Many of my colleagues have encouraged me to write a response to Michael Medved's recent USA Today article in which he suggests that anyone who holds an opinion that the United States' lunar landings of the late 1960's and early 1970's were falsified for strategic benefit must be completely insane or mentally deficient. I, Bart Winfield Sibrel, am the writer, producer and director of A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon, the documentary which inspired the recent Fox special, Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?, for which I served as senior consultant and key interviewee.

     Suggesting that the greatest event in human history was staged as a Cold War tactic to bluff the Soviet Union into a reserved nuclear posture, is, on the surface, seemingly preposterous. However, I, not Mr. Medved, have spent half a decade and $500,000 on research into just the possibility, as remote as it may be, that the boastful goal of a non-engineer politician in 1961 (John Kennedy) to "put a man on the moon by the end of the decade (December 31, 1969)" was a bite too large to chew.

     After all, two decades later, with much improved and superior technology to that of 1969, a mission only 1/100th as complicated, the Earth orbit of a telescope (Hubble), was nearly as many years behind schedule as the entire duration of the lunar landing goal, and then, after its sixth launch attempt, didn't even work when it arrived at its destination which is 1/1000th the distance to the moon. In addition, it took another two years to make the necessary repairs to get it operational. Even today, an unmanned probe (to Mars), the size of a large toaster, requires nearly ten years to develop. Mr. Medved, where is the logic in this?

     Unfortunately, Mr. Medved composed his article without even reviewing my film A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon  which contains newly discovered, unprecedented evidence consisting of a previously unseen, mislabeled, 31-year old unedited reel of footage from the first mission to the moon, Apollo 11, dated three days into the flight. In this footage Neil Armstrong himself is clearly visible staging part of the mission photography. Before I uncovered this mislabeled lost footage, and after three and a half years of research, I estimated the possibility of a government fraud of the lunar landings to be about 25%. After viewing this footage: 100%.

     It is a fact. Humankind has not stepped foot on the moon. End of story. Proof of this is in my film. This whole endeavor really pushes people's buttons when it come to national pride. That is why I open my controversial documentary with a Renaissance painting of the Tower of Babel and a Biblical quote, "When pride cometh, then cometh shame" (Proverbs 11:2). Rivalry among nations began with which civilization could build the tallest building. Sound familiar? I then show the Titanic and the quote, "The Ship that God Himself could not sink!" Finally, I quote Nixon referring to Apollo 11's landing on the moon as the greatest event since creation.

     When the USA Today writer refers to the crewmembers he doesn't even know as "brave astronauts" he clearly discloses his environmentally conditioned prejudice toward viewing this topic without any objectivity. If questioning the integrity of our government is so unpatriotic in his mind, he is forgetting that this is precisely how our nation was founded, questioning the ethics and motives of mother England. George Washington, the "Father" of our country, considered it a disgrace to his office to lie about the complete depravity of the condition of his army's morale, competence, resources and numbers against the attacking British army. He refused to "white wash" his dispatches to Congress in order to boost their pride or spirits. This kind of leadership, "I cannot tell a lie," is sorely missed in our government.

     Furthermore, I can only assume Mr. Medved was referring to me as the "utterly uncredentialed investigative journalist." Funny, isn't it, that those making such accusations about such emotionally provocative topics are often guilty of the very charges they unthoughtfully assert against others. Had he done his research before writing the article (I spent 5 years on this subject, interviewing hundreds of sources), he would have discovered that the "uncredentialed" affiliation I had at the time of the commencement of my investigative journalist's research was none other than NBC News.

     A little further investigation on Mr. Medved's part would have discovered that the NASA spokesperson on the program, Brian Welsh, definitely agreed with him in that he felt that his performance of impatient dismissive generalizations did not seem very convincing; rather, a point-for-point rebuttal would have been more appropriate. Apparently, in an effort to be better prepared in the future, Brian Welsh did his own off-the-record investigation with the special access privileges attack in November 2000 at age 42.

     When Fox pointed out that eleven Apollo astronauts all had non-space related fatal accidents within a twenty-two month period of one another, he failed to mention that the odds of this happening were 1 in 10,000. Oddly enough, these were the same odds given to a successful manned moon landing on its first attempt by a senior space program employee in the mid-1960's. Nevertheless, Mr. Medved does raise some very good questions that should be addressed. The first is, "why did the Russians not blow the whistle on such a fraud?"

     Because I strongly believe that the chief motive for the cover-up was to fool the Soviet Union into thinking that the US had superior missile technology that did not really exist, we need to understand how urgent and unprecedented a motive this was, note past occasions of now disclosed United States misinformation, analyze whether or not the Soviets had the capability to uncover it, and, if they did, question whether or not they would really broadcast this finding to the world. It is important to note, that at the dawn of the space race never before in human history had two "superpowers" each possessed the intercontinental nuclear missile capability of annihilating the other several times over from a location half way around the world.

     Perhaps a reminder is in order as well to mention the fact that during this period the Russians launched the first artificial satellite, the first human in space, the first human to orbit the Earth, the first space walk, the first woman in space, the first crew of three into space, and the first of two simultaneously orbiting spacecraft rendezvousing. For every twenty hours the US had spent in space at the time the Soviets had spent one hundred. Five times the experience and expertise!

     In 1994, our own government's watchdog agency, the General Accounting Office, reported, "The Star Wars Missile Defense System rigged tests to make it seem more advanced than it really was. The aim was to fool the Soviet Union about US strategic capability during the Cold War." How much more so was there the need in 1969 when there was genuine concern that "Sputnik 3" might have nuclear missiles on it for a first strike that would put the weapons within less than ten minutes from major targets in America? Furthermore, if the Soviets discovered the cover-up, at that time or years later, would it really be in their best interest to announce their finding to the world and thereby further escalate the tension between the superpowers? Better in my opinion, to hold on to such a juicy morsel and use it year after year to blackmail each succeeding US administration.

     Another overlooked intriguing fact is that NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission ( a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear.

     For the USA Today writer to equate believing in this cover-up with denying the Jewish holocaust of World War II simply proves the superficiality of his investigation caused by his misdirected patriotism, or as it has been historically noted, "Zeal without knowledge." Were there only three witnesses to World War II? Of course not, yet this is the total number of witnesses to landing on the moon in 1969. Never before in history had such an historic event been without independent press coverage. Whatever sound and pictures were distributed to the public were strictly controlled and previewed by the Federal Government.

     Could a fuzzy black-and-white television image be used to fool the public? Let's look at history. In the mid 1950's Time Magazine had on its cover " The Smartest Man in America" who was the latest winner on the popular TV game show The Sixty-four Thousand Dollar Question. It was later proven in a court of law that the man knew the answers in advance. Time Magazine was wrong! They were fooled just like the rest of us. In fact, in the Grand Jury investigation, it was later proven that one hundred twenty people who swore to God that they were telling the truth at the start of the investigation, in fact, lied to the Grand Jury!

     What about Apollo 13? When America allegedly put humans on the moon for the second time (Apollo 12), several TV viewers telephoned the networks and complained that reruns of I Love Lucy were being interrupted. What a coincidence that the very next mission to the moon involved "life and death" jeopardy. Peoples' interest in return trips to the moon was rekindled!

     What about the moon rocks? The Soviet Union never sent a manned mission to the moon, yet they have moon rocks. How did they get them? By unmanned probes and meteorites! The only time in history that an astronaut, Soviet or American, is said to have left the relative safety of Earth orbit and ventured through the Van Allen Radiation Belts, a twenty-five thousand mile thick band of intense radiation which surrounds the Earth beginning at an altitude of about one thousand miles, is going to the moon. The Soviets, with a five-to-one advantage in the early part of the space race, never once sent a human through the radiation belts to even orbit the moon.

     In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to "see" the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which lasts 1/100th of  a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest. Imagine what it would be like to endure an hour and a half of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminum shielding!

     After this new generation of NASA astronauts encountered this unpredicted surprise, CNN (another "uncredentialed" source) issued the following report, "The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed (like when they supposedly went through them thirty years ago to reach the moon.) The phenomenon known as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn (newly discovered) 'Killer Electrons' that can dramatically affect the astronauts' health.

     It isn't an "utterly uncredentialed journalist" who is asserting that the Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967 that killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the moon. It is the dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, and who has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions), who is making this accusation. Mr. Medved, have you personally retrieved evidence from the space capsule to support your theory that this credible first hand assertion is unfounded?

     Anyone with the slightest open mind and truly objective thinking can conclude that when the assassin of President Kennedy was assassinated himself three days later, that something was awry. The moon landings cover-up is even grander, yet, obviously, not the first, and it is certainly not the first time, or the last, that the press at large was completely wrong.

     I sent a copy of this lost footage to every United States Senator and Congress Member (five hundred thirty-five), plus the president and the current director of the General Accounting Office. I have heard back from only four. In my letter I challenge them to summon Neil Armstrong himself to testify, under oath, whether or not he actually set foot on the moon in 1969. I caution them to get ready for the shock of their life. Oddly enough, in the thirty plus years since the event, Neil Armstrong has not granted, not even once, an on camera or independent print interview. Not to CNN, not to NBC, not to CBS, not to ABC, not to Time, Life or Newsweek. It is my conviction that he refuses to be interviewed because he does not want to lie. How does the lyric go? "Ask me no question, and I'll tell you no lies."

     Recently, however, I had the good fortune to show this falsified mission footage to Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, Neil Armstrong's fellow crewmate. Quite startled and angry, he was most interested in how I attained this lost footage. He also threatened to sue me if I showed it publicly. Why? Because it is meaningless? If Mr. Medved is courageous, why not challenge me to a duel of the wits on his radio show for an open debate on this subject?

We highly recommend this exciting video:

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon