Skip to content

It’s about creativity

October 11, 2011

Kenapa kita harus kreatif?

Zaman sekarang semua orang sudah harus dapat berfikir “out of the box”. Karena setiap manusia memiliki ketertarikan akan keanehan – keanehan yang dapat mengusik dirinya. Jika kita berfikiran terlalu tradisional terlalu kaku, orang akan memandang biasa saja, dan terutama dalam hal berbisnis orang yang paling kreatif lah yang akan sering dilihat orang karena suatu perbedaan dalam dunia yang “mainstream” akan terlihat lebih mencolok dan menarik perhatian.

Setiap orang memiliki porsi dan jenis kreatifitas yang berbeda – beda. Namun tidak dari semua orang mengolah dan mengembangkan potensi kreatifitas yang ada. Dalam berkehidupan sehari – hari kita sering dihadapkan pada peristiwa dimana kita harus berfikir keluar dari jalur yang ada untuk dapat memecahkan suatu masalah. Untuk itu kita harus dapat berfikir dan bertingkah kreatif.

Orang yang Paling kreatif 

Menurut saya orang yang paling kreatif adalah sutradara stanley kubrik. Karena imajinasinya sangat luas dan ia dapat merealisasinya seolah – olah memang seperti yang terjadi. Contohnya seperti pada artikel berikut :

How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Apollo Moon Landings

“There are great ideas, undiscovered breakthroughs available, to those who can remove one of truth’s protective layers.”Neil Armstrong, “First Man on the Moon”

July 20th, 1994

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 issue. This third 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.

1. Motivations for Faking

But why fake the moon landings at all? What would be the motivation? 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.

Furthermore, they believe that the idea that aliens from outer space are invading the Earth is a clever cover story concocted by NASA to hide this technology.

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 1960s. 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 series of moon landings in order to conceal the United States’ extremely new and advanced Nazi technology both from us, the citizens, and our enemies. 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?

2. Who Will Fake It?

In early 1964 Stanley Kubrick had just finished his black satire Dr. Strangelove and was looking to do a science fiction film. 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 unlimited budget?

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 be 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.

3. Parelleling Events

It is uncanny the way that the production of 2001: A Space Odysseyparallels 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. Also, it is very interesting to note that scientist Frederick Ordway was working both for NASA and the Apollo program and was also Kubrick’s top science advisor for2001: A Space Odyssey.

Once he negotiated the deal, Stanley, got to work. The most pressing problem for Kubrick in 1964 was to figure out a way to make the shots on the ground, on the surface of the moon, look realistic. He had to make the scenes look wide-open and expansive, like it was really done on the moon and not in a studio back lot.

4. Hollywood Trickery

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 material.

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 .4 millimeters 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 1960s, 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 Apollo landings.

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 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 occasionally see the “seams” of the screen behind the gyrating apes. Kubrick was doing Front Screen Projection in 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.

In this still taken from an early scene in 2001, you can see the seams in the blue sky if you look closely:

Next is the same image as above, only I have processed it through a graphic program. In this processing I have increased the gamma and increased the contrast.

Please examine:

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.

Let’s show another example. Here is a still from the famous “water hole” scene from 2001:

This next image is again the same image as above but with the gamma and contrast increased:

While watching 2001, with the scenes of the ape-men one can begin to see the telltale 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 papier-mâché 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 Photoshopped a line differentiating the set 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 taking place 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.

Here is another example from 2001: A Space Odyssey:

And here is the same image with my Photoshop line separating the set with the ape-man actor and the Scotchlite Front Projection 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 footage.

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.

This is a still from Apollo 17. This is also a great example of the Front Screen Projection process:

Again, I have Photoshopped 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 lines.

Now 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 lunar surface. Go to any NASA site (likethis one, for example) and start looking for yourself.

Not 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 17:

That astronaut is driving the lunar rover parallel to the screen and the rover is only three or four feet away from the Scotchlite. Please note how the tire treads just lead to nowhere. Actually, they are going to the edge of the set.

The 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.

Also please note the other telltale 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 a 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.

But sure enough – a close examination reveals the set/screen line once again. Again, please note the change in the texture of the ground immediately on each side of the line. The little pebbles and dust seem to disappear behind the line.

Doesn’t the fakery just make you all patriotic inside?

5. Depth of Field: More Evidence

Besides the 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 eye.

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 are 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 actor-astronaut.

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 2001.

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 and 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 photographers. 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 else). 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 any such 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 NASA material.

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 astronauts.

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 9-11 is never examined and explained by the anti-conspiracy theorists, so too is Hoagland’s evidence just simply ignored by his critics. Instead they have created an ad hominum attack machine that criticizes Hoagland, the man, while deftly ignoring his intriguing evidence.

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 the Moon.

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.

This is a processed photograph of astronaut Ed Mitchell on the surface of the moon taken during the Apollo 14 mission. Of course all of the stuff in the sky, as seen in this processed Apollo image from Hoagland, is impossible if it was taken on the lunar surface. There is no atmosphere on the moon. Therefore there can be nothing in the sky. Yet when Hoagland processed much of the Apollo lunar surface imagery he discovered, over and over again, all of this ‘crud’ in the sky above the astronauts.

No one in NASA even attempts to answer Hoagland, or anyone else, about the strange stuff that he, and others, is finding in the skies above the astronauts.

Richard Hoagland theorizes that this is photographic evidence of huge, abandoned “glass cities” on the surface of the moon. He says that what we are seeing in the above processed image are huge glass towers that only show up on the images after they have been processed through graphics software.

Here are some more of Hoagland’s images:

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 image on 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 process that created the desert backgrounds in 2001 is the same process that created the lunar mountains backgrounds for the Apollo missions.

This is another 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 astronaut.

What this actually is, 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.

Again, a scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey (processed):

And one of Hoagland’s processed Apollo shots:

It is pretty clear from the two images above that Hoagland’s “geometries” are really the patterns and flaws and stitches in the Scotchlite screen.

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 40th anniversary parties.

Maybe this is why we have never gone back to the moon.

7. Inconsistent 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 astronauts’ 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 photographic record. 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 of 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” already know that I believe that 2001 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 its unmistakable fingerprints, is the device that enlightens humanity as to how the Apollo landings were faked.

But also we can see that Kubrick used the faking of the Apollo moon missions as an opportunity to make one great film. Because he had negotiated a deal where no one would be given oversight on the film, Kubrick was allowed to make whatever movie he desired. Knowing that no one would object to his anti-Hollywood methods, he created the first abstract feature film, the first intellectual movie and the greatest esoteric work of art in the 20th century.

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?

No way.

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 film.

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 entirety of the Apollo missions.

For instance:

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.

As these are the same corporations that supposedly helped NASA get the astronauts to the moon – one has to wonder – what kind of help did they gave Stanley? And for what price?

In the film Wag the Dog, Dustin Hoffman plays a movie producer hired by the CIA to “fake an event.” His name in the movie is Stanley. In that movie “Stanley” mysteriously dies after telling everyone that he wants to take credit for the “event” that he helped fake.

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 it also means that we will probably never see the un-edited version of this film.

One has to wonder what was cut out?

And finally:

Eyes Wide Shut was released on July 16th, 1999.

Stanley Kubrick insisted in his contract that this be the date of the release.

July 16th, 1999 is exactly 30 years to the day that Apollo 11 was launched.

Perusahaan Yang Paling Kreatif

Menurut saya perusahaan yang paling kreatif dan innovatif adalah 3M.

Innovating Like 3M With Lead User Research

by Matt Krautstrunk on March 1, 2011 · 0 comments

Lead User Research is a new way businesses are driving innovation, by identifying new trends before they happen. Lead User Research (LUR) is different,traditional market researchcollects information from the core target markets, where Lead User Research seeks out the early, early adopters. Once the company finds these individuals, they will then work with the lead users to solve a problem within an industry.

Lead users are no different than most people; in fact we are all lead users in some niche industry. These individuals are unique because they experience the same needs as your core target market but they experience them substantially before the general public.

How Can You Use LUR?

Lead User Research doesn’t assist incremental innovation; it is a facilitator for cutting edge, drastic innovation. LUR is great for mature businesses looking to regain competitive advantages within an industry, according to Creating Breakthroughs at 3M, by Eric Von Hippel, “to counter this trend, management set a bold objective: 30% of sales would come from products that had not existed four years earlier. For the company to meet that goal, many people at 3M- senior managers, marketers, product developers, scientists- would have to change their approach to their work.” If your company innovates incrementally, and has an “its better to seek forgiveness than ask for permission” stance on employee innovation, you are inefficiently innovating.

Phase 1. Laying the Foundation

Identify the type of markets your business wants to target, and create a team to facilitate the lead user process.

Phase 2. Determine Any Trends

Your companies lead user team will seek out experts in your desired market. You then will determine any trends or problems within the industry that need to be addressed.

Phase 3. Identifying Lead Users

One of the most unique advantages of lead user research is the insight you will get from different people. Selecting experts with a wide array of talents and skills in different industries may be challenging. For instance, 3M manufactured surgical drapes; they employed a theater makeup artist to give insight on how cloth fits the body, a veterinarian, and a handful of industry leading surgeons. In this stage you will begin to design preliminary product designs.

Phase 4. Developing the Breakthrough

Bringing together your lead users, lead user teams, and internal marketing department teams, the “aha!” moment should come in this stage. You will have pages and pages of notes from your lead users; and the problem in this stage is not finding what can be improved, it is deciding on the best innovation out of the bunch. Once you have decided the products you will innovate, push forward with all departments, keeping lead users on call for additional input.


From → Uncategorized

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: