Cluesforum—Exposing Mass Deception

[I split the following posts from the "Moon Hoax" thread: not to influence anyone about the relevance or non-relevance of this discussion, but because it was getting difficult to follow this thread within the larger and more crucial scope of the Moon hoax thread. I also added the word "Musings" just to make it clear that we are not debating this with a preconceived idea. Hope this is all right ~nonhocapito]

*
STANLEY KUBRICK - and the Moon Hoax



Much has been said about Stanley Kubrick's role in producing the Moon Hoax imagery. I have no pretense to add much here to the many analyses of Kubrick's work - as I've just begun, out of curiosity, to scratch the surface of it all. To be sure, his "2001: A Space Odyssey" was released a year or so before the Apollo 11 hoax. We also know that an impressive list of NASA/US government contractors offered Kubrick their full support (for free) - and that the very same front screen projection techniques used for "2001" can be easily detected in the Moon Hoax imagery.

If, as it seems, Kubrick indeed was behind the Moon Hoax, what other clues from his other work do we have - "hidden" in plain sight? Well, how many are aware of the fact that Kubrick insisted (by contract) that his last movie, "Eyes Wide Shut", be released on July 16, 1999 (in fact, so it was) - which just happened to be the 30th anniversary of the Apollo 11 launch? Kubrick, however, died from a sudden heart attack at age 70 (on March 7, 1999) - only days after completing the editing of "Eyes Wide Shut" - and the MGM studios released a truncated version of the movie: we will never know what was cut out from the original edit - or why.

Now, would it be unreasonable to surmise that Kubrick also had foreknowledge of other government hoaxes to come, such as 9/11? Is it only a coincidence that "2001: A Space Odyssey" was set in...uh well...2001? Is it also happenstance that "the first spacecraft to land on the moon" was called Apollo 11 (A11) and that "the first plane to strike the WTC" was called American Airlines 11 (AA11)?

The Twins:


In any case, as Jay Weidner has already pointed out, "THE SHINING" movie contains a few clues regarding what we may well imagine was Kubrick's lifetime obsession: A11. The most obvious, of course, is the scene featuring Danny wearing an "APOLLO 11 USA" sweater (see image above). Another memorable scene (in my mind, the best/scariest of the whole movie) is when Wendy discovers what exactly her husband has been typing for all of this time - inside the Overlook Hotel...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgMdz2fe0CY

Jay Weidner suggests that "All" should actually be read "A11". Quite frankly, it doesn't sound too far-fetched a suggestion to me - considering all we now know about Kubrick. But let me 'go out on a limb' for a second - and submit another scene extracted from "THE SHINING". This phonecall scene shows a TV set in the backdrop - with some flickering images. In between images showing a big "X" across the screen, we have this image:



Don't know about you - but it looks a little bit familiar to me.

************************************************

An interesting take on "THE SHINING": (it seems only part 1 has been uploaded)

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f84CFDN5T0o

***********************************************
WAG THE DOG (a movie about a Hollywood director, "Stanley Motss", being asked to direct a TV hoax for the government)
As an 'aside' post-scriptum, I just realized that the WAG THE DOG movie's main character (played by Dustin Hoffman) is called "Stanley". Surely, just a coincidence? The full name is "Stanley Motss". A strange surname you might say - which sounds like an acronym. Here's one meaning given for this abbreviation: "More of the Same Old Same Old"...
http://abbreviations.yourdictionary.com/motss

Interesting stuff there... thanks, Simon (& everybody).

Fantastic connections and insight, Simon. It fells like a door open on this huge world that is yet to be explored from our point of view. Maybe deserving of a separate thread...?

I felt particularly insulted when I saw a few years ago the mockumentary Dark Side of The Moon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Side_ ... mentary%29


From http://kurtodrome.wordpress.com/tag/mockumentary/

Premise of this TV movie, that first aired on Arte in 2002 with the title Opération Lune, is exactly that Kubrick was behind the staged Apollo missions -- and fake "behind the scenes" images and interviews are shown to document this fact, until of course it is made clear that this is all a mock, because the Apollo landings are true.

Here it is on youtube:

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1_4JpP-lSo

As I said, insulting: because the mockumentary makes sure that this obvious connection, Kubrick+Apollo, is destroyed by paradox, somehow, before it can rise by itself to the public conscious. A straightforward pollution technique.

[EDIT: also insulting because this is a moral judgment passed against "conspiracy theories", but on another level, if what we suspect is true, it is also a hidden celebration for Kubrick and his greatest, secret creation. Maybe some of the material and information in the movie, offered as obvious fake, is in fact even true. Who knows.]

nonhocapito wrote:A straightforward pollution technique.

Having a character such as Jay Weidner create the Kubrick video is also such a technique, I would suggest.

Edit: When September Clues is also featured in the NY Times I'll know this site is also a conspiracy black hole. Until then, Weidner logically has to be in the "Alex Jones" category.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/movie ... .html?_r=2

pdgalles wrote:Having a character such as Jay Weidner create the Kubrick video is also such a technique, I would suggest.

I am not familiar this character, can you give us some pointers there?

*
Just a 'funny' little addendum to my above KUBRICK post.

From Wickedpedia:

"Stanley Kubrick was born on July 26, 1928, at the Lying-In Hospital in Manhattan, New York."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Ku ... matography

nonhocapito wrote:

pdgalles wrote:Having a character such as Jay Weidner create the Kubrick video is also such a technique, I would suggest.

I am not familiar this character, can you give us some pointers there?

Take a look around http://www.jayweidner.com/

He is on a par with Vigilant Citizen, leading you into conspiracy theories and mentioning propaganda but never mentioning media fakery. I'm a little surprised that Simon brought him up.

Why not imagine that Kubrick has been linked with the faked Moon landings as a way of distracting from ALL news media being faked, ie. it required a top-notch director to pull off such a stunt. So, tell me, which director did 9/11?

pdgalles wrote:
Take a look around http://www.jayweidner.com/

He is on a par with Vigilant Citizen, leading you into conspiracy theories and mentioning propaganda but never mentioning media fakery. I'm a little surprised that Simon brought him up.

Why not imagine that Kubrick has been linked with the faked Moon landings as a way of distracting from ALL news media being faked, ie. it required a top-notch director to pull off such a stunt. So, tell me, which director did 9/11?

Dear pdgalles,

First, a little disclaimer: I really didn't/and still don't know much about Jay Weidner. I just happened to bump into some articles where he was quoted with, for instance, the "A11" thing in "THE SHINING". I guess you're right: I should have first researched a little more about Weidner. My bad. So ok, I can see where your 'surprise' is coming from. I can also appreciate the point you make that the Kubrick stories might be concocted to coverup the (now) rampant media fakeries - and to make people think: "it requires top-notch directors to pull off such sophisticated propaganda stunts". I'll certainly have to ponder deeper about this - my sincere thanks for your well-formulated thoughts.

Hey, I just want to say here, as it seems an appropriate time, that if my replies seem overly harsh it's because I hold you to a higher standard. I found September Clues as a result of completely unrelated research into the banking system (your video just happened to be a "related video" in the YouTube sidebar) and as such I had no prior notion of media fakery. You'll always be someone that I'm appreciative of but like my history lecturer in college who wouldn't accept any second-rate essays from me, I won't accept second-rate conspiracy theories from you.

pdgalles wrote: So, tell me, which director did 9/11?

pdgalles wrote:Why not imagine that Kubrick has been linked with the faked Moon landings as a way of distracting from ALL news media being faked, ie. it required a top-notch director to pull off such a stunt. So, tell me, which director did 9/11?

When it comes to hollywood, it might not be so simple to put aside such connections as "distractions".

If it is true that 2001: A space Odyssey came out in 1968 as a preparation for and as comparison to the upcoming Apollo 11 mission, to support the credibility of Apollo by making fiction relatable yet more far fetched than the proposed reality, then the two things go hand in hand giving a special role to Hollywood in general and Kubrick in particular in relation to the moon landings.

Then there is the question of the techniques used, that in many cases seem very similar; not only regarding the scenery on the moon but also with the images from the orbiter.
All the other "coincidences" and "clues" that can or cannot be found in Kubrick movies acquire meaning and relevance from these observations.

I think Simon is on the right track by wanting to investigate more of this relation. Not as much to put the blame on Kubrick (heck, "Kubrick" might even be a faked identity covering up the work of someone else), but because the connections might help to better expose the relation between the entertainment industry and media fakery.

I don't see how it can damage the research on media fakery the notion that certain faked events require a helping hand from Hollywood's talents. It doesn't have to be the focus of our whole research, but also not be left out for fear that it can be a distraction. It is whatever we find out it is.

pdgalles wrote:How about Kubrick had nothing to do with the Moon landings but lots to do with Holywood fakery? He had an aura about him, was considered a great director, his films were always pseudo-intellectual - just the candidate for conspiracy theorists to fall in love with.

Edit: just to add, that my theory isn't harmed by the "random technicians" using the same techniques that Kubrick pioneered. Government steals from private innovation all the time. See: Adobe Photoshop, Final Cut Pro.

First off: you are criticizing Weidner's documentary, which is perfectly all right. But I haven't even watched that documentary and I wasn't thinking about it at all. Even if it is a phony, distracting movie, this doesn't make the idea of Kubrick and Hollywood in general being involved with the Moon landings necessarily false. We shouldn't be influenced by it either way. Let's keep our minds open. Let's do our own research.

My example of the mockumentary "Dark Side of the Moon" mentioned earlier points to the same thing. In my opinion it doesn't necessarily make the Kubrick connection less interesting -- but it certainly has that intention (plus the intention of possibly paying homage to him).

Differently from Delillo's book, that was written after 9/11 using and commenting elements from the official fable, The Space Odyssey is conceived and produced before or at the same time as the Apollo 11 mission, and I think it served, as I propose, to establish a canon of high-quality movie fictional space travel, against which the public would later compare the moon landings as the "real thing".
It showed people walking on the moon in such a "credible" set, so that the images of Apollo 11, also from a set, would look equally "credible".

Just like certain Hollywood movies before 9/11 meant to create a climate or feeling about certain things (planes, skyscrapers, terrorists, explosions etc), so the Space Odyssey might have worked to create expectations about the moon in terms of imagery.

In this famous scene, for example, there are no stars in the sky but there is a waning earth of exactly the same aspect and dimension as the Apollo images.


From http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fImIzrFccw

How come the genius Kubrick forgot to put stars in the sky?

I mean, Hollywood was clearly involved at multiple levels with 9/11, there is nothing strange in assuming the same for the moon hoax...

ALL The Apollo Moon Footage is SO BAD, PURPOSELY DE-RESOLUTED; to hide the flaws. Even the 'hi-res' Hasselblad photography has the moon as black & white; the ONLY COLOUR comes from the Apollo crew, craft, & 'mission' junk...

NA$A supposedly lent Kubrick the best most hi-spec film-cameras going, for 2001, in exchange for 'technical assistance' with how best to film the upcoming Apollo 11 first moon-landing'. Well, you sure as shit cant tell there is any evidence of any 'expertise' of 'film-making' craft in any 'moon-footage'. This is purposeful. For exactly the same reason that the global TV Networks showing 'Armstrongs First Step - LIVE'; were not given a direct cable-link; but were all given the same feed, which was taken from a Houston mission control camcorder itself derosolutioned by videoing
the 'LIVE moon-feed' off of a 4 x 6ft projector screen. Even the other later "colour" 'moon-missions' FILMS look like hand-tinted b&w...

Add to the ludicrous fact the film is in black & white, not colour, its OBVIOUS NA$A clouded and grained the footage to the limits to hide all the giveaway inconsistencies. imho; Kubrick was merely 'technical assisstant', they borrowed & used his scotchlite screens for their projected mountainous lunar landscapes. Kubrick may well have had to visit Langley a couple of times to help demonstrate the set up, but i reckon he was an unwilling pawn made to comply, against his wishes. If Kubrick, HIMSELF, had shot the footage, there would have beeen such an obssesive attention to detail that we wouldnt be able to pick out hardly any anomalies. Seriously; all that 'incompetent' grainy moon-footage, "shot by Kubrick" ?!?
no way.

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... Kubrick was coerced, into an 'unholy alliance' he despised, a dark alliance he knew he would never shrug off...

The full collossal extent of Kubrick's obsessive attention to detail was revealed in ubershill Jon Ronson's doc
'Stanley Kubrick's Boxes'...


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htQq3oYO5sI


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JwAnMUavzA




btw... what the f~^k is that shit about ?!? V V V V V


'COLOR/ALBEANO VARIATIONS OF DISTURBED & UNDISTURBED'

reel.deal wrote:ALL The Apollo Moon Footage is SO BAD, PURPOSELY DE-RESOLUTED; to hide the flaws. Even the 'hi-res' Hasselblad photography has the moon as black & white; the ONLY COLOUR comes from the Apollo crew, craft, & 'mission' junk...

...and a reddish thing in the Apollo 14 Moon liftoff imagery !

Now - let's see how NASA can explain THIS one away. I bet that not even Kubrick had access to this very special NASA camera!



source video: (red thing appears around 0:09)

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LppU2Dy0pOk

I suggest we launch a new slogan (inspired by Obama's "YES, WE CAN"): "ONLY NASA CAN!"

So what IS that red, flapping thing - you might ask? Well, to my knowledge (which spans back to old Super 8 analog film), there is only ONE possible explanation for it: this footage was made in a studio - and some idiot overlaid some coloured layer on top of the main, black & white imagery. I solemnly ask any veteran filmmaker in the world to show me ANY instance in which a B/W footage has featured coloured objects. If this is any sort of known artifact from the 60's - PLEASE LET ME KNOW AND PROVE IT WITH ORIGINAL, BONA FIDE FILM SAMPLES. Thanks!

AND THE BACKGROUND NOISE (volume) DOES NOT CHANGE A BIT AS THE ROCKETS IGNITE FOR THE LIFT OFF !!!!

reel.deal wrote: The full collossal extent of Kubrick's obsessive attention to detail was revealed in ubershill Jon Ronson's
'Stanley Kubrick's Boxes'...

Interesting that you mention Ronson. At the beginning of his book The Men Who Stare At Goats, he decribes being advised before the start of his 'investigation' by none other than 'espionage thriller' writer John Le Carre (like your average freelancer is going to be receiving professional advice from sonmeone of Le Carre's stature). I've read that Le Carre was apparently good friends with Kubrick.

Anyway, I personally believe that Kubrick was more or less a lifelong asset and not only agree with you that 2001 was comissioned to act as part of the overall moon-hoax psy-op, but that pretty much every film that Kubrick made was also 'comissioned' by unseen forces in one way or another (beginning with his first feature all the way up to and including the so-called 'expose' film Eyes Wide Shut). That's not to say Kubrick still couldn't have been 'taken out' for one reason or another, but I still think it's just as likely he simply died.

I suspect most if not all of the 'big' directors are themselves being directed by people away from the stage lights and Kubrick was no exception.