Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Illiniblue35

Did we land on the moon?

14,130 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

BertL

Thanks for your options.

However I will not be posting the link or the pic.

Such actions on this thread maybe deemed as flame - baiting? or trolling?

I feel certain that both you and the viewers can find the image of the footprint on the net or web.

I resolutely stand by claim.

My credibility . . . and freedom to post remains intact me thinks :-D

"Hey so there's this pic that shows that the Moon landings are fake, but I'm not gonna show it. But it's definitely there and it's definitely real! I'm just not gonna post it because... something with trolling."

Logic at its finest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mrbusdriver

NAH!

I kinda realised a while back as to who has the " CON " on this thread come debate?

Do you remember that line from the Apollo?

Those who visit UM or the net will decide for themselves re the dubious space pics and transmissions; the buggy with no tyre tracks; the fake moon rocks; the corrupt Nixon administration that could not even fund the space programme and the Kennedy legacy etc etc etc

Please elaborate...(that means "provide details and evidence")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID

NAH!

I kinda realised a while back as to who has the " CON " on this thread come debate?

Do you remember that line from the Apollo?

T

What "line from the Apollo"? What does this mean?

hose who visit UM or the net will decide for themselves re the dubious space pics and transmissions; the buggy with no tyre tracks; the fake moon rocks; the corrupt Nixon administration that could not even fund the space programme and the Kennedy legacy etc etc etc

As the vast majority have, people will learn about APollo; what happeened, how it happened, and they will also learn that...

1. There are no dubious space pictures.

2. There are no dubious transmissions (save those that were obviously faked)

3. There was no "buggy" that left no tire tracks.

4. There are no fake Moon rocks...only about 800 pounds of real ones.

5. The Nixon Administration did not fund the space program. Congress did that. It was Nixon himself that decided to scrap the program. And Congress of course, stopped the funding. This most certainly had alot to do with his desiring his own space legacy, but it also had alot to do with the money he was spending on the war. Of course, the only legacy he would get was Watergate and his resignation in disgrace and deftly escaping impeachment.

If you're here, which it seems you are in spurious fashion, then the opportunity for you to avail yourself of the resources present here, and to indulge in the real purpose of it--learning something about that which you obviously know little--is right here.

We welcome question and doubts. They can all be addressed and answered here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

There you go again pulling fantasy out of thin air with the expectation of thinking that people with common sense will believe you. I grew up during the Cold War and considering the mindset of the former Soviet Union during the Apollo moon flights, there was ABSOLUTELY NO WAY they would have allowed us to get away with a moon hoax and yet, they confirmed the United States sent men to the moon. The reaction of the Soviet Union exposing hoaxed Apollo moon flights to the whole world would have been like throwing a pound of meat in the middle of a shark feeding frenzy and yet, they confirmed that we landed men on the moon..

They were totally silent on the JFK conspiracy, despite being such an easy target for our 'sworn enemy' to pounce on!!

How do you explain that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

They were totally silent on the JFK conspiracy, despite being such an easy target for our 'sworn enemy' to pounce on!!

How do you explain that?

What does that have to do with the Apollo moon landings and the fact the Soviet Union confirmed that the United States landed men on the moon? The fact of the matter is, we have sent men to the moon and the moon hoax folks have failed to provide s shred of evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps, the is why we have that "Magic 94."

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

What does that have to do with the Apollo moon landings and the fact the Soviet Union confirmed that the United States landed men on the moon?

Absolutely nothing at all. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thunkerdrone

excellent interview of Jay Weidner yesterday from Red Ice Radio:

http://rediceradio.net/radio/2012/RIR-120426-jweidner-hr1.mp3

Jay Weidner - Hour 1 - Kubrick's Odyssey: How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Moon Landings

April 26, 2012

Jay Weidner is an author, filmmaker and hermetic scholar, considered to be a "modern-day Indiana Jones" for his ongoing worldwide quests to find clues to mankind's spiritual destiny. He returns to Red Ice to talk about his film, Kubrick's Odyssey. Jay 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 Kubrick's novel, but also a research and development project that assisted Kubrick in the creation of the Apollo moon footage. Weidner also tells how Kubrick's film, The Shining is the story of Kubrick's personal travails as he secretly worked on the Apollo footage for NASA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

excellent interview of Jay Weidner yesterday from Red Ice Radio:

http://rediceradio.net/radio/2012/RIR-120426-jweidner-hr1.mp3

Jay Weidner - Hour 1 - Kubrick's Odyssey: How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Moon Landings

