American Moon: Massimo Mazzucco

Has man really been to the moon? It’s been 50 years, and the debate rages on. For the firs time, a film compiles in a single piece of work, all the best evidence in favor of the moon landings and the evidence contrary to them. For the first time we can also analyze the Apollo pictures in detail, with the aid of some among the top photographers in the world. What was the Apollo project really? The biggest achievement in the history of mankind, or the biggest fakery of all times, watched on live television by more than half a billion people?

COMMENTS

frogchris998 • 3 months ago
what a fantastic docu!
Not the first.. or the most original.. but probably the best assembly of all relevant info on why nobody has ever been to the moon.

TitusVolturcius frogchris998 • 2 months ago
Great documentary indeed. But they didn´t see the most convincing piece of evidence: that Buzz Aldrin was replaced with an actor. If you compare the old and new pictures and videos you can see that the supposed Aldrin is today SHORTER than the real Aldrin, he has a DIFFERENT VOICE TYPE, he has more HAIR today than 50 years ago, his CHIN and his NOSE are different. It´s amazing that most haven´t noticed this yet.

Mulysses TitusVolturcius • 22 days ago
I was thinking about how crazily different he looks and how much shorter he is now when I was watching it!

TitusVolturcius Mulysses • 21 days ago
spread the word, bro. It’s very important

Sasha82 • 5 months ago
A great collection of all the items that don’t add up.

TitusVolturcius Sasha82 • 2 months ago
But they didn´t see the most convincing piece of evidence: that Buzz Aldrin was replaced with an actor. If you compare the old and new pictures and videos you can see that the supposed Aldrin is today SHORTER than the real Aldrin, he has a DIFFERENT VOICE TYPE, he has more HAIR today than 50 years ago, his CHIN and his NOSE are different. It´s amazing that most haven´t noticed this yet.

Uncle Timo TitusVolturcius • 24 days ago
“supposed Aldrin is today SHORTER than the real Aldrin, he has a DIFFERENT VOICE TYPE”

happens to old people

Sasha82 TitusVolturcius • 2 months ago
Wow, is that right? Now that you mention it, I did pick up on him looking a little different. Do you have a video or link showing this?

TitusVolturcius Sasha82 • 2 months ago
https://www.youtube.com/cha…

Titus Volturcius Sasha82 • 2 months ago
I have videos on my Bit Chute channel. And on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/fee…
But I don´t know if you can watch them because they made them invisible

Cosmic Toolbox • 13 days ago
So is the Myth Busters program extremely incompetent at busting myths, or just another corporate media propaganda show full of shit?

Phone7018 • 2 months ago
Kinda long at 3.5 hours but its very complete

Phone7018 • 2 months ago
Great documentary very well made

Bavo Dekker • 14 days ago
Why has the “Apollo Moon” no color? Why was (and still today) the surface of the Apollo Moon always presented as monochrome, black & white like cement with never any color shades? But colors are clearly seen on other solar-bodies like Io, Phobos, Mercury, Mars in our Solar system? Also here on Earth, the deserts all are loaded with different combinations of colorful minerals. The obviously (color) censored Japanese Lunar Orbiter SELENE (2007) shows a similarly colorless fake looking black & white ‘Apollo Moon’ in contrast to the sudden appearance of the vivid ‘Blue Marble’ over the horizon during its orbits, exactly matching the old Apollo’s Ektachrome color film pictures showing the same colorless lunar landscape. And now the Chinese Moon pictures are color censored too, behind the scenes they all comply to the 1969 Apollo Moon color standards. Could this be one of the reasons NASA can’t go ‘back’ and then be forced by 21century technology to expose the Apollo Hoax, this time showing a colorful moon surface with a starry sky above? NASA is its own worst enemy blocking progress since 1973 “unable to remove one of truth protective layers”, and refuse to come clean after 50 years, but sadly the deception is still continuing with the NASA Mars Rovers. NASA wants us to believe that it’s possible to land safely on the Red Planet by parachute in a near-vacuum with a pressure ranging from 0.0044 psi to 0.087 psi in the Mars atmosphere! This also proves that the sky on Mars is not red or blue but black.

Cosmic Toolbox Bavo Dekker • 8 days ago
I’ve had those Mars questions I’m undecided. A camera pointed straight
up should see black but at an angle there is much more atmosphere to
diffuses light. Why they havent taken a vertical picture I’m unsure of. NASA claims their giant parachute only slows it some.
Either retro rockets or airbags were needed. The dust storms
photographed by landers would require much thicker atmosphere also.
Those of the electric universe theory believe these are electrical
discharges. I still lean towards the Mars probes being real but I have
an open mind.

Soft_Dystopia • 24 days ago
When all this information stacks up it becomes very convincing.

kati7 • 20 days ago • edited
Hard to believe our governments anything these days, lies everywhere, but then there are also lots deceptions/diversions so i wont believe both sides and just stay neutral or even better ignore this topic.
Still sure upvoted cause its more plausible then the NASA/gov version.

Bak • 20 days ago
Great documentary, the best I have seen yet on the Apollo hoax. 3 and a half hours well spent.

Math & Physics • a month ago
I skipped through, did they bother to cover the thermodynamics of a BLACK BODY IN SPACE?

Rich • 13 days ago
Fk all you down voting idiots… Do some fkn research!!!! https://www.skyandtelescope…

Rich • 23 days ago
Only one problem with all of this…. You can buy a telescope now with which you can see the landing sites… So there’s that…

Bak Rich • 20 days ago
Have you ever seen any landing site with a telescope? NASA has some really good telescopes but I am not aware of any pictures they have that show the landing sites photographed through a telescope.

Rich Bak • 13 days ago
I’ll just leave this here.. https://www.skyandtelescope…

Cosmic Toolbox Rich • 11 days ago
That’s nothing. NASA has been doctoring and smudging out their own photos for years. A few blips supposedly by one of their own orbiters that cannot be corroborated. Means nothing. You originally said with the telescopes WE have these days. WE have no way to verify. This movie reveals them doctoring the timing of their conversations. So they can’t photoshop a shiney spot? Paleeease! Why don’t you address any of the 3 1/2 hrs of evidence.

Cosmic Toolbox Rich • 10 days ago
@Rich Was just rewatching and the spots that are supposedly proof in your skyandtelescope link are even addressed in this movie, making me wonder if you even watched the movie

VeganCaramel Rich • 22 days ago
No you can’t.
Do you actually believe that or were just hoping everyone would be too lazy to check into it?

Additionally, I have no doubt that people will eventually be able to see the landing sites some day using some form of technology because NASA is, and always has been, planning to reconstruct the studio sets on the Moon at some point.
As this documentary points out, NASA didn’t want the Lunar X Prize teams to go near the landing sites because they have not yet had a chance to reconstruct the studio sets.

Cosmic Toolbox VeganCaramel • 13 days ago
There are many that think there has been a secret space program for a long time that is responsible for some of the ufo’s we see in the sky. If so I’m sure they would have reconstructed the scene by now. some think Kennedy suspected it and thought this his proposal might force it out in the open. If so it didn’t

Cosmic Toolbox Rich • 13 days ago
There is one telescope that could- the Hubble. And users of it are forbidden to point it at the moon.

Rich Cosmic Toolbox • 13 days ago
ya ok… https://www.skyandtelescope…