'There is a fundamental fraud embedded in the new Conservative
Party policy of abolishing the FSA and transferring most of its powers
to the Bank Of England. We are expected to believe that the Bank of
England will protect our (i.e. the public's) interests. In fact the
very purpose of this bank is to protect the interests of the banking
system, i.e. the interests of the private banks that create 97% of our
and charge us interest for the privilege of doing so.
In spite of the banks enormous wealth they have created trillions
of dollars of worthless toxic derivatives that they hold in their
vaults (but are not forced to declare in public). It is estimated that
up to 1.5 thousand trillion dollars* of these worthless assets are now
concealed within the banking system. If the banks were forced to reveal
this information they would all have to be declared BANKRUPT. This is
the reality of the situation.
Have politicians kicked out the banks before in order for the
state to create its own money?
US President Andrew Jackson did this.
US President Abraham Lincoln did this.
US President William McKinley was about to do this when he was
US President John F. Kennedy did this.
Kennedy and Lincoln were also assassinated. Jackson survived two
attempts on his life.
The people who control international banking are criminals and
rogues on a literally unimaginable scale.
Neither have they finished yet.
It seems that a collapse of the dollar has been engineered** to
occur within the next few months. When this collapse occurs the banking
oligarchs will have their long-held plan for a single global currency
waiting and ready to implement. Most worryingly, they may consider it
necessary to have a short but severe war
to soften us up to swallow this unpleasant pill.
We must educate ourselves....
....oppose the system.....
.....and say our prayers.
“Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The
bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power
to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough
deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all
the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to
disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in.
But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of
your own slavery, let them continue to create money.”
Stamp, Director of the Bank of England (appointed 1928). Reputed to be
the 2nd wealthiest man in England at that time.
One of the greatest documentaries ever made. The real history of
the last few centuries (that you don't get told in school).
The development of fractional reserve banking practices in
17th century brought to a cunning sophistication the secret techniques
initially used by goldsmiths fraudulently to accumulate wealth. With
the formation of the privately-owned Bank of England in 1694, the yoke
of economic slavery to a privately-owned "central" bank was first
forced upon the backs of an entire nation, not removed but only made
heavier with the passing of the three centuries to our day. Nation
after nation, including America, has fallen prey to this cabal of
international central bankers.
Segments: The Problem; The Money Changers; Roman Empire; The
Goldsmiths of Medieval England; Tally Sticks; The Bank of England; The
Rise of the Rothschilds; The American Revolution; The Bank of North
America; The Constitutional Convention; First Bank of the U.S.;
Napoleon's Rise to Power; Death of the First Bank of the U.S. / War of
1812; Waterloo; Second Bank of the U.S.; Andrew Jackson; Fort Knox;
World Central Bank; Loose Change 911 truth police state globalists NWO
New World Order Federal Reserve Alex Jones Aaron Russo America From
Freedom To Fascism zionist IMF BIS John Perkins 911 911 Globalism
bilderberg Rothschild Rockefeller Schiff Warburg illuminati bohemian
grove idi amin freemason
Tuesday, 21 July 2009
How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Apollo Moon
'It has now been forty years since the fabled moon landings by
NASA and the Apollo gang. When it comes to the subject of the moon
landings, people tend to fall into two belief groups. The first group,
by far the bigger of the two groups, accepts the fact that NASA
successfully landed on the moon six times and that 12 human beings have
actually walked on the surface of the moon.
The second group, though far smaller, is more vocal about their
beliefs. This group says that we never went to the moon and that the
entire thing was faked. This essay presents a third position on this
point of view
falls somewhere between these two assertions. This third position
postulates that humans did go to the moon but what we saw on TV and in
photographs was completely faked. Furthermore this third position
reveals that the great filmmaker Stanley Kubrick is the genius who
directed the hoaxed landings.'
...(...) Authors Joseph Farrell and Henry Stevens both have shown
us undeniable proof that Nazi scientists had developed advanced flying
saucer technology as early as 1943. These authors also show that the US
Government brought these same Nazi scientists into this country in
order to build these highly advanced flying machines. ......
Many sources inside the military industrial complex have related
to me that after John Kennedy was shown the flying saucer technology
early in his Presidency, he realized that the advances in technology
promised by the flying saucers could solve many of the pressing
problems of the world. He saw that releasing this exotic technology
would point the way towards cheap and environmentally friendly energy
among other things.
Soon after seeing the flying saucer technology, JFK made his
famous speech asking NASA to land a man on the moon before the decade
was out. Many insiders believed that this was a ploy by JFK to get
NASA, and the secret government, to release their saucer technologies.
Since it was obvious to everyone that standard rocket technology could
not get man to the moon and back, JFK may have thought that NASA would
be forced to release the knowledge of the technology behind the flying
saucers in order to fulfill his vision and get to the moon by the end
of the 1960's. JFK's ploy was therefore intended to free this advanced
technology from the insidious hands of the shadow government.
After the assassination of Kennedy in 1963, NASA began a new plan
that would solve the problem that JFK initiated. This new plan would
allow NASA, and the shadow government, to keep the saucer technology
secret and to still make it look like standard rocketry had taken man
to the moon and back.
Someone high up in the shadow government decided to fake the
entire moon landings in order to conceal the United States' extremely
new and advanced Nazi technology both from us, the citizens and our
In some ways NASA's position on this was understandable. We were
in the middle of the cold war with the Soviet Union. Did we really want
to show the Russians what we had?
...(...) While directing Dr. Strangelove Kubrick had asked the US
Air Force for permission to film one of their B-52 bombers for the
movie. The Pentagon turned him down.
The movie, Dr. Strangelove, was about a flight squadron that had
been ordered to fly to Russia and drop nuclear bombs on that country.
The Pentagon read Kubrick's script and rejected his request to actually
film the inside, and outside, of a B-52.
The reason for this rejection was that Kubrick's film was clearly
a satire on the military and US nuclear policy. The Pentagon did not
want to assist Kubrick in this satirical undertaking.
Undaunted by the rejection, Kubrick used various special effects
to create the B-52 in flight. When viewing Dr. Strangelove today, these
special effects look quaint and old fashioned, but in 1963 they looked
very good. It is possible that someone in NASA saw what Kubrick had
done in Dr. Strangelove and, admiring his artfulness, designated
Kubrick as the person best qualified to direct the Apollo Moon landing.
If he could do that well on a limited budget - what could he do on an
No one knows how the powers-that-be convinced Kubrick to direct
the Apollo landings. Maybe they had compromised Kubrick in some way.
The fact that his brother, Raul Kubrick, was the head of the American
Communist Party may have been one of the avenues pursued by the
government to get Stanley to cooperate.
Kubrick also had a reputation for being a notoriously nasty
negotiator. It would have been very interesting to have been a fly on
the wall during the negotiations between Kubrick and NASA.
In the end, it looks like Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landings
in return for two things. The first was a virtually unlimited budget to
make his ultimate science fiction film: 2001: A Space Odyssey, and the
second was that he would be able to make any film he wanted, with no
oversight from anyone, for the rest of his life.
Except for his last film, Eyes Wide Shut, Kubrick got what he wanted.
It is uncanny the way that the production of 2001: A Space Odyssey
parallels the Apollo program. The film production started in 1964 and
went on to the release of 2001: A Space Odyssey in1968. Meanwhile the
Apollo program also began in 1964 and culminated with the first moon
landings on July 20th 1969.
... No one knows how many things he
tried but eventually Kubrick settled on doing the entire thing with a
cinematic technique called Front Screen Projection.
It is in the use of this cinematic technique that the fingerprints
of Kubrick can be seen all over the NASA Apollo photographic and video
What is Front Screen Projection?
Kubrick did not invent the process but there is no doubt that he
perfected it. Front Screen Projection is a cinematic device that allows
scenes to be projected behind the actors so that it appears, in the
camera, as if the actors are moving around on the set provided by the
Front Screen Projection.
The process came into fruition when the 3M company invented a
material called Scotchlite. This was a screen material that was made up
of hundreds of thousands of tiny glass beads each about .4mm wide.
These beads were highly reflective. In the Front Screen Projection
process the Scotchlite screen would be placed at the back of the
soundstage. The plane of the camera lens and the Scotchlite screen had
to be exactly 90 degrees apart. A projector would project the scene
onto the Scotchlite screen through a mirror and the light would go
through a beam splitter, which would pass the light into the camera. An
actor would stand in front of the Scotchlite screen and he would appear
to be 'inside' the projection. .... Today Hollywood magicians use
green screens and computers for special effects and so Front Screen
Projection has gone the way of the Adding Machine and the Model T, but
for its time, especially in the 1960's, nothing worked better than
Front Screen Projection for the realistic look that would be needed
both for the ape-men scenes in 2001: A Space Odyssey and the faked
To see how Front Screen Projection looks on the screen let's
examine the ape-men scenes at the beginning of Kubrick's film 2001: A
Space Odyssey. While viewing the stills from these scenes, or watching
them in the film, one has to remember that the early scenes in 2001
with the actors in Ape costumes were all done on a soundstage. None of
what you are seeing in the ape-men scenes at the beginning of 2001 was
actually shot outside. The scenes that surround the ape-men in 2001 are
actually slides of a desert being projected onto Scotchlite screens
standing at the rear of the set.
In order to create these desert backgrounds Kubrick sent a
photographic team to Spain to shoot 8'' X 10'' Ektachrome slides. These
slides were then projected via the Front Screen Projection system onto
the Scotchlite screen. The actors in ape costumes stood in front of the
screen acting out the script.
If you watch 2001 on DVD you can actually see the 'seams' of the
screen occasionally behind the gyrating apes. Kubrick was doing Front
Screen Projection on such a huge and grand fashion that the technicians
were forced to sew together many screens of Scotchlite so that Kubrick
could create the vastness needed for the ape scenes to be believable.
this still taken from an early scene in 2001 you can see the seams in
the blue sky if you look closely. .... Now we can clearly see the
'seams' and the 'stitching' of the Scotchlite Front Projection screen
in the sky.
To get the perspective correct one has to realize that
the Scotchlite screen is right behind the rocky outcropping set, which
was built on the soundstage.
The lines on the screen are the flaws
in the Scotchlite screen. These flaws in the screen give the sky give a
peculiar 'geometry' when the image is properly processed to reveal the
Front Projection Scotchlite Screen....(...) While watching 2001,with
the scenes of the ape-men, one can begin to see the tell tale
fingerprints that always reveal when the Front Screen Projection system
is being used.
It should be emphasized that the sets that surround the ape-men in
the movie are real. Those are 'real' rocks (whether paper mache or
real) that surround the ape-men. But behind the fabricated rocks on the
set, the desert scene is being projected via the Front Screen Projector.
One of the ways that you can tell the Front Screen system is being
used is that the bottom horizon line between the actual set and the
background Scotchlite screen has to be blocked. Kubrick strategically
located rocks and other things near the bottom of the scene in order to
hide the projection screen. In other words, the camera and the viewers
would see the bottom of the background projection screen if it weren't
blocked in some fashion. As part of the 'trick' it became necessary to
place things in between the screen and the set to hide the bottom of
the screen. .... I have photo-shopped a line differentiating the
and the background Scotchlite Front Projection Screen. Please note how
everything is in focus, from the pebbles on the ground in the set to
the desert mountains beyond.
You will see that hiding the bottom of the Scotchlite screen is
always being done when the Front Screen Projection system is used in
2001: A Space Odyssey. Hiding the screen is one of the fingerprints; it
is evidence of its use. Just like the stage magician who needs the long
sleeves of his costume to hide the mechanism of his tricks, so too
Kubrick needed to hide the mechanism of his trick behind the carefully
placed horizon line between set and screen. ....
And you will see,
before this article is finished, that this same fingerprint, this same
evidence, is clearly seen in all of the NASA Apollo stills and video
It is this fingerprint that reveals, not only that NASA faked the
Apollo missions but also HOW they faked them.
Let's examine a few NASA Apollo images now.
Again I have photo-shopped a line indicating the back of the set.
One can see that there is a slight uprising behind the rover, which is
hiding the bottom of the screen. Also notice that even though
everything is in focus from the lunar rover to the mountains in the
background, there is a strange change in the landscape of the ground
right behind my lines. This is because the photo of the mountains being
used on the Front Projection system has a slightly different ground
texture than the set. As we go on we will see that this fingerprint is
also consistent throughout the Apollo images. ....
Here is another Apollo image.
Now here is my version where I show the line between set and screen.
Again notice that the texture of the ground changes right behind my
let's go to some more Apollo images. We can see that the same thing
occurs here as in the ape-men scenes in 2001. There is always a line
separating the set from the screen.
Even if you do not see it at first it will become
apparent, as one grows more familiar with the Front Screen Projection
process and how it is being used to fake the astronauts standing on the
Go to any NASA site like ( http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html
and start looking for yourself.
all lunar surface shots are using the process. Sometimes the astronauts
are just standing on the set with a completely (and suspicious) black
background. The early missions used the Front Screen Projection system
only when they had to. But as the missions went on and they had to look
better, Kubrick began to perfect the process.
Although you can see
the Front Screen Projection process on every mission, the seriously
revealing images are in the later missions, particularly Apollo 14, 15,
16 and (my favorite) 17. Here are a few from Apollo
astronaut is about six feet in front of the Scotchlite screen. Please
note how everything is in focus from the rocks and pebbles close to the
camera all the way to the crystal clear mountain behind the astronaut.
As we shall see very soon, even that is impossible.
please note the other tell tale evidence that permeates the Apollo
images: There is a stark difference in the ground texture between the
set and what is being projected onto the screen. You can almost count
the number of small rocks and the granularity of the ground is clearly
seen on the set. But once we get to the screen on the other side of my
line this granularity disappears.
This next image is slick little
piece of work. When first viewed one is sure that they are looking
across the vast unbroken lunar surface from beginning to end. With the
Earth rising, it is truly a stunning shot....(...)
Doesn't the fakery just make you all patriotic inside?
5). DEPTH OF FIELD: MORE EVIDENCE
Besides the telltale evidence of the horizon line between set and
screen and the changing granularity of the texture of the ground, there
is another telltale fingerprint that comes with Front Screen
Projection. This has to do with a photographic situation called depth
of field. Depth of field has to do with the plane of focus that the
lens of the camera is tuned to.
The main rule of thumb in photography is that the larger the
format of the film the less depth of field. For instance, 16mm film has
a large depth of field. 35mm has a smaller depth of field and 70 mm
(which Stanley was using in 2001 as were all of the
astronaut-photographers in the Apollo missions) has an incredibly small
depth of field.
What this means is that it is virtually impossible for two objects
that are far apart in the lens of a 70mm camera to be in the same plane
of focus. One of the two objects will always be out-of-focus.
Filmmakers like to use depth of field because it creates soft
out-of-focus backgrounds that are visually very pleasant to the human
While watching the ape-men scenes at the beginning of 2001, one
can see that everything is in focus. Whether it is the apes - or the
far away desert background - they are all in focus. This is because the
Front Projection Screen on which the background desert scenes is
projected is actually not far away from the ape actor. In reality the
Scotchlite screen containing the desert scene is right behind the
actors just as the Scotchlite screen is right behind the astronauts in
the Apollo images. So whatever is projected onto that screen will
usually be in the same plane of focus as the actor-ape or the
This depth of field is impossible in real life using a large
format film like 70 mm. Keeping everything in focus is only possible if
everything is actually confined to a small place.
It may look like the ape-men are somewhere in a huge desert
landscape but in reality they are all on a small set in a studio.
It may look like the astronauts are on a vast lunar landscape but
actually they are on a small confined set.
According to the NASA literature, the Apollo astronauts were using
large format Hassleblad cameras. These cameras were provided with large
rolls of 70 mm film on which they took the images. This large format
film is exactly the same size film that Kubrick was using when shooting
The plane of focus, the depth of field, on these cameras is
incredibly small. This should have been a huge problem for the
astronaut-photographers, who would have to be constantly adjusting the
focus. We therefore should expect to see a lot of out of focus shots
taken by the astronauts. When you consider the fact that, because of
their helmets, they did not even have the ability to see through the
viewfinder of their cameras, this would have only increased the chances
that most of what they would be shooting would be out of focus.
I have gone through the entire photographic record of Apollo
program, both at Goddard in Greenbelt, Maryland in the main
photographic repository at NASA's Houston headquarters.
When the Apollo photographic record is examined, the exact
opposite of what one would expect to find is discovered. Instead of
many out of focus shots, we find that nearly every shot is in pristine
focus. And these amateur photographer-astronauts have an uncanny sense
of composition, especially when one remembers that they are not even
able to look through their camera's viewfinders. Their images have the
unmistakable quality of a highly polished professional photographer.
Before embarking on his film career Stanley Kubrick was a
professional photographer working for Look Magazine.
Honestly, even a professional photographer looking through the
viewer of the camera would be hard pressed to come up with the pristine
imagery and crystal clear focus of the Apollo astronaut amateur
Unfortunately though, for everyone involved, the fact that
everything is in focus in the Apollo record is the old telltale
fingerprint of Front Screen Projection.
