What is the last movie you saw? and rate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I haven't had a chance to finish What Happened on the Moon, but I can easily believe that many of the videos and photos of the moon landing were faked for Cold War propaganda purposes especially if live coverage proved a problem. The question that now bothers me is whether we actually went there or not. I told my daughter my current doubts. I probably shouldn't have. But if the Apollo missions were all a fake for propaganda purposes that would be almost as amazing a feat as going to the moon itself.

---

The film explains that the Russian and American scientific communities had been in collusion since the end of WWII to trick their respective governments into releasing the enormous funds for space travel: in much the same way as German scientists had inveigled their government to fund the original rocket programme. The German military, however, saw the potential for warfare and, to the chagrin of the scientists, shelved the space travel aspect in favour of weaponry. The 'space race' was a media creation which both scientific establishments encouraged to keep the funds flowing. The Apollo missions were not faked for propaganda but to ensure that NASA continued to impress the US government into releasing the money for further exploration. As the film points out, although NASA was a government agency, a relatively small group of scientists controlled everything that the government and the populace saw. We now know that the television images were not broadcast direct from the moon, as NASA originally stated, but were actually transmitted via an Australian transmitter, this is only one of numerous anomalies concerning the the photographic and televised material from that time. I don't know whether man went to the moon or not and frankly I don't much care but, on the evidence of this documentary, it would seem unlikely.

As Abraham Lincoln is alleged to have said: " You can fool some of the people all of the time; you can fool all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

No vampires?:shocked:

Mrs Neely's quite fond of The Painted Veil, not a bad film either, I think we've seen it about four times in total, though not watched it this year. The sound track refrain thing also captures a certain mood:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1tyVlKjJZI

Though as I say I've not watching many films at the moment.

I showed some of Hitchcock's Tales of the Unexpected to some Y7s today (11/12 year olds) which went down quite well. I thought they would riot at the sight of black and white TV, but the direction of Hitchcock managed to pull it off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr6aFSOZEfk

---

The Painted Veil is one of my favourite Maugham novels although I haven't seen the most recent film version. Using Satie's music is a smart move as it compliments the period as well as anything could. Reading the comments on this Youtube video, it's easy to see that the great storyteller's magic struck home to a majority of the film's audience. The title of the novel comes from Shelley's Prometheus Unbound. According to A William Somerset Maugham Encyclopedia, the novel was received very well by the French but had mixed reviews in England. I might get round to watching the film but the vast array of material on Youtube takes up quite a lot of time anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

The film explains that the Russian and American scientific communities had been in collusion since the end of WWII to trick their respective governments into releasing the enormous funds for space travel: in much the same way as German scientists had inveigled their government to fund the original rocket programme. The German military, however, saw the potential for warfare and, to the chagrin of the scientists, shelved the space travel aspect in favour of weaponry. The 'space race' was a media creation which both scientific establishments encouraged to keep the funds flowing. The Apollo missions were not faked for propaganda but to ensure that NASA continued to impress the US government into releasing the money for further exploration. As the film points out, although NASA was a government agency, a relatively small group of scientists controlled everything that the government and the populace saw. We now know that the television images were not broadcast direct from the moon, as NASA originally stated, but were actually transmitted via an Australian transmitter, this is only one of numerous anomalies concerning the the photographic and televised material from that time. I don't know whether man went to the moon or not and frankly I don't much care but, on the evidence of this documentary, it would seem unlikely.

As Abraham Lincoln is alleged to have said: " You can fool some of the people all of the time; you can fool all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

---

But what makes this evidence more valid than the evidence of the events that it's supposed to be debunking. And why is the debunking of the tinfoil-hatters' claims less valid than their debunkings?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calidore

But what makes this evidence more valid than the evidence of the events that it's supposed to be debunking. And why is the debunking of the tinfoil-hatters' claims less valid than their debunkings?

---

It is the same evidence. One side says it is evidence we actually went to the moon. The other side tries to show that the evidence was faked. It is little more than one set of scientists critiquing the evidence of another set of scientists and calling the evidence into question.

