Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?

It beggars belief as to why actor Mitch Pileggi, star of the X-Files and an apparently healthy and sane man, would lend his name to such hilariously uninformed trash as this.

The conspiracy theory that NASA faked all the Moon landings, has been trotted out for years by self-declared experts whose expertise often seems to cover a superhuman range of highly specialised fields - from Geology, Photography and Physics to Engineering.

One of them, Bill Kaysing - a king of conspiracies, claims amongst other things, that the reason why Astronauts who have been to the moon hang up on him and refuse to talk when he calls them incessantly, "proves" that they have something to hide.

He and others breathlessly point to everything from photos of unexpected shadows and reflections, to the 70s B-movie 'Capricorn One' (which tapped into the public's growing pre-XFiles interest in conspiracy-fantasy), to contradictions between NASA drawings and what THEY think would actually happen in space.

But by far the worst moment of this program comes during the unsavoury references to deceased astronauts, in a cheap attempt to link their tragic deaths to a wider NASA cover-up.

Before you ask yourself if any of this stuff proves we didn't go to the moon, ask yourself this: Is there anything that proves that we did?

Then consider, as one example, the hundreds of scientific staff from around the world, and from all walks of life, who for 30 years have had the pleasure of examining the many kilograms of moon materials that were collected and returned by the Apollo missions. These geological materials are well documented, and are so unique that there is no way they could be artificial.

Meanwhile, with it's dramatic and sinister voiceovers, multiple use of the words "could?" "might?" and "did?", and a complete lack of reasonable objectivity, this sort of crap will no doubt entertain a few more gullible souls, on a break from searching their bellybutton lint for microchips.

I find conspiracy theories, particularly well-researched ones, fascinating. This film makes you think about something that you perhaps never considered -- that man may actually have never landed on the moon. The thought surely had never crossed *my* mind before! It asks very interesting questions.....even a few I *have* wondered about, but never attributed it to being a hoax -- for example, why there seem to be no stars in the photographs from the moon. Some of the stuff they show is pretty convincing....such as two film clips supposedly showing two different locals on the moon, but when shown overlapped, they are the same location (however I agree this is a case of bad editing or a mislabel!) Though the questions brought up are interesting, the answers given are lame (though a few are somewhat convincing), and obviously biased, with almost no comment by 'the other side' (the scientists/researchers/ASTRONAUTS who believe we went to the moon). Overall, this will either freak you out, make you laugh or just remind you not to accept things without question.

This is nothing more than a way to get your money. Everything in the film has been completely disproven. The Fox Network produced the show and they don't care what you think. They assume you're a moron, and they want your cash. Better to spend it on a good SciFi film, which this isn't.

Why are you all so determined to slate the show? Does it not seem reasonable that the American Government is lying again, they do lie about most things you know! With all the conjecture about "did we?" or "didn't we?" No body has thought about what the Government of a nation is capable of... Threatening, killing, destroying, lying, hiding... etc.

It's obvious to even the very dim that the video footage and all its evidence is fake. It does NOT mean that there was no Moon landing though. It IS possible to land on the moon (even then), but those bits of evidence from NASA were faked in order to show what couldn't be shown for real (due to technology issues). Some of those pictures were most probably 'touched up' to show detail. Since NASA had already denied this, they would lose face if the truth came out. So they continue to deny. As for: No stars, no engine plume, no crater, flag moves... These are explained through simple means (as mentioned in earlier posts). It does, however, raise other questions, like... Who filmed the ascent? Or, why evidence suddenly goes missing after its authors death, which could prove or dis-prove this whole debate? THINK BEFORE YOU RANT AND WAVE YOUR FLAG!

So instead of slagging those whom know the difference between fake and real pictures/film. Remember, they would also be happily proved wrong. Fox are bound to issue a rebuttal. Wouldn't you, if the Government threatened you? They are known for it after all.

Poor Mitch Pileggi. This must have been his contractually obligated "turkey" that Hollywood makes its "stars" do, just to prove who's in charge.

So you think we faked the moon landing?

So you saw the flag flapping in the "breeze" on the airless moon. No you didn't. The flag had a rod through the top and a weight at the bottom corner so that it would look fully deployed. And the "flapping" you saw was due to the astronaut TWISTING THE FLAGPOLE INTO THE LUNAR SOIL for better placement. As soon as the twisting stopped, guess what? The flapping stopped too!

And try this one on for size, airboy: Ever drop some flour in the kitchen and notice a cloud of dust hovering over the floor? Well if the astronauts were REALLY on a soundstage with a flag that was REALLY flapping in the breeze, you'd see dust flying all around too. But you didn't, because there wasn't, BECAUSE THEY WERE ON THE (AIRLESS) MOON!

So you thought the lighting of the Astronauts was too perfect, as if it was a studio job. Well, the lighting and the shadows would be a little wonky, considering that there are THREE sources of light in the photos: The sun (natch), the Earth (much the same way the full moon illuminates the night sky), and the moon itself. That's right, all that moonlight that we see here on earth was shining right up into the astronauts' faces and giving their spacesuits a nice, soft-light look.

Oh, that's also the reason you don't see any stars in the moon photos. The surrounding moonlight was so bright, the shutter speeds on the cameras were set very fast. It would be like taking a picture out your living room window at night and expecting to see stars in the photo. Ain't gonna happen.

So you think that there should be a great big crater under the LEM. Well I hate to break this to you, but the LEM didn't land at full power. Most of its fuel load was spent in deceleration from orbit, and in hovering over the landing site. They only needed a fraction of its power to make a nice, soft, 1/6th gravity landing. They didn't even "land" under power. Each of the landing "feet" had a thin rod that would signal the astronauts that they were just over the surface. They would then cut the engine and drop the final 18 inches unpowered. ("Contact light! OK, Engine Stop!" Remember that from the Apollo mission tapes?)

And then there's the matter of the ascent stage, popping off the moon as if it was on a cable. See, once again you're taking what you've seen (launches on earth) and projecting them onto what you THINK you've seen. It takes a ridiculous amount of thrust to start moving up. So when rockets launch from earth, they are held down for a few seconds. It's the same as starting your car when you're parked on a hill. Hold your foot on the brake and give it a little gas so you don't roll back. Well, you don't need to do that on the moon with its one-sixth gravity and when all you're moving is an ascent stage. Throw the switch and ((woosh!)) you're off.

Oh, and the reason you don't see any flame from the ascent rocket is simple: real rocket fuel doesn't burn, it's hypergolic. In a nutshell, 2 chemicals that are otherwise inert come together and expand rapidly. If you focus and channel it the right way, you get thrust. (It's not easy to do, but it can be done. That's why the phrase "Rocket Scientist" has such a mystique in our society.) But it doesn't produce a visible flame. The dramatic, flaming liftoff of the Saturn 5 rocket from Cape Kennedy came from the fuel mixture of the first stage, which used kerosene. And that WILL produce one heckuva flame, unlike the Eagle's ascent rocket.

There's more, but I think I've proved the point. Every so-called "Fact" on the show is easily refuted when you happen to know more than the average X-Phile about real science.