interestin Video

Mahatma coat · 28-07-2009 1:50am #1

part one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7Ge8KiaWTA

Part two

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUmqvNdAml4

Part three

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9j5PQpqiHiM

OK this is an interestin one, I want to discuss this video and its ramifications with individuals who have

WATCHED THE VIDEO TO THE END

seriously, this thread is for the discussion of THIS DOCCO ONLY.

I feel that this deserves its own topic, watch it IN FULL, very interesting

I'm not going to say too much about what the docco is about right now, but tis topical

also I would very much appreciate it if the mods didnt take it upon themselves to edit this willnilly without first discusing the changes with me, there are reasons tothe vaugeness of the OP, which will bco clear after you WATCH THE DOCCO

King Mob · 28-07-2009 2:18am

Right so five minutes in.
Lots of nonsense so far.

2001: A Space Odessy had sweet **** all to do with any Nasa missions.
Kubrick was basing the technology on how current missions looked and how conceptual mission might have looked.

I don't see how anyone would call any of the rocket launches "uninteresting."

The guy says all of Hollywood shut down to dress up the Apollo.
This is bull****.

There wasn't any noticeable dressing up of the missions after 2001 and one came out.

He claims they changed the shape of the rockets: this is a lie.

Looking forward to the rest of the film.

Edit: now 8 mins in. Even more bull****.
The guy says the lined up the launch pad with the sun. This is another half truth. If you stand to the west of anything and look east it will line up with the sun.

Micheal Collins never disappeared any where.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Collins_%28astronaut%29#Post-NASA_activities

Neil Armstrong never went to a monastery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Armstrong#Life_after_Apollo

The astronauts weren't "carefully observed by Richard Nixon" the guy was there for like 5 minutes to give a speech.

Double Edit: It's increasingly clear now that however made this documentary is editing these interviews and taking this stuff out of context.

The video Implies that Buzz left Nasa and the airforce because of Nixon's backup speech. He left active duty in 72 but stayed on for a while in the airforce.
(The video then show footage of Nixon giving a speech that I don't think is the one the video is implying it is.)

King Mob · 28-07-2009 2:35am

****.
I should have wikied the title.

Mahatma coat · 28-07-2009 2:55am

Thanks Mob, Point proven.

now how about we discuss it after you have watched the WHOLE VIDEO

King Mob · 28-07-2009 3:09am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Thanks Mob, Point proven.

now how about we discuss it after you have watched the WHOLE VIDEO

I have.

Poe's Law
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe%27s+Law

Mahatma coat · 28-07-2009 4:39am

OK what did you make of Rummy's contribution??

or Kissinger???

I want people to view this docco as a stand alone piece of information, watch it to the end in full before you comment on it, and then comment only on the items raised in the video.

I think its a sublime piece of television that serves to highlight the political games and standard modus operandi of the Government

King Mob · 28-07-2009 4:45am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK what did you make of Rummy's contribution??

or Kissinger???

I want people to view this docco as a stand alone piece of information, watch it to the end in full before you comment on it, and then comment only on the items raised in the video.

I think its a sublime piece of television that serves to highlight the political games and standard modus operandi of the Government

You realise it's a mockumentary right?

How exactly would it highlight anything?

Mahatma coat · 28-07-2009 4:54am

Jaysus. really :eek:

You didnt

as is evient from your first post

KM wrote:

Right so five minutes in.
Lots of nonsense so far.

2001: A Space Odessy had sweet **** all to do with any Nasa missions.
Kubrick was basing the technology on how current missions looked and how conceptual mission might have looked.

I don't see how anyone would call any of the rocket launches "uninteresting."

The guy says all of Hollywood shut down to dress up the Apollo.
This is bull****.

There wasn't any noticeable dressing up of the missions after 2001 and one came out.

He claims they changed the shape of the rockets: this is a lie.

Looking forward to the rest of the film.

Edit: now 8 mins in. Even more bull****.
The guy says the lined up the launch pad with the sun. This is another half truth. If you stand to the west of anything and look east it will line up with the sun.

Micheal Collins never disappeared any where.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael...ASA_activities

Neil Armstrong never went to a monastery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Ar...e_after_Apollo

The astronauts weren't "carefully observed by Richard Nixon" the guy was there for like 5 minutes to give a speech.

Double Edit: It's increasingly clear now that however made this documentary is editing these interviews and taking this stuff out of context.

The video Implies that Buzz left Nasa and the airforce because of Nixon's backup speech. He left active duty in 72 but stayed on for a while in the airforce.
(The video then show footage of Nixon giving a speech that I don't think is the one the video is implying it is.)
__________________

As usual Mob you have woefully/wilfully missed my point, and I couldnt be arsed tryin to explain it to you, I'm sure others will be capable of following written instructions and watch the Video IN FULL before they respond, then we can have a sensible discussion about points raised inthe doco and the techniques employed by the producers to make their point

King Mob · 28-07-2009 5:01am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Jaysus. really :eek:

You didnt

as is evient from your first post

As usual Mob you have woefully/wilfully missed my point, and I couldnt be arsed tryin to explain it to you, I'm sure others will be capable of following written instructions and watch the Video IN FULL before they respond, then we can have a sensible discussion about points raised inthe doco and the techniques employed by the producers to make their point

Yes MC I've acknowledged that.
And I have watch the film.

How exactly does it "highlight the political games and standard modus operandi of the Government"?
That Rumsfeld and Kissinger have a sense of humour?
They where taking the piss.

There are no actual points raised in the film.

Mahatma coat · 28-07-2009 5:12am

ah I give up, I tried, really, I even thought a slightly more lighthearted topic could be fun, but no, other posters have highlighted the same problem time and time again and anything else I could say on the topic would be an ad Homenim.

SO

King Mob

Ignore++

King Mob · 28-07-2009 5:17am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

ah I give up, I tried, really, I even thought a slightly more lighthearted topic could be fun, but no, other posters have highlighted the same problem time and time again and anything else I could say on the topic would be an ad Homenim.

SO

King Mob

Ignore++

So not possible that I misunderstood your point then?

Must be because I'm ignorant.

CHD · 28-07-2009 5:59am

Whens part 4 out?

Also sitting at home watching these kinda things on youtube while stoned off your nut isn't healthy AMIRITE?

How do we even know there really is a moon?
Why does a big fat old guy have a stroke?
Was Nixon nodding off when he closed his eyes for 2 minutes?

So many questions.

robtri · 28-07-2009 8:52am

MC, I Have watched it all, will you address some points of discussion.

Overall,
1. Can I assume that since you are putting these films out here, you believe the context in them..
Mainly the USA went to the moon, landed and successfully came back...
just that the film was ruined, so they used a film on earth to show it...

2. The film states that when the film footage was brought back to earth it was deemed unusable, yet the moon landing was viewed live on earth by 500 million people as it happened... how can that be??

Part1.

3. The film suggests that a 2001 Space odyssey set was used, as it took 4 years to film the set was still there...
yet a 2001 space odysessy finished filming a year prior to the moon landing..
Does this mean that the film set, was left undisturbed for nearly a year in an MGM film studio? NO.

4. jack Torrence, states all of hollywood came to a stop to help on the production of the take off of the apollo rocket...
he said 700 techs where assigned... I doubt 700 techs is all of hollywood.

I have no doubt that hollywood where involved, it was the biggest event in history, who better to film it than hollywood.

5. He said the changed the shape of the rocket. emmmm thats a big fat lie... for so many reason...

6. he said they moved the take off platform to align up with the sun, surely its easire to move the camera?? that doesn't make the remotest piece of sense.

7. he talks about the use of gold on the engines, as a hollywood touch... saying it has no value on the engine area...
Sorry but it does, gold makes the best heat shield...

part 2.

8. Eve Kendall, a secretary, whose notes where ripped up by Nixon on the day...can remember 40 years later word for word what was said by different people....

9. Cia Agents where used and sworn to secrecy, and had to dissapear afterwards, but yet they let kubrick wander around after directing the film..
that doesn't make sense.

10. mistakes raised in part 2.
a. Waving flag.... already shown to be possible in a vacumn, a flag was on a piviot and the movement of the spaceman causes ripples exactly as seen.

b. Camera temp change.. film says not modifications where made to camera... unfortuantely thats not true..
The Hasselblad Armstrong carried had a special silver finish to allow it to withstand extreme temperature changes and used a glass Reseau plate which added a 5x5 grid of crosses to the images. These markings allowed NASA HQ to account for film distortion and calculate distances on the final images.

C. Footprints... could not happen without water.. actually this was proven wrong, it can happen, due to the fact of NO water, as no water rock particles are sharp, not rounded like here on earth, so when pressed down the hold that shape and not collapse.

D. No flash from camera... yep thats right, it was broad daylight stronger than here on earth, so no surprise no flash.

11. Part 2 still implies we went to the moon, again....

part3.

12. Pic of kublick on moon....seriously thats a laugh

13. You asked earlier about what kissenger had to say, he spoke for what 20 sec's and gave no idication he was talking about moon landings, just said Nixon was a very smart guy... whats the pint you raised here on that one..

