Cortechba Overrated

Teringer An Exercise In Nonsense

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Yash Wade Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

kadianpusher I still get a kick out of this "Documentary" that pretty much destroyed the reputations of anyone involved in its making. Deservingly so! Had they retitled this under "Comedy" it would probably still have a cult following. I'm not going to cover the absolute lack of real science, free thinking, or common sense to the conspiracies broken down in this, as they have been covered quite well by other reviewers. What I will say is that I find it so interesting that when someone is sick or dying, or we need to come up with better, safer more convenient ways to live we look to scientists for pretty much every answer. Unless you still believe praying works??? But make a documentary that doesn't talk to even someone with a basic knowledge of science and you have figuratively hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people with zero ability to think on their own being Pied Pipered away into a life of being unable to think or research for ones self.So, the entire Apollo project was nothing more than a Hollywood film set? Okay, let's say you are right (you are not right). There is such a long list of everyday products we take for granted and are using right this moment that came direct,y from the space program and NASA directly: 1) the microchip. Your using it right now to read this. Kind of makes you feel a little stupid right now, but let's go on. 2) the CAT scan. If you have ever had cancer, a head injury, etc you sure are thankful for this item that every hospital uses dozens of times daily. 3) the microwave. Are you eating a muffin you just heated up in one while reading this. 4) shoes. Yes shoes and the light fabrics, rubber and cushions for insoles all came from new technologies NASA invented for moon boots. Bet your wearing that technology right now. 5) memory foam. Yup that Tempurpedic mattress was developed by the space program because it returns to its natural shape and cushioned astronauts at launch and landing.Really, I can go on and on.... Cordless tools, vacuums, fabric roofed domed stadiums like Reliant in Houston,Texas, firefighter suits, calculators, etc, etc, etc.... But let's not forget that it was all faked! If you are going to make the whole thing up on a Hollywood set, why spend so much time and effort on all these other things... Boggles the mind. But I guess a lot of minds can be boggled, or at least manipulated quite easily. Btw, you can' even get into orbit because the Earth is flat. It would have to be round and spinning for that to work. another conspiracy!!!Sorry for misspellings and grammatical errors but an education is not important to watch this documentary..

RabidCerebral i choose to believe we never landed on the moon, people are going insane trying to fight for an against the fact, and it really will never end unless the president himself admits that we never did, if he was to say we did land on the moon the fighting would still continue oddly enough because that ironically proves noting in the minds of many people since its whut they have already heard.for the movie though it does a great job at "proving" we never landed on the moon, even if some of it is false it is defiantly a good documentary to check out, it should be watched.as said before i personally do not believe whut so ever that we landed on the moon i mean come on there is way to much evidence supporting the fact we did not do it, and im not talking from this movie, but everywhere and if we really did we would be there right now, but were not, it seems odd enough that we have not been sending constant ships to the moon.anyways if your looking for a good conspiracy movie check this one out, it is what originally got me going on the whole moon landing hoax, the movie does however leave out a lot of huge other facts that could help one rest their case a lot easier like for example the fact that in that time it would take a whole warehouse to hold a 256k computer, the Lem in fact only had only a 32k computer in it, to give you an idea this is the computing power of a simple calculator, so you expect me to believe that they were able to land, transmit and many other things with a freaking 32 k computer , i think notanyways check it out its fun to get into these kinds of things and have your own say in it because really in the end it doesn't matter so much in our personal lives and in the overall scheme of things

BigTimeMovieFan Poor Mitch Pileggi. This must have been his contractually obligated "turkey" that Hollywood makes its "stars" do, just to prove who's in charge.So you think we faked the moon landing?So you saw the flag flapping in the "breeze" on the airless moon. No you didn't. The flag had a rod through the top and a weight at the bottom corner so that it would look fully deployed. And the "flapping" you saw was due to the astronaut TWISTING THE FLAGPOLE INTO THE LUNAR SOIL for better placement. As soon as the twisting stopped, guess what? The flapping stopped too!And try this one on for size, airboy: Ever drop some flour in the kitchen and notice a cloud of dust hovering over the floor? Well if the astronauts were REALLY on a soundstage with a flag that was REALLY flapping in the breeze, you'd see dust flying all around too. But you didn't, because there wasn't, BECAUSE THEY WERE ON THE (AIRLESS) MOON!So you thought the lighting of the Astronauts was too perfect, as if it was a studio job. Well, the lighting and the shadows would be a little wonky, considering that there are THREE sources of light in the photos: The sun (natch), the Earth (much the same way the full moon illuminates the night sky), and the moon itself. That's right, all that moonlight that we see here on earth was shining right up into the astronauts' faces and giving their spacesuits a nice, soft-light look.Oh, that's also the reason you don't see any stars in the moon photos. The surrounding moonlight was so bright, the shutter speeds on the cameras were set very fast. It would be like taking a picture out your living room window at night and expecting to see stars in the photo. Ain't gonna happen. So you think that there should be a great big crater under the LEM. Well I hate to break this to you, but the LEM didn't land at full power. Most of its fuel load was spent in deceleration from orbit, and in hovering over the landing site. They only needed a fraction of its power to make a nice, soft, 1/6th gravity landing. They didn't even "land" under power. Each of the landing "feet" had a thin rod that would signal the astronauts that they were just over the surface. They would then cut the engine and drop the final 18 inches unpowered. ("Contact light! OK, Engine Stop!" Remember that from the Apollo mission tapes?)And then there's the matter of the ascent stage, popping off the moon as if it was on a cable. See, once again you're taking what you've seen (launches on earth) and projecting them onto what you THINK you've seen. It takes a ridiculous amount of thrust to start moving up. So when rockets launch from earth, they are held down for a few seconds. It's the same as starting your car when you're parked on a hill. Hold your foot on the brake and give it a little gas so you don't roll back. Well, you don't need to do that on the moon with its one-sixth gravity and when all you're moving is an ascent stage. Throw the switch and ((woosh!)) you're off.Oh, and the reason you don't see any flame from the ascent rocket is simple: real rocket fuel doesn't burn, it's hypergolic. In a nutshell, 2 chemicals that are otherwise inert come together and expand rapidly. If you focus and channel it the right way, you get thrust. (It's not easy to do, but it can be done. That's why the phrase "Rocket Scientist" has such a mystique in our society.) But it doesn't produce a visible flame. The dramatic, flaming liftoff of the Saturn 5 rocket from Cape Kennedy came from the fuel mixture of the first stage, which used kerosene. And that WILL produce one heckuva flame, unlike the Eagle's ascent rocket.There's more, but I think I've proved the point. Every so-called "Fact" on the show is easily refuted when you happen to know more than the average X-Phile about real science.

Carsten Klapp This so-called documentary does a poor job at presenting various possible viewpoints and misuses or ignores the applications of physical and optical laws. FOX could have done so much more with this interesting topic. This film only serves to hurt the credibility whether FOX is capable of producing a documentary.Disjointed sequences of very short interview clips with only a handful of people present their opinions and analyses. No independent engineers or optical experts were consulted about the physics-related theories presented to provide additional insight.The film tries and fails miserably to inspire the viewer to ask more questions than the film tries to answer. The intelligent viewer may learn that without a rudimentary understanding of physics, gravity, and optics one can easily "prove" just about anything.There is lots of nice NASA footage, but nothing that can't be found in other well-written documentaries.