Oh there is the X-Files spin off, Lone Gunman. which was itself a show about conspiracy theories but also managed to predict 9/11:
In the pilot episode, which aired March 4, 2001 (exactly six months and one week prior to the September 11 attacks[5]), rogue members of the U.S. government remotely hijack an airliner flying to Boston, planning to crash it into the World Trade Center, and let anti-American terrorist groups take credit, to gain support for a profitable new war following the Cold War. The heroes ultimately override the controls, foiling the plot.
There is probably a whole thread on shows that allegedly predicted 9/11 but this one is quite the coincidence (it is just a coincidence, but it is a weird one)
I just made a joke about Stanley Kubrick faking the moon landing in another CT-related thread, which got me thinking that this would make a good post for this thread-- a crossover NASA / Sci-Fi lit / showbiz / media giant conspiracy, originating from one of the OG all-star CT organizations…
In 1980, the Flat Earth Society accused NASA of faking the landings, arguing that they were staged by Hollywood with Walt Disney sponsorship, based on a script by Arthur C. Clarke and directed by Stanley Kubrick.
Is this not the greatest Grand Slam CT of all time? You got NASA, Walt Disney, Arthur C. Clark, and Stanley Kubrick in a CT originated by the Flat Earth Society. If an indie producer made a black comedy movie based on all this, I would totally go see it.
Kubrick: “Armstrong, that’s ‘One small step for A man’! Get it right, goddamit, or we will be here all night! Take 107!”
Government bean counter: “Ummm, Mr. Kubrick, we’re already a billion dollars over budget on this. It’s costing us almost as much as if we had actually sent these guys to the moon”.
I can’t help but think it’d be funnier for him to casually get it right — comfortably reading it off a cue card, while knowing they can do another take on this not-at-all-inspiring soundstage — only to be told that, dammit, man, if you really were setting foot on the moon, you’d be so overwhelmed that you’d flub your line! Give me less ‘calm pilot’ and more ‘awed dipshit’!
True, I can see Kubrick saying “dammit Armstrong, the line is ‘for man’! You keep saying ‘a man’. There’s no article!!”. Armstrong replying, “but if you leave out the article, it makes no sense. ‘for man’ would mean the same thing as ‘for mankind’”. Kubrick: “that’s the idea! The flubbed line creates verisimilitude. Who’s the genius director here, and who’s the grounded space jockey?”
That’s why there is that pause in the real recording “that’s one small step for man, one [big pause] giant leap for mankind.” I always thought that pause was because Armstrong is thinking “dammit, I said that wrong didn’t I? I blew my big line! Stupidstupidstupid. Well, maybe no one will notice.” Instead, it is him taking time to glare at Kubrick. “You happy now, you talentless hack?”
Apparently, you were not in the San Francisco area in the 1990s or so, as you didn’t mention a certain other conspiracy theory involving Lennon’s death.
A legitimate conspiracy theory about Hollywood I’ve seen posted from time to time.
Basically almost ALL media in the US has to be approved by the Pentagon to be released to the US market and the Pentagon is quick to object to and scrub any anti-American ideas or themes before mainstream release.
How does this work? Well basically ANY military or police uniform shown in ANY work be it film, TV, or video game can be sued under Stolen Valor laws and have their work pulled from theaters etc.
So that does have grain of truth. Though it’s nothing to do with stolen valour laws (AFAIK they were talked about, like flag burning amendments, but never actually passed). On the other hand if you want the US military to cooperate with your movie (which will make you life WAY easier if your movie features a lot of military equipment and soldiers) then you need the Pentagon to approve your script and make sure it shows the military in a good light
Yeah thats the problem with that conspiracy theory as it’s so easily debunkable but then peopleALWAYS respond with WELL ACTUALLY about Pentagon backing, but then again I’m assuming if you’re going to be making anti-war/anti-American film you’re not going to be asking the Pentagon for budget help regardless, and with today’s CGI replacing actual vehicles it’s become an almost complete non-issue.
18 U.S.C. § 702 made it illegal for a civilian to wear all or part of a military uniform. There was another law (10 U.S.C. § 772(f)) which stated the uniform could be worn in a production by actors if the production doesn’t discredit the military. I’m not sure if it was ever enforced before the case that went to the Supreme Court.
In Schacht vs U.S. the law is was found to be unconstitutional. So it hasn’t been the case since 1970.
What has been a CT especially with veterans is that Hollywood has to purposely make something wrong on uniforms otherwise it would be illegal to film. In reality the productions with mistakes are just done by dumbasses. It would be very simple to get it right. You don’t need a consulting firm or military cooperation. Just ask the grip who got out when he was an E4.
