More NASA lies and cover ups?

More films exploring the possibilities that NASA is not giving the full story. Watch them if you dare: not because they are scary, but because they are fucking terribly made. Full videos after the jump.  

 

Firstly we have Secret Space: Volume 1. In Secret Space: Volume 2 the creator advises us that these were made in the wrong order, and volume 1 should really be volume 2, and volume 2 volume 1. Wait…what?

 

Personally, I find this a chore to watch. Not only does it actually fail to really make a valid constructed point – it makes claims and then rambles for about an hour with no connectivity – it’s also produced in the “let’s pad out a half-hour programme for an hour with over-the top unnecessary images, animations and very slow animated text” style. Absolute garbage.

 

Some of the stuff is interesting, but after many years of watching well-crafted, to-the-point and factual documentaries like BBC’s Horizon, this is just overstuffed crap. Dude, when you have come up with your salient points and filmed the relevant bits, STEP AWAY FROM THE AVID CONSOLE.

 

Watch for endless chunks of pointless NASA and Capcom shots, silly alien faces and the like, as well as 3 minutes (3 MINUTES) of titles. Jeez. Personally, the moment someone mentions reptiloids or greys I switch off, but in amongst the loony-tunes babble there are some interesting points.

 

 

Then we have Secrets Of Space: Volume 2, in which we start by making a very slowly-explained and repeated point that of the fact that the Americans raided the National Museum in Iraq is VERY VERY important. Then we totally forget that and go off on another rambling, unconnected litany of theories, most of which are offered as a slideshow with no arguments for or against. Again, far too many silly graphics, slow reads of text in an annoyingly irrelevant French accent (producer’s girlfriend, perhaps?) and bad production. Again with the overuse of time-dragging techniques.

 

In the opening slow, rambling drivel the producer says that his friends told him “not to make these films”.

Somehow, I think they were right.

 

 

Then finally we have Dark Side Of The Moon.

 

Apparently a VERY IMPORTANT film by some French dude you have never heard of who says that the whole Apollo landing was filmed in advance of the mission as a “safety net” at the behest of Richard Nixon, just in case they were unable to transmit pictures from the actual landings. He suggests that Stanley Kubrick was hassled into creating the film on the set of 2001: A Space Odyssey using CIA agents as the actors.

 

What pissed me off in this film is the inclusion of “amazing revelations and confirmations” that are supposed to prove the film’s argument by Donald Rumsfeld, Henry Kissinger and more. Supposedly they were all present when Nixon commanded that the films be made. Problem is, all you actually hear them say are small snippets that do not mention anything specific. Rumsfeld says “he made the decision and I could not agree with it, and walked out”, but to what does this refer? For all we know he is talking about Watergate, or ordering ham sandwiches instead of beef.

 

Unfortunately, the “smoking guns” of this film are supposed to be these interviews, and as they offer no context  and are blatantly little voxpops picked to suggest they are talking about the subject matter, they are worth nothing and useless (and very obvious, and very annoying). Sorry, but no one on this earth is going to get someone like Rumsfeld to sit there and say “Oh, yeah, hey we totally made up the moon landing to beat the Russians because we knew the cameras wouldn’t work”.

 

A better made film than the last two, but frankly, if you give any credence to the “exclusive revealing interviews” then you are the kind of person that believes everything they see on Fox News.

 

*EDIT* I have since been informed (see comments) that Dark Side Of The Moon is, in fact, a spoof of conspiracy theory films. Gah! Suckered me in, but on second viewing, yes, you can see that it is. Just goes to show you how accurate it is to the source material. Sadly, it is such a subtle spoof that unless told otherwise, most folks (shamefully including me) will be taken in. I guess that is both a success and a failure at the same time :)

 

 

But, despite poor production, amidst all the drivel and conspiracy theory tin-foil hat wearing, there are interesting points in these films. How you decide to interpret them: fact or fiction, real or nonsense – is up to you. Don’t take my criticisms of the production of the films as confirmation of my opinion on their contents.

 

As ever, I am remaining mute on the matter.

 

About these ads

8 Comments

  1. Iron Sun
    Posted July 29, 2008 at 6:07 am | Permalink | Reply

    Dark Side Of The Moon is a joke, it’s not meant to be taken seriously. The producers wanted to show how easy it is to create a false impression just with a bit of creative editing. If you really pay attention to what is being said you’ll notice that it gets sillier and sillier as the movie progresses – KGB agents with strong British accents, ridiculous names, and so on. Some of the supposedly real interviewees have names taken from Kubrick movies, such as Dave Bowman from 2001 or Jack Torrance from The Shining.

    Unfortunately some people can’t see the joke, even after multiple viewings.

  2. Posted July 29, 2008 at 11:13 am | Permalink | Reply

    @ Iron Sun – I have to shamefully admit that on the first viewing I never picked that up. Although I did find myself a little curious about Dave Bowman :)

    On a review, it is more obvious.

    Maybe it’s because I had watched the first two films right before Dark Side Of The Moon. If I had watched this first, I suspect I would have picked up on that, but they were such badly-made nonsense that think my brain had retreated in on itself. Plus I didn’t have any context for this film, I simply found it.

    That’s embarrasing :)

    Kind of ironic though, that he can create a film that parodies its peers, but then because of the way the internet works it is soon amongst its peers and considered the same. Oh dear. I too share your despair that 99% of viewers will not know it is a spoof.

    What have we learned today? Don’t watch lots of conspiracy films in one go. And don’t believe what people write in descriptions on video sharing websites. And finally, that it is probably very, very hard to spoof conspiracy theory films subtly without becoming one.

    I guess that’s kinda sad.

  3. Philbert
    Posted December 26, 2009 at 12:00 am | Permalink | Reply

    The following videos provide undeniable evidence that the Apollo 11 along with NASA have knowledge that the moon is indeed inhabited. Nasa has know this since before the Apollo 11 missions. That is why they never landed. They may have gotten close to the moon, but they never landed. The footage shows that they had several 100 if not thousands of encounters with intelligently controlled advanced space craft of different sizes and shapes. This footage also shows that the Apollo 11 crew were told to leave without a word. This footage shows structures on the moon. Space craft coming from the moon and the structures.

    http://realufos.ning.com/video/part-1-nasa-apollo-11-film
    http://realufos.ning.com/video/part-2-nasa-apollo-11-film

    • Posted December 26, 2009 at 1:48 am | Permalink | Reply

      Film grain, contaminants on the film, and artifacts generated by the film being a god-knows-how-many generation digital encoding of the original film stock. I’m afraid this offers no proof of anything other than people’s ability to jump on anything they don’t fully understand and assume that it is evidence of something else.

      Any basic knowledge of film, cameras or video encoding technology will make the claims in these films laughable.

      Why, the other day I had to gently and slowly explain to someone that no, Neills Blomkamp’s film “Tetra Vaal” is not real, and not actual footage of secret military robot technology.

      I really do worry about this species, sometimes. There really is no hope.

      • Philbert
        Posted December 26, 2009 at 2:17 am | Permalink | Reply

        Dear dogsounds
        Film grain, contaminants on the film, and artifacts generated by the film being a god-knows-how-many generation digital encoding of the original film stock im afraid does not have objects appear to be coming strait up from the Moon surface. Neither will any of these you have listed will consistently depict structures with square openings in 300 frames of film. The so called artifacts and film grain or any other excuse you can come up with will not work here. In fact I challenge you to prove this from the original footage. It is a shame that even after some people have seen the saucer shaped craft, the structures , the false horizon they must still try and find a way for their belief system to work for them to be right, even if they are incorrect and they know it. This is because they don’t want to believe what they seen. But as far as this lame argument about generation of film and quality of the footage. The video speaks for itself. I encourage everyone to see these presentations.

  4. Posted December 26, 2009 at 2:25 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Oh, I encourage that too. But I pass on your challenge – not because I cannot back up my claims, but because the onus is on the person making the claim to offer hard proof to that withstands any counterclaims by people such as myself – it is not up to me to prove the film maker right, it is up to the film maker making the claims to offer watertight, iron clad proof with documentary evidence and actual facts and figures. For example, explaining why this could NOT be film grain or inconsitencies in the film emulsion (as an single example) rather than just saying “OMG this is SO an alien ship because, like, what else could it be?”. Sadly, these films do not do that and offer no such proof and they never, ever do. Which is kind of the point of this article, to a certain degree.

    99% of these films always come down to basic human pattern recognition, wild speculation, a lack of research, and wishful thinking. Occasionally a film comes up that really does beg the question, but you know, that’s not very often. And this is not one of them.

    I really can’t wait for the day we actually get decent shots of the Apollo equipment actually ON the moon. We’ve had some, but nothing fantastic. Although I suspect that won’t shut anyone up, they’ll still somehow weave a conspiracy into that.

    Sometimes a cigar…is just a cigar.

  5. Philbert
    Posted December 26, 2009 at 6:52 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I disagree with everything you said. SO will anyone that has the ability to reason for themselves. You have taken everything and twisted it to suit your belief. even if a ufo landed in your front yard you would still find a way to make it as though it never happened. You said “not because I cannot back up my claims, but because the onus is on the person making the claim to offer hard proof to that withstands any counterclaims by people such as myself”
    Your counter claims that you feel are so brilliant with no proof are empty words. In fact you have only put them here to continue convince yourself that you are right. I cannot believe people such as yourself who are in complete denial and in your case it is obvious why you are trying to debunk this evidence. In your last statement you said ” I really can’t wait for the day we actually get decent shots of the Apollo equipment actually ON the moon. We’ve had some, but nothing fantastic. Although I suspect that won’t shut anyone up, they’ll still somehow weave a conspiracy into that.”

    That is a very ignorant statement considering that after 40 years they are just now going to come up with some really good images of the Apollo equipment. That has got to be the biggest joke I have ever heard. They will never ever come up with solid video or images of the Apollo equipment still on the moon. If it was true they landed on the moon then they would have already shut the conspiracy theories up with the proof. But the fact is there is more proof in the Apollo 11 footage to determine that they could not have landed, because there simply was no place to land. I cannot believe some people will see the evidence of the space craft attract the Apollo command module, land on it, fly up to the command module, return to the Moon, Were structures are plain as day and sit here trying to make it not true by empty speculations such as yours. I challenge you to prove me wrong. for your information the footage speaks for itself it has already established iron clad proof that withstands any counterclaims by people such as yourself. Prove it wrong, I bet you will never do that without just using words. You are in denial that is obvious because you still believe the lies that have been fed to the public. You are still looking for proof in some extraordinary images that nasa is going to come up with that will show the equipment on the moon. This will NEVER HAPPEN. It is up to you to prove the film wrong because you already make claims as to it not being right without any proof. Did you not watch both films? The video puts several U.F.Os right in your face on the video. It even zooms in on the structures and shows ufos landing on the U.S space vehicle. And you are going to deny what you seen by trying to make stuff up for what you really seen. I really wonder about you, are you hired to debunk the truth and evidence. If not then you have not done any home work at all in even trying to prove anything about the Apollo mission wrong or right. Hey I was just like you, I believed in Nasa and the Apollo missions. Until i started hearing all the other conspiracy stories, So I set out to prove that Nasa was not lying and the Apollo Missions are true . But instead I found many things that Nasa has been keeping a secret and the deception they have been handing out in big mouthfuls. You need to do the same thing or don’t comment at all on what you don’t know a grain of salt about.

    • Posted December 26, 2009 at 7:43 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Okay, let’s work through this.

      ” even if a ufo landed in your front yard you would still find a way to make it as though it never happened”

      I seem to remember saying pretty much the same thing. So you are saying it applies to me because it doesn’t apply to people who make claims with no evidence? Fail. In reality, if a UFO landed in my back yard I would be filming that little sucker with every piece of optical equipment I could find. As well as thoroughly shitting myself.

      “If it was true they landed on the moon then they would have already shut the conspiracy theories up with the proof.”

      Yes, because NASA is really going to spend billions of tax dollars on a mission that is just to prove they did what they say they did, when they can’t even get the funding for new lunar landing missions passed through government. Why should they? Should the Simon Wiesenthal Foundation waste its time proving the holocaust to those who think it was fake to shut them up? Fail.

      “But the fact is there is more proof in the Apollo 11 footage to determine that they could not have landed, because there simply was no place to land.”

      Oh, coffeee squirting out of my nose does not leave a nice smell. Yes, you are right, there is NOWHERE on the moon to land. Not a single inch of flat surface anywhere. Fail.

      “I challenge you to prove me wrong.”

      No. You make the claim, you provide the irrefutable proof. The films you link are compelling, yes, but they do not provide irrefutable proof. They show things that could be a million different things. Let’s put it this way: you don’t haul a man into a police station, say to the rather confused looking desk sergeant: “this man is a murderer, please arrest him, but I am not going to offer any conclusive evidence, it’s up to you to prove that he is not”. Again, your films show “interesting things” but no conclusive proof. Fail.

      “I really wonder about you, are you hired to debunk the truth and evidence.”

      Ah yes, the classic claim thrown out by a tin-foiler to anyone who diagrees with him. If you don’t disagree with me, you are obviously an agent of disinformation hired by some shadowy government organisation. Fail.

      ” It is up to you to prove the film wrong because you already make claims as to it not being right without any proof.”

      Like I said, actually it is NOT up to me to do any such thing. You made the claims in your first post, therefore YOU have to prove why the evidence is so irrefutable and why my claims are incorrect. The burden of any proof always lies with the person expecting others to believe his or her claim not the other way around.

      “You need to do the same thing or don’t comment at all on what you don’t know a grain of salt about.”

      You assume that I know nothing. Your logic is fatally flawed. You are effectively saying “if you don’t look at this and come to the same conclusion as me then you haven’t looked hard enough”. Wrong, it simply means I have studied the evidence and come to a different conclusion. Fail.

      You seem to misunderstand my point in all these articles, so I will come out and say what I have always shied away from (which I do so to enable my readers can make up their own mind when they analyze the evidence for themselves): I do believe in extraterrestrial intelligent life. It would be ridiculously arrogant to think otherwise. I do believe that *perhaps* we have been visited. I do belive that there are people out there who are utterly intelligent, logical and analytical and come to similar conclusions.

      But I also believe that 90% of people wil believe any old shite without applying any logic or analysis. Have a read through forums like abovetopsecret.com. You will come away with nothing but disdain and pity for the great majority. A classic example would be the guy who lived near an airport, where jet planes live, but who was convinced that the sounds of jet planes he heard (from the nearby airport where jet planes live) were, in fact, sounds emanating (through the gloriously acustically non-conductive medium of the near-vacuum of space)from Nibiru, the mysterious Planet X. I really hate those people. I come across so many people like that, catastrophically hard of thinking, that I feel compelled to shout out the sheer mountain of media that purports to be absolute evidence of extra-terrestrials but that in fact is nothing that stands up to any scrutiny, whatsoever. I highlight these things so that people can decide for themselves, but I try to educate people to sift the wheat from the chaff. The films you link to are good, but as I have said, no better than so many others, and have just as little conclusive proof to back up the claims. The reason I haven’t posted a film so far and titled it “Proof of Extraterrestrial visits, holy fuck!” is simply because such a film does not exist. Yet. If I ever find one, I will most certainly post it, quite happily.

      I am not criticising you for your belief in these films; far from it. I am simply stating that they do not convince me at all of their main point and are too easily explained by the mundane – in my opinion. Just because I have a differening viewpoint and just because what is concrete proof for your is flimsy at best for me does not make me wrong or uneducated in the subject.

      Ultimately, there is far more evidence supporting the Apollo landings than there is evidence supporting the hoax theory. Until Neil Armstong makes a deathbed confession, my money is on the overwhelming evidence for.

Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *

*
*

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: