Kubrick-The Shining-and Apollo 11-Coincidence or Confession?

Bob see's invisible UFO's and Lunar smokestacks, yet doesn't believe Apollo 11 landed on the moon.

UMMM---you can't see something that is invisible--haven't we gone over this already? As to the smokestack---how can you mock something you can't explain? What do YOU see? Let's hear some logic rather than simple dismissal.

www.youtube.com

You realise that a personal attack rather than a rebuttal makes you look weak don't you? Failure to use logic shows you have no logic for your opinion.

"And by "interesting Spud", of course, means BAT-SHIAT INSANE"

That about sums it up.

Let's try this---this idea is BAT-SHIAT INSANE because _____________. Your personal attack or rebuttal goes here. I bet I know which you will choose.

#10 | Posted by babuenthal at 2009-10-17 10:25 AM | Reply | Flag

You believe them all smokestack/invisible UFO/car antenna bob.

Are you actually Art Bell?

I actually look forward to your loony tunes theories.

They provide comedic relief.

See any more invisible UFO's lately?

Invisible smokestack's, invisible car antennae?

You can tell us.

I'm sure there's a lot of invisible things you've seen that you haven't told us about.

......the astronauts left a laser reflector on the mooon that is still in use today - for measuring the fluctuation of distances in the earth/moon orbit......

The reflectors are designed to reflect back from any angle. They could possibly have been set by robotic arm, or remote control, much like unmanned probes of Jupiter had adjustments made in transit for unforseen setbacks.

.......China and Russia both had spy sattelites in orbit at the time of the landings,both confirmed the landings, as did many earth based astronomers who were able to follow the spacecraft all the way there and back........

Something went to the moon---something came back. The astronauts weren't necessarily on whatever went to the moon.

How do you explain the video of their faking their distance from the Earth? How do you explain the video with the lights falling down. Does ignoring evidence mean it doesn't exist?

......when you think of it, it's only 250,000 miles, I've had cars that went farther than that........

Actually, as one of the symbolisms discussed in the article relates--it is only 237 thousand miles to the moon. Why you bring up a car that travels that far is a mystery---do you think you can drive to the moon?

#16 | Posted by skizziks at 2009-10-17 11:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

You believe them all smokestack/invisible UFO/car antenna bob.

I must have missed your explanation for the smokestack. Why do you think a personal attack makes up for ignoring what your eyes see? Maybe you just didn't see the video link. Here it is again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=a9NWR5Dn6QI

If the smokestack is loony--your explanation should be easy.

www.youtube.com

See any more invisible UFO's lately?

Again, you can't see something that is invisible. How about yourself--seen anymore vertical contrails casting horizontal shadows?

Car antennas?

I still choose the car antenna over a gun you can't get to--how about yourself--what choice would you make? Do you have anything other than personal attacks?

How do you explain the video of the Apollo 11 astronauts faking their distance from the Earth? How do you explain the video of the lights falling on the other video? How do you explain the poor picture quality of the actual landing as opposed to the clear color pictures transmitted from inside the spacecraft?

#22 | Posted by babuenthal at 2009-10-17 12:13 PM | Reply | Flag

Why, if the moon landing was faked in an effort to conceal alien spaceship technology from the Russians during the cold war, could the Soviets confirm the landing?

Two reasons come to mind. One--the Soviets were bluffing when they said they had the tech to confirm the landing--much like they were bluffing as to how many nukes they had in the early 60's. The US had spies in the USSR, and we knew of their tech capabilities and knew we could get away with the ruse. Second--something went to the moon and that is what they tracked--but Apollo 11 astronauts weren't on whatever went to the moon.

How do you explain the video of the Astronauts faking their distance from the earth? Who about the video of the lights falling on the fake lunar set? How about the poor video quality of the actual landing as opposed to the clear color pictures of the astronauts in transit?

Or are you suggesting that we did go to the moon and only that the Apollo missions were not the vehicles with which this was accomplished and the Soviets were confirming only our presence and not the means?

