Stanley Kubrick Faked the Apollo Moon Landings

I came across this and found it very interesting.

Stanley Kubrick Faked the Apollo Moon Landings:

exopolitics.blogs.com...

Don't be silly, we landed on the moon.

Already a thread on this here;

shining kubrick moon fake

Originally posted by dmorgan
Don't be silly, we landed on the moon.

Silliness, is not spending time and thought to study the evidence for and against and simply accept that we went to the Moon.

The more I study the for and against arguments the more I am convinced that either we didn't go to the moon or that at least that the still pictures and video footage was faked.

The more I know about how and why and when it may have been faked, the more the official NASA Moon Hoax debunking answers sound more empty and hollow.

I've noticed that Seiko, Thank You. I will leave it up to the Mods.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


I read through the link you have posted (including the section on “The Shining”), and found it interesting, not to mention plausible. As to it being true, who knows, but in this world we all assume we know, it could well hold some truth. And, in one interpretation, it backs up an anecdotal story I heard from a film cameraman some years ago…

For the record, yes, I believe we went to the Moon. But for what it’s worth, I also have a niggling feeling that we had advanced knowledge of exactly what was up there well before we went and it wasn’t what we were expecting, therefore couldn’t reveal the truth, and that the method with which we travelled there might not have been as rudimentary as we have been told.

But that’s just my opinion, based on research into unverifiable data, and a wish that life just isn’t as straight forward as it seems…

Anyhoo, as to the anecdotal Kubrick story; I used to drink with – in my local pub in North London – a very successful film cameraman (don’t ask his name, as I won’t divulge it. This story isn’t a secret as he told it many times, but he doesn’t know I’m posting this so don’t want to include him directly), who was once at a party attended by Kubrick’s widow. Conversation eventually turned to her husband’s work, and my associate mentioned – jokingly - the rumour about Stanley’s supposed fake Apollo footage.

The cameraman said she replied by saying; ‘Yes, he enjoyed filming them…’ and the conversation was moved swiftly onwards.

Now, it can be said that she may have well confused 2001 with the question posed, or that the initial question was misheard. Either way, her reply would be understandable. But it has to be considered that she did hear the question, and replied truthfully.

Will we ever know the answer to this conundrum? Perhaps we already do…

reply to post by dmorgan


Thank you for an erudite, in depth response to what is an interesting subject.

And back in the real world...Why don't you give us your take on the idea of faked Apollo mission/footage as opposed to just dismissing it out of hand?

Thank you Beamish for that interesting story.

I think there are people who know these things it's just a matter of time before they come forward. Project Disclosure is a wonderful thing to keep tabs on. I do disagree with one aspect of their agenda which is to get the Government to promise not to use any space based weapons against any form of alien life. I believe there may be hostile beings we do need to protect against so disarming completely would be foolish.

I study a LOT of American history and watch a lot of historical and conspiracy type documentaries.

What I am finding out is this elite controlling power, call it the Illuminati if you will, must really be real because there is no other way to explain some things that happen historically. All these things, the occult agenda to form a One World Government, UFO's/Aliens, Strange goings on in the American Government, 911, The Moon landings and or Hoax - They are all connected if you follow the dots. If some of these things taken by itself seem silly, they make more since in light of other information from other conspiracies - The Big Picture is starting to come together.

I had seen this before but last night I reviewed a film called UFO The Greatest Story Ever Denied found here: video.google.com...#

In it they discuss the U.S having reversed alien technology, when they started using it how and why and if they used this to go to the Moon. That makes perfect since because even NASA top Engendering people and Astronauts claim they couldn't get a stable Luna Module working just months prior to the launch or the Moon trip. Yet in the NASA videos it worked flawlessly 6 times - just a little too perfect. They haven't solved the problem of the Van Allen belt radiation - A NASA spokesperson said They just Zipped right through it - which is BS cus the van Allen belt is thousands of miles across and according to the materials used neither the space craft or the spacesuit are made to withstand such radiation or extreme temperatures of hot and cold you would find on the moon. Even here on earth when you get an X-Ray they use a thick lead shield for a tiny does of X radiation - the same as the van Allen belt. - They would to have a craft with 6 foot thick walls of lead according to one scientist.

Yet it is claimed they can actually bounce a laser off a reflector on the moon - if true then we must have made it there even though it would have been impossible with our level of technology in 69 and even today - unless we had something the government isn't telling us about. Then again this laser could be bounced off just a piece of metal, a crashed space junk to make it work- it doesn't have to be a man made reflector purposely placed in a certain spot! The Moon landing believers never mention this! Plus we lack an earth based telescope strong enough to actually see anything on the moon and NASA refuses to solve this once and for all using the Hubble Telescope!

I am studying the official NASA debunking claims and the more you know, the more they don't hold water. Some of the Moon Hoax claims can be dis proven and is just bad science and bad thinking but so many of them can't be refuted that you know the government is hiding the truth about a lot of it.

[edit on 11-11-2009 by JohnPhoenix]

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
What I am finding out is this elite controlling power, call it the Illuminati if you will, must really be real because there is no other way to explain some things that happen historically.

This is a dangerous way of thinking. Occam's razor alone should give you a good indication that it is false.

All these things, the occult agenda to form a One World Government, UFO's/Aliens, Strange goings on in the American Government, 911, The Moon landings and or Hoax - They are all connected if you follow the dots. If some of these things taken by itself seem silly, they make more since in light of other information from other conspiracies - The Big Picture is starting to come together.

