Poor moon-landÂing conÂspirÂaÂcy theÂoÂrists. LackÂing the hisÂtorÂiÂcal and culÂturÂal gravÂiÂtas of JFK assasÂsiÂnaÂtion conÂspirÂaÂcy theÂoÂrists or the brazen pseuÂdo-relÂeÂvance of 9/11 conÂspirÂaÂcy theÂoÂrists, those who believe the ApolÂlo 11 misÂsion came out of a HolÂlyÂwood backÂlot must toil in deepÂest obscuÂriÂty. ImagÂine sufÂferÂing from the aching conÂvicÂtion that the UnitÂed States govÂernÂment, in league with a respectÂed auteur or two, hoodÂwinked the entire world with a few minÂutes of blurÂry, amaÂteurÂish video and garÂbled walkie-talkie speech — hoodÂwinked the entire world except you, that is. Now imagÂine a Truther and a secÂond-gunÂman obsesÂsive sharÂing a laugh about all your imporÂtant revÂeÂlaÂtions. If indeed you do hold that mankind has nevÂer visÂitÂed the moon, make sure you don’t watch usuÂalÂly seriÂous docÂuÂmenÂtarÂiÂan William Karel’s Dark Side of the Moon. In it, you’ll see your ideas furÂther ridiculed, which would be unpleasÂant — or, even worse, you’ll see them vinÂdiÂcatÂed.
These moon-landÂing conÂspirÂaÂcy theÂoÂrists offer many alterÂnaÂtive hisÂtorÂiÂcal narÂraÂtives, and Karel picks a rich one. He proÂceeds from the quesÂtion of how, exactÂly, filmÂmakÂer StanÂley Kubrick came into posÂsesÂsion of the advanced camÂera lensÂes he used to shoot 1975’s canÂdle-lit BarÂry LynÂdon. PerÂhaps NASA, who had the lensÂes in the first place, owed Kubrick for cerÂtain serÂvices renÂdered six years earÂliÂer? CutÂting deconÂtexÂtuÂalÂized file footage togethÂer with scriptÂed lines delivÂered by actors, NASA staffers, and KubrickÂ’s actuÂal widÂow, Karel tells an omiÂnousÂly earnest stoÂry of how the CIA recruitÂed Kubrick and his 2001-testÂed cinÂeÂmatÂic craftsÂmanÂship to “win” the space race, at least on teleÂviÂsion. Though libÂerÂalÂly pepÂpered with small falseÂhoods and inside jokes for film buffs, Dark Side of the Moon has nonetheÂless inadÂverÂtentÂly won its share of sinÂcere adherÂents, includÂing self-styled “SpeakÂer of Truth” Wayne Green. It’s been said many times, many ways: humanÂiÂty isn’t quite smart enough to effecÂtiveÂly conÂspire, but we’re just smart enough to invent an infiniÂtude of conÂspirÂaÂcy theÂoÂries.
RelatÂed conÂtent:
StanÂley Kubrick’s Very First Films: Three Short DocÂuÂmenÂtaries
TerÂry Gilliam: The DifÂferÂence Between Kubrick (Great FilmÂmakÂer) and SpielÂberg (Less So)
The Best of NASA Space ShutÂtle Videos (1981–2010)
ColÂin MarÂshall hosts and proÂduces NoteÂbook on Cities and CulÂture. FolÂlow him on TwitÂter at @colinmarshall.
Isn’t it posÂsiÂble that we went to the Moon, came back and then shot the footage as to ensure the safeÂty of the astroÂnauts and to keep the PR peoÂple conÂtent that they could mainÂtain conÂtrol over the images?
Wayne Green is a SeekÂer of Truth, not a “SpeakÂer” of Truth. It says so right on that picÂture of him dressed up like a westÂern fronÂtier sherÂiff.
“SpeakÂer” of Truth would just be weird.
some probÂlems with disÂcussing so-called “conÂspirÂaÂcy theÂoÂries” are:
a) peoÂple who have been “conned” react emoÂtionÂalÂly and reaÂson it out afterÂwards, sort of like votÂing
b) the debunkers are usuÂalÂly just as conÂvinced that they are employÂing reaÂson when in fact both sides are exceedÂingÂly faith-based
c) debunkers deny the fact that conÂspirÂaÂcies sucÂceed — adoptÂing this falÂlaÂcy wholeÂsale then preÂcludes the need to critÂiÂcize ratioÂnalÂly an indiÂvidÂual theÂoÂry
d) the probÂlem with the moon hoax isn’t that conÂspirÂaÂcies canÂnot sucÂceed — it’s that this parÂticÂuÂlar one would have to have sucÂceedÂed mulÂtiÂple times. To espouse the theÂoÂry you have to at least sugÂgest a motive for the repeatÂed moon shots, not just for the first one.
What on earth is “brazen pseuÂdo-relÂeÂvance”?
Let me underÂstand this writer’s analÂoÂgy: because we clearÂly did go to the moon, and some peoÂple think we didÂn’t, and those peoÂple are called conÂspirÂaÂcy theÂoÂrists, JFK was in fact shot by one gunÂman and oh, by the way, the offiÂcial stoÂry of 9/11 is comÂpleteÂly accuÂrate.
OK. Wait a minute. Yes. I see it now. Five finÂgers, O’Brien, five finÂgers!
This faux docÂuÂmenÂtary does not need logÂiÂcalÂly falÂlaÂcious explaÂnaÂtion by weak minds. We get it, bubÂba. Just let us watch the dang thing withÂout sufÂferÂing ad hominem attacks and speÂcious harangues! Open CulÂture, for shame!
The conÂjecÂture of conÂspirÂaÂcy theÂoÂrists are typÂiÂcalÂly so outÂraÂgeous it makes me wonÂder if they conÂspired to make these theÂoÂries.
The debunkers need to get a hobÂby.
ConÂspirÂaÂcy theÂoÂrists are nothÂing more than the folÂlowÂers of snake oil salesÂmen. There is and has nevÂer been any proof to a conÂspirÂaÂcy no matÂter how you look at it. ComÂmon sense dicÂtates that there must be a shred of facÂtuÂal, conÂcrete eviÂdence for someÂthing before it becomes truth. such as is the case with UFO’s and aliens and 9/11…
ShalÂlow and stuÂpid comÂment on docÂuÂmenÂtary indeed.
Where’s the proof for offiÂcial ”truth” reports covÂered by corÂpoÂraÂtive media run by zionÂists ? you poor, pro-zion theÂoÂrists.
Please repeat after me: Your govÂernÂment always tells you the truth and will nevÂer ever would lie to you.
One more time –just to be sure.
Love,
Your govÂernÂment.
Nixon, FDR, ClinÂton, George W, ObaÂma et al.