The Hoax that is the T. Patrick Murray “Shooting Kubrick” Mockumentary

by Scott Creighton

This is Stanley Kubrick.

The actor in the videos are certainly not Stanley Kubrick.

.

.

Someone left me a link to this newly released gimmick mockumentary by failed director T. Patrick Murray which purports to be an interview with Stanley Kubrick right before he died where the great director supposedly explains, yes, he did indeed fake the moon landings for the first three Apollo missions.

The “film” is a series of Youtube videos on a free, hacked together Wix website, Shooting Kubrick. On that website, this appears:

kubrick death

Right below that, this appears:

That means the unknown filmmaker secured the interview with the reclusive Kubrick 2 months after he died.

That might explain why he used an actor playing the role of Stanley Kubrick.

T. Patrick Murray has a Youtube channel with all of 453 subscribers. He posted an idea, a pitch, for a film back in 2012 about the mortgage crisis during which he claims he beat the biggest bank in the world and will produce a documentary showing people how to do it. I don’t know if he ever made the opportunistic film. The “pitch” consists of him in some park walking around and around in circles saying he used to pay $5,000 a month for his “million dollar home” but now he pays nothing.

Another video on his Youtube page is called “Conspiracy Comedy”.

This fake interview, for so many reasons, seems more like a desperate cry for help from T. Patrick Murray than anything else. I’m sure he’s just trying to make fun of conspiracy theorists again.

“Conspiracy Comedy” is a 28 minute long effort by Mr. Murray indulging himself in the fantasy that he is an actor and he seems to be playing the role of the drugged-out, whacked out, tin-foil hat wearing “conspiracy theorist” from Above Top Secret and Godlike Productions, both of which he mentions. That video is below.

The Kubrick Youtube videos are another effort of his to entertain the fantasy that he is an actor because his interaction with the guy playing Kubrick is probably more time consuming during the video than Kubric’s story. Stanley would be a supporting actor in this as Murray is constantly interrupting him and interjecting his own commentary on what “Stanley” is saying. He talks over him, refers to 2001 as “the space movie” and generally tells one of the greatest directors of all time to shut up and talk about what HE wants him to talk about.

That is, when he’s not going on and on about why Stanley chose him to film this “historic” interview.

They don’t even get the conspiracy theory itself right.

A painted image of four space-suited astronauts standing next to a piece of equipment atop a Lunar hill, in the distance is a Lunar base and a ball-shaped spacecraft descending toward it—with the earth hanging in a black sky in the background. Above the image appears "An epic drama of adventure and exploration" in blue block letters against a white background. Below the image in a black band, the title "2001: a space odyssey" appears in yellow block letters.

NASA was supposed to have contacted Kubrick in ’68 when he was in post production for 2001. He had hired a couple NASA guys to help with the film, Frederick Ordway and Harry Lange,  and supposedly they reported back on the groundbreaking work Kubrick was doing.

According to this Kubrick mockumentary, Kubrick was approached by NASA to fake the moon landings back in 1964 right after he finished Dr. Strangelove.

There are a couple of things over the history of Kubrick’s career that seem to suggest he was hinting at having filmed the fake moon landings. One of which was pretty obvious:

Plus, in the Steven King book “The Shining”, the room no one is ever supposed to go into is room 217 but Stanley changed that to room 237. Back then, 237,000 miles was thought to be the average distance from the earth to the moon (now known to be more like 238,000 miles). That was supposed to represent the dark secret he couldn’t tell anyone, not even his wife (Jack is also supposed to represent Kubrick as the dark secret eventually drives him crazy)

In the unedited version of the fake Kubrick interview (below) Murray tells “Kubrick” how to tell the story of being asked by Nixon (?) to make the moon landing film. He says “Gus just died and we need to do something… just give it details, OK?” and the guy playing Kubrick nods and says “OK” and begins the scene.

Murray goes on and on giving the actor playing Kubrick a reading, acting out the dialog of the Nixon meeting, even doing Nixon’s voice. But he’s telling the actor the story, not listening to Kubrick.

At the 11:15 mark in the video below, during that reading he’s giving the actor, it sounds like he calls him “Mr. Shoff”

He says “Mr. Shoff (?) … the first person I saw was Pat and she was high… or was it Betty Ford?”

At the 14:10 mark in the video, Murray and “Mr. Shoff” are struggling back and forth. Murray won’t let his actor find his own rhythm and keeps berating him to the point where they start yelling at each other. Murray forcefully says “Tom, I’m just giving you direction”

So we can assume the actor’s name is Tom Shoff?

Either way you look at it, if you only see one of the many short videos of the Kubrick character talking about the faked moon landings like the one I posted above, you might by persuaded to believe the bullshit of this interview.

However, if you watch the longer version below, you see what it is: a mockumentary.

Another dead giveaway is the fact that high definition video cameras like the one he shot the footage on, did not exist in 1999. May or March.

The full video is below along with Murray’s “Conspiracy Comedy”.

This is just an example of a failed director trying his best to concoct something that makes him seem relevant to someone while trying to get himself a job somewhere.

But his editing is for shit, his directing skills are sorely lacking and his acting is horrible. Aside from that, he didn’t do his research.

I guess there is a reason that Stanley Kubrick was Stanley Kubrick and T. Patrick Murray is T. Patrick Murray.

You can’t fake talent, can you Pat?

Conspiracy Comedy by T. Patrick Murray

full unedited version of the mockumentary interview with “Stanley Kubrick”

45 Responses

  1. There has to be a legal remedy the estate of SK can take. This fraud is clearly aimed at besmirching the legacy of this deceased person. If Kubrick was still alive he certainly could sue.

  2. Thanks for sounding the warning bell about this guy.

  3. I think it’s perfectly reasonable that Kubrick would eschew giving interviews his whole life… then pick this guy to entrust with his deepest, darkest secret. Also “Kubrick” does seem as if he’s unburdening his soul before the big sleep. His humility and remorse are papable.

    So, who DID fake the moon landings? Nobody went to any moon in the 60s.

    • Except that, in the raw footage, he is obviously coaching the guy on exactly how to say the script. He even calls the actor by his real name,Tom in a couple of places. Also the posted date of the interview took place after Kubrick was dead.

      Why T. Patrick Murray tried such a transparent hoax is hard to explain. He had to know the tape and his reputation would be thoroughly discredited as a result. It all seems so adolescent to me.

      And as far as nobody went to any moon, you’ll have to peddle your story to softer heads than mine.

      • Except that I was (clearly?) being sarcastic, except for the last bit.

        Why would I have to peddle anything to you? I’m guessing you have been shown ZERO firsthand evidence that anyone went (beyond some very dodgy videos). If I’m wrong about that, please feel free to share that evidence with me.

        Meanwhile, your head seems to be plenty soft.

        • By first hand evidence I suppose you mean, was I on board Apollo Eleven on their voyage? Well you sure got me there! I guess, according to you, I have to grant you your premise.
          Remember, cranial softness is relative.

          • Great cop out. When backed into a corner just jump to stupidity to avoid any intellectual reply.
            It is, because i was told it is, isn’t a defense of proof.

            • Sorry I misinterpreted Eggman’s unspecified definition of “first hand evidence”. I obviously have no idea of what he meant by first hand evidence. After you have discounted the testimony of the real first-handers, the astronauts themselves and after you have dismissed all the second-handers, the scientists, journalists, mission control specialists, engineers, astronomers, objective skeptical investigators, historians, and little old me — how is there anyone left to stand up to the overwhelming evidence you and The Eggman have (NOT) presented? We are obviously no match for your extraordinary powers of deduction. (sarcasm intended)

              • It’s not incumbent upon me to present evidence. I can’t be expected to prove a negative. YOU wrote: “And as far as nobody went to any moon, you’ll have to peddle your story to softer heads than mine.”

