Has anyone heard of this person - Jay Weidner?

[Graham2001]

Apparently there is going to be a Conspiracy Con this year and one of the guests is the person named in the title. Apparently he is going to give a talk on how Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landings.....!

See:

http://conspiracycon.com/

For this and other nonsense...

Now I've never heard of this guy before this so I was wondering what his background is?

[Echnaton]

He is "considered to be a ‘modern-day Indiana Jones’ for his ongoing worldwide quests to find clues to mankind’s spiritual destiny via ancient societies and artifacts...."  At least according to his web site.  http://jayweidner.com    I wouldn't put much stock in what he says. 

[JayUtah]

He's just another conspiracy theorist who thinks he holds the key to interpreting Stanley Kubrick's films.  He claims to have uncovered subtle clues in Kubrick's later works, chiefly The Shining, that point to Kubrick's role in faking the Apollo film and photography.  Earlier he tried to argue that he'd discovered cues in the Apollo photography that alluded to Kubrick's front-projection techniques used in 2001: A Space Odyssey.  But of course Weidner made several elementary mistakes in basic photography that make his opinion rather ill-considered.

I correspond on and off with Anthony Frewin, Kubrick's personal assistant for decades and the screenwriter to the film Color Me Kubrick (about Kubrick's infamous impersonator -- check it out, it's Netflixable and has a great performance by John Malkovich).  Frewin chuckles at Weidner and others over their comical ignorance of Kubrick's life and works.  In this latest case Weidner simply styles himself as the diligent "discoverer" of Kubrick's real intent.  (In other words, making up a bunch of conspiratorial nonsense and attributing it to Kubrick.)

Weidner is also a coward.  He blatantly stole original artwork from Clavius (as in, artwork I produced) and used it on his own site, arguing a point that was clearly and soundly refuted on the page from which he stole the graphic.  I attempted to contact him to ask him at least to attribute the graphic to its proper source, and asking him to justify his debunked claims, but he did not respond.  So yes, as far as I'm concerned he's just another blowhard who is afraid to face his critics.

[Echnaton]

I wonder if  styling himself as a ‘modern-day Indiana Jones’ is really a clue given to reveal  that he is a fictional creation of Lucas and Spielberg.  Although he sounds more like the late Baptist pastor and crackpot archaeologist, Vendyl Jones.  OTOH, taking the "V" &"L" from Vendyl's first name results in Endy Jones.  A coincident???

[Tedward]

People will be prepared to swallow it hook line and sinker and use it. A glowing endorsement or two in that link further up.....

What happens if you do not turn up at a conspiracy conference after booking in? Do your fellow believers think you have missed the bus or something worse?

Just wondering.

[Chew]

I would love to walk on stage during the presentation dressed like one of the men in black, take a few pictures of the audience, then walk off.

[raven]

I would love to walk on stage during the presentation dressed like one of the men in black, take a few pictures of the audience, then walk off.

Heh, get a whole posse together, that would be awesome.

[advancedboy]

J. Weidner is an interesting person. I would refrain from criticizing a person who is absent from the forum, it is simply good manners that shouldn`t allow any of us, gentlemen, to talk defamatory arguments of such people. Some of his agruments still stand as `pending`.
We know that S. Kubrick was a `detail whore`, and would retake many scenes as long as it was necessary for his own standards. I still sweat cold at night thinking why would he change insignificant details in the film. Such as rename the room 237. Even if you consider the tapestry on the wall reminiscent of rockets to be a an acid trip, or the All work and no play, bla, bla to be an OCD. Little boy`s  sweater is kinda blunt poke in face  from series `clandestine hints for dummies`. Coincidences, gentlemen, coincidences.  Unfortunately coincidences tend to be either accumulative or scattered.

[raven]

237

The moon's mean distance from the Earth is 238.8 thousand miles, which a simple googling would have told you advancedboy. Even if we round up, that's 239.
Whatever reason he made it that number, it can't be anything to do with the moon, not if he was the "'detail whore'" you say.
Sleep well.

[nomuse]

Oh, dog yes.  Heard of him, read him, got the t-shirt.

I have to give him one point.  Every other Apollo Denier chatters on about "blue screen" and it is nice to have someone who realizes that not only are there other ways of doing things, Kubrick was one of the old-school (like Cameron, at least during "Aliens") who preferred to do things in-camera.

But then he blows it.  One of his big, big points is how he has detected the seams in the Scotchlite screens used by the Apollo film crew.  Ah, so close and yet so far.  Yes, the material came in rolls that weren't that wide.  Yes, seams could be a problem.  And the team filming 2001 figured out how to fix that issue!  In all of that film, you won't find those tell-tale seams of Weidner's, because what they did is cut the stuff in tiny irregular pieces and attach THOSE to a backing.

Exactly as I did back in high school, reinforcing styrofoam carvings with glue-muslin.  Exactly as model railroaders and other diorama makers have been doing since I don't know how long ago.  Apparently this was obvious...to everyone but Weidner.

(And he also goes on and on about the tell-tale straight line near the bottom of the images, where the studio set ran out and the scotchlite screen took over.  Exactly as you see in the matt paintings or cycloramas of every movie and television production, right?  Right?  At this point you have to stop and ask if the man has actually ever seen a film in his life, or if his understanding of Kubrick is entirely academic.)

[ChrLz]

I would refrain from criticizing a person who is absent from the forum..

{ironically followed by..}

We know that S. Kubrick was a `detail whore`

Cute.

I still sweat cold at night thinking why would he change insignificant details in the film.

... Really? ...   

I think you need a different hobby, one that doesn't stress you quite as much.

Unfortunately coincidences tend to be either accumulative or scattered.

Or made up. Or abused. Or things are claimed as coincidences when they are no such thing.

[Count Zero]

I would refrain from criticizing a person who is absent from the forum, it is simply good manners that shouldn`t allow any of us, gentlemen, to talk defamatory arguments of such people.

I am very glad to hear that you will be refraining from accusing anyone who participated in the Apollo program of fraud or attempting to deceive anyone through hoaxes or falsified evidence.

Such a moral stance is commendable, and I fully expect you to maintain it for the duration of this discussion.

[Echnaton]

I would refrain from criticizing a person who is absent from the forum

However, anyone that puts ideas forward in a public forum has given implicit permission for a public critical examination of those ideas.  So a critique of what Weidner has said is not defamatory.  No one gets a pass on this.

[Laurel]

I've mentioned this elsewhere, but Weidner talks about how he has "gone through the entire photographic record of Apollo program" and "nearly every shot is in pristine focus." That's just not true; if he'd really gone through the entire record, he would know that there are plenty of out-of-focus Apollo photographs out there.
http://web.archive.org/web/20101123213629/http://jayweidner.com/AlchemicalKubrickIIc.html

[raven]

I am almost, almost, surprised CT still make that claim, with basically the entire Apollo photo record online and most of it in serious high resolution, it's much harder to continue this lie.
 This isn't just something that could conceivably be  a mistake; it is an out and out, top to bottom, lie.
Now, a lot of Apollo hoax claims can be chalked up to ignorance, regrettable but potentially curable.
But when 'professional', (oh Dear Lord is that word taking a beating) conspiracy theorists resort to blatant fabrications like that, well, it rather damages any remaining credibility they might have as honest seekers of truth. Bart Sibrel and David Percy, two of the most well known proponents, are also guilty of this, claiming that the Earth seen during TransLunar Coast TV broadcasts was either a transparency or a circular porthole.
As this video shows, both claims are demonstrably false, using materials both David Percy and Bart Sibrel almost certainly had to have been aware of.
Now, I don't get mad easily,advancedboy, I respect all human beings, I give politeness and courtesy even when it is not returned. I  even try to love the little bastards, but when someone lies to support their claims, that makes me quite angry and more than a little sad.
People like Weidner don't seem to care about truth; they just care about getting that next cheque for appearing at a convention, or selling their books and DVD.
That's right, irony of ironies, these people are, for lack of a better word, shills.