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

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.