Monday, April 19, 2010

Are We Living in a Computer Simulation

SCIENCE has revealed much about the world and our position within it. Generally, the findings have been humbling. The Earth is not the centre of the universe. Our species descended from brutes. We are made of the same stuff as mud. We are moved by neurophysiological signals and subject to a variety of biological, psychological and sociological influences over which we have limited control and little understanding. One of our remaining sources of pride is technological progress. Like the polyps that over time create coral reefs, the many generations of humans that have come before us have built up a vast technological infrastructure. Our habitat is now largely one of human making. The fact of technological progress is also in a sense humbling. It suggests that the most advanced technology we have today is extremely limited and primitive compared with what our descendants will have. If we extrapolate these expected technological advances, and think through some of their logical implications, we arrive at another humbling conclusion: the “simulation argument”, which has caused some stir since I published it three years ago. The formal version of the argument requires some probability theory, but the underlying idea can be grasped without mathematics. It starts with the assumption that future civilisa- tions will have enough computing power and programming skills to be able to create what I call “ancestor simulations”. These would be detailed simulations of the simulators’ predecessors – detailed enough for the simulated minds to be conscious and have the same kinds of experiences we have. Think of an ancestor simulation as a very realistic virtual reality environment, but one where the brains inhabiting the world are themselves part of the simulation. The simulation argument makes no assumption about how long it will take to develop this capacity. Some futurologists think it will happen within the next 50 years. But even if it takes10 million years, it makes no difference to the argument. Let me state what the conclusion of the argument is. The conclusion is that at least one of the following three propositions must be true: 1 Almost all civilisations at our level of development become extinct before becoming technologically mature. 2 The fraction of technologically mature civilisations that are interested in creating ancestor simulations is almost zero. 3 You are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. How do we reach this conclusion? Suppose first that the first proposition is false. Then a significant fraction of civilisations at our level of develop- ment eventually become technologi- cally mature. Suppose, too, that the second proposition is false. Then a significant fraction of these civilisa- do we live in a computer simulation?
tions run ancestor simulations.
Therefore, if both one and two are false, there will be simulated minds like ours. If we work out the numbers, we find that there would be vastly many more simulated minds than non- simulated minds. We assume that technologically mature civilisations would have access to enormous amounts of computing power. So enormous, in fact, that by devoting even a tiny fraction to ancestor simulations, they would be able to implement billions of simulations, each containing as many people as have ever existed. In other words, almost all minds like yours would be simulated. Therefore, by a very weak principle of indifference, you would have to assume that you are probably one of these simulated minds rather than one of the ones that are not simulated. Hence, if you think that propositions one and two are both false, you should accept the third. It is not coherent to reject all three. It should be emphasised that the simulation argument does not show that you are living in a simulation. The conclusion is simply that at least one of the three propositions is true. It does not tell us which one. In reality, we don’t have much specific information to tell us which of the three propositions might be true. In this situation, it might be reasonable to distribute our credence roughly evenly between them. Let us consider the options in a little more detail. Proposition one is straightforward. For example, maybe there is some technology that every advanced civilisation eventually develops and which then destroys them. Let us hope this is not the case. Proposition two requires that there is a strong convergence among all advanced civilisations, such that almost none of them are interested in running ancestor simulations. One can imagine various reasons that may lead civilisations to make this choice.
Yet for proposition two to be true, virtually all civilisations would have to refrain. If this were true, it would be an interesting constraint on the future evolution of intelligent life. The third possibility is philosophi- cally the most intriguing. If it is correct, you are almost certainly living in a computer simulation that was created by some advanced civilisation. What Copernicus and Darwin and latter-day scientists have been discovering are the laws and workings of the simulated reality. These laws might or might not be identical to those operating at the more fundamental level of reality where the computer that is running our simulation exists (which, of course, may itself be a simulation). In a way, our place in the world would be even humbler than we thought. What kind of implications would this have? How should it change the way you live your life? Your first reaction might think that if three is true, then all bets are off and you would go crazy. To reason thus would be an error. Even if we are in a simulation, the best methods of predicting what will happen next are still the familiar ones – extrapolation of past trends, scientific modelling and common sense. To a first approxima- tion, if you thought you were in a simulation, you should get on with your life in much the same way as if you were convinced that you were leading a non-simulated life at the “bottom” level of reality. If we are in a simulation, could ever know for certain? If the simulators don’t want us to find out, we probably never will. But if they choose to reveal themselves, they could certainly do so. Another event that would let us conclude with a high degree of confidence that we are in a simulation is if we ever reach a point when we are about to switch on our own ancestor simulations. That would be very strong evidence against the first two propositions, leaving us only with the third

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

From Atom to Cosmos

Itzhak Bentov (1923 – May 25, 1979) was a Czech born scientist, inventor, mystic and author. He was an early exponent of what has come to be referred to as consciousness studies.

Bentov was born in Czechoslovakia and moved to Israel. In Israel, Bentov was part of the fledgling state's scientific unit, the Hemmed, where he designed Israel's first rocket for the War of Independence. The Hemmed had to make improvised weapons as there was a world-wide embargo on selling weapons to the Jewish state.

