ive never seen this, and have been dying to for forever, but icant seem to find it anywhere, i looked at amazon.com and nothing

does anyone have the title or a place where i can buy this thing


im looking for the documentry stating that we never did land on the moon and that it was indeed made up, it goes into depth about why they feel it was a hoaxed video, please help if you can, thank you

I reccomend you get a P2P sharing program such as Kazza Ressurection.

There are a few videos about the moon landing conspiracy available for download...

yea i got kazaa and limewire, i really want the actual copy though as not only is my connection 56k but id like to have for my collection

In my pants!

No, seriously, right to FOX and ask them for a video.

so FOX was the network that aired it?

I would do a GOOGLE search. Perhaps type this: Moon landing hoax video

I do not believe in ANY way there was a hoax, but willing to assist your inquiry.

i dont beleive there was a hoax either i just want to see the dang docutmentrary and i did actually do a google search and i came up with "a funny thing happneed on the way to the moon" does that sound familiar to anyone

You might find something in one of these Links.

It does seem it was made by FOX as well.......

here you go!

The Top 15 Reasons Why No Man Has Ever Set Foot on the Moon

15. "Tricky Dick" Richard Nixon was president at the time. He was the king of cover-up, secret tapes and scandal. Think about all of his potential antics that were not discovered.

14. A successful manned mission to the moon offered a wonderful pride-boosting distraction for the near revolt of the US citizens over 50,000 deaths in the Vietnam War.

13. The Soviets had a five-to-one superiority to the U.S. in manned hours in space. They were first in achieving the following seven important milestones:

1. First manmade satellite in earth orbit…
2. First man in space…
3. First man to orbit the earth…
4. First woman in space…
5. The first crew of three astronauts onboard one spacecraft…
6. The first space walk…
7. The first of two orbiting space craft rendezvousing…

This put America at a perceived military disadvantage in missile technology during the very height of the Cold War.

12. Neil Armstrong, the first man to supposedly walk on the moon, refuses to give interviews to anyone on the subject. "Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies." Collins also refuses to be interviewed. Aldrin, who granted an interview, threatened to sue us if we showed it to anyone. See streaming video: "Buzz says, "Buzz Off!"

11. Newly retouched photographs correct errors from previously released versions. Why would they be updating thirty-year-old pictures if they really went to the moon?

With Prop ID "C"


After: "C" Removed

10. Rediscovered lost footage shows the American flag blowing in the wind. The wind was probably caused by intense air-conditioning used to cool the astronauts in their lightened, uncirculated, space suits. The cooling systems in the backpacks would have been removed to lighten the load not designed for earth's six times heavier gravity, otherwise they might have fallen over. See streaming video: "Flag blowing in the wind."


9. Enlarged photographs underneath the lunar lander's 10,000 lb. thrust engine show the soil completely undisturbed. During ground tests there was grave concern for the vehicle falling into the hole the engine created as it descended. An oversight that they would have to keep consistent for all subsequent moon missions. They attributed it to the effect of no atmosphere (except for the flag blowing in the wind - see # 10!)

8. Rare, uncirculated photographs, allegedly from the moon's surface, show scenes supposedly lit solely by sunlight. Yet they contain shadows that do not run parallel with each other, indicating supplemental artificial light. Sunlight would cast shadows that would never intersect.
http://www.moonmovie.com/photographic_analysis.ram
See our streaming video: "Photographic Analysis" for some eye opening examples.

7. The moon is 250,000 miles away. The space shuttle has never gone more than 400 miles from the Earth. Except for Apollo astronauts, no humans even claim to have gone beyond low-earth orbit. When the space shuttle astronauts did get to an altitude of 400 miles, the radiation of the Van Allen belts forced them to a lower altitude. The Van Allen radiation belts exist because the Earth's magnetic field traps the solar wind.
http://www.moonmovie.com/radiation_belt.ram
See streaming video: "Radiation Belts."

6. The top portion of the lunar module which landed on the moon supposedly popped up off the moon with two astronauts aboard, entered lunar orbit 60 miles up, and docked with the command module in lunar orbit. To look at its design and think such could have actually occurred is absolutely ludicrous.

5. The surface of the moon is a vacuum. The landing module would have been heated to 250 degrees on the light side where they landed. There is no way they could have rejected the heat for as long as 72 hours as they claim on some Apollo missions.

4. Take a look at the lunar module which supposedly flew from lunar orbit to the surface of the moon. It is a cylindrical shape with a high center of gravity and one big thrust engine at the bottom. Upon just looking at this design, to think it would not immediately pinwheel and crash, as the lunar module trainer did three weeks prior on Earth, is absurd.

3. After the Apollo 11 mission, Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin gave a press conference. When asked whether they remembered seeing any stars from the surface of the moon, Collins, who was supposedly in the command module the whole time, gave a wrong answer to a question he should not have been answering. The relevant portion of this clip is in my documentary; viewing it with an understanding of the circumstances makes it clear they were lying about having traveled to the moon. I'm saying Collins blew it right then and there and I honestly cannot understand why there is even further discussion on the whole topic. Furthermore, if you obtain a written transcript of the press conference you'll see that the comment is erroneously attributed to Aldrin. Honest mistake or cover-up?

2. In 1967 three astronauts were burned alive on the launch pad. The upshot of the congressional inquiry was that the entire Apollo program was in shambles and it was a miracle no one was killed sooner. All of the problems were supposedly fixed by 1969, just two years later. How could they have made such a large improvement in "quality control" in such a short period of time.

1. All Apollo missions stayed in low-earth orbit for the duration of the trip. We uncovered some mislabeled, unedited, behind-the-scenes footage from NASA that shows the crew of Apollo 11 clearly staging a shot of being half-way to the moon. This clip, shown in our documentary, proves they did not leave low-earth orbit. You won't see this anywhere else!

http://www.moonmovie.com/

http://www.moonmovie.com/15things.html

Man, do you honestly want me to debunk that (again), or will you just forfeit?

haha, but i think i did find what i was looking for, thanks for all your help!

well ive been through this before as well and the bottom line is that anyone who is trying to prove the hoax has to convince the smartest and highest iq type individuals that they have been lied to by nasa(concerning data gathered by their instruments which forms the basis for many theories)which is an impossibility as these people(prof. and astronomers) "know" it all-this aside if you step back and observe the situation in its entirety the hoax becomes apparent-only the apollo missions have claimed to have ventured into and beyond the VARB(vanallenradiationbelts)-if it had really been as easy as it appeared there should be no doubt that we would have maintained a sustained campaign-there are so many holes that this could really get drawn out-go down to reason 9 and observe the pic there is no evidence of thruster disharge-yet when armstrong took that first step and the photograph was released of the imprint the texture of the surface was like talc the imprint was also exhibiting a level of humidity in the medium-from the altered pics, the shadows,the deaths in 67',the video of the module failing miserably just three weeks prior to the begining of the missions and the obvious military advantages its not that far-fetched-we could argue about this for ever but the truth is until we venture into the belts again neither side will be truly vindicated-

Holy crap man! Punctuate your text!

^^I was going to say the same thing...Got lost.

I do believe it was staged. Another thing is, Why can't we see the flag or rovers that they left there? We can see crystal clear formations on far away planets such as jupiter, but where is the picture of the flag on the moon? (From space). Also, why do they want to go back when going to Mars years from now. I don't know about you guys, but The movie "Mission to Mars" seemed real, very real. 20 years from now - Easy as sh** to fake.

Limewire is way better than kazaa... trust me.... I ahd it before and it's usually spam. Download it on limewire.... hymmmm... I just might do that today if I get bored.

Is there a rule for no piracy on here? And they all give off adware/spyware. Have fun formatting your computer.

Did Russia automatically give up going to the moon after we accomplished it? Why are we the only country to have gone there? Has anyone else tried and failed due to the VARB?


Stellar impress me. Don't resort to critiquing someones grammer when you have nothing informative to add.

Why is there such a big thing about the moon landing being fake, i still believe that man did set foot on the moon so many years ago. But i supose there are people who still cant comprehend people going into space.

I think you have to appreciate real spaceflight in order to be able to tell the difference.