I'm only a third of the way through the documentary, but it does look like the evidence for the lunar missions was faked whether for Cold War purposes or to get funding for NASA, as Emil points out. Or both.

Regarding the tinfoil hatters, probably the best thing is to stay as close to the evidence as possible and not accept the opinions of authorities too quickly, although that is all we usually have to go on.

For the past two days I feel like a child who has been presented with compelling evidence that Santa doesn't exist.

My wife wanted to know what I was so busy watching. I asked her, "Did you know that the Apollo moon landings might have been faked?"

"Yeah. The flag was waving in the air on the moon and the shadows were not right. That's old news."

Well, the documentary was released over 10 years ago, so I guess it is old news. Am I the last to know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calidore

But what makes this evidence more valid than the evidence of the events that it's supposed to be debunking. And why is the debunking of the tinfoil-hatters' claims less valid than their debunkings?

---

Well I suggest you watch the film and make your own deductions. I've watched all of it twice and made mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

It is the same evidence. One side says it is evidence we actually went to the moon. The other side tries to show that the evidence was faked. It is little more than one set of scientists critiquing the evidence of another set of scientists and calling the evidence into question.

I'm only a third of the way through the documentary, but it does look like the evidence for the lunar missions was faked whether for Cold War purposes or to get funding for NASA, as Emil points out. Or both.

Regarding the tinfoil hatters, probably the best thing is to stay as close to the evidence as possible and not accept the opinions of authorities too quickly, although that is all we usually have to go on.

For the past two days I feel like a child who has been presented with compelling evidence that Santa doesn't exist.

My wife wanted to know what I was so busy watching. I asked her, "Did you know that the Apollo moon landings might have been faked?"

"Yeah. The flag was waving in the air on the moon and the shadows were not right. That's old news."

Well, the documentary was released over 10 years ago, so I guess it is old news. Am I the last to know?

---

No you're not the last to know. Even though I had my suspicions I also paid little attention to claims of falsification until this documentary. It was the fact that the hoax claim was being made by members of the scientific community that kept me watching until the end. Unless someone can prove that there were no other light sources used in the photography and filming of events 'on the 'moon', they must have been faked: there is no other possible explanation. If the video is ten-years-old, certain individuals involved with Apollo will probably be pleased to let sleeping dogs lie in the hope that the increasing passage of time will blur over the obvious inconsistencies highlighted in the video.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

It is the same evidence. One side says it is evidence we actually went to the moon. The other side tries to show that the evidence was faked. It is little more than one set of scientists critiquing the evidence of another set of scientists and calling the evidence into question.

I'm only a third of the way through the documentary, but it does look like the evidence for the lunar missions was faked whether for Cold War purposes or to get funding for NASA, as Emil points out. Or both.

Regarding the tinfoil hatters, probably the best thing is to stay as close to the evidence as possible and not accept the opinions of authorities too quickly, although that is all we usually have to go on.

For the past two days I feel like a child who has been presented with compelling evidence that Santa doesn't exist.

My wife wanted to know what I was so busy watching. I asked her, "Did you know that the Apollo moon landings might have been faked?"

"Yeah. The flag was waving in the air on the moon and the shadows were not right. That's old news."

Well, the documentary was released over 10 years ago, so I guess it is old news. Am I the last to know?

---

I think most of those "did astronauts really land on the moon" theories have been debunked, guys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_la...iracy_theories

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qimissung

I think most of those "did astronauts really land on the moon" theories have been debunked, guys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_la...iracy_theories

---

Interesting but not entirely convincing. As was explained in the documentary, light reflection from the surface of the moon is far too low to give the kind of definition shown in some of the photos. There is also much other evidence of peculiarities that the 'Mythbusters' do not appear to have an answer for. Rather than relying on their, perhaps not entirely disinterested explanations, it might be wiser to watch the documentary as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

Interesting but not entirely convincing. As was explained in the documentary, light reflection from the surface of the moon is far too low to give the kind of definition shown in some of the photos. There is also much other evidence of peculiarities that the 'Mythbusters' do not appear to have an answer for. Rather than relying on their, perhaps not entirely disinterested explanations, it might be wiser to watch the documentary as well.

---

You apparently didn't actually read the entry qimissung linked to. This issue was amply addressed—as is the other nonsense the conspiracy theorists have dredged up. Try reading it again. And perhaps you could explain the confirmation of Galileo's prediction using a hammer and a feather? Let me guess—they are both on invisible wires?:rolleyes5:

Quote:

---

The Painted Veil is one of my favourite Maugham novels although I haven't seen the most recent film version. Using Satie's music is a smart move as it compliments the period as well as anything could. Reading the comments on this Youtube video, it's easy to see that the great storyteller's magic struck home to a majority of the film's audience. The title of the novel comes from Shelley's Prometheus Unbound. According to A William Somerset Maugham Encyclopedia, the novel was received very well by the French but had mixed reviews in England. I might get round to watching the film but the vast array of material on Youtube takes up quite a lot of time anyway.

---

I didn't know about the title coming from Prometheus Unbound, that's interesting. You should watch the film for it is a good one and you are sure to enjoy it, Edwood Norton is very good in it, a good actor anyway I think. The soundtrack is also up your street. I only mention it because we were watching an Agatha Christie on You Tube, Five Little Pigs, which featured the same music. It's certainly worth watching.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WyattGwyon

You apparently didn't actually read the entry qimissung linked to. This issue was amply addressed—as is the other nonsense the conspiracy theorists have dredged up. Try reading it again. And perhaps you could explain the confirmation of Galileo's prediction using a hammer and a feather? Let me guess—they are both on invisible wires?:rolleyes5:

---

I can only suggest that you watch the video. All of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

I didn't know about the title coming from Prometheus Unbound, that's interesting. You should watch the film for it is a good one and you are sure to enjoy it, Edwood Norton is very good in it, a good actor anyway I think. The soundtrack is also up your street. I only mention it because we were watching an Agatha Christie on You Tube, Five Little Pigs, which featured the same music. It's certainly worth watching.

---

From what some viewers of the video have said, it seems that certain facets of the book have been altered. Obviously there would have to be a shortening of the original text but Maugham's slightly downbeat ending is apparently replaced with a more palatable conclusion. Not that Maugham would have worried as he seldom bothered with the filmed versions of his books once he had received the very large payment that he normally got from selling the film rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WyattGwyon

You apparently didn't actually read the entry qimissung linked to. This issue was amply addressed—as is the other nonsense the conspiracy theorists have dredged up. Try reading it again. And perhaps you could explain the confirmation of Galileo's prediction using a hammer and a feather? Let me guess—they are both on invisible wires?:rolleyes5:

---

Although I've never tried it, one could probably simulate the hammer and feather experiment in a vacuum on earth as well.

One of the things I found strange in the films supposedly taken on the moon were the jumps should have taken the astronauts higher.

Some of this evidence could have been fabricated whether they actually went to the moon or not.

Farewell My Queen 10/10 I love this movie. I like historical movies that make the shadowy people of the past come to life, and this one most certainly achieved that. Absolutely fascinating, and beautifully done as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

Although I've never tried it, one could probably simulate the hammer and feather experiment in a vacuum on earth as well.

One of the things I found strange in the films supposedly taken on the moon were the jumps should have taken the astronauts higher.

Some of this evidence could have been fabricated whether they actually went to the moon or not.

---

While I'm not trying to play the devil's advocate, it's an indisputable fact that any photographic material can be falsified whether taken from the moon, from space or earth.
As I've said, it's a matter of comparative indifference to me whether man has walked on the lunar surface or not, but there's a beautiful irony in the fact that the 'Mythbusters' had to construct a film set of the lunar surface in order to 'prove' that man went to the moon.

I saw Meet the Robinsons with my nieces and a couple of other kids. It's not bad. 6/10