David Icke's Official Forums (https://forum.davidicke.com/index.php)
-   Political Manipulation / Cover-Ups / False Flags (https://forum.davidicke.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Stanley Kubrick confesses to faking Moon landings (https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=321870)

cosmic tramp 23-05-2018 05:47 PM

Stanley Kubrick confesses to faking Moon landings
 
Released from a time capsule incepted by Kubrick to be released 15 years after his death, Stanley Kubrick admits on live video he helped faked the Moon landings.

...anybody seen Rageburson ?

Link here:

http://www.*****************/stanley...moon-landings/

cosmic tramp 23-05-2018 05:51 PM

Better link here :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niEcNiU_2jA


Debunk here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA5hwTyU6A


True or False. What say DIF ers ?

metak88 23-05-2018 06:16 PM

Fake.

truegroup 24-05-2018 03:27 AM

He actually shot the video on location.....as the original source for this total bollocks explains. It was a joke article written for a laugh and all the HBs had kittens!

This video is fake btw.

oz93666 24-05-2018 04:33 AM

What we do know is that kubrick (he's jewish of course) was filming 2001 in England in 1968 when they were preparing for Apollo .... top NASA Apollo chiefs took time out to travel all the way to England to visit this film set and consult with kubrick for 2 weeks !!!

2001 was released just before Apollo 11 to condition the public that walking in reduced/zero gravity was like slow motion (moon gravity was the hardest thing for NASA to fake... all they could do was slow the film down)

NASA needed a big film set ...away from America ....

What reason could they give to all the carpenters and stagehands who constructed it? .... It's for the movie 2001

Sabrina 24-05-2018 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oz93666 (Post 1063023076)
What we do know is that kubrick (he's jewish of course) was filming 2001 in England in 1968 when they were preparing for Apollo .... top NASA Apollo chiefs took time out to travel all the way to England to visit this film set and consult with kubrick for 2 weeks !!!

2001 was released just before Apollo 11 to condition the public that walking in reduced/zero gravity was like slow motion (moon gravity was the hardest thing for NASA to fake... all they could do was slow the film down)

NASA needed a big film set ...away from America ....

What reason could they give to all the carpenters and stagehands who constructed it? .... It's for the movie 2001

And you can read all about that film on the NASA website - wierd or what? lol
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/50-year...-welcomed-2001


Kubricks daughter said...

"Surely an artist such as my father whose profound degree of artistic integrity is self-evident, whose political/social consciousness is manifestly present in nearly every film he made, whose controversial subject matter literally put his life at risk, and yet he continued to make the films he made…

"Don't you think he'd be the last person ever to assist the US Government in such a terrible betrayal of its people?"


In other words....she is saying that the films he made put his life at risk - which may have been why NASA were watching him closely - not because he was working with them - but because his films told the truth... and this film was about space....

She didn't say they didn't do it - just that her father wan't involved in it...but she also hints that he was a truther....does she not?....:spinning_head:

oz93666 24-05-2018 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sabrina (Post 1063023089)

Kubricks daughter said...

"Surely an artist such as my father whose profound degree of artistic integrity is self-evident, whose political/social consciousness is manifestly present in nearly every film he made, ...

She has to be joking !! mostly a stream of sick violent movies, glorifying violence and death to poison the public mind ...Apocalypse Now ....Full Metal Jacket ...Clockwork Orange ...

https://mauitime.com/wp-content/uplo...r-movieweb.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sabrina (Post 1063023089)
Kubricks daughter said...
…"Don't you think he'd be the last person ever to assist the US Government in such a terrible betrayal of its people?"

They would have told kubrick it was his patriotic duty .... there was a cold war on , russia had to be convinced the US rocket tech was up to scratch .. rockets deliver H bombs also ...

cosmic tramp 24-05-2018 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oz93666 (Post 1063023096)
She has to be joking !! mostly a stream of sick violent movies, glorifying violence and death to poison the public mind ...Apocalypse Now ....Full Metal Jacket ...Clockwork Orange ...

https://mauitime.com/wp-content/uplo...r-movieweb.jpg



They would have told kubrick it was his patriotic duty .... there was a cold war on , russia had to be convinced the US rocket tech was up to scratch .. rockets deliver H bombs also ...

...and that the average American hubby is a potential psycho...

polyhedron 24-05-2018 11:46 AM

If the moon landings had taken place, there would by now have been hundreds of moon landings. Every country would have its own launch pad to the moon. All electromechanical machines ever made go down in price as the years role on. The first iron hulled ships were expensive but they became so cheap that even the poorest of countries could afford to have a fleet of metal hulled boats.

Rocket technology is the same. The germans managed to make the VI pulse jet driven flying bomb, the precurser of the VII as cheap as a volkswagon car. Obviously such a rocket today would be dirt cheap. So it goes without saying that successive moon landings would also have plunged in price, if they were real.

But the moon landings certainly did not occure within the sphere of public knowledge. Who knows what goes on in secret, but in the public arena, nothing to my knowledge has ever been to the moon.

truegroup 24-05-2018 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by polyhedron (Post 1063023181)
nothing to my knowledge has ever been to the moon.

Your "knowledge" is the problem.

This is a Kubrick related thread btw.


http://www.clavius.org/bibkubrick.html

The gullible fall for everything and ignore the copious amounts of evidence. The rocks for starters.

I laugh with a large bellow at oz and his daft claim. They used 2001 finished for 1968... as cover for Apollo 1968 to 1972..which had 9 lunar missions...6 landed and the "carpenters" were too dumb to realise. As if.

polyhedron 24-05-2018 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by truegroup (Post 1063023247)
Your "knowledge" is the problem.

To whom is my knowledge a problem? Is it a problem for you?

Quote:


This is a Kubrick related thread btw.

Are you into Stanley Kubrick then? Is that why you are here, to discuss Stanley Kubrick?

Okay, let’s discuss Stanley Kubrick but, ah, no, clearly below is not about Stanley Kubrick.

Quote:


The gullible fall for everything and ignore the copious amounts of evidence. The rocks for starters.

Nothing Kubrick related here, just a sentence about people who are gullible. The rocks, for starters, oh yes, they are real solid evidence of a moon landing arn’t they? How could you know if you have never been to the moon to make the comparison?

Quote:


I laugh with a large bellow at oz and his daft claim. They used 2001 finished for 1968... as cover for Apollo 1968 to 1972..which had 9 lunar missions...6 landed and the "carpenters" were too dumb to realise. As if.
Yes it’s a real gut buster isn’t it? The mystery of the rocket, an electro mechanical device powered by liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, that insists on bucking the trend of Moores law, while all other technology abides by it.

Do people not want to go to the moon? Ah, maybe they can’t find any recruits. That could be it.

I enjoyed watching a documentary which went to great lengths to explain why it was impossible to shoot high quality cine camera footage in space during the 60’s and 70’s. Pitty what I said was a complete lie. There is no such film.

Moon landing? Piffle.

st jimmy 24-05-2018 02:57 PM

The following video is great... fun and fake.
It shows some interviews, and then the voice over tells that Stanley Kubrick made the moon shots.

When you listen carefully to the famous people, none of them actually says that the Apollo moon landings were faked or that Kubrick was involved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXhhXGJP_kE

truegroup 24-05-2018 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sabrina (Post 1063023089)
She didn't say they didn't do it - just that her father wan't involved in it

Haha....what?? He did it but wasn't involved in it . .that's an option:lol:

Quote:

..but she also hints that he was a truther....does she not?....:spinning_head:
Err no. She clearly states that he is an honest person. Totally different, certainly to all the "truthers" I've come across!

Apollo 11 was a fixed camera. Hardly needing a bloody director*facepalm*

Apollo 12 camera broke.
Apollo 13 aborted.
Apollo 14 fixed camera. Same point as Apollo 11.
Apollo 15/16/17 used LRV cameras and from hundreds of astronaut visor reflections there was nobody else around. And it was between 71-72.

Get a clue "truthers":lol:

polyhedron 24-05-2018 03:11 PM

Kubrick did not actualy say in words that the moon landing was fake. But he was very explicit in his film 2001 as to what it would be like in space. Remember the scene where the astronaughts are having their photo taken? There is the photographer holding a camera in a protective enclosure to block out the radiation from the sun from exposing the film to x-rays.

In order to advance to the next frame in the camera, the photographer has to turn the camera clockwise. That’s an awful lot of trouble to go to for just one scene, inventing a camera that can be used in space. Why so much trouble? Because he knew full well that there would be no forth comming proof of the moonlanding. And there wasn’t. And the evidence is in the Kubrick film.

Then there’s his next film, The Shining where we see Danny wearing a jumber with an image of the Apollo rocket. Why on Earth would a director want his character Danny to wear such a jumper? Was it to point out that Danny had an interest in space? Why something so explicit?

truegroup 24-05-2018 04:48 PM

and the nonsense. continues ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by polyhedron (Post 1063023268)
Kubrick did not actualy say in words that the moon landing was fake. But he was very explicit in his film 2001 as to what it would be like in space. Remember the scene where the astronaughts are having their photo taken? There is the photographer holding a camera in a protective enclosure to block out the radiation from the sun from exposing the film to x-rays.
In order to advance to the next frame in the camera, the photographer has to turn the camera clockwise. That’s an awful lot of trouble to go to for just one scene, inventing a camera that can be used in space. Why so much trouble?

The Hasselblad cameras had auto winds.....duhhhh. The x-rays from the Sun wouldn't even pass through paper. Maybe during an SPE you'd have a problem....but there weren't any major ones during Apollo!

Quote:

Because he knew full well that there would be no forth comming proof of the moonlanding. And there wasn’t. And the evidence is in the Kubrick film.
You know less than nothing. The rocks, the lasers, lunar gravity in video, hundreds of unfakeable sequences...sometimes an hour long, the LROC pictures, telemetry, radio signals, third party tracking, third party proof, terabytes of data from ALSEPs placed on the Moon, tens of thousands of reports....it goes on and on. And you've got what? Some kid wearing a fucking jumper:lol:

Quote:

Then there’s his next film, The Shining where we see Danny wearing a jumber with an image of the Apollo rocket. Why on Earth would a director want his character Danny to wear such a jumper? Was it to point out that Danny had an interest in space? Why something so explicit?
Why not? What's explicit about a bloody rocket on a jumper

Again.....read.....
http://www.clavius.org/bibkubrick.html

ianw 24-05-2018 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by truegroup (Post 1063023330)

The site is full of shit. It claims an airplane can simulate one sixth gravity by flying in a slightly shallow climb.
Anyone thats flown in a plane knows that you dont get or feel lighter during take off or any other time the plane happens to climb.

truegroup 24-05-2018 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianw (Post 1063023339)
The site is full of shit. It claims an airplane can simulate one sixth gravity by flying in a slightly shallow climb.
Anyone thats flown in a plane knows that you dont get or feel lighter during take off or any other time the plane happens to climb.

Ian.....run along and bother some one else. You, as always, are the one full of shit. Yet again you take a thread and inject an idiotic observation. I don't know whether you just misread it or are that clueless...

http://www.clavius.org/gravsim.html
You can't use an airplane to simulate one-sixth gravity.

It is well established that you can use an airplane to simulate zero gravity by nosing over in parabolic flight path. The motion picture Apollo 13 demonstrated that such a process could be used for accurately simulating the absence of gravity for purposes of fiction.

It can also be used to simulate one-sixth gravity by flying in a slightly shallower climb. The Apollo astronauts trained this way.


Quite clearly and obvious to a five year old, is that the page says slightly shallower compared to the steep climb and fall for weightless.*facepalm*

And....your response is an ad hominem...completely avoiding the content!

ianw 24-05-2018 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by truegroup (Post 1063023376)
Ian.....run along and bother some one else. You, as always, are the one full of shit. Yet again you take a thread and inject an idiotic observation. I don't know whether you just misread it or are that clueless...

http://www.clavius.org/gravsim.html
You can't use an airplane to simulate one-sixth gravity.

It is well established that you can use an airplane to simulate zero gravity by nosing over in parabolic flight path. The motion picture Apollo 13 demonstrated that such a process could be used for accurately simulating the absence of gravity for purposes of fiction.

It can also be used to simulate one-sixth gravity by flying in a slightly shallower climb. The Apollo astronauts trained this way.


Quite clearly and obvious to a five year old, is that the page says slightly shallower compared to the steep climb and fall for weightless.*facepalm*

And....your response is an ad hominem...completely avoiding the content!

A slight climb will exert a positive G. No way will it make or form any part of a negative G as would be needed to simulate one sixth gravity.

polyhedron 24-05-2018 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by truegroup (Post 1063023330)
The Hasselblad cameras had auto winds.....duhhhh. The x-rays from the Sun wouldn't even pass through paper. Maybe during an SPE you'd have a problem....but there weren't any major ones during Apollo!



You know less than nothing. The rocks, the lasers, lunar gravity in video, hundreds of unfakeable sequences...sometimes an hour long, the LROC pictures, telemetry, radio signals, third party tracking, third party proof, terabytes of data from ALSEPs placed on the Moon, tens of thousands of reports....it goes on and on. And you've got what? Some kid wearing a fucking jumper:lol:



Why not? What's explicit about a bloody rocket on a jumper

Again.....read.....
http://www.clavius.org/bibkubrick.html

The Hassle lads had autowind? Then what was Kubrick up to with his manual wind cameras, how did he cock that one up? Something is wrong here. If it was an autowind camera, Kubrick should have used an autowind in 2001. Perhaps it was more dramatic having the actor rotate the camera.

We still don’t know why the boy was wearing a jumper with an apollo picture on it.

Anyway, we haven’t been back, not officialy. Seems a bit strange. Why haven’t we been back? There are plenty of mysteries up there, but we haven’t been back. They claim the moon is hollow due to sound testing, that it “rung like a bell.” We actualy know fuck all as to what went on up there.

They’re supposed to have taken a battery car up there. So there is a car on the moon. Well imagine how much more stuff they could put on the moon now we’ve got miniaturised electronics and carbon fibre. I don’t see too many rockets makin the journey there, so why accept that they ever went there in the first place. Why bother with all their so-called evidence. You’re clearly convinced it happened. I am not at all convinced we went there. I know I certainly didn’t. So who the hell did?

truegroup 24-05-2018 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianw (Post 1063023389)
A slight climb will exert a positive G. No way will it make or form any part of a negative G as would be needed to simulate one sixth gravity.

Well Ian once again I caught you making a hopeless reading and comprehension mistake and when corrected, like the cowardy person you are, you just ignore it.

Did he or did he not say shallower and is it obvious he meant compared to the zero g manoeuvre!?

Yes.....or no.

As for your response....THIS is the up and down section where they pull zero g.....


https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/p9...316.gif.cf.gif


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:43 PM.