I would, but without punctation in that long post, I cant seperate the ideas nor can I understand sometimes which phrase goes with which idea. If he'd punctuate it, I'd be able to seperate it into the different ideas, and debunk them one at a time.

wiseguy i must first say that is THE coolest avatar i have seen-second the reason stellar cannot reply intellectually is because i already countered the 'logic" he would have tried to use by discrediting nasa and the credibility of their information IMHO-of course he can always point out that nasa is a far better source than i am but it does nothing to detract from the "big picture",the details of which i covered in my post,and the ultimate truth that until we go again neither side will be vindicated

Punctuate your preview post and we'll see how well your word stands...

Can someone try and answer my 3 questions? I'd seriously like to know

Now I want you guys to think for a minute. It was in the 1950s when we went just above the atmosphere into the tad bit of space. When we were just peeking into the universe as a spec. Not being able to go far without loosing contact with the world. A little over 10 years later, we set foot on the moon which is 250,000 miles away. Now, unless there was some scientific breakthrough, I doubt we could accomplish that technology in 10 years. And you lads know it.

well not necessarily true, think about how the car was invented, long hours and years to develop a working engine and a platform to actually move people, once thats out the way, the advancements follow one another easily like top speed, you allready got the base for it, all you ahve to do is tweek this and tune that and bam 50 more horses, same can be said with our space ship technology we developed what we needed to get into space, once there it is easy to travel to the chosen point (moon)

That is very true. But Space flight is a little different. It is riskier. Sure you can tweak the engine of a car out and make it go faster. Even add a few more parts to increase its Hp and/or overall top speed. But the part that seperates Space Flight from Driving is simple. Testing.

Lets say you just bought a piece of crap CRX. You want to add a turbo kit. So after installing it, you want to test it. To test it, you simply put in the key and start the car. If the car does not start, most likely you assembled the kit wrong. Or installed/connected a part in a matter that you shouldn't have. What can you do you say? Open up the hood and fix it. Then reattempt.


Now lets say you are creating a shuttle to go to Mars. What do you do? Sure you can preform tests to see if the engine is perfectly right, and its chasis is strong as ever. But the only way you can find out is if you shoot it up into space. If it fails, you must start over again. Because most likely its going to burn up in the earths atmosphere.


Now why do you think its taking them so long to go to Mars? Preforming lots of studies and simple tests here on earth. In hopes of the best of luck when they do attempt to go to Mars. 20 years to go to mars.

If they had the technology 30-40 years ago to go to the moon, wouldn't they of been able to go to Mars 20 years after going to the moon??? (in your theory)



ps: Not to bust on the UK, but hasn't just about every rover that they've sent to mars either blow up or crash onto the surface?? just wondering.

I think I know the doco your referring to !!! If I recall it was the one that gave more to prove the landings than disprove them, by way of some classically funny & 'naive' suggestions Hahaha. More than likely youll need to order it from the TV station that airs it ??? Worth getting too I guess lolz

good point smallpackage, i didnt think of it that way

they gave up before we accomplished it due to the varb


we have not gone

other than russia no

I really think that anybody who seriously thinks the moon landings were a hoax would need to address the topics at http://www.clavius.org/ and debunk their explanations of hoax 'evidence' to have any credibility at all.

There is a huge amount of evidence it happened just like the history books say it did. It's not just Joe Blow on the street who would have to be fooled, but thousands and thousands of astronomers, geologists, engineers etc from around the world, and from nations not exactly friendly with the US.

There's lots of cool conspiracies to talk about, like JFK and others. The moon hoax theory can be boring, because it is the easiest to debunk. The same old misconceptions and lack of understanding of simple science that 'prove' the landings never happened, over and over again, really does get kind of old.

huge drawn out lectures defining all the variations of the word conspiracy in a sarcastic tone proves nothing-the vast website trying to disprove the hoax theory lacks substance and avoids global political situation-there also sees to be a blind faith complex concerning nasa data-here is a direct quote from the website

red-my emphasis

Surely we should of been there for the Millenium?

And if we can go to the moon,why havent we built on it and taken it over,what was the point?Just to collect some moon rocks?(for satanic government rituals?)

Im still not sure about this one,...either

1-We never went (all a hoax,filmed in Nevada Dessert,couldnt get there anyway cos Van Allans belt,etc)
2-We went but the moon was already populated by aliens,and basically told us to get off there property and never come back.
3-We went and everythings hunky dory,true and not strange at all.

Who knows?

Yes, the US did.

the number of people that are being fooled says nothing about its difficulty-its not like they have to go a long ways to achieve their goal-its as simple as a single lie concerning the concentrated band of solar wind created/captured by the earths magnetic field(varb)-compartmentalism does the rest-who is capable of verifiyng their data? which varies from other sources like russia and others- they actually have conflicting data-one would require six feet of lead to protect atronuats and one that allows the apollo crafts to shield it-

Ok, you want to talk about the Van Allen radiation belt? Lets talk about the Van Allen radiation belt!

A object satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminum will receive about 2500 rem (3) (25 Sv) per year.

Even at the peak of the belts, one could live for several months without receiving a lethal dose, and launch sites and paths are chosen not to pass through the peak.

Please Stellar, don't hurt 'em...
hehehe

I'll repeat: anybody even remotely serious about proving a moon hoax needs to refute evidence found at sites like apollohoax.com point-by-point to be considered even remotely serious.

Basically, Sunofone, ideologically based conspiracy claims are counter productive. If you truly believe the moon missions were hoaxed, the fact that ALL of your arguments toward that point are easily dismissed by anybody with even a small interest and ability to investigate seriously puts a doubt on any other, even legitimate, issues you have with the government or ANY other conspiracy theories you may subscribe to.

Don't you see that? You seem like a smart person. Stand back and think about that for a second. IMO anybody who thinks the moon landings were hoaxed, and has seriously studied the evidence in an unbiased way, is a prime candidate to have all his theories dismissed out-of-hand.

In other words, as the late Carl Sagen said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

I guess its pretty obvious why the Shuttle crashed, again!

Says who?


Guess no one read my little theory, or cares to.

im sorry if it offends you but i happen to believe nasa is just a huge pork barrel and a psy-op testing their level of control-i cant help to think that we would have sustained a maintained campaign- as easy as it appeared-why not exploit it for its minerals?why did we create the iss in orbit if it could have been done on the moon?we've already been fooled into fueling a sacrificial war machine-a space based pork barrel is kids play after that

I agree with most of it. But the iss can dock shuttles, So they can pull right up instead of landing on the moon. Although i can see your point...why won't they use the moon...weird.

Hmm... who was the one saying I didnt answer his claims because I couldnt compete with them...?

Why should normal people have to prove that it is a hoax? Your proof that is a hoax has refuted all over the net. My best friend worked for Lockheed for 7 years on the missle defense programs(he also told me some of the tests worked better than was let on, his thoughts were that is was for dis information for our enemies). I asked him about this and he replyed that any scientist(which I am not), can look at the hard evidence and not believe any other way than that we did go to the moon.

Then what explains the simple things such as intersections shadows, 2 moon lander pictures on one stage. Reflections of lights..etc. The waving flag. The fact that we just pinched our way out of the earth into the tad bit of the universe a little over 10 years before we went to the moon...please. Show us actual proof. There isn't any. Not one bit.

You're not serious, are you? Go to a man made forest at about 4 pm during the summer... if its long enough (and the trees sufficiently spaced out) you'll noticed that the shadows arent all parallel.



Huh?



What, reflections are physically impossible on the moon?



The flag was waving because of the movement of the astronauts...



Huh? How does that prove that the moon landing was hoaxed?



Of the moon landing being a hoax? Agreed!

Nice site Twinstead..........

Dead give away right there. man made. A man made forest has intersecting shadows you say? So explain the moon. Or shaw I say man made moon.



It was wasn't waving up and down, which would be caused by their arm movement. It was obviously blowing away from them. As if there was wind.






vvv




edit:






edit again: notice how the flag is blowing on its own in the picture..explain please.

Also, they couldn't possibly land right where they landed before...explain. Guess they moved the flag because it looked better there...

You do know that there is a wire running across the top of the flag itself to keep it outstretched?

How is that a give away? I meerly said man made because natural forests are usually too dense to observe intersecting shadows. It being man made has nothing to do with anything, the lightsource is still the sun.



Thats because they didnt hold it straight up, but at an angle.



And notice how the picture is taken from a different angle.



Not really...

In fact here's a Link explaining why it's 'blowing' in the wind...