After the war, Bentov moved to America where he followed his passion as an inventor. By profession he was a mechanical engineer specialising in Biomedical Engineering and instrumentation. He is credited with the invention of the remote controlled cardiac catheter (US Patent Sep., 1971 Bentov. )

He was also an accomplished meditator. His innovative research and theory on Kundalini is still, more than 30 years after its formulation, widely recognized as the best of its kind - and still at the cutting edge of alternative research of methods for Central Nervous System rehabilitation and of mind-body connections.

By blending analytical knowledge and intuitive insight, Itzhak Bentov was the first to develop what is now widely accepted as a holographic model of reality.

Watch Itzhak BentovFrom Atom to Cosmos in Educational  |  View More Free Videos Online at

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Orgone Energy

Wilhelm Reich

One of the most maligned scientists of the 20th century was psychiatrist Dr. Wilhelm Reich. He was born on March 24th, 1897 in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, grew up on a farm, and then entered medical school. By the 1920s, Dr. Reich was being hailed as the heir apparent to Sigmund Freud because of his contributions to psychoanalysis.

By the 1930s, Dr. Reich's studies of biogenesis — the origin of life — were thought by some to be worthy of a Nobel Prize. Then in the 1940s in the United States, Dr. Reich claimed to discover a new form of energy that he said pervaded all space and life, including vacuums. He began to write about a new paradigm in physics, one in which energy — not matter — is primary. And Dr. Reich began to experiment with weather modification. Those experiments seemed to attract glowing lights of unknown origin and Reich speculated the lights were advanced machines operated by non-human intelligences. All of this apparently threatened people of power and financial influence in America and Europe.

The U. S. government bore down on him with a series of investigations that led to his incarceration. Dr. Wilhelm Reich died on November 3rd, 1957 in a U.S. Federal penitentiary where he had been sentenced for two years on a charge of violating interstate commerce laws connected to the transport of an invention Dr. Reich called Orgone Energy Accumulators. The year before his death, the Federal Food and Drug Administration had destroyed Dr. Reich's accumulators at his Rangeley, Maine lab on June 5th and July 23rd, 1956. The FDA also burned his scientific literature and books.

From article by Linda Multon Howe:
The Mysterious Life and Death of Dr. Wilhelm Reich

Dr. Reich was the discoverer of Orgone Energy, inventor of the "Cloud Buster" (weather control device, picture to the right), alternative cancer treatment and much more based on the science of Orgone energy.

Reich observation:
Visual Observations. Reich described many conditions under which orgone energy phenomena could be directly observed. Darkroom observations are especially important, both of the energy field of the body (the "aura") and of the effects of orgone energy devices. These take on special significance in the light of the extensive closely related darkroom observations reported more than 100 years ago by Baron Charles von Reichenbach, which formed much of the basis for his discovery of the "odyle" or "odic force." The "odyle" is identical in major respects to orgone energy, of course. These observations of Reichenbach and of Reich have never been explained in orthodox scientific terms Good darkroom observations are difficult, because ideally they require absolute blackness, and an observer with especially sensitive "night" vision, both conditions being harder to obtain than it might seem to the casual reader. However, daytime observations of orgone energy can be made much more easily. All that is required is a small telescope set up near an ocean or lake to look out parallel to the surface of the water between a few inches and a few feet above the water level. The pulsatory movement of atmospheric orgone energy is usually easily observable. Exciting to watch, this phenomenon is completely unknown to orthodox science. It cannot be explained as an effect of wind, for it frequently has a direction cross or opposite to that of the surface wind. It forms an integral part of Reich's theory of atmospheric processes.

here' a video below about reich and orgone called "man's right to know"

Ancient Astronauts/ Genetic Manipulation/ Missing link

Fact - DNA proves that Homo Erectus ( hominin genus subfamily Homininae) are direct descendants of Australopithecus (early hominins) which evolved from Sahelanthropus tchadensis, a fossil ape originally classified as the oldest possible member of the human family tree, but more recently as a Miocene ape related to humans and other living African apes, that is thought to have lived approximately 7 million years ago.


Fact - DNA proves we (homo sapiens) are NOT descendants of apes, homo erectus or any other species on record - we are a completelydifferent species that inexplicably came out of nowhere. There is however, evidence that we somehow share DNA with Neanderthal. The reason for this is because, well, we do.

Until recently, mainstream science had trouble with this scenario for obvious reasons. Try researching "hybrid Neanderthal skeleton found in Portugal" for a new perspective.

According to modern evolutionary theory, all populations of organisms are in transition. Therefore, a "transitional form" is a human construct that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage, as recognized in hindsight.

Ancient astronaut adherents often claim that humans are either descendants or creations of beings who landed on Earth millennia ago. An associated theory is that much of human knowledge, religion and culture came from extraterrestrial visitors in ancient times, in that ancient astronauts acted as a “mother culture”. These ideas are generally discounted by the scientific community.


Ancient astronaut theories also may include the idea that civilization may have evolved on Earth twice, and that the visitation of ancient astronauts may reflect the return of descendants of ancient humans whose population was separated from earthbound humans.[citation needed]
Proponents of ancient astronaut theories point to what they perceive as gaps in historical and archaeological records, and to what they see as absent or incomplete explanations of historical or archaeological data. Ancient astronaut proponents cite evidence that they argue supports their assertions, notably, archaeological artifacts that they argue are anachronistic or beyond the presumed technical capabilities of the historical cultures with which they are associated (sometimes referred to as "Out-of-place artifacts"); and artwork and legends which are interpreted as depicting extraterrestrial contact or technologies.

Scientists maintain that gaps in contemporary knowledge of the past do not demonstrate that such speculative ancient astronaut ideas are a necessary, or even plausible, conclusion to draw.The scientific community remains generally skeptical, and the dominant view is that there is no evidence to support ancient astronaut and paleocontact theories.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Graham Hancock (born 2 August 1950) is a British writer and journalist. His books include Lords of Poverty, The Sign and the Seal, Fingerprints of the Gods, Keeper of Genesis (released in the US as Message of the Sphinx), The Mars Mystery, Heaven's Mirror (with wife Santha Faiia), Underworld: The Mysterious Origins of Civilization, and Talisman: Sacred Cities, Secret Faith (with co-author Robert Bauval). He also wrote and presented the Channel 4 documentaries Underworld: Flooded Kingdoms of the Ice Age and Quest for the Lost Civilisation.

Although scientists believe they have categorically disproved the myth of Atlantis, the idea is more popular now than ever before. The latest exponent of the theory of a single lost source for all civilisation, is Graham Hancock. Although he doesn't call it Atlantis, his compelling ideas about a sophisticated society destroyed in a flood 12,000 years ago seem to be based on a reworking of the original Atlantis myth, whose survivors brought culture, religion, monument-building and civilisation to the rest of the world. heres the vid.

Watch BBC-Atlantis Reborn Again in Educational | View More Free Videos Online at

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Alien Presence on the Moon

More Moon-Moon Anomalies

Is there an "Alien Base" on the Moon? More and more people are coming forward with stories that might prove this is true. Rumors say that there is an Alien Moon Base on the far side of the moon, the side we never see from Earth.
Did you ever wonder why the Moon landings stopped and why we have not tried to build a Moon Base? It does seem like a better and easier idea than a floating space station with no access to any raw materials or supplies? According to the NASA Astronaut Neil Armstrong the aliens have a base on the Moon and told us in no uncertain terms to get off and stay off the Moon!
Sound far fetched? Milton Cooper, a Naval Intelligence Officer tells us that not only does the Alien Moon Base exist but the U.S. Naval Intelligence Community refers to the Alien Moon Base as "Luna," that there is a huge mining operation going on there, and that is where the aliens keep their huge mother ships while the trips to Earth are made in smaller "flying saucers".
LUNA: The Alien base on the far side of the Moon. It was seen and filmed by the Apollo astronauts. A base, a mining operation using very large machines, and the very large alien craft described in sighting reports as mother ships exist there. -Milton Cooper

Did Apollo 11 Encounter UFOs on the Moon? from the Book "Above Top Secret" by Timothy Good.
Buzz AldrinAccording to hitherto unconfirmed reports, both Neil Armstrong and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin saw UFOs shortly after their historic landing on the Moon in Apollo 11 on 21 July 1969. I remember hearing one of the astronauts refer to a "light" in or on a carter during the television transmission, followed by a request from mission control for further information. Nothing more was heard.
According to a former NASA employee Otto Binder, unnamed radio hams with their own VHF receiving facilities that bypassed NASA's broadcasting outlets picked up the following exchange:
NASA: What's there? Mission Control calling Apollo 11...
Apollo: These "Babies" are huge, Sir! Enormous! OH MY GOD! You wouldn't believe it! I'm telling you there are other spacecraft out there, lined up on the far side of the crater edge! They're on the Moon watching us!
Maurice Chatelain In 1979, Maurice Chatelain, former chief of NASA Communications Systems confirmed that Armstrong had indeed reported seeing two UFOs on the rim of a crater. "The encounter was common knowledge in NASA," he revealed, "but nobody has talked about it until now."
Soviet scientists were allegedly the first to confirm the incident. "According to our information, the encounter was reported immediately after the landing of the module," said Dr. Vladimir Azhazha, a physicist and Professor of Mathematics at Moscow University. "Neil Armstrong relayed the message to Mission Control that two large, mysterious objects were watching them after having landed near the moon module. But his message was never heard by the public-because NASA censored it. "
According to another Soviet scientist, Dr. Aleksandr Kazantsev, Buzz Aldrin took color movie film of the UFOs from inside the module, and continued filming them after he and Armstrong went outside. Dr. Azhazha claims that the UFOs departed minutes after the astronauts came out on to the lunar surface.
Maurice Chatelain also confirmed that Apollo 11's radio transmissions were interrupted on several occasions in order to hide the news from the public. Before dismissing Chatelain's sensational claims, it is worth noting his impressive background in the aerospace industry and space program. His first job after moving from France was as an electronics engineer with Convair, specializing in telecommunications, telemetry, and radar. In 1959 he was in charge of an electromagnetic research group, developing new radar and telecommunications systems for Ryan. One of his eleven patents was an automatic flights to the Moon. Later, at North American Aviation, Chatelain was offered the job of designing and building the Apollo communications and data-processing systems.
Chatelain claims that "all Apollo and Gemini flights were followed, both at a distance and sometimes also quite closely, by space vehicles of extraterrestrial origin-flying saucers, or UFOs, if you want to call them by that name. Every time it occurred, the astronauts informed Mission Control, who then ordered absolute silence." He goes on to say:
"I think that Walter Schirra aboard Mercury 8 was the first of the astronauts to use the code name 'Santa Claus' to indicate the presence of flying saucers next to space capsules. However, his announcements were barely noticed by the general public.
It was a little different when James Lovell on board the Apollo 8 command module came out from behind the moon and said for everybody to hear:
Even though this happened on Christmas Day 1968, many people sensed a hidden meaning in those words."