One of the symbolisms discussed in the article was the 7up cases stacked in one of the scenes. There were six cases stacked, one on the other. Was that Kubricks way of saying 7 missions went to the moon, but only 6 landed?

And lastly, couldn't they also track the trajectory of the Apollo spaceship?

I don't know their capabilities. I only know what the government tells me, and the evidence others have put out there for consideration. I can find no logical explanation for the video of the Apollo astronauts faking their distance from the earth.

There is compelling evidence for both sides, but I find the video of them faking the distance to be the most relevant. They can't be in two places at the same time. There should have been no reason to fake their distance from the earth.

#18 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-10-17 11:50 AM | Reply | Flag

I'm not looking at the videos at this time (hey, honesty), but I never consider YouTube a credible source for anything. Well, pretty much never.

That said, if the moon landing was faked, why couldn't videos on YouTube be faked?

Okay, I read the article. Great comedy! "All work" etc. is "Apollo 11 work"? Oh, ye gods. Is this guy an undergraduate? Let's just move into a feminist lesbian marxist reading of the movie. Ye gods, Kubrick would have to have been more insane than we knew to have created such a web of references in some byzantine effort to confess his guilt. But I had fun reading it. Thanks, Bob.

The real beauty of ideas like this? We will NEVER know. That's the fun of this stuff--we can interpret and enjoy and be worried and be cynical, and we'll never know. Jay Weidner could be absolutely right; it's possible that Kubrick did all of these things--I don't believe it, but it's possible--but it's all based on interpretation and conjecture.

I guess my really big question is, Why would the gov't have hired Stanley Kubrick in particular for this sham? (And you're right, Bob. I don't have an unbiased mind. But my comments still stand. There no way to know. And the article here is as valid as any in which symbolism and biographical interpretation hold sway.)

As for Nanc's comment about Wendy Torrance, have you ever known a woman in an abusive relationship? It's never as simple as, Just leave! That said, she does seem rather ineffectual. But I've not seen the movie in something like 18 years.

"One of the symbolisms discussed in the article was the 7up cases stacked in one of the scenes. There were six cases stacked, one on the other. Was that Kubricks way of saying 7 missions went to the moon, but only 6 landed?"

So... His repeated use of the circle shape, seen in all his films, is an ongoing obsession over his guilt about having faked the moon landing (you know, the moon is a circle--well, a sphere)?

Just sayin'. Btw, Kubrick was fairly crazy, from what I've heard, even before 1969. And why would he make such a crappy video? The man was a freakin' visual master? (I don't know about the higher-quality "on the way" videos, but it seems that if they were higher quality, indeed, why would Kubrick make something so shitty looking in such contrast? What's your explanation, Bob?)

Wag the Dog! That producer was killed at the end. Uh-oh. If Jay Weidner suddenly disappears, we'll know.

I have as much an unbiased mind as someone reading this story who is trying to back up his belief that the moon landing was staged.

And whats the video with lights falling down I'd like to see it.

And whats the video with lights falling down I'd like to see it.
#28 | Posted by andyuhenet

Shadows cast in two different directions, as if one light source is the sun and another some studio lighting.

I saw a program that attempted to debunk this theory by showing that the direction of shadows was dependent on the angle of the surface, assuming one light source.

I don't remember what Bob's response to that was.

---do you think you can drive to the moon?
......#23 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

.....not in my shitty Pontiac......

....but in relative terms, it's just not that far.....

.....it's only two weeks in a space capsule, once you escape earth orbit......

......it's not such a huge technical accomplishment that it would have to be faked......

I guess my really big question is, Why would the gov't have hired Stanley Kubrick in particular for this sham?

#26 | Posted by pragmatist at 2009-10-17 12:45 PM | Reply | Flag

At least you admit a biased attitude, and the possiblity that the symbolism is possible. I agree that Kubrick may have had mental problems if this were factual.

To answer your question, Kubrick was in the process of making 2001: A Space Odyssey at the time. This movie had moonscape in it, and the capability to fool an audience into believing what was shown on the screen as real. Actually, if you had read tha article, that was explained.

Why do you think the Apollo astronauts faked their distance from the Earth? Do you thionk that ignoring points makes your views valid?

.......once we put a space station at the edge of the solar system.......now THAT will be an accomplishment.......

.....you know Bob......I realize that the government has plenty of things they try to keep from the public.....

......but I just can't see a valid reason for this one...why would they bother ?........

......and in the end...all the secrets they do try to keep, usually get out anyways, Yellow Cake, Gulf of Tonkin, Watergate,......they can't even keep a secret when only three or four people are in on it.......

....and this would have needed thousands of people to play along at NASA, any university with a telescope, Russia, China......without spilling the beans for 50 years........I just don't see it....

And why would he make such a crappy video? The man was a freakin' visual master?

The crappier the video, the harder it is to find flaws. He may not have had final cut.

(I don't know about the higher-quality "on the way" videos, but it seems that if they were higher quality, indeed, why would Kubrick make something so shitty looking in such contrast? What's your explanation, Bob?)

The explanation is above--the crappier the video, the harder to find the flaws. You don't know about the higher quality video "on the way"? How about checking out the video links in post #2. How about an explanation for the lights that fall down in the other video that looks identical to the Armstrong "first step" video? How about an explanation as to why they fakes their distance from the earth?

Wag the Dog! That producer was killed at the end.

What producer are you talking about?

Uh-oh. If Jay Weidner suddenly disappears, we'll know.

How would you know he was gone? Ever heard of him before? People disappearing is always easily explained. The Kennedy assassination was famous for people disappearing who supposedly had critical information. Besides this is just talking about symbolism in a movie.

#27 | Posted by pragmatist at 2009-10-17 12:50 PM | Reply | Flag

......it's not such a huge technical accomplishment that it would have to be faked......

#30 | Posted by skizziks at 2009-10-17 02:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Then why is it projected that we can't go back for another 20 years? We should be able to go next week according to your logic. Just put some extra fuel in the shuttle. Maybe it is more difficult that you think.

Why are you ignoring my questions. I seem to be answering all of yours.

Why would they be faking their distance from the earth?

they can't even keep a secret when only three or four people are in on it.......

Of course they can. To think otherwise is simply foolish.

....and this would have needed thousands of people to play along at NASA, any university with a telescope, Russia, China......without spilling the beans for 50 years........I just don't see it....

Then explain why the Apollo 11 astronauts were faking their distance from the Earth. Did you see that?

#33 | Posted by skizziks at 2009-10-17 02:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

**** Then why is it projected that we can't go back for another 20 years? We should be able to go next week according to your logic. Just put some extra fuel in the shuttle. Maybe it is more difficult that you think. ****

.....the Chinese will be on the moon in a few years.....

......we can't because of a limited budget granted to NASA by Congress, after the Appolo series, NASA had a choice of projects, either keep going to the moon, or build the SHUTTLE-CRAFT and INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION......NASA chose the Shuttle-Craft + Space Station......

****Why are you ignoring my questions. I seem to be answering all of yours.*****

........not trying to ignore anything, some points seem less revelant than others.....

Why would they be faking their distance from the earth?
#35 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

.......I have not seen evidence that they are faking it, ......

"Then why is it projected that we can't go back for another 20 years? We should be able to go next week according to your logic. Just put some extra fuel in the shuttle."

Safety concerns. With the two space shuttle explosions and various satellite accidents over the last 20 years, we're a little gun-shy, no pun intended.

So now we're going to implement pentuple redundancies to make the mission as safe as possible.

Now they are bombing the moon...

"To answer your question, Kubrick was in the process of making 2001: A Space Odyssey at the time. This movie had moonscape in it, and the capability to fool an audience into believing what was shown on the screen as real. Actually, if you had read tha article, that was explained."

After a while, I was laughing too hard to read every single word.

"Why do you think the Apollo astronauts faked their distance from the Earth? Do you thionk that ignoring points makes your views valid?"

Ironic, Bob, given that the last time we argued, you ignored about half my points. I really only commented on the points I thought worth commenting on. If you'll notice, I was commenting on _the article_, not _the theory_. That was deliberate.

I find it more fun to ask questions than to argue with you. And I don't have the time to go view every youtube video you post.

"The crappier the video, the harder it is to find flaws. He may not have had final cut."

But Bob, you miss the point. If the other footage (the real footage, by your lights) is of better quality, a visual master like Kubrick could easily have made something of equal or near equal quality and fooled the eye. Hollywood is pretty good at fool the eye. And Kubrick is one of the best directors to have lived. (Though I'll have to check details on his cinematography. Most directors don't also serve as director of photography on their films. And most don't shoot their own films. And none do all the lighting and electric and set work. So to the number of people involved in the conspiracy, you have to add all the crew and actors of this faked moon landing.)

"What producer are you talking about?"

Did you see the movie? It's pretty funny, and it should appeal to your conspiratorial self. But remember, it's _fiction_. : ) And they actually wrote around the issue of crew who would have to lie. IIRC.

And speaking of ignoring points, Bob, you neatly ignored my basic point: We probably will NEVER know. At least not from Kubrick. Wouldn't many of those in on the conspiracy also be dead by now. It was forty years ago.

I also happen to agree with the people who say that, by and large, it's hard to keep a conspiracy/sham secret, at least forever. Sooner or later, someone speaks. The only way to really keep a secret, I would think, is for everyone who knows to die. But that's really speculation on my part. But anyway, I don't care. I'm just having fun with the Kubrick part--which, yes, strikes me as amazingly, astoundingly, earth-shatteringly unlikely.

If we wanna talk conspiracy, the possibilities surrounding 9/11/01 are a much much MUCH bigger deal.

.....the Chinese will be on the moon in a few years.....

I'm not talking about the Chinese--I'm talking about US. Are the Chinese more advanced than we are? If what you say is true--why would it take them years to accomplish it? It's not much of an achievement according to you.

That isn't the problem at all. If what you say were true, it is an easy accomplishment.

****Why are you ignoring my questions. I seem to be answering all of yours.*****

........not trying to ignore anything, some points seem less revelant than others.....

Faking their disatance doesn't seem relevant to you?

Why would they be faking their distance from the earth?
#35 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

.......I have not seen evidence that they are faking it, ......

Well, you have to do some investigation--like clicking the links in post #2---or this link that shows them faking the distance they are from the Earth.

www.youtube.com

#37 | Posted by skizziks at 2009-10-17 02:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Safety concerns. With the two space shuttle explosions and various satellite accidents over the last 20 years, we're a little gun-shy, no pun intended.

We went 7 times with 60's tech, and no problems, except for Apollo 13. Some lives have to be at risk--it is part of exploration. If risk and loss of life were a factor, we shouldn't start wars.

#38 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-10-17 02:31 PM | Reply | Flag

That isn't the problem at all. If what you say were true, it is an easy accomplishment.

.....sorry Bob....but I remember when that choice was given to NASA.....it was a budgetary choice ...see originally when NASA was formed, they wanted the Shuttle program and space station first, and to go to the moon after, it was JFK who screwed them up by directing them to go to the moon first, so they did that, but then after when their budget forced a choice, they went with what was their first choice anyways......

.....the NASA plan was space shuttle, space station , moon and beyond, JFK put things out of order.......

.....and yes, I'm old enough to remember all that......

Are the Chinese more advanced than we are?

.....no.......but they will be......

.....they are swimming in money, while we are not.....

"Why would they fake the distance they were from the Earth?"

I watched the 10 minute youtube video.

I don't know what to say.

***If what you say is true--why would it take them years to accomplish it? It's not much of an achievement according to you.****

......they only got all their play money through Wal-Mart in the past twenty years......

.....but seriously, you would have to ask them about their priorities.......

.....right now, because our shuttle fleet has reached the end of its life-span, we have to use Russian shuttles to re-supply the Space Station, it would seem that they have a greater space capacity than we do at this time also......

......so we have China and Russia pulling ahead of us in the so called space race, Japan will be putting up their own space station also.......its as much a function of the strength of the various economies, and the wisdom of national leadership......we don't have much of either anymore.......

Skizziks

How about a response as to why they faked the distance they were from the Earth. The link is in post#2, post #41, and this post.

www.youtube.com

I watched the 10 minute youtube video.

I don't know what to say.

#45 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-10-17 03:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

That that is, is. That that is not, is not. I would like to be able to ask the astronauts about that video. A reasonable answer, and I would gladly STFU.

www.youtube.com

Hag, does that mean you look at it as 10 minutes you'll never get back?

#49 | Posted by pragmatist at 2009-10-17 03:28 PM | Reply | Flag

It means he was open minded enough to look. If he had found an obvious flaw in the video, I'm sure he would have pointed it out. How about yourself. Do you have the courage to investigate, or are you satisfied with living with a lie as long as you like the lie? Many people are--I understand the logic. It is what keeps many marriages together, and people in churches.

www.youtube.com

Hag, does that mean you look at it as 10 minutes you'll never get back?
#49 | Posted by pragmatist

It looks like they're up to something. It made me think about the images I've seen in the past that I never questioned before. For instance, if you check it out, it looks like there are continuous strips of clouds running across the entire planet. If what they are saying about how the footage was taken is true, then something like that makes total sense.

The real shocker for me was at the end, after you hear the astronauts discussing their method, and then the footage disproves their statements. Especially about how the camera is right up against the window and then they turn on the lights and its all the way across the other side of the capsule. Its pretty bizarre.

But don't take my word for it, 10 minutes is no big deal. And the narrator's voice is kinda sexy in a smokey English accent sort of way.

How about a response as to why they faked the distance they were from the Earth. The link is in post#2, post #41, and this post.
.......#47 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

.....did it occur to you that the questionable parts of the Youtube video are far easier to fake than the moon landing ?......

.....one guy in his basement with an avid editor could do it.......

.....faking the moon landing would have needed thousands of people playing along for 50 years.......

......even so, most of that video did not look problematic to me.......

......and you have yet to answer the question.......why bother faking it?......

".....did it occur to you that the questionable parts of the Youtube video are far easier to fake than the moon landing ?......
.....one guy in his basement with an avid editor could do it......."

And that was exactly my point to Bob earlier. But speaking of ignoring points, eh, Bob? And you wouldn't even need Avid. If I got the right kind of file, I could create a pretty solid YouTube muckrake with iMovie.

"......and you have yet to answer the question.......why bother faking it?......"

My guess is it's about PR. We couldn't actually do it, so we faked it. Made us look good, set money up for funding the program, etc. (Which ignores greater good that came out of the space program, or maybe all those scientific advances are BS?)

"But don't take my word for it, 10 minutes is no big deal. And the narrator's voice is kinda sexy in a smokey English accent sort of way."

Thanks, Hag, for explaining what you meant. (You know, I asked Hag, Bob, NOT you. And with Hag's sense of humor, or my understanding of it, it really could have gone either way. He could have meant it was interesting or a waste of time. Such is my understanding of his sense and sensibility. So I had to ask, oddly, the person who made the comment.)

And Bob, you know, the shit about living a lie is a real great way to convince people of your point. (That was sarcasm, in case you didn't catch it.) I'm pretty sure I said I wasn't looking at the youtube videos _right then_. I _know_ I said my comments were largely about the Kubrick stuff, not the faking itself. I understand that you won't separate the two, but you know, I know a little about film and just a bit about Kubrick. But I also believe that it's pretty easy to fake a video, far easier to fake a web-quality video on YouTube than to fake a bit of film that will be examined and re-examined for decades to come. But sure, I'll look at it. LATER.

