How stanley kubrick got chance to direct Apollo missions?

originally posted by: Ujwaleshwar123456789
a reply to: minkmouse
sorry i forget to post this link:
Proof

realitysandwich.com...

Fantastic and compelling article by Jay Weidner. The pieces of the puzzle come together more and more. People criticize Weidner because he's "making a buck" from Apollo by offering his material for sale in different formats. That costs money to produce films and dvd's, duh!

Well, the Apollo astronauts have made money from Apollo, too. This cannot be denied. Books. Auctions. Appearances. Even the Apollo 15 crew were sanctioned by NASA and fired from the astronaut office for their greedy smuggling attempt.

www.cnn.com...

That's called making a buck from Apollo. Howard Hughes would know something about making a buck from NASA.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Sparkymedic

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Sparkymedic

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Sparkymedic

originally posted by: TheMasterOne

originally posted by: Ujwaleshwar123456789
How stanley kubrick got chance to direct Apollo missions?
we all know apollo 11 to 17 are staged mission ( except apollo 13).
i am asking how stanley kubrick got involved???

Read here for your answer

I have been following this thread for a while, and was going to post the same thread you have. The Howard Hughes - Tricky Dick connection is quite compelling. To me it makes more sense than Kubrick faking the Apollo missions. I highly recommend everyone on this thread to read the thread posted by TheMasterOne. At the very least, for a different perspective.

Yes, it makes the compelling case that Richard Nixon single mindedly worked to immortalize his arch political enemy, John F. Kennedy.

Stranger things have happened.

I'm just sharing another perspective of a conspiracy theory. Believe what you want, but you don't have to be rude about it. I'm assuming your rhetoric is sarcastic.

If you think about what Sayonara is claiming, it is inherently contradictory.

That is wonderful. Can you elaborate? Whats with people on here just making a statement and assuming everyone knows what they are talking about. Finish your thought with some substance!

If you read the thread in question, you would understand. Sayonara believes that Richard Nixon dedicated twenty years of his life to faking the Moon landings, starting even before he became Vice President. All of this effort served to fulfill the goal of " landing men on the Moon and returning them safely to Earth," proposed by John F. Kennedy, the man who defeated Nixon in the 1960 election. Everyone remembers Kennedy's speech; no-one remembers the phone call Nixon made to the astronauts. Self defeating, wouldn't you say?

Again, stranger things have happened.

Personally, this theory is just as likely as them actually going to the moon. Could they have gone? Sure. Could they have faked it? Sure. To know truth is to know everything...it is impossible to know everything, and therefore truth. That said, believe whatever tickles your fancy. This theory tickles mine.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

you call the article " Fantastic and compelling "

now lets cut to the chase - do YOU actually believe the " shadow inconcistency " claim ???????????????????

JW appears to - if he doesn't - why is it in his article ???????????????

but the question is - do you believe it

just gauging your grasp of reality and intulectual honesty

a reply to: Sparkymedic

To know truth is to know everything...it is impossible to know everything, and therefore truth

It is not necessary to know everything in order to know the truth. You may not know how mobile phones work, but you know whether or not the phone number on your business card is true.

I swear..another we didnt land on the moon thread. This was debunked on mythbusters. The moons dust is highly reflective as well in case someone is refrencing the astronaut lit up in a shadow for one. and the other picture that claims two light sources was debunked as wel. the area they landed on was not perfectly smooth.near the lander was a slight ridge that blocked the landers shadow,and makes it look like there was 2 sources. They even debunked the flag waving. i forgot what exactly but they busted it too.

originally posted by: HomerinNC

Show me 100% proof this is true and I'll believe you.

See this Video:

a reply to: Ujwaleshwar123456789

that video is simply a list of several of the worst arguments against Apollo

it is not " proof " of anything unless you are attempting to demonstrate the scientific illiteracy , gullability and poor reasoning of hoax believers

OH let me see how i can tear the vid to shreds. One. Flag was nto a standard flag. it has a mesh in it to allow it to be manipulated to make it look like its blowing. No stars showing up. EVer hear of light pollution? The moons surface is reflective. If it wasnt you would not be able to see the moon lit up in the sky during a full moon a s bright as it is.

The reflection of the light over powered the star light. Also those cameras were made to focus fast as well and while wearing suits. Specially designed cams for them.

The footprint was also debunked. apparently you CAN make a footprint that defined on the moon. See the mythbusters episodes on moon landing hoax. Also the astronaut in the landers shadow. Easy. THE moons reflective surface lit him up. I mentioned it in my previous post.

Ok th eastronaut in front of sun. ONCE AGAIN THE MOONS SURFACE is reflective enough to light him up. its one reason they wore their gold shields to save their eyes. The "C' Photoshop. its too clear too perfect.

And my final thing. what studio has a building THAT FREAKING LARGE? Anaysis of th ephotographs can tell you distances if you use algebra and a few other things. ALso they didnt have Believable green screens/blue screens back then either. have you seen the movies of that set of years?

Op we appreciate you trying and posting a thread but you are trying too hard.

originally posted by: yuppa
OH let me see ..... hard.

so what are telling you to me, moon landing is fake or real?

originally posted by: Ujwaleshwar123456789

originally posted by: yuppa
OH let me see ..... hard.

so what are telling you to me, moon landing is fake or real?

OP we appreciate you being here. Sorry if i am seeming harsh,but really we went to the moon. We have not been back officially though for some strange reason. Still dont feel bad about it. sometimes its entertaining to read these theories. Just take the information you get with a grain of salt ok?

originally posted by: Ujwaleshwar123456789

originally posted by: yuppa
OH let me see ..... hard.

so what are telling you to me, moon landing is fake or real?

It was real.

Realize that this subject has been discussed to death here on ATS for literally years and years. Just about every single angle of trying to prove it was a hoax has been explored on here, from photos to the videos they took. From the lander to the landing area. From the technology needed to fake it vs. the technology needed to get there. From the Van Allen belts making it impossible right down to a case of German Measles.

It's your right to research and bring things you find here to ATS. ATS is member content driven. If no members were to bring anything to talk about, then this forum would be a ghost town.

However, keep in mind that many of us have debated this subject on here for a long time, so be prepared to have your ducks in a row. Keep in mind that there are many people here on ATS that are experts in certain fields and will point out if you're wrong about something. We have professional photographers on here who are well versed in the area of photography and know all about lighting, reflective surfaces, light scatter and many of us take astrophotography photos of the stars and know what it takes to capture them on film.

You have engineers on here. You have historians on here. You have those that were actually alive and were adults during that time.

Does that mean you shouldn't post on here about it? Why no. You can post all you want about it, just be ready to be picked apart by others on here, especially if all you have is a Youtube video.

However, there is a flip side to that: You can use ATS as a research place for this very subject. You could make posts asking questions about this subject. Most of us here will be happy to answer, and it can be anything: photos, engineering parts of it, the physics of it, etc.

Heck, we even have a member on here, Sayonara Jupiter, who has researched this so much that I'm sure he can help you with it (not saying I agree with his views....and his Richard Nixon avatars he uses creeps me out all the time), but he is well versed in all things Nixon and Moon Landings.

So don't let our barking scare you. You have just as much a right to post things on here. Just keep in mind that this subject is about like a dead horse being beaten.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
It was real.

That was a great piece of writing eriktheawful.

The only serious Apollo threads would be found in the Research section where only Scholars can post. There is no flaming or trolling in the Research forum. But most of the time Apollo threads become a ## horrendous pile of circlejerking space enthusiasts whipping on naive noobs.

We all know the the OP needs to go look at the ATS Apollo Forum... but... nope... ATS doesn't have a dedicated Apollo forum where noobs can go to ask questions.. That's why every random Apollo thread turns into a #festival for trolls and shills and it only took 3 years on ATS that I have figured this out.

here on ATS that are experts in certain fields

That's the truth! But experts won't bring anything to a thread like this one. Why would an expert waste time in a # thread like this? Yet, experts can still be wrong and their authority is limited to the quality of their sources.

I think we should flush this thread down the toilet and create an Apollo Forum with Scholar credentials... where the noobs can ask questions and not be attacked from all sides.

Is it time for ATS to straighten up and fly right, to do the right thing with the Apollo subject matter? I would even go so far to propose the actual name for the forum should called "Apollo Subject Matter".

Then the moderators can spend a couple of weeks migrating all the important "Apollo Subject Matter" threads into the new forum so that we don't have to keep repeating this

senseless ritual of random Apollo threads...

if we were indeed all of us true to the motto of "Deny Ignorance" we should seriously consider doing something that contributes substantially more to our knowledge of Apollo.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

excellent point i get bored when the shill's arrive to spoil it all like a pack of hungry wolves as i pointed out this is a conspiracy site , why do they care if they are 100% sure it went down like it did back then .

Do they troll N.A.S.A site's telling them how it could do the job better , but with the vast internet to play with they haunt conspiracy site's telling people they are wrong wrong wrong .

I love reading the conspiracy side of it and the amount of study you have put into this S/J top drawer
only last week i saw DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER again with new eyes and the post's and thread's you authored on this gave me a chuckle while watching .

keep up the good work and never let the bugger's win

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

The only serious Apollo threads would be found in the Research section where only Scholars can post. There is no flaming or trolling in the Research forum. But most of the time Apollo threads become a ## horrendous pile of circlejerking space enthusiasts whipping on naive noobs.

Of course, there are no "Apollo threads" in the Research Forum.

a reply to: IceHappy


I have reluctantly believed for a few years that the moon landing was faked by Stanley Kubrick, but that video (The Shining Code) has made me believe the moon landing was real. Terrible video. Most of the things pointed out in the video seem absolutely ridiculous (ex: look how the windows look kind of like an eleven, look how the elevator is red like communism)

And I have seen similar videos showing similar things related to The Shining, 2001, and the moon landing connection. When I saw those (a few years ago), they seemed believable. That was simply not believable.

Maybe the videos I watched in the first place were BS too, I'm going to have to go back and rewatch some..

I also am beginning to change my view on the moon landings. I used to be very much in the hoax camp but the more I read, I am now leaning towards the true camp.
I never expected to change and I hate to admit it but thats how I am now heading.

Check out this new film
It's an admission by Kubrick himself!!!

Vimeo.com...

SHOOTING STANLEY KUBRICK

originally posted by: Ujwaleshwar123456789
we all know apollo 11 to 17 are staged mission

That claim is just a silly conspiracy theory not based on anything factual.

i am asking how stanley kubrick got involved???

He did not get involved - what evidence do you have he was involved?

originally posted by: Ujwaleshwar123456789
How stanley kubrick got chance to direct Apollo missions?
we all know apollo 11 to 17 are staged mission ( except apollo 13).
i am asking how stanley kubrick got involved???

Let me fix your post:

originally posted by: Ujwaleshwar123456789
How Stanley Kubrick got chance to direct Apollo missions?
we all know apollo 11 to 17 are staged mission ( except apollo 13).
i am asking how stanley kubrick got involved???

(notice my avatar)...

originally posted by: BROADCASTREAM


Check out this new film
It's an admission by Kubrick himself!!!

Vimeo.com...

SHOOTING STANLEY KUBRICK

Your link didn't work for me, but if this (link below) is the video you were trying to link, I have a few questions:

1.) How do we know this is an actual interview with Kubrick. I see some guy's face that may or may not be Kubrick, but the audio doesn't go with the video. The words being spoken could have been spoken by anybody.

2.) What the hell is up with the editing of this video? You figure such an Earth-shattering interview would be presented in a more straightforward format, rather than the fast-cut editing of scenes and audio clips from his films interspersed with audio of a supposed interview, and video of some guy with a beard.

Here's the video that I think you were trying to link. There is some discussion about the Apollo landings being faked starting at about the 17:50 mark, but like I said, I have no way of knowing the person talking is really Kubrick, and the editing style makes it difficult to even figure out what he is saying:

Shooting Stanley Kubrick