Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
My Review of Dark Side of The Moon and Response to Matt
Matt suggested that I stole my ideas about Apollo fraudulence from filmmaker William Karel. Karel made a film released as best I can tell in 2002 entitled "OPERATION LUNE/DARK SIDE OF THE MOON". As plagiarism is a fairly serious charge, it is important for me to respond to matt directly. I may write more about this later, but would like to say something about the film and matt's charge up front. If a more detailed response seems appropriate/needed, I can always expand on the outline as presented below.
Anyone that views this film can easily see it has nothing whatsoever to do with my own views as regards Apollo. Such is true whether one finds my thinking on the subject of Apollo fraud well grounded or way the heck off target. I'll proceed with a discussion/presentation of some of the film's details and then at the end of this post remind readers of my own views with respect to Apollo's genesis, method of operation/program, and personal involved. Those who have viewed OPERATION LUNE PREVIOUSLY/DARK SIDE OF THE MOON previously may well already be thinking, Karel and Patrick1000 are very much about 2 different things when it comes to our respective perspectives on Apollonian fraud.
The copy of the film I acquired yesterday was produced by Arte (Association Relative à la Télévision Européenne) and per the text details on the back of the DVD jacket, released in 2002. My understanding is that "Arte" is a French/German TV network. According to information provided by Karel himself in a nice little interview that accompanied the film, Arte approached him and asked him to make a film that had as its theme the idea that media images were manipulable, and as such, so was public opinion to which the images made reference. At least this is what I understood him to say in his DVD "bonus segment interview", a very nice and informative interview it was indeed.
Karel says that they considered several topics that would work given the rather specific request made by Arte. One was the Kennedy assassination not surprisingly. Karel says that Kennedy's murder was rejected as grist for his mill as he did not want to deal with "death". There was a certain messiness about it he wished to avoid. Apollo seemed perfect, as he pointed out there were some 300 or so websites where Apollo's authenticity vs inauthenticity was being debated in one sense or another.
Though Karel does not use the term "satire" explicitly, he indicates that this is what he intended his film to be. It is in his own word a "hoax" about the Apollo question. Karel uses half a dozen characters whom he interviews for the film, but the interviews for the most part pertain to an altogether different context, NOT APOLLO. As such, the film is presented in a pseudo-documentary fashion. Kubrick's wife, Rumsfeld, Kissinger, Helms and so forth are interviewed. The only "actor" Karel says he uses is a woman who "plays" Nixon's secretary.
For the most part, everybody is answering questions about subjects other than Apollo. Karel mentions Watergate as one of the subjects discussed during these non Apollo interviews. The woman playing the secretary I presume is the exception, and she is fed direct lines. Karel splices these interviews together in as provocative a way as he can to make the film seem to be about Apollo and not Watergate or Vietnam, or anything else. He is only somewhat successful at this. Still, because the film is not serious, since it is satire, this ineffectiveness is not fatal. It still sort of work, and in fact, I liked the film more or less. I would give it say 3 out of 5 stars, something like that. The film is short too by the way, about 55 minutes long, something like that.
Karel says that in making the film he and his associates intentionally left hints so that viewers would be clued in to the notion that this was intentional satire itself, hoax, not a serious presentation of a meaningful perspective on Apollo fraud per se. Karel says he was surprised by the fact that many people, even smart people, did not catch on sometimes until perhaps 40 minutes into the film. He thought it would take 15 minutes to realize this was not a genuine documentary.
The film did not strike me as serious from the get go, not sure why, for whatever reason. First it seemed like bad satire, then I thought it OK toward the middle, and finally pretty good once it was over and I watched the interview in which Karel was given the opportunity to explain what he was after.
The feigned documentary has no real plot, but through Karel's rather creative presentation, he puts forward more or less the following ideas with respect to Apollo. Keep in mind the film is supposed to be about photo/image/media manipulation in its broadest sense. First, no substantive claims are made one way or the other by Karel in the piece as to whether the astronauts actually landed or not. They may or may not have. What is emphasized in the film's "plot" is that upon the Apollo 11 astronaut's return from the moon, the pictures, whatever pictures were taken in real-time, whether actually taken on the moon or not, did not come out. They had no pictures to show the public. The question of whether or not there was a genuine landing is intentionally left as an open question.
