Proves Moon Landing Was Fake?
Of all the scenarios presented I like that one the most. Although I should add - doesn't mean I believe it.
shareWatch "Kubrick's Odyssey" and be amazed.
shareI will check it out Raoh and thanks for the tip.
You know to be honest over the years I have wondered if movies had incorporated within them layer upon layer of meanings and symbols. I always hopped so even if most of it would probably be way over my head to see or understand. I didn't think it was likely true since the director of the film would quit busy with just keeping the production moving on time, on budget and keeping the producers happy. To install these 'things' would take a brilliant mind and a tremendous amount of planning.
Do you think such movies or directors are out there?
You make a good point that it would be hard for the director to do such things on top of all his other responsibilities. But, Kubrick's Odyssey is really, really interesting.
shareI did watch it Raoh.
I'm not going to pretend to know more than I do here, but at the same time I'm not going to pretend to know less than I do. I know something about video and photo enhancement and manipulation. It's part of my profession. Everything this film shows (Kubrick's Odyssey) does make sense and there is evidence there. Enough that I want to think about this a while. The most telling is the distinct change in the texture of the ground between the foreground and background in the photos. The conversion between such detail to this sudden soft blur is NOT correct. You can't excuse that away.
If you listen closely to the first video (Room 237) he says he's not trying to say we didn't go to the moon. He believes we did go but not via the Satern 5 rocket or did we land using the Lunar Lander. He doesn't explain anything beyond that. How do you think we went then. Please tell me.
What an interesting area of research or study. I'm glad I stumbled on to this topic.
The critical theories in this documentary are complete conjecture and easily discredited by any rationally thinking person. There are many who simply WANT to believe they are true and no amount of evidence to the contrary will satisfy them, much like the Kennedy assassination conspiracy nuts.
Having said that, yes, there are individual examples of films that are loaded with subtle and subliminal imagery. Cameron Crowe's "Vanilla Sky" for instance comes to mind. The difference is that Crowe not only intended these layers, but has spoken about them. It's very easy to substantiate.
You can probably see from my first post here that 'Proves Moon Landing Was Fake' was tongue in cheek. And your right, without the man here anymore to ask, it's all conjecture.
I don't know 'for sure' all this about the film being somehow a secret disclosure about a faked moon landing. But I do know that what they are presenting about these lunar photos is true. There is a problem with these photos. But that's an entirely different subject than the movie.
As for the Kennedy assassination, are you speaking of the infamous 'Grassy Knoll' :-)
I'm amazed at what people are so quick to believe.
Check this video out. You'll probably get a real kick out of it (don't worry; I'm a legit poster and this is a legit link):
http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2013/01/film-expert-moon-landings/
BillyM,
I watched it and loved it!! Thanks
You're thinking the wrong way, friend. The real question should be "Proves Moon landing was real ?" Only then, you should ask yourself questions.
------
www.abner-dee.com
[deleted]
[deleted]
That video is great!
 I can't be bothered with a signature
Dude there is so much wrong with the Kennedy assasination theories abound, theres one that the secret service shot him by accident when an agent behind him picked up a hot m16 that he wasn't used to and capped JFK in the back of the head.
Who replaced John Mclane with an out and out *beep*
[annoyed off-topic screed]
I have more scorn than you can possibly imagine for truthers, birthers, Moon landing hoax nuts ... essentially every conspiracy theory you can imagine.
Except one. In the case of the Kennedy assassination, the mind-boggling cognitive biases, reasoning flaws, and willful ignorance of contradictory facts that you see among conspiracy nuts -- you see those in the arguments that Oswald acted alone. The methodology of these conspiracy refutations is essentially to go point-by-point and show that it's (often just remotely) credible that each bit of evidence pointing towards a conspiracy might be wrong (e.g., all the witnesses who heard gunfire from the grassy knoll, including those with military training, were mistaken; all the testimony that Oswald was a lousy shot was in error, etc. No, it's not impossible, just unlikely.) The trouble is, there are a hundred or two hundred independent facts pointing towards a conspiracy. To reach the conclusion that Oswald acted alone, you have to ignore many of those facts, and then you have to decline to multiply together the likelihood that each bit of evidence is misleading. Because if you do, the odds of Oswald having acted alone become essentially zero.
[/annoyed off-topic screed]
Prepare your minds for a new scale of physical, scientific values, gentlemen.share
If you have an open mind about it (or, have not already read them), I highly recommend Gerald Posner's book "Case Closed" or Vincent Bugliosi's exhaustive "Reclaiming History." Pretty hard to argue the fact-based logic they employ to address the conspiracies.
shareAlso, 'Rush to Judgment' (1967) is mandatory for anyone holding an opinion one way or the other: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060920/
I have opinions of my own, but I don't always agree with them - George Bush
Mark Lane has been a leader in the conspiracy field for decades. Much of the stuff he gets into in that documentary is very outdated and has been thoroughly debunked.
All I can say is that, sadly, the conspiracy stuff (thanks to folks like Lane and Oliver Stone) is far more familiar to most of the public than the information (and logic) which refutes it. Therefore, perhaps ironically, most people require more open-mindedness towards the anti-conspiracy stuff. The books I mention, for instance, will be interesting only if one is already familiar with the conspiracy theories (in that sense, the Mark Lane doc IS mandatory, like you said). Many are just very quick to believe the conspiracy side of things with very little coaxing, and very stubborn to accept corroborated facts, which they don't trust as real (instead, seen as elements orchestrated by the larger conspiracy).
There's a big psychological element to this phenomena, btw. A great many people simply want to believe in massive conspiracies and will never be satisfied no matter how much evidence is presented to them. In this case, they have a very hard time accepting something as major as a presidential assassination could be perpetrated by one lone, pro-communist nut. As a teenager, I was once a Kennedy conspiracy buff myself, so I understand where it comes from.
" Much of the stuff he gets into in that documentary is *very outdated* and has been thoroughly debunked."
Weeeell, it /was/ made in '67... From the other side of the coin, it could be said that the memories recorded in said film were still fresh in the minds of those present.
FWIW, I don't side with either 'faction', but found it engrossing nonetheless. An important document of the times, without a doubt.
Thanks for your considered response - a rarity on IMDB.com. ;)
I have opinions of my own, but I don't always agree with them - George Bush
The facts simply don't support a JFK conspiracy. It's not impossible that there was one....it's just not necessary to explain what happened.
The fact is, Oswald wasn't a "lousy shot". He qualified as a marksman in the military, and shot well enough to qualify as a sharpshooter a few months prior. I've shot a course very similar to his, and a "lousy shooter" doesn't score what he did. These are historical facts uncontested by anyone who knows what they're talking about. Dismissing them is an exercise in foolishness.
We can go on a point-by-point refutation of conspiracy claims, but that's not my point. The assassination of JFK can be explained by a single shooter in that sixth floor window. Someone with his skill could have made all those shots, and it wouldn't have been especially difficult.
Occam's Razor applies here, for me at least. Why muddy the waters with needless complications?
History is the lie we are willing to accept.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, especially about the moon. But conspiracies do happen, and I thought it was pretty obvious we don't know what happened with the JFK assassination. There was some clearly shady shit going on.
shareYes such directors exist. You should check out David Lynch and Terri Gilliam.
Kubrick loved Eraserhead and showed it to the cast/crew during the making of The Shining. That's a movie HEAVY with multiple layers of meaning. Kubrick was just this kind of director. Most "continuity errors" in his movies are intentional.
Read...Moon Man: The True Story of a Filmmaker on the CIA Hit List by Bart Sibrel, he's the guy that was punched by Buzz Aldrin when he went up and asked him to swear on the bible that he went to the moon. He also made two docs that have been banned from youtube and other platforms. They are called "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" and "Astronauts Gone Wild"... When you try looking for them you get directed to videos pertaining to prove that hoax claims are debunked, now why do that if they are false?
share