Stanley Kubrick Confesses to Faking the Moon Landing

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: UnifiedSerenity
I am sure this is why the earlier thread was removed, but because someone here at ATS who probably killed ants with a magnifying glass as a kid, just likes to see crap fly, when I did a search there was NOTHING to go by. Why not close a thread with "HOAX BIN" as the last post so people don't have to do all the digging again?

Sometimes threads are just 404'd if it is a repeat hoax. The other thread was posted in general conspiracies, yours is in skunkworks. That's my best guess why the other was removed.

Well, I hope it stays here, locked and the explanation plain for the next poor soul who thinks it's real.

originally posted by: CovertAgenda
a reply to: Vector99
Really? If they want you to.

While there is some great CGI out there, there are specific programs created with the sole purpose of detecting CGI

One example would be the CGI the college kids created of an eagle picking up a baby, it was so good it actually made the news, but upon dissection of it the CGI was obvious.

a reply to: UnifiedSerenity

Article about new nvisa card simulating lighting from moon landing photos


Check this out...,
www.engadget.com...

originally posted by: Indigent
Bart Sibrel 2002 incident mentioned, this Kubrick not only faked the moon landing, he is a time traveler.

i did watch the video, but at what point in time in the video do they mention the bart sibrel thing? i must have missed that part.

originally posted by: AngusHues
a reply to: UnifiedSerenity

Check this out...,
www.engadget.com...

thats old news, been posted here on ats plenty times before, and as is always concluded nvidia hasnt proven anything, it was nothing more then a sensational title for a controversial article to help advertise their product, nothing more.

a reply to: pryingopen3rdeye

start at 8:40

"that guy Bart Sibrel or something tried to get him to swear on a bible"

This is the incident referenced

I like Skunk Works, because even if most people think it's they are only idiotic topics(or believers) at least things are looked into here.

originally posted by: UnifiedSerenity
I am sure this is why the earlier thread was removed, but because someone here at ATS who probably killed ants with a magnifying glass as a kid, just likes to see crap fly, when I did a search there was NOTHING to go by. Why not close a thread with "HOAX BIN" as the last post so people don't have to do all the digging again?

HOAX bin it, but keep it around so others know or otherwise members who like to look into Skunk Works Topics have to start all over again. Seen to many repeat threads having to deal with the same.

originally posted by: UnifiedSerenity
a reply to: Indigent

I've emailed Bart to get some details from him on his actions.

Interesting if you get a reply. May have just been that for nefarious purposes in discrediting and or just to make a buck.

Even if it turned out to be a student project, etc.,

a reply to: pryingopen3rdeye

I was unaware, just came to mind. I am however glad you guys were also aware of that article from a while back

a reply to: Vector99
Aha you dont get sarcasm either...
I think you missed the point I was trying to make.
What has your example got to do with this post and my comment anyways?
Sorry cant think down to that level...

a reply to: Vector99
You may notice that 'Kubrick' says nothing about the Sibrel incident, only the interviewer, and at that, it could have easily been added later as a simple voice over. (around the 8.46 mark)
The other thing bugging me regarding this is the weird aspect ratio changes, almost a morphing effect, throughout the whole video, but most pronounced around the 8.30 mark onwards.
You seem to be a self proclaimed CGI expert, so what do you make of that?

a reply to: CovertAgenda

sarcasm tends to come off in the same font as everything else on the internet, sometimes it's easily missed.

The reference I was making is that no matter how good anything CGI is, it can be detected as CGI. I used that example because the CGI was so good local news stations across the country ran that story as it was real.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: pryingopen3rdeye

start at 8:40

"that guy Bart Sibrel or something tried to get him to swear on a bible"

This is the incident referenced

ah ha! i hear it now, i think the issue is i was trying to tune out the interviewer cause he sounds like a loud mouthed asshole/jackass. and he slurs his words, and speaks to fast for someone who slurs, but ya i heard it this time the 4th time round.

a reply to: CovertAgenda

Just looked, my guess is something behind him is moving (looks like a curtain or something) and at the low resolution it was filmed at distortions will be created by the camera focusing on a moving object behind the guy

originally posted by: CovertAgenda
a reply to: Vector99
You may notice that 'Kubrick' says nothing about the Sibrel incident, only the interviewer, and at that, it could have easily been added later as a simple voice over. (around the 8.46 mark)
The other thing bugging me regarding this is the weird aspect ratio changes, almost a morphing effect, throughout the whole video, but most pronounced around the 8.30 mark onwards.
You seem to be a self proclaimed CGI expert, so what do you make of that?

Did you watch the "out take" video? It's a hoax.

originally posted by: CovertAgenda
a reply to: Vector99
The other thing bugging me regarding this is the weird aspect ratio changes, almost a morphing effect, throughout the whole video, but most pronounced around the 8.30 mark onwards.

ya i noticed that also, it looks to me just like modern video digital image stabilization, which i dont think existed in the late 90's

a reply to: UnifiedSerenity


Haha...sure enough predictably a new thread Proving they were not faked!
doesn't take long on ATS for the official line to be repeated ad nauseam....

created 10.36 pm
Real Proof Moonlandings were Not Faked

www.abovetopsecret.com...

lol, what's with the fake ass CGI camera movement at the beginning? WTH???

a reply to: UnifiedSerenity

Did the rumors even exist in 99?
Oh and this interview seems like total bs.
" Ok so what you cheated on your wife or you plageriized?".
The interviewer just doesn't even sound right.
This would be the easiest hoax to pull off just for the you tube views.

a reply to: randyvs

originally posted by: UnifiedSerenity
OMG.... Just what I feared dammit! Make us "Moon landing didn't happen" people look like idiots! I wonder how they got the outakes? This whole damn thing smells.

Watch it and weep! The "director" calls the Kubrick actor, TOM around the 14 minute mark! God, I hate liars!

a reply to: UnifiedSerenity
This is my very first post and i've already seen that 2 people believe the moon landing was not faked!it doesnt matter if Kubrick did it or not,its still fake.Btw...I'm new here i think i'll crawl back to the intoduction .couldnt help myself lol

This is some truly horrid #.

It gives drinking a bad name.