A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon

The only reason I didn't score this a one is that Sibrel does show that he is adept at the technical aspects of making a film. It is a technically adept film.

That having been said, this is a film based on lies and distortions that are quite easily disproven. Most of the documentary is spent using propaganda techniques to bash the space program, rather than actual fact. And Sibrel's "irrefutable proof" that the landings were faked is easily refuted if you know anything about orbital mechanics.

I do not recommend watching this, but if you do, see it at google video for free. Don't let Bart Sibrel profit from your curiosity.

Writer/Director Bart Sibrel bases his work here around a can of film that he says was mistakenly sent to him by NASA. He says it shows the astronauts faking the television footage of their trip to the moon by employing camera tricks. The astronauts were in low Earth orbit all the time, and editors on the ground composed this raw footage into just a few seconds of finished film.

Unfortunately Sibrel's research is so slipshod that he doesn't realize his "backstage" footage is really taken in large part from the 30-minute live telecast (also on that reel) that was seen by millions, not hidden away in NASA vaults as he implies. And we have to wonder why Sibrel puts his own conspiratorial narration over the astronauts' audio in the footage, because hearing the astronauts in their own words clearly spells out that the astronauts were just testing the camera, not faking footage.

Finally, anyone can see the raw footage for themselves without having to buy Sibrel's hacked-up version of it. (He shows you more of the Zapruder film of JFK's assassination than of his "smoking gun".) Sibrel thinks he's the only one who's seen it. What's more revealing is the clips from that raw footage that Sibrel chose NOT to use, such as those clearly showing the appropriately distant Earth being eclipsed by the window frames and so forth, destroying his claim that mattes and transparencies were placed in the spacecraft windows to create the illusion of a faraway Earth.

As with most films of this type, Sibrel relies on innuendo, inexpert assumption, misleading commentary, and selective quotation to manipulate the viewer into accepting a conclusion for which there is not a shred of actual evidence.

I watched this video at a friend's house. I'm glad I did not waste money buying this one. The video cover has a scene from the 1975 movie Capricorn One. The movie starts out with several clips of rocket blow-ups, most not related to manned flight. Sibrel's smoking gun is a short video clip of the astronauts preparing a video broadcast. He edits in his own voice-over instead of letting us listen to what the crew had to say. The video curiously ends with a showing of the Zapruder film. His claims about radiation, shielding, star photography, and others lead me to believe is he extremely ignorant or has some sort of ax to grind against NASA, the astronauts, or American in general. His science is bad, and so is this video.

The Great Old Myth! Did we ever land on the moon? First of all, this is a MUCH better documentary then Fox's "Did we really land on the moon", especially because of some of the footage you're presented. For example; How does NASA explain the clip were Armstrong tells ground control that they're 130,000 miles away from earth, and by holding the camera up against the window they get this perfect shot of the earth. Then seconds later turning on the cockpit light and removing a cardboard cutout of earth in a shadow, showing the earth being right outside their window?

I would like to hear the explanation for that!

There are so many incorrect statements in this so-called "documentary" that I found myself shouting at the television.

Bart Sibrel might be able to produce a flashy looking DVD, but he is sadly lacking at looking at the science behind his claims.

He relies on either being inaccurate, not telling the full story, or the old favourite "government always lies to us" innuendos, and people believing what is told to them and not checking on the accuracy or details behind the claims.

What's more, his "exclusive" or "unreleased" footage is freely available over the internet from various sites.

Further reading about the circumstances regarding the filming of this production shows that he used false pretenses to gain interviews, and has used creative editing of the responses in order to promote his own opinions.

All of the claims made by Mr Sibrel about "inaccuracies", "mistakes", or "whistleblowing" in the Apollo programme have been thoroughly disproven.

How do I get that 40-odd minutes of my life back?