Did We Land On The Moon?

Did We Land On The Moon?

Did We Land On The Moon?

Sorry, this episode is not currently available to watch on Demand 5.

Find out why

Next on TV

Sat 21:00 26 Apr

"One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." These immortal words were spoken on 20th July 1969 when American astronaut Neil Armstrong first set foot on the Moon. Or did he?

Believe it or not, there are many people who are convinced that he never landed on the moon at all. These theorists claim to have proof that it was all an elaborate hoax executed by NASA to beat the Soviets in the space race.

This programme examines both sides of the controversy and reveals, for the first time on television, the so-called 'fake photos' – actual photographic evidence that, some claim, proves that the legendary moon landing never happened.

It also investigates the mysterious deaths of ten NASA astronauts in the months leading up to the historic mission.

Doubters and conspiracy theorists present their astonishing arguments, such as that in many official photographs there are no stars in the sky despite the clarity of deep space, that the American flag appears to wave in the breeze even though the moon has no atmosphere, and that there is no blast crater under the Lunar Lander where its powerful rocket engine had fired.

Believers, however, point to the obvious evidence surrounding what has been called the single greatest technological achievement of all time – the lift-off and landing of the spacecraft, the 45+ pounds of moon rocks which scientists have been studying for years, and the statements from the hundreds of NASA commanders, employees and astronauts who have spoken reverently of that historic day 43 years ago.

Is it possible that we never actually went to the Moon? You decide!

Comments (119)

  • Lou

    6 days ago

    Lou

    What is interesting is that since this programme has been made, China has landed their unmanned probe on the moon! Look at their photo's; What struck me is the presence of stars in the sky and the colour of the moon!...It's brown, not beige as depicted in all US photos! Maybe Chinese landed in a different place?

  • This comment was removed by a moderator

  • Thomas

    1 month ago

    Thomas

    The programme gave details on why we didn't land on the moon, but at the end of the day it's your choice if you believe we landed on the moon, personal I don't think we did due to one bit of evidence that was shown, 'Why are there no stars' in deep space there are bound to be stars but for some reason there weren't so it's only logical that the moon landing was filmed in the location of area 51, you may be thinking that's a load of rubbish because area 51 is to do with UFO's but have any of use ever seen one no, well I haven't personal. The facts are all there I hope that I this post has made you make up your mind.

  • noha

    3 months ago

    noha

    lol... does any one realize the reflecting beams from moon is NOT a proof of human moon landing. They have been getting things to reflect back from early 60s also does any one know about Surveyor (unmanned probe) landing on moon in 60s ??? As far as russians go has any one ever bothered to read any material written by any russian cosmonaut or scientist??? Its the same in russia Apart from government many have written about how the landing were faked and russians COULD NOT DETECT anything due to no proper technology , they had telescopes which could see apparently probes in lunar orbit but some how missed apollo in lunar orbit....

  • This comment was removed by a moderator

  • conor savill

    7 months ago

    conor savill

    We never went to the moon. I know this for a fact...

  • Andrew K

    8 months ago

    Andrew K

    Not only on human as ever landed on the moon (which is 240,000 mile away) but no human has ever traveled beyond 400 mile from the earth and came back alive - I know many people will get upset and start calling names like "Hoax Idiots" but that still doesn't change these facts. After another 50 years are we going to continue to say that "we went to the moon a century ago but we don't go there anymore because it's too expensive" ?... Who do you think will look more like an "idiot" then ?...

  • doug

    10 months ago

    doug

    C5 should be ahamed to broadcast this biaised nonsense. All hoax claims can easily be debunked - C5 should make a programme showing that instead.

  • Doug

    10 months ago

    Doug

    Channel 5 shoudl b eashamed of this terrible "documentary". All the claims in this programme can easily be debunked. Instead of making silly conspiracy documentaries C5 would get a larger audience if it were to comission a proper programme showing the real evidence that the missions happened.

  • cjcromonic

    10 months ago

    cjcromonic

    This is what i believe ,, i think that Nasa was under pressure to beat the Russians n they would do any thing to get ther , BUT , why havent we ever gone back , thru the years to go back n take more pics w the Rover n the other things we put on the moon , why did so many of the guys die before the flight n after wards , was the Govt hiding something n didnt was anyone to talk bout it ,, i think so , the Entity that truly runs this Govt i think is a bunch of crooks n they would do any thing to be on the top , its a shame that we the people have let our country go to a bunch of thugs w more money than we could imagine ,, to me if we went ther we would be goin back ther today ,, we would have building ther instead of a floating toilet going around n around ,we would have a bunch of condos up ther right now but we dont ,,so ther it is

  • Fred

    11 months ago

    Fred

    ADRIAN......you have confirmed your blind ignorance by stating you don't know what a laser reflector is. Quite simply it's a small reflective box that when hit with a laser fired from Earth, reflects it back to Earth (feels daft explaining this but quite clearly some people need the obvious stated). Isn't it far more sickening using dead people as a pawn in an utterly ridiculous pseudo-myth? Dragging their names into your delusion is the true insult to their legacy.

  • Bob Smith

    11 months ago

    Bob Smith

    This was really interesting and this documentary made me make up my mind that I do not believe man walked on the moon.

