Did Stanley Kubrick fake the Apollo Moon missions?
The moon landings are one of the most famous and widely discussed conspiracies of our time.
Have we ever really been to the Moon?
There is key evidence to support the theory that we did in fact go to the moon.
- The testimonies of the people involved, (astronauts/NASA employees, etc)
- Moon rocks and lunar dust bought back to Earth
- Scientific data and studies
- Photographic and video evidence of the missions
The truth should be effortlessly supported by evidence. If we have been to the moon, there should be no reason why the evidence cannot be presented beyond reasonable doubt.
Our history books would tell you that 24 people have flown in the vicinity of the Moon. Twelve of those people, on six independent missions, set foot on the lunar surface, most famously, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin.
NASA (The National Aeronautics and Space Administration) is an independent agency of the U.S. federal government responsible for the civilian space program, aeronautics, and space research. NASA was established in 1958, succeeding the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. NASA employees are employees of the federal government.
Without detailing examples and going off the subject completely, I shouldn’t need to remind anyone of the fraud and corruption that has taken place within the Federal Government of the United States since its conception; to suggest that 12 government employees are not capable of fraud and deception through the facilitation of government lies is somewhat arrogant. It is not beyond reasonable doubt to suggest that the US federal government may even have employed people specifically for the task of perpetuating the lie. This would not be the first or last example of such an incident.
In summary, regarding the testimonies, it does not matter how respected and how trusted someone may be, just because they said something doesn’t make it true. The same is the case for all NASA/government employees and especially the 12 who claim to have been to the moon. NASA astronauts of the 1960’s came from good military stock, if they believed the safety and prestige of America was at stake, patriotic allegiance at the expense of the truth might come easily. 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… Nothing to lose, everything to gain. They’re American heroes now.
Moon rocks and lunar samples returned to Earth
“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.”
I had to include the quote above, I found it while researching and it made me laugh.
While it is claimed that moon rocks and lunar dust and samples were returned to Earth by the Apollo Astronauts, very few of these rocks or samples are available for inspection or scrutiny. 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.
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 astrobiologist 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 fibres.”
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 did these lunar samples become so contaminated under such closely monitored and guarded conditions?
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. Of the 270 Apollo 11 Moon Rocks and Apollo 17 Goodwill Moon Rocks that were given out, approximately 180 are currently unaccounted for.
On August 26th, 2009, a ‘moon rock’ donated to the Dutch Rijksmuseum was confirmed to be nothing more than petrified wood. The sample had been donated by former Prime minister Willem Drees, who had been presented with the rock by the three Apollo 11 astronauts during their “One Small Step” tour in 1969. (Source)
Lunar samples under scrutiny are often contaminated, fake or just plain old lost.
If you like conspiracy theories, you will like this…
An article from BBC news in 2014 declared ‘traces of another world found on moon’. The article describes that analysis of lunar rock brought back by Apollo astronauts shows traces of a planet called Theia. (BBC Article)
Theia is a hypothesised ancient planet said to have existed (which translates to ‘made up to fit the story’) in our early Solar System that, according to the giant-impact hypothesis, collided with Earth around 4.5 billion years ago. The moon is said to have been miraculously formed by some of the resulting debris. Well, that’s been the accepted scientific theory since the 1980s, if you can believe it?
The article goes on to say the researchers claim that their discovery finally confirms this theory.
The data in this research came from a total of just three (Apollo) lunar rock samples. It’s findings, despite the headline, were nothing alien whatsoever, and claiming to confirm the Theia theory is a stretch beyond the imagination.
The research involved measuring the difference in what is called the isotopic composition of the oxygen (the ratio of different forms of oxygen) contained in rocks on Earth and Moon rock. Its conclusion? According to Dr Herwartz, "we have now discovered small differences between the Earth and the Moon. This confirms the giant impact hypothesis."
While Herwartz seems pretty sure of himself, even the article goes on to report:
“Prof Alex Halliday of Oxford University, is among many scientists who are surprised that the difference between the Theian material found in the Moon rock and the Earth is so small.
..."What you are looking for is a much bigger difference, because that is what the rest of the Solar System looks like based on meteorite measurements," he said.
Studies of meteorites from Mars and the outer solar system show that these ratios are markedly different - rather like a fingerprint. So, Prof Halliday and others are puzzled by the fact that the fingerprints of Earth and Theia seem almost identical.
…One possibility is that Theia was formed very close to the Earth and so had a similar composition.”
It is widely accepted by scientists that the lunar rock samples retrieved by Apollo astronauts were found to be very similar in composition to Earth's crust, logic would consider then that maybe the samples are not from the moon but are from Earth? This is not considered because it is a wild conspiracy theory - meanwhile, scientists continue working hard to prove ‘giant-impact hypothesis’. A hypothesis they laughingly call ‘scientific’ when its entire scientific basis relies on the existence of a fictional planet recorded nowhere in history, and some gravel!
How about another possibility? The reason the so-called “fingerprints of the Earth and moon” are “almost identical” is because the lunar samples are not lunar samples and were found right here on Earth.
Sorry, no made-up planets named after fancy Greek goddesses or cataclysmic events based on wild theories to report, just a bit of logical thinking… maybe NASA has been lying?
Another wild conspiracy theory - government agency lies… What will I come up with next?
There is no source except NASA who can confirm the authenticity of the lunar samples.
What is a moon rock or lunar dust? What should it be made from? We have no scientific basis to prove (or disprove) that these rocks are in fact moon rocks because there is nothing to compare the samples with. This is the case, whether they are moon rocks or not. Therefore, are so-called moon rocks physical proof that we went to the moon? Is it beyond reasonable doubt?
Moon rock samples could have been collected at any time, from anywhere, and analysis obviously suggests they’re from Earth, despite the wild theory that they must be from a fictional ancient planet, that coincidentally happened to be remarkably similar in composition to the Earth. (Who believes this stuff?)
The lack of independent studies and inability to make like for like comparisons with genuine samples of lunar materials make it impossible to verify the origin of the samples claimed to be from the moon.
“Moon rocks - one of the most completely verifiable scientific achievements of the 20th century” – In a word, no.
"A final nail in the coffin of the Moon hoax theories is a simple instrument installed 50 years ago by Apollo 11. During their day on the Moon, Armstrong and Aldrin planted a lunar laser ranging retroreflector array on the surface. It’s still operational today and allows us to reflect lasers off of it and measure the distance to the Moon down to the centimetre. We simply couldn’t do this if we hadn’t visited the Moon." (Source)
Did we really go all the way to the moon and install a device to measure the distance between the moon and the Earth? Perhaps we did, but this is all based on computer modelling engineered by NASA technology - the data relies upon the five retroreflectors installed on the Moon during the Apollo program. Who can verify that this information is the result of instruments placed on the surface of the moon? Only NASA employees and the astronauts who allegedly placed them there. It is not beyond reasonable doubt to suggest that a computer model is designed to generate the information given by the so-called lunar laser ranging retroreflector array or that the reflectors themselves are not actually on the moon but located somewhere else, or that the whole thing is complete nonsense? How would we know? Who analyses this information? Who can verify that the information is correct? (Hang on I’ll just get my tape measure…)
The (un)scientific History of the Moon
The moon landings and the samples returned to Earth told us much about what we believe about the formation and history of the moon.
“According to (NASA) scientists the geological dating of rocks brought back during the Apollo missions, helps scientists not only illuminate the moon and Earth’s history of bombardment but also calibrate a timeline for the ages of other solar system bodies…
…At the moon’s center lies a small iron-rich core, spanning roughly 300 miles across, as revealed by analyses of seismic waves passing through the moon’s interior using Apollo-era seismic records of lunar tremors.”
This ‘scientific’ history of the moon is nothing more than unprovable theory and wild speculation based on the testimonies of government (NASA) employees and seriously contaminated and questionable ‘lunar’ samples also gathered and examined by the same government agency. We will never be able to answer questions like ‘how was the moon formed’ all the time we have NASA blatantly lying about the origin of the ‘lunar samples’ being examined.
How can anyone prove or disprove what the history of the moon is? Or that the composition of the moon’s surface is what NASA claim it is via their samples? Or that seismic data collected by NASA relates in any way to the Moon? We can’t. No independent body or group can verify this. Again, we are left taking NASAs word for it.
Photographic and Video Evidence
The 1969 Apollo 11 moon landing was transmitted to an estimated viewing audience of 450 million people. It is confirmed by NASA themselves that they have ‘lost’ the original apollo 11 data tapes, see here - (you must be kidding, have they checked in the kitchen?) - but they do assure us that there is no missing footage from the moonwalk as the data was recorded elsewhere. Phew!
Apart from this, we have an online NASA Photo library with over 8000 photos of the Apollo missions. https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums and official NASA website: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/ndxpage1.html
Is this undeniable evidence that we went to the Moon?
No, in the same way the film ‘Independence Day’ is not undeniable evidence that an alien spacecraft blew up the white house, it is a Hollywood production.
The extra-ordinary high number of photos taken, 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. The camera, (a Hasselblad 500 EL) was attached firmly to the chest of the astronauts, it had no useable viewfinder, was equipped with only basic aperture, focusing, and exposure controls, and had to be operated through thick pressurised gloves. It is highly unlikely that so many crisp, clear, high-quality photographs could be taken under these circumstances.
Photographers, does this photo look like it was taken by someone not particularly skilled in the art of photography, with nothing but natural light, a camera that had no useable viewfinder, was equipped with only basic aperture, focusing, and exposure controls, and had to be operated through thick pressurized gloves?
All Apollo images have the unmistakable quality of highly polished professional photographs although even a professional photographer looking through the viewfinder of the camera would be hard pressed to produce images with such crystal-clear focus.
As one goes through the entire Apollo record, they will discover that the photos never seem to have a problem with depth of field - any skilled photographer would tell you this doesn't happen by chance on every shot, the camera settings would need constant adjustment with each photo to maintain the consistency shown in the apollo records.
Crystal-clear and razor sharp focus, perfect depth of field. Typical of almost all Apollo photographs.
Rather than dissecting photos or footage and highlighting inconsistencies and anomalies, which has been done many times, I am going to highlight how easily the footage and photos could have been falsified, what techniques may have been used, by whom and why.
In 1963, NASA and USGS (The United States Geological Survey) scientists mapped a portion of the moons craters and proceeded to create an exact replica at Cinder Lake in Flagstaff, Arizona. (The site still exists today but the craters have naturally reduced over time.)
Chosen for its porous volcanic gravel, the former volcano provided a more than suitable analogue for moon rock. However, to accurately simulate the surface of the moon, using hundreds of pounds of dynamite, the scientists created an identical field of craters in a carefully ordered series of blasts. At the end of a four-day period of controlled explosions, they had succeeded in creating a 500 square foot "simulated lunar environment" - forty-seven craters of between five and forty feet in diameter designed to duplicate at a 1:1 scale of the Mare Tranquillitatis, the Apollo 11 moon landing site.
Above: On the left Cinder Lakes, on the right the moon
Once the fake moon surface was constructed it was used officially for Astronaut ‘training’. It is not difficult to see how much of the apollo 11 mission could have been staged and filmed at Cinder Lake, a full-scale replica of the apollo 11 landing site was built there - it would be the ideal location. To say this is not possible is like saying we weren’t making movies in the 60’s.
Looks like the moon, but this is actually Cinder Lakes in Arizona. You can still visit the remains of the site today.
One man who was making movies in the 60’s was Stanley Kubrick, frequently cited as one of the greatest filmmakers in cinematic history.
Did NASA employ Stanley Kubrick to direct the 1969 moon landing at Cinder Lake?
There is evidence to confirm that Kubrick was involved with NASA on various projects, and similarities to the front projection technique used to film ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ can be seen throughout NASA photos.
While directing ‘Dr. Strangelove’, Kubrick had asked the US Air Force for permission to film one of their B-52 bombers, however, Kubrick’s film was clearly a satire on the military and US nuclear policy, of which Kubrick previously stated he had reached the conclusion that "nobody really knew anything and the whole situation was absurd". Understandably, the Pentagon did not want to assist Kubrick in this satirical mockery of US policy and rejected his request to film a B-52. Undaunted by the rejection, Kubrick took the production to England with a $2 million budget to employ what became the "first important visual effects crew in the world". Kubrick and his crew used various special effects to create the B-52 in flight for his film. These special effects may look quaint and old fashioned today, but in 1963 they were quite spectacular.
It is possible 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?
Total Executive Control
Whereas in the early stages of his career, Kubrick had been operating within the limits of his contracts, by the end of the 1960s he was pushing the boundaries of what his contracts allowed, taking control of aspects of production that was still legally in the hands of the studios. Robert O’Brien, the president of MGM in 1968, publicly stated that executives never saw a rough cut of ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ during the entire four years of production. The reason being said to be Kubrick’s “overriding desire for centralised control of his productions”. It was one of the most expensive films of its time, coming in $4.5 million over budget, at around $10.5million.
The rest of Kubrick’s career would see him allowed equally unyielding levels of control over his film productions, a rare privilege for any film director.
Kubrick struck a three-picture contract in 1970 with Warner Bros and a further three-picture contract in 1984. During these years Kubrick had unprecedented levels of producing authority, with almost total executive control of his films up until his final production in 1999, ‘Eye’s Wide Shut’.
Kubrick’s unexpected death days after presenting a final cut to Warner Bros meant his version was not the one that would be released in cinemas four months later, on July 16th, 1999 – Exactly 30 years to the day after the Apollo 11 spacecraft was launched from Cape Kennedy on July 16, 1969.
Some say that Kubrick littered his work with clues to his involvement with the apollo program, not just the contractual agreement that ensured 'Eye’s Wide Shut' was released on the anniversary of the Apollo 11 launch.
Above: Kubrick referencing Apollo 11 in the Shinning as Danny approaches room 237
2001: A Space Odyssey
The original cinematic release of Kubrick’s ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ credited 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. Kubrick hired Graphic Films Corporation as a design consultant for 2001, the corporation previously made films for NASA, the US Air Force, and various aerospace clients.
2001 pioneered the use of front projection with retroreflective matting. Kubrick used the technique to produce the backdrops in the Africa scenes and the scene when astronauts walk on the moon.
2001 scene using front projection technique
The front projection method may explain why, when we examine the Apollo photographic record, instead of many out-of-focus shots, we find that nearly every shot is in sharp focus.
If you are in any doubt, apollo 17 photographs AS17-136-20685 and AS17-147-22527 demonstrate front projection perfectly, (below).
Above: Front projection used by Kubrick for 2001 may explain why apollo photos are in such sharp focus,
and would explain how identical backgrounds appear in different locations.
Above: Buzz Aldrin poses infront of a familiar background.
These mountains in Hawaii also appear in apollo 17 (as shown above) and apollo 15 missions on the moon.
Kubrick films are well known for their unique cinematography, his previous career as a professional photographer helped but Kubrick also had access to techniques no one else had, well, almost no one…
In the 1975 film Barry Lyndon, Kubrick used lenses developed by Zeiss to film scenes under natural candlelight. The Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm f/0.7 is one of the largest relative aperture lenses (fastest) in the history of photography. The lens was designed and made specifically for the NASA Apollo lunar program to capture the dark side of the Moon in 1966. In total there were only 10 of these lenses ever made. One was kept by Carl Zeiss, six were sold to NASA, and three were sold to Kubrick.
Frederick Ordway (above) was Kubrick’s top science advisor for 2001, he was also working for NASA and the Apollo program.
Based on the evidence, it is reasonable to consider that Kubrick and NASA conspired to fake the moon landings. Both had plenty to gain.
Stanley Kubrick received a virtually unlimited budget to make his ultimate science fiction film: 2001: A Space Odyssey; and he would be able to make any film he wanted, with no oversight from anyone, for the rest of his life.
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. On May 25, 1961, President Kennedy had made a commitment to land a man on the moon before the end of the decade, but there are many factors to consider besides the space race against Russia. 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.
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.
In April 2010, I published a blog entry 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’.
“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. (Is that some kind of Death Star, the moon perhaps?)
Motives for lying about the Apollo moon landings include tensions with Russia in the space race, political gains, and the long-term goal of militarisation of Space which is now well underway. Without public support being generated from the moon missions many of the (secret) orbital programs and space missions that followed could not have happened.
Did NASA employ Stanley Kubrick to falsify the apollo moon landings?
The debate will continue, but there’s more evidence and reasons to suggest he did than there is evidence to confirm the scientific theory of the existence of Theia… at least this conspiracy has some truths to base itself on.