View Single Post
Old 20-02-2019, 08:02 PM   #12
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 549
Likes: 84 (66 Posts)

I first walked on the moon in the summer of 1965 — four full years ahead of Neil Armstrong. Of course, neither I nor the Apollo boys really set foot on the moon, but I suppose many of you suspected as much already.

I’m not proud of it. Of the deception, that is. As they say, one small lie for man, one giant fraud perpetrated on mankind.

Impossible? Well, you saw Argo, right? You saw the lengths to which the CIA was willing to go in order to rescue a handful of U.S. diplomats. Shooting a fake movie was all we were really doing, too. Except that we weren’t doing it just to save six American lives in Tehran. We wanted to save all 200 million.

Call it a massive fraud; call it a government-run conspiracy — whatever. The Apollo moon landings, in this humble 81-year-old’s opinion, were a public relations coup that accomplished nothing less than winning the Cold War. Period.

[…]Over tea, [Kubrick] explained to me how there had never been a truly realistic movie about space travel, and how in the film that would become 2001: A Space Odyssey, each scene would be absolutely authentic and on par with the latest that science had to offer.[…]

Stanley insisted that the space hardware used in the film was scientifically accurate, an almost up-to-the-minute realism acquired from constant conversations with the NASA officials on the set. When senior NASA Apollo administrator George Mueller and chief astronaut Deke Slayton visited, the two men seemed stunned by the rigor of Stanley’s alternate universe. I heard one of them refer to the studio as “NASA East.”[…]

I can’t speak to how many folks were involved on NASA’s end (which, I was told, did send a number of unmanned crafts to the moon), but our own group of collaborators in London was a true skeleton crew, composed only of Stanley, myself, eight other technicians and, of course, the two actors. A true dirty dozen. All the raw materials and filming techniques we needed had been created during 2001’ s production orgy.[…]

Whatever they said in the papers, the Russians were beating us, plain and simple. They had more warheads, more soldiers and a more sophisticated space program. By 1967, NASA was nowhere near living up to JFK’s goal of landing a man on the moon by the end of the decade. And then there was the rather nontrivial matter of the Van Allen radiation belts — the rings of charged particles held high above the Earth by its magnetic field. NASA had covertly tried sending a German shepherd through one of those belts. The poor dog was scrambled into kibbles and bits.[…]

First, let me dispense with some of the bogus evidence that gets paraded around by many so-called “conspiracy theorists.” Believe me, Stanley Kubrick was not about to have the authenticity of one of his films called into question because a landing module forgot to leave an imprint, or the stars were left out of the background. Such details were intentional and accurate: A 17-ton landing module would rest on rock and kick up dust, which would settle down, leaving no impressions. And no stars would be bright enough to be captured on film given the shining sun on a lunar morning.

No, the real clues are far subtler, and they reflect not mistakes but the very real limitations of the technology we were working with. Obviously, we could not shoot in a limited-gravity chamber, so we did the best we could to disguise this: The astronauts made a show of twisting the American flag they planted as a way of explaining why a flag might be moving when there is no air or wind on the moon. Similarly, we slowed the film speed and used some hidden cables to try to make the slow-motion moonwalking as realistic as possible.[…]

Epilogue: Max Canard is no longer with us. In fact, he never was. And while the debate over the authenticity of the moon landings will no doubt continue, the current account is indisputably fake, written by Sean Braswell. Happy April Fools’ Day!

Joking over a hoax to pretend debunking a ‘conspiracy theory’… Yet the author tried his best to make his article look real, and he did a good job as the content indeed makes sense… deep sense… It basically summarizes half the job done by those who cared to demystify the Moon landing myth.

Things are thus made that however you try to distort evidence, it keeps making sense…
TheArranger is offline   Reply With Quote