Was "THE SHINING" Stanley Kubrick's Confession to having faked the moon landing?

I love a conspiracy as much as the next guy. Was the JFK assassination really done by LHO or a cabal? Was 9/11 done by foreigners or members of the U.S. Gov't? Did men really land on the moon in 1969 or was the transmission that we saw footage shot on a British movie set? This last one is what this thread is about.

I have just finished 2 multi-page presentations by Jay Weidner that did not convince me but they opened my mind to seeing familiar things in a new way. Before commenting, take the time to read the following articles and then come back, if you so desire, and add your comments on the material presented. What was convincing, if anything, and what was not convincing and why.

I'll tell you that I saw the movie "THE SHINING" a couple of times but I was never aware of the things pointed out by Jay and their possible connection to the moon landing. It could be just coincidence but when you look at the amount of coincidences you start to wonder what really happened and what would Kubrick say now in 2009 if he was alive and was willing to talk.

I blindly accept that American men landed on the moon although what is offered for evidence is the same as for UFOs: photos/films/videos and these are not accepted by everyone as evidence of the reality of UFOs. But show NASA photos to almost anyone and they say "Sure, we landed on the moon!" What's good for the goose should be good for the gander."

Ya all come back, ya hear!

Secrets of The Shining:
Or How Faking the Moon Landings NearlyCost Stanley Kubrick his Marriage and his Life.
By Jay Weidner
Copyright 2009 Sacred Mysteries Productions
www.jayweidner.com...

How Stanley Kubrick
Faked the Apollo Moon Landings: Or How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Lies.
Alchemical Kubrick II
By
Jay Weidner
Copyright July 20 th 2009
Sacred Mysteries Productions
jayweidner.com...

reply to post by Skeptical Ed

Was "THE SHINING" Stanley Kubrick's Confession to having faked the moon landing?

No it was the brain child of Stephen King over coming writer's block in a Colorado Hotel and all of the frustration that entails.

He had a similar experience with writer's block with Misery.

Cheers,

Erik

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed

I have just finished 2 multi-page presentations by Jay Weidner that did not convince me but they opened my mind to seeing familiar things in a new way. Before commenting, take the time to read the following articles and then come back, if you so desire, and add your comments on the material presented. What was convincing, if anything, and what was not convincing and why.

Hey Skeptical Ed,


Ya beat me to it with the posting of this topic! I had literally had the page on my computer, copied the url and logged onto ATS with the intent of starting a thread on this... and there was your thread.


So a star and a flag to you for beating me to it.


Ok, I, too, had seen "The Shining", but I just could not understand it, but, now that I've read Jay Weidner's articles about it, I was convinced that the subtleties that Jay pointed out were as intended by Kubrick. I've seen a bunch of Kubrick films and I am totally amazed at how intricate they are in terms of information hidden in metaphor inside a mystery wrapped up in a set prop.


Kubrick. Amazing. Genius.


I'm still waiting for some responses from a couple of heavy-duty Hollywood players, to whom I have sent the urls of Jay's articles, so it would be interesting to see what they say. I'll report if I hear from them.

Originally posted by Historical-Mozart

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed

I have just finished 2 multi-page presentations by Jay Weidner that did not convince me but they opened my mind to seeing familiar things in a new way. Before commenting, take the time to read the following articles and then come back, if you so desire, and add your comments on the material presented. What was convincing, if anything, and what was not convincing and why.

Hey Skeptical Ed,


Ya beat me to it with the posting of this topic! I had literally had the page on my computer, copied the url and logged onto ATS with the intent of starting a thread on this... and there was your thread.


So a star and a flag to you for beating me to it.


Ok, I, too, had seen "The Shining", but I just could not understand it, but, now that I've read Jay Weidner's articles about it, I was convinced that the subtleties that Jay pointed out were as intended by Kubrick. I've seen a bunch of Kubrick films and I am totally amazed at how intricate they are in terms of information hidden in metaphor inside a mystery wrapped up in a set prop.


Kubrick. Amazing. Genius.


