ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: molesworth on July 11, 2017, 05:26:24 PM
-
Well, I think it's about time the true story of Stanley Kubrick's incredible work in faking the lunar landings was made public, and thanks to a seemingly innocent question on the "Quora" web site, we now have some more details :
https://www.quora.com/Even-when-proof-exists-that-the-moon-landing-was-a-hoax-why-do-school-textbooks-continue-to-glorify-the-Apollo-mission/answer/Patrick-Germain
It's quite a detailed article, and exposes a lot of the difficulties of the project, as well as creative conflicts between Kubrick and NASA which eventually led to the demise of the project.
Most Directors would have been content to use a large sound stage, but Kubrick insisted on shooting on location. One anonymous source, claiming to be a member of Kubrick’s film crew for the moon project, has claimed that the Director insisted on shooting on the Lunar surface “Because he wanted to get the light just right.” The alleged cameraman has also stated that setting up the sets and operating the cameras in the harsh Lunar environment was extremely difficult, but as they were being paid more than double union scale it was well worth it.
;D
On the plus side, it's a very well written and humorous piece, demolishing the initial question...
No major film Director has been to the Moon since.
-
Well, he was a perfectionist....
-
I don't think he had any involvement in making any fake sets or movies.
For the HB's reading the initial paragraphs would be the truth, the remainder of the article would be disregarded
-
I don't think he had any involvement in making any fake sets or movies.
For the HB's reading the initial paragraphs would be the truth, the remainder of the article would be disregarded
It wouldn't be the first time they've taken satire about Kubrick down whole without realizing (or admitting) what it was.
-
I don't think he had any involvement in making any fake sets or movies.
For the HB's reading the initial paragraphs would be the truth, the remainder of the article would be disregarded
It wouldn't be the first time they've taken satire about Kubrick down whole without realizing (or admitting) what it was.
Very true. :)
-
...but as they were being paid more than double union scale it was well worth it.
Ingenious - but it's not just the film crew! It's so obvious that I don't even have to claim a Ph.D. to state it as fact. This is how NASA bought the silence of some 400,000 engineers, scientists, and contractors etc., plus the actro-nuts themselves,
although maybe probably it is certain that the actro-nuts got triple scale or even better. They, after all, still have to peddle this tripe to the masses - witness Buzz vs. the Donald.
Wake up, sheeple.
-
There are several problems, one being...
that Kubrick was working on movies while he was suppose to stage Apollo missions.
Anyways, lets do some calculations: 2001 lasted 2.5 hours and took 2 years to make.
The EVA of Apollo 11 lasted about 2.5 hours. It came out in 1969, so had to be finished by 1967. That would mean 2001 had to be finished by 1965.
Apollo 12 had a total EVA duration of 7 hours and 45 minutes, so would take about 5 years to make. It would need to be finished in 1964
Then: Apollo 11 had to be finished in 1962
And 2001: 1960
But shit, then Kubric was working on Dr Strangelove, Lolita and Spartacus
I guess we should push the dates further back? Oh but shit, then he was kind of making a movie every 2 a 3 years, working on Lolita(1962), Spartacus(1960), Paths of Glory(1957)
So when did Kubrick have time to stage all of NASA's footage?
Of course I didn't take into account All pre-Apollo 11 footage, and non-EVA footage into account. That had to be staged too. Nor did I go further than Apollo 12, because as you can see, it will only make things worse. Given those mission EVAs lasted +10 hours.
-
I don't think he had any involvement in making any fake sets or movies.
For the HB's reading the initial paragraphs would be the truth, the remainder of the article would be disregarded
It wouldn't be the first time they've taken satire about Kubrick down whole without realizing (or admitting) what it was.
Remember the infamous "death-bed confession" of Kubrick about the apollo missions. Someone (don't recall who) even went so far as to identify the actor used in that piece of crap.
-
I don't think he had any involvement in making any fake sets or movies.
For the HB's reading the initial paragraphs would be the truth, the remainder of the article would be disregarded
It wouldn't be the first time they've taken satire about Kubrick down whole without realizing (or admitting) what it was.
Remember the infamous "death-bed confession" of Kubrick about the apollo missions. Someone (don't recall who) even went so far as to identify the actor used in that piece of crap.
Ah yes, I had forgotten that piece of work, HB's will resort to any tactic that might give support to their critical thinking.
-
I don't think he had any involvement in making any fake sets or movies.
For the HB's reading the initial paragraphs would be the truth, the remainder of the article would be disregarded
It wouldn't be the first time they've taken satire about Kubrick down whole without realizing (or admitting) what it was.
Remember the infamous "death-bed confession" of Kubrick about the apollo missions. Someone (don't recall who) even went so far as to identify the actor used in that piece of crap.
Ah yes, I had forgotten that piece of work, HB's will resort to any tactic that might give support to their critical thinking.
Critical? At this point HB thinking is in ICU and brain dead. Time to pull the plug on it.
There is a reason that HBs have retreated to yooboob. That is the only venue left where they can control the discussion.
-
I don't think he had any involvement in making any fake sets or movies.
For the HB's reading the initial paragraphs would be the truth, the remainder of the article would be disregarded
It wouldn't be the first time they've taken satire about Kubrick down whole without realizing (or admitting) what it was.
Remember the infamous "death-bed confession" of Kubrick about the apollo missions. Someone (don't recall who) even went so far as to identify the actor used in that piece of crap.
Ah yes, I had forgotten that piece of work, HB's will resort to any tactic that might give support to their critical thinking.
Critical? At this point HB thinking is in ICU and brain dead. Time to pull the plug on it.
There is a reason that HBs have retreated to yooboob. That is the only venue left where they can control the discussion.
Of course, I should have enclosed critical thinking in quotation marks and added a roll eyes feature. Forgive the omission.
-
Remember the infamous "death-bed confession" of Kubrick about the apollo missions. Someone (don't recall who) even went so far as to identify the actor used in that piece of crap.
Am I correct in thinking the confession interiew took place about two month post-humously?
-
Remember the infamous "death-bed confession" of Kubrick about the apollo missions. Someone (don't recall who) even went so far as to identify the actor used in that piece of crap.
Am I correct in thinking the confession interiew took place about two month post-humously?
Two months after the faked death.
-
So when did Kubrick have time to stage all of NASA's footage?
Unlike his "real" movies, where Kubrick could set his working pace, his secret work for NASA was incredibly rushed. That's why it contains all these silly mistakes that make it more like the work of Ed Wood.
-
Am I correct in thinking the confession interiew took place about two month post-humously?
Just be happy it wasn't Kubrick's ghost visiting a certain english accountant... he might have written another book about his golf career.