Now according to the film's "plot", Nixon who was president, had tons of foresight and had actually planned for such an eventuality. He had Kubrick shoot phony, but aesthetically credible lunar shots "just in case". The photos were magnificent and saved the day for NASA and the Nixon administration, and again to emphasize, the issue as to whether there was or was not a genuine landing is intentionally left up in the air. This satire is not about a fraudulent Apollo landing in any direct sense. It is about images and their reality or lack thereof. More than anything else, this ambiguity makes the film sort of interesting.
It is for my money, maybe not all $130,000,000,000 worth of it, but still anyhoo, pure genius. In this regard Karel is utterly unique with his presentation. I couldn't have thought that up in 130,000,000,000 years. Whether they landed or not is IRRELEVANT TO THE THEME AS REGARDS IMAGE/PHOTO MANIPULATION. The manipulation of photos in and of itself is what matters, what counts, what influences and what happened, what was actually etched in space time by this world's principle players almost matters not one little whit. Sort of like, what one says is what counts regardless of what the truth is providing you lie well enough. THAT becomes the reality, regardless of the reality. In this film this equates to, WHAT ONE SHOWS IS WHAT COUNTS ASSUMING IT IS DONE WELL ENOUGH TO GET PEOPLE TO BUY IN.
Early on in the film there is mention that Apollo is/was more or less military, though this is not a sustained/emphasized theme. What is said in that context is that both going to the moon and ICBMs are about rockets, that is the common denominator. There is absolutely no mention of anything in particular with regard to the military beyond just what I mentioned there, nothing specific, nothing about LRRRs, planting equipment on the moon and in libration points for reconnaissance, surveillance, targeting. Nothing in the film about weapons testing, flying warheads through space to be sure that they were well guided and worked after exposure to cold and heat. Karel just has this sort of theme that rockets are rockets and so Apollo/space exploration was the same as military space work. Again, and to emphasize, the film is about images, not Apollo per se.
I guess one could say there is some superficial similarity, but certainly Karel's little theme is not what I have in mind.
The real thrust of Karel's film is that Nixon realized he had to have SOMETHING TO SHOW TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, HE NEEDS PROOF, PHOTOS!!!! And this is his genius, his realization that this is what counts regardless of how the landing goes.
After the astronauts do or do not go to the moon and under whatever circumstance return, then Nixon MUST show his Kubrick photos as that is all anyone has, the forged pictures. The point being, the astronauts may have really gone and all they have are fake pics. Kind of interesting really.
The plot moves forward and Nixon has the handful of people with the exception of Kubrick murdered as insurance. Actually, Nixon sort of chickens out there in the end with respect to murdering these people , or perhaps comes to his senses depending on one''s perspective. Anyway, once he has started the assassination ball rolling, everyone directly involved with the fake pictures is killed as directed by a twisted intelligence officer type.
So unlike my theme(s) Apollo maybe totally legitimate per Karel's piece. There may be some military connection as rockets are rockets are rockets, but here is no such thing as a cadre of fraudsters working from the inside of the Apollo Program with pretty much the entire 400,000 guy/gal team for the most part oblivious. Nothing about weapons deployment or weapon system testing specifically.
One way to look at this is Karel could have done this film in the context of the Kennedy assassination as he considered early on and it would have worked just as well as he had no "Hoax agenda", nothing specific to demonstrate. He only wanted to show/demonstrate this thing/idea about images, their manipulability, their primacy, this regardless of reality.
I suggest you check the film out for yourself. See if you can rent it online or at a video store. Be sure to watch the interview with Karel and also the little out-take clips featuring his "actors". That will give you a very good idea of what he had in mind.
Karel is a talented film maker. I do not believe I have seen one of his films before. This particular film is good , not great. Its themes are interesting and well presented. 3/5 stars from Patrick1000. That said, the film has almost nothing to do with my own views on Apollo. And in a way, I am a little disappointed to be honest. I was hoping to find a creative ally. Perhaps tomorrow she will come along....