I'm still waiting for some responses from a couple of heavy-duty Hollywood players, to whom I have sent the urls of Jay's articles, so it would be interesting to see what they say. I'll report if I hear from them.

This proves the old adage: "Great minds think alike."

Um, it was originally a story by Steven King as was mentioned above. How do you get somehow it was a confession?

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Um, it was originally a story by Steven King as was mentioned above. How do you get somehow it was a confession?

I know. But if you read the contents of the link I provided about "THE SHINING" you'll see where Kubrick changed some of King's writing to reflect his own "fantasies"(?). I meant to put quote marks before and after the word confession to give it a special meaning but I realized it after I posted. It wasn't meant in the literal sense.

No there isn't any confession that I could see from the link provided. Just a lot of conjecture, and truth stretching. If I threw a pile of sticks on the floor, someone would find some symbology in them. That's all this is. Looking for something in nothing in order to validate a belief that can not effectively be proven.

Originally posted by Osiris1953
No there isn't any confession that I could see from the link provided. Just a lot of conjecture, and truth stretching. If I threw a pile of sticks on the floor, someone would find some symbology in them.

I disagree with your points, to wit:


1) It is, indeed, a "confession", but that not quite the best word used by Mr Weidner, the author of the article. A better phrase would be a "cryptic disclosure", since an outright disclosure by Kubrick would have cost him his life and the lives of his family.


2) If it was a "lot of conjecture", there would be no proof, no supporting evidence to support the numerous "conjectures" that Weidner discussed.

A case in point: the change of the forbidden room number from 217 to 237 and why? If one looks at the number of miles that the Moon is from the Earth -- 237,000 miles -- then the change of the number of that room makes total sense, given all of the other subtle changes that Kubrick made in the film that clearly makes the case of a cryptic disclosure by Kubrick of the truth of his covert work of faking the Moon landings.


3) Sure someone could find symbology and patterns in a tossed pile of sticks, but such sticks are primarily random patterns, not patterns that fit as tightly as the various facts in Kubrick's life as expressed within cryptic symbology that was in The Shining. The analogy of the tossed sticks is not a good metaphor to describe the correlations between The Shining and Kubrick's life.

reply to post by Historical-Mozart


Just because a pattern can be discerned does not mean there is in fact a pattern.

reply to post by Historical-Mozart


And incidently the distance is wrong too.

The average centre-to-centre distance from the Earth to the Moon is 384,403 kilometres (238,857 mi), about thirty times the diameter of the Earth.

SOURCE:en.wikipedia.org...

Since the moon's orbit is elliptical (oval-shaped), its distance varies from about 221,463 miles (356,334 kilometers) at perigee (closest approach to Earth) to 251,968 miles (405,503 kilometers) at apogee (farthest point). The average distance from the moon to the Earth is 238,857 miles (384,392 kilometers).

SOURCE:wiki.answers.com...


[edit on 11-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

This is addressed to the Mods: Why was my thread moved from Aliens & UFOs to this forum and why wasn't I notified? I looked all over for it and if I hadn't done a search I would have had nefarious thoughts about ATS and censorship.

What the hell is ATS Skunk Works? Is it a demeaning term? My thread had to do with Lunar faked landings, a topic that generates a lot of threads at the Aliens & UFOs forum. Are they all also being moved here?

Who was responsible for the move? What was the consideration? Who are you people?

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Historical-Mozart

 

Just because a pattern can be discerned does not mean there is in fact a pattern.

Unless there actually is a pattern.

Like the one below. Stare at it for about two minutes and then tell me how many naked people are there.

[edit on 10-11-2009 by groingrinder]

reply to post by groingrinder


In this case I rather doubt it, especially considering I just provided information that destroyed a part of that *meaning the incorrect room number/moon distance noncorrelation*. And again, just because a pattern can be discerned doesn't mean a pattern exists. Our minds are pattern making machines. Unless you care to also argue there are in fact faces in wood and animals made out of clouds.

Looks more reminscense of a alien face to me. Which shows something. Rorschach anyone?


[edit on 11-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

What are the chances that anyone knows the exact orbit of the moon to derive the exact average distance from? So Kubrik's source got the mileage wrong by a small amount comparatively speaking. In high school and college did nobody ask you to analyze classic literature? I remember instructors pulling all kinds of things out of Shakespeare and other classic works that I had no clue whatsoever about. They went on about things that were completely invisible to me.


The image below is actually downloaded pornography manipulated in Corel Photopaint.

[edit on 10-11-2009 by groingrinder]

reply to post by groingrinder


"Kubrik's sources" eh? You are putting the horse before the cart here friend. You are attempting to evade the fact that your premise is not proven and sidestep the fact that a bit of the so called "evidence" for your case was just shot down.


[edit on 11-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Just because you perceive circular reasoning in my post does not mean it is actually there. Must be those patterns you were talking about. You have completely side stepped my questions to you by accusing me of circular reasoning. Nice deflection technique. I will have to remember to use it myself sometime.

[edit on 10-11-2009 by groingrinder]

reply to post by groingrinder


I changed my post after I thought about it.

"Kubrik's sources" eh? You are putting the horse before the cart here friend. You are attempting to evade the fact that your premise is not proven and sidestep the fact that a bit of the so called "evidence" for your case was just shot down.

Why don't you just say "I know you are but what am I?", it's less wordy.

[edit on 11-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by groingrinder


And don't you mean one question you edited in later?

Here are two methods, the first is ancient and works in theory, but not in practice, the second was the source of the first accurate value in the 18th century.

1. Aristarchus' method. Wait till the moon is EXACTLY half full. Then the Earth, the Moon, and the Sun form a right triangle with the right angle at the moon. Measure the angle between the Moon and the Sun, and with the Moon's distance (previously found by triangulation), derive the Sun's distance as Moon's distance divided by the cosine of the angle. The uncertainties in that "exactly' make this a shaky method. Aristarchus himself got the Sun 30 times as far away as the Moon, when the correct value is nearly 400 times.

2. Transit of Venus method. You know the relative sizes of the orbits of Venus and the Earth from their revolution times (observed) and Kepler's third law (also derived from observations - Tycho Brahe's observations). So when Venus crosses the face of the Sun (one of those transits is coming up) measure the time it takes and be careful to note the position of the transit path on the disc of the Sun. From this you can work similar triangles to solve for the distance from the Earth to the sun.

SOURCE"www.physicsforums.com...

[edit on 11-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

oh Lord, how I love semiotics and their analysis
Jay Weidner's analysis is a mere symbol translation. It's good, but as he says the blue, white and red signifies "america", it also can be warning (red), sadness (blue) and emptiness/solitude (white). The eagle can be readed as a sign of power, and i can be here all night reading the movie in another context.

It's easy. Every sign signifies something in a symbolic context, every person's life experience is unique, every society haves their own signs system and almost everyone can read everything in different ways (ugh, sorry, i'm not familiarized with semiotic terms in english, just in spanish and italian).

It's like how a teacher used to say "You watch a movie where the main character opens the fridge, a blue one. It's full of chicken feet and one egg in the right corner. What does it mean? Does it mean something? Did the director tried to show us a message about birth and death? or he just wanted to play with our minds and did it to see what the watchers will read after watching the movie?"

A good reading anyway

Taking the angle that US/NASA would have covered there bets, In case of a failed mission, I believe they made it to the moon but with some facts covered up.
if you take the last sentence it states a french version of "all work and no play" means alot to me, The certainty off convincing "USSR" which was what it was all about..


According to the Internet movie database, several foreign language versions of Jack's novel were also typed out. Although GS states this is incorrect too: "To my knowledge these different versions were simply used in the subtitles for the foreign versions." However Vincent Pappalardo writes: In the French version, there actually is the shot of pages typed in French (with a different sentence typed). I don't know about other versions, but I guess it wasn't just done for France. And Francis Catellier-Poulin adds: The translation for "All work and no play..." is "Un tiens vaut mieux que deux tu l'auras." In English it can be roughly translated as: "One certainty is better than two possibilities."

The one certainty is that they made a film just in case IMO...