Is Stanley Kubrick Lying?
In the world of Stanley Kubrick, there are claims that he filmed the moon landings. The fake moon landings that is. This has been suggested for many years, however, recently an ‘interview’ has been released that allegedly records ‘Stanley’ stating that he did this. Is Stanley telling the truth?
MOON LANDINGS ‘FAKE’: Shock video shows ‘Stanley Kubrick’ admit historic event was ‘HOAX’
To play devil’s advocate, I am going to write this article in this way: I imagine the Government will say he was fond of the alcohol and this has impeded his view of things. That could be true. Or perhaps he turned to drink because of guilt?
Right, let us run through the possibilities here:
- Stanley lied. He wanted to go out on a high note and what better than the moon landings?
- Why wouldn’t he admit this much sooner?
- Stanley Kubrick died shortly after this alleged interview took place.
- He had nothing to lose.
- The interview was not released until 15 years after Stanley Kubrick died.
- His wife confirmed these allegations nearly 10 years ago.
Now let us look at the answers to those possibilities:
- He didn’t need to ‘go out on a high note’. He directed 13 movies and 3 documentaries. He won 9 awards.
- He wouldn’t admit this sooner, because this is/was the most controversial story out there and people involved with the Government do tend to people die mysteriously.
- He also had nothing to gain, except to clear his conscience.
- To protect his family, he wanted to ensure this interview was released long after his death.
I can believe this is true but then nothing surprises me anymore. Why couldn’t it be true? As we all know, the Illuminati tend to reward those people who do ‘favors’ for them on occasion. Filming the moon landings guaranteed Kubrick’s success. I know some of you will say that he probably would have been just as successful if he had said no, but we know that is not true. If the Illuminati or New World Order don’t want you to succeed, then you wont. Look at how many people have crossed those guys and paid with their life. He didn’t really have anything to gain, but perhaps there was another reason? Is it possible that the Illuminati actually wanted this story out there, after all these years? They came out with the truth about Area 51, CERN and HAARP eventually, so why not this? The greatest conspiracy known to man. Yes I can believe this is true.
Of course, Stanley Kubrick died not long after this interview was allegedly made. Stanley was 70 when he died of a heart attack and passed away peacefully in his sleep.
Watch the interview and decide if you believe or not:
Of course there are those out there who are saying he produced a film in which he lied about making those films.
Now we all know that Snopes is just a woman who Googles too much and we know Google is controlled by the Government, yet we also know that still far too many people pay attention to Snopes, but the interviewer did call Stanley ‘Tom’. Several times. Perhaps that was just a mistake. I am forever getting peoples names wrong. For 4 months I called my friend Brandon – Damien. Not even close. Snopes did take a part of the interview out of context and once you get further down this article, you will understand why I say this. You have to remember, the interviewer is a film maker, not a journalist. Why is ‘Stanley Kubrick’ being interviewed by a film-maker? Notice how Snopes didn’t actually say where she got the ‘unedited’ version of the interview? Why are there two versions of this ‘interview’? The red hued one, which is apparently over 20 minutes and this plain one of only 14? Never mind, let’s see if a more ‘reputable’ outlet has proven that ‘Stanley’ lied or spoke the truth.
As we know, Mainstream media is influenced by their Governments, so I would expect to see every single one debunking this story, wouldn’t you?
And that is it. Not one agency has reported the interview or even debunked the interview. Curious. You would have thought something this big would at least warrant a mention. The Express online did post this story, but it was just a link to another site, that is not mainstream by any standards.
Did this film-maker set this up? For what reason, to ‘get famous’? How is that working out do you think?
The Flat Earth Society have produced a very long YouTube video proving this film is a lie, but then they would, wouldn’t they? Don’t they have a motive for debunking this? IF the ‘Stanley Kubrick’ interview is true, then the whole ‘The Earth is Flat and here are the pictures to prove it’ are blown out of the water. Also, I am not clear about what the Flat Earth Society are debunking? That Stanley filmed the fake moon landings or that this is not Stanley Kubrick being interviewed?
The interview with Stanley Kubrick accepting his lifetime achievement award, is very clearly Stanley, however it is also clear that he is reading from auto-cue. The guy in the interview isn’t. The guy in the interview is relaxed probably due to the copious amounts of alcohol seen to be consumed. It is said that:
‘A heavy chain smoker in his youth, he mostly quit smoking in the 1970s (his forties), but would still smoke occasionally under the pressure of his shoots. On the other hand, he was said to rarely ever drink alcohol.’
There is something else here that you should know:
Dark Side Of The Moon was broadcast on Canadian TV series “The Passionate Eye” in 2005. It was written and directed by William Karel.
CBC television describes the film thusly:
How could the flag flutter when there’s no wind on the moon? During an interview with Stanley Kubrick’s widow an extraordinary story came to light. She claims Kubrick and other Hollywood producers were recruited to help the U.S. win the high stakes race to the moon. In order to finance the space program through public funds, the U.S. government needed huge popular support, and that meant they couldn’t afford any expensive public relations failures. Fearing that no live pictures could be transmitted from the first moon landing, President Nixon enlisted the creative efforts of Kubrick, whose 2001: a Space Odyssey (1968) had provided much inspiration, to ensure promotional opportunities wouldn’t be missed. In return, Kubrick got a special NASA lens to help him shoot Barry Lyndon (1975).
Now this was in 2005, which falls far short of the 15 year NDA that ‘Stanley’ is alleged to have had Tim sign, but then again this was Stanley’s wife.
My Husband Directed The Fake Moon Landing Says Stanley Kubrick’s Widow.
I am not sure I heard anything from the Flat Earth people back then. Seems to me, that if they really thought this interview was all BS, they would have also slated the great Mrs. Kubrick too, but no. So is the interview fake in itself? For arguments sake, let’s say it is. Why? What would be the point? Why would the film-maker use Stanley Kubrick’s name, rather than any one of the ‘other producers that were alleged to be involved in that production? Is it because Stanley’s name is the only one out there? Is he just another conspiracy theorist? Is he preparing to star in a film he has written, directed, produced and cinematographed (That’s a new word right there, and it’s mine) himself all about Stanley Kubrick and Richard Nixon/NASA/Moon Landings?
Actually, the answer to all these questions is yes. Murray’s Facebook page has all the answers. What a shame groups like The Flat Earth Society didn’t look there before spending two HOURS debunking this ‘interview’:
So that is it. The whole reason why this guy doesn’t look like Stanley Kubrick is because it is NOT Stanley. His name is Tom and he is an actor. That certainly explains why Tim was constantly calling ‘Stanley’ Tom, wouldn’t it Snopes? Of course, this is exactly why you shouldn’t rely solely on Google for the answers, but cat-lady probably didn’t have time to access Facebook.
The ‘interview’ is simply part of a movie about a story that is already well known. ‘He is clearly being coached’. Yes and isn’t that what directors do? Direct actors? I admit that the first time I watched the ‘interview’ I was intrigued. Mostly because I am one of those who do believe the moon landings were faked but also because watching it, I realized I didn’t know what Stanley Kubrick actually looked like, and that was how this article started. In my last article I suggested that those people who went off on a story, like a bullet out of a gun would be better advised to do a little research.
This also explains why mainstream media haven’t touched this story, except the odd (and I do mean odd) one or two. Way to go The Express. Nice work Inquisitor.
Phew, so glad nobody over-reacted to that. What about T Patrick Murray? Is he any good? If he is, this could be a really great movie. If not, well….
From 86-2011 he ‘acted in films’, but doesn’t say which films. Until 2006, he seemed to be a bit of a jack of all trades. From 96-2014 he directed 4 films. He was a writer on 3 of those films. He also produced and edited those 3 and was cinematographer for two of them. So to break it down, of the 4 films that he directed, wrote, produced edited and was cinematographer on 2. Those two (The Graduation Party 2012 and The Last Game 2002) look like they were both failures. Of the two remaining, he directed, wrote, produced and edited one (Sex, Lies and Videotape in 2014). That one was a huge success, except for one tiny detail: T Patrick Murray is not credited or even mentioned anywhere. I Googled it and nothing. The movie itself was released in 1989 and allegedly Murray was responsible for the documentary, which shows up in exactly no place. Okay so the last of the four films (Rentaissance 1996) was produced, written and directed by Murray. This film apparently only had two actors in it and one of them was Murray himself. So, another of life’s great failures.
So whilst I cannot say for sure that the interview with ‘Stanley’ is actually genuine or genuinely fake, I can say I wouldn’t trust this Murray guy as far as I could throw him. There is no indication of how a two bit nobody like Murray could possibly know Kubrick. There is nothing on Murray’s LinkedIn profile to suggest he works or did work for any media outlet, there is nothing on Snopes OR Google that links Murray and Kubrick in anyway what so ever, but perhaps that is the key factor. He can’t be accused of defending or supporting a friend, or being biased, if he is not actually friends, can he?
But if the question is: Did Stanley Kubrick fake the moon landings film footage? Then I would say hell yes!
Why is this coming out now? Could it be that Stanley Kubrick did actually give T Patrick Murray an interview and insist he sign a NDA that states he wont release the information for 15 years after Kubrick died? Are people more outraged at the supposed blatant fabrication of a genuine story, by that I mean watching this interview and taking it as read that this is Stanley Kubrick or just that this damn conspiracy is still doing the rounds? How is this still a thing?
Still that leaves us no closer to the truth. I guess the only way to bring this to a head, is for the Government to openly say if the moon landings were faked and even then, will it make any difference?
What do you think?
Drop us a line at:
Or leave us a message in the comments below.