the cranes and such, their phony backgrounds (that they used for all 7 of their nonexistant flights to the moon, same backgrounds).

    NASA's coming back with a sequel, BTW -- a fake alien invasion. There are antigravity aircraft, real high tech, cloistered in the DUMBs, and also chimeras they've been breeding, look like those grays, part human and part animal and bug. These are the NWO slaves they will pass off to us as aliens. People like you will eat it up like candy and trip all over yourself to get to the front of the line to get chipped.

  54. @captain kirk
    paranoid much. that has to be the longest post that i have seen that contains absolutely no evidence of any kind. if you have proof of your moon claims (no 911 stuff stay on topic) i would like to see it

  55. When this says the intent of this documentary is to get people to view television with a critical eye, what it really means is, get people to view those who CRITICIZE what television tells us, to get we the CRITICS with a critical eye.

    IOW, go back to sleep, everything is fine, the government loves you and wants to help you, the government is your friend, go make some popcorn and watch Dancing with the Stars. Go catch a game of golf, have a nice cold Coca Cola and a McDonald cheeseburger and some French fries, and don't forget to get your flu shot so you don't get sick.

    Life goes on. Don't worry. Be happy.


  56. This mocumentary was to debunk the debunkers, to make you think that anybody who tries to say the moon landings were a big giant hoax (like 9/11 and the hijacked 4 planes were a big hoax) -- that we "conspiracy theorists" are pulling your leg and probably using things said out of context and using editing tricks and hired actors and putting a sinister spin on things that have perfectly logical explanations. (ie like Larry Silverman admitting on TV that he had Building 7 "pulled" on 9/11 and "we watched the building fall", Larry Silverman was probably talking about getting the firemen out of the building, not that they pulled the switch on the explosives for the controlled demolition). And if you point at NASA's pictures and state the obvious -- that they are laughable and the NASA pictures are proof in and of themselves we never went to the moon, [just like the replays of the towers and Building 7 falling at the speed of gravity into their footprints are proof in and of themselves that 9/11 did not happen the way our inside-job, lying, murdering government TOLD us it happened, well, this documentary would have us believe that we, none of us, can really believe our lying eyes and the government never lies and of course it all happened the way they said it did.

    So when we look at NASA's own pictures of their own hokey "moon lander" with all that gold foil wrapped around the base of it and on the spider legs and on the foot pads, and point out the ripped and torn (what looks to be and probably is) roofing paper surrounding the structure, that it looks like something a 12-year-old kid built in his back yard, and NO WAY did that "thing" descend from the "mother ship" circling above the moon while the guys below collected rocks and then climbed back into their "lunar lander" and blasted off back to link up with the "mother ship" -- when we stand back and take an honest look and say, "Yeah, right. Sure they did, and I've got a nice Brooklyn Bridge to sell you" and, "Hey, wait, you can't do that kind of stuff with gold foil and masking tape," and BTW, "Who took the pictures of the lander as it ascended back up to Heaven?" -- well, NASA has an answer to all of it. And who paid for this mocumentary? I will bet you it was funded by the Luciferians, the same people who pulled off the moon hoax in the first place, bunch of Freemasons and occultics, the same ones who want us to think life exists on Mars and that the Hubble telescope can see trillions of light years into space (but it can't even give us a decent picture of the moon).

    I think this whole website here is funded by the government, or by some paid minions of the London Banksters. They got billions to burn, money talks, and they can pull anything off with their money (ie there's always somebody willing to take a bribe to assassinate or murder or false flag for them). There's a few good things on this site, like Food, Inc., but most of the stuff here is clever propaganda you'd see on the Discovery Channel. Follow the money to who owns the controlled media (they don't call it that for nothing) and you'll see where this is all going, (ie straight to Jerusalem and the New World Order and the false messiah the Jews are waiting for to rule the world and all the rest of the delightful things the world is in store for you can read about in Revelation in the Bible).

