1969:a kubrick odyssey

I have heard many rumors of the moon landing video being directed by Stanley Kubrick,But i dismissed them quikly, thinking it was just some joker on the net.However, just recently I have been searching deep into this and i have stumbled across alot of information. I know that the moon landing video is in fact a fake but I was shocked to hear of Kubricks involvement.I heard he was asked because of his awsome display of special effects in "2001:a space odyssey", and after he helped NASA out with there little problem of being the first to make it to the moon they awarded him later with a multi-million dallar lens used in "barry lyndon".this may really sound ignorant but i need to know what you guys think about these theories of Kubrick's involvement.So if you have any info please post here.

Oh, you "know," do you? Well, then.

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com

Yes, and flying monkeys from outer space are the real rulers of Earth.

__________________
Let us go, Through certain half-deserted streets,
The muttering retreats
Of restless nights in one-night cheap hotels
And sawdust restaurants with oyster shells

From The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock by T.S.Eliot

hmm,explain how the flag is blowing in a place with no atmosphere.and the shadows are pointed in the wrong direction from where the light source is coming from.I am just saying that alot of scientists have looked at the tape and have called it a hoax.Im just asking for information from other people who have heard the stories.

I'm not sayin we have never landed on the moon either. I'm just saying that they had to stage the video because they couldnt send a clear feed back to earth or something like that.look into it.

Come on man, that make no sense at all. The shadow is going the other direction from the light source??? Even if it was a fake light source, you can't alter physics. The fact is none of us can prove it to you either way, so believe what you want, but I think many believe in conspiricy and hoax, just because it is more interesting to them than the event actually taking place (although I can't see why at all, as landing on the moon is pretty exciting.)

Also, if you give a scientist enough money, they will post whatever results you want, happens all the time.

This is possible but I find it unlikely.

__________________

Here's some info: you're an idiot.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

Bad: When the astronauts are assembling the American flag, the flag waves. Kaysing says this must have been from an errant breeze on the set. A flag wouldn't wave in a vacuum.

Good: Of course a flag can wave in a vacuum. In the shot of the astronaut and the flag, the astronaut is rotating the pole on which the flag is mounted, trying to get it to stay up. The flag is mounted on one side on the pole, and along the top by another pole that sticks out to the side. In a vacuum or not, when you whip around the vertical pole, the flag will ``wave'', since it is attached at the top. The top will move first, then the cloth will follow along in a wave that moves down. This isn't air that is moving the flag, it's the cloth itself.

One more thing. Several readers have pointed out that if the flag is blowing in a breeze, why don't we see dust blowing around too? Somehow, the HBs' argument gets weaker the more you think about it.

Bad: Another argument by the HBs deals with shadows. Several photos from the Moon are shown where objects on the lunar landscape have long shadows. If the Sun were the only light source, the program claims, the shadows should be parallel. The shadows are not parallel, and therefore the images are fake.

Good: This is an interesting claim on the part of the HBs, because on the surface (haha) it seems to make sense. However, let's assume the shadows are not parallel. One explanation is that there are (at least) two light sources, and that is certainly what many HBs are trying to imply. So if there are multiple light sources, where are the multiple shadows? Each object casts one shadow, so there can only be one light source.

Another explanation is that the light source is close to the objects; then it would also cast non-parallel shadows. However, a distant source can as well! In this case, the Sun really is the only source of light. The shadows are not parallel in the images because of perspective. Remember, you are looking at a three-dimensional scene, projected on a two-dimensional photograph. That causes distortions. When the Sun is low and shadows are long, objects at different distance do indeed appear to cast non-parallel shadows, even here on Earth. An example of that can be found at another debunking site. The scene (near the bottom of the above-linked page) shows objects with non-parallel shadows, distorted by perspective. If seen from above, all the shadows in the Apollo images would indeed look parallel. You can experience this for yourself; go outside on a clear day when the Sun is low in the sky and compare the direction of the shadows of near and far objects. You'll see that they appear to diverge. Here is a major claim of the HBs that you can disprove all by yourself! Don't take my word for it, go out and try!

Incidentally, the bright Earth in the sky will also cast shadows, but those would be very faint compared to the ones made by the Sun. So in a sense there are multiple shadows, but like not being able to see stars, the shadows are too faint to be seen against the very bright lunar surface. Again, you can test this yourself: go outside during full Moon and you'll see your shadow. Then walk over to a streetlamp. The light from the streetlamp will wash out the shadow cast by the Moon. You might still be able to see it faintly, but it would difficult against the much brighter landscape.

Information taken from http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

I concur For someone who believes in such an outlandish statement, he sure didnt do very much research. Apparently TV can shape the minds of our youth, and I used to think this was all just the religious right and do-good liberals shoving crap down our throats.

__________________
Just back from my Alaskan cruise.
Highlights - art auctions at amazing prices, got my Divine Comedy original edition for the cost of the frame. All you can eat steak, lobster, shrimp, ribs... hmmmmm
Low points - Seen it all before not living too far from Alaska

Alright, those are some good points there Tolstoy.But remember I'm not saying we never landed on the moon,I'm just saying we needed some quick evidece of it so they may have staged a video.It just makes me uncomfortable knowing that we may be being lied to more than we actually think.

My points also debunk the theory that the video was faked. And you never until now said the video may have been faked, you said you know it was faked. You released some shallow arguments from a Fox TV show, the same network that released such gems as Joe Millionaire and that groom show, and you believe without a doubt in your mind.

Now that the physical evidence is ALL completely refuted, you have to rely solely on very shallow coincidences, like "Hey, Kubrick made a great special effects movie, he is a very technical director who has to achieve perfection, he must have produced the fake moonlanding video!"

There are a couple problems with this.

A) There is no evidence whatsoever that there was a fake moonlanding video except that they were in arms/space races with the Russians, which is only supporting evidence at best.

B) Most of this "evidence" which tries to prove the moonlanding was faked, would have been taken care of had it been faked, since Kubrick pays so much attention to detail. These little proofs actually have the opposite effect, if they werent there, it would be better evidence that the moonlanding video was fake.

C) Warner Bros. paid a lot of money for the Zeiss lens, and Kubrick was well connected with many people. Ockams razor -- study that.

D) No government official would hire one of the most famous directors of all time to produce the most elaborate hoax of all time.

While we are at it, I heard that for the Mars landing video they are going to reanimate Ford Beebe and have him script and direct the landing in which they are attacked by martians. This will give GW Bush free reign to raid our social security surplus and attack the martians. It has to be true because politicians lie and GW Bush hasnt said anything about it!

No you fool,Speilberg has already started production of the Mars landing video.J/k.
I have started this thing off wrong but i was trying to make a thread that would have people contrast the scenes between "2001" and the moon landing and find similarities.And i must ask the question, "IF" it was faked who better than Stanley Kubrick to do it?The last thing i want is this to be about landing on the moon, ONLY THE VIDEO.At first i thought the video was fake after reading all the facts on disbelieving sites, but after looking over that site of yours im back at a state of neutrality. and as for FOX,I have never watched this on TV before.

Oh, well that's different!

But the info I supplied in my last post still stands, and can be applied equally well now.

Hmmm...

Somebody's frisky today. I like it.

__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

Well, to answer your question, I would much rather see a David Lynch moonlanding video than a Kubrick one. Then at least we would have seen some crazy moon-ladies having lesbian sex.

Wait a minute... I would have loved to see Armstrong rape Aldrin while singing Singin In THe Rain... Why didnt he do that?

Was Capricorn One on this week?

How come the US never been to the moon since "the last visit" with people??

How come they never took pictures of the earth from the moon when they were there?

What about the place near Ridgecrest? There were no road out in the desert before the "moonlanding", after there were tracks from trucks and cars which have been driving from and to the spot.'

And a Mr Preston says that Mr Buzz were in his store for some sandwich and gum just a week before his landing on the moon..

I would like to say that US have lots of reasons for making a fake video. You have to much pride, and to go out and say to the world that you will have put a man on the moon before the 60's end and not do so and let the russians do it instead would be a shame bigger than ever..

Why not kill the myth once in for all and go there now.. But I guess the american people belives what they want to belive..

Why? For the sake of argument, lets say it was all real, not a hoax. We got samples. We got pictures. It seems to me there wouldnt be a big reason to spend all those many million dollars to go back. Even if they did- what would they do? Hit up the new Mickey D's that opened on the corner of Moon Street and 1st?
NASA has to focus their money on duct tape for the new generation of Mars Landers, anyway.

Apparently NASA are planning the next moon landing for 2020. I read that this evening.

__________________
Pumpkins scream in the DEAD of night!

To all those extraordinarilly stupid people that think the moon landings were faked: Get the hell over it! Too many people worked way too f-ing hard, and way too many people died (three: astronauts White, Chafee and Grissom) in the pursuit of landing men on the moon just to have morons, who are probably too young to even remember the Apollo program, to just crap on their legacy in the name of thinking you're the clever ones who just "know for a fact" that it was faked! Guess what, there's an actual society that believes the Earth is flat. Why don't you get in line with them. Someone in this thread actually asked why none of the astronauts took pictures of the Earth from the moon? Dude, are you THAT stupid? They not only took pictures, they also filmed it! Also, one of the most brought up questions is why we never went back. This, for some, is proof that we never went there in the first place (wrap yourself around that logic). They stopped because the funding stopped. The race was won, many in NASA and congress were eager to move on to the next level: a reusable, returnable vehicle. Say hello to the space shuttle. Having a father that worked in the Apollo program, and having followed in his research myself, I find it deeply insulting and very disheartening that there are people out here that can display such intellectual shallowness.