**How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Apollo Moon Landings!

I did not realize Kubrick was (in addition to his already formidable skills), a radio expert, a roboticist, a geologist and chemist, and a Selenologist/cosmologist.

So you're saying theres 3 camps


1. The vast majority that accept the overwhelming proof

2. The tiny minority that delusional

3. An even tinier minority thats delusional but on medication

Something weird about it. I think he may have been a backup plan just in case they couldn't pull it off. I saw the video of the astronauts faking a shot of Earth which was deeply disturbing on the surface of it, but again may have been just another part of the "back up plan" or perhaps they felt so much pressure to prove the mission was authentic that it didn't matter if some parts had to be faked as long as they actually made it there and back for real. Definite weirdness.

yeah

Sounds plausible to me. Personally, I don't think NASA put men on the moon, AND Kubrick probably did direct some of the fake footage.

Didn't kubrik put some hints he faked the moon landing in eyes wide shut?

That was his last film before he was wacked right?

Interesting to say the least.

Nice post. Thanks!

I'm constantly on the lookout for unique finds. Glad you appreciated it.

What "Hints"?

The Shining is Kubrick's "ode to Apollo".

*sigh*

Fine. Whatever. Blame NASA. Blame "TPTB". Blame whoever you want for the "supposed" "faked" "moonlandings". Great! Knock yourself out. It's a free country. If it's one thing I support it's free speech!

But is it that necessary to drag Kubrick into your...scenarios? Particularly with an "essay" as poorly written/researched as the one in the above link? (in other words, at least make an effort to appear/sound credible...)

First, anyone who knows anything about Kubrick's asthetic and/or his visual style (which, for a film director, is equal to their fingerprints) can watch the footage of the moon-landings and understand immediately they're NOT watching the product of a world-class master filmmaker.

There is NOTHING visually about that footage which identifies it as his "work" at all. Not a single frame. Kubrick was notoriously meticulous in nearly every aspect of filmmaking. He would have gone bonkers attempting to "direct" the moon-footage.

His "NASA-handlers", I'm sure, would've implored him to make it look amateurish as it's supposed to be the product of non-artist test-pilots and scientists. And I don't know the EXACT numbers, but I know there's hours and hours of footage.

No way. Kubrick never would've agreed to such a preposterous proposition. He'd be risking his personal/professional/artistic reputation on a highly complicated and risky endeavour that WAS NOT guaranteed to succeed. And then on top of that you have to assume he lacked ANY sense of personal integrity (which someone would have to "lack in order to agree to this "scenario")

Besides the fact he never would've wasted his time with pimping the government's propaganda. He was a filmmaker. He had no interest in shilling for anybody.

Also I don't know how Kubrick had any time to do pre-production/production/post-production on "A Clockwork Orange", which came out in '71, (or pre-production/production on "Barry Lyndon", '74) IF he was INSTEAD busy directing moon-footage (the moon-landings went on into the early-70's).

And also, just off the top of my head, the article claims that in return for "producing" the "moon-footage", Kubrick was allowed to do any film he wanted (without "interference" or something) as a reward for collaborating with NASA on this. Which is bullshit.

One of the major tragedies (in my opinion) of Kubrick's career is he was never able to make his "Napoleon" film. Which he was obsessed with, BUT not able to make for all kinds of reasons, including budgetary. Instead he made "Barry Lyndon" (which is, itself, ironically, a masterpiece).

But no, he was not given carte blanche to make any film he wanted as the link claims. And anyone who knows anything about film and how the "film world" works knows that such a deal is, intrinsically, IMPOSSIBLE.

I know. It's just a silly article obviously written by someone who knows little about film and even less about Kubrick, specifically. But as a young filmmaker who has studied/greatly admired his work for years (not to mention his life- he was an incredible MAN) it profoundly irritates me to read woefully inaccurate accounts of his alleged complicity in someone's moon-hoax theory.

It's exploitive. Read a biography about the man. There's many out there. And then tell me WHEN Kubrick would've even had time to do something as asinine as what's alleged in the link provided above.

Heh. You parallel my thinking. I come at it from the needs of faked Apollo footage (as if that was all, or even the best, proof of Apollo!) and with an understanding of less traditional film-making.

The things to remember is that all of the Apollo material is consistent and congruent. There is not a clip of video here, some photographs there. There are EVAs, which have detailed journals, contiguous radio logs, near-contiguous video and DAC coverage. Almost every photograph taken can be SEEN to be taken in the video footage (and can be geometrically reconstructed to match up with the angle of the astronaut taking the picture) and the majority are even mentioned at the moment in the recorded and contiguous radio transmissions.

In addition, it is not a bunch of random props and some scientific-sounding words; there are specific EVA procedures that are described in big manuals, on equipment examples of which are in museums. And there are scientific procedures that have results -- readings and samples -- that are also time-logged, location logged, talked about on radio seen in video shown in simultaneous photographs.

And all of these materials and procedures and experiments make scientific sense. They behave to the best description science can give of the behavior of known engineering devices and practices in a known environment.

So, no; setting up one gang of photographers to stage random still pictures, while another group stages a couple of low-gravity simulated hops and skips, is NOT going to work. It won't pass even the most cursory examination of the Apollo materials.



Were I faced with trying to fake something like the Apollo visual record, this is how I would go about it:

Start with equipment designed by good engineers that would actually work. Train on the procedures that would actually be used (Kubrick would follow me this far, I'm sure!) Create a set that is as realistic as you can manage.

Now, using your scientific and engineering advisers, write and rehearse a detailed script. You want to account for every second of the EVA, with every action you intend to simulate.

Finally, after setting up lighting and background in such a way that every single shooting angle in the script is covered on the standing set, do the scene. ONCE. You film one long contiguous video shoot (or some very, very clever splices -- maybe you need to call up Hitchcock as well!) and every single still photograph taken is taken live, on that set, during that filming session. The only freedom you have is dubbing the radio record later, if needed.

Of course this rather requires a set 300 meters across, with an elaborate low-gravity rig, and some clever, clever way to control the dust. But anyhow...!


Actually, truth be told, were I tasked with faking it, I'd carefully explain how the Moon's natural radiation makes it difficult to take good pictures, and I wouldn't even bring up video in the first place. I'd shoot maybe a dozen stills, total. Why would anyone expect hours of video and hundreds of frames per EVA? Did we get that much from any other scientific exploration?

In "Diamonds Are Forever" James Bond drives through a Hollywood moon set.

Check out "the Shinning". Especially the scene with Danny running around with his bigwheel. Pay attention to his shirt, the number on the forbidden room and the mean distance from earth to the moon.



Last Edited by Starseeder on 03/10/2010 09:59 AM

*sigh*

Yet again people post lies about Kubrick and don't back it up when challenged.

Good to see you fighting the good fight, Nomuse

And I want to point out the complexity of the user's post above, regarding all the "alleged hidden meanings" in Kubrick's "The Shining".

Ironic, considering the user's sig. Just sayin'...

I call rule of five.

Name me ANY conspiracy theory that I couldn't come up with six supporting "clues" for buried somewhere in "The Shining."

So Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landings on a set somewhere and in 40 years not one person got drunk at a party in Hollywood and spilled the beans? An editor, a gaffer, the guy driving the van for craft services?

I'd love to see his take on the Rama series by Clarke...wistful thinking..would be fantastic.

Well there you go.. That's pretty awesome.

He left hints in "The Shining", for sure.

Actually this guy has aced Kubrick's style, especially the front screen projection process. And he also knows a lot about Kubrick because his other essay Alchemical Kubrick has to be one of the most insightful essays on 2001 ever written.

Even his wife said that Kubrick worked with NASA for an entire year before filming on 2001 started. What were they working on? Why would NASA help Kubrick with his production?

or perhaps the hoax is that he is hinting about the moon landing to further propagation of his films after he dies,taking care of his heirs

similar to Paul/Faul

simple publicity stunt,a fake hoax or if you will


false flag

I don't know anything about Clarke. Never said I did.

But if you want to add something to the discussion...?

No, it was The Shinning. The rumor was that he put hints in the movie to protect him and his family if they tried to "suicide" him.....

Last Edited by Spawn on 03/12/2010 01:16 AM

Why not?

He's a famous film director making a movie about SPACE. This is, for better or worse, actually how the film world works.

If he was making a film about, say, BASEBALL, he would've had Major League Baseball players and coaches on the set. He would've spent time with them in ballparks and in the clubhouse. Major League Baseball licenses out it logos and allows film productions to film in it's parks all the time. Usually for a price, yeah. But it happens. And it's mutually beneficial- the film now has authenticity and Major League Baseball gets to have its teams and their logos and jerseys up on the big screen.

And also there's the (VERY real) simple truth that people just like being affiliated with the movies. Who doesn't? So when Stanley Kubrick knocks on NASA's door, they answer and listen to what he has to say.

And this is fancytime, WORLD-FAMOUS filmmaker Stanley Kubrick, who, coming off the mulitple Osscar nominations and financial success of "Dr. Strangelove" was, in many ways, at the height of his powers.

So yes, he sought out NASA's help, and they obliged. What would YOU have done if Stanley Kubrick called YOU and asked you to consult on his next film? If you're a NASA-wonk, and the film is "2001", THEN YOU OBLIGE HIM.

This is one of the more-mystifying aspects, to me, of the "Kubrick-conspiracy": WHY PEOPLE ARE SO "MYSTIFIED" NASA-employees were sought out by Kubrick to assist on "2001". And WHY did they agree? It makes perfect sense.

