Subject: I have found a DVD that I think you would enjoy
|What Happened on the Moon - An Investigation Into Apollo 2 DVD Special Edition|
Actors: Dr. David Groves, Narrator Ronnie Stonge
Director: David S. Percy
"If some of the film was spoiled, it's remotely possible they [NASA] may have shot some scenes in a studio environment to avoid embarrassment." - David Groves, PhD. This compelling video throws into serious doubt the aut... more »
A dull waste of time
Reynoldbot | Minneapolis, MN | 04/25/2006
(1 out of 5 stars)
"This film is awful. I could only stomach the first 45 minutes of this 2 hour epic. The same information is available in much greater detail on the internet for free, and you get the availability of hearing both sides of the issue.
Not only is the film boring and ridiculously cheesy, but the arguments are weak. At one point, David Percy shows a video from Apollo 16 showing the jump salute. His argument is that a flap hanging loose from the PLSS backpack is visible in the still photos of the event but not in the video. It would be a good argument if the flap wasn't plainly visible in the video. They show the video multiple times and the flap is clearly flopping around during the jump. If you didn't catch it the first time, they give you another chance.
At another point, they reference the "anomalous" shadow directions in the lunar photographs by showing a photograph of a row of trees and their "correctly aligned" shadows. Big honking white lines are drawn on top of the picture to show the shadow angle. Too bad one of the trees directly to the right of the big honking line has a shadow that appears horizontal in comparison to the line and the rest of the shadows. They used a picture showing diverging shadow angles to try and prove that shadow angles do not diverge under a single light source.
Finally (at least to the point that I could handle watching), they show the famous photo of Buzz Aldrin standing next to the leg of the LM. They claim that the center fiducial is significantly below the center of the frame. They also claim that they are using high quality duplicates from the original master prints. They are as bold as to say that the photo must have been manipulated in nefarious ways. They are correct. The photo has been manipulated but it wasn't by NASA. People epxerienced with the Apollo record know that the top of Buzz's PLSS backpack is cut off by the top of the frame in that famous shot, but in their copy they place the top of the frame well above the backpack and to compensate they cut off a similar amount at the bottom to keep the dimensions correct. Percy and his crew either deliberately recropped the photograph themselves or are lying about their source of the photo.
When the makers of this film aren't unintentionally showing us the mistakes in their arguments they are creating the anomalies themselves. They are hacks and this film is the proof."
Just too many holes in NASA's version
Dr. French | Fascism, USA | 06/17/2006
(4 out of 5 stars)
"Let's move beyond the rolling Coke bottle B.S., shall we? There are just far, far, too many anomalies uncovered by a variety of researchers to dismiss the fact that the Apollo missions were not what they seemed. Hey, I loved NASA and the whole gang when I was a kid, so reading and seeing things over the years that pointed toward fraud and deception really stung, but I got beyond the rage and the shock. The Van Allen Belts, all the dubious photos exhibiting a variety of issues, the total lack of film fogging, strange comments and actions from many "sponsors" such as Kodak and Omega, the rehearsed videos meant to deceive, the truly bizarre behaviour of the astronauts in subsequent interviews, and on and on. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water here. The Coke bottle and the "flag waving issue" aside, there is a massive deception going on and this video sheds some light on it. Fair enough. Now let's have some intelligent discussion on it."
Thinking without Rage
John-Hans Melcher | Santa FE, NM | 04/08/2006
(5 out of 5 stars)
"Many people that review these types of Films....are angry that they exist. Read how they choose words. Harsh to be sure. Facts need to be discussed often and without rage. Many people don't want to believe the unbelievable. But to simply think, observe and pause...a rare trait indeed.
There are too many conflicting facts in the so-called Moon event not to think, observe and pause. One thing for sure. Money went to NASA. And they are trying it again in the next 15 years. Money flows again!
No, I do not believe we went to the moon and came back perfectly 5 times....or how many there were. No, I do not belive Building 7 just happened to be prepared to implode the same day as the big one. No, I do not believe LHO killed JKF. Why?
I think, observe, pause and make my choices....without rage.
This DVD is fantastic. It is based on the book I read. "Dark Mooon". Did these people get $20 billion to write it? No. NASA will surely get triple that their next venture into space.
Let's hear it for those that think, observe, pause and do not rage on others simply because they thought, observed, paused and stated their views.
Unrefuted evidence leads to one conclusion
Duane Caldwell | Chicago Suburbs, USA | 04/27/2008
(5 out of 5 stars)
"Here's the short version: I found this video very interesting and eye opening. The photographic evidence is very persuasive, particularly since I have reviewed many of the responses made by those trying to debunk the hoax theory, but find they are like a poor marksmen who, as Captain Kirk says to Kahn in Star Trek II: "... keeps missing the mark." Likewise the debunkers often miss the fine, but powerful, significant (and for the most part unrefuted) indications of errors (whistleblowing as Percy contends) as raised by the official photographic evidence submitted to the world by NASA as presented by Percy and Bennett in this video. Therefore the explanations of the debunkers are unconvincing - while Percy and Bennett have demonstrated beyond my doubts that NASA did not achieve what they claimed with the Apollo program.
The photographic analysis in this presentation is excellent - worthy of 5 stars. The video does, however venture beyond photographic evidence, and as they do so, moving into other realms such as science and politics, the authors are on less sure footing - not just because they are leaving their field of expertise, but also because the quality of the evidence decreases. Instead of showing exactly what NASA did, and how they did it, the authors say what may be the case, and then give examples of when such trickery was done before in the past. To show one contrast, in regard to a photo Percy considers an advertising shot made for the moon campaign, he emphatically states; "This is emphatically not a casual photograph of a saluting astro-colleague who just happened to be standing, as luck would have it, in the right place at the right moment. This is a planned setup in our view and would have taken a highly professional photographer several hours to get right in a fully equipped environment of a studio." Note his emphasis and degree of certainty. (Coupled with an explanation of the required planning.) Contrast that to the could be's and maybe's that are in the second portion. While those later segments are interesting they are less convincing, because unlike the photographic evidence where Percy is an expect, and presents clear evidence with regard to the official pictures that show clear contradictions to the laws of physics or logic (or both), the second part relies much more on speculation and supposition. They do serve to tie his entire theory together however, answering questions such as Why didn't Russia blow the whistle on the United States?
So overall Percy and Bennett did an excellent job. I give it 5 stars.
(For examples of unanswered questions regarding the NASA photos - here's a few of many: pay close attention to continuity errors in the beginning, the Pan Shot from Apollo of the unmanned Surveyor - which landed in 1967, and how the dust behind the lunar Rover flies. - In no atmosphere both debunkers and Percy agree dust should fly in a parabolic path. Look closely - it does exactly as Percy states - flies up, (not 6 times as high as you'd expect in 1/6 G) STOPS in mid-flight (as if in air) and falls. Both debunkers and hoax theorists alike agree that should not happen on the moon!)"