Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

VividSimon Simply Perfect

Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

herbreck This movie serves as a classic ploy to "poison the well" of information ( though it may not have been created for that purpose, this does explain the peculiar high-level cooperation... ) questioning whether NASA successfully landed on the moon or merely orbited Earth and faked the rest. This question won't go away until NASA releases proof of the lunar missions, which they have not only not done - they in fact have behaved in a most guilty manner by covering up and hiding and recently "losing" audio tapes of the missions.... as well as the boast by ESA that they would end the controversial questions by releasing new images of the landing site of Apollo:esamultimedia.esa.int/images/smart_1/1888_40L_Hi.jpg...guess that ends that, eh? You do SEE the landing site, don't you?.... hello?..... ESA?.... NASA?... Hubble telescope? Can someone simply point a large telescope at the moon and snap a few photos showing some residue of the Apollo missions? Ask yourself WHY hasn't this simple action occurred in nearly 40 years hence? After all - there's a lunar rover parked up there somewhere, right? ... tire tracks all over the place, left-behind equipment... Imagine how simple it would be for NASA to put this all to rest for good... it really makes you wonder....The technique used by intelligence agency disinformation pros is called "poison well": ... adding a little false information among factual information.... later the planted inaccuracy is pointed to, the "conspiracy theorists" ridiculed, and for most of the huddled masses this instantly "de-bunks" the entire subject. This tendency results from "cognitive dissonance" and of course from most people's mistaken belief that the corporate news media is telling the truth.... which they are most definitely NOT doing. NASA cancels book rebutting moon hoax: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/ 2424927.stmNASA rebuttal of the alleged 'hoax": liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/News/2001/News- MoonLanding.asp ... having first watched "Operation Lune"... ( "Dark Side of the Moon" - video.google.com/videoplay? docid=3288261061829859642&q ) ...is this de-bunking satisfactory? It may seem to be a first glance, but are you truly thinking? Or are you being told what to think? Most importantly as always: what is being left out?en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusationsxenophilia.com/zb0003.htmMoon rocks: the alleged existence of 842 lbs. of moon rocks seems to be a sacred piece of information that few challenge. Is this "fact" beyond question? Are any of these "facts" beyond question? Is it wise to place ANYTHING "beyond question"?Fake moon dust: science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/28dec_truefake.htm( keep in mind that it doesn't require a MANNED mission to retrieve lunar rocks and dust ... )NASA plans to return to the moon... perhaps by 2020... space.com/news/061204_nasa_moon.html... they admit overcoming the damaging effects of gamma rays beyond the Van Allen Belt will be the greatest challenge... Was light-weight foil enough to protect astronauts in 1969? How did they have enough fuel for the return trip? Where are the blueprints? Why did so many program insiders die a series of strange deaths afterwards? Why have all audio recordings disappeared? Why no picture showing the Lunar Rover on the moon in almost forty years? Why do the astronauts' photos look as if they were lit by huge spotlights in a studio? Why the tremendous secrecy in all aspects when a few strategic de-classified documents or a single Hubble photo could lay this whole thing to rest?The existence of a cover-up is the most damming evidence of all... I give this movie ten stars due to it's mind-expanding potential. I'd also ask each and every one of the readers to "think for yourself and question authority!".

paudical I suppose I am more cynical than most but I'm still surprised anyone could be properly taken in by this film. I had my doubts from the very start but the jig was well and truly up after Neil Armstrong's bad jokes on the moon. I'll admit Kubrick is one of my favourite directors so I got the in jokes regarding the names Jack Torrance and David Bowman. Later on the documentary really enters into ridiculous territory! Basically I think it's a clever idea which was impossible to expand into a lengthy documentary. I didn't find the hoodwinking funny, just pretentious. The filmmakers obviously enjoyed toying with less well informed viewers like a cat with a mouse. I found it boring

aidanhell incredibly clever documentary about the ease with which we are manipulated by the media, and how the media is in turn used as a tool of manipulation. really worth seeing and, watch for clues!

jpceulemans-2 We choose to go to the Moon, and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard. With these historical words of the late JFK, the race to the moon was officially started. Almost seven years later, this race was decided when the whole world witnessed how Neil Armstrong was the first man to set foot on another world. But was everything really the way it looked? This documentary starts from a simple premise: when Stanley Kubrick wanted to shoot the candle light scenes for Barry Lyndon, he needed a special lens that costs several millions of dollars and only one such lens existed and was owned by NASA, and they used it for tracking satellites in complete darkness.The ease with which the NASA was ready to borrow this piece of espionage equipment to Kubrick set the researcher on a hunt for the truth behind the moon landing and the part that Kubrick had played in it. Exposing fact after fact, the director William Karel explains the viewer how the evidence that was right there all along under our noses proves that the moon landing was actually staged in a studio and that the original plan of Nixon, who was president at that time, was to make everyone who participated in this staging, disappear. He shows testimonies of Buzz Aldrin, Richard Nixon, Stanley Kubrick, Henry Kissinger and even Donald Rumsfeld to prove his theory. ****MAJOR SPOILER**** If you want to enjoy this documentary to fullest, then please watch it first before you read on. OK you are either stubborn or you have watched it already. The topic is of course not very original, the movie Capricorn One already covered a staged Mars landing, and there is a lot of literature that tries to prove that the NASA moon landing happened in the studio. And this one is of course a mockumentary but the clever thing about it is that it gradually feeds the viewer with inconsistencies and absurdities which get more and more noticeable as the story unfolds. It starts with subtle things like a view of an ordinary 28-85mm Carl Zeiss lens costing less than 1000$, a French speaking head of the CIA and a mission control team member named David Bowman ending in such ridiculous claims that in order to eliminate the 4 remaining witnesses, an army force far greater than that used in the first Gulf war was deployed. And for the intellectually challenged viewer, at the end some bloopers are shown between the end credits that show that certain parts were played by actors.Still, by using a clever mix of real footage, excepts of interviews with famous people and fake interviews with fictional key figures played by actors, Karel manages to keep many less informed viewers unaware for a while that they are watching a hoax.And depending on how keen and sceptical you are, the time for you to expose this hoax will be shorter. And once you realize that you were being fooled, it suddenly turns into a very funny joke. Even if you decided to read the spoiler, you will still be entertained by the absurdities near the end.**** END SPOILER **** I advise you to watch it with a few friends and I am certain that you will equally enjoy their reactions as much as you will enjoy this documentary. It is certainly worth a second view in order to capture all the details.