Matt suggested that I stole my ideas about Apollo fraudulence from filmmaker William Karel. Karel made a film released as best I can tell in 2002 entitled "OPERATION LUNE/DARK SIDE OF THE MOON". As plagiarism is a fairly serious charge, it is important for me to respond to matt directly. I may write more about this later, but would like to say something about the film and matt's charge up front. If a more detailed response seems appropriate/needed, I can always expand on the outline as presented below.
Anyone that views this film can easily see it has nothing whatsoever to do with my own views as regards Apollo. Such is true whether one finds my thinking on the subject of Apollo fraud well grounded or way the heck off target. I'll proceed with a discussion/presentation of some of the film's details and then at the end of this post remind readers of my own views with respect to Apollo's genesis, method of operation/program, and personal involved. Those who have viewed OPERATION LUNE PREVIOUSLY/DARK SIDE OF THE MOON previously may well already be thinking, Karel and Patrick1000 are very much about 2 different things when it comes to our respective perspectives on Apollonian fraud.
The copy of the film I acquired yesterday was produced by Arte (Association Relative à la Télévision Européenne) and per the text details on the back of the DVD jacket, released in 2002. My understanding is that "Arte" is a French/German TV network. According to information provided by Karel himself in a nice little interview that accompanied the film, Arte approached him and asked him to make a film that had as its theme the idea that media images were manipulable, and as such, so was public opinion to which the images made reference. At least this is what I understood him to say in his DVD "bonus segment interview", a very nice and informative interview it was indeed.
Karel says that they considered several topics that would work given the rather specific request made by Arte. One was the Kennedy assassination not surprisingly. Karel says that Kennedy's murder was rejected as grist for his mill as he did not want to deal with "death". There was a certain messiness about it he wished to avoid. Apollo seemed perfect, as he pointed out there were some 300 or so websites where Apollo's authenticity vs inauthenticity was being debated in one sense or another.
Though Karel does not use the term "satire" explicitly, he indicates that this is what he intended his film to be. It is in his own word a "hoax" about the Apollo question. Karel uses half a dozen characters whom he interviews for the film, but the interviews for the most part pertain to an altogether different context, NOT APOLLO. As such, the film is presented in a pseudo-documentary fashion. Kubrick's wife, Rumsfeld, Kissinger, Helms and so forth are interviewed. The only "actor" Karel says he uses is a woman who "plays" Nixon's secretary.
For the most part, everybody is answering questions about subjects other than Apollo. Karel mentions Watergate as one of the subjects discussed during these non Apollo interviews. The woman playing the secretary I presume is the exception, and she is fed direct lines. Karel splices these interviews together in as provocative a way as he can to make the film seem to be about Apollo and not Watergate or Vietnam, or anything else. He is only somewhat successful at this. Still, because the film is not serious, since it is satire, this ineffectiveness is not fatal. It still sort of work, and in fact, I liked the film more or less. I would give it say 3 out of 5 stars, something like that. The film is short too by the way, about 55 minutes long, something like that.
Karel says that in making the film he and his associates intentionally left hints so that viewers would be clued in to the notion that this was intentional satire itself, hoax, not a serious presentation of a meaningful perspective on Apollo fraud per se. Karel says he was surprised by the fact that many people, even smart people, did not catch on sometimes until perhaps 40 minutes into the film. He thought it would take 15 minutes to realize this was not a genuine documentary.
The film did not strike me as serious from the get go, not sure why, for whatever reason. First it seemed like bad satire, then I thought it OK toward the middle, and finally pretty good once it was over and I watched the interview in which Karel was given the opportunity to explain what he was after.
The feigned documentary has no real plot, but through Karel's rather creative presentation, he puts forward more or less the following ideas with respect to Apollo. Keep in mind the film is supposed to be about photo/image/media manipulation in its broadest sense. First, no substantive claims are made one way or the other by Karel in the piece as to whether the astronauts actually landed or not. They may or may not have. What is emphasized in the film's "plot" is that upon the Apollo 11 astronaut's return from the moon, the pictures, whatever pictures were taken in real-time, whether actually taken on the moon or not, did not come out. They had no pictures to show the public. The question of whether or not there was a genuine landing is intentionally left as an open question.
Now according to the film's "plot", Nixon who was president, had tons of foresight and had actually planned for such an eventuality. He had Kubrick shoot phony, but aesthetically credible lunar shots "just in case". The photos were magnificent and saved the day for NASA and the Nixon administration, and again to emphasize, the issue as to whether there was or was not a genuine landing is intentionally left up in the air. This satire is not about a fraudulent Apollo landing in any direct sense. It is about images and their reality or lack thereof. More than anything else, this ambiguity makes the film sort of interesting.
It is for my money, maybe not all $130,000,000,000 worth of it, but still anyhoo, pure genius. In this regard Karel is utterly unique with his presentation. I couldn't have thought that up in 130,000,000,000 years. Whether they landed or not is IRRELEVANT TO THE THEME AS REGARDS IMAGE/PHOTO MANIPULATION. The manipulation of photos in and of itself is what matters, what counts, what influences and what happened, what was actually etched in space time by this world's principle players almost matters not one little whit. Sort of like, what one says is what counts regardless of what the truth is providing you lie well enough. THAT becomes the reality, regardless of the reality. In this film this equates to, WHAT ONE SHOWS IS WHAT COUNTS ASSUMING IT IS DONE WELL ENOUGH TO GET PEOPLE TO BUY IN.
Early on in the film there is mention that Apollo is/was more or less military, though this is not a sustained/emphasized theme. What is said in that context is that both going to the moon and ICBMs are about rockets, that is the common denominator. There is absolutely no mention of anything in particular with regard to the military beyond just what I mentioned there, nothing specific, nothing about LRRRs, planting equipment on the moon and in libration points for reconnaissance, surveillance, targeting. Nothing in the film about weapons testing, flying warheads through space to be sure that they were well guided and worked after exposure to cold and heat. Karel just has this sort of theme that rockets are rockets and so Apollo/space exploration was the same as military space work. Again, and to emphasize, the film is about images, not Apollo per se.
I guess one could say there is some superficial similarity, but certainly Karel's little theme is not what I have in mind.
The real thrust of Karel's film is that Nixon realized he had to have SOMETHING TO SHOW TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, HE NEEDS PROOF, PHOTOS!!!! And this is his genius, his realization that this is what counts regardless of how the landing goes.
After the astronauts do or do not go to the moon and under whatever circumstance return, then Nixon MUST show his Kubrick photos as that is all anyone has, the forged pictures. The point being, the astronauts may have really gone and all they have are fake pics. Kind of interesting really.
The plot moves forward and Nixon has the handful of people with the exception of Kubrick murdered as insurance. Actually, Nixon sort of chickens out there in the end with respect to murdering these people , or perhaps comes to his senses depending on one''s perspective. Anyway, once he has started the assassination ball rolling, everyone directly involved with the fake pictures is killed as directed by a twisted intelligence officer type.
So unlike my theme(s) Apollo maybe totally legitimate per Karel's piece. There may be some military connection as rockets are rockets are rockets, but here is no such thing as a cadre of fraudsters working from the inside of the Apollo Program with pretty much the entire 400,000 guy/gal team for the most part oblivious. Nothing about weapons deployment or weapon system testing specifically.
One way to look at this is Karel could have done this film in the context of the Kennedy assassination as he considered early on and it would have worked just as well as he had no "Hoax agenda", nothing specific to demonstrate. He only wanted to show/demonstrate this thing/idea about images, their manipulability, their primacy, this regardless of reality.
I suggest you check the film out for yourself. See if you can rent it online or at a video store. Be sure to watch the interview with Karel and also the little out-take clips featuring his "actors". That will give you a very good idea of what he had in mind.
Karel is a talented film maker. I do not believe I have seen one of his films before. This particular film is good , not great. Its themes are interesting and well presented. 3/5 stars from Patrick1000. That said, the film has almost nothing to do with my own views on Apollo. And in a way, I am a little disappointed to be honest. I was hoping to find a creative ally. Perhaps tomorrow she will come along....
