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

Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? (2001) (TV) More at IMDbPro »

Photos (See all 2 | slideshow)


User Rating:
5.7/10   721 votes »
Your Rating:
Saving vote...
Deleting vote...
/10   (delete | history)
Sorry, there was a problem
Popularity: ?
Down 14% in popularity this week. See why on IMDbPro.
John Moffet (written by) &
Craig Titley (written by) ...
View company contact information for Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? on IMDbPro.
Release Date:
15 February 2001 (USA) See more »
Were the Apollo moon landings faked? Full summary » | Add synopsis »
User Reviews:
The explanations!! See more (39 total) »


  (in credits order) (complete, awaiting verification)

Mitch Pileggi ... Himself - Narrator (voice)
Bill Kaysing ... Himself - Moon Hoax Investigator

Brian Welch ... Himself - NASA Spokesman
Brian O'Leary ... Himself - NASA Astronaut
Howard McCurdy ... Himself - Space Historian, American University (as Howard McCurdy Ph.D.)
Julian Scheer ... Himself - Former NASA Spokesman
Paul N. Lazarus III ... Himself - Producer, Capricorn One (as Paul Lazarus III)
Ralph René ... Himself - Author & Scientist
Paul Fjeld ... Himself - NASA LEM Specialist
David S. Percy ... Himself - Royal Photographic Society
Bart Sibrel ... Himself - Investigative Journalist
Jan Lundberg ... Himself - Project Engineer, Hasselblad
Scott Grissom ... Himself - Son of Gus Grissom
Betty Grissom ... Herself - Widow of Gus Grissom
Thomas Ronald Baron ... Himself - Safety Inspector (archive footage)
Geoffrey Reeves ... Himself - Space Physicist (as Dr. Geoffrey Reeves)
Boris Valentinovich Volinov ... Himself - Russian Cosmonaut

Directed by
John Moffet 
Writing credits
John Moffet (written by) &
Craig Titley (written by) &
Dan Signer (written by) &
Dave Boone (written by) &
Bruce Nash (written by)

Produced by
Gregory Carroll .... story producer (as Greg Carroll)
Susan Cingari .... field producer
David Franzke .... line producer (as David R. Franzke)
Alec Griffith .... field producer
Frank Grimes .... field producer
Shirley Jackson .... associate producer
Michael J. Miller .... co-executive producer
John Moffet .... producer
Bruce Nash .... executive producer
Bill Nevievs .... field producer
Masha Nordbye .... segment producer
Dan Signer .... co-producer
Craig Titley .... co-executive producer
Original Music by
Shawn K. Clement 
Film Editing by
Jacquie Dincauze  (as Jacqueline Dincauze)
Rick Frazier 
Production Management
Andrew Jebb .... executive in charge of production
Kim Kappler .... production manager
Sound Department
James Ledner .... sound mixer (as Jamie Ledner)
Editorial Department
Chuck Crews .... on-line editor
Jeffrey Scott Jones .... supervising editor
Yvete Morales .... assistant editor (as Yvette Morales)
Valerie Overfield .... assistant editor
Other crew
Phyllis Allison .... script supervisor
Sarah Allison .... assistant to executive producer (as Sara Allison)
Curt Clendenin .... office production assistant
Jacqueline Fernandez-Ireland .... clearance supervisor
Tom Martin .... assistant to executive producer
Nicole Nash .... researcher
Charlotte Skye .... production assistant
Crafty St. James .... production assistant
Julie Wieland .... production assistant
Crew believed to be complete

Production CompaniesDistributorsOther Companies

Additional Details

Also Known As:
45 min

Did You Know?

Movie Connections:
Featured in FOX 25th Anniversary Special (2012) (TV)See more »
Walking On The MoonSee more »


This FAQ is empty. Add the first question.
20 out of 29 people found the following review useful.
The explanations!!, 2 March 2006
Author: Maurya Pydah from India

1. Crosshairs on some photos appear to be behind objects, rather than in front of them where they should be, as if the photos were altered.

* In photography, the light white color (the object behind the crosshair) makes the black object (the crosshair) invisible due to saturation effects in the film emulsion.

2. The quality of the photographs is implausibly high.

* NASA selected only the best photographs for release to the public, and some of the photos were cropped to improve their composition. There are many badly exposed, badly focused and poorly composed images amongst the thousands of photos that were taken by the Apollo Astronauts. Many can be seen at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. Photos were taken on high-quality Hasselblad cameras with Zeiss lenses, using 70 mm medium format film.

3. There are no stars in any of the photos, and astronauts never report seeing any stars from the capsule windows.

* There are also no stars seen in Space Shuttle, Mir, International Space Station and Earth observation photos. Cameras used for imaging these things are set for quick shutter speeds in order to prevent overexposing the film for the brightly lit daylight scenes. The dim light of the stars simply does not have a chance to expose the film.

* Believers in the hoax theory contend that the stars were removed from the photographs because they would have looked identical to the stars as seen from the Earth, i.e. no parallax view. However, the distance from the Earth to the Moon is very small compared to the distance to the stars, so no parallax would have been visible anyway. (The nearest star is over 100,000,000 times farther away than the Moon, and most stars are much farther away than that.)

4. The color and angle of shadows and light.

* Shadows on the Moon are complicated because there are several light sources; the Sun, Earth and the Moon itself. Light from these sources is scattered by lunar dust in many different directions, including into shadows. Additionally, the Moon's surface is not flat and shadows falling into craters and hills appear longer, shorter and distorted from the simple expectations of the hoax believers. More significantly, perspective comes into play. This effect leads to non-parallel shadows even on objects which are extremely close to each other, and can be observed easily on Earth wherever fences or trees are found. (Plait 2002:167-72).

5. Identical backgrounds in photos that are listed as taken miles apart.

* Detailed comparison of the backgrounds claimed to be identical in fact show significant changes in the relative positions of the hills that are consistent with the claimed locations that the images were taken from. Parallax effects clearly demonstrate that the images were taken from widely different locations around the landing sites. Claims that the appearance of the background is identical while the foreground changes (for example, from a boulder strewn crater to the Lunar Module) are trivially explained when the images were taken from nearby locations, akin to seeing distant mountains appearing the same on Earth from locations that are hundreds of feet apart showing different foreground items. Furthermore, as there is no atmosphere on the Moon, very distant objects will appear clearer and closer to the human eye. What appears as nearby hills in some photographs, are actually mountains several kilometers high and some 10-20 kilometers away.

6. The number of photographs taken is implausibly high. When the total number of official photographs taken during EVA of all Apollo missions is divided by the total amount of time of all EVAs, one arrives at 1.19 photos per minute. That is one photo per 50 seconds. Discounting time spent on other activities results in one photo per 15 seconds for Apollo 11.

* The astronauts were well trained before the mission in the use of photographic equipment. Since there were no weather effects to contend with and the bright sunlight scenes permitted the use of small apertures with consequent large depth of field, the equipment was generally kept at a single setting for the duration of the mission. All that was required of the astronauts was to open the shutter and wind the film to take a picture.

Was the above review useful to you?
See more (39 total) »


If you enjoyed this title, our database also recommends:
- - - - -
Apollo 13 For All Mankind Apollo 18 The Dish Alternative 3
IMDb User Rating:
IMDb User Rating:
IMDb User Rating:
IMDb User Rating:
IMDb User Rating:
Show more recommendations

Related Links

Full cast and crew Company credits External reviews
IMDb Documentary section IMDb USA section

You may report errors and omissions on this page to the IMDb database managers. They will be examined and if approved will be included in a future update. Clicking the 'Edit page' button will take you through a step-by-step process.