Again, I don't really give a shit about this one. If there's truth to the Truther conspiracy theory, THAT concerns me. I'm sure there are lots of things one could point out as problematic in the space hoax, but 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, and American empire are a lot closer to home (time-wise) and loom a hell of a lot larger in my world.

You're a mentally challenged bob, bob.

www.braeunig.us

The section "why do people believe this" hits the nail on the head regarding you.

www.clavius.org

There are plenty more sites out there that debunk your delusional theories with scientific fact.

Stick to commenting on smokestack's, invisible UFO's you see and car antenna's.

That way you're just crazy instead of an idiot.

It may be too late for you since you come off as both.

.....did it occur to you that the questionable parts of the Youtube video are far easier to fake than the moon landing ?......

#52 | Posted by skizziks at 2009-10-17 04:05 PM | Reply | Fl

Yes, of course that occured to me. But it leaves questions--what was their motivation, and the video looks too good.

With your logic--anything could be faked.
How do you know what is real and what is fake in your world? Even the moon landing---get it?

Thousands of people would have to play along? How about yourself--would you play along for $50,000 and a secure job---against having you and your whole family killed? What would be your choice? If you think the video is faked, that is your choice, but I say you are weak.

#54 | Posted by babuenthal at 2009-10-17 06:05 PM | Reply | Flag

I saw the Mythbusters episode---they debunked things that I had dismissed as irrelevant long ago--BFD.

As to your other link---I missed the part where they explain why they faked their distance from the Earth. Maybe you could cut and paste where they debunk the video?

This video---the one you keep ignoring.

www.youtube.com

"With your logic--anything could be faked."

But Bob, one could leap to that conclusion given your postings about fake stuff too. If these conspiracies can be true, why not lots of others? I tend to believe that there are plenty of open forces at work (PNAC, to name one) that we don't need hidden conspiracies. (What's the name of the PR group that works in other countries on behalf of American interests, supposedly secretly influencing other countries' media? That's well documented, no?)

But I will try to look at the video later, if I stay up after the wife goes to bed. I am (believe it or not) intrigued.

I still find the analysis of the Kubrick movie a fun intellectual exercise. I think a marxist feminist lesbian reading would be just as valid. : )

But Bob, one could leap to that conclusion given your postings about fake stuff too.

Exactly what "fake stuff" are you referring to? I am unaware of anything I post being fake. I am aware of people twisting what I have said--about the car antenna in particular.

If these conspiracies can be true, why not lots of others?

Lots of others may be true--I only post about the ones I think have some credibility.

I tend to believe that there are plenty of open forces at work (PNAC, to name one) that we don't need hidden conspiracies.

I don't know much about PNAC, so I don't talk about any conspiracy from them. Whether we need conspiracies or not has nothing to do with it. The conspiracies are facts--whether they are reality or not is what the discussion is about.

(What's the name of the PR group that works in other countries on behalf of American interests, supposedly secretly influencing other countries' media? That's well documented, no?)

I don't know. I never heard of such a PR firm.

But I will try to look at the video later, if I stay up after the wife goes to bed. I am (believe it or not) intrigued.

Curiousity is a good thing---if you can handle what you find out.

I still find the analysis of the Kubrick movie a fun intellectual exercise. I think a marxist feminist lesbian reading would be just as valid. : )

I never thought of the Shining in the light it was portrayed in the movie. That Kubrick put an Apollo 11 sweater on the boy, changed the room number to 237, and made the girls twins was telling, but not necessarily convincing. That he was associated with faking the moon landing by conspiracists far longer ago than I began to question it, shows a complete lack of judgement on his part for including so many "coincidences" in his film.

#57 | Posted by pragmatist at 2009-10-17 06:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Exactly what "fake stuff" are you referring to? I am unaware of anything I post being fake. I am aware of people twisting what I have said--about the car antenna in particular."

I'm sorry. I should have said "faked stuff." That's what I meant. I know nothing about the car antenna story, nor do I give a rat's ass.

"I don't know much about PNAC, so I don't talk about any conspiracy from them."

My point was not that they do conspiracies, but that they're open about their agenda. Never mind.

"Whether we need conspiracies or not has nothing to do with it. The conspiracies are facts--whether they are reality or not is what the discussion is about."

The conspiracies are facts? Whether they are reality--what?!? They're facts if they're real. If they're not, they're not facts. Of course, that depends on what your definition of is is.

"(What's the name of the PR group that works in other countries on behalf of American interests, supposedly secretly influencing other countries' media? That's well documented, no?)
I don't know. I never heard of such a PR firm."

I'll have to see if I can find it again. My point was, there's enough documented sneaky shit that I don't feel a need to go looking for conspiracies. But hey, that's what you're here for. I don't mean that as snippy as it sounds--we need people to rake this particular muck; even if something valid is uncovered only once in a thousand, it's something that otherwise would probably have gone uncovered.

"Curiousity is a good thing---if you can handle what you find out."

I just don't know what the fuck that means. Trying to insult me yet again? Sweet. You're a prince, Bob.

"I never thought of the Shining in the light it was portrayed in the movie. That Kubrick put an Apollo 11 sweater on the boy, changed the room number to 237, and made the girls twins was telling, but not necessarily convincing. That he was associated with faking the moon landing by conspiracists far longer ago than I began to question it, shows a complete lack of judgement on his part for including so many "coincidences" in his film."

Now I'm convinced. You got me. Gee gosh I don't know how I didn't see it before.

Okay, speaking of not seeing, I gotta go look at this video.

Hm. Pretty interesting. Some thoughts:

1. Where's it from? Who's to say what's being presented is not faked? I mean, if we're talking about faking stuff? One could easily argue it's about what we choose to believe, just as Bob asserts over and over again to those who deny his ideas.

2. If it's valid, then yes, there's something quite disturbing about a globally perpetrated hoax.

3. The last lines give away the agenda, though, so that has to make a critical thinker wonder, no? The line about taxpayers--so the whole thing was hoaxed up for fundraising. Could be.

in other words, shockingly, I'm not convinced. This was enough to make me wonder, but not enough to make me a believer. Again, what we see in the video is an interesting collection of images, but it would be far easier to mock these up to create the question/theory than it would have been for the government and Kubrick to have faked the entire thing and gotten away with it for 40 years. In short, Bob, no, I didn't "find out" anything. I saw conjecture with video that any number of editors I've worked with could have cobbled together to support the same conclusion.

But who knows? Part of me would love to be showed that the conspiracy is real. (Of course, Bob will say I didn't approach with an open mind, etc. And he'd be partly right. I tried. I really did. I just don't see the proof, Bob, that you see.)

I meant to say, too, that the fact that interests me most is that there are two different qualities of video in play: the high-res color inside the ship and the low-res b&w of the landing. Of course, the argument is probably about two different cameras and something preventing the color from being outside the ship. Bob, has NASA/the fed gov't spoken to this question? Was there answer related to what I suppose?

Sure---theis could be a faked video. People do it all the time. So could the videos that have been purported to come from the moon have been faked. But Who would want to fake it? How would they have done it? Where do you get the things you say about me? Such as---just as Bob asserts over and over again to those who deny his ideas. How about a forinstance when I have ECER done that? I don't think you read my stuff much. Also--where is your list of "fake" things I have posted?

2. If it's valid, then yes, there's something quite disturbing about a globally perpetrated hoax.

People want to believe. I htink that after Kennedy was assasssinated, it was obvious they could get away with anything.

3. The last lines give away the agenda, though, so that has to make a critical thinker wonder, no? The line about taxpayers--so the whole thing was hoaxed up for fundraising. Could be.

That was their opinion. It has nothing to do with the validity of the video.

Of course you only looked at one video. You had no comment of the other 27 second video or its comparison to the original moon landing video shown to the world.

But who knows? Part of me would love to be showed that the conspiracy is real.

I don't believe that--then you would have to say things that the majority doesn't believe. I don't think you have that courage.

