It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Stanley Kubrick's Prophecy

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 10:12 PM
Stanley Kubrick, as any other great artist, drew his inspiring ideas from "elsewhere," as he once remarked. Back in early 1960's, he began to experience disturbing visions regarding the year 2001. They were not well-defined visions; they were allegorical manifestations with catastrophic undertone. These visions were short-lived and not clear enough for a story.

Stanley Kubrick forgot about them, but when he came across an inspiring book written by Arthur C. Clarke, the title of the book 2001: A Space Odyssey made him to recollect the disturbing visions and wonder whether Arthur C. Clarke experienced them as well. When he was co-writing the screenplay to the eponymous film, he decided to visually translate the allegory.

The monolith in Kubrick's visions took on many shapes and forms, as he confided, but when it changed to a high-rise building, it always came crashing down. Bellow is another picture of the monolith from Kubricks's 2001: A Space Odyssey:

Here is the puzzle: Does the monolith symbolize the North or the South Tower of the WTC destroyed in 2001?

Here is a clue: The day after 9/11 Kubrick called Arthur C. Clarke and asked a few questions.

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 11:12 PM
Kubrick and Clarke wrote the screenplay together and then Clarke wrote the book based on the screenplay. That kind of puts a damper on the things you're saying.

"Shortly after completing Dr Strangelove (1964), Stanley Kubrick became fascinated by the possibility of extraterrestrial life,[2] and determined to make "the proverbial good science fiction movie".[3] Searching for a suitable collaborator in the science fiction community, Kubrick was advised to seek out Arthur C. Clarke by a mutual acquaintance, Columbia Pictures staffer Roger Caras. Although convinced that Clarke was "a recluse, a nut who lives in a tree", Kubrick agreed that Caras would cable the Ceylon-based author with the film proposal. Clarke's cabled response stated that he was "frightfully interested in working with enfant terrible", and added "what makes Kubrick think I'm a recluse?"[4]"

"2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) is a science fiction novel by Arthur C. Clarke. It was developed concurrently with Stanley Kubrick's film version and published after the release of the film."

Also, were Kubrick's supposed visions any more specific than just a monolith?

I think it is a great visionary film, but what exactly are you claiming about Kubrick's ideas. The events in the movie have clearly not come to pass.

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 11:16 PM

Originally posted by stander
Here is the puzzle: Does the monolith symbolize the North or the South Tower of the WTC destroyed in 2001?

Here is a clue: The day after 9/11 Kubrick called Arthur C. Clarke and asked a few questions.

Kubrick died on March 7th 1999. How did he call Clarke on Sept. 12th 2001?

Just wondering if making a call from the afterlife incurs roaming charges.

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 11:42 PM
reply to post by CallMeMaury

pretty darn funny. Did the OP mean Kubrick's non-physical incarnation perhaps?

But I think Kubrick is a fascinating subject and I hope we can dive into this deeply.

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 11:45 PM
I agree, I'd like to hear more ideas on Kubrick. 2001 blew my mind.

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 01:35 AM
reply to post by CallMeMaury

Awesome site on Eyes Wide Shut:

This site is gold, enjoy:

that should keep you busy for a day or two


posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 09:46 AM

Originally posted by CallMeMaury
Kubrick and Clarke wrote the screenplay together and then Clarke wrote the book based on the screenplay. That kind of puts a damper on the things you're saying.

That's not my story; that's Stanley Kubrick's story and the damper hovers over his head, not mine. He must have confused Clarke's Rescue Party for 2001: A Space Odyssey. The film was originally titled A Space Odyssey, but Kubrick insisted on the prefix 2001, because of his visions of the future.

Clarke thought that someone was pulling his legs when he received the call from Kubrick back in 2001, but he knew Kubrick well and doubted that someone could emulate him so well. According to Clarke, Kubrick said to him that "it takes lots of water to douse the fire." He was talking about the burning WTC. Then he said he "knows," pointed to Clarke's that C = C and said, "Arthur, you're inviting another disaster. Just leave Sri Lanka."

