More NASA lies and cover ups?
More films exploring the possibilities that NASA is not giving the full story. Watch them if you dare: not because they are scary, but because they are fucking terribly made. Full videos after the jump.
Firstly we have Secret Space: Volume 1. In Secret Space: Volume 2 the creator advises us that these were made in the wrong order, and volume 1 should really be volume 2, and volume 2 volume 1. Wait…what?
Personally, I find this a chore to watch. Not only does it actually fail to really make a valid constructed point – it makes claims and then rambles for about an hour with no connectivity – it’s also produced in the “let’s pad out a half-hour programme for an hour with over-the top unnecessary images, animations and very slow animated text” style. Absolute garbage.
Some of the stuff is interesting, but after many years of watching well-crafted, to-the-point and factual documentaries like BBC’s Horizon, this is just overstuffed crap. Dude, when you have come up with your salient points and filmed the relevant bits, STEP AWAY FROM THE AVID CONSOLE.
Watch for endless chunks of pointless NASA and Capcom shots, silly alien faces and the like, as well as 3 minutes (3 MINUTES) of titles. Jeez. Personally, the moment someone mentions reptiloids or greys I switch off, but in amongst the loony-tunes babble there are some interesting points.
Then we have Secrets Of Space: Volume 2, in which we start by making a very slowly-explained and repeated point that of the fact that the Americans raided the National Museum in Iraq is VERY VERY important. Then we totally forget that and go off on another rambling, unconnected litany of theories, most of which are offered as a slideshow with no arguments for or against. Again, far too many silly graphics, slow reads of text in an annoyingly irrelevant French accent (producer’s girlfriend, perhaps?) and bad production. Again with the overuse of time-dragging techniques.
In the opening slow, rambling drivel the producer says that his friends told him “not to make these films”.
Somehow, I think they were right.
Then finally we have Dark Side Of The Moon.
Apparently a VERY IMPORTANT film by some French dude you have never heard of who says that the whole Apollo landing was filmed in advance of the mission as a “safety net” at the behest of Richard Nixon, just in case they were unable to transmit pictures from the actual landings. He suggests that Stanley Kubrick was hassled into creating the film on the set of 2001: A Space Odyssey using CIA agents as the actors.
What pissed me off in this film is the inclusion of “amazing revelations and confirmations” that are supposed to prove the film’s argument by Donald Rumsfeld, Henry Kissinger and more. Supposedly they were all present when Nixon commanded that the films be made. Problem is, all you actually hear them say are small snippets that do not mention anything specific. Rumsfeld says “he made the decision and I could not agree with it, and walked out”, but to what does this refer? For all we know he is talking about Watergate, or ordering ham sandwiches instead of beef.
Unfortunately, the “smoking guns” of this film are supposed to be these interviews, and as they offer no context and are blatantly little voxpops picked to suggest they are talking about the subject matter, they are worth nothing and useless (and very obvious, and very annoying). Sorry, but no one on this earth is going to get someone like Rumsfeld to sit there and say “Oh, yeah, hey we totally made up the moon landing to beat the Russians because we knew the cameras wouldn’t work”.
A better made film than the last two, but frankly, if you give any credence to the “exclusive revealing interviews” then you are the kind of person that believes everything they see on Fox News.
*EDIT* I have since been informed (see comments) that Dark Side Of The Moon is, in fact, a spoof of conspiracy theory films. Gah! Suckered me in, but on second viewing, yes, you can see that it is. Just goes to show you how accurate it is to the source material. Sadly, it is such a subtle spoof that unless told otherwise, most folks (shamefully including me) will be taken in. I guess that is both a success and a failure at the same time 
But, despite poor production, amidst all the drivel and conspiracy theory tin-foil hat wearing, there are interesting points in these films. How you decide to interpret them: fact or fiction, real or nonsense – is up to you. Don’t take my criticisms of the production of the films as confirmation of my opinion on their contents.
As ever, I am remaining mute on the matter.
July 29, 2008 at 6:07 am
Dark Side Of The Moon is a joke, it’s not meant to be taken seriously. The producers wanted to show how easy it is to create a false impression just with a bit of creative editing. If you really pay attention to what is being said you’ll notice that it gets sillier and sillier as the movie progresses – KGB agents with strong British accents, ridiculous names, and so on. Some of the supposedly real interviewees have names taken from Kubrick movies, such as Dave Bowman from 2001 or Jack Torrance from The Shining.
Unfortunately some people can’t see the joke, even after multiple viewings.
July 29, 2008 at 11:13 am
@ Iron Sun – I have to shamefully admit that on the first viewing I never picked that up. Although I did find myself a little curious about Dave Bowman
On a review, it is more obvious.
Maybe it’s because I had watched the first two films right before Dark Side Of The Moon. If I had watched this first, I suspect I would have picked up on that, but they were such badly-made nonsense that think my brain had retreated in on itself. Plus I didn’t have any context for this film, I simply found it.
That’s embarrasing
Kind of ironic though, that he can create a film that parodies its peers, but then because of the way the internet works it is soon amongst its peers and considered the same. Oh dear. I too share your despair that 99% of viewers will not know it is a spoof.
What have we learned today? Don’t watch lots of conspiracy films in one go. And don’t believe what people write in descriptions on video sharing websites. And finally, that it is probably very, very hard to spoof conspiracy theory films subtly without becoming one.
I guess that’s kinda sad.