    1. 9/11 yeah, no way I believe that one. The moon thing is more plausable.

  57. This was HILARIOUS!

    When I watched the this doc, I thought to myself " what is this non-sensical, weak linking, circumstantial c@#$?". The facts were so off, that the Kissinger, Rumsfeld, etc interviews seemed like they could be taken out of context and could be talking about anything but the moon landing. And then when they finally got to the physical "evidence" that it was all staged ( a whole 1 minute segment)....that stuff has been debunked already.

    Then I read the movie description and saw that its a parody, mockumentary. I laughed my ass off. They did an excellent job of producing a satire movie that parodies the way delusional stubborn conspiracy theorists think.

  58. The sound does not match people's talk. It looks like the sound track is a second or two off, but I think it doesn't match at all. If there is a person who can lipread, it would be interesting to see what they were really saying.

    @micki: there is no need for another landing. You can see the objects left on the moon with laser. See the other documentary on this site.

  59. @Don

    I see you raise the radiation card. I'm sorry to tell you that you don't understand radiation in space. The astronauts did go through the Van Allen belts. They got less radiation by that than they would on certain situations on Earth. Astronauts "were lucky" because the Sun was quite likely to blow a solar flare. The astronauts would have then to use their ships hull + fuel and water tanks as their only armor. People all around the globe were watching for solar flares while the astronauts flew to the Moon and back in order to warn them.

    Moon samples: tested and experimented on by scientists of many countries, including the former USSR. Moon samples are in accordance with what is expected from a world with no atmosphere, almost no water, high levels of radiation, etc. The Ruskies compared American samples with their samples. They matched.

    Now, I raise the ultimate card: The Ruskies never, ever cried foul. Never. Why? Where they bribed? Was some special deal made? NO. NO. They never cried foul because they knew it was real, painfully real for them since they lost the race. They knew it was real and they knew better than anyone else because they had satellites, tracking stations and, yes, spies that told them that the Americans had done it. Besides, as I said above, they had Moon samples to compare to, samples that matched.

    Bribery? Secret political deal? In your conspiranoic dreams only. Not in the real world, in what actually happened in 1969. Sadly, conspiracy theories regarding the Moon landings, 9/11 and other hot topics will never go away. That is, sadly, also a part of human nature.

  60. anyone got any links for recent photos of human moon debris?
    they landed on the day side so there must be telescopic photos of everything, even footprints might be visable with todays technology.

  61. Volume way too low on this one, my speaker/earphone port doesnt work some i`m afraid i missed out. :(

  62. Well. This is the last time I watch a documentary on this site without reading the full description. I was had.

    So far, the best evidence I've seen in favor of the moon landings authenticity is the episode of MythBusters where they attack the most common controversies.

    In my humble opinion, we did go to the Moon, but some of the images are censored at best, manufactured at worst.

  63. nixon and hi cohorts would have lied about anything,
    even the lies themselves! wake up ####heads!
    for gods sake rumsfield was involved, who was his protoge

  64. Everyone believing Epicurus... tell us who the astronuts were who put the equipment on the surface of Mars?? Or just tell us that you can't put your experiments on the Moon surface without being there in the flesh. Welllllll smart guy, we are waiting...wait lets play myth busters for you and take a ballroom mirror globe out to the desert...just toss it anywhere, drive a hundred miles turn your lazer on and sweep until you get a reflection....neener, I told you it worked.

  65. @everyone who claims we havent been to the moon

    The ongoing Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment measures the distance between the Earth and the Moon using laser ranging. Lasers on Earth are aimed at retroreflectors previously planted on the Moon and the time delay for the reflected light to return is determined. Because the speed of light is known with very high accuracy, the distance to the Moon can be calculated using this simple equation:

    Distance = (Speed of light x Time taken for light to reflect) / 2

    The distance has been measured with increasing accuracy for more than 35 years. The distance continually changes for a number of reasons, but averages about 384,467 kilometers (238,897 miles). The time delay in the reflected light is about 2½ seconds.

