Did Stanley Kubrick fake the Apollo Moon missions?

By Liam-Michael:Roberts

 

 

The moon landings are one of the most famous and widely discussed conspiracies of our time.  It is one of the most common questions I get asked by those who are blissfully unaware of the bigger conspiracy that engulfs us… 

Did Apollo 11 really land on the moon on July 20th 1969? 

The Internet is full of believers and non-believers thrashing their opinions on what really happened and if we really went to another world. 

The truth should be effortlessly supported by evidence, but when scrutinised, the evidence appears unconvincing and inconsistent with the official NASA story. 

The key evidence to support the theory that we did in fact go to the moon is the testimonies of the people involved, (astronauts/NASA employees, etc), the photographic evidence and the moon rocks allegedly bought back to Earth.  But as you will see, even these key pieces of evidence do not provide solid proof that what NASA say is the truth.

 

00098 behind the scenes studio shotsFirst of all, the one thing we have to accept is the possibility that the moon landings could have been faked.  People say, “it would be impossible” given the amount of people involved and many other factors, but lets put it into perspective, it is plausible, even if unlikely, that such an event could have been faked, i.e. Filmed in a studio.  Sure, it’s going to be very difficult to maintain a false story about something as big and as significant as landing on the moon, but that does not make it impossible...   

 

Recent polls indicate that approximately 20% of Americans believe that the U.S. has never landed on the moon. Only during the term of Richard Nixon did humanity ever allegedly return to the moon, and after the Apollo missions ended in the 1970’s we have never been back! Proof of the latter Apollo missions being faked comes in abundance; I will be primarily focusing on the July 1969 conspiracy…

 

 

What I intend to do in this article is to cover some of the main points and most widely ignored elements that point to a conspiracy, like I said above, the truth should be effortlessly supported by evidence, well I believe it is, but I believe the truth is not what we have been led to believe over the past 40 plus years.  In fact let me be totally honest, I’ve tried to be diplomatic so far but I think it is genuinely laughable if you review the ‘evidence’ and still come to the conclusion that we did go to the moon… As you will see there is relatively little proof that we have landed on the moon, in fact besides take off and splash down you could say there is none, we simply have to take NASA’s word for it.

...Of course most people do, and the following statement that I read as a comment on a good article elsewhere verifies the unbelievable thought process of someone so unquestioning of government and authority…

 

“One very important point that I have not seen anyone bring up yet, one of the most compelling pieces of evidence, is the point that there is in fact tangible evidence that we really landed on the moon…

…We brought back rocks.

We know these rocks are from the moon and not from earth because it is perfectly obvious when you look at them that these rocks are from the moon. In other words, they look just like they came from the moon - they look exactly like you would think moon rocks look like. No matter what your personal subjective image of what such rocks might look like, that is what these rocks look like. It is one of the most completely verifiable scientific achievements of the 20th century.”

 

Wow, the sheer ignorance still somehow amazes me… So I’ve covered moon rocks in this article just to avoid stupid comments like that one, completely verifiable? Absolutely not…

 

Motivation to Fake the Moon Landings

 

So I’ve given away my personal thoughts on the subject already but what could be the motive for faking the moon landings?

I have seen very few people put across a good reason as to why the NASA would fake the moon landings, most conspiracy theorists stop at blaming the space race against Russia as the main reason, so ultimately many believe that if faked it was for the purpose of looking good?  A great reason why so many people laugh off the idea of a conspiracy, ok, its one thing to want to look good, its quite another to go to such extra-ordinary lengths to ensure you do.  

But there are also many factors to consider besides the space race against Russia, for example Kennedy had publically stated that it was his goal to land a man on the moon before the end of the decade and of course the moon landing was a real boom for gaining political support by generating a great sense of patriotism among Americans while at the same time deferring public attention from the Vietnam war.

If you consider what the USA would have potentially gained from landing a man on the moon in 1969, it is undeniable that it would be beneficial for them, both at home politically, and globally - in terms of establishing the USA as being at the forefront of technological advancement.

These are all good reasons, which, alone could be taken as a motive for NASA and the US government to conspire to create the lie - even if they did not, however, there is also a potentially far more sinister reason behind a conspiracy - Star wars…

 

Only in more recent years has the fact emerged that huge fiscal allowances approved with public support of the moon missions (and subsequent manned orbital programmes) enabled massive amounts of cash to fall into military budgets (and almost certainly secret ‘black op’ developments) that might otherwise never have been sanctioned.