Rumors persist. NASA may well be a civilian agency, but many of its programs are funded by the defense budget and most of the astronauts are subject to military security regulations. Apart from the fact that the National Security Agency screens all films and probably radio communications as well. We have the statements by Otto Binder, Dr. Garry Henderson and Maurice Chatelain that the astronauts were under strict orders not to discuss their sightings. And Gordon Cooper has testified to a United Nations committee that one of the astronauts actually witnessed a UFO on the ground. If there is no secrecy, why has this sighting not been made public?
Neil Armstrong
A certain professor, who wished to remain anonymous, was engaged in a discussion with Neil Armstrong during a NASA symposium.
Professor: What REALLY happened out there with Apollo 11?
Armstrong: It was incredible, of course we had always known there was a possibility, the fact is, we were warned off! (by the Aliens). There was never any question then of a space station or a moon city.
Professor: How do you mean "warned off"?
Armstrong: I can't go into details, except to say that their ships were far superior to ours both in size and technology - Boy, were they big!... and menacing! No, there is no question of a space station.
Professor: But NASA had other missions after Apollo 11?
Armstrong: Naturally-NASA was committed at that time, and couldn't risk panic on Earth. But it really was a quick scoop and back again.
Armstrong confirmed that the story was true but refused to go into further detail, beyond admitting that the CIA was behind the cover-up.
(thanks to BBS)
More information: Sensation: Cities Found on the Moon!
Reasonable activity of an alien civilization showed up unexpectedly close to us. We were not ready for it psychologically
We still can come across publications trying to find an answer to the question: Are we alone in the universe? At the same time, presence of reasonable creatures has been detected just close to our home, in the Moon. However, the discovery was immediately classified as secret, as it was so much incredible that even could shake the already existing social principles, reports Russia's newspaper "Vecherny Volgograd."
Here is an extract from the official press-release:
“NASA scientists and engineers participating in exploration of Mars and Moon reported results of their discoveries at a briefing at the Washington national press club on March 21, 1996. It was announced for the first time that man-caused structures and objects had been discovered on the Moon.” The scientists spoke rather cautiously and evasively about the functioning objects, with the exception of UFO. They always mentioned the man-caused objects as possible, and pointed out the information was still under study, and official results would be published later.
It was mentioned at the briefing as well that the Soviet Union used to own some photo materials proving presence of reasonable activity on the Moon. And although it wasn't identified what kind of reasonable activity it was, thousands of photo-and video materials photographed from the Apollos and the Clementine space station demonstrated many parts on the lunar surface where the activity and its traces were perfectly evident. The video films and photos made by U.S. astronauts during the Apollo program were demonstrated at the briefing. And people were extremely surprised why the materials hadn't been presented to the public earlier. And NASA specialists answered: “It was difficult to forecast the reaction of people to the information that some creatures had been or still were on the Moon. Besides, there were some other reasons to it, which were beyond NASA.”
Specialist for lunar artifacts Richard Hoagland says that NASA is still trying to veil photo materials before they are published in public catalogues and files, they do retouching or partially refocus them while copying. Some investigators, Hoagland is among them, suppose that an extraterrestrial race had used the Moon as a terminal station during their activity on the Earth. The suggestions are confirmed by the legends and myths invented by different nations of our planet.
Ruins of lunar cities stretched along many kilometers, huge transparent domes on massive basements, numerous tunnels and other constructions make scientists reconsider their opinions concerning the lunar problems. How the Moon appeared and principles of its revolving around the Earth still pose a great problem for scientists.
Some partially destroyed objects on the lunar surface can’t be placed among natural geological formations, as they are of complex organization and geometrical structure. In the upper part of Rima hadley, not far from the place where the Apollo-15 had landed, a construction surrounded with a tall D-shaped wall was discovered. As of now, different artifacts have been discovered in 44 regions.
The NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, the Houston Planetary Institute and specialists from the bank of space information are investigating the regions. Mysterious terrace-shaped excavations of the rock have been discovered near the Tiho crater. The concentric hexahedral excavations and the tunnel entry at the terrace side cant be results of natural geological processes; instead, they look very much like open cast mines.
A transparent dome raised above the crater edge was discovered near the crater Copernicus. The dome is unusual as it is glowing white and blue from inside. A rather unusual object, which is unusual indeed even for the Moon, was discovered in the upper part of the Factory area. A disk of about 50 meters in diameter stands on a square basement surrounded with rhombi walls. In the picture, close to the rhombi, we can also see a dark round embrasure in the ground, which resembles an entry in an underground caponier. There is a regular rectangular area between Factory and the crater Copernicus which is 300 meters wide 400 meters long.
Apollo 10 astronauts made a unique picture (AS10-32-4822) of a one-mile long object called Castle, which is hanging at the height of 14 kilometers and casts a distinct shadow on the lunar surface. The object seems to be consisting of several cylindrical units and a large conjunctive unit. Internal porous structure of the Castle is clearly seen in one of the pictures, which makes an impression that some parts of the object are transparent.
As it turned out at the briefing where many NASA scientists were present, when Richard Hoagland had requested originals of the Castle pictures for the second time, no pictures were found there at all. They disappeared even from the list of pictures made by the Apollo 10 crew. Only intermediate pictures of the object were found in the archives, which unfortunately donut depict the internal structure of the object.
When Apollo-12 crew landed on the lunar surface, they saw that the landing was observed by a half-transparent pyramidal object. It was hanging just several meters above the lunar surface and shimmered with all rainbow colors against the black sky.
In 1969, when the film about astronauts traveling to the Sea of Storms was demonstrated (the astronauts saw the strange objects once again, which were later called “striped glasses”), NASA finally understood what consequences such kind of control could bring. Astronaut Mitchell answered the question about his feelings after a successful return the following: “My neck still aches as I had to constantly turn my head around because we felt we were not alone there. We had no choice but pray.” Johnston, who worked at the Houston Space Center and studied photos and video materials done during the Apollo program, discussed the artifacts with Richard Hoagland and said, the NASA leadership was awfully annoyed with the great number of anomalous, to put it mildly, objects on the Moon. It was even said that piloted flights to the Moon could be banned in the programs network.
Investigators are especially interested in ancient structures resembling partially destroyed cities. The orbital shooting reveals an astonishingly regular geometry of square and rectangular constructions. They resemble our terrestrial cities seen from the height of 5-8 kilometers. A mission control specialist commented on the pictures: “Our guys observed ruins of the Lunar cities, transparent pyramids, domes and God knows what else, which are currently hidden deep inside the NASA safes, and felt like Robinson Crusoe when he suddenly came across prints of human bare feet on the sand of the desert island.” What do geologists and scientists say after studying the pictures of lunar cities and other anomalous objects? They say, such objects cant be natural formations. “We should admit they are artificial, especially the domes and pyramids.” Reasonable activity of an alien civilization showed up unexpectedly close to us. We were not ready for it psychologically, and some people hardly believe they are true even now.
Translated by Maria Gousseva
original source=

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Deep Underground Military Bases (D.U.M.B.S)

The pictures contained in this video are a collection from a collaborated group of anonymous hackers and personal researchers, I therefore cannot confirm the legitimacy of ALL of the pictures within... however, MANY of the pictures are legitimate photo's of actual D.U.M.B's and the diggers used to make them.

Richard SauderUnderground & Underwater Bases
Book Description (from the publisher)
In this eye-opening sequel to his first book, Dr. Sauder lays out the explosive evidence and government paper trail, official U.S. Navy documents and rare information obtained via the Freedom of Information Act, among other sources for three amazing situations every American needs to know:
* the construction of huge manned bases--big enough to secretly dock submarines--offshore, in midocean, and deep beneath the seafloor, in locales where many UFOs have been seen
* huge clandestine onshore underground facilities, and the surprising location of one of the CIA's own underground bases.
* U.S. government methods to detect secret underground installations in other countries, methods that readers can use to scout for secret underground bases closer to home!
Plus, new information on tunneling and cutting-edge, high- speed-rail magnetic-levitation (Maglev) technology that is the prime method of transportation in the secret subterranean bases.
from dr richard sauder -
"During the course of my research I have spoken to several people who allege to have been escorted down into secret or highly secure underground facilities. A long, deep elevator ride is a common feature of their accounts.

Right about here, I imagine you are thinking to yourself: “How deep do the elevators go?”

The short answer is that the documentation in the open literature suggests that the answer is anywhere from hundreds to thousands of feet, and the testimony of the people I have spoken with comports well with that information. But I have run across softer, undocumented information from time to time that suggests that some facilities go even deeper, several or even many miles deep.

By now, I am clear on a few simple facts. 1) There are many secret underground and undersea bases and tunnels. 2) They can be impressively large and surprisingly deep. 3) They contain sophisticated technology. 4) Many thousands of people are involved in constructing, operating and maintaining these facilities. And 5) they are located all over the world.

One of the best known underground facilities in the world is at Pine Gap, near Alice Springs, in the geographical middle of the vast, Australian outback. Even though this base is located in Australia it is really the American military and espionage alphabet soup agencies who administer and operate it. Officially, the Pine Gap facility is a spy satellite intelligence facility, that the Americans use to monitor global satellite communications. If you type the key words Pine Gap or Pine Gap base in a major search engine such as Google or Yahoo, you will get hundreds of thousands, even millions of responsive links. Not all of these links have to do with base at Pine Gap, Australia, but many of them do. You could probably spend years investigating just this one base. However, short of joining the CIA and signing your life and soul away to enter the black world of compartmentalized, special operations you would never be permitted to enter the underground levels at Pine Gap.

More thought-provoking images of tunnel boring equipment:

That having been said, for 20 years, maybe more, I have been hearing rumors and stories about a large underground base at Pine Gap. I find the stories perfectly credible, because the U.S. military and espionage agencies have a well documented history of creating underground bases in the United States. There is no reason why they wouldn't do abroad, what they do in the USA; on the contrary, there is every reason to think that they would. One of the most eye-popping of these stories was related to me several years ago, second-hand. It was so outlandish that at first I thought it was so far beyond the pale that it could not possibly be true. But I have to confess that as my knowledge of the missing trillions of dollars from the coffers of the Pentagon and other American government agencies has grown, and as I have come to appreciate the Mafia-like nature of the U.S. Federal government and the mega-corporations and multinational conglomerates with which it transacts all manner of undertakings, from A to Z, my mental horizons have broadened to encompass thoughts and levels of understanding to which I was simply unconscious in the past. According to my source, circa the year 1981 the base at Pine Gap was planned to be extended vertically to a depth of 8 miles, with 400 levels or “floors”, if you will, spreading out laterally underground across 20 or 25 miles, and designed to ultimately accommodate 250,00 inhabitants, or more.
In other words, the Shadow Government intended to make a mid-size city underground at Pine Gap. I now find myself wondering if they did make an underground city there. And if the answer is in the affirmative, who lives there? Do they live there voluntarily, of their own free will, or are people held there against their will, in bondage? And what is the purpose of such a large facility, assuming such a big, underground city has been constructed?

The United States government has lied to its own citizens, and to the rest of the world, about so many policies, so often, so massively, for so many years, and I find myself in possession of such a wealth of persuasive evidence, both direct documentation and suggestive circumstantial evidence of myriad clandestine underground facilities and unknown numbers of secret undersea bases, as well, that I cannot any longer put any arbitrary, preconceived limits that I might have formerly held on the true extent and size of the secret underground and undersea bases and tunnels on this planet. Secrecy and compartmentalization have run completely amok, funded with trillions of dollars of black budget money, and enabled by jaw dropping, cutting edge technology straight out of a science fiction movie."

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Esoteric Agenda (illuminatti/ Masons etc)
The film makes claims of a secret agenda being carried out by a shadowy elite and attempts to ready the public for an alleged new world order coming December 21, 2012, synchronizing with the Mayan calendar.

Alleged conspirators include the Illuminati, the Free Masons and the shared lineages of major American and British politicians.

The film alleges that global warming is a myth, the Founding Fathers were pagans, the American Revolution was intentionally designed by England and the Sons of Liberty, and that Israel was founded by an Egyptians and a Sumerian cult. The film also implies that conspiracies are involved in water fluoridation, Codex Alimentarius.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

U.F.O doc "i know what i saw"

UFO über Belgien am 29.11.1989
I KNOW WHAT I SAW, a documentary guaranteed to change the way we see the universe. Director, James Fox assembled the most credible UFO witnesses from around the world to testify at The National Press Club in Washington D.C.: Air Force Generals, astronauts, military and commercial pilots, government and FAA officials from seven countries tell stories that, as Governor Fife Symington from Arizona stated, "will challenge your reality".

Their accounts reveal a behind-the-scenes U.S. operation whose policy is to confiscate and hoard substantiating evidence from close encounters to the extent that even Presidents have failed to get straight answers. I KNOW WHAT I SAW exposes reasons behind government secrecy from those involved at the highest level.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Apollo Moon Landing

Apollo Program insigniaImage via Wikipedia

"There are great ideas, undiscovered breakthroughs available, to those who can remove one of truth’s protective layers."
Neil Armstrong, "First Man on the Moon"
July 20th, 1994


Jay Weidner

It has now been forty years since the fabled moon landings by NASA and the Apollo gang. When it comes to the subject of 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.
This essay presents a third position on this issue. This third point of view falls somewhere between these two assertions. This third position postulates that humans did go to the moon but what we saw on TV and in photographs was completely faked.
Furthermore, this third position reveals that the great filmmaker Stanley Kubrick is the genius who directed the hoaxed landings.
1. Motivations for Faking

But why fake the moon landings 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, they 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 would point the way towards cheap and environmentally friendly energy among other things.
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 technology behind the flying saucers in order to fulfill his vision and get to the moon by the end of the 1960s. 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 NASA, and the shadow government, 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 series of 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 NASA's position on this was understandable. We were in the middle of the cold war with the Soviet Union. Did we really want to show the Russians what we had?
2. Who Will Fake It?
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 film one of their B-52 bombers for the movie. The Pentagon turned him 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 a B-52. The reason for this rejection was that Kubrick's film was clearly a satire on the military and US nuclear policy. The Pentagon did not want to assist Kubrick in this satirical undertaking.
Undaunted by the rejection, Kubrick used various special effects to create the B-52 in flight. When viewing Dr. Strangelove today, these special effects look quaint and old fashioned, but in 1963 they looked very good. It is possible that someone in NASA saw what Kubrick had done in Dr. Strangelove 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 also had a reputation for being 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.
3. Parelleling Events
It is uncanny the way that the production of 2001: A Space Odyssey parallels the Apollo program. The film production started in 1964 and went on to the release of 2001: A Space Odyssey in1968. Meanwhile the Apollo program also began in 1964 and culminated with the first moon landings on July 20th, 1969. Also, it is very interesting to note that scientist Frederick Ordway was working both for NASA and the Apollo program and was also Kubrick's top science advisor for 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Once he negotiated the deal, Stanley, got to work. 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 realistic. He had to make the scenes look wide-open and expansive, like it was really done on the moon and not in a studio back lot.
4. Hollywood Trickery
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 NASA Apollo photographic and video material.
What is Front Screen Projection? Kubrick did not invent the process but there is no doubt that he perfected 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 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 tiny glass beads each about .4 millimeters wide. These beads were highly reflective. 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. 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 magicians 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 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.
To see how Front Screen Projection looks on the screen, let's examine the ape-men scenes at the beginning of Kubrick's film 2001: A Space Odyssey. While viewing the stills from these scenes, or watching them in the film, one has to remember that the early scenes in 2001 with the actors in ape costumes were all done on a soundstage. None of what you are seeing in the ape-men scenes at the beginning of 2001 was actually shot outside. The scenes that surround the ape-men are actually slides of a desert being projected onto Scotchlite screens standing at the rear of the set.
In order to create these desert backgrounds 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 actors in ape costumes stood in front of the screen acting out the script.
If you watch 2001 on DVD you can actually occasionally see the “seams” of the screen behind the gyrating apes. Kubrick was doing Front Screen Projection in such a huge and grand 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.
In this still taken from an early scene in 2001, you can see the seams in the blue sky if you look closely:

Next is the same image as above, only I have processed it through a graphic program. In this processing 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 in the sky.
To get the perspective correct, one has to realize that the Scotchlite screen is right behind the rocky outcropping set, which was built on the soundstage. The lines on the screen are the flaws in the Scotchlite screen. These flaws in the screen give the sky give a peculiar “geometry” when the image is properly processed to reveal the Front Projection Scotchlite 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:

While watching 2001, with the scenes of the ape-men one can begin to see the telltale fingerprints that always reveal when the Front Screen Projection system is being used. It should be emphasized that the sets that surround the ape-men in the movie are real. Those are “real” rocks (whether papier-mâché 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.


I have Photoshopped a line differentiating the set and the background Scotchlite Front Projection Screen. Please note how everything is in focus, from the pebbles on the ground in the set to the desert mountains beyond.
You will see that hiding the bottom of the Scotchlite screen is always taking place when the Front Screen Projection system is used in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Hiding the screen 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.
Here is another example from 2001: A Space Odyssey:

And here is the same image with my Photoshop line separating the set with the ape-man actor and the Scotchlite Front Projection 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:

Again, I have Photoshopped 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 of the mountains being 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.
Now let's go to some more Apollo images. We can see that the same thing occurs here as in the ape-men scenes in 2001. There is always a line separating the set from the screen. Even if you do not see it at first, it will become apparent as one grows more familiar with the Front Screen Projection process and how it is being used to fake the astronauts standing on the lunar surface. Go to any NASA site (like this one, for example) and start looking for yourself.
Not all lunar surface shots are using the process. Sometimes the astronauts are just standing on the set with a completely (and suspicious) black background. The early missions used the Front Screen Projection system only when they had to. But as the missions went on, and they had to look better, Kubrick began to perfect the process.
Although you can see the Front Screen Projection process on every mission, the seriously revealing images are in the later missions, particularly Apollo 14, 15, 16 and (my favorite) 17.
Here are a few 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 tire treads just lead to nowhere. Actually, they are going to the edge of the set.


The astronaut is about six feet in front of the Scotchlite screen. Please 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. As we shall see very soon, even that is impossible.
Also please note the other telltale evidence that permeates the Apollo images: There is a stark difference in the ground texture between the set and what is being projected onto the screen. You 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 a slick little piece of work. 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.




Doesn't the fakery just make you all patriotic inside?
5. Depth of Field: More Evidence
Besides the evidence of the horizon line between set and screen and the changing granularity of the texture of the ground, 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 main rule of thumb in photography is that the larger the format of the film, the less depth of field. For instance, 16mm film has a large depth of field. 35mm has a smaller depth of field, and 70 mm (which Stanley was using in 2001 as were all of the astronaut-photographers in the Apollo missions) 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-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 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.
It may look like the astronauts are on a vast lunar landscape, but actually they are on a small confined set.
According to the NASA literature, the Apollo astronauts were using large format Hassleblad cameras. These cameras were provided with large rolls of 70 mm film on which they took the images. This large format film is exactly the same size film that Kubrick was using when shooting 2001.
The plane of focus, the depth of field, 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 therefore should expect to see a lot of out of focus shots taken by the astronauts. When you consider the fact that, because of their helmets, they did not even have the ability to see through the viewfinder of their cameras, this would have only increased 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 and in the main photographic repository at NASA's Houston headquarters. When the Apollo 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. Their images have the unmistakable quality of a highly polished professional photographer.
Before embarking on his film career Stanley Kubrick was a professional photographer working for Look Magazine. Honestly, even a professional photographer looking through the viewer of the camera would be hard pressed to come up with the pristine imagery and crystal clear focus 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.
Examine the above photographs from Apollo. 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). As a professional photographer and a filmmaker, I have wrestled with depth of field problems for over 40 years. I am surprised that no other photographer has noticed the lack of any such problems encountered by the astronaut-photographers. In reality, the lack of depth of field problems is a nail in the coffin of the Apollo program.
6. Glass Cities or Front Screen Projection?
Former NASA consultant Richard Hoagland has examined many of the photos of the Apollo landings and, although he has never noticed the impossible depth of field, he has found other strange anomalies in the NASA material.
Examining the photographic record of the Apollo missions, and processing Apollo images through various graphics programs, Hoagland has discovered “geometries” in the skies surrounding the astronauts on the moon. He postulates that these geometries are evidence of some kind of gigantic glass-like structures behind, above, and surrounding the astronauts as they stand on the lunar surface. Hoagland even shows us that there are rainbow lights reflecting in the sky high above the astronauts.
Many people, especially in NASA, have attacked Hoagland for these interpretations. Yet no matter how much they attack Hoagland, they can never explain what it is that he is finding on these Apollo images. In the same way that evidence in the JFK assassination and the high weirdness around 9-11 is never examined and explained by the anti-conspiracy theorists, so too is Hoagland's evidence just simply ignored by his critics. Instead they have created an ad hominum attack machine that criticizes Hoagland, the man, while deftly ignoring his intriguing evidence.
His critics are either wrong, or they 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, like Hoagland, believe that NASA has actually 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 intelligent activity on surface of the moon. But I do not believe that standard rocket technology is what got mankind from the Earth to the surface of 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 the Front Screen Projection system, directed them.
Again, I want to make sure that I am understood here. I am not saying that there are not strange structures on the moon. What I am saying is that the structures and geometries that Richard Hoagland is seeing in 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.

This is a processed photograph of astronaut Ed Mitchell on the surface of the moon taken during the Apollo 14 mission. 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 much of the Apollo lunar surface imagery he discovered, over and over again, all of this 'crud' in the sky above the astronauts.
No one in NASA even attempts to answer Hoagland, or anyone else, about the strange stuff that he, and others, is finding in the skies above the astronauts.
Richard Hoagland theorizes that this is photographic evidence of huge, abandoned “glass cities” on the surface of the moon. He says that what we are seeing in the above processed image are huge glass towers that only show up on the images after they have been processed through graphics software.
Here are some more of Hoagland's images:

Hoagland has taken the image on the left and processed it in a manner very similar to how I processed the above images from 2001: A Space Odyssey. By increasing the gamma and the contrast of the image, he arrived at the picture on the right. Hoagland interprets the image on the right as proof of giant glass structures behind the astronaut and, for that matter, all over the surface of the moon.
What Hoagland is really seeing, though, is the imperfections in the background Scotchlite screen that Kubrick used to create the lunar backgrounds. These imperfections can also be found in the desert backgrounds in the ape scenes in 2001: A Space Odyssey (see above). What Hoagland, and the above image reveals, is the texture and geometry of the Scotchlite screen.
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 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 the same process that created the lunar mountains backgrounds for the Apollo missions.
This is another picture from Hoagland's research:

The processed image reveals a rainbow-like reflecting light high above the astronauts in the sky on the moon. Hoagland theorizes that this is a light reflecting off of one of the giant glass towers standing right behind the astronaut.
What this actually is, is a light reflecting off of one of the tiny glass beads of the Scotchlite screen. For some reason that particular glass bead was slightly off from its 90-degree angle, and so it caught the projector 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 from the two images above 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 Neil Armstrong, “the first man to walk on the moon,” doesn't want to participate in the 40th anniversary parties.
Maybe this is why we have never gone back to the moon.
7. Inconsistent Shadows
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 astronauts’ two shadows not be consistent with each other? If they were actually standing in the bright light of the sun, their two shadows should be at the same exact angle. Yet they are not. Why? Because Kubrick used studio lighting!

But why would Kubrick make a mistake like the inconsistent shadows in the above image? A great filmmaker like Kubrick must have realized that this was a huge mistake.
My answer is that Kubrick did this on purpose.
He left behind telltale evidence for his work. And he did this on purpose. Not just in the above shot, but actually all over the Apollo photographic record. In my forthcoming documentary on the NASA Apollo fakery titled Kubrick's Odyssey, I will reveal much more photographic evidence than I possibly can in this short essay.
One thing that I am sure of is that some part of Stanley Kubrick wanted everyone to know what he had done. And that is why he left behind clues that would explain who did it, and how.
8. Last Notes
Those of you who are familiar with my essay, written in 1999, on 2001: A Space Odyssey called “Alchemical Kubrick” already know that I believe that 2001 is the greatest esoteric 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 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 its unmistakable fingerprints, is the device that enlightens humanity as to how the Apollo landings were faked.
But also we can see that Kubrick used the faking of the Apollo moon missions as an opportunity to make one great film. 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 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 stated 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? 2001: A Space Odyssey was one of the most expensive films ever made at that time. Does it even seem remotely possible that no one at MGM even cared to see the continuous progress of the film?
No way.
I am sure that 2001: A Space Odyssey is 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 the conclusion even more in the direction of Kubrick directing the entirety 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. 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 did 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 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. 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 outtakes from several scenes that were never in the finished film.
Warner Brothers has even come out and admitted that they re-edited the film. 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 it also means that we will probably never see the un-edited version of this film.
One has to wonder what was cut out?
And finally:
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.
Happy Fortieth Anniversary, Stanley. Now you can rest in peace.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]