This is faulty logic, and I will give you an example.

I have a deck of cards here, and I deal them out a specific way, the particular configuration of these cards is very unlikely, but perhaps I notice that all of the queens come out in the first half of the deck.

Now, i've observed that fact, and noticed it was odd, so lets now imagine over the next few months I see lots of decks of cards dealt (maybe I work in a casino, who knows). The distribution of queens will of course be random, but what anyone will do at this point is fall victim to Confirmation Bias. They will remember only the events which correspond with their theory, so I will begin to believe that queens are more likely to occur at the start of the pack.

This may seem a little crazy, and obviously queens are not biased towards the start of the pack. But with one single observation, and without checking confirmation bias, it becomes easy to believe and in fact you can easily convince yourself you have evidence for it in an incredibly unlikely situation. It's a false belief driven by a common cognitive bias.

'Illuminati' conspiracies work much the same. You said yourself, individual explanations aren't plausible, but when grouped together and filtered by an unwitting cognitive bias, suddenly you remember only the events that correlate with your theory, and as a result your theory seems much more plausible than it is.

In it they discuss the U.S having reversed alien technology, when they started using it how and why and if they used this to go to the Moon. That makes perfect [sense]

It really doesn't, the technology used to go to the moon was in no way amazingly advanced. They had normal engines, normal structural components, really crappy computers and huge balls. Not much more.

because even NASA top Engendering people and Astronauts claim they couldn't get a stable Luna Module working just months prior to the launch or the Moon trip.

This isn't true.

Yet in the NASA videos it worked flawlessly 6 times - just a little too perfect.

Neither is this

They haven't solved the problem of the Van Allen belt radiation - A NASA spokesperson said They just Zipped right through it - which is BS cus the van Allen belt is thousands of miles across and according to the materials used neither the space craft or the spacesuit are made to withstand such radiation or extreme temperatures of hot and cold you would find on the moon.

Of course they could, basic high school physics tells you how they shielded and protected astronauts. Methinks you have been reading too many conspiracy sites.

Even here on earth when you get an X-Ray they use a thick lead shield for a tiny does of X radiation - the same as the van Allen belt. - They would to have a craft with 6 foot thick walls of lead according to one scientist.

'one scientist' is hardly convincing. The reason they use lead shielding for x-rays (not X-radiation) is to protect the operator who may carry out multiple x-rays per day, every day. It's not exactly the same exposure criteria is it? Not to mention that something like 40 astronauts, mostly from high radiation missions like Apollo, have cateracts. They were shielded, but not entirely.

Yet it is claimed they can actually bounce a laser off a reflector on the moon - if true then we must have made it there even though it would have been impossible with our level of technology in 69 and even today - unless we had something the government isn't telling us about. Then again this laser could be bounced off just a piece of metal, a crashed space junk to make it work- it doesn't have to be a man made reflector purposely placed in a certain spot!

Yes it does, because if you bounced it off random bits of metal it would disperse. Lasers are collimated, and so a special type of reflector was used, a 'retro-reflector'. Think about the difference between your headlights hitting a road sign, and hitting the rear bumper of the car in front. Road signs are incredibly bright because they employ retroreflectors.

The Moon landing believers never mention this! Plus we lack an earth based telescope strong enough to actually see anything on the moon and NASA refuses to solve this once and for all using the Hubble Telescope!

The hubble telescope is not sufficient to resolve things on the moon. NASA actually put a camera in orbit of the moon that can resolve these images. Honestly it sounds like you've been reading too many conspiracy arguments and not bothering to look at the other side.

Most of the points you have made are incorrect, and driven by a bad understanding of the science involved. Please take the time to look at these questions under the light of reality, you'll find they in no way hold water.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

Dark Side of the Moon is a French mockumentary by director William Karel which originally aired on Arte in 2002 with the title Opération Lune. The basic premise for the film is the theory that the television footage from the Apollo 11 Moon landing was faked and actually recorded in a studio by the CIA with help from director Stanley Kubrick. It features some surprising guest appearances, most notably by Donald Rumsfeld, Dr. Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, Vernon Walters, Buzz Aldrin and Stanley Kubrick's widow, Christiane Kubrick.

Wikipedia

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

Stanley Kubrick Faked the Apollo Moon Landings

Actually, I tend to think that NASA faked 2001: ASO...

So, these elitesticals have mind control technologies and earthquake machines and they control the world, but there's no chance in hell anyone could land on the moon?

so it was a gov sanctioned operation?

no wonder these productions are now outsourced to Musk's SpaceX lest NASA launch a dummy on a Tesla into space and keep a straight face!

nightflight.com...

“Opération Lune”: How Stanley Kubrick faked the Apollo 11 ...
May 28, 2015 · NASA regards Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey as the prototype of the show that the space programme needs to be in order to gain this support, leading them to pimp up the spacesuits and vessels and even to hire 700 Hollywood technicians, making all of Hollywood stop working on other projects"

n

There was technology to go to the moon, there was not technology to fake the video.

a reply to: tulsi

Except all of the footage taken of the moon had to be taken on the moon, because the details shown in the 16mm, live TV and Hasselblad photos were not known about at the time but have been proven since. Because all of the images of Earth had to have been taken during the mission timelines because the weather systems in them are verifiable by satellite photos. Because the viewing angles of the moon and Earth could only have been achieved in spac

Kubrick couldn't get the phase of the Earth right from one shot to the next.