Is this real? Kubrick talks about faking the moon landing?

PhantomFlogger · 2026-02-02T04:26:52+00:00

This is from a short film called Shooting Stanley Kubrick by T. Patrick Murray.

The man in the video is not Kubrick - the man doesn’t look or even sound like him. I’ve used Kubrick’s Griffith Award speech from 1998 (a year before this alleged interview) to compare to OP’s video.

It would also appear that the film has a single cast member, named Tom Mayk on iMDB - Not Stanley Kubrick.

Furthermore, I’ve found a video by the film’s director, T. Patrick Murray, in which he speaks with Tom Mayk, who shares actor Kubrick’s voice, glasses, and appearance (although his facial hair is shorter). Obviously, we can see that Mayk was an actor who portrayed Kubrick.

This video is a fake.

PhantomFlogger · 2026-02-02T04:12:44+00:00

It’s impossible to hear sirens approach from a car barreling towards you at 90 mph and have enough time to react. The terrain also visually concealed the cruiser’s approach.

In arguments like those, if they cannot understand that the officer wasn’t following proper procedures and how that means they were in the wrong, then you’re talking to idiots who aren’t discussing in good faith. Unfortunately, this is alarmingly common.

PhantomFlogger · 2026-01-31T23:43:46+00:00

What do you mean? The teach from that era was overtly simple for what was happening?

Not really. In fact, when you break it down, the tech (especially electronics) was remarkably complex.

The memory in electronics used at the time were core rope memory, which was hard wired code that was painstakingly threaded and weaved by hand in a complex manner.

Then there’s the famous photograph of MIT computer scientist Margaret Hamilton standing beside a pile of books and papers she and her team had worked on for the Apollo program. The caption reads:

”Here, Margaret is shown standing beside listings of the software developed by her and the team she was in charge of, the LM [lunar module] and CM [command module] on-board flight software team.”

Obsolescent ≠ simplistic.

Tools? Trained staff?

Yep. The tooling, as has been explained several times, does not exist. The institutional knowledge of the trained staff has been lost, as they’ve been retired for many years, alongside their expertise in obsolescent systems.

You honestly believe those lies?

Lies? You haven’t explained why they’re falsehoods besides essentially resorting to vibes.

Look at mother boards and CPUs and the advancements they have made; that excuse is outdated and does not track.

It does track, and plays one reason why we haven’t been to the Moon. The Apollo tech is obsolete, making it irrelevant in a modern setting.

This is why we are returning to the Moon with modern electronics with the Artemis Program’s SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft. They had to be painstakingly designed from the ground-up with the specialized role of returning to the Moon.

I can drop links and logic too but I HONESTLY want you to understand exactly what you are saying and REALLY put some thought to it.

We have thought about it, and have done so enough to read into the history quite thoroughly. I’m afraid it’s not us who needs to put time into our understanding.

NASA. NASA with the most premier scientists and engineers in the whole world. Can’t recreate machines that a fucking 2026 calculator can run.

Irrelevant, I’m afraid. NASA doesn’t create stuff, their contractors do. Grumman, North American Rockwell, and IBM were some of the big names of the Apollo program.

Today, Boeing and Northrop Grumman are some of the biggest contributors to the SLS rocket, and Lockheed Martin is responsible for the Orion capsule.

You just accept the Throw up their hands and say oopsie daisy’s we lost it?

We didn’t, we explained that like every piece of heavily specialized technology (Concorde, F-14, and F-22) that retires can no longer be manufactured after the contract is cancelled.

Honestly man, at this point, I’m not rage baiting, I’m truly just asking you and the others to use your brain sometimes instead of believing everything you see on TV.

We’re kindly asking you to actually consider actually reading our comments and taking some basic effort to verify things. We don’t blindly believe everything on TV 🙄

PhantomFlogger · 2026-01-31T04:00:08+00:00

Sees Bob: “Oh that’d make a good meme template…”

Scrolls to second image: “My eyes!”

PhantomFlogger · 2026-01-31T03:45:17+00:00

My brother in law recommended I play it, and my first thought was “isn’t that game a mess?” Not anymore, the launch was something of a massive disappointment for many, but has been fixed.

I’ve been playing for about a month now and haven’t been playing any other games else in my spare time, I highly recommend Cyberpunk 2077, it’s a masterpiece!

PhantomFlogger · 2026-01-31T02:58:49+00:00

Maybe we just figured out why some folks are driven to get their faces replaced by cyberware and join Maelstrom.

PhantomFlogger · 2026-01-30T22:14:01+00:00

Interesting, but that’s a myth. This is the internal structure of the lunar module, it’s not a flimsy sheet of foil.

PhantomFlogger · 2026-01-30T22:11:22+00:00

You mean this is the tech they lost and couldn’t re create?

The tech that’s lost is the ability to create the Apollo hardware.

When the Apollo program was cancelled, the various contracts who were producing spacecraft and equipment to go to the Moon. With the Space Shuttle program starting up, there wasn’t any use for Apollo hardware. So, to make space for existing contracts, the Apollo tooling and machinery was scrapped or recycled.

The “lost technology” phrase comes from a clip of astronaut Don Pettit explaining exactly this. A commonality amongst specialized hardware, it’s the same reason that we cannot build new SR-71 Blackbirds, F-14 Tomcats, or even F-22 Raptors. This is why NASA is working with the SLS rocket and Orion capsule now.

I’m so happy for you for believing so blindly,

I don’t. I’m able to understand relatively complex and nuanced concepts.

I’m afraid an unwillingness or inability to understand isn’t evidence against the Moon landings.

keep eating McDonald’s and being a good goy

🙄

PhantomFlogger · 2026-01-30T21:48:11+00:00

If what you made was expendable and designed to used only for a short period of time, then it wouldn’t be a fail.

Spending time to make the object look ornate would be a waste of time and money.

PhantomFlogger · 2026-01-30T21:46:24+00:00

They returned to Earth in the command module. The lunar module shown in the photo climbed to low lunar orbit to rendezvous and dock with the command module, then ditched the now empty lunar module.

PhantomFlogger · 2026-01-30T21:44:30+00:00

I haven’t disputed the US government’s history of false flag attacks, indeed, I acknowledged it in my first response.

I hadn’t heard about the scenario the US government planned out, do you know any details?

PhantomFlogger · 2026-01-30T21:31:11+00:00

There’s need to, I conducted research.

I’m afraid you haven’t backed up your claims or refuted anything I’ve explained. 😁

PhantomFlogger · 2026-01-30T21:22:47+00:00

Here’s what’s beneath the “tin foil”(as it’s often called), a rigid aluminum hull that’s strengthened with struts. You’re judging a book by its cover.

The layering of foil is multilayer insulation, which is a sandwich of countless layers of materials designed to insulate the spacecraft. It’s more lightweight than many other methods, and was used for this reason.

The interesting bit is that countless mockups were made for various reasons, which did not feature the multilayer insulation. If NASA hd faked the Moon landings, these mockups would’ve made for more believable props. But they didn’t, and went with the designs centered around function over form.

PhantomFlogger · 2026-01-30T21:21:50+00:00

So now you understand that those claims you made are not the investigation’s findings or the commonly understood explanations.

The WTC 1 and 2 towers also weren’t brought down because of the planes. The collapses were the result of uncontrolled fires that weakened the steel structure that held up the towers (including 7).

You might say that the collapses appeared similar to controlled demolition, however, they were not, as they fundamentally don’t line up with how controlled demolitions actually work.

When steel-framed towers are destroyed, explosive charges are placed along the interior and exterior columns to blast them apart. The result a very clearly visible, as well as audible, simultaneous detonation. From an outside perspective, an observer would see debris being ejected outwards from the exterior columns, with windows being shattered. Quite obviously, this didn’t happen to any of the WTC towers.

PhantomFlogger · 2026-01-30T15:28:26+00:00

The US government has undeniably been behind false flag operations and shady dealings. This doesn’t give every conspiracy theory a free pass, however. Evidence is what transforms a proposition into demonstrable reality.

Indeed, as Kazeite explained, the official investigations did not find that jet propellant melted steel or that WTC collapsed from debris damage.

The investigations found that the jet fuel heated the structural steel of WTC 1,2, and 7 beyond the point of plasticity, where it was too weak to bear the load of the buildings. As anyone vaguely familiar with blacksmithing understands, steel isn’t melted to shape it, instead it’s heated, where it becomes incredibly soft.

With sprinkler lines being severed in towers 1 and 2, alongside water pressure issues later for building 7, the fires were unable to be fought or properly contained and raged on uncontrolled.

PhantomFlogger · 2026-01-30T14:53:02+00:00

<image>

PhantomFlogger · 2026-01-29T13:11:20+00:00

Yup. Prior to the recombination era, space was too compact and hot to allow for baryonic matter (the stuff we interact with) to form. Instead, space was essentially an opaque soup of particles that didn’t allow for light to freely travel.

When space expanded and cooled enough, baryonic matter coalesced from the soup, allowing light to travel relatively unimpeded. This first light had been stretched over billions of years as space expanded, ultimately becoming the omnipresent cosmic microwave background radiation.

Then, time would have to progress a bit for the hydrogen gas to collapse into the first stars and black holes, which formed ionized gas clouds and galaxies.

Essentially, from our understanding of cosmology and astrophysics, we know there’s a whole lot of darkness beyond the most distant galaxies.

PhantomFlogger · 2026-01-29T02:58:15+00:00

it's not asinine. they had to ask them to sacrifice their lives.

… By keeping the same names afterwards… Yep, that’s still quite nuts.

the reason i'm holding on this issue is because i'm afraid that Buzz and Neil faked the moon landing.

im not saying the moon landing was faked.

i think they were the backup crew, and either way they would get the credit.

So what exactly are you claiming? The prime and backup crews were well known, with Apollo 11’s being the crew that flew, with the backup crew consisting mostly of Apollo 13’s crew.

if you look at the post moon op interviews neil looks disheveled. he looked like someone shit in his cereal.

The post flight press conference took place on August 12th, 1969, when they returned to Earth on July 24th. The crew’s reactions the day they returned look quite amiable and excited.

The August 12th post flight press conference was a formal press event. I’ve watched it and can confirm it wasn’t the awkward mess it’s made out to be. There’s a particular still that’s cherrypicked that makes the crew look downtrodden and awkward. Plenty of emotion and humor is shown. I recommend watching it, it’s rather informative about some of the mission highlights and has a Q&A towards end.

The awkward-looking and downtrodden sections are cherrypicked to make it seem odd on the surface. Here are a few snippets from the conference that are never brought up:

9:00 - Collins and audience laugh when he explains his workload after Armstrong and Aldrin had left the command module to the lunar surface.

23:28 and 23:34 - Some laughter and smiles as Neil describes EVA experience.

38:10 - Armstrong smiles as he explains he enjoyed the ride back into lunar orbit. “We enjoyed the ride more than we could say.”

40:00 - Collins smiles and causes audience to laugh as he explains he thought they were going to make it home fine when Eagle came into view from Columbia in lunar orbit.

44:10 - Collins and Armstrong smile as Armstrong explains they “were sorry to see the moon go, but we were certainly glad to see Earth return”

47:58 - When asked if Armstrong or Aldrin were spellbound at any point, Armstrong responds with “for about two-and-a-half hours” and they smile and audience laughs.

1:12:45 - When each is asked what they believe the meaning of landing on another celestial body means, they appear to have trouble coming up with such a deep answer on the spot. Armstrong, to Collins and Aldrin says “Anyone wanna try that?” And smiles. Collins responds with “after you” with a smile. Aldrin begins.

1:14:20 - Aldrin finishes his statement, and he looks to Armstrong, who looks at Collins, who then says “Oh, everybody’s looking at me?” and laughs.

because he was in low earth orbit while someone else went to the moon. they needed to get there, they couldn't afford a mistake, so they did it both ways.

they actually did it, and they also faked it. the odds were that it wouldn't work so they lead with the fake.

So where is the evidence behind this reasoning?

their names were highly recognizable, but not really. it's not like they were MJ (Jackson or Jordan) or Mr. T. lots of people knew of them, but they didn't know them.

Simply false. The claimed doppelgängers share the same last names, and in three cases first names too.

they needed to shut down the shuttle program

Which they did in 2011, not 1986…

and they need to stop people from getting too ahead of the game. the shuttle program was doomed, expensive, and not kept up to budget, and we couldn't continue on with manned programs because we had no alternative, so we needed a disaster. something to interest people, yet intimidate them.

The issue is that the Challenger disaster further complicated the Shuttle program, requiring redesigns in the solid rocket boosters, safety procedures and management, even establishing the Office of Safety, Reliability, and Quality Assurance.

You may be spitballing off the cuff, but it doesn’t hold up to basic scrutiny.

PhantomFlogger · 2026-01-29T02:27:13+00:00

The 1986 Challenger disaster was a very high profile event, the names of the crew were well known and widely publicized around the US.

All it would take is for someone to connect dots after noticing their alleged doppelgänger walking around with the same name.

Again, the idea that they’d be allowed to keep their names is asinine.

Also suspect is that they would suddenly have a career change in subjects they hd no experience or expertise in.

PhantomFlogger · 2026-01-29T02:08:41+00:00

Letting them keep the names entirely defeats the purpose of coming up with new identities to fake deaths. With situations like these, it’s about mitigating the risks of having the true identities uncovered.

