It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dark Side Of The Moon Documenatry

page: 1
10

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 04:12 AM
link   
Dark Side of the Moon 41 Minutes
The story of Stanley Kubrick and NASA and the Apollo Moon program
starring Don Rumsfeld Henry kissinger and Alexander Haig..open your mind on this one...its a neat look at A PLAN B when failure is not an option Star and flag if you think its worth seeing. Watch these other parts that google did not show..tell me is this REAL or FAKE?

Part7 ca.youtube.com...

Part8 ca.youtube.com...

Part9ca.youtube.com...
Watch Hour Productions said
"Guys... Your first clues should've been in part 1, where they introduced a mission controller named David Bowman and a producer named Jack Torrance; Both characters from Kubrick's films (2001 & The Shining) Later on, a CIA agent named George Kaplan. This a Hitchcock character from North by Northwest. In fact, the whole premise of North by Northwest is that Cary Grant's character is mistaken for a government agent who doesn't exist. They even played N.B.NW music over the clip. LOL! Pure genius!"
They fooled me I am ashamed to say


[edit on 25-1-2009 by SUNRAY06]

[edit on 25-1-2009 by SUNRAY06]

[edit on 25-1-2009 by SUNRAY06]

[edit on 25-1-2009 by SUNRAY06]

[edit on 25-1-2009 by SUNRAY06]




posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
very interesting.. in my opinion they had to fake it to save face... i do think they went to the moon but not in july 1969



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Dark Side of the Moon was a mockumentary to show how the media can affect the way people think. It's not a serious movie. They cut interviews to make it say what they wanted it to say.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Dark Side of the Moon was a mockumentary to show how the media can affect the way people think. It's not a serious movie. They cut interviews to make it say what they wanted it to say.


great,

so why don't you give us some proof to believe you?

thanks



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Do a search on ATS, it pops up in every single moon thread.


Dark Side of the Moon is a French mockumentary 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.



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. In a 2004 interview, the director was asked why he would elect to make a film "closer to a comedy than a serious film"; Karel replied that in the wake of having made serious documentaries, the objective was "de faire un film drôle" (to make a funny film).[1]

en.wikipedia.org...(documentary)


With use of 'hijacked' archival footage, false documents, real interviews taken out of context or transformed through voice-over or dubbing, staged interviews, as well as, interviews with astronauts like Buzz Aldrin and others, Dark Side Of The Moon navigates the viewer through lies and truth; fact and fiction. This is no ordinary documentary. Its intent is to inform and entertain the viewer, but also to shake him up - make him aware that one should always view television with a critical eye.

www.mininova.org...

And it was actually done to APPEAR to have been done by Kubrick, but was actually a French film maker named William Karel



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


thanks

I watched the movie to the end and I saw some absurdities




I was almost convinced





posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Still scary how easily you can be misled. I'm talking for myself as well, though not in this particular case.
It's frustrating, how can you believe ANYTHING. Even written text or so-called research that has been done. It can all be manipulated
.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mortje
Still scary how easily you can be misled. I'm talking for myself as well, though not in this particular case.
It's frustrating, how can you believe ANYTHING. Even written text or so-called research that has been done. It can all be manipulated
.


agreed...

this is proof how easily people can be manipulated to believe in anything...



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   
I like the old saying:

Believe nothing you hear, and only half of what you see.

That goes for everything...

One thing you can always believe is what you feel...



Peace



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
I loved this when I first saw it... a few months ago and I loved it just as much rewatching it a few minutes ago. It almst got me the first time.
Here is another one thats also funny and believe it or not some people get fooled


www.youtube.com...
The old negro space program



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
In July 1969 I watched the moon landing with my grandfather. I remember him snickering, "balderdash...they ain't on the moon, this was all pre filmed out in the desert and in a studio".

I thought he was nuts....an old fogy...what did he know.......was I wrong? Was he right?

[edit on 25/1/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sator
I like the old saying:

Believe nothing you hear, and only half of what you see.

That goes for everything...

One thing you can always believe is what you feel...



Peace


Jessy Ventura used to say that to me all the time in the gym.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
In July 1969 I watched the moon landing with my grandfather. I remember him snickering, "balderdash...they ain't on the moon, this was all pre filmed out in the desert and in a studio".

I thought he was nuts....an old fogy...what did he know.......was I wrong? Was he right?

[edit on 25/1/09 by John Matrix]


I understand that Capricorn One was an entertainment movie, but get over it:

Mankind went on the Moon.

How could you pull that one through, several thousands people & sub-contractors working on a fake space program?, get real.

If one day, earth telescope are strong enough, so you can see the left over Lunar Module on the Moon, will you believe it then, or you will claim some conspiracy from the telescope manufacturer.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
My mum always says my grandad said it was a fake, I don't know why he said that though. Also when mum was a kid and they reported UFO's over Kaikora he said "we should shoot the buggers down" he was in the airforce when he was younger. Interesting mockumentary though well worth the watch.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by PopeyeFAFL
 


Earth telescopes ARE strong enough to see the artifacts left on the moon--the Hubble, for instance. Why doesn't NASA use the Hubble to scout out new landing sites for the "return to the moon and Mars" missions in the next ten years?

The answer is in Dark Mission--I just read it and it is astonishing, and Richard C. Hoagland and Mike Bara show their work.

The Mythbusters had a show on "moon landing hoax" myths, but what they forgot to include was that robotic missions could have performed tasks such as leaving the reflectors at the landing site which scientists use to determine at what rate the moon is receding from the Earth.

Personally, I have switched sides on the moon hoax debate three times. I'm not sure what to believe anymore--but one explanation that I found very satisfying was that, if NASA found themselves near the end of their decade-long window, and was unable to complete their task, they would, in the context of the space race, more likely pull the wool over they eyes of the American people (and the world) and simply launch the rocket, use pre-filmed sequences for the landing itself, and show footage of the astronauts in Earth orbit for all the "going to" and "coming back" sequences.

This would be within their capability of doing, whereas going to the moon had such a small chance of success on computers that, at the time, had one millionth the power of the tiniest wristwatch today.

There are still serious questions about the Van Allen belts. The American government, in its wisdom, exploded at least two nuclear bombs in those zones to try to disperse the radiation, which made it much, much worse, of course. The crew of Apollo 13 surviving in the Aquarius LM for 90 hours in "deep space" with a skin reportedly "barely thicker than a sheet of tin foil" is almost completely impossible. If a single micrometeoroid (very common in the space between the Earth and its moon) had struck the Aquarius, the astronauts would have been finished.

On top of that, its thin skin would have offered them little protection from solar and cosmic radiation. A random, regular-strength solar flare could have cooked them like a Thanksgiving turkey.

I'm not sure where I stand on the manned missions to the moon, still. But it's obvious that NASA covered up many, many things, and still to this day has much to answer for.

Here's one to think about--why didn't the radiation cloud the unexposed film? How could the astronauts possibly have taken photos on the moon when radiation was streaming through the Hasselblad cameras?

NASA admitted that they staged "a few" photos because they were damaged by radiation. If they admit to staging or doctoring a few under pressure, why should we believe that they didn't stage or fake them all?

Why have the 70 cases of videotape of the Apollo missions gone missing, and why did NASA dismantle the only machine that was capable of playing them back, so they could be properly digitally remastered?

Too many questions without answers.

In a shuttle mission a couple of years ago, it was reported on CNN that the orbiter had to be "brought down" in its orbit because the radiation at that level was "more damaging than previously thought".

Previously thought? I thought they went to the moon in 1969? Surely they had a chance to study levels of radiation in low Earth orbit in all the missions between Gemini and Apollo?

This issue requires some serious thought--and research. There are no easy ansers, and anyone that tells you that there are is lying. This is hardly an open-and-shut case.

Go out and do your own research. Think for yourself. And don't let anyone sway you from making up your own mind based on your own research.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Pretty obvious from the vast number of Apollo anomalies that we either never went to the moon or went using a very different technology. The NASA efforts served other military interests with Apollo being the public fund raiser to get it kicked off. Could very well be that Kubric participated half heartedly in the charade.



new topics

top topics



 
10

log in

join