Dark Side Of The Moon

User avatar
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 8:44 am
Location: crunchyvania

PostSun Aug 16, 2009 7:37 am » by Crunchy

During an interview with Stanley Kubrick's widow an extraordinary story came to light. She claims Kubrick and other Hollywood producers were recruited to help the U.S. win the high stakes race to the moon. In order to finance the space program through public funds, the U.S. government needed huge popular support, and that meant they couldn't afford any expensive public relations failures.

Fearing that no live pictures could be transmitted from the first moon landing, President Nixon enlisted the creative efforts of Kubrick, whose 2001: a Space Odyssey (1968) had provided much inspiration, to ensure promotional opportunities wouldn't be missed. In return, Kubrick got a special NASA lens to help him shoot Barry Lyndon (1975).

A subtle blend of facts, fiction and hypothesis around the first landing on the moon, Dark Side Of The Moon illustrates how the truth can be twisted by the manipulation of images.

edit *** removed flag comment
Last edited by Crunchy on Mon Aug 17, 2009 6:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Upload to Disclose.tv


Posts: 2004
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 3:30 am

PostSun Aug 16, 2009 9:53 am » by Darrylmckay

Have heard this story, it makes sense, they wouldnt risk going to the moon and have no video of it.
They had to have a back up plan.

Weather this info proves they went to the moon or proves they didnt I dont know.
I will respect your beliefs*, I will research your beliefs, but dont expect me to believe.
* disclaimer-user makes no commitment to live up to this claim

Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:40 am

PostSun Aug 16, 2009 12:17 pm » by Zaphod

The flag moved as the astronaut shook it, pushing it into the ground.
But the moon landing was a gigantic exercise in PR, so I would agree that NASA would have a backup plan - I know I would if I was in charge. That is no proof that we didn't go there, or that what we saw was fake.
And so what?
I believe that we did visit the moon but even if we didn't, the idea was planted and it gave all humans a feeling of accomplishment. Now, just 40 years later, there is no question that we could do it again if we dedicated resources to going.
Real or fake, it represents one of the great milestones in human evolution.
Can a fake event be a milestone? This one can because, if it was fake, it was so well done that it convínced everyone that we could do something like this, and spurred a leap of inventiveness unseen outside of wartime development.

ID: 3f688d006278

PostSun Aug 16, 2009 12:42 pm » by viggerz

That shaking the flag theory is so much bollox lmao.

Well done on the biggest acomplishment in humanity. Conquering another " Spec Of Dust "
And lets not forget Military superiority. Well done give yourself a patt on the back everyone.

Posts: 1812
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 9:23 am

PostSun Aug 16, 2009 4:03 pm » by Thesaint

A process of damage limitation, Did we go on that date in 69? I doubt it, I have always believed that the pictures were done in a studio, If we went to the moon (and I believe we did but not with that tin can Apollo 11, we might have been many times) The monies involved, then and for future budget would have to guarantee a none failure. The 69 was no doubt IMO a sham and the problem is that it set a bench mark for how far they can go and keep the public blind. That's what happens when we trust our governments. If the 69 Moonlanding was questioned earlier than I doubt if many excersises and false flagging since would not have even be entertained.

Films like this are just testers for those laughing men to get a snapshot of public reaction, that's all. Check out the fallout and act accordingly. I doubt if the president has any say and passing the buck onto the deceased is standard practice. If we landed on the Moon than IMO it would be with a shadow mission not that public excersise. The easiest way to get out of the hole that they've dug for themselves is to say (and this is what I would do) that it was filmed in a studio JUST IN CASE there was any foulups, but if the public swallow it then there is no need to let the cat out of the bag. As I say damage limitation. I also feel that Gus Grissom and his fellow astronauts were killed as they were not happy with the deception and they were to much of a risk.

Zaphod said "so what" and "Real or fake, it represents one of the great milestones in human evolution."

That just doesn' make any sense for so many reasons including, selling an idea based on a lie in order to line peoples pockets at the cost of the average American tax payer.

I could go on but you get the picture, you cannot build a dream based on a lie for when that lie comes out you have to tell more lies to cover for the original ones and eventually the whole house of cards comes crashing down, AND SO IT SHOULD. :cheers:

Posts: 5671
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:28 am

PostSun Aug 16, 2009 4:44 pm » by Drextin

Actually the flag moving is one of the easy questions to answer. The flag was rolled up. Because the moon's gravity is so low the kinetic energy flowed through the flag instead of being absorbed by gravity when it was unfurled. The flag was also not made of cloth and had little wires in it to keep it "flying" this added to the waves seen going through the flag. Its basic science.

The first moon landing was real. The others are in question.
I am a nightmare walking, psychopath talking
King of my jungle just a gangster stalking

User avatar
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 8:44 am
Location: crunchyvania

PostMon Aug 17, 2009 6:27 pm » by Crunchy

sorry all, i should have quoted the text (i copy and pasted) ... i should have removed the first line as this "doc" (its fantasy) does not even go over the flag issue
which like others have said it was caused by the astronaut moving the flag ....

Upload to Disclose.tv


  • Related topics
    Last post