The evidence that the Apollo 11 photos and film footage were faked -- when examined skeptically and with an open mind -- is pretty convincing.
This particular production, however, is not the greatest one out there on this issue. Part of the problem is with its drab, textbook tone and narrow focus.
The doc is hosted in a formal manner by an Englishman, in a wooden style, a la an anchorman behind a news desk (there's no voice-over narration), but is in large part David Percy's vehicle; co-author of "Dark Moon." It is his contention that the Apollo 11 images contain within them obvious signs of their being fakes, and that these clues were purposely put there by some of the perpetrators in the hopes that years afterwards they would be detected and exposed by perspicacious investigators.
Now, who would want to stage the Apollo 11 mission, and why? Disappointingly, the doc is not all that interested in these extremely pertinent questions. Its title says it all: WHAT HAPPENED ON THE MOON? 'Tis an in-depth photographical analysis of the manned Apollo missions, to such an extent that it's at fault for being overly microscopic in its attempt to debunk the established version of events, and in so doing fails to consider the larger and more intriguing picture surrounding this particular conspiracy theory. It's a presentation that likely would appeal more to brainy shutterbugs and one-dimensional technicians than your average sub-cultural fringe-dweller.
It's divided into three parts: 1. "Analysis Of The Lunar Photography" 2. "Environmental Dangers" 3. "The Trouble With Rockets"
Some of the counter-arguments of the hoax theory are as follows: Due to the radiation belts and solar particle events found in deep space, it's unlikely that the astronauts could have passed by these obstacles safely and survived. Just two years previously, in 1967, Apollo 1 experienced equipment issues that led to a tragic incident. There were supposedly numerous well-taken photos on the lunar surface, a remarkable achievement in and of itself, considering the camera was mounted atop the spacesuit about the navel area and the photos taken via clunky gloves and without the use of a viewfinder. Not to mention how a conventional camera could have operated within the alternating extreme temperatures on the moon, and how the ordinary film used could have returned in pristine condition past all the radiation. Within some of the lunar images, misaligned shadows are perceived, and the astronauts appear well-lit, both suggesting an artificial light source. As some might say, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to detect a possible simulation staged inside of a production studio.
Of course, there are other seeming curiosities, involving a fluttering flag planted on a space rock with no atmosphere, the absence of stars in photos, the matter of footprints being made, and so on, additional factors which the documentary does not go into at any length.
As an aside, what I find of interest is how to reconcile what some in the alternative media have discussed in regards to what has been dubbed the Secret Space Program. According to this theory, man did in fact make it to the moon -- a few decades prior to the Apollo missions, as the result of a covert Black Ops program, comprised of back-engineered field-propulsion technology. Whereas, others believe the Apollo 11 space shuttle was followed by UFOs amid flight, with the occupants having discovered alien bases or even lunarians upon their arrival.
As for WHAT HAPPENED ON THE MOON?, Mr. Percy's research into the matter is impressively meticulous. He's featured in this quite prominently, and it's his presence that helps to carry the documentary. Also included in this is Bill Kaysing. It is not all one-sided, however. There are a couple of men here to defend the official version; one a physics professor and the other a NASA spokesman.
At one point in the doc, an Australian lady, who had watched the "live coverage" of Apollo 11, comments that after seeing what she thought to be a soda bottle appear in one corner of the frame, how she quickly dismissed the entire event as a hoax. Hmm. A product placement at Tranquility Base?
This particular production, however, is not the greatest one out there on this issue. Part of the problem is with its drab, textbook tone and narrow focus.
The doc is hosted in a formal manner by an Englishman, in a wooden style, a la an anchorman behind a news desk (there's no voice-over narration), but is in large part David Percy's vehicle; co-author of "Dark Moon." It is his contention that the Apollo 11 images contain within them obvious signs of their being fakes, and that these clues were purposely put there by some of the perpetrators in the hopes that years afterwards they would be detected and exposed by perspicacious investigators.
Now, who would want to stage the Apollo 11 mission, and why? Disappointingly, the doc is not all that interested in these extremely pertinent questions. Its title says it all: WHAT HAPPENED ON THE MOON? 'Tis an in-depth photographical analysis of the manned Apollo missions, to such an extent that it's at fault for being overly microscopic in its attempt to debunk the established version of events, and in so doing fails to consider the larger and more intriguing picture surrounding this particular conspiracy theory. It's a presentation that likely would appeal more to brainy shutterbugs and one-dimensional technicians than your average sub-cultural fringe-dweller.
It's divided into three parts: 1. "Analysis Of The Lunar Photography" 2. "Environmental Dangers" 3. "The Trouble With Rockets"
Some of the counter-arguments of the hoax theory are as follows: Due to the radiation belts and solar particle events found in deep space, it's unlikely that the astronauts could have passed by these obstacles safely and survived. Just two years previously, in 1967, Apollo 1 experienced equipment issues that led to a tragic incident. There were supposedly numerous well-taken photos on the lunar surface, a remarkable achievement in and of itself, considering the camera was mounted atop the spacesuit about the navel area and the photos taken via clunky gloves and without the use of a viewfinder. Not to mention how a conventional camera could have operated within the alternating extreme temperatures on the moon, and how the ordinary film used could have returned in pristine condition past all the radiation. Within some of the lunar images, misaligned shadows are perceived, and the astronauts appear well-lit, both suggesting an artificial light source. As some might say, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to detect a possible simulation staged inside of a production studio.
Of course, there are other seeming curiosities, involving a fluttering flag planted on a space rock with no atmosphere, the absence of stars in photos, the matter of footprints being made, and so on, additional factors which the documentary does not go into at any length.
As an aside, what I find of interest is how to reconcile what some in the alternative media have discussed in regards to what has been dubbed the Secret Space Program. According to this theory, man did in fact make it to the moon -- a few decades prior to the Apollo missions, as the result of a covert Black Ops program, comprised of back-engineered field-propulsion technology. Whereas, others believe the Apollo 11 space shuttle was followed by UFOs amid flight, with the occupants having discovered alien bases or even lunarians upon their arrival.
As for WHAT HAPPENED ON THE MOON?, Mr. Percy's research into the matter is impressively meticulous. He's featured in this quite prominently, and it's his presence that helps to carry the documentary. Also included in this is Bill Kaysing. It is not all one-sided, however. There are a couple of men here to defend the official version; one a physics professor and the other a NASA spokesman.
At one point in the doc, an Australian lady, who had watched the "live coverage" of Apollo 11, comments that after seeing what she thought to be a soda bottle appear in one corner of the frame, how she quickly dismissed the entire event as a hoax. Hmm. A product placement at Tranquility Base?
