The Falsification of History: Our Distorted Reality

by John Hamer

  After all, if he could do that well on such a limited budget, what could he achieve on a virtually unlimited budget? No one knows for sure how the powers-that-be convinced Kubrick to direct the Apollo landings footage but it is more than possible that he was compromised 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 shadow government to get Kubrick to cooperate. But perhaps it was simply the payment of a huge sum of money into a numbered Swiss bank account that swung it for them.

  Either way, it would appear that 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 exactly what he demanded.

  It is almost uncanny the way that the production of 2001: A Space Odyssey parallels the Apollo programme, in many respects. The film production commenced in 1964 and continued until the film was released in 1968. Meanwhile, the Apollo programme also began in 1964 and culminated with the first Moon landing on the 20th July 1969. Also, it is perhaps significant to note that the scientist Frederick Ordway was working both for NASA and the Apollo programme and was also Kubrick's main science advisor for 2001: A Space Odyssey. Once the deal was negotiated, the work began and the most pressing problem for Kubrick in 1964 was found to be how to work-out a way to make the shots on the ground, on the surface of the moon, look even close to being realistic. He had to make the scenes appear to be open and expansive, just as though the film really had been shot on the Moon and not, as it really was, in a film studio.

  Eventually Kubrick settled on doing the entire project with a cinematic technique called Front Screen Projection. It is in the use of this cinematic technique that the ‘trademark’ of Kubrick can be seen all over the NASA Apollo photographic and video material. What is Front Screen Projection? Kubrick did not invent the process but there is no doubt that he played a huge role in perfecting it. Front Screen Projection is a cinematic 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 became possible when the company 3M invented a material by the name of Scotchlite. This was a screen material that was made up of hundreds of thousands of tiny glass beads each about 0.4 millimetres wide. These beads are highly reflective and in the Front Screen Projection process the Scotchlite screen would be placed at the back of the soundstage. The plane of the camera lens and the Scotchlite screen had to be exactly 90 degrees apart and then a projector would project the scene onto the Scotchlite screen through a mirror 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 Scotchlite screen and he would appear to be ‘inside’ the projection. Today, Hollywood directors use green screens and computers for special effects, and so Front Screen Projection has gone the way of all obsolete technology. But in its day, especially in the 1960s, nothing worked better than Front Screen Projection for the realistic look that would be needed both for the ape-men scenes in 2001: A Space Odyssey and the faked Apollo landings.

  If one watches 2001 on DVD today, it is possible to actually occasionally see the ‘seams’ of the screen behind the gyrating apes. Kubrick was performing Front Screen Projection in such a grandiose fashion that the technicians were forced to sew together many screens of Scotchlite so that Kubrick could create the vastness needed for the ape scenes to be believable.

  While watching 2001, with the scenes of the ape-men one can see the signatures of Front Screen Projection everywhere. It should be emphasised that the sets that surround the ape-men in the movie are real. There are ‘real’ rocks surrounding the ape-men albeit probably papier mache, but behind the fabricated rocks on the set, the desert scene is being projected via the Front Screen Projector. One of the ways in which one identify that the FSP system is being used is that the bottom horizon line between the actual set and the background Scotchlite screen has to be obscured so that the line remains unseen. Kubrick’s tactic was to strategically locate rocks and other artefacts near the bottom of the scene in order to hide this ‘joint’ line.

  Just as a stage magician needs the hidden pockets in his suit to hide the mechanisms of his tricks, so too Kubrick needed to hide the mechanism of his trick behind the carefully placed horizon line between the set and the screen. It is this signature that reveals, not only that NASA did fake the photographs of the Apollo missions but also how they faked them.

  NASA photo clearly depicting the fake horizon line

  One can see that there is a slight uprising behind the LEM, which is hiding the bottom of the screen. Also notice that even though everything is in focus in the background, there is a strange change in the landscape of the ground immediately above the ‘horizon’ line. This is because the photo of the mountains being used on the FP system has a slightly different ground texture than the set. Indeed, this ‘fingerprint’ is also consistent throughout many of the Apollo images.

  However, not all lunar-surface shots use this process. Sometimes the astronauts are just standing on the set with a suspicious, completely black background. The early missions used the Front Screen Projection system only when they had to, but as the missions continued and they had to look more professional, Kubrick began to perfect the process.

  Although it is possible to see the Front Screen Projection process on every mission, the seriously revealing images are in the later missions, namely Apollo 14, 15, 16 and 17.

  Here are some images from Apollo 17:

  That astronaut is driving the lunar rover parallel to the screen and the rover is only three or four feet away from the Scotchlite. Please note how the tyre treads just lead to nowhere. Actually, they are going to the edge of the set.

  In the above photo, the astronaut is about six feet in front of the Scotchlite screen. Please also note how everything is in focus from the rocks and pebbles close to the camera all the way to the crystal clear ‘mountain’ behind the astronaut. Another huge impossibility among many impossibilities.

  There is a stark difference in the ground texture between the set and what is being projected onto the screen. One can almost count the number of small rocks and the granularity of the ground is clearly seen on the set, but once we get to the screen on the other side of my line this granularity disappears.

  This next image is interesting. When first viewed one is sure that they are looking across the vast unbroken lunar surface from beginning to end. With the Earth rising, it is truly a stunning shot.

  But sure enough – a close examination reveals the set/screen line once again. Again, please note the change in the texture of the ground immediately on each side of the line. The little pebbles and dust seem to disappear behind the line.

  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-men 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 Projection Screen on which the background desert scenes are projected is actually not far away from the ape actor. In reality the Scotchlite screen containing the desert scene is right behind the actors just as the Scotchlite screen is right behind the astronauts in the Apollo images. So whatever is projected onto that screen will usually be in the same plane of focus as the actor-ape or the actor-astronaut.

  This depth of field is impossible in real life using a large format film like 70 mm. Keeping everything in focus i
s 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. Similarly it may look like the astronauts are on a vast lunar landscape, but actually they are on a small confined set. Because of the vastness of the set and because he needed it to look like it was not done on a sound-stage, 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 process that created the desert backgrounds in 2001 is exactly the same process that created the lunar mountains backgrounds for the Apollo missions.

  Maybe this is why NASA suddenly lost all of its lunar images. Maybe this is why NASA recently 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’, does not ever participate in the celebrations and anniversaries of the moon landings and maybe this is why we have never gone back to the moon.

  As previously stated, 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 shadow angles on the moon? If the shots were actually taken in the bright light of the sun, two individual shadows should be at the same exact angle. Yet they are not. Why? Simply because Kubrick used studio lighting, but why would Kubrick make a beginner’s mistake like inconsistent shadow angles, being the supremely accomplished film-maker he indeed was? I believe that Kubrick did this intentionally.

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

  But also we can see that Kubrick used the faking of the Apollo moon missions as an opportunity to make one great film and 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 as he did 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 in 1968 publicly admitted 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 normally conduct his business? 2001: A Space Odyssey was one of the most expensive films ever made at that time so does it even seem remotely possible that no-one at MGM even cared to check-on the ongoing development of the film?

  If so, it is a virtual certainty that 2001: A Space Odyssey is the only film in MGM history where the executives who funded the movie never oversaw the film’s evolution. So why was there no interest in this very expensive endeavour? Because MGM did not fund 2001, the US Government did. Outside of the Front Screen Projection evidence, which I believe conclusively proves the fraud of the Apollo landings, there is much circumstantial evidence that would lead us to draw the conclusion that Kubrick directed the filming of the 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 but unsurprisingly, these credits have since been removed from all subsequent prints of 2001. For those old enough to remember, in the original credits Kubrick also thanks a vast array of military and space corporations for their help in the production and as these are the very same corporations that supposedly helped NASA get the astronauts to the moon – one has to wonder – what kind of help did they gave Kubrick? And for what price?

  In Kubrick’s 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 and he 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 and it is strongly rumoured that they were very angry about the contents of the film. They wanted Kubrick to re-edit the film but he refused point-blank.

  Warner Brothers subsequently admitted that they re-edited the film after Stanley’s death and before release contrary to their agreement with Kubrick that he would have sole editorial discretion. To this day, WB still 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 it also means that there will probably never be an un-edited version of this film. It really does beg the question as to what was actually removed from the original.

  And finally, Eyes Wide Shut was released on the 16th July 1999. Stanley Kubrick insisted in his contract that this was to be the date of the release. The 16th July 1999 is exactly 30 years to the day that Apollo 11 was launched.

  Natural or Artificial Satellite?

  Ask yourself, what do you really know about our nearest neighbour?

  Here are some stunning facts to start with:

  The Moon’s diameter is EXACTLY 1/400th of the diameter of the Sun and stands from Earth at EXACTLY 1/400th of the distance from the Earth to the Sun. Not 399.5, not 400.5 but EXACTLY 400. How improbable are both these facts when taken individually, let alone together?

  This is the staggering fact that enables a total eclipse of the sun to occur – nothing else. If this ratio had varied even slightly then total eclipses would not occur.

  And also, equally incredibly the Moon’s ‘day’, is exactly equal to its ‘year’ ie. its period of rotation on its axis is EXACTLY equal to the time it takes for it to circumnavigate the Earth, hence we never see the far side, it is ALWAYS pointing away from the Earth. This time period on Earth is known as one month.

  The staggering statistics continue…

  The ancient human civilisations developed and utilised a unit of measurement which has today come to be known as the ‘megalithic yard’ or MY for short. It is based on 366p to a circle, sixty minutes to a degree and six seconds to a minute. This sequence generates a second of arc on the Earth’s polar circumference that is 366 megalithic yards long.

  Applying these principles of megalithic geometry to all of the planets and moons in the solar system, it was found that only the Sun and our Moon produced precise round-number results, a fact which is truly astounding and about as far from being the result of pure chance as it is possible to be.

  The Sun is almost a perfect sphere. NASA quotes a best estimate of the circumference of the Sun as 4,373,096 km, which converted into megalithic geometry gives one second of arc as being 40,003.8 MY. This represents an accuracy of more than 99.99% to a round figure of 40,000 MY. Given that the NASA figure is based on a best estimate, it is not unreasonable to assume that 40,000 MY is yet another significant figure in the sequence.

  Similarly, the moon is also close to being a perfect sphere and NASA’s own figures specify a circumference of 10,914.5 km which converts to one second of arc, being 99.9MY. Given the irregular surface of the Moon and the small variation of the MY as +/- 0.061cm, again it is not unreasonable to conclude that we are dealing once more in significantly round numbers.

  The Moon is also turning at a rate that is almost exactly 1% or 1/100th of that of the Earth and in addition, the Moon is also travelling around the Earth at a speed of exactly 1km per second which now brings into play the metric system itself. The metric system we know today was developed in France in the late 18th / early 19th century and has thus existed in its present form for around two centuries only. However, it is known to be based on an almost identical system of measurement developed by the Sumerian people several thousand years ago. In our modern metric system the circumference of the Earth at the poles is exactly 40,000 km. This is not a massive coincidence by any means, but simply a case of how the system was derived, the exact dista
nce around at the poles being divided by 40,000 in order to determine the exact length of the kilometre and all the other sub-measurements being determined as direct derivatives of a kilometre.

  There is another interesting correlation between the Moon and the kilometre. The distance from the Earth to the Sun measured in Sun diameters is precisely 109.2 at its farthest point and also the distance across the Sun’s diameter is 109.2 Earth diameters. When we also add to this curious pattern that the circumference of the Moon is 109.2 x 100 km, a very strange co-incidence becomes apparent. Or does it? Can this extraordinarily unlikely series possibly be a co-incidence or is it something more than that?

  Taken in isolation any one of the above relationships may be considered a co-incidence, but there reaches a point whereby when the co-incidences become too frequent that we realise that there simply must be something else going-on here.

  The complete mathematical message in the Moon – Earth – Sun relationship is as follows: