Author Topic: Moon landing not faked? Lack of film technology? (Read 1837 times)

Cera · « **Reply #15 on:** August 24, 2022, 03:21:59 PM »

Quote from: xavierpope on August 24, 2022, 03:04:09 PM

They call NASA
Not a space agency

Rumor has it, Stanley Kubrick directed the moon landing in studio... Who knows

It's more than a rumor. Here is a video interview he did with a young reporter, with the stipulation that it could not be released until 15 years after his (Kubrick's) death.

https://rumble.com/v1f3pzx-stanley-kubriks-confession-of-fake-moon-landing.html

Also see this:
http://thetruthseekersguide.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-stanley-kubrick-conspiracy-part-8.html

The Stanley Kubrick Conspiracy - Part 8: The Clues Were Always There

In February 1993, the legendary alternative knowledge researcher Bill Cooper discussed “2001: A Space Odyssey” on his radio show. Cooper described the Monolith as a symbolic catalyst for the beginning of the programming / control of humanity and how the Monolith effectively imparts “forbidden knowledge” to humanity, dismantling “paradise” in its wake. As witnessed in the “Dawn of Man” sequence of the film, the “forbidden knowledge” leads to the death of one ape at the hands of another. Cooper believed that the ape, “Moonwatcher”, was a symbol of the first priest or initiate of the mystery school teachings – instrumental in guarding the secrets of the ages, astral theology, the study of the Sun, Moon and Stars, etc. Cooper also highlighted the six transformations that Bowman goes through in the finale of the film, the sixth level of attainment in the mystery school teachings, and the associated “666” paradigm of occult teachings.

There are also further subtle indications of 666 embedded in the film:
“It also appears that the "monoliths" in the movie appear for 666 seconds. The time between the first appearance and final disappearance of each of the four "monoliths'," the four times added together, is 666 seconds. Additionally, there are apparently 666 camera shots starting from "The Dawn of Man" (the first shot after the opening credits) to "The End" (the last shot of the closing credits.) The running time of the film in seconds, from the beginning of the "Overture" to the end of the "Exit Music" (total exhibition time), is allegedly equal to the number of moon orbits contained in 666 years (8903). Alternatively, the running time in seconds, from the beginning of the MGM lion logo to the fade-out of the story, is equal to the number of moon phases contained in 666 years (8237). Everything before and after the movie proper, that is, the "Overture," end credits, and "Exit Music" times, adds up to 666 seconds. For an "added bonus", the director Stanley Kubrick was reported to have died 666 days before the year 2001, on March 7, 1999.” http://www.geocities.com/markamooky/2001_and_911.html

Other esoterically important numbers also appear prominently within the film. The masonic trinity or “3” is most obvious.
• The numbers 2001 (2 + 0 + 0 + 1) equal three.
• There are three words in the title after the 2001 – A, Space, Odyssey
• There are three eclipses in the film.
• There is an eclipse of three celestial bodies at the beginning of the film.
• The story takes place on or around three celestial bodies – the Earth, the Moon and Jupiter
• HAL consists of three letters –H,A,L
• There are three “conscious” entities on the ship – Dave, Frank and HAL
• There are three astronauts in hibernation
• The 'World Riddle' theme plays three times.
• It is also worth taking the time to count the sections, engines, pod bay doors, and the number of “triangular” (another “3”) shaped “ribs” that form the spine of the Discovery spacecraft.

Jay Weidner has proposed that Kubrick created “2001: A Space Odyssey” as a “visual and alchemical initiation into the on-going transformation and evolutionary ascent of man to a so-called Star Child destiny.” The obvious analogies are the celestial alignments that precede each of the alchemical transmutations in the film. The second main allegory is the monolith or “black stones” that initiates these transmutations. Again this mirrors the alchemical lore about the black stone (known under numerous monikers – most notably “The Philosopher’s Stone”) causing the transmutation of the alchemist. The film itself (the dimensions of the movie screen) shares the same dimensions as the monolith, prompting some researchers to consider the act of viewing the film as part of a greater ritual or working.

“Kubrick completely reveals that he understands the Great Work. The monolith represents the Philosopher Stone, the Book of Nature and the Film that initiates. Stanley Kubrick has truly made the Book of Nature onto film. Using powdered silver nitrates, that are then glued onto a strip of plastic, and then projected onto the movie screens of our mind, Kubrick has proven himself to be the ultimate alchemist-artist of the late 20th century.” (Jay Weidner, “Alchemical Kubrick 2001: The Great Work on Film”, 1999)

It is rare that I consider a Hollywood insider to have any sizeable degree of integrity or adherence to positive values and principles. However, where it matters, I consider Stanley Kubrick to be an exception to the rule. Despite clearly being on the inside (and obviously a Hollywood “illusionist”), his films have told us more about the hidden global agenda than any other Hollywood endeavour – albeit largely in the form of allegory and metaphor. Was Kubrick’s decision to enact a form of disclosure prompted by guilt or some twisted sense of dark humour? Did he become a prisoner of an industry that he once loved, and decided to articulate the things he came to see and know? We may never know for sure.

