Trying to discredit this movie by referring to NASA weather data I'd say is a charming, but weak and gullible argument. What about the rest of the footage and proofs in the movie? A certain wise man once said something about sifting mosquitoes and swallowing camels. Do you in any way feel that maybe this could apply to what you are trying to do here? :-) This movie is just packed with irrefutable evidence against the claim once made by U.S. government that the moon-missions were a success, and that man now are true masters of the universe. Things are nearly never quite what they seem.. Just watch the movie, and I dear say you'll see things a bit different than before.

One important thing that has always been puzzling to me is that how come NASA hasn't done it again? After all, technology has advanced so much. We have never heard any big plans from the US government, or NASA about sending people to the moon ever again. Why is that? Can they really say that all the information they have collected from the moon is already plenty and enough? North pole is so close, and so easy to get to, yet People are still there doing research.This film is good, because it didn't just give out random facts. It actually showed the actual footage and evidence to support why the moon landing was faked. I was surprised to know that at that time, people already have colored camcorders, etc. Before I watched this video, I thought that they only had black and white camcorders, and since the telecommunication technology was really bad, that is why the moon landing video clips all looked so blurry. So if they had camcorders that can record things in color, why didn't they record them? And if they can not transmit them right away, they should at least broadcast them later when they "returned" from the moon.And how about those colored pictures? According to this video, NASA only released about 20 or so pictures, that is it? come on, the government spent billions of dollars on the project, all they took back was 20 or so pictures? At that time, the US government felt the urgency and necessity to reach the moon first during the cold war time. It could boost national pride, and make the soviets fearful. So the government will try anything to land on moon whether it is real or fake. And for those firm believers with their national pride, just like those people who believe in their own religious god, telling them that landing on the moon was entirely faked, it would be as if part of their believe system was destroyed. Therefore, there is no way that they will believe that it was staged.And soviets and the US were both competing against each other, how come the soviets never ever sent their people to the moon? Both governments were able to build many nuclear weapons, warships, etc. Why did the soviet just sit there and watch the people from the US landed on the moon without doing anything? And ever since then, why didn't any other countries around the world ever try to send their people to the moon? Only now, in the 21st century, China is the only country that is planning to send Chinese to the moon.At that time, how many people had TVs in their private homes worldwide? And how many people even had their own home phones? So it should be easy to fool people at that time.One thing this video did not mention is whether they brought any rocks from the moon? I think that they did, this video did not spend any time discussing whether those moon rocks were real or fake. No other countries has ever collected any moon rocks. Each year, there are plenty of meteoroids hitting earth. So how can we be sure that those "moon rocks" are really from the moon, but not some meteoroid rocks? Another thing is the radiation belt. It was shown as two big circles surrounding the earth which can't possibly be true. Because the north and south pole areas seem to be free of radiation. So it was a technical error of its own. Or it should at least explain to the viewers why the north and south poles were free of radiation, and why the spaceship can not go through those two ares without the radiation damage? This video is like one of the religious books, if you believe that religion, no matter how bad that book is, you still believe in the religion. Any small evidence will only make you believe it even more. And for those who don't believe that it was a hoax, no matter what you tell them, they will still believe that it really happened. For me, I am still open minded. Until that day when NASA sends another spaceship to land on the moon, I have some serious doubts that it really happened.

The views of Earth that are claimed in this film to have been faked by NASA have recently been compared with the historical weather data for the time of Apollo 11, and show a good match between the cloud patterns in the video sequence and the actual rainfall records on the day.This would seem to undermine the entire argument put forward in the film that the "whole Earth" picture is actually a small part of the planet framed by the spacecraft window.I am waiting for Bart Sibrel to now claim that the historical weather data has been faked by NASA, though that would no doubt involve them in also replacing every archived newspaper copy with a weather map, and the ones in private hands would still be a problem.Ah, a response: "Trying to discredit this movie by referring to NASA weather data I'd say is a charming, but weak and gullible argument. What about the rest of the footage and proofs in the movie? A certain wise man once said something about sifting mosquitoes and swallowing camels. Do you in any way feel that maybe this could apply to what you are trying to do here? :-) This movie is just packed with irrefutable evidence against the claim once made by U.S. government that the moon-missions were a success, and that man now are true masters of the universe. Things are nearly never quite what they seem.. Just watch the movie, and I dear say you'll see things a bit different than before."First off, weather data doesn't come from NASA, it comes for met agencies around the world. Second, the weather data undermines a major claim in the film. Third, far from being "packed with irrefutable evidence", the remaining claims in the film have been thoroughly debunked. Sibrel thought he had a previously secret piece of film, so he edited it and added his own interpretation. Unfortunately for him, his source film is public domain, and the bits Sibrel edited out contradict his claims.

I watched "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" after viewing Fox's "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?" and was impressed with both of them.Really, the two documentaries should be viewed together; there's a lot of overlap of information, but the Sibrel film gets the nod for giving more details about the Van Allen belts, which I believe renders all other points moot.I would have given it a higher rating, but found the music and the narration annoying after a few minutes. Bart Sibrel should have narrated it himself.