Before I begin to debunk this film, I would point out some common practices used by film makers of this type. The various techniques used are a combination of bare assertions and flawed examples followed by a generalisation referring back to the examples shown, as a means to imply the assertion as being proven. To anybody who has even a modicum of understanding in the various sections of photography, perspective, parallax, physics and logical fallacies, the arguments presented are quickly seen to be nonsense.
I would ask that anybody who watches this film, is observant of these techniques and takes careful note of how they present their so called evidence. There is simply not enough time to do a statement by statement analysis, so I will concentrate primarily in debunking each claim and pointing out how they use subterfuge to apply it to things not mentioned.
Disk 1 of 2
Minutes 1-7 Primarily makes bare assertions and begs numerous questions. It presents one piece of "evidence" from the "genius" Bill Kaysing, who quotes a study in the 50s of how likely it would be to land on the Moon. As though a study made without any real space program in place would be accurate, given the tremendous advances made with Mercury and Gemini, allied with increasingly popular satellite technology. We also have just Kaysing's word on the figures quoted in the study.
Minutes 7-8 Introduces the moronic contention that the flag movements in a vacuum during the act of placing them in the regolith, was down to wind blowing, yet we fail to see any ground disturbance from this implied wind.
Straightforward explanation video:-
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc_mmtAxjMk"]‪Moon Landing Conspiracy: Fluttering Flag Debunked‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhab86KoVjU"]‪Mythbusters Moon Hoax Flag Flapping‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]
Minutes 8-10 David Percy makes more bare assertions about "whistleblowers", fakery and obvious anomalies. He states the inaccurate claim that TV was always filmed off of a screen on Earth, when this was only on Apollo 11 due to the way the signal was sent:-
Minutes 10-12 He basically starts to lie. He indicates a "continuity error" occuring on the Apollo 16 mission (one that had a delayed landing of 6hrs due to technical difficulties), concerning a missing flap on the TV footage. One technique he uses at this point is to make a throwaway comment that makes the assumption that it is proven. He states "let's ignore the reasons as to why such a small jump in the 1/6th gravity of the Moon". This is wrong for two reasons.
The jump was certainly not made using maximum effort, and he weighs 360lbs on Earth. Try jumping with somebody on your back on Earth, you won't get off the ground probably!
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxAz5OIzQsU"]‪Apollo 16 jump - strawman‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]
Now this supposed continuity error - a blatant lie shown here:-
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0OS26q20R0"]‪Apollo 16 jump - Moon Hoax film makers are corrupt‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]
Minutes 12-17 Percy alleges that a transparency was clipped to the window to fake Apollo 11 half way to the Moon, says the blue glare on the window is the Earth, when it is the coating used to protect it. The whole thing is debunked in the most thorough fashion by proving weather patterns matched the view from the CSM in all 3 transmissions and the Earth disappears to the side as the camera pans back (must be a magic transparency!).
Not only would any craft be clearly visible to the Earth whilst in LEO, its radio signal would disappear with it orbiting every 90 minutes. Bart Sibrel, cited in this clip, made a 10 minute segment of his film alleging it was the Earth itself (not a transparency!) which is just totally impossible. He changed his claims later on (in line with Percy), after being barraged with counter argument showing his stupidity.
Here are numerous videos showing both these contentions are just complete bunkum, and the film makers are lying through deliberate omission!
Demonstrates that during the footage filmed from the CSM, stills taken from the footage (supposedly a transparency) are moving in line with the Earth rotation.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMe4kBklHhA"]‪Apollo 11 - On the way to the Moon‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]
Shows a brief clip from the transmissions that see the Earth disappearing to the side of the window. Very much not like a transparency!
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHnGDFowHlY"]‪Apollo 11 half way to the Moon‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]
Shows a stunning demonstration of the weather patterns matching the Apollo 11 half way to the Moon video.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OnZwqc-96Y"]‪Apollo 11: Fingerprints in Deep Space‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]
A different weather pattern demonstration.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3qEoA35cLs"]‪Apollo 11 half way to the Moon part 2‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]
A thorough debunk of both Sibrel and Percy demonstrating how they lie.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T9ZM50n0z4"]‪Lunar Legacy 2/5‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]
Minutes 17-20 Introduces David Groves and Bill Wood, makes more bare assertions and casts "suspicion", nothing really said.
Minutes 20-22 Shows a "contradiction" in the Kodak film used, where a NASA spokesman says it was specially made, and a Kodak man who says it was not. The Kodak man was mistaken. The film implies subterfuge as is the normal theme running through it. Simple mistake from the Kodak man. The narrative is building the strawman that the film could not possibly survive in space because it uses standard available film.
"Kodak Film in Space: John Glenn became the first American to orbit the earth, Kodak film recorded his reactions to traveling through space at 17,400 miles per hour. Kodak was asked by NASA to develop thin new films with special emulsions double-perforated 70mm film, which permitted 160 pictures in color or 200 on black and white. Apollo 8 was one of the first missions to use this film. There were three magazines loaded with 70 mm wide, perforated Kodak Panatomic-X fine-grained, 80 ASA, b/w film, two with Kodak Ektachrome SO-68, one with Kodak Ektachrome SO-121, and one with super light-sensitive Kodak 2485, 16,000 ASA film - which produced 1100 color, black and white, and filtered photographs from the Apollo 8 mission."
Minutes 22-23 I really don't know what the film is suggesting. Jan Lundberg confirms the camera was specially adapted by Hasselblad on NASA's original specification, which they then improved upon.
Minutes 23-24 More deception. Shows photographs where the cross hairs(reticles) appear to disappear "behind" objects. He deliberately uses low resolution photographs, knowing that the higher resolution ones do indeed show the reticles, but fainter on brighter areas where the light has bled on to the film. He makes the strawman statement about how it would be totally impossible for objects to get in front of the reticles, when no such thing ever occurs!
Demonstration of this on Earth:-
A good debunking of the subterfuge:-
Minute 24 Shows Jan Lundberg appearing to disagree with NASA about the use of Reticles to judge distance by suggesting that stereo-pairs were needed to perform this. They then just lie about there not being any stereo-pair photographs from the mission! The link just above has one of many examples used in the Apollo photographc record.
Minutes 24-26 Percy, continues with his "photagrammetric" bull, citing non parallel shadows as indicative of fakery(bunkum first voiced by Kaysing). To say this is just pure stupidity negates the fact that he is just plain lying. In his main example, he actually draws lines to a point where he says extra lighting had to have been used, but misses the stunningly obvious fact that multiple light sources create multiple shadows!! Also, the lines he uses to create an intersection, actually cross each other in the shot! Just mind numbingly wrong.
Numerous shadow debunking videos and photographs:-
Simple 30 second debunk.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATrFuCnW6T8"]‪Anomalous Shadow Directions?‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]
Mythbusters just nails this totally.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wym04J_3Ls0"]‪Mythbusters Moon Landing photo hoax 1‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy9rkc8jq0k"]‪Moon Hoax Theory Lies: Multiple Light Sources‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]
More simple demonstrations.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnrPaz3xFIg"]‪Fake Moon Landing? Rebuke #4: Shadows‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]
These weblinks further explain it, with clear examples showing Percy as a liar:-
This website completely nails a direct example used by the film:-