Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
gort.

Weidner on NASA

58 posts in this topic

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/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another "moon hoax" thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

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?:

apollomissions11_29.jpg

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!

apollomissions11_30.jpg

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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?

:geek:

2001 being a training exercise?

:cry:

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?

:wacko:

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.

:cry:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Practice...

screenshot-med-18.jpg

Makes perfect???

tv_montage.jpg

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

:blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

GREAT to SEE Mid Back !

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

:tu:

Edited by MID

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

:tu:

Spsst! Hey Mid here`s the secret pass word !

"Klatu Brando Nickto"

That will Chill Gort !

post-68971-0-68910800-1304979258_thumb.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Gort maybe confused about the Facts?

Now Listen very closely GORT Klatu, Branda, Nickto '

That should do it ! :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5g4jn2CKPE&list=PL1B952679DA0C9955

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Side_of_the_Moon_(mockumentary)

Edited by Ove

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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
Definition of MOCKUMENTARY

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

Source: Merriam-Webster
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Is it Safe? Is it ? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Side_of_the_Moon_(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???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Side_of_the_Moon_(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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.