Has anyone heard of this person - Jay Weidner?

[VincentMcConnell]

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.

Why? He spends all his time spouting defamation, lies, insults and claims of incompetence at over 400,000 people in the Apollo program that worked so hard that a lot of them lost their family life, were divorced and ruined their personal relationships... There were a lot of people that put just too much to make sure man got to the moon. For all I care, we talk crap and criticize him from the top of the tallest building with a megaphone when he's absent...

[VincentMcConnell]

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

HAHA! I love when hoax believers say "every photo was in perfect framing and focus". That's such a colossal failure, it makes me laugh. It really proves they haven't done the slightest bit of research. If one were to go through the ALSJ for about 25 minutes, they'd probably stumble across 30 photos on any one mission that were either inadvertently taken or were using the wrong focus or exposure.
This Weidner fellow is a clown whom I wouldn't put much belief into anything he says...

[VincentMcConnell]

237

The moon's mean distance from the Earth is 238.8 thousand miles.

Yeah. You could be even more nit-picky with it if you wanted, too. The moon is in a slightly eccentric orbit around the Earth, so its distance varies from about 250,000 miles to 218,000 miles. Not sure the exact Perigee and Apogee. We could use this thread specifically to prove everything Weidner says wrong and then take it to his presentation, hold a presentation immediately afterward with his same audience... and PROFIT.

[Zakalwe]

I really don't get the whole Kubrick link at all. The hypothesis seems to be that Kubrick (probably from the misconception that as the director of 2001, then he MUST be able to fake Apollo) shot the whole thing.
In a movie studio.
In Essex, England?

Kubrick moved to England when making Lolita, and remained there for the rest of his life. So now, not only does the whole of NASA, its contractors and external employees have to keep scthum for 50 years, but also his English employees, set makers, tea ladies, cleaners, etc. Now given that the British Government couldn't keep things like the Profumo affair under wraps, what chance is there that Kubrick faking Apollo could be kept quiet for all these years.  The concept is so bloody laughable, it hurts.


Common sense. Sometimes it aint that common!

[mako88sb]

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.

Why? He spends all his time spouting defamation, lies, insults and claims of incompetence at over 400,000 people in the Apollo program that worked so hard that a lot of them lost their family life, were divorced and ruined their personal relationships... There were a lot of people that put just too much to make sure man got to the moon. For all I care, we talk crap and criticize him from the top of the tallest building with a megaphone when he's absent...

Didn't they mention in "From the earth to the Moon"'s Apollo 1 episode that somebody with his family with him stopped his car in front of an oncoming train?

[peter eldergill]

If Kubrik were to have filmed this, wouldn't the filming have taken a lot of time? Exactly when would he have done this and wouldn't someone noticed?

[Glom]

I really don't get the whole Kubrick link at all. The hypothesis seems to be that Kubrick (probably from the misconception that as the director of 2001, then he MUST be able to fake Apollo) shot the whole thing.
In a movie studio.
In Essex, England?

Kubrick moved to England when making Lolita, and remained there for the rest of his life. So now, not only does the whole of NASA, its contractors and external employees have to keep scthum for 50 years, but also his English employees, set makers, tea ladies, cleaners, etc. Now given that the British Government couldn't keep things like the Profumo affair under wraps, what chance is there that Kubrick faking Apollo could be kept quiet for all these years.  The concept is so bloody laughable, it hurts.


Common sense. Sometimes it aint that common!

It was Shepperton Studios in Surrey where he did his work, wasn't it?

[gillianren]

If Kubrik were to have filmed this, wouldn't the filming have taken a lot of time? Exactly when would he have done this and wouldn't someone noticed?

Yes, it would have taken forever and about a million takes.  Ideally, there would be no emotion left in his actors, so they would give him exactly the performance he wanted.  In general, people who talk about Kubrick as a possible director for an Apollo hoax know nothing about his directorial style.

[carpediem]

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.

Why? He spends all his time spouting defamation, lies, insults and claims of incompetence at over 400,000 people in the Apollo program that worked so hard that a lot of them lost their family life, were divorced and ruined their personal relationships... There were a lot of people that put just too much to make sure man got to the moon. For all I care, we talk crap and criticize him from the top of the tallest building with a megaphone when he's absent...

Didn't they mention in "From the earth to the Moon"'s Apollo 1 episode that somebody with his family with him stopped his car in front of an oncoming train?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Baron

[Jason Thompson]

If one were to go through the ALSJ for about 25 minutes, they'd probably stumble across 30 photos on any one mission that were either inadvertently taken or were using the wrong focus or exposure.

Indeed. It doesn't even take that long.

On Apollo 11, precisely one roll of film was exposed on the lunar surface during the EVA. 125 pictures were taken. No less than 32 of them are obvious 'bad shots'. They are out of focus, badly framed, obvious accidental exposures and so on. A few are in perfect focus and do in fact contain things of interest, but are taken at an angle that makes it clear they were not taken deliberately. Still more are simple landscape shots that are very difficult to screw up as they contain no distinct 'subject'. Even with that, 25% of the pictures taken were not in perfect focus or perfectly framed.

Even the iconic 'man on the Moon' image is badly framed and comes close to clipping Aldrin's head off.

[Andromeda]

If one were to go through the ALSJ for about 25 minutes, they'd probably stumble across 30 photos on any one mission that were either inadvertently taken or were using the wrong focus or exposure.

Indeed. It doesn't even take that long.

On Apollo 11, precisely one roll of film was exposed on the lunar surface during the EVA. 125 pictures were taken. No less than 32 of them are obvious 'bad shots'. They are out of focus, badly framed, obvious accidental exposures and so on. A few are in perfect focus and do in fact contain things of interest, but are taken at an angle that makes it clear they were not taken deliberately. Still more are simple landscape shots that are very difficult to screw up as they contain no distinct 'subject'. Even with that, 25% of the pictures taken were not in perfect focus or perfectly framed.

Even the iconic 'man on the Moon' image is badly framed and comes close to clipping Aldrin's head off.

Very true, and I believe the next picture on the roll showed someone's sleeve.

[raven]

Not to mention tilted.
Heck, the 'C' rock picture shows the LRV antenna 'growing' out of the astronauts head, a composition no-no.

[twik]

Totally off topic, but I thought I'd bring it up. Advancedboy, you have repeatedly addressed the forum as "gentlemen". I'm not sure how it works in Latvia, but in many parts of the internet, women have access, and take part in intellectual discussions. Therefore, you might make a better impression if you addressed the forum as "ladies and gentlemen".

[advancedboy]

Jay Weidner does bring up interesting topics about Apollo missions and coincidences regarding his connections with NASA. I don`t think he is a shill or cheap  attention seeker. If you denounce him of selling books or having sellout radio interviews, then ask yourself  what is Aldrin doing ?
There are some issues that I don`t agree with Weidner, especially when he deals with occcultism and symbolism. That is a thinly woven fabric. Some interesting aspects are- NASA specialists consulting him on Space Odyssey. And front projection screen sounds very reasonable for faking moonlanding scenes, had it been necessary to be done. What bothers me in `The Shining `is room 237(K), which was a common knowledge in textbooks of that era to be median distance to the moon. The mural reminiscent of rockets, Apollo sweater, carpet pattern similar to launchpad 39a, bears and winter,.It all could be just a silly coincidence, the problem is not coincidences, the problem is that it is in Stanley Kubrick`s film, and Stanley is famous for subliminal messages, symbols and attention to tiniest details. He knew that it would lead  the audience to Apollo connections, why would he  want to mislead the public, if his message was different? If his message was different, why put non-essential ,misleading hints?
And you are naive that it would be hard to silence Kubrick. Their usual strategy is to cause accidents for your friends as a warning sign, if that doesn`t work, they get to you. In case of Kubrick they most likely didn`t resort to threats, but offered equipment and finance for shooting his next movies. Paycheck silnces everybody. Proof? How many people have been publicly complaining that their government department is too big and bloated and wastes taxpayers` money? people are afraid to lose their comfortable jobs, and will stay silent, especially when threatened.More proof? Remember in 2002 Boeing revealed a classified airplane Bird of prey. Could you get any information about it prior to unveiling? How much information can you get about concept vehicles that companies reveal in car shows? How many pictures can you get of their clay mockups? The only information you get is what company allows to be leaked. So how do they silence people? it is absurdly simple. There is a known group of people who know about the project and have access to it. If any information is leaked, everyone`s paycheck is sliced in half without any investigation. Works fine.

[gillianren]

I suppose you have evidence to support any of what you've said?  Would it surprise you to know that corporate espionage is a real thing and that there are leaks all the time?