The Truth Behind the Moon Landings (2003) Online

I was privileged to appear in this documentary. I can address a few criticisms here, although I am not affiliated with the producers nor do I speak for them.

First, the nature of the program. I understand that its intent was to respond scientifically to the moon hoax claims, not to present a middle- of-the-road exposition that gave equal attention and credibility to each side. Not all questions have an equal weight of supporting fact on each side, and not all programs that take a stand do so irresponsibly or deceptively.

The critic here has accused the program of being selectively edited, but he provides only evidence of such selectivity in a different program on an unrelated topic. In fact, the hoax proponents who appeared on this program made some points which the producers elected to leave unrebutted. That undermines the claim that this program was edited to remove "uncomfortable" evidence. Further, some of my on- camera demonstrations did not appear in the final film either. I see absolutely no evidence that the program was edited unfairly to the hoax claim.

The critic may also be interested to learn that certain hoax proponents were invited to appear on the program and defend their claims "head to head", but they declined to do so. Then, disingenuously, those hoax proponents attempted to nit-pick the program's conclusions after the fact on their own web site. It seems it is largely the hoax proponents who avoid having their claims and the responses to them seen side-by-side.

Second, examination of the claims by competent expertise. So-called "lie detectors" and "voice stress analysis" are not reliable ways of ascertaining truth -- especially compared to empirical tests such as those I conducted in the desert. The demonstrable facts are simply what they are, and no amount of handwaving on the part of hoax proponents makes them go away, nor do they require being attested to in a verbal statement. "Reverse speech" is hogwash. I must emphasize that I, and Jim Oberg, and Buzz Aldrin and others who disputed the hoax theory ARE the competent experts on space exploration. The suggestion that a mythical "robot spaceship" somehow lends credibility to the hoax theory is an excellent example of the ignorant grasping at straws that dominates the hoax theory.

As to quid-pro-quo responses, the production schedule did not always allow it. My segment, for example, was filmed before Bill Kaysing's, so I had no opportunity to respond to any of the specific claims he made -- he hadn't yet made them.

Ralph Rene's segment was filmed before mine, but the producers did not disclose to me anything he had said. While I could have responded, the producers already had in mind the topics they wanted me to cover for them and they limited my segment to those questions. I was shown none of the segments that had already been filmed. This is common practice in the documentary film-making industry; quoted experts hardly ever know what other comments will appear in the program, even though the final edit might make it appear that one person is responding to another.

(Spoilers follow)

Ralph Rene conducted two demonstrations that went unchallenged: a glove in a vacuum that refused to bend, and a leaf-blower experiment to show the alleged effects of rocket exhaust on rocks and dust. The glove experiment fails on two points: Rene used a pressure difference of 14 psi instead of the 3.5 psi that was actually the case on Apollo, and Rene used a glove that wasn't designed to allow flexing under pressure as spacesuit gloves are. The leaf-blower experiment fails because Rene seems unaware of the effect of fluid density on his experiment; the stream of air from his leaf blower was many times denser than a rocket exhaust plume in a vacuum and thus had a more pronounced mechanical effect.

Rene is qualified neither as a physicist nor as an engineer, although he is often able to fool laymen into believing he is. Because of his lack of training and experience, he makes many errors in scientific reasoning in his hoax claims that laymen are not necessarily disposed to notice. He is either unwilling or unable to understand why his experiments do not faithfully replicate Apollo conditions, and thus why they do not challenge the authenticity of the Apollo missions. Thus it often requires qualified experts such as myself to reveal and explain to laymen the flaws in his claims. That was largely the apparent purpose of this program.

I watched a repeat of this program recently. Both sides of the alleged moon hoax were presented. The information presented was easy to understand, but not dumbed down. I was disappointed in the program's short length (1 hour with commercial breaks). It would have been interesting to hear more of the interviews with the hoax proponents just to see how ignorant they really are concerning space travel. It would have exposed them very well. The show also spent very little time examining each claim made by Kaysing and other hoax believers. Too bad they did not include video of Buzz Aldrin socking it to Bart Sibrel when Buzz was accused of being a fraud. All and all, it was a very enjoyable program.

The above psudoscientific rant about the nonsense called reverse speech is garbage, and should be ignored. This is an excellent documentary that puts the boot into the utter daftness of the conspiracy theorists. For the moon landings to have been faked, over 1,000 people would need to have been involved, none of whom have ever blabbed about the "truth" (sic). Compare that to Watergate, which was known to less than a dozen people... Next, the Discovery Channel should do the same for debunking reverse speech, and other such nonsense. James Randi also offers $1 million for anyone who can demonstrate such paranormal claims under properly controlled conditions. So far, no moon hoaxer and no reverse speech enthusiast have won, because their claims are utterly void of content. Oh, and did I mention, this is a great documentary?

Sorry I am so late on this, as I only came across this documentary last night. I watched this expecting some insight. That did not come. Ralph Rene and the late Bill Kaysing were presented as "nutters" in my view and not given adequate time to address many problems with the science and the photos. The editors plainly dismiss any evidence presented by the "conspiracy theorists" with a brush of the hand. This is not investigation but a white wash. The hasselblad cameras were mounted on the chest of the astronauts and some of the pictures they took are of professional quality, in fact too many are. The documentary does not cover this and also does not mention photos taken of the visors of the Apollo crews which show in the reflection of the visors , more that one other crew member on site. Only 2 crew were on the moon at one time. This in itself calls into question the facts presented to the public. The second problem, seen in the documentary, is the foot prints UNDER the lander, where the soil has not been dispersed by the rockets of the lander.

...and as far as reverse speech goes, the ignorant people who dismiss this do so at their own peril.

Overall an expected mainstream cover-up of legitimate questions not being answered as usual. Useful for people who are not familiar with the questions being asked about a feat that 40 years ago went without a hitch for 6 missions but cannot be done today in our high technical world of the 21st century.

Think about it.

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.

This is a well-conceived short guide to the moon-landing conspiracy theories - 50 minutes the lot, presenting the main arguments from both sides with clear, concise dialogue, neither talking down to us nor trying to blind us with science (a more difficult balancing-act than it looks).

The two leading hoax-claimants are both given a fair chance to expound their theories. What they don't do is make any reply to the counter-arguments. Apparently they never do, according to conspiracy-sceptic Jay Windley, also interviewed here.

Undisputed father of the conspiracy theory is Bill Kaysing, seen in his new, rather unlikely career, running a cat's home out in the desert. He claims that he had a hunch, well before the landings, that no-one would ever get to the moon. Today he maintains that no-one could get there even now. This passionate re-asserting of the case, unsupported by evidence, somewhat weakens his credibility, as does his claim that he has been the object of several assassination attempts. To me, it seems significant that neither he nor his fellow-believer Ralph René had any formal training in the relevant technology, and both their books on the subject had to be self-published.

What keeps up the suspense is that all the claims can look plausible at first. The Stars and Stripes fluttering in a non-existent breeze. Shadows that would require two different suns. Not a star to be seen in the sky. Radiation that would have killed the crew before they were even out of the earth's atmosphere. Moon rock easily faked for effect. Even a suggestion that they were running out of time to fulfil Kennedy's original boast that an American would walk on the moon by the end of the decade, so NASA's funding might be under threat... And one by one, all these claims are demolished, certainly to my satisfaction. With a well-kept Buzz Aldrin in the presidential chair. And a rather elderly Patrick Moore, unfortunately not very audible, but clearly on the side of the sceptics too.

It has been rightly called both a 'compelling myth' and 'cultural vandalism'. (Ralph René was big enough to chuckle at being called a cultural vandal!)