VERIFIED - This interview is a HOAX!!!! Stanley Kubrick confesses to faking the moon landings! | |
ShallowGravy
User ID: 70579022 United States 12/10/2015 11:21 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 69096778 United States 12/10/2015 11:30 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
watching... waiting... User ID: 70954875 United States 12/10/2015 11:36 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | First, I don't know if we actually landed on the Moon and I don't particularly care one way or the other. I DO know that the federal government lies every chance it gets [having recently retired after 20 years of federal service], so that alone allows a negative possibility. Secondly, in 1990 I shot my own feature-length documentary so I fully appreciate the filmmaking processes, from pre-production all the way through to editing and distribution, and TRUST ME on this: editing is the toughest aspect because that's where you ultimately face a crossroads. You either satisfy your creative concepts and create a film that is watchable and [hopefully] profitable, or you stay true to your stated purpose and create an honest, straightforward account of a given event - which is what documentarians are supposed to do in the first place. And, I think that's where this film fails. Mr. Murray blurs the line between truth and fiction so deeply that he accomplishes nothing with his result except to add further controversy to an already over-examined topic. The faked [or genuine] Moon-landings are now very much like the Bible: LOTS of scholarly analysis that yields NOTHING - except more analysis! Thirdly, I happen to live in Kansas, the location of the Kansas Cosmosphere & Space Center [ [link to www.cosmo.org] ], which I have visited several times. This globally-recognized center boasts the 2nd largest collection of American space-related artifacts in the world [Only the Smithsonian collections contain more items] and the greatest Russian space-related artifact collection outside of Moscow. The KS Cosmosphere is also routinely consulted on major films [such as Ron Howard's APOLLO 13 and HBO's FROM THE EARTH TO THE MOON] and by major museums around the world. The guys at the Cosmosphere have "the right stuff!" Having said all of that -and seen hundreds of artifacts up close and in person- I can tell you that if this entire thing WAS a hoax, it is staggering to the extreme and literally billions of dollars went into creating the hardware and mythology involved. Then, you have the sticky point of confidentiality. THOUSANDS of people would have to keep silent about this... not just Stanley Kubrick [whom I respected deeply as a cherished director], to the point of criminal, moral and social liability. Understand: I'm NOT saying it couldn't be faked.... but that if it was, this is by far the greatest hoax ever perpetuated upon a global public - short of some indisputable claim that the entire Bible and concept of God Himself is false. I'd put it on just that level of grandiosity! If I had to say one way or another, I'd opt for believing that we actually went to the Moon [BTW: I was 16 in '69 and like the rest of the world was glued to the TV following every minute of coverage, so I remember it first-hand]. But, as I have aged I have also become far more cynical than I was even in my youth [and I was pretty far gone, even then!]... So, I'm certainly open to persuasion should something more concrete than Mr. Murray's film present itself! I'm just still watching... and waiting to be convinced. |
ScoutsOUT
User ID: 70544232 United States 12/10/2015 11:36 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Don't know if anyone has posted this link, but it appears to be a better edited version: [link to vimeo.com (secure)] "Be polite, be professional, be prepared to kill everyone you meet." What keeps you awake at night? "Nothing, I keep other people awake at night." Secretary of Defense, James Mattis |
Sungaze_At_Dawn
User ID: 70246439 Canada 12/10/2015 11:37 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Everyone is retarded. We went to the moon. Some of the footage was doctored and filmed on earth and based on the Apollo transmissions, you can probably figure out for yourselves what they're hiding, and why they didn't want to photo shop the entire thing. This movement is ISLAM reset the world back to the dark ages. It's slight of hand and disregard it. IT'S NOT THAT WE DIDN'T GO TO THE MOON, WE DID. IT'S THAT WE WENT IN A TIN CAN WHEN REAL SCIENCE HIDDEN AWAY HAD REAL HUMANS ON THE MOON FOR DECADES, AND OF COURSE HISTORICALLY THOUSANDS/MILLIONS OF YEARS, BUT IN OUR TERMS, SINCE AROUND THE WORLD WAR. AND WE'RE LIVING IN A FAKE REALITY, TECHNOLOGY LIKE THE EARLY 1900'S, ALL THANKS TO THE ROTHSCHLD'S AND ROCKERFELLERS. WE DON'T THE TIN CAN ROCKET SHIPS OR ANY FOSSIL FUEL METHODS. Last Edited by Sungaze_At_Dawn on 12/10/2015 11:40 AM The Devil tries to convince everyone he doesn't exist. The state tries to convince everyone they cannot resist. Do not go quietly into the good night. Rage Rage against the dying light! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 43136614 United States 12/10/2015 11:40 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43136614 It's not Kubrick. The faker forgot to include Kubrick's Bronx, New York accent. Looks and sounds like him to me. Then why not show his full face? Then why not show the whole interview? The whole video smells of bullshit. You obviously havent watched the second version....you can clearly see his face mouthing the words......this is legit and my mind is blown I did see it and the only obvious thing about it was that the editing can cause seizures. If there is nothing to hide, then why obscure his face? Filmaker: Provide the unedited raw interview of GTFO. I'm calling bullshit on this one. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 70523187 United States 12/10/2015 11:43 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | As we get older, some of us gain a better sense of whether or not someone is Real. The person in the interview is Real. The person in the interview is Kubrick. After watching this movie several times, I no longer need the 'full' interview for confirmation, although I'm sure it will surface. - - |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 70857104 United States 12/10/2015 11:43 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 4948678 United States 12/10/2015 11:45 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 71005244 Canada 12/10/2015 11:46 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | apollo 11 pictures: [link to history.nasa.gov] "view of full lunar disc during return trip" [link to history.nasa.gov] A crisp and clear picture of moon. Looks real. But... How did they took the picture without having something that could block or distort it? (eg: Translucency, reflection, dirty, dust etc in/on a window?) That is.. assuming the astronauts took the picture from within inside the lunar module.. Other questions: In most pictures - astronauts walking on the surface of moon - the perspective of distance from the position of camera to "edge" as can be seen. Okay, but why is the distance between camera position and the edge of which the horizion is at.. appears to be shorten than it should be? See examples below: 1) [link to history.nasa.gov] 2) [link to history.nasa.gov] 3) [link to history.nasa.gov] 4) and more... HOWEVER.. this does have a wider and longer distance: [link to history.nasa.gov] But do you notice the subtle line parting the ground.. as it gets far due to somewhat discoloured grounds or something like that? Almost as if the extra ground or horizontal edge was artificially added as to maximize the realistic effects of distance? I could be likely wrong.. but at the same time, I'm just merely pointing out the odds. Now.. look at this one: [link to history.nasa.gov] Quite a long distance! Now.. pretend you're standing on the surface of moon during that time.. then surely the perspective of distance would be longer? That's why the 1-4 pictures are kinda odd to me. |
Halcyon Dayz, FCD
User ID: 68914848 Netherlands 12/10/2015 11:48 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | No need to be a hypocrite. Many people who do not believe the moon landings have presented VERY compelling evidence Quoting: Anonymous Coward 17158310 No, they haven't. Not by any rational and knowledgeable standard. Certainly none of them has won the €50,000 reward. Some times I think hoaxies don't quite get the meaning of the word evidence. Don't be silly, the term Points Refuted A Thousand Times (PRATTs) might well have been invented in respons to the average hoaxie's memory retention issues. ANSWERED!? Only questions need answering. QUESTIONS ARE NOT EVIDENCE! They only tell us that there is something you do not know or do not understand. To dismiss people who question the accepted narrative is a fools game documented throughout the history of science. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 17158310 People who genuinely question something do not ignore the answers. Hoaxies clearly have no interest in learning the truth. People who actually want to know the truth about something learn as much as they can about that something. Hoaxies invariably are UTTERLY IGNORANT about Apollo. Q.E.D. Besides, even astronauts in NASA videos released today contradict the moon landing narratives. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 17158310 No, they don't. Which probly tells us that you do not understand what they say. And apart from all that I'm wondering, why the hell I can see my bike in front of my house on google earth but NASA can't post one single pic of material that's been left on the moon. Quoting: Slovenian Coward 18171524 Non-facts do not require explanations. BTW, the images in Google Earth™ that show your bike were photographed from aircraft. Commercially available satellite imagery is limited to a resolution of 50cm/pixel. I think I don't need to mention that the camera and the scope on the sattelite, which is watching us, is like a toy compared to all the mega telescopes on the earth. Why the hell can't wee see some traces on the moon? Quoting: Slovenian Coward 18171524 You mean Earth-based telescopes? That would require a telescope several hundred metres wide. Your Search Term Of The Day: Dawes' Limit. We have also some nice scopes in the space like hubble. Is it really that hard to take some real(legit) pics and show them? Quoting: Slovenian Coward 18171524 The Hubble only has a 2 point 4 metre primary mirror. The advantage of a space-born telescope is no atmosphere and very long exposures, not high resolution. Nor does it get meaningfully closer to the Moon. NASA astronauts even say we cannot get a human past the van Allen radiation belt. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 17158310 No, that is NOT what they say. They, and ever space scientist (including Van Allen), will tell you that you can't travel through SOME PARTS of the Belts, but can travel through other parts. The VARBs are far from homogenous. Nor are they spheres, which is why they are called BELTS. Last Edited by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on 12/11/2015 08:03 PM Reaching for the sky makes you taller. Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 71006003 United States 12/10/2015 11:48 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | One way to falsify the Apollo 11 mission would be to ignite some Aerozine 50 fuel / nitrogen tetroxide oxidizer in a vacuum chamber, and see what color flame results. You see, this was the fuel combo used by the ascent stage, which, as we have seen many times, "took off" without any sign of rocket flame whatsoever. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 4948678 United States 12/10/2015 11:51 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 43136614 United States 12/10/2015 11:52 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | This is the epitome of bullshit. How can anyone be dumb enough to believe this "interview"? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 69156736 Same reason anybody could believe a tin foil spring loaded box put a capsule into space and back to earth...lol You can't just say it wouldn't work. You have to prove it didn't work. Nasa's math checks out. GLP math? LOL |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 70523187 United States 12/10/2015 11:55 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 43450320 United States 12/10/2015 11:56 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
brokenhalo
User ID: 134216 United States 12/10/2015 11:59 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | This is the guys Youtube channel, and he has multiple cuts of the film on here. The editing is WAY more watchable on this one. Be sure to watch this one, and not the OP Version - this one actually has kubrick audio (it's still choppy but it doesn't cut to other clips of video every other word). Last Edited by Chip on 12/10/2015 12:15 PM I'm a Cyperpunk - Ask me what it means sometime. ------- “All the speed he took, all the turns he'd taken and the corners he'd cut in Night City, and still he'd see the matrix in his sleep, bright lattices of logic unfolding across that colorless void...” -- William Gibson, Neuromancer |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 71006003 United States 12/10/2015 12:00 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | One way to falsify the Apollo 11 mission would be to ignite some Aerozine 50 fuel / nitrogen tetroxide oxidizer in a vacuum chamber, and see what color flame results. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 71006003 You see, this was the fuel combo used by the ascent stage, which, as we have seen many times, "took off" without any sign of rocket flame whatsoever. Now, NASA shills will tell you (appeal to authority) that there would be no visible flame in a vacuum. Fuck that noise! SHOW ME! Do the experiment here, on Earth, in a vacuum chamber. It doesn't have to be a huge chamber, or use gallons of fuel. A small vacuum chamber and a few ounces of the fuel combo will do. |
Halcyon Dayz, FCD
User ID: 68914848 Netherlands 12/10/2015 12:02 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | This is the epitome of bullshit. How can anyone be dumb enough to believe this "interview"? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 69156736 Same reason anybody could believe a tin foil spring loaded box put a capsule into space and back to earth...lol You can't just say it wouldn't work. You have to prove it didn't work. Nasa's math checks out. GLP math? LOL GLP is a huge unorganized think tank....NASA is a huge pathelogical liar...and always has been. Can't really compared the 2. Unresponsive. You are using one unevidenced assertion as "evidence" for another assertion. How is that not circular? Reaching for the sky makes you taller. Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans. |
brokenhalo
User ID: 134216 United States 12/10/2015 12:02 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to www.youtube.com (secure)] Quoting: brokenhalo This is the guys Youtube channel, and he has multiple cuts of the film on here. The editing is WAY more watchable on this one. Be sure to watch this one, and not the OP Version - this one actually has kubrick audio (it's still choppy but it doesn't cut to other clips of video every other word). Last Edited by brokenhalo on 12/10/2015 12:02 PM I'm a Cyperpunk - Ask me what it means sometime. ------- “All the speed he took, all the turns he'd taken and the corners he'd cut in Night City, and still he'd see the matrix in his sleep, bright lattices of logic unfolding across that colorless void...” -- William Gibson, Neuromancer |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 69096778 United States 12/10/2015 12:04 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | apollo 11 pictures: Quoting: Anonymous Coward 71005244 [link to history.nasa.gov] "view of full lunar disc during return trip" [link to history.nasa.gov] A crisp and clear picture of moon. Looks real. But... How did they took the picture without having something that could block or distort it? (eg: Translucency, reflection, dirty, dust etc in/on a window?) That is.. assuming the astronauts took the picture from within inside the lunar module.. Other questions: In most pictures - astronauts walking on the surface of moon - the perspective of distance from the position of camera to "edge" as can be seen. Okay, but why is the distance between camera position and the edge of which the horizion is at.. appears to be shorten than it should be? See examples below: 1) [link to history.nasa.gov] 2) [link to history.nasa.gov] 3) [link to history.nasa.gov] 4) and more... HOWEVER.. this does have a wider and longer distance: [link to history.nasa.gov] But do you notice the subtle line parting the ground.. as it gets far due to somewhat discoloured grounds or something like that? Almost as if the extra ground or horizontal edge was artificially added as to maximize the realistic effects of distance? I could be likely wrong.. but at the same time, I'm just merely pointing out the odds. Now.. look at this one: [link to history.nasa.gov] Quite a long distance! Now.. pretend you're standing on the surface of moon during that time.. then surely the perspective of distance would be longer? That's why the 1-4 pictures are kinda odd to me. This is what Jay Weidner's article was about that I posted earlier in the thread. |
brokenhalo
User ID: 134216 United States 12/10/2015 12:11 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | If that isn't Kubrick in the video talking, then it's a damn good look-alike. Here's a picture of kubrick 1999 before his death - [link to sgtr.files.wordpress.com (secure)] I'm a Cyperpunk - Ask me what it means sometime. ------- “All the speed he took, all the turns he'd taken and the corners he'd cut in Night City, and still he'd see the matrix in his sleep, bright lattices of logic unfolding across that colorless void...” -- William Gibson, Neuromancer |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 69757793 United States 12/10/2015 12:11 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to www.youtube.com (secure)] Quoting: brokenhalo This is the guys Youtube channel, and he has multiple cuts of the film on here. The editing is WAY more watchable on this one. Be sure to watch this one, and not the OP Version - this one actually has kubrick audio (it's still choppy but it doesn't cut to other clips of video every other word). Hello PEOPLE! Now, is it Kubrick? Thats the question... Maybe, i'm torn... |
brokenhalo
User ID: 134216 United States 12/10/2015 12:12 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to www.youtube.com (secure)] Quoting: brokenhalo This is the guys Youtube channel, and he has multiple cuts of the film on here. The editing is WAY more watchable on this one. Be sure to watch this one, and not the OP Version - this one actually has kubrick audio (it's still choppy but it doesn't cut to other clips of video every other word). Hello PEOPLE! Now, is it Kubrick? Thats the question... Maybe, i'm torn... Right? This version is in interview form. I'm on the fence now, this could be a legit interview. Last Edited by brokenhalo on 12/10/2015 12:14 PM I'm a Cyperpunk - Ask me what it means sometime. ------- “All the speed he took, all the turns he'd taken and the corners he'd cut in Night City, and still he'd see the matrix in his sleep, bright lattices of logic unfolding across that colorless void...” -- William Gibson, Neuromancer |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 18171524 Slovenia 12/10/2015 12:15 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | No need to be a hypocrite. Many people who do not believe the moon landings have presented VERY compelling evidence Quoting: Anonymous Coward 17158310 No, they haven't. Not by any rational and knowledgeable standard. Certainly none of them has won the €50,000 reward. Some times I think hoaxies don't quite get the meaning of the word evidence. Don't be silly, the term Points Refuted A Thousand Times (PRATTs) might well have been invented in respons to the average hoaxie's memory retention issues. ANSWERED!? Only questions need answering. QUESTIONS ARE NOT EVIDENCE! They only tell us that there is something you do not know or do not understand. To dismiss people who question the accepted narrative is a fools game documented throughout the history of science. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 17158310 People who genuinely question something do not ignore the answers. Hoaxies clearly have no interest in learning the truth. People who actually want to know the truth about something learn as much as they can about that something. Hoaxies invariably are UTTERLY IGNORANT about Apollo. Q.E.D. Besides, even astronauts in NASA videos released today contradict the moon landing narratives. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 17158310 No, they don't. Which probly tells us that you do not understand what they say. And apart from all that I'm wondering, why the hell I can see my bike in front of my house on google earth but NASA can't post one single pic of material that's been left on the moon. Quoting: Slovenian Coward 18171524 Non-facts do not require explanations. :LROC_A17: BTW, the images in Google Earth™ that show your bike were photographed from aircraft. Commercially available satellite imagery is limited to a resolution of 50cm/pixel. I think I don't need to mention that the camera and the scope on the sattelite, which is watching us, is like a toy compared to all the mega telescopes on the earth. Why the hell can't wee see some traces on the moon? Quoting: Slovenian Coward 18171524 You mean Earth-based telescopes? That would require a telescope several hundred metres wide. Your Search Term Of The Day: Dawes' Limit. We have also some nice scopes in the space like hubble. Is it really that hard to take some real(legit) pics and show them? Quoting: Slovenian Coward 18171524 The Hubble only as a 2 point 4 metre primary mirror. The advantage of a space-born telescope is no atmosphere and very long exposures, not high resolution. Nor does it get meaningfully closer to the Moon. NASA astronauts even say we cannot get a human past the van Allen radiation belt. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 17158310 No, that is NOT what they say. They, and ever space scientist (including Van Allen), will tell you that you can't travel through SOME PARTS of the Belts, but can travel through other parts. The VARBs are far from homogenous. Nor are they spheres, which is why they are called BELTS. No problem for NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), which can dip as low as 31 miles (50 km) from the lunar surface, close enough to image each landing site in remarkable detail. It was launched in 2009 so it should have a camera capable of taking high detail pictures. And yet the pic you posted is all we get? You understand now why it's hard to beleive it? [link to www.skyandtelescope.com] [link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)] |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 70523187 United States 12/10/2015 12:17 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 69757793 United States 12/10/2015 12:17 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to www.youtube.com (secure)] Quoting: brokenhalo This is the guys Youtube channel, and he has multiple cuts of the film on here. The editing is WAY more watchable on this one. Be sure to watch this one, and not the OP Version - this one actually has kubrick audio (it's still choppy but it doesn't cut to other clips of video every other word). Hello PEOPLE! Now, is it Kubrick? Thats the question... Maybe, i'm torn... Right? This version is in interview form. I'm on the fence now, this could be a legit interview. The eye test just about passes, the voice test seems very close, what throws me is the interviewer seems very amateur, and I would have imagined Kubrick to have been a bit more stoic, elegant, idk this is fun, I am curious |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 69757793 United States 12/10/2015 12:18 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 60682038 United States 12/10/2015 12:18 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | This is the epitome of bullshit. How can anyone be dumb enough to believe this "interview"? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 69156736 Same reason anybody could believe a tin foil spring loaded box put a capsule into space and back to earth...lol You can't just say it wouldn't work. You have to prove it didn't work. Nasa's math checks out. GLP math? LOL GLP is a huge unorganized think tank....NASA is a huge pathelogical liar...and always has been. Can't really compared the 2. Great response Chip! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 69757793 United States 12/10/2015 12:19 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to www.youtube.com (secure)] Quoting: brokenhalo This is the guys Youtube channel, and he has multiple cuts of the film on here. The editing is WAY more watchable on this one. Be sure to watch this one, and not the OP Version - this one actually has kubrick audio (it's still choppy but it doesn't cut to other clips of video every other word). Hello PEOPLE! Now, is it Kubrick? Thats the question... Maybe, i'm torn... It's him. If it is, then wow. Like I said before, what a day...how curious.. check out that youtube video if you have not yet, CHIP |