                I’m asking why that’s the case? What evidence has been presented to you that has convinced you that people went to the moon? Don’t worry about what “-hand” it may be. Let me worry about that. You just list the three most important pieces of evidence that YOU have been made privy to that weren’t reported to you by the media. Please bear in mind that if it was a hoax, EVERYTHING you know about it, and EVERYONE who claims he was associated with it, is bogus.

                I’m going to be very surprised if you can present ANYTHING that you didn’t find out about via the MSM.

                “I saw it on TV” isn’t enough to merit your getting uppity with me regarding “peddling” and “softer heads”.

                I just saw Star Wars on TV. Apparently, the Death Star blew up Alderon. Did that really happen? How can we know which of the space events we’ve seen on TV really happened? Should we rely on the MSM to tell us?

                • 911 should be enough to show you that BILLIONS of people can be involved in pushing a scam, whether consciously or simply as smart-mouthed dupes. The latter are the ones who take the former’s word for it, then go around trying to bully other people into believing also… using their smart mouths.

                  I say it’s time to go back and examine EVERYTHING you’ve been told. If you have ZERO evidence for the veracity of something, it would be wise to stop accepting it as fact until you do.

                  Don’t worry, when you wake up tomorrow, having decided today not to accept the “moon landings” as fact won’t materially change your world. However, it will make you less likely to accept a fairy story in future.

                  Some of the things I don’t accept as fact…

                  The moon landings.
                  Evolution.
                  That things fall down due to a force called gravity. (I only know that they fall down).
                  The reported population of China (or anywhere else, for that matter).
                  That Mars exists.
                  That you are a human being and not a computer program.

                  I like to experience my facts with my senses. Everything else is hearsay, some of it more wild than the other bits.

                  Having reviewed the facts I have experienced, I’m satisfied nobody went to the moon.

              • I did not post this article to reopen the debate about the moon landing being faked or not. I did it to expose a scam artist. You ask why he did it… again, I can only guess… but my assumption is he wanted to revive his obviously flailing directing career and at the same time, up his credentials in telling “the right stories”. Maybe he sees a Zero Dark Thirty in his future?

                About the landing themselves… I seriously doubt they happened. Russia is now engaged in a program to put people on the moon. They intend to send up a drone by 2025 and put “boots on the ground” as they say in 2029.

                You mean to tell me we got motivated back in ’64 and put people on the moon regularly in 5 years, with 1960s tech, and now, 50 years later, it will take the Russians an estimated 14 years to do the same thing?

                It’s not just the Russians either. A couple years ago a woman was commissioned right here in the States to come up with a plan to put us “back” on the moon. Her estimate was about the same if I recall.

                Point is, there was damn good reason to fake the landings back then. And without rehashing every bit of evidence, there is a lot of it suggesting we did just that. Do you not find it a strange coincidence that these moon landings took place at just the same time the country was tearing itself apart over civil rights, Vietnam and everything else?

                Lastly, as much as our “national interests” seem fixated on mining every fucking piece of property on the planet, and as motivated as they are to use our military might to give them the business edge in the world, does it not seem odd that Haliburton doesn’t have a fleet of rigs on the moon’s surface mining for whatever they can dig up? If we used to go back and forth like the husband of a pregnant wife goes back and forth to get ice cream, why the hell hasn’t Big Business made NASA go back up there so they can claim the mineral rights to that big floating payday up there?

                I don’t want to argue about the moon landings. But my head isn’t “soft” thank you. There is very good reason to be highly suspicious of the technology and the “evidence” of the moon landings and that’s just all there is too it.

                • “The Constellation Program (abbreviated CxP) was a human spaceflight program developed by NASA, the space agency of the United States, from 2005 to 2009. The major goals of the program were “completion of the International Space Station” and a “return to the Moon no later than 2020″ with a manned flight to the planet Mars as the ultimate goal.”

                  So, a NASA-estimated 11 to 15 years. Any rational person would have to ask why.

                  “Subsequent to the findings of the Augustine Committee in 2009 that the Constellation Program could not be executed without substantial increases in funding, on February 1, 2010, President Barack Obama announced a proposal to cancel the program, effective with the passage of the U.S. 2011 fiscal year budget…”
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program

                  Apparently, the first time cost about $17,000.

                  But soft, what’s this new crap…

                  “Traveling to the Moon just got a whole lot cheaper. A NASA-funded study (PDF) has found that the cost of lunar missions could be reduced by a factor of 10 using a number of techniques – and it could also have implications for getting humans to Mars… In five to seven years, the study says the U.S. could return astronauts to the Moon for $10 billion (£6.4 billion) – less than $2 billion (£1.3 billion) a year. In 10 to 12 years, it says that a four-person industrial base on the Moon could be operational, costing $40 billion (£26 billion), less than $4 billion (£2.6 billion) a year.

                  Both of these proposals could be covered by NASA’s existing deep space human spaceflight budget, which stands at about $4 billion a year.”

                  Yippee! So, we’re, erm, “going back”, right?

                  “At the moment, NASA does not have plans to return to the Moon. It is using its Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) – sending humans to an asteroid – as a cheaper stepping stone to Mars.”
                  http://www.iflscience.com/space/returning-moon-ten-times-cheaper-thought-and-could-lead-mars

                  But they COULD go back if they wanted to. They just don’t want to. Why?

                  “In 2010, President Barack Obama cut funds for a NASA mission that would have put humans back on the moon by 2020. “I understand that some believe that we should attempt a return to the surface of the Moon first, as previously planned. But I just have to say pretty bluntly here: We’ve been there before,” Obama said.”
                  http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-we-go-back-to-the-moon

                  Been there before. Never a problem whenever Hawaii is suggested.

                • Response lost in the post (two attempts at same post).

  4. Base on a real conspiracy theory.

    Just having a laugh. Haha.

  5. Finally. I think it is possible to match expert to expert, witness to witness your story that the Apollo Eleven was a hoax to my contention that we did go to the moon. Simply disqualifying everyone and every fact that disputes your theory is no proof.

    Continue this debate among yourselves if you wish. I really don’t have time for this foolishness.

    Thanks Willy Loman for being among the first to spot the fraud that was the Stanley Kubrick interview. T. Patrick Murray will never work in this town again.

    • I’m glad you voiced your opinion. As you can see from the article, I didn’t argue the moon landing at all, I just pointed out the fraud this man committed. I don’t like debating the moon landing. It’s a messy debate and frankly, there is way too much stuff going on right now to cover so talking about what did or did not happen 44 years ago is kind of silly to me. Believe it. Don’t believe it. Doesn’t matter in the context of what is happening today. One day soon enough we will know when someone gets up there and either finds the stuff we supposedly left behind… or they don’t. But I am glad you felt comfortable enough to discuss it on the site.

    • This is not the place to have a debate on moon landings. However, we could (though I won’t – you can have the last word if you want) still have a general debate on who the onus is on to produce evidence for such things. I say it is on the person who claims that the official (government, relevant body, MSM) narrative is true. I don’t expect that person, however, to read me that narrative and call it evidence. Well, I do, actually. What else do they have to offer?

      It’s my belief that they could have told us they went to Mars and the exact same number of people would have swallowed it. I think Orson Welles would have agreed with me. People are basically scared stupid, and their heads loop-the-loop when watching trapeze acts.

  6. Stanley Kubrick understand that Apollo and Gemini missions were Kamikadze missions. American astraunauts were on the moon, but never return back on Erth. Those NASA programs were drawned in blood. This is the main subject in “The Shining” Stanley Kubrick coded it, but nobody can decode it.