14. So let me get this straight, Nixon/CIA had all the people involved in the filming of the moon landing killed... BUT let kubrick alive, come on... thats so so laughable.

15. the film also implied the CIA go around filming their killing of targets.... yeah OK.... a lot of effort, but they still leave the one man alive who is not one of their own.... not very plausible...

watty · 28-07-2009 10:27am

Let's have some Honesty and Integrity.

Australian broadcaster SBS television aired the film on April 1 as an April fools' joke.

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).

I've just wasted part of my life watching 3 You Tube videos dishonestly taken out of context from a FAKE documentary, intended as a Joke by the Director.

(I only googled AFTER watching it).

Do some real research folks. Watching three You Tube extracts absolutely on their own is not a basis to draw conclusions.

The videos don't even stand up on their own in isolation to critical analysis.

There is little point in highlighting all the errors and mis-information in the videos as they were NEVER intended to be other than a joke.

watty · 28-07-2009 10:37am

The realizer William Karel continues his reflexion on the report/ratio of The United States with the image, the cinema and their capacity to be produced “spectacle”. Which other history can lend itself to such a glance that of the space conquest, war of image and spectacle before anything else. And if it were only one enormous trickery initiated by the two great powers? Between lies and truths, this film mingles with the actual facts with others, completely invented Playing with irony and lie, the purpose of it is to divert and raise the problem of the use of the files, with which one can make say what one wants.

Bad translation of below

Le réalisateur William Karel poursuit sa réflexion sur le rapport des
États-Unis avec l’image, le cinéma et leur capacité à produire du
« spectacle ». Quelle autre histoire peut se prêter à un tel regard que celle de la conquête spatiale, guerre d’image et de spectacle avant tout autre chose. Et si ce n’était qu’une énorme supercherie initiée par les deux grandes puissances ?
Entre mensonges et vérités, ce film mêle des faits réels à d’autres,
totalement inventés Jouant avec ironie et mensonge, il a pour but de divertir et de soulever le problème de l’utilisation des archives, à qui l’on peut faire dire ce que l’on veut.

http://www.lussasdoc.com/etatsgeneraux/recherche.php?recherche=L&id=598

In fact what this "Documentary" is really about, is how easy it is to Fabricate a CT, that will take in the gullible, the uneducated, those that want to see conspiracies.

In fact the film really suggests that ALL CT could be Faked by editing real files suitably and taking information out of context.

I think the Film proves the opposite to the intention of the OP and is designed to do so!

6th · 28-07-2009 12:01pm

MC, this forum is not your personal playground. I suggest you make your point otherwise there is no reason to have this thread. Posters have pointed out their views on this video, it would be nice if you could do the same.

uncleoswald · 28-07-2009 12:12pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

ah I give up, I tried, really, I even thought a slightly more lighthearted topic could be fun, but no, other posters have highlighted the same problem time and time again and anything else I could say on the topic would be an ad Homenim.

SO

King Mob

Ignore++

Hang on, what? You post a video cryptically asking for opinions and someone obliges and then asks for yours as they justifiably have no idea what point they are been asked to comment on, so then you decide they are unworthy of your attention? I also notice that after realising that he had fallen for the hoax film (but only to a point, he never believed any of it) he was far more "lighthearted" on the matter then you were so perhaps you should press ignore on yourself?

On one level the video seems to be suggesting how everyone can be manipulated but more accurately it simply shows how it is possible to take a small hanfull of carefully chosen facts and mix them together with quotes, footage and lies to create a different story, i.e. just about every conspiracy theory video on youtube. Whether the maker of the movie intended it or not I see it as a pisstake of Loose Change et all.

Thanks Mob, Point proven.

. Care to explain what your point was now?

watty · 28-07-2009 12:32pm

uncleoswald wrote: »

On one level the video seems to be suggesting how everyone can be manipulated but more accurately it simply shows how it is possible to take a small handfull of carefully chosen facts and mix them together with quotes, footage and lies to create a different story, i.e. just about every conspiracy theory video on youtube. Whether the maker of the movie intended it or not I see it as a pisstake of Loose Change et all.

. Care to explain what your point was now?

The Director is in fact on record as saying this is the case. As I mention in my post earlier.

If you can't believe the Director saying the Film is to show how easy it is to fake a CT (not Fake real life as a Conspiracy) how can you believe anything to do with any film.

The Original Credits and Bloopers confirm it.

6th · 28-07-2009 12:37pm

Purposely misleading the users of this forum is disrespectful and goes against the idea of community that we try to build here. Throwing your toys out of the pram just adds insult to injury.

Mahatma coat, banned for 1 month. The length of this ban is due to infraction/ban history.

interestin Video

Comments