April 26, 2012

Jay Weidner is an author, filmmaker and hermetic scholar, considered to be a "modern-day Indiana Jones" for his ongoing worldwide quests to find clues to mankind's spiritual destiny. He returns to Red Ice to talk about his film, Kubrick's Odyssey. Jay 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 Kubrick's novel, but also a research and development project that assisted Kubrick in the creation of the Apollo moon footage. Weidner also tells how Kubrick's film, The Shining is the story of Kubrick's personal travails as he secretly worked on the Apollo footage for NASA.

Should I even bother listening to this? The last time I listened to an interview with Weidner I had a pretty severe reaction to his idiocy...

Um... after just 13 minutes into this I can tell that Jay Weidner is a complete nut case. It took less time than that for me to realize actually, but I decided to pause at this point. I'll listen to the rest of this silliness though, just because I have nothing better to do right now and can use a good laugh while I relax after a long day at work.

Edit... Finished it... it was worse than I originally thought.

Really? You suggested people listen this nonsense? If Jay were here right now, my only response would be this:

:blink:

Why should I think this interview with that nut case would be any less painful to listen to than the previous one?

I'm honestly asking here.

What does he offer now that is different from the previous drivel?

Edit to add... the prospect of listening to Weidner's interview reminds me of another Kubrick film...

clockwork_big.jpg

I'm not joking. It really was that bad.

Edited by booNyzarC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

BooNy, I really wish you would stop beating around the bush and tell us how you REALLY feel about Mr. Weidner... :rofl:

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gaden

excellent interview of Jay Weidner yesterday from Red Ice Radio:

http://rediceradio.n...weidner-hr1.mp3

Jay Weidner - Hour 1 - Kubrick's Odyssey: How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Moon Landings

April 26, 2012

The Shining is the story of Kubrick's personal travails as he secretly worked on the Apollo footage for NASA.

WTF?? In the first place, The Shining was written by Stephen King. In the second place.. WTF?? What, a haunted movie set took over Kubrick's mind and caused him to murder some actors? This is so ridiculous, it is telling me not to bother listening to the audio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gaden

BooNy, I really wish you would stop beating around the bush and tell us how you REALLY feel about Mr. Weidner... :rofl:

Cz

He sugar coats a lot, doesn't he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

BooNy, I really wish you would stop beating around the bush and tell us how you REALLY feel about Mr. Weidner... :rofl:

Cz

:lol:

And I really wish that I had listened to my own advice instead of listening to this new interview which is equally filled with complete and total nonsense... Why am I listening to this crap? I mean really... this guy is completely nuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

Well, Weidner's "theory" has been around for a while. Here's a January 2010 Discovery News article discussing it:

Faked Moon Landings and Kubrick's 'The Shining'

Everyone at Discovery Space loves a good space conspiracy theory, from Ray Villard's awesome post about NASA airbrushing out moon cities to Ian's weekly battle against whatever the latest cosmic doomsday craze happens to be. We all know these "theories" are just so much bunk, but we can't look away.

To quote John Hodgman: “Truth is stranger than fiction, but never as strange as lies." We love strange things, and the following conspiracy theory is one of the strangest (yet oddly compelling) ones I've ever heard. Are you ready?

The U.S. government hired director Stanley Kubrick to film the fake moon landing and, to protect the lives of himself and his wife, he made 1980's "The Shining" as a veiled confession of his part in the secret project. This would have seen Kubrick filming the landing conjointly with "2001: A Space Odyssey."

That's the argument Internet conspiracy theorist Jay Weidner makes on his webpage "Secrets of the Shining." Yes, all the new age advertisements, Egyptian fonts and Alex Grey illustrations along the rail make this a very hard sell on the discerning reader. But the whole theory (like the best of them) is strangely fascinating. Weidnere grasps onto various bits of imagery in the film and deviations from Stephen King's novel as Kubrick revealing his secrets to the unsuspecting audience.

The basic premise is that, in the film, the protagonist Jack Torrance and his son Danny both represent different aspects of Kubrick, the pragmatist and the artistic visionary. Jack (Kubrick's practical side) makes a deal with the manager of the Overlook Hotel (America) to protect it through the coming winter (the Cold War). Weidner also points out that the Overlook, like America, is new, garish and built on the bones of Indians.

All of this builds on the notion that the moon landings were faked as a show of strength to the Soviet Union. But Weidner waves his crackpot flag a little more fervently by stating it was all necessary to "hide the advanced U.S. saucer technology from the Soviet Union."

Consider the following additional evidence:

Room 237: In King's novel, the haunted room is numbered 217. In the movie, it's 237. Why? "Because the average distance from the Earth to the Moon is 237,000 miles." It's actually 238,857 miles, but close enough, right? Weidner proposes that the haunted room represents the filming of the faked moon landing itself. "It's just like pictures in a book, Danny. It isn't real."

The Twins: You probably remember the creepy twins from the film, the slain children of the previous Overlook caretaker. In King's novel, however, there was only one slain child. Weidner insists that Kubrick's alteration is a nod to NASA's previous Gemini (Get it? twins!) program. Given the genuinely creepy nature of this scene, you might not have noticed that Danny is in fact wearing an "Apollo 11" sweater. It's easy to get caught up on that last little factoid. View it here.

sweater.jpg

The Bears: The film features a large number of stuffed bears and, in one disturbing scene, Danny witnesses a man cavorting in a hotel room with a stranger in a horrifying bear suit. (Sheer nightmare juice!) Follow the conspiracy argument and all these bears, naturally, represent the looming Soviet threat.

The Typewriter: In one scene, the film reveals that Jack has been typing "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" over and over again. In one of Weidner's more, um, far-fetched moments, he proposes that "all" should actually be read "A11" for Apollo 11.

The Dead Guy: In King's novel, Danny sends a psychic distress signal to the hotel's elderly black chef Dick Haloran -- and Haloran lives to escape the Overlook with the child and his mother. In the movie, however, the Overlook uses Jack to kill Haloran pretty much the second he arrives on the scene to save everyone. The reason for this alteration? Weidner insists that Kubrick wanted to tell the world that he had naively tried to tip someone off about his role in the moon landing hoax -- and his doing so resulted in their murder. Worried for his own life and that of his wife, Kubrick had to reveal the secret both widely and clandestinely to protect himself.

So there you have it. Are you won over by any of this and, if so, do you agree that "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension" actually reveals the secrets of the Kennedy assassination cover-up?

Either way, I'll never view this film the same way again. You can view the original film trailer here.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

Oh... the pain...

Reading that was just as bad as listening to the interview. Or maybe I'm feeling them both equally because I just need to take a shower afterwards. I don't know, but I do know one thing... that guy is bat guano crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

He sugar coats a lot, doesn't he?

I try, I really do... but sometimes I just can't hold back. I wonder if this anything like Tourette syndrome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

As promised.

Evaluation and Comparison of Three Space Suit Assemblies

I couldn't find the actual designation of each suit, but suit A looks very similar to the A7L so I suspect it is the prototype submitted into the competition by International Latex (the study was published in 1966). The other two are by Hamilton Standard and David Clark.

On page 51, you can see that in the angular range study, knee flexion and extension is designated movement number 14. Looking up this number in the table on page 53 shows that the knee flexion for a pressurised suit ranges from 125 degrees to 145 degrees. Suit A scored best at 145 degrees.

145 degrees knee flexion, in a forerunner of the Apollo A7L spacesuit, pressurised to 3.7 psi, achieved in 1966.

You cannot see the obvious problems with your argument? Look at column 3 of this table - 'Nude baseline, deg.'

It is a reference point (a "baseline") range of mobility for an average human...nude, no restrictions (ie: a spacesuit).

The optimal range of motion.

And what is the figure given in point '14'? It is 140 degrees.

Your claim is 145 degrees in a pressurized spacesuit?

That's quite an amazing spacesuit you have there, to have greater mobility than the average person does 'in the buff'.!

Not.

Other examples can be found in this table - (ie: point '7')

You think shoulder rotation in these spacesuits is not only equal to, but greater than, in your birthday suit?

This is nonsense, of course.

No direct comparison is made between nude (non-suited) and suited (whether pressurized or not)

Nude baseline, deg. was used to compare their three spacesuits. Same as the 'weighted' column.

What about the documents for the suit in question? It should be easy to find. Why is it easier to find the pre-Apollo prototypes? Sort of fishy.

Now what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

You think shoulder rotation in these spacesuits is not only equal to, but greater than, in your birthday suit?

Please explain the contradiction here, because I can't see it. The trousers I am currently wearing are capable of 180o bending at the knee.. in a forward direction. My knee is not capable of bending forward at all. How is this possible using your argument?

The reality, of course, is that when wearing the trousers the limiting factor is me, not the trousers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk
You cannot see the obvious problems with your argument?

The problems with your argument are manifest and obvious, yet you persist...

Look at column 3 of this table - 'Nude baseline, deg.'

It is a reference point (a "baseline") range of mobility for an average human...nude, no restrictions (ie: a spacesuit).

The optimal range of motion.

And what is the figure given in point '14'? It is 140 degrees.

Your claim is 145 degrees in a pressurized spacesuit?

That's quite an amazing spacesuit you have there, to have greater mobility than the average person does 'in the buff'.!

You clearly don't understand the concept of a "baseline". It's a reference point used for comparison, not an absolute value. Wearing the suit does not make it possible to fle the knee more than when nude. Look at the nude base-lines. Most of them are multiples of 10. They've been rounded off, or are approximations. The important factor is the comparison of the 3 suits while pressurised. That's where the baseline is useful. Once again, it's a measurment made for comparison, NOT necessarily an absolute maximum value.

You think shoulder rotation in these spacesuits is not only equal to, but greater than, in your birthday suit?

This is nonsense, of course.

Your mis-interpretation is nonsense.

No direct comparison is made between nude (non-suited) and suited (whether pressurized or not)

There is no need for that figure, though it could easily be computed from the data. The important thing is the comparison between the 3 suits. That's what the study is about.

Nude baseline, deg. was used to compare their three spacesuits. Same as the 'weighted' column.

Do some research on exactly what a baseline is. Educate yourself. Then you'll understand why you have no argument.

What about the documents for the suit in question? It should be easy to find. Why is it easier to find the pre-Apollo prototypes? Sort of fishy.

Poisoning the well fallacy. The tests on an Apollo proto-type show knee flexion consistent with that in the Apollo video. Even the most dyed-in-the-wool conspiracist should have alarms bells ringing, and thinking to themselves... maybe I made a boo-boo?

Now what?

You have no evidence supporting your claim. It's been thoroughly dismantled. More than enough evidence has been presented to refute your claim. The only leverage you can possible get to try and support your flimsy argument is by deliberately conflating mobility with average knee flexion. It's been thoroughly demonstrated that you simply cannot equate the 2. The reason why the MCP suit has lower knee flexion has been demonstrated (would require joints to be made of different material).

Now what? The impossible may just happen. You may admit you were in error about the knee flexion of a pressurised Apollo suit. I don't recall it happening before, so I doubt it will happen again. Interested parties can come to there own conclusion.

Wow. A pressurised suit with knee flexion greater than the SAS suit. And this suit isn't even designed for a great degree of mobility! Impossible!

baikonur04_048358.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thunkerdrone

It's pretty obvious that Kubrick helped NASA fake the moon landing footage. His other stuff

about The Shining might be a bit of a reach, but it sure is interesting.

Weidner has put out a second DVD in his 'Kubrick's Odyssey' series , btw.

look it up , its worth a look

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

It's pretty obvious that Kubrick helped NASA fake the moon landing footage.

Is this some new meaning of the word "obvious" I wasn't previously aware of? Is it like the way "wicked", "bad", and "sick" have come to mean good?

I only ask because I've never seen it used to mean, "there is absolutely no evidence to support" before.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thunkerdrone

what's interesting is that Kubrick added a hedge maze to The Overlook Hotel in The Shining, and there was no hedge maze in Stephen King's original book. In the original book there were sculpted hedges in the form of animals which became animated,

bbut Kubrick changed it completely into a hedge maze.

He could be hinting at ritual sacrifice, because according to Greek legend every nine years a child would be sacrificed

to the Minotaur inside the maze.

The Minotaur resembles Baphomet.

Minotaur

A Minotaur is a creature from Greek mythology that is half human and half bull. It was said to have lived at the center of a great labyrinth (an elaborate maze) built for King Minos. In Greek mythology the minotaur was eventually killed by Theseus.

"Minotaur" is Greek for "Bull of Minos".

Firstly, King Minos built the maze below his palace. Secondly, the Minotaur came into existence when King Minos asked Poseidon for a bull for sacrifice. When the bull came out of the sea, Minos took it and thanked Poseidon a lot. But when Minos broke a vow that he'd made previously, the god made Minos's wife fall in love with the bull. She had an affair with it and out came the Minotaur. Minos was terrified and locked the beast away in the maze. Every nine years he would sacrifice children to the monster to keep it at bay.

Source: Mythical Creature and Beasts Wiki

Monster-of-the-Maze.png

In 'The Shining', two young girls are murdered by the previous caretaker of the Overlook Hotel

and then Jack Nicholson's character attempts to murder his son Danny. Kubrick could be hinting that ancient occult practice of child sacrifice is still going on.

Edited by Karlis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

what's interesting is that Kubrick added a hedge maze to The Overlook Hotel in The Shining, and there was no hedge maze in Stephen King's original book. In the original book there were sculpted hedges in the form of animals which became animated,

bbut Kubrick changed it completely into a hedge maze.

He could be hinting at ritual sacrifice, because according to Greek legend every nine years a child would be sacrificed

to the Minotaur inside the maze.

Or maybe he just realized that animating a bunch of animal shaped hedges would be very difficult to accomplish in a believable format with the special effects available at the time, and opted instead for the suspense inherent in the chase through the maze?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gaden

It's pretty obvious that Kubrick helped NASA fake the moon landing footage. His other stuff

about The Shining might be a bit of a reach, but it sure is interesting.

Weidner has put out a second DVD in his 'Kubrick's Odyssey' series , btw.

look it up , its worth a look

It's pretty obvious that Weidner is a hoaxer, preying on the gullible.

Edited by Gaden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

It's pretty obvious that Kubrick helped NASA fake the moon landing footage.

No, it is not obvious by any stretch of the definition of "obvious".

Here are a few reasons why the whole Kubrick topic falls flat on its face:

Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece 2001: A Space Odyssey showed that convincing special effects were possible in 1968, and that accurate depictions of space travel could be produced on movie soundstages.

It's up to individual preference whether to believe the effects in 2001 were credible and accurate. We don't believe they were actually created in outer space. Here's where the cat gets let out of the bag:

  • There are too many goofs. In several scenes we can see evidence that this is a manufactured film. We can see the edges of scenery panels, fly wires, reflections of equipment, rear projections, etc. These imperfections appear in every feature film despite efforts from filmmakers. Kubrick had several months and a large budget to orchestrate what would eventually be only two and a half hours of final product, and there were still errors. The Apollo program produced ten times that much footage with no editing seams and with no obvious mistakes.
  • The astronomy is wrong. The views from earth to the moon, and of the earth from the lunar surface don't match. For example, the earth is high in the lunar sky as seen from Clavius; it should be low on the horizon. The phase of the earth changes radically between scenes.
  • The photography is wrong. As in every space movie, we see a moving starfield in all the space scenes in 2001, along with sunlit objects. You cannot photograph both with the same camera settings. And even if you had a magical camera that could do it, the starfield shouldn't move. The cinematic reason for the moving starfield is to provide a background against which the motion of the foreground can be reckoned; filmmakers acknowledge it doesn't really happen that way, but it needs to happen in a movie.
  • The propulsion is wrong. As Dr. Floyd's lunar transport lands, the dust billows as it would in an atmosphere, because it was filmed in an atmosphere. The dust would displace in a vacuum, but it would tend to form a flat sheet and would disperse quickly. When Dave Bowman blows the emergency hatch on the pod in order to re-enter the airlock, the pod stays right there. It should have been propelled away from the ship by the force of the escaping air.
  • The zero-gravity scenes are wrong. As Dr. Floyd ascends to orbit he sips through a straw, and the fluid level drops back down to the container when he lets go. Sure, it could be a vacuum effect, but it's not the way drinking happens currently in zero gravity. In several scenes you can see supposedly weightless people moving as if there were gravity -- "grip soles" notwithstanding:
    • The Pan-Am captain hunches over Dr. Floyd's seat as a man in normal gravity would have done in order to rest his body weight on the seat back. Such a "hunker" is intuitive in gravity, but uncomfortable and unnatural in weightlessness.
    • Dr. Floyd's tray rises up from his lap -- presumably because Dr. Floyd has forgotten to secure it. What made it spontaneously start floating upward? Why did it sway from side to side? And why did it stop floating upward for no visible reason a split-second before Dr. Floyd grabs it? Newton screams "fraud!" at this sort of cinematic license.

    [*]The low-gravity scenes are wrong. The space station floor curves upward correctly to indicate the inside of a torus that spins to provide artificial gravity. But as the characters move about the scene they remain vertical with respect to the frame. They should instead tilt perpendicular to the angle of the floor where they are standing. There are numerous scenes that supposedly take place on the lunar surface, but no evidence of lesser gravity can be seen. The characters move as they would have on earth.

    [*]The lunar landscape is wrong. Kubrick shows us sharp-pointed mountains even though high-definition close-range photographs from Lunar Orbiter 2 (1966) showed the rounded mountains familiar in Apollo photographs.

Again conspiracists claim to be able to identify obscure and minute anomalies in Apollo photos and video, but they can't seem to do it with their own evidence. Nevertheless the important point is the conspiracist argument that NASA could do it because Kubrick could do it. As we've seen, Kubrick can't do it. He can't establish and maintain a truly credible "hoax" for two hours. Nor are the special effects convincing enough to fool observant people into actually thinking they represent space or lunar environments.

But there's actual evidence -- historical accounts -- that Kubrick worked with NASA to fake the footage.

Many conspiracists, led by Clyde Lewis, point to an article circling around the Internet which purports to describe in detail the process Kubrick used to fake the moon landings. But the article is obviously intended as a joke, as a careful reading reveals.

Stanley Kubrick's and Peter Hyams' budgets were very small compared to NASA's. With $40 billion and professional physicists on hand to correct mistakes, these directors could have made the effects much more convincing.

If so then the supposed genius of 2001: A Space Odyssey and Kubrick are irrelevant. The argument was that Kubrick was such a brilliant filmmaker he could have made a convincing hoax. But if Kubrick would have needed expert advisors, then those advisors (not Kubrick) would have been the real geniuses behind it. The conspiracists are just back to speculating about what might be done with supposedly limitless resources. The demonstrable state of the art in 1968 -- compelling but not convincing -- doesn't really have much to do with that.

And it really didn't have much to do with budget. The problems in 2001: A Space Odyssey and Capricorn One had more to do with deciding what effects to attempt rather than attempting good ones and failing. Budget would have increased the quality of the effects, but not their faithfulness to real life. No matter how much money you spend making a realistic starfield, it doesn't compensate for the fact that you shouldn't see one -- much less a moving one. The glitches also deal with basic filmmaking techniques, something Kubrick should already have known, and physicists wouldn't necessarily be helpful.

Consider also Silent Running. Kubrick budgeted $10 million for 2001: A Space Odyssey, while Douglas Trumbull's Silent Running was shot for about a tenth the cost. Trumbull produced the visual effects for both films. Silent Running is less ambitious than Kubrick's masterpiece, but achieves a greater level of consistency and credibility. Increasing the budget does not automatically increase the quality and seamlessness of the final product.

This is an excerpt from a page at http://www.clavius.org. Clavius is perhaps the best single source for information that debunks the various and myriad Moon Landing Hoax claims.

I highly recommend you read it in its entirety.

His other stuff about The Shining might be a bit of a reach, but it sure is interesting.

Interesting, perhaps, but garbage nonetheless.

Weidner has put out a second DVD in his 'Kubrick's Odyssey' series , btw.

look it up , its worth a look

Given the fact that the Kubrick claims are ludicrous, can be shown to be completely false and most likely stem from a joke article that a desperate Conspiracy Theorist attempted to show as actual evidence, I highly doubt its "worth a look".

To be honest, the only use I could probably find for Weidner's dvd would be as a drink coaster... but only if it were given to me since I wouldn't pay one penny for it.

Cz

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviousman

I see the new board format is in. We got that a week or so ago at EF.

Not many changes but a little better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.