I fail to understand how the moon landing lays victim to the same dilusions.
Well since the belief that Apollo was faked has been around longer than 9/11, I'd have to say that 9/11 falls victim to the same delusions and lack of critical thinking as Apollo. Of course JFK and Pearl Harbor predate the Apollo woowoos as well, and in some cases (Jack White for instance,) we have people who apply their faulty rational and reseach ability to all of them.
As to the why, that differs from person to person. Bill Kaysing is said to have been the grandfather of the Apollo Hoax. (He was the old guy with the caravan and cats in the middle of the desert, the NWO agents finally got him a couple of years ago.) His main reason for doing it was as revenge against the US government for their (mis)treatment of US Vietnam Vets. He was talkingwith a friend who suggested that perhaps he try something outrageous like saying that Apollo was hoaxed, and he did.
Bart Sibrel on the otherhand does it for even pettier reasons. He hates Neil Armstrong, and since he can't get him, he goes after all of the Astronauts. He also has discovered that he can make a good living from conning people. His hate of Armstrong reaches back to the days when he was a cameraman for NBC (iirc) and he was caught trespassing on Armstrong's property. Armstrong pressed charges resulting in Sibrel being sacked, and he's held that grudge ever since.
Many of the other HP's seem to be in it for the money, though a few Rense for instance, are anti-authority and very CT centred, while others, Jack White, are clearly crazy and inept.
If it's the show I'm thinking of, I love the two old geezers they found to promote the conspiracy theory. Neither one of them looked like he was playing with a full deck. The one guy was falling back on the Argument from Incredulity ("There's just no way it could...") without ever presenting anything tangible.
From the other comments it was "The Truth About the Loon Landings" and also stars Jay Windley, also known in BB circles as JayUtah (points of sig.) The two old geezers were Bill Kaysing and Ralph Rense.
I saw it just last week. I love the part when when of the old guys uses a leafblower to simulate the landing of the lunar module. I couldn't help but think of Spooked911.
Unfortunately they interviewed Rense after Jay and so this wasn't "debunked." Most rational people would understand that using a leaf blower a few centimetres about the loosely packed material in his sand pile all in an atmosphere is quite different to using the LM engine six feet above the hard packed lunar regolith in a vaccum.
I liked the "glove in a vacuum" simulator he built.
Unfortunately this was the other major issue that they didn't directly rebute. Of course his glove would have been pressurised to 1 atm or 14.7 psi. The Astronauts' gloves were pressurised to a mere 3 psi, about a fifth of the pressure difference in his glove box. The second major difference is that he uses a simple linesman glove which is not designed to operate in a vaccum. The Apollo gloves were specifically engineered for such an environment. This meant that they had constant volume joints is them, and are quite obvious once you remove the overgloves protecting the pressuresuit underneath.
Of course the Shuttle and ISS astronauts use similar gloves today and have no problems using them in a vaccum....
Yep, that's the one I just saw. The two old CT's were soooo familiar. They just sound so smug about what they are saying. Poor Buzz Aldrin was just shaking his head.
Actually they did miss one huge opportunity there. One of the CT's (Rense I believe it's been a few months since I watched the programme) stated catagorically that if you asked an Astronaut is they had been able to see stars they'd refuse to answer. Since they went to the trouble of having Buzz on the programme, they should have instantly cut to Buzz and asked "Could you see stars while on the moon?" I'm sort of hoping that if I can locate the finaces that when I get the scripting finished and some filming done, I'll be able to do that in the video I want to make on it.
Can you imagine what he must be thinking?
I think his left hook on BS tells you exactly what he thinks.
Well I sure wish they hadn't misplaced the original films.
They didn't. They have misplaced the slow scan tapes taken directly from the downloads. That includes all the direct instrument data including the footage. It wasn't the original film though, it only includes the TV camera footage, and this was being recorded onto tape and Kineoscope in Houston, the slow scan backup was incase they wanted to recheck data later, or for if the link between the tracking station and Houston was lost. The thing is that the images that Houston got and recorded weren't what was being seen at Honeysuckle and Parks. Because the images were coming in at a different scan rate than would have been used for TV, they converted it to the NTSC standard by playing it onto a monitor at Parkes and then videoing that with an NTSC camera, sending that footage to Houston. The problem was that the monitor's contrast was incorrectly set, resulting in the dark images we have today. If they can find the slow scan tapes, then the digital data can be extracted and processed giving us clear and bright images just like those that the actual tracking stations saw. The footage won't be different in content, just clearer and brighter, giving us more detail.
They all start to look alike after a while.