    The first successful tests were carried out in 1962 when a team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology succeeded in observing reflected laser pulses using a laser with a millisecond pulse length. Similar measurements were obtained later the same year by a Soviet team at the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory using a Q-switched ruby laser. Greater accuracy was achieved following the installation of a retroreflector array on July 21, 1969, by the crew of Apollo 11, while two more retroreflector arrays left by the Apollo 14 and Apollo 15 missions have also contributed to the experiment.

    how stupid can people be...if you think we havent been to the moon kill yourself now. you are a waste to humanity and too much of a mental case to ever benefit anyone.

  66. If you all understood who,what,were,and why you are, you would know the flesh is not allowed on the Moon. We are allowed to operate in space just far enough to complete a control grid. When He finishes building Mansions for the Elite, He will return and use the control grid and rule over you for a thousand years. Your sin was freedom, this prison planet is used to teach you subjegation and you will be taught with his "rod of iron" on your backsides to bend your knee ("that all knee shall bend") and then judgement. If you really want to go to the moon bad enough?, then kill your self, and you will be there in an instant.

  67. Your government would never lie to you- just ask them.

  68. nobody has walked on the moon....NOBODY!.....the so called greatest achievement of MANKIND is false.......why if there is all the tec up there i.e lunar rover x4, usa flag, blowing in the wind, various other bits of kit from the so called "LANDINGS" if all that was really there why dont america and nasa prove its there by sending another rocket up there and land a camera on the moon and show everybody what is supposedly on the moon?????.....why? cos there is "NOTHING THERE"......they can send probes to mars so they make us belive, and remotely opperate little cars with cameras on them looking at the suface and looking for signs of water and so on, but they cant show us what is ON THE MOON........biggest lie ever told, i place my life there is nothing on the moon appart from a few russian items that crash landed.......FACT!

  69. TERRIBLE mockumentary...
    We haven't gone to the moon. People are so easily persuaded by the media. I won't believe it until I see it, and that's the best way to go for anyone who wants to find the TRUTH.

  70. sakara- I agree with you, it's kinda boring and the answer to make it good. get stoned, kubrick was made for drugs or the drugs were made for kubrick. xD

  71. This doco must be a joke or a con. Were Rumsfeld Kissinger and Haig really talking about what we think they were talking about, or was this chopped to look like it? I wonder what they were really talking about? It was heavily edited. I don't recall hearing Rumsfeld mention Kubrick's name, it is supplied by the narrator. Having viewed this once, I don't know. I don't want to watch it again right now. I don't think such high level players would sincerely admit to this. But although this is a fiction, I do think the whole idea is quite plausible, even likely!

  72. Regardless of fakes or real... watch: A Funny Thing Happened On the Way To The Moon....Now THAT blows the whole rotten truth open!

  73. i listened to the landing on the radio at school as a 10 year old. It was great cos we didnt have to do folk dancing with the girls. later that night as we watched it on the telly mum said 'why do those americans have to spoil it with all the flag waving - doubt crept slowly and then a bit faster into our minds then it was time for lost in Space and we had fish and chips and if it was a movie then it was an exciting one, bar the flag waving, for a while.

  74. With use of ‘hijacked’ archival footage, false documents, real interviews taken out of context or transformed through voice-over or dubbing, staged interviews

    if that doesn't tell anyone what this is about then i can't help you

  75. I know this is in no way related to the doc. But i do have a question to anyone who can answer. How did the camera get to its position to film Armstrong coming down the ladder as he was uttering his famous phrase "one small step for man,one giant leap for mankind"?

  76. I'm a Stanley Kubrick fan boy so this was fun to watch. spinal tap of space, should be made feature length.

  77. um....check out 24:26 into it. five people in five different rooms made to look like they are in the same room??? This doco is a joke!

