57 replies to this topic

[MID]

ali smack, on 15 May 2011 - 11:17 AM, said:

The Moon Landing was obviously real,as there is tons of evidence.
There's not 1 shred of evidence regarding it been faked.

And as for Kubrick Conspriacy.What nonsense.
He simply would have not had the time to do it.

[Ove]

gort., on 08 May 2011 - 12:10 AM, said:

Jay Weidner will discuss with Daniel about his provocative and insightful film which is the first in a series of documentaries that will reveal the secret knowledge embedded in the work of the greatest filmmaker of all time: Stanley Kubrick. This famed movie director who made films such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut, placed symbols and hidden anecdotes into his films that tell a far different story than the films appeared to be saying.
In Kubrick's Odyssey, Part I, Kubrick and Apollo, author and filmmaker, Jay Weidner presents compelling evidence of how Stanley Kubrick directed the Apollo moon landings. He reveals that the film, 2001: A Space Odyssey was not only a retelling of Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick's novel, but also a research and development project that assisted Kubrick in the creation of the Apollo moon footage. In light of this revelation, Weidner also explores Kubrick's film, The Shining and shows that this film is, in actuality, the story of Kubrick's personal travails as he secretly worked on the Apollo footage for NASA.
  May 7th, 2011 8:00 PM EST

Jay Weidner

Kubrick's Odyssey
Proof The Moon Landing was a Hoax

http://www.theedgeam.com/

KuBrick's Odyssey



The "Dark Side of the Moon" (mockumentary) also claims that Kubrick helped the USA fake the moon landings

http://en.wikipedia....n_(mockumentary)

Edited by Ove, 18 May 2011 - 07:15 PM.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Ove, on 18 May 2011 - 07:01 PM, said:

The "Dark Side of the Moon" (mockumentary) also claims that Kubrick helped the USA fake the moon landings

So what? It's a MOCKumentary. It doesn't matter what it claims, it's a piece of fiction.

Quote

A mockumentary (a portmanteau of mock documentary) is a type of film or television show in which fictitious events are presented in documentary format. These productions are often used to analyze or comment on current events and issues by using a fictitious setting, or to parody the documentary form itself. They may be either comedic or dramatic in form, although comedic mockumentaries are more common. A dramatic mockumentary should not be confused with docudrama, a genre in which documentary and dramatic techniques are combined to depict real events.

Source: wikipedia

Quote

Definition of MOCKUMENTARY
: a facetious or satirical work (as a film) presented in the style of a documentary

Source: Merriam-Webster

Quote

mock·u·men·ta·ry [ mòkyə méntəree ] (plural mock·u·men·ta·ries)


noun
Definition:

fake documentary: a movie or television program shot in the form of a documentary but with fictitious and often satirical subject matter ( informal )

Source: MSN Encarta

[DONTEATUS]

We make Fun at ourselfs by thinking that we didnt go to the Moon! One must ask themselfs?
Is it Safe? Is it ?

[MID]

Ove, on 18 May 2011 - 07:01 PM, said:

The "Dark Side of the Moon" (mockumentary) also claims that Kubrick helped the USA fake the moon landings

http://en.wikipedia....n_(mockumentary)

And I trust you should address Waspie prior to taking this any further.   IF...it was your intention of taking this ridiculous Kubrick idea any further???

[Ove]

Waspie_Dwarf, on 18 May 2011 - 07:34 PM, said:

Ove, on 18 May 2011 - 07:01 PM, said:

The "Dark Side of the Moon" (mockumentary) also claims that Kubrick helped the USA fake the moon landings

http://en.wikipedia....n_(mockumentary)

So what? It's a MOCKumentary. It doesn't matter what it claims, it's a piece of fiction.

Maybe KuBrick's Odyssey is mockumentary to ?

Or maybe the purpose of the "Dark Side of the Moon" (mockumentary) was to ridicule the claim, that Kubrick helped the USA fake the moon landings. By making the claim with in this obvius mockumentary (Dark Side of the Moon) ?

The "Front Screen Projection" in the KuBrick's Odyssey is a good explanation.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Ove, on 18 May 2011 - 09:15 PM, said:

Maybe KuBrick's Odyssey is mockumentary to ?

Or maybe the purpose of the "Dark Side of the Moon" (mockumentary) was to ridicule the claim, that Kubrick helped the USA fake the moon landings. By making the claim with in this obvius mockumentary (Dark Side of the Moon) ?

The "Front Screen Projection" in the KuBrick's Odyssey is a good explanation.

Is this all you've got? Are you seriously trying to claim that a FICTIONAL film is evidence of a moon hoax? I don't know which is the biggest joke, the film or your posts.

[MID]

Ove, on 18 May 2011 - 09:15 PM, said:

Maybe KuBrick's Odyssey is mockumentary to ?

Did you mean, "too"?
If so, then no, Kubrick's 2001, A Space Oddysey was not a mockumentary.  It was a classic science fiction film.
You had to be there.

Quote

Or maybe the purpose of the "Dark Side of the Moon" (mockumentary) was to ridicule the claim, that Kubrick helped the USA fake the moon landings. By making the claim with in this obvius mockumentary (Dark Side of the Moon) ?

Mockumentaries are used to parody something on occasion.  However, they are also, especially in this genre, presented as statement of fact. They're all pretty obvious (to the educated, that is), whether they're parody or comedy, or serious, like Sibrel's films were (they were all obvious mockumentaries, but they were used seriously by a fool, to make money from those foolish enough to pay for them).  But you know that (I give you the benefit of the doubt), and you know full well this nonsense is doing just that.

Quote

The "Front Screen Projection" in the KuBrick's Odyssey is a good explanation.

It's a great explanation for the effects that Kubrick produced the in the early scenes of 2001, yes.
But what's that have to do with anything else?  What does it explain other than what it really explains?


And, why Kubrick?
Kubrick hadn't been in the United States, nor had produced a film in the United States since 1962 (and he would never return). 2001 and all of his subsequent films were shot outside the U.S. He was not interested in Hollywood whatsoever.
In fact, Dr. Strangelove was shot at Shepperton, the same place 2001 was shot at...England.

I've asked that question before, and no one's ever given a compelling reason why Kubrick should have bneen the one "selcted" to film faked Apollo landings.

[Ozner]

If Kubrick faked the Moon landing footage they would have been much slower and more melodramatic.

[BertL]

Ove, on 18 May 2011 - 09:15 PM, said:

The "Front Screen Projection" in the KuBrick's Odyssey is a good explanation.

No it's not. It's a terrible explanation, and the fact you bought into it tells just how gullible you are.

Front Screen Projection is a technique where a one way mirror is placed at an angle in between the camera and the set. A projector is then pointed at the mirror so that its projection will fall on the scene. A very light sensitive background is then used to pick up the image. Basically, what it does is project an image onto the complete set which shows up on the reflective surfaces. It also reflects on the foreground objects (like the monkeys and the rocks in the opening scene), but they do not reflect it back so the camera doesn't pick it up.

What front screen projection relies is whether or not anything reflective (except the background) is on the set. It works in 2001: A Space Odyssey because nothing on the sets was reflective. There's a shot in the opening scene where a tiger's eyes reflect back the background. You can probably see where I'm going with this: if front screen projection relies on nothing reflective being on the set, then it is useless for faking Apollo footage. What do you think those highly reflective visors on the astronauts' helmets would be doing? Exactly: reflecting the projected image right back at the camera. Do we see this? Nope. (We can actually see what happens when a helmet's visor in the shot. In this video at around 0:40 there is a long take where the trippy effects are reflected on Dave's helmet. That's front screen projection right there, and that's what happens with anything that reflects the projection back.)

On top of that, front screen projection is a very limiting technique. The camera has to remain stationary for it to work. Move it, and the illusion will be broken as objects in the foreground (say, astronauts) would cause shadows on the projected image in the background. Front screen projection works because the projected image comes from the same source as the camera moves: you can't see any shadows because the objects in foreground cover them up with their bodies. What do we see in the Apollo footage? People carrying around cameras, cameras panning and zooming through remote control, 360 degree pans all over the place revealing no projectors or anything, et cetera.

So no, front screen projection would be a useless and impossible technique for faking Apollo footage. Maybe you should try and think for yourself before you assume things like this.

[Ove]

Waspie_Dwarf, on 18 May 2011 - 10:12 PM, said:

Is this all you've got? Are you seriously trying to claim that a FICTIONAL film is evidence of a moon hoax? I don't know which is the biggest joke, the film or your posts.

You know as well as I do, that all means available are being used to stop the disclosure.

[BertL]

Ove, on 19 May 2011 - 05:35 PM, said:

You know as well as I do, that all means available are being used to stop the disclosure.

What disclosure? The disclosure that you have no clue what you are talking about? Because trust me, that's not a big revelation to most people here.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Ove, on 19 May 2011 - 05:35 PM, said:

You know as well as I do, that all means available are being used to stop the disclosure.

So that IS all you've got. No facts, no evidence, just nonsense. You do more damage to the pro-hoax case with your constant stream of poorly thought out drivel than any of the rest of us could achieve with the facts and figures that prove you wrong.

What do you think any neutral is going to think reading what you post? Ove is claiming that a comedy film is proof of the moon landings being a hoax... he must be right or this Ove is so clueless he can't tell the difference between fiction and reality?

Although I'm not sure you actually care what others think, to be honest I just think you like to argue. turbonium is constantly, inaccurate, plain wrong and/or illogical in his posts. He does at least have conviction on his side. I'm not convinced that is the case with you.

[MID]

Ozner, on 18 May 2011 - 11:19 PM, said:

If Kubrick faked the Moon landing footage they would have been much slower and more melodramatic.

He probably would've required a sound track for melodrama.  Ligeti, perhaps?  



Actually, he would've had no idea how to portray actual movement in a 180 lb. suit in a 1/6 g vacuum.
His portrayal, if it occurred which of course it did not), would've been in accordance with his experience, which was that he came up with for the 1/6 g scenes he did in 2001.

They weren't exactly accurate from a technical standpoint.  How could they have been?  No one had actually seen the surface of the Moon and no one had any experience actually walking or working on its surface.


...until Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin did so in July, 1969, while Kubrick was quite busy writing the screenplay and attempting to get his movie about Napoleon made (no joy on that one, though...)

[MID]

Ove, on 19 May 2011 - 05:35 PM, said:

You know as well as I do, that all means available are being used to stop the disclosure.

I guess you've got enough challeges to respond to.  Including mine.
You failed to answer questions I put to you.

Come back if you're ready to learn something.