Harry - do you even bother to thoroughly read the stuff you post?? They're saying that the documentary was a tongue in cheek attempt to show how they "might" have faked footage of some key historical event like the moon landing - NOT that they DID. It's intended to make people aware that they should be cautious about accepting what they see in the media at face value and question it - in spite of that Harry apparently took the front part of the film with the FAKED footage and took it as gospel and then ignored the back end where it's explained that it was all made up as a demonstration. Here's the synopsis of the "Dark Side of the Moon" from the Filmakers Library - http://www.filmakers.com/indivs/DarkSide.htm : Dark Side of the Moon for more films on Media Directed by William Karel, for Point du Jour This is not an ordinary documentary. Its intent is to inform and entertain the viewers, but also to shake them up and make them aware of the need to keep a critical eye on the media. The progress of film and television technology has made it possible to manipulate images without it being obvious. Even the use of archival pictures is no guarantee for authenticity since they can be used to substantiate different "facts." During an interview with Stanley Kubrick's widow the story came to light that Kubrick contributed to the popular success of the US space program with his film 2001: A Space Odyssey. He had the help and support of NASA which realized the film would popularize its costly space program. Note here that Kubrick received help from NASA because 2001 would help popularize space - NOT that NASA received help from Kubrick William Karel, director of Dark Side of the Moon, took this revelation one step further _ by inventing an astonishing scenario for the images of the moon landing, and validating it with "hijacked" archival footage, false documents, and authentic interviews out of context. REPEAT: it was INVENTED for this documentary to show that the media can distort what they present (ala Michael Moore) - it's NOT REAL This film should have your audience gasping at "the truth" and finally, when enlightened about the "plot", humbled in the realization of how difficult it is to separate truth from manipulation in the media. Harry - did you miss the part in the piece that explains that it was NOT REAL or did you just ignore it
I SAW THE FILM YOU DIDN'T SEE IT ! There are parts that were presented as fiction because it was reconstitution but OTHERS WERE NOT FICTIONS like TESTIMONIES OF STANLEY KUBRIK'S WIFE and GENERAL WALTERS PROMISING TO ANSWER A QUESTION TO WILLIAM KAREL THE AUTHOR OF THE FILM AND THE DAY AFTER HE WAS FOUND DEAD SURPRISINGLY ALTHOUGH HE WAS A HIGH RANK IN THE ARMY AND CIA !
And you do you bother to read those WHO SAW THE FILM or do you fear a JEWISH CONSPIRACY ? http://www.jewishcomment.com/cgibin/news.cgi?id=14&command=shownews&newsid=473 "Evidently Karel wanted to convey to the world the power governments can have over the publicâs perception of a world-shattering event, even to the extent of âfakingâ a moon landing to placate âthe people.â The film also emphasises what was perceived as a curious change in Kubrickâs demeanour in the years following the âfake landingâ project: according to the script he became more and more reclusive and suffered an untimely death in 1999 from a sudden illness. It is common knowledge that he assiduously avoided travel to the United States and kept virtually exclusively to his British country home in the ensuing years."
General vernon Walters was an not anonymous little soldier or cia agent ! http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/vawalters.htm rom A Contemporary Press Report: February 15, 2002 Vernon A. Walters, a former ambassador to the United Nations and Deputy Director of Central Intelligence. Appointed by President Nixon, General Walters was deputy chief of the C.I.A. from 1972 to 1976. <IMG SRC=http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/vawalters-photo-02.jpg>
Apparently in your case, seeing is believing - but seeing isn't necessarily understanding. The official synopsis of the documentary says it was all faked and/or contrived and/or footage taken out of context as an example of how the media can distort things - i.e., that it was NOT real. "...William Karel, director of Dark Side of the Moon, took this revelation one step further by inventing an astonishing scenario for the images of the moon landing, and validating it with "hijacked" archival footage, false documents, and authentic interviews out of context. This film should have your audience gasping at "the truth" and finally, when enlightened about the "plot", humbled in the realization of how difficult it is to separate truth from manipulation in the media..."
This program was originally advertised as one of a series of "mockumentaries" by the station that ran it. The intent was very definitely to mock exposee-type documentaries.
Why Neil Armstrong refused to swear on the Bible ? http://www.moonmovie.com/moonmovie/ Clues here about Stanley Kubrik the maker of the Nasa Moon Landing according to Kubrik's wife: http://www.jewishcomment.com/cgibin/news.cgi?id=14&command=shownews&newsid=473 http://www.absolutwade.com/archives/001663.asp
You seem crazy no, come on it's so funny why don't you laugh So one more time http://www.moonmovie.com/moonmovie/intro.html Kubrick, Nixon and the Man in the Moon (ARTE 2002) Director: William Karel ******************************** http://www.jewishcomment.com/cgibin/news.cgi?id=14&command=shownews&newsid=473
Wow, and here I was thinking ZZZZzzz won "dumbest poster" award. Just goes to show you that as soon as you make something idiot proof, someone makes a better idiot.