Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (5716)	3/19/2004 2:02:19 PM
From: Michelino	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Yes there WAS a hoax. The film you referenced is, in "fact", a mockumentary: a deliberate and pointed example of propaganda. I am hoping your breathless recitation of the facts that come to light upon viewing it was intentional parody (10). "Q. The CBC is showing a documentary called "Dark Side of The Moon." According to the blurb, during an interview with Stanley Kubrick's widow, she reveals that Kubrick, along with other producers, were recruited to create moon landing footage in case NASA wasn't able to transmit signals from the moon. The Nixon administration couldn't afford a public relations failure. In exchange, Kubrick got a special NASA lens to help him shoot "Barry Lyndon" in 1975. Marie Haws, New Westminster, British Columbia A. The doc aired Nov. 16 and repeated Nov. 21. According to Alex Strachan of the CanWest News Service, it contains on-camera interviews with Christiane Kubrick, astronaut Buzz Aldrin, Henry Kissinger, Donald Rumsfeld, Al Haig and others, and says the fake landing was filmed on the same sound stage Kubrick used for the moon in "2001: A Space Odyssey." So why didn't Americans hear about this amazing expose? Because "Dark Side of the Moon," by the French documentarian William Karel, is a mockumentary. Using camera trickery, special effects and editing of real interviews that takes words out of context, it seems to be a factual report of a hoax -- but is a hoax itself. " suntimes.com "During an interview with Stanley Kubrick's widow an extraordinary story came to light. Kubrick and other Hollywood producers contributed to the popular success of the US space programme by turning it into visual entertainment. This gave rise to the idea to try and find out how far will anyone go for the power of images. An answer may be found in this intriguing documentary which employs every possible technique, such as 'hijacked' archive footage, false documents, real interviews, which have been taken out of context, etc. This is not an 'ordinary' documentary. Its intent is to inform and entertain the viewer, but also to shake him up, make him aware of the fact that one should always view things with a critical eye." goethe.de "Originally, in 2001, director William Karel wanted to make a film on Stanley Kubrick, one year after his death. While talking to his widow, he discovered the extent of the collaboration that existed between Kubrick and the NASA. It turns out that Kubrick and other Hollywood producers contributed largely to the popular success of the US space programme by turning it into a show (design of astronauts’ suits, colour fo the Apollo capsule, positioning of the rocket launcher in Cape Canaveral, etc…) Starting with this true story, we came up with our own… What if…? What if Nixon - under pressure to put the first man onto the moon before the end of the decade – had asked for a film of the landing on the moon be produced just in case the Apollo 11 went wrong and no pictures would be available… A documentary intrigue, a subtle blend of facts, fiction and hypothesis, around an event that marked the 20th century: the landing on the moon. What if it’s all been a big hoax triggered by the race of the two super-powers to be the first to conquer the moon ? What if there have been no “live transmissions” from the moon – as many claim? The progress of film and television technology has made it possible to manipulate images without it being obvious. Even the use of archive pictures is no guarantee for authenticity since they can be used to substantiate very different “facts”. How can the spectator KNOW what he watches? Navigating carefully between lies and truth, the film mixes fact with pure invention. We will use every possible ingredient : ‘hijacked’ archive footage, false documents, real interviews which have been taken out of context or transformed through voice-over or dubbing, staged interviews by actors who reply from a script and, of course, interviews with astronauts such as Neil Armstrong who refute our claim or still others who believe for all what it’s worth that it was all a hoax. " This is not an ‘ordinary’ documentary… It’s intent is to inform and entertain the viewer, but also to shake him up, make him aware of the fact that television can get it wrong (intentionally or not) .We want to achieve this aim by using a universally known event (the landing on the Moon) that is surrounded by question marks (which is a fact) and spin some tale around it, that sounds plausible but isn't a fact (although there are elements in it that are real!). Confused? It will all be revealed before the end of the film... once the viewer is hooked, strung along and starts really wondering. pointdujour-international.fr ------ On Topic Alert! Note: For anyone who is really taken by the hoax about the moon hoax: please see badastronomy.com where is it revealed that FOX TV used innumeracy as a test of its own propaganda techniques: prior to that network's brazen portrayal of the Iraqi war being as being an appropriate response to 9/11. (10) Video Ekphrasis? See also (9) and (7) Message 19917216