I watched this last Nov. on CBC's Passionate Eye.Interesting ,goes to show that anything can be faked.Or was it faked?He,he.
THE MOON: Brilliant mockumentary gives viewers
What if TV footage of the Apollo moon landing was faked by a nervous Nixon?
CanWest News Service
Saturday, November 15, 2003
VANCOUVER - The Apollo moon landing never happened. Or, if it did, the TV images
you saw were falsified, the images faked.
Got your attention? Good.
According to Dark Side of the Moon, the most important film of its kind since
Oliver Stone's JFK -- or since Rob Reiner's This is Spinal Tap, at any rate --
images of Neil Armstrong's walk on the moon on July 20, 1969, were shown to the
world through the lens of master filmmaker Stanley Kubrick and were staged on
the very same Borehamwood, U.K., soundstage where Kubrick made his landmark
film, 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Don't believe it? You shouldn't, given that this is a mockumentary that shows
how "evidence" and "interviews" can be twisted wildly out of context to support
any thesis, no matter how ridiculous.
But what evidence!
Still images taken of the American flag on the moon showed it waving this way
and that, but, as Dark Side of the Moon points out, there is no wind on the
moon.The moon is affected by extreme temperature changes, which are exacerbated
by its lack of atmosphere.
The camera supposedly used to take the lunar stills, a Hasselblad 500, would not
operate at temperature extremes that cause chemical changes in film emulsion.
Mechanical parts expand and lenses loosen in extreme heat. Exposure meters fail
and film shatters like glass in extreme cold.
X-rays from the sun would fog the film, and ultraviolet rays would distort the
colours -- yet the colours in the moon landing pictures are perfect.
Gravity on the moon is one-sixth that of the Earth, which means that an
astronaut who would weigh 140 kilograms in his space suit on the ground would
weigh only about 30 kilos on the moon. And yet the depth of the astronauts'
footprints in the sand on the moon suggest they weighed much more than that.
None of the photos taken on the moon showed evidence of a flash. You would have
seen a flash, experts in Dark Side of the Moon insist, because the astronaut
taking the photograph would have been reflected in the visor of the other
Remember now, as they say on CSI: people lie; the evidence doesn't.
Dark Side of the Moon, airing Sunday on Newsworld's Passionate Eye at 8 p.m.,
was written and directed last year by 63-year-old historical documentary
filmmaker William Karel for France's Point du Jour Production and Arte France
(the film's original, French title was Operation lune).
It uses documentary evidence, archival footage and extensive interviews with
Kubrick's widow, Christiane Kubrick, astronaut Buzz Aldrin and former and
present-day U.S. government officials and luminaries such as Henry Kissinger,
Lawrence Eagleberger, Al Haig and Donald Rumsfeld, to lay bare the lie.
(The official CBC press release refers to the film's subtle blend of facts,
fiction and hypothesis as a navigation through fact and fiction, and asks
rhetorically whether "Neal Armstrong's famous walk on the moon" (sic) was
another Stanley Kubrick production. I can't tell if the misspelling of Neil
Armstrong's name is incompetent or meant to be ironic.)
Dark Side of the Moon suggests that, given the turmoil of the day -- the Vietnam
War, civil unrest, a newly elected president warily eying his prospects for a
second term -- the Nixon administration understood that it was more important
that astronauts be seen to be walking on the moon than actually walk on the
If the astronauts landed safely, but could not televise live images back to
Earth because of some unforeseen technical glitch, then the entire expensive
enterprise would have been a waste of time, from a public relations standpoint.
The Nixon administration approached Kubrick -- an American expat and avowed
recluse, living in seclusion in a palatial estate somewhere in the suburbs of
London -- with a mind to stage the moon landing in advance, so that if worse
came to worse, the Apollo program would still have pictures to show a doubting
The administration knew Kubrick would jump aboard, the film's makers suggest,
because it was widely known that Dr. Strangelove, which Kubrick directed five
years earlier, in 1964, was one of Nixon's favourite films.
The original idea was to have the CIA stage the event and film it themselves on
the same soundstage where Kubrick recreated the lunar surface for 2001: A Space
Odyssey. But when Kubrick -- a notorious perfectionist, with a temper to match
-- saw how incompetent the CIA camera operators were, he demanded that he be
allowed to film the scene himself.
Twisted testimony from Kissinger, the late Vernon Walters (speaking in Russian,
and dead, under suspicious circumstances, just hours after conducting his
interview for the film), Rumsfeld ("I'm going to tell you a fascinating story"),
Eagleberger, Haig and others -- real people in real interviews, not actors
playing a role -- brings Dark Side of the Moon to life.
It is a mammoth undertaking. It seeks nothing less than to expose the
incongruities between rhetoric and reality, by disclosing how the camera's lens
can be manipulated to suit any ends, and it achieves its goal with wit, style
and verve. It is a thoroughly entertaining and revealing film, and well worth
Oh, and one other thing. According to the final credits, any resemblance to
actual living persons is purely coincidental.
That's important to know. After all, the camera lies. It's not always easy to