A Third Option Moon Hoax Theory

I came across this article whilst surfing on the Daily Grail, and I haven't seen it linked to anywhere else on ATS, so I thought I'd post it. I'm not terribly familiar with Jay Weidner's work, but based purely on the contents of this article he doesn't seem to be frothing at the mouth nuts or anything.

From the article:

It has now been forty years since the fabled moon landings by NASA and the Apollo gang. When it comes to the subject of the moon landings, people tend to fall into two belief groups. The first group, by far the bigger of the two groups, accepts the fact that NASA successfully landed on the moon six times and that 12 human beings have actually walked on the surface of the moon. The second group, though far smaller, is more vocal about their beliefs. This group says that we never went to the moon and that the entire thing was faked. This essay presents a third position on this issue. This third point of view falls somewhere between these two assertions. This third position postulates that humans did go to the moon but what we saw on TV and in photographs was completely faked. Furthermore this third position reveals that the great filmmaker Stanley Kubrick is the genius who directed the hoaxed landings.

And here's the link:

external link

I'm no expert at image analysis or the type of trick photography discussed here, so I'd love to hear from people who have some knowledge about such things.

reply to post by BarryZuckercorn


There's a discussion about this on one of the other recent Moon threads, now that the LROC images are being presented.

Basically, the entire Kubrick thing was someone's idea of a joke.

Unfortunately, it's been picked up by rabid "hoaxists" who just won't accept that it's false.


Edit:

Found this. If people actually fell for this obvious bit of satire.....

THE GREAT MOON LANDING HOAX: From the files of Jessica Atwater
(1910-2008), the original Movielady
~~~~~

On the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing, it seemed like a good time to officially release a recently discovered document left by Jessica Atwater (1910-2008), the original Movielady. It has been kept from the public for almost 40 years.

The instructions accompanying this document prohibited its release until after her death.

Thank you to the estate of Jessica Atwater for making this report available.

~~~~~

Estate Property ID Number: 1000255231

"The Great Moon Landing Hoax"
Copyright © 1969 by Jessica Atwater


I wandered around the MGM back lot for over an hour before I saw it. It was a typical smoggy, lung-busting day in Los Angeles. I finally stumbled across the little-used soundstage tucked away in the back, right next to the old train station set. The area looked deserted and the only sound was that of chattering cicadas drilling their racket mercilessly into my brain.

Ummm...i grew up in LA. First time I ever even heard of a cicada was here in the Northeast...

I was just about to turn around and head back to my car when I heard my name called, "Jess, over here." It was Stanley Kubrick and he was walking toward me at a fast clip.

"Jess, I'm so glad you came. You are the only one I can trust.".....

blog.seattlepi.com...

Sounds like quite a story, eh???

"You are the only one I can trust" ??? Really? From the notoriously taciturn Stanley Kubrick??

....Kubrick was noted for the scrupulous care with which he chose his subjects, his slow method of working, the variety of genres he worked in, his technical perfectionism and his reclusiveness about his films and personal life. He worked far beyond the confines of the Hollywood system,...

en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 21 July 2009 by weedwhacker]

I agree that the blog link that you posted does sound like a complete fabrication. To my mind it reads like a high school level creative writing project, complete with bad dialogue. And no, from what I've read of Kubrick, it doesn't sound like him at all.

As far as the LROC photos go... If one doesn't believe NASA to begin with, then one will probably assume that they could easily fake the LROC photos. I'm not endorsing that perspective, but I'm not sure I wholly trust NASA either.

In any case, my real interest in the article that I posted was the photos themselves. This Weidner guy is postulating that the photos were faked using some sort of screen projection for the backgrounds, and he shows several examples. I know very little to nothing about trick photography methods, and was hoping someone more accomplished in that field could illuminate me (and anyone who happens to read this thread) on the points that Weidner raised.

I've seen these things mentioned on other threads, but I've never read anyone's informed opinion on the matter, since most threads having anything to do with the moon hoax/landing topic tend to devolve into your typical ATS slap-fight/flame war between the two dogmatic poles of belief.

Since I'm agnostic about the moon hoax theories I'm hoping to hear something a bit more substantive about the points raised in the aforementioned article.

Very nonsensical argument, even for moonhoaxers. If you fotograph something against a artificial background there is nothing to seperate the "real" foreground from the "fake" background. Why should there?
If you take a foto of yourself in front of a wallpaper, will there be a line between you and the wallpaper? No. If you paint a highly realisitic painting on it, will there be a line surrounding you then? No.

reply to post by debunky


I'm not sure I understand your post. The lines that I think that you are referring to are added to the photographs by the author to identify areas of the photographs that the author found sketchy. Or are you saying that there would be no indication of anything being awry if a fake background was used?

I don't know much about photography/imaging, but the notion that "fake" photos are impossible to differentiate from "real" photos seems nonsensical to me. It strikes me as more likely that if the photos are faked then there should be some way of discerning that fact.

Again, I may have misunderstood your post. If that's the case, my apologies!

reply to post by BarryZuckercorn

This Weidner guy is postulating that the photos were faked using some sort of screen projection for the backgrounds, and he shows several examples.

Well...there are lots of informative sources on the web. One of the things this Weidner does is postulate the 'front-projection' technique, because Kubrick used it in 2001: A Space Odyssey. It was innovative for its day, as a technique. Back in the days before CGI, when they mostly used "traveling mattes" and sometimes blue screen 'chroma key'.

In 2001, the front-projection scenes are only in the "Dawn of Man" opening sequences (can you tell I'm a big fan of 2001?) and they really are pretty crappy, IMO.

What happened was, to keep costs down, and to be able to film in the soundstages there in London, Kubrick had a second unit crew go to Africa and photograph the savannah backgrounds. This way, he could control the set, rather than spend the money to go on location, with all of the actors in the hairy suits, and all the logistics that would entail...weather, Sun angles, etc.

SO, with those images, projected 'front-screen', only the highly reflective screen in the background received the image, it washed out on the actors and foreground scenery. There is a shot of the leopard, when the cat's eyes glow....this is from the 'front-projector'. It's a flaw (one of many) in an otherwise epic motion picture.

Where this filming technique falls apart for the "Hoaxists" is the vast number of still and video images...there is simply NO WAY it could have been done on a soundstage, nor out in the open either.

You know what I see as the biggest problem with the OP's link? It's not that Kubrick was allegedly involved in faking a moon landing.....

it's this:

Authors Joseph Farrell and Henry Stevens both have shown us undeniable proof that Nazi scientists had developed advanced flying saucer technology as early as 1943. These authors also show that the US Government brought these same Nazi scientists into this country in order to build these highly advanced flying machines.

So, we're to believe that Nazi scientiests developed advanced flying saucer technology, and then.... what? Flew them down to Antartica for Project Highjump and left them there? what? They ran out of fuel?

First, I've never seen "proof" -- that commonly bandied about word -- that Nazis ever developed a flying saucer. I think there's evidence it was one of the technologies they were working on.

Bottom line? If the Nazis had actually developed this technology, the war would've gone a LOT differently. Also, while the U.S. did have German and Austrian scientists and physicists, it defies logic to assume that it was the very SAME ones that were brought to the U.S., as inferred by the linked site.

I don't believe that the moon landings were faked. My mind remains open about 70 microns for the possibility, pending valid evidence. 70 microns -- about the width of a human hair.

reply to post by argentus


I'm not suggesting that the moon landings themselves were faked; I am however interested in the possibility that they may have faked photographs, for whatever reason.

The reason why I posted it here is that as I keep saying, I'm fairly ignorant of the technical side of photography/video recording and I figured that some other members might not be.

I agree entirely that words like "proof" are hyperbole. I don't defend Weidner's poor use of language. I'm primarily interested in the pictures that he posted, and the points that he raised regarding them.

I also agree that there is plenty of indication that the Nazis wanted to build flying saucers, and precious little beyond that. That being said there's nothing that I can see that discredits the idea that some other nation did actually manage to build working "UFOs." Of course, there's no clear indication that anyone did, either. But that still doesn't preclude the possibility.

Besides, someone does appear to be buzzing around in what appear to be very advanced mechanical craft, and it's not crazy that at least some of 'em could be man-made.

As far as the idea that these things would be useful in a war, well, that's a pretty big assumption. Especially considering that we know nothing at all about what the "real" UFOs actually are or how they work. Who's to say that there isn't a reason why they would make lousy combat vehicles?

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Where this filming technique falls apart for the "Hoaxists" is the vast number of still and video images...there is simply NO WAY it could have been done on a soundstage, nor out in the open either.

Thanks for your replies. You have a good point about the large number of shots and videos. That volume of data would be very, very hard to fake, although I'm not wholly convinced that it would be completely impossible.

I am still quite interested in the patterning in the sky that *ahem* Richard Hoagland is fond of calling "glass towers," and Weidner calls evidence of front screen projection. I think it's a bit odd that the sky shows that sort of artifacting. If it's photographic noise, then why is it only present in the sky?

reply to post by BarryZuckercorn


Good Find Barry

Jay Weidner certainly has an interesting theory. It is very plausible.

Apollo got started in 1964 and so did the filming of 2001. If anybody caught Kubrick filming the moon landings, he could just say it was for his new movie "A Space Odyssey" ...

Originally posted by BarryZuckercorn

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Where this filming technique falls apart for the "Hoaxists" is the vast number of still and video images...there is simply NO WAY it could have been done on a soundstage, nor out in the open either.

Thanks for your replies. You have a good point about the large number of shots and videos. That volume of data would be very, very hard to fake, although I'm not wholly convinced that it would be completely impossible.

Only 2 percent of all the images taken during Apollo have ever been released.

We have yet to see the other 98 percent that didn't make the grade for release to the public.

[edit on 22-7-2009 by Exuberant1]

Yes, there would be no indication.

from your source:

Next is the same image as above only I have processed it through a graphic program. In this processing I have increased the gamma and increased the contrast.

Please examine:

Now we can clearly see the 'seams' and the 'stitching' of the Scotchlite Front Projection screen in the sky.

At least there would be nothing that would magically show up once you play around with contrast & gamma values.

Edit to add:
He also claims that MGM let kubrick "free reign" because they weren't paying for the film, nasa was.

...

I gotta say i have a hard time imagining a suit having the guts to tell Mr Kubrick how to make his film. (Maybe even while he is going ape because a guy named arthur visited the tycho excavation set and just had to touch the monolith)

[edit on 22-7-2009 by debunky]

Originally posted by BarryZuckercorn
I came across this article whilst surfing on the Daily Grail, and I haven't seen it linked to anywhere else on ATS, so I thought I'd post it. I'm not terribly familiar with Jay Weidner's work, but based purely on the contents of this article he doesn't seem to be frothing at the mouth nuts or anything.

From the article:

It has now been forty years since the fabled moon landings by NASA and the Apollo gang. When it comes to the subject of the moon landings, people tend to fall into two belief groups. The first group, by far the bigger of the two groups, accepts the fact that NASA successfully landed on the moon six times and that 12 human beings have actually walked on the surface of the moon. The second group, though far smaller, is more vocal about their beliefs. This group says that we never went to the moon and that the entire thing was faked. This essay presents a third position on this issue. This third point of view falls somewhere between these two assertions. This third position postulates that humans did go to the moon but what we saw on TV and in photographs was completely faked. Furthermore this third position reveals that the great filmmaker Stanley Kubrick is the genius who directed the hoaxed landings.

And here's the link:

external link

I'm no expert at image analysis or the type of trick photography discussed here, so I'd love to hear from people who have some knowledge about such things.

I just need to point out the Russians with 1/6th of the Earth and about 17 LARGE and advanced research, spy, radio-telemetry ships etc were watching us very, very closely. They would have loved nothing better then to provide truth it was all bogus. You then have at least 8-to-10 other countries that were watching us as well, from land/sea/air. No one said anything because it could be proven we went to the moon. Our ability to so carefully monitor (all the human race) us would have utterly destroyed our credability(spell?), forever. And then you had tens of thousands involved in one way or another in the space program and military. And thats just in or controlled by by the U.S.

Regarding the Russians, what about the possibility that the space race was actually a co-operative endeavor between the Russians and the Americans? If that were the case, and if they were using a technology other than what is officially discussed, then they would have a very good reason for faking the moon photos, even if they did land on the moon.

Originally posted by debunky
Yes, there would be no indication.

from your source:

Next is the same image as above only I have processed it through a graphic program. In this processing I have increased the gamma and increased the contrast.

Please examine:

Now we can clearly see the 'seams' and the 'stitching' of the Scotchlite Front Projection screen in the sky.

At least there would be nothing that would magically show up once you play around with contrast & gamma values.

Why is that? It strikes me as sensible (and not magical) that changing the contrast values and gamma levels on a photograph could reveal features that appeared non-existent in the untouched picture.

That's not to say that the artifacts that appear in these photos are proof of a projection screen, I'm just not so certain that there is just no possible way to determine if projection was used. It also doesn't make sense to me that changing said values and levels would result in an increase in noise in the sky alone, I would think that the whole picture would be affected.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Only 2 percent of all the images taken during Apollo have ever been released.

We have yet to see the other 98 percent that didn't make the grade for release to the public.

If that's true then it would seem to me that some form of trickery is not out of the question at all.

I remember seeing the documentary "Did we land on moon?". While I don't agree with all of it, there were some poignant questions raised.

reply to post by Epitaph25



Here....I found this to address points made in that program.

www.braeunig.us...

reply to post by argentus


I've read a lot of speculation(mostly Farrell's work) on Nazi super tech/science. There have been some very intriguing documents released over the years both through FOIA here, and requests abroad.

There is no doubt that the Nazis had many exotic aircraft IN THE PLANNING STAGES, but beyond that, not much has surfaced in the way of proof that they had working prototypes. I'm sure that there were a few built, maybe even a few flown. Given more time I'm sure they may have even been able to actually fine tune the designs and begun mass production. But I have serious doubts about some of the claims of the development of Zero Point Energy and it's uses in such crafts and the theory that Foo Fighter sightings were actually Nazi UFOs.

I find the evidence for the Nazis developing the atom bomb first to be much more convincing then overall successful development and testing of saucer-like crafts using exotic energy sources.



This theory on the moon landing/hoax is based far to heavily on assumptions based on previous assumptions.

reply to post by BarryZuckercorn


why should it?
To make something "visible" by adjusting contrast it must be there already. What should be at the point where the "real 2D" (from the real object projected on the photos film) meets the "fake 2D" (from the background image) If whoever made the "fake" part of the picture screwed up there might be errors, but they would be visible regardless of contrast values.