Examine the above photographs from Apollo. Please note how
everything is in focus. As one goes through the entire Apollo record
they will discover that the astronaut photographers never seem to have
a problem with depth of field. Even though you could never get
everything to remain in focus over such vast distances here on Earth,
somehow the rules of physics are bypassed when men shoot photographs on
the lunar surface.
Indeed the very physics of lens dynamics and depth of field
apparently disappears when the astronauts shoot photographs. (Just for
the record the cameras were not altered at all by Hasselblad or anyone
As a professional photographer and a filmmaker I have wrestled
with depth of field problems for over 40 years. I am surprised that no
other photographer has noticed the lack of depth of field problems
encountered by the astronaut-photographers. In reality the lack of
depth of field problems is a nail in the coffin of the Apollo program.
6). GLASS CITIES OR FRONT SCREEN PROJECTION?
Former NASA consultant Richard Hoagland has examined many of the
photos of the Apollo landings and, although he has never noticed the
impossible depth of field, he has found other strange anomalies in the
Examining the photographic record of the Apollo missions, and
processing Apollo images through various graphics programs, Hoagland
has discovered 'geometries' in the skies surrounding the astronauts on
the moon. He postulates that these geometries are evidence of some kind
of gigantic glass-like structures behind, above and surrounding the
astronauts as they stand on the lunar surface. Hoagland even shows us
that there are rainbow lights reflecting in the sky high above the
Many people, especially in NASA, have attacked Hoagland for these
interpretations. Yet, no matter how much they attack Hoagland, they can
never explain what it is that he is finding on these Apollo images. In
the same way that evidence in the JFK assassination and the high
weirdness around 911 is never examined and explained by the
anti-conspiracy theorists, so too, is Hoagland's evidence just simply
ignored by the critics.
Instead they have created an ad hominum attack machine that
criticizes Hoagland - the man - while deftly ignoring his intriguing
His critics are either wrong or they know what is really happening.
I have known Richard Hoagland for a long time. I was with him
during his initial discoveries of artifacts on the lunar surface. I
have seen photographic evidence that there are very strange things on
the surface of the moon. I am not here to start an argument with Mr.
Hoagland or anyone else.
I, like Hoagland, believe that NASA has actually gone to the moon.
I believe that moon rocks were taken from the surface of the moon. I
believe that there is strong evidence of some kind of past intelligent
activity on surface of the moon. But I do not believe that standard
rocket technology is what got mankind from the Earth to the surface of
I am not trying to debunk Hoagland's discoveries. All I am trying
to do, with the following evidence, is show that the Apollo landings
were a hoax. And that Stanley Kubrick, using the Front Screen
Projection system, directed them.
Again I want to make sure that I am understood here. I am not
saying that there are not strange structures on the moon. What I am
saying is that the structures and geometries that Richard Hoagland is
seeing in the photographs taken on the lunar surface are not what he
thinks they are.
Here are a few of Hoagland's images. He believes that these images
are proof that NASA is hiding evidence of alien cities....(...)
Hoagland has taken the image on the left and processed it in a manner
very similar to how I processed the above images from 2001: A Space
Odyssey. By increasing the gamma and the contrast of the image he
arrived at the picture on the right. Hoagland interprets the
the right as proof of giant glass structures behind the astronaut and,
for that matter, all over the surface of the moon.
What Hoagland is really seeing, though, is the
imperfections in the background Scotchlite screen that Kubrick used to
create the lunar backgrounds. These imperfections can also be found in
the desert backgrounds in the ape scenes in 2001: A Space Odyssey (see
above). What Hoagland, and the above image reveals,
is the texture
and geometry of the Scotchlite screen.
Because of the vastness of the set, because he needed it to look
like it was NOT DONE ON A SOUNDSTAGE, Kubrick had to sew several
Scotchlite screens together. It was only when he had created a large
enough Scotchlite screen was he then was able to get a large enough
background image that would look expansive enough to appear to be the
surface of the moon or a desert four million years ago.
The same process that created the desert backgrounds in 2001 is
the same process that created the lunar mountains backgrounds for the
Apollo missions. .......
This is picture from Hoagland's research.
The processed image
reveals a rainbow-like reflecting light high above the astronauts in
the sky on the moon. Hoagland theorizes that this is a light reflecting
off of one of the giant glass towers standing right behind the
What this is really is a light reflecting off of one of
the tiny glass beads of the Scotchlite screen. For some reason that
particular glass bead was slightly off from its 90-degree angle and so
it caught the projector light and reflected it back to the camera.
It is pretty clear from the two images above that Hoagland's
'geometries' are really the patterns and flaws and stitches in the
Maybe this is
why NASA suddenly lost all of its lunar images. Maybe this is why NASA
just admitted that they 'accidentally' taped over the original
high-resolution tape of Apollo 11. Maybe this is why Neil Armstrong,
'the first man to walk on the moon', doesn't want to participate in the
40 th anniversary parties.
Maybe this is
why we have never gone back to the moon.
7). INCONSISTANT SHADOWS
Many researchers have pointed out the different angles of light on
the surface of the moon. Because there is only one light source (the
sun) how can there be multiple light angles on the moon such as this?:
How can the astronaut's two shadows not be consistent with each
other? If they were actually standing in the bright light of the sun,
their two shadows should be at the same exact angle. Yet they are not.
Why? Because Kubrick used studio lighting!
But why would Kubrick make a mistake like the inconsistent shadows
in the above image? A great filmmaker like Kubrick must have realized
that this was a huge mistake.
My answer is
that Kubrick did this on purpose.
He left behind telltale evidence for his work. And he did this on
purpose. Not just in the above shot but actually all over the Apollo
In my forthcoming documentary on the NASA Apollo fakery titled
"Kubrick's Odyssey", I will reveal much more photographic evidence than
I possibly can in this short essay.
One thing that I am sure is that some part of Stanley Kubrick
wanted everyone to know what he had done. And that is why he left
behind clues that would explain who did it and how. ...(...)
8). LAST NOTES
Those of you who are familiar with my essay, written in 1999, on
2001: A Space Odyssey called Alchemical Kubrick (see http://www.jayweidner.com/kubrick.htm
already know that I believe that 2001 A Space Odyssey is the greatest
esoteric film of all time.
For the first time anywhere, in that essay, I show how Kubrick
designed the black monolith to be exactly the same size as the screen
on which 2001 was projected. The monolith and the screen are the same
thing. The monolith is the screen and the screen is the monolith. It is
truly one of the greatest discoveries in cinema history.
When one realizes that Kubrick also used the Front Screen
Projection system - not only for the ape scenes in 2001 - but also the
fake the moon landings - we can see a double, or even possibly a triple
meaning, inside the idea that the screen is the monolith and the
monolith is the screen.
If the monolith is that device that
enlightens humanity then the Front Screen Projection system, and it's
unmistakable fingerprints, is the device that enlightens humanity as to
how the Apollo landings were faked....(...)
The President of MGM, at the time in 1968, publicly stated, that
he never even saw a rough cut of 2001: A Space Odyssey during the
entire four years of production. Does that sound like the manner in
which a head of a major studio would act? 2001: A Space Odyssey was one
of the most expensive films ever made at that time. Does it even seem
remotely possible that no one at MGM even cared to see the continuous
progress of the film?
I am sure that 2001: A Space Odyssey is the only film in MGM
history where the executives who funded the movie never scrutinized the
Why weren't they more interested in this very expensive endeavor?
Because MGM did not fund 2001, the US Government did.
Outside of the Front Screen Projection evidence, which I believe
nails the fraud of the Apollo landings; there is other circumstantial
evidence that forces the conclusion even more in the direction of
Kubrick directing the entire Apollo missions.
In the original release of 2001 there were many credits thanking
NASA and many of the aerospace companies that worked with NASA on the
moon landings. These credits have since been removed from all
subsequent releases of 2001. But for those of us old enough to
remember, in the original credits, Kubrick thanks a vast array of
military and space corporations for their help in the production.
Stanley Kubrick died soon after showing Eyes Wide Shut to
the executives at Warner Brothers. It is rumored that they were very
upset concerning that film. They wanted Kubrick to re-edit the film but
he refused. I personally was in France when Stanley died and I saw, on
French television, outtakes from the forthcoming Eyes Wide Shut. I saw
outtakes from several scenes that were never in the finished film.
Warner Brothers has even come out and admitted that they re-edited
the film. To this day they refuse to release a DVD of Stanley Kubrick's
cut. Not only is this a direct violation of the agreement that Kubrick
had with Warner Brothers but also it means that we will probably never
see the un-edited version of this film.
One has to wonder what was cut out?
Eyes Wide Shut was released on July 16 th 1999.
Stanley Kubrick insisted in his contract that this be the date of
July 16 th 1999 is exactly 30 years to the day that Apollo 11 was
Happy Fortieth Anniversary Stanley. Now you can rest in peace.