Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth
July 20, 2017 10:34 AM   Subscribe

It has been suggested that Stanley Kubrick, the truly gifted director who was responsible for such classics as 2001: A Space Odyssey, was hired to help fake the Apollo landings. Given Kubrick’s painstaking attention to detail, it is now well known that he was involved in this elaborate conspiracy.

Most Directors would have been content to use a large sound stage, but Kubrick insisted on shooting on location. One anonymous source, claiming to be a member of Kubrick’s film crew for the moon project, has claimed that the Director insisted on shooting on the Lunar surface “Because he wanted to get the light just right.” The alleged cameraman has also stated that setting up the sets and operating the cameras in the harsh Lunar environment was extremely difficult, but as they were being paid more than double union scale it was well worth it.

Bonus Science: Washington Post reporter Philip Bump introduces his six-month-old son to his readers by way of analyzing lunar progress in a beloved children's book: Goodnight, Too-Large-to-Be-Astronomically-Accurate Moon.
posted by Johnny Wallflower (41 comments total) 30 users marked this as a favorite
 
I want so much to flag this post as inappropriate because it's entirely fake news.

But it's also entertaining.

Perhaps the mods will have an opinion. Flagged.
posted by hippybear at 10:42 AM on July 20, 2017


Most Directors would have been content to use a large sound stage, but Kubrick insisted on shooting on location.

I just barked very very loudly and scared my cats. So I guess we have the mod opinion.
posted by cortex at 10:45 AM on July 20, 2017 [48 favorites]


You should have flagged it as satire.
posted by ericost at 10:45 AM on July 20, 2017 [3 favorites]


Well, I wouldn't expect anything less from Kubrick.

I'm also interested if the allegations that Barry Lyndon was filmed in natural light because he and the crew actually went back in time to film it, but the lightbulbs did not resist the trip are true.
posted by lmfsilva at 10:49 AM on July 20, 2017 [8 favorites]


Stop flagging this! I can see from the shadows of your flags that this post hasn't ever been to the moon!

(This is still the best response to moon landing denial)
posted by chavenet at 10:50 AM on July 20, 2017 [14 favorites]


A friend made this joke a few days ago (no reference to the Quora article was made).

When I recounted it to my son, he made a cogent point: Kubrick was, like, congenitally disposed to NOT film on location.

My rejoinder: Kubrick simply reconstructed THE ENTIRE MOON on the grounds of Elstree Studios ^_^
posted by retronic at 11:07 AM on July 20, 2017 [15 favorites]


You know, I've seen flat earth "explanations" for why the sun is visible 24 hours a day inside the arctic circle, but nobody can adequately explain why the moon and sun behave similarly at the South Pole. It always breaks down into fake videos and conspiracies even though many civilians travel to Antarctica every year.
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 11:07 AM on July 20, 2017


I hate that this sort of thing has been ruined.
posted by Artw at 11:08 AM on July 20, 2017 [5 favorites]


This is accurate. I know from a reliable source that Kubrick started the Vietnam war to film Full Metal Jacket.
posted by hot_monster at 11:10 AM on July 20, 2017 [42 favorites]


I wonder if Middle Earth was also flat
posted by thelonius at 11:13 AM on July 20, 2017 [2 favorites]


Most Directors would have been content to use a large sound stage, but Kubrick insisted on shooting on location

And if he had gone back to the moon to shoot Eyes Wide Shut, the setting would have borne a closer resemblance to actual New York City than what he ended up with.
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:16 AM on July 20, 2017 [4 favorites]


If you haven't already seen Room 237, it's a great documentary for Kubrick fans. One of the subjects is a believer in this theory, and it gives a little background. Also, this is a fairly detailed video of the subject, good for a laugh and it kind of shows you how weirdly attached to certain ideas people can become.
posted by doctor_negative at 11:17 AM on July 20, 2017 [8 favorites]


Room 237 was pretty entertaining, but tough to tell who is taking the piss or taking it seriously. The changes highlighted between the book and the movie & the simultaneous forward/backward screening were neat.
posted by dr_dank at 11:35 AM on July 20, 2017


I wonder if Middle Earth was also flat

Originally, yes. But Eru Illuvatar curved it after the fall of Numenor to prevent anyone but the Elves from trying to sail to Aman again.
posted by tobascodagama at 11:35 AM on July 20, 2017 [14 favorites]


Of course, it helped that Kubrick already had experience in the matter, since part of 2001: A Space Odyssey (released in 1968) had also been shot on the lunar surface.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 11:49 AM on July 20, 2017 [4 favorites]


Goodnight, Too-Large-to-Be-Astronomically-Accurate Moon.

We really need to step up our beanplating around here. All these other guys are eating our lunch.
posted by Naberius at 11:54 AM on July 20, 2017 [8 favorites]


You should have flagged it as satire.

That's not how you spell "fantastic" hint hint
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 12:31 PM on July 20, 2017 [2 favorites]


This is accurate. I know from a reliable source that Kubrick started the Vietnam war to film Full Metal Jacket.

Well he had to do something after turning England into a violent dystopia...
posted by happyroach at 12:34 PM on July 20, 2017 [3 favorites]


This is especially funny to me right now, as I have, in just this past week alone, had conversations in real life wherein two separate grown up adult men, who are allowed to do things like drive cars and raise children, assert to me in earnest they fully believe the moon landing was faked.

Neither of them were trying to be funny, so I was laughing at them instead of with them, something I really try not to do but then life gives you dudes like this.

All I could think of was Buzz Aldrin punching them, which did not help me stop laughing.
posted by louche mustachio at 12:35 PM on July 20, 2017 [17 favorites]


My mother-in-law is a moon landing skeptic, but we all chalk that up to her being born in Missouri, "show me state" and all that. Seriously, with a family of science-and-math types, we're not sure why she's still a skeptic. I can't imagine that Buzz would punch her, but then I think she'd have enough tact to not ask him.
posted by filthy light thief at 12:43 PM on July 20, 2017


This is accurate. I know from a reliable source that Kubrick started the Vietnam war to film Full Metal Jacket.

No, no. It was Vietnam that Kubrick created for the film. The war itself was faked to cover up LBJ's failed attempts to negotiate Kennedy's release from captivity with the Greys.
posted by straight at 12:47 PM on July 20, 2017 [7 favorites]


All I could think of was Buzz Aldrin punching them

There's a long line waiting to get to Buzz Aldrin.
posted by Naberius at 1:00 PM on July 20, 2017 [5 favorites]


No mention that he got those sweet Zeiss lenses from NASA used to film Barry Lyndon with only candle light as a pay off from NASA for the supposed fake moon landing? That's my favorite part of this conspiracy theory.
posted by kendrak at 1:10 PM on July 20, 2017 [3 favorites]


This is, by far, my favorite thing from Quora. (Not a terribly difficult bar to clear, but still.)
posted by Halloween Jack at 1:32 PM on July 20, 2017


Favourite factoid about 2001 - there was one, and only one, location shot.
posted by Devonian at 1:33 PM on July 20, 2017


Wait, do I have this straight: the apollo program was faked by sending a film crew TO THE MOON?

This is not fake news, this is pure unassailable unfettered unrepentant truthiness.
posted by sammyo at 1:55 PM on July 20, 2017 [1 favorite]


Obligatory xkcd
posted by Jane the Brown at 2:39 PM on July 20, 2017 [2 favorites]


There's a long line waiting to get to Buzz Aldrin

I hear it could go to the moon and back.
posted by louche mustachio at 3:35 PM on July 20, 2017 [5 favorites]


One of these days…
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 4:40 PM on July 20, 2017 [1 favorite]


we're not sure why she's still a skeptic.

The government hasn't been honest about many things so 'the moonlandings' are seen as one of the topics of a hoax VS just admitting the whole thing is well past its prime and something as public an event of taking a human out of the gravity well biosphere isn't going to happen for the US of A as a nation. If the US government was seen as mostly honest this kind of thing, Alex Jones, or the 'child kidnappers to mars' would have no ability to take root and grow.

And is 'the moonlanding a hoax' a better thing to believe in than 'the moon has artifacts of aliens' or less depressing than 'the moon has things left on it by humans from (1.2 million/12,500 years ago)'? Its one kind of sad state of affairs if the United States was gonna have Rockwell build a moonbase it is another that 1.2 million years ago man was building domed things on the moon or 12,500 years ago man was doing that and less than 50 years ago rural electrification was a thing. And if aliens are on the moon and said 'don't come back' - gonna be rather hard for apes at the bottom of a gravity well and only in one location to say 'to hell with you and your idea of where we can go'. For all the ego of various humans the bottom of a gravity well in 1 location is not a 'negotiation from a position of strength' place.

Accepting a hoax sure seems more comforting than what appears to be the truth - The US of A is the kind of place Justin Raimondo writes about. A place run by a bunch of committees each with its own agenda and on the decline.
posted by rough ashlar at 4:51 PM on July 20, 2017 [1 favorite]


Of course, we all know now that the Mars landing was a hoax.

Trigger warning: O. J. Simpson.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 5:07 PM on July 20, 2017


There's a long line waiting to get to Buzz Aldrin.
You're not wrong. He was at a bookfair I was at a couple of years ago. I didn't know he'd be there, didn't get there early, so had no chance to see him. The line to see his speech pretty much filled the available space in the venue (looked like maybe 1000 people?). The book-signing queue to actually meet him filled up in seconds.
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 5:11 PM on July 20, 2017 [1 favorite]


Goodnight, Too-Large-to-Be-Astronomically-Accurate Moon.

That's perfectly simple to explain: They shot all the photographs for that book with a long lens.

(And yes, they're photographs.)
posted by Sys Rq at 5:28 PM on July 20, 2017 [2 favorites]


I thought everybody knew that. They originally wanted Joseph L. Mankiewicz, but were afraid of cost overruns. Little did they know how much worse Kubrick would turn out to be!
posted by languagehat at 5:42 PM on July 20, 2017




Because the Soviets, with all their antenna and radar, would have been willing to give the US a pass on faking a moon landing.
posted by sebastienbailard at 7:26 PM on July 20, 2017 [7 favorites]


I went to read the other answers, and top one is by Dave Haynie, legendary Commodore Amiga engineer! I'm still surprising excited by that.
posted by BinaryApe at 10:56 PM on July 20, 2017 [1 favorite]


Obligatory Mitchell & Webb.
posted by kickingtheground at 11:22 PM on July 20, 2017 [5 favorites]




I knew it was all fake. I could see the pixels.
posted by Samizdata at 10:20 AM on July 21, 2017


Just feed the pictures into software and volia! a paper proving a mission was faked.
posted by rough ashlar at 7:32 AM on July 24, 2017 [1 favorite]


« Older What Do You Mean You Don't Speak My Language?   |   c'mon baby, skew the locomotion Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments