Is This The Man That Directed The Moon Landings?

[thankyoudave]

Stanley Kubrick seemed like the best man for the job.

http://markcorder.com/hackthisjoint/img/kubrick/500stanley_kubrick.jpg

1968 - 2001: A Space Odyssey

http://bogdy.sk/img/bogdy_sk_2001_a_space_odyssey_1_480.jpg

Nominated for 4 Oscars, Won 1 : Best Special Effects, Best Director, Best Art-Direction, Best Original Screenplay

1969 - Moon landings

http://chnm.gmu.edu/worldhistorysources/unpacking/Resources/moon.jpg

[hagbard_celine]

Stanley Kubrick seemed like the best man for the job.

http://markcorder.com/hackthisjoint/img/kubrick/500stanley_kubrick.jpg

1968 - 2001: A Space Odyssey

http://bogdy.sk/img/bogdy_sk_2001_a_space_odyssey_1_480.jpg

Nominated for 4 Oscars, Won 1 : Best Special Effects, Best Director, Best Art-Direction, Best Original Screenplay

1969 - Moon landings

http://chnm.gmu.edu/worldhistorysources/unpacking/Resources/moon.jpg


I doubt it!:D There was a "mockumentary" about Kubrik being involved in faking Apollo, but it was just taking the piss. Here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUOItuKm5UE

[lizzy]

I don't know but Rumsfeld does.

[hagbard_celine]

I don't know but Rumsfeld does.

You reckon?:eek::confused: I doubt it!

Mind you, he'd be more likely to be briefed in that Bush!:D

[montag]

I doubt it!:D There was a "mockumentary" about Kubrik being involved in faking Apollo, but it was just taking the piss. Here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUOItuKm5UE
Sometimes the best place to conceal something is right out in the open..;)

[edelweiss pirate]

Has anyone seen the HD version of 2001?

It looks pants! Technology has not been kind to it, it has aged rather gracelessly.

[thankyoudave]

Has anyone seen the HD version of 2001?

It looks pants! Technology has not been kind to it, it has aged rather gracelessly.

Dont forget this was in 1968 before even the Star Wars movies. For its time the special effects were far superior than anything that came before it.

[hagbard_celine]

Sometimes the best place to conceal something is right out in the open..;)

Disinfo you mean? Could be. If you make a movie about something true that is turned into a joke, it keep the real secret safer. Like the Alien Autopsy film.

[montag]

Disinfo you mean?
I think so..

[mercuryrapids]

If Kubrick did the Moon landings, why did his depcition of the surface of the Moon look so different to what we see in the Apollo films?

In 2001, we see jagged peaks on the Moon, yet the Apollo films showed us that they were mostly rounded hills. He also has the astronauts walking pretty much normally.

[boots]

I did watch a doco after he had kicked the bucket, and his missus was saying that after 2001 etc he was a recluse who never left his home and did most of the filming on his property.


To shit scared IMO to go out in the world, knowing what he new.

[dr_strangelove]

If Kubrick did the Moon landings, why did his depcition of the surface of the Moon look so different to what we see in the Apollo films?

In 2001, we see jagged peaks on the Moon, yet the Apollo films showed us that they were mostly rounded hills. He also has the astronauts walking pretty much normally.

to throw you off the scent.

[hagbard_celine]

I did watch a doco after he had kicked the bucket, and his missus was saying that after 2001 etc he was a recluse who never left his home and did most of the filming on his property.


To shit scared IMO to go out in the world, knowing what he new.


He certainly never travelled far from home during the last 30 years or so of his life. Nearly all his films have been shot at Pinewood and on locations around London and the Home Counties. Eyes Wide Shut location shots were filmed on the streets of London, making them up to look like New York City. The furthest he travelled to make his movies was Beachley Army College in Glouscestershire where the first part of Full Metal Jacket was filmed.

He left a massive archive when he died that indicated an obsessive personality. For instance, he liked typing with a particular brand of ribbon. When the companmy that manufatured it went bust, Kubrik bought up their entire stock, enough to last him the rest of his life, rather than switch to another brand!:D

[talkingchimp]

I did watch a doco after he had kicked the bucket, and his missus was saying that after 2001 etc he was a recluse who never left his home and did most of the filming on his property.


To shit scared IMO to go out in the world, knowing what he new.

he was part of it brother. he could have revealed the truth anytime from his postition but has just furthered it all with his works..........remember he was tight with uber peado and predictive propagandist arthur c clarke, and a major hollywood player. if he wasnt involved he would havent ever been funded, and if he knew too much and was a threat to them he would be dead like jfk baby. think clear!

[mercuryrapids]

to throw you off the scent.

heh heh... :p

[pandamania]

Good point MercuryRapids.

The Apollo Lunar Hills were obviously produced by wind borne sand particles...caused by the output fans on the astronauts spaces suits no doubt.

[talkingchimp]

watch this

Trousers with helium - Dailymotion-Video


id say the suits were filled with helium to give them bouancy

[stelios]

I dont think Kubrick was involved in the moon landings footage. It looks far too amateur and there are far too many mistakes which a professional like Kubrick would not have made.
Blaming Kubrick for the footage is the classic strawman argument.

The director is probably long dead like most of the other apollo conspirators.
There is no doubt in most sane people's minds that nobody has ever been to the moon. Those who are still to break free of their brainwashing should watch this:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7335269088210976286&q=a+funny+thing+happened+on+the+way+to+the+moon&ei=8c2NSIntLJH0jgKh0rXOCg

[mercuryrapids]

I dont think Kubrick was involved in the moon landings footage. It looks far too amateur and there are far too many mistakes which a professional like Kubrick would not have made.


Good point. He was a notorious perfection, often driving actors and actresses to distraction and/or tears with take after take after take before usually going with the first one.

[talkingchimp]

I dont think Kubrick was involved in the moon landings footage. It looks far too amateur and there are far too many mistakes which a professional like Kubrick would not have made.
Blaming Kubrick for the footage is the classic strawman argument.

The director is probably long dead like most of the other apollo conspirators.
There is no doubt in most sane people's minds that nobody has ever been to the moon. Those who are still to break free of their brainwashing should watch this:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7335269088210976286&q=a+funny+thing+happened+on+the+way+to+the+moon&ei=8c2NSIntLJH0jgKh0rXOCg

lol i wouldnt take anything from the bbc seriously, they are the worlds media masters at disinfo

[braun]

I dont think Kubrick was involved in the moon landings footage. It looks far too amateur and there are far too many mistakes which a professional like Kubrick would not have made.
Blaming Kubrick for the footage is the classic strawman argument.

The director is probably long dead like most of the other apollo conspirators.
There is no doubt in most sane people's minds that nobody has ever been to the moon. Those who are still to break free of their brainwashing should watch this:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7335269088210976286&q=a+funny+thing+happened+on+the+way+to+the+moon&ei=8c2NSIntLJH0jgKh0rXOCg

Can you give some examples of these many mistakes in the Apollo footage?

[braun]

Good point. He was a notorious perfection, often driving actors and actresses to distraction and/or tears with take after take after take before usually going with the first one.

He may have pushed for perfection but any discerning film buff could point out lots of silly mistakes in his films.

It seems strange to me that people think they can see mistakes in the Apollo footage which are not there and yet the cant see mistakes in Kubrick's films that stand out a mile. I surpose its a case of wanting to believe and not knowing what you are talking about.

My comments are in general and not aimed at anyone in particular.

[braun]

lol i wouldnt take anything from the bbc seriously, they are the worlds media masters at disinfo

The film wasn't BBC but it was disinfo. What a load of rubbish that was. Lead to get through the belts lol yeah right. Lead would be one of the worst possible things you could use.

These tricksters rely on people not knowing much about what they are watching and not bothering to check what they say after they have watched.

[mercuryrapids]

He may have pushed for perfection but any discerning film buff could point out lots of silly mistakes in his films.

It seems strange to me that people think they can see mistakes in the Apollo footage which are not there and yet the cant see mistakes in Kubrick's films that stand out a mile. I surpose its a case of wanting to believe and not knowing what you are talking about.

My comments are in general and not aimed at anyone in particular.