Despite the cosmetic appearance of being a civilian operation NASA today is essentially a military outfit and for all the restrictions of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (which outlawed the deployment of orbiting weapons of mass destruction) there is little doubt or denial that loopholes have been found as can be evidenced.

 

For example, in April 2010, I published a blog on my website containing an article from The Times newspaper about NASA’s X37B program. The program began in 1999 and ran until September 2004 when it was transferred to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency before being taken over by the US Air Force (Military operation, not civilian).

It is officially described as an orbital test vehicle. However, one of its potential uses is to launch a surge of small satellites during periods of high international tension enabling America to have eyes and ears orbiting above any potential ‘trouble spot’ in the world.

The X37B can stay in orbit for up to 270 days and provide the US with the ability to carry out experiments for long periods, including the testing of new laser weapon systems it is claimed.

The relatively short article then goes on to mention, very briefly, something called ‘Prompt Global Strike’.

 It says:

 

“With all the focus on the launch of the secret X37B, another space launch by a Minotaur IV rocket from Vandenberg Air Force base in California received less attention.  It was carrying the prototype of a new weapon that can hit any target around the world in less than an hour... The Prompt Global Strike is designed as the conventional weapon of the future.”

 

Officially Prompt Global Strike (PGS) is described as follows:

 

“PGS is a US Military effort to develop a system that can deliver a precision conventional weapon strike anywhere in the world within one hour. The PGS program encompasses numerous technologies, including conventional surface-launched rockets and air-launched hypersonic missiles.”  

 

According to sources one possible delivery method for these strikes includes a kinetic weapon launched from an orbiting space platform.

To put it into relative context for you, what they’re saying is they have their very own version of the Death Star from Star Wars… (In case you don’t know, in Star Wars, the Empire has a hollow space station (which looks remarkably like our moon) and this can hit any target in the galaxy - same principle).

 

So anyway, potential motives for lying about the Apollo moon landings cannot be denied, Tensions with Russia in the space race, political gains, and what we’ve just been looking at, that without public support being generated from the moon missions many of the (secret) orbital programs and space missions that followed would not have happened… And the continued funneling of cash into NASA of course…

 

 

Silencing the Critics…

 

It is interesting to note that the man who was originally scheduled to be the first man on the moon Virgil ‘Gus’ Grissom was publicly critical of the poor safety specifications of the proposed moon landings and even of its entire technical feasibility.

Grissom was the third man to go into space, at least that’s how the story goes... On July 21, 1961, over the span of 15 and a half minutes, Grissom allegedly traveled 302 miles, reaching a maximum height of just over 118 miles and experienced about five minutes of weightlessness, before finally reentering and splashing down in the Atlantic. Everything from blastoff to re-entry and even splashdown went as expected — until shortly after Grissom had landed, that is.

 

Liberty Bell 7 featured something new: an explosive hatch that would allow the astronaut to make a hasty exit or rescue crews to extricate Grissom in the event of an emergency. Problem is, the hatch blew early, flooding Grissom's capsule and threatening to drown him before a team could reach him.

Initially it appears that conspiracy theorists might be clutching at straws here but shocking new evidence came to light in 1999 when Grissom’s sunken Mercury capsule, Liberty Bell 7, was finally recovered from the Atlantic for examination and showed no signs of the necessary heat shield required for the 1961 mission into space, leading some to believe that Grissom never actually made it into space at all, reinforcing the idea that he held much resentment at having to front something he did not believe in. 

Could it be then that on 27th January 1967 the fire that raged through Apollo 1’s cockpit killing all crew members, including Grissom, was no accident? 

Scott Grissom, Virgil Grissom’s son thinks it was not and publicly stated in 1999 that he believes his father had been murdered.  After examining the remains of his father’s death capsule – and the faulty switch blamed for causing the fire, he discovered a small and functionless metal plate which appeared to have been deliberately inserted into the wiring, almost certainly causing the fire in what was a sealed atmosphere of almost pure oxygen.

Thomas Ronald Baron was an Inspector at what was known at the time as Cape Kennedy, he had compiled a highly critical report on the poor safety record and inefficiency at North American Aviation (NAA – contracted by NASA to work on the Apollo program), which led to the Apollo 1 tragedy. Barons short - and highly damning – preliminary paper was published, but the full 500 page report never saw the light of day because he and his family died when their car was struck by a train just one week after Baron publicly stated in front of a congressional committee that one employee at NAA ‘Knew exactly what caused that fire’, referring to the Apollo one tragedy.

 

It is not unreasonable to suggest that an unsettlingly critical astronaut (Grissom) who was threatening to expose the unfeasibility of the moon missions was silenced and that the all to revealing enquiry that subsequently followed also had to be shut down. 

 

 

“One small step for man, one giant lie for mankind…”

 

The testimonies from the astronauts and other NASA employees are hard to take at face value, with NASA astronauts of the 1960’s having come from good military stock, patriotic allegiance at the expense of the truth might come easily if they believed the safety and prestige of America was at stake. And if the safety and reputation of themselves and their families was also at stake, the compulsion to do their duty might be even stronger.

There are many errors, inconsistencies and outright lies in the verbal and written accounts from NASA employees and astronauts, and as they are just that, verbal and written personal accounts, they do not stand up as hard evidence to prove what happened regarding the moon landing missions. 

In the famous quote, "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" Neil Armstrong is perhaps giving us a clue as he stepped on to the surface of the moon.  In a 1983 interview with George Plimpton in Esquire Magazine, it was revealed that Armstrong had produced the lines himself and they were not scripted for him…

Some people believe truth seekers are again looking too deeply into it but the fact is that this statement is contradictory.

What Neil Armstrong obviously meant to say was “thats one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.”

When initially questioned about this statement, Armstrong stated he would never make such a mistake, NASA and Armstrong insisted, and did so for years, that static had obscured the "a". It’s quite clear that what he said was one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind, and that is the quote we all know very well, eventually Armstrong did admit he must have dropped the "a".

 

Just to clarify, ‘it’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind’ in English that means one small step for mankind, one giant leap for mankind… You see the contradiction?  Without putting ‘a’ in there (one small step for a man…) Armstrong delivered a statement that meant absolutely nothing to mark what is regarded at the first ever televised, significantly historical event.

It’s certainly not evidence of proof either way but it is very interesting to think that one of the most famous quotes of human history makes no real sense! The question is was it intentional?

 

 

Moon Rocks

 

Physical proof that we went to the moon, or physical proof that people will believe anything they’re told… 

 

The distribution of material collected by the lunar missions, unsurprisingly, has been very limited and when samples are released it is usually only to close associates of NASA and other mainstream scientific bodies who will be unlikely to challenge the official line.  

President Richard Nixon famously gave 270 moon rocks to foreign countries as gifts, as symbols of peace. But it should be noted that the small lunar stones, which are better described as dust and pebbles rather than moon rocks were embedded inside an acrylic button meaning they cannot be examined.

Interestingly of the 270 Apollo 11 Moon Rocks and Apollo 17 Goodwill Moon Rocks that were given to the nations of the world by the Nixon Administration approximately 180 are currently unaccounted for.  Upon further research it appears NASA also seem to have a habit of loosing lunar materials, including the original video footage from Apollo 11, yes thats right, NASA lost the video footage... What did they just leave it lying around? Did someone record over it, or is this just more complete and utter bullshit.  Its hard to scutinise evidence that no longer exists and thats why the vido footage has been conveniently 'lost'...

 

Moon Rock samples that have not been ‘lost’ are also questionable; it is a fact that there are many examples of fakes and forgeries when it comes to moon rocks, a notable example is the sample donated to the Dutch Rijksmuseum by a former Prime minister who had been presented the “moon rock” by the three Apollo 11 astronauts during their “One Small Step” tour in 1969, the museum confirmed on August 26th 2009 that the sample was nothing more than petrified wood.

 

Leonard David, Senior Space Writer, writes:

“Safely sequestered here at the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC), Moon specimens are protected from natural hazards such as tornadoes and hurricanes. Sealed for study in nitrogen-filled cabinets, the lunar sample inventory is also GUARDED AGAINST EARTH CONTAMINATION, preserving the history-telling tales they hold about the origins of our solar system.”

Despite this testament to the safety and protection from contamination even some NASA funded experts have called into question the levels of contamination;

Andrew Steele, an astro-biologist at NASA’s JSC from the University of Portsmouth in the United Kingdom said

"It was quite alarming, I thought I was looking at hairs from an astronaut. But they turned out to be brush fibers.”

Working with lunar sample curators, Steele was part of a team using powerful instruments to eye the condition of select Moon materials. He not only found brush bristles, but bits of plastic, nylon and Teflon, as well as a few earthly organisms having a picnic within lunar samples.

 

How is it so that these lunar samples have become so contaminated under such closely monitored and guarded conditions?

 

The fact is that very few people have had the opportunity to examine moon rocks, and even fewer, if any at all, who haven’t been employed or funded by NASA themselves. However, as Andrew Steele reports some of those examples that have been examined show more Earthly features than what genuine samples should surely exhibit.

This is probably the most contested point regarding a conspiracy over the moon landings and believers often regard it as physical proof that we have been to the moon.  But there is not one reliable source that can confirm the authenticity of the samples.  The fact remains that there is nothing to compare the samples with so we absolutely have to take NASA’s word for it that the samples aren’t all forgeries.

I honestly have found it very difficult to wade through the immense amount of “crap” on the internet about moon rocks, but the get out clause, if you like, is that there is no more evidence to prove they are genuine than there is to prove they are fake.  Moon rock samples could have been collected at any time, from anywhere, and even if some did come from the moon, they may not have been collected during the Apollo 11 mission, after all NASA has been using various techniques to bring back extra-terrestrial materials from space for decades, including, more recently, Mars. 

Therefore the existence of moon rocks being independently verified as genuine at this late stage still does not prove that Apollo 11 landed on the moon. 

 

 

Photographic evidence

 

Surely, if moon rocks don’t satisfy you then photographic evidence and the ‘live’ footage, which received an estimated viewing audience of 450 million people, should be enough to put any doubts to rest? Oddly, or perhaps obviously, the footage and photos raise more questions and doubt concerning the official NASA story.

This is a point that has been talked about a lot. I’m not going to detail all of the anomalies here because its been done in so much detail so many times before, but I will pick on a few examples where I believe tell tale signs of a conspiracy are lurking regarding Apollo 11 specifically. 

That’s not to say that the other Apollo photographs can’t be ‘debunked’ - http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo3.htm - lots of links to videos and details of anomalies with Apollo photograph and video evidence.

 

The extra-ordinary high amount of photos taken during the Apollo 11 landing, discounting time spent on other activities, results in one photo per 15 seconds for Apollo 11. This is even more remarkable considering that many locations in the photographs are said to be situated miles apart and would have taken considerable travel time, especially in bulky pressure suits.

On top of this, the camera used for the moon landing photographs, a Hasselblad 500 EL attached firmly to the chest of the astronauts, had no useable viewfinder, was equipped with only basic aperture, focusing and exposure controls and had to be operated through thick pressurized gloves. Considering this, it is amazing that any of the photos were in focus, and it defies all odds that so many crisp, clear, high quality photographs could be taken in these circumstances. Another problem was of course radiation, not only for the astronauts, but the radiation would have fried any pictures they would have tried to take as well.

It’s worth noting as you read on that all of the photos I have used in this section here are official NASA photographs from the Apollo 11 mission and can be viewed on the following official NASA website: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/ndxpage1.html

I honestly don’t think they need explanation, its obvious that many of these photos have been edited without the need to thoroughly investigate, but for the purpose of making a balanced judgment lets have a look at some of the obvious examples of blatant forgeries… The mainstream conspiracy sites/publications focus on weak elements of the conspiracy such as the lack of stars in the photos or the waving flag, although there are points for and against both sides of those arguments, many sites/publishers are out there make the evidence of conspiracy appear weak and therefore reinforce the idea that there is no conspiracy…  

00098 perspective? nope

No mainstream publications or broadcasters would ever share evidence that proved decisive in exposing a conspiracy, I’ve seen many a documentary which has been reasonably well balanced but still concludes after an hour or two that there is simply not enough proof to say a conspiracy exists and its highly unlikely such a lie could be so well kept…  But it hasn’t been! Those who choose to research sources outside of the mainstream will see blatant flaws in the stories we’ve been told. We may have been to the moon at some stage, but Apollo 11 and almost certainly all of the Apollo missions were faked and can be proved as such.

 

 

Moon on Earth?

 

00098 iceland moon surface

Looks remarkably like the moons surface dont you think?

But this is actually Iceland where its alleged scenes may have been filmed...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And this is Cinder Lakes, Flagstaff, Arizona. Just to show how 'real' you can make something appear...

00098 recreating the moon on earth

00098 recreating moon on earth 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps the most revealing of all evidence a photograph of Buzz Aldrin standing in front of some mountains taken in Mauna Kea Hawaii in 1969.   

00098 buzz hawaii

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you look closely at the mountains you may notice they also appear in the background of several photographs taken by astronauts apparently on several different Apollo missions…

 

 

00098 buzz moon mountain

 

But in case you weren't sure...

00098 moon is in hawaii

 

 

We see that background appear in at least 3 different Apollo missions yet they never went back to the same place, smells like bullshit to me...

But then does it really surprise you to learn these ridiculous looking photographs are not real, isn’t it blatantly obvious?

This...

 

 

00098 lunar-lander obviously genuine.

 

...is as real as this...

00098 red dwarf

 

 

The major difference of course being that Red Dwarf looks like it actually could get you to the moon and back, the lunar lander looks like a 5 year old put it together with scraps of waste material...

 

 

The Flag

 

When the first moon landing was shown on live television, as well as reports of scattered wires and even coca cola bottles visible on the moons surface, viewers could clearly see the American flag waving and fluttering as Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin planted it.

The obvious problem here is that there’s no air in the moon’s atmosphere, and therefore no wind to cause the flag to blow, but photos of the landing also seem to show the flag rippling in a breeze, how can this be? Armstrong said it was because the flag had been folded…

 

Interestingly, if you look at the Apollo archive there are some very strange pictures of the flag; the examples here show two photos taken apparently from both sides of the flag.  It shouldn’t require much explaining what the problems are here… There are several…

 

00098 flag compare 3

  1. Why is the colour of the flag vastly different from one picture to the next?
  2. Why are the shadows and creases in the flag identical from both sides? (This is especially odd considering video footage shows the flag moving.)
  3. Why does the ground the flag is on appear to be different in both photos?

 

 

 

 

 

Inconsistent Shadows Caused by Studio lighting?

 

In these pictures how can the shadows not be consistent when there is only one source of light?

00098 Multiple light sources official nasa

 

If these Astronauts were actually standing in the light of the sun their two shadows should be at the same exact angle and same length...

00098 elongated shadow

Yet they are not. Why is shaddow A so much longer and at a different angle? Because studio lighting was being used...

00098 elongated shadow explained

 

 

00098 build your own apollo 11

The Lunar Lander

 

 The hilarious lunar lander, which appears to be made from excessive amounts of tin foil and sticky tape, allegedly bought the astronauts safely onto the Moons surface. 

 

 

 

 

 

...Does this really warrant further investigation or do you still believe this thing could fly men through space and land on the moon…?

 

 

00098 TRW Incorporateds artist concept depicting the Apollo 11 Lunar ModuNASA expected the lunar lander (Lunar Excursion Module - LEM) to be descending on a huge jet of flames until it reached the surface of the moon.  Pre mission artwork of the lander also supported the belief that its blast would have been powerful enough to have left a significant blast crater underneath the lunar module to mark its landing. 

 

 

 

 

00098 so fake

 

 

However, in no video footage or photograph of the landings is a crater visible, almost as though the module was simply placed there.

 

The surface of the moon is covered in fine lunar dust, and even this doesn’t seem to have been displaced in photographic evidence, yet another phenomenon.

 

 

 

The Classic Photograph of Buzz

 

One of the undeniable and most commonly pointed out flaws regarding the Apollo 11 photos is from the famous Buzz Aldrin photo shown here. 

00098 classic buzz photo

This is such an important piece of evidence, although widely discussed and debated I will go through it here again, but not in too much detail, because its been said so many times before.

 

a) Spot the Difference

Despite NASA saying that the photo has never been retouched there are two different versions of this photo that exist today. A version of the photo issued by NASA media services crops the photo and adds extra sky at the top.

00098 classic buzz photo

00098 original photo. 

Clearly this photo has been edited to make it more pleasing to the eye, Aldrin now appears more central and his helmet is no longer right at the top of the picture. – You may say there’s nothing wrong with making the photo more pleasing to the eye for publicity reasons, I agree, but NASA deny that any editing or cropping has ever take place.

 

b) Picture perfect Camera Angle/Focus/Composition

00098 perfect composition

 

In this photo Armstrong appears in the reflection of Aldrin’s visor and can be seen operating the camera fixed to his chest allegedly taking the very photo we see.

However, the photograph appears to have been taken from a high angle viewpoint, revealed by the face that we can see the top of Aldrin’s oxygen pack and the reflection of the horizon in his helmet appears to make a perfect compositional continuation with the horizon in the background, not uncommon in NASA photos – it makes it more pleasing to the eye.

 

If Armstrong took this photo, at chest height as the reflection suggests and NASA claim, then the horizon line should be around Aldrin’s chest.

 

The photo of Buzz is so picture perfect that its almost a dead giveaway just considering the fact that the photo has a beautiful composition, which could be coincidence, although more likely planned or edited to make it such, the lighting is clearly fake as Buzz’s front is lit up yet his black shadow casts down in front of him defying the laws of physics as they had no additional lighting… Another example of defying the possible is how both the foreground and distant background, remarkably, are in perfect focus, again, common with NASA photography, but as a photographer will tell you, it is virtually impossible for two objects that are far apart in the lens of a 70mm camera to be in the same plane of focus. One of the two objects will always be out-of-focus. (I explain how NASA achieved this later…)

Any amateur photographer, or even anyone who considers it for a moment can clearly see that there is no way that Armstrong took that photo.

The camera angle theory is explained in more depth by others elsewhere, but I think I’ve covered that in adequate detail…

 

c) Lighting

As briefly mentioned above it is clear to see that Aldrin appears to be standing in a pool of light, as if some sort of studio spotlight is focused just behind him, on his left side.  NASA says absolutely no spotlights or other lighting equipment were taken to the moon, but the sun does not produce pools of light in a cloudless vacuum.  This is yet another recurring phenomenon in many Apollo photographs.

Adding further mystery to the lighting, despite having a clear pool of light behind him, the front of Aldrin’s space suit is illuminated very clearly and yet bizarrely his shadow is in front of him and it is so dark that no detail can be seen within it at all.  Explanations given by NASA suggest that light reflecting from the moons surface accounts for this, but the moons surface has a very low degree of reflectivity, similar to that of tarmac and it would not have given such luminosity to Aldrin’s suit.

Some suggest that the exposure may have been tampered with to reveal the detail, however, this theory doesn’t stand because this would also bring out detail in his shadow, which is densely impenetrable.

Do these photos convince you that we landed on the moon? When I started compiling my own research and viewed the NASA archives I laughed my way through the pictures, they don’t even look real!!!

 00098 hilarious lack of blast crater00098 moon

And there are more signs of tampering here as you can see from the close up view, cross hairs disappear in early versions of the NASA photos and in later publications they have been re-edited to appear as though they were always there...

00098 AS11-40-5931- 2004 scan xhair00098 AS11-40-5931- 1998 scan xhair

00098 crosshair bleeds out00098 crosshair visible

NASA still claim no editing of course...

 

Hopefully I’ve given you enough substance to form an opinion, I grant my argument is fairly one sided, because as I said before it is genuinely laughable if you research it independently and still conclude that we did land on the moon, sure it’s a big lie, but in comparison to some of the other big lies described in my articles, relatively, this one is tiny, so on that basis alone, we should be open to the idea that something could be faked on this scale…

 

Which brings us to... 

 

How it was Faked

 

Some theories say Disney were responsible but I came across a very good article which examined the way Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landings and I must say it’s a very convincing piece of work and stands as the more believable version of truth than that of Disney or indeed of it having been real.

While directing Dr. Strangelove, Kubrick had asked the US Air Force for permission to film one of their B-52 bombers for the movie, however officials at the Pentagon read Kubrick’s script and rejected his request to actually film the inside and outside of a B-52 - Kubrick’s film was about a flight squadron that had been ordered to fly to Russia and drop nuclear bombs on that country. It was clearly a satire on the military and
US nuclear policy; understandably, the Pentagon did not want to assist Kubrick in this satirical undertaking.

Undaunted by the rejection, Kubrick used various special effects to create the B-52 in flight. When viewing Dr. Strangelove today, these special effects look quaint and old fashioned, but in 1963 they were pretty spectacular. And it is rumored that 
NASA saw what Kubrick had done in Dr. Strangelove and, admiring his creativity, designated Kubrick as the person best qualified to direct the Apollo Moon landing. If he could do that well on a limited budget, what could he do on an unlimited budget?

Stanley Kubrick’s brother, Raul Kubrick, was the head of the American Communist Party and it is also one of the possible avenues pursued by the government to get Stanley involved in the project.

In the end, it looks like Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landings in return for two things. The first was a virtually unlimited budget to make his ultimate science fiction film: 2001: A Space Odyssey; and the second was that he would be able to make any film he wanted, with no oversight from anyone, for the rest of his life.

 

The president of MGM at the time in 1968 publicly stated that he never even saw a rough cut of 2001: A Space Odyssey during the entire four years of production. 2001: 
A Space Odyssey was one of the most expensive films ever made at that time. Does it even seem remotely possible that executives who funded the movie never scrutinized the film during its production? Why weren’t they more interested in this very expensive endeavor?

Perhaps the reason why is because MGM did not fund 2001, the US Government did...

00098 kubrick nasa

 

The film production for 2001: A Space Odyssey started in 1964 and the film was released in 1968. The Apollo 11 program began in 1964 and culminated with the first moon landings on July 20th, 1969.  It is very interesting to note that scientist Frederick Ordway (Pictured above) who was Kubrick’s top science advisor for 2001: A Space Odyssey, was also working both for NASA and the Apollo program…

For 2001: A Space Odyssey, Kubrick used a cinematic technique called 'Front Screen Projection'.

Kubrick did not invent the process but there is no doubt that he perfected it; Front Screen Projection is a cinematic technique that allows scenes to be projected behind the actors so that it appears, in the film/photo, as if the actors are moving around on the projected scene. Similar to green screens as we know them today.

After closer inspection of many Apollo photographs it is clear to see the same technique being used. It is also claimed that the Kubrick’s fingerprints can be seen all over the NASA Apollo photographic and video material, (but NASA has lost the original footage, of course...)

 

Visit http://realitysandwich.com/23226/kubrick_apollo/ for more detail into front screen projection and scene comparisons between 2001: A Space Odyssey and Apollo missions.

 

The front screen projection theory also explains why when the Apollo photographic record is examined, the exact opposite of what one would expect to find is discovered. Instead of many out-of-focus shots, we find that nearly every shot is in sharp focus. And, as previously stated, the astronauts have an uncanny sense of composition - especially when one remembers that they are not even able to look through their camera’s viewfinders.

00098 on the moonAll Apollo images have the unmistakable quality of highly polished professional photographs - before embarking on his film career Stanley Kubrick was a professional photographer working for Look Magazine - although even a professional photographer looking through the viewfinder of the camera would be hard pressed to produce images with such crystal clear focus.

The fact that everything is in focus in the Apollo record proves the photos are fake and are produced using Kubrick’s technique of Front screen projection; As one goes through the entire Apollo record they will discover that the astronauts photos never seem to have a problem with depth of field.

Even though you could never get everything to remain in focus over such vast distances here on Earth, somehow we are expected to believe that the rules of physics are bypassed when men shoot photographs on the lunar surface…

 

Adding to the conspiracy…

In the original release of 2001 there were credits thanking NASA and many of the military and aerospace companies that worked with NASA on the moon landings for their help in the production of the film. These credits have since been removed from subsequent releases of 2001.

 

00098 the shining apollo 11

 

Many people believe Kubrick left cryptic clues in his films, in particular The Shining; some people have gone to great lengths to tie up imagery and symbolism with this film and revelations about Kubrick faking the Apollo missions…

 

 

 

Stanley Kubrick died soon after showing his last film Eyes Wide Shut to the executives at Warner Brothers.

It is known that Warner Brothers were very upset about the film and they wanted Kubrick to re-edit it, but he refused and conveniently for WB, Kubrick died before the film was released allowing Warner Brothers to subsequently edit the film themselves, which they’ve admitted to having done…

To this day they refuse to release a DVD of Stanley Kubrick’s cut. Not only is this a direct violation of the agreement that Kubrick had with Warner Brothers, but it also means that we will probably never see the un-edited version of this film.

One has to wonder what was cut out?

 

Eyes Wide Shut was released on July 16th, 1999, Kubrick had insisted in his contract that this be the date of release and despite his death this was honored…

 

Was Kubrick leaving one final clue?

 

July 16th, 1999 was exactly 30 years to the day that Apollo 11 was launched.

 

Coincidence?

 

web analytics