See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Apollo Moon Landings
Source:
Jay Weidner
URL Source: http://jayweidner.com/AlchemicalKubrickIIa.html
Published: Jul 20, 2009
Author: Jay Weidner
Post Date: 2009-12-29 17:44:34 by RickyJ
Keywords: None
Views: 884
Comments: 55
How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Apollo Moon Landings "There are great ideas, undiscovered breakthroughs available, to those who can remove one of truths protective layers" It has now been forty years since the fabled moon landings by NASA and the Apollo gang. When it comes to the subject of the moon landings, people tend to fall into two belief groups. The first group, by far the bigger of the two groups, accepts the fact that NASA successfully landed on the moon six times and that 12 human beings have actually walked on the surface of the moon. The second group, though far smaller, is more vocal about their beliefs. This group says that we never went to the moon and that the entire thing was faked. This essay presents a third position on this issue. This third point of view falls somewhere between these two assertions. This third position postulates that humans did go to the moon but what we saw on TV and in photographs was completely faked. Furthermore this third position reveals that the great filmmaker Stanley Kubrick is the genius who directed the hoaxed landings. 1) MOTIVATIONS FOR FAKING But why fake the moon landings at all? What would be the motivation? Authors Joseph Farrell and Henry Stevens both have shown us undeniable proof that Nazi scientists had developed advanced flying saucer technology as early as 1943. These authors also show that the US Government brought these same Nazi scientists into this country in order to build these highly advanced flying machines. Furthermore, they believe that the idea that aliens from outer space are invading the Earth is a clever cover story concocted by NASA to hide this technology. Many sources inside the military industrial complex have related to me that after John Kennedy was shown the flying saucer technology early in his Presidency, he realized that the advances in technology promised by the flying saucers could solve many of the pressing problems of the world. He saw that releasing this exotic technology would point the way towards cheap and environmentally friendly energy among other things. Soon after seeing the flying saucer technology, JFK made his famous speech asking NASA to land a man on the moon before the decade was out. Many insiders believed that this was a ploy by JFK to get NASA, and the secret government, to release their saucer technologies. Since it was obvious to everyone that standard rocket technology could not get man to the moon and back, JFK may have thought that NASA would be forced to release the knowledge of the technology behind the flying saucers in order to fulfill his vision and get to the moon by the end of the 1960's. JFK's ploy was therefore intended to free this advanced technology from the insidious hands of the shadow government. After the assassination of Kennedy in 1963, NASA began a new plan that would solve the problem that JFK initiated. This new plan would allow NASA, and the shadow government, to keep the saucer technology secret and to still make it look like standard rocketry had taken man to the moon and back. Someone high up in the shadow government decided to fake the entire moon landings in order to conceal the United States' extremely new and advanced Nazi technology both from us, the citizens and our enemies. In some ways NASA's position on this was understandable. We were in the middle of the cold war with the Soviet Union. Did we really want to show the Russians what we had? 2). WHO WILL FAKE IT? In early 1964 Stanley Kubrick had just finished his black satire Dr Strangelove and was looking to do a science fiction film. While directing Dr. Strangelove Kubrick had asked the US Air Force for permission to film one of their B-52 bombers for the movie. The Pentagon turned him down. The movie, Dr. Strangelove, was about a flight squadron that had been ordered to fly to Russia and drop nuclear bombs on that country. The Pentagon read Kubrick's script and rejected his request to actually film the inside, and outside, of a B-52. The reason for this rejection was that Kubrick's film was clearly a satire on the military and US nuclear policy. The Pentagon did not want to assist Kubrick in this satirical undertaking. Undaunted by the rejection, Kubrick used various special effects to create the B-52 in flight. When viewing Dr. Strangelove today, these special effects look quaint and old fashioned, but in 1963 they looked very good. It is possible that someone in NASA saw what Kubrick had done in Dr. Strangelove and, admiring his artfulness, designated Kubrick as the person best qualified to direct the Apollo Moon landing. If he could do that well on a limited budget - what could he do on an unlimited budget? No one knows how the powers-that-be convinced Kubrick to direct the Apollo landings. Maybe they had compromised Kubrick in some way. The fact that his brother, Raul Kubrick, was the head of the American Communist Party may have been one of the avenues pursued by the government to get Stanley to cooperate. Kubrick also had a reputation for being a notoriously nasty negotiator. It would have been very interesting to have been a fly on the wall during the negotiations between Kubrick and NASA. In the end, it looks like Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landings in return for two things. The first was a virtually unlimited budget to make his ultimate science fiction film: 2001: A Space Odyssey, and the second was that he would be able to make any film he wanted, with no oversight from anyone, for the rest of his life. Except for his last film, Eyes Wide Shut, Kubrick got what he wanted. 3). PARALELLING EVENTS It is uncanny the way that the production of 2001: A Space Odyssey parallels the Apollo program. The film production started in 1964 and went on to the release of 2001: A Space Odyssey in1968. Meanwhile the Apollo program also began in 1964 and culminated with the first moon landings on July 20th 1969. Also it is very interesting to note that scientist Frederick Ordway was working both for NASA and the Apollo program and was also Kubrick's top science advisor for 2001: A Space Odyssey. Once he negotiated the deal, Stanley, got to work. The most pressing problem for Kubrick in 1964 was to figure out a way to make the shots on the ground, on the surface of the moon, look realistic. He had to make the scenes look wide-open and expansive, like it was really done on the moon and not in a studio back lot. 4). HOLLYWOOD TRICKERY. No one knows how many things he tried but eventually Kubrick settled on doing the entire thing with a cinematic technique called Front Screen Projection. It is in the use of this cinematic technique that the fingerprints of Kubrick can be seen all over the NASA Apollo photographic