(Of course, Bob will say I didn't approach with an open mind, etc. And he'd be partly right. I tried. I really did. I just don't see the proof, Bob, that you see.)

I understand. This wasn't for you--it is for me. I say what I say because I look at more than one video(did you notice them? Were they easy to pass by?. I question everything that moves. Others are content to live in a world they make for themselves and accept the facts that keep them comfortable. I wish I could do that sometimes too----but for me--I have to KNOW. That's why I look at all the videos. I don;t think there is a conspiracy of people sitting in their basements with nothing better to do than make high quality fakes about the moonlanding. I think there is a small minority with access to the truth who have the courage to get it out there. You can believe what you like as do we all. I just can't ignore the questions.

But still---how aqbout that list of fakes you claim I am constantly posting. Just curious as to what you doubt, and your perceptions.

#59 | Posted by pragmatist at 2009-10-17 10:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

That was one of my questions. I guess you must have missed it. I only asked about four times, so it is understandable how you could have missed it. Here is an accepted video of Apollo 11 in trtansit, showing similar color and picture quality of the video that shows them faking their distance from the moon.

www.youtube.com

Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining" was really a subtle affirmation by Kubrick of his previous role as the guy who faked the moon landings?
Interesting premise.
And by "interesting Spud", of course, means BAT-SHIAT INSANE.
Be Well.
#1 | Posted by dethspud at 2009-10-17 03:25 AM

Barry Lyndon

Contrary to legend, this film did use artificial lighting. Artificial lights were used, for example, in the scene where Brian learns he's getting a horse. However, it is true that no artificial lighting was used for candlelit scenes. A lens built by the Carl Zeiss company for NASA, a 50mm Zeiss lens modified with the Kollmorgen adaptor used in still cameras, was used to shoot scenes lit only by candlelight.

Glass Curiosities: A NASA lens becomes a filmmaker's obsession

Kubrick procured one of the fastest lenses ever made. Building on research into nighttime infrared optics by the Nazis in World War II, Zeiss developed a special 50 mm planar lens for a NASA project to photograph the dark side of the moon. John Alcott, Kubrick's cinematographer, in an interview with American Cinematographer, recalls the grueling technicalities of the lens."This Zeiss lens was like no other lens in a way, because when you look through any normal type of lens you are looking through the optical system and by just altering the focus you can tell whether it's in or out of focus. But when you looked through this lens it appeared to have a fantastic range of focus, quite unbelievable. However, when you did a photographic test you discovered that it had no depth of field at allwhich one expected anyway. So we literally had to scale this lens by doing hand tests from about 200 feet down to about 4 feet, marking every distance that would lead up to the 10-foot range. We had to literally get it down to inches on the actual scaling."

This wasn't the last challenge Kubrick would face. He asked his camera engineer, Ed DiGiulio, to fit the enormous lens to a Mitchell BNC camera. Although Diguilio said that it couldn't be done Kubrick insisted. When Diguilio asked Kubrick why he didn't use a market lens with a fill light, Diguillo says "he replied that he was not doing this just as a gimmick, but because he wanted to preserve the natural patina and feeling of these old castles at night as they actually were. The addition of any fill light would have added an artificiality to the scene that he did not want." Degiulio totally rebuilt the BNC, and succeeded in mounting the lens. The lens also produced a limitation for the actors. In the candlelit scenes they had to move slowly and be careful not to leave the limited depth of focus, consequently the movement these scenes is hypnotically slow.

The technical challenges were monumental, and the results are equally stunning. Because of the shallow depth-of-field, the scenes are painterly and dream-like. The lighting is soft and dramatic, mimicking the work of 18th-century English painters such as Joseph Write of Derby. Although the film was a commercial failure (because it was slow, long, and emotionally reserved), it was widely hailed as an artistic success, is on many best-films-of-all-time lists, and remains an icon of innovative cinematography. There were were only 10 of these Zeiss lenses ever produced. Three are owned by Kubrick, six by NASA and one can be found at the German Movie Museum in Frankfurt.