User:LensFlare/Controversial New Evidence May Validate Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories
|
This article is part of UnNews, your source for up-to-the-picosecond misinformation. |
7 January 2010
Controversial New Evidence May Validate Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories, chorus the hairy inhabitants of the fringes of the Internet. A blurry satellite photograph of the surface of the Moon, showing what appears to be a chocolate bar wrapper similar to the one that can be seen floating past the American Flag as it is planted in the original Moon landing videos, has recently been discovered and siezed upon by hordes of unwashed conspiracy theorists. They claim it to be indisputible proof that man once set foot on the Earth's distant celestial neighbour.
Ever since its filming in 1967 and release in 1969, mainstream and scientific belief has been that the Moon landings were shot in a studio near Effing Hellsborough, England, by professional NASA filmmakers as part of their much-acclaimed series of realistic TV drama-documentaries. Moon Landings (1969) went on to beat its Russian competitors' production Sun Landings (1969) in that national film awards ceremony event thing, winning lots more gold statues than them and sealing its place in history as one of the greatest and most believable drama-documentaries ever made.
Despite overwhelming popular belief and NASA's openness about the filming process of the production -- as well as the accidental inclusion of the infamous chocolate bar wrapper -- many odd-smelling Internet-bound conspiracy theorists maintain that no documentary was ever filmed and that in fact NASA sent real astronauts to the Moon on a real Moon landing expedition. Although at first thought ridiculous, evidence for the hoax can seem compelling: they point out that non-parallel shadows in many of the photographs accompanying the Special Edition DVD boxed set of Moon Landings are impossible on the flat surface of a film studio and can only have arisen due to bumpy terrain on the actual Moon. Other parts of the film, such as the flag waving apparently under its own momentum, as though in the absence of air resistance, are details that greasy theorists claim could not have been replicated in the atmosphere of planet Earth. A conspiracy theorist who resides in an unhygenic online swamp under the name land1ngs4real stated in his blog, "The whole thing is full of minute details [that] you would not expect even the most well-researched and pedantic film crew to have accounted for."
When asked why NASA would fake their drama-documentary and instead make a real journey to the Moon, the ugly Internet conspiracy theorists tend to disagree with each other. Everything from the slightly plausible "It was too expensive to produce such realistic photography on Earth, so they needed to do it for real" to the wildly speculative "The Effing Hellsborough studio, the only one at the time with special low-gravity-simulation harnesses, was needed in the production of The Italian Job (1969) and was unavailable" has been suggested as a possible explanation. One thing, however, is certain: winning those gold statues in that film awards ceremony event thing would have been more important to American pride in 1969 than simply putting a bunch of men on the boring old Moon. This was at a time of great Cold War tensions, when Russian space documentary filmmaking was rapidly beginning to outpace that of America, so the temptation to pull off a hoax would have been great indeed.
Rebuffs of the myth are commonplace amongst sensible members of society. NASA themselves consider conspiracy theories as malicious attempts to cheapen the achievements of their spectacular documentary series. The new evidence is forcing many people to reconsider. If the blurred image really does depict a chocolate bar wrapper on the surface of the Moon, then men must have been there; if it turns out to be the same brand as the one that accidentally drifted past the flag in the NASA documentary, then that is conslusive proof that it was a hoax.
NASA has so far declined to comment on the new photographic evidence, simply stating that any claims of men actually landing on the Moon are fanciful delusions. A previous spokesman famously pointed out "There is no air on the real Moon and surface temperatures vary between 250 Fahrenheit in the day and -250 at night. How could a full film crew have been expected to work -- or even remain alive -- under those conditions?"
Entrepreneur Bertrand E. Barstool, who has spent over three million dollars funding his private collection of Moon rocks, is horrified by suggestions that they may simply be rocks from the Moon. "Everyone knows that NASA's Moon rocks are finely-painted concrete and polystyrene masterpieces and are very rare. That's why they're worth so much: NASA only used a few props on the film set due to weight restrictions." He is worried by the potential devaluation of his collection, stating that should the Moon landings be proven to have actually taken place, his "iconic NASA stage artifacts will become nothing more than curiosity items [...] after all, if people want to see real Moon rock they can just look out of their goddamn windows on a clear night."
The current expert scientific explanation of the chocolate bar wrapper in the satellite photograph of the Moon's surface is that someone sneezed on the picture. For now, and until more evidence can be accrued, the idea that men actually walked on the surface of the Moon remains as preposterous as the idea that Bigfoot doesn't exist.
Sources[edit | edit source]
- Wikipedia
- Books
- The Internet