Musings about Kubrick, Hollywood and the Moon Hoax

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.

Re: The Moon Hoax

Postby nonhocapito on March 29th, 2012, 7:49 pm

reel.deal wrote:Kubrick did not fake the moon-landings, NA$A coerced Kubrick into being 'technical assistant', used his scotchlite screens for the 'panoramic vistas', and then deresolutioned the lot. Kubrick was sore the rest of his life, but knew if he explicitly spilled the beans he'd get whacked. which may have been his fate anyway, as it turned out... [i]Kubrick was coerced, into an 'unholy alliance' he despised, a dark alliance he knew he would never shrug off...


How can you be so sure of how things went? I think we tend to have a certain preconceived idea of what and who these people are or are supposed to be because Hollywood instructed us about it for decades. Kubrick is reclusive; he is methodical; he is obsessive etc etc. What if these are all lies or trivializations?

Suppose he had to be involved, in whatever form, with the Apollo missions, but simply wasn't given enough time to be a perfectionist about it; suppose he was capable and intelligent enough to lower his standards as long as his name was not involved; suppose the geniality of it has been precisely in presenting a product of lower quality; suppose half the job consisted exactly in hiding one's method and signature: I could go on. It is easy to say now that Apollo is flawed -- A Space Odyssey is flawed too, in his own way. But they had a good run.

I say we don't know enough about it and that we should know more -- because a similar situation could and probably does apply to 9/11 as well, where the presence of Hollywood is not only marked by references in movies and sitcoms or secondary actors borrowed from the studios, but might be found in the scripts and storylines and direction and special effects and the whole shebang. Of course the final result sucks -- but honestly, behind the glitter, most of the things Hollywood produces suck, so nothing too strange there, no?
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2492
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: The Moon Hoax

Postby whatsgoingon on March 29th, 2012, 8:32 pm

a
Last edited by whatsgoingon on May 24th, 2013, 10:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
whatsgoingon
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 578
Joined: October 13th, 2011, 8:56 pm

Re: The Moon Hoax

Postby reel.deal on March 29th, 2012, 8:38 pm

nonhocapito wrote:I say we don't know enough about it and that we should know more --

Kubrick was an auteur, a maverick, an obsessive, a perfectionist, watch the 'Boxes' trailer...
an 'artist', who NA$A co-opted into sharing some of his techniques to help fake the Apollo
footage. that much is true. he was caught in a catch 22; did he want to be NA$As lackey ? no.
did he want to continue making his independent & creatively controlled 'art' ? yes. would he
want to be willingly deceiving the world ? no. he's no 'Leonardo'.
i mean, he lived in St.Albans ffs, you cant get no further away from Uncle Sam than that!

Much of what you've posited about Kubrick indeed suggests no-one has really got to the crux
of the matter of how complicit, or instrumental Kubrick was to faking the Apollo moon-films.
I like what you put about NA$A pinning the 'hoax' mocumentary onto Kubrick, to ridicule &
deflect the suggestion 'Kubrick faked the moon-landings'. david icke forum has 700 pages on
fake moon-landings, i'm gonna go through it & see if theres any Kubrick/other good stuff on
there. I dont know what i think about Kubrick &/or his NA$A involvement, & i'd like to know
more. he could easily have just died from a heart attack, just as the media says, but even
with that theres an enigma...

he died on March 7th 1999, 4 days after turning in the Eyes Wide Shut final print, March 3rd.
# of days between his death and January 1st 2001; the start of the year his most famous film
took its name from ? ... 666.
:ph34r:
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 1295
Joined: August 15th, 2010, 1:42 am

Re: The Moon Hoax

Postby pdgalles on March 29th, 2012, 9:19 pm

nonhocapito wrote:I think we tend to have a certain preconceived idea of what and who these people are or are supposed to be because Hollywood instructed us about it for decades. Kubrick is reclusive; he is methodical; he is obsessive etc etc. What if these are all lies or trivializations?


This is the crux of the matter - we can all look at images and videos and see the fakery. We can notice recurring patterns in narrative structures and let out a collective groan as the same story cycles around again.

But can we really find any truth in a never-ending web of deception built upon deception? Probably not. If my imagined scenario regarding Kubrick's non-involvement in the Moon landings is wrong it changes nothing about my certainty in the fakery of the landings.

I agree totally with your comment about us doing our own research but what is our source material for researching Kubrick? His films emanate from and were funded by Hollywood. This is not a trustworthy source, for me at least, as we're back to the position that I have now abandoned where we're looking to hints and clues embedded in films and novels that suggest the writer/director had prior knowledge of media fakery.

The strongest point that both you, fbenario and Simon have made to me is that if an individual academic/writer/director wants to call out media fakery then they should just do so! None of this embedding subtle clues that 99% (or should that be 100%?) of the reader/viewership won't pick up on.

The only people I have met who are willing to call a spade a spade are on this forum. Everyone else has another agenda, I guess. :)

Edit: I have misrepresented your position, I realise, as you weren't talking about Kubrick revealing anything through 2001 but that it was a precursor to the Moon landings.
pdgalles
Member
 
Posts: 103
Joined: September 18th, 2011, 10:08 pm

Re: The Moon Hoax

Postby simonshack on March 29th, 2012, 10:30 pm

Does anyone wish to tackle (or rationally explain to my slow, rational mind) why the year "2001" was chosen for Kubrick's movie - hailed as one of the Greatest Movies of All Time?

Why 2001? Just because it sounded like a cool, futuristic number at the time? A coincidence? Happenstance? Why not "2011? "3333?" "9999"? "111111"?

Now, I know it was Arthur C. Clarke who wrote "2001 a Space Odyssey". Who was Arthur C. Clarke, by the way?
Clarke served in the Royal Air Force as a radar instructor and technician from 1941–1946. He proposed a satellite communication system in 1945 which won him the Franklin Institute Stuart Ballantine Gold Medal in 1963. He was the chairman of the British Interplanetary Society from 1947–1950 and again in 1953
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke


Interesting, no? Then, Wickedpedia teaches us that...

In the 1980s Clarke became well known to many for his television programmes Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World, Arthur C. Clarke's World of Strange Powers and Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious Universe. In 1986 he was named a Grand Master by the Science Fiction Writers of America.


We then learn that Arthur C. Clarke was appointed...

In the 1989 Queen's Birthday Honours Clarke was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) "for services to British cultural interests in Sri Lanka". The same year he became the first Chancellor of the International Space University, serving from 1989 to 2004


"Chancellor of the International Space University"??? What is that? Check it out for yourself!

THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE UNIVERSITY - in Strasbourg - FRANCE
Image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... University
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6352
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The Moon Hoax

Postby pdgalles on March 29th, 2012, 10:46 pm

simonshack wrote:Does anyone wish to tackle (or rationally explain to my slow, rational mind) why the year "2001" was chosen for Kubrick's movie - hailed as one of the Greatest Movies of All Time?

Why 2001? Just because it sounded like a cool, futuristic number at the time? A coincidence? Happenstance? Why not "2011? "3333?" "9999"? "111111"?


Unsourced quote attributed to Clarke:

What is interesting to note is that Clarke and Kubrick chose the year 2001, not the year 2000, to mark the beginning of the new millennium. Clarke still insists that "the intelligent minority of this world will mark 1 January 2001 as the real beginning of the 21st century and the third millennium."


http://personal.tmlp.com/hayesboh/uu/sermons/jan0701.htm

Explanation in comments section:

There was no year 0 AD. The first year AD was year 1 AD, not year 0 AD. The last year of the first decade AD was, therefore, year 10 AD, not year 9 AD. Similarly, the last year of the first century AD was 100 AD, not 99 AD. The last year of the first millennium AD was 1000 AD, not 999 AD. The last year of the second millennium AD was 2000 AD, not 1999 AD. The first year of the 21st century AD was 2001 AD, not 2000 AD.


http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2010/12/31/the-first-decade-of-the-future-is-behind-us/

Edit: The sequel was 2010 so no need to link 2001 with 9/11. The third novel was 2061. I'll be hiding under my bed for the whole year if I'm still alive. :P
Last edited by pdgalles on March 29th, 2012, 10:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
pdgalles
Member
 
Posts: 103
Joined: September 18th, 2011, 10:08 pm

Re: The Moon Hoax

Postby Makkonen on March 29th, 2012, 10:50 pm

It's depressing how much of the art community has been and continues to be linked to the military-industrial complex. Not funny at all.
Makkonen
Member
 
Posts: 575
Joined: March 29th, 2011, 10:21 pm

Re: The Moon Hoax

Postby lux on March 29th, 2012, 11:09 pm

What is interesting to note is that Clarke and Kubrick chose the year 2001, not the year 2000, to mark the beginning of the new millennium. Clarke still insists that "the intelligent minority of this world will mark 1 January 2001 as the real beginning of the 21st century and the third millennium."


Jan 1st, 2001 was the beginning of the new millennium. The year 2000 was the last year of the 20th century.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: The Moon Hoax

Postby fbenario on March 30th, 2012, 1:02 am

reel.deal wrote:i mean, he lived in St.Albans ffs, you cant get no further away from Uncle Sam than that!

Did you review your geography before posting? The US military base at Alconbury, Camb., is 45 minutes by car from St. Albans - and London is even closer. Kubrick could hardly have lived too much closer to major CIA centers.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: The Moon Hoax

Postby fbenario on March 30th, 2012, 1:06 am

pdgalles wrote:The only people I have met who are willing to call a spade a spade are on this forum. Everyone else has another agenda, I guess. :)

Orwell: Freedom is defined as the ability to call things what they are.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: The Moon Hoax

Postby whatsgoingon on March 30th, 2012, 1:24 am

a
Last edited by whatsgoingon on May 24th, 2013, 10:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
whatsgoingon
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 578
Joined: October 13th, 2011, 8:56 pm

Re: The Moon Hoax

Postby reel.deal on March 30th, 2012, 2:02 am

fbenario wrote:
reel.deal wrote:i mean, he lived in St.Albans ffs, you cant get no further away from Uncle Sam than that!

Did you review your geography before posting? The US military base at Alconbury, Camb., is 45 minutes by car from St. Albans - and London is even closer. Kubrick could hardly have lived too much closer to major CIA centers.

mmm, yeah ok. metaphorically, then ? ...only time i was ever in St. Albans was 1 night when me & a mate overshot our tubestop from London, heading to a house party. so we tried a couple pubs, missed last orders, so they 'said', so then we ended up having to smoke weed & drink vodka
in the graveyard to kill an hour before the next & last train back into London - & 'civilisation' ! ;)

dont reckon Kubrick wished to spend much time 'entertaining guests' or commuting to Alconbury, Camb either. i dunno tho, maybe some
of Full Metal Jacket was shot there ?
I'm no film buff, no Kubrick expert, and i dont know how involved with NA$A/CIA Kubrick was.
ultimately; i find it hard to conceive Kubrick enjoyed hanging out with Fedz all day long when he seemed to be so consumed with his own film-making... or what ? ...Fedz never forgave him & kept him muzzled and on a short leash ever since Dr. Strangelove ?!?
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 1295
Joined: August 15th, 2010, 1:42 am

Re: The Moon Hoax

Postby nonhocapito on March 30th, 2012, 3:33 am

reel.deal wrote:ultimately; i find it hard to conceive Kubrick enjoyed hanging out with Fedz all day long when he seemed to be so consumed with his own film-making... or what ? ...Fedz never forgave him & kept him muzzled and on a short leash ever since Dr. Strangelove ?!?


Yet like with many stories about the Beatles, this could all be legend. It's the way Hollywood so often describes itself: independent, creative, rebellious...

Are you really convinced that a movie like Dr Strangelove disappointed the military or the feds? A movie that had a major role in supporting the nuke hoax? (or if it were not a hoax, the fear-mongering power of the nuclear threat)? It matters little if the movie makes fun of the hierarchy; it matter little if the whole establishment is described as incompetent and obtuse.
Even better! This all adds to the fears! Wasn't the Bush presidency described as grossily incompetent before and after 9/11? Wasn't it part of the conspiracy as well, to use that incompetence to add to the sense of desperation and resignation of the people?

It's like thinking that M.A.S.H, a show that went on for decades, really bothered the military because it added laughter and moral issues to military life. I am sure the army loved that show. [EDIT: Heck, probably even Lenny Bruce yelling "we are all going to die" during the days of the Cuban missile crisis helped the cause of nuclear fear-mongering.]

Something else: in Dr Strangelove one of the themes is the juxtaposition between the bomb, which is the real threat, and the paranoia of general "Jack D. Ripper" worried about "bodily fluids", which is a comical threat.

Do you remember what exactly general Ripper found dangerous in the water and that, according to him, was put there by communists?

Image
Screenshot from Dr Strangelove, around mark 45:26

That's right: already then, at the beginning of the sixties, the favorite conspiratorial paranoia, used to describe free thinkers as kooks, was "fluoridation of water", which, I don't think I need to remind anyone, is one of Alex Jones' favorite arguments --still today.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2492
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: The Moon Hoax

Postby nonhocapito on March 30th, 2012, 6:21 am

pdgalles wrote:...but what is our source material for researching Kubrick? His films emanate from and were funded by Hollywood. This is not a trustworthy source, for me at least, as we're back to the position that I have now abandoned where we're looking to hints and clues embedded in films and novels that suggest the writer/director had prior knowledge of media fakery.


yet finding more about techniques used by Kubrick; certain circumstances in the production of his movies; aspects of his official biography; possible favors/connections with the military or other entities; interpretations and clues left in movies to possibly wink at those in the know; some other stuff I can't think of :) : All these can be valid threads of research even if the material we look upon comes from Hollywood or other sources that are tainted by their being produced with propaganda in mind. We do what we can...

reel.deal wrote:
btw... what the f~^k is that shit about ?!?
:ph34r:
V V V V V :blink:

Image


I think "ArcAngel4Myke" http://www.youtube.com/user/ArcAngel4Myke aka Michael Palomino have been proposing this idea for quite some time and it is certainly deserving our attention. Kubrick and Disney, hmm... on the surface, one could not imagine more different approaches to entertainment. Under the surface, who knows...?
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2492
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: The Moon Hoax

Postby nonhocapito on March 30th, 2012, 6:29 am

simonshack wrote:Does anyone wish to tackle (or rationally explain to my slow, rational mind) why the year "2001" was chosen for Kubrick's movie - hailed as one of the Greatest Movies of All Time?


I don't think there's any accessory meaning to the choice of the year except it being a moment in the near future of great importance, transformation and change (today we know for what reason).
But to properly understand the importance of this I think we have to first understand the meaning of the monoliths, and why they appear to bring transformation and "evolution" whenever they appear in the movie.

According to this very interesting interpretation: http://www.collativelearning.com/2001%2 ... r%202.html the monoliths have to be seen horizontally and are really representing the cinema screen, which is why they "sing" and are attractive (and deadly) like Odysseus' sirens:

Image

So in the films opening and during the intermission, we are not looking at an empty black screen at all. We are looking directly at the surface of the monolith! The monolith is the film screen and it is singing directly at its audience in the same way that the apes and astronauts are entranced by its heavenly voice, not realising that they are being communicated with directly.

From http://www.collativelearning.com/2001%2 ... r%202.html


First you will come to the Sirens who enchant all who come near them. If any one unwarily draws in too close and hears the singing of the Sirens, his wife and children will never welcome him home again, for they sit in a green field and warble him to death with the sweetness of their song. There is a great heap of dead men's bones lying all around, with the flesh still rotting off them. Therefore pass these Sirens by, and stop your men's ears with wax that none of them may hear; but if you like you can listen yourself, for you may get the men to bind you as you stand upright on a cross-piece half way up the mast, and they must lash the rope's ends to the mast itself, that you may have the pleasure of listening. If you beg and pray the men to unloose you, then they must bind you faster.

From The Odyssey, Book XII


In other words the monoliths would symbolize the dependency of humanity on the movie industry and the media in general to learn new things about the world and "evolve" their ways of thinking. The center of knowledge and power, would be saying Kubrick, is the entertainment/cultural machine itself.
2001 is going to be the year when this power is going to get a final, transforming grip on humanity. Everyone can draw their own conclusions from this.

*

Incidentally, possibly subconsciously inspired by all the recent maritime accidents, I recently joyfully re-read Homer's Odyssey. So finally I realized or focused my attention on the meaning of the name of the main character, "Odysseus", from which the word "Odyssey" comes.

Apparently "Odysseus" means "Victim of hatred".
An "Odyssey" is the story of a victim of hatred.

Victims, victims, victims. Propaganda is made of them... <_<
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2492
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests