How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Apollo Moon Landings:

Originally posted by spoor

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?

Stop being in denial. Watch it again:

www.youtube.com...

A wise intuitive down to earth woman I know had this to say about the press conference:

OK, I watched the first half of the press conference but since I can't see the supposed pictures that they must be looking at, so it's hard to even know wtf they're talking about and I lost interest very quickly. As far as their demeanor, I will say that I find it rather odd, considering the supposed accomplishment and experience that these men had just had. The guy on the left just keeps fumbling with his papers with very little facial expression or emotion. The middle guy at least seems to crack a smile or looks as if he's recalling something. The guy on the right... he just sits there and looks to his left (I guess this is a screen with pics that don't show on the video) as if he's paying attention.

It's not at all what I would expect from 3 very well trained men in the military. They're body posture is even a bit sloppy for someone in the military, let alone men in front of TV cameras. It also seems totally unscripted but I can't tell. Either that or it's totally scripted and the guy in the middle is having some difficulty keeping with the script without constantly having to recall every word.

I also found it unusual that they didn't call it a "mission" in the begining when talking about it. The choice of terminology is not what I would have expected, nor is their lack of proud body posture.

I'd say that something isn't as it should be here but I couldn't tell you what it is beyond the above few particulars what it might be.

Remember what Jay Weidner said? It's very key.

"Nothing in technology works right the first time. Anyone who works in technology knows that. To believe that the first manned mission to the moon going 240,000 miles to the moon and back without a glitch on the first attempt is absolutely absurd."

That says it all.

Originally posted by WWu777
To believe that the first manned mission to the moon going 240,000 miles to the moon and back without a glitch on the first attempt is absolutely absurd."

Actually that just shows your ignorance of Apollo, as shown by the other silly thread you started - just why do you think there were no glitches? What makes you think Apollo 11 was the first manned mission to the moon?

A wise intuitive down to earth woman I know had this to say about the press conference:

is that one of the women you had to pay to kiss you in Russia?

I'm in a rush, but have subscribed to this thread and will carefully read it later. I don't know what documentaries are being refered to yet. I once saw one in which so many key people were interviewed and filmed explaining how Kubrick was hired to make a film of the landing, because though they did it, they hadn't finished working out a way for the cameras to work up there and adapted to the extreme temperatures and such. So they had him make a fake film. I just thought that was common knowledge!

reply to post by WWu777

Stop being in denial. Watch it again:

After all, if it's on YouTube it's got to be true!

I still like the John Lear theory about Alan Bean. After Bean retired from NASA he took up painting, everytime he painted an astronaut on the moon he would put a big old shiny sun in the visor of the astronauts helmet. Lear's theory was the only way that you would see a bright shiny sun in the visor was, if there was an atmosphere on the moon. Lear went on to explain the sun should of been a bright dot because there was no atmosphere to act as a prism to make it that shiny. He said Bean was secretly telling us information.

reply to post by professornurbs

I still like the John Lear theory about Alan Bean. After Bean retired from NASA he took up painting, everytime he painted an astronaut on the moon he would put a big old shiny sun in the visor of the astronauts helmet. Lear's theory was the only way that you would see a bright shiny sun in the visor was, if there was an atmosphere on the moon.

Further evidence that John Lear is an idiot. The Sun's photosphere is half a degree wide from this distance; it has nothing to do with the atmosphere. If Bean painted a big Sun, it was his subjective choice as an artist. The Sun burning brilliantly in a jet black sky is probably one of those sights that sears itself into one's memory.

How can a sun burn brightly in the VACUME of spac? As far as being an idiot that is a little harsh. You may disagree with him but he does have an intelligence. He also pointed out the neutral gravity zone between the earth and moon is not what was origanally stated bt NASA. Just saying.

reply to post by professornurbs

How can a sun burn brightly in the VACUME of spac? As far as being an idiot that is a little harsh. You may disagree with him but he does have an intelligence. He also pointed out the neutral gravity zone between the earth and moon is not what was origanally stated bt NASA. Just saying.

The Sun "burns" because it is fusing hydrogen atoms into helium atoms under conditions of unimaginable heat and pressure. This releases energy in the form of light. The heart of the Sun is so dense it takes years for this light to work its way to the surface, at which point it escapes and travels unhindered through the vacuum of space. You can see the light from the Sun whether you are on Earth or in space. People living hundreds of lightyears away can see the Sun as a twinkling star in their night-time sky. Perhaps I'm being harsh calling him an "idiot." Maybe he's just ignorant.

reply to post by DJW001


Come to think of it why have we never seen a picture of the sun from the ISS. Now you got me going again...everytime I think im out they pull me back in.

Thier is no doubt in my mind that we have been on the moon. I can't stress that enough.

BUT.................... and its a big but

The scraps of infomation we have on what really went on (or still is) is just that. SCRAPS.............

We only know what they want us to. We got our little taste and thats it.

For example.....
Just cause they say we haven't been back in 25 or 30 years, doesn't mean we haven't been back. I would really be surprised if we have been to the moon less then a100 times.

What wouldn't surprised me is that they didn't let us know.

Check this out. It's very compelling.

Jay Weidner, producer of the Kubrick Odyssey films, explains in this interview with James Fetzer about the obvious evidence and signs in the moon photos and videos that the whole thing was filmed in a studio by Stanley Kubrick. He brings up some new evidence that I haven't heard before. He believes that we did go to the moon, but that the photos and videos from NASA are clearly faked without a doubt. Movie directors in 1974 had already known about this but were too scared to point it out.

Some of his key points that are new to me:

- Many of the photos clearly had second and third lighting sources, which means they were in a studio because they did not bring additional light sources on the moon. Propagandists falsely claim that the second light sources were reflections from the ground, but that's not true because the luminosity of the moon's surface is the same as asphalt, or cement highway roads, which has very little luminosity.
- You can see a line apparent in many moon photos separating the foreground and background, indicating a fake background. Jay explains how front screen projection works and explains why a glass screen in the background was necessary, which is why you see the line, with a totally different texture in the background. He went into detail about this in his "Kubrick's Odyssey" film but it's been pulled from YouTube because he prefers people buy it from him.
- The photos show the foreground and background in focus, which is optically impossible because any photographer knows that you can't bring both the foreground and background into focus at the same time, unless the background is fake and so is already is in focus.
- In low gravity, 1/6 of the Earth's, the astronauts should be moving FASTER, not 40 percent slower. Kubrick did this because he couldn't make them walk faster and make it look realistic at the same time.

He makes a lot of practical sense. This is all very easy to understand and you will slap yourself in the head for not realizing it sooner.



Here is a longer interview where he talks about how and why NASA used Stanley Kubrick to fake the moon landings, the Gnostic teachings about the Archons that rule our world, etc. It's VERY mind blowing.

reply to post by WWu777

Movie directors in 1974 had already known about this but were too scared to point it out.

So Roman Polanski just bit his lip and let the Feds accuse him of being a pedophile. Brilliant.

Originally posted by WWu777
- The photos show the foreground and background in focus, which is optically impossible because any photographer knows that you can't bring both the foreground and background into focus at the same time,

I see you dont know much about photography either, Winston!

Just what makes you think all photo's taken on the moon were in focus?
www.clavius.org...

All the photographs brought back from the moon are correctly exposed, correctly framed, and crisply in focus. This seems suspicious. [Ralph Rene]

It would be suspicious if it were true. As a matter of fact, a significant percentage of the lunar surface photographs are blurred, unfocused, incorrectly exposed, or otherwise flawed. These photos weren't generally known to the public until recently because they weren't interesting to editors and publishers of popular works and therefore not cost-effective to duplicate. But now that it's possible to efficiently digitize the many thousands of photographs taken on the moon (even the bad ones) and distribute them cheaply via the Internet, we can see the full gamut of lunar surface photography. Below are a few unintentional photos that appear on the Apollo film rolls. These typically occur at the beginning of a new roll when the astronaut has to advance a few frames to get to fresh film. They're usually out of focus and badly exposed.

All those points have been debunked here before in your other silly moon hoax thread, so why repost it?
Didnt you like the answers that showed your theory flawed?

It would help the conspracists case if they at least researched the problem and presented consistent evidence otherwise, even if they are correct, the mistake will be used as evidence that there is no conspiracy.

I have issues with some of the photos, especially Apollo 17, BUT the explanation about shadows and the foreshortening in front of a studio light makes one MASSIVE mistake. The diagram of this effect is correct in that the object nearer to the light has a shorter shadow BUT on the original moon photo the nearer astronaut has the longer shadow. I mean DUH!!!!!!!!!!!! The reason why the shadows are of different lengths is due to the wide angle lens on the camera. This also distorts the direction of the shadow.

So sorry own goal on that one.

Ahh, I enjoy a thread about one of the most often discussed conspiracies...

reply to post by professornurbs





i really have no opinion, but a quick google search found this image

reply to post by Dyzan

That must be one heck of a camera. My Nikon won't let me take a picture if I point it at the Sun without a filter, but that one not only takes an image, with no filters, and all that extra harsh UV/EUV that our atmosphere normally filters out, but the colours and image quality of everything else is spot on. Amazing.

Originally posted by GaryN
but that one not only takes an image, with no filters,

How do you know there were no filters?

the 1st moon landing was defiantly faked but not the others

why? weapon sales and concern Russia would win the race, the space program was a bit behind Kennedy's deadline he made in his famous speech about going to the moon.It would be better to try and fool the public and hoax the footage, rather than let their biggest rival in the World strike a huge moral victory by beating them to the Moon.

the people used for the fake moon landing knew their handlers would finish them off when the job was done so they left clues for smart people to notice latter

the astronauts where put in a rocket then hypnotised
we have seen hypnotists in action

for many photos that are beyond a question a tv set, the shadows and re-use of the set for different scenes is plain as day.

i will post some links, if you are sceptical you will see people have worked out how it was done and have miles of evidence in the photos NASA published eh eh

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.

yes they landed on the moon

But

The 1st moon landing was faked 100% proven, its not theory, i will post a few links asap