Did we really go to the moon? I don't know. I genuinely hope we went to the moon, but I have seen a great deal of evidence that suggests we never went to the moon.
This article attempts to separate the fact from the fiction, which is not always easy. I plan to keep updating this article until I draw a formal conclusion.
There are many, many, many inconsistencies with the official narrative. For instance, if we spent $36 million on the moon buggy, why is all the photographic and video footage is so low resolution? Most importantly, why haven't we gone back to the moon yet, and why aren't there bases on the moon today?
Think about that for a second!!! If you drive a car today that was manufactured in 1969, which is 55 years ago, it is like driving a car from the Flinststones. Chances are it probably has windows that have to be cranked up by hand, and it probably has drum brakes, and certainly lacks GPS Navigation.
Even better, compare a portable phone from 1969 to an iPhone 14 Pro Max. What a minute, they didn't have any portable phones in 1969, but they had payphones all over the place. You get the idea... I find it very hard, if not almost impossible to believe we had the technology in 1969 to go to the moon, and come back, but we can't do it today???? This makes ZERO sense!!!!
President Kennedy gave one of his greatest, and most inspirational speeches at Rice University which is commonly referred to today as the "Why go to the moon speech", which can be seen below.
So did we REALLY go to the moon? I have a great deal of respect for Elon Musk's intellectual horsepower and integrity, and he said he is 100% confident we did go to the moon, and if anybody should know, it would be Elon. On the flip side of that coin I have seen quite a bit of evidence that suggests the contrary. This article explores both sides of the coin...
One of the long running rumors suggested the famous director, Stanley Kubrick, was involved in faking the moon landing video footage. I recall seeing a documentary years ago named "The Dark Side Of The Moon", which, if I recall correctly, featured Kubrick's widow saying he was responsible for faking the moon landing video. Below is a fascinating authentic photo that shows Stanley Kubrick walking with some NASA executives.
From left to right: Wearing All White: Frederick Ordway III (NASA Advisor), Donald "Deke" Slayton, (NASA Mercury 'Original 7' Astronaut & NASA's first Chief of the of the Astronaut Office and Director of Flight Crew Operations, Arthur C. Clarke (Science Fiction Author who wrote 2001: A Space Odyssey), Unknown (behind Clarke), Stanley Kubrick (Director of 2001: A Space Odyssey 1968), George Mueller (Senior NASA Administrator for Apollo Project and Director of Flight Crew Operations).
The context of the photo above is from a grand tour that Dr. George Muller (Director of NASA Flight Crew Operations) and "Deke" Slayton (Director of Flight Crew Operations) took on the set of 2001 A Space Odyssey on September 25, 1964.
The video below, which is alleged to be an interview of Stanley Kubrick from May of 1999 by filmmaker T. Patrick Murray was supposedly shot just 3 days before Kubrick passed away, and has been circulating on the internet since at least August of 2015.
It is suggested T. Patrick Murray agreed to sign an 88-page NDA to keep the contents secret for 15 years. When I first watched this I thought it was really compelling, but then I learned it has been attacked as being potentially fraudulent with an actor pretending to be Kubrick, which seems pretty elaborate to me...So is this video part of a psyop, or is it authentic?
The interview suggests Kubrick confessed to being personally responsible for creating fake footage of the moon landing for Apollo 11 and 13.
According a detailed article on Snopes.com which seeks to discredit the authenticity:
"A spokesman for Kubrick's widow also proclaimed that the interview is a lie, Stanley Kubrick has never been interviewed by T.Patrick Murray the whole story is made up, fraudulent and untrue."
Just for frame of reference, the video below is of Stanley Kubrick in 1998, which would have been shot a year before the video in controversy which is seen above. When I study many of the unique facial characteristics between both videos they seem to be a match for me. Particularly details like
-Shape and color of his eyebrows
-His nose seems to be a perfect match, including the unusual tip which has a slight cleft to it. This includes the mole located on the left side of his upper nose (or does it? We will take a closer look soon).
-His overall facial shape as well as the beard pattern is very similar despite the fact his beard has grown longer by 1999. The video below was shot on, or prior to March 8, 1998, and the video above was shot in May of 1999, which would have been 14 months later. If the man in the video never cut his hair or beard over the course of 14 months, it should look and be very similar to the man in the video above who is purported to be Kubrick.
-The eyeglasses are different, but similar in style, and the prescription looks to be about the same.
-The age/aging of both men are entirely consistent.
-The skin appearance is consistent with both men.
I created the comp below that takes a photo of the real Stanley Kubrick taken in March of 1998 on the left, and an image from the purported video of Kubrick. Then I converted both to black and white, and I airbrushed out his eyeglasses. Then on the left image I airbrushed the light to create the same shadow. To my eyes, it sure looks like the same man...
There is one serious inconsistency I can't seem to reconcile that would suggest the man is NOT Stanley Kubrick!?!! As seen below, the real Stanley Kubrick appears to have a dark brown mole on the left side of his upper nose which appears to be about 3/4 of an inch from his left eye (right side below).
The man in the purported video also has a mole on the left side of his face, but it appears to be lighter in color, much larger, and seems to be located much lower, (1.25 inches below his eye) and further away from his nostrils.
There could be many different explanations for this, including different camera angles, or perhaps since he may have been in ill health, the lower mole may have grown over the course of the 14 months between the images. I will investigate this more, but this is worth pointing out.
In the photo below of Stanley Kubrick taken decades earlier we might see the upper mole, but notice his crazy hairstyle that is grown really long on the sides, which is consistent with the man alleged to be Kubrick in the moon confession interview.
The Epoch Times published an article in 2015 saying that:
"A video that purports to be of legendary film director Stanley Kubrick saying the NASA Apollo moon landings were "fake" and a "hoax" is probably not real. A spokesperson for Kubrick's family told Gawker: "The interview is a lie, Stanley Kubrick has never been interviewed by T.Patrick Murray the whole story is made up, fraudulent & untrue."
The more I study and think about this, the more I am on the fence—so to speak. The facial characteristics do look similar, and if the man who is purported to be Kubrick is not, then the actor would deserve an Academy Award for his performance. Particularly based up his knowledge base and lightning fast, naturally organic answers.
That being said, there is some strange language in the video interview that suggests it might not be him...In particular there is some bizarre language that suggests the interviewer might be directing him.
My understanding is the original interview was 2 hours long, but the version above is only an hour and twenty minutes long. The version below has additional footage. In particular the discussion about Neal Armstrong's role.
The video below is also fascinating as it features a man who claims his father was forced to conceal that the moon landings were fake:
The documentaries below goes into great detail on how the alleged moon landing hoax worked:
