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

[YesNo]

I have just watched for the second time this week a 3 hour documentary called What Happened on the Moon.

Absolutely fascinating and pretty damning evidence from professionals that the moon landings were faked. I remember watching the first 'landing' on TV as a youngster and saying out loud: 'But it's a film set !' Anyhow, the most fascinating section is part three dealing with the development of rocket technology in Germany and subsequently in the USA and USSR. The connection between Fritz Lang's film Frau im Mond and how it was used to inveigle Hitler's approval for funding the V2 project and its effect on the US Apollo programme is truly amazing. Because the film is exhaustive in highlighting impossibilities in the filmed moon landings, it must get a 10/10.
There are a couple of questionable points in the documentary but there are plenty that aren't.


http://youtu.be/sKainIQiaKA

I started watching parts of this and it does make me wonder whether the photographs were taken on the moon or not. It seemed that the astronauts didn't rise high enough when they jumped, for one example.

[YesNo]

The legendary Mae West is indeed voluptuously overweight, but it's all in the right places and her sexuality is very much in the viewer's face. Noted for her risqué sayings, she was alleged to have asked a potential leading man how tall he was. The guy said six feet six and a half inches; to which she replied : 'Never mind the six feet, let's talk about the six and a half inches.'

One of West's famous lines I remember hearing as a child. I thought it went something like "Why don't you come up and see me sometime." What I found out in the movie is she actually said, "Why don't you come up sometime and see me".

I think my version came from a Popeye cartoon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgUD-CUe-7o

[Emil Miller]

I started watching parts of this and it does make me wonder whether the photographs were taken on the moon or not. It seemed that the astronauts didn't rise high enough when they jumped, for one example.

The interesting thing about the film is that the 'conspiracy theorists', unlike the usual naysayers, are, with the exception of the co-authoress of Dark Moon, qualified scientific experts in their fields; some of whom actually worked on the Apollo project. However, one of the things that doesn't hold water in the film is the one you mention. If, as is suggested , the astronauts were attached to wires to simulate jumping in low gravity, then the astronaut's jump shown could have been as high as they wanted it to be. The other flaw in the programme is the statement that Armstrong and co. could have been surrogates standing in for real astronauts who did go to the moon. This is simply silly because who would volunteer for a mission in which they knew they wouldn't be coming back?
However, the clincher is the fact that other light sources were obviously used because it's impossible to obtain clear pictures in deep shadow areas and the shadows cast by different objects on the 'moon's surface' were at variance with each other, as the professional photographer and the industrial imagist clearly demonstrated: this is an impossibility unless other light sources were used. Even the Swedish guy from Hasselblad who designed the camera they used couldn't explain it and Nasa's spokesman tried to brush it aside by saying such evidence was nit-picking. One of the rocks in a photo clearly had the letter 'C' stamped on it and it was lined up with another letter 'C' marked on the ground. Then there is the statement by one of the Apollo astronauts that it was possible that the film might have been damaged by conditions on the moon and NASA could have staged the landings.
The whole black and white sequence resembles a bad 1950s B movie. which gets it 2/10.

[LitNetIsGreat]

If I was you lot I'd forget 'movies' and start watching All Creatures Great and Small on You Tube. 10/10.

[Emil Miller]

Now, now Neely, All Creatures Great and Small is a British TV series about a veterinary surgeon and therefore rather parochial for an American website.
However, I have just watched Forbidden Cargo (1954) a black and white British film with a cast that reads like a composite list of 1950s actors as well known to British audiences in their day as the likes of James Cagney, Spencer Tracy etc.etc. were to American cinema goers.
The great Nigel Patrick plays a customs officer on the trail of a gang of drug smugglers and ends with a believably exciting motor chase through London's docklands before the gang are caught. No aliens, vampires, CGI, explosions, zombies, foul language or other forms of infantilism; just believable entertainment. 8/10

[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.

[LitNetIsGreat]

No vampires?

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

[qimissung]

If I was you lot I'd forget 'movies' and start watching All Creatures Great and Small on You Tube. 10/10.

I love that show! I hadn't thought about it being available on youtube.

The East 8/10 It's a movie about a young woman who infiltrates a group of bioterrorists. It explores a lot of ethical issues, and, if you care at all about the planet, makes you want to do more for it's well-being. A small, independent movie. I recommend it.

[Emil Miller]

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."

No vampires?

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.

[Calidore]

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?

[YesNo]

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?

[Emil Miller]

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.

[Emil Miller]

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.

[qimissung]

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

[Emil Miller]

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.