Stanley Kubrick’s Daughter Has A Message For Moon Landing Truthers

Not that I ever believed such a thing about Mr Kubrick but two facts undermine the plausibility of this statement.

1 It's by his daughter. So, no nepotism there then.
2 She is a scientologist...a religion made up by a 20th century US author.

Oooh, I'm convinced.

"The" Moonlandings are fake/not fake. I hate it. There were quite a few. I believe [just because of knowing what governments are capable of] that the FIRST moonlanding was fake, and all the others were real.

They had 9 months from paper plans to actually go to the Moon in order to get to be ahead of the Russians. In 9 months they designed, build the module and rocket, calculated the flight pathm, programmed the on board computers, developed the materials and then flew there and back without a hitch. < YEAH RIGHT!

Something that we somehow can't replicate today. I heard that NASA needs years [10 was a number I remember] nowadays to plan for a new Moon visit. With all our modern technology and knowledge. Why? Just take the old plans, it worked like a treat...

Once established that the USA was first, they could relax and had time galore to build the real modules and rockets and go there.
And they did.Yes, we went to the Moon, there is no doubt about it.

I'm just questioning the FIRST time [and I believe rightly so].

a reply to: ColdWisdom
There are more than enough scientific evidences that prove the moon landing did not happen. It doesn't matter who said what and how many times. People lie, science doesn't. Get a life.

a reply to: groveacc

Anytime I see someone present "science" that the moon landings didn't happen it gets refuted. At the same time there are questions the hoax camp can't answer. For example, the Russians are monitoring the entire mission. If it didn't actually happen why didn't they say anything?

hmm , ms kubricks statement is very curiously worded - at no point does she actually denounce outright the delusion of :

" the appollo missions were faked "

just the insistence that her father had no part in any alledged conspiracy

go figure

a reply to: Xcalibur254

What do you have to say about the idea that we landed on the Moon, just not the first time? I really want to know. Why is it always all or none???

a reply to: Hecate666

They had 9 months from paper plans to actually go to the Moon in order to get to be ahead of the Russians. In 9 months they designed, build the module and rocket, calculated the flight pathm, programmed the on board computers, developed the materials and then flew there and back without a hitch.

So you are under the impression that they landed in 1964? I think you need to read at least a little history.

originally posted by: Hecate666
a reply to: Xcalibur254

What do you have to say about the idea that we landed on the Moon, just not the first time? I really want to know. Why is it always all or none???

Because if it can be done at all, why not do it every time?

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
hmm , ms kubricks statement is very curiously worded - at no point does she actually denounce outright the delusion of :

" the appollo missions were faked "

just the insistence that her father had no part in any alledged conspiracy

go figure

I'm thinking that's probably because she considers herself an expert on her father, but not on the moon landings. Plus, her interest appears to be in defending her father's legacy, not in defending the history of space flight.

a reply to: ColdWisdom
Interesting!
Scientologists are nut-jobs, although i believe he probably faked some of the filming 'for national security reasons' i daresay he bought that story and thought he was doing us all a favour.
I have no doubt we went to the moon, only what we found there is the big cover-up.

All of you naysayers can shut up now:



Moon Hoax Not

LOL i enjoyed that, thanks!
Not sure if i agree 100% with this, but he has some good points.
Remember, these guys at NASA had Photoshop way before WE had it, only they didn't count on the high res & better progs we have now, they were sloppy. I am not saying we didn't go, in fact i'm sure we did, they even had some black box tech to help them, like something that solved the battery issue. I won't go into the real tech we had by then, IMHO most of the NASA missions were window dressing for the sheeple, real or faked.All we saw were the grainy telecast from the video monitors, i can't remember seeing a 'live feed' but then i was 5 at the time
Flagged, mate

After reading Hoaglands book, i went to JPL & found some interesting pics;

Effing Moon

WARNING: Video contains obscene language and techno music.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Hmmm. After having compared some photos and speeches to the OP video, I'd say that looks and sounds as if it could be him.

She strikes me as a bit...um...odd. I suppose she could actually be being coerced to retract the bombshell her father dropped. It might actually even be plausible that she never knew.

Interesting nonetheless.

Except it isn't Kubrick; it's some actor named "Tom".

This video below includes the outtakes for fake Kubrick interview. If you watch this, you will hear the interviewer (who is also the hoax filmmaker) telling "Tom" (the actor playing the fake Kubrick) what to say. The interviewer called the actor portraying Kubrick "Tom" at least three times-- once at about 5:05, at about 13:07, and once at 16:19:

I find it ironic that when her father was alive she had chosen/was forced to disconnect from her father because of his opposition to the church. And yet now that he is dead, she uses almost every opportunity to link herself publicly to her father in order to promote some wild NWO propaganda. Some of what she advocates is legit, I mean I know I don't believe the government's official story on the JFK assassination.

Seen that happen more than once.....

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People


Ah okay. He's a good actor if that's the case.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Not really. I knew it wasn't really Kubrick from the get-go. And for so many reasons...

a reply to: ColdWisdom

I watched about a dozen videos of his speeches/him speaking, and it fooled me. The face is close too...at least to my eyes.

On the subject of the moon landings...I'm pretty torn. I don't think we're capable of doing it today. Not sure how we did it back then.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

If you get the chance, watch The Making of The Shining, produced & directed by Vivian Kubrick. It's the most intimate footage of Kubrick on one of his sets ever captured on film. He had a thick Brooklyn accent, and his beard was unmistakable.

There's also a Kubrick app for the iPhone that has a bunch of audio interviews of his, too.

originally posted by: playswithmachines
Remember, these guys at NASA had Photoshop way before WE had it

How do you know this,where is your proof? As the guy in the video says,they didn't have the tech to fake it,the computers to run anything remotely similar didn't exist in 1969.

A little bit of history here,it's from memory so excuse me if it's not 100% correct.The first version of Photoshop wasn't released to the public until the late 80s or early 90s and involved a couple of brothers,one of whom worked for George Lucas's ILM (Industrial Light and Magic) who of course did the special visual effects for the Star Wars films.As I remember it,the software technology that ILM used prompted the writing of a software program for editing still photos.
ILM pretty well lead the world in cinema special effects,and even NASA had to call on their help to use ILMs motion tracking (I think they're called) camera rigs to film the very first test flights of the space shuttles from F5 chase planes.

NASA really don't have the fantastic ahead-of-it's-time technology that they keep hidden for 20 years or so that conspiracy theorists find it so exciting to claim that they do.Don't forget that a lot of the time they're at the mercy of civilian companies to supply them with their tech.NASA aren't so omnipotent that they just snap their fingers and a genii appears and asks what he can invent for them today.

In fact they were so behind on technology in 1969,do you know how they converted the live slow scan video feed from the moon into faster broadcast standard so we could watch it all happening live? Probably not if you believe NASA had a pre-release copy of Photoshop some 20 years before it was even written.
I'll tell you.They put a TV monitor into a box showing the slow scan TV image with a camera looking at it that was connected to the broadcast TV network,hence the shockingly bad quality of the first live videos from Apollo 11 on the moon.Today we can convert between different TV standards with a $20 box from Radioshack the size of a fag packet.Back in 1969 they did it like this because they didn't know how to do it any other way,i.e. they didn't have the technology.