Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Apollo Moon Landings:

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by RUSSO
 


Why is it every film,provided as proof,or provided that it has answers,doesnt have any ?????? Kind of hard to glean information,if theres none presented.......sorry.BTW,I stopped listing to the music 30 seconds into it,and listened to Ride The Lighting instead.
Im Sure old Stanley would have been happy.



Now the info on the Shining and Kubric was very interesting!! That is something that will get me thinking.......
edit on 15-5-2011 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 15 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 




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.


See, that is the brilliance of it all. Yes, it was Steven Kings novel and story and Kubrick expertly hijacked it and used it to expose the greatest lie ever told masterfully. Some of the changes were subtle and others were not. It is how he changed it and why that is so interesting.

No other director does this, the things he changes and why, the imagery, the coding, the signs are the closest thing you can consider to being a confession, right down to Danny playing on a rug that has the same outline as the launch pad of Apollo 11 and wearing a sweater that says Apollo 11 lol. He changed the room number from 217 to 237 which is the distance between the earth and the moon!

Everything that happened in room 237 was a fantasy yet everyone believed it to be true. There is so much more, the rabbit hole goes pretty deep my friend, but when dealing with an intellect like Kubrick's, could we expect anything less?



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
all 6 missions ?

how do you explain the amatuer ham radio operators needing to aim their equipment at the moon to listen to the transmissions ?

it was also very clever how he planted the mirror on the moon and managed to get his hands on all those rocks without going to the moon

the most impressive part tho is how he managed to get 100,000 NASA employees to keep quiet.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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.

Actually, Kubrick and Clarke co-wrote the screenplay and are co-credited together (I just went back to double check this last point from the DVD to make sure I wasn't wrong about it). You are correct, though, that the novel was based on their script and really done as an afterthought to the film. It was always a movie project from the beginning. If anything the book is a novelization of the film, albeit one by one of the actual screenwriters rather than a cheesy instant book slapped together by some hack writers, which is the norm for these things.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
all 6 missions ?

how do you explain the amatuer ham radio operators needing to aim their equipment at the moon to listen to the transmissions ?

it was also very clever how he planted the mirror on the moon and managed to get his hands on all those rocks without going to the moon

the most impressive part tho is how he managed to get 100,000 NASA employees to keep quiet.


1.) You would not need men on the moon to fool ham radio transmissions at that time. You could do it with satellites which we already had.

2.) You would not need men on the moon to land a craft with a reflective surface on the moon at that time. Moon rocks make it to earth all the time naturally.

3.) You in no possible way would need to inform everyone at NASA of what you are doing, much in the way that the president is not in the know on many government black op projects, it is a need to know basis and just as easy to dupe employees as it is the public.
edit on 15-5-2011 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by LifeInDeath
 


Yes, Aurthur C Clarke was involved with the project and was influential in some ways to it. That being said, he had 0 say in the script, plot and overall direction of the movie and instead acted as a science fiction advisor. The imagery and symbolism in the film had as much to do with him as Steven King and that would be 0.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


I'm not a ham operator, so I'll give you that. You have to admit your argument against the mirrors and rocks is weak at best. All it is missing is one shred of evidence. One. It always makes me laugh becuae it would be more difficult to do that than to just put a man up there.

Are you proposing the "rover" was sent in conjunction with the apollo missions and then somehow re-connected with them in time for re-entry or that they were seperate missions ?

Either way you are proposing an extraordinarily difficult mission (I'm guessing the tired old radiation argument even tho Van Allen himself said it wouldn't be a problem) or a totally seperate mission of a rocket large enough to reach the moon that was totally undetected by everyone on the planet. All without a shred of evidence of course. Can you show us the "rover" ?

as far as the NASA thing, ok, maybe not every employee, but what about the people involved in the supposed filming ? where are those people ? where was the studio ? Do you have any specific dates it was filmed or where ?

it's easy to try to tear things down, I never see the HB's try to construct a detailed description of how the "movie" was made. Might be the complete lack of evidence ?



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

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.


Really? You can not think of even one more reason why I'd put mouth instead eyes?



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


False:


1.) You would not need men on the moon to fool ham radio transmissions at that time. You could do it with satellites which we already had.


Not "false" meaning we didn't have satellites (of course, we did)...false that you could "fool" anyone.




Oh, dear......the Soviets DID land a reflector, with unmanned ships....and then they couldn't find it for decades, afterward. You needed a HUMAN to set it up properly, and aim it accurately.


2.) You would not need men on the moon to land a craft with a reflective surface on the moon at that time. Moon rocks make it to earth all the time naturally.


??? Moon rocks "make it to the earth all the time"?? Over 860 POUNDS??

Oh, and BTW....only verified Lunar meteorites were confirmed AFTER Apollo....by comparing the Apollo samples to the FEW found in Antarctica. Also, BTW....prior to Apollo, only a very few rocky, metal-heavy meteorites were found on Earth. And, no way could any of the Apollo samples have entered the Earth's atmosphere, the heating from that would have been instantly noticed. So, that precludes meteorites being "passed off" as Lunar samples from manned missions....




3.) You in no possible way would need to inform everyone at NASA of what you are doing, much in the way that the president is not in the know on many government black op projects, it is a need to know basis and just as easy to dupe employees as it is the public.


Bull!! That is just silly hand-waving nonsense. You insult the intelligence of those nearly half a million people.


Looks like someone is getting all their "opinions" from that nitwit Jarrah White?



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
all 6 missions ?

how do you explain the amatuer ham radio operators needing to aim their equipment at the moon to listen to the transmissions ?


Of course, because this will be SO hard to fake huh?



it was also very clever how he planted the mirror on the moon and managed to get his hands on all those rocks without going to the moon


We put a robot on mars, dont we?



the most impressive part tho is how he managed to get 100,000 NASA employees to keep quiet.


Im sure everyone in nasa had access to the recordings



Why you didnt comment on the effects put in the nasa videos (any child can see the false background) that the article shows.

I will make a better post about these aspects. So tired now.
edit on 15-5-2011 by RUSSO because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
reply to post by Helious
 


I'm not a ham operator, so I'll give you that. You have to admit your argument against the mirrors and rocks is weak at best. All it is missing is one shred of evidence. One. It always makes me laugh becuae it would be more difficult to do that than to just put a man up there.

Are you proposing the "rover" was sent in conjunction with the apollo missions and then somehow re-connected with them in time for re-entry or that they were seperate missions ?

Either way you are proposing an extraordinarily difficult mission (I'm guessing the tired old radiation argument even tho Van Allen himself said it wouldn't be a problem) or a totally seperate mission of a rocket large enough to reach the moon that was totally undetected by everyone on the planet. All without a shred of evidence of course. Can you show us the "rover" ?

as far as the NASA thing, ok, maybe not every employee, but what about the people involved in the supposed filming ? where are those people ? where was the studio ? Do you have any specific dates it was filmed or where ?

it's easy to try to tear things down, I never see the HB's try to construct a detailed description of how the "movie" was made. Might be the complete lack of evidence ?


Listen, I am not some whack job saying we haven't been to the Moon. We obviously have been to the moon. My argument is that the information concerning our journey's there have been manipulated to best serve our nations purpose. It really isn't that big of a stretch.

My argument for rocks is not weak at best. We have hundreds of samples of confirmed moon rocks and even rocks from Mars that have made there way here through natural means. We also have had the technology to orbit spacecraft around the earth and the moon for far longer than we would have been emboldened to send humans. Not to claim that this bit is fact because it is subjective and is in fact conjecture.

What we must now contemplate are all the reasons on why a fake mission would have been to the benefit of our country at the time. This is what requires the most research and is most time consuming. Once the possible motives are understood and what exactly we had to possibly gain are derived, an understanding becomes apparent.

The facts of the actual pictures and video stand alone. These can not be dissected without finding glaring holes in there production values and authenticity. They are blatantly fake, not in that time period but in this time period, they do not stand the test of time under scrutiny and NASA refuses to address any of the claims. They refuse not because of a futility of the argument but because it can not be explained other than an admitting of guilt which we all know they will not do. It is far easier to attack the credibility of anyone who questions things than to provide answers as to the evidence itself.

Why exactly they did it is still a mystery in my mind, there are many reasons but none of them have swayed me enough in my common sense to make me believe one way or another, however, the fact that it was faked, is barely disputable as you process all of the proof. The reason why, is subjective as of yet, the fact they did, is not.
edit on 15-5-2011 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Exactly who verified the exact weight of the moon rocks brought back from Apollo? Pieces of the moon don't make it too the earth and there is not already an abundance already here without space flight?

We were not able to launch an unmanned satellite with reflective properties to orbit and land on the moon at that time with any accuracy? How did we do it with a manned mission then?

Every NASA employee would have to be notified of some cover up? Perhaps they would of just sent a company wide email? Oh..... Wait. They couldn't because there was no internet and in fact Apollo 11 was working with the same computing power as a modern day bargain basement scientific calculator.

Again, don't get me wrong, we went to the moon. I never said we did not. All I am saying is the manner in which the public was told about it has been grossly distorted and I don't claim to know exactly why yet.
edit on 15-5-2011 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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...



Please stop attacking people and look to the evidence. You really do not see the false background?

If you do not see, I'll be very embarrassed to say this, but I will be sure you DONT WANT to see. This difference makes ALL the difference. I will sleep now, but will be back to the subject.

And you people puting
hahaha hhehhhe heuheuehueue , just show how much serious fake something like that is.

Thanks.
edit on 15-5-2011 by RUSSO because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Helious
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.



That's not true anymore. Someone just uploaded "Kubrick's Odyssey" to YouTube. You can watch it here:

www.youtube.com...

It's very gripping.



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 07:41 AM
link   
You guys have got to see this one. Here is the one hour press conference after Apollo 11 returned to Earth. In it, you can obviously see the sadness and guilt on the faces of Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin as they speak before reporters. It's undeniable. They are obviously uncomfortable and depressed. Nearly every comment on YouTube below the video noticed the obvious. As one comment said, these astronauts must have been under enormous pressure to go along with the hoax, because after what happened with the Apollo One fire, they knew that the consequences of non-compliance was death. So they had no choice but to go along with the charade.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   
I agree that man did reach the moon but the footage shown to the public was staged or faked.

2nd line.



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777
You guys have got to see this one. Here is the one hour press conference after Apollo 11 returned to Earth. In it, you can obviously see the sadness and guilt on the faces of Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin as they speak before reporters. It's undeniable.


What are you babbling about? There is zero sadness or guilt on their faces - why do you keep making this rubbish up?



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


If not sadness and guilt what would you say it is?

Amazement mixed with uncontrolled galvanizing excitement?

Seriously they look like they just got slapped by their pimp.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
mirror
ham radios
muley


ftw



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 



The facts of the actual pictures and video stand alone. These can not be dissected without finding glaring holes in there production values and authenticity. They are blatantly fake, not in that time period but in this time period, they do not stand the test of time under scrutiny and NASA refuses to address any of the claims. They refuse not because of a futility of the argument but because it can not be explained other than an admitting of guilt which we all know they will not do. It is far easier to attack the credibility of anyone who questions things than to provide answers as to the evidence itself.


You keep saying this but never provide a reason why you believe they look "fake." Repeating an opinion without evidence does not make it true.






top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join