In the above article there is a second part of the interview,
not yet on youtube.
This confession may have a huge effect on people's mind, I think.
I already spoke about it with someone' who paled inside on hearing.
It may achieve the effect various 9-11 disclosures and analysis failed to.
Am I too optimistic ? Maybe.
According to Kubrick Niel Armstrong was a conscious participant in this act of fraud
and was tortured by it for the rest of his life.
It is my current estimation that Kubrick was told close to nothing about the
Secret Space Program, but I may br wrong.
Someone was quick to debunk this confession as fake, but
it seems to have the 2 parts in one piece (I did not compare yet for content):
Beware of the FAKE Stanley Kubrick confession - Here are the outtakes (Flat Earth)
The actor in question is named Tom, as you will find out at about 5 minutes in. I wanted this to be legit as well, but as I said before, the internet hive mind misses nothing. This hoax only lasted a few hours, and yet, Flat Earth keeps getting bigger after 10 months. Why? Because it's real.
Are we inside a Truman show enclosed world, thousands of miles wide? This is part of a series of videos that shows not only is it possible, but likely.
(Moderator: please make a thread of this whereever you find fit)
I have merged your post with the similarly named thread by hughe. Your post comes first in line because vBulletin orders the posts chronologically when threads are merged.
Lies, truth, and lies sandwiched together. That's the way.
Aside from pathological liars and hoaxers, who goes to great lengths to lie and why?
I have observed people believing the skeptics' view without any thinking or examining for themselves.
I've also witnessed both Bill Nye and Michael Shermer fail miserably in their roles as skeptic. And yet people just buy their lines. They're the 'experts'.
It is hard to think for oneself with so much secrecy and dishonesty going around.
This is where I always turn to instincts. They've saved my ass more than once and they can see what my ego can't.
My take so far is that Kubrick speaks his heart and mind
My take so far is that Kubrick speaks his heart and mind.
I do not consider myself an expert in variuous forensic sciences
but it seems to me that experts can quite decisively make a judgement about it.
The main point' as I see it now, is this:
If this is a real and truthful confession it may act as a major crossroad
in the exposure of the net of lies we live in.
The issue is so simple that it can rock and shock the minds of millions and more.
I have to wait and see how things wil roll.
My feeling was that the man is genuine.
People who know him can easily tell whether it is the Kubrick they knew or an actor.
If indeed it is Kubrick then I bet this is a genuine confession.
Last edited by URIKORN, 11th December 2015 at 16:08.
My take so far is that Kubrick speaks his heart and mind.
I do not consider myself an expert in variuous forensic sciences
but it seems to me that experts can quite decisively make a judgement about it.
The main point' as I see it now, is this:
If this is a real and truthful confession it may act as a major crossroad
in the exposure of the net of lies we live in.
The issue is so simple that it can rock and shock the minds of millions and more.
I have to wait and see how things wil roll.
My feeling was that the man is genuine.
People who know him can easily tell whether it is the Kubrick they knew or an actor.
If indeed it is Kubrick than I bet this is a genuine confession.
wait a minute.
the second video, the full unedited 'interview' or better yet coaching session with the actor 'tom'
proves that the edited kubrick 'confession' documentary was a phony.
If we could go to the moon by alternate means, why do the "conventional" rocket stuff in the first place given all the danger involved?
Hiding money? Faked race with the Russians for some reason? Was there some big push back then to go to the moon? Why bother? Didn't we have a version of "Keeping up with the Kardashians" back then to keep everyone occupied?
If we could go to the moon by alternate means, why do the "conventional" rocket stuff in the first place given all the danger involved?
Hiding money? Faked race with the Russians for some reason? Was there some big push back then to go to the moon? Why bother? Didn't we have a version of "Keeping up with the Kardashians" back then to keep everyone occupied?
Generally speaking it was "Space Travel to the Poor"
This is where we want you poor buggers to stay:
With old physics, with burning fules, with poverty and ignorance.
This way when we shall decide to play upon you "The Alien Trick"
you shall all be shocked and tricked and surrender to our will
Last edited by URIKORN, 11th December 2015 at 16:57.
I watched half the second video. I find the guy behind the camera very annoying.
His being annoying, and I noticed it too, from the start, raised some
questions with me, but so far I fail to see how it weakens Kubrick's
testimony (if, of course, it is Kubrick indeed).
If "Kubrick" is an actor it can easily explain my feeling that it is a sincere testimony.
This is the ability of a good actor.
But if indeed it is Kubrick then the testimony seems to concern a reality he participated in
If we could go to the moon by alternate means, why do the "conventional" rocket stuff in the first place given all the danger involved?
If I had to guess, it would be because the technology used to actually go to the Moon would be so much in advance than public tech that if it were released and understood publicly, it would put the oil cartels out of business, and these oil cartels are a huge international control structure. So letting us see the real tech would have serious repercussions to the structure of society as it exists right now, both in conventional terms as well as in terms of back door dealings and subterfuge (also heavily involving the oil cartels). Big oil is vital to economics, trade (transportation) and military. That's a lot to shake up in one go.
But then why attract attention to things in space at all? That's what interests me. It wasn't necessary at all to start focusing on space at all, as far as I can figure it. They could have spent the money on trying to investigate the inside of the Earth or the bottom of the oceans, but instead they had some interest in drawing our attention to "out there." Maybe to dispel ideas about ETs by saying, "see, nothing here!"? Maybe to open us up to thoughts about them gradually, as they definitely seem to be doing today?
Hitting even the mainstream radio now is information that Stanley Kubrick created a basically false documentary about our landings on the moon. Have no idea myself if it's true or not, but it sure makes you wonder. Anybody else know anything more about this?
Last edited by The One, 12th December 2015 at 14:06.
Reason: Thread Merged
Reply With Quote
Originally posted by URIKORN
Bookmarks