Stanley Kubrick Confesses to Faking the Moon Landing

a reply to: UnifiedSerenity

god i hope people watch the whole thing.until i watched the "out take " i thought it was real!

Fake interview by a scam artist.
www.theguardian.com...

I'll believe it if proof of Stanley Kubrick
being called "Tom" by his friends is found.
So nope.
Also no one pushed Kubrick around,
especially some impatient much less
knowledgeable younger man.

Regardless that was an interesting find OP
so Stars and Flag.

a reply to: Bybyots

Come on Bybyots; I've come to expect meatier posts than that from you. Any opinion?

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

I've come to expect meatier posts than that from you.

Sorry, I've recently been to college.

Whatever meat you are expecting, expect there to be less of it.

a reply to: UnifiedSerenity

Vid is a hoax.

I believe the previous thread that linked it to a channel, the YouTuber took it down...because the video is a hoax (moon hoaxers hoaxing videos....smh.....).

I suspect this thread will be moved from here to somewhere else shortly......

This, again???

Really???

Come on! A supposed confession isn't proof of anything, except the need some have for attention. All a "confession" of that sort is is a claim, unproven, and as such, no such statement should be given any merit without solid evidence. It's no more convincing that guys that "confess" to committing this or that crime, when they don't even know the details.

We can add this one to the rest.

Someone claims to have worn "the suit" for the PG Bigfoot film. No suit, no proof. Just a bid for attention.

Someone claims to have faked the Surgeon's Photograph of Nessie, conveniently forgetting that he took two, and that the neck/head position is changed from one to the next. No proof, just a bid for attention.

Now, supposedly, Kubrick claimed he faked the moon landing? If that's him, and who can be sure, it's still unproven, and, as far as I am concerned, just a bid for attention.

Aren't there enough real conspiracies around that we don't need this sort of thing to make the whole shebang look foolish?

originally posted by: Vector99
and for comparison, look at the noses

And the browline. Browlines don't flatten out over time.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: CovertAgenda

Just looked, my guess is something behind him is moving (looks like a curtain or something) and at the low resolution it was filmed at distortions will be created by the camera focusing on a moving object behind the guy

Mmmm maybe, i agree with the resolution creating an overall issue, but to me there seems to be almost a blending of two images, or a perspective morphing effect... checkout around 013-015

pryingopen3rdeye's comment could ring true because it seems to affect the whole image when it occurs.

a digitally cropped, zoomed, and stabilised copy of an analogue video?

BTW... You think a digital conversion of an analogue recording of a CGI video would be picked up by your CGI detector?

originally posted by: UnifiedSerenity

originally posted by: CovertAgenda
a reply to: Vector99
You may notice that 'Kubrick' says nothing about the Sibrel incident, only the interviewer, and at that, it could have easily been added later as a simple voice over. (around the 8.46 mark)
The other thing bugging me regarding this is the weird aspect ratio changes, almost a morphing effect, throughout the whole video, but most pronounced around the 8.30 mark onwards.
You seem to be a self proclaimed CGI expert, so what do you make of that?

Did you watch the "out take" video? It's a hoax.

When did i say otherwise?
I said...A few lies among the truths or a few truths among the lies?

Remember ...OblivionX sprung it early on page 2

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: UnifiedSerenity

Why would someone, let's say "nervous", not anonymously contact a media source such as the guardian and sell it for big bucks? Sometimes it's best to step back, breathe, and let common sense take over.

Not to mention Russia, who would probably make the person with that proof the new Prime Minister.

Also, are you 100% sure that is Kubrick?

drop the poor "what about russia?" argument. they were faking themselves. gegarin was not actually in the capsule.
do the research www.checktheevidence.com...

a reply to: ceetee

Your PDF references Bart Sibrel right on the first page, coincidentally that is the exact spot I stopped reading it.

a reply to: UnifiedSerenity

Why is this thread promoted to into the waste bin within a record time..?

If this is realy Stanley talking ... which I doubt because that is not the way Kubrick sounds like when he speaks... but if so, it certainly should take a little longer before to be dismissed as a hoax

originally posted by: UnderKingsPeak
I'll believe it if proof of Stanley Kubrick
being called "Tom" by his friends is found.
So nope.
Also no one pushed Kubrick around,
especially some impatient much less
knowledgeable younger man.

Regardless that was an interesting find OP
so Stars and Flag.

There is of course the fact that Kubrick was a very intelligent guy and a film maker. If the guild of faking of the moonlandings (hence the hidden messages in his films) ate his soul alive it should be no surprise he would leave a message for the citizens of this planet after his death. Of coure there is the happiness of his family to worry about..for not doing something like that.

This is the outtakes video of the video here. I think it is different. Posted by teslarocks in the last closed thread. I particularly enjoyed the 'director's' Nixon impressions

I find it hilarious that people believe this, i can barely sop laughing long enough to type after reading through this thread.. xD

this is part of the promotional material for a 2002 mockumentary, "Dark Side of the Moon". Kubric and his mates were clearly taking the mickey.

Seriously, rent or download or stream the film, it's hilarious and does a very good job job of appearing legitimate until about 1/2 way through..

Navigating carefully between lies and truth, the film mixes fact with pure invention. We will use every possible ingredient : 'hijacked' archive footage, false documents, real interviews which have been taken out of context or transformed through voice-over or dubbing, staged interviews by actors who reply from a script and, of course, interviews with astronauts such as 'Buzz' Aldrin ...

The progress of film and television technology has made it possible to manipulate images without it being obvious. Even the use of archive pictures is no guarantee for authenticity since they can be used to substantiate very different "facts". How can the spectator KNOW what he watches? Beware!

This is not an 'ordinary' documentary... It's intent is to inform and entertain the viewer, but also to shake him up, make him aware of the fact that one should always keep a critical eye...

originally posted by: Indigent
a reply to: UnifiedSerenity

Guy dies in 1999 and the interviewer mentions a 2002 incident, around 8:50 into the video...

Incidentally, that's Buzz Aldrin. Different guy. "Kubrick" is talking about Neil Armstrong...

Also I'm wondering:

What's the point of hiring an actor to falsify this confession and then immediately follow that up by releasing the "outtakes" video which cheeses the whole project? Could these be planted to counter the existing rumors that the real Kubrick did in fact fake those missions?

originally posted by: spygeek

I find it hilarious that people believe this, i can barely sop laughing long enough to type after reading through this thread.. xD

Yeah I figured it was a hoax, but I didn't find it hilarious the entire planet hadn't watched every mocumentary ever made, but I am happy you seem to be versed on the 80 year back catalogue to be able to pop into ATS and share you condescension.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

but I didn't find it hilarious the entire planet hadn't watched every mocumentary ever made

ATS is not the entire planet though, is it?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Urantia1111
Bit fishy??
Dont forget.... Original(?) version got taken down pretty quickly and replaced within the hour, the original post here at ATS got taken down (see my previous), and the current (possibly) other fake version takes its place. (hamfisted video editing - refer my previous comment) ..... and we all now happily accept its a fake.... (and this version certainly is)

Did anyone else here see the earlier version?

I did.