The Falsification of History: Our Distorted Reality (72 page)

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 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.
 
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.

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 366
p
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 distance 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?