It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Kubrick-A-Brak: Part Two
page: 14
share:
This is a continuation of part one, www.abovetopsecret.com...
Part 2: A Space Odyssey*
*(I am no expert; all opinions here are open for debate)
‘2001’ set the standard for motion picture special effects, a standard that few films today meet. Kubrick, as we know, was a multifaceted auteur; a man of many arts who could achieve nearly anything he set his mind to.
The visuals of ‘2001’ were concocted by a team of new and old guard (at the time) effects artists.
Fred Ordway, a NASA consultant and Harry Lange as served as production designers. The exhortation was realism. Make it as realistic as possible. Look at the beautiful curve of the Discovery’s centrifuge, everything methodically planned to be user friendly and functional; high standards and a vision of perfection were not laughable things in the Kubrick rulebook.
Following the production designers, special effects artists Tom Howard, Kubrick himself, and Douglas Trumbull worked with a very large team to create visuals that had never been attempted before. Most of the non-practical effects were shot in camera, using a multi pass system similar to what George Lucas and company used for Star Wars almost a decade later…the defining difference being Kubrick’s insistence that they shoot all effects on the same negative. No duplication, no blue screen, no room for error. The results are astonishing, and hold up very well even today.
However, if you have had the pleasure of seeing ‘2001’ in high definition blu ray, you could observe that even these high quality shots look like what they are, models. Gorgeous-incredibly detailed, but models none the less.
So, how then could something like the Apollo films, images, and television transmissions been faked using the same technology?
All of the moon surface imagery we see in ‘2001’ is forced perspective models and top down relief maps. I have posted images showing how unnatural the lunar surface looks in the movie compared to the real surface.
images.astronet.ru...
Oblique view:
www.universetoday.com...
The reality of the lunar surface is that it is less abrupt and more ‘weathered’ features. No soaring rock pinnacles, no vast steep canyons, no strange monoliths calling out to Jupiter.
Why would Kubrick not use his vision of lunar desolation? Would it not call out to the hearts of men? If he truly directed the Apollo missions, why then did he not include a close encounter with ancient artifacts? Wouldn’t that have enhanced its importance and ensured even more clandestine funding?
Zero Gravity Toilet
One of the biggest contentions of hoax believers is that everything in the documented footage, including the moon walks themselves, was shot on a soundstage.
The practical effects used in the 1960s to simulate weightlessness were/are called wireworks. Basically, a system of pulleys and a counterbalance work to lift a human body off the ground and into the air. NASA used an advanced version of this for their 1/6 g training simulations:
Walter Cronkite testing the unit: www.danamackenzie.com...
Very cumbersome system, I would say. I can’t imagine how you could visually deemphasize such large cables, especially when the astronauts are clearly visible from all angles: www.youtube.com...
Of course, Kubrick and crew could’ve created a whole new system that could replicate 1/6 g- but it still doesn’t explain how wires are NOT visible in any of the high res images or high quality videos.
The stuntmen doing the Frank Poole rescue scene in the movie were physically and mentally exhausted after performing their aerial acrobatics.
www.visual-memory.co.uk...
From the same website as the above image:
For one thing, Kubrick was determined that none of the wires supporting the actors and stunt men would show. Accordingly, he had the ceiling of the entire stage draped with black velvet, mounted the camera vertically and photographed the astronauts from below so that their own bodies would hide the wires.
"We established different positions on their bodies for a hip harness, a high-back harness and a low-back harness," he explains, "so that no matter how they were spinning or turning on this rig - whether feet-first, headfirst or profile - they would always cover their wires and not get fouled up in them. For the sequence in which the one-man pod picks Lockwood up in its arms and crushes him, we were shooting straight up from under him. He was suspended by wires from a track in the ceiling and the camera followed him, keeping him in the same position in the frame as it tracked him into the arms of the pod. The pod was suspended from the ceiling also, hanging on its side from a tubular frame. The effect on the screen is that the pod moves horizontally into the frame to attack him, whereas he was actually moving toward the pod."[/]
files.abovetopsecret.com...
files.abovetopsecret.com...
That’s it for this segment. Going into this project, I assumed I could breeze through each topic rather quickly; of course, reality has more to say about it. There will have to be many more chapters covering other elements of the ‘hoax’, so my work here is not even close to being done.
What does everyone say? Opinions, criticisms, antagonism-all is welcome!
Part 2: A Space Odyssey*
*(I am no expert; all opinions here are open for debate)
‘2001’ set the standard for motion picture special effects, a standard that few films today meet. Kubrick, as we know, was a multifaceted auteur; a man of many arts who could achieve nearly anything he set his mind to.
The visuals of ‘2001’ were concocted by a team of new and old guard (at the time) effects artists.
Fred Ordway, a NASA consultant and Harry Lange as served as production designers. The exhortation was realism. Make it as realistic as possible. Look at the beautiful curve of the Discovery’s centrifuge, everything methodically planned to be user friendly and functional; high standards and a vision of perfection were not laughable things in the Kubrick rulebook.
Following the production designers, special effects artists Tom Howard, Kubrick himself, and Douglas Trumbull worked with a very large team to create visuals that had never been attempted before. Most of the non-practical effects were shot in camera, using a multi pass system similar to what George Lucas and company used for Star Wars almost a decade later…the defining difference being Kubrick’s insistence that they shoot all effects on the same negative. No duplication, no blue screen, no room for error. The results are astonishing, and hold up very well even today.
However, if you have had the pleasure of seeing ‘2001’ in high definition blu ray, you could observe that even these high quality shots look like what they are, models. Gorgeous-incredibly detailed, but models none the less.
So, how then could something like the Apollo films, images, and television transmissions been faked using the same technology?
All of the moon surface imagery we see in ‘2001’ is forced perspective models and top down relief maps. I have posted images showing how unnatural the lunar surface looks in the movie compared to the real surface.
images.astronet.ru...
Oblique view:
www.universetoday.com...
The reality of the lunar surface is that it is less abrupt and more ‘weathered’ features. No soaring rock pinnacles, no vast steep canyons, no strange monoliths calling out to Jupiter.
Why would Kubrick not use his vision of lunar desolation? Would it not call out to the hearts of men? If he truly directed the Apollo missions, why then did he not include a close encounter with ancient artifacts? Wouldn’t that have enhanced its importance and ensured even more clandestine funding?
Zero Gravity Toilet
One of the biggest contentions of hoax believers is that everything in the documented footage, including the moon walks themselves, was shot on a soundstage.
The practical effects used in the 1960s to simulate weightlessness were/are called wireworks. Basically, a system of pulleys and a counterbalance work to lift a human body off the ground and into the air. NASA used an advanced version of this for their 1/6 g training simulations:
Walter Cronkite testing the unit: www.danamackenzie.com...
Very cumbersome system, I would say. I can’t imagine how you could visually deemphasize such large cables, especially when the astronauts are clearly visible from all angles: www.youtube.com...
Of course, Kubrick and crew could’ve created a whole new system that could replicate 1/6 g- but it still doesn’t explain how wires are NOT visible in any of the high res images or high quality videos.
The stuntmen doing the Frank Poole rescue scene in the movie were physically and mentally exhausted after performing their aerial acrobatics.
www.visual-memory.co.uk...
From the same website as the above image:
For one thing, Kubrick was determined that none of the wires supporting the actors and stunt men would show. Accordingly, he had the ceiling of the entire stage draped with black velvet, mounted the camera vertically and photographed the astronauts from below so that their own bodies would hide the wires.
"We established different positions on their bodies for a hip harness, a high-back harness and a low-back harness," he explains, "so that no matter how they were spinning or turning on this rig - whether feet-first, headfirst or profile - they would always cover their wires and not get fouled up in them. For the sequence in which the one-man pod picks Lockwood up in its arms and crushes him, we were shooting straight up from under him. He was suspended by wires from a track in the ceiling and the camera followed him, keeping him in the same position in the frame as it tracked him into the arms of the pod. The pod was suspended from the ceiling also, hanging on its side from a tubular frame. The effect on the screen is that the pod moves horizontally into the frame to attack him, whereas he was actually moving toward the pod."[/]
files.abovetopsecret.com...
files.abovetopsecret.com...
That’s it for this segment. Going into this project, I assumed I could breeze through each topic rather quickly; of course, reality has more to say about it. There will have to be many more chapters covering other elements of the ‘hoax’, so my work here is not even close to being done.
What does everyone say? Opinions, criticisms, antagonism-all is welcome!
edit on 1/13/2012 by NuminousCosmos because: (no reason given)
This is a nice review of Kubrick's work and some of the ways that he achieved certain effects in the movie. I had never read about the way he
concealed the wires with the camera placement and such. Good job on that thanks. But you presented exactly ZERO evidence to back up your assertion
that 'there is no way Kubrick could have faked the moon landing.' No evidence provided at all. Just an essay basically, on a myriad of subjects.
Your post is well written, but there is nothing presented for me to even enter into any dialogue with you. Nothing to make a counter-claim to,
because you make no claims. Respond to the comments I made on Part 1 or present evidence or an argument worthy of debate and I will be happy to
continue to contribute to this thread.
edit on 14-1-2012 by JayDub113 because: (no reason given)
reply to post by JayDub113
The evidence is that he demonstrated in film a poor understanding on how things really look and move on the lunar surface, not to mention the lunar surface itself. He must not have had access to the number of NASA Surveyor images sent to the moon prior to manned flights to 'survey' landing sites. He must have been too busy making a film instead!
Why do the 2001 movie images of the lunar surface look so different than the Apollo images?
If as is suggested he filmed fake Apollo landings, what changed his representation of lunar surface activities and terrane?
The evidence is that he demonstrated in film a poor understanding on how things really look and move on the lunar surface, not to mention the lunar surface itself. He must not have had access to the number of NASA Surveyor images sent to the moon prior to manned flights to 'survey' landing sites. He must have been too busy making a film instead!
Why do the 2001 movie images of the lunar surface look so different than the Apollo images?
If as is suggested he filmed fake Apollo landings, what changed his representation of lunar surface activities and terrane?
reply to post by Illustronic
I will concede all these points. The depictions of the moon in the movie do look different.
This thread is about all the reasons why Kubrick didn't and his depicting things on the moon differently isn't a sound argument for that premise. On the other side, Why would someone faking TWO things make them look exactly the same? That would draw suspicion. So there is a logical loop there.
If you are faking two things, since you are in control of both, well they can look any way you want them to. So to say that one doesn't look like the other only proves one doesn't look like the other.
I will concede all these points. The depictions of the moon in the movie do look different.
This thread is about all the reasons why Kubrick didn't and his depicting things on the moon differently isn't a sound argument for that premise. On the other side, Why would someone faking TWO things make them look exactly the same? That would draw suspicion. So there is a logical loop there.
If you are faking two things, since you are in control of both, well they can look any way you want them to. So to say that one doesn't look like the other only proves one doesn't look like the other.
edit on 14-1-2012 by JayDub113 because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-1-2012 by JayDub113 because: (no reason given)
What I'm trying to do with this, I guess essay, is point out the contradictions of a staged lunar landing. Hoaxers like to use Kubrick as their
director of choice, because he made 2001. Even though I love the movie, I am not making this thread to discuss the philosophy or opinions
express in the movie. What I'm doing is making an amateur attempt at explaining how the most advance special effects of 1968-9 couldn't come close
to replicating the documentary evidence returned by the Apollo astronauts.
It's going to take a long time to break down all of the various assertions made by the Hoaxers-and I appreciate your reading of my posts.
It's going to take a long time to break down all of the various assertions made by the Hoaxers-and I appreciate your reading of my posts.
reply to post by JayDub113
Kubrick was a perfectionist. If he felt like it couldn't be done, he would not have done it. His mark is left on all of his works-show a fan a ten second clip of any of his movies and they could identify which film, which scene, probably even Kubrick's mood.
I don't see the hand of Kubrick in any if the footage returned from Apollo 11, I don't see any of his trademarks, and I don't see his mischievousness.
Kubrick was a perfectionist. If he felt like it couldn't be done, he would not have done it. His mark is left on all of his works-show a fan a ten second clip of any of his movies and they could identify which film, which scene, probably even Kubrick's mood.
I don't see the hand of Kubrick in any if the footage returned from Apollo 11, I don't see any of his trademarks, and I don't see his mischievousness.
Originally posted by JayDub113
reply to post by Illustronic
I will concede all these points. The depictions of the moon in the movie do look different.
This thread is about all the reasons why Kubrick didn't and his depicting things on the moon differently isn't a sound argument for that premise. On the other side, Why would someone faking TWO things make them look exactly the same? That would draw suspicion. So there is a logical loop there.
Not a good logical loop IMO. As stated Kubrick was a perfectionist. If he had a perfect lunar terrane it bucks logic he would change it. Kind of why Star Trek had Vulcan looked the same, Klingon, etc...
He would be assassinating his film efforts.
The real reason his moon didn't look the same is because he didn't know when he made the film.
The OP is simply a good article and any attempted refutation of it will be (as always) a combination of tasking to "prove a negative" combined with
an endless list of new theories each of which require several more theories (none with evidence) in violation of Ockum's Razor.
With no pieces left on the board, some simply refuse to admit Check and Mate-- and such are no fun to play with-- they just rearrange the pieces on a new thread only to lose again and again and again.
Wikipedia's article on the mockumentary Dark Side of the Moon is rather iron-clad, but if you sign in and then read the editor's "Talk" discussion page, you can see the insanity of those who simply refuse to acknowledge defeat.
And it is a form of insanity-- sometimes unreasonably held illusions, but sometimes delusions. Personally, I post only for the naive and gullible. The delusional cannot be fixed by reasoning.
I'm going to watch 2001: A Space Odyssey again this afternoon and enjoy this new technical insight as I watch. Thanks.
Bogdanovich's The Last Picture Show last night;
Lucas' TXH-1138 now preempted to watch tomorrow.
And that, folks, is a movie-filled weekend difficult to match.
With no pieces left on the board, some simply refuse to admit Check and Mate-- and such are no fun to play with-- they just rearrange the pieces on a new thread only to lose again and again and again.
Wikipedia's article on the mockumentary Dark Side of the Moon is rather iron-clad, but if you sign in and then read the editor's "Talk" discussion page, you can see the insanity of those who simply refuse to acknowledge defeat.
And it is a form of insanity-- sometimes unreasonably held illusions, but sometimes delusions. Personally, I post only for the naive and gullible. The delusional cannot be fixed by reasoning.
I'm going to watch 2001: A Space Odyssey again this afternoon and enjoy this new technical insight as I watch. Thanks.
Bogdanovich's The Last Picture Show last night;
Lucas' TXH-1138 now preempted to watch tomorrow.
And that, folks, is a movie-filled weekend difficult to match.
reply to post by Frira
Reminds me of another movie, inability to succumb to reason, and factual evidences, admit defeat, so lets call it a draw.
Reminds me of another movie, inability to succumb to reason, and factual evidences, admit defeat, so lets call it a draw.
reply to post by Illustronic
'Tis but a scratch!
'Tis but a scratch!
edit on 14-1-2012 by Frira because: had the quote wrong (but I have had worse!)
reply to post by Frira
The remastered THX-1138 is actually *shock* better than Lucas' original version. It captures more of the essence of 1138's society and it's similarity to our own.
I appreciate the good humor and comments both you and Illustronic posted...perhaps it is a losing battle trying to educate the unwilling; for some reason I keep trying.
The remastered THX-1138 is actually *shock* better than Lucas' original version. It captures more of the essence of 1138's society and it's similarity to our own.
I appreciate the good humor and comments both you and Illustronic posted...perhaps it is a losing battle trying to educate the unwilling; for some reason I keep trying.
Originally posted by NuminousCosmos
reply to post by Frira
The remastered THX-1138 is actually *shock* better than Lucas' original version. It captures more of the essence of 1138's society and it's similarity to our own.
I appreciate the good humor and comments both you and Illustronic posted...perhaps it is a losing battle trying to educate the unwilling; for some reason I keep trying.
I hope that is the same as the "Director's Cut" because that is what I checked-out.
That's good company you put me in-- Illustronic is one of my favorites-- I'm well read on the subject of manned space flight, but Illustronic seems to know everything. JimOberg is another favorite of mine-- I had read his books and then stumbled upon him here when I first signed up on ATS. He shows up on many of the visual anomaly threads about what people think they see from ISS video-- but has long been THE expert on Russian missions-- since back before we were supposed to know.
As for losing battles and trying... People like me soak up whatever we can find-- especially now that new books on such subjects as Apollo are down to a dwindling few-- and it is often on these threads that I find the really neat stuff. So while you are sometimes arguing against opponents who are not going to consider your words, others are being educated by what you write.
edit on 14-1-2012 by Frira because: muddled up that last part
Originally posted by Frira
The OP is simply a good article and any attempted refutation of it will be (as always) a combination of tasking to "prove a negative" combined with an endless list of new theories each of which require several more theories (none with evidence) in violation of Ockum's Razor.
With no pieces left on the board, some simply refuse to admit Check and Mate-- and such are no fun to play with-- they just rearrange the pieces on a new thread only to lose again and again and again.
Wikipedia's article on the mockumentary Dark Side of the Moon is rather iron-clad, but if you sign in and then read the editor's "Talk" discussion page, you can see the insanity of those who simply refuse to acknowledge defeat.
And it is a form of insanity-- sometimes unreasonably held illusions, but sometimes delusions. Personally, I post only for the naive and gullible. The delusional cannot be fixed by reasoning.
I hope this narrative is not copyrighted or - better yet - you don't have the financial resources to hire a good attorney when I plagiarize you in the future.
Originally posted by TheExopolitician
Originally posted by Frira
The OP is simply a good article and any attempted refutation of it will be (as always) a combination of tasking to "prove a negative" combined with an endless list of new theories each of which require several more theories (none with evidence) in violation of Ockum's Razor.
With no pieces left on the board, some simply refuse to admit Check and Mate-- and such are no fun to play with-- they just rearrange the pieces on a new thread only to lose again and again and again.
Wikipedia's article on the mockumentary Dark Side of the Moon is rather iron-clad, but if you sign in and then read the editor's "Talk" discussion page, you can see the insanity of those who simply refuse to acknowledge defeat.
And it is a form of insanity-- sometimes unreasonably held illusions, but sometimes delusions. Personally, I post only for the naive and gullible. The delusional cannot be fixed by reasoning.
I hope this narrative is not copyrighted or - better yet - you don't have the financial resources to hire a good attorney when I plagiarize you in the future.
I'm guessing you were aiming that at the OP, but, I had fun with a similar thought just last night...
A friend of mine plays in several local bands-- and this being a music town-- so do thousands of others. I try to be present whenever my several musician friends perform and almost never pay a cover. So many of the local music venues charge only a token cover or just hang a bucket by the stage marked, "Tips." Our best local artists all have day jobs.
So he sent me a note yesterday asking about a simple matter related to my profession and, his being exceptionally considerate, asked if any fees might be involved. I wrote back that he could toss a dollar in the Tip Bucket if he liked my work.
So there we have it-- really good OP's should have some sort of Tip Bucket beyond flags. Maybe eBay dollars?
On the other hand, I once told an editor, "You know, I'll probably write this stuff whether you publish it or not-- but I don't mind you paying me for it."
reply to post by Frira
If you want to use anything I wrote, knock yourself out. I have all the original material stored on my PC. Since we don't use our real names here, copyright belongs to me in real life, I suppose.
If you want to use anything I wrote, knock yourself out. I have all the original material stored on my PC. Since we don't use our real names here, copyright belongs to me in real life, I suppose.
I rarely drink, don't take drugs and have multiple graduate degrees.
Since I've been in this field for the past 20 years plus professionally - even going back to the 70s, the personal information I have on the matter is somewhat vast. Hence, I still find Kubrick boring as there were many others before him which were of great interest to me. By the way, I taught remote viewing to college students back in the early 80s, so I think I know what I'm talking about. In fact, the group I worked with were practicing remote viewing in the 70s so I guess its been 35 years that I've been involved with it.
RV debunks Kubrick as the fake that he is.
Since I've been in this field for the past 20 years plus professionally - even going back to the 70s, the personal information I have on the matter is somewhat vast. Hence, I still find Kubrick boring as there were many others before him which were of great interest to me. By the way, I taught remote viewing to college students back in the early 80s, so I think I know what I'm talking about. In fact, the group I worked with were practicing remote viewing in the 70s so I guess its been 35 years that I've been involved with it.
RV debunks Kubrick as the fake that he is.
@NuminousCosmos
I'd agree there, and one of the things that stood out to me in 2001 was the Dark. No Hubble-esque colourfull planets, moons, nebula, nothing except some tiny points of light in some scenes, and not even that in others. Black. I saw a documentary where they said that to get the right 'feel' for Kubrick, they literally put pinpricks in the back cloth, with lights behind the cloth. Kubrick had been working with NASA, and found out that when they sent a million dollar f/0.7 lens mounted to a 3 tube colour camera around the far side of the Moon to give us a live view, it saw nothing. If the far side of the Moon, when the Sun is on it, is too dark for the most light sensitive camera ever built to function, someone is not telling the truth somewhere.
Kubrick ended up with one of those lenses, which he used to film the candle lit scenes and other low light portions of Barry Lyndon.
Kubrick was also a good friend of Roger Waters, so the little voice from the Dark Side of the Moon album that says "There is no dark side of the moon, really. Matter of fact, it's all dark" is quite correct. Kubrick could not come out and say this, but he got the message out, even though it was, and has not yet, been recognised as fact. There is still no video, from a normal TV camera, of the far side of the Moon. Any videos from the instruments examining the Moon are not in "white" light. UV, IR, and spectroscopy is what they use, and a lot of computer processing on top of that.
There are some situations, documented in NASA reports, where Earthshine would be 4 times the brightness of the full moon on Earth, and most operations and experiments on the surface would be possible.
So I guess I'm a conspiracy theorist, even though I do think they went to the Moon. It just wasn't like, light-wise, what we are lead to believe.
Kubrick was a perfectionist.
I'd agree there, and one of the things that stood out to me in 2001 was the Dark. No Hubble-esque colourfull planets, moons, nebula, nothing except some tiny points of light in some scenes, and not even that in others. Black. I saw a documentary where they said that to get the right 'feel' for Kubrick, they literally put pinpricks in the back cloth, with lights behind the cloth. Kubrick had been working with NASA, and found out that when they sent a million dollar f/0.7 lens mounted to a 3 tube colour camera around the far side of the Moon to give us a live view, it saw nothing. If the far side of the Moon, when the Sun is on it, is too dark for the most light sensitive camera ever built to function, someone is not telling the truth somewhere.
Kubrick ended up with one of those lenses, which he used to film the candle lit scenes and other low light portions of Barry Lyndon.
Kubrick was also a good friend of Roger Waters, so the little voice from the Dark Side of the Moon album that says "There is no dark side of the moon, really. Matter of fact, it's all dark" is quite correct. Kubrick could not come out and say this, but he got the message out, even though it was, and has not yet, been recognised as fact. There is still no video, from a normal TV camera, of the far side of the Moon. Any videos from the instruments examining the Moon are not in "white" light. UV, IR, and spectroscopy is what they use, and a lot of computer processing on top of that.
There are some situations, documented in NASA reports, where Earthshine would be 4 times the brightness of the full moon on Earth, and most operations and experiments on the surface would be possible.
So I guess I'm a conspiracy theorist, even though I do think they went to the Moon. It just wasn't like, light-wise, what we are lead to believe.
reply to post by GaryN
So it seems that Kubrick confided in almost nobody about the hidden narratives of 2001 and he remained publicly silent on the issue for the rest of his career. The book of 2001, written by Arthur C. Clarke in collaboration with Kubrick, features many significant differences to the film version and lacks the visual encoding described in this review. So even Clark seems to be unaware of the hidden narratives and, on that basis, the book is an unreliable source for unravelling the hidden narratives of the movie.
Problem is with Light and Love and remote viewing, all of this is now debunked.
So it seems that Kubrick confided in almost nobody about the hidden narratives of 2001 and he remained publicly silent on the issue for the rest of his career. The book of 2001, written by Arthur C. Clarke in collaboration with Kubrick, features many significant differences to the film version and lacks the visual encoding described in this review. So even Clark seems to be unaware of the hidden narratives and, on that basis, the book is an unreliable source for unravelling the hidden narratives of the movie.
Problem is with Light and Love and remote viewing, all of this is now debunked.
As further evidence that NASA knew lighting conditions on the Moon would be very low, this declassified report from 1964 explains how they simulated
the conditions they would be dealing with.
The easiest way to get to this document is to Google 19750065843_1975065843.pdf
The easiest way to get to this document is to Google 19750065843_1975065843.pdf
new topics
-
Shane Gillis commercial
Jokes, Puns, & Pranks: 2 hours ago -
Elon Says It’s ‘Likely’ He Buys Tanking MSNBC
Political Ideology: 4 hours ago -
Montelukast affects brain, caused 5 year old to attempt suicide
Medical Issues & Conspiracies: 5 hours ago -
Jaguar Rebrand Video Causes "WTF?" Moment - Seriously Weird
Automotive Discussion: 7 hours ago -
Let's start a conspiracy
General Conspiracies: 8 hours ago -
What Joe Rogan said Vs The View
Dissecting Disinformation: 10 hours ago -
Biden's "Reckless" Decision To Escalate Russia-Ukraine War
World War Three: 11 hours ago
top topics
-
Biden's "Reckless" Decision To Escalate Russia-Ukraine War
World War Three: 11 hours ago, 16 flags -
Jaguar Rebrand Video Causes "WTF?" Moment - Seriously Weird
Automotive Discussion: 7 hours ago, 14 flags -
Elon Says It’s ‘Likely’ He Buys Tanking MSNBC
Political Ideology: 4 hours ago, 14 flags -
What Joe Rogan said Vs The View
Dissecting Disinformation: 10 hours ago, 11 flags -
Montelukast affects brain, caused 5 year old to attempt suicide
Medical Issues & Conspiracies: 5 hours ago, 11 flags -
Shane Gillis commercial
Jokes, Puns, & Pranks: 2 hours ago, 2 flags -
Let's start a conspiracy
General Conspiracies: 8 hours ago, 1 flags
active topics
-
Is Russia Using a New Type of Beam Weapon Against Ukraine?
Weaponry • 22 • : Zaphod58 -
Putin will warn civilians in targeted areas
World War Three • 48 • : annonentity -
Here is why Western leaders in NATO have zero fear of nuclear warfare. At all. Zero.
World War Three • 7 • : yuppa -
Elon Says It’s ‘Likely’ He Buys Tanking MSNBC
Political Ideology • 60 • : watchitburn -
Montelukast affects brain, caused 5 year old to attempt suicide
Medical Issues & Conspiracies • 6 • : RazorV66 -
Well, here we go red lines crossed Biden gives the go ahead to use long range missiles
World War Three • 326 • : yuppa -
Well we know Putins ICBMs won't fail in their silos
World War Three • 171 • : yuppa -
Jaguar Rebrand Video Causes "WTF?" Moment - Seriously Weird
Automotive Discussion • 16 • : BeyondKnowledge3 -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 3348 • : Crazierfox -
Biden's "Reckless" Decision To Escalate Russia-Ukraine War
World War Three • 119 • : KrustyKrab
4