Dark side of the moon (1-5)

[mogster]

Run time: 10:34 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbegH4HMafQ   Posted on YouTube: July 25, 2007 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: September 14, 2007 By DU Member: mogster Views on DU: 1352

 
Part I (this video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbegH4HMafQ

Part II
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gsh6JmaKJBA

Part III
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOhZ-Pn7lV0

Part IV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O21Q-qGBLRo

Part V
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSQ952XZQns

------------------------------------------

OK, so hold on to your hats, folks. This strange film was shown on Norw. television in 2003. I turned on the TV in the middle of it, and was, to say it mildly, flabbergasted.
It is conspiracy related, and seen in retrospect, I tend to think how preemptive 'anti-conspirational' it is, and how the people behind it - and people in charge of the US govt. - are very intent on limiting speculation at a time when they _must_ have been vey busy planning the war in Iraq.
FYI it is a so-called 'mockumentary' - a film made as a documentary, but being the opposite.

The film has a wiki here.

From the youtube page:
Dark Side of the Moon is a French documentary by director William Karel which originally aired on Arte in 2002 with the title Opération Lune.

The basic premise for the film is the theory that the television footage from the Apollo 11 Moon landing was faked and actually recorded in a studio by the CIA with help from director Stanley Kubrick. It features some surprising guest appearances, most notably by Donald Rumsfeld, Dr. Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, Buzz Aldrin and Stanley Kubrick's widow, Christiane Kubrick.

The tone of the documentary begins with low key revelations of NASA working closely with Hollywood at the time of the Moon landings. Over the course of the tale, Karel postulates that not only did Kubrick help the USA fake the moon landings but that he was eventually killed by the CIA to cover up the truth. First hand testimony backing these claims come from Rumsfeld and Dr. Kissinger, which lend credence to the story.

It is finally revealed that this is a mockumentary as the end credits roll over a montage of blooper reels, with the main participants laughing over the absurdity of their lines or questioning if particular ones would give the joke away too soon. Besides being a comedic documentary, it is also an exercise in Jean Baudrillard's theories of hyperreality.

Australian broadcaster SBS television aired the film on April 1 as an April fools' joke. Several of the fictitious interviewees, such as Dave Bowman and Jack Torrance, are named after characters from movies directed by Stanley Kubrick.

Strange, very political, stuff ...

[Felinity]

1. Did a little research on this a while back

And it appeared that 2 things were true:

1. We went to the moon.

2. Kubrick created some footage on his set in Great Britain in case we couldn't get transmission from the lunar surface. I think some of it was used, then later scrubbed.

Not a definitive point of view. But truth is stranger than fiction.

Edit for grammar correction.

[mogster]

4. The issue when the fact isn't good enough for propaganda is a factor

In the picture, I agree. If the moon pictures weren't good enough, in the 60's you might think they would produce better pictures by faked imagery just to sell the story better, without this being a hint of a wider conspiracy or having anything to do with proving whether the moon was actually landed on or not. I was thinking more in the line of this film being propaganda, or a collusion between propaganda and art. Meta-content as of 2002 versus content as of 1969 makes an interesting juxtaposition, but the most interesting part is the contemporary part ;-)
If Rumsfeld, in 2002 - a very busy year in terms of politics and preparation for war - took time off to produce/participate in this film, at least it should be noted that he would spend time to deflect conspiracy theories, that he was 'conspiracy theory concious' already back in 2002, three years before the 911 conspiracy theories went through the ceiling. Rumsfeld doesn't eactly strike me as a guy taking time off for public service, nor is he known for his cool art film connections.

On the other hand, I'm not known for my cool art film connections either, so who knows :P

[LongTomH]

2. Try this site

Astronomer Phil Platt spent quite a bit of time refuting the Fox Moon Hoax 'documentary.' Phil's 'Moon Hoax' page is a great resource for arguing with people who don't believe we went to the moon.

Phil's blog is a fun place to visit and is one of my favorite science blogs. Phil frequently takes on issues in other areas of science than astronomy. Currently, he's ripping creationist Phil Hovind a new one - drop over to Phi's site for the story.

By the way mogster, I can believe a hoax that fooled the media; a hoax that fooled the world scientific community is another matter altogether.

[mogster]

3. Yeah and

A hoax that stands the test of time would impress me most. Thanks for the links :-) But it's not so much with the actual theme of the film for me, I'm more interested in the timing of it and the people involved. And the sophisticated level of the whole thing, as propaganda. Or art. I'd say it may be both?