Did you know Stanley Kubrick filmed the moon landing ?

Did you get dropped on your head repeatedly as a babby or just educated in public schools?

stupid fucking american. real mean went up in space in tincans on dreams and ego. Fuck you for your disrespect.

I don't think that Kunrick faked the moon landing. I think Kunrick made the Shinning be ABOUT him faking the moon landing. Maybe he did it as joke to people who believed he could do that, or that he could do something similar to that. Or maybe it was an artistic or personal statement that is beyond our knowings at this point. Either way, the symbolizing is still there.

>my mom thinks that the moon landings are fake and that Trump is paying people to pretend to be Muslims and shoot up innocent people
>by girlfriend's dad thinks the earth is flat and that the police are strategically killing minorities
Why are baby boomers so fucking stupid?

that's impossible, because the moon doesn't exist

total bullshit, Piccolo destroyed the moon in DBZ you fucking faggot cunt.

Ron Howard is actually involved in a film "conspiracy" people think he filmed the first star wars while lucas mostly picked his nose and ass.

no

They're right, though.

People from /x/ probably, everything that is beyond their frame of reference is a monster or alien technology.

It baffles me that a lot of the people who say that the moon landing is fake don't even know that there was more than one.

>faking a moon landing is harder than just landing on the moon

There's another moon? Is it behind the one I can see?

Americans know the moon landings were faked just like how we know 9/11 was controlled demolition

The others were box office flops though and drove Kubric to suicide.

I don't know what to believe about WTC 1 and 2 but 7 wasn't even hit by anything and just magically went down like a ton of bricks.

Controlled demolition seems more plausible than the theory that it got smacked by a chunk of stray debris and somehow just collapsed straight into the ground like It just fell into a sinkhole

wtf I hate stanley now

What are you talking about? The technology to make films existed long before the moon landing. They made the movie, then showed it on TV at the required time.

If you actually watch footage of the moon landing, you'll notice how many similarities there are to movies made in that era (ie, firecrackers, wirework, tin foil and gaffer tape, etc.)

Won't we have the technology today to land on the moon if that were true?

First thing to make me laugh all night.

What about the video of Kubrick himself admitting to it?

Underrated.

>yfw Earth is actually the moon

Cool photoshop, Jakob.

Is there anything more retarded than a liberal conspiracy theorist

It's funny how you can drive over a dusty crater without destroying it. It's literally like they just used the brush tool and drew some squiggly lines.

Kubrick really seems like a cool guy

I doubt Kubrick would have allowed the moon landing broadcast to go ahead when the guy playing the first man on the moon got his line wrong.

Kubrick actually filmed Barry Lyndon.

It's an easy mistake to make though.

Imagine if that would be a thing though.

>Super advanced civilization that has achieved anything technologically possible short of reversing entropy
>They are lords of all existence, can reshape matter as they see fit, arbitrarily great energy of all the stars in the Universe at their disposal

>Decide they'll turn the universe for every other species into a gameshow
>Somewhere an alien race lands on the nearest celestial object to their own planet
>youtube.com/watch?v=v2AC41dglnM starts playing
>Fireworks going off everywhere, astornaut is shitting his pants
>Giant holograhic image shows up, announcing that "Congratulations! You are the 10 000 000th species to land on a foreign planet!"
>Leaves a goldplated sportsvehicle that looks just like the most popular one on the astronaut's planet next to the lander
>Hologram disappears and the species isn't seen again

Only things I question are the state of equipment and how it protected the men from the dangerous environment of space. Look at this thing. Knowing what you do about space, would this thing really provide adequate protection?

Probably you

Unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't need to.
Didn't they spend the entire time in the lander in their EVA suits? Only the actual cockpit (which is in orbit around the moon at the time of this picture) needed to completely protect whoever's inside from the harshness of space. With the lander, they already had the EVA suits on.

You see all that gold foil on there? That's actual gold. Gold is excellent ray shielding. Better shielding than we have on a lot of modern gear in orbit honestly.

On a side note, I always think it's funny that people who think the moon landings weren't real don't realize that the mirrors left behind on the surface to ping distance as the moon slowly drifts further away can be reflected off of by an amateur with access to a really good telescope and armature.

He filmed some of what we saw on TV, but the moon landing actually happened.

Those suits protected them from the Van Allen radiation belt, did they?

THERES NO POINT
IT DOESNT MATTER

WE WILL NEVER REACH FTL IN OUR LIFETIME
AND FUCK ALIENS

FUCK

>some shitty photos
>solid proof
choose one

>ray shielding

Yes, he used symbolism to tell us. And that was one of the reason (((they))) killed him

youtube.com/watch?v=ApPJTomjmnA

One of the stupidest conspiracy theories of all time
The tech didn't exist to fake it but the tech to do it definitely did exist

There's a great Mitchell&Webb sketch about it but instead here's a vid that not a single theorist can disprove
youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU

You're telling me this looks real to you? I've seen 1950's sci-fi movies that had more convincing effects.

youtube.com/watch?v=n4yYZh1U908

Go watch the Moonlanding vires videos. Those glimmers didn't appear out of their ass

>film

It was video, and broadcast live.

You do know the difference between film and video, right?

>i can refute the evidence
>instead, watch me appeal to the layman's complete lack of technological understanding
You're the worst kind of idiot

It does look real to me. Exactly what one would expect.

What about it looks weird to you?

I did disprove it. I said they recorded it first, then aired it afterwards. It is a movie, after all, and the technology to make movies sure as fuck existed.

Oh, so the Jews killed (((Kubrick)))?

The firecracker bang of the thrusters, the swaying of the module as it rises upwards, and the camera panning upwards despite none being left on the moon to operate it.

Providing an alternate theory isn't a way to 'disprove' something
Especially when it's clear you didn't watch the video since he goes into why that would've been impossible

>the Van Allen Radiation belt
>singular
Want to be more specific?

Also, considering the fact that those suits are built for this sort of thing, and they were only ever wearing them without the capsule's protection incredibly close to the Moon's surface in the grand scheme of things:
Yes. Yes it did. The same way your skin protects you from the tons and tons of harmful radiations in your room this very moment in which the entirety of planet Earth is soaked.

Do not lose faith, bro! They might have time machines!

Why do people always bring up the mirrors? Not a conspiracytard but isn't it simple enough to say that the mirrors were placed there by robotic landers?

You're right,
rather than using say a radio-mechanised dolly, NASA and Kubrick stupidly thought no one would notice someone moving the camera when there wasn't supposed to be someone there

What idiots, amirite?

>firecracker bang of the thrusters

How exactly do you expect rocket thrusters to behave in this situation

>the swaying of the module

It's taking off by a rocket, of course it's got attitude thrusters to control its roll, pitch, and yaw.

>nobody left to operate it

They used an advanced technology called "remote control."

babby can't into google?
forum.cosmoquest.org/archive/index.php/t-9092.html

The Van Allen belts don't extend as far as the Moon.

They avoided problems with the Van Allen belts by going up and over them, and going very quickly, so they were only exposed to about a chest x-ray of radiation.

Can I just mention, I'm still waiting for one of you conspiracy nuts to disprove any of this video
youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU

PROTIP: you can't

There's actually one guy who managed to disprove one very very small technical part of his claim, but the rest still holds and it's pretty absurd.

The same guy made a rebuttal and it's worth watching too.

Huh, interesting, fair play
But yeah, point still stands

D R O P P E D

>the soviets, who are the competitor of us in the space race and have the KGB, do not object the landing
>basement dwellers know better

If we give the guy a tiny bit of credit, I think he meant the Moon's Van Allen Belt, not Earth's (since theorethically every body with a strong enough gravity to be rounded by it has one, however weak).

But yeah, it's not like the radiation works as a death ray out of a 50s b-movie. And even if it did, the lunar orbiter was only flying between 62-70 miles above the Moon's surface.

imagine being there standing on the moon all that darkness looks fucking terrifying

The tech didn't exist then for robotic landers. The tech didn't even exist for computer simulation training for the astronauts. They used a pure analog model on wires to practice all the landing maneuvers. If you want to talk about how garbage the electronics were back then, you only have to look at the actual probes that came right on it's heels. The Voyager Mars was basically the Apollo moon lander with attempted automation and it got scrapped for being impossible.

Even the viking program had to use mechanical gyroscopes.

The mirrors are brought up because it means irrefutably that something landed on the moon. And honestly, you'd be crazier to think it's harder to keep a piece of meat alive for a week in space than program the orbital mechanics necessary for an automated run, especially in the era where calculator was still an actual job and not just a machine.

I laugh every time I see than thing take off. its cleary on a wire.

The Soviets should've made a fuss, but not about the Apollo 11
>Built Luna 9
>Have it land on its own on the moon with pre-programmed instructions and no luxury of a crew on board to fix any miscalculations
>Perform first soft landing on the moon

>Build a whole series of Venus probes
>Conduct first controlled descent inside of Venus' atmosphere before the US even gets to landing on the Moon

>Kick ass left and right, breaking all sorts of records first

>US gives three guys a camera and tells them to film themselves plant a flag long after a Russian probe already accomplished the scientifically significant act of a soft landing
>US tells the world this is more impressive because their lander was bigger and had people inside it
>Soviet Union does not object the US calling it quits and announcing that they've "won" the Space Race, no questions asked

>The tech didn't exist then for robotic landers.
m8
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_1

pleb. the astronauts can see billions of stars, it only looks like total black there because of the low exposure time of the camera.

>Thinking the US and Soviets weren't in on it together

It's all theatre, sweetheart.

...

why did Neil Armstrong, arguably the most famous man of the 20th Century go into hiding directly after the landing?

why is there only one photo of Neil on the Moon. just one. they forget to pack the camera?

why did Neil do ONE television interview looking rather sheepish, then none ever again?

hmmm, really makes you think.

because he saw aliens on the moon

there, another conspiracy theory

what would happen if i ate moon dirt?

Ancient Astronaut Theorists agree.

Because Buzz Aldrin is the superior man.

> mediocre overrated among pseudo intellectuals filmmaker
> shot the moon landing
> implying it's a fake
Nice one, commie

Don't you think people landing on Mars will be more impressive than the robot they sent?

You're retarded. That doesn't mean they never went on Moon. It means they couldn't film it.
And it happened in Area 51. This is where NASA studio is.

From a scientific point of view? Not really.

Once you've figured out how to go about landing on another celestial object, difference between a small probe and a large manned lander is not much more than building a skyscrapper and building a higher skyscrapper also looks fancy.

Now actually one thing remains to be done with Mars in particular, and that is building a lander probe that can re-enter orbit properly, if I'm not mistaken, since sandstorms and the presence of an atmoshere create a unique difficulty for that on Mars, but let's be honest, unless they plan to start with permanent colonists, they'll do that with a probe before they send people, and once again, the key to the problem will be solved before a human sets foot there.

Do you want the list of faked soviets space achievements USA didn't object? The space race served the narrative of both ideology.

so where the fuck are the aliens? im getting pissed they need to hurry up and start a HAPPENING already

There is no alien kiddo. But they make you believe there is so you have hope and you don't snap because we are alone on this shitty dying planet and we need to get rid of a large part of the population.

But I'm not talking about from a scientific point of view

Nobody would care if USSR made a fuss about "being the first to make the scientific accomplishments that were more relevant". The Space Race was more important politically, and politically the public perception was that man landing on moon was more impressive.

This is unironically a more plausible explanation than the kubrick theory.

Also, I was reading a bunch of creepypasta last night so this appeals to those fears of the unknown

Also, the Space Race didn't end after that

It was a back up plan. As depicted in that Perlman movie. They approached him. It most likely put him into a deep crisis to have seen all these political mechanisms. He made the Shining about this experience.

But the USSR tried to land man on the moon and couldn't. So it's obviously not "just make it bigger and put people in it".

Well yes, but that's bullshit.
Also, it's quite clear that that "race" was one only the US was really interested in, to the point where the English had to literally hijack and pirate Luna 9's signals for the western world to know it was a success, and see the pictures it took of the Moon's surface.

If the Americans had done it, it would've been live televised with Charleston Heston giving a monologue. Yes I know it would make no sense chronologically since he's known as a "space actor" becuase of a movie that didn't come out yet at that point but you get it.

Well yes, you need massive launch facilities, a ton off resources you're willing to throw out into the cold empty void of space never to be seen again, and a steady economy as well.

Strange how they still could do those other things first on a small scale, despite effectively working with "Baby's first space agency" by comparison to NASA, and didn't get pissy about it the instant someone suggested they're not the greatest and the bestest and forever and ever the unquestionable champs, isn't it?

sounds like something an alien would say

What are you talking about? Neil Armstrong traveled all over the world, talking to foreign dignitaries, being on TV shows, chair accident investigations, being spokesman for several countries and teaching at university. And there are multiple photos of Armstrong on the moon.

I see no evidence you've done any thinking.

>the Moon's Van Allen Belt

The Moon's what, nigga?

South Park

Kek kill yourself!

Honestly I'm not 100% sure if the Moon has a Van Allen Belt, but as I said, supposedly every "planet" (read: celestial body with considerable size/gravity) has one, and it's far from being unique to Earth. I was just assuming maybe the guy's thinking about there being one for the Moon.

That, or maybe he really does not know that it takes 3 days of free fall to reach Earth from the moon, and thought the Moon was much closer.

>why did Neil Armstrong, arguably the most famous man of the 20th Century go into hiding directly after the landing?

He didn't.

>why is there only one photo of Neil on the Moon. just one. they forget to pack the camera?

There's more than one.

>why did Neil do ONE television interview looking rather sheepish, then none ever again?

He did more that one.

Planets with magnetic fields have them. They are a consequence of magnetic fields capturing solar radiation. Planets without magnetic fields have no van allen belts. The moon has a very tiny, tiny magnetic field, and no true discernible Van Allen Belt.

Well, now I know!
I suspected if there was one, it would be negligible at most, but in arguments I like to assume that the opposition is as close to reality as possible within what I know for a fact. The Moon having such belts was the only way his argument made any sense to me.

top kek bruh

That's my jam
youtube.com/watch?v=8vGRfVR7RF8

...

>how do you know the moon landing was faked
>some parts of it were unrealistic!
>okay
>and also Stanley Kubrick, a man know for making absolutely perfect shots and reshooting if they aren't perfect, directed the fake moon landing
>makes sense to me!
I seriously doubt most people who say Stanley Kubrick directed the moon landing ever saw any of his movies.

Did you even watch the fucking episode?

Who will film Mars landing?

James Cameron IMO.

literally too busy doing god knows what to care or even know that we exist. those that do come here are basically just visiting a zoo.

Noboy's mentioned moon rocks? Hundreds of kilos of rock samples that were sent to dozens of different research fscilities and inspected by hundreds of geologists, and of whom could tell you they didn't match anything on Earth.

Close. Armstrong said you could see stars only if you were in the shadow of the lander and looked up for a few seconds and waited for your eyes to adjust.

Now watch me whip (Kill it!)
Now watch me nae nae (Okay!)
Now watch me whip whip
Watch me nae nae (Want me do it?)

Now watch me whip (Kill it!)
Watch me nae nae (Okay!)
Now watch me whip whip
Watch me nae nae (Can you do it?)

I like how Kubrik attached wires to every individual peice of dust so it would all fly up slowly and high up at 1/6th gravity.

Now watch me

Ooh watch me, watch me
Ooh watch me, watch me
Ooh watch me, watch me
Ooh ooh ooh ooh

Ooh watch me, watch me
Ooh watch me, watch me
Ooh watch me, watch me
Ooh ooh ooh ooh

You would die. There's no air or water to wear it down smooth so it's really sharp and spiky. Breathing it was very dangerous as it would tear up your lungs.

You know, NASA actually has a program where they will send you samples from their storage for free for geologic research if your project requires it.

I got a chance to study some petrographic slides from the moon in person once. They look almost identical to Precambrian shield rock samples I've seen from Canada. The main difference in thin section is they don't have even a hint of the weathering you see in the Earth samples. My buddy got his PhD in igneous petrology and he said the differences are even more pronounced chemically.

Truly he was the Master©

Underbaked potato

>Neil Armstrong
>Neil A
Now spell that backwards

why did I laugh at this?

The only aliens we will see are demons posing as aliens to lure you into falling for their tricks in the end times. The Antichrist will come in the form of aliens and tell us to put aside our petty differences and beliefs in "false creators" and offer us protection.

Have you seen Lolita or Spartacus? Stanley Kubrick only had complete creative control in his latest movies

Maybe one day they will invent a slowmotion technology for cameras

are you retarded? Jackie Chun destroy the moon a long time ago

After Spartacus, Kubrick refused to ever make another movie where he didn't have final cut rights
It's why he moved to England and told Hollywood to go fuck itself
Lolita is 100% his film even if it's one of his weakest

The moon landing was the year after he made 2001
Read up on Kubrick before you go guessing how he operated

Pfff, don't meme on me, asshole.
Everyone knows Jackie Chun like the rest of those showoffs is just a trickster cheat! The Moon never existed, it was just an elaborate optical illusion put in place by whatever worthless "Martial Artist" college Jackie Chun is from, so that one day, one of them can "blow it up" and look all impressive.
Ha! As if Kung Fu gave you laser beams!

On the off chance that you're being serious, it's pathetic that you didn't catch on to it being a hologram after it got destroyed a second time, especially since a few months later there was that very telling light orb in the sky, clearly a malfunction of the same holograph machine!

How did they fake the gravity? Did he film the less accurate versions of 2001 simply as a ruse? a diversion? A director as autistic as Kubrick would compromise his movie like that?

video technology was only a few years old in 1969 but rocket technology was decades old. there was no way to shoot hours of slow motion on video until decades after the moon landing

Of course he did. But due to his infamous perfectionism, he insisted on filming it on the actual moon.

youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU

If anyone still really believes we didn't go to the moon then they're fucking retarded.

If they landed on the moon why can't they land on it now again and do a 1080p live Youtube stream with react video that vlogs and posts snapchats of a day on the moon

Fund it!

Because, at the moment, we don't have a rocket that can get a man there That's Nixon's fault, for cutting the Saturn V program. Sometime in the next few years (between 2021-23), NASA hopes to send a manned Orion capsule to orbit the Moon again with its SLS booster. Maybe more landings after that, if they build a new lander.

anyone with a telescope can see the US flag right on the moon