Up 8,739 this week

Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? (2001)

TV Movie  -   -  Documentary  -  15 February 2001 (USA)
Your rating:
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -/10 X  
Ratings: 5.8/10 from 573 users  
Reviews: 37 user | 1 critic

Were the Apollo moon landings faked?


0Check in

User Lists

Related lists from IMDb users

a list of 316 titles
created 15 May 2012
a list of 1062 titles
created 14 Jul 2012
a list of 87 titles
created 20 Nov 2012
a list of 86 titles
created 02 Apr 2013
a list of 185 titles
created 9 months ago

Connect with IMDb

Share this Rating

Title: Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? (TV Movie 2001)

Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? (TV Movie 2001) on IMDb 5.8/10

Want to share IMDb's rating on your own site? Use the HTML below.

Take The Quiz!

Test your knowledge of Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?.


Complete credited cast:
Narrator (voice)
Rest of cast listed alphabetically:
Thomas Ronald Baron ...
Himself (archive footage)
Paul Fjeld ...
Betty Grissom ...
Scott Grissom ...
Bill Kaysing ...
Paul Lazarus III ...
Jan Lundberg ...
Howard McCurdy ...
Himself (as Howard McCurdy Ph.D.)
Brian O'Leary ...
David S. Percy ...
Geoffrey Reeves ...
Himself (as Dr. Geoffrey Reeves)
Ralph René ...
Julian Scheer ...
Bart Sibrel ...


Skeptics analyze the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence that men landed on the moon in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Their conclusion: NASA faked the moon landings! Evidence of deception includes: the physical problems inherent in rocket control; the lack of a blast crater under the LM descent engine; the lack of stars in the lunar sky; discrepancies and similarities in the shadows and backgrounds of moon photos; flag waving on an airless moon; and the presence of deadly radiation in interplanetary space. The skeptics contend that astronauts have never flown beyond the Van Allen radiation belt. Written by yortsnave

Plot Summary | Add Synopsis







Release Date:

15 February 2001 (USA)  »

Company Credits

Production Co:

Show detailed on  »

Technical Specs



See  »

Did You Know?


Featured in MoonFaker: Carrying the Liar (2007) See more »


Walking On The Moon
Performed by The Police
See more »

Frequently Asked Questions

This FAQ is empty. Add the first question.

User Reviews

Responding to Ted
8 August 2001 | by (Utah) – See all my reviews

People still go on about the expected crater under the lunar module without explaining why they think they should see one.

The contention that the people sympathetic to NASA weren't given much air time because they didn't have much to say is garbage. I know for a fact that astronaut Brian O'Leary is livid about how selectively the Fox program presented his comments. Dr. O'Leary is penning a rebuttal which will be published on my web site. I have been informed by friends of NASA spokesperson Brian Welch (now deceased) that his comments were also heavily and misleadingly edited. These people spoke at length to the producers of the "documentary".

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that when you grant an interview to the producers of a program, they -- not you -- control the final version. It's much more reasonable to believe that the NASA spokesmen, astronauts, and engineers weren't given much screen time because the producers of the program didn't want them to have much screen time. I have the luxury of knowing what Dr. O'Leary said to the producers, but which WASN'T included. I suspect Mr. Welch gave similarly detailed comments.

Where's the rebuttal? Fox aired it a few weeks after the second airing of this program. Considering that the Fox network thrives on sensationalist and controversial programming from which it typically does not flinch (e.g., "Temptation Island"), the fact that they would provide air time to retract the implications of this program tells us a great deal about the reliability of its conclusions.

There are also a number of web sites both in an out of NASA where these charges are rebutted point by point. I happen to run one.

Ted says that when he examines the examples of obscured fiducials (crosshairs) he concludes, along with the producers of the program, that the only reasonable explanation is a darkroom shenanigan. That's because the viewers were shown ONLY the examples of missing fiducials which support that contention. If you look at ALL the examples of missing fiducials you realize that the cut-and-paste argument falls completely flat. But most viewers won't double-check the producers to that extent, and that's what the producers are counting on.

Any photographer can explain in minute detail why the fiducials disappear "behind" bright objects. It's emulsion bleed. It's well understood and it accounts for ALL the evidence, not just the few the producers wanted you to see.

No, this program is not any kind of serious or credible investigation into anything. It's a load of fallacious arguments based on naive or factually incorrect assumptions, coupled with unbridled speculation and selectively chosen testimony and evidence.

21 of 34 people found this review helpful.  Was this review helpful to you?

Message Boards

Recent Posts
The biggest load of bullcrap res-monder
Where can I buy the video? r62ewa
Did Japan undertake the space mition mentioned in the movie ? zaida2000
The 'Moon': A Ridiculous Liberal Myth ShiiStyle
Confused barrababe
show's rating smcbee27

Contribute to This Page

Create a character page for: