**How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Apollo Moon Landings!

Awesome. Thank you.

I thought something about that sounded fishy. Because, not to give too much credit to his delusional world, but I think, more than that, he's suggesting Kubrick shot the moon-landings at night after shooting "2001" during the day. With the assistance, of course, of "toadies".

Where would Great Filmmakers be without their "toadies"?

I'm guessing, on "2001" they worked minimally 16-hour-days. And that might be a kind assumption. If Kubrick and his hallowed "toadies" forego sleep altogether it still only gives them 8 hours over 14 days.

That's without breaks, sleep, or days off. They go about creating the greatest hoax in the history of mankind.

Sweet Mother of God why do people try to speak so authoratatively about things they know nothing about?

How do you know how many hours they worked a day? Talk about assumptions. It took 4 years to make 2001. He could have done anything in that time. especially with the extensive moon sets that he built but hardly used. You really have to look at the Apollo footage. there is nothing complicated there. It looks FAKE. You are allowed to make assumptions but no one else is allowed. It was well known that Kubrick was always the top cinema-photographer on all of his films so he could have filmed them himself. When you see the footage, and I doubt if you have, you would see that there is almost nothing there.

The case is closed. Kubrick directed the Apollo moon landings and he told us the inside story in Eyes Wide Shut and The Shining.

Question: Why would NASA let Frederick Ordway leave NASA, during the height of the Apollo research and mission, to help Kubrick with 2001? Wouldn't they need him in Houston?

That's not atypical for a feature film. And Kubrick's work habits, and the kind of hours the crew worked on 2001, are documented. I don't KNOW that 2001 went into these kinds of hours, but I have a feeling "Sing..." does.




Making a film is a very near full-time occupation. In Kubrick's case, he would of of course been doing prep work for at least one other film at the same time (as is also typical). A director like that doesn't have a lot of spare moments.

And make no mistake; the effort to fake an Apollo would not be a couple of weekends work.





Very small by the standards of what is seen in the Apollo video record. There are some clips that show astronauts moving hundreds of meters away from the camera. And the 2001 sets also looked rather unlike the Moon in the first place.



I certainly haven't looked at it all, but I've seen very long shots without cuts or breaks, I've seen very deep use of the terrain, I've seen movement in 1/6 G that doesn't start or stop, isn't confined to just certain moves or certain props, but effects everything all the time. I've seen lighting that remained consistent to the actual lighting environment, not changing from shot to shot or moment to moment, and behavior of dust and objects (again, constantly and continuously for all objects) that agrees with vacuum.

What is it, that to you, looks "fake?" In what way specifically does it look fake? What elements do you expect to see and do not? What elements are unconvincing? Can you be specific?

You clearly do not understand front screen projection. And though you pose as an expert you have no idea of which you are speaking.

You accuse others of making presumptions and assumptions and then you do the same.

Go through the apollo footage. Look at the ridiculous sets that make 1960's Star Trek look good.

When you do you will see why NASA copied over the original footage. Then you will see that NASA has done everything possible to hide the obvious from everyone.

If you are a real filmmaker and not a shill for the CIA than you will see the holes in the footage. Otherwise you are a complete retard idiot.

why do all these aggressive anti conspiracy people hang out in a conspiracy forum? thats like owning a pc and hanging out in an apple forum all day long saying pcs are better. you may be right but either way your a douche bag with no life.

We hadn't been talking about whether you could film on Kubrick's sets during the night; we were talking about whether Kubrick could have given the job the personal attention necessary.







How is it necessary to look at ALL of the footage? All that I have seen -- and that is more than the usual YouTube snippets -- has been utterly convincing in it's unique look and alien-ness. Before it is necessary to refute the footage I haven't viewed, you'd have to dispute the footage I have viewed. So far you've made no serious attempt at that.

And I still disbelieve you viewed ALL the footage. If you had, you would at the very least annotate which of various reproductions you had viewed, with the various distortions each introduces. The fact that you don't document in any way or shape which versions or how you viewed, or make even the slightest reference to the DAC footage, tells me you are almost certainly speaking in error here.





Have you worked on a film, or in an associated field? There is hundreds of hours of internally consistent material. That doesn't happen by itself. An ordinary 20 minute student film ties up the evenings, weekends, and every day off they can get for a crew of upwards of thirty people for easily six months (I have friends who are still trying to finish editing and re-shoots). Unless you have done this sort of work yourself, you have no idea of the sheer amount of time consumed.

For the most slipshod of the Doctor Who productions, during the worst of the union troubles at the BBC, the main cast and crew would be working a week to put one episode in the can. That's under thirty minutes of final footage.

And it is worse for directors and the lead artists. They are meeting several episodes ahead for most of the season. So while the crew stops to enjoy their tea, the art directors and DPs and so forth are in the shops, in meeting rooms, reading scripts, doing pre-vis, planning shot lists -- or whatever the period, production style and media you are talking about. Even radio has all of this back room material, which stretches for weeks on either side of the actual in-studio time.




But you can't QUANTIFY this statement. All you do is repeat it.

Well, here's some quantification. 2001 -- no attempt to simulate 1/6 G (basically, he shot his astronauts from the waist up during the Tycho scenes). Dust behavior completely wrong; obviously filmed in atmosphere. Lighting wrong -- violated exposure latitude in several places, for instance. Zero G also wrong; in particular, a pen that rotates about something other than it's own CoG.

Many of the choices made were of course artistic. So to the artistic eye 2001 does look "better." But to almost anyone, it also looks less realistic.




I've seen the camera move off the astronauts, or move off one astronaut. I've also seen it NOT move as the astronauts move hundreds of meters away, and also NOT move as two astronauts skip across in crossing lines (aka any harness they'd have would be irretrievably tangled).






I can't name mission and GMT from memory. My memory is not that organized (why I'll never do documentaries...sheesh, remembering all those clips?)

If you had actually watched more than a few ten-second excerpts, you'd have seen this. I'm tempted to look around, but history teaches me that if I made the effort to provide you'd vanish without word or apology. So, no; it's your theory, you do the work yourself.




The 1/6 G? That would be ALL OF THEM. Slow motion? I can think of quite a few moments that weren't slow motion; the arms and limbs are moving too fast. 18"? I'm not sure how high the jump salute was, but it looks like Gene got that high before he took a spill on his PLSS and decided it was a BAD THING.

See, it didn't occur to any of the astronauts that some rube with a YouTube account would be looking forty years later for a high jump ...because nothing, from the solid lunar science to the mighty Saturn V, had convinced them, and only a low-gravity act would do.... and thus they should risk their necks by making giant unbalanced leaps.

Of course, to anyone with open eyes, the long HORIZONTAL leaps are pretty damned convincing.

But this is a stupid requirement anyhow. Didn't you just claim this is all faked in studio? Aren't you one of the same chappies who claim everyone was dangling from a wire like a bad special effect from the 50's? So wouldn't a nice high jump BE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE THAT IT HAD BEEN FAKED?







More evidence you haven't bothered to watch any of the video closely. Next time, make an effort to watch not just gross motions but everything that is happening on screen. Look how equipment behaves. Look how the dust moves.



Hey, you got one right! I don't know why I said "shot to shot." I should have said "excerpted clip to excerpted clip." Since, barring accident, the video camera ran from the start of the EVA to the end.





House Rock.




And cross it. And Rover traverses have a moving horizon. And multiple still pictures cross the imaginary horizon, bringing more and more detail into what had been "background" objects. No...that same dividing line you see is ordinary and natural to settings on Earth. I am beginning to think that not only have you not actually seen much of the Apollo video, you haven't been out of the basement much either.




Kubrick fan? Front projection expert? Without taking the time to Google, name the give-away error in the first scene of 2001.

Now imagine dealing with WHITE suits with shiny plastic helmets against a dark gray background.





Yes it does. Look outside. The main difference in Earthly scene is the addition of aerial perspective (look it up.)





I was reading Cinefex before you were born.




Funny, I don't see the Vasquez Rocks anywhere.



No they didn't. You don't even know which tapes were lost, do you? And you pretend to lecture others?



I am not a film-maker, and I have been very careful not to claim that. I have also been careful to be clear that I know "something" of film-making. There are vast areas of the technology of which I am ignorant.

But let us not forget the flip-side of the Dunning-Kruger effect here. You actually have to know a fair bit more than the average person before you realize how much more there is to know. I know enough about film to be respectful of the depths of their abilities and knowledge.

Only two kinds of people are truly confident in their knowledge; those who know a subject well, and those who are too ignorant to even realize the depths of their ignorance.

It's ten-of 3, and this is the one I'm choosing to respond to because----IRONICALLY- I HAVE A LIFE AND CAN'T BE UP ALL NIGHT.

We can talk all night long about how "easy" it is for one film crew to just pack up and leave while another one comes in unnoticed and produces a world-class hoax (I don't give a shit, by thinking that's even a remote possibility you immediately prove you've never been on a flim set).

We can claim all night whether or not Kubrick shot the footage himself, without even the aid of "Toadies" as one AC has AMAZINGLY claimed (again, proving his TOTAL LIFELONG ABSENCE FROM EVEN A SINGLE FILM SET).

But what I think is interesting about tonight's crop of misinformation is the post quoted above. I guess it just "appeals" to me...

Why do I come here? Well, first, because it's interesting.

This is hardly the only thread I post in or the only subject I enjoy posting about. And yeah, in nearly every thread I post in, regardless of the subject, I usually am what you'd call a "debunker".

So what. My standards are high. And I like to debate.

And I don't always post. I read a lot. Again, it's interesting. And I read a lot of what you'd label "MSM" also. Generally, I read a lot from a lot of different vievwpoints.

And THIS is where you expose yourselves as being.. short-sighted (and, for the most part, nearly hopelessly misinformed as a result). Because, well...you spend your time preaching to/and being preached to BY the "choir".

Which is why, unfortunately, you know so little. At least about the topics mentioned in this thread. Admittedly some of you could be really bright. About other things. But not Kubrick. Or film production. No way.

And you wouldn't have to worry yourself over the moon-landing's authenticity if you'd just read a little about them first. There's A LOT OUT THERE. Read it. It's not rocket science.

Well, IT IS. But it's not terribly difficult to understand. And you will. You'll get it. It's not hard.

And not all the books are NASA-related. Not at all.

I DO NOT SEE how any intelligent, yes open-minded individual could read an unbiased 3rd-party account of the moon-landings and still think they "never happened" (or that Kubrick had ANYTHING to do with anything). It's science. It makes sense.

And do you think this is the ONLY board I frequent? I mean, there aren't many. This is certainly the only conspiracy-minded one.

Also, as a young filmmaker who cares very much about the work of Kubrick and knows A LOT about him it bothers me profoundly when ANYONE sullies his name.

How would YOU feel if someone fucked with YOUR hero's reputation? Online or otherwise? If you have any spine you'll defend it.

(btw I'm DYING for one of you to open up about these so-called "messages" he put into "Eyes Wide Shut". Please share...)

If ALL you watch are conspiracy-minded Youtube videos and ALL you do is go on conspiracy-minded websites...then...who's the shill?

Are you so afraid of being "brainwashed"? Are you that weak-minded?

I come to this site because I'm firm in my beliefs enough that I can defend them. And I like to. It's what smart people do. We discuss.

Fuck. Now it's ten-past 3. God bless the interweb.

Yah...the Moon hoaxers are boring me too. They are really a dying breed -- years ago we had a lot more of them, and I tend to think they were a higher caliber, too. Now its hard to find any that are committed an intelligent. Instead they just flap past with a little pigeon dropping, and don't stick around for discussion.

So, heck, let's talk film. I'm an outsider, but I work in an associated field that has given me first-hand understanding of just how much labor and thought needs to go into getting those images on screen. A film or a broadcast or a professional-level stage productions is a massive undertaking. I can't even number how many people have come up to me during an open house saying "I never realized...!"

Oddly enough, I got re-interested in film because books like the Five C's (which I have and have read carefully) are recommended to people trying to learn sequential art. It's very odd, considering how different the comic book is, but the best resources for learning how to frame an action and move through a scene come from film.

I recently finished a cute little book from Tom Reilly, long-time Assistant Director for Woody Allen. Apropos of what we were saying about hours, he talks a bit about how Woody made sure to operate on an eight-hour filming day. By not paying overtime and meal penalties, by not getting hit with the rolling twelves that eventually have you calling the cast to the set after the light is already lost, and by giving himself an option to go INTO overtime if he slips behind schedule, he managed a much more comfortable and budget-conscious operation.

But, then, that was partly made possible by his own personal 20-hour day, with him completely blocking scenes before a single actor showed up...

Why no one considers that it is possible for both theories to be correct is beyond me. In point form:

-We went to the moon.
-We found something and filmed it.
-TPTB said: "we can't show that to the public" and permanently classified or destroyed the footage.
-Kubrick filmed a "fake".
-Misinformation ensues.

All the wrong questions are being asked. If I ever get in the room with someone on the inside my questions will be:

-What did we find?
-Was it unexpected or were they aware of what ever it was that they found before they even went up?
-Can I have some free TANG?

Wow !!! Hoax can go a lonnnnnnngggg way ...


Watch out "Operation Lune", if you can see it in french or english subs. This is where the hoax started. A french filmmaker decided to show how medias could be altered to say whatever they want.

He made up this story about kubrick doing the film and got on board A LOT of great personallity like rumsfeld or kubrick's daughter. The movie is absolutely incredible because most of them didnt know exactly what the documentary was about. But you have to watch it until the end where you can see their reaction to how their quoting was used.

Very funny and instructive ...

But it seems many didnt watch it until the end and taught it was true !

Ken Adams worked on a number of Kubrick films as production designer. In an interview he explained why he turned down Kubrick to work on 2001.

"I went to his apartment in New York where he had been working for nearly a year with experts from NASA. And I thought to myself 'I couldn't do that'. Because ... every time I designed something, he would say, "It isn't what NASA wants."

Even if that's true (I'm not necessarily doubting it, you just didn't source it) it doesn't do anything to prove the moon-hoax-theory.

Yes, Kubrick wanted it to be rediculously realistic, almost too realistic (for instance, I've heard many people complain about how boring they feel the EVA-sequences are because there's...no sound. But THAT'S what Kubrick wanted). It makes sense he'd want the experts to have a heavy hand in the production design.

It was a weird amalgamation of the creative and the technical (which isn't a bad short-hand for Kubrick's general aesthetic, actually) and it's no wonder that a production designer would take it personally his "turf" was being invaded by...pencil-pushing NASA-nerds.

But in the end, Kubrick didn't want the fantastical, imaginitive products of a non-expert production designer dictating the look of his sets---- he wanted it to be antiseptic and impersonal. And more than anything- realistic.

Realistic is the word you would use if you were faking something.

Yeah, Woody Allen's career is actually pretty fascinating for a number of reasons.

He's able to keep working, despite the fact that his films really don't make a lot of money, because he's so competent- as far as budgets and schedules. He rarely if ever goes over on either.

He's also got the asset of being, basically, briliant. So movie stars are willing to work with him for very, very little, if any, compensation. Which IN TURN makes it possible for him to find financing for his films (a lot easier to do when they're populated by movie stars). Recently Will Ferrell was one of the biggest comedic actors in the world and still found time to take a part in "Melinda and Melinda". And one of Leonardo DiCaprio's first films after "Titanic" was "Celebrity".

After Titanic every director/studio on the planet wanted to work with DiCaprio. He chose to work with Woody Allen. Not many directors have that kind of power. And it allows him to keep making films.

Some of his more recent films are better than others. I despised "Scoop" but I thought "Match Point" was brilliant. But still- he gets to make them.

In my opinion certain movie stars want to work with him on the chance he might produce another "Hannah and Her Sisters" or "Manhattan". Understandable- who wouldn't want to be a part of a film like that?

He also has the advantage of beig capable of producing his own material. He's basically the envy of every screenwriter on the planet for obvious reasons. And where OTHER directors (really) are at the mercy of the scrips they're given, Woody will just hang back and crank out "Bullets Over Broadway".

Another reason he's able to lure big-name talent is his solid reputation as an "actor's director" which stems, I'm sure, from the fact he's also an actor.

The way he works with actors is very similar to Robert Altman. They do "block scenes" but leave enough rooom for the actor's to "make it their own" (Altman I think was much more liberal, enouraging them to improvise heavily- he was never the writer Woody is).

When he was shooting "Crimes and Misdemeanors" all the interiors were shot in actual New York apartments. He would block out shots with Sven Nykvist in the morning. The actors would then come to the set, rehearse, and subsequently the blocking would be adjusted as needed. It's tricky but necessary in order to get the kind of performances he gets in "Crimes and Misdemeanors" (Nykvist had been Bergman's cinematographer, who worked in a similar fashion, I believe...).

It's frankly just awe-inspirting Woody's kept up the pace of one film a year since pretty much 1977. With a few years seeing multiple films (I know "Zelig" and "Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy" were filmed simultaneously, amazingly). And I know his parents both lived into their 90's, so...who knows how long he can keep it up?

His films might not garner the large popular attention they used to, but he is stil relevant. Last year Penelope Cruz won the Supporting Actress Oscar for "Vicky Christina Barcelona".

So yeah, professional competency, pulling films in under-or-at-budget and on-schedule, combined with his natural creative abilites/brilliance and ability to find financing for films by attracing and casting bankable movie stars (and the fact his films don't cost much to make) are what result in Woody Allen being... one of the most successful, prolific and influential filmmakers ever.

ha...yeah. I'm a "fan". Totally.

That's me ^^^^^^^^^^^ Once again, for SOME irritating reason, it posts me as an AC. *sigh*.....

Well then the Titanic never sank because the set of "Titanic" is one of the most-meticulously recreated sets ever. Listen to the commentary track and hear the experts fawning over every detail Cameron got right.

He wanted it "realistic".

As any competent filmmaker does when making a film.

Who should Kubrick have consulted while making his SPACE movie, by the way? NASCAR?

And if you're inferring Kubrick was working on "faking" the moon-landings in his apartment when he pissed off Ken Adams, well...it's illogical.

If Kubrick's goal was to help NASA create the greatest hoax known to man why would he let his production designer "take a crack at it"?

This seems like the kind of operation where either you're in or YOU'RE OUT. You don't just offer Ken Adams the oppertunity to produce a few flimsy ideas and then let him leave when they don't "jive" with NASA's directives. By then HE KNOW'S TOO MUCH. Negative. Illogical.

Think about it. Because that's what you're saying. Kubrick wanted "it" to be "realistic" because he had to "fake" something. He just casually let Ken Adams in on this and then Ken Adams casually removed himself? No way. Not during the alleged-production of the greatest hoax known to man.

Kubrick had high standards. As all Great Filmmakers do. So, yes, he wanted his film to be "realistic". Why is that so hard to grasp?

Woody Allen is the worst filmmaker in the world. His films make no money because they are narcissistic, boring and un-cinematic. He is a terrible filmmaker and does not even deserve to be in the same conversation as Kubrick.

Woody Allen is loved by the New York Jewish intelligensia. But his films totally suck. I watched Annie Hall recently and it was unfunny and he must have used the words 'I' and 'me' about a thousand times.

Woody Allen totally sucks. Does not even deserve the title 'filmmaker'.

Name one Woody Allen film that stands up to time? Except Love and Death which actually stands up to time.

Eyes wide shut is a complete and utter referenc eto Illuminati/Reptilians, research the subject and you will see.

Peace!!!

Heh. I'm just imagining the interaction between him and the fight choreographer on Barry Lyndon. Seems to me I heard a bit about that...that Kubrick had reacted to the usual and quite unrealistic movie school of fighting and wanted more realistic sword play.

Again, very much in character for Kubrick. If, after seeing 2001, I was told that he had ignored futurists, shunned scientists, and done no research, I'd call the person who said that a liar.

Ummm... Woody Allen is the envy of virtually every fillmmaker on the planet.

Envy.

Almost no other filmmaker has had the kind of autonomy he's enjoyed for decades. The reasons for this I clearly outlined above. I'm not repeating myself. What I wrote wasn't my "opinion". It's A FACT he can attract movie stars, he produces his own material, he brings it on-budget and schedule.

So the people who write the checks let him make the movie he wants. His films don't have to make a lot of money. And the reasons they DON'T make a lot have less to do with them being "boring" or "narcissitic" as they do with the dumbing down of American film-going culture and the unfortunate fall-out of the Mia Farrow-debacle of the early-nineties which turned many people off to his films. Unfortunately.

For you to say his film are uncinematic immediately dismisses you as an expert on the topic. What isn't cinematic about "Manhattan"? It's famous for being one of the MOST BEAUTIFULLY CINEMATIC FILMS EVER MADE.

His use of extra-long, increasingly intricate and complicated shots starting in the early-nineties was, stylistically, very impressive and interesting. And not easy to do. And yes, very cinematic.

His films consistently end up on "Top 100 of All Time Lists". "Hannah and Her Sisters", your favorite "Annie Hall", "Manahattan", and "Crimes and Misdemeanors" are just a few I guarantee you will find on any number of these lists.

He's made multiple films which have garnered Oscar nominations and wins for himself and his actors. I'm pretty sure more than almost any other filmmaker in history.

"Annie Hall" won Best Picture, Best Director, and Diane Keaton won Best Actress. Woody was nominated for Best Actor and I am pretty sure it won Best Screenplay.

A few years later "Manhattan" was nominated for Best Screenplay and Mariel Hemingway was nomiated for Best Supporting Actress.

Again, I don't know the exact numbers off-hand, but there have been many more. I know "Hannah and Her Sisters" won Best Screenplay (deservedly so- a MASTERPIECE which absolutely stands up to time). I know Michael Caine and Dianne Weist won the Supporting Actor and Actress Oscars for it. Weist would win again in 1994 for Supporting Actress for "Bullets Over Broadway" which was nominated for Screenplay (along with Chazz Palminteri for Supporting Actor and Jennifer Tilly as Supporting Actress and I believe it got Best Picture and Best Director nominations also).


Now, yeah. You could make the argument that the Oscars aren't shit. And they kind of aren't. I don't believe any Oscars actually ever go (with rare exceptions) to the "best" this or that any year.

But regardless- they are DISTINGUISHED AWARDS BESTOWED BY YOUR PEERS. The writers vote for the Writing Oscars (Best Original and Adapted Screenplay) the actors vote for the Acting Oscars and so on...

And, contrary to your asinine comment, the film industry is composed of far more than the Jewish New York Intelligentsia. And it's THE FILM INDUSTRY, not just jews in NYC, who vote.

Besides the fact I know people from all around the world who love his films.

Also his influence can be seen everywhere. It's not uncommon when a film about interpersonal, adult relationships gets badly reviewed for the reviewer to accuse the filmmaker of "wanting to be Woody Allen". I've read that a million times. And I usualy agree.

His influence can be seen in the work of Whit Stillman, Noah Baumbach, early Spike Lee, Wes Anderson, certain David Gordon Greene (though he's more heavily influenced by, say, Malick, "All the Real Girls" is very reminiscent of Woody's work), James Gray (his recent "Two Lovers"), David O. Russel, Tom DiCillo, and countless other (good AND bad) young American AND European filmmakers (he's basicaly A GOD in Europe) (funny, Europe being SO FAR AWAY FROM NEW YORK AND IT'S JEWISH INTELLIGENTSIA).

So what. You didn't think "Annie Hall" was funny. My condolences. But to say it doesn't stand up to time is the same as saying "I know very, very, very little about film and even less about it's recent history."

Personally, I thought "Rosemary's Baby" was nearly intolerably boring and though I like "Chinatown" I don't "love it". So you could say I'm not a huge Polanski fan. But I'm not gonna go up and say he sucks and is irrelevant. He's just not my cup o' tea. So what. Enough people (who I admire/respect) think he's brilliant for me to NOT think he's necessarily a BAD filmmaker. And I would never say he is.

Maybe in the future you should do the same thing.

I recall, I think, reading about that when I was in high school about ten or twelve years ago... I idolized Kubrick but this was just before "Eyes Wide Shut" came out and pre-"Eyes Wide Shut" info on Kubrick was few and far between.

But, idolizing Kubrick, I was a determined young turk and eventually found a biography about him by a guy named Vincent LoBrutto and I think it was called..."Kubrick on Kubrick"...I think? I could be getting that confused with this Woody Allen book I read around the same time.

Anyway, it blew my mind. I think I read it in about...8 minutes.....ha. I don't know. But I do recall something about rubbing-fencing-choreographers-the-wrong-way.

The man had high standards and was ruthless with his craft. On the short film Vivienne Kubrick made on the set of "The Shining" there's a part where she's mulling around on the set and you can hear him shouting at her off camers, "COME ON GET OUT OF THERE VIV!!!" It's funny because he's, like, pissed.

But that's how he was.

Ironically this thread's inspired me to go reading a little more about him. He was one of the first filmmakers I got really into as a teenager but as I got older and my tastes broadened I sort of moved on. Though I still love him and his work and count him as a hero of mine.

IRONICALLY this absurd thread has re-ignited my interest. :) Huh....

Oh yeah that is why the same goons had a back up plan in case Oswald somehow got out of position, the shooter was in FRONT of JFK.

Oh yeah that is why they had a backup plan in case Sirhan somehow got out of position, the shoot that killed RFK was fired from 4 inches BEHIND his head.



Wake up people. FAKE is fake and murder is murder.

Realistic that describes the USSA perfectly.

Yes like the frog in the boiling water the temperature changes so slowly you can barely notice it.

Real Realistic

o 12,000 bucks spent in STATE controlled schools per child/year and yet they cannot read write or most importantly THINK,

o 36,000 spent for "health" on a family of four/year and yet 2/3 of us are overweight or obese and our health is failing fast (the true health crisis)

o An endless amount of money spent and millions of innocent souls spent "fighting terrorism" when a simple investigation of 9/11 reveals MANY of the "TERRORISTS" live right here in the USSA and wear 5,000 dollar suits and are named bush and kissassenger.

Here is the closest to the truth about the fake moon landing I have found. Burn it to CD, Oh Bom a's cyber czar will scrub it from the net SOON.

[link to www.youtube.com]

for Stanley's legacy (and his deal to snatch a low light zeiss satellite lense which he used to film scenes in Barry Lyndon with just candlelight, this has never been repeated, because no one else has ever made such a deal to aquire such specialized technology for filmaking . . .

That's like me and Apollo Hoax threads -- I wasn't a huge fan of the project before I ran into my first hoax thread. Okay, sure, I was interested in space sciences, and astronomy, and a lot of general science, but when I thought about Apollo it was in sort of the same quaint pioneer terms as Bleriot crossing the Channel or Madame Curie working with Radium.

The hoax led me to dig deeper into the amazing archives that are available, and led to my growing respect for the engineering genius and the sheer ambition and scope of the project. It truly was one of the great episodes in focused human thought and craft; up there with the building of the great medieval cathedrals.

As I learned, I also discovered what a great tool the hoax can be (for the right kind of mind) to learning basic principles of science; of physics, of optics...and, too, of engineering practice.

Yes....no other film has ever been made with available light. You can't even find as much as, say, an episode of a television show in which the only light source on set is a few candles.



(There isn't an irony tag big enough for the above, so I'll leave it unstated.)

You quoted me then delivered a post beneath which hardly has anything to do with what I wrote... (I understand you think it does, but it doesn't...)

It's very very simple and I'm mystified it goes over the head of certain hoax-enthusiasts (though I'm not too mystified when I take into account most of you are inclined to see what you want to see, according to your dogma, but anyway...).....

......Stanley Kubrick was making a space movie. He didn't want to make a crappy space movie. So he enlisted the help of space EXPERTS. And they happily obliged. As most people do when FAMOUS HOLLYWOOD DIRECTORS COME CALLING.

At this time (mid 60's) Kubrick wasn't quite the "legend" he would end up becoming- BUT he was coming off multilple Oscar nominations and the ENOURMOUS critical and financial success of "Dr. Strangelove".

He was one of the most powerful directors in the world. So when he decides he wants to make a space movie and doesn't want it TO SUCK, he hires Jerry Ordway (among others who's names I can't recall off-hand) to come along and make sure it's realistic, yes.

would you have rather, as a non-expert in these sciences, he just...guessed at how he thought shit should look? I guarantee you we WOULD NOT be still talking about his film 40 years later.

If he was making a Civil War movie he would've hired Civil War experts.

If he was making a movie about elephants he would've hired zoology experts.

If he was making a movie about doctors he would've hired the leading doctors in whatever field the film was a subject of.

If he was making a movie about boating he would've hired sailing experts.

If he was making a movie about golf he would've hired golf experts.

Why are (only some, thankfully) people so quick to assume it was somehow "out-of-the-ordinary" Kubrick hired NASA people for a SPACE MOVIE? Why does that seem so "sketchy"?

And he's not the ONLY director who's ever enlisted NASA or retired-NASA people as technical advisors. It's not that unusual.

I'm also still waiting for someone to provide these alleged-"clues" he put into "Eyes Wide Shut". I'm waiting very patiently. I literally can't wait.

I'm also still waiting for someone to offer a lucid, reasonable scenario where Kubrick could've POSSIBLY found time to do pre-production, production, and then post-production on "2001" while at the same time directing the greatest hoax known to man (as well as also pre-production and production on "A Clockwork Orange").

And anyone who claims the greatest hoax known to man could just be "cranked out" knows nothing about film production.

Your alleged-Powers That Be are attempting the greatest hoax ever- but they don't want to do a thorough job?

You give them credit for pulling it off and fooling the world (well, MOST of it. Not you moon-hoaxers, obviously)------ but then assume they're so woefully incompetent they couldn't even bother with production values barely above a porno flick...?

And even porno flicks have to be lit.

And lighting is a bitch. If you've EVER been on a film set- you'd know this.

It's a lot of waiting. Even for crappy lighting. Then it's hurrying up to get the shot. Then a lot more waiting. With the amount of extant moon-footage, it would've taken....countless hours of pre-production and produciton.

And at the same time to assume Kubrick would EVEN HAVE HAD TIME to spare to crank out some bullshit for your alleged-Powers That Be reveals yet another woeful lack of knowledge of the JOB OF A FILM DIRECTOR. It's not unusual for your average film director (unless he's a hack- which Kubrick was NOT) to work 18-20 hour days.

And they usually work 7 days a week. Being a film director is very much being the Queen Bee of an obscenely busy hive. You don't have "side projects", like assisting with the greastest hoax known to man.

If you knew anything about filmmaking you'd just...know that.

You'd just know it.

Yes they would hire experts, you idiot, but a government agency does not help a filmmaker unless there is a government interest. So yes the military helps films that promote the military but they do not work on productions for a year before the production designer is hired.

It is you who knows nothing about films. You are an armchair critic who thinks they know a lot about film. I have been making films in Hollywood for 35 years and I assure you that the government does not spend their money and time on a project without a huge return.

What was the return?

Hmmmm.

Propaganda?

Why don't they release the pristine tapes of the moon landings? They must have them.

Why not?

Why did Ordway work both on Apollo and on 2001 at the same time? Since he was being paid fill time to work for NASA shouldn't he have been working for them all the time? Why did NASA pay for him to work for Kubrick - before a designer was even hired?

And Woody Allen sucks as a filmmaker. He is not the envy of filmmakers - you are just making that up. He is the envy of film critics who are like you - armchair filmmakers.

If there is envy it is because he gets funding for his films even though they don't make a cent. Why? because he is putting forth the old jewish line about them being the master race.

You don't get it it do you? Films from Hollywood and New York serve one purpose and one purpose only: PROPAGANDA.

It is in this light that we know why NASA helped Kubrick.

BTW I know a front project specialist from Hollywood and he said that he knew in the early seventies that the moon images were front projected.

It is you who knows nothing about filmmaking.

But you do posture quite well.

One other thing. You go on and on about how many hours Kubrick was working a day on 2001? HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS?

And also it would depend on how many days he was shooting. 2001 took 4 years to shoot. Clockwork Orange took 18 months as did The Shining and Barry Lyndon.

Kubrick spent 2 1/2 years longer to shoot 2001 than he did any other film he made. he took longer to shoot 2001 than Cameron spent on Avatar. It is in the length of time that we can discover how he managed to do both projects.

And since you have not seen all of the Apollo imagry how do you know the complexity of the shoot?

Go to Spacecraft films and purchase ALL of the footage. You will see that even though there is about 30 hours of footage - most of it is of absolutely nothing. The astronauts go into a crater in Apollo 17 and the camera just stares at a rock for 2 hours. And then there is the mysterious filter that has been placed over the footage - probably in post - that ruins the details in the images. With modern editing software you can detect the watermark of this filter and it is definately placed over the footage after it was shot. Of course NASA never realized at the time time that this processing equipment and software would be widely available later. Now that they know we can go into the footage they have conveniently lost all of it.

Since the moon landings are possibly the greatest event in history one would think that the footage would have been transferred to film - right away. And any other storable medium and then placed in cold storage like they do with Hollywood does with their original negatives from the 1930's and 40's. But no. NASA taped over most of it and they just cannot locate the rest of the footage. Therefore the best we have is what Spacecraft films puts out.

Makes one wonder what they are hiding and why are they so sloppy.