  • John

    11 months ago

    John

    i could answer most of the reasons put forward as why they didnt land on the moon, so why didnt ch5 ? its simple you either believe or you dont !. what a waste of air time !

  • jude austin

    11 months ago

    jude austin

    how is this for spooky, I watched it in southern Spain and apart from some pixilating due to stormy weather the whole programme was watched and the credits went up at the end, I have freeview here

  • This comment was removed by a moderator

  • adrian

    11 months ago

    adrian

    lol. you really believe we have anything on the moon such as a laser reflector (whatever that is) or orbiting the moon taking pictures? the facts speak for themselves. area 51 was and still is being used in relation to this hioax, and many good people have lost their lives to bring you the truth. denial of it tramples their memory into dust and is quite sickening.

  • Peter Johnson

    11 months ago

    Peter Johnson

    I'm loving the fact that all the people who can't spell are pro-documentary, and all the people who can spell believe we went to the moon. My money's on the people that can think rationally enough to string a sentence together being right.

  • Alan Simpson

    11 months ago

    Alan Simpson

    This 'mockumentary' is more a statement on the Human condition than a great piece of journalism. A few minor players suffer from the "If it seems incredible to me then it must be a fake" syndrome and pull together some half baked conspiracy theory that would need to involve 10s of thousands of people, none of whom have since come forward to say 'I faked the pictures or rigged the lights etc. etc.' No doubt the shuttle was a fake as well to these people. To go to such extreme lengths and expense to fake something would beg the question, wouldn't it just have been easier to go?? p.s. I'm one of those physicist types who have actually touched moon rock .... but no one asked me to 'fake it! but there again maybe I'm part of the cover up!!

  • Ahmed2004

    11 months ago

    Ahmed2004

    I cant believe that people think that people didn't land on the moon. First I wanted to be an astronaut but when I watched it it changed me

  • Dan

    11 months ago

    Dan

    This programme has truly saddened me. I can not believe that in 2013 channel five has willingly continued to air a completely unscientific and one sided account of the moon landings. All the show has done is feed the ignorant and naive, argument after argument AGAINST the moon landings without offering any counter arguments, and even acting like there isn't any! "NASA refutes the conspiracies" seems to be the only comeback. An example is the crosshairs seemingly vanishing behind objects....no counter argument was given, despite a well known effect of "bleeding" in which a very bright white objects will over expose a lens, meaning a small black line appears to disappear into it (note how all these "hidden crosshairs" appear on very white objects). Also the ratio of conspiracy theorists to believers seems to be about 10:1. Utterly appalling broadcasting, and such a shame.

  • John

    11 months ago

    John

    Discussing pseudo documentary. There was no balance to this program. The "facts" described, are dubious at the least. The things it claimed were unexplained have been easly and quickly explained decades ago. The work of great scientists, brilliant engineers and brave astranaughts have been cast aside in an pitiful attemt to fill an hour of tv with cheap rubish. CHANEL 5 YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED. UTERLY ASHAMED.

  • Ian Rees

    11 months ago

    Ian Rees

    By giving even the slightest credence to the conspiracy theorists, Channel 5 has just demonstrated what a lightweight broadcaster it is. Is it beyond them to produce a programme that has just a passing resemblance to a piece of serious and worthwhile journalism? You are beyond hope!

  • Chris

    11 months ago

    Chris

    The only issue is why crap like this 'programme' is being aired at all. We went to the moon. Do the research people, and get over it.

  • This comment was removed by a moderator

  • This comment was removed by a moderator

  • dman

    12 months ago

    dman

    fact usa always has to be number one and they sure were great making up and fooling the american public back then, why have they not attempted to go back?

  • This comment was removed by a moderator

  • Enginebelly 1972

    1 year ago

    Enginebelly 1972

    I live on the Moon and I can tell you that at no time have I ever been visited by people from the planet earth. If they do ever get to visit I would love a Big Mac or some of the amazing Cola your planet is renowned for.

  • Stephen

    1 year ago

    Stephen

    Example: Hubble or any telescope around/on earth in this moment has not enough resolving power to see the moon landing leftovers. You can check this statement yourself. Why is people asking for such tests when they don't know what they are taliking about? No need for Hubble check, though: we have the orbiter images taken in 2009.

  • Jimmy Smith

    1 year ago

    Jimmy Smith

    @ Dan You don't need a color TV at home or an iPhone in your pocket to be able to go to the moon. You mostly need (i) a BIG rocket; (ii) a BIG budget; (iii) BIG other things. Anyway, you don't need to *believe* moon landings as there are ways to check. What about the orbiter images of 2009? (oh yes, still NASA, it's the same scam going on for 50y...) What about the laser reflectors? Who knows if you even know what I am talking about. Probably in 50y somebody like you won't believe the Shuttle ever existed. He'll say maybe: how could it exist if now, in the future, we don't have it? Btw, did you know the shuttle control system run on 8086 chips, i.e. on of the first CPUs ever made?... and in flied in 2011! With those "medieval" chips. Yeah, it cannot be true.

  • Stephen

    1 year ago

    Stephen

    What is really unbelievable is how can some people still hold doubts about the moon landing. They have zero clue about what they are talking about... still they decide to speak.

  • mike

    1 year ago

    mike

    All six landing happened in a three year period when Richard Nixon was President. So that must make him the greatest U.S. leader. Just point Hubble at the moon and you should easily see the moon rover. Problem solved.

  • This comment was removed by a moderator

  • Dan

    1 year ago

    Dan

    Right we went six times in three years in a time when we had no colour tv, Internet, mobile phones but managed to record and send video from the moon. Six times in three years that's once every six months if its that easy to do then why not again in 41 years. Nothing at all to do with the Russians now being able to track exactly where we are now (by the way since they developed this technology the Americans actually cancelled the last three missions) don't bleet about how unfair these opinions are just prove us all wrong and go back !

  • CWeir

    1 year ago

    CWeir

    So, I've got a better question. Those who have a degree in engineering, science or other technological related field state what you believe - and the rest state what they believe. Here's what I'd expect - 99%+ of the former believe we landed on the moon. The scientific illeterate would be closer to 50%. Not everyone is a scientist, and very few people properly understand the physics - so they end up making opinions and following through with false reasoning to come to the conclusion that the landings were faked. Think of it this way: The fact that at the time the USA and the USSR were in a neverending battle of "I can do this better than you", don't you think the USSR would cry foul the second something didn't make sense? The USSR would have been monitoring these landing like a hawk - and had the technology to do it. The landings happened. Get a physics book out and start learning if you doubt it.

  • goble

    1 year ago

    goble

    if some one show me the LM from earth i will ,but no give all stupet answers

  • This comment was removed by a moderator

  • anom

    1 year ago

    anom

    If you don't believe go on images and put niel armstrongs foot print on the moon

  • Lunar Roving Vehicle

    1 year ago

    Lunar Roving Vehicle

    I want to see Lunar Roving Vehicle on the moon, surely hubble telescope can take a picture.

  • Al Lee

    1 year ago

    Al Lee

    I'm one of those engineers in Australia who was monitoring the link that NASA hired from Telecom Australia to get the moon pictures from the Parks radio telescope to the Overseas Telecommunications Station earth station at Moree for transmission via the pacific satellite to Huston. I watched the pictures from the moon with no interruption in the American television standard (525 lines black and white). They were lot better quality than we see in the recordings available today (mostly recorded in Huston after a further satellite link across the world). Unfortunately we had no video recorders available to do direct recordings at the time (they were prohibitively expensive and Telecom had no need for them. Australian TV stations who recorded the landing got all there pictures back from Huston, further deteriorated by the (then very poor) standards conversion equipment to the 625 line Australian standard. It's a crying shame that the moon camera wasn't 625. line. Creating these pictures from a special studio which would have needed to be set up at the Parks telescope in the outback of New South Wales would have been quite an achievement for the American government in 1969. Someone would have blabbed. Getting those pictures to the telescope (which was of course tracking the moon) was just plain impossible (unless they were coming from the moon). The pictures really did come from the moon. Just think how hard it would have been in 1969 to simulate the "speed of light " delay in the conversation of the astronauts with president Nixon. He was really stumbling to carry on that talk. Didn't someone tell him about the time delay? Those requirements for Australian links deprived the ABC of their means to carry on gettin programming to their regional TV transmitters, so they had to set up their own links with OB vans on mountain tops. Any conspiracy would have been reported by someone. There were too many people involved.

  • Daniel

    1 year ago

    Daniel

    My favourite argument against the moon landing having been faked: "If the NASA went to such lengths to fake an achievement... they'd have a second one by now." =D

  • Elliot Nesterman

    1 year ago

    Elliot Nesterman

    The best explanation of why the moon landing could NOT have been faked. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sGXTF6bs1IU

  • Pete

    over 1 year ago

    Pete

    Wow 43 years on and it's still courting such interest. Think about this if it was all fake and produced in a movie studio why are there soo many so-called "mistakes"; how could a production crew be that incompetent. Fact is stranger than fiction. Man HAS walked on the moon.

  • Shirley Bullock

    over 1 year ago

    Shirley Bullock

    I watched the moon landing program with increasing interest and I am now certain the whole thing was faked. Well done Ch. 5 for airing this prickly subject. what convinced me were the hatch lines obscured by the astronoughts, someone forgot to take them out it seems. So my question is: where is the USA Political fallout from the evidence this program presents?? Surely it would have caused a storm?

  • IT's All A FAKE!!!!

    over 1 year ago

    IT's All A FAKE!!!!

    Lol My tv screwed up as well. very strange timing, and quite convenient for NASA...

  • This comment was removed by a moderator

  • Simes

    over 1 year ago

    Simes

    Tony G, your patience is admirable. There is something in the human psyche that makes some people always reject what everyone else accepts to such an extent that they believe the whole world is in a conspiracy against them. They don't need explanations so much as treatment. Then there are the toe-rags who pretend they don't believe just to wind up people like ourselves who go to the futile trouble of trying to educate them. Such people are a waste of food and oxygen. Then there are those who believe everything they read in the papers or see on the idiot-lantern. People too stupid to form an opinion of their own. Any adult claiming to believe the moon-landings were faked (and it is a merely a 'belief' based on faith, not the facts) should be pitied ... and ignored. And, ideally, not allowed to vote or post online! (The same people will believe the stories about there being canals / a B52 / a face / Egyptian pyramids on the moon.)

  • This comment was removed by a moderator

  • Eiz

    over 1 year ago

    Eiz

    Don't waste your time trying to explainthings that have been explained a million times. Not even the cleaning lady of Channel5 belives this shit, audience is the sole purpose, so don't waste your time. Conspiranoids are always going to exist. And like Einstein said, there is only one thing which we know for sure is infinite...

  • Eiz

    over 1 year ago

    Eiz

    For centuries, there was many people who thought Earth was the center of Universe, static and plain. Although those had an excuse. Good job channel5, those who sell their reasoning for a pinch of share. /facepalm

  • Tony G

    over 1 year ago

    Tony G

    Keith and Sam - the reason why the astronaut is visible while still in the shadow of the LEM can be explained due to the properties of the lunar dust and a well known optical effect called heiligenschein. The sun is the only source of natural light in the solar system, but the surface of the moon reflects light back the way it comes (and is also about 70 times more reflective than was expected). The picture of the astronaut on the ladder has the sun behind the LEM so there is a shadow as can be clearly seen BUT the light from the sun is being reflected back the way it came so it reflecting on the astronaut making him appear to be lit up by a second light source behind the camera even though he is in a shadow. In case you are wondering the effect (heiligenschein) is common on Earth early in the morning on dew soaked playing fields. Keith, your second point is well documented – the loss of the LEM but the mountains stay the same....on Earth, we judge size and distance through approximate reference points i.e. a tree but on the moon it becomes extremely difficult to judge size or distance due to the lack of reference points. This distance/size problem is further compounded by the lack of atmosphere on the moon – the further an object is from us on Earth the more obscured it is by the particles in the atmosphere and we learn to use the hazing of objects to also judge distance. Unfortunately on the moon there is no atmosphere so all detail is very sharp as can be seen in the clarity of every photo taken. Finally hold your thumb at arms length with an object a few metres behind it – close your left eye and the open it and close your right eye – your thumb will appear to move but the object behind it stays in the same place! The photographs of the mountains used in the film suffer from these problems (and a bit of creative editing to doctor the photograph showing the mountains without the LEM as the original foreground in that photograph has been blurred – there is a small boulder field on just the mountain picture which isn’t in the photograph which has both the LEM and mountains in it). The mountains are actually several kilometres away and the LEM is just 30 metres away from the camera – if you took the first photograph and then were to move slightly to the right so the LEM isn’t in view and look at the mountains, they would appear almost exactly the same because you are almost the same distance away from them. The shadows that go in different directions in the same photograph is at the same time tricky and easy to explain. Firstly the easy bit - if multiple lighting was used (i.e. on a film set) then each object must have multiple shadows as can be seen when watching footballers playing under floodlights. Each player will have one shadow for each floodlight. The pictures shown in the documentary clearly show one shadow per object although in different directions – the conspiracy theory on the documentary by accepting this is already blown out of the water as there is only one shadow per object not multiple shadows that would have to exist if there is more than one light source. But to explain why the effect is natural is the hard part due to several factors being in play at the same time; the natural reflectiveness of the lunar dust, the angle of the sun on the horizon, the wide angle camera lens used by the Apollo astronauts (photographers have long known that a wide angle lens distorts the perspective they see) and the topography of the lunar surface – couple these together under the right conditions and shadows from a single light source will go in different directions as confirmed by Mythbusters in 2008 who explained that the shadows were not parallel because of the way the light falls on the Moon’s natural topography. Really it is all to do with angles – if you took the same variables but photographed the scene from above the shadows will appear parallel. Keith – I object to being hinted at as being narrow minded – the jury was still out for me on the moon landings until I saw a video of the Apollo 15 hammer and feather drop experiment by David Scott which is something they didn’t put in the documentary for obvious reasons as it can’t be faked.

  • Sam

    over 1 year ago

    Sam

    It has been mentioned in a number of posts about the light source and shadows from/to different directions. Whoever mentioned one of the light sources being light reflection from Earth is up the creek. The Sun is the most 'intense' light source on the Moon and would give equally intense shadows, yet how in heaven's name could such intense shadows come from mere Earth glow on the 'sunny' side of the Moon- of course not, ha, ha! The multiple shadows seen in the photographs were caused by 'other' than sunlight (or earth glow) - so could only be created by studio lighting on the Moon set here on Earth. Nasa really screwed up there alright! Man didn't go, but that's not to say that crewless robotic landings haven't taken place - to place laser reflectors, etc.

  • fairy

    over 1 year ago

    fairy

    of course we landed on the moon. NASA, every day send a laser to the moon. the moon has a 'mirror' on it and they wait for the laser to come back to earth. now unless someone put it there, then how did it get there. think about that...........

  • michael

    over 1 year ago

    michael

    This documentary shown me the truth that nasa involving the the former goverment of the united states together they have perfomed the biggest hoak of all time . One piece of evidence that has made me change my decsion and that is the flag of the United States of America waving on the Moon that is just immpossible ,when their is no atmosphere on the moon.

  • Keith Barraclough

    over 1 year ago

    Keith Barraclough

    Keibarr To Tony G. You expend an awful lot of ink, waffling about footprints. But do not try to explain two pieces of film, showing the same hill, one with a lem, and the same shot, without. Or, shadows coming from four different directions. The module in bright sunlight, with the sun behind it. There are many more anomalies, which you choose not to broach, narrow minded..?

  • Sam

    over 1 year ago

    Sam

    I don't know what areas viewers lost the signal, but in the South the whole programme transmitted perfectly. Only problem for me was I fell asleep for the last five minutes or so as, for many years, I have never believed that the first mission ever went to the Moon and that view hasn't changed now - with or without the programme and with or without the so-called 'expert' opinions on here. I watched it live on TV by the way as a child.

  • Tony G

    over 1 year ago

    Tony G

    My final moans on this programme: Capricorn one - "The Apollo footage is strikingly similar to the scenes in Capricorn One" - the movie was published in 1978, so to suggest that the Apollo 11 footage looked similar to the Capricorn One footage is wrong - Apollo 11 came first in 1969 so the Capricorn One footage actually looks like the Apollo 11 footage not the other way round as is clearly hinted at in the documentary. The programme even goes as far as to further hint that the words spoken from the moon are almost the same as the dialog in Capricorn One without any explanation. Area 51 - Why did the documentary have to doubt the intelligence of people - yes the craters look the same - all craters have a degree of similarity as they are caused by objects impacting on the surface of a larger object.....the shadows are making them look the same, take that same photo at another time of day and they will look different. But my main objection is the "Film sets are still there - hence the security" - are you really trying to suggest that the millions of dollars spent by the US government on security at Area 51 is because they couldn't be bothered to remove the film set after Apollo 17 in 1972?...... LEM design - the footage of a prototype LEM crashing while under testing is factually wrong - it was in 1968, a year before the Apollo 11 mission not "the few months before" as the commentary will have us believe, also the footage clearly shows just the altitude thrusters are being used which are used to help slow the descent of the LEM to the moon (more on that below).... Also why does the documentary make the claim that "the atmosphere of Earth a controlled environment" while the moon is an "alien environment"? The atmosphere of Earth is not able to be controlled due to atmospheric conditions such as wind so to hint at the LEM crashing on Earth but not the moon is poor. The moon has no atmosphere so the LEM should be more stable due to the very fact that there are no atmospheric conditions such as wind to hamper the descent of the LEM. Again no scientific basis was made as to why the LEM crashed in the footage only it "landed 6 times perfectly on the moon"..... Footprints/Blast craters - "To have a powerful rocket engine blast the surface of the moon, blasting away all the dust and then find footprints surrounding the lunar lander" is an absolutely shocking statement to have in even this poor documentary. The documentary made a passing reference on the two engine types – the ascent engine and the altitude engines - I doubt that the documentary makers even looked at a basic diagram of the LEM – as the large engine is always labelled clearly as the ascent engine; the hint to its use is in the name! The documentary allows it to be hinted at that “engine” is fired all the way to the surface of the moon and should have wiped away all the footprints. Even if the ascent engine had been fired during the descent stage, there would have been no footprints around the LEM because the astronauts hadn't LANDED on it and got out and WALKED around! So to suggest that the footprint would have been destroyed by the engine is just laughable but unfortunately the documentary tries to explain the nonsense through the use of vivid commentary and cartoon style pictures that people remember. The footprints would only be caused AFTER the LEM had landed so the engine would never remove the footprints UNTIL it was fired during the final ascent stage, therefore the footprints would be in EVERY photograph ever taken during the Apollo missions. The ascent engine is used to lift the LEM back off the surface (hence it’s big to provide the thrust required to break free of the moon’s gravity) and the altitude engines which are small and are used to slow the descent to the surface (which is correctly identified on the programme as having little effect on the loose dust on the surface of the moon). The rubbish continues when they ask why/how isn’t there a blast engine crater under the LEM? There can never be a blast crater on any of the photographs taken by the astronauts as the ascent engine has not been fired, again no actual facts are really investigated to try and explain the lack of blast crater and reason for the footprints being visible.

  • Diane

    over 1 year ago

    Diane

    Thanks to Tony G for taking the time to explain things, I didn't want to believe what they were saying on the programme but some things did make me think again. Thanks for restoring my love for Nasa and space travel.

  • Iain Kings

    over 1 year ago

    Iain Kings

    Watching this now because I recorded it. This program has wound me up so much. Every reputable source says we went. The Soviets never accused NASA of foul play. No lunar astronaut or flight controller or engineer has ever 'blown the whistle', which, let's face it is remarkable given that government agencies are historically very bad at covering things up. The arguments of the conspiracists have all been scientifically explained (footprints, photographs, blast crater, etc). The main point is that after watching this, some people will be convinced by the programme. Yes, everyone should criticise what they're told - not blindly believe it. But if you're proven wrong, you should accept it, not continously twist your argument like the conspiracy theorists do. MythBusters did experiments on 5 of the effects that were cited showing that the effect could be recreated. Why didn't you do experiments to show that they couldn't be recreated in rebuttal? This programme was an insult to the intelligence of the British public. Sensationalist soundbites, biased narration, and practically no footage of direct explanation of why it wasn't a conspiracy. Do us a favour and give over the time for science and engineering programming to educational programs. Maybe you'd get people interested in maths, physics, engineering, etc. God knows we need more interest in that rather than reality TV. Awful.

  • Tony G

    over 1 year ago

    Tony G

    As a science teacher there is just so much wrong with this programme (I admit some people have a view that the voyages to the moon didn’t happen and they are right to have that view), but can you please have some balance as such programme are allowing a generation of young people to doubt scientific facts in favour of wild, unfounded speculation as this type of programme does not present the converse arguments (the scientific facts) in the same way as the speculation is presented. The missing engine noise - a year 7 (11 to 12 year old) in my science class can explain why there is no sound of the engines in space - space is a vacuum so no particles to transmit the sound of the engines onwards up to the microphone in a sealed compartment in the LEM. The flag waving myth is just plain silly – NASA wanted the US flag to be clearly seen in any photograph so they came up with the idea of having arms on the flag that would prevent the flag from hanging down due to the lack of atmosphere - the bottom arm of the flag broke during assembly causing the flag to hang down (plus there is gravity on the moon which would have a small effect on the flag). Look at the actual footage and it is only the broken bottom right quarter of the flag that is waving, the entire top and bottom left quarter of the flag remains fully extended and in any case the flag is only moving when there is a astronaut’s hand on the flag itself. The idea that if you speed up a film it looks like the astronauts are running is a daft argument at best – you can speed up any film to look like something else is happening, film a slowly dripping tap, speed the film up and you have a quickly dripping tap. Speed up astronauts moving slowly over the surface of the moon and they look like they are running There are three types of radiation (alpha, beta and gamma), a thin sheet of aluminium (3mm thick) stops alpha particles and most of the Van Allen belt is made up of.....alpha particles!!! Plus the film fails to quote the correct distance that the Van Allen belt stretches into space – around 60,000 kilometres (not the 363,103 km that is the closest the moon gets to the Earth). So a trip through the belt is not any cause for concern (satellites with nominal shielding operate quite safely in the belt) as the Apollo moon missions quickly pass through the belt with their 3 part aluminium command module (aluminum inner skin, a thermally bonded honeycomb core, and a thin aluminum outer coating) – note this is the command module not the LEM which didn’t need the shielding as it was only used to get to and from the surface of the moon which isn’t in the Van Allen belt! The temperatures quoted in the programme are simply wrong – look up the temperature range and it is no-where near -250° in the shade to 250° in the sunlight range quoted in the programme – the range quoted mixes up Celsius and Fahrenheit scales to illustrate the point - I wonder why the scale used was never quoted!!! The photos are again easy to explain and I have used a similar technique myself – take a lot of photos of the same thing and then assemble them to form a great photo which can be released to the public – hence the appearance of all the Apollo photographs being taken by professional photographers – slightly misleading but understandable – the people who assembled the photographs didn’t allow for the crosshairs in some of the pieced together photographs. This would also explain the differing shadows in some of the photograph – they were pieced together from lots of different photographs taken at different times during the missions and no one took into account the shadows (except those coming up with conspiracy theories). Also the filmed motion footage was bound to get mixed up – hence the usage of the same/similar footage is incorrectly used to explain the different stages of the mission. There are a couple of things I couldn’t explain straight away such as lack of stars in the photographs – but a 30 second Google search provided the explanation and photograph evidence (http://www.skywise711.com/Skeptic/MoonPics/MoonPics.html) to back up the idea (the moon is very bright so rapid exposure times were used hence the low light of the stars weren’t picked up).

  • mark blake

    over 1 year ago

    mark blake

    What a joke. I have never known a programe cut off half way through without comment from a tv company. Shame on you c5

  • Will

    over 1 year ago

    Will

    Anthony French, I think getting curiosity to mars is a greater feat then man on the moon

  • This comment was removed by a moderator

  • Hannah

    over 1 year ago

    Hannah

    We didn't. 1) they look like they could fall off the moon at any moment. If they did lad the moon would be flat not curved. 2) what time of day did they land? When its dark on earth the moon lights up so wouldn't it be hot or too bright to film? If it was daytime on earth wouldn't the moon be dark and they still couldn't film. 3) if there's no gravity when they kick dust shouldn't it float up? As for crators on the moon cause by us landing - seriously you wouldn't even notice, if you can see a burnt ring from where we've landed on the moon from a telescope its a miracle it would be so tiny you wouldn't notice it. The massive crators on the moon are not made by a rocket it would have to be massive and hit the moon with force to leave a print you could from a telescope. They may have landed but lost the film, the film they showed was definately a fraud.

  • This comment was removed by a moderator

  • This comment was removed by a moderator

  • T. Rollingston

    over 1 year ago

    T. Rollingston

    Unmanned Drones

  • Gerald Roberts

    over 1 year ago

    Gerald Roberts

    The answer lies in the radio telemetry signals. The voice and data signals from the Apollo vehicles were monitored from every continent on earth using highly directional aerial arrays. The interested parties included schools, colleges, engineering teams, defence organisations on both sides of the iron curtain - all eager to learn from this venture and to pick holes in it, if there were any. During times when, because of the earths rotation, the vehicles were not visible from the USA, monitoring relied on radio stations in overlapping locations around the earth such as Africa, the UK and Australia. The sceptics need to demonstrate how you get technically convincing and appropriate data signals to appear simultaneously at all these dispersed monitoring stations whilst actually coming from somewhere in the USA. So, thousands of electronic engineers around the world watched this live, at the time and did not cry foul. Especially the russians who had some skills in this area.

  • This comment was removed by a moderator

  • Chris Throup

    over 1 year ago

    Chris Throup

    It was scrambled on the tv but if you were watching online it was playing fine. I personally wasnt watching it but when it went off I could access it through a third party site showing it live.

  • antony

    over 1 year ago

    antony

    Justa Flash Grodon Movie, for me the conspiracy theorists are the clowns who believed it did happen. It never needed to !

  • gary

    over 1 year ago

    gary

    If you stand under a lamp post at night can you see stars? NO

  • gary

    over 1 year ago

    gary

    gary Full moon on earth you have shaddows so what would happen on the moon? Second light source the earth?

  • daniel nicholson

    over 1 year ago

    daniel nicholson

    if you watched the moon landing live you will have seen there was no stars in view. the flag was waving even though there is no air on the moon. there was no lanch crate at the bottom of the shuttle. 12 astronorts mysteriously died after defecting from nasa. the most powerful telescope in the world could not se any of the apollo mission remains on the moon. do i need to continue

  • Adam Davies

    over 1 year ago

    Adam Davies

    The moon landing was not real THATS THE END OF IT!!!!!

  • Tony

    over 1 year ago

    Tony

    If this programme was really about answering the question it posed, it should have lasted about 2 seconds and consisted of a person saying "Yes" to camera. Cue end titles.

  • Barrie

    over 1 year ago

    Barrie

    barrie i hav never bleave in moon landed as the programe show America want people bleave the history tecnolog ar more popela now than the 60s.they most come out and tel people the real history

  • capricorn one

    over 1 year ago

    capricorn one

    the bigger question is - is the moon real, or just a card board cut out made to justify NASA (which is a USA department of defence organisation) spending billions of US dollars on fake missions

  • char

    over 1 year ago

    char

    It was so convincing in a very biased and repetetive way, now I just want to hear nasa defend themself so I can work out a proper opinion and judgement!

  • AndyFields

    over 1 year ago

    AndyFields

    I did not lose transmission. I thought the debate was interesting and perhaps shows that we should not believe everything we are told.

  • Mike O'Halloran

    over 1 year ago

    Mike O'Halloran

    What on earth (or perhaps the moon?!) do you call the above programme? It's certainly not a documentary. It advertises itself as an unbiased presentation of the moon landings and evidence which suggests the moon landings were faked. However, unless this is a 2 part episode, there was practically zero defence presented to the contrary of the conspiracy theories. The programme starts badly and ends even worse. Discussion that craters near Area 51 were used as a set to resemble craters on the moons is ludicrous! There is no mention in the programme that the craters are in fact test location of below ground nuclear weapons testing. Also, they are not in a protected military area where someone, as claimed, would be killed for entering (the implication being that it's part of the cover up). You can in fact take a tour around the area! In the same part of the episode it's claimed that there are hangers that look like they could be film studios?! Well of course!! I could go on and on and on and point out other MASSIVE inaccuracies that we only hear one side of the debate and virtually no scientifically sound rebuttle but I have neither the time nor the inclination. However, I will pick umbrage at the implication that 3 of the Apollo astronauts were suspiciously killed. The programme made no mention to the 100% oxygen atmosphere in the capsule and the identified arcing noted on internal electronics of which were almost certainly the cause of the fire. There was nothing at all suspicious about the fire and any implications to the contrary is an insult to the lives of the astronauts that lost their lives, their families and the dedicated scientists at NASA. You should, quite frankly, be ashamed for broadcasting such sensationalist nonsense.

  • This comment was removed by a moderator

  • This comment was removed by a moderator

  • This comment was removed by a moderator

  • Patty

    over 1 year ago

    Patty

    Funny it went off at the exact time of the Astronauts suspicious deaths of course this does not happen in the west does it? As regards failed transmission we have special relationship with America - we are their 51st state maybe we should just limit ourselves to bubble gum TV e.g. 43 st bloke

  • ReeceJames

    over 1 year ago

    ReeceJames

    This show isn't available online. hmm i wonder why.... :/

  • Christina

    over 1 year ago

    Christina

    this is SO funny! I got the blue screen of death on my laptop as I was posting a comment!! I've now started watching on channel 5 +1, hope I manage to watch minutes 30 to 55 this time... C5 you are so rude not to have offered an apology or explanation yet!

  • Amy

    over 1 year ago

    Amy

    hum this is interesting that everyone has the same problem, it's the only channel affected. If some is blocking it, what are they so worried about, you know the saying, if you've got nothing to hide the you've got nothing to be worried about.

  • Mark

    over 1 year ago

    Mark

    Should never doubt what no bodies really sure about! Glad it was half-shown anyhow since it has compounded my views on whether this was a load of BS anyhow. Feel sorry for the people who still believe.

  • jimfort

    over 1 year ago

    jimfort

    Regardless of content, this program was an assault on the senses, awful relentless music, repeating images and video over and over again, dreadful overbearing voiceover, it took a Herculean effort to sit through what could have been an interesting hours banter.

  • David Faulkner

    over 1 year ago

    David Faulkner

    Well that was fun...lets see if the Aussies get all tetchy about Chris Tarrent if he starts saying their train isnt awesome!!!!

  • This comment was removed by a moderator

  • Tracy

    over 1 year ago

    Tracy

    Why does everyone keep blamming Nasa, i'm sure it's channel five in charge of thieir own equipment, but hey I suppose you never know.

  • Keith Langford

    over 1 year ago

    Keith Langford

    Keefers I believe NASA have a satellite above the UK, and are deliberately blocking out the signal......How very strange that it is THE ONLY CHANNEL EFFECTED.....and now suddenly if has just returned in time for the END!!

  • David Faulkner

    over 1 year ago

    David Faulkner

    It just come back on exactly at the point when the NASA guy being interviewed said 'NASA put men on the moon - bottom line" then it went off again!!!!

  • Bob Taylor

    over 1 year ago

    Bob Taylor

    I have never seen such a biased, slanted piece of sensationalised rubbish as this so-called "documentary". The "flaws" picked up by people with peripheral or zero knowledge of what went on have been debunked so many times by people who actually KNOW what they are talking about. In the 43 years since the first moon landing, it would be impossible to keep such a widespread "conspiracy" secret. The mix of 95% conspiracy theory to 5% real evidence is bad journalism, bad science and disgustingly partisan!

  • This comment was removed by a moderator

  • David Faulkner

    over 1 year ago

    David Faulkner

    Lost visual and got sound back...now its all gone again!!! This is cool....looks like we cant handle the truth!!

  • Christina

    over 1 year ago

    Christina

    thanks toughcookie, scrambled was the word I was looking for, I have now lost sound as well; is anybody from channel 5 aware of this? if yes it might be good PR to just post a message on this board please....

  • David Faulkner

    over 1 year ago

    David Faulkner

    Oooooh spooky!!!

  • HG

    over 1 year ago

    HG

    Oooh, sound gone again now. NASA you're just making it worse.

  • NASA/men in black

    over 1 year ago

    NASA/men in black

    Please everybody look towards my light so i can wipe your memory.

  • Jake

    over 1 year ago

    Jake

    And here in Staffordshire,bit suspicious isn't it,makes you think that NASA have got something to hide,it said "no sinal" then went black,got audio after 10 minutes,but no image-Sort it out C5!

  • stripes

    over 1 year ago

    stripes

    how come channel 5 went off (data channel, no signal) for 15 mins during this conspiracy program ??

  • Christina

    over 1 year ago

    Christina

    this is hilarious, but seriously channel 5, will you at least fix this so that we get a second chance on channel 5 +1?

  • lizzy

    over 1 year ago

    lizzy

    It's coz we're getting to the truth....

  • Neil

    over 1 year ago

    Neil

    No picture! wooooo

  • Di

    over 1 year ago

    Di

    Why has this programme suddenly been inaccessable? I've just been watching it and now, after the break, I my TV tells me 'this programme is not tuned'. Very strange isn't it???????

  • William Norman

    over 1 year ago

    William Norman

    I've just lost Channel Five's programme about the Moon Lnadings hoax. My TV displays 'NO SIGNAL' and yet I can get all other channels. Why? Odd.

  • toughcookie

    over 1 year ago

    toughcookie

    The tv programme signal has been scrambled half way through!

  • Tracy

    over 1 year ago

    Tracy

    what happened to the show, my tv has just gone black and it says no information available.

  • Christina

    over 1 year ago

    Christina

    same here, from Derby It went black and after ten minutes it is now giving me just audio.... did nasa decide to cut it lol channel 5, please fix your problem

  • 123

    over 1 year ago

    123

    Stoped working here.

  • HG

    over 1 year ago

    HG

    What's going on? Has NASA intercepted this programme? I have sound now but still no picture.

  • karen kibler

    over 1 year ago

    karen kibler

    why has this ended. now????

  • This comment was removed by a moderator

  • Gary Day

    over 1 year ago

    Gary Day

    there is a orbitor around the moon taking high res photos and one site it has photographed is the apollo 17 site where you can see the tracks made by the lunar rover and see the landers decent stage

  • Anthony French

    over 1 year ago

    Anthony French

    The conspiracy theorists really don't know what they're taking about. I have friends who don't believe it happened just because they can't comprehend 1960's technology was more capable than modern tech. We went to the Moon - FACT. Apollo is mankind's greatest achievement - FACT.

  • Jim Bridge

    over 1 year ago

    Jim Bridge

    Isn't it amazing that some people have doubts about whether they actually landed on the moon. The fact that there is a laser reflector on the moon's surface, which is used daily, is surely a serious piece of evidence for those doubters. Stillm aybe the Earth is flat then.

Blank_avatar