    • Yes, I believe some courageous americans landed on Moon, put lazers tools, took photos, samples so on, but they died there. Van Allen Belt radiation is too strong for humans and in 1969 there was no technology to overcome it. Neil Armstrong and Buz Aldrige collect the glory on Earth. Gemini program was drawned in blood as well. That’s the symbolic value for two twins girls in “The Shining”. Overlook hotel is the symbol for the mission. Jack and his family – the Apollo 11 astronauts, room 237 – the moon, the young lady – the dream, the old ugly lady- the truth they faced called dead.
      Kubrick is genious! He made films like the Shining and Eyes wide shut to code the truth for everyone who could understand it.

      • are you and Mari Gold related in some way? Just curious. It’s a mighty odd theory you have there.

        • Yes, we are connected- we are the 2 faces of the same person arguing with eachother.
          Unfortunatelly my “theory” can be actually true.
          NASA and american establishment often do horrible things: Building 7, sifilis contamination on africans. Russians are the same.
          Please, if you are interested, watch the movie “The Shining” again.
          Stanley Kubrick was a Real Master of symbolic language. Real Genius!
          1. Overlook hotel is named Overlook because it symbolizes the space mission Apollo 11.
          2. Twin girls drawned in blood – symbolises Gemini misssion drawned in blood
          3. Apollo II sweater and the boy raising up – Apollo 11 has been launched.
          4. Beautiful lady in room 237 – the dream and hope of the Capitan, the old ugly lady – the death they faced on room 237 Moon
          5. You will find by yourself what is the meaning of the photo in the end and the year 1921.
          6. Irae Dei – the music in the begining is hymn for the dead.
          This is the beauty of the art, espesially film art! It decodes symbols and everyone could find the true meaning if watch carefully.
          Enjoy the Shining!

          • thanks for admitting it and please do not do that again, thank you.

            • OK. I promess. But what is your opinion on my suggestion? Is it possible that Stanley Kubrick REALLY said the truth in “The Shining” – that the missions Apollo and Gemini were MURDER (REDRUM) – one way tickets to the moon and no return?
              Could you see the movie again and answer this question according to your own perceptions?
              Thaks in advance.
              Mari

              • Ha! At first, I read that as “OK, I promises…” Not very confidence-inspiring that you won’t pull a schizo act again in the future, is it precious?

                “Jack and his family – the Apollo 11 astronauts, room 237 – the moon, the young lady – the dream, the old ugly lady- the truth they faced called dead.”

                Jack’s family didn’t die, though. So, there’s that.

  7. There is a certain psychology that prevents most seasoned conspiracy watchers from being invested in any one conspiracy theory (or conspiracy fact) above and beyond any doubt, since anyone who has been around for a while has seen clearly that the conspiracy circles are heavily contaminated, infiltrated and outright managed by people or institutions whose main objectives are to mislead, misinform, misdirect, confuse, discredit and cover up. Many theories and fake evidences has been released into the conspira-sphere to this end, and I consider this aspect of the equation one of (if not the) main weapon used against any kind of effort to expose truth.

    An exaggerated example would be the Dr. Judy Wood DEW theory… Or any theory propagated by Prof. Fetzer. Naturally, the academic titles in front of these names give them an added “credibility”. Their so called theories are so outrageous, and so lacking in sound science, that these few characters manage to discredit thousands upon thousands of real, ethical and scientific researchers.

    Similarly, when Obama’s birth certificate issue was in the top of the news, the person who ran wild with the fake birth certificate narrative was Donald Trump, back when he had even less credibility than he does now. His birth certificate banter made most people feel that this was a tinfoil hat subject and with the help of the MSM, it quickly dropped off the news cycle in the run up to the elections. A simple and technical issue like the existence of an original birth certificate, was masterfully left dangling out in the open with a big question mark. (On a side note, until I see something proving the contrary, I believe Trump is still batting for team Clinton while he is masterfully annihilating any chances of a Republican even coming close to being elected president in 2016)

    In this context, the arena of moon landing discussions is laden with this type of misdirection and red herrings that they seem to toss out in the open for the “theorists” to chew on and distract from real and tangible research that can be done to prove or disprove anything. Over the years, while people are feverishly discussing whether the shadows on the moon landing images are possible in reality, Nasa quietly announces that all of the video and audio recordings from Apollo 11, which is arguably one of the most significant milestones in the history of our species were “accidentally erased”, or that all of the blueprints for most of the technology used have been “accidentally discarded.”

    But, my real point is that, just like the “fact” that there was a plane that hit the Pentagon is something extremely easy for the government to prove to the shitizens with a couple more frames of video, the fact that we have indeed been to the moon should be a fairly easy thing to show the entire world by presenting some corroborating evidence. Perhaps a photo of the landing site with the famous flag sitting on the moon or one of the rovers we left behind taken by hubble telescope? So, more than any single evidence, the fact they never bother to sooth the public’s doubts is actually the biggest red flag in my opinion. And, I can easily extend this statement to most false flag or psyops events that are shrouded with secrecy.

    The reason i stated all this stuff that i assume is obvious to most people here, is to say that this fake interview should also be looked at from the motive angle.

    What do we have here? Something that passes as a possible real interview with SK in its first few minutes, but totally (and I ‘d say intentionally) starts falling apart a few minutes later. So much so that it is very difficult deduce that the true initial intention of the video was actually to fool people to begin with.

    At the same time, look what it has accomplished. From here on, all Kubrick theories and the analysis of his cinematic symbolism and secret messages will have to address this ridiculous fakery since it casts a giant shadow on the Kubrick narrative.

    Any effort to google Kubrick and moon landing will now be buried under this silly fakery, instead of legitimate or semi-legitimate research on the subject.

    Any mention of Kubrick in relation to the moon landing will be met with utter ridicule, and legitimate discussions will be quashed by simply mentioning this fakery.

    And, most people who were somewhat leaning towards the idea of a possible hoax, will have to think twice before they open their mouth about the subject.

    It will be interesting to watch what happens to this guy, and see whether or not he lands a lucrative job and/or project in the near future. Until then, I’ll go along with Scott’s contention that

    This is just an example of a failed director trying his best to concoct something that makes him seem relevant to someone while trying to get himself a job somewhere.
    But his editing is for shit, his directing skills are sorely lacking and his acting is horrible. Aside from that, he didn’t do his research.

    But I am almost sure there is more to it than that. Just not sure what for the moment.

    • there are no photos of the stuff we left on the moon, because we didn’t leave anything on the moon. There are no videos of Adam Lanza entering that building in Sandy Hook, because he never did of his own volition. And they released the best evidence they could concoct of something hitting the Pentagon because if they showed more, we would easily see it wasn’t Flight 77.

      What you are saying here is absolutely correct in terms of the “poisoned well” approach to dismissing various alternative investigations into critical world events. Thats what I was saying when I wrote he would hope to be in contention for the next Zero Dark Thirty. He’s showing his chops, so to speak. Like Wood and Fetzer. And Jones for that matter (who started off with both of them)

      • Yes, the list of nonexistent proofs, victims, and legs (in the case of Boston), goes on and on.

        Up until five or so years ago, I still had some hope that if any one these hoaxes were exposed, it would create a domino effect and “wake” people up… Or something!!!

        But the agenda is on overdrive, people are still sleeping, or brainwashed, or too scared, or too stupid… So we will need to wait for the shitstorm to pass.. Hoping that we will survive it of course… That seed vault they built in iceland is really creeping me out!

    • I think the best way to approach disbelieving certain official narratives is to do just that. Just disbelieve them. Then find ONE thing to back up that disbelief. For example:

      911 – Building 7
      Moon landings – 1960s technology

      After that, all the theories may be read and chewed over strictly for entertainment purposes.

      It’s important to bear in mind that ‘truth’ is fluid and democratic. My views on 911 and the MLs will NEVER represent the “truth”. I don’t care, however.

      Also…

      Evolution – we have apes and we have men, where’s the rest of the chain gone? How come apes survived what a being with a big brain and opposable thumbs couldn’t?

      So, Evolution, not a thing for me. Isn’t it a good job that believing in it or not has had ZERO bearing on my daily life, ever?

  8. I posted a comment hat did not make it through wordpress filters. It didn’t have any links, so I am wondering if it is about the length. Admittedly, it was a little wordy. As the mathematician Pascal famously said once, I would have written much shorter if I had more time…

    Scott, if and when you get a chance, would you please push it through (if you see fit)? Thx.

  9. Thanks for having the “Shooting Stanley Kubrick” video here for viewing. I first heard about this vid and T. Patrick Murray on that rag of a radio show Coast to Coast AM. The host seemed to be taking this goof very seriously and praising him to the sky. Being a Kubrick fan I got curious and went looking for the vid, which is now unavailable on the goof’s website. Seems he’s trying to parlay it into some big opening night event or something.

    Anyway, I watched about half the video, but it didn’t take me nearly that long to decide that whoever that was, they were NOT Kubrick! First of all there is no trace of a New York accent, which Kubrick had all his life. Second, I’ve seen pictures of Kubrick with Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman at the wrap of “Eyes Wide Shut”. His hair and beard are nowhere near as long and gray as the actor’s in the video. And the video was supposedly shot when “Eyes” was in post-production.

    Third, and maybe most important, the video was more about what T. Patrick Goofay had to say than what the purported “Kubrick” did! The director’s incessant yammering was what made me shut the thing off! And, given Kubrick’s intellect and legendary impatience (source, “Stanley Kubrick, A Biography” by Vincent LoBrutto), I’m sure he would have cut Goofay off short! Kubrick did not suffer fools gladly.

    As far as Kubrick shooting a fake moon landing goes, I really don’t care! I heard the rumor long before this video went public. I don’t believe it, but for those that do I have only this comment. If Kubrick filmed a fake lunar landing it would look a hell of a lot better than it does!

    • You don’t even have to go that far to debunk T. Pat:

      “Murray claimed on the Shooting Kubrick web site that he was granted unprecedented access to interview the director in May 1999, which would have been quite an impressive feat since Kubrick had passed away two months earlier.

      “A spokesman for Kubrick’s widow also proclaimed that “The interview is a lie, Stanley Kubrick has never been interviewed by T.Patrick Murray the whole story is made up, fraudulent and untrue.”

      “…unedited versions of the interview contain hints that the “Stanley Kubrick” in the video is an actor. At the 14-minute mark of the clip shown below, the interviewer calls his subject “Tom” and then proceeds to instruct him on how to tell the next part of his story

      The only mystery that remains is why the pre-adolescent brain of a middle aged fool would turn his energy to such a transparent hoax. Clearly the man is not without talent. He will never work in this town again.

      (all citations are from Snopes.com)

      Want to see a real admitted hoax movie? Check out Peter Jackson’s film, “Forgotten Silver.”
      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116344/?ref_=nm_flmg_prd_19

      • Never mind even that. Any video of a person providing a voluntary, known-to-be-being-filmed testimony that is shot like that deserves to be binned. That film is the video equivalent of “a source said”.

        Into the mud, Scum Queen!

  10. LOL

    Sure, I am a failed Director…

    I made a 4 star film called the best documentary ever made, and you clearly misunderstand what a mockumentary is…

    I almost pissed myself-

    I mean, legal action? Oh, please, bring it on!

    Sue a filmmaker for making a fictional film in the rockumentary format… check back in a few years, and see exactly how much of a failure I am- clearly I have hit a nerve with this subject matter, and few seem to comprehend the spirit of the influence of DARK SIDE OF THE MOON…

    But thanks, your article and comments made me laugh, especially as I just sold a film to Netflix last week! If that’s being a failure, I sure am!

    (Oh and I did beat the biggest bank in the world- you are such a shitty reporter as you obviously did no research- I went into foreclosure because of fraud by a bank, not failure- you really are a sad person)

    Love,

    T Patrick Murray

    PS Go fuck yourself

    • the only reason people wanted to see your crap “film” is because you implied it was a real interview with Kubrick. in other words, you committed a fraud and by doing so, by allowing people to believe Kubrick did the interview and admitted he helped make a series of fake moon landing films for NASA, you defamed his name and I certainly hope his family sues you for doing that because even if it is true, he spent the last 30 years of his life saying nothing about it, and you have no right to pretend that he did. especially not with that horrible actor.

      the only reason you put together that horrible little trailer was you thought the “conspiracy theory” crowd would be dumb enough to eat it up and you would make fools out of them. Same thing you did with “Conspiracy Comedy”. Which, by the way, was some of the worst acting I have seen in a long time. It’s Adam Sandler level stuff. Community theater level. Bad.

      You figured we would all fall for it and you could come along and say “gotcha” and you would be some establishment hero or some shit. Turns out, your work was picked apart by tons of folks, even people who aren’t “conspiracy theorists”

      By the way, did you ever make that shitty movie, the one you were trying to sell about how you the hero took it to the big banks and made them crawl? No? Did you ever collect any money for it?

      Here’s a complaint from Ripoff Report where some guy says you are a scam artist. You yourself say in rebuttal that you bounced a stud-fee check to the guy and then the fowl died so you didn’t owe him anything. How long is it in a horse from conception to birth? Why didn’t you make good on the check and then seek redress after the fowl died? The guy who left the complaint seemed to be saying you were raising money for the film The Last Game. He made that comment in 2013 but that film was made by you in 2002? Why would you be raising money for a film you already made? Very odd.

      http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/T-Patrick-Murray/Paoli-Pennsylvania-19301/T-Patrick-Murray-Tanuja-Murray-Scam-Artists-USE-CAUTION-Paoli-Pennsylvania-790796#comment_1

      Here’s an actor who got ripped off by you in that other movie you made, The Graduation Party. He has a rather telling description of you:

      T Patrick Murray is a scam artist, just like the other person says. He is also a liar. Do not do business with him or his wife. Murray had a bunch of us come to his house to shoot the film “The Graduation Party”. He promised each actor 2% of the profits. That was over three years ago. He also promised on multiple occasions that the film editing was being completed only to later give some poor excuse as to why it wasn’t finished yet. At this point I removed it from my resume/head shot. The shoot turned out to be little more than a bunch of improvisational sessions with no structure. Unbelievably amateurish. THE EDITING OF THE MOVIE IS STILL NOT DONE and we wrapped filming in the fall of 2010!

      There is something not quite right about this guy. Could be mental or chemical. I get the feeling he believes all of the delusions in his own head. He acts offended any time one of the actors questions the delays in release. Bragged about some documentary he did years ago. FULL OF EXCUSES. You want to know Murray in a nutshell, just read his explanation regarding the previous guy he ripped off. Yeah, its because of the government conspiracy. Anybody but he is to blame.” Ripoff Report, 2013

      Scam artist? Liar? Amateurish director? Bad editor?

      Wow. That guy wrote my whole article years before I did. Odd how that works, ain’t it?

      And yeah, you definitely did offer them 2%.

      Listen, buddy… you’re a bad actor and a worse director. Giving that guy readings, trying to get him to mimic you, the director, during HIS performance. That’s high school buddy. Then you get mad at him as he gets frustrated because you’re a dick? Sad.

      No wonder you followed up that ESPN thing in 2002 with scams and fake interviews. Because you’re a talentless hack shooting videos of yourself walking around in circles pretending to be the great grass roots hero who beat Chase bank (and of course, trying to rustle up some more scam money for the film you never made)

      Here are a few of the only comments on that Foreclosure scam film pitch of yours:

      cor 1 week ago
      did you do the editing on that kubrick mockumentary? thats embarassing.
      · 3

      View all 6 replies
      cor 5 days ago
      +veniamin1LJ he got fame. now hes known as a horrible director/editor. 

      Yeah you are a failed director. The more I dig into it, the more failed you appear. Not only that, but you are also apparently a failed person.

      Stay the fuck off my site.

      You laughing now?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: