57 replies to this topic

[gort.]

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/

[Obviousman]

Another "moon hoax" thread?

[aquatus1]

Actually, this is about a webcast concerning the moon hoax.  Feel free to discuss the broadcast itself.  Do not go off-topic into subjects the broadcast does not cover.

[postbaguk]

I couldn't sit through the entire interview, my head started hurting (for example, the interviewer laughed at the notion that they could have a remote control camera in the 60's).

From what I can gather, Jay Weidner believes the moon landings happened, believed they brought back rocks and did experiments, but also believes that all the footage of that was faked by Kubrick. I looked at some of his claims about front screen projection a while ago. See section 4. He demonstrated a technique that he believed showed tell-tale signs of front screen projection on some stills from 2001: a Space Odyssey. Unfortunately, he never applied that to any Apollo images, he just drew in a line which he believes is the boundary between the foreground studio set and the background projection. I know why he didn't apply the same technique to the Apollo images as he did to the Space Odyssey images: the Apollo images don't show the same white outline separating the foreground set to the background projection. He just draws the line in and hopes you'll take it at face value.

I didn't take it at face value. I checked.

He also makes a really basic error re shadow lengths and studio lighting further down on the same page (section 7).

Quote

Many researchers have pointed out the different angles of light on the surface of the moon.

Because there is only one light source (the sun) how can there be multiple light angles on the moon such as this?:



How can the astronaut's two shadows not be consistent with each other? If they were actually standing in the bright light of the sun, their two shadows should be at the same exact angle. Yet they are not.

Why? Because Kubrick used studio lighting!



But why would Kubrick make a mistake like the inconsistent shadows in the above image? A great filmmaker like Kubrick must have realized that this was a huge mistake.

My answer is that Kubrick did this on purpose

As you can see from the images, if you use a spot-light in the manner of the second graphic, the shadow of the nearer astronaut is shorter than the shadow the the further astronaut. In the film still, it's the other way round.



Looking at the detail of Weidner's claims (at least the ones I've had time to look at), I'm singularly unimpressed.

[MID]

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/

Whew...It was a laugh, and tiring.
Tons of talk, most of it idiotic (it got thicker as time went on),  no substantiation, lots of really old claims (theories...statements of unsubstantiated fact), recycled claims (all of which have been shredded, right here).

Kubrick directing the films?
Where did he do that, I wonder?
  
2001 being a training exercise?

Why then, did Kubrick's film not represent 1/6 g as it did in 2001?  Why then was the scenery of his "sets" completely different from the lunar sets he used in 2001?


Just a simple question of course.  There's only one answer.
And why this Kubrick issue?  What made him the one to pick, a man who'd left the United States and Hollywood behind in 1962?

Always wondered about that.  He did all these Apollo films?  1969 twice, 1971 twice, 1972 twice....some of them long 24 hour  productions from the "lunar surface".

When? He worked most of 1968 and the first part of 1969 on his ill-fated Napoleon film, then was busy with  Clockwork Orange for two years, rght through 1971 just about.  How he managed all that fake space production while being over in England working on feature films for almost 4 years is beyond me.

Then of course there's be the why, but that'll never be answered.

...just having a little fun.  This is a rather humorous "discussion".


Maybe Kubrick's the choice for all this fake film nonsense because so many people thought 2001 was so technically accurate?
That could be discussed, and people would be surprized at some of the technical errors, and representations of things due to simply not knowing about them that were present in the film.


Anyway, this interview was essentially two know nothings talking about silliness that they offered no proof of, made lots of ridiculous claims about, and bored me to sleep.


Is that supoposed to be something new and original regarding this moon nonsense that we're really supposed to address?  This was ALL really old, previously defrocked stuff.  Nonsense.




I was hoping for so much more...a little originality, at least a question or an argument that showed some level of integrity and thought.

Maybe I hope for far too much?



I just don't think this was the way to go gort.

Despite the fact that you were planning on some other type of thread, this is essentially another moon hoax thread.

You're not saying anything about this, but I'd encourage you to do what you (and every other newbie)has been asked:


If you have a doubt about any aspect presented in this lengthy interview diatribe, express it.  Ask question(s) about it.  You'll receive some enlightenment about it.

We generally don't mind redundant questions about this stuff, so long as they're sincere, but I doubt anyone's going to sit there and outline every nonsensical comment this Weidner fellow made and take it apart.  It's already been done.


Show sincerety.  Show the ability to present your doubts in the form of a question, and I think you'll be surprized with what happens.

Edited by MID, 08 May 2011 - 03:39 PM.

[MID]

Practice...




Makes perfect???




Stanley, oh Stanley, what were you thinking???

[DONTEATUS]

Stanley Kubrick did wonderful Movies. I must underline the MOVIE part but someone will Say is didnt really write this ! And Have videos of you not actually being there.
We need to all Grow up a bit and Understand what a Real Moon Mission like NASA has accomplished and What a Great Producer like Kubrick make. They are not two and the Same but Different and Great in there Own ways.
For me to See endless and Mindless post about us Not Going to the Moon is pointless.

GREAT to SEE Mid Back !

[MID]

DONTEATUS, on 08 May 2011 - 08:08 PM, said:

GREAT to SEE Mid Back !

Thanks D!  (Although I don't think gort thinks it's very nice to see me at all...!)

Edited by MID, 09 May 2011 - 08:51 PM.

[DONTEATUS]

MID, on 09 May 2011 - 08:51 PM, said:

Thanks D!  (Although I don't think gort thinks it's very nice to see me at all...!)

Spsst! Hey Mid  here`s the secret pass word !
"Klatu Brando Nickto"
That will Chill Gort !

Attached Files

•  earthstoodstill.jpg   23.57K   3 downloads

[MID]

DONTEATUS, on 09 May 2011 - 10:14 PM, said:

Spsst! Hey Mid  here`s the secret pass word !
"Klatu Brando Nickto"
That will Chill Gort !

That's "Klatu Barada Nikto" D!
I tried it.  No response.



I have the feeling it doesn't matter anyway.  Something tells me gort is going to drive by...maybe I'm wrong in that impression, but he certainly doesn't seem to have much to offer in the original content department.

[DONTEATUS]

Well Gort dosnt listen too well after being Blasted on just about ever Planet in the Universe! IT effected His hearing !

[mrbusdriver]

Gort, why do you and all the other hoax believers assume the surface on which the shadows were cast was perfectly flat, as is shown in the model? It's easy to see that the crater in the picture is affecting the shadows length.

This is not a difficult argument to debunk.

[DONTEATUS]

I think Gort maybe confused about the Facts?
Now Listen very closely GORT Klatu, Branda, Nickto '
That should do it !

[MID]

mrbusdriver, on 11 May 2011 - 03:05 AM, said:

Gort, why do you and all the other hoax believers assume the surface on which the shadows were cast was perfectly flat, as is shown in the model? It's easy to see that the crater in the picture is affecting the shadows length.

This is not a difficult argument to debunk.

That's it Mr. B.  Exactly.
Alot of discussion, I recall, went into explaining that for people some time ago.

[ali smack]

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.