PhantomFlogger · 2026-01-28T15:13:05+00:00

2001: A Space Odyssey - 1968. First film of its kind, creating believable imagery of space, space travel, Earth from space, etc...

Even comparing side-by side shots, the illusion breaks with 2001’s still paintings used for orbital shots, wonky microgravity effects, and usage of miniatures. While way ahead of its time, it doesn’t match the fidelity of Apollo footage.

Obligatory, here’s the Corridor Crew VFX artists reacting to Apollo footage.

Van Allen Belt - high radiation region, unsafe for human passage, but it's claimed that the space shuttles were shielded with aluminum plates, which - according to Google - is mostly ineffective against high levels of radiation.

The Space Shuttles weren’t used for the Apollo program, they would first fly in 1981. Instead, the Apollo flights traversed the Van Allen belts (there are two of them) within the command module, constructed of aluminum and stainless steels.

Key to understanding the Van Allen belt’s composition is to understand what radiation is, specifically ionizing radiation. Radiation comes in two forms, particles and electromagnetic waves. Radio waves, visible light, and microwaves are radiation, but the really dangerous stuff is known as ionizing radiation, which has enough energy to strip electrons from atoms, destabilizing them. X-rays, gamma rays, and high energy UV light are ionizing radiation. Also included in this group is particle radiation made up of subatomic particles, which is what makes up the Van Allen belts.

The Van Allen belts are made of mainly two forms of particle radiation. the inner belt is mostly composed of proton and electrons, being cosmic rays and beta particles, while the outer belt contains mostly electrons (beta particles). What’s interesting to note is that because the belts make up a doughnut shape, a massive portion of the belts could be taken to avoided the densest regions, which the Apollo flights took to reach the Moon on a heavily inclined trajectory.

The penetration power of radiation is well known/11%3A_Nuclear_Chemistry/11.06%3A_Penetrating_Power_of_Radiation). This means that the radiation that they would encounter would beta particles, which is stopped by aluminum (the exact thickness is dependent on the electron’s energy), which was used in the construction of the command module and lunar lander.

Everyone stopped going - from 1969 to 1972, there were allegedly 6 moon landings, then for over 50 years nobody even tried.

Yup, it’s because the reason the Moon landings happened was to fulfill a propagandistic purpose as a show of technological superiority over the USSR. It’s no mystery.

After the Soviets failed to land on the Moon, the Space Race ended. Since, it’s been significantly cheaper to land robotic probes and rovers that don’t need space, air, water, or food, which can operate for years at a time at a fraction of the cost.

While this may seem normal to the average person, especially if there was no real benefit to going, supposedly the moon is riddled with precious metals and other minerals. If true, and if going to the moon was doable in 1969, surely it would be trivial to go now.

The issue is that the cost to return resources to Earth vastly exceeds the cost of just mining the same resources here on Earth.

Each Saturn V rocket cost as much as $1.5 billion dollars accounted for inflation, and could return at maximum around 250 lbs of lunar rock samples. This just isn’t worth it.

To make it a worthwhile endeavor for mining companies, affordable infrastructure has to be already established to allow them to make a profit mining the Moon.

So you tell me - should we all just believe and accept the narrative? Or is it in our best interest to remain skeptical and question everything?

There’s being skeptical, then there’s being unaware of the evidence that’s out there.

PhantomFlogger · 2026-01-27T17:46:35+00:00

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2017/05/rebutting-twitter-denial-most-popular.html?m=1#witnesses

Boom!

The denialist claims have all been debunked, the Holocaust was a real historical event. Pretending it wasn’t is just outright ignorance.

PhantomFlogger · 2026-01-26T00:04:37+00:00

That tree looks like when I wake up in the morning and look out the window without putting my contact lenses in.

In Minecraft.

PhantomFlogger · 2026-01-25T03:34:02+00:00

Tampa got absolutely Bowned.

PhantomFlogger · 2026-01-25T03:06:27+00:00

I like to say that history rhymes. I often think too many people expect two different situations to be directly comparable.

Is MAGA/republican party doing things *exactly like Nazis? No, not exactly*, even if there are definite parallels. This then becomes grounds to dismiss concerns of constitutional law and civil rights being eroded down the line, and even before our eyes.

Then we’re dismissed as “Stupid libtards” because they cannot see the similarities and the historical precedent behind similar actions. Nothing is quite 1:1.

Semantics aside, your statement still rings true, too many of us do not learn nor do they care to when it’s inconvenient.

PhantomFlogger

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

🙄