And yes, in the year(s?) before cameras started rolling I'm sure Kubrick DID INDEED "work" with NASA. This is called "pre-production". And with Kubrick this was a particularly aruduous part of the process. He was meticulous about everything. So, again, Kubrick spending this time with NASA-folks during pre-production on his SPACE MOVIE does not ring alarm bells. It makes sense.

And when you're mentioning Christianne (his wife, and I know I'm spelling that wrong, but) are you referring to a documentary called "Dark Side of the Moon" by any chance? Because there is a rather fantastic documentary called "Dark Side of the Moon" where she..."says" a few "things" about Stanley's "involvement" with NASA.

Just curious though...is that where you heard that particular bit of info about his wife? A french documentary?

And as far as Kubrick's style...

You wrote that the writer of the essay seemed to display a pretty good grasp of his style (granted, I've paraphrased what you said, here) and you pointed out specifically what he had to say about the projection-work on "2001".

First, that technique has been used by legions of filmmakers and was not at all a relevant characteristic of Kubrick's filmmaking style. Various techniques of using projection aren't usually indicative of a filmmaker's visual aesthetic ever, really. They can be. Basically, anything CAN be. It depends on the filmmaker. But it's not the first thing that pops in my mind when I think of Kubrick's style.

It was a technique that he used.

Not that he didn't use it well.

But what I mean when I reference his "style" is: the visual and aesthetic way in which he used his camera (along with his actors, lighting, special effects, ect. but specifically his camera) to tell his story, consistently, film after film.

Most great filmmakers have very distinct styles. Not that you have to have a distinct style to be a great filmmaker. Sidney Lumet comes to mind.

But there are filmmakers- Ozu, Altman, Scorsese, Kurosawa, Bresson, the Coens, Gilliam, even Woody Allen, among many others who, after randomly clicking onto a channel playing any of their films, after 5 minutes (maybe less) you will be able to tell what you're watching is one of THEIR films.

The way Altman's camera slowly zooms across frames crowded with many characters overlapping each other's dialogue. The way Ozu's camera almost NEVER moves and is hardly ever higher than 3 feet off the ground while the actors speak their dialogue directly into it. Scorsese's dynamic camera movements and kinetic editing (with the help of Thelma Schoonmaker, of course).

AND YES, Kubrick's unmistakable style. MANY tracking shots, left-to-right, right-to-left. LOTS of wide-angle lenses. LOTS of zooming in and out. I could go on, but those are the fundamentals. I'd have to get into specific scenes and shots and...it's late and I'm tired.

But this visual style combined with his innate misanthropy and cynicism (expressed through the scripts for his films which he often wrote or co-wrote and his method of working with actors) resulted in Kubrick having one of the most instantly-recognizable visual and aesthetic styles of any filmmaker in history, in my opinion.

And there isn't a shred of it anywhere in a single frame of the moon-footage.

When would he have even had time to do phony-moon-landing footage for NASA? How could he have done that and pre-production/production on "2001" simultaneously?

Not to mention "A Clockwork Orange" (1971) and then "Barry Lyndon" (1974) (unless we're to believe he shot ALL the moon footage in the late 60's)..... (?)

Again, a film director's style is the same thing as his fingerprints. And Kubrick's fingerprints are no where near the moon-footage.

I am genuinely intrigued, though, if anyone can give a plausible, reasonable explanation- how he could've done pre-production/production on "2001" AND the "moon-footage" at the same time. THAT concept fascinates me. Prove it.

i must say this is some interesting evidence.

I can't let myself believe

Heck...why would you WANT Kubrick?

What does he bring to a film? His name? We don't want that on our hoax. His cinematographic style? The idea of the Moon Hoax is to be as artless-seeming as possible. His philosophy, as expressed in his stories and cinematic choices? Certainly not; we are trying to make a hoo-rah about American heroes.

Seriously, don't even call him. Now...Doug Trumbull, you might pick up the phone on. Because as good as Kubrick was in understanding and exploiting the technical aspects, you'd do no good if he arrived without his technical people.




Ah, but again I see the horrid split in the Hoax story; their need to simultaneously adhere to two quite opposing views.

Assume you do want people at the top of their craft, who can figure out how to fake motion on the Moon, the behavior of dust, lighting in alien conditions, and so forth.

So why is the result (at least, the result the half-blind hoax believers think they see) amateur theatrical night? Why is it flying rigs that went out with the flying monkeys of the Wizard of Oz? Why is there no good solution to dust? Why is the lighting so completely craptacular, not just failing to recreate the environment, but going so far as to get INSTRUMENTS IN SHOT?

It's like they hired Kubrick but got Ed Wood. And that makes no sense at all.