and video material. What is Front Screen Projection? Kubrick did not invent the process but there is no doubt that he perfected it. Front Screen Projection is a cinematic device that allows scenes to be projected behind the actors so that it appears, in the camera, as if the actors are moving around on the set provided by the Front Screen Projection. The process came into fruition when the 3M company invented a material called Scotchlite. This was a screen material that was made up of hundreds of thousands of tiny glass beads each about .4mm wide. These beads were highly reflective. In the Front Screen Projection process the Scotchlite screen would be placed at the back of the soundstage. The plane of the camera lens and the Scotchlite screen had to be exactly 90 degrees apart. A projector would project the scene onto the Scotchlite screen through a mirror and the light would go through a beam splitter, which would pass the light into the camera. An actor would stand in front of the Scotchlite screen and he would appear to be 'inside' the projection. Today Hollywood magicians use green screens and computers for special effects and so Front Screen Projection has gone the way of the Adding Machine and the Model T, but for its time, especially in the 1960's, nothing worked better than Front Screen Projection for the realistic look that would be needed both for the ape-men scenes in 2001: A Space Odyssey and the faked Apollo landings. To see how Front Screen Projection looks on the screen let's examine the ape-men scenes at the beginning of Kubrick's film 2001: A Space Odyssey. While viewing the stills from these scenes, or watching them in the film, one has to remember that the early scenes in 2001 with the actors in Ape costumes were all done on a soundstage. None of what you are seeing in the ape-men scenes at the beginning of 2001 was actually shot outside. The scenes that surround the ape-men in 2001 are actually slides of a desert being projected onto Scotchlite screens standing at the rear of the set. In order to create these desert backgrounds Kubrick sent a photographic team to Spain to shoot 8'' X 10'' Ektachrome slides. These slides were then projected via the Front Screen Projection system onto the Scotchlite screen. The actors in ape costumes stood in front of the screen acting out the script. If you watch 2001 on DVD you can actually see the 'seams' of the screen occasionally behind the gyrating apes. Kubrick was doing Front Screen Projection on such a huge and grand fashion that the technicians were forced to sew together many screens of Scotchlite so that Kubrick could create the vastness needed for the ape scenes to be believable. In this still taken from an early scene in 2001 you can see the seams in the blue sky if you look closely. Next is the same image as above only I have processed it through a graphic program. In this processing I have increased the gamma and increased the contrast. Please examine: Now we can clearly see the 'seams' and the 'stitching' of the Scotchlite Front Projection screen in the sky. To get the perspective correct one has to realize that the Scotchlite screen is right behind the rocky outcropping set, which was built on the soundstage. The lines on the screen are the flaws in the Scotchlite screen. These flaws in the screen give the sky give a peculiar 'geometry' when the image is properly processed to reveal the Front Projection Scotchlite Screen. Let's show another example. Here is a still from the famous 'water hole' scene from 2001: This next image is again the same image as above but with the gamma and contrast increased: While watching 2001,with the scenes of the ape-men, one can begin to see the tell tale fingerprints that always reveal when the Front Screen Projection system is being used. It should be emphasized that the sets that surround the ape-men in the movie are real. Those are 'real' rocks (whether paper mache or real) that surround the ape-men. But behind the fabricated rocks on the set, the desert scene is being projected via the Front Screen Projector. One of the ways that you can tell the Front Screen system is being used is that the bottom horizon line between the actual set and the background Scotchlite screen has to be blocked. Kubrick strategically located rocks and other things near the bottom of the scene in order to hide the projection screen. In other words, the camera and the viewers would see the bottom of the background projection screen if it weren't blocked in some fashion. As part of the 'trick' it became necessary to place things in between the screen and the set to hide the bottom of the screen. I have photo-shopped a line differentiating the set and the background Scotchlite Front Projection Screen. Please note how everything is in focus, from the pebbles on the ground in the set to the desert mountains beyond. You will see that hiding the bottom of the Scotchlite screen is always being done when the Front Screen Projection system is used in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Hiding the screen is one of the fingerprints; it is evidence of its use. Just like the stage magician who needs the long sleeves of his costume to hide the mechanism of his tricks, so too Kubrick needed to hide the mechanism of his trick behind the carefully placed horizon line between set and screen. Here is another example from 2001: A Space Odyssey: And here is the same image with my photo shop line separating the set with the ape-man actor and the Scotchlite Front Projection Screen. And you will see, before this article is finished, that this same fingerprint, this same evidence, is clearly seen in all of the NASA Apollo stills and video footage. It is this fingerprint that reveals, not only that NASA faked the Apollo missions but also HOW they faked them. Let's examine a few NASA Apollo images now. This is a still from Apollo 17. This is also a great example of the Front Screen Projection process. Again I have photo-shopped a line indicating the back of the set. One can see that there is a slight uprising behind the rover, which is hiding the bottom of the screen. Also notice that even though everything is in focus from the lunar rover to the mountains in the background, there is a strange change in the landscape of the ground right behind my lines. This is because the photo of the mountains being used on the Front Projection system has a slightly different ground texture than the set. As we go on we will see that this fingerprint is also consistent throughout the Apollo images. Here is another Apollo image. Now here is my version where I show the line between set and screen. Again notice that the texture of the ground changes right behind my lines. Now let's go to some more Apollo images. We can see that the same thing occurs here as in the ape-men scenes in 2001. There is always a line separating the set from the screen. Even if you do not see it at first it will become apparent, as one grows more familiar with the Front Screen Projection process and how it is being used to fake the astronauts standing on the lunar surface. Go to any NASA site like ( http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html) and start looking for yourself. Not all lunar surface shots are using the process. Sometimes the astronauts are just standing on the set with a completely (and suspicious) black background. The early missions used the Front Screen Projection system only when they had to. But as the missions went on and they had to look better, Kubrick began to perfect the process. Although you can see the Front Screen Projection process on every mission, the seriously revealing images are in the later missions, particularly Apollo 14, 15, 16 and (my favorite) 17. Here are a few from Apollo 17. That astronaut is driving the lunar rover parallel to the screen and the rover is only three or four feet away from the Scotchlite. Please note how the tire treads just lead to nowhere. Actually they are going to the edge of the set. The astronaut is about six feet in front of the Scotchlite screen. Please note how everything is in focus from the rocks and pebbles close to the camera all the way to the crystal clear mountain behind the astronaut. As we shall see very soon, even that is impossible. Also please note the other tell tale evidence that permeates the Apollo images: There is a stark difference in the ground texture between the set and what is being projected onto the screen. You can almost count the number of small rocks and the granularity of the ground is clearly seen on the set. But once we get to the screen on the other side of my line this granularity disappears. This next image is slick little piece of work. When first viewed one is sure that they are looking across the vast unbroken lunar surface from beginning to end. With the Earth rising, it is truly a stunning shot. But sure enough - a close examination reveals the set/screen line once again. Again please note the change in the texture of the ground immediately on each side of the line. The little pebbles and dust seem to disappear behind the line. Doesn't the fakery just make you all patriotic inside? 5). DEPTH OF FIELD: MORE EVIDENCE Besides the telltale evidence of the horizon line between set and screen and the changing granularity of the texture of the ground, there is another telltale fingerprint that comes with Front Screen Projection. This has to do with a photographic situation called depth of field. Depth of field has to do with the plane of focus that the lens of the camera is tuned to. The main rule of thumb in photography is that the larger the format of the film the less depth of field. For instance, 16mm film has a large depth of field. 35mm has a smaller depth of field and 70 mm (which Stanley was using in 2001 as were all of the astronaut-photographers in the Apollo missions) has an incredibly small depth of field. What this means is that it is virtually impossible for two objects that are far apart in the lens of a 70mm camera to be in the same plane of focus. One of the two objects will always be out-of-focus. Filmmakers like to use depth of field because it creates soft out-of-focus backgrounds that are visually very pleasant to the human eye. While watching the ape-men scenes at the beginning of 2001, one can see that everything is in focus. Whether it is the apes - or the far away desert background - they are all in focus. This is because the Front Projection Screen on which the background desert scenes is projected is actually not far away from the ape actor. In reality the Scotchlite screen containing the desert scene is right behind the actors just as the Scotchlite screen is right behind the astronauts in the Apollo images. So whatever is projected onto that screen will usually be in the same plane of focus as the actor-ape or the actor-astronaut. This depth of field is impossible in real life using a large format film like 70 mm. Keeping everything in focus is only possible if everything is actually confined to a small place. It may look like the ape-men are somewhere in a huge desert landscape but in reality they are all on a small set in a studio. It may look like the astronauts are on a vast lunar landscape but actually they are on a small confined set. According to the NASA literature, the Apollo astronauts were using large format Hassleblad cameras. These cameras were provided with large rolls of 70 mm film on which they took the images. This large format film is exactly the same size film that Kubrick was using when shooting 2001. The plane of focus, the depth of field, on these cameras is incredibly small. This should have been a huge problem for the astronaut-photographers, who would have to be constantly adjusting the focus. We therefore should expect to see a lot of out of focus shots taken by the astronauts. When you consider the fact that, because of their helmets, they did not even have the ability to see through the viewfinder of their cameras, this would have only increased the chances that most of what they would be shooting would be out of focus. I have gone through the entire photographic record of Apollo program, both at Goddard in Greenbelt, Maryland in the main photographic repository at NASA's Houston headquarters. When the Apollo photographic record is examined, the exact opposite of what one would expect to find is discovered. Instead of many out of focus shots, we find that nearly every shot is in pristine focus. And these amateur photographer-astronauts have an uncanny sense of composition, especially when one remembers that they are not even able to look through their camera's viewfinders. Their images have the unmistakable quality of a highly polished professional photographer. Before embarking on his film career Stanley Kubrick was a professional photographer working for Look Magazine. Honestly, even a professional photographer looking through the viewer of the camera would be hard pressed to come up with the pristine imagery and crystal clear focus of the Apollo astronaut amateur photographers. Unfortunately though, for everyone involved, the fact that everything is in focus in the Apollo record is the old telltale fingerprint of Front Screen Projection. Examine the above photographs from Apollo. Please note how everything is in focus. As one goes through the entire Apollo record they will discover that the astronaut photographers never seem to have a problem with depth of field. Even though you could never get everything to remain in focus over such vast distances here on Earth, somehow the rules of physics are bypassed when men shoot photographs on the lunar surface. Indeed the very physics of lens dynamics and depth of field apparently disappears when the astronauts shoot photographs. (Just for the record the cameras were not altered at all by Hasselblad or anyone else). As a professional photographer and a filmmaker I have wrestled with depth of field problems for over 40 years. I am surprised that no other photographer has noticed the lack of depth of field problems encountered by the astronaut-photographers. In reality the lack of depth of field problems is a nail in the coffin of the Apollo program. 6). GLASS CITIES OR FRONT SCREEN PROJECTION? Former NASA consultant Richard Hoagland has examined many of the photos of the Apollo landings and, although he has never noticed the impossible depth of field, he has found other strange anomalies in the NASA material. Examining the photographic record of the Apollo missions, and processing Apollo images through various graphics programs, Hoagland has discovered 'geometries' in the skies surrounding the astronauts on the moon. He postulates that these geometries are evidence of some kind of gigantic glass-like structures behind, above and surrounding the astronauts as they stand on the lunar surface. Hoagland even shows us that there are rainbow lights reflecting in the sky high above the astronauts. Many people, especially in NASA, have attacked Hoagland for these interpretations. Yet, no matter how much they attack Hoagland, they can never explain what it is that he is finding on these Apollo images. In the same way that evidence in the JFK assassination and the high weirdness around 911 is never examined and explained by the anti-conspiracy theorists, so too, is Hoagland's evidence just simply ignored by the critics. Instead they have created an ad hominum attack machine that criticizes Hoagland - the man - while deftly ignoring his intriguing evidence. His critics are either wrong or they know what is really happening. I have known Richard Hoagland for a long time. I was with him during his initial discoveries of artifacts on the lunar surface. I have seen photographic evidence that there are very strange things on the surface of the moon. I am not here to start an argument with Mr. Hoagland or anyone else. I, like Hoagland, believe that NASA has actually gone to the moon. I believe that moon rocks were taken from the surface of the moon. I believe that there is strong evidence of some kind of past intelligent activity on surface of the moon. But I do not believe that standard rocket technology is what got mankind from the Earth to the surface of the Moon. I am not trying to debunk Hoagland's discoveries. All I am trying to do, with the following evidence, is show that the Apollo landings were a hoax. And that Stanley Kubrick, using the Front Screen Projection system, directed them. Again I want to make sure that I am understood here. I am not saying that there are not strange structures on the moon. What I am saying is that the structures and geometries that Richard Hoagland is seeing in the photographs taken on the lunar surface are not what he thinks they are. Here are a few of Hoagland's images. He believes that these images are proof that NASA is hiding evidence of alien cities. This is a processed photograph of astronaut Ed Mitchell on the surface of the moon taken during the Apollo 14 mission. Of course all of the stuff in the sky, as seen in this processed Apollo image from Hoagland, is impossible if it was taken on the lunar surface. There is no atmosphere on the moon. Therefore there can be nothing in the sky. Yet when Hoagland processed much of the Apollo lunar surface imagery he discovered, over and over again, all of this 'crud' in the sky above the astronauts. No one in NASA even attempts to answer Hoagland, or anyone else, about the strange stuff that he, and others, is finding in the skies above the astronauts. Richard Hoagland theorizes that this is photographic evidence of huge, abandoned 'glass cities' on the surface of the moon. He says that what we are seeing in the above processed image is huge glass towers that only show up on the images after they have been processed through graphics software. Here are some other of Hoagland's images: Hoagland has taken the image on the left and processed it in a manner very similar to how I processed the above images from 2001: A Space Odyssey. By increasing the gamma and the contrast of the image he arrived at the picture on the right. Hoagland interprets the image on the right as proof of giant glass structures behind the astronaut and, for that matter, all over the surface of the moon. What Hoagland is really seeing, though, is the imperfections in the background Scotchlite screen that Kubrick used to create the lunar backgrounds. These imperfections can also be found in the desert backgrounds in the ape scenes in 2001: A Space Odyssey (see above). What Hoagland, and the above image reveals, is the texture and geometry of the Scotchlite screen. Because of the vastness of the set, because he needed it to look like it was NOT DONE ON A SOUNDSTAGE, Kubrick had to sew several Scotchlite screens together. It was only when he had created a large enough Scotchlite screen was he then was able to get a large enough background image that would look expansive enough to appear to be the surface of the moon or a desert four million years ago. The same process that created the desert backgrounds in 2001 is the same process that created the lunar mountains backgrounds for the Apollo missions. This is picture from Hoagland's research. The processed image reveals a rainbow-like reflecting light high above the astronauts in the sky on the moon. Hoagland theorizes that this is a light reflecting off of one of the giant glass towers standing right behind the astronaut. What this is really is a light reflecting off of one of the tiny glass beads of the Scotchlite screen. For some reason that particular glass bead was slightly off from its 90-degree angle and so it caught the projector light and reflected it back to the camera. Again a scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey (processed): And one of Hoagland's processed Apollo shots: It is pretty clear from the two images above that Hoagland's 'geometries' are really the patterns and flaws and stitches in the Scotchlite screen. Maybe this is why NASA suddenly lost all of its lunar images. Maybe this is why NASA just admitted that they 'accidentally' taped over the original high-resolution tape of Apollo 11. Maybe this is why Neil Armstrong, 'the first man to walk on the moon', doesn't want to participate in the 40 th anniversary parties. Maybe this is why we have never gone back to the moon. 7). INCONSISTANT SHADOWS Many researchers have pointed out the different angles of light on the surface of the moon. Because there is only one light source (the sun) how can there be multiple light angles on the moon such as this?: How can the astronaut's two shadows not be consistent with each other? If they were actually standing in the bright light of the sun, their two shadows should be at the same exact angle. Yet they are not. Why? Because Kubrick used studio lighting! But why would Kubrick make a mistake like the inconsistent shadows in the above image? A great filmmaker like Kubrick must have realized that this was a huge mistake. My answer is that Kubrick did this on purpose. He left behind telltale evidence for his work. And he did this on purpose. Not just in the above shot but actually all over the Apollo photographic record. In my forthcoming documentary on the NASA Apollo fakery titled "Kubrick's Odyssey", I will reveal much more photographic evidence than I possibly can in this short essay. One thing that I am sure is that some part of Stanley Kubrick wanted everyone to know what he had done. And that is why he left behind clues that would explain who did it and how. 8). LAST NOTES Those of you who are familiar with my essay, written in 1999, on 2001: A Space Odyssey called Alchemical Kubrick (see http://www.jayweidner.com/kubrick.htm) already know that I believe that 2001 A Space Odyssey is the greatest esoteric film of all time. For the first time anywhere, in that essay, I show how Kubrick designed the black monolith to be exactly the same size as the screen on which 2001 was projected. The monolith and the screen are the same thing. The monolith is the screen and the screen is the monolith. It is truly one of the greatest discoveries in cinema history. When one realizes that Kubrick also used the Front Screen Projection system - not only for the ape scenes in 2001 - but also the fake the moon landings - we can see a double, or even possibly a triple meaning, inside the idea that the screen is the monolith and the monolith is the screen. If the monolith is that device that enlightens humanity then the Front Screen Projection system, and it's unmistakable fingerprints, is the device that enlightens humanity as to how the Apollo landings were faked. But also we can see that Kubrick used the faking of the Apollo moon missions as an opportunity to make one great film. Because he had negotiated a deal where no one would be given oversight on the film, Kubrick was allowed to make whatever movie he desired. Knowing that no one would object to his anti-Hollywood methods, he created the first abstract feature film, the first intellectual movie and the greatest esoteric work of art in the 20 th century. The President of MGM, at the time in 1968, publicly stated, that he never even saw a rough cut of 2001: A Space Odyssey during the entire four years of production. Does that sound like the manner in which a head of a major studio would act? 2001: A Space Odyssey was one of the most expensive films ever made at that time. Does it even seem remotely possible that no one at MGM even cared to see the continuous progress of the film? No way. I am sure that 2001: A Space Odyssey is the only film in MGM history where the executives who funded the movie never scrutinized the film. Why weren't they more interested in this very expensive endeavor? Because MGM did not fund 2001, the US Government did. Outside of the Front Screen Projection evidence, which I believe nails the fraud of the Apollo landings; there is other circumstantial evidence that forces the conclusion even more in the direction of Kubrick directing the entire Apollo missions. For instance: In the original release of 2001 there were many credits thanking NASA and many of the aerospace companies that worked with NASA on the moon landings. These credits have since been removed from all subsequent releases of 2001. But for those of us old enough to remember, in the original credits, Kubrick thanks a vast array of military and space corporations for their help in the production. As these are the same corporations that supposedly helped NASA get the astronauts to the moon - one has to wonder - what kind of help did they gave Stanley? And for what price? In the film 'Wag the Dog' Dustin Hoffman plays a movie producer hired by the CIA to 'fake an event'. His name in the movie is Stanley. In that movie 'Stanley' mysteriously dies after telling everyone that he wants to take credit for the 'event' that he helped fake. Stanley Kubrick died soon after showing Eyes Wide Shut to the executives at Warner Brothers. It is rumored that they were very upset concerning that film. They wanted Kubrick to re-edit the film but he refused. I personally was in France when Stanley died and I saw, on French television, outtakes from the forthcoming Eyes Wide Shut. I saw outtakes from several scenes that were never in the finished film. Warner Brothers has even come out and admitted that they re-edited the film. To this day they refuse to release a DVD of Stanley Kubrick's cut. Not only is this a direct violation of the agreement that Kubrick had with Warner Brothers but also it means that we will probably never see the un-edited version of this film. One has to wonder what was cut out? And finally: Eyes Wide Shut was released on July 16 th 1999. Stanley Kubrick insisted in his contract that this be the date of the release. July 16 th 1999 is exactly 30 years to the day that Apollo 11 was launched. Happy Fortieth Anniversary Stanley. Now you can rest in peace.
-Neil Armstrong, 'First Man on the Moon'. July 20 th 1994 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-15) not displayed.
.
.
.
#16. To: Eric Stratton (#15)
The background pictures are legit I think. It is the foreground that was filmed in a studio. So they could go to the same spots and set up everything like it is suppose to be. They really have no choice but to do this if they want to keep the lie alive.
God is always good!
I would need to see some proof of this before I would even consider it as a possibility. Why? Because it doesn't make sense that our government would spend billions trying to find evidence of intelligent life in the universe through the SETI Institute if they already know they were just sitting on the moon. Also I don't see how they could hide ET life on the moon if the ETs there wanted to make themselves known to Earthlings. Spending billions of dollars to hide something they have no sure way of hiding wouldn't be too smart. I would believe that the Nazis developed flying saucers before I would believe that there is ANY life on the Moon.
God is always good!
First off, this article is full of all kinds of stupid crap where special effects are concerned. They've been using blue and green screens since the 1950's. This guy has no fricking clue as to what he's talking about, and as to the light sources on the moon and the shadows, This asshole has never gone to the beach at night, and had someone shine a bright light on them. This guy needs a serious boot in the ass. I've been doing special effects work for about 10 years now, and can tell you for a fact, how it would have been done back then.
Better to be hated for what you are, than loved for what you are not.
There was only one light source on the moon, the Sun. There was no artificial light there at all, yet there are shadows going in different directions which can only happen with more than one light source. It is a known fact that Kubrick used Front Screen projection technology in 2001 a space odyssey. The pictures of man on the "moon" display the same characteristics of being made with Front Screen projection technology as well.
God is always good!
I would need to see some proof of this before I would even consider it as a possibility. Why? Because it doesn't make sense that our government would spend billions trying to find evidence of intelligent life in the universe through the SETI Institute if they already know they were just sitting on the moon. Also I don't see how they could hide ET life on the moon if the ETs there wanted to make themselves known to Earthlings. Spending billions of dollars to hide something they have no sure way of hiding wouldn't be too smart. I would believe that the Nazis developed flying saucers before I would believe that there is ANY life on the Moon. First off SETI was a low budget operation and a lot of the people who worked on it were volunteers. They even had distributed processing software that the general public could use on their PCs to help them process data. SETI is a carnival side show diversion. Even scientists who allegedly believe we are the apex of all creation have criticised it as being impractical. Any truly advanced culture that had achieved interstellar travel would have likely long ago ceased using the primitive radio technology supposed by SETI. It also assumed, as one of its operating assumptions, that no one in the entire universe had an interstellar drive system such that they could travel between star systems. SETI, like "Project Bluebook", was a diversion to keep the general public looking away from the actual data and anomalies. As for the lunar anomalies there are plenty of photos from the early Apollo orbital missions which merely photographed the lunar surface without setting down. There are volumes of photos and they are mostly* available to the public. The asterisk is for the fact that they have been caught airbrushing or even omitting photos, or showing them as blank frames in the photo catalogs for the missions (each mission had a catalog which listed all of the available photos). Here is a link to the Enterprise Mission's Planetary Lab where you can find a ream of photos of the lunar surface anomalies as well as data on the hanky panky pulled by NASA to obscure it. Scroll down till you hit the lunar images and then click on the images to enlarge. It is a big universe out there and so many of these false paradigms that we are the only intelligent life in a galaxy of 100's of millions of stars in a universe of 100's of millions if not billions of galaxies. The scale of the universe is truly mind boggling until you play with the numbers a bit and get used to. Then it is just incredibly gigantically big.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Another problem with Weidner's attempt to account for the Hoagland data and observations is that the same forms show up in different frames at different angles both from lunar orbit and correlating images on the surface. Attempting to use it to prove the existence of a glass bead screen throws doubt upon the hypothesis he is trying to push.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
How can the astronaut's two shadows not be consistent with each other? If they were actually standing in the bright light of the sun, their two shadows should be at the same exact angle. Yet they are not. Why? Because Kubrick used studio lighting! But why would Kubrick make a mistake like the inconsistent shadows in the above image? A great filmmaker like Kubrick must have realized that this was a huge mistake. My answer is that Kubrick did this on purpose. He left behind telltale evidence for his work. And he did this on purpose. Not just in the above shot but actually all over the Apollo photographic record. This is interesting. I'm trying to figure out how the differences in the shadows in the first picture were made.
Who says we are intelligent? We do, so that doesn't mean a whole lot. If other life exists off Earth it could very well be that it originated on Earth and is not a alien life form at all. I am not concerned about being invaded by aliens, I am concerned about the elite and their plans for us though. They are a known threat, aliens, if they exist, are not a known threat, they are an imagined threat. When I talk about life existing off Earth I am talking about physical life forms, not spiritual ones which the bible talks about doing battle throughout the universe. ( God's angels vs. the fallen angels.)
God is always good!
I think the chance of there NOT being aliens elsewhere in the Universe is so small that it might as well be zero. How could it be possible that of the Gazillions or however many stars there are, that Earth is the only planet orbiting one of them that has life? I don't think it's possible. That's what she said.
I speltt it wrong. :-)
By design? I do believe we were created by the only God who has no beginning and no end. He doesn't tell us if he created other life somewhere else, so it must not be important. Aliens that aren't smart enough to introduce themselves to me are not worth my time. :)
God is always good!
I think it's great that the Flat Earthers have finally learned to use Photoshop and other image processing programs.
Speculating over the existence of intelligent life in the cosmos should probably be postponed until we can prove there is intelligent life on Earth.
That comment made my morning. Thanks!
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that its people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson
If you believe the moon landing was faked. You have won the stupidest poster on 4um award. As a matter of fact you are dumber then Robin of the obama ass licking site. That's really dumb.
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it - Thomas Jefferson
I am happy for you guys. I knew you could do it if you really tried. But this article is about the faking of the moon landings. I know, it's hard to stay on topic when you are fighting spherical Earthers all day.
God is always good!
A lot of people believe the moon landings were faked. That does not, in and of itself, speak to their/our intelligence. Do YOU believe everything the government or its spokespeople put out for public consumption?
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. There are a lot of stup[id people in America. But just believing in the moon hoax theory wouldn't have made him receive the dumb poster award that I gave him. It is that and other things he has said. I believe the mostly the opposite of that the govt says.
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it - Thomas Jefferson
Apparently I have missed the posts that made you think the poster you referred to is stupid or dumb.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. deleted
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." — Claire Wolf: 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution (1996)
Coming from you I definitely take that as a compliment. Don't you have your own rabidly attended and exciting forum, Liberty's Shame, to tend to?! Or perhaps a New Year's gift of a tombstone from us to you is in order. Ok review is in order. First off maybe you aren't the dumbest. But you often say dumb stuff imo. Secondly the label of neocon on me is laughable Libertys Shame......Now that is a good one. I have to laugh at that. At least you have a sense of humor. I like tombstone pizza but I prefer Marions Pizza.
