a reply to: LightSpeedDriver
It would surprise me if none of the Apollo missions' astronauts were Masons. Heck, I am no astronaut and I was invited to join the Masons by a good
friend a few decades back. I declined, because as I explained to him, I would not become a member of a society that specifically excluded all women
simply because they were women, when there was no good and valid reason for it and it was purely "Patriarchal". I could not and cannot abide that. He
accepted my response and we remained friends.
However I fail to see how that ("some were Masons!") aspect has anything to do with the moon landings themselves.
Re your magnum opus, if you sell the rights to it then the buyer owns those rights and can do whatever they darned well please with it -- including
absolutely nothing. That's why they pay you and it is very common that a novel/screenplay etc will be changed by the ones who buy the rights to do
whatever with it. Or it'll simply be shelved for the time being, because the marketing types and bean counters say that kind of story won't sell well
and make $$$$$ right now.
You either accept the deal or you don't. It's up to you. But don't moan about it afterwards. That's why they pay you, ok?
And, (to quote you), if "no-one knows the (possibly small) last minute changes that were made to Eyes Wide Shut", then that means we do not even know
if any changes were
made. And even if they were, so what? If someone buys rights to your work (in specified formats) then they can do whatever.
So I still have no idea what you're driving at on the above points. Kubrick was a pretty amazing guy, and if he decided he wanted a given work to be
released on a specified date (and if he owned the rights to do that), then fine... that was his choice. But after he died, whatever happened depended
on what a multi-page contract said, not on what we might surmise as some kind of convoluted conspiracy angle, much as I love conspiracy theory.
Fact is, movies (ok, films) can be changed in post-prod and it happens often enough. It doesn't have to imply anything beyond some awfully mundane
practicalities. Your post with its quote mentions 8 astronauts who were claimed to be Masons. The Apollo Moon missions up to and including Apollo 17
required 3 astronauts each on the actual space flights, plus some backup crews.
So, a minority were Masons.
In other words, what's your point about Masonry in this regard?
Sorry, but I can't follow whatever point you are trying to push. No offense.
Am I saying some astronauts being Masons is irrelevant? Nope. I am saying that I cannot see what the relevance is supposed to be. I mean, plenty of
them were not Masons.
PS: hi, everyone!
edit on 9/12/17 by JustMike because: of typos, as usual.