OT. Where they really on the moon?

[Wyvern]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Oh well, I jus ran a search for the Moon thing and EVERY hit I got were for people flaming the "moon hoax theory" and calling them crazy.....
If is a not a hoax, why they pay so much attention and expend so much money on those Moon-hoax -believers?

So if everybody says that it's not true, that proves it *must* be true? That's probably the most twisted logic I've ever heard.

I don't suppose you bothered to actually *read* any of the pages debunking the "moon hoax" claims to see if their arguments were reasonable?

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Though I must keep in mind that I'm biased against all goverments.

[sarcasm]Which makes you supremely qualified to form an objective opinion about the subject, naturally.[/sarcasm]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Oh no, my dear, these were NASA people, as in NASA payroll, as in Taxpayer money.

How about a providing a link to show us an example of one of these NASA pages you claim you found?

Originally posted by Aloofi:
After searching through a ton of site with names like "Moon hoax", "Did we really land on the Moon?" and "The Great Moon Hoax" that were nothing more that counter-sites trying to silence the Moon Hoax theory, I finaly founded a real "Moon Hoax" site.

As opposed to what? A *fake* moon hoax site?

The guy quoted on that page is the guy (or at least one of them) who *started* the whole moon hoax rumor. So of *course* he's going to agree with his own claims. That doesn't make them true. For someone who claims to distrust authority, you sure are quick to assume that this guy is an authority on the subject.

Originally posted by Aloofi:
I'm trying to put it in my head, to erase all that false information I got in school.

Oh please. More like all the false information you got from Bart Sibrel.

Originally posted by minipol:
Where's the proof? In one of your books?

Right here. And when you're through reading that page, take a look at this one, which will show you just what kind of unethical tactics Mr. Sibrel resorts to in promoting his claims.

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by DavidG:
So does anyone here believe the moon landings were fake? Gees I read this whole thread looking for just one example of why people belive they were fake. Other than the radiation belt that was it. Is that all you moon hoax believers have?

Here it goes, unedited, for all of you that missed the link.

"RESPONSE TO MICHAEL MEDVED'S USA TODAY ARTICLE BY BART W. SIBREL

Many of my colleagues have encouraged me to write a response to Michael Medved's recent USA Today article in which he suggests that anyone who holds an opinion that the United States' lunar landings of the late 1960's and early 1970's were falsified for strategic benefit must be completely insane or mentally deficient. I, Bart Winfield Sibrel, am the writer, producer and director of A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon, the documentary which inspired the recent Fox special, Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?, for which I served as senior consultant and key interviewee.

Suggesting that the greatest event in human history was staged as a Cold War tactic to bluff the Soviet Union into a reserved nuclear posture, is, on the surface, seemingly preposterous. However, I, not Mr. Medved, have spent half a decade and $500,000 on research into just the possibility, as remote as it may be, that the boastful goal of a non-engineer politician in 1961 (John Kennedy) to "put a man on the moon by the end of the decade (December 31, 1969)" was a bite too large to chew.

After all, two decades later, with much improved and superior technology to that of 1969, a mission only 1/100th as complicated, the Earth orbit of a telescope (Hubble), was nearly as many years behind schedule as the entire duration of the lunar landing goal, and then, after its sixth launch attempt, didn't even work when it arrived at its destination which was 1/1000th the distance to the moon. In addition, it took another two years to make the necessary repairs to get it operational. Even today, an unmanned probe (to Mars), the size of a large toaster, requires nearly ten years to develop. Mr. Medved, where is the logic in this?

Unfortunately, Mr. Medved composed his article without even reviewing my film A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon (moonmovie.com) which contains newly discovered, unprecedented evidence consisting of a previously unseen, mislabeled, 31-year old unedited reel of footage from the first mission to the moon, Apollo 11, dated three days into the flight. In this footage Neil Armstrong himself is clearly visible staging part of the mission photography. Before I uncovered this mislabeled lost footage, and after three and a half years of research, I estimated the possibility of a government fraud of the lunar landings to be about 25%. After viewing this footage: 100%.

It is a fact. Humankind has not stepped foot on the moon. End of story. Proof of this is in my film. This whole endeavor really pushes peoples' buttons when it comes to national pride. That is why I open my controversial documentary with a Renaissance painting of the Tower of Babel and a Biblical quote, "When pride comes, then comes disgrace." (Proverbs 11:2) Rivalry among nations began with which civilization could build the tallest building. Sound familiar? I then show the Titanic and the quote, "The Ship that God Himself could not sink!" Finally, I quote Nixon referring to Apollo 11's landing on the moon as the greatest event since creation.

When the USA Today writer refers to the crewmembers he doesn't even know as "brave astronauts" he clearly discloses his environmentally conditioned prejudice toward viewing this topic without any objectivity. If questioning the integrity of our government is so unpatriotic in his mind, he is forgetting that this is precisely how our nation was founded, questioning the ethics and motives of mother England. George Washington, the "Father" of our country, considered it a disgrace to his office to lie about the complete depravity of the condition of his army's morale, competence, resources and numbers against the attacking British army. He refused to "white wash" his dispatches to congress in order to boost their pride or spirits. This kind of leadership, "I cannot tell a lie," is sorely missed in our government.

Furthermore, I can only assume Mr. Medved was referring to me as the "utterly uncredentialed investigative journalist." Funny, isn't it, that those making such accusations about such emotionally provocative topics are often guilty of the very charges they unthoughtfully assert against others. Had he done his research before writing the article (I spent 5 years on this subject, interviewing hundreds of sources), he would have discovered that the "uncredentialed" affiliation I had at the time of the commencement of my investigative journalist's research was none other than NBC News.

A little further investigation on Mr. Medved's part would have discovered that the NASA spokesperson on the program, Brian Welsh, definitely agreed with him in that he felt that his performance of impatient dismissive generalizations did not seem very convincing; rather, a point-for-point rebuttal would have been more appropriate. Apparently, in an effort to be better prepared in the future, Brian Welsh did his own off-the-record investigation with the special access privileges entitled to him in his position. Coincidentally, while his efforts were underway, he had a fatal heart attack in November 2000 at age 42.

When Fox pointed out that eleven Apollo astronauts all had non-space related fatal accidents within a twenty-two month period of one another, he failed to mention that the odds of this happening were 1 in 10,000. Oddly enough, these were the same odds given to a successful manned moon landing on its first attempt by a senior space program employee in the mid-1960's. Nevertheless, Mr. Medved does raise some very good questions that should be addressed. The first is, "why did the Russians not blow the whistle on such a fraud?"

Because I strongly believe that the chief motive for the cover-up was to fool the Soviet Union into thinking that the US had superior missile technology that did not really exist, we need to understand how urgent and unprecedented a motive this was, note past occasions of now disclosed United States misinformation, analyze whether or not the Soviets had the capability to uncover it, and, if they did, question whether or not they would really broadcast this finding to the world. It is important to note, that at the dawn of the space race never before in human history had two "superpowers" each possessed the intercontinental nuclear missile capability of annihilating the other several times over from a location half way around the world.

Perhaps a reminder is in order as well to mention the fact that during this period the Russians launched the first artificial satellite, the first human in space, the first human to orbit the Earth, the first space walk, the first woman in space, the first crew of three into space, and the first of two simultaneously orbiting spacecraft rendezvousing. For every twenty hours the US had spent in space at the time the Soviets had spent one hundred. Five times the experience and expertise!

In 1994, our own government's watchdog agency, the General Accounting Office, reported, "The Star Wars Missile Defense System rigged tests to make it seem more advanced than it really was. The aim was to fool the Soviet Union about US strategic capability during the Cold War." How much more so was there the need in 1969 when there was genuine concern that "Sputnik 3" might have nuclear missiles on it for a first strike that would put the weapons within less than ten minutes from major targets in America? Furthermore, if the Soviets discovered the cover-up, at that time or years later, would it really be in their best interest to announce their finding to the world and thereby further escalate the tension between the superpowers? Better, in my opinion, to hold on to such a juicy morsel and use it year after year to blackmail each succeeding US administration.

Another overlooked intriguing fact is that NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear.

For the USA Today writer to equate believing in this cover-up with denying the Jewish holocaust of World War II simply proves the superficiality of his investigation caused by his misdirected patriotism, or as it has been historically noted, "Zeal without knowledge." Were there only three witnesses to World War II? Of course not, yet this is the total number of witnesses to landing on the moon in 1969. Never before in history had such an historic event been without independent press coverage. Whatever sound and pictures were distributed to the public were strictly controlled and previewed by the Federal Government.

Could a fuzzy black-and-white television image be used to fool the public? Let's look at history. In the mid 1950's Time Magazine had on its cover "The Smartest Man in America" who was the latest winner on the popular TV game show The Sixty-four Thousand Dollar Question. It was later proven in a court of law that the man knew the answers in advance. Time Magazine was wrong! They were fooled just like the rest of us. In fact, in the Grand Jury investigation, it was later proven that one hundred twenty people who swore to God that they were telling the truth at the start of the investigation, in fact, lied to the Grand Jury!

What about Apollo 13? When America allegedly put humans on the moon for the second time (Apollo 12), several TV viewers telephoned the networks and complained that reruns of I Love Lucy were being interrupted. What a coincidence that the very next mission to the moon involved "life and death" jeopardy. Peoples' interest in return trips to the moon was rekindled!

What about the moon rocks? The Soviet Union never sent a manned mission to the moon, yet they have moon rocks. How did they get them? By unmanned probes and meteorites! The only time in history that an astronaut, Soviet or American, is said to have left the relative safety of Earth orbit and ventured through the Van Allen Radiation Belts, a twenty-five thousand mile thick band of intense radiation which surrounds the Earth beginning at an altitude of about one thousand miles, is going to the moon. The Soviets, with a five-to-one advantage in the early part of the space race, never once sent a human through the radiation belts to even orbit the moon.

In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to "see" the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which Lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest. Imagine what it would be like to endure an hour and a half of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminum shielding!

After this new generation of NASA astronauts encountered this unpredicted surprise, CNN (another "uncredentialed" source) issued the following report, "The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed (like when they supposedly went through them thirty years ago to reach the moon.) The phenomenon known as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn (newly discovered) 'Killer Electrons' that can dramatically affect the astronauts' health."

It isn't an "utterly uncredentialed journalist" who is asserting that the Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967 that killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the moon. It is the dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, and who has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions), who is making this accusation. Mr. Medved, have you personally retrieved evidence from the space capsule to support your theory that this credible first hand assertion is unfounded?

Anyone with the slightest open mind and truly objective thinking can conclude that when the assassin of President Kennedy was assassinated himself three days later, that something was awry. The moon landings cover-up is even grander, yet, obviously, not the first, and it is certainly not the first time, or the Last, that the press at large was completely wrong.

I sent a copy of this lost footage to every United States Senator and Congress Member (five hundred thirty-five), plus the president and the current director of the General Accounting Office. I have heard back from only four. In my letter I challenge them to summon Neil Armstrong himself to testify, under oath, whether or not he actually set foot on the moon in 1969. I caution them to get ready for the shock of their life. Oddly enough, in the thirty plus years since the event, Neil Armstrong has not granted, not even once, an on camera or independent print interview. Not to CNN, not to NBC, not to CBS, not to ABC, not to Time, Life or Newsweek. It is my conviction that he refuses to be interviewed because he does not want to lie. How does the lyric go? "Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies."

Recently, however, I had the good fortune to show this falsified mission footage to Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, Neil Armstrong's fellow crewmate. Quite startled and angry, he was most interested in how I attained this lost footage. He also threatened to sue me if I showed it publicly. Why? Because it is meaningless? If Mr. Medved is courageous, why not challenge me to a duel of the wits on his radio show for an open debate on this subject?"

[geoschmo]

Ok, I am going to respond to some of the glaring errors in judgment in Mr. Sibrels article here. Obviously Mr. Sibrel will never see this, but it's for the benefit of Allofi or anyone else in danger of being duped by him.

Originally posted by Aloofi:
"RESPONSE TO MICHAEL MEDVED'S USA TODAY ARTICLE BY BART W. SIBREL

After all, two decades later, with much improved and superior technology to that of 1969, a mission only 1/100th as complicated, the Earth orbit of a telescope (Hubble), was nearly as many years behind schedule as the entire duration of the lunar landing goal, and then, after its sixth launch attempt, didn't even work when it arrived at its destination which was 1/1000th the distance to the moon. In addition, it took another two years to make the necessary repairs to get it operational. Even today, an unmanned probe (to Mars), the size of a large toaster, requires nearly ten years to develop. Mr. Medved, where is the logic in this?

The mere fact that we went to the moon is not an indication that the missions were flawless or more easily done then the Hubble telescope. In terms of 1960's dollars a much larger investment in money and manpower was put into the Moon landing effort than into the Hubble space telescope. Systems were double triple, quadruple checked, and redunant systems were in place in case they still failed. All that being said errors still happend, mistakes were made, and equipment failed. Each moon landing had a multitude of objectives, some engineering, some pure science. Not everything that was planned to be done was done.

The Hubble was in total perhaps a less complex endevor, but the equipent was vastly more complex and sensitive than anything that was part of the Appolo missions. Most of the delays in the Hubble program were due to the Chalanger disaster pushing back the entire shuttle program. A fact that is not really indicitive of the Hubble program at all. With Hubble we were just not as lucky in that the one piece of the mission that failed was a critical piece of the whole project. Despite that though we have been able to deal with the problem and Hubble is producing images beyond the expectations of the astromomers even before the fault in the mirror was found.

The Mars failures again were due to programs not as well funded then the Appolo program. This fact led to errors that did not get caught by suficent cross checking.

This kind of faulty logic is the kind of stuff people throw out and say that aliens must have made the pyramids because we couldn't do it today. Of course we could make pyramids today, it would just be too expensive and we aren't all that interested in doing it. Apollo is the same kind of thing.

A little further investigation on Mr. Medved's part would have discovered that the NASA spokesperson on the program, Brian Welsh, definitely agreed with him in that he felt that his performance of impatient dismissive generalizations did not seem very convincing; rather, a point-for-point rebuttal would have been more appropriate. Apparently, in an effort to be better prepared in the future, Brian Welsh did his own off-the-record investigation with the special access privileges entitled to him in his position. Coincidentally, while his efforts were underway, he had a fatal heart attack in November 2000 at age 42.

When Fox pointed out that eleven Apollo astronauts all had non-space related fatal accidents within a twenty-two month period of one another, he failed to mention that the odds of this happening were 1 in 10,000. Oddly enough, these were the same odds given to a successful manned moon landing on its first attempt by a senior space program employee in the mid-1960's.

So now we've gone beyond accusing Nasa of a general coverup and lying to the public, and are saying that there is mass muder occuring?

42 year olds have heart attacks. And Astronauts are healthy active people, even into their old age. Active people sometimes have accidents. The odds given are not only suspect (How exactly were they calculated?) they are irrelevant. Odds don't tell you something didn't happen that you can see did.

In 1994, our own government's watchdog agency, the General Accounting Office, reported, "The Star Wars Missile Defense System rigged tests to make it seem more advanced than it really was. The aim was to fool the Soviet Union about US strategic capability during the Cold War." How much more so was there the need in 1969 when there was genuine concern that "Sputnik 3" might have nuclear missiles on it for a first strike that would put the weapons within less than ten minutes from major targets in America? Furthermore, if the Soviets discovered the cover-up, at that time or years later, would it really be in their best interest to announce their finding to the world and thereby further escalate the tension between the superpowers? Better, in my opinion, to hold on to such a juicy morsel and use it year after year to blackmail each succeeding US administration.

And where is the evidence of this blackmail? To what purpose? There were many occasions during the cold war such evidence would be damaging to the US, yet it was never used. What was it being held back for? Was it supposed to keep us from launching a first strike? If the US felt the need to start a nuclear war and wipe out a goodly portion of the human race, we would care about being embarased when the charred remains of humanity found out we faked the moon landings?

Another overlooked intriguing fact is that NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear.

If this were happening, don't you think one of the thousands of Nasa engineers that were part of the program but weren't one of the hundred or so that knew it was fake would have realized it? "Hey, how come it takes us 32 seconds to get a response from the astronauts on the moon when it should only take 16?" All these Messages are time stamped. You can look at the recods and see for yourself. Oh, I know, Nasa couldn't land a man on the moon, but they figured out a way to send radio waves at exactly two times faster than the speed of light.

What about Apollo 13? When America allegedly put humans on the moon for the second time (Apollo 12), several TV viewers telephoned the networks and complained that reruns of I Love Lucy were being interrupted. What a coincidence that the very next mission to the moon involved "life and death" jeopardy. Peoples' interest in return trips to the moon was rekindled!

One of the reasons the Apollo 13 is so compelling is that the events that happened were so outrageous that nobody could have or would have imagined them. Truth is indeed stranger than fiction. If Nasa was going to fake a near disaster it would have been mroe "scripted", more believeable. It would have been one of the myriad of scenarios that everybody planned for and considered, rather then some off the wall set of circumstances that wouldn't even been considered by a Hollywood producer if it hadn't really happened.

It isn't an "utterly uncredentialed journalist" who is asserting that the Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967 that killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the moon. It is the dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, and who has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions), who is making this accusation. Mr. Medved, have you personally retrieved evidence from the space capsule to support your theory that this credible first hand assertion is unfounded?

More muders. My these Nasa guys are bloodthirsty bastards.

Recently, however, I had the good fortune to show this falsified mission footage to Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, Neil Armstrong's fellow crewmate. Quite startled and angry, he was most interested in how I attained this lost footage. He also threatened to sue me if I showed it publicly. Why? Because it is meaningless? If Mr. Medved is courageous, why not challenge me to a duel of the wits on his radio show for an open debate on this subject?"

Actually Mr. Sibrel, if he threatened to sue you it was not to stop you from showing your innocuous footage and error filled commentary. You threatened to press charges against him because he punched you in the mouth for being an obmoxious press hungy charlatan who lied about having press credentials so you could confront him with your "Swear on a bible" gag. But the local authorities decided you got what you deserved and wouldn't go through with it. He didn't care how you got public domain footage, all he cared about was why you were harrasing him and lying to the public to sell your 25 dollar movies.

Geoschmo

[ March 06, 2003, 15:17: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Aloofi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidG:
So does anyone here believe the moon landings were fake? Gees I read this whole thread looking for just one example of why people belive they were fake. Other than the radiation belt that was it. Is that all you moon hoax believers have?

Here it goes, unedited, for all of you that missed the link.

"RESPONSE TO MICHAEL MEDVED'S USA TODAY ARTICLE BY BART W. SIBREL

< snip >

---

Well I'd be happy to point out what is wrong with this article when I get off work but my point was what does the SE4 comunity think? I could care less what Bart Sibrel thinks.

[kalthalior]

The moon landings could not possibly have been faked -- HBO did a docudrama miniseries about them!

[Wyvern]

Originally posted by QuarianRex:
Let a generation or so pass and look how that one little event has so impacted the national psyche. Most of the people who were there are dead now so who is to say ant different?

Like who? Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin are still alive, as far as I know. So's Jim Lovell (the guy Tom Hanks played in Apollo 13.) I'm sure there are lots of other people still alive who were "there", I just can't name them. Can you name any that are dead?

[Alpha Kodiak]

Originally posted by Wyvern:

quote:

---

Originally posted by QuarianRex:
Let a generation or so pass and look how that one little event has so impacted the national psyche. Most of the people who were there are dead now so who is to say ant different?

Like who? Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin are still alive, as far as I know. So's Jim Lovell (the guy Tom Hanks played in Apollo 13.) I'm sure there are lots of other people still alive who were "there", I just can't name them. Can you name any that are dead?

---

The sad thing is that eventually they will be, as will everyone who was around when the landings occured. Then it will be easier to assert that they didn't happen, just as it is becoming easier for those who deny the occurence of the Holocost. "Gee no one is around that saw it, so it must not have happened."

[Wyvern]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Could a fuzzy black-and-white television image be used to fool the public? Let's look at history. In the mid 1950's Time Magazine had on its cover "The Smartest Man in America" who was the latest winner on the popular TV game show The Sixty-four Thousand Dollar Question. It was later proven in a court of law that the man knew the answers in advance.

Completely irrelevant. Proving that a guy can lie on national television and get away with it (for a while) isn't remotely close to proving that you can fake a moon landing.

Originally posted by Aloofi:
It isn't an "utterly uncredentialed journalist" who is asserting that the Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967 that killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the moon.

Read this sentence carefully and you'll notice a funny thing; he doesn't actually say what Grissom's son is "asserting". We can infer what he means from context, but the fact that he trails off without finishing his sentence shows that either a) he's being deliberately misleading or b) he's a lousy writer. Of course, it could be both.

Originally posted by Aloofi:
It is the dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, and who has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions), who is making this accusation.

What accusation? What kind of forensic evidence?

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Mr. Medved, have you personally retrieved evidence from the space capsule to support your theory that this credible first hand assertion is unfounded?

*What* credible first hand assertion? And what makes it credible? The fact that Sidrel believes it? No, that just makes *him* credulous.

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Anyone with the slightest open mind and truly objective thinking can conclude that when the assassin of President Kennedy was assassinated himself three days later, that something was awry.

In other words, if you're not a conspiracy theorist like Sibrel, you're close-minded and unobjective. Sorry, don't buy it. Of course, that's just the sort of thing we would *expect* a conspiracy theorist to say, isn't it? It must be evidence of a sinister conspiracy by conspiracy theorists to dupe the unsuspecting public into buying their stupid books and videotapes!

Originally posted by Aloofi:
The moon landings cover-up is even grander, yet, obviously, not the first, and it is certainly not the first time, or the Last, that the press at large was completely wrong.

And I doubt it's the first time, nor the Last, that Bart Sibrel has been completely wrong.

Originally posted by Aloofi:
I sent a copy of this lost footage to every United States Senator and Congress Member (five hundred thirty-five), plus the president and the current director of the General Accounting Office. I have heard back from only four.

Maybe that's because they have better things to do than waste their time trying to argue with attention hounds like Sibrel.

[DavidG]

So does anyone here believe the moon landings were fake? Gees I read this whole thread looking for just one example of why people belive they were fake. Other than the radiation belt that was it. Is that all you moon hoax believers have?