Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? (2001)

Very best movie i ever watch

It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Haha! I love this little documentary. Its a brilliant case of gullibility and the ease of which the human mind can so easily be manipulated.Of course no man has ever been on the moon! Are you kidding me? I can't believe anyone would believe that. To all of you out there who have actually seen this documentary and still believe man has been to moon - just one simple question - did you see the same thing I just saw?! My favorite part about the whole documentary is the awesome NASA spokesperson who gets paid 50 grand a year and probably a nice bonus to appear on the show. For EACH and EVERY argument, not just one, but EVERY argument put forward against the moon landing he offers absolutely no factual or evidential based rebuttal - just preferring to call any theories "crazy" or "ridiculous" - I mean what's more difficult than that! We never once get any information on his educational background,and how or why he is qualified to refute such claims. The only two guys to back-up NASA's story are both paid employees of NASA!Meanwhile, hoards of physicists, engineers, photography experts - people with ACTUAL educational qualifications queue up to categorically laugh over the absurdity of NASA's claims. I love it! I love the rubbish camera work. I love the conflicting and multiple light sources. I love the moon lander with aluminum foil feet. I mean I actually laughed when watching it!Of course the documentary is one-sided, but quite simply it is what it is. 1+1=2, there is no way around it. If it seems like it is slanted in a conspiracy theorists favor, then it is because the factual evidence points to a conspiracy theory!A recommended documentary for anyone of intellectual substance.

The fact is that USA DID go to the moon. Why: USA brought back moon-rocks. That is hundreds of pounds of rocks from the moon. And it is a fact that they all did not come from the moon: they all came from the same planet. This is because the internal isotopes of basic elements of the rocks are of a kind that could NOT have been created by the earths crust. Seriously: don't you CT's read, go to college and ask your professors?? I do. These rocks could not have come from Meteors, because they are of the same material and have no signs of recently been burned. All these rocks have after wards been distributed all over the world, for all sorts of independent scientists to have made analysts on them. Thousands of scientists, who all came to the same conclusion that they all came from the moon. So it is very unlikely that the Apollo-missions where faked. Because there is no other way NASA could have got hold of so many Moon-rocks. Prope-mission would only bring back too little, and people know what mission that every single rocket is sent to do. NASA landed on the Moon - deal with it.Also: if the Americans faked the moon-landing, then why didn't the Russians reveal it?? That is the point that reveals that CT's don't think out of the box. They all make it seem that all things only happens in USA. But as a European i have a different perspective. Before every single launch into space, all space-agencies have to tell the military of the opposing site that it is not a missile fired against them. Because the Apollo-rocket would have the Radar-signature of a ICBM on the Russians Radar-screen. And here is the thing that reveals no moon hoax: The Russians monitored that a Rocket fired from USA, fired out of the Earths atmosphere, left the earth, and a smaller craft came back some days after. The same happened with all the missions. If the Apollo missions where faked, why didn't the Russians reveal it to the world?? It was the Cold War, for Petes sake!Also: there were reporters in NASA's control-center, during the mission. The Astronauts did speak with the NASA-controllers Live, and did things live. Reports have said this since. So it could not have been a tape.PS: Do you know how many people should have been involved in such a conspiracy?? Thousands!

It's funny and kind of sad how a lot of the reviews I skimmed through are people who are so outraged and disgusted by this! They write in such an angry and hateful way, one would think they were horribly hurt emotionally! They seem like religious fanatics who are told that god does not exist! One retard went so far as to compare people who doubt we went to the moon to Holocaust deniers! Shame on that idiot! For one thing, there is concrete, physical proof that the Holocaust happened, plus many people who experienced it firsthand! As far as the "lunar landing", we just have some grainy footage and questionable photographs. The kind of people who are so outraged by this TV special are the same people who blindly believe everything the government, media, and religious leaders tell them! They are very closed minded people who love to accuse people of being anti-American if they criticize or question anything about the government! I hate these kind of extremists! I love America, but I don't blindly believe everything authority figures tell or show me. To do that is beyond stupid! Most people don't really give much thought to whether or not we went to the moon. I just kind of took it for granted. Yet, the evidence in this special is very compelling, and like one guy said, it's not just one piece of evidence. It's a culmination of a lot of different things. Also, if we really went to the moon 37 years ago, we should have the technology by now to get they much more easily! Why have we never gone back in all of these years?

1. Crosshairs on some photos appear to be behind objects, rather than in front of them where they should be, as if the photos were altered.* In photography, the light white color (the object behind the crosshair) makes the black object (the crosshair) invisible due to saturation effects in the film emulsion. 2. The quality of the photographs is implausibly high.* NASA selected only the best photographs for release to the public, and some of the photos were cropped to improve their composition. There are many badly exposed, badly focused and poorly composed images amongst the thousands of photos that were taken by the Apollo Astronauts. Many can be seen at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. Photos were taken on high-quality Hasselblad cameras with Zeiss lenses, using 70 mm medium format film.3. There are no stars in any of the photos, and astronauts never report seeing any stars from the capsule windows.* There are also no stars seen in Space Shuttle, Mir, International Space Station and Earth observation photos. Cameras used for imaging these things are set for quick shutter speeds in order to prevent overexposing the film for the brightly lit daylight scenes. The dim light of the stars simply does not have a chance to expose the film.* Believers in the hoax theory contend that the stars were removed from the photographs because they would have looked identical to the stars as seen from the Earth, i.e. no parallax view. However, the distance from the Earth to the Moon is very small compared to the distance to the stars, so no parallax would have been visible anyway. (The nearest star is over 100,000,000 times farther away than the Moon, and most stars are much farther away than that.)4. The color and angle of shadows and light.* Shadows on the Moon are complicated because there are several light sources; the Sun, Earth and the Moon itself. Light from these sources is scattered by lunar dust in many different directions, including into shadows. Additionally, the Moon's surface is not flat and shadows falling into craters and hills appear longer, shorter and distorted from the simple expectations of the hoax believers. More significantly, perspective comes into play. This effect leads to non-parallel shadows even on objects which are extremely close to each other, and can be observed easily on Earth wherever fences or trees are found. (Plait 2002:167-72).5. Identical backgrounds in photos that are listed as taken miles apart.* Detailed comparison of the backgrounds claimed to be identical in fact show significant changes in the relative positions of the hills that are consistent with the claimed locations that the images were taken from. Parallax effects clearly demonstrate that the images were taken from widely different locations around the landing sites. Claims that the appearance of the background is identical while the foreground changes (for example, from a boulder strewn crater to the Lunar Module) are trivially explained when the images were taken from nearby locations, akin to seeing distant mountains appearing the same on Earth from locations that are hundreds of feet apart showing different foreground items. Furthermore, as there is no atmosphere on the Moon, very distant objects will appear clearer and closer to the human eye. What appears as nearby hills in some photographs, are actually mountains several kilometers high and some 10-20 kilometers away.6. The number of photographs taken is implausibly high. When the total number of official photographs taken during EVA of all Apollo missions is divided by the total amount of time of all EVAs, one arrives at 1.19 photos per minute. That is one photo per 50 seconds. Discounting time spent on other activities results in one photo per 15 seconds for Apollo 11. * The astronauts were well trained before the mission in the use of photographic equipment. Since there were no weather effects to contend with and the bright sunlight scenes permitted the use of small apertures with consequent large depth of field, the equipment was generally kept at a single setting for the duration of the mission. All that was required of the astronauts was to open the shutter and wind the film to take a picture.