How Stanley Kubrick faked the Apollo Moon Landings:

Alchemical Kubrick II


Jay Weidner

Copyright 2009

It has now been forty years since the fabled moon landings by NASA and the Apollo gang. When it comes to the moon landings people tend to fall into two belief groups. The first group, by far the bigger of the two groups, accepts the fact that NASA successfully landed on the moon six times and that 12 human beings have actually walked on the surface of the moon. The second group, though far smaller, is more vocal about their beliefs. This group says that we never went to the moon and that the entire thing was faked.

The position of this essay is a third way to examine this piece of history. This third point of view falls somewhere between these two assertions. This third position postulates that we did go to the moon but what we saw on TV was completely faked.

Furthermore I believe that the great filmmaker Stanley Kubrick is the genius who directed the hoaxed landings. I will prove this in this article.

But why fake it at all? What would be the motivation? Authors Joseph Farrell and Henry Stevens both have shown us undeniable proof that Nazi scientists had developed advanced flying saucer technology as early as 1943. These authors also show that the US Government brought these same Nazi scientists into this country in order to build these highly advanced flying machines. Furthermore, many believe that the idea that aliens from outer space are invading the Earth is a clever cover story concocted by NASA to hide this technology.

Many sources inside the military industrial complex have related to me that after John Kennedy was shown the flying saucer technology early in his presidency, he realized that the advances in technology promised by the flying saucers could solve many of the pressing problems of the world. He saw that releasing this exotic technology was pointing the way towards cheap and environmentally friendly energy.

Soon after seeing the flying saucer technology JFK made his famous speech asking NASA to land a man on the moon before the decade was out. Many insiders believed that this was a ploy by JFK to get NASA and the secret government to release their saucer technologies. Since it was obvious to everyone that standard rocket technology could not get man to the moon and back, JFK may have thought that NASA would be forced to release the knowledge of the flying saucers in order to get to the moon by the end of the 1960's. JFK's ploy was therefore intended to free this advanced technology from the insidious hands of the shadow government.

After the assassination of Kennedy in 1963, NASA began a new plan that would solve the problem that JFK initiated. This new plan would allow them to keep the saucer technology secret and to still make it look like standard rocketry had taken man to the moon and back. Someone high up in the shadow government decided to fake the entire moon landings in order to conceal the United States' extremely new and advanced Nazi technology both from us, the citizens and our enemies.

In some ways this was understandable as we were in the middle of the cold war with the Soviet Union. Did we really want to show the Russians what we had?

In early 1964 Stanley Kubrick had just finished his black satire Dr Strangelove and was looking to do a science fiction film. While directing Dr. Strangelove Kubrick had asked the US Air Force for permission to use one of their B-52 bombers for the film. He was turned down.

The movie Dr. Strangelove was about a flight squadron that had been ordered to fly to Russia and drop nuclear bombs on that country. The Pentagon read Kubrick's script and rejected his request to actually film the inside and outside of the B 52's. The reason for this rejection was that Kubrick's film was clearly a satire on the military and US nuclear policy.

Undaunted by the rejection, Kubrick used various special effects to create the B-52 in flight. When viewing Dr. Strangelove today these special effects looks quaint and old fashioned but in 1963 they looked very good. It is possible that someone in NASA saw what Kubrick had done and, admiring his artfulness, designated Kubrick as the person best qualified to direct the Apollo Moon landing? If he could do that well on a limited budget - what could he do on an unlimited budget?

No one knows how the powers that be convinced Kubrick to direct the Apollo landings. Maybe they had compromised Kubrick in some way. The fact that his brother, Raul Kubrick, was the head of the American Communist Party may have been one of the avenues pursued by the government to get Stanley to cooperate.

Kubrick had a reputation as a notoriously nasty negotiator. It would have been very interesting to be a fly on the wall during the negotiations between Kubrick and NASA.

In the end, it looks like Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landings in return for two things. The first was a virtually unlimited budget to make his ultimate science fiction film: 2001: A Space Odyssey, and the second was that he would be able to make any film he wanted, with no oversight from anyone, for the rest of his life.

Except for his last film, Eyes Wide Shut, Kubrick got what he wanted.

It is uncanny the way that the production of 2001: A Space Odyssey parallels the Apollo program. The production started in 1964 and went on to the release of 2001: A Space Odyssey in1968. Meanwhile the Apollo program went from 1964 and culminated with the first moon landings on July 20th 1969.

Also it is very interesting to note that Frederick Ordway worked both for NASA and the Apollo program and was Kubrick's top science advisor on 2001: A Space Odyssey.

The most pressing problem for Kubrick in 1964 was to figure out a way to make the shots on the ground, on the surface of the moon, look real. He had to make the scenes look expansive like it was really done on the moon and not in a studio back lot.

No one knows how many things he tried but eventually Kubrick settled on doing the entire thing with a cinematic technique called Front Screen Projection.

It is in the use of this cinematic technique that the fingerprints of Kubrick can be seen all over the Apollo material.

Kubrick did not invent front screen projection but there is no doubt that he perfected it. Front screen projection is a device that allows scenes to be projected behind the actors so that it appears in the camera as if the actors are moving around on the set provided by the front screen projection.

The process came into fruition when the 3M company invented a material called Scotchlite. This was a screen material that was made up of hundreds of thousands of glass beads each about 25mm wide. These beads were highly reflective. The Scotchlite screen would be placed at the back of the soundstage. The plane of the camera lens and the screen would have to be exactly 90 degrees apart. A projector would project the scene onto the Scotchlite screen and the light would go through a beam splitter, which would pass the light into the camera. An actor would stand in front of the screen and he would appear to be 'inside' the projection.

Today we use green screens and computers for special effects and so front screen projection has gone the way of the adding machine and the Model T, but for its time, especially in the 1960's, nothing worked better than front screen projection for the realistic look that would be needed both for 2001 A Space Odyssey and the faked Apollo landings.

To see how front screen projection looks on the screen please let's examine the ape scenes at the beginning of the film 2001: A Space Odyssey as these scenes were done with this cinematic system. While viewing the stills from these scenes, or watching them in the film one has to remember that they were all done on a soundstage. None of what you are seeing in the ape scenes at the beginning of 2001 was actually shot outside.

In order to create the desert backgrounds of the ape scenes in the first part of 2001 Kubrick sent a photographic team to Spain to shoot 8' X 10' Ektachrome slides. These slides were then projected via the front screen projection system onto the Scotchlite screen. The apes stood in front of the screen acting out the script.

If you watch 2001 on a DVD you can actually see the 'seams' of the screen occasionally behind the gyrating apes. Kubrick was doing front screen projection on such a huge and grand fashion that the technicians were forced to sew gigantic screens of Scotchlite together so that Kubrick could create the vastness needed for the ape scenes to be believable.

In this still taken from an early scene in 2001 you can see the seams if you look closely.

Next is the same image as above only I have increased the gamma and increased the contrast. Please examine:

Now we can clearly see the 'seams' and the 'stitching' of the Scotchlite front projection screen, which is right behind the rocky outcropping set, which was built on the soundstage. The lines on the screen give a peculiar 'geometry' to the sky when the image is properly processed to reveal the front projection screen.

Let's show another example. Here is a still from the famous 'water hole' scene from 2001:

This next image is again the same image as above but with the gamma and contrast increased:

The 'geometry' in the sky is utterly apparent and undeniable.

Watching 2001with the scenes of the apes one can see the tell tale fingerprints that always reveal when the front screen projection is being used. The sets that surround the ape-men in the movie are real. Those are 'real' rocks (whether paper mache or real) that surround the ape-men. But behind the fabricated rocks on the set, the desert scene is being projected via the front screen projector.

One of the ways that you can tell the front screen system is being used is that the bottom horizon line between the actual set and the background Scotchlite screen has to be blocked. Kubrick strategically located rocks and other things near the bottom of the scene in order to hide the projection screen. In other words, the camera and the viewers would see the bottom of the background projection screen if it weren't blocked in some fashion. As part of the 'trick' it became necessary to place things in between the screen and the set to hide the bottom of the screen.

You will see that this is always done when front screen projection is used in 2001: A Space Odyssey. It is one of the fingerprints; it is evidence of its use. Just like the stage magician who needs the long sleeves of his costume to hide the mechanism of his tricks, so too Kubrick needed to hide the mechanism of his trick behind the carefully placed horizon line between set and screen.

And you will see, before this article is finished, that this same fingerprint, this same evidence is clearly seen in all of the NASA Apollo stills and video footage. It is this fingerprint that reveals, not only that NASA faked the Apollo missions but also HOW they faked them.

Let's examine a few NASA Apollo images now.

This is a still from Apollo 17. This is also a great example of the front screen projection process.

I have photo-shopped a line indicating the back of the set. One can see that there is a slight uprising behind the rover, which is hiding the bottom of the screen. Also notice that even though everything is in focus from the lunar rover to the mountains in the background there is a strange change in the landscape of the ground right behind my lines. This is because the photo used on the front projection system has a slightly different ground texture than the set. As we go on we will see that this fingerprint is also consistent throughout the Apollo images.

Here is another Apollo image.

Now here is my version where I show the line between set and screen.

Again notice that the texture of the ground changes right behind my lines.

Below is a rather famous shot. Once again I have photo-shopped the line between set and screen. Please note the 'C' on the rock.

There is another telltale fingerprint that comes with front screen projection. This has to do with a photographic situation called depth of field. Depth of field has to do with the plane of focus that the lens of the camera is tuned to. The bigger the format of the film the less depth of field there is. For instance, 16mm film has a large depth of field. 35mm has a small depth of field and 70 mm (which Stanley was using in 2001) has an incredibly small depth of field. What this means is that it is virtually impossible for two objects that are far apart in the lens of a 70mm camera to be in the same plane of focus. One of the two objects will always be out-of-focus. Filmmakers like to use depth of field because it creates soft out-of-focus backgrounds that are visually very pleasant to the human eye.

While watching the ape scenes at the beginning of 2001, one can see that everything is in focus. Whether it is the apes or the far away desert background - they are all in focus. This is because the front project screen on which the background desert scenes is projected is actually not far away from the ape actor. In reality the desert scene and the Scotchlite screen are right behind the actors. So whatever is projected onto that screen will be in the same plane of focus as the actor ape. This depth of field is impossible in real life using a large format film like 70 mm. Keeping everything in focus is only possible if everything is actually confined to a small place. It may look like the ape-men are somewhere in a huge desert landscape but in reality they are all on a small set in a studio.

The very same tell-take evidence in on every lunar surface Apollo photograph that has a background.

The Apollo astronauts were using Hassleblad cameras with 2 - 1/4' by 3- ¼' with Ektachrome film. This is large format film with all of the same depth of field problems that would come with shooting 70mm film. The plane of focus on these cameras is incredibly small. This should have been a huge problem for the astronaut-photographers, who would have to be constantly adjusting the focus. We could expect to see a lot of out of focus shots taken by the astronauts. When you consider that they did not even have the ability to see thought the viewfinder of their cameras, this would only increase the chances that most of what they would be shooting would be out of focus.

I have gone through the entire photographic record of Apollo program, both at Goddard in Greenbelt Maryland in the main photographic repository at NASA's Houston headquarters.

When the photographic record is examined, the exact opposite of what one would expect to find is discovered. Instead of many out of focus shots, we find that nearly every shot is in pristine focus. And these amateur photographer- astronauts have an uncanny sense of composition, especially when one remembers that they are not even able to look through their camera's viewfinders.

Honestly, even a professional photographer looking through the viewer would be hard pressed to come up with the pristine imagery of the Apollo astronaut amateur photographers.

Unfortunately though for everyone involved, the fact that everything is in focus in the Apollo record is the old telltale fingerprint of front screen projection.

Look at the above photographs. Please note how everything is in focus. As one goes through the entire Apollo record they will discover that the astronaut photographers never seem to have a problem with depth of field. Even though you could never get everything to remain in focus over such vast distances here on Earth, somehow the rules of physics are bypassed when men shoot photographs on the lunar surface.

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).

Former NASA consultant Richard Hoagland has examined the photos of the Apollo landings and, although he has never noticed the impossible depth of field, he has noticed other strange anomalies in the NASA material. He sees 'geometries' in the skies surrounding the astronauts on the moon. He shows evidence of some kind of gigantic structures behind the astronauts as they stand on the lunar surface. He even sees light reflecting in the sky above the astronauts.

Many people, especially in NASA, have attacked Hoagland for these interpretations. But let the evidence stand. Hoagland is seeing something in these photographs. His critics are either wrong or 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 believe that NASA has 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 activity on 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 front screen projection, directed them.

What Hoagland is seeing when he looks at the Apollo images is real. But his interpretation of them being alien cities and huge structures is wrong.

Again I want to make sure that I am understood here. I am not saying that there are not strange structures on the moon. I believe there is plenty of high weirdness concerning the moon. I have seen plenty of evidence that suggests that the moon is not what we think it is. What I am saying is that the structures and geometries that Richard Hoagland is seeing on 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.

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 this image he discovered, over and over again all of this 'crud' in the sky above the astronauts.

Here are some other of Hoagland's images:

What Hoagland is seeing is the imperfections in the background Scotchlite screen that Kubrick used to create the lunar backgrounds, just like he created the desert backgrounds in the ape scenes in 2001: A Space Odyssey. What Hoagland and the above image reveals is the texture and geometry of the Scotchlite screen. We can see these same geometries in the ape scene in 2001.

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 a large enough Scotchlite screen that he was able to then 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 reflecting light high above the astronauts on the moon. Hoagland thinks that this is light reflecting off a giant glass towers right behind the astronaut. What this is really is the light reflecting off of one of the tiny glass beads of the Scotchlite screen. Apparently it was slightly off from its 90-degree angle and it caught the 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 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 we have never gone back to the moon.

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 two shadows not be consistent? Because Kubrick used studio lighting!

But why would Kubrick make a mistake like the inconsistent shadows like above? My answer is that Kubrick did this on purpose.

He left behind telltale evidence for his work. I am sure some part of him wanted everyone to know what he had done so he left behind things that would explain who did it and how.

Those of you who are familiar with my essay, written in 1999, on 2001: A Space Odyssey called Alchemical Kubrick (see already know I believe that 2001 A Space Odyssey is the greatest alchemical 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 and moon 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 fingerprints is the device that enlightens humanity as to how the Apollo landings were faked.

But also we can see that Kubrick used this as an opportunity to make one great film.

Realizing 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 20th century.

The President of MGM at the time has said 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? No way. I am sure that 2001: A Space Odyssey was 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 these conclusions even more in the direction of Kubrick directing the entire Apollo missions.

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 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 credit for the 'event' that he helped fake.

Stanley Kubrick died a few hours 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 several scenes that were never in the finished film.

Warner Brothers has even come out and said that they re-edited the film slightly. 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.

Eyes Wide Shut was released on July 16th 1999.

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

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

© 1999-2009 All Rights Reserved. Reproduction without permission prohibited.