Clarke wanted to hang up on the caller, but Kubrick explain to him the C = C identity. So Clarke was looking at the paper with WTC = Clarke written on it but didn't understand what it meant. So he asked Kubrick about the meaning. Kubrick said that C = 3 in the alphabet and 2001 + 3 = 2004. Then he repeated that it takes lots of water to douse the fire.

Three years later Clarke was pretty much shaken when the tsunami of 2004 reached the shores of Sri Lanka and did some drowning. With all that excitement, Clarke forgot to pick up his mail and when he did, he found a Merry Christmas card from Kubrick. When he turned the card over, he was looking at a St. Anthony cross made of letters:

The tsunami hit on the second day of Christmas, and Clarke was pretty much familiar with the tale about where Jesus Christ spent his last hour of his life. He went to his study, took a photo of the monolith and partially covered the cross made of letters with it:

Then he took a marker . . .

He was staring at the pic, but couldn't see more, because his eyes were wide shut.

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 10:09 AM
reply to post by stander

Am I the only one confused by standers comment?
I can´t make head nor tails of it.

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 12:11 PM
Seriously dude, you are not making any sense. That is some really thin numerology. And even if Kubrick said those things, why didn't he tell Clarke explicitly. Also, the novel was published after the movie and written concurrently with the script. How would Kubrick have read it first? That is not Kubrick's claim. Where did he ever claim he read it first?

Even if what you claim Kubrick told Clarke is true (and I'd like to know what your source is on these supposed quotes) it could apply to absolutely anything. Or to anyone with a C in their name. And WTC and Tsunami both have T in them. Wow. Crazy stuff.

This thread is over for me. I am going to check out those Kubrick links the other guy posted.

If you want to be taken seriously,you have to cite sources to start with.

How, oh how, do I explain what is confusing with your post. How about an example:

"George W. Bush = 11 letters = 9 0' clock = on sept. 9th = he ate 11 eggs = George W. Bush caused 9/11"

That is what your post looks like. Why don't you explain it in more detail with more sources?

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 12:15 PM
I am beginning to think your whole theory is some over the top irony thing you came up with just to see if the people here would believe something so ridiculous.

Again, what are your sources?

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 08:07 PM
Stander please check out how the 20 dollar bill can be changed into an image of the Pentagon.
It is very revealing!
It is about halfway down here:
$20 dollar bill showing burning Pentagon
I think you are on to something Stander!!!!!!!!

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 09:01 PM

Originally posted by CallMeMaury
How, oh how, do I explain what is confusing with your post. How about an example:

"George W. Bush = 11 letters = 9 0' clock = on sept. 9th = he ate 11 eggs = George W. Bush caused 9/11"

You must have been hanging around that pile of "we-did-it-to-ourselves" nonsense for too long to come up with this numerical shredder.

Here, let me show you a simple way: you are looking for individuals who ordered the attack on WTC. Suppose that C stands for "clue." So who did it?


If there are two letters on the left of C, then there must be two letters on the right side of C. That means the word that starts with C cannot be "Clinton," right?

How about . . .


Could the CIA mastermind the whole attack and leave its signature behind to please the 9/11 conspirators?
See how simple it is? (Maybe not . . . LOL.)

Now the CIA decided to put explosives into one of the buildings that make the whole WTC. But how did the CIA demolition engineers decide which building to collapse?

building = # ?

They decided the way, they always decide . . .

buildin[g = # ?]

Since most of the CIA folks have some education and know that G is the 7th letter of the alphabet, they made their choice accordingly :

1.buildin[g = 7]
2. Building 7

Now, if Building 7 was brought down by attached explosives, as the conspirators claim, how did the folks who did the kaboom decide which building to collapse? And, more importantly, how would this action contribute to the overall scheme?

This is really a hard question, because there are no videos to stare at to find the answer.

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 09:52 PM
Sorry to confuse you, stander.

I wrote that George Bush thing to illustrate how ridiculous your post was.

How on earth did you think I was serious?

I don't think there is a 9/11 conspiracy, but I am beginning to wonder why you won't give sources for your original claims about kubrick.

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 09:54 PM
Also, stay on topic.

This is about your Kubrick stuff.

Either way, it seems to me you might be off your rocker... or your medication.

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 11:10 PM
reply to post by CallMeMaury

There are no sources available for public perusal in this case. Or do you have the habit of blogging your emails? I hope that you are aware of the fact that the info regarding some events that influence our world will be kept secret by the governments and due to be released to the public after some twenty years -- depending. Judging from your views, not having the access to the material, you just simply render the events that live as a rumor -- and are therefore the breeding ground for conspiracy theories -- as very doubtful to exist at all, i.e. what cannot be fully verified either doesn't exist or no inference from what is known or suspected to take place can be made. Not everyone assumes this approach though -- Stephen Hawking being an example.

Using the word "ridiculous" as a synonym for "not being able to follow" is not uncommon. (Maybe that's why I call the 9/11 conspiracy theory "nonsense." LOL.) The quest for truth doesn't recognize the word "ridiculous": statements made are either false or true in a simplified version. Since you were not able to follow, you cannot show me where I introduced an argument based on 1 + 1 = 3. That's not to be confused with the situation where Stanley Kubrick called Arthur Clarke in 2001 despite the fact that at that time Kubrick had been deceased for two years. That brings about the question regarding the title of Kubrick's next film: "Mind Opened Shut?"

I think there is something fishy about those 9/11 events, even though very^2 liberal Art Bell was mighty upset with those "ridiculous claims" made by the 9/11 conspirators.

posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 08:17 AM
You just made up a story Stander, something, not very complicated, that has come from your own mind, in a wild effort to get people talking about it.

Stop being a fool, if you want to write a book or something, don’t be so lazy and just go and do it and stop living a lie off the back of Mr Kubrick.

You have no proof, no source, nothing to say anything was send or received by either party and then you want people to take it on the chin as the “truth”.

You are the reason people in the “main stream” laugh at people like us, you are the fantastically wrong they cannot believe, you are the lie among the truth.

Wise up man.

[edit on 4-7-2008 by InterWeb]

posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 01:26 PM
reply to post by InterWeb

Your feelings do not constitute any evidence of me making anything up. Actually I never started my thread the way it's customary around here: "Irrefutable evidence of . . ." I just asked to solve a puzzle which has a solution regardless of any circumstances that may be found out of ordinary. Why are you so concern about things which are not really particular to solving the puzzle? I tell you why: Because you don't know better . . . Your third paragraph can vouch for it.

As far as "living a lie off the back of Mr. Kubrick" is concerned, you have used a tragedy that took the life of so many people for you personal hobby. BTW, Stanley Kubrick made real living by "lying" about PanAm taking people to the moon in 2001. Speaking of "PanAm," aren't the initials PA letter symbols for the State of Pennsylvania?

Kubrick was awesome . . .

Anyway, the "mainstream" folks don't laugh at you or at other 9/11 conspirators; there is nothing funny about people without self-respect and self-esteem. I didn't hear Art Bell laughing when he finally refused to take calls from 9/11 conspirators -- he was upset and incredulous. I know that you don't believe me, but you can email him to find out how he feels about you. Dude, stop blaming me for your own FUps, will ya?

Well, it's time to solve the monolith puzzle. Just give it a try. It's soooooooooo easy. You'll like it.

posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 03:37 PM
You are not full of BS (as most people would state) you are full of hearsay.

You make statements without the backup they cry out for, as they are strong in some peoples mind and require said endorsement. You are in the game of speculation and while this fuels some of the more “younger” minds within any community, it would never wash with the more developed attitude.

Go start a cult and rattle the ATF’s door

posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 04:37 PM
reply to post by InterWeb

Check this out:

The same happened to Clarke. He got phone call from Kubrick back in 2001. I don't make things up. That's all a long story . . . and scary. The last night, I got a phone call from Arthur C. Clarke. He said not to mention anything anymore.

new topics

top topics


log in