It is possible that there have always been clues indicating the predicament that Kubrick became trapped in. His reclusive nature has been attributed to the controversy surrounding “A Clockwork Orange” and his disdain for the way in which society was generally heading (he cited the crime culture of New York City as an example on one occasion), yet Kubrick displayed many obsessive compulsive traits throughout his entire life. His often bizarre behaviour (he was known to wander around his estate brandishing a shotgun at all hours of the day and night) should also give cause to wonder. Was he fuelled by a degree of justified paranoia, rather than mere reclusive tendencies?

Stanley Kubrick gave very few filmed interviews. Shortly before his death, he was given the D.W. Griffiths Lifetime Achievement Award at The Director’s Guild of America Awards and surprised the audience by giving a short “filmed message” of appreciation.

"I think there's an intriguing irony in naming the lifetime achievement award after D.W. Griffiths, because his career was both an inspiration and a cautionary tale… Griffith was always ready to take great risks in his films and in his business affairs. He was always ready to fly to high and in the end, the wings of fortune proved for him (like those of Icarus) to be made of nothing more substantial than wax and feathers... and like Icarus, when he flew too close to the Sun, they melted. And the man whose fame exceeded the most illustrious filmmakers of today spent the last seventeen years of his life shunned by the film industry he had created. I've compared Griffiths' career to the Icarus myth, but (at the same time) I've never been certain whether the moral of the Icarus story should only be, as is generally accepted, don't try to fly to high... or whether it might also be thought of as 'forget the wax and feathers and do a better job on the wings!'" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p1T3sVX4EY

Ladislaus · « **Reply #16 on:** August 24, 2022, 03:36:58 PM »

So, based on this version, hotspots are discussed at 2:37:14 - 2:48:03

There's a fascinating comment from the engineer who worked for the company that made the cameras for the moon missions, starting at 2:40:32.

Of course, this segment also "sheds some light" (pun intended) on the hotspot problem above the clouds. Based on the same principle, that since the sun is 93 million miles away, the clouds should be evenly lit and there should be no hotspot.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #17 on:** August 24, 2022, 03:49:09 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 24, 2022, 03:36:58 PM

So, based on this version, hotspots are discussed at 2:37:14 - 2:48:03

There's a fascinating comment from the engineer who worked for the company that made the cameras for the moon missions, starting at 2:40:32.

Of course, this segment also "sheds some light" (pun intended) on the hotspot problem above the clouds. Based on the same principle, that since the sun is 93 million miles away, the clouds should be evenly lit and there should be no hotspot.

Speaking of Sun hotspots, here's a video I shared in another thread yesterday that may be of interest

josefamenendez · « **Reply #18 on:** August 24, 2022, 05:16:23 PM »

Quote from: josefamenendez on August 24, 2022, 02:49:23 PM

What did they attach those wires on the astronauts to if they were actually on the moon?

That was a joke

Ladislaus · « **Reply #19 on:** August 24, 2022, 11:40:41 PM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on August 24, 2022, 03:49:09 PM

Speaking of Sun hotspots, here's a video I shared in another thread yesterday that may be of interest

I'm honestly not sure what to make of this one. It's also relatively bright light out above the clouds. I'm not sure that what this on the surface appears to be fits with either model (globe earth or the standard FE model).

Simeon · « **Reply #20 on:** August 24, 2022, 11:49:27 PM »

Quote from: xavierpope on August 24, 2022, 03:04:09 PM

They call NASA
Not a space agency

Rumor has it, Stanley Kubrick directed the moon landing in studio... Who knows

2001 Space Odyssey is more believable.....

Ladislaus · « **Reply #21 on:** August 25, 2022, 11:30:13 AM »

Quote from: Simeon on August 24, 2022, 11:49:27 PM

2001 Space Odyssey is more believable.....

But he had to actually make it look as if it were live action video taken on a distance satellite of earth. It's not like you could make a studio-quality film and have people believe that it was NOT a production.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #22 on:** August 25, 2022, 12:17:03 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 24, 2022, 11:40:41 PM

I'm honestly not sure what to make of this one. It's also relatively bright light out above the clouds. I'm not sure that what this on the surface appears to be fits with either model (globe earth or the standard FE model).

Yeah, one thing that came to mind with the light is what Edward Hendrie claimed about the light of the Firmament apart from the Sun.

And there's also the illumination of the noble gases by the sun to consider. Which I think is a better explanation than Hendrie's.

But we also have to remember that the sun is not beneath the Firmament, but within it. Both of the above seem to suggest the sun is under the Firmament.

Quote

Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: [Gen. 1:14]

So, while interesting, it just seems more like a result of optics than anything.

Author Topic: Moon landing not faked? Lack of film technology? (Read 1837 times)

Cera

Re: Moon landing not faked? Lack of film technology?

Ladislaus

Re: Moon landing not faked? Lack of film technology?

DigitalLogos

Re: Moon landing not faked? Lack of film technology?

josefamenendez

Re: Moon landing not faked? Lack of film technology?

Ladislaus

Re: Moon landing not faked? Lack of film technology?

Simeon

Re: Moon landing not faked? Lack of film technology?

Ladislaus

Re: Moon landing not faked? Lack of film technology?

DigitalLogos

Re: Moon landing not faked? Lack of film technology?