How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Apollo Moon Landings:

Or How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Lies.
Alchemical Kubrick II

Source Link: jayweidner.com...

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.

"Mod" I may need this to be moved to the right Cat?
I don't know if I truly believe that the Apollo Moon Landing was faked or not.

I do know that I have seen so many videoss, interviews, read enough articles that leaves me believing that it is more possible then not that we didn't actually land on the moon the first time that had been reported. Why Hollywood employees would admit these things during an interview I saw, the questions about NASA footage and photos leaves me asking questions. The many reports stating that we (The USA) needed more funding at the time in order to make the trip possible would account for it being faked allowing them to raise funds, giving more time to fix the Shuttle problems that held them back and making claim that it was The USA that landed first.

This is what makes me think this way so I will be understood and not so attacked by members thinking I am "whatever" lol
I always hear the MSM, People, Anybody on the tube or radio when talking about the conspiracy if we landed or not. They never say "reports that we didn't land on the moon during the first Apollo Launch" is simply a conspracy!

What they always say is "You know there are people out there (laugh) that say "WE NEVER" landed on the moon" and that simply isn't the conspricy. Next time you hear them talk about it, listen and you'll catch it. Even my son was watching Mythbusters doing a show on it and said that same exact thing "There are those who believe "WE NEVER" landed on the moon".

I believe we eventually landed but it wasn't on the first trip as historically reported and written in our history books is all.

Okay I'm done explaining my view point, go ahead and make fun.

This is just one of those things...We will never reach a consensus. There will always be those who think that stating such a thing is un-American, just like they say it is un-American to question the legitimacy of the 9-11 story. I personally grappled with this issue for years, and I approached the subject assuming we did land on the moon. The more I researched, I began to think that it was indeed possible that the entire thing was faked. To sum it all up, I am still torn between the two, after years of pondering...I just cannot definitively decide either way.

I think your theory is plausible, and it is one I have heard before...I cannot discount the possibility that the initial landing was faked, to buy NASA more time to legitimately put a man on the moon. I could even see why no one, to my knowledge, has come forward to reveal a hoax as of yet. Because it would embarrass the entire USA, even though it happened over 40 years ago. If that ever came out, it would be a huge mess for our government and NASA.

But then again, maybe we did land on the moon, and it was broadcast live around the world. I can tell you one thing; I wish I really knew the truth, as I'm sure you do to!

Saying we never landed is absurd. My uncle is a scientist, especialised in space robotics and has worked in ESA. Today he is one of our most important scientists in Brazil and part of our space program would be delayed in 10 years without him.

He KNOWS and affirmed to me that we have landed on the moon. And dudes, one day will tell you about his conspiracy theories, but as far as moon landing goes, he tells me it is silly to believe we haven't landed on the moon. To me that is enough. He is by far the brightest mind i know personally and he knows his stuff.

reply to post by henriquefd


Man that is cool as alllll hell. I wish I had someone close to my family like that growing up. I would have just picked his brain for hours and hours, he must be really cool to know ...... I'm a fool though I caught myself earlier. I used to think there was a conspiracy about landing, but then when I heard of the conspiracy on the moon lol I changed my mind and said "Oh we must have landed, if they were talking about other spacecraft on the moon" So in my mind I didn't think we landed until I heard about the little Aliens ... that's when I allowed myself to believe it. I don't know I guess I'm crazy. Still neat story about your Uncle.

Originally posted by henriquefd
Saying we never landed is absurd. My uncle is a scientist, especialised in space robotics and has worked in ESA. Today he is one of our most important scientists in Brazil and part of our space program would be delayed in 10 years without him.

He KNOWS and affirmed to me that we have landed on the moon. And dudes, one day will tell you about his conspiracy theories, but as far as moon landing goes, he tells me it is silly to believe we haven't landed on the moon. To me that is enough. He is by far the brightest mind i know personally and he knows his stuff.

The documentary did not say we never landed there. In fact what the author said was the videos and pictures provided by NASA were faked. You can read this here:

"There are great ideas, undiscovered breakthroughs available, to those who can remove one of truth’s protective layers."

–Neil Armstrong, "First Man on the Moon"

July 20th, 1994



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.

Full read HERE. There is a lot of material of the documentary (I have to say I enjoyed a lot) to read and see.

Here is the PDF if you want to save the info.

Here is a article made by Discovery News: Faked Moon Landings and Kubrick's 'The Shining'

As I said before, this is interisting stuff. If you could watch the documentary, I think you would like it. Maybe you should watch this with your uncle.

S&F to OP.

reply to post by henriquefd


Here you can see the trailer. Pay attention on the music, its very informative.



Trailer info:

This provocative and insightful film is the first in a series of documentaries that will reveal the secret knowledge embedded in the work of the greatest filmmaker of all time: Stanley Kubrick. This famed movie director who made films such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut, placed symbols and hidden anecdotes into his films that tell a far different story than the films appeared to be saying.

In Kubrick's Odyssey, Part I, Kubrick and Apollo, author and filmmaker, Jay Weidner presents compelling evidence of how Stanley Kubrick directed the Apollo moon landings. He reveals that the film 2001: A Space Odyssey was not only a retelling of Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick's novel, but also a research and development project that assisted Kubrick in the creation of the Apollo moon footage. In light of this revelation, Weidner also explores Kubrick's film, The Shining and shows that this film is, in actuality, the story of Kubrick's personal travails as he secretly worked on the Apollo footage for NASA.

Called by Wired Magazine an "erudite conspiracy hunter", Jay Weidner is a renowned author and filmmaker. He is the producer of the documentary films, 2012 The Odyssey, its sequel Timewave 2013, and director of the feature documentary, Infinity: The Ultimate Trip. Jay has been featured in the History Channel's documentaries, The Lost Book of Nostradamus, and Nostradamus 2012, for which he was associate producer. He was also featured in Trutv's, Conspiracy Theory, hosted by Jesse Ventura.

That linked article is amazing, if anyone can look at those pictures and not think that they were faked....... Wow, now, I believe we have been to the moon but I think NASA lied about alot of things and I think those pictures pretty much prove it.

As many times as I have seen those images, I never noticed the HUGE difference of the foreground and background, absolutely amazing.

Perhaps one can ask Douglas Trumbull about all of this. He's the one, after all, who created all of the special visual effects for 2001, as well as other great movies like Blade Runner and Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

For the record, I don't believe for a second that we faked any of the moon landing footage for any reason. I believe we went there.

I've seen this theory before the Kubrick directed a faked landing, and I guess if you were going to fake something like this he'd be the best choice for the job, genius that he is. But it's also convenient that he's not around to deny it, either. I've never seen anyone focus on Trumbull, who was as much a genius in pioneering of special visual effects as Kubrick was as a director. Maybe one can ask him if he was ever asked by the government to work on something like this. One presumes that if Kubrick was going to direct something like this, he'd go with his collaborator on 2001 who was then the best in the world at special effects - indeed, he was the only one in the world capable of making effects that good.

Originally posted by Helious
That linked article is amazing, if anyone can look at those pictures and not think that they were faked....... Wow, now, I believe we have been to the moon but I think NASA lied about alot of things and I think those pictures pretty much prove it.

As many times as I have seen those images, I never noticed the HUGE difference of the foreground and background, absolutely amazing.

This was an eyes open to me. This documentary shows the trick pretty well.

Is pretty Ironic Kubrick's last movie was called mouth wide shut.

Has NASA successfully landed on the moon? YES!

Has NASA successfully FAKED its landing on the moon? YES!

Why?

NASA already know what it will can find at its arrival on the Moon!


The Truth is right in the middle....

Originally posted by henriquefd
Saying we never landed is absurd. My uncle is a scientist, especialised in space robotics and has worked in ESA. Today he is one of our most important scientists in Brazil and part of our space program would be delayed in 10 years without him.

He KNOWS and affirmed to me that we have landed on the moon. And dudes, one day will tell you about his conspiracy theories, but as far as moon landing goes, he tells me it is silly to believe we haven't landed on the moon. To me that is enough. He is by far the brightest mind i know personally and he knows his stuff.

Your logic is flawed.

Unless he actually went to the moon himself he does not "know"
he only thinks he knows.

Originally posted by RUSSO



Is pretty Ironic Kubrick's last movie was called mouth wide shut.

edit on 14-5-2011 by RUSSO because: (no reason given)

It was called EYES Wide Shut, for what it is worth.

Do I believe the moon landing was faked? No... But, I guess I can see how if any director was going to fake it, he would be the man to ask.

reply to post by RUSSO


WHICH "documentary"?

If you could watch the documentary, I think you would like it.

The one by Jay Weidner?? Weidner is a kook......I can't believe anyone is foolish enough to take him seriously...

Did you mean this other "documentary"?:





But, before you get too excited....there is something you will need to know, about the above (that is just a clip, from the full film titled "Dark Side of the Moon", a film by William Karel....)


Do you know what the "secret" is, yet? Shall I tell you?? Or, would you rather find out for yourselves?


IN ANY CASE....that movie is both a compilation of the many, many stupid and ridiculous Apollo "hoax" theories that float around (I also know HOW and WHO started them...wanna ask me?)....not only does this neatly pull in a lot of the stupid theories, it amazingly is often cited by the "hoax believers" (HBs) too!!

(Shows the level of intellect that lack....when you understand just why it is so ludicrous...).

Originally posted by Rams59lb

I believe we eventually landed but it wasn't on the first trip as historically reported and written in our history books is all.

Okay I'm done explaining my view point, go ahead and make fun.

I do believe that Russia and probably China would have had a few things to say if Apollo 11 hadn't landed on the moon.

reply to post by Pauligirl


China probably would not have had anything to say as at that time they did not posses the world influence, technological know how or the interest in contesting anything America was doing. Russia would have been very vocal, but one never knows the back door deals that happen between nations during times as these. Look at the events of the Cuban missile crisis and how the entire event was resolved using back doors.

You must also keep in mind, other nations have secrets too. It sometimes can equate to a blackmail game on a global scale. My thought is that Russia was duped as well, for reasons I don't care to comment on at this time but I may very well be wrong and that is why I am researching further so that I may make a better argument about it.

I will tell you one thing though, I am convinced that while I am sure we have been to the Moon, I am also just as sure, the Apollo 11 mission pictures are completely and totally fake. Not some but all. For what reason? Well, that I haven't come to a conclusion yet but as far as the pictures and video........ Laughably fake.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Don't be so quick to try and discredit this man. The documentary that is acknowledged and credited by major sources is "Kubrick's Odyssey". A highly intelligent and well put together source of material that is very thought provoking and eye opening.

This single piece of work can open the eyes of many people about what exactly the motive was behind this mystery. Please don't pretend to be familiar with all of his work because I already know you don't take him or his ideas seriously so you would not waste your time familiarizing yourself with his studies.

Also, that being said, we are talking about what could potentially be the biggest hoax played on the public by the U.S. government so "hard evidence" can be a little hard to come by, so please don't ask me to provide a web link to said evidence, instead, people need to inform themselves of all the facts and theories of the matter and decide for themselves what to believe.

But please, don't try and paint this guy as some whack job spewing pointless rumors around because he is anything but.

Originally posted by Helious

Also, that being said, we are talking about what could potentially be the biggest hoax played on the public by the U.S. government so "hard evidence" can be a little hard to come by, so please don't ask me to provide a web link to said evidence

You might want to familiarize yourself a bit on logical fallacy...

Circular reasoning is a formal logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. For example:

"Only an untrustworthy person would run for office. The fact that politicians are untrustworthy is proof of this."

Such an argument is fallacious, because it relies upon its own proposition — "politicians are untrustworthy" — in order to support its central premise. Essentially, the argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself.

Circular reasoning

Do you see the inherent flaw in your premise?

reply to post by Helious


Just read a few of his rantings.

He has a lot of people fooled, if indeed his "Kubrick's Odyssey" has been critically reviewed. By whom? I will try to find, so far a dearth of info....mostly links to "Red Ice Radio"....of course, Red Ice also devoted a show to Richard Hoaglund too, from just a quick casual glance. I'm sure that Red Ice has had a lot of legitimate guests as well, but I'm afraid in this arena, Weidner comes off as just as batty.

Did you know he has a keen interest in, of all things, alchemy??

Back to Kubrick.....his documentary (trying to find it, certainly not going to pay for it though) seems to be covering all of Kubrick's films, and the "messages" some think he "hid" in them. Well, I have seen some very good examinations of just that subject, and by far less "out-there" people than Weidner.

As a film buff, I find this fascinating....but also, as a space buff, and fan of science, logic and rational thinking, I find the mere idea of Kubrick having "hoaxed" the entire record of video from Apollo to be absolute rubbish.

Not only from the technical standpoint of understanding, in great depth, the reality of Apollo, but also, as a lover of films, and especially the details of how a motion picture is made, the production techniques, the editing, the sets, the takes, etc.....I know a lot about the nuts-and-bolts of making a film....and it is simply impossible for the Apollo footage to have been "faked", in the way most people just accept, when they are inclined to believe that farce.

For countless reasons, that go beyond the scope of this little posting on ATS....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Searching for "reviews" on the film, found an entry at Amazon. The "Discovery News" review was tepid, at best. More factual, than "review"...

Amazon's Product Description, had this snippet:

He reveals that the film, 2001: A Space Odyssey was not only a retelling of Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick's novel, but also a research and development project that assisted Kubrick in the creation of the Apollo moon footage. In light of this revelation, Weidner also explores Kubrick's film, The Shining and shows that this film is, in actuality, the story of Kubrick's personal travails as he secretly worked on the Apollo footage for NASA.

Utter rot.

Firstly, as I mentioned I've seen others' work who analyze Kubrick's films....the film itself was NOT a re-telling of "Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick's novel...".

If you pay attention to the credits, the screenplay for "2001: A Space Odyssey" gives sole credit to Kubrick. The book, came after (timed almost simultaneously with the movie's release) is based on the movie....in fact, Clarke was writing it during the production of the film....from only partial pages of the shooting script, that Kubrick provided.

The main idea, that Kubrick used to make his film, DID come from Clarke....from a short story written in the 1950s titled "The Sentinel". Kubrick embellished it greatly....one aspect was the shape of the alien "object" (the "monolith", as it's come to be called) . Clarke's object was a tetrahedron, surrounded by a force field of some kind.

(One of the "secrets" that Kubrick included, sort of his own inside tease to the audience, meant to be perceived subconsciously, was the shape and dimensions of the black monolith......but he almost always showed it vertical. When rotated 90° to its horizontal....it almost exactly matches the dimensions of the aspect ratio of the movie screens that the film was designed to be projected onto...in 70mm format. THAT is one of his subtle messages; it is really that simple. He played on that concept throughout....).


Then, trying to say that "The Shining" had something to do with "2001"?? What nonsense...Kubrick took Stephen King's novel, and embellished it....which didn't sit too well with Mr. King. Writers are funny that way, it is a long-known trait of all writers, especially when their works are being adapted to other media....even a screenwriter gets his/her fur ruffled, when others want to change things in what he/she wrote.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Good post, I will admit that some of what he says is "reaching" but once you have stumbled on the most basic fundamental lie, is it not human nature to explore further because of the mistrust that lie implies?

You will not be able to find "Kubrick's Odyssey" via the internet as it is copyrighted material and I agree that you should not withhold information for the good of mankind to turn a profit but I must admit, the information in this documentary is compelling.

You must understand encoding in messages, this practice has been incorporated since modern man has been around and if done correctly is an art form in and of itself, Kubrick was basically the grand master of this and since there was so much at stake the mastery of what exactly he did, was nothing short of amazing.

I really don't want to discuss the entire documentary but I will start here. The first movie that he produced that was going on the same time as the Apollo moon landing was 2001: A space Odyssey. The monolith in that movie was representative of a theater screen, the music that played during the appearance of the monolith only happened during the moments of mankind's "evolution" of understanding and set the stage for people to keep a better eye out for symbolism and meaning in his future films.

The evidence is there in almost all of his other feature films in high contrast. It is a brilliant attempt at spilling a secret that had weighed heavily on his sole and his mortal life, in fact, he died on the day he wanted Eyes wide shut released and that movie was heavily edited before being released after his death and even so there are mass tell tale signs of the "Illuminati" or masonic people that ruled his life for so long and the life he lived hanging in the balance between being an insider yet still always on the outside.

Kind of like being invited to a party by the hosts girlfriend, you have the right to be there but your never really comfortable with it and neither is everyone else.