How Stanley Kubrick
Faked the Apollo Moon Landings:
Alchemical Kubrick II
By
Jay Weidner

Page 4:

Indeed the very physics of lens dynamics and depth of field apparently disappears when the astronauts shoot photographs. (Just for the record the cameras were not altered at all by Hasselblad or anyone else).

As a professional photographer and a filmmaker I have wrestled with depth of field problems for over 40 years. I am surprised that no other photographer has noticed the lack of depth of field problems encountered by the astronaut-photographers. In reality the lack of depth of field problems is a nail in the coffin of the Apollo program.

6). GLASS CITIES OR FRONT SCREEN PROJECTION?

Former NASA consultant Richard Hoagland has examined many of the photos of the Apollo landings and, although he has never noticed the impossible depth of field, he has found other strange anomalies in the NASA material.

Examining the photographic record of the Apollo missions, and processing Apollo images through various graphics programs, Hoagland has discovered 'geometries' in the skies surrounding the astronauts on the moon. He postulates that these geometries are evidence of some kind of gigantic glass-like structures behind, above and surrounding the astronauts as they stand on the lunar surface. Hoagland even shows us that there are rainbow lights reflecting in the sky high above the astronauts.

Many people, especially in NASA, have attacked Hoagland for these interpretations. Yet, no matter how much they attack Hoagland, they can never explain what it is that he is finding on these Apollo images. In the same way that evidence in the JFK assassination and the high weirdness around 911 is never examined and explained by the anti-conspiracy theorists, so too, is Hoagland's evidence just simply ignored by the critics.

Instead they have created an ad hominum attack machine that criticizes Hoagland - the man - while deftly ignoring his intriguing evidence.

His critics are either wrong or they know what is really happening.

I have known Richard Hoagland for a long time. I was with him during his initial discoveries of artifacts on the lunar surface. I have seen photographic evidence that there are very strange things on the surface of the moon. I am not here to start an argument with Mr. Hoagland or anyone else.

I, like Hoagland, believe that NASA has actually gone to the moon. I believe that moon rocks were taken from the surface of the moon. I believe that there is strong evidence of some kind of past intelligent activity on surface of the moon. But I do not believe that standard rocket technology is what got mankind from the Earth to the surface of the Moon.

I am not trying to debunk Hoagland's discoveries. All I am trying to do, with the following evidence, is show that the Apollo landings were a hoax. And that Stanley Kubrick, using the Front Screen Projection system, directed them.

Again I want to make sure that I am understood here. I am not saying that there are not strange structures on the moon. What I am saying is that the structures and geometries that Richard Hoagland is seeing in the photographs taken on the lunar surface are not what he thinks they are.

Here are a few of Hoagland's images. He believes that these images are proof that NASA is hiding evidence of alien cities.

This is a processed photograph of astronaut Ed Mitchell on the surface of the moon taken during the Apollo 14 mission. Of course all of the stuff in the sky, as seen in this processed Apollo image from Hoagland, is impossible if it was taken on the lunar surface. There is no atmosphere on the moon. Therefore there can be nothing in the sky. Yet when Hoagland processed much of the Apollo lunar surface imagery he discovered, over and over again, all of this 'crud' in the sky above the astronauts.

No one in NASA even attempts to answer Hoagland, or anyone else, about the strange stuff that he, and others, is finding in the skies above the astronauts.

Richard Hoagland theorizes that this is photographic evidence of huge, abandoned 'glass cities' on the surface of the moon. He says that what we are seeing in the above processed image is huge glass towers that only show up on the images after they have been processed through graphics software.

Here are some other of Hoagland's images:

Hoagland has taken the image on the left and processed it in a manner very similar to how I processed the above images from 2001: A Space Odyssey. By increasing the gamma and the contrast of the image he arrived at the picture on the right.

Hoagland interprets the image on the right as proof of giant glass structures behind the astronaut and, for that matter, all over the surface of the moon.

What Hoagland is really seeing, though, is the imperfections in the background Scotchlite screen that Kubrick used to create the lunar backgrounds. These imperfections can also be found in the desert backgrounds in the ape scenes in 2001: A Space Odyssey (see above).

What Hoagland, and the above image reveals, is the texture and geometry of the Scotchlite screen.

Because of the vastness of the set, because he needed it to look like it was NOT DONE ON A SOUNDSTAGE, Kubrick had to sew several Scotchlite screens together. It was only when he had created a large enough Scotchlite screen was he then was able to get a large enough background image that would look expansive enough to appear to be the surface of the moon or a desert four million years ago.

The same process that created the desert backgrounds in 2001 is the same process that created the lunar mountains backgrounds for the Apollo missions.

This is picture from Hoagland's research.

The processed image reveals a rainbow-like reflecting light high above the astronauts in the sky on the moon. Hoagland theorizes that this is a light reflecting off of one of the giant glass towers standing right behind the astronaut.

What this is really is a light reflecting off of one of the tiny glass beads of the Scotchlite screen. For some reason that particular glass bead was slightly off from its 90-degree angle and so it caught the projector light and reflected it back to the camera.

Again a scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey (processed):

And one of Hoagland's processed Apollo shots:

It is pretty clear from the two images above that Hoagland's 'geometries' are really the patterns and flaws and stitches in the Scotchlite screen.

Maybe this is why NASA suddenly lost all of its lunar images. Maybe this is why NASA just admitted that they 'accidentally' taped over the original high-resolution tape of Apollo 11. Maybe this is why Neil Armstrong, 'the first man to walk on the moon', doesn't want to participate in the 40 ^th anniversary parties.

Maybe this is why we have never gone back to the moon.

7). INCONSISTANT SHADOWS

Many researchers have pointed out the different angles of light on the surface of the moon. Because there is only one light source (the sun) how can there be multiple light angles on the moon such as this?:

How can the astronaut's two shadows not be consistent with each other? If they were actually standing in the bright light of the sun, their two shadows should be at the same exact angle. Yet they are not. Why? Because Kubrick used studio lighting!

But why would Kubrick make a mistake like the inconsistent shadows in the above image? A great filmmaker like Kubrick must have realized that this was a huge mistake.

My answer is that Kubrick did this on purpose.

He left behind telltale evidence for his work. And he did this on purpose. Not just in the above shot but actually all over the Apollo photographic record.

In my forthcoming documentary on the NASA Apollo fakery titled "Kubrick's Odyssey", I will reveal much more photographic evidence than I possibly can in this short essay.

One thing that I am sure is that some part of Stanley Kubrick wanted everyone to know what he had done. And that is why he left behind clues that would explain who did it and how.

8). LAST NOTES

Those of you who are familiar with my essay, written in 1999, on 2001: A Space Odyssey called Alchemical Kubrick (see http://www.jayweidner.com/kubrick.htm) already know that I believe that 2001 A Space Odyssey is the greatest esoteric film of all time.

For the first time anywhere, in that essay, I show how Kubrick designed the black monolith to be exactly the same size as the screen on which 2001 was projected. The monolith and the screen are the same thing. The monolith is the screen and the screen is the monolith. It is truly one of the greatest discoveries in cinema history.

When one realizes that Kubrick also used the Front Screen Projection system - not only for the ape scenes in 2001 - but also the fake the moon landings - we can see a double, or even possibly a triple meaning, inside the idea that the screen is the monolith and the monolith is the screen.

If the monolith is that device that enlightens humanity then the Front Screen Projection system, and it's unmistakable fingerprints, is the device that enlightens humanity as to how the Apollo landings were faked.

But also we can see that Kubrick used the faking of the Apollo moon missions as an opportunity to make one great film.

Because he had negotiated a deal where no one would be given oversight on the film, Kubrick was allowed to make whatever movie he desired. Knowing that no one would object to his anti-Hollywood methods, he created the first abstract feature film, the first intellectual movie and the greatest esoteric work of art in the 20 ^th century.

The President of MGM, at the time in 1968, publicly stated, that he never even saw a rough cut of 2001: A Space Odyssey during the entire four years of production. Does that sound like the manner in which a head of a major studio would act? 2001: A Space Odyssey was one of the most expensive films ever made at that time. Does it even seem remotely possible that no one at MGM even cared to see the continuous progress of the film?

No way.

I am sure that 2001: A Space Odyssey is the only film in MGM history where the executives who funded the movie never scrutinized the film.

Why weren't they more interested in this very expensive endeavor?

Because MGM did not fund 2001, the US Government did.

Outside of the Front Screen Projection evidence, which I believe nails the fraud of the Apollo landings; there is other circumstantial evidence that forces the conclusion even more in the direction of Kubrick directing the entire Apollo missions.

For instance:

In the original release of 2001 there were many credits thanking NASA and many of the aerospace companies that worked with NASA on the moon landings. These credits have since been removed from all subsequent releases of 2001. But for those of us old enough to remember, in the original credits, Kubrick thanks a vast array of military and space corporations for their help in the production.

As these are the same corporations that supposedly helped NASA get the astronauts to the moon - one has to wonder - what kind of help did they gave Stanley? And for what price?

In the film 'Wag the Dog' Dustin Hoffman plays a movie producer hired by the CIA to 'fake an event'. His name in the movie is Stanley. In that movie 'Stanley' mysteriously dies after telling everyone that he wants to take credit for the 'event' that he helped fake.

Stanley Kubrick died soon after showing Eyes Wide Shut to the executives at Warner Brothers. It is rumored that they were very upset concerning that film. They wanted Kubrick to re-edit the film but he refused. I personally was in France when Stanley died and I saw, on French television, outtakes from the forthcoming Eyes Wide Shut. I saw outtakes from several scenes that were never in the finished film.

Warner Brothers has even come out and admitted that they re-edited the film. To this day they refuse to release a DVD of Stanley Kubrick's cut. Not only is this a direct violation of the agreement that Kubrick had with Warner Brothers but also it means that we will probably never see the un-edited version of this film.

One has to wonder what was cut out?

And finally:

Eyes Wide Shut was released on July 16 ^th 1999.

Stanley Kubrick insisted in his contract that this be the date of the release.

July 16 ^th 1999 is exactly 30 years to the day that Apollo 11 was launched.

Happy Fortieth Anniversary Stanley. Now you can rest in peace.

How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Apollo Moon Landings: Alchemical Kubrick II By Jay Weidner

How Stanley Kubrick
Faked the Apollo Moon Landings:
Alchemical Kubrick II
By
Jay Weidner