Somewhat a convincing moon hoax movie, but the problems about it is the issue that they don't allow both sides to go face to face on the issue. And this makes me very uncomfortable that both sides should get equal chance. A carefully edited movie can easily be made to side one way or the other.
This worries me, because I have done this kind of movie editing before. Why did they don't analyse don't use lie detector tests (voice stress, polygraph, reverse speech), I don't know. At least it will give some information to the viewers, done by a competent expert, who can prove his expertise based on known information.
I still remember to this day about the shooting of JFK, in which ABC T.V. interviewed a forensic expert after looking at the autopsy that he had analyzed a bullet coming from the front and go through the back of the head of JFK. Unfortunately, this was censored out from mass media for nearly 40 years, but still available in historical archives, and now we conclude still wrongly that the bullet came from behind, without an information from forensic experts records based on autopsy examination.
The difference between a good documentary and a persuasive movie is a documentary gives full chance of presenting all evidence a persuasive movie will edit out certain information. I could easily defend on the other side by just telling you that the lunar module was robot spaceship and there is a video that during the lunar landing that these three were circling the earth. Of course that piece of information was not "presented" here or perhaps "carefully edited out" as what one movie maker mentioned to me in passing.
