On the Van Allen Belts episode a scientific demonstration showed that the Apollo CM could safely pass thru the Van Allen Belts (and not require a lead shell an inch thick as hoax'er Bara said it would require).

But I was disappointed that astronaut Melvin would show surprise hearing that NASA used ex-Nazis brought over on Project Paperclip to help put us on the moon and he seemed to consider it shameful. It's far from a secret that many German V-2 rocket scientists and engineers basically began our military rocket and space programs, with many others than von Braun having top positions in NASA, such as Debus, Rees, Rudolph (he later accused of war crimes), etc.

Yes, many were ex-Nazis, but were spoils of war and most later became American citizens and loyal Americans and contributed greatly to our military and space programs.

What should have been done with them instead? The Soviets would have loved to have had that huge group of ex-Nazis and had they captured the Von Braun Team instead of the Von Braun Team surrendering to the US Army, first, we wouldn't have had the Redstone, Atlas and Titan II military rockets and, second, almost surely would have watched while Soviet cosmonauts walked on the moon.

I'm looking forward to the other episodes, but am surprised that little discussion and interest has occurred here on such a significant topic to us space fans.

But to Bob's point about discussing the show in general, I have been the opinion for some time that the two groups most responsible for propagating the idea of a hoax today, albeit inadvertently, are space history enthusiasts and science entertainment media.

Sure, there are still YouTube videos and forum posts professing the moon landings were faked, but they are the outliers. The cottage industry that started the wide-scale concern about what the public believes is gone. There are no more Bart Sibrel-types making national headlines.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SkyMan1958:
Obviously the powers that be at the Science Channel know that the moon landings were real, this whole thing is ginned up to pull people in to watch the show.

---

In my opinion, they would have been better off using their resources to tell the story of Apollo, perhaps researching stories that are not massively in the public domain. This would have been far more interesting.

Unfortunately the style, editing, and language of this show is a complete turn off.

I have moon hoax books in my collection — sometimes it's good to see another angle, it can also reinforce or inform your view. Unfortunately this show is a wasted opportunity.

It's junk, exploitative rubbish for the social media age. All serious space "talking heads" (you know who you are people!) should just boycott TV like this.

By the time I have been approached to appear, the show is being made with or without me. At least I know what I am going to say on camera will be historically factual, rather than perhaps someone else who will be less versed or less opposed to bending the truth for a good story (not that any of those who have appeared are known or keen to do that, but who would they get if we all refused?).

They are often very clever in the way they edit their footage, with factually 100% accurate statements taken out of context or used in such a way as to discredit them as the (wink wink) "official version" of whatever they're talking about. As if somehow there is a legitimate alternative to verifiable history.

In my book, something either happened or it didn't. No room for discussion.

We are living in the post-truth age and these shows are actually quite sinister. In their rush to get an audience, they are actually spreading disinformation and disrespecting the very organisations (NASA etc) and the people your website is meant to be honouring.

Later in the show they did mention that there were 25 successful LM tests. They also suggested that while landing on the Moon Neil Armstrong overshot the suggested landing site and that he almost ran out of fuel.

I'll continue to watch it for the time being at least, as much out of curiosity as anything else.

Former astronaut Leland Melvin, writer and conspiracy theorist Mike Bara, and former FBI agent Chad Jenkins questioned me about NASA engineer John Houbolt and the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous decision by NASA; they were especially interested in his professional relationship with Wernher von Braun, who first promoted Direct Ascent and later Earth Orbit Rendezvous to achieve a moon landing. They asked good questions and my views were accurately presented in the edited version.

Personally, I have qualms about any presentation that gives credence to "moon hoaxers" and conspiracy theorists, such as this series, even to set them up to refute their views. The producers of the series spent a lot of effort to accurately research Apollo, but the sensationalist approach of "Truth Behind the Moon Landing" is unfortunate.

Questioning whether Neil could really land the LM on the moon based on his LLTV mishap is indicative of a lack of insight about the training that pilot astronauts and test pilots in general go through when preparing for a mission. It's only put into the correct context when it's revealed that Neil made over twenty flights with the LLTV.