Being a perfectionist doesn't necessarily mean you attain it... ;)

[lizzy]

You reckon?:eek::confused: I doubt it!

Mind you, he'd be more likely to be briefed in that Bush!:D

hi h-c, it was during the years Rumsfeld / Bush SR worked with cia , if I remember right, it was through him that Kubrick was given access to the camera technology that allowed him to film Barry Lyndon ( without lights), this quid pro quo is speculated to be tied into the filming of the fake moon landings somehow...........it is thought that some of 2001 props were used, not that Kubrick filmed it.......but partially why he become a recluse later in life.

[cacadores]

Disinfo you mean? Could be. If you make a movie about something true that is turned into a joke, it keep the real secret safer. Like the Alien Autopsy film. Oh, yeh, right:rolleyes:

[talkingchimp]

hi h-c, it was during the years Rumsfeld / Bush SR worked with cia , if I remember right, it was through him that Kubrick was given access to the camera technology that allowed him to film Barry Lynsey ( without lights), this quid pro quo is speculated to be tied into the filming of the fake moon landings somehow...........it is thought that some of 2001 props were used, not that Kubrick filmed it.......but partially why he become a recluse later in life.

it was barry lyndon. i know because leonard rossiter was in it and he was a fucking genius.

[bobthegoon]

It's quite possible that Kubrick was consulted as some sort of an advisor to NASA over the fake moon shots, but personally I am undecided about this. I find it likely that the production of the film was planned to tie in somehow with the Apollo program however, though again, it's dificult to find proof of this.

The Apollo program is full of occultic symbolism. My hunch is that the whole fake moon landing was one big occultic, mind control experiment. Hundreds of millions of people watched it around the world, and the majority of the worlds population would have known all about within a matter of hours, to days. Theoretically this deception would have shifted human consciousness in a subtle direction the impact of which decades later is impossible to measure. Therefore the words 'one small step for man......one giant leap for mankind', was a true statement from the conspirators point of view, but not for the reasons that people think. How sucessful this experiment was is debatable, but whether it was successful or not doesn't mean that was not the reason it was done. Other motives for the fake moon landings are weak - 1. To beat the Russians - but at the very top levels these two countries were working together, so there was no need to 'beat' the Russians. 2. To justify the huge budgets that had been used on Apollo - Again, the scope of this deception, and the huge risks if the plot was discovered make no sense as a motive if all they wanted to was cook the books. 3. To divert attention away from the Vietnam war - see the previous explanation.

How 2001 fits in this is that the film is ultimately an occultic experience that reflects the beliefs of the conspirators. Many people believe that Kubrick - and Arthur C. Clarke - were high ranking masons. If this was true then it would explain a lot about the film to say the least.

Interesting thing about Kubrick, is that he withdrew Clockwork Orange from cinemas because he felt bad about copy cat violence that had happened after the films release. It was only after his death that his wife admitted the real reason he pulled the film was because he had been getting death threats about it. They must have been pretty convincing death threats to make him pull the film I'd say. Did he say a little too much about mind control in that film I wonder?

Dr Strangelove is another Kubrick film full of symbolism - and of course it starred the freemason Peter Sellers.

And of course his last film was Eyes Wide Shut, a film drenched in the occult.

Of course he died only a few days after his 'completed' film was handed into Warner Brothers studios - 666 days from January 1st, 2001, no less! Interestingly the film was edited by Bilderberger (attended 1999) Steven Spielberg so who knows how that film may have been subtlely changed from what Kubrick had originally intended. Also, Spielberg took over Kubricks next film, AI, a project he had been working on for many years - was this a film that someone behind the scenes wanted made, or was it another film where Kubrick might have revealed 'too much', hence why Spielberg was trusted to take over the project?

[krakhead]

Good point. He was a notorious perfection, often driving actors and actresses to distraction and/or tears with take after take after take before usually going with the first one.

Yeah, great perfectionist, no chance of him EVER making mistakes in his movies!

Ummmm....didn't he direct The Shining? ;)



Goofs for
The Shining

* Continuity: Mrs. Torrance's cigarette ash when she discusses Danny with the doctor.

* Continuity: The amount of sandwich eaten by Danny at the beginning of the film.

* Continuity: When Jack and Danny are sitting on the bed talking, Jack's left hand alternates between being down at his side or around Danny's shoulders between shots.

* Continuity: The positioning of Danny's hands and the ice cream bowl when he and Hallorann are talking about Shining.

* Miscellaneous: A bug can be discerned crawling down the camera lens when Wendy is talking to Danny in his bed.

* Continuity: Wendy's hand when Jack is talking about his nightmare.

* Continuity: The position of Danny's toy cars on the circled carpet in the hallway when the ball rolls toward him.

* Continuity: As Wendy enters the bathroom to escape from Jack, the lampshade beside the bed is crooked. When Jack enters the apartment to break down the door with the axe, the lampshade is straight.

* Continuity: While Wendy and Danny are in the bathroom hiding from Jack, the interior shots show snow accumulated in the corner of the window pane. There is no snow on the exterior shots of the window as Danny escapes. This keeps alternating between snow and no snow as the scene alternates from interior to exterior shots of the window.

* Continuity: During the long shot of the Overlook in the beginning (right before The Interview title card), the maze cannot be seen, though throughout the rest of the movie it is rather close to the hotel.

* Factual errors: There is no way that the huge pile of the Torrance's luggage (as seen when they first arrive at the Overlook) would fit in a VW Bug.

* Continuity: During Hallorann's phone conversation with Larry, his scarf changes positions from being inside his coat to outside, and then back inside.

* Continuity: During Hallorann's phone conversation with Larry, the box on Larry's table changes angles between shots (red-blue turns into red-only).

* Crew or equipment visible: The shadow from the camera is visible on Wendy and Jack when they enter the apartment for the first time during the tour near the beginning of the film.

* Continuity: Dick Hallorann opens the freezer door with his left hand and the door's handle is on the right. When the scene switches to inside the freezer, he is opening the door with his right hand and the door handle switches to the left. When they walk out of the freezer, they walk out of a different door (they first go into a freezer that is next to the chef's office, when they exit, they come out a door which is across from the office).

* Incorrectly regarded as goofs: When Wendy brings Jack breakfast in bed, they appear to change sides, but in fact, the first shot is in a mirror.

* Continuity: When Jack is using the ax to break through the door he only breaks through one of the the recessed panels and says, "Here's Johnny". But when he hears the snowmobile and turns and the shot changes, two of the panels are gone without him using the ax on them.

* Continuity: The position of the knife when Wendy locks herself in the bathroom.

* Continuity: The first time we see Jack's typewriter at the Overlook Hotel, it is a small white typewriter. Later, when he is actually typing, it is a larger, blue typewriter.

* Crew or equipment visible: Shadows from camera equipment are occasionally visible on Danny's back when he is riding through the hotel corridors on his tricycle.

* Revealing mistakes: When Jack orders a whiskey from the bartender in the hotel, the amount of whiskey in the glass changes between shots from 3 quarters full to 1 quarter full.

* Crew or equipment visible: When Halloran is speaking to Danny after Wendy and Jack have returned from their tour, their tape marks are visible on the floor.

* Continuity: There are several large windows along a wall in the master bedroom of the caretaker's quarters. However, these windows cannot exist based on the architecture of the Overlook as seen from the external shot when Wendy pushes Danny out the bathroom window and down the snow drift.

* Crew or equipment visible: The helicopter's blades/shadow in the opening shot are visible. Some claim this is deliberate and that it's Kubrick's way of "signing" his movie. Others claim that this is the stupidest explanation for a goof that they've ever heard. Another possibility is that this is only visible in the un-matted TV/video print (and thus isn't an error at all). The choice is yours.

* Crew or equipment visible: The Steadicam's shadow is briefly visible during the final chase through the maze.

* Continuity: When Jack enters the hotel manager's office to disable the radio, there is a light switch on the wall to the right of the door. Earlier, when Jack enters the office to meet with Mr. Ullman for "the interview," there is clearly no light switch on the same wall.

* Continuity: When Wendy gets up to run into Danny's room when he's screaming "Redrum", she has a cigarette in her hand. Though, when she gets through the door and into Danny's room to grab him, the cigarette is gone, without enough time for her to discard it.

