Sunday, December 13, 2015

The Kubrick-I-Filmed-Fake-Moon-Landing Hoax; But Wait, There's More

When I first came across the interview with director Stanley Kubrick, admitting he filmed fake moon landing footage, I said to myself "Feh," and moved on. Clearly a hoax, and I didn't bother watching the whole thing. (I also remember that something very similar came across my way a couple of years ago. Not the first Kubrick-filmed-fake-moon-landing stuff.) I thought that was the end of my interest in this -- why give time to the clown shoes who hoax such things?

Then last night, I listened to host Jimmy Church, who was filling in for George Noory, and guest Jay Weidner. Of course the interview with "Stanley Kubrick" stand-in actor was a hoax. But that's not the end of things. As always in the multi-layered chaotic quilt of the anomalous, there's more.

On the face of it, the interview is a hoax, and anyone not much interested in this stuff will probably respond with a shrug and a nod in agreement that "this proves those we-never-landed-on-the-moon folks are not just conspiracy nuts; they're crazy." And maybe that was the intended message the person or people behind the faked interview meant to give.

Joe Weidner's YouTube vid from 2012

But, according to Weidner, the same day this hoax went viral, other You Tube snips went viral, which pointed out the obvious errors in the hoax. Two contradictory hoax/not a hoax in the same day. Movie promotion? Could be, maybe… if so, that doesn't' answer much. Think Hollywood vs. The Aliens (Bruce Rux.)

Meanwhile, Weidner discussed the plethora of clues in Kubrick's films that point to his involvement in filming footage of astronauts on the moon.

I don't know what to think regarding us going to the moon or not. I feel a bit ridiculous acknowledging that maybe, we did not. The evidence is intriguing. On the other hand, we did. On the other hand, why'd isn't we go back -- and why hasn't anyone else?

At this point, the question of whether we went to the moon or not is almost moot. What's truly an eye opener is the fact that the question of Kubrick's involvement (or non-involvement) demonstrates, once again, the layers upon layers of disinformation put out by many players, which are then perpetuated by the participants -- often unaware they're involved at all --  in the play.

No comments: