What Happened On the Moon? - An Investigation Into Apollo

[Burnt State]

Pertinent questions about how conspiracies actually work, their impossibility and sincere questions to their ludicrous nature are never answered. That's how conspiracies continue to survive.

This is the LROC's pic of the Apollo 11 site, exactly where it's supposed to be taken by an independent collection of university profs., but you know, the other great value of the conspiracist is that of doubt. Their capacity to be skeptical about generally accepted facts and evidence is en par with only the likes of Klass.

These third party images could be easily 'Photoshopped' some might say, and i suppose even decades ago such things did happen in...China. I remember hearing about the Chines taking pictures of landing sites on the radio once upon a time. Why are these images are not yet available - maybe it's just China keeping some secrets as per usual? Why do America any favours, right.

But i do think the rationality of this conviction of disbelief needs better explanation. The Selene images need explanation. So does the ability to silence hundreds of people, maybe a thousand in a forgery that works on the premise that no one will ever get to the moon again and entirely disprove all their supposedly fabricated photos of the lunar surface in the near future, or in the time we live now. Why hasn't NASA got all their images in the Kubrick studio lot shots completely wrong?

Still doubt is a universal expression by believers and disbelievers alike. It's what we do.
Once in talking to a fellow northerner about the possibility of aliens and ufo's he explained he was very doubtful of such things. I then asked about landing on the moon, to which he replied emphatically, " UFO's and landing on the moon - i don't know. That's a toss up! I don't think I believe in either of them."

 

[SPX]

Room 237

I just watched this last night as a matter of fact. Interesting in some ways to see how many can become so obsessed with something and reach conclusions that almost certainly have no merit. Still, there were a handful of things in there that made me go Hmmm and the bits about Kubrick encoding his confession about faking the moon landing into the film were among the most interesting.

I am fairly open-minded yet skeptical when it comes to most anything, being the consummate agnostic that I am. And even though I'm 95% sure that we went to the moon, I'm always open to hearing arguments against it. But there's a familiar pattern that has developed: I'll read or see something that makes me go Hmmm, and then I'll look into it more and I'll end up finding a perfectly logical counter-argument to the claim.

I started watching the first vid in the OP just because the subject is interesting, and as I am said I remain open-minded, and I'll be the first to admit that they have raised some questions that make me stroke my beard, so to speak. And who knows, maybe they're onto something! But if history is any indication, there's a perfectly logical explanation for it all.

 

[flipper]

This film used be on YouTube but now is banned:

 

[Trystero]

 

[Bob Watson]

Ok faking the moon landing would be as hard as the Titanic switch theory. Impossible. .

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

 

[Burnt State]

I just watched this last night as a matter of fact. Interesting in some ways to see how many can become so obsessed with something and reach conclusions that almost certainly have no merit. Still, there were a handful of things in there that made me go Hmmm and the bits about Kubrick encoding his confession about faking the moon landing into the film were among the most interesting.

Kubrick's movies are always Chinese puzzle boxes, rooms within rooms and layers upon layers. He is a very specific filmmaker and each image element and movement always does matter. How you choose to interpret his layers and elements is up to the individual viewer. But when the design is so intricate it always leaves a lot of latitude for an interpreter to map pretty much whatever they want over top of it.

You can do this with historical events and media reports, or Dark Side of the Moon & The Wizard of Oz. You can call it Twilight Language or describe it as synchronistic, but like the bible, once you have enough variables in play you can make it mean whatever you want. It doesn't mean much more than the fact that our language is interconnected and malleable. Kubrick's movies, like moon-lore, 9-11 and climate change, afford the interpreter the option for doubt and to make entirely new narratives that may be entirely contrary to what actually happened.

But in the end it's all nothing but a bunch of swamp gas.

 

[marduk]

I find it quite fascinating really.

It's like watching slow car accident on the freeway... one car bashes into the other and into the other...

I mean, one piece of "evidence" pops up, you look at it, and provide evidence to the contrary, and then it's dropped.

So on to the next piece of "evidence" which you look at, provide contrary evidence, and then it's dropped in favour of a new one.

No wonder why these things spin out of control.

 

[SPX]

But in the end it's all nothing but a bunch of swamp gas.

In most cases, yeah, I think that's right. But it's also important to keep in mind that members of the government have, in many cases, definitively, conspired to do certain things, many of which were not in the best interest of the American public.

The word "conspiracy" is kind of loaded at this point but it may be good to review it's actual definition: "A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful."

There are a number of conspiracies that have in fact been true. A few include:

COINTELPRO: COINTELPRO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gulf of Tonkin: Gulf of Tonkin incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Operation Valkyrie: Operation Valkyrie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the idea that members of the government will come together to enact a secret plan is certainly not imaginary. Rather, it has actually happened on many occasions. And you have to ask yourself, if we already have such a large handful of such conspiracies that we know to be true, how many have not--and will not--be discovered? And what conspiracies will come together in the future?

So while it sounds ridiculous, and I don't believe any of them are true (then again, I'm not 100% convinced they're not), what is so far fetched, in light of these other historical events, about a conspiracy behind the JFK assassination? (He had a lot of enemies, after all.) Or the idea that the moon landing was faked? (It was extremely important that the US beat the Russians at that point in history.) Or that 9/11 was an inside job? (The war made a lot of money for a lot of people.)

 

[flipper]

Pertinent questions about how conspiracies actually work, their impossibility and sincere questions to their ludicrous nature are never answered. That's how conspiracies continue to survive.

There are no conspiracies? or they work because they are too improbable for people to believes in conspiracies? (i.e.) The word conspiracy stops people from thinking any further.

 

[flipper]

Jay Weidner - Kubrick's Odyssey: How Stanley Faked the Moon Landings & Alchemical Kubrick: The Great Work On Film April 26, 2012 Jay Weidner is an author, filmmaker and hermetic scholar, considered to be a "modern-day Indiana Jones" for his ongoing worldwide quests to find clues to mankind's spiritual destiny. He returns to Red Ice to talk about his film, Kubrick's Odyssey. Jay presents compelling evidence of how Stanley Kubrick directed the Apollo moon landings. He reveals that the film, 2001: A Space Odyssey was not only a retelling of Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrick's novel, but also a research and development project that assisted Kubrick in the creation of the Apollo moon footage. Weidner also tells how Kubrick's film, The Shining is the story of Kubrick's personal travails as he secretly worked on the Apollo footage for NASA
Red Ice Radio - Jay Weidner - Kubrick's Odyssey: How Stanley Faked the Moon Landings & Alchemical Kubrick: The Great Work On Film

 

[Burnt State]

Good points all around flipper and SPX. I agree the word 'conspiracy' is a loaded gun. It stops us from inquiring further and may cause us to dismiss actual plots to cause harm. So perhaps better language is needed in these areas? I see a lot of harm done to the masses out of indifference and convenience (toxic food supplies, exposure to carcinogens and lax environmental legislation) and from indifference and greed (big Pharma, cell phones & cigarettes). Are these conspiracies, or is the population just kept ignorant and sedated?

I agree that in fact gov'ts have historically conspired on their own, with corporate gods and the military to wreak all kinds of havoc on us, including outright human experimentation. Yet I have a hard time not mocking people who believe we never went to the moon or that 9/11 was an inside job. Is this about a personal worldview or an attitude about certain historical premises? When I heard that final quote at the end of the first Zeitgeist movie from JFK it almost seemed reason enough to conspire to kill a president.

Are there certain truths that little people like us are not supposed to know so the kings and queens of the earth can continue on dancing in the palace - I think so. I don't believe for a moment that my beloved Stanley had anything to do with faking the moon landing, but I also know that reality is much stranger than fiction.

 

[SPX]

I see a lot of harm done to the masses out of indifference and convenience (toxic food supplies, exposure to carcinogens and lax environmental legislation) and from indifference and greed (big Pharma, cell phones & cigarettes). Are these conspiracies, or is the population just kept ignorant and sedated?

I'd say if the organization/corporation/group knows that what they're doing is harmful and they try to keep the distasteful side of things away from the public, and they work together behind the scenes to perpetrate the fraud, then by definition it is a conspiracy.

As for the population, I am sympathetic. It's hard to care about every cause when there are far too many for any one person's energy. And I think there is also a sense among many that we just can't do anything about it. "Okay, so there was a conspiracy to kill JFK? What am I supposed to do about it exactly?"

And I think, among large groups of people at least, it's just kind of accepted now that the government is a bunch of liars and they're going to do what they want and the general public really has little influence over the inner workings of things.

I agree that in fact gov'ts have historically conspired on their own, with corporate gods and the military to wreak all kinds of havoc on us, including outright human experimentation. Yet I have a hard time not mocking people who believe we never went to the moon or that 9/11 was an inside job. Is this about a personal worldview or an attitude about certain historical premises?

It's probably different for different people. The main reason why I don't immediately discount the idea that 9/11 was an inside job, for instance, is that there are still a lot of strange things surrounding the event that haven't been sufficiently explained, at least not to my satisfaction. As well as the fact that governments around the world have a long history of perpetrating crimes upon its people.

In fact, I would ask, UNTIL all these questions surrounding 9/11 have been answered, SHOULD WE just accept the official story? Should we say to ourselves,"Well, 1 + 1 doesn't equal 3 but it's close enough"? Because that's what it seems like a lot of people do (not just about 9/11 but about a lot of other things, too).

With that said, I really don't think 9/11 was an inside job. I am simply open to the possibility that it was.

Are there certain truths that little people like us are not supposed to know so the kings and queens of the earth can continue on dancing in the palace - I think so. I don't believe for a moment that my beloved Stanley had anything to do with faking the moon landing, but I also know that reality is much stranger than fiction.

I think so.

Really, my problem with a lot of the most famous conspiracies is not that I think it's inconceivable people would do these things--the motive is there after all and there are a lot of criminal people in the world, especially in government--it's the sheer vastness of scope. To pull something off like 9/11 or faking the moon landing would require SO MUCH logistically and everyone involved would have to be complicit and successfully keep their mouths shut for their entire lives. Where are the whistleblowers with inside knowledge?

 

[Bob Watson]

the thought that Kubrick hid images in his films? AND CLUES???? well... PAUL IS DEAD!

HERE IS A CLUE FOR YOU ALL THE WALRUS IS PAUL!

 

[flipper]

Are these conspiracies, or is the population just kept ignorant and sedated?

The answer is yes these are conspiracies and the population is kept ignorant and sedated. The corporations order the government to change the laws so that what was illegal before then becomes legal. The government acts as the mafia enforcer.

Is this about a personal worldview or an attitude about certain historical premises?

It is about worldview. Could the same people who killed, in an instant, 150,000 men women and children and Nagasaki (75,000) murder 5,000 Americans for their own purposes and not show any remorse? Do buildings blow up and fall straight down? I would suggest that you read Another Nineteen and consider who has the better facts. Are they stupid or are they cruel? My worldview says that they are cruel. I think that we did go to the moon.
Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects: Kevin Robert Ryan: 9781489507839: Books - Amazon.ca

 

[marduk]

Of course there are conspiracies and of course people try to get away with stuff.

But that doesn't mean being so open minded that your brains fall out.

 

[flipper]

Where are the whistleblowers with inside knowledge?

They are dead, threatened or in jail.

 

[boomerang]

Conspiracies aren't necessarily hatched in formal meetings in back rooms. They can take the form of subtle communication--offhand remarks and non-verbal cues--amongst communities of powerful people with common goals and values over time. The pointy end of the spear may be so far removed from those at the top as to leave little or no visible connection.

This wouldn't work for something like a faked moon landing. But I personally don't think the landing was faked.

 

[SPX]

They are dead, threatened or in jail.

Well my point is that we're talking about huge conspiracies that would almost certainly require hundreds of people to pull off. So step 1 is getting ALL these people to agree to the plan and to agree to cooperate. Step 2 is getting them to keep quiet. It just seems like someone--at least ONE person who was involved--would quietly go to a national television network and blow the whole thing wide open. Presumably they would do this without announcing their plan first, so the government would have no cause to pay the any more attention than any of the other people who played a role in the plan.

 

[SPX]

Of course there are conspiracies and of course people try to get away with stuff.

But that doesn't mean being so open minded that your brains fall out.

Well, I agree that we should remain skeptical. But at the same time, as the saying goes, truth is stranger than fiction. So I also think it's important to remain open-minded, even to outlandish ideas.

 

[SPX]

This film used be on YouTube but now is banned:

I found a copy of this from another source a couple of nights ago and checked it out. I don't buy it, per se, but it was at least thought-provoking the way he tied everything together. And his front screen projection argument was pretty interesting.

Anyone know if Part II is worth watching?