* Revealing mistakes: When Wendy hits Jack over the head with the baseball bat on the staircase, the bat flexes, revealing it to be made of rubber.

* Continuity: As jack is talking to Mr. Grady in the men's room, and Grady puts down the tray, it moves from between the 2nd and 3rd tap to between the 3rd and 4rth tap and back again several times during their conversation.

* Continuity: The small painting above Jack's/Wendy's bed does not appear to be there as Jack is talking to Dan

* Continuity: When Stuart Ullman is interviewing Jack, he has a name plate on his desk. When Wendy finds the switchboard is out and has to use the ham radio, the name plate is gone. When Jack goes back into that room to remove the tubes from the radio, the name plate is back in the center of the desk.

* Anachronisms: The song played in the ballroom scenes is "Midnight, the Stars, and You," which wasn't recorded until 1932, 11 years after the scene takes place.

* Revealing mistakes: There is no visible breath coming out of Jack or Danny's mouths when they are in the hedge maze, where it is supposedly freezing.

* Continuity: When Danny has the tennis ball rolled to him in the Hotel, the carpet pattern on the floor changes between cuts.

* Revealing mistakes: When Wendy is doing the dishes just before Jack calls to tell he got the job, the electricity socket near the sink is clearly a British three-pin socket. A few seconds into the dish washing scene, the scene cuts and shows Tommy in the bathroom, to the right of the sink there is another British three-pin socket, with the exception that in this scene you have a much better view of it.

* Crew or equipment visible: (Full screen version only) In the opening scene the shadow of the helicopter doing the filming can be seen for an instant on the lower right corner.

* Revealing mistakes: When Wendy and Danny are watching TV, there is no power or antenna/cable cords connected to the set.

* Revealing mistakes: After Wendy has locked Jack in the pantry, we hear him slamming against the door repeatedly in an attempt to escape. The door doesn't move an inch, yet, in the interior shot, we see the door giving when he's saying "go check it out" and slamming his hands against it.

* Revealing mistakes: When Jack is angry in the kitchen after his argument with Wendy, he knocks kitchen utensils off the worktops, a couple of steel tins hit and bounce back off the camera.

* Continuity: When Jack stares at the model of the hedge maze and it cuts to an aerial view of Danny and Wendy in the maze, the model doesn't match the map of the maze that is posted on the reader board outside the maze (shown when Danny and Wendy enter it).

* Revealing mistakes: Throughout the film, "The Gold Room" sign is located at the entrance of the Gold Ballroom. At the very end of the film, the sign is in the inside of the Ballroom as the camera exits while focusing on a picture of Jack. It doesn't make sense why the sign would be on the inside of the room if the sign is meant to be out in the hallway before you enter.

* Errors made by characters (possibly deliberate errors by the filmmakers): Jack remarks to Lloyd that he has not had a drink for five months, but this is after they have been in the hotel for one month already. A month earlier his wife mentioned he had not had a drink since his episode with Danny, five months ago. Also, a only a few minutes later, Jack tell Lloyd that the incident was three years ago, which, considering the fact that his wife claims he hasn't had a drink since the incident, would imply that he hasn't had a drink for three years.

* Continuity: When Mr. Ullman interviews Jack and explains why the hotel is closed for the winter, he finished his sentence while his left hand grabs his right. A second later, it is his right hand grabbing his left -- a mirror image.

* Continuity: When Hallorann and Danny are talking about Shining, the camera goes back and forth between close-ups of them. In one shot of Danny, his hair appears messy and wild, but the next time we see him his hair is neat and his posture is more straight and attentive.

* Continuity: When Jack is being interviewed for the job, there are numerous cuts between him and the guy interviewing him. If you look at the desk during the interview, you will see a pen that seems to dance across the desk, it keeps moving on the desk every time there is a cut between Jack and the man.

[braun]

It's quite possible that Kubrick was consulted as some sort of an advisor to NASA over the fake moon shots, but personally I am undecided about this. I find it likely that the production of the film was planned to tie in somehow with the Apollo program however, though again, it's dificult to find proof of this.

The Apollo program is full of occultic symbolism. My hunch is that the whole fake moon landing was one big occultic, mind control experiment. Hundreds of millions of people watched it around the world, and the majority of the worlds population would have known all about within a matter of hours, to days. Theoretically this deception would have shifted human consciousness in a subtle direction the impact of which decades later is impossible to measure. Therefore the words 'one small step for man......one giant leap for mankind', was a true statement from the conspirators point of view, but not for the reasons that people think. How sucessful this experiment was is debatable, but whether it was successful or not doesn't mean that was not the reason it was done. Other motives for the fake moon landings are weak - 1. To beat the Russians - but at the very top levels these two countries were working together, so there was no need to 'beat' the Russians. 2. To justify the huge budgets that had been used on Apollo - Again, the scope of this deception, and the huge risks if the plot was discovered make no sense as a motive if all they wanted to was cook the books. 3. To divert attention away from the Vietnam war - see the previous explanation.

How 2001 fits in this is that the film is ultimately an occultic experience that reflects the beliefs of the conspirators. Many people believe that Kubrick - and Arthur C. Clarke - were high ranking masons. If this was true then it would explain a lot about the film to say the least.

Interesting thing about Kubrick, is that he withdrew Clockwork Orange from cinemas because he felt bad about copy cat violence that had happened after the films release. It was only after his death that his wife admitted the real reason he pulled the film was because he had been getting death threats about it. They must have been pretty convincing death threats to make him pull the film I'd say. Did he say a little too much about mind control in that film I wonder?

Dr Strangelove is another Kubrick film full of symbolism - and of course it starred the freemason Peter Sellers.

And of course his last film was Eyes Wide Shut, a film drenched in the occult.

Of course he died only a few days after his 'completed' film was handed into Warner Brothers studios - 666 days from January 1st, 2001, no less! Interestingly the film was edited by Bilderberger (attended 1999) Steven Spielberg so who knows how that film may have been subtlely changed from what Kubrick had originally intended. Also, Spielberg took over Kubricks next film, AI, a project he had been working on for many years - was this a film that someone behind the scenes wanted made, or was it another film where Kubrick might have revealed 'too much', hence why Spielberg was trusted to take over the project?

And your evidence the landings were a hoax is?

[lightworks]

And your evidence the landings were a hoax is?
the biggest evidence is the fluttering USA flag...
in the so called landing videos..
.the moon has no atmosphere
so how the fuck can it have any wind

[mercuryrapids]

Actually, the Moon has a very tenuous atmosphere, but it's so thin that it may as well have none.

The flag didn't flutter it moved about when the astronauts erected it or brushed past it once it was up. It appeared to flutter because there was practically no resistance to stop it moving about.

[braun]

the biggest evidence is the fluttering USA flag...
in the so called landing videos..
.the moon has no atmosphere
so how the fuck can it have any wind

There really is no need to swear like that.

Flags blowing in the wind is it :D

Ask yourself why nothing else like fine dust is moving. Apart from no stars in the pictures fluttering flags is the most ill thought through claim of the lot.

[lightworks]

There really is no need to swear like that.

Flags blowing in the wind is it :D

Ask yourself why nothing else like fine dust is moving. Apart from no stars in the pictures fluttering flags is the most ill thought through claim of the lot.

despite the fact that I am what one could call well educated and very well spoken....I absolutely fucking love swearing....its pure rebellion....sheer bliss..a lifetime of abuse from adults....my refuge is swearing ..now please would you allow me the privelege.....??:p:D

[braun]

So how does a well educated person get to the point where they will believe such nonsense as wind blowing flags in the Apollo footage? Even a young child could work out whats happening.

[bobthegoon]

And your evidence the landings were a hoax is?

Apart from the fluttering flag -

The lack of dust on the landing module in all the photos. The dust would have settled all over the base after it had landed

The absence of a crater or even small hole underneath the landing module, which would have otherwise been there if the craft had really landed on the moon

The photo anomolies - namely the shots that clearly look art directed, the way certain areas have been filled in with light to emphasise them.

The fact that the film would have been rendered useless on the moons surface, due to the absence of atmosphere - 200 degrees in the sun, then imediately -200 degrees in the shade? This would have wreaked havoc with the film. I suspect the radiation itself would melt the emulsion.

The fact that the astranauts would have struggled to operate the cameras considering it was mounted to their chest and they had on large pressurised gloves. How could they adjust aperture etc and be accurate? It's hard enough for most people to grasp the technicalities of this on earth using cameras from this time, and take good pictures, let alone on the surface of somewhere as hostile as the moon.

The fact that the photos were only secondary to the mission, yet they made such a stunning photographic record of their 'trip'. How did they have the time to take so many photos, with so many different set-ups, when they had the many other things they were tasked to do. They didn't have the time to take all the photos they allegedly did.

That the astanauts survived the radiation themselves I find ridiculous. Not one of them even became sick, not even a matter of years after they returned.

That they haven't been back since Apollo 17 more than 30 years ago, despite all the advancements in technology - not even once?? If they could get there 7 times in the late 60's/early 70's, with no accidents - it's strange to me that they haven't gone back again, even as a publicity event, to mark the original landing.

That Apollo 13, (named Aquarius) on April 13th, (13 days after the 13th week of the year - April fools day) and on 13 hours and 13 minutes, reported the technical 'problem' they had encountered on their trip - smacks to me as such obvious symbolism that it can't be ignored, and brings into question what really happened during that mission.

There's also this

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGrYndBurq8

Why were the Apollo 11 astranauts pretending they are further away from earth than they really were?

Nail in the coffin imo.

[lightworks]

So how does a well educated person get to the point where they will believe such nonsense as wind blowing flags in the Apollo footage? Even a young child could work out whats happening.
nice try but what i actually phucking said was
the moon has no atmosphere
so no wind
I did not actually say I actually believed in anything..though you've obviously assumed as such
you did

[braun]

the biggest evidence is the fluttering USA flag...
in the so called landing videos..
.the moon has no atmosphere
so how the fuck can it have any wind

;):D

[braun]

Apart from the fluttering flag -

The lack of dust on the landing module in all the photos. The dust would have settled all over the base after it had landed

The absence of a crater or even small hole underneath the landing module, which would have otherwise been there if the craft had really landed on the moon

The photo anomolies - namely the shots that clearly look art directed, the way certain areas have been filled in with light to emphasise them.

The fact that the film would have been rendered useless on the moons surface, due to the absence of atmosphere - 200 degrees in the sun, then imediately -200 degrees in the shade? This would have wreaked havoc with the film. I suspect the radiation itself would melt the emulsion.

The fact that the astranauts would have struggled to operate the cameras considering it was mounted to their chest and they had on large pressurised gloves. How could they adjust aperture etc and be accurate? It's hard enough for most people to grasp the technicalities of this on earth using cameras from this time, and take good pictures, let alone on the surface of somewhere as hostile as the moon.

The fact that the photos were only secondary to the mission, yet they made such a stunning photographic record of their 'trip'. How did they have the time to take so many photos, with so many different set-ups, when they had the many other things they were tasked to do. They didn't have the time to take all the photos they allegedly did.

That the astanauts survived the radiation themselves I find ridiculous. Not one of them even became sick, not even a matter of years after they returned.

That they haven't been back since Apollo 17 more than 30 years ago, despite all the advancements in technology - not even once?? If they could get there 7 times in the late 60's/early 70's, with no accidents - it's strange to me that they haven't gone back again, even as a publicity event, to mark the original landing.

That Apollo 13, (named Aquarius) on April 13th, (13 days after the 13th week of the year - April fools day) and on 13 hours and 13 minutes, reported the technical 'problem' they had encountered on their trip - smacks to me as such obvious symbolism that it can't be ignored, and brings into question what really happened during that mission.

There's also this

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGrYndBurq8

Why were the Apollo 11 astranauts pretending they are further away from earth than they really were?

Nail in the coffin imo.

http://www.clavius.org

[cacadores]

Yes: I'd like to see that too.

Mind you, the issue of the way the numbers of the Apollo missions were changed and one number left out, seemingly to engineer the number 11 as the landing, is a bit weird.

[endlessvista]

How is there sandy hills on the moon? how is their sand? Surely you need wind errosion to make sand dunes?

[gbarnard]

watch this

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5xdy7_trousers-with-helium_shortfilms


id say the suits were filled with helium to give them bouancy

Oh come on!

[hagbard_celine]

Good point. He was a notorious perfection, often driving actors and actresses to distraction and/or tears with take after take after take before usually going with the first one.

He was obsessive, like I said. You know the scene in Eyes Wide Shut where Bill is at the party walking along a corridor flirting with two girls? Kubrik made him do that 58 times! It took a week just to do that one 20 second shot! It meant that he made some of the greatest movies in history, but at the expoense of his own sanity?:confused:

If I was filiming the Apollo footage I would not choose Kubrik. I'd choose someone more controlable and corruptible...

Roland Emmerich?:D:D

[hagbard_celine]

I dont think Kubrick was involved in the moon landings footage. It looks far too amateur and there are far too many mistakes which a professional like Kubrick would not have made.
Blaming Kubrick for the footage is the classic strawman argument.

The director is probably long dead like most of the other apollo conspirators.
There is no doubt in most sane people's minds that nobody has ever been to the moon. Those who are still to break free of their brainwashing should watch this:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7335269088210976286&q=a+funny+thing+happened+on+the+way+to+the+moon&ei=8c2NSIntLJH0jgKh0rXOCg

I've not seen this one before. Is it really by the BBC? The narrator sounds like the lady who does Bart Sibrel's moon hoax film. Thanks, I'll watch it later.:)

I wonder if anyone is still alive who made the fake Apollo footage. I know that most of the astronauts are, but they're getting old now. Stand by for some Walter Haut-style deathbed confessions! :cool:

[mercuryrapids]

How is there sandy hills on the moon? how is their sand? Surely you need wind errosion to make sand dunes?

It's dust not sand. It got there due to billions of years of meteorite and micrometeorite impacts and billions of years of being pounded by the solar wind (which isn't wind, but streams of particles from the sun).

[cacadores]

How is there sandy hills on the moon? how is their sand? Surely you need wind errosion to make sand dunes?Sand made by cracking caused by constant extreme heating and cooling (experienced twice a day on the moon). Dunes are broken down rock extrusions.

[hagbard_celine]

hi h-c, it was during the years Rumsfeld / Bush SR worked with cia , if I remember right, it was through him that Kubrick was given access to the camera technology that allowed him to film Barry Lyndon ( without lights), this quid pro quo is speculated to be tied into the filming of the fake moon landings somehow...........it is thought that some of 2001 props were used, not that Kubrick filmed it.......but partially why he become a recluse later in life.

Could be. It's certainly true that the moon sets in 2001, which came out around the time of the first Apollo missions, was no less "realistic" than the Apollo moon sets. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the 2001 production team worked on the Apollo footage, even if Kubrik himself was not directly involved.

[hagbard_celine]

There really is no need to swear like that.

Flags blowing in the wind is it :D

Ask yourself why nothing else like fine dust is moving. Apart from no stars in the pictures fluttering flags is the most ill thought through claim of the lot.

Dust, or whatever they used on the studio floor, doesn't always move easily when the wind blows. What if the productioin designers decided to use coarse bach sand in those shots? If you walk along the beach on a windy day you don't get visible clouds of sand all over the place like smoke; you just get a few grains tickling your ankles.

[hagbard_celine]

http://www.clavius.org

I've read the Clavius site and I'm not convinced by it. This is something I've gone through many times on this forum and others. Most of the points made by Clavius can be debunked. See these threads:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/search.php?searchid=1219384

[hagbard_celine]

Yes: I'd like to see that too.

Mind you, the issue of the way the numbers of the Apollo missions were changed and one number left out, seemingly to engineer the number 11 as the landing, is a bit weird.


Really? What happened?:confused: Some say that the 11 was significant.

[hagbard_celine]

It's dust not sand. It got there due to billions of years of meteorite and micrometeorite impacts and billions of years of being pounded by the solar wind (which isn't wind, but streams of particles from the sun).


In some of the shots you can definitely see that a much finer material was used, coloured talc perhaps.