  78. I don't think it should removed at all--I'm stupefied! This is a wonderful example of how documentaries are so incredibly persuasive and that we CANT (even though it's so fun sometimes..) be lazy when watching this kind of stuff--you MUST remain critical and impartial. But it's hilarious--looking back, you can see many of the soundbites are so vague and obviously put together in a way thats meant to be incriminating..and Donald Rumsfeld being the one who came up with the entire idea?! It's laughable..the man's still holds office does he not? Or did until recently... And look at the suckers in the initial postings that fell for it.. Hilarious! And yes, that includes me..Anyway, don't remove anything! It doesn't discredit the site, it CREDITS the site! The message is simple: don't accept 'facts', be critical !

  79. I was just curious to watch this, how they presented the story that Nasa faked the moon landing. Ok, they said the first landing...there were others. So, one would imagine that lying about it would have been found in a soviet or chinese newspaper and someone would leak the lie. Anyways, the story is believeable to some, when I look upon how crapy the little black and white T.V. we had and how our own technology was so poor. They explain away the whole story, very cleverly, but, but, they have no Russian or Chinese space scientists to comment. So, they seem to have knowledge of facts, but neither the viewer nor I have the not the technology to dispove Nasa, Nasa does.

  80. it's a terrible doc, it should just be taken off. :)
    It's like watching a real bad movie and then bitching about it, that's a God given right. Why not give it a deserving review. It's like baseketball of documentaries. I just wish the bear trap would be removed so no more poor souls loose an hour or so of their time watching it. That's it. Paying it forward for the little guy. And relax, there's a place for it I'm sure, like collegehumor or something...
    It should be taken off.

  81. Listen, if you don't like the documentaries then don't watch them. Don't ask them to be removed.

  82. Watch Mythbusters Nasa special & get some real answers

  83. L.B. Johnson was never the Governer of Texas ! Get your facts straight to be more creditible.

  84. Nice mockumentary (fiction) you can read about it on Wiki

  85. Maybe George is a mockumentaphobe.

  86. lmao

    George what has you so discomforted on this documentary? The fact of the possibilties that it speaks of? How do you really know it isn't true? Were you there? Yeah I thought not so lets talk more about intellect!

  87. It doesn't surprise me that people like ol' Georgie boy here would get this shook up over a parody. GEORGE, IT IS A FREE INTERNET,YOU CAN TURN YOUR COMP OFF ANY TIME.., NO ONE FORCED YOU TO WATCH THIS PARODY!

  88. this film should be removed from the website for it is a waste of time and insulting to the intellect. If topdocumentryfilms wants to be seen as a serious endeavor then they should get rid of it. The film has no place here and it is beneath you.

  89. No, Max was right. yeah, it was a mockumentary. if you noticed, some of the 'interviewees' were named after characters in Stanley Kubrick movies. like Dave Bowman from 2001 Space Odyssey. and also, what serious documentary would include a blooper reel?
    they were making fun of the conspiracy theory, though you wouldn't notice it at first.
    and if you don't believe me, read the last paragraph of this doc's description. it should be clear enough by then.

  90. was it really max? cause i didnt know and i am pretty good at noticing fake stuff.. but let these stupid mofos say what they got to say.. who cares real or fake the moon landing is something we should as humans would want to control before it spreads more and more away from our beautiful lil floating planet.. its true every year it goes 2 inches farther away and i would hate for my future generations to not be able to view what an amazing thing the earth's moon really is..

  91. Er, did u guys above, notice that the doc was a fictional account. It is a parody of fake moon landing conspiracy theory.

  92. great film! it really answers a lot of questions about the whole deal. still, the part that got to me the most (spoiler alert) was when the government said that if hollywood helped, one of their own, Reagan, would become president! yikes.

  93. Great documentary. Very surprising, and with a great cast. Loved it!

  94. kubrick's 2001 a space oddessy is one of the most boring movies ever made.

    did kubrick beat up his wife that she never did interviews while he was alive...? she did a lot of interviews after he died.