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it - Thomas Jefferson
deleted
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." — Claire Wolf: 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution (1996)
; ) I will not leave you alone. I always have the big stick. :>>)())><
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it - Thomas Jefferson
deleted
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." — Claire Wolf: 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution (1996)
Well IF I am correct then some of the film is faked and some is legitimate. Remember the mind control, every day the same as the next and put your shoulder into the master's yoke, paradigm will not admit to anomalies which if accepted for what they seem to indicate would result in a revolution of thought and world view. To the controllers and their mind control regimen anything which shifts people's viewpoints in a radically thought provoking and mind expanding way is a "no-no". They want to establish their "Ant-Hive" "Republic" and anything which empowers the average man/woman intellectually is forbidden fruit. As well, as an aside, I believe they have likely run into cache's of ancient high tech equipment (North and South America are riddled with ancient tunnels and caverns some of which appear to have been used for habitation in the distant prehistory - possibly because of war or impacts with moderate size asteroid(s) which made living on the surface hostile). The high tech equipment would not only run against the existing planned society world view but is something that the black budget people would want to reverse engineer in secret for weapons technology. With the black budget world everything is viewed in terms of weapons potential as opposed to peaceful potential and they are insanely driven to secrete and hide it.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
"Cogito ergo sum." I think therfore I am. Of course level of intelligence is debatable - given war, famine, psychotics running the planet, etc., ... Possibly, but not likely. We are only now at the point where we are reaching for numbers indicating the true age of the universe - which I think is much greater than has been supposed heretofore. Cosmologists are still arguing amongst each other as to the age and you cannot get a straight answer because ultimately they don't know but being "learned" men will not easily admit it in many cases. Interestingly we do not know the age of the Old Testament - which according to at least one scholar I have read supposes that it came out of one of the great libraries of ancient egypt where the Hebrews came from. We do not even know how much it has been distorted and changed over time nor even what language in which it was originally writ. Not that I doubt the existence of God but that I doubt the word of self serving priests who change the word to suit their temporal lusts. Look at the Talmud - it is a collection of sagely wisdom admixed with some of the vilest most disgusting racist, self serving, and perverted writings of deranged psychotic priests one could ask for. Further writings of low tech people's observing high tech events could very easily result in interpretations at wild variance with the reality of those events. Look at the "Cargo Cults" of New Guinea - worshipping representations of airplanes and waiting for God to bring them "cargo". However, I will not gainsay nor degrade another's beliefs and believe strongly in the freedom of thought, to wonder, and to believe as one wishes. I do not however, feel obliged to agree with it.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
I am always ready to believe that our Glorious & Warlike Supervisors are lying to us. The only trouble I have here is that I have yet to see any of this moon-landing hoax "evidence" that makes any sense at all. 1. There are up to (depending on the time) two significant sources of light on the moon: the sun and the earth. Earthlight on the moon is brighter than moonlight is on the earth; the moon's albedo averages higher than earth's, but the earth is a helluva lot bigger. 2. The sun is not a point source. The light that comes from it does not go in just a single direction. The sun is half a degree in diameter, as seen from the earth, and averages that as seen from the moon. That means the light from the sun diverges over that angular range. 3. What's wrong with the shadows in the picture? Of course the "head" ends of the shadows don't fall in the same place. Neither do the "foot" ends. The distance between the head ends looks - - - - - - - - - - - Ricky. I work in Special Effects. I also analyze photos for people. Apparently you've never seen Mythbusters, as they did a Moon Hoax Special. You are a retard if you honestly believe that it was faked with multiple lights and how it was described. I've worked on a lot of special effects driven films. Just so you understand, photos, and film are my area of expertise, and this article, is a guy talking out his proverbial ass.
Better to be hated for what you are, than loved for what you are not.
It was kind of random. I'm thinking about trademarking it.
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it - Thomas Jefferson
I have no doubt it was faked. There is a good reason the original tapes were "lost", they didn't want anyone ever seeing their fraud close up. But the pictures have been proven false already. Sorry to hear you don't understand physics and how film would react to the environment on the moon. I don't think you are a retard though, just ignorant of basic physics.
God is always good!
deleted
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." — Claire Wolf: 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution (1996)
Could you tell us how light is dispersed without atmosphere? Sorry guys, within 10 years we will have a populated moon station whether you believe it or not.
Whether we go to the moon for real in the future is not what this thread is about. This thread is about the faked man on the moon landings of the Apollo program. I know many of you have an emotional attachment to Americans being the first on the moon. But the totality of the evidence clearly shows that never happened.
God is always good!
Let me thing of what happens to film when its irradiated... Oh yeah, it goes black. I have been skeptical of the moon landings myself, but.... Here's the kicker. Front screen projection, as talked about in this article creates artifacts, not to mention that the projected image doesn't have the same opacity as the other objects in frame. There are plenty of tells, however that was NOT how it would have been faked. Do you work in the film business? Do you work in special effects? I do. If you do, great, but you're still wrong.
Better to be hated for what you are, than loved for what you are not.
No I don't work in the film business. Photographs had nothing to do with me originally concluding the moon landings were faked. The televised moon landings audio feed is all I needed. In a vacuum no sounds are made, so there is nothing to hear. The moon has about zero atmosphere, enough to be considered a vacuum. Yet on this video you can hear a bag being rustled by an Astronaut. The sound is very distinct, I am sure it is the bag making that noise. That couldn't of happened on the moon due their being no atmosphere there. But it happens nevertheless telling everybody watching that knows basic physics that NASA is lying about this occurring on the moon. Here is the video: http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=108583 Here is an long article about the complexities of taking pictures with film on the moon. http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=109476
God is always good!
Just a few points to contend with. If I wear a space suit, and that space suit is filled with air, and something I handle makes noise, those vibrations will be heard through the suit. That's just how things work. Sound is vibration. It's why you can hear someone's conversation through a window, or a door, even though you're outside it. Now, the other thing it could very well have been the suit itself making that noise. I'm not saying the moon landings weren't faked, nor am I saying we actually went. I myself am very skeptical of a lot of things. My thoughts, where the landing is concerned, is why they would set up a camera, to watch the lift off of the primary pod to meet up with the orbiter. Why would they do that, and Who was filming the orbiter go around the moon's surface? There's a lot of unanswered questions that I have regarding the moon landings.
Better to be hated for what you are, than loved for what you are not.
These are not flimsy material space suits, they couldn't have been. The vibrations would first have to travel through the suit before they could be picked up by the microphone just in front the astronaut's face. What we are hearing here is loud and crisp, not like is it being muffled by traveling trough the space suit. After he takes the bag off and starts to open it you hear the exact same noise. This is the bag making that noise I am 99% sure of this. If their suits transmitted every little vibration like that, then it would have been heard every time they walked, every time they fell down would have produced an explosion of vibrations compared to the tiny bag that was being rustled. None of this happened which means it is only logical to assume the bag itself was making these vibrations through an atmosphere reaching a microphone that had to be outside the space suits. Which of course means NASA lied and they were not on the moon.
God is always good!
They did it for TV of course. The camera was supposedly on the rover and was operated by remote control.
God is always good!
Considering the technology hadn't been invented yet, there's no way it could have been operated by remote control. We agree on some things. It's the mechanics of it we need to investigate, and the motivations.
Better to be hated for what you are, than loved for what you are not.
Ah, they had remote control technology then. It wasn't 150 years ago, just 40. That's how they took all the real pictures of the moon for the background for the astronaut's in the studio. By a remote controlled camera aboard a remote controlled ship. Getting to the moon was not a problem for NASA then as long as no living beings were inside the ships.
God is always good!
However, I don't think that they can "load up" up there since they'd have to find exactly the same background terrain, which is all but impossible.
#17. To: Original_Intent (#2)
I am guessing that what NASA saw in those early photographs convinced them that they did not want the general public to see what was really up there. There, by all evidences, has been a program in place since the early 1950's to deny the existence of non-terrestrial civilizations and what those photos show is civilization on a very grand scale - using technology well in advance of what we currently have. What I believe was seen in those early photographs was a direct contradiction of that mantra and for whatever social control reasons was deemed not suitable to be shown to the general public. So, the solution was to proceed with the manned lunar missions and in parallel with that was set up a studio to show the public what NASA, or actually the people who control NASA, wanted them to believe was there and more importantly to ensure that the public did not see what WAS there.
#18. To: RickyJ (#0)
#19. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#18)
(Edited)
#20. To: RickyJ (#17)
I am guessing that what NASA saw in those early photographs convinced them that they did not want the general public to see what was really up there. There, by all evidences, has been a program in place since the early 1950's to deny the existence of non-terrestrial civilizations and what those photos show is civilization on a very grand scale - using technology well in advance of what we currently have. What I believe was seen in those early photographs was a direct contradiction of that mantra and for whatever social control reasons was deemed not suitable to be shown to the general public. So, the solution was to proceed with the manned lunar missions and in parallel with that was set up a studio to show the public what NASA, or actually the people who control NASA, wanted them to believe was there and more importantly to ensure that the public did not see what WAS there.
#21. To: RickyJ (#0)
#22. To: Original_Intent (#21)
Many researchers have pointed out the different angles of light on the surface of the moon. Because there is only one light source (the sun) how can there be multiple light angles on the moon such as this?:
"The trouble with people is not that they don't know but that they know so much that ain't so." ~ Josh Billings
#23. To: Original_Intent (#20)
#24. To: RickyJ, Original_Intentt (#23)
...it is just incredibly gigantically big.
"The trouble with people is not that they don't know but that they know so much that ain't so." ~ Josh Billings
#25. To: Original_Intent (#24)
Original_Intentt
"The trouble with people is not that they don't know but that they know so much that ain't so." ~ Josh Billings
#26. To: wudidiz (#24)
How could it be possible that of the Gazillions or however many stars there are, that Earth is the only planet orbiting one of them that has life?
#27. To: RickyJ (#0)
#28. To: wudidiz (#24)
I think the chance of there NOT being aliens elsewhere in the Universe is so small that it might as well be zero.
#29. To: TooConservative (#28)
Speculating over the existence of intelligent life in the cosmos should probably be postponed until we can prove there is intelligent life on Earth.
#30. To: Eric Stratton (#5)
#31. To: TooConservative (#27)
I think it's great that the Flat Earthers have finally learned to use Photoshop and other image processing programs.
#32. To: A K A Stone (#30)
If you believe the moon landing was faked. You have won the stupidest poster on 4um award. As a matter of fact you are dumber then Robin of the obama ass licking site. That's really dumb.
Lord Acton
#33. To: James Deffenbach (#32)
A lot of people believe the moon landings were faked. That does not, in and of itself, speak to their/our intelligence. Do YOU believe everything the government or its spokespeople put out for public consumption?
#34. To: A K A Stone (#33)
Lord Acton
#35. To: A K A Stone (#30)
#36. To: Eric Stratton (#35)
Oh, OK there Mr. Neocon.
#37. To: A K A Stone (#36)
#38. To: Eric Stratton (#37)
Let's make a deal, you leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. I'd say that's pretty fair for you since you'll definitely get the short end of the stick if you decline.
#39. To: A K A Stone (#38)
#40. To: wudidiz (#22)
This is interesting. I'm trying to figure out how the differences in the shadows in the first picture were made.
#41. To: RickyJ, wudidiz (#23)
Who says we are intelligent? We do, so that doesn't mean a whole lot.
If other life exists off Earth it could very well be that it originated on Earth and is not a alien life form at all. ...
#42. To: wudidiz (#22)
(Edited)
How can the astronaut's two shadows not be consistent with each other? If they were actually standing in the bright light of the sun, their two shadows should be at the same exact angle. Yet they are not. Why? Because Kubrick used studio lighting!
larger smaller than the distance between the foot ends? Of course; the head ends are significantly farther from the camera than the foot ends are. The shadows don't look perfectly parallel? Well, maybe the two astronauts aren't perfectly parallel; if they are not, neither should their shadows be.
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under. -- H. L. Mencken
#43. To: RickyJ (#19)
#44. To: Eric Stratton (#39)
That looks more like a sphincter waiting to get reamed.
#45. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#43)
#46. To: A K A Stone (#44)
#47. To: RickyJ (#45)
#48. To: Ragin1 (#47)
#49. To: RickyJ (#45)
#50. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#49)
#51. To: RickyJ (#50)
#52. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#51)
(Edited)
#53. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#51)
(Edited)
My thoughts, where the landing is concerned, is why they would set up a camera, to watch the lift off of the primary pod to meet up with the orbiter. Why would they do that, and Who was filming the orbiter go around the moon's surface?
#54. To: RickyJ (#53)
#55. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#54)
(Edited)
Considering the technology hadn't been invented yet, there's no way it could have been operated by remote control.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
